By applying sound engineering practices to several common wastewater treatment problems, simple but effective solutions may allow

more stringent effluent limits to be met while saving significant capital and operating dollars.

Practical Solutions for Optimizing Steel Mill Wastewater Treatment Plants

Thomas W. Woodrow, Senior Project Manager, Killam Associates, Warrendale, Pa.

Introduction
Steel industry wastewater treatment requirements are seemingly in a constant state of change, making it difficult to predict how changes in plant processes and effluent limit guidelines will affect existing steel mill wastewater treatment plants. Meeting stringent effluent limits has become challenging, especially for aging facilities. As effluent limits are revised and become tighter, post-treatment or completely new equipment systems may be required. However, the first objective should be to optimize operation of the existing equipment. Many steel mill wastewaters are contaminated with soluble metals that must be removed prior to discharge into a municipal sewer or receiving stream. Aging treatment plants that were not designed and built with the latest technologies and equipment may now be faced with inadequate treatment capabilities. Adding to this problem are plant process modifications and revised effluent limits that are too stringent for the existing systems to meet. Approaches to meet these new requirements include increasing chemical dosages and/or adding new treatment chemicals or equipment. Although there may be merit to chemical treatment and equipment modifications, many times these methods are not required and problems can be addressed with basic engineering and less complex upgrades. Some common wastewater treatment problems that may occur are discussed here, along with methods for upgrading a steel mill wastewater treatment plant to meet effluent limits in a practical and cost-effective manner. Wastewater segregation, minor mechanical upgrades, modifications to the chemical treatment program or a combination of these can often differentiate between meeting or failing effluent limits. Identifying and implementing proper solutions in a quick and cost-effective manner is essential.

alternative, high-strength wastes may be treated via a side-stream treatment or disposed of off site if cost effective.

Equalization
Wastewater equalization is employed to smooth out fluctuations in influent characteristics, allowing the wastewater treatment plant to run more uniformly. Influent wastewater characteristics can be impacted by fluctuations in temperature and pH, as well as concentrated dumps and flow surges. Controlling influent wastewater characteristics so there is minimal variance can be critical to meeting tighter effluent limits. The goal of equalization is to provide adequate dampening of influent constituents for stable operation of physical/chemical treatment processes. One problem with steel mill wastewater treatment plants is handling of concentrated process waste dumps. Over the years, additional process lines may have been added to the production facility. The resultant short-term flow and concentration variations may be greater than the plant was designed to handle. Although it may be tempting to pursue other wastewater treatment methods (e.g., new chemical treatment programs, additional equipment, or post-treatment to remove residual contaminants), installing a properly designed front-end equalization system may be the most practical upgrade. Equalization system design should be performed on a case-by-case basis using sampling data and statistical principles or simpler methods based on experience and practical judgment. However, any amount of equalization enhances efficient wastewater treatment. Many existing wastewater plants may already have an appropriately sized equalization system, but continue to experience wide swings in influent composition. If this condition exists, the problem may be poor mixing. If the equalization basin does not have a mixer, one should be installed to avoid waste stratification. If the basin does have a mixer, the mixer should be inspected to be sure that it is providing adequate mixing. A general rule of thumb for adequate equalization mixer sizing is one horsepower per 7500 gallons of wastewater, assuming the proper shaft length and mixer impeller(s) are used. Proper mixing is as important to equalization as basin capacity. Air lancing and tank recirculation mixing are other methods that are better than not mixing at all.

Wastewater segregation
One method that can improve wastewater treatment is segregation. Identifying the various wastewater sources, flowrates and contaminant constituents can be a beneficial first step in developing practical upgrades. A quick and inexpensive survey of the manufacturing processes can identify the various sources of wastewater and their approximate flowrates. Each wastewater source should be sampled and evaluated for the parameters of concern. The results will identify the major contaminant origins. At this point, an initial upgrade may be to segregate a high-strength, low-flow wastewater that is contaminating the entire wastewater stream and allow it to be metered into the existing treatment system. Controlled metering of high-strength wastes can improve the overall performance of a wastewater treatment plant. As an
46
AISE Steel Technology

Reaction mixing
Mixing wastewaters to complete chemical reactions is another area that is often overlooked. Many assume that if a mixer is circulating the wastewater inside a tank in a visibly acceptable manner, that mixing is adequate.
September 2001

This is often not the case. Mixing of wastewater is critical for specific chemical reactions to occur. Thus, mixing affects overall performance and must be evaluated thoroughly. Inadequate mixing is often blamed for poor wastewater treatment plant performance. As a result, engineers may be quick to install larger reaction tanks with more retention time; larger, more powerful mixers; or new motors to existing mixer shafts to improve mixing performance. These options can be quite expensive. Rather, careful analysis of the existing mixing equipment can often lead to more practical improvements. Assuming axial mixing, mixing energy is mainly a function of the pumping rate within the reaction tank as supplied by the mixer impeller; it is not solely a function of how much horsepower is applied to the shaft. As previously stated, a rule of thumb for general mixing is one horsepower per 7500 gallons of wastewater, assuming the proper shaft length and impeller are used. However, vigorous mixing may be necessary to complete certain chemical reactions; in this case more mixing energy may be required. Up to one-half horsepower per 1000 gallons of wastewater can be required to complete some chemical reactions. Installing a larger motor on an existing mixer shaft with an inadequate impeller will not always yield better mixing. Replacing the impeller and motor and keeping the gearbox (if possible) may be an appropriate alternative to replacing the entire mixer. Upgrading the mixer may also eliminate the need for larger tanks, which can save a significant amount of capital. Another important aspect of mixing is tank baffling. If tanks are not properly baffled, mixing will suffer. Without baffles, swirling and vortexing results and very little mixing takes place, although it may appear so visually. Upgrading a tank by installing equally spaced baffles to the tank wall is inexpensive and can improve mixing in a much more practical manner than replacing tanks or adding larger mixers. Understanding the reactions performed in a mixed reaction tank is also important. Changing the chemical treatment program may be a better solution than replacing the mixers or tanks. For example, hydrated lime is a common chemical used for neutralization/precipitation of soluble metals in wastewater. As lime is not readily soluble in water, it requires 20 to 30 minutes of retention time to react when properly mixed. By contrast, sodium hydroxide can be equally effective for wastewater neutralization/precipitation and is 100 times more soluble than lime, therefore completing the required reaction in five to 10 minutes. Although sodium hydroxide typically costs more than lime, the change could be a practical alternative to replacing reaction tanks and mixers.

chrome and zinc, the problem may be the systems operating pH. Before exploring expensive solutions (such as increasing the dose of coagulants and flocculants), the parameters of concern and the neutralization step pH setpoint should be investigated. In general, chrome hydroxide is least soluble at a pH between 8.0 and 9.0; zinc hydroxide is least soluble at a pH between 9.0 and 10.0; and nickel hydroxide is least soluble at a pH between 10.0 and 11.0. Depending on the parameter(s) of most concern, selecting and maintaining the optimum pH set point could be the most effective treatment plant upgrade. Although the treatment chemicals discussed above have historically been effective for steel mill wastewater treatment, lower effluent limits may be difficult to meet, even with optimum pH set points. Once this occurs, a common solution is to use more of these conventional chemicals; however, chemical costs will begin to rise along with sludge production and corresponding disposal costs. A more practical solution in this case may be to switch to a metals scavenging polymer that is capable of achieving effluent limits at lower cost and reducing sludge production. These chemicals are specially developed and available through chemical suppliers and will typically work with existing process equipment at low feed rates. The switch to a polymer-type chemical treatment program could be very beneficial to an existing wastewater treatment plant, but can only be verified through treatability testing. If low (less than 0.5 mg/l) metals concentrations are required due to lower effluent limits, the most practical alternative may be to install a final polishing step using other proprietary metals scavenging chemicals or sulfidebased polymers. Several types of proprietary chemicals are available and can be very effective. These chemicals typically have the ability to tie up residual metals remaining in solution after the primary treatment step, and precipitate them in a final clarification or filtration step. Again, verification of the appropriate chemical and equipment upgrades required can only be determined through treatability testing. Despite the extra effort, this method of treatment can be more practical and cost effective than larger mixers and reaction tanks, larger clarifiers and filtration equipment, and ion exchange and/or membrane filtration.

Clarification
Wastewater clarification via precipitated solids settling is critical to meeting effluent limits. Most effluent permits limit the amount of total suspended solids (TSS) and metals that can be discharged to a receiving stream. Therefore, effective solids settling in the clarifier is an important aspect of the treatment process. In general, clarifier effectiveness can be determined by its wastewater overflow rate. A basic rule of thumb for industrial wastewater treatment is an overflow rate of 0.25 to 0.50 gpm per square foot of surface area. If wastewater flows exceeding the design of the original clarifier cause the overflow rates to become too high, excessive amounts of TSS may discharge from the system (along with metals), contributing to effluent limit violations. One cost-effective method for improving the performance of an existing clarifier is to install tube settlers. Tube settlers are modules of angled settling tubes installed in the clarifier just below the water surface, effectively increasing the surface area. Additionally, crosscurrents and short-circuiting are significantly reduced. In effect, the clarifier will perform better at the higher flow rate without increasing the basin size. Tube settlers can typically save money and time in improving existing clarifier performance.
AISE Steel Technology

Chemical treatment
The chemical treatment program for a steel mill wastewater treatment plant can be simple and straightforward, or it can be quite complex and difficult to control. In general, if the treatment plant has adequate equalization, mixing and reaction times, and the other equipment is properly designed and in good working order but effluent limits are not being met, the chemical treatment program may be the problem. One of the most common wastewater treatment methods employed for heavy metals removal is the use of primary coagulants such as aluminum sulfate (alum), calcium chloride and ferric chloride (iron salt). If these conventional treatment chemicals are being used and treatment is not adequate for parameters such as nickel,
September 2001

47

Final pH adjustment and filtration

Final pH adjustment prior to discharge is typically required to bring the wastewater pH within permit limitsusually between 6.0 and 9.0. Sulfuric acid is typically used for pH adjustment, as it is fast acting and relatively inexpensive. However, if the wastewater treatment plant has effluent limits for total dissolved solids (TDS), the addition of sulfuric acid at the point of discharge could add sufficient TDS to fail effluent limits. If TDS limits are not being met, one option that may be considered is addition of expensive ion exchange or membrane filtration equipment to lower the TDS to within permit limits. A better alternative may be use of carbon dioxide for final pH adjustment. Carbon dioxide lowers pH by the formation of carbonic acid, which does not add TDS to the water and is as effective as sulfuric acid for pH adjustment. In addition, carbon dioxide usage can be as much as 50% less on a per pound basis as compared to sulfuric acid for performing the same neutralization. In that carbon dioxide does not add mineral acidity to the wastewater, if it is accidentally overfed, it self buffers at a pH of approximately 6.5, providing virtually fail-safe protection against violating a permit limit for pH due to overfeeding. Final pH adjustment in combination with final filtration is another problematic area. A wastewater treatment plant may utilize pH adjustment and filtration for control of residual metal hydroxide suspended solids and still fail effluent limits for metals. Understanding the chemistry of insoluble metal hydroxides may provide a practical solution. Some wastewater treatment plants place the final pH adjustment step ahead of final filtration. By doing so, amphoteric metal hydroxides can dissolve at lower pH levels and pass through the filter, resulting in exceedance of the effluent limits for total metals. A more practical solution to this problem is to simply reverse the treatment step order (i.e., perform final filtration first and pH adjustment last). These upgrades can usually be completed with minor piping modifications that are much less expensive than additional chemical treatment, ion exchange or membrane filtration.

remaining discharges are more concentrated, reducing the flow could result in increased TDS violations. If this occurs it is difficult to reintroduce dilution water back into the discharge if regulatory agencies have been made aware of the flow reduction. At this point, meeting TDS limits can become difficult and expensive, as TDS removal can only be accomplished via dramatic process changes, or final treatment with ion exchange, membrane filtration or evaporation. In the final analysis, reducing flows could result in increased capital and operating expenses. A thorough evaluation of the impact on TDS resulting from flow reductions should be performed before implementation. Another parameter of concern is effluent toxicity. Many steel mill wastewater effluents have effluent toxicity limitsa measurement of the wastewaters toxic effect on selected aquatic species. As with TDS, flow reductions could result in increasing the concentration and hence the toxicity of the wastewater effluent, resulting in toxicity test failures. Meeting toxicity limits can become difficult and expensive, and may require dramatic process changes or other complex treatment schemes. A thorough evaluation of the impact of flow reductions on toxicity should also be performed before implementation.

Other process improvements

Other process improvements not discussed that should be considered for cost-effective upgrades of an existing steel mill wastewater treatment plant may include: Improving reaction tank inlet/outlet configurations to increase effective retention time, reduce short-circuiting and enhance chemical reactions. Optimum location of pH probes and chemical feed lines. Sludge recycling, high-density sludge (HDS) and/or iron co-precipitation to enhance system performance. Intermittent use of effluent bag filtration in place of media filters.

Flow reduction and water conservation

Recently, regulatory agencies have been encouraging applying pressure for flow reductions and water conservation. Although there can be many benefits to flow reduction and water conservation, such as lower operating costs (i.e., chemicals, sludge disposal, city/well water usage and POTW discharge fees), such improvements have implementation costs and secondary impacts. Costs include expensive polishing or side-stream treatment equipment, chemical treatment, cooling towers and recirculation water piping systems. Secondary impacts can include disposal of concentrated wastes or the discharge of lower flows with higher total dissolved solids (TDS) and/or increased toxicity potential. Although not encouraged as a means of meeting effluent limits, flows from various sources may be diluting the effluent stream to a point where TDS concentrations are being met. (Many discharge effluent permits now contain TDS concentration limits.) Therefore, if the

Conclusion
A number of operational deficiencies or equipment shortcomings were identified and discussed that may prevent a steel mill wastewater treatment plant from meeting existing or proposed effluent limitations. Correction of such conditions should be evaluated before considering the addition of major facilities. Typical problems that may occur in existing steel mill wastewater treatment plants not built to meet stringent effluent limits and/or handle changes in plant flow and wastewater constituents were addressed. Application of sound engineering practices to several common wastewater treatment problems can break the cycle of myopic fixes that afflict many plants. Implementing simple, yet effective solutions could be beneficial in meeting more stringent effluent limits, while saving significant capital and operating dollars. L

48

AISE Steel Technology

September 2001