1978 Eason, Kremer, Dryden LA Waste Conrtrol

8/3/2019 1978 Eason, Kremer, Dryden LA Waste Conrtrol

1/7

Industrial Waste Control in Los Angeles CountyAuthor(s): John E. Eason, Jay G. Kremer, Franklin D. DrydenSource: Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), Vol. 50, No. 4 (Apr., 1978), pp. 672-677Published by: Water Environment FederationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25039609 .

Accessed: 26/10/2011 20:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Water Environment Federation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal

(Water Pollution Control Federation).

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wefhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25039609?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25039609?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wef


2/7

Industrial waste control in LosAngeles County

John E. Eason, Jay G. Kremer, Franklin D. DrydenSanitation Districts, Los Angeles County, Calif.

During 1972, state and federal authoritiesmandated that publicly owned treatmentworks (potw), such as the Sanitation Districtsof Los Angeles County, adopt a programwhich would control pollutant levels in thepotw effluent. This was to be done throughestablishment of industrial wastewater sourcecontrol regulations and other measures. Requirements were defined in federal PublicLaw 92-500 and in California's original OceanPlan.

The Districts' early efforts towards satisfying these requirements included adoption ofan industrial waste ordinance and establishment of a permit program for industrial dischargers to the sewerage system. Typical information obtained from the permits included:

wastewater measurements for toxic constituents and flow volumes, industrial process descriptions, plans of industrial process equip

ment, sewer plans of the industrial plant,description of raw materials or products, andplans of wastewater pretreatment equipment.To date, nearly 6 000 companies have obtainedindustrial discharge permits. The informationgained through the permit program provedvaluable in establishing numerical limits forsource control of toxic wastewater constituents.

ESTABLISHING EFFLUENT LIMITSIt became evident that prior to establish

ing industrial source control limits, a clearpicture of the origin of the pollutants wasnecessary. The Districts' Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (jwpcp), which acceptsprimary and waste activated sludge from several upstream biological plants, was the critical system in establishing industrial sourcecontrol limits. The jwpcp now uses primarytreatment with polymer addition and improvedsolids removal procedures to treat about 15.3

m3/s (350 mgd) of wastewater, which is about25 percent industrial. Plans are under wayto convert the jwpcp to a full secondary bio

logical treatment plant. By a combination ofimproved wastewater treatment and industrialsource control measures, the jwpcp effluentis to be

improvedto meet California's Ocean

Plan effluent limits.The background levels of toxic pollutants

in domestic wastewater were found from analysis of residential wastewater. After reviewinganalyses of several areas, Sanitation District28, which is a basically residential neighborhood in La Canada, was selected as havingtypical domestic levels of pollutants. The concentrations which are shown in Table I, werethen used to define the total domestic waste

water contribution of toxic pollutants receivedat the jwpcp.Industrial companies which were consideredto be non-contributors for a specific toxic pollutant were assumed to discharge pollutantsat the domestic level, unless other data wereavailable. The estimated controllable industrial contribution of pollutants, which is shownin Table II, was then found by subtractingthe total domestic portion plus the non-contributing industrial portion from the knowndaily mass input of toxic pollutants to jwpcp.

The Districts were then able to estimate industrial source control limits by using the fol

TABLE I. Concentration of toxic pollutantsin domestic wastewater.

ConcentrationConstituent (mg/1)Arsenic 0.014Cadmium 0.005Chromium 0.020Copper 0.119Cyanide 0.029Lead 0.051

Mercury 0.0005Nickel 0.031Zinc 0.490

672 Journal WPCF


3/7

Waste Source Control

lowing formula:L = PR[LP-La(l-S)] (1)

where

Lp = Le/(l-E) (2)The terms used in these equations are definedbelow:

L is the calculated maximum concentrationallowable in an industrial discharge.

P is the assumed ratio of maximum to average concentration in industrial waste

water containing a given pollutant.R is the ratio of total wastewater dischargeto the quantity discharged containing agiven pollutant.Lp is the calculated permissible influentconcentration at the Districts' treatmentplants necessary to meet the Ocean Plandischarge limit for a specified potw removal efficiency.

Le is the existing Ocean Plan effluent limit.*E is the anticipated fraction removed atthe treatment plant for a given pollutant.Removal efficiencies used assume fullsecondary, biological treatment.

La is the existing influent concentration befor source control.S is the fraction discharged by controllableindustrial sources.

The existing Ocean Plan limits do not allow for dilution effects, which occur when aproperly designed ocean outfall diffuser system is used. In November 1976, the Stateproposed revised Ocean Plan discharge limits.These limits were based upon chronic toxicitydata and existing background levels of pollutants in the ocean, and also included a dilutionallowance for discharges using a diffusion sys

TABLE II. Controllable industrialpercentage of toxic pollutants at JWPCP.

Constituent Percent*

Arsenic 47Cadmium 86Chromium 88Copper 76Lead 75Mercury 60Nickel 85Silver 13Zinc 84Cyanide 93

* Pre-source-control levels.

TABLE III. Revised JWPCP effluentconcentration requirements.

Existing Ocean Proposed OceanPlan Plan

Constituent (mg/1)* (mg/l)fArsenic 0.01 .4Cadmium 0.01 0.15Chromium 0.005 0.1Copper 0.1 0.25Cyanide 0.1.25Lead 0.1 .4Mercury 0.001 0.007Nickel 0.1.0Zinc 0.3 1.0

*Existing Ocean Plan limits for jwpcp effluentbased upon 50 percent of time requirement.

f Proposed revised Ocean Plan limits based upona 50:1 mixing zone dilution in Districts' ocean outfallsystem.

tern. If these proposed ocean discharge limitsare adopted, a different level of industrialsource control will be required (Table III).Calculated values of L using the existingOcean Plan effluent limits are shown in TableIV.

The reliability of limits calculated withEquation 1 is dependent upon having accuraterecords of industrial discharges to computethe P and R factors. Lp influent concentrations calculated using Equation 2 must notexceed the toxic levels for a given treatment

plant. If a calculated limit is negative, as wasthe case with chromium, it means that nolevel of industrial source control will meet therequired potw effluent quality objectives.

The calculated limit for cadmium seemedhigh in relationship to its relative toxicity.The high limit was due to a large dilutionfactor. In establishing the Phase I limits, alower level which could be attained with goodTABLE IV. Calculated maximumindustrial source control limits.

ConcentrationConstituent (mg/1)Cadmium 37Chromium ?1Copper 9Cyanide 16Lead 28Mercury 2Nickel 4Zinc 26

April 1978 673


4/7

Eason et al.

TABLE V. Sanitation Districts' industrialwastewater effluent limitations for jointoutfall districts.

Phase I Control PeriodConstituent (mg/1)

Arsenic 3Cadmium 15Chromium (total) 10Copper 15Lead 40Mercury 2Nickel 12Silver 5Zinc 25Cyanide (total) 10Total IdentifiableChlorinated

Hydrocarbons Essentially none

industrial housekeeping efforts was used.Limits calculated using Equation 1 represented the maximum allowable pollutant concentrations from any single industry if therequired Ocean Plan water quality objectivesof the Districts were to be met. In the Districts' two-phase progressive approach,

the calculated limits would be the second phase requirements. The advantages of the two-phaseapproach became readily evident when theState proposed revisions to the Ocean Planlimits midway through the first phase of theDistricts' program.The goal of the first phase was to establishlimits which would require companies to use

proven operating techniques to minimize theloss of pollutants to the wastewater. Thiscame to be known as the "good housekeepingapproach," and was a logical first step, evenfor companies that may eventually require expensive end-of-line treatment systems. TheDistricts had established, through their ownand self-monitoring reports, that the metalfinishing industry was primarily responsible fordischarging the pollutants requiring controls.Therefore, the good housekeeping techniqueswere geared towards a typical metal finishing shop. The local Metal Finishers Association was very helpful in supplying data andsuggestions which were used in formulatingthe good housekeeping requirements. The

basic good housekeeping requirements are:(a) no dumping of spent concentrated processsolutions, (b) containment of accidental spillsor leaks, (c) reduction in process solution

dragout, (d) prohibition of excess rinse water

flows for dilution purposes, (e) maintenanceof pH above 6, and (/) submission of quarterly monitoring reports. Suggested guidelinesfor reducing the loss of pollutants to the seweras well as water conservation techniques weredeveloped by the Districts and circulated tothe industry.The Phase I limits shown in Table V weredeveloped in cooperation with the Metal Finishers Association of Southern California, theCity of Los Angeles, and the Sanitation Districts of Orange County. A regional establishment of these effluent limits was believed

necessary to avoid any dislocations of companies or competitive advantages within thelocal areas. Wastewater analyses from com

panies that had implemented good housekeeping process improvements were used in deter

mining what concentrations of pollutants couldbe reasonably attained. These Phase I limitswere intended to be met using mainly goodhousekeeping measures. Phase II limits wouldbe influenced by the pollution control resultsobtained during the Phase I program.SOURCECONTROL IMPLEMENTATION

The Phase I limits were announced to industry in July 1975 at a public meeting. Amass mailing of information on the Phase Ilimits and good housekeeping procedures wasalso made to affected companies. The limitswere set to take effect on January 1, 1977,in order to allow industry 18 months to comeinto compliance. The Districts used this interim period to identify the companies which

would require controls on their wastewaterdischarge. First, the list of industrial sourcesdeveloped from Districts' permit data was updated by checking telephone directories and

manufacturers' registers to locate companiesnot included in the original listing. Second,a program was established which includedself-monitoring and Districts' monitoring ofindustrial sources. Third, companies foundto be discharging pollutants in excess of thePhase I limits were notified by letter and re

quired to submit information on a plan forcompliance. Most of the affected companies

were visited and recommendations for controlprocedures were made. These actions werenecessary to adequately inform companieswhere problems existed and to reduce theamount of "foot dragging" by reluctant companies.

Special emphasis was given to the problemof containment of spills of toxic solutions, asit became evident that this was a significant

674 Journal WPCF


5/7

Waste Source Controlsource of pollutants. Companies were notified that all process tanks containing in excessof 4.5 kg (10 lb) of pollutants in solution

would require spill containment. Most companies were able to develop simple dikingschemes which complied with this requirement. Contained solutions could then be reclaimed or hauled to a legal disposal site.In the past, the Districts operated a disposalstation at jwpcp for acid and cyanide wastes.

These materials were bled into a main trunksewer just upstream of jwpcp at controlledrates. When it was found that these solutionscontained extremely high concentrations ofheavy metals, the acid and cyanide disposalstation was closed. Most acid solutions arenow handled at a Class I landfill. For alimited time, the cyanide disposal station hasbeen reopened because the safety of landfilldisposal of cyanide wastes has not been fullystudied. An investigation is being made todetermine the most efficient manner of handling these cyanide wastes. The Districts alsoinvestigated construction of a central treatment facility for handling toxic industrial

wastes. It was found, however, that treatment of toxic wastes could not compete eco

nomically with landfill disposal.RESULTS OF SOURCECONTROLPROGRAM

Analyses of weekly composite samples ofjwpcp influent were used to evaluate the effect of the source control program. Table

VI shows how the concentrations of some materials have been affected in the period fromJanuary 1975 to January 1977. More recent

wastewater analyses have shown slightly increased values for some of these pollutants.Compliance with California Ocean Plan limitsin the following summaries is based upon theresults shown in Table VI, the proposed Ocean

Plan limits, and the removal efficiencies projected for advanced primary treatment with

polymer addition and improved solids recovery facilities.

Cadmium. In general, cadmium levelsshowed a gradual decrease during the 18month period in which Phase I controls werebeing implemented. It is expected that cadmium will stabilize at a level about 30 percent below the pre-source-control levels. Atthis level, the Districts should have no difficulty in meeting the proposed state Ocean

Plan discharge limits. However, proposedlimits on cadmium in composted wastewatersludge may become a problem. Most of theimprovement is the result of improved drainage of cadmium plating barrels over the plating tanks and limiting dumps of cadmiumstripping and brightening solutions.Chromium. Starting in the middle of 1976,chromium levels at jwpcp started to dropdramatically. This trend continued throughthe first part of 1977. It is expected thatchromium levels will stabilize at around 0.40

mg/1, which is nearly a 50 percent reduction.At this level, the Districts would be able tomeet the proposed state Ocean Plan dischargelimits some of the time. It is expected thatmajor pretreatment systems, which are to bebrought on-line in 1978 by companies in theleather tanning industry, will further reducechromium to a point where the Ocean Planrevised limit can be met on a continuous basis.

Much of the improvement was brought aboutby recovery rinse techniques used by decorative chrome platers and reduced dumping ofspent chromium solutions used in anodizingof aluminum and brightening of zinc andcadmium finishes. The dumping of these solutions, however, is still a problem. A few highproduction decorative-chrome shops with automatic plating lines found that end-of-line

TABLE VI. Progress in source control of toxic pollutants.Concentration in mg/1 in JWPCP Influent

Wastewater Jan-June July-Dec Jan-June July-Sept Oct-Dec JanPollutant 1975 1975 1976 1976976 1977Cadmium 0.037 0.031 0.029 0.033 0.027 0.019Chromium 0.70 0.73 0.78 0.61 0.47.43Copper.45 0.45 0.45 0.33 0.34 0.30Cyanide 0.28 0.36 0.32 0.28 0.21 0.27Lead.40 0.31 0.34 0.28 0.32 0.34

Nickel.31 0.33 0.35 0.34 0.27.21Zinc.55 1.48 1.37 1.41 1.29.17

April 1978 675


6/7

Eason et al.

treatment was necessary. If sufficient stationsare available on the automatic lines to accommodate post-plating rinse techniqueswhich will concentrate the dragout, chromeand nickel recovery becomes economicallyattractive.

Copper. Copper appears to have taken astep decrease of about 30 percent after July1976. As additional source control measuresare brought on-line, copper should continueto decrease to about 50 percent of its presource-control level. There should be no difficulty in meeting the proposed Ocean Planlimit. Much of the copper reduction is a result of closure of the acid station, which wasreceiving spent electroless copper baths. Afew brass platers using automatic plating linesand some circuit board etchers required endof-line treatment to meet the limit.

Cyanide. The cyanide information is basedon once-a-month sampling because compositesampling cannot be used. This limited data

base makes it difficult to see trends. In general, cyanide levels decreased during the PhaseI implementation period, with a dramatic dropoccurring after the closure of the cyanide station (which has since been temporarily reopened). Comprehensive monitoring is beingcarried out to better determine the effect ofthe cyanide station reopening. With the cyanide station closed there should be no problem in meeting the proposed Ocean Plan limits at jwpcp. If the cyanide station is open,some daily samples may be in excess of thejwpcp effluent limit. Reductions in cyanidelevels are believed to result from good house

keeping measures, resulting in reduced platingtank dragout and a lowering of cyanide levelsof zinc plating baths.Lead. The lead levels at jwpcp were relatively unaffected by the lead effluent limit of

40 mg/1. Improvements planned by companies in the battery manufacturing industryshould result in a lowering of the lead levelby the end of 1978. There should not be anyproblem in meeting the proposed Ocean Planlimit.

Nickel. Nickel levels remained relativelyunchanged until the closing of the cyanidedisposal station and have drifted downwardsince that time. Most of the 30 percent reduction was a direct result of the eliminationof dumping spent cyanide-nickel strippingsolutions. Good housekeeping techniques hadless of an effect on nickel as most platers havealways been more careful with nickel becauseof its higher cost. Nickel is most often used

as a base coating in decorative chrome plating. Nickel levels should continue to decrease as high production rate (high dragoutrate) decorative chrome platers install pretreatment equipment to comply with the Districts' effluent limits. There should not beany problem in meeting the proposed OceanPlan nickel limit.

Zinc. Zinc levels have continuously decreased a total of about 30 percent duringthe Phase I implementation period. Muchof the improvement was a result of platers'changing to lower strength zinc baths and improving dragout losses. Zinc galvanizers whoused acid strips had difficulty meeting thelimit. Zinc levels at jwpcp should continueto decline gradually and level off at about1.0 mg/1. There should not be any problemin meeting the proposed Ocean Plan limit.

REVISIONOF STATEOCEAN PLANIt is believed likely that the California OceanPlan limits will be revised to the levels which

were proposed in November 1976. The Districts' Phase I source controls will, however,permit meeting most of the jwpcp ocean discharge limits as established under the existing

Ocean Plan. If the removal efficiencies projected for advanced primary treatment with

polymers and improved solids recovery areused, the existing Ocean Plan limits would beconsistently met for cadmium, copper, leadand mercury. The existing Ocean Plan limitfor nickel and cyanide would not be met, butcould be complied with if a substantial reduction of the existing source control limit

was made. Implementation of full secondarybiological treatment at jwpcp would allow thecyanide limit to be met without additionalsource control restrictions. As was statedbefore, no level of source control would beeffective in meeting the existing Ocean Planchromium limit.

CURRENT STATUSOF SOURCECONTROL PROGRAMAt present, it is estimated that about 75

percent of the affected companies are nowmeeting the industrial effluent limits with goodhousekeeping techniques. In some cases, particularly with metal plating companies usingautomatic plating machines at high production rates using barrel plating or processinghard to drain parts, the use of end-of-linetreatment has been necessary to meet thePhase I limits. The Districts are attemptingto work with companies not meeting the Phase

676 Journal WPCF


7/7

Waste Source ControlI limits to bring them into compliance. In afew cases, it has become necessary to take enforcement actions against recalcitrant com

panies. However, in general, industry hasbeen very cooperative with the Districts' PhaseI programs.The term "Phase I limits" implies that theresoon may be Phase II limits. However, this

may not be necessary. If industry continuesto cooperate, and influent pollutant levels atjwpcp are maintained at or below the levelswhich will need to be achieved under thePhase II program, the Districts should beable to meet their effluent water quality limitations as defined in the revised state OceanPlan document. It is important to note that,if the Districts had not used a two-phase ap

proach and had determined the final industrial effluent limits based on the originalOcean Plan, a significant hardship could havebeen placed on industry. Instead, Phase Ilimits will probably satisfy the goals of theDistricts' source control program without theneed for more stringent effluent limits.

Factors that may require reevaluating thesource control limits include the level to which

the Environmental Protection Agency becomesinvolved in determining national pretreatmentstandards, failure of the State to adopt pro

posed Ocean Plan revisions, and possible restrictions on heavy metal levels in compostedwastewater sludge used as a soil conditioner.

SUMMARYUnder the described Phase I program, the

Districts will attain the treated wastewaterquality objectives of California's revised OceanPlan without imposing unduly strict effluentlimits on industry. Such stringent industrialeffluent limits could result in costly pretreat

ment requirements without a demonstratedbenefit to the environment.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSCredits. This paper was presented at theCalifornia Water Pollution Control Association

Conference on April 29, 1977.Authors. John E. Eason is Project Engineer, Jay G. Kremer isHead, Industrial WasteSection, and Franklin D. Dryden is Head,Technical Service Department of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Calif.

April 1978 677

1978 Eason, Kremer, Dryden LA Waste Conrtrol

Documents

Transcript of 1978 Eason, Kremer, Dryden LA Waste Conrtrol