ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES
IN THE METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY
Volume I
Executive Summary

-------
Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES
IN THE METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY
Volume I
Executive Summary
This final report (SV-14So.l) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management program
under contract no. 68-01-2604
and is reproduced as received fran the contractor
The report 1s in four volumes: (I) Executive Summary, (II) Primary
and Secondary Nonferrous Smelting and Refining, (III) Ferrous Smelting
and Refining, and (IV) Appendices
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1977

-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Its publication does not signify
that t^ie contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-145c.l) 1n the solid waste
management series.
11

-------
ABSTRACT
Investigations of on-land disposal of process and pollution
control residuals from the United States metal smelting and refining
industry were conducted. Characteristics of each industry sector,
including plant locations, production capacities, and smelting and
refining processes, have been identified and described.
Land-disposed or stored residuals, including slags, dusts, and
sludges have been identified and characterized for physical and chemical
properties. State, regional, and national estimates have been made of
the total quantities of land-disposed or stored residuals and potentially
hazardous constituents thereof.
Current methods employed by the primary metals industry for
the disposal or storage of process and pollution control residuals on
land are described. Principal methods include lagoon storage of sludges
and open dumping of slags. Methods of residual treatment and disposal
considered suitable for adequate health and environmental protection
have been provided.
Finally, the costs incurred by typical plants in each primary
smelting and refining category for current and environmentally sound
potentially hazardous residual disposal or storage on land have been
estimated.
i 11

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The EPA Project Officers responsible for overall direction of
this program were Messrs Allen Pearce and Timothy Fields, Jr., Office of
Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division. Technical program
performance was vested with Calspan Corporation, Buffalo, New York. The
Calspan Project Engineer was Mr. Richard P. Leonard. Mr. Richard Brown
assumed technical responsibility for investigations in Primary Copper,
Lead and Zinc Smelting. Dr. John Y. Yang was responsible for technical
program performance in the Secondary Metal Smelting and Refining Industry.
Dr. Robert Ziegler was responsible for performance in the Primary Aluminum,
Iron and Steel, Steel Foundries and Ferroalloys Sectors.
Mr. Hans Reif provided economic analyses of waste treatment
and disposal technology. Mrs, Sharron Pek and Mr. Michael Wilkinson
assisted in plant visits and sampling.
Consultant services on primary nonferrous smelting was provided
by Colorado School of Mines Research Institute. Mr. Andrew McCord of
CgM Company, Buffalo, New York provided consultant services on lagoon
design and costs.
Assistance in industry characterization and review of the
draft report was provided by the following associations:
Lead Industries Association, Inc.
Zinc Institute, Inc.
Lead-Zinc Producers Committee
International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc.
The Aluminum Association
National Association of Recycling Industries, Inc.
American Mining Congress
Ferroalloy Association
American Iron and Steel Institute
American Foundrymen's Society
The Aluminum Recycling Association
Appreciation is extended to the many companies who allowed
plant visits and interviews and supplied waste samples for chemical
analyses.
1V

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section	Pa8C
ABSTRACT	Hi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS		iv
LIST OF TABLES		vl
I	INTRODUCTION		1
II	SUMMARY OF FINDINGS			5
III	METHODOLOGY				7
IV	INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION			13
V	WASTE CHARACTERIZATION		17
VI	TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY		35
VII	COSTS OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL		43
V

-------
-ble
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Summary of Plant Visits	 10
Characteristics of U.S. Smelting and Refining Industries	 14
Residual Generation Factors For Metal Smelting and Refining.. 18
Estimates of Total Generated and Potentially Hazardous
Wastes From U.S. Smelting and Refining Industry, 1974	 24
Estimates of Total Generated and Potentially Hazardous.
Wastes From U.S. Smelting and Refining Industry, 1983 	 25
Estimates of Total Generated and Potentially Hazardous
Wastes From U.S. Smelting and Refining Industry, 1977	 26
Summary of Generated Wastes From Metal Smelting and
Refining Industry, 1974, 1977, and 1983	 27
Percent Composition of Generated Residuals, Metal Smelting
and Refining Industries	 29
State, Regional, and National Waste Generation, U.S. Smelting
and Refining Industry, 1974	 31
State, Regional, and National Waste Generation, U.S. Smelting
and Refining Industry, 1977	 32
State, Regional and National Waste Generation, U.S. Smelting
and Refining Industry, 1983	 33
Treatment and Disposal Technologies For Potentially Hazardous
Wastes, Metal Smelting and Refining Industry		 36
Summary of Annual Treatment and Disposal Technology Costs
For Potentially Hazardous Wastes, Metal Smelting and
Refining			 44
Annual Potentially Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
Costs as Percentages of 1973 Metal Selling Price	 47
Cumulative Waste Treatment and Disposal Technology Costs,
Primary Metal Smelting and Refining Industries	 49
Cumulative Waste Treatment and Disposal Technology Costs,
Secondary Metal Smelting and Refining Industries	 50
vl

-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
This report is the result of a study commissioned by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the waste generation,
treatment, and disposal practices in the primary metals industry. This
study is one of a series of industry studies by the Office of Solid
Waste, Hazardous Waste Management Division. The studies were conducted
for information purposes only and not in response to a congressional
regulatory mandate. As such, these studies serve to provide EPA with:
1) an initial data base concerning the current and projected types and
quantities of industrial wastes, applicable treatment and disposal tech-
nologies and their associated costs; 2) a data base for technical assistance
activities; 3) a background for guidelines development work.
The definition of "potentially hazardous waste" in this study
was developed based upon contractor investigations and professional
judgment. This definition does not necessarily reflect EPA thinking
since such a definition, especially in a regulatory context, must be
broadly applicable to widely differing types of waste streams. The
presence of a toxic, flammable, explosive, or reactive substance should
not be the major determinant of hazardousness if there are data to
represent or illustrate actual effects of wastes containing these substances
in specific environments. Thus,the reader is cautioned that the data
presented in this report consititutes only the contractor's assessment
of the hazardous waste management problems in this industry. The primary
and secondary* metal smelting and refining categories included in this
report are the following:
Primary Copper (SIC 3331)
Primary Lead (SIC 3332)
Primary Zinc (SIC 3333)
Primary Aluminum (SIC 3334)
Primary Antimony (SIC 3339)
Primary Mercury (SIC 3339)
Primary Titanium (SIC 3339)
Primary Tungsten (SIC 3339)
Primary Tin (SIC 3339)
Primary Magnesium (SIC 3339)
Primary Cadmium (SIC 3339)
* The primary metal smelting and refining industries use ore concentrates
or other natural resources as raw material,whereas the major raw materials
for secondary industries is scrap metal.
1

-------
Primary Arsenic (SIC 3339)
Primary Selenium and Tellurium (SIC 3339)
Primary Gold and Silver (SIC 3339)
Primary Platinum (SIC 3339)
Primary Bismuth (SIC 3339)
Primary Cobalt (SIC 3339)
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium (SIC 3339)
Secondary Copper (SIC 33412)
Secondary Lead (SIC 33413)
Secondary Aluminum (SIC 33417)
Iron and Steel (SIC 3312)
Iron and Steel Foundries (SIC 332)
Ferroalloys (SIC 3313)
Primary Metal Products Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 3399)
The larger metal smelting and refining industries,including iron and
steel, iron and steel foundries, ferroalloys, primary copper, primary lead,
primary zinc, primary aluminum, secondary copper, secondary lead, and second-
ary aluminum were studied in detail and plant visits made to representative
plants in all of these categories. The primary antimony, primary titanium,
primary tungsten and primary tin industries are very much smaller than the
industries listed previously,but were of significant size to merit detailed
study.
The primary magnesium industry is of significant size,but was not
studied in detail since most magnesium is produced from sea water with non-
hazardous wastes discharged to the ocean. The primary cadmium, arsenic,
selenium, tellurium, silver, gold, platinum, bismuth, and cobalt industries
were not studied in detail since these metals are produced predominantly as
byproducts of the primary copper, zinc or lead industries either at the
locations of these smelters or at specialty smelters.
At those primary smelter locations where the above minor metals
are recovered from flue dusts, slimes, or other residues, associated wastes
will comprise minor quantities of the larger waste streams which have
been studied in more detail (i.e., primary copper, zinc and lead).
Where these minor metals are recovered at specialty smelters
which process flue dusts and electrolytic slimes from other plants, such as
the ASARCO Tacoma, Washington, and Omaha, Nebraska smelters,a number of
metals may b? recovered in a number of complex operations. Specialty
smelters were not visited during the conduct of this program.
The primary mercury industry, although very small, was studied
in detail because of the great environmental concern for mercury.
The zirconium and hafnium industries were not studied in
detail because of minor production. There was no domestic production of
cobalt metal in 1972 or 1973 and therefore cobalt smelting and refining
was not studied in detail.
2

-------
The secondary zinc industry was not studied in detail since it
was ascertained that very little land disposed waste is generated in the
industry. Secondary antimony metal is almost entirely recovered in
conjunction with lead at secondary lead smelters. Production of non-
precious metals other than zinc, copper, lead and aluminum from secondary
sources is minor and not covered in detail in this report. There is
significant recovery of precious metals (i.e., gold, silver, platinum)
from secondary sources but associated wastes are negligible since maxi-
mum recovery is effected.
Report sections for the metal categories which were studied in
detail are organized into four subsections. They are as follows:
Industry Characterization
Waste Characterization
Treatment and Control Technology
Costs of Treatment and Control Technology
For each of the industries characterized, geographic distribution
of plants and production capacity are given on state by state, EPA
regional, and national levels. Production capacities for the individual
states and regions, and nationally, are given separately for distinct
production process modes such as electrolytic copper production and
pyrometallurgical copper production. The estimated national sales value
for the year 1973 is given for each of the metal categories. The smelting
and refining processes are briefly described in industry characterization
subsections.
Waste characterization sections contain descriptions of production
technology at typical plants and the resultant byproducts or wastes
which are either recycled directly, shipped to other smelters for further
metallics recovery, disposed of on site or handled by contract disposal
services. Each waste is characterized with respect to concentrations of
potentially hazardous constituents, including heavy metals, fluorides,
oil and grease, phenols, and cyanides. Generation factors are given for
each residual in kilograms per metric ton of metal product produced.
Based on solubility tests (described in Appendix B of this
report) and consideration of physical and chemical characteristics, each
waste stream has been evaluated for designation as either potentially
hazardous or non-hazardous. It is emphasized that further leachate
testing to be carried out by EPA,or other new dat^could result in
reclassification of wastes from their present designations as either
potentially hazardous or non-hazardous.
Total quantities of land disposed wastes, hazardous wastes,
and hazardous constituents thereof are given for each metal category for
typical plants and on state-by-state, EPA regional, and national levels
for each of the years 1974, 1977, and 1983.
3

-------
Sections on treatment and disposal technologies present the
technologies which are employed within each of the smelting and refining
industries for treatment of generated wastes and modes for ultimate
disposition in the environment. Current methods of treatment and dis-
posal are first presented and environmental adequacy evaluated. For
those wastes which are considered potentially hazardous three levels of
treatment and disposal technology are presented and discussed. They
are:
Level I Present Treatment and Disposal Technology
Level II Best Technology Currently Employed
Level III Technology Necessary To Provide Adequate Health and
Environmental Protection
Level I technology represents the predominant practices used
by the various industries for treatment and disposal of wastes which are
considered potentially hazardous. Level II technology represents the
most environmentally adequate practices known to be used by at least one
plant in each industrial category. An example would be the use of lined
lagoons rather than unlined lagoons. Level III technologies are the
treatment and disposal methods for potentially hazardous wastes in each
metal category which are considered adequate to protect human health and
provide adequate environmental protection.
Sections on the costs of treatment and disposal technologies
give the costs for Levels I, II and III treatment and disposal technologies
for potentially hazardous wastes. Costs are given for each major type
of waste stream (i.e., slags, sludges, dusts, etc.) in each metal category.
Costs are expressed as dollars per metric ton of waste produced (dry and
wet weight) and dollars per metric ton of product produced. The total
costs for treatment and disposal of the potentially hazardous wastes
within each metal category are also given.
4

-------
SECTION II
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The primary and secondary metal smelting and refining industries
dispose or store large quantities of process and pollution control
residues on land. These residuals are predominantly inorganic slags and
sludges containing silicates, oxides and sulfates, and chlorides in some
industries. Sludges are often residues of water scrubbing of SO2 or
process wastewater treatment with lime. Consequently, they contain
calcium sulfates, calcium sulfites, calcium hydroxides, and calcium
carbonates. It was found that recycling of dusts from emission controls
is a relatively common practice, although some dusts are disposed on
land. The high metallic content of dusts often allows their recycle to
the production process, an economically attractive and viable alternative
to land disposal. Industries which recycle high proportions of generated
dusts include primary copper, lead and zinc. The iron and steel industry
and the ferroalloy industry do not generally recycle dusts because of
trace metal impurities.
The principal potentially hazardous constituents found in iron
and steel/ferroalloy, and foundry residuals are heavy metals, including
lead, zinc, copper, manganese, nickel and chromium. Phenol and cyanide
are found in steel plant residuals as a result of coking operations and
carry over into blast furnace dusts and sludges. Phenol is also present
in some waste foundry sands when phenolic binders are used. Oils and
greases are present in steel plant mill scales and wastewater treatment
plant sludges. Fluoride salts are used as fluxing agents in the iron
and steel industry, and consequently, fluoride is found in slags, sludges
and dusts.
The principal potentially hazardous constituents found in
primary and secondary nonferrous smelting residuals are heavy metals,
including arsenic, cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, chromium, antimony, and
nickel. The primary base metal smelting and refining industries (i.e.,
lead, copper, zinc, antimony, mercury, tungsten, and tin) produce a
wider variety of heavy metals" in residues, including arsenic, cadmium,
lead, zinc, copper, antimony, nickel and mercury, because of trace
amounts in the concentrates and ores from which the metals are recovered.
Bauxite, the ore from which aluminum is recovered, is essentially
devoid of toxic heavy metals. However, fluorides and very small amounts
of cyanide appear in sludge and potliner residues from aluminum refining
because of the fluoride contained in input cryolite (Na,AlFfi), and
cyanide produced in potliner consumption. Magnesium produced from
electrolysis of seawater or from dolomitic limestone also uses heavy
metal deficient raw materials and will have negligible concentrations of
heavy metals in residuals. They are considered non-hazardous.
5

-------
The predominant practices used in the primary and secondary metal
smelting and refining industries for disposal of residuals are lagooning and
open dumping. Slags and other solid residues are generally open dumped on site.
Scrubwater from wet emissions control and process wastewater with or without
lime treatment is generally routed to unlined settling pits or to unlined
lagoons. Settled sludge is often dredged from pits or lagoons and stored or
disposed of on land. Industries which produce small quantities of sludge will
often leave sludges permanently in lagoons. The use of unlined settling pits
and lagoons is the predominant practice.
Unlike other smelting and refining industries, the iron and steel
industry generates considerable, oily waste and acid pickle liquor. These
are usually removed from the plant sites by contract disposers.
In the event of demonstrated significant leaching of potentially
hazardous constituents, the use of lined lagoons for the storage or permanent
disposal of sludges is considered environmentally adequate. Leachable sludges
which are dredged or pumped from lagoons or settling pits and dumped on land
can be chemically fixed so that leaching of heavy metals may be prevented.
Alternatively, sealing of soil in disposal areas with bentonite or other low
permeability material should prevent leachate percolation.
For those slags or other land-disposed or stored solid residues
which have been shown to leach significantly in solubility tests, soil treat-
ment at disposal or storage areas would be needed. Collection of run-off from
disposal dumps containing slags, sludges or dusts with leachable heavy metals
or other potentially hazardous constituents is advisable. Collected runoff
would require treatment before discharge,or retention and evaporation in
lagoons.
In a number of industry sectors, including primary copper, zinc,
lead and aluminum, it was found that some sludges, dusts, or other residues
are stored on open ground for periods ranging from months to years before
processing for further metallic recovery. In such cases, immediate recycle
or storage in concrete pits before reprocessing will preclude leaching of
potentially hazardous constituents.
In some industries, the use of dry air pollution control systems
can greatly reduce or eliminate the quantity of land-disposed waste. Examples
are the use of dry alumina absorption beds in the primary aluminum industry
and silica- impregnated baghouses or dry emissions control in the secondary
aluminum smelting sector (e.g., "Derham Process").
Future air and water pollution controls are expected to increase
the quantities of land-disposed sludges, particularly sulfite and sulfate
sludge residues from control of S02 emissions from primary copper and
secondary lead smelters.
6

-------
SECTION III
METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methods which were used for collection
and analysis of data for industry characterization, waste characterization
and treatment and disposal technologies. Methodology used to estimate
total quantities of land disposed wastes and potentially hazardous
constituents thereof is described. Basic assumptions and methodologies
for estimating the costs of treatment and disposal technologies are
given.
Industry Characterization
At the outset,it was necessary to identify the sizes and geo-
graphical distribution of the various U.S. smelting and refining industries.
It was also highly desirable to inform the various industries of the nature
and purposes of the study and to encourage industry cooperation and inputs.
To this end,arrangements were made to visit and brief the major trade associa-
tions involved in primary and secondary metal smelting and refining industries.
The following Trade Associations were contacted and visited by Calspan and EPA
personnel and asked to inform member companies of the solid and hazardous
waste study:
The Aluminum Association
Lead Industries Association, Inc.
Lead-Zinc Producers Committee
International Lead Zinc Research Organization, Inc.
The Aluminum Recycling Association
National Association of Recycling Industries, Inc.
American Mining Congress
Ferroalloy Association
American Iron and Steal Institute
Copper Development Association
International Copper Research Assoc., Inc.
Cast Metals Federation
American Foundrymen's Society
Trade associations generally provided lists of member companies
and provided data on production or capacities of individual plants in those
instances where this data was allowed to be published by member companies.
In some industries, notably the secondary smelting and refining sectors,
individual plant data is considered proprietary and was not provided. The
Aluminum Recycling Association did, however, provide EPA regional plant
capacity data without revealing production of individual plants.
7

-------
Other sources of information on production, plant capacities,
locations, and production processes were the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals
Yearbook, The Engineering and Mining Journal Directory, and Effluent Guidelines
development documents for the primary aluminum sector, the primary iron and
steel industry, the ferroalloy industry, the primary lead, copper and zinc
smelting and refining sectors,and the secondary copper, lead and aluminum
sectors. Specialists in various metal categories from the U.S. Bureau of
Mines supplied state production capacity information in some categories where
individual plant data could not be published due to proprietary reasons.
A decision was made to incorporate production capacity data into
tabular presentations wherever possible since actual production data is seen
to fluctuate rather widely in some industries due to such factors as depressed
markets, work stoppages and other economic factors. Consequently, state,
EPA regional, and national estimates of total process waste which are based
on production capacity estimates generally represent upper limits of waste
generation. In the primary tin and mercury industries, where it is clear
that production in recent years is known to be substantially less than capa-
city, actual average production was used in estimating land destined total
and hazardous waste.
Tables showing geographical distributions of production capacities
in each smelting and refining sector have been subcategorized,where necessary,
according to process variations which result in distinctly different types
or quantities of land disposed and potentially hazardous wastes. Examples
are fire refining vs electrolytic refining of copper, pyrometallurgical vs
electrolytic refining of zinc, and blast furnace vs electrolytic refining of
antimony.
Waste Characterization
The principal approach used to characterize the land disposed
wastes from the primary and secondary smelting and refining industry was
to identify, describe and quantify as well as possible the process and
pollution control residuals associated with production and pollution control
processes in each industry category. In this way the processes and associated
waste data acquired from representative plants in each category could be
reasonably well extrapolated to other plants using similar procedures.
Although the effluent guidelines documents previously referred to provided
valuable Insight as to the nature of land disposed residuals, the nature of
the data dil not enable direct calculations of waste quantities.
The most reliable data on quantities of land disposed or stored
residuals was found to be that supplied by the industry during plant visits.
Additionallyt chemical analyses of waste samples from the plants visited
were considered most reliable since the exact sequences of production and
pollution control processes resulting in the residuals were identified.
Additional information was obtained from published and unpublished Bureau of
Mines data.
8

-------
Except for the iron and steel industry individual plants were
visited and sampled only once. As a result of cooperative efforts of
the American Iron and Steel Institute and member companies, a program
which enabled the acquisition and analysis of weekly composited samples
was implemented. Under this arrangement, steel company personnel obtained
daily samples of various residuals over a one month period which were
then composited into 4 weekly samples and analyzed by Calspan.
The numbers of plants in each smelting and refining category
which were visited during the study are summarized in Table 1. Samples
of land disposed or stored wastes were obtained from these plants.
After visiting plants in the various smelting and refining
categories and a review of available process and pollution control
literature in these categories, it was possible to assign residual
factors for given configurations of production processes and air and
water pollution control technologies. The waste residual factors were
generally averages of industry supplied data on waste quantities. For
industries which provided no individual plant data, best estimates were
made by data from the literature or materials balance calculations.
These residual generation factors were expressed in kilograms of residuals
per metric ton of metal output and are tabularized for each of the metal
categories studied in detail. The predominant residuals from the metal
smelting and refining industries are slags, sludges and dusts. Thus,
residuals are generally expressed in kilograms of slag, dust or sludge
per metric ton of product. Residual generation factors are shown in
production and pollution control flow diagrams for various smelting and
refining categories.
The residual generation factors comprised the major input for
estimating quantities of state, EPA Regional and national land disposed
or stored residuals. Chemical analyses of waste samples collected by
Calspan Corporation, supplemented by analyses provided by industry and
the U.S. Bureau of Mines, were the basis for estimating the concentrations
of hazardous constituents contained in land disposed or stored residuals.
Treatment and Disposal Technology
Identification of predominant and exemplary treatment and
disposal technologies and reclamation or recycling technologies were
obtained mainly from plant visits and discussions with industry repre-
sentatives. The predominant practices consisted of open land dumping of
nonrecyclable slags, dusts and dredged sludges, and lagoon storage or
permanent retention of water slurried wastes. Careful attention was
given to identification of industries in which at least one plant used
lined lagoons, thus qualifying this practice as exemplary technology
(Best Technology Currently Employed). In addition, attention was given
to identifying plants which further processed or in some other way
recycled residuals which other plants discarded on land. In a number of
industries (e.g., primary lead, copper, and zinc), it was noted that
9

-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF PLANT VISITS
SIC Category
Metal Category
No. of Plants
No. of Plants


Visited
in Category
3312
Iron and Steel
10
158
3313
Ferroalloy
7
50
332
Iron and Steel Foundry
5
2000
3331
Primary Copper
5
22
3332
Primary Lead
3
7
3333
Primary Zinc
3
7
3334
Primary Aluminum
4
31
3339*
Primary Antimony
2
3
3339*
Primary Mercury
1
5
3339*
Primary Tungsten
1
15
3399
Metal Powders
1
161
33412
Secondary Copper
3
40
33413
Secondary Lead
5
82
33417
Secondary Aluminum
J5
109

Total:
53
2690
+ '
These plants are all included under one SIC category
#3339, Primary Metals, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC)
10

-------
immediate recycle of residuals or storage on concrete pads rather than
storage on ground offers a means by which possible leaching would be
precluded.
For those wastes which are considered potentially hazardous
and for which current treatment and disposal technologies were considered
inadequate for human health and environmental protection, alternative
treatments for environmental and health protection were identified.
Identified practices included the use of lined lagoons, sludge chemical
fixation,sealing of disposal areas,and collection'of runoff.
.Cost Analysis
The costs presented in this report are for present and environ-
mentally adequate treatment and disposal of only those residuals considered
potentially hazardous. The basic methods (i.e.,lagooning, open dumping)
for disposing of potentially hazardous wastes by the metal smelting
industries considered in this study entail many common practices such as
land grading, draglining, berm construction, waste hauling, and lagoon
construction and lining. The cost factors and costing methodology
employed to derive the capital and annual costs of these practices are
documented in Appendix C to this report. The industry costs presented
in Vols. 11 and III are computed as described in Appendix C unless
specifically noted otherwise. All costs are in 4th quarter 1973 dollars.
There is' no sharp, distinguishing line in a number of instances
between activities which can be characterized as water treatment vs.
those designed to dispose of wastes. For the purpose of this study,it
is assumed that waste disposal starts at the point the waste stream
enters a settling pit, lagoon or tailings pond. The costs associated
with the construction, operation and maintenance of such facilities are
charged to industrial waste disposal.
Prior activities such as treatment of an effluent stream by
lime neutralization and the pumps and piping necessary to transport the
waste stream to the lagoon or tailings pond are considered water treatment
and the costs for these functions are not included.
11

-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
The primary and secondary metal smelting and refining categories
included in this study have been identified in Section I, Introduction.
Table 2 summarizes the number of plants in each category, the estimated
1973 production capacity of each industry, and estimated 1973 national
sales.
The iron and steel industry produces the largest tonnage of
metal (I.e., approximately 141,000,000 MT production capacity), and
accounts for the largest dollar sales volume of the U.S. smelting and
refining industries. Plants are typically large integrated complexes.
The iron and steel foundry industry is extensive, with some 2,000 plants.
Production capacity of this industry (approximately 18,000,000 MT capacity)
is second only to iron and steel. Of the ferrous metal smelting and
refining industries (i.e., iron and steel, iron and steel foundries,
ferroalloys), the ferroalloy industry is the smallest and most diversified.
Principal ferroalloys produced are ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, ferrochrome
and ferronickel. The iron and steel industry consumes most ferroalloys
which are produced.
The larger primary nonferrous smelting and refining industries
are typified by a relatively small number of plants with large production
capacities. The largest primary nonferrous industry is the primary
aluminum industry with approximately 4,400,000 MT/yr production capacity,
followed by primary copper with approximately 2,900,000 MT/yr capacity.
The primary lead and zinc industries have only 7 plants apiece with
production capacities of approximately 800,000 MT/yr for each of the two
industries. The production capacity of the primary magnesium industry
is approximately 200,000 MT/yr, with most of this produced at one plant
in Freeport, Texas.
The remaining primary industries are small. A number of these
industries (cadmium, arsenic, selenium and tellurium, gold and silver,
platinum, bismuth) process the residuals (i.e., slimes, dusts, sludges)
from the primary copper, zinc or lead industries to recover minor metals.
Recovery of these metals is done either at the primary lead, zinc, or
copper smelters or at specialty smelters which process only electrolytic
slimes, dusts or other residues.
The only secondary smelting and refining industries of appreciable
capacity are the secondary copper, lead, zinc, and aluminum industries.
Capacities of these industries range from approximately 400,000 MT/yr
for secondary zinc to approximately 800,000 MT/yr for secondary aluminum.
Although there are many more secondary plants than primary plants producing
lead, zinc, aluminum and copper, they have very much smaller capacities.
Secondary plants are generally located in urban areas where the scrap
raw material is plentiful. The primary industries are generally located
in rural areas near the mine-mill complexes.
13

-------
TABLE 2
Characteristics of U. S. Metal Smelting
and Refining Industries (SIC 33)
Estimated	Estimated
U.S. Capacity	1973 Nat'l. Sales
Industry Category No. of Plants CMT) 1973	(thousands of dollars)
Iron and Steel 158 140,616,000	26,435,808
(SIC 3312)
Ferroalloys
(SIC 3313)
50
2,300,000
720,542
Iron and Steel Foundries
(SIC 3321)
2000
18,118,000
5,685,400
Primary Copper
(SIC 3331)
22
2,874,000
2,223,500
Primary Lead
(SIC 3332)
7
844,000
224,065
Primary Zinc
(SIC 3333)
7
709,000
259,814
Primary Aluminum
(SIC 3334)
31
4,418,000
2,206,440
Primary Antimony
(SIC 3339)
3
3,800
4,528
Primary Mercury
(SIC 3339)
5
80
1,601
Primary Titanium
(SIC 3339)
2
15,230
47,800
Primary Tungsten
(SIC 3339)
15
4,690
61,974
Primary Tin
(SIC 333S)
1
4,500
22,572
Primary Magnesium
(SIC 3339)
3
213,000
105,017
Primary Cadmium
(SIC 3339)
7
4,500
23,891
* Estimate for 1972
14

-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd.)
Characteristics of U. S. Metal Smelting
and Refining Industries (SIC 33)
Industry Category
No. of Plants
Primary Arsenic	1
(SIC 3339)
Primary Selenium and Tellurium 5
(SIC 3339)
Primary Gold and Silver	not known
(SIC 3339)
Primary Platinum	5
(SIC 3339)
Primary Bismuth	1
(SIC 3339)
Primary Cobalt	1
(SIC 3339)
Primary Zirconium and Hafnium 2
(SIC 3339)
Secondary Copper	40
(SIC 33412)
Secondary Lead	82
(SIC 33413)
Secondary Zinc	not known
(SIC 33413)
Secondary Aluminum	109
(SIC 33417)
Estimated	Estimated
U.S. Capacity 1973 Nat'l. Sales
(MT) 1973 (thousands of dollars)
554
10,000
600
38,000,000 (troy.
OZ*J
21,000 (tggyj
173
150
3,550
449,800
600,000
400,000
825,440
8,186
222,657
834
1,875
not produced
49,850
350,083
213,166
123,990
601,834
IS

-------
SECTION V
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
The principal types of wastes from the metal smelting and
refining industries include furnace slags, dusts, and sludges. Dusts
and sludges generally result from emissions controls on smelting and
refining furnaces. Some sludges, however, result from treatment of
effluents from production process related activities. These include
sludges from treatment of spent electrolyte in the primary and secondary
electrolytic copper industries, the electrolytic primary zinc industry,
and the electrolytic* antimony industry. It is estimated that 10% of the
land disposed waste from the U.S. smelting and refining industry results
from control of air and water pollution with about equal percentages
(5%) coming from each. The remaining 90% is comprised of manufacturing
process residuals, including furnace slags, furnace linings and refract-
ories, sands and miscellaneous sludges.
Table 3 gives waste generation factors for the metal smelting
and refining categories studied in detail. Waste factors are given in
kg/MT of metal product produced. These factors were generally estimated
by averaging waste generation data provided by plants during plant
visits or on plant data forms. For a few industries, including primary
tin, primary titanium, and primary mercury, generation factors were
calculated from waste quantity and associated production data from
available literature.
Table 3 also summarizes Calspan's hazard assessment of the
waste streams from each metal category. Residuals are rated either as
non-hazardous or potentially hazardous. Hazard ratings were made using
a number of criteria including the following:
-	Types and concentrations of potentially hazardous constituents
-	Physical characteristics of residuals
-	Susceptibility to leaching of potentially hazardous
constituents as indicated in solubility tests described in
Appendix B of this report.
The mere presence of toxic constituents in significant concentrations
in a waste did not automatically result in a hazardous rating. The most
important criteria was the tendency of toxic constituents to be leached
from residuals at significant concentrations.
If lead, cadmium, mercury, cyanide, phenol or other highly
toxic materials leached at greater than 1 ppm in solubility tests, the
waste was designated as potentially hazardous at this time. Although
proposed interim drinking water standards for these species are less
17

-------
TABLE 3
RESIDUAL GENERATION FACTORS FOR METAL SMELTING AND REFINING 1)
Hazard Rating
Residual Factor	Non- Potentially
Metal Category	Type of Residual	(kg/MT of Product) Hazardous Hazardous
Primary Copper,
Smelting and
Fire Refining
Reverbatory slag
Acid plant sludges
Dusts
Miscellaneous slurries
3,000
2.7
17
17
X
X
X
Primary Copper
Electrolytic Refining
Primary Lead
Primary Zinc,
Electrolytic
Primary Zinc,
Pyrometallurgical
Primary Aluminum
Miscellaneous slurries
Blast furnace slag
Slag fines
Acid plant sludge
Sinter scrubber sludge
2)
Acid plant sludge
2)
Miscellaneous sludges
2)
,2)
Retort residue
Acid plant sludge
Retort residue ("blue powder")
Cadmium plant residue
2)
Shot blast dust
Pot line scrubber,
Pot line skimmings
Spent potliners
Cast house dust
2^1udge
2)
2.4
410
30
40
19
17
9.1
1,050
122
10
1.8
5
29.3
5.5
53
2.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Primary Antimony,
Pyromet allurgical
Blast furnace slag
2,800

-------
TABLE 3 (Cont.)
RESIDUAL GENERATION FACTORS FOR METAL SMELTING AND REFINING ^
Hazard Rating
Residual Factor	Non- Potentially
Metal Category	Type of Residual	(kg/NTT of Product) Hazardous Hazardous
Primary Antimony,
Anolyte sludge
210

X
Electrolytic




Primary Mercury
Kiln or retort residue
207,000
X

Primary Titanium
Chlorination sludge
330

X
Primary Tungsten
Digestion residue
50

X
Primary Tin
Smelting slag
915

X
Iron and Steel
Coke oven sludge
2.6

X

Waste ammonia liquor
190

X

Blast furnace slag
250
X


Blast furnace dust
11.7
X


Blast furnace sludge
17.6
X


Basic oxygen furnace slag
145
X


Basic oxygen furnace dust
16
X


Basic oxygen furnace kish
0.14
X


Basic oxygen furnace sludge
17.3
X


Open hearth furnace slag
243
X


Open hearth furnace dust
13.7
X


Electric furnace slag
120
X


Electric furnace dust
12.8

X

Electric furnace sludge
8.7

X

Soaking pit slag
35.2
X


Primary mill sludge
1.87

X

Primary mill scale
44,9

X

Continuous caster sludge
0.104

X

Continuous caster scale
8.7

X

-------
TABLE 3 (Cont.)
RESIDUAL GENERATION FACTORS FOR METAL SMELTING AND REFINING
Hazard Rating
Residual Factor	Non- Potentially
Metal Category	Type of Residual	(kg/MT of Product) Hazardous Hazardous
Iron and Steel (Cont.) Hot rolling mill sludge
Hot rolling mill scale
Cold rolling mill sludge
Cold rolling mill scale
Cold rolling mill pickle liquor
Tin plating mill sludge
Galvanizing mill sludge
Galvanizing mill pickle liquor
Gray and Ductile
Iron Foundries
Slag
Sludge
Dust
Sand
Refractories
1.74
18.3
0.16
0.052
22.8 3)
5.32
10.8
5.17
62.9
32.8
65.6
600
13.8
3)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Malleable Iron
Foundries
Slag
Sludge
Dust
Sand
Refractories
55.5
31.9
64.7
600
13.2
X
X
X
X
X
Steel Foundries
Slag
Sludge
Dust
Sand
Refractories
122
36.4
186
780
53
X
X
X
X
x
F erromanganese
Slag
Sludge
240
165

-------
TABLE 3 (Cont.)
RESIDUAL GENERATION FACTORS FOR METAL SMELTING AND REFINING ^
Residual Factor
(kg/MT of Product)
Hazard Rating
Non- Potentially
Hazardous Hazardous
1,100
98.5
338
1,750
151
X
X
31,000
5,300
84
576
X
X
X
X
Metal Category
Type of Residual
Si 1icomanganese
Ferrosilicon
Ferrochrome
Ferronickel
Slag
Sludge
Dust
Slag
Dust
Slag
Skull plant tailings
Dust
Sludge
1)	Residuals immediately recycled to process (e.g., dusts) are not included.
2)	May be recycled after storage periods of months to years.
3)	Wet weight generation factor.

-------
than 1 ppm (Ref. 2) allowance is given for some attentuation of leachate
concentration before it reaches ground or surface water used as a drinking
water source.
Some leeway was allowed depending on the physical nature of
the waste material and the constituents found to solubilize. Thus, many
materials solubilized manganese in the range of a few to 50 or 100 ppm.
Leaching of manganese alone was not considered sufficient reason to
designate a waste as potentially hazardous since manganese is relatively
non-toxic. Manganese is highly abundant in soils and rocks and is
present to an average extent of 850 ppm in soils, with ranges of 100 to
4,000 ppm (Ref. 1)
Fluoride is beneficial to teeth at low concentrations as
evidenced by the use of fluoridated toothpastes and fluoridated water
supplies. The average concentration of fluorine in soils is 200 ppm,
with a range of 30 to 300 ppm (Ref. 1). Leaching of fluoride of up to
20 ppm in iron and steel making slags, sludges, and dusts was not considered
sufficient to designate these wastes as potentially hazardous if there
was less than 1 ppm leaching of other potentially hazardous constituents.
Although leaching of sodium, potassium and chloride from
wastes would not ordinarily constitute a hazardous waste problem in the
metal smelting and refining industry, the extremely high concentration
of these constituents in "high salt slag" from the secondary aluminum
industry and their high solubility pose a definite threat to groundwater
quality. High salt slag is therefore considered potentially hazardous.
The only residual which leached a heavy metal at significant
concentration and was not considered potentially hazardous at this time
was retort residue from primary zinc smelting. This slag residue leached
zinc at 230 ppm in a solubility test. Zinc is required in human diets
at 10-40 ppm and has low toxicity. Further testing of the leachability
of zinc and other metals from zinc retort residue is needed for further
evalation of toxicity.
The limitations of the solubility tests conducted must be
recognized. Only one solubility test was conducted on each residual.
Replications are desirable to establish statistical significance of test
results. The leaching solution in all cases was distilled water at pH
5.5. Thuj, no information is available from these tests on the quality
of leachate at lower or higher pH's.
For the solubility tests 2 parts distilled water to 1 part
test sample by weight were gently agitated for a period of 72 hours.
The mixtures were filtered through very fine (i.e., 0.45 micron micropore)
filters to remove solids, and the liquid filtrates analyzed. The degree
to which comminution of larger separates of slag occurred and exposed
surfaces to leaching action could not be ascertained.
22

-------
Using the industry by industry waste generation factors given
previously in Table 3 and production capacities for the various metal
categories, total wastes generated from each metal category on state-by-
state, regional and national levels were estimated. In the main volumes
of the report, quantities of slags, sludges, dusts, potliners and other
residuals are given individually. Tables 4 through 6 gives national
totals of wastes generated by each metal category during 1974, 1977 and
1983. These tables also give the quantities of potentially hazardous
wastes generated in each metal category and total hazardous constituents.
Table 4 also lists the types of principal hazardous constituents.
Because of the great variety of trace metals found in copper,
zinc, and lead ores and concentrates, a considerable number of heavy
metals, including As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, and Zn, are found
in residuals from smelting and refining. On the other hand, aluminum
and iron ores are trace metal deficient. The presence of trace metals
in residuals from these industries generally result from addition of
alloying metals during metal processing operations. The presence of
trace metals in secondary smelting wastes results from the input of
metal alloy scrap.
Phenol and cyanide present in some steel plant residuals
result from the byproduct recovery of coking gases, or the further
release of these materials from coke in blast furnace operations.
Phenol may also be found in waste foundry sands although recent trends
show less use of phenolic binders in foundry sands. Traces of cyanide
are also found in primary aluminum plant spent potliners. Fluorides in
primary aluminum plant dusts, sludges, and potliners are derived from
the use of fluoride rich cryolyte (Na A1F,). Similarily, the use of
fluorides as fluxing agents in the iron and steel industry result in
appreciable concentrations of fluorides in slags, sludges and dusts from
furnacing operations.
Table 7 indicates trends in the total quantities of residuals
generated over the 1974 to 1983 time frame. Future estimates were
prepared on the basis of predicted changes in production capacities and
pollution control over the 1974 to 1983 time period. There are no
predicted significant changes in generated wastes from the primary lead,
antimony, mercury, and titanium industries or the secondary copper
industry.
The greatest estimated change as shown in Table 7 will be in
the primary zinc industry. Because of closings of pyrometallurgical
zinc facilities and replacement by electrolytic zinc facilities which
are more efficient, it is estimated that there will be an increase of
electrolytic waste (as sludge) of 279% by 1983. Concurrently there will
be an estimated 35% decrease in pyrometallurgical zinc waste (mainly as
retort residue). The overall result will be an estimated 30% reduction
of land disposed waste from the primary zinc industry by 1983.
23

-------
Table 4
ESTIMATES OF GENERATED AND POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM
UNITED STATES SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY, 1974 (METRIC TONS)
INDUSTRY CATEGORY
TOTAL GENERATED
TOTAL POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS
TOTAL HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
PRINCIPAL HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DRY
WET
DRY
WET
DRY WEIGHT

IRON AND STEEL <«C 3312)
73.782,200
80,606,800
2,764,400
4,891,300
85 AO
' HEAVY METALS (Cr. Cu. Ni, Pb. Zn)
FLUORINE,CYANIDE, PHENOL
OIL ft GREASE
FERROALLOYS (SIC 3313)
1.925.200
2.244,300
287.800
606,800
7.380
HEAVY METALS (Cd. Co. Cr. Cu, Ni.
Pb. Zn)
IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES
(SIC 332)
16,506,500
17,612,800
0
0
0

PRIMARY COPTER. SMELTING AND
FIRE REFINING (SIC 3331)
6,083.700
6.531,800
335.800
783.830
24,180
HEAVY METALS (At. Cd, Cr. Cu. H* Ni.
Pb, Sb, Sa. Zn)
PR MARY COITER ELECTROLYTIC
REFINING (SIC 33311
5,800
14,000
5.800
14.000
210
HEAVY METALS (At. Cd. Cr. Cu. Hj. Ni.
Pb, Sb, S*, Zn)
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING ANO
REFINING (SIC 3332)
542,400
578,200
18,400
55,280
4.400
HEAVY METALS (At. Cd. Cr. Cu. Hf. Pb.
Sb. Zn)
PRIMARY ELECTROLYTIC ZINC
SMELTING ANO REFINING (SIC 3333)
18,300
54,800
18,300
54.800
4,800
HEAVY METALS (At. Cd. Cr. Cu. Hg. Pb.
S«, Zn)
PR MARY PYROMETALLURGI^AL
ZINC SMELTING AMD REFINING
(SIC 33331
287,800
431.400
71,800
215.400
22X0
HEAVY METALS (At, Cd. Cr, Cu. Hf, Pb,
Sa, Zn)
PR MARY ALUMINUM (SIC 3334)
405,600
804,200
405,800
804,200
62,580
FLUORIDE, CYANIDE HEAVY METALS
(Cu. Pb)
PRIMARY TIN
3.700
3.700
3.700
3.700
40

PRIMARY ANTIMONY (SIC 33301
8.300
8.700
8.300
8.700
160
HEAVY METALS (Cu, Pb, Sb. Zn)
PRIMARY MERCURY (SIC 3339)
21,400
21,400
0
0
0
HEAVY METALS (Cr, Cu. Ho. Ni. Pb. Sb, Zn)
PRIMARY TITANIUM (SIC 333B)
5.100
12.800
5.100
12J00
2.170
CHLORINE, HEAVY METALS (Cr, Ti, VI
PRIMARY TUNGSTEN (SIC 333*1
2JBOO
5,800
weo
5J00
250
HEAVY METALS (At. Cu. Pb. Zn)
SECONDARY COPTER (SIC 33412)
153,400
153,500
153.400
183,500
6,640
HEAVY METALS (Cu, Ni. Pb, Sn, Zn)
SECONDARY LEAD (SIC 334131
151,300
167,300
3.000
9.000
180
HEAVY METALS (Cu. Cr. Pb. Sb. Sn. Zn)
SECONDARY ALUMINUM (SIC 33(17)
346.100
548,300
346.100
5481300
1.040
HEAVY METALS (Cu, Cr. Pb, Zn)
NATIONAL TOTAL
100,361,000
108,881,000
4,428,800
8*287 JBOO
216,240

-------
Table 5
ESTIMATES OF GENERATED AND POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM
UNITED STATES SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY, 1977 (METRIC TONS)

TOTAL GENERA TED
TOTAL POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS
TOTAL HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
INDUSTRY CATEGORY
DRY
WET
DRY
WET
DRY WEIGHT
IRON AND STEEL (SIC 3312)
78,220,000
86,639,000
2,968,700
5,368,900
93,100
FERROALLOYS (SIC 3313)
1,926,200
2,244,300
287,800
606,900
7,390
IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES
(SIC 332)
18.306,000
19,488,000
0
0
0
PRIMARY COPPER, SMELTING AND
FIRE REFINING (SIC 3331)
8,333,900
6,800,900
349.300
971,900
25,130
PRIMARY COPPER, ELECTROLYTIC
REFINING (SIC 3331)
6,700
16.700
6,700
16,700
250
PRIMARY LEAD, SMELTING AND
REFINING (SIC 3332)
542,400
679.200
18,400
66,200
4,400
PRIMARY ELECTROLYTIC ZINC
SMELTING AND REFINING
(SIC 3333)
22,900
68,800
22,900
88,800
6,780
PRIMARY PYROMETALLURGICAL
ZINC SMELTING AND REFINING
(SIC 3333)
186,400
314.100
64,400
193,100
20,900
PRIMARY ALUMINUM (SIC 3334)
435,200
812,000
436,200
812,600
89,700
PRIMARY TIN
3,700
3,700
3,700
3,700
40
PRIMARY ANTIMONY (SIC 3339)
8,300
8,700
8,300
8,700
160
PRIMARY MERCURY (SIC 3339)
21,400
21,400
0
0
0
PRIMARY TITANIUM (SIC 3339)
6,100
12,800
6.100
12.800
2,170
PRIMARY TUNGSTEN (SIC 33391
2,600
6,900
2,600
6,900
260
SECONDARY COPPER (SIC 33412)
163,400
163,600
163,400
163.600
6,640
SECONDARY LEAD (SIC 33413)
164,600
196,900
16,200
48,600
880
SECONDARY ALUMINUM (SIC 33417)
416,300
668,000
416,300
668,000
1,260
NATIONAL TCTAL
106.811,000
116.936,000
4,746,900
8,973,100
236,840
25

-------
Table 6
ESTIMATES OF GENERATED AND POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM
UNITED STATES SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY, 1983 (METRIC TONS)
INDUSTRY CATEGORY
TOTAL GENERATED
TOTAL POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS
TOTAL HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS
DRV
WET
DRY
WET
DRY WEIGHT
IRON AND STEEL (SIC 3312)
90,794,000
99,257,000
3,400,000
6,154,000
108,000
FERROALLOYS (SIC 3313)
1,925,200
2,244,300
287,900
606,900
7,390
IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES
(SIC 332)
22,366,000
23,763,000
0
0
0
PRIMARY COPPER, SMELTING AND
FIRE REFINING (SIC 33311
6,416,000
7,004,000
430,000
1,216,000
28,600
PRIMARY COPPER, ELECTROLYTIC
REFINING (SIC 3331)
6,900
17,300
6,900
17,300
260
PRIMARY LEAD, SMELTING AND
REFINING (SIC 3332)
642>I00
679,200
18,400
66,200
4.400
PRIMARY ELECTROLYTIC ZINC
SMELTING AND REFINING (SIC 3333)
61,100
163,300
61,100
163,300
12,660
PRIMARY PYROMETALLURGICAL
ZINC SMELTING AND REFINING
(SIC 3333)
188.400
314,100
64.400
193,100
20,900
PRIMARY ALUMINUM (SIC 3334)
502,900
990,200
602,800
880,200
78,800
PRIMARY TIN
3,700
3,700
3,700
3,700
40
PRIMARY ANTIMONY (SIC 3339)
9,300
9,700
8,300
8,700
160
PRIMARY MERCURY (SIC 3339)
21,400
21,400
0
0
0
PRIMARY TITANIUM (SIC 3339)
6,100
12,900
5,100
12,800
2,170
PRIMARY TUNGSTEN (SIC 3339)
2,600
5,900
2,500
6,900
260
SECONDARY COPPER (SIC 33412)
163,400
163,600
153,400
153,500
6,640
SECONDARY LEAD (SIC 33413)
164,600
196,900
16,200
48,600
880
SECONDARY ALUMINUM (SIC 33417)
688,900
932,600
688,900
932,600
1.770
NATIONAL TOTAL
123,706,000
136,648,000
6,646,600
10,440,900
272.620
26

-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF GENERATED WASTES
1974, 1977, 1983
(metric tons) dry weights
Industry Category
1974
YEAR
1977
1983
Iron and Steel
73,792,200
78,220,000
90,764,000
(SIC 3312)

(+6%)
(+23%)
Ferroalloys
1,925,200
1,925,200
1,925,200
(SIC 3313)

(Unchanged)
(Unchanged)
Iron and Steel Foundries
16,598,500
18,365,000
22,365,000
(SIC 332)

(+11%)
(+34%)
Primary Copper, Smelting and
6,083,700
6,333,900
6,415,000
Fire Refining (SIC 3331)

(+4%)
(+5%)
Primary Copper, Electrolytic
5,600
6,700
6,900
Refining (SIC 3331)

(+19%)
(+24%)
Primary Lead
542,400
542,000
542,000
(SIC 3332)

(Unchanged)
(Unchanged)
Primary Zinc, Electrolytic
18,300
22,900
51,100
(SIC 3333)

(+25%)
(+279%)
Primary Zinc, Pyrometallurgical
287,800
185,400
185,400
(SIC 3333)

(-35%)
(-35%)
Primary Aluminum
405,600
435,200
502,800
(SIC 3334)

(+7%)
(+24%)
Primary Antimony
8,300
8,300
8,300
(SIC 3339)

(Unchanged)
(Unchanged)
Primary Mercury
21,400
21,400
21,400
(SIC 3339)

(Unchanged)
(Unchanged)
Primary Titanium
5,100
5,100
5,100
(SIC 3339)

(Unchanged)
(Unchanged)
Primary Tungsten
2,500
2,500
2,500
(SIC 3339

(Unchanged)
(Unchanged)
Secondary Copper
153,400
153,400
153,400
(SIC 33412)

(Unchanged)
(Unchanged)
Secondary Lead
151,300
164,500
164,500
(SIC 33413

(+9%)
(+9%)
Secondary Aluminum
346,100
415,300
588,900
(SIC 33417)

(+20%)
(+70%)
National Total:
100,347,000
106,807,000
123,702,000


(+6%)
(+19%)
27

-------
The estimated increases in land disposed or stored residuals
from the primary copper industry results from a combination of estimated
plant expansion and lime treatment of wastewaters, resulting in increased
quantities of sludge. The projected higher percentage increase in
electrolytic copper refinery waste (as sludge) is due to the much greater
projected expansion in electrolytic copper as opposed to fire refined
copper.
Projected increases in residuals from the primary aluminum
industry result entirely from projected increases in plant capacities.
Growth in production capacity is estimated as 4% per year through 1983.
The amount of waste generated in the primary aluminum industry is not
estimated to increase at an equal rate as capacity growth because the
increased use of alumina dry bed absorption systems for potline emissions
control, rather than wet systemsjwill result in more recycling of collected
emissionssrather than land disposal.
The projected increase of waste from the secondary lead industry
by 1977 is based entirely on the premise that treatment of SO^ scrubwater
from SC>2 air pollution control will result in significant quantities of
sulfite-sulfate sludge. Projected increases of wastes generated from
the secondary aluminum industry are based on an estimated increase in
production of 20% by 1977 and 70% by 1983.
Primary electrolytic zinc and primary titanium residues (both
sludges) are seen to be comparatively high in potentially hazardous
heavy metals.
It is observed that the quantities of potentially hazardous
wastes and hazardous constituents thereof from electrolytic zinc refineries
are much less than those from pyrometallurgical refiners. This is
because the bulk of the residues from electrolytic zinc refiners are
sent to lead smelters for recovery of lead value. Virtually all planned
expansion in the zinc refining industry is expected to be electrolytic
plants, which is reflected in 30% lower residuals estimates for 1977 and
1983 on an industry wide basis.
With respect to the primary copper industry, it is noticed
that the copper smelting and fire refining category produces a much
larger quantity of wastes than electrolytic refining. This must not be
construed to mean that conversion to electrolytic refining can greatly
reduce the quantity of waste from the primary copper industry. Smelting
is an essential operation before either fire refined or electrorefined
copper can be produced. The predominant waste from copper smelting is a
hard siliceous slag, three metric tons of which are produced for every
metric ton of copper produced. This waste is not considered hazardous
at this time.
The quantities given in Tables 4 to 6 include aggregated
totals of slags, sludges, dusts, and miscellaneous solid residues.
Table 8 gives the percentage compositions of sludge, slag, and dusts for
28

-------
Table 8
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF GENERATED RESIDUALS
METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRIES (SIC 33)
INDUSTRY CATEGORY
SLUDGE
1974
1977
1983
SLAG
1974
1977
1983
DUST
1974
1977
1983
MISCELLANEOUS RESIDUES
1974
1977
1983
IRON AND STEEL (SIC 3312)
FERROALLOYS (SIC 3313)
IRON AND STEEL FOUNDRIES
(SI 332)
PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING AND
FIRE REFINING (SIC 3331)
PRIMARY COPPER, ELECTROLYTIC
REFINING (SIC 3331)
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING AND
REFINERY (SIC 3332)
PRIMARY ZINC. ELECTROLYTIC
REFINING (SIC 3333)
PRIMARY ZINC. PYROMETALLURGICAL
SMELTING AND REFINING (SIC 3333)
PRIMARY ALUMINUM (SIC 3334)
PRIMARY ANTIMONY (SIC 3339)
PRIMARY MERCURY (SIC 3339)
PRIMARY TITANIUM (SIC 3339)
PRIMARY TUNGSTEN
SECONDARY COPPER (SIC 33410)
SECONDARY LEAD (SIC 33413)
SECONDARY ALUMINUM (SIC 33417)
5.6
11.2
4.1
4.9
100
3.4
100
24.9
49.1
2.3
100
100
2.0
292
5.6
11.2
4.1
4.9
100
3.4
100
34.7
43.3
2.3
100
100
9.8
292
5.6
11.2
4.1
6.1
100
3.4
100
34.7
37.6
2.3
100
100
9.8
292
82
73
8.4
94.5
96.6
97.7
100
98.0
70.8
82
73
8.4
94.5
96.6
97.7
100
90.2
70.8
82
73
3.6
15.8
8.41 9.5
93.3
96.6
97.7
0.6
7.3
100
90.2
70.8
3.6
15.8
9.5
0.6
7S
3.6
15.8
9.5
0.6
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.8
(SCALE AND PICKLE LIQUOR)
78
78
78
(SAND + REFRACTORIES)
75.1 66.3 65.3
(RETORT RESIDUE)
43.6 48.8 53.6
(POT LINERS AND
SKIMMINGS)
100 100 100
(RETORT OR FURNACE
RESIDUE)

-------
the three time frames. It becomes apparent from Table 8 that only a
small percentage of the disposed waste stream from smelting and refining
operations is dust. This is because the high metallic content of dusts
makes it economical to recycle them for further metallic recovery.
It is also clear that industries which use pyrometallurgical
processes, such as blast furnaces, reverbatory furnaces, electric fur-
naces or retorts produce copious amounts of slag. Over 95% of land
disposed residuals from primary copper smelting and fire refining,
primary lead smelting, primary antimony smelting, primary mercury smelting
secondary copper smelting, and secondary lead smelting are slags or
retort residues. Seventy to eighty-five percent of total residues from
iron and steel, ferroalloys, primary pyrometallurgical zinc smelting and
refining, and secondary aluminum smelting and refining are slags.
On the other hand, processes employing electrowinning of
metals produce predominantly sludge residues as the result of treating
spent electrolyte solution. These include electrolytic copper (100%
sludge), electrolytic zinc (100% sludge), and electrolytic antimony
(100% sludge). Chlorination processes used for recovery of titanium
also produce 100% sludge residues.
With the exception of the primary aluminum and secondary lead
industries, the relative proportions of generated sludges, slags and
other residuals is expected to remain the same as in 1974 through 1983.
Examination of Table 8 shows that the relative amounts of sludge from
the primary aluminum industry is estimated to decrease from 49% of land
disposed residuals in 1974 to 38% in 1983. This is a result of expected
increase in usage of dry alumina bed absorption rather than wet scrubbing
for emissions control.
The expected implementation of SO^ scrubbing in the secondary
lead industry is expected to increase the proportion of sludges in land
disposed wastes from 2% to 10% of total in this industry waste. Although
there is an expected 25% increase in sludge generation from primary
copper smelting by 1983 due to lime treatment of scrubwater, the relative
proportion of sludge is only expected to increase from 5% to 6% of the
total waste in this industry.
Tables 9 through 11 give the aggregated estimated quantities
of total generated and potentially hazardous wastes from the United
States Smelting and Refining Industry (SIC 33) on state-by-state, EPA
regional and national levels for the years 1974, 1977, and 1983. The
totals do not include dusts from primary copper, lead, and zinc smelting
and refining categories which are immediately recycled. It is estimated
that the total quantity of waste generated in 1977 will increase 6% over
that generated in 1974 and that a 23% increase over 1974 levels will be
experienced in 1983.
30

-------
Table 9
STATE, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL WASTE GENERATION
U.S. SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY (SIC 33)*, METRIC TONS
1974



TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL

TOTAL
TOTAL
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS
STATE
GENERATED
GENERATED
HA2ARD0US
HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS

(WET.WT.)
(DRY WT.I
(WETWT.)
(DRY WT.)
(DRV WT.I
ALABAMA
6.160,000
4*64.000
396,300
190,900
7*10
ARIZONA
3,330,000
3,116,000
367,400
140,900
11,060
ARKANSAS
25,000
19X100
16,900
10*00
1,280
CALIFORNIA
2,767,000
2.687.000
192,700
118*00
2.910
COLORADO
871.000
721XMO
42.600
28,300
780
CONNECTICUT
108,000
91,000
14*00
6,200
140
DELAWARE
116,000
113000
8,400
4,900
240
FLORIDA
68,000
68.000
1,700
1.300
100
OEOROIA
126,000
124,000
42*00
41,600
1.800
HAWAII
4.000
3000
200
200
10
IDAHO
190,000
188XXW
37,000
12,300
2,960
ILLINOIS
7,861.000
7.208,000
487,300
261*00
9,340
INDIANA
14,382,000
13X>22XX»
1,042,600
867*00
17,980
IOWA
410,000
372,000
27,200
10,900
NA
KANSAS
98,000
91,000
8,100
3,700
120
KENTUCKY
1,831.000
1,600,000
173,900
106.800
8,880
LOUISIANA
62.000
47,000
38,200
22,400
3,880
MASSACHUSETTS
57,000
64XNM
0
0
0
MARYLAND
3J818,000
3*17*00
166,800
86,400
4,290
MICHIGAN
9,180,000
8/114.000
428*00
220,000
8,730
MINNESOTA
236,000
223X100
1,600
1,400
90
MISSISSIPPI
13,000
12,000
900
600
30
MISSOURI
530,000
491,000
39,400
28,600
4,340
MONTANA
767JOOO
703,000
114,700
80,200
7,710
NEBRASKA
36.000
34,000
0
0
0
NEVADA
148,000
132,000
28,600
10,000
1,830
NEW JERSEY
1,002,000
936,000
96.200
60,200
2*80
NEW MEXICO
32,000
14*00
32,400
13,800
860
NEW YORK
4,524,000
4,069,000
314*00
163,900
4/470
N. CAROLINA
138,000
132XM0
8,000
7,800
1,200
OHIO
17,893,000
16/412,000
1,313,600
789,800
24*80
OKLAHOMA
167,000
148,000
24,400
9,200
2,020
OREGON
3,116,000
2,890.000
378,200
187,400
2,790
PENNSYLVANIA
20,916,000
19,180X>00
1,312,800
718,900
40,780
RHODE ISLAND
31,000
28,000
BOO
200
<1
S. CAROLINA
302,000
28BXM0
29,000
17,700
820
S. DAKOTA
4X100
3,000
0
0
0
TENNESSEE
824000
681XMW
67,100
47,400
7*00
TEXAS
2*12*00
2308,000
291*00
188,700
18,470
UTAH
2*82,000
2*43*00
170X100
88,600
4,410
VERMONT
10000
9,000
0
0
0
VIRGINIA
178,000
166,000
BOO
800
40
WASHINGTON
639,000
473,000
304,100
141,800
12*80
W. VIRGINIA
2,813,000
2,303,000
310*00
181,200
4/400
WISCONSIN
661XW0
811XN0
7,600
2,800
20
EPA REGION





1
208*00
1(2,000
16,700
8,400
140
n
6*26*00
6,004,000
410*00
204,100
7*30
lb
27*38*00
26*79,000
1,786,900
888X100
48,840
or
8XW4.000
7.2S7.000
778,000
414,000
27,810
n
50,202*00
45,090,000
3,247,700
1,843,400
60,800
JCt
2,796XXXJ
2,630,000
400,200
212,800
28*80
m
1,074,000
988,000
72,800
43,200
4*80
mi
4,204,000
3.770XM0
327,300
161,000
12*70
a
6*49,000
6*oa,ooo
676,900
288,800
18,830
X
3*44,000
3*28,000
720,900
311,800
18*10
NATIONAL
TOTALS
109*02,000
100*42.000
8.334,700
4,464,200
223*70
*OOES NOT INCLUDE SOME DUSTS FROM NONFERROUS SMELT I NO AND REFINING INDUSTRIES WHICH
ARE IMMEDIATELY RECYCLED.
31

-------
Table 10
STATE, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL WASTE GENERATION
U.S. SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY (SIC 33)*, METRIC TONS
1977



TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL

TOTAL
TOTAL
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS
STATE
GENERATED
GENERATED
HAZARDOUS
HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS

WET. WT.)
(DRY WT.)
(WET WT.I
(DRY WT.I
(DRY WT.I
ALABAMA
5.514,000
4,965,000
394.800
202,900
10,640
ARIZONA
3,306,000
3,085,000
327,600
141,000
11,080
ARKANSAS
27,000
20,000
17,600
11,000
1,270
CALIFORNIA
2,970,000
2,737,000
221,600
134,300
3,260
COLORADO
888,000
811,000
46,200
25.800
800
CONNECTICUT
114,000
100,000
16,800
6.300
160
DELAWARE
116,000
113,000
6,700
5,000
260
FLORIDA
76,000
71,000
4,600
2.200
160
GEORGIA
134,000
130,000
42,600
4.200
1,800
HAWAII
4,000
3,000
200
200
10
IDAHO
190,000
166,000
37,000
12,300
2,960
ILLINOIS
8,383.000
7.683,000
468,900
277.800
9,710
INDIANA
15,284,000
13,833,000
1,100,800
618,000
17,460
IOWA
461,000
410,000
27,200
10.900
NA
KANSAS
108,000
101,000
6,800
3.900
120
LOUISIANA
65,000
50,000
36,200
22.400
3,680
MARYLAND
4/462,000
3,914,000
204,000
118,700
4,660
MASSACHUSETTS
63,000
60,000
0
0
0
MICHIGAN
9j812,000
8,993,000
421,000
234.600
9,110
MINNESOTA
268,000
244,000
1,700
1,600
90
MISSISSIPPI
13,000
12,000
1,000
600
30
MISSOURI
660,000
620,000
44,300
33.400
2,890
MONTANA
767,000
703,000
696,000
60,200
7,710
NEBRAKSA
39,000
39,000
0
0
0
NEVADA
148,000
132,000
26,600
10.000
1,830
NEW JERSEY
1,046,000
975,000
98,000
51.000
2,870
NEW MEXICO
638,000
601,000
64,700
27,600
1,900
NEW YORK
4,801,000
4,334,000
266,800
168.200
6,280
N. CAROLINA
156,000
147,000
11,900
11.700
1,840
OHIO
19,060,000
17/176,000
1,380,300
848,600
26,860
OKLAHOMA
107,000
•4,000
16,000
6,400
1.260
OREGON
3,138,000
2,912,000
392,700
170,900
6,710
PENNSYLVANIA
22,264,000
20,403,000
1.372,000
762,700
44,140
RHODE ISLAND
34,000
31,000
900
200
<1
S. DAKOTA
4,000
4,000
0
0
0
S. CAROLINA
308,000
296,000
30,700
18.400
830
KENTUCKY
1,966,000
1,749,000
179,100
109,600
8,720
TENNESSEE
868,000
622X100
87,200
47,400
7,300
TEXAS
2,596,000
24*7.000
291,700
168.900
17,250
UTAH
2,627.000
2/456,000
187/400
68,400
4,620
VERMONT
11,000
10,000
0
0
0
VIRGINIA
194,000
183,000
1,000
900
40
WASHINGTON
651,000
484,000
306,300
142,400
12,880
W.VIRGINIA
2,734,000
2/406,000
294,600
187.600
4,660
WISCONSIN
721,000
678,000
9,000
3,000
20
EPA REGION





I
222,000
201,000
17,700
6,600
160
n
6,847,000
5,309.000
364,800
209.200
9,160
m
29,580,000
27,018,000
1,877,400
1,074,900
63,660
m
8,834,000
7,992.000
731,700
406.900
31,030
V
63,618,000
48,906,000
3,370,900
1,963,800
62,040
TU
3332,000
3,062,000
426,100
226,200
28,240
m.
1,168,000
1,070,000
78,300
48,200
3,010
TBQ
4,286,000
3,973,000
927,600
186,400
13,030
DC
6/128,000
5,867,000
674,800
286,600
16,180
Z
3,979,000
3,561,000
738,000
326.800
22,660
NATIONAL
TOTALS
117,184,000
107^)38,000
9,104,300
4,732,200
236,930
•DOES NOT INCLUDE SOME DUSTS FROM NONFERROUS SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRIES WHICH ARE IMMEDIATELY
RECYCLED.
32

-------
Table 11
STATE, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL WASTE GENERATION
U.S. SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY (SIC 33)*, METRIC TONS
1983



TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL

TOTAL
TOTAL
POTENTIALLY
POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS
STATE
GENERATED
GENERATEO
HAZARDOUS
HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS

(WET WT. I
(DRYWT.I
(WETWT.I
(DRY IWT.)
IDRV WT.)
ALABAMA
6.526,000
5.894.000
482,300
229,400
12.070
ARIZONA
3,423,000
3,145,000
461.400
168,700
12,660
ARKANSAS
34,000
26,000
23.300
14,400
1,600
CALIFORNIA
3,433,000
3,166,000
346.100
239,700
3,720
COLORADO
1,037,000
947,000
52.400
31,100
920
CONNECTICUT
139,000
120,000
21,800
8,800
180
DELAWARE
135,000
131,000
«.eoo
6,900
300
FLORIOA
88,000
83,000
4,800
2,500
170
GEORGIA
160,000
146,000
43.200
42,400
1.830
HAWAII
6.000
*jaoa
300
200
20
IDAHO
190,000
166,000
37.000
12,300
2,960
ILLINOIS
9,900.000
9,073,000
686,800
313,000
11.000
INDIANA
17,887,000
16,191,000
1,364.600
734,200
20,660
IOWA
660,009
603,000
27,200
10,900
NA
KANSAS
134,000
124,000
8,600
4,500
120
KENTUCKY
2,062,000
1,840.000
243,300
7,000
13,380
LOUISIANA
76,000
60,000
40,900
27,000
4,340
MARYLAND
4,938,000
4/t79,000
212.200
108,100
5,270
MASSACHUSETTS
78,000
74,000
0
0
0
MICHIGAN
11,604,000
10,636,000
644,100
267,700
10,380
MINNESOTA
314,000
298,000
2.000
1.800
110
MISSISSIPPI
15,000
14,000
1.100
700
40
MISSOURI
632.000
589,000
48.700
37,500
6.480
MONTANA
789,000
713,000
136,100
60,500
8,490
NEBRASKA
46,000
44,000
0
0
0
NEVADA
1S2.000
134,000
29,500
11.600
1,900
NEW JERSEY
1,186,000
1,164,000
117,000
58,800
2,320
NEW MEXICO
554,000
507,000
80,800
34,000
2.170
NEW YORK
5,849,000
6,102,000
871.200
172,000
7.080
S. CAROLINA
188,000
179,000
14,900
14,700
2.320
OHIO
22,346,000
20,489,000
1.677,000
998,000
29.230
OKLAHOMA
126,000
113,000
10,300
6,700
1,270
OREGON
3,169,000
2,941,000
398.500
176,700
5,860
PENNSYLVANIA
26,977,000
23,636,000
1,606,700
866,400
47.640
RHODE ISLAND
42,000
38,000
1,000
200
< 1
S. DAKOTA
5,000
6,000
0
0
0
S. CAROLINA
329,000
311,000
34,900
20,000
660
TENNESSEE
823,000
743,000
115,200
68,000
11,670
TEXAS
2,978,000
2,741,000
323.700
180.400
19.000
UTAH
2,978,000
2,773,000
210,600
106,300
5,200
VERMONT
14,000
13,000
0
0
0
VIRGINIA
237,000
224,000
1,100
1,000
40
WASHINGTON
703,000
528,000
326,200
156,500
14,370
W. VIRGINIA
3,190 POO
2,806,000
377,200
198,400
6,400
WISCONSIN
891.000
833,000
12,800
4,300
30
EPA REGION





I
273,000
246,000
2S.800
9,000
180
a
IfMJMD
8,266.000
488,200
228,800
9,380
m
34,297,000
31,478,000
2,213,800
1,178,700
68.560
m
10,171,000
9.210,000
939,800
514,800
42,140
z
62,942,000
57.519.000
4,186,000
2,329,500
71,310
SL
3,768,000
3/460,000
466,000
282,400
28,380
BE
1362,000
1,260,000
84,600
62,900
6,610
xm
4,809,000
4 >38,000
399.100
196,900
14,000
EE
7,013,000
6,439,000
837,200
420,100
18,300
z
4,062,000
3,634,000
761,700
345,600
23,180
NATIONAL
TOTALS
135,611,000
123339,000
10,418,200
5,536,400
271,640
•DOES NOT INCLUDE SOME DUSTS FROM NONFERROUS SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRIES WHICH ARE IMMEDIATELY
RECYCLED.
33

-------
SECTION VI
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY
Within the context of Volumes II and III of this report,
dealing with nonferrous and ferrous metals, respectively, technologies
have been identified and discussed for treatment and disposal of land
disposed or stored residuals.
For specific waste streams from each metal category, current
methods of treatment and disposal are identified and discussed. This
was done for all waste streams, whether or not they were considered
potentially hazardous.
For those waste streams considered potentially hazardous,
three levels of technology were identified and described. Level I,
or Present Treatment and Disposal Technology, comprises the average
treatment and disposal practices for the potentially hazardous wastes.
Level II, or Best Technology Currently Employed, comprises those practices
now employed within each metal category and considered to be the most
environmentally sound practices now employed.
Level III, or Technology Necessary to Provide Adequate Health
and Environmental Protection, are those practices believed necessary to
provide adequate environmental protection from disposal of potentially
hazardous wastes within each metal category. These practices may or may
not be currently employed by the industry.
Table 12 summarizes the Levels I, II and III treatment and
disposal technologies for potentially hazardous wastes generated in the
metal smelting and refining industries. This table also gives the
relative amounts of each of the potentially hazardous wastes as percentages
of total wastes generated in each category.
Present Treatment and Disposal Technology (Level 1)
The predominant practices used in the metal smelting and
refining industry (SIC 33) for the storage or disposal of process or
pollution control residuals on land were found to be open dumping and
lagooning. Slags and dusts which are not recycled are generally open
dumped on land.
Waste slurries containing appreciable solids content are put
into lagoons or clarifiers for solids settling before discharge of
supernatant to receiving streams or water recycle. For the larger
industries such as primary copper, lead, and zinc, lagoons must be
periodically dredged to maintain adequate lagoon volume. Dredged lagoon
sediments are generally stored or disposed on land adjacent to the
lagoons or added to slag dumps. Where the solids content of waste slurries
are not high or discharge volumes are low, the sludge may be left in
35

-------
TABLE 12
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES,
METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY (SIC 33)
(Potentially Hazardous Wastes As A Percentage of Total Generated)
Metal Category
and Waste
Level I
Present Treatment
and Disposal
Level II
Best Technology
Currently Employed
Level III
Adequate Health and
Environmental Protection
Primary Copper
(SIC 3331)
Dust (0.6%)
Sludge (5%)
Land storage before
recycle
Unlined lagoons; land
storage or open dumping
of dredged sludge
Immediate recycle
Same as I
Immediate recycle
Lined lagoons; immediate
recyle; storage in concrete
pits or disposal in sealed
soil areas.
Primary Lead
(SIC 3332)
Sludge (3.4%)
Unlined settling pits
and lagoons; open land
storage or disposal
Immediate recycle to
sinter
Immediate recycle to sinter
or concrete settling pits,
lined lagoons and chemical
fixation, if land disposed
sludge.
Primary Zinc,
Electrolytic
(SIC 3333)
Sludge (100%)
Primary Zinc,
Pyrometal lurgical
(SIC 3333)
Sludge (25%)
¦
Unlined lagoons--dredged
sludge stored on ground
or open dumped
Unlined lagoons with
dredged sludge stored or
dumped on land
Same as I
Unlined lagoons; immed-
iate recycle of retort
scrubber sludge; storage
or dumping of dredged
acid plant sludge on land
;
Lined lagoons and storage
of dredged sludge in con-
crete pits, or immediate
shipment to lead smelters
Lined lagoons; immediate
recycle of retort scrubber
sludge; chemical fixation of
acid plant sludge before land
dumping.

-------
TABLE 12 (Cont.)
I
Metal Category
and Waste
Level I
Present Treatment
and Disposal
Level II
Best Technology
Currently Employed
Level III
Adequate Health and
Environmental Protection
Iron Press Residue
(0.2%)
Open dumping
Immediate shipment to
lead smelter
Immediate shipment to
lead smelter
Primary Aluminum
(SIC 3334)
Sludge (49%)
Pot liners and
Skimmings (44%)
Dust (S.3%)
Unlined lagoons
Ground storage
Open dump
Cryolite recovery
Immediate recycle for
cryolite and carbon
recovery
Open dump
Cryolite recovery or lined
lagoons with sealing of
sludge disposal areas
Same as II
Sealed soil areas for
dumping
Primary Antimony
(SIC 3339)
Slag (98%)
Sludge (2%)
Open dump
Tailings pond
Open dump
Tailings pond
Sealing of soil at dis-
posal areas; collection
and treatment of runoff
Separate lined lagoon
for sludge impoundment
Primary Mercury { Unlined lagoon or Unlined lagoon
(SIC 3339) [ spread on calcine
Condenser Water dump
(
-------
TABLE 12 (Cont.)
Metal Category
and Waste
Level I
Present Treatment
and Disposal
Level II Level III
Best Technology Adequate Health and
Currently Employed Environmental Protection
Primary Tungsten
(SIC 5339)
Digestion Residue
(10%)
Sludge (90%)
Land Storage
Unlined lagoons for
settling; open dumping
of dredged sludge
Stored in drums Stored in drums
Unlined settling lagoons; Lined settling lagoons;
chemical fixation before chemical fixation before
open dumping open dumping
Primary Tin (SIC 3339)
Slag (10%)
i
Open dump j Open dump Ground sealing;
' collection of runoff
»
Secondary Copper
(SIC 33412)
Slag (>99%)
Sludge (<1%)
I
Open dump j Open dump Ground sealing]
1 collection of runoff
I
1
i
Unlined lagoon j Unlined lagoon ¦ Lined lagoon
Secondary Lead Unlined lagoon Unlined lagoon ° Lined lagoon
(SIC 33413) |
Sludge (2%)
Secondary Aluminum ¦ Unlined lagoon Lined lagoon
(SIC 33417)
Sludge (29%)
1
Lined lagoon
' 1
Iron and Steel
(SIC 3312)
Ammonia Liquor
(15.8%)
Biological treatment Biological treatment
Biological treatment
-------
TABLE 12 CCont.)
Metal Category
and Waste
Level I
Present Treatment
and Disposal
Level II
Best Technology
Currently Employed
Level III
Adequate Health and
Environmental Protection
Iron and Steel (Cont.)



Lime Sludge-Coke
Plant (0.2%)
Open dump
Open dump
Ground sealing
Decanter Tank Tar-
Coke Plant (0.2%)
Open dump
Open dump
Ground sealing
Electric Furnace
Dust (1.1%)
Open dump
Open dump
Ground sealing
Electric Furnace
Sludge (0.7%)
Open dump
Open dump
Chemical fixation
Pickle Liquor
(0.2%)
Neutralization by
contract disposer
Acid regeneration
and reuse
Acid regeneration and
reuse or neutralization
in lined lagoons
Mill Sludges
(2.6%)
Open dump
Metal reclamation
*
Metal reclamation or
chemical fixation prior
to open dumping
Mill Scales
(8.5%)
Mostly recycled
for iron recovery (MJ0%);
remainder open dumped
Same as I
Recycle for iron recovery
or ground sealing if open
dumped
Ferroalloys (SIC 3313)
Sludge (11%)
Unlined lagoons; dredged
sludge open dumped
Same as I
i
¦
Lined lagoons; chemical
fixation of sludge prior
to open dumping
Dust (16%)
Open dumped
Open dumped
Sealed ground at disposal
area; collection and treat-
ment of runoff
1 Skull Plant Tailings
| (ferronickel)(6.5%)
Open dumped
Open dumped
Ground sealing; collection
and treatment of runoff
-------
lagoons permanently. The use of unlined lagoons was found to be almost
universally employed. The only industry found to employ lined lagoons
was secondary aluminum. The above practices.therefore,generally comprised
technology currently employed (Level I).
Best Technology Currently Employed (Level II)
As discussed previously, potentially hazardous constituents,
principally heavy metals, were found in slags, sludges and dusts from all
of the industries studied. A number of practices have been observed as
best technology currently employed. These generally consisted of immediate
recycle of some residuals rather than storage on ground for periods of
months to years before recycle, the use of lined lagoons, and chemical
fixation of sludge.
Industries able to immediately recycle some land stored residuals
back to smelting operations as Level II practice include primary copper (dusts),
primary lead (sinter and acid plant scrubber sludge), and pyrometallurgical
primary zinc (retort scrubwater sludge). In addition,shipment of iron press
residues to lead smelters from pyrometallurgical zinc smelters without lengthy
ground storage has been observed. Shipment of electrolytic zinc sludge to
lead smelters without lengthy periods of ground storage is considered an
alternative Level II practice.
The iron and steel industry presently recycles an estimated 80%
of mill scales which it generates back to the sinter for agglomeration}and
then to blast furnaces for iron production. In recent years the iron and steel
industry has developed technology for reclaiming acid and iron from pickle
liquor,although this practice is not yet widely used in the industry.
Immediate recovery of cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride) from
scrubber sludges and spent potliners generated in the primary aluminum
industry is an observed Level II practice. The demand for cryolite will,
however,be less than the amount which could be generated in the industry.
Similarly, at least one primary zinc producer recovers zinc, lead, carbon
and fcrrosilicon.
The use of lined lagoons as Level II practice is evident only
for the secondary aluminum industry and certain sectors of the ferroalloy
industry, since lined lagoons were not found to be in use by other smelting
and refining industries.
The only industry category which is known to employ chemical fixation
of sludge (1 plant) before land disposal, thus precluding leachate generation,
is primary tungsten. Chemical fixation of sludge is a Level II practice,
therefore, only for the primary tungsten industry.
40
-------
Technology Necessary To Provide Adequate Health and Environmental Protection
(Level III)
A number of methods have been advanced for insuring health and
environmental protection in the event of demonstrated leaching of hazardous
constituents. These methods include immediate recycling or shipment of
residuals as discussed under Level II technology, the use of lined lagoons
and concrete settling pits to prevent leachate percolation, chemical fixation
of sludges prior to land disposal, and sealing of soil at slag, dust and
sludge disposal areas to prevent leachate percolation.
As discussed previously, the use of lined lagoons, concrete
settling pits, or chemical fixation of sludges is practiced by only a
few plants. This is believed to be primarily a result of the absence or
lack of regulations regarding the ultimate disposal of residuals on
land. Sealing of the soil at disposal areas with bentonite or other
sealants is not known to be practiced by any primary or secondary metal
smelting plant, but is practiced by other industries (e.g., petroleum
refineries).
A final available practice is the collection of runoff from
land dump perimeters, with its diversion to lagoons or other treatment
prior to discharge, if runoff is significantly contaminated with heavy
metals or other toxic constituents.
41
-------
SECTION VII
COSTS OF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Technologies comprising Levels I (present), Levels II (best
practiced), and Levels III (adequate health and environmental protection)
were summarized in the previous section for residuals considered potentially
hazardous at this time. The capital and annual costs associated with
each of these levels were estimated for the potentially hazardous wastes
in each metal category. Table 13 summarizes Levels I, II, and III
treatment and disposal technology costs. Costs are expressed as dollars
per metric ton of product, and dollars per metric ton of dry waste.
Details of cost estimates are provided in sections on individual metal
categories.
Examination of this data shows that, for the larger industries,
costs of the three levels generally range from $0.10 or less to 2 to 3
dollars per metric ton of product, with the higher costs attributable to
Level III (adequate health and environmental protection). The costs of
treatment and disposal technologies in the smaller primary metals industries
(antimony, mercury, titanium, tungsten, ferronickel) are significantly
higher when expressed in terms of dollars per metric ton of product.
This results from the fact that production from these plants is very
much less than that from the laTger primary industries, such as iron and
steel, primary aluminum, primary copper, primary lead and primary zinc.
The costs of treatment and disposal in the primary mercury industry are
high as a result of very small production for the large quantity of raw
material processed. Production at the typical mercury retort smelter is
only about 0.12 MT per day.
It is observed from Table 13 that, in advancing from Level I
to Level II treatment and disposal technologies, costs are either the
same or only modestly increased. This is because the treatment and
disposal technology levels are generally the same for both levels. For
example, only one industry (secondary aluminum) was observed to employ
lined lagoons for at least one plant, and only one industry (primary
tungsten) employs sludge chemical fixation at one or more plants.
Costs increase significantly when comparing Level III technologies
to Level I or II technologies, generally by a factor of 1.5 to 3.0.
Exceptions include the ferramanganese and silicomanganese and ferrochrome
sectors of the ferroalloy industry, the primary zinc pyrometallurgical
zinc sector, the primary copper smelting and fire refining sector, the
primary electrolytic antimony sector, the primary mercury sector, and
the primary titanium sector.
The relatively large increase in cost for the Level III treatment
and disposal of primary copper smelter and fire refining wastes (31
times Level I and II costs) are a result of the necessity for using
43
-------
TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY COSTS
FOR POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES, METAL SMELTING
AND REFINING (SIC 33)
(Dollars per Metric Ton of Product and Dry Waste)
Metal Category
Level I Cost
(Present)
Level II Cost
(Best Practiced)
Level III Cost
(Adequate Health
£ Environmental
Protection)

$/MT
Product
$/MT
Waste
$/MT
Product
$/MT
Waste
$/MT
Product
$/MT
Waste
Iron and Steel
(SIC 3312)
0.08
13.95
0.09
16.40
0.13
23.00
Ferroalloys
(SIC 3313)
Ferromanganese §
Silicamanganese
Ferrochrome
Ferronickel
0.32
0.26
2.56
2.15
3.15
3.35
0.32
0.26
2.56
2.15
3.15
3.35
1.66
1.32
6.90
11.06
15.70
9.13
Primary Copper, Smelting
and Fire Refining
(SIC 3331)
0.12
6.18
0.12
6.18
3.78
19.36
Primary Copper, Electro-
lytic Refining
(SIC)3331
0.03
68.97
0.03
68.97
0.08
172.52
Primary Lead (SIC 3332)
0.29
1.50
0.29
1.50
0.92
4.83
Primary Zinc,
Electrolytic
(SIC 3333)
0.14
0.94
0.14
0.94
0.27
1.87
Primary Zinc,
Pyrometallurgical
0.52
2.76
0.53
2.81
2.63
13.96
Primary Aluminum
(SIC 3334)
0.62
4.63
0.62
4.63
1.39
7,63
44
-------
TABLE 13 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY COSTS
FOR POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTES
Metal Category
Level I Cost
(Prevalent)
Level II Cost
(Best Practiced)
Level III Cost
(Adequate Health
6 Environmental
Protection)

$/MT
Product
$/MT
Waste
$/MT
Product
$/MT
Waste
$/MT
Product
$/MT
Waste
Primary Antimony
Pyrotnetal lurgical
(SIC 3339)
4.42
1.59
4.42
1.59
6.38
2.30
Primary Antimony
Electrolytic
(SIC 3339)
.01
.01
.01
.01
3.71
17.31
Primary Mercury
(SIC 3339)
57.25
1.30*
57.25
1.30*
123.69
2.81*
Primary Titanium
(SIC 3339)
4.95
3.01
4.95
3.01
16.73
10.17
Primary Tungsten
(SIC 3339)
16.67
34.59
73.79
76.56
86.97
93.82
Primary Tin
(SIC 3339)
1.58
1.73
1.58
1,73
2.47
2.70
Secondary Copper,
Pyrometallurgical
(SIC 33412)
0.68
1.93
0.68
1.93
0.99
2.83
Secondary Copper,
Electrolytic
(SIC "53412)
0.86
18.02
0.86
18.02
1.10
35.93
Secondary Lead
0.58
7.71
0.58
7.71
0.9b
13.06
Secondary Aluminum
Reverbatory Smelting
(SIC 33417)
0.82
3.29
1.65
6.62
1.65
6.62
Secondary Aluminum,
Dross Smelting
(SIC 33417)
2.50
3.57
2.50
3.57
3.57
5.09
*This is wet weight cost since solids content of wastewater is insignificant.
45
-------
concrete lined pits and lined lagoons for a large volume of wastes. The
primary electrolytic antimony industry at present treats its refinery
waste in conjunction with a much larger volume of mill wastewater. The
refinery wastewater comprises less than 1% of the total volume; therefore,
the Level I and II costs attributable to the refinery are negligible.
For Level III, the refinery wastewater is segregated from mill water and
put in a lined lagoon, resulting in a cost of $6.38/MT product.
The cost of Level III treatment of chlorination sludge from
primary titanium production is 3.4 times Levels I and II as a result of
using lined lagoons, as opposed to unlined lagoons, for a relatively
large volume of sludge per unit of production (330 kg/MT product).
The costs of Level III treatment and disposal technologies for
ferrochrome and ferromanganese and silicomanganese are 5 times Levels I
and II technology as a result of the requirements for lined lagoons,
chemical fixation of sludges, and soil sealing at dust disposal areas.
Table 14 summarizes the estimated annual costs of Levels I,
II, and III treatment and disposal technology for the potentially hazard-
ous wastes in each metal category as percentages of 1973 metal selling
price. An impact of 1.5% on mercury selling price for Level III tech-
nology is the largest observed. Tables 15 and 16 summarize the capital
and annual cumulative industry costs for the primary and secondary metal
smelting and refining industries, respectively.
46
-------
TABLE 14
ANNUAL POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS
AS PERCENTAGES OF 1973 METAL SELLING PRICES

Treatment and Disposal Technology Levels
Industry Category
Level I
Level II
Level III
Iron and Steel (SIC 3312)
0.09
0.10
0.15
Ferromanganese 5 Silicomanganese
(SIC 3313)
0.2
0.2
0.80
Ferrochrome (SIC 3313)
0.07
0.07
0.36
Ferronickel (SIC 3313)
0.18
0.18
0.48
Primary Copper Smelting 5 Fire
Refining (SIC 3331)
0.01
0.01
0.29
Primary Copper, Electrolytic
Refining (SIC 3331)
0.002
0.002
0.006
Primary Lead (SIC 3332)
0.08
0.08
0.26
Primary Zinc, Electrolytic
(SIC 3333)
0.03
0.03
0.06
Primary Zinc, Pyrometallurgical
(SIC 3333)
0.11
0.12
0.58
Primary Aluminum (SIC 3334)
0.09
0.09
0.21
Primary Antimony, Pyrometallurgical
(SIC 3339)
0.29
0.29
0.42
Primary Antimony, Electrolytic
(SIC 3339
Negligible
Negligible
0.25
Primary Mercury (SIC 3339)
0.7
0.7
1.5
Primary Titanium (SIC 3339)
0.16
0.16
0.54
Primary Tungsten (SIC 3339)
0.13
0.57
0.68
Primary Tin (SIC 3339)
0.03
0.03
0.05
47
-------
TABLE 14 (Cont.)
ANNUAL POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL COSTS
AS PERCENTAGES OF 1973 METAL SELLING PRICES

Treatment and Disposal Technology Levels
Industry Category
Level I
Level II
Level III
Secondary Copper, Pyrometallurgical
(SIC 33412)
0.05
0.05
0.08
Secondary Copper, Electrolytic
(SIC 33412)
0.06
0.06
0.08
Secondary Lead (SIC 33413)
0.16
0.16
0.27
Secondary Aluminum, Reverbatory
Smelting (SIC 33417)
0.13
0.26
0.26
Secondary Aluminum, Dross Smelting
(SIC 33417)
0.39
0.39
0.56
48
-------
TABLE 15
CUMULATIVE WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY COSTS
PRIMARY METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRIES
($ Million)



LEVEL





I
II

III
Industry
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
Copper: Smelt 5 Fire Refining
$ 1.15
$ 0.19
$ 1.15
$ 0.19
$ 3.66
$ 6.13
Copper: Electrolytic Refining
0.32
0.05
0.32
0.05
0.79
0.12
Lead
0.24
0.18
0.24
0.18
0.34
0.56
Zinc: Electrolytic
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.20
0.05
Zinc: Pyrometallurgical
0.27
0.16
0.29
0.16
0.34
0.80
Aluminum
7.41
2.55
7.45
2.55
27.34
5.72
Antimony: Pyrometallurgical
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.30
0.01
Antimony: Electrolytic
(1)
(1)
CD
CD
.01
CD
Mercury
0.03
0.004
0.03
0.004
0.06
0.009
Ti tanium
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.23
Tungsten
0.56
0.33
0.58
1.28
0.89
1.33
Tin
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
Iron and Steel
3.53
7.57
3.53
7.57
8.08
12.93
Ferroalloys






FeMn § SiMn
0.47
0.25
0.47
0.25
0.63
1.31
FeCr
0.35
0.11
0.35
0.11
0.73
0.56
FeSi
1.19
1.07
1.19
1.07
1.19
1.07
FeNi
0.17
0.07
0.17
0.07
0.83
0.17
Total:
$15.80
$12.65
$15.88
$13.60
$45.43
$31.01
(1) Less than $5,000
-------
TABLE 16
CUMULATIVE WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGY COSTS
SECONDARY METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRIES
($ Million)
——————————————H


LEVEL




I

II

III
Industry
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
Copper - Pyronet. Refining
$ 0.20
$ 0.21
$ 0.20
$ 0.21
$ 0.71
$ 0.31
Copper - Electrolytic Refining
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.35
0.17
Lead - Hard S Soft Smelting
0.37
0.10
0.37
0.10
0.81
0.17
Aluminum - Reverbatory Smelting
4.08
0.62
8.11
1.25
8.11
1.25
Aluminum - Dross Smelting
N/A
0.47
N/A
0.47
N/A
0.67
Total
$ 4.79
$ 1.52
$ 8.82
$ 2.15
$ 9.98
$ 2.57
N/A - Not Applicable
-------
REFERENCES
1.	"Agronomic Controls Over Environmental Cycling of Trace Elements,"
W. H. Alloway in Advances in Agronomy, V. 20: 235-274, 1968.
2.	National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40CFR 141),
December 24, 1975.
yol538
SW-145c.l
51
-------