ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PRACTICES
IN THE METAL SMELTING AND REFINING INDUSTRY
Volume IV
Appendices
This final report (Sti-245c.4) describes work performed
for the Federal solid waste management programs
lender contract no. 68-01-2604
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
The report is in four volumes: (I) Executive Summary, (II) Primary
and Secondary Nonferrous Smelting and Refining, (ill) Ferrous Smelting
and Refining, and (IV) Appendices
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 the 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.4) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix ' Page
Appendix A Chemical Analyses of Residuals from Metal
Smelting and Refining ......... . ....... 1
Appendix B Solubility Tests and Other Criteria for '
Hazardous Waste Assessment ............... ^1
Appendix C Costs and Cost Factors for Treatment and
Disposal Technologies . . ............... 41
Appendix D Procedures for Calculating Waste Quantities
for the Iron and Steel Industry ........ . ..." 49
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page
A-l Primary Copper Wastes Analyses ...... . .................. 2
A- 2 Primary Lead Wastes Analyses ........................... 3
A-3 Primary Zinc Wastes Analyses ...... , ............ , ....... 4
A-4 Primary Aluminum Wastes Analyses ......... ........ ...... 5
A-5 Primary Antimony Wastes Analyses ................. . ..... 6
A- 6 Primary Mercury Wastes Analyses ............. ...... ...... ?
A- 7 Primary Tungsten Wastes Analyses ................ . . ..... ®
A- 8 Secondary Copper Wastes Analyses .......... .'............ 9
A- 9 Secondary Lead Wastes Analyses ............. ............ 10
A- 10 Secondary Aluminum Wastes Analyses ........... ..... ..... H
A-ll Iron and Steel Wastes Analyses .............. ........... 12
A-12 Iron and Steel Foundries Wastes Analyses...... ......... ^8
A- 13 Ferroalloys Wastes Analyses ..... . , ..................... • ^9
B-l Solubility Tests, Primary Copper, Zinc, Antimony,
Mercury, Tungsten and Lead ..... . ....................... 32
B-2 Solubility Tests, Secondary Lead and Secondary Copper.. ^*
B-3 Solubility Tests, Ferroalloys ...................... .... 35
B-4 Solubility Test's Primary and Secondary Aluminum ..... ... ^E>
B-5 Solubility Tests Iron and Steel and Iron and Steel
Foundries ......... ... .......... .... ........ . . .......... 37
D-l Waste Generation Factors - Iron and Steel Plants.. ..... 50
D-2 Yearly Generation of Residuals by Typical Iron and
Steel Plant ....................................... . ---- 52
D-3 Major Soruces of Waste, Iron and Steel 'Plant ........... 55
D-4 Example of Waste Generation Computations ............... 57
-------
APPENDIX A
Chemical Analyses of Residuals from Metal
Smelting and Refining
This appendix contains the results of chemical analyses of waste
samples from various metal smelting and refining industries. Samples
were either collected by Calspan personnel at the time of plant visits
or collected and shipped to Calspan by industry personnel. Chemical
analyses were conducted at the Calspan Corporation laboratory. Analyses
of wastes from the following industries are given:
Table No,
Primary Copper A- 1
Primary Lead A- 2
Primary Zinc A- 3
Primary Aluminum A- 4
Primary Antimony A- 5
Primary Mercury A- 6
Primary Tungsten A- 7
Secondary Copper A- 8
Secondary Lead A- 9
Secondary Aluminum A-10
Iron and Steel A-ll
Iron and Steel Foundries A-12
Ferroalloys - A-13
-------
TABLE A-l SAMPLE ANALYSES - PRIMARY COPPER PLANTS
Concentration of Potentially Hazardous Constituents (PPM)
Plant
A
B
C
D
Type of Sample
Fine Dust From ESP
on Converters
Reverb. Furnace Slag
Fine Dust From ESP
on Reverb . Furn .
Sludge from Lagoon
Receiving Acid Plant
Blowdown
Electric Furnace Slag
Reverb er at ory Furnace
Slag
Converter Slag
Reverb. Slag
Solids from Acid
Plant Blowdown
Thickener Overflow
Water from Above
Solids from Acid
Plant Blowdown
Thickener Underflow
Water from Above
As
. — ,
— ~~
—
— — —
___
6,64
---
1.44
Cd
520
<5
310
180
<5
10
<5
<5
<5
10,5
60
1.1
Cr
50
45
45
25
50
100
40
160
30
1.7
90
0.2
Cu
280000
10000
240000
22000
3700
6200
40000
6100
150000
390
380000
3.7
Hg
0.8
0.9
2.5
5,0
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.25
6.0
0.20
Mn
90
230
100
8
165
450
140
170
10
5.1
72
12.5
Ni
110
10
35
10
5
25
100
20
<10
1.8
95
4.
Pb
8000
250
12000
»12000
250
100
200
80
10000
4.0
5800
6.
Sb
500
250
750
800
<100
400
200
100
1200
<1.
200
<1
Se
30
40
80
550
10
20
20
20 !
150
0.30
40
0.090
Zn
28000
3700
44000
1900
8000
7800
1000
650
120
45
1000
40
- Not analyzed
-------
Table A-2
SAMPLE ANALYSES - PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERS
PLANT
A
B
C
D»
E*
F*
MATERIAL ANALYZED
FRESH BLAST FURNACE SLAG
OLD BLAST FURNACE SLAG
SINTER SCRUBBER SLUDGE
LAGOON DREDGINGS
(SLAG GRANULATION)
BAG HO USE DUST
(FROM BLAST FURNACE)
FRESH BLAST FURNACE SLAG
OLD BLAST FURNACE SLAG
FRESH LEAD FUMING SLAG
OLD LEAD FUMING SLAG
BLAST FURNACE SLAG
LAGOON DREDGINGS FROM
LEAD SMELTER
BLAST FURNACE SLAG
BLAST FURNACE SLAG
BLAST FURNACE SLAG
CONCENTRATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (ppmj
Cd
10
88
900
700
14,000
1,150
73
10
5
350
640
-
-
-
Cr
34
37
11
28
10
37
7i
150
90
30
60
-
-
-
Cu
1,850
2,330
10,400
1/190
5,350
2,750
2,250
1J500
1,600
1.500
6,200
2.600
2,500
-
Hg
—
-
0.1
—
~
—
-
-'
- •
-
—
-
_
-
Pb
33,500
68,500
164,000
115,000
148,000
61,900
46,700
25,000
20,000
94,000
140,000
38,000
35,000
25,000
Zn
131.000
51,000
25,600
132,000
82,000
110.000
160.000
42,000
31,000
120,000
80,000
108,000
150,000
120,000
Sb
—
-
-
—
•••
—
_.
33
20
440
3,000
-
-
-
TI
—
-
—
—
20
—
-
—
-
_
—
-
-
-
Mn
—
—
—
"•
_
—
14.560
13,500
11,500
2,900
-
-
-
•DATA FROM BUREAU OF MINES, ROLLA, MISSOURI. ALL OTHER DATA FROM SAMPLES OBTAINED BY CALSPAN CORP.
- NOT ANALYZED
-------
Table A-3
SAMPLE ANALYSES- PRIMARY ZINC SMELTERS AND REFINERS
PLANT
A
B
MATERIAL ANALYZED
GYPSUM CAKE
(NEUTRAL COOLING TOWER)
GYPSUM CAKE
(ACID COOLING TOWER)
GYPSUM CAKE
(LAND DUMP)
FRESH ANODE SLUDGE
OLD ANODE SLUDGE
(FROM DUMP}
FRESH ACID PLANT SLUDGE
OLD ACID PLANT SLUDGE
FRESH VERTICAL RETORT
FURNACE RESIDUE
CADMIUM PLANT RESIDUE
(IRON PRESS!
OXIDE FURNACE RESIDUE
CONCENTRATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS
CONSTITUENTS (ppm)
Cd
<10
<10
550
12
1,400
2.000
640
850
280
10
Cr
10
9
11
10
8
25
39
46
24
17
Cu
38
10
1,580
85
1.900
900
700
4,600
1,150
810
Hg
-•
—
—
-
*""*
9,5
-
_
—
—
Pb
98
1,750
18,100
170,000
89,000
4,350
4,280
2,400
215,000
68
Ti
-
—
—
_
~~
—
-
—
-------
TABLE A-4
SAMPLE ANALYSES - PRIMARY ALUMINUM PLANTS
Concentration of Potentially Hazardous Constituents (PPM)
>lant TyP6 °f Sample Fluoride Cyanide Cu 2n Pb Cr Cd Mn Ni
A
B
C
D
Cast house dust
Solids to lime
treatment plants
Water to lime
treatment plant
Spent pot liners (cathodes)
Shotblasting baghouse dust
Lime treated water to
primary lagoon
Solids to primary lagoon
Sludge dredged from
primary lagoon
Primary lagoon effluent
Secondary lagoon effluent
Spent potliners (cathodes)
Cryolite recovery plant
lagoon sediment "black mud"
Spent potliners (cathodes)
Spent anode dust
Lagoon sludge (line scrub-
ber water -lagoon no longer
in use
Shotblasting baghouse dust
Spent potliners (cathodes)
Cryolote recovery plant
lagoon sediment "black mud"
6200 550 4600 230 <1.0 200 150
180
126
84 1050
26 15,000
14 <.01*
14 <2,5
67 <2.5
12
16
44 15
2.2 92.5
49.6 58
120
118
5.6x10 320 40 620
186 <2,5
1,0 <2.5
*The use of ^ indicates that there is no positive detection of cyanide; if present it is
at lower concentration than indicated value.
-------
TABLE A-5
SAMPLE ANALYSES - PRIMARY ANTIMONY PLANTS
Concentration of Potentially Hazardous Constituents (PPM)
Plant Type of Sample Sb Pb Cu Zn Ni Mn Cr As Cd
A Blast furnace slag 18,000 66 50 500 ---,--
(Pyrometallurgical)
B Anolyte Sludge 27,000 5 50 2 5 21 32 16 1.0
- not analyzed
-------
TABLE A-6
SAMPLE ANALYSES - PRIMARY MERCURY
Concentration of Potentially Hazardous Constituents (PPM)
Plant Type of Sample Hg Zn Sb Cd Pb Cr Cu Mn Hi
A Fresh calcine 1.5 50 250 <5 100 410 15 850 2700
residue
A Old calcine 2.5 110 100 <5 200 450 850 1200 2500
residue
-------
TABLE A-7
SAMPLE ANALYSIS - PRIMARY TUNGSTEN PLANT
Concentration ofPotentially Hazardous Constituents (PPM)
Plant . ' Type of Sample Cu Zn Pb Sb
A Digestion residue 38,000 850 90 <10
-------
Table A-8
SAMPLE ANALYSES-SECONDARY COPPER SMELTERS
PLANT
A
B
MATERIAL ANALYZED
BLAST FURNACE SLAB
WATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
BRASS CASTING DROSS
NICKEL BRASS DROSS
CHROME BRASS DROSS
BAG HOUSE DUST
CONCENTRATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (ppm)
Cd
<5
10
ISO
160
zs
5.000
o
20
94.000
15.5OO
Cu
12.000
170,000
3M.OPO
420.000
100,000
47.000
Mn
7JXW
_
-
-
-
-
Hi
260
16.600
4,100
1,200
-
-
Pb
2X00
900
—
-
—
12.000
SI)
-------
Table A-9
SAMPLE ANALYSES-SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS
PLANT
A
HARD AMD SOFT LEAD
8
WHITE METAL
(LEAD TIN ALLOY)
C
WHITE METAL
{LEAD- TIN ALLOV)
MATERIAL ANALYZED
SCRUBBER SLUDGE
WASTEWATEH TREATMENT
SLUDGE
SMELTER FURNACE SLAG
SMELTEH FURNACE OUST*
WHITE METAL DROSS *
WHITE METAL DROSS *
CONCENTRATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS Jnum!
Zn
25
140
500
120,000
4,700
2,600
Cd
340
TO
5
900
-
Cr
30
35
500
150
-
Cu
20
80
120
400
Mn
120
74
800
S
Ni
S
S
5
S
-
n>
53.000
2JOO
SO
120,000
160,000
145,000
Sb
1,100
250
100
1,800
-
Sn
.
5,000
117,000
5,000
90.00O
THIS MATERIAL IS RECYCLED
-NOT ANALYZED
-------
Table A-10
SAMPLE ANALYSES- SECONDARY ALUMINUM PLANTS
PLANT
A
B
C
D
MATERIAL ANALYZED
SMELTING DROSS
SMELTING DROSS
CASTING DROSS
BAGHOUSE DUST
{INCOMPLETE CYCLE}
BAGHOUSE DUST
(COMPLETE CYCLE!
SMELTING DROSS
WET SCRUBBER SLUDGE
SLAG FURNACE
CONCENTRATION OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS (ppm)
Al
210,000
340,000
280,000
96,000
90,000
120.000
9,000
17,500
Cl
": - .
-
-
—
•^
—
—
450,000
Cr
20
900
280
20
20
190
20
60
Cu
3,300
4.800
27,000
2,600
230
5,300
1,250
310
F
. -
114
_
630
98
—
<.01
-
Na
4^)00
—
-
—
~~
11,000
_
190,000
Sn
-
-
17,000
—
^~
—
—
-
Pb
5,800
540
380
80
200
1,050
140
300
Zn
2,300
4,300
2,600
160
380
4,200
6,500
240
- NOT ANALYZED
-------
TABLE A-11 Sample Analyses - Iron and Steel Plants
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
EOF Slag
Blast Furnace Slag
Ammonia Still Lime Pit
.^ •
a
Reladling Baghouse Dust
Pickle Liquor (solid phase)
Pickle Liquor (liquid phase)
Water Control Station f7
Final Thickened Sludge
Sample Period*
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Cr
870
1300
2310
1500
43
.67
53
' 56
43
43
80
53
176
187
200
176
1710
1000
1590
870
6.5
8.1
5.5
6.0
107
127
107
123
Cu
34.2
30.0
41.7
47.7
18.3
21.8
23.3
19.7
35.0
26.7
22.5
23.3
67.0
65.0
40.0
46.7
60
70
133
64
8,6
9.6
7.6
8.6
80
87
88
68
Mn
36,000
48,000
49,000
48,500
2,400
2,500
2,200
2,700
550
550
550
500
2,400
2,800
2,450
2,400
6,040
3,050
4,830
2,520
220
240
180
200
1,100
1,500
1,350
800
Ni
<10
•ao
<10
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
10
15
8
110
110
100
90
280
273
750
320
9.5
8.0
9,4
11.5
170
180
190
170
Pb
<10
25
<10
50
<10
< 10
<10
< 10
33
<10
67
33
117
180
42
42
9
<18
167
248
<0.2
<0.2
CO. 2
<0.2
83
117
130
83
2n CN
<5 **
<5
<5
<5 - -
<5
20
<5
<5
550 <0.2S
700 3.0
730 <0.2S
710 43.1
950 -
980
400
670 -
10,700
9,300 -
36,700
16,400
. 1
1
1
1
15,000 -
18,000 -
20,000
17,000
F
5000
3000
4200
1000
2000
1120
2140
1300
™
-
-
_
-
- _
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
839
960
-
580
Oil §
Grease
.»
-
-
-
_
-
'_
-
19,000
34,000
40,000
32,000
-
!
-
-'
-
-
-
-
39
78
19
43
138,000
47,000
169,000
116,000
Phenol
-w
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
7.9
6,8
3.4
8.1
T"
-
-
-
-
-
-.
-
_
-
'-
-
_
-
-
_
- Not Analyzed
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant A (cont.)
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
Secondary Settling Sludge
Blast Furnace Sludge
BOF Sludge
Mill Primary Settling Pit
Mill Scarfer Primary Settling Pit
* Sampling Periods:
A December 9 - 13
B December 16 - 20
C December 30 - January 3
D January 6-10
- Indicates no analysis made
Sample Period
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
C
D
C
fit D
Cr
160
133
140
137
85
147
85
93
385
338
324
324
878
919
1600
1800
Cu
148
125
143
140
48.0
61.3
38.3
30.0
67.0
58.0
85.0
64.2
380
180
80.8
97.0
Mn
2,300
1,800
1,850
1,790
1,250
1,900
2,250
1,900
6,000
5,800
7,550
9,000
5,050
5,050
7,900
9,000
Ni
250
200
210
200
90
100
80
80
150
150
160
780
400
580
170
250
Pb
92
42
35
82
3,000
2,000
1,400
4,000
<10
42
83
67
79
<10
<10
«:10
Zn CN
400
330
360 -
360
70,000 -
30,000
9,900
40,000
340 -
500
250
600 -
90 -
70
35
15
F
776
420
680
600
1,160
760
680
-
4,400
760
4,560
741
_
-
_
• -
Oil S
Grease Phenol
<•> ••
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
- -
_ _
- -
_
-
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant B
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
SampleDescription
Soaking Pit Slag
Open Hearth Slag
Electric Furnace Slag
Electric Furnace Baghouse
Dust
Open Hearth E.S.P. Dust
Grinder Baghouse Dust
Grit Blast Dust
Sample Period
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Cr
400
350
450
500
2,000
1,800
2,200
2,300
7,000
7,600-
5,500
3,900
1,300
1,500
1,200
1,400
280
550
350
930
3,000
19
1,200
770
1,300
8
. 900
28
Cu
330
400
330
320
25
26
30
37
80
86
91
84
1,800
2,400
1,900
1,900
250
550
220
400
1,850
400
1,000
550
2,000
500
750
500
Mn
6,800
7,300
6,200
6,200
61,000
60,000
42,000
39,000
57,000
50,000
51,000
49,000
38,000
39,000
40,000
45,000
4,000
9,700
3,000
12,000
5,500
1,300
7,200
10,100
8,600
156
6,000
3,000
Ni
150
170
140
130
14
14
19
31
64
66
84
40
500
320
340
400
500
400
480
500
4,340
300
900
750
800
200
750
300
Pb
860
400
2,200
2,600
35
165
170
260
30
10
75
185
20,000
22,000
21,000
25,000
2,700
11,000
2,650
4,000
125
50
60
35
48
30
35
9
Zn CN
58 **
120 -
80
150 -
«S
<5 '
<5
<5
«S
<5
IS
400
75,300
75,800
54,000
70,000
850
14,500
1 , 000
7,600
45
25
50
20
50
40
42
45
Oil d
F Grease
-
_
_
2,100 -
1,000
4,900 -
2,040 -
3,260 .
1,130 _
3,490
2,040 .
2,940
2,040
2,940
1,700 _
1,370 _
1,000 _
600 .
600 _
_
- '
-
_ _
.. _
-
-
_
Phenol
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
«•
.
-
-
•
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
- •
-
-
-
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant B (cont.)
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
Decanter Tar Sludge
(Coke Byproduct Plant)
Hater Treatment Plant 1$2
Filter Cake
Water Treatment Plant
Wire Mill (liquid + solid
phase)
Water Treatment Plant M2
CCA (liquid * solid phase)
Pickle Liquor (Solid phase)
low carbon
low carbon
alloy + high -
carbon
CCA
Pickle Liquor (Liquid phase)
low carbon
low carbon
alloy + high
carbon
CCA
Sample Period
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Cr
, —
4
-
50
400
370
11
1.6
0.52
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
Cu
«.
1
"
3
550
520
3
0.14
0.21
0.32
0.16
0.22
0.22
0.18
0.08
Mn
_
44
,-
<1
5,500
5,200
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant C
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
BOP Slag
Electric Furnace Slag
Soaking Pit Slag
¥-*
Ch
Blast Furnace Slag
BOP Centrifuge Cake
Electric Furnace Drum
Filter Cake
Blast Furnace Sludge
Sample Period*
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A+B
OD
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
1.
1.
1,
2.
6,
6,
7,
8,
10,
12,
2,
Cr
750
150
700
400
300
OOQ
800
500
380
580
30
38
40
48
260
500
380
420
810
000
800
760
30
32
36
39
Cu
60
43
47
38
120
67
56
90
300
400
26
20
23
23
210
270
190
190
580
590
660
710
44
50
44
56
45
44
44
46
79
67
80
81
3
5
2'
3
3
4
8
11
8
11
28
34
44
43
2
2
2
2
Mn
,000
,500
,500
,500
,500
,800
,500
,000
,500
,100
,600
,750
,750
,100
,500
,000
,500
,500
,000
,000
,000
,800
,600
,700
,750
,600
Ni
<10
<10
<10
<10
21
13
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant C (cont.)
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
Central Treatment Plant
Clarifier Sludge
Effluent Water from Scale
Settling Pit for 96" Plate
Mill (liquid + solid phase)
Effluent Water from Scale
Settling Pit for Structural
Mill (liquid + solid phase)
Effluent Water from Scale
Settling Pit for 30" Plate
Mill (liquid +• solid phase)
Effluent Water from Scale
Settling Pit for Alloy Bar
Mill (liquid + solid phase)
A
B
C
D
Effluent Water from Scale A
Settling Pit for Continuous B
Casting Mill (liquid*solid phase) C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Cr
320
1,200
1,200
700
0.3
0.3
0.31
0.19
0.26
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.11
0.16
0.80
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.15
0.16
0.12
0.21
Cu
440
440
400
380
0.04
U.15
0.04
0.07
0.13
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.25
0.12
0.15
0.26
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.44
0.12
0.17
0.12
Mn
7,000
9,800
6,000
8,000
0.05
0.11
0.11
0.07
0.13
0.07
0.13
0.07
0.44
0.3
0.3
0.4
• 0.16
0.1
0.07
0.11
0.19
0.09
0.13
0.09
Ni
150
145
150
147
«0. 03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.16
0.05
0.13
0.15
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.1
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
Pb Zn
1,780 2,800
l.SOO 1,600
1,000 2,700
1,250 1,250
<0.1 0.18
0.13 0.15
<0.1 0.15
<0.1 0.15
0.15 0.15
<0.1 0.06
<0.1 0.09
<0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.13
<0.1 0.08
0.16 0.16
<0.1 0.09
<0.1 0.37
<0.1 0.06
<0.1 0.04
<0.1 0.08
0.2 0.11
<0.1 0.07
0.16 0.05
<0,1 0.07
Oil fi
CN F Grease Phenol
1,140 106,000
800 104,000
1,040 98,000
700 87,000
_ - _
_
_
_
_ _ -
_
_ _
-
_ - _ -
-
- «• . -
- -
«. - — — —
_
_
-
_ _ _ _
-
.
_
- No analysis made
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant D
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
Blast Furnace Flue Dust
Clarifier Sludge
Central Treatment Plant
Mill Scale - 18" Bar Mill
Bar Mill Scale Pit
(8", 10", 18" Mills)
BOF ESP Dust
Baghouse Kish
(metal pouring BOF)
Steel Conditioning Scarfing
Scale
Sample Period Cr
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
170
120
150
135
150
130
75
110
300
190
200
240
660
570
340
270
330
310
350
270
180
-
-
105
330
400
390
330
Cu
230
300
190
210
110
110
110
140
120
100
150
110
350
330
230
230
200
200
220
190
120
-
-
50
180
160
160
130
Mn
2,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
4,
4,
3,
2,
12,
11,
11,
11,
4,
3,
7,
5,
5,
3,
700
300
200
300
400
000
500
500
700
700
000
300
500
700
200
300
000
600
000
000
000
-
-
000
500
800
500
500
Ni
130
100
120
76
90
100
80
96
190
110
100
128
270
190
160
120
140
,90
130
100
70
-
,_
15
140
130
140
96
Pb
850
750
600
800
3,000
2,500
2,200
2,300
23
50
50
33
340
450
970
330
8,000
8,200
6,700
6,500
750
-
_
67
30
60
60
60
Zn CN
250 1.15
250 1.96
250 1.19
900 5.81
1,700 0.40
1,600 1.18
1,500 '-0.25
1,200 <0.2S
22
34
34
9
30
30
25
45
3,800
2,600
3,400
3,600
2,000
-
_
130
42
30
31
8
Oil fi
Grease Phenol
_
-
-
-
220,
157,
133,
45,
30,
53,
59,
7,
204,
169,
174,
88,
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
0.97
0.34
1.20
0.39
000 2.53
000 0.23
000 0.58
400 0.86
800
900
700
300
000
000
000
100
-
-
-
-
-
*•
-
-
_
-
-
-
PH
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
... -
-
-
-
-
-------
Sample Description
Bar Finishing Pickle
Liquor
Steel Conditioning
Pickle Liquor
EOF Slag
Sample Analyses - Plant D .(cont-)
le Period Or
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
14.
9.6
10.
32.
1,400
1,400 ,
1,400
1,500
Cu
2.2
.2.0
2.5
2.7
15
13
13
22
i_.il<_mj.i_a..i
Mn
210.
170.
180.
205.
35,000
27,000
21,000
24,000
, nua.Aj'iJ.s yjpjn.
Ni Pb
9.0 0.5
8.0 1.0
4.1 2.0
15. 2.0
5.2 <10
3.S <10
4 <10
12 <10
Zn CN
1.0
1.0
1.3
2.0
<3
<3
<3
<3
Oil §
Grease
30.5
25.5
5.0
95.0
_
-
-
. -
Phenol pH
-:!
- No analysis made
-------
O
Sample Description
Blast Furnace Flue Dust
Blast Furnace Filter
Cake
Plate Mill Scale
Hot Strip Mill Scale
EOF Fines
EOF Sands
BOF Slag
Sample
Period
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Cr
50
37
33
59
30
22
22
20
80
90
95
75
27
23
20
21
55
60
60
60
50
50
50
40
50
42
75
39
Cu
20
13
13
17
20
24
17
14
170
220
210
180
80
80
90
90
110
120
130
130
60
90
70
30
23
43
23
19
Sample Analyses
Mn Ni Pb
31,000
12,500
18,000
18,500
8,500
6,700
6,700
8,100
4,800
5,200
5,700
5,200
2,700
2,500
2,500
2,500
14,800
15,600
15,200
15,200
10,700
11,, 100
11,900
10,400
47,500
47,500
47,500
43,000
27
18
20
20
22
31
22
20
200
220
240
190
78
78
90
90
78
90
80
100
50
33
44
33
11
9
15
9
67
47
73
73
400
600
420
420
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
600
650
620
500
. 17
40
23
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
- Plant E
Oil &
Zn CN Grease Phenol Sn
140 1.46 - 2.01
90 8.46 - 0.1
130 3,12 - 0.36
280 1.60 - 0.99
780 5.34 - 0.60
850 <0.7 0.44
860 7.21 - 0.21
880 0.62 - 0.14
9 - 2,700
11 - 7,000
20 - 18,500
9 - 4,,400
9 - 5,850
9 - 5,040
11 - 8,600
9 - 27,000
890 -
960 - - -
960 -
920 - -
58. - - - - ...
260 -
60 -
An _ _ _
i^. uj — w
13 - ' -
13 - - - -
12 — - — -
16 -
NH,
3
-
-
-
«.
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-------
Sample Description
EOF Kish
Tin Plate Sludge
Treatment Plant Sludge
Waste Ammonia Liquor
Sample
Period Gr
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D .
A
B
20
16
18
18
29
27
35
54
63
60
73
71
„
-
Sample
Cu
16
17
16
19
1,100
2,500
3,500
9,000
190
170
190
170
—
-
Analyses
Mn
5,600
5,200
4,800
5,400
240
190
430
480
10,000
8, 300
8,900
7,000
..
- •
- Plant E (cont.)
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Oil &
Mi Pb Zn CN Grease
18
15
18
20
170
72
310
700
140
130
160
130
_
-
87
21
27 -
37
700
720
1,080
1,060
300
260
260
240
—
_
230
170
530
540
630 -
660
880
960
880
770
870 -
730
28.4 40
36.7 88
Phenol Sn NH,
-
-
- -
66,500
67,500
62,500
55,000
_ _
-
_-
_
161 - 250
210 - 250
- No analysis made
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant F
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
Open Hearth ESP Dust
Open Hearth Slag
Electric Furnace Baghouse
Dust
Electric Furnace Slag
BOF Wet Scrubber Slurry
BOF Slag
Structural Mill Scale
Sample
Period
A
B
C
D
A 5
B 2
C 2
D 4
A
B
C
Cr
580
618
659
560
,000
,200
,100
,300
900
840
770
Cu
1,
1,
3,
1,
i;
3,
3,
200
300
200
700
47
54
50
50
700
300
400
Mn
3,
3,
3,
3,
47,
40,
38,
43,
40,
39,
39,
400
600
900
300
000
000
500
000
000
000
500
Ni
190
230
320
230
11
32
26
18
170
207
217
Pb
18
IS
15
18
32
48
46
,400
,000
,000
,000
<10
•e- 10
•clO
<,10
,000
,000
,000
Zn
700,
250,
130,
130,
240,
174,
166,
CN
000
000
000
000
77
80
20
<.!>
000
000
000
Oil |
Grease Phenol NH
_
_
_
- - -
_
_
_
- - -
_
_
- - -
A
B
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
3,400
2,700
440
370
180
400
2,500
1,400
1,200
1,700
200
150
210
200
73
100
350
286
257
270
23
32
20
68
300
257
243
330
49,000
50,000
17,000
14,100
11,400
13,200
43,000
49,000
48,000
42,000
3,400
3,200
4,100
4,700
9
26
100
133
167
100
46
23
17
17
130
150
133
150
<10
10
16,400
13,000
11,000
15,200
* 10
< 10
10
< 10
30
<~10
62
300
59
110
16,000
14,000
10,000
15,000
20
200
56
^ 3
38
19
60
12
5,900
3,750
4,580
27,900
-------
Sample Description
Ammonia Still Lime Sludge
80" Hot Strip Mill
Clarifier Sludge
Sample Analyses - Plant F (cont.)
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sanple
Period
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Cr
«•>
-
-
-
170
230
210
180
Cu
«•*
-
-
-
220
257
229
220
Mn
mm
-
_.. '
-
2,400
3,400
5,000
2,300
Nl
**
-
-
-
240
300
240
230
Pb
.
-
-
-
100
230
3,600
280
Zn
«.
'-
-
-
60
40
2,550
24
CN
343
1,440
1,630
1,940
_
-
-
-
Oil 5
Grease
14,900
104,000
30,700
12,100
79,700
40,100
9,040
52,300
Phenol
670
1,160
1,910
1,550
».
-
-
.-
NH
•C6.25
•C6.25
x.6.25
252
_
-
-
-
- No analysis made
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant G
Chemical Analysis (ppn)
Sample Description
Blast Furnace Flue Dust
Blast Furnace Sludge
Open Hearth Slag
Open Hearth ESP Dust
Blooming Mill Scale
Hot Strip Mill Waste
Pickle Liquor
Surface Glaze Grinder Waste
South Side Cold Finishing
Waste Pickle Liquor
Sample
Period
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A,
' B
c
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
Cr
80
75
100
100
65
55
65
71
1,800
1,900
1,300
1,400
500
550
580
660
280
320
140
210
2.5
2.0
3.8
3.8
50
75
71
82
10.
19.
9.5
9.4
Cu
30
30
34
31
40
40
41
31
60
90
69
59
830
1,100
1,050
1,800
250
280
286
510
2.0
1.7
2.57
2.0
340
470
370
490
10.
30.
2S.
45,
Mn
3,300
3,000
3,600
3,200
3,000
3,000
2,700
2,500
40,000
30,000
35,000
37,000
3,600
3,500
4,100
3,600
4,SOO
8,000
12,700
4,300
90.
69.
111.
100.
1,500
. 1,800
1,270
1,500
190.
185.
157.
182.
Ni
22
40
51
67
21
30
41
45
10
40
24
45
200
230
250
233
160
90
167
250
6.0
4.7
7.0
6.7
160
190
183
250
7.7
13.
5.0
6.0
Pb
SO
80
104
104
1,100
900
1,500
1,200
<10
<10
23
<10
9,000
15,000
14,000
15,000
SO
50
x. 10
<10
A 0.1
< 0.1
<0.1
0.1
15
15
17
23
3.5
3.5
2. 85
3.23
Zn
1,000
900
1,020
980
5,000
3,600
9,000
10,100
70
180
80
56
15,000
17,000
37,000
53,000
25
60
16
18
0.65
0.6
0.67
1.0
850
1,400
3,700
1,400
6.0
1.6
3.0
1.1
Oil S
CN Grease
26.2
8.67
37.8
12.3
30.6
7.54
22.1
7.56
_ _
•
-
- T
-
_
-
- -
2,500
5,400
6,460
2,330
44.5
50.0,
134
150
- -
-
_ .
-
71.0
253
141
US
Phenol pH
9.87
1.09
0.14
0.35
1.18
1.22
0.87
0,24
_
-.
_
— —
- -
..
. -
- —
t« T
.
.
-
' *-l
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant H
Sample Description
Electric Furnace Slag
Electric Furnace Baghouse Dust
(wet)
BOP Slag
BOP Sludge
Soaking Pit Slag
tn
46" Primary Mill Scale
Waste Pickle Liquor
Grinder Dust - Conditioning Bldg. A
Sample Period Cr
A
B
it A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Jldg. A
B
3,800
1,900
2,700
1,800
1,400
1,300
310
220
130
190
870
580
48.
69.
980
3,700-
Chemical ,
Cu Mn
18
39
550
520
16
17
114
114
67
79
143
114
8.0
6.0
129
157
57,000
37,000
55,000
48,000
38,500
40,500
11,400
11,400
3,200
3,900
6,400
5,500
179.
280.
6,300
6,100
Analyses (ppra)
Ni Pb
135 <10
51 <10
3,750 2,000
3,000 2,000
31 <10
28 <10
133 700
102 2,000
80 <10
102 <10
533 <10
167 <10
105. -C0.1
135. «10,1
330 <10
3,200 <10
Zn
60
<3
2,500
3,800
<3
<3
440
800
33
13
19
22
7.0
26.
9
40
Oil |
Grease pH
-
-
<• «*
_
. _
55,600
10,600
11 1.21
88 <1
_ —
- No analysis made
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant I
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
Melt Shop Sludge
Electric Furnace Slag
Stainless Steel Processing
Sludge (Plant No. 2)
Stainless Processing Grinder
Dust (Plant No. 2)
Conbined Sludge Disposal
(at Neutralization Plant)
Slab Mill Grinder Dust
Slab Mill Scale
Hot Strip Mill Scale
Sample
Period
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
C
• C
Cr
1,100
980
1,850
1,190
2,500
2,470
3,700
4,000
23,500
37,500
Cu
1,500
1,700
1,600
1,700
90
90
110
70
370
500
Mn
30,000
27,000
30,000
36,000
20,500
19,000
27,000
34,000
560
2,300
Ni Pb
480 12,000
580 11,000
900 16,600
470 13,800
80 <10
40 <10
170 <10
56 <10
2,700 <10
27,000 <10
Oil §
Zn CN Grease
18,000
18,000
30,000
17,000
10 -
18 -
<3
<3
48 -
8
Phenol
«.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
300
2,300
650
3,200
42,000
125,000
100,000
13,000
490
270
300
240
200
260
600
290
360
280
470
500
1,600
1,700
1,600
1,300
1,400
560
900
600
540
750
770
800
220
460
650
1,300
12,000
10,500
10,500
13,200
7,000
3,800
2,200
3,500
2,400
1,300
1,200
1,000
220
880
840
6,200
30,000
70,000
63,000
8,700
1,200
530
730
630
430
1,300
6,500
2,700
140
45
250
330
<10
<10
<10
<10
140
130
200
20
220
100
300
700
900 8.30
1,100 <0.25
880 11.3
380 17.9
18
30
22
24
15
15
50
140
150
35
24
25
11,000
31,400
68,300
32,900
—
-
-
-
5,000
2,500
6,000
14,100
29,700
29,000
20,300
52,600
<0.25
4.80
0.65
1.49
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-------
Sample Analyses - Plant J
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Sample Description
Tin Mill Sludge
C and E Lagoon Sludge
BOF Scrubber Sludge
Hot Strip Mill Scale
i
i
Blooming Mill Scale
Sample
Period
A-t-B
C+D
A
B
C
D
A+B
C+D
A+B
C+D
Cr
8,400
8,000
340
110
100
160
120
40
44
60
60
Cu
160
130
160
250
220
160
230
190
200
210
130
Mn
2,500
2,400
2,000
5,700
5,000
6,000
5,700
2,300
2,200
3,300
3,700
Ni
130
120
130
70
60
65
80
90
120
90
70
Ptr
320
250
400
7,700
5,900
4,200
5,300
-------
Plant
HI
00
Material Analyzed
TABLE A-12
Sample Analyses - Iron and Steel Foundries
Concentration of Potentially Hazardous Constituents (ppm)
Mn Zn Cd Pb Cu Ni Cr Phenol
A
B
C
mold, pour, and shakeout
wet collector system sludge
cleaning room baghouse dust
: baghouse dust from sand
reclaimer
j furnace slag
burned core sand
shotblast cleaning
baghouse dust
Cupola furnace slag
cyclone dust from cupola
baghouse dust from cupola
burned sand
shotblast cleaning
baghouse dust
375
4200
41
5200
230
2060
760
870
19,000
29
6,700
250 2.3
200 2.0
30 <1.0
42 1.0
7
210
10
500
7000
6
"53
130 150
<10 950
15 7.0
16 52 -
480 26 200
840 40 150
<10 18 10
130 90 32
310 300 60
<10 6 4
21 90 130
50
200
41 -
150
18 1.73
100
17
21
100 -
3 1.01
150
- Not Analyzed
-------
TABLE A-13 SAMPLE ANALYSES - FERROALLOY PLANTS
Type of
Ferroalloy
Type of Sample
CO
Concentration of Potentially Hazardous Constituent {PPM)
Cr Cu Pb Zn Mn Ni Cd F
Ferrochrome
Silicon
Ferronickel
Sil icomanganese
and
Ferromanganese
Electric furnace :
baghouse dust j
i
furnace slag . '
Glasswool from slag 87
granulation process
Ferrosilicon furnace, 82
baghouse dust
Reject ore screening J235
Granulated slag 104
Skull plant tailings
159
47
Sil icomanganese slag , 1 -
Siliconanganese furnace
baghouse dust
Ferromanganese furnace ,
baghouse dust
t
Water phase of ferro-
manganese baghouse
dust slurry
Ferromanganese furnace
scrubwater solids
i
""
-
-
1 _
i
41
2140
2320
160
27
321
2140
380
27
9
32
0.05
45
18
36
2180
1
50
23
21
23
-
_
-
-
-
-
201
36
200
0.05
t
1
18! 50
j
1
i
3200
6000
2.0
im. 700
150. 500
100
1300
50
100
125
500
<20
8000
45,000
•1.7
5000 i 35, 000
900
1500
900
1100
2000
500
70 ,000
90,000
155,000
0.12
20,000
i
s
<
:
1540 !
3250
5400
1850
4100
1330
-
_-
-
-
1
;
I
*
-
,180
- _ i _ ."
•
1
<10.05
__
-------
TABLE A-13 (cont.)
Types of
Ferroalloys
i
S i 1 i comangane s e
Ferrochrome
Concentration of Potentially Hazardous Constituent (PPt'
Type of Sample Cr Cu Pb Zn Mn CN
Electric furnace - 24,800"
scrubwater
Lagoon dredgings I, 070
(#3)
Acid waste stream 2,680
after liming
Solids from slag con- 3,390
centrator lagoon
Furnace #1 scrubwater 45
solids (from settling pit)
Ferrochrome Slag con- 4,540
centrator residue
(coarse fraction)
Solids from dredged 3,210
slag concentrator
lagoons
Solids from final 1,790
lagoon
Furnace scrubwater 1,610
Solids (from concrete
settling pit)
Electrostatis precipi- 3,390
tator dust from
ferrochrome
210
' 44
27
14
82
23
14
45
35
54
8,900
3,500
210
10
25,000
< 10
20
100
70
300
16,400
900
50
100
10,000
25-
70
2,500
650
14,000
232,000
60,000
16,000
70
300,000
500
300
2,000
800
7,200
0.02
—
-
-
-
-
—
-
-------
APPENDIX B
SOLUBILITY TESTS AND OTHER CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSESSMENT
For the land disposed or stored waste streams (i.e.,slags, sludges,
dusts, others) from each of the metal smelting and refining categories,an
assessment has been made as to whether the wastes are considered either
"non-hazardous" at this time or "potentially hazardous" at this time.
Hazard ratings were made using a number of criteria including the following:
- Types and concentrations of potentially hazardous constituents
(Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb,-Zn, Cu, Ni» As, phenol, cyanide, fluoride,
oil and grease}
- Physical characteristics of residuals
- Susceptibility to leaching of potentially hazardous
constituents as indicated in solubility tests described below.
The mere presence of toxic constituents in significant concen-
trations 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.
Collected samples of slag, sludges, dusts and other wastes
believed to be representative of wastes discarded or stored by the metal
smelting and refining industries were selected for testing. Particle size
distribution of sludges and dusts were comparable to those encountered at
disposal sites. Particle size distributions of selected slags ranged
from silt size to 1 to 2 inch chunks. Much larger chunks of slag are
found at disposal sites. Selected samples probably represent the more
comminuted fraction of disposed slags and pot liners.
Approximately 50 grams of each sample was placed in a 200 ml jar
and two parts by weight of water added. The bottles were then gently
agitated on a rotary tumbling apparatus (approximately 4 RPM) for a period
of 72 hours. Samples were.then filtered through a 0.45 micron micropore
filter and collected filtrate analyzed for trace, metals and other parameters
of interest. Tables B^l through B-5 give the results of the chemical analyses
of filtrate from the various waste samples after agitation and filtration.
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.
31
-------
Type of Waste
TABLE B-l
SOLUBILITY TESTS
Primary Copper, Zinc, Antimony, Mercury, Tungsten and Lead
Chemical Analysis (ppm) of filtrate
Cd Cr Cu Hg Mn Ni Pb Sb Zn Se pH
Cond.
Primary Copper
SIC 3331
reverberatory slag 0.040
electric furnace slag 0.052
converter dust 3.44
acid plant sludge 0.805
reverbatory dust 0.300
Primary Zinc
SIC 3333
w gypsum cake 0.178
(neutral cooling tower)
gypsum cake 0.325
(acid cooling tower)
anode sludge 0.040
retort furnace residue
cadmium plant residue 0.029
oxide furnace residue
acid plant sludge < 0.003
Primary Antimony
SIC 3339
blast furnace slag 3,00
electrolytic plant
<0.01
0.15
170
8.4
130
24
11
12
0.04
«< 0.01
0.02
.CO. 01
0.09
0,22
<0.01
0.02
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.04
0.67
0.05
0.02
' 0.02
< 0.01
<0.01
<0.01
*0.01
0.37
0.58
31,000
850
29,000
5.4
25.0
2.0
0.23
2.4
7.7
0.27
5.0
0.27
<0.02
X0.02
0.030
-
0.008
•CO. 02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
-
•^0. 02
<0.02
, -
.
10,000
> 10, 000
rlO.QOO
8,000
, 2.00Q
-
2,000
^20
<20
•710,000
sludge
Primary Mercury
SIC 3339
rotary kiln calcine
<0,01 0.03 40.03
<0.01 0.08 <0,2
<0.01 0.05 10.4
450
- Not Analyzed
-------
TABLE B-l (cont.)
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Type of Waste
Primary Tungsten
SIC 3339
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Hg
digestion residue -CO.003 0.15 0.05 90 «lO,02
Mn
75
Ni
60
Pb
Sb Zn
Se
Cond.
0,7 40.2 1.5- X^O.OS 6.4 >10,000
Primary Lead
SIC 3332
blast furnace slag
lead fuming slag
blast furnace dust
sinter scrubber
^0.003
0.089
0.177
-
0.03
8.0
9.1
40.01
<0.01
<0,01
•<0,01
0.1
1.0
130
2.6
•<0.02
-tO. 02
<0.02
•40.01
0.03
0.25
1.3
^0.05
40.05
0.09
4 0.05
<*0.2
40.2
7.3
5.5
40.2
1.0
40.2
40.2
»i.
0.22 0.12
0.64 40.05
45 40.05
7.5 0.17
6.7
9.2
8.8
6.8
'
420
80
-£20
2,500
sludge
lagoon dredgings
(smelter)
0.231
11 <0.01 0.53 <0.02
27
0.08 4.5
9.5 <0.05 6.7
4,000
-------
TABLE B-2
SOLUBILITY TESTS
Secondary Lead and Secondary Copper
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Type o£ Waste Zn Cd Cr Cu Mn Pb Sb Sn pH Cond.
Secondary Lead
SIC 33413
scrubber sludge 1.3 5 .05 0.50 0.21 2,5 <0.2 1.6 8.4 >10»000
furnace slag 0.24 -iO.Ol <0.01 0.68 0.03 «i0.2 <0.2 <0.2 9.6 190
furnace dust 4,000 230 12.0 45 4.0 24 <0.2 860 3.9 > 10,000
Secondary Copper
SIC 33412
. blast furnace slag 55 1.0 0.03 170 0.3 6 <0.2 <0.2 9.4 90
water treatment sludge xlO.Ol 0.05 7.1 0.63 0.06 0.5 <0.2 <0.2 8.6 2,000
- Not Analyzed
-------
Type of Waste
Cr
Cu
TABLE B-3
SOLUBILITY TBSTS
Ferroalloys
Chemical Analysis (ppra)
Zn Mn Ni Pb Co
PH
Cond,
Ferrochrome
SIC 3313
furnace slag
Cferrochrome)
furnace slag
Cferrochrome silicon)
furnace baghouse dust
CFe Cr Si)
ESP dust CFe Cr)
Ferronickel
SIC 3313
granulated slag
pond dredgings
skull plant tailings
reject ore
Silicomanganese
SIC 3313
furnace slag
baghouse dusts
scrubwater solids
Ferromanganese
SIC 3313
baghouse dust
slag CFe Mn)
Ferrosilicon
SIC 3313
0,02
0,28
190
710
0,01
0,08
0.01
< 0,01 '
<0,01
0.6
0.55
0,20
0.02
0,02
1,0
0,44
0,20
0.74
0,14
50
0,10
0,17
0,37
0.14
4,50
0,04
0.2
110
0.3
0,09
2.0
0,1
64
0.05
0,05
0.60
0,03
110
0,03
0.3
f
0,2 '
0,1
0,07
0,07
0,02
0.11
0.14
0,10
2.2
<0,02
7,5
2.1
<0,05
< 0,05
<0.05
0,14
< 0,05
<0,05
< 0,05
0,70
< 0,05
0,27
<0,05
0,53
<0.05
0,4
15
1,5 • -
0,7
1,0 < 0,02
0,30 " <0,02
10,000
90
600
1,000
60
90
-
< 20
< 20
120
baghouse dust
0,30 0.24
<0.01
0.06
0,10
<0.02
9.6
- Not Analyzed
-------
TABLE B-4
Type of 1 Jte
Primary Aluminum
SIC 3334
shot blast dust
spent pot liners ]
lagoon sludge (pumps)
cryolite recovery sludge
("Mack mud")
Secondary Aluminum
SIC 33417
dross
baghouse dust
high salt slag
2.6
16.0
97
Cn
SOLUBILITY TESTS
Primary and Secondary Aluminum
Chemical Analysis
Cu Zn Pb Cr Mn Ni
Na
Cl
pH Cond.
0.14 0.2 < 0.02 ,< 0.01 20 0.13
400 5,460 -- _'_ _ _
,0 - - -- - -- - . -
600 83 - - - - - '
7.4
12.6
8.5
9.8
5,000
*10,OQO
2,500
> 10, 000
1,5 <0.01 0.17 0.90 0.37 0.70
0.7 20 0.70 0.04 20 0.34
0.8 <0.01 0.24 1.5 0.43 1.6
30,000 110,000
56,000 200,000
8.3 >10,000
7.0 >IO,000
11.0 >10,000
- Not Analyzed
-------
TABLE B-5
Type of Waste
Mn
Cr
SOLUBILITY TESTS
Iron and Steel and Iron and Steel Foundries
Chemical Analysis (ppm)
Oil §
Cu Pb Ni Zn F Phenol Cyanide Grease pH
Cond.
Iron and Steel
SIC 3312
blast furnace slag <0.01
open hearth slag «0,01
BOF slag <0.01
electric furnace <0.01
slag
soaking pit slag < ff.Ol
blast furnace dust 0.12
open hearth dust 12
electric furnace dust *0, 26
blast furnace sludge 0,08
BOF sludge 0,50
electric furnace 0.03
sludge
mill scale <0,01
decanter tar sludgn <0,01
(coke byproduct plant
aininonis still lime 0,05
pit sludge
(coke byproduct plant)
Iron and Steel
Foundry
SIC 332
furnace slag 0.06
furnace dust
(cyclone) 0,01
furnace dust
(baghouse) 4,5
shotblast dust 0,05
spent sand 4,0
sand reclaimer dust 0.18
<0.01
0,01
0.03
0.27
1,40
0.03
0,03
0,34
0.02
0.09
94
0,05
< 0.01 (
0,02
0.05
0,03
0,03
< 0,01
0,03
<0,01
<0
0
<0
< &
0
0
0
0
<0
0
0
0
<0
0
0
0
0
0
0
< 0
.03
.04
.03
.03
.04
.09
.06
.10
,03
,09
,17
,03
,03
,09
,25
,15
,19
,06
,09
,03
<0,20
0.30
0 . 20
0.44
<0.20
0.25
0,40
150
<0,20
<0,20
2.0
<0.2
<0,2
0.5
<0.20
<0.20
0.20
<0,20
«0,20
<0,20
<0,05
< 0,05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
0.40
<0,05
< 0-.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0,05
<0,05
<0.05
<0,05
<0.05
<0,05
0,20
<0.05
<0
< 0
<0
<0
0
0
0
0
<0
0
0
0
<0
<0
0
<0
<0
0
1
<0
,01
.01
.01
.01
.02
.20
.10
.70
.01
,13
,06
.03
.01
,01
.12
.01
,01
,09
,2
,01
1 Q - - -
JL • <•?
3.1 _
4.0
1.5
"" "" " > U« 38 ™"
2.2 0.25 <0.25
19
7.6 -
14.0 0.40
14.0 -
11.0 - - -
.
0.5
-500 0,59 198
20 198
^.
_
. '-
.
•» • •*. •* -
0,4 -
0,4
10
12
12
12
9
11
.6
.5
.5
.4
.5
.7
8.9
12
9,
10
11
9
8
11
10
9
8
10
3
8
.6
.5
.4
.5
.6
.9
.5
.6
.5
,5
,5
,3
,5
1,800
8,000
7,000
7,500
80
5,000
6,000
>10,000
1,000
-
800
80
350
> 10, 000
60
2,500
> 10, 000
650
2,000
350
- Not Analyzed
-------
•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 ppin (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 evaluation 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. Thus no information is
available from these tests on the quality of leachate at lower or higher pH's.
38
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Agronomic Controls Over Environmental Cycling of Trace Elements,"
W.H. Alloway in Advances In Agronomy 20:235-274, 1968.
39
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
COSTS AND COSTS FACTORS FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL TECHNOLOGIES
The predominant practices used in the United States smelting and
refining industry for on land storage or disposal of process and pollution
control residuals are on land storage or disposal of slags, dusts and dredged
sludges, and storage or permanent disposal of slurries and sludges in lagoons.
Practices considered for adequate health and environmental protection include
the use of lined lagoons, chemical fixation of land disposed sludges, soil
sealing at disposal areas and collection of runoff. The basic costing'
assumptions used in estimating the costs of the above practices are described
here. All costs are in 4th quarter 1973 dollars.
Capital Costs • ;
Lagoons. Lagoons are assumed to be rectangular in shape with the bottom
length twice the bottom width. The dikes of the lagoons form a 27 angle
with the ground surface. In the construction of the dikes, excavation of
the interior area is to .a depth sufficient to provide all the material
needed for the construction of the dikes. The earth is assumed to be sandy
loam with granular material. The width of the top of the dikes is 3 meters.
Three programs were developed to facilitate the computation of
factors used for estimating lagoon costs.
Program No. 1
jnpjjts
Lagoon- volume
Program No. 2
Inputs
Bottom width
Bottom length
Depth
Program .No. 3
Inputs
Depth of excavation
Height of dike above
ground level
Width on top of dike
Bottom width
Bottom length
Outputs
Bottom width
Top width
Bottom length
"Top length
Outputs
Volume
Outputs
Dike circumference
13*
Volume of material in dike
Total width
Total length
Total area
1)* Measured along center line of dike.
Preceding pap
-------
The initial input is the required lagoon volume. Program No.
2 computes 'the volume of material obtained by excavation to varying
depths. It is used jointly with Program No. 3 to determine the depth
of excavation necessary to provide sufficient material for dike construc-
tion.
Cost categories and cost factors used to estimate lagoon costs
are noted below.
Site Preparation - Ref.
Survey $,625/ha (1)
Test drilling 24.60/m for 10m (1)
hole
Sample testing •62.50/sample (1)
Report preparation 1,200-2,400 (2)
Construction
• Excavation § forming $ 1.33/m, ' (1)
Compacting with Sheeps 1.85/m (1)
Foot 2
Fine grade finishing 0.45/m (1}
Soil conditioning 1.24/m (3)
Transverse drain fields 4.60/m (1)
Survey is assumed to be performed by standard transit and chain.
The number of test holes drilled is varied as function of lagoon size; at
least two are drilled in all cases. Two soil samples per test hole are
analyzed. Report preparation is assumed to require 1 to 2 engineering
man-weeks depending on the size of the project.
Excavation, forming and compacting costs are based on the
volume of material in the dike. Fine grade finishing is computed from
the dike surface area, i.e. the product of the perimeter of the cross
section of the dike and its circumference. Soil conditioning cost is a
function of the dike circumference.
Drain fields are2designed to monitor lagoon leakage. They
are assumed to be of 1/3 m cross section and are located at;30m centers
along the length of the lagoons. The excavation cost is $1.50/m (1) and
1 m of gravel at a delivered cost of $9.30/m .(1) is used for every
3 m of ditch."
Several cost categories listed for lagoons, such as survey and
excavation and forming, also apply to other facilities. The same unit
costs are employed in these cases.
42
-------
Lagoon Liners. Lining of lagoons is specified for some industries for
Level II and is employed extensively in Level III. There are many candi-
dates for liner material, Hypaloir, a'frequently used liner material, is
selected. Two cost sources (4} and (5) provide ranges of costs for the
purchase and installation of the liner. The two data sources coincide
closely in their estimates. The value selected is $4/m installed.•
Other Facilities 5 Activities
Concrete Work. A number of industries use concrete-lined pits for
temporary retention and settling of sludges and slurries. A floor
thickness of about..2 m is assumed for all cases. It's cost-in place
is $15,35/m (1). The required wall thickness is a function of volume
of contained material and is assumed to be 0,4 m1 in this study. Wall
costs are computed on the basis of $243,75/m (1) of concrete in place.
Ground Sealing. Sealing of the ground at dump sites to prevent leaching
is stipulated for many industries as Level III protection. The sealing _
material of choice is bentonite clay. Approximately 14,7 kg/m (3 Ibs/ft )
are worked into the top layer of soil. The FOB cost of bentonite is „
$.09/kg ($.04/lb (5). An average transportation cost of $20 MT (0.32/M )
(4) is added.
Installation includes disking, spreading and compacting.
These tasks are assumed to be equivalent to the fine grade finishing
specified in lagoon construction and a cost of $0.45/m is used. The,,
total cost is [($[). 09 x 14.7 kg/m ) + $0.45/m + $0.32/m ] or $2,09/m .
A cost of $2.00/m is used in the study.
^Collection Ditches. Ditches are installed to collect runoff from dump
perimeters. Excavation and installation of 6" perforated, vitrofied
pipe yields a cost of $10.10/m of ditching (1). All open dumps are
assumed to be square; some slanting of the ground is assumed. Unless
specified otherwise, the' length of ditching installed equals 1.5 x 1 side
of the dump area.
Pumps and piping to transport the collected water are discussed
under stationary equipment.
Railroad Track. Intra-plant rail transport is employed by some industries
to haul solid or liquid waste from the plant to an on-site dump. The
construction cost for 1 km of track is shown below. It is a single track
on level ground.
-------
-Ref.
Survey ($625/ha), , (1) ' . $ 250
Miscellaneous bulldozing• (1.33/ra) 2 • ^ 2,080
Base prepare 6 roll sub-base ($.52/m ) (1) 1,145
Track
100 Ib rail ($19.70/nO (1) 19,700
Spikes plates S b.olts ($7.90/m) (1) 7,900
Timber ties ($13.10/m3 • .(1) • 13,100
Ballast ($9.50/m) . (1) , 9,500
Labor ($31.65/m) ' (1) - 31,650
Total $ 85,32S/km
The width of the sub-base is assumed to be 4 m. The miscellaneous
bulldozing represents 2 days work and movement of about 860 m of earth.
Road Construction. A 'road must be provided where waste transport is in
by truck in lieu of rail. The cost of constructing a gravel .road 1 km
in length is as follows:
Survey ($625/ha) (1) $ 375
Miscellaneous bulldozing ($1.33/m ) , (1) -1,145
Base prepare i roll sub-base ($,52Xm ) (1) 3,120
Base course select2gravel ($3,29/m ) (1) . 19,740
Compaction ($.57/m ) (1) 3,420
Culverts ($41.60/m) (1) , 2,500
Drainage'ditching ($2.25/m) (1) 2,250
Total $ 32,550/km
The road width is 6 m. A base course of gravel about .3 m deep is applied
and compacted. Culverts, each 6 m in length, are assumed to be required
every 100 in. Drainage ditches are provided for a distance of .5 km along
both sides of the road. The miscellaneous bulldozing is the same as is
included for railroad track construction.
Stationary Equipment
Slurry Pump. Slurry pumps can be used in lieu of draglines 'for
dredging lagoons. The selected slurry pump has a capacity of 236 liters
per minute and is powered by a 2 hp motor. Its cost including housing,
installation, wiring and piping is $13,730 (6).
Both rigid, installed and flexible piping are used. Both
are 7.6 {3" pipe). Their costs/in are $17,30 (1) and $4.40 (1), respectively.
Other Pumps. The main application of other pumps is at the on-site
slag dumps to pump collected runoff water. Centrifugal pumps requiring
no attendants are used. The pump capacities are selected as a function
of the size of the dump. They are sized to handle a volume of water
equivalent to a 2.5 cm rainfall/hr over the dump area.
44
-------
The pump'Costs are based on Reference (7). A 3 m head is
assumed. -Piping costs-associated with-the-pumps include 100 m-each of
rigid, installed and flexible pipe. Horsepower requirements for "other
pumps" are computed as follows:
Hp ( GPM x H
3960 x E
where
HP = Horsepower
GPM = Gallons/ntin
H = Head (assumed to be 9.8 ft (3 m)
E = Efficiency (assumed to be = .9)
Belt Conveyors. A belt conveyor is used in one industry to transport
slag to a slag pile. A number of conveyors are positioned in series
.because of the distance involved. A 36" wide belt conveyor was found
sufficient to handle the waste produced. Its cost, is $44,545/30 m
(100 ft) section, installed (Ref. 7 and 9).
Mobile Equipment. Generic equipment types are identified and costed
for handling and trasnporting waste,products. These do not necessarily
represent optimum equipment in terms of capacity, power or cost. Equip-
ment specified includes:
Ref.
Dump truck (16-18 t) $ 25,000 (2)
Tank truck ' 40,000 (2)
Front loader and backhoe 20,000 (similar to JD-410)
Bulldozer 16,000 (similar to JD-350)
Dragline with 3/4 yd clam shell 70,000 (2)
Yard engine (industrial) 30,000 (used) , (2).
Hopper car (45 t) _ 5,000 (used) , (2)
Ladle car (10,8 m ) . 40,000 (2)
Many plants do not require particular equipment full time for
waste handling and transport. The approximate fraction of time a piece,
of equipment is actually needed for these purposes is determined and
the capital cost is assigned accordingly,. It is assumed that the equip-
ment is engaged in other plant activities the remainder of the time.
The fraction of use is based on an 8 hour/day or 2,00,0 hr/yr equipment
availability.
Land. Three categories of land are considered. They are shown below
together with their estimated costs.
45
-------
....Ref.
Rural • $ 1,750/ha- (6)
Semi-industrial 3,955/ha (6)
Improved industrial 24,710/ha (6)
Annual Costs
Lagoons, Construction and Other Facilities. A twenty year useful life
and a corresponding amortization period are postulated. It is assumed
that equal quarterly payments are made throughout this time resulting
in the following annual cost.
m
1 + £
m
where
f V
("I)
A = Annual amortization cost
B = Initial' amount
r = True annual interest rate (10%)
m = Mo. of payments per year (4/year)
N = No. of years .(20 years]
The computed annual cost essentially represents the sum of the cost
of capital and depreciation,
Additionally, a cost category" is included for the repair
and maintenance of lagoons, facilities and other construction. This
cost is estimated to be 3 percent annually of initial construction cost
(excluding site preparation) except for railroad tracks and roadways
for which a 5 per cent annual rate is used. -
Mobile .and Stationary Equipment. Annual equipment costs are 'treated
in the same manner as lagoons, construction and other facilities. A
ten year useful life is assumed for stationary and -road mobile equip-
ment and a twenty year life for railroad equipment. Pumps and
piping are considered stationary equipment.
The annual maintenance and repair cost is estimated as 5 per cent
of initial purchase (7) cost exclusive of fuel and operating personnel.
Land. Annual land cost represents an opportunity cost. It is on 10
per cent of initial acquisition cost. Survey costs associated with land
used for slag and other dumps are added to and amortized together with
lagoon construction and other facility costs.
46
-------
Operating Personnel. Waste handling and transport is performed by
two labor grades: heavy equipment operator and truck driver/laborer.
The applicable hourly wage rates are $12.15 (1) and $9.45 (1) respectively.
The rates include fringe benefits, overhead and supervision.
Personnel costs are charged only for the hours such personnel
are actually handling and transporting wastes. It is assumed that personnel
will be employed in other plant activities the remainder of their time,
Energy. Energy costs are divided into two categories: fuel and
electricity. All mobile equipment is assumed equipped with diesel engines.
Fuel consumption by a particular equipment unit can vary widely depending
on its operational use. Based on a brief review of engine specifications
the following mean fuel consumption values were determined.
Trucks 4 Gal/Hr
Bulldozer 2.4 Gal/Hr
Front loader and backhoe 2.85 Gal/Hr
Dragline with 3/4 yd clam
shell 2.85 Gal/Hr
Yard engine . 8 Gal/Hr
The cost of fuel is $0.40/gal.
The cost of miscellaneous electric energy, (e.g. lighting) is
estimated at 10 per cent of fuel cost.
The power cost of electric equipment, where specified, is
computed separately as follows:
horsepower of motor • x
Cost per horsepower year = 0.9 (efficiency) x 0.9 (power factor)
0.7457 x No. of yearly operating hours x cost per kilowatt hour.
A kilowatt hour cost of $0.012 is assumed.
Chem-Fix Operation. Chemical fixation where employed is shown as an
annual cost. At this time, no data was found describing capital costs to
establish this process for various sizes of operations. The cost of
$13.20/tn of waste treated which is used in the study reflects current
experience (10).
Taxes. Taxes are computed as 2.5 per cent of the cost of land (6).
Insurance. Annual insurance premiums are 1 per cent of the capital
cost ^(6).
47
-------
REFERENCES
(1) Building Construction Cost Data - 1974, Roberts Snow Means Company,
Construction Consultants Publishers.
(2) Calspan estimate.
(3) Process Plant Construction Estimating | Engineering Standards, Vol. 4;
prepared by International Construction Analysts, 'Downey, California.
(4) Disposal of By-Products from Non-Regenerable Flue Gas Desulfurization
Systems; Initial Report, EPA-650/2-74-037a, Office of Research and
Development, USEPA, May 1974,
(5) Information provided by Mr, A. McCord, Consultant.
(6) CSMRI Project J31120, Colorado School of Mines Research Institute,
October 15, 1974.
(7) Capital and Operating Costs of Pollution Control Equipment Modules -
Vol. II - Data Manual, EPA-R5-73-023b, Socioeconomic Environmental -
Studies Series, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, July 1973.
(8) Kent's Mechanical Engineer's Handbook,1 12th Edition, Power Vol.,
John Wiley and Sons, March 1957.
(9) Plant Engineering Directory and Specifications Catalog, 1974, Vol. 9,
Technical Publishing Co., American Business Press, Inc.
(10) Data provided by Chemfix Corporation.
48
-------
APPENDIX D
PROCEDURES FOR CALCULATING WASTE QUANTITIES FOR THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
This appendix uses the -iron and steel industry as an illustrative
example of the methodology employed to estimate the quantities of wastes
and potentially hazardous constituents therein. Similar procedures were
employed for estimating waste quantities in the other primary and secondary
smelting and refining sectors. Most of the data required for calculating
the amounts,, of wastes generated by iron and steel mills were derived from:
1) the collection and analysis of waste samples; 2) information provided
by environmental control personnel at ten participating steel mills;
3) the Iron and Steel Works Directory of the United States and' Canada
(1974); and 4) the Annual Statistical Report, American Iron and Steel
Institute • (1973). _ The-Directory and the Annual Statistical Report'were
used primarily in estimating the production of various types of facilities
by state. - •
Through the cooperation of the American Iron and Steel Institute,
arrangements were made to have ten integrated steel plants participate in
a program to collect waste samples from selected facilities on a daily
• basis over a four week period, and to provide .quantitative, information on
the amounts of waste generated. Each of the ten plants was visited to
discuss the types of waste generated and to identify 10 to 15 waste sources
to be included in the sampling program. The waste samples were collected
by steel plant personnel and forwarded to Calspan Corporation for analysis.
Wastes of each type were composited on a weekly basis, so that for each
plant, four composite samples (one for each week of the sampling program)
were obtained for each type of waste of interest. The analyses included
determinations of chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, lead, zinc, cyanide,
fluorine, oil and grease, and phenol. For any given waste type (e.g.,
electric furnace dust) the concentration values were averaged over all
plants and over all composites.
j
.Subsequent to each plant visit, a form indicating desired
information on the quantities of waste generated was prepared and sent to
the environmental control manager. Specific information of interest was
the total annual production for each facility and the amounts of waste of
each type produced (e.g., dust, sludge, slag). The data provided from
all plants were analyzed and average waste generation factors were obtained.
Table D-l summarizes the averaged data for the quantities of each waste
type generated and the concentrations of constituents of interest.
The production data for the major steel plant products (e.g., pig
iron, ingot steel, cold rolled steel, etc.) and the waste generation
factors for the associated facilities allows the total waste quantities to
be determined. Data for a "typical" plant were presented in the main text
and are reproduced here as Table D-2. Thus, for example, the yearly
quantity of basic oxygen furnace slag for a typical plant is calculated as;
49
-------
TABLE D-l
WASTE GENERATION FACTORS - IRON § STEEL PLANTS
Type of Waste
Coke Oven - Sludge
Blast Furnace - Slag
Blast Furnace - Dust
Blast Furnace - Sludge
Basic Oxygen Furnace - Slag
Basic Oxygen Furnace - Dust
Basic Oxygen Furnace - KisH
Basic Oxygen Furnace - Sludge
Open Hearth Furnace - Slag
Open Hearth Furnace - Dust
Electric Furnace - Slag
Electric Furnace - Dust
Electric Furnace - Sludge
Generation Factors
Kg/NTT
of Steel
Produced
or
Processed
2.6*
250*
11,7*
17.6*
145
16.0
0.14
17.3
243
13.7
120
12.8
8.7
Kg/wr
of
Facility
Output
5.5
348
16.2
24.4
145
16.0
0.14
17.3
243
13.7
120
12.8
8.7
Concentration Factors (ppm)
Cr
10.0
46.9
92.4
56,1
1290
315
110
708
2360
568
4820
1380
2690
Cu
4.P
21.9
93,2
37.4
31.3
202
45.7
174
49.8
1130
79.0
1940
1130
Mn
102
3000
8800
3700
41,600
11,400
3810
10,300
42,710
4810
50,580
42,610
34,100
Ni
5.5
<7.5
57,6
38.4
12.2
115
56.6
130
23.7
314
-53.9
246
421
Pb
30.5
21.5
302
1210
12.0
7350
137
4190
57.4
11,650
32.7
24,220
7900
Zn
96,5
8.2
516
11,650
16.2
3350
660
10,094
47.9
113,000
80.5
95,710
13,540
Oil fi
Grease
203,070
--
—
--
—
--
—
—
—
—
--
_^
—
tn
O
*Approximately 0.72 MT of pig iron required
of coke required to produce 1 MT pig iron.
tank tar.
to produce 1 MT of steel (on the average). Approximately 0
Coke oven sludge consists of ammonia still lime sludge and
,66 MT
decanter
-------
TABLE D-l (cont.)
WASTE GENERATION FACTORS - IRON § STEEL PLANTS
Type of Waste
Soaking Pit - Slag
Primary Mill - Sludge
Primary Mill - Scale
Continuous Caster - Sludge
Continuous Caster - Scale
Hot Rolling Mill - Sludge
Hot Rolling Mill - Scale
Cold Rolling Mill - Sludge
Cold Rolling Mill - Scale
Cold Rolling Mill - Waste
Pickle Liquor
Tin Plating Mill - Sludge
Galvanizing Mill - Sludge
Galvanizing Mill - Waste
Pickle Liquor
Generation Factors
Kg/Mr
of Steel
Produced
or
Processed
35.2
1.87
44.9
0.104
8.7
1.74
18.3
0.16
0.052
22.8
5.32
10.8
5.17
Kg/MT
of
Facility
Output
35.2
1.87
44.9
0.104
8.7
1.74
18.3
0.16
0.052
22.8
5.32
10.8
5.17
Concentration Factors (ppm)
Cr
373
318
—
—
198
208
—
—
12.7
2760
—
—
Cu
278
—
449
—
" —
232
274
— '
-•>
7.35
2730
—
—
Mn
5280
—
5410
--
—
3280
3170
--
__
179
1040
—
—
Ni
117
—
385
--
—
253
545
—
—
19.2
250
--
—
Pb
760
—
58
—
—
1050
154
—
—
1.1
688
--
—
Zn
59.3
—
32.5
--
-•-
669
26.9
—
—
8.3
2260
-•*
—
Oil 5
Grease
—
—
10,180
--
—
•45,290
42,246
--
—
63.9
—
—
--
-------
TABLE D-2
YEARLY GENERATION OF RESIDUALS BY TYPICAL IRON AND STEEL PLANT*
Coke Oven - Sludge
Blast Furnace - Slag
Blast Furnace - Dust
Blast Furnace - Sludge
Basic Oxygen Furnace - Slag
Basic Oxygen Furnace - Dust
Basic Oxygen Furnace - Sludge
Electric Furnace - Slag
Electric Furnace - Dust
Electric Furnace - Sludge
Soaking Pit - Slag
Primary Mill - Sludge
Primary Mill - Scale
Continuous Caster - Sludge
Continuous Caster - Scale
Total
Quantity
of Waste
(MT)
6,200
557,000
25,900
39,000
290,000
280
34,600
L.
60,000
6,400
4,350
54,900
2,520
60,600
82.2
6,900
Quantity of Potentially Hazardous Constituents (W)
Cr
0.062
26.1
2.40
2.19
374
0.031
24.5
289
8.83
11.7
20.5
—
19.3
__
--
Cu
0.025
12.2
2.42
1.46
9.08
0.013
6.02
4.74
12.4
4.92
15.3
—
27.2
—
—
Mn
0.628
1670
228
144 '
12064
1.07
356
3035
273
148
290
—
328
__^
--
Ni
0.034
<4.2
1.49
1.50
3.54
0.016
4.50
3.23
1.57
1.83
6.42
—
23.3
—
—
Pb
0.188
12.0
7.83
47.2
3.48
0.038
145
1.96
155
34.4
41.7
—
3.52
--
—
Zn
0.594
4.57
13.4
455
4.70
0.185
349
4.85
613
58.9
3. 26
__
1.97
—
—
Oil «
Grease
1250
--
—
—
•--
—
—
•
--
617
—
—
tfl
-------
TABLE D-2 [cent.) ,
YEARLY GENERATION OF WASTE RESIDUALS BY TYPICAL IRON AND STEEL PLANT
Type of Waste
Hot Rolling Mill - Sludge
Hot Rolling Mill - Scale
Cold Rolling Mill - Sludge
Cold Rolling Mill. - Scale
Cold Rolling Mill - Waste
Pickle Liquor
Tin Plating Mill - Sludge
Galvanizing Mill - Sludge
Galvanizing Mill"- Waste
Pickle Liquor
Total
Quantity
of Waste
(MT)
3,130
32,900
112
36.4
16,000
532
1,350
646
Quantity of Potentially Hazardous Constituents (MT)
Cr
0.620
6.85
— .
—
0.203
1.47
—
--
Cu
0.727
9.03
—
—
0.117
1.45
—
—
Mn
10.3
104
—
--
2.86
0.553
--
—
Ni
0.792
18.0
--
--
0.306
0,133
—
—
Pb
3.29
5.07
--
__
0.018
0.366
—
—
Zn
2.10
0,886
—
--
0.132
1.20
—
—
• Oil §
Grease
141
1392
--
--
1.02
__
—
__
VI
* Quantities calculated from generation and concentration
factors given in Table D-l based on annual production figures
given in Table 4 of Volume III. Divide by 365 to obtain
daily quantities. .Multiply by 1.1 to convert to short tons.
-------
.quantity-BOF. slag/yr- = -generation -factor. r= x steel-.production. .(MT)
Ml
= 0.145 MT x 2,000,000 1ST
MT
= 290,000 MT
The amount of potentially hazardous constituents _in the BOF slag of the
typical plant is calculated as:
quantity potentially hazardous = quantity BOF slag/yr (MT) x concentration
factor potentially
hazardous constituent
The quantity of chrome as an example is calculated as: ;
quantity BOF slag x concentration factor for chromium
290,000 MT x 1290 MT
106 MT
= 374 MT
In order to calculate waste generation quantities on a state-by-
state basis, production figures for various product types had to be deter-
mined. Since such data were not directly available, estimates had to be
generated. For each state, iron 'and steel production and/or processing
facilities were tabulated using the Iron and Steel Works Directoryof the
United States and Canada (1974). From the size and number of facilities
of each type listed for all plants in a given state, production figures
were estimated for that' state. These figures were summed 'over all states
and comparisons made with total U.S. production data presented in the
'Annual Statistical Report, AmericanIron and Steel Institute. The figures
for the individual states were then adjusted to make the national total
agree with the published national figures.
The wastes for the state totals were grouped into five categories;
slag; dust; sludge; scale; and pickle liquor. The sources for each waste
category are listed in Table D-3, In computing the total quantities of
waste in each category for each state, the waste factors.discussed pre-
viously were used with weighting factors as appropriate. The weighting
factors are necessary in some cases to account for the fact that any one
type of facility might produce different waste types depending on the type
of control system used. For example, basic oxygen furnaces might employ
dry- or wet-type emission control systems. A dry system produces dust-
type waste, whereas, a wet system produces a sludge-type waste. Therefore,
in order to calculate the amounts of dust and sludge produced by BOF
54
-------
TABLE D-3
Major Sources of Waste
Waste Category
Slag
Blast Furnaces
BOF's
Dust
Blast Furnaces '
BOF's
Sludge
Coke Ovens
Blast Furnaces
Scale
Primary Mills
Continuous
Casters
Pickle
Liquor
Cold Mills
Galvanizing
Mills
Open Hearths
Electric
Furnaces
Soaking Pits
Open Hearths BOF's
Electric Furnaces Open Hearth's
Electric Furnaces
Primary Mills
Continuous
Casters
Hot Finishing
Mills
Cold Mills
Tin Mills
Galvanizing
.Mills
Hot Finishing
Mills
Cold Mills
Tin Mills
SS
-------
facilities given the total amount of steel produced in BOF's, the percentages
of steel made in BOF's using wet emission control systems and dry control
systems must be known. The weighted waste generation factors were then
computed by multiplying the waste generation factor for a given type of
waste (see Table D-l) by the fraction of product made using that type of
control system. The required fractions were estimated from data obtained
from the participating plants.
For the final determinations of total wastes (and their constituents}
for each state, a program was written to allow the required summations to be
computerized. The computed waste values are given as•
- n
w. = T" f. c., P,
k r—_ , i ik i
where W is the amount of constituent of type k, f. is the weighted waste
generation factor for the i source (or facility], c.. is. the concentration
of the k constituent in the waste generated by the i source, and
P. is the total annual state-wide production of facilities of the i type.
Trie total waste quantities, as opposed to the individual constituents,
correspond to c., = 1.
To illustrate the application of the above equation, let us
consider a specific example for the iron and steel industry, namely,,the
amounts of dust generated in Pennsylvania. The four major sources of waste
dust in the production of iron and steel are: blast furnaces, basic oxygen
furnaces, open hearth furnaces and electric furnaces. Table D-4 lists the
estimated 1974 production figures (P) for the State of Pennsylvania for each
of these facilities and indicates the type of dust. The raw generation
factors listed for waste dust are those given in Table D-l. _ The weighted
dust factors (f) were obtained by multiplying the raw waste factors by a
fraction representing the estimated percentage of the facilities of each
type that utilize dry emission control systems. Specifically, it is
estimated that 35 percent of the BOF's, 75 to 80 percent of the open hearths,
and 90 percent of the electric furnaces control emissions with dry systems.
In the case of blast furnace flue dust and EOF "kish", the raw generation
factors were assumed to apply to all facilities. The chromium concentra-
tions (C ) for each of the listed dusts are also .given in the Table,
In accorance with the equation given above, the amount of each
dust type for a given facility is determined by taking the product
W = P x f x C, with C = 1. Thus, to determine the amount of blast furnace
flue dust, we compute (21,160,000 metric tons) x (0.0162) = 342,792 metric
tons. To determine the amount of chromium in this amount of blast furnace
flue dust, we take the product W = P x f x GC = (21,160,000) x (0.0162) x
(92.4x10" ) = 31.67 MT. Similarly, we obtaincthe amounts of dusts and the
associated chromium content for all of the indicated dust types. The total
S6
-------
TABLE D-4
EXAMPLE OF WASTE GENERATION COMPUTATIONS
STATE - Pennsylvania
WASTE ~ Dust (Iron and Steel Production)
YEAR - 1974
Facility and P Raw Dust f C
Type of Dust Facility Generation Weighted Dust Chromium
Production Factors Factors Concentration
(Metric Tons/Yr) (MT/NTT Product) (NfT/MT Product) (ppm)
Blast Furnace 21,160,000 0.0162 0.0162 92.4
(Flue Dust)
BOF (Flue Dust) 15,200,000 0.016 0.0056^ 315
BOF (Kish) 15,200,000 0.00014 0.00014 110
Open Hearth 11,900,000 0.0137 O.OIOS^ 568
(Flue Dust)
Electric Furnace 4,500,000 0.0128 0,01152^ 1380
(Flue Dust)
Totals
W W
Total Dust Total Chromium
Generated Content of Dust
(Metric Tons) (Metric Tons)
342,792 31.67
85,120 26.81
2128 0.23
124,950 70.97
51,840 71.54
^607,000 ^201
Notes: 1) Assumes 35 percent of BOF's have dry
emission control systems.
2) Assumes 75-80 percent of open
hearths have dry control systems.
3) Assumes 90 percent of electric
furnaces have dry control systems.
-------
dust is the sum of the amounts for "the individual facilities^. After rounding,
we find the total amount of dust generated in 1974 by integrated iron and
steel mills in Pennsylvania to be 607,000 metric tons. The corresponding
chromium content of this dust is 201 metric tons. In a similar manner, we
determine the amounts of other constituents of interest, namely, copper,
manganese, nickel, lead, zinc, cyanide, fluorine, and phenol. The total
amount of "potentially hazardous constituents" is then the sum of the
individual constituents.
U01538
SW-145c.4
58
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2.
SHEET EPA/530/SW- Hi5c.ll
4, Title and Subtitle .
Assessment of Industrial Hazardous Waste
Practices In the Metal Smelting and •
Refining Industry ( Volume It)
uchor(skichard P. Leonard, Robert C. Ziegler, W. Richa
BrO'-rn John Y Yang' Han" C Ilcif
9. Performing Organization Kafne and Alfc'res's ' """ " * """""^
Calspan Corporation
Box 235
Buffalo, New York 14221
12. Sponsorin! Organization Name and Address
EPA Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Solid Waste I
Waterside Mall
Washington, D.C, 20640
PRf%ipf»ric**yA/ce9* ioH"No*--\
t 7 fhl / s
Report Daie
An-tH 1 1 C(T7
6. L •
8. Performing Organization Rept.
rd NO,
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
EPA NO. 61-01-2604
13, Type of Report & Period
Covered Final
day 1974- April 1977
ii~^~~'
15. Supplementary Notes
EPA Project Officers - Timothy Fields, Allen Pearce
------- |