United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington. DC 20460
EPA 440/1-80/024-b
December 1980
Water and Waste Management
v>EPA Development Proposed
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Iron and Steel
Manufacturing
Point Source Category
Vol. II
Coke Making Subcategory
Sintering Subcategory
Iron Making Subcategory
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES,
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
for the
IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Steven Schatzow
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Regulations and Standards
Jeffery Denit, Acting Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, P.E.
Chief, Metals & Machinery Branch
Edward L. Dulaney, P.E.
Senior Project Officer
December, 1980
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
and
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I PREFACE 1
II CONCLUSIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 11
General Discussion 11
Data Collection Activities 11
Cokemaking by the By-Product Recovery Process .... 12
Cokemaking by the Beehive Oven Process 14
IV S UBCATEGORIZ AT I ON 27
Introduction 27
Factors Considered in Subcategorization 27
Manufacturing Process and Equipment 27
Final Products. 28
Raw Materials 28
Wastewater Characteristics and Treatability 29
Size and Age 30
Geographic Location 31
Process Water Usage Rates .... 31
V WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 39
Introduction 39
Sources 39
Flow Rates 43
VI WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS 59
Introduction 59
Conventional Pollutants 59
Toxic Pollutants 59
Other Pollutants 61
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 67
Introduction 67
Summary of Treatment Practices Currently Employed . . 67
Control and Treatment Technologies for BAT, BCT,
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS 73
Plant Visits 74
Summary of Analytical Data 7 6
Comparison of Data 77
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACTS 101
Introduction 101
Costs for Actual Plants 101
Control and Treatment Technology (C&TT) Recommended
for Use in Cokemaking Operations 102
Treatment Costs 103
Summary of Pollutant Load Reductions for Each Level . 105
Energy Requirements 106
Non-Water Quality Impacts 107
Costs of Retrofit to Existing Systems 108
Water Consumption 109
Summary of Impacts HO
IX EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF BPT TECHNOLOGY i37
Identification of BPT 137
Basis for BPT Limitations 138
Justification for Proposed BPT Limitations 140
X EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF BAT TECHNOLOGY 147
Introduction 147
Identification of BAT Alternatives 148
Selection of a BAT Alternative 149
Impact of BAT Technologies on Toxic Pollutants. . . . 150
ii
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
XI BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. . . . 163
Introduction 163
Analyses of BCT Control Costs 163
Development of BCT Effluent Limitations 164
Justification of the Proposed BCT Limitations .... 164
XII EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICA-
TION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 167
Introduction 167
Identification of NSPS Technology 168
Flow Basis for NSPS Alternatives 169
Response to Court Remand of NSPS Flow Basis 169
XIII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKE PLANTS
DISCHARGING TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS .... 175
Introduction 175
General Pretreatment Standards 175
Pretreatment Considerations f°r Cokemaking. ..... 176
Pretreatment Standards .178
iii
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
II-l BPT TREATMENT MODEL PLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY ... 6
II-2 PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 7
II-3 TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY g
II-4 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS 9
III-l BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING DATA BASE 16
III-2 MAJOR BEEHIVE COKEMAKING OPERATIONS 17
III-3 COAL CHEMICAL PRODUCED AT BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY
PLANTS 18
III-4 GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING. ... 19
IV-1 PLANTS DEMONSTRATING THE ABILITY TO RETROFIT
POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT - COKEMAKING
SUBCATEGORY..................... 34
IV-2 ANNUAL TONS OF POLLUTANTS REMOVED BY TREATMENT ... 35
V-l to SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA (RAW CONCENTRATION
V-10 VALUES FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES) 45
V-ll SUMMARY OF PROCESS WASTEWATER FLOW RATES FOR
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS 58
VI-1 TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT - COKEMAKING
SUBCATEGORY . 63
VI-2 PHTHALATES FOUND IN BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING SAMPLES. . 64
VI-3 SELECTED WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS - COKEMAKING
SUBCATEGORY 65
VII-1 LIST OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY (C&TT)
COMPONENTS AND ABBREVIATIONS 78
VII-2 to SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA (GROSS RAW AND TREATED
VII-5 VALUES) 83
VIII-1 EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS REPORTED BY PLANTS -
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING HI
VIII-2 EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS REPORTED BY PLANTS -
BEEHIVE COKEMAKING H2
VIII-3 COST COMPARISON - PLANT REPORTED COSTS VERSUS
MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES
VIII-4 CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES - BY-PRODUCT
COKEMAKING H4
V
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
VIII-5 CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES - BEEHIVE
COKEMAKING 117.
VIII-6 BPT TREATMENT MODEL COST DATA 118
VIII-7 BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION . 122
VIII-8 BPT COST REQUIREMENTS - COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY. ... 124
VIII-9 ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING . 125
VIII-10 RESULTS OP BCT COST TEST - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING . . 127
VIII-11 NSPS AND PSNS MODEL COSTS - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING . . 128
VIII-12 NSPS MODEL COSTS - BEEHIVE COKEMAKING 130
VIII-13 PSES MODEL COSTS - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING 131
VIII-14 POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION SUMMARY - COKEMAKING
SUBCATEGORY 133
VIII-15 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY - COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY. 134
VIII-16 SOLID WASTES GENERATION SUMMARY - COKEMAKING
SUBCATEGORY , 135
IX-1 BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS - COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY . . 141
IX-2 BPT EFFLUENT LOAD JUSTIFICATION - COKEMAKING
SUBCATEGORY 142
X-l FLOW SUMMARY - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING 155
X-2 BAT EFFLUENT FLOW JUSTIFICATION - BY-PRODUCT
SUBCATEGORY . 156
X-3 BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS - COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY . . 157
X-4 IMPACT OF SELECTED TECHNOLOGIES ON TOXIC POLLUTANTS . 158
X-l BCT EFFLUENT IMITATIONS - COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY . . 166
XII-1 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - COKEMAKING
SUBCATEGORY . 171
XIII-1 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES -
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY. . ... . ... . . . . . . .179
Vi
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
III-l PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY 22
III-2 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - LIGHT OIL RECOVERY AND
REFINERY 23
HI-3 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - BEEHIVE - INTERNAL
QUENCH 24
HI-4 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM - BEEHIVE - EXTERNAL
QUENCH 25
IV-1 FLOW VERSUS SIZE ANALYSIS PLOT - BY-PRODUCT
COKEMAKING 36
IV-2 FLOW VERSUS AGE ANALYSIS PLO*-BY-PRODUCT
COKEMAKING 37
VII-1 to WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW DIAGRAMS -
VII-12 COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY 89
VIII-1 BAT TREATMENT MODEL SUMMARY - COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY .136
IX-1 BPT TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT
COKEMAKING 144
IX-2 BPT TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BEEHIVE COKEMAKING . . .145
X-l BAT TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 ..... . . .160
X-2 BAT TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 161
X-3 BAT TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 . . .162
XII-1 NSPS TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 172
XII-2 NSPS TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 173
XIII-1 PSES TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 180
XIII-2 PSES TREATMENT MODEL DIAGRAM - BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 181
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I PREFACE 183
II CONCLUSIONS 185
III INTRODUCTION 193
Discussion
Description of the Sintering Process "J
Data Collection Activities
IV SUBCATEGORIZATION 205
Factors Considered in Subcategorization ....... 2^5
V WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 215
Introduction 2^
Description of Sinter Plant Wastewater Sources. . . . 215
VI WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS 219
Introduction 2*9
Rationale for Selection of Pollutants 219
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY. ... . 223
Introduction ........... 223
Control and Treatment Technology - Sintering
Operations . . . . ... . . * . . . . ... . . . . 223
Control and Treatment Technologies Considered
for Toxic Pollutant Removal . 22*
Plant Visit Analytical Data ............. 22®
Plant Visits. . . ........... 228
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACTS 245
Introduction 245
Actual Costs Incurred by the Plants Sampled or
Solicited for this Study 245
Control and Treatment Technologies Recommended
for Use in the Sintering Subcategory 246
Cost, Energy and Nonwater Quality Impacts 246
Summary of Impacts 251
IX EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICA-
TION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 269
Identification of BPT 269
Rationale for BPT 270
X EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICA-
TION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE . 275
Introduction 275
Identification of BAT 275
Rationale for the Selection of BAT 277
Effluent Limitations for the BAT Alternatives. . . . 279
Selection of a BAT Alternative 280
XI BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY . . . 283
Introduction 283
Development of BCT Limitations 283
BCT Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Treatment
Scheme, and Costs 284
XII EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICA-
TION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 287
Introduction 287
Identification and Basis for NSPS Treatment
Scheme and Flow Rates 287
Rationale for Selection of NSPS 288
Selection of an NSPS Alternative . 288
x
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OP CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
XIII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGES TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS .... 291
Introduction 291
General Pretreatment Standards 291
Identification of Pretreatment Alternatives 292
Rationale for the Selection of Pretreatment
Technologies 293
Selection of a Pretreatment Alternative 294
xi
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
II-l BPT TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY .... 188
II-2 PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 189
II-3 TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY .190
II-4 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS 191
III-l GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE; SINTERING 196
III-2 SINTERING DATA BASE . 199
III-3 SINTERING; RATED PRODUCTION CAPACITY 200
IV-1 RAW MATERIALS SUMMARY FOR SINTERING OPERATIONS
GENERATING WASTEWATERS 208
IV-2 EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
EQUIPMENT 209
V-l SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES AND TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEYS I
PICK-UP PER PASS CONCENTRATIONS 217
VI-1 TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT .221
VI-2 SELECTED WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS 222
VII-1 OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES,
AND DISPOSAL METHODS 230
VII-2 SUMMARY OF DATA FOR SINTERING OPERATIONS DISCHARGING
TO CENTRAL TREATMENT FACILITIES. . 235
VII-3 raw WASTEWATERS; SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM
SAMPLED PLANTS; ORIGINAL GUIDELINES AND TOXIC
POLLUTANT SURVEYS 236
VH-4 EFFLUENTS; SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED
PLANTS; ORIGINAL GUIDELINES AND TOXIC POLLUTANT
SURVEYS . • > . . . » » ••« • . . • . • . . . . . • .237
VII-5 SUMMARY*OF LONG-TERM EFFLUENT ANALYTICAL DATA 238
VIII-1 EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS ... .252
VII1-2 CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES; SINTERING
SUBCATEGORY , 253
VIII-3 BPT MODEL COST DATA 257
VIII-4 BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION 258
VIII-5 ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS. .259
VIII-6 RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST .261
VIII-7 NSPS AND PSNS MODEL COST DATA 262
VIII-8 PSES MODEL COST DATA 266
xiii
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
IX-1 BPT - FLOW SUMMARY AND JUSTIFICATION 271
IX-2 EFFLUENT LOADS JUSTIFICATION 272
X-1 BAT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS 281
XI-1 BCT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS 285
XII-1 NSPS EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS 289
XIII-1 PSNS AND PSES EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS 295
xiv
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
III-l TYPE I - WET; PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 201
IH-2 TYPE II - DRY; PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 202
HI-3 TYPE III - WET; PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 203
IV-1 DISCHARGE FLOW VERSUS PLANT AGE; ALL MILLS 210
IV-2 DISCHARGE FLOW VERSUS PLANT AGE; MILLS THAT
RECYCLE 211
IV-3 DISCHARGE FLOW VERSUS PLANT RATED PRODUCTION
CAPACITY; ALL MILLS 212
IV-4 DISCHARGE FLOW VERSUS PLANT RATED PRODUCTION
CAPACITY; MILLS THAT RECYCLE 213
VII-1 PLANT H - WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER
FLOW DIAGRAM 239
VII-2 PLANT I - WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER
FLOW DIAGRAM 240
VII-3 PLANT J - WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER
FLOW DIAGRAM 241
VII-4 PLANT 016 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER
FLOW DIAGRAM 242
VII-5 PLANT 017 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER
FLOW DIAGRAM 243
VII-6 PLANT 019 - WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER
FLOW DIAGRAM . . 244
IX-1 BPT TREATMENT MODEL 273
X-l BAT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 281
XI-1 BCT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 286
XII-1 NSPS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 290
XIII-1 PSNS AND PSES TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES . 296
XV
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I PREFACE 297
IX CONCLUSIONS 299
III INTRODUCTION 307
General Discussion 307
Data Collection Activities. ........ 307
Description of the Blast Furnace Process 308
Description of Wastewater Treatment . 309
IV SUBCATEGORIZATION 325
Introduction 325
Factors Considered in Subcategorization 325
v WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 333
Introduction 333
Description of the Ironmaking Operation and
Wastewater Sources 333
VI WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS 339
Introduction .339
Conventional Pollutants 339
Nonconventional, Nontoxic Pollutants. ........ 339
Toxic Pollutants 339
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY. .343
Introduction. . 343
Control and Treatment Technology 343
Control and Treatment Technologies for BAT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS 344
Plant Visit Data 347
Plant Visits 348
xvii
-------
ironmaking subcategory
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACTS 375
Introduction 375
Actual Costs Incurred by the Plants Sampled
or Solicited for this Study 375
Control and Treatment Technologies in Use or
Available to Blast Furnace Operations 377
Cost, Energy and Nonwater Quality Impacts 377
Summary of Impacts 383
IX EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLI-
CATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 403
Identification of BPT 403
Rationale for Selecting Proposed BPT Limitations . . 404
X EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLI-
CATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE 409
Introduction 409
Identification of BAT 409
Rationale for the Selection of BAT 411
Effluent Limitations for the BAT Alternatives .... 416
Selection of a BAT Alternative 416
XI BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY . . . 421
Introduction 421
Development of BCT 421
Development of BCT Limitations ...... 421
XII EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLI-
CATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 425
Introduction 425
Identification of NSPS 425
Rationale for Selection of NSPS 425
Selection of an NSPS Alternative 426
xviii
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
SECTION PAGE
XIII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGES TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS 429
Introduction 429
General Pretreatment Standards 429
Identification of Pretreatment Alternatives 430
Rationale for the Selection of Pretreatment
Technologies 431
Selection of a Pretreatment Alternative 432
xix
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
II-l BPT TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITIES . . .303
H-2 PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. 304
II-3 TREATMENT MODEL FLOW AND EFFLUENT QUALITY 305
H-4 PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS 306
III-l GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE? IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES. . .310
III-2 GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE?FERROMANGANESE BLAST
FURNACE. 317
III-3 IRONMAKING DATA BASE . 318
III-4 BLAST FURNACE PRODUCTION; PLANTS RANKED FROM
HIGHEST TO LOWEST PRODUCTION 319
IV-1 EXAMPLES OF RETROFIT 329
V-l SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY; IRON MAKING BLAST
FURNACES; PICK-UP PER PASS CONCENTRATIONS. 335
V-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY; IRON MAKING BLAST
FURNACES; PICK-UP PER PASS CONCENTRATIONS 336
V-3 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY; FERROMANGANESE
BLAST FURNACE; PICK-UP PASS CONCENTRATIONS 337
V-4 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY; FERROMANGANESE BLAST
FURNACE; PICK-UP PER PASS CONCENTRATIONS 338
VI-1 TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT 341
VI-2 SELECTED POLLUTANTS 342
VII-1 OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES,
AND DISPOSAL METHODS 350
VII-2 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY; IRON MAKING BLAST
FURNACES 355
VII-3 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY; IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES?
RAW WASTUtJiTTPPC tRfi
VII-4 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL'DATA FROM*SAMPLED'PLANTS;'
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY? IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES?
EFFLUENTS 358
xxl
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
TABLES (CONTINUED)
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
VII-5 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY; FERROMANGANESE BLAST
FURNACE
VII-6 SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS;
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY; FERROMANGANESE BLAST
FURNACE • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • 360
VII-7 SUMMARY OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA; IRON MAKING
BLAST FURNACES 361
VII-8 PLANT 0 860B PILOT PLANT TREATABILITY STUDY; TOXIC
ORGANIC POLLUTANT ANALYTICAL DATA 363
VII-9 PLANT 0860B BLAST FURNACE RECYCLE SYSTEM BLOWDOWN;
EFFLUENT QUALITY 364
VIII-1 EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS; IRON MAKING BLAST
FURNACES 385
VIII-2 EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS; FERROMANGANESE BLAST
FURNACE 387
VIII-3 CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 388
VIII-4 BPT MODEL COST DATA 392
VIII-5 BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION 394
VIII-6 ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS 396
VIII-7 RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST 398
VIII-8 NSPS, PSES, AND PSNS MODEL COST DATA 399
IX-1 RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS; IRONMAKING
SUBCATEGORY 406
IX-2 JUSTIFICATION OF BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 407
X-l BAT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS 418
XII-1 NSPS EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS 427
XIII-1 PSES AND PSNS EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS 433
XXil
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
III-l TYPE I - PRIMARY WET SCRUBBER? PROCESS
FLOW DIAGRAM . 321
III""2 TYPE II - PRIMARY AND SECONDARY WET SCRUBBER;
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 322
III-3 TYPE III - PRIMARY WET WITH DRY SECONDARY;
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 323
HI-4 FERROMANGANESE BLAST FURNACE; TYPE I - PRIMARY
WET SCRUBBER; PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM 324
IV-1 DISCHARGE FLOW VERSUS PLANT AGE 330
IV-2 DISCHARGE FLOW VERSUS PLANT PRODUCTION 331
VH-1 PLANT L; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 365
VII-2 PLANT M; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 366
VII-3 PLANT N; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 367
VII-4 PLANT O; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM • ••••••••••••••••..... 368
VII-5 PLANT 026; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 369
VII-6 PLANT 027; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 370
VII-7 PLANT 028; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 371
VII-8 PLANT Q; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 372
VII-9 PLANT 025; WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WATER FLOW
DIAGRAM 373
IX-1 BPT TREATMENT MODEL 408
X_1 BAT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 419
XI-1 BCT TREATMENT MODELS 423
XII-1 NSPS TREATMENT MODELS 428
XIII-1 PSES AND PSNS TREATMENT MODELS 434
xxiii
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION I
PREFACE
The USEPA is proposing effluent limitations and standards for the
steel industry. The proposed regulation contains effluent limitations
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), 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 Cokemaking Subcategory of the Iron and Steel
Industry. Volume I of the Development Document discusses issues
pertaining to the industry in general, while other volumes pertain to
the subcategories of the industry.
l
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
This volume highlights the technical aspects of EPA's study of the
Cokemaking Subcategory of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Category.
Based upon this study and a review of previous studies by EPA, the
Agency has reached the following conclusions:
1. The Agency is retaining the previous subcategorization of
cokemaking operations into by-product and beehive cokemaking
based on the differences in the respective manufacturing
processes. The Agency also retained subdivision of the
by-product cokemaking subcategory into biological and
physical/chemical treatment methods at both the BPT and BAT
levels of treatment.
2. For the most part, the originally promulgated BPT limitations
(1974) are practicable and achievable by all coke plants. In
fact, data obtained by the Agency since that time shows that the
previous limitations for by-product coke plants are more lenient
than could be justified for all pollutants except total suspended
solids. Nonetheless, except for total suspended solids (TSS),
these proposed BPT limitations are the same as those previously
promulgated. For beehive operations, the previously promulgated
BPT limitation of no discharge of pollutants remains justified,
and is the proposed BPT limitation.
3. Sampling and analysis of by-product coke plant wastewaters
revealed high concentrations of more than 40 toxic pollutants.
Cokemaking operations generate more of these toxic pollutants
than any industrial category examined by EPA. The discharge of
these toxic pollutants can, however, be significantly reduced by
industry compliance with the proposed BPT and BAT limitations as
shown below:
Effluent Loadings (Tons/Yr)
Raw Proposed Proposed
Waste BPT BAT
Flow, MGD 36.9 49.0 34.1
TSS 2,807 5,915 1,037
Oil and Grease 4,211 1,120 271
Ammonia (N) 33,690 7,514 861
Total Cyanide 2,807 2,240 171
Phenolic Compounds 16,845 40 3.6
Toxic Organics 6,654 309 37.2
Toxic Metals 152 58.2 23.8
Other Pollutants 35,374 1,158 738
3
-------
4. EPA estimates that, as of January 1, 1978, the investment and
annual costs to achieve the proposed BPT and BAT limitations for
the Cokemaking subcategory are as follows:
Investment Costs
Total
In-Place
Reauired
Annual Costs
BPT
303
178
125
105
BAT
57
12
45
9
TOTAL
360
190
170
114
All costs are in millions of July 1, 1978 dollars. No additional
capital investment for beehive operations is anticipated, since
the remaining active plants achieve no discharge. Annual
operating costs for beehive wastewater treatment is less than
$60,000 per year.
5. The Agency has evaluated the "cost/reasonableness" of controlling
discharges of the conventional pollutants, TSS and oil and
grease, and concludes that the control costs of these pollutants,
based on the BCT model treatment systems are less than the costs
experienced by publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
Therefore, EPA is proposing BCT limitations for TSS and oil and
grease. For beehive operations, both the proposed BPT and
proposed BCT limitations are zero discharge.
6. With regard to the Third Circuit's "remand issues", the Agency
concludes that:
a. The Court ruled that the NSPS flow of 100 gal/ton was "not
demonstrated" and therefore, remanded that issue to- the
Agency for reconsideration. Since this flow rate also
applies to the model BAT treatment system, the Agency
reexamined the issue with respect to the proposed BAT
limitations as well. In addition to the four plants
surveyed in the original study by the Agency, other plants
have demonstrated process wastewater flows of 100 GPT or
less, including two of the five participants in the toxic
pollutant sampling phase of this study. In addition, 24% of
all plants reported process flows of less than 100 gal/ton
in response to questionnaires. However, due to an
increasing trend toward additional by-product recovery and
air pollution emission controls which will be required by
the time the proposed BAT limitations must be achieved, the
Agency increased the model flow used to establish the
proposed BAT limitations and to estimate the cost of
complying with those limitations to 153 gal/ton.
b. The 175 gal/ton model discharge flow for the proposed BPT
limitations is demonstrated and, in fact, is less stringent
than might otherwise be justified. The increased data base
now available shows that 47% of the by-product coke plants
4
-------
discharge less than 175 gpt and 80% of the plants have an
average flow of 173 gpt.
c. The previously promulgated BPT limitations for ammonia-N
(NH3-N) are appropriate and the Agency is proposing BPT
limitations which are identical. All five of the sampled
plants using the free and fixed ammonia removal stills
described in the BPT model treatment system achieved the
previously promulgated BPT limitations for ammonia-N.
d. The components of the BAT model treatment systems are
currently used by existing coke plants and achieve the
proposed limitations. Multi-step biological treatment is
practiced by plant 0868A, and other treatment systems are
designed to provide for such operation. Recycle of
barometric condenser water, with less than 4% blowdown is
practiced at plants 0112D, 0448A and 0856F, and the latter
two plants achieve blowdown flows of 3 gallons per ton or
less. Filtration of effluent prior to discharge is
practiced at plants 0684F and 0856A.
Although a significant number of toxic pollutants have been
identified in the raw wastewaters from by-product cokemaking
operations, it is not necessary to propose limitations for each
toxic pollutant detected. Adequate coverage of toxic pollutants
is attained by controlling two currently limited pollutants
(cyanides and phenolic compounds) and adding limitations for
benzene, naphthalene, and benzo(a)pyrene. Phenolic compounds
accurately represent acid extractable toxic organic pollutants.
Benzene has been selected to represent total volatile organic
pollutants, while naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene are practical
examples of base/neutral extractables. By limiting the discharge
of these toxic pollutants, effective control is provided for all
such pollutants identified in raw cokemaking wastewaters.
The Agency is proposing separate BAT limitations for those
existing sources which have full scale physical/chemical
(activated carbon) BAT treatment systems.
Table II-1 presents the treatment model flow and effluent quality
data used to develop the proposed BPT effluent limitations for
the cokemaking subcategory, and Table 11-2 presents these
proposed limitations. Table 11-3 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 cokemaking subcategory; Table I1-4 presents these
proposed limitations and standards.
5
-------
TABLE II-1
BPT TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average Concentrations^^
Pollutant
By-Product
Cokemaking Operations
Beehive
Cokemaking Operations
Flow, gal/ton
TSS
O&G
Ammonia-N
0
121 Total Cyanide
Phenolics (4AAP)
pH, Units
100
15
125
30
2
6.0 to 9.0
(1): Concentrations are expresed as mg/1 unless otherwise noted. Maximum daily
concentrations are three times the monthly average concentrations presented
above.
(2): Additional effluent flows are necessary as follows:
For indirect ammonia recovery systems - 50 gal/ton
For qualifying wet desulfuriaer systems - 25 gal/ton
6
-------
TABLE I1-2
PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
121
Pollutant
TSS
O&G
Ammoni a-N
Total Cyanide
Phenolics (4AAP)
pH, Units
Monthly Average Effluent Limitations( 1)
(Kg/Kkg of Coke Produced)
By-Product
Cokemaking Operations
(2)
0.0750
0.0109
0.0912
0.0219
0.0015
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Beehive
Cokemaking Operations
There shall be no
discharge of process
wastewater pollutants
to navigable waters.
(1): Maximum daily limitations are three times monthly average limitations presented
above.
(2): Additional load allowances are provided for the following operations. Multiply
the limitations given above by the appropriate factor:
For indirect ammonia recovery systems, multiply by 1.3
For qualifying wet desulfurizer systems, multiply by 1.15
For indirect ammonia and qualifying wet desulfurizing, multiply by 1.45
7
-------
TABLE I1-3
TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
COREMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow, gal/ton
TSS
O&G
Anmonia-N
121 Total Cyanide
Phenolics (4AAP)
004 Benzene
055 Naphthalene
073 Benzo(a)pyrene
pH, Units
BAT
153
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
15
2.5
0.025
0.05
0.01
0.02
Monthly Average Concentrations
(1)
BCT
153
20
10*
(2)
6.0 to 9.0
NSPS
153
20
10*
15
2.5
0.025
0.05
0.01
0.02
to 9.0
6.0
PSES
153
(2)
(3)
(3)
15
2.5
0.025
0.05
0.01
0.02
(3)
PSNS
153
15
2.5
0.025
0.05
0.01
0.02
(1):
(2):
(3);
Concentrations are expressed as mg/1 unless otherwise noted, and apply only to by-
product cokemaking operations. For beehive operations, effluent flows are eliminated
through the use of total recylces systems as at the BPT level. Maximum daily con-
centrations are based upon multiplying the monthly average concentrations presented
above by the following factors:
Factor
2.67
2.0
4.0
5.34
2.0
Pollutant(s)
TSS
Total Cyanide, Benzene, Naphthalene
& Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenolics (4AAP)
Anmonia-N - Biological treatment systems
Anmonia-N - Physical-Chemical treatment systems
For physical-chemical treatment systems, the flow basis is 103 gal/ton. Additional
effluent flow for indirect ammonia recovery (50 gal/ton) and wet desulfurizers (25
gal/ton) apply to all plants with such systems.
For physical-chemical treatment systems, the Anmonia-N concentration is 60 mg/1, the
phenolics (4AAP) concentration is 0.05 mg/1, and the total cyanide concentration does
not apply.
As shown, daily maximum concentration only.
8
-------
TABLE II-4
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average Effluent Limitations and Standards^^
Kg/Kkg of Coke Produced
Pollutant
BAT
(2)
BCT^2*
NSPS
PSES
(2)
PSNS
Bio
P/C
Bio
P/C
Bio
P/C
TSS
-
-
1280
859
1280
-
-
-
O&G
-
-
638*
430*
638*
-
-
-
Ammoni a-N
957
2580
-
-
957
957
2580
957
121
Total Cyanide
160
-
-
-
160
160
-
160
Phenolics (4AAP)
1.60
2.15
-
-
1.60
1.60
2.15
1.60
004
Benzene
3.19
2.15
-
-
3.19
3.19
2.15
3.19
055
Naphthalene
0.64
0.43
-
-
0.64
0.64
0.43
0.64
073
Benzo(a)pyrene
1.28
0.86
-
-
1.28
1.28
0.86
1.28
pH, Units
-
-
6.0 to
9.0
6.0 to 9.0
-
(1): The proposed limitations and standards have been multiplied by 105 to obtain the values
presented in this table. Maximum daily limitations are based upon multiplying the
above monthly average limitations and standards by the following factors:
Pollutant
Factor
TSS
2.67
Total Cyanide, Benzene, Naphthalene &
Benzo(a)pyrene
2.0
Phenolics (4AAP)
4.0
Ammonia-N, for biological treatment systems
5.34
Anmonia-N, for physical-chemical treatment
systems
2.0
For beehive operations, there shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
(2): For plants with indirect ammonia recovery or qualifying wet desufurizers, the basic
limits are multiplied by the following factors:
Biological Physical-Chemical
Systems Systems
Indirect Ammonia Recovery 1.33 1.5
Wet Desulfurizers 1.16 1.25
* : As shown, daily maximum limitation or standard only.
9
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
General Discussion
Cokemaking operations include by-product recovery and beehive
facilities. Nearly all of the metallurgical coke produced in the
United States is made in by-product recovery coke ovens which operate
as part of integrated steel mill complexes. By-product recovery
faciliities are also employed by merchant coke manufacturers,
sometimes as part of a chemical or utility plant operation. A very
small portion is still made in non-recovery type ovens with arched
roofs that closely resemble old- fasioned beehives, hence the name
beehive cokemaking operations.
Both types of cokemaking facilities are capable of producing high
quality metallurgical coke for use in blast furnaces or in foundry
cupolas. But only the by-product recovery coke ovens are equipped to
produce a wide variety of other products in addition to coke. Further
details on each process and the respective pollutant loads are
presented in subsequent discussions.
Limitations governing cokemaking were previously promulgated in 1974
for the following pollutants: Total suspended solids; oil and grease;
phenolic compounds; ammonia, total cyanide and pH at the BPT level;
total suspended solids; oil and grease; phenolic compounds; ammonia;
cyanide amenable to chlorination; sulfide and pH at the BAT and NSPS
levels. For the current study, the Agency conducted additional
sampling and gathered more detailed information to provide an expanded
data base.
Data Collection Activities
In addition to evaluating data from previous studies, EPA issued Data
Collection Portfolios (DCPs) to all by-product cokemaking facilities
known to be active at the time questionnaires were distributed.
Responses were received from all facilities. Since that time, three
other small independent plants have been reported producing coke, and
three of the original respondents have closed permanently. There are
currently 59 by-product cokemaking plants and two beehive cokemaking
plants in operation. The DCPs distributed to the by-product coke
plants requested information on production processes and rates,
process water usage and discharge rates, wastewater treatment and
disposal methods, age of plants (first year of on-site production and
dates of rebuilds), age of treatment systems, and location.
The Agency did not seek any additional data regarding beehive
operations. The previously promulgated BPT limitations required no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants, and the Agency did not
11
-------
receive any comments from industry during the rulemaking process which
questioned the appropriateness of that limitation.
Based upon DCP responses and other information, EPA issued Detailed
Data Collection Portfolios (D-DCPs) to nine by-product coke plants.
These D-DCPs focused upon obtaining data on costs and wasteloads.
In addition to the questionnaire responses, the Agency reviewed its
sampling data from prior studies of four coke plants, and sampled five
additional plants for this study. The Agency also performed sampling
and analyses as described in Volume I.
As shown in Table III—1, the expanded data base for by-product
cokemaking includes EPA sampling at nine plants (15% of plants;
representing 22% of industry capacity), DCP responses from 59 plants
(95% of plants; and 99% of capacity) and D-DCP responses from nine
plants (15% of the plants; representing 17% of capacity). A list of
beehive operations is provided in Table III-2, but only one plant with
two batteries of ovens is known to be active.
Cokemaking via the Bv-Product Recovery Process
The production of metallurgical coke is an essential part of the steel
industry, since it provides one of the basic raw materials necessary
for the operation of ironmaking blast furnaces. Of the two
traditional processes for the manufacture of coke, by-product recovery
ovens have virtually eclipsed the beehive ovens in commercial
applications. Less than 1% of the metallurgical coke produced in 1978
was made in beehive ovens. The remaining 99+% of coke production came
from coke plants practicing varying degrees of by-product recovery (64
plants at 59 locations, some with 2 or 3 plants per location, in 17
different states).
The by-product recovery process, as the name implies, not only
produces high-quality coke for use as blast furnace or foundry fuels
and carbon sources, but also provides a means of recovering valuable
by-products of the distillation reaction. During this process, air is
excluded from the coking chambers, while heat is supplied from the
external combustion of fuel gases in flues located within dividing
walls separating adjacent ovens.
The volatile components are recovered from the gas stream and
processed in a wide variety of ways to produce tars, light oils,
phenolates, ammonium compounds, naphthalene, and other materials of
value, including the coke oven gas itself. Table II1-3 summarizes
by-product recovery processes in use at the 59 locations where such
cokemaking operations exist in the United States. Note that all
plants recover coke oven gas and crude coal tars, and a majority also
produce crude light oils, ammonium compounds and naphthalene. Of the
remaining 22 products, six are produced by only one by-product
recovery plant. With one exception, no single plant recovers more
than 12 of the 27 products listed.
12
-------
Beehive cokemaking represents a distinctly different approach to the
production of metallurgical coke from the more widely used by-products
recovery process.
In the beehive process, air is admitted to the oven during the coking
cycle so the volatile products which distill from the coal are
immediately burned. A very small percentage of these products is
transferred to the water used to cool the coke (quench) and no other
water-borne pollutants are generated during the process. For
additional details on wastewater characterization and its impact on
subcategorization, refer to Sections IV and V.
A by-product recovery coke plant consists of batteries of ovens in
which coking coals are heated out of contact with air to drive off
volatile components of the coal. The coal used is usually a blend of
high, medium and low volatile bituminous grades selected because of
specific coking characteristics. The volatiles are drawn off and
recovered as by-products during the process. The residue remaining in
the oven is the coke product. Typical coking time is 18 hours. The
ovens themselves are narrow, rectangular, silica brick chambers
arranged side by side in groups of 20 to 90, most often in batteries
of 50 to 70 individual ovens. The smallest plants in the industry
have a single battery, while the largest has up to 20 batteries with
60-70 ovens in each battery. Most conventional ovens in use today are
of similar size, typically 12 meters long, 4.5 meters high, and 0.45
meters wide (approximately 13 x 5 * 0.5 yards). However, new ovens in
service and under construction at several American coke plants have
increased in size to 15 meters long, 6 meters high and 0.6 meters wide
(approximately 16.4 x 6.6 x 0.66 yards). These larger ovens can
accomodate more than twice the coal charges of the smaller ovens, thus
producing more coke per charge, and reducing the potential for air
emissions while charging and pushing. Additionally, the change in
oven design provides the opportunity to install certain other
technological improvements including preheating of incoming coal in
enclosed chambers; pipeline charging systems using pulverized coal
(thus eliminating the need for opening lids atop the ovens while
charging and leveling the charge); and the installation of ductwork
and shed-type enclosures to capture and clean charging and pushing
emissions. Such emission control practices have provided significant
improvement in air quality around by-products coke plants. However,
these and other similar improvements increase the polluted wastewater
load and volume by transferring the air emissions into waters used for
scrubbing. For additional discussion on the processes involved in
cokemaking in by-product recovery ovens, refer to pages 31-36 in the
previous study.
In addition to increases in size of by-product coke ovens, the Agency
has noted several trends within this subcategory since the study which
formed the basis of the originally promulgated limitations was
completed. Fewer plants (less than 7% of cokemaking capacity) employ
the indirect ammonia recovery process than formerly, and the recovery
and refining of light oils to benzene, toluene and xylene is less
common than previously practiced. On the other hand, more plants
today practice some form of desulfurization of coke oven gas, thereby
allowing for wider use of the by-product gas as fuel for other steel
13
-------
plant operations. New techniques for gas desulfurization and
subsequent recovery of sulfur values involve two processes which have
been developed by the Japanese industry and installed on some new
American coke batteries. Hydrogen sulfides are absorbed using ammonia
from coke oven gas together with catalysts in a scrubbing solution.
The sulfur laden solution is then processed into a liquid ammonium
sulfate slurry which can be used in fertilizer production or in
chemical processes.
The application of required air pollution controls in areas where they
were not formerly used is a relatively recent development in
cokemaking. For example, the problems associated with noxious
emissions from the charging of coal into hot ovens have been addressed
on new or rehabilitated ovens by installing pipeline charging of
preheated coals, or by equipping larry cars (charging machines) with
emission collection and scrubbing systems. The former practice may
employ exhaust scrubbers on each of the preheaters, while the larry
car systems generate considerable volumes of highly contaminated
wastewaters which require disposal. In some cases, coke pushing
emissions are now being controlled by emission collectors and
scrubbers, either on enclosed quench cars or in the form of shed
enclosures. These latter structures are enormous collectors of
dust-laden gas, some as larg£ as 114 meters long, 18 meters wide and
27 meters high (374 x 60 x 90 feet). At some plants wastewaters blown
down from either system are currently used as makeup water for coke
quenching, but this practice may be subject to air pollution control
regulations which could affect its continued use. Wet scrubber
systems are also in use at coke screening stations and coal
preparation, handling and storage areas within the boundaries of a
coke plant. All of these systems represent wastewater sources which
are new to by-product cokemaking operations, having been installed
only within the last few years. More specific details relating to
wastewater flows and characteristics are provided in Section V.
Process flow diagrams for by-product recovery and light oil refining
are shown on Figures III—1 and III-2.
An overall general summary of the by-product cokemaking operations and
practices in the United States is provided in Table III-4. Essential
data on age, size, wastewater flow, by-product recovery, wastewater
control and treatment technology, and ultimate disposal of wastewaters
are highlighted for each by-product coke plant. Note in particular
the large differences between plants with respect to size, wastewater
flows, and discharge modes. A significant number of coke plants
discharge all or part of their wastewaters to local publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) for final treatment following limited
pretreatment on-site. Others continue to dispose of a portion or all
of their wastewaters by coke quenching with concomitant adverse air
quality impacts. Additional discussion on wastewater flow and
disposal follows in Sections V and IX.
Cokemaking By the Beehive Oven Process
This older cokemaking process accounts for less than 1% of the
metallurgical coke produced in the United States. Inherent in the
beehive process is the significant atmospheric emissions of components
14
-------
of the coal charged to the ovens. With the increased efforts to
minimize air pollution nationwide, the use of this operation will
continue to decline, since control of emissions places severe
constraints on oven operation, making it more difficult to compete on
an economical basis with the by-product recovery processes. Refer to
EPA-440/I-024a, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steelmaking
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category,
dated June 1974, Page 36 et seq, for more information on the beehive
process. Process flow diagrams for beehive plant operations are shown
on Figures II1-3 and II1-4. Figure II1-3 shows a simpler system
utilizing quenching within the oven, while Figure 111—4 illustrates an
external quenching arrangement at a modern plant.
15
-------
TABLE III-l
BY-PRODUCT COREMAKIN6 DATA BASE
en
Plants Sampled for
Dev. Doc. - 6/74
Plant8 Sampled for
This Study
Total Plants Sampled
Plants Surveyed Via
Detailed DCP
Plants Sampled and/or
Solicited via
Detailed DCP
Plants Responding to
Basic DCP
Total Plants in
Subcategory
No. of
Plants
4
5
9 incl.
3 above
15
59
(1)
62
(2)
X of Total
No. of Plants
6.4
8.1
14.5
14.5 incl.
4.8 above
24.2
95.2
100.0
Rated Annual Capacity
Reported by Plants
(Tons/Year)
9,427,220
7,312,045
16,739,265
13,198,765 incl.
6,576,570 above
23,361,460
77,445,700
77,887,350
Z of Total
Annual Capacity
12.1
9.4
21.5
16.9 incl.
8.4 above
30.0
99.4
100.0
(1) Three of the original respondents have closed permanently.
(2) Current data base covers 59 active plants. DCP responses are on hand from 56 of these, whose capacity is
75,547,700 tons per year, or 99.4Z of present capacity.
-------
TABLE III-2
MAJOR BEEHIVE COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
Plant
Location
No. of Ovens
Status
New York Mining and
Manufacturing Company
Sharon Steel, Carpentertown
Coal and Coke
Hillman Coal and Coke
Rochester and Pittsburgh
Coke Company
Jewell Smokeless Coal
Corporation
Calvert, KY
Templeton, PA
Alicia, PA
Lucerne, PA
Vansant, VA
200
264
400
262
210
Inactive
Deactivated Permanently
(Sampled in 1973)
Inactive, and probably
dismantled
Inactive
Intermittently Active
(Sampled in 1973 at
two sites.)
NOTE: Active/inactive status of beehive operations varies from month to month. As a result, capacities
and production-related data are unavailable.
-------
TABLE III-3
COAL CHEMICALS PRODUCED AT BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY PLANTS
Material
No. of Plants
Percent
Practicing Recover
Recovered
Practicing Recovery
% of No
% of Coke Prod
Coke Oven Gas
59
100.0
100.0
Crude Coal Tar
59
100.0
100.0
Crude Light Oils
48
81.4
90.2
Ammonium Sulfate
43
72.9
78.4
Naphthalene Solidifying at <74°C
41
69.5
76.2
Sodium Phenolate (or Carbolates)
25
42.4
46.8
Intermediate Light Oils
20
33.9
43.7
Toluene, all grades
10
16.9
30.4
Benzene, specification grades
9
15.3
27.9
Xylene, all grades
9
15.3
27.3
Solvent Naphtha, all grades
8
13.6
24.4
Elemental Sulfur
8
13.6
22.3
Crude Chemical Oil (Tar Acid Oils)
8
13.6
20.1
Naphthalene solidifying between
4
6.8
22.4
74°C and 79°C
Soft Pitch of Tar
4
6.8
21.0
Enriched Ammonia Liquor
4
6.8
6.5
Benzene, non-specification grades
3
5.1
5.1
Creosote Oils, straight distillate
3
5.1
19.7
Phenol, non-industrial grades
3
5.1
17.2
Hard Pitch of Tar
2
3.4
14.7
Creosote Oils in coal tar solution
2
3.4
11.8
Cresols
1
1.7
9.8
Cresylic Acid
1
1.7
9.8
Picolines
1
1.7
9.8
Anhydrous Ammonia
1
1.7
9.8
Phenol, industrial grades
1
1.7
9.8
Mono- and Diammonium Phosphates
1
1.7
2.0
18
-------
Firat
Tear
Prod.
1920
1919
1916
1901
1951
1928
1943
1914
¦fl 920
1924
1921
1926
1969
1918
1909
1912
1964
1919
1929
1926
1961
1914
1919
1911
1941
1978
1906
1906
1917
1920
1926
1919
1942
1918
1925
1914
TABLE 111-4
CEHEKAL SUMMARY TABI.E - BY-PRODUCT COKEHAKIHC
Product!on,TPD
Control &
Treatment Tecli.
Rebuild Active
Rated
Typical Raw(l) Operations
By
-Products
ASL
In
Diacliarge Mode With
Batteries
Capa-
Haste Flow
DS.
or
Oxidation
VI •
Typical CPT for
each
Oldest
Newest
city
Typical
GPD
CPT Mill
CPT
APT
0OH
BTX
OTH
ASF
ASC
DP
CH
Bio CA
Ret
Direct
POTW Quench Other
1941
1968
2400
2140
418,700
205 1
N
APS
H
C
Y
ASC
N
B0A2
Ret
107
0
98
1966
1967
1225
1225.
107,800.
88 1
N
APS
H
R
(2)
Y
ASC
N
(3)
BOA2
Ret
88
0
0
1951
1967
3480
2100
1,944,000
926 2
D
APII
Y
C
Y
ASL
Y
Ret
0
253
673
1968
1968
2150
2000
170,000
185 H
N
N
H
H
N
N
N
Ret
0
0
142
43(DU)
1951
1977
5150
4890
780,600
160 1
D
APS
Y
R
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
Ret
0
160
0
1959
1969
1930
1811
119,500
66 1
D
APS
Y
R
(2)(5)
Y
ASL
Y
BOA1
Ret
66
0
0
1943
1953
1045
840
37,000
44 N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
In
0
0
0
44(4)
1)41
1976
5840
5058
840,000
166 1
D
APS
N
C
(2X5)
N
ASL
N
B0A1
Ret
104
0
122
1%1
1961
9800
9161
1,540,000
168 1
D
APS
H
R
(2X5)
N
ASL
N
BOA1
Ret
0
168
0
1948
1970
8140
6908
712,000
101 1
1
APS
Y
R
(2X5)
Y
ASL
Y
In
0
0
47
70(ES)
1965
1965
1100
998
61,000
61 1
N
APS
Y
C
(2)
N
ASL
H
BOA)
Ret
0
0
61
1948
1952
3500
3028
487,500
161 1
N
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
ASL
N
BOA1
Ret
0
0
161
1969
1972
6670
5179
488,000
94 1
D
APS
H
H
(2 )(5)
H
N
N
In
0
0
51
41(DW)
I960
1974
*
*
*
* 1
N
APS
H
R
(2)
1
N
H
In
*
*
*
*
1926
1946
1086
1002
256,500
256 N
D
N
H
N
N
H
N
In
0
256
0
1948
1951
1200
1050
114,500
128 1
N
APS
Y
R
Y
ASC
Y
Ret
0
136
0
1964
1964
1145
1145
267,000
211 N
H
N
Y
C
N
N
N
Ho
Trt
94
0
139
1942
1968
3004
3004
312,500
104 1
D
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
Ret
A3
0
69
1929
1961
940
880
171,500
197 1
D
H
H
N
(2)
I
I
N
Ret
0
62
115
1950
1958
160
link
Unk
Unk 1
N
APS
N
H
Y
ASL
N
In
Unk
0
Unk
1962
1972
4340
3945
1,152,000
292 I
N
APP
H
C
(2)
Y
ASL
N
In
0
292
0
1952
1976
1000
800
28,800
36 1
N
N
H
H
Y
N
N
In
0
0
0
36(4)
1971
1971
400
140
Unk
Unk 1
D
APS
Y
N
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
In
Unk
Unk
0
1950
1970
6170
5640
90B, 000
161 1
H
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
In
0
51
110
1974
1974 .
2500
1562
354,600
227 1
D
APS
Y
C
(2X5)
Y
ASL
Y
In
0
147
92
1978
1978
3014
2740
Unk
Unk 1
0
APS
Y
C
(2X5)
Y
ASL
Y
In
0
Unk
Unk
1955
1955
1740
1560
511,000
350 1
N
APS
H
C
(2)
H
H
N
(6)
Ret
0
350
0
H51
1953
814
702
979,300
13951
N
APS
N
R
(2)
N
N
N
No
Trt
0
1395
0
1917
1955
*
*
*
* 2
D
APH
Y
R
Y
ASL
Y
BOA I
Ret
*
*
*
1920
1958
2760
2400
962,400
401 1
N
APS
H
C
(2)
Y
ASL
N
BOA1
Ret
417
0
0
1945
1976
6946
4504
712,000
158 1
N
APS
H
R
(2)
Y
I
N
In
0
0
158
1951
1961
5300
5210
502,000
96 I
N
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
I
Y
Ret
96
0
0
1941
1959
4100
3800
201,400
53 1
H
APS
H
C
(2)
Y
1
I
Ret
0
0
53
1918
1918
530
500
410,000
820 2
N
APP
APH
H
N
Y
N
N
In
0
820
0
1942
1952
625
600
19,800
11 N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
CLA
Ret
0
33
0
1925
1970
2047
1272
496,000
190 2
H
APH
N
C
Y
ASL
N
BOA1
Ret
236
0
170
-------
TABLE III-4
GENERAL SUMMARY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAXING
PAGE2
to
O
Production,TPD
Plant
First
Rebuild Active
Rated
Code
Year
Batteries
Capa-
No.
Prod.
Oldest
Newest
city
Typical
049 2 A
1944
1944
1944
1214
690
0538A
1929
1972
1972
450
400
0584B
1953
1953
1957
2500
2500
-2-
0584B
1970
1970
1970
2900
2700
J
0584C
Pre-
1942
1961
2600
1743
1921
0584F
1973
1973
1973
3600
3000
(B)
0584F
1923
1947
1956
4500
4066
(M)
06 56 A
1906
1916
1916
800
725
0684A
1950
1950
1952
2970
2735
(8)
0684B
1923
1948
1949
1852
1279
0684D
1927
1955
1955
576
500
0684F
_ 1 —
1917
1943
1977
2782
2049
— 1 ~
0684F
1952
1952
1952
1954
1286
-2-
0684H
1943
1943
1943
1369
1300
06841
1918
1942
1965
2372
1785
0684J
1914
1952
1952
1066
560
0724F
1920
1920
1920
650
560
(8)
0732A
1929
1950
1958
2025
1410
0810
1917
1962
1962
*
*
0856A
1918
1948
1977
20780
16,342
0856F
1952
1952
2953
3000
3000
0856N
1917
1947
1957
4468
4319
0860A
1915
1950
1952
1580
1262
(8)
0860B
1911
1949
1976
11960
9750
0864A
1944
1944
1944
3558
3520
0868A
1912
1958
1979
6866
5930
0920B
1942
1942
1956
1836
1332
0920F
1917
1940
1976
5205
4310
0946A
1919
1968
1968
1000
700
0948A
1916
1954
1958
3816
3483
0948C
1919
1952
1961
4000
3406
Typical Raw(l) Operations Bv-Productfl
Haste Flow
DS.
or
GPD
GPT HH3
GPT
APT
0OH
BTX
OTU
ASF
ASC
DP
40,000
58
1
N
APS
N
R
(2)
Y
I
N
Unk
Unk
1
N
APS
N
C
(2)
Y
ASL
N
Unk
Unk
1
640
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
I
Y
Unk
Unk
1
53
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
I
Y
75,000
43
1
N
APS
N
C
(2)
Y
ASL
N
660,000
220
1
D
APS
N
C
(2)(5)
Y
ASC
N
775,000
191
1
N
APS
I
C
(2)
Y
ASC
I
150,500
208
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
244,0900
89
1
N
APS
N
R
(2)
N
N
N
331,200
259
1
N
APS
M
C
(2)
I
1
N
119,500
239
1
N
APS
N
C
(2)
I
I
N
184,100
90
1
N
APS
Y
R
(2)
Y
ASC
Y
59,360
46
1
N
APS
Y
R
(2)
Y
ASC
Y
542,000
417
1
N
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
371,300
208
1
N
APS
N
C
(2)
Y
ASL
N
377,500
674
1
N
APS
N
C
(2)
Y
ASL
N
318,000
568
1
N
APS
Y
C
Y
ASL
Y
323,000
229
1
D
ASP
Y
C
Y
ASL
Y
*
*
2
D
APH
Y
C
Y
N
Y
2,321,000
142
1
D
APO(9) Y
R
(2)(5)
Y
ASL
Y
261,000
87
1
N
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
450,000
104
1
N
APS
N
C
I
I
I
339,500
269
1
N
APS
N
N
Y
N
N
1,716,000
176
1
N
APS
N
C
(2)
N
N
N
514,000
146
1
N
APS
N
R
(2)
Y
ASL
I
576,000
97
1
N
APS
N
C
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
80,000
60
1
N
APS
Y
C
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
590,000
137
1
N
APS
Y
C
Y
ASC
I
238,000
340
1
N
APS
N
C
N
N
N
469,440
135
1
N
APS
Y
C
(2)
I
I
Y
248,600
73
2
N
APH
Y
C
(2)
Y
ASL
Y
Control t Treatment Tech.
ASL
Oxidation
CH Bio CA
In Discharge Mode With
Typical GPT for each
Ret Direct POTW Quench Other
B0A2
B0A2
B0A1
B0A1
BOA1
B0A2
BOA
1 or 2
Ret
58
0
0
In
Unk
0
Unk
In
Unk
0
Unk
In
Unk
0
Unk
In
0
0
51
In
237
0
0
Ret
78
0
130
Trt
0
111
97
Trt
0
0
89
In
113
0
146
Rec
0
0
0
Ret
A6
0
49
Ret
28
0
21
In
0
433
0
Ret
218
0
0
Ret
694
0
0
Ret
584
0
0
Ret
147
0
82
Ret
*
*
Ret
281
0
0
In
43
0
52
Ret
0
0
104
Ret
166
0
103
In
0
19
157
In
0
0
153
In
146
0
0
Ret
60
0
0
Ret
137
0
0
No Trt 0
340
0
In
0
0
135
In
0
91
0
239(7)
-------
TABU 111-4
GENERAL SUMMARY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
PACE 3
-1- Flint 1
-2- Plant 2
-3- Plant 3
-U- Plant K
(B) Brown'a I¦land
(H) Mainland
(I) Roaedale
(F) Franklin
TFD: Ton* per day
CPD: Callona par day
CPTi Callona per ton
NHji Aassoaie Recovery Type
11 Seaidirect
2i Indirect
Hi Mo MU Recovery
DS> Deeulfurfxer Typei
Di Dry
Hi No Desulfuriter
Hunkers Callona of
Wastewater
Per Ton ol Coke
ASL or ASC: Filed Anon i a Still
11 Inactive
N: Hone
Ht No Anaoniua Product
0OHi Phenol Recovery:
Yi Yea
N: Ho
Is Inactive
BTX Recovery!
Ct Crude
Bi Refined
Nt None
OTHs Other Product Recovered
(See Footnote*)
ASFi Free /lunula Still
Ys Ye*
li Inactive
CHl Chenical Oxidation
Biot Biological Treatment
CAs Carbon Adsorption
In: Initial Inatallation of
Treatment Plant
Rett Retrofit Installation
of Treatment PIanta
(Ink i Unknown
*: Plant requested confidential
treatment of data.
(1) Process Wastewaters Only
(2) Naphthalene
(3) Ozone
(4) Incineration
(5) Sulfur
(t) Onidation Tower
(7) Inpoundaent Lagoon
(8) Ceased Operation in 1979
(9) Anhydrous Aaaonia
HOTS) For definitiate of other operational and control and treatment codes, refer to Table VII-I.
-------
WATER SUPPLY
>• WATER RETURN
COAL SUPPLY
COOLING LIQUOR
c >-
< >
4-WASH OIL
FROM BENZOL
PLANT
AMMONIA
COKE
COOLING
LIQUOR
(EXCESS)
TAR
TAR
FLUSHING
LIQUOR
WASH OIL
TO BENZOL
PLANT
WATER-
SUPPLY
TAR
SPRAY
WATER
TAR
AMMONIA
SULFATE—SULfUR|C
ACID
AMMONIA LIQUOR
(EXCESS)
NAPHTHALENE
SUPPLY
TAR
TO STORAGE
FACILITIES
MAKE-UP
WATER
TO STORAGE
FACILITIES '
COKE
BENZOL WASTES
(SEE FIGURE IH-2)
FRESH WATER
SUPPLY
(INTERMITTENT)
< f
COKE
COKE FINES
RECLAIMED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCTS COKE PLANT
BY PRODUCT RECOVERY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
TO TREATMENT
PLANT
MAKE-UP
WATER
FIGURE m-
DECANTER
COOLING
COILS
QUENCH
STATION
COKE
OVENS
CRYST ALIZER1
SYSTEM
NAPHTHALENE
SKIMMER BASIN
AMMONIA
ABSORBER
EXHAUSTER
WHARF
COOLING
TOWER
WHARF
DRAINAGE
TAR
EXTRACTOR
RAILROAD CAR
TO COKE USERS
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
STORAGE
FINAL COOLING
SYSTEM OVERFLOW
OR CLEANOUT
GAS
SCRUBBER
FINAL
COOLER
TAR
SEPARATOR
PRIMARY
COOLER
-------
Light Oil
Benzol
Toluol
Xylol —
Fore-Runnirgs to AMotor Bfn£8!
Mom Gas Stream y
— DECANTER
Wosh Oil from
—CONDENSER
Gas Scrubbers
CONDENSER
CONDENSER
¦CONDENSER
C.W. to
Sewer
C.W. to
.Sewer
PURE
STILL
WASH
RECTIFYING
COLUMN
,-«1 Sewer
FORE-
RUNNINGS
COLUMN
MOTOR
BENZOL
STILL
C.W. to Sewer
C. W.
C.W.
C.W.
STILL
Benzol
Toluol
Xylol
DECANTER-
DECANTER
~ V.
¦Benzol
Toluol
Xylol
BATCH
KETTLE
LIGHT
OIL
STORAGE
DECANTER
Wash Oil
H2S04
CAUSTIC
WATER
•CONDENSER
Water
to Sewer+
"AGITATOR
Cooling
Water
I o Sewer 4
C W.
WASHED
BTX TANK
/ N.
Water & Caustic
Wastes
DECANTER
Intermediate
Light Oil
COOLER-
BENZOL
STORAGE
XYLOL
STORAGE
Cooling
Water
CRUDE
STILL
MOTOR
BENZOL
STORAGE
TOLUOL
STORAGE
~ C.W. to
Sewer
Wash Oil
to Gas Scrubber^-
C W.
DECANTER-
DECANTER
CRUDE
HEAVY
SOLVENT
CRUDE
NAPHTHA
STORAGE
Condensate
Condensate
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUOY
BY-PRODUCT COKE PLANT
LIGHT OIL RECOVERY { REFINERY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
To
¦~Treatment
(Benzol Wastes)
INTERCEPTING
SUMP
/ \.
LEGEND-
C.W- COOLING WATER
Oil to Wosh Oil Still
RD- 4/14/78
figure nr-2
-------
COAL
LARRY
CAR
LARRY
CAR
1 r
<>- QUENCH
COKE
SCREENING
STATION
36"72 Hour!
MINE
COAL SUPPLY
RAILROAD CAR
COKE
HOT
BEEHIVE COKE OVEN
(>
QUENCH WATER
EXCESS TO RECYCLE
OR DISCHARGE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BEEHIVE COKE PLANT
TYPE I-INTERNAL QUENCH
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
|figure in-3
RD. 4/1S/76
-------
COAL SUPPLY
Quench Tower
Coke Guide
Leveling Bar
SCREENING
STATION
Spray Water
Quenching Car
COKE
Rom of Pusher
RAILROAD CAR
inn
COKE QUENCHING
STATION
Coke lo Users
BEEHIVE COKE OVEN
ISIol Type)
QUENCHING
CAR
PUSHER
MACHINE
Coke
Wharf
Conveyor
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BEEHIVE COKE PLANT
TYPE H-E XTERNAL QUENCH
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE HI-4
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
Introduction
The Agency decided to subdivide the cokemaking subcategory into
by-products recovery and beehive processes because of the basic
differences in process equipment and final products.
The Agency concluded that further subdivisions within each of these
processes, were not appropriate, despite certain differences in
configuration and product line. The Agency believes that these
differences are best addressed by establishing basic conditions
applicable to all coke plants, and then providing for specific
incremental effluent limitations for qualifying plants based upon
variations from the basic conditions. Accordingly, the proposed
regulation contains allowances for desulfurization using wet
absorption methods, and the practice of indirect ammonia recovery as
the hydroxide.
Factors evaluated with respect to subcategorization and subdivision
are discussed below in greater detail.
Factors Considered in Subcategorization
Manufacturing Process and Equipment
Major differences between the production equipment used and the nature
of the cokemaking process form the basis for subdividing cokemaking
into by-products and beehive operations. In the by-products recovery
ovens, the exclusion of air and the use of flushing liquor to
condition coke oven gas generates significant quantities of various
types of wastewaters. The most highly contaminated of these
wastewaters originates from the moisture of the coal itself, and takes
the form of excess flushing liquor which must be continuously removed
from the flushing liquor system. This same moisture is vaporized in
the beehive process, along with other volatile constituents of the
coal. Air is admitted into the ovens to burn these volatiles to
provide additional heat for the coking process.
Since there are basic differences in manufacturing process, it follows
logically that the process equipment likewise differs between beehive
and by-products recovery operations. The beehive operations are much
simpler than the by-product operations. Both processes have coke
quenching in common, but the by-product recovery process also may
include operations such as ammonia recovery, dephenolization,
desulfurization, light oil refining and scrubbing of emissions from
coal and coke handling, coal charging, and coke pushing. These
additional processing operations and variations in equipment cause
enough differences in wastewater quantity, quality and treatability to
27
-------
warrant separate limitations for by-product and beehive cokemaking
processes even though both start with the same raw material; coal.
Within the by-product cokemaking operations, variations in
manufacturing process and equipment relate directly to the by-products
recovered. However, wastewaters from all operations at a given site
are usually combined and treated in a single treatment system. Where
appropriate, incremental effluent limitations for by-product recovery
are provided over and above the basic effluent limitations for all
plants.
Final Products
Although both processes have the production of coke as their primary
objective, the by-products recovery cokemaking operations yield a wide
variety of final products, including coke oven gas, and crude coal
tars (see Section III, Table II1-3). But even these basic products
differ from plant to plant. The coke itself can be either furnace
coke for use in blast furnace iron-making, or foundry coke for cupola
use. Coke oven gas can vary depending on the chemical composition of
the coals coked and the degree of cleaning and conditioning provided
for the gas prior to its ultimate use. These factors will also
influence the quality of the coal tars recovered. Other recovered
by-products will determine the volume and quality of certain
wastewater streams. For example, most by-products plants use
semi-direct ammonia recovery methods producing ammonium sulfate or
ammonium phosphate. However, six by-product plants use indirect
methods which produce ammonium hydroxide instead. This latter process
yields larger volumes of wastewater than do semi-direct recovery
methods. There are other differences in wastewater generation rate
and quality resulting from recovery of crude or refined light oils,
from sulfur recovery, from dephenolization, and from final cooler
operations, whether recycled or once-through. Impacts from these
variations are discussed in more detail in Sections IX and X. No such
variations exist for beehive operations, which generate less noxious
wastewaters. As a result, the Agency believes that the basic
subdivision of cokemaking into beehive and by-products recovery
processes is appropriate in part because of the diverse final products
produced by the latter operations.
Raw Materials
While raw materials are a principal factor in subcategorizing the
steel industry, the coals used in the cokemaking subcategory have
little influence on segmenting the cokemaking subcategory. Although
variations in coal chemistry do affect wastewater quality and
quantity, other factors such as the presence or absence of by-products
recovery components and air pollution emission controls are of much
greater significance. Within the by-product cokemaking segment, coals
are blended to provide the most desired combination of characteristics
in the end product. Thus, the eventual generation of wastewaters
requiring control and treatment is influenced by other factors to a
much greater extent than by variations in raw material charged to the
ovens, and these influences are adequately covered by incremental
effluent limitations where appropriate.
28
-------
Wastewater Characteristics
As indicated above in the discussion of manufacturing processes,
beehive and by-product cokemaking generate significantly different
wastewaters. Process wastewaters from beehive operations are related
strictly to quenching operations, and as such are readily controlled
by sedimentation for suspended solids. The excess quench water is
collected and evaporated on the hot coke product. The volume of
wastewaters generated by the beehive process vary only slightly from
plant to plant.
The by-product recovery processes, on the other hand, generate excess
flushing liquors, benzol plant wastes, final cooler wastewaters,
desulfurizer wastes, air pollution control scrubber waters and tar
decanter wastewaters in addition to the wastewaters from quenching
operations. In contrast to beehive operations, these wastewaters
contain pollutants other than suspended solids such as ammonia-N,
cyanides, phenolic compounds, sulfides, oil and greases, acids and
alkalis, as well as many toxic organic pollutants. For more details
on cokemaking wastewater characteristics refer to Section V.
Wastewater Treatability
Wastewaters from beehive cokemaking operations are effectively treated
by simple sedimentation in settling ponds to drop out any coke fines
picked up during quenching. Pond overflows are readily recycled to
the quenching operation, with minimal impact on air quality due to the
general absence of pollutants other than TSS. Within by-products
recovery plants, treatment systems have been developed to control
certain combinations of pollutants, while often others are left
uncontrolled, or eliminated by means other than treatment. For
example, 33 by-products plants dispose of their most aggressive
wastewaters by evaporation in quenching operations, as in the beehive
operations. But because by-products wastewaters contain high
dissolved solids and many volatile pollutants, this practice has a
significant adverse impact on air quality. Two plants practice deep
well injection. A few coke plants have extensive treatment systems
which incorporate sophisticated technologies to control the pollutant
load from the entire waste flow. However, even among these plants,
two distinctly separate approaches to treatment are currently
practiced.
A number of by-products coke plants operate biological oxidation
systems with one or more stages for controlling process wastewaters.
This control and treatment technology has proven to be at least as
effective as physical/chemical methods (activated carbon) at treating
the toxic organic pollutants found in cokemaking wastewaters, but at
less cost. Others operate physical/chemical treatment systems to
selectively eliminate certain pollutants. The best of these systems
use activated carbon adsorption to remove phenolic compounds, but the
operating costs for advanced treatment (beyond BPT) are several times
higher than that for advanced biological treatment. Wherever
possible, plants which have yet to choose a treatment alternative
should consider the advantages of biological systems. Analytical and
cost data for both systems are included in later discussions. The
29
-------
biological systems form the basis for effluent limitations covering
most operating by-product cokemaking operations. Separate BAT
effluent limitations are proposed for those plants which have
installed advanced physical/ chemical treatment systems. The Agency
is proposing BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSPES and PSNS limitations and standards
for all other cokemaking plants based upon biological treatment
models.
Size and Age
Consideration was given to the impact of size and age when subdividing
the cokemaking subcategory into beehive and by-product operations.
Beehive plants tend to be only about one-fourth as large as
by-products plants. And even though the beehive process is an older
technology, the only beehive plant known to be active is "newer" than
many by-product plants. Thus, these size and age differences are
covered by the basic subdivision into two manufacturing processes.
Within the individual cokemaking processes size and age are less
relevant.
With respect to size expressed as rated capacity, the ratio between
the largest and smallest by-product cokemaking facility for which flow
data are available is 39:1, yet the corresponding ratio between total
daily raw waste flows for those two plants is less than 6:1. The
Agency could not discern a significant pattern involving flow rates
per unit of production. The total raw wastewater generation rates
expressed as gallons per ton of coke produced average 154 GPT for the
five largest by-product plants, and 143 GPT for the five smallest.
The range of flows for large plants is narrower than for small,
primarily because the larger ones practice similar degrees of
by-product recovery while by-product recovery at the smaller plants is
highly variable. As noted above, these differences are covered by
incremental effluent limitations within the by-product segment rather
than further segmentation on the basis of size.
One area seemingly influenced by size of by-product coke plants is the
choice of wastewater disposal means. Pretreated wastewaters from two
of the ten largest coke plants are discharged to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), while wastewaters from six of the ten
smallest plants are discharged to POTWs. It is often not feasible for
larger coke plants to discharge to POTWs because of the adverse
impacts these wastewaters can have on POTW operations and performance.
Oftentimes, coke plant wastewaters are not effectively treated in
POTWs. Hence, the Agency discourages this practice.
The Agency has concluded that subcategorization based upon size is not
appropriate. A scatter diagram of by-products cokemaking plants
plotting rated capacity versus flow, and identifying those which
discharge either directly or indirectly is given as Figure IV-1. Note
that most plants, large and small, are generating wastewater at less
than 250 gal/ton, indicating that size has little impact on flow.
The Agency did not find any impact relating to the age of a coke plant
other than the indirect one derived from the subdivision into
by-products recovery and beehive segments. To begin with, age itself
30
-------
is a relative term, since most coke plants have been in operation much
longer than their current "oldest" active production units. Data from
all by-products recovery plants were used to plot a scatter diagram,
Figure IV-2, showing the year of rebuild for the oldest active battery
on-site versus flow for each plant. Many sites show oldest active
batteries built between 1940 and 1962. Flows appear to be independent
of year of rebuild, since high and low flows occur in any age group,
indicating that age has no impact on flow. Further support can be
shown by comparing wastewater generation rates for old and new plants.
Defining age by "oldest active battery", the five oldest plants
average 191 GPT, while the five newest average 205 GPT, a difference
of only 7%. If age is defined as "first date of cokemaking on-site",
these flows are 175 GPT for old plants and 185 GPT for new plants.
The Agency believes that these differences are not significant.
Plants vary from 6 to 78 years old if first year of operation is the
criterion for age, or from 5 to 63 years old if oldest active battery
is considered. The oldest site, 78 years, is only 11 years old if
oldest active battery is selected as the criterion for "age". From
the available data for age it can be shown that the "average"
by-product cokemaking plant has had cokemaking on-site for at least 50
years, although the oldest active batteries are 31 years old and the
newest only a few years old. Wastewater treatment systems (other than
those which are purely by-product recovery system components) date
back 10 to 12 years, and have usually been upgraded within the last 5
to 6 years.
The Agency also found that age does not have a significant impact on
wastewater characteristics or treatability. Among the surveyed
plants, the newest and best treatment facilities were found at three
locations which have been making coke for more than 70 years, with
active batteries at least 25 years old. Also, to further complicate
the concept of plant age, there can be a significant distinction
between active campaign years and calendar years. The former involves
actual use of a battery of ovens, which may be only 20 years during a
35 calender year period. The need to rebuild major portions of an
operating coke plant at various intervals provides an opportunity to
install or upgrade wastewater treatment components with minimal
disruption to the remaining process operations. A review of DCP
responses indicated that 68% of the plants provided some upgrading of
wastewater treatment equipment to coincide with the rebuild of active
batteries.
In response to the Court's remand, the Agency compared industry's
actual cost for pollution control facilities with its estimated model
plant costs. The objective of the comparison was to determine the
relative ease with which the model wastewater technology equipment can
be retrofitted to existing systems and production units. Based on
that comparison, the Agency concludes that its model cost estimate is
sufficiently generous to cover the associated retrofit costs for
plants of all "ages." As additional support, a review of the list of
plant ages versus installation dates for treatment systems confirms
that most plants can and do retrofit treatment systems to existing
production facilities (Refer to Table IV-1 for data).
31
-------
Geographic Location
The Agency has concluded that location does not have a significant
effect upon subcategorization or further subdivision, other than the
fact that beehive ovens tend to be located in rural areas within
bituminous coalfields (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia and
Kentucky), while by-products recovery plants are situated at locations
where their by-product gas can be used as fuel (i.e., at integrated
steel works, or urban areas where gas can be distributed to other
users). The Agency accounts for this distinction by subdividing the
cokemaking subcategory into by-products and beehive processes.
By-product cokemaking needs no further segmentation because of
location. By-product recovery plants are situated in 17 states, but
half of the total number operate in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Alabama.
Only six are found west of the Mississippi River (2 in Texas, 1 each
in California, Colorado, Missouri, and Utah). The Agency did not find
any significant differences due to geographic location. The effect of
location in terms of arid or semi-arid regions is discussed in Section
VIII.
Process Water Usage Rates
For beehive operations, flows are a function of the quenching rate,
and are uniform from plant to plant. Excess quench water is collected
and recycled to the operation, thus minimizing the need for makeup
water. The Agency did not observe any variations in process water
usage, and, accordingly, believes a single model flow suffices for
beehive operations. The raw wastewater flows reported to EPA for
by-product cokemaking installations varied widely from plant to plant,
with a low of 33 gallons per ton of coke produced to a high of 1395
gallons per ton. These flows include process wastewaters only as
non-contact cooling waters have been excluded from total flows where
possible. Such wide variation in flow reflects the diverse nature of
water usage and conservation practices at cokemaking operations.
Plants which have low flows also practiced minimum recovery of
by-products, and rarely had any auxiliary equipment such as charging
or pushing emission control scrubbers or desulfurizers.
Although such differences are important to note when regulating
discharges from individual plants, the Agency believes that these
variations can be accounted for by providing incremental effluent
limitations where appropriate rather than by further subdivision.
These limitations are allowed for plants practicing indirect ammonia
recovery and wet gas desulfurization and are in addition to the base
limitations applicable to all plants. Additional discussion of these
water usage and wastewater generation flow rates is provided in
subsequent sections, particularly in Section V.
Consideration of Process Changes
The BAT model treatment system does not include any in-process changes
although wastewater quality may change when discharge rates are
reduced. Many plants are employing recycle, reuse or treatment and
recycle to minimize water use and the volume of effluents discharged.
32
-------
The proposed limitations are mass limitations (unit weight of
pollutant discharged per unit weight of product) and not volume or
concentration limitations. While the proposed limitations can be
achieved by extensive treatment of the large flows, the Agency
believes that the proposed limitations can, in more instances, be
achieved more economically by minimizing effluent volumes.
33
-------
TABLE IV-1
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE
DEMONSTRATED AN ABILITY TO RETROFIT POLLUTION CONTROL
EQUIPMENT TO EXISTING PRODUCTION FACILITIES
Plant
Cokemaking Reference
Process Number
Cokemaking Subcategory
Age of Production Facilities
First Year
On-Site
(Year)
Age of
Treatment
System
Active Batteries
Oldest (Year) Newest (Year)
Installed Upgraded
(Year) (Year)
Beehive
By-Product
Recovery
E
«/*l 930
1963
1970
-
1970
-
F
^1930
1970
1970
1970
1973
G
^1920
—
1960
—
1960
1968
0012A
1920
1941
1968
-
1977
' -
0012B
1919
1966
1967
1974
1979
0024A
1953
1953
1967
1972
1978
0024B
1901
-
1968
-
1969
1977
0060
1953
1953
1977
1953
1977
006 OA
1928
1959
1969
1947
1978
0112
1914
1941
1976
1962
1979
0112A
^1920
1941
1961
1976
1978.
0112C
1921
1948
1965
-
1978
-
0248A
1912
1948
1951
-
1971
-
0272
1919
1942
1968
1957
1977
0280B
1929
1929
1963
-
1977
-
0396A
1906
-
1955
-
-
1972
-
0402
1917
1917
1955
1917
1971
0448A
1942
1943
1959
-
1973
-
0464C
1925
1942
1952
-
1971
-
0464E
1914
1925
1970
1914
1978
0584F-M
1923
1947
1956
-
1976
-
0684D
1927
-
1955
-
-
1975
-
0684F
1917
1943
1977
1960
1976
06841
1918
1942
1965
1970
1974
0684J
1914
-
1952
-
-
1976
-
0732A
1929
1950
1958
1952
1979
0810
1917
-
1962
-
-
1975
-
0856A
1918
1948
1977
-
1975
-•
0856N
1917
1947
1957
1917
1971
0920B
1942
1942
1956
1942
1977
0920F
1917
1940
1976
-
1978
-
34
-------
TABLE IV-2
ANNUAL TONS OF POLLUTANTS REMOVED BY TREATMENT
OJ
in
Present
Removed By
In Feed
BPT
Treatment
Removed
by BAT Alt. 1
Discharged
Pollutant
T/Yr
Tons/Yr
Z of Feed
Tons/Yr
Z of Feed
Tons/Yr
Z of Feed
Conventional
Pollutants
TSS
2,810
(3,110)
(110.7)
4,880
173.7
1,040
37.0
Oil & Grease
4,210
3,090
73.4
850
20.2
270
6.4
SUBTOTAL-CP
7,020
(20)
(0.3)
5,730
81.6
1,310
18.7
Toxic Pollutants
Cyanides
2,810
570
20.3
2,070
73.7
170
6.0
Metallics
152
93
61.2
35
23.0
24
15.8
Phenolics
16,840
16,800
99.8
36
0.2
4
0.02
Organics Other
6,650
6,340
95.3
273
4.1
37
0.6
than Phenolics
SUBTOTAL-Toxics
26,452
23,803
90.0
2,414
9.1
235
0.9
Pollutants
Other Than Conventionals i
or Toxics
Amnonia
33,690
26,170
77.7
6,660
19.8
860
2.5
Sulfide
8,420
8,270
98.2
59
0.7
91
1.1
Thiocyanates
26.950
25,940
96.2
365
1.4
645
2.4
SUBTOTAL-Other
69,060
60,380
87.4
7,084
10.3
1,596
2.3
TOTAL
102,532
84,163
82.1
15,228
14.8
3,140
3.1
( ): Numbers in parenthesis represent loads which have been added during treatment.
NOTE: Table assumes that 57 plants treat wastewaters via biological oxidation systems, and 2 plants
use physical/chemical means, including carbon adsorption. Feed is wastewater which has passed
through free ammonia stripping stills, but has not been dephenolized.
-------
FIGURE IV" I
BY-PRODUCT COKE MAKING
FLOW vs. SIZE
I8OO-1
1579-
LEGEND
~ Direct Discharge
O Indirect Discharge
1357-
Ui
X
O
O
U. 1135-
O
z
o
h
^ 913 H
<
CD
£
O
691-
469-
247-
25
a
o Pa°
Jr ai? °
*> o a
o 8
£ a * ft° °
#JL_o *
oo o
CP
T 1 1 1 1 1
350 2906 5463 8019 10,575 13,131 15,688
1 1
18,244 20,800
RATED CAPACITY IN TONS/DAY
36
-------
FIGURE IV-2
BY-PRODUCT COKE MAKING
FLOW vs. AGE
isoot
1579-
LEGEND
~ Direct Discharge
O Indirect Discharge
1357 H
UJ
*
O
o
u. 1135
O
z
o
I-
913-
<
CD
- 691
£
O
-I
u.
469 H
247-
25
aa
a «c
3 °
°a
~ a
a
~o
° °c
o ga
h .
a o
1910
—I—
1919
1928
1936
1945
1954
1962
1971
1980
YEAR OF REBUILD FOR OLDEST ACTIVE BATTERY
37
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
The sources and characteristics of process wastewaters generated
during cokemaking operations are reviewed herein, with particular
emphasis on by-product cokemaking wastewaters. Water use rates were
measured during field sampling of selected plants, and also were
obtained for all known active by-product plants through DCPs. For the
two beehive operations, field data alone were used. Since the only
process wastewater source for beehives is quenching runoff, and this
source is readily recycled, the Agency did not solicit additional data
with DCPs.
Waste characterization for both cokemaking processes is based upon
analytical data obtained during the field sampling programs.
Long-term data were obtained from selected companies by detailed data
collection portfolios (D-DCPs), which were also used to supplement
available cost information. Additional data were acquired by EPA
regional staff with the cooperation of individual companies, and from
the activities of EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Water use rates discussed below pertain only to process wastewaters,
and not to non-contact or non-process cooling water.
Sources
General process and water flow diagrams of a conventional by- product
coke plant and associated light oil recovery plant are presented as
Figures III—1 and II1—2. Typical beehive operations are shown on
Figures II1—3 and III—4. In actual practice, 75% of the by-product
coke plants attempt some degree of ammonia recovery as shown on Figure
III—1, and even more recover crude light oils. However, only about
25% refine light oils to the extent shown on Figure III-2.
The typical products generated during the carbonization of a metric
ton (1.1 short tons) of coal in the by-product cokemaking process are
as follows:
Coke Oven Gas 350 cu. m (12,500 cu. ft.)
Tar 35 liters (9.2 gal)
Ammonia as Nitrogen 2.4 Kg (5.3 lb)
Tar Acids 2.4 Kg (5.3 lb)
Hydrogen Sulfide 3.0 Kg (6.6 lb)
Light Oils 12 liters (3.2 gal)
Coke - Sized 625 Kg (1380 lb)
Coke - Undersized 75 Kg (160 lb)
Water 132 liters (35 gal)
39
-------
Although the above list summarizes the "typical" quantities
recoverable from grades of coal commonly used for cokemaking, the
Agency observed wide variations for individual coals which are due to
differences in coal chemistry, moisture and volatility. For example,
the quantities of coke oven gas generated per metric ton of coal coked
which were reported by 58 coke plants varied from 216 to 523 cubic
meters per metric ton (7,000 to 16,970 cubic feet per short ton).
Raw waste loads from by-product cokemaking operations vary widely, not
only as a result of differences in coals used, but also due to
variations in recovery processes, water use systems, operating
temperatures of the ovens, and the duration of the coking cycle.
However, all such variations are subject to effective control by the
treatment systems considered herein. Raw wastewater flows generated
by the nine by-product coke plants sampled during, this study were
found to range from 90 to 580 1/kkg (21.6 to 139 gallons per ton) of
coke produced. Maximum and minimum effluent flows vary even more
widely since several options exist for treating each coke plant
wastewater. For example, most plants which use biological treatment
add some dilution water to optimize conditions for the bioxidizing
organisms. Also, some plants dispose of some raw or treated
wastewaters by quenching. Effluent flows from these plants are lower
than from plants where all wastewaters are discharged.
The most significant liquid wastes generated during by-product
cokemaking and by-product recovery operations include excess ammonia
liquor, final cooler wastewater, light oil recovery wastes from the
benzol plant, barometric condenser wastes from the crystal1izer,
desulfurizer wastes, and contaminated waters from air pollution
emission scrubbers for charging, pushing, preheating or screening
operations. In addition, miscellaneous wastewaters may result from
coke wharf drainage, quench sump overflows, and coal or coke pile
runoffs. Runoffs from storage piles and coke wharves should be
contained within a diked area and impounded until evaporated, or
collected and transferred to the plant's wastewater treatment system.
Condensates from drip legs and gas lines, along with leakage from
sample test taps and floor washdowns should also be routed to
treatment prior to release, since significant loads can originate from
these diverse sources. Among the possible means for control, the
following methods are most applicable:
1. Collection and channeling of miscellaneous sources to process
wastewater treatment systems.
2. Impoundment with no discharge, provided that subsurface discharge
through percolation is prevented by the use of impervious
materials to line lagoons, storage ponds, and runoff collection
stations.
3. For situations where the impact on air pollution can be
tolerated, a system of recycle to extinction by coke or slag
quenching operations may be acceptable.
The largest volumes of water leaving a by-product coke plant are
indirect (noncontact) cooling waters from a variety of cooling and
40
-------
condensing operations. These flows are not normally considered
process wastewaters, but leaks in coils or tubes can result in
significant incursion of aggressive wastes into these flows. However,
frequent inspection and proper maintenance will prevent such
contamination from process waters, so flows of this type are not
included in the discussion of process wastewaters and pollutant loads.
The volume of excess ammonia liquor produced from the distillation of
coal varies from 79 to 430 1/kkg (19 to 103 gal/ton) of coke at plants
using semi-direct ammonia recovery, and from 292 to 442 1/kkg (70 to
106 gal/ton) at plants using indirect recovery. Ammonia liquor was
sampled separately at six coke plants and as part of a mixed flow at
two coke plants. Measurements showed excess ammonia liquor flows of
90 to 205 1/kkg (21.6 to 49.3 gal/ton). The concentration and loads
for pollutants of interest are shown in Table V-l for the original
guidelines survey, and in Table V-2 for the toxic pollutant survey.
Net concentrations are used because such values provide a measure of
the pollutant loads attributable to the process. Net concentrations
were calculated by subtracting all "background" pollutant
concentrations. Note the major pollutants found in excess ammonia
liquor are directly related to the destructive distillation of coal.
Since excess flushing liquors represent the first step in cooling the
coke oven gas for reuse, the waste ammonia liquor contains by far the
greatest pollutant load. All by-products recovery plants generate
excess ammonia liquor.
Final cooler wastewater originates from direct contact cooling of coke
oven gas with water sprays which dissolve any remaining soluble, gas
components and physically flush out condensed naphthalene crystals.
Final cooler wastewater volume ranges from 46 to 709 1/kkg (11 to 170
gal/ton), but this volume can be reduced to between 8.3 and 42 1/kkg
(2 to 10 gal/ton) by recycle. Nearly 85% of the by-products cpke
plants have some wastewater from this source.
Currently available, separate, and complete analytical data (including
toxic pollutants) for final cooler blowdowns are from a single plant
whose blowdown flow was an atypical 294 1/kkg (70.5 gallons per ton)
of coke produced. These data are shown in Table V-3 for 31
pollutants. Although waste ammonia liquor is the most contaminated
wastewater, the levels of certain volatile pollutants (e.g., benzene,
cyanide, isophorone, and toluene) in final cooler wastewaters exceed
those in ammonia liquor. Additional data for mixtures of final cooler
wastewater and benzol plant wastwaters are shown in Table V-4.
Light oil recovery (benzol plant) waste volumes also vary widely,
depending upon the degree of recovery (crude or refined), and whether
recirculation is practiced. Although once-through systems generate
from 835 to 6,260 1/kkg (200 - 1,500 gal/ton), recirculation is
usually practiced which reduces the discharge flows to between 63 and
500 1/kkg (15 to 120 gal/ton). Toxic pollutant concentrations found
in benzol plant (light oil recovery) wastewaters are shown in Table
V-5. Certain toxic organics (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene, isophorone,
parachlorometacresol) common in other coke plant wastewaters were not
detected in benzol plant wastewaters. Also, most of the pollutant
concentrations observed in benzol plant wastewaters are significantly
41
-------
lower than those in the other coke plant wastewaters. Notable
exceptions are benzene, toluene and xylene, which were found in benzol
plants wastes at 3 to 7 times higher concentrations than in other
wastes. As in the case of final cooler wastewaters, nearly 85% of the
by-products recovery plants have some flow from benzol plant
processes.
As noted above, three sources of wastewater are common to most
by-product cokemaking operations. Additional sources include steam
condensates from ammonia and phenol recovery units, drip legs, test
taps, floor drains and washdowns and runoffs from coke quenching
operations. Steam condensates have been measured at 10 to 20% of the
wastewater volumes delivered to the recovery units. The other
combined "miscellaneous wastewaters" were found at flows from 30 to
350 1/kkg (7 to 84 gallons/ton), depending to a large extent upon the
degree of housekeeping and maintenance provided. Some plants have
been able to apply practices which minimize flows requiring treatment
prior to disposal, while others have chosen not to, and allow such
sources to be consumed in quenching operations.
Coke quenching operations for by-products recovery and beehive
operations require an applied rate of 500 to 3,750 1/kkg (120 to 900
gal/ton), with an average application rate of 2,100 1/kkg (500
gal/ton). Approximately one-third of this applied flow (130 gal/ton)
is evaporated during each quench. The runoffs are collected in a sump
and reused for subsequent quenches with no discharge of wastewater to
treatment or receiving streams. Thirty-one by-product coke plants
dispose of much of their process wastewaters by quenching. The
process wastewaters which are most often disposed of in this fashion
are final cooler blowdowns and benzol plant wastes. In nearly all
cases, fresh water is mixed with the wastes, but in at least one
plant, the quench stations operate using more than 90% contaminated
water.
The water application rates required for quenching result from
attempts to strike a balance between the need to quench the
incandescent coke, and yet leave enough heat behind to evaporate water
trapped within the coke lumps. If this entrapped water is primarily
contaminated waste, many of the contaminants are transferred to the
blast furnace, thereby increasing the pollutant waste loads at the
blast furnace gas washers. To further compound the problem of using
contaminated wastewater for quenching, studies have indicated
increased metal corrosion in and around quench stations which use
"dirty water" quenching as opposed to stations using fresh water
makeup only. Also, particulate emissions from a quench tower which
used contaminated and then fresh makeup water in different test runs
were found to be more than twice as high with dirty water for
quenching, (i.e., 45 pounds of particulate/quench with dirty versus 21
pounds/quench with clean). The difference was related to the higher
level of dissolved solids in the contaminated makeup water. Thus,
even the use of sophisticated wastewater treatment techniques such as
pretreatment prior to quench may not be appropriate, since the high
dissolved solids concentrations in waste ammonia liquors are not
reduced by conventional treatment means. This dissolved matter is
converted to particulates in the atmosphere as water vapor is flashed
42
-------
off. Dirty water quenching is coming under increasing scrutiny of air
pollution control agencies, and is likely to become more limited in
the future.
There have not been any significant steps taken toward dry coke
quenching in this country, despite the use of this technology in the
Soviet Union, Japan, England, France, Germany and Switzerland. The
current situation in the U.S. is such that plants designed in the
immediate future will most likely continue to use water quenching with
total recycle of quench water and fresh water makeup. Although all
plants in this country practice quenching with water, very few
reported any overflows from quenching operations. Quenching
wastewaters from by-product and beehive operations are usually
recycled to extinction, leaving no wastewaters requiring further
treatment. The quality of wastewaters following its use as quench
water is shown in Table V-6 for fresh and contaminated waters at
by-product coke quenching operations and in Table V-7 for fresh water
quenching at beehive operations.
The remaining wastewater sources identified during plant surveys were
found at fewer than half of the cokemaking operations. Fourteen
by-product cokemaking plants use barometric condensers to create a
vacuum in ammonium sulfate crystallizer systems. This operation
generates fairly high volumes of contaminated wastewaters.
Once-through flows were reported between 83 and 360 1/kkg <20 to 86
gal/ton), but some users practice tight recirculation of crystallizer
wastewaters, reducing blowdown rates to 12 to 42 1/kkg (3 to 10
gal/ton). This wastewater is often discharged without treatment, even
though considerable concentrations of cyanides are present. Refer to
Table V-8 for analytical data on barometric condenser wastewaters.
Some plants have installed surface condensers, thus generating only a
small wastewater volume.
Another wastewater source requiring treatment is the discharge from
wet desulfurizers, which are used by seven plants to recover sulfur
compounds from coke oven gas. Again, once-through flows are high, up
to 900 1/kkg (216 gal/ton), but recycle is often practiced bringing
wastewater blowdown rates down to 50 to 125 1/kkg (12 to 30 gal/ton).
In addition to the foregoing basic flows associated with cokemaking
and by-products recovery, additional process waters originate from the
use of scrubbers in certain critical operations to eliminate or reduce
air pollution emissions. Some of these, notably scrubbers on coal
handling, crushing or blending, and coke handling, transfer or
screening contribute only minor volumes with easily removable
suspended matter as the major pollutant. Other sources generate
highly contaminated effluents which require higher levels of
treatment. Elowdowns from coal drying and preheating operations are
small in volume but contain thousands of mg/1 of TSS and volatile
organic compounds. Once-through flows average from 250 to 1250 1/kkg
(60 to 300 gal/ton), but 95% recycle of such wastewaters provides
blowdown volumes of 12 to 63 (3 to 15 gal/ton)* Scrubbers on larry
cars and other charging equipment generate highly contaminated
wastewater with blowdowns ranging from 21 to 104 1/kkg (5 to 25
gal/ton). A recent survey conducted by EPA Region V Eastern District
43
-------
Office quantified the pollutant concentrations for a typical larry car
scrubber system. Analytical data are presented in Table V-9.
The largest single volume of wastewater associated with air pollution
controls is that from coke pushing operations. Over 8340 1/kkg (2000
gal/ton) is applied to scrubbing emissions at the pushing side of a
coke battery, and even a tight 95% recycle releases up to 420 1/kkg
(100 gal/ton) of contaminated wastewater which requires disposal or
treatment. Data covering two pushing emission control systems are
shown in Table V-10. Note that the concentrations of toxic organics
are low when compared with charging emission scrubbers such as the
larry car data referred to above.
A summary of average by-product cokemaking process wastewater flows
observed during sampling visits and reported in responses to
questionnaires is presented in Table V-ll. The columns headed
"Average of Best" represent the average of up to the best seven of the
nine plants sampled and up to the best 20% for questionnaire
respondents. This difference in defining "best" reflects the fact
that plants selected for sampling were already considered to be
superior to most cokemaking plants in some respects. But the presence
of minimal treatment or recovery practices at many plants can make
interpretation of flow rates misleading. In the by-product cokemaking
subdivision, "Best" flow rate may not be the lowest flow demonstrated.
Such plants may not have by-product recovery units which generate
certain wastewater flows. Sampled plants usually demonstrated
superior or unique control and treatment technology and were visited
for those reasons, rather than because of minimal flow rates. In
fact, the best of the treatment facilties sampled during both phases
of this study, Plant 003, was treating the highest process wastewater
flow rate.
The applied flow rates for beehive quenching operations were discussed
above, and all operating beehive plants have demonstrated an ability
to recycle all wastewaters to extinction.
After reviewing the net and gross concentrations of pollutants
considered for limitation in the cokemaking subcategory, the Agency
concluded the effect of make-up water quality on the various waste
streams is minor or negligible. Hence, the effluent limitations and
standards are proposed on a gross basis.
44
-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN EXCESS AMMONIA LIQUOR
(2)
Mixed Flow
Reference Code
0112
0384A
0272
Average
0432B
Plant Code
B
C
D
of 3
A
Sample Point
1
1
1
-
(3)
Flow (Gal/Ton)
27.0
32.6
21.6
27.1
82.7
Suspended Solids
22
496
30
183
13
Oils & Greases
37
116
148
100
27
Amnonia (N)
5030
6822
3715
5189
2635
Sulfide
1320
203
183
569
15
Thiocyanate
1070
86
128
428
NA
pH, (Units)
8.5
6.0-7.9
8.7
6.0-8.7
9.6
117 Beryllium
<0.02
<0.04
NA
<0.03
NA
121 Cyanide
97
96
145
113
75.3
191 Phenolic Compounds
1006
1006
708
907
751
NA: Not Analyzed.
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
(2) Sample contains wastewaters from benzol plant and final cooler blowdown in addition to excess ammonia liquor.
(3) Flow consists of 49.3 GPT ammonia liquor, 24.9 GPT benzol plant wastewaters, and 8.5 GPT final cooler blowdown.
-------
TABLE V-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS ( .
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN EXCESS AMMONIA LIQUOR
(2)
Mixed Flow
Reference Code
0868A
0920F
0684F
Average
0464C
Plant
Code
003
008
009
of 3
002
Sample Point(s)
C
B
B
-
Flow
(Gal/Ton)
27.8
32.5
47.0
35.8
35.9
Suspended Solids
80
44
97
74
14
Oils & Greases
184
172
83
146
71
Amnonia (N)
2387
4375
8255
5006
5067
Sulfide
439
908
976
774
1833
Thiocyanate
592
659
680
644
1245
Phenolic Cpds.
626
1172
1715
1171
702
pH, (Units)
9.6-9.8
8.8-8.9
8.6
8.6-9.8
9.0-9.1
3
Acrylonitrile
ND
3.3
ND
1.1
4.7
4
Benzene
27.2
5.2
3.4
11.9
2.8
20
2-Chloronaphthalene
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.043
21
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.40
22
Par ach1orometac re so1
ND
ND
0.014
0.005
4.3
23
Chloroform
1.37
0.47
0.066
0.635
<0.003
34
2,4-Dimethylphenol
5.3
<0.01
ND
1.77
83.7
38
Ethylbenzene
0.64
0.11
ND
0.25
0.29
39
Fluoranthene
3.13
1.51
0.21
1.62
0.98
54
Isophorone
ND
<0.01
ND
<0.003
ND
55
Naphthalene
28.9
35.3
27.5
30.6
10.6
57
2-Nitropheno1
ND
ND
0.08
0.027
1.5
60
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
ND
ND
0.09
0.03
0.97
64
Pentachlorophenol
ND
ND
0.40
0.13
ND
65
Pheno1
327
413
120
287
666
(4)
Phthalates, Total
2,30
1.81
0.85
1.65
1.98
72
Benzo(a)anthracene
ND
0.015
ND
0.005
*
73
Ben zo ( a ) py rene
ND
0.197
0.225
0.206
0.51
-------
TABLE V-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN EXCESS AMMONIA LIQUOR1
PAGE 2
Mixed Flov/^
Reference Code 0868A 0920F 0684F Average 0464C
Plant Code 003 008 009 of 3 002
Sample Point(s) C B B - B
Flow (Gal/Ton) 27.8 32.5 47.0 35.8 35.9
(3)
76
Chrysene
ND
0.32
0.07
0.13
*
77
Acenaphthylene
6.4
5.7
4.2
5.4
3.2
78
Anthracene
*
*
*
*
*
79
Benzo(ghi)perylene
0.03
ND
ND
0.01
0.003
80
Fluorene
2.5
0.70
0.37
1.19
0.77
81
Phenanthrene
*
*
*
*
*
84
Pyrene
2.6
0.71
0.16
1.16
0.82
86
Toluene
8.9
2.1
0.443
3.8
0.91
130
Xylene
0.01
ND
55
18.3
<0.01
114
Antimony
NA
0.24
0.40
0.32
0.033
115
Arsenic
NA
0.66
0.21
0.43
0.267
117
Beryllium
<0.001
<0.001
NA
<0.001
<0.002
120
Copper
0.017
0.017
0.065
0.033
0.100
121
Cyanides
22.3
28.6
25.9
25.6
21.5
124
Nickel
<0.005
<0.005
NA
<0.005
0.065
125
Selenium
NA
2.6
0.13
1.36
0.457
126
Silver
<0.001
<0.001
<0.02
<0.007
<0.025
128
Zinc
0.13
0.47
NA
0.30
0.241
NA: Not analyzed.
ND: None detected.
* : Compound could not be separated, but is present in sample.
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
(2) Sample contains wastewaters from final cooler blowdown in addition to excess ammonia liquor.
(3) Flow consists of 29.9 GPT excess ammonia liquor and 6.0 GPT final cooler blowdown.
(4) Value shown is the sum of all values for the following phthalates: 66 Bis-(2-ethylhexyl);
67 Butylbenzyl; 68 Di-n-butyl; 69 Di-n-octyl; 70 Diethyl and 71 Dimethyl phthalate.
-------
TABLE V-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS m
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN FINAL COOLER BLQWDQWNSU;
Reference Code 0732A
Plant Code 001
Sample Point(s) C-A
Flow, (Gal/Ton) 70.5
Suspended Solids 29
Oils & Grease 28
Anmonia (N) 30
Sulfide 22
Thiocyanate 52
Phenolic Compounds 101
pH, (Units) 7.3
3 Acrylonitrile 1.5
4 Benzene 37.3
35 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 1.87
36 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 0.236
39 Fluoranthene 1.09
54 Isophorone 4.00
55 Naphthalene 39.0
65 Phenol 59.7
(2) Phthalates, Total 1.44
72 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.107
73 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.080
76 Chrysene 0.053
77 Acenaphthylene 0.323
80 Fluorene 0.156
84 Pyrene 0.080
86 Toluene 17.0
114 Antimony <0.003
115 Arsenic 0.006
117 Beryllium <0.002
120 Copper <0.004
121 Cyanides 188
125 Selenium <0.005
126 Silver <0.025
128 Zinc 0.08
(2) Value shown is the sum of all values for the following phthalates:
66 Bis-(2-ethylhexyl); 67 Butylbenzyl; 68 Di-n-butyl; 64 Di-n-octyl;
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
(2) Value shown is the sum of all values for the f
66 Bis-(2-ethylhexyl); 67 Butylbenzyl; 68 Di-n
70 Diethyl and 71 Dimethyl phthalate.
48
-------
TABLE V-4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS . .
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN FINAL COOLER BLOWDOWNS
(2)
Mixed Flow
Reference Code 0112
Plant Code B
Sample Point(s)
Flow, (Gal/Ton) 100U
Suspended Solids 40
Oils & Greases 293
Ammonia (N) 107
Sulfide 443
Thiocyanate 7.4
pH (Units) 8.0
117 Beryllium <0.02
121 Cyanides 118
191 Phenolic Cpds. 178
(3)
Mixed Flow
0384A Average of
C Two Mixed Samples
3-4_»
448 f64 FCBD
274 \62 Benzol Pit.
^48 Quench Recycle
(11)(6) 40
84 189
92 100
135 289
10 8.7
8.5 8.0-8.5
<0.04 <0.03
51 84
150 164
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
(2) Sample contains wastewaters from benzol plant in addition to final cooler blowdowns.
(3) Sample contains wastewaters from benzol plant in addition to final cooler blowdowns, and is the runoff
to a sump following use as quench water.
(4) Flow consists of 82.5 GPT final cooler blowdown and 17.5 GPT of benzol plant wastewaters.
(5) Flow consists of 45.5 GPT final cooler blowdown and 107 GPT of benzol plant wastewaters and 296 GPT of
recycled quench.
(6) Non-representative sample for suspended solids, which were conveyed along the bottom of the sampling sluiceway.
-------
TABLE V-5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS (n
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN BENZOL PLANT WASTEWATERS
Reference Code
(2)
0920F
0684 F
Average
Plant Code
008
009
of 2
Sample Point(s)
D-(A+C)
G-A
-
Flow
, (Gal/Ton)
23.4
49.7
36.6
Suspended Solids
95
75
85
Oils & Greases
38
166
102
Amnonia (N)
366
187
276
Sulfide
-
79
40
Thiocyanate
264
239
252
Phenolic Compounds
127
455
291
pH (Units)
7.8
8.4-8.5
7.8-8.5
1
Acenaphthene
0.150
0.005
0.078
3
Acrylonitrile
2.07
1.45
1.76
4
Benzene
74. $
85.5
80.0
34
2,4-Dimethylphenol
5.97
ND
2.78
38
Ethylbenzene
0.654
<0.005
0.33
39
Fluoranthene
0.232
0.95
0.59
55
Naphthalene
5.31
27.5
16.4
64
Pentachlorophenol
ND
1.16
0.58
65
Phenol
75.8
40.0
57.9
(3)
Phthalates, Total
-
12.42
6.21
72
Benzo(a)anthracene
NA
1.20
0.60
76
Chrysene
-
1.49
0.75
77
Acenaphthylene
-
1.19
0.60
78
Anthracene
*
ND
*
80
Fluorene
0.195
0.175
0.185
81
Phenanthrene
*
ND
*
84
Pyrene
-
1.05
0.53
86
Toluene
10.1
11.5
10.8
130
Xylene
ND
145.0
72.5
114
Ant imony
-
<0.1
<0.05
115
Arsenic
-
0.055
0.028
117
Beryllium
<0.01
NA
<0.01
118
Cadmium
0.006
<0.01
<0.01
119
Chromium
0.005
NA
0.005
120
Copper
-
0.02
0.01
121
Cyanides
-
0.025
0.013
122
Lead
-
<0.05
<0.025
126
Silver
1.89
<0.02
0.95
NA:
Not analyzed.
ND:
None detected.
- : Calculation resulted in negative value for net concentration, and is equivalent to ND.
* : Compound could not be separated, but is present in sample.
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
(2) Concentration is calculated by difference from other sampling points.
(3) Value shown is the sum of all values for the following phthalates: 66 Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)
67 Butylbenxy1; 68 Di-n-butyl; 69 Di-n-octyl, 70-Diethyl and 71-Dimethylphthalate.
50
-------
TABLE V-6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS m
NET CONCENTRATION OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATERS FROM QUENCHING
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point(s)
Flow (Gal/Ton)
Suspended Solids
Oils & Greases
Ammonia (N)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
pH (Units)
117 Beryllium
121 Cyanides
191 Phenolic Cpds.
Fresh Water
Make-up
0384A
C
5-4
498
703
9.6
1.94
<0.02
<3
7.6
<0.04
4.0
1.46
Contaminated Water
Make-up
0384A
C
3-4
(2)
448
(3)
(11)
84
92
135
10
8.5
<0.04
51
150
(4)
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
(2) Sample contains wastewaters from benzol plant and from final cooler blowdowns.
(3) Flow consists of 45.4 GPT final cooler discharge, 107 GPT benzol plant waste-
water, and 296 GPT of recycled quenchwaters.
(4) Non-representative sample for suspended solids, which were conveyed along
the bottom of the sampling sluiceway.
51
-------
TABLE V-7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES STUDY
BEEHIVE COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATERS FROM QUENCHING
(1)
117
121
123
191
: Code
E
F
G
Average of
e Point(s)
3-5
l-(2+5)
1-C2+3+4)
3
(Gal/Ton)
490
490
123
368
Suspended Solids
165
29
713
302
Oils & Greases
<1
<1
3.7
<1.9
Ammonia (N)
0.27
-
-
0.09
Sulfide
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Thiocyanate
<3
<3
-
<2
pH (Units)
7.3
7.3
7.0-7.3
7.0-7.3
Beryllium
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
Cyanide
0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
Mercury
0.0031
-
0.0026
0.0019
Phenolic Compounds
0.011
<0.01
<0.002
<0.008
- : Calculation resulted in negative value for net concentrations, and is equivalent to ND,
(1) All values are'in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
52
-------
TABLE V-8
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELIENS STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN CRYSTALLIZER
BAROMETRIC CONDENSER WASTEWATER
Reference Code
0432B
Plant Code
A
Sample Point(s)
4-3
Flow, (Gal/Ton)
56.6
Suspended Solids
35
Oils & Greases
8.5
Amnonia (N)
0.27
pH (Units)
8.7
117 Beryllium
<0.02
121 Cyanide
138
191 Phenolic Compounds
2.72
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
53
-------
TABLE V-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANT
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY - EPA REGION V EDO
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS.IN
LARRY CAR SCRUBBER BLOWDOWNSU;
Reference Code
0584B
Flow
(Gal/Ton)
24.2
Suspended Solids
9218
Oils & Greases
17.5
Ammonia (N)
9.42
Sulfide
<0.25
Thiocyanate
<0.50
Phenolic Cpds.
7.54
pH (Units)
4.0
4
Benzene
0.050
34
2,4-Dimethylphenol
0.040
38
Ethylbenzene
<0.010
39
Fluoranthene
0.68
55
Naphthalene
0.27
65
Pheno1
1.72
68
Di-n-butyl phthalate
<0.010
72
Benzo(a)anthracene*
<0.64
73
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.31
75
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
0.40
76
Chrysene*
<0.64
77
Acenaphthylene
0.45
78
Anthracene*
<1.04
81
Phenanthrene*
<1.04
82
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
0.11
83
Indeno(l,2,3-dc)pyrene
0.18
84
Pyrene
0.55
54
-------
TABLE V-9
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANT
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY - EPA REGION V EDO
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS IN
LARRY CAR SCRUBBER BLOWDOWNS
PAGE 2
114 Antimony <0.001
115 Arsenic 0.244
117 Beryllium <0.010
118 Cadmium 0.010
119 Chromium 0.020
120 Copper 0.010
121 Cyanides 0.50
122 Lead 0.050
123 Mercury <0.001
124 Nickel 0.036
125 Selenium <0.005
126 Silver <0.006
127 Thallium <0.05
128 Zinc 0.09
(1) All values are in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
* Compound could not be separated, but is present in sample.
55
-------
TABLE V-10
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY - EPA REGION V EDO
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS m
IN PUSHING EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM BLOWDOWNSU'
Reference Code
Flow (Gal/Ton)
Suspended Solids
Oils & Greases
Ammonia (N)
Sulfide
Thiocyanate
Phenolic Cpds.
pH (Units)
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
24 2-Chlorophenol
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
37 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
39 Fluoranthene
44 Methylene Chloride
55 Naphthalene
65 Phenol
66 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67 Butyl benzyl phthalate
68 Di-n-butyl phthalate
69 Di-n-octyl phthalate
70 Diethyl phthalate
71 Dimethyl phthalate
72 Benzo(a)anthracene*
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
75 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
76 Chrysene*
77 Acenaphthylene
78 Anthracene*
79 Benzo(ghi)perylene
80 Fluorene
81 Phenanthrene*
82 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
83 Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
84 Pyrene
One-Spot Push
& Quench Car
0684F
70.0
2260
<1
2.15
<0.16
0.10
0.381
6.5
<0.010
<0.010
ND
ND
<0.010
0.011
0.017
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.013
Stationary Emission
Control System
0320
43.5
2032
2
0.51
<0.25
<0.50
0.33
4.6-7.1
ND
<0.010
0.020
ND
<0.010
<0.010
0.070
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.010
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.010
0.010
ND
<0.010
0.010
ND
ND
<0.010
56
-------
TABLE V-10
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY - EPA REGION V EDO
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
NET CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS ,,
IN PUSHING EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM BLOWDOWNSU
PAGE 2
One-Spot Push Stationary Emission
& Quench Car Control System
114
Antimony
NA
<0.001
115
Arsenic
NA
0.017
117
Beryllium
0.002
<0.010
118
Cadmium
0.003
<0.010
119
Chromium
0.147
0.010
120
Copper
0.238
0.020
121
Cyanides
0.235
0.015
122
Lead
0.09
0.010
123
Mercury
-
<0.001
124
Nickel
0.178
ND
125
Selenium
NA
0.010
126
Silver
<0.003
<0.006
127
Thallium
NA
<0.050
128
Zinc
0.164
0.060
(1) All values are in i
- : Calculation of net
make-up water.
* : Compound could not
ND: None detected.
NA: Not analyzed.
tg/1 unless otherwise
concentration yields
be separated, but is
noted.
negative number, d
present in sample.
to higher level in
57
-------
TABLE V-ll
SUMMARY OF PROCESS WASTEWATER FLOW RATES FOR
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
(All flows are listed in Gallons per Ton (GPT) of coke produced.)
Data Source
U1
00
Plant Sampling Visits Questionnaire Responses
Wastewater Sources Average of All Average of "Best" Average of All Average of "Best'
Waste Ammonia Liquor 36.1 (9) 31.2 (7) 41.1 (56) 22.8 (12)
Final Cooler Blowdown 39.6 (5) 7.5 (2) 49.3 (22) 4.4 (5)
Benzol Plant Wastes 39.6 (8) 23.4 (4) 47.5 (24) 17.2 (5)
Miscellaneous Wastes 35.0 (4) 20.2 (3) 87.7* (8) 18.3 (2)
Steam Condensates 11.7 (6) 9.4 (4) 9.5 (47) 8.0 (9)
Subtotal - Basic Flow 162.0 91.7 235.1* 70.7
Baro. Condenser Blowdown 56.6 (1)** 56.6 (1)** 27.6 (10) 1.4 (2)
Desulfurizer, wet 19.6 (2) 19.6 (2) 28.7 (6) 14.0 (2)
Air Pollution Control Blowdowns:
Preheaters and Dryers - - 66.5(6) 4.8(1)
Charging 14.8 (2) 5.4 (1) 198.0 (15) 4.8 (3)
Pushing 167.2 (3) 56.8 (2) 148.5 (15) 71.6 (3)
( ): Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of plants used in "average" calculation.
* : Flows include varying amounts of non-contact cooling water. Segregation would reduce flow shown.
** : Flow from a once-through operation.
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VI
WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Introduction
The originally promulgated regulation established limitations for
by-product cokemaking operations for ammonia-N, cyanides, oil and
grease, phenolic compounds, suspended solids, and pH. The Agency
found other pollutants in the wastewaters in significant quantities
(e.g., chlorides, sulfates, sulfides, dissolved solids), but did not
establish specific limitations for those pollutants.
Conventional Pollutants
In the originally promulgated regulation, the Agency established
limitations for three conventional pollutants (TSS, oil and grease,
and pH). Suspended solids originate, in part, as particles of
condensed tars, naphthalene crystals and bits of fine coal or coke
which are carried out with coke oven gas, and then subsequently
trapped in flushing liquor. An even larger load of suspended solids
results when lime is added to strip fixed ammonia out of wastewaters.
Unreacted lime is the major component of the suspended solids in
by-product coke plant wastewaters, while coke fines make up the bulk
of suspended solids in beehive wastewaters. Biological treatment of
cokemaking wastewaters also generates suspended solids.
Oils and greases are among the numerous products formed during the
destructive distillation of coal, along with the other organic
pollutants described below. These oils and greases are not the
typical lubricating oils found in other steel industry subcategories,
but are organic compounds which are extracted by the solvents used in
this analytical procedure.
The proposed limitations regulate wastewater pH routinely in all
subcategories, principally because of the environmentally detrimental
impacts which occur due to extremes in pH. By-product cokemaking
wastewater typically is alkaline in its raw state due high levels of
ammonia in solution. The pH is raised even further (to 10-12 standard
units) for ammonia distillation, thus the wastewaters require
neutralization prior to discharge.
Toxic Pollutants
Two of the pollutants which the Agency has traditionally established
limitations for in the steel industry are toxic pollutants (cyanide
and phenolic compounds). It should be noted that measurement of
phenolic compounds includes most of the toxic phenol-based compounds.
The Agency believes that by establishing limitations for phenolic
compounds, the levels of these toxic pollutants in the wastewaters are
controlled effectively.
59
-------
In addition, the Agency employed sophisticated analytical techniques
to evaluate the presence, absence, or magnitude of each of 115 organic
and 15 nonorganic toxic pollutant*? in the process wastewaters.
Most of the toxic pollutants found in by-product cokemaking
wastewaters are products of the destructive distillation of coal.
Additional sampling, specifically designed to provide data for the
toxic pollutants, confirmed the presence of 41 toxic organic and 14
toxic metal pollutants. Refer to Table VI-1 for a summary of all
toxic pollutants found in cokemaking wastewaters. Since the original
limitations required "no discharge of process wastewater pollutants"
from beehive operations, the Agency did not include them in the toxic
pollutant survey. The data presented for beehive cokemaking were
gathered during the original guidelines study.
Twenty of the toxic pollutants shown in Table VI-1 were observed at
relatively low concentrations (0.01 to 0.02 mg/1) at only one coke
plant. The overall list was shortened by deleting such pollutants.
The remaining 35 toxics appeared to be more characteristic of the raw
wastewaters from by-product cokemaking operations.
Based on their presence in untreated wastewaters from cokemaking, the
Agency considered establishing limitations for the following 29
organic and 6 nonorganic pollutants:
TOXIC ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Parachlorometacresol
Chloroform
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Pentachlorophenol
TOXIC METAL
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Pyrene
Fluorene
Toluene
Xylene
lNTS AND CYANIDE
Antimony Selenium
Arsenic Silver
Cyanide Zinc
The Agency found methylene chloride at high levels in all of the
wastewater samples from one plant. The Agency decided not to consider
proposing limitations for that pollutant since its detection probably
resulted from contamination while cleaning sampling devices or
laboratory glassware, and not from the cokemaking process. Also,
there is evidence that the phthalates found in certain samples might
60
-------
be an artifact of the sampling procedure which leached out of plastic
tubing used to collect samples automatically. However, as the
phthalates were also found in wastewater samples which were collected
manually, the Agency believes that it is a constituent of cokemaking
wastewaters. Refer to Table VI-2 for data on the individual
phthalates found in each by-product cokemaking sample. It should be
noted that where high pH and elevated temperatures tended to occur,
the highest levels of phthalates were found. These were raw and
intermediate level wastewater samples. But this was the case whether
the sample was collected automatically or manually, so even if
leaching occurred for automatic samples, high phthalates were found in
others where no contact with plastics occurred (e.g., Sample C at
Plant 008).
The Agency found that the six individual phthalates were present at
varying levels at the five coke plants, with no discernible pattern,
except that bis(2-ethylhexyl) and di-n-butyl were most often found,
and diethyl and dimethyl the least prevalent. But for a given plant,
(e.g., 009) diethyl or dimethyl phthalate could be found at higher
concentrations than the more common ones. As discussed later in this
report, removal of other toxic organics that are limited should insure
control of phthalates.
Other Pollutants
One other major pollutant, ammonia-N, has been universally found in
wastewater from by-product recovery cokemaking operations at extremely
high levels. The originally promulgated BPT regulation contained
Ammonia-N limitations, as does this proposed regulation. Ammonia is
found at high concentrations in raw by-product recovery cokemaking
wastewaters, is acutely toxic to aquatic life at relatively low
levels, and exerts a significant oxygen demand upon receiving streams.
The Agency considered establishing limitations for two additional
nontoxic pollutants: thiocyanates and sulfides. Thiocyanates are
present in coke plant wastewaters, and have a potential for breaking
down into cyanides and sulfides under proper conditions. Sampling
data obtained during coke plant visits provides a basis for
establishing limitations for thiocyanates. However, long term data
for existing treatment facilities also indicate that the level of this
pollutant is adequately controlled incidentally, when certain other
pollutants, for which the Agency is proposing limitations, are
adequately treated. The same is true of sulfides. Biological
treatment systems achieve sulfide levels of fractions of a mg/1.
Accordingly, the Agency is not proposing limitations for this
pollutant.
Additional wastewater characteristics and pollutants studied in
by-product cokemaking operations include acidity/alkalinity, aluminum,
barium, boron, calcium, carbon, chloride, cobalt, hardness, iron,
magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nitrate, potassium, silica, sodium,
solids (dissolved and volatile), sulfate, tin, titanium, vanadium and
ytterbium. These data are available in a supplement to this report.
Based upon levels of these pollutants found in cokemaking wastewaters,
61
-------
or their nontoxic characteristics, the Agency is not proposing
limitations for them.
Selected Wastewater Pollutants
The Agency is proposing limitations for those pollutants which it
considers to be most representative of the pollutants found in
cokemaking wastewaters. These pollutants are shown in Table VI-3.
These include the pollutants which were included in the original BPT
limitations, and for by-product cokemaking, three additional toxic
organic pollutants which are limited by the proposed BAT limitations.
The Agency recognizes that if it were to propose limitations for each
toxic pollutant shown above or in Table VI-1, the monitoring burden
and analytical costs that would be imposed on the industry would be
excessive. For this reason, the Agency reviewed analytical data to
determine if certain pollutants acted as "indicators" for groups of
other pollutants found in the wastewater. A specific discussion on
the use of "indicator" pollutants is found in Volume I. Based upon
its review, the Agency concludes that certain pollutants do act as
"indicators" for other pollutants. As the list of pollutants found in
the wastewater contains 6 volatile, 6 acid extractable and 17
base/neutral toxic organics among the 29 listed pollutants, benzene
was selected to indicate the presence of volatiles, the 4-AAP phenolic
compounds pollutants to indicate the presence of acid extractable, and
naphthalene and benzo(a)pyrene to indicate the presence of
base/neutral compounds. Available data indicate that effective
treatment for these indicator pollutants results in comparable
reductions or the elimination of the remaining 25 toxic organic
pollutants.
62
-------
1
3
4
20
21
22
23
24
34
35
36
37
38
39
44
54
55
57
60
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
65
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
By-product Cokemaking Operations
Pollutant Toxic
Pollutant
Pollutant
Parameter Number
Parameter
Acenaphthene
72
Benzo(a)anthracene
Acrylonitrile
73
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzene
75
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
2-Ch1oronaph thaiene
76
Chrysene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
77
Acenaphthylene
Parachlorometacresol
78
Anthracene
Chloroform
79
Benzo(ghi)perylene
2-Chlorophenol
80
Fluorene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
81
Phenanthrene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
82
Dibenzo(a,h)anthrancene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
83
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
1,2 Diphenylhydrazine
84
Pyrene
Ethylbenzene
86
Toluene
Fluoranthene
114
Antimony
Methylene Chloride
115
Arsenic
Isophorone
117
Beryllium
Naphthalene
118
Cadmium
2-Nitrophenol
119
Chromium
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
Pentachlorophenol
120
Copper
121
Cyanide
Phenol
122
Lead
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
123
Mercury
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
124
Nickel
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
125
Selenium
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
126
Silver
Diethyl Phthalate
127
Thallium
Dimethyl Phthalate
128
Zinc
130
Xylene
Beehive CokemakinK Operations
Phenol(191 Phenolic Cpds.)
121
Cyanides
Beryllium
123
Mercury
63
-------
TABLE VI-2
PHTHALATES FOUND IN BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING SAMPLES
#66
#67
#68
#69
#70
#71
Bis
Butyl
Plant
Sample
(2-ethylhexyl)
Benty 1
Di-n-butyl
Di-n-octyl
Diethyl
Dimethyl
Tenp
Code
No.
Source
Type
Phthalate
Phthalate
Phthalate
Phthalate
Phthalate
Phthalate
PH
°F
001
A
F
M
<0. 007
<0.007
0.004
0.003
ND
ND
7.2
40
B
F
H
<0.063
<0.003
<0.017
0.004
ND
1.23
7.2
41
C
R
M
ND
0.080
0.067
0.080
ND
1.23
7.3
81
D
R
A
0.122
0.117
ND
ND
0.143
0.307
7.6
67
002
A
F
M
ND
0.01
0.060
ND
ND
0.950
7.9
73
B
R
M
0.152
ND
1.713
0. 115
ND
ND
9.0
122
C
I
M
3.27
0. 993
0.130
0.008
ND
0.007
9.0
115
D
E
M
0.1B3
0. 600
1.080
0.007
ND
ND
8.9
101
003
A
F
M
<0.031
<0.003
<0.003
<0. 010
ND
ND
6.3
60
B
F
M
<0.121
<0.003
<0.003
0.005
ND
ND
7.0
54
C
R
M
1.81
0.127
ND
0.036
ND
ND
9.7
137
D
I
A
13.370
2.933
4.013
0.117
ND
ND
11.3
14 7
E
E
A
0.026
<0.046
0.019
0. 083
ND
0.018
7.4
69
F
E
A
<0.041
<0.007
<0.012
0.004
ND
ND
7.2
78
G
F
M
<0.011
<0.003
<0.003
ND
ND
ND
7.7
52
P
E
M
0.118
0.010
<0.010
<0. 010
<0.010
ND
7.2
64
008
A
F
M
0.013
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.6
88
B
R
H
0. 977
0.143
0.670
<0. 020
ND
ND
8.8
154
C
R
M
A. 600
0.510
3.463
4.333
ND
ND
10.6
200
D
I
M
0.488
0.200
0.283
0.263
0.220
2.503
9.5
143
E
E
A
1.669
<0.003
0.282
1.567
0.010
0.006
7.6
85
009
A
R
M
<0.010
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.7
79
B
I
M
0.185
ND
0.155
ND
0.142
0.370
8.6
142
C
I
M
0.750
ND
0.250
ND
0.650
3.500
8.7
121
D
I
M
0.450
ND
0.145
ND
0.457
2.850
8.7
119
E
1
M
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
ND
<0.005
<0.005
8.7
115
F
E
M
<0.010
ND
0.010
ND
<0.005
ND
9.0
198
G
R
M
ND
ND
2.913
ND
3.250
6.265
8.5
106
a
1
M
0.008
ND
0.105
ND
ND
0.279
9.8
95
I
I
M
0.013
ND
0.084
ND
0.100
<0.022
9.7
95
J
E
M
0.1%
ND
<0.005
0.135
<0.005
<0.005
9.9
92
Key to Saple Source
F - Fresh Hater Makeup (River, lake, or city water)
R - lav Wastewater - before treatment
I - Intermediate Wastewater - partially treated
E - Treated Effluent
Key to Sample Type:
M - Manually Collected
A - Automatically Collected
-------
TABLE VI-3
SELECTED WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
A. By-Product Recovery Processes:
Regulated in the Proposed For
Pollutant Originally Promulgated Regulation at
Parameter BPT Level BAT
Suspended Solids X X
Oil and Grease X X
Amnion ia-N X X
pH XX
4 Benzene X
55 Naphthalene X
73 Benzo(a)pyrene X
121 Cyanides, Total X X
191 Phenolic Compounds (4-AAP Method) X X
B. Beehive Process
Suspended Solids X X
Ammonia X X
pH XX
121 Cyanides, Total X X
191 Phenolic Compounds (4-AAP Method) X X
(1) For Beehive processes, BPT and BAT regulations require "no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants to navigable waterB." This in effect controls all potential
pollutants, not merely the five pollutants shown.
65
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
A brief summary of the treatment practices employed at all twelve
plants visited during this study demonstrates the variations in
treatment techniques employed in this subcategory. A summary of the
technology employed within the entire subcategory is also presented.
Included are descriptions of the control and treatment technology as
applied in cokemaking and more detailed discussions of technology used
to treat or control specific pollutants.
Summary of Treatment Practices Currently Employed
Wastewater treatment at beehive coke plants is relatively simple,
since the only waste flow requiring control is excess water applied
during coke quenching. Treatment consists of one or more
sedimentation basins to recover the coke fines, which are then
returned to the coking process. Water which overflows the basins is
recycled to extinction as quench water, with the result that no
wastewater is discharged.
For by-product coke plants, many factors influence the choice of
wastewater control and treatment alternatives. The many recovery
practices reported in Section III are indicative of the possible
combinations found in this subcategory. Similarly, the wastewater
control and treatment techniques practiced at operating coke plants
demonstrate variations unique to this subcategory, yet the best of
these tend to achieve similar quality effluent loads. These treatment
systems incorporate physical/chemical controls, biological treatment,
or combinations thereof. Some operators treat the wastewater
sufficiently to produce acceptable effluent quality prior to discharge
while others currently provide only limited pretreatment in order that
their wastes might be acceptable to local publicly-owned treatment
works. These latter discharges, although usually lower in flow,
contain considerably higher levels of pollutants than do the direct
effluent discharges, since additional treatment is provided at the
POTW. Sixteen by-product coke plants have attained zero discharge of
process wastewaters by disposing of wastewaters in quenching
operations or through oxidative incineration, but both practices have
limited potential for wide application because of the impact on air
quality.
A summary of the control and treatment technology currently practiced
at by-product cokemaking operations follows:
1. The by-product recovery system itself controls the level of
pollutants discharged since the by-products recovered would
67
-------
otherwise be part of the raw waste load if excess ammonia liquor
was discharged untreated. Recoveries practiced include:
a. Crude coal tar - coal tar from flushing liquor loops and
primary coolers is collected for resale or further
processing on or off-site. Crude coal tar is recovered at
all by-product coke plants.
b. Crude light oils - light oils are scrubbed from the coke
oven gas, recovered for resale, reuse as a solvent for
phenolics, or for further refining on or off-site.
c. Ammonia and ammonium compounds - free ammonia is steam
stripped from excess ammonia liquors at most plants. Of
those plants with ammonia stills, about half also recover
fixed ammonia by elevating the pH of the wastewaters with
lime slurry or caustic soda solutions. The liberated
ammonia is scrubbed back out of the coke oven gas stream
using sprays of sulfuric or phosphoric acid in an absorber
(semi-direct recovery, practiced at 46 plants), or by
scrubbing ammonia from gas with fresh water, which is
recirculated to produce concentrated ammonium hydroxide
(indirect recovery, practiced at 6 plants).
d. Phenol, phenolates and carbolates - between one-third and
one-half of operating coke plants practice dephenolization,
either by vapor recirculation or liquid/liquid extraction
with suitable solvents. In vapor recirculation, the steam
leaving the free leg of the ammonia still is scrubbed with
dilute caustic soda to form sodium phenolates. This steam
recirculates to the ammonia stills again for further
treatment and recovery. In solvent extraction, the benzol,
light oil, or other suitable solvent extracts phenolics
compounds from the wastewater, is separated and then the
phenolized solvent itself is extracted with the caustic.
Again, sodium phenolates separate out, and the dephenolized
solvent is reused in the recovery system.
e. Sulfur and sulfur compounds - eight of the larger coke
plants, representing 34% of the coke production capacity in
the United States, now practice desulfurization of coke oven
gas to clean the gas for subsequent reuse and to recover
elemental sulfur or sulfur compounds, e.g., ammonium
sulfate. Techniques developed include iron oxide boxes
using Fe203 on wood shavings; absorption and desorption with
soda ash; Wilputte vacuum carbonate system; Seaboard
actified solution system; Claus sulfur recovery systems; and
a Takahax absorption/Hirohax sulfur recovery system.
f. Naphthalene - This compound is recovered at about 70 percent
of the by-product coke plants. Crystals of naphthalene
condensed in the final cooler are recovered from the
recirculating final cooler wastewater by skimming,
filtration or centrifugation. Most of the plants'recovering
naphthalene take all crystals which solidify below 74°c
68
-------
(165°F). However, one plant cyrstallizes at temperatures
between 74C° and 79C° (165° to 174°F), and two plants
differentiate between naphthalenes solidifying above or
below 740c (165°F), and recover both fractions separately.
g. Other by-products - recovery of additional by-products is
normally related to the further refinement of products
recovered above in cruder mixtures, or in alternative
approaches to the basic recovery techniques which lead to
other forms. For example, instead of recovering ammonia as
a sulfate, phosphate, or hydroxide, one plant is designed to
convert ammonia into anhydrous ammonia, readily usable as
fertilizer or for other chemical processes. Specialized
recoveries at that same plant include cresols, cresylic
acid, and picolines.
2. Once these various levels of by-product recovery are
accomplished, contaminated wastewater remains which requires
treatment before discharge. Again, a variety of options exist
for each configuration found at by-product coke plants.
The general practice is described below:
a. Recovery of free ammonia from excess ammonia liquor only.
This step is considered to be by-product recovery, and is
not included in pollution control costs.
b. Dephenolization of weak ammonia liquor, benzol plant wastes,
and final cooler blowdowns in the physical/chemical system
only. As in the case of free ammonia stills, this step is
considered to be by-product recovery, and is not included in
costing. Where dephenolizers exist at plants with
biological treatment systems, they are usually inactive.
c. Sedimentation of dephenolized wastes, miscellaneous
wastewaters and once-through crystallizer wastewaters, if
any, in a settling pond.
d. Recycle of coke quenching wastewaters to extinction, with no
runoffs. Makeup to quench system is fresh water only, or
fresh water plus air pollution emission control scrubber
blowdowns, if any.
3. Biological Treatment
a. Assuming the above starting point, the first additional step
is the addition of a fixed leg to the ammonia still, with
provision for adding a lime slurry or caustic soda solution
and additional steam. This step effectively strips more
ammonia from wastewaters. The resulting high pH wastewaters
are again neutralized with acid. A few bio-oxidation
treatment plants omit stripping fixed ammonia, and use a two
or three to one dilution to bring ammonia down to a level
which will not inhibit biological activity. However, this
69
-------
practice results in excessive flows and higher pollutant
loads in plant effluents.
b. A single stage activated sludge bio-oxidation system is
provided to treat neutralized still wastes. Dephenolizers
are often abandoned at this point, since biological
treatment tends to control phenolic compounds effectively
even in a single stage system. Aeration is provided by
mechanical agitation or through the use of large blowers.
c. Advanced bio-oxidation systems incorporate a second stage of
biological treatment, or provide for extended oxidation in
one stage. The sludge (organisms) in the two stage system
may be collected and recycled separately at each stage, or
collected after the second stage and recycled to the first
aeration basin as practiced at plant 003. The effluents
from these multi-stage biological reactors are further
treated by sedimentation in a clarifier and, where
necessary, pH adjustment. A possible sequence involves
phenol removal in the first of three stages, cyanide and
ammonia oxidation to nitrites and nitrates in a second
stage, then denitrification in a final stage prior to
aeration and discharge. Systems observed during the field
surveys incorporate single stage and two stage bio-oxidation
reactors. All used varying degrees of dilution water,
although several operate without dilution for months at a
time. Also, a noncontact cooling system has been installed
at one plant to control temperature, a critical factor in
treatment plant operations. As a result, dilution water has
been essentially eliminated at this plant.
As an alternate to the above systems, a single stage
activated sludge system can be operated with high sludge age
to produce comparable effluent quality. This alternative
would not require any major capital modifications to the
biological systems currently installed in the industry.
However, changes in operating practice will be required. At
this time sufficient data is not available to fully assess
the feasibility of single-stage activated sludge systems.
The Agency will be evaluating data from several pilot
studies and from a full-scale system to determine whether
single-stage biological systems should be used as a basis
for establishing BAT limitations.
d. A system which adds powdered activated carbon to a single
stage bio-oxidation system is currently being tested to
determine the degree of effluent reduction attainable.
Benefits are anticipated in improved organic and solids
removals, elimination of an otherwise objectionable color
from plant effluents, enhanced oxidation and nitrification
rates, and increased stability under shock loads.
e. A final polish by filtration provides significant
improvement in total suspended solids removal. Deep bed,
70
-------
mixed media pressure filter systems are demonstrated in this
application.
4. Physical/Chemical Configuration
a. Assuming the level of treatment described in Paragraph 2,
including a dephenolizer, the first level of additional
technology includes a fixed leg on the ammonia still with
provisions for adding lime slurry and additional steam to
strip fixed ammonia from the wastewater. Since a high pH
results from this treatment, neutralization with acid must
be provided before the treated wastes are discharged.
Miscellaneous process wastes are sometimes rerouted to pass
through both stills and the dephenolizer.
The addition of a fixed ammonia still to the operation of a
well designed and operated dephenolizer can produce
effluents of sufficient quality to meet the proposed BPT
1 imitations.
b. Several possible options exist at this point for those
plants which do not have biological treatment systems. One
potential route for plants discharging as point sources is
toward adsorption of organics on activated carbon. Before
this can be accomplished at a reasonable cost, certain
preliminary steps must be carried out as follows:
(1) Flows must be minimized wherever possible. Barometric
condensers on crystallizers should be recycled, with
4-6% blowdown to treatment. Final cooler recycle loops
should be tightened, and miscellaneous wastewaters
should be reduced to minimum flow through prevention of
leaks, and spills.
(2) The wastewaters from the settling pond or sedimentation
unit are filtered to remove the suspended solids and
any tars or floating material which may remain, and are
then passed through activated carbon columns. The
resulting effluent is discharged. Filtration is
accomplished most effectively by deep bed, mixed media
pressure units, although other filtration alternatives
are available.
c. An alternative preliminary treatment sequence prior to
adsorption on carbon would provide aggressive oxidation
using chemicals such as chlorine, chlorine dioxide, sodium
hypochlorite, ozone, or peroxides to destroy organic
pollutants, ammonia and cyanides. The acid addition in step
4(a) above would be relocated. A typical sequence using
chlorine would include aeration; aggressive oxidation at
high pH (alkaline chlorination); neutralization, using the
relocated acid addition equipment from above; breakpoint
chlorination; suspended solids removal by sedimentation or
filtration; and a final polish by passing the wastewater
through activated carbon columns.
71
-------
d. Plants which discharge wastewaters to publicly-owned
treatment works currently practice an intermediate level of
treatment. For example, one such plant visited during this
survey used aggressive oxidation with chlorine to provide
batch treatment of excess ammonia liquor prior to discharge.
Treatment is carried out only to the degree that the
wastewater is acceptable to the regional sanitary authority.
Most plants discharging to POTWs, including the one
mentioned above, do not provide sufficient pretreatment to
prevent discharge of pollutants which interfere with, pass
through, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations.
5. Incineration/Evaporation Configuration
a. Another alternative approach to coke plant waste disposal is
practiced at at least two plants, and was planned for a
third plant. All of the wastewaters from the coke plant are
distilled and incinerated in controlled combustion systems.
Coke oven gas and crude coal tar are the only by-products
recovered, and no wastewaters are discharged to receiving
streams or to sanitary authorities. The system is viable
only where the impact on air pollution can be tolerated, and
therefore has very limited potential for widespread
application.
b. Other plants achieve zero or near zero discharge of
pollutants from by-product cokemaking operations by
disposing of the process wastewaters in coke quenching. An
adverse impact on air pollution occurs as a result so this
alternative is expected to gradually decline as a solution
to the problem of wastewater disposal. The nature and
magnitude of pollutant emissions from quenching operations
have been the subject of extensive study both here and
abroad. Tests were conducted comparing emissions from
plants using 100% fresh water make-up with those from plants
with treated and/or untreated process wastewaters for
make-up. At least one researcher conducted tests on the
same quench stations using fresh and contaminated make-ups
while maintaining other conditions as constant as possible.
Researchers have concluded that typical "dirty water" quench
stations release more than twice as much particulates; four
times as much benzene-soluble organics; more than twice as
much benzo(a)pyrene; and, nearly nine times as much benzene
to the surrounding atmosphere than do the same operation
using "clean water" for make-up.
c. Since by-product coke plants must continuously dispose of or
otherwise eliminate water originally locked up as moisture
in coals, the only likely approach to zero discharge from
coke plants would be to require treatment of process
wastewaters to an extent where their use for coke or slag
quenching would not affect air quality. This level of
treatment would approximate the more advanced stages of
biological or physical/chemical systems described above as
applicable to point source dischargers. The critical
72
-------
pollutant mitigating against the use of well-treated
wastewaters for quenching is dissolved solids, since such
solids become airborne particulate as the water evaporates.
Since the capital and energy requirements for removing
dissolved solids from coke plant wastewaters are high, most
plants will have to attain a treated wastewater quality
which is suitable for direct discharge to a receiving
stream, or for indirect discharge through a POTW.
Control and Treatment Technologies for BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
Of the various control and treatment options available for treatment
of by-product cokemaking wastewaters, the Agency has selected the
following model treatment system to achieve the proposed limitations.
The model system incorporates the following treatment steps.
The first step involves minimizing process wastewater flows.
Barometric condenser or crystallizer wastewaters are recycled with a
minor blowdown (4%) to treatment. Air pollution emission control
scrubber loops are recycled at high rates. Blowdown from the
preheating and charging are treated in the BPT system, while blowdowns
from coke-side scrubbers are settled and then used to replace dilution
waters at the biological treatment system.
For the BAT, BCT and PSES model treatment systems, a second or
extended stage of biological treatment is added. For costing purposes
separate aeration, sludge recycle components and clarifiers were
considered. The vacuum filter originally installed to treat clarifier
underflows at the BPT level of treatment is modified to handle the
additional sludge from the BAT system. A final polishing from the
second clarifier overflow is provided by filtration to control
carryover of suspended matter and any toxic organics entrained in the
suspended solids. This combination of treatment components provides
more complete removal of toxic organic pollutants while also
minimizing the discharge of particulates and toxic metal pollutants.
One alternative to achieve further reduction of toxic organic
pollutants involves the addition of powdered activated carbon to the
activated sludge, thereby further enhancing organic and color removal.
Using the biologically treated wastewater for coke quenching may
achieve a "no discharge of process wastewater" condition, but is not
universally applicable because of adverse impacts on air quality.
The NSPS and PSNS model treatment systems incorporate most of the BAT,
BCT and PSES model treatment system components, although in somewhat
different order. Flow minimization occurs earlier, since it can be
incorporated into initial plant designs without regard for existing
treatment components in place. Also, an advanced ammonia and cyanide
stripping system is available which can provide somewhat lower levels
in the wastewater sent to the biological systems. The addition of
powdered activated carbon is a possible alternative for NSPS and PSNS.
The disposal of treated wastewater by quenching is not considered to
be appropriate for new sources for the reasons cited above.
Beehive cokemaking operators can achieve zero discharge as set out in
the proposed BPT limitations by recycling all of the settling basin
73
-------
overflows back to quenching operations. This control and treatment
technology is readily available to serve as a basis for BAT, BCT, or
NSPS limitations for the beehive segment of the cokemaking
subcategory. Since beehive cokemaking operations are located in areas
remote from POTWs, and it is highly unlikely that new beehive
operations will be built, the Agency is not proposing pretreatment
standards for beehive cokemaking.
Plant Visits
Nine by-product coke plants and three beehive coke plants were visited
during this study; four by-product and all beehive plants during the
spring of 1973, and the remaining five by-product plants ^during 1977
and 1978. Table VII-1 provides a key to the symbols used in Tables
VII-2, 3 and 4 and other tables to describe control and treatment
technology. Tables VII-2 through VII-4 present raw and effluent gross
waste concentrations and loads for each plant studied during the two
surveys. A brief description of each wastewater treatment system
follows. More details are available on the wastewater flow diagrams
as indicated by a figure for each plant visited.
Plant A - Figure VII-1
Excess ammonia liquor, final cooler blowdown, and benzol plant wastes
are subjected to free ammonia stripping, then to dephenolization by
the solvent extraction technique. Dephenolized liquors are conveyed
to a settling sump, then to the receiving stream. Barometric
condenser water discharges direct to the receiving stream without
treatment. Quench runoffs are recycled to extinction. Only fresh
water is used for quench makeup.
Plant B - Figure VII-2
Excess ammonia liquor is collected and equalized (five day retention);
diluted 3:1 with noncontact cooling water from light oil coolers;
blended with phosphoric acid, antifoam and steam; treated in a
single-stage aerated activated sludge lagoon (8 hour retention);
clarified; and discharged to the receiving stream. The bulk of the
sludge is recirculated, with minor blowdown of sludge to a sewage
treatment plant. Final cooler blowdown and benzol plant wastewaters
are diluted 1:2 and are disposed of by coke quenching. Quench waters
are recycled to extinction. Coke wharf drainage is collected and
impounded in a lagoon with no outlet.
Plant C - Figure VII-3
Excess ammonia liquor is dephenolized by light oil extraction;
stripped of free and fixed ammonia; settled (two to three hour
retention); and discharged to a POTW for further treatment. Final
cooler blowdown and benzol plant wastewaters are used as makeup for
coke quenching. Quench runoff and coke wharf drainage is recycled to
extinction at quench stations. At least one quench station uses fresh
water makeup only.
74
-------
Plant D - Figure VII-4
Excess ammonia liquor is conveyed to a desulfurizer tower; filtered
(ceramic media); dephenolized by solvent extraction; stripped of free
and fixed ammonia; diluted (88:1) by a cooling water stream; and,
discharged to the receiving stream. Quench stations use fresh water
makeup only, with no discharge.
Plant 001 - Figure VII-5
Excess ammonia liquor is equalized; stripped of free ammonia;
dephenolized by vapor recirculation; diluted (85:1) with cooling water
and other wastewater flows; and discharged to a receiving stream.
Final cooler blowdown is diluted at 2:1 and disposed of by coke
quenching. Quench runoff recycles to extinction. The installation of
adsorption by activated carbon following chlorination was under
construction at the time of the survey.
Plant 002 - Figure VII-6
Excess ammonia liquor and final cooler blowdown is dephenolized by
extraction with light oils; chlorinated on a batch basis under
alkaline conditions; settled; and, discharged to a POTW. Blowdowns
from a quenching car scrubber system and fresh water are used as
makeup for coke quenching, which is recycled to extinction.
Plant 003 - Figure VII-7
Excess ammonia liquor and miscellaneous wastewaters are equalized;
diluted; stripped of ammonia and cyanides by an advanced free and
fixed still system; treated in two step (or extended) bio-oxidation
lagoons with aeration, clarification, secondary settling, oil
skimming; and, discharged to terminal treatment lagoon with other
steel plant wastewaters. The final effluent is discharged to a
receiving stream. Final cooler wastewaters are recirculated with no
blowdown; noncontact cooling water is recycled over cooling towers and
used as the sole makeup to all quenching operations. Excess quench
water is recycled to extinction.
Plant 008 - Figure VII-8
Excess ammonia liquor is routed through free and fixed ammonia stills;
blended with benzol plant wastewaters; equalized; cooled; treated in
parallel (only one stage operating during survey) bio-oxidation
reactors; flocculated with alum and polymer; settled; and, discharged
to a receiving stream. Quenching stations use only fresh water for
makeup and have no discharge.
Plant 009 - Figure VII-9 (Physical/chemical system)
Excess ammonia liquor from three coke plants (one off-site) is mixed;
passed through a gas flotation unit (with a side stream through
dephenolization); mixed media filtration; adsorption on activated
carbon; and, free and fixed ammonia stripping. Benzol plant
wastewaters from two plants are mixed; passed through gas flotation;
75
-------
mixed media filtration; and, adsorption by activated carbon prior to
disposal in coke quenching.
Plant E Figure VII-10
Coke quench runoffs are treated "once-through" in simple settling
ponds, with no provision for recycle.
Plant F - Figure VII-11
Coke quench runoffs are collected in a settling basin. The overflows
are recirculated to quench stations with no aqueous discharge from the
plant.
Plant G - Figure VII-12
Coke quench runoffs are collected in primary settling ponds, further
ciarfied in secondary settling ponds, and are recycled to quench
stations. There is no wastewater discharge from this plant.
Summary of Analytical Data
A review of data on Tables VI1-2 through VI1-4 shows that certain
bio-oxidation and carbon adsorption systems are effective in reducing
toxic organic pollutants to low levels from by-product cokemaking
operations, and that the total recycle of wastewater in beehive
cokemaking operations effectively controls discharges from these
plants.
Biological systems have been used for treating cokemaking wastewaters
for a number of years, with the removal of phenolic compounds as a
primary goal. Although a great deal of information is available on
the performance of activated sludge units in controlling phenolic
compounds, the development of data regarding toxic pollutants other
than phenolic compounds and cyanides has only recently been
undertaken. Even less operating data for toxic organic pollutants are
available from full scale activated carbon adsorption treatment plants
since, thus far, only two companies have installed and operated such
technology. EPA sampling surveys demonstrated that either technique
can eliminate more than 90% of all toxic organic pollutants present in
coke plant wastewaters, although the biological systems have certain
operating cost advantages.
Originally, advanced levels of treatment using biological systems were
expected to involve multiple stages for accomplishing selective
degradation of pollutants in series, e.g., ammonia and cyanide
removal, nitrification and denitrification. The two bio-plants
surveyed for toxic pollutant removals (Plants 003 and 008) were
effectively controlling toxic pollutants using a single stage (008) or
two identical stages in series (003). Plant 008 has begun using its
second stage since it was originally surveyed. Overall removal of
toxic organic pollutants averaged better than 90% with phenolic
compounds, naphthalenes, benzo(a)pyrenes, acenaphthylenes and xylenes
being reduced at a rate greater than 99%. Chloroform appeared to be
76
-------
the major organic toxic pollutant which persists in the final
effluents, at concentrations of 0.2 mg/1. Measurable amounts of
benzene and toluene also remain, even though the systems have removal
efficiencies of 96.7% or better. Excessive concentrations of these
two pollutants were originally present in raw wastewater, thus even
very effective removal efficiencies still leave behind measurable
residues. Despite the continued presence of fractions of a milligram
per liter for a limited number of organic pollutants, activated sludge
systems proved to be very effective in controlling toxic organic
effluents from coke plants.
Data for one of the full-scale carbon adsorption systems is presented
wherever Plant 009 is discussed. These data demonstrate uniformly
good removal efficiencies for most of the toxic organics. Exceptions
include chloroform (which proved to be refractory to biological
treatment also), and acrylonitrile, which was reduced by 74.3% but
still appeared at a concentration of 0.19 mg/1 in the effluent. Poor
removal efficiencies for ethylbenzene and parachlorometacresol are
primarily due to their extremely low concentrations in untreated
wastewater, <0.002 and 0.007 mg/1 respectively. In general, field
sampling at Plant 009 demonstrates the effectiveness of activated
carbon adsorption for treating toxic organic pollutants.
Comparison of Data
As mentioned above, the availability of long-term data for many of the
toxic pollutants is limited. However, considerable data are available
for pollutants such as phenolic compounds (4-AAP), cyanides,
ammonia-N, oil and grease, and suspended solids. Table VI1-5 compares
the long-term data for those pollutants, as reported by two plants,
with short-term results observed during EPA sampling surveys at the
same sampling point. Note that short-term data are within one
standard deviation of the long-term mean at both plants for most of
the pollutants measured when long-term means are based on 50 or more
observations. The only occurrences where short-term values are more
than two standard deviations from the long-term mean are for copper
and lead analyses for Plant 009, and in these instances the
"long-term" mean is based on only six observations. The more critical
toxic pollutants, cyanide, and phenolic compounds, were all measured
during EPA surveys at levels within one standard deviation above or
below the long-term mean for those pollutants.
77
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
Symbols
Operating Modes
1. OT
2. Rt,s,n
Once-Through
Recycle, where t
s
n
type waste
stream recycled
% recycled
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
3. REt,n
Reuse, where t = type
n = % of raw waste flow
t: U " before treatment
T = after treatment
4, BDn
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
73
-------
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
D.
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 ¦ type
t: L ¦ Lime
C ¦ Caustic
A » Acid
W ¦ Wastes
0 ¦ Other, footnote
79
-------
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 - 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)
80
-------
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 e Nitric Acid
A ¦ Anhydrous
P = Phosphate
H = Hydroxide
0 = Other, footnote
59. DSt Desulfurization, where t e 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
01
-------
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. DV 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
82
-------
TABLE VII-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKSHAKING OPERATIONS
Raw Veetewater»
00
Uf
Rcfirtnce Code
Plant Code
S*apU Point(s)
Flow (Gal/Ton)
Sutpeaded Sol Ida
Oil I Grease
Anaunia-N
Su 1 f i tie •
Thiocy«uatta
pH (Unit®)
II?
131
123
191
Berylliiss
C/iniJei
Mercury
Phenolic Cpds.
117
121
123
191
fterylliusi
Cyanide#
Mercury
Phenolic Cpds.
Treated Effluents
Sample Point(s)
Flow (Gat/Ton)
ttTT
Suspended Solid#
Oil 4 Crease
A—nnia-N
Sulfides
Thiocyanatas
pR (Unite)
0432B
0112
03B4A
0272
4*5^ "
nj«>
1>
D
1
Average of 4
139
127
134
21.6
105
Sill
lb/1000 lb
»k/i
lb/1000 lb
•ttZl
lb/1000 lb
BUll
lb/1000 lb
lb/1000 lb
24
0.0139
36
0.0191
129
0.0721
30
0.00270
55
0.0270
21
0.0122
240
0.127
93
0.0520
147
0.0132
125
0.0511
1564
0.907
1137
0.602
1729
0.966
3715
0.335
2036
0. 703
8.9
0.00516
629
0.333
152
0.0849
183
0.0165
243
0.110
112
0.0649
231
0.123
28.4
0.0159
128
0.0115
125
0.0538
9.4
~
8.3
-
8.1
-
8.7
-
8.1
1-9.4
<0.02
<0.000012
<0.02
<0.000011
<0.04
<0.000022
<0.02
<0.00002
<0.025
<0.000012
101
0.05S5
114
0.0604
61.8
0.0345
145
0.0131
105
0.0416
0.004
0.000002
0.0009
*
0.0007
*
0.0008
*
0.0016
0.000001
448
0.260
354
0.187
358
0.200
708
0.0638
467
0.178
2«4"'
2
2<2)
2
156
108
40.6
28.8
ASF,DP,SB
E,
SOA-l.QD
DP,ASL,QD
DSN, OP, ASL
S&ZI
lb/1000 lb
¦K/l
lb/1000 lb
•s/i
lb/1000 lb
¦K/l
lb/1000 lb
5
0.00325
I63(J)
0.0734
102
0.0173
537{J)
0.0645
3.4
0.00221
2.5
0.00113
19
0.00322
12.4
0.00149
797
0.518
957
0.431
388
0.0657
114
0.0137
0.71
0.000462
0.26
0.000117
113
0.0191
91
0.0109
29
0.0189
12.5
0.00563
64
0.0108
88
0.0106
8.6
-
7.5
-
9.5-
11.8
11.7
-
<0.02
<0.000013
<0.02
<0.000009
<0.04
<0.000007
<0.02
<0.000002
95
0.0618
3.77
0.00170
68
0.0115
124
0.0149
0.0005
*
0.0012
*
<0.0008
*
<0.0008
*
1.32
0.000859
0.064
0.000029
219
0.0371
5.13
0.000616
NAs Not analysed
* i <0.000001 lb/1000 lb
(1) Tl»e sj/1 values represent concentrations which would be present in the combined
(2) Plant discharges to a P0TV.
(3) No sediswntation provided.
NOTES For definition of C&TT Codes see Table VII-1
-------
TABU VII-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
BY-PRODUCT 00 REMAKING OPERATIONS
Raw Wastewaters:
Reference Code 0732A 0464C 0868A 0920F 0684F . .
Plant Code OOL. 002 003 008 . , Oil. Average of V '
Saaple Point(a) C+DV' B C B*(D-Cr ' B+CU'
Flow (Gal/Ton) 51*2* ' 35.9 27.8 55.8 96.7 54.1
¦g/1
lb/1000 lb
¦g/1
lb/1000 lb
¦g/1
lb/1000 lb
¦g/1
lb/1000 lb
¦g/1
lb/1000 lb
¦g/1
lb/1000 lb
Suspended Solids
177
3.80
14
0.00210
80
0.00927
61
0.0142
86
0.0347
60
0.0151
Oil ( Greaae
27
0.579
82
0.0123
184
0.0213
113
0.0263
126
0.0508
126
0.0277
A»onia-R
111
2.38
5067
0.759
2387
0.277
2696
0.627
4109
1.66
3565
0.831
Phenolic Cpda.
9.08
0.195
702
0.105
626
0.0726
734
0.171
1067
0.430
782
0.195
Sulfide*
2.8
0.0600
1833
0.274
439
0.0509
528
0.123
515
0.208
829
0.164
Ttii ocyanatea
26
0.557
1245
0.186
592
0.0686
383
0.0891
453
0.183
668
0.132
pH (Units)
e.
9-7.9
9.
0-9.1
9.
6-9.8
8.
8-11.7
8.
4-8.6
6.
9-11.7
3
Aerylsnitrile
0.021
0.000430
4.67
0.000700
ND
HD
2.81
0.000654
.745
0.000300
2.06
0.000414
4
Benxene
13.2
0.283
2.83
0.000424
27.2
0.00315
34.2
0.00796
45.6
0.0184
27.5
0.00748
21
2,4, 6-Trichlorophenol
ND
ND
0.400
0.000060
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.100
0.000015
22
Parachloronitrolcresol
ND
ND
4.33
0.000648
ND
HD
ND
ND
0.007
0.000003
1.08
0.000163
23
Chlorofona
ND
ND
<0.003
*
1.37
0.000159
0.275
0.000064
0.0321
0.000013
0.420
0.000059
34
2,4-D»ethyl phenol
ND
ND
83.7
0.0125
5.33
0.000618
2.34
0.000544
ND
ND
22.8
0.00342
35
2,4-Dini trotoluene
0.529
0.0113
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
36
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
0.138
0.00296
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
38
Ethylbenzeoe
ND
ND
0.297
0.000044
0.640
0.000074
0.336
0.000078
<0.003
*
0.319
0.000049
39
Fluoranthene
0.018
0.000386
0.977
0.000146
3.13
0.000363
0.975
0.000227
0.588
0.000237
1.42
0.000243
54
Isophorooe
0.055
0.00118
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.002
*
ND
ND
<0.001
*
55
Naphthalene
1.92
0.0412
10.6
0.00159
28.9
0.00335
22.7
0.00528
27.5
0.0111
22.4
0.00533
60
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
ND
ND
0. 967
0.000145
ND
HD
ND
ND
0.0440
0.000018
0.253
0.000041
64
Pent ach1orophenol
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0. 788
0.000318
0.197
0.000080
65
Phenol
3.09
0.0663
666
0.0997
327
0.0379
240
0.0558
78.9
0.0318
328
0.0563
(3)
Ibthalates, Total
1.06
0.0227
1.98
0.000296
2.30
0.000267
1.05
0.000244
6.80
0.00274
3.03
0.000887
72
Benco(a)anthracene
0.002
0.000043
<0.007
•
ND
HD
0.008
0.000002
0.617
0.000249
0.158
0.000063
73
Benso(a)pyreoe
0.001
0.000021
0.513
0.000077
ND
ND
0.115
0.000027
0.109
0.000044
0.184
0.000037
76
Chrysene
0.001
0.000021
0.287
0.000043
ND
ND
0.124
0.000029
0.805
0.000325
0.304
0.000099
77
Acenaph thylene
0.017
0.000365
3.20
0. 000479
6.37
0.000738
2.78
0.000647
2.66
0.00107
3.75
0.000734
80
Floorene
0.029
0.000622
0.770
0.000115
2.47
0.000286
0.488
0.000114
0.267
0.000108
1.00
0.000156
84
Pyrene
0.004
0.000086
0.817
0.000122
2.63
0.000305
0.414
0.000096
0.617
0.000249
1.12
0.000193
86
Toluene
1.88
0.0403
0.910
0.000136
8.92
0.00103
5.45
0.00127
6.13
0.00247
3.35
0.00123
130
Xylene
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.000002
<0.01
*
ND
ND
101
0.0407
25.3
0.0102
114
Ant iaony
<0.004
<0.00009
0.033
0.000005
NA
NA
0.138
0.000032
0.246
0.000099
0.139
0.000045
115
Arsenic
0.005
0.000107
0.267
0.000040
KA
NA
0.382
0.000089
0.133
0.000054
0.261
0.000061
121
Cysnldes
3.29
0.0705
21.5
0.00322
22.3
0.00259
16.6
0.00386
28.5
0.0115
22.2
0.00579
125
Seleniua
<0.003
<0.00006
0.457
0.000068
NA
NA
1.03
0.000240
0.066
0.000027
0.518
0.000112
126
Silver
<0.025
<0.00054
<0.025
<0.000004
<0.001
*
0.074
0.000017
<0.020
<0.000008
<0.03
0.000008
128
Zinc
0.218
0.00467
0.241
0.000036
0.130
0.000015
0.271
0.000063
<0.100
<0.00004
0.185
0.000039
-------
TABLE VII-3
SUMUKY OF ANALYTICAL DATA fHOH SAMPLED PLAWTS
TOUC POLLUXAHT SURVEY
BT-PRODOCT GOKXMAKING OPERATIONS
PAGE 2
Treated Effluent*
Reference Code 0732A 0464C
Plant Coda 001 002
8mple Point(») D D
Flow (Gal/Ton) 5072 35
CtTT ASF, DP DP,CLA
n/l
lb/1000 lb
mfi
lb/1000 1
Suspended Sol Ida
179
3.79
6
0.000898
Oil 6 Creaae
27
0.571
40
0.00599
Anonia-H
112
2.37
4875
0.730
Fhenolic Cpda.
7.8
0.165
84.1
0.0126
Sulfidea
3
0.0634
1730
0.259
Thiocyanatea
26
0.550
1048
0.157
pH (Onita)
6.9-7.9
8.1
9-9.0
3
Acrylonitrile
RD
RD
3.00
0.000449
4
Benzene
12.8
0.271
120
0.0180
21
2,4,6-Tricblorophenol
RD
RD
HD
RD
22
Parachloroaetacreaol
RD
RD
RD
HD
23
Chlorofora
RD
HD
RD
RD
34
2,4-Dia ethyl phenol
RD
RD
RD
RD
35
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
0.510
0.0108
RD
RD
36
2,6-Sini trotolneae
0.137
0.00290
RD
HD
38
Ethylbenzena
RD
RD
4.40
0.000659
39
Flooranthene
0.003
0.000063
0.503
0.000075
54
laophorone
HD
RD
0.167
0.000025
55
naphthalene
1.40
0.0296
5.87
0.000879
60
4,6-Dinitro-o-creaol
RD
RD
RD
HD
64
Pentachlorophanol
RD
RD
RD
HD
65
Phenol
2.30
0.0486
52.8
0.00790
(3)
Hi thai at at, Total
0.689
0.0146
1.87
0.000280
72
Benso(a)anthracene
RD
HD
HD
HD
73
Benzo(a )pyra»a
HD
HD
0.013
0.000002
76
Chrysene
¦D
RD
0.095
0.000014
77
Ace naph thylane
0.013
0.000275
1.60
0.000240
80
Fluorena
0.027
0.000571
0.190
0.000028
84
Pyrene
0.003
0.000063
0.277
0.000042
86
Toluene
1.67
0.0353
10.3
0.00157
130
Xylene
RD
RD
25.4
0.00380
114 Aatlaony
11} Annie
121 Cjraaidea
123 Selaaita
124 Silver
128 Zinc
<0.004 <0.00008
0.005 0*000106
0.72 0.0132
<0.003 <0.00006
<0.023 <0.0005
0.220 0.00465
0.041 0.000006
0.140 0.000021
16.2 0.00243
0.633 0.000093
<0.023 <0.000004
0.126 0.000019
0868A
003
E
201
ASC,BQA2,CL,SB, SS
mg/l
39
0.0327
4
0.00335
0.77
0.000645
0.028
0.000023
<0.3
<0.00025
<0.9
<0.00075
7.4-7.5
HD
HD
<0.060
<0.00005
RD
HD
0.064
0.000054
<0.281
<0.00024
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
RD
0.039
0.000033
0.008
0.000007
RD
HD
HD
RD
HD
HD
HD
RD
<0.013
<0.000012
0.192
0.000161
<0.002
<0.000002
0.013
0.000011
<0.006
<0.000005
<0.007
<0.000006
<0.010
<0.000008
0.026
0.000022
0.040
0.000034
HD
RD
HA
HA
HA
HA
2.34
0.00196
HA
HA
<0.002
<0.000002
<0.060
<0.00005
0920F
008
E
139
ASL,E,CT, BOAl.CL
43
0.0249
8
0.00464
127
0.0736
0.056
0.000033
0.21
0.000122
0.84
0.000487
7.5-7.0
RD
RD
<0.257
<0.00015
RD
RD
HD
RD
0.203
0.000118
RD
RD
HD
RD
HD
RD
0.014
0.000008
<0.003
<0.000002
RD
RD
<0.003
<0.000002
RD
HD
RD
RD
0.040
0.000023
3.54
0.00205
0.027
0.000016
HD
HD
0.010
0.000006
<0.003
<0.000002
<0.003
<0.000002
0.007
0.000004
0.073
0.000042
HD
HD
0.133
0.000077
0.403
0.000234
2.45
0.00142
0.650
0.000377
<0.010
<0.000006
0.087
0.000030
0684 F
wWc«
96.7
DP,CP, FDSP, ACC, ASF
lb/1000 lb
30 0.0121
9 0.00363
213 0.0859
0.755 0.000304
527 0.213
397 0.160
8.8-9.9
0.190 0.000077
<0.010 <0.000004
RD HD
<0.003 *
0.045 0.000018
RD HD
RD RD
RD RD
<0.007 <0.000003
<0.007 <0.000003
HD HD
<0.005 <0.000002
<0.005 <0.000002
0.025 0.000010
0.048 0.000019
0.188 0.000076
<0.005 <0.000002
<0.002 *
<0.005 <0.000002
<0.005 <0.000002
<0.005 <0.000002
<0.007 <0.000003
<0.007 <0.000003
<0.005 <0.000002
<0.22 <0.00009
0.149 <0.00006
22.5 0.00907
0.034 0.000014
<0.020 <0.000008
<0.003 <0.000002
lb/1000 lb ng/1 lb/1000 lb »g/l
-------
TABLE VII-3
SUMHAR"? OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEt
BY-PRODUCT COREMAKING OPERATIONS
PACE 3
FOOTNOTES?
ND: None detected.
NA: Not analysed.
* I <0.000001 lb/1000 lb.
(1) The ag/1 values represent concentrations which would be present in the combined wastewaters.
(2) Average does not include sanples froo plant 001 because of the presence of over 5000 GPT non-contact cooling water in aixed sanples.
(3) Values shown are the ata of all ag/1 in lb/1000 lb for the following phthalates: 66 Bis-(2-ethylhe*yl)j 67 Butylbenzyl;
68 Di-n-butyl; 69 Di-i*-octyl; 70 Diethyl and 71 Diaethyl phthalate.
(4) Effluent is the sua of direct discharge F and treated wastewater J which is disposed of by quenching.
(5) Plant discharges to POTW for further treatment.
NOTE: Pot definition of C6TT Codes, see Table VIl-l.
CO
cr>
-------
TABLE VII-4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES STUDY
BEEHIVE COKEMAKING OPERATIONS
Raw Biitmtiti
Plane Coda
E
F
G
Average of 3
Saaple Point(*)
3
1
1
-
Flow (Gal/Ton)
490
490
123
368
ag/1
lb/1000 lb
lb/1000 lb
mg/1
lb/1000 lb
mg/1 lb/ 1000 lb
Suapandad Solids
165
0.337
65
0.133
937
0.481
389 0.317
Oils and Graasas
0.8
0.00163
0.9
0.00184
S.2
0.00421
3.3 0.00256
Aononia-N
0.33
0.000674
0.37
0.0007S6
0.43
0.000221
0.38 0.000550
Sulfide
<0.02
<0.00004
<0.02
<0.00004
0.18
0.000092
0.07 0.000057
Thioeyanate
<3
<0.006
<3
<0.006
7
0.00359
4 0.00520
pH (Units)
7.
.3
7,
.3
7.0-7
.3
7.0-7.3
<0.00003
0.000414
0.000005
0.00393
Suspended Solids
36
0.0736
36
0
210 0
Oils 6 Greases
0.2
0.000410
0.8
0
3.9 0
Amonia-N
0.20
0.000410
0.67
0
0.44 0
Sulfide
<0.02
<0.00004
<0.02
0
0.14 0
Thioeyanace
<3
<0.006
<3
0
12 0
pH (Units)
7.1
7.3
6.8-7.1
lerylliua
<0.02
<0.00004
<0.02
0
<0.02 0
Cyanides
0.004
0.000008
0.049
0
2.62 0
Mercury
0.002
0.000004
0.0028
0
0.0018 0
Phenolic Cpds.
0.014
0.000029
0.132
0
24.2 0
117
121
123
191
Beryllium
Cyanides
Mercury
Phenolic Cpds.
Treated Effluents
Saaple Poine(i)
Flow (Gal/Ton)
C4TT
<0.02
0.005
0.0044
0.016
l/l
<0.00004
0.000010
0.000009
0.000033
4
490
SB
lb/1000 lb
<0.02
0.035
0.0016
0.073
<0.00004
0.000072
0.000003
0.000149
<0.02
2.27
0.0044
22.6
<0.00001
0.00116
0.000002
0.0116
SB.RTP100
¦g/1 lb/1000 lb
PSP,SB.RTP100
ag/1 lb/1000 lb
<0.02
0.77
0.0035
7.56
NOTE: For definition of CiTT Codea, see Tabla VII-1.
37
-------
TABLE VII-5
DATA COMPARISON - PLANT LONG-TERM VS. SAMPLING VISIT
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
Plane, Location
& Par Meter
Saaple Data Base
Frequency Number
Max.
Concent rat ions
(i)
Min.
Mean
Standard
Deviation
EPA Sanplea
Nmber
(2)
Withio(3)
1 Std. Dev.
Within
Range
(4)
003: (0868A) 21 Montha of Data
Biotreatment Plant Clarifier Overflow:
¦g/1
88
0. 72
0.076
0.028
CD
CO
• «r*"M -•» -
Aanocii a-N, ag/1
Weekly
87
233
0.1
21.5
44.7
3
0.77
X
X
Cyanides, ag/l
Weekly
86
7.64
0.05
1.47
1.21
3
2.34
X
X
pH (Unit.)
Weekly
86
8.5
6.1
7.4
0.4
3
7.4-7.
5
X
X
Settling Basin Effluent (including untreated aide streams):
Phenolic Cpda., ag/l
Weekly
90
5.46
0.015
0.246
0.689
3
0.058
X
X
AMonia-N, ag/l
Weekly
90
71.4
4.10
17.0
12.6
3
3.33
-1.08
Below
Cyanide., ag/l
Weekly
90
5.03
0.036
0.664
0.573
3
0.511
X
X
pH (Dnita)
Weekly
90
10.7
6.6
7.8
0.6
3
7.2-7.
,4
X
X
Oil a ( Create., ag/l
Weekly
90
17.7
1.0
4.9
3.8
2
4
X
X
009: (0684F) 5 to 12 Months of Data
Treated Effluent to liver:
Phenolic Cpda., ag/l
Weekly
50
2.88
<0.01
0.185
0.505
1
0.217
X
X
Aaaonia-li, ag/l
Weekly
51
8450
9.9
544
1270
2
290
X
X
Cyanidea, ag/l
Weekly
51
250
0.28
23.8
36.2
2
12.8
X
X
pH, (Unita)
Weekly
43
13.6
7.6
10.7
1.7
2
8.8-9,
.0
X
X
Oils 6 Grease, ag/l
Weekly
50
23
2
5.6
3.7
2
10
+1.19
X
Suspended Solids, ag/l
Weekly
50
224
6
41.8
39.9
2
59
X
X
Dissolved Solids, ag/l
Weekly
50
30,124
1,406
14,677
5,996
2
15,875
X
X
Teaperature, *F
Weekly
21
198
164
185
8.4
2
198
+1.55
X
Cadaiw, ga/1
Monthly
5
0.059
0.004
0.031
0.020
2
0.04
X
X
Copper, ag/l
Monthly
6
0.101
0.056
0.078
0.017
2
0.03
-2.82
Below
Lead, ag/l
Monthly
6
0.134
0.082
0.110
0.020
2
0.19
+4.00
Above
(1) Data were reported in plant reaponaea to D-DCP questionnaires.
(2) Data were collected during 2 or 3 days of sampling at each plant.
(3) X indicates EPA value is within one standard deviation of plant's long-term aean value. A nunber in this colmn indicates
that the EPA value is that a any standard deviations above or below the plant's long-term aean value. Plus aeana above,
and ainus, below.
(4) X indicates EPA value is within the long-tens aaxiatn and ainiaua values atated by the plant. If the EPA value is outaide
that range, the word "above" or "below" indicates direction.
-------
PROCESS: BV PRODUCT COKE MANUFACTURING
PLANT:
EXCESS
PRODUCTION: 4.612 METRIC TONS COKE/DAY
(5065 TONS COKE/DAY)
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
16.4 l/SEC
(292 GPM)
APPROX. 2 l/SEC
(30 GPM)
9.0 l/SEC
(142 GPM)
9.5 l/SEC
(150 GPM)
11.4 l/SEC
(180 GPM)
10.7 l/SEC
(170 GPM)
RECOVERED
SOLVENT
(-RECOVERED
SOLVENT
EXTRACT
EXTRACT
< >
.SOLVENT RECOVERY
STILL
— SOLVENT RECOVERY
STILL
SOLVENT
STRIPPER
SOLVENT
STRIPPER
AMMONIUM
SULFATE
CRYSTALtZER
HOT WELL
CTA VACUUM
STILL
CTA VACUUM
STILL
CRUDE TAR
ACIDS
CRUDE TAR
ACIDS
Naphthalene
air slurry _
j >
RECYCLE SOLVENT
RECYCLE SOLENT
RAFFINATE
RAFFINATE
1 '
13 l/SEC
(200 GPM)
SLOWDOWN
WATER
MAKE-UP
WATER „
DEPHENOLIZED
LIQUOR
22 l/SEC
(350 GPM)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKE PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
TO SEWER
SUMP
N° I
AMMONIA
STILL
AMMONIA
STILL
D--D
NAPHTHALENE
SKIMMER
BASIN
FINAL
COOLER
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
STORAGE
LIGHT OIL PLANT
WASTE H20
(NO light oil refining)
COOLING
TOWER
-------
VO
o
Fresh Ammonia
Excess Liquor
Approx. 5 Day
Retention
r-Non-Contact Make-Up
c Cooling Woter Water —
AMMONIA LIQUOR
STORAGE
3,785,000 Liters
(1,000,000 go I.)
To Sewer
LIGHT OIL
COOLERS
-5.2 l/sec
(83.3 gpm)
Cooling
Woter —t
15.8 l/sec
(250 gpm)
FINAL COOLER
PROCESS;BY-PRODUCT COKE MANUFACTURING
PLANT: B
PRODUCTION 4,036.2 MetricTons Coke/Day
(4,450 Tons Coke/Day)
Ant' FoQm
Steom
Phosphoric Acid
BLENDING
SUMP
- 21 l/sec
(333 gpm)
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
AERATION
SYSTEM
984,100
liters
(260,000
gal.)
COOLING
TOWER
Oil to
Fuel Tanks<
£
OIL
SEPARATOR
FINAL COOLER
8L0WD0WN
TANK
• Oxygen from
Surface Aerators
"Benzol Plant
Wastewater
—19.5 l/sec
(309 gpm)
BENZOL AND
FINAL COOLER
WASTEWATER
HOLDING TANK
3,785,000 liters
1,000,000 gal.)
> Service
Water
>
WHARF
<
>— Intermittent
t Flow
LAGOON
— 2/3 of woter requirments
—1
12.9 l/sec
(204 gpm)
Recycled
Sludge
33.9 l/sec
(538 gpm)
CLARIFIER
Waste Sludge
Effluent
IT
21 l/sec
1333.3 gpm)
0.06 l/secl
(I gpm)
No discharge during
sampling period.
t To Sewage Plant
To Storm
Sewer
Yearly Average
*2085 l/metric ton of coke
(500 gal/ton of coke)
QUENCH
STATION
it:
SETTLING
BASIN
1/3 of woter
requirements
Make-Up Water
A SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKE PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RD 4/2 7/76
FIGURE2H-2
-------
PROCESS: BY PRODUCT COKE MANUFACTURING
plant: C
PRODUCTION: 5399.4 METRIC tons coke/day
(5953 TONS COKE/OAY)
FRESH WATER
NHj TO
ABSORBER
PHENOLIZED—
LIGHT OILS
NoOH
WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
8.5 l/SEC
<135 GPM)
NH
LIME
COKE
415 l/SEC
(690 GPM]
STEAM
SODIUM
PHENOLATE
DEPIIENOLIZED
LIQUOR
AMMONIA
STILL
LIGHT OILS
CoO
TREATED EFFLUENT TO
SANITARY AUTHORITY
«—A"
10.6 l/SEC (168 GPM)
FIXED
LEG
WHARF
QUENCH
STATION
N° 2
SETTLING
BASIN
CAUSTIC
SCRUBBER
FORMS
SODIUM
3HEN0LATE
LIME
FREE
LEG
PHENOL
REMOVAL
LIME SETTLING BASIN
DETENTION TIME 2.5 MRS.
FINAL COOLER
BLOWDOWN
LIGHT OIL RECOVERY
WASTE WATERS
38.8 l/SEC
EACH
(615 GPM)
EACH
COKE
WHARF
QUENCH
STATION
SETTLING
BASIN
/\SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY PRODUCT COKE PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RD4-26-78
FIGURE3ZH-3
-------
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
STORAGE
SOLVENT
DECANT
2 84 l/SEC
(45 GPM)
DEPHENOLIZED-
WATER
COOLER
DESULFURIZER
TOWER
CERAMIC
FILTERS
/\—* ">FPI
HENOLIZER"
BACKFLUSH
DECANTER
AMMONIA TO
AMMONIUM SULFATE
PRODUCTION
~
process: by proouct coke manufacturinc
plant: d
PRODUCTION: 2721 METRIC TONS COKE/DAY
(3000 TONS COKE/DAY)
FREE a FIXED
AMMONIA
STILL
—
ONCE THROUGH
COOLING WATER
329.36 l/SEC
(5220 GPM)
t
STE AM LIME SLURRY
Service water sample A PLANT OUTFALL
taken in lime slurry make~up 333 17 |/SEC
(5260 GPM)
-AMMONIA STRIFPER EFFLUENT
3.79 l/SEC
(60 GPM)
o.eo
SOLVENT
RECOVERY
-~SODIUM PHENOLATE
TO PHENOL REFINER
SOLVENT
STORAGE
TANK
A
SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKE PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RD 4-25^8
FIGURE W-4
-------
River Intake
401 l/sec (6350 gpm)
t. o..-or0(juc,s piont
To
\
'
PUMP
HOUSE
PROCESS:BY-PRODUCT COKE MAKING
PLANT: 001
PRODUCTION- 1482 Metric Tons Coke/Day
(1634 Tons Coke/Day)
j—100 l/sec
I (1590 gpm)
t— 5.0 l/sec
j (80 gpm)
-9.1 l/sec
(145 gpm)
4-
-r&S—i-
nh3 liquor
COOLERS
LIGHT OIL
SEPARATOR
WASH OIL
COOLERS
OTHER
NON-CONTACT
COOLING
FINAL
COOLER
COKE QUENCH
STATION
-123 l/sec
11950 gpm)
-0.5 l/sec
18 gpm)
-44 l/sec
(700 gpm)
< >-
-186 l/sec
(2950 gpm)
-105 l/sec
(1670 gpm)
EXCESS NH3
LIQUOR
4.1 l/sec
(65 gpm)
FREE NH3
STILL
DEPHENOLIZATION
TOWER
o 17 l/sec
,, (270 gpm)
4.2 l/sec-
(67 gpm
HOT OIL
DECANTER
-Ar
t
363 l/sec
(5,755 gpm)
(0
-~ To Receiving
Stream
-1.3 l/sec
(20 gpm)
-3.8 l/sec
(60 gpm)
EXHAUSTERS
A SAMPLING POINT
(I) Only 2.6% of this total effluent is process water.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCTS COKE-MAKING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
DWN.8-B-77
FIGURE 3nr-5
-------
PROCESS1 BY-PRODUCT COKE MAKING
PLANT 002
PRODUCTION: 545 Metric Tons Coke/Day
(601 Tons Coke/Day)
- COLLECTING
MAIN
Dirty Gas Flow
OOWNCOMER
56.8 l/sec (900 gpm)
During quenching only
COKE OVENS
PRIMARY COOLER
FLUSHING
LIQUOR SYSTEM
EXHAUSTER
QUENCHING STATION
0.95 l/sec
(15 gpm)
~ Tar for further
processing off-site
TAR PRECIPITATOR
Quenching car
scrubber blowdown
DEPHENOLIZER
0.95 l/sec
(15 gpm)
VA\—»
WATER BATH
SETTLING SUMP
ALKALINE (Cl2)
CHLORINATION
0.95 l/sec
(15 gpm)
Fresh water make-up
from lake———
To potw via sanitary sewer
(3 or 4 5000 gal. batches
of treated effluent/day)
FINAL COOLER
A SAMPLING POINT
26.8 l/sec-
(425 gpm)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Final cooler blowdown
0.13-0 19 l/sec
12-3 gpm)
Clean gas to boilers
and ovens
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKE-MAKING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
DWN.8-0-77
-------
PROCESS BY-PRODUCT
PLANT: 003
production; 3574 metric tons coke/day
(3940 TONS COKE/DAY)
COKE
I SUPPLEMENTAL MAKE-UP SOURCE
A. 21.8 l/SEC
' 10.1 l/SEC
6PM)
MAKING
34.7 l/SEC
(550 GPM)
p, TO COKE QUENCHING
(RECYCLED TO EXTINCTION)
HOLDING
TANK
COOLER
21.5 l/SEC
(340 GPM)
I ^-UPSTREAM CREEK
24.6 l/SEC
(390 GPM)
l/SEC
GPM)
COOLER B
INTERMITTENT
OVERFLOW-NORMALLY
l/SEC 0 GPM
STEAM CONDENSATE
12.6 l/SEC—^
(200 GPM)
22.1 l/SEC
(350 GPM)
MISC. WASTEWATER
FROM COAL PILE
STORAGE, AND
RUNOFFS
NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
FROM EXHAUSTERS, BOOSTERS 8 MISC.
HOT
WELL
38-76 l/SEC
(600-1200 GPM)
COOLING
TOWER
18 PRIMARY COOLERS
(NON-CONTACT)
FRESH WATER
ADDED TO
OPTIMIZE
BIOXIDATI ON
475 /SEC ,
GPM)
SETTLING
POND
MISC
LIME
SLURRY
BIOXIDATlOJ
FINAL
COOLERS
TORA
COLLECTION
LA600N
»l
OIL SKIMMER
BASIN
BALANCING
TANK
38 lAec
(600 gpm)
BtOXIOATICN
LAGOON
*2
1.9 Usee
(30 GPM)
233 l/SEC
(3700 GPM)
ALL OTHER
PLANT
WASTEWATERS
COOLING
TOWER
FLUME
EXCESS NH LIQUOR
FROM FLUSHING SYSTEM
PUMP
STATION
284,000-575,000 l/DAY
75,000-152,000 GAL/DAY
CLARIFIER
34.7 l/SEC
(550 GPM)
PRIME INDUSTRIAL
TO BY-PRODUCT
65.3 l/SEC (1035 GPM)
WATER
SLUDGE TO
SANITARY FILL*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUDY
BY PRODUCT COKEMAKING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
TOTAL PLANT
EFFLUENT
TO
RECEIVING 4
STREAM
TERMINAL TREATMENT LAGOON
789 l/SEC
(12,500 GPM)
CWN 3/2/78
GUREim-7
REV. 9/7/76
-------
River
Discharge
4
- 25.1 l/sec
(397 gpm)
DISCHARGE])
SUMP
Automatic
LIFT
STATION
Manual
PROCESS: BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
PL ANT; 008
PRODUCTION: 3742 Metric Tons Coke/Day
14126 Tons Coke/Day)
Evaporation
% 1.26 l/sec
\ (20 gpm)
BIO-OXIDATION
POND
(Active Cell)
BIO-OXIDATION
POND
(Inactive Cell)
BENZOL
PLANT
J
I River Water
Make- Up
4.22 l/sec
(67 gpm)
Excess
Ammonia Liquid
AMMONIA
STILL
76 l/sec
(123 gpm)
<— 5.87 l/sec
/ (93 gpm)
^ J /b\~~ Rqw Ammonia
Liquid
1.26 l/sec
(20 gpm)
i.63 l/sec
(10 gpm)
Steam
Lime
EQUALIZATION
TANK
14.3 l/tec.
(227 gpm)
Coal Yard
Drain Plus Mill
Service Water
COOLING
TOWER
4-z^t9"
12.0 l/sec-J
(190 gpm)
LIFT
STATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RD4-23-78
FIGURE2H-8
-------
/&\ RAW SERVICE WATER
STREAM A
EXCESS
Ntl3
LIQUOR
0.9 l/SEC.
RAW
WASTE
STORAGE
DISSOLVED
GAS
FLOTATION
DE PHENOL IZER
(140 GPM)
STREAM B
BENZOL
PLANT
WASTES
9.3 l/SEC.
RAW
WASTE
STORAGE
DISSOLVED
GAS
FLOTATION
(148 GPM)
PROCESS: BY-PRODUCT COKE MAKING
PLANT: 009
PRODUCTION: 3889 METRIC TONS COKE/DAY
<4288 TONS COKE/DAY)
{X}-»
NC
TO QUENCH
STATION
NON-CONTACT
COOLING
WATER
OUT FALL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PROUCTS COKE MAKING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
DWN 8/17/7 8
FIGURE "2H-9
MIX - MEDIA
FILTERS
AMMONIA
STILL
ACTIVATED
CARBON
MIX- MEDIA
FILTERS
ACTIVATED
CARBON
-------
PROCESS: BEE HIVE COKE MANUFACTURING
PLANT: E
PRODUCTION: 907 METRIC TONS COKE
PER DAY
(1000 TONS COKE PER DAY)
QUENCH WATER
30.7 J?/SEC
(486 GPM)
QUENCHED AT
OVENS
HOT COKE
COKE OVEN
BATTERIES
QUENCH WATER
QUENCH STATION
EFFLUENT FLOW
21.5 JP/SEC
(340 GPM)
PUMP HOUSE
-------
PROCESS: bee hive coke manufacturing
plant: f
PRODUCTION". 907 METRIC TONS COKE
PER DAY
(1000 TONS COKE PER DAY)
HOT COKE
+ QUENCHED COKE
QUENCH WATER DISCHARGE
21.5 i/SEC.
(340 GPM)
ELEVATED HOLDING
CLEAR WELL
TANK
¦f RAM COOLING WATER
INTERMITTENT LOW FLOW
APPROX. .13 J?/SEC.
(2 GPM)
RECYCLEO QUENCH WATER
30.7 j?/SEC.
(486 GPM)
MAKE-UP WATER
9.2 P/SEC
(146 GPM)
RAM COOLING WATER
INTERMITTENT LOW FLOW
APPROX. .I3J?/SEC.
t 2 GPM)
RAW WATER HOLDING TANK
PUMP STATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BEE HIVE COKE PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RAW WATER SUPPLY \
/\ SAMPLING POINTS
RD4/25/7E
FIGURE 331-1
QUENCH STATION
COKE OVENS
«-2tr SETTLINg BASIN
-------
o
o
PRIMARY
SETTLING
PONO
PRIMARY
SETTLING
POND
MAKE-UP WATER
6.8i P/SEC. (108 GPM)
DURING QUENCHING
(4-5 HRS./DAY)
COKE QUENCH WATER
COKE OVEN BATTERY (=138 OVENS)
COKE QUENCH WATER
PROCESS BEE HIVE COKE MANUFACTURING
PLANTS G
PRODUCTION: 558.7 METRIC TONS COKE
PER DAY
1616 TONS COKE PER DAY)
COKE QUENCH WATER
£
COKE OVEN BATTERY (s:l38 OVENS)|4
HT
COKE QUENCH WATER
FINAL
SETTLING
FLOW
SURGE
POND
POND
)—2$r
MAKE-UP WATER
MAKE-UP
WATER
PUMP
STATION
RECYCLED QUENCH WATER
15.9 JP/SEC (252 GPM)
DURING QUENCHING
(4-5 HRS./DAY)
RECYCLED QUENCH WATER
22.7 P/SEC (360 GPM)
DURING QUENCHING
(4-5 HRS./DAY)
/\ SAMPLING POINTS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BEE HIVE COKE PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RD.4/25/7i
FIGURE 3ZIH2
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Introduction
This section presents the estimated costs of applying the various
alternative wastewater treatment systems. The analysis also considers
the energy requirements and nonwater quality impacts (including sludge
disposal and by-product recovery) associated with complying with the
proposed BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS limitations and
standards.
Many of the basic components of the various model treatment systems
are presently in use. In addition, as there are many possible
combinations and variations of the treatment systems available which
may achieve the proposed limitations and standards, not all plants
will be required to add all of the treatment system components (or
incur all of the incremental costs indicated) to bring facilities into
compliance with the proposed limitations. Estimates of the capital
investment required to bring all by-product and beehive coke plants
into compliance with the proposed BPT and BAT limitations are
presented in this section.
Costs for Actual Treatment Plants
Serving Bv-Product Coke Operations
The water pollution control costs reported for plants visited during
this study are presented in Tables VIII-1 and VII1-2 for by-product
and beehive operations, respectively. The individual treatment
systems, gross effluent loads, and reductions achieved are described
in Section VII. The Agency estimated the costs of compliance from
data supplied for the plants (all costs converted to July 1978
dollars). Standard cost of capital;and depreciation percentages were
used so that these basic costs would be comparable from plant to
plant.
In general, the costs varied primarily with increasing sophistication
of treatment systems, and secondarily with the size of the treatment
system. The three biological oxidation plants (1, 0@3, and 008) have
lower annual costs than do physical/chemical systems, especially
energy and chemical costs.
Table VII1-3 provides a comparison of actual industry costs vs EPA
estimated costs for facilities in-place at seven biological and five
physical/chemical plants. Of the 12investment and 11 annual costs
which can be compared, the cost estimates based on the models were, in
most cases, higher. This is usually the case because some plants are
not treating the entire raw wastewater load but are disposing of
portions by quenching or discharging without treatment. This practice
allowed plants to have smaller facilities than those costed by the
101
-------
Agency for its model treatment system which is designed to treat the
entire raw wastewater flow.
Footnotes to Table VII1-3 provide information relating to other
factors which contributed to the cost differences observed. Overall,
model-based estimates are 15% higher than the industry's capital costs
and 5.2% higher than the industry's annual costs. The Agency
concludes that its model-based estimates accurately reflect the actual
costs which will be incurred by the industry. As a whole, cost
estimates based upon models are sufficiently generous to cover all
initial actual investment costs including land acquisition and
clearing, retrofitting new systems to old production facilities, and
other site specific costs as well as the cost of capital equipment.
For beehive operations, capital and annual costs reported for three
operating plants proved to be a small fraction of model-based
estimates, primarily because the model includes a standard allowance
for roadways, fencing and buildings associated with wastewater
treatment, while the actual beehive plants either do not have such
components, or do not report such costs. For beehive operations, the
wastewater treatment components could usually be provided at low cost.
For example, plant E installed a settling basin for less than $7,000
by using the natural contours of their site and a small earthen dike.
The model estimate for the basin, including site preparation and
excavation, would be about $36,000. In every case, model costs are at
least four times greater than actual plant cost for beehive cokemaking
operations.
Control and Treatment Technology (C&TT)
Recommended for Use in Cokemaking Operations
The control and treatment technology (C&TT) in use or available for
use for cokemaking operations is presented in Tables VIII-4 and
VIII-5. It should be recognized that this regulation, when
promulgated, will not require the installation of these C&TT steps.
Any other alternative treatment system which achieves the limitations
are acceptable. In addition to listing the treatment methods
available, Tables VIII-4 and VIII-5 also present the following
information:
1. Status and reliability
2. Problems and limitations
3. Implementation time
4. Land requirements
5. Environmental impact other than water
6. Solid waste generation
The levels of treatment, their respective costs, the pollutants
removed, and the energy requirements and nonwater quality impacts
associated with those levels of treatment are discussed below.
102
-------
A. Treatment Costs
1. Proposed BPT Effluent Limitations
a. By-Product Cokemaking Operations
Certain steps which result in the reduction of
pollutants in the wastewater are commonly practiced for
the purpose of by-product recovery, and thus are not
considered wastewater treatment technologies.
Accordingly, these steps are not costed as wastewater
treatment systems. Free ammonia stripping and
dephenolization of the raw wastewaters fit this
description, since their primary aim is the recovery of
ammonium salts and sodium phenolates. Refer to Table
VII1-6 for BPT model treatment component costs.
The Agency has calculated costs for facilities in-place
at each by-product cokemaking plant, and has estimated
the costs of the model system components which are
required to enable individual plants to achieve the
proposed BPT limitations (see Table VIII-7). The
Agency identified two plants (0684F and 0732A) as
employing physical/chemical systems because of the
presence of key components (full scale activated carbon
systems) while all other plants have been costed as
biological treatment systems. The Agency believes the
estimated BPT costs are reasonably accurate on the
basis of the favorable cost comparisons shown in Table
VI11-3. Table VIII-7 presents plant-by-plant model cost
estimates of facilities in place and required to attain
BPT. Industry-wide capital and annual costs associated
with the attainment of the proposed BPT limitations are
summarized in Table VII1-8.
b. Beehive Cokemaking Operations
The model BPT treatment system consists of collecting
all quenchwater runoffs in a settling pond, and then
recycling all pond overflows to the quenching station.
A "no discharge" condition results. Refer to Table
VII1-8 for cost information. Note that no additional
expenditures are necessary for beehives to achieve com-
pliance with the proposed BPT limitation.
2. Proposed BAT limitations
a. By-Product Cokemaking Operations
The initial capital investment and annual operating
costs for a typical 3600 TPD by-product coke plant are
shown in Table VIII-9. Applying these model costs to
all operating cokemaking plants results in a total BAT
capital cost of over 57 million dollars for BAT
Alternative No. 1, 64 million dollars for BAT
103
-------
Alternative No. 2 and 38 million dollars for BAT
Alternative No. 3. Of these totals, approximately 12
million dollars have already been spent, with about 4
million dollars being spent for the two
physical/chemical treatment plants. Annual operating
costs for the BAT alternative treatment systems are
approximately 9 million dollars for BAT Alternative No.
1, 24 million dollars for BAT Alternative No. 2, and 7
million dollars for BAT Alternative No. 3 respectively.
About 105 million dollars of annual costs are required
at the proposed BPT level of treatment.
b. Beehive Cokemaking Operations
Since beehive plants have achieved the proposed BPT
limitation of no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants, no additional technologies need be applied.
No additional investment costs are incurred, and annual
operating costs are the same as that for the BPT level
of treatment.
3. Proposed BCT Limitations
a. By-Product Cokemaking Operations
Section 304(b)(4) of the Act requires that certain
"conventional" pollutants be controlled by BCT
limitations. The only "conventional" pollutants
limited by the proposed BPT limitations for by-product
cokemaking are TSS, oil and grease, and pH.
BCT controls involve an industry/POTW cost comparison
test. Reference is made to Volume I for a complete
description of the BCT cost test.
A summary of the incremental costs of removing TSS and
oil and grease with three BCT alternative treatment
systems described herein appears in Table VIli-io. As
shown, costs in dollars per pound of TSS and oil and
grease removed are less than equivalent costs for POTW
treatment of these same wastes. Note that all BCT
alternatives pass the cost test, and thus are
considered to treat conventional pollutants at
reasonable cost. For additional information on BCT,
refer to Section XI.
b. Beehive Cokemaking Operations
Since zero discharge is the proposed BPT limitation for
beehive cokemaking, the proposed BCT limitation is also
zero discharge.
104
-------
4. Proposed NSPS
a. By-Product Cokemaking Operations
Model costs have been developed for two NSPS
alternatives. A new source must design and install the
most effective demonstrated control and treatment
technology available. Biological systems have
demonstrated an ability to control the widest variety
of pollutants. It is, therefore, the model treatment
system for new sources. Refer to Table VI11—11 for
NSPS model costs covering by-products cokemaking.
Since this study did not include projections of
industry capacity additions, no industry-wide
projections are attempted here.
b. Beehive Cokemaking Operations
Refer to Table VIII-12 for NSPS costs applicable to
beehive cokemaking operations. Technology is identical
with the BPT model treatment system which achieves zero
discharge of pollutants by total recycle. It is
considered very unlikely, however, that any new beehive
cokemaking source will be constructed due to the
dominance of by-product cokemaking and the severe
impact on air pollution from beehive operations.
5. Proposed Pretreatment Standards
a. By-Product Cokemaking Operations
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are
identical with the NSPS described above, and
consequently, costs are the same as those shown in
Table Vlll-n. The alternative treatment systems
considered by the Agency for Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources are the same as the BAT Alternative
Nos. 1 and 2. Costs for these alternatives are
presented in Table VIII-13.
b. Beehive Cokemaking Operations
As noted earlier, since the remaining beehive
cokemaking operations are located in areas remote from
POTWs, and it is very unlikely that any new beehive
operations will be built, the Agency is not proposing
pretreatment standards for beehive cokemaking.
B. Summary of Pollutant Load Reductions for Each Level
The annual tons of the various pollutants removed from cokemaking
wastewaters by complying with the proposed BPT limitations and
each of the proposed BAT alternative treatment systems are shown
in Table VII1-14. Overall, the proposed BPT limitations remove
82% of all pollutants, while the BAT model treatment system
105
-------
remove 97% (82.7% of the pollutants remaining after BPT). For
beehive cokemaking the relatively low raw waste loads are
completely eliminated by complying with the proposed BPT
limitations.
C. Energy Requirements Due to Installation of Recommended
Technologies
The various levels of treatment for cokemaking wastewaters all
consume relatively low amounts of energy. The BPT model
treatment system is the primary user of this energy. The coke
oven gas used for fuel provides far more usable energy than is
consumed in cleaning and conditioning the gas and treating its
resulting wastewaters.
1. Energy Impact at BPT Levels
The Agency estimates that installing and operating the BPT
model treatment systems at all cokemaking operations will
consume 31.5 million kilowatts of electricity per year.
This total includes 30.6 million kilowatts for biological
treatment at 57 by-product plants, 0.6 million kilowatts for
physical/chemical treatment at two by-product plants, and
0.3 million kilowatts for treating wastewaters at a single
operating beehive cokemaking plant. This consumption
represents 0.055% of the 57 billion kilowatts consumed by
the entire steel industry in 1978, a relatively insignficant
impact.
2. Energy Impact at all BAT/BCT Levels
Additional treatment components must be added to upgrade the
BPT model treatment systems to the BAT model treatment
systems. The additional energy requirements for each BAT
alternative are shown in Table VIll-15. On an annual basis,
BAT alternative treatment systems would consume, over and
above BPT model treatment system requirements the following:
15.4 million kilowatts for Alternative 1/ 23.4 million
kilowatts for Alternative 2; and 6.1 million kilowatts for
Alternative 3. Even the most energy intensive of these
alternatives, Alternative 2, raises the total energy
consumption per year for BPT and BAT to only 54.9 kilowatts,
or less than 0,1% of the total industry consumption.
No additional energy is required to comply with the proposed
BAT limitations for beehive operations, since they are the
same as the proposed BPT limitations.
3. Energy Impacts at NSPS and Pretreatment Levels
Since NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model treatment systems are based
upon technologies essentially identical to a combination of
the proposed BPT and BAT/BCT model treatment systems their
requirements are equivalent to the s.um of the proposed BPT
and BAT model requirements. Some minor amounts of energy
106
-------
can be saved by incorporating flow reduction techniques at
the earliest possible level, thus reducing some equipment
size and cost.
The estimated energy requirements for NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
alternatives are based on a 3600 ton per day model size
operating 365 days per year. NSPS and PSNS Alternative 1
would require 0.78 million kilowatts, and Alternative 2
would consume a total of 0.91 million kilowatts. For PSES,
Alternative 1 consumes 0.50 million kilowatts, and
Alternative 2 needs 0.60 million kilowatts per year.
D. Nonwater Quality Impacts
1. Air Pollution
Certain treatment steps in the BPT model treatment system
are designed to return ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and
hydrogen cyanide to the coke oven gas. If careful control
of collectors, ductwork and piping is not practiced, some of
these gases could escape to the atmosphere. In the
biological treatment steps, a potential for odor exists if
the biomass is not properly maintained. Systems which
depend on incineration either by controlled combustion or
recycle to extinction over quench towers (such as BAT
Alternative 3) generate significant particulate carryover
from high concentrations of dissolved solids in the
wastewaters. These solids precipitate out and disperse over
wide areas, even if the wastewaters are pretreated to remove
regulated pollutants prior to evaporation. Except for BAT
Alternative No. 3 (quenching with treated wastewaters) the
Agency concludes that the water pollution control benefits
associated with the control technologies considered herein
outweigh any minor adverse air impacts that may result.
Refer to Table VIII-4 for information on the specific
control and technology steps which may generate air
pollution.
2. Solids Waste Disposal
The use of lime to raise pH levels prior to fixed ammonia
stripping produces 10 to 12 tons of sludge per day per plant
in the form of unreacted calcium hydroxide, along with
precipitated calcium carbonates and sulfates. The disposal
of these sludges will impose costs, and care must be taken
to prevent sludges from redissolving and entering streams as
runoff from landfill sites. Sludges should be recycled
where practical to consume as much as possible in process
reactions. Lesser amounts of sludges are formed when
caustic soda is used as the alkali, but caustic soda is more
expensive than lime and the resultant dissolved solids
discharge will be higher. Other sludges resulting from
water treatment include coal or coke fines which are readily
recycled to coke ovens. Also, the biological treatment
systems generate some bacteriological sludges which require
107
-------
periodic disposal. Some plants, e.g., Plant B, transfer
such sludges to a local POTW at very low flows (1 gpm),
while others landfill these sludges along with sediment from
settling ponds. Relatively little additional impact in the
form of solids wastes results from application of the BAT
alternative treatment systems. Small amounts of additional
sludges will form, but will be only a fraction of those
generated for disposal by the BPT model treatment system.
Filter backwashes will become an added load for land
disposal, but will contribute only a fraction of the BPT
loads. These solids must be properly disposed of, and are
subject to regulations under other applicable statutes.
However, their environmental impacts are lessened by
separating them from wastewater and controlling their
disposal on land. Another solid waste load may result if
the incremental amount of the recovered ammonium compound is
too impure or otherwise not in demand for resale or reuse.
While these are not really "sludges" resulting from
wastewater treatment, their disposal may become a problem.
A summary of the solid wastes generated by cokemaking
operations per year is shown in Table VII1-16. Note that
these data do not include any potential loads from unusable
by-products recovered during treatment, as the Agency
considers such disposal costs attributable primarily to
production operations and not wastewater treatment.
E. Costs of Retrofit to Existing Systems
In addition to the cost comparison reported above and in Table
VI11-3, the Agency attempted to isolate the actual costs expended
to retrofit process wastewater treatment systems to existing
production facilities. Nine coke plants were selected to provide
detailed installation costs. Respondents were asked to itemize
costs which would not have been incurred if treatment systems
were installed simultaneously with construction, replacement or
expansion of production facilities. Of the nine plants
solicited, two provided no cost data, three replied that there
were no retrofit costs applicable to their treatment systems,
three reported retrofit costs of 2.7% to 6.9% of their total
treatment plant costs, and one cited costs at 13.4% of total
cost. These latter, higher percentage costs reflected the
dismantling, relocation, and reassembly of a benzol plant. While
this may have been necessary in this particular case to provide
space for building a wastewater treatment plant, the cost of
benzol plant reassembly is more correctly characterized as a
process cost. If reassembly were backed out of retrofit cost for
this site, the remaining retrofit items are 7.7% of treatment
plant installation costs. The estimated on-site costs based on
treatment plant model costs compares favorably with total actual
costs reported by those plants solicited, including three of the
four which provided retrofit cost data. After comparing these
data, the Agency concludes its cost estimates based on the model
plants are sufficiently generous to cover all normal retrofit
costs. Only unusual site specific conditions would increase the
cost of retrofit above the estimated costs. For most plants, the
108
-------
Agency believes that retrofit costs will be a small fraction of
total investment cost.
F. Water Consumption
The need to minimize flows by recycle of final cooler water and
crystallizer barometric condenser water will have only minor
impact on water consumption at by-product cokemaking operations.
Water consumption attributable to wastewater treatment is
estimated to increase to a total of 0.85 million gallons per day
by the time all plants achieve the proposed BPT limitations and
to 1.09 million gallons per day when the proposed BAT limitations
are met. These losses are minor compared with the 22.6 million
gallons currently evaporated during the quenching of hot coke on
a typical production day. Based on these factors, the Agency
concludes that the water consumption losses, on a nationwide
basis, are justified when compared with the effluent reduction
benefits attributable to compliance with the proposed BPT and BAT
limitations.
The Agency also evaluated whether the establishment of a
subdivision for plants located in arid or semi-arid regions was
warranted. It found that the water loss for those plants is the
same as for plants in other areas of the country. Moreover, the
plants in water-short regions continue to use wet quenching
stations, even though dry quenching technology is available and
is currently practiced in other countries. The wet cooling
towers at plants located in arid and semi-arid regions consume
about 1 million gallons per day, which is 35 times the amount
which will be consumed by complying with these proposed BPT and
BAT limitations. In complying with the BPT and BAT proposed
limitations, however, thousands of pounds of pollutants will not
be discharged. Based on these factors and those discussed in
Section XXX of Volume I of this Development Document, the Agency
concludes that the amount of water which will consumed by plants
located in arid and semi-arid regions is justified when compared
to the effluent reduction benefits, and that establishing a
subdivision for those plants with alternative effluent
limitations is not justified.
109
-------
Summary of Impacts
The Agency concludes that the effluent reduction benefits described
below for the cokemaking subcategory outweigh any adverse impacts
associated with energy consumption, air pollution, solid waste
disposal, and water consumption.
Effluent Loadings (Tons/Year)
Raw Proposed Proposed
Waste BPT BAT
Flow, MGD
36.9
49.0
34. 1
TSS
2,807
5,915
1,037
Oil and Grease
4,211
1,120
271
Ammonia (N)
33,690
7,514
861
Total Cyanide
2,807
2,240
171
Phenolic Compounds
16,845
40
3.6
Toxic Organics
6,654
309
37.2
Toxic Metals
152
58.2
23.8
Other Pollutants
35,374
1,158
738
no
-------
TABLE VIII-1
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS REPORTED BY PLANTS
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
(All Cost8 Converted To 7/1/78 Dollars)
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Oper. & Maint.
Energy, Chemicals,
& Power
0432B
4,069,000
175,000
406,900
242,700
1,671,200
1,209,400
52,000
120,900
79,700
48,800
0384A
6,919,600
297,500
692,000
238,200
1,467,300
0272
3,450,800
148,400
345,000
301,200
7,600
TOTAL ANNUAL 2,495,800
$/Ton 1.31
$/1000 Gallons Treated 13.62
301,400
0.163
1.57
2,695,000
1.03
14.28
802,200
0. 732
17.04
Plant Code
Reference Code
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Oper. & Maint.
Energy, Chemicals,
& Power
001
0732A
977,400
42,000
97,700
39,900
99,500
TOTAL ANNUAL 279,100
$/Ton 0.542
$/1000 Gallons Treated 3.69
002
0464C
No
Cost Figures
Reported
by
Plant
003
0868A
8,875,500
381,600
887,600
1,319,800
828,500
3,417,500
1.58
16.25
008
0920F
266,300
619,200
143,900
341,100
1,370,500
0.871
6.36
009
0684F
6,192,000 10,600,000
455,800
1,060,000
1,771,800
2,372,900
5,660,500
4.65
63.56
-------
TABLE VIII-2
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS REPORTED BY PLANTS
BEEHIVE COKEMAKING
(All Costs Converted to 7/1/78 Dollars)
Plant Code
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
Depreciation
Oper. & Maint.
Energy & Power
TOTAL
$/Ton
$/1000 Gal treated
E
$ 6,720
290
670
40,500
0
$41,460
0.114
0.232
$12,600
540
1,260
20,160
0
$21,960
0.0602
0.123
$32,800
1,410
3,280
2,020
1,140
$ 7,850
0.0349
0.284
112
-------
TABLE VIII-3
COMPARISON of costs for SURVEYED PUNTS (VXSITS AND D-DCP'S)
ESTIMATES BASED ON TREATMENT MODELS VERSUS PLANT DATA
(ALL COSTS CONVERTED TO 7/1/78 DOLLARS)
Co* C Cos t
Plant Codes
Reported
By Plants
Estimated
From Models
Z Difference
In Costs
Refer to
Footnott(s)
Capital
Annual^
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
A-432B
4,069,000
2,495 , 800
5,837,000
1,875,200
~43.5
-24.9
(2),(6)
B-112
1,209,400
301,400
820,000
210,400
-32.2
-30.2
(2), (3), (6)
C-384A
6,919,600
2,695,100
8,487,500
2, 718,300
+23.7
+0.9
(2),(4),(6)
D-272
3,450,800
802, 200
4,354,000
1,369,400
+26.2
+70.7
001-732A
977,400
279, 100
0
0
_
_
(2),(5)
003-868A
8,875,500
3,417,500
8,893,600
3,125,400
+0.2
-8.5
008-920F
6,192,000
1,370,500
6,624,000
2,277,000
+7.0
+66.1
009-684F
10,600,000
5,660,500
8,877,000
3,577,800
-16.2
-36.8
(6),(7)
0012A
2,755,500
NR
3,875,000
1,153,300
+40.6
_
(2),(6)
0426
3,550, 600
935,200
4,817,000
1,421,700
+35.7
+52.0
0584 F( B)
5,100,700
927,000
5,329,000
1,698,200
+4.5
+83.2
0584 F(M)
2,427,900
666,800
5,993,000
1,995,600
+146.8
+199.3
(2), (6), (8)
TOTALS
55,151,000
19,272,000
63,407,100
21,422,300
+15.0
+5.2
(9)
(1) Standardised depreciation and capital recovery factor* are used, along with plant's
actual operating and maintenance coats.
(2) Plant treats only part of raw waste load. Some is discharged untreated, or
disposed of via quenching.
(3) Plant adds more dilution water than model. Results in some oversiced equipment.
(4) Plant discharges to POTH. Plant costs are for pretreatment only.
(5) Plant costs cover free still and dephenoliter while model considers chase to
be by-product recovery equipment only and assigns it no cost. Not included in totals.
(6) Plant strips ammonia from part of the raw waste only.
(7) Plant is designed to also treat wastes trucked in from an off-site coksnaking
operation.
(8) Wastes from plant M are partly treated in plant B, providing certain coat
reduction* for M.
(9) Obtained by omitting plant 0012A from comparison, since that plant did not
provide any annual costs.
KR: No annual cost data reported.
113
-------
TABLE ¥1I1-4
CONTROL AMD TUMTMENT TECUNOLOC1ES
1V-PH0PUCT COKEHAKIHC SUBCATEGORY
Treatawnt and/or
Control Hathoda Esoloyed
Statu* and
Beliability
A. XoabiM f low* tram benzol Done only if plant i at and*
plant, final cooler blowdown to follow with Stap >.
I aiic. pcoc. with exceaa flushing Used by 60X of all plant*.
liquor. Paaa through fraa atill
(recovery step). Adjust pit of
atill affluent with liat or
cauatic aoda to pH 10-12.
I. Treat discharge of A via fixed
•till with Una lag for reaoval
of fixed aaannia.
C. Treat diacharge of I plus
benzol plant waatea, final
coolar blowdown, crystallixar,
deaulfurizer t aiec. process
waatewatera via eediawatation
in a settling pood or lagoon with
1 day retention tlx.
19 planta atrip with liiaa.
4 planta atrip with cauatic.
17 planta have fixed atill*
which are inactive; Moat uee
line.
Widely practiced, but not
alway* with sufficient reten-
tion tiaa.
Probleaa
and Lisiitationa
Increased choaical
coat*. Signficant
aolida loads, which
cannot be discharged
without further treat-
aant.
laplaaen-
tation
Tin
1-2
aonth*
Eequireaeat*
5000 sq.ft.
(SO'xlOO1)
Significant coat to 6-0
operate ( suintain| aonth*
need* ateasi source,
heated discharge)
potential problea with
scaling t plugging;
diacharge needs further
treatment.
Land requirements| 4-6
generato* aludgea aonth*
which SRist be reaoved
periodically.
Environmental
Iapact Other
Thsn Water
Soat NH. aay
be released to
ataoaphere.
10,000 aq.ft.
(lOO'xlOO*)
Saae a* in A.
40,000 aq.ft.
(200ax200*)
Potential for
producing
objectionable
odora; aestheti-
cally unat-
tractive.
Solid Haste
Generation and
Priaary
Constituenta
Produce* 6-8
tona of aludge/
day with liae,
2/3 to 1-1/3
tona/day with
cauatic. Pri-
aarily calciua
hydroxides,
carbonatea &
sulfate* with
liae.
Sludges froa A
are atill in
systea.
Sludges foraed
at A auat be
periodically
reaoved via
claasliell t
transferred to
controlled
landfill.
-------
TUU VIlt-4
COMTtOL AMD T*EATMEHT TECHNOLOGIES
BY-PRODUCT COKEHAKIHG SIMCATHXWY
MCB 2
DretUM and/or
Control Method*
D. Treat diidu(|t C by
¦MtriUutlw with acid.
I. Aerate total flow via the uaa
of air blower* or vigorous
Mechanical agitation.
Statu* and
Reliability
Caa be readily dona at aodest
coat I necessary adjustment of
pH prior to discharge.
Practiced by 12 plants in this
industry and subcategory. *
Probleas
and Limitations
Additional cbeaical
coat to neutrelise
cheaicala addad in
Step A.
Requires Maintenance
and energy input.
lapleMen-
tation Land
Tina Kequiren
aonth
3-4
nontha
tnts
No additional
apace neces-
sary.
2,500 sq.ft.
(50**50')
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Potential for
releasing trace
aaiounts of HCN
A HgS to at-
mosphere.
Potential for
odor A noise
problems.
Solid llaste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
None. Actuslly
¦ay redissolve
sosw unreacted
lime.
Soae additional
sludges fori*
on aeration;
about 100-150
lbs/day.
t. Treat the affluent of E
via activated eladge(single stage)
basin, complete with clerifierj
if neceesary add up to 50 CPT of
fresh water to optiaixe bio-
oxidation.
6. Add vicwoa filtration of sludge
lagoon and clarifier under flow*
)
1,200 sq.ft.
<30'x40')
Potential for Sludges froa
odors. Prcwotes E still in
sludge foraation. systen.
Foaas are biologi-
cally active.
Sludges require
disposal at
controlled land-
fill aites.
Removes 100-
150 #/dsy
to landfill.
II. Reduce flew* by recycling
crystalliter wastewatera, and
blowdown to treatment at 4X of
applied rataj replace up to 50
CPT of opciaizatioa water with
blowdown frow air pollution
eaiaeiaa acrubbera| diepoae of
aaccaa acrubbar blowdown (froa
pwshlng only) via quenching.
Practiced by soae plants in Crystallicer waste-
this subcategory. water recycle only
applies to 14 plents]
others have lower flow*
to begia with] AFC
blowdown* any require
equalisation prior to
treataaat.
4-6
aonths
Ho additional
apace neces-
sary.
Hone
-------
TABLE VII1-4
COHTKIL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
BY-PBODUCT COKEMAKIMC SUBCATEGORY
MCE 3
H
Treetaent and/or
Control Methods Baployed
I. Provide additional aeration
via the use of blowers or vigorous
¦echinicat agitation.
J. Install aecond stage of acti-
vated aludge treatment, including
clarifier and sludge recycle
lyitM.
K. Treat the effluent froa J via
filtration (last atep in
BAT 1).
Statu* and
lei lability
See Step E.
Practiced by lii plant* in
tbi* subcategory.
Uidely used in this industry
and by two plant* in this
subcategory.
Probleas
and Linitations
Requires aaintanance
and energy input.
Hust control sudden
surges in order to
protect biota.
Increased capital and
operating costs.
Care austs be exer-
sized in backwashing
procedures. Hydraulic
and solids overloads
¦ust be ainiaixed.
Implemen-
tation Land
Tine Requireaents
3-4
aonths
12-15
aonths
15-18
aonths
2,500 sq.ft.
<50'x50')
40,000 sq.ft.
(200'x200*)
2,400 sq.ft.
(60'x40*)
Env i ronaenta1
Iapact Other
Than Water
Potential for
odor t noise
probleas.
Produces soae
additional
sludges.
Solid Haste
Cenerstion and
Priaary
Constituents
Soae additional
sludges fora in
reactors.
100-150 #/day
of biologically
active sludge
to landfill.
Filter backwash 600-800 lbs/
generates aludge*. day of bio-
logically
active sludge.
L. Treat the effluent froa J via
the addition of powdered acti-
vated carbon to the bio-reactor*.
Follow up with Step t. (Lsat
step in BAT 2).
Prscticed in other industries
and pilot-tested at one plant
in thia subcategory.
Significant increases 10-12 2,400 sq.ft.
.in capital and aonths (40'x60')
operating costs.
None
600-800 lbs/
day of spent
carbon cannot
be reactivated,
and aust be
disposed of
via coke
ovens or
landfill.
M. Puap effluent froa Step K
(either of the abow variations)
to quenching station aa aake-up
to systea. Recycle to extinction
(last step In MT alternative 3).
Current practice quenches with
contaainated wastewater at
aany plants, but at least one
treats to this degree prior to
quench.
Considersble treataent 2-4 Ho additional
coat to ultiaately aonths space necas-
evaporate the water. sary.
Beaaining con-
taainant* go
off to ataos-
phere.
Hone. Coke
fine* are
normally
recycled.
-------
TABU VIII-S
COKTROL AMD TUATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
1EEB1VE COKEHAKIIIC gWaTtOQH
TrutMot aad/or
Cot ml Hethoda implored
A. Inatall pu*d to
crtiMt colt flan. Ma redactio
in flatf*.
>. tafUu recycle - m tfiMW
ItonhMf Milaf «mh required.
Critic*! HTMtui tuck
Statu* end
¦etiabilitr
Fraction ia thla aubcategory.
tad Mat he periodically
cleaned of settled flaea.
Widely practiced ia tkia ink-
catagary. Requires attention
to ftMMt leaks or overloads.
Problea*
and Limitation*
High tberwl load.
Higher operating
teaperaturas. Steaa
probleaa ia winter.
Iaplsaea
tatioa
Tine
1
nth
l«o»in«Mti
20,000 aq.ft.
(100**200')
for aettliag
2-«
aontha
Mo additioal
•pace.
Environaental
lapact Other
Than Water
¦y their very
nature, beehive
operation dis-
charges pollu-
tants to the
ataoapbere.
Sana *• unt-
aeat Step A.
Solid Haate
Generation an
Priaary
Constituents
Coke finea,
which can be
reused.
Saae as
treataeat
Step A.
-------
TABLE VIII-6
BPT TREATMENT MODEL COST DATA; 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: By-Product Cokemaking Model Size-TPD : 3600
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
C&TT Steps
a(3)
b<3)
C
D
E
p(4)
g(4)
Total
-3
Investment $ x 10 __
225
4628
156
69
88
300
252
5718
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capital
9.7
199.0
6.7
2.9
3.8
12.9
10.8
245.8
Depreciation
22.5
462.8
15.6
6.9
8.8
30.0
25.2
571.8
Operation and Maintenance
7.9
162.0
5.5
2.4
3.1
10.5
8.8
200.2
Sludge Disposal
Energy and Power
-
-
25.9
-
-
-
0.1
26.0
2.5
2.5
1.2
1.3
0.8
1.6
3.5
13.4
Chemical Costs
178.9
20.8
-
5.1
-
-
-
204.8
Steam Generation
-
520.3
-
-
-
-
-
520.3
TOTAL
221.5
1367.4
54.9
18.6
16.5
55.0
48.4
1782.3
{ 2)
Effluent Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Ammonia
Phenols
Cyanide, Total
Sulfide
Oil and Grease
Suspended Solids
Thiocyanate
pH (Units)
Free Still
Raw Waste +
Waste Crystallizer
162 168
2000 600
360 300
75 50
200 150
75 75
50 50
500 480
7-10 6-9
Treated
Effluent
Level
225
100
0.5
5.0
1.0
10
80
2.0
6-9
-------
TABLE VIII-6
BPT TREATMENT MODEL COSTS
PAGE 2
Effluent Quality^^
3
Acrylonitrile
4
Benzene
21
2,4,6-Trichloropheno1
22
Parachloroaetacreso1
23
Chloroform
34
2,4-Diaethylphenol
35
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
36
2,6-Dinitro toluene
38
Ethylbenzene
39
Fluoranthene
54
Isophorone
55
laphduloe
57
2-Hi tropbeno1
60
4,6-Dinitro-o-creso1
64
Pentachloropheno1
*2
Phenol
66-
Phthalates
71
Free Still
Raw
Haste +
Haste
Crystallizer
2.0
1.2
50
35
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
5.0
5.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.08
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
35
30
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.12
0.3
0.12
320
275
5.0
5.0
Treated
Effluent
Level
0.10
0.50
0.02
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.40
1.0
-------
TABLE VIII-6
BPT TiKATMKHT MODEL COSTS
PACT 3
Free Still
law
Haste +
Effluent Quality
Haste
Crystalliser
72 Benso(a)anthracene
0.3
0.3
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
0.1
0.1
76 Chrysene
0.5
0.4
77 Acenaph thylene
4.0
3.5
80 Fluorene
0.6
0.6
84 Pyrene
0.8
0.6
86 Toluene
35
25
114 Antimony
0.2
0.2
115 Arsenic
2.0
2.0
125 Selenium
0.2
0.2
126 Silver
0.1
0.1
128 Zinc
0.2
0.2
131 Xylene
25
12
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2) All values are in ag/1 unless otherwise noted.
(3)(4) Treatment components are used in tandem.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
At Lime Addition
B: Fixed Still
C: Sedimentation lagoon
Treated
Effluent
Level
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.40
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.20
D: Neutralisation w/Acid
E: Aeration
F: Biological Treatment
6: Vacuum Filtration
-------
TABLE VIII-6
NSPS TREATMENT M3DEL COSTS
PAGE 4
Subcategory: Beehive
: Cokemaking
Model Size-TPD : 1000
Operating Days/Year: 365
Turns/Day : 3
C&TT Step
-3
-3
Investment $ x 10
Annual Costs $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal.*
Energy & Power
TOTAL
166
7.1
16.6
5.8
7.2
36.7
~B
85
3.7
8.5
3.0
6.2
21.4
Total
251
10.8
25.1
8.8
7.2
6.2
58.1
Effluent Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended solids
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phenol (4AAP)
pH (Units)
(2)
waste
300
400
0.35
0.004
0.01
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2) All values in tng/1 unless otherwise noted.
121
-------
TABLE VIII-7
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
_3
Subcategory: By-Product Cokemaking Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars X 10
: Biological Treatment Systems : Facilities in place as of 1/1/78
Plant
Code
TPD
A
B
C
C&TT !
D
Step
E
F
G
In
Place
Required
Total
0012A
2400
176
3629
122
54
69
235
198
4285
198
4483
0012B
1225
118
2424
82
36
46
137
132
2863
132
2995
0024A
3480
220
4555
U3
68
SS
294
247
4908
695
5603
0024B
2150
IE?
3597
ltt
51
65
220
185
115
4083
4198
0060
5150
279
5737
193
86
109
372
312
6209
879
7088
0060A
1930
T3*
3164
107
47
61
206
173
3652
281
3933
0060F
1045
To7
2263
W
33
42
153
120
0
2722
2722
0112
5840
301
6187
209
92
118
401
337
7308
337
7645
0112A
9800
W5
6440
255"
126
160
557
460
9841
586
10427
0112B
8140
337
755T
T55
113
155
55?
411
7918
1412
9330
0112C
4600
2W
5361
181
80
102
348
292
6151
474
6625
0112D
6670
326
6700
22S
100
127
434
365
226
8052
8278
0212
1086
110
2255
76
34
43
146
123
76
2711
2787
0248A
1200
116
2394
ST
36
46
155
130
2627
331
2958
0256E
1145
TT3
2326
7S
33
44 '
151
127
0
2876
2876
0272
3004
202
4152
140
62
80
269
226
4494
637
5131
0280B
940
m
2068
70
31
39
134
113
0
2556
2556
0304
360
57
1163
39
17
22
75
63
1220
216
1436
0320
4340
252
5177
175
77
98
336
282
5429
968
6397
0348A
1000
m
2146
72
32
41
139
117
72
2579
2651
0380
400
60
1238
42
18
24
80
67
1298
231
1529
0384A
11684
556
9379
316
140
178
608
511
9835
1753
11588
0396A
1740
155"
2 &2
101
45
57
194
163
57
3640
3697
0396C
814
92
1897
64
28
35
123
103
0
2343
2343
0426
2760
192
3946
133
59
75
256
215
4661
215
4876
0432A
6946
335
6665
251
132
131
555"
374
0
8482
8482
0432B
5300
284
5837
197
87
111
378
318
197
7015
7212
0448A
4100
243
5004
I65T
75
95
324
272
169
6013
6182
0464B
530
71
1466
W
22
28
95
80
0
1811
1811
0464C
625
79
1619
55
24
31
105
88
0
2001
2001
0464E
2047
160
3298
111
49
63
214
180
3895
180
4075
-------
TABLE VIII-7
CAPITAL 00 ST TABULATION-BY-PRODUCT CD REMAKING
PAGE 2
Plant C&TT Step
Code
TPD
A
B
C
D
E
0492A
1214
117
2411
81
36
46
0538A
450
65
1329
55"
20
25
0584 B
5400
2l7
5$03
199
88
112
0584C
2600
185
3807
128
57
72
0584 F(B)
3600
22?
4628
156
69
88
0584F(M) 4500
257
$291
T7S
79
m
0656A
800
91
1677
ST
25
35"
0684A
2970
200
4123
139
61
78
0684B
1852
151
3106
m
46
59
0684D
576
75
1541
32*
23
29
0684F
4736
265
5456
184
81
-
0684 H
1369
m
2m
W
39
49
06841
2372
m
3603
m
54
69
0684J
1066
JUS
irm
75-
33
52
0732A
2025
m
3277
lTo
49
—
0856A
20780
m
T3230
557
198
252
0856F
3000
232"
4148
I5J5T
W
79
0856N
4468
m
5268
m
79
100
0860A
1580
137
2824
95
42
54
0860B
11960
462
9512
321
142
181
0864A
3558
223
4596
153
69
87
0868A
6866
33T
6818
230
102
130
0920B
1836
m
im
104
55"
3T
0920F
5205
1ST
sm
m
86
110
0946A
1000
m
72
32
5T~
0948A
3816
233
4793
m
71
91
0948C
4000
240
4930
Ttt
74
94
~Totals do not include confidential plants
Note: Underlined costs represent facilities in place.
Key to C&TT Steps
Xi Lime Addition
B: Aomonia Still, Fixed
C: Sedimentation Lagoon
D: Neutralizaticm with Acid
E: Aeration
F: Biological Treatment
G: Vacuus Filtration
In
F
G
Place
Requi red
Total
156
131
81
2897
2978
86
72
1394
248
1642
383
321
0
7293
7293
247
207
3992
711
4703
300
252
5466
252
5718
353
288
6249
288
6537
122
102
63
2256
2319
267
225
139
4954
5093
201
169
105
3732
3837
100
84
52
1852
1904
-
-
5905
81
5986
168
141
2804
397
3201
234
196
4202
250
4452
T55"
121
2413
341
2754
-
-
3546
49
3595
859
721
16371
0
16371
m
226
4552
574
5126
342
287
0
6510
6510
183
154
95
3394
3489
617
518
321
11432
11753
298
250
4974
704
5678
442
371
8424
0
8424
200
T5S"
3344
473
3817
374
314
6625
509
7134
13?
117
72
2579
2651
311
261
162
5760
5922
320
268
5336
756
6092
*174,193
*124,701
*298,8%
-------
By-Product Cokemaking
57 Biological Systems
2 Physical/Chemical
Systems
By-Product Subtotal
Beehive Cokemaking
Cokemaking Total
TABLE VI1I-8
BPT COST REQUIREMENTS
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
(All Costs in 7/1/78 Dollars)
Capital Investment Costs
In-Place Required
Total Capital Current
(1)
Annual Costs
(2) (3)
Additional Total Annual
168,400,000 124,800,000 293,200,000 58,300,000 43,300,000
9,450,000 130,000 9,580,000 3,200,000 100,000
101,600,000
3,300,000
177,850,000 124,930,000 302,780,000
780,000
780,000
178,780,000 125,200,000 303,980,000
61,500,000 43,400,000 104,900,000
60,000 0 60,000
61,560,000 43,400,000 104,960,000
(1) Annual operating cost for BPT treatment components already in place.
(2) Annual operating cost for BPT treatment components which are yet to be installed to attain
(3) Total projected annual operating cost to attain BPT limits.
BPT limits.
-------
TABU VIII-9
ALTEMMttm Mr HOOP. COBTl MSI8 7/1/78 POUAM
Subcategory) Bjr-froAict Catnaki>| Model tix-ffl >
Oper. Days/Tear: 3t5
Tirm/Di; l 3
2-H, I, 4 J Mm:
3HI, 1. U Hull
C41T SMV»
IMWMC J I 10 \
taut Coat li It
Capital
tainciatia
Oparacioa I Maiatanaaca
¦aarcr —* fcw
Cfcaaical Coat*
tarintl Activata4 Carbon
¦
i
J
K.
Total
45
88
300
438
871
1.9
4.5
i.rw
3.8
8.8
3.1
0.8
12.9
30.0
10.5
1.4
18.8
43.8
15.3
4.1
37.4
87.1
30.5
4.5
a.o
<2>
14. S
5S.0
•2.0 141.5
bi3)
52
2.2
5.2
l.S
3.3
233.0
2*5. S
5o>
430
u. a
43.0
15.3
4.1
82.0
39. t
92.3
32.3
».0
233.0
407.0
9.5
22.0
7.7,
4.1
(2)
39.2
(2)
Total
I act. B.1.J
453
20.1
65.3
22.9
2.4
118.7
K>
Ul
UX
10 1
Ut 2
UT 3
Mat «alil7W
Food
¦fflaaat
EHloaat
Effluant
Ittl
1ml
Laval
Laval
Laval
riaaa, gat/tat
225
153
153
0
8ai«i«<»* Mi*
80
20
20
-
Aa»aria <0
180
15
15
-
(fcaasla (4MT)
0.5
0.025
0.025
-
Cyafetda (Total)
5
2.5
2.0
-
SalfMa
1
0.4
0.3
-
Oil m* Craaaa
Tin atyaaata
10
2.0
5
1.0
5
0.5
t» (Mm)
4-9
4-9
4-9
-
3
Acryloaitrila
0.1
0.03
0.01
-
4
¦aaaaaa
0.5
0.0S
0.05
-
21
2, 4, 4-TricUaro|kaaol
0.02
0.01
<0.01
-
22
FukU acoaatacraaol
0.89
0.01
0.01
•
23
CUarofon
0.2
0.10
0.05
•
34
2, 4-tiaatk)l|k«ul
0.815
0.01
0.01
-
35
2,4-fiisi trotolaaaa
0.02
0.01
<0.01
-
34
2, t-Biaitrotolaeac
0.0Z
0.01
<0.01
-
38
tttgrttnma
0.10
0.02
0.01
-
-------
TABLE VIII-9
ALTEMATIVE BAT MWCL COSTS I BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLAKS
BY-PBODOCT COKE MAKING
PAGE 2
BAT
BAT 1
BAT 2
BAT 3
Feed
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent Quality
Level
Level
Level
Level
39
Fluorantbene
0.1
0.02
0.01
54
Isophorone
0.2
0.02
0.01
-
55
Naphthalene
0.1
0.01
0.01
-
57
2-Hitropbenol
0.02
0.01
<0.01
-
60
4, 6-0 ini tro-o-cresol
0.02
0.01
<0.01
-
64
Peat achloropbenol
0.02
0.01
<0.01
-
65
Phenol
0.4
0.01
0.01
-
(5)
Fhtbalates, Total
1.0
0.2
0.06
-
72
Benao(a)anthracene
0.1
0.01
0.01
-
73
Benao(a)pyreae
0.05
0.02
0.01
-
76
Chrysene
0.1
0.05
0.01
-
77
Aeenaphthylene
0.1
0.03
0.02
-
80
Fluorene
0.1
0.02
0.01
-
84
Pyrene
0.2
0.04
0.02
-
86
Toluene
0.5
0.05
0.05
-
114
Antiaony
0.1
0.10
0.10
-
115
Arsenic
0.4
0.25
0.25
-
125
Selenius
0.1
0.10
0.10
-
126
Silver
0.08
0.06
0.05
-
128
Zinc
0.1
0.10
0.10
-
130
Xylene
0.2
0.02
0.01
-
(1) Costs arc all power unless otherwise noted.
(2) Total does not include power cost as a credit is supplied for existing process water power requirements.
(3) Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4) All values are in sg/1 unless otherwise noted.
(5) Sua of all ph thai at es-pollutants 66 through 71 (bis-2-ethylhexyl; butyl benzyl; di-n-butyl j di-n-octyl; diethyl; dinethyl phthalates).
KEY TO CtTT STEPS
lit 961 recycle of barometric condenser wastewaters;
replace up to $0 GPT of dilution water by blovdowns fro*
preheating or charging emission scrubbers.
J: Second activated sludge bio-oxidation unit, including
clarifier
Li Addition of powdered activated carbon
I: Aeration
K: Filtration
Ml Recycle treated effluent to extinction via quench tower
-------
TABLE VIII-10
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
BY-PBODPCT COREMAKING
A. BAT/BCT FEED
Effluent Concentration - Conventional Pollutants 90
Flow in MGD 0.81
Days per Year 365
Pounds per Year - Conventional Pollutants 221,915
B. BCT-1*
Effluent Concentration - Conventional Pollutants 20
Flow in MGD 0.55
Pounds per Year - Conventional Pollutants 41,855
Pounds per Year - Removed by Treatment 180,060
Annual Cost of BCT-1 ($) 145,000
$/Pound of Conventional Pollutant Removed 0.81 - PASS
C. BCT-2
Effluent Concentration - Conventional Pollutants 20
Flow in MGD 0.55
Pounds per Year - Conventional Pollutants 41,955
Pounds per Year - Removed by Treatment 180,060
Annual Cost of BCT-2 ($) 145,000
$/Pound of Conventional Pollutant Removed 0.81 - PASS
D. BCT-3
Effluent Concentration - Conventional Pollutants 0
Flow in MGD 0
Pounds per Year - Conventional Pollutants 0
Pounds per Year - Removed by Treatment 221,915
Annual Cost of BCT-3 ($) 102,200
$/Pound of Conventional Pollutant Removed 0.46 - PASS
MGD - Million gallons per day
Motet Coats based on by-product cokemaking model producing 3600 tons of
coke per day. Beehives remain at BPT level.
*: Selected BCT Alternative.
127
-------
TABLE VIII-11
HPS AID KM WOO. COSTS: MIS 7/1/78 DOUAtS
tibcaU|or;! By-Product Cotcoukinc
Nodal tin-m t 3600
Optr. Iqt/Tari Tg
Tkru/Dt; > 3
1-k ftromh C Hu»i
C6T* St«f
I « 10~®
Mul Cost 9 s 10
Capita!
Dapraciatisa
Ofiratioa and Maine
IM|i Oispoaal ^
Clmlcal Caata
Pwdarad IctiHttd Ca
Staaa Catrtcioi
TOTAL
A
¦
C
D
j(l>
cCI>
¦
45
4127
156
69
17*
450
252
438
1.9
177.5
6.7
3.0
7.6
19.4
10.8
18.8
4.5
412.7
15.6
6.9
17.6
45.0
25.2
43.8
1.6
144.4
5.5
2.4
6.2
15.8
8.8
15.3
-
-
25.9
-
-
-
0.1
-
1.2
4.9
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.6
3.5
4.1
-
199.6
-
5.1
-
-
-
—
-
S20.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.2
1459.4
54.9
18.7
33.0
81.8
48.4
82.0
Tatal
5713
245.7
S7I.3
200.0
26.0
19.4
204.7
520.3
£1
n
2.2
5.2
l.S
3.3
233.0
„(I)
438
1S.S
43.8
15.3
4.1
245.5 82.0
Total
(loci. A-C)
S76S
247.9
576. 5
201.8
26.0
22.7
204.7
233.0
520.3
2032.9
BKlaaat Quality***
Flaw, gal/to*
fci|Miaitrotolaaaa
30
39 Flaaraatheoa
54 laofboroaie
55 lafhtbalaaa
57 2Hiitrafbeaol
277
¦d PS as Ho.l
Bfflwat
Lewel
153
20
15
0.025
2.5
0.4
5
1
6-9
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Nsrs
and PS MS Ho. 2
Effluent
Lame!
153
20
15
0.025
2.0
0.3
5
0.5
6-9
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-------
TABU VIII-11
USPS AMD FSMS MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
BY-PRODUCT C» ICE MAKING
FACE 2
Effluent Qwlit/^
60 4,6-9initr»-o-cxesol
64 Pent achl oro phenol
65 Phenol
(5) Ihtbalates, total
72 Benco(a)anthracene
73 Benxo(a)pyrene
76 Chryaene
77 Acenaphthylene
80 Floorene
84 Pyrene
86 Toluene
114 Antiaony
115 Arsenic
125 Seleniun
126 Silver
128 Zinc
130 Xylene
lw
Waste
Level
0.2
0.2
200
20
0.3
0.1
0.4
3
1
0.8
35
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
25
MSPS and PSNS No.l
Effluent
Level
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.1.0
0.25
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.02
USPS AMD PSHS Ho.2
Effluent
Level
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.01
(1) Treatment component a are used in tandem.
(2) Costa ate all power unlets otherwise noted.
H1 (3) Includes up to 115 gal/ton froa air pollution control ays tens.
(4) All values are in ag/l unless otherwise noted.
(5) Sua of all fhthalates - pollutant* 66 through 71 (bia-2-ethylbexyl; butyl benzyl; di-o-butyl; di-n-octyl; diethyl; diaethyl phthalates).
KET TO C4TT STEPS
A: 96! recycle of baroaetric condenser water
B: Fixed aaaoaia still including liae addition
C: Settling in a sediaentation basin
Di neutralisation with acid
E: Aeration ( 2 atage syatea)
I: Two-step activated sludge bio-oxidation unit
Gs Vacuua filtration
H: Filtration
I: Powdered activated carbon addition
-------
TABLE VIII-12
NSPS TREATMENT MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Beehive
: Cokemaking
Model Size-TPD
Operating Days/Year
Turns/Day
1000
365
3
-3
C&TT Step
Investment $ x 10 ,
Annual Costs $ x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Disposal.*
Energy & Power
TOTAL
A
166
7.1
16.6
5.8
7.2
36.7
B
85
3.7
8.5
3.0
6.2
21.4
Total
251
10.8
25.1
8.8
7.2
6.2
58.1
Effluent Quality
Flow, gal/ton
Suspended solids
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phenol (4AAP)
pH (Units)
(2)
Raw
Waste
Load
300
400
0.35
0.004
0.01
6-9
Resulting Effluent Levels
0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2) All values in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
130
-------
TABLE *111-13
PSES MODEL COST PATAi BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: By-Product Cokeuking Model Si*e-TPD : 3600
Oper. Days/Year: 365
Tunra/Day i 3
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
C4TT Steps
(1)
10
,-3
10
-3
Investment $ i
Annual Coat ?
Capital
Depreciation
Operation 4 Maintenance
Sludge Dispoaal,.
Energy 4 Power
Chemical Coat*
Steaa Generation
Poudered Carbon
TOTAL
A
225
9.7
199.0
C
156
6.7
P
45
1.9
22.5 462.8
15.6 4.5
CO
H
7.9
2.5
178.9
162.0
2.5
20.8
520.3
221.5 1367.4
5.S
25.9
1.2
54.9
1.6
1.2
(4)
8.0
(4)
E
69
3.0
6.9
2.4
1.3
5.1
18.7
F
176
7.6
17.6
6.1
1.6
32.9
10.8
I
438
18.8
43.8
15.3
4.1
Total
6589
283.3
658.9
230.6
26.0
19.9
204.8
520.3
(1)
110.0 48.4
82.0 1943.8
2.2
5.2
1.8
3.3
233.0
245.5
Total
(Incl
A-H)
6641
285.5
664.1
232.4
26.0
23.2
204.8
520.3
233.0
82.0 2189.3
438
18.8
43.8
15.3
4.1
«»<»
PSES No.l
PSES Ho.2
Luent Quality*3'
Haste
Effluent
Effluent
¦»!
Level
Level
Level
Floe, gal/ton
168
153
153
Suspended Sol ids
50
20
20
Oil and Crease
75
5
5
laonii (¦)
600
15
IS
Ihenols (4AAP)
300
0.025
0.025
Cyanides (Total)
50
2.5
2.0
Sulfide
150
0.4
0.3
Thiocyanate
480
5
5
pB (Units)
6-9
6-9
6-9
3
Acrylonitrile
1.2
0.03
0.01
4
Benzene
3S
0.05
0.05
21
2,4, 6-Trichloro-
phenol
0.1
0.01
0.01
22
Parsehioroaeta-
cresol
0.6
0.01
0.01
23
Chlorofora
0.2
0.10
0.05
34
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
5
0.01
0.01
35
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
0.2
0.01
0.01
36
216-Diai trotoluene
0.08
0.01
0.01
38
Ethylbenzene
3
0.02
0.01
39
Fluoranthsne
0.8
0.02
0.01
-------
TABIC VIXI-13
PSES MDOBL OOST DATA I BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
BY-PKOOOCT COKEMAKIMG
PACK 2
PSES Ho.l
PSES Ho.2
Haste
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent Quality
Level
Level
Level
54
Isoiborone
0.5
0.02
0.01
55
naphthalene
30
0.01
0.01
57
2-4itrofheaol
0.2
0.01
0.01
60
4-t,0iaitro-o-
0.12
0.01
0.01
creaol
64
Pent achloro phenol
0.12
0.01
0.01
65
Phenol
275
0.01
0.01
(6)
ftchelates, Total
5
0.2
0.06
72
Benxo(a)anthraceoe
0.3
0.01
0.01
73
Benao(a)pyreae
0.1
0.02
0.01
76
Chryseoe
0.4
0.05
0.01
77
teeoaphthyleae
3.S
0.03
0.01
80
Fluocene
0.6
0.02
0.01
64
lyrene
0.6
0.04
0.01
86
Toluene
25
0.05
0.01
114
Antiaony
0.2
0.10
0.10
US
Arsenic
2
0.25
0.25
125
Seleniua
0.2
0.10
0.10
126
Silver
0.1
0.06
0.05
128
Zinc
0.2
0.10
0.10
130
Xylene
12
0.02
0.01
(1) Coaponeata are used in tnto.
(2) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(3) All values *re in ag/1 unless otherwise noted.
(4) Total cost does not include power as a credit is supplied for existing process water needs.
(5) Quality of feed to tfites following free stills.
(6) Sum of all jhthalates - pollutants 66 through 71 (bis-2-ethylhe*yl; butyl benzyl) di-o-butyl; di-n-octyl;
diethyl) dijsechyl phthalates).
KEY TO C4TT STEPS
Ai Liae addition to pi 10-12
B: Fixed asaonia stripping with liae
C: Settling Basin
D: 96X recycle of baroaetric condenser wastewaters
E: Meutralisatioa with acid
K: Aeration (2 stages)
Gs Bioxidatioo systea (2 stages)
B: Vacuus filtration of bioxidatioo sludges
Is Filtration
J: Addition of powdered activated carbon
-------
TABLE VIII-14
POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION SUMMARY
00REMAKING SUBCATEGORIES
Annual Pollutant Load (Tons/Tear) Percent Removal
*; Reductions frm BPT effluent level.
(): Muaber in parentheses represents percent added during treatment.
Solids & Oils
Toxics
Others
Total
Solids & Oils
Toxics
Others
Total
A. By-Product Cokeraaking Operations:
Raw Waste
7,020
26,452
69,060
102,532
-
-
-
-
Load
BPT Effluent
7,040
2,649
8,680
18,369
(0.3)
90.0
87.4
82.1
BAT 1/BCT
1,310
235
1,596
3,141
81.4*
91.1*
81.6*
82.9*
Effluent
BAT 2
1,310
137
1,177
2,624
81.4*
94.8*
86.4*
85.7*
Effluent
BAT 3
0
0
0
0
100.0*
100.0*
100.0*
100.0*
Effluent
B. Beehive Cokeaaking Operations:
Raw Waste
200
<0.02
3.92
<204
—
—
_
Load
BPT Effluent
0
0
0
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-------
TABLE VIII-15
EMER6Y REQUIREMENTS SOHMARY
COKEMAKIHG SUBCATEGORY
BAT & BCT TREATMENT MODELS
BAT Alt. I/BCT Biological
Physical/Chemical
kw/hr
29.7
33.8
Model Basis
Annual Cost
6,500
7,400
By-Product Total Basis^ ^
kw7h
1691.8
67.6
Annual Cost
370,500
14,800
BAT 1/BCT Total
1759.4
385,300
BAT Alt. 2 Biological.
Physical/Chemical
44.7
58.4
9,800
12,800
2550.7
116.9
558,600
25,600
BAT Alt. 2 Total
2667.6
584,200
BAT Alt. 3 Biological.
Physical/Chemical
11.0
33.8
2,400
7,400
624.7
67.6
136,800
14,800
BAT Alt. 3 Total
692.3
151,600
(1) Data obtained by multiplying model basis by number of plants - 57 biological and 2 physical-chemical.
Beehive operations are omitted, since energy requirements do not increase over BPT levels.
(2) Physical-chemical model replaces second stage biological treatment with adsorption on granular activated carbon.
(3) Physical-chemical model same as (2) plus addition of chlorination prior to adsorption.
(4) Physical-chemical model same as (2) plus evaporation to extinction at quench station.
BOTE: All values represent increases in addition to BPT energy requirements.
-------
TABLE VIII-16
SOLID WASTES GENERATION SUMMARY
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Model Basis
BPT - Biological
- Physical/Chemical
- Beehive
BPT Total
BAT Alt. 1(3) - Biological
- Physical/Chemical
BAT Alt. 1 Total
BAT Alt. 2(3) - Biological
- Physical/Chemical
BAT Alt. 2 Total
BAT Alt. 3
BAT Alt. 3 Total
- Biological
Physical/Chemical
Pounds/Ton of Coke
6.2
6.0
1.0
0.05
0.28
0.30
0.28
0.05
0.28
Pound8/Day
22,320
21,600
1,000
180
1,000
1,080
1,000
180
1,000
Industry-wide Basis^
Tons/Year
232,184
7,884
183
240,251
1,872
365
2,237
11,235
365
11,600
1,872
365
2,237
(1) Based on 57 biological and 2 physical/chemical treatment facilities, and 1 operating beehive plant.
(2) Beehive operations only appear for BPT since no additional solids are generated beyond this level of treatment.
(3) All BAT levels state the increase in solids loads as a result of BAT treatment. The stated value should be added
to the BPT loads to determine the overall total load.
-------
u>
BPT
Dilution Water
to Optimize Bioxidation
r T
I FREE I
I STILL I
Lime
Addition
ACID |
Sludge
Recycle
/ Not \
vCosted/
SETTLING BASIN
Tlst STAGE
BIOLOGICAL
Air REACTOR
1
BAT-2 i
I
!" BAT-3 "1
BAT- I
Clarifier Effluent
to Coke Quenching
Operations, Where
it Recycles to
Extinction. Omit
Carbon Addition.
Solids
Out
I
I FREE
< STILL
J ( Not \
, \Costed/
I ACID
Sludge Recycle
Sludge Recycle
SETTLING BASIN
J I st STAGE
BIOLOGICAL
REACTOR
J 2nd
STAGE
BIOLOGICAL
REACTOR
Slowdown Replaces
Up To 50GPT of
Dilution Water
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
SUMMARY OF BAT MODELS
Excess Slowdown
to Quench Station
Fl LTER
VACUUM
FILTER
VACUUM
FILTER
WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
BENZOL
PLANT
WASTES
WASTE
AMMONIA
LIQUOR
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS
WASTES
CRYSTALLIZE R
(ONCE THROUGH)
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS
WASTES
FINAL
COOLER
SLOWDOWN
FINAL
COOLER
BLOWDOWN
BENZOL
PLANT
WASTES
SCRUBBERS
ON
PUSHING
CRYSTALLIZER
BLOWDOWN
FIXED
STILL
FIXEO
STILL
POWDERED
ACTIVATED
CARBON
BLOWDOWN FROM
SCRUBBERS
ON PREHEAT
a CHARGING
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
limitations proposed herein are the same, for the most part, as those
originally promulgated in June 1974. The June 1974 development
document (EPA- 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) described in detail the methods used in developing the
originally promulgated limitations.
Identification of BPT
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) is
generally based upon the average of the best existing performance by
plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within the
industrial subcategory, with particular emphasis on plants known to be
equipped with well designed and operated treatment facilities.
Based on the information contained in Section III through VIII of this
report, the Agency has determined that the Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT) model technology for cokemaking
incorporates the following steps:
A. For By-Product Cokemaking Operations
Blending of waste streams from benzol plants, final cooler
blowdowns, and miscellaneous process wastes with excess ammonia
liquor prior to passage through a free ammonia still. If a
dephenolizer exists, it is inactive or abandoned. Treatment
commences when the free still effluent is made alkaline (pH 9-11)
with lime and stripped of fixed ammonia in the fixed leg of an
ammonia still. Barometric condenser wastewaters from the
crystallizer are combined with ammonia still effluents and
detained in a storage tank, sedimentation basin or lagoon with a
one day retention time. The basin effluent is treated with a
small amount of acid, and passed on to an activated sludge basin
with extensive aeration. The biotreated effluent is further
treated in a clarifier, with vacuum filtration of underflows.
The clarifier overflow is discharged to the receiving stream.
This model treatment system is illustrated in Figure IX-1.
B. For Beehive Cokemaking Operations
The BPT model treatment system consists of equalization and
settling of coke fines in a basin, with total recycle of the
basin overflow to quenching operations. A periodic cleanout of
137
-------
the basin is necessary, and recovered solids are recycled to the
ovens. Refer to Figure IX-2.
The proposed BPT effluent limitations resulting from this and previous
studies are summarized in Table IX-1. The proposed BPT limitations
are by no means the absolute lowest values attainable by the model
technology at any time, but instead represent performance values which
can be reasonably attained on a day by day basis. It should be noted
that the Agency is not requiring that dischargers employ the model
technology. Other systems can be employed as long as the proposed
limitations are achieved. For example, the previously promulgated
limitations could be achieved by both physical/chemical and biological
methods.
It should be noted that the proposed limitations are 30-day average
limitations. The maximum daily effluent limitations are three times
the 30-day limitations. Total investment and annual costs associated
with the installation of the BPT model treatment systems were provided
in Table VII1-8.
Basis for BPT Limitations
The Agency reviewed the performance attained by the coke plants
surveyed during this study, and these levels became the basis for
establishing the proposed limitations. Significant changes were
observed between plants surveyed in 1973 and those surveyed in
1977-78. During that time, more advanced treatment systems were
installed, providing higher degrees of pollutant removal. At the same
time, various approaches to air pollution emissions controls were
employed, increasing wastewater volumes.
Because the number of choices available to coke producers is
considerable, not only as to coke manufacturing and by-products
recovery but also with respect to control and treatment of
contaminated air and wastewater, the Agency employed a building block
approach in determining the proposed limitations. The by-product
cokemaking BPT effluent limitations promulgated in 1974 were based on
a basic flow rate of 730 1/kkg (175 gal/ton), plus add-ons for
indirect ammonia recovery and qualified desulfurizers. A review of
additional data gathered since promulgation of the original BPT
limitations indicate that this flow accurately reflects the average
flow rates for by-product cokemaking operations at the BPT level of
treatment.
The DCP responses for all active by-product cokemaking facilities
indicates that 42% of all plants currently generate less than 175
gallons of process wastewaters per ton of coke produced, even when
those portions of the total wastewater flows which are disposed of via
quenching operations are included. Thus, the basic model flow of 175
gallons per ton used in establishing BPT limits is readily
demonstrated by a large number of plants. The additional allowances
provided in the proposed riegulation for certain recovery operations
are reviewed below.
138
-------
The Agency believes that by-product coke plants which include indirect
ammonia recovery systems (a total of six plants), should have an
allowance for additional flow since they produce a more dilute weak
ammonia liquor than is generated in semidirect recovery systems.
Accordingly, an additional model wastewater flow of 209 1/kkg (50
gal/ton) is provided in the proposed BPT limitations. Likewise, for
those plants which include wet desulfurizers, the Agency has proposed
an allowance for additional flow resulting from contaminated
condensates. However, not all desulfurizers qualify for these
additional flows. Dry adsorption systems employing ferric oxide
boxes, or extraction methods using solvents which do not increase
wastewater volumes are not eligible for the additional allowance.
However, the most common types of desulfurizer, those which scrub
gases using a potash or soda ash slurry for adsorbing HsS, then
liberating the gases by distillation under a vacuum (the so-called
vacuum carbonate processes) are eligible for an additional flow
allowance of 104 1/kkg (25 gal/ton). This allowance includes the
extra steam condensate and slurry associated with treatment of
desulfurizer wastes in a fixed ammonia still.
The need for additional fresh water to optimize biological treatment
systems was again reviewed by the Agency. Virtually all such plants
practice water addition during at least part of the year. Even those
plants which do not deliberately add fresh water usually have higher
than normal process water flows entering the treatment system from
some less aggressive source. For example, coal yard drainage and
miscellaneous nonprocess waters from plant 008 were diverted through
the bioxidation system, thus providing a dilution effect at least on
an intermittent basis.
The Agency has yet to confirm the primary reasons why such water
additions are necessary to optimize the effectiveness of bioxidation
systems. Some operators relate water addition to contol of certain
pollutants (e.g., ammonia, dissolved solids, cyanide) and practice it
year-round. Of course, other means for controlling ammonia and
cyanide exist. Still others add fresh water to control temperature
and only practice dilution during certain seasons. Plant 003, has
recently installed a non-evaporative cooling tower and provided
insulation on its tanks to control wastewater temperature. This
practice should eliminate the need for additional water. However,
since the impact of this approach remains to be demonstrated, the*
proposed BPT limitations for biological treatment plants are based on
a 28.6% higher basic flow rate of 938 1/kkg (225 gal/ton) to allow for
fresh water addition to optimize treatment where necessary. The
additional allowances for qualifying desulfurizers and indirect
ammonia recovery systems also apply to biotreatment systems. Note
also that biotreatment systems achieve lower concentrations of all
proposed BPT limited pollutants except TSS, so loads remain unchanged
even though a higher model flow has been used. The need for relaxing
TSS limitations for bioxidation systems is apparent from the
additional survey data obtained since promulgation of the original
limitations. TSS is the only pollutant which has a proposed BPT
limitation different from the previously promulgated limitations.
139
-------
For beehive operations, no change in the proposed BPT limitations is
necessary. The recommended technology and the no discharge condition
have been demonstrated on a long-term basis.
Justification for Proposed BPT Limitations
A summary of effluent data from sampled plants is shown in Table IX-2.
Data are reported for the total wastewater flows actually leaving the
coke plant. In the case of Plant 009, the load shown includes a
treated effluent which is disposed of by quenching, in addition to the
direct discharge flow.
For each limited pollutant, most plants are shown to achieve the
proposed BPT limitations. Where a pattern of noncompliance is noted,
a simple explanation usually accounts for the failure of certain
plants to meet limitations. For example, failure to meet limitations
on ammonia-N results from the absence of fixed ammonia removal steps
at Plants A, B, 002, 0584F-M and 0684F (quench). For cyanides, Plant
A includes in its effluent an untreated barometric condenser flow
containing excessive amounts of cyanides. For phenolic compounds,
Plants C and 002 provide only minimal control, since discharges are
routed to POTWs. When these exceptions are noted, most plants
demonstrate the ability to meet the proposed limitations for each
limited pollutant. The data shown in Table IX-2 justify the proposed
BPT limitations.
140
-------
TABLE IX-1
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
kCD
A. By-Product Cokemaking
1. Basic Limitation
2. Add for Indirect
Ammania Recovery
3. Add for Wet
Desulfurization
B. Beehive Cokemaking
1. Basic Limitations
BPT Effluent limitations in kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs)
TSS 0 & G NH.-N Cyanides Phenolic Cpds. pH (Units) $/kkg
Estimated Cost
(2)
0.0750 0.0109 0.0912 0.0219
0.0167 0.0031 0.0261 0.0063
0.0015
0.00042
0.0083 0.0016 0.0131 0.0032 0.00021
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants
to navigable waters.
6-9
6-9
6-9
1.50
0.33
0.17
0.18
$/Ton
1.36
0.30
0.15
0.16
(1) All values represent 30-day average limitations. Daily maximum limits are three times the load shown above.
(2) Costs represent BPT operating costs, including depreciation and capital use charges, assuming biological
treatment systems are selected for by-product coke plants.
-------
TABLE 11-2
¦ft Errurarr load justification
COMHAKIMC SOUCATECOKT
Br-Prodoct rofcwkim
Ori«iaaily (1)
pnHiigatwi wr
rcopoMd srrZJ
A. Plant Visit Data
Ttom fatlia giliwt
1. Biological Treat-
• (0112)
003 (0068A)
000 (0920F)
«)
TSS
0.0365
0.0730
0.07 M
0.0327
0.0249
Bfflaent Loada ia to/to (lba/1000 tea)
QIC
0.0109
0.0109
0.00113
0.00333
0.00*6*
0.0912
0.0912
(0.431)
0.0006*3
0.0736
(6)
CraniJaa Phenolic Cpd«.
0.0219
0.0219
0.00170
0.00196
0.001*2
0.0013
0.0013
0.000029
0.000023
0.000033
Other Treatment
Syataaa
A (0*32»...
C (030*A)WI
0 (0272) ...
002 (WW) ! ,.,
009 (060*F)
0.00323
0.0173
0.06*3
0.00090
0.0121
0.002X1
0.00322
0.001*9
0.00399
0.00363
(0.31V)
0.0657
0.0137
(0.730)
0.0039
(6)
(6)
(0.0610)
0.0115
0.01*9
0.002*3
0.00907
0.000039
(0.0371)
0.000616
(0.0126)
0.00030*
1.
Ul tti» Data Keportad by
Plaata rit MOT
Biological Treat-
seat Syataaa
0012A
030*F-»
2!i!«)
(0.163)
(0.137)
(0.0*03)
0.00*00
0.0507
(0.106),.,
(0.306)
0.01M
0.00*36
0.00211
Ml
0.00129
0.000*2
0.000073
0.0002*3
0.0000295
2. Gaifcoa Maorptie
0604F-Mract
M>ir Qoaaiti
0664F-Total
0.0173
0.0103
0.0276
0.00231
0.00327
0.005SO
(0.J23)
(0.16*)
(0.309)
(6)
<«>
(6)
0.00904
0.0130
(0.022S)
0.0000763
0.00000197
0.000070*'
P«
(Onita)
Flow
(Gal/Too) C6TT Coon>onenta
175 P/C
6-9 225 Bio
6-9 225 Bio
NL;ASL;KA;SL-1
RL;ASL;SL-1;NA;A;B0A1fVF
RL{ASL|5L-1;HA;A;B0A1|VF
7.5 108 EtBOA-1 (QlKPart)
7.* 201 ASFJ ASCjBOA-2jCLjBBjSS
7.5-7.0 139 ASF}ASL;E;CTjBOA-2JCL
0.6 136 ASF;DP)SB(Part)
(9.5-11.8) 40.6 A5F|DP|ASL|SB|QO(Part)
(11.7) 20.6 ASFjDSHjDPjASL
0.9-9.0 35.9 DP|CLA
(0.8-9.9) 96.7 DP;CF|FI>SP{AOC;ASF;ASC(Part)1
CPart)
7.7 207 ASFjASCjBQA-2|CL
6.7 200 ASF;BOA-2|CL
7.4 210 A8P)ABL|E|CT|BOA-2tCL
(10.7) 99 DPjGFjFDSP|AOC|ABP|ABC
(9.3) 112 CF;FD8P|A0C|
-------
TABLE XX-2
VT EFFLIKNT IttD JOSTmCATIC*
COIEIMKIIIG SUBCATEGORY
FAGS 2
Effluent Loadsin kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs)
O tc Cyanide*" Ihenolic Cpda.
P"
(Units)
II. Beehive Cohamahing
Originally
Promul gated HPT and
Proposed VT
Ho discharge of process wastewater pollutanta to navigable waters
Plant Visit Data Prom Sapling Survey
(0.0736) (0.00041) (0.00041) (0.000008) (0.000029) (7.1)
Ho discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters
Ho discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters
Flow
(Gal/Too)
490
0
0
CtTT Components
SL;KTP100
SL;0T
SL;RTP100
SL;8TP100
(1) Add 1SZ for qualified (wet) desulfurisers; add 30Z for indirect aamonia recovery.
(2) Add 11Z for qualified (wet) desulfurisers; add 22Z for indirect amoaia recovery.
(3) Plant provides significantly sore advanced treatment than BPT system.
(4) Plant discharges its treated wastewater to a P0TU for further treatment. Phenol not treated on-site.
H (S) Data includes load which is disposed of via quenching operations. Actual direct discharge effluent load is approximately half
** of the values given.
w (6) High aamonia load in effluent primarily due to incomplete or ineffective aamonia stripping. Usually fixed aamonia
removal step is inactive or non-existent.
BOTES: For definitions of C4TT components, see Table VII-1.
Miabers in parentheses indicate nonachievement of the desired limitations for given parameter.
(Part) indicates that only psrt of the wastewater receives treatment fnn the given C&TT components.
HE indicates that plant provided no long-tern data on the given paraaeter.
-------
FREE STILL WASTEWATER
CRYSTALLIZER
Ammonia-N
Cyanide
Oil 8 grease
Phenol Cpds
Sulfide
Susp. solids
Thicyanate
WASTEWATER
25 mg/l
WASTE AMMONIA LIQUOR
IOOO mg/l
60 mg/l
100 mg/l
500 mg/l
320 mg/l
60 mg/l
450 mg/l
7-9
(93 gal/ton)
Ammonia - N
Cyanide
Oil 6 grease
Phenol Cpds.
Sulfide
Susp. solids
Thiocyanate
PH
Flow*388 l/kkg
AmmonicrN <100 mg/ij
Cyanide c 5 mg/l /
Oil & grease <10 mg/l I
Phenolic Cpds.<05mg/I V
Sulfide < I mg/l f
Susp. solids < 80 mg/l I
Thiocyonale < 2 mg/l \
pH 6-9 \
Flow*938 l/kkg(225gal/tai)
Fresh wafer added to
optimize bioxidation
Ammonia-N 5000 mg/l
Cyanide 25 mg/l
Oil 8 greose 150 mg/l
Phenolic Cpds.1000 mg/l
Sulfide 800 mg/l
Susp. solids 60 mg/l
Mocyanaf* 600 mg/l
pH 8-10
Flow*l33 Vkkg (32 gallon)
313 l/kkg (75 gal/ton I
ACID
~ To Ammonia Hydroxide or
Ammonium Sulfate Production
DEPHENOUZER*
ABANDONED)
FREE
AMMONIA
STILL
FIXED
AMMONIA
STILL
LIME
Steam 'L /
29 l/kkqXJ
4H7 gal/
ton)
¦Steam
4»—25 l/kkg
I (6 gal/too)
U—
—
AIR
BLOWERS
COMBINED OTHER
WASTEWATERS
krN 150 mg/l
Cyanide 125 mg/l
18 grease 80mg/l
Cpds. 350mg/)
Sulfide 00 mg/l
sofoh 75mg/l ff9
Thkcyanate400ing/l
pH 6-9
Fk*« 229 l/kkg
(55 go 1/ton)
Blowdown
VACUUM
FILTER
BENZOL
WASTE
104 l/kkg (25 gal/ton)
JMake^up from
Service Water
BOILER
FINAL
COOLER
42 l/kkg
(10 gal/ton)
Solids to
Disposal
BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY
EQUIPMENT-NOT INCLUDED
IN BPT MODEL COST
BPT MODEL
BOILER
TREATMENT
CHEMICALS
Make
Water
Regenerants
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS WASTES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUOY
BY PRODUCT COKE SUBCATEGORY
BPT MODEL FOR
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
83 l/kkg(20 gal/ton
DWN.V3V78
CRYSTALLIZER
FIGURE
313 t/kkg(75 gal/Ion
-------
Make-Up
PROCESS
PON CHS)
Ammonia
Cyanide
Phenol
Susp. solids 400 mg/l
pH 6-9
Flow*l25l l/kkg(300 gol/lon)
0.3S mg/l
0.004 mg/l
0.01 mg/l
Ammonia
Cyanide
Phenol
Susp. solids
0.20 mg/l
0.003 mg/l
0.009 mg/l
25 mg/|
6-9
Flow: 1251 |/kkg (300 gal/ton)
BPT
MODEL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
COKEMAKING'BEEHIVE OPERATION
BPT MODEL
OWNS-25-78
FIGURE JK- 2
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH
THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
The effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1984 are to specify
the degree of effluent load reduction attainable through the
application of the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT). BAT is to be determined by identifying the very best control
and treatment technology employed within the industrial subcategory,
or where it is readily transferable from one industry to another, such
technology may be identified as BAT. This section describes three
alternatives for by-product cokemaking, and identifies the alternative
selected by the Agency as the basis for proposed BAT limitations. For
beehive operations, BAT is identical with the proposed BPT limitations
described in Section IX.
As indicated in Section V, significant changes in air emission
controls and wastewater control and treatment technology have produced
several treatment options for by-product cokemaking operations.
Because of the number of choices available, the Agency decided to use
a building block approach in developing the proposed BAT limitations
as it did with the proposed BPT limitations. Flow rates from certain
wastewater sources can be minimized by recycling or reuse where
appropriate, or by process changes which eliminate wastewater sources
such as replacing barometric condensers with surface condensers.
However, an approach proposed in the original development document
EPA-440/1-74-024a (recycling barometric condenser wastewaters to
achieve a 72 gal/ton flow reduction from that source alone) is
applicable to only 14 of the 59 plants responding to EPA
questionnaires and is currently practiced by seven plants, which have
an average condenser blowdown flow of 5.2 gal/ton. The remaining
plants have no wastewaters from this source.
Although wastewater disposal by coke quenching is widely practiced,
more stringent air pollution control requirements mitigate against
continued widespread use of this practice. Such wastewaters will have
to be treated in existing or expanded treatment facilities, then
discharged to surface waters. Also, the large volumes of water used
in scrubbers associated with control of atmospheric emissions from
oven charging and pushing require control and treatment. Recycle of
the scrubber waters can be used to minimize the vdlume requiring
treatment. However the blowdowns from these systems must be treated
prior to discharge.
147
-------
Model BAT Flow
The flows of the model treatment system for by-product cokemaking
operations are based on values shown in Table X-l. Plants which
demonstrate or closely approach the BAT model flow for each wastewater
source are listed in Table X-2.
The proposed limitations include an allowance for additional process
wastewater flow for those plants practicing indirect ammonia recovery.
These six plants produce about 6% of the annual coke tonnage. They
qualify for supplemental load allowances based on 209 1/kkg (50
gal/ton) flow rates. The desulfurizer allowances listed in Section IX
are also included in the proposed BAT limitations.
The Agency considered providing an allowance for fresh water dilution
to optimize biological treatment. However dilution with fresh water
is replaced at the BAT level of treatment with other flows collected
for joint treatment, notably pushing emission control blowdowns. The
impact of extremes in temperature can be eliminated by installing
indirect cooling systems or by allowing sufficient retention and
equalization time prior to biological treatment. Providing suitable
pretreatment and equalization of the ammonia liquor prior to
biological treatment also minimizes the amount of "dilution" which is
necessary to protect the microorganisms. Where sufficient wastewater
volumes from other less aggressive sources exist, they should replace
all or part of the 50 gal/ton dilution which was included in the
proposed BPT limitations.
The model wastewater discharge flows used as a basis for BAT cost
estimates are as summarized in Table X-l. The pollutant levels which
the BAT alternative treatment system can achieve are discussed below
on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The alternative systems were
described in Table VIII-4 and schematics of the three alternative BAT
treatment models are shown in Figure VIII-1. The proposed BAT
limitations are set out in Table X-3 (Alternative No. 1).
Identification of BAT Alternatives
The three BAT alternative treatment systems for by-product cokemaking
operations are as follows.
A. BAT Alternative 1
The first step is the recycle of crystallizer wastewaters, if
any, to minimize the flow to be treated. That step is followed
by a second stage or extended biological system. For costing
purposes a second stage biological system, complete with its own
clarifier was included. A final treatment step of filtration is
provided to prevent carryover of suspended matter and any toxic
pollutants that may be included in the suspended solids. This
system is diagrammed as Alternative 1 in Figure X-l. Individual
component costs are shown in columns H through K of Table VII1-9.
Annual costs over and above the costs of the BPT model treatment
system are estimated at $0.12/ton of coke.
148
-------
B. BAT Alternative 2
Alternative 1 can be upgraded to provide better control of toxic
organic pollutants and ammonia removal by the addition of
powdered activated carbon to the biological reactors. Refer to
Figure X-2 for a diagram of the system. Limited data indicate
that single stage systems, with or without powdered activated
carbon can produce comparable effluent quality. However, the
system performance has not fully been assessed.
C. BAT Alternative 3
The treated effluent from either of the above biological
alternative systems may be disposed of by coke quenching where
impacts on air pollution can be tolerated. Although this
approach cannot be recommended universally, it provides a means
of achieving zero discharge. Refer to Figure X-3 for a diagram,
and to Table VIII-9, columns H, I, J, and M for cost information.
Selection of a BAT Alternative
The Agency selected BAT Alternative No. 1 as the BAT model treatment
system upon which the proposed BAT limitations are based. This
technology is practiced in this subcategory on a full-scale basis.
The two-step or extended biological oxidation system is currently
installed at four by-product coke plants, while filtration of
biological treatment system discharges is practiced at Plant 0856A.
BAT Alternative No. 2, which provides for the addition of powdered
activated carbon, has been limited to short-term testing on a
semi-pilot scale, and shows promise of only a marginal reduction in
total pollutant loads. Alternative 3 cannot be applied in most cases
because of its impact on air pollution.
Currently, two plants are operating advanced physical/chemical
wastewater treatment systems which incorporate technologies other than
bioxidation. Both of these plants, 0684F (009) and 0732A (001)
provide mixed media pressure filtration and granular activated carbon
adsorption using fixed bed columns, while the latter plant also is
equipped with alkaline chlorination. The Agency has decided to
propose separate BAT limitations for these plants, and for any others
which may have installed full scale granular activated carbon columns
by the time these limitations are proposed. These limitations are
similar to the proposed BAT limitations for all other by-product
cokemaking plants, except for ammonia-N, phenolic compounds and total
cyanide. Refer to Table X-3 for details on physical/chemical BAT
effluent limitations. The proposed limitations can be achieved by
treatment systems consisting of flow minimization (as in BAT
Alternative No. 1 above), fixed ammonia stripping, followed by
pressure filtration and adsorption on fixed beds of granular activated
carbon. Initial capital investments for this addition to the BPT
system are 2.5 times the biological alternative, while operating costs
over and above the BPT level (physical/chemical treatment) are several
times that of the selected biological alternative.
149
-------
Impact of BAT Technologies on Toxic Pollutants
Table VII1-9 includes effluent quality data for each BAT alternative
technology. The Agency evaluated the impact of BAT model treatment
system components on toxic pollutants using data obtained during
sampling surveys at Plants 003, 008, 009, together with long-term and
special verification pilot scale study data from Plants 003 and 001,
respectively. The treatment system at Plant 001 has only been
recently installed, so long-term data are not yet available. Plant
003 most nearly represents biological Alternative 1, while Plant 001
and 009 are the two physical/chemical treatment systems. Sufficient
analytical data are available to determine treatment system impacts on
toxic pollutants (Table X-4).
Note that most of the toxic pollutants are controlled to low levels by
either treatment system. The critical treatment step in each
alternative is obvious - carbon adsorption for the physical/chemical
system, and biological oxidation for the biological system.
Control and Treatment of Pollutants Using BAT Technology
As discussed in Section VII and summarized in Table VI1-3, the many
toxic organic pollutants identified in wastewaters from by-product
cokemaking can be controlled by treating those pollutants listed in
the proposed BPT limitations, plus benzene, naphthalene, and
benzo(a)pyrene. The Agency selected these latter three toxic organic
pollutants, together with the previously limited phenolic compounds
(4-AAP method) to serve as indicators .for volatile, acid, and
base/neutral compounds. For discussion of the treatability of TSS and
oil and grease with the BAT model treatment systems refer to Section
XI. The other pollutants included in the proposed BAT limitations are
present at levels shown in Table IX-2. A discussion of the reductions
achieved by the BAT model treatment system on a pollutant by pollutant
basis follows.
Ammonia-N
Of the plants identified in Section IX as achieving the proposed BPT
limit for ammonia-N, Plant 003 is able to achieve the proposed BAT
limitations for ammonia-N using biological treatment. During the
toxic pollutant survey, Plant 003 discharged 0.77 mg/1 ammonia-N in a
flow of 201 gal/ton, equivalent to less than 10% of the proposed BAT
limit. Year-round data provided for the plant show daily ammonia-N
loads which comply with the proposed limitations consistently. From
April, 1979 through May, 1980 all monthly average values were within
the 30-day average BAT limitation. Daily maximum values were exceeded
for only 4 consecutive days in a sixteen month period. These
observations were confirmed during seven weeks of EPA verification
sampling on-site between October, 1979 and February, 1980. Daily
maximum levels never exceeded 64% of the proposed BAT limitation, and
monthly averages for October, January, and February were at <1, 43,
and 75% of BAT 30-day average values, respectively. Routine daily
analyses reported by the company covering the same period indicate
the same high degree of compliance. This successful ammonia-N load
reduction is achieved by passing all wastewaters through free and
150
-------
fixed stills, an aerated sludge lagoon with two separate compartments/
and a clarifier. The ammonia stills reduce ammonia levels from 2,400
mg/1 in the raw liquor to 60 mg/1 in the combined feed to biological
treatment. The ammonia content is further reduced by the later
treatment.
The remaining plants with the proposed BPT model treatment system
failed to achieve the proposed BAT limitations on ammonia-N for
differing reasons. Plant C discharges to a POTW, and no other
treatment for ammonia removal is provided except the free and fixed
stills. Plant 008 uses a treatment sequence similar to Plant 003, but
does not subject its benzol plant wastewaters to ammonia stripping.
Although the ammonia liquor has only 33 mg/1 of ammonia-N after
stripping, the addition of raw benzol plant wastewaters raises the
ammonia concentration to 202 mg/1. Biotreatment reduces ammonia
content to 127 mg/1 in the effluent. If this rate of reduction were
applied to the stripped liquor concentration of 33 mg/1, about 21 mg/1
of ammonia-N would remain in the effluent. The lower ammonia content
of the feed to biotreatment would also tend to improve further
reduction and thus approach compliance. Also, at the time during
which Plant 008 was sampled (Sept. 6-9, 1977) only one of the two
aeration basins was in use. Since then, the second basin has been
placed in operation.
Plant 003 demonstrates the ability of biological treatment facilities
to attain the proposed BAT limitation for ammonia-N. Sampling data
from physical/chemical Plant 009 indicates an ammonia discharge of 3.3
times the applicable proposed BAT limitation, at 0.0859 kg/kkg. This
includes a portion of the treated wastewater which is currently
evaporated in quenching operations. The actual ammonia load being
discharged directly is 0.0568 kg/kkg, which exceeds the proposed BAT
limitations for physical/chemical treatment systems by 120%. Although
the treatment system is designed to strip fixed ammonia following
caustic addition, data (toxic survey and long-term) indicate that this
reaction is not carried to completion. During EPA's sampling visit,
ammonia concentration was reduced from 7750 mg/1 to 290 mg/1 in the
still, but pH values never exceeded 9.0 in the still effluent,
indicating that the 290 mg/1 could have been further reduced. Long-
term data reported by the plant covering the period from - July, 1977
through June, 1978 are in the form of ranges and averages only.
(During and after this period, the company was modifying its pH
control system and installing a dephlegmator on the ammonia still).
Ammonia concentrations in the still effluent average 544 mg/1 but the
range was 9.9 mg/1 to 8450 mg/1. The pH levels went from 7.6 to 13.6
with a median near 10.7. Even though the median pH was reasonably
high, the fact that pHs were permitted to remain as low as 7.6 in some
cases greatly influenced the average ammonia value. Even a few
instances where stripping failed to recover fixed ammonia causes the
long-term average to far exceed limitations. For example, if the
reported maximum value (8450 mg/1) is omitted from the calculation of
the average, the recalculated average becomes 389 mg/1, a 28.5%
reduction of the overall average. This plant could attain the
proposed BAT limitation for physical/chemical plants for ammonia by
improving fixed ammonia removal efficiency and maintaining an ammonia
still effluent quality of 80-100 mg/1 if only current direct discharge
151
-------
wastewaters are stripped, and of 40-50 mg/1 if all wastewaters are
discharged directly in the future. Either of these levels are
attainable by well designed and well operated modern stills.
Total Cyanide
Of the plants achieving the proposed BPT limitations for total
cyanide, two of the biological treatment systems approach or achieve
the proposed BAT limitations as well. Plant 003 exceeded the proposed
limitations by 23% during short-term surveys, but data provided by the
company indicates that it has complied with the proposed limitations
on a long-term basis. Daily analyses for the period November, 1977
through July 1980 demonstrate compliance, averaging 2.0 mg/1 on a
year-round basis. Most of the noncompliance daily maxima occurred
during the start-up of the system. For the 33 months for which daily
analyses are available, only four monthly averages exceeded the 30-day
average limitation, and daily maximum limits were exceeded only 9
times out of 1002 days, usually by slim margins. This high level of
compliance persisted throughout the seven week EPA verification survey
during the period of October, 1979 through February, 1980. Overall
average total cyanide loads were at 76% of the 30-day average
limitations and only one value out of 21 daily values exceeded the
daily maximum limit.
Plant 008 was within compliance during the EPA toxic pollutant survey,
and long-term data covering ten months of operations (but only six
months of analytical tests for total cyanides), demonstrated
compliance with the 30-day average limitation for all months reported.
All daily loads' met the proposed BAT limitation for daily maximum
values. These two plants serve to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the model treatment system in reducing total cyanide loads to the
proposed BAT limitations.
Phenolic Compounds
Data obtained during the sampling surveys demonstrate the
achievability of the proposed maximum daily BAT limitation for
phenolic compounds. All three of the biological treatment plants were
discharging less than 50% of the BAT daily maximum limitations.
Moreover, long-term data covering 33 months of operation at Plant 003
demonstrate consistent attainment of the proposed 30-day average
limitation. During that period, the overall average of all monthly
averages was 67% of the 30-day average limitation. Of the 33 months,
only three exceeded the stated limits, none within the past two years.
The proposed daily maximum limitation has been exceeded only three
times within the past two years, by a maximum of 36%.
The primary treatment system component in the physical/chemical
systems is activated carbon adsorption. Phenolics in the wastewaters
flowing into the two separate carbon systems at Plant 009 were
effectively reduced on contact with activated carbon. Ammonia liquor
at 90 mg/1 of phenolics was reduced to 0.058 mg/1, while benzol plant
wastes at 1,550 mg/1 of phenolics were reduced to 0.168 mg/1 by
contact with carbon during the toxic pollutant survey. Long-term data
from the same plant show effluent loads of 0.0000765 kg/kkg discharged
152
-------
directly and <0.000002 kg/kkg disposed of by quenching. Direct
discharge data are based on 50 analyses.
Benzene
*
The toxic pollutant plant sampling visits and the verification program
at Plant 003 are the primary sources of data for benzene (refer to
Table VII-3 for data for toxic organics). Short-term results
indicated that Plant 009 achieves the proposed BAT limitations for
benzene by carbon adsorption, and Plant 003 achieves such limits by
biological treatment. Evaluation is complicated due to the small
concentrations present, which were reported as averaging less than
0.06 mg/1 in treated effluents. For Plant 003, this is equivalent to
<0.00005 kg/kkg compared with a proposed BAT limitation of 0.000032
kg/kkg. Analytical data from the seven week (21 sampling days)
verification sampling done at Plant 003 indicate that the proposed BAT
limitations for benzene were consistently achieved. Monthly averages
never exceeded 30% of the proposed BAT limit, while daily loads never
exceeded 22% of the daily maximum load. Also, pilot plant data from
Plant 001 indicate that their physical/chemical treatment system will
adsorb benzene on carbon so effectively that effluents from the carbon
columns will average <0.03 mg/1 consistently. This approaches the
performance of Plant 009's full-scale system, whose effluent shows
<0.01 mg/1 of benzene.
Naphthalene
Three of the four plants surveyed for toxic pollutants demonstrate an
ability to control naphthalene to less than 0.000006 kg/kkg.
Biological systems at Plants 003 and 008 attain "none detected" and
<0.000002 kg/kkg respectively, and carbon adsorption plant 009 matches
this latter figure.
Pilot scale data from plant 001 (physical/chemical) show carbon column
effluents at <0.01 mg/1, often at "none detected" and verification
data from Plant 003 shows only one daily value out of 21 which
exceeded the proposed daily maximum BAT limitation for naphthalene.
Based on these data, the Agency believes that the proposed BAT
limitation can be achieved using the BAT model treatment system as
well as by using the advanced physical/chemical treatment systems.
Benzo(a)pyrene
All four of the plants surveyed for toxic organic pollutants attain
the proposed BAT limitation for benzo(a)pyrene of 0.000013 kg/kkg.
The two biological oxidation plants 003 and 008 discharged 0.000011
kg/kkg and "none detected" respectively. The carbon adsorption system
at Plant 009 also complies with the proposed benzo(a)pyrene limit by
treating to <0.00001 kg/kkg.
Pilot plant data for the activated carbon system at Plant 001 showed
<0.01 mg/1 or "none detected," while verification data from Plant 003
was consistently below the proposed daily maximum limitation except
for a three-day outage in January, 1980 where maxima were exceeded by
365, 4, and 19%. Pilot filtration data indicate this outage was due
153
-------
to benzo(a)pyrene which had been adsorbed on activated sludges, and
was carried out with abnormally high concentrations of TSS (500-1400
mg/1). Hence, the importance of post filtration of the BAT
Alternative No. 1 effluent is demonstrated in achieving the proposed
limitations for toxic organic pollutants.
154
-------
TABLE X-l
FLOW SUMMARY
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
(All Flows in Gallons/Ton of Coke)
Flow Basis
Wastewater Source BAT Feed BAT Effluent
Waste Ammonia Liquor 32 32
Final Cooler Blowdowns 10 10
Barometric Condenser Discharge 75 3
Benzol Plant Wastewaters 25 25
Steam & Lime Slurry 13 13
Miscellaneous Sources (leaks, seals, test taps, 20 20
drains)
Dilution to optimize bio-oxidation
BASIC TOTAL FLOW 225 153
Additional Flow Allowances Provided in the Regulation:
For Qualified Desulfurizers (Wet) 25 25
For Indirect Ammonia Recovery 50 50
No Additional Allowances For:
Air Pollution Control Scrubbers:
Coal Drying or Preheating - up to 15 GPT Blowdown* 0 0
Charging/Larry Car - up to 5 GPT Blowdown* 0 0
Pushing Side Scrubber - up to 100 GPT Blowdown* 0 0
MAXIMUM TOTAL FLOW 300 228
*: Up to 50 GPT of dilution water is replaced by blowdowns from air pollution control
scrubbers. Any excess blowdown (from pushing only) is disposed of via quenching
operations, or treated and reused in the scrubber system.
155
-------
TABLE X-2
BAT EFFLUENT FLOW JUSTIFICATION
BY-PRODUCT COKEMAKING
Wastewater Source
BAT
Effluent Flow
Basis in GPT
Plants
Code No.
Which Demonstrate BAT
GPT Code No.
Flow
GPT
Waste Amnonia Liquor
32
0256E
15
06841
27
094 8A
17
0584C
28
0684J
20
0868A
28
0060F
21
0348A
29
0684H
22
0112B
31
0112C
24
0280B
31
0112D
25
0684 F
32
0212
25
073 2A
32
. 0112
26
0112A
33
0584F-M
27
0860B
33
Final Cooler Blowdown
10
0448A
<1
0320
6.2
0856F
1.2
0584C
8.3
0684A
2.6
0684B
11.3
0112C
6.0
Barometric Condenser Blowdown
(1) 3(42)
0448A
<1(<12)
0112D
6.7(2.62)
0856F
2.4(<1X)
Benzol Plant Wastewaters
25
0584 F
15.6
0948A
25.2
0448A
15.9
0112C
25.3
0856N
24.3
0864A
30.7
(2)
Steam and Lime Slurry
13
0384A
8.0
0920F
11.6
0868A
11.0
0272
13.1
Miscellaneous Sources
20
0112
21.0
0868A
21.1
Bioxidation Optimization
50
0584F-BI
50.8
0584F-M
55.0
Wet Desulfurization
25
0112D
22.2
(3)
Indirect Amnonia Recovery
50 (added to
0810
36
0402
76
basic 32
0464E
55
0024A
79
above "S2)
0948C
59
0464B
82
(1) Numbers in parentheses represent 2 of applied rate going to blowdown.
(2) Includes steam from free and fixed amnonia stripping, plus water used to make lime
slurry or caustic solutions. Even though free ammonia removal is considered to be
a recovery process and not pollution control, the steam condensates must be included
among the wastewaters requiring treatment.
(3) Plants which practice indirect ammonia recovery qualify for 50 additional GPT
ammonia liquor allownace over and above the 32 GPT which all plants receive.
156
-------
TABLE X-3
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES
COKE MAKING SUBCATEGORY
BAT Effluent Limitations in kg/kkg (lbi/1000 I>»)
Phenol ic
(1)
NH3-N
Cyanide*
(2)
Coapounda
(3)
Benzene
(4)
Naphthalene
(4)
Ben«o(a)pyrene
(4)
By-Product Cokoaaking
Alternative 1*
1. Baaic Liaitatioa
2. Add for Indirect
Haarmi a Recovery
3. Add for Wet
Deaulforication
0.00957,.
0.0253
0.0031J >
0.0125
0.00156
0.00626
(5)
0^160
0(^O521
0((jy0261
0.000016
0.000022
0.000005
0.000010
0.000003
0.000005
(5)
<5>
(5)
0.000032
0.000022
0.000010
(5)
0.000005
0.000006
0.000004
0.000002
(5)
0.000001
0.000013
0.000009
0.000004
(5)
0.000002
B. By—Product Coknaaking
Alternative 2
1. Baaic Liaitation
2. Add for Indirect
Aaneaia Recovery
3. Add foe Vet
Be*nlforication
0.00957,.
0.025#
°*0031?5)
0.0125
0.00156
0.00626
(5)
0|S912»
0lS?0417
0(^0209
0.000016
0.000022
0.000005
0.000010
0.000003,
0.000005
(5)
(5)
15)
0.000032
0.000022
0.000010
0.000005
(5)
0.000006
0.000004
0.000002
0.000001
t5)
0.000006 .
0.00004
0.000002
0.000001
C. By-Prodnct Cokanaking
Alternative 3
1. Baaic Limitations
2. Add for Indirect
Imiaia Recovery
3. Add tor Met
Deaalf arizatioa
¦o Discharge of Process Wastewater Pollutant a to Navigable Streana
D. Beehive Cokoaaking No Dia charge of Froces* Hasten at er Pollutanta to Navigable Streaia (Sae as BPT)
(1) 30-Day average BAT limitation*. Daily aaxiaiai value* are twice the liaitation* stated for cyanideo, benzene, NH.-N (Ihyaical-
cheaical aysteaa), naphthalene and benxo(a)pyrene; four tinea the atated linit for phenolic caapoiaids; and 5.34 tinea the liaut
for M.HI (biological ayatans).
(2) Dotal Cyanides. Bate that no liaitation applies to ffcysical-chnaical ayatona.
(3) Oaiag 4-AAP teat aethod.
(6) Oaiag CC/MS teat aethod. Bccept for baaic liaitation, additiona are the am for biological and physical-chemical ayatcas.
(S) Liaitatioa far phyaical-chencal traataant aysteas.
• s Selected MX Alternative
-------
TABLE X-4
IMPACT OF SELECTED BAT TECWOLOGIES OH TOXIC POLLUTANTS
All concentrations in micrograms/liter.
Physical-Chemical Alternative Biological Alternative
Bio-
Pollutant
BAT Feed
Gas Flot.
Filtration
Carbon Ads.
BAT Feed
treatnent
Clarifier
Filtration
Organics:
Acenaphthene
20
15
7
5
50
10
2
2
Acenaphthylene
2,750
2, 750
2,400
5
6,000
10
5
5
Acroyloni trile
750
550
400
200
10,000
ND
ND
ND
Benzene
40,000
40,000
40,000
10
10,000
250
25
20
Benzo(a)anthracene
500
400
250
5
1,000
25
2
2
Benzo (a )pyrene
400
400
300
10
100
15
10
<10
Chloroform
10
10
20
20
1,250
200
200
100
Chrysene
750
200
200
5
1,250
10
10
10
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
25
35
35
ND
4,000
ND
ND
ND
Ethyl benzene
25,000
25,000
200
10
200
10
2
2
Fluoranthene
1,500
1,000
750
10
300
10
2
2
Fluorene
700
600
500
5
75
10
2
2
Naphthalene
35,000
25,000
20,000
5
2,000
10
2
2
2-Hitrophenol
40
30
30
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
Pent achi orophenol
750
500
400
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
Bienol
80,000
35,000
30,000
25
75,000
40
15
10
Pyreae
1,750
1,750
750
7
100
25
10
10
Toluene
30,000
25,000
20,000
7
4,000
75
40
40
Xylene
200,000
200,000
150,000
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------
TABLE JE-4
IIP ACT CP SELECTED BAT TECHNOLOGIES OR TOXIC POLLOTAHTS
PACE 2
Pollutant
Nonorganics:
Antiaony
Arsenic
Beryl lim
Cafeioa
ChroaiuB
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercery
Hickel
Seleniua
Silver
Zinc
Fhysical-Cheaical Alternative
BAT Feed Gat Flot. Filtration Carbon Ads.
400
200
*
10
HD
50
30,000
50
0.8
WD
75
20
HD
400
160
*
10
HD
25
25,000
50
0.8
HD
60
20
ND
300
150
*
10
HD
25
25,000
50
0.8
HD
55
20
HD
200
100
*
10
HD
20
25,000
50
0.8
HD
40
20
HD
•Detected, but not quantified with sufficient accuracy. Value is <10 aicrogr
HD: Rot detected.
Biological Alternative
Bio-
BAT Feed treatment Clarifier Filtration
150
500
10
15
25
25
15,000
100
0.8
50
300
100
200
150
400
2
10
20
20
2,500
40
0.3
25
150
25
100
125
250
2
10
10
20
2,000
25
0.1
10
100
10
80
50
70
2
<10
<10
<10
2,000
20
0.1
<10
80
<10
50
s/liter.
-------
O
TO AMMONIUM HYDROXIDE
_ OR AMMONIUM SULFATE
f PRODUCTION
I
f
I
I
I
I
r -L-i
< CO c c I
FREE
{AMMONIA
lSTILL
r—DE PHENOLIZES?
I (ABANDONED)
T""1
FIXED
I AMMONIA
STILL
AMMONIA- M
BENZENE
BEN Z.OGMPI RENE.
CVAN IDE.
NAPHTHALENE
Oil. t GREA56.
IOOm/I
0.5
O.Ofn-»/l
9 r^j/l
Oil n«,/|
10 mq/l
PHENOLIC CPOS. Of «*! I
5U5R >OI_ID5 SO
pH (o-9
FLOW*«3« l/kk<)
(753 gal/ton)
AMMONIA-N
BENZENE
BENZOCA)PYRENE
CYANIDE
NAPHTHALENE
OIL. *yi
I
I 1
| LIME I
L_ !i*=_
WASTE f f
'AMMONIA. I
liquor | I
JTil;
f*i 11
I _fo») POHD(S)
% - —— f ""t STEAM 54 1/kkS
, r 104- WK?USGAL/TON) J 1^®AL/T0N) X _
[benzol • r 1 r
<>
I
I
'46 £/<&
735 ^/7 V
7
lwaste _j
1- 4
' FINAL '
f*|_cooLER_p
[—COOLING TOWER
~*t I |*"~* BLOW DOWN
r*i*.
\ 7 S4J/KK* 1
4 1 (I3SAL/T0N)
—qL W SOFTENER!*- — — ; —
|CHEMICALSj --
Co38 l/Kk^
(I, 3 g«.l/tor>)
PGESSUBE
FILTER
SYSTEM
RECEIVING STREAM
SLUDGE «£CV IE
AIR
BLOWERS
FRESH A'ATCK ACCFl
10 OPTIMIZE BIOMDATION
(Up to SO gat/i-on h> replaced
BAT by from pus hi
I 1
IACID I .
|!«V-
i.i+T s x
1 x n rfi'
X J-*"-*
I, J~ vacuum V
MAKE-UP -1
WATER
*-WcRYSTALLIIERt-
I I
WASTEWATER FROM
AIE POLLUTION
^MISCELLANEOUS
\peocfss, jmstss;
•L FILTER .
"V
SOLIDS FOR
DISPOSAL
SERVICE WATER
REGENERANTS
BYPRODUCT RECOVERY EQUIPMENT
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
wtSTEWATEE FPOM
AIE POLLUTION
:ONTCOL(PBFHEAT
i CHAK6IMC.)
-
-------
146 l/KKG
(35 GAL/
TON)
(32 GAL/
TON) m
ACTIVATED CARBON
SYSTEM
/ Ls±?J UJrT'T
54 l/kkg ~ T f I K7*l
I I
L .1
STEAM
STEEL INDUSTRY STUOY
BY-PRODUCTS COKE SUBCATEGORY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
BAT MODEL-ALTERNATIVE 2
WASTEWATERS
FROM AIR POLLU-
TK)N CONTROLS
(PUSHING!
63 l/KKG
(15 GAL/TON)
FIGURE X-2
-------
Tb Ammouium
oe ammokuum
PtoOLicttoKj
Hvceoxioe-
Sjlcat6
Ammonia-N
Benzene
8enzo(A)Pyrene
Cyanide
Naphthalene
Oil S grease
Phenolic cpds.
Susp. solid*
PH
Row-638 IAkg(l53 gal/ton
FRESH
100 mg/f
0.5 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
5 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
10 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
00 mg/l
6-9
~BecNOfc To Quench Station
WATER ADDED
TO OPTIMIZE BI0XIDATI0N
(Up to 50 gal/ton Is replaced at
BAT by wastewaters from pushing)
t.'ASTE '
AMMONIA |
LIQUOR ¦
Ammonia-N < 15 mg/l
Benzene < 0.05 mg/l
Benzo(A)Pyrene <0.02 mg/l
Cyanide . <2.5 mg/l
Naphthalene <0.01 mg/l
Oil ft grease < 10 mg/l
Phenolic cpds. <0.025mg/l|
Susp. solids )
J PHU61.
iLE^.
i—*>
L.
.COOUMCil
M&*£-UP I
w«ree
_ 1
'-•icZ'firaujiK.f
i i
S4 JU*t6 I ,,
03 6AL/TOW)j
"^03 £/£&[
(ZOOb.ljTDN)j\
r
-I Bqilw.
..
j
r"ao«.«. ~i • r i m^-up mom
I "rasaTMEurl «*1 So^tviet
[o**c«aj I | Sxvtfe
t|r-3
£ 26
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XI
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BCT)
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).
The methodology for determining best conventional technology used by
the Agency is discussed in detail in Section X of Volume I.
Analysis of BCT Control Costs for TSS & Oil and Grease
Controls for Bv-Product Cokemakinq Operations
The Agency used the BAT alternative treatment systems present in
Section X as a basis for developing BCT alternative treatment systems.
The cost of treating TSS and oil and grease to more stringent levels
was estimated for each BCT alternative treatment system.and are set
out in Section VIII in Table VIII-10. A summary of the indusry/POTW
cost comparison follows:
Costs in $/lb of Conventional Pollutant Removed
POTW Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3
By-Product 1.34 0.81 0.81 0.46
Cokemaking
(All costs are expressed in 7/1/78 dollars).
As shown above, all BCT alternatives provide control of TSS and oil
and grease for less than the cost of comparable POTW removal. Thus,
each passes the BCT cost test. Since the technology included in BCT
163
-------
Alternative 3 (disposal by coke quenching) was not selected as the
basis for the proposed BAT limitations on the grounds of adverse air
quality impacts, it is also not selected as the BCT model treatment
system, despite the cost advantage noted above.
Development of BCT Effluent Limitations
Since each of the BCT alternative treatment systems meets the
requirements defined under the BCT cost test, the Agency is proposing
BCT limitations for TSS and oil and grease based upon the BCT
Alternative No. 1 (flow minimization, second stage biological
oxidation, clarification and filtration). Physical/chemical systems
depend on filtration and carbon adsorption to achieve the same
limitations. Refer to Section X for appropriate discussions, and to
Table XI-1 for the proposed BCT limitations. Diagrams of the
appropriate technology are shown in Figure X-l, and cost data are
presented in Section VIII, Tables VII1-9 and VIII- 10.
Justification of the Proposed BCT Limitations
Although none of the biological treatment systems demonstrate
compliance with the proposed BCT limitation for TSS of 0.0128 lb/1000
lbs during the plant sampling surveys, this is because none of the
biological treatment plants use filtration; a component of the BCT
model treatment system. Filtration proved to be effective for the
physical/chemical system at Plant 009 in controlling TSS down to
0.0121 lb/1000 lbs, and Plant 002 provided long-term settling to
reduce TSS to 0.0009 lb/1000 lbs. The Agency believes that filtering
the effluents from biological plants will achieve compliance with
proposed BCT limitations for TSS also. At least one biological
treatment plant, 0856A, has installed filtration of activated sludge
system effluents. The technology has also been demonstrated on a
bench scale during verification studies at Plant 003. Five of the 21
daily effluent samples were passed through sand filters, and filtrates
contained from 2-5 mg/1 TSS, even when feeds were as high as 500 mg/1
TSS. Also, during that verification survey, all plant data for
October (10 samples) met the proposed BCT 30-day average and daily
maximum limitations for TSS, even without filtration. However, when
the limitations were exceeded in January, they averaged 2 to 35 times
the proposed BCT limitations. A filter would prevent such wide
variations.
The Agency is not proposing a 30-day average BCT limitation for oil
and grease. Instead, a daily maximum value of 0.00639 lb/1000 lbs is
being proposed. For the eleven different plants listed in Table IX-2,
ten demonstrate compliance with that limitation; mostly with ease.
Long-term data for nearly all plants indicate attainment on a
year-round basis for biological and physical/chemical treatment
systems. For example, Plant 008 reported four daily maximum values
exceeding the proposed BCT limitations for oil and grease over a six
month period in 1977, and Plant 009 provided data for 50 weeks of
operation, showing an overall average loading of 0.00231 kg/kkg for
the direct discharge. Individual concentrations range between 2 and
23 mg/1, averaging 5.6 mg/1. The Agency believes all plants should be
164
-------
able to achieve the proposed BCT limitation for oil and grease with
little difficulty.
165
-------
TABLE XI-1
BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES
COREMAKING SUBCATEGORY
A. By-Product Cokemaking
Alternative 1*
B. By-Product Cokemaking
Alternative 2
BCT Effluent Limitations in kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs)
,(2)
(1)
res
Bio.
Phys-Chem.
0 & G-
Bio.
Phys-Chem.
pH (Units)
All
1. Basic Limitation
2. Add for Indirect NH^ Recovery
3. Add for tfet Desulfurization
0.0128
0.00417
0.00209
0.00859
0.00417
0.00209
0.00639
0.00209
0.00104
0.00430
0.00209
0.00104
6-9
6-9
6-9
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XII
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
Introduction
The effluent standards which must be achieved by new sources (i.e./
any source, the construction of which is started after proposal of new
source performance standards; NSPS) are to specify the degree of
effluent reduction achievable through the application of the best
available demonstrated control technology processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a
standard permitting no discharge of pollutants. While this latter
goal is achievable for beehive cokemaking operations, and the Agency
has decided to propose NSPS for beehive operations, it is very
unlikely that new beehive processes will be built in the future.
However, even if some new source were to be built the proposed BPT and
BAT limitations (no discharge of wastewater pollutant to navigable
streams) would apply to such sources.
For by-product cokemaking, a "no discharge of pollutants" standard is
most difficult to attain. The coking operation liberates moisture
contained in the coal and, in effect, generates water as a by-product.
Water, in excess of the 135 1/kkg (32 gal/ton) that shows up in coke
plant effluents, is added and must be disposed. Other sources of coke
plant wastewaters are final cooler wastes, benzol plant wastes, coke
quenching tower overflows, coke wharf drains, steam condensed in the
ammonia stills, cooling tower and boiler blowdowns, cooling system
leaks, general washwater used in the coke plant area, and dilution
water, if any, used to optimize conditions for biological treatment.
In addition, new sources are required to incorporate the latest in air
pollution emission controls, which may increase the volumes of water
requiring control and treatment.
If no liquid discharge is to be achieved from modern by-product coke
plants, a means of total disposal must be found for the 135 liters/kkg
(32 gal/ton) of excess flushing liquor which is produced. All of the
wastes in this water, with the possible exception of suspended solids,
are amenable to pyrolytic decomposition. A rough estimate shows that
about 126,000 kilogram calories per metric ton of coke produced would
be required to dispose of this waste. This is a negligible percentage
of the fuel value of the tar and gas generated in the production of a
ton of coke.
However, there is reason to believe that unless very sophisticated
means are used to pyrolytically dispose Qf this water, serious air
pollution problems would result. The gases released from less than
optimum incineration of this water could be expected to contain high
concentrations of the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and some
particulate matter. If a simple incinerator with a wet scrubber were
167
-------
used, the basic pollutants would merely be transferred back to another
water stream, thus producing an even larger volume than the original.
Since many of the toxic pollutants in the liquid stream are volatile,
evaporation of the liquid to dryness would result in many of the same
problems as incineration. In fact, examination of numerous other
points of disposal of this stream within an integrated steel mill all
yield the same answer. While total pyrolytic decomposition of this
small wastewater stream to innocuous gases would be the most desirable
method of complete disposal, air pollution impacts and energy
constraints render this option impractical.
For the above reasons, the Agency decided not to propose "zero
discharge" NSPS for by-product cokemaking.
Identification of NSPS Technology
New Source Performance Standards apply only to sources built after
proposal of NSPS. They are applicable to new by-products recovery
facilities built at an existing cokemaking site, if such facilities
were installed after the NSPS proposal date. Two NSPS alternative
treatment systems were considered as appropriate for new sources.
Both have biological treatment systems as the principal component,
while one of the two includes treatment enhancement using activated
carbon. The biological sequence is demonstrated at plant 003 - the
most effective of the biosystems surveyed. Adsorption on granular
activated carbon is an essential component at plant 009, with
demonstrated effectiveness in the control of toxic pollutants.
Enhancement using powdered activated carbon (PAC) is currently
undergoing testing at several operations. Two coke plants with
sophisticated biological treatment systems are investigating the
addition of PAC to the aeration basin to enhance removal of
carbonaceous material and ammonia.
NSPS Alternative 1
All new cokemaking operations have the opportunity to minimize process
wastewater flows, so the first step in both alternatives is the
elimination of extraneous water. Dry desulfurizers are available and
are recommended for use by new plants, provided they are capable of
meeting the air pollution requirements. Operation of certain
by-products recovery units may not be part of a new source plans. For
example, plants may choose not to refine light oils (less benzol plant
wastewater), or not to recover ammonia as an ammonium salt (replaces
crystallizer wastewaters with a small volume waste). Even if ammonium
sulfate is produced, vacuum crystallizers with steam ejectors should
use surface condensers, rather than barometric condensers, or an
alternate crystallization system should be used. For those plants
where barometric condensers are to be installed, their wastewater can
be recycled with only very limited blowdowns to treatment. This
latter step is considered to be a pollution control cost, while most
of the other means to eliminate water are process related.
168
-------
Modern and more efficient free and fixed ammonia stills are now
available from several sources to provide effective ammonia recovery
and cyanide stripping.
All wastewaters are transferred to a holding and equalization basin
for detention; pH is adjusted; the wastewaters are then transferred to
a two-step or extended biological oxidation system with a clarifier
and vacuum filtration of underflows. A final polish of clarifier
overflows is provided by filtration. No provision for dilution water
is made, since the addition of waters from air pollution emission
controls replaces this other water source. Refer to Figure XII-1 for
a process flow diagram and Table VIII-ll for costs and quality
information.
NSPS Alternative 2
All parts of NSPS Alternative No. 1 are included with provisions for
adding powdered carbon to both activated sludge basins. The
filtration system prevents carryout of excessive TSS loads. Refer to
Figure XII-2 for a diagram of this alternative and Table VIII-ll for
costs and effluent quality.
Flow Basis for All NSPS Alternatives
Since new sources are required to install charging, pushing and
preheating emissions controls, all NSPS flows include up to 50 gal/ton
from these sources. The recycle of barometric condenser wastewaters
with a 3 gallon per ton blowdown was included.in all alternatives, as
were tight recycle of final cooler wastewaters and minimization of
flows from benzol plants and miscellaneous sources. The treated
wastewater volumes for both alternatives, and consequently the
effluent limitations are based on flows of 153 gallons/ton of coke as
for BAT. Refer to discussion in Section X, and in particular to Table
X-l for further details on the NSPS model flow.
Response to Court Remand of Flow Basis
A previously proposed 100 gal/ton flow basis for NSPS load
calculations was remanded by Third Circuit Court on the grounds that
it was "not demonstrated." The only plant in the original survey with
a treated effluent flow less than 100 GPT was plant C, and an
undetermined portion of its process wastewaters was disposed of by
coke quenching.
The additional field sampling survey for toxic pollutants turned up
two plants reporting effluent flows below 100 gallons/ton - plants 002
and 009. But even more effective support is provided by Table II1-3.
Data submitted by 59 operating coke plants indicates that 17 attain
total process wastewater flow rates lower than 100 gal/ton. Thus,
from plant data, it is evident that the 100 gal/ton flow has been
demonstrated by a variety of plants using various disposal means.
Although the 100 gal/ton flow has been effectively demonstrated, NSPS
cost estimates and limitations are based on 153 gallons/ton. This
169
-------
increase in flow is intended to reflect the growing trend toward air
pollution emissions control with wet scrubbers.
NSPS
The proposed effluent standards for new sources are summarized in
Table XII-1. As in the case of the proposed BAT and BCT limits,
Alternative No. 1 has been selected as the NSPS model treatment
system. Refer to sections X and XI for a discussion of individual
pollutants and the ability of existing plants to achieve efficient
removal rates for the limited pollutants.
170
-------
TABLE XII-1
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
NSPS Standards in kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs)
(1)
( 9)
TSS 0 & G tH^-H Cyanides^' Fhenolic Cpds.**" Benzene*-" Naphthalene*"" Benzo(a)pyrenevJ> Onits
.(3)
(4)
.(5)
.(5)
.(5)
PH
A- By-Product C6kmaking
Alternative 1*
1. Basic Standards
0.0128 -
2. Add for Indirect Aasonia 0.00417
Recovery
3. Add for Net
Desulfurization
B. By-Product Cokenaking
Alternative 2
1. Basic Standards
2
0.00209 -
0.0128 -
Add for Indirect Anonia 0.00417 -
Recovery
3. Add for Het
Desulfurization
0.00209
0.00957 0.00160
0.00313 0.000521
0.00156 0.000261
0.00957 0.00128
0.00313 0.000417
0.000016
0.000005
0.000003
0.000016
0.000005
0.00156 0.000209 0.000003
0.000032 0.000006
0.000010 0.000002
0.000005 0.000001
0.000032 0.000006
0.000010 0.000002
0.000005 0.000001
0.000013
0.000004
0.000002
0.000006
0.000002
0.000001
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
C. Beehive Cokesakiag
Mo Discbarge of Process Wastewater Pollutants to Navigable Streams
(1) 30-day average NSPS. Daily maximum values are twice the standards stated for cyanides, benzene, naphthalene
and benco(a)pyrene, 2.67 times the stated value for TSS, four times the stated value for phenolic compounds, and 5.34 times the stated value for NH^-N.
(2) For Oils and Greases, no monthly average is set. A daily maxiaus value of 0.00639 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs) has been established with add-ons of
0.00209 and 0.00104 kg/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs) for indirect asaonia recovery and wet desulfurization for both by-product cokemaking alternatives.
(3) Total cyanides.
(4) Using 4-AAP test method.
(5) Using GC/MS test method.
*: Selected NSPS alternative.
-------
Ammonia-N < 15 mg/l j
Benzene <0.05 mg/l /
Benio(A)Pyrene <0.02 mg/l I
Cyanide <25mg/l I
Naphthalene <0.01 mg/l V
Oil 6 greose < 10 mg/l ?
Phenolic cpds. <0.025 mg/l I
Susp. solids < 20 mg/l I
PH 6-9 \
Flow*638 l/kkg(l53 gal/ton))
Ammonia - N
Beiwene
To ammonium hydroxide
or ammonium sulfate
production
0.5 mg/l
Benzo(A)Pyrene 0.05 mg/l
Cyanide
Naphthalene
Oil S grease
Phenolic cpds
Susp. solids
PH
5 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
10 mg/l
0.5 mg/l I
80 mg/l I
6-9 \
Flow-638 l/kkg(l53gal/tonM Fresh water added
, 1 _ to optimize bioxidation
rV
FREE
FIXED
STILL
STILL
(Up to 50 gal/ton if no air
pollution controls exist.)
LIME
ACID
n
Sludge Recycle
Waste ammonia
!
PRESSURE
FILTER
SYSTEM
133 l/kltg
[32 gal/ton)
PONDIS)
146 l/kkg
(35 gal/ton)
Steam
54 l/kkg
113 gal/fort
AIR
BLOWEWS)
AIR
BLOWERS)
104 l/kkg(25 gal/ton)
BENZOL
WASTE
BOILER
FINAL
COOLER
Make-up from
service water
VACUUM
FILTER
Slowdown
54 l/kkg
[13 gal/tori)
Make-bp
BOILER
TREATMENT
CHEMICALS
COOLING
TOWER
Solids for
disposal
Regenerants
WASTEWATER FROM
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROLS(PusNng\
hd U
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS WASTES
PROTECTION
AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL
t I
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKE SUBCATEGORY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
NSPS MODEL-ALTERNATIVE I
83 l/kkg
(20 ial/ton)
WASTEWATER FROM
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROLS 1 Preheat
& chorgingl
Dwn. 8/29/80
CRYSTALLIZER
63 l/kkg
(15 gal/tort
FIGURE M
-------
(Ammonia-N 100 mg/l
Benzene 0.5 mg/l
Benzo(A)Pyrene 0.05 mg/l
To ammonium hydroxide
or ammonium sulfate
produstion
Cyanide
Naphthalene
\ Oil a areata
(Phenolic cpdi
j Susp. solids
/ PH
I Flow=638 l/kkg (153 gal/ton]
5 rng/l
0.1 mg/l
10 mg/l
0.5 mg/|
80 mg/l
6-9
FREE
AMMONIA
STILL
FIXED
Fresh watet added
to optimize bioxidation
cl»—{Up to 50 gal/ton)
STILL
©
SYSTEM
Sludge Recycle
133 l/kkg
(32gal/toij
PONDtS)
46 lAkg
35 gal/ton)
Sleom
54 l/kkg
(13 gal/ton)
AIR
BLOWER(S)
AIR
BLOWERG)
104 l/kfcg(Z5gal/ton)
BENZOL
WASTE
BOILER
VACUUM
FILTER
Make-up from
service water
Slowdown
Solids for disposal
Ammonia-N < 15 mg/l
Benzene <0.05 mg/l
Benzo(A)Pyrene <0X)l mg/l
54 l/kkg
(13 gal/fan)
BOILER
TREATMENT
CHEMICALS
cZ mg/l
<0.01 mg/|
< 10 mg/l
0.025mg/l
c 20 mg/l
6-9
Flow«638 l/kkg (153 gal/!on|
To receiving" stream
Cyanide
Naphthalene
Oil 8 grease
Phenolic cpds.
Susp. solids
pH
PRESSURE
FILTER
SYSTEM
Regenerants
WASTEWATER FROM
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROLS (Puthmg)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROCESS WASTES
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKE SUBCATEGORY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
NSPS MODEL-ALTERNATIVE 2
83 l/kkg
(20 gal/ton)
WASTEWATER FROM
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROLS (Preheat
6 charging)
Jwn. 8/26/90
FIGURE 2E-2
63 I. kkg
(15 gal/ton)
-------
COKEMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR BY-PRODUCT
COKE PLANTS DISCHARGING TO POTWS
Introduction
This section discusses the alternative control and treatment systems
available for coke plants which discharge wastewaters to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs). The Agency is not proposing
pretreatment standards for beehive cokemaking operations. None of the
existing beehive operations discharge to POTWs and it is unlikely that
they will ever do so because of their location and the fact that
existing beehive operations achieve zero discharge. Even if it could
be determined that an existing beehive operator was proposing to
discharge indirectly by a POTW, it would be extremely costly to pay
sewage charges on a wastewater which can very easily and effectively
be eliminated using the BPT model treatment system. Moreover, the
General Pretreatment Regulations, 40 CFR Part 403, applicable to all
sources, including beehive cokemaking operations, would apply.
Accordingly, the Agency has decided not to proposed pretreatment
standards for beehive cokemaking plants.
However, the Agency has given separate consideration to two classes of
by-product cokemaking operations: existing sources and new sources.
The general pretreatment and categorical pretreatment standards
applying to cokemaking operations are discussed below.
General Pretreatment Standards
For 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 discharges and
categorical standards), revision of categorical standards, and POTW
pretreatment programs.
In establishing pretreatment standards for by-product cokemaking
operations, the Agency gave primary consideration to the objectives
and requirements of the General Pretreatment Regulations. In
addition, the Agency considered additional factors specifically
applicable to by-product cokemaking operations which are discussed
below.
The General Pretreatment Regulations set forth general discharge
prohibitions that apply to all nondomestic 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.
175
-------
In addition, the Regulations contain provisions relating directly to
the determination of and reporting on Pretreatment Standards.
Although wastewaters from a significant number of operating by-product
coke plants are discharged to POTWs, POTWs are usually not designed to
treat the toxic pollutants and other pollutants such as ammonia,
thiocyanate, and sulfide which are present in by-product coke plant
wastewaters. Instead, POTWs are designed to treat biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), 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 treating conventional pollutants.
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 pollutant removal, rather than transfer of these
pollutants to POTWs where many pollutants concentrate in the sludges.
Due to the presence of many toxic pollutants in wastewaters from
by-product cokemaking, extensive pretreatment must be provided to
ensure that these pollutants do not interfere with, pass through, or
are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations or cause harm to the
treatment plant. In general, the pretreatment wastewater treatment
technologies are the same as those for BAT. The Agency is not
proposing pretreatment standards for suspended solids and oil and
grease because these pollutants in the amounts present in BAT
cokemaking effluents are compatible with POTW operations and can be
effectively treated at POTWs. Nonconventional and toxic pollutants
are reviewed below.
Pretreatment Considerations for Cokemaking
Ammonia-N
Most POTWs in the United States are not designed for nitrification.
Hence, aside from incidental removal, most if not all of the ammonia-N
introduced into POTWs from cokemaking operations will pass through
into receiving waters without treatment. Depending on the size of the
POTW and the volume of and pretreatment provided for cokemaking
wastes, operating problems may not be experienced at the POTW because
of dilution, but, nonetheless, the ammonia-N discharged to the POTW
will pass through untreated.
The discharge from Plant 0584B to the Detroit sewerage system provides
an excellent example of the above. Waste ammonia liquors from the
coke plants at Plant 0584B are pretreated with free ammonia stills and
dephenolizers prior to discharge to the Detroit sewerage system with
sanitary wastes and minor miscellaneous coke plant sources. Final
cooler wastes, benzol plant wastes, and pushing emission control
wastes are disposed of by coke quenching. The ammonia-N discharge
from Plant 0584B to the Detroit sewerage treatment plant ranges
between 12,000 and 15,000 lbs/day. Since the Detroit sewage treatment
plant is designed to provide secondary treatment (no ammonia-N
removal) for 800 MGD, the coke plant waste is diluted and does not
interfere with POTW operations, but does not receive treatment for
ammonia-N. Hence, virtually the total coke plant discharge continues
176
-------
to reach the Detroit River unabated. The monthly average BPT and BAT
effluent limitations for ammonia-N for Plant 0584B are about 946
lbs/day and 99 lbs/day, respectively, based on the limitations
proposed herein.
Another example of lack of POTW treatment for ammonia-N resulting from
cokemaking operations is provided by the East Chicago Indiana sewage
treatment plant. This facility receives partially treated coke plant
wastes from Plants 0384A and 0948C. Recent investigations of this
facility by Region V of EPA show the plant is experiencing significant
operating problems, notably with respect to sludge handling and
overall efficiency. The Region attributes many of the problems at
this facility to coke plant wastes. Notwithstanding the above, data
for the East Chicago sewage treatment plant demonstrate this facility
does not remove or otherwise treat ammonia-N. Hence, the ammonia-N
discharges from Plants 0384A and 0948C pass through untreated.
Based upon the current practice at these and other coke plant/POTW
systems, the Agency concludes that to insure comparable and effective
treatment for ammonia-N from coke plants discharging to POTWs, the
proposed pretreatment standards for existing and new sources should be
equal to the proposed BAT and NSPS limitations and standards,
respectively.
Total Cyanide
As noted in Volume I, Section V, cyanide compounds can interfere with
the operation of and pass through POTWs, as well as enhance the
toxicity of metals commonly found in POTW effluents. The mean pass
through of cyanide for fourteen biological plants was found to be 71%.
Based upon cyanide pass through and the operating problems of the East
Chicago Indiana sewage treatment plant discussed earlier, the Agency
concludes that pretreatment standards for new and existing sources for
total cyanide should be equal to the proposed NSPS and BAT limitations
and standards, respectively.
Phenolic Compounds
While phenol and phenolic compounds can be effectively treated • in
POTWs with properly acclimated systems, the Agency is using phenolics
(4-AAP) as an indicator pollutant, along with three specific toxic
organic pollutants, for other toxic organic pollutants discussed
below. Hence, the proposed pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources are the same as the proposed BAT and NSPS limitations
and standards.
Toxic Organic Pollutants
Raw and partially treated cokemaking wastewaters from several coke
plants containing high concentrations of toxic organic pollutants are
currently discharged to POTWs. Based upon the information and data
presented in Volume I, the Agency concludes that pretreatment
standards for the toxic organic pollutants found in cokemaking
wastewaters should be proposed at levels similar to the respective
proposed BAT and NSPS limitations and standards. Many of these
177
-------
pollutants are degraded to only a limited extent in POTWs and most
tend to concentrate in POTW sludges. The Agency believes that to
minimize the distribution of these pollutants in the environment it is
prudent to limit discharges to POTWs to the proposed BAT levels.
PSES Alternative 1
The first step is the minimization of process wastewater flows by
recycle of final cooler and barometric condenser wastewaters.
Following recovery of by-products by free ammonia stripping and
dephenolization, treatment continues with lime addition, fixed ammonia
stripping, equalization and detention in a settling basin, two stage
or extended biological oxidation and filtration prior to release to
sanitary sewers. All pollutants which are detrimental to POTW
operations are significantly reduced. Refer to Figure XIII—1 for a
diagram of this system, and to Table VIII-13 for costs and effluent
qualities.
PSES Alternative 2
Treatment alternative 2 adds powdered carbon to the above system.
This alternative produces slightly lower levels of TSS and O&G,
metals, and organic pollutants such as naphthalene. A diagram of
Alternative 2 appears as Figure XII1-2 and costs and effluent
qualities are shown in Table VIII-13.
Pretreatment Standards
The limitations applicable to existing source POTW dischargers are
shown in Table XIII-1 for the selected alternative for each pollutant.
Alternative 1 has been selected as the PSES model treatment system.
For New Sources (PSNS), the standards are identical to those for
direct new source dischargers. Refer to Section XII for NSPS
limitations, technologies, and costs. Refer also to 43 FR27736, et
seq., for "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollutant; Monday, June 26, 1978."
178
-------
TABLE XIII-1
PRETREATHENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
COKEHAK1NC SUBCATEGORY
PSES Effluent Standards in ka/kkg (lbs/1000 lbs)
(1)
HH3-H
Cyanides
(2)
Phenolic
Compounda
(3)
Benzene
(4)
Naphthalene
(4)
Benzo(a)pyrene
(4)
-J
10
A. By-Product Cokeaaking
Alternative 1*
1. Basic Standard
2. Add for Indirect
Aanonia Recovery
3. Add for Wet
Desulfurization
B. By-Produet Coki
Alternative 2
iking
1. Basic Standard
2. Add for Indirect
AwoQia Recovery
3. Add for Net
Desulfurisation
C. Beehive Cokeaaking
0.00957
0.0258
0.00313
0.0125
0.00156
0.00626
0.00957 .
0.0258
0.00313
e\J /
0.00160
(5)
0.00052J5)
(5)
0.
0012?5)
0.
0.0125
0.00156
0.00626
Rot Applicable
0004^j
(5, °-0002??)
0.000016
0.000022
(5)
0.000005
0.000010
(5)
0.000003
0.000005
(5)
0.000016
0.000022
0.000005
0.000010
0.000003
0.000005
(5)
(5)
(5)
No Discharge
0.000032
0.000022
0.000010
0.000005
(5)
0.000032
0.000022
0.000010
0.00005
(5)
0.000006
0.000004
0.000002
0.000001
(5)
0.000006
0.000004
0.000002
0.000001
(5)
0.000013
0.000009
0.000004
0.000002
(5)
0.000006
0.000009
0.000002
0.000001
(5)
(1) 30-day average PSES. Daily aaiina values are twice the standards stated for cyanides, NH--N Cphysical-cheaical systems),
naphthalene, benxo(a)pyrene, and benzene, four tiaes the stated value for phenolic coapounas, and 5.34 tiaes the stated value
for HLN (biological systeas.)
(2) Total cyanides. Note that no liaitation applies to physical-cbeaicsl treatment systems.
(3) Using 4-AAP test aethod.
(4) Using GC/HS test aethod.
(5) Standard for physical-cheaical treataent systeas.
* : Selected PSES Alternative
NOTE: Pretreataent Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are identical with NSPS. Refer to Table XII-1 for details
-------
CO
o
To ammor»um hydroxide
or ammonium sulfate
production
100 mg/*\
0.5 mg/l I
0.05 mg/l/
5 mg/l I
0.1 mg/l V
10 mg/l /
0.5 mg/f (
80 mg/l
6-9 \
Flow=638 l/kkg(l53gd/tonl J Fresh waler added
to optimize bioxidation
Ammonia - N
Benzene
Benzo(A) Pyrene
Cyanide
Nophthalene
Oil B grease
Phenolic cpds.
Susp. solids
pH
fixed
AMMONIA
AMMONIA
STILL
STILL
L ME
Waste ammonia
133 1/kkg
132 gol/tonl
\
POND(S)
146 l/kkg
(35 gal/ton)
Steom
54 l/kkg
(13 gal/ton)
104 l/kkg(25 gal/Ion)
BENZOL
WASTE
BOILER
FINAL
COOLER
Blowdown
54 l/kkg
113 gal/ton)
Make-up
BOILER
TREATMENT
CHEMICALS
COOLING
TOWER
Regenerants
WASTEWATER FROM
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROLS (Pushing)
MISCELLANEOUS
PROCESS WASTES
83 l/kkg
120 gal/ton)
WASTEWATER FROM
AIR POLLUTION
CONTROLS I Preheat
8i charging)
Ammonia-N < 15 mg/l
Benzene <0.05 mg/l
Benzo(A) Pyrene <0.02 mg/l
Cyanide
Naphthalene
Oil 8i grease
Phenolic cpds.
Susp. solids
pH
<2.5 mg/l
< 0.01 mg/l
< 10 mg/l
<0.025 mg/l
< 20 mg/l
6-9
Flow*638 l/kkg(l53 gal/ton)
(Up to 50 gal/ton if no air
pollution controls exist.)
S\-
Sludge Recycle
ht
AIR
BLOWER(S)
-Make-up from
service water
u
Lt
AIR
BLOWERIS)
VACUUM
FILTER
PRESSURE
FILTER
SYSTEM
Solids for
disposal
63 l/kkg
(15 gal/ton)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BY-PRODUCT COKE SUBCATEGORY
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM
PSES MODEL-ALTERNATIVE I
Own. 8/8/79
FIGURE 2DE-
-------
CD
To ammonium hydroxide
or ammonium sulfate
production
Ammonia -N
Benzene
100 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
Benzo(A)Pyrene 0.05 mg/l
Cyanide
Nophlholene
Oil & grease
5 mg/l
0.1 mg/l
10 mg/l
(Ud to 50 ool/too)
POWDERED
ACTIVATED
CARBON
SYSTEM
LIME
ACID
Sludge Recycle
Waste ammortio
133 l/kkg—
(32 gal/ton)
PONO(S)
146 l/kkg
(35 gol/ton)
-Steam
54 l/kkg
(13 gal/ton)
AIR
AIR
104 l/kkg(25 gal/ton)
83 l/kkg
(20 gal/ton)
BY-PRODUCT COKE SUBCATEGORY
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION I
PREFACE
The USEPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the steel industry. The proposed regulation contains effluent
limitations 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), 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 Sintering 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 individual subcategories of the industry.
183
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon this study and a review of its previous studies of the
steel industry, the Agency has reached the following conclusions
concerning sintering operations:
1. The Agency is retaining one subcategory for all sintering
operations. The expanded data base confirmed that further
subdivision is not warranted.
2. The data indicate that the BPT effluent limitations originally
promulgated (1974) for sintering operations did not sufficiently
account for wastewater discharges from all sintering wastewater
sources. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing less stringent BPT
effluent limitations for suspended solids and oil and grease.
Compliance with the proposed BPT limitations is demonstrated by
systems treating both machine (windbox) and discharge end
wastewaters.
3. The Agency's monitoring of sintering process wastewaters revealed
significant concentrations of four toxic organic and seven toxic
metal pollutants. The Agency concluded that the discharge of
these pollutants can be controlled by available, economically
achievable technologies. A summary of raw waste loadings and
the discharges resulting from attainment of the proposed BPT,
BAT, and BCT limitations is presented below.
Effluent Discharges (Tons/Year)
Proposed
Raw Waste Proposed BPT BAT and BCT
Flow (MGD) 122.6 8.4 6.3
TSS 1,138,650 639 144
Oil and Grease 45,716 128 47.9
Toxic Metals 616 24.3 6.7
Toxic Organics* 5.6 1.5 1.2
Fluoride 1,120 384 95.9
Cyanide, Total 37.3 6.4 2.4
Phenols (4AAP) 37.3 25.6 1.0
* Toxic organics do not include phenols (4AAP), the invididual
phenolic compounds and cyanide.
4. The Agency's estimates of the costs of compliance with the
proposed BPT, BAT, and BCT limitations for the sintering
subcategory are presented below for facilities in place as of
January 1, 1978.
185
-------
Costs (Millions of July 1, 1978 Dollars)
In-Place Required Total
Investment Costs
Annual
Costs
BPT
BAT
46.3
2.0
27.9
11.3
74.2
13.3
37.3
2.6
NOTE: BAT costs are in addition to BPT costs.
BCT and PSES costs are included in the BPT and BAT costs.
5. The BPT and BAT model treatment systems for the sintering
subcategory include wastewater recycle. Responses from the
industry regarding several sintering operations indicate that the
recycle systems in use at these plants do not present any
problems with respect to scaling, fouling or plugging. The
Agency has therefore concluded that the use of recycle systems is
a reasonable and demonstrated method of achieving the limitations
for this subcategory.
6. The Agency evaluated the "cost/reasonableness" of controlling the
conventional pollutants found in sintering wastewaters, (i.e.,
suspended solids and oil and grease) and found that the control
costs, based upon a BCT model treatment system, are less than
those for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Therefore the
Agency has proposed BCT effluent limitations for the conventional
pollutants based upon the BCT model treatment system.
7. Proposed NSPS for sintering operations using wet methods of air
pollution control are the same as the proposed BAT effluent
limitations and are based upon the same wastewater treatment
technologies. It is recognized that new source sintering
operations may install "dry" systems which do not generate any
process wastewaters.
8. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources (PSNS and PSES) discharging to POTWs which limit the
amount of toxic pollutants which can be introduced into a POTW.
These standards are intended to minimize the impact of pollutants
which interfere with, pass through, or are otherwise incompatible
with POTW operations.
9. Although four toxic organic and seven toxic metal pollutants were
found in the raw wastewaters from sintering operations, the
Agency believes it is not necessary to propose limitations for
each toxic pollutant. The Agency believes that adequate control
of toxic organic pollutants can be achieved by the control of
total cyanide and phenols (4AAP). Likewise, control of lead and
zinc will result in removal of other toxic metal pollutants.
10. To facilitate less costly central treatment and to make the
sintering limitations compatible with the ironmaking limitations,
the Agency is proposing effluent limitations for ammonia-N for
sintering.
11. With regard to "remand issues," the Agency concludes that:
186
-------
a. Regarding the use of tight recycle systems for sintering
operations, the discharge flow of 75 gal/ton for new sources
has been demonstrated. The effluent flows at two plants
equal or closely approach the NSPS treatment model effluent
flow. This is the same demonstrated effluent flow used as a
basis for developing the BAT, PSES and PSNS model treatment
systems.
b. The estimated cost to install a wastewater treatment system
is not affected by whether it is an "initial fit" or a
"retrofit". In addition, the ability to implement various
wastewater treatment practices is not affected by plant age.
A comparison of actual costs (reported for the plants
visited or in the Detailed Data Collection Portfolio, i.e.,
D-DCP, responses) with EPA's cost estimates developed from
treatment models indicates that the estimated subcategory
treatment costs are sufficiently generous to cover all
site-specific and other incidental costs.
c. The treatment technologies incorporated in the various model
treatment systems will not cause any significant impacts on
the consumptive use of water.
12. Table 1I—1 presents the treatment model flow and effluent quality
data used to develop the proposed BPT effluent limitations for
the sintering subcategory, and Table II-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 sintering subcategory; Table I1-4 presents these proposed
limitations and standards.
187
-------
TABLE II-1
BPT TREATMENT MODEL FLOW AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average
Pollutant Concentration (mg/1)
Flow, gal/ton 100
TSS 50
Oil and Grease 10
pH, Units 6.0-9.0
(1) Daily maximum concentrations are three times the above monthly average
concentrations.
188
-------
TABLE II-2
PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
TSS
Oil & Grease
pH, Units
Effluent Limitationsv
(kg/lckg of Product)
0.0208
0.0042
Within the range of 6.0-9.0
(1) Daily maximum effluent limitations are three times the above monthly average
effluent limitations.
189
-------
TABLE I1-3
TREAT)®NT MODEL FLOWS AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
Monthly Average Concentrations (¦g/1)^
Pollutant
BAT
BCT
HSPS
PSES
PSNS
Flov, gal/ton
75
75
75
75
75
TSS
-
15
15
-
-
Oil and Grease
-
10*
10*
-
-
Asionia (H)
1.0
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
121 Total Cyanide
0.25
-
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fhenolics (4AAP)
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10
TRC
0.5*
-
0.5*
0.5*
0.5*
122 Lead
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10
128 Zinc
0.10
-
0.10
0.10
0.10
pH.Units
-
6.0-9.0
6.0-9.0
-
-
(1) Daily maxima concentrations are the above monthly average concentrations multiplied by the following factors:
Pollutant(s) Factor
TSS 2.67
Aaonia (H), Total Cyanide, Fhenolics (4AAP) 2.0
Lead, Zinc 3.0
*: As shown, daily saxiaui concentrations only.
-------
TABLE II-4
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIOHS AMD STANDARDS
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
Effluent Liiit«tion« and Standards (kg/kkg of Product)^
Pollutant
BAT
BCT
NSPS
PSES
PSNS
TSS
—
469
469
—
—
Oil and Grease
-
313*
313*
-
-
Amoaii (H)
31.3
-
31.3
31.3
31.3
121 Total Cyanide
7.82
-
7.82
7.82
7.82
Phenolics (4AAP)
3.13
-
3.13
3.13
3.13
TRC
15.6*
-
15.6*
15.6*
15.6*
122 Lead
3.13
-
3.13
3.13
3.13
128 Zinc
3.13.
-
3.13
3.13
3.13
pH, Units
Within
the range 6.0-9.0
(1) The proposed limitations and standards have been Multiplied by 10^ to obtain the values presented in this table. Daily
¦««— limitations and standards are the above monthly average limitations and standards multiplied by the following
factors.
Polltttant(s) Factor
TSS 2.67
lumi a (1), Total Cyanide, Phenolics (4AAP) 2.0
Lead, Zinc 3.0
*: As shown, daily maiim limitations and standards only.
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Discussion
During iron and steel production operations, large quantities of
particulate matter (fines, mill scale, flue dust) are generated by
blast furnaces; open hearth, electric arc, and basic oxygen furnaces;
and hot forming mills. This particulate matter is removed from
process gases, by dry or wet air pollution control devices, to reduce
air emissions or to clean the gases for reuse as fuel. Mill scale is
recovered from wastewaters discharged from hot forming operations. A
large percentage of this iron rich material is recovered through the
sintering operation. The fused material (sinter) produced by the
sintering operation is reused as raw material in blast furnaces.
Description of the Sintering Process
Sintering is an agglomeration process in which iron bearing materials,
(generally fines) are mixed with iron ore, limestone, and finely
divided fuel such as coke breeze. The fines consist primarily of mill
scale and dust from basic oxygen furnaces, open hearth furnaces,
electric arc furnaces, and blast furnaces. Mixers (e.g., ball drums)
are used to mix the raw materials before they are placed on the
traveling grate of the sinter machine. Near the head end of the
grate, the surface of the raw materials is ignited by a gas fired
ignition furnace located over the bed. As the mixture moves along on
the traveling grate, air is drawn down through the mixture at the wind
boxes to enhance combustion and to sinter (fuse) the fine particles.
As the bed burns, carbon dioxide, cyanides, sulfur compounds,
chlorides and fluorides are driven off with the gases. Oil and grease
on the mill scale is vaporized and driven off.
The sinter drops off the grate at the discharge end of the machine and
is cooled (either by air or a water spray), crushed and screened.
Screening is necessary to maintain uniformity in the size of the
sinter fed to blast furnaces. Improperly sized sinter and the fines
from the screening operation are returned to the operation for
reprocessing. Wastewaters are generated in this process primarily as
a result of scrubbing the gases and dusts associated with the
sintering process. Wastewaters are also discharged if excess water is
used to cool the sinter. The sintering operation wastewater sources
are depicted in the process flow diagrams (Figures III-l, III-2 and
111-3 ) .
Eleven of the thirty-two sinter plants in the United States do not
generate any process wastewaters since dry air pollution control
equipment is used at these plants. Dry air pollution control
equipment includes cyclonic dust collectors or, with newer operations,
fabric type dust filters. The "dry" plants are included in the
193
-------
Summary Table III-l but are excluded from further review because they
do not generate any process wastewaters.
Sinter production capacity ranges from 540 to 12,200 tons/day for
"wet" plants and from 1,132 to 16,600 tons/day for "dry" plants (Table
II1—3). The total rated capacity of all plants (excluding the
capacity of one plant which was claimed to be confidential) is 145,312
tons/day. "Wet" plants comprise about 58% of the total capacity.
Wastewaters are generated in sintering operations as a result of
scrubbing dusts and gases generated during raw material handling, the
sintering process, and crushing, screening and cooling the sinter.
The pollutants generated in sintering operations include suspended
solids and oil and grease, as well as toxic inorganic and organic
pollutants.
The originally promulgated (1974) regulation for sintering operations
included effluent limitations for the following pollutants:
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
Data Collection Activities
For this study, the Agency conducted additional sampling and gathered
detailed information from the industry to provide an expanded data
base for the proposed limitations. The primary sources of industry
information were the DCP (basic questionnaire) responses. The DCP
requested information pertaining to production processes, process
water usage, process wastewater discharge, and wastewater treatment
systems. The Agency received DCP responses from every sintering
operation. These data have been summarized and are presented in Table
III-l.
Detailed questionnaires (D-DCPs) were sent to five plants. The D-DCPs
sought long-term treatment facility analytical and operating cost
data, and sintering process operating data. The D-DCP responses
assisted in verifying cost estimates, and establishing retrofit costs.
Only two plants provided long-term analytical data relating to the
previously limited BPT pollutants. No data were provided for toxic
metal and toxic organic pollutants.
The Agency identified 32 steel plants with sintering operations. One
plant claimed confidentiality with regard to all data submitted.
These data are not included in Table III-l. The Agency visited four
plants during the original guidelines survey. The Agency determined
that data for three of these plants were unusable; one did not supply
requested cost or production data; another operation treated sintering
wastewaters in combination with another wastewater treatment system
thereby, making treatment predictions difficult; and the third plant
had problems with equipment during the sampling survey and the
sintering wastewater could not be sampled. During the toxic pollutant
survey, the Agency conducted another sampling visit at one of these
plants and also visited two additional plants to increase the data
194
-------
base and to monitor for the presence of toxic pollutants. The results
of these sampling visits (Plants 0060F, Oil 2D, and 0432A) demonstrate
that significant quantities of toxic inorganic and organic pollutants
are found in sintering wastewaters. Table III-2 summarizes the data
base for sintering operations.
As with the originally promulgated effluent limitations and NSPS, the
limitations and standards proposed herein are established on a unit
process basis. Supporting this approach is the observation that all
plants combine their various sintering process wastewaters for
treatment. This system provides for the increased efficiencies of
operation associated with the common treatment of various unit process
wastewaters.
195
-------
Air
Plant Pollution Age-First Production-TPD
Code Equipment Year of Prod. Rated 1976
0016 A
Ho Longer
In Operation
0060
Net & Dry
1975
2640
1875
0060B
Wet i Dry
1958
2400
1647
0060F
Net & Dry
1957
1360
1078
0112
Dry Only
1930
6145
0112A
Wet & Dry
1976
12,200
8260
0112B
Net & Dry
1950
4000
3779
0112C
Wet & Dry
1948
2683
2412
0112D
Net 6 Dry
1975
6070
5100
0384 A
Dry Only
1959
4000
0396A
Net i. Dry
1959
3312
2642
0432A
Net & Dry
1960
6500
5856
0432C
Dry Only
1957
2500
0448A
Net & Dry
1943
3850
2325
0492A
Net 6 Dry
1947
1900
1072
0384B
Dry Only
1958
4600
0584C
Net 6 Dry
1959
3800
2486
TABLE Ili-1
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
SINTERING
Treatment Compounds
Applied Flow* Disch. Flow* Process Central
(Ral/ton) (gal/ton) Treatment Treatment
Operating Discharge
Mode Mode
[1667] [219]
2186
2186
[sOl] [WJ NL,FLL,CL
NW,SL Unk,
FLL,FLP,FL0
CL,SS
PSP,CL,FLP,
VF
FLP,CL,VF
SLURRY TO
BFCL
RTP-70
RUP-10
REU-7
RET-100
RTP-91
Direct
[1604] (288]
133
1292
133
793
[1432J [l40
NL
FLL,NL,CL,VF
T,CL,VF
CL,T,VF,NL
NL,NW,HA,FLP,
CL,SS,T,
SL Unk.VF
RTP-82
OT
RTP-39
RTP-90
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
M
M
[2^
VF,FLP,CL,CT
SCR,PSP,FLP,
T,CLA,VF
RTP-75
OT
POTW
Direct
Unk
2582
2582
SL(Unk) for
sludge
SL(Unk)
RTP-100
RET-100 Direct
1368
1368
SS,SL(Unk),
FDSP,CLB
OT
-------
TABLE III-l
GENERAL SUHMARY TABLE
SINTERING
PACE 2
Air
Plant
Code
Pollution
Equipaent
Age-First
Year of Prod.
Production-TPD
Rated 1976
0584F
Wet 4 Drjr
1955
8187
4750
0684B
Dry Only
1943
Unk
06841
Dry Only
1961
1500
0856F
Met 4 Dry
1956
7200
6711
0856J
Dry Only
1959
15,000
0856*
NOME
1948
1132
0856Q
Net 4 Dry
Shut Down 1979
1949
500
616
0856T
Dry Only
1960
5000
0860B
Dry Only
1950-5®
16,600
0860H
Dry Only
1958
5000
0864A
Wet 4 Dry
1944
2910
1373
0868A
Dry Only**
1941
7783
6306
09201
Wet 4 Dry
1966
1000
860
0920F
Vet 4 Dry
1944
1500
1130
0946A
Met Only
939
540
218
0948A
Dry Only
Inactive
2400
0948C
Wet 4 Dry
1959
4000
3Z04
Treatment Compounds
Applied Flow Disch. Flow Process Central Operating Discharge
gal/ton gal/ton Treatment Treatment Mode Mode
106
106
CL.VF, T,FLP,VF
OT
Direct
L"°]
[220]
OT
Direct
2905
117
PSP.T T,»r
RTP-96
RET-4
ES
[zsivj [1733]
FU.,FLP,CL,
SL(Unk)
RET-* 5
RTP-38
Direct
100
134
70
134
SL(Unk)
£2124] [74] HC.CL
FLP,T,CL,
FDC(Unk),VF
RTP-30
OT
RTP-4
RUP-90
RET-3
Direct
I Quench
Direct
Direct
6605
6605
T,FLF,F(Unk)
(Unk)P, CLA,
vr
RET-30
Direct
1124
133
SLOWDOWN TO
BLAST FURNACE
GAS SCRUBBING
RECYCLE SYSTEM
RUP-BS
-------
TABLE 111-1
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
SINTERING
PACE 3
* : Presented in English unit* for convenience of industry and government accustomed to working
with English unit*. Conversion to metric can be accomplished by Multiplying by 4.17.
**: Wastewater generated at sinter quench station.
[ J: The data enclosed in brackets represents information obtained during sampling visits or
from D-DCP responses.
Legend
FLO^': Flocculation with ferrousulfate.
NOTE: For definition* of the C&TT codes, refer to Table VI1-1.
-------
TABLE III-2
SINTERING DATA BASE
vO
vD
Plants sampled during the original
guidelines survey
Plants sampled for the toxic
pollutants survey
Plants which responded via D-DCP
Plants sampled and/or
responding via D-DCP
"Wet" plants
Plants which responded
to the DCP's**
Number of
Plants
3*
5
11
20
33
Percent of
Total Number
of Plants
12.1
9.1*
15.2
33.3
57.1
100.0
Rated Plant
Capaci ty
(tons/year)
5,238,480
5,084,450
9,654,250
17,604,680
30,599,775
53,221,380
Percent of
Total Annual
Capacity
9.8
9.6
18.1
33.1
57.8
100.0
* : One plant sampled during original study was resampled.
**: Excludes the one confidential plant and the one plant no longer in operation.
-------
TABLE III-3
SINTERING
RATED PRODUCTION CAPACITY (TONS/DAY)
PLANT CODE
PRODUCTION CAPACITY
Plants generating
a wastewater
"Dry Plants
0060
006OB
0060F
0112A
0112B
0112C
Oil 2D
0396A
0432A
0448A
0492A
0584C
0584F
0856F
0856Q
0864A
0868A
0920B
0920F
0946A
0948C
0112
0384A
0432C
0584B
0684B
06841
0856J
0856N
0856T
0860B
0860H
0948A
2,640
2,400
1,360
12,200
4,000
2,683
6,070
3,312
6,500
3,850
1,900
3,800
8,187
7,200
500
(Shut Down 1979)
2,910
7,783
1,000
1,500
540
4,000
83,835 SUBTOTAL
6,145
4,000
2,500
4,600
Unk
1,500
15,000
1,132
5,000
16,600
5,000
INACTIVE
61,477 SUBTOTAL
145,312 TOTAL
200
-------
ORE
SINTER
SCALE
FLUE
GROUND
BIN
FINE
OR
DUST
COKE
BIN
LIME
BIN
BIN
BIN
Water Supply
Spray Water
- Waste Gases
Dust Collection
Pick-up Points ^
Water
STACK
SINTER MIX
CONVEYOR
//// / ' / // ,
//////////
PUG MILL
SECONDARY
DEDUSTING
COLLECTOR —
^Effluent
Water
PRIMARY
DEDUSTING
COLLECTOR -
1
Waste
Gases * 1
-------
ORE
BIN
SINTER
FINE
BIN
GROUND
COKE
BIN
FLUE
OUST
BIN
SCALE
CR
LIME
DEDUSTING AIR
DUST COLLECTION
PICK-UP POINTS
WASTE GASES
8AGHOUSE
WATER
SINTER MIX
CONVE^r.fi
DRY DUST
STACK
PUG MILL
SECONDARY
DEDUSTING
COLLECTOR
INDUCED
DRAFT FAN
PRIMARY -
DEDUSTING
COLLECTOR
HOT END
DEDUSTING AIR
SURGE BIN b
ROLL FEEDER
COOLER AIR
WASTE
GASES
SINTER MIX
CONVEYOR
BALL DRUM
NATURAL GAS
SINTER MIX
CONVEYOR
SINTER
CRUSHER
STACK
DRY
PRECIPITATOR
PROCESS GAS
SINTER MACHINE
HOT SINTER
FEEDER 6 SCREEN
EXHAUST
STACK
SINTER COOLER
SINTER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING PLANT
TYPE II DRY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
INDUCED DRAFT
FAN
PRECIPITATED
DRY DUST
FIGURE m-2
-------
SCALE
OR
LIME
BIN
GROUND
COKE
BIN
FLUE
OUST
BIN
ORE
BIN
SINTER
FINE
BIN
Water Supply
r—Spray Water
Waste Gases
Dust Collection
Pick-up Points*-
Dedustinq Air
HIGH
ENERGY
VENTURI
SCUBBER
Water
STACK
Sinter Mix
Conveyor
PUG MILL
Effluent
Water
SEPARATOR
INOUCEO
DRAFT FAN
COLLECTOR
i1
PRIMARY
DEDUSTING
COLLECTOR
Hot End
Dedusting Air
Cooler Air
Yt TY
SINTER MIX
CONVEYOR
SURGE BIN a
ROLL FEEDER
BALL DRUM
Natural Gas
Waste
Gases
-SINTER f
CRUSHER !!
Water Supply
Spray Water
SINTER MIX
CONVEYOR
STACK
Process Gas
SINTER MACHINE
HIGH
ENERGY
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
STACK
SINTER COOLER
HOT SINTER
FEEDER S SCREEN
Sinter
Effluent
Water
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING PLANT
TYPE IH-WET
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
INDUCED
DRAFT FAN
SEPARATOR
RD. 4/18/78
FIGURE m-3
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
The steelmaking segment of the steel industry is comprised of several
separate and distinct processes. The Agency found that individual
processes, products and wastewater characteristics affect industry
subcategorization. Based upon a review of the factors mentioned
above, the Agency has established sintering as an individual
subcategory. Several factors were evaluated to determine if the
sintering subcategory requires further subdivision. However, the
Agency concludes that further subdivision is not warranted. The
factors reviewed in reaching these conclusions are discussed below.
Manufacturing Process and Equipment
Sintering is unique in that it is the only process in which iron
bearing fines (such as mill scale and flue dust from other steel
operations) are mixed with other materials and combusted to form an
agglomerate. The agglomerate, in turn, is used as a raw material for
the ironmaking process. Because no other ironmaking or steelmaking
process is similar, the Agency determined that the establishment of a
sintering subcategory is appropriate.
Despite the various combinations of raw materials which are fed to the
sintering operation, the process operation does not vary significantly
from plant to plant. The basic process involves raw materials mixing,
ignition and combustion, agglomeration of the sinter, and cooling and
screening. The Agency determined that no further subdivision of this
subcategory is warranted on the basis of manufacturing process
differences.
Final Product
Sintering produces only one final product. This final product may
vary in physical and chemical makeup among plants, but these
differences are slight and of little importance to subdivision. The
Agency determined that differences in final product do not warrant
further subdivision of the sintering subcategory.
Raw Materials
Raw materials used in the sintering process consist of ores, mill
scale, coke, limestone, slag fines and sludges (Table IV-1). The
availability of these materials at each location determines the raw
materials used at that facility. Although the composition of the raw
materials may vary from plant to plant, the Agency found that these
variations do not significantly affect process wastewaters. The model
treatment systems evaluated by the Agency provide for effective
control of the various sintering process wastewater pollutants.
205
-------
Accordingly, the Agency concluded that these differences do not
warrant further subdivision of this subcategory.
Wastewater Characteristics
Wastewaters generated at sintering operations result primarily from
the scrubbing of the process gases and dusts. Although the nature of
the wastewaters may vary as a result of their origin in the sintering
process, similar pollutants are found in all sintering wastewaters.
For example, oil and grease and suspended solids are common in all
sintering wastewaters, as are cyanide, fluoride, sulfide, phenols, and
various toxic metals. Although these pollutants may be found in
varying levels, the range of concentrations and loadings are not so
large as to warrant further subdivision. It is also important to note
that plants with multiple sintering operation wastewater sources
combined these wastewaters for treatment. Based upon the factors
presented above, the Agency determined that further subdivision based
on wastewater characteristics is not is warranted.
Wastewater Treatability
As noted for BPT, a concern in the treatment of sintering operation
wastewaters is the removal of suspended solids, which in turn results
in a reduction in the levels of those pollutants which comprise the
suspended solids. This reduction in suspended solids is accomplished
by using sedimentation technology. Except for one plant (which dis-
charged to a blast furnace gas scrubbing recycle system), all plants
have similar wastewater treatment systems. Accordingly, the Agency
determined that further subdivision based upon wastewater treatability
is not warranted.
Size and Age
The Agency considered the effect of size and age on the subdivision of
sintering operations. Its analysis of the impact of size and age on
such elements as wastewater generation, discharge flow rate
(associated with the ability to recycle), and the ability to install
treatment did not demonstrate a need for further subdivision.
The question of further subdivision on the basis of age was addressed
by comparing plant age and discharge flow data. Discharge flow was
used as an indication of wastewater treatment capability; e.g., did
older plants meet the proposed BPT model flow. Figure IV-1 is a plot
of discharge flow vs. plant age for all plants, while Figure IV-2
presents a plot of discharge flow vs. plant age for only those plants
with treatment and recycle facilities. The low discharge flows
exhibited at some of the oldest plants (representing the ability to
provide adequate basic treatment) indicates that further subdivision
of this subcategory on the basis of age is not appropriate. In
addition, pollution control equipment can be retrofitted to exisitng
plants as demonstrated by the plants noted on Table IV-2. For the
eleven plants (55% of the "wet" sinter plants) listed on this table,
the time span between the first year of production and the year of
major water pollution control equipment installation varies from six
years to thirty-three years.
206
-------
The question of size was evaluated by comparing the rated capacity
(size) of each plant with its discharge flow. Figure IV-3 presents a
plot of discharge flow vs. plant rated production capacity for all
plants, while Figure IV-4 presents a plot of discharge flow vs. plant
rated production capacity for only those plants with treatment and
recycle facilities. The distribution of the data meeting or exceeding
the BPT model flow indicates that plant size does not affect the
ability to provide wastewater treatment. The points are widely
distributed from small to large plants. Therefore, the Agency
determined that further subdivision on the basis of size is not
warranted.
Geographic Location
Most of the sinter plants are located in the east and midwest. Only
one plant (which recycled a portion of its process wastewaters) is
located in either an arid or semi-arid region. Most plants employ
wastewater recirculation as an integral part of treatment. These
plants are not restricted on the basis of geographic location.
Accordingly, the Agency concluded that further subdivision on the
basis of geographic location is not warranted.
Process Water Usage
Process water usage varies from plant to plant depending primarily
upon the type and number of "wet" scrubbers in use. However,
wastewater quality for all operations is similar and all wastewaters
from each plant are combined for treatment. In addition, low
discharge flows from the sintering operations are achieved by plants
having both high and low applied flow rates. Hence, the Agency
concluded that further subdivision based upon process water usage
rates is not warranted.
207
-------
TABLE IV-1
RAW MATERIALS SUMMARY FOR SINTERING OPERATIONS
GENERATING WASTEWATERS
(All numbers represent the percent of total raw material feed)
IRON SOURCES
PLANT
FUEL ^1^
FLUXES(2)
ORES^
IRON BEARING
ALL IRON
NO.
MATERIALS
SOURCES
0060
3.9
22.0
33.5
40.6
74.0
006 OB
2.2
20.7
25.1
52.1
77.1
0060F
2.0
15.5
24.4
58.0
82.5
0112A
4.9
18.0
70.2
6.9
77.1
0112B
5.0
20.0
45.0
30.0
75.0
0112C
4.6
17.5
63.0
14.9
77.9
0112D
2.6
15.6
39.5
42.3
81.8
039 6A
4.3
22.6
67.5
5.6
73.1
0432A
4.1
28.7
53.8
13.4
67.2
0448A
5.0
18.6
72.9
3.4
76.4
0492A
4.1
16.9
60.4
18.6
79.0
0584C
7.0
19.0
46.0
28.0
74.0
0584F
9.0
32.5
50.7
7.8
58.5
0856F
6.0
17.0
58.0
19.0
77.0
0856Q*
5.6
-
76.0
18.5
94.4
0864A
6.2
11.8
75.9
6.0
82.0
0868A
5.7
15.8
75.1
3.4
78.5
0920B
13.2
24.9
29.6
32.4
61.9
0920F
-
26.4
37.0
36.7
73.6
0946A
3.0
-
50.6
46.4
97.0
0948C
3.9
35.7
43.0
17.5
60.4
(1) Includes coke and coke breeze.
(2) Includes limestones, dolomite, sand, stone fines, calcined fines, etc.
(3) Includes iron ore, ore fines, pellet fines, taconite fines, etc.
(4) Includes mill scale, flue dust, metallic fines, sludges, filter cakes,
slags, sinter, etc.
*: Shut down 1979.
208
-------
TABLE IV-2
EXAMPLES OF PLANTS THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE
ABILITY TO RETROFIT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
Plant
Reference
Code
Plant Age -
First Year of
Production
Treatment Age -
Year of Installation
Major Components
006 OB
1958
1968
006 OF
1957
1975
0112B
1950
1970
0112C
1948
1960
0448A
1943
1971
0548C
1959
1965
0584C
1959
1965
0864A
1944
1962
0868A
1941
1954
0920F
1944
1973
0946A
1939
1972
209
-------
FIGURE IV-I
DISCHARGE FLOW vs. PLANT AGE
SINTERING
ALL MILLS
x-
„ X-x » JL^BPT Lavs!
~*~i 1 1 1—r 1 1 1 1
1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979
PLANT AGE
210
-------
FIGURE IZ-2
DISCHARGE FLOW vs. PLANT AGE
SINTERING
MILLS THAT RECYCLE
BPT Laval
1941 * 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981
PLANT AGE
211
-------
FIGURE IV-3
DISCHARGE FLOW vs. PLANT RATED PRODUCTION CAPACITY
SINTERING
ALL MILLS
o
O-l
ro
to
X X
IEI Jniye]
|*| I I I I I I
2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000
PLANT RATED CAPACITY (TONS/DAY)
212
-------
FIGURE nr-4
DISCHARGE FLOW vs. PLANT RATED PRODUCTION CAPACITY
SINTERING
MILLS THAT RECYCLE
o
s
in
S 8.
< 2!
CD
I 8
lL 0>
u
o
cr
* I
(J <0
CO
a
_x * BPT Level
X , M , r~ ,
2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000
PLANT RATED CAPACITY (TONS/DAY)
213
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
Process water usage is a significant factor in determining the
pollutant loads and in estimating the cost of removing those
pollutants generated by sintering operations. The importance of
carefully controlling process water usage cannot be overemphasized.
The Agency used data from the sampling visits and the DCPs to evaluate
process water use, pollutant discharges, total wastewater volumes, and
to identify existing control and treatment technology.
Wastewater characterization is based upon data obtained during the
field sampling programs. During the original guidelines survey, the
Agency investigated the levels of limited pollutants (suspended
solids, oil and grease and pH) in the process wastewaters. During the
second field sampling program, the Agency again investigated the
levels of the previously limited pollutants and performed additional
monitoring and analyses for toxic inorganic and organic pollutants.
The water use rates discussed below pertain only to process
wastewaters. Noncontact. cooling or nonprocess waters are not
included. Process wastewaters are those waters which come into direct
contact with the process, product, by-products, or raw materials.
Noncontact cooling waters are cooling waters which do not directly
contact the processes, products, by-products, or raw materials.
Nonprocess waters are those waters which are used for nonprocess
operations, i.e., utility and maintenance department requirements.
Description of Sinter Plant Wastewater Sources
As noted earlier, sintering process wastewaters result from dust and
gas scrubbing equipment and from sinter cooling and quenching. Newer
plants typically use "dry" air pollution equipment while the older
plants typically have "wet" systems. Sinter plant gas and dust
scrubbing equipment is generally separated into two systems. One of
the systems scrubs the fumes and dusts from the hot sinter bed,
ignition furnace, and sinter bed wind boxes, while the other system
controls emissions from the sinter crushers, sinter fines conveyors,
raw material storage bins, and feeders. As can be noted in Table
III-l, however, common industry practice is to combine the various
wastewater streams for treatment.
Industry responses to the DCPs provided process wastewater and treated
effluent flow data. In many instances the flow rates were reported as
measured values, but in other instances the flows were reported as
design rates or rates based upon best engineering judgment. Where
available, plant visit or D-DCP flow data were included in Table III-l
in lieu of DCP data.
215
-------
Raw process wastewater flows ranged from 417 1/kkg (100 gallons/ton)
of sintered product to 27543 1/kkg (6605 gallons/ton). The lowest
flow was observed at a plant with strictly dry air pollution
equipment, which generated a small amount of wastewater during sinter
cooling. Other plants exhibited similar process wastewater flows
(e.g., 106, 133 and 134 gal/ton). Two of these plants have as many as
four scrubbers.
Plant effluent flows also varied over a wide range, i.e., 108 1/kkg
(26 gallons/ton) to 27543 1/kkg (6605 gallons/ton). The lowest
effluent flow was observed at a plant which discharges only a
thickener underflow. In this system, the thickener overflow is
completely recycled. The wide range in flows can be attributed to
several factors, but the number of scrubbers and the scrubber design
and efficiency primarily dictate water usage rates.
One method of conserving water and reducing the quantities of
discharged pollutants is the recirculation of partially treated
wastewaters. Wastewater recirculation is currently practiced at 11
sinter plants and is a major component of the BPT model treatment
system. Although wastewater recirculation can result in increased
levels of certain pollutants in recycled wastewaters, the significant
reduction in total discharge flow results in an overall reduction in
discharged pollutant loads.
Sintering wastewaters contain large quantities of suspended
particulate matter and oil and grease. In addition, toxic inorganic
and organic pollutants and fluoride were found in sintering
wastewaters at significant levels. The concentration data presented
in Table V-l provide a measure of the pollutant loads contributed
during each pass through the process, thereby indicating which pollutants
are significant with respect to sintering operations. After reviewing
the raw waste and treated effluent levels of pollutants and the degree
of recycling, the Agency determined that the effect of makeup water
quality on the discharge is negligible. Accordingly, the Agency has
decided to propose effluent limitations and standards which are based
solely on gross values.
216
-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES AND TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEYS
SINTERING
Pick-up per Pass Concentrations in Raw Process Wastewaters*
Reference Code:
Plant Code:
Sample Point(s):
Flow, gal/ton:
Oil and Grease
Suspended Solids
0432A
H
mg/1
ISD**
ISD**
0396A
J
(l-Sludge)-(4+2)
341
mg/1
387
19,460
0112D
016
(B+C)-(E+A)
1432
mg/1
17.4
82
0432A
017
D+E-A
245
mg/1
ISD
5356
006 OF
019
B-(C+A)
301
mg/1
197
746
Fluoride
Sulfide
1.22
74.5
24
ISD
6.2
ISD
18
0.2
K>
I-1
-O
39 Fluoranthene
59 2,4-Dinitrophenol
65 Phenol
72 Benzo(a)anthracene
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
76 Chrysene
84 Pyrene
118 Cadmitm
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanides
122 Lead
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Phenolic Compounds
0.031
0.014
0.007
0.015
0.023
0.041
0.029
0.005
0.008
0.053
0.541
0
0.043
0.131
0.003
ND
0.003
0.006
ISD
0.496
0.059
0.041
ISD
ISD
ISD
0.850
0.050
ND
0.557
;
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VI
WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Introduction
A review of pollutants specific to the steel industry and the general
strategy for selecting pollutants for which limitations are proposed
are presented in Volume I. The selection of limited pollutants for
the sintering subcategory was based upon this process and on other
factors pertaining to the sintering process and sintering wastewaters.
Rationale for Selection of Pollutants
The pollutants which the Agency found in sintering process wastewaters
reflect the variety of sintering process raw materials (e.g., iron and
steelmaking flue dust, ores, mill scale, coke, limestone, slag fines,
and blast furnace thickener sludges). Fines and dust from all sources
contribute to the suspended solids loadings. Oil and grease is
present primarily as a result of the oils and greases carried into the
process by the scrap and mill scales. Compounds detected in the oil
and grease analysis can also result from the incomplete combustion of
coke in the sintering process. The presence of fluoride is
attributable to the use of lime fluxing agents and slag fines in
sintering operations.
Particulates generated during the sintering process are transported in
the process gases, and are removed by scrubbing with water. The
solids found in the process wastewaters are comprised of a variety of
chemical constituents including various toxic pollutants. The removal
of the suspended solids therefore results in the removal, to varying
degrees, of a number of other pollutants (e.g., metals). Other
pollutants (i.e., chloride, sulfate) are present at substanital levels
in the process wastewaters, but are not included in the list of
selected pollutants since they are nontoxic and difficult to remove.
Treatment for these pollutants is not commonly practiced in the
wastewater treatment operations of any industry.
The toxic organic and inorganic pollutants are attributable to the raw
materials used in the sintering process. Although the Agency detected
phthalate compounds (e.g., butyl benzyl phthalate, di-n-butyl
phthalate and di-n-octyl phthalate), it believes that their presence
is due to sampling and analytical procedures. An evaluation of
process conditions and operations provided no indication that
phthalates are generated directly as a result of sinter production.
Hence, Table VI-2 does not include all of the toxic organic pollutants
listed in Table VI-1. The toxic metal pollutants found in the
wastewaters originate in the iron bearing material charged to the
sinter machine. These pollutants contaminate the process wastewaters
mainly as a result of scrubbing the particulates from the process
gases.
219
-------
This study also considered the levels of the other toxic pollutants.
Initially, all pollutants classified as "known to be present" were
included in the list of pollutants for the sintering process. The
above classification was developed on the basis of responses to the
DCPs, and analyses completed during the screening phase of the
project. Table VI-1 lists these pollutants.
The Agency calculated a net concentration (reflecting the pollutant
pickup per pass through the process as described in Section V) for
each pollutant detected in the raw wastewaters at 0.010 mg/1 or
greater. Those pollutants found at an average net concentration of
less than 0.010 mg/1 were excluded from further consideration in the
selection process. The list of selected pollutants is presented in
Table VI-2. The Agency established effluent limitations on a gross
basis only (see Section V).
220
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
SINTERING OPERATIONS
4
Benzene
23
Chloroform
39
Fluoranthene
59
2,4-Dini trophenol
65
Phenol
72
Benzo(a)anthracene
73
Benzo(a)pyrene
76
Chrysene
84
Pyrene
85
Tetrac hioroe thylene
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
221
-------
TABLE VI-2
SELECTED WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
SINTERING
Phenols (4AAP)
Fluoride
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
PH
39 Fluoranthene
65 Phenol
76 Chrysene
84 Pyrene
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
121 Cyanide (Total)
122 Lead
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
222
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Introduction
The model treatment systems for BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
were established after determining current wastewater treatment
practices in the industry. The various treatment technologies were
formulated as "add-ons" to a primary level of treatment. Effluent
limitations were established on the basis of effluent analytical data
obtained during plant visits, D-DCP long-term analytical data, and the
demonstrated capabilities of certain technologies. Treatment system
summaries, schematics and wastewater analytical data for the visited
plants are presented below.
Control and Treatment Technology - Sintering Operations
Most sintering wastewater treatment facilities currently provide
treatment for suspended solids, although removal of other pollutants
occurs incidentally. A summary of treatment practices noted during
plant visits and reported in the DCPs follows.
a. Wastewaters from twelve of the twenty "wet"sintering plants are
treated in central treatment facilities. Five plants have
separate treatment facilities which discharge directly to
navigable waters, while three plants discharge the effluent from
separate treatment facilities to central treatment systems. In
almost all instances, the central treatment systems receive only
ironmaking and sintering wastewaters. Treatment facilities at
the eight sintering plants with separate treatment systems are
similar in design to the central treatment facilities. An
evaluation of data from separate and central treatment systems
indicates that similar flow rates, recycle rates, and effluent
levels are achieved with either system. Treatment models
presented herein are for separate treatment facilities, thus
overstating treatment plant costs where central or co-treatment
is practiced. Central treatment tends to decrease overall
treatment costs. Table VI1-2 presents a summary of pertinent
data for plants discharging to central treatment facilities.
b. Sedimentation is the primary wastewater treatment technology
applied to sintering operation wastewaters. Of the 20 sinter
plants, sixteen use thickeners or clarifiers and four use
settling lagoons. At eleven of the sixteen plants with
thickeners, the sludges removed from the bottom of the thickener
are pumped to vacuum filters which are used to dewater the sludges.
At several plants, the dewatered solids are returned to the
sintering operations to recover iron values. The filtrate is
returned to the thickener influent and the thickener effluent is
223
-------
either discharged or recycled. Five plants discharge treated
wastewaters to other steel plant operations for reuse.
c. In order to enhance solids removal, various coagulant aids
(principally polymeric flocculants) are added to the wastewaters
prior to settling. The polymeric flocculants (in use at ten
plants) help to form larger, more readily settleable particles.
A certain degree of toxic inorganic and organic pollutant removal
accompanies the solids removal accomplished by sedimentation.
d. As mentioned above, five plants discharge treated wastewaters for
reuse in other steel plant operations. Wastewater treatment at
four of the five plants is provided at a central treatment
facility. Also, treated effluent from four of the five plants is
reused as make-up for blast furnace coolers and scrubbers. The
effluent from one central treatment facility is reused at many
other operations. In some of these systems, sinter process
wastewater pollutants are diluted, rather than effectively
treated.
e. Recycle of treated process wastewaters is practiced at twelve
plants. Eight of these plants (five of which have separate
treatment facilities) recycle treated effluents at rates varying
from 30% to 100%. Three plants (one of which has a separate
treatment facility) recycle both untreated and treated
wastewaters at rates varying from 77% to 94%. The remaining
plant recycles only untreated wastewaters at a rate of 88%. The
basic recycle system includes sedimentation with vacuum
filtration for sludge dewatering. Flocculating agents are used
to enhance solids removal capabilities in some systems.
f. Alkaline chlorination is used at two plants to control cyanide.
In both instances, sinter plant wastewaters are treated with
blast furnace wastewaters in central treatment systems.
g. Three plants (in which the sintering wastewaters comprise a small
portion of the total treatment volume) use filters for additional
suspended solids removal. Blast furnace, BOF, or steel finishing
wastewaters are the major wastewater sources in each of these
systems.
h. One plant discharges the blowdown from a treatment and recycle
system to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Sintering
wastewaters make up 76% of the volume.
Control and Treatment Technologies
Considered for Toxic Pollutant Removal
As the Agency found toxic inorganic and organic pollutants above
treatability levels in sintering wastewaters, it is proposing BAT
effluent limitations and NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
Although compliance with the proposed BPT effluent limitations results
in toxic pollutant removal incidental to the reduction in effluent
volume and suspended solids, the Agency believes that toxic pollutant
224
-------
removal at that level is insufficient. Several toxic pollutants were
present in concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/1 in the effluents of
the sampled plant treatment facilities.
The treatment technologies which the Agency has considered for
sintering wastewaters are described below. BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
levels of treatment are reviewed in detail in subsequent sections.
a. Filtration
Filtration technology is generally used to further reduce the
discharge of suspended solids. However, filtration can be used
to control toxic pollutants which are entrained in the
suspended solids. Filtration can be used as the last major
component in a treatment system or to provide a polished feed
stream to another treatment operation such as adsorption on
activated carbon. Particulate pollutant removal is accomplished
by passing the wastewater stream, either under pressure or by
gravity, through a filter media. The filter media, generally
sand, anthracite coal and/or garnet, permits water to pass
through but prevents the passage of much of the particulate
matter suspended in the wastewater. The filter media itself may
be comprised of a single type and size of media, various sizes of
the same type of media, or a mixed media which contains several
types and sizes of media.
b. Alkaline Chlorination
The Agency considered alkaline chlorination technology for the
treatment of sintering wastewaters based upon the use of this
technology at several sinter plants in which co-treatment with blast
furnace wastewaters is provided. The primary purpose of alkaline
chlorination is to reduce the levels of cyanide in the
wastewaters. However, it is also effective in oxidizing
phenolics, other toxic organic pollutants, and ammonia-N.
Alkaline chlorination is a process in which cyanide is destroyed
(oxidized) as a result of chemical oxidation. The reaction
occurs as a result of the introduction of chlorine, an oxidizing
agent, to wastewaters which already have or which have been
adjusted to an alkaline pH. Lime or caustic can be used for pH
adjustment, although in most instances lime addition is a less
expensive system. Cyanide oxidation involves two basic
reactions: the oxidation of cyanide to cyanate at a pH greater
than 10, immediately followed by the further oxidation of the
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen at a pH of 8.0-8.5.
Cyanogen chloride is an intermediate product of the oxidation of
cyanide to cyanate. Care must be taken to maintain wastewater pH
greater than 10 in order to prevent the evolution of the toxic
cyanogen chloride gas and to insure rapid and complete cyanide
oxidation. It must be noted that chlorine comsumption will be in
excess of that predicted strictly on the basis of cyanide
oxidation requirements due to the presence of other oxidizable
pollutants. Chlorine can be added either in the gaseous state,
through a chlorinator, or as a liquid (sodium hypochlorite).
225
-------
Electrodes which measure the wastewater oxidation-reduction
potential (ORP) can be used to control the chlorine feed to
insure complete cyanide destruction. ORP is an electrochemical
measurement, expressed as positive or negative millivolts, which
can be used to determine the direction and rate of various
oxidation or reduction reactions. In this application, the ORP
would be maintained at a point indicative of rapid and
essentially complete cyanide oxidation.
The effectiveness of this technology is reviewed in more detail
in the ironmaking subcategory report with sampled plant,
long-term, and pilot plant analytical data. The data presented
also demonstrate that, with proper process design and operation,
this technology does not produce an adverse impact due to the
formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Pilot plant studies at
plant 0860B indicate that chlorinated hydrocarbon formation is
small. Data from additional ironmaking wastewater treatment
pilot plant studies also show negligible chlorinated hydrocarbon
formation, while low levels of brominated compounds were
generated. Sinter plant wastewaters are similar in composition
to blast furnace wastewaters (both contain cyanide, phenols, and
toxic metals). As a result, the application of alkaline
chlorination to either waste stream should produce similar
effluent quality. As noted previously, alkaline chlorination is,
in fact, applied to the combined sinter and blast furnace
wastewaters.
c. Dechlorination
To minimize the potential toxicity of wastewaters which have
undergone chlorination, the Agency considered dechlorination as a
treatment method to reduce total residual chlorine levels in the
treated discharge. Existing wastewater treatment practices in
this subcategory are uniformly inadequate for dechlorination
purposes. This technology is widely practiced in the electric
power generation and electroplating industries. As one of the
final treatment steps, dechlorination is generally effective on
wastewaters generated by various sources. The Agency therefore
believes that it is equally effective when applied to sintering
wastewaters. Reducing agents, such as sulfites and sulfur
dioxide are added to the chlorinated effluent in sufficient
quantities to react with the excess residual chlorine, thereby
forming nontoxic chlorides. This technology is considered a part
of a total alkaline chlorination system.
d. Sulfide Precipitation
The addition of sulfide compounds in a wastewater treatment
process may result in a more efficient level of toxic metals
removal than can be achieved with typical lime flocculation,
precipitation or sedimentation procedures. Some of the metals
which can be effectively precipitated with sulfide are zinc,
copper, nickel, lead and silver, all of which are found in
sintering wastewaters. The increased removal efficiencies are
attributable to the relative solubilities of metal hydroxides and
226
-------
metal sulfides. In general, the metal sulfides are less soluble
than the respective metal hydroxides. It must be noted, however/
that an excess of sulfide in a treated effluent may result in
objectionable odor problems, especially if the pH is less than 7.
One method of controlling the excess feeding of sulfide involves
the addition of a ferrous sulfide slurry. As ferrous sulfide
will not readily dissociate in the waste stream the free sulfide
level is kept well below objectionable limits. However, since
the affinities of the other metals for sulfide are greater than
that of iron, the other metal sulfide precipitates are formed
preferentially to iron sulfide. Once the sulfide requirements
for the other metal precipitates is satisfied, the remaining
sulfide remains in the ferrous sulfide form and the excess iron
from the ferrous sulfide is precipitated as a hydroxide.
Sedimentation following sulfide addition can thus result in
significant toxic metal reductions, and, when used in conjunction
with filtration, even greater reductions can be achieved. When
used in conjunction with alkaline chlorination, sulfide addition
will also consume excess chlorine following oxidation.
e. Removal of Organics with Activated Carbon
Activated carbon has been used in many applications for the
removal of toxic organics pollutants from wastewater streams.
One of the more frequent uses is the reduction of COD and BOD
concentrations in the effluent from sanitary treatment systems.
Activated carbon is also used to remove toxic organic pollutants
from wastewaters of various industrial operations/ including
petroleum refining/ organic chemicals, and cokemaking. Several
toxic organic pollutants found in sintering wastewaters are also
found in cokemaking wastewaters. This can be attributed to the
use of coke in the sintering operation.
Operational guidelines for the use of activated carbon specify
that where treatment of combined waste streams is involved or
where the water to be processed has significant turbidity,
preliminary treatment by clarification followed by filtration is
required to achieve optimum organics removal. The use of
chemical precipitation and diatomaceous earth filtration is
sometimes required to achieve the clarity required for the
removal of pollutants present at low levels. Particulates in
wastewaters can adsorb organics and then release these organics
after passage through the carbon bed.
Laboratory tests performed on single compound systems indicate
that processing with activated carbon will achieve residual
levels on the order of 1 microgram per liter for many of the
organic compounds on the toxic pollutant list. Compounds which
respond well to adsorption include chlorinated phenols, phenols,
nitrophenols, and polynuclear aromatics.
Control of pH in the neutral range is necessary to minimize
dissociation of both acid and basic organic compounds-. As a
general rule, normal pH variations within the neutral range will
not significantly affect the operation of activated carbon
227
-------
columns. It may also be noted that it may be impractical (as
well as extremely expensive) to have two carbon adsorption
systems in series, one operating at a low pH and the other at a
high pH.
Data for existing industrial wastewater treatment applications
indicate that activated carbon adsorption technology is
transferrable to the treatment of sintering wastewaters. Refer
to Sections VII and X of the ironmaking subcategory report and to
Volume I for details regarding the capabilities of this
technology. For specific details pertaining to sintering process
wastewaters, refer to the pilot study data presented in the
ironmaking report. Since sintering and ironmaking wastewaters
are similar and are often treated together, pilot plant data for
treatment of ironmaking wastewaters can be applied to the
development of effluent limitations for sintering operations, as
well as for ironmaking operations.
Plant Visit Analytical Data
Table VII-1 presents the definitions for the various control and
treatment technology and operating mode abbreviations. Table VII-3
presents a summary of raw wastewater data from sintering operations
visited during both the original guidelines and toxic pollutant
surveys. Table VII-4 presents a summary of effluent data from
sintering operations visited during both the original guidelines and
toxic pollutant surveys. Table VII-5 presents a summary of long-term
effluent analytical data provided in response to the D-DCPs.
Plant Visits
The Agency sampled the wastewaters from seven sintering plants to
supplement data obtained in the original guidelines study. Since
complete data could not be obtained from three of the plants visited
during the original guidelines survey, the limited data were of little
value in determining wastewater treatment performance in these
instances. A brief description of each of the visited plants is
presented below. Schematic diagrams of the respective treatment
facilities are presented at the end of this section.
Plant H - Figure VII-1
Wastewaters from the sinter plant are mixed with wastewaters from the
blast furnace and other sources, and then treated for solids removal
with polymer addition and sedimentation in thickeners. The thickener
overflow is discharged to a receiving stream, while the underflow is
dewatered with vacuum filters.
Plant I - Figure VII-2
Wastewaters from the sinter plant are mixed with blast furnace
wastewaters and treated in a thickener to remove suspended solids.
The thickener underflow is vacuum filtered, with the filtrate being
returned to the thickener. The thickener overflow undergoes further
treatment including alkaline chlorination and filtration. This
228
-------
effluent is discharged to the main plant pumping station, mixed with
make-up water and reused.
Plant J - Figure VII-3
Sinter plant scrubber wastewaters are combined with the underflow from
the blast furnace treatment system thickener and treated in a second
thickener. Most of the overflow is recycled to the sinter plant gas
scrubber system. A cooling tower in the recycle line reduces the
recycled wastewater temperature. A portion of the overflow is
discharged to a POTW.
Plant K
Sinter plant scrubber system wastewaters are combined with the
underflow from six blast furnace thickeners and settled in another
thickener. The thickener overflow is combined with the BOF treatment
system overflow and treated by clarification. Clarifier overflows are
then stored in settling ponds for recycle.
Plant 016 - Figure VI1-4
Wastewaters from the sinter mixing drum and sinter machine scrubbers
are combined in a moisture eliminator cone, which acts as a settling
chamber. The supernate of the eliminator is recycled to the sinter
machine scrubbers, while the underflow is discharged to a central
treatment system for further treatment.
Plant 017 z Figure VII-5
Wastewaters from six sinter process scrubbers are mixed with blast
furnace wastewaters and treated to remove suspended solids in a
thickener. The thickener overflow is further treated with alkaline
chlorination and sedimentation in a second thickener prior to discharge.
Plant 019 - Figure VII-6
Sinter plant wastewaters are treated by adding lime to aid precipitate
formation. The floe is settled in a "Lamella" thickener. The
overflow is mixed with make-up water and recycled to the steam
hydro-iscrubbers. The underflow is discharged to a blast furnace
clarifier for further treatment.
229
-------
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 ¦ X recycled
t: U * Untreated
T ¦ Treated
s n
p
Process Wastewater
X
of
raw waste
flow
F
Flume Only
%
of
raw waste
flow
S
Flume and Sprays
%
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
t: U ¦ before treatment
T » after treatment
4. BDn Blowdown, where n ¦ discharge as X 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
230
-------
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
D.
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 ¦ type
t: L ¦ Lime
C " Caustic
A » Acid
W * Wastes
0 ¦ Other, footnote
231
-------
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)
232
-------
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
233
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 5
D. Treatment Technology (cont.)
67. AAl 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
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
2 =
3 =
4 *
5 =
234
-------
TABLE VII-2
SUMMARY OF DATA FOR SINTERING OPERATIONS DISCHARGING
TO CENTRAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Discharge
Applied
Discharge
Percent
Plant
Flow
Flow
of
Code
(gal/ton)
(gal/ton)
Total Flow
Contributing Wastewater Sources
0060
1667
219
46
Blast Furnace
0060B
2186
2186
5
Blast Furnace, etc.
0112A
1604
288
83
Miscellaneous
0112B
133
133
28
Blast Furnace and BOF Sludges
0112C
1292
793
39
Blast Furnace
0112D
1432
142
2
General Plant Sources
0396A
341
85
76
Blast Furnace Sludges
0432A
245
245
6
Blast Furnace
049 2A
2582
2582
11
General Plant Sources
0584C
1368
1368
1
BOF, Finishing
0584F
106
106
Unk
Blast Furnace
0856Q
2805
117
1
Blast Furnace
0920B
134
134
3
Blast Furnace
0946A
6605
6605
5
Blast Furnace
094 8C
1124
138
-
Blowdown to Blast Furnace
Gas Scrubber System
Unk: Unknown
235
-------
TABLE VI1-3
RAW WASTEWATERS - SINTERIHC
SUMIART OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAHPLED PLANTS
ORIGIHAL GUIDELINES AND TOXIC POLLUTAHT SPKVETS
PLANT CODES 0432A 0396A Oil 2D Q432A 0060r^ AVERAGES
B
J
016
017
019
Saaple Point(a)
6
1
- Sludge
B*C
D+E
B
Flow
, gal/ton
104
341
1432
245
301
sa
lbs/1000
¦E/l
lbs/1000
lbs/1000
lbs/1000
lbs/1000
lbs/1000
lbs
lbs
¦l/l
lbs
ill
lbs
n/1
lbs
¦g/l
lbs
Oil and Crease
504
0.219
461
0.551
114
0.678
9.1
0.00927
210
0.263
245
0.344
Suspended Solids
4345
1.B9
18,629
27.6
558
3.33
5378
5.49
809
1.01
6110
7.86
P»
9.6
12.7
7.1
- 12.3
11.
,3 - 12.0
5.9
5.9
- 12.7
Fluoride
0.64
0.000278
2.5
0.00368
27
0.162
6.4
0.00654
47
0.0589
16.7
0.0463
Phenolic Coapounda
0.439
0.000191
1.86
0.0111
0.164
0.000167
2.20
0.00276
1.17
0.00355
39
Fluoranthene
0.254
0.00152
0.003
0.000003
ND
ND
0.086
0.000508
65
Phenol
0.056
0.000331
0.039
0.000040
1.037
0.00130
0.377
0.000557
76
Chrjrsene
0.316
0.00189
0.006
0.000007
ND
ND
0.107
0.000632
84
Pjrrenc
0.321
0.00191
0.006
0.000007
0.007
0.000009
0.111
0.000642
118
Ctdsiia
0.048
0.000288
*
t
1.333
0.00167
0.69
0.000979
119
Chroaiua
0.098
0.000584
0.619
0.000632
0.020
0.000025
0.25
0.000414
120
Copper
0.521
0.00311
0.065
0.000067
0.600
0.000751
0.40
0.00131
121
Cyanides
15.2
0.00660
0.010
0.000060
0.145
0.000148
0.263
0.000329
3.9
0.00178
122
Lead
5.88
0.0351
ISO
ISO
5.33
0.00668
5.6
0.0209
124
Nickel
0.010
0.000060
f
f
0.200
0.000250
0.10
0.000155
126
Silver
0.010
0.000061
#
f
0.013
0.000016
0.01
0.000038
128
Zinc
0.545
0.00325
0.939
0.000958
8.67
0.0109
3.38
0.00504
(1) s Ihc Kttli analytical data for thia plant represents dissolved valuei.
ISO I Insufficient data to eoaplete evaluatioa
ND I Hot Detensioed
# I Deterainatioaa foe pataettc are qualified
-------
TABLE VII-4
KFTLUCTTS - SINTERING
SDMMKT Or AXALTTICAL MTA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
OK1GIHAL GUIDELINES AMD TOXIC POLLUTANT SOEVET3
Plant Codea
0432A
0396A
0112D
0432A
006OF
ia^le Point(a)
¦
J
016
017
019
-
2
0
D+E/ (B+C+D+E) P
D
Flow, gal/ton
104
80
142
245
26.4
C*TT
Polyaer, clarifier,
Liae Heat.,polyaer
AlkeChlorinetion,
Liae Neut.,poly
cooling toaer, vacnaa
clarifier,thickener
polymer,screening,
aer, "Laaella"
filter
lagoon,akiaaing
thickener,
thickener
vac. filter
~ec. filter
lba/1000
lba/1000
lba/1000
lba/1000
mt/1 Iba
ac/1
lba
m/l
lba
ax/1 lba
Oil and Creaaa
lot
1.0 0.00027
181
0.107
5
ISD
1120 0.123
Saapeaded SolIda
Available*
9.2 0.0032
827
0.488
38
0.112
14651 1.61
P«
12.8
7.2
-
10.6
-
8.6 -
Fluoride
~ S.S 0.0029
32
0.0189
3.2
0.00315
182 0.0200
Pheaollc Coappanda
1.33
0.000784
2.86
0.000169
2.07 0.000227
39 Plooraatbeaa
0.310
0.000183
0.007
0.000000
0.862 0.000095
65 Plianol
0.075
0.000044
0.630
0.000042
0.987 0.000108
76 Chryaeae
0.410
0.000242
0.007
0.000006
0.053 0.000006
84 Pyraae
0.295
0.000175
0.007
0.000001
1.122 0.000123
IIS Cadaiaa
0.065
0.000038
f
ISD
0.767 0.000084
119 Cfcroaiaa
0.090
0.000053
f
ISD
0.010 0.000001
120 Copper
0.550
0.000324
0.026
ISD
0.267 0.000029
121 Cyaaidea
0.010
0.000006
1.11
0.000014
0.163 0.000018
122 Lead
5.50
0.00325
0.079
ISD
0.800 0.000088
12* nickel
0.015
0.000009
f
#
0.133 0.000015
126 Silver
0.009
0.000005
#
#
0.010 0.000001
128 Ziac
0.550
0.000324
0.935
0.000048
5.000 0.000549
(1) Dm (CflMit tram thia ayatea m tb« bottoa flow froa a aoiature eliainator.
(2) The aetata analytical data for thia plant repreaeut UaaeM valaea. The
diacharge froa thia qratca waa tba underflow froa a "Laaalla" thickener.
# l Deterainatioaa for parameter are qualified.
* I Ilnae valuea coald aot be adequately evaluated.
ISO: Insufficient data to coaplete evaluation.
HD t Hot Deterained
-------
TABLE VII-5
SUMMIT OF LONC-TERM EFFLUENT ANALYTICAL DATA
SINTERING
(Ail concentration* expressed in ag/1)
Plant Code 0112A 0920F
CHT
Neutralisation with
liae, c
larifier,
Neutralization with caustic, clarifier
~acutsa
filter
No. of
Standard
No. of
Standard
Saaplea
Mean
High
Deviation
Samples
Mean
High
Deviation
Oil and Crease
•
-
-
-
60
14
70
10.04
Suspended Solid*
180
38.*
158
25.35
60
56.1
149
26.75
P"
~
—
—
-
60
8.1
9.3
-
Flow, gal/ain
ISO
1,542
2,391
539.99
59
24
49
12.8
Teaperatare, *C
—
—
-
60
31
45
8.3
Fluoride
-
-
-
_
11
41.2
70
16.8
taenia
180
34.9
60
6.94
-
-
-
-
Cyanide
180
0.097
0.444
0.083
-
-
-
-
rbeaol*
180
0.06
1.24
0.12
-
—
-
-
Total Solids
19
26,236
45,176
8,902
*l ¦« Data
-------
PROCESS: BURDEN PREPERATION (SINTERING)
PLANT: H
PRODUCT ION: 5260.6 Metric Tons Sinter/Day
(5800 Tons Sinter/Day)
SINTER
PLANT
WET
SCRUBBERS
Blast Furnace
8 Other Sources
26.5 I/sec. (420 gpm)
POLYMER
ADDITIVE
SINTER PLANT
SUMP
i '
Filtrate
THICKENER
THICKENER
FILTER
Solids to
Sinter Plant
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RQ A/2 4/7 8
A SAMPLING POINT
rIGURE m.-
-------
NJ
O
cr 567.9 I /SEC
' r(9000 GPM )
SINTER PLANT
PROCESS WATER
fa
A
"Z.
BLAST FURNACE
GAS CLEANING
SYSTEMS
^ 949.7 l/SEC
~ (15,050 GPM)
PROCESS WATER FROM
MERCHANT MILLS 8
BLOOMING MILLS
SINTER PLANT DOWN
DURING SAMPLING
(NO FLOW)
/ / / / / / / / /
-567.9 l/SEC
(9000 GPM)
£
574.2 l/SEC
(9100 GPM)
m
N« I THICKENER
32m (105 FT.) DIA.
2 HR. 10 MIN. DETENTION
OVERFLOW RATE
42.6 l/mz/MIN.
(1.045 GAL/FT2/MIN.)
3.15 l/SEC
(50 GPM)
VACUUM
FILTERS
3.15 l/SEC
(50 GPM)
b
PROCESS: IRON MAKING (FeBLAST FURNACE)
AND SINTERING
TYPE: J
PLANT: I
PRODUCTION: 2176.8 METRIC TONS IRON/DAY
(2400 TONS IRON/DAY)
757.2 l/SEC
(12,000 GPM)
1766.8 l/SEC
(28,000 GPM)
NON-CONTACT
BLAST FURNACE
COOLING WATERS
TURBO-
BLOWER
CONDENSERS
757.2 l/SEC
'(12,000 GPM)
<=-1766.8 l/SEC
« j—^(28,000 GPM)
2524 l/SEC (40,000 GPM)^ ,
3.15 l/SEC
(50 GPM)
c-946.5 l/SEC
'<15,000 GPM)
571.1 l/SEC
(9050 GPM)
SOLIDS
N2 2 THICKENER
2 HR. 45 MIN. DETENTION
OVERFLOW RATE
70.5 l/m2/MlN.
(1.73 GAL/FTS'MIN.)
1517.5 l/SEC
PLANT
OUTFALL
r
'-4041.5 l/SEC (64,050 GPM)
MAIN
PLANT
PUMPING
STATION
(24,050 GPM)
CYANIDE
DESTRUCT
4
s \
/BACKWASH)
Ithickener/
SCALE PIT
W/OIL SKIMMERS-
SAND
~ FILTERS
2.,
A
SAMPLING POINT
2524 l/SEC (40,000 GPM)
>-y^ RIVER INTAKE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING OPERATION
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
&D4-27-78
FIGURE 3ZH-2
-------
NJ
PROCESS: SINTERING
PLANT: J
PRODUCTION^ 2297.4 Metric Tons Sinter/Day
(2533 Tons Sinter/Day)
41.01 to 44.17 l/sec. (650 1o 700 gpm)
42.59 l/sec.,avg. (675 gpm.avg.)
Service Water
Make-Up
37.86 l/sec. (600 gpm)
3.15 l/sec (50 gpm)
41.01 l/sec.(650 gpm)
Evaporation
Underflow From Blast
Furnace Thickener
0 to 12.6 l/sec.
(0 to 200 gpm)
6.31 l/sec.,avg.
(100 gpm.avg.)
2.62 l/sec.(200 gpm) Slurry
1.57 l/sec. (25 gpm)
50.48 l/sec. (800 gpm)
— Slowdown
9.46 to 18.93 l/sec
(150 to 300 gpm)
12.62 l/sec., avg.
(200 gpm.avg.)
SECONDARY THICKENER
12.19 m dia. t40'-0"dia.)
Overflow Rate
26 l/hiz/min
(0.64 gal/ft2/min)
To
Sanitary
Authority
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
3.15 l/sec. (50 gpm) Slurry Line
A SAMPLING POINT
]figure vh-3
VACUUM
FILTERS
COOLING
TOWER
SINTER PLANT
GAS SCRUBBER SYSTEM
(Two Scrubbers)
Evaporation Loss
3.15 to 631 l/sec.(50 to lOOgpm)
4.73 l/sec.,avg. (75 gpm, avg.)
-------
SINTERING PLANT
process:
016
plant:
PRODUCTION: 5100 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(5622 TONS STEEL/DAY)
SINTERING
PROCESS
MIXING
DRUM
SATURATION
LOSS
9.1 l/SEC
(145 GPM) v, >
6.93 l/SEC
<110 GPM)
SCRUBBER
SPRAY
CHAMBER
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
6.3 l/SEC
(100 GPM)
6.3 l/SEC
(100 GPM)
346 l/SEC
(5490 6PM)
353 l/SEC
(5600 GPM)
51.0 l/SEC
(808 GPM)
MOISTURE
ELIMINATOR
SCRUBBER
RECYCLE
r-"^ 34.9 l/SEC
,^-(553 GPM)
SLOWDOWN
A" SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CENTRAL
TREATMENT
OUTFALL
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
FIGURE MI-4
-------
process:
SINTER PLANT
53.6 l/SEC
(850 GPM)
RAW
WATER
plant:
017
PRODUCTION: 4533 METRIC TONS/DAY
(4998 TPD) SINTER PLANT
SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
SCRUBBER
/V SAMPLING POINT
45.4 l/SEC
0.2 l/SEC-
(130 GPM)
SUMP
SUMP
53.6 l/SEC
(850 GPM)
BLAST FURNACE
WASTEWATER
12.6 l/SEC
(200 GPM)
820 l/SEC1
(13,000 GPM)
¦/bV-HOT METAL DESULFURIZATION
GRIT
CHAMBER
ALKALINE
>tt_ORINATtON
TO
OUTFALL
879 l/SEC
(13,932 GPM)
, THICKENER
i THICKENER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTER PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
SINTER PLANT
7.45 l/SEC
(118 GPM)
FIGURE m~5
-------
SINTERING
PROCESS:
EVAPORATION
1.26 l/SEC
(20 GPM)
plant:
019
PRODUCTION: 1238 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
1365 TONS STEEL/DAY
STEAM
O l/SEC
(O GPM)
19.2 l/SEC
(305 GPM)
MAKE-UP —
2.84 l/SEC
(45 GPM)
180 l/SEC -
(285 GPM)
16.4 l/SEC
(260 GPM)
>T0 BLAST FURNACE
CLARIFIER
1.58 l/SEC
(25 GPM)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
^SAMPLING POINT
EFFLUENT
SUMP
FLOCCULATOR
TANK
MIX
TANK
CHEMICAL
ADDITIONS
LAMELLA
THICKENER
STEAM
HYDROS
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NONWATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Introduction
This section presents the incremental costs incurred in applying the
various treatment systems described in Sections IX to XIII. These
costs are estimated from model treatment systems. The cost analysis
includes, in addition to the cost associated with the application of
the various technologies, a consideration of energy requirements and
nonwater quality impacts. In addition, sludge and waste oil
generation rates, the BCT cost comparison and the consumptive use of
water are reviewed.
Actual Costs Incurred by the Plants
Sampled or Solicited for This Study
Water pollution control costs supplied by the industry for sintering
operations surveyed during this study or included in D-DCP responses
are presented in Table VIII-1.. These costs have been updated to July
1978 dollars from the actual cost (current year) data supplied by the
industry.
The Agency compared the capital cost data reported for several plants
to its capital cost estimates. This comparison was made to determine
whether the Agency's estimated treatment model costs are sufficiently
generous to cover the industry's actual costs, including site-specific
and other incidental costs. Following is a tabulation of the actual
capital costs reported by the industry (refer to Table VIII-1) and EPA
estimated costs developed from the model cost:
Plant No.
Actual Cost ($)
Estimated Cost
0060
733,550
1,870,000
0856F
511,020
2,249,000
0864A
1 ,731,048
1,306,000
0920F
2,626,200
1,203,000
0396A
832.000
1.045,000
TOTAL
$6,433,818
$7,673,000
0112A
$1,206,430
$6,892,000
The large difference between the actual and estimated costs for plant
0112A is due to substantial differences in production capacity and
flow between this plant and the treatment model. On this basis, the
costs for Plant 0112A were not included in the totals. While actual
costs were also reported for Plant 0432A, which has a central
treatment system for blast furnace and sintering wastewaters, a
245
-------
reliable determination of the sintering wastewater treatment costs
could not be made because the sinter plant flow is small in relation
to the total central treatment system flow.
Referring to the costs for the remaining five plants, actual costs for
two of the plants are greater than the estimated costs and three of
the estimated costs are higher. The most noteworthy observation,
however, is the comparison of the total costs, as this more closely
reflects on the applicability of the cost of compliance to the
industry. As the reported costs are about 16% less than the Agency's
estimated costs, the estimated costs compare favorably in two ways.
First, the Agency's total cost estimate is sufficiently generous to
account for the various site-specific and other incidental costs
associated with industry's compliance with the proposed limitations.
Second, the Agency's total cost estimate is not excessively generous
and thus provides a fair indication of the cost of treatment to the
industry.
Control and Treatment Technologies (C&TT)
Recommended for Use in the Sintering Subcategory
The components of the BPT and BAT model treatment systems are
presented in Table VII1-2. It should be noted that the proposed
regulation does not require the installation of the model treatment
system, as any treatment arrangement which achieves the proposed
effluent limitations is adequate. Table VIII-2 presents information
pertaining to the following items.
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 Quality Impacts
Introduction
Compliance with the proposed BPT, BCT, BAT limitations and NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS will require additional expenditures (both investment and
operating) and additional energy consumption. This section addresses
these requirements and the air pollution, water consumption and solid
waste disposal impacts associated with each treatment system
considered. Costs and energy requirements were estimated on the basis
of treatment models developed in Sections IX through XIII of this
report.
Estimated Costs for the Installation
of Pollution Control Technologies
A. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BPT Limitations
As a first step to estimate the costs of each treatment model,
the Agency developed a model system upon which cost estimates
246
-------
were to be based. The model size (tons/day) was developed on the
basis of the average production capacity for all "wet" sintering
operations. The treatment model applied flow is also an average.
The components and effluent flow discussed in Section IX were
then incorporated to complete the development of the treatment
model. Table VII1-3 presents the estimated and annual
expenditures associated with the application of the model BPT
treatment technologies. The Agency then developed unit costs for
each treatment system component.
The capital requirements for achieving the proposed BPT
limitations were determined by applying the model treatment
component costs, adjusted for size, to each "wet" sintering
operation. Table VII1-4 presents a summary of the estimated
expenditures already made or required to achieve the BPT level of
treatment. Based upon these data, the Agency estimates that
about 27.9 million dollars remained to be spent for BPT
facilities as of January 1, 1978. The estimated total annual
cost of operation of BPT for sintering operations is about 37.3
million dollars.
B. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BAT Limitations
The Agency considered four treatment alternatives as model BAT
treatment systems. Reference is made to Section X for
information on each system. The additional investment and annual
expenditures involved in applying each of the BAT alternative
treatment systems to the model plant are presented in Table
VII1-5. The BAT costs for the subcategory were determined by
multiplying unit costs by the number of "wet" sintering
operations requiring each component. Subcategory annual costs
for BAT were obtained by multiplying the model annual costs by
the number of "wet" sintering operations. Following are the
estimated investment and annual costs for each BAT alternative:
BAT Investment Costs Annual
Alternative In-Place"" Required Costs
No.1 $ 760,000 $ 4,350,000 $ 940,000
No.2 $1,870,000 $10,000,000 $ 2,270,000
No.3 $2,000,000 $11,250,000 $ 2,600,000
No.4 $2,000,000 $51,240,000 $19,740,000
C. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BCT Limitations
Since the BCT model treatment systems are compatible with and
part of the model BAT alternatives, BCT costs are included in the
BAT costs noted above. However, the proposed BCT limitations
pertain only to conventional pollutants. The BCT cost analysis
is presented in Table VIII-6, while additional information
regarding BCT is provided in Section XI.
D. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed NSPS
247
-------
The Agency considered four treatment alternatives as model NSPS
treatment systems. The NSPS treatment systems are similar to the
BPT/BAT treatment systems, however, the model size has been
changed to account for the trend toward larger operations. The
NSPS model treatment system size is based upon the average
production capacity of those facilities which began operation in
the last decade. The NSPS alternative treatment system costs are
presented in Table VIII-7.
E. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed Pretreatment Standards
Pretreatment standards apply to those existing and new sources
which discharge wastewaters to POTWs. The alternative
pretreatment systems are similar to those for BPT and those for
the respective model BAT treatment systems. The model size for
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) is the same
as that of the BPT and BAT treatment models, while the model size
for pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) is the same as
that of the NSPS treatment model. This system provides
considerable reductions in effluent flows and effluent levels and
loads, in particular for the toxic pollutants. Section XIII
contains additional information pertaining to the pretreatment
standards. The costs for the PSES models are presented in Table
VII1-8. The PSNS model costs are identical to the model costs of
NSPS Alternative Nos. 1-3 which are presented in Table VIII-7.
Energy Impacts
Moderate amounts of energy will be required for the BPT model and BAT,
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS alternative treatment systems for the sintering
subcategory. The major energy expenditures occur at BPT, while the
BAT model treatment system requires relatively minor additional energy
expenditures. This relationship reflects the high recycle rate in the
BPT model treatment system. Energy requirements for PSES will
approximate the corresponding BPT and BAT systems, while the
requirements for NSPS and PSNS will be slightly greater than those for
the corresponding BPT and BAT system.
A. Energy Impacts at BPT
The Agency estimated the energy requirements for this
subcategory based upon the assumption that all "wet" sintering
operations will install treatment systems similar to that of the
appropriate model treatment system with flows similar to that of
the model. On this basis, the energy requirements for BPT for
all "wet" sintering operations is 71.8 million kilowatt hours of
electricity per year. This estimate represents about 0.13% 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 BAT alternative
treatment systems are based upon the same assumptions noted above
for BPT. The estimated energy requirements for the four
248
-------
alternative systems, and the relationship to 1978 industry power
consumption, are as follows:
BAT kwh per % of Industry
Alternative Year Usage
No.1 1.18 million 0.002%
No.2 3.36 million 0.006%
No.3 3.70 million 0.006%
No.4 10.58 million 0.019%
The Agency considers these requirements to be justified in light
of the total industry usage and the pollution reduction benefits
obtained.
C. Energy Impacts at NSPS and Pretreatment
The estimated energy requirements for the NSPS, PSNS, and PSES
alternative treatment systems are as follows:
Model
kwh/Year
NSPS-1
6.97
million
NSPS-2
7.13
million
NSPS-3
7.16
million
NSPS-4
7.64
million
PSNS-1
6.97
million
PSNS-2
7.13
million
PSNS-3
7.16
million
PSES-1
3.46
million
PSES-2
3.57
million
PSES-3
3.58
million
The estimated energy requirements for the NSPS and PSNS
alternative treatment systems are greater than the corresponding
BPT and BAT alternative totals because of model size differences.
Estimates of the total energy impacts for NSPS and PSNS are not
included since projections of capacity additions were not made as
part of this study. PSES energy impacts are included in those
for BPT and BAT.
Nonwater Quality Impacts
In general, the Agency concluded that nonwater quality impacts
associated with the proposed treatment technologies will be minimal.
Following are discussions of the impacts which were evaluated.
A. Air Pollution
Sulfide addition is included in BAT Alternative 2. In the event
of treatment process control upsets, an atmospheric discharge of
sulfides could occur. However, as this sulfide addition is used
in conjunction with lime addition, the possibility of atmospheric
sulfide discharges, which are aggravated at an acidic pH, would
be greatly reduced.
249
-------
chlorination in conjunction with BAT
and 4, may result in the localized
of chlorine or chlorine compounds,
ng and operating practices and procedures
eliminate any air pollution problems
ne chlorination. In addition to the above
regeneration of spent activated carbon
No. 4 may also result in the atmospheric
pollutants. However, the regeneration
iciently high to oxidize most organic
The use of alkaline
Alternatives Nos. 3
atmospheric discharge
However, proper venti
would greatly reduce or
associated with alkali
atmospheric discharges,
from BAT Alternative
discharge of various
temperatures are suff
pollutants.
In view of these observations, the Agency does not consider the
impacts of air pollution to be significant.
B. Solid Waste Disposal
The BPT model and BAT alternative treatment systems will generate
significant quantities of solids and oils and greases which
require disposal. A summary of the solid waste generation for
all "wet" sintering operations at the BPT and BAT levels of
treatment follows:
Treatment
Level
Solid Waste Generation
Sintering Subcategory
(Tons/Year)
BPT 1,173,000
BAT Alternative No.l 384
BAT Alternative No.2 1,550
BAT Alternative No.3 1,530
BAT Alternative No.4 1,530
As shown above, significant amounts of solid wastes are generated
by the BPT model treatment system, while the BAT alternative
treatment systems generate relatively minor additional amounts.
Most of the solid wastes generated require proper disposal. The
oils which cannot be reused or reclaimed would also require
proper disposal, generally off-site.
The estimated amounts of solid wastes generated by the NSPS and
Pretreatment alternative treatment systems follow:
250
-------
Treatment
Level
Solid Waste Generation
Treatment Model
(Tons/Year)
NSPS Alternative No.l 97,800
NSPS Alternative No.2 97,900
NSPS Alternative No.3 97,900
NSPS Alternative No.4 97,900
PSNS Alternative No.l 97,800
PSNS Alternative No.2 97,900
PSNS Alternative No.3 97,900
PSES Alternative No.l 55,900
PSES Alternative No.2 55,900
PSES Alternative No.3 55,900
As noted previously in this section, the NSPS and PSNS
alternative treatment systems are the same as the BPT and BAT
treatment systems, except for model size. The solid wastes
generated at the NSPS and Pretreatment levels are of the same
nature and present the same disposal requirements as those
presented for BPT and BAT.
C. Water Consumption
Evaporative cooling is not included as a treatment step in this
subcategory, and those treatment steps which are included are
essentially not water consumptive. As a result, there are no
impacts due to water consumption at the BPT and BAT levels of
treatment.
Summary of Impacts
In summary, the Agency concludes that the pollutant load reduction
benefits described below for the sintering subcategory outweigh any
adverse energy and non-water quality environmental impacts;
Effluent Discharges (Tons/Year)
Raw Waste
Proposed BPT
Proposed BAT
Flow, MGD
122.6
8.4
6.3
TSS
1,138,650
639
144
Oil and Grease
45,730
128
47.9
Toxic Metals
616
24.3
6.7
Toxic Organics*
5.6
1.5
1.2
Fluoride
1,120
384
95.9
Cyanide, Total
37.3
6.4
2.4
Phenolic Compounds
37.3
25.6
1. 0
* Toxic organics do
not include
phenolic compounds
•
251
-------
TABLE V1II-1
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
SINTERING
(All costs are expressed in July, 1978 Dollars)
riant Code H I J K 016 017 019 0060 0112A 0856F Q864A 0920F
Reference No. 0432A 0946A 0396A 0J12B 0432A 0060F 0060F
Initial Investment Coat HA HA 832,000 HA (A) 560,050(5) HA 733,550 1,206,430 511,020 1,731,040 2,626,200
Annual Costs NA HA . . HA . . . . .. .. ...
Coat of Capital 24,082}*' 31.543ji( 91,568}'' 21,97*}'' 7*>ft35m 112,926}*'
Depreciation "}83,200lZ' 56,050}Zj 73,355*Z'~) 67,024Wk 51,102W' 173,lOS1!* 262,620w'
Operation t Maintenance { /,» 24,643.,. / .../ 254,169 1 .....
Energy, Power, }29,120U' 3,044"' 25,674*"" ) 42,2251
-------
TABLE VIII-2
CONTROL AMD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
ro
cn
to
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
A. Thickener - Thia step pro-
vides suspended aolida resoval
via sedimentation. The oila
are also allowed to surface and
are akiaaed.
Status and
Reliability
Widely used in this sub-
category and in various
waatewater trestmeot
operationa throughout the
steel industry and other
induetriea*
Probleas
and Limitations
Accumulated solids
¦us t be renoved
continuously or quite
frequently to prevent
dosage to thickener
Mechanical equipment.
Hydraulic surges Must
be controlled.
Inpleme no-
tation Land
Tine Requirements
15-IB
nonths
105* x 210*
Environmental
Inpact Other
Than Water
Proper solids
and ikissed
oil disposal
is required.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
The solid waste
generation rate
for the treatment
aodel, on the basis
of dry solids is 73J
lb/ton (147 ton/day,
53,800 tor/year).
These solids consist
primarily of the
metal oxides (prin-
cipally iron) vhich
comprise the process
du9ts. The quanti—
ties of oils and
greases removed
via skimming and
entrairasent with
the solids is 2.86
lb/ton (5.72 ton/
day, 2089 ton/year)
for the treatment
model.
B. Polymer Addition - Polymer
addition is incorporated
to enhance euspended solids
removal performance.
C. Vacuum Filter - Used to
dewater the sludges removed
from the thickener.
Widely used in thia sub-
category and in other in-
dustrial wastewater treatment
applications.
Widely used in this sub-
category and in other in-
dustry waatewater treatment
application.
Dissolved solids
level will be slighlty
increased.
Routine maintenance
of the vacuin pwps
and filter aechanism
is required. The
filter media must be
replaced periodically.
6 months 25' x 25*
15-18
¦onths
50'xl20'
The additional
solids renoval
accomplished via
polymer addition
suit receive
proper disposal.
The dewatered
solids must
receive proper
disposal.
Included with
Step A.
Refer to Step A.
-------
TABLE mi-2
COWIIPL AND TREAHEKT TECMOLOCIES
SINTERING SUKATEGOtT
FACE 2
Trcataent and/or
Control Method* Employed
D. Recycle - 93Z of the
thickener «!fl«est is recycled
to the process.
Status and
Reliability
Demonstrated in this sab-
category (refer to Section
IX).
E. pH Adjustment With Acid -
The pH of the lystcs effluent
is adjusted to the neutral
range using acid.
Widely used in various in-
dustrial wastewater treat-
ment applications. pH
control systesis require
routine calibration and
maintenance.
to
Ln
F. Increase Recycle Rate to
95X - Provisions are incor-
porated to increase the recycle
rate and thus reduce the treat-
ment system effluent flow.
Demonstrated in this sub-
category as noted in
Section X.
G. Filtration - Filters are
used to provide additional
suspended solids removal.
Used in this subcategory
and demonstrated in other
wastewater treatment
applications.
Problem
and Limitations
The potential exists
for scaling and
plugging doe to the
incressed dissolved
solids levels asso-
ciated with recycle
systems.
Caution mist be
exercised in the
hsndling and storing
of the acid.
Implemen-
tation
Time
12 to 14
months
8 to 10
months
Land
Requires
gnts
20'x30'
20*x20*
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Hone
Acid fumes sust
be properly
vented and ex-
hausted.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primsry
Constituents
None
The potential exists 12 to 14 No additional None
for scaling and
plugging due to the
increased dissolved
solids levels asso-
ciated with recycle
systems.
BK>nths
land required.
Included in
in Step D.
None
Hydrsulic overloads 15 to 18 20*x25'
must be controlled. months
Insdequate solids
removal performance
in previous steps will
impede efficient
filter operation.
lb/day, 16.0
ton/year).
These solids are
similar in nature
to the solids
removed in step
A. This step
will also pro-
vide a reduc-
tion in the
oil and grease
load. The ad-
ditional load
of oils and
greases re-
moved is 0.003
lb/ton (12.5
lb/day, 2.28
ton/year).
The backwash
solids and oils
and greases awst
receive proper
dispossl.
The backwash
solids represent
an additional
solids generation
ratef on a dry
basis of 0.022
lb/ton (87.6
-------
TABLE VIII-2
CONTROL AMD TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
PACE 3
Treatment and/or
Control Methods faploytd
H. Line Addition - Used in
conjunction with steps I and
K for the purpose* of providing
additions! toxic aetals reaoval
capabilities and to increase the
pH needed for alkaline
chlorination.
Status and
Reliability
Used in this subcategory
and in other industrial
wastewater treatment appli-
cations.
I. Sulfide Precipitation -
A source of sulfide is added to
the wastewater stress to fora
metallic sulfide precipitates
which are subsequently resoved
via filtration* Sulfide also
serves as a decloriaation
agent.
Used in various industrial
wastewater treatment opera-
tions for the purpose of
providing additional toxic
aetals reaoval.
J. Clarifier - Provides for the
reaoval of the suspended solids
generated as a result of liae
addition. Ibis step Is used la
conjunction with steps K and K.
Gravity seduseotstion capa-
bilities are dcaonstrated
widely in this subcategory
and in other industrial
wastewater treataent opera-
tions.
Problens
and Liaitations
The liae feed and
aixing systems re-
quite periodic
cleaning and aain-
tenance.
lapleaen-
tation Land
Tiara Requireaents
12 aonths 15' x 15'
Environaental
lapact Other
Than Water
Dust control
while unloading
the liaie aust
be provided.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Prinary
Constituents
Included in
Step J.
Care aust be exer-
cised in the handling
and use of the feed
solution. Tight
trestaent process con-
trol is desirable.
Accumulated solids
aust be regularly re-
aoved to prevent
daage to the clari-
fier Mechanical equip-
ment. Hydraulic surges
aust be controlled.
6 aonths 15' x 15*
15 to 18 35*
aonths
35*
The resultant
aetal sulfide
precipitates re-
quire proper
disposal. Sul-
fide odors can
result if inade-
quate treataent
proceas control
is provided.
Proper solids
disposal is
required.
The aetal sul-
fide precipitates,
which are removed
in the filtration
step (Step G),
generate a quite
ainiaal additional
solids load.
This step
results in sn
sdditional solids
generation rate,
on a dry solids
basis, of 0.075
lb/ton (300
lb/day, 54.6
ton/year) for
the treatsttnt
aodel. These
solids consist
of liae and its
precipitates,
principally
fluoride. These
solids are de-
watered by the
vacuus filter,
step C.
-------
TABLE VIII-2
CONTROL AMD TREAIHENT TECHNOLOGIES
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
PAGE A
Treatment and/or
Control Methods Employed
K. Alkaline Chlorination -
Chlorine i« added in conjunction
with step H (liae addition) for
the purpose of oxidising cyanide.
Preliminary phenols oxidation is
also accomplished.
Status and
Reliability
This technology is used
in two central treatment
systems which receive
sintering process waste-
waters. In addition,
this technology is also
used in other wsstewater
treatment applications
in other subcategories
and industries.
L. Activated Carbon Treatment -
The treated effluent is passed
through granular activated
carbon columns for the purpose
of removing residual toxic organic
pollutants. These pollutants
are moved via adsorption on
the activated carbon.
Used in various industrial
wastewater treatment applica-
tions.
Ln
0>
Problems
and Limitations
Extreme caution must
be exercised in the
handling of chlorine
gas. Instrumentation
controlling chlorine
feed must receive
periodic maintenance.
Implemen-
tation Land
Time Requirements
6 months 10' x 10'
Environmental
Impact Other
Than Water
Chlorine and its
volatile deriva-
tives can be
lost to the
atmosphere.
Solid Waste
Generation and
Primary
Constituents
Included in
Step J.
The carbon must be
periodically re-
generated and
losses replaced.
Excess suspended
solids in the influent
could plug the carbon
column. Careful
process monitoring
is required.
IS to 18 20* x 25' Substantial Virtually
months amounts of energy nil.
are required for
carbon
regeneration.
-------
TABLE VII1-3
BPT MODEL COST DATA! BASIS 7/1/76 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Sintering Medal Siae-TPD i 4000
Oper. Daya/Yean 365
Turna/Day s 3
CtTT Stag
.(3)
,C3)
Total
Inveataenc $ * 10
-3
Annual Coat $ * 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation & Maintenance
Sludge Dispoaal ...
Energy and Power
Chemical Coati
Oil Diipoaal
TOTAL
1380
90
1444
587
142
3843
68.0
3.9
62.1
25.2
6.1
165.3
138.0
9.0
144.4
85.7
14.2
384.3
35.3
3.2
30.6
20.5
3.0
134.6
-
•
896.1
* /*\
-
896.1
3.3
0.7
80.3
32.7
1.0
83.5
-
63.7
-
-
3.2
66.9
41.8
-
-
•
-
41.8
326.4
80.5
1233.7,
104.4(2>
29.3
1774.5
Raw BPT
Haatewater Waate,,. Effluent
Loada Laval
Flow, gal/ton
1460
100
pH (Unite)
6-12
6-9
Concentratione. ac/1
Cyanide CT)
0.20
0.5
Phenola (4AAP)
0.20
1.0
Fluoride
6
30
Oil and Greaae
245
10
Suapanded Solida
6100
50
39
Fluoranthane
0.01
0.10
65
Phenol
0.01
0.05
76
Chryeene
0.01
0.01
84
Pyreoe
0.01
0.01
118
Cedaiua
0.20
0.20
119
Chroaiua
0.70
0.50
120
Copper
0.10
0.10
122
Leed
0.60
0.50
124
Nickel
0.50
0.50
126
Silver
0.20
0.20
128
Zinc
1.00
0.50
(1) Coata are all power unleaa otharviae noted.
(2) Total doea not include power coat, aa a credit ia aupplied for exiating procaaa
water power requirement!.
(3) Treatment coaponenta are uaed in tandaa.
(4) Raw waatewatar quality reflecta the diachatge of « once-through cyaten.
m TO C&TT 8TEP8
At Thickener
B> Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuus filter
Di Recycle 93X
Si pa adjuataent with add
257
-------
TABLE HIM
•FT CAPITAL COST TAIOLATIOM.
BASISl 7/1/78 DOLLARS s 10"3
FACILITIES M FLAC8 AS Of 1/1/78
Subcategory: SU1UINC
to
U1
oo
Fiant
Code
0060
00601
006OF
0112A
0112*
0I12C
0112D
0396A
0432A
0448A
0492A
0564C
0584F
0856F
0856Q
0864A
08S8A
0920B
0920F
0946A
Q948C
CUT 8 tap
TTP
2, M0
2,400
1,360
12,200
*,000
2,683
6,070
3,312
6,300
3,850
1,900
3,800
8,187
7,200
500
2,910
7,783
1,000
1,500
540
4,000
3,085
1,580
70
66
57
176
90
71
116
81
121
88
58
88
139
128
75
l35
39
50
27
90
1,126
1,063
"^56
2,820
1.444
1,137
1,855
1,290
1,933
924
1,401
2,220
I7o55
415
1,193
2,153
629
802
434
1.445
D
B
In-Flaca
Required
Total
457
111
1,870
1,126
2,996
432
-
2,724
0
2,724
307
74
1,255
756
2,011
296-850
277
6,478
1,026
7,504
587
1*2
1,580
2,263
3,843
194-268
112
2,687
339
3,026
734
182
4,937
0
4,937
524
127
3,306
127
3,433
785
190
4,169
975
5,144
573
139
2,117
227
2,344
375
91
1,386
1,073
2,459
369
138
2,933
795
3,728
902
218
2,429
3,479
5,908
835
202
2,249
3,220
5,469
169
-
1,038
0
1,0)8
485
117
1,498
1,678
3,176
875
211
0
5,730
5,730
255
62
1,356
317
1,673
326
79
1,282
852
2,134
109-67
43
1,045
110
1,155
587
142
0
3,843
3,843
46,339
27,936
74,275
HOT!I Underlined cost* rtpreacnt facilities in place. Where t*o figure* appear in the aaae colwn,
the underlined portion la in place; the noo-tinderlined portion renaina to be installed.
Legend
At Thickener Ct 7acuua Filter
Bi Coagulant Aid Addition Ds Recycle 93Z
El pH Adjnataent with Acid
-------
TABU! HII-5
UmMTin BAT MP DEL COSTS! BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLAKS
hbcitt|ot;l Sintering Model Siae-TPD I 4000
Oper. Daja/Year: 365
Turns/Day I 3
BAT
Ho. 1
(3)
BAT Ho.
2<3>
BAT Ho. 3(3)
CiTT Steps
T
C
Total
r,C H
I
J
Total
P.C.H.l.J K
Total
Inveetaent $ * 10 '
26
217
243
78
81
163
565
66
631
Annual Coat* $ x 10
Capital
1.1
9.3
10.4
3.3
3.5
7.0
24.2
2.8
27.0
Depreciation
2.6
21.7
24.3
7.8
8.1
16.3
56.5
6.6
63.1
Operation and Maintenance
0.9
7.6
8.5
2.7
2.8
5.7
19.7
2.3
22.0
Sludge Diapoeal . .
Energy and Power
0>>
-
-
-
-
0.3
0.3
-
0.3
1.4
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.8
4.0
0.4
4.0
Chemical Coata
-
-
-
1.6
1.9
-
3.5
3.4
6.9
Carbon Regeneration
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
40.0
44.6
16.4
17.1
30.1
108.2
15.5
123.7
BAT No. 4(3)
F.C.H.I.J.K L Total
1904 2535
B1.9 108.9
190.4 253.5
66.6 88.6
0.3
8.2 12.6
6.9
469.0 469.0
816.1 939.8
Wastewater
Par Meter*
BAT
Feed
Level
Flow, gal/ton 100
pH (Unita) 6-9
Concentrations. t/1
Cyanide (T)
Phenola (4AAP)
Fluoride
Chlorine
(Residual)
Oil and Create
Suspended Solida
39
65
76
84
Floorantbene
Phenol
Chryaene
Pyreoe
0.5
1.0
30
10
50
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.01
BAT No.1
Effluent
Level
75
6-9
0.5
2.0
30
5
15
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.01
BAT Ho.2
Effluent
Level
75
6-9
0.5
2.0
10
5
15
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.01
BAT Ho.3
Effluent
Level
75
6-9
0.25
0.10
10
0.5
5
15
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.01
BAT No.4
Effluent
Level
75
6-9
0.25
0.0$
10
0.5
5
15
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
-------
TABLE VIII-5
ALTERNATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: SINTERING
PAGE 2
BAT
BAT Ho.l
BAT No.2
BAT Ho.3
BAT Mo.A
Kaatewater
Feed
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Paraaetera
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
116 Cadaiua
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
119 Chroaiua
0.35
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
120 Copper
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
122 Lead
0.35
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
124 Kickel
0.35
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
126 Silver
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
128 Zinc
0.35
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
(1) Coat* arc all power unleaa otherwise noted.
(Z) Total doea not include power coat aa a credit ia aupplied for existing proceaa water requireaenta.
(3) Acid pfl adjuataent atep ia Moved froa BPT to BAT, however, no coat ia applied aa thia atep ia provided at BPT.
KET TO CUT STEPS
Ft Increase recycle rate to 9SX J: Clarifier
^ Ci Filtration (I Alkaline chlorination
O li Liae addition L> Granular activated carbon eolunna
It Sulfide additioo
-------
TABLE VIII-6
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
A. BCT Feed
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants ¦ 60 mg/1
Flow = 0.40 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants discharged ¦ 73,058
B. BCT-1
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants » 20 mg/1
Flow =0.30 MGD
Days/Year = 365
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants discharged ¦ 18,265
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants removed via BCT treatment
73,058 - 18,265 - 54,793
Annual cost of BCT-1 * $44,600* $/lb ¦ 0.81 PASS
C. BCT-2
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants = 20 mg/1
Flow - 0.30 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants discharged " 18,265
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants removed via BCT treatment
73,058 - 18,265 - 54,793
Annual cost of BCT System ¦ $74,700* $/lb - 1.36 FAIL
*: Includes only the recycle, clarification, and filtration steps.
261
-------
TABLE VII1-7
USPS AMD PSHS MODEL COST PATAt BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Sintering Model Siie-TPD t 7000
Oper. Di;i/Ieiri 365
Turns/Day I 3
Alternative
HSPS and PSHS Alternative Ho. 1
USPS and PSHS Alternative Wo. 2
C6TT Step
A^
B
D
E
F
Total
A-F
C
H
1
Total
Investment $ x 10~'_,
2260
106
2843
875
269
130
6483
114
128
226
6951
Annual Coata $ z 10
Capital
97.2
4.6
122.2
37.6
11.6
5.6
278.8
4.9
5.5
9.7
298.9
Depreciation
226.0
10.6
284.3
87.5
26.9
13.0
648.3
11.4
12.8
22.6
695.1
Operation and Maintenance
79.1
3.7
99.5
30.6
9.4
4.6
226.9
4.0
4.5
7.9
243.3
Sludge Dispoaal . .
-
-
1580.5
" i
-
-
1580.5
-
-
-
1580.5
Energy and Power
6.5
2.0
162.2
49.0
2.6
1.0
174.3
1.6
1.5
0.8
178.2
Cheaical Costa
-
112.3
-
-
-
4.2
116.5
2.8
3.3
-
122.6
Oil Disposal
73.2
-
-
-
-
-
73.2
-
-
-
73.2
Carbon Regeneration
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TOTAL
482.0
133.2
2248.7
155.7<»
50.5
28.4
3098.5
24.7
27.6
41.0
3191.8
(4)
to
to
Wastewater
Paraaetera
Flow, gal/ton
pB (Units)
Concentration. t/1
Cyanide (T)
Phenols (MAP)
Fluoride
Cfcloria* (Kesldual)
Oil and Create
Suspended Sol Ma
Hi
Ha* te
Load
1460
6-17
0.Z0
0.20
6
245
6100
USPS and PSHS Ho.l
Effluent
Level
USPS and PSNS No.2
Effluent
Level
75
6-9
75
6-9
0.5
2.0
30
0.5
2.0
10
5
15
5
15
-------
TABLE *111-7
USPS AHD PSRS MODEL COST MTA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: SIltTKSIKG
FACE 2
Vaitenttr
Par Meter*
(A)
Raw
Waste
Load
39
Fluoranthene
65
Phenol
76
Chryaene
84
Pyrene
118
Cadaiua
119
Chroaiua
120
Copper
122
Lead
124
Nickel
126
Silver
128
Zinc
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.70
0.10
0.60
0.50
0.20
1.00
USPS ami
PSNS No. 1
Ef fluent
Level
USPS and
PSNS Ho. 2
Effluent
Level
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.0S
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
to
(1) Coat* are all power unle** otherwise noted.
(2) Total doe* not include power cost a* a credit ia supplied for proce** water require
(3) Treatment eoaponrats are u*ed in tandea.
(4) Raw wastewater quality reflect* the discharge of a once-through systea.
KKI TO C4TT STEPS
Al Thickener
B: Coagulant aid addition
Cl Tacuua filter
Di Recycle J5X
Bi Filtration
Ft Reutraliaatica with acid
Cl Uu addition
B: Sulfide addition
It Clarifier
Ji Alkaline chlorination
Kl Granular Activated Carbon Coluan*
-------
TABLE VIII-7
USPS AMD PSHS MODEL COST Hit! BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: SINTERING
PAGE 3
Alternative
C*TT Step
Inveitaent ? it 10 \
Annual Coat 9 x 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Mainteoiace
Sludge Diapoaal ...
Energy tnd Pover
Cheaical Oeata
Oil Diapoaal
Carbon Regeneration
TOTAL
Watte
Load
to . B
Mo«l)
Oil and Create »S
kuftided Soli4s 6100
USPS and PSHS Alternative Ho. 3
J Total
NSPS Alternative No. 4
A-J
Total
94
7045
2362
9427
4.0
9.4
3.3
0.7
6.0
302.9
704.5
246.6
1580.5
178.9
128.6
73.2
102.4
238.2
83.4
12.2
$86.2
405.3
942.7
330.0
1580.5
191.1
128.6
73.2
586.2
23.4
3215.2
1022.4
4237.6
USPS and USPS
PSHS Ho. 3 Ho. 4
Effluent Effluent
Level Level
75 75
6-9 6-9
0.25 0.25
0.10 0.05
10 10
0.3 0.5
5 5
IS 15
-------
TMU Till-7
USPS and rSMS MODEL COST DATA! IAS IS 7/1/78 DOUAIS
SUBCATEGORY] SUTTXRIHG
PAGE *
(«>
Wastewater
Paraaetera
39
6S
76
M
Fluroantben
Phenol
Ckrjiene
Pyrene
118 Cndaioa
119 Chroaiua
120 Capper
112 Lead
124 Nickel
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Kav
Waate
Load
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.70
0.10
0.60
0.50
0.20
1.00
USPS and
PSRS Ho. 1
Effluent
Level
0.10
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
USPS and
PSHS Ho.*
Effluent
Level
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
(1) Coata are all power unlet* otherwiae noted.
M (2) Total doea not include power coat aa a credit ia supplied for proceaa water requireaenta.
CT> (3) Treataent components are need in tandea.
w (4) lav wastewater quality reflects the discharge of • once-through ayatea.
KIT TO CHI TOPS
As
Thickener
C:
Line addition
It
Coagulant aid addition
B)
Sulfide addition
Cl
Vacuo* filter
tl
Clarifler
D»
Recycle 951
Jj
Alkaline chlorinatioo
II
Filtration
Kl
Granular Activated Carbon Coli
Ft
Heutralisatioa with acid
-------
TABLE YHI-8
FSES MODEL COST DATA) BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory! Sintering
Model Size-TPD t 4000
Oper. Days/Teari 365
Turna/Day < 3
CtTT Step
n-3
_-3
Inveataent $ * 10
Annual Coat $ * 10
Capital
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Sludge Diapoaal .j.
Energy and Power
Cheaical Coata
Oil Diapoaal
PSES Alternative Ho. 1
PSES Alternative No. 2
PSES
Alternative
No. 3
PL
B
PL
D
E
r
Total
A-F
C
_N_
1
Total A-I
J
Total
1580
90
1444
588
217
97
4016
78
81
163
4338
66
4404
68.0
3.9
62.1
25.3
9.3
4.2
172.8
3.3
3.5
7.0
186.6
2.8
189.4
158.0
9.0
144.4
58.8
21.7
9.7
401.6
7.8
8.1
16.3
433.8
6.6
440.4
55.3
3.2
50.6
20.6
7.6
3.4
140.7
2.7
2.8
5.7
151.9
2.3
154.2
-
-
896.1
-
-
896.1
-
-
0.3
896.4
-
896.4
3.3
0.7
80.5
32.7
1.4
0.7
86.6
1.0
0.8
0.8
89.2
0.4
89.6
-
63.7
-
-
-
2.4
66.1
1.6
1.9
-
69.6
3.4
73.0
41.8
-
-
-
-
41.8
-
-
-
41.8
-
41.8
326.4
80.5
1233.7
104.7<»
40.0
20.4
1805.7
16.4
17.1
30.1
1869.3
15.5
1884.8
R„<*>
PSES Ro. 1
PSES Ho. 2
PSES No.
Haatewater
Haste
Effluent
Effluent
Effluen
Paraaetera
Load
Level
Level
Level
Flow, gal/ton
1460
75
75
75
pH (Dnita)
6-12
6-9
6-9
6-9
Concentration*, ag/1
Cyanide (T)
0.20
0.5
0.5
0.25
Phenola (4AAF)
0.20
2.0
2.0
0.10
Fluoride
6
30
10
10
Chlorine (Residual)
-
-
-
0.5
Oil and Crease
245
5
5
5
Suspended Solida
6100
15
15
15
39
Fluoranthene
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.05
65
Phenol
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.05
76
Chryaene
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
84
Pyrene
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-------
TABIC VIII-6
PSES MODEL COST MTAl BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLAtS
SMCATEGORTI SI1TIMIHC
FACE 2
R«<*>
PSES Ho. 1
PSES Ho. 2
PSES Ho. 3
Waatewater
Waate
Effluent
Effluent
Efflueot
Paranetera
Load
Level
Level
Level
118 Cadniun
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
119 Chraniua
0.70
0.10
0.10
0.10
120 Copper
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
122 Lead
0.60
0.10
0.10
0.10
124 Nickel
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.10
126 Silver
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
128 Zinc
1.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
(1) Coat* are all power unleaa otherwiae noted.
(2) Total doea not include power coat aa a credit ia aupplied for proceaa water reqaireaenta.
(3) Treatment componenta are need ia tandea.
(4) Raw waatewater quality reflecta the diacharge of a once-through ajatta.
BIT TO CtTT STEPS
Thickener
Coagulant aid addition
Vacma filter
Recycle 951
Filtratioo
Beutraliaatioa with acid
liae Addition
Sulfide addition
Clarifier
Alkaline chlorination
NJ
cn
~-j
At
Bl
Cs
Dl
El
Pi
CI
¦t
It
Jt
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The Agency is proposing limitations for Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT) different than those originally
promulgated in June 1974lfor sintering operations. The limitations
have been adjusted to accommodate all sintering wastewater sources.
The limitations promulgated in 1974 did not take into account
wastewaters from raw material handling air pollution control systems.
As the June 1974 development document2 described the basic methods
used in developing the previous effluent limitations, the intent of
this section is to provide substantiation of the proposed effluent
limitations. A review of the treatment processes and effluent
limitations associated with the sintering subcategory follows.
Identification of BPT
The Agency decided to use the original BPT model treatment system as
the model treatment system for the proposed BPT limitations.
Suspended solids are removed from process wastewaters by gravity
sedimentation in a thickener. A polymeric flocculant is added to the
thickener influent to optimize the removal of suspended solids. The
thickener underflow is dewatered in a vacuum filter, and the filtrate
returned to the thickener inlet. About 93% of the thickener overflow
is returned to the sintering operation. The pH of the generally
alkaline treatment system blowdown is adjusted to the neutral pH range
with acid. Oils and greases are removed by surface skimming in the
thickener and also by entrainment within the solids which settle in
the thickener. This treatment system is depicted in Figure IX-1.
As noted previously, the proposed limitations do not require the
installation of the model treatment system. Any treatment system
which achieves compliance with the limitations is appropriate.
The proposed BPT limitations are based upon the same effluent
concentrations used in developing the originally promulgated
limitations. However, data recently collected indicate that the model
effluent flow should be increased from 208 1/kkg (50 gal/ton) to 417
1/kkg (100 gal/ton). As the model effluent flow has been doubled, the
*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.
*EPA 440/1-74-024-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.
269
-------
proposed effluent limitations were also doubled. The proposed 30-day
average BPT effluent limitations are presented below:
kg/kkg of Product
(lb/1000 lb of Product)
Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
pH (Units)
0.0208
0.0042
6.0 to 9.0
The maximum daily effluent limitations are proposed at three times the
30-day average.
Rationale for BPT
Treatment System
As noted in Section VII, the components of the BPT model treatment
system are presently in use at most sintering operations.
Table IX—1 presents a summary of the flow, recycle rate, and operating
data for this subcategory. The original model effluent flow was based
upon data from one sintering operation which generated wastewater from
only the discharge end (sinter cooling, crushing, and screening) of
the process. However, as wastewater discharges originate at numerous
points in the sintering operation (refer to Section III), the Agency
increased the model effluent flow to accomodate all wastewater
sources. Table IX-1 not only provides support for the model effluent
flow of 100 gal/ton, but also shows that the treatment system recycle
rate of 93% (defined by the applied and effluent flows) is
demonstrated. It should be noted that those flows averaged to develop
the model effluent flow are for plants which have one or more process
wastewater source.
Justification of the Proposed BPT Effluent Limitations
Table IX-2 presents effluent loads calculated for two of the surveyed
plants. These results support the proposed BPT limitations. The
Agency surveyed other plants, however, at one plant the actual
sintering treatment system effluent was a thickener underflow while at
another plant it was solids laden wastewater from the bottom of a
moisture eliminator. Both of these effluents were discharged to
another wastewater treatment system for additional treatment. Had
these wastewaters followed a more conventional treatment path, i.e.,
discharge of a thickener overflow instead of the underflow, compliance
with the adjusted effluent limitations would be demonstrated. This
observation is based upon the analytical data obtained at these
plants. At another surveyed plant, sintering process wastewaters were
combined with other wastewaters, treated,and discharged. This plant
did not recycle any of its sintering wastewaters.
270
-------
TABLE IX-1
BPT FLOW SUMMARY
AND JUSTIFICATION
SINTERING
SUBCATEGORY
Plant
Applied
Discharge
Operating
Origin of Process
Code
Flow (gal/ton)
Flow (gal/ton)
Mode
Was tewaters
Bas is
044 8A
UNK
0*
RTP-100
B
DCP
0060F
301
26*
RTP-91
A
VISIT
0868A
100
70*
RTP-30
D
DCP
0920F
2124
74*
RTP and RUP-94
A
D-DCP
0396A
341
80*
RTP-7 5
B
VISIT
0584F
106
106
0T
C
DCP
0856Q
2805
117*
RTP-96
A
DCP
0112B
133
133*
0T
C
DCP
0920B
134
134*
OT
C
DCP
0948C
1124
135*
RUP-88
A
DCP
0112D
1432
142*
RTP-90
A
VISIT
0060
1667
219
RTP and RUP-80
C
D-DCP
0856F
220
220
OT
B
D-DCP
0432A
245
245
OT
C
VISIT
0112A
1604
288
RTP and RUP-7 7
C
D-DCP
0112C
1292
793
RTP-39
B
DCP
0584C
1368
1368
OT
A
DCP
0864A
2819
1733
RTP-38
A
D-DCP
006 OB
2186
2186
OT
C
DCP
0492A
2 582
2582
OT
C
DCP
094 6A
6605
6605
OT
A
DCI'
A: Machine end of operation.
B: Discharge end of operation.
C: Both ends of operation.
D: Contact cooling of the product only.
*: Denotes those plants used to determine the BPT treatment model effluent flow.
NOTE: The distinct break in the ascending order of recycle flows between 142 gal/ton and 219
gal/ton indicated that those effluent flows less than or equal to 142 gal/ton would
be used to determine the "average of the best flows."
271
-------
TABLE IX-2
EFFLUENT LOADS (lb/1000 lb) JUSTIFICATION
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
(1)
Adjusted Effluent Limitations
BPT Effluent Limitations (6/74)
Actual Loads
Discharge
Flow (gal/ton)
100
50
Suspended
Solids
0.0208
0.0104
0 il and
Grease
0.0042
0.0021
pH C&TT Components
6-9 FLP >T >VF>RTP-9 3,NA
6-9 FLP>T>VF>RTP-93,NA
J (0396A)
0920F
80
74
0.0032 0.00027 12.8 FLP>CL>CT>VF>RTP-75
0.017 0.0043 8.1 NC>CL,RTP-4, RUP-90
(1) These loads represent the originally promulgated loads adjusted to accommodate recently acquired data.
(2) This data represents long-term effluent averages provided in this plant's D-DCP response.
-------
OIL a GREASE 245 mg/l
SUSR SOLIDS 6100 mg/l
pH 6-12
FLOW
6088 l/kkg(!460 GAL/TON)
POLYMER
SINTERIN6
OPERATION
VACUUM
FILTER
SOLIDS
ACID
TO DISCHARGE
OIL 8 GREASE 10 mg/l
SUSR SOLIDS 50 mg/l
pH 6-9
FLOW 417 l/kkg (100 GAL/TON)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
BPT TREATMENT MODEL
DWN. I/I0/7S
FIGURE HE" I
-------
SINTERING 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 technology employed within the
subcategory. In addition, where a treatment technology is readily
transferable from another subcategory or industry, such technology may
be identified as BAT.
This section identifies four BAT treatment alternatives which the
Agency considered for the sintering subcategory. In addition, the
rationale for selecting the BAT model treatment system flow rates and
raw and effluent pollutant concentrations are reviewed. Finally, the
rationale for selecting the BAT model treatment system is discussed.
Identification of BAT
Based upon the information contained in Sections III through VIII, the
following alternative treatment systems were developed as add-ons to
the BPT model treatment system.
1. BAT Alternative No. 1
In the first BAT Alternative, the blowdown flow is reduced from
the model BPT flow rate of 100 gal/ton to 75 gal/ton by
increasing the recycle flow. The level of toxic metals and
suspended solids in the blowdown are reduced using filtration
technology. The pH of the effluent is adjusted using acid. This
step is a BPT component which has been relocated in the sequence
of treatment steps.
2. BAT Alternative No. 2
BAT Alternative No. 2 retains the treatment components of the
first alternative and adds the following treatment components
prior to filtration: (1) Lime is added to the recycle system
blowdown as an aid to precipitate formation and for the purpose
of pH adjustment; (2) Some of the solids generated as a result of
lime addition, in addition to some of the suspended solids
present in the blowdown, are removed by sedimentation in a
clarifier; (3) The clarifier underflow is dewatered with the
vacuum filter included in the BPT model treatment system? and,
(4) Sulfide precipitation is then applied to the clarifier
effluent before filtration. The above steps are aimed at
275
-------
achieving a higher degree of toxic metals removal than that which
could be accomplished solely through filtration.
3. BAT Alternative No. 3
This alternative incorporates the treatment system components of
BAT Alternative No. 2, and adds alkaline chlorination prior to
clarification. Alkaline chlorination is included for the
purposes of oxidizing cyanide, phenols, and other toxic organic
pollutants. The chlorinated effluent is clarified, filtered and
then dechlorinated with an appropriate reducing agent.
4. BAT Alternative No. 4
The fourth BAT alternative treatment system incorporates the
treatment system components of BAT Alternative No. 3 and adds
adsorption on granular activated carbon for removal of toxic
organic pollutants as the final treatment step prior to
discharge.
Figure X-l illustrates the four BAT alternative treatment systems
described above. The treatment technologies represent those
technologies in use at one or more plants, or demonstrated in other
wastewater treatment applications in the industry.
The BAT effluent levels for the pollutants limited at BPT and
considered for limitation at BAT are presented in Table X-l. The
Agency's selection of those pollutants for which limitations are
proposed is based upon the following considerations: (1) the relative
level, load, and environmental impact of each pollutant; (2) the need
to establish practical monitoring requirements; and, (3) the ability
of the selected pollutants to serve as "indicator" pollutants (as
discussed in Section V of Volume I).
While other toxic metal pollutants were found in sintering
wastewaters, (at lower levels than lead or zinc), control of lead and
zinc should result in the comparable control of other toxic metals.
Likewise, treatment for phenols (4AAP) will result in reductions in
the • levels and loads of those toxic organic pollutants which are
chemically related to phenols (4AAP). Cyanide is included because of
its presence in the sampled plant wastewaters at significant levels.
Ammonia-N was selected as a limited pollutant since it appeared in
significant levels at one plant and in order to make the sintering
and ironmaking regulations compatible with each other for co-treatment
systems. Based upon the observations noted above, phenols, cyanide
(total), ammonia-N, lead and zinc were selected for limitation at BAT.
Investment and annual costs for the BAT alternative treatment systems
are presented in Section VIII.
276
-------
Rationale for the Selection of BAT
Treatment Technologies
The model BAT applied and discharge flows are based upon a recycle
rate of 95%. Referring to Table IX-1, the average and individual
recycle rates of the five plants used to develop the model BAT
effluent flow support a 95% recycle rate. The Agency has included
filtration in all of the model BAT treatment systems to achieve
reductions in toxic metals effluent loads. These toxic metals level
reductions are accomplished by the removal of suspended solids from
the wastewaters in which the metals are entrained. Three of the 20
"wet" sintering plants use filtration (as part of central wastewater
treatment systems). Filtration is also used extensively in other
steel industry subcategories (e.g., blast furnace, basic oxygen
furnace, continuous casting, and hot forming), and by other industries
for the removal of suspended particulate matter from similar
wastewater streams.
Lime addition for the purpose of pH adjustment and precipitate
formation is a common wastewater treatment practice. The use of
clarifiers for wastewater sedimentation is common in this subcategory
and in a wide variety of other subcategories and industries.
The alternatives also include sulfide precipitation, in conjunction
with filtration, for the purpose of providing optimum reductions in
toxic metals effluent levels and loads. While much of the toxic
metals waste load is entrained in the suspended solids (and will,
therefore, be removed by filtration), the remaining portion of the
toxic metals load is dissolved in the process wastewaters. These
dissolved metals will generally remain after filtration. Accordingly,
the Agency added sulfide precipitation to control this dissolved toxic
metals load. Although not presently in use in sintering wastewater
treatment systems, the effectiveness of this treatment technology has
been demonstrated in pilot studies and in wastewater treatment
applications in other metals manufacturing operations.
Alkaline chlorination is incorporated as a means of controlling
cyanide, ammonia-N, and phenols and other toxic organic pollutant
levels. The treatment capabilities of the alkaline chlorination
process result directly from the use of the strong oxidizing agent,
chlorine. As part of their central wastewater treatment facilities,
two plants in this subcategory use alkaline chlorination treatment
technology. Dechlorination using reducing agents is added to control
excess residual chlorine.
Activated carbon adsorption is included to remove any toxic organic
pollutants which may remain after treatment by alkaline chlorination.
Although activated carbon is not currently used in any sinter plant
applications, the applicability and effectiveness of this technology
to sinter plant wastes is based on pilot plant studies for the
ironmaking subcategory and on the basis of the performance of a
by-product cokemaking full scale activated carbon treatment system.
These capabilities are discussed more fully in Volume I.
277
-------
Flows
Refer to Table IX-1 for the data used to develop the model BAT
treatment system effluent flow. The reduction in treatment system
effluent flow (recycle blowdown) used for the BAT model treatment
system is based upon the average of the effluent flows of those five
plants which have recycle rates of 90% or more. The plants which have
recycle rates of 90% or more approach or exceed the model BPT recycle
rate of 93%. It should be noted that the effluent flow of plant 0396A
closely approaches the BAT treatment model effluent flow. It should
also be noted that three of the five plants had blowdown flows less
than that of the model. In fact, one plant has no wastewater
discharge and the effluent flow from another plant is substantially
lower than the model effluent flow. Accordingly, the Agency believes
that a recycle rate of 95% is appropriate for the BAT model treatment
systems.
Wastewater Quality
Refer to the discussion presented previously in this section regarding
the development of the list of pollutants considered for limitation
and to Table X-l for a tabulation of these pollutants and their
associated effluent levels and loads.
Toxic Metals Pollutants
To determine the effluent concentrations for the toxic metal
pollutants, the Agency evaluated analytical data from several sources.
The Agency reviewed long-term filtration system effluent data to
determine the toxic metals removal capabilities of filtration systems
used in similar wastewater treatment applications. A review of these
data indicate that the suspended solids contain most of the toxic
metals. Therefore, in those instances where the long-term analytical
data (noted above and discussed in more detail in Volume I) could not
be directly applied to sintering process wastewater filtration
applications, toxic metals removals approximated the degree of
suspended solids removal accomplished. The sampled plant analytical
data presented in Section VII demonstrate this pattern. The toxic
metals effluent concentrations incorporated at BAT are based upon
total metals and are supported by the sampled plant data presented in
Section VII and the long-term data presented in Volume I.
In order to ensure the optimum toxic metals level reductions, in
process wastewaters, sulfide precipitation and lime addition are
incorporated prior to and in conjunction with the filtration
component.
While sulfide precipitation technology has not been demonstrated
within this subcategory, the capabilities of this technology with
respect to toxic metals precipitation may be transferred on the basis
of its effectiveness in other metals manufacturing processes and in
pilot studies. A review of this data is presented in Volume I.
Sulfide addition was considered as a means of reducing the toxic
metals effluent levels. However, since this technology has not been
278
-------
demonstrated in this subcategory, due to potential operating problems,
and the marginal incremental metals removal, the Agency did not select
sulfide precipitation as a BAT technology. Sulfide addition, or the
addition of other suitable reducing agents, can be used to effectively
control excess residual chlorine following alkaline chlorination. The
cost for dechlorination at BAT (sintering BAT-3 and BAT-4) was based
upon sulfide addition.
Toxic Organic Pollutants and Cyanide
The primary purpose of alkaline chlorination is to oxidize cyanide,
phenols, and other toxic organic pollutants found in sintering
wastewaters, although other pollutants, such as ammonia-N, are also
oxidized. The capabilities of alkaline chlorination were established
primarily on the basis of pilot study and full-scale operating data
from ironmaking operations. Refer to the ironmaking report for a more
detailed review of these data. Although the cyanide and phenols
levels of sintering process wastewaters are slightly different than
those of the ironmaking wastewaters noted above, the data demonstrate
the ability of this technology to achieve similar levels of treatment
while processing wastewaters of varying quality. The capabilities of
this technology, with respect to cyanide and phenols treatment, are
more closely related to design criteria than to the nature of the
process (i.e., the basic reactions). The pH adjustment and
dechlorination steps have been positioned in the model treatment
systems to provide sufficient reaction time such that complete cyanide
destruction can be achieved.
The treatment capabilities of activated carbon treatment technology
were developed on the basis of pilot studies, sampling data from a
full-scale operation, and literature predicting treatment performance.
The capabilities of this technology with regard to each toxic organic
pollutant are reflected in the changes indicated on the BAT cost
tables in Section VIII. Refer to Volume I and/the ironmaking report
for a detailed review of the data and the procedures used to determine
the various effluent levels. As noted previously, phenols will serve
as an indicator of the presence and control of the various toxic
organic pollutants.
Residual Chlorine
A total residual chlorine limitation of 0.5 mg/1 maximum is included
in BAT Alternative Nos. 3 and 4 to control excess chlorine resulting
from alkaline chlorination. Various reducing compounds can be
employed to destroy excess chlorine. The chemistry of this reaction
is well documentated throughout the literature and the technology is
well demonstrated in other industries.
Effluent Limitations for the BAT Alternatives
The effluent limitations associated with the BAT treatment
alternatives were developed on a mass basis (kg/kkg or lb/1000 lb) by
applying the model plant effluent flow of 75 gal/ton to the respective
BAT treated effluent concentrations of each pollutant. The effluent
limitations for each alternative were established using the procedures
279
-------
outlined in Volume I. The effluent flow and concentrations have been
previously documented in this section. Table X-l presents the
effluent loadings developed for each treatment alternative.
Selection of a BAT Alternative
The Agency selected BAT Alternative No. 3 as the BAT model treatment
system. Before selecting Alternative No. 3 the Agency reviewed the
toxicity of each pollutant considered for limitation at BAT, the
effluent levels of these pollutants in each treatment alternative, and
other environmental factors. On the basis of these considerations,
the Agency determined that BAT Alternative No. 3 provides the most
significant benefits with regard to reductions in toxic pollutant
effluent loads. Since chlorinated organics have not been found to any
substantial degree and are not predicted to be formed by alkaline
chlorination of sintering wastewaters, and brominated compounds are
introduced only at low levels, the activated carbon step of BAT No. 4
is not considered necessary. The Agency concludes that the effluent
load reduction benefits associated with alkaline chlorination of
sintering wastewaters outweigh the negative aspects of the possible
generation of low levels of brominated compounds.
The proposed BAT effluent limitations are presented on Table X-l. As
noted in Volume I, the effluent limitations for central treatment
systems will be equal to the sums of the limitations for each
pollutant in each subcategory. Referring to the central treatment
discussion in Section VII, it must be recognized that many plants will
co-treat sintering and ironmaking process wastewaters. In the
interest of establishing compatible effluent limitations for the
sintering and ironmaking subcategories, the Agency is proposing
ammonia-N limitations for the sintering subcategory based upon the
concentration value developed for the selected ironmaking BAT
alternative (similar to sintering BAT No.3) and the sintering model
BAT effluent flow.
280
-------
TABLE X- I
BAT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
BAT ALTERNATIVE 1
BAT ALTERNATIVE 2
BAT ALTERNATIVE 3
BAT ALTERNATIVE 4
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg)
DISCHARGE
FLOW(gal/ton)
75
75
75
75
AMMONIAfas N)u>
Ave.
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
0.00031
NA
NA
Max.
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
0.00063
NA
NA
CYANIDE(Total)
Ave.
0.5
0.00016
0.5
0.00016
0.25
0.000078
0.25
0.000078
Max.
1.0
0.00031
1.0
0.00031
0.50
0.00016
0.50
0.00016
PHEN0LS14 AAP)
Ave.
2.0
0.00063
2.0
0.00063
0.10
0.000031
0.05
0.000016
Max.
4.0
0.0013
4.0
0.0013
0.20
0.000063
0.10
0.000031
CHLORINE(R«skkial)
Max.
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
0.00016
0.5
0.00016
LEAD
Ave.
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
Max.
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
ZINC
Ave.
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
Max.
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines are based on the selected alternative, BAT Alternative No. 3.
(I): The proposed ammonia effluent limitations was developed for the selected alternative only. Refer to Section X
for additional details.
NA: Not Applicable.
-------
BPT
POLYMER
J-~) i
RAW £
WASTEWATER 1 I
to
CO
to
RECYCLE
T
(I)
uii.
I | PH*2>
I [CONTROL
THICKENER j 100 gal/t<
L j
r
i
f—*—•n
j I VACUUM I
'J'
[ FILTER
' r
~
SOLIDS
BAT" I
75
gal/ton
7
L
(I) RECYCLE IS 93% AT BPT, BUT IS INCREASED
TO 95% AT BAT.
U) pH CONTROL WITH ACID IS BPT STEP WHICH IS
TRANSFERRED FOR INCORPORATION WITH BAT
TREATMENT. THE COST OF THIS STEP IS NOT
INCLUDED WITH THE BAT COSTS.
(3) REFER TO TABLE X-3 FOR THE EFFLUENT
QUALITY ASSOCATEO WITH EACH TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE.
FILTERS
BAT-2
LIME
CLARIFIER
BAT-3
-LIME
E
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
BAT-4
— LIME
ALKALINE
CHLORINATIONl
I
pH CONTROL12'
w/ACID
~TO DISCHARGE131
<
SULFIDE
FILTERS
I
¦pH CONTROL1
w/ACID
(2)
•TO DISCHARGE
(3)
CLARIFIER
JC
CLARIFIER
pH CONTROL'2'
w/ACID
FILTERS
DECHLORINATION
~TO
DISCHARGE
(3)
TO
DISCHARGE*
ACTIVATED
CARBON
L
pH CONTROL*2'
w/ACID
FILTERS
DECHLORINATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
BAT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
D«hlS/7/60
FIGURE X-l
-------
SINTERING 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
308(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).
Development of BCT Limitations
The Agency developed effluent levels of 15 mg/1 for suspended solids
and of 10 mg/1 (maximum) for oils and greases in the various treatment
models based upon a statistical review of long-term analytical data
for several wastewater filtration operations. The particulate matter
and oils and greases present in sintering process wastewaters exhibit
behavior basically similar to that of the solids and oils and greases
in other wastewaters where filtration technologies are employed. In
this subcategory, and in the reference subcategories, the suspended
solids are principally discrete particles (primarily iron oxides) and
the oils and greases are basically free (i.e., not soluble). The
capabilities of filtration systems, relative to the treatment of
sintering wastewaters, are thus more closely related to proper system
design (i.e., media selection, filter bed sizing, backwash capacity)
than to the basic nature of the process. Refer to Appendix A of
Volume I for a detailed review of the thirty-day average and daily
maximum suspended solids and oil and grease effluent concentrations.
The Agency developed two BCT alternative treatment systems which are
compatible with the BAT alternative treatment systems. The first BCT
alternative system includes filtration of the BPT effluent, and the
second includes both clarification and filtration of the BPT effluent.
As noted in Section X, these treatment components are included in the
model BAT treatment system for toxic pollutant removal.
283
-------
Following are the conventional pollutant treatment costs for each BCT
alternative:
Conventional
Pollutant Treatment Costs
BCT-1 (BAT-1) $0.81/lb
BCT-2 (BAT-2,3,4) $1.36/lb
As the treatment costs for BCT Alternative No. 1 are less than the
reference POTW conventional pollutant treatment cost of $1.34/lb, this
treatment alternative passes the BCT cost test. Hence, BCT effluent
limitations, based upon filtration are proposed.
BCT Effluent Limitations
Guidelines. Treatment Scheme, and Costs
Because BCT pertains to the removal of conventional pollutants, the
proposed BCT effluent limitations consider only suspended solids, oil
and grease, and pH. Since both BCT alternatives provide the same
effluent quality, BCT Alternative No. 1 was selected as the basis of
the proposed BCT effluent limitations for the sintering subcategory.
Reference is made to Table XI-1.
284
-------
TABLE 31-1
BCT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
DISCHARGE
FLOW
gal/ton
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (ma/I)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
(kg/kkg)
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
73
15
0.0047
40
0.012 5
OIL AND
GREASE
75
—
10
0.00313
PH
75
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
(I) Effluent limitations for oils and greases have been provided in recognition of the co-treatment
options available to those plants with sintering and ironmoking operations. Refer to Section XI
for details.
-------
BPT
POLYMER
1 i
RECYCLE
~r
(i)
I r~PH
'control
l i
r ? ? 11
p AW — _ — —— I— II _A
WASTEWATER ' I jHICKENERjlOO gal/ton -J
I
r
i
I VACUUM I
"} FILTER J
*" ~T J
I
SOLIDS
(1) RECYCLE IS INCREASED TO 95% AT BCT.
(2) REFER TO TABLE XL*I FOR THE EFFLUENT
QUALITY ASSOCATED WITH EACH TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE.
t
75
gal/ton
BCT-I
FILTERS
-TO DISCHARGE
(2)
BCT-2
FILTERS
CLARIFIER
TO
DISCHARGE'2'
SOLIDS-
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
BCT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Dwn.ll/2l/ec
FIGURE XI-1
-------
SINTERING 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 new source
performance standards (NSPS) are proposed. NSPS are to be established
based upon a consideration of 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 process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters. The
Agency concluded that zero discharge, however, is not a feasible
treatment alternative for "wet" sintering operations. As discussed in
Section VII, there are no technologies applicable to all operations in
this subcategory which would enable them to attain zero discharge of
process wastewater pollutants in a cost effective manner. It must be
noted that new source sintering operations may choose to employ "dry"
operations, with the result that no process wastewaters would be
generated. While this would represent a zero discharge system, it
must also be noted that a new source sintering operation may choose to
use a "wet" system. NSPS alternative treatment systems and effluent
standards have been developed to accommodate the latter case.
Identification and Basis for NSPS
Treatment Scheme and Flow Rates
NSPS Alternative No. 1
This alternative is identical to BPT and BAT Alternative No. 1 (refer
to Section X). This system provides for the sedimentation of raw
process wastewaters in a thickener. A flocculant is added to enhance
solids removal. Treatment process sludges are dewatered by vacuum
filtration. Most of the thickener effluent (95%) is recycled to the
process, while the remaining thickener effluent is discharged as a
blowdown. The recycle blowdown undergoes filtration to remove toxic
metals and suspended solids. Prior to discharge, the pH of the
treated effluent is adjusted (as necessary) to the neutral range with
acid.
NSPS Alternative No. 2
This alternative is identical to BPT and BAT Alternative No. 2. In
addition to the treatment components noted above for the first NSPS
alternative, lime addition (for the purpose of metal precipitate
formation), sedimentation in a clarifier, and sulfide precipitation,
are incorporated prior to the filtration component.
287
-------
NSPS Alternative No. 3
This alternative is identical to BPT and BAT Alternative No. 3. In
addition to the treatment technologies of the previous alternative,
alkaline chlorination (prior to the clarification component) is
incorporated in this alternative for the purposes of cyanide and
phenols oxidation. Dechlorination is provided prior to discharge.
NSPS Alternative No.4
This alternative is identical to BPT and BAT Alternative No. 4. This
alternative provides for the removal, by activated carbon adsorption,
of the remaining toxic organic pollutants that may be present.
In order to accommodate process developments which would be
incorporated in the construction of a new source "wet" sintering
operation, the Agency examined various industry trends. In all
likelihood, new sintering operations will have greater production
capacities than the 4000 tons/day used for BPT and BAT model treatment
systems. The Agency averaged the production capacities of sintering
operations constructed in the last decade and, based on that average,
established a new source model size of 7,000 tons/day, which used for
NSPS costing. Although the effluent limitations (lb/1000 lb)
developed for the BAT model treatment systems are the same as those
for the new source systems, the increased model size for new source
operations results in increased treatment model capital and annual
expenditures due to the increase in the volume of wastewater requiring
treatment. A review of the subcategory summary data indicate that the
model BPT and BAT applied and discharge flows are applicable to new
"wet" sintering operations. Trends which impact flow were not
detected.
The NSPS treatment systems described above are depicted in Figure
XI1-1. The corresponding effluent levels and loads are presented in
Table XII—1. Cost data for the NSPS treatment alternatives are
presented in Section VIII.
Rationale for Selection of NSPS
The NSPS alternative treatment systems use the same treatment system
components described for the BPT, BAT, and BCT model treatment systems
discussed in Sections IX, X, and XI. Reference is made to those
sections for a review of the treatment technology.
Selection of an NSPS Alternative
The Agency selected NSPS Alternative No. 3 as the NSPS model treatment
system. This alternative was selected for the same reasons noted in
Section X regarding the selection of the BAT model treatment system
(i.e., the benefits derived from reduction in the effluent loads of
various pollutants).
The proposed NSPS are presented on Table XII—1. As noted in Section
X, a proposed ammonia-N effluent standard is provided to establish
compatibility with the ironmaking limitations and standards.
288
-------
TABLE 2K-I
NSPS EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
NSPS ALTERNATIVE 1
NSPS ALTERNATIVE 2
NSPS ALTERNATIVE 3
NSPS ALTERNATIVE 4
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kg/kkg)
DISCHARGE FLOW
(gal/ton)
75
75
75
75
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
Ave.
15
0.0047
15
0.0047
15
0.0047
15
0.0047
Max.
40
0.0125
40
0.0125
40
0.0125
40
0.0125
OIL AND GREASE
Max.
10
0.0031
10
0.0031
10
0.0031
10
0.0031
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 *
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
AMMONIA(as N)(n
Ave.
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
0.00031
NA
NA
Max.
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
0.00063
NA
NA
CYANIDE(Total)
Ave.
0.5
0.00016
0.5
0.00016
0.25
0.000078
0.25
0.000078
Max.
1.0
0.00031
1.0
0.00031
0.5
0.00016
0.5
0.00016
PHEN0LS(4 AAP)
Ave.
2.0
0.00063
2.0
0.00063
0.10
0.000031
0.05
0.000016
Max.
4.0
0.0013
4.0
0.0013
0.20
0.000063
0.10
0.000031
CHLORINE (RESIDUAL)
Max.
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.5
0.00016
0.5
0.00016
LEAD
Ave.
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
o.to
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
Max.
0.30
0.000094
030
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
ZINC
Ave.
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
Max.
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
Proposed NSPS are bated on the selected alternative, NSPS Alternative No.3.
(I): The proposed ammonia effluent standard was developed for the selected alternative only -
Refer to Sections X and TIT for further details.
NA; Not Applicable.
-------
NSPS-I
RECYCLE 95%
POLYMER
pH CONTROL
w/ACID
RAW 1
WASTEWATER
-TO DISCHARGE
THICKENER
NSPS-2
LIME
SULFIDE
pH CONTROL
w/ACID
TO DISCHARGE
CLARIFIER
SOLIDS
TO
DISCHARGE
NSPS-3
pH CONTROL
w/ACID
LIME
CLARIFIER
TO
DISCHARGE
NSPS-4
pH CONTROL
w/ACID
LIME
CLARIFIER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
NSPS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
(I) REFER TO TABLE OOM FOR THE EFFLUENT
QUALITY ASSOCIATED WITH EACH TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVE.
FIGURE XII-
ACTIVATED
CARBON
ALKALINE
CHLORINATtON
FILTERS
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
FILTERS
FILTERS
FILTERS
VACUUM
FILTER
DECHLORINATION
DECHLORINATION
-------
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGES TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
This section discusses the control and treatment alternatives
available for sintering operations which discharge wastewaters to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). Two sintering plants
currently discharge process wastewaters to POTWs. Separate
consideration has been given to the pretreatment of sintering
wastewaters for new sources (PSNS) and existing sources (PSES).
The general pretreatment and categorical pretreatment standards
applying to sintering operations are discussed below.
General Pretreatment Standards
For detailed information on Pretreatment Standards refer to 43 FR
27736-2777, "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 sintering 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,
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 sintering process wastewaters. Instead, POTWs are designed to
treat biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS),
fecal coliform bacteria, and pH. Whatever removal is obtained by
POTWs for toxic pollutants is incidental to the POTWs 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.
291
-------
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 effectiely treated at POTWs.
Due to the presence of toxic pollutants in wastewaters from sintering
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 selection of a pretreatment
alternative upon which the proposed categorical PSES and PSNS are
based.
Identification of Pretreatment Alternatives
PSES and PSNS alternative treatment systems are identical to NSPS
Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 3, (refer to Sections X and XII for a
discussion of these treatment systems). A summary of the treatment
components incorporated in each pretreatment alternative system
follows:
PSES and PSNS No. 1 - Flocculant addition, gravity sedimentation in a
thickener, vacuum filtration of sludges, recycle (95%), filtration of
the system blowdown and neutralization (with acid) of the system
effluent.
PSES and PSNS No. 2 - In addition to the components noted above, lime
addition, clarification, and sulfide precipitation are incorporated
prior to filtration.
PSES and PSNS No. 3 - Alkaline chlorination is incorporated prior to
clarification. The pH of the clarifier effluent is neutralized with
acid prior to filtration. The filter effluent is dechlorinated.
In developing the alternative pretreatment systems, the Agency
evaluated the treatment components and alternative systems
incorporated in BAT and NSPS.
The major goal of pretreatment is to provide reductions in the
effluent levels of cyanide and the toxic inorganic and organic
pollutants. Filtration and sulfide precipitation are incorporated for
the purpose of reducing toxic metals effluent levels. As noted in
Section X, most of the toxic metals waste load is entrained in the
particulate matter suspended in the process wastewaters.
Consequently, suspended solids control by sedimentation and filtration
results in the removal of a substantial portion of the toxic metals
load. Lime precipitation will ensure reductions in toxic metals
levels and loads, as this technology can effectively precipitate that
portion of the toxic metals load which may be dissolved in the process
wastewaters. Alkaline chlorination technology is incorporated as a
means of achieving reductions in cyanide and phenols effluent levels.
292
-------
Figure XIII-1 illustrates the three pretreatment alternative treatment
systems described above. Table XIII-1 presents the effluent levels
achieved by each alternative for those pollutants considered for
limitation. The model pretreatment costs are presented in Section
VIII. No effluent standards are proposed for suspended solids and oil
and grease as these are conventional pollutants which are compatible
with POTW operations. However, suspended solids removal is an
important factor in toxic metals control.
Rationale for the Selection of Pretreatment Technologies
The recycle rate incorporated in the pretreatment systems was
justified in Section X. Recycle is needed in sintering 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.,
hydraulics), but also for reasons of process limitations ("washing
out" the biological treatment media). The model pretreatment effluent
flow of 75 gal/ton is identical to that of the BAT and NSPS models.
As noted previously, the toxic metals present in sintering wastewaters
are found primarily in the particulate matter. Therefore, control of
suspended solids levels and loads will result in a reduction in the
toxic metals effluent levels and loads. Precipitation technologies
will ensure optimum toxic metals level and load reductions by
providing the capability to remove the toxic metals which may be
dissolved in the process wastewaters. Toxic metals found in sintering
wastewaters, particularly lead and zinc, can interfere with POTW
operations.3 Other studies4 have shown that from 50 to 90% of the
toxic metals entering a POTW will pass through the system. Therefore,
the possibility exists that a POTW could discharge undesireable levels
of toxic metals when accepting industrial process wastewaters. Since
domestic wastewaters do not typically contain objectionable levels or
loads of toxic metals, it is necessary that industrial process
wastewater contributors to a POTW control toxic metals in indirect
discharges.
The toxic metals which do not pass through a POTW, are not destroyed
by the biological treatment process. As a result, these pollutants
concentrate in the POTW sludges. Sludges which contain high
concentrations of toxic metals and which are used as soil supplements,
could adversely affect plant growth and contaminate surface and
groundwaters.
Alkaline chlorination is incorporated in the sintering pretreatment
alternative because of the demonstrated capability of this technology
to destroy cyanide, it has been shown3 that cyanide, when found at the
3EPA-430/9-76-017a, Construction Grants Program Information; Federal
Guidelines, State and Local Pretreatment Programs.
~Federal Register; Friday, September 7, 1979; Part IV; EPA Effluent
Guidelines and Standards; Electroplating Point Source Category - pp.
52597-52601.
293
-------
levels possible in sintering wastewaters, can have an inhibitory
effect on the POTW treatment process. Consequently, treatment for
cyanide will ensure that POTW treatment operations are not adversely
affected. It was also found4 that cyanide pass-through averaged 70%
in the POTWs studied. As with the toxic metals, the possibility
exists that a POTW could discharge undersireable levels of cyanide.
As domestic wastewaters are not typically contaminated with cyanide,
those industries with high cyanide levels in discharges to POTWs
should provide pretreatment to reduce the cyanide effluent levels and
loads. Cyanide pass through in a POTW could also result in the
generation of the highly toxic cyanogen chloride gas. Incomplete
oxidation (as opposed to the complete oxidation provided by alkaline
chlorination) of the cyanide passed through the POTW could occur in
the POTW's chlorination step. As a result of this incomplete
oxidation, cyanogen chloride generation could occur. On the basis of
the above impacts, treatment for and control of cyanide in industrial
wastewater discharges to POTWs is warranted.
Selection of Pretreatment Alternative
On the basis of the considerations presented above (i.e., treatment
for toxic metals and cyanide), PSES and PSNS Alternative No. 3 were
selected as the model treatment systems upon which the proposed PSES
and PSNS are based. The proposed standards are presented in Table
XI11 — 1. As noted in Section X, a proposed ammonia-N effluent standard
is provided for compatibility between the sintering and ironmaking
regulations.
294
-------
TABLE 33II-I
PSNS and PSES EFFLUENT LEVELS and LOADS
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
PSNS/PSES ALTERNATIVE 1
PSNS/PSES ALTERNATIVE 2
PSNS/PSES ALTERNATIVE 3
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kgAkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kg/kkg)
CONCENTRATION
BASIS (mg/l)
EFFLUENT
STANDARDS
(kg/kkg)
DISCHARGE FLOW(gal/ton)
75
75
75
AMMONIA(as N)U)
Ave.
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
0.00031
Max.
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.0
0.00063
CYANIDE(Total)
Ave.
0.5
0.00016
0.5
0.00016
0.25
0.000078
Max.
1.0
0.00031
1.0
0.00031
0.50
0.00016
PHENOLS (4 AAP)
Ave.
2.0
0.00063
2.0
0.00063
0.10
0.000031
Max.
4.0
0.0013
4.0
0.0013
0.20
0.000063
CHLORINE (RESIDUAL)
Max.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
0.5
000016
LEAD
Ave.
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
Max.
0.30
0.000094
030
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
ZINC
Ave.
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
0.10
0.000031
Max.
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
0.30
0.000094
Proposed PSES and PSNS are based upon PSNS/PSES Alternative No. 3, the selected alternative.
(I): The proposed ammonia effluent standard was developed for the selected alternative. Refer to Section Tnr for additional details.
NA= Not Applicable
-------
Polymer
Recycle 95°/«
PSNS and PSES -
Row
Wastewater
THICKENER
PSNS and PSES-2
Lime
CLARIFIER
Solids
PSNS and PSES-3
Lime
FILTERS
ALKALINE
CHLJORINATION
VACUUM
FILTER
(l)~ Refer to Table ZHI'I for the effluent
quality associated with each treatment
alternative.
•pH Control
"/Acid
^ To Discharge"'
-Sulfide
pH Control
w /Acid
FILTERS
^To Discharge"'
Discharge'"
pH Control
w / Acid
DECHLORINATION
FILTERS
CLARIFIER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
SINTERING SUBCATEGORY
PSNS AND PSES TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Dwn. 8/8/80
figure xnr-1
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION I
PREFACE
The USEPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the steel industry. The proposed regulation contains effluent
limitations 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 Ironmaking 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.
297
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon this current study and a review of previous studies, the
Agency has reached the following conclusions:
1. The Agency recognizes the differences between iron and
ferromanganese blast furnace operations and their respective
wastewaters. However, there are no ferromanganese blast furnaces
currently in operation, and none are projected for operation.
Separate effluent limitations for ferromanganese blast furnaces
are proposed at the BPT level of treatment. At this time, the
Agency is not proposing BAT or BCT limitations, or NSPS, PSES, or
PSNS for ferromanganese blast furnaces, but believes those
limitations and standards should be established on a case-by-case
basis in the event the need arises.
2. On the basis of data collected for this study, the BPT effluent
limitations originally promulgated in 1974 for iron and
ferromanganese blast furnaces are practicable and achievable.
The Agency is proposing BPT limitations which are identical to
those previously promulgated.
3. The Agency's monitoring of iron making blast furnace process
wastewaters revealed significant concentrations of ten toxic
inorganic and eight toxic organic pollutants in addition to the
currently limited pollutants. The Agency has concluded that the
discharge of these pollutants can be controlled by available,
economically achievable technologies. A summary of raw waste
loadings, and the discharges resulting from attainment of the
proposed BPT, BAT, and BCT limitations for iron making blast
furnaces, is presented below.
Effluent Discharges (Tons/Year)
Raw Waste Proposed BPT BAT
Proposed
BAT and BCT
Flow (MGD)
TSS
Toxic Metals
Toxic Organics1
Ammonia (as N)
Fluoride
Cyanide, Total
Phenols
1,037
2,998,300
41,280
252
15,780
15,780
15,780
3,945
40.5
3,082
385.9
9.9
6,349
1,233
924.6
246.6
22.7
517.8
38.3
3.8
34.5
345.2
34.5
3.5
1 Does not include total cyanide
individual phenolic compounds.
or any of the
299
-------
The Agency's estimates of the costs of compliance with the
proposed BPT and BAT limitations for the ironmaking subcategory
are presented below for facilities in place as of January 1,
1 978.
Costs (Millions of July 1, 1978 Dollars)
Investment Costs
Total In-Place Required Annual Costs
BPT 474.2 351.9 122.3 95.3
BAT 24.9 4.3 20.6 4.9
NOTE: BAT costs are in addition to the BPT costs.
BCT and PSES costs are included in the BPT and BAT costs.
The BAT estimated costs of compliance are based upon the Agency's
assumption that some dischargers will choose to evaporate blast
furnace wastewaters on slag rather than add the alkaline
chlorination treatment system which is selected as the BAT model
treatment technology. This is a practical (and less expensive)
means of achieving the proposed BAT limitations. However, the
Agency recognizes that this process may not be feasible for all
plants. In order to determine the cost of compliance with the
proposed limitations the Agency estimated that 60 percent of the
plants would be able and will choose to evaporate process
wastewaters on slag, with the remaining 40 percent discharging
their wastewaters into navigable waters or POTWs.
The status of the industry with respect to the installation of
BPT facilities has been updated from January 1, 1978 to
June 30, 1980, to reflect current subcategory costs. Following
are the updated costs of compliance for the ironmaking
subcategory.
Costs (Millions of July 1978 Dollars)
Annual Costs
Required Costs of Operation
BPT $21.91 $87.44
BAT $16.06 $ 4.02
The BPT and BAT model treatment systems for the ironmaking
subcategory include wastewater recycle. Responses from the
industry for several plants indicate that they do not experience
scaling, fouling, or plugging problems with the recycle
components used at those plants. The Agency has concluded that a
70 gal/ton blowdown is achievable and practicable as a component
of the BAT model wastewater treatment system.
The Agency evaluated the "cost/reasonableness" of controlling the
discharge of certain conventional pollutants, including suspended
solids. The Agency finds that the control costs for these
pollutants based on the BCT model treatment systems are less than
those for publicly owned treatment works. Therefore, the Agency
300
-------
has proposed BCT limitations for TSS and for oil and grease,
based upon the BCT model treatment system.
7. The Agency has proposed NSPS for ironmaking operations which are
equivalent to the proposed BAT limitations and which are based
upon the same model wastewater treatment technologies and
systems.
8. EPA is proposing pretreatment standards for new (PSNS) and
existing (PSES) sources which limit the quantities of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants which can be introduced to POTWs.
9. Although several toxic organic and toxic metal pollutants were
found in the raw wastewaters of ironmaking operations, the Agency
believes it is not necessary to establish limitations for each
toxic pollutant. The Agency believes that adequate control of
toxic organic pollutants can be achieved by the control of total
cyanide and phenols (4AAP). Likewise, control of lead and zinc
will result in comparable control of other toxic metal
pollutants.
10. To facilitate less costly central treatment and to make the
ironmaking limitations compatible with those for sintering
operations, the Agency is proposing an oil and grease effluent
limitation for the ironmaking subcategory.
11. With regard to Third Circuit "remand issues," the Agency
concludes that:
a. Its estimated costs for the model wastewater treatment
systems are sufficient to cover all costs required to
install and operate the model technologies, whether as an
initial fit or a retrofit. The Agency has also concluded
that the ability to implement the model wastewater treatment
systems is not affected by plant age. A comparison between
the costs reported by the industry and the EPA's estimated
costs for several plants demonstrates the estimated model
wastewater treatment costs are sufficient to account for all
site-specific and other incidental costs which might be
incurred.
b. The incorporation of recycle through cooling towers at the
BPT and BAT levels of treatment and the use of evaporation
of process wastewaters on slag as a means of achieving BAT
levels of treatment will result in minor increases in water
consumption. It is estimated that implementation of the
technologies incorporated in the BPT model treatment system
will result in a net increase in water consumption of 5.4
MGD. This increase represents 0.5 percent of the total
volume of water applied in this subcategory. Implementation
of the treatment technologies incorporated in the BAT model
treatment system will result in a net increase of 13.9 MGD.
This increase represents 1.3 percent of the total volume of
water applied in this subcategory. However, recycle also
significantly reduces or eliminates the discharge of
301
-------
pollutants. Since the total water consumption is small
compared to total industry water usage, the Agency has
concluded that the impact of the proposed limitations on the
consumptive use of water in this subcategory is minimal and
is justified by the effluent reduction benefits resulting
from their use. These technologies are in use at plants in
"arid" and "semi-arid" regions.
12. Table II—1 presents the treatment model flow and effluent quality
data used to develop the proposed BPT effluent limitations for
the ironmaking 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 ironmaking subcategory; Table I1-4 presents these
proposed limitations and standards.
302
-------
TABLE II-l
BPT TREATMENT MODEL FLOWS AND
EFFLUENT QUALITIES
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Type of Iroiunaking
Operation
Iron Making
Ferromanganese
Pollutant
Flow, gal/ton
TSS
Ammonia (N)
121 Total Cyanide
Phenolics (4AAP)
pH, Units
Flow, gal/ton
TSS
Anmonia (N)
121 Total Cyanide
Phenolics (4AAP)
pH, Units
Monthly Average
Concentration (mg/1)
125
50
103
15
4
6.0-9.0
250
100
411
150
20
6.0-9.0
(1)
(1) Daily maximum concentrations are three times the above monthly average concentrations.
303
-------
TABLE II-2
PROPOSED BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Type of Ironmaking
Operati on
Pollutant
Effluent Limitations
(kg/kkg of Product)
(1)
Iron Making
Ferroraanganese
TSS
0.0260
Anmonia (N)
0.0535
121
Total Cyanide
0.0078
Phenolics (4AAP)
0.0021
pH, Units
Within
TSS
0.1043
Ammonia (N)
0.4287
121
Total Cyanide
0.1563
Phenolics (4AAP)
0.0208
pH, Units
Within
(1) Daily maximum effluent limitations are three times the above monthly average
effluent limitations.
304
-------
TABLE II-3
i'RE AT ME NT MODEL FLOW AND EFFLUENT QUALITY
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
pH, Units
Monthly Average Concentration
-------
TABLE II-4
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Effluent Limitations and Standards (kg/kkg of Product)^^
Pollutant
BAT
BCT
NSPS
PSES
PSNS
TSS
-
438
438
_
-
Oil and Grease
-
292*
292*
-
-
Amnonia (N)
29.2
-
29.2
29.2
29.2
121 Total Cyanide
29.2
-
29.2
29.2
29.2
Phenolics (4AAP)
2.92
-
2.92
2.92
2.92
TRC
14. 6*
-
14.6*
14.6*
14.6*
122 Lead
7.30
-
7.30
7.30
7.30
128 Zinc
8.76
-
8. 76
8.76
8.76
pH, Units
-
Within
the range
Within
the range
-
-
6.0 to
9.0
6.0 to
9.0
NOTE: The above values apply to both iron making and ferromanganese furnace operations.
(1) The proposed limitations and standards have been multiplied by 10^ to obtain the values presented in this table.
Daily maximun limitations and standards are the above monthly average limitations and standards multiplied by the
following factors.
Pollutant(s) Factor
TSS 2.67
Amnonia (N), Total Cyanide, Fhenolics (4AAP) 2.0
Lead, Zinc 3.0
*: As shown, daily maximum limitations and standards only.
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
General Discussion
The production of steel involves three basic steps. First, coal is
converted to coke. Second, coke is combined with iron bearing
material and limestone and reduced in a blast furnace to form molten
iron. Third, the iron is purified into steel in an open hearth, basic
oxygen or electric arc furnace.
Process wastewaters are generated in ironmaking operations as a result
of gas cleaning and cooling which permits the reuse of the gas as a
fuel. For the purpose of this study, the ironmaking subcategory
encompasses the operation of two types of blast furnaces: iron and
ferromanganese.
The Agency previously promulgated a regulation governing blast furnace
operations in 1974 and established limitations for the following
pollutants:
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phenolics
Fluoride
Sulfide
Total Suspended Solids
pH
Data Collection Activities
Industry responses to the basic questionnaires (DCPs) comprise the
major source of data for blast furnace operations. The Agency
requested information pertaining to production, processes, process
water usage, process wastewater discharge, and wastewater treatment
systems. The DCP responses for iron blast furnaces are summarized and
tabulated in Table III—1. The DCP information for the ferromanganese
blast furnace is summarized and tabulated in Table II1—2.
The Agency sent detailed questionnaires (D-DCPs) to selected plants to
gather cost and furnace operating data and long-term analytical data.
The responses to these questionnaires provided useful data which
verified cost estimates, established retrofit costs (if any), and
provided additional effluent quality data. The Agency identified 56
plants with blast furnace operations. One firm claimed
confidentiality with regard to all data submitted and collected during
surveys, and these data do not appear in Table III-l. The Agency also
identified one ferromanganese blast furnace and 164 iron blast
furnaces at the 54 plants with active blast furnace operations. The
operation of 4 to 6 furnaces per plant is not uncommon and one plant
307
-------
has 11 active furnaces. Table III—3 summarizes the data base for
ironmaking operations.
Description of the Blast Furnace Process
Blast furnaces are large cylindrical structures in which molten iron
is produced by the reduction of iron bearing ores with coke and
limestone. Reduction is promoted by blowing heated air into the lower
part of the furnace. As the raw materials melt and decrease in
volume, the entire mass of the furnace charge descends. Additional
raw materials are added (charged) at the top of the furnace to keep
the raw material mass within the furnace at a constant level.
Iron oxides react with the hot carbon monoxide from the burning coke,
and the limestone reacts with impurities in the iron bearing material
and the coke to form molten slag. These reactions start at the top of
the furnace and proceed to completion as the charge passes to the
bottom of the furnace. The molten slag, which floats on top of the
molten iron, is drawn off (tapped) by way of a tapping hole. The
molten iron is also tapped through a hole below the slag tapping hole.
The production of iron from a blast furnace is based upon the
following approximate charge and yield relationships:
Blast furnace operations within the U.S. primarily produce (>99%)
basic iron. Several plants have occasionally produced ferromanganese
iron, although during this study only one ferromanganese furnace was
found (Figure III-4). Production of iron (rated capacity) on a plant
basis ranges from 800 to 22,200 TPD (Table III—4). The total rated
capacity of all plants was 321,847 TPD (excluding the confidential
plant). Twenty-five percent of the plants accounted for 53 percent of
the total rated capacity in the U.S.
The gases which are produced in the furnace are exhausted through the
top of the furnace. These gases are cleaned, cooled, and then burned
to preheat the incoming air to the furnace. Generally, gas cleaning
involves the removal of the larger particulates by a dry dust
collector, followed by a variety of "wet" or "wet/dry" gas cleaning
systems for fine particulate removal. The three most common gas
cleaning systems are illustrated in Figures III-l, 2, and 3. The
first system (Type I) uses one wet scrubber (primary); the second
(Type II) uses two wet scrubbers (primary and secondary); and the
third (Type III) uses one wet scrubber and one dry air pollution
control device. Gases are cooled with direct contact sprays in large
gas cooling vessels. At many plants, all or a portion of the gas
cooling wastewaters are cascaded to the gas cleaning systems described
above.
Raw Materials
Products
1.8 kkg iron ore
0.6 kkg coke
0.45 kkg limestone
3.2 kkg air
0.9 kkg iron
0.5 kkg slag
4.5 kkg process gas
308
-------
Description of Wastewater Treatment
Prior to the mid 1970's, the treatment of ironmaking wastewaters
generally included the removal of solids by sedimentation with the
addition of flocculating agents to improve removal efficiencies. The
clarified wastewaters were typically discharged directly on a
once-through basis without further treatment. Today, however, about
ninety percent of the blast furnace wastewater treatment systems
include recycle (after the thickener), and discharge only a relatively
small percentage (generally 5 to 10%) of the process flow. Nearly all
recycle systems employ cooling towers to reduce recycle wastewater
temperatures. The thickener underflows are typically dewatered by
vacuum filters with the filtrate returned to the thickener influent.
The dewatered solids are either sent to sintering operations or to
off-site disposal. The specific treatment practices in use at each of
the 54 plants are detailed in Table III-l. Similar data are presented
in Table III—2 for the ferromanganese furnace.
309
-------
TABLE III-l
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
IRONMAKING BLAST FURNACES
Last
Rated
Average Daily
Applied
Treatment
Components
Plant
1st Year
Major
Capaci ty
Product!on
Flow
Discbarge
Process
Central
Operating
Dischar;
Code
of Prod.
Rebuild
(TPD)
(1976)
(gal/ton)**
Flow (gal/ton)**
Treatment
Treatment
Mode
Mode
0060
1953
4730
3598
2001
140
CT, T
NW,SL( Unk),
RTP 90
Direct
FLL.FLP, FL0( 1)
CL, SS
40(Misc.Drains)
UNTREATED
OT
Direct
0060A
1928
1160
1220
2060
2060
SL(Unk),
-
QT
Direct
(Future FLP+CT)
1928
1400
817
3975
3975
SL(Unk),
-
OT
Direct
(Future FLP+CT)
006OB
1963
3600
3561
2507
2507
T
SSP, FLP,CL, VF
RET 100
I nd i re c
1942
2000
2188
3093
3093
T
SSP, FLP,CL,VF
RET 100
Indi rec
0060F
1944
2200
1665
5968
130
T,VF,FLP,CT
RTP 56
ES
RUP 42
RET 2
0112
1955
1973
3000
2790
1512/
[68]
1943
1972
2600
Down(2070)*
11 76 I
FLP, NA, T.CT, VF
-
RTP 96
Direct
1953
1975
3000
2436
1664 f
1960
1976
2000
1696
2857J
0112a
HR
1928
1700
1641
7722]
1973
T, CLA,FLP
-
OT
Direct
NR
1929
1700
1733
38221
2140
UNTREATED
OT
Direct
HR
1959
2200
2266
26051
NR
193 7
1800
2097
3159]
1941
1800
Dowi( 1700)*
5608T
1948
3000
2664
38491
288
T, FLP, NA,CT
-
RTP 93
Direct
1953
3740
3092
4042 (
1957
3200
Down(2800)*
4464)
0112B
NR
1965
1100
Down (1060)*
NR
1975
2500
2062
NR
1976
1850
981
2549
2549
T
-
OT
D i re c t
NR
1967
1850
1660
(Future CT
NR
1969
2500
2211
and Recycle)
1972
2750
2657
0112C
NR
1957
2600
2257
1085
1085
_
T,VF, (Future CT)
OT
D i re c t
NR
1958
2600
2477
988
988
-
T,VF, (Future CT)
OT
D i re c t
0112D
1972
5500
4943
M
["J
Tf FLP, NA,CT, VF
CLA, HL,NW,NA,
RTP 9?
Direct
1969
5000
5465
FLP,CL,SS,T,
VF, SL(Unk)
-------
TABU IIl-l
GENERAL SUtftfARY TABLE
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
PACE 2
Last
Rated
Average Daily
Appli
Plane
1st Year
Major
Capacity
Producti on
Flow
Code
of Prod.
Rebui Id
(WD)
(1976)
(gal/
0248A
1952
2000
1587
3902
0256E
1953
2000
1381.5
5316
0320
1920
NA
1625
2813
1922
NA
1638
1959
1948
NA
3007
1794
0384 A
1907
2150
1613
3958
1909
2100
1655
3288
1917
1963
2300
1767
3080
1926
2350
1689
3387
1939
3250
2461
3641
1942
3250
2319
3864
1947
3400
2374
2778
1943
3400
2477
2663
03% A
1907
1963
2100
1852
1944
1909
1965
1300
1005
2866
0396C
1903
1500
Dowd( 1100)*
92 9
1905
1680
849
2205
0426
1958
1100
760
6632
0432A
1909
1962
2000
Down(2000)*j
1910
1970
3500
3057 \
[309lj
1910
1930
1500
1540 [
1912
1966
2500
Down (2300)* \
1919
1500
1347 —'
0432B
1900
1175
1487
872
1966
2500
1529
1742
1904
1600
Down(1550)*
1115
0432C
1952
1972
2227
2374
1213
1963
3140
2732
1318
Treataent Components
Discharge Process Central Operating Discbarge
Flov(gal/ton)
Treataent
Treatment
Node
Mode
3902
T, FLP, VF
-
OT
Direct
5316
T, VF
-
OT
Direct
2813
1959
1794
T, VF
T, VF
T, VF
-
OT
OT
OT
Direct
Direct
Direct
254
211
197
217
233
247
SL(Unk),T,NA,FLP,
0(2),CT
RTP 93
D i re c t
315
302
SL(Unk), NA,
FLP,CT
-
RTP 89
Direct
194
287
T, FLP, NA,
CT, T, VF
-
RTP 90
POTW
929
2205
CL, FLP
-
RET 100
Indirect
2615
T,CT,NA,VF •
SL(Unk)
RUP 61
Direct
[309l]
***
***
Scr ,CLA, PSP,
FLP, T, VF
OT
OT
RUP 27
OT
OT
RUP 40
OT
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
D i re c t
Direct
Direct
872
1742
1115
CLA, T, FLP, VF
-
OT
Direct
229
249
Scr, FLP, T, 0< 3), VF
-
RTP 81
Direct
-------
TABU III-l
CEtCBAL SUWiARY TABLE
IKON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
PAGE 3
Plant
Code
044 8 A
lat Year
of Prod.
1942
1949
1953
1959
Laat Raced Average Daily Applied
Major Capacity Production Flow
Rebuild (TTD) (1976) (gal/ton)
1675
1675
1675
2175
1575
1661
1389
2085
2743
2601
3110
3591
h-1
N>
0492 A
052 8A
0584 B
0584C
0584 D
1947
1954
1958
1955
1941
1938
1952
1956
1961
1904
1911
1911
1200
2500
2500
NA
NA
NA
NA
2600
2600
600
570
980
1540
2457
2546
2954
2605
2487
2620
2099
2288
642
514
998
2057
2066
2559
2025
3224
4406
3892
4861
2756
0584F
0684 A
1919
Pre 1940
Pre 1940
Pre 1940
1942
1926
1971
1976
1975
1977
NA
NA
NA
NA
1260
1260
2175
1854
1906
1948*
1961
1565
2317
2718
2644
2587
2203
3036
0684 B
1921
2800
2565
3705
0684 F
1908
2100
1837
5546
1916
1943
1952
1900
2600
2600
1745
1943
2017
5838
6096
5051
06846
1918
1906
1250
1900
976
1754
1202
3272
Diacharge
Flow(gal/ton)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2057
Treatment Components
Proceaa Central
Treatment Treatment
CL,SL(Unk),CT
Operating
Mode
RTP Unk
RET Unk
CL,SL(Unk)tSS, RET 100
VF
Discharge
Hode
ES and
other
processes
& quench*
Indi rect
62
77
2025
CL,T, VF
NA,CL,FLP, VF, RTP 97
CT
Direct
Direct
3224
4406
3892
4861
2756
T, VF
psp,ss, BO&d), or
CLA, FDS(Unk)
OT
Direct
2317
2718
2644
2587
CL, VF
OT
Direct
2203
3036
CL, VF
Direct
2562
1123
UNTREATED
T
0T
0T
Direct
Direct
574
635
469
336
PSP,Scr,FLP,FLL,
FLC, CL, SS, VF, N&,
CT
RUP 45
RTP 44
RlIP 42
RTP 47
RUP 36
RTP 56
RUP 45
RTP 48
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
1202
2286
PSP, Ms, NW,FLL, OT
FL0(4),FLP,CL, RUP 30
SS, VF
Direct
Direct
-------
TABLE Ill-l
GEWRAL SUMARY TABLE
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
PAGE 4
Plant
Code
1st Year
of Prod.
Last
Maj or
Rebuild
Rated
Capaci ty
(WD)
Average Daily
Production
(1976)
Appli
Flow
(gal/
0684 H
1943
2870
2532
M
06841
1918
800
916
5235
1942
1500
1784
4746
0724A
1902
1400
1177
795
1902
1400
1433
1909
0732A
1952
800
1040
1800
0856A
Inactive
0856 B
1943
1977
2500
1511
6490
1943
2300
2016
4864
1883
1800
1729
4464
1886
1100
1246
4519
1887
900
Down(972)*
9126
0856F
1952
2607
2700
1851
1953
2820
2776
1800
1957
2779
2872
1740
08561
1901
NA
2241
3020
1901
NA
2122
3189
1907
NA
1118
4250
1907
NA
1036
4587
0856N
1898
NA
Down(1100)*
1047
1899
NA
1346
856
I%2
NA
2326
532
1907
NA
Down(UOO)*
1571
1941
NA
2718
1595
Discharge
Flow(gal/ton)
Treatment Components
L188J
5235
1534
1679
697
884
Process
Treatment
A, FLL, FLP,CLA,
CL, VF,CT
FLP.T, VF
T,0<4)
Central
Treatment
Operating
Mode
RTP 92
SL(Unk), NW, SS
Central Treatment
Only
OT
RUP 32
RTP 12
RTP 54
RTP (<100)
Discharge
Mode
POTW
D i re c t
Direct
D i re c t
Direct
Direct
2383
1725
1786
1293
999
3465
4334
185
8889
237
T, VF
UNTREATED
T, VF
UNTREATED
T, VF
UNTREATED
T, VF
UNTREATED
T, VF
UNTREATED
RUP 37
OT
RUP 37
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
1851
1800
1740
T, FLL
OT
Direct
1092
1928
1154
2036
4250
4587
1047
856
532
1571
1001
593
FLP,CL,T, VF
UNTREATED
FLP,CL,T, VF
UNTREATED
T, VF
T, SL(Unk)
UNTREATED
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
OT
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
-------
TABLE III-l
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
IRONHAKING BLAST FURNACES
PAGE 5
Plant
Code
08560
0856Q
0856R
0856T
1st Year
of Prod.
1954
1907
1896
1897
1897
1963
1901
Last
Major
Rebuild
Raced Average Daily
Capacity Production
(TPD)
1234
1100
1000
1250
1500
3000
1639
(1976)
1090
1009
Down(950)*
1100
1451
2843
1666
Applied
Flow
(gal/ton)
2202
6708
4030
2431
2224
1901
1909
1517
1551
1634
Dovn(1079)*
1983
3059
U>
t-1
¦t*
0860B
1917
1917
1911
1910
1909
1909
1909
1909
1908
1908
1974
894
1959
888
1980
1981
1721
980
1818
1105
1137
6148
1061
2337
613
1485
1708
1910
564
1903
1247
1360
5022
5282
1658
6098
4935
4755
4161
12,176
2634
2721
3543
3297
0860 H
1970
4000
3073
2905
1928
1948
1948
1512
2200
2200
1516
2360
Do«m( 1958) *
2945 ,
2227
3530 1
0864 A
1944
1944
1944
1900
1900
1900
1344
1344
1344
34 82
3482
3482
Discharge
Flow(gal/ton)
Treatment Components
Process Central
Treatment Treatment
Operating
Mode
Discharge
Mode
2202
UNK
1612
T, FLP
T, VF
T, VF
OT
RTP, RET 100
RTF 60
2431 T, VF - 0T
1443 PSP - 0T
781 UNTREATED - OT
1983 PSP - OT
1204 PSP - OT
1855 UNTREATED OT
5282 - SL(Unk) ,FLP,CL OT
1658 (Future T,CLA, OT
6098 CAG and OT
4935 recycle) OT
3406 RUP 28
4161 OT
12,176 OT
2634 OT
2721 OT
3543 OT
358 FLP, T, VF, CT - RTP 89
(No Discharge)
PSP, Scr ,FLP,CLa - RUP 32
T, VF,CT RTP 64
120 RTP 96
RTP 96
RTP 96
1741 CL, SL(Unk)
1741
1741
Central RTP 50
Treatment
present, but not
described
Direct
ES
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
ES
ES
Direct
-------
TABU UI-1
GENERAL SIMtARY TABLE
IRONMAKING BLAST FURNACES
PAGE 6 _______
Plant
Code
1st Year
of Prod.
LaaC
Major
Rebuild
Sated
Capacity
(WD)
Average Daily
Production
(1976)
Appli<
Flow
(gal/
0868A
1908
1908
1908
1928
959
10%
959
1370
850
861
915
1109
2095
[4350]
1928
1370
1292
[3734]
1941
2300
1728
§917]
0920A
1903
1904
1976
1969
1550
1550
1482
1279
2915
3378
0920B
1913
1000
973
[2664]
1913
1000
Dovn(lOOO)*
[2592]
1948
2400
2192
[289l]
0920N
1948
1950
1948
1500
900
1800
1502
Down(647)*
1850
2167
5030
3795
0946A
1908
1930
1000
1400
Dovn(930)*
1484
3220
094 8A
1908
1929
1200
1274
1808
1908
1936
1200
Down(lOOO)*
2160
1910
1940
1500
1268
2271
1913
1942
1500
1742
951
0948B
1918
1055
925
3892
0948C
1917
1925
1953
1967
1948
2500
1400
2800
4000
Dovn(1800)*
Down(1000)*
2526
4018
3152
4896
1824
2724
Treatment Copponents
Discharge Process Central
Flow(gal/ton) Treat*ent Treatment
Operating
Mode
Discharge
Mode
1903
192
[149]
[m]
[100]
2915
3378
[95]
[92]
[74]
SL(Unk)
UNTREATED
FLP.T, SL
-------
TABLE III-l
GENERAL SUMMARY TABLE
IR0NMAK1NC BLAST FURNACE
PAGE 7
* : Furnace was down in 1976; the value in parentheses represents 1975 average production.
** : Presented in English units for convenience of industry and government accustomed to working with English units.
Multiply these values by A.17 to convert to metric units.
***: A portion of the wastewater flow from this furnace is discharged untreated.
NR : No Response provided in the DCP.
C3 : Data enclosed in brackets was provided in D-DCP responses or obtained during sampling visits.
KEY TO C&TT COMPONENTS
(1) Ferrous Sulfate
(2) Thermal Rotors
(3) Screw Classifier
(4) Sieve Plates
For definitions of the other C&TT Codes, and other abbreviations, refer to Table VII-1.
I-*
Oi
-------
TABLE III-2
GKKRAL SUMMARY TABLE
FEKROMANGANESE BLAST FURNACE
Plant
Code
0112C
1st Year
of Prod.
1925
Last
Major
Rebuild
Rated
Capacity
(TPP)
676
Average
Production
(1976)
534
Applied
Flow
(gal/ton)
[ll,53tfl
Discharge
Flow(gal/ton)
[0]
Treafent Components
Process Central
Treats ent
CL, T, VF,CT
Treatment
Operating Discharge
Mode Mode
RTF 100
No discharge
to navigable
waters.
[] : Data enclosed in brackets was obtained during a saspling visit.
ROTE: For a definition of C4TT codes, and other abbreviations, refer to Table VII-1.
u>
t-*
-j
-------
TABLE III-3
IRONMAKING DATA BASE
No. of
Plants
OJ
h-*
GO
Plants sampled for
original study
Plants sampled for
toxic pollutant study
Total plants sampled
Plants responding via
D-DCP
Plants sampled and/or.,
responding via D-DCP
Plants which responded
to DCP
11
7
15
54
Percent of
Total No.
of Plants
7.4
13.0
20.4
13.0
27.8
100
Rated
Capacity
(Tons/day)
15,200
54,080*
69,280*
62,050
116,640*
321,850*
Percent of
Rated
Capacity
4.7
16.8
21.5
19.3
36.2
100.0
(1) Three plants which responded via D-DCP were also sampled during the
toxic pollutant survey.
: Does not include the tonnage of the confidential plant.
-------
TABLE III-4
BLAST FURNACE PRODUCTION
PLANTS RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PRODUCTION
(TONS PER DAY - RATED CAPACITY)
Reference Number
0384A
0860B
0112A
0112B
0432A
0948C
*0584B
0112
0112D
0860H
0684F
0856B
*0856N
0856F
0868A
*0584F
0448A
0856R
*08561
0320
0864A
0060B
0948A
0432C
0432B
0112C
0584C
0528A
0060
0856T
0920B
0920N
0946A
0396C
0684G
0920A
0684H
0684B
Rated Capacity
TPD
22,200
20,611
19,140
12,550
11,000
10,700
10,666
10,600
10,500
9,912
9,200
8,600
8,590
8,206
8,054
7,883
7,200
6,750
6,517
6,270
5,700
5,600
5,400
5,367
5,275
5,200
5,200
5,000
4,730
4,707
4,400
4,200
3,400
3,180
3,150
3,100
2,870
2,800
319
-------
TABLE III-4
BLAST FURNACE PRODUCTION
PLANTS RANKED FROM HIGHEST TO
LOWEST PRODUCTION
(TONS PER DAY - RATED CAPACITY)
PAGE 2
Reference Number
0724A
006 OA
0684A
0396A
06841
0060F
0584D
0248A
0256E
08560
0492A
0426
085 6Q
0948 B
0732A
Rated Capacity
TPD
2,800
2,560
2,520
2,400
2,300
2,200
2,150
2,000
2,000
1,234
1,200
1,100
1,100
1,055
800
321,847
*Based on 1976 production - rated capacity not available.
320
-------
To Atmosphere
BLEEDER VALVE
Waste Gases
To Atmosphere
To Stoves &
Boiler House,Eta
DOWNCOMER
GAS UPTAKE
SKIP CAR (Dumping)
-RECEIVING HOPPER
Scrubber Water
(Once Through
or Recycled)
Coke
Iron
Ore
Blast Furnace Gas
(Dirty)
Lime-
stone
ENTRA1NMENT
SEPARATOR
AND
COOLING
TOWER
Cold BkistlAir)
From Blowers
DUST
CATCHER
BLAST
FURNACE
STORAGE BINS
BUSTLE PIPE
PRIMARY
SCRUBBER
(Venturi or
Orifice)
Flue
Dust
SKIP
CAR —
(Loading)
STACK
STOVE
(Heating)
STOVE
(Blowing)
GAS BURNER
TAPPING HOLE
To Treatment
System
Hot Metal (Iron)
Runner Scrap
SKIP HOIST
Blast Furnace Gas
(Cleaned)
Hot Metal
(Iron)
< 5
~See Slag Process
Flow Diagram
SLAG LADLE
i r
HOT METAL CAR
(Iron)
RP 4/18/78
-------
To Atmosphere
Scrubber Water
(Recycled)
BLEEDER VALVE
PRIMARY
Iron
Ore
Lime-
stone
DUST
CATCHER
BLAST
FURNACE
Cold Blast(Air)
From Blowers
~To Stoves ft
Boiler House
1 Natural
J Gas—7
p+J-
Slag
BUSTLE PIPE
ST0RA6E BINS
ENTRA1NMENT
SEPARATOR
AND
COOLING
TOWER
Flue
Dust
Hot Blast
SKIP
CAR —
(Loading)
TAPPING HOLE
STOVE
(Heating)
STOVE
(Blowing)
STACK
GAS BURNER
-SECONDARY
SCRUBBER
(Venturi or Orifice)
Hot Metal (Iron)
Runner Scrap
SKIP HOIST
Blast Furnace Gas
(Cleaned)
Hot Metal (Iron)
~•To Treatment
System
~ See Slag Process
Flow Diagram
SLAG LADLE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
on
no.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Diagrams
HOT METAL CAR
(Iron)
RD. 4/19/78
IGURE IH-2
-------
To Atmosphere
Scrubber Water
BLEEDER VALVE
PRIMARY SCRUBBER
(Venturi or Orifice)
Waste Gases
To Atmosphere
DOWNCOMER
v-r
GAS UPTAKE
SKIP CAR (Dumping)
ENTRAINMENT
SEPARATOR
AND
COOLING
TOWER
RECEIVING HOPPER
Coke
-Blast Furnace
Gas (Dirty)
Iron
Ore
Lime-
stone
To Treatment
System
To Stoves 8
Boiler House,Etc.-i
DUST
CATCHER
-Cold Blast(Air)
From Blowers
BLAST
FURNACE
Natural
Gas -
STORAGE BINS
9USTLE PIPE
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
Slog
Flue
Dust
Hot Blast
SKIP
CAR —
(Loading)
STACK
STOVE
(Heating)
STOVE
(Blowing)
TAPPING HOLE
< r
Hot Metal (Iron)
Runner Scrap
SKIP HOIST
Dry Dust
Blast Furnace Gas
(Cleaned)
Hot Metal
(Iron)
¦~See Slag Process
Flow Diagram
SLAG LADLE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE
TYPE m-PRIMARY WET W/DRY SECONDARY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
¦To Hot Metal
Users. See
Process Flow
Diagram
HOT METAL CAR
(Iron)
RO. 4/20/78
FIGURE IE-3
-------
TO ATMOSPHERE
t t
BLEEDER VALVE
WASTE GASES
TO ATMOSPHERE
DOWNCOMER
GAS UPTAKE
SKIP CAR (DUMPING)
RECEIVIN6 HOPPER
RECYCLE
TO GAS
COOLER
COKE
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
FERRO-
MANGANESE
- BLAST FURNACE GAS
(DIRTY)
CLEANED
GAS
LIME-
GAS
COOLING
TOWER
DUST
CATCHER
COLD BLAST
(AIR) FROM
BLOWERS
BUSTLE
PIPE
BLAST
FURNACE
STORAGE BINS
CLARIFIER
SLAG
FLUE
DUST TO
LANDFILL
HOT BLAST
RECYCLE
TO VENTURI
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
Introduction
The steel industry is comprised of separate and distinct processes.
Industry subcategorization was primarily affected by the individual
processes, products, and wastewater characteristics. Other factors
considered for subdivision were: raw materials, wastewater
treatability, size, age, geographic location, and process water usage.
With regard to ironmaking operations, differences between iron and
ferromanganese blast furnaces were identified and found to justify
subdividing the ironmaking subcategory. A discussion of each of these
factors and the proposed subdivision follows.
Factors Considered in Subcateqorization
Manufacturing Process and Equipment
The production of iron and ferromanganese is unique within the steel
industry because it is the only process in which iron bearing
material, limestone and coke are converted into molten iron or
ferromanganese. While many refinements have been made to blast
furnaces to improve operating efficiencies, the basic process has
remained unchanged. These changes include more stringent control of
the quality of raw materials, reaction rates and times within the
furnace, the use of high top pressures, and oxygen and oil injection.
These refinements have not significantly affected the quality or
quantity of the wastewaters generated during the ironmaking process.
Final Product
Various grades of iron may be produced in a blast furnace (e.g., basic
iron, ferromanganese, spiegeleisen, ferrophosphorus, alloy iron),
however, more than 99% of the iron produced is basic iron. Less than
1 percent of total blast furnace production was attributed to
ferromanganese production. A review of the DCP data reveals that only
five U.S. blast furnaces have historically produced iron other than
pig iron and these furnaces produced only ferromanganese. Two of
these five furnaces produced over 95% of the ferromanganese made in
this country. At this writing, there are no ferromanganese furnaces
in operation.
Raw Materials
The major raw materials used in the blast furnace process are coke,
iron ore, limestone, pellets, and sinter. Secondary raw materials
include scrap, gravel, tars and oils of various types, mill scale,
325
-------
flux and dolomite. Following is a summary of the major raw materials
used in the iron furnaces:
Feed
Material
Mean %
of Burden
Mean lb/ton
of Hot Metal
Coke
Iron Ore
Pellets
Sinter
26. 1
14.0
38.8
23.7
1,259
744
1,811
1 ,096
For the one ferromanganese furnace, the raw material composition
consisted of coke (36%), ferromanganese ore (47%), stone (12%) and
other materials (5%). The use of large quantities of ferromanganese
ore in the production of ferromanganese iron was a factor which
distinguishes this process from the basic iron process. Other raw
material differences were minor and, as such, did not warrant further
subdivision of the ironmaking subcategory.
Wastewater Characteristics
Ironmaking process wastewaters are generated as the direct result of
cleaning (i.e., scrubbing) and cooling the dirty exhaust (top) gases.
Top gases are cleaned and cooled so that they may be reused as fuel.
The scrubbing and cooling is accomplished with water which removes
dust and other pollutants in the gas stream. The quantity of
particulate matter which is transferred from the gas stream to the
scrubbing waters is primarily related to the gas stream quality and
the efficiency of the scrubber operation.
The gas streams contain dust, quantities of raw materials and process
reaction products. For example, many of the same pollutants found in
coke plant wastewaters are also found in ironmaking wastewaters. The
phenolic pollutants found in ironmaking wastewaters are attributable
to the coke used in the ironmaking process. Cyanide and ammonia
(reaction products formed within the furnace or transferred from the
coke charge to the furnace gases) are carried over with the gas stream
and transferred to the scrubbing waters.
Various types of wet gas cleaning systems are used in the ironmaking
subcategory (e.g., venturi scrubbers, adjustable orifice scrubbers,
separators, spray chambers). The amount of pollutants transferred
from the gas stream to the scrubbing water can vary among the various
types of gas cleaning equipment, however, the differences are not
significant.
Wastewater Treatability
The basic treatment for ironmaking wastewaters is the removal of
suspended solids by gravity sedimentation. Other pollutants (e.g.,
metals) associated with the suspended solids are also substantially
removed by the settling process. The treatment of blast furnace
wastewaters is similar throughout the subcategory and, as a result,
subdivision on the basis of wastewater treatability is not warranted.
326
-------
Similar treatment was provided for the ferromanganese furnace, which
was operating during the original study.
Size and Age
The Agency considered the impact of size and age of blast furnace
facilities on the subdivision of ironmaking operations. The Agency
determined that age was of little importance because blast furnaces
require periodic major rebuilding, typically every five to ten years.
During these major rebuilds, substantial modifications to the furnace
are incorporated, which, in essence, is comparable to the
construction of a new furnace. Most existing blast furnaces have been
rebuilt many times, and some furnaces originally built in the early
1900's are still operating today. As the furnaces have been rebuilt,
various technological and production advancements have been
incorporated to improve furnace operation.
Figure IV-1 is a plot of effluent flow vs. plant age for plants with
treatment and recycle facilities. This diagram shows that there is no
relation between effluent flow and plant age, especially with flows
less than 125 gal/ton (the BPT model flow). Effluent flow provides a
measure of treatment capability, as recycle is one of the major
treatment components used in developing the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and
PSNS alternative treatment systems and respective effluent limitations
and standards.
Despite the fact that age of a blast furnace is a meaningless term,
the Agency investigated the effect of age on the feasibility and cost
of retrofitting pollution control equipment at blast furnaces. The
comparison of the age of a blast furnace with the year in which
pollution control facilities were installed (see Table IV-1),
demonstrates that pollution control equipment can be retrofitted. The
discussions in the preceding paragraphs show that similar rates of
pollutant discharge are achievable at blast furnaces of all ages. As
a result, the Agency has concluded that retrofitting pollution control
facilities to blast furnaces is feasible.
The cost of retrofitting the BPT systems to blast furnaces were
provided by industry in its DCP responses. The data, where clearly
identifiable, show that retrofit costs amount to about 5 percent of
the total capital cost of the pollution control equipment. In
addition, as shown in Section VIII of this volume, comparison of
actual costs incurred by industry with the Agency's estimated costs
for the same pollution control facilities, show that the Agency's
estimates are sufficient to account for any retrofit and other
site-specific costs. The Agency thus concludes that the cost of
retrofitting pollution control equipment at blast furnaces is minimal.
In addition, since more than 90 percent of the blast furnaces in the
United States have retrofitted BPT at existing operations, the
feasibility is well demonstrated. BAT, on the other hand, requires
add-on treatment which does not require retrofitting.
The Agency evaluated the question of size by plotting effluent flow
vs. production (Figure IV-2). This diagram shows that there is no
327
-------
relation between effluent flow and plant size as indicated by
treatment and recycle facilities. It also demonstrates that the lower
flows (representative of BPT and BAT model systems) were observed in
older as well as newer blast furnace operations. The Agency found
that many plant sites have several blast furnaces. These furnaces
range from old to new, and from small to large capacity.
Based upon the foregoing evaluation, the Agency concluded that there
is no need to subdivide the ironmaking subcategory on the basis of age
or size.
Geographic Location
Location has little apparent effect upon subdivision. Most blast
furnaces are located in the predominant steel producing areas {e.g.,
Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland). A few plants are located in water
scarce areas and, as a result, these plants use operational methods
(e.g., wastewater recirculation) which conserve water. As of July 1,
1978 about 54 percent of the plants (distributed throughout the
country) had recycle systems for at least a portion of their
wastewaters, recirculation is not unique to geographic location.
Currently, recycle systems are installed at about 90 percent of the
blast furnaces in the country. Also, wastewater quality among the
eight plants surveyed was basically similar and, of the surveyed
plants, one was located in an arid or semi-arid region, one in the
southwest, and the others in the midwest and east.
Process Water Usage
The Agency examined process water usage as a possible basis for
further subdivision. The data indicated that process wastewater flow
had no significant impact on the ability to treat process wastewaters.
In fact, many of the plants with the highest applied flows have lower
discharge flows than plants with lesser applied flows. Based on these
factors, the Agency concluded that further subdivision of the
ironmaking subcategory based on process water usage is not warranted.
320
-------
TABLE IV-1
EXAMPLES OF RETROFIT
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Treatment
Plant Age Age
Blast Furnace 060B 1942 1958
112A 1941 1948
320 1920-1947 1976
396A 1907-1909 1929
396C 1903-1905 1929
426 1958 1979
432A 1910-1919 1951
432B 1900-1966 1930
584C 1956-1961 1965
584D 1904-1911 1953
And others
329
-------
FIGURE Iff-1
BLAST FURNACE-RECYCLING PLANTS
X * X
\
BPT Level „ *
X—x * OTT~ x
j i |XK ¦[ I i I I I
1880 1892 1909 1917 1930 1942 1955 1967 1980
AGE (FIRST YEAR OF PRODUCTION OF OLDEST FURNACE AT PLANT)
330
-------
FIGURE 12-2
BLAST FURNACE-RECYCLING PLANTS
* x
:
BPT Leva I
—Y
720 2580 4440 6300 8160 10020 11880
PLANT PRODUCTION (TONS/DAY)
13740
*15600
331
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION V
WATER USE AND WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Introduction
Process water usage plays a major role in the determination of
pollutant loads and pollutant removal cost estimates. The Agency used
data from the sampling visits and the DCPs to evaluate process water
use; to estimate pollutant loads; to obtain total wastewater volumes;
and to identify the wastewater treatment technology in place at each
plant.
This section presents data which characterize the wastewater streams
originating in blast furnace operations. The wastewater
characterization is based upon data obtained during the two field
sampling programs conducted at one ferromanganese and eight iron blast
furnace operations. During the original sampling program the Agency
measured the levels of the polllutants limited under the originally
promulgated effluent guidelines. During the second field sampling
program the levels of those pollutants were again measured, while
additional monitoring was performed for toxic pollutants. To confirm
and expand upon the toxic pollutant survey data, the Agency conducted
sampling visits at three additional blast furnace sites (plants 0112,
0684F, and 0860H). The Agency has incorporated data from these visits
in the existing data base. The Agency did not observe any significant
differences in the basic character of the process wastewaters during
these visits.
Description of the Ironmakinq Operation and Wastewater Sources
The water use rates discussed below pertain only to process
wastewaters, and do not include noncontact cooling or nonprocess
waters. Process wastewater is defined as water which has come into
direct contact with the process, products, exit gases, and raw
materials associated with blast furnace operations. The wastewaters,
thereby, become contaminated with the various pollutants
characteristic of the process. Noncontact cooling water is defined as
that water used for cooling which does not come into direct contact
with the processes, products, by-products, or raw materials.
Nonprocess water is defined as that water which is used in nonprocess
operations, such as for utility and maintenance requirements.
Water is used within the blast furnace operation for two purposes: (1)
to cool the furnace, stoves, and ancillary facilities, and (2) to
clean and cool the furnace top gases. Although blast furnace
wastewaters are primarily the result of the gas cleaning and cooling
processes, there are other wastewaters sources. During the plant
visits, the Agency found additional wastewaters from a dekishing
operation (plant 0432A, which treated these wastewaters with sintering
wastewaters) and from a slag quench wastewater treatment operation
333
-------
(plant Oil 2D). Other miscellaneous waters such as floor drains, and
drip legs, are also included as part of the process wastewaters, but,
as mentioned above, the gas scrubber and cooler wastewater is the
primary, and most important, ironmaking wastewater.
The industry provided process wastewater and treated effluent flow
data in the DCP responses. In many instances these data were reported
as measured values, but some were reported as best engineering
judgment or design values. In most instances DCP data provided the
bases for the flows listed on the summary table, however, where
available, plant visit or D-DCP information was used in lieu of the
DCP data. Plant process wastewater flows varied over a wide range
(1034 to 6708 gal/ton) and, likewise, plant effluent flows also
spanned a wide range (0 to 3902 gal/ton). This wide range in flows
can be attributed to several factors, but scrubber design and
efficiency, the number of scrubbers used, and gas cooling requirements
generally are the principal factors dictating water usage rates. The
effluent flow rates are affected by the treatment practices,
principally recycle, employed. There is no indication that industry
adjusts process water usage to meet reduced or increased production
demands.
One method of conserving water, and reducing the quantities of
pollutants discharged, is recycle. Recirculation of ironmaking
wastewaters is currently practiced by a substantial majority of the
plants and is identified as a major component in the BPT model,
treatment system. Although recirculation may result in an increase in
the concentration of certain inorganic pollutants in the recycled
wastewater, the significant reduction in discharge flow which results
from recycle reduces the total pollutant load discharged.
Blast furnace wastewaters contain suspended particulate matter,
cyanide, phenol and ammonia; all of which are limited by current NPDES
permits. Other wastewater pollutants include toxic metals and certain
toxic organic pollutants which originate in the raw materials or form
during the reduction process. The concentration data presented in
Tables V-l through V-4 provide a measure of the significant pollutants
contributed during each pass through the process. After reviewing the
data, the Agency determined that the effect of makeup water quality on
these streams is negligible. Accordingly, the proposed effluent
limitations and standards are based solely on gross values.
334
-------
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
Pick-up per
pass concentrations (mg/1)
in raw process
wastewaters
Reference Code
0946A
0396A
044 8A
0060F
Plant Code
L
M
N
0
Sample Point(s)
1—(6+8)
l-(2+4)
l-(2+5)
l-(4+5)
Flow, gal/ton
5,400
2,057
3,350
3,123
Average
Aran onia (as N)
1.19
2.70
7.98
10.1
5.49
121 Cyanide (Total)
1.42
0.806
1.68
-
0.976
Phenols
0.120
-
0.529
0.085
0.184
Fluoride
0.15
1.3
2.24
-
0.92
Suspended Solids
72
611
306
1,167
539
PH
6.6
7.1-8.3
6.6
7.4-7.5
6.6-8.3
- : Calculation results in a negative value.
335
-------
TABLE V-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
Pick-up
per pass
concentrations
(mg/1) in
raw process
wastewaters
Reference Code
0196A
0112D
0432A
0684H
Plant Code
021
026
027
028
Sample Point(s)
(B-D)
(G+K)-(I+M+N)
(C-A)
B-(A+C)
Overall
Flow, gal/ton
1257
1711
3091
2277
Average
Average
Aran onia (as N)
20.4
16.2
17
10
15.9
10.7
121 Cyanide (Total)
15.8
0.008
12.04
0.079
6.98
3.98
Phenols
-
0.052
2.91
0.67
0.908
0.546
Fluoride
3.6
-
6.5
1.4
2.9
1.9
Suspended Solids
3502
445
1613
1602
1790
1165
pH
8.4-8.9
6.4-7.1
9.2-9.7
10.2
6.4-10.2
6.4-10
9 Hexachlorobenzene
0.155
ND
ND
ND
0.039
0.039
23 Chloroform
-
-
0.014
-
0.004
0.004
31 2,4-Dichlorophenol
ND
ND
ND
0.201
0.050
0.050
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
ND
-
0.053
0.003
0.014
0.014
39 Fluoranthene
15.95
0.001
0.082
ND
4.008
4.008
55 Naphthalene
0.018
0.012
ND
-
0.008
0.008
65 Phenol
2.14
ND
0.595
-
0.684
0.684
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
14.19
0.001
0.003
ND
3.548
3.548
76 Chrysene
0.420
0.012
0
ND
0.108
0.108
80 Fluorene
-
0.020
0.009
ND
0.007
0.007
84 lyrene
15.10
0.007
0.053
ND
3.79
3.79
114 Antimony
NA
NA
0.033
NA
0.033
0.033
115 Arsenic
NA
NA
0.041
NA
0.041
0.041
118 Cadmium
0.036
-
#
0.143
0.060
0.060
119 Chromium
0.040
0.046
0.357
0.625
0.27
0.27
120 Copper
0.10
-
0.113
1.140
0.34
0.34
122 Lead
53.5
0.95
#
#
27.2
27.2
124 Nickel
0.10
0.010
1.146
0.42
0.42
125 Selenium
NA
NA
0.058
NA
0.058
0.058
126 Silver
0.040
0.002
#
0.068
0.037
0.037
128 Zinc
59.9
4.5
19.95
#
28.1
28.1
: Calculation results in a negative value
ND : Not Detected
NA : Not Analyzed
4 : Values are qualified, resulting in insufficient data
to complete net raw concentration evaluation.
(1): Based upon the average of all data presented in Tables V-l and V-2.
336
-------
TABLE V-3
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
FERROMANGANESE BLAST FURNACE
Pick-up per pass concentrations in (mg/1) raw process wastewaters
Gas Scrubber Gas Cooler
Reference Code 0112C 0112C
Plant Code Q Q
Sample Point(s) 2-(4+l) 5-4
Flow, gal/ton 2,233 5,705
Ammonia (as N) - 136
121 Cyanide (Total) - 105
Phenols - 0.461
Manganese 2,946 5.41
Suspended Solids 17,193 50
pH 12.1-12.2 8.6-8.7
- : Calculation results in a negative value.
337
-------
TABLE V-4
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
FERROMANGANESE BLAST FURNACE
Pick-up per pass concentrations (mg/1) in raw process wastewaters
Reference Code
0112C
Plant Code
025
Sample Points
(B+D) - (C+E)
Flow, gal/ton
11,540
Ammonia (as N)
25
Phenols
0.14
Manganese
675
Suspended Solids
-
pH
8.8-11.3
4 Benzene
0.011
23 Chloroform
0.023
55 Naphthalene
0.015
85 Tetrachloroethylene
0.055
86 Toluene
0.013
115 Arsenic
1.750
117 Beryllium
#
119 Chromium
#
121 Cyanide (Total)
-
122 Lead
#
127 Thallium
#
128 Zinc
4.349
- : Calculation results in a negative value.
# : Values are qualified resulting in insufficient data to complete the
necessary calculations.
338
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VI
WASTEWATER POLLUTANTS
Introduction
This section describes the pollutants which the Agency determined are
characteristic of ironmaking process wastes, the rationale for their
selection and the sources of these pollutants. First, a list of
pollutants considered to be characteristic of ironmaking operations
was developed based upon data gathered during the original guidelines
survey and from the DCP responses. The Agency confirmed that the
initial list of pollutants was appropriate and added other pollutants
by reviewing analytical data gathered during the toxic pollutant
survey.
Conventional Pollutants
The originally promulgated BPT effluent limitations established
controls for suspended solids and pH. The Agency selected suspended
solids because of the substantial quantities of particulates found in
the ironmaking process wastewaters.
The Agency selected pH as a limited pollutant because it is a measure
of the acidity or alkalinity of wastewater discharges. In addition to
its direct adverse environmental impacts, extremes in pH can cause
other problems, e.g., aggravating the adverse effects of other
pollutants such as ammonia-N and cyanide, facilitating corrosion, and
provoking process and wastewater treatment system malfunctions. The
pH of ironmaking process wastewaters was found to be typically in the
neutral to slightly alkaline range.
Nonconventional, Nontoxic Pollutants
In both iron and ferromanganese blast furnace operations, ammonia is
present in the furnace exit gases and, as a result, is also present in
furnace process wastewaters. Ammonia is present as a result of the
various nitrogen compounds which are driven out of the coke charge
during blast furnace operations. Fluoride is present in ironmaking
process wastewaters as a result of the various fluoride compounds,
primarily calcium fluoride, present in the limestone charged to the
furnace. The presence of manganese in ferromanganese blast furnace
wastewaters is related to the type of ore used in ferromanganese
furnace operations. Limitations for ammonia-N were included in the
previous regulation.
Toxic Pollutants
Cyanide is generated as a result of the reaction of nitrogen in the
blast air, with carbon from the coke charge, in the reducing
atmosphere of the furnace. Larger quantities of cyanide are generated
339
-------
at the higher temperatures associated with ferromanganese furnaces.
Phenolic compounds are driven out of the coke charge during blast
furnace operation. These toxic pollutants were included in the group
of pollutants limited in the originally promulgated regulation.
The Agency also considered other toxic pollutants found in blast
furnace wastewaters. The Agency determined the pollutants existing in
these process wastewaters on the basis of responses to the DCPs, and
analyses performed during the screening phase of the project. Table
VI-1 presents these pollutants.
The Agency evaluated relevant data regarding these pollutants and
calculated net concentration values (reflecting the pollutant pickup
per pass through the process as described in Section V) for each
pollutant detected in the raw process wastewaters. The Agency
established effluent limitations on a gross basis only (see Section
V). Those pollutants found at an average net concentration of less
than 0.010 mg/1 were excluded from further consideration. A list of
pollutants, including the conventional and nonconventional pollutants,
detected in the raw process wastewaters at net concentrations of 0.010
mg/1 or greater are presented in Table VI-2.
The toxic metal pollutants detected in the process wastewaters
originate in the raw materials (primarily the ores and sinter) charged
to the furnaces. These pollutants are present in the blast furnace
exist gases and contaminate the process wastewaters during scrubbing
operations. The predominant toxic metal pollutant in ironmaking
process wastewaters is zinc. For details pertaining to the selection
of pollutants considered for limitation, refer to Sections X through
XIII.
Although several toxic organic pollutants are included in the list of
pollutants presented in Table VI-1, Table VI-2 does not include all of
these pollutants. The Agency excluded certain toxic organic
pollutants from Table VI-2 (i.e., phthalates) because it believes that
those pollutants are artifacts (i.e., resulting from sampling and
laboratory procedures), which are unrelated to blast furnace
operations. The presence of the remaining toxic organic pollutants is
attributable to the raw materials charged (primarily, the coke
charge). These pollutants will be controlled by the limitation on
phenols.
Other pollutants (i.e., calcium, chloride) 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 in wastewater discharges is not
commonly practiced in any industry.
340
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC POLLUTANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT
Iron Blast Furnaces
121 Cyanide
Phenol 8
4 Benzene
9 Hexachlorobenzene
31 2,4-dichlorophenol
34 2,4-dimethylphenol
39 Fluoranthene
65 Hienol
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
76 Chrysene
84 lyrene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
Ferromanganese Blast Furnaces
121 Cyanide
Phenols
4 Benzene
23 Chi orof orm
55 Naphthalene
65 Phenol
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
117 Beryl liun
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
341
-------
TABLE VI-2
SELECTED POLLUTANTS
Iron Blast Furnaces
Ammonia (as N)
121 Cyanide (Total)
Phenols
Fluoride
Suspended Solids
pH
9 Hexachlorobenzene
31 2,4-Dichlorophenol
34 2,4-Dimethylphenol
39 Fluoranthene
65 Phenol
73 Benzo(a)pyrene
76 Chrysene
84 Pyrene
114 Antimony
115 Arsenic
118 Cadmium
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
124 Nickel
125 Selenium
126 Silver
128 Zinc
Ferromanganese Blast Furnaces
Ammonia (as N)
121 Cyanide (Total)
Phenols
Manganese
Suspended Solids
pH
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
55 Naphthalene
85 Tetrachloroethylene
86 Toluene
115 Arsenic
117 Beryllium
119 Chromium
122 Lead
127 Thallium
128 Zinc
342
-------
IRONMAKING 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 ironmoking subcategory provided the basis for
the selection and development of the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
alternative treatment systems. This review involved the compilation
of DCP, D-DCP, and plant visit data to identify those treatment
components and systems currently in use. Treatment capabilities,
either demonstrated in this or in other subcategories (refer to Volume
I), were used by the Agency in evaluating the various model wastewater
treatment technologies. However, only well demonstrated technologies
were used to develop effluent limitations and standards for ironmaking
operations.
This section also presents the raw wastewater and treated effluent
analytical data from sampled plants, pilot plant studies, and the
effluent analytical data provided by the industry through D-DCP
responses. In addition, this section describes treatment systems at
each of the sampled plants.
Control and Treatment Technologies
As noted earlier, ironmaking wastewaters result primarily from furnace
top gas cleaning and cooling. Other wastewater sources may be
included; however, these sources comprise only a minor portion of the
total waste load. Although the typical ironmaking wastewater
treatment systems were initially designed for the removal of
particulate matter only, other pollutants, (i.e., ammonia, cyanide and
phenols) are present in these wastewaters and require treatment.
Following is a summary of actual treatment practices as determined by
the Agency through plant visits and DCP responses (refer to the
Summary Tables III-l and II1—2).
a. The initial step in the treatment of ironmaking wastewaters is
the removal of suspended solids. Approximately 90 percent of the
plants use a thickener (or similar gravity sedimentation
component) to remove suspended solids from process wastewaters.
The technology also removes other pollutants which are entrained
in the suspended solids (e.g., the toxic metals).
b. The slurry from the bottom of the thickener is dewatered by
various devices. Most plants (50%) employ vacuum filters for
this purpose.
c. In order to improve solids removal performance in the thickeners,
various coagulant aids, such as polymers (used in about 43
percent of the plants) and ferric chloride, are added to the
343
-------
wastewater stream at the thickener inlet. These coagulant aids
enhance solids removal by aiding in the formation of larger, more
readily settleable particles. This technology also results in a
certain degree of toxic pollutant removal as pollutants entrained
in the solids are removed.
d. At five plants, the thickener/clarifier overflow is reused
elsewhere. One method of reuse involves the mixing of the
thickener effluent with incoming fresh water for use in various
process or cooling applications throughout the plant, as well as
for makeup to the blast furnace gas cleaning and cooling systems.
In these operations, the cooling water is discharged at a point
somewhat distant from the plant intake. Reuse of the effluent in
the plant water system results in the dilution of the wastewater.
e. In order to conserve water and to reduce effluent waste loads,
many plants (54%) employ systems in which a large portion of the
process wastewater is recycled. A recent survey by EPA indicates
that recycle is now practiced or will shortly be practiced at
about 90% of the plants. In the basic recycle system, the
thickener effluent is recirculated through a cooling tower to the
gas cleaning and cooling operations. The wastewater discharge in
these instances consists of a blowdown (of the thickener effluent
or of the cooling tower effluent) from the treatment and recycle
system. As discussed previously, the solids which settle in the
thickener are dewatered by a vacuum filter and the filtrate is
returned to the thickener influent. In treatment and recycle
operations, flocculation, sedimentation and recycle provide the
only significant means of pollutant load reduction, although some
oxidation or air stripping may occur in the cooling tower.
f. Several plants employ chlorination treatment primarily as a means
of reducing cyanide and phenol levels. One plant provides for
the alkaline chlorination of its thickener influent which is then
discharged without recycle. In another plant, the thickener
effluent is recycled after passage through a cyanide destruction
system (alkaline chlorination). Both of these plants were
sampled during this study, and the latter plant exhibited the
capability to significantly reduce the levels of ammonia,
cyanide, and phenol.
g. At least one plant uses a bio-oxidation system for the purpose of
reducing cyanide levels.
h. The blowdowns from two recycle systems are discharged to POTWs.
i. The blowdowns from recirculation systems at five plants are used
to quench slag or coke, or are evaporated in BOF hoods. This
treatment arrangement, under careful control, can eliminate
discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters.
Control and Treatment Technologies for BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
Several toxic pollutants were found in the treated effluents of the
sampled plants at concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/1. Because of
344
-------
high discharge levels, the Agency is proposing BAT limitations and
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for these toxic pollutants. The proposed
effluent limitations are based upon the application of various
advanced levels of treatment. A description of the treatment
technologies considered by the Agency for BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS is
set out below.
Filtration
Filtration is a common and effective method of removing suspended
solids and those pollutants (particularly the toxic metals) which are
entrained in these solids. Filtration can be used as the last major
component in a treatment system or may be used to provide pretreatment
prior to another component (such as an activated carbon system).
Generally, the filter bed is comprised of one or more filter media
(e.g., sand, anthracite, garnet) and a variety of filtration systems
are available (flat bed, deep bed, pressure or gravity). As noted
above, filtration can be used to reduce the discharge of certain toxic
pollutants (the toxic metals). However, other toxic pollutants, such
as cyanide and phenols, will not, for all practical purposes, be
removed from the process wastewaters by this technology. Filtration
is used in a wide variety of steel industry applications, including
three central treatment facilities (one was sampled) which treat
ironmaking wastewaters.
Toxic Metals Removal Using Sulfide Precipitation
Systems incorporating the addition of a sulfide compound have been
shown to be capable of reducing effluent toxic metals concentrations
substantially below the levels achieved in lime flocculation and
precipitation systems. 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, 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 affected. One method of controlling the presence of excess sulfide
in the treated effluent involves feeding an iron sulfide slurry.
Ferrous sulfide will not readily dissociate in the waste stream,
ensuring that the free sulfide level is kept below objectionable
levels. However, the affinities of the other metals in the waste
stream for sulfide are greater than that of iron, which causes other
metal sulfide precipitates to form preferentially to iron sulfide.
Once the sulfide requirements of the other metal precipitates are
satisfied, 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, significant toxic metals load
reductions can be achieved.
345
-------
Alka i »e Chlorination
Certain nonconventional and toxic pollutants are amenable to treatment
by oxidation reactions. Because it has been demonstrated within the
ironmaking subcategory, the Agency considered alkaline chlorination as
an alternative treatment technology at the BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
levels of treatment. Alkaline chlorination involves the addition of
chlorine (a strong oxidizing agent) to process wastewaters which
already are, or which have been adjusted, to an alkaline pH. Chlorine
addition is typically accomplished by the eduction of the gas into a
pumped wastewater sidestream which is returned to the treatment
process, or by the addition of a liquid such as sodium hypochlorite to
the treatment process. The oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of the
wastewaters being treated is measured during treatment to monitor and
control the alkaline chlorination treatment process.
Alkaline chlorination is used primarily to destroy cyanides. However,
it also serves to remove ammonia (N), phenols, and other toxic
organics. The end-products of the cyanide destruction reactions are
C02 and N,,. The end-products of the oxidation of ammonia are
principally N2 and H20, while the basic end-product of phenols
oxidation is C02.
With regard to the formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons during
alkaline chlorination, pilot plant studies at plant 0860B indicate
that chlorinated hydrocarbon formation is negligible, as shown in
Table VI1-8. Data from additional pilot plant studies also show
negligible chlorinated hydrocarbon formation, while low levels of
brominated compounds were generated.
Dechlorination
To minimize the potential toxicity of wastewaters which have undergone
chlorination, the Agency considered dechlorination as a treatment
method to reduce total residual chlorine levels in the treated
discharge. Existing wastewater treatment practices in this
subcategory are uniformly indadequate for dechlorination purposes.
This technology is widely practiced in the electric power generation
and electroplating industries and can be used for blast furnace and
sintering wastewaters as well. As one of the final treatment steps,
dechlorination is generally effective on wastewaters generated by
various sources. The Agency therefore believes that it will be
equally effective when applied to ironmaking wastewaters. Reducing
agents, such as sulfites or sulfur dioxide, are added to the
chlorinated effluent in sufficient quantities to react with the excess
residual chlorine, thereby forming nontoxic chlorides. This
technology is considered as part of a total alkaline chlorination
system.
Removal of Organics With Activated Carbon
Adsorption with activated carbon has long been used in a variety of
applications for the removal of organic pollutants from wastewaters.
One of the more frequent uses of this technology is the reduction of
COD and BOD concentrations in the effluent from sanitary treatment
346
-------
systems. This technology is also used to remove organic pollutants in
the wastewaters of various industrial operations such as petroleum
refining, organic chemicals, and cokemaking. It should be noted that
several toxic organic pollutants found in ironmaking wastewaters are
also found in cokemaking wastewaters. This can be attributed to the
use of large quantities of coke in the ironmaking process.
Operational guidelines for the use of activated carbon specify that
when combined wastewater streams are being treated or where the
wastewater to be treated has significant turbidity, clarification or
filtration is necessary to achieve optimum treatment efficiency. The
ifse of chemical precipitation and diatomaceous earth filtration may be
necessary to achieve the clarity required for the removal of the toxic
organic pollutants which are present at low levels. The need for the
control of suspended solids in the wastewater to be treated by
activated carbon is also indicated because particulates in water can
adsorb organic pollutants, and then release these organics after
passing through the carbon bed.
Laboratory tests performed on single compound systems indicate that
processing with activated carbon may achieve residual levels on the
order of 1 microgram per liter for many of the organic compounds on
the list of toxic pollutants. The Agency believes that the following
compounds (among others) should respond well to adsorption: carbon
tetrachloride, chlorinated benzenes, chlorinated ethanes, chlorinated
phenols, haloethers, phenols, nitrophenols, DDT and metabolites,
pesticides, polynuclear aromatics and PCBs.
The pH of the wastewater to be treated must be controlled within the
range 6-8 to minimize dissociation of both acid and basic compounds.
Generally, normal pH variations within the neutral range will not
significantly affect the operation of activated carbon systems. In
addition, it may be impractical, as well as extremely expensive to
have two carbon adsorption systems in series, one operating in a low
and the other in a high pH range.
Plant Visit Data
Table VI1-1 provides a legend for the various control and treatment
technology abbreviations used in tables throughout this report. Table
VI1-2 presents a summary of raw wastewater and effluent data for the
iron blast furnaces visited in conjunction with the original
guidelines survey. Table VI1-3 presents a summary of all iron blast
furnace raw wastewater data collected during the toxic pollutant
survey, and Table VI1-4 presents a summary of the respective effluent
data. Table VI1-5 presents a summary of raw wastewater and effluent
analytical data from a ferromanganese blast furnace visited during the
original guidelines survey. Table VII-6 presents a summary of
ferromanganese raw wastewater and effluent analytical data obtained
during the toxic pollutant survey.
Table VII-7 presents a summary of effluent analytical data provided in
the D-DCPs. Table VI1-8 presents a summary of pilot plant data from
plant 0860B. Table yiI-9 presents a summary of long-term effluent
data for the recycle system blowdown at plant 0860B.
347
-------
Plant Visits
Iron Blast Furnaces
Following are summaries of the eight iron blast furnaces visited
during the original guidelines and toxic pollutant surveys. Plant
schematics are found at the end of this section.
Plant L - Figure VII-1
Blast furnace gas cleaning system wastewaters are combined with sinter
plant wastewaters and treated by sedimentation in a thickener,
alkaline chlorination, filtration and recycle with the blowdown being
discharged to a receiving stream.
Plant M - Figure VII-2
Blast furnace gas cleaning system wastewaters are treated by
sedimentation in a thickener, evaporative cooling and recycle. A
portion of the thickener overflow is discharged to a POTW while most
is passed through a cooling tower and recycled.
Plant N - Figure VII-3
Blast furnace gas cleaning system wastewaters are treated by
sedimentation in a thickener, evaporative cooling and recycle. The
blowdown is completely evaporated by slag and coke quenching, and BOF
hood sprays. There is no wastewater discharge to a receiving stream.
Plant 0 - Figure VII-4
Blast furnace gas cleaning system wastewaters are treated by
sedimentation in a thickener, evaporative cooling, and recycle. An
electrostatic precipitator is used following the venturi scrubbers and
gas cooler. The blowdown is completely evaporated by slag and coke
quenching. There is no wastewater discharge to a receiving stream.
Plant 021 (Confidential)
Wastewaters from individual blast furnace scrubbing systems are
combined and treated by sedimentation in a thickener, acid addition
for pH adjustment, evaporative cooling and recycle. A portion of the
recycle water is blowndown. The blowdown is combined with other plant
wastewaters and treated further at a central treatment facility.
Plant 026 - Figure V1I-5
Blast furnace gas cleaning system wastewaters are combined with slag
pit quench wastewaters and treated by pH adjustment with acid,
coagulation with polymer, sedimentation in a thickener, evaporative
cooling and recycle. A portion of the recycle water is blowndown to a
central treatment facility which receives wastewaters from various
segments of an integrated mill.
348
-------
Plant 027 - Figure VII-6
Blast furnace gas cleaning, sintering, and dekishing wastewaters are
combined in a central treatment facility which includes sedimentation
in a thickener, and alkalihe chlorination. The effluent from the
once-through treatment system is discharged to a receiving stream.
Plant 028 - Figure VII-7
Blast furnace gas cleaning system wastewaters are treated by aeration,
pH adjustment with lime, chlorination, coagulation with polymer,
sedimentation in a thickener, evaporative cooling and recycle. A
portion of the recycle water is blowndown to a POTW.
Ferromanaanese Blast Furnace
Ferromanganese blast furnace operations are similar to iron blast
furnace operations as top gases are cleaned using the same types of
wet scrubbers. However, major differences between iron and
ferromanganese furnaces in raw materials, and furnace operating
temperatures result in differences in process wastewater quality.
Ferromanganese furnaces produce higher levels of cyanide and
manganese.
Information on ferromanganese furnaces is scarce because, historically
only a few furnaces in the U.S. have produced ferromanganese. In
fact, at the time of this study only one furnace was operational.
Recently this remaining furnace was shut down and is not expected to
renew operations in the forseeable future.
During the course of the original guidelines and toxic pollutant
surveys, this particular ferromanganese operation was surveyed twice.
The operation was sampled a second time because its wastewater
treatment system had been upgraded since the first visit. The result
of this upgrading was that the operation ceased discharging pollutants
to the receiving stream. Approximately 90 gal/ton of wastewater left
the system with the filter cake which was transported to a landfill
for disposal.
A brief description of this plant under the two different treatment
approaches is provided below:
Plant Q - Figure VII - 8
Venturi scrubber wastewater treatment included sedimentation in a
thickener and complete recycle to the scrubbers. Gas cooler
wastewaters were discharged to a receiving stream without treatment.
Plant 025 - Figure VII - 9
Venturi scrubber wastewater treatment included sedimentation in a
thickener and complete recycle to the scrubbers. Gas cooler
wastewater treatment included sedimentation in a thickener and
complete recycle to the coolers. This plant had no wastewater
discharge to a receiving stream.
349
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
Symbols
Operating Modes
1. OT
2. Rt,s,n
Once-Through
Recycle, where t
8
n
type waste
stream recycled
X recycled
t: U ¦ Untreated
T ¦ Treated
P
F
S
FC
BC
VS
FH
3. REt,n
s n _
Process Wastewater Z of raw waste flow
Flume Only
Flune and Sprays
Final Cooler
Barometric Cond.
Abs. Vent Scrub.
Fine Hood Scrub.
X of raw waste flow
2 of raw waste flow
X of FC flow
X of BC flow
X of VS flow
X of FH flow
Reuse, where t =¦ type
n ¦ Z of raw waste flow
t: U ¦ before treatment
T ¦ after treatment
A.
BDn
Blowdown, where n ¦ discharge as X 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
350
-------
TABLE VII-1
OPERATING MODES, CONTROL AND TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES AND DISPOSAL METHODS
PAGE 2
C. Disposal Methods (cont.)
22. Qc,d Coke Quenching, where t ¦ type
d ¦ discharge as Z
of aakeup
ti 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
Equali zation/Blending
32.
Scr
Screening
33.
OB
Oil Collecting Baffle
34.
SS
Surface Skinning (oil, etc.)
35.
FSP
Primary Scale Pit
36.
SSP
Secondary Scale Pit
37.
EB
Emulsion Breaking
38.
A
Acidification
39.
AO
Air Oxidation
40.
G7
Gas Flotation
41.
M
Mixing
42.
Nt
Neutralisation, where t ¦ ty
tt L ¦ Lime
C • Caustic
A ¦ Acid
W ¦ Wastes
0 ¦ Other, footnote
351
-------
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 " 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
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)
352
-------
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. o£ 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
ts 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
353
-------
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: 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
354
-------
TABLE VII-2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
Rw Wastewaters
Reference No. 0946A 0396A 0448A 006OF
Plant Code: L M N O
Sample Point (sK I 111 Average
Flow, gal/ton 5400 2057 3350 3123 3482
¦g/1
lbs/1606 lb
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lb
¦g/1 lbs/1000 lb
¦g/ 1
lbs/1000 lb
ig/l '
lbs/1000 lb
Aaonii (as N)
1.91
0.0430
63.2
0.541
227 3.17
85.5
1.11
94.4
1.22
Cyanide (T)
1.43
0.0322
16.9
0.145
18.5 0.258
9.67
0.126
11.6
0.140
Phenol a
0.132
0.002 97
2.77
0.0237
0.564 0.00787
0.095
0.00124
0.890
0.00894
Fluoride
0.64
0.0144
23
0.197
12.7 0.177
17.7
0.230
13.5
0.155
Suspended Solids
81
1.82
693
5.94
346 4.83
1209
15.7
582
7.07
P«
6.6
7.1-8.
.3
6.6-6.7
7.4-7.
.5
6.
6-8.3
u>
U"1
ui
Effluents
Sanple Point(s).
(3/3*7)
6
2+3
2
4
Flow, gal/ton
3391
123
101
104
C&TT
T.CLA, SS, Filters,
T,CT,
T»CT, SL, ES,
T, FLP,
CT,
RTP 37
RTP 94
RTP 97
RTP 97,
,ES
¦g /1
lbs/1000 lb
brH lbs/1000 lb
¦g/1
IWiooo it
mg/1
lb/1000 lb
Aaaonia (as N)
0.806
0.0186
Unable
225
0.0942
82.2
0.0356
121 Cyanide (T)
0.005
0.000173
to determine
17.3
0.00724
10.8
0.00468
Phenols
0.014
0.000363
accurately, as
0.035
0.000015
0.010
0.000004
Fluoride
0.68
0.0116
a major portion of
10.7
0.00448
22
0.00954
Suspended Solids
3
0.0372
the system is discharge
39
0.0163
46
0.0199
P«
7.6
is a sludge blovdown
6.
7-8.1
8.0
to the sinter plant
(1) Presented in English units for convenience of industry and government accustomed to working with English units.
Multiply by 4.17 to convert to metric units.
NOTE: For a definition of C&TT codes, refer to Table VI1-1.
-------
TABLE VII-3
SUMMARY OP ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
Raw Wastewaters
Reference Ho.
0196A
0112D
0432A
0684U
0112
0684P
0860H
Plant Codes
021
026
027
028
030
029
024
Snple Points
B
G+K-I-M
C
B
-
-
-
Average
Flow, gal/ton
1,111
1,567
3,091
2
,277
N/A
N/A
N/A
2012
¦8/1
lbs/NMO lb*
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
¦g/1
lbs/1000 lbs
¦g/1
¦g/ 1
¦g/1
¦g/1
lbs/1000
Anaonia (as N)
62.5
*
57.9
0.378
18
0.232
25
0.237
159
NA
23.6
57.7
0.282
121 Cyanide (T)
41.5
*
0.054
0.000352
12.1
0.156
0.301
0.00285
43.4
NA
2.15
16.6
0.0531
Phenols
7.41
*
0.080
0.000522
3.02
0.0389
2.50
0.0237
1.52
NA
0.083
2.44
0.0210
Fluoride
152
*
15.6
0.102
6.7
0.0862
9
0.0853
12
NA
76
45.2
0.0912
Suspended
Solids
3560
*
512
3.34
1,643
21.1
1,640
15.6
263
NA
429
1341
13.2
pH (Units)
8.4-8.9
*
6.4-7.
1
9.4
-
10.2
-
7.1
NA
8.3
6.4-10
2 -
9 Hexachloro-
benzene
0.155
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.022
ND
31 2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
ND
*
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.240
0.00228
ND
ND
ND
0.034
0.000076
34 2,4-Dimethyl
phenol
ND
*
0.001
0.000007
0.053
0.000682
0.003
0.000028
<0.010
<0.010
ND
0.011
0.000239
39 Fluorsnthene
16.105
*
0.004
0.000026
0.082
0.00106
ND
ND
0.022
<0. 010
<0.010
2.32
0.000045
65 Phenol
4.000
*
ND
ND
0.637
0.00820
0.247
0.00234
0.130
ND
ND
0.716
0.00351
73 Benzo(a)
pyrene
14.198
*
0.001
0.000007
0.007
0.000090
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.010
<0.010
2.03
0.000033
76 Chrysene
0.462
*
0.016
0.000104
0.007
0.000090
ND
ND
0.010
<0.010
<0.010
0.074
0.000065
64 Pyrene
15.140
*
0.007
0.000046
0.053
0.000682
ND
ND
0.018
<0.010
<0.010
2.18
0.000244
114 Antinony
HA
*
HA
NA
0.037
0.000476
NA
NA
<0.001
0.010
0.008
0.014
0.000476
115 Arsenic
NA
*
NA
NA
0.046
0.000592
NA
NA
0.491
0.015
0.046
0.150
0.000592
118 Cadaiun
0.040
*
0.010
0.000065
0.200
0.00257
0.153
0.00145
0.107
0.011
0.025
0.078
0.00136
119 Chroniw
0.090
*
0.070
0.000457
0.480
0.00618
0.633
0.00600
0.869
0.045
0.121
0.33
0.00421
120 Copper
0. 30
*
0.012
0.000078
0.120
0.00154
1.167
0.0111
0.997
0.059
0.085
0.39
0.00424
122 Lead
55.0
*
1.05
0.00685
4.667
0.0601
23.33
0.221
-
0.508
0.895
14.24
0.0960
124 Nickel
0.20
*
0.021
0.000137
t
#
1.200
0.0114
2.448
0.192
0.597
0. 93
ISD
125 Selenitn
NA
*
NA
NA
0.063
0.000811
NA
NA
0.035
<0.003
0.001
0.026
0.000811
126 Silver
0.060
*
0.012
0.000078
#
#
0.073
0.000692
0.047
0. 005
0.005
0.034
ISD
128 Zinc
85.0
*
5.93
0.0387
20.0
0.257
30.00
0.284
-
1.059
1.822
24.0
0.193
-------
TABLE VII-3
SWMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
PAGE 2
ND : Not detected * : Confidential data
N/A: Not available ISD : Insufficient data to complete evaluation
NA : Not analyzed # : Values for determinations are qualified
NOTES: FLFC - Flocculation with Ferric Chloride
For a definition of C&TT Codes, see Table VII-1.
U)
(_n
-------
TABLE VII-4
SIMURY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLAHTS
TOXIC POLLUTAKT SURVEY
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
Effluents
w
U1
OO
Referenced No.
Plant Code
Sample Point a
Flow, gal/ton
C&TT
0196A
021
D+E
87
CL, NA, VF,CT, RTP-93
0112D
026
(cti-m/ctili
73
T, FLP, VF, NA.CT, KTP-97
0432A
027
C/(B+C+D*E) F
3091
PSP,FLP,T,CLA,0T
0684 H
028
C
188
A, CL A, FLP,CL,CT,
FLFC.NA, RTP-92
0112
030
•
76
Tf FLP, NA, VF,CT,
RTP-Unk
0684 F
029
N/A
PSP, Scr.FLP,
FLO(l),CL,SS,NA,
VF, CT, RTP-Unk
0860H
024
N/A
PSP,Scr,FLP,CL
T, VF, CT,
RTP-Unk,ES
lbs/
lbs/
lbs/
lbs/
lbs/
¦g/1
1000 lbs ng/1
1000 lbs
ag/ 1
1000 lba
ag/1
1000 lbs
ng/1 1000 lbs
ng/1
ng/1
Aomooia (an N)
43.0
* 43.7
0.0133
20
ISD
16
0.0125
138
0.0437
NA
25.1
121 Cyanide (T)
28.4
* 0.049
0.000015
l.U
0.0153
0.227
0.000178
21.0
0.00666
NA
1.700
Phenols
7.37
* 0.029
0.000009
2.85
0.0392
2.00
0.00157
0.207
0.000066
NA
0.019
Fluoride
147
* 16.6
0.00505
3.2
0.0415
7.9
0.00618
8.6
0.00272
NA
76
Suspended
Solids
101
* 70.5
0.0215
38
0.431
44
0.0344
55
0.0174
NA
61
pH (Units)
8.6-10.8
* 7.3-7.5
-
10.1-10.9
-
8.2-8.8
-
7.2-7.5
-
NA
8.3
9 Hexachloro-
benzene
ND
* ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
31 2,4-Dichloro-
phenol
0.007
* ND
ND
ND
ND
0.044
0.000034
ND
ND
ND
ND
34 2,4-Di»ethyl-
phenol
ND
* 0.004
0.000001
0.163
0.00223
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<0.010
39 Fluoranthene
0.180
* 0.003
0.000001
0.007
0.000096
0.023
0.000018
<0.010
<0.000003
<0.010
<0.010
65 Rienol
1.846
* 0.004
0.000001
0.630
0.00865
0.563
0.000440
0.011
0.000003
<0.010
ND
73 Benzo(a)
pyrene
0.008
* ND
ND
0.003
0.000039
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.000003
ND
<0.010
76 Chrysene
0.054
* 0.003
0.000001
0.007
0.000090
ND
ND
<0.010
<0.000003
<0.010
<0.010
84 Pyrene
0.041
* ND
ND
0.007
0.000096
0.012
0.000009
<0.010
<0.000003
<0.010
<0.010
114 Antiaony
NA
* NA
NA
0.015
0.000198
NA
NA
0.002
J-0.0
<0.005
0.025
115 Arsenic
NA
• NA
NA
0.006
0.000081
NA
NA
0.005
0.000002
0.004
0.029
118 Cadaiua
0.006
* 0.010
0.000003
#
ISD
0.010
0.000008
0.017
0.000005
<0.001
0.008
119 Chromium
0.052
* 0.025
0.000008
#
ISD
0.009
0.000007
0.080
0.000025
0.025
0.082
120 Copper
0.19
* 0.016
0.000005
0.026
ISD
0.030
0.000023
0.123
0.000039
0.007
0.032
122 Lead
2.11
* 0.098
0.000030
0.079
ISD
0.083
0.000065
1.413
0.000447
<0.001
0.238
124 Nickel
0.10
* 0.010
0.000003
#
#
0.060
0.000047
0.843
0.000267
0.111
0.280
125 Seleniia
NA
* HA
NA
0.004
0.000054
NA
NA
0.001
J-0.0
<0.003
0.001
126 Silver
0.023
* 0.010
0.000003
#
f
0.005
0.000004
0.013
0.000004
0.005
0.005
128 Zinc
27.5
* 1.45
0.000441
0.935
0.0129
0.333
0.000261
0.074
0.380
ND : Not detected
* : Confidential
data
N/A!
NA :
Not available
Not analyzed
ISD:
t :
Insufficient data to coaiplete evaluation
Values for determinations are qualified
NOTES: FLFC - Flocculation with Ferric Chloride
For a definition of C&TT Codes, see Table VII-1.
-------
TABLE VII-5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
ORIGINAL GUIDELINES SURVEY
FERROMANGANESE BLAST FURNACE
Raw Wastewaters
Plant Codes
Sample Point (s),.
Flow, gal/ton
Scrubber
0112C
Q
2
2,233
Gas Cooler
0112C
Q
5
5,705
rag/1
lbs/1000 lbs
mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
Ammonia (as N) 155
1.44
137
3.26
121 Cyanide (T) 3,886
36.1
105
2.50
Phenols 19.1
0.178
0.471
0.0112
Manganese 2,960
27.5
6.05
0.144
Suspended Solids
17,260
160
57
pH 12.2
8.7
Effluent
Sample Point(s)
Flow, gal/ton
C&TT
100% recycle with
thickener and vacuum filter
No treatment
provi ded
rag/1
lbs/1000 lbs
Amnonia (as N)
121 Cyanide (T)
Phenols
Manganese
Suspended Solids
pH
Same as Raw
(1) Presented in English units for convenience of industry and government
accustomed to working with English units. Conversion to metric can
be accomplished by multiplying by 4.17.
359
-------
TABLE VII-6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA FROM SAMPLED PLANTS
TOXIC POLLUTANT SURVEY
FERROMANGANESE BLAST FURNACE
Raw Wastewaters
Effluent
Reference Code
Plant Code
Sample Point(s)
Flow, gal/ton
C&TT
0112C
025
B+D
11,540
0112C
025
Clarifier, Thickener
Cooling Tower
mg/1
lbs/1000 lbs
Aranonia (as N)
711
34.2
121 Cyanide (T)
692
33.3
Phenols
6.5
0.312
Manganese
503
24.2
Suspended Solids
4,160
200
PH
CO
1
00
•
00
4 Benzene
0.021
0.00102
23 Chloroform
0.163
0.00784
55 Naphthalene
0.039
0.00185
85 Tetrachloroethyl
ene
0.064
86 Toluene
0.017
0.000807
115 Arsenic
7.67
0.369
117 Beryllium
ISD
ISD
119 Chromium
ISD
ISD
122 Lead
ISD
ISD
127 Thallium
ISD
ISD
128 Zinc
30.4
1.46
0.00309
ISD: Insufficient data to complete evaluation
360
-------
TABLE VII-7
SUMMARY OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA
IRON MAKING BLAST FUtNACES
(All concentrations expressed in ng/1)
Plant Code
C&TT
0112
Pol pier, Neutralisation vitb
acid, thickener, cooling tower,
vacuus filter
0384A - Plant 2
Lagoon, thickener, neutrali-
zation with acid, cooling
tower
0384A - Plant 3
Lagoon, thickener, neutralise-
tion with acid, polyser,
cooling tower
Mo, of Mean High Standard
Saplu Deviation
No. of
Sanplea
Mean Hig
Standard No. of Mean High Standard
Deviation SMples Deviation
FIok, gal/sin
531
370
573 114
T e«pe r At lire v * F
Aanoii
49
80.4
201.2 43.3
296
37
438
27
389
51 190
32
121
Cyanide (T)
532
3.93
35 6.08
221
0.86
4.7
1.09
381
0.23 5.6
1.52
Rienols
49
3.04
9.17 2.51
389
0.005
0.072
0.008
388
0.049 2.8
0.298
Fluoride
Suspended Solid*
89
36.5
251.2 49.6
389
80
1331
79
387
27 157
16
pH, units
501
6.85
8.2 -
390
8.0
8.4
-
390
7.7 8.4
-
Dissolved Solids
9
Hexachl orobenzene
1
<0.01
_
31
2,4-Dichl orophenol
1
<0.01
-
-
34
2,4-Diaethyl phenol
1
<0.01
-
-
39
Fluoranthene
1
<0.01
-
-
65
Ihenol
1
<0.01
-
-
73
Benxo(a)pyrene
1
<0.01
-
-
76
Chryseoe
1
<0.01
-
-
84
^rrene
1
<0.01
-
-
114
Antimony
9
<0.01
-
-
115
Arsenic
9
<0.01
-
-
118
Cadaiue
9
<0.01
-
-
119
Chrosita
9
<0.01
<0.1
-
120
Copper
1
<0.01
-
-
122
Lead
9
<0.01
0.8
-
124
Nickel
9
<0.01
<0.2
-
125
Selenius
1
<0.01
-
-
126
Silver
9
0
-
-
128
Zinc
1
<0.01
-
-
-------
TAB IE VII-7
SUH4ARY OF D-DCP ANALYTICAL DATA
IRGN MAKING BLAST FURNACES
PAGE 2
(All concentrations expressed in ng/1)
Plant Code
C&TT
^ 0684 F
Scale pit, screening, polymer,
ferric chloride, clarifier,
skimmer, neutralization with
acid, cooling tower vacuum
filter
No. of Mean High Standard
Samples Deviation
0684 H
Aeration, lime, polymer,
chlorination, clarifier,
vacuum filter, cooling
tower
0868A
Polymer, thickener, lagoon,
cooling tower
0920 B
Scale pit, polymer, clarifier,
Neutralization with acid,
thickener, cooling tower
No. of Mean High Standard No. of Mean High Standard No. of Mean High Standard
Samples Deviation Ssnples Deviation Son pies Deviation
u>
&
to
Flow, gal/min
2077
1103
2979
527
609
486
560
46
Temperature, °F
466
84.5
118
11.3
57
114
142
10
Aomonia
123
25.2
124
17.3
76
14.9
62
10.9
10
54
110
30
121
Cyanide (T)
123
0.635
4.79
0.854
76
0.957
13.39
209
13
31
74
18
Phenol s
124
0.068
0.75
0.115
13
0.5
3.5
0.9
Fluoride
6
5.73
9.42
2.98
76
6.52
15
3.21
Suspended Solids
1817
35.7
492
37.4
76
20.5
74
17.6
119
14
49 9.4
52
120
550
85
pH, units
476
7.53
9.6
-
76
8.56
9.3
-
119
8.0
9.0 -
62
6.9
8.2
-
Dissolved Solids
1819
1050
1910
204
53
3600
8200
1600
118
Cadmiun
7
0.008
0.01
0.001
119
Chromiua
7
0.028
0.049
0.012
120
Copper
7
0.032
0.058
0.016
122
Lead
7
0.065
0.103
0.027
124
Nickel
7
0.062
0.078
0.015
128
Zinc
7
0.161
0.36
0.111
54
1.28
6.25 1.27
-------
TABLE VII-6
PLANT 0860B PILOT PLANT TREATABILITY STUDY
TOXIC ORGANIC POLLUTANT ANALYTICAL DATA
Pilot Treatment Systea
Plant Recycle
Influent (Hotvell Hater
Chlorinator
Carbon Coli
System B low down
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
1/23-26/80
2/20-22/80
3/18/80
11/28/79
11/28/79
4 Benzene
ND
ND
ND
0.002
0.002
23 Chloroforn
ND
ND
ND
0.003
0.003
44 Methylene Chloride
ND
ND
ND
0.030
0.030
47 Broaofoia
ND
ND
ND
0.03S
<0.001
48 Dichl orobro* on ethane
ND
ND
ND
<0.001
0.003
51 Chlorodibroacaethane
ND
ND
ND
0.027
<0.001
66 Bis(2-ethylheiqrl)phthalate 0.096
0.030
ND
ND
ND
68 Di-n-butyl ph thai ate
0.002
ND
ND
ND
ND
70 Diethyl phthalate
0.001
ND
ND
ND
ND
86 Toluene
ND
ND
ND
<0.001
<0.001
(1) All values are expressed in ag/1. All toxic organic pollutants not included in the above list were not
detected during the GC/HS analyses.
ND: Rot detected
-------
TABLE VII-9
PLANT 0860B BLAST FURNACE RECYCLE SYSTEM BLOWDOWN
EFFLUENT QUALITY
No. of
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Standard
Pollutants
Analyses
Value
Value
Value
Deviation
Suspended Solids
102
8.88
20.0
1.0
4.32
Anmonia (as N)
102
53.1
98.1
4.7
15.4
121 Cyanide (Total)
102
1.85
6.24
0.01
1.57
Phenols
102
0.037
0.559
0.001
0.075
128 Zinc
18
0.36
0.65
0.10
0.21
364
-------
OJ
(12,000 GPM)
1766.8 l/SEC
o-3(28,000 GPM)
2524 l/SEC
(40j000 GPM)
N° 2 THICKENER
32m (105 FT.) DIA.
2 HR. 45 MIN. DETENTION
OVERFLOW RATE
70.5 l/mz/MIN.
(1.73 GAL/FT^/MIN.)
PLANT
OUTFALL
^4041.5 l/SEC (64,050 GPM)
3.15 l/SEC
(50 GPM)
<=r946.5 l/SEC
<^(15,000 GPM)
u
' 2-571 . l/SEC
(9050 GPM)
SOLIDS
MAIN PLANT
PUMPING STATION
A-
SAMPLING POINT
1517.5 l/SEC
CYANIDE
DESTRUCT
/backwash\
Ithickener)
SCALE PIT
W/OIL SKIMMERS
SAND
» FILTERS
¦ 2524 l/SEC (40,000 GPM)
f6\ RIVER INTAKE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE 8 SINTER PLANT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn. 5/9/79
FIGURE 3ZK-
-------
PROCESS: IRONMAKING (Fe BLAST FURNACE)
PLANT: m
PRODUCTION1 3174.5 Metric Tons Iron/Day
13500 Tons Iron/Day 1
315.5 l/sec (5,000 gpm)
126.2 l/sec(2,000 gpm)
189.3 l/sec (3,000 gpm)
FURNACE
GAS
WASHERS
FURNACE
GAS
WASHERS
u>
315.5 l/sec (5,000 gpm)
Service Water
Make-up
Evaporation
6.3 l/sec (100 gpm)
25.2 l/sec(400 gpm)
27.4 m Dia. THICKENER (90 ft Dia.)
(primary)
Overflow Rate-30.6 l/m2/min.
\ (0.75 gal/ft2/min.)
COOLING
TOWER
Slowdown to Sanitary
Authority
6.3 l/sec.(100 gpm)
A -SAMPLING POINT
< >
environmental protection agency
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW OIAGRAM
SLURRY
PUMPS
~¦To Sinter Plant
Thickener
Underflow
12.6 l/sec
(200 gpm)
RD.4-26-78
FIGURE ML-2
-------
From Gas Washer
8 Spray Tower
-6.31 l/sec
(100 gpm)
315.5 I/sec (5000 gpm)
%
THICKENER
315.5 IAec(5000 gpm)
SLUDGE
SETTLING
a
DRYING
LAGOONS
HOT WELL
¦~Dry Sludge to
Slag Pile
-6.31 l/sec
1100 gpm)
PROCESS' IRONMAKING(Fe BLAST FURNACE)
PLANT: N
PRODUCTION: 1949.1 Metric Tons Iron/Day
(2149 Tons Iron/Day)
Evaporation
~Make-up water from stack
plate cooling water system
18.93 l/sec (300 gpm)
~To gas washer a spray tower
315.5 l/sec(5iOOO gpm)
COLD WELL
COOLING
TOWER
Blowdown to slag & coke
quench a b.o-f. hood sprays
9.46 l/sec (150 gpm)
100% evaporation
A
SAMPLING POINT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INOUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
RQ4-25-78
FIGURE 5tt-3
-------
PROCESS: IRONMAKING (Fa BLAST FURNACE)
PLANT:0
PRODUCTION-1505.6 Ma trie Tons Iron/Day
(1660 Tons Iron/Day)
PRIMARY
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
SECONDARY
VENTURI
SCRUBBER-
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
2 To Slovet
6AS
COOLER
11.36 I/tec
(180 gpm)
HEAD
TANK
SEPARATOR
ui
CP
-------
PROCESS*-
BLAST FURNACE
plant:
026
PRODUCTION 9423 METRIC TONS STEEL/DAY
(10,367 TONS STEEL/DAY)
SEPTUM
VALVE
SEALS
PRIMARY
VENTURI
SECONDARY
VENTURI
QUICK
DUMP
SUMP
GAS
COOLER
RUNNING
SEALS
-90.2 l/SEC
(I43C GPM)
32.fi l/SEC
(520 GPM)
SLAG
PIT "C
HOT
WELL
PRIMARY
VENTURI
SECONDARY
VENTURI
SEPTUM
VALVE
SEALS
OUICK
DUMP
SUMP
GAS
COOLER
RUNNING
SEALS
COOLING
TOWER
86.4 l/SEC
(1370 GPM)
32.8 l/SEC
(520 GPM)
SLAG A
PIT "D" ~~
CENTRAL
TREATMENT
490.2 l/SEC
(7770 GPM)
COLD
WELL
286 3 l/SEC
(4570 GPM)
36.4 l/SEC
(577 GPM)
OUTFALL
HICKENER
THICKENEI
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
VACUUM
FILTER
/V SAMPLING POINT
FIGURE 211-5
-------
u>
o
PROCESS: blast furnace
PLANT:027
PRODUCTION: 5494 Metric Tons Steel/Day
(6057 Tons Steel/Day)
Row Water—£3
820.1 l/sec-
(13,000 gpm)
SEAL
WATER
GAS
COOLER
ORIFICE
SCRUBBER
MOISTURE
SEPARATOR
To Outfall
SUMP
-820.1 l/kec
(13,000 gpm)
Hot Metal Desulfurization
Sinter Plant
53.6 l/sec
(850 gpm)
12.6 l/sec
(200 gpm)
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
GRIT
CHAMBER
Outfall^ /fV
879 l/sec 1
13,932 gpm
THICKENER
THICKENER
Sinter
Plant
¦7.45 l/sec
(118 gpm)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
Dwn. 12/2/77
FIGURE VII-6
-------
process:
plant:
production:
BLAST FURNACE
028
2295 METRIC TONS/DAY
(2530 TONS/DAY)
SCALE INHIBITOR
222 l/SEC
(3520 GPM)
260 l/SEC
(4120 GPM)
RIVER WATER
MAKE-UP
37.9 l/SEC
(600 GPM)
BLAST
FURNACE
BLAST
FURNACE
BLAST
FURNACE
COLD
WELL
BUVSTFURNACE
CLEANED GAS
30.3 l/SEC
(480 GPM)
PRIMARY
VENTURI
SCRUBBER
GAS
WASHER
WET
"RECIPITATCH
COOLING
TOWER
SLOWDOWN TO
' 'MUNICIPAL
SANITARY
SEWER (MSD)
AERATION
20.8 l/SEC
(330 GPM)
CLARIFIER
FLUME
HOT
WELL
LIME ADDITION
252.4 l/SEC
(4000 GPMt
POLYMER
ADDITION
RAPIO MIX
TANK
CHLORINE
ADDITION
/\ SAMPLING POINT
SUMP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FILTRATE
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLCW DIAGRAM
1.90 l/SEC
(30 GPM),
SLUDGE TO HOT BRIQUETTING
PLANT
VACUUM DRUM FILTERS
Dwn. 2/1/78
-------
process: blast furnace ferromanganese
IRON MAKING (FeMn BLAST FURNACE)
plant:
PRODUCTION". 526.9 METRIC TONS
FERROMANGANESE/DAY
(581 TONS FERROMANGANESE/DAY)
O2 ENRICHED 30%
TO BOILER HOUSE
VENTURI SCRUBBER
SERVICE WATER
-A—
135.9 I/SEC(2I55 GPM)
SEPARATOR
' *"2-56.8 l/SEC (900 GPM)
65.9 l/SEC (1045 GPM)
TO SEWER
MAKE-UP WATER
9 1 l/SEC (145 GPM)
145.1 l/SEC (2300 GPM)
FILTRATE
THICKENER
FILTER CAKE
~ TO
SLAG PILE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE FERROMANGANESE
WASTE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIAGRAM
/\ -SAMPLING POINT
RD.4-25-78
VACUUM
TILTER
GAS
COOLER
A A A A
-------
process: BLAST FURNACE (FERROMANGANESE)
025
P900UCTI0N; 506 METRIC TONS/DAY
(646 TONS/DAY)
PLANT
6.87 l/SEC
(109 6PM)
EVAPORATION
DIRTY GAS
BLAST
FURNACE
VENTURI
— - GAS
SCRUBBER
GAS
COOLER
75.7 l/SEC
(1200 6PM)
252.4 l/SEC
(4000 6PM)—^
5.4 l/SEC
(66 GPM)
~ EVAPORATION
68.6 l/SEC
(1091 6PM)
257.8 l/SEC
(4085 GPM)
C00LIN6
TOWER
COLD WELL
CLARI FIER
•3
CLARIFIER
*2
CLARIFIER
Lmake-up water
9.47 l/SEC
(150 GPM)
j v.
HOT
WELL
VACUUM
FILTERS
2.52 l/SEC
(40 GPM)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
BLAST FURNACE FERROMANGANESE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
WATER FLOW DIA6RAM
SLUDGE TO
LAND DISPOSAL
^SAMPLING POINT
Dwn. 6/1/77
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY AND NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Introduction
This section presents the incremental costs which the Agency estimates
the industry will incur in meeting the proposed limitations and
standards. These costs were determined on the basis of the
appropriate model wastewater treatment system. The analysis includes
a consideration of: energy requirements; nonwater quality impacts;
and, the techniques, magnitude and costs associated with the
application of the BPT, BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS model wastewater
treatment technologies. This section also addresses the BCT cost
comparison test and the consumptive use of water as it relates to the
ironmaking subcategory.
Actual Costs Incurred by the
Plants Sampled or Solicited for this Study
Tables VIII-1 and VIII-2 present the water pollution control costs
reported by dischargers which were sampled during the original or
toxic pollutant surveys or which responded to the D-DCPs. The
reported costs have been updated to July 1978 dollars. In most
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, these costs
were provided by the industry. It should be noted that the
amortization costs reported by the industry (cost of capital and
depreciation) are similar to the amortization costs which would have
been determined by applying the factors noted on the tables.
As shown below, the capital cost data provided by the industry were
compared with the Agency's estimates of required expenditures for
eleven plants. The Agency's estimates are based upon the model
treatment system size factored to the size of each of the eleven
plants.
375
-------
Plant No.
Actual Costs
Estimated Costs
0060
*0060F
*01 12
*0112D
0384A
*0396A
0432A
0684F
*0868A
*0920B
0946A
TOTAL
2,963,000
6,020,000
7,384,000
8,217,000
20,896,000
1,664,000
9,290,000
22,507,000
4,707,000
5,172,000
6.492.000
6,464,000
4,845,000
13,346,000
13,350,000
21,819,000
5,435,000
8,907,000
16,239,000
7,071,000
7,923,000
3.573.000
100,559,000
115,010,000
~Plants which exhibited effluent flows equal to or less than the BPT
treatment model effluent flow of 125 gal/ton.
Of the Agency's estimated plant costs, 67 percent are greater than the
actual costs reported by industry. More important, however, is the
comparison of the total actual and the total estimated costs, as this
comparison reflects the overall accuracy of the Agency's estimate of
the costs of compliance for the entire ironmaking subcategory. As the
reported cost total is 87 percent of the estimated total, the Agency
concluded that its estimates fairly reflect the actual cost of
compliance with its proposed limitations and these estimates are
sufficiently generous to account for site-specific and other
incidental costs (such as retrofit) which might be incurred by
industry. A more detailed discussion of this issue is contained in
Section VII of Volume I. The reported cost total for those plants
with effluent flows equal to or less than the BPT treatment model
effluent flow is only 64 percent of the estimated cost total for these
plants. This comparison demonstrates that plants may achieve the
proposed limitations while employing treatment systems installed at
less cost than estimated on the basis of the model treatment system.
In addition, the Agency compared its estimated costs for its model
treatment system with a cost estimate prepared by an engineering firm
for the same model treatment system. This firm estimated the costs
for the second BAT treatment alternative in the October 1979 draft
development document and supplied its estimate as a comment regarding
the draft development document. A comparison of the flow basis and
estimated costs for the treatment model and company model (both
systems utilize the same model size) follows:
NOTE
The costs reported by Plant 0684F include expenditures for
screening, settling tanks, and other items which were not
included in the Agency's estimated costs.
EPA Estimate
Engineering Firm
Estimate
Flow 50 gal/ton
Capital $2.49 million
100 gal/ton
$3.94 million
376
-------
While the Agency's estimate appears to be substantially less than the
engineering firm's estimate, when the Agency's estimate is adjusted on
the basis of flow to conform to the engineering firm's model (100
gal/ton), the Agency's estimated cost increases to $3.78 million.
This is within 4.1 percent of this engineering firm's unsolicited
estimate thereby providing a further check on the Agency's costing
methodology. The general discussion regarding this issue in Volume I
provides further verification of the accuracy of the Agency's
estimates of treatment model costs.
Control and Treatment Technology in Use
or Available to Blast Furnace Operations
The variations in technology in use or available for use to treat
blast furnace wastewaters are presented in Table VII1-3. It should be
noted that a discharger is not required to use any of the model
technology components, as any method of treatment which achieves the
effluent limitations is adequate. In addition to listing the
treatment methods available, these tables describe for each method:
1. Status and reliability
2. Problems and limitations
3. Implementation time
4. Land requirements
5. Environmental impacts other than water
6. Solid waste generation
These tables also provide a summary of the treatment components which
comprise the BPT model and BAT alternative treatment systems for
ironmaking operations. Later in this section, the Agency sets out the
estimated costs for the individual components of these treatment
systems.
Estimated Cost 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 a treatment model upon which the cost
estimates could be based. The model size (tons/day) was
developed on the basis of the average production capacity for all
blast furnace sites. This averaging method was used so that the
concept of central treatment for the wastewaters from several
blast furnaces at one site could be more accurately represented.
The Agency developed the applied flow for the model treatment
system on the same basis.
The components and effluent flows discussed in Sections IX and X
were then incorporated to complete the development of the
treatment model. Subsequently, unit costs for each treatment
model component were developed. Table VII1-4 presents the
estimated investment and annual expenditures associated with the
application of BPT treatment technologies to the treatment model.
The capital requirements needed to achieve the BPT level of
treatment for the ironmaking subcategory were determined by
377
-------
applying the treatment component model costs, adjusted for size,
to each blast furnace site. These estimates pertain to only iron
blast furnaces as no ferromanganese blast furnaces are currently
in operation. As noted previously, ferromanganese blast furnace
production has been only a minor segment of all ironmaking
operations. In order to assess the economic impact of the
various effluent limitations upon the industry, the Agency
estimated the expenditures required to bring those plants from
current treatment levels to the BPT level from which BAT
technology can be installed. Table VII1-5 presents a summary of
the estimated expenditures required to achieve the proposed BPT
limitations for all iron blast furnaces. The estimated capital
requirement of BPT for this subcategory is $122.3 million, while
the estimated annual cost is $95.28 million. A recent survey of
the industry by EPA (June 1980), indicates that only about $22
million of BPT technology has not been spent or committed.
B. Costs Required to Achieve the Proposed BAT Limitations
The Agency considered five alternative treatment systems for the
ironmaking subcategory. The descriptions, rationale, and
additional details for these alternatives are provided in Section
X. The Agency's estimate of the additional investment and annual
expenditures to be incurred in applying each of the BAT
alternative treatment systems to the BPT model treatment system
are set out in Table VII1-6. The total estimated costs for the
subcategory were determined by mutilplying the unit costs of each
treatment component by the number of iron blast furnace sites
requiring each component. The total annual costs for BAT were
obtained by multiplying the model annual costs by the number of
ironmaking operations. The estimated investment and annual costs
for each alternative treatment system for the ironmaking
subcategory are as follows:
BAT Alternative Investment Costs(l) Annual
In-place
Required
Costs
No. 1
$680,000
$10,822,000
$2,182,000
No. 2
611,000
16,015,000
3,045,000
No. 3
611,000
19,483,000
3,845,000
No. 4
3,642,000
38,178,000
8,415,000
No. 5
3,642,000
149,409,000
55,922,000
(*) Three plants which already discharge to quenching operations
are not considered in alternatives two through five, as the
Agency expects that wastewaters from these plants will continue
to be disposed of in the same manner.
As noted in Section X, the proposed BAT effluent limitations are
based upon BAT Alternative No. 4. The Agency recognizes,
however, that wastewaters from some plants will be disposed of by
evaporation on slag (Treatment Alternative No. 1). Although less
expensive than BAT No.4, BAT No.l will meet the proposed
limitations and achieves zero discharge of pollutants. The
Agency decided not to propose limitations based on BAT
378
-------
Alternative No. 1 because not all dischargers are physically able
to use this alternative. However, for the purpose of determining
industry cost requirements, the Agency estimated (on the basis of
an industry survey) that BAT No. 1 would be installed at 60% of
the plants and BAT No. 4 at 40% of the plants. The estimated
investment and annual costs of employing these treatment systems
in the ironmaking subcategory are as follows:
Investment Costs Annual
In-place Required Costs
BAT No.1 (60%) $ 639,000 $ 6,177,000 $1,293,000
BAT No.4 (40%) 3.642.000 14,398.000 3,630,000
TOTAL $4,281,000 $20,575,000 $4,923,000
C. BCT Cost Comparison
As noted on the BCT cost analysis, Table VIII-7, the three BCT
alternative treatment systems pass the BCT cost test. Refer to
Section XI for a review of the applicability of the BCT cost test
to the BCT treatment alternatives. The costs to achieve the
proposed BCT limitations are included in the BAT costs.
D. Costs Required to Achieve NSPS
Five alternative treatment systems were developed for new blast
furnaces which are constructed after promulgation of the New
Source Performance Standards. The NSPS alternative treatment
systems incorporate the treatment components of the BPT model and
BAT alternative treatment sytems. The NSPS treatment model costs
are presented in Table VII1-8.
E. Costs Required to Achieve the Pretreatment Standards
Pretreatment standards apply to those plants which continue or
elect to discharge to POTW systems. The three pretreatment
alternatives are the same as the NSPS Nos. 2, 3, and 4 treatment
systems. These systems provide reductions in the effluent levels
and loads of various pollutants, in particular, for the toxic
pollutants and in effluent flows. Refer to Section XIII for
additional information pertaining to pretreatment standards. The
model costs for the pretreatment alternatives are the same as the
costs for the NSPS Nos. 2,3, and 4 models and are included in
Table VII1-8. The costs to achieve the proposed PSES are
included in the BPT and BAT costs.
Energy Impacts Due to the
Installation of the Alternative Technologies
Comparatively modest amounts of energy are required by the various
levels of treatment for the ironmaking subcategory. The major energy
expenditures are being incurred at the BPT level while the BAT
alternative treatment systems require relatively minor additional
energy expenditures. This relationship reflects the use of vacuum
379
-------
filters, cooling towers, and primary recycle technologies (the major
energy consumers) in BPT. Energy requirements at the NSPS, PSES and
PSNS levels of treatment will be similar to the total of the
corresponding BPT and BAT treatment systems.
A. Energy Impacts at BPT
The Agency estimates that the BPT treatment components for all
ironmaking operations will use 527.5 million kilowatt hours of
electricity per year. This figure represents 0.9% of the 57
billion kilowatt hours of electricity used by the steel industry
in 1978.
B. Energy Impacts at BAT
The estimated subcategory BAT energy requirements, and the
respective percent of industry power use in 1978, are as follows:
BAT kwh per % of Industry
Alternative
year
Usaae
No. 1
5.40
million
0.009
No. 2
3.46
million
0.006
No. 3
5.18
million
0.009
No. 4
12.96
million
0.023
No. 5
27.00
million
0.047
Based on the considerations and data set out in the BAT cost
discussion, the Agency has concluded that the energy requirements
for the ironmaking subcategory are as follows!
kwh per year % of Industry Usage
BAT No.1 (60%) 3.20 million 0.006
BAT No.4 (40%) 5.28 million 0.009
TOTAL 8.48 million 0.015
The Agency considers the energy requirements set out above to be
reasonable and justified, especially when compared to the total
industry energy use and the pollutant reduction benefits
achieved.
C. Energy Impacts at NSPS, PSES and PSNS.
The Agency estimates of the energy requirements for the NSPS and
Pretreatment models are as follows:
Model kwh per Year
NSPS No.1 9.87 million
NSPS No.2 9.83 million
NSPS No.3 9.86 million
NSPS No.4 10.01 million
NSPS No.5 10.27 million
380
-------
PSES, PSNS No.1 9.83 million
PSES, PSNS No.2 9.86 million
PSES, PSNS No.3 10.01 million
The energy consumption for PSES is included in that for BPT and
BAT.
Nonwater Quality Impacts
In general, there are minimal nonwater quality impacts associated with
the model technologies. Three impacts were analyzed: air pollution,
solid waste disposal, and water consumption. The analysis conducted
for the ironmaking subcategory found that no significant nonwater
quality impacts will result from the installation of the treatment
systems under consideration.
A. Air Pollution
The use of wet cooling towers in the BPT model treatment system
may result in the atmospheric discharge of volatile compounds.
Cooling tower drift may contain toxic pollutants in levels
similar to those of the recycled wastewaters. However, the
Agency believes that any adverse environmental impact associated
with these emissions is minimal and localized. As no other air
pollution impacts are expected as a result of industry's
compliance with the proposed BPT limitations, the Agency
concluded that there are no significant air pollution impacts
associated with the proposed limitations.
With respect to the BAT alternative treatment systems, the
evaporation of process wastewaters on slag (BAT Alternative No.l)
may result in the emission of pollutants contained in the
wastewater into the atmosphere. In the event of treatment
process control upsets, sulfides or other reducing agents may be
emitted. However, as blast furnace process wastewaters are
typically in the neutral or alkaline pH ranges, the possibility
of atmospheric emissions, which are aggravated at an acidic pH,
is minimized. Activated carbon regeneration (required in
association with BAT No. 5), may also result in the emission of
some pollutants found in the wastewater. However, under proper
operating conditions these pollutants would be incinerated.
B. Solid Waste Disposal
The BPT model and BAT alternative treatment systems will generate
quantities of solid wastes. A summary of the solid waste
generation rates (on a dry solids basis) at the BPT and BAT
levels of treatment for the ironmaking subcategory is as follows:
381
-------
Treatment Solid Waste Generation for the
Level Subcategory (Tons/Year)
BPT 2.92 million
BAT No. 1 No additional solids generated
BAT No.2 1180
BAT No.3 1840
BAT No.4 4810
BAT No.5 4810
Although the quantities of solids generated at the BPT level are
substantial, these solids are often sintered and thus reused in
the blast furnace.
The Agency estimates the following solid waste loads at the BAT
level of treatment for the ironmaking subcategory.
Solid Wastes Generation for the
Subcategory (tons/year)
BAT No.1 (60%) No additional solids generated
BAT No.4(40%) 1960
TOTAL 1960
The Agency estimates that the NSPS and Pretreatment alternative
treatment systems will generate the following amounts of solid
wastes:
Treatment Solid Waste Generation for the
Level Treatment Model(Tons/Year)
NSPS
No. 1
54,060
NSPS
No. 2
54,090
NSPS
No.3
54,100
NSPS
No. 4
54,150
NSPS
No. 5
54,150
PSES,
PSNS
No. 1
54,090
PSES,
PSNS
No. 2
54,100
PSES,
PSNS
No. 3
54,150
As noted previously, the NSPS, PSES, and PSNS alternative
treatment systems are similar to the BPT and BAT treatment
systems. The solid wastes generated at the NSPS, PSES and PSNS
levels of treatment are of the same nature as the solid wastes
generated by the BPT model and BAT alternative treatment systems
and thus present the same disposal requirements and possibilities
for reprocessing.
C. Water Consumption
In the ironmaking subcategory, the Agency has included wet
cooling towers in the BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS alternative
treatment systems. Wet cooling towers are used to reduce system
heat loads and thus permit higher recycle rates. The use of
those devices results in some degree of water consumption (in the
382
-------
form of evaporation and drift). In response to the Third Circuit
Court's remand of this issue for reconsideration, the Agency
carefully analyzed the amount and degree of water consumed, by
evaporation and drift, in these cooling devices. In addition,
the Agency analyzed the amount of water which will be evaporated
for those discharges employing BAT alternative No. 1 (evaporation
of process wastewater on slag).
The total water usage in the subcategory is 1036.8 MGD. The
Agency estimates that the net amount of water which would be
consumed in the ironmaking subcategory at the BPT and BAT levels
of treatment are as follows:
Net Water % of Total
Consumption Volume Applied
BPT 5.4 MGD 0.5
BAT No.1 23.0 MGD 2.2
BAT No.2 0.3 MGD 0.03
BAT No.3 0.3 MGD 0.03
BAT No.4 0.3 MGD 0.03
BAT No.5 0.3 MGD 0.03
The estimates set out above are in addition to the 11.9 MGD of
water presently consumed in existing cooling devices (1.1% of
total applied volume). Based on the considerations and ratios
noted in the BAT cost discussion, the Agency estimates that 13.9
MGD (1.3%) of water would be consumed as a result of applying the
BAT levels of treatment to the ironmaking subcategory.
Based on the relevant factors discussed in Section III of Volume
I, as well as those discussed above, the Agency has concluded
that the impact of the proposed limitations and standards for the
ironmaking subcategory on the consumption of water in the steel
industry on both a nationwide and an arid and semi-arid regional
basis is minimal and justified, especially in li^ht of the
effluent reduction benefits associated with these limitations and
standards. Recycle systems were in use for blast furnace
operations in arid or semi-arid regions prior to promulgation of
the previous BPT limitations.
Summary of Impacts
The Agency concludes that the pollution reduction benefits shown above
justify any adverse environmental impacts associated with energy
consumption, air pollution, solid waste, and water consumption:
383
-------
Raw Waste and Effluent Load (Tons/Year)
Raw Waste
Load
BPT
BAT-1
BAT-4
Flow (MGD)
1,037
40.5
0
22.7
TSS
2,998,300
3082
0
517.8
Toxic Metals
41,280
385.9
0
38.3
Toxic Organics**)
252
9.9
0
3.8
Ammonia (N)
15,780
6349
0
34.5
Fluoride
15,780
1233
0
345.2
Cyanide, Total
15,780
924.6
0
34.5
Phenols
3,945
246.6
0
3.5
CDDoes not include cyanide or any of the individual phenolic
compounds.
384
-------
TABLE VIII-1
EFFLUENT TREATfENT COSTS
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
(ALL COSTS ARE EXPRESSED IN JULY, 1978 DOLLARS)
U)
CO
LTI
Plant Code
Reference No.
Initial Investment Cost
Annual Costs
Cost of Capital
(2)
Depreciation
Operation and
Maintenance
Energy, Power,
Chemicals, etc.
Other (Sludge)
Other (Misc.)
TOTAL
(1)
$/Ton
(5)
L
0946A
$6,491,520
$279, 135
649,152
198,425
297, 790
$1,424,502
$1,626
M
0396A
ISD
ISD
N
0448A
$1,664,000 $428,370
$71,552
166,400
NR
NR
0
0060F
$6,019, 896
$258,855
601,990
171,059
NR
ISD
ISD
026
0112D
$8,216,700
(5)
$532,500
547, 780(5)
1,169,000
501,000
$2, 750,280
$0. 725
027
0432A
$9,290,280
$399,482
$929,028
407,123
50,493
(4)
$1,786,126
$0,080
0684 H
$5,246,770
$209,871(5)
$349, 785C5)
351,410
241,345
141,156
$1,293,567
$1,636
-------
TABLE VIII-1
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
IRON MAKING BLAST FURNACES
PAGE 2
Plant Code
Reference No. 0060 0112 0384A 0684F 0868A 0920B
Plant No. 2 Plant No. 3 Total Nos. 1 & 4 Nos. 5 & 6 Total
Initial Invest- $2, 963,000(9) $7,384, 290 $14,998,460 $5,897,850 $20,896,310 $12, 191,480 $10,315,160 $22, 506,640 $4, 706, 780 $5,171,700
ment Cose
Annual Costs
CoSt Of / | \ / c\ /e\ / c\ / c\ / o\
Capital $ 127,410 $5 5 3 , 822* ' $644,934 $253,608 $898 , 542 $975,318*J' $825,213VJ' $1,800,531v ' $404,373'°' $222,383
Depreciation*" $ 2%,300 410,238(5) 1,499,84 6 589,785 2,089,631 812, 765(5 ) 687,678(5> 1,500,443(5) 188,271<5> 517,170(5)
Operation and ISD 1,006,686 278,537 484,751 763,288 700,941 698,468 1,399,409 786,132 107,328
Maintenance
Energy, Power, ISD 91,172 570,861 277,278 848,139 502,394 327,698 830,092 467,004 212,592
Chemicals, etc.
u>
Other (Sludge) - 438,084 438,084 206,512 124,994 331,506 58,452
Other (Misc.) - 98,860 61,858 125,636 187,494 - 71,547
TOTAL ISD $2, 160, 778(7) $3,056,036 $2, 169, 142 $5,225,178 $3,197,930 $2 , 664 , 051 $5,861,981 $1 ,975, 779 $1,059,473
$/Too(6) ISD $1.14(7) $0,778 $1,420 $0 , 957 $3,067 $1,870 $2,376 $1,668 $1,204
NR : No cost data received.
ISD: Data which was supplied is insufficient to establish blast furnace wastewater treatment costs.
* Confidential
(1) Except where footnoted, the cost of capital is based on the formula, initial investment x 0.043.
(2) Except where footnoted, the depreciation is based on the formula, initial investment x 0.10.
(3) These reported costs most likely reflect an inability to break out the desired costs from the entire
gas washer system.
(4) The total cost over a ntmber of years was only supplied. Based on a review of equipment installation dates as presented in the 308 the
following apportionment was devised, 75Z of total cost in 1951 and 25Z in 1971.
(5) Company basis capital cost and depreciation amounts.
(6) Tonnage is based on plant visit or detailed questionnaire data.
(7) This cost does not include operating expense of pickling up drip legs (current construction) but this would be quite minor in comparison
to other costs.
(8) This value represents Total Fixed Costs as supplied by the company. This amount includes insurance, capital cost, etc. but not taxes or
depreciation.
(9) Does not include all costs (as stated by company).
-------
TABLE VIII-2
EFFLUENT TREATMENT COSTS
FERROMANGANESE BLAST FURNACES
(ALL COSTS ARE EXPRESSED IN JULY, 1978 DOLLARS)
Plant Code
Reference No.
Initial Investmant Cost
Annual Costs
Cosc of Capital^
(2)
Depreciation
Operation and Maintenance
Energy, Power, Chemicals, etc.
Other (sludge)
TOTAL
$/Ton
Q
0112C
025
0112C
$3, 809,500
163 , 808
380 , 950
382,780
151,260
283,118
$1,361,916
$ 6.422
$9,296,200
399,737
929, 620
491,760
68 , 844
317,004
$2,206,965
$ 9.360
(3)
(1) Cost of capital is based on the formula, 0.043 x initial investment.
(2) Depreciation is based on 102 of the initial investment (10 year depreciation).
(3) Inasmuch as a portion of the investment cost covers the period 1964-68, the cost for
this period was broken down to 65% in 1964 and 35% in 1967 based on 308 information.
387
-------
TABLE VIII-3
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
IRONMAKINC SUBCATEGORY
UJ
00
00
Treatnent and/or
Control Methods
Employed
A. Thickener-
provides solids
removal via
gravity sedimen-
tation.
Status and Reliability
Widely used in this sub*
category and in other
wastewater treatment prac-
tices throughout the steel
industry. Approximately
902 of blast furnace plants
use this technology.
Problems and
Limitations
Hydraulic surges oust
be controlled. Accumu-
lated solids must be
continuously or
frequently removed
to prevent damage to
thickener mechanical
equipment.
Implementation Land
Time Requirements
15-18 months
150' x 460'
B. Polymer Widely used in this sub-
Addition- polymer category and in other waste-
is added to thick- water treatment operations
ener influent to throughout the steel industry,
enhance the re- Approximately 432 of blast
moval of sus- furnace plants use this
pended solids. technology.
Dissolved solids level
will be slightly in-
creased .
6 months
40' x 80'
Environmental Impact
Other Than Water
Air quality impacts are
minimal. Settled solids
must receive proper dis-
posal, however, they can
be reprocessed in the
sinter process.
Increases the amount of
solids requiring
disposal.
Solid Waste Generation
& Primary Constituents
The solid waste genera-
tion rate for the treat-
ment model, on the basis
of dry solids is 49.4
lb/ton (148 ton/day,
54,100 ton/year). These
solids consist pri-
marily of the various
metal oxides, primarily
iron, hence these solid
can be reprocessed via
sintering.
Included with Step A.
C. Vacuum Filter-
used to dewater
the thickener
underflow. Fil-
trate returned to
thickener influent.
Widely used in this sub-
category. Approximately
402 of blast furnace
plants use this technology.
Rout i ne m ai nt enan ce,
including periodic
media replacement is
essential for proper
equipment performance.
15-18 months 55* x 80* The dewatered solids
must receive proper
disposal.
Refer to Step A.
D. Cooling Tower- Widely used in this sub-
category. Approximately
Used to reduce
the recycled
wastewater heat
load.
E. Recycle-The
majority of the
thickener
effluent is
returned to the
process•
232 of blast furnace plants
use this technology. Widely
used in other wastewater
treatment and recycle
systems.
Widely used in this sub-
category. Approximately
Approximately 502 of blast
furnace plants use recycle.
Periodic cleaning and 18-20 months 35' x 70*
aaintenance requi red.
Chemicals must be added
to control fouling of
the tower.
Scaling, fouling, and 12-14 months 50* x 60'
plugging are potential
problems. Routine
maintenance is a necessity.
Duplciate piping in cri-
tical scale buildup areas
will ease problems related
to scale buildup.
Air quality impacts may
occur due to evaporation
of volatile pollutants,
however, these discharges
are expected to be
minimal. Cooling tower
drift may effect
immediate site sur-
roundings .
-------
TABLE ¥111-3
OntTKH. AND TBATIKHT TECHNOLOGIES
uamunK si* cats goby
PACE 2
Treatment and/or
Control Metbod*
Employed
P. Increase re-
cycle rate fm
96Z to 98!.
Pra«iaisna are
incorporated to
increaae recycle
and thua reduce
effluent flow.
Status and Reliability
Doacnst rated on the basil
of long-ten data.
Probl ou and
Limitati ana
I-Pl aienC«Ci« Land
Time leyiiwunf
Tbe problai identified 6 Booths HA - Included
in It cm B above remain in Step E
And suit be even more
carefully controlled.
Environmental Impact
Other Than Water
Hone
Solid Waste Generation
t Primary Constituents
None
G. Evaporation to Several blsst furnace
u>
CD
i£>
extinction on
slag. The blow-
dovn from Step
F is evaporated
to extinction on
elag.
H. Filtration-
Filters arc used
Co provide addi-
tional suspended
solids removal.
plants nee recycle blow-
down to quench slag. The
70 gal/ton evaporation
rate has been demonstrated.
Used at two blast furnace
plants. This technology is
also widely used in other
subcategory wastewater
treatment operations.
I. Sulfide pre-
cipitation - A
sulfide souree is
added to focm
metallic sulfide
precipitates
which are subse-
quently removed via
filtration. Sulfide
is also used as a
decblorinstion agent.
The problems identified 6 moo the
in Steps E and F
remain.
Maintenance and back- 15-18 months
wash schedule should
be established to ensure
proper filter efficiency.
Hydraulic and/or solids
overloads must be con-
trolled.
HA
151 x 25 *
Mo blast furnace waatewater
treatment systems currently
use sulfide precipitation
technology. However, this
technology is demonstrated
in the metal finishing industry.
Care must be eaercised
in the handling of the
feed solution. Cereful
control is necessary*
6 moaths
10'xlO'
Air quality impacts may
occur due to discharge
of volatile pollutants.
Tbe backwash solids
must receive proper
disposal.
None
Proper dispossl must
be provided for tbe
sdditional solids.
Air quality impacts
msy occur due to atmos-
pheric sulfide dis-
charges .
The backwash solids
represent an addi-
tional solids
generation rate,
on a dry baaia of
0.02 lb/ton (123
lb/day, 22 ton/
year). These solids
are ainilar in
nature to the solids
removed in step A.
The metal sulfide
precipitates9 which
are removed in the
filtration step
(Step H), generate
an additional dry
solids load of
0.003 lb/ton
(16 lb/day, 3.0
too/year) for the
treatmeot nodel.
When used for the
purpose of dechlori-
nstioo, this step
generstes virtually
no solid wastes.
-------
TABLE VII1-3
CONTROL AND TREATS NT TECHNOLOGIES
I RON MURING SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 3
Treatment and/or
Control Methods
Employed
Status and Reliability
J. Lime addition** Several blast furnace opera-
used to increase
pH of wastewater
to 10 or above
prior to chlori-
nation.
tions eaploy liae addition
as part of alkaline chlori-
nation technology.
Problems and
Limitati ons
The pH control system
requires routine
cleaning, calibration
and Maintenance. The
liae feed and nixing
system requires
periodic cleaning and
aaintenance.
Iapiaseotation Land
Time Requi reaents
12 aonths
30,x30*
Environmental Impact
Other Than Water
Solid Waste Generation
& Primary Constituents
Additional solids will
require proper disposal
Dust control while handling
liae must be provided.
Included in Step K.
u>
vD
O
K. Clarifier-
provi des for
gravity sedimen-
tatioo of the
additional solids
generated in
Step J.
Gravity sediaentation
components are deaonstrated
widely in this subcategory
and in other wastewater
treatment applications.
L. Alkal ine
cbl or i nation-
used to oxidise
amonia, cyanide,
phenols, and
other contituents
aaenable to
chlori nation.
Refer to Step J above.
Hydraulic surges must 15-18 aonths
be controlled. Ac-
cumulated solids aust
be routinely removed to
avoid daaage of clarifier
aechanical equi paent.
40 *x40 *
Chlorine feed control 6 aonths
aust be properly main-
tained . Bctreae caution
aust be exercised in the
handling of chlorine.
lO'xlO'
Proper disposal of
solids aust be provided.
Potential for localised
atmospheric discharges
of chlorine.
When used in alterna-
tive nos. 2 or 3,
this step results in
an additional solids
generation rate, on
a dry solids basis,
of 0.058 lb/ton,(348
lb/day, 63.5 ton/year)
for the treatment model.
When used in alterna-
tives nos. 4 or 5, this
step results in an
additional solids
generation rate, on a
dry solids basis, of
0.061 lb/ton (363
lb/day 66 ton/year)
for the treatment
model. These solids
consist of lime and
its precipitates.
These solids are
dewatered via vacuum
filter,Step C.
Included with Step K
above.
N. Neutralisa-
tion - Acid is
added to reduce
the effluent pH,
to the neutral
range, prior to
discharge.
Demonstrated in this sub-
category and in a wide
variety of other wastewater
treataent operations.
The acid feed snd pH 8-10 aonths
control systems require
routine cleaning and
aaintenance. Caution
aust be exercised in
the handling of acid.
10'x20'
Acid fuses aust be
properly vented and
exhausted.
None
-------
TABU VIII-3
CONTROL AND TREAT* NT TECHNOLOGIES
IKON MAKING SUBCATEGORY
PAGE 4
Treatment and/or
Control Methods
Employed
N. Granular ac-
tivated carbon-
used to reduce,
via adsorption,
residual levels
of organic pol-
lutants in the
effluent of the
previous treatment
steps.
Status and Reliability
Problems and
Limitations
Implementation Land
Time Requirements
Mot used in the treatment Close monitoring re- 15-18
of blast furnace wastewaters, quired. Carbon requires
However, this technology is periodic replacement
lonths
ls'xas*
used to treat coke plant
wastewaters which contain
similar organic pollutants.
and regeneration.
Excessive solids in
influent could plug the
carbon column.
Environmental Impact
Other Than Water
Substantial mounts of
energy are required
for carbon regeneration.
Solid Waste Generation
& Primary Constituents
None
-------
TABLE VIII-4
BPT MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
Subcategory: Iroranaking
Model Size-TPD
Oper. Days/Year
Turns/Day
6000
C&TT Step
a(3)
B
C(3)
D
E
Total
_3
Investment $ x 10
4365
135
1691
1901
1450
9542
Annual Cost $ x 10
Capi tal
187.7
5.8
72.7
81.8
62.4
410.4
Depreciation
436.5
13.5
169.1
190.1
145.0
954.2
Operation and Maintenance
152.8
4.7
59.2
66.5
50.8
334.0
Sludge Disposal ,
Energy and Power
-
-
903.4
-
~ (2)
903 .4
4.9
2.1
106.6
130.6
65.3
244.2
Chemical Costs
-
210.2
-
-
—
210.2
TOTAL ...
Less Credit
781.9
236.3
1311.0
469.0
258.2(2)
3056.4
1292.0
1292 .0
Net Total
19.0
1764.4
Wastewater Parameters
Raw
Waste v
Load——-
BPT
Effluent
Level
Flow, gal/ton
3200
125
pH, Units
6-9
6-9
Ammonia (N)
10
103
Cyanide (T)
10
15
Phenols
2.5
4
Fluoride
10
20
Suspended Solids
1900
50
9
Hexachl orobenzene
0.01
0.01
31
2,4-Dichlorophenol
0.01
0.05
34
2,4-Dimethylphenol
0.05
0.25
39
Fluoranthene
0.08
0.08
65
Phenol
0.65
3.20
73
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.01
0.01
76
Chyrsene
0.01
0.01
84
Pyrene
0.05
0.05
392
-------
TABLE VIII-4
BPT MDDEL OOST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
PAGE 2
Raw BPT
Waste.* Effluent
Concentrations, mg/1 Load-— Level
114
Antimony
0.04
0.04
115
Ars eni c
0.05
0.05
118
Cadmium
0.05
0.05
119
Chromium
0.50
0.30
120
Copper
0.20
0.10
122
Lead
5.0
0.50
124
Nickel
0.25
0.15
125
Selenium
0.06
0.06
126
Silver
0.01
0.01
128
Zinc
20.0
5.0
(1) Costs are all power unless otherwise noted.
(2) Total does not include power cost, as a credit is supplied for existing process
water power requirements.
(3) Treatment components are used in tandem.
(4) Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
(5) Raw wastewater quality reflects the discharge of a or\ce-through system.
KEY TO C&TT STEP8
A: Thickener
B: Coagulant Aid Addition
C: Vacuum Filter
D: Cooling Tower
Es Recycle 96Z
393
-------
TABLE VIII-5
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
SUBCATEGORY; IRONMAKING
Basis: 7/1/78 Dollars x 10 *
: Facilities in Place as of 1/1/76
C6TT - STEP
Plant
In
Code
TPD
A
8
_c
D
E
Place
Required
Total
0060
4730
3785
117
1466
1649
1030-266
6581
1692
8273
0060 A
2560
75T9
w
1014
TOT
W
2619
3106
5725
0060 B
5600
4188
130
1622
-
1391
7331
0
7331
0060 F
2200
2391
w
925"
1041
STT^Bl
4845
381
5226
0112
10600
STI5
m
5T79
5571
T959-82
13346
82
13428
0112 A
19140
8756
575
379T
3517
5795-116
15634
3507
19141
0112 B
12550
579T
-
2633
T55T
5T55
14649
0
14649
0112 C
5200
4006
124
T555
175?
375-799
7835
923
8758
0112 D
10500
6107
189
I35T
2660
T5T8-81
13269
81
13350
0248 A
2000
555?
W
575"
984
7W
3203
1734
4937
02 56 E
2000
5555
n
57?
984
759
3133
1804
4937
0320
6275
4484
139
T7T7
1953
1490
6221
3582
9803
0384 A
22200
9T7T
297
1757
4169
3116-64
17153
3771
20924
0396 A
3400
JIB?
95"
1203
T35I
T5TT
6787
0
6787
0396 C
3180
2982
-
-
991
4066
0
4066
0426
1100
T377
59
611
687
3JT-191
3208
240
3448
0432 A
11000
6280
195
ra?2
5715
5056
8907
4821
13728
0432 B
5275
4041
IT?
1565
1760
1342
5731
3102
8833
0432 C
5367
55BT
m
T3BT
-
1144-212
6935
212
7147
0448 A
7200
SSTff
t?t
-
2121
T5T8
8609
151
8760
0492 A
1200
1662
52
644
75T
458-94
2764
870
3634
0528 A
5000
I5TT
121
T5T6
1704
T350
8554
0
8554
0584 B
10900
6246
m
55T5
5755
JUTS
8665
4989
13654
0584 C
5200
4006
124
T55T
1745
1331
4006
4752
8758
0584 D
2150
5J5F
73
913
1027
783
3271
1883
5154
0584 F
8020
5T55
161
55T2
2263
1726
7208
4150
11358
0684 A
2520
2594
80
iwy
1130
862
3599
2072
5671
0684 B
2800
3751
86
HJ75
1204
918
2763
3278
6041
0684 F
9200
5555
175
2185
2457
1874
12333
0
12333
0684 G
3150
5^66
W
1149
TT9T
985
4207
2277
6484
0684 H
2870
5555
87
1086
1222
893-93
6038
93
6131
-------
TABLE VIII-5
BPT CAPITAL COST TABULATION
SUBCATEGORY: IROMMkKIMG
PAGE 2
Plant
In
Code
TPD
A
>
C
D
E
Place
Required
Total
0684 I
2200
2391
74
926
1041
794
3391
1835
5226
0724 A
2800
5753
U
TJ7o
1204
142-776
2905
3136
6041
0732 A
800
1355
40
505
568
*35
2240
608
2848
0856 B
8600
55TT
168
5998
2360
TWO
7516
4328
11844
0856 F
8206
57S7
163
5555
2294
1750
5267
6247
11514
0856 I
6400
55T7
141
1758
1976
1507
6436
3483
9919
0856 ¦
8000
3IW
T5T
5009
2260
1723
5188
6153
11341
0856 0
1234
T!5ff
52
655
736
561
2397
1297
3694
0856 q
1100
T37T
-
srr
-
524
2712
0
2712
0856 R
67S0
Tsnr
145
TJT5
2041
95T-591
7465
2777
10242
0856 T
4707
377*
117
1462
1644
1534
0
8251
8251
0860 B
20611
9153
284
3545
3987
3041
9437
10573
20010
0860 B
9912
39OT
TBT
228S
2570
1960
12898
0
12898
0864 A
5700
*533
T3T
T5SU
TK*
731=675
4964
4290
9254
0868 A
8054
5209
162
2017
2269
1350-190
9180
2207
11387
0920 A
3100
2937
w
1138
1579
m~
4075
2346
6421
0920 B
4400
551*
112
1404
1579
1204
7923
0
7923
0920 a
4200
335*
TBS
T353
T333
TT7T
4889
2815
7704
0946 A
2400
2519
76
1097
837
3573
1934
5507
0948 A
5400
4098
157
T357
1785
599-762
6284
2674
8958
0948 B
1055
TS35
48
395"
670
3IT
0
3363
3363
0948 C
10700
6177
192
2392
2690
2011-41
13270
233
13503
345480*
12 J103*
467583*
* Totals do not include confidential plant*.
Note: Underlined cost* represent facilities in place. Where two figures appear in the same colusin, the underlined
portion is in place; the non-underlined portion raaains to be installed.
Legend
A - ThickeneT
B - Coagulant Aid Addition
C - Vacuus Filter
D - Cooling Filter
E - Recycle 96Z
-------
TABU VIII-6
ALTERATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS! BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLAKS
Subcategory: Iroouking
Model Sire-WD : 6000
Oper. Days/YMr: 365
Turns/Day s 3
Alternative
C*TT Stepa
«o. 1
•o.
2
Mo.
3
Ho. 4
Mo. 5
r
C
Total
p a
Total
r.H i
Total P, H, 1 J
K
L
M
Total
J.E.L
H
Total
Investment $ x 10 ' j
41
172
213
285
326
68
394
94
233
44
55
820
2181
3001
Annual Coata J * 10
Capital
1.8
7.4
9.2
12.3
14.1
2.9
17.0
4.0
10.0
1.9
2.4
35.3
93.8
129.1
Depreciation
4.1
17.2
21.3
28.5
32.6
6.8
39.4
9.4
23.3
4.4
5.5
82.0
218.1
300.1
Operatioo and Haiateoam
* 1AA2)
6.0
7.4
10.0
11.4
2.4
13.8
3.3
8.2
1.5
1.9
28.7
76.3
105.0
Energy and Power
l.V '
2.5
2.5
1.6
1.6
0.8
2.4
1.6
1.2
0.2
0.6
6.0
6.5
12.5
Cheaicel Coata
-
-
-
-
-
2.6
2.6
2.2
-
4.8
3.4
13.0
-
13.0
Carbon Regeneration
~
—
-
-
-
-
536.8
536.8
TOTAL
7.3<»
33.1
40.4
52.4
59.7
15.5
75.2
20.5
42.7
12.8
13.8
165.0
931.5
1096.5
BAT
BAT Bo.l
BAT >o.2
BAT Bo.3
BAT Ho.4
BAT Ho.5
Haatawater
Peed
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Par
¦ectri
lewl
Level
Level
Level
Level
Level
Plait, gal/toa
125
0
70
70
70
70
pi (Dnita)
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-9
Amaia (aa ¦)
103
50
50
1.0
1.0
121
Cyanide (I)
15
2.5
2.5
1.0
1.0
Phenole
4
HO
3
3
0.1
0.05
Fluoride
20
20
20
10
10
Chlorine (leeidual)
WASTE-
-
-
0.5
0.5
Suapended SolIda
50
15
15
15
15
WATER
9
Hexachloro-
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
bensena
31
2,4-Dichloro-
0.05
DISCHAECK
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
phenol
34
2,4-Oiaethyl-
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.05
0.05
phenol
39
Pluorantheoe
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.01
65
Phenol
3.20
3.20
3.20
0.05
0.05
-------
TABU VIII-6
ALTERHATIVE BAT MODEL COSTS: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: IRON MAKING
PACE 2
Concentration*, mg/1
BAT
Feed
Level
BAT No.l
Effluent
Level
BAT No.2
Effluent
Level
BAT Ho.3
Effluent
Level
BAT No.4
Effluent
Level
BAT No.5
Effluent
Level
73
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
76
Chrysene
0.01
NO
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
84
Pyrene
0.05
WASTE-
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
114
Antimony
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
115
Arsenic
0.05
HATER
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
118
Cadmium
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
119
Chroaiia
0.30
DISCHARGE
0.25
0.10
0.15
0.15
120
Copper
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
122
Lead
0.50
0.30
0.15
0.25
0.25
124
Nickel
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.10
125
Selenium
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
126
Silver
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
128
Zinc
5.00
4.50
0.25
0.30
0.30
to
vO
^ (1) Coats are all power unleaa otherwise noted.
(2) Total does not include power as a credit is supplied for existing process water requirements.
KEY TO C&TT STEPS
F: Increase recycle rate to 98 Z
G: Evaporation to extinction on slag
H: Filtration
I: Sulfide Addition
J: pH adjustment with lime
K: Clarifier
L: Alkaline Chlorination
Hi Neutralisation with acid
N: Granular activated carbon columns
-------
TABLE VIII-7
RESULTS OF BCT COST TEST
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
A. BCT Feed
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants «¦ 50 mg/1
Flow - 0.75 MGD
Day/Year ¦ 365
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants discharged * 114,154
B. BCT-1
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants ¦ 0
Flow ¦ 0
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants discharged ¦ 0
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants removed via treatment
114,154 - 0 - 114,154
Annual cost of BCT-1 - $40,400* $/lb - 0.35 PASS
* Includes all C&TT Steps.
C. BCT-2
Effluent concentrations of conventional pollutants ¦ 15 mg/1
Flow ¦ 0.42 MGD
Days/Year ¦ 365
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants discharged * 19,191
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants removed via treatment
114, 154 - 19,178 - 94,976
Annual Cost of BCT System » $59,700* $/lb ¦ 0.63 PASS
* Includes only the recycle and filtration steps.
D. BCT-3
Effluent concentration of conventional pollutants - 15 mg/1
Flow - 0.42 MGD
Days/Year -365
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants discharged ¦ 19,191
lbs/Year of conventional pollutants removed via treatment
114,154 - 19,178 - 94 , 976
Annual Cost of BCT System ¦ $102,400* $/lb ¦ 1.08 PASS
* Includes only the recycle, clarification, and filtration steps.
398
-------
TABLE VIII-8
NSPS, PSES AMD PS MS MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 D"""
Subcategory: Irons king
Model Sixe-TPD : 6000
Oper. Daya/Yeari "jg
Turns/Day i ~J
U>
VO
VO
,-3
Alternative
CUT Stepe
Investment $ i 10~'
Annual Coats $ z 10
Capi tal
Depreciation
Operation and Mai at
Sludge Disposal ...
Energy and Power
Cbenical Costs
Carbon Regeneration
TOTAL
Lesa Credit
Net Total
(4)
NSPS Alternative Ho. 1
USPS Alternative Ho. 2;
PSES and PSNS
Alternative No. 1
NSPS Alternative No. 3;
PSES and PSNS
Alternative No. 2
^(3)
B
D
E
F
Total
A through E 6
Total
A through E A G H
Total
4635
135
1691
1901
1466
172
9730
285
9843
68
9911
187.7
5.8
72.7
81.8
63.0
7.4
418.4
12.3
423.3
2.9
426.2
436.5
13.5
169.1
190.1
146.6
17.2
973.0
28.5
984.3
6.8
991.1
152.8
4.7
59.2
66.5
51.3
6.0
340.5
10.0
344.5
2.4
346.9
-
-
903.4
-
" I 7\
-
903.4
-
903.4
-
903.4
4.9
2.1
106.6
130.6
65.3
2.5
246.7
1.6
245.8
0.8
246.6
_
210.2
—
_
_
210.2
~~
210.2
2.6
212.8
781.9
236.3
1311.0
469.0
(2)
260. 9
33.1
3092.2
52.4
3111.5
15.5
3127.0
1292.0
1292.0
1292 .0
1292 .0
19.0
1800.2
1819.5
1835.0
Wast Custer
Paraaetera
Raw
Haste
Level
(5)
Flow, gal/ton 3200
pH, Doits 6-10
NSPS No.l
Effluent
Level
NSPS No.2;
PSES and PSNS
No. 1 Effluent
Level
70
6-9
NSPS No.3;
PSES and PSNS
No. 2 Effluent
Level
70
6-9
9
31
34
AMonia (aa N) 10
Cyanide (T) 10
Rtenole 2.5
Fluoride 10
Suapended Solida 1900
Hexachlorobenxene 0.01
2,4-0ichloro- 0.01
phenol
2,4-Dijeethyl- 0.05
phenol
NO
WASTE-
WATER
50
2.5
3
20
15
0.01
0.05
0.25
50
2.5
3
20
15
0.01
0.05
0.25
-------
TABLE VIII-8
DSPS, FSES and PSNS H3DEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/78 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: IRON MAKING
FACE 2
Raw
Wast.
Concentration, ag/1 Load
39
Fluoranthene
0.08
65
Phenol
0.65
73
Be mo-a-pyre tie
0.01
76
Chrysene
0.01
84
Pyrene
0.05
114
Antimony
0.04
115
Arsenic
0.05
118
Cadaiiai
0.05
119
Chroaiua
0.50
120
Copper
0.20
122
Lead
5.0
124
Nickel
0.25
125
Seleniia
0.06
126
Silver
0.01
128
Zinc
20
NSPS No.1
Effluent
Level
NO
WASTE-
HATER
DISCHARGE
NSPS No. 2;
PSES AND PSNS No.l
Effluent
Level
NSPS No. 3;
PSES and PSNS No. 2
Effluent
Level
0.08
3.20
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.10
0.30
0.15
0.06
0.01
4.50
0.08
3.20
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.15
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.25
-------
TABU FIII-8
Ksrs, nu and rsm iddbl oost data: inn 7/1/78 dollais
so»cat*co*ti namuaoR
MX 3
Alternative BSFS Alternative lo. 4; PSE8 and
CtTT Step* A through B, G t"l
Imitint $ * 10*'
Annual Coat* $ i 10~
Capital
Depreci etioci
Operation i Maintenance
Sludge Diapoeal ...
Energy aod Power
Classical Coats
Carbon lefeneretion
t0rAL (4)
Leaa Credit
let Total
I
J
94
233
4.0
10.0
9.4
23.3
3.3
8.2
1.6
1.2
2.2
20.5
42.7
Intaiatn
Par Met era
Flow, gal/ton
pa
Aaoaia (aa ¦)
Cyanide (T)
Phenola
Fluoride
Chlorine (Beaidual)
Suspended Solida
9 Hexachl orobenxene
11 2f 4-Dichl oro phenol
34 2,4-Di»ethjrl phenol
39 Fluorenthene
65 Phenol
PSHS Alternative Wo.3 HPS Alternative lo. 5
I
L
Total
A through E, C through L H
Total
44
55
10,337
2181
12,518
1.9
2.4
444.5
93.8
538.3
4.4
5.5
1033.7
218.1
1251.S
1.5
1.9
361.8
76.3
438.1
-
-
903.4
-
903.4
0.2
0.6
250.2
6.5
256.7
4.6
3.4
223.2
-
223.2
-
-
-
536.8
536.8
12.8
13.8
3216.8
931.5
4148.3
1292.0
1292.0
1924.8
2856.3
USPS Ho. 4
and PTB Ho. 3
Effluent
Level
70
6-9
1.0
1.0
0.1
10
0.S
IS
0.01
0.0S
0.05
0.08
0.05
BPS lo.
Effluent
Level
70
6-9
1.0
1.0
0.05
10
0.5
15
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
-------
TABLE VIU-4
NSPS AND PIS MODEL COST DATA: BASIS 7/1/76 DOLLARS
SUBCATEGORY: IRONMAKING
PAGE A
NSPS No. A; PSES and PSNS No. 3 NSPS No.
Effluent Effluent
Concentrations, ag/1 Level Level
73
Benzo~*-pyrene
0.01
0.01
76
Chr y» ene
0.01
0.01
84
Pyrene
0.05
0.01
114
Ant imociy
0.04
0.04
US
Arsenic
0.05
0.05
118
Cadaiw
0.05
0.05
119
Chroaiw
0.15
0.15
120
Copper
0.10
0.10
122
Lead
0.25
0.25
124
Hickel
0.10
0.10
125
Sel eniun
0.06
0.06
126
Silver
0.01
0.01
128
Zinc
0. 30
0.30
0
^ (1) Coats are all power unless otberwiae noted.
(2) Total does not include power coat as a credit is supplied for proceaa water requirement a.
(3) Treatment caaponenta are used in taodea.
(4) Credit for recovery of sludge to sinter plant.
(5) Raw vaatewater quality reflecta tbe diacharge of a once-through aystaa.
KEY TO C4TT STEPS
A: Thickener
B: Coagulant aid addition
C: Vacuus filter
D: Cooling tower
R: Recycle 96Z
Ps Evaporation to extinction on slag
6: Filtration
B: Sulfide addition
1: Lisa pH adjustment
J: Clarifier
R: Alkaline chlorination
L: Neutralisation with acid
M: Granular activated carbon coltsana
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF THE BEST
PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The Agency has decided to propose the same limitations that were
originally promulgated in June 1974 las the Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT) limitations. The June 1974
development - document2 described the methods used by the Agency in
developing the originally promulgated limitations. This section
focuses on the achievability of those limitations.
Identification of BPT
A. Iron Making Blast Furnaces
The BPT model treatment system includes sedimentation in a
thickener; coagulant aid addition for enhanced solids removal
performance; sludge dewatering or vacuum filtration; and, the
recycle through a cooling tower of about 96% of the thickener
effluent. The remaining thickener effluent is discharged as a
blowdown. Figure IX-1 depicts the treatment system described
above.
B. Ferromanganese Blast Furnaces
The iron blast furnace BPT model treatment system applies to
ferromanganese blast furnace operations as well. However,
different BPT effluent limitations are proposed to account for
the higher blowdown concentrations of pollutants limited at BPT
for ferromanganese furnaces.
Table IX-1 summarizes the characteristics of iron making and
ferromanganese blast furnace process wastewaters. The proposed 30-day
average BPT effluent limitations are as follows.
»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-a, Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steelmaking
Segment of the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category.
403
-------
kg/kkg of Product
(lb/1000 lb of Product)
Pollutants
Iron Making Ferromanganese
Blast Furnace Blast Furnace
Ammonia (N)
Cyanide (Total)
Phenols
Suspended Solids
pH (Units)
0.0535
0.0078
0.0021
0.0260
0.4287
0.1563
0.0208
0.1043
Within the range 6.0-9.0
The proposed maximum daily effluent limitations are three times
the average values presented above.
Rationale for Selecting Proposed BPT Limitations
A. Treatment System
As noted in Section VII, the Agency found that each of the
components incorporated in the BPT model treatment system is
presently in use at most blast furnace sites. Based on the
widespread use of these components, the Agency concluded that the
BPT model treatment system is appropriate.
B. BPT Justification
Table IX-2 presents the effluent discharges for ironmaking
operations sampled by the Agency or for which D-DCP responses
were received. The only plants which did not comply with the
proposed BPT limitations are those which either had a
once-through treatment system or could not be fully evaluated due
to the nature of the system. Although, some of these plants
employ alkaline chlorination which aids in cyanide, ammonia, and
phenols treatment, the data indicate that the proposed BPT
effluent limitations for these pollutants can be attained by
plants which do not employ alkaline chlorination. The sampled
plants which are not included in Table IX-2, could comply with
the proposed BPT limitations if they used recycle systems.
The BPT model treatment system does not represent the only means
of attaining the proposed BPT effluent limitations. Other
treatment systems, or components thereof, may be used as long as
the proposed BPT limitations are attained.
C. Costs
Table VII1-5 presents a plant by plant summary of capital costs
required to install the BPT model system. As shown, the total
estimated capital cost of compliance with the proposed BPT
limitations is about 122.3 million. The status of each plant was
determined from DCP responses which described facilities in place
as of January 1978. Since that time, however, many more blast
furnaces have been retrofitted with BPT treatment systems and
some older, uncontrolled furnaces have been permanently shut
404
-------
down. Based upon a telephone survey conducted by EPA during June
1980, and the data presented in Table VIII-5, the Agency
estimates that about 21.91 million remains to be spent or
committed by the industry to achieve full compliance with the
proposed BPT limitations. All costs are in July 1, 1978 dollars.
405
-------
TABLE 3X- I
RAW WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
(All values expressed in mg/l unless otherwise noted)
IRONMAKING
BLAST FURNACES ll)
FERROMANGANESE
BLAST FURNACE (2)
FLOW (gal/ton)
3200
11,540
AMMONIA (as N)
10
711
CYANIDE(Total)
10
692
PHENOLS
2.5
6.5
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
1900
4160
pH (Units)
6 - 10
8.8" 11.3
(1) Raw wastewater quality reflects the discharge of a once-through system.
Certain values would be increased as a result of the incorporation
of recycle.
(2) Data is based on the one plant (no longer in operation) which was
operational at the time of sampling. These values reflect the
increases due to recycle.
406
-------
TABLE IX-2
JUSTIFICATION OF BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Ammonia (as N)
Cyanide (T)
Phenols
TSS
PH
C&TT Component]
Ironmaking Blast Furnaces
Proposed
0.0535
0.0078
0.0021
0.0260
6.0-9.0
T,FLP,VF,CT,
BPT
RTP-96
Plants
L (0946A)
0.0186
0.000173
0.000363
NJ
7.6
T,CLA,SS,
Fi Iters,RTP-37
N (0448A)
NJ
0.00724
0.000015
0.0163
6.7-8.1
T,CT,SL,RTP-97
ES
0 (0060F)
0.0356
0.00468
0.000004
0.0199
8.0
T,FLP,CT,VF,
RTP-97.ES
026 (0112D)
0.0133
0.000015
0.000009
0.0215
7.3-7.5
T,FLP,VF,NA,
CT.RTP-95
028 (0684H)
0.0125
0.000178
0.00157
NJ
8.2-8.8
A,CLA,FLP,CL,
CT,FLFC,NA,
RTP-92
030 (0112)
0.0437
0.00666
0.000066
0.0174
7.2-7.5
T,FLP,NA,VF,
(1)
CT.RTP(Unk)
0684H '
0.0117
0.000750
NA
0.0161
8.6
A,NL,FLP,
*
CLA,CL,VF,CT
Ferromanganese
Blast Furnaces
Proposed
0.4287
0.1563
0.0208
0.1043
6.0-9.0
See comments
BPT
in Section IX.
Plants
025 (0112C) No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
CL,T,VF,
CT.RTP-100
(1) Based on D-DCP analytical data
NA: No analysis
NJ: Not justified
NOTE: For definitions of C&TT Codes, see Table VII-1.
407
-------
Recycle 96%
Moke - up
COOLING
TOWER
POLYMER
PROCESS
~ Refer to Section It for
the effluent loads.
o
CD
Refer to Table IX"I for the
raw wastewater quality.
Solids to
Disposal 4-
VACUUM
FILTER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
RONMAKIN6 SUBCATEGORY
BPT TREATMENT MODEL
FIGURE TKr
R«
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION X
EFFLUENT QUALITY ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Introduction
This section identifies the five BAT alternative treatment systems,
and the respective effluent discharge flow rates and pollutant levels
considered by the Agency in developing the proposed BAT effluent
limitations. Since there are no ferromanganese blast furnaces in
operation or scheduled for operation, and since ferroalloy production
is now confined to "submerged" electric furnaces, the Agency is not
proposing BAT effluent limitations for ferromanganese blast furnaces.
Should any ferromanganese blast furnaces operate, appropriate BAT
effluent limitations should be established on a case by case basis
using "best professional judgment" considering the BPT and BAT
treatment systems contained herein for iron blast furnaces. The
technologies incorporated in the BAT alternative treatment systems are
capable of attaining similar pollutant effluent levels for both iron
and ferromanganese blast furnace operations. However, for the BAT
model treatment system, operating costs for ferromanganese treatment
systems are likely to be higher due to higher levels of ammonia (N)
and total cyanide in ferromanganese wastewaters.
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 treatment system model) as BAT alternative treatment systems
in the ironmaking subcategory.
BAT Alternative No.
The blowdown flow is reduced by tighter recycle of the BPT model
treatment system to the point where it can be consumed in the
quenching (cooling) of blast furnace slag. As all of the blowdown is
evaporated, no process wastewater pollutants are discharged into
navigable waters.
BAT Alternative No. 2
A reduced blowdown flow (70 gal/ton) is treated using filtration
technology. Pressure filters are used to reduce toxic metals levels
(as a result of removing suspended solids in which the toxic metals
are entrained) in the blowdown. In addition, the filters reduce the
levels of other pollutants which are entrained in the suspended
solids.
409
-------
BAT Alternative No. 3
Additional treatment of the reduced blowdown flow (70 gal/ton) is
provided by adding a sulfide source to the wastewater prior to the
filtration step described above. The addition of sulfide enhances the
removal of toxic metals by forming metal sulfide precipitates which
are subsequently removed by filtration.
BAT Alternative NO. A_
Lime addition and alkaline chlorination are added to the model
treatment system (BAT No. 2) prior to filtration. Alkaline
chlorination is used to oxidize (in stages) cyanides, phenols, and
other organics present in the wastewaters and also to provide almost
complete removal of ammonia. A clarifier is included to reduce the
levels of suspended solids generated by the use of lime prior to
filtration. The clarifier underflow is pumped to the vacuum filter (a
component of the BPT model treatment system). The pH of the clarifier
effluent is adjusted to the neutral range by the controlled addition
of acid. The wastewaters then flow to the filters. The filter
effluent is dechlorinated with appropriate reducing agents prior to
discharge.
BAT Alternative No. 5,
Additional treatment of the effluent from BAT Alternative No. 4 is
provided by adsorption on activated carbon. Activated carbon will
adsorb residual levels of toxic organic pollutants which may be
present in the wastewater.
The treatment technologies described above are in full scale use in
one or more blast furnace wastewater treatment systems, or
demonstrated on the basis of pilot plant studies in this subcategory.
The applicability of each treatment system is reviewed below.
The pollutants which were selected for limitation at the BAT level are
presented in Table X-l. The Agency's selection of pollutants for
which limitations are proposed is based upon the following
considerations: the relative level, load, and environmental impact of
each pollutant; the need to. establish practical monitoring
requirements; and, the ability of the selected pollutants to serve as
"indicator" pollutants (see Section V of Volume I).
Treatment for the selected pollutants will generally result in a
similar or greater degree of treatment for pollutants chemically
related to the selected (indicator) pollutants and found at lower
levels. For example, ten metals were identified in the process
wastewaters from blast furnace operations at concentrations greater
than 0.010 mg/1. However, the Agency is proposing BAT limitations for
only lead and zinc. Significant removal of the other metals will occur
in conjunction with the treatment and control of these metals.
Similarly, a reduction in total cyanide and phenols in blast furnace
wastewaters indicates a reduction in the levels of other toxic organic
pollutants. For that reason, phenols (4-AAP method) was selected as
an "indicator" pollutant for other toxic organic pollutants. Those
410
-------
toxic organic pollutants chemically unrelated to phenols are not
addressed as they are present in ironmaking wastewaters at levels at
or near the limits of treatability.
Rationale for the Selection of BAT
The Agency's rationale for selecting the proposed BAT model treatment
system, for determining effluent flow rates, and for determining the
concentrations of the regulated pollutants is reviewed below.
Treatment Technologies
Recirculation of treated wastewater is one of the major components of
the BAT model treatment system. The recirculation rate of the BPT
model treatment system is tightened from 96% (125 gal/ton) to 98% (70
gal/ton blowdown). Recycle of blast furnace wastewaters is a practice
which is widely demonstrated in the industry. The 70 gal/ton blowdown
rate has been demonstrated and is discussed in more detail below. In
the first alternative, the blowdown is reduced to the point where it
can be consumed to quench (cool) slag. Approximately 60% of the blast
furnaces have adjacent slagging operations. This alternative provides
an inexpensive approach to achieving the proposed BAT limitations.
This practice is demonstrated at several plants. Filtration is
currently used at two blast furnace operations and a filtration system
is being installed at a third. Sulfide addition is demonstrated in
the metals industry on similar wastewaters and is transferrable to
this subcategory. Alkaline chlorination is used in several blast
furnace wastewater treatment systems. The primary purpose of alkaline
chlorination is the oxidation of cyanide, phenolics, and other toxic
organic pollutants, as well as the removal of ammonia. The fifth BAT
alternative uses activated carbon for the removal of residual levels
of organics. No ironmaking wastewater treatment systems currently
employ activated carbon treatment. However, at this writing, a full
scale system is being installed to treat blast furnace blowdown.
Pilot plant data from this site have been reviewed by the Agency.
Flows
The Agency has retained the applied flow of 13,344 1/kkg (3200
gal/ton) developed for the BPT model treatment system for use in the
BAT alternative treatment systems. The discharge flow of 292 1/kkg
(70 gal/ton) for the BAT model recirculation system is based primarily
on wastewater treatment operations at plant 0112. A summary of
long-term data obtained by the Agency for this plant demonstrates that
the model effluent flow of 70 gal/ton is achievable. These data
represent averages of daily flow measurements.
411
-------
Month/Year
Monthly Average Discharge
Flow (gal/ton)
4/78
5/78
6/78
7/7 8
8/78
9/78
10/7 8
1 1/78
12/7 8
1/79
2/79
3/79
Average
91
64
69
82
68
63
52
51
38
85
128
53
70.3
It should be noted that the above data cover a period of 12
consecutive months (thus encompassing all seasons). Based on the
above long-term effluent flow data, the Agency has concluded that the
BAT model treatment system discharge flow is appropriate. Also, flow
data for Plant 0528A during the period January 1978 through December
1979 demonstrate an average blowdown rate of 66 gal/ton, thus
providing additional support for the flow used to develop the proposed
BAT limitations.
Wastewater Quality
The average and maximum effluent concentrations incorporated in each
BAT treatment alternative are presented in Table X-l. The development
of these effluent levels is discussed below.
BPT Regulated Pollutants
In the 1974 BPT regulation, the Agency established limitations for
ammonia, cyanide, and phenols. Following is a discussion of the BAT
treatment levels proposed for these pollutants. The discussions of
toxic metal and organic pollutant treatment levels follows.
Cyanide effluent levels in BAT Alternatives Nos. 2 through 5 take into
account the treatment accomplished by filtration and alkaline
chlorination. The effects of the former are incorporated in BAT Nos.
2 through 3, while the effects of both are incorporated in BAT Nos. 4
through 5. No pollutant effluent levels are considered for BAT No. 1
as no process wastewater pollutants are discharged to navigable waters
with this alternative. The cyanide effluent levels developed for BAT
Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 are demonstrated not only by the sampled
plant and long-term effluent analytical data provided in Section VII
for several plants, but also by the long-term data provided in Table
VII - 9.
The Agency's analysis of the capabilities of alkaline chlorination
technology, with respect to the destruction of cyanide in process
wastewaters, was primarily based upon the results obtained from pilot
studies conducted at two blast furnace sites. The data for one of
these pilot studies are presented in Table X-2. While this pilot
412
-------
study also incorporated activated carbon treatment in its system,
alkaline chlorination is the process which destroys cyanide. In the
other pilot study, the average influent cyanide (total) concentration
of more than 3.0 mg/1 was treated by alkaline chlorination to an
average effluent concentration of less than 1.0 mg/1.
As noted previously, the various treatment technologies were shown to
be capable of treating wastewaters of varying cyanide concentrations
to similar effluent levels. This conclusion is supported by data from
the sampled plant, D-DCPs, and pilot study analytical data. On this
basis, BAT technologies and cyanide effluent levels are demonstrated
as being applicable to all blast furnace operations. Additional
support for the cyanide effluent levels incorporated in BAT
alternative Nos. 4 and 5 is also provided in the D-DCP long-term
effluent analytical data presented in Table VI1-7. Based upon the
factors and data noted above, the Agency concludes that cyanide
effluent limitations contained in the BAT alternatives are supported
and are appropriate.
The effluent levels for phenols in alternatives 2 and 3 are based upon
performance of existing blast furnace recycle systems as the
technologies included in these alternatives are not credited with any
phenols removal capabilities. In BAT No.4, the Agency believes that
alkaline chlorination is capable of achieving significant reductions
in effluent phenol levels. The capabilities of this technology, with
respect to phenols treatment, are demonstrated in the sampled plant
and D-DCP (long-term) analytical data and in the results of the pilot
studies noted above. The results for the pilot study noted on Table
X-2 do not address the phenol treatment capabilities of alkaline
chlorination alone. In the other pilot study, a treatment system
which includes alkaline chlorination produced an average phenols
effluent level less than 0.10 mg/1 (while the average phenols influent
concentration was greater than 4.0 mg/1). The phenols removal
capabilities of BAT No. 5 are discussed in further detail in the Toxic
Organic Pollutants discussion which follows.
Ammonia (N) levels are effectively reduced by the alkaline
chlorination and associated treatment technologies incorporated in BAT
Nos.4 and 5. The ammonia (N) effluent levels for these alternatives
are based upon the pilot study data noted above. In one of these
pilot studies, alkaline chlorination technology achieved an average
ammonia (N) effluent level of less than 1.0 mg/1 while the average
influent concentration was greater than 50 mg/1. The data for the
other pilot study is presented on Table X-2. While this latter study
also incorporated activated carbon treatment technology, this
technology does not have a significant ability to remove ammonia.
The pH adjustment and dechlorination steps have been positioned in the
model treatment systems to achieve virtually complete cyanide
destruction and optimum ammonia oxidation. The location of the pH
adjustment step in the treatment scheme insures that sufficient
reaction time is available to convert the cyanates to carbon dioxide
and nitrogen.
413
-------
Toxic Metals Pollutants
The following discussions relate to the filtration, and lime and
sulfide precipitation treatment technologies as they are the BAT
treatment system components designed to control toxic metals.
The Agency reviewed long-term filtration system effluent analytical
data to determine the toxic metals removal capabilities of filtration
systems (BAT-2) used in similar wastewater treatment applications.
The data indicate that the majority of the toxic metals load is in the
particulate form and can be removed with the suspended solids. In
those instances in which the long-term data (noted above and discussed
in Volume I) are for ironmaking process wastewater filtration
applications, toxic metals removals are generally based upon the
degree of suspended solids removal accomplished. The sampled plant
analytical data presented in Section VII demonstrates this general
pattern, although the toxic metals effluent concentrations are
generally slightly higher than the levels expected strictly on the
basis of the metal/TSS ratio. Sedimentation and filtration do not
have a significant effect on that portion of the toxic metals
dissolved in process wastewaters (a minor portion of the toxic metals
total raw waste load). Additional details regarding dissolved metals
are presented below. The toxic metals effluent levels incorporated at
BAT, which are based on total concentrations, are supported by the
sampled plant and D-DCP effluent analytical data presented in Section
VII. In addition, pilot studies in the steelmaking subcategory were
also used to determine the treatment capabilities of the various
technologies as they pertain to the removal of toxic metals. Refer to
Appendix A of Volume I for the details of these studies. The Agency
concluded that ironmaking and steelmaking process wastewaters are
sufficiently similar that this pilot study data could be used (along
with other data) in determining the performance of various
technologies with respect to the removal of toxic metals from
ironmaking wastewaters. Maximum effluent concentrations for the toxic
metals are set at three times the average monthly concentration based
upon the data review detailed in Volume I.
In order to remove dissolved toxic metals and thus attain the highest
practical degree of toxic metal removal, the Agency considered lime
precipitation (BAT Alternatives 4 and 5) and sulfide addition (BAT
Alternative 3) in conjunction with filtration. The presence of
dissolved toxic metals in ironmaking wastewaters is related to the
nature of the process itself (some of the volatilized metals, e.g.,
zinc, are not entirely transformed to oxides) and to the amphoteric
nature of some of the toxic metals (primarily zinc) which results in
the dissolution of these metals at higher pH levels. It should be
noted that ironmaking process wastewaters are typically alkaline. In
fact, a number of plants employ acid addition as a means of
controlling the pH of their recycled wastewaters. While the Agency
did not find sulfide precipitation technology in use at any ironmaking
process, the capabilities of this technology with respect to toxic
metals precipitation have been demonstrated in the steelmaking
subcategory pilot studies noted above and in other industries. The
toxic metals effluent levels which can be achieved with this treatment
414
-------
technology were developed on the basis of the data review presented in
Volume I.
The toxic metals effluent levels which can be achieved by lime
precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration techniques were
determined on the basis of a review of sampled plant analytical data
in this subcategory and of pilot study data in the steelmaking
subcategory.
As noted above, sulfide addition was first considered as a means of
further reducing the loadings of toxic metals. However, since this
technology has not been demonstrated in this subcategory, and due to
potential operating problems and the marginal incremental metals
removal, the Agency concluded that sulfide precipitation (for the
purpose of reducing toxic metals effluent levels) should not be a BAT
model treatment technology. However, the addition of sulfide or other
suitable reducing agents can be used to effectively control excess
residual chlorine following alkaline chlorination. Hence, the cost
for dechlorinating at BAT (BAT-4 and BAT-5) was based upon sulfide
addition.
Toxic Organic Pollutants
The removal of most toxic organic pollutants, primarily phenolic
compounds, is accomplished in BAT Alternative No. 4 (alkaline
chlorination), although activated carbon treatment in BAT No. 5 is
designed specifically to remove residual levels of those toxic organic
pollutants which may be.present after treatment in BAT No. 4. It must
be noted that, with the exception of phenol and some of its related
compounds, ironmaking wastewaters contain few detectable toxic organic
pollutants after alkaline chlorination and that those organics are
present at only low concentrations. In consideration of the above
observations, the Agency has decided to use phenolic compounds as an
indicator of the degree of toxic organic pollutants treatment achieved
in BAT No. 4 and BAT No. 5.
The treatment capabilities of activated carbon are based on pilot
plant studies, sampling data from a coke plant full-scale operation
and literature which predicted treatment performance. The analytical
data from a blast furnace wastewater treatment pilot plant study are
presented on Table X-2. This pilot treatment system included alkaline
chlorination and activated carbon treatment components. The data
provided by this study support the attainability of the effluent
concentration for phenols incorporated in BAT No.5. In fact, the
maximum phenols effluent concentration observed in this study was less
than the average value incorporated in BAT No.5. Another blast
furnace wastewater treatment pilot study, which investigated the same
treatment technologies, achieved an average phenols effluent
concentration of less than 0.05 mg/1 with activated carbon. The data
presented in Volume I also support the applicability of the phenols
effluent level incorporated in BAT No.5. A major source of data in
the Volume I review was a coke plant wastewater treatment system. It
should be noted that many of the toxic organic pollutants found in
ironmaking process wastewaters are also found in coke plant process
wastewaters. This similarity can be related to the use of large
415
-------
quantities of coke in the ironmaking process. For the reasons noted
previously in this section, the Agency believes that the technology
and effluent levels discussed above are applicable to all blast
furnace operations. As with the other pollutants discussed in this
section, maximum phenols effluent concentrations are twice the average
effluent concentrations.
Total Residual Chlorine
A total residual chlorine limitation of 0.5 mg/1 daily maximum is
included in BAT Nos. 4 and 5 to control excess chlorine resulting from
alkaline chlorination. Various sulfide compounds can be employed to
destroy excess chlorine. The chemistry of this reaction is well
documented throughout the literature and the technology is well
demonstrated in other industries.
Effluent Limitations for BAT Alternatives
The effluent limitations for the BAT alternative treatment systems
were developed on a mass basis (kg/kkg or lbs/1000 lbs) by considering
the model plant effluent flow (70 gal/ton) and the respective BAT
treated effluent concentrations. Effluent limitations, presented in
Table X-l for each treatment alternative are on a mass basis; any
combination of effluent flows and concentrations which attain the
specified mass limitations is satisfactory.
Selection of a BAT Alternative
The Agency selected BAT Alternative No. 4 as the basis for the
proposed BAT limitations. The selection process included a review,
among other factors, of the treatability of the toxic pollutants
considered for limitation, 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 BAT
No.4 provided the most significant benefits with respect to the
control of toxic pollutant effluent loads. The pollutants of major
concern are phenols, cyanide, metals, and ammonia (N). As can be seen
in the summary of BAT effluent qualities (Table X-l), the effluent
levels of most of these pollutants are reduced only at BAT No.4.
Since chlorinated organics have not been found at any substantial
degree and are apparently not formed by alkaline chlorination of blast
furnace blowdowns, the activated carbon step included in BAT No. 5 is
not necessary. The Agency concludes that the effluent reduction
benefits associated with alkaline chlorination of blast furnace
wastewaters justify the negative aspects of the generation of low
levels of brominated compounds.
While BAT No.1 is the least expensive alternative and achieves the
highest degree of treatment (i.e., no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants to navigable wasters), the Agency concludes that this
alternative cannot serve as the basis for BAT effluent limitations for
the entire subcategory. Due to the methods of slag handling (i.e.,
remote from the blast furnace) some plants cannot employ this
technology. However, as noted in Section VIII, the Agency believes
that BAT No.1 may be selected by many plants as the least expensive
416
-------
means of meeting BAT requirements. Approximately 60% of the plants
employ slagging operations adjacent to the blast furnaces, and in
those instances the Agency believes that evaporation on slag can be
employed to meet the proposed limitations.
417
-------
TABLE X-l
BAT EFFLUENT LEVELS AND LOADS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Ammonia (as N)
Average
Maximum
Cyanide (T)
Average
Maximum
Alternative No.l
ks/kks
(2)
(1)
mg/1
Alternative No.2 Alternative No.3 Alternative No.4 Alternative No.5
kg/kkg^ mg/1 kg/kkg^ mg/1 kg/kkg^ mg/1 kg/kkg^ mg/1
0.0146
0.0292
0.000730
0.00146
50 0.0146
100 0.0292
2.5
5.0
0.000730
0.00146
50 0.000292 1.0 0.000292 1.0
100 0.000584 2.0 0.000584 2.0
2.5 0.000292 1.0 0.000292 1.0
5.0 0.000584 2.0 0.000584 2.0
Phenol8
Average
Maximum
0.000876 3 0.000876 3 0.0000292 0.10 0.0000146 0.05
0.00175 6 0.00175 6 0.0000584 0.20 0.0000292 0.10
Chlorine (Residual)
Maximum
0.000146 0.5
0.000146 0.5
Lead
Average
Maximum
0.0000876 0.30
0.000263 0.90
0.0000438 0.15
0.000131 0.45
0.0000730
0.000219
0.25
0.75
0.0000730
0.000219
0.25
0.75
Zinc
Average
Maximum
0.00131 4.5
0.00394 13.5
0.0000730 0.25
0.000219 0.75
0.0000876
0.000263
0.30
0.90
0.0000876
0.000263
0.30
0.90
Flow
1/kkg
gal/ton
292
70
292
70
292
70
292
70
(1) Alternative No. 1 accomplishes no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable waters.
(2) kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) of product.
NOTE: Proposed BAT effluent limitations are based upon BAT Alternative No. 4, the selected alternative.
-------
BAT
BPT
ir COOLING
] TOWERS I \
i J |
BAT-1
Polymer
EVAPORATION
ON SLAG
Row
-**XA==-\.
J thickener!
120 gat/too
FILTERS
r"vACiwiS"|
I FILTER J
BAT-3
To Oischarge
Solid*
BAT-4
-Lime
pH Control
w/Acid
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
FILTERS DECHLORINATION
CLARIFIER
Solids to
Vocuum Filter
BAT-8
pH Control
w/Acid
Lime
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
ACTIVATED
CARBON
FILTERS
DECHLORINATION
To ,
Discharge
BPT MODEL
BAT MODEL
Solids to
Vacuum Filter
(1) Recycle is 96% at BPT. Recycle is increased
to 98% at BAT.
(2) Refer to Table X~l tor effluent quality and loads.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BAT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE X-
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XI
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BCT)
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).
However, 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).
Development of BCT
The reference POTW treatment cost for the conventional pollutants is
$1.34/lb. The detailed results of the BCT Cost Test are presented in
Table VIII-7. A summary of these results is presented below.
BCT Alternative BCT Cost Test Results
BCT-1 (based on BAT-1) $0.35/lb
BCT-2 (based on BAT-2
and 3) $0.63/lb
BCT-3 (based on BAT-4
and 5 $1.08/lb
The BCT alternative treatment systems and associated BCT treatment
components are illustrated in Figure XI-1. As can be seen above, the
BCT costs for all of the alternatives are less than the reference POTW
treatment costs; therefore, these alternatives pass the BCT Cost Test.
Development of BCT Limitations
The effluent level of 15 mg/1 for suspended solids in each of the
treatment models was based on a statistical review of long-term
analytical data supplied by the industry for several wastewater
filtration systems. The particulate matter suspended in ironmaking
421
-------
process wastewaters exhibits behavior similar to the solids in the
wastewater noted above. Refer to Volume I for a detailed review of
the determination of thirty day average and daily maximum effluent
concentrations.
Further support for the effluent level incorporated at BCT is provided
in Table VI1-9 which includes long-term analytical data provided for
Plant 0860B, a relatively tight recycle system. Although this plant
does not have a filtration system, it demonstrates the achievability
of the effluent level noted above. This limitation is also supported
by pilot studies (including filtration) conducted at another plant.
As noted in Volume I, the effluent limitations for central treatment
systems will be equal to the sum of limitations for each pollutant in
each subcategory. Ironmaking and sintering wastewaters are co-treated
at several plants. In the interest of establishing compatible
effluent limitations for the ironmaking and sintering subcategories,
the Agency is proposing a BCT limitation for oil and grease for the
ironmaking subcategory. This proposed limitation is based upon the
application of the concentration value developed for the sintering BCT
level of treatment to the ironmaking treatment model effluent flow.
The proposed BCT effluent limitations for the ironmaking subcategory
are presented below:
Proposed BCT Effluent
Limitations (kq/kkq of Product)
Suspended Solids - Ave.
Max.
ph (Units)
0.0044
0.0117
within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Oil and Grease
Max.
0.0029
422
-------
COOLING
TOWERS
, 98% Recycle
Raw
Wastewater
POLYMER
THICKENER
70 gal/ton
VACUUM
FILTER
I
Solids
(I)~Refer to Table XL'I for the effluent quality and loads.
BCT- I
EVAPORATION
ON SLA6
No Wastewater
Discharge
BCT *2
FILTERS
• To Discharge
(I)
BCT " 3
FILTERS
CLARIFIER
To Discharge
(I)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
BCT TREATMENT MODELS
town 11/29/80
FIGURE XI-I
-------
IRONMAKING 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 New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) are proposed. NSPS effluent limitations
are based upon effluent quality achievable through the application of
Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT), processes,
operating methods, or other alternatives, including, where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.
Identification of NSPS
The five alternative treatment systems developed for NSPS, shown in
Figure XII-1, are the same as the BPT and respective BAT alternative
treatment systems. The corresponding effluent standards for these
treatment alternatives are presented in Table XII-1. Following is a
summary of the treatment technologies incorporated in each NSPS
treatment alternative:
NSPS No. 1 - Gravity sedimentation in a thickener, coagulant
aid addition, vacuum filtration of solids, recycle
through a cooling tower, and evaporation of the
blowdown on slag.
NSPS No. 2 - Same as the above with the exception of
evaporation on slag. The recycle system blowdown
undergoes filtration.
NSPS No. 3 - Sulfide addition is incorporated prior to the
filtration step of NSPS No. 2.
NSPS No. 4 - Alkaline chlorination is incorporated prior to the
clarification step of NSPS No. 3. The pH of the
clarifier effluent is then adjusted to the neutral
range by the controlled addition of acid.
Dechlorination is incorporated as the final
treatment step.
NSPS No. 5 - Activated carbon adsorption is provided as the
final treatment step.
Rationale for Selection of NSPS
As the NSPS treatment alternatives are identical to the BPT, BAT, and
BCT treatment systems, the rationale presented in Sections IX, X, and
XI for these systems is applicable to NSPS.
All of the NSPS treatment schemes are addressed collectively below.
425
-------
Treatment Technologies
As noted in previous sections, the technologies incorporated in the
NSPS alternative treatment systems are demonstrated within the
ironmaking subcategory or transferred from other subcategories or
related industries (as discussed in Section X). Therefore, the
recommended treatment technologies are applicable to NSPS for
ironmaking wastewaters.
The resulting effluent wastewater qualities for the NSPS treatment
alternatives are presented in Table XII-1. As noted in Sections X and
XI, the critical pollutants and their effluent levels were based upon
the demonstrated capabilities of the various wastewater treatment
technologies.
Another available technology is nonevaporative cooling of blast
furnace wastewaters. This system has the potential for extremely low
blowdown rates, or, possibly, zero discharge. This technology is
installed at one plant and is currently being installed at others.
Flows
The applied and discharge flows developed for BPT and BAT are applic-
able, as well, to all NSPS treatment alternatives. As noted in
Section X, the treatment model effluent (blowdown) flow of 70 gal/ton
has been demonstrated on the basis of long-term operational data. In
addition, the treatment model recycle rate of 98% (as defined by the
model applied and discharge flow rates) is also demonstrated in the
ironmaking subcategory.
Selection of an NSPS Alternative
The Agency selected NSPS No. 4 as the NSPS model treatment system upon
which the proposed NSPS effluent standards are based. This
alternative was selected for the same reasons noted in the discussion
presented in Section X regarding the selection of the BAT model
treatment system. As noted for BAT, evaporation of the recycle system
blowdown to extinction on slag is a satisfactory means of attaining
the proposed NSPS, which are noted on Table XII-1 under the heading of
NSPS No. 4.
426
-------
TABLE HI-1
USPS - EFFLUENT LEVELS AMD LOADS
1ROHMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Anaonia (a* H)
Average
Maxiaua
Alternative Ho.I Alternative Wo.2 Alternative Mo.3 Alternative Mo.4 Alternative Mo.5
kg/kkg
(2)
(1)
¦g/1 kg/kkg<2) ag/1 kg/kkg^'
(2)
0.0146
0.0292
SO
100
0.0146
0.0292
t/1
SO
100
kg/kkg(2) ag/1
0.000292 1.0
0.000584 2.0
kg/lckg(2) eg/1
0.000292 1.0
0.000584 2.0
Cyanide (T)
Average
Maxiaua
0.000730 2.3
0.00146 S.O
0.000730 2.5
0.00146 S.O
0.0002 92 1.0
0.000584 2.0
0.000292 1.0
0.000584 2.0
Rienola
Average
Maxiaia
0.000876 3 0.000876 3
0.00175 6 0.00175 6
0.0000292 0.10
0,0000584 0.20
0.0000146 0.05
0.0000292 0.10
Chlorine (Residual)
Maxiaua
0.000146 0.5
0.000146 0.5
Lead
Average
Maxiaua
0.0000876 0.30 0.0000438 0.15
0.000263 0.90 0.000131 0.45
0.0000730 0.25
0.000219 0.75
0.0000730 0.25
0.000219 0.75
Zinc
Average
Maxiaua
0.00131 4.5 0.0000730 0.2S
0.00394 13.3 0.000219 0.75
0.0000876 0.30
0.000263 0.90
0.0000876 0.30
0.000263 0.90
8uepended Solida
Average
Maxiaut
0.00438
0.0117
IS
40
0.00438
0.0117
IS
40
0.00438
0.0117
15
40
0.00438
0.0117
IS
40
pH
Oil i Crease
Maxiaim
(3)
6-9
6-9
0.00292 10 0.00292 10
0.00292
6-9
10
0.00292
6-9
10
rio«
l/Wkg
gal/ton
292
70
292
70
292
70
292
70
(1) Alternative Ho. 1 accoapliebea no diacharge of process wastewater pollutant* to navigable waters.
(2) kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) of produce.
(3) Effluent liaitatioos for oil* and greaaea have been provided in recognition of the co-traetaent optioaa
available to thoee plants with sintering and irons king operations. Refer to Section XI for details.
NOTE: Proposed NSPS are baaed upon N8PS Alternative Ho. 4, the selected alternative.
427
-------
96% Recycle
COOLING
TOWERS
NSPS-I
THICKENER
70 gal/ton
NSPS-2
FILTERS
To Discharge
VACUUM
FILTER
NSPS-3
Sulfide
FILTERS
To Discharge
pH Control
w/Acid
Solids
NSPS-4
Lime
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
FILTERS
DECHLORINATION
•To Discharge
pH Control
w/Acid
NSPS-S
Lime
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
ACTIVATED
CARBON
FILTERS
DECHLORINATION
CLARIFIER
Discharge'
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
U) Refer to Table XH- I for effluent
quality and loads.
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
NSPS TREATMENT MODELS
FIGURE XII-
-------
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR DISCHARGES TO
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
Introduction
This section discusses the alternative control and treatment systems
alternatives available for blast furnace operations which discharge
wastewaters to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The blowdowns
from two ironmaking operations are discharged to POTWs. Separate
consideration has been given to new and existing blast furnaces:
Pretreatment Standards New Sources (PSNS) and Pretreatment Standards
Existing Sources (PSES).
The general pretreatment and categorical pretreatment standards
applying to ironmaking operations are discussed below.
General Pretreatment Standards
For 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 ironmaking 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,
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 and nonconventional
(i.e., ammonia) pollutants present in ironmaking process wastewaters.
Instead, POTWs are designed to treat biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform bacteria, and pH.
Whatever removal is 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.
429
-------
Preatreatment standards for TSS, 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 and nonconventional pollutants in
wastewaters from ironmaking 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 and nonconventional
pollutant removal, the rationale for these technologies, and, finally,
the selection of a pretreatment alternative upon which the proposed
categorical PSES and PSNS are based.
Identification of Pretreatment Alternatives
The PSES and PSNS alternative treatment systems are identical to NSPS
Alternatives Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Reference is made to Sections X and
XII for a discussion of these treatment systems.
Following is a summary of the treatment components incorporated in
each pretreatment alternative:
PSES and PSNS No. 1 - Coagulant aid addition, gravity sedimentation
in a thickener, vacuum filtration of sludges,
recycle (98%) through a cooling tower, and
filtration of the system blowdown.
PSES and PSNS No. 2 - In addition to the components noted above,
sulfide precipitation is incorporated prior
to filtration.
PSES and PSNS No. 3 - Alkaline chlorination and clarification are
incorporated prior to the filtration
component of PSES and PSNS No. 2. The pH of
the clarifier effluent is then adjusted to
the neutral range by the controlled addition
of acid. As a final step, the filter
effluent is dechlorinated.
The intent of the proposed categorical pretreatment standard is to
provide reductions in the effluent levels of ammonia, cyanide, toxic
metals, and toxic organic pollutants. Filtration and sulfide
precipitation (in PSES and PSNS Nos. 1 and 2) are incorporated for the
purpose of reducing toxic metals effluent levels. As noted in Section
X, the major portion of the toxic metals waste load is entrained in
the particulate matter suspended in the process wastewaters.
Consequently, suspended solids control by sedimentation and filtration
will result in the removal of a substantial portion of the toxic
metals load. Sulfide or lime precipitation will provide additional
toxic metals level and load reductions, as either or these
technologies will precipitate quite effectively that portion of the
toxic metals load dissolved in the process wastewaters. Alkaline
430
-------
chlorination technology is incorporated as a means of achieving
removal of ammonia (N), cyanide, and phenols.
Figure XIII-1 illustrates the three pretreatment alternative systems
described above. Table XIII-1 presents the effluent levels and loads
for each alternative of those pollutants considered for regulation.
As noted previously, the pretreatment systems are identical to NSPS
Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4, therefore, reference can be made to the
NSPS model cost data presented in Section VIII. No pretreatment
effluent standards are proposed for suspended solids as this is a
conventional pollutant which can be effectively treated by POTWs.
However, suspended solids removal is an important factor in toxic
metals control.
Rationale for the Selection of Pretreatment Technologies
The recycle rate incorporated in the pretreatment systems was
justified in Section X. Recycle is needed in blast furnace
pretreatment system discharges to POTWs in order to minimize the
hydraulic impact of these discharges. Excessive flows to a POTW must
be restricted not only for reasons of physical limitations (i.e.
hydraulics), but also for reasons of process limitations. The
pretreatment model effluent flow of 70 gal/ton is identical to that of
the BAT and NSPS models.
As noted previously, the toxic metals present in ironmaking
wastewaters are found primarily in the particulate matter, thus,
control of suspended solids will produce a reduction in the toxic
metals. In addition, precipitation technologies will facilitate
optimum toxic metals level and load reductions by removing toxic
metals which are dissolved in the process wastewaters. Toxic metals
can adversely affect a POTW by inhibiting the normal biological
oxidation process. In addition, toxic metals can pass through the
POTW system and contaminate the POTW sludges.
It has been shown 3 that the toxic metals (particularly lead and zinc)
found in blast furnace wastewaters, inhibit normal POTW biological
processes when found at levels typical of ironmaking process
wastewaters. The use of the treatment technologies described above
insures that the levels of lead and zinc (and, consequently, the
levels of other toxic metals) in ironmaking wastewater blowdowns will
not adversely affect POTW treatment operations.
Other studies 4 have shown that from 50 to 90% of the toxic metals
entering a POTW will pass through the system. Hence, POTWs could
discharge undesireable levels of toxic metals when accepting
industrial process wastewaters (e.g., ironmaking process wastewaters).
3EPA-430/9-76-017a, Construction Grants Program Information; Federal
Guidelines, State and Local Pretreatment Programs.
~Federal Register; Friday, September 7, 1979; Part IV, EPA Effluent
Guidelines and Standards; Electroplating Point Source Category - pp.
52597-52601.
431
-------
The toxic metals which do not pass through a POTW, are concentrated in
POTW sludges. This build-up of toxic metals in sludges adversely
affects sludge disposal. Sludges containing high concentrations of
toxic metals and used as soil supplements could adversely affect plant
growth and, more importantly, contaminate surface and groundwaters.
Unless a POTW is designed for nitrification, ammonia (N) will pass
through a POTW system. As not all POTWs have nitrification treatment
capabilities, and high ammonia levels and loads are typical of blast
furnace process wastewaters, ammonia (N) control at PSES and PSNS is
warranted. In the case of an ironmaking process wastewater
pretreatment system, treatment to reduce ammonia (N) levels and loads
is accomplished by alkaline chlorination and the associated treatment
technologies (described previously). The key factors in applying
these technologies are the adequacy of the chlorine feed and
provisions for sufficient treatment capacity and reaction time. The
discharge of significant ammonia (N) loads by a POTW, to a receiving
stream, often results in stream ammonia (N) toxicity and in
deoxygenation.
Alkaline chlorination, and its associated treatment components, are
also incorporated in an ironmaking pretreatment alternative because of
the demonstrated cyanide treatment capabilities of these components.
It has been shown3 that cyanide, at levels found in ironmaking
wastewaters, can have an inhibitory effect on the POTW treatment
process. Consequently, treatment for cyanide will insure that POTW
treatment operations are not adversely affected. It was also found4
that cyanide pass through averaged 70% in the POTWs studied. As with
the toxic metals, the possibility exists that a POTW could discharge
undersireable levels of cyanide.
In PSES and PSNS No. 3, phenols reduction occurs as a result of
alkaline chlorination for the control of ammonia (N) and cyanides.
However, most POTWs are capable of accepting and treating wastewaters
containing phenols if proper waste equalization and acclimation are
provided.
Selection of Pretreatment Alternative
On the basis of the considerations presented above (i.e., treatment
for toxic metals, ammonia (N), and cyanide), PSES and PSNS Alternative
No. 3 was selected as the alternative upon which the proposed PTS
standards are based. The proposed standards noted in Table XIII-1
apply to all new and existing ironmaking operations discharging to
POTWs.
432
-------
TABLE XIII-1
PSES AND PSNS - EFFLUENT LEVELS AMD LOADS
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
Alternative No. 1
Alternative No. 2
Alternative No. 3
kg/kkg
(1)
Amnonia (as N)
Average
Maximum
Cyanide (T)
Average
Maximum
Phenols
Average
Maximun
Chlorine (Residual)
Maximum
Lead
Average
Maximum
Zinc
Average
Maximun
Flow
1/kkg
gal/ton
0.0146
0.0292
0.000730
0.00146
0.000876
0.00175
0.0000876
0.000263
0.00131
0.00394
ag/1
50
100
2.5
5.0
3
6
0.30
0.90
4.5
13.5
292
70
kg/kkg
(1)
0.0146
0.0292
0.000730
0.00146
0.0000438
0.000131
0.0000730
0.000219
ttg/1
50
100
2.5
5.0
0.000876 3
0.00175 6
0.15
0.45
0.25
0.75
292
70
kg/kkg
(1)
0.000292
0.000584
0.000292
0.000584
0.0000292
0.0000584
0.000146
0.0000730
0.000219
0.0000876
0.000263
mg/1
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
0.10
0.20
0.5
0.25
0.75
0.30
0.90
292
70
(1) kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) of product
NOTE* Proposed PSES and PSNS are baaed upon Alternative No. 3, the selected alternative.
433
-------
Raw
Wastewater
COOLING
TOWERS
96% Recycle
Polymer
THICKENER
VACUUM
FILTER
Solids
70 gal/ton-
PSESaPSNS-l
FILTERS
»To Discharge
(I)
PSES a PSNS-2
Sulfide
Lr
FILTERS
¦To Discharge
It)
PSES ft PSNS-3
—Lime
"pH Control
w/Acid
ALKALINE
CHLORINATION
FILTERS
CLARIFIER
)ECHLORINATION
I
II)
Discharge1
II) Refer to Table TTTT-I for effluent
quality and loads.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STEEL INDUSTRY STUDY
IRONMAKING SUBCATEGORY
PSES 8 PSNS TREATMENT MODELS
FiraiRF YITT-I
------- |