United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/1-84/073
June 1984
Water
Development Final
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Aluminum Forming
Point Source Category
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
for the
ALUMINUM FORMING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
(VOLUME II)
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Jack E. Ravan
Assistant Administrator for Water
Steven Schatzow
Director
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
/jSl*
.3SB/
Jeffery D. Denit
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Ernst P. Hall, Chief
Metals & Machinery Branch
Janet K. Goodwin
Technical Project Officer
June 1984
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Effluent Guidelines Division
-------
-------
CONTENTS
ection Title Page
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
I RECOMMENDATIONS 13
BPT 13
BAT 31
NSPS 41
PSES 58
PSNS 71
[II INTRODUCTION 87
Legal Authority 87
Data Collection and Utilization 87
Data Collection Since Proposal 91
Description of the Aluminum Forming Category 93
Description of Aluminum Forming Processes 97
IV INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION 135
Basis for Subcategorization 135
Production Normalizing Parameter 146
Description of Subcategories 148
V WATER USE AND WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 165
Sources of Data 165
Presentation of Wastewater Characteristics 174
Core Operations Unique to Major Forming
Operations 175
Core Operations Not Unique to Specific
Forming Operations 179
Ancillary Operations 181
Treated Wastewater Samples 187
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 541
Rationale for Selection of Pollutant
Parameters 542
Description of Pollutant Parameters 543
Pollutant Selection for Core Waste
Streams 616
Pollutant Selection for Ancillary
Waste Streams 647
Pollutant Selection by Subcategory 674
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 697
End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies 697
Major Technologies 698
Major Technology Effectiveness 720
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page
Minor Technologies 736
In-Plant Technology * 771
VIII COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL 855
General Approach 855
Cost Estimation Methodology: Pre-Proposal 856
Cost Estimation Methodology: Post-Proposal 880
Summary of Costs 897
Normal Plant 897
Nonwater Quality Aspects 897
IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE 959
Technical Approach to BPT 959
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 965
Rolling With Emulsions Subcategory 972
Extrusion Subcategory 978
Forging Subcategory 984
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory 987
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory 991
Application of the Limitations in Permits 995
X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE 1049
Technical Approach to BAT 1049
Selected Option for BAT 1057
Regulated Pollutant Parameters 1058
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 1061
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory 1064
Extrusion Subcategory 1065
Forging Subcategory , 1068
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory 1070
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory 1072
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 1147
Technical Approach to NSPS 1147
NSPS Option Selection 1148
Regulated Pollutant Parameters 1149
New Source Performance Standards 1150
XII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 1173
Introduction of Aluminum Forming
Wastewater into POTW 1173
Technical Approach to Pretreatment 1176
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page
PSES and PSNS Option Selection 1177
Regulated Pollutant Parameters 1178
Pretreatment Standards 1179
XIII BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 1241
XIV ACKNOWLEDGMENT 1243
XV REFERENCES 1245
XVI GLOSSARY 1,261
-------
TABLES
Section Title Page
III—1 Profile of Aluminum Forming Plants 119
II1—2 Plant Age Distribution by Discharge Type 120
II1-3 Distribution of Facilities According to Time
Elapsed Since Latest Major Plant Modification 121
V-l Rolling with Neat Oils Spent Lubricants 189
V-2 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants
Rolling with Neat Oils Spent Lubricants
Raw Wastewater 190
V-3 Sampling Data Rolling with Neat Oils Spent
Lubricants Raw Wastewater 194
V-4 Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsion 196
V-5 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants
Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions Raw
Wastewater 197
V-6 Sampling Data Rolling with Emulsions Spent
Emulsions Raw Wastewater 201
V—7 Roll Grinding Spent Lubricant 210
V-8 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Roll
Grinding Spent Emulsion Raw Wastewater 211
V—9 Sampling Data Roll Grinding Spent Emulsions Raw
Wastewater 215
V-10 Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath 220
V-l1 Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse 221
V-l2 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants
Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath Raw Wastewater 222
V-13 Sampling Data Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath Raw
Wastewater 223
V-l4 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants
Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse Raw Wastewater 228
V—15 Sampling Data Extrusion Die Cleaning Rinse Raw
Wastewater 232
V-l6 Extrusion Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor 235
V-17 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Extrusion
Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 236
V-l8 Sampling Data Extrusion Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor
Raw Wastewater 240
V-l9 Extrusion Press Scrubber Liquor 241
V-20 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Extrusion
Press Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 242
V-21 Sampling Data Extrusion Press Scrubber Liquor Raw
Wastewater 246
V-22 Extrusion Dummy Block Contact Cooling Water 247
V-23 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Extrusion
Dummy Block Contact Cooling Water Raw Wastewater 248
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section Title Page
V-24 Sampling Data Extrusion Dummy Block Cooling Raw
Wastewater 252
V-25 Drawing with Neat Oils Spent Lubricants 253
V-26 Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Spent Emulsion 254
V-27 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Drawing
with Emulsions or Soaps Spent Emulsion Raw
Wastewater 255
V-28 Sampling Data Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Spent
Emulsions Raw Wastewater 259
V-29 Sawing Spent Lubricant 260
V-30 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Sawing
Spent Lubricant Raw Wastewater 261
V—31 Sampling Data Sawing Spent Lubricant Raw Wastewater 265
V—32 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Degreasing
Spent Solvents Raw Wastewater 269
V-33 Sampling Data Degreasing Spent Solvents Raw Wastewater 273
V-34 Annealing Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor 274
V-35 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Annealing
Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 275
V—36 Sampling Data Annealing Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor
Raw Wastewater 279
V-37 Rolling Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water 280
V-38 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Rolling
Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater 281
V-39 Sampling Data Rolling Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater 285
V-40 Extrusion Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water 288
V-41 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Extrusion
Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater 289
V-42 Sampling Data Extrusion Press Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater 293
V-43 Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling
Water 299
v—44 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Extrusion
Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water Raw
Wastewater 300
V-45 Sampling Data Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water Raw Wastewater 304
V-46 Forging Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water 307
V—47 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Forging
Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Raw Wastewater 308
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section Title Page
V-48 Sampling Data Forging Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater 312
V-49 Drawing Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water 317
V-50 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Drawing
Solution Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water
Raw Wastewater 318
V-51 Sampling Data Drawing Solution Heat Treatment Contact
Cooling Water Raw Wastewater 322
V-52 Cleaning or Etching Bath 326
V—53 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Cleaning
or Etching Bath Raw Wastewater 3 28
V-54 Sampling Data Cleaning or Etching Bath Raw Wastewater 332
V-55 Cleaning or Etching Rinse 349
V-56 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Cleaning
or Etching Rinse Raw Wastewater 351
V-57 Sampling Data Cleaning or Etching Rinse Raw
Wastewater 355
V-5B Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor 391
V-59 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Cleaning
or Etching Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 392
V-6 0 Sampling Data Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Raw Wastewater 396
V-61 Forging Scrubber Liquor 397
V-62 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Forging
Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 398
V-63 Sampling Data Forging Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 402
V-64 Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water
(Aluminum Forming Plants) 404
V-65 Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water (Primary
Aluminum Subcategory) 406
V-66 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Direct
Chill Casting Contact Cooling Water Raw Wastewater 408
V-67 Sampling Data Direct Chill Casting Cooling Water
Raw Wastewater 412
V-68 Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water
(Aluminum Forming Plants) 426
V-69 Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water (Primary
Aluminum Plants) 427
V-70 Continuous Rod Casting Spent Lubricant 428
V-71 Continuous Sheet Casting Spent Lubricant 429
V—72 Degassing Scrubber Liquor (Primary Aluminum Plants) 430
V-73 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Degassing
Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 431
V-74 Sampling Data Degassing Scrubber Liquor Raw Wastewater 435
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section Title Page
V-75 Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage 436
V-76 Frequency of Occurence of Toxic Pollutants Extrusion
Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage Raw Wastewater 437
V-77 Sampling Data Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Raw Wastewater 441
V-78 Sampling Data Additional Wastewater Raw Wastewater 445
V-79 Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater 460
V-8 0 Sampling Data Plant B Treated Wastewater 461
V-81 Sampling Data Plant C Treated Wastewater 465
V-82 Sampling Data Plant D Treated Wastewater 466
V-83 Sampling Data Plant E Treated Wastewater 471
V-84 Sampling Data Plant H Treated Wastewater 479
V-8 5 Sampling Data Plant J Treated Wastewater 481
V-86 Sampling Data Plant K Treated Wastewater 483
V-S7 Sampling Data Plant L Treated Wastewater 485
V—88 Sampling Data Plant P Treated Wastewater 486
V-89 Sampling Data Plant Q Treated Wastewater 488
V-90 Sampling Data Plant U Treated Wastewater 490
V-91 Sampling Data Plant V Treated Wastewater 494
V-92 Sampling Data Plant AA Treated Wastewater 596
V-93 Sampling Data Plant BB Treated Wastewater 500
V-94 Sampling Data Plant DD Treated Wastewater 504
V-95 Sampling Data Plant EE Treated Wastewater 510
VI-1 List of 129 Toxic Pollutants 675
VI—2 Priority Pollutant Disposition Core Operations 681
VI-3 Priority Pollutant Disposition Ancillary Operations 685
VI—4 Priority Pollutant Disposition by Subcategpry 692
VII-1 pH Control Effect on Metals Removal 788
VI1-2 Effectiveness of Sodium Hydroxide for Metals
Removal 789
VI1-3 Effectiveness of Lime and Sodium Hydroxide for
Metals Removal 790
VI1-4 Theoretical Solubilities of Hydroxides and
Sulfides of Selected Metals in Pure Water 791
VII-5 Sampling Data from Sulfide Precipitation-
Sedimentation Systems 792
VII-6 Sulfide Precipitation-Sedimentation Performance 793
VI1-7 Ferrite Co-precipitation Performance 794
VI1-8 Concentration of Total Cyanide (mg/1) 795
VI1-9 Multimedia Filtration Performance 796
VI1-10 Performance of Selected Settling Systems 797
VII-11 Skimming Performance 798
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section
Title
Page
VII-12
Trace Organic Removal by Skimming API Plus
Belt Skimmers (From Plant 06058)
799
VII-13
Combined Metals Data Effluent Values (mg/1)
800
VII—1 4
L&S Performance Additional Pollutants
801
VII-15
Combined Metals Data Set - Untreated Wastewater
802
VII-16
Maximum Pollutant Level in Untreated Wastewater
Additional Pollutants (mg/1)
803
VII-17
Freeipitation-Settling-Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant A
804
VII-18
Precipitation-Settling-Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant B
805
VII-19
Precipitation-Settling-Filtration (LS&F)
Performance Plant C
806
VII-20
Summary of Treatment Effectiveness (mg/1)
807
VII—21
Chemical Emulsion Breaking Efficiencies
808
VII-22
Treatability Rating of Priority Pollutants
Utilizing Carbon Adsorption
809
VI1-23
Classes of Organic Compounds Adsorbed on
Carbon
81 0
VII-24
Ion Exchange Performance (all values mg/1)
81 1
VII-25
Peat Adsorption Performance
812
VII-26
Membrane Filtration System Effluent
813
VI1-27
Ultrafiltration Performance
814
VIII-1
Major Differences Between Cost Methodologies
902
VIII—2
Cost Equations for Recommended Treatment and
Control Technologies - Pre-Proposal
903
VIII—3
Oily Sludge Production Associated with Aluminum
Forming
909
VIII—4
Lime Dosage Requirements and Lime Sludge
Production Associated with Aluminum Forming
910
VIII—5
Carbon Exhaustion Rates Associated with
Aluminum Forming
911
VIII-6
Cost Equations for Recommended Treatment and
Control Technologies - Post-Proposal
912
VIII—7
Components of Total Capital Investment -
Post-Proposal
916
VII1-8
Components of Total Annualized Costs - Post-
Proposal
917
VIII-9
Wastewater Sampling Frequency - Post-Proposal
918
VIII-10
Cost Program Pollutant Parameters
919
VIII-11
Aluminum Forming Category Cost of Compliance
($1982)
920
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section Title Page
VIII-12 Characteristics of the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory Normal Plant Used for Costing 921
VII1-13 Characteristics of the Rolling with Emulsion
Subcategory Normal Plant Used for Costing 922
VII1-14 Characteristics of the Extrusion Subcategory
Normal Plant Used for Costing 923
VIII-15 Characteristics of the Forging Subcategory
Normal Plant Used for Costing 924
VI11-16 Characteristics of the Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory Normal Plant Used for Costing 925
VI11-17 Characteristics of the Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Subcategory Normal Plant Used for
Costing 926
VIII-18 Summary of the Aluminum Forming Normal Plant
Cost ($1982) 927
IX—1 Production Operations-Rolling with Neat Oils 998
Subcategory
IX-2 Comparison of Wastewater Discharge Rates From
Cleaning or Etching Rinse Streams 1000
iA-j Concentration Range of Pollutants Considered for
BPT Regulation in Core and Ancillary Waste
Streams - Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 1001
XI—4 BPT Mass Limitations for the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory 1003
IX-5 Production Operations-Rolling with Emulsions
Subcategory 1007
IX-6 Concentration Range of Pollutants Considered for
BPT Regulation in Core and Ancillary Waste
Streams - Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory 1008
IX-7 BPT Mass Limitations for the Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory 1010
IX-8 Production Operations - Extrusion Subcategory 1013
IX-9 Concentration Range of Pollutants Considered for
BPT Regulation in Core and Ancillary Waste
Streams - Extrusion Subcategory 1014
IX-10 BPT Mass Limitations for the Extrusion Subcategory 1016
IX -l1 Production Operations - Forging Subcategory 1020
IX-12 Concentration Range of Pollutants Considered for
BPT Regulation in Core and Ancillary Waste Streams
- Forging Subcategory 1021
IX—13 BPT Mass Limitations for the Forging Subcategory 1023
ix-i4 Production Operations - Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory 1026
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section
Title
Page
IX-1 5
IX-16
IX-1 7
IX-1 8
IX-1 9
IX-20
IX-21
IX-22
X-l
X-2
X-3
X-4
X-5
X-6
X-7
X-8
X-9
X-10
X-l 1
X-l 2
X-l 3
Concentration Range of Pollutants Considered for
BPT Regulation in Core and Ancillary Waste
Streams - Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory
BPT Mass Limitations for the Drawing with Neat
Oils Subcategory
Production Operations - Drawing with Emulsions or
Soaps Subcategory
Comparison of Wastewater Discharge Rates From
Drawing with Emulsion or Soap Streams
Concentration Range of Pollutants Considered for
BPT Regulation in Core and Ancillary Waste
Streams - Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory
BPT Mass Limitations for the Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Subcategory
Allowable Discharge Calculations for Plant X
Example 1
Allowable Discharge Calculations for Plant Y
Example 2
in
in
Extrusion Subcategory
Forging Subcategory
Drawing with Neat Oils
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates for BAT Options
Total Subcategory
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates for BAT Options
Direct Dischargers
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits
Pollutant Reduction Benefits
Pollutant Reduction Benefits
Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Direct Dischargers -
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Direct Dischargers -
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Direct Dischargers -
Extrusion Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Direct Dischargers -
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Direct Dischargers -
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory
1027
1 029
1033
1034
1 035
1 037
1 041
1 042
1074
1 075
1076
1 078
1 080
1082
1 085
1 087
1089
1091
1 093
1095
1097
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section
Title
Page
X-14
X-l 5
X-l 6
X-l 7
X-l 8
X-l 9
X-20
X- 21
X-22
X-23
X-24
X-25
X-26
X-27
X-28
X-29
X-30
X-31
X-32
X-33
X-34
X-35
X-36
X-37
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Normal Plant -
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 1099
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Normal Plant -
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory , 1100
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Normal Plant -
Extrusion Subcategory 1101
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Normal Plant -
Forging Subcategory 1102
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Normal Plant -
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory 1103
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Normal Plant -
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory 1104
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
Treatment Performance - Normal Plant 1105
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory
Treatment Performance - Normal Plant 1106
Extrusion Subcategory Treatment
Performance - Normal Plant .? .1107
Forging Subcategory Treatment Performance -
Normal Plant 1108
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory
Treatment Performance - Normal Plants 1109
Drawing with Emulsions Subcategory
Treatment Performance - Normal Plant 1110
TTO - Evaluation of Oil Treatment Effectiveness
on Toxics Removal 1111
Production Operations - Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory 1112
BAT Mass Limitations for the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory 1113
Production Operations - Rolling with Emulsions
Subcategory 1118
BAT Mass Limitations for the Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory 1119
Production Operations - Extrusion Subcategory 1122
BAT Mass Limitations for the Extrusion Subcategory 1123
Production Operations - Forging Subcategory 1127
BAT Mass Limitations for the Forging Subcategory 1128
Production Operations - Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory 1131
BAT Mass Limitations for the Drawing with Neat
OiIs Subcategory 1132
Production Operations - Drawing with Emulsions or
Soaps Subcategory 1136
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Section
Title
Page
X-38
XI-1
XI-2
XI-3
XI-4
XI-5
XI-6
XII-1
XII-2
XI I—3
XII—4
XII-5
XII-6
XI1—7
XI1-8
XI I—9
XII-10
XII-11
XII-12
XII-13
XII—14
XII-15
XII-16
XII-17
XII-18
XII-19
XI1—20
BAT Mass Limitations for the Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Subcategory 1137
NSPS for the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 1151
NSPS for the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory 1155
NSPS for the Extrusion Subcategory 1158
NSPS for the Forging Subcategory 1162
NSPS for the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory 1165
NSPS for the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory 1169
POTW Removals of the Toxic Pollutants Found in
Aluminum Forming Wastewater 1180
Capital and Annual Cost Estimates for BAT Options
Indirect Dischargers ($1982) 1182
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Indirect Dischargers
- Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 1183
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Indirect Dischargers
- Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory 1185
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Indirect Dischargers
- Extrusion Subcategory 1187
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Indirect Dischargers
- Forging Subcategory 1189
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Indirect Dischargers -
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory 1192
Pollutant Reduction Benefits - Indirect Dischargers
- Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory 1194
PSES for the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory 1196
PSES for the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory 1200
PSES for the Extrusion Subcategory 1203
PSES for the Forging Subcategory 1207
PSES for the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory 1210
PSES for the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory 1214
PSNS for the Rol1iwg with Neat Oils Subcategory 1219
PSNS for the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory 1222
PSNS for the Extrusion Subcategory 1225
PSNS for the Forging Subcategory 1229
PSNS for the Drawing with Neat OiIs Subcategory 1232
PSNS for the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory 1236
-------
age
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
815
816
817
818
FIGURES
Title
Aluminum Forming Products
Geographical Distribution of Aluminum Forming
Plants
Common Rolling Mill Configurations
Geographical Distribution of Plants with Hot
or Cold Rolling
Direct Extrusion
Geographical Distribution of Plants with Extrusion
Forg ing
Geographical Distribution of Plants with Forging
Tube Drawing
Geographical Distribution of Plants with Tube, Wire,
Rod and Bar Drawing
Direct Chill Casting
Continuous Casting
Vapor Degreasing
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Sources
at
Plant
A
Sources
at
Plant
B
Sources
at
Plant
C
Sources
at
Plant
D
Sources
at
Plant
E
Sources
at
Plant
F
Sources
at
Plant
G
Sources
at
Plant
H
Sources
at
Plant
J
Sources
at
Plant
K
Sources
at
Plant
L
Sources
at
Plant
N
Sources
at
Plant
P
Sources
at
Plant
0
Sources
at
Plant
R
Sources
at
Plant
S
Sources
at
Plant
T
Sources
at
Plant
U
Sources
at
Plant
V
Sources
at
Plant
W
Sources
at
Plant
AA
Sources
at
Plant
BB
Sources
at
Plant
CC
Sources
at
Plant
DD
Sources
at
Plant
EE
Comparative Solubilities of Metal Hydroxides
and Sulfide as a Function of pH
Lead Solubility in Three Alkalies
Effluent Zinc Concentration vs. Minimum Effluent pH
Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
-Cadmium
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Section Title Page
VII-5 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- Chromium 819
VII-6 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- Copper 820
VII-7 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- Lead 821
VII-8 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- Nickel and Aluminum 822
VII-9 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- Zinc 823
VII-10 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- Iron 824
VII-11 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- Manganese 825
VII-12 Hydroxide Precipitation Sedimentation Effectiveness
- TSS 826
VII-13 Hexavalent Chromium Reduction with Sulfur
Dioxide 827
VII-14 Granular Bed Filtration 828
VII-15 Pressure Filtration 829
VII-16 Representative Types of Sedimentation 830
VII-17 Activated Carbon Adsorption Column 831
VII-18 Centrifugation 832
VII-19 Treatment of Cyanide Waste by Alkaline Chlorination 833
VII-20 Typical Ozone Plant for Waste Treatment 834
VII-21 UV/Ozonation 835
VI1—22 Types of Evaporation Equipment 836
VII-23 Dissolved Air Flotation 837
VII-24 Gravity Thickening 838
VII-25 Ion Exchange with Regeneration 839
VII-26 Simplified Reverse Osmosis Schematic 840
VII—27 Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configurations 841
VII—28 Sludge Drying Bed 842
VII-29 Simplified Ultrafiltration Flow schematic 843
VII-30 Vacuum Filtration 844
VI1-31 Flow Diagram for Emulsion Breaking with Chemicals 845
VII-32 Filter Configurations 846
VII-33 Gravity Oil-Water Separation 847
VII-34 Flow Diagram for a Batch Treatment Ultrafiltration
System 848
VII-35 Flow Diagram of Activated Carbon Adsorption with
Regeneration 849
VII-36 Flow Diagram for Recycling with a Cooling Tower 850
VII—37 Counter Current Rinsing (Tanks) 851
VII-38 Effect of Added Rinse Stages on Water Use 852
-------
Section
FIGURES (Continued)
Title
Page
VII-39 Schematic Diagram of Spinning Nozzle Aluminum
Refining Process 853
VIII—1 Costs of Oil Skimming (Pre-Proposal) 928
VIII-2 Costs of Chemical Emulsion Breaking
(Pre-Proposal) 929
VI11 —3 Costs of Dissolved Air Flotation (Pre-Proposal) 930
VIII-4 Costs of Thermal Emulsion Breaking (Pre-Proposal) 931
VIII-5 Costs of Multimedia Filtration (Pre-Proposal) 932
VIII-6 Costs of pH Adjustment with Acid (Pre-Proposal) 933
VIII-7 Costs of pH Adjustment with Caustic (Pre-Proposal) 934
VIII-8 Costs of Lime and Settle (Pre-Proposal) 935
VIII-9 Costs of Chromium Reduction (Pre-Proposal) 936
VIII-10 Costs of Cyanide Oxidation (Pre-Proposal) 937
VI11 — 11 Costs of Activated Carbon Adsorption (Pre-Proposal) 938
VIII-12 Costs of Vacuum Filtration (Pre-Proposal) 939
VIII-13 Costs of Contract Hauling (Pre-Proposal) 940
VIII-14 Costs of Flow Equalization (Pre-Proposal) 941
VI11—15 Costs of Pumping (Pre-Proposal) 942
Costs of Holding Tanks (Pre-Proposal) 943
VIII-17 Costs of Recycling (Pre-Proposal) 944
VIII-18 General Logic Diagram of Computer Cost Model 945
VIII-19 Logic Diagram of Module Design Procedure 946
VIII-20 Logic Diagram of the Costing Routine 947
VI11-21 Costs of Chemical Precipitation and Gravity
Settling (Post-Proposal) 948
VlII-22 Costs of Vacuum Filtration (Post-Proposal) 949
VIII-23 Costs of Flow Equalization (Post-Proposal) 950
VIII-24 Costs of Cartridge/Multimedia Filtration
(Post-Proposal) 951
VIII-25 Costs of Chemical Emulsion Breaking (Post-
Proposal) 952
VIII-26 Costs of Oil Skimming (Post-Proposal) 953
VIII-27 Costs of Chromium Reduction (Post-Proposal) 954
VI TI —28 Costs of Recycling via Cooling Towers/Holding
Tanks (Post-Proposal) 955
VI11 — 29 Cost of Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing (Post-
Proposal) 956
VIII-30 Costs of Contract Hauling (Post-Proposal) 957
IX—1 BPT Treatment Train for the Rolling with Neat Oils
-------
Page
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1141
1142
1 143
1 144
1 145
1 146
FIGURES (Continued)
Title
Subcategory
BPT Treatment
Train
for
the
Subcategory
BPT Treatment
Train
for
the
BPT Treatment
Train
for
the
BPT Treatment
Train
for
the
Subcategory
BPT Treatment
Train
for
the
or Soaps Subcategory
Rolling with Emulsions
Extrusion Subcategory
Forging Subcategory
Drawing with Neat Oils
Drawing with Emulsions
BAT Treatment Train
BAT Treatment Train
BAT Treatment Train
BAT Treatment Train
BAT Treatment Train
BAT Treatment Train
for Option 1
for Option 2
for Option 3
for Option 4
for Option 5
for Option 6
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
This section describes the treatment techniques currently used or
available to remove or recover wastewater pollutants normally
generated by the aluminum forming industrial point source
category. Included are discussions of individual end-of-pipe
treatment technologies and in-plant technologies. These treat-
ment technologies are widely used in many industrial categories
and data and information to support their effectiveness has been
drawn from a similarly wide range of sources and data bases.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Individual recovery and treatment technologies are described
which are used or are suitable for use in treating wastewater
discharges from aluminum forming facilities. Each description
includes a functional description and discussions of application
and performance, advantages and limitations, operational factors
(reliability, maintainability, solid waste aspects), and demon-
stration status. The treatment processes described include both
technologies presently demonstrated within the aluminum forming
category, and technologies demonstrated in treatment of similar
wastes in other industries.
Aluminum forming wastewater streams characteristically may be
acid or alkaline; may contain substantial levels of dissolved or
particulate metals including cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
lead, nickel, selenium, zinc, and aluminum; contain substantial
amounts of toxic organics; and are generally free from strong
chelating agents. These toxic inorganic pollutants, along with
the nonconventional pollutant aluminum, constitute the most
significant wastewater pollutants in this category.
In general, these pollutants are removed by oil removal (skim-
ming, emulsion breaking, and flotation), chemical precipitation
and sedimentation, or filtration. Most of them may be effec-
tively removed by precipitation of metal hydroxides or carbonates
utilizing the reaction with lime, sodium hydroxide, or sodium
carbonate. For some, improved removals are provided by the use
of sodium sulfide or ferrous sulfide to precipitate the pollu-
tants as sulfide compounds with very low solubilities.
Discussion of end-of-pipe treatment technologies is divided into
three parts: the major technologies; the effectiveness of major
technologies; and minor end-of-pipe technologies. technology.
-------
MAJOR TECHNOLOGIES
In Sections IX, X, XI, and XII, the rationale for selecting
treatment systems is discussed. The individual technologies used
in the system are described here. The major end-of-pipe technol-
ogies for treating aluminum forming wastewaters are: chemical
reduction of hexavalent chromium, chemical precipitation of
dissolved metals, cyanide precipitation, granular bed filtration,
pressure filtration, settling of suspended solids, skimming of
oil, chemical emulsion breaking, and thermal emulsion breaking.
In practice, precipitation of metals and settling of the
resulting precipitates is often a unified two-step operation.
Suspended solids originally present in raw wastewaters are not
appreciably affected by the precipitation operation and are
removed with the precipitated metals in the settling operations.
Settling operations can be evaluated independently of hydroxide
or other chemical precipitation operations, but hydroxide and
other chemical precipitation operations can only be evaluated in
combination with a solids removal operation.
1. Chemical Reduction of Chromium
Description of the Process. Reduction is a chemical reaction in
which electrons are transferred to the chemical being reduced
from the chemical initiating the transfer (the reducing agent).
Sulfur dioxide, sodium, bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and
ferrous sulfate form strong reducing agents in aqueous solution
and are often used in industrial waste treatment facilities for
the reduction of hexavalent chromium to the trivalent form. The
reduction allows removal of chromium from solution in conjunction
with other metallic salts by alkaline precipitation. Hexavalent
chromium is not precipitated as the hydroxide.
Gaseous sulfur dioxide is a widely used reducing agent and pro-
vides a good example of the chemical reduction process. Reduc-
tion using other reagents is chemically similar. The reactions
involved may be illustrated as follows:
3SO2 + 3Hz0 3H2S03
3HeS03 + 2H2Cr04 Cr2(S04)3 + 5HZ0
The above reactions are favored by low pH. A pH of from 2 to 3
is normal for situations requiring complete reduction. At pH
levels above 5, the reduction rate is slow. Oxidizing agents
such as dissolved oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the
reduction process by consuming the reducing agent.
A typical treatment consists of 45 minutes retention in a
reaction tank. The reaction tank has an electronic recorder-
controller device to control process conditions with respect to
-------
pH and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP). Gaseous sulfur
dioxide is metered to the reaction tank to maintain the ORP
within the range of 250 to 300 millivolts. Sulfuric acid is
added to maintain a pH level of from 1.8 to 2.0. The reaction
tank is equipped with a propeller agitator designed to provide
approximately one turnover per minute. Figure VII-1 shows a
continuous chromium reduction system.
Application and Performance. Chromium reduction is used in
aluminum forming for treating rinses of chromic acid etching
solutions used for high-magnesium aluminum. Cooling tower blow-
down may also contain chromium as a biocide in waste streams.
Coil coating operations, frequently found on-site with aluminum
forming operations, are sometimes a source of chromium-bearing
wastewaters. A study of an operational waste treatment facility
chemically reducing hexavalent chromium has shown that a 99.7
percent reduction efficiency is easily achieved. Final
concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 are readily attainable, and
concentrations of 0.01 mg/1 are considered to be attainable by
properly maintained and operated equipment.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of chemical
reduction to reduce hexavalent chromium is that it is a fully
proven technology based on many years of experience. Operation
at ambient conditions results in low energy consumption, and the
process, especially when using sulfur dioxide, is well suited to
automatic control. Furthermore, the equipment is readily obtain-
able from many suppliers, and operation is straightforward.
One limitation of chemical reduction of hexavalent chromium is
that for high concentrations of chromium, the cost of treatment
chemicals may be prohibitive. When this situation occurs, other
treatment techniques are likely to be more economical. Chemical
interference by oxidizing agents is possible in the treatment of
mixed wastes, and the treatment itself may introduce pollutants
if not properly controlled. Storage and handling of sulfur
dioxide is somewhat hazardous.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Maintenance consists of
periodic removal of sludge, the frequency of removal depends on
the input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Pretreatment to eliminate substances which
will interfere with the process may often be necessary. This
process produces trivalent chromium which can be controlled by
further treatment. However, small amounts of sludge may be
collected as the result of minor shifts in the solubility of the
contaminants. This sludge can be processed by the main sludge
treatment equipment.
-------
Demonstration Status. The reduction of chromium waste by sulfur
dioxide or sodium bisulfite is a classic process and is used by
numerous plants which have hexavalent chromium compounds in
wastewaters from operations such as electroplating and coil
coating. At least two aluminum forming plants use chromium
reduction to treat wastewater and therefore this technology is
demonstrated in this category.
2. Chemical Precipitation
Dissolved toxic metal ions and certain anions may be chemically
precipitated for removal by physical means such as sedimentation,
filtration, or centrifugation. Several reagents are commonly
used to effect this precipitation:
1) Alkaline compounds such as lime or sodium hydroxide may
be used to precipitate many toxic metal ions as metal
hydroxides. Lime also may precipitate phosphates as
insoluble calcium phosphate and fluorides as calcium
fluoride.
2) Both "soluble" sulfides such as hydrogen sulfide or
sodium sulfide and "insoluble" sulfides such as ferrous
sulfide may be used to precipitate many heavy metal
ions as insoluble metal sulfides.
3) Ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate, or both (as is required)
may be' used to precipitate cyanide as a ferro or zinc
ferricyanide complex.
4) Carbonate precipitates may be used to remove metals
either by direct precipitation using a carbonate
reagent such as calcium carbonate or by converting
hydroxides into carbonates using carbon dioxide.
These treatment chemicals may be added to a flash mixer or rapid
mix tank, to a presettling tank, or directly to a clarifier or
other settling device. Because metal hydroxides tend to be col-
loidal in nature, coagulating agents may also be added to facili-
tate settling. After the solids have been removed, final pH
adjustment may be required to reduce the high pH created by the
alkaline treatment chemicals.
Chemical precipitation as a mechanism for removing metals from
wastewater is a complex process of at least two steps - precipi-
tation of the unwanted metals and removal of the precipitate.
Some very small amount of metal will remain dissolved in the
wastewater after complete precipitation. The amount of residual
dissolved metal depends on the treatment chemicals used and
related factors. The effectiveness of this method of removing
-------
any specific metal depends on the fraction of the specific metal
in the raw waste (and hence in the precipitate) and the effec-
tiveness of suspended solids removal. In specific instances, a
sacrificial ion such as iron or aluminum may be added to aid in
the removal of toxic metals by co-precipitation process and
reduce the fraction of a specific metal in the precipitate.
Applicat ion and Performance. Chemical precipitation is used in
aluminum forming for precipitation of dissolved metals. It can
be used to remove metal ions such as aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,
manganese, mercury, molybdenum, tin, and zinc. The process is
also applicable to any substance that can be transformed into an
insoluble form such as fluorides, phosphates, soaps, sulfides,
and others. Because it is simple and effective, chemical precip-
itation is extensively used for industrial waste treatment.
The performance of chemical precipitation depends on several
variables. The most important factors affecting precipitation
effectiveness are:
1. Maintenance of an appropriate (usually alkaline) pH
throughout the precipitation reaction and subsequent
settling;
2. Addition of a sufficient excess of treatment ions to
drive the precipitation reaction to completion;
3. Addition of an adequate supply of sacrificial ions
(such as iron or aluminum) to ensure precipitation and
removal of specific target ions; and
4. Effective removal of precipitated solids (see
appropriate technologies discussed under "Solids
Removal").
Control of pH. Irrespective of the solids removal technology
employed, proper control of pH is absolutely essential for favor-
able performance of precipitation-sedimentation technologies.
This is clearly illustrated by solubility curves for selected
metals hydroxides and sulfides shown in Figure VII-2, and by
plotting effluent zinc concentrations against pH as shown in
Figure VII-3. Figure VII-3 was obtained from Development Docu-
ment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Zinc Segment of Nonferrous
Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category, U.S. E.P.A., EPA
440/1-74/033, November, 1974. Figure VII-3 was plotted from the
sampling data from several facilities with metal finishing
operations. It is partially illustrated by data obtained from
three consecutive days of sampling at one metal processing plant
-------
(47432) as displayed in Table VII-1. Flow through this system is
approximately 49,263 1/hr (13,000 gal/hr).
This treatment system uses lime precipitation (pH adjustment)
followed by coagulant addition and sedimentation. Samples were
taken before (in) and after (out) the treatment system. The best
treatment for removal of copper and zinc was achieved on day one,
when the pH was maintained at a satisfactory level. The poorest
treatment was found on the second day, when the pH slipped to an
unacceptably low level and intermediate values were achieved on
the third day, when pH values were less than desirable but in
between the values of the first and second days.
Sodium hydroxide is used by one facility (plant 439) for pH
adjustment and chemical precipitation, followed by settling
(sedimentation and a polishing lagoon) of precipitated solids.
Samples were taken prior to caustic addition and following the
polishing lagoon. Flow through the system is approximately
22,700 1/hr (6,000 gal/hr). Metals removal data for this system
are presented in Table VI1-2.
These data indicate that the system operated efficiently.
Effluent pH was controlled within the range of 8.6 to 9.3, and
while raw waste loadings were not unusually high, most toxic
metals were removed to very low concentrations.
Lime and sodium hydroxide (combined) are sometimes used to
precipitate metals. Data developed from plant 40063, a facility
with a metal-bearing wastewater, exemplify efficient operation of
a chemical precipitation and settling system. Table VII-3 shows
sampling data from this system, which uses lime and sodium
hydroxide for pH adjustment, chemical precipitation,
polyelectrolyte flocculant addition, and sedimentation. Samples
were taken of the raw waste influent to the system and of the
clarifier effluent. Flow through the system is approximately
19,000 1/hr (5,000 gal/hr).
At this plant, effluent TSS levels were below 15 mg/1 on each
day, despite average raw waste TSS concentrations of over 3,500
mg/1. Effluent pH was maintained at approximately 8, lime addi-
tion was sufficient to precipitate the dissolved metal ions, and
the flocculant addition and clarifier retention served to remove
effectively the precipitated solids.
Sulfide precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals
resulting in improved metals removals. Most metal sulfides are
less soluble than hydroxides and the precipitates are frequently
more dependably removed from water. Solubilities for selected
metal hydroxide, carbonate, and sulfide precipitates are shown in
Table VII-4 (Source: Lange's Handbook of Chemistry). Sulfide
-------
precipitation is particularly effective in removing specific
metals such as silver and mercury. Sampling data from three
industrial plants using sulfide precipitation appear in Table
VII-5. The data were obtained from three sources:
1. Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for
the Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide Precipitation,
USEPA, EPA No. 625/8/80-003, 1979.
2. Industry Finishing, Vol. 35, No. 11, November, 1979.
3. Electroplating sampling data from plant 27045.
In all cases except iron, effluent concentrations are below 0.1
mg/1 and in many cases below 0.01 mg/1 for the three plants
studied.
Sampling data from several chlorine-caustic manufacturing plants
using sulfide precipitation demonstrate effluent mercury concen-
trations varying between 0.009 and 0.03 mg/1. As shown in Figure
VII-2, the solubilities of PbS and Ag2S are lower at alkaline pH
levels than either the corresponding hydroxides or other sulfide
compounds. This implies that removal performance for lead and
silver sulfides should be comparable to or better than that for
the heavy metal hydroxides. Bench-scale tests on several types
of metal finishing and manufacturing wastewater indicate that
metals removal to levels of less than 0.05 mg/1 and in some cases
less than 0.01 mg/1 are common in systems using sulfide
precipitation followed by clarification. Some of the bench-scale
data, particularly in the case of lead, do not support such low
effluent concentrations. However, lead is consistently removed
to very low levels (less than 0.02 mg/1) in systems using
hydroxide and carbonate precipitation and sedimentation.
Of particular interest is the ability of sulfide to precipitate
hexavalent chromium (Cr+<) without prior reduction to the tri-
valent state as is required in the hydroxide process. When fer-
rous sulfide is used as the precipitant, iron and sulfide act as
reducing agents for the hexavalent chromium according to the
reaction:
Cr03 + FeS + 3 H20 Fe(OH)3 + Cr(OH)3 + S
The sludge produced in this reaction consists mainly of ferric
hydroxides, chromic hydroxides, and various metallic sulfides.
Some excess hydroxy1 ions are generated in this process, possibly
requiring a downward re-adjustment of pH.
Based on the available data, Table VII-6 shows the minimum relia-
bly attainable effluent concentrations for sulfide precipitation-
-------
sedimentation systems. These values are used to calculate
performance predictions of sulfide precipitation-sedimentation
systems. Table VI1-6 is based on two reports:
1. Summary Report, Control and Treatment Technology for
the Metal Finishing Industry: Sulfide Precipitation,
U.S. EPA, EPA NO. 625/8/80-003, 1979.
2. Addendum to Development Document for Effluent
Limi tations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards, Major Inorganic Products Segment of
Inorganics Point Source Category, U.S. EPA, EPA
Contract No. EPA 68-01-3281 (Task 7), June, 1978.
Carbonate precipitation is sometimes used to precipitate metals,
especially where precipitated metals values are to be recovered.
The solubility of most metal carbonates is intermediate between
hydroxide and sulfide solubilities; in addition, carbonates form
easily filtered precipitates.
Carbonate ions appear to be particularly useful in precipitating
lead and antimony. Sodium carbonate has been observed being
added at treatment to improve lead precipitation and removal in
some industrial plants. The lead hydroxide and lead carbonate
solubility curves displayed in Figure VII-4 ("Heavy Metals
Removal," by Kenneth Lanovette, Chemical Engineering/Deskbook
Issue, Oct. 17, 1977) explain this phenomenon.
Co-precipitation with Iron - The presence of substantial
quantities of iron in metal-bearing wastewaters before treatment
has been shown to improve the removal of toxic metals. In some
cases this iron is an integral part of the industrial wastewater;
in other cases iron is deliberately added as a preliminary or
first step of treatment. The iron functions to improve toxic
metal removal by three mechanisms: the iron co-precipitates with
toxic metals forming a stable precipitate which desolubi1izes the
toxic metal; the iron improves the settleability of the
precipitate; and the large amount of iron reduces the fraction of
toxic metal in the precipitate. Incidental co-precipitation with
iron has been practiced for many years when iron was a
substantial constituent of raw wastewater, and intentionally when
iron salts were added as a coagulant aid. Aluminum or mixed
iron-aluminum salt also have been used. The addition of iron for
co-precipitation to aid in toxic metals removal is considered a
routine part of state-of-the-art lime and settle technology which
should be implemented as required to achieve optimal removal of
toxic metals.
-------
Co-precipitation using large amounts of ferrous iron salts is
known as ferrite co-precipitation because magnetic iron oxide or
ferrite is formed. The addition of ferrous salts (sulfate) is
followed by alkali precipitation and air oxidation. The resul-
tant precipitate is easily removed by filtration and may be
removed magnetically. Data illustrating the performance of
ferrite co-precipitation is shown in Table VI1-7. The data are
from:
1. Sources and Treatment of Wastewater in the Nonferrous
Metals Industry, U.S. EPA, EPA No. 600/2-80-074, 1980.
Advantages and Limitations. Chemical precipitation has proven to
be an effective technique for removing many pollutants from
industrial wastewater. It operates at ambient conditions and is
well suited to automatic control. The use of chemical
precipitation may be limited because of interference by chelating
agents, because of possible chemical interference of mixed
wastewaters and treatment chemicals, or because of the
potentially hazardous situation involved with the storage and
handling of those chemicals. Aluminum forming wastewaters do not
normally contain chelating agents or complex pollutant matrix
formations which would interfere with or limit the use of
chemical precipitation. Lime is usually added as a slurry when
used in hydroxide precipitation. The slurry must be kept well
mixed and the addition lines periodically checked to prevent
blocking, which may result from a buildup of solids. Also,
hydroxide precipitation usually makes recovery of the
precipitated metals difficult, because of the heterogeneous
nature of most hydroxide sludges.
The major advantage of the sulfide precipitation process is that
the extremely low solubility of most metal sulfides promotes very
high metal removal efficiencies; the sulfide process also has the
ability to remove chromates and dichromates without preliminary
reduction of the chromium to its trivalent state. In addition,
sulfide can precipitate metals complexed with most complexing
agents. The process demands care, however, in maintaining the pH
of the solution at approximately 10 in order to restrict the gen-
eration of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas. For this reason, ventila-
tion of the treatment tanks may be a necessary precaution in most
installations. The use of insoluble sulfides reduces the problem
of hydrogen sulfide evolution. As with hydroxide precipitation,
excess sulfide ion must be present to drive the precipitation
reaction to completion. Since the sulfide ion itself is toxic,
sulfide addition must be carefully controlled to maximize heavy
metals precipitation with a minimum of excess sulfide to avoid
the necessity of post treatment. At very high excess sulfide
levels and high pH, soluble mercury-sulfide compounds may also be
formed. Where excess sulfide is present, aeration of the efflu-
-------
ent stream can aid in oxidizing residual sulfide to the less
harmful sodium sulfate (Na2S04). The cost of sulfide precip-
itants is high in comparison with hydroxide precipitants, and
disposal of metallic sulfide sludges may pose problems. An
essential element in effective sulfide precipitation is the
removal of precipitated solids from the wastewater and proper
disposal in an appropriate site. Sulfide precipitation will also
generate a higher volume of sludge than hydroxide precipitation,
resulting in higher disposal and dewatering costs. This is
especially true when ferrous sulfide is used as the precipitant.
Sulfide precipitation may be used as a polishing treatment after
hydroxide precipitation-sedimentation. This treatment configura-
tion may provide the better treatment effectiveness of sulfide
precipitation while minimizing the variability caused by changes
in raw waste and reducing the amount of sulfide precipitant
required.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Alkaline chemical
precipitation is highly reliable, although proper monitoring and
control are required. Sulfide precipitation systems provide
similar reliability.
Maintainability: Major maintenance needs involve periodic upkeep
of monitoring equipment, automatic feeding equipment, mixing
equipment, and other hardware. Removal of accumulated sludge is
necessary for efficient operation of precipitation-sedimentation
systems.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solids which precipitate out are removed in
a subsequent treatment step. Ultimately, these solids require
proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Chemical precipitation of metal hydroxides
is a classic waste treatment technology used by most industrial
waste treatment systems. Chemical precipitation of metals in the
carbonate form alone has been found to be feasible and is
commercially used to permit metals recovery and water reuse.
Full scale commercial sulfide precipitation units are in
operation at numerous installations. As noted earlier,
sedimentation to remove precipitates is discussed separately.
3. Cyanide Precipitation
Cyanide precipitation, although a method for treating cyanide in
wastewaters, does not destroy cyanide. The cyanide is retained
in the sludge that is formed. Reports indicate that during expo-
sure to sunlight the cyanide complexes can break down and form
free cyanide. For this reason the sludge from this treatment
method must be disposed of carefully.
-------
Cyanide may be precipitated and settled out of wastewaters by the
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate. In the presence of
iron, cyanide will form extremely stable cyanide complexes. The
addition of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate forms zinc ferrocya-
nide or ferro and ferricyanide complexes.
Adequate removal of the precipitated cyanide requires that the pH
must be kept at 9.0 and an appropriate detention time be main-
tained. A study has shown that the formation of the complex is
very dependent on pH. At a pH of either 8 or 10, the residual
cyanide concentrations measured is twice that of the same
reaction carried out at a pH of 9. Removal efficiencies also
depend heavily on the retention time allowed. The formation of
the complexes takes place rather slowly. Depending upon the
excess amount of zinc sulfate or ferrous sulfate added, at least
a 30-minute retention time should be allowed for the formation of
the cyanide complex before continuing on to the clarification
stage.
One experiment with an initial concentration of 10 mg/1 of cya-
nide showed that 98 percent of the cyanide was complexed 10
minutes after the addition of ferrous sulfate at twice the theo-
retical amount necessary. Interference from other metal ions,
such as cadmium, might result in the need for longer retention
times.
Table VI1-8 presents data from three coil coating plants. Plant
1057 also does aluminum forming. A fourth plant was visited for
the purpose of observing plant testing of the cyanide precipita-
tion system. Specific data from this facility are not included
because: (1) the pH was usually well below the optimum level of
9.0; (2) the historical treatment data were not obtained using
the standard cyanide analysis procedure; and (3) matched input-
output data were not made available by the plant. Scanning the
available data indicates that the raw waste CN level was in the
range of 25.0 mg/1; the pH 7.5; and treated CN level was from 0.1
to 0.2 mg/1.
The concentrations are those of the stream entering and leaving
the treatment system. Plant 1057 allowed a 27-minute retention
time for the formation of the complex. The retention time for
the other plants is not known. The data suggest that over a wide
range of cyanide concentration in the raw waste, the
concentration of cyanide can be reduced in the effluent stream to
under 0.15 mg/1.
Application and Performance. Cyanide precipitation can be used
when cyanide destruction is not feasible because of the presence
of cyanide complexes which are difficult to destroy. Effluent
concentrations of cyanide well below 0.15 mg/1 are possible.
-------
Advantages and Limitations. Cyanide precipitation is an
inexpensive method of treating cyanide. Problems may occur when
metal ions interfere with the formation of the complexes.
Demonstration Status. Although no plants currently use cyanide
precipitation to treat aluminum forming wastewaters, it is used
in at least six coil coating plants, two of which have both
aluminum forming and aluminum coil coating operations.
The Agency believes that the technology is transferable to the
aluminum forming category because untreated (raw) wastewater cya-
nide concentrations are of the same order of magnitude in both
categories. In general, the concentrations of cyanide found in
aluminum forming wastewater are within the range of
concentrations found in coil coating wastewaters. In that this
technology converts all cyanide species (that is, the entire
range of cyanide species present) to complex cyanides, it is
reasonable to assume that the technology would achieve the same
performance in both categories.
In addition, cyanide compounds are used as accelerators in con-
version coating operations in both categories. The fact that
cyanide is present in wastewaters in both categories from similar
operations and is treated by cyanide precipitation in six coil
coating plants also provides support that comparable performance
should be expected when the technology is applied to aluminum
forming wastewater.
In assessing the homogeneity of the combined metals data base
(CMDB) discussed in detail in this section, the Agency compared
raw waste concentrations for metals among all of the categories
considered, including aluminum forming and coil coating. Raw
wastewaters from both categories are homogeneous with respect to
mean pollutant concentrations. Consequently, to the extent that
there are metals present that interfere with the performance of
this technology, they are accounted for in the performance data
used in developing the coil coating treatment effectiveness con-
centrations. Therefore, aluminum forming plants using this tech-
nology will achieve performance comparable to that experienced by
plants in the coil coating category.
4. Granular Bed Filtration
Filtration occurs in nature as the surface ground waters are
cleansed by sand. Silica sand, anthracite coal, and garnet are
common filter media used in water treatment plants. These are
usually supported by gravel. The media may be used singly or in
combination. The multi-media filters may be arranged to maintain
relatively distinct layers by balancing the forces of gravity,
flow, and buoyancy on the individual particles. This is accom-
-------
plished by selecting appropriate filter flow rates (gpm/sq-ft),
media grain size, and density.
Granular bed filters may be classified in terms of filtration
rate, filter media, flow pattern, or method of pressurization.
Traditional rate classifications are slow sand, rapid sand, and
high rate mixed media. In the slow sand filter, flux or
hydraulic loading is relatively low, and removal of collected
solids to clean the filter is therefore relatively infrequent.
The filter is often cleaned by scraping off the inlet face (top)
of the sand bed. In the higher rate filters, cleaning is fre-
quent and is accomplished by a periodic backwash, opposite to the
direction of normal flow.
A filter may use a single medium such as sand or diatomaceous
earth (Figure VII-32a), but dual (Figure VII-32d) and mixed
(multiple) media (Figure VII-32e) filters allow higher flow rates
and efficiencies. The dual media filter usually consists of a
fine bed of sand under a coarser bed of anthracite coal. The
coarse coal removes most of the influent solids, while the fine
sand performs a polishing function. At the end of the backwash,
the fine sand settles to the bottom because it is denser than the
coal, and the filter is ready for normal operation. The mixed
media filter operates on the same principle, with the finer,
denser media at the bottom and the coarser, less dense media at
the top. The usual arrangement is garnet at the bottom (outlet
end) of the bed, sand in the middle, and anthracite coal at the
top. Some mixing of these layers occurs and is, in fact,
desirable.
The flow pattern is usually top-to-bottom, but other patterns are
sometimes used. Upflow filters (Figure VII-32b) are sometimes
used, and in a horizontal filter the flow is horizontal. In a
biflow filter (Figure VII-32c), the influent enters both the top
and the bottom and exits laterally. The advantage of an upflow
filter is that with an upflow backwash the particles of a single
filter medium are distributed and maintained in the desired
coarse-to-fine (bottom-to-top) arrangement. The disadvantage is
that the bed tends to become fluidized, which ruins filtration
efficiency. The biflow design is an attempt to overcome this
problem.
The classic granular bed filter operates by gravity flow; how-
ever, pressure filters are fairly widely used. They permit
higher solids loadings before cleaning and are advantageous when
the filter effluent must be pressurized for further downstream
treatment. In addition, pressure filter systems are often less
costly for low to moderate flow rates.
-------
Figure VII-6 depicts a high rate, dual media, gravity downflow
granular bed filter, with self-stored backwash. Both filtrate
and backwash are piped around the bed in an arrangement that per-
mits gravity upflow of the backwash, with the stored filtrate
serving as backwash. Addition of the indicated coagulant and
polyelectrolyte usually results in a substantial improvement in
filter performance.
Auxiliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper few
inches of filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as
surface wash and is accomplished by water jets just below the
surface of the expanded bed during the backwash cycle. These
jets enhance the scouring action in the bed by increasing the
agitation.
An important feature for successful filtration and backwashing is
the underdrain. This is the support structure for the bed. The
underdrain provides an area for collection of the filtered water
without clogging from either the filtered solids or the media
grains. In addition, the underdrain prevents loss of the media
with the water, and during the backwash cycle it provides even
flow distribution over the bed. Failure to dissipate the veloc-
ity head during the filter or backwash cycle will result in bed
upset and the need for major repairs.
Several standard approaches are employed for filter underdrains.
The simplest one consists of a parallel porous pipe imbedded
under a layer of coarse gravel and manifolded to a header pipe
for effluent removal. Other approaches to the underdrain system
are known as the Leopold and Wheeler filter bottoms. Both of
these incorporate false concrete bottoms with specific porosity
configurations to provide drainage and velocity head dissipation.
Filter system operation may be manual or automatic. The filter
backwash cycle may be on a timed basis, a pressure drop basis
with a terminal value which triggers backwash, or a solids carry-
over basis from turbidity monitoring of the outlet stream. All
of these schemes have been used successfully.
Application and Performance. Wastewater treatment plants often
use granular bed filters for polishing after clarification,
sedimentation, or other similar operations. Granular bed
filtration thus has potential application to nearly all
industrial plants. Chemical additives which enhance the upstream
treatment equipment may or may not be compatible with or enhance
the filtration process. Normal operation flow rates for various
types of filters are
Slow Sand
Rapid Sand
2.04 - 5.30 1/sq m-hr
40.74 - 51.48 1/sq m-hr
-------
High Rate Mixed Media
81 . 48
- 122.22 1/sq m-hr
Suspended solids are commonly removed from wastewater streams by
filtering through a deep 0.3 to 0.9 m (1 to 3 feet) granular
filter bed. The porous bed formed by the granular media can be
designed to remove practically all suspended particles. Even
colloidal suspensions (roughly 1 to 100 microns) are adsorbed on
the surface of the media grains as they pass in close proximity
in the narrow bed passages.
Properly operated filters following some preliminary treatment to
reduce suspended solids below 200 mg/1 should produce water with
less than 10 mg/1 TSS. For example, multimedia filters produced
the effluent qualities shown in Table VII-9.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantages of granular
bed filtration are its comparatively (to other filters) low
initial and operating costs, reduced land requirements over other
methods to achieve the same level of solids removal, and
elimination of chemical additions to the discharge stream.
However, the filter may require preliminary treatment if the
solids level is high (over 100 mg/1). Operator training must be
somewhat extensive due to the controls and periodic backwashing
involved, and backwash must be stored and dewatered for
economical disposal.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The recent improvements in
filter technology have significantly improved filtration
reliability. Control systems, improved designs, and good
operating procedures have made filtration a highly reliable
method of water treatment.
Maintainability: Deep bed filters may be operated with either
manual or automatic backwash. In either case, they must be peri-
odically inspected for media attrition, partial plugging, and
leakage. Where backwashing is not used, collected solids must be
removed by shoveling, and filter media must be at least partially
replaced.
Solid Waste Aspects: Filter backwash is generally recycled
within the wastewater treatment system, so that the solids ulti-
mately appear in the clarifier sludge stream for subsequent
dewatering. Alternatively, the backwash stream may be dewatered
directly or, if there is no backwash, the collected solids may be
disposed of in a suitable landfill. In either of these situa-
tions there is a solids disposal problem similar to that of
clarifiers.
Demonstration Status. Deep bed filters are in common use in
municipal treatment plants. Their use in polishing industrial
-------
clarifier effluent is increasing, and the technology is proven
and conventional. Granular bed filtration is used in many
manufacturing plants. As noted previously, however, little data
are available characterizing the effectiveness of filters
presently in use within the aluminum forming category.
5. Pressure Filtration
Pressure filtration works by pumping the liquid through a filter
material which is impenetrable to the solid phase. The positive
pressure exerted by the feed pumps or other mechanical means pro-
vides the pressure differential which is the principal driving
force. Figure VII-15 represents the operation of one type of
pressure filter.
A typical pressure filtration unit consists of a number of plates
or trays which are held rigidly in a frame to ensure alignment
and which are pressed together between a fixed end and a travel-
ing end. On the surface of each plate is mounted a filter made
of cloth or a synthetic fiber. The feed stream is pumped into
the unit and passes through holes in the trays along the length
of the press until the cavities or chambers between the trays are
completely filled. The solids are then entrapped, and a cake
begins to form on the surface of the filter material. The water
passes through the fibers, and the solids are retained.
At the bottom of the trays are drainage ports. The filtrate is
collected and discharged to a common drain. As the filter medium
becomes coated with sludge, the flow of filtrate through the
filter drops sharply, indicating that the capacity of the filter
has been exhausted. The unit must then be cleaned of the sludge.
After the cleaning or replacement of the filter media, the unit
is again ready for operation.
/
Application and Performance. Pressure filtration is used in'
aluminum forming for sludge dewatering and also for direct
removal of precipitated and other suspended solids from waste-
water. Because dewatering is such a common operation in
treatment systems, pressure filtration is a technique which can
be found in many industries concerned with removing solids from
their waste streams.
In a typical pressure filter, chemically preconditioned sludge
detained in the unit for one to three hours under pressures vary-
ing from 5 to 13 atmospheres exhibited a final dry solids content
between 25 and 50 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The pressures which may be applied
to a sludge for water removal by filter presses that are
currently available range from 5 to 13 atmospheres. As a result,
-------
pressure filtration may reduce the amount of chemical pretreat-
ment required for sludge dewatering. Sludge retained in the form
of the filter cake has a higher percentage of solids than that
from a centrifuge or vacuum filter. Thus, it can be easily
accommodated by materials handling systems.
As a primary solids removal technique, pressure filtration
requires less space than clarification and is well suited to
streams with high solids loadings. The sludge produced may be
disposed of without further dewatering, but the amount of sludge
is increased by the use of filter precoat materials (usually
diatomaceous earth). Also, cloth pressure filters often do not
achieve as high a degree of effluent clarification as clarifiers
or granular media filters.
Two disadvantages associated with pressure filtration in the past
have been the short life of the filter cloths and lack of auto-
mation. New synthetic fibers have largely offset the first of
these problems. Also, units with automatic feeding and pressing
cycles are now available.
For larger operations, the relatively high space requirements, as
compared to those of a centrifuge, could be prohibitive in some
situations.
Operational Factors. Reliability: With proper pretreatment,
design, and control, pressure filtration is a highly dependable
system.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the system. If the removal of
the sludge cake is not automated, additional time is required for
this operation.
Solid Waste Aspects: Because it is generally drier than other
types of sludges, the filter sludge cake can be handled with
relative ease. The accumulated sludge may be disposed by any of
the accepted procedures depending on its chemical composition.
The levels of toxic metals present in sludge from treating
aluminum forming wastewater necessitate proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. Pressure filtration is a commonly used
technology in many commercial applications. One aluminum forming
plant is known to use pressure filtration for sludge dewatering.
6. Settlinq
Settling is a process which removes solid particles from a liquid
matrix by gravitational force. This is done by reducing the
-------
velocity of the feed stream in a large volume tank or lagoon so
that gravitational settling can occur. Figure VI1-8 shows two
typical settling devices.
\
Settling is often preceded by chemical precipitation which
converts dissolved pollutants to solid form and by coagulation
which enhances settling by coagulating suspended precipitates
into larger, faster settling particles.
If no chemical pretreatment is used, the wastewater is fed into a
tank or lagoon where it loses velocity and the suspended solids
are allowed to settle out. Long retention times are generally
required. Accumulated sludge can be collected either periodi-
cally or continuously and either manually or mechanically.
Simple settling, however, may require excessively large catch-
ments, and long retention times (days as compared with hours) to
achieve high removal efficiencies. Because of this, addition of
settling aids such as alum or polymeric flocculants is often
economically attractive.
In practice, chemical precipitation often precedes settling, and
inorganic coagulants or polyelectrolytic flocculants are usually
added as well. Common coagulants include sodium sulfate, sodium
aluminate, ferrous or ferric sulfate, and ferric chloride.
Organic polyelectrolytes vary in structure, but all usually form
larger floe particles than coagulants used alone.
Following this pretreatment, the wastewater can be fed into a
holding tank or lagoon for settling, but is more often piped into
a clarifier for the same purpose. A clarifier reduces space
requirements, reduces retention time, and increases solids
removal efficiency. Conventional clarifiers generally consist of
a circular or rectangular tank with a mechanical sludge collect-
ing device or with a sloping funnel-shaped bottom designed for
sludge collection. In advanced settling devices, inclined
plates, slanted tubes, or a lamellar network may be included
within the clarifier tank in order to increase the effective
settling area, increasing capacity. A fraction of the sludge
stream is often recirculated to the inlet, promoting formation of
a denser sludge.
Settling is based on the ability of gravity (Newton's Law) to
cause small particles to fall or settle (Stoke1s Law) through the
fluid in which they are suspended. Presuming that the factors
affecting chemical precipitation are controlled to achieve a
readily settleable precipitate, the principle factors controlling
settling are the particle characteristics and the upflow rate of
the suspending fluid. When the effective settling area is great
enough to allow settling, any increase in the effective settling
area will produce no increase in solids removal.
-------
Therefore, if a plant has installed equipment that provides the
appropriate overflow rate, the precipitated lead in the effluent
can effectively be removed. The number of settling devices
operated in series or in parallel by a facility is not important
with regard to suspended solids removal, but rather that the
settling devices provide sufficient effective settling area.
Another important facet of sedimentation theory is that
diminishing removal of suspended solids is achieved for a unit
increase in the effective settling area. Generally, it has been
found that suspended solids removal performance varies with the
effective up-flow rate. Qualitatively the performance increases
asymptotically to a maximum level beyond which a decrease in
up-flow rate provides incrementally insignificant increases in
removal. This maximum level is dictated by particle size
distribution, density characteristic of the particles and the
water matrix, chemicals used for precipitation and pH at which
precipitation occurs.
Application or Performance. Settling or clarification is used in
the aluminum forming category to remove precipitated metals.
Settling can be used to remove most suspended solids in a
particular waste stream; thus, it is used extensively by many
different industrial waste treatment facilities. Because most
metal ion pollutants are readily converted to solid metal
hydroxide precipitates, settling is of particular use in those
industries associated with metal production, metal finishing,
metal working, and any other industry with high concentrations of
metal ions in their wastewaters. In addition to toxic metals,
suitably precipitated materials effectively removed by settling
include aluminum, iron, manganese, cobalt, antimony, beryllium,
molybdenum, fluoride, phosphate, and many others.
A properly operated settling system can efficiently remove sus-
pended solids, precipitated metal hydroxides, and other impuri-
ties from wastewater. The performance of the process depends on
a variety of factors, including the density and particle size of
the solids, the effective charge on the suspended particles, and
the types of chemicals used in pretreatment. The site of floccu-
lant or coagulant addition also may significantly influence the
effectiveness of clarification. If the flocculant is subjected
to too much mixing before entering the clarifier, the complexes
may be sheared and the settling effectiveness diminished. At the
same time, the flocculant must have sufficient mixing and reac-
tion time in order for effective set-up and settling to occur.
Plant personel have observed that the line or trough leading into
the clarifier is often the most efficient site for flocculant
addition. The performance of simple settling is a function of
the retention time, particle size and density, and the surface
area of the basin.
-------
The data displayed in Table VII-10 indicate suspended solids
removal efficiencies in settling systems. The mean effluent TSS
concentration obtained by the plants shown in Table VII-10 is
10.1 mg/1. Influent concentrations averaged 838 mg/1. The
maximum effluent TSS value reported is 23 mg/1. These plants all
use alkaline pH adjustment to precipitate metal hydroxides, and
most add a coagulant or flocculant prior to settling.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of simple
settling is its simplicity as demonstrated by the gravitational
settling of solid particular waste in a holding tank or lagoon.
The major problem with simple settling is the long retention time
necessary to achieve complete settling, especially if the
specific gravity of the suspended matter is close to that of
water. Some materials cannot be effectively removed by simple
settling alone.
Settling performed in a clarifier is effective in removing slow-
settling suspended matter in a shorter time and in less space
than a simple settling system. Also, effluent quality is often
better from a clarifier. The cost of installing and maintaining
a clarifier, however, is substantially greater than the costs
associated with simple settling.
Inclined plate, slant tube, and lamellar settlers have even
higher removal efficiencies than conventional clarifiers, and
greater capacities per unit area are possible. Installed costs
for these advanced clarification systems are claimed to be one
half the cost of conventional systems of similar capacity.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Settling can be a highly
reliable technology for removing suspended solids. Sufficient
retention time and regular sludge removal are important factors
affecting the reliability of all settling systems. Proper con-
trol of pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, and coagulant or
flocculant addition are additional factors affecting settling
efficiencies in systems (frequently clarifiers) where these
methods are used.
Those advanced settlers using slanted tubes, inclined plates, or
a lamellar network may require prescreening of the waste in order
to eliminate any fibrous materials which could potentially clog
the system. Some installations are especially vulnerable to
shock loadings, as from storm water runoff, but proper system
design will prevent this.
Maintainability: When clarifiers or other advanced settling
devices are used, the associated system utilized for chemical
pretreatment and sludge dragout must be maintained on a regular
basis. Routine maintenance of mechanical parts is also neces-
-------
sary. Lagoons require little maintenance other than periodic
sludge removal.
Demonstration Status. Settling represents the typical method of
solids removal and is employed extensively in industrial waste
treatment. The advanced clarifiers are just beginning to appear
in significant numbers in commercial applications. Twenty-nine
aluminum forming plants use sedimentation or clarification.
7. Sk imminq
Pollutants with a specific gravity less than water will often
float unassisted to the surface of the wastewater. Skimming
removes these floating wastes. Skimming normally takes place in
a tank designed to allow the floating material to rise and remain
on the surface, while the liquid flows to an outlet located below
the floating layer. Skimming devices are therefore suited to the
removal of non-emulsified oils from raw waste streams. Common
skimming mechanisms include the rotating drum type, which picks
up oil from the surface of the water as it rotates. A doctor
blade scrapes oil from the drum and collects it in a trough for
disposal or reuse. The water portion is allowed to flow under
the rotating drum. Occasionally, an underflow baffle is
installed after the drum; this has the advantage of retaining any
floating oil which escapes the drum skimmer. The belt type
skimmer is pulled vertically through the water, collecting oil
which is scraped off from the surface and collected in a drum.
Gravity separators (Figure VII-33), such as the API type, utilize
overflow and underflow baffles to skim a floating oil layer from
the surface of the wastewater. An overflow-underflow baffle
allows a small amount of wastewater (the oil portion) to flow
over into a trough for disposition or reuse while the majority of
the water flows underneath the baffle. This is followed by~ an
overflow baffle, which is set at a height relative to the first
baffle such that only the oil bearing portion will flow over the
first baffle during normal plant operation. A diffusion device,
such as a vertical slot baffle, aids in creating a uniform flow
through the system and increasing oil removal efficiency.
Application and Performance. Oil skimming is applicable to any
waste stream containing pollutants which float to the surface.
It is commonly used to remove free oil, grease, and soaps.
Skimming is often used in conjunction with air flotation or
clarification in order to increase its effectiveness.
The removal efficiency of a skimmer is partly a function of the
retention time of the water in the tank. Larger, more buoyant
particles require less retention time than smaller particles.
Thus, the efficiency also depends on the composition of the waste
stream. The retention time required to allow phase separation
-------
and subsequent skimming varies from 1 to 15 minues, depending on
the wastewater characteristics.
API or other gravity-type separators tend to be more suitable for
use where the amount of surface oil flowing through the system is
consistently significant. Drum and belt type skimmers are
applicable to waste streams which evidence smaller amounts of
floating oil and where surges of floating oil are not a problem.
Using an API separator system in conjunction with a drum type
skimmer would be a very effective method of removing floating
contaminants from non-emulsified oily waste streams. Sampling
data shown in Table VI1-11 i1lustrate the capabi1 ities of the
technology with both extremely high and moderate oil influent
levels.
These data are intended to be illustrative of the very high level
of oil and grease removals attainable in a simple two stage oil
removal system. Based on the performance of installations in a
variety of manufacturing plants and permit requirements that are
consistently achieved, it is determined that effluent oil levels
may be reliably reduced below 10 mg/1 with moderate influent
concentrations. Very high concentrations of oil such as the 22
percent shown in Table VII-11 may require two step treatment to
achieve this level.
Skimming which removes oil may also be used to remove base levels
of organics. Plant sampling data show that many organic com-
pounds tend to be removed in standard wastewater treatment equip-
ment. Oi1 separation not only removes oi1 but also organics that
are more soluble in oil than in water. Clarification removes
organic sol ids directly and probably removes dissolved organics
by adsorption on inorganic sol ids.
The source of these organic pollutants is not always known with
certainty, although in metal forming operations they seem to
derive mainly from various process lubricants. They are also
sometimes present in the plant water supply, as additives to
proprietary formulations of cleaners, or as the result of
leaching from plastic lines and other materials.
High molecular weight organics in particular are much more solu-
ble in organic solvents than in water. Thus they are much more
concentrated in the oil phase that is skimmed than in the waste-
water . The ratio of solubi1ities of a compound in oi1 and water
phases is called the partition coefficient. The logarithm of the
partition coefficients for 28 toxic organic compounds in octanol
and water are:
-------
PAH Priority Pollutant
Log Octanol/Water
Partition Coeff icient
1.
Acenaphthene
4.33
11.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2.17
13.
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 .79
15.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
2. 56
18.
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
1 . 58
23.
Chloroform
1 . 97
29.
Dichloroethylene
1 . 48
39.
Fluoranthene
5.33
44.
Methylene chloride
1 .25
64.
Pentachlorophenol
5.01
66.
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
8.73
67.
Butyl benzyl phthalate
5.80
68.
Di-n-butyl phthalate
5.20
72.
Benzo(a)anthracene
5.61
73.
Benzo(a)pyrene
6. 04
74.
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
6. 57
75.
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
6.84
76.
Chrysene
5.61
77.
Acenaphthylene
4. 07
78.
Anthracene
4. 45
79.
Benzo(ghi)perylene
7. 23
80.
Fluorene
4.18
81 .
Phenanthrene
4. 46
82.
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
5.97
83.
Indeno(1,2,3,cd)pyrene
7. 66
84.
Pyrene
5.32
85.
Tetrachloroethylene
2.88
86.
Toluene
2.69
A review of priority organic compounds commonly found in metal
forming operations waste streams indicated that incidental
removal of these compounds often occurs as a result of oil
removal or clarification processes. When all organics analyses
from visited plants are considered, removal of organic compounds
by other waste treatment technologies often appears to be
marginal in most cases. However, when only raw waste
concentrations of 0.05 mg/1 or greater are considered, incidental
organics removal becomes much more apparent. Lower values, those
less than 0.05 mg/1, are more subject to analytical variation,
while higher values indicate a significant presence of a given
compound. When these factors are taken into account, the data
indicate that most clarification and oi1 removal treatment
systems remove significant amounts of the organic compounds
present in the raw waste. The API oil-water separation system
performed notably in this regard, as shown in Table VII-12.
-------
The unit operation most applicable to removal of trace priority
organics is adsorption, and chemical oxidation is another possi-
bility. Biological degradation is not generally applicable
because the organics are not present in sufficient concentration
to sustain a biomass and because most of the organics are
resistant to biodegradation.
Advantages and Limitations. Skimming as a pretreatment is
effective in removing naturally floating waste material. It also
improves the performance of subsequent downstream treatments.
Many pollutants, particularly dispersed or emulsified oil, will
not float "naturally" but require additional treatments. There-
fore, skimming alone may not remove all the pollutants capable of
being removed by air flotation or other more sophisticated tech-
nologies.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Because of its simplicity,
skimming is a very reliable technique, requiring little operator
supervision.
Maintainability: The skimming mechanism requires periodic
lubrication, adjustment, and replacement of worn parts.
Solid Waste Aspects: The collected layer of debris must be
disposed of by contractor removal, landfill, or incineration.
Because relatively large quantities of water are present in the
collected wastes, incineration is not always a viable disposal
method.
Demonstration Status. Skimming is a common operation utilized
extensively by industrial waste treatment systems.
MAJOR TECHNOLOGY EFFECTIVENESS
The performance of individual treatment technologies was pre-
sented above. Performance of operating systems is discussed
here. Two different systems are considered: L&S (hydroxide
precipitation and sedimentation or lime and settle) and LS&F
(hydroxide precipitation, sedimentation, and filtration or lime,
settle, and filter). Subsequently, an analysis of effectiveness
of such systems is made to develop one-day maximum and ten-day
and thirty-day average concentration levels to be used in regu-
lating pollutants. Evaluation of the L&S and the LS&F systems is
carried out on the assumption that chemical reduction of chro-
mium, cyanide precipitation, oil skimming, and emulsion breaking
are installed and operating properly where appropriate.
-------
L&S Performance
— Combined Metals Data Base
A data base known as the "combined metals data base" (CMDB) was
used to determine treatment effectiveness of lime and settle
treatment for certain pollutants. The CMDB was developed over
several years and has been used in a number of regulations.
During the development of coil coating and other categorical
effluent limitations and standards, chemical analysis data were
collected of wastewater (treatment influent) and treated
wastewater (treatment effluent) from 55 plants (126 data days)
sampled by EPA (or its contractor) using EPA sampling and
chemical analysis protocols. These data are the initial data
base for determining the effectiveness of L&S technology in
treating nine pollutants. Each of these plants belongs to at
least one of the following industry categories: aluminum forming,
battery manufacturing, coil coating, copper forming,
electroplating and porcelain enameling. All of the plants employ
pH adjustment and hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic,
followed by Stokes' Law settling (tank, lagoon or clarifier) for
solids removal. An analysis of this data was presented in the
development documents for the proposed regulations for coil
coating and porcelain enameling (January 1981). Prior to
analyzing the data, some values were deleted from the data base.
These deletions were made to ensure that the data reflect the
performance of properly operated treatment systems. The
following criteria were used in making these deletions:
- Plants where malfunctioning processes or treatment
systems at the time of sampling were identified.
- Data days where pH was less than 7.0 for extended
periods of time or TSS was greater than 50 mg/1 (these
are prima facie indications of poor operation).
In response to the coil coating and porcelain enameling propos-
als, some commenters claimed that it was inappropriate to use
data from some categories for regulation of other categories. In
response to these comments, the Agency reanalyzed the data. An
analysis of variance was applied to the data for the 126 days of
sampling to test the hypothesis of homogeneous plant mean raw and
treated effluent levels across categories by pollutant. This
analysis is described in the report, "A Statistical Analysis of
the Combined Metals Industries Effluent Data" which is in the
administrative record supporting this rulemaking. Homogeneity is
the absence of statistically discernable differences among the
categories, while heterogeneity is the opposite, i.e., the
presence of statistically discernable differences. The main
conclusion drawn from the analysis of variance is that, with the
exception of electroplating, the categories included in the data
-------
base are generally homogeneous with regard to mean pollutant
concentrations in both raw and treated effluent. That is, when
data from electroplating facilities are included in the analysis,
the hypothesis of homogeneity across categories is rejected.
When the electroplating data are removed from the analysis the
conclusion changes substantially and the hypothesis of homogene-
ity across categories is not rejected. On the basis of this
analysis, the electroplating data were removed from the data base
used to determine limitations for final coil coating and porce-
lain enameling regulations and the proposed regulations for
copper forming, aluminum forming and battery manufacturing,
nonferrous metals (Phase I), and canmaking.
The statistical analysis provides support for the technical engi-
neering judgement that electroplating wastewaters are different
from the wastewaters of other industrial categories in the data
base used to determine treatment effectiveness.
For the purpose of determining treatment effectiveness, addi-
tional data were deleted from the data base. These deletions
were made, almost exclusively, in cases where effluent data
points were associated with low influent values. This was done
in two steps. First, effluent values measured on the same day as
influent values that were less than or equal to 0.1 mg/1 were
deleted. Second, the remaining data were screened for cases in
which all influent values at a plant were low although slightly
above the 0.1 mg/1 value. These data were deleted not as indi-
vidual data points but as plant clusters of data that were
consistently low and thus not relevant to assessing treatment. A
few data points were also deleted where malfunctions not previ-
ously identified were recognized. The data basic to the CMDB are
displayed graphically in Figures VII- 4 to 12.
After all deletions, 148 data points from 19 plants remained.
These data were used to determine the concentration basis of
limitations derived from the CMDB used for the proposed aluminum
forming regulations.
The CMDB was reviewed following its use in a number of proposed
regulations (including aluminum forming). Comments pointed out a
few errors in the data and the Agency's review identified a few
transcription errors and some data points that were appropriate
for inclusion in the data that had not been used previously
because of errors in data record identification numbers.
Documents in the record of this rulemaking identify all the
changes, the reasons for the changes, and the effects of these
changes on the data base. Other comments on the CMDB asserted
that the data base was too smal1 and that the statistical methods
used were overly complex. Responses to specific comments are
provided in a document included in the record of this rulemaking.
-------
The Agency believes that the data base is adequate to determine
effluent concentrations achievable with lime and settle
treatment. The statistical methods employed in the analysis are
well known and appropriate statistical references are provided in
the documents in the record that describe the analysis.
The revised data base was re-examined for homogeneity. The
earlier conclusions were unchanged. The categories show good
overall homogeneity with respect to concentrations of the nine
pollutants in both raw and treated wastewaters with the exception
of electroplating.
The same procedures used in developing proposed limitations from
the combined metals data base were then used on the revised data
base. That is, certain effluent data associated with low influ-
ent values were deleted, and then the remaining data were fit to
a lognormal distribution to determine limitations values. The
deletion of data was again done in two steps. First, effluent
values measured on the same day as influent values that were less
than or equal to 0.1 mg/1 were deleted. Second, the remaining
data were screened for cases in which all influent values at a
plant were low although slightly above the 0.1 mg/1 value. These
data were deleted not as individual data points but as plant
clusters of data that were consistently low and thus not relevant
to assessing treatment.
The revised combined metals data base used for this final regu-
lation consists of 162 data points from 18 plants in the same
industrial categories used at proposal. The changes that were
made since proposal resulted in slight upward revisions of the
concentration bases for the limitations and standards for zinc
and nickel. The limitations for iron decrease slightly. The
other limitations were unchanged. A comparison of Table VII-20
in the final development document with Table VII-20 in the pro-
posal development document will show the exact magnitude of the
changes.
The Agency is confident that the concentrations calculated from
the combined metals data base accurately reflect the ability of
lime and settle systems in aluminum forming plants to reduce the
concentrations of the toxic metals in their raw waste streams.
The Agency confirmed this judgment by comparing available dis-
charge monitoring report (DMR) data from 12 aluminum forming
plants. This comparison led to the conclusion that the concen-
trations calculated from the combined metals data base were
achieved by many discharge points over long periods of time. The
analysis of the DMR data is documented in the record of this
rulemaking.
-------
One-Day Effluent Values
The same procedures used to determine the concentration basis of
the limitations for lime and settle treatment from the CMDB at
proposal were used on the CMDB for the final limitations. The
basic assumption underlying this determination of treatment
effectiveness is that the data for a particular pollutant are
lognormally distributed by plant. The lognormal has been found
to provide a satisfactory fit to plant effluent data in a number
of effluent guidelines categories and there was no evidence that
the lognormal was not suitable in the case of the combined metals
data. Thus, we assumed measurements of each pollutant from a
particular plant, denoted by X, followed a lognormal distribution
with a log mean », and log variance
-------
Then
where
Then
where
and
Ji = number of observations at plant i
Yij = In Xij
In means the natural logarithm.
Y = log mean over all plants
I Ji
= I I Yij/n
i = 1 j = 1
n = total number of observations
Ji
I
I
i = 1
V(Y) = pooled log variance
I
£
i
{Ji - 1) Si2
1
I
E
i
(Ji - 1)
= 1
where Si2 = log variance at plant i
Yi) 2/ (Ji
Ji
= E ( Yij
. j « i
Yi = log mean at plant i
l )
Thus, Y and V(Y) are the log mean and log variance, respectively,
of the lognormal distribution used to determine the treatment
effectiveness. The estimated mean and 99th percentile of this
distribution form the basis for the long term average and daily
maximum effluent 1 imitations, respectively. The estimates are
mean = E(X) = exp(Y) *n(0.5V(Y))
,,th percentile = X.,9 « exp [Y+2.33 / V(yT ]
where $ (.) is a Bessel function and exp is e, the base of the
natural logarithms (see Aitchison, J. and J. k. C. Brown, The
Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1963). In
cases where zeros were present in the data, a generalized form of
-------
the lognormal, known as the delta distribution was used (see
Aitchison and Brown, op. cit., Chapter 9).
For certain pollutants, this approach was modified slightly to
ensure that well operated lime and settle plants in all CMDB
categories could meet the concentrations calculated from the
CMDB. For instance, after excluding the electroplating data and
other data that did not reflect pollutant removal or proper
treatment, the effluent copper data from the copper forming
plants were statistically significantly greater than the copper
data from the other plants. This indicated that copper forming
plants might have difficulty achieving an effluent concentration
value calculated from copper data from all the CMDB categories.
Thus, copper effluent values shown in Table VII-14 are based only
on the copper effluent data from the copper forming plants. That
is, the log mean for copper is the mean of the logs of all copper
values from the copper forming plants only and the log variance
is the pooled log variance of the copper forming plant data only.
In the case of cadmium, after excluding the electroplating data
and data that did not reflect removal or proper treatment, there
were insufficient data to estimate the log variance for cadmium.
The variance used to determine the values shown in Table VI1-14
for cadmium was estimated by pooling the within plant variances
for all the other metals. Thus, the cadmium variability is the
average of the plant variability averaged over all the other
metals. The log mean for cadmium is the mean of the logs of the
cadmium observations only. A complete discussion of the data and
calculations for all the metals is contained in the administra-
tive record for this rulemaking.
Average Effluent Values
Average effluent values that form the basis for the monthly
limitations were developed in a manner consistent with the method
used to develop one-day treatment effectiveness in that the log-
normal distribution used for the one-day effluent values was also
used as the basis for the average values. That is, we assume a
number of consecutive measurements are drawn from the distribu-
tion of daily measurements. The average of 10 measurements taken
during a month was used as the basis for the monthly average
limitations. The approach used for the 10 measurements value was
employed previously in regulations for other categories and was
proposed for the aluminum forming category. That is, the
distribution of the average of 10 samples from a lognormal was
approximated by another lognormal distribution. Although the
approximation is not precise theoretically, there is empirical
evidence based on effluent data from a number of categories that
the lognormal is an adequate approximation for the distribution
of small samples. In the course of previous work the
approximation was verified in a computer simulation study (see
-------
"Development Document for Existing Sources Pretreatment Standards
for the Electroplating Point Source Category," EPA 440/1-79/003,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August
1979). The average values were developed assuming independence
of the observations although no particular sampling scheme was
assumed.
Ten-Sample Average:
The formulas for the 10-sample limitations were derived on the
basis of simple relationships between the mean and variance of
the distributions of the daily pollutant measurements and the
average of 10 measurements. We assume that the daily concentra-
tion measurements for a particular pollutant (denoted by X)
follow a lognormal distribution with log mean and log variance
denoted by ? and <*2, respectively. Let X10 denote the mean of 10
consecutive measurements. The following relationships then hold,
assuming the daily measurements are independent:
mean of X10 = E(X10)_= E(X)
variance of X10 = V(XI0) = V(X) -r 10
where E(X) and V(X) are the mean and variance of X, respectively,
defined above. We then assume that Xl0 follows a lognormal
distribution with log mean i>10 and log standard deviation tf210«
The mean and variance of Xl0 are then
E ( X j o ) = exp U10 + 0 . 5
-------
Thirty-Sample Average:
Monthly average values based on the average of 30 daily
measurements were also calculated. These are included because
monthly limitations based on 30 samples have been used in the
past and for comparison with the 10 sample values. The average
values based on 30 measurements are determined on the basis of a
statistical result known as the Central Limit Theorem. This
Theorem states that, under general and nonrestrictive
assumptions, the distribution of a sum of a number of random
variables, say n, is approximated by the normal distribution.
The approximation improves as the number of variables, n,
increases. The Theorem is quite general in that no particular
distributional form is assumed for the distribution of the
individual variables. In most applications (as in approximating
the distribution of 30-day averages) the Theorem is used to
approximate the distribution of the average of n observations of
a random variable. The result makes it possible to compute
approximate probability statements about the average in a wide
range of cases. For instance, it is possible to compute a value
below which a specified percentage (e.g., 99 percent) of the
averages of n observations are likely to fall. Most textbooks
state that 25 or 30 observations are sufficient for the approxi-
mation to be valid. In applying the Theorem to the distribution
of 30-day average effluent values, we approximate the distribu-
tion of the average of 30 observations drawn from the distribu-
tion of daily measurements and use the estimated 99th percentile
of this distribution. The monthly limitations based on 10
consecutive measurements were determined using the lognormal
approximation described above because 10 measurements were, in
this case, considered too small a number for use of the Central
Limit Theorem.
Thirty-Sample Average Calculation
The formulas for the 30-sample average were based on an
application of the Central Limit Theorem. According to the
Theorem, the average of 30 observations drawn from the
distribution of daily measurements, denoted by X30, is
approximately normally distributed. The mean and variance of X30
are
mean of X30 = E(X30)_= E(X)
variance of X3G = V(X30) = V(X) t 30
The 30-sample average value was determined by the estimate of the
approximate 99th percentile of the distribution of the 30-sample
average given by
X3o(.99) = E?X) = 2. 33 /V(X) 4- 30
-------
where E(X) = exp( Y)»yn( 0. 5V( Y) )
and V(X) = exp( 2Y)J>yn( 2V( Y) ) - nrn-2, V(Y)J .
ln-r
^ *
The formulas for E(X) and V(X) are estimates of |E(X) and V(X),
respectively, given in Aitchison, J. and J.A. C. Brown, The
Loqnormal Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1963, page
45.
Application
In response to the proposed coil coating and porcelain enameling
regulations, the Agency received comments pointing out that per-
mits usually required less than 30 samples to be taken during a
month while the monthly average used as the basis for permits and
pretreatment requirements is based on the average of 30 samples.
In applying the treatment effectiveness values to regulations we
have considered the comments, examined the sampling frequency
required by many permits, and considered the change in values of
averages depending on the number of consecutive sampling days in
the averages. The most common frequency of sampling required in
permits is about 10 samples per month or slightly greater than
twice weekly. The 99th percentiles of the distribution of
averages of 10 consecutive sampling days are not substantially
different from the 99th percentile of the distribution's 30-day
average. (Compared to the one-day maximum, the 10-day average is
about 80 percent of the difference between one and 30-day
values). Hence, the 10-day average provides a reasonable basis
for a monthly average and is typical of the sampling frequency
required by existing permits.
The monthly average is to be achieved in all permits and pre-
treatment standards regardless of the number of samples required
to be analyzed and averaged by the permit or the pretreatment
authority.
Additional Pollutants
Ten additional pollutant parameters were evaluated to determine
the performance of lime and settle treatment systems in removing
them from industrial wastewater. Performance data for these
parameters are not part of the CMDB, so data available to the
Agency from other categories have been used to determine the
long-term average performance of lime and settle technology for
each pollutant. These data indicate that the concentrations
shown in Table VII-14 are reliably attainable with hydroxide
precipitation and settling. Treatment effectiveness values were
calculated by multiplying the mean performance from Table VII-14,
-------
by the appropriate variability 'factor. (The variability factor
is the ratio of the value of concern to the mean.) The pooled
variability factors are: one-day maximum - 4.100; 10-day average
- 1.821; and 30-day average - 1.618. These one-, ten-, and
thirty-day values are tabulated in Table VII-20.
In establishing which data were suitable for use in Table VII-14
two factors were heavily weighed: (1) the nature of the waste-
water; and (2) the range of pollutants or pollutant matrix in the
raw wastewater. These data have been selected from processes
that generate dissolved metals in the wastewater and which are
generally free from complexing agents. The pollutant matrix was
evaluated by comparing the concentrations of pollutants found in
the raw wastewaters with the range of pollutants in the raw
wastewaters of the combined metals data set. These data are
displayed in Tables VI1-15 and VI1-16 and indicate that there is
sufficient similarity in the raw wastes to logically assume
transferability of the treated pollutant concentrations to the
combined metals data base. The available data on these added
pollutants do not allow a homogeneity analysis as was performed
on the combined metals data base. The data source for each added
pollutant is discussed separately.
Antimony (Sb) - The achievable performance for antimony is based
on data from a battery and secondary lead plant. Both EPA
sampling data and recent permit data (1978 - 1982) confirm the
achievability of 0.7 mg/1 in the battery manufacturing wastewater
matrix included in the combined data set.
Arsenic (As) - The achievable performance of 0.5 mg/1 for arsenic
is based on permit data from two nonferrous metals manufacturing
plants. The untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VI1-16 is
comparable with the combined data set matrix.
Beryl1ium (Be) - The treatability of beryllium is transferred
from the nonferrous metals manufacturing industry. The 0.3 per-
formance is achieved at a beryllium plant with the comparable
untreated wastewater matrix shown in Table VI1-16.
Mercury (Hq) - The 0.06 mg/1 treatability of mercury is based on
data from four battery plants. The untreated wastewater matrix
at these plants was considered in the combined metals data set.
Selenium (Se) - The 0.30 mg/1 treatability of selenium is based
on recent permit data from one of the nonferrous metals
manufacturing plants also used for antimony performance. The
untreated wastewater matrix for this plant is shown in Table VII-
16.
-------
Si 1ver (Aq) - The treatability of silver is based on a 0.1 mg/1
treatability estimate from the inorganic chemicals industry.
Additional data supporting a treatability as stringent or more
stringent than 0.1 mg/1 are also available from seven nonferrous
metals manufacturing plants. The untreated wastewater matrix for
these plants is comparable and summarized in Table VI1-16.
Thai1ium (Tl) - The 0.50 mg/1 treatability for thallium is
transferred from the inorganic chemicals industry. Although no
untreated wastewater data are available to verify comparability
with the combined metals data set plants, no other sources of
data for thallium treatability could be identified.
Aluminum (Al) - The 2.24 mg/1 treatability of aluminum is based
on the mean performance of three aluminum forming plants and one
coil coating plant. At proposal this was based on the mean
performance of one coil coating plant and one aluminum forming
plant; data from two aluminum forming plants sampled after
proposal were used in determining treatment effectiveness. All
of these plants are from categories considered in the combined
metals data set, assuring untreated wastewater matrix
comparability.
Cobalt (Co) - The 0.05 mg/1 treatability is based on nearly
complete removal of cobalt at a porcelain enameling plant with a
mean untreated wastewater cobalt concentration of 4.31 mg/1. In
this case, the analytical detection using aspiration techniques
for this pollutant is used as the basis of the treatability.
Porcelain enameling was considered in the combined metals data
base, assuring untreated wastewater matrix comparability.
Fluoride (F) - The 14.5 mg/1 treatability of fluoride is based on
the mean performance (216 samples) of an electronics and
electrical component manufacturing plant. The untreated
wastewater matrix for this plant shown in Table VII-16 is
comparable to the combined metals data set.
Phosphorus (P) - The 4.08 mg/1 treatability of phosphorus is
based on the mean of 44 samples including 19 samples from the
Combined Metals Data Base and 25 samples from the electroplating
data base. Inclusion of electroplating data with the combined
metals data was considered appropriate, since the remvoal
mechanism for phosphorus is a precipitation reaction with calcium
rather than hydroxide.
LS&F Performance
Tables VI1-17 and VI1-18 show long-term data from two plants
which have well operated precipitation-settling treatment
followed by filtration. The wastewaters from both plants contain
-------
pollutants from metals processing and finishing operations
(multi-category). Both plants reduce hexavalent chromium before
neutralizing and precipitating metals with lime. A clarifier is
used to remove much of the solids load and a filter is used to
"polish" or complete removal of suspended solids. Plant A uses
pressure filtration, while Plant B uses a rapid sand filter.
Raw wastewater data were collected only occasionally at each
facility and the raw wastewater data are presented as an
indication of the nature of the wastewater treated. Data from
Plant A were received as a statistical summary and are presented
as received. Raw laboratory data were collected at Plant B and
reviewed for spurious points and discrepancies. The method of
treating the data base is discussed below under lime, settle, and
filter treatment effectiveness.
Table VII-19 shows long-term data for zinc and cadmium removal at
Plant C, a primary zinc smelter, which operates a LS&F system.
These data represent about four months (103 data days) taken
immediately before the smelter was closed, and have been arranged
similarily to Plants A and B for comparison and use.
These data are presented to demonstrate the performance of
precipitation-settling-filtration (LS&F) technology under actual
operating conditions and over a long period of time.
It should be noted that the iron content of the raw waste of
plants A and B is high while that for Plant C is low. This
results, for plants A and B, in co-precipitation of toxic metals
with iron. Precipitation using high-calcium lime for pH control
yields the results shown in Table VII-19. Plant operating per-
sonnel indicate that this chemical treatment combination (some-
times with polymer assisted coagulation) generally produces
better and more consistent metals removal than other combinations
of sacrificial metal ions and alkalis.
The LS&F performance data presented here are based on systems
that provide polishing filtration after effective L&S treatment.
As previously shown, L&S treatment is equally applicable to
wastewaters from the five categories because of the homogeneity
of its raw and treated wastewaters, and other factors. Because
of the similarity of the wastewaters after L&S treatment, the
Agency believes these wastewaters are equally amenable to
treatment using polishing filters added to the L&S treatment
system. The Agency concludes the LS&F data based on porcelain
enameling and nonferrous smelting and refining is directly
applicable to the aluminum forming, copper forming, battery
manufacturing, coil coating, and metal molding and casting
categories, and the canmaking subcategory as well as it is to
porcelain enameling and nonferrous metals smelting and refining.
-------
Analysis of Treatment System Effectiveness
Data are presented in Table VI1-13 showing the mean, one-day, 10-
day, and 30-day values for nine pollutants examined in the L&S
metals data base. The pooled variability factor for seven pollu-
tants (excluding cadmium because of the small number of data
points) was determined and is used to estimate one-day, 10-day,
and 30-day values. (The variability factor is the ratio of the
value of concern to the mean: the pooled variability factors
are: one-day maximum - 4.100; ten-day average - 1.821; and 30-
day average - 1.618.) For values not calculated from the CMDB as
previously discussed, the mean value for pollutants shown in
Table VII-15 were multiplied by the variability factors to derive
the value to obtain the one-, ten- and 30-day values. These are
tabulated in Table VII-20.
The treatment effectiveness for sulfide precipitation and
filtration has been calculated similarly. Long term average
values shown in Table VII-6 have been multiplied by the
appropriate variability factor to estimate one-day maximum, and
10-day and 30-day average values. Variability factors developed
in the combined metals data base were used because the raw
wastewaters are identical and the treatment methods are similar
as both use chemical precipitation and solids removal to control
metals.
LS&F technology data are presented in Tables VII-17 and VI1-18.
These data represent two operating plants (A and B) in which the
technology has been installed and operated for some years. Plant
A data were received as a statistical summary and are presented
without change. Plant B data were received as raw laboratory
analysis data. Discussions with plant personnel indicated that
operating experiments and changes in materials and reagents and
occasional operating errors had occurred during the data collec-
tion period. No specific information was available on those
variables. To sort out high values probably caused by method-
ological factors from random statistical variability, or data
noise, the Plant B data were analyzed. For each of the four
pollutants (chromium, nickel, zinc, and iron), the mean and
standard deviation (sigma) were calculated for the entire data
set. A data day was removed from the complete data set when any
individual pollutant concentration for that day exceeded the sum
of the mean plus three sigma for that pollutant. Fifty-one data
days (from a total of about 1,300) were eliminated by this
method.
Another approach was also used as a check on the above method of
eliminating certain high values. The minimum values of raw
wastewater concentrations from Plant B for the same four pol-
lutants were compared to the total set of values for the corre-
-------
sponding pollutants. Any day on which the treated wastewater
pollutant concentration exceeded the minimum value selected from
raw wastewater concentrations for that pollutant was discarded.
Forty-five days of data were eliminated by that procedure.
Forty-three days of data in common were eliminated by either
procedures. Since common engineering practice (mean plus 3
sigma) and logic (treated waste should be less than raw waste)
seem to coincide, the data base with the 51 spurious data days
eliminated is the basis for all further analysis. Range, mean,
standard deviation and mean plus two standard deviations are
shown in Tables VII-17 and VII-18 for Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn, and Fe.
The Plant B data were separated into 1979, 1978, and total data
base (six years) segments. With the statistical analysis from
Plant A for 1978 and 1979 this in effect created five data sets
in which there is some overlap between the individual years and
total data sets from Plant B. By comparing these five parts it
is apparent that they are quite similar and all appear to be from
the same family of numbers. The largest mean found among the
five data sets for each pollutant was selected as the long-term
mean for LS&F technology and is used as the LS&F mean in Table
VI1-20.
Plant C data were used as a basis for cadmium removal performance
and as a check on the zinc values derived from Plants A and B.
The cadmium data is displayed in Table VI1-19 and is incorporated
into Table VII-20 for LS&F. The zinc data were analyzed for com-
pliance with the one-day and 30-day values in Table VII-20; no
zinc value of the 103 data points exceeded the one-day zinc value
of 1.02 mg/1. The 103 data points were separated into blocks of
30 points and averaged. Each of the three full 30-day averages
was less than the Table VII-20 value of 0.31 mg/1. Additionally,
the Plant C raw wastewater pollutant concentrations (Table VII-
19) are well within the range of raw wastewater concentrations of
the combined metals data base (Table VI1-15), further supporting
the conclusion that Plant C wastewater data are compatible with
similar data from Plants A and B.
Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table
VII-20. Mean one-day, ten-day, and 30-day values for L&S for
nine pollutants were taken from Table VII-13; the remaining L&S
values were developed using the mean values in Table VI1-14 and
the mean variability factors discussed above.
LS&F mean values for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn, and Fe are derived from
Plants A, B, and C as discussed above. One-, ten-, and thirty-
day values are derived by applying the variability factor
developed from the pooled data base for the specific pollutant to
the mean for that pollutant. Other LS&F values are calculated
using the long-term average or mean and the appropriate
-------
variability factors. Mean values for LS&F for pollutants not
already discussed are derived by reducing the L&S mean by one-
third. The onethird reduction was established after examining
the percent reduction in concentrations going from L&S to LS&F
data for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn, and Fe. The average reduction is 0.3338
or one-third.
Concentration values for regulatory use are displayed in Table
VI1-20. Mean one-day, ten-day, and thirty-day values for L&S for
nine pollutants were taken from Table VII-13; the remaining L&S
values were developed using the mean values in Table VII-14 and
the mean variability factors discussed above.
LS&F mean values for Cd, Cr, Ni, Zn and Fe are derived from
plants A, B, and C as discussed above. One-, ten-, and
thirty-day values are derived by applying the variability factor
developed from the pooled data base for the specific pollutant to
the mean for that pollutant. Other LS&F values are calculated
using the long term average or mean and the appropriate
variability factors.
Copper levels achieved at plants A and B may be lower than gener-
ally achievable because of the high iron content and low copper
content of the raw wastewaters. Therefore, the mean concentra-
tion value achieved from plants A and B is not used; LS&F mean
for copper is derived from the L&S technology.
L&S cyanide mean levels shown in Table VI1-8 are ratioed to one-
day, ten-day, and 30-day values using mean variability factors.
LS&F mean cyanide is calculated by applying the ratios of
removals for L&S and LS&F as discussed previously for LS&F metals
limitations. The cyanide performance was arrived at by using the
average metal variability factors. The treatment method used
here is cyanide precipitation. Because cyanide precipitation is
limited by the same physical processes as the metal precipita-
tion, it is expected that the variabilities will be similar.
Therefore, the average of the metal variability factors has been
used as a basis for calculating the cyanide one-day, ten-day, and
30-day average treatment effectiveness values.
The filter performance for removing TSS as shown in Table VII-9
yields a mean effluent concentration of 2.61 mg/1 and calculates
to a ten-day average of 4.33, 30-day average of 3.36 mg/1, and a
one-day maximum of 8.88. These calculated values more than amply
support the classic thirty-day and one-day values of 10 and 15,
respectively, which are used for LS&F.
Although iron concentrations were decreased in some LS&F
operations, some facilities using that treatment introduce iron
compounds to aid settling. Therefore, the one-day, ten-day, and
-------
30-day values for iron at LS&F were held at the L&S level so as
to not unduly penalize the operations which use the relatively
less objectionable iron compounds to enhance removals of toxic
metals.
MINOR TECHNOLOGIES
Several other treatment technologies were considered for possible
application in BPT or BAT. These technologies are presented here
with a full discussion for most of them. A few are described
only briefly because of limited technical development.
8. Chemical Emulsion Breaking
Chemical treatment is often used to break stable oi1-in-water (0-
W) emulsions. An 0-W emulsion consists of oil dispersed in
water, stabilized by electrical charges and emulsifying agents.
A stable emulsion will not separate or break down without some
form of treatment.
Once an emulsion is broken, the difference in specific gravities
allows the oil to float to the surface of the water. Solids usu-
ally form a layer between the oil and water, since some oil is
retained in the solids. The longer the retention time, the more
complete and distinct the separation between the oil, solids, and
water will be. Often other methods of gravity differential
separation, such as air flotation or rotational separation {e.g.,
centrifugation), are used to enhance and speed separation, A
schematic flow diagram of one type of application is shown in
Figure VII-35.
The major equipment required for chemical emulsion breaking
includes: reaction chambers with agitators, chemical storage
tanks, chemical feed systems, pumps, and piping.
Emulsifiers may be used in the plant to aid in stabilizing or
forming emulsions. Emulsifiers are surface-active agents which
alter the characteristics of the oil and water interface. These
surfactants have rather long polar molecules. One end of the
molecule is particularly soluble in water (e.g., carboxyl, sul-
fate, hydroxyl, or sulfonate groups) and the other end is readily
soluble in oils (an organic group; which varies greatly with the
different surfactant type). Thus, the surfactant emulsifies or
suspends the organic material (oil) in water. Emulsifiers also
lower the surface tension of the 0-W emulsion as a result of
solvation and ionic complex ing. These emulsions must be
destabilized in the treatment system.
-------
Application and Performance. Emulsion breaking is applicable to
waste streams containing emulsified oils or lubricants such as
rolling and drawing emulsions.
Treatment of spent 0-W emulsions involves the use of chemicals to
break the emulsion followed by gravity differential separation.
Factors to be considered for breaking emulsions are type of chem-
icals, dosage and sequence of addition, pH, mechanical shear and
agitation, heat, and retention time.
Polymers, alum, ferric chloride, and organic emulsion breakers,
break emulsions by neutralizing repulsive charges between par-
ticles, precipitating or salting out emulsifying agents, or
altering the interfacial film between the oil and water so it is
readily broken. Reactive cations (e.g., H(+l), Al(+3), Fe(+3),
and cationic polymers) are particularly effective in breaking
dilute 0-W emulsions. Once the charges have been neutralized or
the interfacial film broken, the small oil droplets and suspended
solids will be adsorbed on the surface of the floe that is
formed, or break out and float to the top. Various types of
emulsion-breaking chemicals are used for the various types of
oils.
If more than one chemical is required, the sequence of addition
can make quite a difference in both breaking efficiency and
chemical dosages.
pH plays an important role in emulsion breaking, especially if
cationic inorganic chemicals, such as alum, are used as coagu-
lants. A depressed pH in the range of 2 to 4 keeps the aluminum
ion in its most positive state where it can function most effec-
tively for charge neutralization. After some of the oil is
broken free and skimmed, raising the pH into the 6 to 8 range
with lime or caustic will cause the aluminum to hydrolyze and
precipitate as aluminum hydroxide. This floe entraps or adsorbs
destabilized oil droplets which can then be separated from the
water phase. Cationic polymers can break emulsions over a wider
pH range and thus avoid acid corrosion and the additional sludge
generated from neutralization; however, an inorganic flocculant
is usually required to supplement the polymer emulsion breaker's
adsorptive properties.
Mixing is important in breaking 0-W emulsions. Proper chemical
feed and dispersion is required for effective results. Mixing
also causes collisions which help break the emulsion, and sub-
sequently helps to agglomerate droplets.
In all emulsions, the mix of two immiscible liquids has a spe-
cific gravity very close to that of water. Heating lowers the
viscosity and increases the apparent specific gravity differen-
-------
tial between oil and water. Heating also increases the frequency
of droplet collisions, which helps to rupture the interfacial
f i lm.
Oil and grease and suspended solids performance data are shown in
Table VII-21. Data were obtained from sampling at operating
plants and a review of the current literature. This type of
treatment is proven to be reliable and is considered state-ofthe-
art for aluminum forming emulsified oily wastewaters.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages gained from the use of
chemicals for breaking 0-W emulsions are the high removal
efficiency potential and the possibility of reclaiming the oily
waste. Disadvantages are corrosion problems associated with
acid-alum systems, skilled operator requirements for batch treat-
ment, chemical sludges produced, and poor cost-effectiveness for
low oil concentrations.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Chemical emulsion breaking is
a very reliable process. The main control parameters, pH and
temperature, are fairly easy to control.
Maintainability: Maintenance is required on pumps, motors, and
valves, as well as periodic cleaning of the treatment tank to
remove any accumulated solids. Energy use is limited to mixers
and pumps.
Solid Waste Aspects: The surface oil and oily sludge produced
are usually hauled away by a licensed contractor. If the recov-
ered oil has a sufficiently low percentage of water, it may be
burned for its fuel value or processed and reused.
Demonstration Status. Sixteen ! plants in the aluminum forming
category currently break emulsions with chemicals. Eight plants
chemically break spent rolling oil emulsions with chemicals, one
plant breaks its rolling and drawing emulsions, one plant breaks
its rolling oils and degreasing solvent, one plant breaks its
direct chill casting contact cooling water, scrubber liquor, and
sawing oil, and one plant breaks its direct chill casting contact
cooling water and extrusion press heat treatment contact cooling
water.
9. Thermal Emulsion Breaking
Dispersed oil droplets in a spent emulsion can be destabilized by
the application of heat to the waste. One type of technology
commonly used in the metals and mechanical products industries is
the evaporation-decantation-condensation process, also called
thermal emulsion breaking (TEB), which separates the emulsion
waste into distilled water, oils and other floating materials,
-------
and sludge. Raw waste is fed to a main reaction chamber. Warm
air is passed over a large revolving drum which is partially sub-
merged in the waste. Some water evaporates from the surface of
the drum and is carried upward through a filter and a condensing
unit. The condensed water is discharged or reused as process
makeup, while the air is reheated and returned to the evaporation
stage. As the water evaporates in the main chamber, oil concen-
tration increases. This enhances agglomeration and gravity sepa-
ration of oils. The separated oils and other floating materials
flow over a weir into a decanting chamber. A rotating drum
skimmer picks up oil from the surface of the decanting chamber
and discharges it for possible reprocessing or contractor
removal. Meanwhile, oily water is being drawn from the bottom of
the decanting chamber, reheated, and sent back into the main con-
veyor ized chamber. Solids which settle out in the main chamber
are removed by a conveyor belt. This conveyor belt, called a
flight scraper, moves slowly so as not to interfere with the
settling of suspended solids.
Application and Performance. Thermal emulsion breaking
technology can be applied to the treatment of spent emulsions in
the aluminum forming category.
The performance of a thermal emulsion breaker is dependent
primarily on the characteristics of the raw waste and proper
maintenance and functioning of the process components. Some
emulsions may contain volatile compounds which could escape with
the distilled water. In systems where the water is recycled back
to process, however, this problem is essentially eliminated.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of the thermal emulsion
breaking process include high percentages of oil removal (at
least 99 percent in most cases), the separation of floating oil
from settleable sludge solids, and the production of distilled
water which is available for process reuse. In addition, no
chemicals are required and the operation is automated, factors
which reduce operating costs. Disadvantages of the process are
the energy requirement for water evaporation and, if
intermittently operated, the necessary installation of a large
storage tank.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Thermal emulsion breaking is
a very reliable process for the treatment of emulsified oil
wastes.
Maintainability: The thermal emulsion breaking process requires
minimal routine maintenance of the process components, and peri-
odic disposal of the sludge and oil.
-------
Solid Waste Aspects: The thermal emulsion breaking process
generates sludge which must be properly disposed of.
Demonstration Status. Thermal emulsion breaking is used in
metals and mechanical products industries. It is a proven method
of effectively treating emulsified wastes.
10. Carbon Adsorption
The use of activated carbon to remove dissolved organics from
water and wastewater is a long demonstrated technology. It is
one of the most efficient organic removal processes available.
This sorption process is reversible, allowing activated carbon to
be regenerated for reuse by the application of heat and steam or
solvent. Activated carbon has also proved to be an effective
adsorbent for many toxic metals, including mercury. Regeneration
of carbon which has adsorbed significant metals, however, may be
difficult.
The term activated carbon applies to any amorphous form of carbon
that has been specially treated to give high adsorption capaci-
ties. Typical raw materials include coal, wood, coconut shells,
petroleum base residues, and char from sewage sludge pyrolysis.
A carefully controlled process of dehydration, carbonization, and
oxidation yields a product which is called activated carbon.
This material has a high capacity for adsorption due primarily to
the large surface area available for adsorption, 500 to 1,500
m2/sq m resulting from a large number of internal pores. Pore
sizes generally range from 10 to 100 angstroms in radius.
Activated carbon removes contaminants from water by the process
of adsorption, or the attraction and accumulation of one sub-
stance on the surface of another. Activated carbon preferen-
tially adsorbs organic compounds over other species and, because
of this selectivity, is particularly effective in removing
organic compounds from aqueous solution.
I
Carbon adsorption requires preliminary treatment to remove excess
suspended solids, oils, and greases. Suspended solids in the
influent should be less than 50 mg/1 to minimize backwash
requirements; a downflow carbon bed can handle much higher levels
(up to 2,000 mg/1), but requires frequent backwashing. Backwash-
ing more than two or three times a day is not desirable; at 50
mg/1 suspended solids, one backwash will suffice. Oil and grease
should be less than about 10 mg/1. A high level of dissolved
inorganic material in the influent may cause problems with
thermal carbon reactivation (i.e., scaling and loss of activity)
unless appropriate preventive steps are taken. Such steps might
include pH control, softening, or the use of an acid wash on the
carbon prior to reactivation.
-------
Activated carbon is available in both powdered and granular form.
An adsorption column packed with granular activated carbon is
shown in Figure VII-35. A schematic of an individual adsorption
column is shown in Figure VII-17. Powdered carbon is less expen-
sive per unit weight and may have slightly higher adsorption
capacity, but it is more difficult to handle and to regenerate.
Application and Performance. Isotherm tests have indicated that
activated carbon is very effective in adsorbing 65 percent of the
toxic organic pollutants and is reasonably effective for another
22 percent. Specifically, for the organics of particular
interest, activated carbon is very effective in removing 2,4-
dimethylphenol, fluoranthene, isophorone, naphthalene, all
phthalates, and phenanthrene . Activated carbon is reasonably
effective on 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, phenol,
and toluene.
Table VII-22 summarizes the treatability effectiveness for most
of the toxic organic priority pollutants by activated carbon as
compiled by EPA. Table VII-23 summarizes classes of organic
compounds together with samples of organics that are readily
adsorbed on carbon .
Advantages and Limitat ions. The major benefits of carbon
treatment include applicability to a wide variety of organics and
high removal efficiency. Inorganics such as cyanide, chromium,
and mercury are also removed effectively. Variations in
concentration and flow rate are well tolerated. The system is
compact, and recovery of adsorbed materials is sometimes
practical. However, destruction of adsorbed compounds often
occurs during thermal regeneration. If carbon cannot be
thermally regenerated, it must be disposed of along with any
adsorbed pollutants. The capital and operating costs of thermal
regeneration are relatively high. Cost surveys show that thermal
regeneration is generally economical when carbon usage exceeds
about 1,000 lb/day. Carbon cannot remove low molecular weight or
highly soluble organics. It also has a low tolerance for
suspended solids, which must be removed in most systems to at
least 50 mg/1 in the influent water.
Operational Factors. Reliability: This system should be very
reliable with upstream protection and proper operation and
maintenance procedures.
-------
Maintainability: This system requires periodic regeneration or
replacement of spent carbon and is dependent upon raw waste load
and process efficiency.
Solid Waste Aspects: Solid waste from this process is contami-
nated activated carbon that requires disposal. Carbon that
undergoes regeneration reduces the solid waste problem by
reducing the frequency of carbon replacement.
Demonstration Status. Carbon adsorption systems have been
demonstrated to be practical and economical in reducing COD, BOD,
and related parameters in secondary municipal and industrial
wastewaters; in removing toxic or refractory organics from
isolated industrial wastewaters; in removing and recovering
certain organics from wastewaters; and in removing and some times
recovering selected inorganic chemicals from aqueous wastes.
Carbon adsorption is a viable and economic process for organic
waste streams containing up to 1 to 5 percent of refractory or
toxic organics. Its applicabi 1 i|ty for removal of inorganics such
as metals has also been demonstrated.
11. Flotation
Flotation is the process of causing particles such as metal
hydroxides or oil to float to the surface of a tank where they
can be concentrated and removed. This is accomplished by releas-
ing gas bubbles which attach to the solid particles, increasing
their buoyancy and causing them to float. In principle, this
process is the opposite of sedimentation.. Figure VI1-22 shows
one type of flotation system.
!
Flotation is used primarily in the treatment of wastewater
streams that carry heavy loads oif finely divided suspended solids
or oil. Solids having a specific gravity only slightly greater
than 1.0, which would require abnormally long sedimentation
times, may be removed in much less time by flotation.
This process may be performed in several ways: foam, dispersed
air, dissolved air, gravity, and vacuum flotation are the most
commonly used techniques. Chemical additives are often used to
enhance the performance of the flotation process.
The principal difference among types of flotation is the method
of generating the minute gas bubbles (usually air) in a suspen-
sion of water and small particles. Chemicals may be used to
improve the efficiency with any of the basic methods. The fol-
lowing paragraphs describe the different flotation techniques and
the method of bubble generation for each process.
-------
Froth Flotation - Froth flotation is based on differences in the
physiochemical properties in various particles. Wettability and
surface properties affect the ability of the particles to attach
themselves to gas bubbles in an aqueous medium. In froth flota-
tion, air is blown through the solution containing flotation
reagents. The particles with water repellant surfaces stick to
air bubbles as they rise and are brought to the surface. A
mineralized froth layer, with mineral particles attached to air
bubbles, is formed. Particles of other minerals which are read-
ily wetted by water do not stick to air bubbles and remain in
suspension.
Dispersed Air Flotation - In dispersed air flotation, gas bubbles
are generated by introducing the air by means of mechanical agi-
tation with impellers or by forcing air through porous media.
Dispersed air flotation is used mainly in the metallurgical
industry.
Dissolved Air Flotation - In dissolved air flotation, bubbles are
produced by releasing air from a superstaturated solution under
relatively high pressure. There are two types of contact between
the gas bubbles and particles. The first type is predominant in
the flotation of flocculated materials and involves the entrap-
ment of rising gas bubbles in the flocculated particles as they
increase in size. The bond between the bubble and particle is
one of physical capture only. The second type of contact is one
of adhesion. Adhesion results from the intermolecular attraction
exerted at the interface between the solid particle and the gase-
ous bubble.
Vacuum Flotation - This process consists of saturating the waste-
water with air either directly in an aeration tank, or by permit-
ting air to enter on the suction of a wastewater pump. A partial
vacuum is applied, which causes the dissolved air to come out of
solution as minute bubbles. The bubbles attach to solid parti-
cles and rise to the surface to form a scum blanket, which is
normally removed by a skimming mechanism. Grit and other heavy
solids that settle to the bottom are generally raked to a central
sludge pump for removal. A typical vacuum flotation unit con-
sists of a covered cylindrical tank in which a partial vacuum is
maintained. The tank is equipped with scum and sludge removal
mechanisms. The floating material is continuously swept to the
tank periphery, automatically discharged into a scum trough, and
removed from the unit by a pump also under partial vacuum.
Auxiliary equipment includes an aeration tank for saturating the
wastewater with air, a tank with a short retention time for
removal of large bubbles, vacuum pumps, and sludge pumps.
Application and Performance. The primary variables for flotation
design are pressure, feed solids concentration, and retention
-------
period. The suspended solids in the effluent decrease, and the
concentration of solids in the float increases, with increasing
retention period. When the flotation process is used primarily
for clarification, a retention period of 20 to 30 minutes is
adequate for separation and concentration.
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of the flotation
process are the high levels of solids separation achieved in many
applications,'the relatively low energy requirements, and the
adaptability to meet the treatment requirements of different
waste types. Limitations of flotation are that it often requires
addition of chemicals to enhance process performance and that it
generates large quantities of solid waste.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Flotation systems normally
are very reliable with proper maintenance of the sludge collector
mechanism and the motors and pumps used for aeration.
Maintainability: Routine maintenance is required on the pumps
and motors. The sludge collector mechanism is subject to possi-
ble corrosion or breakage and may require periodic replacement.
Solid Waste Aspects: Chemicals are commonly used to aid the
flotation process by creating a surface or a structure that can
easily adsorb or entrap air bubbles. Inorganic chemicals, such
as the aluminum and ferric salts, and activated silica, can bind
the particulate matter together and create a structure that can
entrap air bubbles. Various organic chemicals can change the
nature of either the air-liquid interface or the solid-liquid
interface, or both. These compounds usually collect on the
interface to bring about the desired changes. The added chemi-
cals plus the particles in solution combine to form a large
volume of sludge which must be: further treated or properly
disposed of.
Demonstration Status. Flotation is a fully developed process and
is readily available for the !treatment of a wide variety of
industrial waste streams.. Dissolved air flotation technology is
used by can manufacturing plants to remove oil and grease in the
wastewater from can wash lines. It is not currently used to
treat aluminum forming wastewaters.
12. Centrifuqation
Centrifugation is the applicationiof centrifugal force to sepa-
rate solids and liquids in a liquid-solid mixture or to effect
concentration of the solids. The application of centrifugal
force is effective because of the density differential normally
found between the insoluble solids and the liquid in which they
are contained. As a waste treatment procedure, centrifugation is
-------
most often applied to dewatering of sludges. One type of centri-
fuge is shown in Figure VII-18.
There are three common types of centrifuges: the disc, basket,
and conveyor type. All three operate by removing solids under
the influence of centrifugal force. The fundamental difference
between the three types is the method by which solids are col-
lected in and discharged from the bowl.
In the disc centrifuge, the sludge feed is distributed between
narrow channels that are present as spaces between stacked con-
ical discs. Suspended particles are collected and discharged
continuously through small orifices in the bowl wall. The clar-
ified effluent is discharged through an overflow weir.
A second type of centrifuge which is useful in dewatering sludges
is the basket centrifuge. In this type of centrifuge, sludge
feed is introduced at the bottom of the basket, and solids col-
lect at the bowl wall while clarified effluent overflows the lip
ring at the top. Since the basket centrifuge does not have pro-
vision for continuous discharge of collected cake, operation
requires interruption of the feed for cake discharge for a minute
or two in a 10- to 30-minute overall cycle.
The third type of centrifuge commonly used in sludge dewatering
is the conveyor type. Sludge is fed through a stationary feed
pipe into a rotating bowl in which the solids are settled out
against the bowl wall by centrifugal force. From the bowl wall,
the solids are moved by a screw to the end of the machine, at
which point they are discharged. The liquid effluent is
discharged through ports after passing the length of the bowl
under centrifugal force.
Application and Performance. Virtually all industrial waste
treatment systems producing sludge can use centrifugation to
dewater it. Centrifugation is currently being used by a wide
range of industries.
The performance of sludge dewatering by centrifugation depends on
the feed rate, the rotational velocity of the drum, and the
sludge composition and concentration. Assuming proper design and
operation, the solids content of the sludge can be increased to
20 to 35 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. Sludge dewatering centrifuges have
minimal space requirements and show a high degree of effluent
clarification. The operation is simple, clean, and relatively
inexpensive. The area required for a centrifuge system
installation is less than that required for a filter system or
-------
sludge drying bed of equal capacity, and the initial cost is
lower.
Centrifuges have a high power cost that partially offsets the low
initial cost. Special consideration must also be given to pro-
viding sturdy foundations and soundproofing because of the vibra-
tion and noise that result from centrifuge operation. Adequate
electrical power must also be provided since large motors are
required. The major difficulty' encountered in the operation of
centrifuges has been the disposal; of the concentrate which is
relatively high in suspended, non^-settl ing solids.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Centrifugation is highly
reliable with proper control of factors such as sludge feed, con-
sistency, and temperature. Pretreatment such as grit removal and
coagulant addition may be necessary, depending on the composition
of the sludge and on the type of centrifuge employed.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic lubrication,
cleaning, and inspection. The frequency and degree of inspection
required varies depending on the type of sludge solids being
dewatered and the maintenance service conditions. If the sludge
is abrasive, it is recommended that the first inspection of the
rotating assembly be made after approximately 1,000 hours of
operation. If the sludge is not abrasive or corrosive, then the
initial inspection might be delayed. Centrifuges not equipped
with a continuous sludge discharge system require periodic
shutdowns for manual sludge cake removal.
Solid Waste Aspects: Sludge dewatered in the centrifugation pro-
cess may be disposed of by landfill. The clarified effluent
(centrate), if high in dissolved or suspended solids, may require
further treatment prior to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Centrifugation is currently used in a
great many commercial applications to dewater sludge. Work is
underway to improve the efficiency, increase the capacity, and
lower the costs associated with centrifugation.
13. Coalescing
The basic principle of coalescence involves the preferential
wetting of a coalescing medium by oil droplets which accumulate
on the medium and then rise to the surface of the solution as
they combine to form larger particles. The most important
requirements for coalescing media are wettability for oil and
large surface area. Monofilament line is sometimes used as a
coalescing medium.
-------
Coalescing stages may be integrated with a wide variety of grav-
ity oil separation devices, and some systems may incorporate
several coalescing stages. In general, a preliminary oil skim-
ming step is desirable to avoid overloading the coalescer.
One commercially marketed system for oily waste treatment com-
bines coalescing with inclined plate separation and filtration.
In this system, the oily wastes flow into an inclined plate
settler. This unit consists of a stack of inclined baffle plates
in a cylindrical container with an oil collection chamber at the
top. The oil droplets rise and impinge upon the undersides of
the plates. They then migrate upward to a guide rib that directs
the oil to the oil collection chamber, from which oil is dis-
charged for reuse or disposal.
The oily water continues on through another cylinder containing
replaceable filter cartridges that remove suspended particles
from the waste. From there the wastewater enters a final cylin-
der in which the coalescing material is housed. As the oily
water passes through the many small, irregular, continuous
passages in the coalescing material, the oil droplets coalesce
and rise to an oil collection chamber.
Application and Performance. Coalescing is used to treat oily
wastes that do not separate readily in simple gravity systems.
The three stage system described above has achieved effluent
concentrations of 10 to 15 mg/1 oil and grease from raw waste
concentrations of 1,000 mg/1 or more.
Advantages and Limitations. Coalescing allows removal of oil
droplets too finely dispersed for conventional gravity
separation-skimming technology. It also can significantly reduce
the residence times (and therefore separator volumes) required to
achieve separation of oil from some wastes. Because of its sim-
plicity, coalescing provides generally high reliability and low
capital and operating costs. Coalescing is not generally effec-
tive in removing soluble or chemically stabilized emulsified
oils. To avoid plugging, coalescers must be protected by pre-
treatment from the very high concentrations of free oil and
grease and suspended solids. Frequent replacement of prefiIters
may be necessary when raw waste oil concentrations are high.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Coalescing is inherently
highly reliable since there are no moving parts and the coalesc-
ing substrate (monofilament, etc.) is inert in the process and
therefore not subject to frequent regeneration or replacement
requirements. Large loads or inadequate preliminary treatment,
however, may result in plugging or bypass of coalescing stages.
-------
Maintainability: Maintenance requirements are generally limited
to replacement of the coalescing| medium on an infrequent basis.
Solid Waste Aspects: No appreciable solid waste is generated by
this process.
Demonstration Status. Coalescing has been fully demonstrated in
industries generating oily wastewater, although none are known to
be in use at any aluminum forming facility.
14. Cyanide Oxidation by Chlorine
Cyanide oxidation using chlorine; is widely used in industrial
waste treatment to oxidize cyanide. Chlorine can be utilized in
either the elemental or hypochlorite forms. This classic proced-
ure can be illustrated by the following two step chemical reac-
tion:
1. CI2 + NaCN + 2NaOH > NaCNO + 2NaCl + H20
2. 3C12 + 6 NaOH + 2 NaCNO NaHC03 + N2 + 6NaCl + 2H20
The reaction presented as equation (2) for the oxidation of cya-
nate is the final step in the oxidation of cyanide. A complete
system for the alkaline chlorination of cyanide is shown in
Figure VII-19.
The alkaline chlorination process oxidizes cyanides to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The equipment often consists of an equali-
zation tank followed by two reaction tanks, although the reaction
can be carried out in a single tank. Each tank has an electronic
recorder-controller to maintain required conditions with respect
to pH and oxidation reduction potential (ORP). In the first
reaction tank, conditions are adjusted to oxidize cyanides to
cyanates. To effect the reaction, chlorine is metered to the
reaction tank as required to maintain the ORP in the range of 350
to 400 millivolts, and 50 percent aqueous caustic soda is added
to maintain a pH range of 9.5 to 10. In the second reaction
tank, conditions are maintained to oxidize cyanate to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen. The desirable ORP and pH for this reaction
are 600 millivolts and a pH of 8.0. Each of the reaction tanks
is equipped with a propeller agitator designed to provide approx-
imately one turnover per minute.; Treatment by the batch process
is accomplished by using two tanks, one for collection of water
over a specified time period, and one tank for the treatment of
an accumulated batch. If dumps of concentrated wastes are fre-
quent, another tank may be required to equalize the flow to the
treatment tank. When the holding tank is full, the liquid is
transferred to the reaction tank for treatment. After treatment,
the supernatant is discharged and the sludges are collected for
removal and ultimate disposal.
-------
Application and Performance. The oxidation of cyanide waste by
chlorine is a classic process and is found in most industrial
plants using cyanide. This process is capable of achieving
effluent levels of free cyanide that are nondetectable. The
process is potentially applicable to aluminum forming facilities
where cyanide is a component in conversion coating formulations
or is added as a corrosion inhibitor in heat treatment opera-
tions .
Advantages and Limitat ions. Some advantages of chlorine
oxidation for handling process effluents are operation at ambient
temperature, suitability for automatic control, and low cost.
Disadvantages include the need for careful pH control, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and the
potential hazard of storing and handling chlorine gas. If
organic compounds are present, toxic chlorinated organics may be
generated. Alkaline chlorination is not effective in treating
metallocyanide complexes, such as the ferrocyanide.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Chlorine oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control, and proper
pretreatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of
sludge and recalibration of instruments.
Solid Waste Aspects: There is no solid waste problem associated
with chlorine oxidation.
Demonstration Status. The oxidation of cyanide wastes by
chlorine is a widely used process in plants using cyanide in
cleaning and metal processing baths.
15. Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone
Ozone is a highly reactive oxidizing agent which is approximately
10 times more soluble than oxygen on a weight basis in water.
Ozone may be produced by several methods, but the silent electri-
cal discharge method is predominant in the field. The silent
electrical discharge process produces ozone by passing oxygen or
air between electrodes separated by an insulating material. A
complete ozonation system is represented in Figure VI1-20.
Application and Performance. Ozonation has been applied
commercially to oxidize cyanides, phenolic chemicals, and
organometal complexes. Its applicability to photographic
wastewaters has been studied in the laboratory with good results.
Ozone is used in industrial waste treatment primarily to oxidize
cyanide to cyanate and to oxidize phenols and dyes to a variety
of colorless nontoxic products.
-------
Oxidation of cyanide to cyanate is illustrated below:
CN- + 03 > CNO- + 02
Continued exposure to ozone will convert the cyanate formed to
carbon dioxide and ammonia; however, this is not economically
practical.
Ozone oxidation of cyanide to cyanate requires 1.8 to 2.0 pounds
ozone per pound of CN-; complete oxidation requires 4.6 to 5.0
pounds ozone per pound of CN-. ; Zinc, copper and nickel cyanides
are easily destroyed to a nondetectable level, but cobalt and
iron cyanides are more resistant to ozone treatment.
i
Advantages and Limitations. Some advantages of ozone oxidation
for handling process effluents are its suitability to automatic
control and on-site generation and the fact that reaction
products are not chlorinated organics and no dissolved solids are
added in the treatment step. Ozone in the presence of activated
carbon, ultraviolet, and othpr promoters shows promise of
reducing reaction time and improving ozone utilization, but the
process at present is limited by high capital expense, possible
chemical interference in the treatment of mixed wastes, and an
energy requirement of 25 kwh/kg of ozone generated. Cyanide is
not economically oxidized with 03 beyond the cyanate form.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Ozone oxidation is highly
reliable with proper monitoring and control, and proper prelimi-
nary treatment to control interfering substances.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of periodic removal of
sludge, and periodic renewal of filters and desiccators required
for the input of clean dry air; filter life is a function of
input concentrations of detrimental constituents.
Solid Waste Aspects: Preliminary treatment to eliminate sub-
stances which will interfere with the process may be necessary.
Dewatering of sludge generated in the ozone oxidation process or
in an "in-line" process may be desirable prior to disposal.
16. Cyanide Oxidation by Ozone with UV Radiation
One of the modifications of the ozonation process is the simulta-
neous application of ultraviolet light and ozone for the treat-
ment of wastewater, including treatment of halogenated organics.
The combined action of these two forms produces reactions by
photolysis, photosensitization, hydroxylation, oxygenation, and
oxidation. The process is unique because several reactions and
reaction species are active simultaneously.
-------
Ozonation is facilitated by ultraviolet absorption because both
the ozone and the reactant molecules are raised to a higher
energy state so that they react more rapidly. In addition, free
radicals for use in the reaction are readily hydrolyzed by the
water present. The energy and reaction intermediates created by
the introduction of both ultraviolet and ozone greatly reduce the
amount of ozone required compared with a system using ozone
alone. Figure VII-21 shows a three-stage UV-ozone system. A
system to treat mixed cyanides requires preliminary treatment
that involves chemical coagulation, sedimentation, clarification,
equalization, and pH adjustment.
Application and Performance. The ozone-UV radiation process was
developed primarily for cyanide treatment in the electroplating
and color photo-processing areas. It has been successfully
applied to mixed cyanides and organics from organic chemicals
manufacturing processes. The process is particularly useful for
treatment of complexed cyanides such as ferricyanide, copper
cyanide, and nickel cyanide, that are resistant to ozone.
Demonstration Status. Ozone combined with UV radiation is a
relatively new technology. Four units are currently in operation
and all four treat cyanide-bearing waste. Ozone-UV treatment
could be used in aluminum forming plants to destroy cyanide
present in waste streams from some conversion coating and heat
treatment operations.
17. Cyanide Oxidat ion by Hydrogen Peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide oxidation removes both cyanide and metals in
cyanide-containing wastewaters. In this process, cyanide-bearing
waters are heated to 49°C to 54°C (120°F to 130°F) and the pH is
adjusted to 10.5 to 11.8. Formalin (37 percent formaldehyde) is
added while the tank is vigorously agitated. After two to five
minutes, a proprietary peroxygen compound (41 percent hydrogen
peroxide with a catalyst and additives) is added. After an hour
of mixing, the reaction is complete. The cyanide is converted to
cyanate and the metals are precipitated as oxides or hydroxides.
The metals are then removed from solution by either settling or
f i1tration.
The main equipment required for this process is two holding tanks
equipped with heaters and air spargers or mechanical stirrers.
These tanks may be used in a batch or continuous fashion, with
one tank being used for treatment while the other is being
filled. A settling tank or a filter is needed to concentrate the
precipitate.
Application and Performance. The hydrogen peroxide oxidation
process is applicable to cyanide-bearing wastewaters, especially
-------
those containing metal-cyanide complexes. In terms of waste
reduction performance, this process can reduce total cyanide to
less than 0.1 mg/1 and the zinc or cadmium concentrations to less
than 1.0 mg/1.
Advantages and Limitations. Chemical costs are similar to those
for alkaline chlorination using chlorine and lower than those for
treatment with hypochlorite. All' free cyanide reacts and is
completely oxidized to the liess toxic cyanate state. In
addition, the metals precipitate and settle quickly, and they
may be recoverable in many instances; however, the process
requires energy expenditures to heat the wastewater prior to
treatment.
Demonstration Status. This treatment process was introduced in
1971 and is used in several facilities. No aluminum forming
plants use oxidation by hydrogen peroxide.
18. Evaporation
Evaporation is a concentration process. Water is evaporated from
a solution, increasing the concentration of solute in the remain-
ing solution. If the resulting water vapor is condensed back to
liquid water, the evaporation-condensation process is called dis-
tillation. However, to be consistent with industry terminology,
evaporation is used in this report to describe both processes.
Both atmospheric and vacuum evaporation are commonly used in
industry today. Specific evaporation techniques are shown in
Figure VII-22 and discussed below.
Atmospheric evaporation could be accomplished simply by boiling
the liquid. However, to aid evaporation, heated liquid is
sprayed on an evaporation surface, and air is blown over the
surface and subsequently released to the atmosphere. Thus,
evaporation occurs by humidif ic^ition of the air stream, similar
to a drying process. Equipment ifor carrying out atmospheric
evaporation is quite similar for most applications. The major
element is generally a packed column with an accumulator bottom.
Accumulated wastewater is pumped from the base of the column,
through a heat exchanger, and back into the top of the column,
where it is sprayed into the packing. At the same time, air
drawn upward through the packing, by a fan is heated as it
contacts the hot liquid. The liquid partially vaporizes and
humidifies the air stream. The fan then blows the hot, humid air
to the outside atmosphere. A scrubber is often unnecessary
because the packed column itself acts as a scrubber.
Another form of atmospheric evaporator also works on the air
humidification principle, but the evaporated water is recovered
for reuse by condensiation. These air humidification techniques
-------
operate well below the boiling point of water and can utilize
waste process heat to supply the energy required.
In vacuum evaporation, the evaporation pressure is lowered to
cause the liquid to boil at reduced temperatures. All of the
water vapor is condensed and, to maintain the vacuum condition,
noncondensible gases (air in particular) are removed by a vacuum
pump. Vacuum evaporation may be either single or double effect.
In double effect evaporation, two evaporators are used, and the
water vapor from the first evaporator (which may be heated by
steam) is used to supply heat to the second evaporator. As it
supplies heat, the water vapor from the first evaporator con-
denses. Approximately equal quantities of wastewater are evapo-
rated in each unit; thus, the double effect system evaporates
twice the amount of water that a single effect system does, at
nearly the same cost in energy but with added capital cost and
complexity. The double effect technique is thermodynamically
possible because the second evaporator is maintained at lower
pressure (higher vacuum) and, therefore, lower evaporation tem-
perature. Vacuum evaporation equipment may be classified as
submerged tube or climbing film evaporation units.
Another means of increasing energy efficiency is vapor
recompression evaporation, which enables heat to be transferred
from the condensing water vapor to the evaporating wastewater.
Water vapor generated from incoming wastewaters flows to a vapor
compressor. The compressed steam then travels through the
wastewater via an enclosed tube or coil in which it condenses as
heat is transferred to the surrounding solution. In this way the
compressed vapor serves as a heating medium. After condensation,
this distillate is drawn off continuously as the clean water
stream. The heat contained in the compressed vapor is used to
head the wastewater, and energy costs for system operation are
reduced.
In the most commonly used submerged tube evaporator, the heating
and condensing coil are contained in a single vessel to reduce
capital cost. The vacuum in the vessel is maintained by an
eductor-type pump, which creates the required vacuum by the flow
of the condenser cooling water through a venturi. Wastewater
accumulates in the bottom of the vessel, and it is evaporated by
means of submerged steam coils. The resulting water vapor con-
denses as it contacts the condensing coils in the top of the
vessel. The condensate then drips off the condensing coils into
a collection trough that carries it out of the vessel. Con-
centrate is removed from the bottom of the vessel.
The major elements of the climbinq film evaporator are the evapo-
rator, separator, condenser, and vacuum pump. Wastewater is
"drawn" into the system by the vacuum so that a constant liquid
-------
level is maintained in the separator. Liquid enters the steam-
jacketed evaporator tubes, and part of it evaporates so that a
mixture of vapor and liquid enters the separator. The design of
the separator is such that the liquid is continuously circulated
from the separator to the evaporator. The vapor entering the
separator flows out through a mesh entrainment separator to the
condenser, where it is condensed as it flows down through the
condenser tubes. The condensate, along with any entrained air,
is pumped out of the bottom of the condenser by a liquid ring
vacuum pump. The liquid seal provided by the condensate keeps
the vacuum in the system from being broken.
Application and Performance. Both atmospheric and vacuum
evaporation are used in many industrial plants, mainly for the
concentration and recovery of process solutions. Many of these
evaporators also recover water for rinsing. Evaporation has also
been applied to recovery of phosphate metal-cleaning solutions.
In theory, evaporation should yield a concentrate and a deionized
condensate. Actually, carry-over has resulted in condensate
metal concentrations as high as 10 mg/1, although the usual level
is less than 3 mg/1, pure enough for most final rinses. The con-
densate may also contain organic brighteners and antifoaming
agents. These can be removed with an activated carbon bed, if
necessary. Samples from one plant showed 1,900 mg/1 zinc in the
feed, 4,570 mg/1 in the concentrate, and 0.4 mg/1 in the condens-
ate. Another plant had 416 mg/1 copper in the feed and 21,800
mg/1 in the concentrate. Chromium analysis for that plant indi-
cated 5,060 mg/1 in the feed and 27,500 mg/1 in the concentrate.
Evaporators are available in a range of capacities, typically
from 15 to 75 gph, and may be used in parallel arrangements for
processing of higher flow rates.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of the evaporation
process are that it permits recovery of a wide variety of process
chemicals, and it is often applicable to concentration or removal
of compounds which cannot be accomplished by any other means.
The major disadvantage is that the evaporation process consumes
relatively large amounts of energy for the evaporation of water.
However, the recovery of waste heat from many industrial
processes (e.g., diesel generators, incinerators, boilers, and
furnaces) should be considered] as a source of this heat for a
totally integrated evaporation system. Also, in some cases solar
heating could be inexpensively and effectively applied to
evaporation units. For some applications, preliminary treatment
may be required to remove solids or bacteria which tend to cause
fouling in the condenser or evaporator. The buildup of scale on
the evaporator surfaces reduces the heat transfer efficiency and
may present a maintenance problem or increase operating cost.
However it has been demonstrated that fouling of the heat
-------
transfer surfaces can be avoided or minimized for certain
dissolved solids by maintaining a seed slurry which provides
preferential sites for precipitate deposition. ~ In addition, low
temperature differences in the evaporator will eliminate nucleate
boiling and supersaturation effects. Steam distillable
impurities in the process stream are carried over with the
product water and must be handled by preliminary or post
treatment.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Proper maintenance will
ensure a high degree of reliability for the system. Without such
attention, rapid fouling or deterioration of vacuum seals may
occur, especially when handling corrosive liquids.
Maintainability: Operating parameters can be automatically
controlled. Preliminary treatment may be required, as well as
periodic cleaning of the system. Regular replacement of seals,
especially in a corrosive environment, may be necessary.
Solid Waste Aspects: With only a few exceptions, the process
does not generate appreciable quantities of solid waste.
Demonstration Status. Evaporation is a fully developed, com-
mercially available wastewater treatment system. It is used
extensively to recover plating chemicals in the electroplating
industry and a pilot-scale unit has been used in connection with
phosphating of aluminum. Proven performance in silver recovery
indicates that evaporation could be a useful treatment operation
for the photographic industry, as well as for metal finishing.
Vapor compression evaporation has been pratically demonstrated in
a number of industries, including chemical manufacturing, food
processing, pulp and paper and metal working.
1 9. Gravity Sludge Thickening
In the gravity thickening process, dilute sludge is fed from a
primary settling tank or clarifier to a thickening tank where
rakes stir the sludge gently to densify it and to push it to a
central collection well. The supernatant is returned to the
primary settling tank. The thickened sludge that collects on the
bottom of the tank is pumped to dewatering equipment or hauled
away. Figure VII-24 shows the construction of a gravity
thickener.
Application and Performance. Thickeners are generally used in
facilities where the sludge is to be further dewatered by a
compact mechanical device such as a vacuum filter or centrifuge.
Doubling the solids content in the thickener substantially
reduces capital and operating cost of the subsequent dewatering
-------
device and also reduces cost for hauling. The process is
potentially applicable to almost any industrial plant.
Organic sludges from sedimentation units of 1 to 2 percent solids
concentration can usually be gravity thickened to 6 to 10 per-
cent; chemical sludges can be thickened to 4 to 6 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. The principal advantage of a gravity
sludge thickening process is that it facilitates further sludge
dewatering. Other advantages are high reliability and minimum
maintenance requirements.
Limitations of the sludge thickening process are its sensitivity
to the flow rate through the thickener and the sludge removal
rate. These rates must be low enough not to disturb the
thickened sludge.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
proper design and operation. A gravity thickener is designed on
the basis of square feet per pound of sol ids per day, in which
the required surface area is related to the sol ids entering and
leaving the unit. Thickener area requirements are also expressed
in terms of mass loading, kilograms' of solids per square mete'r
per day (lbs/sq ft/day).
Maintainabi1ity: Twice a year, a thickener must be shut down for
lubrication of the drive mechanisms. Occasionally, water must be
pumped back through the system in order to clear sludge pipes.
Solid Waste Aspects: Thickened sludge from a gravity thickening
process will usually require further dewatering prior to dispo-
sal, incineration, or drying. The clear effluent may be recircu-
lated in part, or it may be subjected to further treatment prior
to discharge.
Demonstration Status. Gravity sludge thickeners are used
throughout industry to reduce sludge water content to a level
where the sludge may be efficiently handled. Further dewatering
is usually practiced to minimize costs of hauling the sludge to
approved landfill areas.
20. Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process in which ions, held by electrostatic
forces to charged functional groups on the surface of the ion
exchange resin, are exchanged for ions of similar charge from the
solution in which the resin is immersed. This is classified as a
sorption process because the exchange occurs on the surface of
the resin, and the exchanging ion must undergo a phase transfer
from solution phase to solid phase. Thus, ionic contaminants in
-------
a waste stream can be exchanged for the harmless ions of the
resin.
Although the precise technique may vary slightly according to the
application involved, a generalized process description follows.
The wastewater stream being treated passes through a filter to
remove any solids, then flows through a cation exchanger which
contains the ion exchange resin. Here, metallic impurities such
as copper, iron, and trivalent chromium are retained. The stream
then passes through the anion exchanger and its associated resin.
Hexavalent chromium (in the form of chromate or dichromate), for
example, is retained in this stage. If one pass does not reduce
the contaminant levels sufficiently, the stream may then enter
another series of exchangers. Many ion exchange systems are
equipped with more than one set of exchangers for this reason.
The other major portion of the ion exchange process concerns the
regeneration of the resin, which now holds those impurities
retained from the waste stream. An ion exchange unit with in-
place regeneration is shown in Figure VI1-25. Metal ions such as
nickel are removed by an acid, cation exchange resin, which is
regenerated with hydrochloric or sulfuric acid, replacing the
metal ion with one or more hydrogen ions. Anions such as dichro-
mate are removed by a basic anion exchange resin, which is regen-
erated with sodium hydroxide, replacing the anion with one or
more hydroxyl ions. The three principal methods employed by
industry for regenerating the spent resin are:
(A) Replacement Service: A regeneration service replaces
the spent resin with regenerated resin, and regenerates
the spent resin at its own facility. The service then
has the problem of treating and disposing of the spent
regenerant.
(B) In-Place Regeneration: Some establishments may find it
less expensive "to do their own regeneration. The spent
resin column is shut down for perhaps an hour, and the
spent resin is regenerated. This results in one or
more waste streams which must be treated in an appro-
priate manner. Regeneration is performed as the resins
require it, usually every few months.
(C) Cyclic Regeneration: In this process, the regeneration
of the spent resins takes place within the ion exchange
unit itself in alternating cycles with the ion removal
process. A regeneration frequency of twice an hour is
typical. This very short cycle time permits operation
with a very small quantity of res^n and with fairly
concentrated solutions, resulting in a very compact
system. Again, this process varies according to appli-
-------
cation, but the regeneration cycle generally begins
with caustic being pumped through the anion exchanger,
carrying out hexavalent [chromium, for example, as
sodium dichromate. The sodium dichromate stream then
passes through a cation exchanger, converting the
sodium dichromate to chromic acid. After concentration
by evaporation or other means, the chromic acid can be
returned to the process line. Meanwhile, the cation
exchanger is regenerated with sulfuric acid, resulting
in a waste acid stream containing the metallic impuri-
ties removed earlier. Flushing the exchangers with
water completes the cycle. Thus, the wastewater is
purified and, in this example, chromic acid is recov-
ered. The ion exchangers, with newly regenerated
resin, then enter the ion removal cycle again.
Application and Performance. The list of pollutants for which
the ion exchange system has proven effective includes aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium (hexavalent and trivalent), copper,
cyanide, gold, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, selenium, silver,
tin, zinc, and others. Thus, it can be applied to a wide variety
of industrial concerns. Because of the heavy concentrations of
metals in their wastewater, the metal finishing industries
utilize ion exchange in several ways. As an end-of-pipe
treatment, ion exchange is certainly feasible, but its greatest
value is in recovery applications. It is commonly used as an
integrated treatment to recover1, rinse water and process
chemicals. Some electroplating :facilities use ion exchange to
concentrate and purify plating baths. Also, many industrial
concerns, including a number of aluminum forming plants, use ion
exchange to reduce salt concentrations in incoming water sources.
Ion exchange is highly efficient at recovering metal-bearing
solutions. Recovery of chromium, nickel, phosphate solution, and
sulfuric acid from anodizing is common. A chromic acid recovery
efficiency of 99.5 percent has been demonstrated. Typical data
for purification of rinse water are displayed in Table VII-25.
Advantages and Limitations. Icrt' exchange is a versatile
technology applicable to a great many situations. This
flexibility, along with its compact nature and performance, makes
ion exchange a very effective method of wastewater treatment.
However, the resins in these systems can prove to be a limiting
factor. The thermal limits of the anion resins, generally in the
vicinity of 60°C, could prevent its use in certain situations.
Similarly, nitric acid, chromic acid, and hydrogen peroxide can
all damage the resins, as will iron, manganese, and copper when
present with sufficient concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
Removal of a particular trace contaminant may be uneconomical
because of the presence of other ionic species that are
-------
preferentially removed. The regeneration of the resins presents
its own problems. The cost of the regenerative chemicals can be
high. In addition, the waste streams originating from the
regeneration process are extremely high in pollutant
concentrations, although low in volume. These must be further
processed for proper disposal.
Operational Factors. Reliability: With the exception of
occasional clogging or fouling of the resins, ion exchange has
proved to be a highly dependable technology.
Maintainability: Only the normal maintenance of pumps, valves,
piping, and other hardware used in the regeneration process is
required.
Solid Waste Aspects: Few, if any, solids accumulate within the
ion exchangers, and those which do appear are removed by the
regeneration process. Proper prior treatment and planning can
eliminate solid buildup problems altogether. The brine resulting
from regeneration of the ion exchange resin most usually must be
treated to remove metals before discharge. This can generate
solid waste.
Demonstration Status. All of the ion exchange applications
discussed in this section are in commercial use, and industry
sources estimate the number of ion exchange units currently in
the field at well over 120. The research and development in ion
exchange is focusing on improving the quality and efficiency of
the resins, rather than new applications. Work is also being
done on a continuous regeneration process whereby the resins are
contained on a fluid-transfusible belt. The belt passes through
a compartmented tank with ion exchange, washing, and regeneration
sections. The resins are therefore continually used and
regenerated. No such system, however, has been reported beyond
the pilot stage.
21 . Insoluble Starch Xanthate
Insoluble starch xanthate is essentially an ion exchange medium
used to remove dissolved heavy metals from wastewater. The water
may then either be reused (recovery application) or discharged
(end-of-pipe application). In a commercial electroplating
operation, starch xanthate is coated on a filter medium. Rinse
water containing dragged out heavy metals is circulated through
the filters and then reused for rinsing. The starch-heavy metal
complex is disposed of and replaced periodically. Laboratory
tests indicate that recovery of metals from the complex is
feasible, with regeneration of the starch xanthate. Besides
electroplating, starch xanthate is potentially applicable to any
other industrial plants where dilute metal wastewater streams are
-------
generated. Its present use is limited to one electroplating
plant.
22. Peat Adsorption
Peat moss is a complex natural organic material containing lignin
and cellulose as major constituents. These constituents, partic-
ularly lignin, bear polar functional groups, such as alcohols,
aldehydes, ketones, acids, phenolic hydroxides, and ethers, that
can be involved in chemical bonding. Because of the polar nature
of the material, its adsorption of dissolved sol ids such as
transition metals and polar organic molecules is quite high.
These properties have led to the :use of peat as an agent for the
purification of industrial wastewater.
Peat adsorption is a "polishing" process which can achieve very
low effluent concentrations for several pollutants. If the con-
centrations of pollutants are above 10 mg/1, then peat adsorption
must be preceded by pH adjustment for metals precipitation and
subsequent clarif ication. Pretreatment is also required for
chromium wastes using ferric chloride and sodium sulf ide. The
wastewater is then pumped into a large metal chamber called a
kier which contains a layer of peat through which the waste
stream passes. The water flows to a second kier for further
adsorption. The wastewater is then ready for discharge. This
system may be automated or manually operated.
Application and Performance. Peat adsorption can be used in
aluminum forming plants for removal of residual dissolved metals
from clarifier effluent. Peat moss may be used to treat waste-
waters containing heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, zinc,
copper, iron, nickel, chromium, and lead, as well as organic
matter such as oil, detergents, and dyes. Peat adsorption is
currently used commercially at a textile plant, a newsprint
facility, and a metal reclamation operation.
Table VI1-26 contains performance figures obtained from pilot
plant studies. Peat adsorption was preceded by pH adjustment for
precipitation and by clarification.
In addition, pi lot plant studies have shown that chelated metal
wastes, as well as the chelating agents themselves, are removed
by contact with peat moss.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantages of the system
include its ability to yield low pollutant concentrations, its
broad scope in terms of the pollutants eliminated, and its
capacity to accept wide variations of wastewater composition.
-------
Limitations include the cost of purchasing, storing, and dispos-
ing of the peat moss; the necessity for regular replacement of
the peat may lead to high operation and maintenance costs. Also,
the pH adjustment must be altered according to the composition of
the waste stream.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The question of long-term
reliability is not yet fully answered. Although the manufacturer
reports it to be a highly reliable system, operating experience
is needed to verify the claim.
Maintainability: The peat moss used in this process soon
exhausts its capacity to adsorb pollutants. At that time, the
kiers must be opened, the peat removed, and fresh peat placed
inside. Although this procedure is easily and quickly accom-
plished, it must be done at regular intervals, or the system's
efficiency drops drastically.
Solid Waste Aspects: After removal from the kier, the spent peat
must be eliminated. If incineration is used, precautions should
be taken to ensure that those pollutants removed from the water
are not released again in the combustion process. Presence of
sulfides in the spent peat, for example, will give rise to sulfur
dioxide in the fumes from burning. The presence of significant
quantities of toxic heavy metals in aluminum forming wastewater
will in general preclude incineration of peat used in treating
these wastes.
Demonstrat ion Status. Only three facilities currently use
commercial adsorption systems in the United States - a textile
manufacturer, a newsprint facility, and a metal reclamation firm.
No data have been reported showing the use of peat adsorption in
aluminum forming plants.
23. Membrane Fi1tration
Membrane filtration is a treatment system for removing precipi-
tated metals from a wastewater stream. It must therefore be
preceded by those treatment techniques which will properly pre-
pare the wastewater for solids removal. Typically, a membrane
filtration unit is preceded by pH adjustment or sulfide addition
for precipitation of the metals. These steps are followed by the
addition of a proprietary chemical reagent which causes the pre-
cipitate to be non-gelatinous, easily dewatered, and highly
stable. The resulting mixture of pretreated wastewater and
reagent is continuously recirculated through a filter module and
back into a recirculation tank. The filter module contains tubu-
lar membranes. While the reagent-metal hydroxide precipitate
mixture flows through the inside of the tubes, the water and any
dissolved salts permeate the membrane. When the recirculating
-------
slurry reaches a concentration of 10 to 15 percent sol ids, it is
pumped out of the system as sludge.
Application and Performance. Membrane filtration appears to be
applicable to any wastewater or process water containing metal
ions which can be precipitated using hydroxide, sulfide, or car-
bonate precipitation. It could function as the primary treatment
system, but also might find application as a polishing treatment
(after precipitation and settling) to ensure continued compliance
with metals 1 imitations. Membrane filtration systems are being
used in a number of industrial applications, particularly in the
metal finishing area. They have also been used for heavy metals
removal in the metal fabrication industry and the paper industry.
The permeate is claimed by one manufacturer to contain less than
the effluent concentrations shown in Table VI1-27, regardless of
the influent concentrations. These claims have been largely sub-
stantiated by the analysis of water samples at various plants in
various industries.
In the performance predictions for this technology, pollutant
concentrations are reduced to the levels shown in Table VI1-27
unless lower levels are present in the influent stream.
Advantages and Limitations. A major advantage of the membrane
filtration system is that installations can use most of the
conventional end-of-pipe systems that may already be in place.
Removal efficiencies are claimed to be excellent, even with
sudden variation of pollutant input rates; however, the
effectiveness of the membrane filtration system can be limited by
clogging of the filters. Because pH changes in the waste stream
greatly intensify clogging problems, the pH must be carefully
monitored and controlled. Clogging can force the shutdown of the
system and may interfere with production. In addition, the
relatively high capital cost of this system may 1imit its use,
Operational Factors. Reliability: Membrane filtration has been
shown to be a very reliable system, provided that the pH is
strictly controlled. Also, surges in the flow rate of the waste
stream must be controlled in order to prevent solids from passing
through the filter and into the effluent.
I
Maintainability: The membrane filters must be regularly moni-
tored, and cleaned or replaced as necessary. Depending on the
composition of the waste stream ' and its flow rate, frequent
cleaning of the filters may be required. Flushing with hydro-
chloric acid for six to 24 hours will usually suffice. In
addition, the routine maintenance of pumps, valves, and other
plumbing is required.
-------
Solid Waste Aspects: When the recirculating reagent-precipitate
slurry reaches 10 to 15 percent solids, it is pumped out of the
system. It can then be disposed of directly to a landfill or it
can undergo a dewatering process. Because this sludge contains
toxic metals, it requires proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are more than 25 membrane filtration
systems presently in use on metal finishing and similar
wastewaters. Bench-scale and pilot-studies are being run in an
attempt to expand the list of pollutants for which this system is
known to be effective. Although there are no data on the use of
membrane filtration in aluminum forming plants, the concept has
been successfully demonstrated using coil coating plant
wastewater.
24. Reverse Osmosis
The process of osmosis involves the passage of a liquid through a
semipermeable membrane from a dilute to a more concentrated solu-
tion. Reverse osmosis (RO) is an operation in which pressure is
applied to the more concentrated solution, forcing the permeate
to diffuse through the membrane and into the more dilute solu-
tion. This filtering action produces a concentrate and a perme-
ate on opposite sides of the membrane. The concentrate can then
be further treated or returned to the original production opera-
tion for continued use, while the permeate water can be recycled
for use as clean water. Figure VI1-26 depicts a reverse osmosis
system.
As illustrated in Figure VII-27, there are three basic configura-
tions used in commercially available RO modules: tubular,
spiral-wound, and hollow fiber. All of these operate on the
physical principle described above, the major difference being
their mechanical and structural design characteristics.
The tubular membrane module uses a porous tube with a cellulose
acetate membrane-lining. A common tubular module consists of a
length of 2.5-cm (1-inch) diameter tube wound on a supporting
spool and encased in a plastic shroud. Feed water is driven into
the tube under pressures varying from 40 to 55 atm (600 to 800
psi). The permeate passes through the walls of the tube and is
collected in a manifold while the concentrate is drained off at
the end of the tube. A less widely used tubular RO module uses a
straight tube contained in a housing, under the same operating
conditions.
Spiral-wound membranes consist of a porous backing sandwiched
between two cellulose acetate membrane sheets and bonded along
three edges. The fourth edge of the composite sheet is attached
to a large permeate collector tube. A spacer screen is then
-------
placed on top of the membrane sandwich and the entire stack is
rolled around the centrally located tubular permeate collector.
The rolled up package is inserted into a pipe able to withstand
the high operating pressures employed in this process, up to 55
atm (800 psi) with the spiral-wound module. When the system is
operating, the pressurized product water permeates the membrane
and flows through the backing material to the central collector
tube. The concentrate is drained off at the end of the container
pipe and can be reprocessed or sent to further treatment facili-
ties.
The hollow fiber membrane configuration is made up of a bundle of
polyamide fibers of approximately 0^0075 cm (0.003 in.) OD and
0.043 cm (0.0017 in.) ID. A commonly used hollow fiber module
contains several hundred thousand of the fibers placed in a long
tube, wrapped around a flow screen, and rolled into a spiral.
The fibers are bent in a U-shape and their ends are supported by
an epoxy bond. The hollow fiber unit is operated under 27 atm
(400 psi), while the feed water is dispersed from the center of
the module through a porous distributor tube. Permeate flows
through the membrane to the hollow interiors of the fibers and is
collected at the ends of the fibers.
The hollow fiber and spiral-wound modules have a distinct advan-
tage over the tubular system in that they are able to load a very
large membrane surface area into a relatively small volume. How-
ever, these two membrane types are much more susceptible to foul-
ing than the tubular system, which has a larger flow channel.
This characteristic also makes the tubular membrane much easier
to clean and regenerate than either the spiral-wound or hollow
fiber modules. One manufacturer claims that their helical
tubular module can be physically wiped clean by passing a soft
porous polyurethane plug under pressure through the module.
Application and Performance. In a :number of metal processing
plants, the overflow from the first rinse in a countercurrent
setup is directed to a reverse osmosis unit, where it is sepa-
rated into two streams. The concentrated stream contains dragged
out chemicals and is returned to the bath to replace the loss of
solution due to evaporation and dragout. The dilute stream (the
permeate) is routed to the last rinse tank to provide water for
the rinsing operation. The rinse flows from the last tank to the
first tank and the cycle is complete.
The closed-loop system described above may be supplemented by the
addition of a vacuum evaporator after the RO unit in order to
further reduce the volume of reverse osmosis concentrate. The
evaporated vapor can be condensed and returned to the last rinse
tank or sent on for further treatment.
-------
The largest application has been for the recovery of nickel solu-
tions. It has been shown that RO can generally be applied to
most acid metal baths with a high degree of performance, provid-
ing that the membrane unit is not overtaxed. The limitations
most critical here are the allowable pH range and maximum operat-
ing pressure for each particular configuration.
Adequate prefiltration is also essential. Only three membrane
types are readily available in commercial RO units, and their
overwhelming use has been for the recovery of various acid metal
baths. For the purpose of calculating performance predictions of
this technology, a rejection ratio of 98 percent is assumed for
dissolved salts, with 95 percent permeate recovery.
Advantages and Limitations. The major advantage of reverse
osmosis for handling process effluents is its ability to
concentrate dilute solutions for recovery of salts and chemicals
with low power requirements. No latent heat of vaporization or
fusion is required for effecting separations; the main energy
requirement is for a high pressure pump. It requires relatively
little floor space for compact, high capacity units, and it
exhibits good recovery and rejection rates for a number of
typical process solutions. A limitation of the reverse osmosis
process for treatment of process effluents is its limited
temperature range for satisfactory operation. For cellulose
acetate systems, the preferred limits are 18°C to 30°C (65°F to
85°F); higher temperatures will increase the rate of membrane
hydrolysis and reduce system life, while lower temperatures will
result in decreased fluxes with no damage to the membrane.
Another limitation is inability to handle certain solutions.
Strong oxidizing agents, strongly acidic or basic solutions,
solvents, and other organic compounds can cause dissolution of
the membrane. Poor rejection of some compounds such as borates
and low molecular weight organics is another problem. Fouling of
membranes by slightly soluble components in solution or colloids
has caused failures, and fouling of membranes by feed waters with
high levels of suspended solids can be a problem. A final
limitation is inability to treat or achieve high concentration
with some solutions. Some concentrated solutions may have
initial osmotic pressures which are so high that they either
exceed available operating pressures or are uneconomical to
treat.
Operational Factors. Reliability: This system is very reliable
as long as the proper precautions are taken to minimize the
chances of fouling or degrading the membrane. Sufficient testing
of the waste stream prior to application of an RO system will
provide the information needed to ensure a successful
application.
-------
Maintainability: Membrane life is estimated to range from six
months to three years, depending on the use of the system. Down
time for flushing or cleaning is on the order of two hours as
often as once each week; a substantial portion of maintenance
time must be spent on cleaning any prefilters installed ahead of
the reverse osmosis unit,
Sol id Waste Aspects: In a closed loop system utilizing RO there
is a constant recycle of concentrate and a minimal amount of
solid waste. Prefiltration eliminates many solids before they
reach the module and helps keep the buildup to a minimum. These
solids require proper disposal.
Demonstration Status. There are presently at least one hundred
reverse osmosis wastewater applications in a variety of
industries. In addition to these, ithere are 30 to 40 units being
used to provide pure process water for several industries.
Despite the many types and configurations of membranes, only the
spiral-wound cellulose acetate membrane has had widespread
success in commercial applications.
25. Sludge Bed Drying
As a waste treatment procedure, sludge bed drying is employed to
reduce the water content of a variety of sludges to the point
where they are amenable to mechanical collection and removal to a
landfill. These beds usually consist of 15 to 45 cm (6 to 18
in.) of sand over a 30 cm (12 in.) deep gravel drain system made
up of 3 to 6 mm (1/8 to 1/4 in.) graded gravel overlying drain
tiles. Figure VI1-32 shows the construction of a drying bed.
Drying beds are usually divided into sectional areas approxi-
mately 7.5 meters (25 ft) wide x 30 to 60 meters (100 to 200 ft.)
long. The partitions may be earth embankments, but more often
are made of planks and supporting grooved posts.
To apply liquid sludge to the sand bed, a closed conduit or a
pressure pipeline with valved outlets at each sand bed section is
often employed. Another method of application is by means of an
open channel with appropriately placed side openings which are
controlled by slide gates. With either type of delivery system,
a concrete splash slab should be provided to receive the falling
sludge and prevent erosion of the sand surface.
Where it is necessary to dewater sludge continuously throughout
the year regardless of the weather, sludge beds may be covered
with a fiberglass reinforced plastic or other roof. Covered
drying beds permit a greater volume of sludge drying per year in
most climates because of the protection afforded from rain or
snow and because of more efficient control of temperature.
-------
Depending on the climate, a combination of open and enclosed beds
will provide maximum utilization of the sludge bed drying facili-
ties .
Application and Performance. Sludge drying beds are a means of
dewatering sludge from clarifiers and thickeners. They are
widely used both in municipal and industrial treatment facili-
ties.
Dewatering of sludge on sand beds occurs by two mechanisms: fil-
tration of water through the bed and evaporation of water as a
result of radiation and convection. Filtration is generally com-
plete in one to two days and may result in solids concentrations
as high as 15 to 20 percent. The rate of filtration depends on
the drainability of the sludge.
The rate of air drying of sludge is related to temperature, rela-
tive humidity, and air velocity. Evaporation will proceed at a
constant rate to a critical moisture content, then at a falling
rate to an equilibrium moisture content. The average evaporation
rate for a sludge is about 75 percent of that from a free water
surface.
Advantages and Limitations. The
beds over other types of sludge
cost of construction, operation,
main advantage of sludge drying
dewatering is the relatively low
and maintenance.
Its disadvantages are the large area of land required and long
drying times that depend, to a great extent, on climate and
weather.
Operational Factors. Reliability: Reliability is high with
favorable climatic conditions, proper bed design, and care to
avoid excessive or unequal sludge application. If climatic con-
ditions in a given area are not favorable for adequate drying, a
cover may be necessary.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists basically of periodic
removal of the dried sludge. Sand removed from the drying bed
with the sludge must be replaced and the sand layer resurfaced.
The resurfacing of sludge beds is the major expense item in
sludge bed maintenance, but there are other areas which may
require attention. Underdrains occasionally become clogged and
have to be cleaned. Valves or sludge gates that control the flow
of sludge to the beds must be kept watertight. Provision for
drainage of lines in winter should be provided to prevent damage
from freezing. The partitions between beds should be tight so
that sludge will not flow from one compartment to another. The
outer walls or banks around the beds should also be watertight.
-------
Solid Waste Aspects: The full sludge drying bed must either be
abandoned or the collected solids must be removed to a landfill.
These solids contain whatever metals or other materials were
settled in the clarifier. Metals will be present as hydroxides,
oxides, sulfides, or other salts. They have the potential for
leaching and contaminating ground water, whatever the location of
the semidried solids. Thus the abandoned bed or landfill should
include provision for runoff control and leachate monitoring.
Demonstration Status. Sludge beds have been in common use in
both municipal and industrial facilities for many years. How-
ever, protection of ground water from contamination is not always
adequate.
26. Ultraf iltration
Ultrafiltration (UF) is a process jwhich uses semipermeable poly-
meric membranes to separate emulsified or colloidal materials
suspended in a liquid phase by pressurizing the liquid so that it
permeates the membrane. The membrane of an ultrafilter forms a
molecular screen which retains molecular particles based on their
differences in size, shape, and chemical structure. The membrane
permits passage of solvents and lower molecular weight molecules.
At present, an ultrafilter is capable of removing materials with
molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 100,000 and particles
of comparable or larger sizes.
In an ultrafiltration process, the feed solution is pumped
through a tubular membrane unit. Water and some low molecular
weight materials pass through the membrane under the applied
pressure of 10 to 100 psig. Emulsified oil droplets and sus-
pended particles are retained, concentrated, and removed continu-
ously. In contrast to ordinary filtration, retained materials
are washed off the membrane filter rather than held by it.
Figures VII-29 and VII-34 represent the ultrafiltration process.
Application and Performance. Ultrafiltration has potential
application to aluminum forming plants for separation of oils and
residual solids from a variety of waste streams. In treating
aluminum forming wastewater, its greatest applicability would be
as a polishing treatment to remove residual precipitated metals
after chemical precipitation and clarification. Successful
commercial use, however, has been primarily for separation of
emulsified oils from wastewater. Over one hundred such units now
operate in the United States, treating emulsified oils from a
variety of industrial processes. Capacities of currently oper-
ating units range from a few hundred gallons a week to 50,000
gallons per day. Concentration of oily emulsions to 60 percent
oil or more are possible. Oil concentrates of 40 percent or more
are generally suitable for incineration, and the permeate can be
-------
treated further and in some cases recycled back to the process.
In this way, it is possible to eliminate contractor removal costs
for oil from some oily waste streams.
Table VII-28 indicates ultrafiltration performance (note that UF
is not intended to remove dissolved solids). The removal
percentages shown are typical, but they can be influenced by pH
and other conditions. The permeate or effluent from the
ultrafiltration unit is normally of a quality that can be reused
in industrial applications or discharged directly. The
concentrate from the ultrafiltration unit can be disposed of as
any oily or solid waste.
Advantages and Limitations. Ultrafiltration is sometimes an
attractive alternative to chemical treatment because of lower
capital equipment, installation, and operating costs, very high
oil and suspended solids removal, and little required pretreat-
ment. It places a positive barrier between pollutants and
effluent which reduces the possibility of extensive pollutant
discharge due to operator error or upset in settling and skimming
systems. Alkaline values in alkaline cleaning solutions can be
recovered and reused in the process.
A limitation of ultrafiltration for treatment of process
effluents is its narrow temperature range (18°C to 30°C) for
satisfactory operation. Membrane life decreases with higher
temperatures, but flux increases at elevated temperatures.
Therefore, surface area requirements are a function of tempera-
ture and become a tradeoff between initial costs and replacement
costs for the membrane. In addition, ultrafiltration cannot
handle certain solutions. Strong oxidizing agents, solvents, and
other organic compounds can dissolve the membrane. Fouling is
sometimes a problem, although the high velocity of the wastewater
normally creates enough turbulence to keep fouling at a minimum.
Large solids particles can sometimes puncture the membrane and
must be removed by gravity settling or filtration prior to the
ultrafiltration unit.
Operational Factors. Reliability: The reliaiblity of an
ultrafiltration system is dependent on the proper filtration,
settling, or other treatment of incoming waste streams to prevent
damage to the membrane. Careful pilot studies should be done in
each instance to determine necessary pretreatment steps and the
exact membrane type to be used. It is advisable to remove any
free, floating oil prior to ultrafiltration. Although free oil
can be processed, membrane performance may deteriorate.
Maintainability: A limited amount of regular maintenance is
required for the pumping system. In addition, membranes must be
periodically changed. Maintenance associated with membrane
-------
plugging can be reduced by selection of a membrane with optimum
physical characteristics and sufficient velocity of the waste
stream. It is occassional ly necesary to pass a deterg€;nt
solution occasionally through the system to remove an oil and
grease film which accumulates on the membrane. With proper
maintenance, membrane life can be greater than 12 months.
Solid Waste Aspects: Ultrafiltration is used primarily to
recover solids and liquids. It therefore eliminates solid waste
problems when the solids (e.g., paint solids) can be recycled to
the process. Otherwise, the stream containing solids must be
treated by end-of-pipe equipment. In the most probable applica-
tions within the aluminum forming category, the ultrafilter would
remove concentrated oily wastes which can be recovered for reuse
or used as a fuel. j
Demonstration Status. The ultrafiltration process is well
developed and commercially available for treatment of wastewater
or recovery of certain high molecular weight liquid and solid
contaminants. Currently, one plant in the aluminum forming
category uses ultrafiltration. This plant ultrafilters its spent
rolling oils. Ultrafiltration is well suited for highly
concentrated emulsions (e.g., rolling and drawing oils), although
it is not suitable for free oil.
27. Vacuum Filtration
In wastewater treatment plants, sludge dewatering by vacuum fil-
tration generally uses cylindrical drum filters. These drums
have a filter medium which may be cloth made of natural or syn-
thetic fibers or a wire-mesh fabric. The drum is suspended above
and dips into a vat of sludge. As the drum rotates slowly, pcirt
of its circumference is subject to' an internal vacuum that draws
sludge to the filter medium. Wa,ter is drawn through the porous
filter cake through the drum fabric to a discharge port, and the
dewatered sludge, loosened by compressed air, is scraped from the
filter mesh. Because the dewatering of sludge on vacuum filters
is relatively expensive per kilogram of water removed, the liquid
sludge is frequently thickened prior to processing. A vacuum
filter is shown in Figure VII-30.
Application and Performance. Vacuum filters are frequently used
both in municipal treatment plants and in a wide variety of
industries. They are most commonly used in larger facilities,
which may have a thickener to double the solids content of clari-
fier sludge before vacuum filtering. Often a precoat is used to
inhibit filter blinding.
-------
The function of vacuum filtration is to reduce the water content
of sludge, so that the solids content increases from about 5
percent to between 20 and 30 percent.
Advantages and Limitations. Although the initial cost and area
requirement of the vacuum filtration system are higher than those
of a centrifuge, the operating cost is lower, and no special
provisions for sound and vibration protection need be made. The
dewatered sludge from this process is in the form of a moist cake
and can be conveniently handled.
Operational Factors. Reliability; Vacuum filter systems have
proven reliable at many industrial and municipal treatment
facilities. At present, the largest municipal installation is at
the West Southwest wastewater treatment plant of Chicago,
Illinois, where 96 large filters were installed in 1925,
functioned approximately 25 years, and then were replaced with
larger units. Original vacuum filters at Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minnesota now have over 28 years of continuous service, and
Chicago has some units with similar or greater service life.
Maintainability: Maintenance consists of the cleaning or
replacement of the filter media, drainage grids, drainage piping,
filter pans, and other parts of the equipment. Experience in a
number of vacuum f iIter plants indicates that maintenance
consumes approximately 5 to 15 percent of the total time. If
carbonate buildup or other problems are unusually severe, mainte-
nance time may be as high as 20 percent. For this reason, it is
desirable to maintain one or more spare units.
If intermittent operation is used, the filter equipment should be
drained and washed each time it is taken out of service. An
allowance for this wash time must be made in filtering schedules.
Solid Waste Aspects: Vacuum filters generate a solid cake which
is usually trucked directly to landfill. All of the metals
extracted from the plant wastewater are concentrated in the
filter cake as hydroxides, oxides, sulfides, or other salts.
Demonstration Status. Vacuum filtration has been widely used for
many years. It is a fully proven, conventional technology for
sludge dewatering. At least nine aluminum forming plants report
the use of vacuum filtration to dewater their sludge.
IN-PLANT TECHNOLOGY
The intent of in-plant technology for the aluminum forming point
source category is to reduce or eliminate the waste load requir-
ing end-of-pipe treatment and thereby improve the. efficiency of
an existing wastewater treatment system or reduce the require-
-------
ments of a new treatment system. In-plant technology involves
improved rinsing, water conservation, process bath conservation,
reduction of dragout, automatic controls, good housekeeping prac-
tices, recovery and reuse of process solutions, process modifica-
tion, and waste treatment. Specific in-plant technologies
applicable to this category are discussed below.
28. Process Water Recycle !
Recycling of process water is the practice of recirculating water
to be used again for the same purpose. An example of recycling
process water is the return of casting contact cooling water to
the casting process after the water passes through a cooling
tower. Two types of recycle are possible—recycle with a bleed
stream (blowdown) and total recycle. Total recycle may be pro-
hibited by the presence of dissolved solids. Dissolved solids
(e.g., sulfates and chlorides) entering a totally recycled waste
stream may precipitate, forming scale if the solubility limits of
the dissolved solids are exceeded. A bleed stream may be neces-
sary to prevent maintenance problems (pipe plugging or scaling,
etc.) that would be created by the precipitation of dissolved
solids. While the volume of bleed required is a function of the
amount of dissolved solids in the waste stream, 4 or 5 percent
bleed is a common value for a variety of process waste streams in
the aluminum forming category. The recycle of process water is
currently practiced where it is cost effective, where it is
necessary due to water shortage, or where the local permitting
authority has required it. Recycle, as compared to the once-
through use of process water, is an effective method of conserv-
ing water.
Application and Performance. Required hardware necessary for
recycle is highly site-specific. Basic items include pumps and
piping. Additional materials are necessary if water treatment
occurs before the water is recycled. These items will be dis-
cussed separately with each unit process. Chemicals may be
necessary to control scale buildup, slime, and corrosion prob-
lems, especially with recycled cooling water. Maintenance and
energy use are limited to that required by the pumps, and solid
waste generation is dependent on the type of treatment system in
place.
Recycling through cooling towers is the most common practice.
One type of application is shown in Figure VII-36. Direct chill
casting cooling water is recycled through a cooling tower with a
blowdown discharge.
A cooling tower is a device which cools water by bringing the
water into contact with air. The water and air flows are
directed in such a way as to provide maximum heat transfer. The
-------
heat is transferred to air primarily by evaporation (about 75
percent), while the remainder is removed by sensible heat trans-
fer .
Factors influencing the rate of heat transfer and, ultimately,
the temperature range of the tower, include water surface area,
tower packing and configuration, air flow, and packing height. A
large water surface area promotes evaporation, and sensible heat
transfer rates are lower in proportion to the water surface area
provided. Packing (an internal latticework contact area) is
often used to produce small droplets of water which evaporate
more easily, thus increasing the total surface area per unit of
throughput. For a given water flow, increasing the air flow
increases the amount of heat removed by maintaining higher
thermodynamic potentials. The packing height in the tower should
be high enough so that the air leaving the tower is close to
saturation.
A mechanical-draft cooling tower consists of the following major
components:
(1) Inlet-water distributor
(2) Packing
(3) Air fans
(4) Inlet-air louvers
(5) Drift or carryover eliminators
(6) Cooled water storage basin.
Advantages and Limitations. Recycle offers economic as well as
environmental advantages. Water consumption is reduced and
wastewater handling facilities (pumps, pipes, clarifiers, etc.)
can thus be sized for smaller flows. By concentrating the pollu-
tants in a much smaller volume (the bleed stream), greater
removal efficiencies can be attained by any applied treatment
technologies. Recycle may require some treatment such as
sedimentation or cooling of water before it is reused.
The ultimate benefit of recycling process water is the reduction'
in total wastewater discharge and the associated advantages of
lower flow streams. A potential problem is the buildup of dis-
solved solids which could result in scaling. Scaling can usually
be controlled by depressing the pH and increasing the bleed flow.
Operational Factors. Reliability and Maintainability: Although
the principal construction material in mechanical-draft towers is
wood, other materials are used extensively. For long life and
minimum maintenance, wood is generally pressure-treated with a
preservative. Although the tower structure is usually made of
treated redwood, a reasonable amount of treated fir has been used
in recent years. Sheathing and louvers are generally made of
-------
asbestos cement, and the fan stacks of fiberglass. There is a
trend to use fire-resistant extracted PVC as fill which, at
little or no increase in cost, offers the advantage of permanent
fire-resistant properties.
The major disadvantages of wood are its susceptibility to decay
and fire. Steel construction is occasionally used, but not to
any great extent. Concrete may be used but has relatively high
construction labor costs, although it does offer the advantage of
fire protection.
Various chemical additives are used in cooling water systems to
control scale, slime, and corrosion. The chemical additives
needed depend on the character;of the make-up water. All addi-
tives have definite limitations and cannot eliminate the need for
blowdown. Care should be taken in selecting nontoxic or readily
degraded additives, if possible.
Solid Waste Aspects: The only solid waste associated with cool-
ing towers may be removed scale.
Demonstration Status. Many different types of streams in the
aluminum forming category are currently recycled. The degree of
recycle of these streams is 50 percent or more, most commonly in
the 96 to 100 percent range as shown in the water use and waste-
water tables in Section V (Tables V-64 and 65, pp. 404 and 406
respectively). Recycling process waters is a viable option for
many aluminum forming process wastewaters as shown by the current
practices in the industry. This can be seen by examining the
amount of recycle in place for two major streams.
The direct chi11 casting contact cooling water stream is repre-
sentative of cooling water streams. Of the 61 plants with this
stream, 31 recycle more than 96 percent of the flow used, nine
recycle between 90 and 96 percent of the flow used, and four
plants recycle less than 90 percent of the flow. The remainder
of the plants with direct chill casting either did not recycle
the cooling water used, or did not supply enough data to calcu-
late the amount recycled. Several of the plants recycling the
cooling water stream use cooling towers and in-line oil skimming
devices.
All of the plants that use hot rol1ing oil emulsions and that
gave enough information to calculate discharge rates reported
using recycle of the emulsion with either a bleed stream or peri-
odic discharge. The recycled flow would often pass through in-
line filters to prevent the buildup of solids. Settling tanks
and oil skimming devices were also used to separate spent and
tramp oils from the emulsion.
-------
Other aluminum forming wastewaters may also be recycled in vary-
ing degrees, depending on the required quality of water necessary
for a specific operation. Scrubber waters from casting, forging,
etch lines, and annealing operations can be recycled because of
the low water quality necessary as make-up water. Forging solu-
tion heat treatment contact cooling waters can be recycled in a
manner similar to that used in direct chill casting contact cool-
ing water. Extrusion die cleaning rinses can be recycled with
minimal difficulty in a manner similar to cleaning or etching
practices.
29. Process Water Reuse
Reuse of process water is the practice of recirculating water
used in one production process for subsequent use in a different
production process. An example is the reuse of the rinse water
which follows caustic extrusion die cleaning as make-up water for
the caustic cleaning solution.
Application and Performance and Demonstration Status. Reuse
applications in the aluminum forming category are varied. Some
plants reuse extrusion die cleaning rinse water as make-up water
for the extrusion die cleaning bath. One plant reuses extrusion
press heat treatment contact cooling water and direct chill cast-
ing contact cooling water as noncontact cooling water following
passage through a cooling tower and an oil skimming device.
Primary aluminum plant(s) reuse the contact cooling water from
direct chill casting in their reduction scrubbers.
Neat oil rolling, emulsion rolling, drawing, and forging solution
heat treatment contact cooling waters have potential as reuse
streams in a manner similar to that used for the direct chill
casting contact cooling water in the primary aluminum industry.
Water may be reused as cleaning or etching rinses following
caustic and acidic baths, as casting cooling water, heat
treatment solution contact cooling water, or die cleaning rinses.
Advantages and Limitations. Advantages of reuse are similar to
the advantages of recycle. Water consumption is reduced and
wastewater treatment facilities can be sized for smaller flows.
Also, in areas where water shortages occur, reuse is an effective
means of conserving water.
Operational Factors. The hardware necessary for reuse of process
wastewaters varies, depending on the specific application. The
basic elements include pumps and piping. Chemical addition is
not usually warranted, unless treatment is required prior to
reuse. Maintenance and energy use are limited to that required
by the pumps. Solid waste generated is dependent upon the type
-------
of treatment used and will be discussed separately with each unit
process.
30. Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing
Rinsing is used to dilute the concentration of contaminants
adhering to the surface of a workpiece to an acceptable level
before the workpiece passes on to the next step in the cleaning
or etching operation. The amount of water required to dilute the
rinse solution depends on the quantity of chemical drag-in from
the upstream rinse or cleaning or 1 etching tank, the allowable
concentration of chemicals in the rinse water, and the contacting
efficiency between the workpiece and the water.
Process variations such as countercurrent cascade rinsing may
cause a decrease in process water use. This technique reduces
water use by multiple stage rinsing with a water flow counter to
the movement of the workpiece. Clean water contacts the aluminum
in the last rinse stage. The water, somewhat more contaminated,
is routed stage by stage up the rinsing line. After use in the
first rinse stage, the contaminated water is discharged to
treatment.
As an example, Figure VII-37 illustrates three rinsing opera-
tions, each designed to remove the residual acid in the water on
the surface of a workpiece. In Figure VII-37a the piece is
dipped into one tank with continuously flowing water. In this
case, the acid on the surface of the workpiece is essentially
diluted to the required level.
In Figure VII-37b, the first step1towards countercurrent opera-
tion is taken with the addition of a second tank. The workpiece
is now moving in a direction opposite to the rinse water. The
piece is rinsed with fresh makeup water prior to moving down the
assembly line. However, the fresh water from this final rinse
tank is directed to a second tank, where it meets the incoming,
more-contaminated workpiece. Fresh makeup water is used to give
a final rinse to the article before it moves out of the rinsing
section, but the slightly contaminated water is reused to clean
the article just coming into the; rinsing section. By increasing
the number of stages, as shown in Figure VII-37c, further water
reduction can be achieved. Theoretically, the amount of water
required is the amount of acid being removed by single-stage
requirements divided by the highest tolerable concentration in
the outgoing rinsewater. This theoretical' reduction of water by
a countercurrent multistage operation is shown in the curve graph
in Figure VII-38. The actual flow reduction obtained is a
function of the dragout and the type of contact occurring in the
tanks. If reasonably good contact is maintained major reductions
in water use are possible.
-------
Application and Performance. As mentioned above, rinse water
requirements and the benefits of countercurrent rinsing may be
influenced by the volume of solution dragout carried into each
rinse stage by the material being rinsed, by the number of rinse
stages used, by the initial concentrations of impurities being
removed, and by the final product cleanliness required. The
influence of these factors is expressed in the rinsing equation
which may be stated simply as:
Vr = Co 1/n x VD
Cf
Vr is the flow through each rinse stage.
Co is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in
process bath.
Cf is the concentration of the contaminant(s) in
rinse to give acceptable product cleanliness,
n is the number of rinse stages employed.
VD is the dragout carried into each rinse stage,
as a flow.
For a multi-stage rinse, the total volume of rinse wastewater is
equal to n times Vr while for a countercurrent rinse the total
volume of wastewater discharge equals Vr.
To calculate the benefits of countercurrent rinsing for aluminum
forming, it can be assumed that a two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinse is installed after the cleaning or etching
operations. The mass of aluminum in one square meter of sheet
that is 6 mm (0.006 m) in thickness can be calculated using the
density of aluminum, 2.64 kkg/m3 (165 lb/cu ft), as follows:
= (0.006 m) x (2.64 kkg/m3) = 0.016 kkg/m2 of sheet
Using the mean cleaning or etching rinse water use from Table V-
51 (p. 324), Vr can then be calculated as follows:
Vr = 0.016 kkg/m2 x 32,380 1/kkg = 518.1 1/m2 of sheet
Drag-out is solution which remains on the surface of material
being rinsed when it is removed from process baths or rinses.
Without specific plant data available to determine drag-out, an
estimate of rinse water reduction to be achieved with two-stage
countercurrent rinsing can be made by assuming a thickness of any
process solution film as it is introduced into the rinse tank.
If the film on a piece of aluminum sheet is 0.015 mm (0.6 mil)
thick, (equivalent to the film on a well-drained vertical
surface) then the volume of process solution, VD, carried into
the rinse tank on one square meter of sheet will be:
the initial
the final
expressed
-------
VD = (0.015 mm) x 1 m/mm x (1000 1/m3}
1000
= 0.015 1/m2 of sheet
Let r = Co, then r 1/n
Cf
Vr
VD
For single stage rinsing n
therefore r =Vr
VD
and r =518,1 = 34,540
0.015
For a 2-stage countercurrent cascade rinse to obtain the same r,
that is the same product cleanliness,
Vr « r 1/2, therefore Vr » 185.8
VD VD
But VD = 0.015 1/m2 of sheet; therefore, for 2-stage
countercurrent cascade rinsing, Vr is:
Vr = 185.8 x 0.015 = 2.79 1/m2 of sheet
In this theoretical calculation, a flow reduction of 99.5 percent
can be achieved. The actual numbers may vary depending on
efficiency of squeegees or air knives, and the rinse ratio
desired.
Advantages and Limitations. Significant flow reductions can be
achieved by the addition of only one other stage in the rinsing
operation, as discussed above. As shown in Figure VI1-38 the
largest reductions are made by! adding the first few stag€;s.
Additional rinsing stages cost additional money. The actual
number of stages added depends on site-specific layout and oper-
ating conditions. With higher costs for water and waste treat-
ment, more stages might be economical. With very low water
costs, fewer stages would be economical. In considering retrofit
applications, the space available for additional tanks is aiso
important. Many other factors will affect the economics of
countercurrent cascade rinsing; an' evaluation must be done for
each individual plant.
Operational Factors. If the flow from stage to stage can be
effected by gravity, either by raising the latter rinse stage
tanks or by varying the height of the overflow weirs, counter-
current cascade rinsing is usually quite economical. If, on the
-------
other hand, pumps and level controls must be used,
method, such as spray rinsing, may be more feasible.
then another
Another factor is the need for agitation, which will reduce short
circuiting of the flow. Large amounts of short circuiting can
reduce the flow reduction attained by adding more stages. In
cases where water is cascading in enormous quantities over a
workpiece, the high flow usually provides enough agitation. As
more staging is applied to reduce the amount of water, the point
will be reached where the flow of the water itself is not suffi-
cient to provide agitation. This necessitates either careful
baffling of the tanks or additional mechanical agitation.
Demonstration Status. Countercurrent cascade rinsing has been
widely used as a flow reduction technique in the metal finishing
industry. In aluminum conversion coating lines that are subject
to the coil coating limitations, countercurrent cascade rinsing
is currently used in order to reduce costs of wastewater
treatment systems (through smaller systems) for direct
dischargers and to reduce sewer costs for indirect dischargers.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing is currently practiced at two
aluminum forming plants. In addition, although not strictly
countercurrent rinsing, two plants reuse the rinse water follow-
ing one etch bath for the rinse of a preceding bath. Based on
plant visits to 28 aluminum forming sites, the Agency believes
that there is enough available floorspace for the installation of
countercurrent cascade rinsing technology at existing sources.
31 . Reqenerat ion of Chemi cal Baths
Regeneration of chemical baths is used to remove contaminants and
recover and reuse the bath chemicals, thus minimizing the chemi-
cal requirements of the bath while achieving zero discharge.
Application and Performance. Chemical bath regeneration is
applicable to recover and reuse chemicals associated with caustic
cleaning or etching baths, sulfuric acid etching, conversion
coating or anodizing baths, chromic acid etching, conversion
coating or anodizing baths, and alkaline cleaning baths.
Some metal salts can be precipitated out of chemical baths by
applying a temperature change or shift to the bath. Once the
metal salts are precipitated out of solution the chemical prop-
erties and utility of the bath can then be restored by adding
fresh chemicals. The addition of lime may aid in precipitating
dissolved metals by forming carbonates.
Ultrafiltration, previously discussed in this section, can be
used to remove oils and particulates from alkaline cleaning
-------
baths, allowing the recovery of the water and alkali values to be
reused in the make-up of fresh bath rather than treated and
discharged.
Ultrafiltration membranes allow only low molecular weight solutes
and water to pass through and return to the bath; particulates
and oils are held back in a concentrated phase. The concentrated
material is then disposed of separately as a solid waste.
Advantages and Limitations. The advantages of bath regeneration
are: (1) it reduces the volume of discharge of the chemical bath
water; (2) the cleaning or etching operations are made more
efficient because the bath can be kept at a relatively constant
strength; (3) it results in reduced maintenance labor associated
with the bath; and (4) it reduces chemical costs by recovering
chemicals and increasing bath life.
Operational Factors. Reliability and Maintainability: Chemical
bath regeneration results in lower maintenance labor because the
bath life is extended. Regeneration also increases the process
reliability in that it eliminates extended periods of downtime to
dump the entire bath solution.
It may be necessary to allow baths normally operated at elevated
temperatures to cool prior to regeneration. As an example, hot
detergent baths will require cooling prior to introducing mate-
rial into the ultrafiltration membrane.
i
i
Solid Waste Aspects: Regeneration of caustic detergent chromic
acid and sulfuric acid baths results in the formation of precipi-
tates. These precipitates are collected, dewatered, if neces-
sary, and then disposed of as solid wastes. The aluminum sulfate
precipitate resulting from sulfuric acid baths may be commer-
cially marketable. The solid waste aspects of wastewater treat-
ment sludges similar to regeneration sludges are discussed in
detail in Section VIII (p. 898).
Demonstration Status. Fifteen aluminum forming plants achieve
zero discharge through chemical bath regeneration. These plants
achieve this by periodically supplementing the caustic and acid
baths. There are commercial processes available for regenerating
baths which are patented or claimed confidential. In general,
these regeneration processes are based on the fundamental
concepts described above.
As discussed previously in this section, ultrafiltration is well
developed and commercially available for recovery of high molecu-
lar weight liquids and solid contaminants. EPA is not aware of
any aluminum forming plants that have applied ultrafiltration for
the purpose of regenerating bath materials. There are two alumi-
-------
num forming plants using ultrafiltration to recover spent lubri-
cant. Performance data for these two systems is shown in Table
VII-2. Since alkaline cleaning baths are used to remove these
lubricants from the aluminum surface prior to further processing,
it is reasonable to assume that ultrafiltration will be equally
applicable for separating these same lubricants from alkaline
cleaning baths.
32. Process Water Use Reduction
Process water use reduction is the decrease in the amount of pro-
cess water used as an influent to a production process per unit
of production. Section V discusses water use in detail for each
aluminum forming operation. A range of water use values taken
from the data collection portfolios is presented for each opera-
tion. The range of values indicates that some plants use process
water more efficiently than others for the same operation.
Therefore, some plants can curb their water use; in some cases it
may be as simple as turning down a few valves. Noncontact cool-
ing water may replace contact cooling water in some applications;
air cooling may also be an alternative to contact cooling water.
Conversion to dry air pollution control equipment, discussed
further on in this section, is another way to reduce water use.
Many production units in aluminum forming plants operate inter-
mittently or at widely varying production rates. The practice of
shutting off process water streams during periods when the unit
is inoperative and of adjusting flow rates during periods of low
activity can prevent much unnecessary dilution of wastes and
reduce the volume of water to be treated and discharged. Water
may be shut off and adjusted manually or through automatically
controlled valves. Manual adjustment involves minimal capital
cost and can be just as reliable in actual practice. Automatic
shut off valves are used in some aluminum forming operations to
turn off water flows when production units are inactive. Auto-
matic adjustment of flow rates according to production levels
requires more sophisticated control systems incorporating temper-
ature or conductivity sensors. Further reduction in water use
may be made possible by changes in production techniques and
equipment.
The potential for reducing the water use at many aluminum forming
facilities is evident in the water use and discharge data pre-
sented in Section V of this report. While it may be argued that
variations in water flow per unit of production are the necessary
result of variations in process conditions, on-site observations
indicate that they are more frequently the result of imprecise
control of water use. This is confirmed by analysis data from
cleaning and etching rinses which show a very wide range of the
-------
concentrations of materials removed from product surfaces, and by
on-site temperature observations in contact cooling streams.
Reduction of water use in quenches may also significantly reduce
discharge volumes. Design of spray quenches to ensure that a
high percentage of the water contacts the product and adjustments
of make-up water flow rates on quench baths and recirculating
spray quench systems to the minimum practical value can signifi-
cantly reduce effluent volumes.
Pollutant discharges from cleaning and etching operations may
also be controlled through the use of drag-out reduction tech-
nologies. The volume of water used and discharged from rinsing
operations may be substantially reduced without adversely affect-
ing the surface condition of the product processed. Available
technologies to achieve these reductions include techniques which
1imit the amount of material to be removed from product surfaces
by rinsing.
On automatic 1ines which continuously process strip through
cleaning and etching operations, measures are normally taken to
reduce the amount of process bath solutions which are dragged out
with the product into subsequent rinses. The most commonly used
means of accomplishing this are through the use of squeegee rolls
and air knives. Both mechanisms are found at the point at which
the strip exits from the process bath. Squeegee rolls, one situ-
ated above the strip and another below, return process solutions
as they apply pressure to both sides of the continuously moving
strip. Air knives continuously force a jet of air across the
width of each side of the strip, forcing solutions to remain in
the process tank or chamber. These methods are also used to
reduce drag-out from soap and other lubricant tanks which sire
often found as a final step in automatic strip lines.
Heating the tank containing the process bath can also help reduce
drag-out of process solutions in two ways: by decreasing the
viscosity and the surface tension of the solution. A lower vis-
cosity allows the 1iquid to flow more rapidly and therefore drain
at a faster rate from the product following application in a
process bath, thereby reducing the amount of process solution
which dragged out into succeeding ; rinses. Likewise, a higher
temperature will result in lower surface tension in the solution.
The amount of work required to overcome the adhesive force
between a 1iquid film and a sol id Surface is a function of the
surface tension of the 1iquid and the contact angle. Lowering
the surface tension reduces the amount of work required to remove
the liquid and reduces the edge effect (the bead of liquid
adhering to the edges of a product).
-------
Operator performance can have a substantial effect on the amount
of drag-out which results from manual dip tank processes. Spe-
cifically, proper draining time and techniques can reduce the
amount of process solution dragged out into rinses. After dip-
ping the material into the process tank, drag-out can be reduced
significantly by simply suspending the product above the process
tank while solution drains off. Fifteen to 20 seconds generally
seems sufficient to accomplish this. When processing tubing,
especially, lowering one end of the load during this drain time
allows solution to run off from inside the tubes.
All of the water use reduction techniques discussed in this
section may be used at aluminum forming plants to achieve the
average production normalized flows at plants which presently
discharge excessive amounts of wastewater to treatment.
33. Wastewater Segregation
Application and Performance. The segregation of process waste
streams is a valuable control techology and may reduce treatment
costs. Individual process waste streams may exhibit very
different chemical characteristics, and separating the streams
may permit applying the most effective method of treatment or
disposal to each stream. Relatively clean waters, such as
annealing atmosphere scrubber liquor, should be kept segregated
from contaminated streams. Dissimilar streams should not be
combined; for example, an oily stream such as direct chill
casting contact cooling water should not be combined with a non-
oily stream such as cleaning or etching scrubber liquors.
Segregation should be based on the type of treatment to be
performed for a given pollutant, avoiding oversizing of equipment
for treating flows unnecessarily.
Consider two waste streams, one high in chromium and other dis-
solved solids; the other, a noncontact cooling water without
chromium. Significant advantages exist in segregating these two
waste streams. If the combined waste streams are being treated
to reduce chromium, the resulting high treatment cost will be
impractical. Also, if chromium removal by lime precipitation is
being practiced, reduced removal efficiencies will result from
combining the waste streams due to dilution of chromium concen-
tration. In addition, recycle of the noncontact cooling water
will be made difficult by mixing the relatively pure noncontact
cooling water with the high dissolved solids stream. Many com-
binations of waste streams exist throughout the aluminum forming
industry where segregation affords distinct advantages.
Equipment necessary for wastewater segregation may include
piping, curbing, and possibly pumping. Chemicals are not needed
and maintenance and energy use is limited to the pumps.
-------
Advantages. The segregation of stormwater runoff from
process-related streams can eliminate overloading of sewer and
treatment facilities. Some plants located lower than the
surrounding terrain have built,' flood control dams at higher
elevations to minimize the passage of stormwater runoff onto
plant property. The use of 'curbing is an excellent control
practice for minimizing the commingling of runoff with process
wastewaters. Also, retention ponds should be lined to minimize
infiltration of spring water during periods of local flooding and
exfiltration of the wastewaters to a nearby aquifer.
34. Lubricating Oil and Deoi1ing Solvent Recovery
Application and Performance. The recycle of lubricating oils is
a common practice in the industry. The degree of recycle is
dependent upon any in-line treatment (e.g., filtration to remove
aluminum fines and other contaminants), and the useful life of
the specific oil in its application. Usually, this involves
continuous recirculation of the oil, with losses in the recycle
loop from evaporation, oil carried off by the aluminum, and minor
loses from in-line treatment. Some plants periodically replace
the entire batch of oil once its required properties are
depleted. In other cases, a continuous bleed or blowdown stream
of oil is withdrawn from the recycle loop to maintain a constant
level of oil quality. Fresh make-up oil is added to compensate
for the blowdown and other losses, and in-line filtration is used
between cycles.
Reuse of oil from spent emulsions used in aluminum rolling and
drawing is practiced at some plants. The free oil skimmed from
gravity oil and water separation, following emulsion breaking, is
valuable. This free oil contains some solids and water which
must be removed before the oil can be reused. The traditional
treatment involves acidifying the oil in a heated cooker, using
steam coils or live steam to heat the oil to a rolling boil.
When the oil is sufficiently heated, the steam is shut off and
the oil and water are permitted to separate. The collected
floating oil layer is suitable for use as supplemental boiler
fuel or for some other type of in-house reuse. Other plants
choose to sell their oily wastes to oil scavengers, rather than
reclaiming the oil themselves. The water phase from this opera-
tion is either sent to treatment or, if of a high enough quality,
it can be recycled and used to make up fresh emulsion. •—
Advantages. Some plants collect and recycle rolling oils via
mist eliminators. In the rolling process, oils are sprayed as a
fine mist on the rollers for cooling and lubricating purposes,
and some of this oil becomes airborne and may be lost via exhaust
fans or volatilization. With the rising price of oils, it is
becoming a more common practice to prevent these losses. Another
-------
reason for using hood and mist eliminators is the improvement in
the working environment.
Demonstration Status and Operational Factors. Using organic
solvents to deoil or degrease aluminum is usually performed prior
to sale or subsequent operations such as coating. Recycling the
spent solvent can be economically attractive along with its envi-
ronmental advantages. Some plants (seven out of 30) are known to
use distillation units to reclaim spent solvent for recycling.
Sludges are normally disposed of by contractor hauling, although
some plants may incinerate this waste. Of the 30 plants cur-
rently performing aluminum degreasing with organic solvents, two
plants are known to discharge part of their spent solvent and oil
mixtures to a POTW.
35. Dry Air Pollution Control Devices
Appli cat ion and Performance. The use of dry air pollution
control devices would allow the elimination of waste streams with
high pollution potentials. The choice of air pollution control
equipment is complicated, and sometimes a wet system is the
necessary choice. The important difference between wet and dry
devices is that wet devices control gaseous pollutants as well as
particulates.
Wet devices may be chosen over dry devices when any of the fol-
lowing factors are found: (1) the particle size is predominantly
under 20 microns, (2) flammable particles or gases are to be
treated at minimal combustion risk, (3) both vapors and particles
are to be removed from the carrier medium, and (4) the gases are
corrosive and may damage dry air pollution control devices.
Equipment for dry control of air emissions includes cyclones, dry
electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, and afterburners.
These devices remove particulate matter, the first three by
entrapment and the afterburners by combustion.
Afterburner use is limited to air emissions consisting mostly of
combustible particles. - Characteristics of the particulate-laden
gas which affect the design and use of a device are gas density,
temperature, viscosity, flanimability, corrosiveness, toxicity,
humidity, and dew point. Particulate characteristics which
affect the design and use of a device are particle size, shape,
density, resistivity, concentration, and other physiochemical
properties.
Melting prior to casting requires wet air pollution control only
when chlorine gas is present in the offgases. Dry air pollution
control methods with inert gas or salt furnace fluxing have been
demonstrated in the industry. It is possible to perform all the
-------
metal treatment tasks of removing ;hydrogen, non-metallic inclu-
sions, and undesirable trace elements and meet the most stringent
quality requirements without furnace fluxing, using only in-line
metal treatment' units. To achieve this, the molten aluminum is
treated in the transfer system between the furnace and casting
units by flowing the metal through a region of very fine, dense,
mixed-gas bubbles generated by a spinning rotor or nozzle. No
process wastewater is generated in this operation. A schematic
diagram depicting the spinning nozzle refining principle is shown
in Figure VII-39. Another similar alternate degassing method is
to replace the chlorine-rich degassing agent with a mixture of
inert gases and a much lower proportion of chlorine. The tech-
nique provides adequate degassing while permitting dry scrubbing.
Scrubbers are used in forging because of the potential fire
hazard of baghouses used in this capacity. The oily mist gener-
ated in this operation is highly flammable and also tends to plug
and bind fabric filters, reducing their efficiency.
Caustic etch and extrusion die cleaning wet air pollution control
may be necessary due to the corrosive nature of the gases.
Advantages and Limitations. Proper application of a dry control
device can result in particulate removal efficiencies greater
than 99 percent by weight for fabric filters, electrostatic
precipitators, and afterburners, and up to 95 percent for
cyclones.
Common wet air pollution control devices are wet electrostatic
precipitators, venturi scrubbers, and packed tower scrubbers.
Collection efficiency for gases will depend on the solubility of
the contaminant in the scrubbing liquid. Depending on the con-
taminant removed, collection efficiencies usually approach 99
percent for particles and gases.
Demonstration Status. The aluminum forming industry reports the
use of dry air pollution controls for degassing and forging.
36. Good Housekeeping
Good housekeeping and proper equipment maintenance are necessary
factors in reducing wastewater loads to treatment systems. Con-
trol of accidental spills of oils, process chemicals, and waste-
water from washdown and filter cleaning or removal can aid in
abating or maintaining the segregation of wastewater streams.
Curbed areas should be used to contain or control these wastes.
Leaks in pump casings, process piping, etc., should be minimized
to maintain efficient water use. One particular type of leakage
which may cause a water pollution problem is the contamination of
-------
noncontact cooling water by hydraulic oils, especially if this
type of water is discharged without treatment.
Good housekeeping is also important in chemical, solvent, and oil
storage areas to preclude a catastrophic failure situation.
Storage areas should be isolated from high fire-hazard areas and
arranged so that if a fire or explosion occurs, treatment facili-
ties will not be overwhelmed nor excessive groundwater pollution
caused by large quantities of chemical-laden fire-protection
water.
Bath or rinse waters that drip off the aluminum while it is being
transferred from one tank to another (dragout) should be
collected and returned to their originating tanks. This can be
done with simple drain boards.
A conscientiously applied program of water use reduction can be a
very effective method of curtailing unnecessary wastewater flows.
Judicious use of washdown water and avoidance of unattended
running hoses can significantly reduce water use.
37. Product Substitution
Cyanide containing compounds are proprietary compounds used as
additives to quench water to impart surface treatment qualities.
Other commercially available compounds which do not contain
cyanide can be used for the same purpose. This is demonstrated
by the absence of cyanide in the same waste streams from other
plants producing the same product. These non-cyanide containing
compounds are commercially available and used by other plants in
this category; therefore, product substitution would be an effec-
tive means for controlling cyanide at an aluminum forming plant.
-------
Table VII-1
i
pH CONTROL EFFECT ON METALS REMOVAL
pH Range
(rag/1)
TSS
Copper
Zinc
Day 1
In Out
2.4-3.4 8.5-8.7
39 8
312 0.22
250 0. 31
Day 2
In Out
1.0-3.0 5.0-6.0
16 19
120 5.12
32. 5 25.0
Day 3
In Chit
2.0-5.0 6.5-8.1
16 7
107 0. 66
43. 8 0. 66
-------
Table VII-2
EFFECTIVENESS OF SODIUM HYDROXIDE FOR METALS REMOVAL
Day
In
1
Out
Day
In
2
Out
Day
In
3
Out
pH Range
2.1-2.9
9.0-9.3
2.0-2.4
00
•
1
vO
•
2.0-2.4
8.6-9.
(mg/1)
Cr
0.097
0.0
0.057
0.005
0. 068
0.005
Cu
0.063
0.018
0.078
0.014
0.053
0.01 9
Fe
9.24
0. 76
15.5
0.92
9.41
0.95
Pb
1.0
0.1 1
1 .36
0. 1 3
1.45
0. 1 1
Mn
0.1 1
0.06
0. 1 2
0.044
0. 1 1
0.044
Ni
0.077
0.01 1
0.036
0.009
0.069
0.01 1
Zn
0.054
0.0
0. 12
0.0
0.1 9
0.037
TSS
1 3
1 1
11
-------
Table VII-3
EFFECTIVENESS OF LIME,AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE
FOR METALS REMOVAL
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
In Out In Out In Out
pH Range 9.2-9.6 8.3-9.8 9.2 7.6-8.1 9.6 7.8-8.2
A1 37.3 0.35 38.1 0.35 29.9 0.35
Co 3.92 0.0 4.65 0.0 4.37 0.0
Cu 0.65 0.003 0.63 0.003 0.72 0.003
Fe 137 0.49 110 0.57 208 0.58
Mn 175 0.12 205 0.012 245 0.12
Ni 6.86 0.0 5.84 0.0 5.63 0.0
Se 28.6 0.0 30.2 0.0 27.4 0.0
Ti 143 0.0 125 0.0 115 0.0
Zn 18.5 0.027 16.2 0.044 17.0 0.01
TSS 4,390 9 3,595 13 2,805 13
-------
Table VII-4
THEORETICAL SOLUBILITIES OF HYDROXIDES AND SULFIDES
OF SELECTED METALS IN PURE WATER
Solubility of Metal Ion, mg/I
Metal As Hydroxide As Carbonate As Sulfide
Cadmium (Cd++)
2. 3
X
10-5
1.0
X
10-4
6. 7
X
10-10
Chromium (Cr+++)
8.4
X
10-4
No precipitat
Cobalt (Co++)
2.2
X
1 0"1
1 . 0
X
10-8
Copper (Cu++)
2.2
X
1 0"2
5.8
X
10-1 8
Iron (Fe++)
8.9
X
1 0_1
3.4
X
10"5
Lead (Pb++)
2.1
7.0
X
1 0"3
3.8
X
1 0- 5
Manganese (Mn++)
1.2
2. 1
X
10"3
Mercury (Hg++)
3.9
X
10"4
3.9
X
10-2
9.0
X
o
CM
1
o
Nickel (Ni++)
6.9
X
1 0"3
1.9
X
10-1
6. 9
X
1 0-8
Silver (Ag+)
1 3.3
2.1
X
10~1
7.4
X
10-12
Tin (Sn++)
1 . 1
X
1 0~4
3.8
X
1 0"8
Zinc (Zn++)
1.1
7.0
X
1 0~4
2. 3
X
1 0~7
-------
Table VII-5
SAMPLING DATA FROM SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION SYSTEMS
r\>
Treatment
pH
(mg/1)
Cr+6
Cr
Cu
Fe
Ni
Zn
Lime, FeS,
Polyeleetrolyte,
Settle, Filter
In
5.0-6.8
25.6
32.3
0.52
39.5
Out
8-9
<0.014
<0.04
0.10
<0.07
Lime, FeS,
Polyeleetrolyte,
Settle, Filter
In Out
7.7
0.022
2.4
108
0.68
33.9
7.38
<0.020
<0.1
0.6
<0.1
<0.1
NaOH, Ferric Chloride,
NayS, Clarify (1 Stage)
In Out
11.45
18.35
0.029
<.005
<.005
0.003
0.060
-------
Table VII-6
SULFIDE PRECIPITATION-SEDIMENTATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter Treated Effluent (tpr/1)
Cd 0.01
Cr (Total) 0.05
Cu 0.05
Pb 0.01
Hg 0.03
Ni 0.05
Ag 0.05
Zn 0.01
-------
Table VII-7
FERRITE CO-PRECIPITATION PERFORMANCE
Metal Influent (mg/1) Effluent (mg/1)
Mercury > 7.4 0,001
Cadmium 240 0.008
Copper 10 0.010
Zinc 18 0.016
Chromium 10 <0.010
Manganese 12 0.007
Nickel 1,000 0.200
Iron 600 0.06
Bismuth 240 0.100
Lead 475 0.010
-------
Table VII-8
CONCENTRATION OF TOTAL CYANIDE (mg/I)
Plant Method In Out
1057 FeS04 2.57 0.024
2.42 0.015
3.28 0.032
33056 FeS04 0.14 0.09
0.16 0.09
12052 ZnS04 0.46 0.14
0.12 0.06
Mean 0.07
-------
Table VII-9
MULTIMEDIA FILTER PERFORMANCE
Plant ID # TSS Effluent Concentration, mg/1
06097 0.0, 0.0, 0.5
1 3924 1 .8, 2.2, 5. 6, 4.0, 4.0, 3.0, 2.2, 2.8
3.0, 2.0, 5.6, 3.6, 2.4, 3.4
18538 1.0
30172 1.4, 7.0, 1.0
36048 2.1, 2.6, 1.5
Mean 2.61
-------
Table VII-10
PERFORMANCE OF SELECTED SETTLING SYSTEMS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION (rog/1)
Settling
Day 1
Day
2
Day
3
Plant ID
Device
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
01057
Lagoon
54
6
56
6
50
5
09025
Clarifier +
Settling
Ponds
1,100
9
1,900
12
1,620
5
11058
Clarifier
451
1 7
__
--
—
__
12075
Settling
Pond
284
6
242
10
502
14
19019
Settling
Tank
170
1
50
1
__
—
33617
Clarifier &
Lagoon
__
__
1,662
16
1 ,298
4
40063
Clarifier
4,390
9
3, 595
12
2,805
13
44062
Clarifier
182
13
118
14
174
23
46050
Settling
Tank
295
10
42
10
153
-------
Table VII-11
SKIMMING PERFORMANCE
Oil & Grease (mg/1)
Plant Skimmer Type in Out
06058 API 224,669 17.9
06Q58 Belt 19.4 8.3
-------
Table VII-12
TRACE ORGANIC REMOVAL BY SKIMMING
API PLUS BELT SKIMMERS
(From Plant 06058)
Influent Effluent
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Oil & Grease 225,000 14.6
Chloroform .023 .007
Methylene Chloride .013 .012
Naphthalene 2.31 .004
N-nitrosodiphenylamine 59.0 .182
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 11.0 .027
Butyl benzyl phthalate .005 .002
Di-n-octyl phthalate .019 .002
Anthracene - phenanthrene 16.4 .014
Toluene .02 .012
-------
Table VII-13
COMBINED METALS DATA EFFLUENT VALUES (mg/1)
One-Day 10-Day Avg. 30-Day Avg,
Mean Max. Max. Max.
Cd 0.079 0.34 0.15 0.13
Cr 0.084 0.44 0.18 0.12
Cu 0.58 1.90 1.00 0.73
Pb 0.12 0.15 0. 1 3 0. 1 2
Ni 0.74 1.92 1.27 1.00
Zn 0.33 1.46 0.61 0.45
Fe 0.41 1 .23 0.63 0. 51
Mn 0.21 0.43 0.34 0.27
TSS 12.0 41.0 20.0 15.5
-------
Table VII-14
L&S PERFORMANCE
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Pollutant Average Performance (mg/I)
Sb 0.7
As 0.51
Be 0.30
Hg 0.06
Se 0.30
Ag 0.10
Th 0.50
Al 2.24
Co 0.05
F 14.5
/'
-------
Table VII-15
COMBINED METALS DATA SET - UNTREATED WASTEWATER
Pollutant Min. Cone, (mg/1) Max. Cone, (mg/1)
Cd <0.1 3.83
Cr <0.1 116
Cu <0.1 108
Pb <0.1 29.2
Ni <0.1 27.5
Zn <0.1 337.
Fe <0.1 263
Mil <0.1 5.98
TSS 4.6 4,390
-------
Table VII-16
MAXIMUM POLLUTANT LEVEL IN UNTREATED WASTEWATER
ADDITIONAL POLLUTANTS
(mg/I)
Pollutant As & Se Be Ag_
As 4.2
Be -- 10.24
Cd <0.1 -- <0.1 <0.1
Cr 0.18 8.60 0.23 22.8
Cu 33.2 1.2'4 110.5 2.2
Pb 6.5 0.35 11.4 5.35
Ni -- -- 100 0.69
Ag — 4.7
Zn 3.62 0.12 1,512 <0.1
F -- -- — 760
Fe '' -- 646
O&G . 16.9 -- 16 2.8
TSS 352 796 587.8 5.6
-------
Table VII-17
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
PLANT A
03
o
Mean
+
Mean + 2
Parameters
No. Points
Range
ma/1
Std
. Dev.
Std. Dev.
For
1979-Treated
Wastewater
Cr
47
0,015 -
- 0.13
0.045
+
0.029
0.10
Cu
12
0.01 ¦
- 0.03
0.019
+
0.006
0.03
Ni
47
0.08 ¦
- 0.64
0.22
+
0.13
0.48
Zn
47
0.08 •
- 0.53
0.17
+
0.09
0.35
Fe
For
1978-Treated
Wastewater
Cr
47
0.01 -
- 0.07
0.06
+
0.10
0.26
Cu
28
0.005 -
• 0.055
0.016
+
0.010
0.04
Nt
47
0.10 -
- 0.92
0.20
+
0.14
0.48
Zn
47
0.08 -
- 2.35
0.23
+
0.34
0.91
Fe
21
0.26 •
¦ 1.1
0.49
+
0.18
0.85
Raw
Waste
Cr
5
32.0
- 72.0
Cu
5
0.08 •
- 0.45
Ni
5
1.65 -
- 20.0
Zn
5
33.2
- 32.0
Fe
5
10.0
- 95.0
-------
Table VII-18
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
PLANT B
Mean + Mean + 2
Parameters No. Points Range rog/1 Std. Dev. Std. Dev.
For 1979-Treated Wastewater
Cr
175
0.0 •
- 0.40
0.068
+
0.075
0.22
Cu
176
0.0 •
- 0.22
0.024
+
0.021
0.07
Ni
175
0.01 -
-1.49
0.219
0.234
0.69
Zn
175
0.01 -
- 0.66
0.054
+
0.064
0.18
Fe
174
0.01 •
- 2.40
0.303
+
0. 398
1.10
TSS
2
1.00 -
-1.00
For 1978-Treated Wastewater
Cr
144
0
0
- 0.70
0.059
+
0.088
0.24
Cu
143
0
0
- 0.23
0.017
+
0.020
0.06
Ni
143
0
0
-1.03
0.147
+
0.142
0.43
Zn
131
0
0
- 0.24
0.037
+
0.034
0. 11
Fe
144
0
0
- 1.76
0.200
+
0.223
0.47
Total 1974-1979-Treated Wastewater
Cr
1,288
0
0
- 0.56
0.038
+
0.055
0.1 5
Cu
1, 290
0
0
- 0.23
0.011
0.016
0.04
Ni
1,287
0
0
- 1.88
0.184
+
0.211
0.60
Zn
1,273
0
0
- 0.66
0.035
+
0.045
0.13
Fe
1,287
0
0
- 3.15
0.402
0.509
1.42
Raw Waste
Cr
3
2.80 -
9.15
5.90
Cu
3
0.09 -
0.27
0.17
Ni
3
1.61 -
4.89
3.33
Zn
2
2.35 -
3.39
Fe
3
3.13 -
• 35.9
22.4
TSS
2
177
- 446
-------
Table VII-19
PRECIPITATION-SETTLING-FILTRATION (LS&F) PERFORMANCE
PLANT C
Parameters
No. Points
Range rog/1
Mean +
Std. Dev.
Mean + 2
Std. Dev.
For Treated Wastewater
CO
o
cr>
Cd
103
0.010 -
- 0.500
0.049
+
0.049
0.147
Zn
103
0.039 -
- 0.899
0.290
+
0.131
0.552
TSS
103
0.100 -
- 5.00
1.244
1.043
3.33
pH
103
7.1
• 7.9
9.2*
For UnTreated
Wastewater
Cd
103
0.039 -
¦ 2.319
0.542
+
0.381
1.304
Zn
103
0.949 -
- 29.8
11.009
+
6.933
24.956
Fe
3
0.107 -
- 0.46
0.255
TSS
103
0.80 -
- 19.6
5.616
4-
2.896
11.408
pH
103
6.8
- 8.2
7.6*
-------
TABLE VII - 20
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS (ng/1)
L & S
LS&F
Sulfide
Pollutant
Technology
Technology
Precipitation
Parameter
System
System
Filtration
One
Ten
Thirty
(Me
Ten
Thirty
One
Ten
Thirty
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Day
Mean
Max.
Avg.
Avg.
Mean
Max.
Avg.
Avg.
Mean
Max.
Avg.
Avg.
114
Sb
0.70
2.87
1.28
1.14
0.47
1.93
0.86
0.76
115
As
0.51
2.09
0.93
0.83
0.34
1.39
0.62
0.55
117
Be
0.30
1.23
0.55
0.49
0.20
0.82
0.36
0.32
118
Cd
0.079
0.34
0.15
0.13
0.049
0.20
0.08
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.018
0.016
119
Cr
0.084
0.44
0.18
0.12
0.07
0.37
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.21
0.091
0.081
120
Cu
0.58
1.90
1.00
0.73
0.39
1.28
0.61
0.49
0.05
0.21
0.091
0.081
121
CN
0.07
0.29
0.12
0.11
0.047
0.20
0.08
0.08
122
Pb
0.12
0.42
0.20
0.16
0.08
0.28
0.13
0.11
0.01
0.04
0.018
0.016
123
Hg
0.06
0.25
0.10
0.10
0.036
0.15
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.13
0.0555
0.049
124
Ni
0.74
1.92
1.27
1.00
0.22
0.55
0.37
0.29
0.05
0.21
0.091
0.081
125
Se
0.30
1.23
0.55
0.49
0.20
0.82
0.37
0.33
126
ag
0.10
0.41
0.17
0.16
0.07
0.29
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.21
0.091
0.081
127
T1
0.50
2.05
0.91
0.81
0.34
1.40
0.62
0.55
128
Zn
0.33
1.46
0.61
0.45
0.23
1.02
0.42
0.31
0.01
0.04
0.018
0.016
Al
2.24
6.43
3.20
2.52
1.49
6.11
2.71
2.41
Co
0.05
0.21
0.09
0.08
0.034
0.14
0.07
0.06
F
14.5
59.5
26.4
23.5
59.5
26.4
23.5
Fe
0.41
1.20
0.61
0.50
0.28
1.20
0.61
0.50
Mn
0.16
0.68
0.29
0.21
0.14
0.30
0.23
0.19
P
4.08
16.7
6.83
6.60
2.72
11.2
4.6
4.4
O&G
20.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
TSS
12.0
41.0
19.5
15.5
2.6
15.0
12.0
10.0
-------
Table VII-21
CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING EFFICIENCIES
Concentration (mg/1)
Parameter Influent Effluent Reference
O&G 6,060 98 Sampling data*
TSS 2,612 46
O&G 13,000 277 Sampling data+
18,400
21,300 189
TSS 540 121
680 59
1,060 140
O&G 2,300 52 Sampling data**
12,500 27
13,800 18
TSS 1,650 187
2,200 153
3,470 63
O&G 7,200 80 Katnick and Pavilcius, 1978++
*Oil and grease and total suspended solids were taken as grab
samples before and after batch emulsion breaking treatment which
used alum and polymer on emulsified rolling oil wastewater,
+0i1 and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (grab) samples
were taken on three consecutive days from emulsified rolling
oil wastewater. A commercial demulsifier was used in this batch
treatment.
**0il and grease (grab) and total suspended solids (composite)
samples were taken on three consecutive days from emulsified
rolling oil wastewater. A commercial demulsifier (polymer)
was used in this batch treatment.
++This result is from a ful1-scale batch chemical treatment system
for emulsified oils from a steel rolling mill.
-------
Table VII-22
TREATABILITY RATING OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS UTILIZING
CARBON ADSORPTION
Priority i^llutant *Renoval Rating Priority Itallutant *Renpval Ratiro
1. acenaphthene
R
49.
trichlorofl hoc methane
M
2. acrolein
L
50.
d i chlorod i f 1 uoroiE thane
L
3. acrylonitrile
L
51.
chlorodibrcncre thane
M
4. benzene
M
52.
hexachlorobutad iene
H
5. benzidine
H
53.
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
H
6. carbon tetrachloride
M
54.
iscphorone
H
(tetrachloronethane)
55.
naphthalene
H
7. chlorobenzene
H
56.
nitrobenzene
H
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
H
57.
2-nitrophenol
H
9. hexachlorobenzene
R
58.
4-nitrophenol
R
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
M
59.
2,4-dinitrophenol
R
11. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
M
60.
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
R
12. hexachloroethane
H
61.
N-nitrosodimethy1 amine
M
13. 1,1-dichloroethane
M
62.
N-n i trosod ipheny1 amine
R
14. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
M
63.
N-n i trosod i-n-propy 1 mine
M
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
H
64.
pen tachlorophenol
H
16. chloroethane
L
65.
phenol
M
17. bis(chloromethyl)ether
-
66.
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
R
18. bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
M
67.
butyl benzyl phthalate
R
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
L
68.
di-r>-butyl phthalate
H
(mixed)
69.
di-n-octyl phthalate
H
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
R
70.
diethyl phthalate
R
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
H
71.
dimethyl phthalate
H
22. parachlorcneta cresol
R
72.
1,2-benzanthracene (benzo
R
23. chloroform (trichloromethane)
L
(a)anthracene)
24. 2-chlorophenol
R
73.
benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-benzo-
H
25. 1,2-d ichlorobenzene
H
pyrene)
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
. H
74.
3,4-benzofluoranthene
R
27. 1,4-d i chlorobenzene
B
(benzo(b)fluoranthene)
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
R
75.
11,12-benzofluoranthene
H
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
L
(benzo(k)fluoranthene)
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
L
76.
chrysene
R
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
R
77.
acenaphthylene
H
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
M
78.
anthracene
H
33. 1,2-dichloiuptotjylene
M
79.
1,12-benzoperylene (benzo
H
(1,3 ,-dichloiopiov*int)
(ghi)-perylene)
34. 2,4-d imethylphenol
R
80.
fluorene
H
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
R
81.
phenanthrene
R
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
R
82.
1,2,5,6-dibenzathracene
H
37. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
R
(dibenzo (a,h) anthracene)
38. ethylbenzene
M
83.
indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
H
39. fluoranthene
R
(2,3-o-phenylene pyrene)
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
R
84.
pyrene
-
41. 4-branopbenyl phenyl ether
R
85.
tetrachloroethylene
M
42. bis(2-chloroisaprapyl)ether
M
86.
toluene
M
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
M
87.
trichloroethylene
L
44. methylene chloride
L
88.
vinyl chloride
L
(d i chl orane thane)
(chloroethylene)
45. methyl chloride (chloronethane)
L
106.
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
R
46. methyl brcinide (branamethane)
L
107.
PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
H
47. brcnoform (tribraianethane)
R
108.
PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
R
48. dichlorobrarcnethane
M
109.
PCB-1332 (Arochlor 1232)
H
110.
PC&-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
H
111.
PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
H
112.
PC&-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
H
* M3TE: Explanation of Removal RAtings
Category H (high removal)
adsorbs at levels 100 mg/g carbon at C, - 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels >_ 100 mg/g carton at c| < 1.0 rag/1
Category W (moderate reucval)
adsorbs at levels 2. 100 "«g/g carbon at C, - 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels £ 100 mg/g carbon at < 1.0 mj/1
Category L (low removal)
adsorbs at levels <100 mg/g carbon at Cf « 10 mg/1
adsorbs at levels < 10 mg/g carbon at Cf < 1.0 mj/1
C, » final concentrations of priority pollutant at equilibrium
-------
Table: VII-23
CLASSES OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ADSORBED ON CARBON
Organic Chemical Class
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Folynuclear Aromatics
Chlorinated Aromatics
Phenolics
Chlorinated Phenolics
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic and
Branch Chain Hydrocarbons
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Acids
and Aromatic Acids
High Molecular Weight Aliphatic Amines
and Aromatic Amines
High Molecular Weight Ketones, Esters,
Ether3 and Alcohols
Surfactants
Soluble Organic Dyes
Examples of Chemical Class
benzene, toluene, xylene
naphthalene, anthracene
bephenyls
chlorobenzene, polychlorinated
biphenyls, aldrin, endrin,
toxaphene, DDT
phenol, cresol, resorcenol
and polyphenyls
trichlorophenol, pentachlorc—
phenol
gasoline, kerosine
carbon tetrachloride,
perchloroethylene
tar acids, benzoic acid
aniline, toluene d iamine
hydroquinone, polyethylene
glycol
alkyl benzene sulfonates
melkylene blue, Indigo carmine
High Molecular Weight includes compounds in the broad range of from 4 to 20
carbon atoms.
-------
Table VII-24
ION EXCHANGE PERFORMANCE
(All
Values mg/1)
Plant
A
Plant
B
Parameter
Prior to
Purifica-
tion
After
Purifica-
tion
Prior to
Purifica-
tion
After
Purifica
tion
A1
5.6
0.20
--
Cd
5.7
0.00
--
Cr+3
3.1
0.01
--
Cr+6
7.1
0.01
--
Cu
4.5
0.09
43. 0
0. 1 0
CN
9.8
0.04
3.40
0.09
Au
--
2.30
0. 1 0
Fe
7.4
0.01
--
Pb
--
1 . 70
0.01
Mn
4.4
0.00
—
Ni
6.2
0.00
1 .60
0.01
Ag
1.5
0.00
9.1 0
0.01
S04
--
210.00
2.00
Sn
1 .7
0.00
1.10
0. 1 0
Zn
1 4.8
0.40
_ _
_ _
-------
Table VII-25
PEAT ADSORPTION PERFORMANCE
Pollutant Influent (rog/1) Effluent (mg/1)
Cr+6 35,000 0.04
Cu 250 0.24
CN 36.0 0.7
Pb 20.0 0.025
Hg 1.0 0.02
Ni 2.5 0.07
Ag 1.0 0.05
Sb 2.5 0.9
Zn 1.5 0.25
812
-------
Table VII-26
MEMBRANE FILTRATION SYSTEM EFFLUENT
Predicted
Specific
Metal
Manufacturer 1s
Guarantee
Plant
In
1 9066
Out
Plant
In
31022
Out
Perfor
mance
A1
0.5
--
—
--
Cr,(+6)
0.02
0.46
0.01
5.25
<0.005
Cr (T)
0.03
4.13
0.018
98.4
0.057
0.05
Cu
0.1
18.8
0.043
8.00
0.222
0.20
Fe
0. 1
288
0.3
21.1
0.263
0.30
Pb
0.05
0.652
0.01
0.288
0.01
0.05
CN
0.02
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.02
Ni
0.1
9.56
0.01 7
1 94
0.352
0.40
Zn
0.1
2.09
0.046
5.00
0.051
0.1 0
TSS
_ _
632
0.1
13.0
8.0
-------
Table VII-27
ULTRAFILTRATION PERFORMANCE
Parameter Feed (mg/1) Permeate (mg/1)
Oil (freon 95 22*
extractable) 1,540 52*
1,230 4
COD 8,920 148
TSS 791 19*
1,262 26*
5,676 1 3*
1,380 13
Total Solids 2,900 296
*From samples at aluminum forming Plant B.
-------
10
10
10
10
Zn(OH)
10*'
Cos
10
ZnS
Cds
10
10
10*' 1
10-' »
7
3
4
S
12
2
10
11
13
I»H
FIGURE VIM. COMPARATIVE SOLUBILITIES OF METAL HYDROXIDES
AND SULFIDE AS A FUNCTION OF pH
-------
0.40
0.30
CAUSTIC SODA
O 0.20
SO OA ASH AND
CAUSTIC SODA
0.10
LIME
0L_
8.0
9.0
8.S
10.0
10,5
FIGURE VI1-2. LEAD SOLUBILITY IN THREE ALKALIES
-------
J
o
X
z
0
h
< S
PC
h
Z
W
y
z
0
o
o
z
N 2
h
Z
U
3
J
k
k
U
o o
I
oq 6l£> 2fi_
8
8°
Qq.
10
MINIMUM EFFLUENT pH
-------
1.0
oo
t-~*
CO
n>
B
c
o
B
a
cj
B
O
0
s
01
3
o.t
E-
3
I
TJ
19
O
0.01
-4-
(•
0,001 tea
JS
jUiH
0.01
Data points with a raw waste concentration
less than 0.1 mg/i were not included in
treatment effectiveness calculations.
0.1 1.0
Cadmium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/I)
10 100
(Number of observations = 2)
FIGURE VII-4
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
-------
10
00
VO
o
o
Sfc
LU
•a
E
o
-C
u
1.0
0.1
0.01
)
(
)
a
%
{•)..
0
)
0
(
D
- - V
i
c
)
(i
®
®
r,
_
a
7-
Ci\ at
0.1
1.0 10
Chromium Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100 1000
(Number of observations = 25)
FIGURE VII-5
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
-------
10
©
- 1.0
oo
ro
o
a>
a.
a.
o
o
e
O)
u
e
o
o
O)
()
"5
O
0.1
1.0
10
Copper Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100 1000
(Number of observations = 18)
FIGURE VII-6
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
-------
1.0
- 0.1
CO
rs)
+3
CO
O
CJ
a>
3
0.01
0.001
(
C
>
©
r.
(W3
im i
an
0.01
0.1
1.0
Lead Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
10 100
(Number of observations = 22)
FIGURE VII-7
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
-------
10
x
CO
ro
ro
E ~
o &
S
3 2
§ =
. , 0)
U CJ
** s
c o
0) M
1 s
s %
E £
H-
c
E'~
-------
10
O)
E
o
re
o
CJ
¦*-*
e
m
3
CO
f\3
CO
o
s
fsi
1.0
0.1
fri
%
•>
yy
H
1
(iJ
©
(s
©
©
I
E3
i
f
9
\
}
C
!
f?S
V
)
•J
©
©
9
®
ft
Si
0.1
1.0
10
100
1000
Zinc Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
FIGURE VII-9
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
ZINC
-------
10
00
rv>
-£>
o>
E
c
o
u
c
o
o
(•>
t.
\
s>®
!)
(
(
^ (
-¦
--
®
(•>
-
&
®
)
—@
0.1
1.0
10
Iron Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
100 1000
(Number of observations = 28)
FIGURE VII-10
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
-------
10
CO
ro
cn
0)
J
c
o
'~3
E
£
0)
a
e
o
o
4-t
e
o>
3
-a
a>
0.1
I 0.01
B.
e
0.001
,
'
3
/
-------
1000
3 100
00
ro
(j)
a
ca
o
CJ
a>
J3
3=
Ui
•a
a>
«
03
CO
CO
10
(J
>
®
<
)
£5)
©
®
®
/2\
(
!>
<
(
)
)
®
©
—<
W
)-
® ®
!)
—«
®
®
®
®
©
/T\
©
>V
ci
)
)
V
—
©
a
ft
I
1.0
10
100
TSS Raw Waste Concentration (mg/l)
1000 10,000
(Number of observations = 45)
FIGURE VII-12
HYDROXIDE PRECIPITATION SEDIMENTATION EFFECTIVENESS
-------
00
ro
SULFURIC SULFUR
ACID DIOXIDE
LIME OR CAUSTIC
i i
pH CONTROLLER
ORP CONTROLLER
pH CONTROLLER
RAW WASTE
(HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM)
TO CLARIFIER
(CHROMIUM
HYDROXIDE)
(TRIVALENT CHROMIUM)
PRECIPITATION TANK
REACTION TANK
CO
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
STORED
BACKWASH
WATER
THREE WAY VALVE
-•—FILTER
BACKWASH*-
U S
^ *
-> O
\L <
FILTER
COMPARTMENT
SA N P ,.J» .
COLLECTION CHAMBER
SUMP
DRAIN
FIGURE Vtl-14. GRANULAR BED FILTRATION
-------
PERFORATED
BACKING PLATE
rABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
INLET
SLUDGE
FABRIC
FILTER MEDIUM
L.v;VV-
Hi
SOLID
RECTANGULAR
^ -;V
MS
"T-Jk !;!;?•?
W*fS
i'iVi*i'i'»i'M'i*l'i'i'i'i It
ENTRAPPED SOLIDS
PLATES AND FRAMES ARE
PRESSED TOGETHER DURING
FILTRATION CYCLE
RECTANGULAR
METAL PLATE
FILTERED LIQUID OUTLET
RECTANGULAR FRAME
FIGURE VI1-15. PRESSURE FILTRATION
-------
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
INLET ZONE
INLET LIQUID
BAFFLES TO MAINTAIN
QUIESCENT CONDITIONS
OUTLET ZONE
SETTLING PARTI^Lf
• TRAJECTORY . «
* • la
* • * 1 • ,
. . ¦ • . ,
OUTLET LIQUID
BELT-TYPE SOLIDS COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SETTLED PARTICLES COLLECTED
AND PERIODICALLY REMOVED
CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
CIRCULAR BAFFLE
INLET LIQUID
ANNULAR OVERFLOW WEIR
OUTLET LIQUID
INLET ZONE
V
LIQUID
FLOW •
SETTLING ZONE
SETTLING PARTICLES
,vi.
SETTLED PARTICLES
COLLECTED AND PERIODICALLY
REMOVED
REVOLVING COLLECTION
MECHANISM
SLUDGE DRAWOFF
FIGURE VIl-16. REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF SEDIMENTATION
-------
«AITI WATER
MCKWAiH
INFLUENT —
DISTRIBUTOR
REPLACEMENT CARBON
WASH WATER.
SURFACE WASH
MANIFOLD
CARSON SCO
CARSON REMOVAL FORT
TREATED WATER
BACKWASH
SUPPORT PLATE
FIGURE Vll-17. ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION COLUMN
-------
CONVEYOR DRIVE
LIQUID
OUTLET
DRYING
ZONE
LIQUID ZONE
M VJ VJ VI VJ VI
CYCLOGEAR
REGULATING
RING
IMPELLER
FIGURE VII-18. CENTRIFUGATION
-------
RAW WASTE
CAUSTIC
SODA
PH
CONTROLLER
ORPCONTROLLERS
CAUSTIC
SODA
pM
CONTROLLER
WATER
CONTAINING
CYANATE
TREATED
WASTE
CIRCULATING
PUMP T
CHLORINE
REACTION TANK
REACTION TANK
CHLORINATOR
-------
OZONE
GENERATOR
DRY AIR
e> D
A
a
OZONE
REACTION
TANK
—©
—
TREATED
WASTE
RAW
FIGURE VII-20. TYPICAL OZONE PLANT FOR WASTE TREATMENT
-------
MIXER
EXHAUST
CAS
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
FIRST
STAGE
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
SECOND
STAGE
PH MONITORING
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
THIRD
STAGE
WASTEWATER
rEEDTANK
PH MONITORING
OZONE
GENERATOR
OZONE
TREATED WATER
FIGURE VII-21. UV/OZONATION
-------
03
oo
o>
WATER VAPOR
EXHAUST
FAN
CONDENSER
EVAPORATOR
VAPOR-LIQUID
MIXTURE
PACKED TOWER
EVAPORATOR
AIR
' »|\
WASTEWATER
m.
b
.MEAT
' EXCHANGER
-•—STEAM
STEAM
'condensate
•CONCENTRATE
STEAM-
STEAM
CONDENSATE
222Z
PUMP
ATMOSPHERIC EVAPORATOR
WASTEWATER '
UHE /K
\ {e
SEPARATOR
WATER VAPOR
LIQUID
RETURN
T
:ool
»ATE
2
COOLINQ
WATER
__ I' "I
|—lJ r
VACUUM PUMP
.CONDENSATE
-CONCENTRATE
CLIMBING FILM EVAPORATOR
CONDENSATE
CONDENSATE
VACUUM PUMP
VACUUM LINE
COOLING
HOT VAPOR
COOLING
WATER
STEAM
CONDENSATE
CONDEN-
STEAM
WASTE
WATER
7777.//.,
rrrrjt
WASTEWATER
CONCENTRATE
EXHAUST
ACCUMULATOR
STEAM
CONDENSATE
SUBMERGED TUBE EVAPORATOR
CONDENSATE
FOR REUSE
CONCENTRATE FOR REUSE
DOUBLE-EFFECT EVAPORATOR
-------
WATER
OILY WATER DISCHARGE
INFLUENT
OVERFLOW
SHUTOFF
VALVE
MOTOR
DRIVEN
RAKE
AIR IN
BACK PRESS
VALVE
FINES & OIL
OUT
EJECTOR
EXCESS
AIR OUT
LEVEL
CONTROLLER
RECYCLE
WATER
HOLDING
TANK
TO SLUDGE
TANK
FIGURE VII-23.
DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION
-------
CONDUIT
TO MOTOR
INFLUENT
CONOUIT TO
OVERLOAD
ALARM
RAKE ARM
COUNTERBLOW
INFLUENT WELL
DRIVE UNIT
OVERLOAD ALARM
EFFLUENT WEIR
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
EFFLUENT PIPE
EFFLUENT CHANNEL
PLAN
HANDRAIL
TURNTABLE
BASE
INFLUENT
DRIVE
WATER LEVEL
CENTER COLUMN
CENTER CAGE
FEED WELL
STILTS
CENTER SCRAPER
WEIR
SQUEEGEE
SLUDGE PIPE
FIGURE VII-24. GRAVITY THICKENING
-------
WASTE WATER CONTAINING
DISSOLVED METALS OR
OTHER IONS
DIVERTER VALVE
REGENERANT
SOLUTION
DISTRIBUTOR
SUPPORT
Wegener ant to reuse,
TREATMENT, OR DISPOSAL
-DIVERTER VALVE
METAL-FREE WATER
FOR REUSE OR DISCHARGE
FIGURE VII-25. ION EXCHANGE WITH REGENERATION
-------
# MACROMOLECULES
• AND SOLIDS
*• J*
SALTS JM • _ ®
• ^ • •
• • • •
• •
• MOST
MEMBRANE
AP ¦¦ 4S0 PSI
z t
WATER
MEMBRANE CROSS SECTION.
IN TUBULAR, HOLLOW FIBER.
OR SPIRAL-WOUND CONFIGURATION
PERMEATE (WATER)
O «
CONCENTRATE
(SALTS)
FEED
SALTS OR SOLIDS
• WATER MOLECULES
FIGURE VII-26. SIMPLIFIED REVERSE OSMOSIS SCHEMATIC
-------
CONCENTRATE
flow
reco
ri-ow
SPIRAL MEMBRANE MODULE
PRODUCT WATER
POROUS SUPPORT TUBE PERMEATE FLOW
.* BRACKISH I
* WATER '
FEED FLOW
PRODUCT WATER
TUBULAR REVERSE OSMOSIS MODULE
• EPOXY
TUBE SHEET
OPEN ENDS
OF FIBERS
SNAP
RING
POROUS
BACK-UP DISC
CONCENTRATE
OUTLET
FIBER
FLOW SCREEN
"O" RINS
SEAL—»
SNAP
RING
FEED
PERMEATE
"O" RING
SEAL —
SHELL
END PLATE
POROUS FEED
DISTRIBUTOR TUBE
IBER
HOLLOW FIBER MODULE
FIGURE Vll-27. REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS
-------
A
i
1?
5=3=
M
F
!! U I
!
li
II
^1^* '¦! «
•"^r'
S-IN. VITRIFIED PIPE LAID
WITH PLASTIC JOINTS
11
II
ra
u
0
JL
"in cv*
LAID
II
II
II
II
II
I!
r—SPLASH BOX
If
n
ii
J!
Ill
:i!
>?!
z i-|I
JSII
=
Co)
._-=-^p£r-_
Cc
— --fH-
ii
II
I
Ii
. wJ «!»
"ir
m
S-IN. FLANGED
SHEAR GATE
U
iL
3ijEr~
ii.
3il
A
J
PLAN
C-IN. FINE SAND
S-IN, COARSE SAND
S-IN. FINE GRAVEL
J-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
3 TO « IN. COARSE GRAVEL
#-IN. CI PIPE
I
2-IN. COARSE SAND
-2-IN. PLANK
WALK
PIPE COLUMN TOR
GLASS-OVER
J-IN. MEDIUM GRAVEL
•-IN. UNDERDRAIN LAID-
WITH OPEN JOINTS
SECTION A-A
FIGURE VII-28. SLUDGE DRYING BED
-------
ULTRAFILTRATION
macromoleculcs
V m 10-50 FSI
MEMBRANE
WATER
*
SALTS
PERMEATE
• • i
• • • •
MEMBRANE
• •
V O* *° V v. «o * ° *• °« !o •.
« ••••- O CONCENTRATE
• _ o
• o o • On
• •« •
FEED Q o
• • • * * O • . o "o*
. O • o . O • u -
• . * • •
1" • ' t'
• •
O OIL PARTICLES
• DISSOLVED SALTS AND LOW-MOLECULAR-WEIGHT ORCANICS
FIGURE VII-29. SIMPLIFIED ULTRAFILTRATION FLOW SCHEMATIC
-------
FABRIC OR WIRE
FILTER MEDIA
STRETCHED OVER
REVOLVING DRUM
DIRECTION OF ROTATION
SOLIDS SCRAPED
OFF FILTER MEDIA
VACUUM
SOURCE
CYLINDRICAL
THROUGH
MEDIA
MEANS
SOLIDS COLLECTION
HOPPER
INLET LIQUID
TO BE
FILTERED
-TROUGH
FILTERED LIQUID
FIGURE VI1-30. VACUUM FILTRATION
-------
ALUM
POLYMER
TO GRAVITY
SEPERATION
EMULSIFIED
OIL
HOLDING
OR
TANK
RAPID MIX
TANK
TO AIR FLOTATION
Figure VII-31
-------
OVERFLOW
TROUGH
EFFLUENT
GRIT TO
RETAIN
SANO
NFLUENT
STRAINER
FlflE'
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
6-10 ft
DEPTH
4-6 f I
DEPTH
30-40 in
[NFLUENT
UNDERDRAW
CHAMBER -
t EFFLUENT
UNDERORAIN
CHAMBER -
FINE
cz:.
v eoARsr
SAND
NFLUENT
COARSE MEDIA-
INTERMIX ZONE
FINER MEDIA -
FINEST MEDIA
ANTHRACITE
*¦- ¦'•"•'coaL-V.'*-
.:vVsiLjCA-..\:
INFLUENT
(e)
-r 30-40 in
COARSE MEDIA
INTERMIX ZONE-
FINER MEDIA -
FINEST MEDIA-
I
ANTHRACITE
'•."-"•COAL-V
; 5 ¦ r
.isiLiCA-..*.-:
^iv^ANO,^:-;
EFFLUENT
UNOERDRAIN
CHAMBER -
UNDERDRAW
CHAMBER—1
*• .. »•»'
V
»I
28- 48 in
SARNET SAND
EFFLUENT
Figure VII-32
FILTER CONFIGURATIONS
(a) Single-Media Conventional Filter.
(b) Single-Media Upflow Filter.
(c) Single-Media Biflow Filter.
(d) Dual-Media Filter.
(e) Mixed-Media (Triple-
Media) Filter.
-------
SEPARATOR CHANNEL
-DIFFUSION DEVICE
(VERTICAL-SLOT BAFFLE)
r GATEWAY PIER
FLIGHT SCRAPER
CHAIN SPROCKET
OIL RETENTION
BAFFLE
ROTATA8LE OIL-
SKIMMING PIPE-
/-EFFLUENT
WEIR AND
WALL
FLIGHT SCRAPER
CHAIN
WATER
LEVEL
WOOD FLIGHTS
/-EFFLUENT
SEWER
FLOW
SLOT FOR
CHANNEL GATE
EFFLUENT FLUME
FOREBAY
SLUDGE - COLLECTING HOPPER
DISCHARGE WITH LEAD PIPE.
SLUDGE COLLECTING
HOPPER
SLUDGE PUMP •
SUCTION PIPE
Figure VII-33
-------
CONCENTRATE
CIRCULATION LOOP
SPENT FREE
AND
EMULSIFIED
OIL
FREE OIL
HOLDING
PROCESS
PERMEATE
TANK
SEPARATION
TANK
00
-fs.
C»
MEMBRANE
MODULES
CONCENTRATE (WITHDRAWN
AFTER EACH BATCH)
Figure VII-34
-------
ADSORPTION
COLUMN
FiLTER
INFLUENT
WASTEWATER
TERTIARY
TREATED
EFFLUENT
REGENERATED CARBON SLURRY
FINES
REMOVAL
SCREEN
DEWATERING
SCREEN
REGENERATION
FURNACE
CARBON
STORAGE
REGENERATED
CARBON
SLURRY TANKS
FINES TO
WASTE
Figure VII-35
-------
EVAPORATION
CONTACT COOLING
WATER
COOLING
TOWER
BLOWDOWN
DISCHARGE
D.C.
CASTING
MAKE-UP WATER
RECYCLED FLOW
Figure VII-36
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR RECYCLING WITH A COOLING TOWER
-------
OUTGOING WATER
SINGLE RINSE
WORK MOVEMENT
INCOMING WATER
a
DOUBLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
WORK
MOVEMENT
INCOMING WATER
OUTGOING WATER
b
TRIPLE COUNTERFLOW
RINSE
WORK MOVEMENT
—i
INCOMING
WATER
OUTGOING WATER
c
Figure VII-37
COUNTER CURRENT RINSING (TANKS)
-------
1000
750
U
CI
500
fS
3
*A
SS
©
ts
250
Rinse Stages
Figure VII-38
EFFECT OF ADDED RINSE STAGES ON WATER USE
-------
INERT
SPARGING GAS
IN IN
GAS
DROSS —
MOLTEN ALUMINUM
METAL (TO CASTING)
SPINNING NOZZLES
Figure VII-39
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
COST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND CONTROL
This section presents estimates of the costs of implementing the
major wastewater treatment and control technologies described in
Section VII. These cost estimates, together with the estimated
pollutant reduction performance for each treatment and control
option presented in Sections IX, X, XI, and XII, provide a basis
for evaluating the options presented and identification of the
best practicable technology currently available (BPT), best
available technology economically achievable (BAT), best demon-
strated technology (BDT), and the appropriate technology for pre-
treatment. The cost estimates also provide the basis for deter-
mining the probable economic impact on the aluminum forming cate-
gory of regulation at different pollutant discharge levels. In
addition, this section addresses nonwater quality environmental
impacts of wastewater treatment and control alternatives, includ-
ing air pollution, solid wastes, and energy requirements.
GENERAL APPROACH
Capital and annual costs associated with compliance with the
aluminum forming regulation have been calculated on a plant-by-
plant basis for 124 plants and extrapolated for the remainder
(seven plants) in the aluminum forming category that discharge
wastewater. These costs have been used as the basis for economic
impact analysis of the category. Prior to proposal, costs were
generated for 104 aluminum forming plants using the pre-proposal
cost estimation methodology described below. After proposal, 26
additional plants were costed and added to the total; six plants
were removed because of closure or because the plants no longer
discharge wastewater; and 12 plants were recosted because of a
methodological error that substantially overstated the cost to
small plants. A total of 124 plants were costed for the final
rulemaking. Costs estimated before proposal were made by the
pre-proposal contractor (Contractor A) and the post-proposal
costs estimated by the post-proposal contractor (Contractor B).
Cost methodologies of the two contractors were compared by
costing the identical plants and found to compare favorably.
Prior to estimating any new costs after proposal, a comparison of
costs generated by the pre-proposal and post-proposal methodolo-
gies was performed. A study previously done in 1982, in which
wastewater treatment system costs were estimated for 10 porcelain
enameling plants was used to compare the pre-proposal and post-
proposal cost methodologies. The results of this study showed
that the costs generated by the two methodologies agreed well.
The sum of the total capital costs estimated for the 10 plants by
the post-proposal methodology was 5.5 percent higher than those
-------
obtained from the pre-proposal methodology. The average of the
absolute percent deviations between the costs for each plant was
10.1 percent. The corresponding figures for the annual costs
were -19.1 percent and -17.1 percent, respectively (the annual
costs based on the pre-proposal methodology are higher). These
results indicate that costs generated by the two cost methodolo-
gies are comparable, considering the accuracy of cost estimation.
The principal cost factor differences between the pre-proposal
and post-proposal costs are tabulated in Table VIII-1.
Also, in 1980 a 10-plant cost study (using the same porcelain
enameling plants) was performed simultaneously by three separate
contractors and compared with actual industry costs for five of
the plants. The cost methodologies of all three contractors were
within +20 percent of the mean for each plant and the mean cost
was within +20 percent of the estimated industry costs on the
five plants. The pre-proposal contractor was one of the three
contractors that participated in the study. As discussed above,
the post-proposal contractor also estimated the same 10 plants
and had capital costs about 5 percent above the pre-proposal
contractor costs. Additionally, one of the three contractors
compared the estimated compliance costs for 80 steel plants with
actual costs incurred by the companies and found the model costs
to overestimate actual costs by about 10 percent. The costs
actually incurred included site-specific costs such as line
segregation, area rehabilitation, and retrofit of equipment. All
of these costs were adequately compensated by the cost estimating
factors included in the methodology.
As a result of this comparison, the Agency concluded that it was
reasonable to perform post-proposal costing efforts using the new
cost methodology and to combine these new costs with those gener-
ated prior to proposal.
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY: PRE-PROPOSAL
Sources of Cost Data
Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were collected from four sources: (1) literature, (2) data col-
lection portfolios, (3) equipment manufacturers, and (4) in-house
design projects. The majority of the cost information was
obtained from literature sources. * Many of the literature sources
cited obtained their costs from surveys of actual design proj-
ects. For example, Black & Veatch prepared a cost manual that
used design and construction cost data from 76 separate projects
as a basis for establishing average construction costs. Data
collection portfolios completed by companies in the aluminum
forming category contained a limited amount of chemical and unit
process cost information. Most of the dcp's did not include
-------
treatment plant capital or information was annual cost
information, and reported for the entire treatment plant.
Therefore, little data from the data collection portfolios was
applicable for the determination of individual unit process
costs. Additional data was obtained from equipment manufacturers
and design projects performed by Sverdrup & Parcel and
Associates.
Determination of Costs
To determine capital and annual costs for the selected treatment
technologies, cost data from all sources were plotted on a graph
of capital or annual costs versus a design parameter (usually
flow). These data were usually spread over a range of flows.
Unit process cost data gathered from all sources include a vari-
ety of auxiliary equipment, basic construction materials, and
geographical locations. A single line was fitted to the data
points thus arriving at a final cost curve closely representing
an average of all the cost references for a unit process. Since
the cost estimates presented in this section must be applicable
to treatment needs in varying circumstances and geographic loca-
tions, this approach was felt to be the best for determining
national treatment costs. For consistency in determining costs,
accuracy in reading the final cost curves, and in order to pre-
sent all cost relationships concisely, equations were developed
to represent the final cost curves. The cost curves are
presented in Figures VIII-1 through VIII-30, capital and annual
cost equations are listed in Table VIII-2.
All cost information was standardized by backdating or updating
the costs to first quarter 1978. Two indices were used: (1) EPA
- Standard Treatment Plant index and (2) EPA - Large City
Advanced Treatment (LCAT) index. The national average, rather
than an index value for a particular city, was used for the EPA-
LCAT index. The national average was used because the regional
differential of the supporting cost data was dampened by averag-
ing the cost data.
-------
Capital.
All capital cost equations include:
(1)
Major and auxiliary equipment
(2)
Piping and pumping
(3)
Shipping
(4)
Sitework
(5)
Installation
(6)
Contractors' fees
(7)
Electrical and instrumentation
(8)
Enclosure
(9)
Yard piping
(10)
Engineering
(11 )
Contingency
Items (1) through (7) are included to the extent that they are
provided for in each source in the literature. In cases where a
certain item(s) is missing, an estimate is made in order to aver-
age the cost values. Enclosure costs are estimated separately
and are included only for those technologies' performances deemed
subject to weather conditions. Contingencies and engineering are
assumed to be 15 and 10 percent, respectively, of the installed
equipment cost. Yard piping is estimated at 10 percent of the
installed equipment cost.
The cost of land has not been considered in the cost estimates.
Based on engineering visits at 22 aluminum forming plants, it is
believed that most wastewater treatment and supporting facilities
can be constructed in existing buildings or on land currently
owned by the plants. Also, the plant wastewater flows in the
aluminum forming category are low (majority of plants less than
50,000 gpd); thus, land requirements for treatment facilities are
smal1 for most plants.
For new plants, the amount of land necessary to house the waste-
water treatment system is assumed to be insignificant relative to
other capital costs. This is particularly true since the plant
design would optimize the space available.
The non-water quality aspects associated with capital costs
include sludge handling for precipitation and skimming systems
generating large quantities of sludge. Capital investment is
required only for systems generating greater than 140,000 gallons
per year in order to dewater the sludge prior to hauling. This
is based on economic assessment of the break point for sludge
hauling and landfil1ing. The 140,000 galIon per year volume is
the volume at which contract hauling at a cost of thirty cents
per gallon (discussed later in this section) would equal the
investment costs for a vacuum filtration system. Investment
includes costs for vacuum filtration and holding tanks. See the
cost calculation example for further detail.
-------
Annual. All annual cost equations include:
Operation and maintenance labor
Operation and maintenance materials
Energy
Chemicals
Operation and maintenance labor requirements for each unit pro-
cess were recorded from all data sources in terms of manhours per
year. A labor rate of 20 dollars per manhour, including fringe
benefits and plant overhead, was used to convert the manhour
requirements into an annual cost.
Operation and maintenance material costs account for the replace-
ment, repair, and routine maintenance of all equipment associated
with each unit process. Material costs were developed solely
from data reported in the literature.
Electrical energy requirements for process equipment were tabu-
lated in terms of kilowatt-hours per year. The cost of electric-
ity used is 4.0 cents per kilowatt-hour, based on the average
value of electricity costs as reported in the aluminum forming
category data collection portfolios. Fuel oil and natural gas
costs used were also obtained from the data collection portfol-
ios. The average fuel oil cost was 26 cents per therm and the
average natural gas cost was 22 cents per therm.
Chemicals used in the treatment processes presented in this sec-
tion are sulfuric acid and caustic for pH adjustment, hydrated
lime for heavy metals precipitation, sulfur dioxide for hexaval-
ent chromium reduction, and alum and polymer for emulsion break-
ing .
Although not included in the annual cost equations, amortization,
depreciation, and sludge disposal are considered in the plant-by-
plant cost analysis. See the example which follows in this
section.
Capital costs are amortized over a 10-year period at 12 percent
interest. The corresponding capital recovery factor is 0.177.
The annual cost of depreciation was calculated on a straight line
basis over a 10-year period. The costing methodology resulted in
double-counting the value for depreciation. The annual cost
estimates were corrected by subtracting 10 percent of the capital
cost from the annual cost.
Many of the unit processes chosen as treatment technologies pro-
duce a residue or sludge that must be discarded. Sludge disposal
costs presented in this section are based on charges made by
private contractors for sludge hauling services. Costs for haul-
-------
ing vary with a number of factors including quantity of sludge to
be hauled, distance to disposal site, disposal method used by the
contractor, and variation in landfill policy from state to state.
Costs for contractor hauling of sludges are based on data col-
lected in the development of effluent guidelines for the paint
industry in which 511 plants reported contractor hauling
information.
A cost of 30 cents per gallon was used for the paint guideline
development as a sludge hauling and landfilling cost and is used
in this report. This value is conservative since many sludges
hauled in the paint industry are considered hazardous wastes and
require more expensive landfilling facilities relative to
landfill facilities required for nonhazardous wastes.
Cost Data Reliabi1ity
To check the validity of the capital cost data, the capital costs
developed for this category were compared to capital costs
reported in the data collection portfolios. As stated earlier,
the cost information reported in the data collection portfolios
was for treatment systems rather than individual unit processes
and therefore was not used to develpp costs for existing treat-
ment facilities in the aluminum forming category.
Nineteen plants reported treatment system capital cost informa-
tion. The total reported capital cost for all 19 facilities is
equal to $3,600,000. The sum of the cost estimates developed
with the costing methodology described herein for the same 19
treatment systems is equal to $4,300,000. Although variations at
individual plants were occasionally much greater, the overall
difference of capital costs was 19 percent. Detailed design
parameters (i.e., retention times, chemical dosages, etc.) for
the data collection portfolio treatment systems were seldom
reported. Therefore, the costs developed in this section are
based on one set of design parameters which may differ from the
design parameters actually used at the 19 plants which reported
cost information. This could result in large variances at indi-
vidual facilities, but the effect of the possible design differ-
ences is dampened when a large number of facilities are consid-
ered as is indicated by the 19 percent difference in costs for
the 19 treatment systems studied.
Treatment Technologies and Related Costs
Costs have been determined for the following wastewater treatment
and sludge disposal technologies to be used in the various treat-
ment alternatives:
- Skimming
-------
Chemical emulsion breaking
- Dissolved air flotation
Thermal emulsion breaking
Multimedia filtration
pH adjustment
Lime and settle (L&S)
Hexavalent chromium reduction
Cyanide oxidation
Cyanide precipitation
Activated carbon adsorption
Vacuum filtration
Contractor hauling
Countercurrent cascade rinsing
Regeneration of chemical baths
Costs have also been determined for the following items which
relate to the operation of a treatment plant:
Flow equalization
Pumping
Holding tank
Recycle
Monitoring
A discussion of the design parameters used and major and auxili-
ary equipment associated with each treatment technology and
related items is contained below.
Skimming. Skimming is included as a wastewater treatment option
to remove free oils commonly found in aluminum forming plants.
The equipment used as the basis for developing capital and annual
costs for skimming are as follows:
Gravity separation basin
Oil skimmer
Bottom sludge scraper
It is assumed that the oil to be removed has a specific gravity
of 0.85 and a temperature of 20°C. Sludge quantities, in terms
of gallons of sludge per 1,000 gallons of wastewater generated,
are tabulated in Table VIII-3, based on sampling data. The basis
for energy requirements is the use of a 1/2-HP motor for skimming
based on 100 gal/hr of oil. Figure VII1-4 presents capital and
annual costs of oil skimming.
Chemical Emulsion Breaking. Alum and polymer addition to
wastewater aids in the separation of oil from water, as discussed
in Section VII (p. 736). To determine the capital and annual
costs, 400 mg/1 of alum and 10 mg/1 of polymer are assumed to be
added to waste streams containing such emulsified oils as spent
-------
rolling emulsions. The equipment included in the capital and
annual costs are as follows:
- Chemical feed system
1. Storage units
2. Dilution tanks
3. Conveyors and chemical feed lines
4. Chemical feed pumps
- Rapid mix tank (detention time, 5 minutes)
1. Tank
2. Mixer
3. Motor drive unit
Skimming
1. Gravity separation basin
2. Surface skimmer
3. Bottom sludge scraper
Costs were derived based on a composite of various systems which
included the above equipment. Alum and polymer costs were
obtained from vendors: dry alum at $0.15 per pound and polymer
at $3,00 per pound. Energy requirements were also composited
from various literature sources to be included in the annual
costs. Capital and annual costs for chemical emulsion breaking
are presented in Figure VIII-5.
Dissolved Air Flotation. Dissolved air flotation (DAF) can be
used by itself, in conjunction with gravity separation for the
removal of free oil, or also in conjunction with coagulant and
flocculant addition to increase oil removal efficiency. The
capital and annual cost equations in Table VII1-2 provide costs
only for the dissolved air flotation unit; other systems, such as
flocculant addition, may be added in separately.
The equipment used to develop capital and annual costs (Figure
VII1-6) for the DAF system is as follows:
- Flotation unit
- Surface skimmer
- Bottom sludge scraper
- Pressurization unit
- Recycle pump
- Electrical and instrumentation
- Concrete pad, 1 ft. thick
-------
a recycle ratio of 30 percent. All costs and energy requirements
were derived as composites of various syterns presented in the
literature. Energy requirements are estimated to range from
54,000 Kw-hr/yr at 30,000 GPD to 35,000,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10 MGD.
Below 30,000 GPD flowrate, energy requirements are considered to
be constant.
Thermal Emulsion Breaking. Thermal emulsion breaking is used to
treat spent emulsion wastes potentially yielding a salable oil
by-product. The system and its components which were costed for
this technology is described in detail in Section VII. Standard
"off the shelf" thermal emulsion breaking systems were costed.
The Agency believes that custom design to account for site-
specific requirements might significantly reduce the overall
cost. A separate boiler was costed for heat supply to the unit.
Equipment sizing was based on continuous operation. Influent oil
concentration was assumed to be 5 percent and the effluent, 80
percent. For economic assessment purposes, a credit of $0.20 per
gallon of treated oil was assumed. Capital and annual costs of
thermal emulsion breaking are presented on Figure VII1-7.
In determining annual costs, the energy requirements were calcu-
lated using 1.5 pounds of steam per pound of water evaporated.
In practice, low-grade waste heat may be available to support the
thermal emulsion breaking process. To be conservative, however,
capital and annual costs include the boiler operation. The usage
of energy was found to range from 8,500 therms/year at 150 GPD to
680,000 therms/year at 12,000 GPD.
Multimedia Fi1tration. Multimedia filtration is used as a
wastewater treatment polishing device to remove suspended solids
not removed in previous treatment processes. The filter beds
consist of graded layers of gravel, coarse anthracite coal, and
fine sand. The equipment used to determine capital and annual
costs (Figure VIII-8) are as follows:
Filter tank and media
- Surface wash system
- Backwash system
- Valves
- Piping
- Controls
- Electrical system
The filters were sized based on a hydraulic loading rate of 4
gpm/ft2 and pumps were sized based on a backwash rate of 16
gpm/ft2. All costs and energy requirements were derived as a
composite of a variety of literature sources and vendor contacts.
Energy requirements for the filtration operation are estimated to
range from 300 Kw-hr/yr at 1,000 GPD to 300,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10
-------
MGD. Energy requirements are constant between 1,000 GPD end
10,000 GPD.
pH Adjustment. The adjustment of pH is particularly important
for treatment of wastewater streams such as cleaning or etching
streams. Sulfuric acid and caustic are used as the chemical
agents for addition to the wastewater stream. The following
equipment are used in determining capital and annual costs:
- Chemical feed system
— Bulk storage tank
— Dry tank
— Mixer !
— Flow regulator
- Concrete tank {detention time, 15 minutes)
- Mixing equipment
- Instrumentation
- Sump pump
Operating costs are based on the following assumptions:
Sulfuric acid dose rate of 0.5 pound per 1,000 gallons of
wastewater.
- Caustic dose rates of 0.5, 5, and 20 pounds per 1,000
gallons of wastewater.
Caustic (NaOH) cost of $175 per ton for 50 percent
solution (Chemical Marketing Reporter).
- Sulfuric acid cost of $41 per ton for 63 percent
solution (Chemical Marketing Reporter).
Labor and energy costs were assumed to be equal for all alkali
and acid dose rates. Energy requirements on a system basis are
linear from 10,000 GPD to 500,000 GPD at 660 Kw-hr/yr and
increase to 14,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10 MGD.
Capital and annual costs for pH adjustment with acid ace
presented on Figure VII1-9, pH adjustment with caustic are
presented on Figure VIII-10.
Lime and Settle (L&S). Quicklime (CaO) or hydrated lime
[Ca(OH)2] can be used to precipitate heavy metals. Hydrated lime
is commonly used for wastewaters with low lime requirements since
-------
the use of slakers, required for quicklime usage, is practical
only for large-volume application of lime. Wastewater sampling
data were analyzed to determine lime dosage requirements and
sludge production for those waste streams in the aluminum forming
category that contain heavy metals selected as pollutants. The
results of this analysis are tabulated in Table VIII-4. Due to
the low lime dosage requirements in this industry, hydrated lime
is used for costing.
The pH of waste streams treated with lime precipitation may
require readjustment before discharge. Sulfuric acid is used to
adjust the pH to an acceptable discharge level (pH 6 to 9).
Thus, hydrated lime, sulfuric acid storage and feed systems, and
a clarifier are included in the lime and settle capital and
annual costs. Optional treatment systems which have been costed
separately and which may be used in conjunction with the above
lime and settle systems are a polymer feed system and floccula-
tor.
The following equipment were included in the determination of
capital and annual costs (Figure VIII-11) based on continuous
operation:
- Lime feed system
— Storage units
Dilution tanks
Feed pumps
- Acid neutralization system
— Storage units
— Mixer
— Flow regulator
Instrumentation
Other annual cost bases are as follows:
Lime dosage rates include 200 mg/1 and 2,000 mg/1.
Hydrated lime cost of $35.75 per ton (Chemical Marketing
Reporter).
The lime dosage was selected based on raw wastewater characteris-
tics. Those waste streams with low contaminant levels required
200 mg/1 of lime. Those with higher contaminant levels required
2,000 mg/1. The lime dosages used for each waste stream are
summarized in Table VIII-4.
-------
Cost equations are presented for both of the above lime dosage
rates. All cost equations and energy requirements for lime and
settle were based on composited values of various systems.
Energy requirements which were found to vary with flowrate are
estimated to range from 2,000 Kw-hr/yr at 1 GPM to 225,000 Kw~
hr/yr at 10,000 GPM,
Hexavalent Chromium Reduction. Chromium present in aluminum
forming wastewaters is considered to be in the hexavalent state.
The addition of sulfur dioxide at low pH values reduces hexaval-
ent chromium to trivalent chromium, which forms a precipitate.
The equipment included in the capital and annual costs are as
follows:
- Reaction vessel (detention time, 45 minutes).
- Sulfuric acid storage and feed system
- Sulfonator
- Oxidation reduction potential meter
- Associated pressure regulator and appurtenances
This system has been costed both on a continuous and batch basis.
The composite-based capital cost equations presented in Table
VIII-2 include batch operation for flows greater than 0.2 gpm and
less than 20 gpm. Above 20 gpm, the system is continuous.
Capital and annual costs for chromium reduction are presented on
Figure VIII-12.
Operation and maintenance costs include labor, chemicals, and
repair parts. The labor rate used is $20.00 per manhour; it is
estimated that supply and labor costs contribute equally to the
O&M cost.
Energy requirements include electricity for pumps, mixers, and
monitors. The combined energy requirement for this equipment was
determined to be constant over the range of flowrates at 9,480
Kw-hr/yr.
Cyanide Oxidation. In this technology, cyanide is destroyed by
reaction with sodium hypochlorite under alkaline conditions. A
complete system for this operation includes reactors, sensors,
controls, mixers, and chemical feed equipment. Control of both
pH and chlorine concentration through oxidation reduction
potential (ORP) is important for effective treatment.
Capital costs for cyanide oxidation as shown in Table VII1-2
include reaction tanks, reagent storage, mixers, sensors, and
controls necessary for operation. Costs are estimated for both
batch and continuous systems, with the operating mode selected on
a least cost basis. Specific costing assumptions are as follows?
-------
For both continuous and batch treatment, the cyanide oxidation
tank is sized as an above-ground cylindrical tank with a reten-
tion time of four hours based on the process flow. Cyanide
oxidation is normally done on a batch basis; therefore, two iden-
tical tanks are employed. Cyanide is removed by the addition of
sodium hypochlorite with sodium hydroxide added to maintain the
proper pH level. A 60-day supply of sodium hypochlorite is
stored in an in-ground covered concrete tank, 0.3 m (1 ft) thick.
A 90-day supply of sodium hydroxide also is Stored in an in-
ground covered concrete tank, 0.3 m (1 ft) thick.
Mixer power requirements for both continuous and batcfi treatment
are based on 2 horsepower for every 11,355 liters (3,000 gal) of
tank volume. The mixer is assumed to be operational 25 percent
of the time that the treatment system is operating.
A continuous control system is costed for the continuous treat-
ment alternative. This system includes:
2 immersion pH probes and transmitters
2 immersion ORP probes and transmitters
2 pH and ORP monitors
- 2 2-pen recorders
2 slow process controllers
2 proportional sodium hypochlorite pumps
2 proportional sodium hydroxide pumps
2 mixers
3 transfer pumps
- 1 maintenance kit
2 liquid level controllers and alarms and miscellaneous
electrical equipment and piping
A complete manual control system is costed for the batch treat-
ment alternative. This system includes:
2 pH probes and monitors
1 mixer
1 liquid level controller and horn
1 proportional sodium hypochlorite pump
1 on-off sodium hydroxide pump and PVC piping from the .!
chemical storage tanks
Operation and maintenance costs for cyanide oxidation include
labor requirements to operate and maintain the system, electric
power for mixers, pumps, controls, and treatment chemicals.
Labor requirements for operation are substantially higher for
batch treatment than for continuous operation. Maintenance labor
requirements for continuous treatment are fixed at 150 manhours
per year for flow rates below 23,000 gph and thereafter increase
according to:
-------
Labor = .00273 x (Flow - 23,000) + 150
Maintenance labor requirements for batch treatment are assumed to
be negligible.
Annual costs for treatment chemicals are determined from cyanide
concentration, acidity, and flow rates of the raw waste stream
according to:
lbs sodium hypochlorite = 62.96 x lbs CN
Capital and annual costs for cyanide oxidation are presented in
Figure VIII-13.
Cyanide Precipitation. Cyanide precipitation is a two stage
process to remove free and non-complexed cyanide as a precipi-
tate. For the first step, the wastewater is contacted with an
excess of FeS0*.7H20 at pH 9.0 to ensure that all cyanide is
converted to the complex form:
FeSO* • 7H20 + 6 CN~ Fe(CN)64" + 7H20
The hexacyanoferrate is then routed to the second stage, where
additional FeSO^ . 7H20 and acid are added to lower the pH tc 4.0
or less, causing the precipitation of Fe4(Fe(CN)6)3 (Prussian
blue) and its analogues:
4 FeSO* • 7H20 + 3 Fe((N)^- pH <4. 0
Fe* (Fe(CN)6)3 + 7H20
The blue precipitate is settled and the clear overflow is
discharged for further treatment.
The cyanide precipitation system includes chemical feed equipment
for sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, and ferrous sulfate
addition, a reaction vessel, agitator, control system, clarifier,
and pumps.
Costs can be estimated for both batch and continuous systems with
the operating mode selected on a least cost basis. This decision
is a direct function of flowrate. Capital costs are composed of
five subsystem costs: (1) FeS04 feed system, (2) NaOH feed
system, (3) reaction vessel with agitator, (4) sulfuric acid feed
system, (5) clarifier, and (6) recycle pump. These subsystems
include the following equipment:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
ferrous sulfate steel storage hoppers with dust
collectors (largest hopper size is 6,000 ft3; 15
-------
days storage)
enclosure for storage tanks
volumetric feeders (small installations)
mechanical weigh belt feeders (large installations)
dissolving tanks (5 minute detention time, 6 percent
solution)
dual-head diaphragm metering pumps
instrumentation and controls
(2a) Caustic feed system (less than 200 lb/day usage)
volumetric feeder
mixing tank with mixer (24-hour detention, 10
percent solution)
- feed tank with mixer (24-hour detention)
- dual-head metering pumps
- instrumentation and controls
(2b) Caustic feed system (greater than 200 lb/day usage)
storage tanks (15 days, FRP tanks)
dual-head metering pumps including standby pump
instrumentation and controls
(3) Reaction tank (60 minutes detention time, stainless
steel, agitator mounting, agitator, concrete slab)
(4) Sulfuric acid feed system (93 percent H2S0^)
- acid storage tank (15 days retention)
chemical metering pump
instrumentation and control
(5) Clarifier [based on 700 GPD/ft2; to include a
steel or concrete vessel (depending on flow rate),
support structure, sludge scraper assembly and
drive unit]
(6) Recycle pumps (for sludge or supernatant)
Operation and maintenance costs for cyanide precipitation include
labor requirements to operate and maintain the system, electric
power for mixers, pumps, clarifier and controls, and treatment
chemicals. Electrical requirements are also included for the
chemical storage enclosures for lighting and ventilation and in
the case of caustic storage, heating. The following criteria are
used in establishing O&M costs:
(1) Ferrous sulfate feed system
maintenance materials - 3 percent of/ manufactured
-------
equipment cost
- labor for chemical unloading
—5 hrs/50,000 lb for bulk handling
—8 hrs/16,000 lb for bag feeding to the hopper
—routine inspection and adjustment of feeders is
10 min/feeder/shift
- maintenance labor
—8 hrs/yr for liquid metering pumps
—24 hrs/yr for solid feeders and solution tank
power [function of instrumentation and control,
metering pump HP and volumetric feeder (bag feed-
ing)] :
(2) Caustic feed system
- maintenance materials 3 percent of manufactured
equipment cost (excluding storage tank cost)
- labor/unloading
—dry NaOH - 8 hrs/16,000 lb
—liquid 50 percent NaOH - 5 hrs/50,000 lb
labor operation (dry NaOH only) - 10 min/day/feeder
- labor operation for metering pump - 15 min/day
- annual maintenance - 8 hrs
- power includes metering pump HP, instrumentation
and control, volumetric feeder (dry NaOH)
(3) Reaction vessel with agitator
- maintenance materials - 2 percent of equipment cost
1 abor
—15 min/mixer/day routine O&M
—4 hrs/mixer/6 mos - oil changes
—8 hrs/yr - draining, inspection, cleaning
- power - based on horsepower requirements for
agitator
(4) Sulfuric acid feed system
labor unloading - .25 hr/drum acid
- labor operation - 15 min/day
- annual maintenance - 8 hrs
- power (includes metering pump)
- maintenace materials - 3 percent of capital cost
(5) Clarif ier
- maintenance materials range from 0.8 percent to
2 percent as a function of increasing size
labor - 150 to 500 hrs/yr (depending on size)
- power - based on horsepower requirements for sludge
-------
pumping and sludge scraper drive unit
(6) Recycle pump
- maintenance materials - percent of manufactured
equipment cost variable with flowrate
- 50 ft TDH; motor efficiency of 90 percent and pump
efficiency of 85 percent
Annual costs for treatment chemicals are determined from cyanide
concentration, pH, metals concentrations, and flowrate of the raw
waste stream.
Activated Carbon Adsorption. Activated carbon is used primarily
for the removal of organic compounds from wastewater. The
capital and annual costs for this process are based on a system
using granular activated carbon (GAC) in a series of downflow
contacting columns. Separate cost equations are presented for
GAC contacting units and GAC replacement.
Two methods of replacing spent carbon were considered: (1)
thermal regeneration of spent carbon and (2) replacement of spent
carbon with new carbon and disposal of spent carbon. Thermal
regeneration of spent activated carbon is economically practical
only at relatively large carbon exhaustion rates. Simply
replacing spent carbon with new carbon is more practical than
thermal regeneration for plants with low carbon usage.
An analysis was performed to determine the carbon usage rate at
which thermal regeneration of spent carbon becomes practical. It
was determined that thermal regenerating facilities are practical
above a carbon usage of 400,000 lbs per year. Carbon exhaustion
rates for all waste streams are presented in Table VII1-5. Data
from the literature were analyzed to determine a relationship
between TOC concentration and carbon exhaustion rate. These data
were applied to sampling data to obtain the carbon exhaustion
rates shown in Table VII1-5.
A 30-minute empty-bed contact time was used to size the downflow
contacting units. The activated carbon used in the columns was
assumed to have a bulk density of 26 pounds per cubic foot and
cost 53 cents per pound. Included in the capital for a carbon
contacting system are carbon contacting columns, initial carbon
fill, carbon inventory and storage backwash system, and waste-
water pumping.
Thermal regeneration is assumed to be accomplished with multiple
hearth furnaces at a loading rate of 40 pounds of carbon per
square foot of hearth area per day. Activated carbon thermal
regeneration facilities include a multiple hearth furnace, spent
-------
carbon storage and dewatering equipment, quench tank, screw con-
veyors, and regenerated carbon refining and storage tanks.
Energy requirements for activated carbon systems are two-fold:
heating for thermal regeneration (above 400,000 lbs carbon used
per year) and electricity. The Btu requirements for heating
range from 1 x 1010 Btu/yr at 400,000 lbs carbon to 2.1 x 1011
Btu/yr at 30 x 1 06 lb carbon. Electrical requirements are from
250,000 Kw-hr/yr at 200,000 lbs carbon up to 1.5 x 106 Kw-hr/yr
at 30 x 10* lbs carbon.
Capital and annual costs for activated carbon adsorption are
presented on Figure VIII-14.
Vacuum Fi1tration. Vacuum filtration is a technology utilized in
sludge dewatering. This system is included in the wastewater
treatment train depending on the amount of sludge generated from
precipitation systems. Per the discussion presented in the
costing example, vacuum filtration is costed if sludge generation
exceeds 140,000 gallons per year. Below this value, it is not
economically attractive to dewater the sludge prior to disposal.
Capital costs are based on the area of filter required, or a
solids loading rate of 4 pounds per hour per square foot, and an
operating period of six hours per day. The equipment included in
the vacuum filtration unit are as follows:
- Motor and drive
- Auxiliaries
- Piping and ductwork
- Instrumentation
- Electrical
- Insulation
- Paint
- Accessories
- Vacuum system
A minimum capital cost of $66,000 is assumed. Annual costs were
developed in terms of the amount of sludge to be dewatered. The
assumed influent suspended solids concentration is 7 percent and
the effluent, 30 percent. Energy requirements are based on fil-
ter size and flow rate, as in the case of capital costs. These
are estimated to range from 45,000 kw-hr/yr for 100 ft2 filter
area to 268,000 kw-hr/yr for 960 ft2.
Capital and annual costs for vacuum filtration are presented in
Figure VIII-15.
Contract Hauling. As stated previously, information obtained
from 511 plants in an EPA Effluent Guidelines Division study of
-------
the paint industry was used to determine contractor hauling
costs. Costs in the paint study ranged from 1 cent to over 50
cents per gallon. A value of 30 cents per gallon, selected as a
reasonable estimate in the paint study, was used in the develop-
ment of the aluminum forming guidelines for the disposal cost of
sludge and wastewater by contractor hauling. The cost of
contract hauling is presented in Figure VIII-16.
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing. Countercurrent cascade rinsing
is a technique used to reduce wastewater flows from rinsing
operations. This technology has been described in detail in
Section VII (p. 775).
Capital costs are based on the number of tanks needed to achieve
a required flow reduction, and pumping if water cannot be moved
between the tanks by gravity flow. Each tank is assumed to be
rectangular, of dimensions 15 feet by 5 feet, by 8 feet deep.
Capital cost estimating for countercurrent cascade rinsing
systems is highly site-specific. Tank sizing, in particular
cross-sectional area, may be determined by or limited by the
cross-sectional area of the workpiece. No piping costs are
included since it is assumed that pumping will not be necessary.
Final rinse stage tanks can be easily raised, or variable height
overflow weirs can be installed in a single large tank to allow
gravity flow of the rinse water. No retrofit land costs are
included. Based on plant visits to 22 aluminum forming sites,
the Agency believes that there is enough floor space for
installation of countercurrent cascade rinsing operations at
existing plants.
The capital expenditure involved in installing countercurrent
cascade rinsing technology will be in part offset by reduced
water use and sewer fees, and the overall reduction in the size
of the required waste treatment system, which is designed on the
basis of volumetric flow.
There are no significant operation and maintenance costs associ-
ated with tanks so the annual cost estimates include only annual
depreciation and amortization.
Regeneration of Chemical Baths. Bath regeneration is used to
recover or replenish the bath chemicals, reduce contaminant
levels in the bath, and to achieve zero discharge. As discussed
in Section VII (p. 779), regeneration of chromic acid and sul-
furic acid baths is accomplished through periodic addition of
solid chromic acid or sulfuric acid. Salts formed in the bath
constantly precipitate and must be drawn off the bottom of the
tank. In general, there are no additional capital costs required
for equipment to regenerate these types of baths. Removal of
settled precipitates is accomplished by existing pumping equip-
-------
merit used for emptying the bath in plants not currently regener-
ating baths. Chemical costs associated with regeneration were
costs for replenishing chromic acid and sulfuric acid.
For caustic baths, addition of lime and elevation of the bath
temperature is required for regeneration. The Agency assumed
that plants have sufficient waste heat available to elevate the
bath temperature. Chemical costs associated with regeneration of
caustic baths were costs for lime.
The capital expenditures required for recovering and reusing
alkaline cleaning bath chemicals was the cost of an ultrafiltra-
tion system. Membrane life was assumed to be one year as a
result of discussions with equipment manufacturers. The cost of
the membranes was assumed to be $100 per membrane. One hour per
week was used for maintenance labor. Alkaline cleaning chemicals
were assumed to cost $0.50 per pound. In addition, the ultrafil-
ter was assumed to be washed with a cleaner, one time each week.
The cleaner cost was assumed to be $2.00 per pound.
In considering the costs discussed above associated with regener-
ation, EPA concluded that the costs incurred will be offset by
decreased chemicals cost through recovery, reduced water use and
sewer fees, the overall reduction in the size of the required
treatment system, and the reduced labor requirements for main-
taining the baths.
Flow Equalization. Flow equalization is used in order to
minimize potentially wide fluctuations in raw wastewater flow and
characteristics. Equalization has been included in the costs
associated with each treatment option presented.
The equipment included in the capital and annual costs is an
equalization tank with associated mixing equipment. The deten-
tion time assumed is four hours. For this technology, capital
and annual costs (Figure VII1-17) were derived by compositing
various system costs from the literature. Energy requirements
are expected to range from 2,500 Kw-hr/yr at 1 gpm to 300,000 Kw-
hr/yr at 10,000 gpm.
Pumping. The cost of pumping raw wastewater to a treatment plant
was considered, as was the cost for a dry well enclosure of the
pumping facility. Costs for wet wells have not been considered
since the equalization basin for treatment plant operation can
function as a wet well. The pump station electrical requirements
are based on a total dynamic head of 30 feet and a pumping
efficiency of 65 percent. These requirements are estimated to
range from 54 Kw-hr/yr for 1,000 gpd to 550,000 Kw-hr/yr for 10
MGD flowrate.
-------
Capital and annual costs for pumping are presented in Figure
VIII-18.
Holding Tank. The cost of holding tanks has been considered for
the storage of sludges removed from skimming, dissolved air
flotation, and lime and settle operations. The equations can
also be used for the storage of dewatered sludge cake.
Allowances are made for storage of two weeks of sludge production
to a minimum of 150 gallons for sludges requiring contractor
hauling.
Capital and annual costs for holding tanks are presented in
Figure VIII-19.
Recycle of Cooling Water. As discussed in Section VII (p. 772),
direct chill casting contact cooling water is commonly recycled
at rates of 96 percent or greater. For those plants that do not
recycle direct chill casting contact cooling water, the cost of
recycle has been determined. Recycle capital costs include a
cooling tower, a pump station, and piping. The capital costs for
a cooling tower assume the use of a mechanical draft tower. The
sizing of the tower is based on a temperature range of 25°F, an
approach of 10°F, and a wet bulb temperature of 70°F. The
cooling tower equipment include the following:
Cooling tower
- Basin
Handling and setting (installation)
- Piping
- Concrete foundations and footings
Instrumentation
Plant mechanical draft system
- Accessories
A minimum cost is assumed to be $62,000. Energy requirements are
a function of the fan size and horsepower required, depending on
recirculation ratio. These requirements are estimated to range
from 14,600 Kw-hr/yr at 0.1 MGD to 1,460,000 Kw-hr/yr at 10 MGD.
To account for recycle piping requirements, costs have been
determined for 1,000 feet of installed force main. Capital costs
for recycle piping include the following:
Concrete-lined ductile iron pipe
- 3, 4, 8, 12, 16, or 24 inch pipe diameters
0, 10, 20, or 40 ft. static heads
- 3 feet per second water velocity
-------
- Pipe fittings
— 3 gate valves
— 1 standard tee
— 4 long sweep elbows
- Installation with excavation and backfill (below ground)
Energy requirements for pumping are the same as those given above
in the pumping discussion.
Capital and annual costs associated with recycling are presented
in Figure VIII-20.
Enclosures. The cost of an enclosure is included in the capital
cost equations for all unit processes except skimmming,
equalization, lime and settle (lime and sulfuric acid storage and
chemical feed systems are enclosed) and the cooling tower
associated with recycle since the performance of these unit
processes is not typically affected by inclement weather. The
cost of enclosure includes the following:
- Roofing
- Insulation
Sitework
- Masonry
- Glass
- Plumbing
HVAC and electrical
The total capital cost is calculated by determining the required
area to be enclosed and applying $30 per square foot.
Cost Calculation Example
Capital and annual costs for each of the treatment alternatives
presented in Sections X and XII can be estimated both from the
cost equations in Table VII1-2 and, depending on the alternative,
from the data on oily sludge production, lime dosage and lime
sludge production, and carbon exhaustion rate shown in Tables
VIII-3 through VIII-5. Once the wastewater flows are determined,
the costs associated with a treatment alternative are calculated
systematically using the following steps.
1. Determine capital and annual costs for each of the
treatment processes in the alternative using Table
VIII-1.
2. Determine capital and operating costs for pumping,
-------
equalization, and monitoring using Table VIII-1.
3. Calculate daily production, if any, of oily sludge and
lime sludge from Tables VIII-3 and VIII-4. Determine
the costs associated with the disposal of these residues
using Table VIII-2.
4. Determine total capital and annual costs for the alter-
native by summing up all cost data obtained in Steps 1
through 3. The annual cost so determined does not
include amortization and depreciation of capital invest-
ment. Obtain the total annual cost by including 17.7
percent and 10 percent of the capital cost for amortiza-
tion and depreciation, respectively.
As described previously, capital and operating costs associated
with the lime and settle (L&S) and activated carbon processes are
influenced by the lime dosage and carbon replacement require-
ments, respectively. Therefore, Tables VIII-3 and VIII-4 should
be consulted first to determine lime dosage for the particular
wastewater stream under consideration or to evaluate the economic
choice between thermal regeneration and throwaway of spent carbon
for the activated carbon process.
Disposal of lime sludge is based on vacuum filtration, with the
resulting cake hauled by contractor or contractor-hauling of
undewatered liquid sludge. The economic choice between these two
methods depends upon the quantity of sludge requiring disposal,
with the dividing line being approximately 140,000 gallons per
year. Direct contractor-hauling of liquid sludge is less expen-
sive for smaller sludge quantities, while the opposite is true
for greater sludge quantities. The cost components for the
former are holding tank capital cost (minimum capacity, 150
gallons) and contractor-hauling cost, while those for the latter
are holding tank capital cost (both for liquid sludge and cake),
vacuum filtration cost, and contractor-hauling cost for cake.
The cost components for oily sludge disposal are holding tank
capital cost (minimum capacity, 150 gallons) and contractor-
hauling cost.
The cost calculating procedures described above are illustrated
for a plant in the Forging Subcategory with the following condi-
tions:
Wastewater source: Forging solution heat treatment contact
cooling water
Operating time: 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,
5 2 weeks per year
Wastewater flow: 200 gallons per minute
Treatment alternative: BPT consisting of (1) cyanide'
-------
oxidation, (2) chromium reduction,
(3) skimming, and (4) lime and
settle (see Figure IX-4)
Step 1 :
Determine the capital and annual costs of the three treatment
processes shown above using appropriate equations in Table
VII1-2. For example, the capital cost (C) of chromium reduction
for a flow (x) of 200 gpm can be calculated as:
C = antilog [-0.0248 (log 200)3] + 0.108 (log 200)2 +
0.213 (log 200) + 4.107 + 384.8 (200)°.67
= antilog (4.86) + 13,390
= 86,000
The forging solution heat treatment contact cooling water stream
requires 2,000 mg/1 lime dosage for precipitation (Table VIII--4);
use cost equations for lime and settle corresponding to this
dosage. A summary of Step 1 costs is shown below.
Capital Annual ($/yr)
Cyanide oxidation 166,000 17,000
Chromium reduction 86,000 10,000
Skimming 55,000 10,000
Lime and settle 221,000 63,000
Subtotal 528,000 100,000
Step 2:
Capital and annual costs are calculated for flow equalization,
pumping, and monitoring. By using the appropriate equations in
Table VIII-2, the following costs are obtained for flow equaliza-
tion and pumping. Monitoring costs are constant at a capital
cost of $8,000 and an annual cost of $5,000.
Capital ($) Annual ($/yr)
Flow equalization 103,000 10,000
Pumping 31,000 14,000
Monitoring 8,000 5,000
Subtotal 142,000 29,000
i
Step 3: i
(a) Determine daily production of oil skimmings (oily sludge)
using data in Table VIII-3, required holding tank capacity, and
associated disposal costs from Table VIII-2.
Oil Skimmings =
-------
0.07 gallons skimmings x 200 gallons x 1,440 min = 20 gallons
1,000 gallons min day day
As discussed previously, holding tanks are sized for two weeks'
Sludge production, or a minimum of 150 gallons holding tank
capacity. Required holding tank capacity is:
20 gallons x 7 days x 2 weeks = 280 gallons
day week
The capital cost (holding tank) and annual cost (contractor haul-
ing) for the disposal of oily sludge are then calculated as:
Capital ($) Annual ($/yr)
Oil skimmings disposal 2,100 2,200
(b) Determine daily production of lime sludge using data in
Table VII1-4, then determine whether the sludge should be
dewatered by vacuum filtration prior to disposal.
Lime sludge =
6 gallons sludge x 200 gallons x 1,440 minutes = 1,700 gallons
1,000 gallons min day day
At 365 days per year operation, this quantity corresponds to an
annual lime sludge production of 620,000 gallons. Therefore,
vacuum filtration and cake hauling is more cost-effective than
liquid sludge hauling.
To estimate the required size of vacuum filters and the volume of
filter cake, lime sludge from the settling tank and the filter
cake are assumed to contain 7 percent and 30 percent solids,
respectively, and have a specific gravity of 1.0.
Vacuum filter area required must be determined before the capital
cost equation for vacuum filtration in Table VIII-2 can be used.
At 7 percent solids, 6 hours of operation per day and a 4
lbs/hour/sq ft loading rate, one square foot of vacuum filter
area can dewater 40 gallons of sludge per day. The vacuum filter
area requirement for this example is presented below:
1 ,700 gallons x ] = 43 sq ft
day 40 gallons/day/sq ft
Daily production of filter cake is
1,700 gallons x 7% solids = 400 gallons
day 30% solids day
-------
Two storage tanks are required for vacuum filtration, one to
store the daily clarifier underflow to facilitate a controlled
flow into the vacuum filter, and the other to store the dewatered
sludge. Therefore, a 1,700-gallon storage tank is required to
store daily clarifier underflow. The filter cake storage tank is
sized as follows:
400 gallons x 7 days x 2 weeks = 5,600 gallons
day week
COST ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY: POST-PROPOSAL
Sources of Cost Data
I
Capital and annual cost data for the selected treatment processes
were obtained from three sources: (1) equipment manufacturers,
(2) literature data, and (3) cost data from existing plants. The
major source of equipment costs was contacts with equipment ven-
dors, while the majority of annual cost information was obtained
from the literature. Additional cost and design data were
obtained from data collection portfolios when possible.
Components of Costs
Capital Costs. Capital costs consist of two components:
equipment capital costs and system capital costs. Equipment
costs include: (1) the purchase price of the manufactured
equipment and any accessories assumed to be necessary; (2)
delivery charges, which account for the cost of shipping the
purchased equipment a distance of 500 miles; and (3)
installation, which includes labor, excavation, site work, and
materials. The correlating equations used to generate equipment
costs are shown in Table VII1-6. Capital system costs include
contingency, engineering, and contractor's fees. These system
costs, each expressed as a percentage of the total equipment
cost, are combined into a factor which is multiplied by the total
equipment cost to yield the total capital investment. The
components of the total capital investment are listed in Table
VII1-7.
Annual Costs. The total annualized costs also consist of a
direct and a system component as in the case of total capital
costs. The components of the total annualized costs are listed
in Table VIII-8. Direct annual costs include the following:
o Raw materials - These costs are for chemicals used in
the treatment processes, which include lime, sulfuric
acid, alum, polyelectrolyte, and sulfur dioxide.
o Operating labor and materials - These costs account for
-------
the labor and materials directly associated with opera-
tion of the process equipment. Labor requirements are
estimated in terms of manhours per year. A labor rate
of 21 dollars per manhour was used to convert the man-
hour requirements into an annual cost. This composite
labor rate included a base labor rate of nine dollars
per hour for skilled labor, 15 percent of the base labor
rate for supervision and plant overhead at 100 percent of
the total labor rate. Nine dollars per hour is the
Bureau of Labor national wage rate for skilled labor
during 1982.
o Maintenance and repair - These costs account for the
labor and materials required for repair and routine
maintenance of the equipment. Maintenance and repair
costs were usually assumed to be 5 percent of the direct
capital costs based on information from literature
sources unless more reliable data could be obtained from
vendors.
o Energy - Energy, or power, costs are calculated based
on total nominal horsepower requirements (in kw-hrs),
an electricity charge of $.0483/kilowatt-hour and an
operating schedule of 24 hours/day, 250 days/year unless
specified otherwise. The electricity charge rate (March
1982) is based on the industrial cost derived from the
Department of Energy's Monthly Energy Review.
System annual costs include monitoring, insurance and amortiza-
tion (which is the major component). Monitoring refers to the
periodic sampling analysis of wastewater to ensure that discharge
limitations are being met. The annual cost of monitoring was
calculated using an analytical lab fee of $120 per wastewater
sample and a sampling frequency based on the wastewater discharge
rate, as shown in Table VII1-9.
Insurance cost is assumed to be one percent of the total depreci-
able capital investment (see Item 23 of Table VII1-7).
Amortization costs, which account for depreciation and the cost
of financing, were calculated using a capital recovery factor
(CRF). A CRF value of 0.177 was used, which is based on an
interest rate of 12 percent, and a taxable lifetime of 10 years.
The CRF is multiplied by the total depreciable investment to
obtain the annual amortization costs (see Item 24 of Table VIII-
8) .
-------
Cost Update Factors
All costs are standardized by adjusting to the first quarter of
1982. The cost indices used for particular components of costs
are described below.
Capital Investment - Investment costs were adjusted using the
EPA-Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index. The value of
this index for March 1982 is 414.0.
Operation and Maintenance Labor - The Engineering News-Record
Skilled Labor Wage Index is used to adjust the portion of Oper-
ation and Maintenance costs attributable to labor. The March
1982 value is 325.0.
Maintenance Materials - The producer price index published by the
Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics is used. The March
1982 value of this index is 276.5.
Chemicals - The Chemical Engineering Producer Price Index for
industrial chemicals is used. This index is published biweekly
in Chemical Engineering magazine. The March 1982 value of this
index is 362.6.
Energy - Power costs are adjusted by using the price of
electricity on the desired date and multiplying it by the energy
requirements for the treatment module in kw-hr equivalents.
Cost Estimation Model
Cost estimation was accomplished using a computer model which
accepts inputs specifying the required treatment system chemical
characteristics of the raw waste streams, flow rates and treat-
ment system entry points of these streams, and operating sched-
ules. This model uti1izes a computer-aided design of a waste-
water treatment system containing modules that are configured to
reflect the appropriate equipment at an individual plant. The
model designs each treatment module and then executes a costing
routine that contains the cost data for each module. The capital
and annual costs from the costing routine are combined w:!th
capital and annual costs for the other modules to yield the total
costs for that regulatory option. The process is repeated for
each regulatory option.
Each module was developed by coupling theoretical design informa-
tion from the technical literature with actual design data from
operating plants. This permits' the most representative design
approach possible to be used, which is a very important element
in accurately estimating costs. The fundamental units for design
and costing are not the modules themselves but the components
-------
within each module, e.g., the lime feed system within the chemi-
cal precipitation module. This is a significant feature of this
model for two reasons. First, it does not limit the model to
certain fixed relationships between various components of each
module. For instance, cost data for chemical precipitation sys-
tems are typically presented graphically as a family of curves
with lime (or other alkali) dosage as a parametric function. The
model, however, sizes the lime feed system as a funtion of the
required mass addition rate (kg/hr) of lime. The model thus
selects a feed system specifically designed for that plant.
Second, this approach more closely reflects the way a plant would
actually design and purchase its equipment. The resulting costs
are thus closer to the actual costs that would be incurred by the
facility.
Overal1 Structure. The cost estimation model consists of two
main parts: a design portion and a costing portion. The design
portion uses input provided by the user to calculate design
parameters for each module included in the treatment system. The
design parameters are then used as input to the costing routine,
which contains cost equations for each discrete component in the
system. The structure of the program is such that the entire
system is designed before any costs are estimated.
The pollutants or parameters which are tracked by the model are
shown in Table VIII-10.
An overall logic diagram of the computer programs is depicted in
Figure VIII-1. First, constants are initialized and certain var-
iables such as the modules to be included, the system configura-
tion, plant and wastewater flows, compositions, and entry points
are specified by the user. Each module is designed utilizing the
flow and composition data for influent streams. The design
values are transmitted to the cost routine. The appropriate cost
equations are applied, and the module costs and system costs are
computed. Figures VIII-2 and VIII-3 depict the logic flow dia-
grams in more detail for the two major segments of the program.
Costing Input Data. Several data inputs are required to run the
computer model. First, the treatment modules to be costed and
their sequence must be specified. Next, information on hours of
operation per day and number of days of operation per year for
the particular plant being costed is required. The flow values
and characteristics must be specified for each wastewater stream
entering the treatment system, as well as each stream's point of
entry into the wastewater treatment system. These values will
dictate the size and other parameters of equipment to be costed.
The derivation of each of these inputs for costed plants in the
aluminum forming category will be discussed in turn.
-------
Choice of the appropriate modules and their sequence for a plant
that is to be costed are determined by applying the treatment
technology for each option (see Figures X-l through X-5). These
option diagrams were adjusted to accurately reflect the treatment
system that the plant being costed would actually require. For
example, if it were determined by examining a plant's dcp that
sodium bichromate would not be used in the plants pickling oper-
ation, then a chromium reduction module would not be included in
the treatment required for that plant. In addition, if a plant
had a particular treatment module in place, that module would not
be costed. Flow reduction modules were not costed for plants
whose waste stream flow rates were already lower than the regula-
tory flows. The information on hours of operation per day and
days of operation per year was obtained from the data collection
portfolio of the plant being costed.
The flows used to size the treatment equipment were derived as
follows: production (kkg/yr) and flow (1/yr) information was
obtained from the plant's dcp, or from sampling data where possi-
ble, and a production normalized flow in liters per kkg was cal-
culated for each waste stream. This flow was compared to the
regulatory flow, also in liters per kkg, and the lower of the two
flows was used to size the treatment equipment. Regulatory flow
was also assigned to any stream for which production or flow data
was not reported in the dcp.
The raw waste concentrations of influent waste streams used for
costing were based on sampling data and the assumption that the
total pollutant loading (mg/hr) in a particular waste stream is
directly proportional to the production rate (kkg/hr) associated
with that waste stream. The procedure used for determining the
pollutant concentrations (mg/1) to be used as input to the cost
model was as follows: for a given input waste stream to the
model during actual costing, the average production normalized
raw waste values (mg/kkg) are divided by the production normal-
ized costing flow (1/kkg) (actual or regulatory based, whichever
is lower) to obtain the pollutant concentration for costing. The
underlying assumption is that the amount of pollutant generated
corresponds directly with the amount of product produced. A sig-
nificant result of this assumption is that the total pollutant
loading (mg/hr) remains constant when in-process flow reduction
techniques are used (e.g., for a stream that is reduced by a fac-
tor of two via a flow reduction measure, the pollutant concentra-
tions will increase correspondingly by a factor of two).
Model Results. For a given plant, the model will generate
comprehensive material balances for each parameter (pollutant,
temperature and flowrate) tracked at any point in the system. It
will also summarize design values for key equipment in each
treatment module, and provide a tabulation of costs for each
-------
piece of equipment in each module, module subtotals, total
equipment costs, and system capital and annual costs.
Cost Estimates for Individual Treatment Technologies
Introduction. Treatment technologies have been selected from
among the larger set of available alternatives discussed in
Section VII after considering such factors as raw waste charac-
teristics, typical plant characteristics (e.g., location, produc-
tion schedules, product mix, and land availability), and present
treatment practices. Specific rationale for selection is
addressed in Sections IX, X, XI, and XII. Cost estimates for
each technology addressed in this section include investment
costs and annual costs for depreciation, capital, operation and
maintenance, and energy. Capital and annual costs for each
technology are presented in Figures VIII-21 through VIII-30.
The specific assumptions for each wastewater treatment module are
listed under the subheadings to follow. Costs are presented as a
function of influent wastewater flow rate except where noted in
the unit process assumptions.
Costs are presented for the following control and treatment
technologies:
Lime Precipitation and Gravity Settling,
- Vacuum Filtration,
Flow Equalization,
Multimedia Filtration,
- Chemical Emulsion Breaking,
Oil Skimming,
- Chromium Reduction,
Recycle-Cooling,
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing, and
- Contract Hauling.
Cyanide treatment was not costed because only two plants were
found to have cyanide in their wastewaters. Additionally, plants
are expected to choose chemical substitution as a means of con-
trolling the discharge of cyanide as opposed to the installation
of cyanide treatment.
Lime Precipitation and Gravity Settling. Precipitation using
lime followed by gravity settling is a fundamental technology for
metals removal. In practice, either quicklime (CaO) or hydrated
lime (Ca(0H)2) can be used to precipitate toxic and other metals.
Hydrated lime is more economical for low lime requirements since
the use of slakers, which are necesary for quicklime usage, are
practical only for large-volume application of lime.
-------
Lime is used to adjust the pH of the influent waste stream to a
value of approximately 9, at which optimum precipitation of the
metals is assumed to occur (see, Section VII, page 701), and to
react with the metals to form metal hydroxides. The lime dosage
is calculated as a theoretical stoichiometric requirement based
on the influent metals concentrations and pH. The actual lime
dosage requirement is obtained by assuming an excess of 10
percent of the theoretical lime dosage. The effluent
concentrations are based on the Agency's combined metals data
base lime precipitation treatment effectiveness values.
The costs of lime precipitation and gravity settling were based
on one of three operation modes, depending on the influent flow-
rate: continuous, normal batch, and "low flow" batch. The use
of a particular mode for costing purposes was determined ori a
least (total annualized) cost basis for a given flowrate. The
economic breakpoint between continuous and normal batch was esti-
mated to be 11,800 liters/hour. Below 2,000 liters/hour, it was
found that the "low flow" batch system was most economical.
For a continuous operation, the following equipment were included
in the determination of capital and annual costs:
Lime feed system (continuous)
1. Storage units (sized for 30-day storage)
2. Slurry mix tank (5 minute retention time)
3. Feed pumps
4. Instrumentation (pH control)
Polymer feed system
1. Storage hopper
2. Chemical mix tank
3. Chemical metering pump
- pH adjustment system
1. Rapid mix tank, fiberglass (5 minute retention time)
2. Agitator (velocity gradient is 300/second)
3. Control system
- Gravity settling system
1. Clarifier, circular, steel (overflow rate is 0.347
gpm/sq. ft., underflow solids is 3 percent)
2. Sludge pumps (1), (to transfer flow to and from
clarifier)
I
-------
Ten percent of the clarifier underflow stream is recycled to the
pH adjustment tank to serve as seed material for the incoming
waste stream.
The direct capital costs of the lime and polymer feed were based
on the respective chemical feed rates (dry lbs/hour), which are
dependent on the influent waste stream characteristics. The
flexibility of this feature (i.e., costs are independent of other
module components) was previously noted in the description of the
cost estimation model. The remaining equipment costs (e.g., for
tanks, agitators, pumps) were developed as a function of the
influent flowrate (either directly or indirectly, when coupled
with the design assumptions).
Direct annual costs for the continuous system include operating
and maintenance labor for the feed systems and the clarifier, the
cost of lime and polymer, maintenance materials and energy costs
required to run the agitators and pumps.
The normal batch treatment system (used for 2,000 liters/hour
flow 11,800 liters/hour) consists of the following equipment:
Lime feed system (batch)
1. Slurry tank (5 minute retention time)
2. Agitator
3. Feed pump
Polymer feed system
1. Chemical mix tank
2. Agitator
3. Chemical metering pump
pH adjustment system
1. Reaction tanks (2), (8 hour retention time each)
2. Agitators (2), (velocity gradient is 300/second)
3. Sludge pump (1), (to transfer sludge to dewatering)
4. pH control system
The reaction tanks used in pH adjustment are sized to hold the
wastewater volume accumulated for one batch period (assumed to be
8 hours). The tanks are arranged in a parallel setup so that
treatment occurs in one tank while wastewater is accumulating in
the other tank. A separate gravity settler is not necessary
since settling will occur in the reaction tank after precipita-
tion has taken place. The settled sludge is then pumped to the
dewatering stage.
-------
If additional tank capacity is required in the pH adjustment sys-
tem in excess of 25,000 gallons;(largest single fiberglass tank
capacity for which cost data were compiled), additional tanks are
added in pairs. A sludge pump and agitator are costed for each
tank.
' I
The cost of operating labor is the major component of the direct
annual costs for the normal batch system. For operation of the
batch lime feed system, labor requirements range from 15 to 60
minutes per batch, depending on the lime feed rate (5 to 1,000
pounds/batch). This labor is associated with the manual addition
of lime (stored in 50 pound bags). For pH adjustment, required
labor is assumed to be one hour per batch (for pH control,
sampling, valve operation, etc.). Both the pH adjustment tank
and the lime feed system are assumed to require 52 hours per year
(one hour/week) of maintenance labor. Labor requirements for the
polymer feed system are approximately one hour/day, which
accounts for manual addition of dry polymer and maintenance asso-
ciated with the chemical feed pump and agitator.
Direct annual costs also include the cost of chemicals (lime,
polymer) and energy required for the pumps and agitators. The
costs of lime and polymer used in the model are $47.30/kkg of
lime ($43/ton) and $4.96/kg of polymer ($2.25/pound), based on
rates obtained from the Chemical Weekly Reporter (lime) and
quotations from vendors (polymer).
For small influent flowrates (less than 2,000 liters/hour) it is
more economical on a total annualized cost basis to select the
"low flow" batch treatment system. The lower flowrates allow an
assumption of five days for the batch duration, or holdup, as
opposed to eight hours for the normal batch system. However,
whenever the total batch volume (based on a five day holdup)
exceeds 25,000 gallons, the maximum single batch tank capacity,
the holdup is decreased accordingly to maintain the batch volume
under this level. Capital and annual costs for the low flow
system are based on the following equipment:
- pH adjustment system
1. Rapid mix/holdup tank (5 days or less retention time)
2. Agitator
3. Transfer pump
Only one tank is required for both holdup and treatment because
treatment is assumed to be accomplished during non-operating
hours (since the holdup time is much greater than the time
required for treatment). A lime feed system is not costed since
lime addition at low application rates can be assumed to be done
manually by the operator. A common pump is used for transfer of
-------
both the supernatant and sludge through an appropriate valving
arrangement. Addition of polymer was assumed to be unnecessary
due to the extended settling time available.
As in the normal batch case, annual costs are comprised mainly of
labor costs for the low flow batch system. Labor requirements
are constant at 1.5 hours per batch for operation (e.g., pH
control, sampling, etc.) and 52 hours per year (one hour per
week) for maintenance. Labor is also required for the manual
addition of lime directly to the batch tank, ranging from 0.25 to
1.5 hours per batch depending on the lime requirement (1 to 500
pounds per batch). Annual costs also include energy costs
associated with the pump and agitator.
Capital and annual costs for these three operation modes of
chemical precipitation and settling (lime and settle) are
presented in Figure VI11-21. The curves shown in Figure VI11-21
cannot be extrapolated beyond the points shown.
Vacuum Filtration. The underflow from the clarifier is routed to
a rotary precoat vacuum filter, which dewaters the hydroxide
sludge (it may also include calcium sulfate and fluoride) to a
cake of 20 percent dry solids. The dewatered sludge is disposed
of by contract hauling and the filtrate is recycled to the rapid
mix tank as seed material for sludge formation.
The capacity of the vacuum filter, expressed as square feet of
filtration area, is based on a yield value of 14.6 kg of dry
solids/hr per square meter of filter area (3 lbs/hr/ft2), with a
solids capture of 95 percent. It was assumed that the filter was
operated 8 hours/day.
Cost data were compiled for vacuum filters ranging from 0.9 to
69.7 m2 (9.4 to 750 ft2) in filter surface area. Based on a
total annualized cost comparison, it was assumed that it was more
economical to directly contract haul clarifier underflow streams
which were less than 42 1/hr (0.185 gpm), rather than dewater by
vacuum filtration before hauling.
The capital costs for the vacuum filtration include the follow-
ing:
- Vacuum filter with precoat but no sludge conditioning,
- Housing, and
- Influent transfer pump.
Operating labor cost is the major component of annual costs,
which also include maintenance and energy costs. Capital and
annual costs of vacuum filtration are presented in Figure
VII1-22.
-------
Flow Equalization. Flow equalization is accomplished through
steel equalization tanks which are sized based on a retention
time of eight hours and an excess capacity factor of 1.2. Cost
data were available for steel equalization tanks up to a capacity
of 500,000 gallons; multiple units were required for volumes
greater than 500,000 gallons. The tanks are fitted with agita-
tors with a horsepower requirement of 0.006 kw/1,000 liters (0.03
hp/1,000 gallons) of capacity to prevent sedimentation. An
influent transfer pump is also included in the equalization
system.
Capital and annual costs for flow equalization are presented in
Figure VIII-23.
Multimedia Filtration. Multimedia filtration is used as a
wastewater treatment polishing device to remove suspended solids
not removed in previous treatment processes. The filter beds
consist of graded layers of gravel, coarse anthracite coal, and
fine sand. The equipment used to determine capital and annual
costs are as follows:
Influent storage tank sized for one backwash volume;
- Gravity flow, vertical steel cylindrical filters with
media (anthracite, sand, and garnet);
Backwash tank sized for one backwash volume;
Backwash pump to provide necessary flow and head for
backwash operations;
Influent transfer pump; and
Piping, valves, and a control system.
The hydraulic loading rate is 7,335 lph/m2 (180 gph/ft2) and the
backwash loading rate is 29,340 lph/m2 (720 gph/ft2). The filter
is backwashed once per 24 hours for 10 minutes. The backv/ash
volume is provided from the stored filtrate.
Effluent pollutant concentrations are based on the Agency's com-
bined metals data base for treatability of pollutants by filtra-
tion technology.
Cartridge-type filters are costed to treat small flows (less than
1,150 liters/hour) since they are more economical compared to
multimedia filters (based on a least total annualized cost
comparison) at these flows. It was assumed that the effluent
quality achieved by cartridge-type filters was at least the level
attained by multimedia filters. The costs for cartridge-type
-------
filters are based on a two-stage filter unit, a holding tank
(capacity is equal to the total batch volume of preceding batch
chemical precipitation tank) and an influent transfer pump.
The majority of the annual cost is attributable to replacement of
the spent cartridges which depends upon the amount of solids
removed. The maximum loading for each cartridge is assumed to be
0.225 kg of suspended solids. The annual energy and maintenance
costs associated with the pump are also included in the total
annual costs.
Capital and annual costs for cartridge and multimedia filters are
presented in Figure VIII-24.
Chemical Emulsion Breaking. Chemical emulsion breaking involves
the separation of relatively stable oil-water mixtures by
chemical addition. Alum, polymer, and sulfuric acid are commonly
used to destabilize oil-water mixtures. In the determination of
capital and annual costs based on continuous operation, 400 mg/1
of alum and 2 mg/1 of polymer are added to waste streams
containing emulsified oil. The equipment included in the capital
and annual costs for continuous chemical emulsion breaking are as
follows:
Alum and polymer feed systems:
1. Storage units
2. Dilution tanks
3. Conveyors and chemical feed lines
4. Chemical feed pumps
Rapid mix tank (retention time of 15 minutes; mixer
velocity gradient is 300/sec)
Flocculation tank (retention time of 45 minutes;
mixer velocity gradient is 100/sec)
Pump
Following the flocculation tank, the stabilized oil-water mixture
enters the oil skimming module. In the determination of capital
and annual costs based on batch operation, sulfuric acid is added
to waste streams containing emulsified oil until a pH of 3 is
reached. The following equipment is included in the determina-
tion of capital and annual costs based on batch operation:
Sulfuric acid feed systems
1. Storage tanks or drums
-------
2. Chemical feed lines
3. Chemical feed pumps
- Two tanks equipped with agitators (retention time of
8 hrs., mixer velocity gradient is 300/sec)
- Two belt oil skimmers
Two waste oil pumps •
Two effluent water pumps
- One waste oil storage tank (sized to retain the waste
oil from ten batches)
The capital and annual costs for continuous and batch chemical
emulsion breaking (Figure VIII-25) were determined by summing the
costs from the above equipment. Alum, polymer and sulfuric acid
costs were assumed to be $.257 per kg ($.118 per pound), $4.95
per kg ($2.25 per pound) and $0.08 per kg of 93 percent acid
($.037 per pound of 93 percent acid), respectively. (See
Chemical Weekly Reporter, March, 1982).
Operation and maintenance and energy costs for the different
types of equipment which comprise the batch and continuous
systems were drawn from various literature sources and are
included in the annual costs.
The cutoff flow for determining the operation mode (batch or con-
tinuous) is 5,000 liters per hour, above which the continuous
system is costed; at lower flows, the batch system is costed.
For annual influent flows to the chemical emulsion breaking sys-
tem of 91,200 liters/year (24,000 gallons/year) or less, it is
more economical to directly contract haul rather than treat the
waste stream. The breakpoint flow is based on a total annualized
cost comparison and a contract hauling rate of $.40/gallon (no
credit was given for oil resale).
Oil Skimming. Oil skimming costs apply to the separation of oil-
water mixtures using a coalescent plate-type separator (which is
essentially an enhanced API-type oil-water separator).
Coalescent plate separators were not required following batch
chemical emulsion breaking since the batch tank, in conjunction
with a belt type oil skimmer, served as the oil-water separation
tank. The cost of the belt skimmer in this case was included as
part of the chemical emulsion breaking costs.
Although the required separator capacity is dependent on many
factors, the sizing was based primarily on the influent waste-
-------
water flow rate, with the following design values assumed for the
remaining parameters of importance:
Parameter
Nominal Design Values
Specific gravity of oil
Operating temperature (°F)
Influent oil concentration (mg/1)
68
30,000
0.85
Extreme operating conditions, such as influent oil concentrations
greater than 30,000 mg/1, or temperatures much lower than 68°F
were accounted for in the sizing of the separator.
The capital and annual costs of oil skimming (Figure VIII-26)
included the following equipment:
- Coalescent plate separator with automatic shutoff
valve and level sensor
- Oily waste storage tanks (2-week retention time)
Oily waste discharge pump
- Effluent discharge pump
Influent flow rates up to 159,100 1/hr (700 gpm) are costed for a
single unit; flows greater than 700 gpm require multiple units.
The direct annual costs for oil skimming include the cost of
operating and maintenance labor and replacement parts. Annual
costs for the coalescent separators alone are minimal and involve
only periodic clean out and replacement of the coalescent plates.
Chromium Reduction. This technology can be applied to waste
streams containing significant concentrations of hexavalent
chromium. Chromium in this form will not precipitate until it
has been reduced to the trivalent form. The waste stream is
treated by addition of acid and gaseous S02 dissolved in water in
an agitated reaction vessel. The S02 is oxidized to sulfate
while it reduces the chromium.
The equipment required for this continuous stream includes an SO*
feed system (sulfonator), an H2S04 feed system, a reactor vessel
and agitator, and a pump. The reaction pH is 2.5 and the S02
dosage is a function of the influent loading of hexavalent
chromium. A conventional sulfonator is used to meter S02 to the
reaction vessel. The mixers velocity gradient is 100/sec.
Annual costs are as follows:
-------
S02 feed system
1. S0Z cost at $0.11/kg ($0.25/lb)
2. Operation and maintenance labor requirements vary
from 437 hrs/yr at 4.5 kg S02/day (10 lb S02/day)
to 5,440 hrs/yr at 4,540 kg S02/day (10,000 lbs
S02/day),
3. Energy requirements at' 570 kwh/yr at 4.5 kg S02/day
(10 lbs S02/day) to 31,000 kwh/yr at 4,540 kg SO?/
day (10,000 lbs S02/day).
- H2S04 feed system
1. Operating and maintenance labor at 72 hrs/yr at
37.8 lpd (10 gpd) of 93 percent HzS04 to 200
hrs/yr at 3,780 lpd (1,000 gpd),
2. Maintenance materials at 3 percent of the equip-
ment cost,
3. Energy requirements for metering pump and storage
heating and lighting.
- Reactor vessel and agitator
1. Operation and maintenance labor at 120 hrs/yr,
2. Electrical requirements for agitator.
Capital and annual costs of chromium reduction are presented in
Figure VIII-27.
Coolinq Towers/Tanks. Cooling towers are used to recycle direct
chill casting and solution heat treatment contact cooling waters
for recirculating flow rates above 3,400 1/hr (15 gpm). The
minimum flow rate represents the smallest cooling tower
commercially available from the vendors contacted. Conventional
holding tanks are used to recycle flow rates less than 15 gpm.
The required cooling tower capacity is based on the amount of
heat removed, which takes into account both the flow rate and
temperature range (decrease in cooling water temperature). The
recirculation flow rate through the cooling tower is based on the
BPT (option 1) flow allowance, and the bleed stream which enters
the treatment system is based on the BAT (Option 2) flow allow-
ance. For solution heat treatment cooling water, this results in
a recycle rate of 73.6 percent (e.g., 7705 1/kkg - 2037 1/kkg/
7705 1/kkg). A recycle rate of 85 percent was assumed for cool-
ing of direct chill casting cooling water since recycle is a BPT
technology for this waste stream. The range was based on a cold
water temperature of 85°F and an average hot water temperature
for each particular waste stream calculated from sampling data.
When the hot water temperature was not available from sampling
data, or found to be below 95°F, a value of 95°F was assumed,
-------
resulting in a range of 10°F (95-85°F). The remaining
significant design parameters, the wet bulb temperature (ambient
temperature at 100 percent relative humidity) and the approach
(of cold water temperature to the wet bulb temperature) are
assumed to be constant at 77°F and 8°F, respectively.
The capital costs of cooling tower systems include the following
equ ipment:
Cooling tower (crossflow, mechanica1ly-induced) and
typical accessories
Piping and valves (305 meters (1000 ft.) 'carbon steel)
Cold water storage tank (1 hour retention time)
- Recirculation pump, centrifugal
Chemical treatment system (for pH, slime and corrosion
control)
For nominal recirculation flow rates greater than 159,100 1/hr
(700 gpm), multiple cooling towers are assumed to be required.
A holding tank system would consist of a holding tank and a
recirculation pump.
The direct capital costs include purchased equipment cost,
installation and delivery. Installation costs for cooling' towers
were assumed to be 200 percent of the cooling tower cost based on
information supplied, by vendors.
Direct annual costs included raw chemicals for water treatment,
fan energy requirements, and maintenance and operating labor was
assumed to be constant at 60 hours per year. The water treatment
chemical cost was based on a rate of $5/gpm of recirculated
water.
Capital and annual costs for cooling towers and holding tanks are
presented in Figure VIII-28.
Countercurrent Cascade Rins inq. This technology is used to
reduce water use in rinsing operations for BAT options. It
involves multiple-stage rinsing, with product and rinse water
moving in opposite directions (see Section VII for more details
on theory). This allows for a significant reduction in flow over
single stage rinsing, while achieving the same product cleanli-
ness by contacting the most contaminated rinse water with the
incoming product.
-------
The costs for
rinse system,
countercurrent cascade
each consisting of the
rinsing apply to a two-
following equipment:
stage
o Two fiberglass rectangular tanks (Existing source costs
include only one tank since the other tank was assumed
to be already in place).
o One centrifugal, transfer pump,
o One sparger (air diffuser) for agitation,
o One blower (including motor) for supplying air to the
sparger.
Tanks were sized based on the production rate associated with
each rinsing operation, as follows:
Production Rate
(kkq/yr)
Tank Volume
(gal Ions)
1 ,000
1 , 500
3,600
8, 000
1 , 000
5, 000
5, 000
The above tank volumes and breakpoints were based on information
obtained from dcp's and a telephone survey of several anodizing
plants.
For the case of multiple rinsing operations undergoing counter-
current rinsing, each operation was costed individually because
of the wide variability in the rinsing flowrates due to the vary-
ing production rates (since reduced flowrates are determined by
multiplying the flow allowance by the production).
When it was determined from a plant's dcp that two-stage coun-
tercurrent cascade rinsing could be achieved by converting two
existing adjacent rinse tanks, only piping and pump costs were
accounted for. A constant value of $1,000 was estimated for the
piping costs.
Capital and annual costs for countercurrent cascade rinsing are
presented in Figure VIII-29.
Contract Haulinq. Concentrated sludge and waste oils are removed
on a contract basis for off-site disposal. The cost of contract
hauling depends on the classification of the waste as being
either hazardous or nonhazardous. For nonhazardous wastes, a
rate of $0.106/1 iter ($0.40/gallon) was used in determining
contract hauling costs. This value is based on reviewing
information from several sources, including a paint industry
-------
survey, comments from the aluminum forming industry, and the
literature. The contract hauling cost for nonhazardous waste was
used in this cost estimation because the Agency believes that the
wastes generated from aluminum forming plants are not hazardous
as defined under 40 CFR 261. The capital cost associated with
contract hauling is assumed to be zero. The annual cost of
contract hauling is presented in Figure VIII-30.
Regeneration. As discussed in Section X, the regeneration
technology applicable to cleaning or etching baths is no longer
included in the Option 2 and Option 3 model treatment technolo-
gies. For the plants costed after proposal, the flows attributa-
ble to cleaning or etching baths were added to the total flow
treated through the appropriate end-of-pipe treatment technolo-
gies.
o
SUMMARY OF COSTS
A summary of the capital and annual costs associated with com-
pliance with the aluminum forming regulation is presented in
Table VI11-11 for each subcategory.
NORMAL PLANT
In order to estimate costs, pollutant removals, and nonwater
quality aspects for new sources, the Agency developed a normal
plant for each of the six subcategories. A normal plant is a
theoretical plant which has each of the manufacturing operations
covered by the subcategory and production that is the average
level of each operation in that subcategory. (The total produc-
tion for the core operation and for each ancillary operation in
the subcategory was divided by the number of plants in the sub-
category.) The normal plant flows are the characteristic produc-
tion times the production normalized flow allowance at each
option. In addition, a normal plant was assumed to operate 8
hours per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year. Tables VIII-
12 to VI11-17 present the composition of the normal plants for
each subcategory. The capital and annual costs generated for
each normal plant for the three options are presented in Table
VI11 — 18.
NONWATER QUALITY ASPECTS
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may aggra-
vate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b)
and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider the nonwater quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) of certain
regulations. In compliance with these provisions, EPA has con-
sidered the effect of this regulation on air pollution, solid
waste generation, water scarcity, and energy consumption. This
-------
regulation was circulated to apd reviewed by EPA personnel
responsible for nonwater quality environmental programs. While
it is difficult to balance pollution problems against each other
and against energy utilization, the Administrator has determined
that the impacts identified below are justified by the benefits
associated with compliance with the limitations and standards.
The following are the nonwater quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements) associated with compliance with
the aluminum forming regulation.
Air Pollution
Imposition of BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS will not create any
substantial air pollution problems because the wastewater treat-
ment technologies required to meet these limitations and
standards do not cause air pollution.
Sol id Waste
EPA estimates that aluminum forming facilities generated 79,000
kkg (87,000 tons) of solid wastes (wet basis) in 1977 due to the
treatment of wastewater. These wastes were comprised of treat-
ment system sludges containing toxic metals, including chromium,
zinc, and cyanide; aluminum; and oil removed during oil skimming
and chemical emulsion breaking that contains toxic organics.
EPA estimates that BPT will contribute an additional 52 kkg (57
tons) per year of solid wastes over that which is currently being
generated by the aluminum forming industry. BAT and PSES will
increase these wastes by approximately 77 kkg (85 tons) per year
beyond BPT levels. These sludges will necessarily contain addi-
tional quantities (and concentrations) of toxic metal pollutants.
The normal plant was used to estimate the sludge generated at
NSPS and PSNS and is estimated to be a 3 percent increase over
BAT and PSES.
The Agency considered the solid wastes that would be generated at
aluminum forming plants by lime and settle treatment technologies
and believes that they are not hazardous under Section 3001 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This judgment
is made based on the recommended technology of lime precipita-
tion. By the addition of a small excess of lime during treat-
ment, similar sludges, specifically toxic metal bearing sludges
generated by other industries such as the iron and steel indus-
try, passed the EP toxicity test. See 40 CFR 261.24 (45 FR 33084
(May 19, 1980)).
The Agency requested specific data and information in response to
comments from three companies that claimed that aluminum forming
lime and settle treatment sludges should be classified as hazard-
-------
ous. The responses did not support their comments that solid
wastes generated by treatment of aluminum forming wastewater
would be classified as hazardous under RCRA. The Agency believes
that the proper treatment of this wastewater through the recom-
mended lime and settle treatment technology would create a non-
hazardous sludge. Since these aluminum forming solid wastes are
not believed to be hazardous, no estimates were made of costs for
disposing of them as hazardous wastes in accordance with RCRA
requ i rements.
Wastes which are not hazardous must be disposed of in a manner
that will not violate the open dumping prohibition of Section
4005 of RCRA. The Agency has calculated as part of the costs for
wastewater treatment the cost of hauling and disposing of addi-
tional wastes generated as a result of these requirements.
Only wastewater treatment sludge generated by cyanide treatment
is likely to be hazardous under the regulations implementing
subtitle C of RCRA. Wastewater sludqe generated by cyanide
treatment of aluminum forming solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may contain cyanides and may exhibit extraction
procedure (EP) toxicity. Therefore, these wastes may require
disposal as a hazardous waste. Wastewater treatment sludge from
cyanide treatment of a process waste stream is generated sepa-
rately from lime and settle sludge and may be disposed of sepa-
rately. Disposal costs for these hazardous wastes were based on
$0.80 per gallon ($0.21 per liter). The disposal cost is based
on information obtained from a number of sources including a
study of battery manufacturing plants in 1981, comments received
on the proposed battery manufacturing regulation, and a study
performed by Charles River Associates, Inc., and the costs have
been updated to 1982 dollars. We estimate that five plants in
the category may need to have cyanide precipitation, generating
an estimated 3,200 kkg of potentially hazardous sludge. The
additional total annual disposal cost for this sludge is
$283,200.
Generators of these wastes must test the waste to determine if
the wastes meet any of the characteristics of hazardous waste.
See 40 CFR 262.11 (45 FR 12732-12733 (February 26, 1980)). The
Agency may also list these sludges as hazardous pursuant to 40
CFR 260.11 (45 FR 33121 (May 19, 1980)), as amended at 45 FR
76624 (November 19, 1980)).
If these wastes are identified as hazardous, they will come
within the scope of RCRA's "cradle-to-grave" hazardous waste man-
agement program, requiring regulation from the point of genera-
tion to point of final disposition. EPA's generator standards
would require generators of hazardous aluminum forming wastes to
meet containerization, labeling, recordkeeping, and reporting
-------
requirements. In addition, if aluminum formers dispose of haz-
ardous wastes off-site, they would have to prepare a manifest
which would track the movement of the wastes from the generator's
premises to a permitted off-site treatment, storage, or disposal
facility. See 40 CFR 262.20 (45 FR 33142 (May 19, 1980)). The
transporter regulations require transporters of hazardous wastes
to comply with the manifest system to assure that the wastes are
delivered to a permitted facility. See 40 CFR 263.20 (45 FR
33151 (May 19, 1980)), as amended at 45 FR 86973 (December 31,
1980)). Finally, RCRA regulations establish standards for haz-
ardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities allowed
to receive such wastes. See 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
Consumptive Water Loss
Treatment and control technologies that require extensive
recycling and reuse of water may require cooling mechanisms.
Evaporative cooling mechanisms can cause water loss and con-
tribute to water scarcity problems—a primary concern in arid and
semi-arid regions. While this regulation assumes water reuse,
the overall amount of reuse through evaporative cooling mecha-
nisms is low and the quantity of water involved is not signifi-
cant. In addition, most aluminum forming plants are located east
of the Mississippi where water scarci ty is not a problem. We
conclude that the consumptive water loss is i ns i gn i f i cant and
that the pollution reduction benefits of recycle technologies
outweigh their impact on consumptive water loss.
Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the achievement of BPT effluent limitations
will result in a net increase in electrial energy consumption of
approximately 65 million kilowatt-hours per year. The BAT
effluent technology should not substantially increase the energy
requirements of BPT because reducing the flow reduces the pumping
requirements, the agitation requirement for mixing wastewater,
and other volume-related energy requirements. Therefore, the BAT
limitations are assumed to require an equivalent energy consump-
tion to that of the BPT limitations. To achieve the BPT and BAT
effluent limitations, a typical direct discharger will increase
total energy consumption by less than 1 percent of the energy
consumed for production purposes.
The Agency estimates that PSES will result in a net increase in
electrical energy consumption of approximately 50 million
kilowatt-hours per year. To achieve PSES, a typical existing
indirect discharger will increase energy consumption by less than
1 percent of the total energy consumed for production purposes.
-------
NSPS will not significantly add to total energy consumption of
the energy. A normal plant for each subcategory was used to
estimate the energy requirements for new sources. A new source
wastewater treatment system will add approximately 1 million
kilowatt-hours per year to the total industry energy require-
ments. PSNS, like NSPS, will not significantly add to total
energy consumption.
-------
Module/Factor
System Capital Cost
Factor
Influent Concentration
Enclosures
Contract Hauling Cost
-g— Rate -
ro
Chemical Precipitation
Vacuum Filter
Cyanide Treatment
Table VIIL-1
MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COST METHODOLOGIES
Contractor A
1.35 x Total Direct Capital Cost
Constant concentration assumption, pol-
lutants not tracked, sludge production
rates (g/1,000 gal)
Enclosures costed for most equipment
Assumed $.30/gal in 1978
Assumed 24 hrs/day x 365 days/yr hauled
Includes sulfuric actd feed system, sepa-
rate flocculator and enclosure. Including
these equipment increases costs signi-
ficantly.
Costs include holding tank for sludge
and clarifier underflow
Costs include cyanide treatment for all
wastewater sources from operations which
were found to contain cyanide
Contractor B
1.375 x Total Direct Capital Cost
Constant mass assumption, pertinent
pollutants tracked, sludge rates
higher (usually) especially for
reduced flows
Enclosures only costed for excess area
exceeded
Assumed $.40/gal in March 1982
Operating days per year retained as vari-
able (usually 4,000 or 6,000 hrs/year)
Does not include equipment described
under Contractor A column
Does not include holding tanks
Cost of cyanide treatment is not included
because plants are expected to choose
substitution instead of the more costly
-------
Table VIII-2
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - PRE-PROPOSAL
Unit Process
Skimming (Gravity oil-
in-water separation)
Acid pH adjustment
C
A
Equation
antilog [0.0415 (log x)3
+ 0.051 (log x) + 4.16]
antilog [0.00478 (log x) •
+ 0.0125 (log x) + 3.52]
- 0.00829 (log x)
+ 0.0766 (log x)2
Dissolved air flotation C
C
Thermal emulsion
breaking
Caustic pH adjustment C
C
A
C
C
A
antilog [0.0369 (log x)3 - 0.0461 (log x)2
- 0.00537 (log x) + 4.77] + 1,620
antilog [0.0369 (log x)^ - 0.0461 (log x)2
- 0.00537 (log x) + 4.771 + 40.5x
antilog [0.0711 (log x)^ - 0. 329 (log x) 2
+ 0.551 (log x) + 4.05]
antilog [-0.0313 (log x)3 + 0.1900 (log x)2
+ 0.8264 (log x) + 5.1591
antilog [-0.0351 (log x)^ + 0.1438 (log x)2
+ 0.6535 (log x) + 4.697] - 72 x (days/wk)
(wk/yr)
33,900 x0*245 + 3,600
33,900 x°-245 + 527 x0-662
antilog [0.0755 (log x)3 - 0.375 (log x)2
+1.20 (log x) + 3.24]
antilog [0.034 (log x)3 -
+ 0.461 (log x) + 4.071 +
antilog [0.034 (log x)3
0.167 (log x)
3,645
0.167 (log x)2
+ 0.461 (log x) + 4.07] + 526.5 x
62'
antilog [-0.0345 (log x)3
+ 0.194 (log x) + 3.65]
+ 0.167 (log x.)
Applicability
1 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 40
40 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 1,000
0.1 < x < 8
0.1 < x < 8
7 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 1,000
5 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
-------
Table VIII-2 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - PRE-PROPOSAL
Unit Process
Chemical emulsion
breaking
Multimedia filtration
Lime and settle [L&S]
200 mg/1 lime dosage
2,000 mg/1 lime dosage
Hexavalent chromium
reduction
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
Equation
antilog [0.0373 (log x)3 - 0.181 (log x)2
+ 0.323 (log x) +4.60] + antilog
[-0.00854 (log x)3 + 0.125 (log x)2
+ 0.0403 (log x) + 3.621
antilog [0.0272 (log x)3 + 0.0321 (log x)2
+ 0.180 (log x) + 4.04]
6,800 x0-598 + 1,620
6,800 x0-598 + 182 x0-89
antilog [-0.0157 (log x)3 + 0.183 (log x)2
- 0.0297 (log x) + 3.38]
antilog
+ 0.256
antilog
+ 0.256
antilog
+ 0.275
antilog
+ 0.281
antilog
+ 0.281
antilog
+ 0.249
antilog
+ 0.213
antilog
+ 0.213
antilog
+ 0.795
[0.0033 (log x)3 + 0.0365 (log x)2 »
(log x) + 4.45] + 7,290
[0.0033 (log x)3 + 0.0365 (log x)2
(log x) + 4.45] + 1,012.5 x°-562
[0.00402 (log x)3 + 0.0114 (log x)2
(log x) + 4.06]
[-0.00236 (log x)3 + 0.0645 (log x)2
(log x) + 4.49] +7,290
[-0.00236 (log x)3 + 0.0645 (log x)2
(log x) + 4.49] + 1,012.5 x°-66Z „
[0.00720 (log x)3 + 0.0450 (log x)2
(log x) + 4.08]
[-0.0248 (log x)3
(log x) + 4.10] +
[-0.0248 (log x)3
(log x) +4.10
i
[0.132 (log x)
(log x) + 2.95]
+ 0.108 (log x)'
2,835
x)
0.447 (log x)2
Applicability
7 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 12
12 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
0.2 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
-------
Table VIII-2 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - PRE--PROPOSAL
Unit Process
Chemical emulsion
breaking
Multimedia filtration
Lime and settle [L&S]
200 mg/1 lime dosage
Hexavalent chromium
reduction
C
c
A
C
c
A
2,000 mg/1 lime dosage C
A
C
C
A
Equat ion
antilog [0.0373 (log x)3 - 0.181 (log x)2
+ 0.323 (log x) + 4.60] + antilog
[-0.00854 (log x)3 + 0.125 (log x)2
+ 0.0403 (log x) +3.621
antilog [0.0272 (log x)3 + 0.0321 (log x)2
+ 0.180 (log x) + 4.04]
,0. 598 + 1> 620,
+
6, 800 xl
6,800 xO-598 + 132
antilog [-0.0157 (log x)3 + 0.183 (log x)2
- 0.0297 (log x) + 3.38]
antilog [0.0033 (log x)3 + 0.0365 (log x)2
+ 0.256 (log x) + 4.45] + 7,290
antilog [0.0033 (log x)3 + 0.0365 (log x)2
+ 0.256 (log x) + 4.45] + 1,012.5 x0-562
antilog [0.00402 (log x)3 + 0.0114 (log x)2
+ 0.275 (log x) + 4.06]
antilog [-0.00236 (log x)3 + 0.0645 (log x)2
+ 0.281 (log x) + 4.49] +7,290
antilog [-0.00236 (log x)3 + 0.0645 (log x)2
+ 0.281 (log x) + 4.49] + 1,012.5 x0-662
antilog [0.00720 (log x)3 + 0.0450 (log x)2
+ 0.249 (log x) + 4.08]
antilog [-0.0248 (log x)3 + 0.108 (log x)2
+ 0.213 (log x) + 4.10] + 2,835
antilog [-0.0248 (log x)3 + 0.108 (log x)2
+ 0.213 (log x) + 4.101 + 384.8 x0-67°
antilog [0.132 (log x)3 - 0.447 (log x)2
+ 0.795 (log x) + 2.95]
Applicability
7 < x < 1,000
7 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 12
12 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
1 < x < 1,000
0.2 < x < 20
20 < x < 1,000
-------
Table VIII-2 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - PRE-PROPOSAL
Unit Process
Equation
Applicability
Activated carbon
adsorption
GAC contacting
GAC replacement
throwaway system
GAC thermal regenera-
tion
Vacuum filtration
C
C
A
A
antilog [-0.0255 (log x) 3 + 0.211 (log x)2
- 0.00279 (log x) + 4.651 + 2,633
antilog [-0.0255 (log x)3 + 0.211„QQg x)2
0.00279 (log x) + 4.65] + 405 x°-
7,000
antilog [-0.00286 (log x)3 + 0.0996 (log x)2
+ 0.0834 (log x) + 3.37]
A = 580 p
C
C
A
C
C
A
antilog [-3.383 (log p)3
- 70.38 (log p) + 66.28
antilog [0.0564 (log p)
+ 1.40 ^l9g p) + 4.41] + 203.9 p
+ 26.93
+ 203.9
- 0.446
(fog.8)
pu,
(1<
0. 5(
4
<
x
<
10
10
<
x
<
1 ,000
4
<
X
<
70
70
<
X
<
1 ,000
.2
<
p
<
400
P)'
8,450 p°*4H + 42.4
antilog [-0.05707 (log v)3 + 0.595
- 1.15 (log v) + 5.57] + 4,455
antilog [-0.05707 (log v)3 + 0.5g5 £log
15 (log v) + 5.57] +
(log v)2
v)2
antilog
+ 0.215
[0.0203
(log v)
(lot
+ 4.
v)3
25]
141.8
- 0.0736
(log V)'
400
<
P
<
1 ,000
o
o
o
<
P
<
2,000
400
<
P
<
2, 000
10
<
V
<
90
90
<
V
<
1 ,000
10
<
V
<
-------
Table VIII-2 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - PRE-PROPOSAL
Unit Process
Recycle
Holding tank
Pumping
Equalization
C
C
c
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
A
Equat ion
antilog [0.00780 (log x)3 + 0.00444 (log x)2
+ 0.0425 (log x) + 4.96] + 1,013
antilog [0.00780 (log x) 3 + 0.00444 (log x)2
+ 0.0425 (log x) + 4.96] + 56.7 x0- 561
antilog [-0.118 (log x)3 + 1.58 (log x)2
- 6.04 (log x) + 12.43] + 56.7 x°-561
antilog [0.0443 (log x)3 - 0.203 (log x)2
+ 0.477 (log x) + 3.73]
antilog [-0.122 (log x) 3 + 1.58 (log x)2
- 5.83 (log x) + 11.1 ]
antilog [0.135 (log g)3 - 1.12 (log g)2
+ 3.67 (log g) - 1.211 + 25.7 g0.654
antilog [0.150 (log g)3 - 2.32 (log g)2
+ 12.44 (log g) - 17.97] + 25.7 gO-654
antilog [-0.0135 (log x)3 + 0.119 (log x)2
+ 0.0654 (log x) + 3.86] + 1,013
antilog [-0.0135 (log x)3 + 0.119 (log x)¦
+ n nfis/i (iog x) + 3.86I0+ 56.7 X°-56T 9
-0.0111 4- n ?«n /'l^a vU
20
,°v2!8.^?g x)
+ 0.0654 (log x) + 3.861.-
antilog [-O.81I1 (log x;3 +
- 0.977 (log x) + 5.47] + 56.7 xl
antilog [0.00589 (log x)3 + 0.00446 (log x)2
+ 0.0528 (log x) + 3.941
v\ 3
antilog [0.0347 (log x)
+ 0.489 (log x) + 3.56]
0.185 (log x)2 1
8,000 x0-483
antilog [-0.0118 (log x)3 + 0.15 (log x)¦
+ 0.00665 (log x) + 3.34]
Applicability
10 < x < 200
200 < x < 1,000
000 < x < 5,000
10 < x < 1,000
000 < x < 5,000
150 < g < 20,000
000 < g < 1,000,000
1 < x < 200
200 < x < 1,000
000 < X < 5,000
1 < x < 1,000
000 < x < 5,000
1 < x < 1,000
-------
Table VIII-2 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - PRE-PROPOSAL
Unit Process
Equation
Applicability
Cyanide oxidation
C = antilog [0.00323 (log x)3 + 0.0220 (log x)2
0.
,1
<
X
< 10
+ 0.0672 (log x) + 4.611
C = antilog [-0.131 (log x)3 + 0.964 (log x)2
10
<
X
<
300
- 1.69 (log x) + 5.60]
A = antilog [0.0145 (log x)3 + 0.0805 (log x)2
15
<
X
<
200
+ 0.0363 (log x) + 3.54]
Contractor hauling
A = 109 s
Monitoring
C - 8,000
1
<
X
<
2, 000
A = 5,000
1
<
X
<
2,000
C = total capital cost (dollars)
A = annual cost, not including amortization and depreciation (dollars/year)
x = wastewater flow (gallons/minute)
s = sludge production rate (gallons/day)
p = carbon exhaustion rate (1,000 pounds/year)
v = vacuum filter area (sq. ft.)
-------
Table VIII-3
OILY SLUDGE PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH ALUMINUM FORMING
Oily Sludge
Production
Operat ion (gal/1 ,000 sal)
Direct chill casting 0.2
Continuous casting 0.2
Ext rus ion
contact cooling 0.07
heat treatment contact 0.08
cooling
dummy block contact 0.14
cooling
die cleaning
Hot rolling oil Site-specific
Etch line
acid rinse
deoxidant dip
deoxidant rinse
caustic rinse
water rinse
leveler rinse
scrubber
detergent rinse
Forging heat treatment 0.07
contact cooling
Forging scrubber 0.32
Drawing oil Site-specific
Drawing heat treatment
contact cooling
Cold rolling oil Site-specific
Cold rolling heat treat-
ment contact cooling
Foil rolling oil Site-specific
-------
Table VIII-4
LIME DOSAGE REQUIREMENTS AND LIME SLUDGE PRODUCTION
ASSOCIATED WITH ALUMINUM FORMING
Operation
Direct chill casting
Continuous casting
Extrus ion
contact cooling
- heat treatment contact
cooling i
dummy block contact
cooling
die cleaning
Hot rolling oil
Etch line
acid rinse
deoxidant dip
deoxidant rinse
caustic rinse
water rinse
leveler rinse
scrubber
detergent rinse j
Forging heat treatment |
contact cooling
Forging scrubber
Drawing oil
Drawing heat treatment contact
cooling
Cold rolling oil
Cold rolling heat treatment
contact cooling
Foil rolling oil
Lime Lime Sludge
Dosage Production
(mg/1) (gal/1,000 gal)
2,000 46
2,000 38
2,000 63
2,000 63
2,000 63
2,000 63
2,000 63
2,000 63
2,000 63
2,000 63
200 6
200 6
2,000 38
2,000 38
2,000 38
I
-------
Table VIII-5
CARBON EXHAUSTION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH ALUMINUM FORMING
Carbon
Exhaustion Rate
(lbs carbon/
Operat ion 1,000 gal)
Direct chill casting 2
Continuous casting 2
Extrus ion
contact cooling 2
heat treatment contact
cooling
dummy block contact 0.5
cooling
die cleaning
Hot rolling oil 10
Etch line
acid rinse 0.5
deoxidant dip 0.5
deoxidant rinse 0.5
caustic rinse 2
water rinse 1
leveler rinse 1
scrubber 1
detergent rinse 1
Forging heat treatment
contact cooling
Forging scrubber 5
Drawing oil 10
Drawing heat treatment 0.5
contact cooling
Cold rolling oil 10
Cold rolling heat treat- 0.3
ment contact cooling
Foil rolling oil 10
-------
Table VII1-6
Equipment
Agitators, C-clamp
Agitators, Top Entry
Clarifier, Concrete
Clarifier, Steel
lO
i—»
r-o
Contract Hauling
Cooling Tower System
Feed System Alum
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - POST-PROPOSAL
Equation Range of Validity
C - 839.1 + 587.5 (HP) 0.25 < HP < 0.33
A = 2739.89 + 403.365 (HP) + 0.7445 (HP)2
C = 1585.55 + 125.302 (HP) - 3.27437 (HP)2 0.33 < HP < 5.0
A = 2739.89 + 403.365 (HP) + 0.7445 (HP)2
C = 78400 + 32.65 (S) - 7.5357 x 10"4 (S)2 500 < S < 12,000
A = exp[9.40025 - 0.539825 (InS)
+ 0.551186 (InS)2]
C = 41197.1 + 72.0979(S) + 0.0106542(S)2 50 < S < 2800
A = exp[9.40025 - 0.539825 (InS)
+ 0.0551186 (InS)2]
C = 0
A = 0.40 (G)(HPY) Non Hazardous
C = exp[8.76408 + 0.07048 (InT) 1 < T < 700
+ 0.050949 (InT)2]
A = exp[9.08702 - 0.75544 (InT)
+ 0.140379 (InT)2]
C = exp[16.2911 - 0.206595 (InF) 10 < F < 1000
+ 0.06448 (InF)2]
A = [0.52661 + 0.11913 (F) + 1.964
-------
Table VIII-6 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - POST-PROPOSAL
Equipment
Equalization Tanks, Steel
Feed System, Batch Lime
Feed System, Lime
Feed System, Polymer
Feed System, Sulfuric Acid
Multimedia Filter
Equation
C = 14,759.8 + 0.170817 (V) - 8.44271
x TO"8 (V)2
C = 3,100.44 + 1.19041 (V) - 1.7288
x 10-5 (V)2
C = exp[6.88763 - 0.643189 (InV)
+ 0.11525 (InV)2]
A = 0.05 (C)
C = 1697.79 + 19.489 (B)
C = 16149.2 + 10.2512 (B)
x 10-5(8)2
A = exp[2.91006 - 0.44837 (InB)
+ 0.0840605 (lnB)2]BPY + 1090
C = exp[8.64445 + 0.790902 (InF)
- 0.04556 (InF)2]
A = expt-1.90739 + 0.60058 (InF)
+ n ni 79iA n™m2i /upv^i
0.036824 (B)2
1.65864
C
A
+ 0.017236 (InF)2](HPY)
24190 + 1024.38 (F) + 46.3977 (F)2
[0.479342 + 2.25578 (F) + 8.49822
x 10"4(F)2](HPY)
10858.2 + 33.3414 (F) - 3.3325
x 10-3(F)2
exp[-2.31035 + 0.707633 (InF)
+ 0.0215896 (InF)2](HPY)
C = 10.888 + 277.85 (SA) - 0.154337 (SA)2
A = exp[8.20771 + 0.275272 (InSA)
+ 0.0323124 (InSA)2]
Range of Validity
24,000 < V < 500,000
1,000 < V < 24,000'
V < 1,000
5 < B < 1000
10 < F < 10,000
0.04 < F < 10
6 < F < 3200
-------
Table VIII-6 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOf-MENOED TREATMENT
AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES - POST-PROPOSAL
Equipment
Oil/Water Separator
Pumps, Centrifugal
Pumps, Sludge
Spray Rinsing System
Sulfonator
Tank, Batch Reactor
Tank, Concrete
Tank, Fiberglass
Equation
C - 5,542.07 + 65.7158 (Y) - 0.029627 (Y)2
A - 783.04 + 6.3616 (X) - 0.001736 (X)2
C » exp[6.31076 + 0.228887(lnY)
+ 0.0206172 (lnY)2]
A = exp[6.67588 + 0.01335 (lnY)
+ 0.062016 (lnY)2
C « 2264.31 + 21.0097 (Y) - 0.0037265 (Y)2
A = exp[7.64414 + 0.192172 (lnY)
+ 0.0202428 (lnY)2]
C « 3212.72 - 0.009005 (X) + 1.004
x 10~6 (X)2
A = N[1.05(HPY) + 64.246 - 1.801
x 10~4(X) + 2.008 x 10"8(X)21
C = 14336.3 + 38.1582 (F) - 0.156326 (F)2
A = 6934,09 + 2704.2 (F) - 1.08636 (F)2
C = 3100.44 +1.19041 (V) - 1.7288
x 10"5(V)2
A = exp[8.65018 - 0.0558684 (lnX)
+ 0.0145276 (lnX)2]
C = 5800 + 0.8V
A = 0
Range of Validity
0 < Y < 700
3 < Y < 3500
5 < Y < 500
C = 3100.44 + 1.19041 (V)
x 10~5(V)2
A = 0
1.7288
4.0 < F < 350
500 < V < 24,000
100 < X < 100,000
6000 < V < 24,000
-------
Table VII1-6 (Continued)
COST EQUATIONS FOR RECOMMENDED TREATMENT
AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES (POST-PROPOSAL)
Equipment
Tank, Large Steel
Tank, Small Steel
Vacuum Filter
Vacuum Filter Housing
Equation
C - 3128.83 + 2.37281 (V) - 7.10689
x 10-5(V)2
A = 0
C = 692.824 + 6.16706 (V) - 3.95367
x 10~3(V)2
A = 0
C = 67595.1 + 504.701 (SA) - 0.520067 (SA)2
A = 44096.8 + 138.057 (SA) - 0.0485584 (SA)2
C = 45[308.253 + 0.836592 (SA)]
A = 4.96[308.253 + 0.836592 (SA)]
Range of Validity
500 < V < 12,000
100 < V < 500
9.4 < SA < 750
9.4 < SA < 750
C = Direct capital, or equipment costs (1982 dollars)
A = Direct annual costs (1982 dollars/year)
B = Batch chemical feed rate (pounds/hour)
BPY = Number of batches per year
f = Chemical feed rate (pounds/hour)
G = Sludge disposal rate (galIons/hour)
HP = Power requirement (horsepower)
HPY = Plant operating hours (hours/year)
S = Clarifier surface area (square feet)
SA = Filter surface area (square feet)
T = Cooling capcity in evaporative tons (°F gallons/minute)
V = Tank capacity (gallons)
X = Wastewater flowrate (liters/hour)
-------
Table VIII-7
COMPONENTS OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT - POST-PROPOSAL
Item
Number
4
5
6
7
Item
Bare Module Capital Costs
Electrical & instrumentation
Yard piping
Enclosure
Pumping
Retrofit allowance
Total Module Cost
Engineering/admin. & legal
Construct ion/yardwork
Monitoring
Total Plant Cost
Contingency
Contractor's fee
Total Construction Cost
Interest during construction
Total Depreciable Investment
Land
Working capital
Cost
Direct capital costs from modela
0% of item 1
0% of item 2
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Included in item 1
Item 1 + items 2 through 6
10.0% of item 7
0% of item 7
0% of item 7
Item 7 + items 8 through 10
15% of item 11
10% of item 11
Item 11 + items
12 through 13
0% of item 14
Item 14 + item 15
0% of item 16
0% of item 16
19
Total Capital Investment
Item 16 + items 17 through 1
*Direct capital costs include costs of equipment and required accessories
-------
Table VIII-8
COMPONENTS OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS - POST-PROPOSAL
Item
Number
20
21
22
23
24
Item
Bare Module Annual Costs
Overhead
Monitoring
Insurance
Amortization
Cost
Direct annual costs from model3
0% of item 16^
See footnote c
1 % of item 16
CRF x item 16d
25
Total Annualized Costs
Item 20 + items 21 through 24
aDirect annual costs include costs of raw materials, energy, operating labor
maintenance and repair.
bltem 16 is the total depreciable investment obtained from Table 1.
cSee page for an explanation of the determination of monitoring costs.
dThe capital recovery factor (CRF) was used to account for depreciation and
-------
Table VIII-9
WASTEWATER SAMPLING FREQUENCY - POST-PROPOSAL
Wastewater Discharge
(Liters Per Day) Sampling Frequency
0 - 37,850 Once per month
37,851 - 189,250 Twice per month
1 89,251 - 378,500 Once per week
378,501 - 946,250 Twice per week
946,250+ Three times per week
-------
Table VIII-10
COST PROGRAM POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Parameter
Units
Flowrate
liters/hour
pH
pH units
Temperature
O p
Total Suspended Solids
mg/1
Acidity (as CaC03)
mg/1
Aluminum
mg/1
Ammonia
mg/1
Antimony
mg/1
Arsenic
mg/1
Cadmium
mg/1
Chromium (trivalent)
mg/1
Chromium (hexavalent)
mg/1
Cobalt
mg/1
Copper
mg/1
Cyanide (free)
mg/1
Cyanide (total)
mg/1
Fluoride
mg/1
Iron
mg/1
Lead
rag/1
Manganese
mg/1
Nickel
mg/1
Oil and Grease
rag/ 1
Phosphorous
mg/ 1
Selenium
mg/1
Silver
mg/1
Thallium
mg/1
Z inc
mg/1
-------
Table VIII-11
ALUMINUM FORMING CATEGORY COST OF COMPLIANCE (SI 982)
BPT
BAT
PSES
Subcategory
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
Rolling With Neat Oils
9,553,000
8,200,300
12,479,200
6,127,500
3,715,900
2,003,700
Rolling With Emulsions
13,957,400
14,476,600
15,118,300
7,972,300
1,421,700
738,500
Extrusion
21,145,000
13,025,772
18,306,031
10,106,251
16,167,813 1
13,544,148
Forging
—
—
—
4,871,590
2,315,186
Drawing With Neat Oils
3,026,700
1,747,300
2,208,200
997,900
1,752,034
961,270
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps
733,200
474,800
409,000
179,300 .
209,900
,94,709
Industry Totals
-------
Table VIII-12
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
NORMAL PLANT USED FOR COSTING
m
rvs
Operation/Waste Stream
CORE
Rolling With Neat Oils Spent Lubricant
Roll Grinding Spent Emulsion
Degreasing Solvents
Sawing Spent Lubricant
Miscellaneous Waste Streams
Annealing Scrubber
ANCILLARY
Continuous Sheet Casting
Solution Heat Treatment
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
Production
(kkg/yr)
166,710
166, 710
166, 710
166, 710
166, 710
285
8, 1 52
14,694
1 , 573
1 , 573
1 , 573
Option
0
0.917
0
0.801
7.502
.0075
.015
1 1 3.2
.282
21.88
25.01
Flow (1/yr x 10^)
Option 2 Option 3
0
0.91 7
0
0. 801
7. 502
. 0075
.01 5
29.93
.282
2.188
3.041
0
0.91 7
0
0.801
7.502
.0075
.01 5
29.93
.282
2.188
-------
Table VIII-13
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROLLING WITH EMULSION SUBCATEGORY
NORMAL PLANT USED FOR COSTING
Operation/Waste Stream
CORE
Rolling With Emulsions Spent Emulsion
Roil Grinding Spent Emulsion
Sawing Spent Lubricant
Miscellaneous Waste Streams
fS ANCILLARY
r\>
Direct Chill Casting
Solution Heat Treatment
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
Production
(kkg/yr)
150,049
150,049
150,049
150,049
131,704
8,855
665
665
665
Flow (l/yr x 1Q6)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
11.18
0.83
0.72
6.75
263.3
68.23
0. 12
9.25
10.57
11.18
0.83
0.72
6.75
263.3
18.04
0. 12
0.93
1.29
11.18
0.83
0.72
6.75
263. 3
18.04
0.12
0.93
-------
Table VI11-14
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
NORMAL PLANT USED FOR COSTING
Operation/Waste Stream
Die Cleaning Bath and Rinse
Die Cleaning Scrubber
Degreasing
Sawing Spent Lubricant
Miscellaneous Waste Streams
™ ANCILLARY
OJ ——— ——
Extrusion Press "Leakage
Direct Chill Casting
Solution Heat Treatment
Cleaning and Etching Bath
Cleaning and Etching Rinse
Cleaning and Etching Scrubber
Degassing Scrubber
Production
(kkg/yr)
19,182
19,182
1 9,182
1 9,182
19,182
1 ,247
9, 794
6, 186
504
504
504
442
Option 1
0.775
5.285
0
0.092
0.863
1. 534
19.578
47.66
0.090
7.012
8.014
0.013
Flow (1/yr x 10^)
Option 2
0.284
5.285
0
0.092
0.863
1.534
9.578
2.601
0.090
0.701
0.974
0
Option 3
0.284
5.285
0
0.092
0.863
1 . 534
19.578
12.601
0.090
0. 701
0.974
-------
Table VIII-15
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
NORMAL PLANT USED FOR COSTING
Operation/Waste Stream
CORE
Forging
Degreasing Spent Solvent
Sawing Spent Lubricant
Miscellaneous Waste Streams
ro
ANCILLARY
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatment
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
Production
(kkg/yr)
4, 793
4, 793
4, 793
4, 793
3,638
4, 126
4, 734
4, 734
4, 734
Flow (1/yr x 10^)
Option 1 Option 2 Option"""?
0
0.023
0.216
5.63
31. 79
0.847
65.859
75. 271
0
0
0.023
0.216
0.343
8.405
0.847
6.586
9.1 51
0
0
0.023
0.21 6
0.343
8.405
0.847
6. 586
-------
Table VIII-16
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
NORMAL PLANT USED FOR COSTING
Production Flow (1/yr x 10^)
Operation/Waste Stream (kkg/yr) Option 1 Option 2 Option~3
CORE
Drawing With Neat Oils
16,213
0
0
0
Degreasing Spent Solvent
16,213 .
0
0
0
Sawing Spent Lubricant
16,213
0.078
0.078
0.078
Miscellaneous Waste Streams
16,213
0. 7-30
0.730
0. 730
ANCILLARY
Continuous Rod Casting Cooling Water
2, 026
2.11
0. 211
0.21 1
Continuous Rod Casting L- -ricant
2,026
0.004
0.004
0.004
Solution Heat Treatment
5, 220
40.22
10.633
10.633
Cleaning or Etching Bath
2,726
0.488
0.488
0.488
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
2, 726
37.924
3.792
3. 792
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
2, 726
43.343
5.269
-------
Table VIII-17
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS
NORMAL PLANT USED FOR COSTING
SUBCATEGORY
Production
Flow (1/yr x 106)
Operation/Waste Stream
(kkg/yr)
Option 1
Option 2
Option
CORE
Drawing Spent Emulsions
6,914
2.88
2.88
2.88
Degreasing Spent Solvent
6,914
0
0
0
Sawing Spent Lubricant
6,914
0.0332
0.0332
0.0332
Miscellaneous Waste Streams
6,914
0.311
0.311
0.31 1
ANCILLARY
Continuous Rod Casting Cooling Water
46
0.048
0.0048
0.0048
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant
46
0.00008
0.00008
0.0000
Solution Heat Treatment
5,864
45.18
1 1.94
1 1.94
Cleaning or Etching Bath
360
0.064
0.064
0.064
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
360
5.008
0.501
0.501
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber
360
5. 72
0.70
-------
Table VIU-18
SIMMARY OP THE ALININIM K1HMING NORMAL PIANT COST'S (SI 982)
Plant Core
Cost of Compliance3 ($1982)
Subcategory
Production
iJshs/jiL
_ Option
Capital" ~
Annual^
Option 2
Capital" Annual^
Option 3
Capital'5 Annua W
Rolling With Neat Oils
166,710
1,023,495
1,134,182
907,527
1,000,567
944,556
1,025,521
Hailing With Emulsions
150,049
1,455,355
1 ,307,550
1,465,997
1,312,770
1,573,880
1,399,834
Extrusion
19,182
589,215
348,353
585,598
328,140
640,014
361,182
Forcing
4,793
553,602
363,483
440,811
293,341
469,810
309,034
Drawing With Neat Oils
16,213
548,652
366,267
466,051
312,101
492, 795
328,631
Drawing With finulsions
6,914
447,727
232.904
402,063
220,935
428,683
237,372
a Option 1: Flew equalization with lime and settle treatment.
Option 2: Fl«rf reduction with lime and settle treatment.
Option 3: Flew reduction with Hrae, settle, and Etlter treatment.
k Ihe system capital costs are calculated as 37.5 percent of the direct capital costs.
c The amortization costs are based on a capital recovery factor of 0.177 (assuming an interest rate of return of 12 percent
-------
1.000.000
CAPITAL
100.000
ANNUAL
10.000
1.000
10.000
100.000
1.000,000
100
1.000
INFLUENT FLOW |L/HR)
Figure VI11- 1
-------
-
-
-
/
Au
YUA
.
4
/
*
r
CAPIT/
L
•
-
,
-
-
100 1.000 111.Of Ml 100.000 1.000.000
INI IUENT FLOW (l/lim
Figure VIII-2
-------
1,000,000
CAPITAL
100,000
ANNUAL
10.000
1.000
1,000.000
100.000
10.000
100
1.000
INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
P * r»n \7"T 7 T _ ^
i. x i. v • - - - ^
-------
j
/
/
/
/
CAPITAL
/
/
,/
/
t
*
HL
-
Y—
/
~
>
*
1 10 100 1.000 10.000
INHUENT FLOW (L/llll)
Figure VIII-4
-------
CAPITAL
INFLUENT FLOW (L/IIR)
Figure VIII-5
-------
CAPITAL
I.OOO.OWI
IN I IB KNI HX)W|I /IIH|
Figure VI11 - 6
-------
Zi
PITAL
/
/
^ANNUAL
~
~
~
100 1.000 KUHK) 1IHUHMI 1.000.0(10
INFLUENT FLOW (L'Uni
Figure VIII-7
-------
-CAPITAL @2.000 MG/I
CAPITAL 200 MG/L
ANNUAL (5) 2.000 MG/L
100.000
ANNUAL @ 200 MG/L
10.000
1.000
100
1.000
INFIUEN1 FLOW (1/1111)
Figure VI11- 8
-------
1,000.000
«.o
CO
CTv
100.000
5 10.000
T
1,000
100
10
ANNUAL
z:
lad
£
100
1.000
10.000
100.000
1.000.000
INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
Fi gure VI11 - 9
-------
1.000.004)
00
Z
<
CO
1.000
/
<
/
A
5I
r
—
-
-
-
—
-
-¦
-
-
-
-
/
/
<
/
N
i
p
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
10
100
1.000
10.000
100.000
INFLUENT FLOW (1/11(1)
Figure VI11 -10
-------
1 000.000
' 'capital
100.000
, ANf UAL
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
1.000
1INMMH)
1.UOO
lOO
INFLUENT FLOWIL/IIHI
COSTS OF
Figure VIII-11
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
-------
1 OOU.OiK)
v>
CO
z
<
->
100.000
10.000
-------
—
-
fc*=l
t
,/
/
/
/
/J
INI
IA
.
-j—
^—
*
/
/
/
/
*
/
/
/
y
/
/
0,1 1 10 too 1.000 10.000
HAULED FLOW (L/HR)
Figure VI11- 13
-------
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
INM ULNT FLOW (L/lllt)
Figure VI11-14
-------
—
_
-
—
-
-
-
-
•
•
—
.
—
-
-
•
-
—
-
—
-
-
_
*
CAPITA
I
w
-
-
-
-
,
-
. ^
i
/
ANNU/
VL
—
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
;
100 1.000 1(1 (MH) IIHMHIII t.OOO.OOO 10.000.000
INftUENT HOW|i/|im
COSTS
Figure VI11 - 15
-------
10.000.000
in
4^
o;
1,000.000
Z 100.000
<
->
10,000
1.000
100
1.000
~
CAPITAL
10,000
100,000
CAPITAL
1,000,000
INFLUENT FLOW (L/HR)
'BASED ON 4 HR RETENTION TIME
Figure VI11 -16
-------
/
4
/
~
4
t
\
TAL
>
,4
/
JU
M
-
too i.ooo lo.ooo ioo.ooo i.ooo.ooo 10.000.000
INFLUENT FlOW (C./HH)
Figure VI11- 17
-------
Stare
ZJ I-*
Input
Desired
Modules
Input
User-Specified
Variables
Call Cose
Routine
Output
Costs
Compute
Svstem
Cose s
Call Coat
Equations For
Each Module
Design
Parameters
Executive
Routine to Call
Required Modules
Figure VIII-18
GENERAL LOGIC DIAGRAM OF COMPUTER COST MODEL
-------
TESTPARAM-
ATERISJ CON-
V^vencc?^
NO
y^Q voiNs.
WANT DESIGN
VALUES TO
SssP«INT7^'
NO
YES
GO TO NEXT
MODULE
print material
BALANCES AND
OESIGN VALUES
DATA FROM
PREVIOUSLY
UNTREATED
WASTEWATER
ASSUME INITIAL
VALUES FOR
RECYCLE
STREAMS
CALCULATE
OEStGN
VALUES
FLOW AND
CCNCeimATfONS
PROM PREVIOUS
MODULE
SPECIFY
CONSTANTS,
DESIGN VALUES
Figure VIII-19
LOGIC DIAGRAM OF MODULE DESIGN PROCEDURE
-------
RETURN FOR
NEXT PLANT
COMPUTE
SYSTEM
COSTS
OUTPUT
COSTS
COMPUTE
SUMMED
MODULE
COSTS
CALL COST
EQUATIONS
CALLMOOULE
SUBROUTINES
CALL COST
EQUATIONS
MODULE N
COMPONENTS
CALL COST
EQUATIONS
MODULE 1
COMPONENTS
MODULE 2
COMPONENTS
DESIGN VALUES
AND CONFIGURATION
FROM MATERIAL
BALANCE PROGRAM
COST
EQUATIONS
LOGIC
Figure VIII-2 0
DIAGRAM OF THE COSTING ROUTINE
-------
CAPITAL-CONTINUOUS
ANNUAL-CONTINUOUS
6
CAPITAL-NORMAL BATCH
„ . ¦ V
• yn ———
ANNUAL-NORMAL BATCH
CAPITAL-LOW FLOW BATCH
ANNUAL-LOW FLOW BATCH
4
3
10®
INFLUENT FLOW TO CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION (L/HR)
ASSUMPTIONS
1. LIME OOSAQE IS 4.000 MQ/L
Figure VIII-21
-------
*
p
X
<
£
v>
o
o
6
ui
L
kO
kO
101 102 103 104 10B 10®
INFLUENT FLOW TCf VACUUM FILTRATION |L/HR|
ASSUMPTIONS
1. VACUUM FILTER IS OPERATED 8 HOURS/DAY
/
C)
\PI
T/
VL
*
/
~
/
<
*
s
t ' ANN
*'
JAL
4
J
>
mS\
M.*\
__
Figure V111-22
-------
10.000
CAPITAL
ANNUAL
4000
INFLUENT FLOW TO EQUALIZATION |l./VR)
Figure VIII-23
-------
a
*
(*
~
s,
(
C/
vpn
rAi
¦K
41
Jl
Til
MEDIA
s\
/
Ar
IN
U
M
klULTIME
DIA
i
pi
rAL-CART
RIDC
iE
~
y
s
*
/
. «- •
* »
-
-¦
¦"'^ANrs
IUAL
CA
RT
Rl
D
G
E
101 102 103 10* 106 10®
INFLUENT FLOW TO CARTRIDGE /MULTIMEDIA FILTRATION (L/HR)
Figure V111 - 2 4
-------
10°
x
o
AC
<
2
M
O
O
111
cc
<
H
o
»-
10°
CAPITAL
-
——
¦—
*
L
JNUAL
10«
10J
10'
10"
10J
10*'
10"
10"
INFLUENT FLOW TO CHEMICAL EMULSION BREAKING (L/HR)
Figure VIII-25
-------
4-
-l-
2
|
1
!
'
-— - ¦
S
"
CAPITAL
~
/
/_
—
/
V ANNl
JAL
S
~
•
101 102 103 104 105 10®
INFLUENT FlOW TO OIL SKIMMING (l/HR)
Figure V1I1-26
-------
10°
x
O K
ec 10b
<
S
CAPITAL
.... 1
ANNUA
L
-
L_ .
<
£ 104
10J
10"
10'
10J
10*
10°
10°
ASSUMPTIONS
1 INHUENT HEXAVAIENT CHROMIUM
CONCENTRATION IS 60 MG 'I
SNFLUENT f-LOW TO CMRGMMJM REDUCTION (L/HRJ
Figure V111-27
-------
10°
CO
X
u
X
<
S
in
H-
(A
O
U
h
U
LU
X
<
H
o
h
10°
CAPITA
l-CO
OL
N(
51
ro
w
/E
RS
CAF
'IT
-H
01
DING TA(
SJKS
^ '
y
»
>
*
ai ni
10"1
10J
10'
10' 10J 10'
BLEED STREAM FLOW FROM COOLING TOWER/HOLDING TANK (L/HR)
10"
10°
ASSUMPTIONS
1. RECYCLE RATE IS 0.86
2. TEMPERATURE RANGE IS 10° F
Figure VIII-28
-------
10°
N
P
X
o
£C
<
2
to
o
o
&
UJ
K
Q
«<
l-
O
10°
104
uo
cn
cn
10J
c
APITAL
Al
Mr
ii
/
L
10'
10'
10°
10"*
10°
10°
EFFLUENT FLOW FROM RINSING (L/HR)
ASSUMPTIONS
1. TANK VOLUME IS 3600 GALLONS
Figure Vlll-29
-------
~10°
cn
K
*
5 4
X^IO4
o
cc
<
S
40
l~
(0
O
o
fc
ui
tt
Q
£*103
• 10*
10'
ioJ
10^
10°
10°
INFLUENT FLOW TO CONTRACT HAULING (L/YR|
ASSUMPTIONS
1 OPERATING SCHEDULE IS 16 HOURS PER DAY AND 250 DAYS PER YEAR
¦ —
/
/
/
/
/
/
' t
/
/
/
/
/
/
- J
/ H
/
/
/
/
/
Figure VIII-30
-------
-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
This section defines the effluent characteristics attainable
through the application of best practicable control technology
currently available (BPT), Section 301(b)(1)(A). BPT reflects
the existing performance by plants of various sizes, ages, and
manufacturing processes within the aluminum forming category, as
well as the established performance of the recommended BPT sys-
tems. Particular consideration is given to the treatment already
in place at plants within the data base.
The factors considered in identifying BPT include the total cost
of applying the technology in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits from such application, the age of equipment and facili-
ties involved, the manufacturing processes employed, nonwater
quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements),
and other factors the Administrator considers appropriate. In
general, the BPT level represents the average of the best exist-
ing performances of plants of various ages, sizes, processes, or
other common characteristics. Where existing performance is uni-
formly inadequate, BPT may be transferred from a different sub-
category or category. Limitations based on transfer of technol-
ogy are supported by a rationale concluding that the technology
is, indeed, transferable, and a reasonable prediction that it
will be capable of achieving the prescribed effluent limits. See
Tanner's Counci1 of America v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir.
1976). BPT focuses on end-of-pipe treatment rather than process
changes or internal controls, except where such practices are
common industry practice.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BPT
The Agency studied the aluminum forming category to identify the
manufacturing processes used and wastewaters generated during
aluminum forming. Information was collected from industry using
data collection portfolios, and wastewaters from specific plants
were sampled and analyzed. The Agency used these data to sub-
categorize the operations and determine what constitutes an
appropriate BPT. The factors which were considered in establish-
ing subcategories are discussed fully in Section IV. Nonwater
quality impacts and energy requirements are considered in Section
VIII.
The category has been subcategorized, for the purpose of regula-
tion, on the basis of forming operations. On examining each of
these forming operations, several additional or subsidiary
processes were identified. To organize the principal forming
-------
process and subsidiary processes into a workable matrix for the
purpose of regulation, the primary forming process and subsidiary
operations usually associated with it at plants throughout the
industry have been grouped together in what is known as a core.
Additional subsidiary processes which may or may not be present
at a facility with a given core are called ancillary operations.
The basis of regulation at any facility is the set of core
operations plus those ancillary operations actually found at the
specific facility.
In making technical assessments of data, reviewing manufacturing
processes, and evaluating wastewater treatment technology
options, both indirect and direct dischargers have been consid-
ered as a single group. An examination of plants and processes
did not indicate any process differences based on the type of
discharge, whether it be direct or indirect. Hence, BPT is
described in substantial detail for direct discharge subcatego-
ries, even though there may be no direct discharge plants in that
subcategory.
Wastewater produced by the deformation operations contains signi-
ficant concentrations of oil and grease, suspended sol ids, toxic
metals, and aluminum. Surface cleaning produces a rinse water in
which significant concentrations of oil and grease, suspended
solids, toxic metals, and aluminum are found. The other surface
treatment wastewaters have similar characteristics. Wastewater
from anodizing and conversion coating, which are considered as
cleaning or etching operations, also may contain chromium and
cyanide. Contact cooling water is associated with some methods
of casting and heat treatment and contains significant concentra-
tions of oil and grease, suspended sol ids, toxic metals,
aluminum, and cyanide.
BPT for the aluminum forming category is based upon common treat-
ment of combined streams within each subcategory. Sixty-five
percent of the aluminum forming plants with treatment combine
waste streams in a common treatment system. The BPT treatment is
similar throughout the category to the extent that oil and
grease, suspended solids, and metals removal are required within
each subcategory. The general treatment scheme for BPT is to
apply oil skimming technology to Remove oil and grease, followed
or combined with lime and setfle technology to remove metals and
solids from the combined wastewaters. Separate preliminary
treatment steps for chromium reduction, emulsion breaking, and
cyanide removal are uti1ized when required. The BPT effluent
concentrations are based on the performance of chemical precipi-
tation and sedimentation (lime and settle) when applied to a
broad range of metal-bearing wastewaters. The basis for lime and
settle performance is set forth in substantial detail in Section
VII. The BPT treatment train varies somewhat between subcatego-
-------
ries to take into account treatment of hexavalent chromium,
cyanide, and emulsified oils.
For each of the subcategories, a specific approach was followed
for the development of BPT mass limitations. To account for pro-
duction and flow variability from plant to plant, a unit of
production or production normalizing parameter (PNP) was deter-
mined for each waste stream which could then be related to the
flow from the process to determine a production normalized flow.
Selection of the PNP for each process element is discussed in
Section IV. Each process within the subcategory was then
analyzed to determine (1) whether or not operations included
generated wastewater, (2) specific flow rates generated, and (3)
specific production normalized flows for each process. This
analysis is discussed in general in Section V and summarized for
the core operations in each subcategory and for the ancillary
operations.
Whenever possible, the Agency establishes wastewater limitations
in terms of mass rather than concentration. The production nor-
malized wastewater flow (1/kkg or gal/ton) is a link between the
production operations and the effluent limitations. The pollu-
tant discharge attributable to each operation can be calculated
from the normalized flow and effluent concentration achievable by
the treatment technology.
Normalized flows were analyzed to determine which flow was to be
used as part of the basis for BPT mass limitations. The selected
flow (sometimes referred to as a BPT regulatory flow or BPT flow)
reflects the water use controls which are common practices within
the industry. The BPT normalized flow is based on the average of
all applicable data. Plants with existing flows above the
average may have to implement some method of flow reduction to
achieve the BPT normalized flow and thus the BPT limitations. In
most cases, this will involve improving housekeeping practices,
better maintenance to limit water leakage, or reducing excess
flow by turning down a flow valve. Except for the case of direct
chill casting which requires water recycle, it is not believed
that these modifications would incur any costs for the plants.
The BPT model treatment technology assumes that all wastewaters
generated within a subcategory were combined for treatment in a
single or common treatment system for that subcategory, even
though flow and sometimes pollutant characteristics of process
wastewater streams varied within the subcategory. A disadvantage
of common treatment is that some loss in pollutant removal effec-
tiveness will result where waste streams containing specific
pollutants at treatable levels are combined with other streams in
which these same pollutants are absent or present at very low
concentrations. Under these circumstances a plant may prefer to
-------
segregate these waste streams and bypass treatment. Since
treatment systems considered under BPT are primarily for metals,
oil and grease, and suspended solids removal, and many existing
plants usually had one common treatment system in place, a common
treatment system for each subcategory is reasonable in terms of
cost and effectiveness. Both treatment in place at aluminum
forming plants and treatment in other categories having similar
wastewaters were evaluated.
The overall effectiveness of end-of-pipe treatment for the
removal of wastewater pollutants is improved by the application
of water flow controls within the process to limit the volume of
wastewater requiring treatment. The controls or in-process tech-
nologies recommended under BPT include only those measures which
are commonly practiced within the category or subcategory and
which reduce flows to meet the production normalized flow for
each operation.
For the development of effluent limitations, mass loadings were
calculated for each operation within each subcategory. This
calculation was made on a process-by-process basis, primarily
because plants in this category may perform one or more of the
ancillary operations in conjunction with the core operations
present. The mass loadings (milligrams of pollutant per metric
ton of production unit - mg/kkg) were calculated by multiplying
the BPT normalized flow (1/kkg) by the concentration achievable
using the BPT model treatment system (mg/1) for each pollutant
parameter to be regulated under BPT.
Regulated Pollutant Parameters
Pollutant parameters are selected for regulation in the aluminum
forming subcategories because of their frequent presence at
treatable concentrations in raw wastewaters. Total suspended
solids, oil and grease, pH, chromium, zinc, aluminum, and cyanicle
have been selected for regulation in each subcategory. Treatment
of wastewater from all subcategories is presumed for BPT and
therefore it is necessary to regulate (provide a discharge
allowance) for all regulated pollutants in each subcategory
wastewater discharge.
Total suspended solids, in addition to being present at high con-
centrations in raw wastewater from aluminum forming operations,
is an important control parameter for metals removal in chemical
precipitation and settling treatment systems. The metals are
precipitated as insoluble metal hydroxides, and effective solids
removal is required in order to ensure reduced levels of toxic
metals in the treatment system effluent. Total suspended solids
are also regulated as a conventional pollutant to be removed from
the wastewater prior to discharge.
-------
Oil and grease is regulated under BPT since a number of aluminum
forming operations (i.e., rolling with emulsions, roll grinding,
continuous rod casting, and drawing with emulsions) generate
emulsified wastewater streams which may be discharged. As seen
in Section V, several waste streams have high concentrations of
oil and grease. As will be discussed in detail in Section X, the
organic pollutants considered for regulation in Section VI are
soluble in the oil and grease fraction and are found associated
with the concentrated oily wastes. Data across oil and grease
treatment at sampled aluminum forming plants show that effec-
tively removing the oil also removes 97 percent of the toxic
organics (see Table X-21 , p. 1106).
The importance of pH control is documented in Section VII (p.
701), and its importance in metals removal technology cannot be
over emphasized. Even small excursions from the optimum pH level
can result in less than optimum functioning of the system and
inability to achieve specified results. The optimum operating
level for most metals is usually found to be pH 8.8 to 9.3; when
aluminum is also being removed, the optimum pH may be as low as
7.5 to 8.0. To allow a reasonable operating margin and to
preclude the need for final pH adjustment, the effluent pH is
specified to be within the range of 7.0 to 10.
Total chromium is regulated since it includes both the hexavalent
and trivalent forms of chromium. Only the trivalent form is
removed by the lime and settle technology. Therefore, the hexa-
valent form must be reduced in order to meet the limitation on
total chromium in each subcategory. Chromium may be found at
high levels in wastewaters from anodizing and conversion coating
operations.
Zinc has been selected for regulation under BPT since it and
chromium are the predominant toxic metals present in aluminum
forming wastewaters. The Agency believes that when these param-
eters are controlled with the application of chemical precipita-
tion and sedimentation, control of the other toxic metals is
assured.
Aluminum has been selected for regulation under BPT since it is
found at high concentrations in process wastewater streams from
aluminum forming facilities and since it is the metal being pro-
cessed, it is found in all aluminum forming process wastewaters.
Cyanide is being regulated because it was found in treatable
concentrations in two solution heat treatment contact cooling
water streams, one associated with a forging operation and the
other a drawing operation. Sampling data after proposal indicate
that cyanide was also present in one extrusion press heat treat-
ment contact cooling water stream. Data indicate that cyanide is
-------
sometimes used as a corrosion inhibitor in the heat treatment
operations. Since such corrosion inhibitors are not unique to
these three plants, cyanide is selected for regulation. However,
representatives of the industry have indicated that other process
chemicals can be used to replace cyanide in these operations.
Therefore, the most effective means for a plant to control
cyanide may be for that plant to merely avoid the use of cyanide.
A special monitoring provision for cyanide which allows for the
owner or operator of a plant to forego periodic analysis for
cyanide if certain conditions are met is included in this
regulation.
The wastewaters generated during coil coating of aluminum are
relatively similar to the wastewaters generated in aluminum
forming in that both wastewaters contain oil and grease, sus-
pended solids, toxic metals, aluminum, and sometimes cyanide.
Concentrations of pollutants may vary somewhat. For instance,
toxic metals and aluminum concentrations tend to be slightly
higher in coil coating wastewaters; however, in terms of treat-
ability, the characteristics of the wastewaters from aluminum
coil coating and aluminum forming are essentially similar, and
the same treatment should be equally effective when properly
applied to either. Eighteen aluminum forming plants reported
that they also do aluminum coil coating. Aluminum coil coating
is a subcategory of the coil coating point source category. To
simplify compliance with two regulations at these 18 plants, mass
limitations have been established for both categories based on
the application of the same treatment. Permissible discharge
would be calculated by simply adding the masses that may be
discharged for each category. In addition, the same pollutants
are limited for both aluminum coil coating and aluminum forming,
thus making it easier for plants to co-treat wastewaters from
these processes.
The Agency based the proposed limits for the pollutant aluminum
on data from one aluminum forming plant and one aluminum coil
coating plant. Since proposal the Agency sampled four additional
aluminum forming plants that treated wastewaters through lime and
settle treatment. Aluminum concentration data from two of these
plants were incorporated with the proposed data and the treatment
effectiveness concentrations for aluminum were revised. The
Agency did not use data from the other aluminum forming plants
sampled since proposal because they were improperly operating
their treatment systems. One plant had an effluent TSS concen-
tration coming out of the clarifier of greater than 50 mg/1 and
an effluent pH above 10.0. The effluent pH of the second plant
was below 7.0.
-------
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is rolling aluminum in
a rolling mill using neat oil as a lubricant. Other ancillary
production operations in this subcategory include roll grinding,
annealing, stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial aging,
degreasing, sawing, continuous sheet casting, solution heat
treatment, and cleaning or etching. These unit operations were
listed in Section IV (p. 151 ), along with the waste streams
generated by these operations and the production normalizing
parameters. Table IX-1 lists these production operations, sepa-
rating them into core and ancillary operations, and identifies
the production normalized wastewater flows generated from each.
The core allowance for the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
without an annealing furnace scrubber is 55.31 1/kkg (13.27 gal/
ton). This one allowance represents the sum of the individual
allowances for the core waste streams which have a discharge
allowance. These streams are roll grinding spent emulsion,
sawing spent lubricant and miscellaneous nondescript wastewater
sources. The core allowance for the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory with an annealing scrubber is 81.66 1/kkg (19.60 gal/
ton). This one allowance represents the sum of the individual
allowances for the core waste streams listed above plus the
wastewater discharge allowance for the annealing scrubber liquor.
The following paragraphs discuss these operations and wastewater
discharge allowances.
Core Operations
Rolling wi th Neat Oils. The mineral oil (kerosene) based
lubricants used in neat oil rolling are recycled with sediment
removal or filtration. After extended use, the rolling oils are
periodically disposed of by reclamation or incineration. None of
the 50 plants rolling aluminum with neat oils reported any
discharge of these oils to surface waters or publicly owned
treatment works (POTW). For this reason, the production
operation has been assigned a zero wastewater discharge
allowance.
Rol1 Gr inding. Nine facilities that perform emulsion roll
grinding were contacted; one did not supply enough information to
characterize the water use or discharge, and two achieved zero
discharge through complete recycle of the roll grinding emul-
sions. The remaining six plants provided information about
either their water use or wastewater generation related to roll
grinding (see Table V-7 p. 210). The BPT discharge flow for this
stream is 5.50 1/kkg (2.2 gal/ton) of aluminum rolled, based on
-------
the mean normalized flow of the five plants which reported
discharge of this stream.
Annealinq. As discussed in Section III (p. 110 ), the annealing
operation does not use process water. The annealing operation
has been included in the core of all six subcategories, because
it is not specifically associated with any of the major forming
processes (rolling, extruding, forging, drawing), it is a dry
operation and it can be found at plants throughout the category.
One of the plants surveyed in this study anneals aluminum which
is rolled with neat oils and derives the inert gas atmosphere
used in its annealing process from furnace off gases. Because of
the sulfur content of furnace fuels, the off gases require
cleaning with wet scrubbers to remove contaminants. The scrubber
used involves a large flow of water with more than 99 percent
recycle of the normalized flow and less than 1 percent blowdown.
The blowdown at this plant is 26.35 1/kkg (6.320 gal/ton).
Another plant visited by the Agency uses an electrostatic
precipitator on their annealing furnace. No flow data were
available from this plant; however, it does generate a wastewater
discharge.
Because particulate removal is necessary to the operation of the
annealing furnace, an allowance has been included as part of the
core of the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory. Other plants
purchase cleaned gases or burn natural gas to provide an inert
atmosphere. These plants do not need any air pollution control
devices, therefore, t'ne Agency has established two core
limitations for the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory. Because
most plants do not have an annealing scrubber liquor flow,
separate allowances will be established for core waste streams
without an annealing furnace scrubber and for core waste streams
with an annealing furnace scrubber.
The annealing scrubber liquor allowance has been included in the
core to maintain consistency in the regulation. For the other
five subcategories, all annealing operations are performed using
no process water and annealing has been assigned a zero pollutant
allowance and is included in the core.
Stationary Casting. In stationary casting, molten aluminum is
poured into specific shapes for rolling and further processing.
It was observed that in 14 plants that reported this operation,
stationary casting is performed without the discharge of any
contact cooling water. Frequently, the aluminum is allowed to
air cool and solidify. Often, the stationary molds are
internally cooled with noncontact cooling water. In some plants,
a small amount of water or mist is applied to the top of the
stationary cast aluminum to promote more rapid solidification and
allow earlier handling. In most cases, contact cooling water is
-------
either collected and recycled or it evaporates. Therefore,
stationary casting is included in the core of the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory with no wastewater discharge allowance.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a type of heat treatment to
control physical properties of the aluminum which frequently
follows casting. Two plants indicate the use of water to aid
final cooling after homogenizing; however, the water flow is very
small. Twenty-seven other plants performing homogenizing
reported no water use in this process. Therefore, no flow
allowance has been provided for this operation. Since
homogenizing is a zero discharge process, it is included in the
core of the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory with no wastewater
discharge allowance.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging is a type of heat treatment
to control physical properties of the aluminum. Because the
process is a dry process, it is included in the core of the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory with no wastewater discharge
allowance.
Degreasinq. Thirty-four plants with solvent degreasing
operations were surveyed, and only two indicated having process
wastewater streams associated with the operation. One facility
uses a water rinse after solvent degreasing, while the second
discharges solvent recovery sludge to the facility's oil
treatment system. Because 32 plants practice solvent degreasing
without wastewater discharge, the Agency believes zero discharge
of wastewater is an appropriate discharge allowance.
Spent degreasing solvents which are used in the aluminum forming
category have been listed as hazardous wastes from nonspecific
sources (45 FR 33123). If degreasing spent solvents are combined
with any other aluminum forming wastewaters and discharged, then
that discharge could be a hazardous waste and may become subject
to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) (see 45 FR 33066). Thus, this waste should not be com-
bined with wastewater treatment sludges because disposal of the
combined discharge would be difficult and costly to achieve under
the RCRA requirements.
Sawing. Although the sawing operation is assumed to be present
at all facilities, only 12 plants specifically stated that they
perform this operation. Some of these plants reported using a
neat oil for lubrication, although emulsified lubricants are also
used. One plant reported no oils disposal due to evaporation and
carryover. Six other plants supplied wastewater discharge flow
data which were used to calculate a mean value of 4.807 1/kkg
(1.153 gal/ton) of aluminum rolled for the BPT discharge flow for
this stream (see Table V-29 p. 260).
-------
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. A flow allowance
of 45.0 1/kkg (10.8 gal/ton) of aluminum processed through the
core operations is being established for miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater streams such as ultrasonic testing,
maintenance and clean-up, roll grinding of caster rolls, and seal
and dye baths when not followed by a rinse. These miscellaneous
wastewaters were observed during site visits and sampling visits
at some facilities and are characterized by intermittent, low
flow discharges. The flow allowance was calculated by averaging
three flow values of this waste stream submitted by industry/ two
are ultrasonic testing flows and one is a maintenance and clean-
up flow (see Table V-79 p. 460).
Anci1lary Operations
Continuous Sheet Casting. Contact cooling water is not normally
used in continuous casting of aluminum sheet; however, lubricants
may be required in the associated smoothing roller. Fifteen
plants with continuous sheet or strip casting were surveyed;
seven reported no lubricants used, two claimed to achieve 100
percent recycle of lubricants without disposal, three indicated
periodic disposal of recycled material was necessary, and three
provided insufficient data. For the three plants reporting
disposal of the lubricant, the mean normalized discharge flow is
1.964 1/kkg (0.471 gal/ton) of aluminum cast; this is the BPT
wastewater discharge flow for the stream (see Table V-71 p. 429).
When a plant performs roll grinding of these caster rolls on
site, the discharge from that operation is covered by the
miscellaneous nondescript flow allowance.
Solution Heat Treatment. Tables V-39 through V-49 (pp. 285-317)
contain data taken from dcp's on the wastewater flow from
solution and press heat treatment quenching for all the
subcategories. It has been determined that the amount of water
used does not vary significantly between subcategories;
therefore, the data are grouped, and the mean normalized flow of
7,705 1/kkg (1,848 gal/ton) of aluminum quenched following
solution heat treatment is the BPT discharge flow.
Of the 89 heat treatment quenching processes surveyed, 52 report
no recycle of quench water, 25 recycle varying amounts of quench
water, and 12 claimed no discharge of this wastewater stream by
practicing total recycle. It is possible that the plants report-
ing no discharge of cooling water inadvertently failed to mention
necessary periodic blowdown of the cooling tower to prevent
solids accumulation. Since no technology for avoiding the
buildup of solids in completely recycled cooling water is known
to be applied in this category, only nonzero wastewater values
were used as a data base for selecting the BPT discharge flow.
-------
This includes plants that vary from no recycle to 99 percent
recycle.
Cleaning or Etching. Cleaning or etching functions are performed
in approximately 20 percent of the rolling with neat oils
facilities. Wastewaters are or may be produced from three
segments of cleaning or etching operations. These are from
process baths, which are usually batch dumped; product rinsing;
and air pollution control scrubbing.
All of the subcategories include a wide range of cleaning or
etching operations including caustic baths and rinses, acid baths
and rinses, detergent baths and rinses, and conversion coating
and anodizing baths and rinses. The Agency has concluded that
these processes are similar in that a workpiece is placed in a
bath for the time necessary to obtain the desired result, removed
and rinsed to remove excess solution and undesired dragout from
the bath. In many cases, a workpiece is sequentially exposed to
several etch line baths and rinses. The generation of wastewater
from these operations is generally similar and any known differ-
ences have been taken into account by inclusion of all wastewater
generated by the entire cleaning and etching line. Separate
consideration of each and every possible cleaning and etching
operation would severely increase the complexity of the
regulation. Therefore, the Agency believes that it is appropri-
ate to combine these operations into a single allowance.
The ancillary operation of cleaning or etching includes all
surface treatment operations, including chemical or electrochemi-
cal anodizing and conversion coating when performed as an inte-
gral part of the aluminum forming process. For the purposes of
this regulation, surface treatment of aluminum is considered to
be an integral part of aluminum forming whenever it is performed
at the same plant site where aluminum is formed. A cleaning or
etching operation is defined as a cleaning or etching bath
followed by a rinse. Multiple baths are considered multiple
cleaning or etching operations with a separate limitation for
each bath which is followed by a rinse. Multiple rinses follow-
ing a single bath will be regulated by a single limitation.
Process Baths. Of the 34 plants reporting cleaning or
etching operations, three indicated that the chemical baths
used for cleaning or etching of formed aluminum products are
discharged continuously into the wastewater from the rinsing
operation; 12 plants indicated that the process baths are
discharged periodically in a batch discharge mode; and 14
operate indefinitely without discharge by adding make-up
chemicals and water to offset the dragout loss from
processing. The remaining five plants supplied no
information about discharges from cleaning or etching baths.
-------
While it is assumed that the majority of plants dispose of
the chemical bath by a solid waste contractor or eliminate
the bath in other ways, some plants do in fact treat and
discharge their process baths. For BPT, it is assumed that
the process baths will be periodically discharged to
treatment by bleeding them over a long period of time to
achieve an equal distribution of flow. Based on 16 flow
values from the 12 plants which reported a wastewater
discharge flow, a mean normalized discharge flow of 179
1/kkg (43 gal/ton) of aluminum etched is the flow allowance
for this stream. A summary of this data is presented in
Table V-52 (p. 326).
Product Rinses. A summary of water use and wastewater
discharge from product rinses is presented in Table V-55 (p.
349). This shows that some plants discharge very small
volumes of wastewater even though their water use is
substantial. These data have been restructured in Table IX-
2 to more clearly show the rinse line characteristic of this
data. All plants with cleaning or etching operations
reported discharging their rinses. For the purpose of
establishing BPT limitations, all 44 data points were
averaged on a per-rinse-operation basis. The mean
normalized wastewater flow per rinsing operation is 13,912
1/kkg (3,339 gal/ton) of aluminum rinsed, which is the BPT
discharge flow for thj.s stream.
Air Pollution Control Scrubbers. Seven plants surveyed
reported using wet air pollution control devices on cleaning
or etching operations. As presented in Table V-58 (p. 391),
data were available to calculate normalized wastewater flows
from four of the seven plants, and the mean wastewater flow
is 15,900 1/kkg (3,816 gal/ton) of aluminum cleaned or
etched.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X (p. 1058).
Table IX-3 lists the pollutants considered for regulation associ-
ated with each wastewater stream in the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory and the corresponding maximum and minimum concentra-
tions detected for each pollutant.
-------
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from prelimi-
nary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for common
treatment by skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubri-
cants, roll grinding spent emulsions, and casting spent lubri-
cants require emulsion breaking and skimming, and may require
hexavalent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by
skimming and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning
or etching wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by oil skimming and lime and
settle. This treatment train is presented in Figure IX-1.
Cyanide precipitation is practiced on coil coating wastewaters at
six plants, two of which have both aluminum forming and aluminum
coil coating operations. Although it is not currently practiced
at plants which perform only aluminum forming operations, the
same cyanide and metallocyanide complexes would be present in
these wastewaters as in the coil coating wastewaters. These
wastewaters include heat treatment contact cooling water streams
and cleaning or etching (conversion coating) wastewater streams
which are subject to the aluminum forming regulation. The
cyanide precipitation technology demonstrated on coil coating
wastewater would be applicable to aluminum forming wastewaters.
The process, which is described in detail in Section VII (p.
706), involves the addition of ferrous sulfate heptahydrate and
pH adjustment chemicals to the raw wastewater in a rapid mix
tank. The resulting sludge is settled in a clarifier or other
settling device, and the treated water is routed to downstream
processing. Advantages of the cyanide precipitation process over
the conventional oxidation route are reported to include better
removal of complexed cyanide and significant cost savings.
Technology transfer of cyanide precipitation is justified because
existing treatment in the aluminum forming category is uniformly
inadequate since no plants are currently treating wastewaters
from aluminum forming with any cyanide removal technology. In
addition, as discussed previously in this section, the waste-
waters generated during coil coating of aluminum are similar to
the wastewaters generated in aluminum forming.
Transfer of cyanide precipitation technology from the coil coat-
ing category to the aluminum forming category is appropriate
because the cyanide is derived from processing aluminum in both
-------
categories and the raw wastewater matrices are homogeneous. The
homogeneity of these raw wastewaters has been tested during the
development of the combined metals data base and their
homogeneity confirmed. Full details of this examination are
presented in the administrative record of this rulemaking.
Data available to the Agency, discussed in Section VII (p. 706)
and presented in Table VII-8 (p. 795), indicate that the
application of cyanide precipitation technology can achieve the
cyanide treatment effectiveness concentration presented in Table
VII-20 (p. 807), even over a wide range of cyanide concentration
in the raw waste.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-20 (p. 807), presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BPT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Effluent concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average
values) are multiplied by the normalized discharge flows
summarized in Table IX-1 to calculate the mass of pollutants
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table IX-4.
Benef its
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-3 (p. 1076), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total Rolling With Neat Oils Subcategory will
remove approximately 1,725,611.3 kg/yr (3.796 million lbs/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-1, (p. 1074), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$13.5 million and $10.7 million per year, respectively. As shown
in Table X-9 (p. 1089), the application of BPT to direct dis-
chargers only, will remove approximately 1,448,032.2 kg/yr (3.186
million lbs/yr) of pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 (p. 1075),
the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for
this removal are $9.55 million and $8.20 million per year,
respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollutant removals
justify the costs incurred by plants in the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory.
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is rolling aluminum in
a rolling mill using emulsified oil as a lubricant. Other sub-
-------
sidiary production operations in the subcategory include roll
grinding, annealing, stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial
aging, degreasing, sawing, direct chill casting, solution heat
treatment, and cleaning or etching. These unit operations were
tabulated with the waste streams generated and production normal-
ized parameters in Section IV (p. 154). Table IX-5 lists these
production operations, separating them into core and ancillary
operations, and identifies the production normalized wastewater
flows generated from each. The core allowance for the Rolling
with Emulsions Subcategory is 129.8 1/kkg (31.2 gal/ton). This
one allowance represents the sum of the individual1__al..lowances for
the core waste streams which have a discharge allowance. These
streams are rolling with emulsions spent emulsions, roll grinding
spent emulsions, sawing spent lubricant and miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater sources. The following paragraphs discuss
these operations and wastewater discharge flows.
Core Operations
Rollinq with Emulsions. The oil in water emulsion used as a
lubricant in many rolling operations is frequently discharged to
surface waters or a POTW. All of the 29 plants in this subcate-
gory recycle their emulsions. Five plants report recycle with a
continuous bleed, and the remaining plants dump their emulsions
periodically.
In selecting the BPT discharge flow appropriate for spent rolling
emulsions, a number of variables were analyzed for their effect
on the wastewater generated:
- Degree of recycle.
- Degree of reduction.
Product type.
- Annual production.
The data presented in Table V-4 (p. 196) show the production
normalized volume of spent lubricant which is discharged by the
plants in the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory. The median
value is extremely small in comparison to the discharge flows
from the plants with higher production normalized discharges.
Therefore, the BPT discharge flow is based on the normalized mean
of all available data for spent rolling emulsions and is 74.51
1/kkg (17.87 gal/ton).
Recycle rates at plants with a bleed discharge varied from 85 to
99 percent. The remaining plants discharge periodically, imply-
ing recycle, but in most cases percent recycle values cannot be
assigned. Neither the degree of recycle nor the mode of dis-
charge significantly affected the normalized wastewater flow
distributions.
-------
Although most of the cold rolling operations surveyed use neat
oil lubricants, a few plants indicated the use of emulsions for
cold rolling operations. Analysis of the data showed that cold
rolling with emulsions results in discharge values comparable to
those associated with hot rolling processes. Normalized dis-
charge flows vary from plant to plant; especially high values
were noted at one plant for both their cold rolling and hot roll-
ing operations. Since the process itself may be considered to be
confidential, a thorough discussion of this data is precluded.
The data which are available suggest that the reduction of plate
to sheet or foil by emulsion cold rolling results in emulsion
discharge comparable to the amount discharged by the hot rolling
of ingot to plate. Discharge rates from these two operations are
compared below for the same plants:
Cold Rolled
Cold Roll Discharge Product Hot Roll Discharge
1/kkq qpt 1/kkg qpt
183.5 44 Sheet 304.4 73
7.26 1.74 Sheet and Foil — —
0.584 0.14 Sheet and Foil 0.392 0.094
0.668 0.16 Sheet and Foil 89.4 21.44
Therefore, the Agency is not distinguishing between cold rolling
emulsions and hot rolling emulsions to establish the BPT
normalized discharge flow.
Roll Grinding. Roll grinding is associated with virtually all
rolling operations and is, therefore, included in the core of the
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory. This operation was described
previously in the discussion of rolling with neat oils. Roll
grinding operations and wastewater discharges are similar
throughout the industry; therefore, the same BPT technology and
normalized flow is applied to roll grinding in both rolling
subcategories.
Annealing. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with aluminum forming operations. The basic operation
is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off gases.
In the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory, no annealing operation
uses water for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a
zero discharge allowance and is included in the core for
regulatory convenience.
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is similar throughout the
aluminum forming category, and no discharge of process wastewater
was ever reported. Therefore, stationary casting is included in
the core of the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory with no
-------
wastewater discharge allowance. For a more detailed discussion,
refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory description.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a heat treatment process that
frequently follows casting. For the reasons discussed previ-
ously, it has been assigned a zero discharge allowance and is,
therefore, included as a core stream in this subcategory.
Homogenization operations are similar throughout the industry.
For a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory discussion.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate process wastewater. Therefore, artificial
aging is included in the core of the Rolling with Emulsions
Subcategory as a regulatory convenience.
Deqreasinq. All plants surveyed in this subcategory reporting
degreasing operations indicated that no wastewater is discharged;
therefore, this stream has no wastewater discharge allowance.
Degreasing operations are similar in all subcategories of the
industry. For a more detailed description of the operation,
refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils section.
Sawing. Sawing is assumed to be associated with all rolling
operations and has been included in the core of the Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory. On the basis of available data, sawing
operations and lubricant discharge practices appear to be similar
throughout the aluminum forming category. For a description of
the normalized discharge flow associated with sawing, refer to
the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory description.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT
discharge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastewater
sources was presented in the discussion of the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Direct Chill Casting. At 20 of the 29 plants surveyed in the
Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory, aluminum is cast by the
direct chill method before it is rolled. As a regulatory con-
venience, direct chill casting has been designated as an ancil-
lary operation associated with this subcategory. In addition,
primary aluminum reduction plants and some secondary aluminum
plants covered by the nonferrous metals category use direct chill
casting. The direct chill casting process used in the aluminum
forming and primary aluminum plants is identical. Direct chill
casting has been included in the aluminum forming category as a
-------
regulatory convenience. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider
wastewater flow data from all the plants in these categories
using direct chill casting when establishing BPT effluent
limitations.
In all, 61 aluminum forming plants, 25 primary aluminum plants,
and five secondary aluminum plants have direct chill casting
operations. The distribution of wastewater rates associated with
direct chill casting is presented in Tables V-64 and V-65 (pp.
404 and 406, respectively). Recycle of the contact cooling
water is practiced at 30 aluminum forming, nine primary aluminum,
and all five secondary aluminum plants. Of these, 13 plants
indicated that total recycle of this stream made it possible to
avoid any discharge of wastewater; however, the majority of the
plants discharge a bleed stream. The BPT discharge flow for this
operation is based on the average of the best, which is the aver-
age normalized discharge flow of the 23 plants with 90 percent
recycle or greater. That flow is 1,329 1/kkg (319 gal/ton) of
aluminum cast by direct chill methods.
Solution Heat Treatment~ Solution heat treatment is practiced by
plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories. Solution
heat treatment involves water quenching of the hot metal and
results in substantial water use requirements. Due to the
similarity in Water use requirements among the various subcate-
gories, the water use data were combined and analyzed as a single
data set. The solution heat treatment operation and normalized
discharge flow for the associated wastewater streams are
described in conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Cleaning or etching operations were
described in detail in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
description. Wastewater streams associated with these operations
may include chemical baths, rinse water, and air pollution con-
trol scrubbers. Refer to Rolling with Neat Oils section for a
description of these wastewater streams and discharge flows.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide, (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X (p. 1058).
-------
Table IX-6 lists the pollutants considered for regulation
associated with each wastewater stream in the Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory and the corresponding maximum and minimum
concentrations detected for each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the Rolling with Emulsions
Subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from prelimi-
nary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for common
treatment by oil skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent
lubricant, roll grinding spent emulsions, and casting spent
lubricants require emulsion breaking and skimming, and may
require hexavalent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment
by skimming and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning
or etching wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. This treatment train is presented in Figure IX-2.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BPT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory.
Effluent concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average
values) are multiplied by the normalized discharge flows
summarized in Table IX-5 to calculate the mass of pollutants
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table IX-7.
Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-4 (p. 1078), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory will
remove approximately 12,300,000 kg/yr (2.7 million lb/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-l (p. 1074), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$14.7 million and $15.2 million per year, respectively. As shown
in Table X-10 (p. 1091), the application of BPT to direct dis-
chargers only, will remove approximately 10,730,699.0 kg/yr
(23.607 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 (p.
1075), the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars)
for this removal are $13.96 million and $14.48 million per year,
-------
respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollutant removals
justify the costs incurred by plants in the Rolling with
Emulsions Subcategory.
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is extrusion, including
die cleaning and dummy block cooling operations. Other subsidi-
ary production operations in the subcategory include annealing,
stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial aging, degreasing,
sawing, direct chill casting, extrusion press hydraulic fluid
leakage, solution and press heat treatment, cleaning or etching,
and degassing. These unit operations were tabulated with the
waste streams generated and production normalized parameters in
Section IV (p. 156). Table IX-8 lists these production opera-
tions, separating them into core and ancillary operations, and
identifies the production normalized wastewater flows generated
from each. The core allowance for the Extrusion Subcategory is
363.82 1/kkg {87.4 gal/ton). This one allowance represents the
sum of the individual allowances for the core waste streams which
have a discharge allowance. These streams are extrusion die
cleaning bath, rinse and scrubber liquor, sawing spent lubricant,
and miscellaneous non-descript wastewater sources. The following
paragraphs discuss these operations and wastewater discharge
flows.
Core Operations
Extrusion Die Cleaning Bath and Rinse. The cleaning of extrusion
dies by immersion in caustic baths is described in Section III
(p. 101). Although most of the plants contacted discharge the
caustic bath (with or without treatment) to surface waters or a
POTW, the solution is hauled from at least four plants by an
outside contractor. Thirteen plants reported discharge rates as
shown in Table V-10 (p. 220). One plant reported no discharge of
the die cleaning bath, and 27 plants did not report enough data
to calculate a normalized discharge flow.
The volume of caustic required will depend on the intricacy of
the die orifice, the temperature of extrusion, the lubricant
used, and many other factors. Sufficient data are not available
to investigate these possibilities. Furthermore, it is likely
that the effect of individual plant practices (e.g., dumping
prior to saturation) may mask the effect of these factors.
Therefore, the mean normalized discharge flow, 12.9 1/kkg (3.096
gal/ton) of aluminum extruded, based on all 13 plants that dis-
charge die cleaning baths, has been chosen as the basis for BPT
limitations. In addition, any effect of these factors on the
-------
discharge flow is taken into account by the use of the 13 flow
values collected by industry.
As discussed in Section V (Table V—11, p. 221), the wastewater
flows for extrusion die cleaning rinses are available for 13 of
the 37 plants known to have die cleaning operations. Of the 13
plants, one reports no discharge of die cleaning rinse water.
The normalized mean of the other 12 is 25.62 1/kkg (6.145
gal/ton).
Although many factors could influence the amount of water needed
for rinsing the dies, it appears that individual plant practices
are the most significant factor. Frequently, the dies are simply
hosed off, and the quantity of water used is not carefully con-
trolled. It is anticipated that plants discharging volumes
greater than the mean will be able to reduce the volume of water
discharged by applying tighter controls on the water used to
rinse the dies.
The normalized discharge flow for the BPT limitations of the com-
bined bath and rinse streams is the summation of the two means,
12.90 1/kkg and 25.62 1/kkg, which is 38.52 1/kkg (9.245
gal/ton).
Extrusion Die Cleaning Scrubber. A wet scrubber can be used to
control caustic fumes from the die cleaning bath. Although only
two plants with die cleaning baths reported scrubbers, it is
believed that most employ wet scrubbers. The two plants supplied
enough information to calculate a normalized discharge flow.
These flows were averaged to be 275.5 1/kkg (66.08 gal/ton) which
will be used as the BPT wastewater discharge flow.
Two plants reported the use of wet scrubbers at the extrusion
presses to remove caustic fumes. One of these scrubbers is
operated only when the die cleaning process is in operation and
serves to remove the caustic fumes generated by cleaning the
dies. This scrubber is considered an extrusion die cleaning
scrubber and will have the same flow allowance of 275.5 1/kkg.
The second scrubber operates at all times, although the die
cleaning process is in operation only intermittently. This
scrubber serves to remove fumes from various sources in the area
as well as the die cleaning caustic fumes. This scrubber is
considered an area scrubber as well as a die cleaning scrubber.
Because area scrubbers are included in the miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater allowance, this scrubber will receive both flow
allowances: extrusion die cleaning scrubber liquor at 275.5
1/kkg and miscellaneous nondescript wastewater at 45 1/kkg.
-------
Dummy Block Coolinq. Of the 163 plants that practice extrusion,
only three report discharge of a dummy block contact cooling
stream. Air cooling of the dummy blocks is used for cooling by
the vast majority of extrusion plants- For this reason, dummy
block contact cooling has been classified as a zero pollutant
discharge allowance stream.
Annealinq. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with aluminum forming operations. The basic operation
is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off gases.
In the Extrusion Subcategory, no annealing operation uses water
for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a zero
discharge allowance and is included in the core for regulatory
convenience.
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is associated with most
of the aluminum forming subcategories and is designated as a zero
discharge operation. The operation is similar throughout the
industry and was never found to generate a wastewater stream.
Therefore, stationary casting is included in the core of the
Extrusion Subcategory with no wastewater discharge allowance.
For a more detailed description, refer to the discussion of
stationary casting operations associated with the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a heat treatment process that
frequently follows casting. For the reasons discussed previ-
ously, it has been assigned a zero discharge allowance and is,
therefore, included as a core stream in this subcategory.
Homogenization operations are similar throughout the industry.
For a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory discussion.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate process wastewater. Therefore, artificial
aging is included in the core of the Extrusion Subcategory as a
regulatory convenience.
Deqreasinq. All of the extrusion plants surveyed which reported
having degreasing operations indicated that those operations
generated no wastewater discharge; therefore, this stream has no
wastewater discharge allowance. Degreasing operations are
similar in all subcategories of the industry. For a more
detailed description of the operation, refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory description.
Sawing. Because sawing is associated with extrusion operations,
it has been included in the core of the Extrusion Subcategory.
On the basis of available data, sawing operations and lubricant
discharge practices appear to be similar throughout the aluminum
-------
forming category. For a description of the normalized discharge
flow associated with sawing, refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory description.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT
discharge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastewater
sources was presented in the discussion of the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Direct Chi 11 Casting. At 44 of the 163 plants surveyed in the
Extrusion Subcategory, aluminum is cast by the direct chill
method before extrusion. In addition, rolling with emulsions
plants as well as primary and secondary aluminum plants fre-
quently use direct chill casting. See the Rolling with Emulsions
Subcategory for a discussion of how the BPT discharge flow for
direct chill casting was determined.
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage. Extrusion press
hydraulic fluids are used in extrusion presses. Neat oil
hydraulic fluids are most commonly used and are not discharged.
Oil-water emulsions are also used, primarily in conjunction with
the processing of hard aluminum alloys and for processing very
large extrusions. Five plants reported the use and wastewater
discharge of oil-water emulsion hydraulic fluids as shown in
Table V-75 (p. 436). Data and information collected during
engineering plant visits indicate that a flow allowance for this
wastewater source is necessary because emulsion hydraulic fluids
tend to leak thereby generating a wastewater source. A BPT
discharge flow allowance of 1,478 1/kkg (355 gal/ton) for this
waste stream is based on the average of the production normalized
flow data for the three plants that did not perform recycle.
This flow allowance is applicable when extrusion press hydraulic
fluid leakage is treated and discharged by a plant.
Solution and Press Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is
practiced by plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories.
Solution heat treatment involves water quenching of the heated
metal and results in substantial water use requirements. Press
heat treatment is a water spray operation which cools the metal
immediately after extrusion. Water use for all heat treatment
contact cooling operations show the similarity in water use
requirements among solution and press heat treatment and the
various subcategories. Due to this similarity, the water use
data were combined and analyzed as a single data set. The
solution heat treatment operation and the normalized discharge
-------
flow for the associated wastewater stream are described in
conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated discharge flows.
Degassing. In remelting aluminum prior to casting or continuous
casting, it is sometimes necessary to remove significant amounts
of magnesium or dissolved gases through the addition of chlorine
to the molten metal mass. When this is performed to remove
magnesium, it is called demagging and is a common refining
practice in the secondary aluminum industry. In the aluminum
forming industry, chlorine or inert gases are used to remove
dissolved gases in a similar operation called degassing, which
does not change the metal content of the melt. The degassing
processes and scrubber liquor wastewater characteristics are
similar for aluminum forming and primary aluminum plants.
Demagging is subject to the secondary aluminum effluent
limitations, while degassing is considered part of aluminum
forming when it is performed as an integral part of an aluminum
forming process.
Only one aluminum forming plant employs a wet scrubber for their
degassing operation, and no data are available to calculate that
discharge flow. Therefore, the BPT discharge flow for degassing
scrubber liquor blowdown is based on the mean normalized flow
from four primary aluminum subcategory plants using degassing
scrubbers and is 2,607 1/kkg (626 gal/ton) as shown in Table V-72
(p. 430).
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X (p. 1058).
Table IX-9 lists the pollutants considered for regulation associ-
ated with each wastewater stream in the Extrusion Subcategory and
the corresponding maximum and minimum concentrations detected for
each pollutant.
-------
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the Extrusion Subcategory
consists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium reduction,
and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treat-
ment is combined with other wastewaters for common treatment by
skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubricants require
emulsion breaking and skimming and may require hexavalent chro-
mium reduction prior to combined treatment by skimming and lime
and settle. Solution and press heat treatment contact cooling
water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning or
etching and die cleaning wastewaters may require chromium reduc-
tion in addition to cyanide precipitation. Following the prelim-
inary treatment, these wastewaters are then treated by skimming
and lime and settle. This treatment train is presented in Figure
IX-3.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-21 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BPT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Extrusion Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
IX-8 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table IX-10.
Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-5 (p. 1080), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total Extrusion Subcategory will remove
approximately 4,207,477.7 kg/yr (9.26 million lb/yr) of pollu-
tants. As shown in Table X-l (p. 1074), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$34.6 million and $25.5 million per year, respectively. As shown
in Table X-l1 (p. 1093), the application of BPT to direct
dischargers only, will remove approximately 2,831,772.1 kg/yr
(6.23 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 (p.
1075), the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars)
for this removal are $21.1 million and $13.0 million per year,
respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollutant removals
justify the costs incurred by plants in the Extrusion
-------
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
There are no direct discharging facilities which use forging
processes to form aluminum. Consequently, the Agency is exclud-
ing the Forging Subcategory from this regulation for existing
direct dischargers (BPT and BAT). The discussion which follows
is presented for consistency and completeness. In addition, this
discussion forms the basis for pretreatment standards for the
Forging Subcategory presented in Section XII.
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The production operations that may be present at a forging plant
include forging, annealing, artificial aging, degreasing, sawing,
forging scrubbing, solution heat treatment, and cleaning or etch-
ing. These unit operations were tabulated with the waste streams
generated and production normalizing parameters in Section IV (p.
158). Table IX—11 lists these production operations, separating
them into core and ancillary operations, and identifies the
production normalized wastewater flows generated from each. The
core allowance for the Forging Subcategory is 49.8 1/kkg (11.95
gal/ton). This one allowance represents the sum of the
individual allowances for the core waste streams which have a
discharge allowance. These streams are sawing spent lubricant
and miscellaneous non-descript wastewater sources. The following
paragraphs discuss these operations and wastewater discharge
flows.
Core Operations
Forging. As discussed in Section III (p. 102), the forging
process itself does not use any process water; therefore, forging
is assigned a zero discharge allowance and is included in the
core for regulatory convenience.
Annealinq~ Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with all aluminum forming operations. The basic
operation is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off
gases. In the Forging Subcategory, no annealing operation uses
water for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a zero
discharge allowance and is included in the core for regulatory
convenience.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate wastewater. Therefore, artificial aging is
included in the core of the Forging Subcategory as a regulatory
convenience.
Degreasing. All plants reporting degreasing operations indicated
that no wastewater is discharged; therefore, this stream has no
-------
wastewater discharge allowance. Degreasing operations are
similar in all subcategories of the industry. For a more
detailed description of the operation, refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section.
Sawing. Because sawing can be associated with forging opera-
tions, it has been included in the core of the Forging Subcate-
gory. On the basis of available data, sawing operations and
lubricant discharge practices appear to be similar throughout the
aluminum forming category. For a description of the normalized
discharge flow associated with sawing, refer to the previous
discussion in the Rolling with Neat Oils section.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT dis-
charge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastwater sources
was presented previously in the discussion of the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Forging Scrubbing. Particulates and smoke are generated from the
partial combustion of oil-based lubricants used in the forging
process. Of the 16 forging plants surveyed, four indicated that
wet scrubbers are used to control the emissions associated with
this process. Three of these plants reported discharge rates for
the scrubber blowdown. Three indicated that dry air pollution
control devices are employed. The mean normalized discharge flow
from three wet scrubbers, 1,547 1/kkg (371.0 gal/ton), has been
selected as the BPT discharge flow for the forging scrubber
liquor stream.
Solution Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is practiced by
plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories. Solution
heat treatment involves water quenching of the hot metal and
results in substantial water use requirements. Due to the
similarity in water use requirements among the various
subcategories, the water use data were combined and analyzed as a
single data set. The solution heat treatment operation and the
BPT normalized discharge flow for the associated wastewater
stream are described in conjunction with the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated BPT discharge flows.
-------
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
specifically regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in
Section X (p. 1058).
Table IX-12 lists the pollutants considered for regulation asso-
ciated with each wastewater stream in the Forging Subcategory and
the corresponding maximum and minimum concentrations detected for
each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the Forging Subcategory con-
sists of preliminary treatment when necessary, specifically
emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium reduction,
and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from preliminary treat-
ment is combined with other wastewaters for common treatment by
skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubricants require
emulsion breaking and skimming and may require hexavalent
chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by skimming and
lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact cooling water
may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning or etching and
forging scrubber wastewaters may require chromium reduction in
addition to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary
treatment, these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and
lime and settle. The treatment train is presented in Figure IX-
4.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness of BPT
model treatment train for pollutant parameters considered in the
Forging Subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one day maximum
and ten day average values) are multiplied by the normalized
discharge flows summarized in Table IX—11 to calculate the mass
of pollutants allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The
results of these calculations are shown in Table IX-13.
Benefits
BPT level costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs
and benefits in Section X. As shown in Table X-6 (p. 1082), the
application of BPT level technology to the total Forging
Subcategory will remove approximately 7 67,120.6 kg/yr (1.688
-------
million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l (p. 1074),
the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for
this removal are $11.45 million and $8.28 million per year,
respectively.
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is drawing aluminum
using neat oil as a lubricant. Other subsidiary production oper-
ations in this subcategory include annealing, stationary casting,
homogenizing, artificial aging, degreasing, sawing, swaging,
continuous rod casting, solution heat treatment, and cleaning or
etching. These unit operations were tabulated with the waste
streams generated and production normalizing parameters in Sec-
tion IV (p. 160). Table IX-14 lists these production operations,
separating them into core and ancillary operations, and identi-
fies the production normalized wastewater flows generated from
each. The core allowance for the Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory is 49.8 1/kkg (11.95 gal/ton). This one allowance
represents the sum of the individual allowances for the core
waste streams which have a discharge allowance. These streams
are sawing spent lubricants and miscellaneous nondescript
wastewater sources. The following paragraphs discuss these
operations and wastewater discharge flows.
Core Operations
Drawing with Neat OiIs. Of the 64 plants using neat oils as
drawing lubricants, none were found to discharge this oil either
directly or indirectly. The most common practice appears to be
filtration and recycle. Frequently, carryover is the only method
of disposal, but in other cases the; oil is periodically disposed
of either to a contractor or an incinerator. A number of tele-
phone contacts with industry and trade associations confirmed
this information. Because no plants are known to be discharging
drawing neat oils to receiving waters or a POTW, the stream has
been assigned a zero discharge allowance.
Annealinq. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with aluminum forming operations. The basic operation
is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off gases.
In the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory, no annealing operation
uses water for scrubbing; therefore, this stream is assigned a
zero discharge allowance and is included in the core for
regulatory convenience.
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is associated with most
of the aluminum forming subcategories and is designed as a zero
-------
discharge process. The operation is similar throughout the
industry and was never found to generate a wastewater stream.
Therefore, stationary casting is included in the core of the
Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory with no wastewater discharge
allowance. For a more detailed description, refer to the
discussion of stationary casting operations associated with the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a heat treatment process that
frequently follows casting. For the reasons discussed previ-
ously, it has been assigned a zero discharge allowance and is,
therefore, included as a core stream in this subcategory.
Homogenization operations are similar throughout the industry.
For a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory discussion.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate wastewater. Therefore, artificial aging is
included in the core of the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory as
a regulatory convenience.
Degreasing. All plants in this subcategory reporting degreasing
operations indicated that no wastewater is discharged; therefore,
this stream has no wastewater discharge allowance. Degreasing
operations are similar in all subcategories of the industry. For
a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
rolling with Neat Oils section.
awing. Because sawing is typically associated with drawing
¦•erations, it has been included in the core of the Drawing with
Oils Subcategory. On the basis of available data, sawing
operations and lubricant discharge practices appear to be similar
throughout the aluminum forming category. For a description of
the normalized discharge flow associated with sawing, refer to
the previous discussion in the Rolling with Neat Oils section.
Sw '"g. Swaging operations point the end of tube or wire to
prepare it for drawing. Although swaging may require lubricants,
no p^nt was found to discharge wastewater from this operation.
There_ore, zero discharge of wastewater is considered
appropriate.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
:scellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT
"¦'.scharge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastewater
purees was presented previously in the discussion of the Rolling
'•'ith Neat Oils Subcategory.
-------
Ancillary Operations
Continuous Rod Casting Coolinq. A method of casting rod in
preparation for drawing is continuous casting. A stream of water
is circulated through the casting wheel to cool the molten
aluminum as it is cast. This water is in theory noncontact
cooling water; however, many of the plant personnel contacted
have indicated that it is impossible to prevent the water from
coming into contact with the product. Only one of the aluminum
forming plants surveyed supplied sufficient information to
calculate a production normalized flow. The BPT normalized flow,
1,555 1/kkg (249.9 gal/ton) of aluminum cast is based on these
data, as shown in Table V-68 (p. 426).
Data obtained from dcp's for primary aluminum plants were subse-
quently considered. Two plants provided sufficient information
to calculate a discharge flow. One plant reported a production
normalized discharge flow of 415 1/kkg and the other 11.3 1/kkg.
Both of the primary aluminum plants employ a high degree of
recycle (99 percent). The former plant uses approximately the
same amount of water as the single aluminum forming plant. The
latter plant uses approximately 40 times as much water as the
other two plants. There is no apparent reason to believe that
the casting operations at these three plants are different and
that they would require significantly differing amounts of water.
As such, the Agency believes that the primary aluminum data
support the selection of the BPT normalized flow based on the
aluminum forming data.
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant. An emulsion is used as a
lubricant for rolling of aluminum rod, part of the rod casting
process, and not to be confused with the Rolling with Emulsions
Subcategory. Of the three plants with continuous rod casting
operations, one reported 100 percent recycle of their lubricants
without discharge, and two plants periodically dispose of this
waste stream with contractor hauling. Neither of these two
plants reported sufficient information to calculate a discharge
flow. The Agency has transferred the normalized discharge flow
for continuous sheet casting lubricant, 1.9 1/kkg (0.442 gal/ton)
of aluminum cast to apply to continous rod casting. The Agency
believes these processes are similar and the amount of lubricant
required per pound of sheet cast is comparable to the lubricant
used per pound of rod produced.
Solution Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is practiced by
plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories. Solution
heat treating involves water quenching of the heated metal and
results in substantial water use requirements. Due to the
similarity in water use requirements among the various
subcategories, the water use data were combined and analyzed as a
-------
single data set. The solution heat treatment operation and the
BPT normalized data flow for the associated wastewater stream are
described in conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated BPT discharge flows.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X (p.
1058).
Table IX-15 lists the pollutants considered for regulation
associated with each wastewater stream in the Drawing with Neat
Oils Subcategory and the corresponding maximum and minimum
concentrations detected for each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the Drawing with Neat Oils
Subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when necessary,
specifically emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from prelimi-
nary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for common
treatment by skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent lubri-
cants require emulsion breaking and skimming and may require
hexavalent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by
skimming and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning
or etching wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. The treatment train is presented in Figure IX-5.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness of the
BPT model treatment train for pollutant parameters considered in
the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory. Effluent concentrations
(one day maximum and ten day average values) are multiplied by
-------
the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table IX-14 to
calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per
mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table IX-16.
Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-7 (p. 1085), the applica-
tion of BPT to the total Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory will
remove approximately 756,582.6 kg/yr (1.664 million lb/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-l (p. 1074), the corresponding
capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are
$4.69 million and $2.94 million per year, respectively. As shown
in Table X-l2 (p. 1095), the application of BPT to direct dis-
chargers only, will remove approximately 536,194.5 kg/yr (1.180
million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 (p. 1075),
the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for
this removal are $3.03 million and $1.75 million per year,
respectively. The Agency concludes that these pollutant removals
justify the costs incurred by plants in the Drawing with Neat
Oils Subcategory.
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Production Operations and Discharge Flows
The primary operation in this subcategory is drawing aluminum
using emulsified oil or soap as a lubricant. Other subsidiary
production operations in this subcategory include annealing,
stationary casting, homogenizing, artificial aging, degreasing,
sawing, continuous rod casting, solution heat treatment, and
cleaning or etching. These unit operations were tabulated with
the waste streams generated and production normalizing parameters
in Section IV (p. 162). Table IX-17 lists these production
operations, separating them into core and ancillary operations,
and identifies the production normalized wastewater flows
generated from each. The core allowance for the Drawing with
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory is 466.3 1/kkg (111.9 gal/ton).
This one allowance represents the sum of the individual
allowances for the core waste streams which have a discharge
allowance. These streams are drawing with emulsions or soaps
spent lubricants, sawing spent lubricants and miscellaneous non-
descript wastewater sources. The following paragraphs discuss
these operations and wastewater discharge flows.
-------
Core Operations
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps. Of the 13 plants which use
emulsions or soap solutions for drawing, eight provided enough
data to calculate normalized discharge flows. Table IX-18 shows
the wide range of values.
Surface area of product, or wire gauge, is one factor that
affects water use. However, there are also many other factors,
including wire hardness, reduction in diameter per die stage,
drawing speed, alloys used, and mechanisms for recovering and
reusing the lubricant. The Agency examined the dcp information
and found that there are plants that draw fine wire gauges and
are currently meeting the BPT flows and limitations; thus, it is
demonstrated that plants drawing fine wire are able to meet the
limitations and flows.
Comparison of Table V-26 (p. 254) and Table IX-18 shows that
plant 8 does not recycle its soap solutions, while plant 6 does
recycle soap solutions. This partially explains the extremely
large wastewater flow of plant 8 and is the reason for eliminat-
ing plant 81s flow from the mean flow calculation. A comparison
of wastewater from plant 6 using soap as a lubricant and waste-
water from other plants using emulsions shows that the type of
lubricant does not seem to influence the lubricant normalized
discharge flow.
The mean normalized discharge flow of the six plants that recycle
and discharge drawing emulsions has been chosen as the basis of
BPT, 416.5 1/kkg (99.89 gal/ton) of aluminum drawn.
Annealinq. Annealing is a type of heat treatment which is often
associated with all aluminum forming operations. The basic
operation is dry, although water can be used to clean furnace off
gases. In the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory, no
annealing operation uses water for scrubbing; therefore, this
stream is assigned a zero discharge allowance and is included as
a core stream for regulatory convenience.
Stationary Casting. Stationary casting is associated with most,
of the aluminum forming subcategories and is designed as a zero
discharge operation. The operation is similar throughout the
industry and was never found to generate a wastewater stream.
Stationary casting is, therefore, included in the core of the
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory with no wastewater
discharge allowance. For a further description, refer to the
discussion of stationary casting operations associated with the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
-------
Homogenizing. Homogenizing is a heat treatment process that
frequently follows casting. For the reasons discussed previ-
ously, it has been assigned a zero discharge allowance and is,
therefore, included as a core stream in this subcategory.
Homogenization operations are similar throughout the industry.
For a more detailed description of the operation, refer to the
Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory discussion.
Artificial Aging. Artificial aging, a common heat treatment,
does not generate wastewater. Therefore, artificial aging is
included in the core of the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory as a regulatory convenience.
Degreasing. All plants surveyed in this subcategory reporting
degreasing operations indicated that no wastewater is discharged;
therefore, this stream has no wastewater discharge allowance.
Degreasing operations are similar in all subcategories of the
industry. For a more detailed description of the operation,
refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils section.
Sawing. Because sawing is typically associated with drawing
operations, it has been included in the core of the Drawing with
Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory. On the basis of available data,
sawing operations and lubricant discharge practices appear to be
similar throughout the aluminum forming category. For a descrip-
tion of the normalized discharge flow associated with sawing,
refer to the previous discussion under Rolling with Neat Oils.
Swaging. Swaging operations point the end of tube or wire to
prepare it for drawing. Although swaging may require lubricants,
no plant was found to discharge wastewater from this operation.
Therefore, zero discharge of wastewater is considered appropri-
ate.
Miscellaneous Nondescript Wastewater Sources. An allowance for
miscellaneous wastewater sources is included in the core of each
subcategory. A description of this allowance and the BPT
discharge flow designated for these miscellaneous wastewater
sources was presented in the discussion of the Rolling with Neat
Oils Subcategory.
Ancillary Operations
Continuous Rod Casting Coolinq. Rod casting forms the metal in
preparation for rolling or drawing. In the process, cooling
water is circulated through the casting wheel and often contacts
the molten metal. As discussed in the Drawing with Neat Oils
section, only one plant supplied sufficient information to
calculate a normalized flow which is designated the BPT discharge
flow of 1,042 1/kkg (249.9 gal/ton) of aluminum cast.
-------
Continuous Rod Casting Lubricant. Part of the rod casting
process involves rolling the cast aluminum with an emulsion as a
lubricant. Of the three plants with continuous rod casting oper-
ations, one reported 100 percent recycle of lubricants, and two
plants periodically dispose of this waste stream with contractor
hauling. As discussed in the Drawing with Neat Oils section, it
is assumed that the discharge flow is equal to that of continuous
sheet casting lubricant, 1.843 1/kkg (0.442 gal/ton) of aluminum
cast.
Solution Heat Treatment. Solution heat treatment is practiced by
plants in all of the aluminum forming subcategories. Solution
heat treating involves water quenching of the heated metal and
results in substantial water use requirements. Due to the
similarity in water use requirements among the various
subcategories, the water use data were combined and analyzed as a
single data set. The solution heat treatment operation and the
BPT normalized data flow for the associated wastewater stream are
described in conjunction with the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory.
Cleaning or Etching. Wastewater streams associated with cleaning
or etching operations may include chemical baths, rinse water,
and air pollution control scrubbers. Refer to the Rolling with
Neat Oils section for a description of these wastewater streams
and the associated BPT discharge flows.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BPT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BPT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, aluminum, oil and
grease, TSS, and pH. The toxic organic pollutants, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, and selenium, listed in Section VI are not
regulated under BPT for the reasons explained in Section X (p.
1058).
Table IX-19 lists the pollutants considered for regulation asso-
ciated with each wastewater stream in the Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Subcategory and the corresponding maximum and minimum
concentrations detected for each pollutant.
Treatment Train
The BPT model treatment train for the Drawing with Emulsions or
Soaps Subcategory consists of preliminary treatment when neces-
sary, specifically emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent
chromium reduction, and cyanide precipitation. The effluent from
preliminary treatment is combined with other wastewaters for
-------
common treatment by skimming and lime and settle. Sawing spent
lubricants require emulsion breaking and skimming and may require
hexavalent chromium reduction prior to combined treatment by
skimming and lime and settle. Solution heat treatment contact
cooling water may require cyanide precipitation, while cleaning
or etching wastewaters may require chromium reduction in addition
to cyanide precipitation. Following the preliminary treatment,
these wastewaters are then treated by skimming and lime and
settle. The treatment train is presented in Figure IX-6.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness of the
BPT model treatment train for pollutant parameters considered in
the Drawing with Emulsions Subcategory. Effluent concentrations
(one day maximum and ten day average values) are multiplied by
the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table IX-17 to
calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per
mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table IX-20.
Benefits
In establishing BPT, EPA must consider the cost of treatment and
control in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. BPT
costs and benefits are tabulated along with BAT costs and bene-
fits in Section X. As shown in Table X-8 (p. 1087 ), the
application of BPT to the total Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory will remove approximately 134,342.9 kg/yr (0.296
million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown in Table X-l (p. 1074),
the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982 dollars) for
this removal are $1.05 million and $0.82 million per year,
respectively. As shown in Table X-13 (p. 1097), the application
of BPT to direct dischargers only, will remove approximately
53,036.9 kg/yr (0.117 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown in
Table X-2 (p. 1075), the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $0.73 million and $0.47
million per year, respectively. The Agency concludes that these
pollutant removals justify the costs incurred by plants in the
Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory.
APPLICATION OF LIMITATIONS IN PERMITS
The purpose of these limitations (and standards) is to form a
uniform basis for regulating wastewater effluent from the alumi-
num forming category. For direct dischargers, this is accom-
plished through NPDES permits. Since the aluminum forming
category is regulated on an individual waste stream "building-
block" approach, two examples of applying these limitations to
-------
determine the allowable discharge from aluminum forming
facilities are included.
Some process wastewater streams may not be covered by this regu-
lation or other effluent guidelines but are generated in the
aluminum forming plant and must be dealt with either in the
permit or pretreatment context. Whenever such wastewaters are
encountered, the permit writer or control authority should take
into account the minimum necessary water use for the process
operation and the treatment effectiveness of the model technology
using these factors to derive a mass discharge amount for the
unregulated process wastewater. As an example painting, which is
not specifically regulated in aluminum forming sometimes gener-
ates a wastewater. Metal preparation prior to painting such as
chromate conversion coating should be included as an etch line
operation while other process wastewater such as a water spray
curtain should be allowed an added discharge allowance based on
the minimum necessary water use and the appropriate treatment
effectiveness.
Example J_
Plant X forms aluminum using an extrusion process and operates
250 days per year. The total plant production is 50,000 kkg/yr.
All of the aluminum is degassed and cast by the direct chill
method; 70 percent of the aluminum is solution heat treated; and
50 percent of the aluminum is etched with caustic. The plant has
a degassing scrubber, and the etch line consists of a single bath
followed by a two-stage rinse. Table IX-21 illustrates the
calculation of the allowable BPT discharge of TSS.
The daily production from the extrusion operation would equal
50,000 off-kkg/yr divided by 250 days/yr to get 200 off-kkg/day.
This production rate is then multiplied by the extrusion core
limitation (mg/off-kkg) to get the daily discharge limit for the
core at Plant X. A production of 200 off-kkg/day is also used to
multiply with the limitation of direct chill casting, since 100
percent of the direct chill casting product is extruded. To
determine the mass of aluminum that is processed through solution
heat treatment the mass of aluminum extruded (200 off-kkg/day) is
multiplied by 70 percent to achieve a production rate of 140
off-kkg/day. The same procedure is followed for the cleaning or
etching operation and the sum of the daily limits for the
individual operations becomes the plant limit.
Example 2
Plant Y, which operates 300 days per year, forms 10,000 off-kkg/
yr of aluminum sheet by rolling with emulsions and also forms
-------
the rolled aluminum is cast by the direct chill method; all of
the drawn aluminum is cast by the continuous rod casting method;
70 percent of the rolled aluminum is solution heat treated; 30
percent of the rolled aluminum is etched with caustic; and 5
percent of the drawn aluminum is etched with caustic. The etch
line consists of a caustic bath followed by a single-stage rinse
followed by a detergent bath followed by a second single-stage
rinse. Table IX-22 illustrates the calculation of the allowable
BPT discharge of zinc.
The first step in determining the daily limits for Plant Y is to
put the production in terms of off-kkg/day. The plant produces
10,000 kkg/yr of aluminum sheet, all of which is cast on-site by
direct chill casting. Thus, the daily production for direct
chill casting is 10,000 off-kkg/yr divided by 300 days/yr or 33.3
off-kkg/day. Following the casting operation the aluminum ingot
is heated then processed through the rolling mill to produce
plate and removed to cool. The aluminum plate is then returned
to the rolling mill and processed once more to produce sheet,
thus the same off mass of aluminum undergoes two process cycles.
The production parameter used to obtain the daily limit from the
rolling process is two times the production of the direct chill
casting process or 66.6 off-kkg/day. The production and daily
limits are shown on Table IX-22 for all of the operations
performed at Plant Y.
-------
Table IX-1
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Rolling with neat oils
Roll grinding
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Annealing
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
Spent solvents
Spent lubricant
Various
Total core without
an annealing fur-
nace scrubber
Atmosphere scrub-
ber liquor
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
0
5.50
0
0
0
0
4.807
45
55.31
26.35
Total core with an 81.66
annealing furnace
scrubber
(0)
(2.20)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(10.80)
(13.27)
(6.320)
(19.60)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
-------
Table IX-1 (Continued)
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Ancillary
Continuous sheet
casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse ..
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg
1.964
705
179
13,912
15,900
(SPt)
(0.471)
(1,848)
(42.96)
(3,339)
(3,816)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum cast
by continuous methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Not"
Table IX-2
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE KATES FROM
CLEANING OR ETCHING RINSE STREAMS
Bath
Stages
2
2
2
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
1
4
3
1
1
2
1
2
Wastewater
Per Stage
Cleaning or
Etching Baths
Associated Product
1/kkg
gal/ton
Acid
Caustic
Detergent Other
Coil
Extrusion
Forging
Drawn
1.430
0.3430
X
X
X
2.635
0.6320
X
X
14.48
3.472
X
X
61.00
14.63
X
X
X
80.05
19.20
X
X
X
X
X
102.1
24.49
X
X
X
178.0
42.70
X
X-
333.6
80.00
X
X
500.3
120.0
X
X
X
500.3
120.0
X
X
558.3
133.3
X
600.0
143.9
X
X
938.1
225.0
X
X
X
1,163
279.0
X
X
X
1,313
315.0
X
X
X
X
1,591
381.6
X
X
X
1,780
427.0
X
X
X
2,110
506.0
X
X
X
2,330
558.8
X
X
5,003
1,200
X
X
5,212
1,250
X
X
X
5,683
1,363
X
X
X
10,670
2,560
X
X
X
14,480
3,473
X
X
16,120
3,865
X
X
X
20,850
5,000
X
X
X
X
23.350
5,600
X
X
23,520
5,640
X
X
X X
X
36,390
8,727
X
X
43,950
10,540
X
X
63,920
15,330
X
X
75,430
18,090
X
X
X
89,350
21,430
X
X
125,!00
30,000
X
V
V
V
X
X
-------
Table IX-3
Waste Stream
Roll Grinding Spent
Erauls ions
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Annealing Atmosphere
Scrubber Liquor
Continuous Sheet Casting
Spent Lubricants^
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
CLeaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
CONCENTRATION RANGE Of POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cadmium
Ong/iL. .
<0.01 - 0,013
<0.012 - 0.020
<0.0002 - 0.180
<0.0005 - 0.012
0.005 - 3.000
<0.0005 - 0.200
Total Chromium
(wir/1)
0.057 - 0.360
<0.020 - 0.160
0.016
<0.001 - 1
0.002 - 72
0.020 - 10
0.007 - 280
Copper
Cms/1)
<0.050
0.100 - 1.250
0.021
ND - 7.40
0.001 - 0.38
<0.05 - 20
0.0011 - 480
0.01
Total Cyanide
(mg/i)
<0.020
<0.020
0.016 - 2.5
<0.001 - 530
<0.001 - 0.408
0,00002 - 0.042
Lead
Qg/l)
0.050 - <0.100
<0.100 - 0.500
0.016
<0.002 - 56.90
ND - 17
0.400 - 90.0
0.01 - II
Nickel
(mg/1)
<0.020 - 0.050
<0.050 - 0. 122
<0.001 - 0.28
<0.001 - 0.040
0.001 - 486
<0.001 - 160
ND = Not Detected.
-------
Table IX-3 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BFf REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Roll Grinding Spent
EmulaIons
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Annealing Atmosphere
Scrubber Liquor
Continuous Sheet Casting
Spent Lubricants^
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Zinc
isalU
Aluminum
(Mg/1)
<0.020
0.180
0.520
12.9
0.220
<0.005 - 16
<0.010 - 5.2
<0.010
<0.01
<30.00
410
2.30
2.4
<0.5
554
185
20 - 350
<0.1 - 9
0.300 - 70,000
<0.01 - 1,300
5.1
Oil and Grease
(m/D
11 - 780
4,200 - 23,000
1,277 - 802,000
1.5 - 370
<1 - 1,900
<1 - 490
13
TSS
(mg/l)
9.0 - 120
495 - 3,200
4
0.540 - 124,540
<1 - 240
1.0 - 1,540
<1 - 3,640
12
pH
(units)
8.72 - 9.51
6.89 - 8.93
6.2
6.9 - 9.74
7-9.6
0.15 - 11.4
0.55 - 11.8
ND = Not Detected.
-------
Table IX-4
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
1 18
Cadmium
0.01 9
0.008
119
Chromium*
0.024
0.010
120
Copper
0.105 *
0.055
121
Cyanide*
0.016
0.00 7
122
Lead
0.023
0.011
124
Nickel
0.106
0.070
125
Selenium
0.068
0.030
128
Zinc*
0.081
0.034
Aluminum*
0. 356
0.1 74
Oil & Grease*
1.106
0.664
Total Suspended
2.268
1.079
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
' Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.027
0.01 2
11 9
Chromium*
0.036
0.01 5
1 20
Copper
0.1 55
0.082
121
Cyanide*
0.024
0.010
122
Lead -
0.03 5
0.017
124
Nickel
0.157
0.104
125
Selenium
0.100
0.045
128
Zinc*
0.119
0.050
Aluminum*
0.525
0.257
Oil & Grease*
1.634
0. 980
Total Suspended
3. 348
1 . 593
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-4 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day . Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.0007
0.00035
119
Chromium*
0.0009
0.0004
120
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
1 21
Cyanide*
0.0006
0.00024
122
Lead
0.0008
0.0004
124
Nickel
0.0038
0.0025
125
Selenium
0.0024
0.0011
128
Zinc*
0.0029
0.0012
Aluminum*
0.0127
0.0063
Oil & Grease*
0.0393
0.0236
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
2. 62
1.16
11 9
Chromium*
3.39
1.39
120
Copper
1 4. 64
7. 71
1 21
Cyanide*
2.24
0.93
122
Lead
3.24
1.54
124
Nickel
14.79
9.79
125
Selenium
9.48
4.24
128
Zinc*
11.25
4.70
Alum inum*
49.55
24. 66
Oil & Grease*
154.10
92.46
Total Suspended
315.91
150.25
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-4 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079 V
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0.1 79
1 21
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
1 22
Lead
0.075
0.035
1 24
Nickel
0. 344
0.227
1 25
Selenium
0. 220
0.098
1 28
Zinc*
0. 262
0. 109
Aluminum*
1 . 1 50
0.573
Oil & Grease*
3. 580
2. 148
Total Suspended
7. 339
3.491
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
4. 730
2.087
119
Chromium*
6. 121
2.504
1 20
Copper
26.433
13.912
1 21
Cyanide*
4.034
1 .669
122
Lead
5.843
2. 783
124
Nickel
26.711
17.668
125
Selenium
17.112
7. 652
128
Zinc*
20.312
8.486
Aluminum*
89.454
44. 51 8
Oil & Grease*
278.240
166.944
Total Suspended
570.390
271 .284
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-4 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
5.406
2.385
119
Chromium*
6.996
2.862
120
Copper
30.210
I 5.900
121
Cyanide*
4. 611
1. 908
122
Lead
6.678
3.180
124
Nickel
30.528
20.067
125
Selenium
19.557
8. 745
128
Zinc*
23.214
9.699
Aluminum*
102.237
50.880
Oil & Grease*
318.000
190.800
Total Suspended
651.900
310.050
Solids*
pH*
Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all tiraes.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-5
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Rolling with emulsions
Roll grinding
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent emulsion
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
None
None
Spent lubricant
Various
Normalized BPT
Discharge
J-Zkkg (RPt)
74.51
5.50
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
45
Total Core 129.82
Contact cooling 1,329
water
Contact cooling 7,705
water
Bath 179
Rinse 13,912
Scrubber Liquor 15,900
(17.87)
(2.20)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(10.80)
(31.16)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
(318.9) Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
(1,848) Mass of aluminum
quenched
(42.96) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
(3,339) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
(3,816) Mass of aluminum
-------
fable IX-6
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED TOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
o
o
CO
Waste Scream
Rolling Spent Emulsions
Roll Grinding Spent
Emulsions
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
(rag/1)
<0.0002
<0.01
0.012
<0.0005
Total Chromium
(wr/1)
0.180 <0.001
0.013 0.057
0.360
0.020 <0.020 - 0.160
0.020 <0.001 - 1.6
<0.0005 - 0.012 0.002 - 72
0.005 - 3.000 0.020 - 10.00
<0.0005 - 0.200 0.007 - 280
Copper
£ia£il
ND - 7.40
<0.050
0.100 - 1.250
0.004 - 0.030
0.001
0.38
<0.05 - 20
0.0011 - 480
0.01
Total Cyanide
(ffig/1)
0.016 - 2.5
<0.020
<0.020
<0.001 - 530
<0.001
0.00002
0.408
0.042
Lead
(">R/l)
Nickel
isa/JJ.
<0.002 - 56.90 <0.001 - 0.28
0.050 - <0.100 <0.020 - 0.050
<0.100 - 0.500 <0.050 - 0.122
0.002 - 0.100 <0.001 - 0.020
ND - 17
<0.001 - 0.040
0.400 - 90.0 0.001 - 486
0.01 - 11 <0.001 - 160
-------
Table IX-6 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS -
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Zinc Aluminum Oil and Grease TSS pH
Waste Stream (rog/l) (mg/1) (mg/1) (ma/I) (units)
Rolling Spent Emulsions <0.005 - 16 20 - 350 1,277 - 802,000 0.540 - 124,540 6.9 - 9.74
Roll Grinding Spent <0.020 - 0.520 2.30 - 554 11 - 780 9.0 - 120 8.72 - 9.51
Emulsions
Sawing Spent Lubricants 0.180 - 12.9 2.4 - 185 4,200 - 23,000 495 - 3,200 6.89 - 8.93
Direct Chili Casting <0.010 - 1.0 <0.050 - 2 <5 - 236 <1 - 220 6 - 8.4
Contact Cooling
Solution Heat Treatment <0.010-5.2 <0.1-9 1.5 - 370 <1 - 240 7-9.6
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath <0.010 - <30.00 0.300 - 70,000 <1-1,900 1.0-1,540 0.15-11.4
Cleaning or itching Rinse <0.01 - 410 <0.01 -1,300 <1 - 490 <1 - 3,640 0.55 - 11.8
O Cleaning or Etching — 5.1 13 12 8.1
g Scrubber Liquor
-------
Table IX-7
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118
Cadmium
0.044
0.01 9
119
Chromium*
0.057
0.024
120
Copper
0.247
0. 130
121
Cyanide*
0.038
0.01 6
122
Lead
0.055
0.026
124
Nickel
0.249
0. 1 65
125
Selenium
0. 160
0.071
128
Zinc*
0. 1 90
0.079
Aluminum*
0.835
0.416
Oil & Grease*
2. 596
1 .558
Total Suspended
5.323
2.531
Solids*
pH* Within
the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
f^TIutant-or Maximum for ' ' Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118
Cadmium
0.452
0. 1 99
11 9
Chromium*
0.585
0.239
120
Copper
2.525
1.329
121
Cyanide*
0.385
0.1 59
122
Lead
0.558
0.266
124
Nickel
2.552
1 . 688
125
Selenium
1.635
0. 731
128
Zinc*
1 . 940
0.81 1
Aluminum*
8.545
4.253
Oil & Grease*
26.580
15.948
Total Suspended
54.489
25.916
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-7 (Continued)
BPT
MASS LIMITATIONS
FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum
quenched
118
Cadmium
2.620
1 . 156
119
Chromium*
3.390
1 .387
1 20
Copper
1 4.640
7. 705
1 21
Cyanide*
2. 234
0.925
1 22
Lead
3.236
1 . 541
1 24
Nickel
14.794
9. 785
125
Selenium
9.477
4. 238
1 28
Zinc*
11.249
4. 700
Aluminum*
49.543
24.656
Oil & Grease*
154.100
92.460
Total Suspended
315.905
150.248
Solids*
pH* Within the range
of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0. 079
0.032
1 20
Copper
0. 340
0.179
1 21
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
1 22
Lead
0.075
0.036
1 24
Nickel
0.344
0. 227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
1 28
Z inc*
0.262
0.109
Aluminum*
1 . 1 51
0. 573
Oil & Grease*
3. 580
2.149
Total Suspended
7. 339
3.491
Solids*
pH* Within the range
of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-7 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned
or etched
118
Cadmium
4. 730
2.087
119
Chromium*
6.121
2.504
120
Copper
26.433
1 3.91 2
121
Cyanide*
4.034
1 .669
122
Lead
5.843
2.783
124
Nickel
26.711
17.668
125
Selenium
17.112
7.652
128
Zinc*
20.312
8.486
Aluminum*
89.454
44.518
Oil & Grease*
278.240
166.944
Total Suspended
570.392
271.284
Solids*
pH* Within the range of
7.0 to 1C
I.O at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned
or etched
118
Cadmium
5.406
2.385
119
Chromium*
6.996
2.862
120
Copper
30.210
15.900
121
Cyanide*
4.611
1 .908
122
Lead
6.678
3.180
124
Nickel
30.528
20.193
125
Selenium
19.577
8.745
128
Zinc*
23.214
9.699
Aluminum*
102.237
50.880
Oil & Grease*
318.000
190.800
Total Suspended
651 .900
310.050
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10,0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table 1X-8
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
o
i—1
00
Core
Operation
Extrusion
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Waste Stream
Die cleaning bath
and rinse
Die cleaning
scrubber liquor
Dummy block cooling
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Total Core
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg (RPt)
38.52
275.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
45
363.82
(9.245)
(66.08)
(0)
(0)
* (0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(10.80)
(87.36)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Contact cooling
1,329
(318.96)
Mass of aluminum cast
water
by direct chill
Extrusion press
Fluid leakage
1,478
(354.7)
method
hydraulic
Solution and press heat
Contact cooling
7,705
(1,848)
Mass of aluminum
treatment
water
quenched
Cleaning or etching
Bath
179
(42.96)
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Rinse
13,912
(3,339)
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Scrubber liquor
15,900
(3,816)
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Degass ing
Scrubber liquor
2,607
(626)
Mass of aluminum
-------
Table 1X-9
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Bath
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Rinse
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Scrubber Liquor
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling
Solution and Press Heat
Treatment Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
ismUL.
Total Chromium
(wk/1)
<0.010 - <2,100 0.900 - 8.0
<0.001 - 0.001 0.003 - 0.004
<0.0005 - 0.012 0.002 - 72
0.005 - 3.000 0.020 - 10.00
<0.0005 - 0.200 0.007 - 280
Copper
{""RAX
<1.62 - 75.0
<0.001 - 0.020 0.030 - 0.210 0.200 - 2.4
0.006
0.012 - 0.020 <0.020 - 0.160 0.100 - 1.250
<0.0005 - 0.020 <0.001 - 1.6 0.004 - 0.030
0.001 - 0.38
<0.05 - 20
0.0011 - 480
0.0!
Total Cyanide
(mg/1)
<0.02
0.002 - 0.015
0.013 - 0.020
<0.020
<0.001 - 530
<0.001 - 0.408
0.00002 - 0.042
Lead
(mg/1)
1.02 - 10.0
Nickel
(ag/1)
<0.02 - <5.0
0.130 - 0.830 <0.005 - 0.10
0.005 - 0.024 <0.001 - D.003
<0.100 - 0.500 <0.050 - 0.122
0.002 - 0.100 <0.001 - 0.020
ND - 17
<0.001 - 0.040
0.400 - 90.0 0.001 - 486
0.01 - 11 <0.001 - 160
Degassing Scrubber Liquor 0.0008 - 0.011 0.014 - 0.09 0.017 - 0.25
0.019 - 0.45 <0.001 - 0.023
-------
Table IX-9 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Bath
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Rinse
Extrusion Die Cleaning
Scrubber Liquor
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Direct Chili Casting
Contact Cooling
Solution and Press Heat
i—' Treatment Contact Cooling
o
en Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Degassing Scrubber Liquor
Z Inc
ll&Al
5.88
0,100
0.02
0.180
<0.010
138
1.50
0.04
12.9
1.0
<0.010 - 5.2
<0.010
<0.01
<30.00
410
0.13 - 1.3
Aluminum
_M/1L
15,800 - 43,700
0.42 - 430
0.60 - 1.3
2.4 - 185
<0.050 - 2
<0.100 - 9
0.300 - 70,000
<0.01 - 1,300
5.1
<0.5 - 10
Oil and Grease
(mg/1)
<1 - 22
<1 - 17
5.7 - 160
4,200 - 23,000
<5 - 236
1.5 - 370
<1 - 1,900
<1 - 490
13
<5
TSS
(rog/Q
310 - 3,830
26-130
1 - 4
495 - 3,200
<1 - 220
<1 - 240
1.0 - 1,540
<1 - 3,640
12
<2 - 102
pH
(units)
12.03 - 12.92
7.8 - 11.7
8.1 - 8.3
6.89 - 8.93
6 - 8.4
7 - 9.6
0.15 - 11.4
0.55 - 11.8
8.1
7.2 - 7.8
-------
Table IX-10
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum extruded
118
Cadmium
0. 124
0.055
119
Chromium*
0. 1 61
0.066
120
Copper
0.695
0.366
121
Cyanide*
0. 1 06
0.044
122
Lead
0.153
0.073
124
Nickel
0. 702
0.464
125
Selenium
0.450
0.201
128
Zinc*
0.534
0. 223
Aluminum*
2.34
1.16
Oil & Grease*
7.314
4. 338
Total Suspended
14.994
7.131
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118
Cadmium
0.452
0. 1 99
119
Chromium*
0.585
0. 239
1 20
Copper
2.525
1. 329
121
Cyanide*
0.385
0. 159
122
Lead
0.558
0.266
124
Nickel
2.552
1 .688
1 25
Selenium
1 .635
0. 731
128
Zinc*
1 .940
0.81 1
Aluminum*
8.545
4.253
Oil & Grease*
26.580
15.948
Total Suspended
54.489
25.916
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-10 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
quenched
118
Cadmium
2.620
1.156
119
Chromium*
3.390
1.387
120
Copper
14.640
7.705
1 21
Cyanide*
2. 234
0.925
122
Lead
3.236
1.541
1 24
Nickel
14.794
9. 785
125
Selenium
9.477
4.238
1 28
Zinc*
11.249
4. 700
Aluminum*
49.543
24.656
Oil & Grease*
154.100
92.460
Total Suspended
315.905
150.248
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0. 027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0.1 79
1 21
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
1 22
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0. 344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0. 098
128
Zinc*
0.261
0.109
Aluminum*
1.1 51
0. 573
Oil & Grease*
3.580
2.148
Total Suspended
7. 339
3.491
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-10 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned
or etched
118
Cadmium
4.730
2.087
119
Chromium*
6.121
2.504
120
Copper
26.433
13.912
121
Cyanide*
4.034
1. 669
122
Lead
5.843
2.783
1 24
Nickel
26.71 1
17.668
125
Selenium
1 7. 112
7.652
128
Zinc*
20.312
8.486
Aluminum*
89.454
44.518
Oil & Grease*
278.240
166.944
Total Suspended
570.392
271.284
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned
or etched
1 18
Cadmium
5.406
2.385
1 1 9
Chromium*
6.996
2.862
120
Copper
30.210
15.900
121
Cyanide*
4.611
1 .908
1 22
Lead
6. 678
3.180
124
Nickel
30.528
20.193
1 25
Selenium
19.557
8. 745
128
Zinc*
23.214
9.699
Aluminum*
102.237
50.880
Oil & Grease*
318.000
190.800
Total Suspended
651.900
310.050
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-10 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum degassed
118
Cadmium
0.887
0.391
119
Chromium*
1.148
0.470
120
Copper
4. 957
2.609
1 21
Cyanide*
0. 757
0.313
122
Lead
1.0 96
0.552
1 24
Nickel
5.009
3.313
1 25
Selenium
3.209
1 .435
128
Zinc*
3.809
1.591
Aluminum*
16.776
8.349
Oi1 & Grease*
52.180
31.308
Total Suspended
106.969
50.876
Solids*
pH*
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times,
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.503
0.222
119
Chromium*
0.650
0.266
1 20
Copper
2. 808
1.478
121
Cyanide*
0.429
0.1 77
1 22
Lead
0.621
0. 296
124
Nickel
2.838
1 .877
125
Selenium
1.818
0.813
128
Zinc*
2.158
0. 902
Aluminum*
9. 504
4. 730
Oil & Grease*
29.560
17.736
Total Suspended
60.60
28.821
Solids*
pH* Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-11
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Normalized BPT
Discharge
Production Normalizing
Operation
Waste Stream
1/kkg
(gpt)
Parameter
Core
Forging
None
0
(0)
Annealing
None
0
(0)
Artificial aging
None
0
(0)
Degreasing
Spent solvent
0
(0)
Sawing
Spent lubricant
4.807
(1.153)
Mass of
aluminum forged
Miscellaneous nonde-
Various
45
(10.8)
Mass of
aluminum forged
script wastewater
sources
Total Core 49.807
(11.95)
Ancillary
Forging
Scrubber liquor
1 ,547
(371.0)
Mass of
aluminum forged
Solution heat treatment
Contact cooling
7,705
(1,848)
Mass of
aluminum
water
quenched
Cleaning or etching
Bath
179
(42.96)
Mass of
aluminum
cleaned or etched
Rinse
13,912
(3,339)
Mass of
aluminum
cleaned or etched
Scrubber liquor 15,900 (3,816) Mass of aluminum
-------
Table IX-12
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
HPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
Qng/1)
Total Chromium
0.012 - 0,020 <0.020 - 0.160
<0.0005 - 0.012
0.005 - 3.000
<0.0005 - 0.200
0.002 - 72
0.020
0.007
10.00
280
Copper
(rng/1)
0.100 - 1,250
0.010
0.001 - 0.38
<0.05 - 20
0.0011 - 480
0.01
Total Cyanide
(mg/1)
<0.020
<0.001 - 530
<0.001 - 0.408
0.00002 - 0.042
Lead
.(¦B/l)
Nickel
(mg/1)
<0.100 - 0.500 <0.050 - 0.122
2.000
ND - 17 <0.001 - 0.040
0.400 - 90.0 0.001 - 486
0.01 - 11 <0.001 - 160
o
ro
-------
Table IX-12 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BFr REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Haste Stream
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Forging Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Zinc
(mg/I)
0.180 - 12.9
0.003
<0.010 - 5.2
<0.010
<0.01
<30.00
410
Aluminum
(rcg/n
2.4 - 185
0.5
<0.1 - 9
0.300 - 70,000
<0.01 - 1,300
5.1
Oil and Grease
Om/l)
4,200 - 23,000
162
1.5 - 370
<1 - 1,900
<1 - 490
13
TSS
in&m
495 - 3,200
2
<1 - 240
1.0 - 1,540
<1 - 3,640
12
pH
(units)
6.89 - 8.93
7 - 9.6
0.15 - 11.4
0.55 - 11.8
o
ro
1N3
-------
Table IX-13
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY*
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum forged
11 8
Cadmium
0.01 7
0.007
1 1 9
Chromium
0.022
0.009
120
Copper
0.095
0.050
1 21
Cyanide
0.014
0.006
1 22
Lead
0.021
0.010
124
Nickel
0.096
0. 063
125
Selenium
0.061
0.027
1 28
Zinc
0.073
0.030
Aluminum
0.320
0.159
Oil & Grease
0. 996
0.598
Total Suspended
2.042
0.971
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum forged
1 18
Cadmium
0.526
0.232
119
Chromium
0.681
0.278
120
Copper
2.939
1 .547
121
Cyanide
0.449
0. 1 86
122
Lead
0.650
0. 310
124
Nickel
2.970
1 .965
125
Selenium
1.903
0.851
1 28
Zinc
2.259
0.944
Aluminum
9.947
4. 950
Oil & Grease
30.940
18.564
Total Suspended
63.427
30.167
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*A11 pollutants shown in Table IX-13 are not regulated at BPT
since there are no existing forgers who are direct dischargers.
-------
Table IX-13 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
2.620
1 . 156
119
Chromium
3.390
1.387
120
Copper
14.640
7. 705
121
Cyanide
2.234
0. 925
122
Lead
3.236
1 . 541
124
Nickel
14.794
9.785
125
Selenium
9.477
4.238
128
Zinc
11.249
4. 700
Aluminum
49.543
24.656
Oil & Grease
154.100
92.460
Total Suspended
31 5.905
150.248
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to
10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0. 027
11 9
Chromium
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0. 1 79
121
Cyanide
0.052
0.021
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc
0.261
0.109
Aluminum
1.1 51
0. 573
Oil & Grease
3.580
2. 148
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to
10.0 at all times.
-------
Table IX-13 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for . Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
11 8
Cadmium
4. 730
2.087
119
Chromium
6.121
2.504
120
Copper
26.433
1 3.91 2
1 21
Cyanide
4.034
1. 699
1 22
Lead
5.843
2.783
1 24
Nickel
26.711
17.668
1 25
Selenium
17.112
7.652
1 28
Zinc
20.312
8.486
Aluminum
89.454
44.518
Oil & Grease
278.240
166.944
Total Suspended
570.392
271 .284
Solids
pH . Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
5.406
2. 385
11 9
Chromium
6.996
2.862
1 20
Copper
30.210
15.900
121
Cyanide
4.611
1 . 908
1 22
Lead
6. 678
3.180
124
Nickel
30.528
20.1 93
125
Selenium
19.557
8. 745
128
Zinc
23.214
9.699
Aluminum
102.237
50.880
Oil & Grease
318.000
190.800
Total Suspended
651.900
310.050
Solids
pH . Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
-------
Table IX-14
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Drawing with neat oils
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Continous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent oils
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Normalized BPT
Discharge
(gpt>
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
0
45
49.807
1,555
1.964
7,705
179
Rinse 13,912
Scrubber liquor 15,900
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.
(0)
(10.
153)
80)
(11.95)
(373.2)
(0.471)
(1,848)
(42.96)
(3,339)
(3,816)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oiIs
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of rod cast by
continuous method
Mass of rod cast by
continuous method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
-------
Table IX-15
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling"
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricants^
SoLutlon Heat Treatment
Contact CooLing
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
(mg/1)
0.012 - 0.020
<0.0005 - 0.020
<0.0002 - 0.180
<0.001 - 0.012
0.005 - 3.000
<0.0005 - 0.200
Total Chromium
(mg/1)
<0.020
<0.00!
0.160
1.6
<0.001 - 1
0.002 - 72
0.020
0.007
10.00
280
Copper
(¦*/!>
0.100 - 1.250
0.004 0.030
ND - 7.40
0.001 - 0.38
<0.05 - 20
0.0011 - A80
0.01
Total Cyanide
(""KM)
<0.020
0.016 - 2.5
<0.001 - 530
Lead
Nickel
<0.100 - 0.500 <0.050 - 0.122
0.002 - 0.100 <0.001 - 0.020
<0.002 - 56.90 <0.001 - 0.28
ND - 17
<0.001 - 0.408 0.400 - 90.0
0.00002 - 0.042 0.01 - 11
<0.001 - 0.040
0.001 - 486
<0.001 - 160
ND = Not Detected.
AThts stream was assumed to be similar to Roiling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Table IX-15 (Continued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling®
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricants^
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Zinc
(tag/1)
Aluminum
0.180
<0.010
<0.005
<0.010
<0.010
<0.01
12,9
1.0
16
5.2
<30.00
410
2.4
<0.050
20
185
2
350
<0.1 - 9
0.300 - 70,000
<0.01 - 1,300
5.1
OH and Grease
<»gA>
4,200 - 23,000
<5 - 236
1,277 - 802,000
1.5 - 370
<1 - 1,900
<1 - 490
13
TSS
(wg/l)
495 - 3,200
<1 - 220
0,540 - 3.910
<1 - 240
1.0 - 1,540
<1 - 3,640
12
o
rv>
oo
ND = Not Detected.
*This stream was assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
BThis stream was assumed to be similar to Direct Chill Casting Contact Cooling.
pH
(units)
6.89 - 8.93
6 - 8.4
6.9 - 9.74
7 - 9.6
0.15 - 11.4
0.55 - 11.8
-------
Table IX-16
BPT
MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With
Neat Oils - Core
Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
drawn with neat oils
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.01 7
0. 007
119
Chromium*
0. 022
0.009
120
Copper
0.097
0.050
1 21
Cyanide*
0. 015
0. 005
1 22
Lead
0.021
0.010
1 24
Nickel
0.096
0.063
1 25
Selenium
0.061
0.027
1 28
Zinc*
0.073
0. 031
Aluminum*
0. 320
0.160
Oil & Grease*
0. 996
0.598
Total Suspended
2.042
0.97 2
Solids*
pH* Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.529
0.233
119
Chromium*
0.684
0.28
1 20
Copper
2. 955
1 . 555
1 21
Cyanide*
0.451
0. 1 87
122
Lead
0. 653
0. 311
124
Nickel
2. 986
1 .975
1 25
Selenium
1.913
0. 855
1 28
Zinc*
2.271
0.949
Aluminum*
10.00
4. 976
Oil & Grease*
31.100
18.660
Total Suspended
63.755
30.322
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
119
Chromium*
0.0009
0.0004
120
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
121
Cyanide*
0.0006
0.0003
122
Lead
0.0008
0.0004
124
Nickel
0.0038
0.0025
125
Selenium
0.0024
0.0011
128
Zinc*
0.0029
0.0012
Aluminum*
0.0126
0.0063
Oil & Grease*
0.0393
0.0236
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times,
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
2.620
1.1 56
1 1 9
Chromium*
3.390
1 .387
120
Copper
14.640
7. 705
121
Cyanide*
2.235
0.925
122
Lead
3.236
1.541
124
Nickel
14.794
9. 785
125
Selenium
9.477
4. 238
128
Zinc*
11.249
4. 700
Aluminum*
49.543
24.656
Oil & Grease*
154.100
92.460
Total Suspended
315.905
150.248
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
1 20
Copper
0. 340
0.1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.22 7
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc*
0.261
0.109
Aluminum*
1 .150
0.573
Oil & Grease*
3.580
2.148
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kK (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
4. 730
2.087
11 9
Chromium*
6. 1 21
2. 504
1 20
Copper
26.433
1 3.912
121
Cyanide*
4.034
1 .669
122
Lead
5. 843
2. 783
124
Nickel
26.711
17.668
125
Selenium
17.112
7. 652
128
Zinc*
20.312
8.486
Aluminum*
89.454
44.518
Oil & Grease*
278.240
166.944
Total Suspended
570.392
271.284
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-16 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOE THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
5.406
2.385
119
Chromium*
6.996
2.862
120
Copper
30.210
15.900
121
Cyanide*
4.611
1.908
122
Lead
6.678
3.180
124
Nickel
30.528
20.193
125
Selenium
19.557
8. 745
128
Zinc*
23.214
9.699
Aluminum*
102.237
50.880
Oil & Grease*
318.000
190.800
Total Suspended
651.900
310.050
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
-------
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
Table IX-17
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Drawing with emulsions
or soaps
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Continuous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BPT
Discharge
1/kkg
Spent lubricants 416.5
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
0
45
466.3
1,555
1.964
7,705
179
13,912
15,900
(«Pt)
(99.89)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0)
(10.80)
(111.9)
(373.2)
(0.471)
(1,848)
(42.96)
(3,339)
(3,816)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of rod cast by
continuous methods
Mass of rod cast by
continuous methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
-------
Table IX-18
COMPARISON OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGE RATES
FROM DRAWING EMULSION AND SOAP STREAMS
Order of
Plant Wastewater Increasing Lubricant Product
Number (gal/ton) (1/kkg) Production Type Type
10 0 8 Emulsion Tube
2 0.8100 3.377 10 Emulsion Wire
3 2.810 11.72 6 Emulsion Wire
4 6.279 26.18 9 Emulsion Wire
5 62.50 260.6 3 Emulsion Wire
6 260.0 1,084 2 Soap Wire
7 267.0 1,113 5 Emulsion Wire
8 257,100 1,072,000 1 Soap Wire
9 * * 4 Emulsion Wire
10 * * * Emulsion Wire
11 * * * Emulsion Wire
12 * * 7 Soap and Wire
Emulsion
13 * * * Soap Wire
^Sufficient data not available to calculate these values.
-------
Table IX-19
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Waste Stream
Drawing Spent Emulsions
or Soaps^
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling8
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricants^
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Cadmium
(mg/1)
0.012
<0.0005
0.020
0.020
<0.0002 - 0.180
<0.0005 - 0.012
0.005
<0.0005
3.000
0.200
Total Chromium
M/jy
<0.0002 - 0.180 <0.001 - 1
,.<0.020
<0.001
0.160
1.6
<0.001 - 1
0.002 - 72
0.020
0.007
10.00
280
Copper
(mg/1)
ND - 7.40
0.100 - 1.250
0.004 - 0.030
ND - 7.40
0.001 - 0.38
<0,05 - 20
0.0011 - 480
0.01
Total Cyanide
(mg/1)
0.016 - 2.5
<0.020
0.016 - 2.5
<0.001 - 530
<0.001 - 0.408
0.00002 - 0.042
Lead
(nig/1)
Nickel
(me/1)
<0.002 - 56.90 <0.001 - 0.28
<0.100 - 0.500 <0.050 - 0.122
0.002 - 0.100 <0.001 - 0.020
<0.002 - 56.90 <0.001 - 0.28
ND - 17
<0.001 - 0.040
0.400 - 90.0 0.001 - 486
0.01 - 11 <0.001 - 160
ND = Not Detected.
AThese streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Table IX-19 (ContLnued)
CONCENTRATION RANGE OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED FOR
BPT REGULATION IN CORE AND ANCILLARY WASTE STREAMS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
o
OJ
Waste Stream
Drawing Spent Emulsions
or SoapsA
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling®
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent LubricantsA
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling
Cleaning or Etching Bath
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
01 Cleaning or Etching
Scrubber Liquor
Zinc
(¦*/!)
<0.005 - 16
0.180
<0.010
12.9
1.0
16
<0.005
<0.010 - 5.2
<0.010
<0.01
Aluntnum
(mg/1)
20 - 350
2.4
<0.050
185
2
<30.00
410
20 - 350
<0.'l - 9
0.300 - 70,000
<0.01 - 1,300
5.1
0L1 and Grease
(rag/1?
TSS
1,277 - 802,000 0.540 - 124,540
4,200 - 23,000
<5 - 236
495 - 3,200
<1 - 220
1,277 - 802,000 0.540 - 3,910
1.5 - 370
<1 - 1,900
<1 - 490
13
<1 - 240
1.0 - 1,540
<1 - 3,640
12
PH
(units)
6.9 - 9.74
6.89 - 8.93
6 - 8.4
6.9 - 9.74
7 - 9.6
0.15 - 11.4
0.55 - 11.8
8.1
ND = Not Detected.
AThese streams were assumed to be similar to Rolling with Emulsions Spent Emulsions.
-------
Table IX-20
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS.
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With
Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
1 18
Cadmium
0.1 59
0.070
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.205
0.084
1 20
Copper
0. 886
0.466
1 21
Cyanide*
0.1 35
0.056
1 22
Lead
0.196
0.094
1 24
Nickel
0.895
0.592
1 25
Selenium
0. 574
0. 256
1 28
Zinc*
0.680
0.285
Aluminum*
2.998
1 .492
Oil & Grease*
9.326
5.596
Total Suspended
19.118
9.093
Solids*
pH*
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous
Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m
g/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.529
0. 233
1 1 9
Chromium*
0. 684
0.28
1 20
Copper
2.955
1 .555
1 21
Cyanide*
0.450
0. 1 87
1 22
Lead
0. 653
0. 311
1 24
Nickel
2. 986
1. 975
125
Selenium
1.913
0.855
1 28
Zinc*
2.270
0. 949
Aluminum*
9.999
4.976
Oil & Grease*
31 . 100
18.660
Total Suspended
63.755
30.323
Solids*
pH*
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
119
Chromium*
0.0009
0.0004
120
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
121
Cyanide*
0.0006
0.0003
122
Lead
0.0008
0.0004
124
Nickel
0.0038
0.0025
125
Selenium
0.0024
0.001 1
1 28
Zinc*
0.0029
0.001
Aluminum*
Oi0126
0.0063
Oil & Grease*
0.0393
0.0236
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0390
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
2.620
1 . 1 56
119
Chromium*
3.390
1 . 387
120
Copper
14.640
7. 705
121
Cyanide*
2.234
0. 925
122
Lead
3.236
1 .541
124
Nickel
14.794
9. 785
125
Selenium
9.477
4.238
1 28
Zinc*
11.249
4. 700
Aluminum*
49.549
24.656
Oil & Grease*
154.100
92.460
Total Suspended
315.905
150.248
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0. 340
0. 1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0. 022
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
1 28
Zinc*
0.262
0.109
Aluminum*
1 .1 51
0. 573
Oil & Grease*
3.580
2. 148
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
11 8
Cadmium
4. 730
2.087
119
Chromium*
6. 1 21
2. 504
1 20
Copper
26.433
13.912
1 21
Cyanide*
4.034
1. 669
122
Lead
5.843
2.783
124
Nickel
26.71 1
17.668
125
Selenium
1 7. 112
7.652
128
Zinc*
20.312
8.486
Aluminum*
89.454
44. 519
Oil & Grease*
278.240
1 66. 944
Total Suspended
570.392
271.284
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10»0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-20 (Continued)
BPT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
5.406
2.385
119
Chromium*
6. 996
2.862
120
Copper
30.210
15.900
121
Cyanide*
4.611
1.908
122
Lead
6. 678
3.180
124
Nickel
30.528
20.193
125
Selenium
19.557
8. 745
128
Zinc*
23.214
9.699
Aluminum*
102.237
50.880
Oil & Grease*
318.000
190.800
Total Suspended
651.900
310.050
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table IX-21
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR PLANT X IN EXAMPLE 1
Waste Stream
Extrusion Core
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Degassing Scrubber Liquor
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Etch Line Bath
Etch Line Rinse
Total
Average
Daily
Production
(kkg/day)
200
200
200
140
100
100
BPT
Regulatory
One-Day
Maximum
TSS Discharge
(mg/kg)*
15.0
54.49
106.97
315.9
7.34
570.4
BPT
Regulatory
10-Day
Average
TSS Discharge
(mg/kg)*
7.13
25.92
50.88
150.25
3.49
271.3
BPT
Allowable
One-Day
Maximum
TSS Discharge
(mg/day)
3,000,000
10,898,000
21,394,000
44,226,000
734,000
57,040,000
BPT
Allowable
10-Day
Average
TSS Discharge
(mg/day)
1,426,000
5, 184,000
10,176,000
21,035,000
349,000
27,130,000
137,290,000** 65,299,000**
or 137.3 kg/day or 65.3 kg/day
*These values are taken from Table IX-10.
**Allowable discharge concentrations (mg/1) can be calculated by dividing these values by the
-------
Table IX-22
ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR PLANT Y IN EXAMPLE 2
Waste Stream
Rolling with Emulsions
Core
Drawing with Emulsions
or Soaps Core
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Rod Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Continuous Rod Casting
Spent Lubricant
Solution Heat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
Etch Line Bath
Etch Line Rinse
Total
Average
Daily
Production
(kkg/day)
66. 6
6.7
33.3
6.7
6.7
23.3
20.6
20.6
BPT
Regulatory
One-Day
Maximum
Zn Discharge
(mg/kg)*
0.190
0.681
1.94
2.27
0.0029
11.25
0.262
20.31
BPT
Regulatory
10-Day
Average
Zn Discharge
(mg/kg)*
0.08
0.285
0.811
0.949
0.0012
4.70
0.109
8.49
BPT
Allowable
One-Day
Maximum
Zn Discharge
(mg/day)
12,650
4,560
64,600
15,210
230
262,130
5,400
418,390
BPT
Allowable
10-Day
Average
Zn Discharge
(mg/day)
5,330
1,910
27,000
6,360
8,040
109,510
2,250
174,890
802,170** 335,290**
or 0.8 kg/day or 0.34 kg/day
*These values are taken from Table IX-7 and Table IX-20.
**Allowable discharge concentrations (mg/1) can be calculated by dividing these values by the
-------
Chemical Addition
Sawing Spent Lubricants ^
Roll Cr inding ^
SpnnL Emulsions
Oil
Skimming
Continuous Sheet
Casting Spent Lubricants
Removal of
Oil and Grease
Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition
Clntiin ium
lied net I on
Discharge
Chcmlca1
Proci pi tat Ion
C~J^i
Sed imentat ion
Sk 1 rum I ng
Sludge
Removal of
Oil and Crease
Rolling Solution
lleat Treatment
Contact Cooling Water
I—*
O
-P>
CO
Sludge to
Disposal
Recycle
Kludge
Dewatering
Miscellaneous Wastewater
ChemlCal Addition
gleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor ^
Adjustment
Anneal inp Furnace Atmosjihcre
Scrubber Li<|uor
Figure IX-1
-------
Clifulcnl Adit 1 Clou
Sawing Spent lubricants (
Rol I lt)R Spent Emulsions
Roll Grinding S|>(Mic Kmiilsl_ons ^
- w
Emu] r ion
Breaklue
o4>
Clean I tin or k
Etcliinj; Bath
Etching Rinse
O
4a»
+=»
Skltnmlnc
Removal of
Oil and Crease
Clinmtcnl Addition Chpmleal Arid I c ion
Chemical Addition
jjujcharge
Chromium
Reduce Ion
Cyanide
Precipitation
Client tea I
Precipitation
c>4>
Sedimentation
Skiniintnp,
c*r>
Recycle
Sludge
Remo"nl of
Oil and
Orrn'HC
CoolIng
Tower
Direct Chill
Sludge to
Disposal
Recycle
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Sludge Dewaterlng
Chemirn 1 Add 11 ton
Ad jtistBsfi?
Rolling SoluL ion Heat Treatment:
Contact Cooling Water
CtjoHng Water
Clennjng £>f_5trJUng Jcruhber l.lc|uor
Figure IX-2
-------
Chemical Addition
0
01
Sawing Spent ^
Lubricants
Extrusion Press |
Hydraulic Leakage
Emulsion
Oil
Breaking
Skinning
Direct Chill Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Cooling
Tower
Removal of
Oil and Grease
Recycle
Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition
Discharge
Chemical
Precipitation
CyanId e
Precipitation
Chromium
Reduction
Cleaning or
Sedimentation
Skimming
Etching Bath
Cleaning or
Etching Rinse
Die Cleaning
Sludge
Bath and Rinse
Extrusion Press Heat Treatment
Removal of
Oil and
Grease
Contact Cooling Water
Extrusion Solution Heat Treatment
Sludge to
Disposal
Recycle
Contact Cooling Water
Degassing Scrubber Liquor
Sludge
Dewaterlng
Miscellaneous Wastewater
Chemical Addition
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
P«
Adjustment
Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor
Press Scrubber Liquor
Figure IX-3
-------
Chemical Addition
SnwiiiR S|KMit Irfihrlrmita
Removal of
Oil and Crease
Chemical Addition
ClifHiIt-iil Addition Chemical Addition
Chromium
Reduction
Chemical
PrerIptratIon
cJs>
SedimentatIon
Removal of
Oil and
Grease
Forging Solution Heat Jreatment_
|Zj Contnet ConflnR Wafer
4S»
art
Sludge to
Disposal
Recycle
Forging Scrtihher Liquor
Sludge
Dewaterlnp
Hi seel lanenus Wastewater
Chemical Addition
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber hi'li'iT
Figure IX-4
-------
Cheinlral Addition
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Emu 1 s ton
Breaking
Continuous JRoji CasHnjj
Spent. Lubricants
Oil
Skimming
Rpmova 1 o C
Oil nnd Grease
Chemical Addition
Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
I ^
CleanIng or
Etching Rath
Cleaning or
Etching Klnse
Chromium
Reduct loll
Sedimentation
Sludge
Removal of
Oil and
Grease
I—> Drawing Solution Heat Treatment
1—1 Contact Cooling Wafer
O
-P»
Sludge to
PI sposnl
Continuous Rod_Casting
Contact Cooling Water
Recycle
SIudge
DewnterIng
Miscel1aneons Wastewater
Ctirmlcnl Addition
Cleaning or Etching Jjcrubber Liquor
Figure IX-5
-------
Clipolrnl Add 11 ion
V ¦¦'I* ¦¦¦
^ ^ A—
SnwJnp, S[ic»l yilirlrnntn
Cnnt Imimm RihI Cnntlitf,
fipfiit Uilirlrniitn
A ^ A ^
Earn J nlrni
Itrrnkhiji
nrnwln^ Spent J&nulsijins
Removal of
Oil and Grease
I
Clirmlml Addition
Client len I Adit it Ion Clipmlrnl Addition
V A.A.V.
Ctirinlrnl
Precipitation
oti
u }
_ Clonnin^ jir
Klriilus» Until
_<:l/ /VA.-V.'v.«
Clcnning or Rtching Scrubber I.I quo r
Figure IX-6
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The effluent limitations in this section apply to existing direct
dischargers. A direct discharger is a facility which discharges
or may discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
These effluent limitations, which must be achieved by July 1,
1984, are based on the best control and treatment technology
employed by a specific point source within the industrial cate-
gory or subcategory, or by another industry where it is readily
transferable. Emphasis is placed on additional treatment tech-
niques applied at the end of the treatment systems currently
employed for BPT, as well as improvements in reagent control,
process control, and treatment technology optimization.
The factors considered in assessing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, process changes, non-
water quality environmental impacts (including energy require-
ments), and the costs of application of such technology. BAT
technology represents the best existing economically achievable
performance of plants of various ages, sizes, processes, or other
characteristics. Those categories whose existing performance is
uniformly inadequate may require a transfer of BAT from a differ-
ent subcategory or category. BAT may include process changes or
internal controls, even when these are not common industry
practice. This level of technology also considers those plant
processes and control and treatment technologies which at pilot
plant and other levels have demonstrated both technological per-
formance and economic viability at a level sufficient to justify
investigation.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO BAT
The Agency reviewed a wide range of technology options and evalu-
ated the available possibilities to ensure that the most effec-
tive and beneficial technologies were used as the basis of BAT.
To accomplish this, the Agency elected to examine at least three
significant technology alternatives which could be applied to
aluminum forming as BAT options and which would represent sub-
stantial progress toward prevention of polluting the environment
above and beyond progress achievable by BPT. The statutory
assessment of BAT considers costs, but does not require a
balancing of costs against effluent reduct ion benefits see
Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 11 ERC 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978); however, in
assessing the proposed BAT, the Agency has given substantial
weight to the reasonableness of costs.
-------
EPA evaluated six levels of BAT for the category at proposal.
Option 1 is BPT treatment. Option 2 is BPT treatment plus flow
reduction and in-plant controls. Options 3, 4, 5, and 6 provide
additional levels of treatment. Options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
technologies are, in general, equally applicable to all the
subcategories of the aluminum forming category, while Option 6 is
applicable to one subcategory (forging). Eacn treatment option
produces similar concentrations of pollutants in the the effluent
from all subcategories. Mass limitations derived from these
options may vary,- however, because of the impact of different
production normalized wastewater discharge flow allowances.
Options 1, 2, and 3 are based on the chemical emulsion breaking
technology from the BPT technology train, whereas Options 4, 5,
and 6 are based on thermal emulsion breaking.
In summary form, the treatment technologies which were considered
for aluminum forming are:
Option 1 (Figure X-l) is based on:
Oil skimming,
Lime and settle (chemical precipitation of metals
followed by sedimentation), and
pH adjustment; and, where required,
Cyanide removal,
Hexavalent chromium reduction, and
Chemical emulsion breaking.
(This option is equivalent to the technology on which
BPT is based.)
Option 2 (Figure X-2) is based on:
Option 1, plus process wastewater flow reduction by
the following methods:
- Heat treatment contact cooling water recycle through
cooling towers.
- Continuous rod casting contact cooling water
recycle.
- Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
- Countercurrent cascade rinsing or other water effi-
cient methods applied to cleaning or etching and
extrusion die cleaning rinses.
-------
- Regeneration or contract hauling of cleaning or
etching baths (proposed but not promulgated)
- Use of extrusion die cleaning rinse for bath
make-up water
- Alternative fluxing or in-line refining methods,
neither of which require wet air pollution control,
for degassing aluminum melts.
Option 3 (Figure X-3) is based on:
Option 2, plus multimedia filtration at the end
of the Option 2 treatment train.
Option 4 (Figure X-4) is based on:
Option 1 plus process wastewater flow reduction by the
following methods:
Thermal emulsion breaking or contractor hauling for
concentrated emulsions.
Heat treatment contact cooling water recycle through
cooling towers.
Continuous rod casting contact cooling water
recycle.
Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
Hauling or regeneration of spent cleaning or etching
baths.
Countercurrent cascade rinsing or other water effi-
cient methods applied to cleaning or etching and
extrusion die cleaning rinses.
Alternative fluxing or in-line refining methods,
which do not require wet air pollution control, for
degassing aluminum melts.
Option 5 (Figure X-5) is based on:
Option 4, plus multimedia filtration at the end of
the Option 4 treatment train.
Option 6 (Figure X-6) is based on:
Option 5, plus granular activated carbon treatment
as a preliminary treatment step to remove toxic
organics.
Option 1_
Option 1 represents the BPT end-of-pipe treatment technology.
This treatment train consists of preliminary treatment when
-------
necessary of emulsion breaking and skimming, hexavalent chromium
reduction, and cyanide removal. The effluent from preliminary
treatment is combined with other wastewaters for central treat-
ment by skimming and lime and settle.
Option 2
Option 2 builds upon the BPT end-of-pipe treatment technologies
of skimming, lime and settle with preliminary treatment to reduce
chromium, remove cyanide and break emulsions. Flow reduction
measures, based on in-process changes, are the mechanisms for
reducing pollutant discharges at Option 2. Flow reduction
measures eliminate some wastewater streams and concentrate the
pollutants in others. Treatment of a more concentrated stream
allows a greater net removal of pollutants and economies of
treating a reduced flow. Methods for reducing process wastewater
generation or discharge include:
Heat Treatment Contact Coolinq Water Recycle Through Cooling
Towers. The cooling and recycle of heat treatment contact
cooling water is practiced by 15 plants. The function of heat
treatment contact cooling water is to remove heat quickly from
the aluminum. Therefore, the principal requirements of the water
are that it be cool and not contain dissolved solids at a level
that would cause water marks or other surface imperfections.
There is sufficient industry experience to assure the success of
this technology using cooling towers or heat exchangers.
Although four plants have reported that they do not discharge any
quench water by reason of continued recycle, some blowdown or
periodic cleaning is likely to be needed to prevent a build-up of
dissolved and suspended solids.
Scrubber Liquor Recycle. The recycle of scrubber liquor from
cleaning or etching process baths is practiced by two plants, on
forging scrubbers at two plants, and by one plant for its anneal-
ing scrubber. The scrubber water picks up particulates and fumes
from the air. Scrubbers have relatively low water quality
requirements for efficient operation, accordingly, recycle of
scrubber liquor is appropriate for aluminum forming operations.
A blowdown or periodic cleaning is necessary to prevent the
buildup of dissolved and suspended solids.
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing Applied to Cleaning or Etching and
Die Cleaning Rinses. Countercurrent cascade rinsing is a
mechanism commonly encountered in aluminum forming, electroplat-
ing, and other metal processing operations (Section VII, p. ).
The cleanest water is used for final rinsing of an item, preceded
by rinse stages using water with progressively more contaminants
to partially rinse the item. Fresh make-up water is added to the
final rinse, and contaminated rinse water is discharged from the
-------
initial rinse stage. The make-up water for all but the final
rinse stage is from the following stage.
The countercurrent cascade rinsing process substantially improves
efficiencies of water use for rinsing. For example, the use of a
two-stage countercurrent cascade rinse can reduce water usage to
approximately one-tenth of that needed for a single-stage rinse
to achieve the same level of product cleanliness. Similarly, a
three-stage countercurrent cascade rinse would reduce water usage
to approximately one-thirtieth. Countercurrent cascade rinsing
is practiced at least four aluminum forming plants. In addition,
although not strictly countercurrent cascade rinsing, two plants
reuse the rinse water following one cleaning or etching bath for
the rinse of a preceding bath. The installation of countercur-
rent cascade rinsing is applicable to existing aluminum forming
plants in that the cleaning and etch operations are usually dis-
crete operations and space is generally available for additional
rinse tanks following these operations.
A1ternative Fluxinq Methods. There are a number of alternatives
available to replace systems requiring wet scrubbers for
degassing operations (melting furnace air pollution control).
Among the alternatives are fluxes not requiring wet air pollution
control and in-line refining methods that eliminate the need for
fluxing. All aluminum forming plants but one have adopted the
alternative fluxing methods and thereby eliminated their
scrubbers.
If enough metal refining is taking place that large amounts of
gases are being emitted and a wet scrubber is necessary, this is
considered metal manufacturing and is covered under the aluminum
subcategories of the nonferrous metals manufacturing point source
category.
Regeneration or Contract Haulinq of Cleaning or Etching Baths.
The Agency proposed a zero discharge allowance for cleaning or
etching baths based on regeneration or contract hauling of the
baths. The Agency has reevaluated the basis of the zero
discharge allowance and is establishing a flow allowance for this
waste stream. New information and comments submitted on the
proposed rule indicated that regeneration is not a fully
developed technology applicable to all facilities in the
category. Further, contract hauling produces no environmental
benefit since these wastes are generally hauled to an off-site
waste treatment facility which would treat them in much the same
manner as they would be treated at the aluminum forming plant.
-------
Option 3
Option 3 builds upon the technical requirements of Option 2 by
adding conventional mixed-media filtration after the Option 2
technology train and the in-process flow reduction controls.
There are two aluminum forming plants which presently treat
wastewaters with a polishing filter. Option 3 differs from
Option 5 only in the type of emulsion treatment it is based on.
Option 3 is based on the chemical emulsion breaking technology,
which does not achieve zero discharge.
Option 4
Option 4 builds upon the technologies established for Option 2.
Thermal emulsion breaking is the principal mechanism for reducing
pollutant discharges at Option 4.
Thermal Emulsion Breaking or Contractor Haulinq to Achieve Zero
Discharge of Concentrated Emulsions. The Agency has noted that
recycle or contractor hauling of several waste streams (e.g.,
continuous rod casting lubricant, rolling emulsions, roll grind-
ing emulsions, drawing emulsions, and saw oils) are common prac-
tices. Organics were found to be constituents of these wastes.
Contractor hauling eliminated potential wastewater discharges,
obviated the need for organics removal (granular activated
carbon), and was the most cost-effective approach for many
plants. It was, therefore, the method suggested and included in
the cost estimate for many of these waste streams when small
volumes were considered.
Thermal emulsion breaking also eliminates any discharge from the
concentrated emulsion waste streams by concentrating the oil and
distilling the water. The water can then be reused in the
process. EPA is aware of one application of thermal emulsion
breaking in this category. In addition, it is being used at four
copper forming plants to treat their emulsified lubricants. The
processes performed and lubricants used in copper forming are
similar to those in aluminum forming, and as such the thermal
emulsion breaking technology is applicable to the aluminum
forming concentrated emulsion waste streams.
Thermal emulsion breaking does not eliminate contractor hauling
of spent lubricants, but it does reduce the volume of waste to be
disposed of, an important consideration in the face of the rising
disposal costs.
Two aluminum forming plants reported achieving zero discharge of
their emulsified wastes through treatment. One plant treats
their emulsion with chemical emulsion breaking, followed by
ultrafiltration, with the concentrate being recycled back through
-------
chemical emulsion breaking, and the filtrate is clarified and
reused elsewhere in the plant. The second plant applies gravity
separation to their emulsions and skims the oil, which is further
processed and used as fuel. The water fraction, which still
contains 0.1 percent oil, is sprayed onto a field.
Option 5^
Option 5 builds upon the technical requirements of Option 4 by
adding conventional mixed-media filtration. The filter suggested
is of the gravity, mixed-media type, although other filters, such
as rapid sand or pressure filters would perform equally well.
Option 6
Option 6 builds upon the technical requirements of Option 5.
Option 6 complements the other technologies by applying granular
activated carbon (GAC) to waste streams for which toxic organics
were selected. By applying granular activated carbon as a
preliminary treatment step rather than end-of-pipe treatment for
waste streams where organics were found at significant levels,
treatment efficiency is improved, and total treatment costs are
reduced.
The Agency considered options 2 through 6 for BAT technology.
Options 4 and 5 were rejected before proposal because of the
extremely high energy requirements and costs associated with
retrofitting thermal emulsion breaking technology into existing
aluminum forming plants. Option 6 was also eliminated from
consideration early in the decision process because of the high
cost associated with its application and the minimal incremental
removals of toxic organics achieved.
The Agency proposed BAT limitations based on Option 2 and stated
that it would give equivalent consideration to Option 3, which is
Option 2 with end-of-pipe polishing filtration added.
Industry Cost and Environmental Benefits of the Various Treatment
Options
As a means of evaluating the economic achievabi1ity of each of
these options, the Agency developed estimates of the compliance
costs and benefits for Options 2 and 3. An estimate of capital
and annual costs for BAT options 2 and 3 was prepared for each
subcategory as an aid in choosing best BAT model technology. The
cost estimates for the total subcategory are presented in Table
X-l. Plant-by-plant cost estimates were made for 49 of 59 direct
dischargers and extrapolated to the remaining direct dischargers
in the category. These estimates are presented in Table X-2.
All costs are based on 1982 dollars.
-------
The cost methodology has been described in detail in Section
VIII. Standard cost literature sources and vendor quotes were
used for module capital and annual costs. Data from several
sources were combined to yield average or typical equipment costs
as a function of flow or other wastewater characteristics and
design parameters. The resulting costs for individual pieces of
equipment were combined to yield module costs. The cost data
were coupled with specific flow data from each plant to establish
system costs for each plant.
The total costs presented in Tables X-l and X-2 represent esti-
mates which were revised after proposal to consider plants which
reported discharge flow from anodizing and conversion coating
operations, and the treatment technology required for those
wastewater streams which were not considered to be in-scope waste
streams when the original cost estimates were prepared. In
addition, the preproposal annual cost estimates were adjusted by
subtracting 10 percent of the capital cost from the annual cost.
This was done because an error in the original costing
methodology doublecounted the value for depreciation.
Pollutant reduction benefit estimates were calculated for each
option for each subcategory. The benefits that the treatment
technologies can achieve are presented in Tables X-3 through X-8.
The benefits that the treatment technologies will achieve for
direct dischargers are presented in Tables X-9 through X-l3. The
benefits that the treatment technologies can achieve for a
"normal plant" in each subcategory are presented in Tables X-l4
through X-l9. The characteristics of the normal plants are
presented in Section VIII (p. 897).
The first step in the calculation of the benefit estimates is the
calculation of production normalized raw waste values (mg/kkg)
for each pollutant in each waste stream. These values, along
with raw waste concentrations, are presented in Tables X-20
through X-25. raw waste values were calculated using one of
three methods. When analytical concentration data (mg/1) and
sampled production normalized flow values (1/kkg) were available
for a given waste stream, individual raw waste values for each
sample were calculated and averaged. This method allows for the
retention of any relationship between concentration, flow, and
production. When sampled production normalized flows were not
available for a given waste stream, an average concentration was
calculated for each pollutant, and the average raw waste
normalized flow taken from the dcp information for that waste
stream was used to calculate the raw waste. When no analytical
values were available for a given waste stream, the raw waste
values for a stream of similar water quality was used. The raw
waste concentrations (mg/1) in Tables X-20 through X-25 were
-------
calculated by dividing the raw waste values (mg/kkg) by the
average raw waste production normalized flow (1/kkg).
The total flow (1/yr) for each option for each subcategory was
calculated by summing individual flow values for each waste
stream in the subcategory for each option. The individual flow
values were calculated by multiplying the total production asso-
ciated with each waste stream in each subcategory (kkg/yr) by the
appropriate production normalized flow (1/kkg) for each waste
stream for each option.
The raw waste mass values (kg/yr) for each pollutant in each sub-
category were calculated by summing individual raw waste masses
for each waste stream in the subcategory. The individual raw
waste mass values were calculated by multiplying the total pro-
duction associated with each waste stream in each subcategory
(kkg/yr) by the raw waste value (mg/kkg) for each pollutant in
each waste stream.
The mass discharged (kg/yr) for each pollutant for each option
for each subcategory was calculated by multiplying the total flow
(1/yr) for those waste streams which enter the treatment system,
by the treatment effectiveness concentration (mg/1) (Table VII-
20, p. 807) for each pollutant for the appropriate option.
The total mass removed (kg/yr) for each pollutant for each option
for each subcategory was calculated by subtracting the total mass
discharged (kg/yr) from the total raw mass (kg/yr).
Total treatment performance values for each subcategory were
calculated by using the total production (kkg/yr) of all plants
in the subcategory for each waste stream. Treatment performance
values for direct dischargers in each subcategory were calculated
by using the total production (kkg/yr) of all direct dischargers
in the subcategory for each waste stream. Treatment performance
values for "normal plants" in each subcategory were calculated by
the same method described above, based on normal plant produc-
tions and flows.
SELECTED OPTION FOR BAT
The Agency evaluated the compliance costs and benefits for
Options 2 and 3 presented in Tables X-l through X-19 to select a
final option as BAT. Both of the options (2 and 3) provided
additional pollutant reduction beyond that provided by BPT.
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT effluent limita-
tions. This option was selected because it provides protection
of the environment consistent with proven operation of in-process
controls and treatment effectiveness. The reduction of pollu-
-------
tants in the effluent, especially toxic metals, is substantial
and economically achievable thus resulting in a minimal impact on
the industry.
Option 2 builds upon the technologies established for BPT. Flow
reduction measures are the principal mechanisms for reducing
pollutant discharges at Option 2. Flow reduction measures result
in eliminating some wastewater streams and concentrating the
pollutants in others. Treatment of a more concentrated stream
allows a greater net removal of pollutants and may reduce the
cost of treatment by reducing the flow and hence the size of the
treatment equipment.
All of the flow reduction technologies or control methods are
presently employed in at least one aluminum forming plant. The
application of technologies such as countercurrent cascade
rinsing to cleaning or etching lines is not expected to cause
serious interruptions in production since these operations tend
to be used during one shift each day, five days per week allowing
preliminary changes to be scheduled.
The Agency has decided not to include filtration as part of the
model BAT treatment technology. EPA estimates that 29,000 kg/yr
(64,000 lb/yr) of toxic metal pollutants will be discharged after
the installation of BPT treatment technology; the model BAT
treatment technology is estimated to remove an additional 15,000
kg/yr (33,000 lb) of toxic metals. The addition of filtration
would remove approximately 4,300 kg/yr (9,500 lb/yr) of toxic
pollutants discharged after BAT or a total removal of 94 percent
of the total current discharge. This additional removal of 4,300
kg/yr achieved by filtration is equal to an additional removal of
approximately 1 kg (2.2 lb) of toxic pollutants per day per
discharger. The incremental costs of these effluent reductions
are $8.2 million in capital cost and $2.5 million in total annual
costs for all direct dischargers. In addition, 18 aluminum
forming plants also perform coil coating. The Agency has
structured the aluminum forming regulation and coil coating
regulation to allow cotreatment of wastewaters at integrated
facilities. The BAT limitations for the coil coating category
are based on technology not including filtration. Establishing
aluminum forming limitations based on polishing filters would
have the effect of requiring such integrated facilities to
install polishing filters. The Agency believes that given all of
these factors, the costs involved do not warrant selection of
filtration as a part of the BAT model treatment technology.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The raw wastewater concentrations from individual operations and
the subcategory as a whole were examined to select those pollu-
-------
tant parameters found at frequencies and concentrations warrant-
ing regulation. Several toxic metals and aluminum were selected
for regulation in each subcategory.
Many of the toxic organic compounds were detected above their
level of quantification in wastewaters containing oils or oil
emulsions. Organic compounds are known to be insoluble or
slightly soluble in water and highly soluble in oil and, as a
result of the normal mixing processes during wastewater
treatment, equilibrium distribution of pollutants between the
wastewater and oil should occur readily. Then by applying oil
removal processes (i.e., oil-water separation or emulsion
breaking), the organic pollutant levels are reduced.
The laboratory procedure of extracting a compound from organic
and aqueous phases is analogous to the removal of nonpolar
organic pollutants by oil skimming during wastewater treatment.
Work on extraction of toxic organic pollutants, using the hydro-
carbon solvent hexane, has demonstrated extractions ranging from
88 to 97 percent for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons when using
a one-part hexane to 100-parts wastewater matrix. Addition of
ionizable inorganic compounds enhances the extraction of pollu-
tants by hexane. Equilibrium distribution of the pollutants is
achieved by two minutes of shaking.
Extraction of pollutants by oil removal treatment processes
varies in effectiveness with the relative solubilities of the
pollutant. The chemical nature of the process produces a pollu-
tant concentration in the effluent (water), which is a function
of the influent (oil and water) concentration of the pollutant.
In some cases, the water resulting from the oil treatment process
contains organics at concentration levels which are treatable by
GAC.
For aluminum forming wastewaters, effective oil removal technol-
ogy (such as oil skimming or emulsion breaking) is capable of
removing approximately 97 percent of the total toxic organics
(TTO) from the raw waste. As shown in Table X-26, the achievable
TTO concentration is approximately 0.69 mg/1. The influent and
effluent concentrations presented for each pollutant were taken
from the data presented in Section V for several plants with
effective oil removal technologies in place. In calculating the
concentrations, if only one day's sampling datum was available,
that value was used; if two day's sampling data were available,
the higher of the values was used; and, if three day's sampling
data were available, the mean or the median value was used,
whichever was higher. The Agency assumes that the 0.69 mg/1
value is an appropriate basis for effluent limitations, since the
highest values were used in the calculation.
-------
In addition to the pollutants listed in Table X-26, several other
toxic organic pollutants are considered. These include p-chloro-
m-cresol (022), 2-chlorophenol (024), 2,4-dinitrotoluene (035),
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (037), fluoranthene (039),, isophorone
(054), bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (066), di-n-butyl phthalate
(067), di-n-ethyl phthalate (068), benzo(a)pyrene (073), 3,4-ben-
zofluoranthene (074), benzo(k)fluoroanthene (075), chrysene
(076), acenaphthylene (077), benzo(ghi)perylene (079), dibenzo-
(a,h)anthracene (082), indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene (083), vinyl
chloride (088), and endrin aldehyde (099). This list includes
all the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and
several toxic organics found in drawing spent emulsions not found
in rolling spent emulsions. These compounds are included because
the Agency believes that any of the PAH's and these other com-
pounds can be substituted for one another to serve as pressure
building compounds in the formulations of the emulsified
lubricants.
The total toxic organic benefit estimate values (kg/yr) presented
in Tables X-3 through X-19 are calculated by multiplying the oil
and grease mass (kg/yr) by 0.0015. From the data presented in
Section V, it has been determined that the sum of the concentra-
tions of the toxic organics in any given sample is on the average
equal to 0.15 percent of the oil and grease concentration in that
sample.
Since effective oil and grease removal can remove 97 percent of
the TTO, no TTO limitation will be set at BAT because the Agency
believes that the oil and grease removals under the BPT limita-
tions should provide adequate removal of toxic organics.
As discussed in Section VII (p. 701), maintaining the correct pH
in the treatment system is important to assure adequate removal
of toxic metals. The Agency believes that by maintaining the
correct pH range for removal of chromium, zinc, and aluminum,
adequate removal of the other toxic metals, cadmium, copper,
lead, nickel, and selenium, should be assured. The Agency
believes that the mechanism and the chemistry of toxic metals
removal in a lime and settle system are the same for all of the
toxic metals. This theoretical analysis is supported empirically
by performance data of lime and settle systems collected by the
Agency. The theoretical background for toxic metals removal as
well as the performance data have been presented in Section VII.
Since chromium, zinc, and aluminum are present at the highest
concentrations in raw wastewater streams, these pollutants have
been selected to be used to ensure adequate removal of the other
toxic metals listed above. Chromium and zinc are considered to
be indicator pollutants for cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and
selenium, which were found at treatable levels.
-------
Effluent pH should be maintained within the range of 7.0 to 10.0
at all times. This pH range applies to the clarifier effluent.
Maintaining the pH in this range should ensure effective removal
of the vast majority of the toxic metals.
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-27 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The flow
allowances for BAT for core operations are identical to those of
BPT.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from contin-
uous sheet casting lubricant, solution heat treatment contact
cooling, and cleaning or etching baths, rinses, and scrubbers.
The bath allowance at BAT is identical to the bath allowance at
BPT.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water (heat treatment quench) stream is 2,037
1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton). Of the 89 heat treatment quench opera-
tions surveyed, 18 reported recycle of this stream. Eight of
these appear to achieve zero discharge of this wastewater stream
by practicing total recycle. It is likely, however, that the
plants reporting no discharge failed to mention periodic dis-
charge, such as occasional blowdown or discharge with annual
cleaning of the cooling tower. Because no technology for avoid-
ing the buildup of solids in completely recycled cooling water is
known to be applied in this industry, only nonzero discharge
values were used as a basis for the BAT discharge flow. The BAT
discharge flow for the solution heat treatment contact cooling
water stream is the mean of four plants using recycle for which
sufficient data are available on both normalized discharge flow
and water use flow (i.e., the percent recycle). The normalized
discharge flows for these plants ranged from 881 to 3,059 1/kkg
(211 to 733 gal/ton), with a mean of 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton),
which is selected as the BAT discharge flow.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching oper-
ations are 179 1/kkg (43 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching baths,
1,391 1/kkg (339.8 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching rinses, and
1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) of aluminum cleaned or etched for
cleaning or etching scrubber liquor.
The BAT discharge for cleaning or etching baths is identical to
that of BPT. At proposal, consideration was given to not estab-
lishing a BAT discharge allowance based upon hauling or regenera-
tion of bath solutions. Based on comments received from industry
-------
and data obtained since proposal, the Agency has established a
bath allowance at BAT.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the cleaning or etching
rinse is based upon flow reduction using two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing or other suitable rinsing techniques including
but not limited to spray rinsing and simply rinsewater recircu-
lation. The allowance is per bath and associated rinse opera-
tion. Plants which have more than one cleaning or etching bath
are given an allowance for the rinse that follows each bath.
Eighteen of the 44 rinse dischargers reported throughout all of
the subcategories meet the BAT flow without further flow reduc-
tion. Eleven are known to use recirculating or spray rinsing
techniques or a combination of the two. Hot water rinses or
treatment of recirculating rinse water are used by four of these
11 plants. Stagnant rinsing is used by three plants which meet
the BAT discharge flow, as well as two which do not.
Most of the plants with discharge flows higher than the BAT
allowance are forging plants. Five utilize once-through overflow
rinsing, two use stagnant rinsing, and two reuse rinse water from
one rinse operation for another. Two-stage countercurrent
cascade rinsing is used by one plant which could meet the BAT
discharge flow by adding a third countercurrent cascade rinsing
stage combined with a slight reduction in the rinse ratio. By
using two-stage countercurrent cascade rinsing, with an expected
90 percent reduction in rinse water use, 20 of 26 plants can meet
the BAT discharge flow. The other six plants would need to add
additional countercurrent cascade rinsing stages, reduce their
rinse ratio, or use other more efficient rinsing techniques to
conserve water. As shown in an example presented in Section VII
(p. 776), the reduction in the flow that is achievable with two-
stage countercurrent cascade rinsing can be as high as 99.5
percent. For the aluminum forming category the BAT flow
allowance is based on 90 percent recycle.
Three of the seven plants with wet air pollution control devices
on cleaning or etching operations use water recycle. The BAT
wastewater discharge flow for the cleaning or etching scrubber
liquor stream is 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton), which is based on
the mean normalized discharge flow of the two plants using
recycle.
The BAT discharge for continuous sheet casting spent lubricants
is identical to that of BPT 1.964 1/kkg (0.471 gal/ton). This is
based upon recycle of this stream.
-------
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease at BAT should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc,
chromium, and aluminum limitations, the other metals listed above
should also be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same end-of-pipe technology as
BPT, with the addition of measures to reduce the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and is cost effective.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Effluent concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average
values) are multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summa-
rized in Table X-27 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed
to be discharged per mass of product. The results of these
calculations are shown in Table X-28.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-3 the application of BAT to
the total Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory will remove approxi-
mately 1,790,870.2 kg/yr (3.940 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $16.2 million and $8.13
million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-9 the appli-
cation of BAT to direct dischargers only, will remove approxi-
mately 1,511,558.8 kg/yr (3.325 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $12.5 million and $6.13
million per year, respectively.
-------
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-29 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The flow
allowances for the core operations are identical to BPT.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from solu-
tion heat treatment contact cooling, cleaning or etching baths,
rinses, and scrubbers, and direct chill casting contact cooling.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution treatment
contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton). The
BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching operations
are 179 1/kkg (43 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching bath,
1,686 1/kkg (404.4 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching rinse,
and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching scrubber
liquor. Refer to the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory portion
of this section for further discussion of these flow allowances.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for direct chill c
-------
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory.
Effluent concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average
values) are multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summa-
rized in Table X-29 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed
to be discharged per mass of product. The results of these
calculations are shown in Table X-30.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievabi1ity. As shown in Table X-4 the application of BAT to
the total Rolling with Emulsions Subcategory will remove approxi-
mately 12,338,901.1 kg/yr of pollutants (27.15 million lb/yr).
As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $16.5 million and $8.71
million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-10 the
application of BAT to direct dischargers only, will remove
approximately 10,762,880.8 kg/yr (23.68 million lb/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $15.1 million
and $7.97 million per year, respectively.
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-31 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The core
allocation for BAT is less than BPT due to flow reduction applied
to the die cleaning waste streams. The Extrusion BAT core flow
allowance is 340.1 1/kkg (81.6 gal/ton).
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the die cleaning bath and
rinse stream is 12.9 1/kkg (3.1 gal/ton). This normalized
discharge flow is based upon zero allowance for the die cleaning
rinse using flow reduction by countercurrent cascade rinsing and
total reuse of the reduced rinse flow as make-up to the die
cleaning bath. The allowance for the die cleaning bath contribu-
tion is the same as the die cleaning bath BPT allowance. Three
plants currently practice total reuse of die cleaning rinse water
from bath make-up. Because the average amount of die cleaning
rinse discharge, 26.52 1/kkg (6.354 gal/ton), is greater than the
average die cleaning bath water use, 17.56 1/kkg (4.212 gal/ton),
rinse water flow reduction may be required at BAT. Countercur-
-------
rent cascade rinsing is the model treatment technology for
achieving the flow reduction.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the die cleaning scrubber
liquor stream is 275.5 1/kkg (66.08 gal/ton), which is the same
as the BPT flow. The BAT discharge flow for the miscellaneous
nondescript wastewater sources stream is 4 5.0 1/kkg (10.8
gal/ton).
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from solu-
tion and press heat treatment, direct chill casting contact cool-
ing, extrusion press hydraulic fluid leakage, and cleaning or
etching baths, rinses and scrubbers.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution and press heat
treatment contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5
gal/ton), as discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory
of this section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 179 1/kkg (43 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching baths,
1,391 1/kkg (334 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching rinses, and
1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching scrubber
liquor. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with Neat Oils
Subcategory of this section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for direct chill casting con-
tact cooling is 1,329 1/kkg (318.96 gal/ton). This is the same
as the BPT discharge flow and is based upon the average of plants
that recycle this stream.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for extrusion press hydraulic
fluid leakage is the same as the BPT discharge flow and is based
on the average of plants that do not recycle this stream. EPA
visited several plants with emulsion-based hydraulic extrusion
presses after the public comment period to study the potential
for recycle of the hydraulic medium because we were aware that
there were plants that were currently doing so. We determined
that the modifications required for an existing plant would
include rerouting of collection pits and channels which are
generally a part of the floorspace and foundation, installation
of pumps to transfer the collected hydraulic fluid to a central
point for recycle, and possibly installation of a corrugated
plate separator.to separate insoluble oils and a filter to remove
dirt and debris. Recycle was considered for BAT and PSES; how-
ever, it was ultimately rejected because of the expense and the
complexity of these process changes that would be required for
existing plants to install recycle systems.
-------
The degassing scrubber liquor stream is zero allowance at BAT.
Application of the alternative fluxing and in-line refining
methods discussed in Section VII (p. ), eliminate the need for
wet air pollution controls associated with degassing of aluminum
melts prior to casting. Because this technology is currently
available and in use at most aluminum forming plants with casting
operations, dry air pollution control has been identified as the
BAT control. Aluminum refining is regulated under the nonferrous
metals manufacturing category and any pre-refining step before
casting that requires air pollution control which generates a
wastewater stream should be regulated under the appropriate sub-
category of nonferrous metals manufacturing.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease at BPT should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc, chro-
mium, and aluminum limitations, the other metals listed above
should also be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same end-of-pipe technology as
BPT, with the addition of measures to reduce the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and is cost effective.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Extrusion Subcategory. Effluent
concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average values) are
multiplied by the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table
X-31 to calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged
per mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown
in Table X-32.
-------
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievabi1ity. As shown in Table X-5 the application of BAT to
the total Extrusion Subcategory will remove approximately
4,465,352.6 kg/yr (9.824 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown
in Table X-l the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982
dollars) for this removal are $34.5 million and $23.7 million per
year, respectively. As shown in Table X-l 1 the application of
BAT to direct dischargers only, will remove approximately
3,002,188.1 kg/yr (6.605 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As shown
in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and annual costs (1982
dollars) for this removal are $18.3 million and $10.1 million per
year, respectively.
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
There are no direct discharging facilities which use forging pro-
cesses to form aluminum. Consequently, the Agency is excluding
the Forging Subcategory from regulation under BPT and BAT. The
discussion which follows is presented for consistency and
completeness.
Discharge Flows
Table X-33 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The pro-
duction normalized discharge flow for the core under BAT is equal
to the core discharge flow under BPT.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from forging
scrubbers, solution heat treatment contact cooling, and cleaning
or etching baths, rinses, and scrubbers. The BAT wastewater
discharge flow for the forging scrubber liquor stream is 94.31
1/kkg (22.65 gal/ton). Three aluminum forming plants with dry
air pollution control systems use baghouses or afterburners.
Because of high operating and maintenance costs and fire hazards
associated with the baghouses, dry air pollution control systems
have not been selected for BAT. Of the three plants using wet
scrubbers, two recirculate the scrubber water with periodic
discharge, while one plant does not recirculate and discharges
continuously. The BAT discharge flow is the average of the flows
for the two plants with recirculating scrubbers.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton), as
discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this
section.
-------
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 179 1/kkg (43 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
bath, 1,391 1/kkg (334 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
rinse, and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching
scrubber liquor. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory of this section.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As previously
discussed, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease should result in reduction in the amount of organic pollu-
tants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc, chromium,
and aluminum limitations, the other metals listed above should
also be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same technology as BPT, with
the addition of measures to reduce the flows from selected waste
streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration is shown in
Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control and technology
significantly increases the removals of pollutants over that
achieved by BPT and is cost effective.
Effluent Limitations
Table VII-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT treatment train for pollutant parameters
considered in the Forging Subcategory. Effluent concentrations
(one day maximum and ten day average values) are multiplied by
the normalized discharge flows summarized in Table X-33 to
calculate the mass of pollutants allowed to be discharged per
mass of product. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table X-34.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievabi1ity. As shown in Table X-6 the application of BAT
level technology to the total Forging Subcategory will remove
approximately 794,745.9 kg/yr (1.748 million lb/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital and
-------
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $4.87 million
and $2.32 million per year, respectively.
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-35 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The BAT
discharge flow from the core is the same as the BPT discharge
flow.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from contin-
uous rod casting, solution heat treatment contact cooling, and
cleaning or etching baths, rinses, and scrubbers.
The continuous rod casting contact cooling stream is reduced
under BAT to 193.3 1/kkg (46.4 gal/ton) of aluminum cast, with
the application of recycle. The flow allowance is based on the
average of three flows, two of which are from primary aluminum
plants practicing recycle. The third is based on the application
of 90 percent recycle of the one aluminum forming flow available.
One aluminum forming plant reported recycle with only periodic
discharge of the continuous rod casting cooling stream, however,
they did not provide data to calculate their production normal-
ized flows. Seventeen aluminum forming plants, five primary
aluminum plants and one secondary aluminum plant, which recycle a
similar type of cooling stream to direct chill casting, reported
recycle rates of greater than 90 percent. Therefore, the Agency
believes that the flow based on the application of recycle is
appropriate for this waste stream.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton), as
discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this
section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 179 1/kkg (43 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
bath, 1,391 1/kkg (334 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
rinse, and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etch-
ing scrubber liquor. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling
with Neat Oils Subcategory of this section.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and ciluminum. The
-------
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease at BPT should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc,
chromium, and aluminum limitations, the other metals listed above
should also be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same end-of-pipe technology as
BPT, with the addition of measures to reduce the flows from
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and is cost effective.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory.
Effluent concentrations (one day maximum and ten day average
values) are multiplied by the normalized discharge flows
summarized in Table X-35 to calculate the mass of pollutants
allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results of
these calculations are shown in Table X-36.
Benefits
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievabi1ity. As shown in Table X-7 the application of BAT to
the total Drawing with Neat Oils Subcategory will remove approxi-
mately 788,995.7 kg/yr (1.736 million lb/yr) of pollutants. As
shown in Table X-1 the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $3.96 million and $1.96
million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-12 the
application of BAT to direct dischargers only, will remove
approximately 559,481.0 kg/yr (1.231 million lb/yr) of pollu-
tants. As shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $2.21 million
and $1.00 million per year, respectively.
-------
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Discharge Flows
Table X-37 lists the BAT wastewater discharge flows for core and
ancillary streams that received an allowance under BPT. The BAT
discharge flow for the core of this subcategory is equal to the
BPT discharge flow.
Ancillary streams with a BAT discharge allowance are from contin-
uous rod casting, solution heat treatment contact cooling, and
cleaning or etching baths, rinses, and scrubbers.
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the continuous rod casting
lubricant and contact cooling water are discussed in the Drawing
with Neat Oils Subcategory of this section. The lubricant
discharge allowance is 1.964 1/kkg (0.471gpt) and the contact
cooling water allowance is 193.9 1/kkg (46.54 gpt).
The BAT wastewater discharge flow for the solution heat treatment
contact cooling water stream is 2,037 1/kkg (488.5 gal/ton), as
discussed in the Rolling with Neat Oils Subcategory of this
section.
The BAT wastewater discharge flows for cleaning or etching opera-
tions are 179 1/kkg (43 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
bath, 1,391 1/kkg (334 gal/ton) for the cleaning or etching
rinse, and 1,933 1/kkg (463.5 gal/ton) for cleaning or etching
scrubber liquor. Refer to the discussion for the Rolling with
Neat Oils Subcategory of this section.
Pollutants
The pollutants considered for regulation under BAT are listed in
Section VI, along with an explanation of why they have been
selected. The pollutants selected for regulation under BAT are
chromium (total), cyanide (total), zinc, and aluminum. The
organic pollutants, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and selenium,
listed in Section VI are not regulated under BAT. As discussed
previously, oil removal and the limitation placed on oil and
grease at BPT should result in reduction in the amount of organic
pollutants which are discharged, and by achieving the zinc,
chromium, and aluminum limitations, the other metals listed above
should also be removed.
Treatment Train
EPA has selected Option 2 as the basis for BAT in this subcate-
gory. Again, this option uses the same end-of-pipe technology as
BPT, with the addition of measures to reduce the flows from
-------
selected waste streams. The end-of-pipe treatment configuration
is shown in Figure X-2. The combination of in-process control
and technology significantly increases the removals of pollutants
over that achieved by BPT and is cost effective.
Effluent Limitations
Table VI1-20 (p. 807) presents the treatment effectiveness
corresponding to the BAT model treatment train for pollutant
parameters considered in the Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps
Subcategory. Effluent concentrations (one day maximum and ten
day average values) are multiplied by the normalized discharge
flows summarized in Table X-37 to calculate the mass of pollu-
tants allowed to be discharged per mass of product. The results
of these calculations are shown in Table X-38.
Benef its
In establishing BAT, EPA considered the cost of treatment and
control and the pollutant reduction benefits to evaluate economic
achievability. As shown in Table X-8 the application of BAT to
the total Drawing with Emulsions or Soaps Subcategory will remove
approximately 140,583.4 kg/yr (0.309 million lb/yr) of
pollutants. As shown in Table X-l the corresponding capital and
annual costs (1982 dollars) for this removal are $0.62 million
and $0.27 million per year, respectively. As shown in Table X-l3
the application of BAT to direct dischargers only, will remove
approximately 57,501.6 kg/yr (0.127 million lb/yr) of pollutants.
As shown in Table X-2 the corresponding capital and annual costs
(1982 dollars) for this removal are $0.41 million and $0.18
million per year, respectively.
-------
Table X-1
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT OPTIONS
TOTAL SUBCATEGORY
Subcategory
Rolling With Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Rolling With Emulsions
Capital
Annual
Extrusion
Capital
Annual
g Forging
•vj
Capital
Annua1
Drawing With Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Drawing With Emulsions
or Soaps
Capital
Annual
Totals
Capital
Annual
Option 1
13,495,033
10,717,584
14,657,910
15,231,015
34,602,686
25,496,209
,452,866
S, 283, 595
4,688,064
2,938,396
1,053,630
818,117
79,950,189
63,484,916
Option 2
16,195,100
8,131,200
16,540,000
8,710,800
34,473,844
23,650,399
4,871,590
2,315,186
3,960,234
1,959,170
618,900
274,009
76,659,668
45,040,764
Option 3
19,476,500
9,217,700
20,086,200
9,722,000
38,145,110
24,871,552
5,342,132
2,442,205
4,301,004
2,060,678
668,000
286,501
88,018,946
48,600,636
Option 4*
29,302,200
9,897,400
53,634,500
15,646,400
24,066,200
11,160,700
3,563,000
1, 71 7,500
2,895,900
1,315,500
837,000
354,500
Option 5*
31,263,600
10,267,800
55,796,300
16,121,800
26,605,700
12,060,300
3,905,400
1,809,300
3,381,000
1,495,000
873,700
363,900
Option 6*
3,937,200
1,858,900
~Costs for Options 4, 5, and 6 are given in 1978 dollars. These costs were not revised for promulgation.
-------
Table X-2
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT OPTIONS
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Subcategory
Rolling With Neat Oils
Capital
Annual
Rolling With Emulsions
Capita 1
Annual
BPT
Option 1
9,553.000
8,200,300
13,957,400
14,476,600
BAT
Option 2
12,479,200
6,127,500
15,118,300
7,972,300
Option 3
15,160,700
7,012,400
18,456,700
8,915,300
Option 4*
26,119,400
8,292,400
52,408,400
14,996,900
Option 5*
27,601,600
8,556,800
54,390,800
15,484,200
Extrus ion
Capital
Annual
21,145,001
13,025.772
18,306,031
10,106,251
20,387,892
10,701,690
12,688,900
5,297,700
14,226,700
5,988,500
i_> Drawing With Neat Oils
O
"•J
cn
Capital
Annual
Drawing With Emulsions
or Soaps
Capital
Annual
Totals
Capital
Annual
3,026,700
1,747,300
733,200
474,800
48,415,301
37,924,772
2,208,200
997,900
409,000
179,300
48,520,731
25,383,251
2,392,100
I,046,200
442,600
187,700
56,839,992
27,863,290
1,874,400
821,800
2,274,800
977,100
469,700 494,800
165,700 172,000
*Costs for Opt ions 4 and 5 were not revised for promulgation. Options 4 and 5 costs are in 1978 dollars.
-------
Table X-3
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option
1
Option
2
Flow (1/yr)
5.176 x 109
5.176 x
109
961.3 x
106
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
118.
Cadmium
15.5
0.0
15.5
0.0
15.5
119.
Chromium
7,061.9
6,775.4
286.5
6,991.0
70.7
120.
Copper
3,003.0
951.0
2,052.0
2,482.8
520.2
121.
Cyanide
37.1
0.0
37.1
0.0
37.1
122.
Lead
1,989.3
1,546.1
443.2
1,869.6
119.7
124.
Nickel
524.6
0.0
524.6
38.7
485.9
128.
Zinc
5,907.2
4,832.9
1,074.3
5,641.7
265.5
Aluminum
339,867.6
332,440.0
7,427.5
335,432.3
4,435.1
Oil and Grease
1,087,360.4
1,042,742.8
44,617.6
1,069,700.9
17,659.5
TSS
385,870.0
334,759.0
51, 111.0
367,108.6
18,671.3
Total Toxic
Organlcs
1,631.0
1,564.1
66.9
1,604.6
26.5
Total Toxic Metals
18,501.5
14,105.4
4,396.1
17,023.8
1,477.5
Total Toxics
20,169.6
15,669.5
4,500.1
18,628.4
1,541.1
Total ConventionaIs
1,473,230.4
1,377,501.8
95,728.6
1,436,809.5
36,420.8
Total Pollutants
1,833,267.6
1,725,611.3
107,656.2
1,790,870.2
42,397.0
Sludge 16,383.700 16,791,910
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
-------
Table X-3 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Flow (l/yr)
961.3 x
106
904.3 x
106
904.3 x
1 06
Removed
(kg/yr)
Discharged
(kg/yr)
Removed
(kg/yr)
Discharged
(kg/yr)
Removed
(kg/yr)
Discharged
(kg/yr)
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
124.
128.
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
0.0
6,999.9
2,651.0
0.0
1,905.0
333.4
5,703.6
335,759.9
1,069,700.9
375,428.3
15.5
62.0
351.9
37.1
84.3
191.3
203.5
4,107.6
17,659.5
10,441.7
0.2
6.995.6
2,515.9
0.1
1,876.4
63.9
5.658.7
335,495.6
1,070,270.6
367,792.2
1 5.4
66.3
487.0
37.1
112.9
460.7
248.5
4,371.9
17,089.8
18,077.8
0.2
7,004,0
2,673.2
0.1
1,909.5
343.8
5,716.7
335,802.0
1,070,270.6
375,576.4
15.
58.
329.
37.
79.
180.
190.
4,065.
17,089.
10,293.
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
1,604.6
1 7,592.9
19,197.5
1,445,129.2
1,800,086.6
26.5
908.5
972.1
28,101.2
33,180.9
1,605.4
17,110.7
18,716.2
1,438,062.8
1,792,274.6
25.6
1,390.8
1,453.5
35,167.6
40,993.0
1,605.4
17,647.4
19,252.9
1,445,847.0
1,800,901.9
25.
854.
916.
27,383.
32,365.
Sludge
16,855,940
16,801,430
16,861,490
*The data tabulated
in the subcategory.
represent performance of technology applied to
all aluminum
forming plants
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals +• Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
3
0
7
0
8
8
5
5
8
6
6
1
7
4
-------
Table X-4
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option
1
Option
2
Flow (1/yr)
32.21 x 109
9.935 x
109
8.030 x
109
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kR/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
61.0
1.4
59.6
1.4
59.6
119.
Chromium
4,856.7
4,086.5
770.2
4,217.1
639.6
120.
Copper
4,350.9
182.5
4,168.5
205.8
4,145.2
121.
Cyanide
250.1
1.9
248.2
1.9
248.2
122.
Lead
15,147.7
13,986.4
1,161.3
14,182.2
965,5
124.
Nickel
671.7
16.8
654.9
16.8
654.9
128.
Zinc
9,493.0
6,605.2
2,887.9
7,094.6
2,398.5
Aluminum
279,025.6
266,764.3
12,261.2
268,575.0
10,450.6
Oil and Grease
7,877,285.4
7,777,001.3
100,284.0
7,793,313.3
83,972.0
TSS
4,339,260,1
4,220,028.5
119,231.6
4,239,603.0
99,657.2
Total Toxic
Organics
11,815.9
11,665.5
150.4
11,690.0
126.0
Total Toxic Metals
34,581.0
24,878.8
9,702.4
25,717.9
8,863.3
Total Toxics
46,647.0
36,546.2
10,101.0
37,409.8
9,237.5
Total Conventionals
12,216,545.5
11,997,029.8
219,515.6
12,032,916.3
183,629.2
Total Pollutants
12,216,545.5
12,300,340.3
241,877.8
12,338,901.1
203,317.3
Sludge
67,766,350
68,004,860
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
-------
Table X-4 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option 3
Option 4
Option
5
Flow (1/yr)
8.030 x
10*
7.673 x
10«
7.673 x
10'
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
2.2
58.8
3.5
57.5
3.6
57.
119.
Chromium
4,297.1
559.6
4,245.7
611.0
4,322.0
534.
120.
Copper
1,229.7
3,121.2
236.4
4,114.5
1,369.1
2,981.
121.
Cyanide
2.6
247.5
3.8
246.3
3.8
246.
122.
Lead
14,501.9
645.8
14,225.0
922.7
14,530.5
617.
124.
Nickel
26.8
645.0
32.5
639.2
32.8
638.
128.
Zinc
7,654.2
1,838.8
7,201.7
2,291.4
7,736.3
1,756.
Aluminum
271,533.1
7,492.4
268,971.5
10,054.1
271,797.6
7,228.
Oil and Grease
7,793,313.3
83,972.0
7, 796,885.6.
80,399.9
7,796,885.6
80,399.
TSS
4,314,757.3
24,503.0
4,243,889.7
95,370.4
4,315,686.0
23,574.
Total Toxic
Organics
11,690.0
126.0
11,695.3
120.6
11,695.3
120.
Total Toxic Metals
27, 711.9
6,869.2
25,944.8
8,636.3
27,994.3
6, 586.
Total Toxics
39,404.5
7,242.7
37,643.9
9,003.2
39,693.4
6,953.
Total Conventionals
12,108,070.6
108,475.0
12,040,775.3
175,770.3
12,112,571.6
103,974.
Total Pollutants
12,419,008.2
123,210.1
12,347,390.7
194,827.6
12,424,062.6
118,155.
Sludge
68,482,
400
68,057,
960
68,515,
120
*The data tabulated
1 hU a ma l-t n n am
represent performance of technology applied to
all aluminum
forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel +¦ Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
4
7
9
2
2
9
7
0
9
1
6
8
6
0
-------
Table X-5
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option
I
Option 2
Flow (l/yr)
19.51 x 1Q9
15.27 x
10®
4.19 x
109
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
71.2
0.0
71.2
0.0
71.
119.
Chromium
155,481.0
154,570.7
910.3
155,260.3
220.
120.
Copper
11,214.0
2,925.2
8,288.8
9,002.6
2,211.
121.
Cyanide
1,729.2
718.5
1,010.7
1,455.2
274.
122.
Lead
3,962.5
2,232.7
1,729.8
3,489.6
472.
1 24.
Nickel
5,717.5
0.0
5,717.5
3,547.0
2, 170.
128.
Zinc
17,502.0
13,229.5
4,272.5
16,377.1
1,124.
Aluminum
1,710,770.4
1,692,118.2
18,652.2
1,703,710.6
7,059.
Oil and Grease
564,662.9
409,832.7
'154,830.2
514,608.4
50,054.
TSS
2,111,864.0
1,931,539.2
180,324.8
2,057,028.4
54,835.
Total Toxic
Organics
847.0
614.7
232.3
771.9
75.
Total Toxic Metals
193,948.1
172,654.2
21,293.9
187,778.1
6,170.
Total Toxics
196,524.3
173,987.5
22,536.8
190,005.2
6,519.
Total ConventionaIs
2,676,526.9
2,341,371.9
335,155.0
2,571,636.8
104,890.
Total Pollutants
4,583,821.7
4,207,477.7
376,344.0
4,465,352.6
118,469.
Sludge
92,422,630
94,163,
, 780
*The data tabulated represent performance oE technology applied to all aluminum forming plant
in the subcategory.
2
7
4
0
9
5
9
8
5
6
1
0
1
1
1
-------
Table X-5 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
4.19 x 10^
4.515 x
10»
4. 51 5 x 109
Removed Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed Disi
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr) (1
118.
Cadmium
0.0
71.2
0.0
88.8
1.1
119.
Chromium
155,298.6
182.4
146,343.8
322. 7
146,384.1
120.
Copper
9,728.4
1,485.6
11,544.8
2,349.9
12,311.0
121.
Cyanide
1,543.0
186.2
1,331.5
275.6
1,414.7
122.
Lead
3,642.4
320.1
4,006.3
505.4
4,167.7
124.
Nickel
4,884.1
833.4
4,139.0
2,298.8
5,550.4
128.
Zinc
16,644.7
857.3
18,253.4
1,209.9
18,535.7
Aluminum
1,705,124.1
5,646.3
1,973,153.0
9,968.1
1,974,645.3
Oil and Grease
514,608.4
50,054.5
580,781.1
54,313.8
580,781.1
TSS
2,092,903.9
18,960.1
2,044,153.2
61,320.6
2, 082,062.5
Total Toxic
Organics
771.9
75.1
871.2
81.5
871.2
Total Toxic Metals
190,299.9
3,648.2
184,287.3
6,775.5
186,950.0
h-»
o
Total Toxics
192,614.8
3,909.5
186,490.0
7.132.6
189,235.9
CO
Total Conventionals
2,607,546.5
68,980.4
2,624,934.3
115,634.4
2,662,843.6
1—>
Total Pollutants
4,505,285.3
78,536.4
4,784,577.3
132,735.1
4,826,724.8
Sludge
94,461,690
70,745,010
71,042,400
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventional - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
87.8
282.3
1,583.6
192. 5
344.2
887.3
927.6
8,475.9
54,313.8
23,411.4
81 .5
4,112.8
4,386.8
77,725.2
90,587.9
tOptions 4 and 5 benefits were not
revised
-------
Table X-6
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Haste
Option 1
Option 2
Flow (l/yr)
2.201 x 109
2.201 x 10'
285.6
x 106
Removed Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr) (I
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
13.1
0,0
13.1
0.0
13.1
119.
Chromium
4,335.8
4,231.3
104.4
4,321.0
14.8
120.
Copper
3,558.4
2,792.4
766.0
3,442.1
116.1
121.
Cyanide
40.5
0.0
40.5
19.5
21.0
122.
Lead
1,575.1
1,400.5
174.6
1,534.9
40.1
124.
Nickel
592.7
0.0
592.7
487.3
105.4
128.
Zinc
7,381.8
6,990.2
391.6
7,326.3
55.5
Aluminum
442,413.5
436,392.9
6,020.6
437,636.5
4,777.0
Oil and Grease
46,220.3
21,503.9
24,716.4
32,707.7
13,512.6
TSS
320,218.8
293,777.1
26,441.7
307,221.5
12,997.2
Total Toxic
Organles
84.4
32.3
52.2
49.1
35.4
Total Toxic Metals
17,456.9
15,414.4
2,042.4
17,111.6
345.0
Total Toxics
17,581.8
15,446.7
2,135.1
17,180.2
401.4
Total Conventionals
366,439.1
315,281.0
51,158.1
339,929.2
26,509.8
Total Pollutants
826,434.4
767,120.6
59,313.8
794,745.9
31,688.2
Sludge
14,001,910
14,189,570
*The data tabulated
represent performance of technology
applied to
all aluminum
forming plants
in the subcategory.
-------
PolLutant
Flow (l/yr)
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Table X-6 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Option 3
285.6 x 106
Removed Discharged
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
4.1 9.0
4,322.9 12.9
3,477.3 81.1
23.7 16.8
1,542.3 32.7
552.0 40.7
7,339.3 42.5
437,704.9 4,708.5
32,707.7 13,512.6
308,959.6 11,259.2
49.1 35.4
17,237.9 218.9
17,310.7 271.1
341,667.3 24,771.8
796,682.9 29,751.4
Sludge
-------
Table X-6 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option 4
Option
5
Option
6
Flow (l/yr)
285.3 x
106
285.3 x
106
285.3 x
106
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
0.0
13.1
4.1
9.0
4.1
9.0
119.
Chromium
4,321.0
14.8
4,322.9
12.9
4,322.9
12.9
120.
Copper
3,442.3
116.0
3,477.4
81.0
3,477.4
81.0
121.
Cyanide
19.5
21.0
•• ! .23. 8 -
16.7
23.8
16.7
122.
Lead
1,535.0
40.1
1,542.4
32.7
1,542.4
32.7
124.
Nickel
487.4
105.3
552.0
40.6
552.0
40.6
128.
Zinc
7,326.4
55.4
7,339.4
42.4
7,339.4
42.4
Aluminum
437,636.8
4,776.7
437,705.1
4,708.3
437,705.1
4,708.3
Oil and Grease
32,710.2
13,510.1
32,710.2
13,510.1
32,710.2
13,510.1
TSS
307,224.6
12,994.2
308,960.2
11,258.6
308,960.2
11,258.6
Total Toxic
Organics
49.1
35.4
49.1
35.4
64.2
20. 3
Total Toxic Metals
17,112.1
344.7
17,238.2
218.6
17,238.2
218.6
Total Toxics
17,180.7
401.1
17,311.1
270.7
17,326.2
255.6
Total Conventionals
339,934.8
26,504.3
341,670.4
24,768.7
341,670.4
24,768.7
Total Pollutants
794,752.3
31,682.1
796,686.6
29,747.7
796,701.7
29,732.6
Sludge 14,189,620 14,203,280 14,203,280
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to alL aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: .Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total ConventionaIs - Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table X-7
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option
1
Option
2
Flow (1/yr)
2.446 x 10?
2.446 x
10*
375.1 x
I06
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
13.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
13.0
119.
Chromium
8,041.3
7,913.2
128.1
8,018.8
22.4
120.
Copper
3,383.2
2,445.9
937.3
3,212.2
171.0
121.
Cyanide
79.0
32.5
46.5
53.2
25.8
122.
Lead
1,403.2
1,194.1
209.0
1,352.7
50.5
124.
Nickel
569.7
0.0
569.7
410.0
159.8
128.
Zinc
7,089.6
6,609.2
480.5
7,005.5
84.0
Aluminum
419,098.0
413,012.3
6,085.7
414,479.1
4,619.0
Oil and Grease
69,120.7
42,114.2
27,006.4
55,327.4
1 3,793.3
TSS
312,573.5
283,198.0
29,375.4
299,053.8
13,519.7
Total Toxic
Organics 103,7 63.2 40.5 83.0 20.7
O Total Toxic Metals 20,500.0 18,162.4 2,337.6 19,999.2 500.7
Total Toxics 20,682.7 18,258.1 2,424.6 20,135.4 547.2
Total Conventional.1} 381,694.2 325,312. 2 56,381.8 354,381.2 27,313.0
Total Pollutants 821,474.9 756,582.6 64,892.1 788,995.7 32,479.2
Sludge 13,422,830 13,642,080
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to ail aluminum forming plants
-------
Table X-? (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
DRAWING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option
3
Option
4
Option
5
FLow (1/yr)
375.1 x
106
373.6 x
1G6
373.6 x
106
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
-------
Table X-8
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Raw Waste
Flow (l/yr) 413.5 x 106
Option 1
413.5 x 106
Option 2
110,7 x ll)6
o
00
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 1.2
119. Chromium 683.2
120. Copper 200.8
121. Cyanide 3.2
122. Lead 134.0
124. Nickel 36.0
128. Zinc 390.2
Aluminum 21,837.2
Oil and Grease 94,671,5
TSS 26,352.1
Total Toxic
, Organics 142.0
Total Toxic Metals 1,445.4
Total Toxic 1,590.6
Total ConveneionaIs 121,023.6
Total Pollutants 144,451.4
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
653.8
121.7
0.0
88.6
0.0
332.1
21,216.5
90,405.7
21,388.9
1
1
111
135.6
196.2
,331.8
794.6
134,342.9
Discharged
(kg/yr)
1.2
29.4
79.1
3.2
45.3
36.0
58.3
620.8
4,265.8
4,963.1
6.4
249.3
258.9
9,228.9
10,108.6
Removed
0.0
675.0
163.8
0.0
120.3
18.8
358.
21,498.
93,048.
24,560.
139.6
1,336.4
1,476.0
117,608.9
140,583.4
Discharged
(kg/yr)
1.2
8.3
37.0
3.2
13.6
17.3
31.8
338.8
,623.0
,791.7
2.4
109.2
114.8
3,414.7
3,868.3
Sludge 1,168,030 1,206,920
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology applied to all aluminum forming plants
-------
Table X-8 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS*
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Flow (I/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Option 3
110.7 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
675.9
168.3
0.1
124.6
25.3
365.9
21,537.7
93,048.6
25,555.3
Discharged
(kR/yr)
1.2
7.3
32.5
3.1
9.4
10.7
24.3
299.6
1,623.0
796.8
Option 4
90.32 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.1
676.4
168.9
0.0
122.8
20.4
364.6
21,521.2
93,252.6
24,805.1
Discharged
(kR/yr)
1.1
6.8
31.9
3.2
11.1
15.6
25.6
316.2
1,418.9
1,547.0
Opcion 5
90.32 x 106
Removed
ih&Jul
0.1
677.3
172.1
0.2
126.3
26.2
370.6
21,552.8
93,252.6
25,608.3
Discharged
(kR/yr)
I
5
28
3
7
9
19
284.4
,418.9
743.7
Total Toxic
g- Organics 139.6 2.4 139.9 2.1 139.9 2.1
co Total Toxic Metals 1,360.0 85.4 1,353.2 92.1 1,372.6 72.9
03 Total Toxics 1,499.7 90.9 1,493.1 97.4 1,512.7 78.0
Total ConventionaIs 118,603.9 2,419.8 118,057.7 2,965.9 118,860.9 2,162.6
Total Pollutants 141,641.3 2,810.3 141,072.0 3,379.5 141,926.4 2,525.0
Sludge 1,213,400 1,210,000 1,215,250
*The data tabulated represent performance of technology'applied to all aluminum forming plants
in the subcategory.
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total ConventionaIs -Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table X-9
POLLUTANT REDUCTION
BENEFITS - DIRECT
DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH
NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option 1*
Opt ion
2
Flow (1/yr)
4,142 x 109
4.142 x
10»
917.9 x
106
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
14, 7
- 0,0
14.7
0.0
14. 7
119.
Chromium
6,875.7
6,.598. 5
277.2
6,808.3
67.3
120.
Copper
2,958,6
942.3
2,016.3
2,463.6
495.0
121.
Cyanide
36.0
0.0
36.0
0.0
36.0
122.
Lead
1,785.0
1,355.7
429.3
1,670.5
114.5
124.
Nickel
518.5
0,0
518. 5
38. 7
479.8
128.
Zinc
5,862.1
4,822.7
1,039.4
5,609.6
252. 5
Alurai nura
338,567.6
333,269.1
7,298.5 •
334,180.5
4,387.0
Oil and Grease
838,422.8
794,967.5
43,455.3
821,196,8
17,226.0
TSS .
356,600.2
306,883.9
49,716.3
338,359.0
18,241. 1
Total Toxic
Organics
1 ,257.6
1,192.5
65.2
1,231.8
25.8
Total Toxic Metals
18,014.6
13,719.2
4,295.4
16,590.7
1,423.8
Total Toxics
19,308.2
14,911-7
4,396.6
17,822.5
1,485.6
Total Conventionals
1,195,023.0
1,101,851.4
93,171.6
,159,555.8
35,467.1
Total Pollutants
1,552,898.8
1,448,032.2
104,866.7
,511,558.8
41,339.7
Sludge
15,024
,360
15,365,540
-------
Table X-9 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option 3
Option 4
Option
5
Flow (1/yr)
91 7.9 x 106
875.1 x
106
875.1 x
106
Removed Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kfi/yr) (kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
-------
Table X-10
POLLUTANT REDUCTION
BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
i
ROLLING WITH
EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option 1*
Option
2
Flow (l/yr)
29.58 x 109
8.934 x
10®
7. 336 x
10*
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
52.5
0.0
52.5
0.0
52
119.
Chromium
4,085.5
- 3,392.0
693.5
3,501.0
584
120.
Copper
3,745.1
0.0
3,745.1
0.0
3,745
121.
Cyanide
225.7
0.0
225.7
0.0
225
122.
Lead
13,006.9
11,961.4
1,045.5
12,124.9
882
124.
Nickel
573.2
0.0
573.2
0,0
573
128.
Zinc
8,372.6
5,772.1
2,600.5
6,180.8
2,191
Aluminum
241,435.0
230,457.8
10,977.2
231,969.9
9,465.
Oil and Grease
6,801,024.0
6,710,883.0
90,141.0
6,724,504.8
76,519
TSS
3,865,381.6
3,758,166.4
107,215.2
3,774,512.6
90,869
Total Toxic
Organlcs
10,201.5
10,066.3
135.2
10,086.8
114,
Total Toxic Metals
29,835.8
21,125.5
8,710.3
21,806.7
8,029,
Total Toxics
40,263.0
31,191.8
9,071.2
31,893.5
8,369,
Total Convene ionals
10,666,405.6
10,469,049.4
197,356.2
10,499,017.4
167,388,
Total Pollutants
10,948,103.6
10,730,699.0
217,404.6
10,762,880.8
1 85.223,
5
5
I
7
0
2
8
2
2
0
8
1
6
2
0
Sludge
*Opelon 1 Is BAT=BPT
59,063,040
-------
Table X-10 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION
BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH
EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option 3
Option 4
Option
5
Flow (l/yr)
7.336 x 109
7.032 x
109
7.032 x
10»
Removed Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
0.0 52.5
0.0
52.5
0.0
52.
119.
Chromium
3,574.1 511.4
3,525.4
560.1
3,595.4
490.
120.
Copper
893.0 2,852.0
0.0
3,745.1
1,011.8
2,733.
121.
Cyanide
0.0 225.7
0.0
225. 7
0.0
225.
122.
Lead
12,417.1 589.8
12,161.4
845.5
12,441.5
565.
124.
Nickel
0.0 573.2
0.0
573.2
0.0
573.
128.
Zinc
6,692.2 1,680.4
6,272.1
2,100.5
6,762.2
1,610.
Aluminum
234,673.1 6,761.9
232,307.8
9,127.3
234,898.4
6,536.
Oil and Grease
6,724,504.8 76,519.2
6,727,548.9
73,475.1
6,727,548.9
73,475.
TSS
3,843,190.3 22,191.4
3,778,165.5
87,216.1
3,843,981.7
21,399.
Total Toxic
Organics
10,086.8 114.8
10,091.3
110.2
10,091.3
110.
Total Toxic Metals
23,576,4 6,259.3
21,958.9
7,876.9
23,810.9
*
6,024.
Total Toxics
33,663.2 6,599.8
32,050.2
8,212.8
33,902.2
6,360.
Total Conventionale
10,567,695.1 98,710.6
10,505,714.4
160,691.2
10,571,530.6
94,875.
Total Pollutants
10,836,031.4 112,072,3
10,770,072.4
178,031.3
10,840,331.2
1
107,772.
Sludge
59,697,730
59,306,530
59,726,
360
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals +• Cyanide
Total Conventional - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventional +¦ Aluminum
5
I
3
7
4
2
4
6
1
9
2
9
8
0
-------
Table X-11
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGES
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option
1*
Option
2
Flow (1/yr)
13.43 x 109
10.58 x
109
2.870 x
to9
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
46.2
0.0
46.2
0.0
46.2
119.
Chromium
66,671.8
66,120.6
551.2
66,547.0
124.8
120.
Copper
7,660.4
1,980.5
5,679.9
6,143.4
1,517.0
121.
Cyanide
708.5
16.4
692.1
519.3
189.2
122.
Lead
2,751.5
1,567.0
1,184.3
2,425.6
325. 7
124.
Nickel
3,845.0
0.0
3,845.0
2,356.6
1,488.4
128.
Zinc
11,170.3
8,261.6
2,908.7
10,398.5
771.8
Aluminum
1,153,240.6
1,142,594.3
10,646.3
1,148,005.4
5,235.2
Oil and Grease
383,016.3
276,406.7
106,609.6
347,635.8
35,380.5
TSS
1,456,156.1
1,334,410.4
121,745.7
1,417,635.1
38.521.0
Total Toxic
Organics
574.6
414.6
160.0
521.4
53.2
Total Toxic Metals
92,145.1
77,929.7
14,215.4
87,871.1
4,274.0
Total Toxics
93,428.1
78,360.7
15,067.4
88,911.8
4,516.3
Total ConventionaIs
1,839,172.4
1,610,817.1
228,355.3
1,765,270.9
73,901.5
Total Pollutants
3,085,841.2
2,831,772.1
254,069.1
3,002,188.1
83,653.1
Sludge
~Option 1 is BAT=BPT
46,736,230
-------
Table X-11 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option
i 3
Option 4*
Option
5*
Flow (1/yr)
2.870 x
109
2.804 x
10*
2.804 x
10*
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
0.0
46.2
0.0
45.2
0.0
45.2
119.
Chromium
66,573.3
98.5
65,076.6
204.7
65,102.2
179.1
120.
Copper
6,641.1
1,019.3
6,009.4
1,491.3
6,495.6
1,005.1
121.
Cyanide
579.5
129.0
508.0
185.6
566.9
126.8
122.
Lead
2,530.4
220.9
2,372.4
321.6
2,474.8
219.2
124.
Nickel
3,273.5
571.5
2,306.4
1,458.4
3,201.9
562.9
128
Zinc
10,582.0
588.3
10,169.7
767.6
10,348.8
588.5
Aluminum
1,148,974.7
4,265.9
1,122,637.5
6,551.5
1,123,584.2
5,604.8
Oil and Grease
347,635.8
35,380.5
339,985.1
35,043.2
339,985.1
35,043.2
TSS
1,442,260.3
13,895.8
1,386,343.2
39,443.7
1,410,393.9
15,393.0
Total Toxic
Organics
521.4
53.2
510.0
52.6
510.0
52.6
Total Toxic Metals
89,600.3
2,544.8
85,934.5
4,288.8
87,623.3
2,600.0
Total Toxics
90,701.2
2,726.9
86,952.5
4,527.0
88,700.2
2,779.4
Total Conventionals
1,789,896.2
49,276.2
1,726,328.3
74,486.9
1,750,379.0
50,436.2
Total Pollutants
3,029,572.1
56,269.1
2,935,918.3
85.565.4
2,962,663.4,
58,820.4
Sludge 48,008,840 41,200,270 41,389,170
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventionals + Aluminum
-------
Table X-12
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
O
10
cn
Pollutant Raw Waste
Flow (l/yr) 1.770 x I09
(fcR/yr)
118. Cadmium 9.4
119. Chromium 2,626.5
120. Copper 2,484.8
121. Cyanide 19.0
122. Lead 1,019.8
124. Nickel 417.2
128. Zinc 5,106.8
Aluminum 306,418.4
Oil and Grease 38,901.4
TSS 226,144.6
Total Toxic
Organlcs 58.4
Total Toxic Metals 11,664.5
Total Toxics 11,741.9
Total ConventLonals 265,046.0
Total Pollutants 583,206.3
Option 1*
1.770 x 109
Removed
0.0
2,534.7
1,812.4
0.0
869.5
0.0
4,762.3
301,972.9
19,326.8
204,886.9
29.0
9,978.9
10,007.9
224,213.7
536,194.5
Discharged
(fcg/yr)
9.4
91.9
672.4
19.0
150.2
417.2
344, 6
4,445.5
19,574.5
21,257.7
29.4
1,685.7
1,734.1
40,832.2
47,011.8
Option 2
268.8 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
2,610.6
2, 363.1
0.0
983.5
303.8
5,047.1
303,026.9
28,821.9
216, 280.9
43.2
11,308.1
11,351.3
245,102.8
559,481.0
Discharged
(kg/yr)
9.4
15.9
121.7
19.0
36.
113.
59.
3,391.
10,079.
9,863.7
1 5.
356.
390.
19,943.
23,725.
Sludge
~Option 1 is BAT=BPT
9,712,050
-------
Table X-12 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option
3
Option
4
Option 5
Flow (l/yr)
268.8 x
10*
268.4 x
106
268.4 x
106
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kR/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kR/yr)
118.
Cadmium
0.0
9.4
0.0
9.4
0.0
9.4
119.
Chromium
2,612.6
13.9
2,610.7
15.9
2,612.6
13.9
120.
Copper
2,401.0
83.8
2,363.4
121.4
2,401.1
83.7
121.
Cyanide
4.0
15.0
0.0
19.0
4.0
14.9
122.
Lead
991.4
28.3
983.5
36.3
991.5
28.3
124.
Nickel
373.4
43.8
304.0
113.2
373.5
43.7
128.
Zinc
5,061.0
45.8
5,047.2
59.6
5,061.1
45.7
Aluminum
303,100.5
3,317.9
303,027.4
3,391.0
303,100,9
3,317.6
Oil and Grease
28,821.9
10,079.5
28,826.6
10,074.8
28,826.6
10,074.8
TSS
218,151.9
7,992.7
216,286.6
9,858.0
218,153.2
7,991.5
Total Toxic
Organles
43.2
15.1
43.2
15.1
43.2
15.1
Total Toxic Metals
11,439.4
225.0
11,308.8
355.8
11,439.8
224.7
Total Toxics
11,486.6
255.1
11,352.0
389.9
11,487.0
254.7
Total Conventionals
246,973.8
18,072.2
245,113.2
19,932.8
246,979.8
18,066.3
Total Pollutants
561,560.9
21,645.2
559,492.6
23,713.7
561,567.7
21,638.6
Sludge 9,881,160 9,866,570 9,881,210
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organica + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table X-13
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
O
to
PolLutant Raw Waste
Flow (I/yr) 271.3 x 1 06
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.4
119. Chromium 480.8
120. Copper 21.9
121 . Cyanide 1 .'8
122. Lead 36.9
124. Nickel 6.2
128. Zinc 28.6
Aluminum 289.8
Oil and Grease 51,542.6
TSS 6,926.7
Total Toxic
Organics 77.3
Total Toxic Metals 574.8
Total Toxics 653.9
Total Conventionals 58,469.3
Total Pollutants 59,413.0
Option 1*
271.3 x 106
Option 2
79.62 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
459.1
0.0
0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
48,829.4
3,670.9
73.2
463.4
536.6
52,500.3
53,036.9
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
21. 7
21 .9
1.8
32.6
6.2
28.6
289.8
2,713.2
3,255.8
4.1
111.4
117.3
5.969.0
6.376.1
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
474.4
0.0
0.0
27.3
0.0
4.7
201 .4
50,746.4
5,971.3
76.1
506.4
582.5
56, 717.7
57,501.6
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
6.4
21.9
1.8
9.6
6.2
23.9
88.4
796.2
•955.4
1. 2
68.4
71.4
1,751.6
1,91 1.4
Sludge
267,560
294,800
*0pt ion
1
-------
Table X-13 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - DIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OK SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
o
to
OD
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organ Ies
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Option 3
79.62 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
475.2
0.0
0.0
30.5
0.0
10.3
230.9
50,746.4
6,719.7
76.1
516.0
592.1
57,466.1
58,289.1
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
5.6
21.9
1.8
6.4
6.2
18.3
58.9
796.2
207.0
1.2
58.8
61,8
,003.2
,123.9
Option 4
68.97 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
475.3
0.0
0.0
28.6
0.0
7.9
213.3
50,852.9
6,099.1
76.3
511.8
588.1
56,952.0
57,753.4
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
5.5
21.9
1.8
8.3
6.2
20.7
76.6
689.7
827.7
1.0
63.0
65.8
,517.4
,659.8
Option 5
68.97 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
476.0
0.0
0.0
31.4
0.0
12.7
238.8
50,852.9
6,747.4
76.3
520.1
596.4
57,600.3
58,435.5
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.4
4.8
21.9
1.8
5. 5
6.2
15.9
51.0
689.7
179.3
1.0
54.7
57.5
869.0
977.5
Sludge 299,470 296,360 300,400
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organlcs + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventional - Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table X-14
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - NORMAL PLANT
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Opt ion
1
Opt ion
2
Option
3
Raw Waste
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Pollutant
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118. cadmium
.67
.00
.67
.00
.67
.00
.67
119. chromium
306.99
294.55
12.44
303.93
3.07
304.31
2.68
120. copper
130.05
40.97
89.08
107.57
22.48
114.84
15.21
121. cyanide
1.61
.00
1.61
.00
1.61
.00
1.61
122. lead
83.78
64.54
19.24
78.60
5.18
80.13
3.65
124. nickel
22.76
.00
22.76
1.68
21.07
14.49
8.27
128. zinc
256.35
209.71
46.64
244.87
11.47
247.55
8.80
aluminum
14,759.91
14,524.19
235.73
14,567.33
192.58
14,581.49
1 78.43
oil and grease
43,959.49
42,021.90
1,937.59
43,194.00
765.50
43,194.00
765.50
TSS
16,397.70
14,178.25
2,219.45
15,584.75
812.94
15,944.31
453.39
total toxic organics
65.94
63.03
2.90
64.79
1.15
64.79
1.15
total toxic metals
800.60
609.77
190.83
736.66
63.94
761.33
39.27
total toxics
868.14
672.80
195.34
801.45
66. 70
826.12
42.03
total conventional
60,357.19
56,200.15
4, 157.03
58,778.75
1,578.44
59, 1 38. 30
1,218.88
total pollutants
75,985.24
71,397.14
4,588.10
74,147.53
1,837.72
74,545.91
1,439.33
siudge
695,817.39
.711,117.39
713,886.96
flow (000's i/yr)
184,908.70
184,908.70
41,562.61
41,562.61
-------
Table X-)5
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - NORMAL PUNT
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS .SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
(kg/yr)
Option
Removed
(kg/yr)
1
Discharged
(kp,/yr) _
Option
Removed
(kg/yr)
2
Discharged
...CK&ZXJCL.
Option
Removed
Lfcfi/yrJ.
3
Discharged
„±*&(uA.
1 I 8. cadmium
119. chromium
120. copper
121. cyanide
122. lead
124. nickel
128. zinc
aluminum
oil and grease
TSS
2.39
201.05
173.00
10.23
588.73
26.61
385.78
1 1,333.47
307,201.16
174,876.59
.00
169.06
.00
.00
540.49
.00
265.81
10,823.90
303,034.50
169,922.81
2.30
32.00
173.00
10.23
48.25
26.61
119.97
509.57
4,166.66
4,953.78
.00
174.50
.97
,00
548.65
.00
286.20
10,899.34
303,714.16
170,738.09
2.39
26.55
172.03
10.23
40.09
26.61
99.58
434.13
3,487.00
4,138.50
.00
177.82
43.41
.00
561.92
.00
309.44
11,022.16
303,714.16
173,858.71
2.39
23.23
129.59
10.23
26.81
26.61
76.35
31 1.31
3,487.00
1,017.88
total toxic organtcs
total toxic metals
total toxics
total conventional
total pollutants
460.80
1,377.58
1,848.61
482,077.75
495,259.82
454.55
975.36
1 ,429.91
472,957.30
485,211.11
6.25
402.22
418.70
9,120.44
10,048.71
455.58
1,010.32
1,465.90
474,452.25
486,817.49
5.23
367.25
382.71
7,625.50
8,442.33
455.58
1,092.59
1,548.16
477,572.88
490,143.20
5.23
284,99
300.45
4,504.87
5,116.63
s iudge
2,680,100.00
2,690,037.92
2,709,848.33
flow (000's l/yr)
1,344,833.33
412,787.50
333,391.67
333,391.67
-------
Table X-16
Raw Waste
Pollutant
(kg/y.r)
118.
cadmium
.79
119,
ch rom 1 um
1,727.57
120.
copper
124.60
121.
cyanide
19.21
122.
lead
44.03
124.
nickel
63.53
128.
zinc
194.47
aluminum
19,008.56
oil and grease
6,274.03
TSS
23,465.16
total
toxic organics
9.41
total
toxic metals
2,154.98
total
toxics
2,183.60
total
convent ionals
29,737.19
total
pollutants
50,931.35
sludg'
e
flow
(000's l/yr)
216,777.78
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - NORMAL PLANT
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Option
1
Option
2
Op t i on
3
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
.00
.79
.00
.79
.00
.79
1,717.45
10.11
1, 725. 11
2.45
1,725.54
2.03
32.50
92.10
100.03
24.57
108.09
16.51
7.98
11.23
16.17
3.04
1 7.14
2.07
24.81
19.22
38. 77
5.25
40.47
3. 56
.00
63.53
39.41
24.12
54.27
9.26
146.99
47.47
181.97
12.50
184.94
9. 53
18,801.31
207.25
18,930.12
78.44
18,945.82
62. 74
4,553.70
1,720.34
5, 71 7.87
556.16
5, 717.87
556.16
21,461.55
2,003.61
22,855.87
609.28
23,254.49
210.67
6.83
2.58
8.58
.83
8.58
.83
1,921.76
233.22
2,085.30
69.68
2, 113.31
41.67
1,936.57
247.03
2,110.04
73.56
2,139.03
44.57
26,015.24
3,723.94
28,573.74
1,165.45
28,972.36
766.83
46,753.13
4,178.23
49,613.90
1,317.45
50,057.22
«74.14
1,026,918.11
1,046,264.22
1,049,574.33
169,666.67
46,555.56
46,555.56
-------
Table X-1?
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - NORMAL PUNT
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Option
1
Option
2
Option
3
Raw Haste
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Pollutant
(k*/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kpjyr)
(kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118. cadmium
1.08
.00
1.08
.00
1.08
.34
.73
119. chromium
356.91
348.37
8.54
355.71
1.20
355.86
1.05
120. copper
292.93
230.29
62.63
283.47
9.46
286.33
6.60
121. cyanide
3.34
.00
3.34
1.63
1.72
1.97
1.38
122. lead
129.60
115.32
14.28
126.32
3.28
126.92
2.68
124. nickel
48.78
.00
48.78
40.22
8.57
45.48
3.31
128. zinc
607.73
575.72
32.02
603.23
4.51
604.28
3.46
aluminum
36,425.67
35,930.80
494.87
36,032.58
393.09
36,038.13
387.53
oil and grease
3,771.88
1,744.41
2,027.48
2,661.29
1,110.59
2,661.29
1, 110.59
TSS
26,356.02
24,187.99
2,168.03
25,288.25
1,067.77
25,429.52
926.50
total toxic organlcs
6.89
2.62
4.28
3.99
2.90
3.99
2.90
total toxic raetals
1,437.03
1,269.69
167.33
1,408.93
28.09
1,419.19
17.83
total toKies
1,447.26
1,272.31
174.95
1,414.55
32.71
1,425.15
22.11
total conventional
30,127.90
25,932.40
4,195.50
27,949.54
2,178.36
28,090.81
2,037.09
total pollutants
68,000.83
63,135.51
4,865.32
65,396.67
2,604.16
65,554.09
2,446.73
sludge
1,152,731.67
1,168,102.50
1,169,214.17
flow (000'3 1/yr)
180,500.00 180,500.00
23,316.67
-------
Table X-18
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - NORMAL PLANT
DRAWINO WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Opt ion
1
Option
2
Option
3
Raw Waste
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Pollutant
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
Ikg/yO
(kg/yr)_
(kg/yr)
(kR/yr)
118.
cadmium
.63
.00
.63
.00
.63
.02
.61
119.
chromium
392.14
386.14
6.01
391.12
1.03
391.25
.9U
120.
copper
165.14
121.18
43.96
157.30
7.84
159.74
5.40
121.
cyanide
3.90
1.63
2.28
2.66
1.24
2.93
.98
122.
lead
67.96
58.13
9.84
65.60
2.36
66.11
1.85
124.
nickel
27.78
.00
27.78
20.49
7.29
24.97
2.82
128.
zinc
346.46
323.94
22. 52
342.62
3.84
343. 52
2.95
aluminum
20,492.12
20,198.17
293.96
20.267.30
224.82
20,272.03
220.09
oil and grease
2,608.77
1,320.59
1,288.19
1,943.39
665.38
1,943.39
, 665.38
TSS
15,175.50
13,777.96
1,397.54
14,525.32
650.18
14,645.58
529.92
total
toxic organics
3.92
1.98
1.94
2.92
1.00
2.92
1.00
total
toxic metals
1,000.11
889.38
110.73
977.13
22.98
985.59
14.52
total
toxics
1,007.92
892.99
114.94
982.70
25.22
991.43
16.49
total
convenClonals
17,784.27
1 5,098. 55
2,685. 73
16,468.71
1,313.56
16,588.97
1,195.30
total
pollutants
39,284.31
36,189.70
3,094.62
37,718.71
1,565.60
37,852.43
1,431.88
sludge
652,587.50
662,777.00
663,720.50
flow
(000's 1/yr)
116,370.00
116,370.00
17,429.00
17,429.00
-------
Table X-19
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - NORMAL PLANT
DRAWING WITH
EMULSIONS OR
SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Raw Waste
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Pollutant
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
1 18.
cadmium
.22
.00
.22
.00
.22
.00
.22
119.
chromium
136.56
130.76
5.80
135.00
1.56
135.18
1.38
120.
copper
39.40
24.34
15.06
32.76
6.64
33.48
5.92
121.
cyanide
.64
.00
.64
.00
.64
.02
.62
122.
lead
22.80
13.90
8.90
20.24
2.56
21.04
1.76
124.
nickel
7.12
.00
7.12
3.76
3.36
5.06
2.06
128.
zinc
77.32
66.14
11.18
71.42
5.90
72.80
4.52
aluminum
4,342.30
4,219.82
122.48
4,276.22
66.08
4,283.50
58.80
oil and grease
12,667.16
11,829.08
838.08
12,357.66
309.50
12,357.66
309.50
TSS
4,706.94
3,732.40
974.54
4,366.68
340.26
4,551.50
155.44
total
toxic organlcs
19.00
1 7.74
1.26
18.54
. 46
18.54
.46
total
toxic metals
283.42
235.14
48.28
263.18
20.24
267.56
15.86
total
toxics
303.06
252.88
50.18
281.72
21.34
286.12
16.94
total
conventionals
17,374.10
15,561.48
1,812.62
16,724.34
649.76
16,909.16
464.94
total
pollutants
22,019.46
20,034.18
1,985.28
21,282.28
737.18
21,478.78
540.68
sludge
198,908.00
206,686.00
207,892.00
flow
(000's 1/yr)
81,200.00
81,200.00
20,636.00
20,636.00
-------
Table X-20
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
Pollutant
Combined
Raw Waste
Opt ion
1
Opt ion
2
Option
3
Flow
1/kkg
1
109
1, 109
249
249
mg/1
n>g/kg
mg/1
ng/kg
mg/1
n»g/kg
mg/L
¦ng/kK
118.
Cadmium
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.02
0.005
0.02
0. 005
119.
ChromLum
1.66
1.84
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.02
0.07
0.02
120.
Copper
0. 70
0.78
0.58
0.64
0.58
0. 14
0.39
0. 10
121.
Cyanide
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
122.
Lead
0.45
0. 50
0. 12
0.13
0. 12
0.03
0.08
0,02
124.
Nickel
0.12
0.13
0. 12
0.13
0.57
0. 14
0.22
0.05
128.
Zinc
1.39
1.54
0.30
0.33
0. 30
0.07
0.23
0.06
Aluminum
79.82
88.52
2.24
2.48
2.24
0.56
1.49
0.37
Oil and Grease
237.73
263.64
10.00
11.09
10.00
2.49
10.00
24.90
TSS
88.68
98.35
1 2.00
13.31
12.00
2.99
2.6
-------
Table X-21
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
Pollutant
Combined
Raw Waste
Option
1
Option
2
Option
3
Flow
1/kkg
8,
963
2,751
2,222
2,222
nig/l
rag/kfi
tn8/kR
IDfi/1
MR/1
ssJM
118.
Cadmium
0.002
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
119.
Chromium
0.15
1.34
0.08
0.22
0.08
0.18
0.07
0.16
120.
Copper
0.13
1.17
0.42
1.17
0. 58
1.29
0.39
0.87
121.
Cyanide
0.01
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.09
122.
Lead
0,44
3.94
0.12
0.33
0.12
0.27
0.08
0.18
124.
Nickel
0.02
0.18
0.06
0.18
0.08
0.18
0.08
0.18
128.
Zinc
0.29
2.60
'0.30
0.83
0.30
0.67
0.23
0.51
ALuminum
8.49
76.10
2.24
6.16
2.24
4.98
1.49
3.31
Oil and Grease
230.14
2062.74
10.00
27.51
10.00
22.22
10.00
22.22
•rss
131.01
1174.24
12.00
33.01
12.00
26.66
2.6
-------
Table X-22
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
Pollutant
Combined
Raw Waste
Opt I
on 1
Optl
on 2
Opt Ion
3
Flow 1/kkg
11,300
8,845
2,
427
2,427
ms/1
mg/kR
mR/l
DlR/kR
mg/1
ra8/kS
mg/1
mR/kg
118.
Cadmium
0.004
0.05
0.005
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.05
119.
Chromium
7.97
90.06
0.08
0.71
0.08
0.19
0.07
0.17
120.
Copper
0.57
6.44
0.58
5.13
0.58
1.41
0.39
0.95
121.
Cyanide
0.09
1.02
0.07
0.62
0.07
0.17
0.047
0.11
122.
Lead
0.20
2.26
0.12
1.06
0.12
0.29
0.08
0.19
124.
Nickel
0.29
3.28
0.37
3.28
0.57
1 .38
0.22
0.53
128.
Zinc
0.90
10.17
0.30
2.65
0.30
0.27
0.23
0.56
Aluminum
87.69
990.90
2.24
19.81
2.24
5.44
1 .49
3.62
Oil and Grease
28.94
327.02
10.00
88.45
10.00
24.27
10.00
24.2.7
TSS
108.24
1223.11
12.00
106>. 14
12.00
29.12
2.6
-------
Table X-23
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
Pollutant
Combined
Raw Waste
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
F low
1/kkg
37
,660
37
,660
4,865
4
,865
ng/1
ntR/kg
or/1
mR/kg
mfi/1
ng/kg
mg/l
ms/kf?
118.
Cadmium
0.01
0.38
0.01
0.38
0.05
0.38
0.049
0.24
119.
Chromium
1.98
74.57
0.08
3.01
0.08
0.39
0.07
0.34
120.
Copper
1.62
61.01
0.58
21.84
0.58
2.82
0.39
1 .89
121.
Cyanide
0.02
0.75
0.02
0.75
0.07
0.34
0.047
0.23
122.
Lead
0.72
27.12
0.12
4.52
0.12
0.58
0.08
0.39
124.
Nickel
0.27
10.17
0.27
10.17
0.57
2.77
0.22
1.07
128.
Zinc
3.37
126.91
0.30
11.30
0.30
1 .46
0.23
1.12
Aluminum
201 .80
7599.79
2.24
84.36
2.24
10.90
1.49
7.25
Oil and Grease
20.90
787.09
10.00
376.60
10.00
48.65
10.00
48.65
TSS
146.02
5499.11
12.00
451.92
12.00
58.38
2.6
-------
Table X-24
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
Pollutant
Combined
Raw Waste
Option
1
Option 2
Option
3
Flow
l/kkg
7
176
7, 176
1,075
1,075
rag/1
rofi/kg
mg/l
n>R/kR
mg/1
mg/kg
mg/l
118.
Cadmium
0,01
0.07
0.01
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.03
0.03
119.
Chromium
3.37
24.18
0.08
0.57
0.08
0.086
0.07
0.08
120.
Copper
1.42
10.19
0.58
4.16
0.58
0.62
0.39
0.42
121.
Cyanide
0.03
0.22
0.02
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.047
0.05
122,
Lead
0.58
4.16
0.12
0.86
0.12
0.13
0.08
0.09
124.
Nickel
0.24
1.72
0.24
1.72
0.57
0.61
0.22
0.17
128.
Zinc
2.98
21.38
0.30
2.15
0. 30
0.32
0.23
0.25
Aluminum
176.09
1263.62
2.24
16.07
2.24
2.41
1.49
1.60
Oil and Grease
22.42
160.89
10.00
71.76
10.00
10.75
10.00
10.75
TSS
130.41
935.82
12.00
86.11
12.00
416.40
2.6
-------
Table X-25
DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
TREATMENT PEKFORMANCE - NORMAL PLANT
Pollucanc
Combined
Raw Waste
Option
1
Option 2
Option
3
Flow 1/kkg
11
,740
11.740
2,985
2,985
ofi/l
mg/kg
m/l
tag/kg
m/i
rag/kg
™a£i
ms/kg
1 18.
Cadmium
0.003
0.04
0.003
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.04
119.
Chromium
1.68
19.72
0.08
0.94
0.08
0.24
0.07
0,21
120.
Copper
0.49
5.75
0.19
2.23
0.32
0.96
0.29
0.87
121.
Cyanide
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.12
0.03
0.12
0.03
0.12
122.
Lead
0.28
3.29
0.12
1.41
0.12
0.36
0.08
0.24
124.
Nickel
0.09
1.06
0.09
1.06
0.16
0.48
0.10
0.30
128.
Zinc
0.95
11.15
0.30
3.52
0.30
0.90
0.23
0.69
Aluminum
53.48
627.86
2.24
26.30
2.24
6.69
1.49
4.45
Oil and Grease
156.00
2073.24
10.00
117.40
10.00
29.85
10.00
29.85
TSS
57.97
680.57
12.00
140.88
12,00
35.82
2.60
-------
Table X-26
TTO - EVALUATION OF OIL TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
ON TOXICS REMOVAL
Pollutant Parameter
Influent
Concentration
(mg/1)
Effluent
Concentrate
(mg/1)
001
acenaphthene
5. 7
ND
038
ethylbenzene
0.089
. 0.01
055
naphthalene
0. 75
0.23
062
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1.5
0.091
065
phenol
0.18
0.04
066
bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthaiate 1.25
0.01
068
di-n-butyl phthalate
1.27
0.01 9
078/081
anthracene/phenanthrene
2.0
0.1
080
fluorene
0. 76
0.035
084
pyrene
0.075
0.01
085
tetrachloroethylene
4.2
0.1
086
toluene
0.16
0.02
087
trichloroethylene
4.8
0.01
097
endosulfan sulfate
0.012
ND
098
endrin
0.066
0.005
107
PCB-1254 (a)
1.1
0.005
110
PCB-1248 (b)
1 .8
0.005
(mg/1)
25. 7
0.690
a: PBC
-1242, PCB-1254, PCB-1221,
PCB-1232 reported
together.
b: PBC
-1248, PCB-1260, PCB-1016
reported together.
-------
Table X-27
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Rolling with neat oils
Roll grinding
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Annealing
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
Spent solvents
Spent lubricant
Various
Total core without
an annealing fur-
nace scrubber
Atmosphere scrub-
ber liquor
Total core with an
annealing furnace
scrubber
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
0
5.5
0
0
0
4.807
45
55.307
26.35
81.66
(0)
(1.32)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1 .153)
(10.80)
(13.27)
(6.320)
(19.60)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
• with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
with neat oil
Mass of aluminum rolled
-------
Table X-27 (Continued)
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Ancillary
Waste Stream
Spent lubricant
Continuous sheet
casting
Solution heat treatment Contact cooling
Cleaning or etching
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BAT
Discharge
IIM& (gpt)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
1.964 (0.471) Mass of aluminum cast
by continuous methods
2,037 (488.5) Mass of aluminum
quenched
179 (42.96) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1,391 (333.8) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1,933 (463.5) Mass of aluminum
-------
Table X-28
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.019
0.008
119
Chromium*
0.025
0.010
120
Copper
0.105
0.055
121
Cyanide*
0.016
0.0067
122
Lead
0.023
0.011
124
Nickel
0.106
0.070
125
Selenium
0.068
0.030
128
Zinc*
0.081
0.034
Aluminum*
0.356
0.1 74
Oil & Grease
1 .106
0.664
Total Suspended
2. 268
1.078
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
tng/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.028
0.012
119
Chromium*
0.036
0. 01 5
120
Copper
0.1 55
0. 082
121
Cyanide*
0.024
0* 0098
122
Lead
0.035
0.01 7
124
Nickel
0.157
0. 104
125
Selenium
0. 100
0.045
128
Zinc*
0.119
0.050
Aluminum*
0.525
0.257
Oil & Grease
1 .633
0. 980
Total Suspended
3. 348
1.592
Solids
pH ' Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-28 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
119
Chromium*
0.00086
0.00035
1 20
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
1 21
Cyanide*
0.00056
0.00024
1 22
Lead
0.0008
0.0004
124
Nickel
0.0038
0. 0025
1 25
Selenium
0.0024
0.0011
1 28
Zinc*
0.00287
0.0012
Aluminum*
0.0127
0.0062
Oil & Grease
0.0393
0.0236
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.693
0. 306
11 9
Chromium*
0.897
0.367
1 20
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.591
0. 245
122
Lead
0.856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.911
2.587
1 25
Selenium
2.506
1. 1 20
128
Z inc*
2. 974
1 .243
Aluminum*
13.098
6. 51 8
Oil & Grease
40.740
24.444
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-28 (Continued)
BAT
MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching -
• Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0. 1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0. 344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc*
0.262
0. 109
Aluminum*
1.151
0.573
Oil & Grease
3.580
2.148
Total Suspended 7.339
3.491
Solids
PH
Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
11 9
Chromium*
0. 61 2
0.251
1 20
Copper
2. 643
1 . 391
121
Cyanide*
0.404
0. 1 67
122
Lead
0. 584
0. 278
124
Nickel
2. 671
1 . 767
125
Selenium
1.711
0, 765
128
Zinc*
2.031
0.849
Aluminum*
8. 944
4., 451
Oil & Grease
27.820
1 6.. 692 .
Total Suspended 57.031
27., 1 25
Solids
PH
Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at: all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-28 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
119
Chromium*
0.851
0.348
120
Copper
3.673
1 .933
1 21
Cyanide*
0.561
0.232
122
Lead
0.812
0.387
124
Nickel
3. 711
2.455
125
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
128
Zinc*
2.822
1.1 79
Aluminum*
12.429
6.186
Oil & Grease
38.660
23.196
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
~Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-29
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Rolling with emulsions
Roll grinding
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent emulsion
Spent emulsion
None
None
None
None
None
Spent lubricant
Various
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
74.51
5.5
0
0
0
0
4.807
45
Total Core 129.8
Contact cooling 1,329
water
Contact cooling 2,037
water
Bath 179
Rinse 1,391
Scrubber Liquor 1,933
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
Mass of aluminum rolled
with emulsions
(17.87)
(1.32)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(10.80)
(31.16)
(318.9) Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
TO -a f- K r\ A
lit V» Ult VVI
(488.5) Mass of aluminum
quenched
(42.96) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
(333.8) Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
(463.5) Mass of aluminum
-------
Table X-30
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118
Cadmium
0.044
0.01 9
119
Chromium*
0.057
0.024
1 20
Copper
0.247
0. 1 30
1 21
Cyan ide*
0.038
0. 01 6
122
Lead
0.055
0.026
124
Nickel
0.249
0. 1 65
1 25
Selenium
0.1 60
0.071
1 28
Zinc*
0. 1 90
0.079
Aluminum*
0.835
0.41 5
Oil & Grease
2.596
1 .558
Total Suspended
5.323
2.531
So lids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill Casting
- Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum
Pollutant Property Any One
for
Day
Maximum for
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
1 18
Cadmium
0.452
0. 1 99
11 9
Chromium*
0. 585
0. 239
1 20
Copper
2.525
1. 329
121
Cyanide*
0.385
0.159
1 22
Lead
0. 558
0. 266
124
Nickel
2.552
1 . 688
125
Selenium
1 . 635
0.731
128
Zinc*
1 .940
0.81 1
Aluminum*
8. 545
4.253
Oil & Grease
26.580
15.948
Total Suspended
54.589
25.916
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-30 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
quenched
118
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
119
Chromium*
0.896
0. 367
120
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0. 591
0. 244
1 22,
Lead
0.856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.91 1
2. 587
125
Selenium
2.506
1 .120
128
Zinc*
2. 974
1 .243
Aluminum*
13.098
6.518
Oil & Grease
40.740
24.444
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
PH
Within the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0. 340
0.1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0. 227
125
Selenium
0. 220
0.098
128
Zinc*
0.261
0.109
Aluminum*
1.151
0.573
Oil & Grease
3.580
2. 148
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
PH
Within the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-30 (Continued)
BAT
MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant.or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.612
0.250
1 20
Copper
2.643
1.391
1 21
Cyanide*
0. 403
0. 1 67
1 22
Lead
0. 584
0.273
1 24
Nickel
2. 671
1 . 767
1 25
Selenium
1.711
0.765
1 28
Zinc*
2. 031
0.849
Aluminum*
8. 944
4.451
Oil & Grease
27.820
16.692
Total Suspended
57. 031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning <
or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.657
0. 290
1 1 9
Chromium*
0. 851
0.348
1 20
Copper
3. 673
1 . 933
1 21
Cyanide*
0.561
0.232
1 22
Lead
0.812
0. 387
1 24
Nickel
3.711
2. 455
1 25
Selenium
2.378
• 1-.j0.63
128
Zinc*
2.822
1 . 1 79
Aluminum*
12.429
6.186 .
Oil & Grease
38.660
23.196
Total Suspended
79.253
37.6.94
Sol ids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-31
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Extrusion
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Direct chill casting
Extrusion press
Solution and press heat
treatment
Cleaning or etching
Degassing
Waste Stream
Die cleaning bath
and rinse
Die cleaning
scrubber liquor
Dummy block cooling
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
Various
Total Core
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (gpt)
Contact cooling
water
Hydraulic fluid
leakage
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Scrubber liquor
12.90
275.5
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
45
340.1
1,329
1,478
A Q -*
U J /
179
391
933
0
1,
(3.096)
(66.08)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(10.80)
(81.62)
(318.96)
(354. 7)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum
extruded
Mass of aluminum cast
by direct chill
method
( A O O i; \ M
taoo v/ x.
il,
mi nnm
A. li UIU
(42.96)
(333. 8)
(463.5)
(0)
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
-------
Table X-32
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum extruded
11 8
Cadmium
0.116
0.051
11 9
Chromium*
0.1 50
0.061
1 20
Copper
0.646
0.340
1 21
Cyanide*
0.098
0. 041
1 22
Lead
0. 143
0.068
124
Nickel
0.653
0.432
125
Selenium
0.418
0.187
1 28
Zinc*
0.49
0.207
Aluminum*
2.1 87
1 .088
Oil & Grease
6.802
4.081
Total Suspended
13.944
6.632
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
1 18
Cadmium
0.452
0.1 99
11 9
Chromium*
0.585
0.239
120
Copper
2.525
1.329
1 21
Cyanide*
0.385
0.159
1 22
Lead
0.558
0.266
124
Nickel
2.552
1 .688
125
Selenium
1 . 635
0. 731
1 28
Zinc*
1 .940
0.81 1
Aluminum*
8.545
4.253
Oil & Grease
26.580
15.948
Total Suspended
54.489
25.916
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-32 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
119
Chromium*
0.896
0.367
120
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.591
0.244
122
Lead
0. 856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.91 1
2. 587
125
Selenium
2. 506
1 . 120
128
Zinc*
2.974
1.243
Aluminum*
13.098
6.518
Oil & Grease
40.740
24.444
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0. 340
0. 1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.0 75
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0. 227
125
Selenium
0. 220
0. 098
128
Zinc*
0.262
0.109
Aluminum*
1 . 1 51
0.573
Oil & Grease
3. 580
2. 148
Total Suspended
7.339 ~
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-32 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
11 8
Cadmium
0.473
0. 209
119
Chromium*
0.612
0. 250
1 20
Copper
2.643
1 .391
1 21
Cyanide*
0. 403
0. 1 67
1 22
Lead
0. 584
0. 278
1 24
Nickel
2.671
1 . 767
1 25
Selenium
1.711
0.765
1 28
Zinc*
2.031
0.849
Aluminum*
8.944
4.451
Oil & Grease
27.820
16.692
Total Suspended
57.031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning <
or Etching -
Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.657
0. 290
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.851
0. 348
1 20
Copper
3. 673
1 . 933
1 21
Cyanide*
0. 561
0. 232
1 22
Lead
0.812
0. 387
124
Nickel
3.71 1
2.455
1 25
Selenium
2. 378
1 .063
1 28
Zinc*
2.822
1.179
Aluminum*
12.429
6. 1 86
Oil & Grease
38.660
23.196
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-32 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum degassed
118
Cadmium
0.00
0.00
119
Chromium*
0.00
0. 00
1 20
Copper
0.00
0.00
121
Cyanide*
0.00
0.00
122
Lead
0.00
0.00
124
Nickel
0.00
0.00
125
Selenium
0.00
0.00
128
Zinc*
0.00
0.00
Aluminum*
0.00
0.00
Oil & Grease
0.00
0.00
Total Suspended
0.00
0.00
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum extruded
118
Cadmium
0.503
0.222
119
Chromium*
0.650
0. 266
120
Copper
2.808
1.478
121
Cyanide*
0.429
0.177
1 22
Lead
0. 621
0. 296
124
Nickel
2.838
1.877
125
Selenium
1.818
0. 813
128
Zinc*
2.158
0.902
Aluminum*
9.504
4. 730
Oil & Grease
29.560
17.736
Total Suspended
60.598
28.821
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-33
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Normalized BAT
Discharge
Production Normalizing
Operation
Waste Stream
1/kkg
(gpt)
Parameter
Core
Forging
None
0
(0)
Annealing
None
0
(0)
Artificial aging
None
0
(0)
Degreasing
Spent solvent
0
(0)
Sawing
Spent lubricant
4.807
(1.153)
Mass of
aluminum forged
Miscellaneous nonde-
Various
45
(10.80)
Mass of
aluminum forged
script wastewater
sources
Total Core
49.807
(11.95)
Ancillary
Forging
Scrubber liquor
94.31
(22.65)
Mass of
aluminum forged
Solution heat treatment
Contact cooling
2,037
(488.5)
Mass of
aluminum
water
quenched
Cleaning or etching
Bath
1 79
(42.96)
Mass of
aluminum
cleaned or etched
«
Rinse
1,391
(333. 8)
Mass of
aluminum
cleaned or etched
Scrubber liquor
1,933
(463.5)
Mass of
aluminum
-------
Table X-34
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY*
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum forged
118
Cadmium
0.01 7
0.007
119
Chromium
0.022
0.009
120
Copper
0.095
0.050
121
Cyanide
0.014
0.006
122
Lead
0. 021
0.010
124
Nickel
0.096
0.063
125
Selenium
0. 061
0.027
128
Zinc
0.073
0.030
Aluminum
0.320
0.1 59
Oil & Grease
0.996
0.598
Total Suspended
2.042
0. 971
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum forged
118
Cadmium
0.032
0.014
119
Chromium
0.042
0.01 7
120
Copper
0. 1 79
0. 094
121
Cyanide
0.027
0.011
122
Lead
0. 040
0.019
124
Nickel
0.181
0. 120
125
Selenium
0. 1 1 6
0.052
128
Zinc
0. 1 38
0.058
Aluminum
0. 606
0. 302
Oil & Grease
1 .886
1 . 132
Total Suspended
3.867
1 .839
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*A11 of the pollutants shown in this ,table are not regulated at
BAT since there are no existing forgers who are direct dis-
chargers .
-------
Table X-34 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
11 9
Chromium
0.896
0.367
1 20
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide
0. 591
0.244
122
Lead
0.856
0. 40 8
1 24
Nickel
3. 91 1
2. 587
125
Selenium
2.506
1 . 120
128
Zinc
2.974
1 .243
Aluminum
1 3.098
6.51 8
Oil fit Grease
40.740
24.444
Total Suspended
83.51 7
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching -
Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
1 1 9
Chromium
0.079
0.032
1 20
Copper
0. 340
0. 1 79
121
Cyanide
0.052
0.021
1 22
Lead
0.075
0. 036
124
Nickel
0. 344
0. 227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc
0.261
0. 109
Aluminum
1 . 1 51
0.573
Oil fit Grease
3.580
2.148
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
-------
Table X-34 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0. 209
119
Chromium
0.612
0. 250
120
Copper
2.643
1 .391
121
Cyanide
0.403
0. 1 67
122
Lead
0.584
0.278
124
Nickel
2. 671
1. 767
125
Selenium
1.711
0. 765
128
Zinc
2.031
0.849
Aluminum
8.944
4.451
Oil & Grease
27.820
16.692
Total Suspended
57.031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning
or Etching - Scrubber
Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
119
Chromium
0.851
0. 348
1 20
Copper
3.673
1 . 933
121
Cyanide
0.561
0.232
1 22
Lead
0. 812
0. 387
124
Nickel
3. 71 1
2.45 5
125
Selenium
2. 378
1 .063
128
Zinc
2.822
1.179
Aluminum
12.429
6. 1 86
Oil & Grease
38.660
23.196
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
-------
Table X-35
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Core
Drawing with neat oils
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreas ing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script was tewater
sources
Ancillary
Continous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
Waste Stream
Spent oils
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
Normalized BAT
Discharge
1/kkg (KPt)
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
0
45
49.807
193.9
1.964
2,037
179
1,391
1 ,933
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0)
(10.
80)
(11.95)
(46.54)
(o.47i:
(488.5)
(42.96)
(333.8)
(463.5)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum
with neat oils
drawn
Mass of aluminum drawn
with neat oils
Mass of rod cast by
continuous method
Mass of rod cast by
continuous method
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
-------
Table X-36
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
drawn with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.01 7
0.007
119
Chromium*
0. 022
0.009
120
Copper
0.097
0.050
121
Cyanide*
0.015
0. 006
122
Lead
0.021
0.010
124
Nickel
0.096
0.063
125
Selenium
0.061
0.027
128
Zinc*
0.073
0.031
Aluminum*
0.321
0. 159
Oil & Grease
0. 996
0. 598
Total Suspended
2.042
0. 971
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
PollutantorMaximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.066
0.029
119
Chromium*
0.086
0.035
120
Copper
0. 368
0. 1 94
121
Cyanide*
0.056
0.024
122
Lead
0.082
0. 039
124
Nickel
0.372
0.246
125
Selenium
0.239
0. 107
128
Zinc*
0.283
0. 1 1 8
Aluminum*
1 .247
0. 621
Oil & Grease
3.878
2.327
Total Suspended
7.950
3. 781
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-36 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.00086
0.0004
1 20
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
1 21
Cyan ide*
0.0006
0.0002
1 22
Lead
0.0008
0.0004
1 24
Nickel
0.0038
0.0025
125
Selenium
0.0024
0.0011
1 28
Zinc*
0.0029
0.0012
Aluminum*
0.0127
0.0063
Oil & Grease
0.0393
0.0236
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.693
0. 306
119
Chromium*
0.896
0.367
1 20
Copper
3.870
2.037
1 21
Cyanide*
0.591
0.245
1 22
Lead
0.856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.91 1
2.587
1 25
Selenium
2. 506
1 . 1 20
1 28
Zinc*
2.974
1 .243
Aluminum*
13.098
6. 519
Oil & Grease
40.740
24.444
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-36 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0.1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0. 344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc*
0.262
0. 109
Aluminum*
1 .1 51
0.573
Oil & Grease
3.580
2. 148
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
119
Chromium*
0.612
0.251
120
Copper
2.643
1 . 391
121
Cyanide*
0.404
0. 167
122
Lead
0.584
0. 278
124
Nickel
2.671
1 . 767
125
Selenium
1 . 71 1
0. 765
128
Zinc*
2.031
0. 849
Aluminum*
8. 944
4.451
Oil & Grease
27.820
16.692
Total Suspended
57. 031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-36 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
119
Chromium*
0.851
0.348
120
Copper
3.673
1 .933
121
Cyanide*
0. 561
0.232
122
Lead
0.812
0.387
124
Nickel
3. 71 1
2.455
125
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
128
Zinc*
2.822
1. 1 79
Aluminum*
12.429
6.186
Oil & Grease
38.660
23.196
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-37
PRODUCTION OPERATIONS - DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Operation
Waste Stream
Normalized BAT
Discharge
Core
Drawing with emulsions
or soaps
Annealing
Stationary casting
Homogenizing
Artificial aging
Degreasing
Sawing
Swaging
Miscellaneous nonde-
script wastewater
sources
Ancillary
Continuous rod casting
Solution heat treatment
Cleaning or etching
None
None
None
None
Spent solvent
Spent lubricant
None
Various
Total Core
Contact cooling
water
Spent lubricant
Contact cooling
water
Bath
Rinse
Scrubber liquor
1/kkg
Spent lubricants 416.5
0
0
0
0
0
4.807
0
45
466.3
193.9
1.964
2,037
179
1,397
1,933
(gpt)
(99.89)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1.153)
(0)
(10.80)
(111.9)
(46.54)
(0.471)
(488.5)
(42.96)
(333.8)
(463.5)
Production Normalizing
Parameter
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or
soaps
Mass of aluminum drawn
with emuls ions or
soaps
Mass of rod cast by
continuous methods
Mass of rod cast by
continuous methods
Mass of aluminum
quenched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
cleaned or etched
Mass of aluminum
-------
Table X-38
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
1 18
Cadmium
0. 1 59
0.070
1 1 9
Chromium*
0. 205
0. 084
1 20
Copper
0. 886
0.466
1 21
Cyanide*
0. 1 35
0. 056
1 22
Lead
0.196
0. 094
1 24
Nickel
0.895
0.592
125
Selenium
0.574
0.256
1 28
Zinc*
0.681
0.285
Aluminum*
2.998
1.492
Oil & Grease
• 9.326
5.596
Total Suspended
19.118
9.093
Solids
PH
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous
Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m;
e;/kg ( lb/mi llion
lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.066
0.029
1 1 9
Chromium*
0. 086
0.035
1 20
Copper
0.368
0. 1 94
121
Cyanide*
0.056
0.024
1 22
Lead
0. 082
0.039
1 24
Nickel
0. 372
0.246
125
Selenium
0.239
0. 107
1 28
Zinc*
0. 283
0. 1 1 8
Aluminum*
1 . 247
0.620
Oil & Grease
3.878
2. 327
Total Suspended
7. 950
3. 781
Sol ids
PH
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-38 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
119
Chromium*
0.0009
0.0004
120
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
121
Cyanide*
0.0006
0.0003
122
Lead
0.0008
0.0004
124
Nickel
0.0038
0.0025
125
Selenium
0.0024
0.001 1
128
Zinc*
0.0029
0.0012
Aluminum*
0. 0126
0.0063
Oil & Grease
0.0393
0.0236
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids
pH
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
119
Chromium*
0.897
0. 367
120
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0. 591
0. 244
122
Lead
0. 856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.91 1
2. 587
125
Selenium
2. 506
1 . 120
128
Zinc*
2. 974
1.243
Aluminum*
13.098
6. 51 8
Oil & Grease
40.740
24.444
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
PH
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-38 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
11 9
Chromium*
0. 079
0.032
1 20
Copper
0. 340
0. 1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
1 22
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0. 344
0. 227
1 25
Selenium
0. 220
0. 098
1 28
Z inc*
0.262
0. 109
Aluminum*
1 . 1 51
0. 573
Oil & Grease
3.580
2. 148
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.473
0. 209
1 1 9
Chromium*
0. 61 2
0. 251
1 20
Copper
2. 643
1 .391
1 21
Cyanide*
0.404
0. 1 67
1 22
Lead
0. 584
0. 278
1 24
Ni ckel
2. 671
1 . 767
1 25
Selenium
1.711
0.765
1 28
Zinc*
2. 031
0. 849
Aluminum*
8. 944
4.451
Oil & Grease
27.820
16.692
Total Suspended
57. 031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table X-38 (Continued)
BAT MASS LIMITATIONS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS
OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0. 657
0. 290
119
Chromium*
0.851
0. 348
120
Copper
3.673
1 . 933
121
Cyanide*
0.561
0. 232
122
Lead
0.812
0.387
124
Nickel
3.71 1
2.455
125
Selenium
2.378
1 . 063
128
Zinc*
2.822
1.179
Aluminum*
1 2.429
6.1 86
Oil & Grease
38.660
23.196
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Chemical Addition
(Extruaion Hydraulic Press Leakage)
Sawing Spent Lubricants
Emulsion
Breaking
<>4
(Rolling and Drawing Spent Emulsions)
Skimming
(Rod & Sheet Casting Spent Lubricants)
I
Removal of
(m anil firpwHp
Cheslcal Addition
0
Cheaicai
dition
Cheaicai Addition
Discharge
Cleaning or Etching
Chromium
Cyanide
Precipitation
Chemical
Precipitation
ot
Bath and Rinse
Reduction
Skinning
Sedimentation
(Die Cleaning
Bath and Rinse)
Sludge
Solution and Press Heat treatment
Recycle
Resoval of
Oil and
Grease
Contact Cooling Water
(Direct Chll1 Casting Contact Cooling Water)
Recycle
Cooling
Tower
Sludge to
Disposal
Miscellaneous Wastewater
(Degassing Scrubber Liquor)
(Forging Scrubber Liquor)
Chemical
Addition
Sludge Dewatering
(Continuous Rod Casting Contact Cooling Water)
(Annealing Furnace Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor)
pH
Adjustment
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor ^
(Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor) ^
(Press Scrubber Liquor)
Figure X-1
-------
Chemical Addition
(Ixttmlon livdnulle ?r««» UatoRe)
Sawing Spent Lubricants
(Rolling and Drawing Spent Eaulatona)
(Rod and Sheet Catting
Spent Lubricants)
Eaulalon
Breaking
o4
Skianing
Removal of
Oil and Crease
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
(Pie Cleaning
Bach and Rinse)
Chromium
ReduceIon
Solution and Press Heat
Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
Cooling /|—
Tower /
j Chemical Addition Chemical Addition
' "
Cyanide
Precipitation
c>4>
42,
IS3
Recycle <
(Direct Chill and Continuous Rod Caatlni
Contact Cooling Hater
j
Cooling
Tower
Recycle 4—
Miscellaneous Wastewater
(Degassing Scrubber Liquor)
(Forging Scrubber Liquor)
(Annealing Furnace Attaosphace Scrubber Liquor)
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
(Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor)
(Press Scrubber Liquor)
Skimming
Removal of
Oil and
Grease
Chemical
Addition
PH
Adjustment
Chemical Addition
Discharge
Chemical
Precipltation
ab
Recycle
Sedimentation
Sludge
Sludge to
Disposal
Sludge Devatering
NOTE: ( )
Indicates waste streams not associated with all
Figure X-2
BAT TREATMENT TRAIN FOR OPTION
subcategories.
-------
Chemical Addition
Extrusion Hydraulic
Press Leakage^
Sawing Spent Lubricants
(Rolling and Drawing Spent Emulsions)
(Rod and Sheet Casting
Spent Lubricants)
Etaulslon
Oil
Breaking
Skimming
Removal of
Qll and Grease
| Chemical Addition
Cleaning or Etching Rinse
(Die Cleaning
Bath and Rinse)
Chromium
Cyanide
Reduction
Precipitation
Jo
Solution and Press Heat
Treatment Contact
Cooling Water
tecvele < -
Recycle <
(Direct Chill and Contlnuoua Rod Castinj
Contact Cooling Water
Cooling
Tower
Recycle A—
Miscellaneous Wastewater
(Degassing Scrubber Liquor)
(Forging Scrubber Liquor)
(Annealing Furnace Atmosphere Scrubber Liquor)
Cleaning or Etching Scrubber Liquor
(Die Cleaning Scrubber Liquor)
(Press Scrubber Liquor)
Skinning
Removal of
Oil and
Crease
Chemical
Addition
P«
Adjustnent
Backwash
Chemical Addition
Multimedia
Filtration
Discharge
Chenlcal
Precipitation
cJ=±
Recycle
Sedimentation
""Niriiilifli1 '
Sludge
Sludge Dewaterlng
Backwash
Sludge to
Disposal
NOTE: ( ) indicates waste streams not associated with all subcategories.
Figure X-3
-------
(Extruilon Hydraulic fce»i Letlu^e) y
ThrriMl flail xlcn tirc.lk Ins
(RollInc. nnd rtraulng Sptnt E*i1«1rlcMts).
;0
Removfll of
Oil mnl
Orcjisr
Sludge to
U!*!msAl
CHcmlml A'Mlllim Clu»mtcnl Arid It Inn
Clrmtlnf, «»r Htchlnr, Rlnsr
/A^
Chromium
Reihtrf Inn
*"Jo
Solution iiiul Pr«»«*s ll^if
l'rcf»lw<«Mt Cimtfirt
Ou»l IllR
f'ltpmlrni Aiidltl'Hi
Ctynii |£>
<01 r<»ct
£
i ripsn H-nr \ n"",l"R /H
t Cimtfirt * 1,,wr / r j
? Uatcr \ Cnollug L—
Recycle 4- ' \ Tow«*r j I
CliUI ami Coiiliniimw Roil CnstliiR/^ —' I
nraitarr D»ot iiif, W.itrr „ I
Rocvrlp 4 9
Hived Imicmts WnsU'wnler
(PcfUtsRlng Srriililipr l.iqttnr)
(Forj>l«g ScruhHrr l,lr|unr)
(Am*c*»l Inp, Fiirnarc At»»«plipri* nrrnlilmr t.tijimr)
C'.lem*ltt|» or Kfi-lilng Srrubbor
(lllr Clrnitlitg Srrnhh<«r l.lqunr)
(TrcKfi Srrnfihrr
^ / * » A
Oil
Sklmmfiin
Ri»iw»v.il **l
Oil nn«l
fJrisisi*
Clipmtml
Atltf 11 i t»n
*> v •/ v v •
Ail |n*>tmriit
.-l.
. * /-A
I'hrmlr/it
i«r Inn
-t,s
Hi'cvrlf
RIimIh'*
ilttilKO Hfv.it *»r I lift
NOTE: ( ) indicates waste streams not associated with all subcategories
Figure X-4
-------
(Extrusion Hydraulic Press Leakage)
{Roll IU£ and j)rawjijg Sjumt Kmulslons)
Sawing Spent Lubricants ^
^ JJater to Reuse
>
C'lit (initial
ttcdiul I do
(Hid
!Ut 11*| loi
Tl I'-.l
i iiMi li*|> U.H
II.-..
A Inwe
";*7
k«H-y<-l«» «-
9
•*/A
Cymtldtf
PrurljiUat Ion
J,
(i)iMil lli 111 mid Cunt iimoiui Mod Can I i lift
i CikiI ii«|', lint ur
n
Mlsml I AiH'Oim W.ialowiiiur
(IJcyn9slnj5 SciiiMmt Liquor)
(forging Stnildivst Liquor)
(Ahiii'.i i Jnj», Fin mm* AJmi»K|dit'ie ScruldnT l.ltjuot)
Cleaning m l.lchluf' Kouldier I.I
(IHe l.lt'«ni 1 iig Scmtdn-r i.Jijoui)
(I'rt'iin Ikiiilikr )
r.|it-iu|r;il Addition
Holt lined 1.1
lii'iulrHi
hilUt Ion
Flit rat Inn
St-il hiii-iH .<1 Jim
Sh I mini i tK
If.tt'kw.tsh
S J.
KtilWOVJll (»l
Hi I mid
Cl »•»«!
Slttd^r i
Di.'iHOiMi I
Sludi'u iW-wai ot I ii|>
difiiiiM
AddlL I on
Ad (uHUmrnl
I
NOTE: ( ) indicates waste streams not associated with all subcategories.
Figure X-5
-------
Tltttcunl Eauitiluii Brutikinj;
(Excrunlon Hydraulic fre»i Latitude)
Sawing JjHmtJUhrlcaintg.
4-"
Water to Ktuay
IP]
J
£)
/
Kemivul ul
(III iiml
(irun.Hi-
Sludga Co
lliapuoal
Rmku.isli
CIiimIi uI M'llll.iu rill'*If;iI AihlIt Ion
im Fulling
< J.
t '
Clirtiuihim
Kc.lurl Inn
,L
4*
Hi'at 11t ;iinn ut A Cu.illn^ /
Cuiitart t:»"l 1 |»K Walfi ^ T'wi /
IUm y, |t. <4-
A A/A V A A.A*.
CyiHtldu
I'lCt-lpltuf Ion
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under
Section 306 of the Clean Water Act is the best available demon-
strated technology (BDT). New plants have the opportunity to
design the best and most efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment technologies. Therefore, NSPS includes pro-
cess changes, in-plant controls (including elimination of waste-
water streams), operating procedure changes, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies to reduce pollution to the maximum extent
possible. This section describes the control technology for
treatment of wastewater from new sources and presents mass dis-
charge limitations of regulated pollutants for NSPS, based on the
described control technology.
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO NSPS
Most wastewater reduction and process changes applicable to a new
source have been considered previously for the BAT options. For
this reason, five options were considered as the basis for NSPS,
all identical to BAT options in Section X. Due to high costs and
low environmental benefits, BAT Option 6 was not considered for
NSPS. The five options are summarized below and presented in
greater detail in Section X.
In summary form, the treatment technologies considered for new
aluminum forming facilities are:
NSPS Option 1 is based on:
Oil skimming,
Lime and settle (chemical precipitation of metals),
followed by sedimentation), and
pH adjustment; and, where required,
Cyanide removal,
Hexavalent chromium reduction, and
Chemical emulsion breaking. .
NSPS Option 2 is based on?
NSPS Option 1, plus process wastewater flow minimiza-
tion by the following methods:
-------
- Heat treatment contact cooling water recycle through
cooling towers.
Continuous rod casting contact cooling water
recycle.
- Air pollution control scrubber liquor recycle.
- Extrusion press leakage recycle.
- Countercurrent cascade rinsing or other water
efficient methods applied to cleaning or etching and
extrusion die cleaning rinses.
Alternative fluxing or in-line refining methods,
neither of which require wet air pollution control,
for degassing aluminum melts.
NSPS Option 3 is based on:
NSPS Option 2, plus multimedia filtration at the end
of the NSPS Option 2 treatment train.
NSPS Option 4 is based on:
NSPS Option 2 plus thermal emulsion breaking or
contractor hauling for concentrated emulsions.
NSPS Option 5 is based on:
NSPS Option 4, plus multimedia filtration at the end of
the NSPS Option 4 treatment train.
A more detailed discussion of these options and their appli-
cability with each of the six subcategories is presented in
Section X.
NSPS OPTION SELECTION
EPA is promulgating the best available demonstrated technology
for all six subcategories in the aluminum forming category
equivalent to BAT technology with the addition of filtration
prior to discharge {NSPS Option 3). As discussed in Sections IX
and X, these technologies are currently used at plants within
this point source category. Filtration has been included in the
NSPS model technology because new plants have the opportunity to
design the most efficient process water use and wastewater reduc-
tion techniques within their processes, thereby reducing the size
of and cost of filtration equipment. Specifically, the design of
new plants can be based on recycle of contact cooling water
through cooling towers, recycle of air pollution control scrubber
liquor or the use of dry air pollution control equipment, recir-
culation of extrusion press hydraulic fluid leakage, and use of
countercurrent cascade rinsing. New plants also have the
-------
opportunity to consider alternate fluxing or in-line refining
methods during the preliminary design of the facility.
The NSPS regulatory flows are the same as the BAT regulatory
flows discussed in Section X with the exception of extrusion
press hydraulic fluid leakage. The NSPS flow for extrusion press
hydraulic fluid leakage is based on data from two plants which
currently recycle this flow. The Agency concluded that recycle
was not appropriate for existing sources because of the extensive
retrofit which would be involved. However, a new plant has the
opportunity to build into the plant when it is being constructed
the necessary troughs and diking required to recycle this stream.
In order to evaluate new sources a normal plant was developed for
each subcategory. The characteristics of a normal plant are
shown on Tables VIII-12 through VIII-17 (pp. 399-410). Costs
developed for each new source option considered were developed
and are shown on Table VIII-18 (p. 412). Pollutant reduction
benefits are shown in Section X (Tables X-14 through X-19, pp
1099-1104). new sources regardless of whether they are plants
with major modifications or greenfield sites, will have costs
that are not greater than the costs that existing sources would
incur in achieving equivalent pollutant discharge reduction.
Based on this the Agency believes that the selected NSPS (NSPS
Option 3) is appropriate for both greenfield sites and existing
sites undergoing major modifications (e.g., a primary aluminum
plant which installs a rolling operation).
Costs and Environmental Benef its of Treatment Opt ions
Costs for- an individual new source can be estimated using the
methods described in Section VIII. The Agency has not estimated
total costs for the category or subcategories since it is not
known how many new aluminum forming plants will be built. Esti-
mates of treatment performance for an individual "normal plant"
in each subcategory are presented in Tables X-14 through X-19
(pp. 1099 through 1104).
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The Agency has no reason to believe that the pollutants that will
be found in significant quantities in processes within new
sources will be any different than with existing sources. Conse-
quently, pollutants selected for regulation, in accordance with
the rationale of Section VI, are the same ones for each subcate-
gory that were selected for BAT plus TSS, oil and grease, and pH.
At NSPS, as at BAT, the other toxic metals, cadmium, copper,
lead, nickel, and selenium, and the "toxic" organic pollutants
will be controlled by regulation of chromium, zinc, aluminum, and
oil and grease.
-------
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The regulatory production normalized flows for NSPS (NSPS Option
3) are the same as the production normalized flows for the
selected BAT option (Option 2) with the exception of the extru-
sion press hydraulic fluid leakage stream. As discussed in
Section X, EPA considered and ultimately rejected recycle of
hydraulic fluid leakage from extrusion presses for existing
plants. After studying two press leakage recycle systems in the
category, we concluded that new plants can design and install
collection and routing systems for hydraulic fluid leakage during
original plant construction. As such, new plants would not incur
the costs of retrofitting a collection system. One of the two
plants currently recycling the hydraulic fluid leakage has
reported that on a portion of the leakage that it recycles
through oil separation and filter, it has observed a decrease in
maintenance on the extrusion system because of the removal of
tramp oils, dirt, and debris. The NSPS flow allowance for extru-
sion press hydraulic fluid leakage is 298 1/kkg (71.5 gal/ton).
This flow is based on the average of flows from the two plants in
which the extrusion presses have been designed and built to allow
the recirculation of the hydraulic fluid leakage.
NSPS Option 3 is based on the treatment effectiveness values for
lime, settle, and filter technology, as presented in Table VII-20
(p. 807). The mass of pollutant allowed to be discharged per
mass of product is calculated by multiplying the appropriate
treatment effectiveness value (one day maximum and ten day aver-
age values) (mg/1) by the production normalized flows (1/kkg).
When these calculations are performed, the mass-based NSPS can be
derived for the selected option (NSPS Option 3). These values
are presented for each of the six subcategories in Tables XI-1
through XI-6.
-------
Table XI-1
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
1 18
Cadmium
0.01 1
0.004
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.021
0 .0083
120
Copper
0.071
0.034
121
Cyan ide*
0.01 1
0.0044
122
Lead
0.016
0.007
124
Nickel
0.030
0.021
125
Selenium
0.045
0 .021
128
Zinc*
0.057
0 .023
Aluminum*
0 .338
0.150
Oil & Grease*
0 .53
0.53
Total Suspended
0.830
0.664
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with neat oils
1 18
Cadmium
0.016
0.007
119
Chromium*
0.030
0.0123
120
Copper
0.105
0.050
121
Cyan ide*
0.016
0 .0065
122
Lead
0 .023
0.011
124
Nickel
0.045
0.030
125
Selenium
0 .070
0.030
1 28
Zinc*
0.084
0 .0343
Aluminum*
0.499
0.221
Oil & Grease*
0.817
0.81 7
Total Suspended
1 .225
0 .980
So lids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-1 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.00039
0 .00016
119
Chromium*
0 .00073
0.00029
120
Copper
0.0025
0.0012
121
Cyanide*
0.00039
0.00016
122
Lead
0 .000 6
0.00026
124
Nickel
0.0011
0 .00073
125
Selenium
0.0016
0 .00073
128
Zinc*
0.0020
0 .00082
Aluminum*
0.01 2
0 .0053
Oil & Grease*
0.0197
0.019
Total Suspended
0 .0295
0.022
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0 .407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0.31 '
120
Copper
2.607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Nickel
1 .120
0 .754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
128
Zinc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum*
12 .446
5 .520
Oil & Grease*
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-1 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
1 19
Chromium*
0 .066
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
1 21
Cyanide*
0.036
0.015
1 22
Lead
0 .050
0.023
1 24
Nickel
0.099
0 .066
1 25
Selenium
0.147
0.066
1 28
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum*
1 .094
0.485
Oil & Grease*
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.148
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum
for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One
Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of
aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
1 20
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
1 22
Lead
0. 320
0.181
124
Nickel
0 .765
0.515
1 25
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
1 28
Z inc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum*
8 .499
3.70
Oil & Grease*
1 3.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20 .865
16.69
So lids*
pH* Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-1 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
119
Chromium*
0.715
0.29
120
Copper
2.474
1 .179
121
Cyanide*
0.387
0.16
122
Lead
0.541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
128
Zinc*
1 .97
0.81
Aluminum*
1 1 .81
5.238
Oil & Grease*
19 .33
1 9 .33
Total Suspended
28.995
23.196
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-2
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum rolled with emulsions
118 Cadmium 0.026 0.010
119 Chromium* 0.048 0.020
120 Copper 0.166 0.079
121 Cyanide* 0.026 0.011
122 Lead 0.037 0.017
124 Nickel 0.071 0.048
125 Selenium 0.106 0.048
128 Zinc* 0.133 0.055
Aluminum* 0.793 0.352
Oil & Grease* 1.30 1.30
Total Suspended 1.947 1.558
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
1 18
Cadmium
0.266
0.106
119
Chromium*
0.49
0.20
1 20
Copper
1 .701
0.81 1
1 21
Cyanide*
0.27
0.11
122
Lead
0 .372
0.173
1 24
Nickel
0.731
0.492
1 25
Selenium
1 .090
0.492
1 28
Zinc*
1 .36
0.59
Aluminum*
8.1 20
3 .602
Oil & Grease*
13.29
1 3.29
Total Suspended
19.935
15.948
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum >
quenched
118
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0.31
120
Copper
2 .607
1 .243
1 21
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Nickel
1 .120
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
1 28
Zinc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum*
12.446
5.520
Oil & Grease*
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444
Solids*
pH*
Within the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
119
Chromium*
0.067
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.1 09
121
Cyanide*
0.036
0.01 5
122
Lead
0.050
0.023
124
Nickel
0 .099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
128
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum*
1 .094
0.485
Oil & Grease*
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.1 48
Solids*
pH*
Within the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-2 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
1 19
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
120
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
1 22
Lead
0.390
0.181
1 24
N ickel
0.765
0.515
125
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
1 28
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum*
8.499
3.770
Oil & Grease*
1 3 .91
1 3.91
Total Suspended
20.87
1 6.70
Solids*
pH* Within ..the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning
or Etching - Scrubber
Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
1 19
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
1 20
Copper
2.474
1 .1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.39
0.16
1 22
Lead
0.541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
1 28
Z inc*
1 .97
0.81
Aluminum*
1 1 .81
5.24
Oil & Grease*
19.33
1 9-33
Total Suspended
29.00
23.20
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-3
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum extruded
1 18
Cadmium
0.068
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.13
0.051
120
Copper
0.435
0.208
121
Cyanide*
0.068
0.027
1 22
Lead
0.095
0.044
124
Nickel
0.187
0.1 26
125
Selenium
0.279
0.126
128
Zinc*
0.35
0.14
Aluminum*
2.07
0.92
Oil & Grease*
3.39
3. 39
Total Suspended
5.102
4.07
Solids*
pH* Within-the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Direct Chill
Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum cast by direct chill methods
118
Cadmium
0.266
0.106
119
Chromium*
0.49
0 .20
120
Copper
1 .701
0.81 1
121
Cyanide*
0.27
0.11
1 22
Lead
0.372
0.173
124
Nickel
0.731
0.492
125
Selenium
1 .090
0.492
1 28
Zinc*
1 .36
0.56
Aluminum*
8.12
3.60
Oil & Grease*
1 3.29
1 3.29
Total Suspended
19.935
15.95
Solids*
pH* Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0.31
1 20
Copper
2.607
1 .243 —. .
1 21
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
1 24
Nickel
1 .120
0.754
1 25
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
1 28
Zinc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum*
12.45
5.52
Oil & Grease*
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.56
24.45
Solids*
pH*
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
1 19
Chromium*
0 .067
0.027
1 20
Copper
0.229
0.1 09
1 21
Cyanide*
0.036
0.015
1 22
Lead
0.050
0.023
1 24
Nickel
0 .099
0.066
1 25
Selenium
0.147
0.066
1 28
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum*
1 .094
0.485
Oil & Grease*
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.69
2.15
Solids*
pH*
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
119
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
120
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
122
Lead
0.390
0.181
124
Nickel
0.765
0.515
125
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
128
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum*
8.50
3.77
Oil & Grease*
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20.87
16.70
Solids*
pH* Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning
or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.387
0.1 54
119
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
1 20
Copper
2.474
1 .1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.39
0.16
122
Lead
0.541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
128
Zinc*
1 .97
0.81
Aluminum*
11 .81
5.24
Oil & Grease*
19.33
19.33
Total Suspended
29.00
23.20
So lids*
pH* Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Eegulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-3 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum degassed
1 18
Cadmium
0.00
0.00
1 19
Chromium*
0.00
0.00
120
Copper
0.00
0.00
121
Cyanide*
0.00
0.00
1 22
Lead
0.00
0.00
1 24
Nickel
0.00
0.00
1 25
Selenium
0.00
0.00
1 28
Zinc*
0.00
0.00
Aluminum*
0.00
0.00
Oil & Grease*
0.00
0.00
Total Suspended
0.00
0.00
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or - Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum extruded
1 18
Cadmium
0.060
0.024
1 19
Chromium*
0.1 1
0 .045
120
Copper
0.381
0.1 82
1 21
Cyanide*
0.060
0.024
1 22
Lead
0.084
0 .039
1 24
Nickel
0.1 64
0.110
1 25
Selenium
0.244
0.110
1 28
Zinc*
0.31
0.1 26
Aluminum*
1 .82
0.81
Oil & Grease*
2.98
2.98
Total Suspended
4.47
3.58
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-4
NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum forged
118
Cadmium
0.010
0.004
119
Chromium*
0.01 9
0.008
120
Copper
0.064
0.030
1 21
Cyanide*
0.010
0.004
122
Lead
0.014
0 .007
124
Nickel
0.027
0.018
125
Selenium
0.041
0 .018
128
Zinc*
0.051
0.021
Aluminum*
0.305
0.135
Oil & Grease*
0.50
0 .50
Total Suspended
0.75
0.60
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10»0 at all times.
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum forged
118
Cadmium
0 .019
0.008
119
Chromium*
0.035
0.014
120
Copper
0.121
0.058
121
Cyanide*
0.019
0.008
122
Lead
0.027
0.013
124
Nickel
0 .052
0.035
125
Selenium
0 .077
0.035
128
Zinc*
0.096
0.040
Aluminum*
0.576
0 .256
Oil & Grease*
0 .943
0.95
Total Suspended
1 .42
1 .13
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0.31
1 20
Copper
2.607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.1 63
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
1 24
Nickel
1 .1 20
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
128
Zinc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum*
1 2 .45
5 .52
Oil & Grease*
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.56
24.45
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
1 19
Chromium*
0 .066
0.027
1 20
Copper
0 .229
0.109
121
Cyanide*
0.036
0.01 5
122
Lead
0 .050
0 .023
1 24
Nickel
0 .099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
1 28
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum*
1 .094
0.485
Oil & Grease*
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.69
2.15
So lids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-4 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
119
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
120
Copper
1 .781
0 .849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
122
Lead
0.390
0.181
124
Nickel
0.765
0.515
125
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
128
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum*
8.45
3.77
Oil & Grease*
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20.87
16.69
Solids*
pH* Within..the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
1 19
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
120
Copper
2.474
1 .1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.39
0.155
122
Lead
0. 541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
128
Zinc*
1 .97
0 .812
Aluminum*
1 1 .81
5 .24
Oil & Grease*
19.33
1 9 .33
Total Suspended
29. 00
23 . 20
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-5
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
drawn with neat oils
1 18
Cadmium
0.01 0
0.004
119
Chromium*
0.019
0.008
1 20
Copper
0.064
0.030
1 21
Cyanide*
0 .01 0
0.004
1 22
Lead
0 .014
0.007
1 24
Nickel
0.027
0.018
1 25
Selenium
0.041
0.01 8
1 28
Zinc*
0.051
0.021
Aluminum*
0.304
0.1 35
Oil & Grease*
0.498
0.498
Total Suspended
0.747
0.598
Solids*
pH* Within
the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
nig/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
1 18
Cadmium
0.039
0.016
119
Chromium*
0.072
0.029
1 20
Copper
0.248
0.1 18
121
Cyanide*
0.039
0.01 6
1 22
Lead
0.054
0 .025
124
Nickel
0.107
0.072
1 25
Selenium
0.1 59
0.072
1 28
Zinc*
0.198
0.082
Aluminum*
1 .185
0.526
Oil & Grease*
1 .939
1 .939
Total Suspended
2.909
2.327
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10»0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.00039
0.00016
119
Chromium*
0.0008
0.0003
120
Copper
0.0025
0.0012
121
Cyanide*
0.0004
0.0002
122
Lead
0.00055
0.00026
124
Nickel
0.0011
0.00073
125
Selenium
0.0016
0.00073
128
Zinc*
0.0020
0.0008
Aluminum*
0.012
0.0053
Oil & Grease*
0.020
0.020
Total Suspended
0.029
0.024
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.754
0.306
120
Copper
2.607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.408
0.163
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Nickel
1 .120
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
1 28
Zinc*
2.08
0.856
Aluminum*
1 2.45
5.52
Oil & Grease*
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30 .56
24.45
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or
etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
119
Chromium*
0.066
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
1 21
Cyanide*
0 .036
0.01 5
122
Lead
0.0 50
0 .023
124
Nickel
0.099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0 .066
128
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum*
1 .094
0.485
Oil & Grease*
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.69
2.15
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0
at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0 .278
0.111
119
Chromium*
0.515
0.209
1 20
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyan ide*
0.278
0.111
1 22
Lead
0.390
0.181
1 24
Nickel
0.765
0.51 5
1 25
Selenium
1 .1 40
0.515
1 28
Zinc*
1 .42
0 .584
Aluminum*
8.50
3.77
Oil & Grease*
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20.87
16.70
So lids*
pH* Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-5 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
119
Chromium*
0.715
0.290
120
Copper
2.474
1 .1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.387
0.155
122
Lead
0.541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
128
Zinc*
1 .97
0.812
Aluminum*
11 .81
5.24
Oil & Grease*
19.33
19.33
Total Suspended
29.00
23.20
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-6
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
1 18
Cadmium
0.093
0.037
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.1 73
0.070
1 20
Copper
0.597
0.284
121
Cyanide*
0 .094
0.038
122
Lead
0.131
0.061
124
Nickel
0.257
0.1 73
125
Selenium
0.382
0.173
1 28
Z inc*
0 .476
0.1 96
Aluminum*
2.85
1 .27
Oil & Grease*
4.67
4.67
Total Suspended
7.00
5.60
Sol ids*
pH*
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
, Continuous
Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m
g/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
1 18
Cadmium
0.039
0.016
1 19
Chromium*
0.072
0 .029
1 20
Copper
0.248
0.118
1 21
Cyan ide*
0.039
0.016
1 22
Lead
0.054
0.025
124
Nickel
0.107
0.072
1 25
Selenium
0.1 59
0.072
1 28
Zinc*
0.198
0.081
Aluminum*
1 .184
0.526
Oil & Grease*
1 .940
1 .940
Total Suspended
2.91
2.33
So lids*
pH*
Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table &I-6 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m
g/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.00039
0 .00016
119
Chromium*
0.0008
0.0003
120
Copper
0 .0025
0.0012
121
Cyanide*
0.0004
0.0002
122
Lead
0 .00055
0.00026
124
Nickel
0.0011
0.00073
125
Selenium
0 .0016
0.00073
128
Zinc*
0.0020
0.0008
Aluminum*
0 .012
0.0053
Oil & Grease*
0.020
0.020
Total Suspended
0 .030
0.024
Solids*
pH*
Within.the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
ma/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0 .754
0.31
120
Copper
2.607 ;
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0 .405
0.16
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Ni ckel
1 .120
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0 .754
128
Zinc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum*
12 .446
5.520
Oil & Grease*
20 .37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.55
24.450
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant orMaximum forMaximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or
etched
1 1 8
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.066
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
1 21
Cyanide*
0.036
0.015
1 22
Lead
0 .050
0.023
124
Nickel
0.099
0.066
1 25
Selenium
0.147
0.066
1 28
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum*
1 .094
0.485
Oil & Grease*
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.69
2.15
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0
at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or
etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
1 19
Chromium*
0.515
0.21
1 20
Copper
1 .781
0.849
1 21
Cyan ide*
0.278
0.11
122
Lead
0. 390
0.181
1 24
Nickel
0.765
0.51 5
1 25
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
1 28
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum*
8.50
3.77
Oil & Grease*
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20.87
16.70
So lids*
pH* Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0
at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
Table XI-6 (Continued)
NSPS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
119
Chromium*
0.72
0.290
120
Copper
2.474
1 .179
121
Cyanide*
0.387
0.155
122
Lead
0.541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
128
Zinc*
1 .97
0.812
Aluminum*
1 1 .81
5.24
Oil & Grease*
19.33
19.33
Total Suspended
29.00
23.20
Solids*
pH* Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to promulgate
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES), which must be
achieved within three years of promulgation. PSES are designed
to prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass through, inter-
fere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The Clean Water Act of
1977 . adds a new dimension by requiring pretreatment for pollu-
tants, such as heavy metals, that limit POTW sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on agricul-
tural lands. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates
that pretreatment standards are to be technology based, analogous
to the best available technology for removal of toxic pollutants.
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promul-
gates NSPS. New indirect discharge facilities, like new direct
discharge facilities, have the opportunity to incorporate the
best available demonstrated technologies, including process
changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment tech-
nologies, and to use plant site selection to ensure adequate
treatment system installation.
General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution were published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43, No.
123, Monday, June 26, 1978 and amended on January 28, 1981 (46 FR
9404). These regulations describe the Agency's overall policy
for establishing and enforcing pretreatment standards for new and
existing users of a POTW and delineate the responsibilities and
deadlines applicable to each party in this effort. In addition,
40 CFR Part 403, Section 403.5(b), outlines prohibited discharges
which apply to all users of a POTW.
This section describes the treatment and control technology for
pretreatment of process wastewaters from existing sources and new
sources, and presents mass discharge limitations of regulated
pollutants for existing and new sources, based on the described
control technology.
INTRODUCTION OF ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATER INTO POTW
There are 72 plants in the aluminum forming industry which dis-
charge to a POTW. The plants that may be affected by pretreat-
ment standards represent about 27 percent of the aluminum forming
plants.
-------
Pretreatment standards are established to ensure removal of
pollutants which interfere with, pass through, or are otherwise
incompatible with a POTW. A determination of which pollutants
may pass through or be incompatible with POTW operations, and
thus be subject to pretreatment standards, depends on the level
of treatment employed by the POTW. In general, more pollutants
will 'pass through or interfere with a POTW employing primary
treatment (usually physical separation by settling) than one
which has installed secondary treatment (settling plus biological
treatment).
Many of the pollutants contained in aluminum forming wastewaters
are not biodegradable and are, therefore, ineffectively treated
by such systems. Furthermore, these pollutants have been shown
to pass through or interfere with the normal operations of these
systems. Problems associated with the uncontrolled release of
pollutant parameters identified in aluminum forming process
wastewaters to POTW were discussed in Section VI. The discussion
covered pass-through, interference, and sludge useability.
The Agency based the selection of pretreatment standards for the
aluminum forming category on the minimization of pass-through of
toxic pollutants at POTW. For each subcategory, the Agency com-
pared BAT removal rates for each toxic pollutant limited by BAT
to the national average removal rate for that pollutant at well
operated POTW achieving secondary treatment. The POTW removal
rates were determined through a study conducted by the Agency at
over 40 POTW and a statistical analysis of the data. (See Fate
of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, EPA
440/1-80-301, October, 1980; and Determining National Removal
Credits for Selected Pollutants for Publicly Owned Treatment
Works, EPA 440/82-008, September, 1982.) The POTW removal rates
of the major toxic pollutants found in aluminum forming
wastewater are presented in Table XII-1.
The national average percentage of the toxic metals removed by a
well-operated POTW meeting secondary treatment requirements is
about 50 percent (varying from 20 to 65 percent), whereas the
percentage that can be removed by an aluminum forming direct
discharger applying the best available technology economically
achievable is about 97 percent (ranging from 79 to 97 percent).
Accordingly, these pollutants pass through a POTW. Specific
-------
PSES Option 2 Removal
Toxic Pollutant
Rate
Chromium 99.8%
Copper 85.4%
Cyanide 87.8%
Lead 93.7%
Nickel 66.9%
Zinc 96.2%
TTO approximately 97%
The pretreatment options selected provide for significantly more
removal of toxic pollutants than would occur if aluminum forming
wastewaters were discharged untreated to POTW.
In addition to pass through of toxic metals, available informa-
tion shows that many of the toxic organics from aluminum forming
facilities also pass through a POTW. As previously mentioned,
toxic organics are not specifically regulated at BAT because, for
direct dischargers, the BPT oil and grease limit will effectively
control toxic organics. As demonstrated by the data presented in
Sections VII and X (Table X-26, p. 1111) and Table XII-1, direct
dischargers who comply with the BPT limitation for oil and grease
will remove a greater percentage of the toxic organics than a
well operated POTW achieving secondary treatment. POTW removal
of those toxic organic pollutants found in well operated POTW
meeting secondary treatment requirements averaged 71 percent;
while the oil skimming component of the BPT technology removes 97
percent. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating a pretreatment
standard for toxic organics.
The Agency is regulating toxic organics as total toxic organics
(TTO) which is comprised of all those toxic organics that were
found to be present in sampled aluminum forming wastewaters at
concentrations greater than the quantification level of 0.01
mg/1. Table XII-1 presents all of the total toxic organics as
well as the toxic metals.
The analysis of wastewaters for toxic organics is costly and
requires sophisticated equipment. Data indicate that the toxic
organics are in the oil and grease and by removing the oil and
grease, the toxic organics should also be removed. Therefore,
the Agency is promulgating monitoring for oil and grease as an
alternative to monitoring for TTO.
The pretreatment options selected provide for significantly more
removal of toxic pollutants than would occur if aluminum forming
wastewaters were discharged untreated to a POTW. Thus, pretreat-
ment standards will control the discharge of toxic pollutants to
POTW and prevent pass-through.
-------
TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PRETREATMENT
The pretreatment options for existing sources and new sources are
identical to the options considered for BAT which are discussed
in Section X of this document. Pretreatment Options 4, 5, and 6
have high costs and high energy requirements and achieve only a
small incremental removal of primarily toxic organics over
removals achieved by pretreatment Options 2 and 3. The principle
difference in pollutant removal achievable by Options 4, 5, and 6
over Options 2 and 3 are toxic organics. As shown in Section X
(Table X-26, p. 1111), oil removal to the BPT level can achieve a
97 percent reduction in toxic organic pollutants. Therefore,
Options 4, 5, and 6 were not further considered for PSES. There
is no reason to believe that the levels of toxic organics , dis-
charged from new sources will be any different than from existing
sources. Thus, Options 4, 5, and 6 were not further considered
for PSNS.
Treatment technologies and controls employed for the pretreatment
options are:
Pretreatment Option 1 is based on:
Oil skimming,
Lime and settle, and where required:
Chromium reduction,
Cyanide removal, and
Chemical emulsion breaking.
Pretreatment Option 2 is based on:
All of Pretreatment Option 1, plus
Countercurrent rinsing of cleaning or etching rinses to
reduce normalized discharge flows.
Alternative fluxing methods (e.g., dry air pollution
control and in-line refining) to eliminate the dis-
charge from degassing operations.
Recycling of heat treatment contact cooling water
streams through cooling towers to reduce their
normalized discharge flow.
Recycling of air pollution control system streams asso-
ciated with cleaning or etching and forging operations
-------
to reduce their their normalized discharge flows.
Use of extrusion die cleaning rinse for bath make-up
water.
Pretreatment Option 3 is based on:
All of Pretreatment Option 2, plus multimedia
filtration.
PSES AND PSNS OPTION SELECTION
In the aluminum forming category, the Agency has concluded that
the pollutants that would be regulated, primarily toxic metals
and organic under these proposed standards, pass through a POTW.
The average percentage of these pollutants removed by a well-
operated POTW meeting secondary treatment requirements nationwide
is about 50 percent (ranging from 20 to 65 percent), whereas the
percentage that can be removed by an aluminum forming direct
discharger applying the best available technology economically
achievable is expected to be about 98 percent (ranging from 79 to
97 percent). Accordingly, these pollutants pass through a POTW.
Pass-through and concentration in POTW sludges are discussed in
detail in Section VI for each toxic pollutant (organics and
metals) that was considered for regulation under pretreatment
standards.
Pretreatment Option 2 is selected as the regulatory approach for
pretreatment standards for existing sources on the basis that it
achieves effective removal of toxic pollutants and is economi-
cally achievable. In addition, as discussed above, a well-
operated POTW can achieve removal of the pollutants that are
discharged after the application of Pretreatment Option 2
technology. As summarized above in this section and in more
detail in Section X, the basis of Pretreatment Option 2 (BAT
Option 2) is reduction of flow for many of the waste streams
associated with aluminum forming operations.
Pretreatment Option 3 is selected as the regulatory approach for
pretreatment standards for new sources on the basis that new
sources have the opportunity to design the most efficient process
water use and wastewater reduction techniques within their
processes thereby reducing the size of and cost of filtration
equipment. As summarized above in this section and in more
detail in Section X, the basis of Pretreatment Option 3 (BAT
Option 3) is reduction or elimination of flow for many of the
waste streams associated with aluminum forming operations and the
application of filtration technology prior to final discharge.
-------
The Agency believes that compliance costs could be lower for new
sources than the cost estimates for equivalent existing sources,
because production processes can be designed on the basis of
lower flows and there will be no costs associated with retrofit-
ting the in-process controls. Therefore, new sources regardless
of whether they are plants with major modifications or greenfield
sites, will have costs that are not greater than the costs that
existing sources would incur in achieving equivalent pollutant
discharge reduction. Based on this the Agency believes that the
selected PSNS (Pretreatment Option 3) is appropriate for both
greenfield sites and existing sites undergoing major modifica-
tions (e.g., a primary aluminum plant which installs a rolling
operation).
Costs and Environmental Benefits of Treatment Options
As a means of evaluating the economic achievability of each of
these options, the Agency developed estimates of the compliance
costs and benefits for normal plants. Estimates of capital and
annual costs for the pretreatment options were prepared for each
subcategory as an aid in choosing the best pretreatment option.
The cost estimates for indirect dischargers are presented in
Table XI1-2. In order to evaluate new sources a normal plant was
developed for each subcategory. The characteristics of a normal
plant are shown on Tables VIII-12 through VIII-17 (pp. 399-410).
The normal plant costs are presented on Table VIII-18 (p. 412).
The cost methodology has been described in detail in Sections
VIII and X. The benefit methodology has been described in detail
in Section X. The pollutant reduction benefit estimates for all
six subcategories are presented in Tables XI1-3 through XI1-8.
REGULATED POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
The same pollutants have been selected for regulation under the
pretreatment standards for each of the six subcategories. The
toxic metals selected are chromium (total), cyanide (total), and
zinc. Aluminum is not limited because aluminum in its hydroxide
form is used by POTW as a flocculant to aid in the settling and
removal of suspended solids. Therefore, aluminum in limited
quantities, does not pass through or interfere with a POTW;
rather it is a necessary aid to its operation. TSS is not
regulated since it is adequately handled by a POTW and will not
interfere with their operation.
Toxic organic pollutants found in aluminum forming wastewaters
may pass through a POTW; therefore, the Agency proposes to estab-
lish a pretreatment limitation on the discharge of total toxic
organics (TTO) to a POTW. This limitation is based on the efflu-
ent concentrations presented in Table X-26 (p. 1111) and
-------
discussed in Section X under Regulated Pollutant Parameters (p.
1 058). This limitation is ach ievabie by treatment technologies
that effectively remove oil and grease. Analysis of toxic
organics is costly and requires delicate and sensitive equipment.
Therefore, the Agency proposes to establish as an alternative to
monitoring for total toxic organics an oi1 and grease 1imit for
which the analysis is much less costly and frequently can be done
at the plant.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
PSES for this category are expressed in terms of mass per unit of
production (mass-based) rather than .concentration standards.
Regulation on the basis of concentration is not appropriate for
this category because flow reduction is a significant part of the
model technology for pretreatment. Therefore, the Agency is not
proposing concentration-based pretreatment standards (40 CFR Part
403.6) for this category.
The regulatory production normalized flows for PSES are equiva-
lent to BAT flows. The regulatory production normalized flows
for PSNS are equivalent to the NSPS flows. •
PSES are based on the treatment effectiveness values for lime and
settle technology, as presented in Table VI1-20 (p. 807) . PSNS
are based on the treatment effectiveness values for lime, settle,
and filter technology, as presented in Table VI1-20. The mass of
pollutant allowed to be discharged per mass of product is
calculated by multiplying the appropriate effectiveness value
(one day maximum and ten day average values) (mg/1) by the pro-
duction normalized flow (1/kkg). The PSES values are presented
for each of the six subcategories in Tables XI1-9 through XII-14.
The PSNS values are presented for each of the six subcategories
in Tables XII-15 through XI1-20. The Agency recognizes that very
few of the 72 indirect dischargers currently have BAT level
treatment-in-place. Therefore, it is anticipated that plants will
require three years to be in compliance with the pretreatment
standards.
-------
Table XII-1
POTW REMOVALS OF THE TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FOUND IN ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATER
Percent Removal By
Pollutant Secondary POTW
1. Acenaphthene NA
11, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 87
13. 1,1-Dichloroethane .76
22. p-Chloro-m-Cresol , 89
24. 2-Chlorophenol 50
29. 1,1-Dichloroethylene 80
30. 1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 72
34. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 59
35. 2,4-Dinitrotoluene NA
37. 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine NA
38. Ethylbenzene 84
39. Fluoranthene NA
54. Isophorone NA
55. Naphthalene 61
62. N-Nitrosodiphenylamine NA
65. Phenol 96
66. Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 62
67. Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 59
68. Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 48
69. Di-n-Octyl Phthalate 81
70. Diethyl Phthalate 50
71. Dimethyl Phthalate 74
72. 1,2-Benzanthracene NA
73. Benzo (a) Pyrene NA
74. 3,4-Benzofluoranthene NA
76. Chrysene NA
77. Acenaphthalene NA
78. Anthracene 65
79. 1,12-Benzoperylene (Benzo(ghi)perylene) 83
80. Fluorene NA
81. Phenathrene 65
82. 1,2,5,6-Dibenzanthracene NA
83. Indeno (1,2,3-cd) Pyrene NA
84. Pyrene 40
85. Tetrachloroethylene 81
86. Toluene 90
87. Trichloroethylene 85
88. Vinyl Chloride 94
97. Endosulfan Sulfate NA
98. Endrin , NA
99. Endrin Aldehyde "" NA
-------
Table XI1-1 (Continued)
POTW REMOVALS OF THE TOXIC POLLUTANTS
FOUND IN ALUMINUM FORMING WASTEWATER
Percent Removal By
Pollutant Secondary POTW
106.
PCB-1242
(Arochlor 1 242)
. NA
107.
PCB-1254
(Arochlor 1 254)
NA
108.
PCB-1221
(Arochlor 1221)
NA
109.
PCB-1232
(Arochlor 1 232)
NA
110.
PCB-1248
(Arochlor 1248)
NA
111.
PCB-1260
(Arochlor 1260)
NA
112.
PCB-1016
(Arochlor 1016)
NA
119.
Chromium,
hexavalent
18
Chromium,
trivalent
NA
120.
Copper
58
121.
Cyanide
52
122.
Lead
48
124.
Nickel
19
125.
Selenium
46
126.
Silver
66
128.
Zinc
65
NA - Not Available.
NOTE: This data compiled from Fate of Priority Pollutants In
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, USEPA, EPA No. 440/1-80-
301, October 1980.
-------
Table XI1-2
CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COST ESTIMATES FOR BAT OPTIONS
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS ($1982)
Subcategory
Rolling with Neat Oils
Capital
AnnuaL
Rolling wleh Emulsions
Capital
Annual
Extrusion
Capital
Annual
Forging
Capital
Annual
Drawing with Neat Oils
Cap Ica1
Annual
Drawing with Emulsions or
Soaps
Capital
Annual
Totals
Option
3,942,033
2,517,284
700,510
754,415
13,457,685
12,470,437
11,452,866
8,283.595
Option 2 Option 3 Option 4* Option 5* Option 6*
320,430
343,317
3,715,900
2,003,700
,421,700
738,500
16,167,813
13,544,148
4,871,590
2,315,186
209,900
94,709
4,315,800
2,205,300
1,629,500
806,700
17,757,218
14,169,862
5,342,132
2,442,205
1,661,364 1,752,034 1,908,904
1,191,096 961,270 1,014,478
225,400
98,801
3,182,800
1,605,000
1,226,100
722,100
11,377,300
5,863,000
3,563,000
1.717,500
1,021,500
493,700
367,300
188,800
3,662,000
1,711,000
,378,500
775,500
12,379,000
6,071,800
3,905,400
1,809,300
1,106,200
517,900
378,900
191,900
3,937,200
1,858,900
Capital
Annual
31,534,888 28,138,937 31,178,954
25,560,144 19,657,513 20,737,346
*Costs for Options 4, 5, and 6 are given in 1978 dollars. Costs for Options 4, 5, and 6 were not
-------
Table XI1-3
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
03
W
Pollutant Raw Waste
Flow (1/yr) 110.9 x 106
(kR/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.6
119. Chromium 185.1
120. Copper 32.6
121. Cyanide 1.0
122. Lead 142.0
124. Nickel 4.9
128. Zinc 33.9
Aluminum 910.4
Oil and Grease 172,645.5
TSS 20,546.8
Total Toxic
Organics 259.0
Total Toxic Metals 399.1
Total Toxics 659.1
Total Conventionals 193,192.3
Total Pollutants 194,761.8
Option 1
110.9 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
171
0.0
176.2
0.0
0.0
128.7
0.0
0.6
787.2
,536.3
19,215.8
257.3
305. 5
562.8
190,752.1
192,102.1
Discharged
_JM£xeI_
0.6
8.9
32.6
1.0
13.
4.
33.
123,
,109,
331,
1.7
93.6
96.3
2,440.2
2,659.6
Option 2
38.04 x 106
Removed
OsbVhI
0.0
182.0
10.5
0.0
137.4
0.0
22.5
868.1
172,265.1
20,090.3
258.4
352.4
610.8
192,355.4
193,834.3
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.6
3.0
22.1
1.0
4. 6
4. 9
11.4
42. 2
380.4
456. 5
0.6
46. 6
48.2
836.9
927.3
-------
Table XII-3 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
oo
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. ?,inc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Option 3
38.04 x 10&
Removed
(kR/yr)
0.0
182.4
17.7
0.0
138.9
0.0
25.1
882.2
172,265.1
20,447.9
258.4
364.1
622.5
192,713.0
194,217.7
Discharged
(kR/yr)
0.6
2.7
14.8
1.
3.
4.
8.
28.
380.
98.9
0.
34.
36.
479.
543.
Option 4
28.30 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
182.8
16.1
0.0
138.6
0.0
25.4
878.9
172,362.5
20,207.1
258.5
362.9
621.4
192,569.6
194,069.9
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.
16
1
3
4
8.5
31.4
283.0
339.7
0.4
36.1
37.5
622.7
691.6
Option 5
28.30 x 106
Removed
(kg/yrjL
0.0
183.1
21.5
0.0
139.7
0.0
27.4
889.4
172,362.5
20,473.2
258.5
371.7
630.2
192,835.7
194,355.3
Discharged
2.
II,
1.
2.
4,
6
0
0
0
3
9
6.5
20.9
283.0
73.6
0.4
27.3
28.7
356.6
406. 2
Sludge 992,450 991,630 993,340
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table XIi-4
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
03
cn
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
124. Nickel
128. Zinc
A1urn inum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
, Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Converitionals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
2.696 x 109
(kg/yr)
4.9
739.8
406.9
20.5
1,122.7
65.5
886.2
30,568.2
571,803.8
331,656.5
857.7
3,226.0
4,104.2
903, 460.3
938,132.7
Option 1
972.9 x 1Q6
Option 2
665.4 x 106
Removed
(M/lE.)
0.0
665.4
0.0
0.0
1,010.3
0.0
607.4
29,315.7
561,944.9
319.981.0
842.9
2,283.I
3,126.0
881,925.9
914,367.6
Discharged
(kg/yr)
4.9
74.4
406.9
20. 5
112.4
65.5
278.9
252.5
858.9
675.4
9
11
14.8
943.0
978.3
21,534.3
23,765.1
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
687.0
23.3
- 0.0
1,042.6
0.0
688.1
29,614.3
564,63 511
323,209.3
847.0
2,441.0
3,288.0
887,844.4
920,746.7
Discharged
(kg/yr)
4.9
52.8
383.6
20. 5
80.1
65.5
198.2
953.9
7,168.7
8,447.2
10.8
785. 1
816.4
15,615.9
1 7,386.2
Sludge
5,259,360
-------
Table XI1-4 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGED
ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
00
en
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
118. Cadmium
119. Chromium
120. Copper
121. Cyanide
122. Lead
12A. Nickel
128. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
¦» Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option 3
665.4 x 106
Option 4
640.1 x 106
Option 5
640.1 x 106
Removed
0
693
148
0
,069
0
734
29,858
564,635
329,418
1,
847.0
2,645.7
3,492.7
894,053.9
927,405.3
Discharged
(kg/yr)
4.9
46.2
258.1
20.5
53.7
65.5
151.9
709.5
7,168.7
2, 237.7
10.8
580.3
611.6
9,406i 4
10,727.5
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
689.0
38.0
0.0
1,045.6
0.0
695.7
29,642.4
564,888.5
323,513.4
847.3
2,468.3
3,315.6
888,401.9
921,359.9
Discharged
(kg/yr)
4.9
50.8
368.9
20.5
77.1
65.5
190.6
925.8
6,915.4
8,143.1
10.4
757.8
788.7
15,058.5
16,773.0
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
695.3
158.7
0.0
1,071.0
0.0
740.1
29,877.5
564,888.5
329,484.7
847.3
2,665.1
3,512.4
894,373.2
927,763.1
Discharged
(kg/yr)
4.9
44.5
248,2
20.5
51.7
65.5
146.1
690.7
6,915.4
2,171.8
10.4
560.9
591.8
9,087.2
10,369.7
Sludge 5,338,630 5,302,690 5,340,930
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxica - Total Toxic Organies » Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table XII-5
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Opt ion
1
Opt ion
_2
Flow (1/yr)
6.077 x 109
4.693 x
109
1.323 x
10*
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
25.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
25.0
119.
Chromium
88,809.2
88,450.1
359.1
88, 713.3
95.9
120.
Copper
3,553.6
944.7
2,608.9
2,859.2
694.4
121.
Cyani de
1,020.7
702.1
318.6
935.9
84.8
122.
Lead
1,211.2
665.7
545.5
1,064.0
147.2
124.
Nickel
1,872.5
0.0
1,872.5
1,190.4
682.1
128.
Zinc
6,331.7
4,967.9
1,363.8
5,978.6
353.1
Aluminum
557,529.8
549,523.9
8,005.9
555,705.2
1,824.6
011 and Grease
181,646.6
133,426.0
48,220.6
166,972.6
14,674.0
TSS
655,707.9
597,128.8
58,579.1
639,393.3
16,314.6
Total Toxic
Organlcs
272.4
200.1
72.3
250.5
21.9
-1
Total Toxic Metals
101,803.0
94,724.5
7,078.5
99,907.0
1,896.0
0
Total Toxics
103,096.2
95,626.8
7,469.4
101,093.4
2,002.8
•j
Total Conventlonals
837,354.5
730,554.8
106,799.7
806,365.9
30,988.6
Total Pollutants
1,497,980.5
1,375,705.6
122,274.9
1,463,164.5
34,816.0
-------
Table XI1-5 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Option 3
Option 4*
Option
5*
Flow (1/yr)
1.323 x
109
7.673 x
10»
7.673 x
10»
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
Removed
Discharged
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118.
Cadmium
0.0
25.0
0.0
22.0
0.0
22.0
119.
Chromium
88,725.3
83.9
78,140.9
84.4
78,151.5
73.8
120.
Copper
3,087.3
466.3
2,516.6
613.6
2,716.9
413.2
121.
Cyanide
963.5
57.2
823.5
75.6
847.8
51.3
122.
Lead
1,112.0
99.2
936.3
130.4
978.5
88.3
124.
Nickel
1,610.6
261.9
1,048.3
601.1
1,417.3
232.0
128.
Zinc
1,062.7
269.0
5,260.7
316.4
5,334.5
242.5
Aluminum
556,149.4
1,380.4
489,920.7
2,165.2
489,310.9
1,775.0
Oil and Grease
106,972.6
14,674.0
146,922.1
13,076.7
146,922.1
13,076.7
TSS
0,643.6
5,064.3
562,569.3
14,994.1
572,481.7
5,081.8
Total Toxic
£ Organics 250.5 21.9 220.4 19.6 220.A 19.6
CO Total Toxic Metals 100,699.6 1,103.4 67,902.8 1,767.9 88,598.7 1,071.8
00 Total Toxics 101,913.6 1,182.6 88,946.7 1,863.1 89,666.9 1,142.7
Total Conventional 817,650.3 19.704.2 709,491.4 28,070.8 719,403.8 18,158.5
Total Pollutants 1,675,713.2 22,267.3 1,287,358.8 32,099.1 1,298,381.6 21,076.2
Sludge 68,482,400 68,057,960 68,515,120
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total ConventionaIs - Oil and Grease + TSS
Total Pollutants - Total Toxics + Total Conventional + Aluminum
-------
Table XIl-6
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant
Raw Waste
Option
1
Option
1
Flow (1/yr)
2.166 x 1Q9
2.166 x
109
279.8 x
106
(kR/yr)
Removed
(kg/yr)
Discharged
(kR/yr)
Removed
(kR/vr)
Discharged
(kg/yr)
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
124.
128.
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
12.9
4,282.9
3, 51 5.1
40.1
1,555.2
585.4
7,292.8
437,108.0
45,262.6
316,272.2
0.0
4.180.4
2.763.5
0.0
1,383.8
0.0
6.908.6
431,169.6
20,932.9
290,255.9
12.9
102.4
751.6
40. 1
1 71.4
585.4
384.2
5,938.3
24,329.7
26,016.3
0.0
1 4,268.5
3.401.6
19.5
1 , 51 5.8
482.6
7.238.7
432,390.9
31,935.5
303,459.0
1 2.
14.
113.
20.
39.
102.
54.
4, 71 7.
13,327.
12,813.
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
82.7
17,244.3
17,367.1
361.534.8
816.009.9
31.4
15,236.3
15,267.7
311,188.8
757,626.1
51.3
2,007.9
2,099.3
50,346.0
58,383.6
47.9
16,907.2
16,974.6
335,394.5
784,760.0
34.
336.
392.
26,140.
31,249.
9
4
4
6
3
8
1
1
1
2
.8
9
3
3
7
Sludge
13,832,780
-------
Table XI1-6 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISOHARGEKS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
<£>
o
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
Cadmiura
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
AlumLnum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organles
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventional
Total Pollutants
Option 3
279.8 x 106
Removed
4.1
4,270.3
3,435.9
23.6
1,523.0
545.7
7,251.3
432,457.6
31,935.5
305,154.2
47.9
17,030.3
17,101.8
337,089.7
786,649.1
Discharged
(kg/yr)
8.8
12.6
79.2
16.5
32.1
39.7
41.5
4,650.3
13,327.1
11,118.0
34.8
213.9
265.2
24,445.1
29,360.6
-------
Table XII-6 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
FORGING SUBCATEGORY
118
119
120
121
122
124
128
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organles
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Option 4
279.5 x 10&
Option 5
279.5 x 106
Option 6
279.5 x 106
Removed
-------
Table XlI-7
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
<0
r\3
Pollutant Raw Waste Option 1
Flow (1/yr) 557.4 x 106 557.4 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
(kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 3.2 0,0
119. Chromium 5,216.3 5,188.0
120. Copper 817.9 611.2
121. Cyanide 59.0 32.5
122. Lead 339.4 293.0
124. Nickel 138.4 0.0
128. Zinc 1,822.4 1,716.5
Aluminum 103,424.0 101,990.4
Oil and Grease 13,274.0 7,084.9
TSS 77,365.4 70,672.3
Total Toxic
Organics 19.9 10.6
Total Toxic Metals 8,337.6 7,808.7
Total Toxics 8,416.5 7,851.8
Total Conventionals 90,639.4 77,757.2
Total Pollutants 202,479.9 187,599.4
Discharged
(kg/yr)
3.2
28.2
206.7
26.5
46.4
138.4
105.9
1,434.3
6,189.1
6,693.1
9.3
528.8
564.6
12,882.2
14,881.1
Option 2
79.78 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
5,211.7
782.9
53.2
328.5
106.0
1,805.3
102,319.1
10,045.9
74,225.5
15.1
8,234.4
8,302,7
84,271.4
194,893.2
Discharged
(kg/yr)
3.2
4.5
35.0
5.8
10.9
32.4
17.0
1,105.6
3,228.1
•J, 139.9
4.8
103.0
113.6
6,368.0
7,587.2
Sludge
3,339,700
-------
Table XII-7 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Pollutant Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Flow (1/yr) 79.78 x I06 79.61 x 106 79.61 x 106
Removed Discharged Removed Discharged Removed Discharged
.(kfi/yr). _ (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yrj.. (kg/2£l (kg/yr)
118. Cadmium 0.4 2.8 0.0 3.2 0.5 2.8
119. Chromium 5,212.3 4.0 5,211.7 4. 5 5,212. 3 4.0
120. Copper 793.7 24.2 783.0 34.9 793.8 24.1
121. Cyanide 54.5 4.5 53.2 5.8 54.5 4.5
122. Lead 330.8 8.6 328.5 10.9 330.8 8.6
124. Nickel 125.9 12.5 106.1 32.3 126.0 12.5
128. Zinc 1,809.3 13.1 1,805.4 17.0 1,809.3 13.0
Aluminum 102,340.1 1,084.6 102,319.3 1,105.4 102,340.2 1,084.5
Oil and Grease 10,045.9 3,228.1 10,047.7 3,226.3 10,047.7 3,226.3
TSS 74,759.7 2,605.7 74,227.7 3,137.8 74,760.2 2,605.2
Total Toxic
Organics 15.1 4.8 15.1 4.8 15.1 4.8
»-¦ Total Toxic Metals 8,272.4 65.2 8,234.7 102.8 8,272.7 65.0
S Total Toxics 8,342.0 74.5 8,303.0 113.4 8,342.3 74.3
Total Conventionals 84,805.6 5,833.8 84,275.4 6,364.1 84,807.9 5,831.5
Total Pollutants 195,487.7 6,992.9 194,897.7 7,582.9 195,490.4 6,990.3
Sludge 3,393,250 3,389,080 3,393,270
Note: Total Toxic Metals - Cadmium + Chromium + Copper + Lead + Nickel + Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals - Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table XI1-8
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
DRAWING WITH EHULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
118
119
120
121
122
124
128
U3
4=>
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Total Toxic
Organics
Total Toxic Metals
Total Toxics
Total Conventionals
Total Pollutants
Raw Waste
134.7 x 106
(kg/yr)
0.7
202.0
175.1
1.4
77.1
29.4
358.0
21,421.7
11,793.2
16,608.0
17.7
842. 3
861.4
28.401.2
50.684.3
Option 1
134.7 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
194.7
121.7
0.0
65.2
0.0
330.7
099.1
10.316.0
14.991.1
21
15.5
712.3
727.8
25,307.1
47,134.0
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.
7.
53.
1.
11.
29.
27.
322.
1,477.
1,616.
2.2
130.0
133.6
3,094.1
3,550.3
Option 2
23.56 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
0.0
200.6
163.8
0.0
73.9
18.8
352.4
179.7
11,041.9
15,862.1
21
16.6
809.5
826.1
26,904.0
48,909.8
Discharged
0.7
1.5
11.3
1.4
3.1
10.7
5.6
242.0
751.4
745.9
1.1
32.9
35.4
1,497.3
1,774.7
Sludge
726,980
-------
Table XI1-8 (Continued)
POLLUTANT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
drawing with emulsions or soaps subcategory
Pollutant
Flow (1/yr)
8. Cadmium
19. Chromium
20. Copper
21. Cyanide
22. Lead
24. Nickel
28. Zinc
Aluminum
Oil and Grease
TSS
Option 3
23.56 x 106
Option 4
Removed
0.0
21
1 1
200.
167.
0,
74,
25.
353,
,186.
,041,
16,037.8
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.7
1.3
7.7
1.3
2.4
4. 1
4.3
235.1
751.4
570.2
21.30 x 10®
Removed
iJSS/ZEi
21
11
0.0
200.7
! 65.1
0.0
74.2
20.0
353.1
,182.2
,064.5
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0.7
1.3
10.0
1.4
15,889.3
2.
9.
4,
239.
728.
718.
Option 5
21 .30 x 106
Removed
(kg/yr)
21
1 1
0.0
200.9
168.3
0.2
74.9
25.8
354.3
188.3
,064.5
Discharged
(kg/yr)
0. 7
16,043.6
6.
1.
2.
3.
3.
233.
728.
564.
Total Toxic
Organics
16.6
1.1
16
6
1.1
16.6
1. 1
Total Toxic MetaLs
821.8
20. 5
813
1
29. 1
824.2
18.2
Total Toxics
838.5
22.9
829
7
31.6
841.0
20.5
Total Conventional
27,079.7
1,321.6
26,953
8
1,447.4
27,108.1
1,293.0
Total Pollutants
49,104.8
1,579.6
48,965
7
1 , 718.5
49,137.4
1,546.9
Sludge
739,990
739,010
740,220
Note: Total Toxic Metals
- Cadmium + Chromium + Copper
+ Lead
+ Nickel
+ Zinc
Total Toxics - Total Toxic Organics + Total Toxic Metals + Cyanide
Total Conventionals -Oil and Grease + TSS
-------
Table XII-9
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
rolled with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.019
0 .008
1 19
Chromium*
0 .025
0 .010
120
Copper
0.. 105
0.055
121
Cyanide*
0.016
0 .007
122
Lead
0 .023
0.011
124
Nickel
0.106
0.070
125
Selenium
0 .068
0.030
1 28
Zinc*
0.081
0 .034
Aluminum
0.356
0.177
Total Toxic Organics
0.038
-
(TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1.11
0.67
Total Suspended
2.268
1 .078
Solids
pH Within,the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
rolled with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.028
0.012
119
Chromium*
0.036
0.015
120
Copper
0.155
0.082
121
Cyanide*
0.024
0.010
122
Lead
0.035
0 .017
124
Nickel
0.157
0 .1 04
125
Selenium
0.100
0.045
128
Zinc*
0.119
0.050
Aluminum
0.525
0.261
Total Toxic Organics
0 .057
-
(TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .64
0.98
Total Suspended
3.348
1 .592
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-9 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
1 18
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
1 19
Chromium*
0.00086
0.00035
1 20
Copper
0 .0037
0 .0020
121
Cyanide*
0.00057
0 .00024
122
Lead
0 .0008
0 .0004
1 24
Nickel
0.0038
0 .0025
1 25
Selenium
0.0024
0 .0011
1 28
Zinc*
0.0029
0.0012
Aluminum
0.0126
0.0063
Total Toxic Organics
0.0014
-
(TTO)*
Oil & Grease*
0.040
0.024
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.90
0.37
1 20
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.59
0.25
122
Lead
0.856
0.408
1 24
Nickel
3.91 1
2 .587
1 25
Selenium
2.506
1 .120
1 28
Z inc*
2.98
1 .25
Aluminum
13 .098
6 .518
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
40 .74
24.45
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-9 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0 .079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0.1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0 .075
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc*
0.262
0.109
Aluminum
1.151
0.573
Total Toxic
0.1 24
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.58
2.15
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
119
Chromium*
0.61
0.25
1 20
Copper
2.643
1 .391
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0.584
0.278
124
Nickel
2.671
1 .767
125
Selenium
1 .711
0.765
128
Zinc*
2.03
0.85
Aluminum
8.944
4.451
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
27 .82
16.69
Total Suspended
57.031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-9 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning i
or Etching - Scrubber
Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
119
Chromium*
0.85
0.35
1 20
Copper
3.673
1 .933
121
Cyanide*
0.56
0.23
1 22
Lead
0.812
0.387
1 24
Nickel
3.71 1
2.455
1 25
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
1 28
Zinc*
2.82
1.18
Aluminum
12 .429
6.186
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
38 .7
23 .20
Total Suspended
79.253
37 .694
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
*ReguLated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-10
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With
Emulsions - Core
Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Max imum fo r
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum rolled with
emuls ions
1 18
Cadmium
0.044
0.019
1 19
Chromium*
0.057
0.024
120
Copper
0 .247
0.130
121
Cyanide*
0.038
0.016
122
Lead
0.055
0 .026
124
Nickel
0.249
0.1 65
125
Selenium
0.160
0 .071
1 28
Zinc*
0.1 90
0 .079
Aluminum
0.835
0.415
Total Toxic
0.090
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
2.60
1 .56
Total Suspended
5 .323
2.531
Solids
pH Within
the range of
7.0 to 10.
0 at all times.
Direct Chill
Casting - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of
aluminum cast
by direct
chill methods
118
Cadmium
0.452
0.1 99
119
Chromium*
0.59
0 .24
120
Copper
2.525
1 .329
121
Cyanide*
0 .39
0.16
122
Lead
0.558
0.266
124
Nickel
2 .552
1 .688
125
Selenium
1 .635
0.731
128
Zinc*
1 .94
0.81
Aluminum
8 .545
4.253
Total Toxic
0 .92
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
26.58 .
15.95
Total Suspended 54.589 25.916
So lids
gH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-10 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0 .693
0.306
1 19
Chromium*
0.90
0.37
1 20
Copper
3 .870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.6
0.25
122
Lead
0.856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.91 1
2.587
125
Selenium
2 .506
1 .120
128
Z inc*
2.98
1 .25
Aluminum
13 .098
6.518
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
40 .74
24.44
Total Suspended
83 .517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
¦¦ — ¦ ¦¦ ¦ —1 i 1
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0 .061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
1 20
Copper
0.340
0.179
121
Cyanide*
0 .052
0.022
1 22
Lead
0 .075
0 .036
1 24
Nickel
0.344
0.227
1 25
Selenium
0.220
0.098
1 28
Z inc*
0.262
0.109
Aluminum
1.151
0.573
Total Toxic
0 .1 24
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.58
2.15
Total Suspended
7 .339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7,0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-10 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
119
Chromium*
0.61
0.25
120
Copper
2 .643
1 .391
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0.584
0.278
124
Nickel
2.671
1 .767
125
Selenium
1 .711
0.765
128
Zinc*
2 .03
0.85
Aluminum
8.944
4.451
Total Toxic
0.96
_
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
27.82
16.69
Total Suspended
57.031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning <
or Etching -
Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
119
Chromium*
0.85
0.35
120
Copper
3.673
1 .933
121
Cyanide*
0.56
0.23
122
Lead
0.812
0.387
124
Nickel
3.71 1
2.455
125
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
128
Zinc*
2.83
1.18
Aluminum
12.429
6.186
Total Toxic
1 .34
_
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
38.66
23.20
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XI1-11
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum extruded
1 IB
Cadmium
0.116
0.051
1 19
Chromium*
0.15
0.061
1 20
Copper
0 .646
0.340
1 21
Cyanide*
0.098
0.041
1 22
Lead
0.143
0.068
1 24
Nickel
0.653
0 .432
1 25
Selenium
0.418
0.187
1 28
Zinc*
0.49
0.21
Aluminum
2.187
1 .088
Total Toxic
0.23
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
6 .80
4.07
Total Suspended
13.944
6.632
Solids
pH Within the range
of
7.0 to 10
.0 at all times.
Direct Chill
Casting - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum cast
by direct
chill methods
118
Cadmium
0.452
0.199
1 19
Chromium*
0.59
0.24
1 20
Copper
2 .525
1 .329
121
Cyanide*
0.39
0.1 6
122
Lead
0.558
0.266
1 24
N ickel
2.552
1 .688
1 25
Selenium
1 .635
0 .731
1 28
Z inc*
1 .94
0.81
Aluminum
8.545
4.253
Total Toxic
0.92
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
26 .58
15.95
Total Suspended
54.489
25 .916
Solids
pH Within the range
of
7.0 to 10
.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-11 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
119
Chromium*
0.90
0.37
120
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.59
0.25
122
Lead
0.856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.91 1
2.587
125
Selenium
2.506
1 .120
128
Zinc*
2.98
1 .25
Aluminum
13.098
6.518
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
40.74
24.45
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - -Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0.179
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0 .036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0 ,.098
128
Zinc*
0.26
0-109
Aluminum
1 .151
0..573
Total Toxic
0.1 24
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.58
2.15
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-11 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
A
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.61
0.25
1 20
Copper
2.643
1 .391
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
1 22
Lead
0.584
0.278
124
Nickel
2.671
1 .767.
1 25
Selenium
1 .71 1
0.765
1 28
Zinc*
2.03
0.85
Aluminum
8 .944
4.451
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
27 .82
1 6.69
Total Suspended
57 .031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning
or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
1 19
Chromium*
0.85
0.35
1 20
Copper
3.673
1 .933
121
Cyanide*
0.56
0.23
1 22
Lead
0.812
0.387
1 24
Nickel
3.71 1
2.455
1 25
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
128
Zinc*
2.82
1.18
Aluminum
12 .429
6.186
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
38 .66
23.20
Total Suspended
79.253
37 .694
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-11 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for *
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum degassed
118
Cadmium
0.00
0.00
119
Chromium*
0.00
0.00
1 20
Copper
0 .00
0.00
121
Cyanide*
0.00
0.00
122
Lead
0.00
0 .00
124
Nickel
0.00
0.00
125
Selenium
0.00
0.00
128
Zinc*
0.00
0 .00
Aluminum
0.00
0.00
Total Toxic
0.00
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.00
0.00
Total Suspended
0.00
0 .00
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum extruded
118
Cadmium
0.503
0.222
119
Chromium*
0.65
0.27
120
Copper
2.808
1 .478
121
Cyanide*
0.43
0.18
122
Lead
0.621
0.296
124
Nickel
2 .838
1 .877
125
Selenium
1.818
0.813
128
Zinc*
2.16
0.90
Aluminum
9.504
4.730
Total Toxic
1 .02
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
29.56
17.74
Total Suspended
60.598
28 .821
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-12
PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
forged
1 18
Cadmium
0.017
0.007
1 19
Chromium*
0.022
0.009
1 20
Copper
0 .095
0 .050
1 21
Cyanide*
0.01 5
0.006
1 22
Lead
0.021
0 .010
1 24
Nickel
0.096
0 .063
1 25
Selenium
0.061
0.027
1 28
Zinc*
0 .073
0 .031
Aluminum
0 .320
0 .1 59
Total Toxic
0.035
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .00
0 .60
Total Suspended
2.042
0 .971
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to
10.0 at all times.
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
forged
1 18
Cadmium
0.032
0 .014
1 19
Chromium*
0.042
0.017
1 20
Copper
0.1 79
0.094
121
Cyanide*
0 .028
0.01 1
122
Lead
0.040
0.01 9
124
Nickel
0.181
0 .1 20
1 25
Selenium
0.116
0 .052
128
Zinc*
0.14
0.058
Aluminum
0.606
0 .302
Total Toxic
0.065
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .89
1.13
Total Suspended
3.867
1 .839
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.0 to 10«0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-12 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
119
Chromium*
0.897
0.37
120
Copper
3.870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.591
0.25
122
Lead
0.856
0.408
124
Nickel
3.91 1
2.587
125
Selenium
2.506
1 .120
128
Zinc*
2.98
1 .24
Aluminum
13.098
6.518
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
40.74
24.45
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0.1 79
1 21
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0 .036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
1 28
Zinc*
0.26
0.11
Aluminum
1 .151
0 .573
Total Toxic
0.1 23
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.58
2.15
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-12 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
1 19
Chromium*
0.61
0.25
1 20
Copper
2.643
1 .391
1 21
Cyanide*
0.40
0.17
122
Lead -
0.584
0.278
1 24
Nickel
2.671
1 .767
125
Selenium
1 .71 1
0.765
1 28
Zinc*
2.03
0.85
Aluminum
8.944
4.451
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
27.82
16.70
Total Suspended
57 .031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of 7,0
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning
or Etching - Scrubber
Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
119
Chromium*
0.851
0.35
1 20
Copper
3.673
1 .933
1 21
Cyanide*
0.561
0.23
122
Lead
0.812
0.387
1 24
Nickel
3.71 1
2.455
125
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
128
Zinc*
2.82
1.18
Aluminum
12.429
6.186
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
38 .66
23.20
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-13
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for Majcimum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
drawn with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.01 7
0.007
1 19
Chromium*
0.022
0 .009
120
Copper
0.097
0 .050
121
Cyanide*
0.015
0.006
122
Lead
0 .021
0 .010
124
Nickel
0.096
0.063
125
Selenium
0 .061
0 .027
128
Zinc*
0.073
0.031
Aluminum
0 .320
0.159
Total Toxic
0.035
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .00
0.60
Total Suspended
2.042
0.971
Solids
pH Within
the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.066
0.029
119
Chromium*
0.086
0.035
1 20
Copper
0 .368
0.194
121
Cyanide*
0.057
0 .023
122
Lead
0.082
0 .039
124
Nickel
0.372
0 .246
125
Selenium
0.239
0 .1 07
128
Zinc*
0.283
0.118
Aluminum
1 .247
0 .620
Total Toxic
0.1 33
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.878
2.327
Total Suspended
7 .950
3 .781
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-13 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m\
g/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
1 19
Chromium*
0.0009
0.0004
1 20
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
121
Cyanide*
0 .0006
0.0003
122
Lead
0 .0008
0.0004
124
Nickel
0.0038
0.0025
1 25
Selenium
0.0024
0 .0011
1 28
Zinc*
0.0029
0.0012
Aluminum
0.0126
0.0063
Total Toxic
0 .0014
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.040
0.024
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids
pH Within the range
of
•
o
rr
O
O
•
0 at all times .
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0 .693
0.306
119
Chromium*
0.896
0.367
1 20
Copper
3 .870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.591
0.245
122
Lead
0.856
0.408
124
N ickel
3.91 1
2.587
125
Selenium
2.506
1 .120
1 28
Zinc*
2.98
1 .24
Aluminum
13 .098
6.518
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
40.74
24.45
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range
of
•
o
rr
O
O
•
0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-13 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.033
120
Copper
0.340
0.179
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc*
0.262
0.109
Aluminum
1 .151
0.573
Total Toxic
0.124
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.58
2.15
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0 .209
119
Chromium*
0.612
0.251
120
Copper
2.643
1 .391
121
Cyanide*
0.404
0.17
122
Lead
0.584
0.278
124
Nickel
2.671
1 .767
125
Selenium
1 .71 1
0.765
128
Zinc*
2.03
0.85
Aluminum
8.944
4.451
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
27.82
1 6.70
Total Suspended
57.031
27.125
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10,0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-13 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg^ (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
119
Chromium*
0.851
0.348
120
Copper
3.673
1 .933
121
Cyanide*
0.561
0.232
122
Lead
0.812
0.387
124
Nickel
3.71 1
2.455
125
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
128
Zinc*
2.82
1 .18
Aluminum
12.429
6.186
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
38.66
23.20
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-14
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum drawn
with emulsions or soaps
118
Cadmium
0.159
0.070
119
Chromium*
0.205
0.084
120
Copper
0 .886
0 .466
121
Cyanide*
0.1 35
0.056
122
Lead
0.196
0.093
124
Nickel
0 .895
0.592
125
Selenium
0.574
0.256
128
Zinc*
0.681
0.285
Aluminum
2.998
1 .492
Total Toxic
0.32
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
9.33
5.60
Total Suspended
19.118
9.093
Solids
pH Within the range of 7,0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m,
g/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
cast by
continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0 .066
0 .029
119
Chromium*
0.086
0.035
120
Copper
0.368
0 .1 94
121
Cyanide*
0.056
0.024
122
Lead
0.082
0.039
1 24
Nickel
0.372
0 .246
1 25
Selenium
0.239
0.107
128
Zinc*
0.283
0.119'
Aluminum
1 .247
0.620
Total Toxic
0.1 34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.88
2.33
Total Suspended
7 .950
3 .781
Solids
pH Within the range
o
•
r»-
o
to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XI1-14 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous
Rod Casting -
* Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m;
g/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
1 18
Cadmium
0.0007
0.0003
119
Chromium*
0.0009
0.0004
1 20
Copper
0.0037
0.0020
1 21
Cyanide*
0.0006
0.0003
1 22
Lead
0.0008
0 .0004
124
Nickel
0.0038
0.0025
125
Selenium
0.0024
0 .0011
128
Zinc*
0.0029
0.0012
Aluminum
0.0126
0.0063
Total Toxic
0.0014
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.040
0.024
Total Suspended
0.0805
0.0383
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.693
0.306
1 19
Chromium*
0.896
0.367
1 20
Copper
3 .870
2.037
121
Cyanide*
0.591
0.245
122
Lead
0.856
0.408
1 24
Nickel
3.91 1
2.587
1 25
Selenium
2.506
1 .120
128
Zinc*
2.98
1 .25
Aluminum
13.098
6.518
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
40.74
24.44
Total Suspended
83.517
39.722
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-14 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.061
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.079
0.032
120
Copper
0.340
0.1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.052
0.022
122
Lead
0.075
0.036
124
Nickel
0.344
0.227
125
Selenium
0.220
0.098
128
Zinc*
0.262
0.11
Aluminum
1 .151
0.573
Total Toxic
0.1 24
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.58
2.15
Total Suspended
7.339
3.491
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.473
0.209
119
Chromium*
0.612
0.251
120
Copper
2.643
1 .391
121
Cyanide*
0.404
0.167
122
Lead
0.584
0.278
124
Nickel
2.671
1 .767
125
Selenium
1 .71 1
0.765
128
Zinc*
2.03
0.849
Aluminum
8.944
4.451
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
27 .82
16.69
Total Suspended
57.031
2.7.125
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-14 (Continued)
PSES FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.657
0.290
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.851
0.348
1 20
Copper
3.673
1 .933
121
Cyanide*
0.561
0.232
1 22
Lead
0.812
0. 387
1 24
Nickel
3.711
2.455
1 25
Selenium
2.378
1 .063
128
Zinc*
2.82
1.18
Aluminum
12.429
6.186
Total Toxic
1 .34
(
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
38.66
23.20
Total Suspended
79.253
37.694
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-15
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams Without An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
rag/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
rolled with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.01 1
0.004
119
Chromium*
0.021
0.009
120
Copper
0.071
0.034
121
Cyanide*
0.01 1
0.005
122
Lead
0.016
0 .007
124
Nickel
0.030
0.021
125
Selenium
0.045
0.021
128
Zinc*
0.057
0.024
Aluminum
0.338
0.1 50
Total Toxic
0.038
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.54
0.54
Total Suspended
0.830
0.664
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Rolling With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams With An Annealing
Furnace Scrubber
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant- Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
rolled with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.01 6
0 .007
119
Chromium*
0.030
0.013
120
Copper
0.105
0 .050
121
Cyanide*
0.01 7
0.007
122
Lead
0 .023
0.011
124
Nickel
0.045
0.030
125
Selenium
0 .070
0 .030
128
Zinc*
0.084
0.035
Aluminum
0.499
0.221
Total Toxic
0 .057
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.81 7
0.817
Total Suspended
1 .225
0 .980
Solids
gH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XI1-15 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Sheet Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m
g/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.00039
0.00016
119
Chromium*
0.00073
0.00029
120
Copper
0.0025 •
0.0012
1 21
Cyanide*
0.00039
0.00016
122
Lead
0.0006
0.00026
124
Nickel
0.0011
0.00073
125
Selenium
0.0016
0.00073
128
Zinc*
0.0020
0.00082
Aluminum
0.01 2
0.0053
Total Toxic
0.0014
_
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.020
0.020
Total Suspended
0.030
0.024
Solids
pH Within the range
of
*7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat
Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
1 19
Chromium*
0.76
0.31
1 20
Copper
2.607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Nickel
1 .1 20
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
128
Z inc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum
12.446
5 .520
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
' Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444
Solids
pH Within the range
of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-15 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
119
Chromium*
0.067
0.027
1 20
Copper
0.229
0.109
121
Cyanide*
0.036
0.01 5
1 22
Lead
0.050
0.023
124
Nickel
0.099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
1 28
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum
1 .094
0.485
Total Toxic
0.124
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.148
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum
for Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One
Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of
aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
119
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
120
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
122
Lead
0.390
0.181
124
Nickel
0.765
0.515
125
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
128
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum
8.499
3.770
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20 .865
16.692
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-15 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
1 20
Copper
2.474
1.179
121
Cyanide*
0.39
0.16
1 22
Lead
0.541
0.251
1 24
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
1 25
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
1 28
Zinc*
1 .97
0.81
Aluminum
11.810
5 .238
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 9 .33
19.33
Total Suspended
28.995
23.196
Solids
? t.
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-16
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Rolling With Emulsions - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
rolled with emulsions
118
Cadmium
0.026
0.010
119
Chromium*
0.048
0.020
120
Copper
0.166
0.079
121
Cyanide*
0.026
0.01 1
122
Lead
0.037
0.017
124
Nickel
0.071
0.048
125
Selenium
0.106
0.048
128
Zinc*
0.133
0.055
Aluminum
0.793
0.352
Total Toxic
0.090
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .30
1 .30
Total Suspended
1 .947
1 .558
Solids
pH Within
the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times
Direct Chill Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum cast
by direct chill methods
118
Cadmium
0.266
0.106
119
Chromium*
0.49
0.20
120
Copper
1 .701
0.81 1
121
Cyanide*
0.27
0.11
122
Lead
0.372
0.173
124
Nickel
0.731
0.492
125
Selenium
1 .090
0.492
128
Zinc*
1 .36
0.56
Aluminum
8.120
3.602
Total Toxic
0.92
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
13.29
13.29
Total Suspended
19.935
15.948
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all tiroes
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-16 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
1 19
Chromium*
0.76
0.31
1 20
Copper
2.607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0. 571
0.265
124
Nickel
1 .1 20
0.754
1 25
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
1 28
Z inc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum
1 2.446
5.520
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0 .036
0.014
1 19
Chromium*
0.067
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
1 21
Cyanide*
0.036
0.01 5
1 22
Lead
0 .050
0.023
1 24
Nickel
0.099
0 .066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
1 28
Z inc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum
1 .094
0.485
Total Toxic
0.1 24
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.148
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-16 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE ROLLING WITH EMULSIONS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118 Cadmium 0.278 0.111
119 Chromium* 0.52 0.21
120 Copper 1.781 0.849
121 Cyanide* 0.28 0.11
122 Lead 0.390 0.181
124 Nickel 0.765 0.515
125 Selenium 1.140 0.515
128 Zinc* 1.42 0.59
Aluminum 8.499 3.770
Total Toxic 0.96
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease** 13.91 13.91
Total Suspended 20.865 16.692
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Airy One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
119
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
12a
Copper
2 .474
1 .179
121
Cyanide*
0.39
0.16
122
Lead
0.541
0.251
1 24
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
128
Zinc*
1 .97
0.81
Aluminum
1 1 .810
5 .238
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 9 .33
19.33
Total Suspended
28.995
23.196
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-17
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Extrusion - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum
for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One
Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs
) of
aluminum extruded
1 18
Cadmium
0 .068
0.027
119
Chromium*
0.13
0.05
120
Copper
0 .435
0.208
121
Cyanide*
0.07
0.03
122'
Lead
0.095
0.0 44 -
124
Nickel
0.187
0.126
125
Selenium
0 .279
0.126
128
Zinc*
0.35
0.15
Aluminum
2.078
0.922
Total Toxic
0 .24
- X
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
3.40
3.40
Total Suspended
5.102
4.081
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10
.0 at all times.
Direct Chill
Cas ting
- Contact Cooling
Water
Pollutant or
Maximum
for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One
Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum cast by direct
chill methods
1 18
Cadmium
0 .266
0.106
1 19
Chromium*
0.49
0.20
120
Copper
1 .701
0.81 1
121
Cyanide*
0.27
0.11
122
Lead
0 .372
0.173
124
Nickel
0.731
0.492
125
Selenium
1 .090
0.492
128
Zinc*
1 .36
0.56
Aluminum
8.120
3.602
Total Toxic
0 .92
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
13 .29
13.29
Total Suspended 19.935 15.948
Solids
£H Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-17 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Solution and Press Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0,31
120
Copper
2.607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.17
122
Lead
0.571
0. 265
124
Nickel
1 .120
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
1 28
Zinc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum
12.446
5.520
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444 '
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
119
Chromium*
0.067
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
121
Cyanide*
0.036
0.01 5
122
Lead
0 .050
0.023
124
Nickel
0.099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
128
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum
1 .094
0.485
Total Toxic
0.124
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.148
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-17 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
1 20
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
122
Lead
0. 390
0.181
1 24
Nickel
0.765
0.515
1 25
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
1 28
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum
8.499
3.770
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 3.91
1 3 .91
Total Suspended
20.865
16.692
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning <
or Etching - Scrubber
Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
1 1 9
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
1 20
Copper
2.474
1.179
1 21
Cyanide*
0.39
0.16
1 22
Lead
0.541
0.251
1 24
Nickel
1.063
0.715
1 25
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
1 28
Zinc*
1 .97
0.81
Aluminum
11.810
5 .238
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 9 .33
1 9 .33
Total Suspended
28.995
23.196
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0
to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-17 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE EXTRUSION SUBCATEGORY
Degassing - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum degassed
1 18
Cadmium
0.00
0.00
119
Chromium*
0.00
0.00
120
Copper
0.00
0.00
121
Cyanide*
0.00
0.00
122
Lead
0.00
0.00
124
Nickel
0.00
0 .00
125
Selenium
0.00
0.00
128
Zinc*
0.00
0.00
Aluminum
0.00
0.00
Total Toxic
0.00
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.00
0.00
Total Suspended
0.00
0.00
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Extrusion Press Hydraulic Fluid Leakage
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum extruded
118
Cadmium
0.060
0.024
119
Chromium*
0.11
0.05
120
Copper
0.381
0.182
121
Cyanide*
0.060
0.03
122
Lead
0.084
0.039
124
Nickel
0.1 64
0.110
125
Selenium
0.244
0.110
128
Zinc*
0.31
0.13
Aluminum
1 .821
0.808
Total Toxic
0.21
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
2.98
2 .98
Total Suspended
4.470
3.576
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-18
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Forging - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum forged
1 18
Cadmium
0.010
0.004
1 19
Chromium*
0.019
0.008
1 20
Copper
0.064
0.030
121
Cyanide*
0.010
0.004
122
Lead
0.014
0 .007
1 24
Nickel
0.027
0.018
125
Selenium
0.041
0 .018
1 28
Zinc*
0.051
0.021
Aluminum
0.304
0.135
Total Toxic
0.035
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.50
0.50
Total Suspended
0.747
0.598
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Forging - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum forged
1 18
Cadmium
0.019
0.008
1 19
Chromium*
0.035
0.014
1 20
Copper
0.121
0 .058
121
Cyanide*
0.01 9
0.008
122
Lead
0.027
0 .013
124
Nickel
0.052
0 .035
1 25
Selenium
0.077
0.035
1 28
Z inc*
0.096
0.040
Aluminum
0.576
0 .256
Total Toxic
0.065
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.95
0.95
Total Suspended
1 .41 5
1 .132
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-18 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0.31
120
Copper
2.607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.16
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Nickel
1 .1 20
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
128
Zinc*
2.08
0.86
Aluminum
12.446
5.520
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
119
Chromium*
0.067
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
121
Cyanide*
0.036
0.015
122
Lead
0.050
0.023
124
Nickel
0.099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
128
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum
1 .094
0.485
Total Toxic
0.124
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.148
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated po.llutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-18 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE FORGING SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching -
Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
119
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
1 20
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0 .28
0.11
1 22
Lead
0.390
0.181
1 24
Nickel
.0.765
0.515
1 25
Selenium
1.140
0.51 5
1 28
Z inc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum
8.499
3.770
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil &. Grease**
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20.865
16.692
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning <
or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
1 1'9-
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
1 20
Copper
2.474
1 .1 79
121
Cyanide*
0.39
0.16
1 22
Lead
. 0.541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1.585
0.715
1 28
Z inc*
1 .97 .
0.812
Aluminum
1 1 .810
5.238
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
19.33
19.33
Total Suspended
28.995
23.196
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-19
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Neat Oils - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Max imum fo r
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
drawn with neat oils
118
Cadmium
0.010
0.004
119
Chromium*
0.019
0.008
120
Copper
0 .064
0.030
121
Cyanide*
0.010
0.004
122
Lead
0.014
0 .007
124
Nickel
0.027
0.018
125
Selenium
0.041
0.018
128
Zinc*
0.051
0.021
Aluminum
0.304
0.135
Total Toxic
0.035
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0 .50
0.50
Total Suspended
0.747
0.598
Solids
pH Within the range
of
7.
0 to 10.0 at all times,
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact
Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m
g/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
cast
by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.039
0 .016
119
Chromium*
0.072
0.029
120
Copper
0.248
0.118
121
Cyanide*
0.039
0.016
122
Lead
0 .054
0 .025
124
Nickel
0.1 07
0.072
125
Selenium
0.1 59
0.072
128
Zinc*
0 .1 98
0.082
Aluminum
1 .185
0.526
Total Toxic
0.1 34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .94
1 .94
Total Suspended
2.909
2.327
Solids
pH Within the range
of
7.
0 to 10.0 at all times
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-19 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or Maximum for Maximum for
Pollutant Property Any One Day Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0 .00039
0 .00016
119
Chromium*
0 .0007
0.0003
120
Copper
0.0025
0.0012
121
Cyanide*
0 .0004
0.0002
1 22
Lead
0 .00055
0.00026
124
Nickel
0.0011
0.00073
1 25
Selenium
0.0016
0 .00073
128
Zinc*
0.0020
0 .0008
Aluminum
0.01 2
0.0053
Total Toxic
0.0014
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.020
0.020
Total Suspended
0.029
0.024
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
1 18
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0.306
120
Copper
2 .607
1 .243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.163
1 22
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Nickel
1 .1 20
0 .754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
128
Z inc*
2.08
0.856
Aluminum
12.446
5.520
Total Toxic
1 .41
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
20 .37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444
Sol ids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-19 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
119
Chromium*
0.067
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
121
Cyanide*
0.036
0.015
122
Lead
0.050
0 .023
124
Nickel
0.099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
128
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum
1 .094
0.485
Total Toxic
0.124
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.148
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Max iraum fo r
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
119
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
120
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
122
Lead
0.390
0.181
124
Nickel
0.765
0.515
125
Selenium
1 .140
0.515
128
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum
8.499
3.770
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20.865
16.692
Solids
pH Within the range of 7
.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-19 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH NEAT OILS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.154
1 19
Chromium*
0.72
0.29
120
Copper
2.474
1 .1 79
1 21
Cyanide*
0.39
0.16
122
Lead
0.541
0.251
1 24
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
125
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
1 28
Zinc*
1 .97
0.812
Aluminum
11.810
5.238
Total Toxic
1.34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
19.33
19.33
Total Suspended
28.995
23.196
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-20
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Drawing With Emulsions or Soaps' - Core Waste Streams
Pollutant or .
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum drawn with emulsions or soaps
1 18
Cadmium
0.093
0.037
1 19
Chromium*
0.173
0.070
120
Copper
0.597
0.284
1 21
Cyanide*
0.094
0.038
122
Lead
0.131
0.061
124
Nickel
0.257
0.1 73
125
Selenium
0.382
0.173
128
Zinc*
0.48
0.1 96
Aluminum
2.849
1.264
Total Toxic
0.32
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
4.67
4.67 '
Total Suspended
6.995
5.596
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Continuous Rod Casting - Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m
g/kg (lb/million lbs) of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.039
0.016
119
Chromium*
0.072
0.029
120
Copper
0.248
0.118
121
Cyanide*
0.039
0.016
1 22
Lead
0 .054
0 .025
124
Nickel
0.107
0.072
125
Selenium
0.1 59 .
0.072
128
Zinc*
0.198 ''
0.082
Aluminum
1.185
0.526
Total Toxic
0.134
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .94 .
1 .94
Total Suspended
2.909
2.327
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
^Regulated pollutants.
**Altemate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-20 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Continuous Rod Casting - Spent Lubricant
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
m
g/kg (lb/million lbs)
of aluminum
cast by continuous methods
118
Cadmium
0.00039
0.00016
119
Chromium*
0.0008
0.0003
120
Copper
0.0025
0.0012
121
Cyanide*
0.0004
0.0002
122
Lead
0.00055
0.00026
124
Nickel
0.0011
0.00073
125
Selenium
0.0016
0.00073
128
Zinc*
0.0020
0.0008
Aluminum
0.01 2
0.0053
Total Toxic
0.0014
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
0.020
0.020
Total Suspended
. 0.029
0.024
Solids
pH Within the range
of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Solution Heat Treatment -.Contact Cooling Water
Pollutant or
Maximum for;
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million lbs) of
aluminum quenched
118
Cadmium
0.407
0.163
119
Chromium*
0.76
0.306
120
Copper
2.607
1.243
121
Cyanide*
0.41
0.163
122
Lead
0.571
0.265
124
Nickel
1.120
0.754
125
Selenium
1 .670
0.754
128
Zinc*
2.08
0.856
Aluminum
12.446
5.520
Total Toxic
1 .41
f-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
20.37
20.37
Total Suspended
30.555
24.444
Solids
_E1L
Within the range of 7,0 to 10.0 at all times
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-20 (Continued)
PSNS FOR THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Bath
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.036
0.014
119
Chromium*
0.067
0.027
120
Copper
0.229
0.109
121
Cyanide*
0.036
0.015
122
Lead
0.050
0.023
124
Nickel
0.099
0.066
125
Selenium
0.147
0.066
128
Zinc*
0.183
0.075
Aluminum
1 .094
0.485
Total Toxic
0.1 24
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
1 .79
1 .79
Total Suspended
2.685
2.148
Solids
pH Within the range of 7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
Cleaning or Etching - Rinse
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
118
Cadmium
0.278
0.111
119
Chromium*
0.52
0.21
120
Copper
1 .781
0.849
121
Cyanide*
0.28
0.11
1 22
Lead
0.390
0.181
124
Nickel
0.765
0.515
125
Selenium
1 .140
0.51 5
128
Zinc*
1 .42
0.59
Aluminum
8.499
3.770
Total Toxic
0.96
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
13.91
13.91
Total Suspended
20.865
16.692
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
Table XII-20 (Continued)
PSNS FOE THE DRAWING WITH EMULSIONS OR SOAPS SUBCATEGORY
Cleaning or Etching - Scrubber Liquor
Pollutant or
Maximum for
Maximum for
Pollutant Property
Any One Day
Monthly Average
mg/kg (lb/million
lbs) of aluminum
cleaned or etched
1 18
Cadmium
0.387
0.1 54
1 19
Chromium*
0.715
0.290
120
Copper
2.474
1 .1 79
1 21
Cyanide*
0.387
0.1 55
122
Lead
0.541
0.251
124
Nickel
1 .063
0.715
1 25
Selenium
1 .585
0.715
128
Zinc*
1 .97
0.81 2
Aluminum
1 1 .810
5.238
Total Toxic
1 .34
-
Organics (TTO)*
Oil & Grease**
19.33
19.33
Total Suspended
28.995
23.196
Solids
pH Within the range of
7.0 to 10.0 at all times.
*Regulated pollutants.
**Alternate monitoring limit - oil and grease may be substituted
for TTO.
-------
-------
SECTION XIII
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section
301(b)(2)(E), establishing "best conventional pollutant control
technology" (BCT) for discharge of conventional pollutants from
existing industrial point sources. Biological oxygen-demanding
form, oil and grease (O&G), and pH are considered by EPA to be
conventional pollutants (see 44 FR 50732).
BCT is not an additional limitation but replaces BAT for the con-
trol of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors
specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT lim-
itations be assessed in light of a two part "cost-reasonableness"
test (American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir.
1981)). The first test compares the cost for private industry to
reduce its conventional pollutants with the costs to publicly
owned treatment works for similar levels of reduction in their
discharge of these pollutants. The second test examines the
cost-effectiveness of additional industrial treatment beyond BPT.
EPA must find that limitations are "reasonable" under both tests
before establishing them as BCT. In no case may BCT be less
stringent than BPT.
EPA published its methodology for carrying out the BCT analysis
on August 29, 1979 (44 FR 50732). In the case mentioned above,
the Court of Appeals ordered EPA to correct data errors underly-
ing EPA's calculation of the first,test, and to apply the second
cost test. (EPA argued that a second cost test was not
required.) On October 29, 1982, the Agency proposed a revised
BCT methodology. EPA is deferring proposal of BCT limitations
for the aluminum forming category until the revised methodology
can be applied to the technologies available for the control of
conventional pollutants in the aluminum forming category.
-------
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The initial drafts of this document were prepared by Sverdrup &
Parcel and Associates under Contract No. 68-01-4408. The docu-
ment has been checked and revised at the specific direction of
EPA personnel by Radian Corporation under Contract No. 68—01—
6529.
The initial field sampling programs were conducted under the
leadership of Garry Aronberg of Sverdrup & Parcel. Preparation
and writing of the initial drafts of this document were accom-
plished by Donald Washington, Garry Aronberg, Claudia O'Leary,
Anthony Tawa, Charles Amelotti, James Coll, and Jeff Carlton of
Sverdrup & Parcel. Subsequent revisions to this document and
preparation in its final form were performed under the leadership
of James Sherman, Program Manager, Mark Hereth, Project Director,
Michael Zapkin and Heidi Welner, Aluminum Forming Task Leaders of
Radian Corporation. Field sampling programs after proposal were
conducted under the leadership of Nancy Stein and Mark Hereth.
Ronald Dickson, Marc Papai, Robert Curtis, John Collins, Thomas
Grome, Karen Christensen, Lori Stoll, and Laurie Morgan contri-
buted in specific assignments in the final preparation of this
document.
The project was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Ernst P. Hall, Chief, Metals and Machinery Branch. The technical
project officer i.s Janet K. Goodwin; previous technical project
officers include Carl Kassebaum, and Stewart Col ton. The proj-
ect's legal advisor is Jill Weller; previous legal advisors who
contributed to this project include Ellen Maldonado, Mike
Dworkin, Richard Shechter, and Daniel Glanz. The economic proj-
ect officer is Ellen Warhit; previous economic project officers
include Joseph Yance, John Ataman, Emily Hartnell, and William
Webster. Statistical and environmental evaluations were
performed by Monitoring and Data Support Division. Statistical
evaluations were performed by Henry Kahn and Barnes Johnson.
Environmental evaluations were performed by Eleanor Zimmerman,
Richard Healy, and Richard Silver.
The cooperation of the Aluminum Association, Inc., their tech-
nical committee, and the individual aluminum forming companies
whose plants were sampled and who submitted detailed information
in response to questionnaires, letters, and telephone contacts is
gratefully appreciated.
Acknowledgement and appreciation is also given to the secretarial
staff of Radian Corporation (Nancy Reid, Daphne Phillips, Sandra
Moore, and Pamela Amshey).
-------
A special commendation is given to the word processing staff of
the Effluent Guidelines Division (Pearl Smith, Carol Swann, and
Glenda Clarke) for their tireless efforts preparing the numerous
drafts# necessary revisions, and , preparation of this effluent
guidelines document.
-------
SECTION XV
REFERENCES
"Acrolein" Final Water Qual i'ty Criteria!, PB1 1 7277, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Adin, A., Baumann, E. R., Cleasby, J. L., 1979, "The Application
of Filtration Theory to Pilot-Plant .Design," Journal of the
American Water Works Association, January.
Alloid Colloids, Inc. brochure.
Aluminum Association, The Story of Aluminum.
Aluminum Company of Canada, LTD, 1961, Handbook of Aluminum, 2nd
ed., Montreal.
American Cyanamid Company brochure.
American Society for Metals, 1964, Heat Treating, Cleaning, and
Finishing, Metals Handbook, 8th ed., Vol. 2, OH.
American Society for Metals, 1967, Aluminum, Volume III, Fabri-
cation and Finishing, ed. Van Horn, K. R., Metals Park, OH.
American Society for Metals, 1970, Forging and Casting, Metals
Handbook, 8th ed., Vol. 5, OH.
American Society for Metals, 1982, Surface Cleaning, Finishing,
and Coating, Metals Handbook, 9th ed., Vol. 5, OH.
Amstead, B. H., Ostwald, P. F., Begeman, M. L., 1977,
Manufacturing Processes, 7th ed., John Wiley & Sons, NY.
"Antimony" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117319, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
API, 1969, Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes: Volume on
Liquid Wastes, 1st ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
D.C.
Argo and Wesner, 1976, "AWT Energy Needs a Prime Concern," Water
and Wastes Engineering, 13:5:24.
"Arsenic" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117327, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
-------
Barierji and O'Conner, 1 977, "Designing More Energy Efficient
Wastewater Treatment Plants," Civi1 Engineering ASCE, 47:7:76.
Bansal, I. K., 1977, "Reverse Osmosis and Ultrafiltration of Oily
and Pulping Effluents," Industrial Wastes, May/June.
Barnard, J. L., Eckenfelder, W. W. Jr., 1971, Treatment Cost
Relationships for Industrial Waste Treatment, Technical Report
#23, Vanderbilt University.
Barron, M., Donohue, J., and Dziu, L., V. J. Ciccone Associates,
Inc., "Aluminum: An Environmental and Health Effects Assess-
ment," conducted under EPA Contract No. 68-01-6572, April 27,
1 983.
Basselievre, E. B., Schwartz, M., 1976, The Treatment of Indus-
trial Wastes, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Bauer, D., 1976, "Treatment of Oily Wastes—Oil Recovery Pro-
grams," Presented at 31st Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Confer-
ence.
"Benzene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117293, Criteria and
Standards Division, Officer of Water Regulations and Standards
(45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Beryllium" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117350, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Betz Labs brochure.
Brody, M. A., Lumpkins, R. J., 1977, "Performance of Dual Media
Filters," Chemical Engineering Progress, April.
Burns and Roe, 1979, Draft Technical Report for the Paint Indus-
try.
"Carbon Tetrachloride" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117376,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Cadmium" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117368, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Carborundum, 1977, "Dissolved Air Flotation Systems," December.
Catalytic, Inc., 1979, Treatment Catalogue for the Catalytic
Computer Model.
-------
Chemical Engineering, 1979, "Love Canal Aftermath: Learning from
a Tragedy," Chemical Engineering, October 22.
Chemical Marketing Reporter, March 17, 1978.
Cheremisinoff, P. N., Ellerbusch, F., 1978, Carbon Adsorption
Handbook, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Chieu, J. H., Gloyna, E. F., Schechter, R. S., 1975, "Coalescence
of Emulsified Oily Wastewater by Fibrous Beds," Presented at the
30th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
"Chlorobenzene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117392, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Chromium" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117467, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Clark, J. W., Viessman, W., Hammer, M. S., 1977, Water Supply and
Pollution Control, IEP-A Dun-Donnelley Publisher, New York, NY.
"Copper" Final Water Quality Criteria PB117475, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Culp and Culp, 1 974, New Concepts in Water Purification. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Culp, R. L., Wesner, G. M., Culp, G. L., 1978, Handbook of
Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York, NY.
"Cyanide" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117483, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Davies, B. T., Vose, R. W., 1977, "Custom Designs Cut Effluent
Treatment Costs, Case Histories at Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.," Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, p. 1035.
Dearborn Chemical Division brochure.
Denyo, D. J., ed., 1978, Unit Operations for Treatment of
Hazardous Wastes.
"1,1-Dichloroethylene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117525,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
-------
"Dinitrotoluene" Final Water Quality Critiera, PB117566, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Diphenylhydrazine" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117731,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Dickey, 1970, "Managing Waste Heat with the Water Cooling Tower,"
Marley Co.
Dugas, R. S., Reed, P. E., 1977, "Successful Pretreatment and
Deep Well Injection of Chemical Plant Wastewater," Presented at
32nd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Dynatech RID Company, 1969, A Survey of Alternate Methods for
Cooling Condenser Discharge Water, Large-scale Heat Rejection
Equipment, EPA Project No. 16130DH3.
Eckenfelder, W. W. Jr., O'Connor, D. J., 1961, Biological Waste
Treatment, Pergamon Press, NY.
"Endrin" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117582, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Endosulfan" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117574, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Envirodyne, "Dissolved Air Flotation & Solids Settling - Model
Jupitor - 7,000."
Environmental Quality Systems, Inc., 1973, Technical and Economic
Review of Advanced Waste Treatment Processes.
"Ethylbenzene" Final Water Quality Criteria PB117590, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Federal
Reg]
Lster,
43FR2150.
Federal
Reg]
Lster,
44FR15926.
Federal
Reg]
Lster,
44FR28716.
Federal
Reg]
LSter,
44FR43660.
Federal
Register,
44FR56628.
-------
"Fluoranthene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117673, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Ford, D. L., Elton, R. L., 1977, "Removal of Oil and Grease from
Industrial Wastewaters," Chemical Engineering, October 17, p.
49 .
Gloyna, E. F., Ford, D. L., 1974, Cited by Osamor, F. A., Ahlert,
R. C., 1978, in Oi 1 Water Separation: State-of-the-Art, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, PB-280 755.
Gross, A. C., 1979, "The Market for Water Management Chemicals,"
Environmental Science & Technology, 13:9:1050.
Guthrie, K. M., 1969, "Capital Cost Estimating," Chemical Engi-
neering, March 24.
Hagan and Roberts, 1976, "Energy Requirements for Wastewater
Treatment Plants, Part 2," Water and Sewage Works, 124:12:52.
Hager, D. G., 1 974, "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by GAC,11
Industrial Water Engineering, 11:1:18.
Hammer, M. J., 1975, Water and Wastewater Technology, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Hawley, Gessner G., rev., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 9th
ed.
Hercules brochure.
Hockenbury, M. R., Loven, A. W., 1977, "Treating Metal Forging
and Processing Wastewater," Industrial Wastes, 23:3:45.
Howes, Robert and Kent, Robert, 1970, Hazardous Chemicals
Handlinq and Disposal, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ.
Hsiung, K. Y., Mueller, H. M., Conley, W. R., 1974, "Physical-
Chemical Treatment for Oily Waste," Presented at WWEMA Industrial
Water Pollution Conference and Exposition, Detroit, MI, Cited by
Osamor, F. A., Ahlert, R. C., 1978, Oi1/Water Separation: State-
of-the-Art, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH,
PB-280 755.
Hutchins, R. A., 1975, "Thermal
Engineering Prog., 71:5:80.
Industrial Water Engineering,
Report," May.
Regeneration Costs," Chemical
1970, "Cooling Towers - Special
-------
Infilco Degremont, Inc., 1974, "Sediflotor Clarifier," Company
Brochure DBS30, September.
"Isophorone" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117764, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Jones, H. R., 1971, Environmental Control in the Organic and
Petrochemical Industries, Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ.
Journal of Metal Finishing; "Guidelines for Wastewater
Treatment," September and October, 1977.
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc., 1954, "Kaiser Aluminum
Rod, Bar, and Wire," Chicago, IL.
Katnick, K. E., Pavilcius, A. M., 1978, "A Novel Chemical
Approach for the Treatment of Oily Wastewaters," Presented at
33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd ed., 1963,
Interscience Publishers, New York, NY.
Koon, J. H., Adams, C. 1. Jr., Eckenfelder, W. W., 1973,
"Analysis of National Industrial Water Pollution Control Costs,"
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.
Krockta, H., Lucas, R. L., 1972, "Information Required for the
Selection and Performance Evaluation of Wet Scrubbers," Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, June.
Kumar, J. I., Clesceri, N. L., 1973, "Phosphorus Removal from
Wastewaters: A Cost Analysis," Water & Sewage Works, 120;3:82.
Lacey, R, E., 1972, "Membrane Separation Processes," Chemical
Engineering, Sept. 4.
Lange, Norbert, Adolph, 1973, Handbook of Chemistry, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
"Lead" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117681, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Lee, E. L., Schwab, R. E., 1978, "Treatment of Oily Machinery
Waste," Presented at 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Con-
ference.
Light Metal Age, 1976, "A New Russian Water-Based Emulsion for
Cold-Rolling Aluminum," October.
-------
Light Metal Age, 1978, "SCAL's 'Jumbo 3C' - A Big Step Forward in
Continuous Casting of Aluminum Sheet," April, pp. 6-12.
"Lime for Water and Wastewater Treatment: Engineering Data,"
BIF, Providence, Ref. No. 1.21-24.
Lin, Y. G., Lawson, J. R., 1973, "Treatment of Oily and Metal
Containing Wastewater," Pollution Engineering, November.
Lopez, C. X., Johnston, R., 1977, "Industrial Wastewater Recy-
cling with Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis," Presented at the
32nd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Lund, H. F., ed., 1971, Industrial Pollution Control Handbook,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Luthy, R. G., Selleck, R. E., Galloway, 1978, "Removal of Emulsi-
fied Oil with Organic Coagulants and Dissolved Air Flotation,"
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 50:2:331.
Maeder, E. G., 1975, "The D&I Can: How & Why it Does More with
Less Metal," Modern Metals, August, pp. 55-62.
Mastrovich, I. D., 1975, "Aluminum Can Manufacture," Lubrication,
Vol. 61, Texaco, Inc., April-June, pp. 17-36.
McKee, J. E. and Wolf, H. W., ed., 1963, Water Quality Criteria,
2nd ed., The Resources Agency of California, State Water Quality
Control Board, Publication No. 3-A.
McKinney, R. E., 1962, Microbiology for Sanitary Engineers,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY.
"Mercury" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117699, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Met-Pro brochure.
Mono-Scour brochure.
Myansnikov, I. N., Butseva, L. N., Gandurina, L. B., 1979, "The
Effectiveness of Flotation Treatments with Flocculants Applied to
Oil Wastewaters," Presented at USEPA Treatment of Oil Containing
Wastewaters, April 18 to 19, 1979, Cincinnati, OH.
"Naphthalene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117707, Criteria
and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
-------
National Commission on Water Quality, 1976, Water Pollution
Abatement Technology; Capabilities and Cost, PB-250 690-03.
Nebolsine, R., 1970, "New Methods for Treatment of Wastewater
Streams," Presented at 25th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Con-
ference.
"Nickel" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117715, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
NTIS, 1974, Cost of Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening of Waste
Activated Sludge at Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants, PB-226-
582.
Osamor, F. A., Ahlert, R. C., 1978, Oily Water Separation;
State-of-the-Art, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, EPA-600/2-78-069.
Patterson, James W., Wastewater Treatment Technology.
Patterson, J. W., 1976, "Technology and Economics of Industrial
Pollution Abatement," Illinois Institute for Environmental Qual-
ity, Document No. 76/22.
"Pentachlorophenol" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117764,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Peoples, R. F., Krishnan, P., Simonsen, R. N., 1972, "Nonbiologi-
cal Treatment of Refinery Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federat
Personal commun
Personal commun
Personal commun
Personal commun
Personal commun
on, November.
cation with Dave Baldwin of Tenco Hydro, Inc
cat
cat
cat
cat
on with Jeff Busse of Envirex.
on with Envirodyne sales representative.
on with Goad, Larry and Company.
on with Kerry Kovacs of Komiine-Sanderson.
Personal communication with Don Montroy of the Brenco Corporation
representing AFL Industries.
Personal communication with Jack Walters of Infilco-Degremont,
Inc.
Personal communication with Leon Zeigler of Air-o-Flow.
-------
Pielkenroad Separator Company brochure.
"Phenol" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117772, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Phthalate Esters" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117780,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations anc
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons" Final Water Quality Criteria,
PB117806, Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Quinn, R., Hendershaw, W. K., 1976, "A Comparison of Current
Membrane Systems Used in Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis,"
Industrial Water Engineerinq.
Raiford, P. K., 1975, "The Properzi Process for Continuous Cast
and Rolled Rod," Light Metal Age, December, pp. 16-22.
Redhair, M. L., 1977, "Degassing and Filtering Methods," Light
Metal Age, December, p. 22.
Regan, P. C., 1971, "Recent Developments in the Hazelett Process
for Continuous Casting of Aluminum Sheet and Rod," Light Metal
Age, April, pp. 10-15.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc., 1980, General Constructior
Est imating Standards, Sol ana Beach, CA.
Rizzo, J. L., Shephard, A. R., 1977a, "Treating Industrial Waste-
water with Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering, January 3, p.
95.
Rizzo, J. L., Shephard, A. R., 1977b, "Treating Industrial Waste-
water with Activated Carbon," Chemical Engineering, September 3.
Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., 1979, Building Construct ion Cost
Data 1979, Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Duxbury, MA.
Roberts, K. L., Weeter, D. W., Ball, R. 0., 1978, "Dissolved Air
Flotation Performance," 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Con-
ference, p. 194.
Sabadell, J. E., ed., 1973, Traces of Heavy Metals in Water
Removal Processes and Monitoring, USEPA, 902/9-74-001.
Sawyer, C. N., McCarty, P. L., 1967, Chemistry for Sanitan
Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY.
-------
Sax, N. Irving, , Dangerous Properties of Industrial
Materials, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Sax, N. Irving, 1974, Industrial Pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., New York, NY.
Sebastian, F. P., Lachtman, D. W., Kominek, E., Lash, L., 1979,
"Treatment of Oil Wastes Through Chemical, Mechanical, and Ther-
mal Methods," Symposium: Treatment of Oil-Containing Wastewater,
April 18-19, Cincinnati, OH.
Seiden and Patel, Mathematical Model of Tertiary Treatment by
Lime Addition, TWRC-14.
"Selenium" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117814, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Silver" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117822, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Smith, J. E., 1977, "Inventory of Energy Use in Wastev/ater Sludge
Treatment and Disposal," Industrial Water Engineering, 14:4:20.
Smith, R., 1968, "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of
Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
40:9:1546.
Sonksen, M. K., Sittig, M. F., Maziarz, E F., 1978, "Treatment of
Oily Wastes by Ultrafiltration/Reverse Osmosis - A Case History,"
Presented at 33rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference.
Spatz, D. D., 1974, "Methods of Water Purification," Presented to
the American Association of Nephrology Nurses and Technicians of
the NSAIO-AANNT Joint Conference, Seattle, Washington, April
1972, Revised July 1974.
Steel, E. W., 1960, Water Supply and Sewerage, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, NY.
Stephens, W. E., Vassily, G., 1971, "The Hunter Process of Strip
Casting," Light Metal Age, April, pp. 6-8.
Strier, M. P., 1978, "Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants
- Part C - Their Estimated (30-Day Average) Treated Effluent Con-
centration - A Molecular Engineering Approach," Report to Robert
B. Schaffer, Director, EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, July 11;
and "Treatability of Organic Priority Pollutants - Part D - The
-------
Pesticides - Their Estimated (30-Day Average) Treated Effluent
Concentration," December 26.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., 1977, Study of Selected
Pollutant Parameters in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Draft
report submitted to EPA-Effluent Guidelines Division, February.
Symons, J. M., 1978, Interim Treatment Guide for Controllinq
Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water Using Granular Activated
Carbon, Water Supply Research Division, Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.
Szekely, A. G., 1976, "The Removal of Solid Particles from Molten
Aluminum in the Spinning Nozzle Inert Flotation Process,"
Metallurgical Transactions B, Volume 7B, June.
Tabakin, R. B., Trattner, R., Cheremisinoff, P. N., 1978a,
"Oil/Water Separation Technology: The Options Available - Part
1," Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 125, No. 8, August.
Tabakin, R. B., Trattner, R., Cheremisinoff, P. N., 1978b,
"Oil/Water Separation Technology: The Options Available - Part
2," Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 125, No. 8, August.
"Toluene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117855, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"2,4,6—Trichlorophenol" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB1 17525,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
Thompson, C. S., 1972, "Cost and Operating Factors for Treatment
of Oily Waste Water," Oil and Gas Journal, 70:47:53.
Throup, W. M., 1976, "Why Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment?"
Industrial Wastes. July/August, p. 32.
"Trichloroethylene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117871,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
"Tetrachloroethylene" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117830,
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards (45 FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
U.S. Department of Interior, FWPCA, 1967, Industrial Waste
Profile No. 5. Petroleum Refining. Vol. III.
-------
U.S. Department of Interior, 1968a, Cost of Wastewater Treatment
Processes, TWRC-6.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1968b, Preliminary Design and
Simulation of Conventional Wastewater Renovation Systems Using
the Digital Computer, USDI-WP-20-9.
U.S. Department of Interior, 1969, Appraisal of Granular Carbon
Contacting, Report No. TWRC-12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fate of Priority Pollutants
in Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Volume I, Final Report, EPA
440/1-82/303.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971a, Estimating Costs and
Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, Water Pollution Control Research Series, 17 090 DAN.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971b, Experimental
Evaluation of Fibrous Bed Coalescers for Separating Oi1-Water
Emulsions, 12050 DRC, November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 973a, Capi tal and
Operating Costs of Pollution Control Equipment Module - Vol. II,
EPA-R5-73-023b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973b, Electrical Power
Consumption for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, EPA-R2-73-281.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 973c, Estimating Staffing
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities, EPA-68-01-0328.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973d, Process Design
Manual for Carbon Adsorption, EPA-625/1-71-002a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974a, Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category, EPA-
440/1-74-014a, April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b, Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category, EPA-440/1-74-014a, April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974c, Flow Equalization,
EPA—625/4-74-006.
-------
U.S'. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974d, Pol icy Statement on
Acceptable Methods of Utilization or Disposal or Sludges,
Washington, D.C..
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974e, Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Secondary Aluminum Subcategory of the Aluminum
Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, EPA-440/1-74-019e.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974g, "Wastewater
Filtration-Design Considerations," EPA Technology Transfer
Seminar Publication, July.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975a, A Guide to the
Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment System, EPA-
430/9-75-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975b, Costs of Wastewater
Treatment by Land Application, EPA-430/9-75-003, June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975c, Evaluation of Land
Application Systems, EPA-430/9-75-001, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975d, Lime Use in
Wastewater Treatment Design and Cost Data, EPA-600/2-75-038.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975e, Process Design
Manual for Suspended Sol ids Removal, EPA-625/1-75-003a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 197.6a, Cost Estimating
Manual—Combined Sewer Overflow Storage and Treatment, EPA-600/2-
76-286.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976b, Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Design Factors - I_, EPA Tech-
nology Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976c, Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Design Factors - I_I, EPA Tech-
nology Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1 976d, LandT Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effuents. Case Histories, EPA Technology
Transfer Seminar Publication.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976e, Supplement for
Pretreatment to the Interim Final Development Document for the
Secondary Aluminum Segment of the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Point Source Category, EPA-440/1-76-018c.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977a, Control1inq
Pollution from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal Products -
Vol. 2, Solvent Metal Cleaning Air Pollution Control,
Environmental Research Information Center, Technology Transfer,
May.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977b, Controllinq
Pollution from the Manufacturing and Coating of Metal Products:
Water Pollution Control, EPA Technology Transfer Seminar
Publication, May, EPA-625/3-77-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977c, Draft Development
Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Miscellaneous Nonferrous
Metals Segment, EPA-440/1-76/067.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977d, State-of-the-Art of
Small Water Treatment Systems, Office of Water Supply.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977e, Supplement for
Pretreatment to the Development Document for the Petroleum
Refining Industry Existing Point Source Category, March.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978a, Analysis of
Operation and Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Systems, EPA-430/9-77-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978b, Construction Costs
for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance System: 1973-1977, EPA-
430/9-77-014.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978c, Construction Costs
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1977, EPA-430/9-
77-013.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978d, Development Document
for Proposed Existing Source Pretreatment Standards for the
Electroplating Point Source Category, EPA-440/1-78/085, February.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978e, Estimating Costs for
Water Treatment as a Function of Size and Treatment Plant
Efficiency, EPA-600/2-78/182.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978f, Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, EPA-430/9-78-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978g, Process Design
Manual for Municipal Sludge Landfilis, EPA Technology Transfer,
EPA-625/1-78-010, SW-705, October.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 978h, Revised Economic
Impact Analysis of Proposed Regulations on Organic Contamination
Drinking Water, Office of Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979a, Dissolved Air
Flotation of Gulf Shrimp Cannery Wastewaterf EPA-600/2-79-061.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979b, Draft Development
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source
Category, Vol. Ill, EPA-440/1-79-024a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979c, Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source Category, EPA-
440/1 -79/01 9a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979d, Process Design
Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal, EPA-625/1-79-011,
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979e, Technical Study
Report BATEA - NSPS - PSES - PSNS, Major Nonferrous Metals,
Contract Nos. 68-01-3289, 68-01-4906.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979f, Environmental
Pollution Control Alternatives; Economics of Wastewater
Treatment Alternatives for the Electroplating Industry, EPA
Technology Transfer, EPA-625/5-79-016, June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, Draft Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Aluminum Forming Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-80/073-a,
September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1981a, Development Document -
for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Porcelain Enameling Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-81/
072-b, January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1981b, Development Document
for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Coil Coating Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-81/071-b,
January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982, Development Document
for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Metal Finishing Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-82/091-b,
August.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1977, Process Design
Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, EPA-625/1-77-
008, October.
V. J. Ciccone & Associates, Inc., Aluminum: An Environmental and
Health Effects Assessment, Additives Evaluation Branch, Criteria
and Standards Division, U.S. EPA, April 27, 1983.
Verschueren and Karel, 1972, Handbook of Environmental Data on
Organic Chemicals, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Wahl, J. R., Hayes, T. C., Kleper, M. H., Pinto, S. D., 1979,
"Ultrafiltration for Today's Oily Wastewaters: A Survey of
Current Ultrafiltration Systems," Presented at 34th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference.
Wallis, Claudia, "Slow, Steady, and Heartbreaking: Alzheimers
Disease is a Devastating Illness of Advancing Age; TIME, July 11,
1983.
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1977, MOP/8: Wastewater
Treatment Plant Design, WPCF, Washington, D.C.
Wyatt, M. J., White, P. E. Jr., 1975, Sludge Processing,
Transportat ion, and Disposal/Resource Recovery: A Planning
Perspective, Report No. EPA-WA-75-R024, December.
Zievers, J. F., Crain, R. A., Barclay, F. G., 1968, "Waste
Treatment in Metal Finishing: U.S. and European Practices,"
Cited by Technology and Economics of Industrial Pollution
Abatement, Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, Document
No. 76/22. as well as other pollutants including halogenated
organics.
"Zinc" Final Water Quality Criteria, PB117897, Criteria and
Standards Division, Office of Water Regulations and Standards (45
FR 79318-79379, November 28, 1980).
-------
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY
This section is an alphabetical listing of technical terms {with
definitions) used in this document which may not be familiar to
the reader.
4-AAP Colorimetric Method
An analytical method for total phenols and total phenolic com-
pounds that involves reaction with the color developing agent 4-
aminoantipyrine.
Acid Dip
Using any acid for the purpose of cleaning any material. Some
methods of acid cleaning are pickling and oxidizing.
Acidity
The quantitative capacity of aqueous solutions to react with
hydroxyl ions. Measured by titration with a standard solution of
a base to a specified end point. Usually expressed as milligrams
per liter of calcium carbonate.
The Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 92-500).
Aglna
A change in the properties of certain metals and alloys that
occurs at ambient or moderately elevated temperatures after hot
working or heat treatment {quench aging in ferrous alloys,
natural or artificial aging in ferrous and nonferrous alloys) or
after a cold working operation {strain aging). The change in
properties is often due to a phase change (precipitation), but
never involves a change in chemical composition of the metal or
alloy.
Alkaline Cleaning
A proces where dirt, mineral and animal fats, and oils are
removed from the metal surface by exposure to solutions at high
temperatures containing alkaline compounds, such as caustic soda,
soda ash, alkaline silicates, and alkaline phosphates.
Alkalinity
-------
The capacity of water to neutralize acids, a property imparted by
the water's content of carbonates, bicarbonates, hydroxides, and
occasionally borates, silicates, and phosphates. It is measured
by titration with a standardized acid to a specified end point,
and is usually reported in milligrams per liter of calcium
carbonate.
Aluminum Forming
A set of manufacturing operations in which aluminum and aluminum
alloys are made intp semifinished products by hot or cold
working.
Amortization
The allocation of a cost or account according to a specified
schedule, based on the principal, interest and period of cost
allocation.
Analytical Quantification Level
The minimum concentration at which quantification of a specified
pollutant can be reliably measured.
Ancillary Operations
A manufacturing operation that has a large flow, discharges
significant amounts of pollutants, and may not be present at
every plant in a subcategory, but when present it is an integral
part of the aluminum forming process.
Annealinq
A generic term describing a metals treatment process that is used
primarily to soften metallic materials, but also to simultane-
ously produce desired changes in other properties or in micro-
structure. The purpose of such changes may be, but is not
confined to, improvement of machinability, facilitation of cold
work, improvement of mechanical or electrical properties, or
increase in stability of dimensions. Annealing consists of heat-
ing and cooling the metal at varying rates to achieve the desired
properties.
Backwashinq
The operation of cleaning a filter or column by reversing the
flow of liquid through it and washing out matter previously
trapped.
Batch Treatment
-------
A waste treatment method where wastewater is collected over a
period of time and then treated prior to discharge. Treatment is
not continuous, but collection may be continuous.
Bench-Scale Pilot Studies
Experiments providing data concerning the treatability of a
wastewater stream or the efficiency of a treatment process con-
ducted using laboratory-size equipment.
Best Available Demonstrated Technology (BADT)
Treatment technology upon new source performance standards as
defined by Section 306 of the Act.
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
Level of technology applicable to toxic and nonconventional pol-
lutants on which effluent limitations are established. These
limitations are to be achieved by July 1, 1984 by industrial dis-
charges to surface waters as defined by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of
the Act.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
Level of technology applicable to conventional pollutant effluent
limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1984 for industrial dis-
charges to surface waters as defined in Section 304(b)(4)(E) of
the act.
Best Management Practices (BMP)
Regulations intended to control the release of toxic and hazard-
ous pollutants from plant runoff, spillage, leaks, solid waste
disposal, and drainage from raw material storage as discussed by
Section 304(3) of the Act.
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
Level of technology applicable to effluent limitations to have
been achieved by July 1, 1977 (originally) for industrial dis-
charges to surface waters as defined by Section 301(b)(1) of the
Act.
Bi1let
A long slender cast product used as raw material in subsequent
forming operations.
-------
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
The quantity of oxygen used in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter under specified conditions for a specified time.
Blowdown
The minimum discharge of circulating water for the purpose of
discharging dissolved solids or other contaminants contained in
the water, the further buildup of which would cause concentration
in amounts exceeding limits established by best engineering
practice.
Catalyst
An agent that (1) reduces the energy required for activating a
chemical reaction and (2) is not consumed by that reaction.
Chelation
The formation of coordinate covalent bonds between a central
metal ion and a liquid that contains two or more sites for com-
bination with the metal ion.
Chemical Finishing
Producing a desired finish on the surface c>f a metallic product
by immersing the workpiece in a chemical bath.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
A measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of the organic and
inorganic matter present in the water or wastewater.
Cleaning (see etching)
Cold Rolling
An operation that produces aluminum sheet with a thickness
between 6.25 cm and 0.015 cm (0.249 to 0.006 inches) by passing
the aluminum through a set of rolls. The process is an exo-
thermic process and causes strain-hardening of the product.
Colloid
Suspended solids whose diameter may vary between less than one
micron and fifteen microns.
Composite Samples
-------
A series of samples collected over a period of time but combined
into a single sample for analysis. The individual samples can be
taken after a specified amount of time has passed (time compo-
sited), or after a specified volume of water has passed the sam-
pling point (flow composited). The sample can be automatically
collected and composited by a sampler or can be manually
collected and combined.
Consent Decree (Settlement Agreement)
Agreement between EPA and various environmental groups, as insti-
tuted by the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, directing EPA to study and promulgate regulations for
the toxic pollutants (NRDC, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C.
1976), modified March 9, 1979, 12 ERC 1833, 1841).
Contact Water
Any wastewater which contacts the aluminum workpieces or the raw
materials used in forming aluminum.
Continuous Casting
A casting process that produces sheet, rod, or other long shapes
by solidifying the metal while it is being poured through an
open-ended mold using little or no contact cooling water. No
restrictions are placed on the length of the product and it is
not necessary to stop the process to remove the cast product.
Continuous casting of rod and sheet generates spent lubricants
and rod casting also generates contact cooling water.
Continuous Treatment
Treatment of waste streams operating without interruption as
opposed to batch treatment. Sometimes referred to as flowthrough
treatment.
Contractor Removal
Disposal of oils, spent solutions, or sludge by a commercial
firm.
Conventional Pollutants
Constitutents of wastewater as determined by Section 304(a)(4) of
the Act, including but not limited to pollutants classified as
biological-oxygen-demanding, oil and grease, suspended solids,
fecal coliforms, and pH.
-------
Conversion Coating
A coating produced by chemical or electrochemical treatment of a
metallic surface that gives a surface layer containing a compound
of the metal. For example, chromate coatings on zinc and cad-
mium, oxide coatings on steel.
Coolinq Tower
A hollow, vertical structure with internal baffles designed to
break up falling water so that it is cooled by upward-flowing air
and the evaporation of water.
Core Stream,
A waste stream generated by operations that always occur within a
particular subcategory.
Countercurrent Cascade Rinsing
A staged process that employs recycled, often untreated water as
a rinsing medium to clean metal products. Water flow is opposite
to product flow such that the most contaminated water encounters
incoming product first.
Data Collection Portfolio (dcp)
The questionnaire used in the survey of the aluminum forming
industry.
Degassing
The removal of dissolved hydrogen from the molten aluminum prior
to casting. Chemicals are added and gases are bubbled through
the molten aluminum. Sometimes a wet scrubber is used to reduce
opacity created by excess chlorine gas. This process also helps
to remove oxides and impurities from the melt.
Deoxidizing
The removal of any oxide film (such as aluminum oxide) from a
metal.
Desmutting
A process that removes a residual silt (smut) by immersing the
product in an acid solution, usually nitric acid.
Direct Chil1 Casting
-------
A method of casting where the molten aluminum is poured into a
water-cooled mold. Contact cooling water is sprayed onto the
aluminum as it is dropped into the mold, and the aluminum ingot
falls into a water bath at the end of the casting process. The
vertical distance of the drop limits the length of the ingot.
This process is also known as semi-continuous casting.
Direct Discharger
Any point source that discharges to a surface water.
Draqout
The solution that adheres to the objects removed from a bath or
rinse, more precisely defined as that solution which is carried
past the edge of the tank.
Drawing
Pulling the metal through a die or succession of dies to reduce
the metal's diameter or alter its shape. There are two aluminum
forming subcategories based on the drawing process. In the
drawing with neat oils subcategory, the drawing process uses a
pure or neat oil as a lubricant. In the drawing with emulsions
or soaps subcategory, the drawing process uses an emulsion or
soap solution as a lubricant.
Drying Beds
Areas for dewatering of sludge by evaporation and seepage.
Effluent
Discharge from a point source.
Effluent Limitation
Any standard (including schedules of compliance) established by a
state or EPA on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemi-
cal, physical, biological, and other constituents that are dis-
charged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of
the contiguous zone, or the ocean.
Electrochemical Finishing
Producing a desired finish on the surface of a metallic product
by immersing the workpiece in an electrolyte bath through which
direct current is passed.
-------
Electroplating
The production of a thin coating of one metal on another by elec-
trodeposition.
Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP)
A gas cleaning device that induces an electrical charge on a
solid particle which is then attracted to an oppositely charged
collector plate. The collector plates are intermittently
vibrated to discharge the collected dust to a hopper.
Emulsifying Agent
A material that increases the stability of a dispersion of one
liquid in another.
Emulsions
Stable dispersions of two immiscible liquids. In the aluminum
forming category this is usually an oil and water mixture.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
The reduction of pollutants by wastewater treatment prior to dis-
charge or reuse.
Etching
A chemical solution bath and a rinse or a series of rinses
designed to produce a desired surface finish on the work piece,
either to remove surface imperfections, oxides or scratches or to
provide surface roughness. This term includes air pollution con-
trol scrubbers which are sometimes used to control fumes from
chemical solution baths. Conversion coating and anodizing when
performed as an integral part of the aluminum forming operations
are considered cleaning or etching operations. When conversion
coating or anodizing are covered here they are not subject to
regulation under the provisions of 40 CFR Parts 413 and 433,
Electroplating and Metal Finishing.
Eutectic Temperature
The lowest temperature at which a solution (in this case, the
solution is molten aluminum and various alloying materials)
remains completely liquid.
Extrusion
-------
A process in which high pressures are applied to a billet of
aluminum, forcing the aluminum to flow through a die orifice.
The extrusion subcategory is based on the extrusion process.
Finishing
The coating or polishing of a metal surface.
Fluxes
Substances added to molten metal to help remove impurities and
prevent excessive oxidation, or promote the fusing of the metals.
Foil Rol1ing
A process which produces aluminum foil less than 0.006 inches
thick. Foil is usually produced by cold rolling.
Forging
A process that exerts pressure on die or rolls surrounding alumi-
num stock which is usually heated, forcing the stock to take the
shape of the dies. The forging subcategory is based on the
forging process.
Gas Chromatoqraphy/Mass Spectroscopy (GC/MS)
Chemical analytical instrumentation used for quantitative organic
analysis.
Grab Sample
A single sample of wastewater taken without regard to time or
flow.
Heat Treatment
The application of heat of specified temperature and duration
that changes the physical properties of the metal, such as
strength, ductility, and malleability.
Homogenizing
Holding solidified aluminum at high temperature to eliminate or
decrease chemical segregation by diffusion.
Hot Rolling
The process in which aluminum is heated to between 400°C and 495°
C and passed through a set of rolls which reduces the thickness
-------
of the metal to a plate 6.3 mm (0.25 inches) thick or less. Hot
rolling does not strain-harden the aluminum.
Indirect Discharger
A point source that introduces effluents into a publicly owned
treatment works.
Inductively-Coupled Argon Plasma Spectrophotometer (ICAP)
A laboratory device used for the analysis of metals.
Ingot
A large, block-shaped casting produced by various methods.
Ingots are intermediate products from which formed products are
made.
In-Process Control Technology
Any procedure or equipment used to conserve chemicals and water
throughout the production operations, resulting in a reduction of
the wastewater volume to be discharged.
Neat Oil
A pure oil, usually a mineral oil, with no or few impurities
added. In aluminum forming its use is mostly as a lubricant.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
Effluent limitations for new industrial point sources as defined
by Section 306 of the Act.
Nonconventional Pollutant
Parameters selected for use in performance standards that have
not been previously designated as either conventional or toxic
pollutants.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact
The ecological impact as a result of solid, air, or thermal pol-
lution due to the application of various wastewater technologies
to achieve the effluent guidelines limitations. Also associated
with the non-water quality aspect is the energy impact of waste-
water treatment.
NPDES Permits
-------
Permits issued by EPA or an approved state program under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System issued under
Section 402 of the Act.
Off-Gases
Gases, vapors, and fumes produced as a result of an aluminum
forming operation.
Off-Kilogram (Off-Pound) -
The mass of aluminum or aluminum alloy removed from a forming or
ancillary operation at the end of a process cycle for transfer to
a different machine or process.
Oil and Grease (O&G)
Any material that is extracted by freon from an acidified sample
and that is not volatilized during the analysis, such as hydro-
carbons, fatty acids, soaps, fats, waxes, and oils.
EE
The pH is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity of
a solution.
Pickling
The process of removing scale, oxide, or foreign matter from the
surface of metal by immersing it in a bath containing a suitable
chemical reagent that will attack the oxide or scale, but will
not act appreciably upon the metal during the period of pickling.
Frequently it is necessary to immerse the metal in a detergent
solution or to degrease it before pickling.
Plate
A flat, extended, rigid body of aluminum having a thickness
greater than or equal to 6.3 mm (0.25 inches).
Pollutant Parameters
Those constituents of wastewater determined to be detrimental
and, therefore, requiring control.
Priority Pollutants
Those pollutants included in Table 2 of Committee Print number
95-30 of the "Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
House of Representatives," subject to the Act.
-------
Process Water
Water used in a production process that contacts the product, raw
materials, or reagents.
Production Normalizing Parameter (PNP)
The unit of production specified in the regulations used to
determine the mass of pollution a production facility may
discharge.
PSES
Pretreatment standards (effluent regulations) for existing
sources under Section 307(b) of the Act.
PSNS
Pretreatment standards {effluent regulations) for new sources
under Section 307(c) of the Act.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
A waste treatment facility that is owned by a state or
municipality.
Recycle
Returning treated or untreated wastewater to the production pro-
cess from which it originated for use as process water.
Reduction
A reaction in which there is a decrease in valence resulting from
a gain in electrons.
Reuse
The use of treated or untreated process wastewater in a different
production process.
Reverberatory Furnaces
Rectangular furnaces in which the fuel is burned above the metal
and the heat reflects off the walls and into the metal.
Rinsing
A process in which water is used to wash etching and cleaning
chemicals from the surface of metal.
-------
Rod
An intermediate aluminum product having a solid, round cross sec-
tion 9.5 mm (3/8 inches) or more in diameter.
Rol1inq
A forming process that reduces the thickness of a workpiece by
passing it between a pair of lubricated steel rollers. There are
two subcategories based on the rolling process. In the rolling
with neat oils subcategory, pure or neat oils are used as lubri-
cants for the rolling process. In the rolling with emulsions
subcategory, emulsions are used as lubricants for the rolling
process.
Scrubber Liquor
The untreated wastewater stream produced by wet scrubbers clean-
ing gases produced by aluminum forming operations.
Seal Baths
A bath used as the final surface finishing step performed in con-
junction with anodizing. Seal baths usually consist of boiling
deionized water or nickel acetate.
Seal Water
A water curtain used as a barrier between the annealing furnance
atmosphere and the outside atmosphere.
Semi-Fabricated Products
Intermediate products that are the final product of one process
and the raw material for a second process.
Stationary Casting
A process in which the molten aluminum is poured into molds and
allowed to air-cool. It is often used to recycle in-house scrap.
Strain-Hardening (see work-hardening)
Subcateqorization
The process of segmentation of an industry into groups of plants
for which uniform effluent limitations can be established.
Surface Water
-------
Any visible stream or body of water, natural or man-made. This
does not include bodies of water whose sole purpose is wastewater
retention or the removal of pollutants, such as holding ponds or
lagoons.
Surfactants
Surface active chemicals that tend to lower the surface tension
between liquids.
Swaging
A process in which a solid point is formed at the end of a tube,
rod, or bar by the repeated blows of one or more pairs of oppos-
ing dies. It is often the initial step in the drawing process.
Total Dissolved Sol ids (TPS)
Organic and inorganic molecules and ions that are in true solu-
tion in the water or wastewater.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
A measure of the organic contaminants in a wastewater. The TOC
analysis does not measure as much of the organics as the COD or
BOD tests, but is much quicker than these tests.
Total Recycle
The complete reuse of a stream, with makeup water added for
evaporation losses. There is no blowdown stream from a totally
recycled flow and the process water is not periodically or con-
tinuously discharged.
Total Suspended Sol ids (TSS)
Solids in suspension in water, wastewater, or treated effluent.
Also known as suspended solids.
Total Toxic Organics (TTO)
The sum of the masses or concentrations of each of the following
toxic organic compounds which is found in the discharge at a
concentration greater than 0.010 mg/1:
p-chloro-m-cresol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
ethylbenzene
benzo(ghi)perylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
-------
fluoranthene
isophorone
naphthalene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
phenol
benzo(a)pyrene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene
dimethyl phthalate
di-n-butyl benzyl phthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Tubing Blank
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
PCB-1242, 1254, 1221
PCB-1232, 1248, 1260, 1016
acenaphthene
diethyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
buthy benzyl phthalate
A sample taken by passing one gallon of distilled water through a
composite sampling device before initiation of actual wastewater
sampling.
Volatile Substances
Materials that are readily vaporizable at relatively low
temperatures.
Wastewater Discharge Factor
The ratio between water discharged from a production process and
the mass of product of that production process. Recycle water is
not included.
Water Use Factor
The total amount of contact water or oil entering a process
divided by the amount of aluminum product produced by this pro-
cess. The amount of water involved includes the recycle and
makeup water.
Wet Scrubbers
Air pollution control devices used for removing particulates and
fumes from air as the gas passes through the spray.
Wire
A slender strand of aluminum with a diameter less than 9.5 mm
(3/8 inches).
-------
Work-Hardening
An increase in hardness and strength and a loss of ductility that
occurs in the workpiece as a result of passing through cold form-
ing or cold working operations. Also known as strain-hardening.
Zero Discharger
Any industrial or municipal facility that does not discharge
wastewater. 538 The fluid from these leaks is frequently
combined with other wastewaters
------- |