United Stales Effluent Guidelines Division EPA 440/1-81/023
Environmental Protection WH-552 January 1981
Agency Washington, DC 20460
Water and Waste Management
&EPA Development Final
Document for
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Timber Products
Point Source Category
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
and
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
for the
TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Jeffery D. Denit
Acting Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Richard E. Williams
Project Officer
January, 1981
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of a study of the wood
preserving, insulation board, and wet process hardboard segments
of the Timber Products Processing point source category for the
purpose of developing effluent limitations and guidelines for
existing point sources and standards of performance and
pretreatment standards for new and existing point sources to
implement Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 33 USC 1251 et. seq., as amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977, P.L. 95-217) (the "Act"). This document was also prepared
in response to the Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. Train. 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C^ 1976),
modified March 9, 1979.
The information presented in this document supports regulations
promulgated in January 1981 for the Timber Products Processing
Point Source Category. Information is presented to support new
source performance standards (NSPS) and pretreatment standards
for new and existing sources (PSNS and PSES) for two
subcategories in the wood preserving segment. Information is
presented to support best practicable control technology (BPT),
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), new source
performance standards (NSPS), and pretreatment standards for new
and existing sources (PSNS and PSES) for the two parts of the wet
process hardboard subcategory and the insulation board
subcategory. Best available technology (BAT) and BCT limitations
are not proposed for the wood preserving segment because only one
direct discharger of process wastewater has been identified. BAT
limitations are not proposed for the hardboard subcategory and
the insulation board subcategory because of the low level of
toxic pollutants present in raw wastewaters generated by these
subcategories. The guidelines and standards promulgated by the
Agency and presented in this document are based on the
performance of technology currently being practiced in the
industry segments for which regulations are promulgated.
Descriptions of the treatment technologies appropriate for
achieving the limitations contained herein, as well as supporting
data, cost estimates, and rationale for the development of the
proposed effluent limitations, guidelines, and standards of
performance are contained in this report.
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
A. Summary and Conclusions 1
1. Coverage 1
2. Wood Preserving 1
3. Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard 2
B. Effluent Standards 4
1. Wood Preserving 4
2. Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard 5
II. INTRODUCTION 9
A. Purpose and Authority 9
B. Prior EPA Regulations 11
1. Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available 11
2. Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable 12
3. New Source Performance Standards 14
4. Pretreatment Standards, New and Existing 14
C. Overview of the Industry 16
1. Standard Industrial Classifications 16
2. Wood Preserving 17
3. Insulation Board 17
4. Wet Process Hardboard 27
D. Summary of Methodology and Data Gathering Efforts 30
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY 35
A. Wood Preserving 35
1. Scope of Study 35
2. Background 35
3. Data Collection Portfolio Development 35
4. Response to the DCP 36
5. Characterization of Non Responders 36
6. Comparison with Independent Surveys 38
7. Summary 38
8. Methods of Wastewater Disposal According
to the DCP 39
9. Units of Expression 39
10. Process Description 39
B. Insulation Board 49
1. Scope of Study 49
2. Scope of Coverage for Data Base 50
3. Units of Expression 50
4. Process Description 50
C. Wet Process Hardboard 57
v
-------
SECTION
PAGE
1. Scope of Study 57
2. Scope of Coverage for Data Base 57
3. Units of Expression 57
4. Process Description 58
IV. INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION 67
A. General 67
B. Wood Preserving 67
1. Review of Existing Subcategorization 67
2. Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials 68
3. Wastewater Characteristics 70
4. Manufacturing Processes 72
5. Methods of Wastewater,Treatment and Disposal 72
6. Nonwater Quality Impacts 73
7. Subcategory Description and Selection
Rationale 73
C. Insulation Board 74
1. Review of Existing Subcategorization 74
2. Raw materials 75
3. Manufacturing Process 76
4. Products Produced 76
5. Plant Size and Age 77
6. Nonwater Quality Impacts 77
" 7. Subcategory Description and Selection
Rationale 77
D. Wet Process Hardboard 78
1. Review of Existing Subcategorization 78
2. Raw Materials 78
3. Manufacturing Processes 79
4. Products Produced 79
5. Size and Age of Plants 80
6. Nonwater Quality Impacts 80
7. Subcategory Description and Selection
Rationale 80
V. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 81
A. General 81
B. Wood Preserving 81
1. General Characteristics 81
2. Wastewater Quantity 82
3. Steam Conditioning and Vapor Drying 83
4. Boulton Conditioning 84
5. Historical Data 85
6. Plant and Wastewater Characteristics 90
7. Design for Model Plant 109
C. Insulation Board 109
1. Chip Wash Water 111
2. Fiber Preparation 111
3. Forming 111
vl
-------
SECTION
PAGE
4. Miscellaneous Operations 112
5. Wastewater Characteristics 113
6. Raw Waste Loads 114
7. Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads 123
D. Wet Process Hardboard 127
1. Chip Wash Water 127
2. Fiber Preparation 128
3. Forming 128
4. Pressing 129
5. Miscellaneous Operations 129
6. Wastewater Characteristics 130
7. Raw Waste Loads 134
8. Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads 137
VI. SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 145
A. Toxic Pollutants 145
1. Wood Preserving Segment 145
2. Wet Process Hardboard/Insulation
Board Segment .147
B. Toxic Organic Compounds 147
1. Pentachlorophenol 147
2. Phenol 148
3. 2-Chlorophenol 150
4. Trichlorophenol 151
5. 2,4-Dimethylphenol 153
6. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 154
7. Benzene 155
8. Toluene 156
9. Benzo(a)pyrene 156
10. Chrysene 157
11. Naphthalene 158
12. Polynuclear Aromatics (PNAs) 158
13. Ethylbenzene 159
14. Copper160
15. Chromium 160
16. Arsenic 161
17. Lead 162
18. Zinc 163
19. Nickel 164
C. Conventional Pollutants 165
1. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 165
2. Oil and Grease 166
3. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 167
4. pH 167
D. Nonconventional Pollutants 168
1. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 168
VII. CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 171
A. General 171
vll
-------
SECTION PAGE
B. Wood Preserving 172
1. In-Plant Control Measures 172
2. End-of-Pipe Treatment 176
3. In-Place Technology 193
4. Treated Effluent Characteristics 200
5. Wood Preserving Candidate Treatment
Technologies 239
C. Insulation Board and Wet Process Hardboard 261
1. In-Plant Control Measures 261
2. End-of-Pipe Treatment 266
3. In-Place Technology and Treated Effluent
Data, Insulation Board 269
4. In-Place Technology and Treated Effluent
Data, Hardboard 276
5. Insulation Board Candidate Treatment
Technologies 288
6. Wet Process Hardboard Candidate Treatment
Technologies 292
7. Pretreatment Technology 298
VIII. BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE 299
A. General 299
B. Manufacturing Processes 299
C. Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities 300
D. Status of BPT Regulations 300
1. Wood Preserving Segment 300
2. Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard
Segment 301
E. Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)
1. Wood Preserving Segment
2. Wet Process Hardboard/Insulation Board Segment
F. Regulated Pollutants 302
G. Methodology of BPT Development 302
1. Wood Preserving Segment 302
2. Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment 302
H. BPT Limitations 309
1. Wood Preserving Segment 309
2. Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard
Segment 310
I. Engineering Aspects of Control Technology
Application 312
J. Treatment Variability Estimates 312
K. Cost and Effluent Reduction Benefits-
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard 314
L. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact 314
M. Guidance to NPDES Permitting Personnel 315
v1 f 1
-------
SECTION
PAGE
IX. BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 317
A. General 317
B. Wood Preserving Segment 317
C. Insulaton Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment 318
D. Best Conventional Control Technology 318
1. Wood Preserving Segment 318
2. Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard
Segment 319
E. BCT Limitations 320
F. Engineering Aspects of Control Technology
Application ' 321
G. Treatment Variability Estimates 322
H. Cost and Effluent Reduction - Insulation
Board/Wet Process Hardboard 324
I. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact 324
J. Guidance to NPDES Permitting Personnel 325
X. BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE 327
A. General 327
1. Wood Preserving Segment 328
2. Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment 330
3. Barking Subcategory 330
4. Veneer Subcategory 331
5. Log Washing Subcategory 332
XI. NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 333
A. General 333
1. Wood Preserving - Boulton Subcategory 333
2. Wood Preserving - Steam Subcategory 333
3. Insulation Board and Hardboard
Subcategories 334
XII. PRETREATMENT STANDARDS 335
A. General 335
B. Wood Preserving 335
1. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources, PSES 335
2. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources,
PSNS 338
C. Wet Process Hardboard/Insulation Board 339
1. Pretreatment Standards for New and Existing
Sources 339
XIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 341
XIV. BIBLIOGRAPHY 343
1x
-------
SECTION PAGE
XV. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 357
APPENDIX A Costs of Treatment and Control Systems 369
APPENDIX B-1 Toxic or Potentially Toxic Substances Named
in Consent Decree 391
APPENDIX B-2 List of Specific Toxic Pollutants 393
APPENDIX C Analytical Methods and Experimental Procedure 397
APPENDIX D Conversion Table 413
APPENDIX E Literature Discussion of Biological Treatment 415
APPENDIX F Discussion of Potentially Applicable Technologies 431
APPENDIX G Statistical Methodology for Determining Performance
Variability of Treatment Systems 441
APPENDIX H 308 Survey 481
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Section II
II—1 Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by
State and Type, 1978 18
II-2 Consumption of Principal Preservatives and
Fire Retardants of Reporting Plants in the
United States, 1978 21
II-3 Materials Treated in the United States by
Product 22
I1-4 Inventory of Insulation Board Plants Using
Wood as a Raw Material 24
I1-5 Inventory of Wet Process Hardboard Plants 30
Section III
III-1 Comparison of DCP Coverage with AWPA 387
Plant Population 37
II1-2 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Boulton Plants Responding to Data
Collection Portfolio 40
III-3 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Steaming Plants Responding to Data
Collection Portfolio 40
II1-4 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Inorganic Salt Plants Responding to
Data Collection Portfolio 41
II1-5 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Nonpressure Plants Responding to
Data Collection Portfolio 41
II1-6 Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by
Insulation Board Plants Responding to
Data Collection Portfolio 52
II1-7 Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by
Wet Process Hardboard Plants 57
Section IV
IV-1 Size Distribution of Wood Preserving Plants
by Subcategory 70
xi
-------
Wastewater Volume
Wastewater Volume
Steaming Plants
Wastewater Volume
Treat Significant
Wastewater Volume
Plants
Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Steaming
Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected During 1975 Pretreatment Study,
1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study
Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Boulton
Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected During 1975 Pretreatment Study,
1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study
Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter
Data—Steam
Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter
Data—Boulton
Wood Preserving VOA Data
Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
Volatile Organic Fractions During 1978
Verification Sampling
Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data
Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data
Substances Not Found in Base Neutral Fractions
During 1977 and 1978 Verification Sampling
Wood Preserving Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data
Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found During
1978 Verification Sampling
Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
Treat with Organic Preservatives Only
Data for 14 Boulton Plants
Data for Eight Closed
Data for 11 Plants Which
Amounts of Dry Stock
Data for 14 Open Steaming
xi 1
-------
V-l7 Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
Treat with Organic Preservatives Only 105
V-l8 Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
Treat with Both Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives 106
V-l9 Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
Treat with Both Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives 107
V-20 Range of Pollutant Concentrations in
Wastewater from a Plant Treating with
CCA- and FCAP-Type Preservatives and a
Fire Retardant 108
V-21 Raw Waste Characteristics of Wood Preserving
Model Plants 110
V-22 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Raw
Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages) 117
V—23 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
and/or Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averages) 118
V-24 Insulation Board, Mechanical Refining
Subcategory—Design Criteria 122
V-25 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical
Subcategory—Design Criteria 122
V-26 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
Insulation Board Plants—Total Phenols 124
V—27 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
Insulation Board—Metals 125
V-28 Insulation Board, Raw Wastewater Toxic
Pollutant Data, Organics 126
V—29 SIS Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averages) 132
V-30 S2S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averages) 133
V-31 SIS Hardboard Subcategory—Design Criteria 136
V-32 S2S Hardboard Subcategory—Design Criteria 137
V-33 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loads for
Hardboard Plants—Total Phenols 139
xiii
-------
V—34 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
Hardboard Plants—Metals 140
V-35 Average Raw Waste Concentration and Loadings
for Hardboard Plants—Metals 142
V-36 SIS Hardboard Subcategory, Raw Wastewater
Toxic Pollutant Data, Organics 143
V-37 S2S Hardboard Subcategory, Raw Wastewater
Toxic Pollutant Data, Organics 143
Section VI
VI-1 Toxic Chemical Information 146
Section VII
VII-1 Progressive Changes in Selected Characteristics
of Water Recycled in Closed Steaming Operations 175
VI1-2 Annual Cost of Primary Oil-Water Separation
System 179
VII-3 Results of Laboratory Tests of Soil Irri-
gation Method of Wastewater Treatment 191
VII-4 Reduction of COD and Phenol Content in Waste-
water Treated by Soil Irrigation 192
VII-5 Current Level of In-Place Technology,
Boulton, No Dischargers 194
VII-6 Current Level of In-Place Technology, Wood
Preserving, Boulton, Indirect Dischargers 195
VI1-7 Current Level of In-Place Technology,
Steam, No Dischargers 196
VII-8 Current Level of In-Place Technology,
Steam, Direct Discharger 198
VII-9 Current Level of In-Place Technology,
Wood-Preserving-Steam, Indirect Dischargers 199
VII-10 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
Parameters Data for Plants with Less than the
Equivalent of BPT Technology In-Place 202
xiv
-------
VII-11 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
Parameters Data for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 203
VI1-12 AWPI Wood Preserving Treated Effluent
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) Data for Plants With
Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place 204
VII-13 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
Parameter Data for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In-Place 205
VI1-14 Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
Volatile Organic Analysis During 1978
Verification Sampling 206
VI1-15 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile
Organics Data for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 207
VI1-16 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile
Organics Data for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In-Place 208
VII-17 Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
Base Neutral Fractions During 1977 and 1978
Verification Sampling 209
VII-18 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Concentrations for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 210
VII-19 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Wasteloads for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In-Place 211
VI1-20 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Concentrations for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In-Place 212
VII-21 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Waste Loads for Plants with Current BPT Technology
In-Place 213
VI1-22 Toxic Pollutant Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found
During 1978 Verification Sampling 214
VII-23 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Toxic Pollutant
Phenols Data for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In-Place 215
xv
-------
VII-24 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Toxic Pollutant
Phenols Data for Plants with Current BPT Technology
In-Place 216
VII-25 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 217
VI1-26 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 218
VII-27 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In-Place 219
VII-28 Wood Preserving Metals Data., Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In-Place 220
VII-29 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Treated Effluent for Plants with
Less than the Equivalent of BPT Technology
Treatment In-Place 221
VII-30 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Treated Effluent for Plants with
the Equivalent of BPT Technology Treatment
In-Place 222
VI1-31 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place 223
VI1-32 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place 224
VI1-33 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In-Place 225
VI1-34 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In-Place 226
VII-35 Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for
Plants with Less than the Equivalent of BPT
Technology In-Place 227
VII-36 Wood Preserving Steam Traditional Data
Averages for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In-Place 228
xv i
-------
VI1-37 Wood Preserving Data for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In-Place 228
VII-38 Wood Preserving Volatile Organic Analysis Data
for Plants with BPT Technology In-Place 229
VI1-39 Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data Averages
for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
In-Place 230
VI1-40 Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data Averages
for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place 231
VII-41 Wood Preserving Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data
For Plants with Pretreatment Technoloy
In-Place 232
VI1-42 Wood Preserving Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data
for Plants with BPT Technology In-Place 233
VI1-43 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic
Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants
with Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place 234
VII-44 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic
Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants
with Current BPT Technology In-Place 235
VI1-45 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and
Inorganic Perservatives, Averages for Plants
with Less than the Current BPT Technology
In-Place 236
VI1-46 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 237
VI1-47 Wood Preserying Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In-Place 238
VII-48 Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft3 for
Candidate Treatment Technologies (Direct
Dischargers) 249
VII-49 Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft3 for
Candidate Treatment Technologies-Wood Preserving
(Indirect Dischargers) 257
VII-50 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Treated
Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average) 270
xvii
-------
VII-51 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
Treated Effluent Characteristics
VII-52 Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent
Reduction for Total Phenols—Insulation Board
VII-53 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent
Reduction for Insulation Board Metals
VII-54 Insulation Board, Toxic Pollutant Data,
Organics
VII-55 SIS Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics
(Annual Average)
VII-56 S2S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics
(Annual Average)
VII-57 Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent
Reduction for Total Phenols—Hard
VII-58 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and
Percent Reduction for Hardboard Metals
VII-59 SIS Hardboard Subcategory, Toxic
Pollutant Data, Organics
VII-60 S2S Hardboard Subcategory, Toxic
Pollutant Data, Organics
VII-61 Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
Treatment Technologies—Insulation Board
VII-62 Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
Treatment Technologies—Hard
Section Vfll
VIII-tI BPT Numerical Limitations
Section IX
IX-1 BCT Numerical Limitations
Section XII
XII-1 Summary of Available Data - Pentachlorophenol in POTW'
APPENDIX A
A-l Cost Assumptions
xviti
-------
A-2 Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant N-l 373
A-3 Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant N-2 374
A-4 Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant N-3 375
A-5 Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant N-4 376
A-6 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant C-l 377
A-7 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant C-2 378
A-8 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model Plant C-l 379
A-9 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost,Summary for Model Plant C-2 380
A-10 Wet Process Hardboard SIS Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant C-l 381
A-ll Wet Process Hardboard SIS Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant C-2 382
A-12 Wet Process Hardboard S2S Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant C 383
A-13 Wood Preserving—Steam Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants Direct Dischargers 384
A-14 Wood Preserving—Steam Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants Indirect Dischargers 385
A-15 Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants Indirect Dischargers 386
A-16 Wet Process Hardboard-SlS Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for
Individual Plants Direct Dischargers 389
xix
-------
A-17
Wet Process Hardboard-S2S Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for
Individual Plants Direct Dischargers
APPENDIX C
C-l Purgeable Volatile Toxic Pollutants
C-2 Parameters for Volatile Organic Analysis
C-3 Base Neutral Sxtractables
C-4 Acidic Extractables
C—5 Parameters for Base Neutral Analysis
C-6 Parameters for Phenolic Analysis
C-? GC/ECD Parameters for Pesticide and
PCB Analysis
C-8 Pesticides and PCB's
APPENDIX E
E-l Substrate Removal at Steady-State
Conditions in Activated Sludge Containing
Creosote Wastewater
E-2 Reduction in Pentachlorophenol and COD in
Wastewater Treated in Activated Sludge Units
E-3 BOD, COD and Total Phenol Loading and Removal
Rates for Pilot Trickling Filter Processing a
Creosote Wastewater
£-4 Relationship Between BOD Loading and Treat-
ability for Pilot Trickling Filter Processing
a Creosote Wastewater
E-5 Sizing of Trickling Filter for a Wood
Preserving Plant
E-6 Average Monthly Total Phenol and BOD Concentra-
tions in Effluent from Oxidation Pond
APPENDIX F
F-l Summary of Arsenic Treatment Methods and
Removals Achieved
xx
-------
Number of Observations in Data Set, as Presented
in 1979 Development Document
Non-Parametric Daily Variability Factors for
Insulation Board and Hardboard Plants as Presented
in 1979 Development document
Non-Parametric 30-Day Variability Factors for
Insulation Board and Hardboard Plants, as Presented
in 1979 Development Document
Descriptive Statistics of Extended Data Base
Autocorrelations
Daily 99th Percentile Estimates and Standard
Errors
Daily Variability Factors
99th Percentile Estimates for 30-Day Average
Based on Arithmetic Mean
Thirty Day Variability Factors
Estimates of the Variances for the Random Effects
Model
xx i
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Section
II
Paqe
II-l
Geographical Distribution of Wood Preserving
Plants in the United States
20
II-2
Geographical Distribution of Insulation Board
Manufacturing Facilities in the United States
25
II-3
Total Board Production Figures: Insulation Board
26
11-4
Geographical Distribution of Hardboard Manufacturing
Facilities in the United States
28
II-5
Total board Production Figures: Hardboard
29
Section
III
III-l
Typical Treating Cycles Used for Treating
Lumber, Poles, and Piles
42
III—2
Open Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant
43
III-3
Closed Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant
45
III-4
Modified Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant
46
III-5
Boulton Wood Treating Plant
47
III-6
Vapor Conditioning Process Wood Treating Plant
48
III-7
Diagram of a Typical Insulation Board Process
53
III—8
Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process
Hardboard Mill SIS Hardboard Production Line
64
III-9
Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process
Hardboard Mill S2S Hardboard Produciton Line
65
Section
V
V-l
Variation of BOD with Pre-Heating Pressure
116
Section
VII
VII-1
Variation in Oil Content of Effluent with Time
Before and After Initiating Closed Steaming
xxlf
173
-------
VI1-2 Variation in COD of Effluent with Time Before
and After Closed Steaming 174
VI1-3 Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon
Added and Removal of COD and Total Phenols from a
Creosote Wastewater 184
VI1-4 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Evaporation
System 189
VII-5 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers)—Model Plant A 241
VI1-6 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers)—Model Plant B 242
VI1-7 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers)—Model Plant C 243
VI1-8 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers)—Model Plant D 244
VI1-9 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)—Model Plant E 245
VII-10 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)—Model Plant F 246
VII-11 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)—Model Plant G 247
VI1-12 Wood Preserving-Steam, (Direct
Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)—Model Plant H 248
VII-13 Wood Preserving-Steam> Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers)—Model Plant I 252
VI1-14 Wood Preserving-Steam, Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers)—Model Plant J 253
xxi11
-------
VI1-15 Wood Preserving-Steam, Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)—Model Plant K 254
VII-16 Wood Preserving-Steam, Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)—Model Plant L 255
VII-17 Wood Preserving-Steam, Boulton (Self Contained)
(Indirect Dischargers - Oily Wastewater with
Fugitive Metals)—Model Plant M 256
VII-18 Wood Preserving-Boulton (Self Contained)—
Model Plant N 259
VII-19 Wood Preserving-Steam (Self Contained)—
Model Plant N 260
VII-20 Plant 929-Flow Vs. Effluent BOD 262
VII-21 Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo-
Mechanical Refining) (Direct Dicharge)—
Model Plant A 289
VI1-22 Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo-
Mechanical Refining) (Direct Discharge)—
Model Plant B 290
VII-23 Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo-
Mechanical Refining) (Self Contained)—
Model Plant C 291
VI1-24 Hardboard (SIS and S2S) (Direct Discharge)—
Model Plant A 294
VII-25 Hardboard (SIS) (Direct Discharge)—
Model Plant B 295
VI1-26 Hardboard (S2S) (Self Contained)
—Model Plant C 296
VI1-27 Hardboard (SIS and S2S) (Self Contained)
—Model Plant D 297
APPENDIX C
C-l Reconstructed Total Ion Current Chromatogram
for Purgeable Volatile Organics Standard 403
xxiv
-------
C-2 Reconstructed Total Ion Current Chromatogram for
Base Neutrals
C-3 Reconstructed Total Ion Current Chromatogram for
Phenolic Standard
C-4 Flow Chart for Pesticides and PCB's
C-5 Pesticide Mixed Standard
406
407
409
412
APPENDIX E
E-l
Determination of Reaction Rate Constant for a
Creosote Wastewater
E-2 COD Removal from a Creosote Wastewater by
Aerated Return Without Sludge Lagoon
E-3 Total Phenols Content In Oxidation Pond
Effluent Before and After Installation in
June 1966 of Aerator
422
423
428
APPENDIX G
G-l
(BOD)
Daily Effect
Autocorrelation:
Plant
537
474
G-2
(TSS)
Daily Effect
Autocorrelationj
Plant
537
475
G-3
(BQD)
Daily Effect
Autocorrelations
Plant
931
, 476
G-4
(TSS)
Daily Effect
Autocorrelation:
Plant
931
477
G-5
(BOD)
Daily Effect
Autocorrelation;
Plant
980
478
G-6
(TSS)
Daily Effect
Au tocorrelation:
Plant
980
479
APPENDIX H
H-l
308 Survey
481
XXV
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Coverage
The technical study of the timber products processing industry,
the findings of which are presented in this document, is limited
to the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process
hardboard portions of the industry. New regulations are
promulgated for these portions. In addition, previously
promulgated regulations for the hydraulic barking portion of the
barking subcategory, the veneer subcategory, and the log washing
subcategory were reconsidered.
Wood Preserving
There are more than 415 wood preserving plants operated by more
than 300 companies in the United States. The plants are
concentrated in two areas, the Southeast from east Texas to
Maryland and along the Northern Pacific coast. These areas
correspond to the natural ranges of the southern pine and Douglas
fir - western red cedar, respectively.
Toxic pollutants in wastewaters from plants that treat with
organic preservatives are principally volatile organic solvents
such as benzene and toluene, and the polynuclear aromatic
components (PNAs) of creosote, including anthracene, pyrene and
phenanthrene, that are contained in the entrained oils. Both
phenol and phenol derivatives have been identified in these
wastewaters; pentachlorophenol (PCP) is predominant when it is
used as a preservative. Heavy metals are also found. The
conventional pollutants found in the wastewaters inelude TSS, Oil
and Grease, and pH. COD is the only noncbnventional pollutant
that has been identified.
The following toxic pollutants were found in treated effluents at
two or more plants above the nominal detection limit of ten
micrograms per liter, organics, and less than 2 micrograms per
liter, metals.
fluoranthene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
benzo(k)f1uoranthene
pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
i ndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
benzo(gh i)pery1ene
naphthalene
acenaphthylene
fluorene
chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
phenol
pentachlorophenol
arsenic
copper
chromium
nickel
zinc
1
-------
The Agency is retaining the previously promulgated
subcategorization scheme for the wood preserving segment except
for the title of the Wood Preserving subcategory, which has been
changed for descriptive purposes.
The Agency is withdrawing the existing best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) regulation for the Wood
Preserving-Steam subcategory because there is only one known
direct discharging plant in the subcategory. The Agency does not
believe it is necessary to develop national effluent limitations
for this one plant.
The Agency is promulgating new source performance standards
(NSPS) and pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) which
prohibit discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Over eighty
percent of all existing wood preserving plants have demonstrated
that no discharge of process wastewater pollutants can be
attained.
The Agency is not promulgating the proposed pretreatment standard
for existing sources (PSES) that would have required no discharge
of pentachlorophenol (PCP). The no discharge PCP limitation was
based on the application of evaporative technology. Instead, the
Agency has decided to retain the existing PSES for the Wood
Preserving-Boulton and-Steam subcategories that were promulgated
in December 1976. This existing standard, based on gravity
oil-water separation technology, requires a limitation of 100
mg/1 on Oil and Grease, as well as limitations of 5 mg/1 for
copper, 4 mg/1 for chromium, and 4 mg/1 for arsenic. This is
being done out of economic and other considerations.
The Agency's decision to retain existing PSES for the Wood
Preserving-Steam and -Boulton subcategories will result in no
pollution control costs above and beyond those imposed by the
existing standard.
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard
There are 26 plants in the insulation board/wet process hardboard
segment. Ten plants produce only insulation board, 11 plants
produce only wet process hardboard, and five plants produce both
insulation board and wet process hardboard. Nine plants are
located in the South, seven in the Midwest, six in the Pacific
Northwest, three in the Mid-Atlantic region, and one in the
Northeast.
The pollutants present in the process wastewater are mainly water
soluble wood constituents high in BOD and TSS, the result of the
leaching of wood constituents into the process water. Additives
also contribute to the waste load. These may include wax
emulsion, paraffin, starch, polyelectrolytes, aluminum sulfate,
vegetable oils, ferric sulfate, and thermoplastic and
thermosetting resins. Wastewater flows from discharging plants
range from 0.05 to 4 MGD. Data obtained from the sampling and
2
-------
analysis program conducted during the BAT review study show that
the only toxic pollutants present in raw or treated wastewaters
from this segment are very low concentrations of heavy metals,
and the organics-benzene, toluene, and phenol. There is no
treatment technology, except perhaps a no discharge technology,
currently available to further reduce the low concentrations of
these pollutants,' and none of these pollutants are present at
levels high enough to interfere with the operation of a POTW.
The following toxic pollutants were found in treated effluents at
two or more plants above the nominal detection limit but below
the limit of additional treatability.
phenol
beryllium
nickel
The Agency is dividing the existing wet process hardboard
subcategory of the industry into two parts, smooth-one-side and
smooth-two-sides, SIS and S2S, respectively. Raw waste loads
generated by plants producing S2S hardboard were found to be
significantly higher than those generated by SIS plants.
Therefore, application of comparable treatment to these
wastewaters will result in a different treated effluent level.
The Agency is promulgating for this subcategory best practicable
control technology (BPT), and best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT) limits for BOD, TSS and pH. It is also
promulgating new source performance standards (NSPS) which
require no discharge of process wastewater pollutants and
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), and pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) which require that
dischargers meet the general pretreatment standards of 40 CFR
Part 4,03. BAT limitations are not being promulgated because
toxic pollutants were identified at only trace levels in
effluents from this industry and treatment of these pollutants is
not economically or technologically feasible.
The Agency is merging the insulation board subcategories into one
subcategory. BPT, BCT, NSPS, PSNS and PSES effluent Limitation
guidelines and standards are being promulgated for this
subcategory. BAT limitations are not being promulgated because
toxic pollutants are present in only trace amounts in wastewaters
generated by this industry and treatment of these pollutants is
not economically or technologically feasible. The BPT and BCT
numerical limitations are different than those for wet process
hardboard because insulation board raw wastewaters are of lower
strength and are more easily treated than wet process hardboard
wastewaters. The Agency is promulgating PSNS and PSES which
require that dischargers meet the general pretreatment standards
of 40 CFR Part 403 because the pollutants present in insulation
board wastewaters are compatible with POTW. The Agency is
promulgating a NSPS which requires no discharge of process
benzene
toluene
copper
zinc
3
-------
wastewater, based on the demonstrated feasibility of land
application technology.
The cost of compliance for the hardboard subcategory to achieve
the BPT level of control is estimated to be $9,556,000 capital,
and $3,679,000 annual operating costs. A total of three plants
might incur costs to achieve this level of control.
For the BCT level of control, seven plants could incur a total of
$20,345,000 capital and $6,296,000 operating costs.
No plants in the insulation board subcategory will incur costs to
achieve the promulgated BPT and BCT limitations.
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
Wood Preserving
The Agency is not changing the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) limitations previously
promulgated for the wood preserving segment in 40 CFR Part 429,
(subparts F, G, and H)* (39 FR 13942, April 18, 1974). That
rulemaking established a no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants limitation for subparts F and H, and established
numerical limits on the discharge of COD, total phenols (as
measured by Standard Methods), Oil and Grease, and pH for subpart
G.
The Agency is also retaining the previously promulgated best
available technology economically achievable (BAT) limitations
for subparts F and H, which established a no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants limitation. BAT for subpart G is being
withdrawn because there is only one plant in this subcategory
that is known to be discharging process wastewater.
The Agency is promulgating new source performance standards
(NSPS) that require no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. The rationale for this decision is that more than 80
percent of existing wood preserving plants are achieving no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants and that new sources
can achieve this status without severe economic consequences.
The Agency proposed a PSES standard requiring no discharge of PCP
in order to eliminate PCP from passing through POTW. The Agency
*Subpart F - Wood Preserving
Subpart G - Wood Preserving-Steam
Subpart H - Wood Preserving-Boulton
4
-------
decided not to promulgate this propused no discharge of PCP
standard because the cost of attaining this level of control was
too high and for other reasons.
Instead, it has decided to retain the previously promulgated
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for subparts G
and H, which require a 100,mg/1 limitation on Oil and Grease, a 5
mg/1 limitation on copper, and a 4 mg/1 limitation on chromium
and arsenic (41 FR 53930, Dec. 9, 1976). Control of Oil and
Grease will control polynuclear aromatics and pentachlorophenol
(PCP) to levels which insure minimal pass through of these toxics
through POTW.
The Agency is retaining PSES for subpart F which require no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants (40 CFR Part 429.164)
(41 FR 53935). It is common practice for plants in this
subcategory to recycle and reuse all process wastewater. The
Agency is promulgating pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) that require no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. This standard will prevent PCP, heavy metals and
PNAs from passing through POTW. New source indirect dischargers,
unlike some of the existing sources, are fully capable of meeting
this no discharge requirement without severe economic
consequences. No hindrance to the addition of new capacity is
expected.
Section 304(e) of the Act directs the Administrator "to control
plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal
and drainage from raw material storage . . ." The
technical/economic studies upon which these regulations are based
did not include a detailed study of these factors. The Agency is
conducting a separate study of these aspects (Best Management
Practices, BMP) of pollution control to be addressed in future
rulemaking.
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard
BPT, BAT, NSPS and PSNS for the wet process hardboard subcategory
were promulgated April 18, 1974 (39 FR 13942). These regulations
established numerical limits on BOD, TSS, and pH. PSES for the
subcategory were promulgated December 9, 1976 (41 FR 53930) and
required compliance with general pretreatment standards. BPT,
BAT and NSPS for the wet process hardboard subcategory were
withdrawn by the Agency on September 27, 1977, because further
information obtained indicated the need to revise the regulation.
BPT, BAT, NSPS and PSNS for the insulation board subcategory were
proposed August 26, 1974 (39 FR 30892) but were never
promulgated. Numerical limits on BOD,TSS and pH were proposed
and the PSNS required compliance with general pretreatment
standards. The PSES for the subcategory was promulgated on
December 9, 1976, and requires compliance with the general
pretreatment standards.
5
-------
The Agency has changed the subcategorization scheme in the
present round of rulemaking. In the insulation board
subcategory, although the waste loads from the two pulp
preparation processes are slightly different, there is only one
"mechanical refining" plant which is a direct discharger, and
this plant has a raw waste load equivalent to the average
thermomechanical refining plant. Therefore, these two
subcategories have been combined into one, "Insulation Board."
Secondly, the Agency found that plants which produce S2S
hardboard exhibit significantly greater raw waste loads than do
SIS hardboard plants because S2S hardboard manufacture requires
more cooking and refining of the wood chips. For this reason,
the Agency divided the wet process hardboard subcategory into two
parts, SIS Hardboard and S2S Hardboard.
Because BPT had been withdrawn in the wet process hardboard
subcategory and never promulgated in the insulation board
subcategory, it was necessary to designate a BPT treatment level
in this round of rulemaking, as a minimum level of control
applicable to all direct dischargers. BPT is also used as a
baseline against which to compare the costs of achieving the BCT
level of control.
The wet process hardboard subcategory has two parts,
smooth-one-side (SIS) and smooth-two-sides (S2S). For the SIS
part, BPT is based on the performance of a plant producing only
SIS hardboard. In the S2S part, EPA has promulgated a limit
which can be achieved if the treatment used at the SIS BPT plant
is applied to the higher raw waste load at the S2S plant. This
approach was elected because the sole plant producing only S2S
hardboard demonstrates a performance well above that usually
associated with BPT in terms of percent removal of BOD and TSS.
Therefore, it is deemed an appropriate plant for BCT, but not
BPT. In the absence of' an appropriate model plant for BPT, this
approach is the most rational; furthermore 7 out of 14 direct
dischargers are already meeting the limit.
In the insulation board subcategory the Agency has promulgated
BPT numerical limits on BOD, TSS and pH. These limits are based
on the performance of one of the two direct discharging plants
producing insulation board only.
To set BCT limits for the SIS and S2S parts of the wet process
hardboard subcategory, the Agency identified only one .treatment
and control option technically and economically feasible for
providing pollutant removal beyond that required by BPT
limitations. This option is to provide additional detention
time, aeration and settling capacity. The characteristics of the
upgraded biological systems are based on documented performance
of existing systems treating SIS hardboard wastewaters and S2S
hardboard wastewaters. Although there are five plants producing
hardboard that are currently achieving no discharge of process
wastewater, the Agency did not select a no discharge of process
6
-------
wastewater option for BCT because this level of control would
fail the "cost reasonableness" test.
BCT for the insulation board subcategory was proposed as the same
limits as BPT because no existing plant demonstrated an
intermediate, upgraded treatment level. The next step for this
subcategory would be no discharge of all process wastewater, and
this requirement would not pass the "cost-reasonableness" test.
The promulgated effluent limitations contain several changes from
the proposed BPT and BCT limits for both the wet process
hardboard and insulation board subcategories. In developing the
final rule, the Agency collected a year's worth or more of
additional data on treatment system performance, and revised its
statistical methodology in order to account for both seasonality
and autocorrelation of the data. The Agency re-analyzed all the
data using the improved methodology, with the result that the
daily limits became slightly more restrictive, and the 30-day
limits became slightly more lenient.
The Agency did not propose BAT limits for the insulation
board/wet process hardboard segment because review of the
information available to the Agency indicated that such toxic
pollutants as do occur in the segment are present in such low
concentration levels that they cannot be effectively reduced by
any of the technologies known to EPA, except a no discharge
technology which is not considered to be technologically or
economically feasible for many existing plants.
New source performance standards for both wet process hardboard
and insulation board were proposed as no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants. Five of the existing twenty-six plants in
the two subcategories are achieving no discharge of process
wastewater. The Agency believes that new sources, which have
more flexibility to plan as necessary to achieve no discharge,
are capable of meeting the standard. A no discharge limitation
can be achieved by a number of methods, including recycle and
reuse of treated wastewater, spray irrigation of treated process
wastewater and in-plant controls designed to minimize the
wastewater generated.
In establishing pretreatment standards for both new and existing
facilities, the Agency recognized that process wastewaters
generated by the insulation board/wet process hardboard segment
of the industry do not contain toxic pollutants at treatable
levels. Conventional pollutants present in these wastewaters,
primarily BOD and TSS, are treatable by a POTW. Because of these
facts, the Agency is promulgating pretreatment standards for new
and existing sources in the insulation board/wet process
hardboard segment that do not establish numerical limitations on
the introduction of process wastewater to a POTW.
Section 304(e) of the Act directs the Administrator "to control
plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal
7
-------
and drainage from raw material storage . . ." The
technical/economic study upon which these regulations are based
did not include a detailed study of these factors. The Agency is
conducting a separate study of these aspects (Best Management
Practices, BMP) of pollution control to be addressed in future
rulemaking.
8
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
The regulations described in this notice are promulgated under
authority of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, 33 USC 1251 et seq., as amended by the Clean Water Act of
1977, P.L. 95-217) (the "Act"). These regulations are also
promulgated in response to the Settlement Agreement in Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120
(D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (section 101(a)). By July 1, 1977, existing industrial
dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limitations
requiring the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available" ("BPT") (section 301(b)(1)(A));
and by July 1, 1983, these dischargers were required to achieve
"effluent limitations requiring the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT) which will
result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of all pollutants" (section
301(b)(2)(A)). New industrial direct discharges were required to
comply with section 306, new source performance standards
("NSPS"), based on best available demonstrated technology (BADT);
and new and existing dischargers to publicly owned treatment
works ("POTW") were subject to pretreatment standards under
sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act. While the requirements for
direct dischargers were to be incorporated into National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued
under section 402 of the Act, pretreatment standards were to be
enforceable directly against dischargers to POTW (indirect
dischargers).
Although section 402(a)(1) of the 1972 Act authorized the setting
of requirements for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis,
Congress intended that, for the most part, control requirements
would be based on regulations promulgated by the Administrator of
EPA. Section 304(b) of the Act required the Administrator to
promulgate regulations providing guidelines for effluent
limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of BPT and BAT. Moreover,
sections 304(c) and 306 of the Act required promulgation of NSPS,
and sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c) required promulgation of
pretreatment standards. In addition to these regulations for
designated industry categories, section 307(a) of the Act
required the Administrator to promulgate effluent standards
applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollutants. Finally,
section 501(a) of the Act authorized the Administrator to
9
-------
prescribe any additional regulations "necessary to carry out his
functions" under the Act.
The EPA was unable to promulgate many of these guidelines and
standards by the dates contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was
sued by several environmental groups and in settlement of this
lawsuit, EPA and the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement
Agreement," which was approved by the Court. This Agreement
required EPA to develop a program and adhere to a schedule for
promulgation for 21 major industries BAT effluent limitations
guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source performance
standards for 65 "toxic" pollutants and classes of pollutants.
See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120
(D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean
Water Act of 1977. Although this law makes several important
changes in the Federal water pollution control program, its most
significant feature is its incorporation of many of the basic
elements of the Settlement Agreement program for toxic pollutant
control. Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now
require the achievement by July 1, 1984, of effluent limitations
requiring application of BAT for toxic pollutants, including the
65 "toxic" pollutants and classes of pollutants which Congress
declared "toxic" under section 307(a) of the Act. Likewise,
EPA's programs for new source performance standards and
pretreatment standards are now aimed principally at toxic
pollutant control. Moreover, to strengthen the toxics control
program, section 304(e) of the Act authorizes the Administrator
to prescribe "best management practices" ("BMPs") to prevent the
release of toxic and hazardous pollutants from plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from
raw material storage associated with, or ancillary to, the
manufacturing or treatment process.
In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water
Act of 1977 also revises the control program for nontoxic
pollutants. Instead of BAT for "conventional" pollutants
identified under Section 304(a)(4), (including biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform, Oil and Grease and pH),
the new Section 301(b)(2)(E) requires achievement by July 1, 1984
of "effluent limitations requiring the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology" ("BCT"). The factors
considered in assessing BCT for an industry include the costs and
benefits of attaining a reduction in effluents, compared to the
costs and effluent reduction benefits from the discharge of a
publicly owned treatment works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)). For
nontoxic, nonconventional pollutants, sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
301(b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT effluent limitations
within three years after their establishment, or July 1, 1984,
whichever is later, but not later than July 1, 1987.
10
-------
PRIOR EPA REGULATIONS
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
Wood Preserving Segment — EPA has divided the wood preserving
segment of the timber industry into three groups of plants;
plants that treat wood with waterborne preservatives, or
inorganic salts, plants that use steam conditioning to prepare
wood for preservative impregnation, and plants that use the
Boulton process to prepare wood for preservative impregnation.
Those portions of the industry preserving with inorganics, and
using the Boulton process are required to meet a BAT limitation
of no discharge of process wastewater pollutants promulgated in
1974.
The following BPT effluent limitations were promulgated on April
18, 1974 for the wood preserving segment of the timber products
industry:
Wood Preserving-Waterborne or Nonpressure Subcategory (formerly
Wood Preserving Subcategory) ¦— No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory
BPT Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of daily
any 1 day values for 30
consecutive days
shall not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 m3
of product)
COD
1,100
550
Total Phenols
2.18
0.65
Oil and Grease
24. 0
12.0
pH
Within the range 6.0 to
9.0
English units (pounds per 1
,000 ft3
of product)
COD
68.5
34.5
Total Phenols
0.14
0.04
Oil and Grease
1 .5
0.75
pH
Within the range 6.0 to
9.0
Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory — No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Effluent
Characteristic
11
-------
Insulation Board — On August 26, 1974, effluent guidelines and
standards were proposed for the direct discharging portion of the
insulation board manufacturing subcategory. These proposed
regulations were never promulgated. Promulgation was delayed
because review of the proposed regulation indicated that
additional information was needed.
Wet Process Hardboard — On April 18, 1974, the Agency
promulgated BPT limitations for the wet process hardboard
subcategory.
Following promulgation of wet process hardboard regulations on
April 18, 1974, the industry and the Agency held a series of
meetings to review the information in the Record supporting these
regulations. This review convinced the Agency that the existing
regulations should be withdrawn. On September 28, 1977, a notice
was published in the Federal Register announcing the withdrawal
of 40 CFR Part 429 Subpart E-Hardboard Wet Process, best
practicable control technology limitations (BPT), best available
technology limitations (BAT), and new source performance
standards (NSPS).
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Wood Preserving Segment — The following BAT effluent
limitations were promulgated on April 18, 1974 for the wood
preserving segment of the timber products industry:
Wood Preserving-Waterborne or Nonpressure ^Subcategory — No
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
12
-------
Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory
BAT Effluent Limitations
Effluent Maximum for Average of daily
Characteristic any 1 day values for 30
consecutive days
shall not exceed
Metric units {kilograms per 1,000 m3
of product)
COD
220
110
Total Phenols
0.21
0.064
Oil and Grease
6.9
3.4
pH
Within the range 6.0 to
9.0
English units (pounds per 1
,000 ft*
of product)
COD
13.7
6.9
Total Phenols
0.014
0.004
Oil and Grease
0.42
0.21
oH
Within the range 6.0 to
9.0
Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory — No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment — Following
promulgation of wet process hardboard regulations on April 18,
1974, the industry and the Agency held a series of meetings to
review the information in the Record supporting these
regulations. This review convinced the Agency that the existing
regulations should be withdrawn. On September 28, 1977, a notice
was published in the Federal Register announcing the withdrawal
of 40 CFR Part 429 Subpart E-Hardboard Wet Process, best
practicable control technology limitations (BPT), best available
technology limitations (BAT), and new source performance
standards (NSPS).
Barking — Effluent guidelines and standards for the Barking
subcategory were promulgated in 1974 (39 FR 13942 April 18,
1974). The 1974 rulemaking divided the Barking subcategory into
two parts: mechanical barking, a basically dry operation using
physical methods, such as blades or abrasive discs, to remove the
bark as one technique of bark removal; the second technique is
identified as hydraulic barking, i.e., using water applied to the
wood under high pressure to separate the bark from the wood.
The 1974 BAT regulations required mechanical barking operations
and hydraulic barking operations to meet an effluent limitation
requiring no discharge of process wastewater pollutants by 1983.
13
-------
Veneer — BPT regulations for this subcategory promulgated in
1974/ required no discharge of process wastewater pollutants for
all veneer manufacturing plants, except those plants that use
direct steam for conditioning of veneer logs. This exception was
designed to give plants using direct steam conditioning time to
modify their operations before being required to meet the 1983
BAT limitation, requiring no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
Log Washing — BPT for this subcategory allows the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. BAT regulations published in 1974
for this subcategory requires no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
New Source Performance Standards
The following NSPS were promulgated on April 18, 1974.
Wood Preserving Segment — Wood Preserving Subcategory (now Wood
Preserving-Waterborne o'r Nonpressure) — No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Wood Preserving Steam Subcategory
NSPS Effluent Limitations
Effluent Maximum for Average of daily
Characteristic any 1 day values for 30
consecutive days
shall not exceed
Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 m3
of product)
COD
220
110
Total Phenols
0.21
0.064
Oil and Grease
6.9
3.4
pH
Within the range 6.0 to
9.0
English units (pounds per 1
,000 ft3
of product)
COD
13.7
6.9
Total Phenols
0.014
0.004
Oil and Grease
0.42
0.21
pH
Within the range 6.0 to
9.0
Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory — No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Pretreatment Standards, New and Existing
The following pretreatment standards for new sources were
promulgated April 18, 1974.
14
-------
Wood Preserving Subcategory — Wastewater may be discharged,
subject to general pretreatment requirements.
Wood Preserving - Steam Subcategory — Wastewater may be
discharged, subject"~to general pretreatment requirements.
Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory — Wastewater may be
discharged, subject to general pretreatment requirements.
Hardboard-Wet Process (PSNS) — Wastewater may be discharged,
subject to general pretreatment requriements.
The following pretreatment standards were promulgated for
existing sources December 9, 1976.
Wood Preserving Subcategory — No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
15
-------
Wood Preservi nq-Bou1ton And Steam Subcategories
Pretreatment Standard
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
any one day
(milligrams
per liter)
Maximum for
any one day
(grams per cubic
meter production)
Oil and Grease
100
20.5
Copper
5
0.62
Chromium
4
0.41
Arsenic
4
0.41
Hardboard-Wet Process — Wastewater may be discharged subject to
general pretreatment requirements.
OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY
Standard Industrial Classifications
* ——————
The Standard Industrial Classification list was developed by the
United States Department of Commerce and is oriented toward the
collection of economic data related to gross production, sales,
and unit costs. The list is useful in that it divides American
industry into discrete product-related segments.
The SIC codes investigated during the study of the Timber
Products Processing industry (timber industry) are:
SIC
2411
Logging Camps and Logging Contractors
SIC
2421
Sawmills and Planing Mills
SIC
2426
Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills
SIC
2429
Special Product Sawmills
SIC
2431
Mi11work
SIC
2434
Wood Kitchen Cabinets
SIC
2435
Hardwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC
2436
Softwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC
2439
Structural Wood Members
SIC
2491
Wood Preserving
SIC
2499
Timber Products not elsewhere classified
(Hardboard)
SIC
2661
Building Paper and Building Board Mills
(Insulation Board)
The industry segments addressed in this document are wood
preserving (SIC 2491), insulation board production (SIC 2661),
and wet process hardboard production (SIC 2499).
16
-------
Wood Preserving
The American Wood Preserver's Association has identified
approximately 476 wood preserving plants in the United States
, (AWPA, 1978). AWPA sent questionnaires to these plants and
responses were received from 326 plants. According to the
response, there are 243 companies which manage these 326 plants.
Approximately 70 percent of the plants are concentrated in two
distinct regions. One area extends from east Texas to Maryland
and corresponds roughly to the natural range of the Southern
pines, the major species utilized. The second, smaller area is
located along the Pacific Coast, where Douglas fir and western
red cedar are the predominant species. The distribution of
plants by type and location is given in Table II—1, and depicted
in Figure II—1.
The major types of preservatives used in wood preserving are
creosote, pentachlorophenol (PCP), and various formulations of
water-soluble inorganic chemicals, the most common of which are
the salts of copper, chromium, and arsenic. Fire retardants are
formulations of salts, the principal ones being borates,
phosphates, and ammonium compounds. Eighty percent of the plants
in the United States use at least two of the three types of
preservatives.
Consumption data for the principal preservatives for the year
1978 are given in Table I1-2. Creosote and creosote solutions
were used to treat approximately 56 percent of the total industry
production in 1978. PCP was the preservative used for
approximately 25 percent of the 1978 production. About 19
percent of the 1978 production was treated with waterborne
inorganic salts. Table I1-3 presents a summary of the materials
treated, by product, for all preservatives during the two year
period of 1977 and 1978.
Insulation Board
Insulation board is a form of fiberboard, which is a broad
generic term applied to sheet materials constructed from ligno-
cellulosic fibers. Insulation board is a "noncompressed"
fiberboard, which is differentiated from "compressed"
fiberboards, such as hardboard, on the basis of density.
Densities of insulation board range from about 0.15 to a maximum
0.50 g/cu cm (9.5 to 31 lb/cu ft).
The principal types of insulation board are:
1. Building board—A general purpose product for interior
construction.
2. Insulating roof deck—A three-in-one component which
provides roof deck, insulation, and finished inside
ceiling. (Insulation board sheets are laminated together
with waterproof adhesives, with a vapor barrier in between
the sheets.)
17
-------
Table II-l. Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1978.
Northeast
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Total
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
Southeast
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
Puerto Rico
Total
Pressure
Non- and Non- Total Number
Pressure Pressure Pressure Plants
0
0
4
2
0
3
5
7
0
3
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
5
2
1
3
5
9
0
3
28
7
5
0
5
4
5
8
1
0
7
9
51
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
5
8
5
0
5
4
7
9
1
0
7
12
58
16
-26
10
8
15
1
76
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
4
2
1
0
12
21
27
14
10
16
1
89
18
-------
Table II-l. Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1978. (Continued, Page 2 of 2)
Pressure
Non-
Pressure
Pressure
and Non-
Pressure
Total Number
Plants
South Central
Alabama
18
0
3
21
Arkansas
10
0'
1
11
Louisiana
15
1
1
17
Mississippi
16
0
• 1
17
Oklahoma
3
0
1
4
Tennessee
2
1
0
3
Texas
20
0
2
22
Total
84
2
9
95
Rocky Mountain
Arizona
0
1
0
1
Colorado
3
0
0
3
Idaho
4
1
2
7
Montana
3
1
2
6
New Mexico
1
0
0
1
South Dakota
1
0
0
1
Utah
1
1
0
2
Wyoming
3
0
0
3
Total
16
4
4
24
Pacific
California
6
0
2
8
Hawaii
2
0
0
2
Oregon
7
0
2
9
Washington
9
2
2
13
Total
24
2
6
32
United States
Total
275
11
40
326
Source: AWPA, 1978.
19
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF WOOD PRESERVING
PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
COLO
KANS
OKtft
WOOD PRESERVING PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
- «... CI0*
Figure 11-1
-------
Table II-2. Consumption of Principal Preservatives and Fire Retardants
of Reporting Plants in the United States, 1978
Material
(Units)
Year
1978
Creosote
Cr eosote-
Coal Tar
Creosote-
Petroleum
Total
Creosote
Total
Petroleum
Total
Coal Tar
Pen t ac hioro pheno1
Chromated Zinc
Chloride
CCA
ACC
FCAP
Fire Retardants
Other
Preservative Solids
Million
Liters
Mil1 ion
Liters
Million
Liters
Mill ion
Liters
Mil1 ion
Liters
Mill ion
Mil 1 ion
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Mil 1 ion .
Kilograms
Mill ion
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Mill ion
Kilograms
129
251
114
340
225
92. 7
13.2
0. 2
11.3
0.3
0.1
7.9
0.9
NOTE: Data based on information supplied by 326 plants,
SOURCE: AWPA, 1978.
21
-------
Table II-3. Materials Treated in the United States^y Product
Material
Thousand Cubic
Year
1977
Meters
1978
Cross-ties
2,648
2,656
Switch-ties
196
177
Piling
321
276
Poles
1,503
1,759
Cross-arms
38.1
31.9
Lumber & timbers
1,748
2,432
Fence posts
304
315
Other
329
381
Total
7,087
8,027
NOTE: Components may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: AWPA, 1978.
22
-------
3. Roof insulation—Insulation board designed for flat
roof decks.-
4. Ceiling tile—Insulation, board embossed and decorated
. for interior use. It is also useful for acoustical
qualities.
5. Lay-in panels—A ceiling tile used for suspended
ceilings.
6. Sheathing—Insulation board used extensively in
construction because of its insulative, bracing strength and
noise control qualities.
7. Sound-deadening insulation board—A special product
designed explicitly for use in buildings to control noise
level.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) sets
standard specifications for the types of insulation board.
Decorative type board products, such as ceiling tiles, lay-in-
panels, etc., receive a higher degree of finishing than do
structural type boards such as sheathing and building board.
Consequently, stricter control during fiber preparation and x
formation is required in production of decorative-type board to
insure that the product can be ironed, edge fabricated, sanded,
coated, and painted, resulting in a smooth, beveled, finished
stfrface. Decorative board products cannot contain high amounts
of dissolved solids in the production process for this reason.
This factor will be significant in later discussions of
wastewater recycle.
There are 15 insulation board producing plants in the United
States using wood as the predominant raw material with a combined
production capacity of over 330 million square meters (3,600
million square feet) on a 13-mm (one-half inch) basis. All of
the plants use wood as a raw material for some or all of their
production. Four plants use mineral wool, a nonwood based
product, as a raw material for part of their insulation board
production. Production of mineral wool board is classified under
SIC 3296 and is not within the scope of this rulemaking. Five
plants produce hardboard products as well as insulation board at
the same facility. A list of the 15 plants which produce
insulation board using wood as raw material is presented in Table
I1-4. The geographical distribution of these plants is depicted
in Figure II-2.
Production of insulation board in the U.S. between 1968 and 1978
frs presented in Figure I1-3.
23
-------
Table II-4. Inventory of Insulation Board Plants Using Wood as
Raw Material
Armstrong Cork Company
Macon, Georgia
Boise Cascade Corporation
International Falls, Minnesota
The Celotex Corporation
Dubuque, Iowa
The Celotex Corporation
L'anse, Michigan
The Celotex Corporation
Sunbury, Pennsylvania
Owens Corning
Meridian, Mississippi
Huebert Fiberboard, Inc
Boonville, Missouri
Weyerhaeuser Company
Craig, Oklahoma
Owens Corning
St. Helens, Oregon
National Gypsum Company
Mobile, Alabama
Georgia-Pacific
Jarratt, Virginia
Tempie-Eastex
Diboll> Texas
United States Gypsum Company
Lisbon Falls, Maine
United States Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi
United States Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon
Source: 1980 Directory of the Forest Products Industry.
24
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSULATION BOARD
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
W*SH.
mont.
one.
IDAHO
WYO.
NEV.
utah
calf.
COLO.
ARI2.
N.MEX.
LEGEND
O Mechanical Pulping
0 Thermo-mechanical Pulping
A Thermo-mechanical Pulping
and/or Hardboard
y-V
o
N.DAK.
MINN.
rO
t r
wis.
S.DAK.
IOWA
NEBR.
INO-
OHIO
ILL.
KANS.
MO-
KY.
OK LA-
ark.
MISS.
TEX.
LA.
lENN.
ALA.
G*-
Flaum 11.^
-------
TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTION FIGURES: INSULATION BOARD
TIME (YEARS)
26
Figure 11-3
-------
Wet Process Hardboard
Hardboard is a "compressed" fiberboard, with a density greater
than 0.50 g/cu cm (greater than 31 lb/cu ft). The thickness of
hardboard products ranges between 2 to 13 mm (nominal 1/12 to
7/16 in).
Production of hardboard by the wet process method is usually
accomplished by thermomechanical fiberization of the wood raw
material. Dilution of the wood fiber with water is followed by
forming of a wet mat of a desired thickness on a forming machine.
This wet mat is then pressed either wet or dried and pressed.
Chemical additives help the overall strength and uniformity of
the product. The use of hardboards are many and varied,
requiring different processes and control measures. The quality
and type of board is important in the end use of the product.
The following are some of the uses of hardboards
Interior Wall Paneling
Exterior Siding
Display Cabinets
Base of Painted Tile Panels
Concrete Forms
Nonconductor Material for Electrical Equipment
Door Skins (panels)
TV Cabinets and Furniture
The American Society for Testing and Materials sets standards for
the various types of hardboard produced.
Hardboard which is pressed wet immediately following forming of
the wet lap is called wet-wet or smooth-one-side (SIS) hardboard;
that which is pressed after the wet lap has been dried is called
wet-dry or smooth-two-side (S2S) hardboard.
There are 16 plants producing wet process hardboard in the United
States, representing an annual production in excess of 1.5
million metric tons per year. Seven of the plants produce only
SIS hardboard. Of the nine plants producing S2S hardboard/ three
plants produce both S2S and SIS, five plants produce S2S and
insulation board, and one plant produces S2S only. Table I1-5
lists the wet process hardboard plants in the U.S.
The geographic distribution of these plants is depicted in. Figure
II-4. The total annual U.S. production of hardboard from 1964
through 1978 is shown in Figure II-5. This total production
includes dry process hardboard as well as wet process hardboard.
Although the relative amounts of production between dry and wet
process hardboard vary from year to year, a generalized rule of
thumb is that 75 percent of the total production is wet process
hardboard.
27
-------
distR'bution of hardboard
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
TO
OS
LEGEND
Wet-Wet Process (S1S)
Wet-Dry Process (S2S)
() Wet-Dry/lnsulation
Figure II-4
-------
TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTIONS FIGURES: HARDBOARD
IN?
40
z
o
oa
o
m
<
Q
m
Q
DC
<
10
9
8
6
2
1
—i 1 r i i 1 i i
69 70 71 72 73 74 7S 76
—i 1 1
77 78 79
1964 65 66 67 68
TIME (YEARS)
Figure II-5
-------
Table II-5. Inventory of Wet Process Hardboard Plants
Evans Products
Corvallis, Oregon
Champion Building Products
Dee (Hood River), Oregon
Masonite Corporation
Laurel, Mississippi
Abitibi Corporation
Roaring River, North Carolina
Superior Fibre
Superior, Wisconsin
Temple-Eastex
Diboll, Texas
Weyerhaeuser Company
Craig, Oklahoma
Forest Fibre
Stimpson Lumber Company
Forest Grove, Oregon
Masonite Corporation
Ukiah, California
Superwood Corporation
Duluth, Minnesota
Superwood Corporation
North Little Rock, Arkansas
U.S. Gypsum Company
Danville, Virginia
Abitibi Corporation
Alpena, Michigan
Boise Cascade
International Falls, Minnesota
U.S. Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon
U.S. Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi
Source: 1977 Directory of the Forest Products Industry".
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND DATA GATHERING EFFORTS
The first step in the guidelines and standards development
process was to assemble and evaluate all existing sources of
information on the wastewater management practices and production
processes of the Timber industry.
Sources of information reviewed included:
1. Current literature, EPA demonstration project reports,
EPA technology transfer reports.
2. Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Timber
Products Processing Industry, including supplemental
information.
3. Draft Development Document for Pretreatment Standards,
Wood Preserving Segment, Timber Products Processing
Industry, including supplemental information.
4. Summary Report on the Re-evaluation of the Effluent
Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the
Timber Products Processing Industry, including supple-
30
-------
mental information.
5. Information obtained from regional EPA and state regu-
latory agencies on timber industry plants within their
jurisdiction.
6. Data submitted by individuals, plants and industry trade
associations in response to publication of EPA
regulations.
A complete bibliography of all literature reviewed during this
project is presented in Section XIV of this document.
An analysis of the above sources indicated that additional
information would be required, particularly concerning the
source, use, treatment and discharge of toxic pollutants.
Updated information was also needed on production-related process
raw waste loads (RWL), potential in-process waste control tech-
niques, and the identity and effectiveness of end-of-pipe
treatment systems.
In recognition of the fact that the best source of existing
information was the individual plants, a data collection
portfolio (DCP) was prepared and sent directly to manufacturing
plants of the wood preserving and insulation board/wet process
hardboard segments of the industry. This DCP was the major
source of information used to develop the profile of each
industry which is presented in Section III of this document. The
DCP was designed to update the existing data base concerning
production processes, wastewater characterization, raw waste
loads based on historical production and wastewater data, method
of ultimate wastewater disposal, in-process waste control
techniques, and the effectiveness of in-place external treatment
technology. Data concerning description of production processes
are presented later in this section. Data concerning raw
wastewater characteristics are presented in Section V. Section
VII contains a compilation of the data concerning treated
effluent characteristics as well as end-of-pipe and in-process
treatment and control technologies. The DCP also requested
information concerning the extent of use of materials which could
contribute toxic pollutants to wastewater and any data for toxic
pollutants in wastewater discharges. These data are presented in
Section VI of this document. Responses to the DCP served as the
source of updated, long-term, historical information for the
traditional parameters such as BOD, COD, solids, pH, total
phenols, and metals.
The long-term daily production and treated effluent data included
in the DCP responses from plants in the insulation board/wet
process hardboard segment provided a one to two year data base.
A statistical analysis of this data base was conducted to develop
the numerical limitations for BPT and BCT for the insulation
board/wet process hardboard segment. These limitations were
presented in the "Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines New Source Performance Standards and
Pretreatment Standards for the Timber Products Processing Point
31
-------
Source Category" (October 1979). Based on several comments
received by the Agency during the public comment period for this
document, the Agency decided to evaluate an extended data base in
the development of the BPT and BCT numerical limitations.
Consequently, additional production and treated effluent data
were obtained from the insulation board/wet process hardboard
plants to form an extended data base covering a period of two to
four years. A statistical analysis of this extended data base,
as described in Appendix G, was conducted to develop the
insulation board/ wet process hardboard segment BPT and BCT
numerical limitations as presented in Sections VIII and IX,
respectively.
Additional sources of information included NPDES permits,
information provided by industry trade associations, and
information obtained from direct interviews and visits to
production facilities.
Survey teams composed of project engineers and scientists
conducted plant visits. Information on the identity and
performance of wastewater treatment systems was obtained through
interviews with plant water pollution control or engineering
personnel, examination of treatment plant design and historical
operating data, and sampling of treatment plant influents and
effluents. Nine wood preserving plants, six insulation board
plants, and eight wet process hardboard plants were visited from
November 1976 through May 1978, with several plants receiving
more than one visit.
Only in rare instances did plants report any knowledge of the
presence of toxic pollutants in waste discharges. Therefore,
toxic pollutant data in waste discharges of the industry were
obtained by a thorough engineering review of raw materials and
production processes used in each industry and by a screening
sampling and analysis program for toxic pollutants at selected
plants. Every effort was made to choose facilities where
meaningful information on both treatment facilities and
manufacturing operations could be obtained.
The screening sampling and analysis program was conducted during
November and December of 1976. Seventeen plants in eleven
subcategories of the Timber Products Processing point source
category were visited and sampled. Among these plants were three
wood preserving plants, three insulation board plants, and one
wet process hardboard plant. A single 24-hour composite sample
was obtained from the raw and treated wastewater streams at each
plant and analyzed for the 124 toxic pollutants listed in
Appendix B-2 of this document. Sampling procedures followed the
Sampling Protocol for Measurement of Toxics, U.S. EPA, October
1976. Analytical methods followecT the first draft Protocol for
the Measurement of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, October 1976.
32
-------
The purpose of the screening program was to determine toxic
pollutants presence in wastewaters from each industrial segment
sampled, and to determine the order of magnitude of the
contamination. Screening analyses were not used to quantify the
levels of contamination in the raw or treated effluents.
The results of the screening analyses were evaluated along with
the process engineering review for each subcategory. The toxic
pollutants which were found to be present in levels above the
detection limits for the analyses, or those which were suspected
to be present as a result of their use as raw materials,
byproducts, final products, etc., were selected for verification.
The verification sampling and analysis program, conducted over a
14-month period, was designed to obtain as much quantitative data
as possible for each subcategory on those toxic pollutants
identified during the screening program. The plants for sampling
were chosen to represent the full range of in-place technology
for each subcategory. Seven wood preserving plants were sampled
during verification (three were sampled twice). Five insulation
board plants and seven wet process hardboard plants were also
sampled during the verification program (three wet process
hardboard and three insulation board plants were sampled twice).
Three consecutive 24-hour composite samples of the raw
wastewater, final treated effluent, and, in appropriate cases,
effluent from intermediate treatment steps were obtained at each
plant. A single grab sample of incoming fresh process water was
also obtained at each plant.
Sampling and analyses were conducted according to Sampling and
Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Toxic Pollutants U.S. EPA, Cincinnati; March 1977 (revised April
1977), and Analytical Methods for the Verification Phase of the
BAT Review, U.S. EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington,
D.C., June 1977.
A detailed discussion of analytical methods, procedures and
techniques used during the study is presented in Appendix C of
this document.
The review of available literature and of previous studies;
analysis of the data collection portfolios; information obtained
from EPA regions, state and local regulatory agencies, and
industry and trade associations; information obtained during
plant visits; and the results of analyses from the screening and
verification sampling programs comprised the technical data base
which served as the basis for review of subcategorization of the
industry and for identification of the full range of in-process
and treatment technology options available within each
subcategory. Among other factors, the subcategorization review
took into consideration the raw materials used, products
manufactured, production processes employed, wastewaters
generated, and plant characteristics such as size and age.
33
-------
The raw waste characteristics for each subcategory were then
identified. This included an analysis of: (1) the source and
volume of water used, the process employed and the sources of
wastes and wastewater in the plant; and (2) the constituents of
all wastewaters, including conventional, nonconventional and
toxic pollutants.
The full range of control and treatment technologies applicable
to each candidate subcategory were identified, including both in-
plant and end-of-pipe technologies which are in use or capable of
being used by the plants in each subcategory. EPA also
identified the effluent level resulting from the application of
each of these treatment and control technologies, in terms of the
amount of constituents present and of the chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants, including toxic
pollutants.
The costs and energy requirements of each of the candidate
technologies identified were then estimated, both for a typical,
or model plant or plants within the subcategory and on a plant-
by-plant basis, taking into consideration in-place technology.
The problems, limitations, and reliability of each treatment and
control technology, as well as the required implementation time,
were identified. In order to derive variability factors based on
existing treatment plant performance, statistical analyses were
performed on those treatment systems for which sufficient
historical data were available.
Nonwater quality environmental impacts, such as the effects of
the application of such technologies on other pollution problems,
were also addressed.
Upon consideration of these factors, EPA identified various
control and treatment technologies as BPT, BCT, NSPS, PSES and
PSNS. The Agency then formulated effluent limitations guidelines
and standards which required the attainment of the effluent
reduction achieved by the proper operation of these or equivalent
technologies.
34
-------
SECTION III
DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
WOOD PRESERVING
Scope of Study
The wood preserving industry applies chemical treatment to round
or sawn wood products for the purpose of imparting insecticidal,
fungicidal, or fire resistant properties to the wood. The scope
of this study includes all wood preserving plants (SIC 2491)
regardless of the types of raw materials used, method of
preconditioning stock, types of products produced, or means of
ultimate waste disposal.
Background
EPA conducted an extensive study of the wood preserving industry
in 1973-1974. The information developed during that study
provided the technical basis for the effluent guidelines and
standards for the industry promulgated in April 1974 (40 CFR Part
429, Subparts F, G, and H). Another study was conducted in 1976,
resulting in the promulgation of pretreatment standards for the
indirect discharging portion of the wood preserving industry.
These technical studies included the use of data collection
portfolios to obtain information regarding plant operations,
waste loads generated, treatment systems in place, and historical
treatment system efficiencies. Plant visits were also conducted
in conjunction with the above studies, as was the sampling and
analysis of raw and treated wastewaters.
EPA determined that the existing information base should be
updated and expanded.
Data Collection Portfolio Development
The primary source of survey information regarding wood
preserving plants in the U.S. is Wood Preservation Statistics,
published annually by the American Wood Preservers' Association
(AWPA). This survey was underwritten, in addition to the AWPA,
by the American Wood Preservers' Institute, the Railway Tie
Association, the Society of American Wood Preservers, Inc., and
the Southern Pressure Treaters Association. The 1975 AWPA survey
was the most current source of profile information when the DCP
was developed. This survey, published in the 1975 AWPA
Proceedings, identified 387, out of an estimated 415 wood
treating plants, of which 352 are pressure treating plants.
Using the AWPA information, a list of plants was developed for
the DCP. Because the AWPA statistics did not include mailing
addresses or the appropriate contact person for each plant,
35
-------
additional resources were required to obtain this information.
The 1976 Directory of the Forest Products Industry. Miller
Freeman Publications, contained addresses and contacts for many
of the plants.
Dr. Warren S. Thompson, Director, Forest Products Utilization
Laboratory, Mississippi State University, was the Agency's
consultant for this study and all previous wood preserving
effluent guidelines development studies. He has also been
involved in studies of wood preserving processes and wastewater
treatment, and possesses a unique knowledge and familiarity with
the industry. Dr. Thompson reviewed the list and provided
addresses and contacts for a number of plants.
The Agency identified the complete mailing addresses and contact
persons for 284 plants. Previous EPA experience with the
industry indicated that the 284 recipients of the DCP included
all previously identified dischargers, both direct and indirect,
and included a representative cross section of plants in all size
categories and geographical locations. The DCP recipients
included plants which represented the full range of in-process
and end-of-pipe control and treatment technologies.
Response to the DCP
Two hundred sixteen plants responded to the DCP—a 76 percent
response rate. One hundred ninety three of the responses were
from pressure treating plants and 23 responses were from
nonpressure plants.
Table III-l compares the response to the technical DCP with the
plants listed in the AWPA statistics. The table illustrates that
the DCP response included 56 percent of the total population of
the 1975 AWPA listings.
Characterization of Nonresponders
Thirteen of the 68 plants that did not respond to the DCP are
operated by the industry's largest single company. This company
received 27 DCPs. The company requested and received permission
to respond for 14 of their plants. The request was approved in
order to alleviate the paperwork burden placed on the company's
technical staff. The approval was contingent, however, on the
company providing responses for all plants discharging process
wastewater and for a cross section of processes and wastewater
treatment systems characteristic of the company's operations.
Using AWPA statistics information, 21 of the nonresponders were
identified as plants that treat either with only inorganic salts
or use nonpressure processes exclusively. These plants were
already subject to a no discharge of process wastewater
limitation. Of the remaining 34 nonresponders, 12 are one
cylinder pressure plants and 16 are two cylinder pressure plants.
36
-------
Table III-l, Comparison of DCP Coverage with AW PA 387 Plant Population
Type Plant
and Number
of Cylinders
Nufl&er of Plants
According to AWPA
Statistics
Plants
Number
Receiving DCP
Percent AWPA
Population
Plants Responding to DCP
Percent AWPA
Number Population
Pressure
Retorts*
1
143
83
58.0
62
43.4
2
113
91
80.5
63
55.8
3
53
44
83.0
39
73.6
4
20
19
95.0
13
65.0
5 or more
23
21
91.3
16
69.6
Subtot al
352
258
73.3
193
54.8
Non-Pressure
Retorts Only
i
35
26
74.3
23
65.7
TOTAL
387**
284
73.4
216
55.8
* These plants may also use non-pressure retorts as well as pressure retorts.
** 1975 AWPA survey identified 387 giants out of an estimated 415 plants.
-------
Data presented in Sections V and VII of this document will
document that plants of this size generate very low volumes of
process wastewater, and these plants generally do not discharge
either directly or indirectly.
Comparison with Independent Surveys
Following the distribution of the technical DCP, EPA's Office of
Analysis and Evaluation (OAE) conducted an information collection
activity designed to provide information relating to the
financial viability of the wood preserving industry, i.e., to
determine the economic impact of pollution control costs that
might result from these regulations. The mailing list for this
economic DCP was developed from 1976 Dun's Marketing Statistics,
published by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. The OAE survey was sent to
a total of 574 addressees. Eighty-six responded that they were
not involved in wood preserving operations, and one-hundred-fifty
did not respond. The remaining three hundred thirty-eight
recipients indicated that they were engaged in wood preserving
operations. The OAE survey included responses from 94 pressure
treating plants that were not included in the technical DCP
response.
Information from these 94 plants was collected by the technical
contractor through a telephone survey. Eight of the 94 plants
were determined to be indirect dischargers. There were no direct
dischargers of process wastewater identified by the economic
survey. Information concerning the eight indirect discharging
plants was incorporated into the technical information base and
is presented in this document.
In late 1979, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
compiled a list of wood preserving plants as part of a rebuttable
presumption against registration activity (RPAR) of all
commercial wood preservatives (pentachlorophenol, creosote, and
inorganic salts). According to this list, 605. wood preserving
plants operated by about 520 companies exist in the United
Statfes. This tabulation of plants has not been verified nor has
it been officially released by USDA.
Summary
The OAE information survey mailing list was developed from a
business/ financially oriented publication (Dun and Bradstreet)
rather than a production oriented publication (AWPA). Although
the OAE survey identified many pressure treating plants not
identified by the DCP, it also clearly demonstrated that the
objectives of the technical collection activity were achieved and
that the response to the technical DCP included information
sufficient to address all process variations, wastewater
treatment systems in-place, and the treatment systems'
effectiveness.
38
-------
Based on the Agency's extensive experience with the industry and
the results obtained through comparison of the OAE survey to the
technical data base, the USDA list, once verified, is not
expected to result in significant new information.
Methods of Wastewater Disposal According to the DCP
Tables II1-2 through II1-5 present a summary of the methods of
wastewater disposal practiced by plants in the various
subcategories of the wood preserving industry.
Units of Expression
Units of production in the wood preserving industry are shown in
cubic meters (cu m). In-plant liquid flows are shown in liters
per day (1/day). The industry is not yet metricized and uses
English units to express production, cubic feet (cu ft); and in-
plant flow, gallons (gal) per day. Conversion factors from
English units to metric units are presented in Appendix D.
Process Description
The wood preserving process consists of two basic steps: (1)
conditioning the wood to reduce its natural moisture content and
increase the permeability, and (2) impregnating the wood with the
preservative. Figure III-l shows common treatment sequences.
The conditioning step may be performed by one of several methods
including (1) seasoning or drying wood in yards, at ambient
temperatures; (2) kiln drying; (3) steaming the wood at elevated
pressure in a retort followed by application of a vacuum; (4)
heating the stock in a preservative bath under reduced pressure
in a retort (Boulton process); or (5) vapor drying, heating of
the unseasoned wood in a solvent to prepare it for preservative
treatment. All of these conditioning methods have as their
objective the reduction of moisture content of the unseasoned
stock to a point where the required amount of preservative can be
retained in the wood.
Conventional steam conditioning (open steaming) is a process in
which unseasoned or partially seasoned stock is subjected to
direct steam impingement at an elevated pressure in a retort.
The maximum permissible temperature is set by AWPA standards at
118°C and the duration of the steaming cycle is limited by these
standards to no more than 20 hours. Steam condensate that forms
in the retort exits through traps and is conducted to oil-water
separators for removal of free oils. Removal of emulsified oils
requires further treatment. Figure II1-2 is a schematic diagram
of a typical open steaming wood preserving plant.
39
-------
Table II1-2. Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Boulton Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge
0
Discharge to POTW
10
Self-Contained (No-Discharge)
-Containment and Evaporation
-Cooling Tower Evaporation
-Soil Irrigation, Treated Effluent
Recycle, etc.
25
17
4
4
TOTAL Plants
35
Table II1-3. Method of Ultimate
Preserving-Steam Plants Responding to
Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge
1
Discharge to POTW
29
Self-Contained (No-Discharge)
-Containment and Evaporation
-Soil Irrigation
66
56
10
TOTAL Plants
96
40
-------
Table II1-4. Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-1 nor gain ic Salt Plants Responding to Data Collection
Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge*
1
Discharge to POTW*
5
Self-Contained (No-Discharge)
-Generate No Wastewater or Recycle All
Wastewater as Makeup Dilution Water
-Containment and Evaporation
56
52
4
Total Plants
62
* Note: Current regulations prohibit
wastewater pollutants from plants in this
navigible waters or to a POTW.
discharge of process
subcategory,-/either to
Table II1-5. Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Nonpressure Plants Responding to Data Collection
Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
No Discharge
23
TOTAL Plants
23
41
-------
TREATING PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT
1*0-1
®
100-
al
U1
m
s
8
£ SO-
ii.
D
c/
h
VACUUM IN Hg
3 O O 1
iiil
I B /
\A /
I A /
1/
I | I | I | I | I | I
> 1 2 3 4 5
TIME, HOURS
PRELIMINARY VACUUM
FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
PRESSURE RELEASED
PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
FINAL VACUUM
VACUUM RELEASED
ISO
1« 17
22
24
20
A. PRE-STEAM VACUUM
8. STEAM INTRODUCED
C. STEAM MAINTAINED
D. STEAM RELEASED
E POST-STEAM VACUUM
F. VACUUM RELEASED
G. CONDENSATE DRAINED
H PRELIMINARY VACUUM PERIOO
I. FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
J. PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
K. MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
L PRESSURE RELEASED
M. PRESERVATIVE WITHORAWN
TIME, HOURS
»' ioo-
0 -
10-
30-
30*
XJ
A. PRELIMINARY AIR PRESSURE APPLIED
B. FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
C. PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
D. MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
E. PRESSURE RELEASED
F. PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
G. FINAL VACUUM
H. VACUUM RELEASED.
TIME, HOURS
SOURCE: Koppers Company
TYPICAL TREATING CYCLES USED FOR TREATING LUMBER,
POLES, AND PILES.
A. FULL-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR DRY SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER
B. FULL-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR GREEN SOUTHERN PINE PILES
C. EMPTY-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR DRY SOUTHERN PINE POLES
42 Figure 111-1
-------
VAPORS
WOOD IN
I CONDENSER >
WOOD OUT
AIR AND
VAPORS
CYLINDER WATER
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
VACUUM
PUMP
STEAM
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS
AND RAIN WATER
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINDER
WORK TANK
COOUNG ;
WATER
ACCUMULATOR
RECOVERED OILS
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
TREATING CYLINDER
OPEN STEAMING PROCESS WOOD TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 111-2
-------
In closed steaming, a widely used variation of conventional steam
conditioning, the steam needed for conditioning is generated in
situ by covering the coils in the retort with water from a
reservoir and heating the water by passing process steam through
the coils. The water is returned to the reservoir after oil
separation and reused during the next steaming cycle. There is a
slight increase in volume of water in the storage tank after each
cycle because of the water removed from the wood. A small
blowdown from the storage tank is necessary to remove this excess
water and also to control the level of wood sugars in the water.
Figure III-3 is a schematic diagram of a typical closed steaming
wood preserving plant.
Modified closed steaming is a variation of the steam conditioning
process in which steam condensate is allowed to accumulate in the
retort during the steaming operation until it covers the heating
coils. At that point, direct steaming is discontinued and the
remaining steam required for the cycle is generated within the
retort by utilizing the heating coils. Upon completing the
steaming cycle, the water in the cylinder is discarded after
recovery of oils. Figure III-4 is a schematic diagram of a
typical modified steaming wood preserving plant.
Preconditioning is accomplished in the Boulton process by heating
the stock in a preservative bath under reduced pressure in the
retort. The preservative serves as a heat transfer medium.
After the cylinder level has been raised to operating
temperature, a vacuum is drawn and water removed from the wood
passes through a condenser in vapor form to an oil-water
separator where low-boiling fractions of the preservative are
removed. The Boulton cycle may have a duration of 48 hours or
longer for large poles and piling, a fact that accounts for the
lower production per retort day as compared to plants that steam
condition. Figure III-5 is a schematic diagram of the Boulton
process.
The vapor drying process, illustrated in Figure III-6, consists
essentially of exposing wood in a closed vessel to vapors from
any one of many organic chemicals that are immiscible with water
and have a narrow boiling range. Selected derivatives of
petroleum and coal tar, such as high-flash naphtha, and Stoddard
solvent, are preferred; but numerous chemicals, including blends,
can be and have been employed as drying agents in the process.
Chemicals with initial boiling points from 212°F to 400F° (100°C
to 204°C) may be used.
Vapors for drying are generated by boiling the chemical in an
evaporator. The vapors are conducted to the retort containing
the wood, where they condense on the wood, give up their latent
heat of vaporization, and cause the water in the wood to
vaporize. The water vapor thus produced, along with excess
organic vapor, is conducted from the vessel to a condenser and
then to a gravity-type separator. The water layer is discharged
44
-------
VAPORS
•£»
Ol
WOOD IN
TREATING CYLINDER
j CONDENSER >
WOOD OUT
AIR AND
VAPORS
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
VACUUM
PUMP
CONDENSATE
STEAM
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINDER
COOLING
WATER
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS
AND RAIN WATER
WORK TANK
ACCUMULATOR
RECOVERED OILS
CONDENSATE
WASTE WATER
OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
CYLINDER
WATER
STORAGf
CLOSED STEAMING PROCESS WOOD TREATING PLANT
Figure 111-3
-------
VAPORS
4*
Ol
WOOD IN
{ CONDENSER >
COOLINQ
WATER
WOOD OUT
AIR ANO
VAPORS
K
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
CYLINDER WATER
CONDENSATE
VACUUM
PUMP
STEAM
COOLINQ
WATER
CYLINDER DRIPPINQS
AND RAIN WATER
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINDER
WORK TANK
ACCUMULATOR
RECOVERED OILS
CONDENSATE
WASTE WATER
OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
TREATING CYLINDER
^,
MODIFIED STEAMING PROCESS WOOD TREATING PLANT
Figure Hl-4
-------
VAPORS
COOUNG
{ CONDENSER ) WATER
WOOD IN
COOUNG
WATER
WOOD OUT
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
VACUUM
PUMP
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS
AND RAIN WATER
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINDER
WORK TANK
ACCUMULATOR
RECOVERED OILS
CONDENSATE
WASTEWATER
OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
TREATING CYLINDER
BOULTON WOOD TREATING PLANT
-------
VAPORS
COOLING
WATER
COOLING
WATER
WOOD IN
( CONDENSER >
WOOD OUT
CONDENSED VAPORS
AIR AND
VAPORS
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
steam SOLVENT
I VAPORIZER
VACUUM
PUMP
STEAM
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS
AND RAIN WATER
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINDER
WORK TANK
ACCUMULATOR
RECOVERED OILS
CONDENSATE
WASTE WATER
SOLVENT
WATER
OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
TREATING CYLINDER
VAPOR CONDITIONING PROCESS WOOD TREATING PLANT
Figure 111-6
-------
from the separator and the organic chemical is returned to the
evaporator for reuse.
At the end of the heating period, the flow of organic vapors to
the vessel is stopped and a 30-minute to 2-hour vacuum is imposed
to remove the excess preservative along with the additional water
that is removed from the wood during the vacuum cycle. Since the
drying vessel is usually the retort used for preservative
treatment, the wood can be treated immediately using any one of
the standard preservative processes.
Following any of the above conditioning steps, the treatment step
may be accomplished by either pressure or nonpressure processes.
Nonpressure (thermal) processes utilize open tanks which contain
the preservative chemicals. Stock to be treated is immersed in
the treating chemicals, which may be at ambient temperature,
heated, or a combination thereof. Stock treated in nonpressure
processes is normally conditioned by air seasoning or kiln
drying.
Treatment methods employing pressure processes consist of three
basic types, independent of the preconditioning method. Two of
the pressure methods, referred to in the industry as "empty cell"
processes, are based on the principle that part of the
preservative forced into the wood is expelled by entrapped air
upon the release of pressute at the conclusion of the treating
cycle, thus leaving the cell walls coated with preservative. The
pressure cycle is followed by a vacuum to remove additional
preservative. The retention of preservatives attained is
controlled in part by the initial air pressure employed at the
beginning of the cycle.
The third method, which is known as the "full cell" process,
differs from the other two in that the treating cycle is begun by
evacuating the retort and breaking the vacuum with the
preservative. The preservative is then forced into the wood
under pressure, as in the other processes. Most of the
preservative remains in the wood when the pressure is released.
Retentions of preservatives achieved in this process are
substantially higher than those achieved in the empty cell
processes.
\
Stock treated by any of the threeN methods may be given a short
steam treatment to "clean" the surface of poles and pilings and
to reduce exudation of oil after the products are placed in
service.
INSULATION BOARD
Scope of Study
The coverage of this document is limited to those insulation
board plants in SIC 2661 (Building Paper and Building Board
49
-------
Mills) which produce insulation board using wood as the basic raw
material.
Scope of Coverage for Data Base
The DCP was sent to all the insulation board plants which use.
wood as a raw material. All of the plants responded to the
survey. Table III-6 presents the method of ultimate waste
disposal utilized by the plants responding to the survey. Six of
these plants were selected for visits and sampling.
Units of Expression
Units of production in the insulation board industry are reported
in square meters (sq m) on a 13 mm (1/2 in) thick basis. Density
figures obtained from the surveyed plants are used to convert
this production to metric tons. The insulation board industry is
not yet metricized and uses English units to express production,
i.e., square feet (sq ft) on a one-half inch (in) basis. Liquid
flows from the industry are reported in million gallons per day
(MGD) and kiloliters per day (kl/day). Conversion factors from
English units to metric units are shown in Appendix D.
Process Description
Insulation board can be formed from a variety of raw materials
including both softwoods and hardwoods, mineral fiber, waste
paper, bagasse, and other fibrous materials. In this study, only
those processes employing wood as raw material are considered.
Plants utilizing wood may receive it as roundwood, fractionated
wood, and/or whole tree chips. Fractionated wood can be in the
form of chips, sawdust, or planer shavings. Figure III-7
provides an illustration of a representative insulation board
process.
When roundwood is used as a raw material, it is usually shipped
to the plant by rail or truck and stored in a dry deck before
use. The roundwood is usually debarked by drum or ring barkers
before use, although in some operations a percentage of bark is
allowable in the board. The barked wood then may be chipped, in
which case the unit processes are the same as those plants using
chips exclusively as raw materials. Those plants utilizing
roundwood normally cut the logs into 1.2- to 1.5-meter (4- to 5-
foot) sections either before or after debarking.
Groundwood, as used by two insulation board plants in the U.S.
is usually produced in conventional pulpwood grinders equipped
with coarse burred artificial stones of 16- to 25-grit with
various patterns. The operation of the machine consists
primarily of hydraulically forcing a piece of wood against a
rotating stone mounted horizontally. The wood held against the
abrasive surface of the revolving stone is reduced to fiber
bundles. Water is sprayed on the stone not only to carry away
the fibers into the system, but also to keep the stone cool and
50
-------
clean and lubricate its surface. The water spray onto the stone
also reduces the possibility of fires occurring from the friction
of the stone against the wood.
51
-------
Table II1-6. Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Insulation
Board Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge
Discharge to POTW
Self-Contained Dischargers
5
3*
6
Spray Irrigation
No-Discharge
(Plants generating no wastewater
or recycling all wastewater)
* One plant uses spray irrigation as a treatment method; however,
the irrigation tail water is eventually discharged from the field
to a nearby river.
Source: Data collection portfolios.
52
-------
DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL INSULATION BOARD PROCESS
STOCK
CHEST
REFINING
FINISHING
DECKER
FORMING
MACHINE
STOCK
CHEST
DRIER
LOG
STORAGE
CHIP
SILOS
CHIP
STORAGE
DIGESTER
(Ttiarmo-
Mechanlcal
Refining Only)
r* 1 i
WHITE WATER * WHITE WATER*
RECYCLE OR RECYCLE OR
DISCHARQE DISCHARGE
LEGEND
WATER IN »
WATER OUT
Figure ll|*7
-------
While most fractionated wood is purchased from other timber
products operations, in some cases it is produced on site.
Currently, little chipping occurs in the forest; however, in the
future this is expected to become a major source of chips. Chips
are usually transported to the plants in large trucks or
railcars. They are stored in piles which may be covered but are
more commonly exposed. The chips may pass through a device used
to remove grit, dirt, and other trash which could harm equipment
and possibly cause plate damage in the refiners. This may be
done wet or dry. Pulp preparation is usually accomplished by
mechanical or thermomechanical refining.
Refining Operations—Mechanical refiners basically consist of two
discs between which the chips or wood residues are passed. In a
single disc refiner, one disc rotates while the other is
stationary. The feed material passes between the plates and is
discharged at the bottom of the case. The two discs in double
disc refiners rotate in opposite directions, but the product
flows are similar to a single disc refiner. Disc refiners
produce fibers that may pass through a 30- or 40-mesh screen,
although 60 percent of the fibers will not pass through a 65-mesh
screen. The disc plates generally rotate at 1,200 or 1,800 rpm
or a relative speed of 2,400 or 3,600 rpm for a double disc mill.
Plate separations are generally less than 1.0 cm (0.40 in). A
variety of the disc patterns are available, and the particular
pattern used depends on the feed characteristics and type of
fiber desired.
A thermomechanical refiner is basically the same as a disc
refiner except that the feed material is subjected to a steam
pressure of 4 to 15 atm (40 to 200 psi) for a period of time, from
1 to 45 minutes before it enters the refiner. In some cases, the
pressure continues through the actual refining process.
Presteaming softens the feed material and thus makes refining
easier and provides savings on energy requirements; however,
yield may be reduced up to 10 percent. The longer the
presteaming and the higher the pressure, the softer the wood
becomes. The heat plasticizes portions of the hemicellulose and
lignin components of wood which bind the fibers together and
results .in a longer and stronger fiber produced.
Subsequent to the refining of the wood, the fibers produced are
dispersed in water to achieve consistencies amenable to
screening. For most screening operations, consistencies of
approximately one percent fiber are required. Screening is done
primarily to remove coarse fiber bundles, knots, and slivers.
The coarse material may be recycled and passed through secondary
refiners which further reduce the rejects into usable fibers for
return to the process. After screening, the fibers produced by
any method may be sent to a decker or washer.
54
-------
Decker Operations—Deckers are essentially rotating wire covered
cylinders, usually with an internal vacuum, into which the
suspension of fibers in water is passed. The fibers are
separated and the water is usually recirculated into the system.
There are a number of reasons for deckering or washing, the two
primary ones being to clean the pulp, and consistency control.
Control of dissolved solids is also a factor in some cases.
While being variable on a plant-to-plant basis, the consistency
of the pulp upon reaching the forming machine in any insulation
board process is extremely critical. By dewatering the pulp from
the water suspension at this point, it can be mixed with greater
accuracy to the desired consistency. Washing of the pulp is
sometimes desirable in order to remove dissolved solids and
soluble organics which may result in surface flaws in the board.
The high concentration of these substances tends to stay in the
board and during the drying stages migrates to the surface. This
results in stains when a finish is applied to the board.
After the washing or deckering operation, the pulp is reslurried
in stages. The initial dilution to approximately 5 percent
consistency is usually followed by dilutions to 3 percent and
finally, just prior to mat formation, a dilution to approximately
1.5 percent. This procedure is followed primarily for two
reasons: (1) it allows for accurate consistency controls and
more efficient dispersion of additives; and (2) it reduces the
required pump and storage capacities for the pulp. During the
various stages of dilution, additives are usually added to the
pulp suspension. These range from 5 to 20 percent of the weight
of the board, depending on the product used. Additives may
include wax emulsion, paraffin, asphalt, starch,
polyelectrolytes, and aluminum sulfate. The purpose of additives
is to give the board desired properties such as strength,
dimensional stability, and water absorption resistance.
After passing through the series of storage and consistency
controls, the pulp may pass through a pump-through refiner,
directly ahead of the forming machine. The purpose of the pump-
through refiner is to disperse agglomerated fiber clumps and to
shorten the fiber bundles. The fibrous slurry, at approximately
1.5 percent consistency, is then pumped into a forming machine
which removes water from the pulp suspension and forms a mat.
Forming Operations—While there are various types of forming
machines used to make insulation board, the two most common are
the fourdrinier and the cylinder machines. The fourdrinier
machine used in the manufacture of insulation board is similar in
nature to those used in the manufacture of hardboard or paper.
The stock is pumped into the head box and onto a table with an
endless traveling screen running over it. The stock is spread
evenly across the screen by special control devices and an
interlaced fibrous blanket, referred to as a mat, is formed by
allowing the dewatering of the stock through the screen by
gravity assisted by vacuum boxes. The partially formed mat
55
-------
travelling on the wire screen then passes through press rollers,
some with a vacuum imposed, for further dewatering.
Cylinder machines are basically large rotating drum vacuum
filters with screens. Stock is pumped through a head box to a
vat where again a mat is formed onto the screen. In this case,
the mat is formed by use of a vacuum imposed on the interior of
the rotating drum. A portion of the rotating drum is immersed
into the stock solution. As water is forced through a screen, a
mat is formed when the portion of the cylinder rotates beyond the
water level in the tank and required amount of fiber is deposited
on the screen. The mat is further dewatered by the vacuum in the
interior of the rotating drum and is then transferred off the
cylinder onto a screen conveyor, or felt, where it then passes
through roller presses similar to those utilized in fourdrinier
operations.
Both the fourdrinier and the cylinder machines produce a mat that
leaves the roller press with a moisture content of about 40 to 45
percent and the ability to support its own weight over short
spans. At this point, the mat leaves the forming screen and
continues its travel over a conveyor. The wet mat is then
trimmed to width and cut to length by a traveling saw which moves
across the mat on a bias, making a square cut without the
necessity of stopping the continuous wetlap sheet.
After being cut to desired lengths, the mats are dried to a
moisture content of 5 percent or less. Most dryers now in use
are gas- or oil-fired tunnel dryers. Mats are conveyed on
rollers through the tunnel with hot air being circulated
throughout. Most dryers have 8 or 10 decks and various zones of
heat to control the rate of drying and to reduce the danger of
fire. These heat zones allow for higher temperatures when the
board is "wet" (where the mat first enters) and lower
temperatures when the mat is almost dry.
The dried board then goes through various finishing operations
such as painting, asphalt coating, and embossing. Those
operations which manufacture decorative products will usually
have finishing operations which use water-base paints containing
such chemicals as various inorganic pigments, i.e., clays, talc,
carbonates, and certain amounts of binders such as starch,
protein, PVA, PVAC, acrylics, urea formaldehyde resin, and
melamine formaldehyde resins. These are applied in stages by
rollers, sprayers, or brushes. The decorative tile then may be
embossed, beveled, or cut to size depending on the product
desired.
Sheathing in some operations receives additional molten asphalt
applications to both sides and the edges. It is then sprayed
with water and stacked to allow humidification to a uniform
moisture content.
56
-------
Various sanding and sawing operations give insulation board
products the correct dimensions. Generally, the dust, trim, and
reject materials created in finishing operations are recycled
into the process.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD
Scope of Study
The scope of this document includes all wet process hardboard
plants (SIC 2499) in the U.S. using wood as the primary raw
material.
Scope of Coverage for Data Base
Data collection portfolios were sent to 15 of the 16 wet process
hardboard plants. The remaining plant did not receive a data
collection portfolio, but did provide historical monitoring and
production data, as well as complete process and wastewater
treatment information requested. All 15 plants responded to the
survey. Eight plants were visited during this study, and seven
were sampled. In addition, the full record compiled by the E.C.
Jordan Company during their 1975-1976 study of the wet process
hardboard industry was reviewed during the course of this study.
All 16 plants were visited by E.C. Jordan personnel at that time.
Table II1-7 presents the method of ultimate disposal utilized by
each of the 16 wet process hardboard plants.
Table II1-7. Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Wet Process
Hardboard Plants
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge
12
Discharge to POTW
2
~Self-Contained Dischargers
Spray Irrigation (1 plant)
Total Recycle of Treated Effluent (1 plant)
'2*
* Two other plants use spray irrigation to dispose of part of
their wastewater. One plant spray irrigates a portion of its
sludge. Source: Data collection portfolios.
Units of Expression
Units of production in the hardboard industry are reported in
square meters (sq m) on a 3.2-mm (1/8-in) thick basis, as well as
57
-------
in thousand kilograms per day (Kkg/day). Most plants provided
production data directly on a weight basis. The hardboard
industry is not yet metricized and uses English units to express
production, square feet (sq ft) on a one-eighth inch basis or in
tons per day (TPD). Liquid flows from the industry are reported
in kiloliters per day (kl/day) and million gallons per day (MGD).
Conversion factors from English units to metric units are shown
in Appendix D.
Process Description
Raw Material Usage—The basic raw material used in the manufac-
ture of hardboard is wood. The wood species include both
hardwoods (oak, gum, aspen, cottonwood, willow, sycamore, ash,
elm, maple, cherry, birch, and beech) and softwoods (pine,
Douglas fir, and redwood).
Wood receipts may vary in form from unbarked long and short logs
to chips. Chip receipts may be from whole tree chipping, forest
residue (which includes limbs, bark, and stumps), sawmill waste,
plywood trim, and sawdust. The deliveries may be of one species,
a mixture of hardwoods, or a mixture of softwoods. The
geographic location of each mill determines the species of wood
used to produce the hardboard. The species and mixture at a
given plant may change according to availability.
Moisture content of the wood receipts varies from 10 percent in
plywood trim to 60 percent in green (fresh) wood.
Chemicals used as raw material in the hardboard process consist
of vegetable oils, primarily linseed or tung, tall oil, ferric
sulfate, wax, sulphuric acid, thermoplastic and/or thermosetting
resin, aluminum sulfate, petrolatum, defoamer, and paint. No one
mill uses all these chemicals in its process, nor is the degree
of chemical use the same for all mills. Some of the functions of
these* chemicals are for binding, sizing, pH control, retention,
weather proofing, and foam reduction. The chemical usage ranges
from 0.5 to 11.0 percent of the total production.
Wood Storage and Chipping—Most of the mills surveyed stored the
wood raw material as chips in segregated storage piles. In most
cases a paved base is provided for the storage piles. Rough logs
received are stockpiled prior to debarking and chipping.
Of those mills receiving rough logs, four out of eight remove the
bark by mechanical means and either burn it or dispose of it in
landfills. The other four mills chip the logs with the bark
attached. Seven mills receive wood in chip form only, which in
most cases includes .the bark from the log. Only six mills screen
chips before processing. Some of the mills using chips
containing bark can tolerate only a minimal amount of bark in the
final product and have auxiliary equipment (i.e., centricleaners)
to clean the stock. One mill reported that bark in the stock
improves the cleanliness of the caul plates in the press and
58
-------
presents no problems in production. Only seven of the sixteen
mills surveyed washed the chips before processing.
For production control and consistency, the majority of the mills
maintain a chip inventory of 60 to 90 days. Although the yield
is lower and the chips are more contaminated (bark, dirt, etc.),
the use of waste material and forest residue is increasing each
year in the production of hardboard. As the availability of
quality chips decreases and the costs increase, the greater use
of lower quality fiber requires additional equipment to clean the
chips before processing.
Fiber Preparation—Before refining or defibering, the chips are
pretreated with steam in a pressure vessel or digester. The
steaming of the chips under pressure softens the lignin material
that binds the individual fibers together and reduces the power
consumption required for mechanical defibering. The degree of
softening when the chips are raised to a certain temperature
varies with different wood species. Steaming of the chips also
increases the bonding between fibers when the board is pressed.
Cooking conditions are determined by the wood species involved
and the pulp quality required for the grade of hardboard being
produced. A major difference exists in the cooking conditions
used in the manufacturing of SIS (s.mooth-one-side) and S2S
(smooth-two-sides) hardboard. The cooking cycles for SIS
hardboard have ranges of 2 to 5 minutes at 5.4 to 10.2 atm (80 to
150 psi) for softwood and 40 seconds to 15 minutes at 9.5 to 12.2
atm (140 to 180 psi) for hardwood. S2S hardboard, which requires
stronger and finer fibers, is produced with cooking times of 1.5
to 14 minutes at 10.2 to 13.6 atm (150 to 200 psi).
Most SIS hardboard is usually manufactured with the same pulp
throughout the board, but occasionally it is produced with a
thick mat of coarsely refined fiber and an overlay of a thin
layer of highly refined fiber. The overlay produces a high
quality, shive-free, smooth surface. The bulk of the board can
contain coarse fiber, which allows proper drainage during the
pressing operation. Refining requires less energy and the
cooking conditions are less stringent.
S2S hardboard requires more highly refined fiber and more
thorough softening than SIS. This requires higher preheating
pressures and longer retention time and, therefore, more refining
equipment and horsepower. The severity of the cook significantly
affects the raw waste loading of the mill effluent. Most S2S
hardboard is manufactured using an overlay system of fine fiber.
To contend with frozen chips, some mills in cold climates add
preheating for thawing prior to the cooking cycle.
The predominant method used for fiber preparation consists of a
combination of thermal and mechanical pulping. This involves a
preliminary treatment of the raw chips with steam and pressure
59
-------
prior to mechanical pulping of the softened chips. The
thermomechanical process may take place with a digester-refiner
as one unit (e.g., Asplund system), or in separate units.
Primary, secondary, and tickler refiners may be found in the
process depending on the type of pulp required. The pulp becomes
stronger with more refining, but its drainage characteristics are
reduced.
Some mills use raw chips which bypass the digester and are
refined in a raffinator or refiner. These chips are usually of a
species that breaks down easily and has a tendency to overcook in
the digester. The raw chips, which produce a weaker pulp and are
a small percentage of the total chips used, are blended, after
refining, with the cooked chips.
Some mills employ a method of fiber preparation called the
explosion or gun process. The chips are cooked in a small
pressure vessel and released—suddenly and at a high pressure—
through a quick-opening valve to a cyclone. The sudden release
of pressure explodes the chips into a mass of fiber. The steam
condenses in the cyclone and fibers fall into a stock chest where
they are mixed with water. Fiber yield is lower than the
thermomechanical process because of the hydrolysis of the
hemicelluloses under high pressure, and the raw waste loading is
considerably higher.
To restore moisture to chips containing a low moisture content
(e.g., plywood trim), one mill injects water with the chips as
they are being cooked in the digester.
Refining or defibering equipment is of the disc type, in which
one disc or both may rotate; the unit may be pressurized or a
gravity type. A combination of pressure- and gravity-type
refiners is usually used in the process. Both types of refiners
have adjustable clearances between the rotating or fixed discs,
depending on the type of stock desired. The maintenance and life
of the refiner discs are dependent on the cleanliness of incoming
chips.
Small tickler or tertiary pump-through refiners are used to
provide a highly refined, shive-free stock for the overlay system
required by some mills. Small refiners are also used for rejects
from the stock cleaning systems.
Primary and most secondary refiners use large amounts of fresh
water for noncontact cooling which may be reused in the process
water system. Fresh or process white water is injected directly
into the refiner to facilitate refining.
Stock Washing and Deckers—A washer is used to remove soluble
materials. A decker, which is a screen used to separate fibers
from the main body of water, also removes some solubles from the
fiber bundles.
60
-------
After primary refining and dilution with white water, the
majority of the mills wash the stock to remove dissolved solids.
The most widely used washing equipment is of the drum-type, which
may operate under a gravity or vacuum mode. The washer is
equipped with showers that wash the stock as it is picked up by
the drum. Two mills used counter-current washers which consist
of two or three drum washers in series. The extracted solids are
used in a byproduct system. One mill uses a two-roll press for
washing. As the water is squeezed from the stock passing through
the nip of the press, it carries away dissolved solids.
The effluent from a stock washer has a high concentration of
soluble organics which are usually mixed into the white water
system and are either discharged for treatment or are recycled
within the washing system. The amount of dissolved solids that
are readily washed from the stock is dependent'on the species of
wood and the amount of cooking.
Of the sixteen hardboard mills surveyed, four of seven SIS mills
and seven of nine S2S mills wash their stock before mat
formation.
Stock washers are usually located after the primary refiners.
Some mills screen the washed stock and send the slivers and
oversize back through the primary refiner. Five mills, one
without a stock washer, used centricleaners in the system to
remove non-fiber material (bark, dirt, etc.) from the stock.
Consistency of the stock as it travels through the process is
controlled by instruments using recycled white water for
dilution. One mill, based on experience, checks the consistency
by "feel." The pH may be controlled by the addition of fresh
water or chemicals. Other chemicals are added at various
locations as required.
Forming—Most wet process mills form their product on a four-
drinier-type machine similar to that used in producing paper.
Diluted stock is pumped to the headbox where the consistency is
controlled (usually with white water) to an average of 1.5 to 1.7
percent while the stock is being fed to the traveling wire of the
fourdrinier. As the stock travels with the wire, water is
drained away. At first the water drains by gravity, but as the
stock and wire continue, a series of suction boxes remove
additional water. As the water is being removed, the stock is
felted together into a continuous fibrous sheet called a "wet
mat." At the end of the forming machine the wet mat leaves the
traveling wire and is picked up by another moving screen that
carries the mat through one or more roll presses. This step not
only removes more water but also compacts and solidifies the mat
to a level at which it can support its own weight over short
spans. As the wet mat leaves the prepress section, it is cut, on
the fly, into lengths as required for the board being produced.
In the production of SIS hardboard the mat, still with a moisture
content of 50 to 65 percent, is carried to the hydraulic press
61
-------
section. In the manufacture of S2S hardboard, the mat is
conveyed first through the dryer and then is pressed in a dry
state.
The water drained from the mat as it travels across the forming
machine is collected in a pit under the machine or in a chest.
This "white water" contains a certain amount of wood fibers
(suspended solids), wood chemicals (dissolved solids), and
dissolved additive chemicals depending on the size of the machine
wire, the amount and number of suction boxes, the freeness or
drainage of the stock, and the physical properties of the
product.
The water draining by gravity from the first section of the
former contains .the larger amount (rich) of fiber and is usually
recycled to the fan pumps that supply the stock to the forming
machine. The lean white water collected under vacuum in some
plants is collected and recycled as dilution water throughout the
process.
The amount of white water that can be recycled is sometimes
limited by board quality demands. Recycled white water causes an
increase in the sugar content (dissolved solids) of the process
water and therefore in the board. If the sugar content is
allowed to accumulate beyond a certain point, problems such as
boards sticking in the press, bleedouts from the finished
products, objectionable board color, and decreased paintability
may be encountered. Some board products can tolerate a degree of
such problems, and in some cases, some of the problems can be
overcome by operational changes.
The wet trim from the mat on the forming machine is sent to a
repulper, diluted, usually screened, and recycled into the
process system ahead of the forming machine.
Pressing—After forming to the desired thickness, the fibers in
the mat are welded together into a grainless board by the hard-
board press. The hydraulically-operated press is capable of
simultaneously pressing 8 to 26 boards. Press plates may be
heated with steam or with a heat transfer medium up to 230°C.
Unit pressures on the board up to 68 atm (1,000 psi) are achieved
in the press. In SIS hardboard manufacturing the wet mat is fed
into the press as it comes from the forming machine. Screens are
used on the back side of SIS mats in the press. In this state
the SIS requires 4 to 10 minutes in the press. In S2S hardboard
manufacturing, the press may be fitted with caul plates ojr the
board may be pressed directly between the press platens. Caul
plates may be smooth or embossed for a special surface effect on
the board. The press may be hand or automatically loaded and
unloaded.
The squeezing of the water from the wet mat removes some of the
dissolved solids. The water from the press squeeze-out on SIS
hardboard has a high organic content and is usually drained away
62
-------
for treatment. ^To assist the bond of the fibers in the press,
resins are added to the stock before it reaches the forming
machine. From the press the SIS hardboard may be conveyed to a
dryer, kiln, or humidifier.
As the S2S hardboard leaves the forming machine, it may enter a
pre-drying oven which evaporates 95 percent of the moisture in
the board. When a pre-dryer is used, the hot board is delivered
directly to the press. After drying, the board may be pressed or
sent to storage and pressed when required. The strength of the
S2S hardboard has to be sufficient to withstand the many handling
situations that occur while the board is in the unpressed state.
As stated before, the S2S hardboard requires a harder cook and
more refining than SIS hardboard. These finer fibers allow the
consolidating chemical reaction to take place when pressing the
dry board. Thermosetting phenolic resins cannot be used- as a
binder in S2S hardboard mat because it precures in the mat dryer.
Higher temperatures, higher pressures, and shorter pressing time
(1 to 5 minutes) are required in pressing the dry S2S hardboard.
Oil Tempering and Baking—After pressing, both SIS and S2S hard-
board may receive a special treatment called tempering. This
consists of treating the sheets with various drying oils (usually
vegetable oils) either by pan dripping or roll coaters. In some
cases the hardboard is passed through a series of pressure rolls
which increase the absorption of the oils and remove any excess.
The oil is stabilized by baking the sheet from 1 to 4 hours at
temperatures of ,150°C to 177°C. Tempering increases the
hardness, strength, and water resistance of the board.
Humidification—As the sheets of hardboard discharge from the
press or the tempering baking oven they are hot and dry. To
stabilize the board so as to prevent warping and dimensional
changes, it is subjected to a humidification chamber in which the
sheets are retained until the proper moisture content, usually
4.5 to 5 percent, is reached. In the case of siding products
where exposure to the elements is expected, humidification to 7
percent is common.
Figures II1-8 and II1-9 depict diagrams of typical SIS and S2S
production processes, respectively.
63
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL WET PROCESS HARDBOARD MILL
S1S HARDBOARD PRODUCTION LINE
STEAM
FRESH WATER
STEAM
STEAM
PRESS -* J
SQUEEZE OUT
TO DISCHARGE
WHITE WATER RECYCLE
AND OR DISCHARGE
f EVAPORATION
EVAPORATION
DIGESTER
CHIP
STORAGE
CHIP
SILOS
REFINER
OVEN
OR
KILN
DEBARKING
FORMING
MACHINE
PRESS
CHIPPING
STOCK
CHEST
LOG
STORAGE
WATER IN
WATER OUT
Figure 111-8
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD MILL
S2S HARDBOARD PRODUCTION LINE
FRESH WATER STEAM
EVAPORATION
WHITE WATER
FRESH WATER
FRESH WATER
WHITE WATER
ENRICHED WHITE WATER FOR)
BY PRODUCT_USE_RECYCLE _]
OR DISCHARGE
WHITE WATER RECYCLE <
AND OR DISCHARGE !
STEAM
STEAM
~ EVAPORATION
* EVAPORATION
FINISHING
DEBARKING
CHIP
STORAGE
HUMIDIFY
OVEN
OR
KILN
CHIP
SILOS
CHIP
WASHER
CHIPPING
DIGESTER
PRESS
LOG
STORAGE
FIBER
WASH
SECONDARY
REFINER
PRIMARY
REFINER
FORMING
MACHINE
STOCK
CHEST
PRE DRYER
LEGEND
WATER
IN *-
WATER
OUT ¦*-
Figure ||l-(
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION IV
INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORY AT I ON
GENERAL
In the review of existing industrial subcategorization for the
wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hardboard
subcategories of the timber industry, it was necessary to
determine whether significant differences exist within each
segment to support the previous subcategorization scheme, or
whether modifications are required. Subcategorization is based
upon emphasized differences and similarities in such factors as:
(1) plant characteristics (size, age, and products produced) and
raw materials; (2) wastewater characteristics, including toxic
pollutant characteristics; (3) manufacturing processes; (4)
applicable methods of wastewater treatment and disposal and (5)
nonwater quality impacts and energy.
The entire technical data base, described in Section II, was used
in the review of subcategorization.
WOOD PRESERVING
Review of Existing Subcategorization
In developing the previously published effluent limitation
guidelines and pretreatment standards for the wood preserving
segment of the timber products industry, it was determined that
plants comprising this segment exhibited significant differences
which sufficiently justified subcategorization. The definitions
of the three previously published subcategories (1974) are as
follows:
Wood Preserving—All pressure processes which employ waterborne
salts and in which steaming, the Boulton process, or vapor drying
is not the predominant method of conditioning. All nonpressure
processes.
Wood Preserving-Steam-Al1 wood preserving processes that use
direct steam impingement on wood as the predominant conditioning
method, processes that use vapor drying as the predominant
conditioning method, fluor-chromium-arsenate-phenol (FCAP)
processes, processes where the same retort is used to treat with
both salt- and oil-type preservatives, and processes which ste?;.."?
condition and which apply both salt- and oil-type preservatives
to the same stock.
Wood Preserving-Boulton-All wood preserving processes which use
the Boulton process as the predominant method of conditioning
stock.
67
-------
The rationale for selecting these subcategories was anchored to
differences within the industry in the volume of process
wastewater generated and the applicable wastewater technology
existing when the subcategories were developed in 1974. Plants
in the Wood Preserving subcategory were required to meet a no
discharge of process wastewater limitations and standards because
a widely used technology existed to achieve no discharge by
recycling the small volumes of process wastewater. Likewise, in
1974 plants employing the Boulton method of conditioning had
achieved no discharge of process wastewater by means of forced
evaporation using waste heat, and this was the basis for separate
subcategorization of Boulton plants. Plants that used steaming
as the predominant method of conditioning were permitted a
discharge because of the relatively large volume of wastewater
generated by the open steaming method used by most of the plants
at that time, and because steaming plants did not have sufficient
waste heat available to achieve no discharge through forced
evaporation.
Factors considered in the subcategorization review included the
following:
Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials
Wastewater Characteristics
Manufacturing Processes
Methods of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Nonwater Quality Impacts
Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials
Raw Materials and Conditioning Processes—Most plants employing
the Boulton process as the predominant method of conditioning are
located in the Douglas fir region of the western states; those
that use steam conditioning are concentrated in the Southern pine
areas of the South and East. However, many plants that treat
unseasoned Douglas fir also employ steaming for special purposes
such as thawing frozen stock before treatment or flash cleaning
of the surfaces of stock following treatment. Likewise, since
current AWPA standards permit steam conditioning of certain
western species .such as Ponderosa pine, some plants that use the
Boulton process as the predominant method of conditioning also
use steam conditioning occasionally. Similarly, some eastern
plants that steam condition most of their stock may use the
Boulton process to condition green oak piling or cross ties. The
Boulton process is the predominant conditioning method at a few
of the plants in the South and East that specialize in cross tie
production.
Because the wood species being treated plays a role in
determining the method used to condition the raw material, and
because the conditioning process used may affect the volume of
wastewater generated; conditioning process used played a major
role in establishing the subcategorization of the wood preserving
segment.
68
-------
Age—With the exception of method of conditioning the wood,
Boulton and steaming plants have very similar characteristics.
Average is more than 45 years for both Boulton and steaming
plants.
Plant age in and of itself is not a significant factor in
determining the efficiency of a plant; nor does it necessarily
influence either the volume or the quality ..I process wastewater.
Regardless of age, all plants employ tne same basic treating
processes, use the same type of equipment, and treat with the
same preservatives. The average age of wood preserving plants is
high because the industry developed rapidly in the 1920's and
1930's in consort with the demand for treated wood products by
the railroads and utilities. Most of the old plants have been
modified several times since they were first constructed. In
most cases, the waste management programs at these plants are as
advanced as those at plants constructed more recently.
Size—Table IV-1 shows the size distribution of wood preserving
plants within each subcategory. It can be readily observed from
this table that plants which treat only with inorganic
preservatives have a much greater percentage (79 percent) of one-
and two-cylinder plants than do the Boulton (57 percent) or steam
(53 percent) subcategories. Boulton plants have a greater
percentage of large plants with over four retorts (21 percent) as
compared to steaming plants (8 percent) or inorganic preservative
plants (2 percent).
Production capacity is perhaps a better indicator of plant size
than number of retorts. For plants with the same number of
retorts that treat only stump-green stock, the production of the
steaming plant would exceed that of the Boulton plant by a factor
of two or more because of the longer treating cycle time required
for the Boulton process. This inherent production advantage of
steaming plants is mitigated in part by the fact that the Boulton
subcategory of the industry has a higher percentage of four- and
five-cylinder plants than the Steam subcategory. Plant size and
production capacity are insignificant factors in
subcategorization of the wood preserving segment.
Products Treated-—Boulton and steaming plants produce the same
range of treated products. Overall, the Boulton plants tend to
be more diversified than the remainder of the industry. This is
not a significant factor in subcategorization.
Preservatives Used—The types of organic preservatives used by a
plant are an important consideration in determining the
pollutants contained in the process wastewater and, to some
degree, the quality of the wastewater. Boulton plants use the
same range of preservatives as the industry as a whole. However,
more Boulton plants use creosote and salt-type preservatives than
the remainder of the industry.
69
-------
Table IV-1. Size Distribution of Wood Preserving Plants by
Subcategory
Inorganic
Boulton Steam Perservatives
Number of Number of Number of Number of
Retorts Plants Percent Plants Percent Plants Percent
1
8
24
1 1
13
30
55
2
1 1
33
34
40
1 3
24
3
3
9
24
28
1 1
20
4
4
12
9
n
0
0
>4
7
21
7
8
1
2
Components may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: Data Collection Portfolios, 1977, and AWPA, 1975.
Wastewater Characteristics
Wastewater Volume—Data collected in 1973-1974 in preparation of
the Development Document for the Wood Preserving Segment of the
Timber Industry revealed significant differences between the
volume of wastewater generated by plants in the Wood Preserving
subcategory which use nonpressure processes or which treat with
inorganic salts, and plants in the Steam and Boulton
subcategories which use pressure processes and treat with oily
preservatives. Non-pressure plants generate no process
wastewater. Inorganic salts plants generate much lower volumes
of wastewater than do plants treating with oily preservatives,
and this wastewater can be reclaimed by recycling as dilution
water for future batches of waterborne preservatives. Steaming
plants generate a larger volume of wastewater than Boulton plants
of similar size. However, this difference has narrowed
considerably during the period 1974-1978 as a result of
aggressive pollution control efforts among steaming plants in the
East. Factors that have contributed to this change include the
following:
1. Adoption of closed steaming as a replacement for open
steaming by some plants.
2. Replacement of barometric-type with surface-type
condensers.
3. Recycling of barometric cooling water.
4. Predrying of a higher percentage of production, thus
70
-------
reducing total steaming time and excess wood water.
5. Segregation of contaminated and uncontaminated waste
streams.
6. Inauguration of effective plant maintenance and sanita-
tion programs.
7. Recycle of coil condensate.
Improvements have also been made in the waste management programs
at Boulton plants. However, the changes that produced the
greatest result with the smallest investment were made at these
plants prior to 1973 in response to local and state pollution
control regulations.
Data presented in Section V of this document demonstrate that
while differences in wastewater volumes between steaming plants
and Boulton plants still exist, the differences are less than
those which existed in 1973 and 1974. The average steaming plant
generates approximately 30 percent more wastewater on a gallon
per cubic foot basis than does the average Boulton plant.
Steaming plants which treat a large portion of dry stock and
closed steaming plants generate 12 and 56 percent less
wastewater, respectively, than do Boulton plants. In 1973 and
1974, 75 percent of all steaming plants surveyed by EPA indicated
that they either then practiced or were planning to adopt closed
steaming technology. Current information indicates that fewer
than 50 percent of all steaming plants have adopted closed
steaming. Many plants reported that high product color and low
aesthetic quality of poles and lumber treated by closed steaming
techniques were instrumental in their decision to discontinue or
not to adopt closed steaming.
The previously promulgated subcategorization scheme is being
retained because the methods commonly in use to treat and dispose
of process wastewater differ significantly between the -Steam and
-Boulton subcategories.
Wastewater Parameters—Inorganic salts plants generate a
wastewater containing water soluble heavy metals, which can be
recycled using commonly practiced reuse technology. Boulton and
steaming plants treat with the same types of oily preservatives.
Consequently, the wastewater generated by the two types of plants
contains similar preservative contaminants. This is verified by
data presented in Section V.
Differences between Boulton and steaming wastewater in COD and
pentachlorophenol concentrations are largely due to differences
in oil and grease content. Oil-water emulsions are more common
in steaming plant wastewaters, a fact that accounts for the
correspondingly higher average oil content. It is probable that
wood extractives, principally resins and carbohydrates, act as
emulsifiers. Because the water removed from wood during the
Boulton process leaves the retort in vapor form and thus free of
wood extractives, emulsions occur with considerably less
frequency in Boulton wastewater. The higher oil content of the
71
-------
steaming wastewater accounts in large part for the relatively
higher oxygen demand of these wastes and serves as a carrier for
pentachlorophenol at concentrations far in excess of its
solubility in water (17 mg/1 at 20°C).
Manufacturing Processes
The conditioning method employed is the only step in the
manufacturing process that distinguishes Boulton plants from
steaming plants. Both conditioning methods have the same
function, i.e., to reduce the moisture content of unseasoned
stock to a level which allows the requisite amount of
preservative to be forced into the wood. Conditioning also
increases the depth of treatment as required by AWPA standards.
Process descriptions of both Boulton and steam conditioning are
presented in Section III of this document. As stated above,
differences in wastewater volume and treatment/disposal options
enter into the decision to continue with the same
subcategorization scheme.
Methods of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Plants which treat solely with inorganic salts can achieve no
discharge of process wastewater by collecting cylinder drippings
and rainfall from the sump under the cylinders and recycling this
wastewater to dilute treating solutions for future charges. This
technology is effective and widely employed in the industry.
Plants that treat with salts have, with few exceptions, achieved
no discharge as required by previously promulgated effluent
guidelines and standards.
Capital requirements to achieve no discharge for a plant that
treats only with salt-type preservatives are relatively small
compared to those that treat with oil-type preservatives.
Because of the nature of the closed system for salt treating
plants, operating costs are low. Some small return on the
initial investment can be realized in that small quantities of
otherwise wasted chemicals are recovered and reused.
Wastewater treatment methods utilized by plants treating with
oily preservatives include gravity oil-water separation; chemical
flocculation followed by slow sand filtration; biological
treatment; soil irrigation; and natural or forced (spray, pan or
cooling tower) evaporation. These treatment methods are equally
applicable to steaming and Boulton plants with the exception of
cooling tower evaporation, which is more appropriate for Boulton
plants, because of the availability of waste heat.
Nearly all plants treating with oily preservatives use gravity
oil-water separation, regardless of subsequent treatment steps or
ultimate disposal of wastewater. Primary oil separation is used
partly for economic reasons—to recover oil and treating
solutions, and partly to facilitate subsequent treatment steps.
Plants which use chemical flocculation/filtration and/or
72
-------
biological treatment technology do so to pretreat the wastewater
prior to discharge, additional treatment, or disposal.
Plants treating with oily preservatives have generally chosen to
meet previously published effluent limitations by discharging
pretreated wastewater to a POTW or by achieving no discharge
status through either soil irrigation or evaporation. Soil
irrigation and spray evaporation, equally applicable to steaming
and Boulton wastewaters, require the availability of land. The
amount of land required depends on the size of the plant, amount
of wastewater generated, and local soil and atmospheric
conditions.
Boulton plants have a significant source of waste heat available
in the vaporized wood water and light oils sent to the condenser
during the long vacuum phase of the treating cycle. This waste
heat can be used to evaporate all or most of the process
wastewater by recirculation through a mechanical draft cooling
tower. This method of forced evaporation, while occasionally
requiring an external heat source to evaporate excess rainwater
or other process water, is currently used by many Boulton plants
to achieve no discharge. This technology requires very little
land, generally less than one-tenth of an acre.
The vacuum cycle of steaming plants is too short to effectively
utilize the waste heat of the vaporized wood water, and reliance
must be made on the more land-intensive technologies of soil
irrigation or spray evaporation to achieve no discharge.
Nonwater Quality Impacts
For the purposes of subcategorization, EPA is not aware of any
nonwater quality environmental impacts that would justify a
change to the previously published subcategorization scheme.
Subcategory Description and Selection Rationale
A careful, consideration of the plant characteristics, raw
materials, wastewater volume produced, wastewater
characteristics, manufacturing processes, available methods of
wastewater treatment and disposal, and nonwater quality impacts
as currently exist in the industry today suggests that the
existing subcategorization of the wood preserving industry should
be retained, with minor wording changes to clarify the
applicability of the regulation.
EPA is, however, shifting plants treating with
fluoro-chromium-arsenic-phenol (FCAP) solution from the Wood
Preserving-Steam to the Wood Preserving-Waterborne or Nonpressure
subcategory. These plants were previously included in the Wood
Preserving-Steam subcategory because plants that use the FCAP
preservative often steam condition wood. The recent update of
information, however, indicates that FCAP, which is a waterborne
solution, is more properly included in the Wood Preserving-
73
-------
Waterborne or Nonpressure subcategory (previously the Wood
Preserving subcategory). FCAP may be applied to air or kiln
dried wood, and its low volumes of wastewater may be recycled in
the same manner as other waterborne salt solutions. Furthermore,
the technical data base did not identify any direct or indirect
discharging plants treating with FCAP.
Although there are similarities among all plants which treat with
oily preservatives in terms of plant characteristics, raw
materials, wastewater volume and characteristics, and
manufacturing processes, the ability of the plants in the Boulton
subcategory to use available waste heat to evaporate most, if not
all, process wastewater indicates that current subcategorization,
with the minor, recommended changes, is still valid.
The widespread use and low cost of technology resulting in no
discharge for plants which are currently in the Wood
Preserving-Water Borne or Nonpressure subcategory is the primary
reason for retaining this subcategory.
The definitions of the wood preserving subcategories as finally
promulgated are:
Wood Preserving - Waterborne or Nonpressure — Includes all
nonpressure wood preserving treatment processes, and all pressure
wood preserving treatment processes employing waterborne
inorganic salts.
Wood Preserving-Steam — Includes all wood preserving processes
that use direct steam impingement on wood as the predominant
conditioning method; processes that use the vapor drying process
as the predominant conditioning method; direct steam conditioning
processes which use the same retort to treat with both salt and
oil-type preservatives; and steam conditioning processes which
apply both salt-type and oil-type preservatives to the same
stock.
Wood Preservi ng-Bou1ton — Includes those wood preserving
processes which use the Boulton process as the predominant method
of conditioning stock.
INSULATION BOARD
Review of Existing Subcategorization
Effluent limitations guidelines have never been promulgated for
the Insulation Board segment of the timber industry. The August
1974 Development Document for the Timber Products Processing
Industry proposed two subcategories, based on differences in raw
wastewater volume and strength between plants which steam
precondition the w9od raw material (thermomechanical refining) or
which produce hardboard at the same facility, and plants which do
not (mechanical refining). The Agency reviewed the proposed
subcategorization with respect to the updated technical data
74
-------
base, and decided that a single subcategory for all insulation
board plants was appropriate.
During the review of the proposed subcategorization for the
Insulation Board segment, the industry was reviewed and surveyed
with a focus on wastewater characteristics and treatability as
related to:
Raw Materials
Manufacturing Processes
Products Produced
Plant Size and Age
Nonwater Quality Impacts
Raw Materials
The primary raw material used in the manufacture of wood fiber
insulation board is wood. This material is responsible for the
major portion of the BOD and suspended solids in the raw waste.
Other additives, such as wax emulsions, asphalt, paraffin,
starch, and aluminum sulfate, comprise less than 20 percent of
the board weight and add very little to the raw waste load.
Information submitted by several mills has indicated that wood
species, season of wood harvesting, and the presence of bark
and/or whole tree chips in wood furnish affect the raw waste load
of insulation board plants. However, due to a lack of
sufficiently detailed plant data to quantify the effects of these
variables upon raw waste load, there was no sound basis for
subcategorization strictly on the basis of raw material used to
produce the board.
Four insulation board plants produce insulation board using
mineral wool as a raw material. Two of these plants produce
large quantities of mineral wool insulation board on separate
forming lines within the same facility or in facilities separate
from the wood fiber insulation board plant. One plant produces
approximately 50 percent of its total production as mineral wool
insulation board on the same forming machine that it uses to
produce wood fiber insulation board. Wood fiber and mineral wool
wastewater from these three plants completely comingle. prior to
monitoring. These plants were not used to determine raw\.waste
loads for wood fiber insulation board. One plant produces less
than 10 percent of its total production as mineral wool
insulation board, using the same forming equipment as is used for
wood fiber insulation board. Raw waste load data from this plant
were used to develop raw waste loads for wood fiber insulation
board as the contribution from the min'eral wood production was
considered to have no significant effect on the overall raw waste
load.. All other plants analyzed for raw waste load used only
wood as the primary material.
Four plants indicated in their response to the DCP that
wastepaper was used for a minor portion of their raw material in
wood fiber insulation board production. The small amounts of
75
-------
wastepaper furnish used by these plants are not likely to
appreciably affect their raw waste loads.
Manufacturing Process
Although a plant may have various auxiliary components in its
operation, the major factor which affects raw waste loads is
whether steam, under pressure, is used to precondition the chips
prior to refining, or whether preconditioning is accomplished
mechanically. Plants which do not steam their furnish under
pressure, i.e., mechanical refining plants, demonstrate lower raw
waste loads than plants which precondition chips using steam
under pressure, i.e., thermomechanical refining plants. This was
the primary reason for proposing separate subcategorization of
this industry segment. The steam cook softens the wood chips and
results in the release of more soluble organics. Data presented
in Section V, WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS, support the general
validity of subcategorization based on whether or not a plant
preconditions its furnish using steam under pressure.
Products Produced
The ability of an insulation board plant to recycle process
wastewater is highly dependent upon the type of product produced.
Insulation board plants which produce primarily structural type
board products such as sheathing, shinglebacker, etc.,
demonstrate lower raw waste loads primarily because of the
increased opportunity of process water recycle at these plants.
Two insulation board plants that do not steam condition their
wood furnish have reduced their flow per unit of production to
less than 3,000 liters/metric ton (750 gallons/ton). These
plants produce primarily structural type board products. Two
insulation board plants that steam condition their wood furnish
achieved complete recycle of process Whitewater, resulting in no
discharge of process wastewater. Both of these plants produce
solely structural type products.
Structural type products do not require the uniform color surface
finish of decorative products and can contain a greater amount of
wood sugars and other dissolved material from the process
Whitewater system.
Consideration was given to subcategorization on the basis of type
of board product produced, i.e., structural versus decorative.
However, the equipment at most plants is readily adaptable to the
production of both types of board, and most plants rotate the
type of board produced based on product demand, which is highly
variable. Subcategorization according to board type would
severely limit the ability of these plants to respond to
competitive pressures, and would make the issuance of permits by
enforcement agencies a difficult task. Therefore, subcate-
gorization solely on the basis of product type is not considered
feasible.
76
-------
Plant Size and Age
There is a substantial difference in the age and size of the
plants in the insulation board industry. However, older plants
have been upgraded, modernized, and expanded to the point that
age, in terms of process, is meaningless. Because of this, the
differences in wastewater characteristics related to the age of
the plant are not discernible, nor is the prorated raw waste load
due to plant size. Raw waste load data presented in Section V
support this conclusion.
Nonwater Quality Impacts
For the purposes of subcategorization, EPA is not awaire of any
nonwater quality environmental impacts that would justify a
change to the previously published subcategorization scheme.
Subcategory Description and Selection Rationale
The Agency has decided to combine all insulation board plants
into a single subcategory. This decision is based on the
practical reason that there are only two direct discharging
plants which produce solely insulation board, and that these
plants have similar raw waste characteristics even though one
plant practices thermomechanical refining and one plant practices
mechanical refining. Although data presented in Section V
support the fact that thermomechancial refining generally results
in higher strength wastewaters, the single direct discharging
mechanical refining plant is an exception since it uses 100
percent whole tree chips as its primary raw material, resulting
in a higher raw waste load than that of a typical mechanical
refining plant. Based on treatment system performance data
presented for this sole direct discharging mechanical refining
plant in Section VII, CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, it is
expected that this plant will be able to comply with proposed
effluent limitations for all insulation board plants.
Because the raw waste loads of BOD and TSS for thermomechanical
insulation board plants are similar to the raw waste loads
exhibited by SIS hardboard plants, the Agency considered
combining the insulation board plants and SIS hardboard plants
into one subcategory. Significant differences were found to
exist, however, in the unit flow of wastewater generated by
insulation board and SIS hardboard plants due to the greater
amount of internal recycle possible for the insulation board
plants. These differences in unit flow, combined with
differences in the treatability of insulation board and SIS
hardboard wastes due to additive differences, led the Agency to
decide against combining insulation board and SIS hardboard
plants into one subcategory.
As finally promulgated, the Insulation Board subcategory
comprises plants which produce insulation board using wood as the
raw material. Specifically excluded from this subpart is the
77
-------
manufacture of insulation board from the primary raw material
bagasse.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD
Review of Existing Subcateqorization
Effluent limitations guidelines for wet process hardboard plants
promulgated previously (1974) included all wet process hardboard
plants in a single subcategory defined as plants engaged in the
manufacture of hardboard using the wet matting process for
forming the board mat.
After these regulations were promulgated, industry
representatives presented data which they believed supported
separate limitations and subcategorization for wet-wet (SIS)
hardboard and wet-dry (S2S) hardboard.
In November 1975, the EPA retained a contractor to evaluate and
review the regulations and the existing subcategorization of the
industry. The Summary Report on the Re-Evaluation of the
Effluent Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the
Timber Products Processing Point Source Category, completed in
July 1976, recommended that the wet process hardboard industry be
divided into two parts wet-wet hardboard and wet-dry hardboard.
This recommendation was based on significant differences in the
raw waste load characteristics of plants which produce hardboard
by the two different processes.
In order to determine the validity of the resubcategorization and
to determine whether changes within the industry since the
Summary Evaluation Report was completed in 1976 occurred, the
industry was reviewed and surveyed with a.focus on wastewater
characteristics and treatability as related to:
Raw Materials
Manufacturing Processes
Products Produced
Plant Size and Age
Nonwater Quality Impacts
Raw Materials
The primary raw material used in the manufacture of hardboard is
wood, and this material is responsible for the major portion of
the BOD and suspended solids in the raw waste. Other additives,
such as vegetable oils, tall oil, ferric sulfate, thermoplastic
and/or thermosetting resins, and aluminum sulfate, comprise less
than 15 percent of the board weight and add very little to the
raw waste load. Information submitted by several plants has
indicated that wood species, season of wood harvesting, and the
presence of bark in wood furnish affect the raw waste load of
hardboard plants. Because of a lack of sufficiently detailed
plant data to quantify the effects of these variables upon raw
78
-------
waste load, there was no sound basis for subcategorization
strictly on the basis of raw material used to produce the board.
Manufacturing Processes
A plant may have various auxiliary components in its operation;
however, the basic processes in the production of either SIS or
S2S hardboard are similar except for the pressing operation. SIS
board is pressed wet immediately after forming. S2S board is
dried prior to being pressed.
SIS hardboard is produced with coarse fiber bundles cooked a
relatively short time and at low pressure—40 seconds to 5
minutes at pressures of 80 to 180 psi. S2S hardboard, which
requires finer fibers, is produced with cooking times of 1.5 to
14 minutes at pressures of 150 to 200 psi. The longer time and
higher pressure cooks release more soluble organics from the raw
material (wood), thus affecting the effluent raw waste loading.
The S2S board also requires more effective fiber washing to
reduce the soluble solids that affect the product in the pressing
and finishing operations. These operations result in more raw
waste discharge to the effluent; less soluble solids are retained
in the finished board. After analyzing the available information
and observing the obvious differences between the processes for
wet-wet (SIS) and wet-dry (S2S) hardboard, it appears justifiable
to allow for differences between wet-wet (SIS) and wet-dry (S2S)
hardboard.
Products Produced
A hardboard plant may produce SIS or S2S board, or both, but the
end products at each plant cover a wide range of applications,
surface designs, and thickness.
In conjunction with hardboard, some plants produce other products
such*, as insulation board, battery separators, and mineral
insulation. Insulation board is produced either on its own
forming line or on the same line used for S2S hardboard. The
various effluents for each line are comingled upon discharge for
treatment with little or no monitoring of flow and/or wastewater
characteristics of the separate wastewater streams. The effluent
limitations promulgated are applicable only to the hardboard
manufacturing operations.
Three plants produce a marketable animal feed byproduct by the
evaporation of the highly concentrated wastewater. Several other
mills are investigating this process, which not only yields a
salable product but also reduces the raw waste load that would
require treatment. * Because this process is plant specific, it is
not addressed in the subcategorization.
79
-------
Size and Age of Plants
There are considerable differences in age and size of hardboard
plants. Older plants have been upgraded, modernized, and
expanded to the point that age in terms of manufacturing process
is insignificant. Because of this, the differences in wastewater
characteristics related to age of the plant are not discernible
nor is the prorated raw waste flow due to the plant size. Raw
waste load data presented in Section V support this conclusion.
Nonwater Quality Impacts
For the purposes of subcategorization, EPA is not aware of any
nonwater quality environmental impacts that would justify a
change to the previously published subcategorization scheme.
Subcategory Description and Selection Rationale
Analysis of the above factors, supported by data presented in
Section V of this document, WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS, affirms
the validity of separate subcategorization for wet-wet (SIS)
hardboard and wet-dry (S2S) hardboard.
The Agency decided, therefore, to divide the Wet Process
Hardboard subcategory into two parts. Part (a) establishes
limits for plants producing wet-wet hardboard (SIS), part (b)
establishes limits for plants producing wet-dry hardboard (S2S).
As finally promulgated, the Wet Process Hardboard subcategory is
defined to include any plant which produces hardboard products
using the wet matting process for forming the board mat.
80
-------
SECTION V
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
GENERAL
The purpose of this section is to define the wastewater quantity
and quality for plants in those subcategories identified in
Section IV. Raw waste concentration and load data are presented
for conventional pollutants, nonconventional pollutants, and
toxic pollutants in each subcategory.
The term "raw waste load" (RWL), as utilized in this document, is
defined as the quantity of a pollutant in wastewater prior to an
end-of-pipe treatment process. Where treatment processes are
designed primarily to recover raw materials from the wastewater
stream, raw waste loads are obtained following these processes.
Examples are gravity oil-water separators in wood preserving, or
fine screens used for fiber recovery in insulation board and
hardboard plants. The raw waste load is normally expressed in
terms of mass (weight) units per day or per production unit.
For the purpose of cost analysis only, representative raw waste
characteristics have been defined for each subcategory in order
to establish design parameters for model plants.
The data presented in this document are based on the most
current, representative information available from each plant
contacted. Verification sampling data are used to supplement
historical data obtained from the plants for the traditional
pollutants, and in most cases verification sampling data are the
sole source of quantitative information for toxic pollutant raw
waste loads.
WOOD PRESERVING
General Characteristics
Wastewater characteristics vary with the particular preservative
used, the volume of stock that is conditioned prior to treatment,
the conditioning method used, and the extent to which wastewaters
from the retorts are diluted with water .from other sources.
Wastewaters from creosote and pentachlorophenol treatments often
have high phenolic, COD, and oil concentrations and a turbid
appearance that results from emulsified oils. They are always
acid in reaction, the pH values usually falling within the range
of 4.1 to 6.0. The high COD contents of such wastes are caused
by entrained oils and wood extractives, principally simple
sugars, that are removed from wood during steam conditioning.
These wastewaters may also contain traces of copper, chromium,
arsenic, zinc, and boron at plants that use the same retort for
both waterborne salts and oil-type preservatives, or that apply
81
-------
dual treatments to the same stock; i.e., treat with two preserva-
tives, one of which is a salt formulation. Organic toxic
pollutants in wastewaters from plants which treat with
pentachlorophenol and creosote preservatives only are principally
volatile organic solvents such as benzene and toluene, and
polynuclear aromatic components of creosote which are contained
in the entrained oils. Specific phenolic compounds identified in
these wastewaters include phenol, chloro-phenols, and the
nitrophenols.
Preservatives and basic treating practices and, therefore, the
qualitative nature of wastewaters vary little from plant to
plant. Quantitatively, however, wastewaters differ widely among
plants and vary with time at the same plant.
Among the factors influencing both the concentration of
pollutants and volume of effluent, the moisture content of the
wood prior to conditioning, whether by steaming or the Boulton
process, is the most important. Water removed from the wood
during conditioning accounts for most of the loading of
pollutants in a plant's effluent and influences wastewater flow
rate. The moisture content of the wood before conditioning
determines the length of the conditioning cycle; the wetter the
wood, the longer the conditioning cycle.
Rainwater that falls on or in the immediate vicinity of the
retorts and work tank area—an area of from about one-quarter to
one-half of an acre for the average plant—becomes contaminated
and can present a treatment and disposal problem at any plant,
but especially at plants in areas of high rainfall. For example,
a plant located in an area that receives 152 cm (60 in) of rain
annually must be equipped to process an additional 1.5 to 3.0
million liters (400,000 to 800,000 gallons) per year of
contaminated water.
Another factor which influences the concentration of pollutants,
particularly organic pollutants, is the type of solution or
solvent used as a carrier for the preservative (coal tar, oil,
etc.).
Wastewaters resulting from treatments with inorganic salt
formulations are low in organic content, but contain varying
concentrations of heavy metals used in the preservatives and fire
retardants employed. The nature and concentration of a specific
ion in wastewater from such treatments depend on the formulation
employed and the extent to which the waste is diluted by
washwater and stormwater.
Wastewater Quantity
The quantity of wastewater generated by a wood preserving plant
is a function of the method of conditioning used, the moisture
content of wood to be treated, the amount of rainwater draining
toward the treating cylinder, and the quantity of other
82
-------
wastewater streams (such as boiler blowdown, cooling water,
sanitary wastewater, water softening regenerant, etc.). Ignoring
the amount of dilution from other wastewater streams, the sources
and approximate ranges of wastewater generated per unit of
production for Boulton and steaming plants (including vapor
drying plants) are discussed below. It should be noted that most
wood preserving plants treat stock having a wide range of
moisture contents, and often air- or kiln-dry stock. Although
most plants will predominantly use one of the major conditioning
methods, many plants will use a combination of several
conditioning methods. For this reason, the actual quantity of
wastewater generated by a specific plant may vary considerably.
Steam Conditioning and Vapor Drying
Primary sources of wastewater from steam conditioning include
steam condensate in cylinders, wood water, and precipitation. In
open steaming, steam, is injected directly into the retort and
allowed to condense on the wood and cylinder walls. The amount
of water produced is dependent upon the length of conditioning
time and the amount of insulation, if any, around the cylinder.
Steam condensate in the cylinder may range between 240 to 1,200
kg/cu m (15 lb/cu ft to 75 lb/cu ft). In modified closed
steaming, steam is added to the cylinder until the steam coils
are just covered with condensate. Then the steam is no longer
injected directly into the cylinder but passed through coils to
boil the condensate. Water added is about 112 kg/cu m (7 lb/cu
ft), depending upon the diameter of the retort and the height of
the steaming coils.
In closed steaming, water is drawn from a storage tank and put
into the cylinder until the steam coils are covered. Steam is
turned on, passed through the coils, the steam condensate
returned to the boiler, and the «ater in the cylinder is boiled
to condition the wood. After steaming, the water in the cylinder
is returned to the storage tank. There is a slight increase in
volume of water in the storage tank with each conditioning cycle
due to wood water exuding when green Wood is conditioned. There
is a small blowdown from the storage tank to prevent the wood
sugar concentration in the water from becoming too high.
In the vapor drying process, the primary sources of wastewater
are wood water and precipitation. As in any wood preserving
process, small amounts of condensate may result from a short
exposure to live steam applied following preservative application
to clean the surface of the stock. The vapor drying process
consists essentially of exposing wood in a closed vessel to
vapors from any one of many organic chemicals that are immiscible
with water and that have a narrow boiling range. Chemicals with
initial boiling points of from 100°C to 204°C (212°F to 400PF)
may be used. Vapors for drying are generated by boiling the
chemical in an evaporator. The vapors are conducted to the
retort containing the wood, where they condense on the wood,
giving up their latent heat of vaporization and causing the water
83
-------
in the wood to vaporize. The water vapor thus produced, along
with excess organic vapor, is conducted from the vessel to a
condenser and then to a gravity-type separator. The water layer
is discharged from the separator, and the organic chemical is
returned to the evaporator for reuse. ;
After the treating cylinder has been drained, a vacuum is pulled
from one to three hours to remove water from the wood. The
quantity of water removed depends upon the initial moisture
concentration of the wood, the strength of the vacuum pulled, and
the temperature in the cylinder. Common vacuums are 55 cm (22
in) to 70 cm {28 in), and common temperatures are from 118°C
(220°F) to 140°C (245°F). The maximum temperature allowable is
140°C (245°F), above which wood strength deterioration is
experienced. The vapors are condensed and collected in an
accumulator. The amount of water removed from the wood is
generally between 64 and 128 kg/cu m (4 and 8 Ib/cu ft).
Cylinder drippings and rain water are often added to the flow
from the cylinder and fed to the oil-water separator. In some
plants they are fed to a separate oil-water separator to prevent
cross contamination of preservatives. Rain water can vary
between 0 kg/cu m (0 lb/cu ft) when no rain is falling, to 181
kg/cu m (11.3 lb/cu ft) during a 5-cm (2-in) rainfall in 24
hours, depending on the area drained toward the treating
cylinder. The minimum area in which rain water is collected
includes the immediate cylinder area, the area where the wood
removed from the cylinder drips extra preservatives, and the
preservative work tank area.
Boulton Conditioning
Primary sources of wastewater from Boulton conditioning include
wood water and precipitation. Steam condensate inside the
cylinders is not a primary source of wastewater as it is in steam
conditioning. Smal1 amounts of condensate, however, may result
from a short exposure to live steam applied following
preservative application to clean the surface of the stock.
Conditioning is accomplished in the Boulton process by heating
the stock in a preservative bath under reduced pressure in the
retort. The preservative serves as a heat transfer medium.
Water removed in vapor form from the wood during the Boulton
process passes through a condenser to an oil-water separator
where low boiling fractions of the preservative are removed. The
Boulton cycle may have a duration of 48 hours or longer for large
poles and piling, a fact that accounts for the lower production
per retort day as compared to plants that steam condition.
After the oil has been heated a vacuum is drawn on the cylinder
for 10 to 48 hours for Douglas fir and 6 to 12 hours for oak,
depending upon the initial moisture content of the wood. The oil
transfers heat to*the wood and vaporizes the wood water. Between
64 and 192 kg/cu m (4 and 12 lb/cu ft) of water is removed.
84
-------
Cylinder drippings and rain water are often added to the flow in
the same manner as steam conditioning.
Historical Data
Historical data on wastewater generation relating to production
were requested as part of the DCP, during plant visits, and in
conjunction with telephone follow-up requests for information.
These data are presented in Tables V-l through V-4. Data
appearing in these tables represent historical information on the
average wastewater flow and production of treated wood (oily
preservatives only) for a one-year period, 1976.
Where the information available was sufficiently detailed, other
wastewater sources such as boiler blowdown, noncontact cooling
water, sanitary water, and rainfall runoff from treated material
storage yards were subtracted from the total wastewater flow
reported by the plant in order to obtain information on the
generation of process wastewater only. Rainfall falling directly
on or draining into the cylinder or work tank area was included
in the wastewater flows reported in Tables V-l through V-4.
It is apparent from these data that closed steaming plants and
plants which treat predominantly dry stock generate the least
amount of wastewater per unit of production, followed by Boulton
plants and open steaming plants, respectively. As shown in
Tables V-2 and V-3, the average volume of wastewater generated
per unit of production for plants which treat significant amounts
of dry stock is greater than that for the closed steaming plants.
This is most likely because of the fact that some of the plants
which treat significant amounts of dry stock, condition the
remaining stock by open steaming and/or post steam the treated
stock to clean it. As a result, the net wastewater production
exceeds that for plants which practice closed steaming.
The long-term historical wastewater information for some plants,
as presented in Tables V-l to V-4, may differ somewhat with the
sampling data presented later in this section. The sampling data
is based on the production and wastewater generation during a one
or three-day composite sampling period; the historical data is
for a one year period and was used to determine overall
differences in wastewater volumes among wood preserving Boulton
and Steam subcategory plants as input to industrial
subcategorization determinations discussed in Section IV.
85
-------
Table V-l. Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Boulton Plants
PRODUCTION VOLUME
Plant (ft3/day) (m3/day) (gal/day) (1/day) (gal/ft3) (l/m3)
587*
17,950
508
7,000
26,500
0.39
52.1
1028*
2, 040
57.7
1 ,000
3,790
0.49
65.5
583*
7,370
209
7,000
26,500
0.95
127
1078++
8,475
240
5,000
18,900
0.59
78.9
67*
1 ,765
49.9
2,010
7,600
1.14
152
759+*
1 ,665
47.1
5,040
19,100
3.03
405
1114+*
2,175
61 .6
1 ,500
5,680
0.69
92.3
1 76+*
4,400
125
2,510
9,500
0.57
76.2
577++
8,430
239
15,000
56,800
1 .78
238
534*
1,365
38.6
900
3,410
0.66
88.2
61*
7,140
202
5,500
20,800
0.77
103
552*
6,085
172
4,320
16,400
0.71
94.9
555++
5,310
150
17,300
65,500
3.26
436
1110++
1,700
48.1
4,320
16,400
2.54
340
AVERAGE
5,420
153
5,600
21,210
1 .03
139
* Achieving no discharge.
+ Data from 1975 Pretreatment Study.
** Includes boiler blowdown, uncontaminated steam condensate.
++ Discharges to a POTW
86
-------
Table V-2.. Wastewater Volume Data for Eight Closed Steaming
Plants
Plant
PRODUCTION
(ft3/day)
(m3/day)
(gal/day)
VOLUME
U/day)
(gal/ft3)
-------
Table V-3. Wastewater Volume Data for 11 Plants Which Treat
Significant Amounts of Dry Stock
PRODUCTION VOLUME
Plant (ft3/day) (m3/day) (gal/day) (1/day) (gal/ft3) .(l/m3)
596++
1 ,200
34.0
2,500
9,460
2.08
278
591*
19,000
538
12,500
47,300
0.66
87
620++
1,370
38.8
7,200+
27,300
5.26
703
688*
360
10.2
400.
1 ,510
1.11
148
11 05*
800
22.6
750
2,840
0.94
1 26
1071*
4, 660
132
4,000
15,100
1 .03
138
631*
2,040
57.7
876
3,320
0.43
57
350*
985
27.9
1 ,500
5,680
1 .52
203
665*
3,330
94.2
400
1,510
0.15
20
267++
5,000
141
5,000
18,920
1.18
158
140*
—
—
4,500
17,000
—
—
AVERAGE
3,870
110
3,510
13,300
0.91
121
* Achieving no discharge.
+ Includes 5,400 gal/day boiler blowdown and noncontact water;
process wastewater per cubic foot production = 1.31.
++ Discharges to a POTW
NOTE: Plant 140 not included in average since no production data
are available.
88
-------
Table V-4. Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Open Steaming Plants
PRODUCTION VOLUME
Plant (ft3/day) (m3/day) (gal/day) (1/day) (gal/ft3) (l/m3)
847*
800
22.6
1 ,780
6,740
2.22
298
895*
4/160
118
7,200+
27,300
1 .73
231
897*
10,300
291
33,000
12,500
3.20
428
900*
8,170
231
16,500
62,500
2.02
270
901++
4,225
120
3,000
11,400
0.71
94
894++
6,580
186
5,000
18,900
0.76
102
899++
1,110
31 .4
10,000
37,800
9.01
1200
898++
5,000
142
2,750
10,400
0.55
73
701*
6,275
178
15,000
56,800
2.39
320
548*
10,000
238
14,000
53,000
1 .40
187
693++
1 ,445
40.9
2,500
9,460
1 .73
231
1076++
3,865
109
5,750
21,800
2.07
277
910++
1 ,040
29.4
3,000
11,400
2.88
385
547++
6,150
174
10,000
37,800
3.25
435
AVERAGE
4,940
137
9,250
32,300
1 .87
236
* Achieving no discharge.
+ Includes stormwater from treating area.
++ Discharges to a POTW
89
-------
Plant and Wastewater Characteristics
Very little historical data on toxic pollutants in wastewater
effluent were available from individual wood preserving plants.
The source of the toxic pollutant data presented in this section
is analytical results from verification sampling programs
conducted by the Agency. Characteristics of wood preserving
plants which were visited and sampled during the 1975
Pretreatment Study and during the BAT review study are presented
in Table V-5 for steam conditioning plants and in Table V-6 for
Boulton plants.
Data from three sampling and analytical programs comprise the
verification data base and are presented in Tables V-7 through
V-20. Data for plants sampled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study
represent the average of two or more grab samples collected at
each plant. Data for plants sampled during the 1977 and 1978
verification sampling programs represent the average of three 24-
hour composite samples collected at each plant. Unless otherwise
noted, the raw wastewater sampling point at each plant was
immediately following gravity oil-water separation.
Pollutant concentrations and raw waste loads for individual
plants are shown in Tables V-7 through V-19. Variations in
pollutant concentrations from plant to plant can be attributed to
the degree of emulsification of oils in the wastewater, the type
of oily preservatives or carrier solution used, i.e., creosote in
coal tar, creosote in oil, pentachlorophenol in oil, etc., and
the amount of nonprocess wastewater added to the process
wastewater stream, i.e., boiler blowdown, rainfall, steam
condensate, etc.
Metals data are presented separately in Tables V-16 and V-17 for
plants which treat with oily preservatives only, and in Tables V-
18 and V-19 for plants which also treat with inorganic
preservatives at the same facility. Increased concentrations and
waste loads for heavy metals, particularly copper, chromium, and
arsenic, are apparent for plants which treat with both types of
preservatives. Although the inorganic treating operations at
these plants are for the most part self contained and produce
little or no wastewater, the process wastewater from the organic
treating operations contains heavy metals. This "fugitive metal"
phenomenon is the result of cross contamination between the
inorganic and organic treating operations. Personnel, vehicles,
and soil which come in contact with heavy metals from the
inorganic treating operations can transport the metals into the
organic treating area where rainfall washes them into collection
sumps. Some plants may also alternate organic and inorganic
charges in the same retort, causing cross contamination.
Plants which treat with inorganic salts only are not allowed to
discharge process wastewater under previously published
regulations either to a navigable waterway or to a POTW. All but
90
-------
a few of these plants recycle all their process water as dilution
water for future batches of treating solution.
No plants treating with inorganic salts only were sampled during
the verification sampling program. One such plant, however, was
sampled once a week for one year in conjunction with the
Pretreatment Study. The concentration range of COD, total
phenols, heavy metals, fluoride, and nutrients found in the
recycled wastewater at this plant are presented in Table V-20.
91
-------
Table V-5. Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Steam Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study, 1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study
Plant
Number
Conditioning
Process
Preservatives*
Treatment or
Pretreatment^
Raw Flow
(1/day)
Product ion
(nH/day)
173-a
Steaming
C, P,CCA
pH Adjustment, Flocculation,
Chlorination, Sand Filtration
11,400
110
2 37-a
Steaming
C,P,CCA
pH Adjustment
7,570
142
267-a
Steaming
C,P
Flocculation
22,700
18 7
267-b
Steaming
C.P
Flocculation
28,800
164
267-c
Steaming
C,P
Flocculation, Sand Filtration
34,500
280
335-a
Steaning
C.CCA
Flocculation, pH Adjustment,
Chlorination
6,430
96
499-a
Steaming
P,CCA
pH Adjustment
<950
55
547-a
Steaming
C.P
Oxidation Pond
94,600
226
548-b
Steaning
c
Aerated Lagoon, Oxidation Pond,
Spray Evaporation
31,000
248*
548-c
Steaming
C,P
Aerated Lagoon, Oxidation Pond,
Spray Evaporation
122,500
439
582-a
Steaming
C,P,CCA,FR
Flocculation
52,040
212
591-b
Steaming
C.P
Activated Sludge, Oxidation Ponds,
Spray Irrigation
35,400
320
591-c
Steaming
C
Activated Sludge, Oxidation Ponds,
Spray Irrigation
13,200
224
-------
Table V-5. Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Steam Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study, 1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 19 78
Verification Sampling Study (Continued, page 2 of 2)
Plant
Number
Conditioning
Process
Preservatives *
Treatment or
Pretreatment^
Raw Flow
(1/day)
Product ion
(m^/day)
593-a
Steaming
C,P
Flocculation, Oxidation Pond ,
Lagoon, Sand Filtration for
PCP Effluent
34,100
348
693-a
Steaming
C,P
Oxidation Pond, pH Adjustment
20,800
85
765-a
Steaming
C
Flocculation
18,900
76
897-c
Steaming,
Vapor Drying
C,CCA
Aeration Ponds, Spray Irrigation,
Sand Filtration
160,500^
515
898-a
Steaming
C,P
Oxidation Pond, Spray Evaporation
7,570
85
1076-a
Steaming
C,P
Flocculation
45,360
156
1100-b
Steaming
C,P
Secondary Oil Separation,
Oxidation Pond, Spray Irrigation,
Aerated Racetrack
236,600
461
1111-a
Vapor Drying
c
Flocculation, Sand Filtration,
pH Adjustment, Aerated Lagoon,
Oxidation Pond
94,600
198
* Creosote (C), pentachlorophenol (P), salt-type preservatives (CCA, ACA, CZC), fire retardants (FR),
^ A11 plants process wastewater through gravity-type separators.
* Information obtained from historical data Supplied by plant,
t Figure includes rainfall runoff from large area.
a Data collected during'1975 Pretreatment Study,
b Data collected during 1977 Verification Sampling Study,
c Data collected during 1978 Verification Sampling Study.
-------
Table V-6. Characteristics of Wood Preserving Boulton Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study, 1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study
Plant
Number
Conditioning
Process
Preservatives 1
Treatment or
Pretreatment2
Raw Flow
(1/day)
Production
(m^/day)
65-a
Boulton
C,P,CZC,FR
Flocculation
18,900
142
65-c
Boulton
P,CZC,FR
Inline Flocculation, Secondary
Oil Separation, Gravel Filtration
8,330
78
67-b
Boulton
P
Evaporation Tower
28,400
62
1078-a
Boulton
C,P,ACA,FR
Secondary Oil Separation,
Oil Adsorbing Media
26,500
283
1078-b
Boulton
C,P,ACA,FR
Secondary Oil Separation,
Oil Adsorbing Media
57,900
308
1 Creosote (C), pentachlorophenol (P), salt-type preservatives (CCA, ACA, CZC), fire retardants (FR).
2 All plants process wastewater through gravity-type separators,
a Data collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study.
b Data collected during 1977 Verification Sampling Study,
c Data collected during 1978 Verification Sampling Study.
-------
Table V-7. Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter Data
STEAM
Plant
Data
Flow
Prod.
Raw
Concentrat ions
(mg/1)
Raw Wasteloads
(lb/1,
000 ft3)
Number
Source
(gal/day)
(ft-Vday) Total Phenols PCP
0+G
COD
. Total Phenols PCP
0+G
COD
17 311
PS '75
3000
3880
10.8
306.0
1755
10460
0.0697
1.97
11.3
67.4
237
PS '75
2000
5000
302.4
49.0
979.2
3593
1.01
0.163
3.27
12.0
26711
PS '75
6000
6600
69.2
34.5
718.5
6377
0.525
0.262
5.45
48.3
26711
ESE '77
7600
5800
40.0
6.29
1902
8979
0.437
0.0687
20.8
98.1
267*
ESE '78
9120
9890
14.9
16.0
143
14600
2671
ESE '78
9120
9890
8.17
25.0
68.0
14300
3 3511
PS '75
1700
3400
334.4
—
32.2
2457
1.39
<0.0001
0.134
10.2
547**
PS '75
25000
8000
62.1
35.4
518.0
7079
1.62
0.923
13.5
184.5
548***
ESE '77
8200
8760
45.0
158.0
927.0
3706
0.351
1.23
7.24
28.9
548***
ESE '78
32260
15500
0.640
9.49
351.3
2806
0.011
0.165
6.10
48.7
582tt
PS '75
13750
7500
101.3.
26.7
1785
15273
1.55
0.408
27.3
233.5
591***
ESE '77
9350
11300
237 .5
22.3
474.0
3010
1.64
0.154
3.27
20.8
591***
ESE '78
3500
7920
22.0
1.20
17
3200
0.0811
0.0044
0.0627
11.8
593**
PS '75
9000
12300
335.3
47.9
1365
8880
2.05
0.292
8.33
54.2
693
PS '75
5500
3000
32.3
18.0
536.3
3079
0.494
0.275
8.20
47.1
7 6511
PS '75
5000
2700
501.3
—
732.8
15694
7.74
<0.0001
11.3
242
897***
ESE '78
42400
18200
49.0
2.70
460
1900
0.952
0.0525
8.94
36.9
898**
PS '75
2000
3000
292.4
50.3
773.0
7116
1.63
0.280
4.30
39.6
1100
ESE '77
62500
16300
34.3
57.1
950.2
8844
1.10
1.83
30.4
283
HI i***
PS '75
25000
7000
383.3'
11.0
1356
11.4
<0.0001
0.328
40.4
Average Wasteloads 1.89 0.539 9.46 83.7
NA: Not Analyzed.
Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
* Data from creosote separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the individual separators
were unobtainable). Not included in averages,
t Data from PCP separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the individual separators were
unobtainable). Not included in averages.
** Plants used to calculate raw averages in Table VII-35.
tt Plants used to calculate raw averages in Table VII-36.
*** Plants used to calculate raw averages in Table VII-37.
-------
Table V-8. Vfaod Preserving Traditional Paraneter Data
BOULTON
Raw Concentrations (rng/1) Ba» Wasteloafe (lb/1,000 ft^)
Plant
Nurber
Data
Sxirce
Flew
(gal/day)
Prod.
(ft3/day)
Total
phenols
PCP
O+G
ODD
TSS
Total
phenols PCP
(H€
ODD
TSS
65*
PS '75
5000
5000
184.0
5.70
34.7
1711
m
1.53 0.0475
0.289
14.3
m
65*
ESE *78
2200
2770
0.910
27.0
164
520
81
0.0060 0.179
1.09
3.44
0.537
67
ESE '77
7500
2200
—
—
1357
7316
m
<0.0001 <0.0001
38.6
208.0
m
1078*
PS '75
7000
10000
508.6
0.01
12.3
3704
m
2.97 0.0001
0.0718
21.6
m
1078*
ESE '77
15300
10900
1272
—
39.4
5797
m
14.9 <0.0001
0.461
67.9
m
<3.88 <0.0454 8.10 63.0 0.537
NA: Not Analyzed.
* Plants used to calculate ra* averages in Table VI1-36.
— Hyphen denotes that paraneter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
Table V-9. Wood Preserving VOA Data
STEAM
Plant
Data
Source (g
Flow
al/day)
Prod.
(ft^/day)
Raw
Concentrations (mg/1)
Raw Wasteloads (lb/1000 ft^)
Number
mec 1
trcime
benzene etbenzene
toluene
mecl
trcime
benzene
etbenzene
toluene
267*
ESE
•78
9120
9890
0.006
—
0.003 0.037
0.027
26 71
ESE
'78
9120
9890
—
—
0.013 0.170
0.170
548tt
ESE
'78
32360
15500
0.702
—
1.05 0.867
2.84
0.0122
<0.0001
0.0183
0.0151
0.0495
5 9111;
ESE
*78
3500
7920
0.280
0.020
2.80 2.10
3.20
0.0010
0.0001
0.0103
0.0077
0.0118
89 511
ESE
'78
42400
18200
0.077
—
>1.62 0.380
0.500
0.0015
<0.0001
>0.0315
0.0074
0.0097
Wasteload Averages
0.0049
<0.0001
>0.0200
0.0101
0.0237
BOULTON
154**
ESE
'78
2200
2770
2.60
0.009
—
—
0.0172
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
* Data from creosote separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the individual separators
were unobtainable). Not included in averages,
t Data from PCP separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the individual separators were
unobtainable). Not included in averages.
** Plant uses methylene chloride as a carrier solvent in a proprietary treatment process. Not included in averages,
tt Plants used to calculate raw averages in Table VII-38.
— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
Table V-10. Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Volatile
Organic Fractions During 1978 Verification Sampling
vinyl chloride
chloroethane
chloromethane
bromomethane
tribromomethane
bromodi ch1oromethane
dibromochloromethane
carbon tetrachloride
dichlorodifluoromethane
tr i chlorof1uoromethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethane
1.1-dichloroethylene
trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
1.2-dichloropropane
1.3-dichloropropylene
Bis-chloromethylether
Bis-chloroethylether
2-chloroethylvinylether
acrolein
acrylonitrile
The average detection limit for these compounds is 10 ug/1.
98
-------
Table V—11. Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data
STEAM
Plant
Data
Flow
Prod.
Sft^/day)
Raw Waste
Concentrations (mg/1)
Hurts er
Source
(gal/day)
i
2
i
4
5
6
7
8
9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
26?
ESE
'77
7600
5800
1.27
0.816
—
—
—
6.72
0. Ill
0.378:
1.30
1.01
2.3!
0.065
0.126
267*
ESE
'78
9120
9890
35.0
0.087
—
22.0
0.043
0.130
—
14.0
7.70
45.0
55.0
1.20
48.0
4.70
—
26?**
ERE
'78
9120 ..
9890
4.80
— ,
—
3.40 ¦
—
—
—
18.0
2.40
17.0
. 10.0
—
8.40
—
—
548
ESE
'77
82 00
8760
0.633
0.027
0.02?
0.360
0.007
—
—
2.52
0.067
2.20
1.06
1.21
0.82
0.073
0.4 37
548
ESE
"78
32360 .
15500
6.43
1.68
1.68
4,85
1.35
0.490
0.315
11.5
1.33
31.0
4. 36
0.526
3.59
1.43
—
591
ESE
'77
9350
11300
0.870
—
0.017
0.644
.
—
—
1.95
0.157
0.970
1.46
0.933
1.01
0.246
0.087
591
ESE
*78
3500
7920
17.0
— ;
3.90
13.0 (
2.70
5.50
0.006
; 39.0
7.40 0.430
. 34.7
, 15.0
1.10
11.0
—
—
897
ESE
'78
42400
18200
1.60
0.350
0.350
1.10
0.420
0.006
0.006
6.50
—
>3.47
i 1.70
0.006
1.50
0.930
—
1100
ESE
'77
62500
16300
0.636
— !
—
0.502
. ~
—
—
2.96
0.094
0.464
1.11
0.725
1.11
0.098
0.201
BOULTON
65*** ESE
•78
2200
27 70
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.920
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
67*** ESE
"77
6550
2200
—
—
—
—
~
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.433
1078
ESE
'77
15300
10900
0.282
—
—
0.194
--
—
—
1.51
0.034
3.14
2.83
2.06
0.824
0.018
1.46
* Data £r
-------
Tjble V-12. VJbotl Prcservitg Base Naitral* Data
STEM
Plant
Data
Flow
Prod.
Rtu Waste Uxda (ltf 1,000 £1?)
Nwber
Source
(gal/day) (ftJ/day)
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9 10
u
" 12
13
14
15
ib
267t
ESE '77
7600
5800
0.013
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0089
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0734
0.0012 <0.0001
0.0041
0.0142
0.0110
0.0252
0.0007
0.0014
548
ESE '77
8200
8760
o.oo»
0.0002
0.0002
0.0028
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.000,1
0.0197
0.0005 <0.0001
0.0172
0.0083
0.0094
0.0064
0.0006
0.0034
548**
ESE '78
32360
15500
0.112
0.0293
0.0293
0.0844
0.0235
0.0085
0.0055
0.200
0.0232 <0.0001
0.540
0.0759
0.0092
0.0611
0.02«
<0.0001
591**
ESE '77
9350
11300
0.0060
<0.0001
0.0001
0.0044
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0135
0.0011 <0.0001
0.0067
0.0101
O.OOM
0.0070
0.0017
0.0006
591**
ESE '78
3500
7920
0.0627
<0.0001
0.0144
0.0479
0.0100
0.0203
<0.0001
0.144
0.0273 0.0016
0.128
0.0553
0.0041
0.0405
<0.0001
<0.0001
£
CO
ESE '78
42400
18200
0.0311
0.0068
0.0068
0.0214
0.0062
0.0001
0.0001
0.126
<0.0001 <0.0001
>0.0674
0.0330
0.0001
0.0291
0.0181
<0.0001
1100
ESE '77
62500
16300
0.0203
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0161
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001-
0.0947
0.0030 <0.0001
0.0148
0.0355
0.0232
0.0355
0.0031
0.0064
Wasteloal Averages
0.0358
<0.0052
<0.0073
0.0266
<0.0060
<0.0042
<0.0009
<0.0959
<0.0081 <0.0003
>0.111
0.0332
0.0W1
0.0292
0.0070
<0.0017
BCJULTON
65*t
ESE '78
2200
27 70
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0061
<0.0001 <0.0001
<0.0001 <0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
67*
ESE *77
6550
2200
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001 <0.0001
<0.0001 <0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0108
1078t
ESE '77
15300
10900
0.0033
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0023
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0177
0.0004 <0.0001
0.0368
0.0331
0.0241
0.0096
0.0002
0.0171
WasteloaJ Aver^es <0.0012 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0008 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0008 <0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0123 <0.0111 <0.0081 <0.0033 <0.0001 <0.0093
* These plants were treatirg solely with POP and not creosote foonulations durirg the sanplirg period,
t Plants u9ed to calculate ra* aver%es in Tsble VII-39.
** Plants used to calculate ra* averages in Tdble VII-40.
Key to Base Neutral Data Tables
1.
Fluorarthene
9.
Benzo (a) Anthracene
2.
Bereo (B) Fluorantbene
10.
Diberao (a, h) Antlracene
3.
Bereo (k) Fluorantliene
11.
Myhthalene
4.
fyrene
12.
Acen^jhtlene
5.
Benzo (A) Pyrene
13.
Acenq>htty lene
6.
Indero (1, 2, 3-CD) Pyrene
14.
Fluor ene
7.
BerEO (ghi) Perylene
15.
Chrysene
8.
Rienantlrene attl/or Antlracene
16.
Bis-2-etty 1-hexyl phthalate
-------
Table V-13. Substances Not Found in Base Neutral Fractions During
1977 and 1978 Verification Sampling
2-chloronaphthalene
diethylphthalate
di-n-butylphthalate
butylbenzylphthaiate
dimethylphthalate
4-chloropheny1-pheny1ether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis{2-chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenylether
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-d i ch1orobenzene
The average detection limit for
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2,4-dinitrotoluene-
benzidine
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
nitrobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachloroethane
isophorone
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin
compounds is 10 ug/1.
101
-------
T^ble V-14. Wood Preserving Toxic Pollutant Hienols Data
SlEftM
Ran Concentrations (mg/1) Ran Wastdoals (lb/1,000 ftp)
Plant Data Flow Prod. !F 2,4- 2,4,6- T- 2,4- 2,4,6-
Nuiber Source (gal/day) (ft3/day) phen clphen dimeph triclph PCP phen clphen diraeph trie Iph PCP
173**
PS 1
75
3000
3880
m
m
m
306.0
m
m.
m.
m
1.97
237
PS '
75
2000
5000
m
m.
m
m.
49.0
m
m.
m.
m
0.163
267**
PS '
75
6000
6600
m.
M
m
m.
34.5
m.
m.
m
m
0.262
267**
ESE
'77
7600
5800
m
m.
m
m
6.3
m.
m
NV
m
0.0688
267*
ESE
»78
9120
9890
9.20
—
—
—
16.0
267t
ESE
'78
9120
9890
1.40
—
—
__
25.0
547
PS '
75
25000
8000
M
24.3
m
m
m
0.633
548f f
ESE
¦77
8200
8760
m
m
m
m
158.0
M
m
m
1.23
548tt
ESE
'78
32360
15500
24.4
0.042
0.130
0.252
9.41
0.425
0.0007 0.0023
0.0044
0.164
582**
PS '
75
13750
7500
m.
m.
m.
m.
26.7
m
m.
m
0.408
591 tt
ESE
•77
9350
11300
m.
m,
m.
m
22.3
1ft
m
m.
0.154
591ft
ESE
*78
3500
7920
87.0
—
6.60
—
1.20
0.321
<0.0001 0.0243
<0.0001
0.0044
593
PS '
75
9000
12300
m
m
m
m
47.8
m
m
0.292
693
PS 1
75
5500
3000
m.
m.
m
m
17.9
(ft
m.
m
tft
0.274
897ff
ESE
'78
42400
18200
16.0
0.015
5.50
0.533
2.70
0.311
0.0003 0.107
0.0104
0.0525
898
PS '
75
2000
3000
m.
m
50.3
m.
m.
NV
0.769
1100
ESE
'77
62500
16300
m
tft
m
m
57.1
m
m
m
m.
1.83
Wasteloai Averages 0.352 <0.0004 0.0445 <0.0050 0.552
BOULTON
65** ps '75 5000 5000 - mr m m m 5.70 m m m m 0.0475
65** ESE *78 2200 2770 0.071 — — — 27.0 0.0066 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.179
1078** PS '75 7000 10000 tft m fft Ni 0.09 Ift (ft fft 1ft 0.0005
Wasteload Averages 0.0066 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0757
— Hyphen denotes that paraneter was andyzed for but was below detection limit.
* Data fran creosote separator (wastelcrads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the individual separate is
were unobtainable), fbt included in averages,
t Data fran PCP separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements fcr the ittiividual separators were
unobtaind»lfi). fbt included in averages.
** Plants used in calculatiig averages in Tsble VI1-41.
ft Plants used in calculatirg averages in Table VII-42.
-------
Table V-15. Toxic Pollutant Phenols Analyzed for But Not Found
During 1978 Verification Sampling
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
para-chloro-meta-cresol
4,6-dinitro-ortho-cresol
The average detection limit for these compounds is 25 ug/1.
103
-------
Table ¥-16. Wood Preserving Hetali Data—Plants Which Treat With Organic Preservative* Only
Plow Prod. RAH CONCEKXRATIONS (ag/1?
Plant
Source
(GH»
CftVday)
Araenic
Ant iaemy
Beryllium
CstjeioB
Copper
Chroeiua
Lead
Mercury
Hickel
Seleoiuo
Silver
Ihnlliuo
Zinc
67
ESE
'77
7500
2200
0.007
0.003
-
-
1.60
0.009
0.005
0.0037
0.210
0.003
O.OOl
0.002
0.843
26?
sss
'78*
9120
9890
0.093
-
0,012
0,010
0.850
0.064
0.052
-
0.028
-
0.006
0.010
0.370
267
ESC
*78**
9120
9890
0.033
0.003
0.019
0.008
0.610
0.098
0.071
-
0.150
-
0.005
-
0.820
26?
ESE
i7|
7600
5800
0.003
-
-
0.125
0.001
0.007
-
0,005
0.001
_
0.001
0.309
548
ESE
'78
32260
15500
14,2
0,04?
--
0.001
0,041
0.023
0.091
0.G011
0.015
0,001
-
-
0.119
548
ESE
'77
8200
8760
0.009
0.002
-
»
0.008
0.007
0.009
-
0.006
0.001
-
0.001
0.177
591
ESE
*78
3500
7920
0.086
0.00?
-
0.003
0,031
0.0©?
0.011
0.0011
0,016
0.00?
-
-
0.180
591
ESE
*77
9350
11300
0.003
0.001
-
"
0.150
0.001
0.001
-
0.003
0.001
-
0.001
0.350
1100
ESE
r??
62500
16300
0.006
-
—
Q.OOl
0.180
0.023
0.014
—
0.135
0.002
—
0.004
0.627
* From Creosote Separator.
** Front PCP Separator.
— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
Table V-17. Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which Treat With Organic Preservatives Only
Flow
Prod.
(ft3/day)
RAH HASTELOADS
(lb/1,000 ft3)
Plant
.Source
(CPD)
Arsenic
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
i Lead
Mercury
Hickel
Selenium
Silver
Thai liust
Zinc
67
ESB
*77
7500
2200
0.0002
0.00009
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.0465
0.0003
0.0001
0.00011
0.00597
0.00009
0.00003
0.00006
0.0240
267*
ESE
•77
7600
5800
0.00003
<0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00137
0.00001
0.00008
<0.00001
0.00005
0.00001
<0.00001
0.00001
0.00338
548t
ESE
'78
32260
15,500
0.246**
0.00082
<0.00001
0.00002
0.00071
0.00040
0.0016
0.00002
0.00026
0.00002
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00207
548t
ESE
'77
8200
8760
0.00007
0.00002
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00006
0.00005
0.00007
<0.00001
0.00005
0.00001
<0.00001
0.00001
0.00138
5911
ESE
'78
3500
7920
0.00032
0.00003
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00011
0.00003
0.00004
<0.00001
0.00006
0.00003
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00066
5911
ESE
•77
9350
11300
0.00002
0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00104
0.00001
0.00001
<0.00001
0.00002
0.00001
<0.00001
0.00001
0.00242
1100
ESE
•77
62500
16300
0.0002
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00003
0.00576
0.00074
0.00045
<0.00001
0.00432
0.00006
<0.00001
0.00013
0.0201
Average Wasteloads 0.0353 0.00014 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00794 0.0002 0.00034 <0.00001 0.00153 0.00003 <0.00001 <0.00003 0.00772
0
01
* Plant used in calculating raw averages in Table VII-43.
t Plants used in calculating raw averages in Table VI1-44.
** Not used in calculating raw averages due to the high background levels of arsenic in the raw water intake.
-------
Table V-18. Wood Preserving Metals Data—'Pleats Which Treat Hith Both Orgsnic end Inorgsaie Presarvativas
Raw Concentrations (ag/l)
Plow Prod.
Plant
Source
(GPD)
(ft^/day)
Arsenic
Antiaony
Berylliua
Cadaiua
Copper
Chroaiua
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Seleniua
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
65
ESE
•78
2200
2770
0.014
0.013
0.002
0.005
0.110
3.90
0.014
0.0002
0.020
0.053
0.001
26.0
65
PS 1
75
5000
5000
-
HA
KA
HA
0.060
13.9
NA
HA
HA
HA
NA
KA
78.2
237
PS '
75
2000
5000
0.050
NA
HA
HA
0.700
0.440
KA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
335
PS '
75
1700
3400
0.250
HA
HA
HA
2.30
0.780
KA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
499
PS '
75
<100
1950
1.00
KA
HA
NA
3.91
1.23
NA
NA
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA-
582
PS 1
75
13750
7500
0.040
HA
HA
NA
0.600
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
897
ESE
'78
42400
18,200
0.130
-
¦ -
0.001
0.079 -
0.023
0.016
0.0013
0.100
-
"
0". 120
1078
ESE
'77
15300
10,900
0.003
-
-
0.080
0.004
0.001
0.0002
0.094
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.321
1078
PS 1
'75
7000
10,000
-
HA
HA
NA
0.430
-
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
0.780
KA Hot analysed for.
— Hyphen denotes that paraaeter was analyzed for but was below detection liait.
-------
Table ¥-19, Wood Preserving Metals Bata—Plant® Which Treat With Both Organic and Inorganic Preservatives
Flow
Prod.
K«t» Ha.teloads (lb/1,000 ft3)
Plant
Source
(GPD)
(ft /day)
Arsenic
Ant mony
Beryllium
Cadaiua
Copper
Chroniun
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thai liuai
Zinc
«5t
ESE
•78
2200
2770
0.00009
0.00009
0.00001
0.00003
O.O0O73
0.0258
0,00009
<0.00001
0.00013
O.00O35
0.00001
<0.00001
0.172*
65t
PS 1
75
5000
5000
<0.00001
M
KA
HA
0.00050
0.116*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.652*
237
PS '
'75
2000
5000
0.00017
M
HA
HA
0.00234
0,00147
HA
HA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
335t
PS '
'75
1700
3400
0.00104
HA
HA
NA
0.00959
0.00325
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
499tt
PS '
'75
<100
1950
0.00043
HA
HA
KA
0.00167
0.00053
NA
NA
NA
CIA
NA
NA
NA
582!
PS 1
'75
13? SO
7500
0,00061
HA
HA
MA
0.00917
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
891**
ESE
'78
42400
18200
0.00253
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00002
0.0015
0.00045
0.00031
0.00003
O.00194
<0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00233
I07B|
ESE
'77
15300
10900
0.00004
<0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00094
0.00005
0.00001
<0.00001
0.0011
0.00002
0.00002
0.00001
0.00376
I078t
PS 1
'75
7000
10000
<0.00001
HA
HA
NA
0.00251
<0.00001
HA
NA
KA
NA
NA
NA
0.00455
Average Uasteloada <0.00055 <0.00004 <0.00001 <0.00002 0.0032 <0,00451 0.00014 <0.00002 0,0011 <0.00013 <0.0000! <0.00001 0.0457
NA Not analyzed for.
* Hot used in calculation of averages because the process involves direct oetals contanination of wastewater,
t Plants used in calculating raw averages in Table VI1-46,
** Plants used in calculating raw averages in Table VII-47.
tt Plants used in calculating raw averages in Table VH-45.
-------
Table V-20. Range of Pollutant Concentrations in Wastewater from a
Plant Treating with CCA- and FCAP-Type Preservatives and a
Fire Retardant
Concentration Range
Parameter (mg/1i ter)
COD 10-50
As 13-50
Total Phenols 0.005-0.16
Cu .05-1.1
Cr+6 0.23-1.5
Cr+3 0-0.8
F 4-20
P04 * 15-150
NHS-N 80-200
pH 5.0-6.8
Source of Data: Pretreatment Document
108
-------
Design for Model Plant
Table V-21 presents the design criteria for the wood preserving
model plants. These criteria were used as a basis of estimating
capital, operating, and energy costs for the modei plants which
are presented in Appendix A of this document.
The flow characteristics of these model plants are based on
average historical unit flows for Boulton and closed steaming
plants as presented in Tables V-l and V-2. Pollutant
concentrations are based on average data presented in Table V-7.
Model plant wastewater characteristics for plants which use
solely inorganic preservatives are not presented in this document
because, under existing BPT, BAT, NSPS, PSNS, PSES regulations,
this subcategory is subject to no discharge of process wastewater
limitations and standards. The technology to achieve no
discharge is available for complete recycling of effluents from
these plants and was costed previously.
INSULATION BOARD
Insulation board plants responding to the data collection
portfolio reported fresh water usage rates ranging from 95,000 to
5,700,000 liters per day for process water (0.025 to 1.5 MGD).
One insulation board plant, 108, which also produces hardboard in
approximately equal amounts, uses over 15 million liters per day
(4 MGD) of fresh water for process water.
Water becomes contaminated during the production of insulation
board primarily through contact with the wood during fiber
preparation and forming operations, and the vast majority of
pollutants are fine wood fibers and soluble wood sugars and
extractives.
The process Whitewater used to process and transport the wood
from " the fiber preparation stage through mat formation accounts
for over 95 percent of a plant's total wastewater discharge
(excluding cooling water). The water produced by the dewatering
of stock at any stage of the process is usually recycled to be
used as stock dilution water. However, as a result of the build
up of suspended solids and dissolved organic material, which can
cause undesirable effects in the board, there may be a need to
bleed off a quantity of excess process Whitewater. Various
additives used to improve the characteristics of the board also
enter the process Whitewater and contribute to the waste load.
Specifically, potential sources of wastewater in an insulation
Doard plant includes
Chip wash water
Process Whitewater generated during fiber preparation
(refining and washing)
109
-------
Table V-21. Raw Waste Characteristics of Wood Presewitg Model Plants
Area of
Process Cylinders & Anrual Process Design Oil & Totd
Production Unit Flow Wastewater Work "Baik Rainfall Contaminated Wastewater GDI) Or ease Phenols
Plant (cu ft) (gal/cu ft) Flew (gpd) (sq ft) (in) Buuff (gpd) Flow (gpd) (jng/1) (mg/1)
-------
Process Whitewater generated during forming
Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
(dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.)
Chip Wash Water
Water used for chip washing is capable of being recycled to a
large extent. A minimal makeup of approximately 400 liters per
metric ton (95 gallons per ton) is required in a closed system
because of water leaving with the chips and with sludge removed
from settling tanks. Water used for makeup in the chip washer
may be fresh water, cooling water, vacuum seal water from in-
plant equipment, or recycled process water. Chip wash water,
when not fully recycled, contributes to the raw waste load of an
insulation board plant. Insulation board plants 108, 537, 979,
943, 977, and 1035 indicated in the response to the data collec-
tion portfolio that chip washing is done. Plants 943 and 1035
fully recycle chip wa?h water.
Fiber Preparation
The fiber preparation or refiner Whitewater system is considered
to be the water used in the refining of stock up to and including
the dewatering of stock by a decker or washer. As previously
discussed, there are three major types of fiber preparation in
the insulation board industry: (1) stone groundwood; (2)
mechanical disc refining (refiner groundwood); and (3)
thermomechanical disc refining. The water volume required by
each of the three methods is essentially the same. In the
general case, the wood enters the refining machine at
approximately 50 percent moisture content. During the refining
operation, the fiber bundles are diluted with either fresh water
or recycled Whitewater to a consistency of approximately 1
percent solids prior to dewatering to about 15 percent solids at
the decker or washer. The water which results from the stock
washing or deckering operation is rich in organic solids
dissolved from the wood during refining and is referred to as
refiner Whitewater. This water may be combined with Whitewater
produced during forming, the machine Whitewater (for further use
in the system), or it may be discharged from the plant as
wastewater.
Forming
After the dewatered stock leaves the decker at approximately 15
percent consistency, it must again be diluted to a consistency of
approximately 1.5 percent to be suitable for machine forming.
This requires a relatively large quantity of recycled process
Whitewater or fresh water. The redilution of stock is usually
accomplished in a series of steps to allow consistency controls
and more efficient dispersion of additives, and to reduce the
required stock pump and storage capacities. The stock usually
receives an initial dilution to approximately 5 percent
111
-------
consistency, then to 3 percent, and finally, just prior to mat
formation, to approximately 1.5 percent.
During the mat formation stage of the insulation board process,
the diluted stock is dewatered at the forming machine to a
consistency of approximately 40 to 45 percent. The water drained
from the stock during formation is referred to as machine
Whitewater. Water from the machine Whitewater system may be
recycled for use as stock dilution water or for use in the
refining operations. Excess machine Whitewater may be discharged
as wastewater.
Miscellaneous Operations
While the majority of wastewater generated during insulation
board production occurs during fiber preparation and mat
formation operations, various other operations may contribute to
the overall raw waste load.
Drying—The boards leaving the forming machine with a consistency
of approximately 40 percent are dried to a consistency of greater
than 97 percent in the dryers. This water is evaporated to the
atmosphere. It is occasionally necessary to remove wood dust
from the dryers to reduce fire danger and to maintain proper
energy utilization. This produces a minor wastewater stream in
most operations.
Finishing—After the board leaves the dryer, it is usually sanded
and trimmed to size. The dust from the sanding and trim saws is
often controlled by dust collectors of a wet scrubber type, and
the water supplied to the scrubbers is sometimes excess process
water; however, fresh water is occasionally used. This water is
usually returned to the process with the dust.
Plants that produce coated products such as ceiling tile usually
paint the board after it is sanded and trimmed. Paint
composition will vary with both plant and product; however, most
plants utilize a water-based paint. The resulting washup
contributes to the wastewater stream or is metered to the process
Whitewater system. In addition, there are sometimes imperfect
batches of paint mixed which are discharged to the wastewater
stream or metered to the process Whitewater system.
Broke System—Reject boards and trim are reclaimed as fiber and
recycled by placing the waste board and trim into a hydropulper
arid producing a reusable fiber slurry. While there is need for a
large quantity of water in the hydropulping operation, it is
normally recycled process water. There is normally no water
discharged from this operation.
Other Sources—Other potential sources of wastewater in an
insulation board plant include water used for screen washing,
fire control, and general housekeeping. The water used for
washing screens in the forming and decker areas usually enters
112
-------
the process Whitewater system. Housekeeping water varies widely
from plant to plant depending on plant operation and many other
factors. While wastewater can result from water used to
extinguish dryer fires, it is an infrequent and intermittent
source of wastewater.
Wastewater Characteristics .
The major portion of insulation board wastewater pollutants
results from leachable materials from the wood and materials
added during the production process. If a chip washer is used, a
portion of the solubles is leached into the chip wash water. A
small fraction of the raw waste load results from cleanup and
finishing operations; however, these operations appear to have
little influence on the overall raw waste load. The finishing
wastewater in some plants is metered back into the process water
with no reported adverse effects.
Process Whitewater, accounting for over 95 percent of the waste
load and flow from a typical insulation board plant, is
characterized by high quantities of BOD (900 to 7,500 mg/1) and
suspended solids (500 to 4,000 mg/1).
The four major factors affecting process wastewater quality are:
(1) the extent of steam pretreatment; (2) the types of products
produced; (3) raw material species; and (4) the extent of whole
tree chips, forest residue, and bark in the raw material.
The major source of dissolved organic material is the wood raw
material. From 1 to 8 percent (on a dry weight basis) of wood is
composed of water-soluble sugars stored as residual sap and,
regardless of the type of refining or pretreatment utilized,
these sugars form a major source of BOD and COD. Steam
conditioning of the furnish during thermomechanical refining
greatly increases the amount of wood sugars and hemicellulose
decomposition products entering the process Whitewater. The use
of steam under pressure during thermomechanical refining is the
predominant factor in the increased raw waste loads of plants
which employ this refining method.
Back and Larsson (1972) observe that, basically, two phenomena
occur during heating of the wood raw material under pressure: the
physically reversible thermal softening of the lignin and
hemicellulose, and time dependent chemical reactions in which
hemicellulose undergoes hydrolysis and produces oligosaccharides
(short chained, water soluble wood sugars, including
disaccharides). In addition, hydrolysis of the acetyl groups
forms acetic acid. The resulting lowered pH causes an increase
in the rate of hydrolysis. Thus, the reactions can be said to be
autocatalytic. For this reason, the reaction rates are difficult
to calculate. Rough estimations indicate that the reaction rates
double when an increase in temperature of 8°C to 10°C has been
made.
113
-------
Figure V-l demonstrates the increased BOD loading which results
from increasingly severe cooking conditions.
Dallons (1976) has noted that the amount of BOD increases because
of cooking conditions which varies with wood species. Hardwoods
contain a greater percentage of potentially soluble material than
do softwoods. The effect of species variations on raw waste load
is less important than the degree of steaming to which the
furnish is subjected.
Two insulation board plants, 108 and 1035, presented limited
information concerning the effects of whole tree chips, forest
residue, and bark in wood furnish on raw waste load. Plant 36,
which has the highest raw waste loads of all the mechanical
refining insulation board data collection portfolio respondents,
uses whole tree chips (pine) for the majority of the wood
furnish. While the use of whole tree chips, residue, and bark
results in some increase in raw waste loadings, information
currently available is not sufficient to justify a
subcategorization scheme based on raw material.
While the larger portion of the BOD in the process wastewater is
a result of organics leaching from the wood, a significant
portion results from additives. Additives vary in both type and
quantity according to the type of product being produced.
The three basic types of board products sheathing, finished tile
(ceiling tile, etc.), and hardboard (including medium density
siding) receive various amounts of additives. Sheathing contains
up to 25 percent additives which include asphalt, alum, starch,
and size (either wax or rosin). Finished tile contains up to 10
percent additives which are the same as those used in sheathing,
with the exception of asphalt. Hardboard contains up to 11
percent additives including organic resins, as well as emulsions
and tempering agents such as tall oil. Therefore, the process
wastewater will contain not only leachates from the wood and
fibers, but also the portion of the additives not retained in the
product.
Maximum retention of additives in the product is advantageous
from both production cost and wastewater standpoints. Several
retention aids are marketed—the most common of which are alum,
ferric salts, and synthetic polyelectrolytes.
Raw Waste Loads
Tables V-22 and V-23 summarize the raw wastewater characteristics
of those insulation board plants which provided raw waste
monitoring data in response to the data collection portfolio.
Data presented in Tables V-22 through V-23 are daily averages
over a 12-month period, unless otherwise specified. The average
daily raw waste loads were calculated in the following manner:
114
-------
1. All data from each plant were coded for keypunching
directly from the data sheets provided by the plant
according to waste stream.
2. Concentration and flow data for each day were converted
by the computer program to a corresponding waste load
in pounds per day (lbs/day).
3. Each plant's annual average daily production was
calculated in tons per day for each plant by dividing
the total year's production by the number of actual
operating days. This value was then used with
applicable conversion factors to determine waste
loadings on a pounds-per-ton basis.
4. The resulting waste loads were averaged over the one-
year period to determine the average annual daily raw
waste loads.
Eight of the fifteen insulation board plants provided raw waste ¦
historical data for the 12-month period from January through
December 1976 and four plants also provided raw waste historical
data for the 12-month period from January through December 1977.
The raw waste loads of the plants which employ thermomechanical
refining methods or which also produce hardboard products are
demonstrably higher than the raw waste loads of the plants which
only employ mechanical refining and which produce no hardboard
products. Plant 36, the only direct discharging plant among the
mechanical refining plants, is an exception to this trend as
discussed below.
Of the five plants which use mechanical refining only, and which
produce no hardboard, three of the plants (360, 978, and 889)
provided sufficient 1976 historical raw waste data for analysis.
Plant 36 provided raw waste data for 1976 and 1977 for analysis.
Data from these plants were for raw waste prior to primary
treatment, with the exception of Plant 360 which provided
information for wastewater following polymer-assisted primary
clarification (flocculation-clarification). Verification
sampling was performed at Plant 360 and samples were collected
before and after the primary floc-clarifier. Analysis of
verification data showed that a BOD reduction of 24 percent and a
TSS reduction of 79 percent were achieved in the primary floc-
clarifier.
Plant 360 uses primarily Southern pine for furnish with some
mixed hardwoods. Plant 537 uses primarily Douglas fir with other
mixed softwoods. Plant 978 employs stone grinders to refine a
pine furnish. Plant 36 uses a mixture of predominantly Southern
pine, in the form of whole tree chips, and mixed hardwoods.
Plant 889 uses a furnish of Southern pine mixed with some
hardwood.
115
-------
TOTAL BOD, IN kg
02 /TON DRY CHIPS
Y/ i \
i i i i i i i i
4 6 8 10 12
PRE-HEATING PRESSURE (atm.g.)
Figure V-1. Variation of BOD with pre-heating pressure
116
-------
Table V-22. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant Production Flow BOD TSS
Number kkg/day (TFD) kl/kkg (kgal/ton) kg/kkg (lbs/ton) kg/kkg (lbs/ton)
360t
201
(220)
3.13
(0.750)
4.46
(8.91)
0.735
(1.47)
189
(208)
4.51
(1.08)
4.81
(9.62)
1.04
(2.07)
195
(215)
3.80
(0.912)
4.61
(9.22)
0.880
(1.76)
978
106
(117)
21.6
(5.21)
5.95
(11.9)
4.67
(9.33)
36
606
(668)
10.4
(2.49).
20.8
(41.6)t
45.2
(90.5)
600
(661)
8.84
(2.12)
20.9
(41.8)t
31.4
(63.0)
603
(665)
9.60
(2.30)
20.9
(41.8)1"
38.4
(76.8)
889
246
(270)
1.02
(0.24)
1.27
(2.54)
0.46
(0.923)
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily dati; jowcr.d row represents 1977 average annual
daily data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977;
except as noted.
t In 1976, 0.075 kg/kkg (0.15 lb/ton) of BCD is recycled.
In 1977, 0.095 kg/kkg (0.19 lb/ton) of BCD is recycled.
For the two-year period of 1976-1977, 0.085 kg/kkg (0.17 lb/ton) of BOD is recycled.
-------
Table V-23. Insulation Board Thennomechanical Refining and/or Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averages)*
Plant
Number
Production
Flow
BOD
TSS
kkg/day
(TPD)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/kkg
(.lbs /ton;
kg/kkg
(lbs/ton)
183
193
(212)
8.11
(1.95)
33.6
(67.1)
17.3
(34.5)
144
(159)
5.05
(1.21)
35.5
(71.0)
13.3
(26.6)
169
(186)
6.84
(1.64)
34.5
(69.0)
15.6
(31.2)
537*
139
(153)
13.5
(3.23)
17.0
(34.1)**
42.8
(85.7)
145
(160)
12.8
(3.08)
23.5
(47.0)**
38.6
(77.3)
108
605
(665)tt
74.0
(17.8)
29.8
(59.5)
28.6
(57.1)
—
—
—
—
26.3
(52.6)***
6.25
(12.5)***
570
(628)tt
23.9
(5.73)ttt
22.8
(45.6)t tt
6.80
(13.6 )t 11
1035
359
(395)t*
11.1
(2.68)
43.2
(86.3)
—
—
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 19 77 average
annual daily data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 19 76 and 19 77;
except as noted.
t Raw flow and wasteload data presented in first row obtained during 1977 verification sampling.
Raw flow and wasteload data presented in second row obtained during 1978 verification sampling.
** In 1976, 12.5 kg/kkg (25.0 lbs/ton) of BOD is recycled.
In 1977, 12.2 kg/kkg (24.5 lbs/ton) of BOD is recycled.
tt Includes production of both insulation board and hardboard.
*** Raw waste loads based on 1977 estimated primary effluent data provided by plant, and on 1976 average
daily production.
ttt Data represent period of 9/21/79 through 4/30/80.
-------
Plant 36 demonstrated raw waste loads for BOD and TSS
significantly higher than any other plant in the mechanical
refining subcategory. This is most likely attributable to the
use of wood furnish consisting of predominantly whole tree chips.
In 1976, the plant recycled all of its waste activated sludge, in
addition to all of the primary sludge, back into the process. In
1977, the plant discontinued recycling of the waste activated
sludge and reduced the primary sludge recycling by 10 percent
because of board quality problems. Ninety percent of the primary
sludge was still recycled to the process, while the remaining 10
percent of the primary sludge and all of the waste activated
sludge were dewatered and disposed of in a landfill. The build
up in the process Whitewater system of suspended solids due to
the sludge recycling is the most probable reason for the high
1976 average TSS waste loads.
Plant 725 does not monitor the raw wastewater from its wood fiber
insulation board plant. Effluent from this plant, following
primary treatment, is used as process Whitewater in the plant's
mineral wool insulation board facility. Although the plant
provided 1976 historical data for raw wastewater effluent from
the mineral wool facility, these data could not be used to
characterize raw wastewater from the wood fiber plant; and thus,
Plant 725 was not included in Table V-22.
The annual average daily unit flow, and waste load data for
insulation board, mechanical refining Plant 36, presented in
Table V-22, were used to develop the design criteria presented in
Table V-24 and used as a basis for cost estimates presented in
Appendix A of this document.
The average unit flow for Plant 36, which is 8.3 kl/Kkg (2.0
kgal/ton), is considered to be representative of an insulation
board, mechanical refining plant which produces a full line of
insulation board products and which practices internal recycling
to the extent practicable. Plant 978 has a high unit flow of
21.6 kl/Kkg (5.21 kgal/ton), due to the fact that this plant uses
process water on a once through basis, with no internal recycle.
Plants 360 and 889 achieve a much higher degree of internal
recycle which is due to their particular product and raw material
mix. Therefore, their unit flows are not considered to be
applicable to the industry as a whole. The raw waste load of TSS
produced by Plant 36 is somewhat higher than the other plants in
the insulation board-mechanical refining group because the plant
uses a furnish which predominantly consists of whole tree chips.
The contribution of TSS to overall treatment system costs is
negligible compared to the BOD contribution.
Of the 10 plants which produce insulation board using
thermomechanical refining and/or which produce hardboard at the
same facility, only three plants (183, 108, and 1035) provided
sufficient 1976 historical data for calculation of raw waste
loads. Plant 183 also provided sufficient 1977 historical data
for raw waste analysis.
119
-------
Plant 108 has upgraded its wastewater treatment system and
provided an estimate of the raw waste loads (primary effluent).
The estimated waste loads are 16,000 kg/day (35,000 lbs/day) of
BOD and 3,800 kg/day (8,300 lbs/day) of TSS. The raw waste loads
presented in the second row for Plant 108 in Table V-23 are based
on these estimated data and on 1976 average annual daily
production data.
Plant 537 does not monitor raw wastewater quality and provided no
historical raw wastewater quality data. Verification sampling
was performed at this plant in 1977 and 1978, and raw wastewater
data were obtained. Verification data were used to calculate the
raw waste load using historical average daily production and
average daily flow data provided by the plant in response to the
data collection portfolio.
Of the four plants which provided historical raw waste data, only
Plants 183 and 537 produce solely insulation board. Plant 183
steam conditions all of its furnish, which consists primarily of
hardwood chips. Plant 537 steam conditions all of its furnish
which consists of softwood chips, primarily of Douglas fir. Some
sawdust is also used as furnish at this plant.
Plant 108 steam conditions approximately 10 percent of its
furnish, which consists primarily of aspen with some whole tree
chips. Although this plant differs considerably from the other
plants in the subcategory in the proportion of furnish that is
preconditioned by steam, the raw waste loads from this plant fall
well within the range of other plants in the insulation board-
thermomechanical refining or hardboard production group, as
demonstrated in Table V-23.
Plant 1035 uses thermomechanical pulping to prepare all of its
furnish, which consists primarily of pine with some hardwood and
panel trim. This plant produces approximately 70 percent
insulation board and 30 percent hardboard.
Plant 943 produces approximately 60 percent insulation board and
40 percent hardboard using a pine furnish for hardboard, and pine
and hardwood mix for insulation board. This plant steam
conditions all of its furnish. Since it does not monitor its raw
waste effluent, the raw waste load could not be determined.
Plant 979 produces approximately 60 percent insulation board and
40 percent hardboard using a pine furnish which is totally steam
conditioned. Since this plant does not monitor its raw waste
effluent, the raw waste load could not be determined.
Plant 186 steam conditions all of its hardwood furnish. Since
this plant does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the raw waste
load could not be determined.
Plant 977 steam conditions all of its mixed hardwood furnish.
This plant produces approximately 50 percent insulation board and
120
-------
50 percent hardboard. Raw waste effluent from the wood fiber
plant at this facility is combined with raw waste effluent from a
mineral wool facility at the same location prior to monitoring.
Therefore, the actual wood fiber raw waste load could not be
determined.
Plant 502 steam conditions all of its hardwood furnish and
produces only insulation board. Since this plant does not
monitor its raw waste effluent, the raw waste load from this
plant could not be determined.
Plants 184 and 2 have achieved no discharge of process wastewater
through complete close up of process Whitewater systems, however,
Plant 2 has discontinued operations. Both plants steam condition
all furnish and produce solely structural insulation board.
Plant 184 uses a hardwood furnish, and Plant 2 used low moisture
plywood and furniture trim furnish.
Raw waste load data provided by Plants 183, 537, and 1035 were
averaged "to develop the design criteria presented in Table V-25
as the basis for cost estimates presented in Appendix A of this
document. These plants are considered representative of plants
producing insulation board thermomechanically and hardboard.
Data from Plant 108 were not used for two reasons: (1) the raw
waste data provided by this plant were following primary
treatment, and (2) the plant in 1976 practiced only a minimal
amount of internal recycle which resulted in an unrepresentative
unit flow of 11.1 kl/Kkg (17.8. K gal/ton).
A unit flow of 10.0 kl/Kkg (2.4 kgal/ton) is considered to be
representative of an insulation board, thermomechanical refining
plant which produces a full line of insulation board products and
which practices internal recycle to the extent practicable.
121
-------
Table V-24. Insulation Board, Mechanical Refining—Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow !
= 8.3 kl/Kkg (2.0 kgal/ton)
Design Criteria
1 2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
230 (250) 540 (600)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
1.9 (0.5) 4.5 (1.2)
Influent BOD Concentrations, mg/1
2,200 2,200
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/1
3,900 3,900
Table V-25. Insulation Board Thermomechanical Refining—
Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow =
10.0 kl/Kkg (2.4 kgal/ton)
Design Criteria
1 2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
180 (200) 360 (400)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
1.8 (0.48) 3.6 (0.96)
Influent BOD Concentrations, mg/1
3,600 3,600
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/1
1,600 1,600
122
-------
Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads
Raw waste concentrations and raw waste loads for total phenols
are shown for four insulation board plants in Table V-26. Data
presented in this table were obtained during the 1977 and 1978
verification sampling programs. These data represent the average
of three 24-hour composite samples collected during each
verification program. Annual average daily production and annual
average daily waste flow provided by the plants in the data
collection portfolio were used to calculate the raw waste loads.
None of the insulation board plants presented historical data on
raw wastewater total phenols concentrations in their raw
wastewater effluents.
Raw waste concentrations of 13 heavy metals are presented for
four insulation board plants in Table V-27. Data presented in
this table were obtained during the 1977 verification sampling
program. Annual average daily production and annual average
daily waste flow for 1976 provided by the plants in the data
collection portfolio were used to calculate the raw waste loads.
None of the insulation board plants presented historical data for
wastewater heavy metals concentrations.
No significant differences in heavy metals concentrations between
the two types of insulation board plants were found. The source
of heavy metals in the wastewater from insulation board plants
is: (1) small amounts of metals present in the wood raw material;
and (2) byproducts of the corrosion of metal equipment in contact
with the process Whitewater.
The average concentrations and the average raw wastewater
loadings of each heavy metal are also presented in Table V-27.
Table V-28 presents the raw wastewater concentrations of organic
toxic pollutants for insulation board plants that were sampled
during the 1978 verification sampling program. None of the
insulation board plants presented organic toxic pollutants
historical data.
No organic toxic pollutants were found in the raw waste for Plant
537, a thermomechanical refining plant. Extremely low concentra-
tions of chloroform, benzene, and toluene were found in the raw
wastewater for Plant 183, also a thermomechanical refining plant.
All of these pollutants probably originated in common industrial
solvents.
Extremely low concentrations of benzene, toluene, and phenol were
found in the raw wastewater for Plant 36, a mechanical refining
plant, but benzene and toluene were also found in the plant
intake water. Phenol is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis
reactions that occur as the wood furnish is refined.
123
-------
Table V-26. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Insulation
Board Plants—Total Phenols
Raw Waste Average+
Concentrations (mq/1)* Raw Waste Loads
Plant
1977
1978
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
36
0.09
0.796
0.0040
(0.0080)
183
0.29
1 .8
0.0055
(0.011)
360
0.14
NS**
0.00040
(0.00079)
537
0.11
0.42
0.0075
(0.015)
* Data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling
programs.
+ Average of the 1977 and 1978 raw waste loads. Average daily
waste flow and production data supplied by plants in response to
the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the 1977 and
1978 waste loads.
** NS * Plant 360 was not sampled during the 1978 verification
program.
124
-------
Table V-27. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Insulation Board—Metals
Raw Waste Concentrations (tng/1) Raw Waste loadings (kg/Kkg)/(lb/ton)
Plant Nuntoer Average Plant Nuntoer Average
360 183 537 36 Value 360 183 537 36 Value
Beryllium .0005 .00083 .0005 ' .0005 .0006 .0000042 .000007 .00001 .0000055 .0000067
(.0000083) (.000014) (.00002) (.000011) .0000133
Cadmium .00083 .001 .0005 .0005 .0007 .0000028 .000008 .00001 .0000055 .0000065
(.0000056) (.000016) (.00002) (.000011) .0000132
Copper .450 .280 .20 .340 .320 .0019 .0023 .000041 .0036 .0019
(.0037) (.0046) (.000082) (.0072) .0039
Lead .0013 .021 .0013 .0053 .0072 .000006 .00017 .000027 .000055 .000063
(.000011) (.00034) (.000053) (.00011) .000126
Nickel .240 .105 .012 .0088 .0920 .0008 .00085 .00025 .00009 .0005
(.0016) (.0017) (.00049) (.00018) .0010
Zinc .720 . 517 . 250 . 550 .510 .003 .0042 .005 ,006 .0046
(.0059) (.0084) (.01) (.012) .0091
Antimony .00083 .003 .00067 .0021 .0016 .0000021 .000025 .000014 .000022 .000015
(.0000042) (.000049) (.00027) (.000044) .000037
Arsenic .002 .0033 .003 .0016 .0025 .000013 .000027 .00006 .000017 .000029
(.000025) (.000054) (.00012) (.000034) .000058
Seleniun .005 .0043 .0047 .0033 .0043 .000014 .000035 .00007 .000035 .000038
(.000027) (.00007) . (.000014) (.00007) .000076
Silver .0005 .0006 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0000021 .0000049 .00001 .0000055 .0000056
(.0000042) (.0000098) (.00002) (.000011) .0000112
Thallium .00083 .0005 .0008 .0006 .0007 .0000028 .0000041 .000017 .0000065 .0000076
(.0000056) (.0000082) (.000033) (.000013) .0000152
Chromium .0013 .0075 .0023 .011 .0055 .0000055 .00006 .00047 .00012 .00016
(.000011) (.00012) (.00084) (.00023) .00033
Mercury .0066 .005 .001 .0075 .005 .000028 .000041 .000021 .00008 .000042
(.000042) (.000082) (.000041) (.00016) .000085
125
-------
Table V-28. Insulation Board, Raw Wastewater Toxic Pollutant
Data, Organics
Average Concentration (uq/1)
Parameter
Raw Wastewater
Plant 183 Plant 36 Plant 537
Chloroform
20
Benzene
70
40**
Toluene
60
40**
Phenol
40
* One sample of raw wastewater contained 20 ug/1 of chloroform.
Plant intake water contained 10 ug/1 of chloroform.
** Plant intake water contained 50 ug/1 and 30 ug/1 of benzene
and toluene, respectively.
— Hyphen denotes that the parameter was not detected above the
detection limit for the compound.
126
-------
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD
Production of hardboard by wet process requires significant
amounts of water. Plants responding to the data collection
portfolio reported fresh water usage rates for process water
ranging from approximately 190 thousand to 19 million liters per
day (0.05 to 5 MGD). One plant, 108, which produces both
hardboard and insulation board in approximately equal amounts,
reported fresh water use of over 15 million liters per day (4
MGD).
Water becomes contaminated during the production of hardboard
primarily through contact with the wood raw material during the
fiber preparation, forming, and—in the case of SIS hardboard—
pressing operations. The vast majority of pollutants consist of
fine wood fibers, soluble wood sugars, and extractives.
Additives not retained in the board also add to the pollutant
load.
The water used to process and transport the wood from the fiber
preparation stage through mat formation is referred to as process
Whitewater. Process Whitewater produced by the dewatering of
stock at any stage of the process is usually recycled to be used
as stock dilution water. However, because of the build-up of
suspended solids and dissolved organic material which can cause
undesirable effects in the board, there may be a need to bleed-
off a quantity of excess process Whitewater.
Potential wastewater sources in the production of wet process
hardboard include:
Chip wash water
Process Whitewater generated during fiber preparation
(refining and washing)
Process Whitewater generated during forming
Hot press squeezeout water
Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
(dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.)
Chip Wash Water
Water used for chip washing is capable of being recycled to a
large extent. A minimum makeup of approximately 400 liters per
metric ton (95 gallons per ton) is required in a closed system
because of water leaving with the chips and with sludge removed
from settling tanks. Water used for makeup in the chip washer
may be fresh water, cooling water, vacuum seal water from in-
plant equipment, or recycled process water. Chip wash water,
when not fully recycled, contributes to the raw waste load of a
hardboard plant. Hardboard Plants 980, 979, 977, 943, 108, 1035,
and 3 indicated in responses to the data collection portfolio
that chip washing is done. Plants 943 and 1035 recycle chip wash
water.
127
-------
Fiber Preparation
The fiber preparation or refiner Whitewater system is considered
to be the water used in the refining of stock up to and including
the dewatering of stock by a decker or washer. There are two
major types of fiber preparation in the wet process hardboard
industry: thermomechanical pulping and refining, and the
explosion or gun process. Steam, under pressure, is used to
soften and prepare the chips in both processes.
Fiber yield is lower in the explosion process than in the thermo-
mechanical process due to the hydrolysis of the hemicellulose
under the high pressures required in the gun digesters. The
resulting raw waste loading is also higher.
The wood furnish enters the refiner at a moisture content of
about 50 percent. Subsequent to refining, the fiber bundles are
diluted with fresh or recycled process Whitewater to a
consistency of approximately 1 percent solids prior to dewatering
at the decker or stock washer to about 15 percent solids. The
water which results from the stock washing or deckering operation
is rich in organic solids dissolved from the wood during refining
and is referred to as "refiner Whitewater." This water may be
combined with the machine Whitewater, which is produced during
forming, for further use in the system; or it may be discharged
from the plant as wastewater.
Three plants, 678, 673, and 943 make use of the high dissolved
organic solids in this stream by collecting and evaporating the
fiber preparation Whitewater to produce a concentrated wood
molasses byproduct which is used for animal feed.
Forming
After the dewatered stock leaves the washer decker at
approximately 15 percent consistency, it must again be diluted to
a consistency of approximately 1.5 percent to be suitable for
machine forming. This requires a relatively large amount of
recycled process Whitewater or fresh water. The redilution of
stock is usually accomplished in a series of steps to allow
accurate consistency controls and more efficient dispersion of
additives and to reduce the required stock pump and storage
capacities. The stock usually receives an initial dilution down
to approximately 5 percent consistency, then to 3 percent, and
finally, just prior to mat formation, to approximately 1.5
percent.
During the mat formation stage of the hardboard process, the
diluted stock is dewatered in the forming machine to a
consistency of approximately 40 to 45 percent. The water drained
from the stock during formation is referred to as machine
Whitewater. Water from the machine Whitewater system may be
recycled for use as stock dilution water. Excess machine
128
-------
Whitewater may be combined with other process Whitewater and
discharged as wastewater.
Pressing
In the production of SIS hardboard, the mat which leaves the
forming machine at 40 to 45 percent solids consistency is loaded
into "hot" hydraulic presses to be pressed into hardboard.
The board leaves the press at about 5 percent moisture or less.
Although much of the water in the board is evaporated in the
press, a considerable . amount of wastewater is generated during
pressing. This wastewater is generally collected in a pit below
the press and discharged as wastewater from the plant, although
two plants, 929 and 673, return the press water to the process
Whitewater system. Wastewater resulting from the pressing
operation is more concentrated in dissolved solids than the
machine Whitewater due to the large amount of water which is
evaporated from the board during pressing.
Miscellaneous Operations
While the majority of wastewater generated during the production
of hardboard occurs during the fiber preparation, forming and
pressing operations* various other operations may contribute to
the overall raw waste load.
Drying—It is occasionally necessary to clean the dryers in a
hardboard plant to reduce fire danger and to maintain proper
energy utilization. This produces a minor wastewater stream in
most operations.
Finishing—After the board leaves the press or humidifier, it is
usually sanded and trimmed to size. The dust from the sanding
and trim saws is often controlled by dust collectors of a wet
scrubber type and the water supplied to the scrubbers is
sometimes excess process water; however, fresh water is
occasionally used. This water may be returned to the process
with the dust, or it may be discharged as wastewater.
Many plants paint or stain the board after it is sanded and
trimmed. Paint composition will vary with both plant and
product; however, most plants utilize a water-based paint. The
resulting washup contributes to the wastewater stream or to the
process Whitewater system. In addition, there are sometimes
imperfect batches of paint which are discharged to the wastewater
stream or metered to the process Whitewater system.
Caul or Press Plate—Another wastewater source is caul and press
plate wash water. After a period of use, cauls and press plates
acquire a surface build-up of resin and organics which results in
sticking in the presses and blemishes on the hardboard surface.
The cleaning operation consists of submerging the plates in a
caustic cleaning solution for a period of time to loosen the
129
-------
organic matter. Press plates are also cleaned in-place with a
caustic solution. The cauls are removed, rinsed with fresh
water, then put back in use. The tanks used for soaking the
cauls are emptied as needed, normally only a few times each year.
Rinse water volume varies with frequency of washing of cauls or
plates.
Other Sources—Other potential sources of wastewater in a hard-
board plant include water used for screen washing, fire control,
and general housekeeping.
The water used for washing screens in the forming and decker
areas usually enters the process Whitewater system. Housekeeping
water can vary widely from plant to plant depending on plant
practices and many other factors. Wastewater can result from
water used to extinguish dryer fires. This is an infrequent and
intermittent source of wastewater.
Wastewater Characteristics
The major portion of hardboard wastewater pollutants results from
leachable materials from the wood and materials added during the
production process. If a chip washer is used, a portion of the
solubles is leached into the chip wash water. A small fraction
of the raw waste load results from cleanup and finishing
operations; however, these operations appear to have little
influence on the overall raw waste load.
The major factors which affect process wastewater quality
include: "(1) the severity of cook to which the wood is subjected,
(2) the types of products produced and additives used, (3) raw
material species, and (4) the extent of whole tree chips, forest
residue, and bark in the raw material.
The effect of steaming on raw waste load was discussed in this
section for insulation board. The severity of cook to which wood
furnish is subjected in S2S hardboard production generally
exceeds that used in SIS hardboard production because of the
requirement for more highly refined fiber bundles in the S2S
product. It would be expected, therefore, that the raw waste
load of S2S plants would be higher than that of SIS plants.
Inspection of the raw waste characteristics for both types of
plants presented in Tables V-29 and V-30 supports this
conclusion.
A thorough review of the literature and information presented by
industry sources pertaining to factors influencing variation in
raw wastewater characteristics was performed by an EPA contractor
in 1976. The conclusions reached were published in Section V of
the Summary Report on the Re-Evaluation of the Effluent
Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber
Products Processing Point Source Category. An attempt was made
in the 1976 study to quantify the effects of wood species,
seasonal variations in raw materials, and the use of whole tree
130
-------
chips and/or forest residue on raw waste characteristics. The
conclusion reached in the 1976 study was as follows:
It is easily apparent, from the sources discussed, that large
variabilities in raw waste characteristics exist from plant to
plant in the hardboard industry. It is also apparent that the
factors identified as causing the variability are probably valid.
However, it is equally apparent that none of the sources
investigated thus far has been able to supply the type of data
necessary to determine how the reference information relates to
quantification of the factors influencing variations in raw
waste.
During the course of the present study, the material available to
the 1976 contractor was reviewed in detail, as well as current
literature and material presented by the plants in the data
collection portfolios. No substantial new material was presented
to allow quantification of the effects of wood species, whole
tree chips and/or forest residue, or seasonal variations in raw
material.
While a large portion of the BOD in the process wastewater is a
result of organics leaching from the wood, a significant
(although lesser) portion results from additives not retained in
the product. Additives vary in both type and quantity according
to the type of product being produced. Chemicals used as
additives in the production of hardboard include vegetable oils,
ferric sulfate, aluminum sulfate, petrolatum, thermoplastic
and/or thermosetting resins, defoamers, and paints.
Thermosetting resins are not used in S2S production since the
board is dried prior to pressing. The differences in the type
and quantity of additives used from plant to plant did not appear
to significantly affect raw waste loads.
Maximum retention of these additives is advantageous from both a
production cost as well as a wastewater standpoint. Several
retention aids are marketed for use in board products to increase
the retention of fiber and additives in the mat, the most common
of which are alum jand ferric salts. Some plants use synthetic
polyelectrolytes as retention aids.
As previously discussed, the primary effect of product type on
raw waste loads occurs with the production of S2S hardboard. S2S
hardboard production exhibits a marked effect on raw waste loads
as shown by data presented in Tables V-29 and V-30. The effect
of product type on raw waste loads within the SIS and S2S parts
of the wet process hardboard subcategory is generally not
discernible, with the exception that Plant 929 has succeeded in
significantly reducing its raw waste load by achieving nearly
complete close up of its process Whitewater system. This plant
produces primarily industrial grade board.
131
-------
Table V-29. SIS Iferdboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant
ttmber
Production
Flow
BCD
TSS
Kkg/day
(TfD)
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs'ton)
348
88.7
(97.5)
—
—
32.7
(65.4)t
*•
6.90
(13.8) t
933
297
(326)
10.6
(2.54)
37.4
(74.7)
9.15
(18.3)
3
194
(213)
7.68
(1.84)
29.3
(58.6)
12.4
(24.8)
194
(213)
6.17
(1.48)
25.4
(50.7)
12.8
(25.7)
194
(213)
7.05
(1.69
26.0
(52.0)
12.6
(25.2)
931
117
(129)
8.82
(2.12)
35.6
(71.2)
22.5
(44.9)
115
(127)
8.14
(1.95)
33.8
(67.7)
13.0
(25.9)
113
(125)**
8.14
(1.95)**
37.0
(74.1)**
13.8
(27.6)**
919tt
91.9
(101)
14.0
(3.36)
68.5
(137)
16.8
(33.5)
207
83.2
(91.7)
30.1
(60.2)
10.2
(2a 3)
79.7
(87.8)
—
—
33.8
(67.8)
5.20
(10.4)
81.5
(89.8)
—
—
32.2
(64.3)
7.70
(15.4)
673
343
(377)
13.6
(3.26)
1.89 (3.77)
0.56
(1.15)
678ttt 1446
(1589)
12.3
(2.96)
21.9 (43.8)
5.85
(11.7)
* First tow of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 1977 average annual
daily data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977;
except as noted.
t After primary settling, hardboard and paper wastewater streams are oomingled.
** Data represent period of 10/1/76 through 12/31/77 when upgraded system was In normal operation,
tt All of treated effluent Is recycled to plant process.
*** Raw waste loads shown are for combined weak and strong wastewater streams,
ttt Raw waste load data taken after primary clarification, pil adjustment, and rutrient addition.
132
-------
Table V-30. S2S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Anrual Averages)*
Plant Production Flow . BOD TSS
Nunfcer kkg/day (TPD) kl/kkg (kgal/ton) kg/kfeg (lbs/ton) kg/kkg (lbs/ton)
980
210
(231)
24.7
(5.93)
66.5
(133)
—
—
216
(238)
24.9
(5.97)
61.5
(123)
15.2
(30.4)
213
(235)t
24.9
(5.96)t
64.5
(129)t
—
—
218
(240)**
24.5
(5.88)**
—
—
11.7
(23.4)**
1035
359
(395)tt
11.1
(2.68)
43.2
(86.3)
—
—
1
311
(343)
25.8
(6.18)
116
(232)
20.0
(40.0)
* First row of data represents 1976 average anrual daily data; second row represents 1977 averfge
annual daily data; third row represents average araual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977;
except as noted,
t Data represents period of 1/1/76 through 4/30/78.
** Data represents period of 6/16/77 through 4/30/78 when standard TSS analyses ware perfonned.
tt Includes production of both insulation board and hardboard.
-------
Raw Waste Loads
Tables V-29 and V-30 summarize the raw waste characteristics of
those hardboard plants which provided historical raw waste
monitoring data in response to the data collection portfolio.
Nine of the sixteen hardboard plants provided raw waste
historical data for the 12-month period from January through
December 1976. Plant 673 provided data from May 1976 to April
1977. Three plants also provided raw waste historical data for
the 12-month period from January through December 1977. Plant
980 provided data from January 1, 1976 through April 1978. The
average annual daily raw waste loads presented in Tables V-29 and
V-30 were calculated in the same manner as described for the
insulation board subcategory earlier in this section.
Plants 943 and 979 do not monitor raw waste effluents, and Plant
977 combines the raw waste effluent from its hardboard/insulation
board facility with the raw waste effluent from an adjacent
mineral wool fiber plant prior to monitoring. The data provided
by Plant 977 could not be used to characterize raw waste loads
for hardboard production.
Plant 929 provided data from January 1976 through February 1977
for its treated effluent only. These data were not used to
calculate a raw waste load.
Of the nine predominantly SIS hardboard plants, eight plants
(348, 933, 3, 931, 919, 207, 673, and 678) provided sufficient
historical raw waste data for analysis.
Approximately 90 percent of the total production of Plant 348 is
SIS hardboard produced with a plywood trim furnish. The other 10
percent of the plant's production consists of battery separators-
-a paper product. Although the plant indicates that 80 to 90
percent of the raw waste load results from hardboard production,
monitoring by the plant is performed after the raw waste streams
are combined. The plant did not monitor the flow rates of the
separate wastewater streams during 1976. No flow data were
reported by Plant 348. BOD and TSS raw waste loads were reported
directly in lb/ton. The raw waste load for this plant is
included in Table V-29, but is not included in the development of
the SIS part design criteria.
Plant 919 produces all SIS hardboard using Douglas fir for
furnish. The raw BOD waste load discharged from this plant is
68.7 kg/Kkg (137.4 lb/ton); however, some of this waste load
entered the process through recycle of treated effluent. Since
the waste load contribution resulting from recycle of treated
effluent is unknown, the raw waste loads for this plant were not
used to develop the SIS part design criteria.
Plant 3 produces all SIS hardboard using a furnish which is 55
percent mixed hardwoods and 45 percent mixed softwoods. Thirty
134
-------
percent of this plant's furnish is in the form of unbarked
roundwood.
Plant 933 produces all SIS hardboard using an aspen furnish,
approximately half of which is unbarked roundwood and half is
received as whole tree chips.
Plant 931 produces all SIS hardboard using 75 percent oak and 25
percent mixed hardwoods.
Plant 207 produces all SIS hardboard using all Douglas fir in the
form of chips, sawdust, shavings, and plywood trim. The raw
waste load data presented for 1976 were not used to develop the
SIS part design criteria because a major in-plant refitting
program which significantly reduced the raw waste flow was
completed during the latter half of 1976.
Plant 673, which produces approximately equal amounts of SIS and
S2S hardboard using redwood and Douglas fir, evaporates most of
its process wastewater to produce a cattle feed byproduct. Data
for this plant are shown in Table V-29, but were not included in
the development of the SIS part design criteria.
Plant 678 produces approximately 10 percent S2S and 90 percent
SIS hardboard using about 80 percent mixed hardwoods (40 percent
of which is oak) and 20 percent Southern pine. This plant
evaporates a large amount of process water to produce a cattle
feed byproduct. Raw waste data reported in Table V-29 for this
plant were obtained following primary clarification, pH
adjustment, and nutrient addition. Plant 678 is not included in
the development of the SIS part design criteria; however, data
for the plant are shown in Table V-29.
The average annual daily flows and raw waste loads for the SIS
hardboard plants presented in Table V-29 (excluding the data for
Plants 348, 919, 673, and 678) were used to determine the design
criteria used for the SIS part of the wet process hardboard
subcategory cost estimates presented in Appendix A of this
document. The SIS part design, criteria are presented in Table V-
31.
135
-------
Table V-31. SIS Hardboard—Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow = 12 kl/Kkg (2.8 kgal/ton)
Design Criteria
2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
Influent BOD Concentrations, mg/1
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/1
1.1 (0.28)
91 (100)
3,300
1 ,300
3.2 (0.84)
270 (300)
3,300
1 ,300
Of the seven plants which produce predominantly S2S hardboard,
three provided sufficient 1976 historical raw waste data for
analysis and one plant provided 1975 historical raw waste data.
One of the four plants also provided sufficient 1977 historical
raw waste data for analysis.
Plant 108 uses thermomechanical pulping to prepare approximately
10 percent of its furnish, which consists primarily of aspen with
some whole tree chips. This plant produces approximately 50
percent insulation board and 50 percent hardboard.
Plant 1035 uses thermomechanical pulping to prepare all of its
furnish, which consists primarily of pine with some hardwood and
panel trim. This plant produces approximately 70 percent
insulation board and 30 percent hardboard.
The raw waste effluents from insulation board and hardboard
production of Plants 108 and 1035 are combined prior to raw waste
monitoring. Therefore, the individual raw waste load generated
by hardboard production could not be calculated, and values for
these plants are not included in the development of the design
criteria for the S2S part of the wet process hardboard
subcategory.
Plant 980 used a nonstandard method for the raw waste TSS
concentration analysis during 1976, and therefore the raw waste
load was not used in developing the design criteria for the S2S
part. As of June 16, 1977 the plant has changed its method of
TSS analysis to the standard method. The data presented for 1977
are for the period from June 16, 1977 through April 1978.
Plant 1 produces about 80 percent S2S hardboard and 20 percent
SIS hardboard. Its furnish consists of poplar, birch, oak, and
pine; 23 percent received as bark-free chips and 77 percent as
136
-------
roundwood. Raw waste load BOD for this plant, 116 kg/Kkg (232
lb/ton), is the highest by far of any fiberboard plant in the
country and is considered to be atypical of the S2S part. For
this reason the BOD raw waste load for this plant is not included
in the development of the S2S part design criteria. Its TSS raw
waste load is, however, characteristic of S2S plants and is
included in the development of the S2S part design criteria.
The unit flow and raw BOD waste load data for Plant 980 were used
to obtain the unit flow and BOD design criteria for the S2S part
as presented in Table V-32. The TSS design criteria were
developed using the average of the TSS raw waste loads from
Plants 980 and 1. The design criteria were used as a basis for
the cost estimates presented in Appendix A of this document.
A unit flow of 24.6 kl/Kkg (5.9 kgal/ton) is considered to be
representative of an S2S hardboard plant which produces a full
line of hardboard products and which practices internal recycling
to the extent practicable.
Table V-32. S2S Hardboard—Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow = 24.6 kl/Kkg (5.9 kgal/ton)
Production = 230 Kkg/day (250 TPD)
Wastewater Flow = 5.7 kl/day (1.5 MGD)
Influent BOD Concentration = 2,600 mg/1
Influent TSS Concentration = 600 mg/1
Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads
Raw waste concentrations and raw waste loads for total phenols
are shown in Table V-33. Data presented in this table were
obtained during the 1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs.
Two hardboard plants provided historical total phenols raw waste
data, also included in Table V-33. Annual average daily
production and waste flow data provided by the plants in response
to the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the 1977
and 1978 raw waste loads. The average of the 1977 and 1978 loads
are presented in Table V-33.
137
-------
The average raw waste concentration of total phenols for the five
SIS hardboard plants <207, 673, 678, 931, 3} is 2.4 mg/1 and for
the single S2S hardboard plant (980) is 0.16 mg/1. The SIS
hardboard average raw waste load for total phenols is 0.019
kg/Kkg (0.038 lb/ton). The S2S hardboard average is 0.0038
kg/Kkg (0.0075 lb/ton).
Raw waste concentrations of heavy metals are presented for six
hardboard plants in Table V-34. Data presented in this table
were obtained during the 1977 verification sampling program. One
hardboard plant provided 1976 historical data for lead and
chromium which are also presented in the table. Annual average
daily production and annual daily waste flow provided by the
plants in the data collection portfolio were used to calculate
the raw waste loads.
138
-------
Table V-33. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loads for Hardboard
Plants-
Total Phenols
Plant
Raw Waste
Concentrat ions (ma/1)*
Average+
Raw Waste Loads
1977
1978
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
980
p
r-
o
0
o
1
0.243
0.0038
(0.0075)
207
0.38
0.610
0.009
(0.018)
673
1.2
—
0.015
(0.02)
678
0.24
0.003
(0.006)
0.29**
0.0037**
(0.0074)*'*
931
6.4
10
•
00
0.043
(0.086)**
3
3.4**
8.9**
0.040**
(0.080)**
* Data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling
programs. These data represent the averagie of three 24-hour
composite samples.
+ Average of 1977 and 1978 raw waste loads. Average daily waste
flow and production data supplied by plants in response to data
collection portfolio were used to calculate waste loads.
** Data are historical data supplied by plant in response to data
collection portfolio.
139
-------
Table V-34. Raw Wwte Cbncentratioctf and Ladings for Bardbocrd Fleets—ffe tela
Raw Waste Concentrations (ng/1) Raw Waste Loadings (kg/kkg) (lb/ton)
Plant Nuxber Plane Nuroer
931 980 573 m 207 57? "531 930 573 933 207 57F
Berylliua
.00067
.0005
.00059
.0005
.0005
.0005
.000006
(.000012)
.000013
(.000025)
.000008
(.000016)
.000005 .000009
(.000001X.000017)
.000007
(.000013)
Cadmiun
.0031
.0023
.0005
.005
.0005
.0005
.000027
(.000054)
.00006
(.00012)
.000007
(.000013)
.00005 .000009
(.0001) (.000017)
.000007
(.00013)
Copper
.450
.530
.033
.1
.49
.260
.0039
(.0078)
.014
(.027)
.00M4
(.00088)
.0011 .009
(.0021) (.017)
.0033
(.0065)
Lead
.007
.0047
.055
.002
.002
.003
.053*
.00006
(.00012)
.00012
(.00024)
.0008
(.0015)
.00002 .000035
(.00004) (.000069)
.000042 ¦
(.000083)
.00065*
(.0013)*
Nickel
.270
.070
.0057
.006
.0033
.009
.0024
(.0047)
.0018
(.0035)
.0008
(.00015)
.00006 .00006
(.00012) (.00011)
.00012
.00023
Zinc
1.0
.190
.19
2.3
.78
.550
.009
(.017)
.0048
(.00%)
.003
(.005)
.024 .014
(.048) (.027)
.007
(.014)
Antimony
.0018
.003
.0058
.0023
.0005
.008
.000016
(.000031)
.00008
(.00015)
.00008
(.00015)
.000024 .000009
(.000048X.000017)
.0001
(.00020)
Arsenic
.0013
.001
.0012
.0013
.001
.0012
.000016
(.000023)
.000026
(.000051)
.000016
(.000032)
.000014 .000017
(.000027)(.000034)
.000015
(.000030)
Selenium
.002
.0008
.0038
.0023
.0033
.0018
.000018
(.000035)
.000020
(.000040)
.00005
(.0001)
.000024 .00006
(.000048)(.00011)
.000023
(.000045)
Silver
.00067
.007
.0005
.0005
.0005
.00067
.000006
(.000012)
.00018
(.00035)
.000007
(.00013)
.000005 .000009
(.000010)(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
Uialliun
.0015
.0005
.00099
.0005
.0005
.00067
.000013
(.000026)
.000013
(.000025)
.000013
(.000026)
.000005 .000009
(.000010X.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
Chraniun
.033
.0073
.072
.008
.001
.420
.470*
.00029
(.00058)
.00019
(.00037)
.0001
(.0019)
.00009 .000017
(.00017) (.000034)
.006
(.011)
.006*
(.012)*
Mercury
.002
.00005
.0002
.001
.018
.0017
.000018
(.000035)
.0000012
(.0000025)
.0000027 .000011 .00031
(.0000053X .000021)(.00062)
.000022
(.000043)
* Data are iy/b historical data supplied by plant m response to data collection portfolio.
-------
No significant differences in heavy metals concentrations between
SIS and S2S hardboard production were found. The sources of
heavy metals in the wastewater from hardboard plants are: (1)
trace metals present in the wood raw material; and (2) byproducts
of the corrosion of metal equipment in contact with the process
wastewater. The average concentrations and the average raw waste
loadings of each heavy metal are presented in Table V-35.
Table V-36 presents the raw waste concentrations of organic toxic
pollutants for SIS hardboard plants that were sampled during the
1978 verification sampling program. None of the SIS hardboard
plants presented organic toxic pollutant historical data.
Extremely low concentrations of ethylbenzene and toluene were
found in the raw wastewater for Plant 207. The origin of these
pollutants is probably common industrial solvents. The intake
water for Plant 207 contained 10 ug/1 of toluene, which is the
analytical detection limit for this compound. Available data on
potable water sources demonstrate that few surface waters are
entirely free of trace organic contaminants.
Extremely low concentrations of chloroform, benzene, and toluene
were found in the raw wastewater for Plant 931. These pollutants
most likely originated in industrial solvents. Phenol was also
found in the raw wastewater and is an expected byproduct of
hydrolysis reactions that occur as the wood furnish is refined.
Table V-37 presents the organic toxic pollutant concentrations of
the raw waste for S2S hardboard plants that were sampled during
the 1978 verification sampling program. None of the S2S
hardboard plants presented organic toxic pollutant data.
No organic toxic pollutants were found in the raw wastewater for
Plant 980. Extremely low concentrations of chloroform, benzene,
and toluene were found in the raw waste for Plant 1, however, the
plant intake water contained 120 ug/1 benzene and 80 ug/1
toluene. Chloroform most likely originated in industrial
solvents. Phenol was also found in the raw waste for Plant 1 and
is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions that occur as
the wood furnish is refined.
Extremely low concentrations of 1,2-trichloroethane and toluene
were found in the raw waste for Plant 943, the origin of which is
most likely industrial solvents.
141
-------
Table V-35. Average Raw Waste Concentration and Loadings for
Hardboard Plants—Metals
Metal
mg/1
kg/Kkg
lb/ton
Beryllium
0.00054
0.000008
0.000016
Cadmium
0.0020
0.000027
0.000053
Copper
0.31
0.0053
0.011
Lead
0.21
0.00018
0.00036
Nickel
0.061
0.00087
0.0017
Zinc
0.84
0.010
0.021
Antimony
0.0036
0.000052
0.00010
Arsenic
0.0012
0.000017
0.000035
Selenium
0.0023
0.000032
0.000065
Silver
0.0016
0.000036
0.000072
Thallium
0.00078
0.000010
0.000021
Chromium
0.099
0.0011
0.0022
Mercury
0.0038
0.000061
0.00012
142
-------
Table V-36. SIS Hardboard, Raw Wastewater Toxic Pollutant Data,
Organics
Average Concentration (uq/1)
Raw Wastewater
Parameter Plant 207 Plant 931
Chloroform
—-
20
Benzene
—
80
Ethylbenzene
20
—
Toluene*
15
70
Phenol**
— •
680
* Plant 207 intake water contained 10 ug/1 toluene.
** Plant 207 intake water contained 97 ug/1 phenol.
Hyphen denotes that the parameter was not found in
concentrations above the detection limit for the compound.
Table V-37. S2S Hardboard, Raw Wastewater Toxic Pollutant Data,
Organics
Average Concentration (uq/1)
Raw Wastewater
Parameter Plant 980 Plant 1 Plant 943
Chloroform — 20
1,1,2 Trichloroethane — — 90
Benzene — 90*
Toluene — 60* 10
Phenol — 300
* Plant intake water was measured at 120 ug/1 benzene and 80 ug/1
toluene.
Hyphen indicates that the parameter was not found in
concentrations above the detection limit for the compound.
143
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
A review of timber industry technical information from the
literature, data provided by the industry and by Agency sampling
and analytical activities has revealed that toxic,
nonconventional and conventional pollutants are present in
wastewaters generated by the timber industry. Table VI-1
illustrates the type of information requested from the industry
plants.
TOXIC POLLUTANTS
This section divides the toxic pollutants, as identified by
Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1977, into three major
groups. The toxic pollutant groups are: Group 1 - Found Most
Frequently; Group 2 - Found Infrequently; and Group 3 - Not
Generally Found.
Information is also presented regarding the nonconventional and
conventional pollutants found in timber industry wastewaters.
The pollutant groupings for the wood preserving and the
insulation board/wet process hardboard segments of the industry
are presented separately.
Wood Preserving Segment
Group 1
Found Most Frequently
phenol
2-chlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
fluoranthene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo < k)fluoranthene
pyrene
benzo(a)pyrene
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
benzo(ghi)perylene
zinc
phenanthrene/anthracene
benzo(a)anthracene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
naphthalene
acenaphthene
acenaphthylene
fluorene
chrysene
copper
chromium
arsenic
total phenols
145
-------
TABLE VI -1
TOXIC CHEMICAL INFORMATION
For each toxic chemical check on list, and for each wood preservative, fire retardant, fungicide, or mildewcide used
in plant, complete the following form:
1. Name of Chemical
Is this a (check one):
Wood Preservative Other
Fire Retardant
Fungicide
Mildewcide
2. Quantity and frequency of use
per
amount period
3. Process or operation in which substance is used or generated.
4. Is substance discharged from plant? Yes No Don't Know
If yes, is it: Air Water Solid Waste
If water, is it: Direct Discharge _____ To POTW
5. Quantity and frequency of substance discharged:
Amount Period
(in units, lbs, tons etc.) per (day, year, etc.)
Gas
Liquid
Solid Waste
6. Description of sampling or monitoring program.
Does your plant sample or monitor for substance?
Yes No
If yes, give details.
146
-------
Group 2
Found Infrequently
benzene trichloromethane
ethylbenzene lead
toluene nickel
Group 3
Not Generally Found
The pollutants identified as toxic in the 1977
Clean Water Act but not listed in Group 1 or
Group 2.
Wet Process Hardboard/Insulation Board Segment
Group 1
Found Most Frequently
total phenols nickel
copper zinc
Group 2
Found Infrequently
phenol trichloromethane
benzene lead
ethylbenzene chromium
toluene
Group 3
Not Generally Found
The pollutants identified as toxic in the 1977
Clean Water Act but not listed in Group 1 or
Group 2.
TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Pentach1oropheno1
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) (C6C1S0H) is a commercially produced
biocide used primarily for wood preservation (90%), as a
bactericide/fungicide in cooling tower water, as a preservative
in paints, in tanning and textile processing, and as a herbicide.
Transport and Fate - PCP is only sparingly soluble in water (14
mg/1 at 20°C) but is highly lipophilic, indicating that it will
probably sorb into suspended particulates and organic sediments
when introduced to the aquatic environment. Because of its very
low vapor pressure (0.00011 torr at 20°C), volatilization of PCP
is not expected to be a significant transport process.
147
-------
Photolysis and biodegradation appear to be the most important
processes affecting the ultimate fate of PCP. In clear surface
waters, PCP appears to photolyze rapidly, often forming less
chlorinated phenols, anisoles, and other compounds which, like
PCP, can be highly toxic and bioaccumulate. The lifetime of PCP
in natural waters is estimated to be one week when conditions are
optimal for photolysis.
At low concentrations, PCP can be degraded by certain microbial
cultures in the laboratory; however, the extent of biodegradation
in the aquatic environment is not well documented.
Data concerning the effectiveness of biological wastewater
treatment in a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) on the
removal of PCP are limited and contradictory. The PCP removal
efficiencies reported in several studies, including the ongoing
EPA POTW study, range from 4% removal to 100% removal. Based on
aquatic fate information, PCP would be expected to undergo
biodegradation slowly and to sorb to a large extent onto
suspended solids and subsequently be incorporated into the
sludge. Monitoring data at several POTW does indicate that PCP
accumulates in sludge.
Toxicity and Exposure - PCP has been found to be toxic to man and
animals. The lowest calculated oral dose of PCP lethal to man is
29 mg/kg. Reported lethal doses to rats vary from 11.7 mg/kg to
320 mg/kg, depending on route of exposure and the grade of PCP
administered. Non-fatal acute exposure of humans to PCP can
result in skin irritation, nasal and respiratory tract
irritation, headache, abdominal pain, fever, fatigue, and eye
irritation. Dietary exposure to 100-500 mg/kg technical grade
PCP for 90 days is associated with pronounced liver damage in
rats. PCP has been found to be fetotoxic and teratogenic to rats
orally exposed to 30 mg/kg/day or more during gestation.
Humans are widely exposed to low levels of PCP. PCP residues
have been found in food, water, and human tissues. An analysis
of human urine samples from the general U.S. population revealed
85% with detectable levels of PCP. Residues of PCP were detected
in 11 of 360 composite food samples collected by the Food and
Drug Administration. Residues of 0.004 to 0.017 mg/kg were found
in dairy products, grains and cereals, root vegetables, and
sugars. PCP has also been found in drinking water at low con-
centrations. PCP was detected in 86 to 108 finished drinking
waters sampled by EPA in 1976. The mean concentration of the
positive samples was 0.07 ug/1 and the median was less than
0.01 »g/1. Inhalation exposure data for the general population
are not available. Air levels as high as 15 i>g/m3 have been
measured in industrial settings.
Phenol
Phenol (C6HsOH) is a large volume industrial chemical produced
almost entirely for use in the manufacture of commercial products
148
-------
such as adhesive resins, plastics and films, and other organic
chemicals. Total production based on 1977 figures was
approximately 1,075,000 metric tons. Phenol is known to occur
naturally in the environment. Some aquatic plants release
sufficient phenol to establish water levels of 300-960 »»g/l. The
decomposition of surface vegetation such as oak leaves also
releases phenol. Phenol is produced by microbial action in
mammalian intestinal tracts and as a result will be found in raw
sewage. Phenol also occurs naturally in fossil fuel deposits.
Transport and Fate - Because phenol is highly soluble in water
(solubility at 20°C = 93,000 mg/1) and has a moderately low vapor
pressure of (.53 torr at 20°C), the majority of phenol discharged
into an aquatic system should remain in solution rather than
sorbing to sediments or vaporizing into the atmosphere.
Laboratory and field studies indicate that biodegradation is
probably the most important process that determines the fate of
phenol in the aquatic environment, although evidence suggests
that photooxidation and metal catalyzed oxidation may also be
important degradative processes in aerated-clear surface waters.
Neither sorption nor bioaccumulation appear to be important
processes in the aquatic fate of phenol.
The primary fate of phenol in POTW is probably biodegradation.
Lab studies indicated that at concentrations of 1 mg/1 to
10 mg/1, phenol was biodegraded in biological treatment systems
to levels lower than the detection limit; at a concentration of
100 mg/1, only 20 percent of the phenol was removed. At
concentrations as low as 10 mg/1, however, phenol can inhibit the
oxygen uptake of unacclimated activated sludge. With long
acclimation periods, activated sludge can be conditioned to
metabolize up to 500 mg/1 phenol without exhibiting toxic
effects.
Phenol toxicity has also been found to vary with water
temperature, hardness, salinity, and dissolved oxygen.
Toxicity and Exposure - Phenol is known to be toxic to man and a
variety of animals at high concentrations. Lethal dose ranges of
4.8 to 128.0 grams have been reported for man. The primary
effect of exposure to acutely toxic levels of phenol is central
nervous system depression. Chronic exposure to phenol via
ingestion, 0.1 g/kg for six months, has been found to cause
kidney and liver damage in rats. Repeated exposures to phenol at
high concentrations have resulted in chronic liver damage in man.
Although there is no evidence of human cancer due to phenol, it
produces cancer in specially bred laboratory-tested mice when
applied repeatedly to the clipped skin after initiations with
known carcinogens.
Mammals, including man, appear to be constantly exposed to low
levels of phenol since it is produced by microbial actions in
their intestinal tracts. Reported human urinary free and
conjugated phenol concentrations range from 5 to 55 mg/1.
149
-------
2-Chlorophenol
2-Chlorophenol (c6H40C1), also known as ortho-chlorophenol, is a
commercially produced chemical used entirely as an intermediate
in the production of other chemicals. It represents a basic
chemical feedstock in the manufacture of higher chlorophenols for
such uses as fungicides, slimicides, bactericides, antiseptics,
disinfectants, and wood ang glue preservatives. 2-Chlorophenol
is also used to form intermediates in the production of phenolic
resins, and has been utilized in a process for extracting sulfur
and nitrogen compounds from coal.
Aquatic Transport and Fate - Contamination of water with
2-chlorophenol may occur by (1 ) chlorination of phenol present in
natural water and primary and secondary effluents of waste
treatment plants, (2) direct addition of the chemicals or as
contaminants or degradation products of 2,4-D used for aquatic
weed control, and (3) wet and dry atmospheric fallout.
2-Chlorophenol may be removed from water by several mechanisms.
One study indicates that the dissipation of 2-chlorophenol is
largely microbiological. Persistence appears to be short, but
limnological factors, such as oxygen deficiency, may delay
degradation. Microorganisms found in activated sludge and waste
lagoons have been demonstrated to degrade 2-chlorophenol rather
readily.
A study has found that low concentrations (1 mg/1) of
2-chlorophenol added to a usual dilution of domestic sewage were
not removed during periods of 20 to 30 days, presumably due to
the absence of microoganisms capable of attacking the chemical.
When a similar concentration was added to polluted river waters,
the compound dissipated in 15 to 23 days.
Addition of a seed, consisting of water from a previous
persistence experiment, increased significantly the removal of
2-chlorophenol. Apparently, the seed introduced some organisms
already adapted to the chemical. This study also indicated that
the removal of monochlorophenols requires the presence of an
adapted microflora.
Data is available indicating the dechlorination of
2-chlorophenol and other monochlorophenols within three days of
exposure to an activated sludge system.
Toxicity and Exposure - The potential for exposure of man to any
synthetic chemical exists through any of several modes. These
modes include: 1) exposure of industrial workers during
synthesis, formulation, packaging, or transport; 2) exposure of
users of the product at either a commercial or retail level; 3)
contact with residues or metabolites of the product as a result
of using commodities or environments containing the material; and
4) contact with the chemical as a metabolite of some other
product.
150
-------
While a number of studies indicate rapid dissipation of
2-chlorophenol from waters by several mechanisms, human exposure
cannot be fully evaluated unless studies are conducted measuring
the 2-chlorophenol content in waters receiving wastes from point
sources of chlorophenols or their precursors. Evidence of such
studies was not found.
Contamination of human foods with 2-chlorophenol could occur via
soil, plants, animals, or aquatic sources. In all cases, any
contamination is probably indirect and primarily a result of the
use and subsequent metabolism of phenoxyalkanoic herbicides.
Although 2-chlorophenol appears to be short lived in soils, the
data are inconclusive, and factors affecting its persistence need
further study.
The acute toxicity of 2-chlorophenol has been studied in a
variety of organisms. The compound is considered to be an
uncoupler of oxidative phosphorylation and a convulsant poison.
No reports of the subacute or chronic toxicity of 2-chlorophenol
have been found.
Trichlorophenol
Trichlorophenol (CHC13), also known as chloroform or
trichloromethane is derived from the reaction of chlorinated lime
with acetone, acetaldehyde or ethyl alcohol, or as a by-product
from the chlorination of methane. Its uses ares fluorocarbon
refrigerants and propellants, fluorocarbon plastics, solvent,
analytical chemistry fungant and insectides.
Aquatic Transportation and Fate - In an 80 city study, chloroform
was found in all finished drinking water supplies produced from
raw water which had been chlorinated. Chloroform concentrations
in the influent and effluent of the Cincinnati, Ohio sewage
treatment plant where chlorination was practiced were 9.3 »»g/l
and 12.1 i»g/l, respectively. Much higher levels of chloroform
have been found in wastewater effluents and also as the result of
accidental industrial spills.
Researchers reviewed the incidence, significance, and movement of
chlorinated hydrocarbons in the food chain. They concluded that
chloroform is widely distributed in the environment and is
present in fish, water birds, marine mammals, and various foods.
In food, the typical range of chloroform was 1 to 30 ?g/kg. The
highest concentration noted was in Cheshire cheese, at 33 ng/kg.
It was concluded that chloroform levels in food would not be
acutely toxic to humans.
Pearson and McConnell (1975) also reviewed the incidence of
chlorinated hydrocarbons in various marine organisms and water
birds and found that the concentrations of chloroform in edible
fish and marine organisms ranges from 3 to 180 eg/kg.
151
-------
It was estimated that the consumption of products such as bread
derived from chloroform treated (as a fumigant) grains would
contribute 0.56 ng of chloroform per day to the adult human diet.
This number was derived assuming: (1) consumption of 140 g of
bread per day, (2) a chloroform level of 0.4 rg/g in the bread
where chloroform was used as the grain fumigant, and (3)
chloroform comprises only one percent of total fumigant use in
the United States.
Toxicity and Exposure - Human exposure to chloroform may be via
inhalation, ingestion, or by cutaneous contact.
Chloroform is well absorbed via the respiratory system (49 to 77
percent). In an early study (1910), chloroform required 80 to
100 minutes to reach equilibrium between blood concentration and
inhaled air concentration. Chloroform absorption from the
gastrointestinal tract approximates 100 percent (Fry, et al.
1972).
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
Criteria Document (1974) contains a tabulation of the effects of
chronic chloroform exposure on humans. One 33 year old male, who
habitually had inhaled chloroform for 12 years, was noted to have
the psychiatric and neuroligic symptoms of depression, loss of
appetite, hallucination, ataxia, and dysarthria. Other symptoms
from habitual use are moodiness, mental and physical
sluggishness, nausea, rheumatic pain, and delirium.
Most human toxicological data have resulted from the use of
chloroform as a general anesthetic in operations. Delayed
chloroform poisoning has often occurred after delivery in
obstetrical cases. The delayed toxic effects were usually
preceded by a latent period ranging from a few hours to one day.
Initially drowsiness, restlessness, jaundice, and vomiting
occurred, followed by fever, elevated pulse rate, liver
enlargement, abdominal tenderness, delirium, coma, and abnormal
findings in liver and kidney function tests were also reported.
Death often ensued, three to ten days post parturn. Autopsy
reports generally described the liver as having a bright
yellowish color, fatty infiltration with necrosis was found.
Other hepatotoxic effects have been reviewed (NIOSH, 1974).
152
-------
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol (2,4-DMP), (C6H3(CH3)20H), also known as 2,4-
xylenol, is found, along with several other isomers of
dimethylphenol, in complex mixtures derived from coal and
petroleum sources. 2,4-Dimethylphenol is a natural product found
in cresylic acids derived from coal and petroleum sources.
Except for one manufacturer, 2,4-dimethylphenol is not separated
from the cresylic acids, but is left in this mixture of cresols,
dimethylphenols and phenols. Based on 1976 figures, the tot&l
production of dimethylphenols, was approximately 5000 metric
tons. Cresylic acid, along with its constituent 2,4-dimethyl-
phenol, is used in the manufacture of solvents, plasticizers,
disinfectants, and pesticides, as well as many other
miscellaneous uses. It is also found in lubricants, gasolines,
and other fossil fuel derived products. Pure 2,4-dimethylphenol
is mainly used in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and as a
chemical intermediate.
Aquatic Transport and Fate - Because relevant data are lacking,
the aquatic fate of 2,4-dimethylphenol must be inferred from its
physical properties and from the behavior of structurally similar
compounds. 2,4-Dimethylphenol is transported to the aquatic
environment via direct discharge in industrial effluents,
leaching from soil, and by atmospheric rainout. Because of its
low vapor pressure (0.0621 torr at 20°C) and moderately high
water solubility (at least 1000 mg/1 at 20°C), volatilization of
2,4-dimethylphenol from water is not expected to be significant.
Based on studies with similar compounds, 2,4-dimethylphenol
should not sorb to inorganic clay and sediments; however, it may
sorb to organic detritus and sediments as indicated by its
relatively high log octanol/water partition coefficient of 2.5.
The log octanol/water partition coefficient also indicates that
2,4-dimethylphenol may have a tendency to be sorbed by aquatic
organisms; however, no information concerning the bioaccumulation
of 2,4-dimethylphenol has been reported.
The two most important fate mechanisms for 2,4-dimethylphenol in
the aquatic environment are probably photooxidation and
biodegradation. Based on the photolytic behavior of structurally
similar compounds such as toluene, 2,4-dimethylphenol should
undergo photooxidation in well aerated, clear surface waters.
Data concerning biodegradation are somewhat conflicting and
inconclusive. Cultures of microorganisms obtained from garden
soil, compost, river mud, activated sludge, and the sediment of a
petroleum refinery waste lagoon were all shown to be capable of
degrading 2,4-dimethylphenol. However, a series of experiments
attempting to duplicate the conditions for biodegradability that
would occur in a river indicated that 2,4-dimethylphenol seemed
to be very persistent.
Toxicity and Exposure - Although the data are limited, adverse
health effects of 2,4-DMP have been demonstrated. Oral LDS0
values for 2,4-dimethylphenol of 3,200 mg/kg for the rat and
153
-------
809 mg/kg for the mouse have been reported. Pathological changes
as a result of exposure to acute toxic levels of 2,4-
dimethylphenol are not available; however, information for high
doses of other dimethylphenol isomers, in general, shows kidney,
spleen, and heart cell damage. In a carcinogenic bioassay, 12%
of specially bred mice exposed to 2,4-dimethylphenol dissolved in
benzene developed carcinomas; however, benzene was not evaluated
by itself. In a related study, 2,4-dimethylphenol, when
initiated with a single subcarcinogenic dose of 7,12-dimethyl-
benz(a)anthracene (DMBA) produced carcinomas in 18% of the mice,
indicating that 2,4-dimethylphenol may be a promoting agent for
carcinogenesis. No data are available on possible mutagenic,
teratogenic, or other reproductive effects of 2,4-dimethylphenol.
Data pertaining to mammalian exposure and toxicity to 2,4-
dimethylphenol are limited. Although 2,4-dimethylphenol has been
detected in drinking water, the data is limited and no specific
estimates are available on the amounts of 2,4-dimethylphenol
ingested in drinking water. Although it is produced naturally in
some plants, such as tea and tobacco, there is no evidence to
suggest that 2,4-dimethylphenol occurs in many plants used for
food, though it may be assumed that trace amounts are ingested.
Inhalation, as a result of cresol vapors, cigarette smoke and
vapors from the combustion of building materials and fossil
fuels, is a possible route of mammalian exposure. Even though
adverse health effects have been reported as the result of
exposure of workers to complex mixtures containing
dimethylphenols, the compounds were present in low concentrations
relative to other hydrocarbons and the adverse effects were not
attributed to dimethylphenol. No quantitative estimates have
been made of the amounts of 2,4-dimethylphenols inhaled by the
general population. Dermal absorption of 2,4-dimethylphenol is
rapid and thought to be the primary route of human exposure to
complex mixtures containing the chemical. In 1978, NIOSH
estimated that 11,000 workers were occupationally exposed to
cresol containing 2,4-DMP.
2,4,6,-Trichlorophenol
Production data for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are confidential;
howevet,, the production in 1977 was estimated to be as high as
16,000 metric tons.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is used directly as a germicide, wood
preservative, glue preservative, insecticide ingredient, and
antimildew treatment for textiles. It is also used as an
intermediate in the synthesis of certain pesticides and
disinfectants.
Although no environmental emmission estimates are available for
2,4,6- trichlorophenol, available data indicate that various
chlorinated phenols, including 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, are formed
during the biological degradation and transformation of several
pesticides. 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is also reported to be formed
154
-------
during the chlorination of wastewater and drinking water for
disinfection.
Transport and Fate - Microbial degradation has been demonstrated
in soil samples and in acclimated sewage sludge but it is
uncertain as a fate process in ambient surface waters.
Similarly, photolysis of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol and related
compounds has been reported in the laboratory, but the
environmental relevance of this process is uncertain. Other fate
processes probably dlo not contribute significantly to the aquatic
fate of this compound.
Due to its moderate solubility in water (800 mg/1 at 25°C) and
low vapor pressure (1 torr at 76.5°C) volatilization is not
considered to be a significant transport process for
2,4,6-trichlorophenol. Although the value of the log
octanol/water partition coefficient for 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
(log P=3.38) indicates a definite potential for
2,4,6-trichlorophenol sorption to organic sediments and
particulates and for bioaccumulation, no data are available
indicating that these processes remove significant amounts of
2,4,6-tichlorophenol from water.
Toxicity and Exposure - There are no available data on human
exposure levels to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol. It can be formed
during the chlorination of drinking water, and it has been
detected in drinking water but the amount was not quantified.
Exposure to certain pesticides and disinfectants could result in
exposure to 2,4,6-trichlorophenol via metabolic degradation of
the parent compound.
Benzene
Benzene (C6H6) is thirteenth in order of high volume chemicals
produced in the United States. It is derived from fractional
distillation of coal tar, catalytic reforming of petroleum and
other methods.
Tranport and Fate - Benzene is slightly soluble in surface waters
and may volatilize from water to the atmosphere, where it may
then wash out with precipitation to surface water. Benzene
accumulates in aquatic organisms; for example, it accumulates up
to 8,450 times in the gall bladder of the Northern Anchovy. The
rate of biodegradation for benzene in the aquatic environment is
slow, and thus, any benzene remaining in water is likely to be
persistent.
Toxicity and Exposure - Humans and animals may be exposed to
benzene in air because of its volatility. Inhalation may cause
depression of the central nervous system, resulting in paralysis
of the respiratory system and death. At 20,000 ppm, benzene can
be fatal in a few minutes. Benzene is a mutagen and a suspected
carcinogen in man. The National Institute for Occupational
155
-------
Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended a 1-ppm limit for
worker exposure to benzene in air.
When benzene is discharged to surface water, it can be toxic to
aquatic life, humans, and other animals through ingestion or
inhalation. Because benzene is not completely removed by current
waste treatment facilities, drinking and irrigation water exposes
humans to benzene; it has been detected in drinking water.
Toluene
Toluene (C7H8) is the seventeenth highest volume chemical
produced in the United States. Its derivation is by catalytic
reforming of petroleum and by fractional distillation of coal tar
light oil.
Transport and Fate - Because it is slightly soluble, toluene
discharges to surface w&ter will form a colorless slick,
dissolving slowly into the water column. Toluene readily
volatilizes from water to the atmosphere (half-life in water may
be on the order of 31 minutes to 5 hours). Where toluene is
subject to photochemical degradation, primarily forming
benzaldehyde, the half-life may be about 12 hours. Sorption onto
suspended particulates may be an important transport process, but
it is unclear how sorption competes with volatilization.
Biodegradation of toluene may occur in water. Bioaccumulation of
toluene occurs in the marine mussel, and may occur in freshwater
aquatic organisms as well.
Toxicity and Exposure - Toluene is moderately toxic to humans
when ingested or inhaled. The lowest calculated dose lethal to
humans is 50 mg/kg when ingested. Inhalation of 200 ppm can
cause central nervous system depression, while increased exposure
may induce narcosis, addiction, and death. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration has set 200 ppm in air as the
upper limit value for the safety of workers occupationally
exposed to toluene.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene (C20H12) is a polynuclear aromatic compound found
in coal tar, cigarette smoke and in the atmosphere as a product
of incomplete combustion.
Transport and Fate - Very little benzo(a)pyrene dissolves in
surface water due to its extreme insolubility. Most of it
quickly adsorbs onto suspended sediments and other particulates.
In this form, it is available for bioaccumulation by aquatic
species. In a laboratory model ecosystem, marine snails
accumulated benzo(a) pyrene to 2177 times the ambient water
concentration; benzo(a)pyrene was bioconcentrated 882-fold in
freshwater worms.
156
-------
Toxicity and Exposure - Although there is no firm evidence that
benzo(a)pyrene is carcinogenic to man, coal tar and other
materials containing this compound and other polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons are human carcinogens. Benzo(a)pyrene is
carcinogenic to mice, rats, hamsters, and other lab animals when
they are exposed to doses as low as 1 mg/kg, and it produces more
tumors in a shorter period of time than other polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. Benzo(a)pyrene is a teratogen and mutagen
in laboratory rats, mice, and rabbits.
Human exposures to benzo(a)pyrene come from many sources
including fuel exhaust, air, food crops, and drinking water. The
World Health Organization recommends 0.2 ug/1 as the maximum
level of total polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons safely allowed
in drinking water. There are no data available on the amount of
benzo(a)pyrene entering the human body from these sources.
Chrysene
Chrysene (also known as 1,2-benzphenanthrene or
benzo(a)phenanthrene) (C18H12) is a polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PNA) of man-made and perhaps natural origin.
Man is exposed to chrysene and other PNAs from many sources
including automobile and diesel exhaust, incinerator effluents,
food crops, cigarette smoke, and water.
Transport and Fate - Polynuclear aromatics (PNAs) such as
chrysene enter aquatic systems from the atmosphere adsorbed onto
particulates and bacteria and exist in water in association with
organic matter or colloids formed from synthetic detergents.
That portion of chrysene which is dissolved in water probably
photolyzes like other PNAs, but because of the relative aqueous
insolubility of chrysene, this may not be a significant removal
process.
In general PNA compounds are believed to be incorporated and
metabolized by organisms throughout the phylogenetic scale.
Chrysene's log partition coefficient (log P) of 5.61, together
with the theoretical and empirical data that compounds with high
log P values tend to accumulate in biota, indicate that chrysene
is bioaccumulated. Unlike persistent chlorinated organics such
as DDT and the PCBs, PNAs, once bioaccumulated, appear to be
metabolized and eliminated from the organism. Thus
bioaccumulation is not considered an important fate process.
In mammals metabolism of PNAs is incomplete, the major products
being hydroxylated derivatives and epoxides. Both parent
compounds and these metabolites are excreted via the urinary
system. Bacteria have been shown to utilize PNA compounds as a
carbon source, and evidence indicates that they can metabolize
PNAs much more completely than mammals. Although microbes are
capable of degrading tricyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, they
157
-------
probably do not degrade higher polynuclear hydrocarbons such as
chrysene.
Toxicity and Exposure - Although there is no firm evidence that
individual PNAs are carcinogenic in man, chrysene and other PNAs
are present in coal tars and pitch which are known human
carcinogens. Tests with laboratory mice show chrysene to be
carcinogenic.
The World Health Organization recommends 0.2»ig/l as the maximum
safe level of total PNAs in surface water to protect aquatic
life.
Naphthalene
Naphthalene is a polynuclear aromatic compound (C10He). It is
derived from distillation and crystallization of coal tar, and
from petroleum fractions after various catalytic processing
operations.
Naphthalene is found in treated effluents, and drinking and
surface waters. It is toxic to aquatic organisms, tumorogenic to
mammals, and can taint fish flesh.
Transport and Fate - Naphthalene is slightly soluble in water and
when discharged to surface water, will adsorb onto suspended
particulate matter where it is subject to metabolism by
microorganisms. Volatilization and photolysis may be important
fates for the dissolved portion.
Toxicity and Exposure - There is no evidence that naphthalene is
carcinogenic to man, although coal tar and other materials that
contain naphthalene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
are human carcinogens. While no data were found specifically
linking cancer to naphthalene, it is toxic to humans and other
mammals.
Hunan exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, including
naphthalene, comes from many sources such as car exhaust,
incinerator effluents, food crops and water. Inhalation exposure
by workers to naphthalene is regulated by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration which has set 10 ppm in air as the
upper limit for health and safety.
Polynuclear Aromatics (PNAs)
Fluoranthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, pyrene, anthracene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(b)fluoran-thene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)
pyrene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(b) anthracene,
dibenzo(ah)anthracene, acenaphthylene and acenapthene are
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. As a group, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons are known to be toxic, mutagenic,
teratogenic, and carcinogenic to aquatic organisms and mammals.
Little information exists specific to fluoranthene, and its
158
-------
probable environmental effects are, for the most part, inferred
from data on polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons as a group.
Fluorene is thought to be an inactive carcinogen; its
carcinogenic properties are activated in the presence of other
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
Transport and Fate - Polynuclear aromatic compounds are
relatively insoluble in water and when discharged to surface
waters will strongly adsorb onto suspended particulate matter.
Volatilization from the sorbed state is thought to be very slow
and they will likely remain with and be transported by the
suspended particulates. In this form, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons are available for bioaccumulation and
biotransformation. Direct photolysis of the smaller dissolved
portion may occur, although evidence is taken from other
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., benzo(a)pyrene) . While
bioaccumulation factors for polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
have been reported as high as 2177 in laboratory ecosystems, they
are in general rapidly metabolized or depurated from an aquatic
organism. Long-term bioaccumulation, such as that reported for
some chlorinated organics (e.g., DDT and PCBs), is not thought to
be an important fate process. Biodegradation of polynuclear
aromatic compounds is known to occur and is believed to be their
ultimate aquatic fate.
Toxicity and Exposure - There is no firm evidence that
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are carcinogenic to man,
although coal tar and other materials that contain fluoranthene
and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are human
carcinogens. While no data were found specifically linking
cancer to fluoranthene, it is known to be toxic to laboratory
animals. Human exposure to polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
comes from fuel exhaust, industrial air, food crops and water.
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene (C6H5C2H5) is the twentieth highest volume chemical
produced in the United States. It is derived by heating benzene
and ethylene in the presence of aluminum chloride and by
fractionation directly from the mixed xylene stream in petroleum
refining.
Transport and Fate - Ethylbenzene forms a colorless slick on
surface waters because it is slightly soluble. Some of it
probably adsorbs slowly to suspended particulates, although
adsorption rates are not available. Vapor pressure data suggest
that ethylbenzene is likely to volatilize from the water column,
though rates are unavailable. Bioaccumulation of ethylbenzene is
unlikely.
Toxicity and Exposure - Humans absorb ethylbenzene through the
skin after exposure to the pure liquid or aqueous solution at
rates of 22 to 33 mg/cm2/hr and 0.118 to 0.215 mg/cm2/hr,
respectively. Such exposure to the skin of a rabbit is lethal at
159
-------
5000 mg/kg. Ethylbenzene taken orally at 3.5 g/kg is acutely
toxic to rats, and chronic exposure induced changes in the liver
and kidneys of rats.
Humans are adversely affected by ethylbenzene in air, through
inhalation or skin contact. Ethylbenzene can irritate the eyes,
affect the respiratory tract, and cause vertigo. Human health
effects occur at 100 ppm with 8 hours of exposure. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set 100
ppm in air as a limit to protect workers, although adverse
effects on the skin may occur at lower concentrations.
Copper
Copper (Cu) is a metallic element. It occurs naturally as an ore
and its derivation is dependent on the type of ore.
Transport and Fate - Several processes determine the fate of
copper in the aquatic environment, including complex formations,
sorption to hydrous metal oxides, clay, and organic materials,
and bioaccumulation. Sorption processes are most active in
scavenging dissolved copper from solution and thus control its
mobility. The effectiveness of the various sorption processes is
dependent on pH, oxidation-reduction potential, and the
concentration of inorganic and organic materials.
Bioaccumulation of copper by various species has been
demonstrated.
Toxicity and Exposure - Copper is toxic to many types of aquatic
organisms and has been used as an effective algicide. It is
usually more toxic in soft water than hard water.
Copper in trace amounts is essential for humans. Larger amounts,
however are toxic; acute copper poisoning can result in nausea,
vomiting, diarrhea, liver enlargement, kidney failure, and
hemolytic anemia. Humans exposed for several months to 4 to 7.6
mg/1 of copper in their drinking water developed a prominent skin
rasii.
Chromium
Chromium (Cr) is a metallic element. It is derived from chrome
iron ore by direct reduction, by reducing the oxide with finely
divided aluminum or carbon and by electrolysis of chromium
solutions.
Transport and Fate - Chromium is usually found in the trivalent
and hexavalent forms in the aquatic environment.
The hexavalent form is quite soluble in water and is thus quite
mobile in the aquatic environment. It is not sorbed to any
significant degree by clays or hydrous metal oxides, but it sorbs
strongly to activated carbon and therefore may sorb to organic
160
-------
material. In organic-rich, sulfide-rich, or reducing waters the
hexavalent form is converted to the trivalent form.
The trivalent form is readily hydrolyzed to form insoluble
compounds, and precipitation of this material to the sediment is
thought to be the dominant fate of trivalent chromium in natural
waters. The trivalent form can also be removed from the water
column by sorption onto inorganic materials. The trivalent form
does form soluble complexes with a variety of organic materials
but this is probably not a significant process. Both forms of
chromium can also be accumulated by aquatic organisms.
Bioconcentration factors as high as 152 have been reported in
marine organisms.
It appears, therefore, that chemical speciation plays a dominant
role in the fate of chromium in the aquatic environment.
Conditions favorable for the hexavalent form will keep chromium
in a soluble form in the water, while conditions favorable for
the trivalent form will lead to accumulation of chromium in the
sediments.
Toxicity and Exposure - The data base for the aquatic toxicity of
chromium is "fairly extensive. Both trivalent and hexavalent
chromium are toxic to aquatic organisms. Trivalent chromium is
substantially more toxic to aquatic life in soft than in hard
water. The effect of water hardness on the toxicity of
hexavalent chromium is not as significant.
Chromium can be absorbed to some extent by the digestive tract,
the skin, and the lungs. In general, hexavalent chromium is more
readily absorbed by body tissues than trivalent chromium,
presumably because of its greater solubility and ease of movement
across biological membranes. Once within cells, hexavalent
chromium is likely to be converted to the trivalent .form.
Absorption of chromium from the digestive tract is slight and may
amount to only a few percent of the ingested dose.
Arsenic
Arsenic (As) is a metallic element. It is derived from flue dust
of copper and lead smelters, as arsenic trioxide. Arsenic
trioxide is reduced to the element with charcoal.
Transport and Fate - Arsenic is characterized by its extreme
mobility and cycling through the water column, sediments, and
biota. The prevailing redox and pH conditions are important in
determining the forms in which arsenic will be present in the
dissolved and solid phase. In the surface layer of the aquatic
environment where oxidizing conditions prevail, the dominant
species is arsenate. This arsenate can either be transported by
dispersion and convection to the oxygen depleted region where
reduction to arsenite occurs or be coprecipitated with ferric
hydroxide to the sediment. In the sediment where conditions are
normally very reducing, chemical reduction of ferric arsenate and
161
-------
arsenite results in solubilization or stabilization as an
insoluble sulfide or arsenic metal. Microbial transmethylation
or reduction of the sulfide or metal to arsine mobilizes the
remaining arsenic and thus returns it to the cycle. Because of
its continuous resolubilization, much if not all of the arsenic
introduced to the environment eventually ends up in the ocean.
Fish and invertebrate aquatic species enter this cycle by
concentrating arsenic, especially trimethylarsine. When
discharged to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), arsenic is
likely to be distributed in both the sludge and the effluent.
The form of arsenic is not known, but since most arsenic
compounds are unstable toward oxidation in the aquatic
environment, it is likely that the dominant species in a POTW
will be arsenate (+5) or arsenite (+3 ).
Toxicity and Exposure - In humans, the trivalent form (arsenite)
is reported to be 60 times more toxic than the pentavalent form
(arsenate). Symptoms of acute arsenic poisoning by ingestion
include abdominal pain and vomiting. Acute poisoning by
inhalation causes giddyness, headache, extreme general weakness
and, later nausea, vomiting, colic, diarrhea, and pain in the
limbs. Chronic ingestion causes loss of weight, gastrointestinal
disturbances, pigmentation and eruptions of the skin, hair loss,
and peripheral neuritis. Exposure to arsenic in drinking water
has been shown to result in a higher incidence of certain types
of cancer, in particular epithelial lesions.
Arsenic is ubiquitous in the environment and found in all plants
and animals. Arsenic may reach the aquatic environment through
atmospheric fallout, industrial emissions and the improper
application of arsenical herbicides and pesticides.
Poisoning of domestic animals by arsenic appears to occur with a
frequency second only to poisoning by lead. It appears to be
limited for the most part to forage contaminated by arsenical
herbicides, pesticides, and feedstock supplemented by improper
amounts of phenylarsonic acid. Because of the numerous factors
that influence toxicity of arsenic, it is virtually impossible to
specify toxicity in terms of body weight. The lethal ingested
dose for most species, however, appears to range between 1 and 25
mg/kg of body weight as sodium arsenite.
Lead
Lead (Pb) is a metallic element. It is derived by the roasting
and reduction of lead sulfate, lead sulfide and lead carbonate.
Transport and Fate - The most important physical process
controlling the aquatic fate of lead and its compounds is
adsorption by the particulate phase followed by deposition in the
sediment. Because this process occurs rapidly, lead generally
remains in the vicinity of the source. In severely contaminated
areas, precipitation may also play a role in removal from
solution. Salts of lead are generally not very soluble except at
162
-------
low pH, a situation encountered infrequently in natural waters.
Benthic microbes can remobilize lead from the sediment by
bioaccumulation or by biomethylation to tetramethyl lead. The
latter may either be reoxidized as it moves to the aerobic region
of the water column or be volatilized to the atmosphere.
Although lead can be passed along the food chain, it is not
biomagnified. Bioconcentration factors fall between 60 and 1000
for several aquatic species. Bioaccumulation may play a bigger
role in the fate or lead under acidic conditions where lead salts
are either more soluble or less adsorbed.
Toxicity and Exposure - Lead poisoning in humans may cause
several well known but nonspecific clinical syndromes such as
acute abdominal pain, acute or chronic encephalopathy, peripheral
neuropathy and chronic nephropathy. Children are in general more
susceptible to lead poisoning because, 1) they are more likely to
exhibit neurotoxic symptoms, 2) they absorb more lead from food,
3) they mobilize more lead from that accumulated in the body, 4)
they have a greater caloric intake and hence food intake on a
body surface area basis and 5) their intake is not limited to
food but may also include street dust, flakes of paint, etc.
Unlike most heavy metals, lead crosses the placenta with blood
levels in newborn children closely correlated with those of their
mothers.
There is considerable evidence from laboratory studies that lead
is carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic and may even cause
reproductive impairment. In pregnant laboratory rats
malformations in fetuses were observed following intravenous
injection of 50 mg/kg of lead nitrate. Ingestion of lead acetate
and subcutaneous injection of tetraethyl lead may lead to kidney
and lung tumors and various other malignancies. Cultures of
human leukocytes obtained from workers exposed to fumes in a
storage battery plant exhibited increased chromosomal
abnormalities. Another study showed alterations in
spermatogenesis and subsequent loss of ferility in 150
occupationally exposed men.
Zinc
Zinc (Zn) is a metallic element. It is derived by one of two
main processes, toasting followed by either (1) pyrometallurgical
or distillation process, or (2) hydrometallurgical or
electrolytic process.
Fate and Transport - The potential for exposure to zinc is linked
in part to its fate in the aquatic environment. Removal from
solution through adsorption by hydrous iron and manganese oxides,
clay minerals, and organic material is the dominant fate process
for zinc in aerobic waters. The effectiveness of adsorption
depends upon the composition of the absorbing matrix, pH, redox
potential, salinity, concentration of available ligands, and
concentrations of zinc. Above a pH of 7, zinc is almost
completely adsorbed from solution by sediment or soils; below pH
163
-------
6, where zinc is present predominantly as Zn++, very little is
adsorbed. As salinity increases, zinc is also desorbed from
sediment. Generally speaking, since salts of zinc are highly
soluble in aerobic waters precipitation will play a minor role in
determining the fate of zinc. However, in reducing conditions,
precipitation of the sulfide may occur, or when certain ligands
are present, highly soluble complexes may be formed, thereby
decreasing the process of precipitation which in turn will favor
adsorption of zinc.
Zinc is bioaccumulated by all organisms and passed along the food
chain. Uptake via the food chain appears to be the most
important route for fish, whereas uptake from sea water appears
to be the preferred route for zooplankton. Even though the biota
represent a relatively minor sink when compared to the. sediment,
they may play a significant role in the mobility of zinc.
Microcosm studies generally indicate that zinc is not
biomagnified.
Toxicity and Exposure - Zinc and its compounds are toxic to
mammals including humans. Although death in humans may occur,
the most commonly observed effects of zinc poisoning are nonfatal
metal fume fever caused by inhalation of zinc oxide fumes,
various illnesses (congestion of the lung, liver, spleen, and
brain) caused by ingestion of acidic foods prepared in zinc
galvanized containers, and dermatitis by contact with zinc salts.
Nickel
Nickel (Ni) is a metallic element. It is derived by flotation
and roasting of nickel ores, or by leaching with ammonia.
Transport and Fate - As an element, nickel cannot be degraded in
the aquatic environment and appears to be a relatively mobile
heavy metal. Although it has several known oxidation states,
nickel in the aqueous environment exists primarily in the
divalent state. Sorption and precipitation do not appear to be
as effective in reducing aqueous nickel concentrations as they
are with many other heavy metals (e.g., copper and chromium).
However, the hydrous oxides of iron and manganese may exert some
control over the mobility of nickel via co-precipitation and
sorption. Precipitation of nickel compounds may be important in
reducing environments, where the insoluble sulfide is formed.
Nickel may be bioaccumulated by some aquatic organisms, but most
concentration factors are less than 1000. Because these
processes occur with only low or moderate efficiencies, most
nickel added to the aqueous environment eventually goes to the
ocean.
Toxicity and Exposure - A wide variety of physiological effects
have been linked with exposure of mammals to nickel and its
compounds. Exposure in laboratory animals, following both
inhalation and ingestion by other routes, has caused lung
congestion, inhibition of insulin release, depressed growth,
164
-------
carcinogenesis, and death. In humans, airborne nickel may cause
throat irritation, weakness, fever, headache, nausea, muscle and
joint pain, eczema or dermatitis, and vomiting. In addition, it
is suspected that nickel inhalation leads to lung and nose
cancer. Nickel carbonyl, an extremely volatile compound, is by
far the most toxic of the nickel compounds and is approximately 5
times as toxic as carbon monoxide. Therefore, inhalation can
lead to high concentrations of elemental nickel in the lungs.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Biochemical oxygen demand is the quantity of oxygen required for
the biological and chemical oxidation of waterborne substances
under ambient or test conditions. Materials which may contribute
to the BOD include: carbonaceous organic materials usable as a
food source by aerobic organisms; oxidizable nitrogen derived
from nitrites, ammonia, and organic nitrogen compounds which
serve as food for specific bacteria; and certain chemically
oxidizable materials such as ferrous iron, sulfides, sulfite,
etc., which will react with dissolved oxygen or which are
metabolized by bacteria. In timber industry wastewaters, the BOD
derives principally from organic materials leached from the wood
raw material.
The BOD of a waste adversely affects the dissolved oxygen
resources of a body of water by reducing the oxygen available to
fish, plant life and other aquatic species. It is possible to
reach conditions which totally exhaust the dissolved oxygen in
the water, resulting in anaerobic conditions and the production
of undesirable gases such as hydrogen sulfide and methane. The
reduction of dissolved oxygen can be detrimental to fish
populations, fish growth rate, and organisms used as fish food.
A total lack of oxygen due to excessive BOD can result in the
death of all aerobic aquatic inhabitants in the affected area.
Water with a high BOD indicates the presence of decomposing
organic matter and associated increased bacterial concentrations
that degrade its quality and potential uses. High BOD increases
algal concentrations and blooms; these result from decaying
organic matter and form the basis of algal populations.
The BODs (5 day BOD) test is Used widely to estimate the oxygen
requirements of discharged domestic and industrial wastes.
Complete biochemical oxidation of a given waste may require a
period of incubation too long for practical analytical test
purposes. For this reason, the 5 day period has been accepted as
standard, and the test results have been designated as BOD.
Specific chemical test methods are not readily available for
measuring the quantity of many degradable substances and their
reaction products. In such cases, testing relies on the
collective parameter, BOD. This procedure measures the weight of
dissolved oxygen utilized by microorganisms as they oxidize or
165
-------
transform the gross mixture of chemical compounds in the
wastewater. The biochemical reactions involved in the oxidation
of carbon compounds are related to the period of incubation. The
5 day BOD normally measures only 60 to 80 percent of the
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand of the sample, and for
many purposes this is a reasonable parameter. Additionally, it
can be used to estimate the gross quantity of oxidizable organic
matter. Throughout this document BODjj is expressed as BOD.
Some treated wastewaters result from treatment systems designed
to remove ammonia through the nitrification process. In some
cases, the nitrifying bacteria present can exert an additional
noncarbonaceous, nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD), within the
prescribed 5 day incubation period. In these instances, special
inhibitors are added to standard dilution waters to ensure the
measurement only of carbonaceous organic matter. Ultimate BOD,
which is measured after a 20 day incubation period, tests for
aggregate measurement of both carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen
demand when nitrification inhibitors are not added to standard
dilution waters. Ultimate BOD is important in the evaluation and
design of biological treatment systems. Ultimate BOD can also be
useful in estimating the total dissolved oxygen demand of
wastewaters discharged to receiving streams with long residence
periods.
Oil and Grease
Oil is a constituent of both creosote and pentachlorophenol
petroleum solutions which occurs in either a free or an
emulsified form in wood preserving wastewaters. Concentrations
ranging from less than 100 mg/liter to well over 1000 mg/liter
are common after primary oil separation. Many of the toxic
pollutants found in wood preserving wastewaters, such' as
pentachlorophenol and polynuclear aromatics, are much more
soluble in the oil phase than in the water phase of the waste
stream. Oil and grease in the wastewater, therefore, serves as a
carrier of these toxic pollutants. The key to satisfactory
control of toxic and conventional pollutants in wood preserving
wastewaters is the removal of as much free and emulsified oil and
grease as possible.
Data from recent sampling programs indicate that removal of oil
and grease from indirect discharging wood preserving plants to
levels below 100 mg/1 will result in control of PCP to levels
consistent with this compound's solubility in water
(approximately 15 mg/1) and will result in control of total toxic
pollutant PNAs to approximately one milligram per liter.
Aside from the fact that oil and grease in wood preserving
wastewaters serves as a carrier for toxic pollutants, the
compounds which comprise the oil and grease phase can settle or
float in receiving waters and may exist as solids or liquids.
Even in small quantities, oil and grease causes troublesome taste
and odor problems. They produce scum lines on water treatment
166
-------
basin walls and other containers and adversely affect fish and
water fowl. Oil emulsions may adhere to the gills of fish,
causing suffocation, and may taint the flesh of fish
microorganisms that were exposed to waste oil. Oil depositis in
the bottom sediments of water can serve to inhibit normal benthic
growth. Oil and grease exhibit an oxygen demand.
Oil and grease levels which are toxic to aquatic organisms vary
greatly, depending on the type of pollutant and the species
susceptibility. In addition, the presence of oil in water can
increase the toxicity of other substances discharged into the
receiving bodies of water.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Suspended solids may include both organic and inorganic
materials. The inorganic compounds may include sand, silt, clay
and precipitated metals. The organic fraction may include such
materials as wood fibers and unsettled biomass from biological
treatment systems.
These solids may settle out rapidly and bottom deposits are often
a mixture of both organic and inorganic solids. Solids may be
suspended in water for a time and then settle to the bed of the
stream or lake. They may be inert, slowly biodegradable
materials, or rapidly decomposable substances. While in
suspension they increase the turbidity of the water, reduce light
penetration, and impair the photosynthetic activity of aquatic
plants.
Suspended solids may kill fish and shellfish by causing abrasive
injuries, by clogging gills and respiratory passages, by
screening out light, and by promoting and maintaining the
development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.
Suspended solids also reduce the recreational value of the water.
Total suspended solids are a significant pollutant parameter in
the insulation board and wet process hardboard subcategories of
the industry. Raw wastewaters from these subcategories contain
high amounts of wood fibers and solids which are not retained in
the wet lap or on the forming screen. Additionally, a
significant amount of biological suspended solids is generated in
the large biological treatment systems common to these
subcategories.
EH
Although not a specific pollutant, pH is related to the acidity
or alkalinity of a wastewater stream. It is not a linear or
direct measure of either; however, it may properly be used to
control both excess acidity and excess alkalinity in water. The
term pH describes the hydrogen ion hydroxyl ion balance in water.
Technically, pH is the hydrogen ion concentration or activity
present in a given solution. pH numbers are the negative
167
-------
logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. A pH of 7 generally
indicates neutrality or a balance between free hydrogen and free
hydroxyl ions. Solutions with a pH above 7 indicate that the
solution is alkaline, while a pH below 7 indicates that the
solution is acidic.
Knowledge of the pH of water or wastewater aids in determining
measures necessary for corrosion control, pollution control, and
disinfection. Waters with a pH below 6.0 corrode waterworks
structures, distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures.
This corrosion can add such constituents to drinking water as
iron, copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead. Low pH waters not only
tend to dissolve metals from structures and fixtures but also
tend to redissolve or leach metals from sludges and bottom
sediments. The hydrogen ion concentration also can affect the
taste of water; at a low pH, water tastes "soiir." Extremes of pH
or rapid pH changes can stress or kill aquatic life. Even
moderate changes from "acceptable" pH limits can harm some
species. Changes in water pH increase the relative toxicity to
aquatic life of many materials. Metalocyanide complexes can
increase a thousand-fold in toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units.
The toxicity of ammonia similarly is a function of pH. The
bactericidal effect of chlorine in most cases lessens as the pH
increases, and it is economically advantageous to keep the pH
close to 7.
The lacrimal fluid of the human eye has a pH of approximately 7.0
and a deviation of 0.1 pH unit from the norm may result in eye
irritation for the swimmer. Appreciable irritation will cause
severe pain.
Problems of hydrogen sulfide gas evolution and "bulking" of mixed
liquor in biological treatment systems may occur if pH of
wastewater drops below 6.0. On the other hand, unusually high pH
(for instance 11.0) can cause significant loss of active biomass
in biological treatment systems, especially activated sludge.
NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chemical oxygen demand is a purely chemical oxidation test
devised as an alternate method of estimating the total oxygen
demand of a wastewater. Since the method relies on the
oxidation-reduction system of chemical analyses, rather than on
biological factors, it is more precise, accurate, and rapid than
the BOD test. The COD test estimates the total oxygen demand
(ultimate) required to oxidize the compounds in a wastewater. It
is based on the fact that organic compounds, with a few
exceptions, can be oxidized by strong chemical oxidizing agents
under acid conditions with the assistance of certain inorganic
catalysts.
168
-------
When an industrial wastewater contains substances which tend to
inhibit biological degradation of the carbonaceous substrate,
such as wood preserving wastewaters, COD is a more reliable
indicator of organic pollutant strength than is BOD.
The COD test measures those pollutants resistant to biological
oxidation in addition to the ones measured by the BOD test. COD
is therefore a more inclusive measure of oxygen demand than is
BOD and results in higher oxygen demand values than the BOD test.
The compounds which are more resistant to biological oxidation
are becoming of greater and greater concern, not only because of
their slow but continuing oxygen demand on the resources of the
receiving water, but also because of their potential health
effects on aquatic and human life. Many of these compounds have
been found to have carcinogenic, mutagenic, and similar adverse
effects, either singly or in combination. Concern about these
compounds has increased as a result of demonstrations that their
long life in receiving waters—the result of a slow biochemical
oxidation rate allows them to contaminate downstream water
intakes. The commonly used systems of water purification are not
effective in removing these types of materials, and disinfection
(such as chlorination) may convert them into even more hazardous
materials.
Oil and grease contamination from preservative solutions, as well
as organic material leached from the wood raw material contribute
to the relatively high COD content common to wastewaters from the
wood preserving segment.
169
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
This section presents a discussion of the range of wastewater
control and treatment technology currently in use and available
to the wood preserving, and insulation board/wet process
hardboard segments of the timber products processing industry.
In-plant pollution control is discussed as well as end-of-pipe
treatment.
Performance data for plants in each industry segment are
presented, as well as technology capable of being transferred
from related industries. For the purpose of cost analysis, one
or more candidate technologies have been selected for each
subcategory. For each technology, achievable treated effluent
pollutant concentrations are reported for conventional,
nonconventional and toxic pollutants.
It should be noted that there are many possible combinations of
in-plant and end-of-pipe systems capable of attaining the
pollutant reductions reported for the candidate technologies.
The performance levels reported for the candidate treatment
technologies are based upon demonstrated performance of similar
systems within the industry or upon well documented results of
readily transferable technology. These performance levels can be
achieved within the industry using the model treatment systems
proposed. The model treatment systems serve as a basis for a
conservative economic analysis of the cost of achieving the
effluent levels reported for the candidate treatment
technologies. Each individual plant must make the final decision
concerning the specific combination of pollution control measures
which are best suited to its particular situation, and should do
so* only after a careful study of the treatability of its
wastewater, including waste characterization and pilot plant
investigations.
Pollution abatement and control technologies applicable to the
industry as a whole were discussed in earlier Agency documents.
Summarized versions, which included updated information on
current industry practice, were presented in supplemental studies
for wood preserving and hardboard production. The portion of the
previous studies which detailed in-plant process changes, waste
flow management, and other measures having the potential to
reduce discharge volume or improve effluent quality are repeated
in this document for the purpose of continuity. Additional
information available from the data collection portfolios and/or
the verification sampling program is included in order to present
the most recent information.
171
-------
Various treatment technologies that are either currently
employed, or which may be readily transferred to the industry,
are summarized in this section. Included in this section are
descriptions of exemplary plants and, where available, wastewater
treatment data for these exemplary plants. This description is
followed by a selection of several treatment regimes applicable
to each subcategory.
WOOD PRESERVING
In-Plant Control Measures
Reduction in Wastewater Volume—The characteristics of wood
preserving wastewater differ among plants that practice open,
modified closed or closed steaming. In the modified closed
steaming process, steam condensate is allowed to accumulate in
the retort during the steaming operation until it covers the
heating coils. At that point, direct steaming is stopped and the
remaining steam needed is generated within the retort by
utilizing the heating coils. Upon completion of the steaming
cycle and after recovery of oils, the water from the cylinder is
discarded. In closed steaming, after recovery of free oils, the
water in the retort at the end of a steaming cycle is returned to
a reservoir and is reused instead of being discarded.
The principal advantage of modified closed steaming over open
steaming, aside from reducing the volume of wastewater released
by a plant, is that effluents from the retorts are less likely to
contain emulsified oils. Free oils are readily separated from
the wastewater; and, as a result of the reduction in oil content,
the oxygen demand and the solids content of the waste are reduced
significantly relative to effluents from plants using
conventional open steaming. Typical oil and COD values for
wastewater from a single plant before and after the plant
commenced modified closed steaming are shown in Figures VII-1 and
VII-2, respectively. The COD of the wastewater was reduced by
about two-thirds when modified closed steaming was initiated.
Oil content was reduced by a factor of ten.
Water used in closed steaming operations increases in oxygen
demand, solids content, and total phenols concentration with each
reuse. The high oxygen demand is attributable primarily to wood
extracts, principally simple sugars, the concentration of which
increases with each use of the water. Because practically all of
the solids content of the waste is dissolved solids, only
insignificant reductions in oxygen demand and improvement in
color result from treatments involving flocculation. The
progressive changes in the parameters for water used in a closed
steaming operation are shown in Table VII-1. It is apparent that
in time a blowdown of the steaming water is necessary because of
the buildup of dissolved materials.
172
-------
25 _
9
E
b
Avg. oil content
before closed
steamlng-1360 mg/l
z
I
O 10-
o
Avg. oil content
after closed
steaming-136 mg/l
O
o
4
8
20
12
16
TIME (WEEKS)
Figure VII -1 Variation In oil content of effluent with time before and after
Initiating closed steaming (Thompson and Dust, 1971)
173
-------
55-
i
Q.
45.
«
o
Q
O 25.
O
15-
0
20
60
10
30
40
50
130
120
TIME (Days)
Figure VII - 2 Variation in COD
-------
Table VII-1.
Progressive Changes in
Selected Characteristics of
Water Recycled
in Closed
Steaming Operations
(mq/liter)
Total
Dissolved
Charge No.
Phenols
COD
Solids
Solids
1
46
15,516
10,156
8,176
2
169
22,208
17,956
15,176
3
200
22,412
22,204
20,676
4
215
49,552
37,668
31,832
5
231
54,824
66,284
37,048
7
254
75,856
66,968
40,424
8
315
99,992
67,604
41,608
12
208
129,914
99,276
91,848
13
230
121,367
104,960
101,676
14
223
110,541
92,092
91,028
20
323
123,429
114,924
88,796
SOURCE: Mississippi State Forest Products Laboratory, 1970.
The technical feasibility of converting a wood preserving plant
from open steaming to modified or closed steaming has been
demonstrated by many plants within the past five years. The
decision to convert a plant is an economic and product quality
decision related to the reduced cost of subsequent end-of-pipe
treatment of the resulting smaller volume of wastewater generated
by a converted plant, and the marketability of the plant's
production.
Using the historical wastewater flow data presented in Section V,
an average two retort open steaming plant can reduce its process
wastewater flow from over 41,600 liters/day (11,000 gpd) to less
than 11,400 liters/day (3,000 gpd). Neither figure includes
rainwater.
Other possible methods of reducing discharge volume are through
reuse of cooling and process water and segregation of waste
streams. Recycling of cooling water at plants that employ
barometric condensers is essential because it is not economically
feasible to treat the large volume of contaminated water
generated when a single pass system is used. This fact has been
recognized by the industry, and within the past five years there
has been a significant increase in the percentage of plants
recycling barometric cooling water.
175
-------
As an alternative solution to the problem associated with the use
of barometric condensers, many plants have installed surface type
condensers as replacement equipment.
Reuse of process water is not widely practiced in the industry.
There are, however, noteworthy exceptions to this generalization.
Process wastewater from salt treatments is so widely used as
makeup water for treating solutions that the practice is now
considered normal practice. One hundred' sixty of 184 plants
treating with salts that were questioned in 1974 indicated that
no discharge of direct process wastewater has been achieved
through a combination of water conservation measures, including
recycling.
Several plants which treat with organic preservatives reuse
treated wastewater for boiler make-up or cooling water. Due to
the nature of contamination present in wood preserving
wastewater, a high degree of treatment is required prior to reuse
of wastewater for these purposes.
One of the main sources of uncontaminated water at wood
preserving plants is steam coil condensate. While in the past
this water was frequently allowed to mix with process wastewater,
most plants now segregate it, thus reducing the total volume of
waste water, and some reuse' coil condensate for boiler feed
water. This latter practice became feasible with the development
of turbidity sensing equipment to monitor the water and sound a
warning if oil enters the coil condensate return system. Reuse
of coil condensate, while of some consequence from a pollution
standpoint, can also represent a significant energy saving to a
plant.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
Primary Treatment—Primary treatment is defined in this document
as treatment applied to the wastewater prior to biological
treatment or its equivalent.
Oil-Water Separation—Because of the deleterious effects that oil
has on all subsequent steps in wastewater treatment, efficient
oil-water separation is necessary for effective treatment in the
wood preserving industry. Oil, whether free or in an emulsified
form, accounts for a significant part of the oxygen demand of
wood preserving effluents and serves as a carrier for
concentrations of the toxic pollutants such as PNAs and
pentachlorophenol that far exceed their respective solubilities
in oil free water. In a real sense, control of oils is the key
to wastewater management in the wood preserving industry.
Oil-water separators of the API type are extensively used by wood
preserving plants and are the equipment of choice to impart the
"primary oil separation" referred to in the proposed treatment
regimes which follow. It is preceded and followed at many plants
176
-------
by a rough oil separation and a second oil separation stage,
respectively. The former operation occurs either in the blowdown
tank or in a surge tank preceding the API separator. Secondary
separation usually occurs in another API separator operated in
series with the first, or it may be conducted in any vessel or
lagoon where the detention time is sufficient to permit further
separation of free oil. Primary oil separation, as used in ..this
document, refers to a system which contains rough oil separation
in a blowdown tank followed by a two-stage gravity separator.
The oil content of wastewater entering the blowdown tank may be
as high as 10 percent, with 1 to 5 percent being a more normal
range. Depending on the efficiency of rough separation, the
influent to the primary separator will have a free oil content
ranging from less than 200 mg/1 to several thousand mg/1.
Removal efficiencies of 60 to 95 percent can be achieved, but the
results obtained are affected by temperature, oil content, and
separator design—especially detention time. Data published by
the American Petroleum Institute (API, 1959) show that 80 percent
removal of free oils is normal in the petroleum industry.
Secondary separation should remove up to 90 percent of the
residual free oil, depending on the technique used.
The costs for primary oil-water separation presented in Appendix
A include both the blowdown tanks and the API type separators for
a parallel separation system handling both creosote and
pentachlorophenol wastewaters. Due to the value of the oil and
the preservatives recovered in this system, 50 percent of the
capital and annual operating costs can be returned. Therefore,
50 percent of the capital and operating costs of the total system
should not be allocated to pollution control.
The following example will serve to illustrate this hypothesis:
Table VI1-2 depicts a cost estimate for a primary oil-water
separation system for a plant treating with both creosote and
pentachlorophenol and generating 12,500 gallons per day of
combined wastewater. Assuming that:
1. Half of the wastewater is due to creosote treating and
half is due to PCP treating (6,250 gpd each system);
2. Process wastewater enters the blowdown tanks at
1.5 percent (15,000 mg/1) oil content and leaves the API
separator at 500 mg/1;
3. Creosote cost is $0.75 per gallon;
4. Fuel oil cost is $0.40 per gallon;
5. PCP (solid) cost is $0.60 per pound; and
6. PCP solution is 7 percent PCP and 93 percent oil;
177
-------
then 831 lbs/day of creosote valued at approximately $68 and 680
lbs/day of PCP solution valued at $62 are recovered. If the
plant operates for 300 days per year, a total of $20,400 worth of
creosote and $18,000 worth of PCP solution are recovered per
year. This represents 62 percent of the total annual cost of the
creosote system and 78 percent of the total annual cost of the
PCP system. The 50 percent figure was chosen to reflect the
decreased value of the recovered material as compared to new
solutions.
It should be noted that primary oil separation was a component of
the treatment technology identified for BPT and PSES. Since the
costs of primary oil separation were previously considered in
establishing BPT and PSES, there are no additional costs required
to achieve satisfactory primary oil separation for these two
treatment technologies. However, the costs of achieving
satisfactory primary oil separation are allocable to the costs of
achieving NSPS and PSNS.
178
-------
Table VI1-2. Annual Cost of Primary Oil-Water Separation System
Creosote System
PCP System
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Blowdown Tanks
$ 15,800
Blowdown Tanks
$15,800
Surge, Skimming Tanks
9,000
Surge, Skimming Tanks
9,000
Reclaim Pumps
3,200
Reclaim Pumps
3,200
Prim. Sep. w/5 hp Pump
22,000
PCP.Primary w/5 hp Pump
6,300
Sec. w/Sk immers
23,300
PCP Polishing Sep.
7,200
Land, 0.75 Acre
7,500
Land, 0.75 Acre
7,500
Engineering
11,000
Engineering
6,200
Site Prep. Foundation,
Site Prep., Foundation
etc.
20,200
etc.
.12,000
Contingency
16,800
Contingency
10,000
TOTAL
$128,800
TOTAL
$77,200
Amortization 20 yrs'S 10% = $15,100 Amortization 20 yrs 9 10% = $9,050
Annual Operating Cost:
Labor $ 9,300
Maint. 1,900
Energy 2,150
Sludge Disposal 500
Ins. and Taxes 3,850
TOTAL $17,600
Annual Operating Cost:
Labor
Maint.
Energy
Sludge Disposal
Ins. and Taxes
TOTAL
$ 9,300
1 ,1 50
1 ,450
500
2.300
$14,700
TOTAL ANNUAL COST = $32,700
TOTAL ANNUAL COST = $23,750
179
-------
Chemical Flocculation—Because oil-water emulsions are not broken
by mechanical oil removal procedures, chemical flocculation is
required to reduce the oil content of wastewaters containing
emulsions. Lime, ferric chloride, various polyelectrolytes, and
clays of several types are used in the industry for this purpose.
Automatic metering pumps and mixing equipment have been installed
at some plants to expedite the process, which is usually carried
out on a batch basis. COD reductions of 30 to 80 percent or
higher are achieved—primarily as a result of oil removal.
Average COD removal is about 50 percent.
Influent oil concentration varies with the efficiency of
mechanical oil separation and the amount of emulsified oil. The
latter variable in turn is affected by type of preservative
(either pentachlorophenol in petroleum, creosote, or a creosote
solution of coal tar or petroleum), conditioning method used, and
design of oil-transfer equipment. Pentachlorophenol preservative
solutions cause more emulsion problems than creosote or its
solutions, and plants that steam condition—especially those that
employ open steaming—have more emulsion problems than plants
that use the Boulton conditioning method. Plants that use low
pressure, high volume oil transfer pumps have less trouble with
emulsions than those that use high pressure, low volume
equipment.
Typically, influent to the flocculation equipment from a creosote
process will have an oil content of less than 500 mg/liter, while
that from a pentachlorophenol process may have a value of 1,000
mg/liter or higher. For example, analyses of samples taken from
the separator outfalls at ten plants revealed average oil
contents of 1,470 mg/liter and 365 mg/liter for pentachlorophenol
and creosote wastewaters, respectively. The respective ranges of
values were 540 to 2,640 mg/liter and 35 to 735 mg/liter.
Average separator effluents for three steaming plants sampled in
conjunction with the present study gave Oil and Grease values of
1,690 mg/liter and 935 mg/liter for pentachlorophenol and
creosote separators, respectively.
Flocculated effluent generally has an oil content of less than
100 mg/liter. Data presented later in this section demonstrate
that proper application of gravity oil-water separation followed
by chemical flocculation provides control of PNAs to about 1 mg/1
and control of PCP- to about 15 mg/1.
A few plants achieve almost complete removal of free oils by
filtering the wastewater through an oil absorbent medium. This
practice is unnecessary if the wastewater is to be chemically
flocculated.
Slow Sand Filtration—Many plants which flocculate wastewater
subsequently filter it through sand beds to remove the solids.
When properly conducted, this procedure is highly efficient in
removing both the solids resulting from the process as well as
180
-------
some of the residual oil. The solids which accumulate on the bed
are removed periodically along with the upper inch or so of sand.
A common mistake thatrenders filter beds almost useless is the
application of incompletely flocculated wastewater. The residual
oil retards percolation of the water through the bed, thus
necessitating the replacement of the oil saturated sand. This
has happened frequently enough at some plants that the sand
filters have been abandoned and a decaritation process used
instead. At many plants decantation is part of the flocculation
system. Solids removal is expedited by use of vessels with cone
shaped bottoms. Frequently, the solids are allowed to accumulate
from batch to batch, a practice which is reported to reduce the
amount of flocculating agents required.
Biological Treatment—Wastewater generated by the wood preserving
industry is amenable to biological treatment. A discussion of
biological treatment as well as specific examples of treatment
systems is presented in Appendix E of this document.
Biological treatment has been shown to be quite effective in
reducing concentrations of COD, total phenols, Oil and Grease,
pentachlorophenol, and organic toxic pollutants in wood
preserving wastewaters. Actual reduction of these pollutants in
the wastewater depends upon influent wastewater quality,
detention time in the biological system, amount of aeration
provided, and the type of biological system employed.
Trickling filters, aerated lagoons, oxidation ponds, and
activated sludge systems are all used by one or more plants in
the industry. Several plants also use spray or soil irrigation
as a biological treatment method. In this system, wastewater is
sprayed on an irrigation field, and the effluent is either
allowed to run off into a collection basin or is collected in
underdrains.
The biological systems in-place in the industry vary from aerated
tanks with insufficient detention time and aeration capacity to
sophisticated multi stage systems comprised of activated sludge
followed by aerated lagoons and oxidation ponds.
Removal efficiencies for various pollutants by biological systems
in the industry are presented later in this section.
Most plants which employ biological treatment do so for treatment
prior to discharge to a POTW, or for treatment prior to a no
discharge system such as spray irrigation, spray evaporation, or
recycle of treated effluent.
Removal of Metals from Wastewater—A method of metals removal
recommended for wood preserving wastewaters as early as 1965 by
Hyde, but not used by that industry, was adopted from the plating
industry. This procedure is based on the fact that hexavalent
chromium is the only metal (boron excepted) used by the industry
181
-------
that will not precipitate from solution at a neutral or alkaline
pH. Thus, the first step in treating wastewaters containing
chromium is to reduce it from the hexavalent to the trivalent
form. The use of sulfur dioxide for this purpose has been
discussed in detail by Chamberline and Day (1956). Chromium
reduction proceeds most rapidly in acid solution. Therefore, the
wastewater is acidified with sulfuric acid to a pH of 4 or less
before introducing the sulfur dioxide. The latter chemical will
itself lower the pH to the desired level, but it is less
expensive to use the acid.
When the chromium has been reduced, the pH of the wastewater is
increased to 8.5 or 9.0 to precipitate not only the trivalent
chromium, but also the copper and zinc. If lime is used for the
pH adjustment, fluorides and most of the arsenic will also be
precipitated. Care must be taken not to raise the pH beyond 9.5,
since trivalent chromium is slightly soluble at higher values.
Additional arsenic and most residual copper and chromium in
solution can be precipitated by hydrogen sulfide gas or sodium
sulfide. Ammonium and phosphate compounds are also reduced by
this process.
The procedure is based on the fact that most heavy metals are
precipitated as relatively insoluble metal hydroxides at an
alkaline pH. The theoretical solubilities of some of the
hydroxides are quite low, ranging down to less than 10 ug/1.
However, theoretical levels are seldom achieved because of
unfavorable settling properties of the precipitates, slow
reaction rates, interference of other ions in solution, and other
factors. Copper, zinc, chromium, and arsenic can be reduced to
levels substantially lower than 1.0 mg/liter by the above
procedure.
The metals removal technology upon which the candidate treatment
technology is based consists of reduction of chromium by pH
reduction with sulfuric acid and the addition of S02 gas,
followed by precipitation of the metal hydroxides after pH
adjustment with lime or caustic soda. Final concentrations of
copper, chromium, zinc, and arsenic of less than 0.25 mg/1 can be
expected, given influent levels similar to those presented in
Table V-18. It should be noted that since no wood preserving
plant is currently applying metals removal technology to its
wastewater, performance data are not available from the industry
to confirm the expected final effluent levels.
Carbon adsorption following metals removal by lime precipitation
has been reported to provide the most encouraging results for
removal of heavy metals, as reported in an EPA study (Technology
Transfer, January 1977). The study found that pretreatment of
wastes with lime, ferric chloride, or alum followed by carbon
adsorption was highly effective. Reductions of chromium, copper,
zinc, and arsenic following this treatment were, in order, 98.2,
90.0, 76.0, and 84.0 percent. Influent concentrations used in
this study were 5.0 mg/1 for all the above listed metals.
182
-------
Carbon Adsorption—Results of carbon adsorption studies conducted
by Thompson and Dust (1972) on a creosote wastewater are shown in
Figure VII-3. Granular carbon was used with a contact time of 24
hours. The wastewater was flocculated with ferric chloride and
its pH adjusted to 4.0 prior to exposure to the carbon. Typical
concentrations of COD and total phenols in flocculated wastewater
are 4,000 mg/1 and 200 mg/1, respectively. As shown in the
figure, 96 percent of the total phenols and 80 percent of the COD
were removed from the wastewater at a carbon dosage of 8 g/liter.
The loading rate dropped off sharply at that point, and no
further increases in total phenols removal and only small
increases in COD removal occurred by increasing carbon dosage to
50 g/liter. Similar results were obtained in tests using
pentachlorophenol wastewater.
Results of adsorption isotherms that were run on raw
pentachlorophenol wastewater and other samples of raw creosote
wastewater followed a pattern similar to that shown in Figure
VII-3. In some instances a residual content of phenolic
compounds remained in wastewater after a contact period of 24
hours with the highest dosage of activated carbon employed, while
in other instances all of the total phenols were removed.
Loading rates of 0.16 kilogram of total phenols and 1.2 kilograms
of COD per kilogram of carbon were typical, but much lower rates
were obtained with some wastewaters.
Adsorption isotherms have been developed for wood preserving
wastes from several plants to determine the economic feasibility
of employing activated carbon in lieu of conventional secondary
treatments. The wastewater used for this purpose was usually
pretreated by flocculation and filtration to remove oils.
Theoretical carbon usage rates obtained from the isotherms ranged
from 85 to almost 454 kg per 3,785 liters (187 to 1,000 pounds
per 1,000 gallons) of wastewater.
Use of activated carbon to treat wastewater from a plant
producing herbicides was described by Henshaw. With the
exception of wood sugars, this waste was similar to wood
preserving effluents, especially in terms of COD (3,600 mg/liter)
and phenolic materials (210 mg/liter). Raw wastewater was piped
directly to a carbon adsorber and the carbon was regenerated
thermally. Flow rate and loading rate were not reported, but the
effluent from the system had a total phenols content of 1
mg/liter. Cost of the treatment was reported to be about $0.36
per 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons).
The effect of high organic content on carbon usage rate is well
known in industry. Recent work to develop adsorption isotherms
for 220 wastewater samples representing 75 SIC categories showed
a strong relationship between carbon usage rate and organic
content of the samples, as measured by TOC. Usage rates as high
as 681 kg per 3,785 liters (1,500 pounds per 1,000 gallons) were
reported for wastewater samples from the organic chemicals
industry. For petroleum refining, the values ranged from 0.1 to
183
-------
100'
0-~
!
oe
0 Total Phenols
A COD
60-
co
¦s
e
£
OL
M
I
to
Q
O
o
40
0
20
30
50
10
Activated Carbon (g/llter)
Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon Added and
Removal of COD and Total Phenols from a Creosote Wastewater
184
Figure VII-3
-------
64 kg per liter (0.2 to 141 pounds per gallon), depending upon
the TOC of the waste.
Use of activated carbon in wastewater treatment in oil refineries
is common. Because this industry is related to wood preserving
in terms of wastewater characteristics, a few of the more
pertinent articles dealing with activated carbon treatment of
refinery wastewater are summarized here.
Workers dealing with treatment process methodology emphasized the
necessity of pretreatment of activated carbon column influent.
Based on these reports, suspended solids in amounts exceeding 50
mg/liter should be removed. Oil and grease in concentrations
above 10 mg/liter should likewise not be applied directly to
carbon. Both materials cause head loss and can reduce adsorption
efficiency by coating the carbon particles. This is apparently
more critical in the case of oil and grease than for suspended
solids.
Common pretreatment processes used by the industry include
chemical clarification, oil flotation, and filtration.
Adjustments in pH are frequently made to enhance adsorption
efficiency. An acid pH has been shown to be best for total
phenols and other weak acids. Flow equalization is, of course,
necessary for most treatment processes.
Efficiency of adsorption varies among molecular species. In a
study of 93 petrochemicals commonly found in that industry's
wastewater, adsorption was found to increase with molecular
weight and decrease with polarity, solubility, and branching.
However, molecules possessing three or more carbons apparently
respond favorably to adsorption treatments.
Researchers studied the relative efficiency of lignite and
bituminous coal carbons and concluded that the former is better
for refinery wastes because it contains more surface area due to
its 20- to 500-Angstrom pore size.
The feasibility of activated carbon adsorption for reduction of
phenolic compounds, including chlorophenols, and high molecular
weight organics, such as polynuclear aromatics and phthalates,
has been demonstrated by several investigators. Since carbon
adsorption of flocculated wood preserving wastewaters results in
high carbon usage rates as described above, the concept of
activated carbon as a polishing treatment for removal of total
phenols, PNAs, and residual COD following biological treatment
appears to have merit. In this configuration, biological
treatment removes most of the wood sugars and other readily
biodegradable organics prior to carbon adsorption, thus
decreasing carbon doses required and greatly increasing carbon
life. Such a system including an activated carbon column system
has been chosen as a candidate treatment technology for wood
preserving wastewaters.
185
-------
Experience with carbon adsorption of biologically treated
effluents from other industries indicates that a conservative
carbon dosage of 4.54 kg per 3,785 liters (10.0 lb/1,000 gal)
with two hours contact time is sufficient to result in an
expected 80 percent removal of GOD and 95 percent removal of
total phenols, PCP, and t>NAs from biologically treated wood
preserving effluent. (Average concentrations of these parameters
present in biologically treated effluents are presented later in
this section.) According to Hutchins (1975), it is most
economical to discard carbon at usage rates lower than 159 to 182
kg (350 to 400 pounds) per day, and to thermally regenerate at
higher usage rates.
It should again be noted that the expected removals of pollutants
and design criteria presented above are engineering judgments
based on experience with similar industries, and have not been
demonstrated within the wood preserving industry since there are
no carbon adsorption systems operating for the treatment of wood
preserving wastewaters.
Evaporation—Because of the relatively low volumes of wastewater
generated by wood preserving plants, evaporation is a feasible
and widely used technology for achieving no discharge status.
Based on the large number of plants which have adopted
evaporation technology to achieve no discharge status, this
technology appears to be the method of choice for many wood
preserving plants to comply with Federal, State and local
regulations.
Three types of evaporative systems are common in the industry.
The first type, spray evaporation, is common to Boulton and
steaming plants. This technology involves containing the
wastewater in lined lagoons of sufficient size to accommodate
several months of process wastewater, as well as the rainwater
falling directly on the lagoon. The wastewater is sprayed under
pressure through nozzles producing fine aerosols which are
evaporated in the atmosphere. The driving force for this
evaporation is the difference in relative humidity between the
atmosphere and the humidity within the spray evaporation area.
Temperature, wind speed, spray nozzle height, and pressure are
all variables which affect the amount of wastewater which can be
evaporated.
186
-------
Reynolds and Shack (1976) have developed the following design
equation for spray evaporation ponds:
E = 1260.5 WhP
-/Ky' L 4 Cw
1-e I 52 80 WhP
(1-Hr)Ps
Pa
RLn
Climatic Factors: W « Wind speed (mph)
p - Air density =
39.66 Pa
4 60 + Ta
where: Pa "Atmospheric Pres. (AT.)
Ta « Atmospheric Temp. (°F)
Hr * Relative Humidity
Ps « Saturation Vapor Pressure
Operational Factors: h « Height of spray above surface of pond
Ky' = Spray mass transfer coefficient
Cw » Surface mass transfer coefficient
L • Pond length (in direction of prevailing wind)
R ¦ Ratio of width to the length of the pond
RL » Width of pond
n « Number of days in the month
£ • Evaporation in cu ft per month
Constants: e = Base of the natural logarithms (2.718)
This design is considered by the authors to be conservative as it
neglects pan evaporation (which occurs in most areas of the
country), assumes no drift loss, and assumes no evaporation when
the sprays are off.
To be effective, spray evaporation should be preceded by primary
and secondary oil removal. Excess oil content in the wastewater
may retard evaporation and increase the potential for air
pollution. Careful segregation of uncontaminated water from, the
wastewater stream is particularly important in evaporative
technologies to minimize the amount of wastewater to be
evaporated.
The second type of evaporation technology is cooling tower
evaporation. This technology is feasible for Boulton plants
only. In this system, as the wood water vapor is condensed, it
gives up heat to the cooling water passing through the surface
condenser. The condensed wood water is sent to an accumulator,
and from there to an oil-water separator for removal of oils.
Rain water and cylinder drippings may also be routed to the
separator. This wastewater stream is then added to the cooling
water which recirculates through the surface condenser picking, up
187
-------
heat, then through a forced draft cooling tower where evaporation
occurs. Figure VII-4 depicts a cooling tower evaporation system.
Since the vacuum cycle in a Boulton plant lasts from 12 to 40
hours, sufficient waste heat is usually available to evaporate
all of the wastewater. Heat from an external source, usually
process steam, can be added to an additional heat exchanger to
assist the evaporation of peaks in wastewater generated from time
to time.
In steaming plants, the vacuum cycle is much shorter, ranging
from 1 to 3 hours. Therefore, there is not a continuous (or
nearly continuous) source of waste heat available to affect the
evaporation of wastewater. Generally, about 25 percent of the
process wastewater is the maximum amount that can be evaporated
by cooling tower evaporation at a steaming plant.
The third method of evaporation is thermal evaporation using an
external heat source. As this method is particularly energy
intensive and expensive, it is not generally feasible except when
used to supplement other treatment methods and when peak surges
in wastewater generation occur, as in the cooling tower system.
Soil Irrigation—About ten plants in the wood preserving industry
currently use spray or soil irrigation as a final treatment step.
As shown by the following discussion, this technique is a viable
method of treatment for this industry even though it is more land
intensive and may be more expensive than other alternatives.
Several applications of wastewaters containing high total phenols
concentrations to soil irrigation have been reported. One such
report by Fisher related the use of soil irrigation to treat
wastewaters from a chemical plant that had the following
characteristics:
pH 9 to 10
Color 5,000 to 42,000 units
COD 1,600 to 5,000 mg/liter
BOD 800 to 2,000 mg/liter
Operating data from a 0.81 hectare (2 acre) field, when irrigated
at a rate of 7,570 liters/hectare/day (2,000 gal/acre/day) for a
year, showed color removal of 88 to 99 percent and COD removal of
85 to 99 percent.
The same author reported on the use of soil irrigation to treat
effluent from two tar plants that contained 7,000 to 15,000
mg/liter total phenols and 20,000 to 54,000 mg/liter COD. The
waste was applied to the field at a rate of about 20,000 liters
(5,000 gal) per day. Water leaving the area had COD and total
phenols concentrations of 60 and 1 mg/liter, respectively. Based
on the lower influent concentration for each parameter, these
values represent oxidation efficiencies of well over 99 percent
for both total phenols and COD.
188
-------
VAPORS
2
?
3
WOOD IN
j CONDENSER >
WOOD OUT
AIR AND
VAPORS
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
VACUUM
PUMP
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS
AND RAIN WATER
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINOER
WORK TANK
ACCUMULATOR
RECOVERED OILS
WATER VAPOR
'CONDENSATE
WATER'VAPOR
WASTE WATER
EXTERNAL HEAT,
IF NECESSARY
POLISHING
OIL REMOVAL
EVAPORATOR
COOLING
OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
TREATING CYLINDER
COOLING
TOWER
MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER EVAPORATION SYSTEM
-------
Bench-scale treatment of coke plant effluent by soil irrigation
was also studied by Fisher. Wastes containing BOD and total
phenols concentrations of 5,000 and 1,550 mg/liter, respectively,
were reduced by 95+ and 99+ percent when percolated through 0.9
meter (36 inches) of soil. Fisher pointed out that less
efficient removal was achieved with coke plant effluents using
the activated sludge process, even when the waste was diluted
with high quality water prior to treatment. The effluent from
the units had a color rating of 1,000 to 3,000 units, compared to
150 units for water that had been treated by soil irrigation.
Both laboratory and pilot scale field tests of soil irrigation
treatments of wood preserving wastewater were conducted by Dust
and Thompson (1972). In the laboratory tests, 210-liter (55-
gallon) drums containing a heavy clay soil 60 centimeters (24
inches) deep were loaded at rates of 32,800; 49,260; and 82,000
liters/hectare/day (3,500; 5,250; and 8,750 gallons/acre/day).
Influent COD and total phenols concentrations were 11,500 and 150
mg/liter, respectively. Sufficient nitrogen and phosphorus were
added to the waste to provide a COD:N:P ratio of 100:5:1. Weekly
effluent samples collected at the bottom of the drums were
analyzed for COD and total phenols.
Reductions of more than 99 percent in COD content of the
wastewater were observed for the first week in the case of the
two highest loadings and through the fourth week for the lowest
loading. A breakthrough occurred during the 22nd week for the
lowest loading rate and during the fourth week for the highest
loading rate. The COD removal steadily decreased thereafter for
the duration of the test. Total phenols removal showed no such
reduction, but instead remained high throughout the test. The
average test results for the three loading rates are given in
Table VI1-3. Average total phenols removal was 99+ percent.
Removal of COD exceeded 99 percent prior to breakthrough and
averaged over 85 percent during the last week of the test.
The field portion of Thompson and Dust's study (1972) was carried
out on an 0.28-hectare (0.8-acre) plot prepared by grading to an
approximately uniform slope and seeded to native grasses. Wood
preserving wastewater from an equalization pond was applied to
the field at the rate of 32,800 liters/hectare/day (3,500
gallons/acre/day) for a period of nine months. Average monthly
influent COD and total phenols concentrations ranged from ,2,000
to 3,800 mg/liter and 235 to 900 mg/liter, respectively.
Supplementary nitrogen and phosphorus were not added. Samples
for analyses were collected weekly at soil depths of 0 (surface),
30, 60, and 120 centimeters (1, 2, and 4 feet).
The major biological reduction in COD and total phenols content
occurred at the surface and in the upper 30 centimeters (1 foot)
of soil. A COD reduction of 55.0 percent was attributed to
overland flow. The comparable reduction for total phenols
content was 55.4 percent (Table VII-4). COD reductions at the
three soil depths, based on raw waste to the field, were 94.9,
190
-------
95.3, and 97.4 percent, respectively, for the 30-, 60-, and 120-
centimeter (1-, 2-, and 4-foot) depths. For total phenols, the
reductions were, in order, 98.9, 99.2, and 99.6 percent.
Table VI1-3. Results of Laboratory Tests of Soil Irrigation Method of
Wastewater Treatment*
Loading Rates
(Liter/ha/day)
Length
of Test
(Week)
COD
Average %
Removal to
Breakthrough
COD
Average %
Removal
Last Week
of Test
Total
Phenols
Average %
Removal
(All Weeks)
32,800
(3,500)**
49,260
(5,250)
82,000
(8,750)
31
13
14
99.1 (22 wks)
99.6
99.0 (4 wks)
85.8
99.2
84.3
98.5
99.7
99.7
* Creosote wastewater containing 11,500 mg/liter of COD and
150 mg/liter of total phenols was used.
** Loading rates in parentheses in gallons/acre/day.
SOURCE: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
191
-------
Table VII-4. Reduction of COD and Total Phenols Content in Waste-
water Treated by Soil Irrigation*
Soil Depth (centimeters)
Month
Raw Waste
0
30
60
120
COD
(mq/liter)
July
2,235
1,400
—
—
66
August
2,030
1,150
—
—
64
September
2,355
1,410
—
—
90
October
1,780
960
150
—
61
November
2,060
1 ,150
1 70
—
46
December
3,810
670
72
91
58
January
2,230
940
121
127
64
February
2,420
580
144
92
64
March
2,460
810
101
102
68
April
2,980
2,410
126
—
76
Average % Removal
(weighted)
55.0
94. 9
95.3
97.4
Total Phenols (mq/liter)
July
235
186
—
—
1 .8
August
512
268
—
—
0.0
September
923
433
—
—
0.0
October
310
150
4.6
—
2.8
November
234
86
7.7
3.8
0.0
December
327
6
1 .8
9.0
3.8
January
236
70
1 .9
3.8
0.0
February
246
1 1 1
4.9
2.3
1 .8
March
277
77
2.3
1.9
1 .3
April
236
172
1 .9
0.0
0.8
Average % Removal
(weighted)
55.4
98.9
99.2
99.6
* Adapted from Thompson and Dust (1972).
192
-------
Other Applicable Technologies—Wood Preserving—Several addi-
tional treatment technologies were evaluated to determine their
feasibility as candidate treatment technologies for BAT, NSPS,
and pretreatment standards. The technologies evaluated for wood
preserving included:
Tertiary Metals Removal Systems
Membrane Systems
Adsorption on Synthetic Adsorbents
Oxidation by Chlorine
Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide
Oxidation by Ozone
A discussion of each of these technologies and case studies of
their application to the wood preserving industry are presented
in Appendix F, DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES.
None of these technologies are candidate technologies because
they are experimental in nature, and further research is
necessary to sufficiently determine the effectiveness of
treatment which could be expected if these technologies were to
be applied to wood preserving wastewaters.
In-Place Technology
The current levels of_ in-place technology for plants responding
to the DCP and the follow-up telephone survey are presented in
Tables VI1-5 through VI1-9 for Boulton no dischargers, Boulton
indirect dischargers, steam no dischargers, steam direct
discharger, and steam indirect dischargers, respectively.
193
-------
Table VII-5. Current Level of In-Place Technology, Boulton, lb Dischargers
Oil Separation Effluent Recycle
Primary Oil by Dissolved Air Evaporation Spray or Cooling Tower Thermal to Boilers or
Plant Separation Flotation Bands Soil Irrigation Evaporation Evaporation Condensers
61
X
62
X
63
X
64
X
X*
67
X
144
X
X
145
X
X
146
X
X
147
X
X
162
X
273
X
X
447t
515
X
X
534
X
X
546
X
552
X
X
554
x
X
583
X
X
85
X
X
593
X
X
657
X
934
X
940t
10281"
1085
X
* Evaporation—Ground Infiltration Bonds.
t Information not available for this plant, other than it is rrrdischarge.
SOURCE: Data collection portfolio and fbllcrw-up telephone survey.
-------
Table VII-6. Current Level of In-Place Technology, Wood
Preserving, Boulton, Indirect Dischargers
Chemical Flocculation
Primary Oil and/or Oil Absorbent Biological
Plant Separation Media Treatment
65 X X
549 X X
555 X X
577 X
655 X
743 X
1027 X
1078 X X
1110 X
1111 X X X
SOURCE: Data collection portfolio and follow-up telephone
survey.
195
-------
Table VII-7. Current level of In-Place Technology, Stean, NHDischargers
Spray-
Chemical Assisted Effluent
Gravity ELocculation Sand Spray Thermal Sblar Solar Recycle to
Oil-Water or Oil Absorp- Filtra- Oxidation Aerated Irriga- Holding Evapora- Evapora- Evapora- Boiler or
Plant Separation tive Media tion lagoon lagoon tion Basin tion tion Rand tion Cbnienser
5
X
27
X
X
40
X
X
42
43*
X
X
87
138
X
X
X
X
140
X
158
X
X
164
X
177
X
226
X
X
237
X
X
247
266
X
X
X
X
307
X
X
330
X
X
X
340
X
X
350
X
X
355
X
X
X
X
X
375
X
376
X
381
X
441
X
456
X
X
X
548
X
X
580
X
X
X
X
587
X
590
591
X
597
X
X
X
X
617
X
X
631
X
X
651
X
X
X
660
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table VII-7. Currant level of In-Place Technology, Stean, NHDischargers (Continued, page 2 of 2)
Spray-
Chemical Assisted Effluent
Gravity Hocculation Sand Spray Thermal Solar Solar Recjcle to
Oil-Water or Oil Aisorp- Filtra- Oxidation derated Irriga- Holding Evapora- Evapora- Evapora- Boiler or
Plant Separation tive Nfedia tion lagoon lagoon tion Basin tion tion Rand tion Cbndenser
488 XX
499 X XX X
665 X X
701 X X X X
705 X
707 X X
717 X XX
750 X XX
752 X
790 X X X X
800 X
852 X XX
893 X
895 X XX X
897 X XXX
900 X X
946 X
1016 X XX
1071 X X
1100 X XXX
1101 X
1105 XXX X
1113 X X
503 X X
595 X XX
656 X X ¦
666 X X
688 X X
847 X XX
1009 X X X
1112 XXX X
* Plant incinerates excess oily wastewater.
SOURCE: Data collection portfolio and follow-up telephone survey.
-------
Table VEI-8. Current level of Ih-Plaze Technology, Etean, Direct Dischargers
Gravity
Oil-Water
Hait Separation
Chemical
KLocculation
or Oil Absorp-
tive Media
Sand
Filtra-
tion
Oxidation
lagoon
iterated
lagoon
Spray
Irriga-
tion
Holding
Basin
Thermal
Evapora-
tion
Solar
Evapora-
tion Ibnl
Spray-
Assisted
Solar
Evapora-
tion
Effluent
Recycle to
Boiler or
Condenser
268
SOURCE: E&ta collection portfolio aid follow-up telephone survey.
-------
Table VII-9. Current Level of In-Place "technology, Wwd Rreserving-Stean, Indirect Dischargers
Spray-
Chemical Assisted Effluent
Gravity Elocculation Sand Spray Thermal Sblar Solar Rec jcle to
Oil-Water or Oil Asorp- Filtra- Oxidation Aerated Lrriga- Raiding Evapora- Evapora- Evapora- Boiler or
Plant Separation tive Jfedia tion lagoon lagoon tion Basin tion tion Ibnl tion Cbndenser
139
X
173
X
X
X
X
267
X
X
X
X
X
335
X
X
X
338
X
X
339
X
X
529
X
X
530
X
547
X
X
582
X
X
5%
X
620
X
X
693
X
X
765
X
X
X
89i
X
X
00 00
X
X
X
X
899
X
X
X
X
901
X
X
910
X
X
1076
X
X
X
1200
X
X
1201
589
X
575
X
5%
X
1203
X
2%
X
X
X
1205
X
SOURCE: E&ta collection portfolio and follow-up telephone survey.
-------
Treated Effluent Characteristics
Treated effluent characteristics for wood preserving plants
sampled during the Pretreatment Study, the verification sampling
programs and the 1972 - 1980 American Wood Preservers Institute
(AWPI) sampling program are presented in Tables VII-10 through 34
for traditional parameters and the toxic pollutants. All the
data are presented in terms of both concentrations and waste
loads, except for the AWPI data, which is presented only in terms
of concentrations. The AWPI data is not presented in terms of
waste loads because flow data were not available to correspond
with the concentration data.
Data from four sampling and analytical programs are presented.
Data for plants sampled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study
represent the average of two or more grab samples collected at
each plant. Data for plants sampled during the 1977 and 1978
verification sampling programs represent the average of three 24-
hour composite samples collected at each point. Data for plants
sampled during the 1972-1980 AWPI program represent one or more
grab samples collected at each plant. For those plants where two
or more grab samples were collected, the data represent an
average of all the samples collected.
Treated effluent flow data for some plants may differ somewhat
from the raw wastewater flow presented for the same plant during
the same sampling period. This is due to either dilution by
steam condensate, cooling water, boiler blowdown, etc., occurring
after the raw wastewater sampling point; or where no dilution
occurs, it is due to evaporative or percolation losses in the
treatment system.
For the purpose of data presentation and interpretation, the
plants are grouped into categories based on the type of treatment
technology which was in-place at the time of sampling.
One category represents plants which have BPT technology or its
equivalent in-place. BPT technology consists of primary oil-
water separation, flocculation and slow sand filtration, followed
by effective biological treatment. Flocculation and slow sand
filtration is an optional part of BPT technology which may not be
required by plants whose wastewaters do not contain high enough
concentrations of emulsified oils to inhibit biological
treatment. Only one of the plants in this category is a direct
discharger. All of the remaining plants discharge to a POTW or
to self contained systems following biological treatment. The
data presented in the tables indicate that BPT technology
achieves effluent PCP levels of about 1 mg/1.
A second category of plants is indirect dischargers with
pretreatment technology in-place. The pretreatment technology
consists of primary oil-water separation followed by flocculation
and slow sand filtration. Some plants in this category achieve
the 100 mg/1 Oil and Grease standard without slow sand
200
-------
filtration. One plant replaces the flocculation/filtration
system with oil absorbent media.
The data presented in the tables indicate that the pretreatment
technology removes most emulsified Oil and Grease to a level of
100 mg/1 or less. Removal of Oil and Grease is the key to
effective pretreatment and to the control of toxic pollutants
because PCP and PNAs have a much greater affinity for the oil
phase than for the water phase. The data presented in the tables
show that control of Oil and Grease serves as an excellent
control for removal of PNAs. When Oil and Grease are removed to
100 mg/1 or less, corresponding values of total PNAs are about 1
mg/1 and PCP can be controlled to 15 mg/1 or less.
The final category of plants for which data are presented are
plants with less than the equivalent of BPT technology in-place.
These plants have biological systems which do not meet the
effluent limitations for BPT because of insufficient aeration
and/or insufficient detention time, as compared to a properly
designed plant with BPT technology. These plants were visited
and sampled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study, and all of them
discharge to a POTW after treatment.
Metals data are presented according to whether the plants treat
with organic preservatives only, or with both organic and
inorganic preservatives.
Average raw and treated effluent waste loads for traditional
parameters and toxic pollutants are presented in Tables VI1-35
through 47. Percent removals of pollutant waste loads are also
presented in these tables. • '
201
-------
Table VII-10. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional Paraneters Data for Plants with Less Than
the Equivalent of EPT Technology In-Place**
Data Flow Production Concentrations (tng/1) Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
Plant
Source
(gpd)
(ft-yDay)
COD
Total
Rienols
0 & G
PCP
COD
Total
Hienols
0 & G PCP
499
PS'75
< 100
1,950
10,580
5.30
1,220
57.0
<4.52
<0.0023
<0.521 <0.0244
547*
PS'75
25,000
8,000
1,980
18.9
78.2
7.20
51.6
0.493
2.04 0.188
593*
PS'75
9,000
12,300
2,220
120
116
5.50
13.6
0.729
0.706 0.0336
898*
PS'75
2,000
3,000
5,100
325
449
41.5
28.4
1.81
2.49 0.231
Waste Load Averages <24.5 <0.759 <1.44 <0.119
* Plants used to calculate treated averages in Table VII-35.
** All four of these plants provide a ndniimm of biological treatment prior to discharge to a POTW.
Plant 499 provides insufficient aeration and detention time for effective biological treatment.
Plant 547 provides insufficient aeration for effective biological treatment.
Plant 593 provides insufficient aeration for effective biological treatment.
Plant 898 prcvides insufficient aeration and detention time for effective biological treatment.
-------
Table VII-11. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional Parameters Data for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place
Plant
Data
Source
Flow
(gpd)
Production
(ft^/Day)
Concentrations (mg/1)
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
COD
Total
Phenols
0 & G
PCP
COD
Total
Phenols
0 & G
PCP
173*
PS'75
3,000
3,880
4,866
0.202
339.3
15.0
31.4
0.0013
2.19
0.097
267
ESE'78
9,120
9,890
5,440
13.6
14.1
5.80
41.8
0.105
0.108
0.0446
267*
ESE'77
12,OOOt
5,800
4,420
64.4
49
6.12
76.3
1.11
0.846
0.106
267*
PS'75
6,000
6,600
4,315
50.8
20.0
3.20
32.7
0.385
0.152
0.0243
335*
PS '75
1,700
3,400
2,290
230.2
15.0
NA
9.55
0.960
0.0626
NA
582*
PS'75
13,750 :
7,500
3,030
80.2
40.0
9.00
46.2
1.23
0.612
0.138
765*
PS'75
5,000
2,700
10,513
448.0
245.2
NA
162
6.92
3.79
NA
1076
PS'75
12,000
5,500
4, 644
169.7
87.8
134.0
84.5
3.09
1.60
2.44
65*
ESE'78
2,200
2,770
500
1.60
121
17.0
3.31
0.0106
0.801
0.113
65*
PS'75
5,000
5,000
528
73.7
19.67
2.71
4.40
0.615
0.164
0.0226
1078*
ESE'77
10,500**
10,900
3,164
680
40.0
NA
25.4
5.46
0.321
NA
1078*
PS'75
7,000
10,000
4,078
613.1
24.9
0.06
23.8
3.58
0. 145
0.0004
Waste Load Averages 45.1 1.96 0.899 0.332
NA Not Analyzed.
* Plants used to calculate treated averages in Table VII-36.
t Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of stormwater runoff in treated flow.
These data do not alter the validity of waste loads.
** Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to flow equalization in the treatment system.
These data do not alter the validity of waste loads.
PTR Phenols ave. (#/100 2 cu ft) = 2.027.
-------
Table VII-12. AWPI Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Pentachlorophenol
(PCP) Data for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In-Place
Concentrations, mg/1
Plant Data Source PCP
547
AWPI,
1980
4.84
237
AWPI,
1978
3.03
355
AWPI,
1979
10.0
593
AWPI,
1976
14.0
376
AWPI,
1974
10.3
1111
AWPI,
1972
1.03
582
AWPI,
1979
1.20
582
AWPI,
1979
13.0
589
AWPI,
1979
7.6
894
AWPI,
1980
0.9
894
AWPI,
1980
9.0
894
AWPI,
1980
0.16
901
AWPI,
1980
14.0
* Samples were collected by AWPI members and analyzed at the Mississippi
State Forest Products Utilization Laboratory.
204
-------
Table VII-13. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional Paraneter Data for Plants With Current BPT Technology In-Place
Concentrations (mg/1) Vbste Loads (lb/1,000 ft"*)
Plant
Data
Source
Flow
(gpd)
Prod,
(ft^/day)
COD
Total
Rienols
0 & G
PCP
COD
Total
Hienols
0 & G
PCP
548**
ESE'78
36000
15500
661
0.927
52.3
2.70
12.8
0.0180
1.01
0.0.523
548**
ESE'77
14000*
8760
416
0.695
126
0.907
5.54
0.0093
1.68
0.0121
591**
ESE'78
14150tt
7920
630
0.260
100
0.032
9.39
0.0039
1.49
0.0005
591**
ESE'77
9350
11300
119
0.048
39
0.21
0.821
0.0003
0.269
0.0014
897**
ESE'78
42400
18200
230
0.068
9.3
0.069
4.47
0.0013
0.181
0.0013
1100
ESE'77
66300
16300
2122
7.00
398
8.27
72.0
0.237
13.5
0.281
1111**
PS'75
25000
7000
100
0.130
< 10
NA
2.98
0.0039
<0.298
m
Waste Load Averages 6.00 0.0061 <0.821 0.0135
NA Not Analyzed.
* Plant is a self-contained discharger. Sanples were taken after Milti-Stage Biological Treatment. Historical flow
data were used to calculate waste loads.
t Data not included in averaging since the treatment system was operating under upset conditions during sanpling.
Sanples were collected frcm the plant to determine the effect of upset upon priority pollutant removal.
** Plants used to calculate treated averages in Table VII-37.
tt Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of boiler blcwdown and stormwater runoff in
treated flow. This does not alter the validity of the waste loads.
-------
Table VII-14. Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
Volatile Organic Analysis During 1978
Verification Sampling
vinyl chloride
chloroethane
chloromethane
bromomethane
tr ibromomethane
bromod i chloromethane
dibromochloromethane
carbon tetrachloride
dichlorodifluoromethane
tr i ch1orof1uoromethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethane
1.1-dichloroethylene
trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
1.2-dichloropropane
1.3-dichloropropylene
Bis-chloromethylether
Bis-chloroethylether
2-chloroethylvinylether
acrolein
acrylonitrile
Generalized machine detection limit for these compounds is 10 ug/1
206
-------
Table VI1-15. Wbod Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile Organizes Data for Plants with Current Pretreatment Tedinolcgy
In-Placet
Concentrations (mg/1)
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft-*)
Data
Plant Source
Flow Prod,
(gpd) (fttyday)
mecl trcine
brdiclme benzene etberzene
toluene
itecI trche brdic he bereene etbereene
toluene
65* ESE'78
2200 2770
1.90 —
— 0.003 —
—
0.0126 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
<0.0001
267 ESE* 78
9120 9890
0.067 —
— 0.033 0.020
0.033
0.0005 <0.0001 <0.0001 ; 0.0003 0.0002
0.0003
Waste Load Awer^es 0.0005 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0003 0.0002 0.0003
* Data not included in averaging since plant uses unique methylene chloride process.
i ,
t A correspondirg averages t&le is not presented because Plant 267 ran wasteloads are unavailable and Plant 65 uses
a unique methylene chloride process.
— Hyphen cfenotes that paraneter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
Key to Volatile Organics Data Tables
mecl = methylene chloride
trchie = chlorcform (trichlorcmethane)
brdiclme = branodichloranethane
etbenzene = etfylbenzene
-------
Table VII-16. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent: Volatile Organic* Data for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place
Concentrations (mg/1) Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
Data Flow Prod.
Plant Source (gpd) (ft^/day) meet trclroe benzene etbenzene toluene necl trclne benzene etbenzene toluene
548* ESE'78 36000 15500 0.013 — -- — — 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
591* ESE'78 14150t 7920 0.660 0.023 0.010 -- 0.140 0.0098 0.0003 0.0001 <0.0001 0.0021
897* ESE'78 42400 18200 0.140 0.003 0.030 -- 0.023 0.0027 0.0001 0.0006 <0.0001 0.0005
Waste Load Averages 0.0043 <0.0002 <0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0009
— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
* Plants used to calculate treated averages in Table VII-38.
t Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of boiler blowdown and stormwater runoff in treated flow.
This does not alter validity of the waste loads.
Key to Volatile Organics Data Tables
mecl = methylene chloride
trclme = chloroform (trichloromethane)
brdiclme = br.omodichlorotnethane
etbenzene = ethylbenzene
-------
Table VI1-17. Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Base
Neutral Fractions During 1977 and 1978
Verification Sampling
2-chloronaphthalene
diethylphthalate
di-n-butylphthalate
butylbenzylphthalate
dimethylphthalate
4-ch1oropheny1-phenylether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenylether
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-dichlorobenzene
Generalized machine detection li
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
benzidine
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
nitrobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachloroethane
isophorone
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin
it for these compounds is 10 ug/1.
209
-------
Table VII-18. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals Concentrations for Plants with Current Pretreatsent
Technology In-Place
Plant Data Plow Prod. Concentrations (ag/1)
Nuaber Source (gal/day) (fttyday) 1 2 3 5 5 6 7 8 5 TI H T3 15 13 15"
65
ESE
'78
2200
2770
—
-
—
-
--
0.133
—
—
—
—
—
1078
ESE
•77
10500
10900
0.092
~
-
0.027
-
0.058
0.930
0.059
0.059
0.019
0.029
267
ESE
'78
9120
9890
17.0
2.50
~
9.40
-
-
37.0 3.40
36.0
18.0
--
16.0
1.9
-
267
ESE
'77
12Q00
5800
—
—
—
—
—
0.059
0.820
0.100
0.140
0.036
—
0.154
H — Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
Key to Base Heutral Data Tables
1.
Pluoranthene
2.
Benzo (B) Pluoranthene
3.
Benzo (k) Pluoranthene
4.
Pyrene
5.
Benzo (A) Pyrene
6.
Indeno (1, 2, 3-CD) Pyrene
7.
Benzo (ghi) Perylene
8.
Phenanthrene and/or Anthracene
9.
Benzo (a) Anthracene
10.
Dibenzo (a, h) Anthracene
11.
Naphthalene
12.
Acenaphthene
13.
Acenaphthylene
14.
Pluorene
15.
Chrysene
16.
Bis-2-ethyl-hexyl phthalate
-------
Table VI1-19, Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Bane Neutrals Haste Loads for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In-Place
Plant
(lata
Flow
Prod .
Waste Loads (lb/10,000 fl3)
Number
So urc p
(gal/day)
(ft 3/day)
1
2
3
4
5"—
6
7
8
9
10
1 i
12
1J
14
61ft
F.SE
•78
2200
2770
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0009
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.000!
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
* 1078ft
ESE
'77
I0W)*
10900
0.0007
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0002
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0005
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0075
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
<0.0001
q.0002
267tt
ESE
'77
¦120001
5800
<0,0001
<0.0001
<0.0001 •;
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0010
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0141
0.0017
0.0024
0.0006
<0.0001
0.00? 7
26?**
ESK
'78
9120
9890
0.131
0.0192
<0.0001
0.0723
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.285
0.0261
<0.0001
0.277
0.138
<0.0001
0.123
0.014ft
<0.01101
Wast? !
Uia'i Averages
<0.0003
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0008
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0072
<0.0008
<0.0010
<0.0003
<0.0001
<0.0010
ro
* Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to flow equalization In the treatment system,
lilts does not alter the validity of the waste loads,
t Variations between the raw and treated flow are doe to inclusion of stormwater runoff in Created flow.
This, does not alter the validity of the waste loads.
** Not included in the average because of suspected analytical discrepancies,
tt Plants u*ed to calculate treated averages in Table VlI-39.
Key to Base Neutral Data Tables
1. F1uoranthene
2. Benzo (B) Fluoranthene
3. Benzo (k) Fluoranthene
4. Pyrene
5. Benzo (A) Pyrene
6. Indeno CI* 2» 3-CD) Pyrene
7. Benzo (ghi) Perylene
8. Phenanthrene and/or -Anthracene
9. Benzo (a) Anthracene
10. Dibenzo (a, h) Anthracene
11. Naphthalene
12. Acenaf&lhene
13. Acenaphthylene
14. Fluorcne
15. Chrysene
16. Ois-2-ethyl-hexyl phthalate
-------
Table ¥11-20. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Keutrala Concentrations for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place
Plant Data Plow Feed. Concentration! (as/1)
Hoaber Source (gal/day) {ft*fyday) 1 2 3 5 5 5 7 S 9 10 IT EZ O 14 IS IF
548
2SE
'78
36000
15500
1.60
0.210
0,210
1.20
0.290
O.ltO
0,063
1,40
0.440
—
0,370
—
0,280
0,270
591
BSE
*78
14150
7920
0.210
-
0.037
0,120
0.S15
0,040
0,002
0.037
0.055
"
0,031
0.065
-
0,017
-
0.009
591
BSE
,7?
9350
11300
0.120
-
-
0.077
-
-
0.053
0.140
0.090
0.067
0,050
0.010
89?
ESE
'78
42400
18200
0.011
0-057
0.057
0.013
0.070
0.050
o.ou
-
"
--
0,002
0.004
0,004
-
0.019
-
1100
ESE
in
66300
16300
0.106
—
—•
0.079
—
—
—
0.420
0.009
—
0.033
0.203
0.190
0,100
0,305
H* — Hyphen denotes that paraaeter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
f\5
Key to Base Heutral Data Tables
1. Pluoranthene
2, lento (B) Pluoranthene
3, Senzo (k) Pluoranthene
4, Pyrene
5. Beozo (A) Pyrene
6. Indeno (I, 2, 3-CD) Pyrene
7. Benso (ghi) Perylene
8, Phenanthrene and/or Anthracene
.9. Benzo (a) Anthracene
10. Dibenzo (a, h) Anthracene
11. Naphthalene
12. Aeenaphthene
13. Acenaphthylene
14. Pluorene
15. Chrysene
16. Bia-2-ethyl-hexyl phthalate
-------
Table V1I-21. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals Waste Loads for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place
Plant Data Flow Prod. Waste Loads (lb/10,000 ft^)
Umber Source (gal/day) (ft~/day) 1 2 3 3 5 5 7 8 9 H5 TI 11 13 15 15 IF
548t
ESE
'78
36000
15500
0.0310
0.0041
0.0041
0.0232
0.0056
0.0021
0.0012
0.0271
0.0065
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0072
<0.0001
0.0054
0.0052
<0.0001
5911
ESE
•78
14150**
7920
0.0031
<0.0001
0.0006
0.0018
0.0002
0.0006
<0.0001
0.0006
<0.0008
<0.0001
0.0005
0.0010
<30.0001
0.0003
<0.0001
<0.0001
5911
ESE
*77
9350
11300
0.0008
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0005
<0.0001
<0.0001
43.0001
0.0004
-------
Table VII-22. Toxic Pollutant Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found
During 1978 Verification Sampling
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
para-chloro-meta-cresol
4,6-dinitro-ortho-cresol
Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is
25 ug/1.
214
-------
Table VII-23. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
In-Place
Concentrations (mg/1) Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
Plant
Data
Flow
Prod.
2-
2,4-
2,4,6-
2-
2,4-
2,4,6-
Number
Source
(gal/day)
(ft^/day)
phen
clphen
dimeph
triclph
PCP
phen
clphen
dimeph
triclph
PCP
1731
PS '75
3000
3880
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0967
267
ESE '78
9120
9890
16.0
—
—
—
5.80
0.123
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0446
267t
ESE '77
12000**
5800
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0930
267t
PS '75
6000
6600
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0243
582t
PS '75
13750
7500
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.138
1076
PS '75
12000
5500
NA
NA
NA
NA
134.
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.44
BOULTON
65t
ESE 178
2200
2770
0.026
0.004
—
0.005
17.0
0.0002
: <0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.113
65t
PS '75
5000
5000
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0226
1078t
PS '75
7000
10000
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.055
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0003
Waste Load Averages 0.0616 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.330
NA Not analyzed.
— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
* Data not included in averages.
t Plants used in calculating treated averages in Table VII-41.
** Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of stormwater runoff
in treated flow. This does not alter the validity of the waste loads.
Key to Volatile Organics Data Tables
phen = phenol
2-clphen = 2-chlorophenol
2,4-dimeph = 2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4,6-triclph = 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
PCP - pentachlorophenol
-------
Table VII-24. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data for Plants with Current BPT Technology
In-Place
Concentrations (rog/1) Waste Loads (lb/10,000 ft^)
Plant
Data
Flow
Prod.
2-
2,4-
2,4,6-
2- 2,4-
2,4,6-
Number
Source
,(gal/day)
(ft^/day)
phen
clphen
dimeph
triclph
PCP
phen clphen dimeph
triclph
PCP
548**
ESE '78
36000
15500
__
0.140
__
2.70
<0.0001 <0.0001 0.0027
<0.0001
0.0523
548**
ESE '77
14000*
8760
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.907
NA NA NA
NA
0.0121
591**
ESE '78
14150tt
7920
0.015
—
—
—
0.032
0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001
<0.0001
0.0005
591**
ESE '77
9350
11300
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.213
NA NA NA
NA
0.0015
897**
ESE '78
42400
18200
0.015
—
0.005
0.005
0.069
0.0003 <0.0001 0.0001
0.0001
0.0013
1 loot
ESE '77
66300
16300
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.27
NA NA NA
NA
0.281
Waste Load Averages <0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0010 <0.0001 0.0135
NA Not analyzed.
— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
* Plant is a self-contained discharger. Samples were taken after Multi-Stage Biological Treatment.
Historical flow data were used to calculate waste loads,
t Data not included in averaging since the treatment system was operating under upset conditions during' sampling.
Samples were collected from the plant to determine the effect of upset upon priority pollutant removal.
** Plants used in calculating treated averages in Table VII-42.
tt Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of boiler blowdown and stormwater runoff in
treated flow. This does not alter the validity of the waste loads.
Key to Volatile Organics Data Tables
phen = phenol
2-clphen = 2-chlorophenol
2,4-dimeph = 2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4,6-triclph = 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
PCP - pentachlorophenol
-------
Table Vlt-25. Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic Preaervatives Only, Treated Effluent for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In-Place
Flow Prod, Effluent Concentrations (ag/l) ¦ —
Plant Source (gpd) (ft3/day> Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chromium Lead Mercury HickelSelenium Silver Thallium
267 ESE '78 9120 9890 0.024 -- 0.013 0.005 0.270 0.072 0.025 — 0.046 — O-001* °-007 °"480
|>j 267 ESE '77 12000 5800 0.003 0.001 — — 0.056 0.005 0.001 — 0.006 0.003 — 0.001 0.579
— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
Table VII-26. H>od Preserving ffctala Data, Orjonic Pre»ervativcj Only, Treated Effluent for Plant* with current Pretreotneitf-
Teth oology IiHPlace
Flow
Prod.
Effluent Haste Load (lb/1,000 ft^)
Plant
Source
(gpd)
(ftr/day)
Arsenic
Antiaoiy
Beryllium
Cadoiun
Copper Chrasium
Leal Hjrouty
Nickel
Seleniun
Silver
Hialliun
Zinc
267
ESE '78
9120
9890
0.00018
<0.00001
0.00010
0.00004
0.00208 0.00055
0.00019. <0.00001
0.00035
<0.00001
0.00003
0.00005
0.00369
267*
ESE '77
12000t
5800
0.00005
0.00002
<0.00001
-------
Table VI1-27, Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic Preservatives Only, Treated Effluent for Plants with Current BPT Technology
In-Piace
Flow Prod . Effluent Concentrations Cmg/1)
Source (g|»d) (fl^/day) Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chromitsa Lead Hercury fiicfeel Selenium Silver Thai I ium Zinc
548
esb
•78
36000
¦ 15500
6.98
0.014
0.003
0.018
0.015
0.037
—
0.019
—
—
—
0,047'
548
USE
'77
14000 :
8760
0.035
0.002
-
0,020
0.003
0.004
—
0.005
0.002
-
0.054
591
ESF.
'78
14150 !
7920
0.028
O.'OOl
0.001
0.034
0.007
0,004
0.002
0.009
—
0,001
—
0.080
591
ESK
'77
9350
11300
0.002
0.001
—
0.040
0.001
—
0.0005
0.002
0.001
—
0.002
0.145
too4
ESE
'77
66300
16300
0.227
—
—
0.092
0.003
0.003
—
0.057
0.003
0.001
0.001
0,252
Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection 1imit.
J\5
l-»
to
-------
Table VII-28. Vfood Preserving Hstals Data, Organic Preservatives Only, Treated Effluent for Flints with
Current WS Technology Iir?l*ce
Flow Prod. Effluent Waste Load (lb/1,000 ft3)
Plant Source (gpd) {it fis}) Arsenic Antirory Berylliitn Cadniun Copper Chrara.un Lead tferairy Nickel Selenium Silver Thai linn Zinc
548**
BSE
"78
36000
15500
0.135*
0.00027
<0.00001
0.00006
0.00035
0.00029
0.00072
<0.00001
0.00037
<0.00001
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00091
548**
ESE
'77
14000ft
8760
0.00047
0.00003
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00027
0.00004
0.00005
-------
Table VII-29. Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic Preservatives, Treated Effluent for Plants with Less Than
the Equivalent of BPT Technology In-Place
Data Flow Prod. Effluent Concentrations (mg/1)
Plant Source (gpd) (fttyday) Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chranium Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc
499 PS '75 <100 1950 1.02 NA NA NA 4.00 1.30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA--Not Analyzed.
ro
ro
-------
Tabic VI1-30. Hxrf Preserving Kzttls Data, Organic aoJ Inorganic Preservatives, Treated Effluent for Plants With Less Hwn
the Equivalent: of KT Technology Treatment In-Place
Data
Flow
Prod.
Effluent Haste Load* (lb/1,000 ftp)
Plant
Source
(gpd)
(ft^/dsy)
Arsenic
Anthoiy
Beiylliwi
Cafeiun
Copper QiraiauTi Leal Hjrajry
Nickel
Selenium
Silwr
Thallium
Zinc
499*
PS '75
<100
1950
<0.00044
NA
t»
HA
<0.00171 <0,00056 » HA
NA
m
m
M
m
Average Uiste Loads
¦OO.OOOM
HA
HA
HA
<0.00171 <0.00056 » NA
NA
m
NA
NA
m
NA—Not Analyzed.
* Plant used in calculating treats] averages in Table VXI-45.
-------
Table VI1-31. Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic Preservatives. Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
Protreatnent Technology In-PUce
Data Flow 'Prod. Effluent Concentrations («r/1?
Plant Source (gpd) (ftfyday) Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadaiitaa Copper Chroaiua Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver" lha 11 itsa zfnc
65
ESE
*78
2200
2770
0.011
0.008
0.002
0.007
0.092
4.40
0.013
0.0001
0.018
0.039
0.001
-
31.0
65
PS
'75
5000
5000
-
NA
HA
NA
0.020
6.60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
41.1
113
PS 1
'75
3000
3880
0.050
, HA
NA
NA
0.570
0.090
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
335
PS '
175
170Q
3400
0,730
NA
NA
HA
1.78
0.530
NA
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
582
PS !
'75
13750
mo
0.030
HA
HA
NA
0.150
0.010
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.160
I0?8
ESE
*77
10500
10900
0.002
-
-
—
0.277
0,010
0.001
0.0012
0.150
0.001
-
-
1.37
1078
PS '
75
7000
10000
— -
HA
HA
NA
0.530
0.030
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.04
NA Not Analysed.
r>0 — Hyphen denotes that parameter waa analysed for but was below detection lt«U.
CO
-------
Tibia VI1-32. Wood Froemnft KsUl* Data, Organic aol Incnrjisnic Fretenattvea, Treated Effluent for Plant* with Current
Pretreaoeent Technology In-Flice
Data Flow Prod. Effluent Haate Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
Plant
Source
Cgpd)
(ft/day)
Awenie
Antimiy
Berylliua
CaMua
Ccpper
Qiroaun
Lead ffercury
Hiekel
Selenium
Silwr
Thai liun
Zinc
65*
ESE '78
2200
2770
0.00007
0.00005
0.00001
0.00005
0.00061
0.0291
0.00009 <0.00001
0.00012
0.00026
0.00001
<0.00001
0.205
65*
PS '75
5000
5000
<0.00001
ta
KA
HA
0.00017
0.0550t
HA NA
NA
»
NA
NA
0.0343T
173
PS '75
3000
3880
0.00032
NA
NA
NA
0.00368
0.00058
HA NA
NA
NA
NA
m
m
335*
PS '75
1700
3400
0.00301
NA
HA
HA
0.00742
0.00221
HA NA
HA
(ft
NA
tft
NA
582*
PS '75
13750
7500
O.OOW
HA
NA
NA
0.00229
0.00015
HA NA
NA
NA
NA
m.
0.00245
1078*
ESE "77
10500**
10900
0.00002
<30.00001
-------
Table VII-33. Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic Preservatives, Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In-Place
Data
Flow
Prod.
Effluent
Concentrations (og/1)
Plant
Source
(gpd)
(ft-tyday) Arsenic Antimony
Beryllium Cadmium
Capper Chromium Lead
Mercury
Nickel Selenium Silver
Thallium Zinc
897
ESE *78
66700
18200 0.083
0,005
0.058 0.031 0.009
0.0002
0.011
0.I0C
— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
ro
|N>
ui
-------
Table VII-34. Hbod PreMtving tfeulc Data, Organic aid Inoijanic Preservative*, Treated Effluent for Plant* with Current BIT
Technology IrrPlace
Mute 1
oet* (lb/1,000 ft?)
Plant
Data
Source
Flew
(gpd)
Prod,
(f^/day)
Arsenic
Antnoty
Betylliuii
Cafeiuj
Copper
Oinmin Leal
Iferaify
Hickel
Selenius
Silwr Thallium
Zinc
897*
CO
i
66700
18200
0.0025
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.0001
0.0018
0.00095 0.0003
0.00001
0.00034
<33.00001
-------
Table VI1-35. Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for
Plants With Less Than the Equivalent of BPT Technology In-Place
COD
Waste Loads (lb/1
Total Phenols
,000 ft3)
Oil & Grease
PCP
Raw*
92.8
1 .77
8.71
0.498
Treated**
31 .2
1.01
1 .75
0.151
% Removal
66.4
42.9
79.9
69.7
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-7.
** Averages calculated from data in Table VII-10.
227
-------
Table VII-36. Wood Preserving Traditional Data for Plants with
Pretreatment Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
COD Total Phenols 0 & G PCP
Raw* 80.7 3.11 7.82 <0.294
Treated** 41.5 2.03 0.908 0.0716
% Removal 48.6 34.7 88.4 <75.6
* Averages calculated from Tables V-7 and V-8.
** Averages calculated from Table VII-11.
Table VI1-37. Wood Preserving Traditional Data for Plants with
BPT Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
COD Total Phenols O & G PCP
Raw* 31.3 2.41 4.32 <0.268
Treated** 6.00 0.0061 0.821 0.0135
% Removal 80.8 99.7 >81.0 <95.0
* Averages calculated from Table V-7.
** Averages calculated from Table VII-13.
228
-------
Table VII-38. Wood Preserving Volatile Organic Analysis Data for
Plants with BPT Technology In Place
Waste Loads (lb/10,000 ft3)
mecl trclme benzene etbenzene toluene
Raw* 0.0049 <0.0001 %0.0200 0.101 0.0237
Treated** 0.0043 <0.0002 <0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0009
% Removal 12.2 >98.5 >99.9 >96.2
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-9.
** Averages calculated from data in Table VII-16. Key to
Volatile Organics Data Tables
mecl = methylene chloride
trclme = chloroform (trichloromethane)
brdiclme = bromodichoromethane
etbenzene = ethylbenzene
229
-------
Table VII-39. Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data, Averages for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology Iit-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ftp)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ratf* <0.0057 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0038 <0.0001
-------
Table VLI-40. Wbod Hreserving Base Neutrals Data, Averages for Plants with Qirrent BIT Tbchnolqgy In-Place
Vbste loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Raw* 0.0530 <0.0091 0.0127 0.0395 <0.0105 <0.0073 <0.0015 0.121 <0.0129 <0.0005 >0.186 0.0436 0.0049 0.0344 <0.0112 <0.0002
Treatedt 0.0088 <0.0014 <0.0015 0.0032 <0.0018 <0.0010 <0.0004 <0.0071 <0.0024 <0.0001 <0.0004 0.0022 <0.0002 <0.0015 <0.0015 <0.0001
% Removal 83.4 85.7 >69.7 93.0 83.9 89.6 78.9 >94.0 86.0 83.3 >99.8 95.3 >97.0 >95.9 83.1 66.7
* Averages calculated frcm data in T^ble V-12.
t A/erages calculated from data in "I^ble VII-21.
Key to Base Neutral Data Tables
1.
Fluor anthene
9.
Benzo (a) Aithracene
2.
Ben 23 (B) Fluor anthene
10.
DLbenzo (a, h) Aithracene
3.
Bena3 (k) Fluoraithene
11.
Ifephthalene
4.
fyrene
12.
A:enaphthene
5.
Bena3 (A) Pyrene
13.
A:enaphthylene
6.
Ihdeno (1, 2, 3-CD) Pyrene
14.
Fluorene
7.
Ben as (gjhi) Perylene
15.
Chrysene
8.
Rienanthrene and/or Aithracene
16.
Bis-2-ethyl-bexyl {hthai ate
-------
Table VII-41. Wood Preserving Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data for
Plants with Pretreatment Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
phen 2-clph 2,4-dimeph 2,4,6-triclph PCP
Raw* 0.0066 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.419
Treated** 0.0002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0697
% Removal 97.1 83.4
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-14.
** Averages calculated from data in Table VI1-23.
Key to Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data Tables
phen = phenol
2-clphen = 2-chlorophenol
2,4-dimeph = 2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4,6-triclph = 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
PCP = pentachlorophenol
232
-------
Table VII—42. Wood Preserving Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data
For Plants With BPT Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
phen 2-clph 2,4-dimeph 2,4,6-triclph PCP
Raw*
0.352
DO.0004
0.0445
DO.0050
0.0736
Treated**
DO.0002
DO.0001
0.0010
0.0001
.0.0135
% Removal
>99.9
75.0
>97.8
98.0
97.6
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-14.
** Averages calculated from data in Table VI1-24,
Key to Toxic Pollutant Phenols Data Tables
phen ® phenol
2-clph = 2-chlorophenol
2,4-dimeph = 2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4,6-triclph = 2, 4,6-trichlorophenol
PCP « peritachlorophenol
233
-------
Table VII-43. Vbod Preserving Metals Data, Organic Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants with Current Pretreataent
Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
Arsenic Antimony Berylliurn Cadmium Copper Chromium Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc
Ratf* 0.00003 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00137 0.00001 0.00008 <0.00001 0.00005 0.00001 <0.00001 0.00001 0.00338
Treated t 0.00005 0.00002 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00097 0.00009 0.00002 <0.00001 0.0001 0.00005 <0.00001 0.00002 0.00999
% Rsnoval 29.2 75.0
* Averages calculated fran data in Table V-17.
t Averages calculated from data in Table VII-26.
ro
CO
4*
-------
Table VI1-44. Wbod Preserving Metals Data, Organic Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
Arsenic Antinoiy Berylliun Cadndtm Copper Chraniun Lead Mercury Nickel Seleniun Silver Thalliun Zinc
Ratf* 0.00014 0.00022 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00048 0.00012 0.00043 <0.00001 0.00010 0.00002 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00163
Treatedt 0.0003 <0.00008 <0.00001 <0.00002 0.00035 0.0001 <0.00021 <0.00001 0.0001 <0.00002 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00096
% Removal >63.6 27.1 16.7 >51.2 41.1
* Averages calculated fran data in Table V-17.
t Averages calculated fran data in Table VII-28.
-------
Table VII-45. Hood Preserving totals Data, Organic and Inorganic Preservatives, Averages for Plants With Less Than Current
BPT Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chrcndun Lead Ifercury Nickel Seleniun Silver lhalliun Zinc
Raw* 0.00043 NA NA 0.00167 0.00053 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Treatedt 0.00044 NA NA NA 0.00171 0.00056 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
% Ranoval
* Averages calculated fran data in Table V-19.
t Averages calculated fran data in Table VII-30.
NA Not Analyzed.
-------
Table VII-46. Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place
Data Haste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
Sources Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chranium Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc
Raw* <0.00030 <0.00005 <0.00001 <0.00002 0.0039 <0.00728 0.00003 <0.00001 0.00062 0.00019 0.00002 <0.00001 0.0601
Treated t <0.00060 <0.00003 <0.00001 <0.00003 0.00264 0.00634 0.00005 <0.00001 0.00067 0.00014 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.0561
Z Removal 40.0' 32.3 <12.9 26.3 >50.0 6.7
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-19.
t Averages calculated from data in Table VII-32.
PO
CO
-------
Table VII-47. Wood Preserving Hetals Data, Organic and Inorganic Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In-Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft^)
Sources Arsenic Anti*ony Beryllira Cadmiu* Copper Chromium Lead Hercury Hickel Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc
0.00253 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00002 0.0015 0.00045 0.00031
0.0025 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.0001 0.0018 0.00095 0.0003
1.2 3.2
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-19.
t Averages calculated from data in Table VII-34.
Raw*
Treated t
X Removal
0.00003 0.00194 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00233
0.00001 0.00034 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.00306
66.7 82.5
PO
OJ
00
-------
Wood Preserving Candidate Treatment Technologies
Direct Dischargers—Candidate treatment technologies for direct
dischargers are applicable only to the Steam subcategory.
Previously published BPT regulations require no discharge for the
Boulton subcategory, and no Boulton direct dischargers were
identified.
These direct discharge candidate technologies are presented
primarily for information purposes, as only one direct
discharging wood preserving-steam plant was identified during the
BAT review. This plant, Plant 268, discharges only during
periods of heavy rainfall. The plant provides primary oil-water
separation followed by chemical coagulation, sedimentation, and
biological treatment, and is planning steps to eliminate the
intermittent discharges of process wastewater from the plant.
Four basic treatment technologies are applicable to steaming
direct dischargers:
1. BPT technology (primary oil-water separation, chemical
coagulation and sedimentation or filtration, and
biological treatment) treatment facilities;
2. BPT with increased biological treatment as above with
the addition of activated carbon adsorption as a
polishing treatment for the biological effluent;
3. BPT with increased biological treatment as in (1) above
with metals removal by chromium reduction and hydroxide
precipitation; and
4. BPT with increased biological treatment and metals
removal as in (3) above with activated carbon
adsorption as a polishing treatment for the biological
effluent.
Increased biological treatment facilities can be achieved through
one of two options. One option is to add an aerated lagoon
followed by a facultative lagoon for additional treatment and
clarification to the existing BPT biological system. The other
option is to provide . an activated sludge system, including
equalization and secondary clarification in addition to the BPT
technology.
The effluent quality of each option will be the same. The
aerated lagoon option is less costly than the activated sludge
system; however, it requires more land.
The candidate treatment systems selected for direct dischargers
in the steam subcategory including both biological treatment
options for each of the four basic treatment technologies are:
239
-------
1. Candidate Treatment Technology A which represents BPT
technology plus an additional aerated and facultative
lagoon system for increased biological treatment, as
shown in Figure VI1-5.
2. Candidate Treatment Technology B which represents BPT
technology plus an additional activated sludge system
including equalization and clarification for increased
biological treatment, as shown in Figure VI1-6.
3. Candidate Treatment Technology C which represents
Technology A plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown
in Figure VII-7.
4. Candidate Treatment Technology D which represents
Technology B plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown
in Figure VII-8.
5. Candidate Treatment Technology E which represents
Technology A plus metals removal, as shown in Figure
VI1—9.
6. Candidate Treatment Technology F which represents
Technology B plus metals removal, as shown in Figure
VII-10.
7. Candidate Treatment Technology G which represents
Technology E plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown
in Figure VII-l1.
8. Candidate Treatment Technology H which, represents
Technology F plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown
in Figure VII-l2.
The representative treated waste loads for Candidate Treatment
Technologies A through H are presented in Table VI1-48. The
waste loads for Technologies A and B were obtained from Table
VII-l3, with the exception of those for Oil and Grease. The Oil
and Grease waste loads shown in Table VI1-48 were obtained by
averaging the Oil and Grease waste loads demonstrated by Plants
591 (ESE, 1977), 897 (ESE, 1978), and 1111 (PS, 1975) as shown in
Table VII-13. Plants 548 (ESE, 1977 and 1978) and 591 (ESE,
1978) were not included in this average as both plants are self
contained dischargers which either recycle a large portion of
their treated effluent or spray irrigate their treated effluent
following treatment. Neither plant met the 30-day average BPT
standard for oil and grease during the stated sampling period.
There is no need for these plants to optimize Oil and Grease
removal because their wastewater disposal systems are apparently
operating satisfactorily. Plants 591 (ESE, 1977), 897 (ESE,
1978), and 1111 (PS, 1975) demonstrate that the BPT Oil and
Grease standards are achievable with a biological system.
Waste loads after carbon treatment are calculated based on the
assumption that activated carbon will remove 80 percent of the
COD, and 95 percent of total phenols including PCP. It should
be noted that these reductions are assumptions supported only by
240
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT A
RAW WASTEWATER
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
NUTRIENT ADDITION
DISCHARGE
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
AERATED LAGOON
MONITORING
STATION
FLOCCULATION
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
PUMP STATION
AERATED LAGOON
Figure VII-5
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PUNT B
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
PUMP STATION
FLOCCULATION
DISCHARGE
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
EQUALIZATION
TWO • STAOi
ACTIVATED SLUOQE
PUMP STATION
MONITORINQ
STATION
Figure VI1-6
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT C
RAW WASTEWATER
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
FLOCCULATION
PUMP STATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
NUTRIENT ADDITION
AERATED LAGOON
NEUTRALIZATION
ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORPTION
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
AERATED LAGOON
MONITORING
STATION
PUMP STATION
DISCHARGE
Figure VII-7
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT D
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
FLOCCULATION
DISCHARGE
PUMP STATION
NEUTRALIZATION
EQUALIZATION
MONITORING
STATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
PUMP STATION
TWO - STAGE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORPTION
PUMP STATION
Figure VII-8
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT E
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H2 SO„-
RAW WASTEWATER->
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH NaOH
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
METALS
REMOVAL
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
DISCHARGE
PUMP STATION
FILTRATION
FLOCCULATION
CHROME
REDUCTION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
MONITORING
STATION
AERATED LAGOON
AERATED LAGOON
NEUTRALIZATION
Figure VI1-9
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT F
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H2SO/
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH NaOH
NUTRIENT ADDITION-.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
METALS
REMOVAL
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
MONITORING
STATION
RAW WASTEWATER -> PUMP STATION
EQUALIZATION
CHROME
REDUCTION
FLOCCULATION
PUMP STATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
TWO - STAGE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Figure VI1-10
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT G
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H2 SQn
RAW WASTEWATER
ro
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH NaOH
NUTRIENT ADDITION —
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
METALS
REMOVAL
DISCHARGE
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
FILTRATION
ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORPTION
PUMP STATION
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
CHROME
REDUCTION
FLOCCULATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
MONITORING
STATION
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
AERATED LAGOON
AERATED LAGOON
Figure VI1-11
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT H
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H2SOv
RAW WASTEWATER
ro
¦£»
03
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH NaOH
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
NUTRIENT ADDITION
METALS
REMOVAL
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
FLOCCULATION
MONITORING
STATION
PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
FILTRATION
CHROME
REDUCTION
PUMP STATION
EQUALIZATION
DISCHARGE
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORPTION
TWO - STAGE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NEUTRALIZATION
Figure VII-12
-------
Table VII-48. Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1 ,000 ft3 of.
Production for Candidate Treatment Technologies (Direct
Dischargers)
Pollutant
Parameter
A or B
Candidate Technology
C or D* E or F
G or H*
COD
Oil & Grease
Total Phenols
PCP
VOA's
Base Neutrals
Toxic
Pollutant
Phenols
Heavy Metals
6.0
0.25
0.0061
0.014
See Table
VII-38
See Table
VII-40
See Table
VI1-42
See Table
VI1-44
and
VII-47
1 .2
0.25
0.0003
0.0007
99+% removal
(except
methylene
chloride)
99+%
removal
99+%
removal
6.0
0.25
0.0061
0.014
See Table
VII-38
See Table
VII-40
See Table
VI1-42
See Table
VI1-44
and
VII-47
About 75%
removal, cop-
per, chrome,
zinc, and
arsenic*
1 .2
0 . 25
0.0003
0.0007
99+% removal
(except
methylene
chloride)
99+%
removal
99+%
removal
76-98% removal
of copper,
chrome, zinc,
and arsenic
* Expected treated effluent loads based on literature presented
earlier in this section.
249
-------
literature data and have not been demonstrated in the industry as
there are no similar systems currently in-place.
Waste loads after metals removal are calculated based on the
removals reported in the literature, as described earlier in this
section. They have not been demonstrated in the industry as
there are no systems currently in-place.
Direct discharging steaming plants may also achieve no discharge
status through the self contained Candidate Treatment Technology
N, which consists of spray evaporation and is discussed under
self contained dischargers later in this section.
The costs associated with the single direct discharging wood
preserving plant identified earlier to install the candidate
treatment technologies are presented in Appendix A.
Indirect Dischargers—Candidate treatment technologies applicable
to indirect dischargers are applicable to both Boulton and Steam
subcategory plants.
Three basic treatment technologies are applicable to the indirect
dischargers:
1. Pretreatment technology (primary oil separation
followed by chemical flocculation and slow sand
filtration).
2. Pretreatment technology with the addition of biological
treatment facilities sufficient to meet BPT standards.
3. Pretreatment technology with biological treatment
facilities as above with the addition of heavy metals
removal by chromium reduction and hydroxide
precipitation.
Biological treatment can be achieved through one of two options.
One option consists of an aerated lagoon followed by a
facultative lagoon for additional biological treatment and
clarification. The other option consists of a single basin
activated sludge system including equalization and clarification.
The effluent quality of each option will be the same. The
aerated lagoon option is less costly than the activated sludge
system; however, it requires more land.
The candidate treatment systems selected for indirect dischargers
are:
1. Candidate Treatment Technology I which represents
pretreatment technology, as shown in Figure VII-13.
2. Candidate Treatment Technology J which represents
pretreatment technology plus an aerated lagoon followed
250
-------
by a facultative lagoon for biological treatment, as
shown in Figure VII-14.
3. Candidate Treatment Technology K which represents
pretreatment technology plus an activated sludge system
including equalization and clarification, as shown in
Figure VII-15.
4. Candidate Treatment Technology L which represents
Technology J plus metals removal, as shown in Figure
VII-16.
5. Candidate Treatment Technology M which represents
Technology K plus metals removal, as shown in Figure
VII-17.
The representative treated waste loads for Candidate Treatment
Technologies I through M are presented in Table VI1-49. Treated
waste loads presented for Oil and Grease, copper, chromium, and
arsenic for treatment technology I are based on pretreatment
standards and average wastewater flows presented in Section V.
Treated waste loads for the biological systems presented in this
table are based on BPT standards. The design and cost estimates,
presented in Appendix A, for the indirect discharger biological
systems are based on minimum biological treatment required to
provide a BPT effluent quality. Cost estimates are not presented
in Appendix A for pretreatment technology (Technology I) because
no incremental costs of compliance will accrue for the indirect
dischargers since they are currently required to meet effluent
levels based on this technology. Expected treated effluent waste
loads of 0.05 lb/1,000 cu ft for PCP for biological treatment
systems are based on an estimate of PCP removal for plants with
sufficient biological treatment to meet minimum BPT standards for
regulated parameters. Table VII-10 shows that the average PCP
waste load for plants with biological systems insufficient to
meet BPT is 0.119 lb/1,000 cu ft. Table VII-13 shows that the
average PCP waste load for plants which exceed BPT standards is
0.0135 lb/ 1,000 cu ft.
251
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT I
RAW WASTEWATER
FLQCCULATION
PUMP STATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT J
RAW WASTEWATER,-
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
FLOCCULATION
PUMP STATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
MONITORING
STATION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
NUTRIENT ADDITION —
AERATED LAGOON
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
DISCHARGE
Figure VIM 4
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT K
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
DISCHARGE
FLOCCULATION
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
EQUALIZATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
ONE - STAGE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PUMP STATION
MONITORING
STATION
Figure VIM 5
-------
WQOD PRESERVING - STEAM, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT L
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H2SO<.
RAW WASTEWATER-*"
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
FLOCCULATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
CHROME
REDUCTION
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH NaOH —J
"
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
NUTRIENT ADDITION-1
METALS
REMOVAL
PUMP STATION
FILTRATION
AERATED LAGOON
NEUTRALIZATION
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
PUMP STATION
MONITORING
DISCHARGE
STATION
Flgura VII-16
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT M
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H2 SO<-
RAW WASTEWATER->
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH NaOH
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
METALS
REMOVAL
OIL-WATER
SEPARATION
PUMP STATION
MONITORING
STATION
EQUALIZATION
PUMP STATION
CHROME
REDUCTION
FILTRATION
DISCHARGE
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
ONE - STAGE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PO
in
CTl
Figure VII-17
-------
Table VI1-49. Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft' of
Production for Candidate Treatment Technologies—Wood Preserving
(Indirect Dischargers)
Pollutant
Parameter
Candidate Technology
J or K L or M
COD
Oil & Grease
Total Phenols
PCP
VOAs
Base Neutrals
Toxic Pollutant
Phenols
Heavy Metals
41.5
0.93
2.0
0.07
See Table
VII-15
See Table
VII-39
See Table
VII-41
0.05 (cu)
0.04 (cr)
0.04 (as)
See Table
VI1-43 and
VII-46
34.5
0.75*
0.04
0.05*
See Table
VII-38
See Table
VI1-40
See Table
VII-42
See Table
VII-44
and VI1-47
34.5
0.75*
0.04
0.05*
See Table
VII-38
See Table
VI1-40
See Table
VII-42
75 percent
removal, copper,
chrome, zinc,
and arsenic*
~Expected treated effluent loads based on literature presented
earlier in this section.
257
-------
Waste loads after metals removal are calculated based on the
removals reported in the literature discussed earlier in this
section. They have not been demonstrated in the industry because
there are no systems currently in-place.
Indirect discharging Boulton and steaming plants may also achieve
no discharge status through the self contained Candidate
Treatment Technology N, which, consists of cooling tower
evaporation for Boulton plants and spray evaporation for steaming
plants. Both of these technologies are discussed below.
The costs associated with all the candidate treatment
technologies applicable to indirect dischargers, except
pretreatment technology (Technology I), are presented in Appendix
A.
Self Contained Dischargers-One primary technology applicable to
Boulton plants will enable those plants to achieve no discharge
status. Candidate Treatment Technology N for Boulton plants
consists of primary oil separation, chemical flocculation, and
slow sand filtration followed by cooling tower evaporation. This
technology is shown in Figure VII-18.
One primary technology applicable to steaming plants will enable
them to achieve no discharge status. Candidate Treatment
Technology N for steaming plants consists of primary oil
separation, chemical flocculation, and slow sand filtration
followed by spray evaporation. This technology is shown in
Figure VII-19. Spray evaporation technology can also be used by
Boulton plants if the land is available for this system.
Costs for both the above technologies are presented in Appendix
A.
Other Applicable Technologies—Candidate Treatment Technology 0
represents conversion from open to closed steaming. This is
applicable to those open steaming plants wishing to reduce the
flow of wastewater generated at their plants, and thus reduce the
total cost and land requirements of subsequent treatment. Cost
estimates for Technology 0 are presented in Appendix A. The
plant-by-plant cost estimates presented in Appendix A were based
upon the actual amount of wastewater generated by each plant and
do not include the cost of Technology 0, with the exception of
one plant which is clearly identified in Table A-14. For this
open steaming plant, wastewater generation was high enough that
it was more cost-effective to convert to closed steaming prior to
applying other treatment options.
Candidate Technology P entails collection and recycle of
rainwater and cylinder drippings from inorganic salts plants.
All plants in the Wood Preserving-Water Borne or Nonpressure
subcategory are already required to achieve no discharge status.
258
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - BOULTON
(SELF CONTAINED)
GANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT N
RAW WASTEWATER
OIL • WATER
SEPARATION
RUMP STATION
FLOCCULATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
RECIRCULATING
PUMP
COOLING TOWER
EVAPORATION
See Tables A-2 and A-3 for cost summaries
Figure VII-18
i
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAM
(SELF CONTAINED)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT N
HAW WASTEWATER
PUMP STATION
OIL - WATER
SEPARATION
FIOCCULATION
SLOW SAND
FILTRATION
PUMP STATION
SPRAY EVAPORATION
Sea Tables A-4 and A-S for cost summaries Figure VII-19
-------
New Source Performance Standards—Candidate Technology N for both
Boulton and steaming plants can be applied to new sources. New
sources have the ability to choose plant locations based on the
availability of sufficient land for this option, as well as other
potential no discharge options such as soil irrigation, and
non-oil preservative carrier processes.
INSULATION BOARD AND WET PROCESS HARDBOARD
In-Plant Control Measures
The production of either insulation board or hardboard requires
extensive amounts of process water which ultimately becomes
contaminated with dissolved and suspended substances through
contact with the wood and additives used as raw material. In the
past, most plants used large amounts of fresh water to produce
fiberboard products in what was essentially a once through
process. The exclusive use of fresh water in the refining,
washing, diluting, and forming of fiberboard results in only one
opportunity for dissolved and suspended solids to be retained in
the product, and leads to an extensive pollution problem because
of the volumes of wastewater generated and the large, costly end-
of-pipe treatment facilities required.
More recent practices used by most plants include the use of
recycled process Whitewater in place of fresh water at various
points in the system. Process water can be reused for stock
dilution, shower water, and pump seal water. The use of recycled
process Whitewater provides the opportunity for increased
retention of dissolved and suspended solids in the product,
results in decreased fresh water consumption, and decreased
wastewater volume.
By closing the process Whitewater system in a fiberboard plant,
it is possible to reduce the mass discharge of suspended solids
in the raw waste load. As a first approximation, the total mass
discharge of suspended solids is roughly proportional to the
volume of wastewater generated (Gran, 1972).
The mass discharge of BOD in the raw waste load, on the other
hand, is less influenced by a moderate close up of the process
Whitewater system. Dissolved solids (which exert BOD) increase
in the Whitewater system during recycle.
Operating data are available from Plant 929, an SIS hardboard
plant, which demonstrates the effect of process water system
close up on BOD loads. Plant 929 began an extensive program to
close its Whitewater system in March 1976. The wastewater flow
from the plant was reduced in steps from an average of 750,000
1/day (200,000 gpd) in March 1976, to 18,925 1/day (5,000 gpd) in
June 1977. The corresponding BOD loads were reduced from 2,710
kg/ day (6,000 lb/day) to 340 kg/day (750 lb/day). Figure VII-20
illustrates the relationship between BOD load and discharge
volume for the plant during the close up period. The most
261
-------
PLANT 929
FLOW VS. EFFLUENT BOD
17600(8000)
11000(5000)
AUG.
SEPT.
• JULY
6600(3000)
4400)2000)
DEC.
JAN.
NOV.
FES. »0CT_
FLOW Kl/day(mgd)
DATA ARE FROM MARCH, 1976 TO FEBRUARY 1977.
Figure VII-
-------
dramatic reduction in BOD load occurred in October 1976, when the
plant achieved a reduction in flow of about 85 percent.
The ability of an insulation board or hardboard plant to close up
its process Whitewater system is highly dependent upon the type
of board products produced and the raw materials used. The
increased dissolved solids retained in the board tend to migrate
to the board surface during drying and/or pressing, increasing
the risk of spot formation on the board sheets and sticking in
the press.
Decreased paintability, darker and inconsistent board color,
surface defects, increased water absorption, and decreased
dimensional stability are all quality problems which have been
associated with the increased dissolved solids in the Whitewater
system as a result of close up (Coda, 1978). Some board
products, particularly structural grade insulation boards and
industrial grade hardboards, can tolerate a degree of quality
deterioration. Excessive degradation of board quality cannot be
tolerated in decorative type insulation board, finished hardboard
paneling, or certain types of exterior hardboard siding.
Other problems associated with a high degree of process
Whitewater recycle are corrosion of pumps, plumbing, and
equipment from the lowered pH of recycled Whitewater; plugging of
shower sprays and decreased freeness (drainage) of stock because
of solids build up; and an elevation of temperature in the
process Whitewater system.
Raw materials are an important factor in the ability of a mill to
close up. Furnish must be free of bark. Coda (1978) reports
that a maximum of 1.5 percent bark can be tolerated by Plant 929,
which has nearly reached completely closed status. Whole tree
chips and other types of furnish which would increase the
dissolved solids load cannot be tolerated in a completely closed
system. Moisture content of furnish is also an important factor.
One thermomechanical refining insulation board plant (Plant 2),
which had achieved complete close up, attributed the availability
of low moisture plywood and furniture trim furnish as a major
reason for the success of its close up program. Plant 2 is no
longer operating because of a management decision not related to
pollution.
In order to achieve maximum closure, a plant must be willing to
invest considerable capital and be prepared to accept decreased
production during the period of time that optimum plant operating
conditions are being developed. The primary benefit to a plant
which succeeds in closing its process Whitewater system is
effective pollution control without reliance on expensive end-of-
pipe treatment.
Some of the measures which can be used to achieve close up or
maximum recycle of the process Whitewater system are as follows:
263
-------
1. Elimination of extraneous wastewater sources. Pump
seal water can be reduced or eliminated by the use of
recycled Whitewater or by conversion to mechanically
sealed pumps where possible. Chip wash water can be
reduced by recycle following screening and
sedimentation of grit. Housekeeping water use should
be kept to an absolute minimum. High pressure sprays
and/or dry cleaning methods should be used where
possible.
2. Provision of sufficient Whitewater equalization.
Sufficient equalization capacity for control and
containment of Whitewater surges should be provided.
Several plants employ large outdoor surge ponds for
this ' purpose. Surge ponds also serve to control
Whitewater temperature. Several plants use heat
exchangers for temperature control and provide
sufficient capacity for plant start-up and shut-down.
3. The installation of cyclones following the refiner.
This allows the fiber to be blown into the cyclones for
steam release and cooling. No water should be added to
these cyclones. The added water condenses the steam
which causes higher Whitewater temperatures and an
additional source of water to" the system.
4. Clarification of Whitewater. Several plants use
gravity clarifiers to remove grit and settleable solids
from the Whitewater system. To use forming water for
showers or pump seal water, it is necessary to remove
the majority of fiber. Screens or filters are
available for this purpose, and in some cases a "save-
all" installation may be appropriate. Save-alls are
used extensively in the pulp and paper industry. They
can result in fiber concentrations of less than 0.20
pound per 1,000 gallons of water, which makes the water
suitable for showers and pump seals. This type of
device can also dramatically reduce the suspended
solids leaving the mill in the raw effluent. The
hardboard process can use either a flotation-type save-
all or a drum-type unit. Fiber from the save-all can
be returned to the process.
5. Extraction of concentrated wastewater. The soluble
sugars and other dissolved materials released into the
process Whitewater during refining can be extracted by
efficient countercurrent washing of the stock or by
using a dewatering press. The concentrated Whitewater
can then be evaporated for recovery of an animal feed
byproduct. Use of this process allows greater recycle
of the remaining Whitewater, which is primarily leaner
machine Whitewater. Plants 673, 678 and 943 currently
use stock washers to extract concentrated Whitewater
for subsequent evaporation to animal feed. Plant 933
has successfully demonstrated the capability of a
264
-------
dewatering press for the same purpose on one of its
production lines. This plant was able to completely
close the remaining process Whitewater system following
the press. Successful application of this extraction
process depends on the use of an evaporator on the
concentrated . Whitewater, otherwise the plant has
succeeded only in concentrating its wastewater, which
may have adverse effects on subsequent biological
treatment. The high capital expense of such systems
must be at least partially amortized by byproduct
sales. The economics of applying this system will vary
from plant to plant, and must be evaluated on an
individual basis. Some considerations will be: amount
of material available for recovery; energy costs for
wastewater evaporation; proximity to market; and market
price.
6. Corrosion control. The corrosiveness of the recycled
process Whitewater can be controlled with addition of
caustic soda, lime, or other basic chemicals. Most
plants practice chemical pH control to some extent.
Corrosion-resistant pumps, piping, and tanks can be
used to replace corroded equipment or for new
construction.
7. Control of press sticking. Press sticking can be
mitigated by washing the surface of the press plates or
cauls more frequently, or by using release agents.
Lowering the temperature of the hot press may also be
effective.
Two thermomechanical refining insulation board plants have
achieved complete close up of process Whitewater systems. Both
plants produce structural grade board only. Plant 186 uses a
save all device to clarify the Whitewater for further reuse.
Plant 2 used external surge ponds for Whitewater equalization and
temperature control, as well as a gravity clarifier for solids
control. As previously discussed, Plant 2, which is now shut
down, used locally available low moisture plywood trim as furnish
which helped to maintain the water balance in the mill. Both
plants indicated that extensive process experimentation and
modification, during a period of one to two years, was required
before the board quality/technical problems associated with the
close up were resolved.
Plant 929, as previously discussed, has approached full close up.
Major modifications made at this plant included:
1. Installation of cyclones following the refiner to allow
process steam to escape.
2. Increased Whitewater equalization.
265
-------
3. Replacement of fresh water packing seals on primary
grinders with steam, and replacement of pumps requiring
fresh sealing water with mechanically sealed pumps.
This plant produces primarily industrial grade hardboard and has
experienced some quality control problems as well as a loss in
production capacity compared to its previous operations.
Another method of close up used by three plants is the recycle of
treated effluent from external biological treatment systems for
use as process water in the plant. Plant 919 has achieved a
complete close up in this manner. Plant 537 recycles
approximately 85 percent of its treated effluent, discharging the
remaining 15 percent. Plant 36 recycles 28 percent of its
effluent discharging the remaining 72 percent.
Although this approach may eliminate some of the problems
associated with close up, such as temperature and corrosiveness
of the recycled water, the problems of board quality and process
control remain. The characteristics of high color and the
secondary treatment solids in the recycled water also pose
problems with using this method.
A review of potential in-plant process modifications for both
insulation board and hardboard plants indicates that some
reductions in raw waste loading can be accomplished. Specific
recommendations for in-plant modifications on a plant-to-plant
basis require a detailed working knowledge of each plant.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
Screening—Screens are used by many fiberboard plants to remove
bark, wood chips, and foreign materials from the wastewater prior
to further treatment. Screening equipment may consist of
mechanically cleaned bar screens, vibrating screens, or sidehill
screens. Screening serves to reduce wear and tear on processing
equipment, and also to separate extraneous material from the wood
fiber which is returned to the plant after primary settling in
most insulation board plants.
Primary Settling—Most insulation board plants and many hardboard
plants use gravity-type primary settling facilities to remove a
major portion of the wood fibers from the raw wastewater.
Primary sludge may be returned to the process for reuse, or it
may be thickened and/or dewatered and disposed to a landfill.
Common sludge handling devices include gravity thickeners and
mechanical dewatering equipment.
Settling ponds are the most common primary settling facilities
used in the industry; however, several plants are equipped with
mechanical clarifiers. Suspended solids removals in primary
settling facilities range from about 65 to 80 percent. Data from
one plant demonstrated that 10 to 15 percent BOD removal was
being achieved by the primary settling facility. One plant
266
-------
achieved 24 percent BOD removal in a mechanical primary settling
tank through the use of polymers as a coagulant.
Biological Treatment—Wastewater generated by the insulation
board and wet process hardboard subcategories is amenable to
biological treatment. A discussion of this subject is presented
in Appendix E.
All direct discharging plants in the insulation board and wet
process hardboard subcategories of the industry apply varying
degrees of biological treatment to their wastewaters. The
contaminants in the wastewaters from the two subcategories are
comprised mainly of soluble oxygen-demanding material leached
from the wood. These materials (wood sugars, hemicellulose,
lignins, etc.) are readily biodegradable. The suspended solids
in the raw wastewaters are primarily wood fibers, bark particles,
and small amounts of grit that easily settle in primary
sedimentation basins or aerated lagoons. Because of the large
raw wastewater flows and high concentrations of BOD and TSS, as
described in Section V, the biological treatment systems required
to treat these wastewaters must be of considerable size to be
effective. Most plants in both subcategories of the industry
have allocated considerable sums of money to construct and
operate these treatment systems.
The biological systems in the insulation board and wet process
hardboard subcategories vary from single aerated lagoons, usually
followed by facultative oxidation ponds for increased solids and
BOD removal, to complex contact stabilization activated sludge
systems.
Spray Irrigation—Spray irrigation is a viable alternative for
treatment and ultimate disposal of wastewaters generated by. the
insulation board and wet process hardboard subcategories. The
feasibility of spray irrigation is a function of hydraulic and
BOD loadings on a per unit area basis. Allowable hydraulic and
BOD loadings can vary considerably from site to site depending on
vegetation and soil conditions, and should be determined through
site specific studies. Once the allowable BOD loading has been
determined, the application of biological treatment to the
wastewater for BOD reduction prior to spray irrigation may be
considered as an alternative to an increase in spray field area.
There are two insulation board plants, Plants 889 and 186, which
spray irrigate their wastewaters. Plant 889 applies biological
treatment, consisting of an aerated lagoon followed by a
clarifier, prior to spray irrigation, and thereby achieves a
nondischarge status. Philipp (1971) reported on the land
disposal of insulation board wastewater at Plant 186. Following
in-plant filtering for fiber recovery, the wastewater was pumped
to a 0.4 ha settling pond and then to two holding ponds, the
first having a volume of about 100,000 cu m and the second tout
378,500 cu m. All wastewater was retained from late October
through April. During the period May to October, the effluent
267
-------
from the second holding pond was pumped to the 40.5 ha spray
field.
The spray field was located on a sand of high permeability and
with a depth of 2 to 4 m. A test underdrainage system was
installed at a depth of 1.5 m for the purpose of collecting and
testing effluent percolating into the surface aquifer from the
spray field. The entire area was originally cleared and then
seeded with Reed Canary grass.
The discharge from the insulation board plant averaged 22 1/sec
with a BOD concentration prior to spray irrigation of 1,150 mg/1.
Although Philipp provided no data, he stated that the efficiency
of the system for removing BOD, as measured from the influent to
the field to the effluent of the underdrainage system, was in
excess of 99 percent.
There are three hardboard plants, Plants 943, 979, and 673, which
also use spray irrigation for wastewater treatment and ultimate
disposal. Plant 673 applies biological treatment,consisting of
an aerated lagoon system, prior to spray irrigation, whereas
Plants 943 and 979 do not. Plant 673 normally spray irrigates
only during dry periods and discharges directly to surface waters
during wet periods when spray irrigation is not practicable. At
Plant 943 an underdrainage system collects all wastewater which
filters down from the spray field and directs it to two holding
ponds prior to discharge to surface waters. Plant 979 achieves a
nondischarge status using spray irrigation.
Other Applicable Technologies-Insulation Board and Wet Process
Hardboard- Several additional treatment technologies were
evaluated to determine their feasibility as candidate treatment
technologies for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards. The
technologies evaluated for insulation board and wet process
hardboard included:
Chemically Assisted Coagulation
Granular Media Filtration
Activated Carbon Adsorption
A discussion of each of these, technologies and case studies of
their application to the insulation board and wet process
hardboard industries are presented in Appendix F, DISCUSSION OF
POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES.
None of these were identified as candidate technologies because
they are experimental in nature and further research is necessary
to sufficiently determine the effectiveness of treatment which
could be expected if these technologies were to be applied to
insulation board and hardboard wastewaters.
268
-------
In-Place Technology and Treated Effluent Data, Insulation Board
Plant 36 produces structural and decorative insulation board.
The plant has reduced its raw waste flow from 13,250 kl/day (3.5
MGD) to. less than 5,678 kl/day (1.5 MGD) by modification of the
pulping process, reuse of process water, and recycle of treated
effluent. The wastewater is screened for removal of gross
solids. The wastewater then goes to two parallel primary
clarifiers followed by an activated sludge system. Discharge
from the biological system is either recycled to the plant or
discharged to a creek.
In 1976, sludge resulting from primary clarification and a
portion of the waste sludge from secondary clarification was
gravity thickened, vacuum filtered, and reused in the process.
In 1977, only sludge resulting from primary clarification was
recycled. Ten percent of the primary sludge plus waste secondary
sludge was thickened, vacuum filtered, and sold as a soil
conditioner. In 1977, the addition of polymer in the secondary
clarifier was initiated which improved the solids removal.
Effluent BOD and TSS are presented in Table VI1-50.
Plant 725 produces ceiling tiles and panels, sheathing, and
mineral wool fiber insulation board. Process water from the
insulation board plant receives primary sedimentation. Primary
sludge is returned to the process. The wastewater is then either
reused in the insulation board process for stock dilution and
shower water, or used as makeup water for the mineral wool fiber
plant. The raw wastewater from the mineral wool plant enters the
treatment system, which consists of a primary clarifier, an
aerated lagoon, and a secondary clarifier. Sludge from the
primary and secondary clarifier is dewatered, either in a
settling pond or by a vacuum filter, and hauled to a disposal
site. Approximately 1,514 1/min (400 gpm) of the treated
wastewater from the secondary clarifier is discharged to a POTW,
while approximately 757 1/min (200 gpm) is recycled to a
freshwater tank for use as makeup water in both the insulation
and mineral wool fiber plants.
Plant 978 has no treatment or pretreatment facilities. Excess
process wastewater, combined with pump seal water and sanitary
wastewater, is discharged directly to a POTW. Plant personnel
indicated in communications that suspended solids removal
equipment is being considered to reduce current loads to the
POTW.
Plant 360 produces structural and decorative insulation board.
The plant collects its process wastewater in a Whitewater storage
tank, recycles a portion of the Whitewater where needed, and
sends the remaining portion to the treatment system which
consists of an equalization tank, a floc-clarifier, and an
aerated lagoon. Polymer addition in the clarifier is used to aid
settling. Fiber recovered in the clarifier is recycled to the
process. A portion of the clarifier overflow is recycled to the
269
-------
Table VEI-50. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining, Tteated Effluent Characteristics*
Plant
Number
Production
Flow
BOD
TSS
Kkg/day
(TED)
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
360t
201
(220)
2.96
(0.71)
1.05
(2.10)
1.15
(2.30)
36
606
(668)
8.18
(1.96)
0.28
(0.56)
2.64
(5.29)
600
(661)
8.47
(2.03)
0.28
(0.56)
1.46
(2.91)
603
(665)
7.38
(1.77)
0.28
(0.56)
2.11
(4.22)
889
246
(270)
1.02
(0.24)
0.07
(0.14)
0.16
(0.32)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 1977 average annual
data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 aid 1977 except as
noted.
t Indirect discharger.
270
-------
process and the remaining wastewater enters the aerated lagoon,
where it is retained about 30 days before discharge to a POTW.
The treated waste loads for this plant are presented in Table
VI1-50.
Plant 889 is a self contained discharger and uses treated
wastewater to spray irrigate a 2.3-hectare (5.6-acre) field.
Whitewater enters the treatment system at two points: an aerated
lagoon and an evaporation pond. Water from the evaporation pond
is routed to the aerated lagoon. From the aerated lagoon, the
wastewater is sent to a primary clarifier, where polymer and alum
are added to assist in settling and pH adjustment. The
supernatant from the clarifier is directed to a holding pond.
Sludge from the clarifier is thickened in a flotation unit and
hauled daily to a cinder dump. Water separated from the sludge
enters the holding pond of the spray irrigation system. Effluent
waste loads applied to the spray field determined from data
supplied by the plant are presented in Table VI1-50.
Plant 537 produces structural and decorative insulation board.
Its process wastewater (combined with vacuum seal water, treated
septic tank effluent, and stormwater runoff) is routed to a
primary clarifier. Sludge drawn from the primary clarifier is
recycled to the manufacturing process. Overflow from the
clarifier goes to an aerated lagoon. Secondary clarification
follows, and the waste secondary sludge is recycled to the
process. The treated effluent is collected in a sump for reuse
in the process. The excess treated effluent is discharged to
receiving waters. The discharged waste loads are presented in
Table VII-51.
Plant 108 produces approximately 55 percent insulation board and
45 percent hardboard. The plant has upgraded its wastewater
treatment system by installing an oxygen-activated sludge system.
Excess Whitewater passes through a hydrasieve for removal of
gross solids. After screening, the wastewater flows to a sump
where nutrients are added. From the sump, the wastewater is
pumped to a four-cell aeration basin. The aeration basin
effluent flows to a clarifier where wastewater generated by paper
production is introduced and the clarifier effluent is discharged
to the receiving waters. Sludge removed in the clarifier is
vacuum filtered and disposed of in a landfill.
In 1976, the wastewater treatment system was the same as that
described above, except that a rotating biological surface (RBS)
system followed screening instead of an oxygen activated sludge
system.
Plant 1035 produces approximately 70 percent insulation board and
30 percent S2S hardboard. The plant has a waste stream which
consists of raw process wastewater, and another waste stream
which consists of lower strength miscellaneous wastewaters. The
raw process wastewater is screened for removal of gross solids by
a bar screen. The screened wastewater flows to a clarifier.
271
-------
Table VII-51. Insulation Board Theimoraechanical Refining, Treated Effluent Characteristics*
Plant
Production
Flow
BOD
TSS
Number
Kkg/day
(TPD)
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lb9/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
537
139
145
145
(153)
(160)
(159)t
1.88
1.75
1.69
(0.45)
(0.419)
(0.406)
2.03
2.18
2.07
(4.06)
(4.36)
(4.14)t
1.71
1.27
1.31
(3.42)
(2.54)
(2.62)t
108**
605
(665)tt
51.3
(12.3)
4.06
(8.12)
12.3
(24.5)
570
(628)t t
22.6
( 5.41)***
2.06
(4.13)***
2.24
( 4.47)***
1035
359
(395)**
21.9
(5.26)
2.15
(4.31)
0.94
(1.88)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 19 77 average annual
daily data; third row represents average aniual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977 except
as noted.
t Data represent period of 1/1/76 through 3/31/79.
** Data are taken before paper wastewater is added,
tt Includes both insulation board and hardboard production.
*** Data represent period of 9/21/79 through 4/30/80 when oxygen activated sludge systan was in operation.
-------
Sludge removed from the clarifier flows to a hydrasieve for
screening. Screened solids are recycled to the process and the
wastewater is returned to the clarifier. The clarifier effluent
flows successively to two 1.5 acre settling ponds (in series), a
60-acre settling pond, a 4-acre aeration lagoon, a 2-acre
aeration lagoon, and to a 1-acre aeration lagoon. Part of the
effluent from the 1-acre aeration lagoon flows to a 135-acre
oxidation pond, where the lower strength miscellaneous wastewater
stream enters the treatment system. The remaining effluent from
the 1-acre aeration lagoon flows to a 165-acre oxidation pond.
The effluent from both oxidation ponds is discharged to-the
receiving waters. The treated effluent waste loads are presented
in Table VII-51.
Plant 186, which produces decorative and mineral wool insulation
board, is a self contained discharger with spray irrigation as
the ultimate means of wastewater disposal. The process
wastewater from the plant enters a series of three settling ponds
with a total capacity of 587 million liters (155 million
gallons). The ponds retain the wastewater up to a period of six
months, after which it is sprayed onto a 30-hectare (80-acre)
field of Reed Canary grass. The spray irrigation system operates
180 days per year at a rate of 6,435 kl/day (1.7 MGD).
Plant 2, which is now closed, produced structural insulation
board. Process Whitewater was completely recycled.
Plant 502 has no wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater
from the thermomechanical pulping and refining of insulation
board is collected in a Whitewater chest. A portion is recycled
to the process and the remaining wastewater is discharged to a
POTW. No monitoring practices for flow or other parameters
exist.
Plant 183 uses thermomechanical pulping and refining to produce
structural and decorative insulation board. The process
wastewater is screened for removal of gross solids prior to being
collected and is either recycled to the process or discharged
with no further treatment to a POTW.
Plant 184 produces structural insulation board. There are no
wastewater treatment facilities, as no process wastewater is
discharged. All process Whitewater is recirculated to a sump.
Sump waters are screened, stored in a clarified Whitewater chest,
and recycled to the process.
Raw and treated effluent loads of total phenols for four
insulation board plants are presented in Table VI1-52. Raw and
treated effluent loads of heavy metals for four insulation board
plants are presented in Table VI1-53.
Raw and treated waste concentrations for organic toxic pollutants
for the insulation board plants that were sampled during the 1978
verification sampling program are presented in Table VI1-54.
273
-------
Table VI1-52. Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent Reduction for Total Hienols—
Insulation Board*
Plant
Code
Raw Waste Loadt
Treated Waste Loadt
% Reduction
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
36
0.00095
(0.0019)
0.00010
(0.00021)
89
0.007
(0.014)
0.00012
(0.00025)
98
183
0.0024
(0.0048)
—— -
HKWtt
0.009
(0.018)
360
0.00040
(0.00079)
0.00008
(0.00015)
81
537
0.0022
(0.0045)
0.00014
(0.00029)
94
0.0055
(0.011)
0.00065
(0.0013)
88
* First row of data represents data for 1977; second row of data represents data for
1978.
f Total phenols concentration data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling
programs. Average annual daily waste flow and production data supplied by plants in
response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate waste loads.
-------
Table VH-53. Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction ^for Insulation Board Metals
Plant No. Be Cd Cu Pb Ni Zn Sb As Se Ag Tl Cr Hg
360
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .0000042 .0000028 .0019 .000006 .0008 .003 .0000021 .000013 .000014 .0000021 .0000028 .000006 .000028
(lb/ton) (.0000083) (.0000056) (.0037) (.000011) (.0016) (.005 (.0000042) (.000025) (.000027) (.0000042) (.0000056) (.000011) (.0000042)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .0000021 .0000035 .0009 .000006 .0006 .0014 .000018 .000006 .000007 .0000021 .000008 .000022 .00000042
(lb/ton) (.0000042) (.0000069) (.0018) (.000011) (.0011) (.0028) (.000035) (.000011) (.000013) (.0000042) (.000015) (.000044) (.00000083)
Z Reduction 49Z +231 512 0Z 31Z 44Z +733* 56Z 52Z 0Z 4-1672 -+300Z 80Z
ro
on
183
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(lb/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(lb/ton)
Z Reduction
537
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(lb/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(lb/ton)
Z Reduction
.000007
(.000014)
.000012
(.000024)
~71Z
.00001
(.00002)
.000001
(.0000019)
90Z
.000008
(.000016)
.000013
(.000026)
+62Z
.00001
(.00002)
.000001
(.0000019)
90Z
.0023
(.0046)
.0020
(.0040)
13Z
.000041
(.000062)
.00018
(.00035)
~326Z
.00017
(.00034)
.00021
(.00041)
+20Z
.000027
(.000053)
.0000038
(.0000075)
85Z
.00085
(.0017)
.0009
(.0018)
5Z
.00025
(.00049)
.000013
(.000026)
94Z
.0042
(.0084)
.0480
(.0095)
~13Z
.005
(.01)
.00017
(.00033)
96Z
.000025
(.000049)
.000021
(.000042)
14Z
.000014
(.000027)
.0000028
(.0000056)
79Z
.000027
(.000054)
.000013
(.000026)
52Z
.00006
(.00012)
.000006
(.000012)
90Z
.000035
(.00007)
.000025
(.000049)
30Z
.00007
(.00014)
.0000044
(.0000087)
93Z
.0000049
(.0000098)
.000017
(.000033)
+236Z
.00001
(.00002)
.0000013
(.0000025)
88Z
.0000041
(.0000082)
.0000041
(.0000082)
0Z
.000017
(.000933)
.0000013
(.0000025)
92Z
.00006
(.00012)
.00020
(.00040)
+233Z
.00047
(.00094)
.000006
(.000011)
98Z
.000041
(.000082)
.00013
(.00026)
~21Z
.000021
(.000041)
.0000019
(.0000038)
91Z
36
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .0000055 .0000055 .0036 .000055 .0009 .006 .000022 .000017 .000035 .000005 .0000065 .00012 .00008
(lb/ton) (.000011) (.000011) (.0072) (.00011) (.00018) (.012) (.000044) (.000034) (.00007) (.000011) (.000013) (.00023) (.00016)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .000006 .000006 .0012 .000008 .000037 .0008 .000048 .00002 .000032 .000007 .000008 .00009 0000007
(lb/ton) (.000011) (.000011) (.0023) (.000016) (.000074) (.0016) (.000095) (.00004) (.000063) (.000013) (.000016) (.00017) (.0000013)
Z Reduction 0Z 0Z 68Z 65Z 58Z 86Z +115Z +17Z 10Z +18Z +23Z 26Z 99Z
Source: 1977 Verification Saopling Prograa.
-------
Only extremely- low concentrations of chloroform, benzene,
toluene, and phenol • were found in the raw wastewaters of the
three insulation board plants sampled. Chloroform, benzene, and
toluene most likely originated in industrial solvents, and phenol
is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions which occur
during refining of the wood furnish. The levels of the heavy
metals and organic toxic pollutants which were found in the raw
wastewaters are so low that no specific technology exists to
reduce or remove these pollutants from the wastewater matrix.
Biological treatment is effective in reducing most raw heavy
metals concentrations as shown in Table VI1-53, and in removing
all of the few organic toxic pollutants present in the raw
wastewater as shown in Table VI1-54.
Table VII-54. Insulation Board, Organic Toxic Pollutant Data
Average Concentration (uq/1)
Raw Wastewater Treated Effluent
Pollutant Plant 183 Plant 36+ Plant 537 Plant 36 Plant 537'
Chloroform
20
—
—
—
Benzene
70
40**
—
—
—
Toluene
60
40**
—
—
—
Phenol
40
__
* One of three treated effluent sample contained 40 ug/1 of
trichlorofluoromethane.
+ One sample of raw wastewater contained 20 ug/1 of chloroform.
Plant intake water contained 10 ug/1 of chloroform.
** Plant intake water contained 50 ug/1 and 30 ug/1 of benzene
and toluene, respectively.
— Hyphen denotes that the pollutant was not found in
concentrations above the detection limit for the compound.
In-Place Technology and Treated Effluent Data, Wet Process
Hardboard
Plant 678 produces approximately 90 percent SIS hardboard and
approximately 10 percent S2S hardboard for such uses as paneling,
doorskins, siding and concrete formboard. Process wastewaters
are collected in a sewer. Cooling water, pump seal water, boiler
blowdown, surface runoff, and condensate from the distillation
276
-------
process are combined in a separate storm sewer. After screening,
primary clarification, and flow equalization of each waste
stream, the two streams are combined prior to biological
treatment. Solids removed during screening are landfilled.
Solids from primary clarification are either landfilled or
dewatered and burned in mill boilers. After the two waste
streams are combined, they are routed to a biological system
consisting of two contact stabilization activated sludge systems
operating in parallel, followed by two secondary clarifiers. The
activated sludge from the secondary clarifiers is pumped to two
stabilization basins, reaerated for sludge stabilization, and
returned to the contact basins. Waste sludge is either recycled
to the production units or landfilled.
After secondary clarification the wastewater is routed to an
aerated lagoon and is discharged after approximately six days
detention time to impoundment ponds. A portion of the lagoon
effluent is reused as log flume make-up water. Treated effluent
is discharged from the holding ponds to a creek. Effluent waste
loads are presented in Table VI1-55.
Plant 673, which produces approximately equal amounts of SIS and
S2S hardboard, collects all process wastewaters and directs the
flow in one of two streams to the wastewater treatment facility.
The two streams are designated as strong and weak. The strong
wastewater stream (which contains condensate from the evaporation
of process Whitewater for animal feed) enters two activated
sludge units operating in parallel. Waste sludge is aerobically
digested and pumped to two humus ponds. Water decanted from the
humus ponds enters the weak wastewater system. After
clarification, the strong wastewater is combined with the weak
wastewater and enters the weak treatment system. The weak system
consists of an aerated lagoon, an oxidation and settling pond,
and two storage ponds. The wastewater is subsequently routed to
either spray irrigation or discharge, depending on the season of
the year. Between October 1 and May 14, the effluent from the
treatment facility is usually recycled to the process or
discharged to the river. From May 15 through September 30, the
mill directs the treated effluent to a number of storage ponds.
The stored treated effluent is either discharged to spray
irrigation fields or recycled to the manufacturing process.
During 1976, because of drought conditions, the plant was not
allowed to discharge to the river for the major part of the year,
and effluent was discharged to the irrigation field. Effluent
waste loads are presented in Table VI 1-^55.
Plant 3 produces SIS hardboard which is used for exterior siding.
The process water is first screened to remove gross solids which
are landfilled. The wastewater then enters two settling ponds
used alternately. Sludge from these ponds is dredged as required
and landfilled. The wastewater flows to the two-stage biological
treatment system, consisting of an aerated lagoon and a secondary
clarifier. The practice of recycling a portion of the waste
sludge from the secondary clarifier is under evaluation.
277
-------
Table VII-55. SIS Hardboard, Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant
Production
Flow
BOD
TSS
• kkg/day
tTPDJ
kl/kkg
(.kgal/ton)
kg/kkg
(lbs/ton;
kg/kkg
tlbs/ton^
348
88.7
(97.5)
46.6
(11.2)t
9.00
(18.0)t
17.1
(34.l)t
3
194
(213)
7.38
(1.78)
5.05
(10.1)
4.05
(8.10)
194
(213)
9.35
(2.24)
9.35
(18.7)
8.50
(17.0)
194
(213)
8.22
(1.97)
7.20
(14.4)
6.10
(12.2)
931
117
(129)
8.84
(2.12)
6.85
(13.7)
10.1
(20.2)
115
(127)
8.14
(1.95)
0.74
(1.49)
2.52
(5.03)
119
(131)**
13.26
(3.18)**
0.92
(1.84)**
3.01
(6.02)**
919tt
91.9
(101)
1 1 !
—
—
—
—
—
673
343
(377)
4.16
(1.00)
0.13
(0.26)
0.12
(0.24)
678
1446
(1589)
9.40
(2.26)
0.97
(1.93)
1.14
(2.27)
929
111
(122)
4.24
(1.02)
18.5
(36.9)
1.59
(3.18)
111
(122)
0.62
(0.15)
5.10
(10.2)
0.59
(1.1.7)
207
83.2
(91.7)
17.3
(4.14)
4.71
(9.42)
11.1
(22.2)
79.7
(87.8)
13.9
(3.32)
4.31
(8.62)
9.85
(19.7)
81.5
(89.8)
15.1
(3.62)
4.46
(8.91)
10.4
(20.8)
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 1977 average
annual daily data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977;
except as noted,
t Hardboard and paper waste streams are comingled.
** Data represent period of 10/1/76 through 10/31/79 when upgraded system was in normal operation,
tt All of treated effluent is recycled.
-------
Overflow from the clarifier enters a second stage aerated lagoon.
Treated effluent from this lagoon is currently discharged to the
river. Effluent waste loads are presented in Table VI1-55.
Plant 348 produces SIS hardboard and specialty paper products.
The wastewaters from the two processes are comingled with cooling
waters and discharged to the treatment system. The plant has
completed modifications to eliminate the discharge of cooling
water to the process wastewater treatment system. The treatment
system consists of two primary settling ponds, which can operate
either in series or parallel, an aerated lagoon, and a secondary
settling pond. The primary settling ponds are decanted and the
sludge is pumped to a drying area and landfilled. Secondary
sludge is pumped and landfilled. Effluent waste loads are
presented in Table VI1-55.
Plant 207 produces SIS hardboard. The cooling water is
discharged directly to the river. All excess plant Whitewater is
processed through the treatment facility. The wastewater is
first screened for removal of gross solids, the solids are
returned to the process.
The wastewater then enters a primary settling pond, where it is
retained for five days before entering the biological treatment
system. Nutrients are added prior to an aerated lagoon. After a
twenty-two-day retention period in the aerated lagoon, the
wastewater enters a secondary settling pond and is discharged to
the river. Sludge from the settling ponds and aerated lagoon is
dredged as necessary and landfilled. Treated waste loads are
presented in Table VI1-55.
Plant 931, which produces SIS hardboard, significantly expanded
its biological treatment system during 1976 and began normal
operation in October, 1976. The treatment system consists of two
pair of aerated lagoons (in series), each pair operating in
parallel. Each of the aerated lagoons in the first pair has a
capacity of 15 million liters (4 million gallons) and the
capacity of each lagoon in the second pair is 5.7 million liters
(1.5 million gallons). Nutrients are added to the lagoons. The
effluent from the second pair of aerated lagoons flows to one or
more of three 4.9-mi11 ion-liter (1.3-mi11 ion-galIon) settling
ponds which operate in parallel. The number of settling ponds
used depends on the settleabililty of the suspended solids which,
in turn, is a function of the water temperature. During the
winter months, all three ponds are placed in operation. Cooling
water is combined with the effluent from the settling ponds prior
to discharge to the receiving waters. Effluent waste loads are
presented in Table VI1-55.
Plant 919 produces SIS hardboard for use in siding and industrial
furniture. The plant also operates a veneer plant. Process
waters from the hardboard and veneer plant are comingled and
directed to the treatment facility, which consists of.two primary
settling ponds in series followed by an activated sludge system.
279
-------
Detention time in the primary settling ponds is approximately
nine days. Solids are removed annually by decanting the basins.
Nutrients are added as the wastewater enters the activated sludge
system, consisting of an aeration basin and a secondary
clarifier. Sludge is recycled from the clarifier to the aeration
basin at approximately 568 1/min (150 gpm). Waste sludge enters
a small aerobic digester and is pumped to an irrigation field.
After biological treatment the treated wastewater flows into two
storage basins and is recycled to the manufacturing process.
Plant production data are presented in Table VI1-55; no treated
effluent data were available for this plant.
Plant 929 produces SIS hardboard. The treatment system consists
of two settling ponds in series. Process wastewater is collected
in a sump and directed to the ponds with a theoretical retention
time of 10 days before discharge to receiving waters. The
treated effluent waste loads are presented in Table VI1-55. As
previously discussed in the section concerning in-plant controls,
Plant 929 has approached complete close up of its process
Whitewater system, achieving a daily wastewater flow of less than
18,925 1/day (5,000 gpd).
Plant 933, which produces SIS hardboard, collects all process
wastewater in a system of channels, gravity sewers, and force
mains. The wastewater flows into a collection and equalization
tank and is pumped to a lime neutralization tank, then to a POTW.
Plant 980, which produces S2S hardboard, collects all plant
wastewaters into one sewer prior to any treatment. The treatment
system consists of a primary aerated equalization pond (Kinecs
Air Pond), two-stage biological treatment, and secondary storage
and/or settling. Wastewater is retained in the Kinecs Air Pond
for approximately 2.5 days. The primary function of this system
is flow and biological equalization, as no BOD or TSS reduction
is achieved.. After nutrient addition and pH adjustment,
wastewater enters the first stage of biological treatment, which
consists of two Infilco Aero Accelators. Each Aero Accelator has
an aeration compartment and a clarification zone. Biological
solids from the clarifier zone are recycled to the aeration
compartment. Waste sludge is detained in a surge tank and spray
irrigated.. The wastewater is routed from the Accelators to the
secondary stage of biological treatment consisting of two aerated
lagoons in series. The retention time in both lagoons is
approximately 2.5 days. After final biological treatment, the
wastewater flows into one of two 22.7 million-liter (6
million-gallon) facultative lagoons. The lagoons are used
alternately to minimize the effects of any thermal inversions.
Solids are removed from each basin during the periods it is not
in use. Treated effluent is discharged to the river. The
effluent waste loads are presented in Table VII-56. Effluent TSS
waste loads are not reported for periods including the period
prior to June 16, 1977 when a nonstandard method of TSS analysis
was being used.
280
-------
Table VII-56. S2S Hardboard, Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant
Number
Production
Flow
BOD
TSS
kkg/day
(TPD)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/kkg
(lbs/ton)
980
210
(231)
18.3
(4.39)
4.44
(8.88)
„
216
(238)
20.5
(4.92)
2.86
(5.73)
4.68
(9.35)
213
(235)t
18.9
(4.5 2)t
3.61
(7.22)t
—
—
214
(236)**
18.9
(4.53)**
—
—
5.00
(10.0)**
1035
359
(395)T t
21.9
(5.26)
2.15
(4.31)
0.94
(1.88)
108
605
(665)11
51.3
(12.3)
4.06
(8.12)
12.3
(24.5)
570
(628)tt
22.6
(5.41)***
2.06
(4.13)***
2.24
(4.47)***
' 1
311
(343)
25.8
(6.18)
20.8
(41.5)
43.8
(87.6)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 1977 average annual
daily data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977; except
as noted.
t Data represent period of 1/1/76 through 2/29/80.
** Data represent period of 6/16/77 through 2/29/80 when standard TSS analyses were performed,
tt Includes both insulation board and hardboard production.
*** Data represent period of 9/21/79 through 4/30/80 when oxygen activated sludge system was in operation.
-------
Plant 1035 produces thermomechanically pulped and refined
insulation board and S2S hardboard. The hardboard is primarily
used for exterior siding. Approximately 70 percent of the
production is insulation board and fiberboard and 30 percent is
hardboard. The wastewater from the insulation and hardboard
product lines is collected in a sump, screened, and directed to a
primary clarifier. Clarifier underflow is recycled to the
process. The solids are pumped over a Bauer hydrosieve,
recovered, and recycled to the process. Water may bypass the
clarifier and flow directly to settling basins. Water then flows
to a 24.3-hectare (60-acre) holding pond, used for flow
equalization, and subsequently discharges to a series of four
aerated lagoons. The discharge from the fourth aerated lagoon is
split between two oxidation ponds. Effluent from the two oxi-
dation ponds is comingled and discharged to the river. The
treated effluent waste loads are presented in Table VI1-56.
Plant 108 and its wastewater treatment system are described
earlier in the discussion of the insulation board plants.
Treated effluent waste loads for this treatment system are
presented in Table VI1-56.
Plant 1 produces approximately 20 percent SIS hardboard and
approximately 80 percent S2S hardboard, which is used in tile
board, furniture, and merchandising display panels. Wastewater
is pumped to an effluent holding tank and then to a primary
clarifier with a detention time of three hours. Sludge,
consisting mainly of wood fiber, is continuously removed from the
clarifier, dewatered, and either burned in a power boiler or
landfilled. The water removed from the sludge is recycled back
to the primary clarifier. Clarified effluent flows to the
secondary treatment system consisting of a settling pond and two
aerated lagoons in series. Primary treated effluent' is held one
day in the settling pond and then flows to the first aerated
lagoon, where nutrients are added. Average theoretical detention
in each basin is 17 days. The first basin was designed to
maintain the totally mixed system. The water flows by gravity to
the second aerated lagoon, the second half of which is a
quiescent zone to allow the biological solids to settle. Treated
effluent is discharged from the second aerated lagoon to
receiving waters. The treated effluent waste loads are presented
in Table VII-56.
A dissolved air flotation system is currently under construction
at Plant 1.
Plant 979 produces approximately 40 percent S2S hardboard and 60
percent thermomechanically pulped and refined insulation board.
The hardboard is used for paneling or cabinets. The insulation
board is used for ceiling tiles or sheathing. Plant effluent,
after screening to remove gross solids, enters a three-day
detention holding pond. The wastewater then flows to two
settling ponds operating in parallel. After settling, the water
enters a storage pond. Discharge from the storage pond is pumped
I
282
-------
to irrigation fields. This plant does not monitor wastewater
quality.
Plant 977 produces S2S hardboard, thermomechanically pulped and
refined insulation board, and mineral wool fiber. Approximately
equal amounts of insulation board and hardboard are produced in
one manufacturing facility, and mineral wool fiber is produced at
a separate manufacturing facility. Wastewaters from the mineral
wool fiber plant are discharged to two settling ponds operating
in parallel. The hardboard and insulation board wastewaters are
combined with the settling pond effluent and discharged to a
POTW.
Plant 943 produces S2S hardboard for use in building siding and
thermomechanically pulped and refined insulation board. The
plant uses a combination of biological and physical wastewater
treatment. All wastewaters other than groundwood Whitewater are
discharged to a sump. The groundwood Whitewater is directed
either to a wood molasses plant or to a primary clarifier.
Sludge from the clarifier is recycled to the plant, and the
overflow wastewater is directed to the holding tank. The
effluent from the holding tank is spray irrigated. Underdrainage
from the spray irrigation field is collected and discharged to
the river.
Raw and treated effluent loads of total phenols for seven
hardboard plants are presented in Table VII-57. Raw and treated
effluent loads of heavy metals for six hardboard plants are
presented in Table VI1-58.
Table VI1-59 presents the raw and treated waste concentrations of
organic toxic pollutants for two SIS hardboard plants which were
sampled during the 1978 verification sampling program. Extremely
low concentrations of chloroform, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
and phenol were found in the raw wastes of the SIS hardboard
plants. All of these pollutants, with the exception of phenol,
most likely originated in industrial solvents or as a result of
the chlorination of incoming process water. Phenol is an
expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions which occur during
refining of the wood furnish. The levels of the heavy metals and
organic toxic pollutants which were found in the raw wastewaters
are so low that no specific technology exists, other than
biological treatment, to remove these pollutants from the
wastewater matrix.
The intake water for Plant 207 contained 10 ug/1 of toluene.
This concentration is the analytical detection limit for this
compound and, available data on potable water sources demonstrate
that few surface waters are entirely free of trace organic
contaminants.
Table VII-60 presents the organic toxic pollutant concentrations
of the raw and treated wastes for the three S2S hardboard plants
that were sampled during the 1978 verification sampling program.
283
-------
Table VII-57. Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent Reduction for Total Hienols—
Hardboard*
Plant
Code
Raw Waste Loadf
Treated
Waste Loadt
% Reduction
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
207
0.005
(0.01)
0.00030
(0.00059)
94
0.0010
(0.021)
0.00020
(0.00040)
98
673
0.01
(0.02)
0.00015
(0.0003)
98
678
0.003
(0.006)
—
—
931
0.055
(0.11)
0.00046.
(0.00092)
99
0.031
(0.062)
0.065
(0.13)
+110
933
—
—
0.003
(0.006)
—
979
0.0015
(0.003)
0.0028
(0.0055)
+83
1
0.0005**
(0.001)**
0.10
(0.21)
0.00095
(0.0019)
99
* First row of data represents data for 1977; second row of data represents data for
1978.
t Total phenols concentration data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling
programs. Average annual daily waste flow and production data supplied by plants in
response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate waste loads.
** Data are 1976 historical data supplied by plant in response to data collection
portfolio.
-------
Table VII-58. Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction for Hardboard Metals
Ag
Hg
931
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .000006 .00029 .0039 .00006 .0024 .009 .0002 .000012 .000018 .000006 .000013 .00029 .000018
(lb/ton) (.000012) (.00057) (.0078) (.00012) (.0047) (.017) (.00003) (.000023) (.000035) (.000012) (.000026) (.00058) (.000035)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .0000045 .0000045 .0014 .00002 .0002 .0025 .0000085 .00002 .000006 .0000005 .000007 .000006 .000018
(lb/ton) (.000009) (.000009) (.0028) (.00004) (.0004) (.0049) (.00017) (.00004) (.000012) (.000001) (.000014) (.00011) (.000035)
* Reduction 252 98* 64* 67* 92* 72* 96% +73* increase 33% 92* 46* 982 0*
980
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/toto)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(lb/ton)
* Reduction
.000013
(.000025)
.000009
(.000018)
31*
.00006
(.000012)
.000037
(.000074)
38*
.014
(.027)
.009
(.017)
36*
.00012
(.00024)
.000037
(.000074)
69*
.0018
(.0035)
.00033)
(.00066)
82*
.0048
(.0096)
.0008)
(.0016)
83*
.00008
(.00015)
.000009
(.000018)
89*
.000026
(.000051)
.000024
(.000048)
8*
.00002
(.00004)
.000019
(.000037)
8*
.00018
(.00035)
.000085
(.00017)
53*
.000013
(.000025)
.000013
(.000025)
0*
.00019
(.00037)
.000043
(.000085)
77*
.0000013
(.0000025)
.000037
(.000074)
+283* increase
ro
oo
cn
678
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg1) .000008
(lb/ton) (.000016)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .0000028
(lb/ton) (.0000056)
* Reduction 65*
933
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .000005
(lb/ton) (.00001)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(lb/ton)
* Reduction
.000007
(.000013)
.000008
(.000016)
+14* increase
.000005
(.0001)
.00044
(.00088)
.000017
(.00033)
96*
.0011
(.0021)
.0008
(.0015)
.000033
(.000065)
96*
.00002
(.00004)
.0008
(.00015)
.000024
(.000047)
97*
.00006
(.00012)
.003
(.005)
.00026
(.00052)
91*
.024
(.048)
.00008
(.00015)
.0001
(.000020)
87*
.000024
(.000048)
.000016
(.000032)
.000007
(.000014)
56*
.000014
(.000027)
.00005
(.0001)
.00002
(.000039)
60*
.000024
(.000048)
.000007
(.000013)
.0000033
(.0000066)
53*
.000005
(.00001)
.000013
(.000026)
.0000023
(.0000045)
: 82*
.000005
(.00001)
.0001
(.0019)
.000024
(.000047)
76*
.00009
(.00017)
.0000027
(.0000053)
.0000011
(.0000022)
592
.000011
(.000021)
207
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .000009 .000009 .009 .000035 .00006 .014 .000009 .000017 .00006 .000009 .000009 .000017 .0003!
(lb/ton) (.000017) (.000017) (.017) (.000069) (.00011) (.027) (.000017) (.000034) (.00011) (.000017) (.000017) (.000034) (.00062)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .000009 .000009 .004 .000026 :.000035 .0066 .000009 .000017 .00047 .000009 .000009 .000035 .00007
(lb/ton) (.000017) (.000017) (.0079) (.000052) (.000069) (.013) (.000017) (.000034) (.000093) (.000017) (.000017) (.000069) (.00014)
* Reduction 0* 0* 56* 26* 42* 53* 0* 0* ' 15* 0* 0* +103* increase 77*
678
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .000007 .000007 .0033 .000042 .00012 .007 .0001 .000015 .000015 .000009 .000009 .006 .000022
(lb/ton) (.000013) (.000013) (.0065) (.000083) (.00023,) (.014) (.0002) (.00003) (.00003) (.000017) (.000017) (.011) (.000043)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .0000048 .0000048 .0000048 .000036 .00006 .0019 .000011 .0000004 .0000004 .000006 .000008 .00082 .0000004
(lb/ton) (.0000096) (.0000096) (.0000096) (.000071) (.00011) (.0038) , (.000023) (.0000009) (.0000009) (.000011) (.000016) (.0016) (.0000007)
* Reduction 31* 31* 99* 14* 50* 732 89* ' 97* 97* +547* increase 11* 86* 98*
Source: 1977 Verification Sampling.
-------
Table VII-59. SIS Hardboard Toxic Pollutant Data, Organics
Average Concentration (ug/1)
Raw
Wastewater
Treated Efluent
Parameter
Plant 207
Plant 931
Plant 207 Plant 931
Chloroform
—
20
—
Benzene
—
80
10 80
Ethylbenzene
20
—
—
Toluene
15*
70
70
Phenol
—**
680
20
* Plant 207 intake water contained 10 ug/1 toluene.
** Plant 207 intake water contained 97 ug/1 phenol.
— Hyphen denotes that the concentration for the parameter is below the
detection limit for the compound.
286
-------
Table V1I-60. S2S Hardboard Toxic Pollutant Data, Organics
Average Concentration (ug/1)
Raw Wastewater Treated Effluent
Parameter Plant 980 Plant 1 Plant 943 Plant 980 Plant 1 Plant 943
Chloroform
—
20
—
—
—
—
1,1,2-
Tr ichloroethane
—
—
90
—
—
—
Benzene
—
90*
—
—
40
—
Toluene
—
60*
10
100**
30
—
Phenol
—
300
—
—
—
—
* Plant intake water was measured at 120 ug/1 benzene and 80 ug/1 toluene.
** Plant reported a minor solvent spill in final settling pond prior to sampling.
Hyphen denotes that the concentration for the parameter is below the detection
limit for the compound.
-------
Extremely low concentrations of chloroform, 1,1,2-
trichloroethane, benzene, toluene, and phenol were found in the
raw wastes of the plants sampled. All of these pollutants, with
the exception of phenol, most likely originated in industrial
solvents or as a result of the chlorination of incoming process
water. Phenol is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions
which occur during refining of the wood furnish. The levels of
the heavy metals and organic toxic pollutants which were found in
the raw wastewaters are so low that no specific technology exists
to remove these pollutants from the wastewater matrix.
Biological treatment is effective in reducing most raw heavy
metals concentrations as shown in Table VI1-58 and in
significantly reducing the concentrations of the few organic
toxic pollutants found in the raw wastewater.
The treated effluent of Plant 980 contained 100 ug/1 of toluene
which is thought to have been caused by a minor solvent spill in
the final settling pond prior to sampling.
Insulation Board Candidate Treatment Technologies
There are two basic treatment technologies applicable to
insulation board plants. One technology is biological treatment.
Two equivalent options for biological treatment are presented—an
aerated lagoon option and an activated sludge option. Both
options will result in the same degree of treatment and final
effluent level. The aerated lagoon option is less costly;
however, it requires more land.
The biological candidate treatment technology schemes for the
insulation board subcategory are based on demonstrated
performance of Plant 537, a thermomechanical refining plant. The
single direct discharging mechanical refining plant, Plant 36,
has raw waste loads similar to Plant 537 and based on previously
presented data, is capable of achieving treatment performance
equivalent to Plant 537.
Candidate Treatment Technology A includes an activated sludge
system for biological treatment and secondary clarification with
aerobic digestion, sludge thickening, and vacuum filtration for
waste sludge conditioning and dewatering. Figure VI1-21 presents
a schematic of Candidate Treatment Technology A.
Candidate Treatment Technology B, as shown in Figure VI1-22,
includes an aerated lagoon system with a facultative lagoon for
additional biological treatment and clarification. Sludge is
dredged from the facultative lagoon and landfilled.
Candidate Treatment Technology C, as shown in Figure VI1-23, is a
self contained system utilizing spray irrigation. Biological
treatment precedes spray irrigation to reduce the pollutant load
on the spray field. Biological treatment of raw wastewater
preceding spray irrigation is not a necessity for successful
performance of this technology. The allowable loading rates of
288
-------
INSULATION BOARD (MECHANICAL AND THERMOMECHANICAL REFINING)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT A
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
SCREENING
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
SLUDGE
THICKENER
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PUMP STATION
AEROBIC
DIGESTOR
EQUALIZATION
NEUTRALIZATION
PUMP STATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
MONITORING
STATION
PUMP STATION
DISCHARGE
Figure VII-21
-------
INSULATION BOARD (MECHANICAL AND THERMOMECHANICAL REFINING)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT B
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
PUMP STATION
SCREENING
PUMP STATION
DISCHARGE
PUMP STATION
CONTROL HOUSE
NEUTRALIZATION
AERATED LAGOON
MONITORING STATION
FACULTATIVE LAGOON
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
Figure VII-22
-------
INSULATION BOARD (MECHANICAL AND THERMOMECHANICAL REFINING)
(SELF CONTAINED)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT C
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE
SCREENING
PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
CONTROL HOUSE
NEUTRALIZATION
AERATED LAGOON
SPRAY IRRIGATION
FACULTATIVE LAGOON
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
See Tables A-6, A-7, A-8, and A-9 for cost summaries
Figure VII-23
-------
BOD per acre of land vary considerably from soil to soil, and
there are several demonstrated instances of insulation board and
hardboard plants successfully spray irrigating a raw wastewater.
Plants 186, 979 and 943 do not provide biological treatment prior
to successful application of spray irrigation technology.
Candidate Treatment Technology C is usually more land intensive
than A or B.
Candidate Treatment Technology C is presented here as providing
biological treatment prior to spray irrigation in order to
present a conservative basis for new source performance costs and
to insure that new source performance standards can be met by
plants in areas where allowable BOD loading rates per acre
require biological treatment. Sludge is removed from the
facultative lagoon and landfilled.
Table VI1-61 presents the expected treated effluent waste loads
for the candidate treatment technologies for insulation board
plants. These treated waste loads are based on those being
achieved by thermomechanical refining Plant 537.
The battery limit costs associated with the insulation board
Candidate Treatment Technology C, the NSPS technology, are
presented in Appendix A. No other costs are presented for
insulation board plants as both direct discharging plants which
produce only insulation board already have equivalent technology
in place. Cost impacts for plants which produce both insulation
board and S2S hardboard are presented in the S2S hardboard
discussion.
Table VII-61. Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
Treatment Technologies—Insulation Board
Candidate
Treatment Average Treated Effluent Waste Loads kq/Kkq (lb/ton)
Technology BOD TSS
A, B 2.07 (4.14) 1.31 (2.62)
C 0 0
Wet Process Hardboard Candidate Treatment Technologies
There are two basic treatment technologies applicable to
hardboard plants. One technology is biological treatment. As
demonstrated by plants in the industry and as discussed earlier
in this section, biological treatment facilities may be designed
and operated to provide varying degrees of pollutant reduction.
Because there are many plants that have biological systems,
demonstrated performance of three of these systems (two for SIS
hardboard and one for S2S hardboard plants) were used to develop
three levels of biological treatment performance as a basis for
the candidate biological treatment systems. Each of these
292
-------
candidate treatment systems described for hardboard plants will
result in different final treated effluent levels.
Candidate Treatment Technology A, applicable to SIS hardboard
plants and based on the biological treatment system in place at
Plant 207, consists of a primary settling pond or primary
clarifier, an aerated lagoon and a facultative settling lagoon.
A diagram of this treatment system is presented in Figure VI1-24.
Candidate Treatment Technology B, applicable to SIS hardboard
plants and based on the biological treatment system in place at
Plant 931, consists of a two stage aerated lagoon system in
conjunction with a facultative settling lagoon. This system
provides significantly more detention time and aeration capacity
per pound of raw BOD waste load than does Candidate Treatment
Technology A, and thus exhibits improved performance
characteristics. Figure VII-25 is a diagram of Candidate
Treatment Technology B.
Candidate Treatment Technology C is applicable to S2S hardboard
plants and is based on the biological treatment system in place
at Plant 980, except that a primary clarifier and activated
sludge system have been specified to replace the Infilco solids
contact units used at this plant to provide a combination of
primary settling and preliminary biological treatment. This
system, which_includes equalization, primary settling, activated
sludge treatment followed by a two stage aerated lagoon system
and a facultative lagoon for final settling, is depicted in
Figure VI1-26.
Candidate Treatment Technology D, applicable to SIS and S2S
hardboard plants, is a no discharge spray irrigation system. For
cost purposes, the spray system itself is preceded by biological
treatment and sufficient holding capacity for 3 months at design
flow, as well as a one mile pipeline and pumping station. A
diagram of this system is presented in Figure VII-27.
293
-------
HARDBQARD (SIS)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT A
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDQE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
SCREENING
PUMP STATION
CONTROL HOUSE
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
MONITORING
STATION
AERATED LAGOON
PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
NEUTRALIZATION
Figures VII-24
-------
HARDBOARD (SIS)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT B
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW WASTEWATER
PUMP STATION
NUTRIENT ADDITION
PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
AERATED LAQOON
AERATED LAQOON
NEUTRALIZATION
MONITORING STATION
FACULTATIVE LAQOON
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
Figure VII-25
-------
HARDBOARD (S2S)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT C
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
SLUDGE OlSPOSAt
(TRUCK HAUL)
CONTROL HOUSE
PRIMARY CLARIFIER
EQUALIZATION
PUMP STATION,
SLUDGE
THICKENER
AEROBIC
DIGESTOR
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
PUMP STATION
NEUTRALIZATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
AERATED
LAGOON
AERATED
LAGOON
FACULTATIVE
LAGOON
PUMP STATION
DISCHARGE
Figure VII-26
-------
HARDBOARD (81S AND S2S)
(SELF CONTAINED)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT D
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW WASTEWATER -
PUMP STATION
PUMP STATION
NEUTRALIZATION
-— NUTRIENT ADDITION
PUMP STATION
AERATED LAQOON
SPRAY IRRIGATION
FACULTATIVE LAGOON
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
Sea Tables A-10, A-11, and A-12 for cost summaries
Figure Vll»27
-------
Tat>le VII-62 presents the expected treated effluent levels for
these candidate treatment technologies.
Table VII-62. Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
Treatment Technologies—Wet Process Hardboard
Candidate
Treatment Average Treated Effluent Waste Loads kq/Kkq (lb/ton)
Technology BOD TSS
A (SIS) 4.45 (8.91) 10.4 (20.8)
B (SIS) 0.922(1.84) 3.01 (6.02)
C (S2S) 3.61(7.22) 5.02 (10.0)
D(Both) 0 0
Cost estimates are presented in Appendix A for the self contained,
NSPS Candidate Technology D only, as all direct dischargers already
have treatment systems in-place.
Cost estimates are also presented in Appendix A for hardboard plants
which must upgrade their treatment systems to achieve performance
equivalent to Candidate Treatment Technologies A and B (for SIS) and
C (for S2S).
Pretreatment Technology
No technology for pretreatment was developed for the insulation
board/wet process hardboard segment because of the low levels of
heavy metals and organic toxic pollutants in the raw wastewater
and the lack of technology available to further reduce these
levels. A plant may decide to adopt pretreatment in order to
reduce its waste loads to the POTW as a matter of individual
economics.
298
-------
SECTION VIII
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
GENERAL
The effluent limitations which were required to be achieved by
July 1, 1977, are based on the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT). The best
practicable control technology currently available is based upon
the average of the best existing performances, in terms of
treated effluent discharged, by plants of various sizes, ages and
unit processes within the industry. This average is not based
upon a broad range of plants within the timber products industry,
but upon performance levels demonstrated by exemplary plants.
In establishing the best practicable control technology currently
available effluent limitations guidelines, EPA must consider
several factors, including:
1. the manufacturing processes employed by the industry;
2. the age and size of equipment and facilities involved;
3. the engineering aspects of application of various types
of control techniques;
4. the cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting,
from the application of the technology; and
5. non-water quality environmental impact (including
energy requirements).
While best practicable control technology currently available
emphasizes treatment facilities at the end of manufacturing pro-
cesses, it also includes control technologies within the process
itself which are considered normal practice within an industry.
A further consideration is the degree of economic and engineering
reliability which must be established for the technology to be
"currently available." As a result of demonstration projects,
pilot plant testing, and general use, there must exist a high
degree of confidence in the engineering and economic
practicability of the technology at the time of commencement of
construction or installation of the control facilities.
MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
As indicated in earlier sections, the differences in timber
products manufacturing processes result in varying raw waste
characteristics. The Agency has recognized these variations by
299
-------
establishing industry subcategories for the purpose of developing
effluent limitations.
AGE AND SIZE OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
As discussed in Section IV of this report, the data indicate that
plant age or size do not justify different effluent limitations.
The data indicate that some of the oldest and smallest plants
currently achieve levels of treatment equivalent to those
achieved by large and new facilities.
STATUS OF BPT REGULATIONS
Wood Preserving Segment
The following BPT effluent limitations were promulgated on April
18, 1974 for the wood preserving segment of the timber products
industry:
Wood Preservinq-Waterborne Or Nonpressure Subcategory (formerly
Wood Preserving Subcategory) -No discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory
BPT Effluent Limitations
Effluent
characteristic
Maximum for
any 1 day
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days
shall not exceed
COD
Total phenols
Oil and Grease
pH
COD
Total phenols
Oil and Grease
ES
Metric units (kilograms per 1,000 m3
of product)
1,100 550
2.18 0.65
24.0 12.0
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
English units (pounds per 1,000 ft3
of product)
68.5 34.5
0.14 0.04
1.5 0.75
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Wood Preservinq-Bou1ton Subcategory — No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
300
-------
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment
Insulation Board SubCategory-On August 26, 1974, effluent
guidelines and standards were proposed for the direct discharging
plants of the insulation board subcategory. These proposed
regulations were never promulgated. Promulgation was delayed
because review of the proposed regulation indicated that
additional information was needed.
Wet Process Hardboard Subcateqory-Following promulgation of wet
process hardboard regulations on April 18, 1974, the industry and
the Agency held a series of meetings to review the information in
the Record supporting these regulations. This review convinced
the Agency that the existing regulations should be withdrawn. On
September 28, 1977, a notice was published in the Federal
Register announcing the withdrawal of 40 CFR Part' 429 Subpart E-
Hardboard Wet Process, best practicable control technology
limitations, best available technology limitations, and new
source performance standards (BPT/ BAT and NSPS).
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BPT)
Wood Preserving Segment
BPT regulations promulgated April 18, 1974 continue.
Wet Process Hardboard/Insulation Board Segment
Best practicable control technology for the wet process hardboard
subcategory and the insulation board subcategory are based on
demonstrated performance of existing end-of-pipe biological
treatment systems. The insulation board BPT technology is
defined as primary clarification, followed by secondary treatment
(biological by extended aeration), secondary clarification and
recycle and reuse of a portion of the treated wastewater, as
practiced by Plant 537. The SIS part of the wet process
hardboard subcategory BPT technology is based on primary
settling, biological treatment by extended aeration, secondary
settling, and discharge, as currently practiced by Plant 207. As
discussed below, the only plant producing only S2S hardboard has
an end-of-pipe treatment system performing at a BCT level rather
than a BPT level of performance. Therefore, a BPT limitation was
calculated for the S2S part of the wet process hardboard
subcategory from the performance of the SIS BPT system applied to
S2S raw waste loads.
The BPT limitations for the insulation board and wet process
hardboard subcategories presented in this section can be achieved
with the treatment systems outlined above. ..However, these
systems are not required by the regulations. In fact, many
plants in these subcategories are currently achieving BPT, or
better levels of control with wastewater treatment and control
systems different than those described above.
301
-------
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
The pollutants controlled by the previously promulgated BPT
limitations for the Wood Preserving-Steam subcategory are COD,
Oil and Grease, total phenols (Standard Methods), and pH. The
discharge of these pollutants, except for pH, is controlled by
mass effluent limitations, i.e. in kilograms of pollutant per
1000 m3 of production or pounds of pollutant per 1000 ft3 of
production. The existing BPT limitations for the remaining
subcategories of the wood preserving segment, the Wood
Preserving-Waterborne or Nonpressure and Wood Preserving-Boulton
subcategories require no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. The pollutants controlled by the BPT limitations for
the insulation board and wet process hardboard subcategories
include BOD, TSS, and pH. The discharge of these pollutants,
except for pH, is controlled by mass effluent limitations, i.e.,
kilograms of pollutant per 1000 kilograms of gross production or
pounds of pollutant per 1000 pounds of gross production.
METHODOLOGY OF BPT DEVELOPMENT
Wood Preserving Segment
The Agency is retaining the BPT effluent limitations promulgated
on April 18, 1974. A detailed discussion of the rationale for
determining BPT limitations for each subcategory of the wood
preserving segment is presented in the Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Plywood, Hardboard and Wood Preserving Segments
of the Timber Products Industry, U.S. EPA 440/1-73/029, 1974.
All known wood preserving plants are currently in compliance with
these existing BPT limitations.
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment
Insulation Board Subcategorv-Fifteen plants fall into this
subcategory, ten which produce solely insulation board, and five
which produce both insulation board and S2S hardboard. Five of
the fifteen plants are direct dischargers.
BOD and TSS are the major pollutants present in the wastewater.
None of the 124 toxic pollutants were measured at levels that
would be further reduced by practicable currently available
treatment technologies.
The Agency reviewed and evaluated the treatment systems at all
five direct discharging plants in order to choose a treatment
technology representative of BPT. Requirements for this BPT
technology were that it represent exemplary performance within
the subcategory and that it be applicable to all plants within
the subcategory.
302
-------
Technology selected as representative of BPT technology for the
insulation board subcategory is based on in-place technology at
Plant 537, one of two direct dischargers that produces solely
insulation board.
At Plant 537, process wastewater, septic tank effluent, and storm
water runoff goes to a primary clarifier. Primary sludge is
recycled to the process. Wastewater goes to an aerated lagoon,
and then to a secondary clarifier. Secondary clarifier sludge
also is recycled to the process. Clarifier overflow goes to a
sump. A portion of the treated water is reused by the plant, and
excess treated wastewater is discharged to receiving waters.
In-place technology at the remaining four direct discharging
plants was not selected as representative BPT technology for the
following reasons:
Plant 36 has a biological treatment system which consists of a
primary clarifier followed by an activated sludge system.
Although the performance of this system is exemplary, and this
treatment system is applicable to other insulation board plants,
Plant 36 is the only mechanical refining plant among the five
insulation board direct dischargers. Mechanical refining plants
usually have lower raw waste loads than do thermomechanical
refining plants. The Agency decided not to base BPT treatment
system performance on a system treating wastewater from a
mechanical refining plant.
Plant 108 has recently constructed a pure oxygen activated sludge
treatment system. Lack of operational data on this system
prevents it from being considered as representative of BPT
technology.
Plant 1035 has an extensive biological treatment system
consisting of over 100 acres of aerated lagoons and oxidation
ponds. Although this system provides excellent treatment, it is
very land intensive; therefore, the Agency concluded that it is
not representative of BPT technology.
Plant 943 spray irrigates primary treated wastewater on 200 acres
of underdrained fields. Percolated water is collected in the
underdrains and is discharged. Although this system provides a
very high level of treatment, it is land intensive; for this
reason, the Agency concluded that it is not representative of BPT
technology.
One nondischarging plant in the subcategory, which was operating
at the time of the technical study, but is no longer operating
used complete recycle of process wastewater to achieve no
discharge status. The Agency believes that complete recycle of
process wastewater is dependent on the type of end products
produced, the type of raw materials available, and on plant
specific variables of process equipment. It is, therefore, not
303
-------
applicable to all plants in the subcategory and the Agency has
not recommended this technology for BPT.
Specific engineering design criteria, based on the treatment
system at Plant 537, are presented below for BPT biological
treatment technology for the insulation board subcategory:
Primary and Secondary Clarifier
Overflow Rate 661 gpd/sq ft
Nutrient Addition to Maintain
C:N:P at 100:5:1
Aerated Lagoon Detention Time 0.0019 days/lb
BOD removed
Aeration Capacity 0.066 HP/lb
BOD removed
Performance data over a three-year period for Plant 537 indicate
that the treatment system is performing exceptionally well, with
long term average treated effluent loads of 2.07 kg/kkg (lb/1,000
lb) for BOD and 1.31 kg/kkg (lb/1,000 lb) for TSS. The BPT
limitations for this subcategory were derived by multiplying the
long term average performance of Plant 537 by the daily and
30-day variability factors for Plant 537 documented later in this
Section.
Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory - SIS Part-Nine plants fall
into this group, seven of which are direct dischargers, one of
which is a indirect discharger and one of which is self
contained.
BOD and TSS are the major wastewater pollutants. None of the 124
toxic pollutants were measured at levels that could be further
reduced by practicable, currently available treatment
technologies.
The Agency reviewed and evaluated the treatment systems at the
seven direct discharging plants and the self contained plant in
order to choose a treatment technology representative of BPT.
Requirements for the BPT technology were that it represent
exemplary performance within the SIS part of the subcategory and
that it be applicable to all plants within the SIS part.
Technology selected as representative of BPT technology for the
SIS part of the wet process hardboard subcategory is based on in-
place technology at Plant 207.
Plant 207 produces only SIS hardboard. The treatment system
consists of primary settling, about twenty two days detention in
an aerated lagoon, a secondary settling pond, followed by
discharge to the receiving water.
304
-------
In-place technology at the remaining eight SIS hardboard plants
was not selected as representedive of 3FT technology for the
following reasons:
Plant 348 produces solely SIS hardboard. Adjacent to the
hardboard plant, a plant owned by the same firm produces battery
components which discharges process wastewater to the same
biological treatment system treating the hardboard plant
effluent. The plant was not able to separate and prorate
wastewater flows from the two operations. The treatment system
at this plant consists of a primary settling pond, an aerated
lagoon, and a secondary settling pond. The plant is, as of
Spring 1979, undertaking modifications of the treatment system in
an attempt to improve its performance. To date, the plant has the
highest level of BOD and TSS discharge of all SIS plants.
Because of poor past performance and because of the presence of
battery plant effluent this plant was not considered as a BPT
candidate.
Plant 3 produces primarily exterior siding grade SIS hardboard.
The plant's treatment system consists of primary settling, an
aerated lagoon, a secondary clarifier, followed by another
aerated lagoon. Some wastewater from the final aerated lagoon is
reused in the manufacturing process, and the remainder is
discharged to the receiving water. The plant is considering
recycling a portion of the waste sludge from the secondary
clarifier. The treatment system, based on long term data
analysis, discharges a greater amount of pollutants than does
Plant 207. This plant also exhibited a wide swing in treatment
efficiency during the two year period for which data is
available, indicating that the system has not been stable during
that period, and should not be considered a BPT candidate.
Two plants, 678 and 673, both of which produce some.S2S hardboard
as well as SIS, dispose of a significant portion of their process
wastewater pollutants by an evaporation and drying process that
converts wood sugars and other pulp degradation products into a
by-product which is marketable as an animal feed supplement.
This operation considerably reduces the raw. waste load in
relation to other hardboard plants.
Although both of these plants have activated sludge treatment
systems with better performance characteristics than the
candidate BPT system (in terms of unit discharge of pollutants)
of Plant 207, the combination of evaporation and biological
treatment technologies is not considered applicable to all SIS
hardboard plants and therefore was not selected as a BPT
candidate.
Plant 929 produces primarily industrial grade SIS hardboard. Its
products are used in automobile interiors, as backing for
upholstered furniture, and as TV cabinet backing: all uses where
the hardboard is not visible, and not likely to be in contact
with moisture. Therefore, the appearance and water absorption
305
-------
qualities of the board are not important criteria. The plant has
for the past three years been modifying process equipment and
techniques to increase recycle and minimize its volume of process
wastewater. The plant has reduced its volume of process
wastewater more than 90 percent and has also significantly
reduced the mass of pollutants discharged in its raw waste.
However, because the relatively unique product line of this plant
does not have to meet stringent requirements for appearance,
paintability, and water absorption, the internal recycle
technology used by this plant is not applicable to all plants in
the subcategory and was not chosen as a BPT candidate. This
plant treats its relatively low volume of process wastewater in
two large oxidation lagoons/settling ponds, which are not in
themselves sufficiently effective to be considered as a BPT
candidate treatment system.
Plant 931, which produces all SIS hardboard, constructed new
treatment facilities which became operational during the last
quarter of 1976. This treatment system consists of two parallel
pairs of aerated lagoons operated in series, followed by three
large settling lagoons operated in parallel. This entire system
has a long detention time resulting in the best performance in
terms of unit effluent pollutants discharged of any system
relying primarily on end-of-pipe biolpgical treatment and
applicable to all SIS hardboard plants. Of the seven direct
discharging SIS plants from which one to three years historical
BOD arid TSS data were available, this plant's treatment system
exhibited the most consistent uniformity of discharge quality
both in terms of daily and long term average discharge. This
treatment system is therefore considered to be a BAT or BCT
candidate, and was not considered as a BPT candidate technology.
Plant 919 produces only SIS hardboard for use in siding and
industrial furniture. Process wastewater from the plant
(including wastewater from an adjacent veneer plant owned by the
same company) flows to two primary settling ponds followed by an
activated sludge system. Following biological treatment, all the
treated effluent is recycled to the plant as process make-up
water.
This end-of-pipe treatment/recycle system, although quite
effective for Plant 919, is not considered applicable to all SIS
plants for the same reasons that Plant 929's internal-process
recycle cannot be applied to other SIS plants. Therefore, the
treatment system at Plant 919 was not considered as a BPT
candidate.
The remaining SIS hardboard plant is Plant 933 which is an
indirect discharger with no pretreatment other than
neutralization.
Specific engineering design criteria, based on the treatment
system at Plant 207, are presented below for BPT biological
306
-------
treatment technology for the SIS part of the wet process
hardboard subcategory:
Primary Settling Lagoon
Detention Time 5.2 days
Nutrient Addition to Maintain
C:N:P at 100:5:1
Aerated Lagoon Detention Time 0.0046 days/lb
BOD removed
Aeration Capacity 0.059 HP/lb
BOD removed
Secondary Settling Lagoon
Detention Time 2.7 djays
Treated effluent performance data over a two year period for
Plant 207 indicate that the treatment system is performing very
adequately, with long term average treated effluent loads of 4.45
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) for BOD and 10.4 kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) for TSS.
The BPT limitations for this part of the wet process hardboard
subcategory were derived by multiplying the long term average
performance of Plant 207 by the daily and 30-day variability
factors for Plant 207 documented later in this Section.
As described in Section V, the 1976 raw waste load for Plant 207
was not used in developing the design criteria for the SIS part
because a major in-plant retrofitting program, which
significantly reduced the raw waste flow, was completed during
the latter half of 1976. However, the daily treated effluent
waste loads did not vary significantly from 1976 to 1977, and
therefore, the long term average performance for this plant, in
terms of treated effluent waste loads, was used in developing the
BPT limitations.
Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory - S2S Part-Seven plants fall
into this part of the wet process hardboard subcategory, five of
which produce both insulation board and S2S hardboard. Of the
plants which produce only hardboard, one plant produces
approximately 80 percent S2S hardboard and 20 percent SIS
hardboard. The remaining plant produces solely S2S hardboard.
Five of the seven plants are direct dischargers.
BOD and TSS are the major pollutants present in the wastewater.
None of the 124 toxic pollutants were measured at levels that
would be further reduced by practicable, currently available
treatment technoloaies.
The Agency reviewed and evaluated the treatment systems at all
five direct discharging plants in order to choose a treatment
technology representative of BPT. Requirements for this BPT
307
-------
technology were that it represent exemplary performance within
the S2S part of the wet process hardboard subcategory and that it
be applicable to all plants within the S2S part. Treatment
systems at three of the plants were treating to very low effluent
levels. However, two of the plants, 1035 and 943, are practicing
a wastewater treatment technology application that is land
intensive and not considered applicable to all plants in the
subcategory.
Plant 980, the only plant which produces only S2S hardboard, has
an exemplary biological treatment system in-place which is
applicable to other S2S hardboard plants. The performance of
this system, however, in comparison with exemplary plants in the
SIS part of the subcategory, is more representative of BAT or BCT
technology than it is of BPT technology. For example, the SIS
part BPT treatment system demonstrates pollutant removal
efficiencies of 86.1 percent for BOD and 64.6 percent for TSS.
Plant 980, by comparison, is removing 94.3 percent of BOD and
91.5 percent of TSS. These removal efficiencies are more
comparable to the removal efficiencies of the SIS part BCT
candidate Plant 931, which removes 97.9 percent of BOD and 92.3
percent of TSS. (TSS removals are based on measured raw waste
load TSS plus an additional 0.784 lb TSS per lb BOD removed to
take into account biological solids generated in the treatment
system. This figure is based on data supplied by the industry).
In the absence of an S2S hardboard treatment system which
demonstrates technology representative of BPT, the Agency has
calculated BPT for the S2S part based on the pollutant removal
efficiencies demonstrated by the SIS part BPT treatment system,
as applied to the long term average raw waste load generated by
Plant 980, the only hardboard plant producing 100 percent S2S
hardboard. Again, solids generated by biological treatment are
included in this calculation. The resulting long term average
treated effluent waste loads are 8.97 kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) for- BOD
and 19.6 kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) for TSS. The BPT limitations were
derived by multiplying these waste loads by the daily and 30-day
variability factors for Plant 980. The design of the treatment
system which the Agency believes will result in BPT effluent
levels is based on the system in-place at Plant 980, with reduced
detention time and aeration-horsepower requirements corresponding
to the reduced mass of pollutants to be removed. This system
includes equalization in an aerated basin, primary settling, an
activated sludge system including secondary clarification
followed by an aerated lagoon system and a facultative settling
lagoon for further treatment.
308
-------
Specific engineering design criteria, based on the treatment
system at Plant 980, are presented below for BPT biological
treatment technology for the S2S part of the wet process
hardboard subcategory!
Primary Clarifier Overflow Rate
400 gpd/sq ft
Nutrient Addition to Maintain C:N:P at
Activated Sludge System
Detention Time
Aeration
100:5:1
0.000053 days/lb
BOD removed
0.029 HP/lb
BOD removed
Aerated Lagoon
Detention Time
Aeration Capacity
Final Settling Lagoon
Detention Time
BPT LIMITATIONS
Presented below are the best practicable
limitations promulgated in this rulemaking.
0.00028 days/lb
BOD removed
0.034 HP/lb
BOD removed
96 hours
control technology
Wood Preserving Segment
Wood Preserving Water Borne or Nonpressure Subcategory—No
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
309
-------
Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
any one day
BPT Effluent Limitations
Average of daily
values for 30
consecutive days*
COD
Phenols
Oil and Grease
pH
English units (lb/1000 cubic feet of
product)
68.5 34.5
.14 .04
1.5 .75
within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
COD
Phenols
Oil and Grease
pH
Metric units (kg/1000 cu m of product)
1,100 550
2.18 .65
24.0 12.0
within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
* Based on 30 observations for the 30 day period.
Wood Preservi ng-Boulton Subcategory—No discharge of process
wastewater pollutants.
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment
Insulation Board Subcategory
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
insulation board:
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of daily
Pollutant Property any one day values for 30
consecutive days*
kg/kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of
gross production
BOD 8.13 4.32
TSS 5.69 2.72
pH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
*Based on 30 observations for the 30 day period.
310
-------
Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory (SIS Part)
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
smooth-one-side (SIS) hardboard:
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of daily
Pollutant Property any one day values for 30
' consecutive days*
kg/kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of
' gross production)
BOD 20.5 10.7
TSS 37.3 24.6
pH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
*Based on 30 observations for the 30-day period.
Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory (S2S Part)
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
smooth-two-sides hardboard:
~ ~~ BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of daily
Pollutant Property any one day values for 30
consecutive days*
kg/kkg (lb/1,000 lb) of
gross production)
BOD 32.9 21.4
TSS 54.2 37.1
pH ' Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
*Based on 30 observations for the 30-day period.
The maximum average of daily values for any thirty consecutive
day period should not exceed the 30 day effluent limitations
shown above. As shown in the tables above, the 30-day effluent
limitations are based on 30 observations for the 30-day period.
The maximum for any one day should not exceed the daily maximum
effluent limitations as shown above. The limitations shown above
for the insulation board and wet process hardboard subcategories
are in kilograms of pollutant per metric ton of gross production
(pounds of pollutant per 1,000 pounds of gross production).
Gross production is defined as the air dry weight of hardboard or
insulation board following formation of the wet mat prior to
trimming and finishing operations.
311
-------
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
The specific level of technology defined as BPT is practicable
because many plants in the wood preserving and insulation
board/wet process hardboard segments of the timber products
industry already practice it, and achieve effluent levels equal
to or below those specified in the BPT effluent limitations. For
the wood preserving segment, no plants were identified which were
not meeting existing BPT limitations. For the insulation
board/wet process hardboard segment, eleven of fourteen direct
dischargers currently meet effluent levels proposed herein as BPT
limitations. For this segment, BPT technology and effluent
levels are based upon treatment systems currently in place as
described by a two to three year data base of daily effluent
monitoring data provided by the plants themselves.
TREATMENT VARIABILITY ESTIMATES
BPT effluent limitations guidelines for the insulation board/wet
process hardboard segment of the timber industry were calculated
by multiplying the long term average performance of the BPT
exemplary plants by daily and 30-day performance variability
factors for the exemplary BPT plants. The derivation of the BPT
numerical limitations is presented in Table VIII-1. For example,
in Table VIII-1 the daily variability factor for insulation board
BOD is 3.92, and the long-term average is 2.07. Therefore, the
BPT numerical limitation for any one day is the product,
(3.92)(2.07) = 8.13*
Similarly, the monthly variability factor from Table VIII-1 for
insulation board BOD is 2.08, so the monthly numerical limitation
for the average of thirty daily measurements is the product of
this variability factor and the long-term mean:
(2.08)(2.07) = 4.32*
Daily variability factors were calculated using nonparametric
estimates of the 99th percentile. These estimates were based on
the extended (two to three year) data base available for each
exemplary plant. The nonparametric estimation is a standard
statistical technique that is fully documented in Appendix G,
TREATMENT VARIABILITY ESTIMATES.
Thirty-day variabilities were calculated using a statistical
model which accounts for the effects of seasonality and
*The products of multiplying the variability factors by the long
term average treated effluent loads may vary slightly from the
BCT numerical limitations shown in Table VIII-1 due to rounding
of the variability factors and the long term averages.
312
-------
Table VIII-1. BPT Numerical Limitations
Long-Term
BPT Numerical Limitations
Daily
Variability
Factors
30-Day
Variability"
Factors
Average Treated
Effluent Waste Loads
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)
Maximal
For Any (he Day
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)
Average of Thirty
Daily Jfeasurements
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)
Subcategory
B0D5
TSS
B0D5
TSS
B0D5
TSS
B0D5
TSS
B0D5
TSS
Insulation Board
3.92
4.34
2.08
2.08
2.07
1.31
8.13
5.69
4.32
2.72
Wet-Process Hardboard
SIS
4.61
3.59
2.40
2.37
4.45
10.4
20.5
37.3
10.7
24.6
S2S
3.67
2.77
2.39
1.90
8.97
19.6
32.9
54.2
21.4
37.1
Note: The products of multiplying the variability fee tors by the long-term average treated effluent loads may vary
slightly from the BPT nunerical limitations shown above due to rounding of the variability factors and long-term
averages.
-------
autocorrelation. This model is used to estimate the 99th
percentile of the 30-day monthly averages, using the two to three
year data base. Complete details of the statistical methodology
used by the Agency in calculating daily and 30-day variability
factors for BPT exemplary plants are contained in Appendix G,
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING PERFORMANCE VARIABILITY
OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS.
COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS-INSULATION BOARD/WET PROCESS
HARDBOARD
EPA expects that the total capital investment necessary to
upgrade the treatment systems of the three direct dischargers not
achieving BPT effluent limitations will be $9.6 million.
Operation and maintenance costs for all of these plants will
increase by $3.7 million per year. Achievement of proposed BPT
effluent limitations will remove approximately 2.4 million pounds
per y^ar of conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS).
NONWATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The primary nonwater quality impact of the BPT limitations is the
waste sludge generated in the candidate treatment systems and the
increased burden of the land to accept the disposal of this
sludge.
In the insulation board/wet process hardboard segment of the
industry, large volumes of waste sludge are generated in
biological wastewater treatment systems. An estimated 500,000
cubic yards per year of such sludge is currently generated by the
26 plants in the insulation board/wet process hardboard segment.
The estimated incremental increase in sludge production as a
result of compliance with BPT limitations as plants upgrade their
facilities is expected to be only 34,000 cubic yards per year, or
about 6 percent of the total amount of sludge currently
generated. Limited data from the preliminary results of a
current timber industry study of Best Management Practices (BMP)
suggest that significant quantities of toxic materials are not
present in insulation board and hardboard sludges, and, they
appear to be amenable to disposal in a normal sanitary landfill.
Waste sludges from wood preserving treatment systems, although
small in volume, have been shown to contain significant
quantities of toxic pollutants. These sludges need special
consideration insofar as land disposal is concerned.
It was not within the scope of this rulemaking to define whether
waste materials from the timber products industry are to be
considered hazardous according to recently promulgated Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. Consequently,
no efforts were made to fully characterize the sludge produced as
a result of wastewater treatment. No sludge samples were
collected during the verification sampling programs. Limited
314
-------
information is available, however, from the data collection
portfolios, from interviews with plant personnel, and from
preliminary results of a current timber industry Best Management
Practice (BMP) study to estimate the quantities of sludge
generated by the various candidate treatment technologies.
To date, no adverse impacts upon air quality have been identified
which would restrict the adoption of any of the BPT candidate
treatment technologies.
At some plants spray evaporation or cooling tower evaporation of
wood preserving wastewater is used to achieve no discharge.
Because the wastewater being evaporated contains volatile organic
compounds there could be drift losses caused by wind.
Further, volatile organic compounds can also be stripped from
wastewater by aeration, such as in activated sludge units or
aerated lagoons. However, in neither case has any adverse air
quality' impacts been identified.
Energy Requirements
There are no additional energy requirements for the insulation
board subcategory as none of the insulation board plants will be
required to construct additional pollution control facilities to
comply with BPT.
The current total annual energy consumption of the wet process
hardboard subcategory is about 6,050,000 megawatt-hours,
equivalent to about 9,961,000 barrels of oil. This energy is
used not only for production processes, but also to operate
in-place wastewater treatment systems.
To attain BPT, the annual energy requirements for the hardboard
subcategory will increase by about 30,000 megawatt-hours, or
about 49,000 barrels of oil. This additional energy requirement,
which is only 0.5 percent of the current total energy
consumption, is for the operation of additional pollution control
equipment.
GUIDANCE TO NPDES PERMITTING PERSONNEL
Application of Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard BPT
Effluent Limitations
1. If a plant has production in more than one subcategory, or
production in both parts of a subcategory, the allowable
discharge (mass) should be prorated on the percentage of the
total annual production, divided by the discharging days per
year, for each subcategory or part.
2. The production figure recommended for calculating these
limitations is the daily average gross production of the
maximum 30 consecutive days. Gross production is defined as
the air dry weight of hardboard or insulation board
315
-------
following formation of the wet mat prior to trimming and
finishing operations.
3. Daily and 30-day effluent limitations have been derived
using statistical estimates of the 99th percentile, i.e.,
the highest value which will not be exceeded 99 percent of
the time. Conversely, large biological treatment systems
can be statistically expected to violate the 1 imitations
about one percent of the time in normal operation.
Enforcement personnel should consider this fact before
taking enforcement action against individual plants.
316
-------
SECTION IX
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
Section 301(b)(2)(E) of The Act requires that there be achieved,
not later than July 1, 1984, effluent limitations for categories
and classes of point sources, other than publicly-owned treatment
works, that require the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT) for control. of conventional
pollutants as identified in Section 304(a)(4). The pollutants
that have been defined as conventional by the Agency, at this
time, are biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal
coliform, oil and grease, and pH. BAT will remain in force where
toxic pollutants are present at levels where treatment and
control options are available to effect reductions.
BCT requires that limitations for conventional pollutants be
assessed in light of a cost reasonableness test. This cost
reasonableness test is defined and described in BEST CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, 44 FR 50732, August 29, 1979. The
methodology specified in the Federal Register notice for
determining BCT applies when both BPT and BAT regulations for an
industry are in force. The legislative language clearly
indicates that final BCT effluent limitations cannot be more
stringent than BAT or less stringent than BPT.
BPT and BAT regulations were not in force for either the
insulation board or wet process hardboard subcategories of the
timber products industry when the Act was amended in 1977. BPT
and BAT regulations for the hardboard subcategory, published in
1974, were withdrawn in December 1976. Insulation board
regulations, proposed in 1974, were never promulgated.
BCT limitations for the hardboard subcategory were determined
from a comparison of the incremental annualized costs and
incremental annualized reductions of conventional pollutants
above and beyond the level of control identified as BPT.
WOOD PRESERVING SEGMENT
BCT limitations are not promulgated in this rulemaking for the
wood preserving segment of the industry. The Agency reasoned
that BCT limitations are not appropriate for wood preserving
plants because wastewaters from each of the wood preserving
subcategories contain significant amounts of toxic pollutants and
because technologies for reducing toxic pollutant levels cannot
be separated from technology for reducing conventional pollutant
levels. No direct dischargers have been identified in the Wood
Preserving-Waterborne or Nonpressure and the Wood Preserving-
Boulton subcategories. Previously promulgated BAT Limitations
for these subcategories require no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants. These BAT limitations are being continued
317
-------
by this rulemaking. Only one direct discharger was identified in
the Wood Preserving-Steam subcategory. Existing BAT limitations
for this subcategory are being withdrawn by the Agency, because
national effluent limitations are inappropriate for one plant.
INSULATION BOARD/WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SEGMENT
Upon thorough review and evaluation of the treatment systems of
each direct discharging plant in this segment (previously
discussed in Section VII, CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, AND
Section VIII, BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY) the Agency
selected a treatment system representative of conventional
pollutant removal equal to or above and beyond that being
achieved by the BPT technology, identified in Section VIII, for
each subcategory. The Agency concluded that BCT limitations for
the insulation board subcategory should be equal to BPT
limitations. The reasons for this action are that there is no
in-place treatment system in the subcategory which provides both
increased pollutant removal above the BPT system and is
applicable to all plants in the subcategory. The BPT/BCT
treatment system is based upon in-place technology at Plant 537.
For the wet process hardboard subcategory, the BCT limitations in
the SIS part are based on the performance of Plant 931 and Plant
980 in the S2S part.
The test of cost reasonableness was then applied to determine
whether or not the cost per pound of additional conventional
pollutants (BOD and TSS) removed using these technologies were
equal to or less than the $1.15/lb figure specified as reasonable
for a POTW by the BCT methodology. This $1.15/lb figure is based
on the maximum 30-day average pollutant load which could be
discharged as calculated using the methodology presented in
Appendix G.
BCT technology passed the test of reasonableness for each
subcategory in this segment. Incremental costs per pound of
additional conventional pollutants removed ranged from no cost
for the insulation board subcategory (BCT technology for this
subcategory is the same as BPT technology), to a maximum of
$0.754/lb for the SIS part of the wet process hardboard
subcategory, and a maximum of $0.593/lb for the S2S part.
BEST CONVENTIONAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BCT)
Wood Preserving Segment
BCT limitations are not promulgated in this rulemaking for the
wood preserving segment for reasons described earlier in this
section.
318
-------
9
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard Segment
Insulation Board Subcateqory-Section VIII, BEST PRACTICABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, contains a detailed
discussion of each treatment system in the subcategory and also
details the specific engineering and design criteria for the
insulation board BPT/BCT treatment system. The BPT/BCT treatment
system is based upon in place technology at Plant 537. This
technology consists of primary clarification, with recycle of
primary sludge, esctended aeration, secondary clarification, also
with recycle of secondary sludge, recycle of a portion of the
treated wastewater, and discharge of the remainder.
Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory - SIS Part-Technology selected
as representative of BCT technology for the SIS part of the wet
process hardboard subcategory is based on in-place technology at
Plant 931. Plant 931, which produces all SIS hardboard,
constructed new treatment facilities which became operational
during the last quarter of 1976. This treatment system consists
of two parallel pairs of aerated lagoons operated in series,
followed by three settling lagoons operated in parallel. The
settling lagoons discharge to navigable waters. This system has
a very long detention time resulting in the best performance in
terms of conventional pollutants discharged of any system relying
primarily on end-of-pipe biological treatment which is applicable
to all SIS hardboard plants. Performance data over a three-year
period for Plant 931 indicate that the treatment system is
performing exceptionally well, with long term treated effluent
loads of 0.922 kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) for BOD and 3.01 kg/kkg
(lb/1000 lb) for TSS. The BCT limitations for the SIS part of
this subcategory were derived by multiplying the long term
average performance of Plant 931 by the daily and 30-day
variability factors for Plant 931 documented later in this
section. Specific engineering and design criteria for this BCT
system include:
Nutrient Addition to Maintain C:N:P at 100:5:1
Aerated Lagoons
Detention Time 0.0049 days/lb
BOD removed
Aeration Capacity 0.04 HP/lb
BOD removed
Settling Lagoons
Detention Time 15.7 days
Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory - S2S Part-Technology selected
as representative of BCT technology for the S2S part of the wet
process hardboard subcategory is based on in-place treatment at
Plant 980. This system includes equalization in an aerated
basin, primary settling, an activated sludge system including
secondary clarification, followed by an aerated lagoon system and
319
-------
facultative settling lagoons for additional pollutant removal.
Performance data over a four-year period for Plant 980 indicate
that the treatment system is discharging after treatment 3.61
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) for BOD and 5.02 kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) for TSS.
The BCT limitations for this subcategory were derived by
multiplying the long term average performance of Plant 980 by the
daily and 30-day variability factors for Plant 980 documented
later in this section. Specific engineering and design criteria
for this BCT system include:
Primary Clarifier Overflow Rate
Nutrient Addition to Maintain C:N:P at
Activated Sludge System
Detention Time
Aeration
Secondary Clarifier Overflow Rate:
Aerated Lagoon
Detention Time
Aeration Capacity
Final Settling Lagoon
Detention Time
BCT LIMITATIONS
400 gpd/sq ft
100:5:1
0.000053 days/lb
BOD removed
0.029 HP/lb
BOD removed
284 gpd/sq ft
0.00028 days/lb
BOD removed
0.034 HP/lb
BOD removed
96 hours
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
insulation board:
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
BCT Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of daily
any one day values for 30
consecutive days*
BOD
TSS
PH
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) of
gross production
8.13 4.32
5.69 2.72
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
*Based on 30 observations for the 30-day period.
320
-------
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
smooth-one-side (SIS) hardboard:
Pollutant
Pollutant
or
Property
BCT Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of daily
any one day values for 30
consecutive days*
BOD
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) of
qross production
3.83 2.51
TSS
10.9 7.04
PH
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
*Based on 30 observations for the 30-day period.
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
smooth-two-sides (S2S) hardboard:
Pollutant
Pollutant
or
Property
*
BCT Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of daily
any one day values for 30
consecutive days*
BOD
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) of
qross production
13.2 8.62
TSS
13.9 9.52
pH
Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
*Based on 30 observations for the 30 day period
The maximum average of daily values for any thirty consecutive
day period should not exceed the 30-day effluent limitations
shown above. As shown in the tables above, the 30-day effluent
limitations are based on 30 observations for the 30-day period.
The maximum for any one day should not exceed the daily maximum
effluent limitations as shown above. The limitations shown above
for insulation board and wet process hardboard subcategories are
in kilograms of pollutant per metric ton of gross production
(pounds of pollutant per 1,000 pounds of gross production).
Gross production is defined as the air dry weight of hardboard or
insulation board following formation of the wet mat prior to
trimming and finishing operations.
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
The technology that achieves a BCT level of control is used by
many plants in the insulation board/wet process hardboard segment
of the timber industry to achieve effluent levels equal to or
321
-------
below those specified in the BCT effluent limitations. For the
insulation board/wet process hardboard segment, seven of the
fourteen direct dischargers currently meet BCT effluent
limitations presented herein. The BCT effluent levels are based
upon treatment systems currently in place and the performance
levels are supported by a two to four year data base of daily
effluent monitoring data provided by the plants.
TREATMENT VARIABILITY ESTIMATES
BCT effluent guidelines limitations for the insulation board/wet
process hardboard segment were calculated by multiplying the long
term average treated effluent waste loads of the BCT exemplary
plants by the daily and 30-day performance; variability factors
for the BCT exemplary plants. The derivation of the BCT
numerical limitations is presented in Table IX-1. For example,
in Table IX-1 the daily variability factor for insulation board
BOD is 3.92, and the long term average is 2.07. Therefore, the
BCT numerical limitation for any one day is the product,
(3.92)(2.07) = 8.11*
Similarly, the monthly variability factor from Table IX-1 for
insulation board BOD is 2.08, so the monthly numerical limitation
for the average of thirty daily measurements is the product of
this variability factor and the long term means
(2.08)(2.07) =4.31*
Daily variability factors were calculated using nonparametric
estimates of the 99th percentile. These estimates were based on
the extended (two to four year) data base available for each
exemplary plant. The nonparametric estimation is a standard
statistical technique that is explained and discussed in Appendix
G, STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING PERFORMANCE
VARIABILITY OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS.
Thirty-day variabilities were calculated using a statistical
model which accounts for the effects of seasonality and
autocorrelation. This model is used to estimate the 99th
percentile of the 30-day monthly averages, using the two to four
year data base. Complete details of the statistical methodology
used by the Agency in calculating daily and 30-day variability
factors for BCT exemplary plants are contained in Appendix G.
*The products of multiplying the variability factors by the long
term average treated effluent loads may vary slightly from the
BCT numerical limitations shown in Table IX-1 due to rounding of
the variability factors and long term averages.
322
-------
Table IX-1. BCT Numerical Limitations
Subcategory
Daily 30-Day
Variability Variability
Factors Factors
B0D5 TSS B0D5
TSS
Long-Term
Average Treated
Effluent W&ste Loads
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)
TSS
BCT Numerical Limitations
Maxiimm Average of Thirty
For Any Che Day Daily tfeasurextents
kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb)
B0D5 TSS B0D5 TSS
Insulation Board
Wet-Process Hardboard
SIS
S2S
3.92 4.34 2.08 2.08 2.07 1.31 8.13 5.69 4.32 2.72
4.15 3.61 2.72 2.34 0.922 3.01 3.83 10.9 2.51 7.04
3.67 2.77 2.39 1.90 3.61 5.02 13.2 13.9 8.62 9.52
Note: The products of multiplying the variability factors by the long-term average treated effluent loads may vary
slightly from the BCT numerical limitations shovn above due to rounding of the variability factors and long-term
averages.
-------
COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS - INSULATION BOARD/WET
PROCESS HARDBOARD
EPA expects that the total capital investment necessary to
upgrade the treatment systems of the seven direct dischargers not
achieving BCT effluent limitations will be $20.3 million.
Operation and maintenance costs for these plants will increase by
$6.3 million per year. An incremental increase in capital
investment and in the operation and maintenance costs of $11
million and $2.6 million per year, respectively, will be required
by the seven direct dischargers to upgrade their treatment
systems from BPT to BCT. Achievement of the BCT effluent
limitations will remove approximately 13 million pounds per year
of conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS). This is an incremental
increase of 11 million pounds per year over that removed
resulting from the achievement of BPT effluent limitations. EPA
believes that these effluent reduction benefits outweigh the
associated costs.
NONWATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The primary nonwater quality impact of the BCT limitations is the
waste sludge generated in the candidate treatment systems and the
increased burden of the land to accept the disposal of this
sludge.
In the insulation board/wet process hardboard segment of the
industry, large volumes of waste sludge are generated in
biological wastewater treatment systems. An estimated 500,000
cubic yards per year of such sludge is currently generated by the
26 plants in the insulation board/wet process hardboard segment.
The estimated incremental increase in sludge production (from
current levels of performance to BCT) as a result of compliance
is expected to be 83,000 cubic yards per year, or about 16
percent of the total amount of sludge currently generated. This
sludge production represents an incremental increase of 49,000
cubic yards per year over that generated as a result of BPT.
Limited data from the preliminary results of a current timber
industry study of Best Management Practices (BMP) suggest that
significant quantities of toxic materials are not present in
insulation board and hardboard sludges, and they appear to be
amenable to disposal in a normal sanitary landfill.
Energy Requirements
There are no additional energy requirements for the insulation
board subcategory as none of the insulation board plants will be
required to construct additional pollution control facilities to
comply with BCT.
The current total annual energy consumption of the wet process
hardboard subcategory is about 6,050,000 megawatt-hours,
equivalent to about 9,961,000 barrels of oil. This energy is
324
-------
used not only for production processes, but also to operate
in-place wastewater treatment systems.
To comply with BCT, the hardboard subcategory will be required to
consume an additional 12,000 megawatt-hours per year, or 20,000.
barrels of oil per year, beyond that required to attain BPT.
This represents an annual energy requirement of only 0.7 percent
of the current total annual energy requirement, which is a 0.2
percent increase beyond the energy required to attain BPT. The
additional energy required to attain BCT is for the operation of
additional pollution control facilities.
GUIDANCE TO NPDES PERMITTING PERSONNEL
Application of Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard BCT
Effluent Limitations
1. If a plant has production in more than one subcategory, or
production in both parts of a subcategory, the allowable
discharge (mass) should be prorated on the percentage of the
total annual production, divided by the discharging days per
year, for each subcategory or part.
2. The production figure recommended for calculating these
limitations is the daily average gross production of the
maximum 30 consecutive days. Gross production is defined as
the air dry weight of hardboard or insulation board
following formation of the wet mat prior to trimming and
finishing operations.
3. Daily and 30-day effluent limitations have been derived
using statistical estimates of the 99th percentile, i.e.,
the highest value which will not be exceeded 99 percent of
the time. Conversely, large biological treatment systems
can be statistically expected to violate the limitations
about one percent of the time in normal operation.
Enforcement personnel should consider this fact before
taking enforcement action against individual plants.
325
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
GENERAL
Best available technology economically achievable (BAT) is the
level of control established for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. BAT effluent limitations which must be achieved by
July 1, 1984, are not based on an average of the best performance
within an industrial category, but on the very best control and
treatment technology employed by a specific point source within
the industrial category or subcategory, or by another industry
where the control and treatment technology is readily
transferable. A specific finding must be made regarding the
availability of control measures and practices to eliminate the
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants, taking into
account the cost of such elimination. BAT may include process
changes or internal controls, even when they are not common
industry practice. BAT emphasizes internal controls, as well as
control or additional treatment techniques employed at the end of
the production process.
Consideration is also given to:
1. the age of the equipment and facilities involved;
2. the process employed;
3. the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques;
4. process changes;*
5. the cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting
from application of the technology; and,
6. nonwater quality environmental impacts (including
energy requirements).
This level of technology considers those plant processes and
control technologies which, at the pilot plant, semi-works., and
other levels, have demonstrated both technological performances
and economic viability at a level sufficient to reasonably
justify investment. It is the highest degree of control
technology that has been achieved or has been demonstrated to be
capable of being designed for plant-scale operation, up to and
including "no discharge" of process wastewater pollutants.
Although economic factors are considered in this development, the
level of control is intended to be the top-of-the-line of current
technology, subject to limitations imposed by economic and
engineering feasibility. There may be some technical risk,
however, with respect to performance and certainty of costs.
Therefore, some process development and adaptation may be
327
-------
necessary for application of a technology at a specific plant
site.
The statutory assessment of BAT "considers" costs, but does not
require a balancing of costs against effluent reduction benefits
(see Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 11 ERC 2149 (D.C. Cir. 1978). In
developing the proposed BAT, however, EPA has given substantial
weight to the reasonableness of costs. The! Agency has considered
the volume and nature of discharges, the volume and nature of
discharges expected after application of BAT, the general
environmental effects of the pollutants, and the costs and
economic impacts of the required pollution control levels.
Despite this expanded consideration of costs, the primary
determinant of BAT is effluent reduction capability. As a result
of the Clean Water Act of 1977, the achievement of BAT has become
the principal national means of controlling toxic water
pollution.
Wood Preserving Segment
EPA has divided the wood preserving segment of the timber
industry into three subcategories of plants; plants that treat
wood using nonpressure processes or which use waterborne
preservatives (inorganic salts), plants that use steam
conditioning to prepare wood for preservative impregnation, and
plants that use the Boulton process to prepare wood for
preservative impregnation. Those portions of the industry
preserving with inorganics, and using the Boulton process are
subject to a BAT limitation of no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants promulgated in 1974.
BAT limitations for the Wood Preserving-Steam subcategory were
originally promulgated in 1974. These limitations allowed a
discharge of process wastewater, but established controls on COD,
total phenols, oil and grease, and pH.
The technical study conducted to support the regulations
presented in this document, identified only one plant in the Wood
Preserving - Steam subcategory discharging process wastewater
directly to the environment.
The Agency conducted an extensive mail survey, contacting about
290 wood preserving plants and received responses from 216.
Telephone and personal contacts were also made with Regional EPA
offices, State pollution control offices, wood preserving plants
and industrial technical trade associations. The purpose of
these mail, telephone, and personal contacts was to determine the
discharge status, treatment and control practices, and wastewater
disposal practices of wood preserving plants.
Almost all wood preserving plants in the steam subcategory have
eliminated the direct discharge of process wastewater pollutants,
although they were not required to by law, by the application of
328
-------
a variety process controls and wastewater disposal techniques.
These techniques and procedures are discussed in detail in
Section VII of this document.
The water conservation practice most commonly found is the use of
surface condensers rather than barometric condensers. This
reduces the amount of wastewater requiring treatment and/or
disposal by eliminating the contamination of cooling water.
Plants that did not replace barometric condensers almost without
exception, recycle their barometric cooling water. Separation of
steam condensate and contact process wastewater results in a
significant decrease in the amount of process wastewater that
must be handled.
Another option available to plants is to dry the wood raw
material before going into the treating cylinder. This practice
shortens or eliminates the conditioning period in the retort.
Retort conditioning may or may not be needed depending on the
amount of moisture in the wood at the time it goes into the
retort. This method of controlling the amount of wastewater
generation is not always available to wood preserving plants, the
cost of maintaining inventory and the availability of a dry kiln
or untreated wood storage area being the major factors in
determining the feasibility of this practice.
A broad range of wastewater treatment and disposal techniques or
end-of-pipe technologies are available to plants in this sub-
category to achieve no discharge status. As presented in Section
II, the most frequent wastewater disposal technique is
containment and/or evaporation of wastewater. Evaporation can be
assisted by spraying wastewater into the air, the use of heat
exchangers, or the application of waste heat.
For the Wood Preserving-Waterborne or Nonpressure and the' Wood
Preserving-Boulton subcategories, the Agency has decided to
retain existing BAT limitations which require no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants. All known plants in these
subcategories are already in compliance with these limitations
and retention of these limitations will insure that none of the
identified toxic pollutants present in wastewaters from these
subcategories, as described in Sections V, VI and VII of this
document, will be discharged to receiving waters.
The single Wood Preserving-Steam subcategory direct discharger is
located in southern Alabama - the area of the U.S. with the most
intense precipitation, in terms of a 24-hour rainfall event. The
plant discharges only when precipitation events are intense and
frequent. Evaporative losses from its aeration and holding
lagoons are otherwise greater than the volume of process
wastewater generated by the wood preserving operations.
329
-------
The Agency decided that it would not be appropriate to promulgate
a national BAT limitation for one direct discharging plant. This
plant, located in a State with NPDES authority, will be required
to control the discharge of pollutants according to the terms of
the permit. The permit issuing office has this document
available to assist the permit writer in developing terms when
the discharge permit comes up for renewal. Existing BAT
limitations for this subcategory will be withdrawn.
Insulation Board/Wet Process Hardboard
EPA has divided this segment into two subcategories. The basis
for the subcategorization is differences in the raw waste load
due to the process employed, and the products produced. The
insulation board industry makes up one subcategory. The wet
process hardboard industry, one subcategory,, is divided by
product produced into two parts, smooth-one-side hardboard (SIS)
and smooth-two-sides hardboard (S2S).
The Agency withdrew BAT regulations, as well as BPT and NSPS
regulations for the wet process hardboard subcategory in 1976.
Information presented in Sections V and VII of this document
indicated that toxic pollutants, as identified by Section 307(a)
of the Clean Water Act are not present in treatable amounts in
wastewaters from the insulation board/wet process hardboard
segment. BOD and TSS are the conventional pollutants found in
high amounts.
Because toxic pollutants are not present at treatable levels in
raw or treated wastewaters, the Agency has concluded that BAT
limitations will not be promulgated for this segment.
Section IX of this document presents BCT limitations for the wet
process hardboard/insulation board segment and the rationale for
their development.
Barking Subcategory
Effluent guidelines and standards for the Barking subcategory
were promulgated in 1974 (39 FR 13942 April 18, 1974). The 1974
rulemaking divided the Barking subcategory into two parts:
mechanical barking, a basically dry operation using physical
methods, such as blades or abrasive discs, to remove the bark,
and hydraulic barking, an operation that uses water applied to
the wood under high pressure to separate the bark from the wood.
The 1974 BAT regulations required mechanical barking operations
and hydraulic barking operations to meet an effluent limitation
requiring no discharge of process wastewater pollutants by 1983.
As part of the current study, the Agency contacted all known
operators of * hydraulic barking operations, State pollution
330
-------
control agencies/ regional EPA offices and equipment
manufacturers. The purpose of this survey was to: identify
hydraulic barking installations, determine their process
wastewater treatment and discharge status, and to determine the
progress made by the industry in meeting the BAT implementation
date.
Fourteen plants having hydraulic barking installations were
identified. Most plants are practicing some degree of recycle of
barking water, usually after clarification. The plant that was
identified in 1974 as recycling about 80 percent is still at the
80 percent level of recycle, apparently unable to increase on the
amount of recycle. The plant estimated that bout 200,000
gallons per day of excess water is being discharged to receiving
waters from the spray irrigation system.
The timber industry was surveyed to determine the most recent
installation of a hydraulic barking facility and also, the
possibilities of new installations. The most recent installation
occurred in 1969. Information from an equipment manufacturer who
supplies the equipment indicated that no recent demand exists for
hydraulic barking systems. This statement can be supported by a
number of considerations. Energy requirements are substantial
for hydraulic barking; 750 to 2000 horsepower motors are required
to develop the 1000 to 1500 pounds per square inch water
pressures needed; large diameter logs, more easily barked by
hydraulic barkers are less available than they were a few years
ago; capital investment and maintenance requirements of hydraulic
barkers are considerably higher than mechanical barkers; and,
environmental control considerations such as the operation and
maintenance of a biological treatment system, are more expensive
and time consuming than mechanical barkers.
After review and evaluation of the above information, the Agency
considered the appropriateness of the existing BAT regulation.
Because of the industry's inability to increase the amount of
reuse of treated wastewater and the considerations discussed
above, the Agency decided that the existing BAT, no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants, for hydraulic barking operations
is not appropriate and should be withdrawn.
Veneer Subcategory
BPT regulations for this subcategory promulgated in 1974,
required no discharge of process wastewater pollutants for all
veneer manufacturing plants, except for those plants that use
direct steam conditioning of veneer logs. This exception was
allowed to give plants using direct steam conditioning time to
modify their operations before the BAT limitation, requiring no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants, from all plants, came
in force.
331
-------
Review of current veneer manufacturing process water management
practices determined that no known veneer manufacturing plants
are discharging directly.
During the screening phase of the current BAT Review study,
sampling and analysis determined that toxic pollutants,
particularly heavy metals are present in wastewaters generated by
veneer manufacturing facilities.
Based on the current status of process water control, and the
presence of toxic pollutants in veneer wastewaters, the Agency
has determined that the existing BAT limitation of no discharge
of process wastewater pollutants should remain in force.
Log Washing Subcategory
BPT for this subcategory allows the discharge of process
wastewater pollutants. BAT regulations published in 1974 for
this subcategory requires no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
Review of current practices in the timber industry determined
that, at this time, log washing is being practiced by fewer
facilities than previously reported. Plants washing logs before
further processing are recycling log wash water after settling
and coarse screening. The BAT Review study revealed that toxic
pollutants are present in log wash water, particularly heavy
metals and phenol.
Based on the current status of process water control and the
presence of toxic pollutants in log wash waters, the Agency has
determined that the existing BAT limitation of no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants should remain in force.
332
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
GENERAL
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under
section 306 of the Act is the best available demonstrated
technology (BADT). New plants have the opportunity to design the
best and most efficient manufacturing processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. Therefore, Congress directed EPA to
consider the best demonstrated process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies which reduce
pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
The Agency, upon thorough review and evaluation of each of the
candidate treatment technologies discussed in Section VII,
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, has selected the.no discharge
options as the basis for NSPS for all subcategories in the wood
preserving and insulation board/wet process hardboard segments of
the industry. This no discharge requirement will provide the
maximum feasible control for conventional, unconventional, and
toxic pollutants and is based on demonstrated performance in each
subcategory. Technologies required to eliminate the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants for each subcategory are discussed
below.
Wood Preservi nq-Bou1ton Subcategory
NSPS for this subcategory is no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. The candidate technologies for no discharge are
cooling tower evaporation, spray evaporation, or spray irrigation
as described in Section VII, CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY.
The BPT and BAT effluent limitations promulgated on April 18,
1974, are no discharge of process wastewater pollutants and all
known Boulton plants are currently achieving no discharge.
Cost to new sources in the Wood Preserving - Boulton subcategory
for adoption of the technologies identified above are presented
in Appendix A of this document.
Wood Preserv i nq-Steam Subcategory
NSPS for the Wood Preserving - Steam subcategory is no discharge
of process wastewater pollutants. The candidate technologies for
achieving no discharge are spray evaporation or spray irrigation,
as described in Section VII. Although plants which utilize the
Boulton process for conditioning generally produce enough waste
heat to use cooling tower evaporation to achieve no discharge,
plants in the Wood Preserving - Steam subcategory do not.
Consequently, cooling tower evaporation is not a candidate
technology for the Wood Preserving - Steam subcategory.
333
-------
About ninety percent of all known Wood Preserving - Steam plants
are currently achieving no discharge through the application of
the technologies identified above or a combination of these
technologies and treated effluent recycle.
Costs to new sources in the Wood Preserving - Steam subcategory
for adoption of the spray evaporation and spray irrigation
technologies are presented in Appendix A.
Insulation Board and Wet Process Hardboard Subcategories
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants was selected as
NSPS for the insulation board and wet process hardboard
subcategories through the application of spray irrigation
technology. There are five plants in the insulation board/wet
process hardboard segment which utilize spray irrigation for
treatment and/or disposal of process wastewater. This technology
has proven successful in this segment of the industry with and
without biological treatment preceding spray irrigation as
discussed in Section VII..
Although spray irrigation generally requires more land than other
technologies, including large biological treatment systems, new
sources have the ability to choose locations where there is
available land for spray irrigation.
Costs to new sources for adoption of this technology are
presented in Appendix A of this document.
334
-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
GENERAL
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) to prevent the discharge of
pollutants which pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment works
(POTW). The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be technology-based, analagous to
the best available technology for removal of toxic pollutants.
One of the principal objectives of PSES is to ensure parity
between the treatment of indirect discharger's and direct
discharger's effluent. At a minimum, Congress intended that the
pollutant reduction achieved by the combination of pretreatment
and treatment at the municipal treatment works would equal the
pollutant reduction achieved by a direct discharger applying BAT
treatment. Consequently, where the percentage reduction by a
POTW of an indirect discharger's toxic effluent is less than the
percentage reduction by a comparable direct discharge BAT system,
pretreatment is needed. Another objective of PSES is to ensure
that toxic pollutants in POTW influents do not contaminate the
POTW sludge and thereby limit POTW sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on
agricultural lands. The general pretreatment regulations which
served as the framework for these pretreatment regulations for
the timber products industry, can be found at 40 CFR Part 403.
Pretreatment standards for existing sources must reflect the
effluent reduction achievable through the application of the best
available pretreatment technology. This includes treatment
technology as employed by the industry, as well as in-plant
controls considered to be normal practice within the industry.
WOOD PRESERVING
Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources, PSES
Thirty-nine wood preserving plants discharge to POTW, 29 in the
Steam subcategory and 10 in the Boulton subcategory. In 1979,
these plants discharged approximately 330,000 gallons per day.
The Agency proposed, on October 31, 1979, to amend the existing
PSES for the Wood Preserving-Steam and Boulton subcategories to
add a no discharge requirement for pentachlorophenol (PCP). The
existing PSES imposed a limitation of 100 mg/1 for oil and grease
and set limits on the metals copper, chromium and arsenic.
The primary reason for the no discharge of PCP proposal was the
Agency's concern that PCP, a toxic pollutant, was passing through
335
-------
POTW inadequately treated. Data in the Agency's possession,
summarized in Table XII-1, demonstrates that at the low influent
concentrations typical of a POTW receiving wood preserving
wastewater, PCP is not greatly reduced by the POTW treatment
processes. This conclusion is buttressed by data recently
acquired from a POTW with high concentrations of PCP in its
influent which demonstrates significant pass through. (See Table
XII-1). Another reason for the Agency's proposed no discharge of
PCP standard was that PCP was thought to have a relatively strong
affinity for absorption on solid particles. If the absorbability
of PCP proved to be the predominant mechanism for its removal in
a POTW, accumulation of PCP in the sludge might preclude
beneficial uses of such sludge.
A number of commenters critized the proposed no discharge PCP
standard on economic and other grounds. Several commenters
questioned the practicality of evaporative technology based on
potential transfer of toxic pollutants from wastewater to the
air. Although neither hard data nor information confirming such
transfer was submitted, the Agency has initiated studies to
gather additional information regarding this question but none is
available for inclusion in this document. However, the results
of that study will be considered in future reviews and
reevaluations of the effluent guidelines and standards.
The Agency has decided not to promulgate the no discharge PCP
standard proposed on October 31, 1979. Although PCP has been
determined to pass through POTW, the Agency is troubled by the
high (several million dollar) cost associated with achievement of
the standard and the projected closure rate of three to five
closures out of a total of twenty-four affected plants. Another
factor entering into the Agency's decision is that the present
oil and grease limitation 100 mg/1 effectively ensures control of
PCP at the level of 15 mg/1. Still another consideration is that
the PCP reduction achieved by the proposed PSES would not be
huge. If the amount of PCP discharged by particular wood
preserving plant causes some problems, POTW's can establish more
stringent controls on PCP discharge in a case-by-case basis.
In the absence of a new PSES for the Wood Preserving-Boulton and
-Steam subcategories, the existing PSES will remain in force.
This existing standard requires a limitation of 100 mg/1 on oil
and grease, as well as 5 mg/1 for copper, 4 mg/1 for chromium and
4 mg/1 for arsenic.
The Agency's decision to retain existing PSES will also result in
no costs of compliance to the wood preserving segment above and
beyond those considered in promulgation of the December 1976
standard, and will therefore not result in any plant closures.
336
-------
Table XII-1. Summary of Available Data—Pentachlorophenol in POTWs
POTW
PCP Concentration
(mg/1)
Data Source
Wood Preserving
Plant Discharge
to POTW
POTW
Influent
Trickling
Filter
Effluent*
POTW
Effluent
Picayune, MS
2.8
<0.010
—t
<0.010
1.9
<0.010
—
<0.010
ESE, ARL, 1979**
Eugene, OR
Not
analyzed
0.0041
—
0.0033
Buhler, 1973tt
Salem, OR
Not
analyzed
0.0046
—
0.0044
Buhler, 1973
Corvallis, OR
Not
analyzed
0.0014
—
0.0010
Buhler, 1973
Macon, GA
14.0
0.100
—
<0.001
AWPI, 1979***
Augusta, GA
0.90
0.060
—
0.050
9.00
<0.001
—
0.035
AWPI, 1979
Seattle, WA
0.160
<0.001
—
<0.001
AWPI, 1979
Stockton, CA
1.2
0.020
0.072
<0.010
15.0
<0.010
0.040
<0.010
ESE, ARL, 1980
Stockton, CA
Not
analyzed
0.42
0.16
0.15
'
Not
analyzed
0.24
0.17
0.17
Not
analyzed
0.18
0.14
0.16
Not
analyzed
0.64
0.44
0.27
Not
analyzed
0.48
0.29
0.10
Not
analyzed
0.10
0.12
0.11
Burns & Roe, EPA, 1980111
*Trickling filter effluent receives further treatment.consisting of secondary sedimentation, nitrification in
polishing pond system, chlorination for disinfection, and dechlorination prior to discharge to receiving
water.
tHyphen means not applicable.
**Samples collected by ESE and analyzed by Analytical Research Laboratory (ARL).
ttBuhler, Rasmusson, and. Nakaue, "Occurrence of Hexachlorophene and Pentachlorophenol in Sewage and Water,"
Environmental Science and Technology, October 1973.
***Samples collected by AWPI member plants and analyzed by the Mississippi State University Forest Products
Utilization Laboratory.
tttSamples collected by Burns & Roe and analyzed by EPA Region VII. .
-------
Pretreatment Standards For New Sources, PSNS
Steam and Boulton Subcategories. Section 307(c) of the Act
requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates NSPS. As with PSES,
PSNS is intended to prevent the discharge of any pollutant which
passes through or interferes with the operation of a POTW, or
which limits beneficial uses of POTW sludge. New sources,
however, have the opportunity to incorporate the best available
demonstrated technologies including process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies. New sources
also have the opportunity to select the location of new plant
sites in such a way as to allow the installation of land
intensive technologies.
The Agency proposed a PSNS for the Steam and Boulton
subcategories which required no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. The rationale for this proposed standard was
something like the Agency's rationale for PSES: (1) such a
standard would prevent the wood preserving wastewater pollutants,
PCP and heavy metals, from passing through POTW inadequately
treated, (2) there existed a demonstrated and widely utilized
technology in the wood preserving segment for achieving zero
discharge.
After careful consideration of the comments, the Agency has
decided to promulgate the no discharge PSNS as proposed. The
chief factor differentiating the Agency's PSNS decision from its
PSES decision is economic.
A new source has opportunities, not always available to an
existing source, to install equipment, such as surface
condensers, that do not result in the generation of contaminated
cooling water. A new source has the opportunity, if spray
evaporation or spray irrigation is selected as the wastewater
disposal technique, to include land requirements in the decision
making process for site selection. These wastewater treatment
and disposal options are discussed in detail in Section VII -
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY.
As a result of this greater flexibility, new sources are often
better able to withstand the cost of pollution control technology
than existing sources. The Agency's economic impact analysis of
the wood preserving industry concludes that the cost of designing
and installing the proper systems needed to achieve no discharge
status would not hinder the addition of new capacity. Another
consideration is the need to ensure that there is no bias in
favor of a new source choosing indirect discharge over direct
discharge because of different treatment requirements. Inasmuch
as new source direct dischargers in the Boulton and steam
subcategories would be required to achieve no discharge, the
pretreatment limits should ensure a similiar level of treatment
for pollutants which are not adequately treated by POTW.
338
-------
Wood Preserving-Water Borne or Nonpressure Subcategory— No
discharge of process wastewater pollutants was selected as PSNS
because technology for achieving no discharge is widely practiced
in this subcategory. All known plants in the Wood Preserving
Water Borne or Nonpressure subcategory currently apply no
discharge technology consisting of process wastewater collection
for makeup of future preservative treating solutions.
Costs associated with the process wastewater collection and
recycle technology are minimal, and this technology is easily
incorporated into the plant design. The no discharge PSNS
corresponds with BPT and BAT effluent limitations which were
promulgated on April 18, 1974.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD/INSULATION BOARD
„ Pretreatment Standards For New and Existing Sources
The conventional pollutants present in effluents from hardboard
and insulation board producing facilities are treatable by
biological treatment as practiced by publicly owned'treatment
works. Seven plants in the wet process hardboard/insulation
board segment currently discharge to POTW. The Agency is not
aware of any incidents where discharge from one of these plants
has caused an upset, or has been otherwise incompatible with the
operation of a POTW.
The Agency is promulgating pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources in the wet process hardboard and the insulation
board subcategories that do not establish numerical limitations
on the discharge of specific pollutants but do require
conformance with the general requirements of 40 CFR 403.
339
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION XIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Mr. Richard E. Williams served as the EPA Effluent Guidelines
Division Project Officer during the development of the effluent
limitations guidelines and the preparation of this document. His
overall guidance and coordination of the technical information
was indispensible to the promulgation of this regulation.
The direction, assistance and cooperation of EPA personnel is
greatly appreciated. In particular, Mr. John E. Riley, Chief,
Wood and Fiber Products Branch made major contributions. Mr.
Steven Schatzow, formerly Associate General Counsel, Mr. Michael
Murchison and Ms. Susan Lepow of the Office of General Counsel
provided positive contributions in molding the technical/legal
considerations into a cohesive package.
The technical study supporting the regulation was conducted by
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE), Gainesville,
Florida. The Project Directors were Mr. John D. Crane, P.E. and
Mr. Bevin A. Beaudet, P.E. Mr. Beaudet and Mr. Russell V. Bowen
functioned as Project Managers during the rulemaking development
program. Analytical works by ESE was managed by Mr. Stuart
Whitlock and Mr. Charles Westerman. ESE staff involved in the
technical study and document preparation included Ms. Patricia
Markey, Ms. Jacqueline Betz, Mr. Mark Mangone, Mr. William
Beckwith, Ms. Patricia McGhee, Ms Joanne Demme, Ms. Kathy
Fariella, Ms. Pamela Dickinson, and Ms. Kathleen Hudek.
The contribution of Dr. Warren S. Thompson, Director, Forest
Products Utilization Laboratory, Mississippi State University is
greatly appreciated. Dr. Thompson served as a consultant to ESE.
Dr. James T. McClave, INFO-TECH, INC., Gainesville, Florida
assisted in the statistical analysis of wet process hardboard and
insulation board effluent data.
The Edward C. Jordan Company, Portland, Maine and Ryckman,
Edgerly, Tomlinson and Associates, St. Louis, Missouri also
provided information, field sampling and analytical efforts
during the project.
Cooperation and assistance provided by timber industry members
through their companies and associations is greatly appreciated.
Appreciation is expressed to the American Hardboard Products
Association (AHA), the American Wood Preservers Institute, the
American Wood Preservers Association, and the National Forest
Products Association. Individuals who deserve mention are Mr. C.
Curtis Peterson, AHA, Mr. C. C. Stewart, Process Design
Associates, Mr. Wayne Johanson, Superwood Corporation, Mr. Thomas
Marr, KOPPERS Co., Mr. Charles Best, J. H. Baxter and Sons, and
Mr. Charles Burdell, ITT Rayonier, Inc.
341
-------
Dale Ruhter, Harold Lester and Susan Green, Office of Analysis
and Evaluation, Mark Segal and Alexandar Tarney, Monitoring and
Data Support Division, and Sam Napolitano, Office of Planning and
Evaluation are recognized for their assistance.
Mr. Gregory Aveni, Co-op student from Drexel University, and Mr.
Jim Morrison, Co-op student from George Mason University,
provided invaluable technical and editorial assistance. The
performance of Ms. Carol Swann, of the Guidelines Implementation
Branch, Effluent Guidelines Division is greatly appreciated. Her
efforts, along with the other members of the Word Processing
staff who finalized this document for publication are recognized.
342
-------
SECTION XIV
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abitibi Corporation. 1975a. How Abitibi Insulation Board Mill
Achieves Zero Effluent Discharge. Pulp and Paper. Troy,
Michigan.
Abitibi Corporation. 1975b. Zero Water Discharge—Insulation
Board Manufacturing. Environmental Improvement Awards Program,
American Paper Institute. Troy, Michigan.
Amberg, H.R. 1965. Aerated Stabilization of Board Mill White
Water. Purdue University Engineering Extension Series, West
Lafayette, Indiana, 118:525.
American Petroleum Institute. I960. The API Manual on Disposal
of Refinery Wastes. Wastewater Containing Oil. 6th Edition,
Volume 1. Washington, D.C.
American Public Health Association, Water Pollution Control
Federation and American Water Works Association. 1975. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14th
Edition. Washington, D.C.
American Water Works Association. 1969. Water Treatment Plant
Design. Denver, Colorado.
American Wood Preservers' Association. 1960. Report of
Wastewater Disposal Committee. Proceedings of the American Wood
Preservers' Association, (56):201.
American Wood Preservers' Association. 1975. Proceedings of the
American Wood Preservers' Association. Volume 71. Bethesda,
Maryland.
American Wood Preservers' Association. 1976. Proceedings of the
American Wood Preservers' Association. Volume 72. Bethesda,
Maryland.
American Wood Preservers' Association. 1977. Creosote and
Creosote Solutions—Wood Preservatives. Proceedings of the
American Wood Preservers' Association, (73):32.
Anonymous. 1975. Phenols in Refinery Waste Water Can be
Oxidized with Hydrogen Peroxide. Oil and Gas Journal, (73)3:84.
Arsenault, R.D. 1976. Pentachlorophenol and Contained
Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins in the Environment—A Study of
Environmental Fate, Stability and Significance When Used in Wood
Preservation. Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers'
Association, (72):122. Bethesda, Maryland.
343
-------
Aub, J.C., and Fairhall, L.T. 1942. Excretion of Silver in
Urine. Journal of the American Medical Association, (118)4:319.
Auchter, R.J. 1971. Trends and Prospects for Use in Fiber
Products, Forest Products Laboratory. USDA Forest Service.
Proceedings of the Aspen Symposium, p. 40.
Austin, R.H., et al_. 1954. Biological Oxidation of Oil-
Containing Wastewaters in Pilot Scale Trickling Filters. Ind.
Eng. Chem., (46)2:316.
Back, E.L., and Larsson, S.A. 1972. Increased Pulp Yield as a
Means of Reducing the BOD of Hardboard Mill Effluent. Swedish
Forest Products Research Laboratory, Stockholm, Sweden.
Back, E.L. 1972. The Dissolution of Wood Material During
Pressurized Refining and Water Pollution Consequences. Swedish
Forest Products Research Laboratory, p. 17. Stockholm, Sweden.
Badger, E.H.M., and Jackson, M.I. 1961. Loadings and
Efficiencies in the Biological Oxidation of Spent Gas Liquor.
Journal and Proceedings of the Institute of Sewage Purification,
(2):159.
Baker, D.A. 1975. Petroleum Processing Wastes. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, (47)6:1476.
Bakir, F., et al. 1973.
Science, 181:230.
Bartow, E., and Weigle, O.M.
Indus. Eng. Chem., (24)4:463.
Methylmercury Poisoning in Iraq.
1932. Zinc in Water Supplies.
Bennett, D.J., et al.. 1973. Pilot Application of the Rotating
Biological Surface Concept for Secondary Treatment of Insulating
Board Mill Effluent. TAPPI, (56)12:182.
Berglund, F., and Berlin, M. 1969. Risk of Methylmercury
Accumulation in Men and Mammals and the Relation between Body
Burden of Methylmercury and Toxic Effects. In: Chemical
Fallout, p. 258, M.W. Miller and G.G. Berg, Editors.
Springfield, Illinois.
Best, C.W. 1972. Water Use in Western Wood Preserving Plants.
Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers' Association,
(68)s137.
Biczyski, Jr., and Suschka, J. 1967. Investigations on Phenolic
Wastes Treatment in an Oxidation Ditch. In: Advances in Water
Pollution Research. Pergamon Press, New York, 2:285.
Boen, D.F., and Jahannsen, G.L. 1974. Reverse Osmosis for
Treated and Untreated Secondary Sewage Effluent. U.S.
344
-------
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA-670/2-74-
007.
Buhler, D.R,, et sd. 1973, Occurrence of Hexachlorophene and
Pentachlorophenol in Sewage and Water. Environmental Science and
Technology, (7)10:929.
Burns, O.B., Jr., and Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. 1963. A
Statistical Study of Five Years' Operation of West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company's Waste Treatment Plant. Proceedings of the
XVIII Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, (48):83.
Cadman, T.W. 1974. Techniques for Removing Metals from Process
Wastewater. Chem. Eng., (81)8:79.
Carus Chemical Company. 1971. How to Clean Phenol from Your
Company's Waste Economically. Carus Chemical Company, Form M-
6001 .
Chamber1 in, N.S., and Day, R.V. 1956. Technology of Chrome
Reduction with Sulfur Dioxide. Proceedings of the XI Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, (41)2:129.
Cheremisinoff, P.N., and Ellerbusch, F., Editors. 1978. Carbon
Adsorption Handbook. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Cheng, M.H., et al_. 1975. Heavy Metal Uptake by Activated
Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, (47)2:362-
376.
Chow, T.J., and Patterson, C.C. 1962. The Occurrence and
Significance of Lead Isotopes in Pelagic Sediments. Geochim.,
Cosmochim, Acta., (26):263.
Christensen, H.E. 1976. Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical
Substances. U.S. Department of Health, Education, PHS, Center
for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Rockville, Maryland.
Clark, J.W., and Viessman, W., Jr. 1970. Water Supply and
Pollution Control. International Textbook Company, Scranton,
Pennsylvania.
Coda, R.L. 1978. Water Reuse in a Wet Process Hardboard
Manufacturing Plant. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/2-78-150.
Coe, R.H. 1952. Bench Scale Method for Treating Waste by
Activated Sludge. Petroleum Processing, (7):1128.
Cooke, R., and Graham, P.W. 1965. The Biological Purification
of the Effluent from a Lurgi Plant Gasifying Bituminous Coals.
International Journal of Air and Water Pollution, 9(3):97.
345
-------
Crane, L.E. 1970. An Operational Pollution Control System for
Pressure Treating Plant Waste. Proceedings of the Conference on
Pollution Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving Industry,
W.S. Thompson, Editor. Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory,,
Mississippi State University, State College, Mississippi, p. 261.
Dallons, V. 1976. Comparison of Pollution Loads Resulting from
Use of Different Wood Species in the Production of Hardboard.
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Corvallis Field Station, Corvallis, Oregon.
Dallons, V. 1978. Pollution from Several Wood Species in
Hardboard Production. Forest Products Journal, (28)1:42.
Dallons, V. 1979. Raw Wasteload Characteristics of the
Hardboard Industry. Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. Corvallis, Oregon. EPA-600/2-
2679-008.
Davies, J.J. 1970. Economic Considerations of Oxidation Towers.
Proceedings of the Conference on Pollution Abatement and Control
in the Wood Preserving Industry, W.S. Thompson, Editor.
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State
University, State College, Mississippi, p. 195.
Davis, R.W., et al_. 1964. Pollution Control and Waste Treatment
at an Inland Refinery. Proceedings of the XIX Purdue Industrial
Waste Conference, p. 126.
DeJohn, P.B., and Adams, A.D. 1975. Activated Carbon Improves
Wastewater Treatment. Hydrocarbon Proceedings, p. 104.
Dickerson, B.W., and Laffey, W.T. 1959. Pilot Plant Studies of
Phenolic Wastes from Petrochemical Operations. Proceedings of
the XIV Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, p. 780.
Dobbs, R.A., et al. 1978. Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic
Organics. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Draper, R.E., and Mercer, F.S. 1963. Hydraulic Barker Effluent
Clarifier at Wood Products Division. Proceedings of the 11th
Pacific Northwest Industrial Conference, p. 168.
Durel, W.A., and Helfgott, T.
Organics by Reverse Osmosis.
Federation, (47)1:57.
1975. Removal of Wastewater
Journal Water Pollution Control
Dust, J.V., and Thompson, W.S. 1973. Pollution Control in the
Wood-Preserving Industry, Part 4. Biological Methods of Treating
Wastewater. Forest Products Journal, (23)9:59.
346
-------
Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. 1966. Industrial Water Pollution
Control. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
Eisenhauer, H.R. 1964. Oxidation of Phenolic Wastes. Part Ij
Oxidation with Hydrogen Peroxide and a Ferrous Salt Reagent.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, (36)9:1116.
Eisenhauer, H.R. 1971. Increased Rate and Efficiency of
Phenolic Waste Ozonization. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, 43(1)s200-208.
Evans, F.L., Editor. 1972. Ozone in Water and Wastewater
Treatment. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Fang, H.H., and Chian, E.S. 1975. Removal of Alcohols and
Aliphatic Acids in Aqueous Solution by NS-100 Membranes. Jour.
Appl. Polymer Sci., (19)si 347.
Fisher, C.W. 1971. Kopper's Experience Regarding Irrigation of
Industrial Effluent Waters and Especially Wood Treating Plant
Effluents. Proceedings of the Conference on Pollution Abatement
and Control in the Wood Preserving Ind., W.S. Thompson, Editor.
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State
University, State College, Mississippi, p. 232.
Fisher, C.W. 1971. Soil Percolation and/or Irrigation of
Industrial Effluent Waters—Especially Wood Treating Plant
Effluents. Forest Products Journal, (21)9s76.
Fitzgerald, W.F., and Lyons, W.B. 1973.. Organic Mercury
Compounds in Coastal Waters. Nature, (242)5398$452.
Fleischer, M., et al_. 1974. Environmental Impact of Cadmiums A
Review by the Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances. Environmental
Health Perspectives. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 7:253.
Ford, D.L., et al^. 1972. Temperature Predictions in Activated
Sludge Basins Using Mechanical Aerators. Proceedings of the
XXVII Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, p. 587.
Francingues, N.R. 1970. Evaluation of a Pilot Study on a
Creosote Waste from the Wood Preserving Industry. Proceedings of
Mississippi State University Short Course on Pollution Abatement
and Control in the Wood Preserving Industry, p. 165.
Gaudy, A.F., Jr. 1971. The Role of Oxidation Ponds in a Wood
Treating Plant Waste Abatement Program. Proceedings of the
Conference on Pollution Abatement and Control in the Wood
Preserving Industry, W.S. Thompson, Editor. Mississippi Forest
Products Laboratory, Mississippi State University, State College,
Mississippi, p. 150.
347
-------
Goldsmith, R.L., et al. 1974. Ultrafiltration of Soluble Oil
Wastes. Journal Water Pollution Control, (46)9:2183.
Gran, G. 1972. Wastewater from Fibreboard Mills. Pure and
Applied Chemistry, p. 29.
Harlow, H.W., et al^. 1961. A Petrochemical Waste Treatment
System. Proceedings of the XVI Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, pp. 156-166.
Henshaw, T.B. 1971. Adsorption/Filtration Plant Cuts Phenols
from Effluent. Chem. Eng., (78)5:47.
Hsu, C.P., et al.. 1967. Phenolic Industrial Wastes Treatment by
a Trickling Filter. Chem. Abs., (67)20:8845.
Hughes, R.A., and Lee, G.F. 1973. Toxaphene Accumulation in
Fish in Lakes Treated for Rough Fish Control. Environmental
Science and Technology, (7)10:934.
Hurst-Gaul, E. 1974. Expectations of the Closed Water System
Compared with the Costs of Effluent Clarification. Institute of
Paper Chemistry, (28)10:443.
Hutchins, R.A. 1975. Thermal Regeneration Costs. Chem. Eng.
Progr., (71)5:80.
Hyde, A.C. 1965. Chemical Plant Waste Treatment by Ten Methods.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, (37)11:1486.
Ingols, R.S., et al. 1966. Biological Activity of Balophenols.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, (38)4:629.
Institute of Paper Chemistry. 1963. Effect of Steam Pressure on
BOD and Solids Content of Pulping Effluent, Project 2433.
Appleton, Wisconsin.
Irukayama, K., et al^ 1962. Studies on the Origin of the
Causative Agent of Minamata Disease, III: Industrial Wastes
Containing Mercury Compounds from Minamata Factory. Kumamoto
Medical Journal, (15)2:57.
Jacobson, V.C. 1941. Lead and Silver in Urinary Calculi.
Journal of the American Medical Association, (117):1557.
Johnsen, R. 1975. Chlorination of Waters for Disinfection—A
Study of the Production of Undesirable Chlorinated Products.
National Conference on Polychlorinated Biphenyls. EPA-560/6-75-
004c.
Jordan, E.C., Inc. 1976. Summary Report on the Re-Evaluation of
the Effluent Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of
the Timber Products Processing Point Source Category. EPA/68-01-
3287.
348
-------
Junk, G.A., et al. 1974. Contamination of Water by Synthetic
Polymer Tubes. Environmental Science and Technology, (8)12:1100.
Kehoe, R.H., et al_. 1944. The Hygienic Significance of the
Contamination of Water with Certain Mineral Constituents.
Journal American Water Works Association, (36):645.
Kirsh, E.J., and Etzel, J.E. 1973. Microbial Decomposition of
Pentachlorophenol. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
(45)2:359.
Kostenbader, P.D., and Flecksteiner, J.W. 1969. Biological
Oxidation of Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, (41)2:199.
Kozki, V.P., et al^. 1979. Reviews of the Environmental Effect
of Pollutants XI, Chlorophenol. EPA-600/1-79-012.
Kremen, S.S. 1975. Reverse Osmosis Makes High Quality Water
Now. Environmental Science and Technology, (9)4:314.
Lambert, H.G., and Pease, D.A., Editors. 1977. Directory of the
Forest Products Industry. Miller Freeman Publications. San
Francisco, California.
Lieber, M., and Welsch, W.F. 1954. Contamination of Ground
Water by Cadmium. Journal American .Water Works Association,
(46)51:541.
Lin, Y.H., and Lawson, J.R. 1973. Treatment of Oily and Metal-
Containing Wastewater. Poll. Eng., (5)11:45.
Lorenz, L.F., and Gjovik, L.R. 1972. Analyzing Creosote by Gas
Chromatography: Relationship to Creosote Specifications.
Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers' Association,
(68):32.
Loyttyniemi, K. 1975. Transfer of Lindane from Bark of
InsecticideSprayed Pine Pulpwood into Effluent from a Barking
Drum. Paperi Puu, Finnish—Eng. Sum. Abs., (57)10:666.
Ludberg, J.E., and Nicks, G.D. 1969. Phenols and Thiocyanate
Removed from Coke Plant Effluents. Ind. Wastes, p. 10.
Martin, J.J., Jr. 1973. Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for
Removal of Heavy Metals. EPA/R2-73-044.
McKeown, J.J., and Buckley, D.B. 1971. Mixing Characteristics
of Aerated Stabilization Basins. TAPPI, (54)10:1664.
McLain, L. 1973.- Giving Effluents the Ozone Treatment. Could
UK Innovation Show the Way? Process Eng., (1):104.
349
-------
Meissner, B. 1955. Investigations of the Disposal of Phenol-
Containing Wastes by Biological Procedures. Chem. Abs.,
49:14237.
Merten, U., and Brey, D.T. 1966. Reverse Osmosis for Water
Reclamation. Advances in Water Pollution Research. Proceedings
of the Third International Conference, Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation. Volume 3. Washington, D.C.
Middlebrooks, E.J. 1968. Wastes from the Preservation of Wood.
American Society of Civil Engineers Journal, p. 41.
Minelli, M.P., and Anderson, A.W. 1976. Factors Affecting Slime
Accumulation in Fiberboard Mill Process Water. Water Resources
Research Institute. Oregon State University, WRRI-36.
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory. 1970. Unpublished data.
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State
University. Mississippi State, Mississippi.
Mitchell, R. 1974. Introduction to Environmental Microbiology.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 181.
Montes, G.E., et al. 1956. Petro-Chemical Waste Treatment
Problems. Sewage Ind. Wastes, (28)4:507.
Morris, D.C., et al_. 1 972. Recycle of Papermill Wastewaters and
Application of Reverse Osmosis. EPA Program #12040 FUB.
Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N. 1966. Organic Chemistry. Allyn
and Bacon, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, p. 1067.
Morton, S.D. and Sawyer, E.W. 1976. Clay Minerals Remove
Organics, Viruses, and Heavy Metals from Water. Water and Sewage
Works, p. 116.
Motto, H.L., et al. 1970. Lead in Soils and Plants: Its
Relationship to Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways,
Environ. Sci. Tech., (4)3:231.
Nakashio, M. 1969. Phenolic Waste Treatment by an Activated
Sludge Process. Chem. Abs., (71)8:236.
National Council for Stream Improvement, Inc. 1966. Practice in
Handling Barker Effluents in Mills in the United States.
Technical Bulletin No. 194.
National Institute of Safety and Health (NIOSH). . 1975.
Suspected Carcinogens, A Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances
List. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication
No. (NIOSH)75-188, p. 93.
National Research Council Committee. 1945. Chemistry of Coal
Utilization. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
350
-------
NCASI. 1973. Pilot Plant Studies of Turbidity and Residual Cell
Material Removal from Mill Effluent by Granular Media Filtration.
NCASI Technical Bulletin, No. 266.
Neufeld, R.D., and Hermann, E.R. 1975. Heavy Metal Removal by
Acclimated Activated Sludge. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, (47)2:310.
Niegowski, S.J. 1953. Destruction of Phenols by Oxidation with
Ozone. Ind. Eng. Chem., (45)3:632.
Niegowski, S.J. 1956. Ozone Method for Destruction of Phenols
in Petroleum Wastewaters. Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
(28)10:1266.
Nisbet, I.C.T., et al_. 1972. Rates and Routes of Transport of
PCBs in the Environment. Environmental Health Perspectives,
(21)4:21.
Pacific Wood Treating Corporation. 1976. Wood Preserving Waste
Recycle and Incineration System. EPA Project Control, 580517901.
Parsons, W.C. 1967. Spray Irrigation of Wastes from the
Manufacture of Hardboard. Proceedings of the XXII Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, p. 602.
Patterson, J.W. 1975. Wastewater Treatment Technology. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Philipp, A.H. 1971. Disposal of Insulation Board Mill Effluent
by Land Irrigation. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
(43)8:1749.
Prather, B.V., and Gaudy, A.F., Jr. 1964. Combined Chemical,
Physical, and Biological Processes in Refinery Wastewater
Purification. Proceedings of the American Petroleum Institute,
(44)3:105-112.
Preussner, R.D., and Mancini, J. 1966. Extended Aeration
Activated Sludge Treatment of Petrochemical Waste at the Houston
Plant of Petro-Tex Chemical Corporation. Proceedings of the XXI
Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, p. 591.
Putilina, N.T. 1955. Removal of Phenol from Coke Works
Wastewaters. Water Pollution Abs., 28:428.
Quirk, T.P. 1969. Aerated Stabilization Basin Treatment of
White Water. Water and Wastes Eng. Industrial, p. D-l.
Reid, G.W., and Janson, R.J. 1955. Pilot Plant Studies on
Phenolic Wastes at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. Proceedings of the X Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, pp. 28-34.
351
-------
Reid, G.W., and Libby, R.W. 1957. Phenolic Waste Treatment
Studies. Proceedings of the XII Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, p. 250.
Reid, G.W., et al. 1956. Removal of Phenol with Biological
Slimes. Proceedings of the XI Purdue Industrial Waste
Conference, p. 354.
Reynolds, T.D., and Shack, P.A. 1976. Treatment of Wood
Preserving Wastewater. Technical Report No. 79. Texas Water
Resources Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas.
Richards, B.R., et al^. 1972. Laboratory Screening Assays on
Treated Wood Samples Exposed to Limnoria tripunctata: Part II.
Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers' Association,
(68)s143-1.
Richards, B.R., and Webb, D.A. 1975. Laboratory Screening
Assays of Treated Wood Samples Exposed to Limnoria tripunctata:
Part III. Proceedings of the American Wood Preservers'
Association, (71):30.
Rizzo, J.L., et al. 1977. Treating Industrial Wastewater with
Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering, p. 95.
Rosfjord, R.E., et al. 1976. Phenols: A Water Pollution
Control Assessment. Water and Sewage Works, (123)3:96.
Ross, W.K., and Sheppard, A.A. 1955. Biological Oxidation of
Petroleum Phenolic Wastewaters. Proceedings of the X Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, pp. 106-119,.
Rozelle, L.T., et al. 1974. Ultrathin Membranes for Treatment
of Waste Effluents by Reverse Osmosis. Chem. Abs., 80:6355f.
Scaramelli, A.B., and DiGiano, F.A. 1975. Wastewater Treatment:
Physical and Chemical Methods. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, (47)6:1249.
Semov, V., et al. 1972. Microbial Degradation of Phenols in the
Purification of Phenolic Wastewaters with Activated Sludge.
Oakridge National Laboratory, ORNL-tr-2983.
Shukov, A.I. 1959. The Treatment of Phenolic Wastewaters.
Water Pollution Abs., (32,):424.
Skidmore, J.F. 1964. Toxicity of Zinc Compounds to Aquatic
Animals with Special Reference to Fish. Quarterly Review of
Biology, (39)3:227
Skogen, D.B. 1967. Treat HPI Wastes with Bugs. Hydrocarbon
Processing, 46(7):105.
352
-------
Stevens, B.W., and Kerner, J.W. 1975. Recovering Organic
Materials from Wastewater. Chem. Eng., (82)1:84.
Suhr, L.G., and Culp, G.L. 1974. State of the Art—Activated
Carbon Treatment of Wastewater. Water and Sewage Works, Ref.
R104.
Sweets, W.H., et al^. 1954. Microbiological Studies on the
Treatment of Petroleum Refinery Phenolic Wastes. Sewage
Industrial Wastes, (26):826.
Symons, J.M., et al_. 1975. National Organics Reconnaissance
Survey for Halogenated Organics, American Water Works
Association Journal, 67(11):634.
Thompson, W.S. 1973. Status of Pollution Control in the Wood
Preserving Industry. Proceedings of the American Wood
Preservers' Association, (69):39.
Thompson, W.S. 1976. Draft Development Document for
Pretreatment Standards for the Wood Preserving Industry. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 8:23-24.
%
Thompson, W.S., and Dust, J.V. 1972. Pollution Control in the
Wood Preserving Industry, Part 2. In-Plant Process Changes and
Sanitation. Forest Products Journal, (22)7:43.
Thompson, W.S., and Dust, J.V. 1972. Pollution Control in the
Wood Preserving Industry, Part 3. Chemical and Physical Methods
of Treating Wastewater. Forest Products Journal, (22)12:25.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Water Pollution
Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants. Washington, D.C.
EPA/R2-72-081.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Development
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for. the Plywood, Hardboard, and Wood
Preserving Segments of the Tiniber Products Industry. EPA-440/1-
73-023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Manual of
Analytical Methods for the Analysis of Pesticide Residue in Human
and Environmental Samples.
U.S. Envirqnmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Conference
on Polychiorinated Biphenyls, Chicago, Illinois. EPA-560/6-75-
004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria
for Water. Washington, D.C. EPA-440/9-76-023.
353
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Treating Wood
Preserving Plant Wastewater by Chemical and Biological Methods.
Ind. Env. Res. Lab., Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/2-76-231.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. First Environmental
Tab—Timber Products Processing, EPA-EGD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Survey of Two
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants for Toxic Substances.
Wastewater Research Division, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Trace Metal Removal
by Wastewater Treatment. Technology Transfer.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Biodegradability
Studies with Organic Priority Pollutant Compounds. Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Wheatland, A.B., et al. 1975. Developments in the Treatment of
Metal-Bearing Effluents. Water and Environment Group of the SCI
in London. Chemistry and Industry, (47)2:322.
Wiley, A.J., et al. 1972. Reverse Osmosis Concentration of
Dilute Pulp and Paper Effluents. Pulp Manufacturers' Research
League and Institute of Paper Chem. EPA Proj. No. 12040 EEL.
World Health Organization. 1972a. Chloroform. IARC Monographs
on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man, 1:61—
65. Geneva.
World Health Organization. 1972b. Health Hazards of the Human
Environment. Geneva.
Wynn, C.S., et al^. 1973. Pilot Plant for Tertiary Treatment of
Wastewater with Ozone. EPA/R2-73-146.
354
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STATISTICAL APPENDIX
Bahadur, R.R. 1966. A Note on Quantiles in Large Samples.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 37:577.
Berman, S.M. 1962a. A Law of Large Numbers for the Maximum in a
Stationary Gaussian Sequence. Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
33:93.
Berman, S.M. 1962b. Limiting Distribution of the Maximum Term
in Sequences of Dependent Random Variables. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 33:894.
Berman, S.M. 1964. Limit Theorems for the Maximum Term in
Stationary Sequences. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35:502.
Box, G.E.P., and Jenkins, G.M. 1976. Time Series Analysis:.
Forecasting and Control. Holden Day, Inc., San Francisco,
California.
Chanda, K.C. 1976. Some Comments on Sample Quantiles for
Dependent Observations. Commun. Statist.-Theor. Meth.,
A5(14):1385.
Fuller, W.A. 1976. Introduction to Statistical Time Series.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
Gibbons, J.D. 1971. Non-Parametric Statistical Inference.
McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Gurland, J. 1955. Distribution of the Maximum of the Arithmetic
Mean of Correlated Random Variables. Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 26:294.
Horowitz, J., and Barakat, S. 1979. Statistical Analysis of the
Maximum Concentration of an Air Pollutant: Effects of
Autocorrelation and Non-Stationarity. Atmospheric Environment,
(13):811.
Jacobs, P.A., and Lewis, P.A. 1978. Discrete Time Series
Generated by Mixtures II: ^Asymptotic Properties. Journal of
Royal Stat. Soc. B, (40)2:222. .
Javitz, H.S. 1980. Statistical Interdependences in the Ozone.
National Ambient Air Quality Standard. American Pollution
Control Association Journal, (30)1:58.
Larsen, R.I. 1969. A New Mathematical Model of Air Pollutant
Concentration Averaging Time and Frequency. American Pollution
Control Association Journal, (19)1:24.
Larsen, R.I. 1974. An Air Quality Data Analysis System for
Interrelating Effects, Standards, and Needed Source Reductions—
355
-------
Part 2. American Pollution Control Association Journal,
(24)6:551.
Larsen, R.I. 1977. An Air Quality Data Analysis System for
Interrelating Effects, Standards, and Needed Source Reductions—
Part 4. A Three-Parameter Averaging-Time Model. American
Pollution Control Association Journal, (27)5:454.
McClave, J.T. 1978. Estimating the Order of an Autoregressive
Process: the Max X2 Method. Journal of American Statistical
Association, (73)361:122.
McClave, J.T., and Dietrich, F.A. 1979. Statistics. Dellen
Publishing Company, San Francisco, California.
Mendenhall, W. 1968. Introduction to Linear Models and the
Design and Analysis of Experiments. Duxbury Press, North
Scituate, Massachusetts.
Merz, P.H., et al^ 1972. Aerometric Data Analysis—Time Series
Analysis and Forecast and an Atmospheric Smog Diagram.
Atmospheric Environment, (6):319-342.
Patel, N.R. 1973. Comment on a New Mathematical Model of Air
Pollution Concentration, American Pollution Control Association
Journal, (23)4:291.
Phillips, P.C.B. 1978. Edgeworth and Saddlepoint Approximations
in the First-Order Noncircular Autoregression. Biometrika,
(65)1:91.
Portnoy, S.L. 1977. Robust Estimation in Dependent Situations.
Annals of Statistics, (5)1:22.
Robinson, P.M. 1977. Estimation of a Time Series Model from
Unequally Spaced Data. Stochastic Processes and Their
Application, (6):9.
Sen, P.K. 1972. On the Bahadur Representation of Sample
Quantiles for Sequences of -Mixing Random Variables. Journal of
Multivariate Analysis, 2:77.
Singpurwalla, N.D. 1972. Extreme Values from a Lognormal Law
with Applications of Air Pollution Problems. Technometrics,
(14)3:703.
Watson, G.S. 1954. Extreme Values in Samples from Independent
Stationary Stochastic Processes. Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, (25):798.
356
-------
SECTION XV
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACA—Ammonical Copper Sulfate.
"Act"—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments ot
1977.
Activated Sludge—Sludge floe produced in raw or settled
wastewater by the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organisms
in the presence of dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient
concentration by returning floe previously formed.
Activated Sludge Process—A biological wastewater treatment
process in which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is
agitated and aerated. The activated sludge is subsequently
separated from the treated wastewater (mixed liquor) by
sedimentation and wasted or returned to the process as needed.
Additive—Any material introduced prior to the final
consolidation of a board to improve some property of the final
board or to achieve a desired effect in combination with another
additive. Additives include binders and other materials.
Sometimes a specific additive may perform more than one function.
Fillers and preservatives are included under this term.
Aerated Lagoon—A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond
in which mechanical or diffused-air aeration is used to
supplement the oxygen supply.
Aerobic—Condition in which free elemental oxygen is present.
Air-drying—Drying lumber prior to preservative impregnation by
placing the lumber in stacks open to the atmosphere, in such a
way as to allow good circulation of air.
Air-felting—Term applied to the forming of a fiberboard from an
air suspension of wood or other cellulose fiber and to the
arrangement of such.fibers into a mat for board.
Anaerobic—Condition in which free elemental oxygen is absent.
Asplund Method—An attrition mill which combines the steaming and
defibering in one unit in a continuous operation.
Attrition Mill—Machine which produces particles by forcing
coarse material, shavings, or pieces of wood between a stationary
and a rotating disk, fitted with slotted or grooved segments.
Back—The side reverse to the face of a panel, or the poorer side
of a panel in any grade of plywood that has a face and back.
357
-------
Bagasse—The solid matter remaining after extraction of liquids
from sugar cane.
Barker—Machines which remove bark from logs. Barkers may be wet
ot dry, depending on whether or not water is used in the
operation. There are several types of barkers including drum
barkers, ring barkers, bag barkers, hydraulic barkers, and
cutterhead barkers. With the exception of the hydraulic barker,
all use abrasion or scraping actions to remove bark. Hydraulic
barkers utilize high pressure streams of water.
Biological Wastewater Treatment—Forms of wastewater treatment in
which bacterial or biochemical action is intensified to
stabilize, oxidize, and nitrify the unstable organic matter
present. Intermittent sand filters, contact beds, trickling
filters, aeration ponds, and activated sludge processes are
examples.
Blowdown—The removal of a portion of any process flow to
maintain the constituents of the flow at desired levels.
B0D5. or BOD—Biochemical Oxygen Demand is a measure of biological
decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It is
determined by measuring the oxygen required by microorganisms to
oxidize the organic contaminants of a water sample under standard
laboratory conditions. The standard conditions include
incubation for five days at 20°C.
B0D7—A modification of the BOD test in which incubation is
maintained for seven days. The standard test in Sweden.
Boultonizing—A conditioning process in which unseasoned wood is
heated in an oily preservative under a partial vacuum to reduce
its moisture content prior to injection of the preservative.
Casein—A derivative of skimmed milk used in making glue.
Caul—A steel plate or screen on which the formed mat is placed
for transfer to the press, and on which the mat rests during the
pressing process.
CCA-type Preservative—Any one of several inorganic salt
formulations based on salts of copper, chromium, and arsenic.
Chipper—A machine which reduces logs or wood scraps to chips.
Clarifier—A unit of which the primary purpose is to reduce the
amount of suspended matter in a liquid.
Closed Steaming—A method of steaming in which the steam required
is generated in the retort by passing boiler steam through
heating coils that are covered with water. The water used for
this purpose is recycled.
358
-------
cm—Centimeters.
COD—Chemical Oxygen Demand. Its determination provides a
measure of the oxygen demand equivalent to that portion of matter
in a sample which is susceptible to oxidation by a strong
chemical oxidant.
Coil Condensate—The condensate formed in steam lines and heating
coils.
Cold Pressing—See Pressing.
Composite Board—Any combination of different types of board,
either with another type board or with another sheet material.
The composite board may be laminated in a separate operation or
at the same time as the board is pressed. Examples of composite
boards include veneer-faced particle board, hardboard-faced
insulation board and particle board, and metal-faced hardboard.
Conditioning—The practice of heating logs prior to cutting in
order to improve the cutting properties of the wood and in some
cases to facilitate debarking.
Conventional pollutants—Those pollutants identified by the
Administrator of EPA as conventional pollutants under
authorization of Section 304(a)(4) of the 1977 Clean Water Act.
Conventional pollutants include biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
Cooling Pond—A water reservoir equipped with spray aeration
equipment from which cooling water is drawn and to which it is
returned.
Creosote—A complex mixture of organic materials obtained as a
by-product from coking and petroleum refining operations that is
used as a wood preservative.
cu m—Cubic meters.
cu ft—Cubic feet.
Curing—The physical-chemical change that takes place either to
thermosetting synthetic resins (polymerization) in the hot
presses or to drying oils (oxidation) used for oil-treating
board. The treatment to produce that change.
Cutterhead Barker—See Barker.
Cylinder Condensate—Steam condensate that forms on the walls of
the retort during steaming operations.
CZC—Chromated Zinc Chloride.
359
-------
Data Collection Portfolio—Information solicited from industry
under the authority of section 308 of the Act.
Decker, Deckering—A method of controlling pulp consistency in
hardboard production.
Defiberization—The reduction of wood materials to fibers.
Digester—(1) Device for conditioning chips using high pressure
steam, (2) A tank in which biological decomposition (digestion)
of the organic matter in sludge takes place.
Disc Pulpers—Machines which produce pulp or fiber through the
shredding action of rotating and stationary discs.
DO—Dissolved Oxygen is a measure of the amount of free oxygen in
a water sample. It is dependent on the physical, chemical, and
biochemical activities of the water sample.
Dry-felting—See Air-felting.
Dry Process—See Air-felting.
Durability—As applied to wood, its lasting qualities or
permanence in service with particular reference to decay. May be
related directly to an exposure condition.
FCAP—Fluor-chrom-arsenate-phenol. An inorganic waterborne wood
preservative.
Fiber (Fibre)—The slender thread-like elements of wood or
similar cellulosic material, which, when separated by chemical
and/or mechanical means, as in pulping, can be formed into
fiberboard.
Fiberboard—A sheet material manufactured from fibers of wood or
other ligno-cellulosic materials with the primary bond deriving
from the arrangement of the fibers and their inherent adhesive
properties. Bonding agents or other materials may be added
during manufacture to increase strength, resistance to moisture,
fire, insects or decay, or to improve some other property of the
product. Alternative spelling: fibreboard. Synonym: fibre
building board.
Fiber Preparation—The reduction of wood to fiber or pulp,
utilizing mechanical, thermal, or explosive methods.
Finishing—The final preparation of the product. Finishing may
include redrying, trimming, sanding, sorting, molding, and
storing, depending on the operation and product desired.
Fire Retardant—A formulation of inorganic salts that imparts
fire resistance when injected into wood in high concentrations.
360
-------
Flocculation—The agglomeration of colloidal and finely divided
suspended matter.
Flotation—The raising of suspended matter to the surface of the
liquid in a tank as scum—by aeration, the evolution of gas,
chemicals, electrolysis, heat, or bacterial decomposition—and
the subsequent removal of the scum by skimming.
F:M ratio—The ratio of organic material (food) to mixed liquor
(microorganisms) in an aerated sludge aeration basin.
Formation (Forming)—The felting of wood or other cellulose
fibers into a mat for fiberboard. Methods employed: air-felting
and wet-felting.
FR—Federal Register.
Gal—Gallons.
GPD—Gallons per day.
GPM—Gallons per minute.
Grading—The selection and categorization of different woods as
to their suitability for various uses. Criteria for selection
include such features of the wood as color, defects, and grain
direction.
Hardboard—A compressed fiberboard with a density greater than
0.5 g/cu m (31 lb/cu ft).
Hardboard Press—Machine which completes the reassembly of wood
particles and welds them into a tough, durable, grainless board.
Hardwood—Wood from deciduous or broad-leaf trees. Hardwoods
include oak, walnut, lavan, elm, cherry, hickory, pecan, maple,
birch, gum, cativo, teak, rosewood, and mahogany.
Heat-treated Hardboard—Hardboard that has been subjected to
special heat treatment after hot-pressing to increase strength
and water resistance.
Holding Ponds—See Impoundment.
Hot Pressing—See Pressing.
Humidification—The seasoning operation to which newly pressed
hardboard is subjected to prevent warpage due- to excessive
dryness.
Impoundment—A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space, either
natural or created in whole or in part by the building of
engineering structures, which is used for storage, regulation,
and control of water, including wastewater.
361
-------
Insulation Board—A form of fiberboard having a density less than
0.5 g/cu m (31 lb/cu ft).
In situ—In the original location.
Kjld-N—Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Total organic nitrogen plus ammonia
of a sample.
Kl/day-Thousands of liters per day.
Lagoon—A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in
which aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
Land Spreading—See Soil Irrigation.
Leaching—Mass transfer of chemicals to water from wood which is
in contact with it.
1/day—Liters per day.
Metric ton—One thousand kilograms.
MGD-—Million gallons per day.
mg/1—Milligrams per liter (equal to parts per million, ppm, when
the specific gravity is one).
ug/1—Micrograms per liter (equal to parts per billion, ppb, when
the specific gravity is one).
Mixed Liquor—A mixture of activated sludge and organic matter
under going activated sludge treatment in an aeration tank.
ml/1—Milliliters per liter.
mm—M illimeters.
Modified-closed Steaming—A method of steam conditioning in which
the condensate formed during open steaming is retained in the
retort until sufficient condensate accumulates to cover the
coils. The remaining heat required is generated as in closed
steaming.
No Discharge—The complete prevention of polluted process
wastewater from entering navigable waters.
Nonconventional pollutants—Those pollutants not identified as
conventional or toxic pollutants.
Nonpressure Process—A method of treating wood at atomspheric
pressure in which the wood is simply soaked in hot or cold
preservative.
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
362
-------
Nutrients—The nutrients in contaminated water are routinely
analyzed to characterize the food available for microorganisms to
promote organic decomposition. They are: Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3),
mg/1 as N Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ON), mg/1 as N Nitrate Nitrogen
(N03), mg/1 as N Total Phosphate (TP), mg/1 as P Ortho Phosphate
(OP), mg/1 as P
Oil-Recovery System—Equipment used to reclaim oil from
wastewater.
Oily Preservative—Pentachlorophenol-petroleum solutions and
creosote in the various forms in which it is used.
Open Steaming—A method of steam conditioning in which live steam
is injected into the retort.
PCB—Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
PCP—Pentachlorophenol.
Pearl Benson Index—A measure of color-producing substances.
Pentachlorophenol—A chlorinated phenol with the formula C15C60H
and formula weight of 266.35 that is used as a wood preservative.
Commercial grades of this chemical are usually adulterated with
tetrachlorophenol to improve its solubility.
pH—a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water sample.' It
is equal to the negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration.
Phenol—The simplest aromatic alcohol (C6H50H).
Phenolic Compounds—A wide range of organic compounds with one or
more hydroxyl groups attached to the aromatic ring.
Point Source—A discrete source of pollution.
POTW—Publicly owned treatment works.
Pressure Process—A process in which wood preservatives or fire
retardants are forced into wood using air or hydrostatic
pressure.
Pretreatment—Any wastewater treatment processes used to
partially reduce pollution load before the wastewater is
delivered into a treatment facility. Usually consists of removal
of coarse solids by screening or other means.
Primary Treatment—The first major treatment in a wastewater
treatment works. In the classical sense, it normally consists of
clarification. As used in this document, it generally refers to
treatment steps preceding biological treatment..
363
-------
Process Wastewater—Any water, which during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product,
finished product, by-product, or waste product.
psi—Pounds per square inch.
PVA—Polyvinyl alcohol. Binding agent applied to surface of
insulation board.
PVAC—Polyvinyl acetate. Binding agent applied to surface of
insulation board.
Radio Frequency Heat—Heat generated by the application of an
alternating electric current, oscillating in the radio frequency
range, to a dielectric material. In recent years the method has
been used to cure synthetic resin glues.
Resin—Secretions of saps of certain plants or trees. It is an
oxidation or polymerization product of the terpenes.
Retort—A steel vessel in which wood products are pressure
impregnated with chemicals that protect the wood from biological
deterioration or that impart fire resistance. Also called
treating cylinder.
Roundwood—Wood that is still in the form of a log, i.e., round.
RWL—Raw Waste Load. Pollutants contained in untreated
wastewater.
SIS Hardboard—Hardboard finished so as to be smooth on one side.
S2S Hardboard—Hardboard finished so as to be smooth on both
sides.
Secondary Treatment—The second major step in a waste treatment
system.
Sedimentation Tank—A basin or tank in which water or wastewater
containing settleable solids is retained to remove by gravity a
part of the suspended matter.
Settling Ponds—An impoundment for the settling out of settleable
solids.
Sludge—The accumulated solids separated from liquids, such as
water or wastewater, during processing.
Softwood—Wood from evergreen or needle-bearing trees.
Soil Irrigation—A method of land disposal in which wastewater is
applied to a prepared field. Also referred to as soil
percolation.
364
-------
Solids—Various types of solids are commonly determined on water
samples. These types of solids are:
Total Solids (TS)—The material left after evaporation and drying
a sample at 103°-105°C.
Suspended Solids (SS)—The material removed from a sample
filtered through a standard glass fiber filter. Then it is dried
at 103°-105°C. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—Same as Suspended
Solids. Dissolved Solids (DS)—The difference between the total
and suspended solids. Volatile Solids (VS)—The material which
is lost when the sample is heated to 550°C. Settleable Solids
(TSS)—The material which settles in an Immhoff cone in one hour.
Spray Evaporation—A method of wastewater disposal in which the
water in a holding lagoon is sprayed into the air to expedite
evaporation.
Spray Irrigation—A method of disposing of some organic
wastewaters by spraying them on land, usually from pipes equipped
with spray nozzles. See Soil Irrigation.
sq m—Square meter.
Steam Conditioning—A conditioning method in which unseasoned
wood is subjected to an atmosphere of steam at 120°C (249°F) to
reduce its moisture content and improve its permeability
preparatory to preservative treatment.
Steaming—Treating wood material with steam to prepare it for
preservative impregnation.
Sump—(1) A tank or pit that receives drainage and stores it
temporarily, and from which the drainage is pumped or ejected;
(2) A tank or pit that receives liquids.
Synthetic Resin (Thermosetting)—Artificial resin used in board
manufacture as a binder. A combination of chemicals which can be
polymerized, e.g., by the application of heat, into a compound
which is used to produce the bond or improve the bond in a
fiberboard or particle board. Types usually used in board
manufacture are phenol formaldehyde, urea formaldehyde, or
melamine formaldehyde.
Tempered Hardboard—Hardboard that has been specially treated in
manufacture to improve its physical properties considerably.
Includes, for example, oil-tempered hardboard. Synonym:
superhardboard.
Tertiary Treatment—The third major step in a waste treatment
facility. As used in this document, the term refers to treatment
processes following biological treatment.
365
-------
Thermal Conductivity—The quantity of heat which flows per unit
time across unit area of the subsurface of unit thickness when
the temperature of the faces differs by one degree.
Thermosetting—Adhesives which, when cured under heat or
pressure, "set" or harden to form bonds of great tenacity and
strength. Subsequent heating in no way softens the bonding
matrix.
TOC—Total Organic Carbon is a measure of the organic
contamination of a water sample. It has an empirical
relationship with the biochemical and chemical oxygen demands.
T-P04-P—Total phosphate as phosphorus. See Nutrients.
Total Phenols—Total phenols as determined by the 4-AAP
analytical method of Standard Methods.
Toxic Pollutants—Those compounds listed in the 1976 Consent
Decree and Section 307(a) the Water Quality Act Amendments of
1977.
Traditional Parameters—Those parameters historically of
interest, e.g., BOD, COD, TSS, as compared to Toxic Pollutants.
Turbidity—(1) A condition in water or wastewater caused by the
presence of suspended matter, resulting in the scattering and
absorption of light rays; (2) A measure of the fine suspended
matter in liquids; (3) An analytical quantity usually reported in
arbitrary turbidity units determined by measurements of light
diffraction.
Vacuum Water—Water extracted from wood during the vacuum period
following steam conditioning.
Vapor Drying—A process in which unseasoned wood is heated in the
hot vapors of an organic solvent, such as xylene, to season it
prior to preservative treatment.
Vat—Large metal containers in which veneer logs are
"conditioned" or heated prior to cutting. The two basic methods
for heating are by direct steam contact in "steam vats" or by
steam-heated water in "hot water vats."
Veneer—A thin sheet of wood of uniform thickness produced by
peeling, slicing, or sawing logs, bolts, or flitches. Veneers
may be categorized as either hardwood or softwood, depending on
the type of woods used and the intended purpose.
Water Balance—The water gain (incoming water) of a system versus
water loss (water discharged or lost).
366
-------
Water-borne Preservative—Any one of several formulations of
inorganic salts, the most common of which are based on copper,
chromium, and arsenic.
Wet-felting—Term applied to the forming of a fiberboard from a
suspension of pulp in water usually on a cylinder, deckle box, or
Fourdrinier machine; the interfelting of wood fibers from a water
suspension into a mat for board.
Wet Process—See Wet-felting.
Wet Scrubber—An air pollution control device which involves the
wetting of particles in an air stream and the impingement of wet
or dry particles on collecting surfaces, followed by flushing.
Wood Extractives—A mixture of chemical compounds, primarily
carbohydrates, removed from wood during steam conditioning.
Wood Preservatives—A chemical or mixture of chemicals with
fungistatic and insecticidal properties that is injected into
wood to protect it from biological determination.
Zero Discharge—See No Discharge.
367
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
APPENDIX A
COSTS OF TREATMENT AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
COST INFORMATION
Cost information for the candidate treatment technologies
developed in Section VII is presented in this appendix for the
purpose of enabling an assessment of the economic impact on the
industry. A separate economic analysis has been prepared and the
results have been published in a separate document.
Two types of cost estimates are presented in this appendix.
First, the total battery limit costs of the NSPS and PSNS
Candidate Treatment Technologies are estimated for the model
plants according to raw wastewater characteristics developed in
Section V for each subcategory. These estimates include the cost
of each unit process associated with the NSPS and PSNS candidate
technology. As shown in Section VII, most existing plants
already have substantial treatment systems in operation. These
total battery limit costs, therefore, are*not applicable to these
plants as they do not reflect the true cost to the industry of
achieving the candidate technologies. Since no technology can be
assumed to be in-place for new sources, the total battery limit
NSPS and PSNS cost estimates do represent the costs to the
industry of achieving the NSPS and PSNS candidate technologies.
The second type of cost estimate presented is a plant-by-plant
estimate of the costs of achieving the applicable candidate
technologies for direct and/or indirect dischargers within each
subcategory. This estimate, prepared for every affected plant in
the technical data base, takes into consideration the plants' raw
and treated wastewater characteristics and the treatment
technology currently in-place and is a more accurate estimate, of
the actual cost of the candidate technologies to the industry as
a whole.
It should be noted that a number of factors affect the cost of a
particular facility, and that these highly variable factors may
differ from those assumed herein. One of the most variable
factors is the cost of land, which may range from a few hundred
dollars per hectare in rural areas to millions of dollars (or
total unavailability) in urban areas. Other site-specific
factors which can cause variations in actual cost include local
soil conditions, building codes, and labor costs.
In some cases, individual installations may use cost accounting
systems which cause reported costs to differ from those in this
section. For example, it is not uncommon for a portion of a
manufacturing plant's administrative costs to be allocated to the
waste treatment system. Such factors are not included in this
document.
369
-------
Table A-l presents the cost assumptions used in developing the
cost estimates described above.
•Table A-l. Cost Assumptions
1. All costs are reported in June 1977 dollars.
2. Excavation costs $5.00 per cubic yard.
3. Reinforced concrete costs $210 per cubic yard.
4. Site preparation costs $2,000 per acre.
5. Contract hauling of sludge to landfill costs $25 per cubic yard.
6. Land costs $10,000 per acre except for those alternatives including
spray irrigation, in which case land costs $2,000 per acre.
7. Surface dressing for lagoons costs $0.03 per square foot.
8. Fencing costs $2.00 per linear foot, installed.
9. Clay lining for lagoons costs $0.23 per square foot.
10. New carbon costs $0.40 per pound.
11. Epoxy coating costs $2.00 per square foot.
12. Electricity costs $0.05 per kilowatt-hour.
13. Phosphoric acid costs $0.25 per pound.
14. Anhydrous ammonia costs $0.18 per pound.
15. Polymer costs $0.60 per pound.
16. Sulfuric acid costs $0.06 per pound.
17. Sodium hydroxide costs $0.10 per pound.
18. Sulfur dioxide costs $0.25 per pound.
19. Average roofing costs $5.50 per square foot.
20. Engineering costs 15 percent of construction cost.
21. Contingency is 15 percent of the sum of the capital cost, land
cost, and engineering cost.
22. Capital recovery is based on 20 years at 10 percent.
23. Annual insurance and taxes cost 3 percent of the sum of the capi-
tal cost plus land cost.
24. Average labor costs $20,000 per man per year, including fringe
benefits and overhead.
25. Annual operating costs include amortization, operation and mainte-
nance, energy, taxes and insurance and sludge disposal costs (hauling
Energy Requirements of Candidate Technologies
Itemized energy costs are shown in each of the cost estimates
presented in this appendix.
Total Cost of Candidate Technologies
Tables A-2 through A-5 present the total battery limit costs of
NSPS and PSNS candidate technologies for the model plants in the
Wood Preserving-Boulton and Steam subcategories. (The candidate
technologies are the same). The design criteria for the model
plants for these subcategories are presented on page 110 in Table
V-21 of Section V, WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS. Tables A-6
through A-9 present the total battery limit costs of NSPS
candidate technologies for the model plants in the insulation
board subcategory. The design criteria for the mechanical and
thermomechanical refining model plants in the insulation board
subcategory are presented on page 12:2 in Tables V-24 and V-25 of
370
-------
Section V, respectively. Tables A-10 through A-12 present the
total battery limit costs of NSPS candidate technologies for the
wet process ha'rdboard subcategory. The model plant design
criteria for the SIS and S2S parts of the wet process hardboard
subcategory are presented on page 136 in Table V-31 and on page
137 in Table V-32 of Section V, respectively.
It should be noted that the battery limit costs shown for primary
oil separation for new sources in the wood preserving segment,
including capital, annual operating, and annual energy costs, are
50 percent of the actual values estimated during the cost
analysis. This is because, as discussed in Section VII of this
document, 50 percent of the total costs of this technology can be
amortized through recovery of oils.
Total battery limit costs were not developed for the Wood
Preserving - Water Borne or Non-Pressure subcategory PSNS
candidate technology because the costs are minimal. As discussed
in Section XII, PRETREATMENT STANDARDS, the PSNS candidate
technology for this subcategory is process wastewater collection
and recycle to achieve no discharge. Process wastewater is
collected and reused to make up future preservative treating
solutions. This technology is easily incorporated into the
overall plant design and the costs for this technology are
minimal compared to the costs of constructing and operating the
preservative treatment facilities.
Costs of Compliance for Indirect Discharging Plants—Wood
Preserving
Assumptions made in estimating plant-by-plant costs were: (1)
technology required to achieve BPT standards, or its equivalent,
should be in-place for existing direct dischargers, therefore no
costs were included for primary and secondary oil separation or
for an aerated lagoon of sufficient size and aeration capacity to
achieve the BPT standards; (2) technology required to achieve
current pretreatment standards, or its equivalent, .should be in-
place for existing indirect dischargers, therefore no costs were
included for primary and secondary oil removal; (3) plants
currently achieving no discharge through self containment (spray
irrigation, evaporation, recycle, etc.) will incur no costs of
compliance; and (4) the cost of converting a steam subcategory
plant from open to closed steaming was estimated and included in
the compliance cost only when this conversion and subsequent
treatment of a reduced flow results in a lower overall cost than
does treatment of the larger, open steaming flow.
Costs of compliance for individual wood preserving plants are
shown in Tables A-13 through A-15.
Costs of Compliance Hardboard/Insu1at ion Board
A plant-by-plant* analysis was performed on each plant in the
technical data base to determine the cost of compliance for each
371
-------
applicable candidate treatment technology. The individual
plant's wastewater flow, raw and treated wastewater
characteristics, and in-place technology were considered in
determining the cost of compliance.
372
-------
Table A-2. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant N-l*, NSPS, PSNS Battery Limit Costs
Annual Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation
$ 40,000
$ 2,500
$1,500
Flocculation and Slow-
Sand Filtration
16,000
3,900
400
Pump Station
6, 300
1,470
1,160
Cooling Tower Evaporation
(Including Recirculation
Pumps)
57,000
6,880
5,100
Engineering
17,900
—
—
Land
5,000
—
—
Contingency
21,330
—
— .
Sludge Disposal
—
1,000
—
Capital Recovery
—
18,620
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
3,730
—
Labor
—
20,000
—
TOTAL
$163,530
$58,100
$8,160
*A diagram of the Candidate
Figure VII-18.
Treatment
Technology is shown
in
373
-------
Table A-3. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant N-2*, NSPS, PSNS Battery Limit Costs
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation
$ 56,750
$ 3,000
$ 1,750
Flocculation and Slow-
Sand Filtration
19,500
5,200
400
Pump Station
7,300
1,900
1 ,480
Cooling Tower Evaporation
(Including Recirculation
Pumps)
82,000
14,990
12,500
Engineering
24,830
—
—
Land
7,500
—
—
Contingency
29,680
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
2,000
—
Capital Recovery
—
25,850
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
5, 190
—
Labor
—
25,000
—
TOTAL
$227,560
$83,130
$16,130
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-18.
374
-------
Table A-4. Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant N-3*, NSPS, PSNS Battery Limit Costs
Annual Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation
$ 40,000
$ 2,500
$1,500
Flocculation and Slow-
Sand Filtration
16,000
3,900
400
Pump Station
5,790
1 ,290
1,020
Spray Evaporation
92,000
1 ,590
270
Engineering
23,070
—
—
Land
9,000
__
—
Contingency
27,880
—
Sludge Disposal
—
1,000
—
Capital Recovery
24,050
—
Insurance and Taxes
4,880
—
Labor
—
20,000
—
TOTAL
$213,700
$59,200
$3,200
*A diagram of the Candidate
Figure VII-19.
Treatment
Technology is shown
in
375
-------
Table A-5. Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant N-4*, NSPS, PSNS Battery Limit Costs
Annual Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation $ 56,750 $3,000 $1,750
Flocculation and Slow-
Sand Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Pump Station 6,800 1,710 1,340
Spray Evaporation 155,000 1,620 280
Engineering 35,710
Land 19,500
Contingency 43,990
Sludge Disposal — 2,000
Capital Recovery — 37,320
Insurance and Taxes — 7,730
Labor — 25,000
TOTAL $337,250 $83,580 $3,770
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-19.
376
-------
Table A-6. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Cost Summary for Model Plant C-l*, NSPS Battery Limit Costs
Capital Cost
Operating Cost
Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
$ 105,000
$ 11,700
$ 3,540
Screening
.16'0°°
1 ,220
—
Neutralization
11,800
3,600
140
Nutrient Addition
27/300
35,600
—
Aerated Lagoon
722/000
156,000
128,000
Facultative Lagoon
292,600
—
—
Spray Irrigation
46,400
14,800
12,500
Control House
75,680
5,980
2,950
Engineering
194,500
—
—
Land
539,900
—
—
Contingency
304,700
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
8,000
—
Capital Recovery
—
211,000
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
55,100
—
Labor
.—
40,000
—
TOTAL
$2,335,880
$543,000
$147,130
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment
Figure VII-23.
Technology is
shown in
377
-------
Table A-7. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Cost Summary for Model Plant C-2*, NSPS Battery Limit Costs
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
$ 165,000
$ 20,100
$ 7,350
Screening
34,000
1 ,900
—
Neutralization
16,600
7,280
200
Nutrient Addition
39,200
82,000
—
Aerated Lagoon
1,130,000
338,000
306,000
Facultative Lagoon
425,600
—
—
Spray Irrigation
76,000
25,700
21,000
Control House
75,680
5,980
2,950
Engineering
294,300
—
—
Land
1,260,300
—
—
Contingency
527,500
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
19,200
—
Capital Recovery
' —
327,000
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
96,700
—
Labor
—
40,000
• —
TOTAL
' $4,044,180
$963,860
$337,500
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-23.
378
-------
Table A-8. Insulation Board Thermomechanical Refining
Cost Summary for Model Plant C-l*, NSPS Battery Limit Costs
Annual Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
$ 105,000
$ 11,700
$ 3,540
Screening
16,000
1,220
—
Neutralization
11,800
3,600
140
Nutrient Addition
43,400
104,000
—
Aerated Lagoon
1,104,000
422,000
396,000
Facultative Lagoon
292,600
—
—
Spray Irrigation
46,400
14,800
12,500
Control House
75,680
5,980
2,950
Engineering
254,200
—
—
Land
539,900
—
—
Contingency
373,400
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
8,000
—
Capital Recovery
—
272,800
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
67,000
—
Labor
—
40,000
—
TOTAL
$2,862,380
$951,100
$415,130
*A diagram of the Candidate
Figure VII-23.
Treatment
Technology is
shown in
379
-------
Table A-9. Insulation Board Thermomechanical Refining
Cost Summary for Model Plant C-2*, NSPS Battery Limit Costs
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
$ 165,000
$
20,100
$ 7,350
Screening
34,000
1,900
—
Neutralization
16,600
7,280
200
Nutrient Addition
55,300
238,000
—
Aerated Lagoon
2,206,900
1
,000,000
960,000
Facultative Lagoon
425,600
—
—
Spray Irrigation
76,000
25,700
21,000
Control House
75,680
5,980
2,950
Engineering
458,300
—
—
Land
1,261,000
—
—
Contingency
716,200
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
19,200
—
Capital Recovery
—
496,800
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
129,500
—
Labor
—
40,000
—
TOTAL
$5,490,580
$1
,984,460:
$991,500
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-23.
380
-------
Table A-l 0. Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory (SIS Part) Cost Summary for
Model Plant C-l *, NSPS Battery Limit Costs
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
$ 84,000
$ 8,700
$ 2,340
Screening
a, 500
1,000
,—
Neutralization
9,600
2,440
120
Nutrient Addition
27,700
36,300
—
Aerated Lagoon
726,000
168,000
138,000
Facultative Lagoon
233,400
—
—
Spray Irrigation
35,500
o
o
cr>
o
9,200
Control House
75,680
5,980
2,950
Engineering
180,200
— .
—
Land
317,000
—
—
Contingency
254,800
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
4,480
—
Capital Recovery
*
192,200
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
45,600
—
Labor
—"
40,000
—
TOTAL
$1,953,380
$515,600
$152,610
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-27.
381
-------
Table A-l1. Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory (SIS Part) Cost Summary for
Model Plant C-2*, NSPS Battery Limit Costs
Annual Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
$ 135,000
$ 15,900
$ 5,340
Screening
24,000
1,550
—
Neutralization
14,300
5,380
170
Nutrient Addition
43,300
104,800
—
Aerated Lagoon
726,000
168,000
138,000
•
Facultative Lagoon
364,000
—
—
Spray Irrigation
62,000
20,100
16,900
Control House
75,680
5,980
2,950
Engineering
216,600
—
—
Land
873,800
—
—
Contingency
380,200
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
13,440
—
Capital Recovery
—
239,700
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
69,500
—
Labor
—
40,000
—
TOTAL
$2,914,880
$684,350
$163,360
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-27.
382
-------
Table A-12. Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory (S2S Part) Cost Summary for
Model Plant C*, NSPS Battery Limit Costs
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
$ 187,500
$ 23,400
$ 9,000
Screening
40,000
2,200
—
Neutralization
18,000
8,850
230
Nutrient Addition
47,500
143,000
—
Aerated Lagoon
1,535,900
584,000
576,000
Facultative Lagoon
468,400
—
—
Spray Irrigation
87,500
30,000
24,000
Control House
75,680
5,980
2,950
Engineering
369,100
—
—
Land
1 ,583,400
—
—
Contingency
662,000
—
—
Sludge Disposal
—
24,000
—.
Capital Recovery
—
410,100
—
Insurance and Taxes
—
121,300
—
Labor
—
40,000
—
TOTAL
$5,074,980
$1 ,392,830.
$612,180
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment
Figure VII-27.
' :
Technology is
shown in
383
-------
Table A-13. Wood Preserving—Steam Subcategory Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants
Direct Dischargers
Plant
Biological Treatment
(Technology A or B)
Annual
Annual
Capital Operating Energy
Cost Cost Cost
Biological Treatment
Plus Activated
Carbon Adsorption
(Technology C or D)
Annual Annual
Capital Operating Energy
Cost Cost Cost
Spray Evaporation
(Technology N)
Annual Annual
Capital Operating Energy
Cost Cost Cost
268 0 0 0 68,800 30,900 1,300 176,600 36,000 200
-------
Table A-14. Hood Preserving—Steam Subcategory Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants
Indirect Dischargers
Biological Treatment
(Technology J or K)
Annual Annual
Capital Operating Energy
Plant Cost Cost Cost
Biological Treatment
Plus Metals Removal
(Technology L or M)
Annual Annual
Capital
Cos t
Operating
Cost
Energy
Cos t
Capital
Cost
Spray Evaporation
(Technology N)
Annual
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cost
Spray Evaporation
(Technology N) Plus Conversion
From Open to Closed Steaming
(Technology 0)
Annual
Capital
Cost
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cost
173
65,100
25,400
2,400
167,000
52,500
3,400
119,100
29,90 0
300
0
0
0
267
118,000
37,100
4,000
0
0
0
198,000
40,200
300
0
0
0
335
80,800
29,400
2,900
191,900
59,000
4,000
147,900 '
33,700
300
0
0
0
338
83,400
30,100
3,000
0
0
0
152,500
34,300
300
0
0
0
339
68,500
33,500
5,200
0
0
0
88,600
26,000
300
0
0
0
547
79,100
38,700
6,700
0
0
0
116,400
29,900
300
0
0
0
582*
163,100
46,800
5,400
308,600
91,500
7,100
256,400
49,700
1,700
0
0
0
596
46,100
21,300
1,800
129,400
42,900
2,500
78,400
24,400
300 :
0
0
0
620
148,700
44,000
5,100
291,500
87,300
6,700
233,700
44,900
300
0
0
0
693*
70,300
27,200
2,700
0
0
0
133,500
31,800
300
0
0
0
765
110,200
35,900
3,900
0
0
0
188,100
38,90 0
300
0
0
0
894
119,400
47,800
4,200
0
0
0
208,400
53,300
1,600
0
0
0
898
42,600
9,700
1,300
0
0
0
106,100
15,900
200
0
0
0
899
210,900
66,300
6,800
369,600
116,400
8,700
296,600
65,200
1,800
0
0
0
901
75,100
. 28,200
2,800
0
0
0
145,600
34,700
1,400
0
0
0
910
82,200
29,900
3,000
0
0
0
149,400
33,900
300
0
0
0
1076*
128,500
39,800
4,500
0
0
0
209,900
41,600
300
0
0
0
1200
240,200
61,800
7,400
0
0
0
322,800
57,500
300
0
0
0
1201
164,600
47,300
5,600
311,300
92,400
7,300
251,400
47,200
300
0
0
0
896
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
112,200
30,800
1,100
139
46,100
21,300
1,800
0
0
0
79,100
24,500
300
0
0
0
589
72,100
27,400
2,700
177,900
57,800
3,700
132,800
31,700
300
0
0
0
575
152,000
44,700
5,200
0
0
0
239,80 0
45,300
1,600
0
0
0
594*
326,100
89,700
9,500
0
0
0
403,400
79,200
300
0
0
0
530
49,300
21,900
1,800
0
0
0
83,300
25,100
300
0
0
0
529
46,100
.21,300
1,800
0
0
0
79,100
24,400
300
0
0
0
1203*
69,200
26,900
2,500
0
0
0
128,500
31,100
300
0
0
0
294
46,900
30,500
1,900
0
0
0
79,100
24,400
300
0
0
0
1205
46,900
30,500
1,900
0
0
0
79,100
24,400
300
0
0
0
* Identified as potential closure candidate due to the compliance costs of attaining the proposed no
discharge of PCP pre treatment standard. A site specific study was conducted following the proposed
pretreatment standard to refine the compliance cost analysis. This study determined that the refined
compliance costs were in general agreement with the original compliance costs and were still high enough
for the plant to be considered a potential closure candidate.
-------
Table A-15. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants
Indirect Dischargers
Biological Treatment
Biological Treatment Plus Metals Removal Cooling Tower Evaporation
(Technology J or K) (Technology L or M) (Technology N)
Plant
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cos t
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cost
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cos t
65*
104,000
35,100
4,100
231,000
72,900
5,400
71,900
36,800
6,500
549
976,000
203,100
21,400
0
0
0
178,200
110,100
62,000
555
0
0
0
0
0
0
110,400
55,300
18,500
577
352,000
84,300
10,000
536,100
148,700
12,400
118,500
59,900
22,000
655
238,000
61,700
7,400
406,200
116,800
9,400
103,500
51,000
15,500
743*
82,300
33,300
3,000
0
0
0
62,100
33,000
4,400
1027
173,900
48,800
5,600
322,300
96,000
7,300
92,000
44,600
11,000
1078
134,500
41,000
4,700
273,500
83,700
6,200
81,600
40,700
8,800
1110
104,000
35,100
4,100
0
0
0
71,900
36,800
6,500
1111
0
0
0
0
0
0
103,500
51,100
15,500
* Identified as potential closure candidate due to the compliance costs of attaining the proposed no
discharge of PCP pretreatment standard. A site specific study was conducted following the proposed
pretreatment standard to refine the compliance cost analysis. This study determined that the refined
compliance costs were in general agreement with the original compliance costs and were still high enough
for the plant to be considered a potential closure candidate.
-------
Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants—Insulation Board and
Hardboard
A plant-by-plant analysis was performed on each insulation board
and hardboard plant to determine the cost of compliance for each
applicable level of biological treatment technology discussed in
Section VII. The individual plant's wastewater flow, raw and
treated wastewater characteristics and in-place technology were
all considered in determining cost of compliance.
Insulation Board-Mechanical Refining Plants—There is only one
mechanical refining direct discharger in the insulation board
subcategory. This plant exhibits exemplary treatment, therefore
no cost of compliance will be incurred. The remaining plants in
this subcategory are either self contained (no discharge) or
indirect dischargers, and no costs of compliance will be
incurred. As previously discussed in Section VII, pretreatment
of raw wastewaters from this subcategory is not considered
necessary due to the extremely low levels of toxic pollutant
contamination.
Insulation Board-Thermomechanical Plants-There are four
thermomechanical refining direct dischargers in the insulation
board subcategory. Three of these exhibit exemplary treatment
and no cost of compliance will be incurred. The fourth direct
discharger also produces S2S hardboard and the cost analysis for
this plant will be presented in the S2S hardboard discussion
below.
SIS Hardboard—Of the nine SIS hardboard plants, seven are direct
dischargers. Three of these plants exhibit effluent levels lower
in pollutant loadings than the two candidate levels of biological
treatment described in Section VII. No costs of compliance will
be incurred by these plants. One plant is an indirect discharger
and will not incur a cost of compliance as pretreatment of
wastewaters from the SIS part of this subcategory is not
considered to be necessary because of the extremely low levels of
toxic pollutant contamination and lack of available technology to
further reduce those levels. Another plant is self contained
and, therefore, will not incur a cost of compliance. Table A-16
presents the costs of compliance for the remaining plants for
each of the two candidate levels of biological treatment.
S2S Hardboard—Of the seven S2S hardboard plants, five are direct
dischargers. Of the five, three plants exhibit effluent levels
lower in pollutant loadings than the candidate levels of
biological treatment described in Section VII. No costs of
compliance will be incurred by these plants. The fourth direct
discharger is currently constructing extensive treatment
facilities expected to be normally operating this year. Costs of
compliance for this plant are based on expected (and designed)
effluent levels which will be achieved by the new system. Costs
of compliance, for the direct dischargers required to upgrade are
presented in Table A-17 for each of the candidate levels of
387
-------
biological treatment. Of the remaining two plants, one is self
contained (no discharge} and the other is an indirect discharger.
No costs of compliance will be incurred by these plants.
Pretreatment of raw wastewater from the S2S part of this
subcategory is not considered necessary due to the extremely low
levels of toxic pollutant contamination.
388
-------
Table A-16. Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory (SIS Part) Costs of Compliance for
Individual Plants Direct Dischargers
Biological Treatment Based on Can- Biological Treatment Based on
didate Treatment Technology A (BPT) Candidate Treatment Technology B (BCT)
Annual
Annual
Annual
Annual
Capital
Operating
Energy
Capital
Operating
Energ y
Plant
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
(00207)
—
—
—
1,228,000
251,000
18,000
(00348)
2,004,700
526,800
128,400
2,938,000
739,000
213,000
(00003)
285,000
84,000
1,000
1,, 105, 300
237,000
1,000
(00929)
—
—
—
183,000
122,000
30,000
(00678)
—
—
—
599,000
173,000
41,000
Energy costs
are lower for
the BCT option due to
technology differences
between options.
-------
Table A-17. Wet Process Hardboard Subcategory (S2S Bart) Costs of Compliance for
Individual Plants, Direct Dischargers
BPT Biological Treatment Based on
Performance Equivalent to SIS
Subcategory BPT Plant
Capital
Cost
Operating
Cost
Energy
Cost
BCT Biological Treatment
Based on Performance of Plant 980
Candidate Treatment Technology C
Capital Operating Energy
Cost Cost Cost
1
108
7,266,000 3,068,000 1,368,000
0 0 0
7,436,000 3,173,000 1,408,000
6,856,000 1,601,000 375,000
-------
APPENDIX B-l
TOXIC OR POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES NAMED IN CONSENT DECREE
Acenapthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Benzidine
Benzene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated Benzenes
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chloroalkyl Ethers
Chlorinated Naphthalene
Chlorinated Phenols
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
DDT
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead
Mercury
Napthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
391
-------
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate Esters
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNAs)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
Selenium
Silver
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrach1oroethy1ene
Thallium
Toluene
Trichloroethy1ene
Toxaphene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc
392
-------
APPENDIX B-2
LIST OF SPECIFIC TOXIC POLLUTANTS
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
3. hexachlorobenzene
4. ch1orobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2-chloroethy1) ether
7. 2-chioroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1,2-diehlorobenzene
9. 1,3-d i chlorobenzene
10. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
11. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
12. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
13. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
14. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
15. ethylbenzene
16. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
17. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
18. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
19. bis<2-chloroethoxy) methane
20. isophorone
21. nitrobenzene
22. N-nitrosodimethylamine
23. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
24. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
25. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
26. butyl benzyl phthalate
27. di-n-butyl phthalate
28. diethyl phthalate
29. dimethyl phthalate
30. toluene
31. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
32. acrolein
33. acrylonitrile
34. acenaphthene
35. 2-chloronaphthalene
36. fluoranthene
37. naphthalene
38. 1,2-benzanthracene
3 9. benzo(a)pyrene(3,4-benzopyrene)
40. 3,4—benzofluoranthene
41. 11,12-benzofluoranthene
42. chrysene
43. acenaphthylene
44. anthracene
45. 1,12-benzoperylene
46. fluorene
47. phenanthrene
48. 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
393
-------
49. indeno (1,2,3-,cd)pyrene
50. pyrene
51. benzene
52. carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
53. 1,2-dichloroethane
54. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
55. hexachloroethane
56. 1,1-dichloroethane
57. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
58. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
59. chloroethane
60. 1,1-dichloroethylene
61. 1,2-trans~dichloroethylene
62. 1,2-dichloropropane
63. 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,2-dichloropropene)
64. methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
65. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
66. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
67. bromoform (tribromomethane)
68. dichlorobromomethane
69. chlorodibromomethane
70. hexachlorobutadiene
71. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
72. tetrachloroethylene
73. chloroform (trichloromethane)
74. trichloroethylene
75. aldrine
76. dieldrin
77. chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
78. 4,4'-DDT
79. 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
80. 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
B1. a-endosulfan-Alpha
82. b-endosulfan-Beta
83. endosulfan sulfate
84. endrin
85. endrin aldehyde
86. endrin ketone
87. heptachlor
88. heptachlor epoxide
8 9. a-BHC-Alpha
90. b-BHC-Beta
91. r-BHC (lindane)-Gamma
92. g-BHC-Delta
93. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
94. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
95. toxaphene
96. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
97. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
98. parachlorometa cresol
99. 2-chlorophenol
100. 2,4-d i chloropheno1
101. 2,4-dimethylphenol
102. 2-nitrophenol
394
-------
103. 4-nitrophenol
104. 2,4-dinitrophenol
105. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
1 06. pentachlorophenol
107. phenol
108. cyanide (Total)
109. asbestos (Fibrous)
110. arsenic (Total)
111. antimony (Total)
112. beryllium (Total)
113. cadmium (Total)
114. chromium (Total)
115. copper (Total)
116. lead (Total)
117. mercury (Total)
118. nickel (Total)
119. selenium (Total)
120. silver (Total)
121. thallium (Total)
122. zinc (Total)
395
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
APPENDIX C
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
INTRODUCTION
EPA Protocols Used
The analytical effort for the Timber Products Processing Point
Source Category began in November 1976 with the analyses of
screening samples. The protocol available at that time was the
draft "Protocol for the Measurement of Toxic Substances," U.S.
EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 1976.
Analyses of verification samples were conducted from February
1977 to May 1978, by which time the protocol, "Sampling and
Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents," March
1977 (revised April 1977) was available.
Nature of the Samples
The wastewaters analyzed are characterized by BOD values as high
as 7,500 mg/1, suspended solids concentrations as high as 3,000
mg/1, and Oil and Grease values as high as 10,000 mg/1. Such
gross quantities of materials in the samples provided the
potential for interference during workup and subsequent analysis.
High concentrations of dissolved organics also imposed
constraints on the achievable sensitivity.
This problem was partially circumvented by the use of smaller
sample aliquots and by dilution of the resulting extract. The
interference was not of consequence when analyzing classical or
inorganic parameters. Clean-up procedures could be used for
specific parameters, but the need for screening and verification
data on a large number of compounds precludes the use of general
clean-up procedures.
Overview of Methods
The toxic pollutants may be considered according to the broad
classification of organics and metals. The organic toxic
pollutants constitute the larger group and were analyzed
according to the categories of purgeable volatiles, extractable
semi-volatiles, and pesticides and PCB's. The principal
analytical method for identification and quantitation of organic
toxic pollutants, other than pesticides and PCB's, was repetitive
scanning GC/MS.
In the screening phase, GC/MS compound identification was made in
terms of the proper chromatographic retention time and comparison
of the entire mass spectrum with that of an authentic standard or
that from a reference work when the standard was not available or
the substance was too toxic to obtain.
397
-------
Compound quantitation was performed in terms of the integrated
areas of individual peaks in the total ion current chromatogram
compared with an external standard.
In the verification phase, compound identification was based on
the following criteria: (1) appropriate retention time within a
window defined as ± 1 minute that of the compound in the
standard; (2) coincidence of the extracted ion current profile
maxima of two (volatiles) or three (extractables) characteristic
ions enumerated in the protocol; and (3) proper relative ratios
of these extracted ion current profile peaks.
Toxic pollutants were quantitated with direct integration of peak
areas from extracted ion current profiles and relative response
factors in terms of the internal standard dlO- anthracene.
An alternate GC/FID procedure (Chriswell, Chang, and Fritz, Anal.
Chem., 47., 1325, (1975)) was employed for the phenols for the
screening samples. In the procedure, phenol samples were steam
distilled and the resultant distillate was subjected to the ion
exchange separation followed by GC/FID identification and
quantitation.
The use of this method was prompted because of the severe
emulsion problems encountered when extracting the samples by the
draft protocol method. Recovery data for the draft protocol
method was unacceptable for these wastewaters and therefore this
procedure was substituted.
In both screening and verification phases the pesticides and
PCB's were analyzed by the use of GC/ECD. Identification was
based on retention time relative to a standard injected under the
same conditions. Quantitation was based on peak area for the
same standard injection. The metals were done by flameless
atomic absorption and all classical parameters were done by
standard methods. There were slight differences between the
screening method and verification method that were largely due to
the evolution of the analytical protocol to its present form.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS
Volatile Toxic Pollutants
The purgeable volatile toxic pollutants are those compounds which
possess a relatively high vapor pressure and low water
solubility. These compounds are readily stripped with high
efficiency from the water by bubbling an inert gas through the
sample at ambient temperature.
The analytical methodology employed for the volatiles was based
on the dynamic headspace technique of Bellar and Lichtenberg.
This procedure consists of two steps. Volatile organics are
purged from the raw-water sample onto a Tenax GC-silica gel trap
with a stream of inert gas. The volatile organics are then
398
-------
thermally desorbed into the GC inlet for subsequent GC/MS
identification and quantitation.
The purgable volatile toxic pollutants considered in the final
verification phase are listed in Table C-l.
A 5 ml aliquot of the raw water sample was purged at ambient
temperature with He for 12 minutes onto a 25 cm x 1/8 in. o.d.
stainless steel trap containing an 18 cm bed of Tenax GC 60/80
mesh and a 5 cm bed of Davison Grade 15 silica gel 35/60 mesh.
This 5 ml aliquot represented a single sample or a composite of
the various volatile samples collected at the individual station.
The organics were thermally desorbed from the trap for 4 minutes
at 180° with a He flow of 30 ml/min into the GC inlet. The
collection of repetitively scanned mass spectra was initiated
with the application of heat to the trap. The enumeration of all
instrument parameters is presented in Table C-2.
The gross quantities of organics contained in many of the process
waste streams necessitated preliminary screening of samples. To
accomplish such screening, a 10 ml portion of the sample was
extracted with a single portion of solvent and the extract was
subjected to GC/FID analysis to permit the judicious selection of
appropriate sample volume, i.e., less than 5 ml, for purge and
trap analysis.
Although nonvolatile compounds purge poorly, significant
quantities can accumulate on the analytical column from samples
containing high levels of these materials. A column of 0.1
percent SP-1000 (Carbomax 20M esterified with nitroterephthalic
acid) on 80/100 mesh Carbopac C was employed for the verification
phase. The greater temperature stability of the SP-1000
stationary phase, as compared with the lower molecular weight
Carbomax 1500, permitted column bake out at elevated temperatures
for extended periods of time without adverse effects.
The purge and trap apparatus employed emphasized? (1) short-
heated transfer lines, (2) low dead-volume construction, (3)
manually-operated multiport valve, and (4) ready replacement of
all component parts. Although the operation of the purge and
trap apparatus is straightforward conceptually, cross
contamination between samples and/or standards can be a serious
problem. This design permitted the ready substitution of
component parts with thoroughly preconditioned replacement parts
when serious contamination was indicated by system blanks.
Foaming tended to be excessive with a number of the samples,
particularly those analyzed neat. The brief application of
localized heat to the foam trap, as foam began to accumulate, was
effective in breaking the foam.
A stock standard was prepared on a weight basis by dissolving the
volatile solutes in methanol'. Intermediate concentrations
399
-------
prepared by dilution were employed to prepare aqueous standards
at the 20 and 100 ppb levels. A 5 ml aliquot of these standards
was analyzed in a manner identical to that employed with the
samples. The attendant reconstructed total ion current
chromatogram for a purgeable volatile organic standard is
presented in Figure C-l.
Semivolatile Toxic Pollutants
The extractable semivolatile toxic pollutants are compounds which
are readily extracted with methylene chloride. They are
subjected to a solubility class separation by serial extraction
of the sample with methylene chloride at pH of 11 or greater and
at pH 2 or less. This provides the groups referred to as base
neutrals and acidics (phenolics), respectively.
Base neutrals and phenolics were fractionated on the basis of a
solubility class separation. Due to the widely varying chemical
and physical properties possessed by the individual semivolatile
toxic pollutants, the whole sample, i.e., suspended solids, etc.,
was subjected to extraction. Enumeration of the base neutrals
and acidic semivolatiles is provided in Tables C-3 and C-4. A 1-
liter sample was subjected to two successive extractions with
three portions of methylene chloride (150, 75, and 75 ml) at pH
11 or greater and pH 2 or less to provide the base neutral and
acidic fractions, respectively.
Emulsions were broken by the addition of Na2S04 or methanol or
simply by standing.
The extract from each fraction was dried by passage through
Na2S04, and and the volume was reduced with a Kuderna-Danish
evaporator to 5 to 10 ml. The extract was further concentrated
to 1 ml in the Kuderna-Danish tube under a gentle stream of
organic-free nitrogen.
The solvent volume was reduced to 1.0 ml spiked with 10 ul of the
dlOanthracene internal standard soution of 2 ug/ul and subjected
to GC/MS analysis.
The presence of gross quantities of a variety of organics in the
extracts of many of the process waste streams necessitated
screening of all extracts by GC/FID prior to GC/MS analysis.
Sample extracts were diluted as indicated by the GC/FID scan and
subjected to GC/MS analysis. A reconstructed total ion current
400
-------
Table C-l. Purgeable Volatile Toxic Pollutants
chloromethane
ethylbenzene
bromomethane
dichlorodif1uoromethane
chloroethane
vinyl chloride
trichlorofluoromethane
methylene chloride
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
chloroform
bis-chloromethyl ether (d)
1,1,1-trichloroethane
trans-11,3-dichloropropene
bromodi ch1oromethane
dibromochloromethane
1,2-di chloropropane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
cis-1,3-d i ch1oropropene
bromoform
benzene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene
toluene
chlorobenzene
401
-------
Table C-2. Parameters for Volatile Organic Analysis
Purge Parameters
Gas
Purge duration
Purge volume
Purge temperature
Trap
Desorption temperature
Desorption time
GC Parameter
Column
Carrier
Program
Separator
MS Parameters
Instrument
Mass Range
Ionization Mode
Ionization Potential
Emission Current
Scan time
He 40 ml/min
12 min
5 ml
Ambient
7 in Tenax GC 60/80 mesh plus
2 in Davison Grade 15 silica gel
35/60 mesh in 10 in x 1/8 in
o.d. ss
180°
4 min
8 ft x 1/8 in, nickel, 0.1% SP-1000
on Carbopac C 80/100
He 30 ml/min
50° isothermal 4 min then 8°/min to
175° isothermal 10 min
Single-stage glass jet at 185°
Hewlett Packard 5985A
35-335 amu
Electron impact
70 eV
200 uA
2 sec
402
-------
o
oe
t o
II
c
c
3
u
p
a
i
o
-a
3 §
3
C
5
s
D
u
£
O
cc
CL
CC
O
a.
ETHYLBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE 4 1,4 - DICHLOROBUTANE
1,1,2,2 - TETRACHLOROETHANE
BROMOFORM
CIS -1,3 - DICHLOROPROPENE
1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE & BENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE -
TRANS - 1,3 - DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2 - DICHLOROPROPANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1,1,1 - TRICHLOROETHANE
TRANS - 1,2 - DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2 - DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
1,1 - DICHLOROETHANE
1,1 - DICHLOROETHYLENE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
ACETONE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
<9
W
U)
©
Ul
403
-------
Table C-3. Base Neutral Extractables
1,3-dichlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
nitrobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
N-n itrosod ipheny1am i ne
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
anthracene
diethylphthalate
pyrene
benzidine
chrysene
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
indeno(1,2, 3-cd)pyrene
benzo(g h i)perylene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
endrin aldehyde
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
naphthalene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
acenaphthylene
isophorone
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2, 4-dinitrotoluene
hexachlorobenzene
phenanthrene
dimethylphthalate
fluoranthene
di-n-butylphthaiate
butyl benzylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
benzo(b)f1uoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
dibenzo(a, h)anthracene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
4-chloro-phenyl phenyl ether
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
bis(chloromethyl) ether
Table C-4. Acidic Extractables
2-chlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
phenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
4-chloro-m-cresol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
404
-------
chromatogram for base neutrals and for phenolic standard are
shown in Figures C-2 and C-3, respectively.
GC/MS instrument parameters employed for the analysis of base
neutrals and phenolics are presented in Tables C-5 and C-6.
The SP-1240 DA chromatographic phase employed for the analysis
phenolic extracts in the verification phase provided superior
performance as compared with that achieved on Tenax GC. The SP-
1240 DA phase provided improved separation, decreased tailing,
decreased adsorption of nitrophenols and pentachlorophenol, and
increased column life.
Emulsion formation in basic solution under the protocol
conditions precluded an efficient extraction of phenolic
compounds. An alternate procedure, requiring a separate portion
of sample for the acidic extraction, was employed to minimize
this problem in the verification phase.
A 1-liter portion of sample was adjusted to pH of 2 or less and
extracted with three portions of methylene chloride (100, 75, and
75 ml). These extracts were combined and" the acidic compounds
were backextracted with two 100 ml portions of aqueous base (pH
12). The basic aqueous extracts were then acidified to pH of 2
or less and extracted again with two 100 ml portions of methylene
chloride. The resultant extract was then processed as discussed
above under protocol procedure.
PESTICIDES AND PCB's
Pesticides and PCB's were extracted and analyzed as a separate
sample. These compounds were analyzed by gas chromatograph with
electron capture detection (GC/ECD). Only when the compounds
were present at high levels were the samples subjected to GC/MS
confirmation.
The need for the increase in concentration is due to the
sensitivity of the GC/MS as compared to the GC/ECD. The absolute
detection limit for pesticides by GC/MS is approximately 2 parts
per billion. GC/ECD. detection limit varies due to the degree of
chlorination, but ranges from one-half part per billion for PCB's
to 50 parts per trillion for chlorinated pesticides. The
implications of this fact are that all pesticides and PCB's that
are reported below 2 ppb have been confirmed on two columns using
GC/ECD, but not confirmed on GC/MS. Table C-7 presents the
GC/ECD parameters employed for the analysis of pesticides and
PCB's.
The procedure used for the analysis of pesticides and PCB's was
taken from the Federal Register. Figure C-4 is a graphic
demonstration of the step-by-step procedure used in this
analysis.
405
-------
C0
—I
<
cc
H*
3
III
LU
V)
<
m
cc
O
u.
<
cc
o
O
|m*
<
s
o
cc
X
o
yj
cc
CC
z>
o
<
|wn
o
h-
O
111
h
Q
QC
S
o
O
111
QC
BENZO (Q,H,I) PERYLENE
DIBENZO (A,H) ANTHRACENE
INDENO (1,2,3 - C.O) PYRENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE.
BENZO (A) ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS (2 - ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHYLATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHYLATE
Dl-N - BUTYLPHTHYLATE
N - NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
DIETHYLPHTHYLATE
AZOBENZENE
1,2,4 - TRICHLOROBENZENE &
HEXACHLOROBUT ADIENE
3,3' - DICHLOROBENZIDINE
BENZIDINE
PYRENE -
FLUORANTHENE
PHENANTHRENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
PLUORENE
DIMETHYLPHTHYLATE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
NAPHTHALENE
N • NITROSODIPROPYLAMINE
2 - CHLORONAPHTHALENE«
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENT ADIENE •
1,2 - DICHLOROBENZENE &
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1,4 - DICHLOROBENZENE.
1,3 - DICHLOROBENZENE"
.(A
f
e*
¦
O
9
E
3
O)
II
*
-8
•HI
(U
.IT
.in
406
-------
Q
e
<
a
z
<
H-
CO
O
~
o
z
Ui
z
0.
cc
o
u.
s
<
s
o
o
<
s
O
CC
X
o
4 • NITR0PHEN0L
PENTACHLOROPHENOL•
2,4-OINITROPHENOL + 4,6 • PIN1TR0 • 0 • CRESOL
0,o • ANTHRACENE"
AJ
U®
_03
H
-(0
.ui
y-f
-
-------
Table C-5. Parameters for Base Neutral Analysis
GC Parameters
Column
Carrier
Program
Injector
Separator
Injection Volume
MS Parameters•
Instrument
Mass Range
Ionization Mode
Ionization Potential
Emission Current
Scan time
6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP-2250 on 100/120 mesh
Supelcoport
He 30 ml/min
50° isothermal 4 min then 8°/min
275° for 8 min
285°
Single-stage glass jet at 275°
2 ul
Hewlett Packard 5985 A
35-335 amu
Electron impact
70 eV
200 uA
2.4 sec
Table C-6. Parameters for Phenolic Analysis
GC Parameters
Column
Carrier
Program
Injector
Separator
Injection Volume
MS Parameters
Instrument
Mass Range
Ionization Mode
Ionization Potential
Emission Current
Scan time
6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP-1240 DA on 100/120 mesh
Supelcoport
He 30 ml/min
90 to 200° at 8°/min with 16 min
hold
250°
Single-stage glass jet at 250°
2 ul
Hewlett Packard 5985 A
35-335 amu
Electron impact
70 eV
200 uA
2.4 sec
408
-------
FLOW CHART FOR PESTICIDES AND PCB'S
Sample Received
Adjust pH
Measure Volume
Serial
Solvent Extraction
Fraction I
Containing
PCB
Concentration
Silica Gel
Separation
Fraction II
Containing
TOX, Chlordane, DDT
1
Fraction III
Containing
Cyclodienes
Concentration
GC/ECD
Column I
GC/ECD
Column II
Quantitati on
GCMS
Conf.
Concentration
GC/ECD
Column I
GC/ECD
Column II
GCMS
GCMS
Conf.
Conf.
Quantitation
J
Tabu"
at ion
Report
Concentration
GC/ECD .
Column I
GC/ECD
Column II
Quantitation
409
Figure €-4
-------
The compounds of interest are listed in Table C-8 and a
chromatogram of some selected representatives is shown in Figure
C-5.
METALS
Metals analyzed consisted of the following
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Mercury
Silver
With the exception of mercury, the screening metal analyses were
performed by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma at the EPA
Laboratory in Chicago. Mercury samples were collected separately
in 500-ml glass containers with nitric acid preservative and
analyzed by the standard cold vapor technique.
Metals analysis for the verification phase were performed by
atomic absorption according to the protocol method. This method
entailed the complete digestion of the samples with strong acid
and peroxide, then injection into a graphite furnace.
Quantitation was accomplished by the standard addition method.
TRADITIONAL OR CLASSICAL PARAMETERS
The traditional parameters investigated included:
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
Oil and Grease
Total Phenol
Total Cyanide
All of these parameters were analyzed by standard methods. There
were no deviations from these methods , noted for any of the
analyses.
The colormetric protocol method for cyanide entailed the steam
distillation of cyanide from strongly acidic solution. The
hydrogen cyanide gas was absorbed in a solution of sodium
hydroxide, and the color was developed with addition of pyridine-
pyrazolone.
.410
-------
Table C-7. GC/ECD Parameters for Pesticide and PCB Analysis
Column
6 ft x 1/8-in glass
1.5% OV-17/1.95% QF-1
Confirmation 6% SFc-30/4% OV210
On Supelcoport 80/100
Carrier
5% methane/Argon
50 ml/min
Program
200°C isothermal
Ni63 Fc CD
Table C-8. Pesticides and PCB's
a-endosulfan
a-BHC
r-BHC
d-BHC delta
-BHC
aldrin
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
b-endosulfan
dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4/4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
endrin
endrin aldehyde
endosulfan sulfate
chlordane
toxaphene
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
411
-------
o
<0
4,4 - DDT
4,4 - DDD
CM
-------
APPENDIX D
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) By
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion
To Obtain (Metric Units)
Abbreviation Metric Unit
acre ac
acre-feet ac ft
British Thermal BTU
Unit
British Thermal BTU/lb
Unit/pound
cubic feet cfm
per minute
cubic feet cfs
per second
cubic feet cu ft
cubic feet cu ft
cubic inches cu in
degree Farenheit °F
feet
gallon
gallon per
minute
ft
gal
gpm
gallon per ton gal/ton
horsepower
inches
pounds per
square inch
hp
in
psi
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
4. 173
0.7457
2.54
0.06803
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
oc
m
1
1/sec
1/kkg
kw
cm
atm
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram-
calories
kilogram
calories
per kilo-
gram.
cubic meters
per minute
cubic meters
per minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centi-
meters
degree
Centigrade
meters
liter
liters per
. second
liters per
metric ton
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
(absolute)
413
-------
APPENDIX D
(continued)
Multiply (English Units) By To Obtain (Metric Units
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
million gallons MGD
per day
pounds per square
inch (gauge) psi
pounds lb
board feet b.f.
ton ton
mile mi
square feet ft2
3.7 x 10-3
cu m/day
(0.06805 psi + 1)* atm
0.454 kg
0.0023 cu m, m3
0.907 kkg
1.609 km
.0929 m2
cubic meters
per day
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters
metric ton
kilometer
square meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier.
414
-------
APPENDIX E
LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Cooke and Graham (1965) performed laboratory scale studies on the
biological degradation of phenolic wastes by the completed mixed
activated sludge system. While many of the basic parameters
needed for design were not presented, the final results were
conclusive. The feed liquors contained phenolic compounds,
thiocyanates, ammonia, and organic acids. Aeration varied from 8
to 50 hours. Influent concentration and percentage removal of
total phenols averaged 281 mg/1 and 78 percent, respectively, at
a volumetric loading of 144 to 1,600 kg/100 cubic meters/day (9
to 100 lb/1,000 cubic feet/day).
Badger and Jackman (1961), studying bacteriological oxidation of
total phenols in aerated reaction vessels on a continuous flow
basis with a loading of approximately 1,600 to 2,400 kg/1,000
cubic meters/day (100 to 150 lb of total phenols/1,000 cubic
feet/day) and MLSS of 2,000 mg/1, found that with wastes
containing up to 5,000 mg/1 total phenols, a two-day retention
period could produce removal efficiencies in excess of 90
percent. Because the investigators were working.with a coke
gasification plant waste, the liquor contained thiocyanates.
Higher oxidation efficiencies could be achieved with a reduction
of the thiocyanate in the waste. Gas» chromatography indicated no
phenolic end products of degradation with original waste being a
mixture of 36 percent monohydric and 64 percent polyhydric
phenols.
Pruessner and Mancini (1967) obtained a 99 percent oxidation
efficiency for BOD in petrochemical wastes. Similarly, Coe
(1952) reported reductions of both BOD and total phenols of 95
percent from petroleum wastes in bench-scale tests of the
activated sludge process. Optimum BOD loads of 2,247
kilograms/1,000 cubic meters per day (140 lb/1,000 cubic feet per
day) were obtained. Coke plant effluents were successfully
treated by Ludberg and Nicks (1969), although some difficulty in
start-up of the activated sludge system was experienced because
of the high total phenols content of the water.
The complete mixed, activated sludge process was employed to
process a high phenolic wastewater from a coal-tar distilling
plant in Ontario (American Wood Preservers' Association, 1960).
Initial total phenols and COD concentrations of 500 and 6,000
mg/liter, respectively, were reduced in excess of 99 percent for
total phenols and 90 percent for COD.
Coal gas washing liquor was successfully treated by Nakashio
(1969) using activated sludge at a loading rate of 0.116 kg of
total phenols/kg MLSS/day. An influent total phenols
415
-------
concentration of 1,200 mg/1 was reduced by more than 99 percent
in this year-long study. Similar total phenols removal rates
were obtained by Reid and Janson (1955) in treating wastewaters
generated by the washing and decarbonization of aircraft engine
parts. Other examples of biological treatment of phenolic wastes
include work by Putilena (1952, 1955), Meissner (1955), and
Shukov, et al. (1957, 1959).
Of particular interest is a specific test on the biological
treatment of coke plant wastes containing phenolic compounds and
various organics. In a report of pilot and full scale studies
performed by Kostenbader and Flacksteiner (1969), the complete
mixed activated sludge process achieved greater than 99.8 percent
oxidation efficiency of total phenols. Successful results were
achieved with total phenols loadings of 0.86 kg total phenols/kg
MLSS/day with an equivalent BOD loading of 2 kg BOD/kg MLSS/day.
In comparison, a typical activated sludge loading is 0.4 kg
BOD/kg MLSS/day. Effluent concentrations of total phenols from
the pilot plant were 0.2 mg/1 in contrast to influent
concentrations of 3,500 mg/1. Slight variations in process
efficiency were encountered with varying temperatures and loading
rates. Phosphoric acid was added to achieve a phosphorus-to-
total phenols ratio of 1:70. At the termination of pilot plant
work, a similar large scale treatment plant processing of 424
cubic meters/day (112,000 gpd) was installed and resulted in an
effluent containing less than 0.1 mg/1 of total phenols.
Dust and Thompson (1972) conducted bench-scale tests of complete
mixed activated sludge treatment of creosote and
pentachlorophenol wastewaters using 5-liter units and detention
times of 5, 10, 15, and 20 days. The operational data collected
at steady-state conditions of substrate removal for the creosote
waste are shown in Table E-l. A plot of these data showed that
the treatability factor, K, was 0.30 days-1 (Figure E-l). The
resulting design equation, ' with t expressed in days, is: Le =
Lo/(1 + 0.30t)
A plpt of percent COD removal versus detention time in the
aerator based on the above equation, shown in Figure E-2,
indicates that an oxidation efficiency of about 90. percent can be
expected with a detention time of 20 days in. units of this type.
Dust and Thompson (1972) also attempted to determine the degree
of biodegradability of pentachlorophenol waste. Cultures of
bacteria prepared from soil removed from a drainage ditch
containing pentachlorophenol waste were used to inoculate the
treatment units. Feed to the units contained 10 mg/1iter of
pentachlorophenol and 2,400 mg/1iter COD. For the two 5-liter
units (A and B) the feed was 500 and 1,000 ml/day and detention
times were, in order, 10 and 5 days. Removal rates for penta-
chlorophenol and COD are given in Table E-2. For the first 20
days, Unit A removed only 35 percent of the pentachlorophenol
added to the unit. However, removal increased dramatically
afterward and averaged 94 percent during the remaining 10 days of
416
-------
the study. Unit B consistently removed over 90 percent of the
pentachlorophenol added. Beginning on the 46th day and
continuing through the 51st day, pentachlorophenol loading was
increased at two-day intervals to a maximum of about 59 mg/liter.
Removal rates for the 3 two-day periods of increased loadings
were 94, 97, and 99 percent. COD removal for the two units
averaged about 90 percent over the duration of the study.
Also working with the activated sludge process, Kirsh and Etzel
(1972) obtained removal rates for pentachlorophenol in excess of
97 percent using an 8-hour detention time and a feed
concentration of 150 mg/liter. The pentachlorophenol was
supplied to the system in a mixture that included 100 mg/liter
phenol. Essentially complete decomposition of the phenol was
obtained, along with a 92 percent reduction in COD.
Cooper and Catchpole (1969) reported greater than 95 percent
oxidation of total phenols using activated sludge units treating
coke plant effluents containing phenolic compounds, thiocyanates,
and sulfides. Adequate data were not available on the detailed
operating parameters of the activated sludge plant.
TRICKLING FILTERS
Hsu, Yany, and Weng (1967) reported successful treatment of coke
plant phenolic wastes with a trickling filter, removing over 80
percent of total phenols. It was stated that influent total
phenols concentrations should not exceed 100 mg/liter.
Using a Surfpac trickling filter, Francingues (1970) was able to
remove 80 to 90 percent of the influent total phenols from a wood
preserving creosote wastewater at a loading rate of about 16
kg/1,000 cubic meters/day (1 pound total phenols/1,000 cubic
feet/day).
Sweets, Hamdy, and Weiser (1954) studied the bacteria responsible
for total phenols reductions in industrial waste and reported
good total phenols removal from synthesized waste containing
concentrations of 400 mg/1. Reductions of 23 to 28 percent were
achieved in a single pass of the wastev-ater through a pilot
trickling filter having a filter bed only 30 centimeters (12
inches) deep.
Waters containing total phenols concentrations of up to 7,500
mg/1 were successfully treated in laboratory tests conducted by
Reid and Libby (1957). Total phenols removals of 80 to 90
percent were obtained for concentrations on the order of 400
mg/1. Their work confirmed that of Ross and Shepard (1955) who
found that strains of bacteria isolated from a trickling filter
could survive total phenols concentrations of 1,600 mg/liter and
were able to oxidize total phenols in concentrations of 450
mg/liter at better than 99 percent efficiency. Reid, Wortman,
and Walker (1956) found that many pure cultures of bacteria were
able to live in total phenols concentrations of up to 200 mg/1,
417
-------
and although the bacteria survived concentrations above 900 mg/1,
some were grown in concentrations as high as 3,700 mg/1.
Harlow, Shannon, and Sercu (1961) described the operation of a
commercial size trickling filter containing "Dowpac" filter
medium that was used to process wastewater containing 25 mg/1
total phenols and 450 to 100 mg/1 BOD. Reductions of 96 percent
for total phenols and 97 percent for BOD were obtained in this
unit. Their results compare favorably with those reported by
Montes, Allen, and Schowell (1956) who obtained BOD reductions of
90 percent in a trickling filter using a 1:2 recycle ratio, and
Dickerson and Laffey (1958), who obtained total phenols and BOD
reductions of 99.9 and 96.5 percent, respectively, in a trickling
filter used to process refinery wastewater.
A combination biological waste treatment system employing a
trickling filter and an oxidation pond was reported by Davies,
Biehl, and Smith (1967). The filter, which was packed with a
plastic medium, was used for a roughing treatment of 10.6 million
liters (2.8 million gallons) of wastewater per day, with final
treatment occurring in the oxidation pond. Removal rates of 95
percent for total phenols and 60 percent for BOD were obtained in
the filter, notwithstanding the fact that the pH of the influent
averaged 9.5.
A study of biological treatment of refinery wastewaters by
Austin, Meehan, and Stockham (1954) employed a series of four
trickling filters, with each filter operating at a different
recycle ratio. The waste contained 22 to 125 mg/1 of oil which
adversely affected BOD removal. However, total phenols removal
was unaffected by oil concentrations within the range studies.
Prather and Gaudy (1964) found that significant reductions of
COD, BOD, and total phenols concentrations in refinery wastewater
were achieved by simple aeration treatments. They concluded that
this phenomenon accounted for the high allowable loading rates
for biological treatments such as trickling filtration.
The practicality of using trickling filters for secondary
treatment of wastewaters from the wood preserving industry was
explored by Thompson and Dust (1972). Creosote wastewater was
applied at BOD loading rates of from 400 to 3,050 kg/1,000 cu
m/day (25 to 190 lb/1,000 cu ft/day) to a pilot unit containing a
6.4 meter- (21 foot-) filter bed of plastic media. The
corresponding total phenols loadings were 1.6 to 54.6 kg/ 1,000
cu m/day (0.1 to 3.4 lb/1,000 cu ft/day). Raw feed-to-recycle
ratios varied from 1:7 to 1:28. Daily samples were analyzed over
a period of seven months that included both winter and summer
operating conditions. Because of wastewater characteristics at
the particular plant cooperating in the study, the following
pretreatment steps were necessary: (1) equalization of wastes;
(2) primary treatment by coagulation for partial solids removal;
(3) dilution of the wastewater to obtain BOD loading rates
commensurate with the raw flow levels provided by the equipment;
418
-------
and (4) addition to the raw feed of supplementary nitrogen and
phosphorus. Dilution ratios of 0 to 14 were used.
The efficiency of the system was essentially stable for BOD
loadings of less than 1,200 kg/1,000 cu m/day (75 lb/1,000 cu
ft/day). The best removal rate was achieved when the hydraulic
application rate was 2.85 1/min/m (0.07 gpm/sq ft) of raw waste
and 40.7 1/min/m (1.0 gpm/sq ft) of recycled waste. The COD,
BOD, and total phenols removals obtained under these conditions
are given in Table E-3. Table E-4 shows the relationship between
BOD loading rate and removal efficiency. BOD removal efficiency
at loading rates of 1,060 kg/1,000 cu m/day (66 lb/ 1,000 cu
ft/day) was on the order of 92 percent, and was not improved at
reduced loadings. Comparable values for total phenols at loading
rates of 19.3 kg/1,000 cu m/day (1.2 pounds/1,000 cu ft/day) were
about 97 percent.
Since total phenols concentrations were more readily reduced to
levels compatible with existing standards than were BOD
concentrations, the sizing of commercial units was based on BOD
removal rates. Various combinations of filter-bed depths, tower
diameters, and volumes of filter media that were calculated to
provide a BOD removal rate of 90 percent for an influent having a
BOD of 1,500 mg/1 are shown in Table E-5 for a plant with a flow
rate of 75,700 1/day (20,000 gpd).
STABILIZATION PONDS
The American Petroleum Institute's "Manual on Disposal of
Refinery Wastes" (1960) refers to several industries that have
successfully used oxidation ponds to treat phenolic wastes.
Montes (1956) reported on results of field studies involving the
treatment of petrochemical wastes using oxidation ponds. He
obtained BOD reductions of 90 to 95 percent in ponds loaded at
the rate of 84 kg of BOD per hectare per day (75 lb/acre/day).
Total phenols concentrations of 990 mg/1 in coke oven effluents
were reduced by about 7 mg/1 in field studies of oxidation ponds
conducted by Biczyski and Suschka (1967). Similar results have
been reported by Skogen (1967) for a refinery waste.
The literature contains operating data on only one pond used for
treating wastewater from wood preserving operations (Crane, 1971;
Gaudy, et al_., 1 965; Gaudy, 1971). The oxidation pond is used as
part of a waste treatment system by a wood preserving plant. As
originally designed and operated in the early 1960's, the waste
treatment system consisted of holding tanks into which water from
oil-recovery system flowed. From the holding tanks the water was
sprayed into a terraced hillside from which it flowed into a
mixing chamber adjacent to the pond. Here it was diluted 1:1
with creek water, fertilized with ammonia and phosphates, and
discharged into the pond proper. Retention time in the pond was
45 days. The quality of the effluent was quite variable, with
total phenols content ranging up to 40 mg/1. In 1966, the system
419
-------
was modified by installing a raceway containing a surface aerator
and a settling basin in a portion of the pond. The discharge
from the mixing chamber now enters a raceway where it is treated
with a flocculating agent. The resulting floe collects in the
settling basin. Detention time is 48 hours in the raceway and 18
hours in the settling basin from which the wastewater enters the
pond proper.
These modifications in effect changed the treating system from an
oxidation pond to a combination aerated lagoon and polishing
pond, and the effect on the quality of the effluent was dramatic.
Figure E-3 shows the total phenols content at the outfall of the
pond before and after installation of the aerator. As shown by
these data, total phenols content decreased abruptly from an
average of about 40 mg/1 to 5 mg/1.
Even with the modifications described, the efficiency of the
system remains seasonably dependent. Table E-6 gives total
phenols and BOD values for the pond effluent by month for 1968
and 1970. The smaller fluctuations in these parameters in 1970
as compared with 1968 indicate a gradual improvement in the
system.
*
Amberg (cir. 1964) reported on an aerated lagoon with an oxygen
supply of 2,620 kg/day which (5,770 lb/day) was used to treat
Whitewater with a design BOD load of 2,780 kg/day (6,120 lb/day).
The lagoon was uniformly mixed and had an average dissolved
oxygen concentration of 2.9 mg/1.
Suspended solids increased across the lagoon as a result of
biological floe formation, but could be readily removed by
subsequent sedimentation. The final effluent averaged 87 mg/1
suspended solids during the three days of the study.
The overall plant efficiency for BOD removal was 94 percent,
producing a final effluent with an average BOD concentration of
60 mg/1.
Quirk (1969) reported on a pilot plant study of aerated
stabilization of boxboard wastewater. Detention times ranged
from 0.5 to 0.6 day. The study indicated that full-scale
performance, with nutrient addition, could achieve a 90 percent
reduction of BOD with a detention time of 4 days.
420
-------
Table E-l. Substrate Removal at Steady-State Conditions in Activated
Sludge Units Containing Creosote Wastewater
Aeration Time, Days
5.0
i «
o
•
o
1 1
14.7
i <
I l
I i
1 to
1 o
~
COD Raw, mg/1
447
447
442
444
COD Effluent, mg/1
1 78
103
79
67
% COD Removal
60.1
76.9
82.2
84.8
COD Raw/COD Effluent
2.5
4.3
5.6
6.6
SOURCE: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
421
-------
71
4-
3-
1-
Siope = K = 0.30 day
1 + 0.30t
r
15
T
20
Aeration Time (Days)
Determination of Reaction Rate Constant for a Creosote Wastewater
422
Figure E-1
-------
It0.30t
SO.
I I 1 I
0 5 10 15 20
Aeration Time (days)
COD Removal from a Creosote Wastewater by Aerated Lagoon without Sludge Return
-------
Table E-2. Reduction in Pentachlorophenol and COD in Wastewater
Treated in Activated Sludge Units
Effluent from Unit
Raw Waste (% Removal)
Days (mg/1) "A" "B"
COD
I-5 2350 78 78
6-10 2181 79 79
II-15 Removal 2735 76 75
16-20 2361 82 68
21-25 2288 90 86
26-30 2490 -- 84
31-35 2407 83 80
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
I-5 7.9 20 77
6- 10 10.2 55 95
II-15 7.4 33 94
16-20 6.6 30 79
21-25 7.0 — 87
26-30 12.5 94 94
31-35 5.8 94 91
36-40 10.3 — 91
41-45 10.0 — 96
46-47 20.0 — 95
48-49 30.0 -- 97
50-51 40.0 — 99
SOURCE: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
424
-------
'able E-3. BOD, COD, and Total Phenols Loading and Removal Rates for Pilot
Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater*
Characteristics
leasurement BOD COD Total Phenols
{aw Flow Rate 1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
2.85
(0.07)
2.85
(0.07)
2.85
(0.07)
Recycle Flow Raw 1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
40.7
(1.0)
40.7
(1.0)
40.7
(1.0)
[nfluent Concentration (mg/1)
1968
3105
31
goading Rate gm/cu m/day
1075
(66.3)
1967
(121.3)
19.5
(1.2)
2ffluent Concentration (mg/1)
137
709
1.0
Removal (%)
91 .9
77.0
99+
k Based on work at the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory as
reported by Davies (1971).
425
-------
Table E-4. Relationship Between BOD Loading and Treatability for
Pilot Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater
BOD Loading
kg/cu m
BOD Loading
(lb/cu ft/day)
Removal
(%)
Treatability*
Factor
373
(23)
91
0.0301
421
(26)
95
0.0383
599
(37)
92
0.0458
859
(53)
93
0.0347
1069
(66)
92
0.0312
1231
(76)
82
0.0339
1377
(85)
80
0.0286
1863
(115)
75
0.0182
2527
(156)
62
0.0130
* Based on the equation:
Le = eKD/Q0.5 (EPA, 1976)
Lo
in which Le = BOD concentration of settled effluent, Lp = BOD of
feed, Q2 = hydraulic application rate of raw waste in gpm/sq ft,
D = depth of media in feet, and K = treatability factor (rate
coefficient).
426
-------
Table E-5. Sizing of Trickling Filter for a Wood Preserving Plant
NOTE: Data are based on a flow rate of 75,700 liters per
day (20,000 gallons per day) with filter influent
BOD of 1,500 and effluent BOD of 150 mg/1.
Depth of
Filter
Bed
m (ft)
Raw Flow
1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
Recycle Flow
1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
Filter
Surface"
Area
sq m
(sq ft)
Tower
dia
sq n
(sc £ t)
Volume
of Media
cu m
(cu ft)
3.26
0. 774
29.7
65. 8
9.14
213
(10.7)
(0.019)
(0.73)
(708)
(30.0)
(7617)
3.81
1 .059
29.3
48.3
7.83
1 83
(12.5)
(0.206)
(0.72)
(520)
(25.7)
(6529)
4.36
1 .385
28.9
37.0
6.86
1 60
(14.3)
(0.034)
(0.71)
(398)
(22.5)
. (5724)
4.91
1 .793
28.5
29. 3
6.10
142
(16.1 )
(0.044)
(0.70)
(315)
(20.0)
(5079)
5.46
2.200
28.1
23.7
5.49
1 28
(17.9)
(0.054)
(0.69)
(255)
(18.0)
(4572)
5. 97
2. 648
27.7
19.5
4. 97
1 1 6
(19.6)
(0.065)
(0.68)
(210)
(16.3)
(4156)
6.52
3. 178
27.3
16.4
4. 57
1 07
(21.4)
(0.078)
(0.67)
(177)
(15.0)
(3810)
427
-------
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
CONTENT IN OXIDATION POND EFFLUENT BEFORE AND AFTER INSTALLATION IN JUNE 1966 OF AERATOR
-------
able E-6. Average Monthly Total Phenols and BOD Concentrations in Effluent
from Oxidation Pond
1968 1970
Month Total Phenols BOD Total Phenols BOD
anuary
26
290
7
95
ebruary
27
235
9
140
arch
25
190
6
155
pril
11
150
3
95
ay
6
100
1
80
une
5
70
1
60
uly
7
90
1
35
ugust
7
70
1
45
eptember
7
110
25
ctober
16
150
—
—
ovember
7
155
—
,—
ecember
1 1
205
—
—
OURCE: Crane,
1971; Gaudy, et al.,
1965; Gaudy,
1971 .
!
429
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
APPENDIX F .
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
WOOD PRESERVING
Tertiary Metals Removal
The most difficult ion to reduce to acceptable concentrations
levels is arsenic. Treatment of water containing arsenic with
lime generally removes only about 85 percent of the metal.
Removal rates in the range of 94 to 98 percent have been reported
for filtration through ferric hydroxide. However, none of these
methods is entirely satisfactory, particularly for arsenic
concentrations above 20 mg/liter.
A detailed treatise on treatment technology for wastewater
containing heavy metals was recently published in book form
(Patterson, 1975). Methods of treatment for arsenic presented by
the author are shown in Table F-l.
Chemical precipitation and filtration employing ferric compounds
and sulfides were at least as effective as lime precipitation,
which, as indicated above, has been employed to a limited extent
by the wood preserving industry. However, with one or two
possible exceptions, none of the methods is as effective as . the
combination physical-chemical method described in the EPA report
discussed above (Technology Transfer, January 1977), particularly
when initial concentration is taken into account.' Chemical
oxidation of arsenate to arsenite prior to coagulation treatment
was reported to improve arsenic removal. Incomplete removal of
the metal by coagulation treatments was believed by the author to
be caused by the formation of a stable complex with the
precipitating metal. More complete removal of arsenite was
assumed to indicate that arsenate forms the more stable
complexes.
Among other methods of chemical precipitation, use of
thioacetamide and dibromo-oxine is mentioned in the literature
(Cadman, 1974). "Complete" recovery of chromium and zinc is
claimed for the first-named chemical, and "1 00-percent""recovery
of copper, zinc, and chromium is reported for dibromo-oxine.
Considering cost, no more efficient chemical method of removing
hexavalent chromium and copper from solution than the standard
method (reduction of chromium to trivalent form followed by lime
precipitation of both metals) is revealed by the literature.
However, to meet increasingly stringent effluent standards, some
industries have turned to an ion exchange technique.
Cadman (1974) has reported excellent results in removing metals
from wastewater using ion exchange. The resin, Chelex-100,
removed
431
-------
"essentially" 100 percent of the zinc, copper, and chromium in
his tests. Chitosan, Amberlite, and Permutit-Sl005 were also
reported to be highly effective. The Permutit resin removed 100
percent of the copper and zinc but only 10 percent of the
chromium.
Membrane Systems
This term refers to both ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis
(RO). The main difference between these two membrane systems
involves the difference in pore size of the membrane. The
ultrafiltration membrane, with the larger pore openings,
separates substances from wastewater mainly because the physical
size and shape of the molecules of the substances do not allow
them, to pass through the membrane. Ultrafiltration is employed
primarily to remove suspended solids and emulsified materials in
wastewater, although some dissolved substances of large molecular
size will also be removed. The RO membrane, with smaller pore
openings, relies on both physical separation, as utilized in
ultrafiltration, and a particle charge repulsion mechanism. RO
removes all or part of the dissolved substances, depending upon
the molecular species involved, and virtually all of the
suspended substances. Both technologies are currently used as
part of the wastewater treatment system of many diverse
industries (Lin and Lawson, 1973; Goldsmith, et ajk, 1973;
Stadnisky, 1974) and have potential application in the Wood
Preserving Industry for oil removal.
Ultrafiltration treatment of oily waste basically involves
passing the waste under a pressure of 2.1 to 3.6 atm (30 to 50
psi) over a membrane cast onto the inside of a porous fiberglass
tube. The water phase of the waste is forced through the
membrane and discarded, reused, or further processed by other
means. The oil and other solids not in solution remain in the
tube. The process in effect concentrates the waste. Volume
reductions on the order of 90 to 96 percent have been reported
(Goldsmith, et al., 1973; Stadnisky, 1974).
Results obtained in pilot- and full-scale operations of
ultrafiltration systems have been mixed. Goldsmith, et al.,
(1973), operated a pilot unit continuously (24 hours per day) for
six weeks processing waste emulsions containing 1 to 3 percent
oil. The permeate from the system, which was 95 percent of the
original volume, contained 212 mg/liter ether extractables—
primarily water-soluble surfactants. A 15,140-1/day (4,000 gpd)
system installed, based on the pilot plant data, produced a
permeate containing 25 mg/liter ether extractables. No
significant reduction in flux rate with time was observed in
either the pilot- or full-scale operation.
Ultrafiltration tests of a pentachlorophenol wastewater were
conducted by Abcor, Inc., in cooperation with the Mississippi
Forest Products Laboratory (1974). The samples contained 2,160
432
-------
mg/liter oil and had a total solids concentration of 3,900
mg/liter. Flow rate through the system was 95 1/min (25 gpm).at
a pressure of 3.3 atm (48 psi). A 26-fold volumetric
concentration, representing a volume reduction of 96.2 percent,
was achieved. Two membrane types were tested. Both showed a
flux decline on the order of 55 to 60 percent with increasing
volumetric concentration. A detergent flush of the system was
found to be necessary at the end of each run to restore the
normal flux values of 35 1/sq m/day (35 gal/sq ft/day). Oil
content of the permeate was 55 mg/liter. While this value
represents a reduction of over 97 percent, it does not meet the
requirements for stream discharge. COD was reduced 73 percent.
The principal of reverse osmosis (RO) is similar to that of
ultrafiltration. However, higher hydraulic pressures, 27.2 to
40.8 atm (400 to 600 psi), are employed and the membranes are
semipermeable and are manufactured to achieve rejection of
various molecular sizes. Efficiency varies, but rejection of
various salts in excess of 99 percent has been reported (Merten
and Bray, 1966). For organic chemicals, rejection appears to be
a function of molecular size and shape. Increases in chain
length and branching are reported to increase rejection (Durvel
and Helfgott, 1975). Total phenols are removed to the extent of
only about 20 percent by cellulose acetate membranes, while
polyethylenimine membranes increase this percentage to 70 but
achieve a lower flux rate (Fang and Chian, 1975). In case
studies that have been cited, RO was found to be competitive with
conventional waste treatment systems only when extremely high
levels of treatment were required (Kremen, 1975).
Removals of 83 percent TOC and 96 percent TDS were reported for
RO in which cellulose acetate membranes at 40.8 atm (600 psi)
were used (Boen and Jahannsen, 1974). Flux rates in this work of
129 to 136 1/sq m/day (34 to 36 gal/sq ft/day) were achieved.
However, in other work, pretreatment by carbon adsorption or sand
filtration was found to be necessary to prevent membrane fouling
(Rozelle, 1973). Work by the Institute of Paper Chemistry
(Morris, et al. , 1972) indicates that membrane fouling by
suspended solids or large molecular weight organics can be
controlled in part by appropriate pretreatment, periodic pressure
pulsations, and washing of the membrane surfaces. In this and
other work (Wiley, et al., 1972), it was concluded that RO is
effective in concentrating dilute papermill waste and produces a
clarified water that can be recycled for process purposes.
Recycling of process wastewater, following ultrafiltration and RO
treatment, was being attempted by Pacific Wood Treating Corpora-
tion, Ridgefield, Washington. The concentrated waste is
incinerated and the permeate from the system is used for boiler
feed water. The system, which cost approximately $200,000 began
operation in 1977. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the
system will be made under an EPA grant.
433
-------
Data on the use of RO with wood preserving wastewater were
provided by the cooperative work between Abcor, Inc., and the
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory referred to above (1974).
In this work, the perineate from the ultrafiltration (UF) system
was processed further in an RO unit. Severe pressure drop across
the system indicated that fouling of the membranes occurred.
However, module rejection remained consistent throughout the run.
Permeate from the system had an oil content of 17 mg/liter, down
from 55 mg/liter, and the COD was reduced by 73 percent. Total
oil removal and COD reductions in the UF and RO systems were 99
percent and 92 percent, respectively.
Adsorption on Synthetic Adsorbents
Polymeric adsorbents have been recommended for use under
conditions similar to those where carbon adsorption is indicated
(Stevens and Kerner, 1975). Advantages cited for these materials
include efficient removal of both polar and nonpolar molecules
from wastewater, ability to tailor-make an adsorbent for a
particular contaminant, small energy inputs for regeneration
compared to carbon, and lower cost compared to carbon where
carbon depletion rates are greater than 2.3 kg per 3,785 liters
(5 pounds per 1,000 gallons). Data on efficiency of polymeric
adsorbents were not presented.
Clay minerals, such as attapulgite clay, have been recommended
for use in removing certain organics and heavy metals from
wastewater (Morton and Sawyer, 1976).
Oxidation by Chlorine
The use of chlorine and hypochlorites as a treatment to oxidize
phenol-based chemicals in wastewater is widely covered in the
literature. A review of this literature, with emphasis on the
employment of chlorine in treating wood preserving wastewaters,
was presented in a recent EPA document (1973).
The continued use of chlorine as an oxidizing agent for phenols
is in question for at least two reasons. There is, first of all,
a concern over recent supply problems and the increasing cost of
the chemical (Rosfjord, et al., 1976). Secondly, chlorine
treatments of phenolic wastes form mono-, di-, and
trichlorophenols which persist unless sufficient dosages are used
to rupture the benzene ring (EPA, 1973). It is probably true
that low-level chlorine treatments of these waters are worse than
no treatment at all because of the formation of such compounds.
For these and possibly other reasons, attention has been focused
on other oxidizing agents equally as capable as chlorine of
oxidizing phenolic compounds without creating these additional
problems.
434
-------
Oxidation by Potassium Permanganate
This is a strong oxidizing agent that is being marketed as a
replacement for phenol. One vendor (Carus Chemical Company,
1971) claims that the chemical "cleaves the aromatic carbon ring
of the phenol and destroys it" and then degrades the aliphatic
chain thus created to innocuous compounds. Stoicheometrically,
7.13 kg of KMn04 are required to oxidize one kilogram of phenol.
According to Rosfjord, et al.. ( 1976), however, ring cleavage
occurs at ratios of about 7 to 1. A higher ratio is required to
reduce the residual organics to C02 and H20.
As in the case of chlorine (EPA, 1973), the presence of
oxidizable materials other than phenol in wastewater greatly
increases the amount of KMn04 required to oxidize a given amount
of phenol. In the trade literature cited above, it was stated
that $10 worth of KMnO«. was required to treat 3,785 liters (1,000
gallons) of foundry waste containing 60 to 100 mg/liter of total
phenols. Eighty milligrams per liter of total phenols in 3,785
liters (1,000 gallons) is equivalent to 0.3 kg (0.67 pounds). At
a 7:1 ratio, the treatment should have cost $2.35.
The actual ratio was 30:1 and the cost was about $15 per 0.454
kilograms (one pound) of total phenols removed. The latter
figure agrees with one vendor's data, which indicated a cost of
$0.15 per mg/liter of total phenols per 3,785 liters (1,000
gallons) of wastewater.
Limited studies conducted by the Mississippi Forest Products
Laboratory revealed no cost advantage of KMnQ4 over chlorine in
treating wood preserving wastewater. The high content of
oxidizable materials other than phenol in this type of waste
consumes so much of the chemical that massive doses are required
to eliminate phenolic compounds.
Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide
This is a powerful oxidizing agent, the efficacy of which is
apparently enhanced by the presence of ferrous sulfate which acts
as a catalyst. Reductions in total phenols content of 99.9
percent (in wastewater containing 500 mg/liter) have been
reported for H202 when applied in a 2:1 ratio (Anonymous, 1975).
A reaction time of 5 minutes was required. Ferrous sulfate
concentrations of 0.1 to 0.3 percent were used. COD concentra-
tion was reduced to 760 mg/liter from 1,105 mg/liter.
According to Eisenhauer (1964), the reaction involves the
intermediate formation of catechol and hydroquinone, which are
oxidized by the ferric ion to quinones. As is the case with
other oxidizing agents, the degree of substitution on the phenol
molecule affects the rate of reaction. Substituents in the ortho
and para positions reduced the reaction rate the most, and
complete substitution (e.g., pentachlorophenol) prevented the
435
-------
reaction from taking place. Solution pH had a significant effect
on the efficiency of the treatment. Optimum pH was in the range
of 3.0 to 4.0, with efficiency decreasing rapidly at both higher
and lower values.
Treatments of industrial wastes were reported by Eisenhauer to
require higher levels of H202 than simple phenol solutions
because of the presence of other oxidizable materials. In fact,
the required ratio of H202 to total phenols varied directly with
COD above the level contributed by the total phenols itself. At
all ratios studied with industrial wastes, total phenols levels
dropped rapidly during the early part of the reaction period,
then remained unchanged thereafter. For some types of wastes,
the addition of high concentrations of H202, up to molar ratios
of 16:1, did not cause significant further decreases in total
phenols content. Similar results have been reported for wood
preserving wastewater treated with chlorine (EPA, 1973).
Prechlorination of wastes with high COD contents reduced the
amount of H202 required in some cases, but not in others.
Hydrogen peroxide (H202) has not been used on a commercial scale
to treat wastewater from the wood preserving industry or, based
on the available literature, wastewaters from related industries.
The cost of the chemical is such that a relatively high phenol
removal efficiency must ensue to justify its use. The available
evidence suggests that, in common with other oxidizing compounds,
organics other than phenol consume so much of the reagent as to
render the treatment impractical. Its use in a tertiary treating
capacity may be practical, depending upon the residual COD of the
treated effluent.
Oxidation by Ozone
Ozone has been studied extensively as a possible treatment for
industrial wastewaters (Evans, 1972; Eisenhauer, 1970; Niegows.ki,
1956). No practical success has attended these efforts. The
literature reveals only one example in the U.S. of the
application of ozone to treat an industrial waste. Boeing
Corporation is reported to have operated a 6.8 kg/hour ozonator
to treat cyanide and phenolic wastes (McLain, 1973). Worldwide,
the situation is similar. The literature mentions a plant in
France and one in Canada, both of which use ozone to treat
cyanide and phenolic wastes from biologically treated effluents.
Conversely, there have been numerous pilot plant studies of the
application of ozone for industrial wastes, and ozone is widely
used in Europe, especially France, to treat domestic water
supplies. Pilot studies to assess the feasibility of using ozone
to treat domestic wastes have been sponsored by EPA (Wynn, et
al., 1973).
The problem is one of economics. Eisenhauer (1970) concluded
from his work that the ozonization of phenol to C02 and H2 cannot
be achieved economically. By contrast, Niegowski (1953) reported
436
-------
that in pilot plant tests of ozone, chlorine, and chlorine
dioxide, ozone was demonstrated to be the most economical
treatment for total phenols.
No example of the use of ozone to treat timber products
wastewater appears in the literature. However, one wood
preserving plant installed a small ozone generator and directed
the gas into a large lagoon. The treatment had no measurable
effect on wastewater quality.
INSULATION BOARD AND HARDBOARD
Chemically-Assisted Coagulation
Chemically-assisted clarification, as defined in this document,
is the use of coagulants or coagulant aids to increase the
settleability of biological suspended solids in the clarifier of
the biological treatment system. This technology is particularly
applicable to the fiberboard industry, as this industry relies
heavily on biological treatment for end-of-pipe pollution
control.
The mechanisms by which a coagulant aids the precipitation of
colloidal matter, such as biological suspended solids, are
discussed at length in an AWWA Committee Report (1971), "State of
the Art of Coagulation." The chemicals generally used to
increase removals of fine and colloidal particles in conjunction
with this technology are the metal salts of aluminum and iron, as
well as synthetic organic polymers.
When metal salts are used, hydrolysis products are formed which
desta bilize colloidal particles by a complex series of chemical
and physical interactions. Polyelectrolytes are extended-chain
polymers of high molecular weight. Particles are adsorbed at
sites along the chains of these polymers which interlock to form
a physical bridge, thereby destabilizing the sorbed particles.
Chemically-assisted coagulation may be used as an additional
treatment process applied to the effluent of the secondary
clarifier of the biological treatment system. This requires
separate mixing, flocculation, and settling facilities, and a
considerable capital investment. A recent study performed for
the EPA (E.C. Jordan Co., 1977) on chemically assisted
clarification (CAC) demonstrated that increased suspended solids
removal may be obtained when applying CAC as an integral part of
the biological system. The advantage to this application is that
capital and operating costs are kept at a minimum. Mixing takes
place using the natural turbulence inherent in the latter stages
of the biological system, and settling occurs in the biological
secondary clarifier.
Insulation board Plant 36 and SIS hardboard Plant 931 reported
the use of polyelectrolytes to increase solids removal in the
437
-------
biological secondary clarifiers of their respective treatment
systems. Plant 931 adds the polyelectrolyte at the influent weir
of the final settling pond; little mixing is achieved by
application of the polymer at this point. The annual average
daily TSS effluent concentration of this plant for the last four
months of 1976 (following completion of upgraded treatment
facilities) was about 488 mg/1. This represents an 81 percent
reduction in TSS in the total system.
Plant 36 adds polyelectrolyte in the aeration basin of the
activated sludge unit, achieving better mixing than Plant 931.
The annual average daily TSS concentration of the final effluent
is about 320 mg/1, which represents a 93 percent reduction in
TSS. Both plants noted increased TSS removals using the
polyelectrolyte, however, no comparable data are available to
quantify the amount of TSS reduction due to polymer addition.
Selection of the proper coagulant, point of addition, and optimum
dose for this technology can be approximated in the laboratory
using jar test procedures. Since the capital cost is minimum,
in-plant studies can be easily conducted to optimize operating
characteristics for maximum effectiveness.
Granular Media Filtration
Granular media filtration as a tertiary process for control of
biological suspended solids, is receiving growing attention in
the pulp and paper, food processing, textile, and oil refining
industries. It is a physical/electrical/chemical process
consisting of: (1) transport of the particles from the
suspension to the media; and (2) contact with and adhesion to the
media or other solids previously absorbed on the media.
There are currently no hardboard or insulation board plants using
granular filtration; however, several applications of this
technology exist in the pulp and paper industry.
The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement conducted a
pilot study to investigate the effectiveness of three
manufactured granular media filters in removing suspended solids,
BOD, and turbidity from papermaking secondary effluents (NCASI,
1973). The three filter systems were studied for TSS and BOD
removals when filtering the effluent from an integrated bleached
kraft mill and a boxboard mill. The report summarized the study
findings by stating that all three units could reduce suspended
solids concentrations and turbidity by 25 to 50 percent when
chemicals were not used. Reductions of greater than 90 percent
were possible with chemical addition.
A recent study performed for EPA on the Direct Filtration and
Chemically Assisted Clarification of Biologically Treated Pulp
and Paper Industry Wastewater concluded that, based on actual
438
-------
plant operating data, direct filtration systems can be designed
with chemical addition to achieve, on average, at least 50
percent reduction in filter effluent TSS concentration, with
maximum removals of 80 to 90 percent.
It should be noted that influent suspended solids characteristics
are an important factor in determining filter performance.
Biological treated effluent from the insulation board and
hardboard industries differs greatly from that of the pulp and
paper industry. Pilot plant studies are needed to properly
design a wastewater filter for any specific application. Actual
plant operating data will also be required to effectively
estimate actual TSS removals for the insulation board and
hardboard industries.
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Several activated carbon isotherms were performed on the treated
effluents of two hardboard plants to determine the feasibility of
carbon adsorption as a tertiary treatment for this industry.
Although the carbon was quite effective at reducing the influent
COD to one-half or less of its original concentration, the carbon
dosage required for this purpose and the rigorous pretreatment
requirements were so high as to rule out activated carbon as a
technically feasible tertiary treatment.
439
-------
Table F-l. Summary of Arsenic Treatment Methods and Removals
Achieved*
Treatment
Initial
Arsenic
(mg/1)
Final
Arsenic
(mg/1)
Percent
Removal
Charcoal Filtration
0.2
0.06
70
Lime Softening
0.2
0.03
85
Precipitation with
Lime plus Iron
—
0.05
—
Precipitation with
Alum
0.35
85-92
Precipitation with
Ferric
Sulfate
0.31-0.35
0.003-0.006
98-99
Precipitation with
Ferric
Sulfate
25.0
5
80
Precipitation with
Ferric
Chloride
3.0
0.05
98
Precipitation with
Ferric
Chloride
0.58-0.90
0.0-0.13
81-100
Precipitation with
Ferric
Hydroxide
362.0
15-20
94-96
Ferric Sulfide Filter Bed
0.8
0.05
94
Precipitation with
Sulfide
—
0.05
—
Precipitation with
Sulfide
132.0
26.4
80
* Adopted from Patterson, 1975.
440
-------
APPENDIX G
STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING
PERFORMANCE VARIABILITY OF TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Effluent limitations guidelines for the hardboard and insulation board
segment were determined by analysis of long term, historical monitor-
ing data for those biological treatment systems selected as represen-
tative of BPT or BCT for each subcategory. The long term pollutant
wasteload averages for these treatment systems were presented in
Section VII, Control and Treatment Techaology, of this document.
Treatment systems do not perform continuously at their long term
average performance level. It is necessary, therefore, to consider
the variability of such systems in relation to long term average
performance in order to develop effluent limitations.
This section presents the results of a statistical variability
analysis performed on the effluent data from representative treatment
systems in order to determine their maximum daily and maximum 30-day
effluent variabilities.
Effluent limitations presented in Sections VIII and IX .of this
document were calculated by multiplying a representative plant's long
term average wasteloads by its respective daily and 30-day variability
factors. The purpose of this appendix is to describe the methodology
used to determine appropriate variability factors used to calculate
the effluent limitations guidelines.
METHODOLOGY USED TO DEVELOP VARIABILITY FACTORS FOR EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS PROPOSED ON OCTOBER 31, 1979
Hardboard and insulation board plants, identified as representative of
BPT and BCT systems for each subcategory, all provided available
monitoring data for calendar years 1976 and 1977. One plant provided
an additional four months of data for 1978.
The data provided included daily gross production figures and the
plant's monitoring results for its treated effluent wastestream. The
only wastewater parameters reported by the plants with sufficient
frequency for variability analysis were BOD and TSS. The variability
analysis was limited to treated effluent streams, as it is the
variability of these streams that must be taken into consideration in
the development of numerical effluent limitations guidelines.
Table G-l presents the number of observations in each data set used
for the variability analysis. For Plant 931, the variability analysis
441
-------
was performed using a data base of October 1 , 1 9 7 6 through
December 31, 1977. During 1976, the wastewater treatment system was
expanded and the new system did not begin normal operation until the
beginning of October 1976. Consequently, the data reported for the
period prior to October 1976 were excluded from the analysis.
The long term data base provided by Plant 980 was for the period of
January 1, 1976 through April 30, 1978; however-, a nonstandard method
of TSS analysis was used by the plant prior to June 16, 1977.
Therefore, the data base used for the TSS variability analysis was for
the period of June 16, 1977 through April 30, 1978, and the data base
for the BOD variability analysis was for the longer period of
January 1, 1976 through April 30, 1978.
A statistical analysis was performed on the data base from each plant
to determine the .daily and 30-day effluent variability factors asso-
ciated with the biological treatment systems of the plants. The units
used were lbs/day for both BOD and TSS throughout the analysis. The
purpose of the analysis was to estimate the 99th percentile of the
effluent loadings.
Two basic approaches were considered for estimating the
99th percentile of a set of data. The 99th percentile is defined as
that value which exceeds 99 percent of the values in the population
from which the data were drawn.
The first approach consists of fitting a specific distributional model
to the data. For example, the normal or mound-shaped distribution may
be used, or the log-normal distribution, which hypothesizes that the
logarithms of the data follow a normal distribution. Once the model
is fit to the data, the 99th percentile can be determined mathemati-
cally. For example, if the normal model is used, the 99th percentile
is the value 2.33 standard deviations above the mean. This approach
is called the parametric approach, because it requires that a specific
distribution with fixed parameters be used.
The second approach is nonparametric, since it requires no particular
distributional model. Assuming the data are drawn from some unknown
distribution at random, it is possible to calculate the probability
that the 99th percentile is greater than the largest measurement in
the data set, the second largest, the third largest, etc. This calcu-
lation uses only the fact that each measurement is assumed to have a
.01 probability of exceeding the 99th percentile, and a .99 chance of
falling below it; the particular form of the distribution is not
required in this calculation.
To assist in deciding whether to take the parametric or the
nonparametric approach, goodness-of-fit tests were conducted on the
daily readings of BOD and TSS for the 1976 and the 1977 data. Two of
the more powerful tests of goodness of fit, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Anderson-Darling tests, were used to determine whether or not the
442
-------
normal distribution, logarithmic normal distribution, or three para-
meter logarithmic normal distribution provided an adequate fit to the
data.
The results of the tests indicated a consistent lack of fit at the
5 percent level of significance using the Kolmogor.ov-Smirnov and
Anderson-Darling tests. Consequently, the use of the normal or
lognormal distribution for estimating the 99th percentile was ruled
out and the nonparametric approach was adopted.
Daily Variability Factors
The daily maximum variability factor is defined as the estimate of the
99th percentile of the distribution of daily pollutant discharge
divided by the long term mean. Thus, given a set of n daily
observations, the daily variability factor is
J
where "X is the arithmetic average of the daily observations, and
U#99 is an estimate of the true 99th percentile, ^99.
The value for ^99 was obtained as the rth largest (where r n)
sample value, denoted by X(r), chosen so the probability that X(r) is
greater than or equal to K 99 was at least 0.50. As described above,
the value of r for which tfiis criterion was satisfied was determined
by nonparametric methods (see e.g., J.D. Gibbons, Non-Parametric
Statistical Inference, McGraw-Hill, 1971). An estimate chosen in
this manner is referred to as a nonparametric 50 percent tolerance
level estimate for the 99th percentile. The daily variability factors
calculated by the above described method are shown in Table G-2.
30-Day Variability Factors
The monthly variability factors were also determined using a nonpara-
metric analysis.
It is assumed that the daily variable X has a distribution F with,
mean n and variance a2. Even if we made the nonparametric assumption
that the form of F is unknown, the monthly means would be approxi-
mately normally distributed with mean fi and variance a2/30. This
formula assumes that 30 observations are available during the monthly
period. This approach is nonparametric or distribution free in the
sense that no restrictive assumption is made regarding the form of F.
If there are n daily measurements, then
n
_ i=I
443
-------
where X is the daily BOD or TSS in pounds per day, and
Z (Xt-X)2
s2 „ 1*1
S n-1
estimates n and a*, respectively. Therefore, the 99th percentile
estimate is:
X + 2.33 S/ V30
and the monthly variability factor is:
VPJ - x + 2.33 3/ V30
Thus, the normal model for the monthly mean was used, since sample
means are approximately normally distributed even when the raw data is
not (e.g., see McClave & Dietrich, Statistics, Dellen, 1979).
These results of the analysis of 30-day variability factors are shown
in Table G-3.
INDUSTRY COMMENT ON STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY USED TO DEVELOP EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS PROPOSED ON OCTOBER 31, 1979
Several industry participants commented on the above described statis-
tical methodology used to calculate performance variability factors.
The comments received can be summarized as follows: (1) the Agency's
data base was criticized as being limited in that it contained too few
data points to provide more than a rough estimation of long term
averages; (2) the nonparametric statistical methodology was criticized
because it assumes that data consist of independent observations, when
in fact the data are time and temperature (seasonally) dependent;
(3) it was stated that the Agency incorrectly relied upon the
assumption that the monthly means are normally distributed in their
analysis of 30-day variability factors, resulting in the BPT and BCT
model plants' failure to achieve the proposed limitations with
frequency consistent with the limitations being established at the
99th percentile.
REVISED STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
As a result of continuing efforts to improve its statistical methods
and in response to industry comment, the Agency conducted a thorough
re-evaluation of the variability analysis used to determine the
proposed timber limitations.
Extended data bases, in most cases representing 1 year or more of
additional treated effluent and production data, were requested from
444
-------
each of the treatment systems used to determine the proposed effluent
limitations for the wet process hardboard and insulation board sub-
categories. All but one plant provided this requested data. The SIS
hardboard BPT model treatment plant did not provide the requested data
on the basis that it was unrepresentative of normal treatment system
operation because of a 1978 flood which washed out a solids settling
lagoon.
Analyses were conducted using the original data base fbr Plant 207
(1/1/76 to 12/31/77) and extended data bases for Plants 537 (1/1/76 to
3/31/79), 931 (10/1/76 to 10/31/79), and 980 (1/1/76 to 2/29/80 for
BOD and 6/16/77 to 2/29/80 for TSS).
The objectives of the re-evaluation were to:
1. Evaluate the effects of autocorrelation ("nonindependence")
on the proposed daily and monthly variability factors;
2. Evaluate the effects of seasonality and temperature depen-
dence of pollution load on the proposed daily and monthly
variability factors;
3. Propose statistical techniques to account for autocorrelation
and seasonality in the data, and compare daily and monthly
99th percentile estimates obtained using these methods to the
99th percentile estimates used to calculate the proposed
limitations; and
4. Evaluate the daily and monthly variability factors for the
companies' extended data bases, i.e., data collected since
the analyses which generated the variability factors used to
develop proposed limitations.
This discussion will focus on presentation of results of the analyses
conducted to accomplish the above objectives. To facilitate the
presentation of results, most statistical details will be placed in
the Theoretical Supplement to Appendix G.
Daily Variability Factors
To review briefly the method of calculating the nonparametric
tolerance level estimate, the daily data are first ranked from lowest
to highest numerical value. The probability that the largest value
exceeds the true 99th percentile of the distribution is calculated
using the binomial distribution. This probability, based on a total
of n measurements, is
P [largest of n measurements exceeds the true 99th- percentile]
= 1 - P [all n measurements are less than the 99th percentile]
= 1 - ( .99)"
445
-------
Similarly,
P [second largest of n measurements exceeds the
99th percentile]
- 1 - ( . 99 )n - n (. 99)11-1 (.01)
and, in general,
P [kth largest of n measurements exceeds the 99th percentile]
k-1
= 1-2 (?)(.99)n ^.Ol)11
j=0 3
The measurement taken to be the nonparametric estimate of the
99th percentile is the smallest measurement which causes the above
probability to exceed 0.50. Thus, the estimator is said to represent
an upper 50 percent tolerance level for the 99th percentile. This
procedure will produce estimates whLch have the interpretation that in
a large number of random samples each consisting of n observations,
approximately 50 percent of the estimates will exceed the 99th per-
centile .
The nonparametric technique makes no assumption about the distribution
of the data, but the observations are assumed to be independent. As
will be demonstrated, there is evidence that the daily pollution load
data is autocorrelated (i.e., correlated over time), so that this
assumption may not be satisfied. One objective of the re-evaluation
is to analyze the effect of this autocorrelation on the nonparametric
tolerance level estimate of the 99th percentile.
The first step in the analysis is to obtain a description of the data
base and to estimate the autocorrelation, or degree of dependence, of
the data. Preliminary analysis of the data revealed little or no cor-
relation between pollution load and available production information.
All data are therefore analyzed in pounds per day. Table G-4 lists
the number of daily values used in the analysis, the arithmetic mean,
standard deviation, and the minimum and maximum values for each of the
four plants.
Lagged autocorrelations measure the correlation between the pollution
load on one day with that on previous days, and they therefore measure
the time dependence of the data. The Lag 1 autocorrelation measures
the correlation between today's and yesterday's load, the Lag 2 auto-
correlation measures dependence between today's and 2 day's ago, etc.
Like ordinary correlations (product-moment) between variables, auto-
correlations range from -1 to +1, with negative values indicating
negative time dependence, values near zero little or no time depen-
dence, and positive values indicating positive time dependence between
the loads at the specified time lag.
446
-------
Table G-5 lists the autocorrelations for the pollution load data up to
Lag 7 (1 week). These autocorrelations are computed for daily values
after subtracting the monthly mean from each measurement. The monthly
mean is subtracted to account for seasonal effects. Also given in
Table G-5 are the number of pairs of data values which were available
to compute each autocorrelation. This number varies considerably
because daily data were not available every day for any one of the
plants. Plant 980 comes closest to having daily data, and the size of
this data, base makes it the best of the four for statistical analysis.
In contrast, Plant 207 is primarily weekly data, so that v,ery few
contiguous days' data (as few as four pairs) are available for several
lag autocorrelations.
The autocorrelations in Table G-5 leave little doubt that the pollu-
tion loads are time dependent. In every case, the Lag 1 autocorrela-
tion is positive and relatively large, implying that a high load on
one day is likely to be followed on the next day by another high
value. The physical explanation of this positive autocorrelation is
probably related to the long detention time in the aeration and
settling ponds of the treatment systems.
Assuming, then, that the data are positively autocorrelated, the
binomial formula used to compute the tolerance probabilities does not
yield exact values. Instead, they are approximations, and some indi-
cation of how well they approximate the exact probabilities should be
given. Although no direct analogy to the binomial formula has been
found for dependent data, there are methods available to measure the
effect of dependence on the standard error of the sample percentile
estimator of the 99th percentile. The standard error of an estimator
is a measure of its variability (standard deviation) in repeated usage
and therefore measures the potential error of estimation.
The sample percentile estimates of the 99th percentile of the
pollution loads are given in Table G-6, with the standard errors of
these values given under four different assumptions: independence,
"weak" dependence, "moderate" dependence, and "strong" dependence.
The model which was used to express the various levels of dependence
is ttve first order autoregressive model. This model relates the
present daily value, Zfc, to yesterday's value, by the equation:
zt = 0 zt-l + €t
where €t is random error, uncorrelated over time, and 0 is a constant
which determines the strength of dependence. Data from Table G-5
demonstrates that the first order autocorrelation is generally signi-
ficant for all plants while no other autocorrelations are significant
for all plants, suggesting the appropriateness of using a first order
autoregressive model. The autoregressive model implies that the daily
values are dependent, with the dependence growing steadily weaker as
the time between the daily measurements increases, an implication
447
-------
which is generally supported by the autocorrelations of the data (see
Table G-5). The assumption of independence corresponds to (3 a 0,
"weak" dependence to 0 = .2, "moderate" dependence to 0 = . 5, and
"strong" dependence to (? ¦ .8. Further statistical definitions and
details are given in the Theoretical Supplement to Appendix G.
Inspection of Table G-6 reveals that the standard errors increase as
the assumed level of dependence increases, but the increase is moder-
ate when compared to the absolute value of the load estimates, i.e.,
the increase in relative standard error is generally less than
10 percent of the estimated percentile. The variability factors under
the various time-dependence conditions are given in Table G-7. The
variability factors from the Development Document supporting the pro-
posed regulations (1979) are shown, along with those obtained by using
the sample percentile estimates plus two standard errors. The 1979
Development Document variability factors are based upon 50 percent
tolerance interval estimates of the 99th percentile, while those pre-
sented in this appendix under the assumption of time dependence are
upper 95 percent confidence level estimates of the 99 percentile. Even
with the more conservative approach used in the time-dependent case,
the uniformity of the variability factors in Table G-7 clearly
indicates that the estimators of the 99th percentile are relatively
insensitive to autocorrelation of the data. In fact, the 5 0 percent
tolerance interval value appears to yield variability factors which
are conservatively high, even when the data are time dependent. Thus,
the daily variability factors established in the 1979 Development
Document are reliable estimates which are minimally affected by the
autocorrelation of the data.
Monthly Variability Factors
In the 1979 Development Document, monthly variability factors were
derived using a probabilistic result known as the Central Limit
Theorem. This theorem assures the approximate normality of' the dis-
tribution of the monthly means regardless of the underlying distribu-
tion of the data, assuming that the number of observations comprising
the mean is sufficiently large. Most textbooks use sample sizes of 25
or 3 0 as a minimum, although as few as 10 to 15 may be sufficient if
the underlying distribution is not excessively skewed.
The limitations presented in the 1979 Development Document were based
on the assumption of 30 daily measurements per month*, a point which
was overlooked or misunderstood in industry's review of the document,
since they incorrectly applied the 30-day limitation to monthly means
based upon varying sample sizes. However, even if the monthly
*The 30-day 99th percentile estimator was defined as I + 2.33 s/V30.
-------
limitation were to be adjusted for the actual number of daily
measurements, the number of exceedances (monthly means which exceed
the limitation) would be greater than expected. This fact is probably
attributable to the dependence in the data. Seasonality and autocor-
relation are two main sources of dependence, and in this section, a
method of establishing monthly limitations which take these factors
into account is developed.
The method of developing limitations which take autocorrelation and
seasonality into account is to construct a statistical model which
explicitly contains these components. Although most of the statistical
details will be presented in the Theoretical Supplement to Appendix G,
it is useful to understand the basic concept of the model. The daily
pollution load model consists of three basic components:
Daily Load = [Long Term Mean] + [Month Effect (Random)]
+ [Day.Effect (Random and Autocorrelated)].
Thus, each daily value consists of a fixed mean value with two random
components added to the mean: a monthly effect and a daily effect,
with the latter assumed to be autocorrelated. The differences between
this model and the one used in the 1979 Development Document are the
addition of the Month Effect as a random component and the specifica-
tion that Daily Effects are autocorrelated. The intent is that the
Month Effect accounts for the seasonality of the data, while the
autocorrelated Daily Effects account for the time dependence of the
data.
In Table G-8, the 99th percentile estimates derived using this model
are presented for each of the four plants.
For purposes of comparison, the 99th percentile estimates are given,
assuming independent, weakly dependent, moderately dependent, and
strongly dependent Daily Effect. A conclusion which becomes clear on
studying this table is that the effect of daily autocorrelation on the
monthly 99th percentile estimate appears to be minimal; that is, the
estimate does not change significantly as the strength of the auto-
correlation increases. The reason is that the Month Effect dominates
the Daily Effect, probably due to seasonality of the data.
The assumption of moderate dependence is based upon analysis of the
daily autocorrelation (detailed in the Theoretical Supplement to
Appendix G), which reveals that this level of dependence provides the
best description of the autocorrelation observed in the data. That
is, based on the available data, the first order autoregressive model
with 0 » .5 provides a good fit. Since Table G-8 revealed that the
strength of dependence plays a relatively unimportant role in deter-
mining the monthly variability factors, there is little justification
for attempting to find a more exact value for 0 for each plant.
449
-------
"The monthly variability factors are shown in Table G-9, assuming
30 daily values and moderate dependence. The variability factors from
the 1979 Development Document are also given; recall they were also
based on 30 daily values. Note that the variability factors which
take seasonality and autocorrelation into account are larger than the
ones given in the 1979 Development Document, primarily due to the
inclusion of a term (Month Effect) which allows for seasonal
variability of the data.
In summary, the revised model provides a means of deriving monthly
variability factors which take into account the seasonality and
autocorrelation of the data. Even with minor deviations from
normality, the use of 2.33 standard deviations provides a liberal
limitation for the monthly means.
MODIFICATIONS TO VARIABILITY FACTORS AS A RESULT OF STATISTICAL
RE-EVALUATION
The daily variability factors derived in the 1979 Development Document
are relatively insensitive to autocorrelation in the data. Addition-
ally, since they are based upon the larger observed pollutant loads,
seasonality is automatically factored into their calculation. Thus,
EPA has decided that no change will be made in the method used to
calculate the daily limitations. These daily limitations have been
recalculated to reflect the additional data received, however.
The monthly limitation proposed in the 1979 Development Document did
not take autocorrelation and seasonality into account. The random
effects model presented here was constructed to remedy this. The
results of the analyses using this model support an increase in the
30-day limitation. While the BOD variability factors for the four
plants used in this analysis range from 1.34 to 1.44 in the 1979
Development Document, they range from 2.0 8 to 2.7 2 when the random
effects model is used. Similarly, the TSS variability factors range
from 1.33 to 1.46 in the 1979 Development Document and from 1.90 to
2.37 when the seasonal and autocorrelation adjustments are made.
Whereas more monthly exceedances (i.e., monthly means which exceed the
limitation) than expected occur when the 1979 Development Document
variability factors are used, very few exceedances occur using the new
variability factors. Thus, EPA has increased the monthly limitations
to levels consistent with those developed using the revised model.
450
-------
THEORETICAL SUPPLEMENT
Given a set of N ordered values X/-, v , X(2) » • • • / X(N) on random
variable X, the 99th percentile is defined (Bahadur, 1966) to be
Qn = if .99N is an integer
= X([„99N]+1) «99N is not an integer
where [.99N] is the largest integer contained in (.99)N. For example,
if N = 100, Qfj is the 99th ordered daily value, since .99N = 99. But
if N is 101, .99N = 99.99 so that [.99N] + ^ = 100. Thus, QN is the
100th ordered observation. Note that this sample percentile estimate
differs in definition from the 50 percent tolerance level estimate
(Section 1), with the latter generally more conservative.
If Q is the true 99th percentile of the distribution, then it has been
shown (Bahadur, 1966) that if the daily values are independent,
V~N(Q -Q) D > N(0, —22_) (1)
f 2(Q)
where —EL-> denotes "has an asymptotic distribution," the probability
p that a randomly selected observation is less than- the 99th percen-
tile is .99, the probability q that a randomly selected observation
exceeds the 99th percentile is .01, and f(Q) is the probability den-
sity function of X evaluated at Q, the true 99th percentile. Thus,
the distribution of Qjj can be approximated by the normal with mean Q
and variance pq/Nf2(Q) when N is large. The problem with applying
this result is that .the density f must be known to estimate the
standard error, which requires specification of a parametric
distribution for X. However, tolerance interval probabilities can be
calculated for independent observations using the binomial formula
given in Appendix G, and these require no specification of the, pro-
bability distribution of X. Thus, even though the tolerance interval
method tends to produce conservatively high estimates of Q, it is
preferable to using Qjg when the distribution of X is in doubt.
The tolerance level method requires that the daily observations be
independent. Since no analagous nonparametric method exists for
dependent time series, the parametric method should be used to assess
the 99th percentile estimator. Chanda (1976) and Sen (1971) have-
shown that under certain rather unrestrictive conditions on the
structure of dependence,
451
-------
00
n 2VV
VTT(QN-Q)— »N(0, ^ ) C2)
f (Q)
2
where yv = p(xt £ Q' xt+ V— Q) "* P • To see that this distribution
reduces to (1) in the independent case, note that
yv= P(Xt < Q) P(Xt+I,< Q) - P2
= p2 - p2 = o if V/ 0
and
7o = p(xt < Q) " P2
=* p - p2 » p(l-p) « pq
aa
5 v
When the data are dependent, both 'V and f(Q) must be estimated.
Sinde the log transform appears to be more symmetrically distributed
than the raw data, the lognormal distribution was used to develop an
estimate of the standard error of the 99th percentile for comparison
with- the 5 0 percent tolerance level estimators Thus,
f(Q) = (^277*Q)"1 exp[~2 (1°9 ] (3)
where fi and O are the mean and standard deviation, respectively, of
the log transform of X, which Will be denoted by Y [i.e.,
Y * log(X)].
The estimation of f(Q) is accomplished by estimating (i by the
logarithmic mean, say ?, a by the logarithmic standard deviation,
Sy, and Q by Qn. Substituting into (3),
£ - QN)-i exp[=§ <1o9
Sy
is an estimator for f(Q).
CO
In order to estimate 2 , note that
—CO V
= P[Xt < Q, Xt + i,j< Q] - P2
¦ P[Yfc < log(Q), Yt + V < log(Q)] - p2
= Fu * n ' log(Q)1 - p2
fi r O f P
452
-------
where Ffl,a,p is the bivariate normal distribution with mean fJ,
standard deviation a, and correlation coefficient p. By again
substituting the estimates y and S„ for H and a, and QN for Q, an
estimate of yv is obtained for various correlation coefficients:
A
yV = Fy/Sy/p[log(QN), log(Qn)] - P2
where K is chosen so that the addition of subsequent terms adds less
than 1(T"6 to the summation.
Finally, an estimation of the standard error of the sample 99th
percentile Qjj for the dependent case is
A
Estimated Standard Error (QN)
These estimated standard errors are given in Table G-6 for the case of
P = 0, .2, .5, and .8, referred to in the report as independence, weak
dependence, moderate dependence, and strong dependence, respectively.
The next step is to obtain an estimate of the limitations and varia-
bility factors. To estimate the 99th percentile, the approximate
upper 95 percent confidence level for Q is estimated, i.e.,
L = Qn + 2a qn
This represents an extremely conservative estimator as compared to the
50 percent tolerance level estimator, since it will provide an esti-
mate which exceeds the true 99th percentile approximately 95 percent
of the time in repeated, independent usage, while the tolerance level
estimator will exceed the true 99th percentile approximately
50 percent of the time in repeated, independent usage.
The variability factor is then defined by
where "X is the long-term mean of the data. When these variability
factors are compared in Table G-7 to those from the 1979 Development
Document, a reassuring consistency is observed. A study of this table
indicates that the Development Document values, derived using the
K VL/2
_2 y„ T
N £2
-------
tolerance interval method, are approximately the same as those which
use the sample percentiles and take daily data dependence into
account.* This fact indicates that the tolerance interval method is
insensitive to departures from independence, even when a more con-
servative confidence level of 95 percent is employed, and that the
variability factors derived using the 50 percent tolerance level
estimator remain very reasonable.
NOTE: Although the method of estimating the 99th percentile developed
in this Appendix is referred to as "parametric", the estimator itself
is nonparametric, since the sample percentile QN does not involve the
distributional form of the daily values. However, the standard error
of Qn does explicitly involve the distribution, making the calculation
of a confidence bound for Q a parametric operation.
*As expected, the values for the more conservative percentile
estimates, at 95 percent confidence, usually exceed the tolerance
interval estimate, at 50 percent confidence. However, the difference
is generally relatively small. In one case, Plant 207 BOD, the
tolerance interval estimate exceeds the percentile estimate assuming
weakly or moderately dependent daily values, probably due to the
relatively small sample size (133).
454
-------
CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM
The Central Limit Theorem states that the asymptotic distribution of
Vn(X-fi) is approximately normal with mean 0 and variance a2, where X"
is the sample mean based on n independent observations, and n and oz
are the mean and variance, respectively, of the distribution from
which the observations were selected. This Theorem continues to hold
for dependent observations (Fuller, 1976) from a stationary process,
with the modification that the variance is
°%LPV
v SB'"GO
where Py is the autocorrelation between Xt and Xt+y, two observations
separated by v time units. The only assumption in either case is
that the mean n and variance a2 (or a2 £ Pv ) must be finite, an
unrestrictive assumption which holds for m2?st data.
The most common application of this Theorem is to use the normal
distribution with mean y. and variance a2/n to approximate the
distribution of X", the sample mean. The approximation improves as the
sample size, n, is increased. It can be quite good for very small
samples if the underlying distribution of the data is symmetric and
unimodal, and quite bad for relatively large samples if the data are
skewed or bimodal. It is generally accepted that a sample size of 25
to 30 is sufficient for the normal approximation to be adequate for
means from almost all distributions.
An important point to note is that the sample size plays an explicit
role in the variance of the sample mean. That is,
Var(X) - a2/n
This point was apparently overlooked in industry's response to the
1979 Development Document, because all the monthly means were grouped
into a single plot, and compared to the same 1 imitation (which was
based on 3 0 sample measurements per month).
MONTHLY RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL
The intent of this section is to provide the statistical details for
the model used in Appendix G of the report to derive the 30-day
variability factors.
The model used is a random effects model, which may be written as
follows:
xit = f* Mi + 3 i t
455
-------
where X^t is the observable daily pollution load, /x is the expected
value of Xit (the "long term" mean), is a random effect associated
with the ifch month, and is a random effect associated with the tth
day in the i"*-" month. It is assumed that:
E(Mi) = E(Zit) = 0
Var(Mi) » , Var(Zit) = a2
and
Cov(Mi, Mj) = 0, Cov(Mi, Zifc) = 0
In addition, the daily effects are assumed to be autocorrelated , with
a first order autoregressive model used to describe the autocorrela-
tion:
Zit = 0zi, t-1 + €i.t
where 0 is a correlation parameter (-1 < 0 < 1) and is white
noise, i.e., uncorrelated and satisfying the conditions
E(€it) =0,
Var(€it) = a J
The autoregressive model is a time series model, i.e., a model which
describes a random phenomenon observed over time. The model implies
that the daily values are dependent, or autocorrelated, with the
strength of the dependence greatest between consecutive daily values.
The autoregressive model also implies that the dependence between
daily observations weakens as the number of days between observations
increases. Positive values of the parameter indicate positive
dependence, the usual case in practical time series applications, and
the strength of the dependence increases as the value of 0 approaches
one.
In Table G-5 the first seven autocorrelations for the daily effects
associated with the various data series were presented. In
Figures G-l to G-6 graphs of the first 50 autocorrelations for plants
537, 931, and 980 for BOD and TSS are presented. Although the
estimates are based on data which were not collected every day, there
are sufficient data available for three of the plants (all but
Plant 207) to see that the autoregressive model is a reasonable one.
The autocorrelations for Plant 537 appear to have a 7 day cyclical
pattern, possibly implying a more complex model, but the data are
insufficient to identify and estimate such a model. No distributional
assumptions on M^ or Z^t are necessary at this stage.
456
-------
Before developing estimators of the random effects model parameters,
some discussion of its motivation is warranted. A more familiar model
which has been proposed to account for seasonality is;
Xit = f(t) + Zit
where E(X^t) = f(t) is a deterministic function of time which models
the seasonality of the data, and Zit is the random daily effect, as
before.
Examples of seasonal functions, f(t), are trigonometric functions, or
dummy variables to account for monthly effects. Although such a model
might provide a good fit to the data, the implication of using the
model is that seasonal limitations are to be established, as opposed
to a single limitation applicable to all the seasons. That is, if the
mean of the daily values is modeled with a deterministic seasonal
component, the monthly limitations and variability factors will also
vary seasonally.*
Since the objective is to develop a uniform limitation, the seasonal
component is modeled as a random component, so that the seasonal
variability is explicitly considered and included in the monthly
limitations. Note that the variance of an individual daily value is
Var(Xit) = <7&+<72
while that for a monthly, mean value based on d daily values,
*1 - tfiXU/d = *+ Mi * JiZit (1)
IS
i, J?orr(zis'ztt>
d2 s=lt=l
d2 s=lt=l
= a2 + a2 "ri±Z - 2g(l-gd>] (2)
m Ll-0 d(l-4) J
*When fixed effect models were fit to these data, a significant
year-month interaction was found in every case, indicating that the
seasonal effect is inconsistent from year to year. This further
supports the use of a random effects model.
457
-------
where for an autoregressive model Corr(Z±s,Z^t) = 0 1t~s 1 / and it has
been assumed that the d daily values occur on contiguous days. The
variance will be somewhat smaller if the daily values are not
contiguous, so that (2) represents a conservatively high variance in
this case. Note that if the daily values are independent (0=0), the
variance is + a2/d, the usual variance of a sample mean in a random
effects moder.
2 4
The variance parameters of the random effects model, a m and a , must
be estimated from the data in order to develop the limitations. The
Analys'is of Variance Sums of Squares are used for this purpose in the
independent errors case, and they can be adapted for use with
dependent errors.
First, the Sum of Squares for Months (SSM) is given by the formula
where m is the number of months during which data are available, and
dj is the number ojE days on which data are observed in the ith month.
Also, is the i monthly mean and X is the mean of all available
data. Substituting (1) into (3),
m d • « m
SSM =2 21 (X.-xr = 2 d.(X.-X)
i=l 't=l 1 i=l
(3)
SSM = 2 d. (M. -M) H- 2 d.(Z.-Z)
i=l 11 i=l
(4)
m m
+ X 1 d.d.(M.-M)(Z.-Z)
i=l j=i 1 0 i i
where
m
I
i=l t=x
N
Z
and
i=l
is the total sample size.
458
-------
Now the expected value of SSM is
m _9 m _ _ >
E(SSM) - E[ 2 d.(M. -M) ] + E[ 2 d.(Z.-Z)^]
i=l 11 i=l 1 1
since the expected value of the cross product is
The components of (5) are
III HI a
St 2 d.{M.-M) ] = 2 d.[E (M. )
i=l 11 i»l
m ^ m
(in.) M. 2 M.
and
1=1 J 1 1-1 3
+ E ( 3 *——) - 2E{ 1-= )]
m ra
2 0 2
n (?_ u (7_
N [a + — -]
1 ra m mJ
N(m-1) 2
"mm
m _ _ ,
E[ 2 d.(Z.-Z} 1
i«l 1 x
d. \ m d.
^ I 0 S* V
® jA zit( E(i=i t=i zit}
+
d. m d i
. E(tSJ zu i?i tii zit>
dj.N
2 m , d.~ d. ID -D | 1 N N |D -D
-------
where ID -D I is the absolute difference of the number of days
separating tne daily values at times s and t, i.e., the time period
between the pair of daily values being correlated.
Substituting (6) and (7) into (5)
E(SSM) «
-------
2 m di 1 di di |Ds~Dt
2 2 X 2 0
i=l t=l i s=l t=l
m l di di ,Ds~Dt' 2
[N - 2 7T * SI c ]
i=l i s=l fc=l
In the case of independence and balance, (9) reduces to
E(SSE) ¦ m(d-l)<72
which agrees with the usual result.
Writing
(m-l)N
C
1 m
m , d. d. ID -D | , N N ID -D |
/-* ~ X J> S3 w Jk
-------
a2 SSE
a =cr
a2 SSM-C2a
In Table G-10, the values of and a2 are given for each plant, with
J3 * .5. Note that is generally of the same order as indicating
that much seasonal variability is present in these data.
The most important function of the model is its use in establishing a
monthly limitation. The variance of the monthly mean based on d daily
values now can be estimated from equation (2) by
VarHT i = £2+°L2 r!±2 - 29(l-
-------
Mj_ is approximately normal. Unfortunately, the present data are
insufficient to test the hypothesis of M^'s normality.*
*Such a test is difficult in any case, since M is not an observable
random variable.
463
-------
Table G-l. Number of Observations in Data Set, as Presented
in 1979 Development Document
BOD
TSS
Plant
1976
1977
1976 &
1977
1976
1977
1976 &
1977
537
139
135
274
139
134
273
207
52
81
133
96
122
218
931
205
203
254*
205
203
254*
980
361
356
834t
360
356
311**
*Data represents period of 10/1/76 through 12/31/77 when
upgraded system was in working operation.
tData represents period of 1/1/76 through 4/30/78.
**Data represents period of 6/16/77 through 4/30/78 when
standard TSS analyses were performed.
464
-------
Table G-2. Non-Parametric Daily Variability Factors for
Insulation.Board and Hardboard Plants, as
Presented in 1979 Development Document
BOD
TSS
Plant
1976
1977
1976 &
1977
1976
1977
1976 &
1977
931
4.7
5.64
5.58*
4.1
4.49
4.56*
537
7.3
3.72
3.93
5.6
6.32
4/22
207
t
4.87
4.61
3.3
4.24
3.59
980
3.6
3.89
4.06**
3.3
6.79tt
6.79tt
*Data represents period of 10/1/76 through 12/31/77 when
upgraded treatment system was under normal operation,
tlnsufficient data to obtain a 50 percent confidence
estimate for the 99th percentile.
**Data represents period of 1/1/76 through 4/30/78.
ttData represents period of 6/16/77 through 4/30/78 when
standard TSS analyses were performed.
465
I
-------
Table G-3. Non-Parametric 30-Day Variability Factors for
Insulation 'Board and Hardboard Plants, as
Presented in 1979 Development Document
BOD
TSS
1976 &
1976 &
Plant
1976
1977
1977
1976
1977
1977
537
1.45
1.67
1.40
1.41
1.76
1.41
207
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.33
1.33
1.33
931
1.48
1.54
1.44
1.42
1.44
1.39
980
1.31
1.40
1.35*
1.27
1.72
1.46t
*Data represents period of 1/1/76 through 4/30/78.
tData represents period of 6/16/77 through 4/30/78 when
standard TSS analyses were performed.
466
-------
Table G-4. Descriptive Statistics of Extended Data Base
Plant
'Long-Term Avg.
Production
(tons/day)
Pollutant
Sample
Size
Arithmetic
Mean
(lbs/day)
Standard
Deviation
(lbs/day)
Minimum
(lbs/day)
Maximum
(lbs/day)
207
1/1/76 to
12/31/77
89.8
BOD
TSS
133
218
800.0
1868.2
640.9
1449.8
40.8
18.0
3685.0
7345.0
537
1/1/76 to
3/31/79
159.3
BOD
TSS
445
447
659.9
417.0
594.4
387.3
7.0
6.0
4565.0
2916.0
931
10/1/76 to
10/31/79
130.9
BOD
TSS
627
627
241.5
788.3
223.8
630.6
6.0
15,0
1274.0
3663.0
980*
1/1/76 to
2/29/80
234.7
BOD
TSS
1359
838
1694.3
2367.8
1352.8
1873.5
30.0
125.4
13541.6
34273.5
*TSS data base period is 6/16/77 to 2/29/80 which represents the period of time when standard
TSS analyses were performed. Long-term average production from this period is 236 tons/day.
-------
Table G-5. Autocorrelations
BOD TSS
Auto-
Auto-
Plant
Lag
N
correlation
N
correlation
207
1
4
.18
49
.09
2
48
.03
76
.25
3
7
.49
52
.28
4
4
.24
59
.51
5
39
.23
63
.10
6
4
.18
72
.01
7
75
-.12
112
-.05
537
1
150
.44
150
.41
2
145
t .03
146
-.02
3
137
-.25"
139
-.18
4
131
.01
132
-.23
5
137
.06
138
-.08
6
144
-.04
145
-.06
7
379
.08
384
.09
931
1
464
.43
464
.45
2
305
.03
305
.03
3
146
-.30
146
-.24
4
146
.20
146
.20
5
304
.18
304
.07
€
462
.07
462
.08
7
609
-.06
609
.05
980
1
1333
.61
819
.51
2
1314
.41
802
.29
3
1302
.32
790
.02
4
1289
.16
779
-.04
5
1281
.11
770
-.07
6
1273
.08
761
-.06
7
1264
-.01
753
-.07
468
-------
Table G-6. Daily 99th Percentile Estimates and Standard Errors
Plant
Pollutant
99th Percentile
Estimate
(lbs/day)
Standard Error
of the
99th Percentile
Estimate
Independent
Observations
(lbs/day)
Dependent Observations
Weak Moderate
(lbs/day)
Strong
207
BOD
2896.7
295.6
302.1
340.9
502.3
TSS
6580.8
407.5
416.5
469.9
692.3
537
BOD
2575.0
124.7
127.5
143.9
211.9
TSS
1742.0
97.7
99.8
112.6
165.9
931
BOD
1000.0
52.2
53.4
60.2
88.8
TSS
2785.0
107.2
109.6
123.6
182.2
980
BOD
5990.5
170.5
174.3
196.6
289.7
TSS
6355.0
218.7
223.6
252.3
371.6
-------
Table G-7. Daily Variability Factors
Upper Confidence Limit (95 percent)
for the New Variability Factort
Plant
Pollutant
Daily
Variability
Factor*
Independent
Observations
(lbs/day)
Dependent
Weak
Observations
Moderate
^lbs/day)
Strong
207
BOD
4.61**
4.36
4.38
4.47
4.88
TSS
3.59**
3.96
3.97
4.03
4.26
537
BOD
3.93**
3.92tt
4.28
4.29
4.34
4.54
TSS
4.22**
4.34+t
4.65
4.66
4.72
4.97
931
BOD
5.58**
4.15tt
4.57
4.58
4.64
4.88
TSS
4.56**
3.61tt
3.80
3.81
3.85
3.99
980
BOD
4.06**
3.67tt
3.74
3.74
3.77
3.88
TSS
6.79**
2.77tt
2.87
2.87
2.90
3.00
*Based on 50 percent tolerance level estimates of the 99th percentile.
tBased on the upper 95 percent confidence limit for the 99th percentile. All variability
factors, except Plant 207, are based on extended data bases.
**Based on original data base, as presented in 1979 Development Document,
ttBased on extended data base, calculated using the same methodology as described in the
1979 Development Document.
-------
Table G-8. 99th Percentile Estimate for 30-Day Average Based on Arithmetic Mean
Number of BOD TSS __
Observations Independent Dependent ODservations Independent Dependent Observations
in Monthly Observations (lbs/day) Observations (lbs/day)
Mean (m) (lbs/day) weak Moderate strong (lbs/day) weak Moderate strong
30
1913.9
1917.4
1919.2
PLANT 207
1906.9
4414.3
4418.9
4424.5
4413.8
30
1373.7
1374.2
1375.7
PLANT 537
1359.6
865.7
866.2
867.4
856.5
30
658.2
657.6
657.4
PLANT 931
657.3
1845.2
1842.8
1841.8
1841.6
30
4051.1
4049.2
4044.0
PLANT 980
4025.6
4537.0
4526.3
4495.6
4391.4
-------
Table G-9. Thirty Day Variability Factors
BOD TSS
Plant
1979
Development
Document
Random
Effects
Model
1979
Development
Document
Random
Effects
Model
207
1.34
2.40
1.33
2.37
537
1.40
2.08
1.41
2.08
931
1.44
2.72
1.39
2.34
980
1.35
2.39
1.46
1.90
472
-------
Table G~
10. Estimates of the Variances for
Effects Model
the Random
Raw
Data
Plant
Pollutant
Monthlv Variance
(3L)
Daily Variance
($2>
207
BOD
210,924
207,529
TSS
1,104,187
1,041,546
537
BOD
66,796
288,561
TSS
25,376
125,371
931
BOD
29,853
21,031
TSS
183,462
219,328
980
BOD
929,068
920,109
TSS
548,184
2,988,834
All values are computed assuming 0 = 0.5 (Moderate
Dependence).
473
-------
FIGURE G-l
(600) DAILY EFFECT AUTOCORRELATION
PLANT 537
noo *c
--j
I.00
0.95
0. 90
0.89
0»80
0.75
0.70
o. es
0.60
o.ss
0. so
1.45
0.40
0.39
0.30
0. 29
0.?0
0.15
0. 10
0.05
0.00
-J.05
-o. n
-3. 15
-J. 20
-0.25
-0. 30
-3.35
-0. *0
-o.«s
-J.50
-e.es
-o.so
-0.65
-0. 70
-0.75
-0. 90
-3.65
-J. 90
-D.95
-I .00
I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 122222S222J333333333344444444445
3 I234567P90 12345678901234567890 lS34567e«0l23 4 367890
-------
FIGURE G-2
(TSSl DAILY EFFECT AUTOCORRELATION
PLANT 537
iss AC
-P»
-j
cn
1.00
0. 95
0.90
o. as
0. 80
0.75
0.70
o.ts
0.60
0. 55
0.50
0.45
0. 40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0. I 5
0. 10
O.OS
a.oo
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-3.20
-0. 25
-0. 30
-3.35
- 3. 40
-0.45
-3.50
-0.55
-0 .60
-3. 65
-0. 70
-3.75
-0. 80
-0 .85.
-0.90.
-0.95
-1.33
AAA
A A A A A
A A
AAA
A A
A
0 12 3 4 5 6 7
1 II 1 I II I I 122222222223333333333444444*4445
690123436 7 a
-------
FIGURE G-3
(BOO) DAILY EFFECT WTOCDRREUTION
PLANT 931
BOD AC
-p.
Ol
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.B5
0,80
0* 73
"0.70
0*63
S. 50
0.55
0.50
0.*S
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0. 20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.50
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
-0. SO
-0.35
-0.40
-0.45
-0,50
-3.35
-0.60
-0#65
-0. 70
-0.75
-0.80
-o.es
-0.90
-0.05
-1.00
A A A
A A
A A
A A A A A A A A A A A
A AAA
A A AAA
A A A A A A A A
A A
A A A
0 I 2
1111111111222222
3*S«rflfOI23 4907690 1 2 3 4 !
22223333
8 1 8 S 0 t 2 3
3333334444*444443
« 5 « 7 C < 0 123 4567890
-------
FIGURE G-*
(TSS) DAILY EFFECT AUTOCORRELATION
PLANT 931
TSS AC
•M
1.00
0.95
0*90
o.es
0.80
9. 75
a. 70
0.63
0*60
O.SS
0.50
0 * 49
0.40
0. 35
0 . 30
0.25
0. 20
0.15
0.1 0
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-3. 15
-3.20
-0.25
-0. 30
-0.35
-0.40
-0.45
-3.50
-0. 85
-0.60
-0.65
-0. 70
-0.75
-o.ao
-0.55
-0.90
-0. <55
-J.00
~
~
»
~
¥
»
t
*
~
~
~
fr
~
»
»
¥
»
~
~
~
»
t
»
~
¥
»
~
f
»
~
»
0 I 2 3 4 5 C
* ~— .
* 1
7 8 * 0
i 1
I 2
I I
3 *
1 1 12222222 2223
78901234867690
3 3 3 j 3 3
113 4 9*
3344444444 4~4~9
6901234567890
-------
FIGURE G-S
(BOO) DAILY EFFECT AUTOCORRELATION
PLANT 9(0
8 00 AC
0 I
I II I I I t t t 12222222222333)33333344444444*43
234367890 l2343678<4l234t£?SfOI23 4' 3676901234367690
-------
FIGURE 6~d
ITSSJ DAILY EFFECT AUTOCORRELATION
PLANT 980
IS* AC
-J*
-Hj
I « 00
Q»<5
0«*0
0.#S
a.ao
0.
:!• ra
).AS
fl.ftQ
fl • *5
3*50
0. 4 5
>.40
a, 55
o* 10
3.25
0.20
3. IS
a * n
J. 05
o.^a
-0.05
- 3. 10
- ).l 5
- Kio
- > . 11
-0. 15
-0 , 40
-1*45
- 5.53
-a. 5^
-0. 9,0
- o. e r>
-*• >o
~ 0. ?S
- 0 , H 0
- 0. ifi
-J.'JQ
-0,95
-I. 00
AAA A A
A—~ —--A-A-A-A—™A-A~A-A~A-A~A-A——4-A-A~A-A-A-A-
A A A A AAA AA A
A A A A A A A AAA A
A
01*34967090
SlltllltlJ2ta22222tlJJJJJJ)J]44444*4«44S
l*2496?a«0til4|<7ltati34S*78<01234S6fa«d
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
APPENDIX H
481
-------
RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Name
Title
Address
Signature
PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
For Che purpose of this survey, the following definitions apply:
Process Wastewater may be defined as any spent water which results from
or has had contact with the manufacturing process. It includes any
water for which there is a reasonable possibility of contamination from
the process or from raw material-intermediate product-final product
storage, transportation, handling, processing, cleaning, or fire
control. Cooling water and storm waters are considered to be process
wastewaters where they can be contaminated by the process, as in the
case of barometric condenser water and runoff from storage piles.
Non-Process Wastewater is that wastewater which is not contaminated by
the process or related materials. Examples of non-process wastewater
include boiler blowdown, surface condenser cooling water, sanitary
sewage, and storm water which is not contaminated by the process.
A Direct Discharger is considered to be a plant, a manufacturing
process, or an operation which releases treated or untreated process
wastewater into navigable waterways, waters of the contiguous zone, or
the oceans.
The fact that a plant may release process wastewater into a ditch,
culvert, pipe, stream bed, fissure, or similar conveyance located on
-------
plane property does not exclude the plant from being a direct discharger
if the wastewater so released eventually enters navigable waters.
An Indirect Discharger is considered to be a plant, a manufacturing
process, or an operation which releases process wastewater, treated or
untreated, to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
A Self-Contained Discharger is considered to be a plant, a manufacturing
process, or an operation which releases process wastewater, treated or
untreated, to disposal by spreading on the land, to containment in
evaporation ponds, to a deep aquifer by subsurface injection, to appli-
^ cation on solid waste material which is subsequently burned or disposed
00
(a) of in a landfill, or other method which does not result in discharge to
navigable waters, water of the contiguous zone, oceans, or a POTW.
Navigable Waters are considered to be any surface water bodies not
totally contained on the property of the discharger.
Historical Data is effluent quality data, relating to treated or
untreated wastewater collected for a period of 30 days or longer*
Requests for historical data in this portfolio are for the most recent
12-month period, or 30 days to 12 months if less than 12 months are
available.
According to the definitions above, does operation of your plant or
manufacturing process result in the release of any process wastewater?
Yes . No
If Yes, according to the definitions above, is your plant or manu-
facturing operation a direct, indirect, or self-contained discharger?
Direct Indirect Self-Contained
If direct, do you release effluent into the ocean?
Yes Ho
If your plant is a direct discharger, do you have an NPDES discharge
permit issued by a state and/or regional EPA office?
Yes No _
If yes, enclose a copy of the permit. Also identify municipal, county,
or regional regulations which control discharge from your plant, if any.
Then complete Parts One, Two, Three, Four, and Five and return*
-------
IE your plant it a direct discharger and does not have an NPDES
discharge permit, do you have an application for such a permit pending
before a state and/or regional EPA office?
Yes Ho
If Yes, provide the location of the state and/or regional EPA office
where the application is on file*
09
If your plant is a direct discharger and does not have an NPDES
discharge permit, do you have historical data on the quantity and/or
quality of your raw process wastewater.and/or your treated process
wastewater?
Yes No
If your plant is an indirect discharger, do you pretreat the raw
wastewater prior to discharge into the sewer?
Yes_ No
If your plant is an indirect discharger, do you have historical data on
the quantity and quality of your raw process wastewater and your treated
process wastewater?
Yes No
Indirect dischargers: Identify the naoes, location, and local
government office responsible for the publicly owned treatment works to
which you discharge.
Indirect dischargers: Identify specific pretreatment requirements
(other than federal) or limits upon pollutant parameters imposed by the
POTW system to which you discharge.
If your plant is a self-contained discharger, indicate method of
effluent release.
Land disposal
Containment in evaporation ponds
Subsurface injection
Spray on solid waste and incinerate
Spray on solid waste and landfill
Other (Specify)
-------
If your plane is a self-contained discharger, do you pretreat the raw
wastewater prior to effluent release to disposal?
Yes No
If your plant is a self-contained discharger, do you have historical
data on the quantity and/or quality of your raw process wastewater
and/or your treated process wastewater?
Yes No
Self-contained dischargers: Identify specific requirements, conditions,
^ or limits upon pollutant parameters imposed upon your effluent disposal
00
^ system by local or state pollution control authorities. Also identify
the local or state regulating office or authority.
The person who should be contacted concerning your response to this
letter is:
Name
Title
Address
Telephone
PART ONE
SUBCATEGORIZATION CHECKLIST
The following is a list of manufacturing processes or operations which
are associated with the Timber Products Processing Category. Please
identify those processes or operations which occur to your plant by
placing an '"X" in the appropriate space. Check all appropriate
responses.
Timber Harvesting Operations
Logging camps
Transportation of logs by truck
Transportation of logs by rail
Transportation of logs by ship or barge
Transportation by log rafts floating directly in the water
Other (specify)
Raw Materials Storage
Log storage by dry land deck
Log storage by wet land deck
Log storage, pond (self contained)
Log storage, pond (flow-through)
Log storage in estuary, river, or other large publicly-owned
body.of water
Fractionated wood (chip piles, etc.)
Other (specify)
-------
Backing'Operations
Mechanical debarkera
Hydraulic debarkera
jDther (specify)
Log Washing
Describe Che process used.
Sawmills and Planning Hills
General lumber production
Hardwood dimension and flooring
Specialty sawmills (specify)
Millwork
Describe the type of millwork performed.
Veneer Production
Hardwood veneer
Softwood veneer
Steam or hot water conditioning of logs in preparation for
veneering
Other (specify)
_Plywood Production
Softwood plywood
Hardwood plywood
Softwood core with hardwood face
Hardboard or particleboard core with hardwood face
Other (specify)
_Wood Container Production
Hailed wooden boxes
Wireboard boxes and crates
Veneer and plywood containers
Cooperage
Other (specify)
Structural Wood Members and Wood Laminates
Mechanical fasteners used
Nonwater soluble adhesives used
Water soluble adhesives used
Other (specify)
Finishing Operations (followng edging or trissning)
Kiln drying
Planning
Dipping
End coating
-------
Moisture proofing
Staining or paint ing
Machining, general
Fabrication using water soluble adhesives
Fabrication using nonwater soluble adhesives
Molded wood product*
Other (specify)
Hood Preserving
Steam conditioning
Boultonixing Process
FGAP treatment
Vapor drying methods
Creosote treatment
PentachlorophenoI treatment
Treatment with CCA, ACA, ACC, CZC, or other salts
fire retardants
Other (specify)
Hardboard Production (density greater than 31 lbs/cf)
Dry felting - dry pressing
Dry felting - wet pressing
Wet felting - wet pressing
Wet felting - dry pressing
Other (specify)
Insulation Board Production (density teas than 31 lbs/cf)
Mechanical pulping and refining only
Thermo-mechanica1 (steam) pulping and refining
Chemical or semlchemical pulping
Hardboard production at the same facility
Other (specify)
Particleboard or Flakeboard Production
Hat formed
Extruded
Other (specify)
_Wood Furniture and Fixture Production
With water wash spray booths
With on-site laundry facilities
Without either of the above
Other (specify)
Manufacturing operations related to, but not included in the
timber products processing category
Pulp and paper production
Charcoal production
Gum and wood chemicals manufacture
Production of wood preserving chemicals
Other (specify)
-------
PART TWO
DESCRIPTION OF PLANT OPERATIONS
(This information is required for each process identified in Part One,
Subcategorization Checklist, as pertaining to your plant. List answers
by number on a separate sheet.)
1. List the date the plant was built and the date major process
equipment was installed. Also list the dates of any rebuilds,
renovations, or modification of major process eqipment or
expansions.
2. Give the location of che plane.
00
00 3. List the design capacity for each process or product produced
(including byproducts, if any). State the basis used in reporting
the design capacity. If the basis is other than in weight or mass
units (pounds, tons, kilograms), indicate the density of the
finished product (use Attachment I).
4. Provide the approximate tons/day of raw materials and additives.
State whether the tons/day are reported on a dry or wet basis. If a
wet basis i6 used, estimate the percent moisture contained in the
raw material. For wood, specify the type (softwood or hardwood),
species, and form (roundwood, chips, veneer, etc.). For mineral or
If your plant produces a product or conducts a manufacturing process or
«
operation vhich is not listed above, please identify.
-------
chemical additives, give sufficient information to completely
identify the material (i.e., phenolic resin, 10 tons/day), point of
addition, and reason for use. For solutions, state the volume and
concentration (i.e., ferric chloride, 1 percent solution,
500 gallongs/day). For trade name chemicals or additives, state
«
trade name, amount used per day, point of addition, and reason for
use (use Attachment II).
Provide a schmatic diagram of the process or operation. Indicate on
this diagram, a pencil drawing will be sufficient, showing a thru e:
a. Each point where materials and additives listed in 4 above,
enter the process.
b. The location of each point where fresh water from an external
source is applied to the process and the approximate flow rate
of this water.
c. Each process wastewater stream with approximate flow rates and
destinations.
d. Bach process water recycle stream. Be sure to indicate the
source, destination, and approximate flow rates of each recycle
stream.
e. The point where any nonprocea* wastewater stream is mixed with
any process wastewater stream. Also indicate the source and
approximate flow rate of this commingled nonprocess wastewater.
For each external source of fresh water applied to the system, list
the source (municipal, river, wells or property, etc.) of this water
and the quality, if known. If any external water source require*
treatment prior to application to the system, describe the water
treatment system. If the water treatment system results in the
production of a waste stream or sludge, estimate the flow rate or
volume and the quality of this waste stream.
7. List all solid waste produced by the process, the source of the
wastes, approximate tons/day, and the method of solid waste
disposal.
8. For each process wastewater stream indicated in 5.c above, state
whether the approximate flow rate provided is constant or fluctuates
during plant operation. Estimate the range of variation in any
fluctuating wastewater stream and explain what causes the
variation.
-------
PART THREE
WASTEWATER CHAKACTERIZATIOH AMD TUfAKEHT OR
PRETREATKENT SYSTEM IKFORHATIOH
(This infornation it required for each process identified in Part One,
Subcategorizatian Checklist, *¦ pertaining to your plant. Lilt answers
by number on a separate sheet.)
1, Describe the wastewater treatment or pcetreatmant facilities for
each process. The following information is requested:
a. Type, size, and design basis (both hydraulic and pollutant
loading) for each unit in the system (i.e., aerated lagoon,
15,000 ft3, 1.0 ngd, and 30 lb B0D/ft3/day peak fiow;
0.5 sgd, and 15 lb BGDj/ft-tyday normal flow) (see
4s*
l£> Attachment III).
O
b. A schematic diagram of the wastewater treatment r pretreatraent
facilities. Identify all wastewater streams treated by each
unit. Indicate on this diagram sampling points for which
historical data are available.
c. Amount of waste sludge produced, in pounds and cubic yards per
day, week, or month. State method of sludge disposal. If
sludge transported off the premises for disposal, indicate the
distance to disposal site. Include sludge disposal costs, in
detail, Estimate the annual energy requirements of KWH, or
other standard energy units of the wastewater treatment or
pretreatment system. If this Information it unavailable, .iti the
total installed horsepower for effluent treatment or pretreatment
systema,
2. Report the monthly production of each product produced during the
most recent 12-month period for which this data is available, If
daily or weekly production figures are kept include them. State
basis used for all production figures (please indicate if you want
thia information kept confidential.) (Use Attachment IV),
3. For the same 12-aonth period for which production data is provided,
provide the daily monitoring data for the raw process wastewater
and the treated final effluent from the plant. Parameters of
interest are flow rate, BOD^, COD, TOC, TSS, phenol, heavy
metals, and any of the toxic substances listed in Part Four of this
letter for which data are available. If the combined raw process
wastewater reported contains nonprocess wastewater, estimate the
flow rate and BOD5, COD, TOC, TSS, phenol, and toxic substance
Concentrations of- this nonprocess wastewater. Also, complete
Attachments V and VI.
4. For the 12-month period used in reporting 2 and 3 above, report (or
estimate) the total energy requirements of the production process.
Report all energy requirements in KWH, gallons of fuel oil (state
type of oil), SCF of natural gas (state heating value/CF) solid
fuel, etc.
-------
5. Describe the type and frequency of sampling conducted to obtain the
data in Items 3 and 4 {i.e., weekly grab samples, daily flow
proportioned samples, week-Iy time'composites (1 hour duration,
samples, ????}] that sampling points are marked on the diagram of
the treatment system. State the methods used to analyze the ;
reported data, give references for Standard Methods, and describe
any nonstandard methods. State whether or not acclimated seed is
used in BOD analyses.
If air pollution abatement equipment in your plant results in the-
production of wastewater, estimate flow rate, BOD5, COD, TOC,
TSS, phenols, and toxic substances in this wastewater stream.
7. Describe and fully explain any in-process technology used to reduce
pollution discharges for liquid and solid waste (e.g., housekeeping
practices, water streams recycled, conversion of wastes into
by-products).
8, Describe any methods or devices used to reduce or contain leaks of
process water and spills during the manufacturing process, If a
major leak or overflow occurs in the process, what is the fate of
the resulting wastewater? Do you have a spill prevention and
control plant (SPCC) on file? If so, please furnish a copy,
in -ding logs or descriptions of past spill occurrences and the
act. .c -taken.
9. Discuss seasonality effects on operations, waste load generation,
treatment effectiveness, etc. Provide documentation, if
available.
10. Are you conducting, or have you conducted in the past 3 years, any '•
of the following for water pollution abatement.
Yes No
a. Pilot Studies ________
b. Process Modifications ______
c. Treatment System
Improvements ______
d. Grants
If answer is yes to any of the above, give details.
11. Are additional and of treatment modules or modifications being
planned in order to enable your plant to meet July 1, L977 (BPT)
guidelines? If so, give details and estimated costs. Report only
those facilities which are planned to be on-line by July 1977.
Yes ' . No
1
-------
PART TOUR
TOXIC CHZKICAL CHECKLIST
The following is a list of pollutant* identified by the EPA
potentially toxic compounds. Indicate by placing an "X" in the
appropriate space which, if any, of these pollutants, to your knowledge,
are used or generated in your plant. For each of the pollutants
identified as used or generated in your plant, alio provide the
following inforaation (use Attachment VII),
The quantity and frequency of use.
Identify the process or operation in which the substance is used or
generated.
Whether it is known if the substance is discharged fron the plant
(this includes direct and indirect discharges).
The quantity of each substance discharged as liquid, gaseous, or
solid waste, if known.
m
ro
5.
The frequency with which such discharges occur, i.e., continuously
or intermittently (weekly, hourly, etc.), if known.
The aaapling or Monitoring program for each pollutant, if any.
It should be noted that many plants nay be using quantities of the
listed cheaieals as additives, cleaning solution, or solvents which
are purchased and referred to by a trade naae. All trade naae
cheaieals used in the plant should be surveyed to determine if they
contain substances listed below. List all wood preservative, fire
retardants, fungicides, and aildewcides used in the plant. List by
generic naae (creosote, CCA, etc.), if known. If generic naae is
unknown, list by trade naae.
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon Tetrachloride (Tetrachloroaethane)
Chlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
-------
i,1,2,2~tetrachlotoethane
_Chloroethane
_JJis(chioromethyl) Ether
_Bis(2-cbloroethyl) Ether
j2-chloroethyl Vinyl Ether (Mixed)
_2-*chloronaphthaleae
2,4,6*-trichlorophenol
JPanachlororaeta Gresol
Chloroform (Trichloromethane)
2-chlorophenol
1.2-dichlorobenzene
1.3-d ichlorobenzene
_1, 4-d ich lorobenzene
_3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
1.1-dichloroethylene
1-2,-trans-di chloroethylene
2,4~d i ch1oropheno1
1.2-diehIoropropane
1,3~dichIoropropylene (1,3-dich loropropene)
2,4~ditaethy lphenol
2,4-dinitrotoluene
2,6-dinitrotoluene .
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzerie
Fluroanthene
4~chlorophenyl Phenyl Ether
4-broiaophenyl Phenyl Ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) Ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) Methane
Methylene Chloride (Dichlorooethane)
Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane)
Methyl Bromide (Bromomethane)
Bramoform (Tribrotaomethane)
Dichlorobroraoraethane
Trichlorofluororaethane
Dichlorodifluoromethana
. Chlorodibroaomethane
9 Hexachlorobut adiene
JKexachlorocyclopent adiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
_2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o~cresol
K-nitrosodimethylaraine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-n ittosodi-n~pr
-------
Dieldrin
Oilordane (Technical Mixture md XetaboliteO
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-BDE{p,p,-DDX)
4,4,-DDD(p>p,-TDE)
alph-Zndoiulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Beptachlor
Beptachlor Expoxide
alpha-BBC
beta-BHC
gtana-BHC (Lindane)
delta-SBC
PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
PCI-2154 (Arochlot 1254)
Toxaphene
Ant inony (Total)
Arsenic (Total)
Asbestos (Fibrous)
Beryllium (Total)
Cadaiua (Total)
CbroniuB (Total)
_Phenol
_Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
_Butyl Benxyl Phthalate
_Di-n-butyl Phthalate
_Diethyl Phthalate
JDiaethyl Phthalate
_1,2-benzanthracene
_Benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyreae)
_3,4-ben*ofluoranthene
_11,12-benzofluoranthene
_Chryaene
_Aceaaphthyleoe
_Anthracene
_1,12-bentoperylene
_Fluroene
_Phenanthrene
1,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene
_Indeno(l,2,3-C,B)pyrene
_Pyrene
_2,3,7 ,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Jtetrachloroethylene
_Toluene
_Trichloroethylene
Jioyl Chloride (Chloroethylene)
Aldrin
-------
Copper (Total)
Cyanide (Total)
Lead (Total)
Mercury (Total)
Nickel (Total)
Selenium (Total)
Silver (Total)
Thallium (Total)
Zinc (Total)
tO
cn
ATTACHMENT I
PART TM
QUESTION 3.
DESIGN UNITS OF MOISTURE DENSITY UNITS OF
PRODUCT OR PROCESS CAPACITY CAPACITY CONTENT (if Applicable) DENSITY
GENERAL LUMBER
HARDWOOD DIMENSION
AND FLOORING
SPECIALTY SAWMILLS
MILLVJORK
VENEER
PLYWOOD
WOOD CONTAINERS
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
AND LAMINATES ____
_ WOOD PRESERVING
HARDBOARD
INSULATION BOARD
PARTICLEBOARD
WOOD FURNITURE ____
-------
ATTACHMENT II
PART TWO
QUESTION 3.
PRODUCT OR PftXSSS RWHttERIALS ZHHSIURg ADDITrVgS 0M€HT
(BEMLIUMBER
HARDWOOD DMNSICK ZZZZZZZZ
AH) tLDQRDG
SPECIALTY SttWIJLS ZZZZZZZZ ZZZ
miHSK. ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZ zzzzzzzz zzz
VENEER ZZZZ ZZZZZI ZZZI
mwxo ZZZZZZZZ zzzz zzzzzzz zzz
l£>
O)
WOCD CENEADCRS •
STRUCTURAL WMBERS ZZZZZZZ ZZZ
A»WMn«rEs
WOCD PRESHWDG
HAKDBCKRD ZZZ
INSUIATICN BOARD [ZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ ZZZ
PARTIOEB^RD
WOCD RJKNITORE
ATTACHMENT III
PART THREE
QUESTION 1.
WASTEWATER YEAR
TREATMENT PROCESS DESICH BASIS AND SIZE CONSTRUCTED
SCREENING __
FILTRATION
BIOLOGICAL
ANAEROBIC
AEROBIC
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
TRICKLING FILTER
EVAPORATION
SPRAY IRRIGATION
OTHER
-------
xmamn: w
PART USEE
QUESTION 2.
MKIHLY PKXXJCTICN
(Indicate Msnth in Parertheses)
Mxith 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month A Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Morth 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Units of
PBCCUCT ( )_ { I ( )_ < )_ ( I i I ( I ( ¦ ) ( I ( )_ ( I ( I Production
GENERAL LUMBER
HARDWOOD DMNSICN
AND Bl/XRDC - : - - __
SPECIALS SMMIIIS J
MHUWORK . ^ . ;
VENEER •
PtfWOCD
WOCD ODNEADCRS
HOCD HIESESVI1G - • ' L" __
HARDBOABD
SGUIATKH BOARD
PARTICUEBQARD
HOOD HJRNTIURE
ATTACHMENT IV
PART THREE
QUESTION 3.
TREATED PROCESS WASTE LOADS DISCHARGED
Corporation
Plant
Discharge Point ^
Do you post-chlorinate this effluent? Yes No If yes, do you chlorinate? (A) Full-time (B) Part-time
Time period represented
Calendar
. Daily Monthly Averages
Parameter (Provide Long Term
Information Available) Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Maximum Remarks
Flow (MGD) __ :
ph (ph Unit 8)* '
Temperature (*C)~Wastewater
Temperature (#C)—Ambient Air ^ _
BOD5 (lbs/day)
COD (lbs/day) .
TOC (lbs/day)
TSS (lbs/day)
TDS (lbs/day) - J
NH3 as N (lbs/day) ,
TKN as N (lbs/day) '
Phenol (lbs/day)
Significant Metals (identify)
(lba/day)
(lbs/day)
(lba/day) ; .
(lbs/day)
Others (Identify)
(lbs/day) . ... . .... -
(lbs/day) '
(lbs/day) .
497
-------
ATTACHMENT IV
PART THREE
QUESTION 2.
WASTE LOADS TO TREATMENT FACILITIES.
Corporation
Plant
Wastewater Source(s)
Tine Period Represented
Calendar
Daily Monthly Averages
Parameter (Provide Long Term
Information Available) Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Maximum
Flow (HGD) °
ph (ph Units)
Temperature (*C)—Wastewater
Temperature (*C)—Ambient Air
B0D5_ (lbs/day)
COD (lbs/day)
TOC (lbs/day)
TSS (lbs/day)
TDS (lbs/day)
Nttt as N (lbs/day)
TKN as N (lbs/day)
Phenol (lbs/day)
Significant Metals (Identify)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
Others (Identify)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
------- |