-------
ment 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 on-line
within the next 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 VII1-17 for each of the candidate
levels of biological treatment. Of the remaining two plants, one is
selfcontained (no-discharge) and the other is an indirect discharger.
No costs of compliance will be incurred by these plants. Pretreatment
of raw wastewater from this subcategory is not considered necessary
due to the extremely low levels of toxic pollutant contamination.
NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES
The most significant non-water quality impact of the candidate
technologies involves the disposal of wastewater sludges. Such
disposal must be managed properly to mitigate ground or surface water
contamination.
Data have been presented in this document to demonstrate that toxic
pollutants are removed by biological treatment. Organic materials may
be biodegraded, stripped from the wastewater by aeration, or removed
with the waste sludge. Metals are most certainly contained in the
sludge. Organic toxic pollutants of high molecular weight, partic-
ularly the polynuclear aromatics and pentachlorophenol, are also quite
likely to be contained within the oily matrix of typical wood
preserving sludges.
It was not within the scope of this study to define whether waste
materials from the timber products industry are to be considered
hazardous. Consequently, no efforts were made to accurately charac-
terize the sludge produced as a result of wastewater treatment. No
sludge samples were collected during the verification sampling
programs. Limited information is available, however, from the data
collection portfolios and from interviews with plant personnel to
estimate the quantities of sludge generated by the various candidate
treatment technologies.
Sludge Generation. Wood Preserving
The three most common wastewater treatment schemes in-place in the
wood preserving industry are: 1) gravity oil-water separation
followed by chemical flocculation and frequently including slow sand
filtration; 2) gravity oil-water separation followed by biological
treatment (flocculation/filtration may be included if oil-water
emulsions are a problem); and 3) no-discharge evaporation systems.
Each of these treatment schemes results in the generation of sludge.
295
-------
Data obtained from the data collection portfolios and interviews with
plant personnel are summarized in Table VII1-18.
It is apparent from this table that the sludge generation for the
three in-place treatment schemes are about equal, and that the
adoption of evaporation technology as a basis for future regulations
would not result in a significant increase in sludge generation over
current pretreatment technology or BPT technology.
The candidate treatment technologies which use activated carbon
adsorption and metals removal by hydroxide precipitation will result
in the generation of increased sludge volumes as compared to the three
in-place technologies.
The source of the sludge from the carbon adsorption system is the
spent carbon. It is not economical to regenerate this carbon based on
predicted carbon usage and the low wastewater flows common in this
industry. The volume of sludge resulting from activated carbon
treatment is estimated to be approximately 0.006 cubic yard per 1,000
cubic feet of production. The additional cost of disposing this
sludge will be less than $0.25 per 1,000 cubic feet of production.
This sludge will contain adsorbed organic toxic pollutants as well as
some adsorbed metals.
The volume of sludge resulting from hydroxide precipitation is
estimated to be approximately 0.03 cubic yard per 1,000 cubic feet of
production. Costs of disposing this sludge are estimated at $.75 per
1,000 cubic feet.
Sludge Generation—Insulation Board and Hardboard
The large biological treatment systems in-place at discharging insula-
tion board and hardboard plants generate significant volumes of waste
biological sludge. The amount of sludge generated is a function of
raw wastewater strength and the amount of BOD and TSS removed by the
treatment system.
Systems with aerated lagoons generally design the quiescent settling
zone of the lagoon (or design the facultative settling lagoon which
follows the aerated lagoons) to provide sludge storage for 6 to 12
months or more. These lagoons are periodically dredged, the sludge is
allowed to dewater by gravity, and the dewatered sludge is generally
disposed of in landfills.
Activated sludge systems generate waste sludge that must be stored
and/or disposed of daily. Plants with these systems will generally
route the waste sludge to gravity settling basins or to mechanical
dewatering equipment, prior to disposing of it in a landfill.
296
-------
Several plants dispose of their sludge on-site through application to
the soil. Other plants have arrangements with local businesses which
use the sludge as a soil conditioner for nursery and other
agricultural purposes.
Table VII1-19 presents the range of sludge volume generated by plants
in the insulation board and hardboard segment of the industry. These
data were obtained from the data collection portfolios and interviews
with plant personnel.
The costs of handling and disposal of sludges from the biological
treatment systems of these segments were considered during the eco-
nomic impact analysis performed as part of the overall study prior to
proposal of the original regulations applicable to insulation board
and hardboard plants. The degree of treatment which is achievable by
any of the candidate treatment systems proposed for insulation board
and hardboard candidate treatment technologies does not exceed the
requirements of the originally proposed regulations. Therefore, no
significant cost impact for sludge disposal is expected beyond that
originally determined necessary to meet BPT requirements.
Toxic Pollutant Content of_ Sludge
Since it can be assumed that the majority of the metals removed by
wastewater treatment accumulate in the sludge, estimates of the metals
content of the sludge can be made. However, because of
inconsistencies in the sludge production data provided by the data
collection portfolio respondents—inconsistencies caused by the fact
that the industry not only practices varying degrees of sludge
recycling but also practices different methods of sludge handling and
disposal,—only rough estimates could be made of metals concentrations
in the sludge for those plants for which raw wastewater and treated
effluent metals concentration data as well as sludge production data
are available. A mass balance was applied to the plants' treatment
systems. Assuming that the metals content in the sludge equaled the
raw wastewater metals load minus the treated effluent metals load,
with the mass of sludge being generated as a known factor, the
concentration of the metals in the sludge could be estimated. Table
VII1-20 presents the estimated metals concentrations in the sludge for
a wood preserving plant which treats with both organic and inorganic
preservatives (Plant 65), a wood preserving plant which treats only
with organic preservatives (Plant 267), an insulation board plant
(Plant 36), and a hardboard plant (Plant 207).
Due to the lack of data on the ratio of heavy organic toxic pollutants
which concentrate in the sludge to the amount which are biodegraded,
and the lack of analytical data on the sludge itself, no realistic
estimate can be made on the organic toxic pollutant content of the
sludge.
297
-------
Sludge Disposal Considerations
If land disposal is to be used for materials considered to be
hazardous, the disposal sites must not allow movement of pollutants to
either ground or surface waters. Natural conditions which must exist
include geological insurance that no hydraulic continuity can occur
between liquids and gases from the waste and natural ground or surface
waters. Disposal areas cannot be subject to washout, nor can they be
located over active forest zones or where geological changes can
impair natural barriers. Any rock fractures or fissures underlying
the site must be sealed.
As a safeguard, liners may be needed at landfill sites. Liner
materials should be pretested for compatibility with the wastes to be
disposed.
teachate from the landfill must be collected and treated. The nature
of the treatment will vary with the nature of the waste, and may
consist of neutralization, hydrolysis, biological treatment, or
evaporation. Treatment in some cases may be achieved by recycling the
leachate into the landfill.
In general, wastes considered to be hazardous should only be disposed
of at a "specially designated" landfill, which is described in 40 CFR
250, Federal Register (December 18, 1978) as a landfill at which
complete long-term protection of subsurface waters is provided. Such
sites should be designed to avoid direct hydraulic continuity with
surface and subsurface waters, and any leachate or subsurface flow
into the disposal area should be contained within the site unless
treatment is provided. Monitoring wells should be established and a
sampling and analysis program conducted.
Other Non-Water Quality Impacts
If deep well injection is considered to be economically attractive for
ultimate wastewater disposal, the system must be located on a porous,
permeable formation of sufficient depth to insure continued, permanent
storage. It must be below the lowest ground water aquifer, be
confined above and below by impermeable zones, and contain no natural
fractures or faults. The wastewater so disposed must be compatible
with the formation, should be completely detoxified, and should have
removal of any solids which could result in stratum plugging.
Provisions for continued monitoring of well performance and subsurface
movement of wastes must be provided.
Percolation of wastes considered to be hazardous from earthen impound-
ments (aerated lagoons, evaporation ponds, etc.) must be prevented.
If the natural soil is pervious, artificial lining is necessary.
Monitoring wells must be provided.
298
-------
If incineration is used for materials considered to be hazardous, and
thermal regeneration of carbon may fall into this category, provisions
must be made to prevent the entry of hazardous pollutants into the
atmosphere. In particular, incineration is not applicable to wastes
containing heavy metals. Equipment requirements for air pollution
control vary for different applications, but since the off gases of
incineration can be controlled by scrubbing, with the resulting
effluent being discharged to the wastewater treatment facility, air
quality impact need not be significant.
To date, no adverse impacts upon air quality have been identified
which would restrict the adoption of any of the candidate treatment
technologies.
Minor impacts on air quality may occur as a result of spray
evaporation or cooling tower evaporation since the wastewater being
evaporated contains volatile organic compounds which can evaporate
with the waste and increase the equivalent hydrocarbon content of the
air. Drift losses caused by wind may also cause an air quality impact
as a result of spray evaporation or cooling tower evaporation.
Volatile organic compounds may also be stripped from wastewater by
aeration, such as in activated sludge units or aerated lagoons. How-
ever, the resulting air quality impact is not considered to be
significant in the timber products industry.
299
-------
Table VIII-18. Sludge Generation by In-Place Wood Preserving
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Average Unit Range of Unit
Sludge Generation Sludge Generation
Treatment (cu yd/1,000 cu ft (cu yd/1,000 cu ft
Technology production) production)
Current Pretreatment - 0.018 0.002 - 0.055
Gravity Oil-Water
Separation Followed by
Chemical Flocculation and
Slow Sand Filtration or
Equivalent
Current BPT - 0.014 0.002 - 0.033
Gravity Oil-Water
Separation Followed by
Biological Treatment (some
plants also include
flocculation/filtration)
No-Dischargers - 0.016 0.001 - 0.074
Evaporation Systems
Source: Data Collection Portfolios.
300
-------
Table VIII-19. Sludge Generation by Insulation Board and Hardboard
Treatment Systems
Subcategory
Average Unit Range of Unit
Sludge Generation Sludge Generation
(cu yd/ton production) (cu yd/ton production)
Insulation Board -
Mechanical
Insulation Board -
Thermo-mechan i ca1
SIS Hardboard
S2S Hardboard
0.039
0.022
0.038
0.019
0.0038 - 0.0909
0.016 - 0.028
0.0006 - 0.182
data from one plant
Source: Data Collection Portfolios.
301
-------
Table VII1-20. Estimated Metals Content of Sludge
Metals Content (qm/Kkq of Dry Sludge)
ietal
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Silver
Thallium
Chromium
Mercury
Arsenic
Antimony
Selenium
Wood Preserving
Organic and
Inorganic
Preservatives
—
—
26
8.6
8.6
—
—
—
6,200
—
8.6
8.6
26
Wood Preserving
Organic
Preservatives
Only
—
—
28
6.2
9.3
605
—
3.1
—
—
6.2
—
3.1
Insulation
Board
0.23
—
1,400
13
30
2,100
0.33
2.8
—
2.8
—
—
—
Hardboard
0.11
0.11
650
7.2
270
980
0.11
—
—
—
—
—
Source: Environmental Science and Engineering
302
-------
SECTION IX
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 generally is based upon the average of the best existing
performance, 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 processes,
it also includes control technologies within the process itself when
the latter 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.
303
-------
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 Preserving-Waterborne Or Non-pressure Subcategory (formerly Wood
Preserving Subcategory)
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory
BPT 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 1,100 550
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
Phenols 0.14 0.04
Oil and Grease 1.5 0.75
pjj Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
Wood Preserving-Boultonizing Subcategory
No discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Insulation Board
On August 26, 1974, effluent guidelines and standards were proposed
for the direct discharging segment of the insulation board
manufacturing segment. These proposed regulations were never
promulgated. Promulgation was delayed because review of the proposed
regulation indicated that additional information was needed.
304
-------
Wet Process Hardboard
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.
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 establishing industry
subcategories for the purpose of establishing effluent limitations.
AGE AND SIZE OF EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
As indicated in Section IV of this report, no significant data
substantiate the claim that plant age or size justifies different
effluent limitations. Data indicate that some of the oldest and
smallest plants currently achieve levels of treatment equivalent to
those achieved by large and new facilities.
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Wood Preserving
No changes are proposed in BPT effluent limitations for the wood
preserving segment.
Wet Process Hardboard/Insulation Board
Best practicable control technology for the wet process hardboard
subcategory and the insulation board subcategory are based on end-of-
pipe biological treatment systems currently demonstrated. The
insulation board BPT technology is defined as primary clarification,
followed by secondary treatment (biological, either extended aeration
or activated sludge), secondary clarification and recycle and reuse of
a portion of the treated wastewater, as practiced by plant no. 537.
The SIS portion of the wet process hardboard subcategory BPT
technology is also based on biological treatment, primary settling,
aerated lagoon, secondary settling, and discharge, as currently
practiced by plant no. 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 BPT. Therefore, a BPT
305
-------
limitation was calculated, based on S2S raw waste loads applied to the
performance of the SIS BPT system.
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 treatment systems different than those described above.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIMITATIONS
The pollutants controlled by the BPT limitations are BOD5_, TSS and pH.
The discharge of these pollutants is controlled by mass effluent
limitations, i.e., kg per kkg or pounds per 1,000 pounds of gross
production.
A detailed discussion of the rationale for determining BPT for each
subcategory of the insulation board/hardboard segment follows.
Insulation Board Subcateqory
Sixteen plants fall into this subcategory, eleven which produce solely
insulation board, and five which produce both insulation board and S2S
hardboard. Five of the sixteen plants are direct dischargers.
BOD5_ 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 known 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.
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 effluent 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 pumped back to the plant, and excess
treated wastewater is discharged to receiving waters.
306
-------
In-place technology at the remaining five 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 six insulation board direct
dischargers. Mechanical refining plants generally 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 currently is providing primary treatment only, pending
construction of a pure oxygen activated sludge treatment system
expected to be operational in 1980. 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
fields lined with underdrains. Percolated effluent 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 has concluded that it is not representative of BPT
technology.
One non-discharging plant in the subcategory uses 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 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 177 gpd/sq ft
Nutrient Addition to Maintain
307
-------
C:N:P at 100:5:1
Aerated Lagoon Detention Time 0.028 days/lb
BOD removed
Aeration Capacity 0.032 HP/lb
BOD removed
Performance data over a two-year period for Plant 537 indicate that
the treatment system is performing exceptionally well, with long-term
average treated effluent loads of 2.10 kg/kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) for BOD5_
and 1.48 kg/kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) for TSS. The BPT limitations for this
subcategory were derived by multiplying the long-term average
performance of Plant 537 by the daily and monthly variability factors
for Plant 537 documented in Section XIV (PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS).
Hardboard SIS Subcategory
Nine plants fall into this group, eight of which are direct
dischargers.
BOD5_ and TSS are the major wastewater pollutants. None of the 124
toxic pollutants were measured at levels that would be further reduced
by known treatment technologies.
The Agency reviewed and evaluated the treatment systems at all eight
of the direct discharging plants in order to choose a treatment
technology representative of BPT. Requirements for the BPT technology
were that it represent exemplary performance within the subcategory
and that it be applicable to all plants within the subcategory.
Technology selected as representative of BPT technology for the SIS
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 two days detention in an aerated lagoon, a
secondary settling pond, followed by discharge to the receiving water.
Of the five SIS plants from which one to two years historical BOD5. and
TSS data was available, this plant's treatment system exhibited the
most consistent uniformity of discharge quality both in terms of daily
and long-term average discharge.
In-place technology at the remaining seven direct discharging plants
from which long term data was available was not selected as
representative of BPT 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
308
-------
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 systems at this plant consist 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 BODI5 and TSS discharge of all SIS plants. Because of the
poor performance over the recent past and because of the influence of
the battery plant on the operation, this plant was not considered as a
BPT candidate.
Plant 3 produces primarily exterior siding grade SIS hardboard. The
plant has primary settling, an activated sludge system, followed by an
aerated lagoon system. Some wastewater from the aerated lagoon is
reused in the manufacturing process. The plant is considering the
recycling of a portion of the waste sludge from secondary clarifiers.
The treatment system, based on long-term data analysis, demonstrates a
greater amount of discharge 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 to by-product
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
which outperform the candidate BPT systems (in terms of unit discharge
of pollutants) of Plant 207, the combination evaporation biological
treatment technology 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 TV cabinet backs: all uses where the hardboard is not
visible, and not likely to be in contact with moisture. Therefore,
appearance and water absorption qualities of the board are not
important criteria. The plant has for the past two years been
modifying process equipment and techniques to increase recycle and
minimize the wastewater volume that must be treated and disposed. The
plant has reduced the volume of wastewater 90+ percent and has also
significantly reduced the mass of pollutants discharged in the raw
waste. However, because the relatively unique product line of this
plant has relatively low requirements for appearance, paintability,
309
-------
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 the relatively low
volume of process wastewater discharged from the plant in two large
oxidation lagoons/settling ponds, which are not in themselves
sufficiently effective to be considered as a BPT candidate for the
subcategory.
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 two large settling lagoons
operated in parallel (a third settling lagoon is used as a spare to
insure that two lagoons are continuously operating). 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 biological treatment and applicable to all
SIS hardboard plants. 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 reason that Plant 929's internal-process recycle cannot be
applied to other SIS plants. For this reason, the treatment system at
Plant 919 was not considered as a BPT candidate.
The remaining SIS hardboard plant is Plant 930 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 treatment technology
for the SIS hardboard subcategory:
Primary Settling Lagoon
Detention Time 4.3 days
Nutrient Addition to Maintain
C:N;P at 100:5:1
Aerated Lagoon Detention Time 0.0028 days/lb
BOD removed
310
-------
Aeration Capacity 0.054 HP/lb
BOD removed
Secondary Settling Lagoon
Detention Time 2.3 days
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 4.46 kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ib) for BODS
and 10.4 kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ib) for TSS.
The BPT limitations for this subcategory were derived by multiplying
the long-term average performance of plant 207 by the daily and
monthly variability factors for plant 207 documented in Section
XlV-Performance Factors for Treatment Plant Operations.
Hardboard S2S Subcateqorv
Seven plants fall into this subcategory, five of which produce both
insulation board and S2S 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.
BOD5. 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 known 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. Treatment systems
at three of the plants were treating to very low effluent levels, and
two of the plants were determined to be providing a degree of
treatment far better than that which should be expected of a BPT
treatment system.
Among the three plants which were found to be providing a high degree
of treatment, two of the plants are using land intensive technology
which is not readily applicable to all plants within the subcategory.
Plant 1035 has over 100 acres of aerated lagoons and oxidation ponds,
and Plant 943 spray irrigates 200 acres, collecting excess effluent in
underdrains prior to discharge.
Plant 980, the only plant which produces solely 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 subcategory, is more
311
-------
representative of BAT or BCT technology than it is of BPT technology.
For example, the SIS subcategory BPT treatment system demonstrates
pollutant removal efficiencies of 86.1 percent for BOD and 64.6
percent for TSS. TSS removals are based on measured raw waste load
TSS plus an additional 0.784 Ib TSS per Ib BOD removed to take into
account biological solids generated in the treatment system. This
figure is based on data supplied by the industry.
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 subcategory BCT candidate plant 931,
which removes 97.9 percent of BOD and 92.3 percent of TSS.
In the absence of an S2S hardboard treatment system which demonstrates
technology representative of BPT, the Agency has calculated BPT for
this subcategory based on the pollutant removal efficiencies
demonstrated by the SIS hardboard subcategory BPT treatment system, as
applied to the raw waste load generated by Plant 980, the only sole
S2S hardboard producing plant. Again, solids generated by biological
treatment are included in this calculation. 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 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.
Specific engineering design criteria, based on the treatment system at
Plant 980, are presented below for BPT biological treatment technology
for the S2S Hardboard subcategory:
Primary Clarifier Overflow Rate 400 gpd/sq ft
Nutrient Addition to Maintain C:N:P at 100s5:l
Activated Sludge System
Detention Time 0.000053 days/lb
BOD removed
Aeration 0.029 HP/lb
BOD removed
Aerated Lagoon
Detention Time 0.00028 days/lb
BOD removed
312
-------
Aeration Capacity 0.034 HP/lb
BOD removed
Final Settling Lagoon
Detention Time 96 hours
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION
The specific level of technology defined as BPT is practicable because
many plants in the timber products industry wood preserving and
insulation board/hardboard segments 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/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-
year data base of daily effluent monitoring data provided by the
plants themselves.
Engineering design factors for BPT technology treatment systems are
presented above in the discussion of methodology for each subcategory
in the insulation board/hardboard segment.
COST AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS-INSULATION BOARD/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 $8.9 million. Operation and maintenance
costs for all of these plants will increase by $3.5 million per year.
Achievement of proposed BPT effluent limitations will remove
approximately 20 million pounds per year of conventional pollutants
(BOD£ and TSS). EPA believes that these effluent reduction benefits
outweigh the associated costs.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The major non-water quality impact of the proposed BPT limitations is
the amount of waste sludge generated in biological treatment systems
and the increased burden of the land to accept the disposal of this
sludge. Since all direct discharging plants currently have biological
systems in place, the incremental increase in sludge generation as
these plants upgrade their facilities is negligible. Waste sludges
from wood preserving plants, although small in volume, have been shown
to contain significant quantities of toxic pollutants and need special
consideration insofar as landfill siting and operation are concerned.
Waste sludges from insulation board/hardboard plants, although
313
-------
generated in much larger volumes than at wood preserving plants, are
not hazardous in nature, based on currently available information, and
are amenable to normal sanitary landfill practice.
A more complete discussion of non-water quality impacts is presented
in Section VIII, Costs, Energy, and Non-Water Quality Impacts.
APPLICATION OF 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 production of the maximum 30
consecutive days.
PROPOSED BPT LIMITATIONS
Presented below are the best practicable control technology
limitations proposed in this rulemaking.
Wood Preserving Water Borne or Non-Pressure Subcategory
No change to existing limitations.
Wood Preserving-Steam Subcategory
No change to existing limitations.
Wood Preserving-Boultonizing Subcategory
No change to existing limitations.
Insulation Board Subcategory
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 Ib) of
gross production
BOD5 8.25 2.94
TSS 6.27 2.09
pj Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
Wet-Process Hardboard (SIS Portion)
BPT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of daily
314
-------
Pollutant Property any one day values for 30
consecutive days
kg/kkg (lb/1,000 Ib) of
gross production)
BOD5_ 20.7 6.00
TSS 37.4 14.0
pH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
Wet-Process Hardboard (S2S Portion)
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 Ib) of
gross production)
BODS 36.5 12.1
TSS~ 132.7 28.6
gH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
The maximum average of daily values for any thirty consecutive day
period should not exceed the 30 day effluent limitations shown above.
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 hardboard 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.
315
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
GENERAL
The 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 it is readily transferable.
A specific finding must be made as to the availability of control
measures and practices to eliminate the discharge of pollutants,
taking into account the cost of such elimination. BAT may include
process changes or internal controls, even when not common industry
practice.
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) emphasizes
inprocess controls, as well as control or additional treatment
techniques employed at the end of the production process.
Consideration was 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. non-water 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 investing in
such facilities. 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 pollutants. Although economic factors are considered in this
development, the costs of this level of control are intended to be the
top-of-the-line of current technology, subject to limitations imposed
317
-------
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 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 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.
BAT limitations for Wood Preserving-Steam subcategory were originally
promulgated in 1974. These limitations allowed a discharge, but
establishes controls on COD, 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 as 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. Contact was
also made with Regional EPA offices, State pollution control offices,
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.
318
-------
Wood preserving plants in the steam subcategory have eliminated the
discharge of process wastewater pollutants, although they were not
required to by law, by the application of 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. In addition, many
plants that did not replace barometric condensers have in the past
five years begun to recycle barometric cooling water. Separation of
steam condensate and contact process wastewater results in a
signficant 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 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 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 subcategory
to achieve no discharge status. As presented in Section III, 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, and the
application of waste heat.
For the Wood Preserving-Waterborne and Non-Pressure and Wood
Preserving-Boulton subcategories, the Agency has decided to retain
existing BAT limitations which require no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants. All known plants within 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, »wi).l 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
319
-------
are otherwise greater than the volume of process wastewater generated
by the wood preserving operations.
CONCLUSION
The Agency decided that it would not be appropriate to propose 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.
Hardboard/Insulation Board Segment
EPA has divided this segment into two subcategories. The basis for
the subcategorizaton are the process employed, the products produced,
and raw waste load differences. The insulation board industry makes
up one subcategory. The wet-process hardboard industry makes up one
subcategory, 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 segment 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 appreciable amounts in wastewaters from
this segment. BOD!> and TSS are the conventional pollutants found in
high amounts.
CONCLUSION
Because toxic pollutants are not present, at appreciable levels in raw
or treated wastewaters, the Agency has concluded that BAT limitations
will not be proposed for this segment.
Section XI of this document presents proposed BCT limitations for the
hardboard/insulation board segment and the rationale for their
development.
BARKING SEGMENT
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 is one technique of bark removal;
320
-------
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.
As part of the BAT Review study, the Agency reviewed the information
supporting the previously promulgated regulations, and reviewed
current industry practices regarding process water management in these
operations.
The no discharge of process wastewater pollutants BAT limitation for
hydraulic barking operations promulgated in 1974 was based primarily
on information from a hydraulic barking plant located in northern
California. This plant installed a hydraulic barker in 1969. The
barking system was designed to operate with no discharge of process
wastewater, treating and recycling 80 percent of the process water,
and disposing of the excess water by spray field irrigation. The
Agency concluded that after a few years experience operating the
wastewater treatment and recycle system, a completely closed (no
discharge) status would be achieved by this system. This expected
performance was the basis for the promulgated no discharge limitation.
As part of the current study, the Agency contacted all known operators
of hydraulic barking operations, state pollution 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, being unable to improve on the amount of
recycle. The plant estimated that about 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 demand for hydraulic barking
systems was low. This statement can be supported by a number of
considerations. Energy requirements are substantial for hydraulic
321
-------
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; maintenance requirements of
hydraulic barkers are higher than mechanical barkers; and,
environmental control considerations such as the operation of a
biological treatment system, and water availability related to
hydraulic barking operations 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.
CONCLUSION
Because of the industry's inability to increase the amount of reuse of
treated wastewater EPA decided that the existing BAT, no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants, for hydraulic barking operations, be
withdrawn.
VENEER SEGMENT
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
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.
Review of current veneer manufacturing process water management
practices determined 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.
CONCLUSION
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.
322
-------
LOG WASHING SEGMENT
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.
323
-------
SECTION XI
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. The BCT limitation approach was developed by Congress to
establish controls of those pollutants that are not considered toxic
by the Agency.
BCT requires that limitations for conventional pollutants be assessed
in light of a cost reasonableness test. The basis for this test is a
comparison of the costs to impacted plants required for a specified
level of conventional pollutant reduction between an industrial point
source treatment system and a publicly-owned treatment works. 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 present BAT or less
stringent than BPT.
Regulations for BPT and BAT are not currently in force for either the
insulation board or wet-process hardboard segments of the timber
products point source category. BPT and BAT regulations for the
hardboard segment, published in 1974, were withdrawn in December 1976.
Insulation board regulations, proposed in 1974, were never
promulgated.
BCT regulations proposed herein for the hardboard segment were
determined based upon a comparison of the incremental annualized costs
and incremental annualized reductions of conventional pollutants above
and beyond the BPT levels of effluent reduction attainable b^
applicable treatment technology as proposed in this current rulemakinc
for impacted plants.
325
-------
WOOD PRESERVING SEGMENT
BCT limitations are not proposed 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
treated effluents from wood preserving plants contain significant
amounts of toxic pollutants, no direct dischargers have been
identified in the Wood Preserving and Wood Preserving-Boulton
subcategories, existing BAT limitations for these subcategories is no
discharge, and these limitations are being continued by this
rulemaking. Only one direct discharger was identified in the Wood
Preserving-Steam subcategory, and existing BAT limitations for this
subcategory are being withdrawn by the Agency. Additionally, although
wastewaters from each of the wood preserving subcategories contain
significant amounts of toxic pollutants, technology available for
reducing toxic pollutant levels cannot be separated from technology
which is required to reduce conventional pollutant levels.
INSULATION BOARD/HARDBOARD SEGMENT
Upon thorough review and evaluation of the treatment systems of each
direct discharging plant in this segment (previously discussed in
Section IX, Best Practicable Control Technology) the Agency selected a
treatment system representative of increased conventional pollutant
removal above and beyond that being achieved by the BPT technology for
each subcategory. The test of reasonableness was then applied to
determine whether or not the cost per pound of additional conventional
pollutants (BOD5_ and TSS) removed using this technology was 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 30-day maximum variability factors presented in Section XIV.
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 $0.285/lb for SIS Hardboard, and a
maximum of $0.280/lb for S2S Hardboard.
BCT limitations are based on the performance of plant no. 537 in the
insulation board subcategory, plant no. 931 in the SIS portion of the
wet process hardboard subcategory, and plant no. 980 in the S2S
portion of the wet process hardboard subcategory. Details of these
systems are presented in Sections VII and IX of this document.
326
-------
PROPOSED BCT LIMITATIONS
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
smooth-one-side (SIS) hardboard:
Pollutant or BCT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant Property Maximum for Average of daily
any one day values for 30
consecutive days
kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ib) of
gross production
BOD5_ 4.3 1.15
TSS 14.0 4.30
gH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
smooth-two-sides (S2S) hardboard:
Pollutant or BCT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant Property Maximum for Average of daily
any one day values for 30
consecutive days
kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ib) of
gross production
BOD5 15.0 5.0
TSS 39.6 7.9
EH Within the range 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
The following limitations are applicable to plants which produce
insulation board:
Pollutant or BCT Effluent Limitations
Pollutant Property Maximum for Average of daily
any one day values for 30
consecutive days
kg/kkg (lb/1000 Ib) of
gross production
BODS 8.25 2.94
TSS" 6.27 2.09
pH Within the ranae 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
327
-------
Actual numbers proposed for the BCT limitations for each subcategory
are derived by multiplying the demonstrated long-term average treated
effluent loads for the representative system by the maximum day and
maximum 30-day variability factors for the representative system
presented in Section XIV.
•At
INSULATION BOARD SUBCATEGORY
The Agency concluded that BCT limitations for the Insulation Board
subcategory should be equal to proposed 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. This system is demonstrating pollutant removal better than what
could be considered BPT level of control.
Section IX, 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. BCT is
based on primary clarification, with recycle of primary sludge,
aeration, secondary clarification, also with recycle of secondary
sludge, recycle of a portion of the treated wastewater, and discharge
of the remainder.
SIS HARDBOARD SUBCATEGORY
Technology selected as representative of BCT technology for the SIS
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 two large settling lagoons
operated in parallel (a third settling lagoon is used as a spare to
insure that two lagoons are continuously operating). This entire
system has a very long detention time resulting in the best
performance in terms of unit effluent pollutants discharged of any
system relying primarily on end-of-pipe biological treatment and
applicable to all SIS hardboard plants. 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
328
-------
Settling Lagoons
Detention Time
S2S HARDBOARD SUBCATEGORY
10.4 days
Technology selected as representative of BCT technology for the S2S
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 facultative
settling lagoons for additional pollutant removal. 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
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
329
-------
SECTION XII
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
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/hardboard segments of the industry. This no
discharge requirement will provide the maximum feasible control for
both toxic and conventional pollutants, and is based on demonstrated
performance in each subcategory. Technologies required to eliminate
discharge for each subcategory are:
WOOD PRESERVING-WATER BORNE OR NON-PRESSURE SUBCATEGORY
Collection of excess process wastewater and recycle for make-up water
in future batches.
WOOD PRESERVING-BOULTON SUBCATEGORY
Evaporation by either spray or cooling tower methods.
WOOD PRESERVING-STEAM SUBCATEGORY
Spray evaporation.
INSULATION BOARD, SIS HARDBOARD, AND S2S HARDBOARD SUBCATEGORIES
Spray irrigation. Although this technology is quite land intensive,
new sources have the ability to choose locations where land
availability will allow adoption of spray irrigation.
Costs to new sources for adoption of this technology are presented in
Section VIII of this document.
331
-------
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
GENERAL
The effluent limitations required for new and existing sources in the
timber products industry that discharge into a POTW are termed
pretreatment standards. 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 POTW's. The
Act also requires pretreatment for pollutants that limit POTW sludge
management alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on
agricultural lands. 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. The
general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403), which served as
the framework for these proposed pretreatment regulations for the
timber products industry, can be found in 43 FR 27736 (June 26, 1978).
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 NEW SOURCES, PSNS
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates
NSPS. New sources 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.
EPA reviewed the technical and economic information and data collected
during the BAT review study. About ninety percent of the known wood
preserving plants already achieve no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. Only one plant in the Wood Preserving - steam subcategory
was identified as a direct discharger. Forty-two plants were
identified as indirect dischargers.
333
-------
Previously discharging plants have modified plant processes and
procedures to eliminate the discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. Also, a new source has opportunities, not readily
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 VH-Control and Treatment Technology.
The Agency's economic impact analysis of the wood preserving industry
concluded that the cost of designing and installing the proper systems
needed to achieve the no discharge status would not appear to hinder
the addition of new capacity. The Agency therefore concluded that no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants is the appropriate new
source pretreatment standard (PSNS) for the Wood Preserving - Steam
subcategory.
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES, PSES
Forty-two wood preserving plants discharge to POTW's, 31 in the steam
subcategory and 11 in the Boulton subcategory. These plants discharge
a total of about 350,000 gallons per day.
Pollutants in these effluents contain primarily organic incompatible
pollutants. The economic impact analysis determined that the indirect
discharging segment of the wood preserving industry is sensitive to
the costs of pollution control. The Agency considered options that
would control pollutant discharge and minimize the economic impact.
Presented below are the options considered as pretreatment
requirements and a discussion of their advantages and disadvantages.
The technology options discussed are applicable to both subcategories.
Options 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, which considered a size cut-off in order to
reduce the number of expected closures, used different production
cutoffs for each option.
Indirect discharging existing sources in the steam and in the Boulton
subcategories are subject to pretreatment standards (41 FR 53930,
December 9, 1976) that establish concentration based limits of 100
milligrams per liter (mg/1) of Oil and Grease; 5 mg/1 copper; 4 mg/1
chromium; and 4 mg/1 arsenic. The regulations are based on the
application of primary (gravity) and secondary (flocculation and
filtration) oil water separation before discharge to the receiving
POTW. Pollutants found in the segment of the industry treating only
with creosote are primarily PNA's. Analytical data generated during
the development of these proposed regulations determined that PNAs are
reduced to about 1 mg/1 by application of the technology upon which
the 1976 pretreatment standards are based (primary and secondary
334
-------
oil/water separation). Pentachlorophenol (PCP) is reduced to about 12
to 15 mg/1 with this technology. Metals levels are reduced only
incidentally by application of this technology. Note: The 1976
pretreatment standards did not establish limits on polynuclear
aromatics (PNA's) or PCP.
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
(A) OPTION 1 - Continuation of the existing pretreatment
requirements, based on primary and secondary oil water separation.
Estimates of pollutant discharge were based on flow information from
all indirect discharging plants, and on the pollutant concentration
levels already achieved through current pretreatment technology. EPA
estimated the pollutant discharge under this option to be: 16.6 pounds
per day of PCP; 2.9 pounds per day of polynuclear aromatics (PNA); and
3.4 pounds per day of total copper, chromium, and arsenic.
(B) OPTION 2 - Continuation of existing pretreatment standards with
the additional requirement of biological treatment for plants that
treat with PCP. This additional requirement would apply to 6 of the
11 Boulton plants and 21 of the 31 steam plants. Biological treatment
before discharge to a POTW is considered a reasonable option because
long term biological treatment, as practiced by existing wood
preserving plants, reduces PCP in the water phase to about 1 mg/1.
Application of this option would reduce PCP discharge by 92 percent
(to 1.3 pounds per day). Although the levels of PNAs and metals are
reduced incidentally with the application of biological treatment, the
amount of reduction is not significant. The estimated capital
investment and annualized costs total $2,699,400 and $923,400,
respectively. Up to five plants, employing up to 171 workers, might
close if this option were selected.
By excluding from the regulation plants in the Boulton subcategory
that produce less than 700,000 cubic feet per year of treated wood,
and plants in the steam subcategory that produce less than 900,000
cubic feet per year, capital investment and annualized operating costs
decrease to $2,004,900 and $664,400, respectively. With this size
cutoff, 18 plants are subject to this limitation. No closures are
expected, and the 18 plants would discharge about 4.7 pounds per day
of PCP, a 72 percent reduction.
(C) OPTION 3 - Continuation of existing pretreatment with the
additional requirement of precipitation and removal of metals. This
limitation would apply to the six Boulton plants and eight steam
plants which treat some wood products with both inorganic and organic
preservatives. Although all plants separate inorganic preservative
operations from the organic operations, cross contamination, discussed
previously, does occur. Application of this option would reduce
metals concentration to about 1 mg/1, reducing the metals discharged
335
-------
to POTWs by 76 percent (total discharge of 0.82 pounds per day). PCP
and PNA discharge levels would be reduced incidentally, but not
significantly. The estimated capital investment and annualized costs
total $1,862,100 and $565,100, respectively. From three to seven
plants, employing from 92 to 187 people, might close if this option
were selected.
By excluding from the regulation plants in the Boulton subcategory
that produce less than 700,000 cubic feet per year of treated wood,
and plants in the steam subcategory that produce less than 1,200,000
cubic feet per year, capital investment and annualized operating costs
decrease to $1,015,500 and $320,900, respectively. With the size
cutoff, seven plants are subject to this limitation. No closures are
expected, and total industry discharge of metals would be about 1.5
pounds per day, a 56 percent reduction.
(D) OPTION 4 - Continuation of existing pretreatment, with the
additional requirement of no discharge of PCP or metals. Seven
Boulton plants and twenty-five steam plants would be required to
eliminate discharge of contaminated process wastewater by pan or
cooling tower evaporation, spray evaporation, spray irrigation, or
reuse and recycle. The estimated capital investment and annualized
costs for the zero discharge option are $4,980,300 and $1,267,300,
respectively. Seven to fourteen plants employing 214 to 535 workers
might close. PNA discharge would be 0.57 pounds per day.
By excluding from the regulation plants in the Boulton subcategory
that produce less than 1,100,000 cubic feet per year of treated wood,
and plants in the steam subcategory that produce less than 1,200,000
cubic feet per year, capital investment and annualized operating costs
decrease to $2,455,400 and $614,100, respectively. With the size
cutoff, fourteen plants are subject to this limitation. Up to two
plants with approximately 200 employees might close under this option.
Total industry discharge would be about 4.2 pounds per day of PCP (a
75 percent reduction), 1.5 pounds per day of toxic metals (a 56
percent reduction), and 1.3 pounds per day of PNA's (a 55 percent
reduction).
(E) OPTION 5 - Continuation of existing pretreatment, with the
additional requirement of no discharge of PCP. Six Boulton plants and
twenty-one steam plants would be required to eliminate the PCP
discharge by pan or cooling tower evaporation, spray evaporation,
spray irrigation, or reuse and recycle. The estimated capital
investment and annualized costs for the zero discharge option are
$4,087,000 and $1,037,000. Three to nine plants employing 118 to 439
workers might close. Total discharge of metals and PNAs would be 1.41
and 1.61 pounds per day, respectively (a 56 and 44 percent reduction).
336
-------
By excluding from the regulation plants in the Boulton subcategory
that produce less than 1,100,000 cubic feet per year of treated wood,
and plants in the steam subcategory that produce less than 1,200,000
cubic feet per year, capital investment and annualized operating costs
decrease to $2,762,000 and $798,000, respectively. With the size
cutoff, fifteen plants are subject to the regulation. Up to 2 plants
with 200 employees might close under this option. Total industry
discharge of metals and PNAs would be about 2.11 and 1.99 pounds per
day, respectively (38 and 28 percent reductions). PCP discharged will
be 4.75 pounds per day under this option (a 71 percent reduction).
(F) OPTION 6 - Requiring zero discharge of all process wastewater
pollutants to POTWs for all indirect dischargers using the
technologies listed in Option 5. The estimated capital investment and
annualized costs are $7,376,000 and $1,866,900, respectively. Nine to
seventeen plants employing 268 to 604 workers might close.
By excluding from the regulation plants in the Boulton subcategory
that produce less than 1,100,000 cubic feet per year of treated wood,
and plants in the steam subcategory that produce less than 1,200,000
cubic feet per year, capital investment and operating costs are
reduced to $4,185,000 and $1,055,400, respectively. With the size
cutoff, nineteen plants are subject to this limitation. One to three
closures are expected, with 27 to 226 jobs being affected. Total
industry discharge would be: PCP, 4.2 pounds per day (a 75 percent
reduction); PNAs, 0.7 pounds per day (a 76 percent reduction); metals,
1.5 pounds per day (a 56 percent reduction).
(G) PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES SELECTION AND
DECISION CRITERIA -
The Agency has selected Option 5, with no size cutoff - requiring zero
discharge of pentachlorophenol to POTWs. This option is proposed for
plants in both the steam subcategory and the Boulton subcategory.
Pentachlorophenol is a large, heavy molecule not easily degraded by
the short term biological activity usually found in municipal
treatment works (POTW). PCP tends to adsorb on solids in biological
treatment systems, i.e., it concentrates in the sludge phase. Plants
treating wood with inorganic preservatives already are subject to
pretreatment standards that require no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants. As discussed in Sections III and V, metals appear in the
wastewaters from wood preserving plants that treat with organic
preservatives as a result of cross contamination. These "fugitive"
metals are generally well below 1 mg/1 in concentration and methods
available to reduce their concentrations further will be addressed in
future BMP proposals.
337
-------
Option 2 was not selected because it is land intensive and most plants
do not have sufficient land available to install a biological
treatment system.
Option 3 was not selected because the discharge of metals from water-
borne salt treating operations is prohibited by existing regulations
and the application of best management practices (BMP) will prevent
cross contamination.
Option 4 was not selected for the same reason that Option 3 was not
selected.
Option 6 was not selected because the economic impact was too severe,
with 21 to 40 percent of the indirect discharging plants being
candidates for closure under this option.
Option 5 eliminates the discharge of pentachlorophenol. As stated
above, ninety percent of all wood preserving plants already achieve
zero discharge of all process wastewater pollutants. The process
controls and the end-of-pipe wastewater treatment and disposal
technologies are demonstrated and widely practiced. Although the
Agency considered a size cutoff in each of the options, except Option
1, the pollutant levels being discharged by the excluded plants was
high enough that even after POTW treatment, wastewater and sludge
generated by the POTW could be contaminated by the presence of toxic
pollutants. Therefore, none of the size cut-off options considered
were selected. Although the other options except options 4 and 6
considered by the Agency reduce the economic impact of the regulation,
they also result in the discharge of significant amounts of PCP which
may pass through or interfere with the operation of a POTW, or
preclude beneficial use of POTW sludge.
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 hardboard and insulation board segment currently
discharge to POTW. The Agency is not aware of any incidents where
discharge from one of these plants has cuased an upset, or has been
otherwise incompatible with the operation of a POTW.
The Agency is proposing pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources in the hardboard and the insulation board subcategories that
do not establish numerical limitations on the discharge of specific
pollutants.
338
-------
SECTION XIV
PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this section is twofold. First, it provides a general
discussion of the causes of variations in the performance of
wastewater treatment facilities and techniques for minimizing these
variations. Second, it presents an analysis of the variability for
the insulation board and hardboard facilities for which sufficient
historical data were provided by the plants. The analysis of the
variability in conjunction with the long-term pollutant wasteload
averages, presented in Section VII, is part of the methodology to
obtain effluent limitations.
FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE VARIATIONS IN PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
The factors influencing the variation in performance of wastewater
treatment facilities are common to all subcategories. The most
important factors are summarized in this section.
Temperature
Temperature can affect the rate of biological reaction with lower
temperatures resulting in decreased biological activity which, for a
given detention time, causes higher effluent BOD levels. Effluent
solids levels also increase as a result of incomplete bio-oxidation
and decreased settling rates under reduced temperatures. Settling
basins and aerated lagoons are susceptible to thermal inversions.
Significant variations in the levels of effluent solids may result as
settled solids rise to the surface and are discharged.
Proper design and operation considerations can reduce the adverse
effects of temperature on treatment efficiencies. Such considerations
include the installation of insulation and the addition of heat.
Techniques for temperature control are both well known and commonly
used in the sanitary engineering field. Cost-effectiveness is usually
the critical criterion for the extent and effectiveness of temperature
control.
Shock Loading
Once a system is acclimated to a given set of steady state conditions,
rapid quantitative or qualitative changes in loading rates can cause a
decrease in treatment efficiencies. Several days or weeks are often
required for a system to adjust to a new set of operating conditions.
339
-------
Systems with short retention times, such as activated sludge, are
particularly sensitive to shock loading.
While it is unlikely that total and permanent prevention of shock
loadings for a particular system can be accomplished, proper design
and operation can greatly reduce adverse effects. Sufficient flow
equalization prior to biological treatment can mitigate slug loads.
Complete mixed activated sludge is less likely to upset conditions
than other activated sludge modifications.
System Stabilization
An upset biological system, or one that has been out of operation,
requires a period of stabilization up to several weeks before optimum,
consistent performance can be expected. During this start-up period,
large variations in pollutant parameters can be expected in the
discharge.
System Operation
A primary disadvantage of any activated sludge system is operational
difficulty. Operators must be well-trained specialists who are
thoroughly familiar with the system they are operating.
Nutrient Requirements
Adequate amounts of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus,
are required to maintain a viable microbial population in a biological
system. Proper design and operation of a system will provide
sufficient nutrients for optimum performance.
System Controllability
In addition to the design considerations mentioned above, an activated
sludge system should include appropriate meters and accurate, control-
lable gates, valves, and pumps for optimum performance. A qualified
instrument technician should be available.
An adequate laboratory should be provided, along with monitoring
facilities. Essential control tests should be conducted at least once
every 8-hour shift, and more frequently when necessary.
VARIABILITY ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section and of the document as a whole is to
provide the information necessary to maintain required levels of
control. One consideration in developing effluent limitations is the
variability of the discharge from treatment systems in relation to the
340
-------
long-term average discharge. In order to determine this relationship,
a variability analysis was performed on the available data.
Lack of daily long term data from the wood preserving segment
prevented any quantification of the variability for that segment.
Unlike the wood preserving industry, many of the wet process
insulation and hardboard plants maintain extensive monitoring records
of treated effluent characteristics. In most cases, one to two years
operating data were obtained for analysis, with the data reported on
either a daily or a weekly basis.
The data collection portfolio requested hardboard and insulation board
plants to provide historical data for the most recent 12-month period
for which the data were available. In most cases, this data was from
calendar year 1976. Subsequently, 1977 data (and in some cases 1978
data) were reported from certain plants. Data requested included
daily gross production figures and the plant's monitoring results for
both the raw process wastewater and the treated effluent.
Intermediate treatment streams were requested if the plants had data
on these streams. Parameters of interest were flow, BOD, COD, TOC,
TSS, phenols, heavy metals, and any of the substances on the Toxic
Pollutant List (Section 307(a)).
The only parameters reported by the plants with sufficient frequency
for variability analysis were BOD and TSS. The variability analysis
was also 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 guidelines limitations.
Variability data are reported herein for nine wet process hardboard
plants and two insulation board plants. In the hardboard segment, six
of the plants primarily produce SIS hardboard, while three are
primarily S2S producers. One of the S2S plants also produces
insulation board at the same facility, and another S2S plant also
produces SIS hardboard at the same facility. The two insulation board
plants include one mechanical refining plant and one thermo-mechanical
refining plant.
The data received from the plants was analyzed to determine
variability on a yearly basis for 1976 and 1977. These data bases
were then combined and the variability was analyzed on the combined
two-year data base. In several instances, as noted below, the
combined data base chosen for analysis was less than two years due to
permanent changes which occurred in the treatment system at the plant,
or for other physical reasons. Other than for these noted
differences, the data were analyzed point for point as received
without eliminating any of the reported data.
341
-------
Data from the following plants in the insulation board/hardboard
segment which responded to the DCP were not analyzed for variability
for the following reasons:
Hardboard Segment
1. Plant 943—This plant produces both hardboard and insulation
board. The influent raw waste is monitored for flow;
however, the raw waste is combined with raw wastes from
other industrial processes. Consequently, no meaningful
waste characterization could be obtained from the data.
2. Plant979—This plant is a self-contained discharger and does
not monitor wastewater. Therefore, no data were reported.
3. Plant 977—This plant produces mineral wool fiber as well as
insulation board and hardboard. The process water from the
hardboard and insulation board processes receives no
treatment and is completely mixed with the mineral wool
effluent before sampling and discharge to the city sewer.
No meaningful raw or treated waste characteristics could
therefore be obtained.
4. Plant 108—This plant is currently constructing a new
treatment system. At the time this analysis was performed,
primary treated effluent from this plant was being combined
with effluent from an adjacent pulp and paper mills prior to
biological treatment. Therefore, no meaningful treated
effluent data could be obtained.
5. Plant 930—This plant, an SIS producing indirect discharger,
is discharging to a POTW without pretreatment; therefore, no
treated effluent data exist for this plant.
6. Plant 929—This plant is an SIS producing direct discharger
which, during 1976 and 1977, was experimenting with process
close-up as a method of achieving wastewater flow and
pollutant reduction. This plant provides very little end-
of-pipe treatment, and the fluctuations experienced in
wastewater generation during the close-up period negate the
possibility of any meaningful treated wastewater analysis.
7. Plant 673—This plant, which produces both SIS and S2S
hardboard, provides ultimate treated effluent disposal by
spray irrigation during much of the year for which data were
reported, therefore negating the possibility of any
meaningful analysis of treated effluent variability.
342
-------
Insulation Board Segment
1. Plants 2, 184, 186, and 889—These plants do not discharge
process wastewater, therefore no treated effluent data
exist.
2. Plants 183, 360, 502, and 978—These plants are indirect
dischargers which discharge effluent to a POTW, therefore no
meaningful treated effluent data exist for these plants.
3. Plant 2—This plant did not respond to the collection data
portfolio with any information other than to state it had no
process water discharge.
4. Plant 725—This plant produces both insulation board and
mineral wool fiber in approximately equal amounts. The
wastewaters are comingled such that no meaningful raw or
treated effluent could be obtained.
5. Plants 108, 943, 978, 979, and 1035—These plants produce
both hardboard and insulation board and are included in the
discussion of the hardboard segment.
This study concentrated on the analysis of two pollutant parameters—
BOD and TSS. These parameters were chosen for two reasons. First,
almost every plant analyzed in each subcategory monitored them on a
regular basis (usually daily or weekly). Therefore, a large data base
existed for analysis. Second, they are parameters of special interest
of both the insulation and hardboard subcategories. Since most of the
plants utilize biological treatment systems, BOD is the logical oxygen
demand parameter to analyze. The importance of TSS analysis comes
from the nature of the process—both insulation and hardboard plants
produce fibrous suspended solids in their raw waters and generate
biological suspended solids during biological treatment.
For Plant 931, the variability analysis was performed using a data
base of October 1, 1976 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
was 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 non-standard 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 effluents from each plant
to determine the daily and 30-day effluent variabilities associated
with the biological treatment systems of the model plants. The units
used were Ibs/day for both BOD and TSS throughout the analysis. The
343
-------
number of observations in each data set are shown in Table XIV-1.
This analysis can be used to predict effluent loadings which will not
be exceeded 99 percent of the time.
Estimating the 99th Percentile
There are two basic approaches available to estimate 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 data set. 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
mathematically. 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
distributional model. Assuming the data is 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
calculation uses only the fact that each new measurement has a .01
probability of exceeding the 99th percentile, and a .99 chance of
falling below it; the form of the distribution is not used in this
calculation. If we find that the rth largest value has a .5
probability of exceeding the 99th percentile, then that measurement
provides an unbiased estimator of the 99th percentile. That means it
is just as likely to overestimate the 99th percentile as it is to
underestimate it.
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 data from 11 companies and
the 1977 data from seven companies. Two of the more powerful tests of
parametric distributions, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Anderson-Darling
tests, were used to determine whether or not the normal distribution,
logarithmic normal distribution, or three-parameter logarithmic normal
distribution provided an adequate fit to the data.
The results of the tests indicate a consistent lack of fit at the 5
percent level of significance using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Anderson-Darling tests. Consequently, the parametric approach for
estimating the 99th percentile seemed inadvisable and the
nonparametric approach was adopted. These estimates were then used to
calculate the variability factors.
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
344
-------
where X « arithmetic average of the daily observations, and U.*' = an
estimate of the true 99th percentile, K.99.
The value for U.99 was obtained as the rth smallest (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 this criterion was satisfied was determined
by non-parametric methods (see e.g., J.D. Gibbons, Non-Par amet r i c
Statistical Inference, McGraw-Hill, 1971). An estimate chosen in this
manner is referred to a a non-parametric 50 percent tolerance level
estimate for the 99th percent! le and is interpreted as the value below
which 99 percent of the values of a future sample of size n will fall
with probability 0.50.
In some cases the number of observations available from a plant was
not sufficient to obtain a non-parametric 50 percent tolerance level
estimate of the 99th percentile. In those cases the plant's data were
not used to calculate variability factors. The daily variability
factors are shown in Table XIV-2.
30-Day Variability Factors
The monthly variability factors were also determined using a non-
parametric analysis.
It is assumed that the
-------
estimates ? and «* , respectively. Therefore, the 99th percentile
estimate is:
X+2.33 S/ V30~
and the monthly variability factor is:
WB X + 2.33
Thus, we use the normal model for the monthly mean, since sample means
are approximately normally distributed even when the raw data is not.
(e.g., see McClave & Dietrick, Statistics, Dellen, 1979).
These results are shown in Table XIV-3.
346
-------
Table XIV-1. Number of Observations in Data Set
Plant
Number
36
537
1
207
678
931
919
1035
980
3
348
1976
338
139
238
52
293
205
50
333
361
45
143
BOD
1977
266
135
—
81
—
203
—
—
356
256
_._
1976
&
1977
604
274
—
133
—
254*
—
—
834 +
—
__
1976
344
139
254
96
207
205
90
335
360
51
147
TSS
1977
276
134
—
122
—
203
—
—
356
256
_-«
1976
&
1977
620
273
—
218
—
254*
—
—
311**
—
__
* Data represents period of 10/1/76 through 12/31/77 when
upgraded system was in working operation.
+ Data represents period of 1/1/76 through 4/30/78.
** Data represents period of 6/16/76 through 4/30/78 when
standard TSS analyses were performed.
347
-------
Table XIV-2. Non-Parametric Daily Variability Factors for
Insulation Board and Hardboard Plants
Plant
Number
36
678
931
919
537
1035
3
207
980
348
1
BOD
19 76 1977 76&77
5.9 6.08 5.93
4.1
4.7 5.64 5.58+
*
7.3 3.72 3.93
4.1
* 3.27
* 4.87 4.61
3.6 3.89 4.06**
2.2
5.7
TSS
1976
4.8
5.4
4.1
1.9
5.6
3.3
*
3.3
3.3
1.8
4.2
1977
7.71
—
4.49
—
6.32
—
6.37
4.24
6.79++
—
—
76&77
5.81
—
4.56 +
—
4.22
—
—
3.59
6.79++
—
—
* Insufficient data to obtain a 50 percent confidence estimate for the
99th percentile.
+ Data represents period of 10/1/76 through 12/31/77 when upgraded
treatment system was under normal operation.
** 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 were performed.
348
-------
Table XIV-3. Non-Parametric 30-Day Variability Factors for Insulation
Board and Hardboard Plants
Plant
Number
36
537
1
207
678
931
919
1035
980
3
348
1
1976
1.52
1.45
1.48
1.34
1.40
1.48
1.21
1.41
1.31
1.30
1.17
5.7
BOD
1977 76&77
1.58 1.55
1.67 1.40
— —
1.34 1.34
— —
1.54 1.44
— —
— —
1.40 1.35*
1.33
— —
— —
TSS
1976
1.55
1.41
1.50
1.33
1.59
1.42
1.18
1.32
1.27
1.27
1.15
4.2
1977
1.71
1.76
—
1.33
—
1.44
—
—
1.72
1.43
—
—
76&77
1.62
1.41
—
1.33
—
1.39
—
—
1.46 +
—
—
—
* 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 were performed.
349
-------
SECTION XV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The technical study supporting the proposed regulation was conducted
by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., (ESE) of Gainesville,
Florida. The Project Director and Project Manager were Mr. John D.
Crane, P.E., and Mr. Bevin A. Beaudet, P.E., respectively. Key staff
engineers included Mr. Russel V. Bowen and Mr. Mark A. Mangone.
Analytical work was managed by Mr. Stuart A. Whitlock. Ms. Patricia
L. McGhee coordinated the editing and production of the contractors
draft report which was typed in its entirety by Ms. Kathleen Fariello.
Special acknowledgement is due to Dr. Warren S. Thompson, Director of
the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, who served as a special
consultant to ESE.
Acknowledgement is also due to Edward C. Jordan Company, Inc., of
Portland, Maine, for input to the hardboard study, and to R.E.T.A. of
St. Louis, Missouri for field sampling and analytical efforts during
the verification phase of the project.
Cooperation and assistance was provided by of the wood preserving and
fiberboard industries is greatly appreciated. Appreciation is
expressed to the National Forest Products Association, The American
Wood Preservers Institute, The American Board Products Association,
and the American Wood Preserving Association. Individuals who
particularly deserve mention are Mr. C.C. Stewart of the ABPA; Mr.
Curt Peterson of the ABPA; Mr. Paul Goydan, Mr. Thomas Marr, and Mr.
Charles Best of the AWPA.
«
The guidance, assistance, and cooperation of EPA personnel, both in
Headquarters and in the Regions is greatly appreciated. In
particular, Mr. John Riley, Chief, Wood and Fiber Product Branch,
Effluent Guidelines Division made major contributions to establishing
a solid technical basis for these proposed regulations. Mr. Steve
Schatzow, Office of General Counsel, provided positive contributions
in molding the technical/legal considerations into a cohesive package.
Messrs. Dale Ruhter, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Mark Segal,
Monitoring and Data Support Division, and Sam Napolitano, Office of
Planning and Evaluation are acknowledged for their assistance. Mr.
Victor DalIons, formerly of EPA Industrial and Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR provided useful information during the
technical study.
The performance of Ms. Carol Swann, who single-handedly put together
this document is greatly appreciated. The help of Ms. Nancy Zrubek
and other members of the word processing staff who finalized this
document for publication is also appreciated.
351
-------
SECTION XVI
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abcor, Inc. "The Concentration of Pentachlorophenal Wastes by Abcor
Membrane System," A report submitted to Fulco Lumber Co., Haleyville,
Ala. (1974).
Amberg, H.R. "Aerated Stabilization of Board Mill White Water,"
Purdue Industrial Waste Conf. (1964).
American Petroleum Institute. Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes.
Vol. 1. Wastewater Containing Oil (6th ed.), 1960.
American Water Works Assn. Water Treatment Plant Design, AWWA, Inc.,
1969.
American Wood Preservers' Association. "Report of Wastewater Disposal
Committee," Proc. AWPA, 56:201-204, 1975.
American Wood Preservers' Association. Proceedings, Vol. 71 (1975).
American Wood Preservers' Association. Proceedings, Vol. 72 (1976).
Anderson, E.A., et al. "The Corrosion of Zinc in Various Waters,"
Jour. Amer. Water Works Assn., 26:49 (1934).
Anonymous. "Trace Metal Removal by Wastewater Treatment," Technology
Transfer, EPA (Jan. 1977), p. 2.
Anonymous. "Phenols in Refinery Waste Water can be Oxidized with
Hydrogen Peroxide," Oil and Gas Jour. (January 1975), p. 84.
APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
(14th ed.), Washington, D.C., 1975.
Aub, J.C. and Fairhall, L.T. "Excretion of Silver in Urine," Jour.
Amer. Medical Assn. (1942), pp. 118-316.
Austin, R.H., et al.. "Biological Oxidation of Oil-Containing Waste-
waters," Ind. Eng. Chem., 46:316-318 (1954).
Back, E.L. and Larsson, S.A. "Increased Pulp Yield as a Means of
Reducing the BOD of Hardboard Mill Effluent," Swedish Forest Products
Research Laboratory (1972).
353
-------
Badger, E.H.M. and Jackson, M.I. "Loadings and Efficiencies in the
Biological Oxidation of Spent Gas Liquor," Journal and Proceedings of
the Institute of Sewage Purification, 2:159 (1961).
Baker, D.A. "Petroleum Processing Wastes," JWPCF, 47{6):1476 (1976).
Bakir, F., et al. "Methylmercury Poisoning in Iraq," Science, 181:
230-240 (1973T7
Bartow, E. and Weigle, O.M. "Zinc in Water Supplies," Indus. Eng.
Chem., 24:463 (1932).
Berglund, F. and Berlin, M. "Risk of Accumulation in Men and Mammals
and the Relation between Body Burden of Methylmercury and Toxic
Effects," In: Thomas, Chemical Fallout, Springfield, Illinois pp.
258-273 (1969).
Best, C.W. "Water Use in Western Wood Preserving Plants,"
Proceedings, American Wood Preservers' Association (1972).
Biczyski, Jr. and Suschka, J. "Investigations on Phenolic Wastes
Treatment in an Oxidation Ditch," Advances in Water Pollution
Research, 2:285-289, Pergamon Press, New York (1967).
Boen, D.F. and Jahannsen, G.L. Reverse Osmosis for Treated and
Untreated Secondary Sewage Effluent, EPA Rept. 670/2-74-007,
Washington, D.C. (1974).
Brislin, J.F., et al. "Literature Review on Creosote," Report
Submitted to American Wood Preservers' Institute by Industrial Health
Foundation (1976).
Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals, Appleton-Century Crofts,
New York, 2nd Ed., (1969), pp. 23-38.
Burns, O.B., Jr. and Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. "A Statistical Study of
Five Years' Operation of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company's Waste
Treatment Plant," Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., XVIII (1963).
Cadman, T.W. "Techniques for Removing Metals from Process
Wastewater," Chem. Eng., 81(8):79, (1974).
Carus Chemical Co. "How to Clean Phenol from your Company's Waste
Economically," Carus Chemical Co. Form M-6001 (1971).
Chamberlin, N.S. and Day, R.V. "Technology of Chrome Reduction with
Sulfur Dioxide," Proc. llth Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ. (1956).
354
-------
Cheremisinoff, P.N. and Ellerbusch, F. (eds.). Carbon Adsorption
Handbook, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, MI (1978).
Chow, T.J. and Patterson, C.C. "The Occurrences and Significance of
Lead Isotopes in Pelagic Sediments," Geochim. Cosmochim, Acta., 26(26)
(1962).
Christensen, H.E. and Luginbyhl, T.T. Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, PHS, Center for
Disease Control, Natl. Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,,
Rockville, MD (1975).
Clark, J.W. and Viessman, W., Jr. Water Supply and Pollution Control,
International Textbook Co. (1970).
Coda, R.L. "Water Reuse in a Wet Process Hardboard Manufacturing
Plant," U.S. EPA (March 1978).
Coe, R.H. "Bench Scale Method for Treating Waste by Activated
Sludge," Petroleum Processing, 7:1128-1132 (1952).
Condren, A.J. and Warren, W.C. "Temperature Effects on the Aerobic
Biological Treatment of Wastewaters from the Pulp and Paper Industry,"
Unpublished.
Cooke, R. and Graham, P.W. "The Biological Purification of the
Effluent from a Lurgi Plant Gasifying Bituminous Coals," International
Journal of Air and Water Pollution, 9(3):97 (1965).
Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R. "The Biological Treatment of Coke
Oven Effluents," Yearbook Coke Oven Managers Assn. and Water Poll.
Obs., 42:562 (1969).
Crane, L.E. "An Operational Pollution Control System for Pressure
Treating Plant Waste," Proc. Conf. on Poll. Abatement and Control in
the Wood Preserving Industry (W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest
Products Lab., Miss. State Univ., State College, Miss. 261-270
(1971).
Dallons, V. "Comparison of Pollution Loads Resulting from Use of
Different Wood Species in the Production of Hardboard," Ind. Environ.
Research Lab. Cincinnati, Corvallis Field Station (1976),
Davies, J.J. "Economic Considerations of Oxidation Towers," Proc.
Conf. on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving Industry,
(W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest Products Lab., Miss. State Univ.,
State College, Miss. 195-205, (1971).
355
-------
Davies, R.W., et al. "Pollution Control and Waste Treatment at an
Inland Ref inery^Proc., 21st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. 126-138 (1967).
.DeJohn, P.B. and Adams, A.D. "Activated Carbon Improves Wastewater
Treatment," Hydrocarbon Proc. 104 (Oct. 1975).
1977 DFPI Directory of the Forest Products Industry, Miller Freeman
Publications, San Francisco, CA, (1977).
Dickerson, B.W. and Laffey, W.T. "Pilot Plant Studies of Phenolic
Wastes from Petro-Chemical Operations," Proc., 13th Purdue Ind. Waste
Conf. 780-799, (1958).
Dobbs, R.A., e_t al. Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic Organics,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio (1978).
Durum, W.H., et al. "Reconnaissance of Selected Minor Elements in
Surface Waters of the United States, October, 1970," USGS Circular
643, Washington, D.C. (1971).
Durvel, W.A. and Helfgott, T. "Removal of Wastewater Organics by
Reverse Osmosis," JWPCE, 47:57 (1975).
Dust, J.V. and Thompson, W.S. "Pollution Control in the Wood
Preserving Industry, Part 4: Biological Methods of Treating
Wastewater," Forest Products Journal (1973).
Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. Industrial Waste Water Control, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New York (1966).
Eckenfelder, W.W. and Ford, D.L. Water Pollution Control, Jenkins
Book Publishing Co., (1970).
Edde, H. "Field Research Studies of Hydraulic Mining Patterns in
Mechanically Aerated Stabilization Basins," Proc. Intl. Congress on
Industrial Waste Waters, Stockholm (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R. "Increased Rate and Efficiency of Phenolic Waste
Ozonization," JWPCE, 43(2):200 (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R. "Oxidation of Phenolic Wastes. Part I: Oxidation
with Hydrogen Peroxide and a Ferrous Salt," JWPCE, 36(9):1116 (1964).
Evans, F.L. (ed.) Ozone in Water and Wastewater Treatment, Ann Arbor
Sci. Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., (1972).
Fairhill, L.T. "Toxic Contaminants of Drinking Water," Jour. North
East Water Works Assn., 55:400 (1941).
356
-------
Fang, H.H. and Chian, E.S. "Removal of Alcohols and Aliphatic Acids
in Aqueous Solution by NS-100 Membranes," Jour. Appl. Polymer Sci.,
19:1347 (1975).
Fisher, C.W. "Kopper's Experience Regarding Irrigation of Industrial
Effluent Waters and Especially Wood Treating Plant Effluents," Proc.
Conf. on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving Ind. (W.S.
Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest Products Lab., MSU, State College, Miss.,
232-248 (1971).
Fitzgerald, W.F. and Lyons, W.B. "Organic Mercury Compounds in
Coastal Waters," Nature, 242 (1973).
Fleischer, M., et al. "Environmental Impact of Cadmium: A Review by
the Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances," Env. Health Perspectives,
USGPO, Washington, D.C., 7:253 (1974).
Ford, D.L., et al. "Temperature Predictions in Activated Sludge
Basins Using Mechanical Aerators," Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., XXVII
(1972).
Francingues, N.R. "Evaluation of a Pilot Study on a Creosote Waste
from the Wood Preserving Industry," Proc. of Miss. State Univ. Short
Course on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving Industry,
165 (1970).
Gaudy, A.F., Jr. "The Role of Oxidation Ponds in a Wood Treating
Plant Waste Abatement Program," Proc., Conf. on Poll. Abatement and
Control in the Wood Preserving Ind. (W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss.
Forest Products Lab., MSU, State College, Miss., 150-164. (1971).
Gaudy, A.F., Jr. "Studies on the Treatment of Wood Preserving
Wastes," Paper presented at 55th Natl. Meeting, Amer. Inst. Chem.
Eng., Houston, TX (1965).
Goldberg, E.D., et al. "Marine Chemistry," In: Radioactivity in the
Marine Environment, Natl. Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 137,
(1971).
Goldsmith, R.L. e_t al. "Soluble Oil Waste Treatment Using
Ultrafiltration," presented at the 46th Annual Conf. of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Cleveland, Ohio (1973).
Gran, G. "Wastewater from Fibreboard Mills," Pure and Applied
Chemistry, 29_ (1972).
Hager, D.G. "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Granular Activated
Carbon," Ind. Water Eng., p. 14, (Jan/Feb, 1974).
357
-------
Harlowe, H.W., et. al. "A Petro-Chemical Waste Treatment System,"
Proc., 16th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 156-166, (1961).
Henshaw, T.B. "Adsorption/Filtration Plant Cuts Phenols from
Effluent," Chem. Eng., 47 (May 1971).
Hill, W.B., et. al.. "Argyria Investigation—Toxicological Properties
of Silver," Amer. Silver Producers, Res. Proj. Kept., Appendix II
(1957).
Hsu, C.P., et. al. "Phenolic Industrial Wastes Treatment by a
Trickling Filter/* K'ue Li Taiwan Ta Hsueh King Cheng Hsueh Kan,
10:162 (1966) and Chem. Abs. 67:8845 (1967).
Hutchins, R.A. "Thermal Regeneration Costs," Chem. Eng. Progr.,
71(5):80 (1975).
Hyde, A.C. "Chemical Plant Waste Treatment by Ten Methods," JWPCF,
37(11):1486 (1965).
Irukayama, K. "The Pollution of Minamata Bay and Minamata Disease,"
Adv. Water Poll. Res., 3:153 (1967).
Irukayama, K., ejt al. "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
(1962).
Jenne, E.A. "Mercury in Waters of the United States, 1970-71," Open
File Report, U.S. Geol. Surv,, Menlo Park, CA (1972).
Johnsen, R. "Chlorination of Waters for Disinfection—A Study of the
Production of Undesirable Chlorinated Products," Natl. Conf. on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls, EPA-56016-75-004C.
Johnson, R.C., et al. "Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Pentachloro-
phenol," Conference—Natl. Inst. of Environ. Health Science, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. (April 2, 1973).
Jordan, E.G., Inc. "Direct Filtration and Chemically Assisted
Clarification of Biologically Treated Pulp and Paper Industry
Wastewater," B.C. Jordon, Inc. (1977).
Jordan, E.G., Inc. "Summary Report on the Re-evaluation of the
Effluent Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the
Timber Products Processing Point Source Category," Prepared by E. C.
Jordan Co., Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3287 (July 1976).
358
-------
Junk, G.A., e_t aJU "Contamination of Water by Synthetic Polymer
Tubes," Environmental Science and Technology, 8, 13 (December/ 1974).
Keboe, R.H., e_t al. "The Hygienic Significance of the Contamination
of Water with Certain Mineral Constituents," JAWWA, 36:645 (1944).
Kirsh, E.J. and Etzel, J.E. "Microbial Decomposition on Pentachloro-
phenol," Personal correspondence submitted for publication to JWPCF,
(1972).
Kopp, J.F. "The Occurrence of Trace Elements in Water, In: D.D.
Hemphill, Ed., "Trace Substances in Environmental Health—III," Proc.
Univ. of Missouri's 3rd Annual Conf. on Trace Substances in
Environmental Health, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, 59, (1969).
Kopp, J.F. and Kroner, R.C. "Trace Metals in Waters of the United
States," FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Cincinnati, Ohio (1967).
Kostenbader, P.O. and Flacksteiner, J.W. "Biological Oxidation of
Coke Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor," JWPCF, 41(2):199 (1969)
Kremen, S.S. "Reverse Osmosis Makes High Quality Water Now," Environ.
Sci. and Tech., 9:314 (1975).
Lange, N.A., Ed. Handbook of Chemistry, 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York (1961).
Lieber, M. and Welsch, W.E. "Contamination of Groundwater by
Cadmium," JAWWA, 46(51) (1954).
Lin, V.H. and Lawson, J.R. "Treatment of Oily and Metal Containing
Wastewater," Poll. Eng. 5(11):45-49 (1973).
Lindberg, P. "Selenium Determination in Plant and Animal Material in
Water," Acta Vet Scand., Suppl. 32, Stockholm (1968).
Livingstone, D.A. "Chemical Composition of Rivers and Lakes,"
Geological Survey Professional Paper 440-G, pp. G1-G64, In: M.
Fleischer, Ed., Data of Geochemistry (6th ed.), USGPO, Washington,
D.C. (1963).
Lorenz, L.F. and Gjovik, L.R. "Analyzing Creosote by Gas
Chromatography: Relationship to Creosote Specifications,"
Proceedings, AWPA, Vol. 68, 32-42, (1972).
Loyttyniemi, K. "Transfer of Lindane from Bark of Insecticide-Sprayed
Pine Pulpwood into Effluent from a Barking Drum," Paperi Puu 57, No.
10:666-668 (October, 1975) Finnish—Eng. Sum.-, (Abstract).
359
-------
Ludberg, J.E. and Nicks, G.D. "Phenols and Thiocyanate Removed from
Coke Plant Effluent," Ind. Wastes, Vol. 10-13 (November 1969).
Martin, J.J., Jr. Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for Removal of
Heavy Metals, EPA Report, R2/73/044, (1973).
MacDonald, R.G., Ed. "Pulp and Paper Manufacture," The Pulping of
Wood, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed. (1969).
McClave, J.T. and Dietrick, F.A. Statistics, Dellen, San Francisco,
(1979).
McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.W. Water Quality Criteria, State Water
Quality Control Board, Sacramento, CA, Pub. 3-A (1963).
McKeown, J.J. and Buckley, D.B. "Mixing Characteristics of Aerated
Stabilization Basins," TAPPI 8th Water and Air Conference (1971).
McLain, L. "Giving Effluents the Ozone Treatment. Could UK
Innovation Show the Way?" Process Eng., 104 (Feb. 1973).
Meissner, B. "Investigations of the Disposal of Phenol-Containing
Wastes by Biological Procedures," Wasserwerke-Wass Technology, 5:82
and Chem. Abs., 49:14237 (1955).
Mero, J.L. Mineral Resources of the Sea, American Elsevier Publishing
Co. (1964).
Merten, U. and Brey, D.T. "Reverse Osmosis for Water Reclamation,"
Advances in Water Pollution REs Vol. 3, Proc. 3rd Inter. Conf., WPCF,
Washington, D.C. (1966).
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory. Unpublished data. Miss.
Forest Products Laboratory, Mississippi State University, Mississippi
State, Mississippi, (1970).
Mitchell, R. Introduction to Environmental Microbiology, Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 181, (1974).
Montes, G.E., et al. "Petro-Chemical Waste Treatment Problems,"
Sewage Ind. Wastes, 28:507-512 (1956).
Morris, D.C., et aj.. Recycle of Papermill Wastewaters and Application
of Reverse Osmosis, ORM, EPA Program 112040 FUB (1972).
Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N. Organic Chemistry, Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., 1067 (1966).
360
-------
Morton, S.C. and Sawyer, E.W. "Clay Minerals Remove Organics,
Viruses, and Heavy Metals from Water," Water and Sewage Works (1976).
Motto, H.L., e_t al. "Lead in Soils and Plants? Its Relationship to
Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways," Envir. Sci. Tech., 4:231
(1970).
Nakashio, M. "Phenolic Waste Treatment by an Activated Sludge
Process," Hakko Kagaku Zasshi, 47:389, and Chem. Abs., 71(8):236,
(1969).
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Biologic Effects of Atmos-
pheric Pollutants. Lead: Airborne Lead in Perspective, NAS,
Washington, D.C. (1972).
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering. Water
Quality Criteria, 1972, USGPO (1974).
National Academy of Sciences, Chromium, USGPO, (1974).
National Research Council Committee. Chemistry of Coal Utilization,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York (1945).
National Technical Information Service. "Polychlorinated Biphenyls
and the Environment," NTIS Interdepartmental Task Force, Washington,
D.C. (1972).
NCASI, "Pilot Plant Studies of Turbidity and Residual Cell Material
Removal from Mill Effluent by Granular Media Filtration," NCASI
Technical Bulletin, No. 266 (1973).
Niegowski, S.J. "Destruction of Phenols by Oxidation with Ozone,"
Ind. Eng. Chem., 45(3):632 (1953).
Niegowski, S.J. "Ozone Method for Destruction of Phenols in Petroleum
Waste Waters," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 28(10).-1266 (1956).
Nisbet, et al. "Rates and Routes of Transport of PCB's in the
Environment/"^ Environmental Health Perspectives, 4(21) (1972).
NIOSH, "Suspected Carcinogens, a Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances
List," DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 75-188 (1975), p. 93.
Pacific Wood Treating Corp. Wood Preserving Waste Recycle and
Incineration System, EPA Proj. Control No. 580517901 (1976).
Patterson, J.W. Wastewater Treatment Technology, Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. (1975).
361
-------
Paulson, E.G. "Adsorption as a Treatment of Refinery Effluent,"
Calgon Corp. Memo (1972).
Pelczar, M.J., Jr. and Reid, R.D. Microbiology, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
(1972).
Philipp, A.H. "Disposal of Insulation Board Mill Effluent by Land
Irrigation," JWPCF 43(8) (August, 1971).
Pontman, J.E. "The Toxicity of 120 Substances to Marine Organisms,"
Shellfish Information Leaflet, Fisheries Experimental Station, Conway,
N. Wales, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (1970).
Prather, B.V. and Gaudy, A.F., Jr. "Combined Chemical, Physical, and
Biological Processes in Refinery Wastewater Purification," Proc. Am.
Petro. Inst., 44(III):105-112 (1964).
Preussner, R.D. and Mancini, J. "Extended Aeration Activated Sludge
Treatment of Petrochemical Waste at the Houston Plant of Petro-Tex
Chemical Corporation," Proc. 21st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 591-599
(1967).
Putilina, N.T. "Removal of Phenol from Coke Works Wastewaters,"
Hygiene and Sanitation, Moscow, 12:8 (1952), and Water Pollution Abs.,
28:428 (1955).
Quirk, T.P. "Aerated Stabilization Basin Treatment of White Water,"
Water and Wastes Eng. Industrial (1969).
Reid, G.W. and Janson, R.J. "Pilot Plant Studies on Phenolic Wastes
at Tinker Air Force Base," Proc., 10th Industrial Waste Conf., Purdue,
23, (1955).
Reid, G.W. and Libby, R.W. "Phenolic Waste Treatment Studies," Proc.,
12th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. 250-258 (1957).
Reid, G.W., et al. "Removal of Phenol with Biological Slimes," Proc.,
llth Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. 354-357 (1956).
Richards, B.R. and Webb, D.A. "Laboratory Screening Assays of Treated
Wood Samples Exposed to Limnoria Tripunctata: Part III," American
Wood Preservers' Assn. Proceedings, Vol. 71 (April 1975).
Robertson, E.E., et al. "Battelle Northwest Contribution to the IDOE
Base-Line Study," Battelle Northwest 1972 IDOE Workshop 231 (1972).
Rosfjord, R.E., et al. "Phenols: A Water Pollution Control Assess-
ment," Water and Sewage Works, 123(3):96(1976).
362
-------
Ross, W.K. and Sheppard, A.A. "Biological Oxidation of Petroleum
Phenolic Wastewater," Proc., 10th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. 106-119
(1955).
Rozelle, L.T. "Ultrathin Membranes for Treatment of Waste Effluents
by Reverse Osmosis," Appl. Polymer Symp., 22:222 (1973). Chem. Abs.,
80:6355f (1974).
Runckel, W.J., "C-E Bauer Pressurized Double-Disc Refining Systems—
Application and Development in the Board Field," Proc.—7th Symp. on
Particleboard, (March 1973).
Ryan, J.P. Minerals Yearbook 1971, U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Washington, D.C. (1971).
Scaramelli, A.B. and DiGiano, F.A. "Wastewater Treatments: Physical
and Chemical Methods," JWPCF, 47, 6:1249 (1975).
Schroeder, H.A. "Chromium," Air Quality Monograph No. 70-15, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. (1970).
Schroeder, H.A., et al. "Abnormal Trace Elements in Man—Nickel,"
Jour. Chron. Dis., 15:51 (1961).
Shukov, A.I. "The Treatment of Phenolic Wastewaters," Hygiene and
Sanitation, Moscow, 22(5):69 (1957), and Water Pollution Abs., 32:424
(1959).
Skidmore, J.F. "Toxicity of Zinc Compounds to Aquatic Animals with
Special Reference to Fish," Quarterly Rev. of Biology, 39:227 (1964).
Skogen, D.B. "Treat HPI Wastes with Bugs," Hydrocarbon Processing,
46(7):105 (1967).
Smith, M.I., et a^. "The Selenium Problem in Relation to Public
Health," Public Health Report, 51:1496 (1936).
Smith, M.I. and West, B.B. "Further Field Studies on the Selenium
Problem in Relation to Public Health," Public Health Report, 52:1375
(1937).
Stadnisky, W. Personal Correspondence, Abcor, Inc., Cambridge,
Massachusetts (Sept. 27, 1974).
Stevens, B.W. and Kerner, J.W. "Recovering Organic Materials from
Wastewater," Chem. Eng. (Feb. 1975) p. 84.
363
-------
Stokinger, H.E. "Mercury 237," In: F.A. Patty, Ed., Industrial
Hygiene and Toxicology, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., New York Interscience 1090
(1963).
Straubing, A.L. Personal Correspondence, Straubing and Rubin
Consulting Engineers, South Orange, N.J.
Streeter, H.W. and Phelps, E.B. "A Study of the Pollution and Natural
Purification of the Ohio River," Public Health Bulletin, 146,
U.S.P.H.S. (Feb. 1925).
Suhr, L.G. and Gulp, G.L. "State of the Art—Activated Carbon
Treatment of Wastewater," Water and Sewage Works, Ref. No. R104
(1974).
Sweets, W.H., et al. "Microbiological Studies on the Treatment of
Petroleum Refinery Phenolic Wastes," Sewage Ind. Wastes, 26:826-868
(1954).
Symons, J.M., et al. "National Organics Reconnaissance Survey for
Halogenated OrganicsT"" AWWA Journal, 5 67(11) :593-662 (1975).
Thompson, W.S. "Draft Development Document for Pretreatment Standards
for the Wood Preserving Industry," U.S. EPA (July 1976), pp. VIII 23-
24.
Thompson, W.S. "Status of Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry," Proceedings, AWPA (1973).
Thompson, W.S. "Status of Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry in 1974," Proc., American Wood Preservers' Assoc., 71:97-104
(1975).
Thompson, W.S. and Dust, J.V. "Pollution Control in the Wood
Preserving Industry," Forest Products J., 21(9), (Sept. 1971).
Thompson, W.S. and Dust, J.V. "Pollution Control in the Wood
Preserving Industry, Part 2. In-Plant Process Changes and
Sanitation," Forest Products Journal, 22(7), 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for the Plywood, Hardboard, and Wood Preserving Segments of
the Timber Products Industry, EPA Rept. 440/1-73/023 (1974).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "First Environmental Tab—
Timber Products Processing," EPA-EGD (1977).
364
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Manual of Analytical Methods
for the Analysis of Pesticide Residue in Human and Environmental
Samples," EPA (1974).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Conference on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (November 19-21, 1975, Chicago, Illinois),"
Conference Proceedings, EPA-560/6-75-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Survey of Two Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plants for Toxic Substances," Wastewater Research
Division, Municipal Environmental Research Division, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory (March 1977).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treating Wood Preserving Plant
Wastewater by Chemical and Biological Methods, Ind. Env. Res. Lab.,
Off. of Res. and Dev., Cincinnati, Ohio (1976). (EPA-600/2-76-231).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water,
U.S. EPA-440/9-76-023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Pollution Aspects of
Street Surface Contaminants, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 1972, EPA-R2-
72-081.
U.S. Public Health Service. "Drinking Water Standards," 27 F.R. 2152
(1962).
University of Illinois. "Environmental Pollution by Lead and Other
Metals," (NSF/RANN Grand 61-31605), Progress Report, May lOctober 31,
1972, Chapter 6, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1972).
Vallee, B.L. "Zinc and Its Biological Significance," Arch. Indust.
Health, 16:147 (1957).
Wershaw, R.L. "Mercury in the Environment," Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1713, USGPO (1970).
Wiley, A.J., et al. Reverse Osmosis Concentration of Dilute Pulp and
Paper Effluents, Pulp Manufacturers' Research League and Inst. of
Paper Chem., EPA Proj. No. 12040 EEL (1972).
World Health Organization. "Chloroform, IARC Monographs on the
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man," 1 (61) (1972).
World Health Organization. "Health Hazards of the Human Environment,"
Geneva (1972).
Wynn, C.S., et al. Pilot Plant for Tertiary Treatment of Wastewater
with Ozone, EPA Rept. R2/73/146 (1973).
365
-------
SECTIION XVII
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACA—Ammonical Copper Sulfate.
"Act"—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
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.
367
-------
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.
Bagasse—The solid matter remaining after extraction of liquids from
sugar cane.
Barker—Machines which remove bark from logs. Barkers may be wet or
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.
Slowdown—The removal of a portion of any process flow to maintain the
constituents of the flow at desired levels.
BOD 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.
BOD7—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.
368
-------
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.
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.
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.
369
-------
Cylinder Condensate—Steam condensate that forms on the walls of the
retort during steaming operations.
CZC—Chromated Zinc Chloride.
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
shredding action of rotating and stationary discs.
through the
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.
preservative.
An inorganic water-borne wood
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
mechanical, thermal, or explosive methods.
pulp, utilizing
370
-------
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.
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 Ib/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.
371
-------
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.
Insulation Board—A form of fiberboard having a density less than 0.5
g/cu m (31 Ib/cu ft).
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.
I/day—Liters per day.
Metric ton—One thousand kilograms.
MGD—Million gallons per day.
mg/1—Milligrams per liter (equal parts per million, ppm, 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—Mil1imeters.
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.
372
-------
Non-pressure Process—A method of treating wood at atmospheric
pressure in which the wood is simply soaked in hot or cold
preservative.
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
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.
PCS—Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
PCP—Pentachlorophenol.
Pearl Benson Index—A measure of color-producing substances.
Pentachlorophenol—A chlorinated phenol with the formula C1SC«OH 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 (C6H5OH).
Phenols, 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
373
-------
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.
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.
Radio Frequency Heat—Heat generated by the application of an alter-
nating 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.
374
-------
Soil Irrigation—A method of land disposal in which wastewater is
applied to a prepared field. Also referred to as soil percolation.
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 preserva-
tive 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.
375
-------
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.
Thermal Conductivity—The quantity of heat which flows per unit time
across unit area of the subsurface of unit thickness when the tempera-
ture 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—See Phenols.
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.
376
-------
Water Balance—The water gain (incoming water) of a system versus
water loss (water discharged or lost).
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 carbohy-
drates, 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.
377
-------
APPENDIX A-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
D i ch1orobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylenes
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
2,4-DimethyIphenol
Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead
Mercury
379
-------
Napthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phthalate Esters
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNA's)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
Selenium
silver
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Toxaphene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc
380
-------
APPENDIX A-2-
LIST OF SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS RECOMMENDED PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
3. hexachlorobenzene
4. chlorobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
7. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
9. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
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 chlor.ide (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-benzopery1ene
46. fluorene
47. phenanthrene
48. 1, 2,5, 6-dibenzanthracene
381
-------
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-dichlorpethane
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. trichlorofluoromethane
70. dichlorodifluoromethane
71. chlorodibromomethane
72. hexachlorobutadiene
73. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
74. tetrachloroethylene
75. chloroform (trichloromethane)
76. trichloroethylene
77. aldrine
78. dieldrin
79. chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
80. 4,4'-DDT
81. 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
82. 4/4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
83. a-endosulfan-Alpha
84. b-endosulfan-Beta
85. endosulfan sulfate
86. endrin
87. endrin aldehyde
88. endrin ketone
89. heptachlor
90. heptachlor epoxide
91. a-BHC-Alpha
92. b-BHC-Beta
93. r-BHC (lindane)-Gamma
94. g-BHC-Delta
95. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
96. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
97. toxaphene
382
-------
98. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
99. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
100. parachlorometa cresol
101. 2-chlorophenol
102. 2,4-dichlorophenol
103. 2,4-dimethylphenol
104. 2-nitrophenol
105. 4-nitrophenol
106. 2,4-dinitrophenol
107. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
108. pentachlorophenol
109. phenol
110. cyanide (Total)
111. asbestos (Fibrous)
112. arsenic (Total)
113. antimony (Total)
114. beryllium (Total)
115. cadmium (Total)
116. chromium (Total)
117. copper (Total)
118. lead (Total)
119. mercury (Total)
120. nickel (Total)
121. selenium (Total)
122. silver (Total)
123. thallium (Total)
124. zinc (Total)
383
-------
APPENDIX B
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/!7 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 para-
meters, 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 identifica-
tion 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
385
-------
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.
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
386
-------
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 thermally desorbed into the GC
inlet for subsequent GC/MS identification and quantitation.
The purgeable volatile toxic pollutants considered in the final veri-
fication phase are listed in Table B-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 B-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
387
-------
Table B-l. Purgeable Volatile Toxic Pollutants
chloromethane
bromomethane
chloroethane
tr i chlorof1uoromethane
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
bis-chloromethyl ether (d)
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
d i bromoch1oromethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
bromoform
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
toluene
ethylbenzene
dichlorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethane
chloroform
1,1,1-trichloroethane
bromodichloromethane
1,2-dichloropropane
trichloroethylene
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
benzene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene
chlorobenzene
Table B-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
lonization Mode
lonization 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
388
-------
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 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 B-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 B-3 and B-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 NazS04 or methanol or simply
by standing.
The extract from each fraction was dried by passage through Na2S04,
and and the volume will be reduced with a Kuderna-Danish evaporator to
5 to 10 ml. The extract was further concentrated to 1 ml in the
KudernaDanish tube under a gentle stream of organic-free nitrogen.
The solvent volume was reduced to 1.0 ml spiked with 10 ul of the dlO-
anthracene internal standard soution of 2 ug/ul and subjected to GC/MS
analysis.
389
-------
cc
O Q
O cr
52
£6
03
Z Z
UJ <
ETHYLBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE & 1,4 • OICHLOROBUTANE
O
O
CC
£
C5
cc
3
Q.
QC
O u.
o
UJ
1,1,2,2 • TETRACHLOROETHANE
BROMOFORM
CIS • 1,3 - OICHLOROPROPENE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE & BENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRANS • 1,3 • DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2 • OICHLOROPROPANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
1,1,1 - THICHUOROETHANE"
TRANS • 1,2 • DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2 • DICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
1,1 • DICHLOROETHANE ,
1,1 • DICHLOROETHYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
- I/I
390
-------
Table B-3. Base Neutral Extractables
1,3-dichlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
bis(2-chloroethy1) ether
nitrobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
anthracene
diethylphthalate
pyrene
benzidine
chrysene
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(k)£1uoranthene
i ndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
benzo (g h Dperylene
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-butylphthalate
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 B-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
391
-------
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 chromatogram for base
neutrals and for phenolic standard are shown in Figures B-2 and B-3,
respectively.
GC/MS instrument parameters employed for the analysis of base neutrals
and phenolics are presented in Tables B-5 and B-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 back-
extracted 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 B-7
392
-------
LU
Z
LU
t/>
<
03
CC
O
LL
cc
C3
O
I
O
cc
X
O
UJ
cc
cc
ZJ
o
z
o
o
LU
O
O
CC
o
o
LU
DC
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 —
3,3' • DICHLOROBENZIDINE •
L«
in
BENZIDINE-
PYRENE
FLUORANTHENE
Dl-N - BUTYLPHTHYLATE
N • NITROSOOIPHENYLAMINE
DIETHYLPHTHYLATE
AZOBENZENE
OIMETHYLPHTHYLATE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2 - CHLORONAPHTHALENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE —
1,2,4 • TRICHLOR08ENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
NAPHTHALENE•
N • NITROSOOIPROPYLAMINE
1,2 • DICHLOROBENZENE &
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1,4 • DICHLOROBENZENE.
1,3 - OICHLOR08ENZENE'
393
fvl
ca
Utf
Lui
-------
a
cc
<
a
<
s
o
I]
o
LU
X
a.
cc
O
u.
cc
o
o
I
O
cc
i
o
I-
LLI
cc
oc
3
o
o
H
o
LU
O
=>
ac
I
O
o
01
cc
n
CD
o
u.
3
B)
4 - NITROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL-
2,4-OINITROPHENOL + 4,6 • DINITRO - 0 - CRESOl
4 - CHLORO - M - CRESOL
2,4,8 - TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4 • DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4 - DIMETHYL.PHENOL
2 • NITROPHENOL
fU
.
01
.a>
T*
.ca
•^
.r-
»-»
.CO
UT
Los
2 • CHLOROPHENOL
394
-------
Table B-5. Parameters for Base Neutral Analysis
GC Parameters
Column 6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP-2250 on 100/120 mesh
Supelcoport
Carrier He 30 ml/min
Program 50° isothermal 4 min then 8°/min to
275° for 8 min
Injector 285°
Separator Single-stage glass jet at 275°
Injection Volume 2 ul
MS Parameters
Instrument Hewlett Packard 5985 A
Mass Range 35-335 amu
lonization Mode Electron impact
lonization Potential 70 eV
Emission Current 200 uA
Scan time 2.4 sec
Table B-6. Parameters for Phenolic Analysis
GC Parameters
Column 6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP-1240 DA on 100/120 mesh
Supelcoport
Carrier He 30 ml/min
Program 90 to 200° at 8°/min with 16 min
hold
Injector 250°
Separator Single-stage glass jet at 250°
Injection Volume 2 ul
MS Parameters
Instrument Hewlett Packard 5985 A
Mass Range 35-335 amu
lonization Mode Electron impact
lonization Potential 70 eV
Emission Current 200 uA
Scan time 2.4 sec
395
-------
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 B-4 is a graphic demonstration of
the step-by-step procedure used in this analysis.
The compounds of interest are listed in Table B-8 and a chromatogram
of some selected representatives is shown in Figure B-5.
METALS
Metals analyzed consisted of the following:
Beryllium Silver
Cadmium Arsenic
Chromium Antimony
Copper Selenium
Nickel Thallium
Lead Mercury
Zinc
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.
396
-------
•LOW CHART FOR PESTICIDES AND PCB'S
Fraction I
Containing
PCE
Concentration!
GC/ECD
Column I
GC/ECD GCMS
Column II Conf.
i
\
Quantisation - — J
Sample Received
Adjust pH
Measure Volume
Serial
Solvent Extraction
Concentration
Silica Gel
Separation
i
Fraction II Fraction III
Containing Containing
TOX, Chlordane, DDT Cyclodienes
i
Concentration Concentration
i
GC/ECD GC/ECD
Column I Column I
1
,
GC/ECD GCMS GCMS .. GC/ECD
Column II Conf. Conf. Column II
: i i
Quantitation — — ' *— Quantitation
•
Tabulation
| Report
397
Figure B-4
-------
Table B-7. GC/ECD Parameters for Pesticide and PCS 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 B-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'-ODD
4,4'-DDT
endrin
endrin aldehyde
endosulfan sulfate
chlordane
toxaphene
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
398
-------
CD
£
4,4 • DOT
o
-------
APPENDIX C
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) By
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion
acre
acre-feet
British Thermal
Unit
British Thermal
Unit/pound
cubic feet
per minute
cubic feet
per second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Farenheit
feet
gallon
gallon per
minute
gallon per ton
horsepower
inches
pounds per
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
OF
ft
gal
gpm
gal/ton
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
To Obtain
Abbreviation
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/sec
1/kkg
kw
cm
atm
(Metric Units)
Metric Unit
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
square inch
(absolute)
401
-------
Multiply (English Units) By To Obtain (Metric Units
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
million gallons
per day
pounds per square
inch (gauge)
pounds
board feet
ton
mile
square feet
MGD
psi
Ib
b.f .
ton
mi
ft2
3.7 x 10-3
(0.06805 psi + 1)*
0.454
0.0023
0.907
1.609
.0929
cu m/day
atm
kg
cu m, m3
kkg
km
m2
cubic meters
per day
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters
metric ton
kilometer
square meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier.
402
-------
APPENDIX D
LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Cooke and Graham (1965) performed laboratory scale studies on the bio-
logical 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 phenols, thiocyanates, ammonia, and organic
acids. Aeration varied from 8 to 50 hours. Influent concentration
and percentage removal of phenol 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
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 Ib of phenol/1,000 cubic feet/day) and MLSS of 2,000 mg/1,
found that with wastes containing up to 5,000 mg/1 phenol, 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 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 phenol 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 phenol and COD
concentrations of 500 and 6,000 mg/liter, respectively, were reduced
in excess of 99 percent for 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 phenol/kg
MLSS/day. An influent phenol concentration of 1,200 mg/1 was reduced
by more than 99 percent in this year-long study. Similar phenol
removal rates were obtained by Reid and Janson (1955) in treating
wastewaters generated by the washing and decarbonization of aircraft
403
-------
engine parts. Other examples of biological treatment of phenolic
wastes include work by Putilena (1952, 1955), Meissner (1955), and
Shukov, et aJL (1957, 1959).
Of particular interest is a specific test on the biological treatment
of coke plant wastes containing phenols 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 phenols.
Successful results were achieved with phenol loadings of 0.86 kg
phenol/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 phenol 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-phenol 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 phenol.
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 D-l. A
plot of these data showed that the treatability factor, K, was 0.30
days-1 (Figure D-l). The resulting design equation, with t expressed
in days, is: Le = Lo/(l + 0.30t)
A plot of percent COD removal versus detention time in the aerator
based on the above equation, shown in Figure D-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/liter of pentachlorophenol and 2,400
mg/liter 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 pentachlorophenol and COD are given in Table D-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 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
404
-------
Table D-l. Substrate Removal at Steady-State Conditions in Activated
Sludge Units Containing Creosote Wastewater
Aeration Time, Days 5.0 10.0 14.7 20.1
COD Raw, mg/1 447 447 442 444
COD Effluent, mg/1 178 103 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.
405
-------
Table D-2. Reduction in Pentachlorophenol and COD in Wastewater
Treated in Activated Sludge Units
Days
1-5
6-10
11-15 Removal
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-47
48-49
50-51
Raw Waste
(mg/1)
COD
2350
2181
2735
2361
2288
2490
2407
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
7.9
10.2
7.4
6.6
7.0
12.5
5.8
10.3
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
Effluent from
(% Removal
"A"
78
79
76
82
90
—
83
20
55
33
30
—
94
94
—
—
— —
— -
Unit
)
"B"
78
79
75
68
86
84
80
77
95
94
79
87
94
91
91
96
95
97
99
SOURCE: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
406
-------
7-1
6-
5 -
8
O
3-
-i
Slope - K » 0.30 days
Le
La
1 + O.SOt
I
10
I
15
Aeration Time (Days)
20
Determination of Reaction Rate Constant for a Creosote Wastewater
407
-------
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 phenols using activated sludge units treating coke plant effluents
containing phenols, 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
the phenols. It was stated that influent phenol 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 phenol from a wood preserving
creosote wastewater at a loading rate of about 16 kg/1,000 cubic
meters/day (1 pound phenol/1,000 cubic feet/day).
Sweets, Hamdy, and Weiser (1954) studied the bacteria responsible for
phenol reductions in industrial waste and reported good phenol removal
from synthesized waste containing concentrations of 400 mg/1. Reduc-
tions of 23 to 28 percent were achieved in a single pass of the waste-
water through a pilot trickling filter having a filter bed only 30
centimeters (12 inches) deep.
Waters containing phenol concentrations of up to 7,500 mg/1 were
successfully treated in laboratory tests conducted by Reid and Libby
(1957). Phenol removals of 80 to 90 percent were obtained for concen-
trations 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 phenol concentrations of 1,600 mg/liter
and were able to oxidize 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 phenol
concentrations of up to 200 mg/1, 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 commer-
cial size trickling filter containing "Dowpac" filter medium that was
used to process wastewater containing 25 mg/1 phenol and 450 to 100
408
-------
mg/1 BOD. Reductions of 96 percent for 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 phenol 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 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, phenol removal was unaffected by oil concentrations
within the range studies.
Prather and Gaudy (1964) found that significant reductions of COD,
BOD, and phenol 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 in/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 phenol 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; 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
409
-------
oo
c
3
"5
o
•a
3
53
o
i
09
I
9
0)
>»
ca
a
2
-------
Table D-3. BOD, COD, and Phenol Loading and Removal Rates for Pilot
Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater*
Measurement
Raw Flow Rate 1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Recycle Flow Raw 1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Influent Concentration (mg/1)
Loading Rate gm/cu m/day
Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
Removal (%)
Characteristics
BOD COD Phenol
2.85
(0.07)
40.7
(1.0)
1968
1075
(66.3)
137
91.9
2.85
(0.07)
40.7
(1.0)
3105
1967
(121.3)
709
77.0
2.85
(0.07)
40.7
(1.0)
31
19.5
(1.2)
|1.0
99+
* Based on work at the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory as
reported by Davies (1971).
411
-------
Table D-4. Relationship Between BOD Loading and Treatability for
Pilot Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater
BOD Loading
kg/cu m
373
421
599
859
1069
1231
1377
1863
2527
BOD Loading
(Ib/cu ft/day)
(23)
(26)
(37)
(53)
(66)
(76)
(85)
(115)
(156)
Removal
(%)
91
95
92
93
92
82
80
75
62
Treatability*
Factor
0.0301
0.0383
0.0458
0.0347
0.0312
0.0339
0.0286
0.0182
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).
412
-------
gpm/sq ft) of recycled waste. The COD, BOD, and phenol removals
obtained under these conditions are given in Table D-3. Table D-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 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 phenol 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
D-5 for a plant with a flow rate of 75,700 I/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 Ib/acre/day).
Phenol 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., 1965; 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 phenol content ranging up to 40 mg/1. In
1966, the system 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.
413
-------
Table D-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)
3.26
(10.7)
3.81
(12.5)
4.36
(14.3)
4.91
(16.1)
5.46
(17.9)
5.97
(19.6)
6.52
(21.4)
Raw Flow
1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
0.774
(0.019)
1.059
(0.206)
1.385
(0.034)
1.793
(0.044)
2.200
(0.054)
2.648
(0.065)
3.178
(0.078)
Recycle Flow
1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
29.7
(0.73)
29.3
(0.72)
28.9
(0.71)
28.5
(0.70)
28.1
(0.69)
27.7
(0.68)
27.3
(0.67)
Filter
Surface
Area
sq m
(sq ft)
65.8
(708)
48.3
(520)
37.0
(398)
29.3
(315)
23.7
(255)
19.5
(210)
16.4
(177)
Tower
dia
sq m
(sq ft)
9.14
(30.0)
7.83
(25.7)
6.86
(22.5)
6.10
(20.0)
5.49
(18.0)
4.97
(16.3)
4.57
(15.0)
Volume
of Media
cu m
(cu ft)
213
(7617)
183
(6529)
160
(5724)
142
(5079)
128
(4572)
116
(4156)
107
(3810)
414
-------
Table D-6. Average Monthly Phenol and BOD Concentrations in Effluent
from Oxidation Pond
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1968
Phenol
26
27
25
11
6
5
7
7
7
16
7
11
BOD
290
235
190
150
100
70
90
70
110
150
155
205
1970
Phenol
7
9
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
--
—
—
BOD
95
140
155
95
80
60
35
45
25
—
—
—
SOURCES Crane, 1971; Gaudy, et aK, 1965; Gaudy, 1971.
415
-------
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 D-3
shows the phenol content at the outfall of the pond before and after
installation of the aerator. As shown by these data, phenol 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 seasonally dependent. Table D-6 gives phenol 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 waste treat an aerated lagoon with an
oxygen supply of 2,620 kg/day (5,770 Ib/day) was used to treat white-
water with a design BOD load of 2,780 kg/day (6,120 Ib/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 sedimenta-
tion. 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.
416
-------
o
UJ
O
O
DC
O
ec
UJ
3
<
_J
<
oc
Ul
u.
<
Q
<
UJ
s
u.
u.
UJ
OC
s
oo
UJ
i
CO
8
( I/Bui) 1N31NOO 10N3Hd
o
X
o
z
UJ
o
o
UJ
CL
417
Figure D - 3.
-------
APPENDIX E
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 E-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 "100-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
419
-------
Table E-l. Summary of Arsenic Treatment Methods and Removals
Achieved*
Initial
Arsenic
Treatment (mg/1)
Charcoal Filtration 0.2
Lime Softening 0.2
Precipitation with Lime plus Iron
Precipitation with Alum 0.35
Precipitation with Ferric Sulfate 0.31-0.35
Precipitation with Ferric Sulfate 25.0
Precipitation with Ferric Chloride 3.0
Precipitation with Ferric Chloride 0.58-0.90
Precipitation with Ferric Hydroxide 362.0
Ferric Sulfide Filter Bed 0.8
Precipitation with Sulfide
Precipitation with Sulfide 132.0
Final
Arsenic I
(mg/1)
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.003-0.006
5
0.05
0.0-0.13
15-20
0.05
0.05
26.4
>ercent
Removal
70
85
—
85-92
98-99
80
98
81-100
94-96
94
—
80
* Adopted from Patterson, 1975.
420
-------
"essentially" 100 percent of the zinc, copper, and chromium in his
tests. Chitosan, Amberlite, and Permutit-S1005 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, which is employed primarily
to remove suspended and emulsified materials in wastewater, and to
reverse osmosis (RO), which 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 al., 1973;
Stadnisky, 1974) and have potential application in the Wood Preserving
Industry for oil removed.
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 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.
421
-------
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). 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 papermi 11 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 Corporation,
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 evalua-
tion of the effectiveness of the system will be made under an EPA
grant.
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 per-
meate from the 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.
422
-------
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 litera-
ture. 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 aJL, 1976). Secondly, chlorine treatments of phenolic
wastes from mono-, di-, and trichlorophenols persist unless sufficient
dosages are used to rupture the benzene ring (EPA, 1973). It is prob-
ably 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.
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 phenols in wastewater greatly increases the
amount of KMn04 required to oxidize a given amount of phenols. In the
423
-------
trade literature cited above, it was stated that $10 worth of KMn04
was required to treat 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) of foundry waste
containing 60 to 100 mg/liter of phenols. Eighty milligrams per liter
of 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 phenol removed. The latter figure agrees
with one vendor's data, which indicated a cost of $0.15 per mg/liter
of phenol per 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) of wastewater.
Limited studies conducted by the Mississippi Forest Products
Laboratory revealed no cost advantage of KMn04 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 the phenols.
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 phenol 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 concentration 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 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 phenols varied directly with COD above the level
contributed by the phenol itself. At all ratios studied with
industrial wastes, phenol 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
phenol 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
H20j5 required in some cases, but not in others.
424
-------
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 indus-
trial wastewaters (Evans, 1972; Eisenhauer, 1970; Niegowski, 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 a1., 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 that in pilot
plant tests of ozone, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide, ozone was
demonstrated to be the most economical treatment for 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
425
-------
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 bio-
logical treatment system. This requires separate mixing,
flocculation, and settling facilities, and a considerable capital
investment. A recent study performed for the EPA (E.G. Jordan Co.,
1977) on chemically assisted clarification 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 555 and SIS hardboard Plant 824 reported the
use of polyelectrolytes to increase solids removal in the biological
secondary clarifiers of their respective treatment systems. Plant 824
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 555 adds polyelectrolyte in the aeration basin of the activated
sludge unit, achieving better mixing than Plant 824.
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.
426
-------
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 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 quice 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.
-ft U. S. GOVERNMENT' PRINTING OFFICE : 1979 0 - 303-783
427
-------