Factor
2
Analysis:
Technology
Advances
and
Process
Changes
Status
of
Screening
Level
Review
Phase
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
Office
of
Water
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
REVISED
DRAFT
30
December
2003
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
2.0
TECHNOLOGY­
BASED
RESOURCES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.1
Office
of
Compliance
Sector
Notebooks
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.2
Office
of
Wastewater
Management's
Clean
Water
Act
Recognition
Awards
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
2
2.3
Industry
Journals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
2
2.4
Industry
Association
Publications
and
Web
Sites
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
3
2.5
Industrial
Wastewater
and
Best
Available
Treatment
(
BAT)
Technologies
Conference
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
3
2.5.1
Biological
Treatment
Processes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
4
2.5.2
Filtration
and
Membrane
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
7
2.5.3
Metals
Removal
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
9
2.5.4
Pollution
Prevention
Approaches
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
11
2.6
Industrial
Wastewater
Technology
Websites
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
12
2.6.1
European
Integrated
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control
Bureau
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
12
2.6.2
Canadian
Wastewater
Technology
Centre
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
12
3.0
INDUSTRY­
SPECIFIC
TECHNOLOGY
ADVANCES
REVIEWS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.1
Aluminum
Manufacturing
and
Forming
Industry
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.1.1
Technology
Advances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.1.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
2
3.2
Construction
Products
Industry
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
5
3.2.1
Technology
Advances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
5
3.2.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
7
3.3
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals
Industry
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
9
3.3.1
Technology
Advances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
9
3.3.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
10
3.4
Oil
and
Gas
Field
Services
Industry
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
12
3.4.1
Technology
Advances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
13
3.4.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
14
3.5
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Industry
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
16
3.5.1
Technology
Advances
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
17
3.5.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
18
ES­
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In
November,
2002,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
announced
the
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations
("
draft
Strategy).
The
draft
Strategy
outlines
a
process
that
EPA
proposes
to
use
to
develop
Effluent
Guidelines
Plans.
The
process
will
allow
EPA
to
identify
existing
effluent
guidelines
the
Agency
should
consider
revising
or
industrial
categories
for
which
the
Agency
should
consider
developing
new
effluent
guidelines.

EPA
used
this
draft
Strategy
to
develop
the
preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.
The
draft
Strategy
and
preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
described
four
factors
that
the
Agency
would
consider
during
its
process.

This
report
discusses
the
status
of
the
EPA's
initial
screening
level
review
phase
for
Factor
2,
Technology
Advances
and
Process
Changes.
This
factor
considers
applicable
and
demonstrated
technologies,
process
changes,
or
pollution
prevention
alternatives
that
can
effectively
reduce
the
pollutants
remaining
in
an
industry
category's
wastewater
and
thereby
substantially
reduce
any
identified
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
associated
with
those
pollutants.

The
screening
level
review
phase
for
this
factor
intended
to
focus
on
readily
available
information
to
assess
technology
advances
and
process
changes.
EPA
surveyed
industryspecific
literature
to
identify
technology
and
process
changes
or
pollution
prevention
approaches
that
could
reduce
wastewater
pollutant
discharges.
EPA
is
pursuing
additional
data
collection
activities
to
obtain
further
information
about
technological
advances.
EPA
is
also
collecting
information
through
a
series
of
national
technology
conferences.

A
few
of
the
tools
and
resources
discussed
here
provide
information
that
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
in
the
current
cycle
of
planning.
These
other
tools
and
resources
are
discussed
here
in
preliminary
terms.
They
may,
however,
prove
useful
for
future
planning
cycles.
ES­
2
During
the
current
planning
cycle,
EPA
plans
to
evaluate
all
of
these
tools
to
determine
whether
they
are
appropriate
for
use
in
this
or
future
planning
cycles.

The
initial
screening
of
industrial
categories
relied
primarily
on
information
gathered
under
Factor
1:
Human
Health
and
the
Environment
(
addressing
discharge
amounts,

toxicity
and
effects)
and
Factor
4:
Efficiency
and
Implementation
(
addressing
efficiency
of
the
guidelines
and
NPDES
permitting
programs,
multi­
media
issues,
etc.).
Using
these
two
factors
EPA
identified
twenty
industrial
categories
for
additional
data
collection.
EPA
also
set
its
priorities
for
additional
analyses
supporting
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.
Specifically,
EPA
intends
to
complete
a
detailed
review
of
the
following
industries
to
support
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005:
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,

and
Synthetic
Fibers
(
OCPSF);
and
Petroleum
Refining.
After
considering
all
available
data,
EPA
may
decide
to
identify
one
or
both
of
these
industries
in
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
for
effluent
guidelines
revisions.
To
the
extent
possible
in
the
limited
time
remaining
in
this
planning
cycle,
EPA
will
continue
to
address
data
gaps
and
uncertainties
affecting
EPA's
estimates
of
the
potential
risks
and
hazards
posed
by
the
remaining
industries.

EPA
found
that
gathering
the
data
needed
to
perform
a
meaningful
screening­
level
analysis
for
Factor
2
was
much
more
resource­
intensive
than
anticipated.
Data
sources
in
this
area
are
widely
scattered
and
often
lack
sufficient
detail
and
process
specificity
to
be
useful
at
a
screening
level.
They
are
better
suited
to
in­
depth
analysis
of
specific
industries.
Factor
2
was
considered,
to
the
extent
possible,
during
an
additional
screening­
level
step
EPA
applied
to
a
limited
set
of
industries
with
relatively
high
estimates
of
potential
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
As
discussed
in
the
draft
Strategy
and
in
the
preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
this
factor
will
also
be
considered
more
extensively
in
the
forthcoming
detailed
investigations.
1U.
S.
EPA,
"
Draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations,"
EPA­
821­
R­
02­
025,
http://
epa.
gov/
guide/
strategy/,
November
2002.

2This
preliminary
Plan
was
signed
by
EPA's
Assistant
Administrator
for
Water
on
December
23,
2003.
It
is
expected
to
be
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
December
31,
2003.

1­
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
In
November,
2002,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
announced
the
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations
("
draft
Strategy).
1
The
draft
Strategy
outlines
a
process
that
EPA
proposes
to
use
to
develop
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plans.
Under
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
EPA
establishes
technology­
based
national
regulations,
termed
"
effluent
guidelines,"
to
reduce
pollutant
discharges
from
industrial
facilities
to
waters
of
the
United
States.
Section
304(
m)
of
the
CWA
requires
EPA
to
publish
an
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
every
two
years.
CWA
Section
304(
m)(
1)(
A)
also
requires
EPA
to
establish
a
schedule
for
the
annual
review
and
revision
of
all
existing
effluent
guidelines.

Additionally,
CWA
Section
304(
m)(
1)(
B)
requires
EPA
to
identify
categories
of
point
sources
discharging
toxic
or
non­
conventional
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
not
published
effluent
guidelines.

The
preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
20052
described
the
four
factors
EPA
considered
during
its
screening­
level
analyses.
Factor
2
(
Technology
Advances
and
Process
Changes)
considers
applicable
and
demonstrated
technologies,
process
changes,
or
pollution
prevention
alternatives
that
can
effectively
reduce
the
pollutants
remaining
in
an
industry
category's
wastewater
and
thereby
substantially
reduce
any
identified
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
associated
with
those
pollutants.
This
memo
summarizes
the
Factor
2
screening
level
information
gathered
on
some
of
the
twenty
industries
identified
for
further
data
collection.
Table
1
lists
these
twenty
industries.
See
"
Description
and
Results
of
EPA
Methodology
to
Synthesize
Screening
Level
Results
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005,"
DCN
548,
Section
3.0,
on
how
these
industries
were
identified.
1­
2
Table
1:
Industries
Identified
For
Further
Data
Collection
No.
Factor
Identifying
Industry
for
Additional
Data
Collection
Industry
CFR
Part
Factor
1
Factor
4
1
X
Canned
and
Preserved
Fruits
and
Vegetable
Processing
407
2
X
Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood
Processing
408
3
X
Coal
Mining
434
4
X
Coil
Coating
465
5
X
Dairy
Products
Processing
405
6
X
Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
469
7
X
Fertilizer
Manufacturing
418
8
X
X
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
415
9
X
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
464
10
X
Mineral
Mining
and
Processing
436
11
X
Nonferrous
Metals
Manufacturing
421
12
X
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
(
including
coal
bed
methane
development
as
a
potential
new
subcategory)
*
435
13
X
X
Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
440
14
X
X
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
&
Synthetic
Fibers
(
including
CFPR
operations
as
a
potential
new
subcategory)
414
15
X
X
Petroleum
Refining
(
including
petroleum
bulk
stations
and
terminals
as
a
potential
new
subcategory)
419
16
X
Phosphate
Manufacturing
422
17
X
X
Pulp,
Paper,
and
Paperboard
(
Phase
II)
430
18
X
X
Steam
Electric
423
19
X
Textile
Mills
410
20
X
X
Timber
Products
Processing
429
*
Note:
The
oil
and
gas
extraction
industry
(
SIC
1311)
does
not
report
discharges
to
TRI
and
there
is
very
little
information
in
PCS
about
discharges
from
these
point
sources.
EPA
was
able
to
make
order
of
magnitude
estimates
of
toxic
and
non­
conventional
pollutant
discharges
from
coalbed
methane
extraction
operations
based
on
an
on­
going
study
with
EPA's
Denver
Office
(
Region
8).
1­
3
EPA
was
able
to
compile
Factor
2
information
on
the
following
industries
identified
in
Table
1:
(
1)
Aluminum
Manufacturing
and
Forming;
(
2)
Construction
Products;
(
3)

Industrial
Organic
Chemicals;
(
4)
Oil
and
Gas
Field
Services;
and
(
5)
Semiconductor
Manufacturing.
EPA
was
unable
to
identify
technology
advances
and
process
changes
for
all
twenty
industries
identified
in
Table
1.
EPA
anticipates
completing
these
summaries
before
publication
of
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.

The
initial
screening
of
industrial
categories
relied
primarily
on
information
gathered
under
Factor
1:
Human
Health
and
the
Environment
(
addressing
discharge
amounts,

toxicity
and
effects)
and
Factor
4:
Efficiency
and
Implementation
(
addressing
efficiency
of
the
guidelines
and
NPDES
permitting
programs,
multi­
media
issues,
etc.).
Using
these
two
factors
EPA
identified
the
twenty
industrial
categories
for
additional
data
collection
(
see
Table
1).
EPA
also
set
its
priorities
for
additional
analyses
supporting
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.
Specifically,
EPA
intends
to
complete
a
detailed
review
of
the
following
industries
to
support
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005:
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,

and
Synthetic
Fibers
(
OCPSF);
and
Petroleum
Refining.
After
considering
all
available
data,
EPA
may
decide
to
identify
one
or
both
of
these
industries
in
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
for
effluent
guidelines
revisions.
To
the
extent
possible
in
the
limited
time
remaining
in
this
planning
cycle,
EPA
will
continue
to
address
data
gaps
and
uncertainties
affecting
EPA's
estimates
of
the
potential
risks
and
hazards
posed
by
the
remaining
industries.

EPA
found
that
gathering
the
data
needed
to
perform
a
meaningful
screening­
level
analysis
for
Factor
2
was
much
more
resource­
intensive
than
anticipated.
Data
sources
in
this
area
are
widely
scattered
and
often
lack
sufficient
detail
and
process
specificity
to
be
useful
at
a
screening
level.
They
are
better
suited
to
in­
depth
analysis
of
specific
industries.
Factor
2
was
considered,
to
the
extent
possible,
during
an
additional
screening­
level
step
EPA
applied
to
a
limited
set
of
industries
with
relatively
high
estimates
of
potential
risk
to
human
health
or
the
3See
"
Description
and
Results
of
EPA
Methodology
to
Synthesize
Screening
Level
Results
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005,"
DCN
548,
Section
3.0.

1­
4
environment.
3
As
discussed
in
the
draft
Strategy
and
in
the
preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
this
factor
will
also
be
considered
more
extensively
in
the
forthcoming
detailed
investigations.

This
report
contains
information
readily
available
from
government
sources
and
industry
and
other
publications.
No
new
data
(
e.
g.
from
effluent
sampling
or
environmental
monitoring)
has
been
generated
for
this
report.
Thus,
no
statements
regarding
the
accuracy,

precision,
representativeness,
completeness,
or
comparability
of
the
data
presented
in
this
report
are
included.
2­
1
2.0
Factor
2
Information
Resources
EPA
reviewed
several
industry­
or
technology­
focused
resources
to
identify
additional
industrial
categories
likely
to
have
technology
advances
or
process
changes.
These
three
resources
are
EPA's
Office
of
Compliance
Sector
Notebooks,
industry
journals,
and
industry
association
publications
and
web
sites,
and
are
discussed
in
the
following
sections.

2.1
Office
of
Compliance
Sector
Notebooks
The
Sector
Notebook
series
is
produced
by
the
EPA's
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
(
OECA)
to
provide
users
with
a
consolidated
source
of
compliancerelated
information
for
specific
industry
sectors.
It
is
a
set
of
industry
profiles
containing
detailed
sector­
specific
environmental
information.
Unlike
many
resource
materials,
which
are
organized
by
air,
water,
and
land
pollutants,
the
Notebooks
provide
a
holistic,
"
whole
facility"
approach
by
integrating
manufacturing
process,
applicable
regulations,
and
other
relevant
environmental
information.
Sector
Notebooks
are
available
for
a
total
of
23
industry
sectors.
Each
Notebook
includes
the
following
information:

°
Overview
of
the
industry,
including
size,
geographic
distribution,

organizational
structure,
products,
economic
trends,
and
financial
analysis;

°
Description
of
manufacturing
processes,
including
inputs
of
raw
materials
and
pollution
outputs;

°
Summary
of
chemical
releases
to
the
environment;

°
Summary
of
applicable
federal
statutes
and
regulations;

°
Compliance
and
enforcement
history;

°
Review
of
major
legal
actions;

°
Pollution
prevention
opportunities;

°
Government
and
industry
initiatives
for
compliance
assurance;
and
°
Resource
materials
and
contacts.
2­
2
Sector
Notebooks
may
be
useful
references
for
a
more
detailed
look
at
specific
industries
identified
for
second­
level
screening.

2.2
Office
of
Wastewater
Management's
Clean
Water
Act
Recognition
Awards
The
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
in
EPA's
Office
of
Water
runs
a
program
called
"
Clean
Water
Act
Recognition
Awards.
This
program
was
formerly
National
Wastewater
Management
Excellence
Awards
Programs.
Through
this
program,
EPA
recognizes
municipalities,
wastewater
treatment
programs,
facilities,
and
individuals
on
a
national
level
as
examples
of
an
outstanding
commitment
to
protect
and
improve
the
quality
of
the
nation's
waters.

The
national
winners
have
demonstrated
exceptional
technological
achievements
of
innovative
processes
in
their
waste
treatment
and
pollution
abatement
programs.
National
awards
are
presented
for
prominent
accomplishments
in
innovative
operations
and
maintenance;
exemplary
biosolids
management;
outstanding
local
pretreatment
programs;
and
creative
and
cost­
effective
storm
water
and
combined
sewer
overflow
control
programs
and
projects.

A
compilation
of
winners
for
the
period
of
1986
through
2002
is
available
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
owm/
pdfs/
prevwinn86­
02.
pdf.
Although
these
awards
are
plant
specific,

they
may
provide
a
starting
place
for
identifying
innovative
technological
advances
in
wastewater
treatment.
EPA
intends
to
review
the
supporting
documentation
to
determine
whether
this
resource
can
be
used
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
process.

2.3
Industry
Journals
An
important
source
of
information
on
technology
advances
and
process
changes
is
industry
journals
and
industry­
focused
literature.
The
scope
of
available
information
made
it
difficult
to
utilize
this
resource
in
the
screening
level
review
phase.
However,
journals
and
other
literature
will
be
included
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.
2­
3
2.4
Industry
Association
Publications
and
Web
Sites
Another
important
source
of
information
on
technology
advances
and
process
changes
is
industry
trade
association
publications
and
their
web
sites.
The
scope
of
available
information
made
it
difficult
to
utilize
this
resource
in
the
screening
level
review
phase.
However,

trade
association
resources
will
be
included
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.

2.5
Industrial
Wastewater
and
Best
Available
Treatment
(
BAT)
Technologies
Conference
EPA
recently
co­
sponsored
a
technical
conference
with
Vanderbilt
University
entitled
Industrial
Wastewater
and
Best
Available
Treatment
(
BAT)
Technologies:
Performance,

Reliability,
and
Economics.
Over
the
last
30
years,
industries
have
accumulated
much
expertise
and
experience
in
wastewater
treatment
process
design
and
operation
to
comply
with
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards.
This
meeting
provided
a
forum
to
share
these
experiences
and
lessons
learned.
Representatives
of
academia,
government,
and
industry
shared
information
on
water
pollution
control,
including
improvements
to
traditional
wastewater
treatment
processes,

process
changes,
and
best
management
practices
that
lead
to
reductions
in
pollution.

Industries
seek
to
meet
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
(
and
reduce
production
and
treatment
costs)
by
designing
treatment
systems
appropriate
for
specific
process
wastewater
characteristics
and
managing
process
water
flow
(
including
recycle­
reuse).
Although
the
types
and
quantities
of
pollutants
generated
varies
from
industry
to
industry,
their
treatment
and
pollution
goals
are
similar:
use
waste
minimization
processes
and
the
best
treatment
technologies
available
to
minimize
pollutant
discharge.
This
section
presents
a
brief
overview
of
these
technology
advances,
including
biological
treatment,
filtration
and
membrane
technologies,

control
of
metals,
and
pollution
prevention
approaches.
2­
4
2.5.1
Biological
Treatment
Processes
Advances
in
biological
treatment
are
a
result
of
regulatory
initiatives
to
control
nutrients
(
nitrogen
and
phosphorous),
multimedia
approaches
to
control
volatile
organic
pollutant
emissions,
and
the
need
for
treatment
systems
to
handle
higher
organic
pollutant
loadings.

Although
new
operating
techniques
and
equipment
have
been
developed
to
meet
these
challenges,

basic
biological
treatment
principals
including
pretreatment
and
equalization
are
a
necessity
for
optimum
performance.
Pretreatment
of
biological
system
influent
(
including
sedimentation,

flotation,
precipitation,
stripping,
and
ion
exchange)
lessens
the
amount
of
non­
degradable
solids
entering
the
system,
removes
toxic
constituents
which
can
slow
bacterial
metabolic
activity,
and
prevents
the
introduction
of
constituents
that
impede
solid­
liquid
separation.
Equalization
dampens
both
flow
and
organic
loads
to
the
biological
treatment
system,
creating
consistent
feed
to
microorganisms
(
F/
M)
ratios
and
preventing
solids
wash­
out
from
clarification
systems.

Improvements
to
typical
treatment
technologies
may
occur
due
to
site­
specific
issues
such
as
water
quality­
based
effluent
limitations,
local
water
concerns,
land
availability,

materials
recycle,
and
economics.
For
example,
a
chemicals
manufacturing
company
implements
anaerobic
technologies
in
Europe
and
Asia
because
energy
and
sludge
disposal
costs
are
more
significant
there
than
in
the
US.
A
pulp
and
paper
mill
that
does
not
have
large
amount
of
level
land
in
proximity
to
the
manufacturing
area
cannot
use
the
common
practice
of
treating
wastewater
in
large
aerated
stabilization
basins.
Instead,
the
mill
has
developed
methods
to
achieve
maximum
BOD
and
TSS
reduction
with
only
hours
of
detention
in
the
biological
reactor.

The
remainder
of
this
section
presents
a
summary
of
the
operational
or
equipment
changes
that
have
been
made
to
full­
scale
biological
treatment
systems
to
enhance
nutrient
removal,
control
air
emissions,
and
allow
for
stable
treatment
of
high­
strength
organic
wastewater.
2­
5
Biological
Nutrient
Removal
(
BNR).
Conventional
activated
sludge
wastewater
treatment
systems
can
be
modified
to
remove
ammonia,
nitrate
and
organic
nitrogen,
and
total
phosphorus,
while
continuing
to
remove
BOD
and
other
organic
pollutants.
To
remove
total
nitrogen,
an
anoxic
zone
is
created
in
the
system
by
either
adding
a
new
tank
prior
to
the
aeration
basin
or
by
isolating
a
portion
of
the
aeration
tank
using
a
constructed
barrier.
Nitrate,
formed
in
the
aerobic
portion
of
the
system
from
conversion
of
both
free
ammonia
and
organically
bound
nitrogen,
is
recycled
with
a
portion
of
the
system
effluent
to
the
anoxic
tank
where
it
is
converted
to
nitrogen
gas.

Phosphorus
can
be
removed
using
conventional
activated
sludge
systems
by
installing
an
anaerobic
tank
prior
to
the
anoxic
denitrification
tank
and
the
aerated
activated
sludge
tank
In
the
anaerobic
tank,
in­
coming
raw
wastewater
is
mixed
with
biomass
in
the
absence
of
oxygen,
causing
the
biomass
to
rapidly
uptake
BOD
and
release
phosphate.
Phosphate
from
the
anaerobic
tank
enters
the
aerobic
portion
of
the
treatment
system
where
it
is
incorporated
back
into
the
biomass
during
cell
synthesis.
Phosphate
is
removed
from
the
treatment
system
via
sludge
wasteage.

Some
facilities
have
also
implemented
sustainable
development
projects
utilizing
BNR
for
the
control
of
nutrients.
Organic
chemicals
manufacturing
operations
have
wastewaters
with
high
levels
of
nitrate
and
carbonaceous
content.
Treatment
operations
comprised
of
BNR,
a
constructed
wetland,
and
land
application
(
for
beneficial
reuse
of
biosolids)
has
resulted
in
removals
of
COD
above
99
percent,
and
virtually
complete
removal
of
nitrate
and
nitrite.

BNR
may
also
be
applicable
for
treatment
of
wastewater
generated
by
hospitals
and
at
industrial
organic
chemicals
manufacturing
facilities.
Hospital
waste
contains
nitrogen
compounds
found
in
pharmaceutical
and
personnel
care
products,
while
industrial
organic
chemicals
manufacturing
facilities
use
a
variety
of
raw
materials
including
phosphoric
acid,

ammonia,
and
nitric
acid.
2­
6
Control
of
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(
VOC)
Emissions
from
Activated
Sludge
Treatment
Systems.
As
a
result
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
many
industries
are
now
required
to
control
emissions
of
VOCs
from
wastewater
treatment
systems.
One
method
of
controlling
VOC
emissions
from
the
activated
sludge
process
is
to
cover
the
tanks
and
collect
and
treat
the
off­
gas.
Covering
the
tanks
prevents
the
uncontrolled
emission
of
VOCs;
however,
the
temperature
inside
the
activated
sludge
system
increases
to
levels
that
inhibit
biological
activity
by
the
mesophilic
bacteria.
To
overcome
the
stripping
problems
caused
by
diffused
aeration
systems
(
course
and
fine
bubble
diffusers),
and
the
temperature
problems
associated
with
covering
the
tanks,
a
number
of
industries
began
to
install
high
purity
oxygen
(
HPO)
systems.

HPO
systems
inject
pure
oxygen
into
the
aeration
tank
rather
than
bubbling
air
through
the
wastewater.
Because
of
the
high
driving
force
caused
by
pure
oxygen
systems
compared
to
conventional
aeration,
dissolved
oxygen
(
DO)
levels
of
50
to
100
mg/
L
can
be
achieved,
negating
the
need
for
large
volumes
of
air
to
achieve
DO
levels
of
only
2
mg/
L.
HPO
also
opens
up
the
possibility
of
hydrogen
sulfide
elimination
in
gravity
and
force
sewer
mains.

Oxygen
supplementation
of
combined
sewer
overflow
basins,
rivers,
and
reservoirs
using
HPO
offers
practical
solutions
not
possible
or
economical
using
conventional
aeration
techniques.
HPO
systems
may
be
applicable
to
water
generated
from
oil
and
gas
field
services
both
to
control
sulfides
and
to
provide
dissolved
oxygen
prior
to
discharge.

Treatment
of
High­
Strength
Wastewater.
One
new
technique
currently
being
used
to
handle
easily
degradable,
high
organic­
strength
wastewater
is
the
aerobic
selector.

Selectors
are
low
residence
time
tanks
placed
ahead
of
aeration
basins
that
accept
the
influent
stream
and
return
activated
sludge
(
RAS)
thus
creating
a
high
organic
loading
rate
condition
in
the
selector.
This
condition
favors
floc
formation
over
filamentous
bulking
organisms,
resulting
in
mixed
liquor
with
good
settling
properties.
If
filamentous
organisms
are
not
controlled,

operational
problems
and
deterioration
in
effluent
quality
will
result.
2­
7
Another
new
piece
of
equipment
used
to
control
biological
treatment
systems
is
on­
line
respirometers.
On­
line
respirometers
produce
a
continuous
record
of
factors
that
influence
treatment
process
performance.
Common
applications
include
monitoring
oxygen
uptake,
monitoring
the
effect
of
changes
in
wastewater
composition
common
in
a
number
of
industrial
facilities,
and
identifying
the
presence
of
toxics
that
can
adversely
affect
wastewater
treatment.

Both
the
addition
of
a
biological
selector
and
an
on­
line
respirometer
may
be
applicable
to
wastewater
generated
from
the
industrial
organic
chemicals
and
plastic
product
manufacturing
industries.
Each
of
these
industries
generate
high
organic­
strength
wastewater
with
varying
composition.
The
selector
will
prevent
bulking
caused
by
the
easily
degradable
organics
and
the
on­
line
respirometer
may
help
prevent
process
upsets
resulting
from
process
changes
or
periodic
releases
of
toxics.

2.5.2
Filtration
and
Membrane
Advances
in
filtration
and
membrane
systems
have
occurred
to
better
control
the
presence
of
oils
and
solids
in
treated
effluent,
as
well
as
to
increase
the
ability
to
reuse
water
in
manufacturing
operations.
Membranes
have
also
been
used
in
conjunction
with
biological
treatment
systems
for
the
control
of
oily
wastewaters
and
high­
strength
organic
wastewaters.

Oils
Control.
Improvements
to
conventional
solids
filtration
at
off­
shore
oil
and
gas
extraction
operations
includes
the
addition
of
oil­
adsorbent
media
of
resin,
polymer,
and
clay
to
treat
the
effluent.
Conventional
treatment
typically
produces
effluent
with
free
oil.
However,

upsets
caused
by
production
surges
can
produce
non­
compliant
effluent
concentrations.
During
these
times,
the
oil­
adsorbent
media
system
can
be
activated
to
polish
the
final
effluent
within
effluent
standards.
The
system
has
typically
achieved
oil
and
grease
effluent
concentrations
less
than
10
ppm.
The
system
is
also
effective
at
reducing
water
soluble
organics.
2­
8
Solids
Control.
Ultrafiltration
and
reverse
osmosis
systems
are
used
for
the
control
of
suspended
solids
in
recycled
waters
and
treated
effluent.
In
addition,
reverse
osmosis
is
becoming
a
preferred
method
for
producing
demineralized
process
water.
Increased
operating
pressures
and
cross­
flow
velocities
make
this
technology
tolerant
of
influent
feed
conditions.

These
systems
have
been
used
at
oil
refineries,
plasticizer
plants,
and
auto
manufacturing
plants.

Control
of
effluent
solids
is
also
a
key
issue
for
biological
treatment
systems.
Loss
of
solids
in
the
effluent
can
result
in
permit
violations
plus
difficulties
controlling
sludge
age.

Common
causes
for
solids
loss
from
the
clarifier
include
filamentous
bulking,
increased
salinity
of
the
wastewater,
or
changes
in
the
ionic
characteristics
of
the
floc
particles.
At
one
pulp
and
paper
mill,
changes
in
the
ionic
characteristics
of
the
floc
particles
was
caused
by
the
addition
of
strong
negatively
charged
dispersants
in
the
paper
coating
process.
To
overcome
the
problems
caused
by
the
dispersants,
new
coagulating
agents
and
polymers
were
evaluated.
Results
of
the
evaluation
indicated
simple
treatment
chemical
changes
can
have
a
major
impact
on
effluent
quality
and
biological
treatment
system
performance.

Membrane
Bioreactors.
Membrane
bioreactors
(
MBRs)
have
been
used
to
pretreat
high­
strength
wastewater
at
pharmaceutical
facilities,
and
to
treat
oily
wastewater
from
an
automotive
engine
plant
(
following
pretreatment
with
ultrafiltration).
MBRs
consist
of
a
suspended
growth
biological
reactor
and
an
ultrafiltration
or
microfiltration
membrane
for
biological
solids
retention.
The
membrane
serves
to
keep
the
microbial
solids
in
the
reactor
to
provide
a
highly
clarified
effluent
stream
without
the
need
for
a
separate
clarification
step.
MBRs
use
less
space
than
conventional
biotreatment
systems,
increase
the
removal
of
suspended
solids,

reduce
wasting
and
sludge
production,
and
improve
biodegradation.
For
oily
wastes,
oil­
water
emulsions
can
be
pretreated
in
an
ultrafiltration
unit
with
the
permeate
feeding
the
MBR
system.

The
oily
wastes
can
be
recovered
for
reuse.
The
MBR
operates
with
higher
mixed
liquor
suspended
solids
levels
(
10,000
mg/
L
and
higher)
than
conventional
activated
sludge
and
produces
a
large
biomass
with
longer
solids
retention
times.
2­
9
2.5.3
Metals
Removal
Environmental
regulations
necessitate
the
development
of
technologically
and
economically
feasible
processes
for
the
removal
(
and
potential
recovery)
of
metals
from
industrial
wastewater
prior
to
discharge.
Many
laboratory­
scale,
pilot­
scale,
and
commercial­
scale
projects
have
been
conducted
to
improve
conventional
metals
removal
and
recovery
processes.
Several
different
improvements
are
being
attempted,
or
have
already
been
accomplished,
including:
less
area
required
for
the
treatment
system
(
smaller
footprint),
removal
of
difficult
compounds,

production
of
a
recyclable
product
rather
than
a
hazardous
sludge,
and
the
reduction
of
downstream
pollutant
loadings.

Smaller
Footprint.
The
conventional
treatment
for
removing
TSS,
oil
and
grease,

and
metals
from
wastewater
generated
at
a
steelmaking
facility
is
iron
or
alum
coagulation
followed
by
conventional
solids­
liquid
separation.
This
design
often
results
in
a
large
system
footprint,
and
these
systems
may
have
difficulty
managing
sudden
increases
in
hydraulic
loading.

The
pilot­
scale
operation
of
the
ActiFlo
system,
however,
achieved
the
desired
reductions
of
TSS,

oil
and
grease,
lead,
nickel,
zinc,
and
copper
(
with
the
use
of
additional
sulfide
treatment)
using
less
than
15
percent
of
the
space
needed
for
a
conventional
system.
ActiFlo
uses
microsand
as
a
seed
for
floc
formation
with
iron
coprecipitation
,
allowing
for
high
overflow
rates
and
short
detention
times.
The
use
of
microsand
in
the
pilot­
scale
operation
results
in
the
development
of
a
denser
floc
with
a
higher
settling
velocity,
and
allows
a
higher
overflow
rate.
This
design
translates
into
a
potentially
reduced
system
footprint
and
capital
costs
if
expanded
to
the
commercial
scale.

Removal
of
Difficult
Compounds.
Several
pilot
tests
investigated
the
removal
of
compounds
from
wastewater
such
as
methylated
arsenic
compounds,
phosphite,
and
hypophosphite.
These
removal
processes
are
still
under
investigation.
Methylated
arsenic
compounds
do
not
respond
to
conventional
arsenic
removal
methods
such
as
iron
coprecipitation,

alum,
sulfide,
and
activated
alumina
treatments.
Post­
precipitation
advanced
oxidation
tests
were
2­
10
conducted
to
attempt
to
liberate
arsenic
which
could
then
be
precipitated
by
traditional
methods.

Further
removal
of
the
remaining
arsenic
was
attempted
through
absorption.
Although
both
oxidation
and
absorption
improved
upon
traditional
precipitation,
neither
method
proved
truly
successful
for
removal
of
methylated
arsenic
compounds.

Pilot
tests
were
also
run
to
remove
phosphite
and
hypophosphite
from
phosphorus
plant
wastewater,
which
is
difficult
to
remove
using
conventional
lime
precipitation,
solids
separation,
and
neutralization
processes
used
to
remove
ortho­
phosphate.
The
test
was
based
on
the
use
of
chemical
oxidation
of
phosphite
and
hypophosphite
to
ortho­
phosphate;
however,

efficient
chemical
oxidation
was
not
achieved.

Production
of
a
Recyclable
or
Nonhazardous
Product.
Hexavalent
chromium
is
used
within
industry
to
meet
critical
high
erosion
control
and
other
metal
surface
finishing.
The
two
conventional
treatment
methods
to
control
discharges
are:
hexavalent
chromium
reduction
followed
by
precipitation,
settling,
flocculation,
thickening,
dewatering,
and
disposal
of
the
resultant
sludge
in
a
hazardous
waste
landfill;
and
the
use
of
anionic
exchange
resins,
which
are
non­
specific
for
chromium.
Both
of
these
processes
can
be
expensive
due
to
capital
costs
and
disposal
issues.
Two
ideas
are
proposed
for
the
production
of
a
recyclable
or
nonhazardous
product:
1)
the
anion
liquid
ion
exchange
(
A­
LIXTM)
technology
and
2)
the
use
of
granular
ferric
hydroxide
(
GFH).

The
A­
LIXTM
extraction/
stripping
process
has
been
tested
at
the
commercial
scale.

The
hexavalent
chromium
is
captured
as
part
of
an
oil­
soluble
salt,
then
sent
to
a
mixer
where
sodium
hydroxide
neutralizes
the
extractant
and
releases
the
captured
chromate.
The
aqueous
chromium
concentrate
can
then
be
withdrawn
for
reuse
or
recycle.

A
column
study
was
conducted
to
establish
the
effectiveness
of
using
GFH
for
the
removal
of
both
hexavalent
chromium
and
antimony
from
wastewater.
The
spent
GFH
media
can
2­
11
be
disposed
as
a
non­
hazardous
material,
which
is
an
improvement
upon
the
traditional
anionic
exchange
resin.
GFH
removal
has
yet
to
be
demonstrated
at
the
commercial
scale.

2.5.4
Pollution
Prevention
Approaches
Biological
and
physical/
chemical
treatment
technologies
and
upstream
waste
minimization
projects
are
the
building
blocks
in
the
development
of
industrial
pollution
control
strategies.
Waste
minimization
projects
often
reduce
or
eliminate
the
need
for
"
end
of
the
pipe"

treatment
systems.
For
example,
a
chemicals
manufacturing
company
was
able
to
reduce
BOD
5,

methylene
chloride,
chloroform,
and
toluene
at
a
combined
organic
chemicals,
plastics,
and
synthetic
fibers
(
OCPSF)
and
pesticides
plant
by
implementing
several
small
source
reduction
programs
along
with
minor
waste
treatment
modifications.
Another
chemicals
company
identified
three
waste
streams
to
recycle
and
reuse
within
their
plant:
1)
the
low
strength
organic
wastewater
from
the
PVC
process;
2)
cooling
tower
cycle
increase;
and
3)
evaporator
process
condensate
recycle.
Basic
steelmaking,
hot
rolling,
and
steel
finishing
processes
in
the
iron
and
steel
industry
also
employ
the
best
available
technologies
for
flow
management
and
waste
minimization.

Conventional
metal
hydroxide
precipitation
wastewater
treatment
systems
consume
large
amounts
of
alkaline
and
coagulant/
flocculant
chemicals
to
cause
settling
in
the
clarifier
and
dewatering
for
sludge
cake
disposal.
However,
waste
minimization
processes
such
as
electrowinning
(
EW)
can
be
used
to
recover
metals
and
reduce
downstream
pollutant
loadings.

EW
works
similarly
to
the
electroplating
process,
and
can
potentially
be
used
to
reduce
the
loading
of
zinc,
copper,
lead,
cyanide,
nickel,
cadmium,
silver,
and
gold.
EW
has
potential
for
becoming
an
economically
feasible
option
at
the
commercial
scale,
especially
for
precious
metals.
2­
12
2.6
Industrial
Wastewater
Technology
Websites
EPA
reviewed
information
from
two
other
websites
for
information
on
applicable
and
demonstrated
technologies,
process
changes,
or
pollution
prevention
alternatives
that
can
effectively
reduce
the
pollutants
remaining
in
an
industry
category's
wastewater
and
thereby
substantially
reduce
any
identified
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment
associated
with
those
pollutants.
These
websites
include
the
European
Integrated
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control
Bureau
and
the
Canadian
Wastewater
Technology
Centre.

2.6.1
European
Integrated
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control
Bureau
The
European
Union
has
a
set
of
common
rules
on
permitting
for
industrial
installations.
These
rules
are
set
out
in
the
so­
called
IPPC
Directive
of
1996.
IPPC
stands
for
Integrated
Pollution
Prevention
and
Control.
In
essence,
the
IPPC
Directive
is
about
minimizing
pollution
from
various
point
sources
throughout
the
European
Union.
All
installations
covered
by
Annex
I
of
the
Directive
are
required
to
obtain
a
permit
from
the
authorities
in
the
EU
countries.

Unless
they
have
a
permit,
they
are
not
allowed
to
operate.
The
permits
must
be
based
on
the
concept
of
Best
Available
Techniques
(
or
BAT),
which
is
defined
in
Article
2
of
the
Directive.

These
BAT
reports
are
listed
at:
http://
www.
jrc.
es/
pub/
english.
cgi/
0/
733169.

2.6.2
Canadian
Wastewater
Technology
Centre
The
Environmental
Technology
Advancement
Directorate's
Wastewater
Technology
Centre
(
WTC)
located
in
Burlington,
Ontario,
has
been
in
operation
since
1972.
It
provides
specialized
science
and
technical,
research
and
development
support
as
well
as
demonstration
and
validation
for
Environment
Canada
(
EC).
Among
other
specialties,
the
WTC
develops
and
assesses
novel
industrial
and
municipal
wastewater
treatment
technologies.
This
work
supports
EC's
efforts
in
pollution
prevention,
management
of
existing
toxic
substances,

identification
of
new
toxic
substances
and
treatment
technologies.
Reports
from
the
WTC
can
be
downloaded
from:
http://
www.
ec.
gc.
ca/
etad/
en/
wtc_
e.
htm.
3­
1
3.0
Industry­
Specific
Technology
Advances
Reviews
EPA
was
able
to
compile
Factor
2
information
on
the
following
industries
identified
in
Table
1:
(
1)
Aluminum
Manufacturing
and
Forming;
(
2)
Construction
Products;
(
3)

Industrial
Organic
Chemicals;
(
4)
Oil
and
Gas
Field
Services;
and
(
5)
Semiconductor
Manufacturing.
EPA
was
unable
to
identify
technology
advances
and
process
changes
for
all
twenty
industries
identified
in
Table
1.
EPA
anticipates
completing
these
summaries
before
publication
of
the
final
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.

3.1
Aluminum
Manufacturing
and
Forming
Industry
The
aluminum
manufacturing
and
forming
industry
has
exhibited
above
average
growth
and
was
identified
as
a
discharger
of
sediment
contaminants
by
the
National
Sediment
Contaminant
Point
Source
Inventory.
It
was
also
listed
as
an
"
Industry
of
the
Future."
The
industry
is
currently
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
ELGs
for
the
Nonferrous
Metals
Manufacturing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
421)
and
the
Aluminum
Forming
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
467).

3.1.1
Technology
Advances
The
production
of
aluminum
can
be
divided
into
primary
aluminum
manufacturing
(
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
Code
3334)
and
secondary
aluminum
manufacturing
or
aluminum
recycling
(
SIC
3341).
The
first
step
in
primary
aluminum
manufacturing
involves
extracting
alumina
from
bauxite.
Aluminum
is
then
produced
by
the
electrolysis
of
the
extracted
alumina
through
a
carbon
anode.
The
anodes
used
in
this
process
are
consumed
and
must
be
replaced
frequently.
Consequently,
most
aluminum
reduction
plants
include
anode
production
facilities.
The
production
of
anodes
generates
wastewater
containing
suspended
solids,
fluorides,

and
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons.
OIT
is
currently
conducting
research
on
the
use
of
ceramic
anodes,
which
are
inert
and
would
not
be
consumed
in
the
reaction.
While
the
carbon
3­
2
anodes
that
are
currently
used
in
aluminum
production
are
replaced
every
several
weeks,
ceramic
anodes
would
only
need
to
be
replaced
once
a
year
or
less.
The
commercial
application
of
ceramic
anodes
in
the
aluminum
industry
would
reduce
the
production
of
anodes
thus
reducing
the
wastewater
generated
by
anode
manufacturing.
Another
OIT
project
proposes
an
"
aluminum
production
cell"
to
replace
the
Hall­
Heroult
process
currently
used
to
produce
aluminum
from
alumina.
The
aluminum
production
cell
process
does
not
use
anodes
and
would
therefore
reduce
wastewater
generation
associated
with
anode
production.

Aluminum
recycling
requires
only
5
to
8
percent
of
the
energy
required
to
produce
aluminum
from
ore.
Due
to
the
energy
saved
by
recycling
aluminum
and
the
high
quality
of
the
metal
recovered,
aluminum
recycling
has
almost
doubled
in
the
last
ten
years.
In
2000,
recycled
aluminum
accounted
for
a
third
of
the
U.
S.
aluminum
supply.
In
addition,
OIT
is
working
to
develop
new
aluminum
scrap
sorting
technologies
such
as
Laser
Induced
Breakdown
Spectroscopy,
that
will
further
increase
aluminum
recycling
and
the
volume
of
wastewater
associated
with
this
process.

New
technologies
will
also
expand
opportunities
for
aluminum
packaging.

Aluminum
beverage
cans
are
being
developed
that
can
be
resealed,
chill
themselves,
and
indicate
the
temperature
of
their
contents
via
color.
Aluminum
cylinders
that
can
be
used
to
store
gas
under
pressure
are
also
being
developed.
New
vehicle
systems
may
require
high­
pressure
gas
which
will
increase
the
demand
for
strong,
light
weight
cylinders.
The
increased
use
of
aluminum
in
packaging
will
increase
aluminum
manufacturing
and
the
associated
wastewater
production.

3.1.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
Primary
aluminum
smelting
(
from
bauxite)
generally
produces
wastewaters
containing
metals
plus
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)
and
cyanide.
Wastewater
is
generated
from
wet
air
pollution
control
equipment,
contact
cooling,
cathode
reprocessing,
and
pot
repair
and
soaking.
Regulated
pollutants
for
all
subcategories
include
antimony,
nickel,
3­
3
aluminum,
fluoride,
and
benzo(
a)
pyrene.
Cyanide
is
also
included
in
the
list
of
regulated
pollutants
for
cathode
reprocessing
operations.
Other
pollutants
include
ammonia­
nitrogen,

arsenic,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
silver,
zinc,
and
PAHs.

Treatment
of
wastewater
from
primary
aluminum
smelting
includes
preliminary
treatment
of
cyanide
by
iron
precipitation
followed
by
chemical
precipitation,
gravity
clarification,

and
media
filtration.
EPA
determined
through
pilot­
scale
treatability
testing
that
more
than
99
percent
of
the
PAHs
can
be
removed
by
chemical
precipitation
and
solids
removal.
Therefore,

pretreatment
of
wastewater
using
activated
carbon
was
not
required
to
remove
small
amounts
of
PAHs.

Secondary
aluminum
smelting
(
from
scrap)
generally
produces
wastewaters
containing
metals,
ammonia,
and
phenolics.
Wastewater
is
generated
from
wet
air
pollution
control
equipment,
contact
cooling,
scrap
screening
and
milling,
and
dross
washing.
Regulated
pollutants
for
all
subcategories
include
lead,
zinc,
aluminum,
and
ammonia
nitrogen.
Total
phenolics
is
also
included
in
the
list
of
regulated
pollutants
for
wet
air
pollution
control
equipment
associated
with
delacquering
operations.

Treatment
of
wastewater
from
secondary
ammonia
smelting
consists
of
ammonia
stripping
pretreatment
of
the
dross
washing
effluent,
activated
carbon
pretreatment
for
removal
of
phenol
from
wet
air
pollution
control
wastewater
streams,
and
pretreatment
of
casting
cooling
water
for
removal
of
oil
and
grease.
All
wastewater
is
treated
by
an
end­
of­
pipe
chemical
precipitation
and
gravity
settling
system
for
metals
removal.

Aluminum
forming
operations
generate
wastewaters
containing
metals,
cyanide,

solids,
and
oil
and
grease.
Current
regulations
(
40
CFR
Part
467)
have
subcategorized
aluminum
forming
operations
into
rolling,
extrusion,
forging,
and
drawing.
Unit
operations
generating
wastewaters
include:
3­
4

Contact
cooling
water
from
casting
and
heat
treatment;


Wet
air
pollution
control
equipment
(
scrubbers)
associated
with
annealing
furnaces,
forges,
degassing
systems,
and
cleaning
and
etching
tanks;


Rolling
and
drawing
lubrication
systems;


Casting
lubrication
systems;
and

Cleaning
and
etching
solutions
and
rinses.

Regulated
pollutants
for
all
subcategories
include
chromium,
cyanide,
zinc,

aluminum,
oil
and
grease,
total
suspended
solids,
and
pH.
Other
metals
listed
in
the
PCS
database
for
aluminum
forming
include
cadmium,
lead,
nickel,
selenium,
tin,
and
mercury.
Nutrients
and
VOCs
listed
in
the
PCS
database
under
aluminum
forming
include
ammonia
nitrogen,
phosphorus,

chloroethane,
1,1,1­
trichloroethane,
dichloroethane,
and
dichloroethylene.

Treatment
of
aluminum
forming
wastewater
is
a
combination
of
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
and
in­
plant
controls
for
pollution
prevention.
End
of
pipe
treatment
includes
oil
skimming
for
oil
removal,
chemical
precipitation,
pH
adjustment,
cyanide
oxidation,
hexavalent
chromium
reduction,
and
chemical
emulsion
breaking.
In­
process
pollution
prevention
includes
recycling
of
heat
treatment
contact
cooling
water,
recycle
of
rod
casting
contact
cooling
water,

recycle
of
air
pollution
control
scrubber
liquor,
and
countercurrent
cascade
rinsing
applied
to
cleaning
or
etching
and
extrusion
die
cleaning
rinses.

For
both
primary
and
secondary
aluminum
smelting
and
aluminum
forming,

replacing
the
gravity
clarifiers
with
membrane
filters
(
microfilters)
will
improve
long­
term
effluent
quality
and
may
allow
additional
water
to
be
recycled.
Membrane
filtration
following
chemical
precipitation
is
becoming
more
common
due
to
its
ability
to
achieve
consistently
low
effluent
3­
5
metals
concentrations.
In
the
metal
finishing
industry,
membrane
filters
have
shown
the
ability
to
consistently
remove
nearly
all
precipitated
metal
hydroxides.
Although
gravity
clarification
systems
can
remove
metals
to
these
levels
under
ideal
conditions,
changes
in
solids
characteristics
and
rapid
increases
in
flows
(
slug
loadings)
will
result
in
a
deterioration
in
effluent
quality.

3.2
Construction
Products
Industry
The
economic
census
indicates
strong
growth
in
the
construction
products
industry,
and
both
Table
1
and
Table
2
include
several
entries
representing
the
industry.
The
growth
of
the
construction
productions
industry
is
a
result
of
the
demand
for
residential
and
nonresidential
construction.
The
production
of
construction
products
can
be
divided
into
two
steps:
1)
the
mining
and
quarrying
of
the
minerals
(
non­
metal,
non­
fuel
mining,
SIC
14),
and
2)

the
physical
modification
of
the
mined
minerals
to
produce
a
manufactured
product
(
stone,
clay,

and
glass
products,
SIC
32).
The
mining
and
quarrying
of
minerals
for
construction
products
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
Effluent
Limitations
Guideline
(
ELG)
for
the
Mineral
Mining
and
Processing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
436).
The
manufacture
of
stone,
clay,
glass,
and
concrete
construction
products
is
subject
to
the
following
ELGs:
Cement
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
411),
Glass
Manufacturing,
Insulation
Fiberglass
Subcategory
(
40
CFR
426),
and
Asbestos
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
427).

3.2.1
Technology
Advances
The
mining
industry
was
selected
as
one
of
OIT's
"
Industries
of
the
Future"
and
emphasis
has
been
placed
on
the
development
of
technologies
for
mining
and
processing
minerals
and
materials.
Through
its
participation
in
the
Industries
of
the
Future
program,
the
U.
S.
mining
industry
has
developed
a
research
plan,
known
as
the
Crosscutting
Technology
Roadmap,
which
encompasses
metallic
minerals,
nonmetallic
minerals,
and
coal
mining.
Research
and
development
work
in
some
areas
specified
by
Crosscutting
Technology
Roadmap
could
result
in
the
development
of
new
technologies
that
would
impact
wastewater
production
and
composition.
3­
6
For
example,
the
roadmap
has
identified
the
development
of
a
method
for
high
pressure
water
extraction
as
a
research
priority
and
estimates
that
a
commercially
available
method
will
become
available
in
the
next
three
years.
The
commercial
use
of
high
pressure
water
extraction
would
potentially
increase
the
amount
of
wastewater
generated
by
the
industry
and
necessitate
the
development
of
new
wastewater
handling
procedures.

The
Industries
of
the
Future
program
has
also
recently
funded
research
and
development
projects
aimed
at
the
development
of
improved
separation
and
dewatering
technologies,
dust
emission
control
technologies,
and
by­
product
recovery.
Improvements
in
the
efficiency
of
separation
and
by­
product
recovery
technologies
could
reduce
wastewater
generation
while
improvements
in
dust
emission
control
could
potentially
increase
wastewater
generation.
The
use
of
advanced
technologies
such
as
satellite
communication,
computer
modeling,
and
smart
sensors
are
already
widespread
in
the
industry
and
have
resulted
in
more
efficient
mining
and
processing
which
reduces
the
amount
of
waste
generated.

Wastewater
from
processing
facilities
can
contains
chemicals
such
as
sulfuric
acid,

chromium,
phenols,
zinc,
ammonia,
hydrochloric
acid,
and
phosphoric
acid,
that
are
currently
used
to
remove
mineral
impurities.
However,
there
have
been
efforts
made
to
develop
safe,

efficient,
and
economically
and
environmentally
beneficial
separation
processes.
For
example,
the
Idaho
National
Engineering
and
Environmental
Laboratory
(
INEEL)
has
been
"
experimenting
with
environmentally
friendly
catalysts
that
can
replace
current
noxious
chemicals"
and
has
also
been
working
on
"
developing
new
processing
methods
that
minimize
waste
generation."

Pollution
prevention
techniques
available
to
stone,
clay,
and
glass
product
manufacturing
facilities
can
be
classified
into
three
categories:
1)
source
reduction,
2)
recycling
and
reuse,
and
3)
improved
operating
practices.
Many
new
"
ready­
mix"
concrete
plants
have
greatly
reduced
water
use
in
recent
years
due
to
wastewater
disposal
issues
and
drought
conditions
in
some
parts
of
the
country.
An
increasing
number
of
companies
are
choosing
to
use
completely
closed­
loop
systems.
3­
7
3.2.2.
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
The
primary
toxic
pollutants
associated
with
mining
and
quarrying
of
minerals
are
metals
and
nutrients.
Discharge
monitoring
data
for
SIC
codes
1422
and
1442
show
facilities
monitor
effluent
for
arsenic,
barium,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
cobalt,
lead,
mercury,

molybdenum,
nickel,
selenium,
and
vanadium.
Nutrients
include
ammonia,
nitrate,
and
phosphorus.
EPA
regulates
pH
and
TSS
for
processes
that
do
not
recycle
all
water.
Certain
discharges
in
the
industrial
sand
and
gravel
category
are
also
regulated
for
fluoride.
In
general,

the
mineral
mining
industry
uses
gravity
settling
(
with
or
without
flocculants)
to
removed
suspended
solids.
Some
operations
require
pH
adjustment
before
recycle
or
discharge
of
treated
water.

Pollutants
from
cement
manufacturing
include
pH,
total
dissolved
solids
(
TDS),

TSS,
alkalinity
and
acidity,
potassium,
sulfate,
and
temperature.
Facilities
in
SIC
codes
3241
and
3273
monitor
their
effluent
for
a
number
of
metals
including
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,

chromium,
manganese,
nickel,
lead,
selenium,
vanadium,
and
zinc
as
potential
pollutants
in
the
cement
manufacturing
industry.
Nutrients
include
ammonia
and
nitrate/
nitrite.
Facilities
in
the
non­
leaching
subcategory
must
recycle
and
reuse
wastewater
and
contain
runoff
from
coal
piles
and
discarded
kiln
dust.
Facilities
is
the
leaching
subcategory
must
segregate
leaching
streams
from
non­
leaching
streams,
install
suitable
facilities
to
neutralize
the
leachate
streams
with
stack
gas
to
a
pH
of
9,
and
install
a
secondary
clarifier
or
settling
basin
to
reduce
suspended
solids
to
not
more
than
0.8
lbs
per
ton
of
dust
leached.
For
material
piles
and
kiln
dust
piles,
facilities
install
dikes
to
control
runoff
and
neutralization
and
sedimentation
facilities
for
treatment
of
runoff
that
cannot
be
controlled.

For
the
insulation
fiberglass
segment
of
the
glass
manufacturing
industry,
the
following
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
properties
characterize
the
process
wastewater
effluent:

Phenols
Oil
and
Grease
(
O&
G)
3­
8
BOD
Ammonia
COD
pH
TDS
Color
TSS
Turbidity
Temperature
Specific
conductance
The
control
technologies
for
the
insulation
fiberglass
segment
consists
of
recycle
and
reuse
of
process
waters
and
non­
contact
cooling
water
within
the
operation.
Complete
recycle
should
have
been
implemented
by
July,
1977.

The
chemical,
physical
and
biological
parameters
that
define
the
pollutant
constituents
in
wastewater
from
the
asbestos
manufacturing
industry
include:

TSS
BOD
COD
pH
Temperature
TDS
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Phenols
Metals
Asbestos
itself
is
not
included
in
the
list
of
pollutants
because
suspended
solids
present
in
the
wastewater
are
to
a
large
extent
asbestos
fibers.
Removal
of
suspended
solids
by
sedimentation
will
also
remove
asbestos
fibers.
For
the
asbestos­
cement
pipe,
asbestos­
cement
sheet,
and
asbestos
paper
manufacturing
segments,
the
control
technology
is
sedimentation,
with
coagulation
if
necessary,
for
removal
of
suspended
solids.
The
asbestos
millboard
subcategory
is
zero
discharge,
and
the
asbestos
roofing
and
floor
tile
subcategories
include
sedimentation
with
skimming,
if
necessary.
With
the
exception
of
asbestos
millboard
subcategory,
BAT
is
zero
discharge.
3­
9
3.3
Industrial
Organic
Chemicals
Industry
The
industrial
organic
chemicals
was
identified
by
the
National
Sediment
Contaminant
Point
Source
Inventory
as
one
of
the
three
major
industrial
dischargers
of
sediment
contaminants
(
EPA,
1997).
In
addition,
the
chemical
industry
as
a
whole
is
one
of
OIT's
"
Industries
of
the
Future."
The
organic
chemicals
industry
(
SIC
286)
is
divided
into
three
categories:
1)
gum
and
wood
chemicals,
2)
cyclic
organic
crudes
and
intermediates,
and
3)

industrial
organic
chemicals
not
elsewhere
classified.
The
manufacture
of
cyclic
crudes
and
intermediates
and
industrial
organic
chemicals
not
elsewhere
classified
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
Effluent
Limitations
Guideline
(
ELG)
for
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
(
OCPSF)
(
40
CFR
414),
established
in
1987
and
revised
in
1993.
The
manufacture
of
gum
and
wood
chemicals
is
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
ELG
for
the
Gum
and
Wood
Chemicals
Manufacturing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
454),
established
in
1976
and
reviewed
in
1976
and
1995.

3.3.1
Technology
Advances
Due
to
the
variety
in
the
chemical
reactions
and
processes
used
to
produce
organic
chemicals,
many
chemical
process
advancements
and
developments
apply
only
to
the
production
of
a
particular
chemical.
For
example,
in
January
2002,
scientists
at
the
National
Institute
of
Advanced
Industrial
Science
&
Technology
reported
that
they
had
developed
a
one­
step
catalytic
process
to
convert
benzene
to
phenol.
This
new
technique
is
higher
yielding
than
current
industrial
routes
to
phenol.

However,
advances
in
separation
techniques
can
be
applied
to
a
much
broader
segment
of
the
industry.
Although
many
of
the
separation
techniques
used
in
the
chemical
industry
are
already
highly
developed,
these
separation
techniques
could
be
improved
in
terms
of
energy
efficiency,
raw
materials
use,
or
cost
effectiveness.
Increased
efficiency
of
separation
processes
could
result
in
decreased
water
use
and
wastewater
production
by
the
organic
3­
10
chemicals
industry.
Additional
decreases
in
wastewater
generation
at
organic
chemical
manufacturing
facilities
can
be
achieved
through
improvements
in
equipment
such
as
vacuum
pumps,
seal
pumps,
and
stream
jets
and
implementation
of
waste
reduction
practices.

Through
the
Industries
of
the
Future
program,
OIT
and
the
U.
S.
chemical
industry
have
defined
goals
for
the
future,
developed
a
portfolio
of
research
and
development
projects,
and
accelerated
progress
towards
major
technology
breakthroughs
in
areas
such
as
chemical
synthesis,
bioprocesses
and
biotechnology,
and
materials
technology.

3.3.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
As
a
result
of
the
variety
in
the
processes
used
and
products
produced,
a
wide
range
of
pollutants
is
found
in
the
wastewaters
of
the
organic
chemicals
industry,
including
a
variety
of
conventional
pollutants,
toxic
priority
pollutants,
and
nonconventional
pollutants.

Many
of
the
toxic
and
nonconventional
pollutants
found
in
the
wastewaters
of
this
industry
are
organic
compounds
produced
by
the
industry
for
sale,
while
others
are
by­
products
of
the
production
processes.
Since
there
is
generally
more
than
one
reaction
pathway
available
to
the
reactants
of
chemical
reactions,
undesirable
by­
products
are
often
produced
resulting
in
a
mixture
of
unreacted
raw
materials,
products,
and
by­
products.
The
processes
used
to
separate
the
desired
product
from
this
mixture
generate
additional
residues,
with
little
or
no
commercial
value,

that
end
up
in
process
wastewater,
in
air
emissions,
and
as
chemical
wastes.
The
combination
of
raw
materials
and
production
processes
used
at
a
facility
determine
the
characteristics
of
the
wastewater
generated.

The
gum
and
wood
chemicals
manufacturing
point
source
category
generally
generates
wastewater
containing
conventional
pollutants.
Regulated
pollutants
include
BOD
5,

TSS,
and
pH.
Review
of
discharge
monitoring
data
for
SIC
code
2861
shows
facilities
monitor
effluent
for
metals,
phenol,
toxaphene,
ammonia,
and
phosphorus.
The
metals
include
aluminum,

copper,
cadmium,
lead,
nickel,
selenium,
and
zinc.
3­
11
Biological
treatment
is
BAT
for
the
gum
and
wood
chemicals
industry.

Pretreatment
of
individual
waste
streams
is
performed
to
remove
toxic
metals,
volatile
organics,

and
oil
and
grease.
Volatile
and
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds
can
be
removed
by
air/
steam
stripping,
and
oil
and
grease
can
be
removed
by
oil
skimming,
and
chemical
emulsion
breaking
followed
gravity
flotation
or
dissolved
air
flotation.
Chemical
precipitation
followed
by
gravity
clarification
is
the
typical
metals
treatment
system
used
by
the
industry.
Both
biological
treatment
and
metals
precipitation
is
expected
to
remove
the
majority
of
easily
degradable
organic
pollutants
and
metals.
Nutrients
(
ammonia
and
phosphorus)
can
be
removed
by
the
biological
treatment
system;
however,
modifications
to
promote
nitrification/
denitrification
and
phosphorus
uptake
would
likely
be
required
by
most
systems.

The
OCPSF
industry
generates
wastewater
containing
organic
compounds,

nutrients,
metals,
and
cyanide.
Pollutants
of
concern
include
volatile
organic
compounds,

semivolatile
organic
compounds,
alcohols,
PAHs,
nitrate
and
ammonia
nitrogen,
and
metals.
Metals
include
chromium,
cobalt,
copper,
lead,
nickel,
zinc,
and
total
cyanide.

Because
of
the
complexity
of
the
industry
and
the
number
of
different
manufacturing
processes,
pretreatment
requirements
vary
considerably.
Amenable
cyanide
is
typically
removed
by
chemical
oxidation.
Volatile
and
semi­
volatile
organic
compounds
are
treated
by
air/
steam
stripping,
carbon
adsorption,
and
distillation.
Oil
and
grease
is
removed
by
oil
skimming
and
ultrafiltration.
Hexavalent
chromium
is
reduced
by
chrome
reduction,
and
heavy
metals
are
removed
by
chemical
precipitation
and
ion
exchange.

End­
of­
pipe
treatment
systems
consist
of
primary
and
secondary
technologies.

Primary
technologies
include
equalization,
neutralization,
oil
separation,
primary
clarification,

coagulation
and
flocculation,
and
dissolved
air
flotation.
Secondary
technologies
include
biological
treatment
processes.
The
majority
of
facilities
use
activated
sludge
or
aerated
lagoons.

Other,
less
prevalent
biological
treatment
technologies
at
chemical
manufacturing
facilities
include
3­
12
aerobic
lagoons,
anaerobic
lagoons,
rotating
biological
contactors,
trickling
filters,
and
oxidation
ditches.

At
EPA's
recent
Industrial
Wastewater
and
Best
Available
Treatment
Technology
conference,
DuPont
Corporation
provided
an
overview
of
their
new
integrated
wastewater
management
facility
in
Victoria,
Texas.
The
facility,
a
Nylon
Intermediates
manufacturing
plant,

is
currently
regulated
under
the
OCPSF
ELG.
The
new
wastewater
management
facility
features
an
innovative
anoxic/
oxic
biological
treatment
plant,
a
constructed
wetland,
and
land
application
pilot
area
for
demonstrating
beneficial
reuse
of
the
biosolids.
The
treatment
system
is
working
well
with
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
(
COD)
removal
above
99
percent,
virtually
complete
removal
of
nitrate
and
nitrite,
and
100
percent
permit
compliance.

Since
startup
three
years
ago,
the
DuPont­
Victoria
biological
treatment
system
and
constructed
wetlands
have
returned
more
than
1.6
billion
gallons
of
water
to
the
Guadalupe
River
for
downstream
reuse,
including
drinking
water.
The
plant
has
also
removed
approximately
8.4
and
1.7
million
pounds
of
nitrate­
nitrogen
and
nitrite­
nitrogen
respectively
from
the
wastewater
and
about
112
million
pounds
of
organics.
The
constructed
wetlands
and
land
application
areas
are
providing
treated
wastewater
and
biosolids
with
a
quality
sufficient
for
both
flora
and
fauna
to
survive
and
reproduce.

3.4
Oil
and
Gas
Field
Services
Industry
Oil
and
gas
field
services
(
SIC
code
138)
includes
the
identification
of
hydrocarbon
reserves
through
surveying
activities,
exploratory
drilling
to
verify
the
presence
or
absence
of
hydrocarbon
reserves
and
to
determine
the
quantity
of
the
reserves,
and
development
of
drilling
operations.
Oil
and
gas
field
services
have
increased
dramatically
since
2000.
Rising
oil
and
gas
prices
are
creating
more
demand
for
products,
which
causes
more
exploration
and
development.

Oil
and
gas
field
services
wastewater
discharges
are
subject
to
the
requirement
of
the
Effluent
3­
13
Limitations
Guideline
(
ELG)
for
the
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
435),
promulgated
in
1979
and
most
recently
reviewed
in
2001.

3.4.1
Technology
Advances
Technology
advances
in
the
industry
have
increased
the
efficiency
of
both
exploration
and
development.
For
example,
exploration
has
long
relied
on
3­
dimensional
(
3­
D)

seismic
techniques
to
determine
where
oil
wells
are
located.
Advances
in
3­
D
seismic
surveys
have
enabled
producers
to
evaluate
prospects
more
accurately.
Because
3­
D
seismic
technology
improves
the
accuracy
of
the
drilling,
less
drilling
waste
is
generated,
less
water
is
extracted
relative
to
the
oil
and
gas,
and
there
are
fewer
impacts
of
exploration
because
fewer
wells
are
drilled
to
extract
the
reserves.
In
1996,
80
percent
of
off­
shore
surveys
and
75
percent
of
onshore
surveys
used
3­
D
seismic
technology.
Recently,
4­
D
seismic
surveys
are
being
developed
which
allow
3­
D
surveys
to
be
observed
over
time.
4­
D
surveys
provide
information
about
the
flow
of
the
hydrocarbon
reserves
and
further
increase
the
efficiency
of
oil
and
gas
extraction.
4­
D
surveys
are
not
yet
widely
used;
only
about
60
4­
D
surveys
had
been
performed
by
1999.

Seismic
surveys
are
disrupted
by
the
presence
of
salt
because
large
amounts
of
sound
energy
are
lost
when
passed
through
salt.
Oil
and
gas
contained
in
salt
can
be
modeled
by
a
combination
of
advanced
seismic
technology,
complex
mathematical
modeling,
and
improved
data
processing
and
imaging.
This
new
technology,
called
subsalt
imaging,
allows
for
better
reservoir
characterization
and,
therefore,
more
efficient
recovery
of
hydrocarbons.
Subsalt
imaging
is
currently
limited
in
use;
however,
testing
and
development
continue
to
improve
this
technology.

Advanced
drilling
techniques
have
reduced
the
impacts
of
drilling
on
water
quality.

These
techniques
include
measurement­
while­
drilling
systems
and
horizontal,
multilateral,
and
slimhole
drilling.
Measurement­
while­
drilling
systems
measure
downhole
parameters
to
allow
for
more
accurate
drilling,
which
reduces
drilling
waste.
Modern
drill
bits
improve
drilling
3­
14
performance
while
decreasing
waste.
Horizontal
drilling
permits
drilling
in
areas
inaccessible
by
vertical
drilling.
Multilateral
drilling
utilizes
horizontal
and
vertical
drilling
to
create
a
network
of
interconnected
wellbores
surrounding
a
single
major
wellbore,
which
allows
for
more
effective
hydrocarbon
extraction.
Slimhole
drilling
is
a
drilling
technique
that
requires
less
drilling
fluid
and
produces
less
cuttings
and
wastewater;
slimhole
rigs
occupy
far
less
space
than
conventional
rigs,

the
footprint
can
be
75
percent
smaller.

Alternative
drilling
methods
are
being
researched
which
decrease
the
amount
of
drilling
fluids
or
muds
used.
Pneumatic
drilling
substitutes
air
for
drilling
fluid;
however,
this
technology
is
only
suitable
for
certain
formation
types
and
can
create
potentially
explosive
situations.
Synthetic
drilling
muds
are
also
being
investigated.
They
are
more
effective
than
water­
based
muds,
and
lack
the
toxicity
of
oil­
based
muds.

Advanced
off­
shore
platform
technology
allows
for
the
recovery
of
deep
water
resources.
An
estimated
90
percent
of
reserves
are
under
3,000
feet
or
more
of
water.
New
technology
reduces
construction
and
production
times
and
operational
footprints.
Off­
shore
drilling
technology
has
enabled
deepwater
oil
and
gas
reserves
to
be
accessed
with
decreased
environmental
impacts.
Also,
voluntary
Safety
and
Environmental
Management
Programs
(
SEMPs)
are
in
place
for
almost
all
off­
shore
wells.
The
goals
of
SEMPs
are
to
reduce
human
error
and
increase
worker
safety
and
environmental
protection
by
identifying
and
correcting
potential
hazards.

3.4.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
Oil
and
gas
extraction
includes
on­
shore,
off­
shore,
and
coastal
extraction
operations.
On­
shore
oil
and
gas
extraction
operations
are
required
to
meet
zero
discharge
of
process
wastewater
pollutants.
Coastal
and
off­
shore
extraction
operations
are
regulated
for
oil
and
grease,
free
oil,
diesel
oil,
mercury,
cadmium,
PAHs,
biodegradation
rate,
and
toxicity
from
produced
water,
deck
drainage,
water­
based
drilling
and
cutting
fluids,
non­
aqueous
drilling
and
3­
15
cutting
fluids,
and
well
treatment
fluids.
Discharge
monitoring
data
for
SIC
code
1389
shows
facilities
also
monitor
for
ammonia
nitrogen,
total
cyanide,
arsenic,
beryllium,
total
and
hexavalent
chromium,
lead,
manganese,
thallium,
nickel,
silver,
selenium,
toluene,
benzene,
ethylbenzene,
and
phenol.

In
2000,
EPA
investigated
the
technological
aspects
of
four
drilling
waste
management
technologies,
including
product
substitution,
solids
control
equipment,
land­
based
treatment
and
disposal,
and
onsite
subsurface
injection.
Since
1990,
the
oil
and
gas
industry
developed
synthetic­
based
drilling
fluids
(
SBFs)
to
provide
the
drilling
performance
of
traditional
oil­
based
fluids
(
OBFs)
but
with
lower
environmental
impact
and
greater
worker
safety.
EPA
looked
at
the
use
of
SBFs
as
a
pollution
prevention
technology
while
allowing
the
discharge
of
waste
solids
(
cuttings)
containing
less
toxic
and
persistent
materials.
In
addition,
EPA
evaluated
the
use
of
advanced
solids
control
equipment
in
conjunction
with
SBFs
to
allow
for
controlled
discharges.

Land­
based
treatment
and
disposal
consists
primarily
of
subsurface
injection
of
drilling
wastes.
Drilling
wastes
are
received
in
vacuum
trucks,
dump
trucks,
cuttings
boxes,
or
barges
from
both
on­
shore
and
off­
shore
drilling
operations.
Most
of
these
treatment
and
disposal
facilities
employ
a
landfarming
technique
whereby
the
wastes
are
spread
over
small
areas
and
are
allowed
to
biodegrade
until
they
become
clay­
like
substances
that
can
be
stockpiled
outside
the
landfarming
area.
Another
common
practice
at
centralized
commercial
facilities
is
the
processing
of
drilling
waste
into
a
reuseable
construction
material.
This
process
consists
of
dewatering
the
drilling
waste
and
mixing
the
solids
with
binding
and
solidification
agents.
The
oil
and
metals
are
stabilized
within
the
solids
matrix
and
cannot
leach
from
the
solids.
The
resulting
solids
are
then
used
as
daily
cover
at
a
Class
I
municipal
landfill.
Other
potential
uses
for
the
stabilized
material
include
use
as
a
base
for
road
construction
and
levee
maintenance.

Research
is
also
being
conducted
on
advanced
water
treatment
technologies.

Freeze­
thaw
evaporation
purifies
wastewater
generated
from
oil
and
gas
development
operations
3­
16
(
produced
water)
by
separating
out
dissolved
solids,
metals,
and
chemicals.
In
this
process,

produced
water
is
placed
in
a
holding
pond.
When
temperatures
are
below
freezing,
the
produced
water
is
sprayed
on
a
freezing
pad
where
the
brine
and
dissolved
solids
separate
from
the
ice
due
to
varying
densities.
The
brine
is
disposed
of.
As
the
ice
melts,
purified
water
drains
from
the
freezing
pad.
During
warm
temperatures,
evaporation
from
the
pond
is
substituted
for
freezing
cycles.
The
produced
water
volume
requiring
disposal
was
reduced
by
80
percent
in
preliminary
tests.

The
volume
of
water
brought
to
the
surface
during
oil
and
gas
exploration
and
development
may
also
be
reduced.
Downhole
oil/
water
separation
uses
mechanical
or
natural
methods
to
separate
the
oil
and
water.
The
oil
is
brought
to
the
surface
and
the
water
is
pumped
into
a
subsurface
injection
zone.
This
technology
can
reduce
produced
water
volumes
by
95
percent
and
increase
oil
production
by
50
percent.

3.5
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Industry
The
semiconductor
manufacturing
industry
(
SIC
3674)
is
one
of
the
fastest
growing
industries
in
the
United
States.
It
had
a
144
percent
increase
in
the
value
of
shipments
between
1992
and
1997,
the
second
highest
percent
increase
in
the
manufacturing
sector.
(
See
Table
2
above.)
The
semiconductor
manufacturing
industry
is
currently
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
Effluent
Limitations
Guideline
(
ELG)
for
the
Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
469),
established
in
1983
and
revised
in
1985.

Electroplating
operations
in
the
semiconductor
manufacturing
are
also
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
ELG
for
the
Metal
Finishing
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
433),
established
in
1983.

3.5.1
Technology
Advances
Currently,
the
production
of
semiconductors
uses
a
multitude
of
chemicals
and
large
volumes
of
deionized
water.
However,
new
technology
decreases
the
amount
of
water
3­
17
needed
in
semiconductor
production
by
using
an
alternative
method
to
wash
the
chips.
One
method
uses
carbon
dioxide
at
high
temperatures
and
pressures.
Using
this
"
supercritical
carbon
dioxide"
is
inexpensive
and
cleans
the
chips
without
generating
large
quantities
of
wastewater.

In
addition,
emerging
technology
can
improve
the
treatment
of
wastewater
from
semiconductor
production,
to
allow
for
recycling
and
reuse.
Membrane
distillation
evaporates
water
across
a
polymer
membrane.
Contaminants
remain
on
the
heated
side
of
the
membrane
and
the
water
vapor
condenses
to
water
on
the
clean
side
of
the
membrane.
This
process
cleans
water
so
thoroughly
that
nearly
all
water
is
expected
to
be
able
to
be
reused
in
the
semiconductor
plant.

Certain
semiconductor
manufacturers
have
recently
begun
performing
a
Controlled
Collapse
Chip
Connection
(
C4)
electroplating
process
to
add
selective
thin
metal
deposits
to
the
surface
of
the
wafer
to
act
as
connection
points.
According
to
industry
personnel,
this
process
is
required
to
allow
for
increased
connection
points
caused
by
decreased
circuit
size
(
hence
an
increase
in
the
number
of
devices
per
semiconductor).

Several
semiconductor
manufacturers
recently
began
performing
a
new
process
for
using
copper
to
replace
aluminum
in
microprocessors,
enhancing
electron
migration
and
reducing
the
width
of
the
circuitry.
These
sites
use
a
copper
metallization
process,
in
which
copper
is
applied
with
an
electroplating
operation
followed
by
a
rinse.
This
process
is
part
of
a
sequence
of
photolithography,
etching,
and
copper
deposition
processes
performed
in
a
clean
room
environment.
The
process
deposits
a
microscopic
layer
of
copper
on
selected
(
i.
e.,
circuitry)

portions
of
the
wafer.
Historically,
electroplating
operations
were
performed
only
in
the
assembly
and
packaging
step
of
the
semiconductor
manufacturing
process.
However,
the
recent
development
of
the
copper
metallization
and
lead
bump
processes
results
in
electroplating
operations
that
are
also
performed
in
the
fabrication
process,
with
electroplating
operations
generating
less
than
1
percent
of
the
discharge
rates
from
the
semiconductor
fabrication
operations.
3­
18
3.5.2
Wastewater
Generation
and
Treatment
Semiconductor
manufacturing
processes
generate
a
wide
variety
of
wastestreams,

including
spent
solutions
(
e.
g.,
solvents,
acids,
cleaning
solutions,
resist
material,
etchant
solution,

electroplating
solutions,
and
developing
solutions),
wafer
rinse
waters
following
processing
steps,

and
other
wastewater
sources
such
as
wet
air
pollution
control
and
machine
cooling
and
lubrication.
Accordingly,
discharge
monitoring
data
for
SIC
3674
shows
a
wide
variety
of
pollutants
monitored,
including
nutrients,
cyanide,
fluoride,
metals,
solvents,
residual
chlorine,
and
hydrogen
peroxide.

40
CFR
part
469
applies
to
discharges
from
all
processes
associated
with
semiconductor
manufacturing,
except
electroplating,
vapor
deposition,
and
sputtering
which
are
covered
by
40
CFR
part
433.
Regulated
pollutants
for
part
469
include
total
toxic
organics,

fluoride,
arsenic,
total
suspended
solids
(
TSS),
and
pH.
Toxic
organics
are
associated
with
the
use
of
solvents
and
other
solutions
in
cleaning,
degreasing,
and
other
processing
steps.
Fluoride
is
generated
by
the
use
of
hydrofluoric
acid
as
an
etchant
or
cleaning
agent.
Arsenic
is
generated
at
only
those
facilities
that
manufacture
gallium
or
indium
arsenide
crystals.
(
Most
semiconductor
facilities
do
not
perform
crystal
growth,
preferring
to
instead
obtain
single
crystal
silicon
ingots
from
other
firms.)
Regulated
pollutants
for
part
433
include
total
toxic
organics,
cadmium,

chromium,
copper,
lead,
nickel,
silver,
zinc,
cyanide
(
total),
oil
and
grease,
TSS,
and
pH.

The
pollutant
control
technology
basis
for
40
CFR
469
includes
neutralization
for
pH
control,
solvent
management
for
control
of
toxic
organics,
and
precipitation
and
clarification
of
the
concentrated
fluoride
wastestream.
The
pollutant
control
technology
basis
for
40
CFR
433
includes
solvent
management,
segregation
of
waste
streams,
and
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
consisting
of
pretreatment
of
segregated
wastestreams
(
e.
g.,
cyanide
destruction,
hexavalent
chromium
reduction,
chemical
emulsion
breaking,
and
chemical
reduction
to
break
chelated
metals)
followed
by
neutralization,
chemical
precipitation,
and
gravity
clarification.
3­
19
However,
based
on
site
visits
conducted
by
EPA
in
1997,
semiconductor
manufacturing
facilities
are
able
to
achieve
the
existing
effluent
limitations
with
spent
solutions
management
and
minimal
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
(
e.
g.,
fluoride
precipitation
of
fluoride­
bearing
wastewaters
and
neutralization)
due
to
water
purity
requirements
of
production
processes.

Because
of
product
specification,
processes
require
ultrapure
water,
and
opportunities
for
water
conservation
may
be
limited.
Many
facilities
use
counter­
flow
rinses
where
possible,
but
do
not
allow
much
impurity
build­
up
in
the
water.
In
addition,
parts
469
and
433
wastewaters
are
commonly
commingled
prior
to
treatment
and
discharge,
which
can
result
in
metals
levels
below
treatability
and,
in
some
cases,
below
detection.

Note
that
at
facilities
performing
(
C4)
electroplating
processes
(
see
Section
3.7.1),

monitoring
at
the
source
would
require
dedicated
equipment
installed
in
clean
rooms
to
demonstrate
compliance.
For
this
reason,
EPA
has
provided
guidance
to
permitting
authorities
that
electroplating
operations
conducted
in
a
clean
room
should
not
be
covered
under
part
433.
