United States       Effluertt Guidelines Division    EPA 440/1-79/023b
           Environmental Protection    WH-552          October 1979
           Agency         Washington, DC 20460          Cil

           Water and Waste Management
&EPA     Development        Proposed
           Document for
           Effluent Limitations
           Guidelines and
           Standards for  the

           Timber Products Processing
           Point Source Category

-------
    0)
    O  0)
    C X!
    id 4J
-P  g

 Q)  O  O
 O  >i
 &> O
 Q)  C
•P  0)
 id  D>
 u <5
                         C
                         O
                      M-H
                      0)  (0
                     -P-H
                      id
    >
   •H
   Q
             0)  C
             O  O
             M -H
             3 -P
             0  O
             M  0)
               -p
            -P  O
             C  M
            •H (li
             o
<4H  0)  W
i
 O -P
 c  c
 0)  0)
    O   -4J
   
         W C-H
         Q) O Q
         O
             M
C C  -
(DOW
g-H T3
ft-P M
 3 Q) -H
T( -P 3
 O id O
 M -P
 ftW -P
                        (d
C
Q) (1)
g -P
C W
                  X!
              — n

               H o
               H ^
               H CT>
               O >
                I   I
               H H
            Xi H -^
            n co o
            OO CO ^J
            o    -^
                                  1  W
                           CT>
                           OJ •<•
                           CO ^*
                           H
                           en 
-------
          DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                  for

PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
    NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

                  and

        PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

                for the

       TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING
         POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
           Douglas M. Costle
             Administrator
           Robert B. Scha.ffer
 Director, Effluent Guidelines Division

          Richard E. Williams
            Project Officer

              October 1979

      Effluent Guidelines Division
  Office of Water and Waste Management
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Washington, D.C.  20460
                           C-

-------
                               ABSTRACT


This document presents the findings of a study of the wood preserving,
insulation board, and wet-process hardboard  segments  of  the  Timber
Products   Processing   point  source  category  for  the  purpose  of
developing effluent limitations  and  guidelines  for  existing  point
sources  and  standards  of performance and pretreatment standards for
new and existing point sources to implement Sections  301,  304,  306,
307,  308, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 USC 1251 et. seq.,  as  amended  by
the  Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L. 95-217) (the "Act").  This document
was also prepared in response to the Settlement Agreement  in  Natural
Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976),
modified March 9, 1979.

The  information  presented  in  this  document  supports  regulations
proposed  in  October  1979  for  the Timber Products Processing Point
source Category.  Information  is  presented  to  support  new  source
performance  standards  (NSPS)  and pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources (PSNS and PSES) for two  subcategories  in  the  wood
preserving   segment.    Information  is  presented  to  support  best
practicable control  technology  (BPT),  best  conventional  pollutant
control technology (BCT), new source performance standards (NSPS), and
pretreatment  standards  for  new and existing sources (PSNS and PSES)
for two subcategories in the  hardboard  segment  and  the  insulation
board  segment.   Best  available technology (BAT) and BCT limitations
are not proposed for the wood  preserving  segment  because  only  one
direct  discharger  of  process  wastewater  has been identified.  BAT
limitations are  not  proposed  for  the  hardboard  segment  and  the
insulation  board segment because of the low level of toxic pollutants
present  in  raw  wastewaters  generated  by  these   segments.    The
guidelines  and standards proposed by the Agency and presented in this
document are based on the performance of  technology  currently  being
practiced in the industry segments for which regulations are proposed.
Descriptions  of  the treatment technologies appropriate for achieving
the limitations contained herein, as well  as  supporting  data,  cost
estimates,  and rationale for the development of the proposed effluent
limitations, guidelines, and standards of performance are contained in
this report.
                                 111

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section

 I  CONCLUSIONS                                                1

II  RECOMMENDATIONS                                            5

III  INTRODUCTION                                              7

           PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY                               7
           STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS                 9
           DATA AND INFORMATION GATHERING
             PROGRAM                                           9
           WOOD PRESERVING                                    13

              Scope of Study                                  13
              General Description of Industry                 13
              Background                                      14
              Data Collection Portfolio Development           14
              Response to the DCP                             21
              Characterization of Non-Responders              21
              Comparison with Independent Survey              23
              Summary                                         23
              Methods of Discharge According to the DCP       24
              Units of Expression                             24
              Process Description                             24

           INSULATION BOARD                                   34

              Scope of Study                                  34
              General Description of the Industry             34
              Scope of Coverage for Data Base                 36
              Units of Expression                             36
              Process Description                             36

           WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD                              45

              Scope of Study                                  45
              General Description of the Industry             45
              Scope of Coverage of Data Base                  46
              Units of Expression                             51
              Process Description                             51

-------
IV  INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION                              59

           GENERAL                                            59
           WOOD PRESERVING                                    59
           SUBCATEGORIZATION REVIEW                           60

              Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials         60
              Wastewater Characteristics                      63
              Manufacturing Processes                         64
              Methods of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal    64
              Suggested Subcateqories                         65

           INSULATION BOARD                                   67

              Raw Materials                                   67
              Manufacturing Process                           68
              Products Produced                               69
              Plant Size and Age                              69
              Geographical Location                           69
              Suggested Subcategory                           70

           WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD                              70
           SUBCATEGORIZATION REVIEW                           71

              Raw Materials                                   71
              Manufacturing Processes                         71
              Products Produced                               72
              Size and Age of Plants                          72
              Geographical Location                           73
              Suggested Subcateqory                           73

 V  WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS                                75

           GENERAL                                            75
           WOOD PRESERVING                                    75

              General Characteristics                         75
              Wastewater Quantity                             76
              Steam Conditioning and Vapor Drying             77
              Boulton Conditioning                            78
              Historical Data                                 79
              Plant and Wastewater Characteristics            79
              Design for Model Plant                         103
                                  VI

-------
           INSULATION BOARD                                  103

              Chip Wash Water                                104
              Fiber Preparation                              104
              Forming                                        104
              Miscellaneous Operations                       105
              Wastewater Characteristics                     106
              Raw Waste Loads                                109
              Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads                116

           WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD                             118

              Chip Wash Water                                118
              Fiber Preparation                              121
              Forming                                        121
              Pressing                                       122
              Miscellaneous Operations                       122
              Wastewater Characteristics                     123
              Raw Waste Loads                                127
              Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads                131

 VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS                        137

           WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF SIGNIFICANCE             137
           CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT PARAMETERS                 137
           TOXIC POLLUTANTS                                  142

VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY                         153

           GENERAL                                           153
           WOOD PRESERVING                                   154

              I n-P 1 an t.... Con t ro 1 Measures                      154
              End-of-Pipe Treatment                          158
              In-Place Technology                            175
              Treated Effluent Characteristics               175
              Wood Preserving Candidate Treatment
                Technologies                                 213

           INSULATION BOARD AND WET PROCESS HARDBOARD        234

              In-Plant Control Measures                      234
              End-of-Pipe Treatment                          239
              In-Place Technology and Treated Effluent
                Data, Insulation Board                       241
                                 vn

-------
              In-Place Technology and Treated Effluent
                Data, Hardboard                              251
              Insulation Board Candidate Treatment
                Technologies                                 261
              Hardboard Candidate Treatment Technologies     267
              Pretreatment Technology                        273

VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS             275

           COST INFORMATION                                  275

              Energy Requirements of Candidate
                Technologies                                 277
              Total Cost of Candidate Technologies           277
              Costs of Compliance for Individual
                Plants—Wood Preserving                      277
              Costs of Compliance for Individual
                Plants—Insulation Board and Hardboard       278

           NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF CANDIDATE
             TECHNOLOGIES                                    295

              Sludge Generation, Wood Preserving             295
              Sludge Generation—Insulation Board
                and Hardboard                                296
              Toxic Pollutant Content of Sludge              297
              Sludge Disposal Considerations                 298
              Other Non-Water Quality Impacts                298

 IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
      AVAILABLE                                              303

  X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE        317

 XI BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY           325

XII NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                         331

XIII PRETREATMENT STANDARDS                                  333
                                 viii

-------
XIV PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS       339

           PURPOSE                                           339

           FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE VARIATIONS IN
             PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES  339

              Temperature                                    339
              Shock Loading                                  339
              System Stabilization                           340
              System Operation                               340
              Nutrient Requirements                          340
              System Controllability                         340

           VARIABILITY ANALYSIS                              340

              Hardboard Segment                              342
              Insulation Board Segment                       343
              Daily Variability Factors                      344
              30-Day Variability Factors                     345

XV  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                                         351

XVI BIBLIOGRAPHY                                             353

XVII GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS                     367


APPENDICES

      APPENDIX A-l—TOXIC OR POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES
        NAMED IN CONSENT DEGREE                              379

      APPENDIX A-2--LIST OF SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS RECOMMENDED
        PRIORITY POLLUTANTS                                  381

      APPENDIX B~ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL
        PROCEDURE                                            385

      APPENDIX C--CONVERSION TABLE                           401

      APPENDIX D--LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL
        TREATMENT                                            403

      APPENDIX E—DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE
        TECHNOLOGIES                                         419
                                  ix

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES

Section III

 III-l      Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by
            State and Type, 1974                              15

 II1-2      Consumption of Principal Preservatives and
            Fire Retardants of Reporting Plants in the
            United States, 1970-1974                          19

 II1-3      Materials Treated in the United States by
            Product                                           20

 III-4      Comparison of DCP Coverage with AWPA 387
            Plant Population                                  22

 II1-5      Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
            Preserving-Boulton Plants Responding to Data
            Collection Portfolio                              25

 II1-6      Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
            Preserving-Steaming Plants Responding to Data
            Collection Portfolio                              25

 II1-7      Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
            Preserving-Inorganic Salt Plants Responding to
            Data Collection Portfolio                         26

 III-8      Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
            Preserving-Nonpressure Plants Responding to
            Data Collection Portfolio                         26

 II1-9      Inventory of Insulation Board Plants Using
            Wood as Raw Material                              37

 I11-10     Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by
            Insulation Board Plants Responding to
            Data Collection Portfolio                         40

 I11-11     Inventory of Wet-Process Hardboard Plants         47

 II1-12     Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by
            Wet-Process Hardboard Plants                      50


Section IV

  IV-1      Size Distribution of Wood Preserving Plants
            by Subcategory                                    62
                                   XL

-------
Section V

 V-l        Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Boulton Plants      81

 V-2        Wastewater Volume Data for Eight Closed
            Steaming Plants                                   82

 V-3        Wastewater Volume Data for 11 Plants Which
            Treat Significant Amounts of Dry Stock            83

 V-4        Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Open Steaming
            Plants                                            84

 V-5        Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Steaming
            Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
            Collected During 1975 Pretreatment Study,
            1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
            Verification Sampling Study                       85

 V-6        Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Boulton
            Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
            Collected During 1975 Pretreatment Study,
            1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
            Verification Sampling Study                       87

 V-7        Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter
            Data—Steaming                                    88

 V-8        Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter
            Data—Boulton                                     89

 V-9        Wood Preserving VGA Data                          90

 V-10       Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
            Volatile Organic Fractions During 1978
            Verification Sampling                             91

 V-ll       Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data                92

 V-12       Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data                93

 V-13       Substances Not Found in Base Neutral Fractions
            During 1977 and 1978 Verification Sampling        94

 V-14       Wood Preserving Phenols Data                      95

 V-15       Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found During
            1978 Verification Sampling                        96
                                 xii

-------
V-16       Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
           Treat with Organic Preservatives Only             97

V-17       Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
           Treat with Organic Preservatives Only             98

V-18       Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
           Treat with Both Organic and Inorganic
           Preservatives                                     99

V-19       Wood Preserving Metals Data—Plants Which
           Treat with Both Organic and Inorganic
           Preservatives                                    100
                        *

V-20       Range of Pollutant Concentrations in
           Wastewater from a Plant Treating with
           CCA- and FCAP-Type Preservatives and a
           Fire Retardant                                   101

V-21       Raw Waste Characteristics of Wood Preserving
           Model Plants                                     102

V-22       Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Raw
           Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)          110

V-23       Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
           and/or Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
           (Annual Averages)                                111

V-24       Insulation Board, Mechanical Refining
           Subcategory—Design Criteria                     114

V-25       Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical
           Subcategory—Design Criteria                     114

V-26       Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
           Insulation Board Plants—Total Phenols           117

V-27       Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
           Insulation Board—Metals                         119

V-28       Insulation Board, Raw Wastewater Toxic
           Pollutant Data, Organics                         120

V-29       SIS Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
           (Annual Averages)                                125
                                xiii

-------
 V-30       S2S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
            (Annual Averages)                                126

 V-31       SIS Hardboard Subcategory—Design Criteria       130

 V-32       S2S Hardboard Subcategory—Design Criteria       131

 V-33       Raw Waste Concentrations and Loads for
            Hardboard Plants—Total Phenols                  132

 V-34       Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
            Hardboard Plants—Metals                         133

 V-35       Average Raw Waste Concentration and Loadings
            for Hardboard Plants—Metals                     134

 V-36       SIS Hardboard Subcategory,  Raw Wastewater
            Toxic Pollutant Data,  Organics                   136

 V-37       S2S Hardboard Subcategory,  Raw Wastewater
            Toxic Pollutant Data,  Organics                   136


Section VI

 VI-1       Toxic Chemical Information                       145

Section VII

  VII-1     Progressive Changes in Selected Characteristics
            of Water Recycled in Closed Steaming Operations  157

  VII-2     Annual Cost of Primary Oil-Water Separation
            System                                           160

  VIl-3     Results of Laboratory Tests of Soil Irri-
            gation Method of Wastewater Treatment            173

  VI1-4     Reduction of COD and Phenol Content in Waste-
            water Treated by Soil Irrigation                 174

  VII-5     Current Level of In-Place Technology,
            Boulton, No Dischargers                          176

  VI1-6     Current Level of In-Place Technology, Wood
            Preserving, Boulton, Indirect Dischargers        177

  VI1-7     Current Level of In-Place Technology,
            Steaming, No Dischargers                         178
                                 xiv

-------
VI1-8     Current Level of In-Place Technology/
          Steaming, Direct Discharger                      180

VI1-9     Current Level of In-Place Technology,
          Wood-Preserving-Steaming, Indirect Dischargers   181

VII-10    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
          Parameters Data for Plants with Less than the
          Equivalent of BPT Technology In-Place            182

VII-11    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
          Parameters Data for Plants with Current
          Pretreatment Technology In-Place                 183

VI1-12    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
          Parameter Data for Plants with Current BPT
          Technology In-Place                              184

VI1-13    Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
          Volatile Organic Analysis During 1978
          Verification Sampling                            185

VI1-14    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile
          Organics Data for Plants with Current
          Pretreatment Technology In-Place                 186

VII-15    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile
          Organics Data for Plants with Current BPT
          Technology In-Place                              187

VI1-16    Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
          Base Neutral Fractions During 1977 and 1978
          Verification Sampling                            188

VII-17    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
          Concentrations for Plants with Current
          Pretreatment Technology In-Place                 189

VI1-18    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
          Wasteloads for Plants with Current Pretreatment
          Technology In-Place                              190

VI1-19    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
          Concentrations for Plants with Current BPT
          Technology In-Place                              191
                                xv

-------
VI1-20    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
          Wasteloads for Plants with Current BPT Technology
          In-Place                                         192

VI1-21    Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found During
          1978 Verification Sampling                       193

VI1-22    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Phenols Data
          for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
          In-Place                                         194

VI1-23    Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Phenols Data
          for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place  195

VI1-24    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives
          Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
          Pretreatment Technology In-Place                 196

VI1-25    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives
          Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
          Pretreatment Technology In-Place                 197

VI1-26    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives
          Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
          BPT Technology In-Place                          198

VI1-27    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives
          Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
          BPT Technology In-Place                          199

VI1-28    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
          Less than the Equivalent of BPT Technology
          Treatment In-Place                               200

VI1-29    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
          the Equivalent of BPT Technology Treatment
          In-Place                                         200

VI1-30    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
          Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place         201

VII-31    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
          Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place         202
                               xvi

-------
VI1-32    Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
          Current BPT Technology In-Place                  202

VI1-33    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
          Current BPT Technology In-Place                  203

VII-34    Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for
          Plants with Less than the Equivalent of BPT
          Technology In-Place                              193

VI1-35    Wood Preserving Steaming Traditional Data
          Averages for Plants with Current Pretreatment
          Technology In-Place (mg/1)                       204

VI1-36    Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for
          Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place      204

VI1-37    Wood Preserving Volatile Organic Analysis Data
          Averages for Plants with Current BPT Technology
          In-Place                                         205

VI1-38    Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data Averages
          for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
          In-Place                                         206

VI1-39    Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data Averages
          for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place  207

VI1-40    Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for
          Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
          In-Place                                         205

VII-41    Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for
          Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place      208

VI1-42    Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic
          Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants
          with Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place    209

VI1-43    Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic
          Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants
          with Current BPT Technology In-Place             210

VI1-44    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and
          Inorganic Perservatives, Averages for Plants
          with Less than the Current BPT Technology
          In-Place                                         211
                               xvii

-------
VI1-45    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current
          Pretreatment Technology In-Place                 212

VI1-46    Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
          Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current
          BPT Technology In-Place                          212

VI1-47    Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft3 for
          Candidate Treatment Technologies (Direct
          Dischargers)                                     223

VII-48    Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft3 for
          Candidate Treatment Technologies-Wood Preserving
          (Indirect Dischargers)                           231

VI1-49    Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Treated
          Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average)        244

VI1-50    Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
          Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual
          Average)                                         245

VI1-51    Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent
          Reduction for Total Phenols—Insulation Board    248

VI1-52    Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent
          Reduction for Insulation Board Metals            249

VI1-53    Insulation Board, Toxic Pollutant Data,
          Organics                                         250

VI1-54    SIS Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics
          (Annual Average)                                 253

VI1-55    S2S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics
          (Annual Average)                                 256

VI1-56    Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent
          Reduction for Total Phenols—Hardboard           258

VI1-57    Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and
          Percent Reduction for Hardboard Metals           259

VI1-58    SIS Hardboard Subcategory, Toxic
          Pollutant Data, Organics                         260

VI1-59    S2S Hardboard Subcategory, Toxic
          Pollutant Data, Organics                         262
                              xviii

-------
  VI1-60    Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
            Treatment Technologies—Insulation Board         265

  VI1-61    Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
            Treatment Technologies—Hardboard                268


Section VIII

 VIII-1     Cost Assumptions                                 276

 VII1-2     Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost
            Summary for Model Plant M-l                      279

 VII1-3     Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost
            Summary for Model Plant M-2                      280

 VII1-4     Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost
            Summary for Model Plant M-l                      281

 VII1-5     Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost
            Summary for Model Plant M-2                      282

 VIII-6     Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
            Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
            Plant C-l                                       283

 VIII-7     Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
            Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
            Plant C-2                                        284

 VII1-8     Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
            Subcategory Cost Summary for Model Plant C-l     285

 VII1-9     Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
            Subcategory Cost Summary for Model Plant C-2     286

 VI11-10    Wet Process Hardboard SIS Subcategory Cost
            Summary for Model Plant C-l                      287

 VI11-11    Wet Process Hardboard SIS Subcategory
            Cost Summary for Model Plant C-2                 288

 VII1-12    Wet Process Hardboard S2S Subcategory
            Cost Summary for Model Plant C                   289

 VII1-13    Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory
            Costs of Compliance for Individual
            Plants Direct Dischargers                        290
                                 xix

-------
 VII1-14    Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory
            Costs of Compliance for Individual
            Plants Indirect Dischargers                      291

 VII1-15    Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory
            Costs of Compliance for Individual
            Plants Indirect Dischargers                      292

 VII1-16    Hardboard-SIS Subcategory
            Costs of Compliance for
            Individual Plants Direct Dischargers             293

 VII1-17    Hardboard-S2S Subcategory
            Costs of Compliance for
            Individual Plants Direct Dischargers             294

 VII1-18    Sludge Generation by In-Place Wood
            Preserving Wastewater Treatment Systems          300

 VII1-19    Sludge Generation by Insulation Board
            and Hardboard Treatment Systems                  301

 VII1-20    Estimated Metals Content of Sludge               302


Section XIV

 XIV-1      Number of Observations in Data Set               347

 XIV-2      Non-Parametric Daily Variability Factors
            for Insulation Board and Hardboard Plants        348

 XIV-3      Non-Parametric 30-Day Variability Factors
            for Insulation Board and Hardboard Plants        349
APPENDIX B

B-l         Purgeable Volatile Toxic Pollutants              388

B-2         Parameters for Volatile Organic Analysis         388

B-3         Base Neutral Extractables                        391

B-4         Acidic Extractables                              391

B-5         Parameters for Base Neutral Analysis             395
                                  xx

-------
B-6

B-7


B-8

APPENDIX D

D-l




D-2


D-3




D-4




D-5


D-6
Parameters for Phenolic Analysis                 395

GC/ECD Parameters for Pesticide and
PCB Analysis                                     398

Pesticides and PCB's                             398
Substrate Removal at Steady-State
Conditions in Activated Sludge Containing
Creosote Wastewater                              405

Reduction in Pentachlorophenol and COD in
Wastewater Treated in Activated Sludge Units     406

BOD, COD and Phenol Loading and Removal Rates
for Pilot Trickling Filter Processing a
Creosote Wastewater                              411

Relationship Between BOD Loading and Treat-
ability for Pilot Trickling Filter Processing
a Creosote Wastewater                            412

Sizing of Trickling Filter for a Wood
Preserving Plant                                 414

Average Monthly Phenol and BOD Concentrations
in Effluent from Oxidation Pond                  415
APPENDIX E
E-l
Summary of Arsenic Treatment Methods and
Removals Achieved
                                                             420
                                 xxi

-------
                           LIST OF FIGURES
Section III                                                 Page
 III-l      Geographical Distribution of Wood Preserving
            Plants in the United States                       18
 II1-2      Typical Treating Cycles Used for Treating
            Lumber, Poles, and Piles                          27
 II1-3      Open Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant         29
 II1-4      Closed Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant       30
 III-5      Modified Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant     31
 II1-6      Boulton Wood Treating Plant                       32
 II1-7      Vapor Conditioning Process Wood Treating Plant    33
 II1-8      Geographical Distribution of Insulation Board
            Manufacturing Facilities in the United States     38
 II1-9      Total Board Production Figurest  Insulation
            Board                                             39
 I11-10     Diagram of a Typical Insulation Board Process     41
 III-ll     Geographical Distribution of Hardboard
            Manufacturing Facilities in the United States     48
 111-12     Total Board Production Figures:  Hardboard        49
 II1-13     Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process
            Hardboard Mill SIS Hardboard Production Line      57
 II1-14     Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process
            Hardboard Mill S2S Hardboard Produciton Line      58
Section V
   V-l    ,  Variation of BOD with Pre-Heating Pressure       108
Section VII
 VII-1      Variation in Oil Content of Effluent with Time
            Before and After Initiating Closed Steaming      155
                                xxiii

-------
VI1-2      Variation in COD of Effluent with Time Before
           and After Closed Steaming                        156

VI1-3      Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon
           Added and Removal of COD and Phenols from a
           Creosote Wastewater                              166

VI1-4      Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Evaporation
           System                                           171

VI1-5      Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers)—Model Plant A                      215

VI1-6      Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers)—Model Plant B                      216

VI1-7      Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers)—Model Plant C                      217

VI1-8      Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers)—Model Plant D                      218

VII-9      Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
           Metals)—Model Plant E                           219

VII-10     Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
           Metals)—Model Plant F                           220

VII-11     Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
           Metals)—Model Plant G                           221

VII-12     Wood Preserving-Steaming (Direct
           Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
           Metals)—Model Plant H                           222

VII-13     Wood Preserving-Steaming Boulton (Indirect
           Dischargers)—Model Plant I                      227

VII-14     Wood Preserving-Steaming Boulton (Indirect
           Dischargers)—Model Plant J                      228
                                 XXIV

-------
 VII-15     Wood Preserving-Steaming, Boulton (Indirect
            Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
            Metals)—Model Plant K                           229

 VII-16     Wood Preserving-Steaming, Boulton (Indirect
            Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
            Metals)—Model Plant L                           230

 VII-17     Wood Preserving-Boulton  (Self Contained)         232

 VII-18     Wood Preserving-Steaming (Self Contained)        233

 VII-19     Plant 929-Flow Vs. Effluent BOD                  246

 VI1-20     Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo-
            Mechanical Refining) (Direct Dicharge)—
            Model Plant A                                    263

 VII-21     Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo-
            Mechanical Refining) (Direct Discharge)—
            Model Plant B                                    264

 VI1-22     Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo-
            Mechanical Refining) (Self Contained)—
            Model Plant C                                    266

 VII-23     Hardboard (SIS and S2S)  (Direct Discharge) —
            Model Plant A                                    269

 VII-24     Hardboard (SIS and S2S)  (Direct Discharge) —
            Model Plant B                                    270

 VI1-25     Hardboard (SIS and S2S)  (Self Contained)
            —Model Plant C                                  271

 VII-26     Hardboard (SIS and S2S)  (Self Contained)
            —Model Plant D                                  272
APPENDIX B

B-l         Reconstructed Total Ion Current Chromatogram
            for Purgeable Volatile Organics Standard         390

B-2         Reconstructed Total Ion Current Chromatogram
            for Base Neutrals                                393
                                 XXV

-------
B-3         Reconstructed Total Ion Chromatogram
            for Phenolic Standard                            394
B-4         Flow Chart for Pesticides and PCB's              397
B-5         Pesticide Mixed Standard                         399
APPENDIX D
D-l         Determination of Reaction Rate Constant
            for a Creosote Wastewater                        407
D-2         COD Removal from a Creosote Wastewater by
            Aerated Lagoon without Sludge Return             410
D-3         Phenol Content in Oxidation Pond Effluent
            Before and After Installation of Aerator
            in June 1966                                     417
                                 xxvi

-------
                              SECTION I

                             CONCLUSIONS


There are approximately 415 wood preserving plants operated  by  about
300  companies  in  the United States.  The plants are concentrated in
two areas, the Southeast from east Texas to  Maryland  and  along  the
Northern  Pacific coast.  These areas correspond to the natural ranges
of  the  southern  pine  and  Douglas  fir  -   western   red   cedar,
respectively.

     Toxic  pollutants  in  wastewaters  from  plants  that treat with
organic preservatives are principally volatile organic  solvents  such
as  benzene  and  toluene,  and  the  polynuclear  aromatic components
(PNA's) of creosote, including anthracene, pyrene, phenanthrene, etc.,
that are contained in the entrained  oils.   Both  phenol  and  phenol
derivatives    have    been    identified    in   these   wastewaters;
pentachlorophenol  (PCP)  is  predominant  when  it  is  used   as   a
preservative.   The  conventional  pollutants found in the wastewaters
include TSS, oil and grease, and pH.  COD is the only  nonconventional
pollutant that has been found.

The  following toxic pollutants were found in treated effluents at two
or more plants above the nominal detection limit of ten micrograms per
liter, organics, and less than 2 micrograms per liter, metals.

fluoranthene                        chrysene
3,4-benzofluoranthene               bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
benzo(k)fluoranthane                phenol
pyrene                              pentachlorophenol
benzo(a)pyrene                      arsenic
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene              copper
benzo(ghi)perylene                  chromium
naphthalene                         nickel
acenaphthylene                      zinc
fluorene

     The Agency is retaining the same subcategorization for  the  wood
preserving segment, as previously promulgated, except the title of the
Wood Preserving subcategory.

The  Agency  is  withdrawing  the  existing  Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) regulation for the wood preserving steam
subcategory because there is only one known direct  discharging  plant
in  the  subcategory.   It is felt that it would not be appropriate to
develop national effluent limitations for only one plant.

-------
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Pretreatment Standards for
New Sources prohibit discharge of process wastewater pollutants.  This
conclusion is based on the  fact  that  over  eighty  percent  of  all
existing wood preserving plants have demonstrated that no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants, can be attained.

Technology  for  Pretreatment  Standards  for  Existing Sources (PSES)
require no discharge of pentachlorophenol and a limitation of 100 mg/1
on oil and grease, which  can  be  attained  by  oil/water  separation
technology  currently  used  in  the  industry.   The  oil  and grease
limitation is intended to serve as  an  indicator  of  the  degree  of
control of the discharge of toxic polynuclear aromatic compounds.

The  total  cost of compliance for the indirect discharging segment of
the wood preserving industry is estimated to be $3,300,000 capital and
$400,000 annual operating costs.  Three to nine  of  the  twenty-seven
plants affected by the proposed no discharge of pentachlorophenol have
been identified as possible closures.

Insulation Board/Hardboard

There  are  27  plants  in  the wet process hardboard-insulation board
segment.  Eleven plants  produce  only  insulation  board,  11  plants
produce  only  wet  process  hardboard,  and  five plants produce both
insulation board and wet process hardboard.  Ten plants are located in
the south, seven in the Midwest, six in the Pacific  Northwest,  three
in the Mid-Atlantic region, and one in the Northeast.

Pollutants present in process wastewater are mainly water soluble wood
constitutents high in BOD5_ and TSS, the result of the leaching of wood
constituents into the process water.  Additives also contribute to the
waste  load.   These  may  include  wax  emulsion,  paraffin,  starch,
polyelectrolytes, aluminum sulfate, vegetable  oils,  ferric  sulfate,
and  thermoplastic  and  thermosetting  resins.  Wastewater flows from
discharging plants range from 0.05 to 4 MGD.  Data obtained  from  the
sampling  and  analysis  program conducted during the BAT review study
show that  the  only  toxic  pollutants  present  in  raw  or  treated
wastewaters  from  this  segment  are very low concentrations of heavy
metals, and  organics-benzene,  toluene,  and  phenol.   There  is  no
treatment  technology  currently  available  to further reduce the low
concentrations of these pollutants, and none of these  pollutants  are
present  at  levels  high  enough to interfere with the operation of  a
POTW.

The following toxic pollutants were found in treated effluents at  two
or more plants above the nominal detection limit.

     benzene             phenol
     toluene             beryllium
     copper              nickel
     zinc

-------
The Agency concluded that it is appropriate to propose one subcategory
for the wet process hardboard portion dividing it into smooth-one-side
and  smooth-two-sides  parts,  SIS  and  S2S, respectively.  Raw waste
loads generated by S2S  production  were  found  to  be  significantly
higher  than  SIS.   Therefore, application of comparable treatment to
each of these wastewaters will result in a different treated  effluent
level.   Best  Practicable Control Technology (BPT), Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) establish limits for BOD,  TSS  and
pH.   New  Source Performance Standards (NSPS) require no discharge of
process wastewater pollutants.  Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
(PSNS), and Pretreatment Standards for Existing sources (PSES) require
dischargers to meet the general pretreatment standards of 40 CFR  Part
403,  because the pollutants present in hardboard and insulation board
wastewaters are compatible with POTW.  BAT limitations are  not  being
proposed  because  toxic  pollutants were not identified, at treatable
levels in effluents from this industry.

The insulation board portion of the industry was found to support  one
subcategory.   BPT,  BCT,  NSPS, PSNS and PSES effluent guidelines and
standards are presented.  BAT limitations  are  not  proposed  because
toxic  pollutants  are  not  present  at  treatable  levels  in wastes
generated by this industry.  Although the  numerical  limitations  and
standards are different than those proposed for wet process hardboard,
the bases for these regulations are the same; the absence of toxics at
treatable levels, and the feasability of no discharge for new sources.

The  cost  of  compliance for the hardboard segment to achieve the BPT
level of control is estimated to be $8,871,000 capital, and $3,486,000
annual operating costs.  A total of three plants might incur costs  to
achieve  this  level of control.  One plant, with an employment of 300
has been identified as a closure candidate.

For the proposed BCT level of control seven plants could incur a total
of $11,474,000 capital and $2,690,000 operating costs.  The same plant
identified as a closure candidate at the BPT level will be impacted by
the BCT limitation.

No plants in the insulation board segment will incur costs to  achieve
the BPT and BCT limitations proposed herein.

-------
                              SECTION II

                           RECOMMENDATIONS
WOOD PRESERVING
Revised  best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)
limitations  are  not  proposed  in   this   rulemaking.    Previously
promulgated  regulations  (40 CFR Part 429, Subparts F, G, and H)1 (39
FR 13942, April 18,  1974)  established  a  no  discharge  of  process
wastewater  limitation for subparts F and H, and established numerical
limits on the discharge of  COD,  Phenols  (as  measured  by  Standard
Methods), oil and grease, and pH for subpart G.

Best  available  technology  economically achievable (BAT) limitations
remain in force for subparts F and H.  These limitations established a
no discharge of process wastewater  pollutants  limitation.   BAT  for
subpart  G  is being withdrawn because there is only one plant in this
subcategory that is known to be discharging.

New source performance standards (NSPS) and pretreatment standards for
new sources (PSNS) that are proposed  here  require  no  discharge  of
process  wastewater  pollutants.  This regulation is based on the fact
that more than 80 percent  of  existing  wood  preserving  plants  are
achieving no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.

Pretreatment  standards for existing sources (PSES) for subparts G and
H require no discharge  of  pentachlorophenol  (PCP)  and  retain  the
limitations  on  oil  and  grease promulgated previously (41 FR 53930,
Dec. 9 1976).  Inorganic treating processes are already subject  to  a
PSES of no discharge (40 CFR Part 429.164) (41 FR 53935).  The oil and
grease limitation remains in force.  Control of oil and grease results
in  the  control of polynuclear aromatics to less than 1 milligram per
liter.

Section 304(e) of the Act directs the Administrator "to control  plant
site  runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal and drainage
from raw material storage ..."  The  technical/economic  study  upon
which  these proposed regulations are based did not include a detailed
1Subpart F - Wood Preserving

Subpart G - Wood Preserving-steam

Subpart H - Wood Preserving-Boultonizing

-------
study of these factors.  The Agency is conducting  a  study  of  these
aspects  (Best  Management Practices, BMP) of pollution control.  BMPs
will be addressed in future rulemaking.

HARDBOARD/INSULATION BOARD

Best  practicable  control  technology   currently   available   (BPT)
limitations  proposed  here  are  based  on  the "average of the best"
performance as required by Section 301(b)(4)(E) of the Act.

Best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT)  limitations,  as
required  by  Section  301(b)(2)(E)  of  the  Act  are  based  on  the
demonstrated performance of the best performing  biological  treatment
systems in each of the subcategories.

New source performance standards (NSPS) for both wet process hardboard
and  insulation  board  require  no  discharge  of  process wastewater
pollutants.

Pretreatment  standards  for  new  sources  (PSNS)  and   pretreatment
standards   for  existing  sources  allow  the  discharge  of  process
wastewater to publicly owned treatment  works,  subject  only  to  the
restrictions of 40 CFR Part 403, general pretreatment standards.

-------
                             SECTION III

                             INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

The  regulations described in this notice are proposed under authority
of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the  Clean  Water  Act
(the  Federal  Water  Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 USC
1251 et seq., as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L.  95-217)
(the "~FAct ).   These regulations are also proposed in response to the
Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources  Defense  Council,  Inc.  v.
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 established
a  comprehensive  program  to  "restore  and  maintain  the  chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the  Nation's  waters"  (Section
101(a)).   By  July  1,  1977,  existing  industrial  dischargers were
required to achieve "effluent limitations requiring the application of
the best practicable control technology currently  available"  ("BPT")
(Section  301(b)(1)(A));  and  by July 1, 1983, these dischargers were
required to achieve "effluent limitations requiring the application of
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) which will
result in reasonable further progress  toward  the  national  goal  of
eliminating  the  discharge of all pollutants" (Section 301(b)(2)(A)).
New industrial direct discharges were required to comply with  Section
306,   new  source  performance  standards  ("NSPS"),  based  on  best
available  demonstrated  technology  (BADT);  and  new  and   existing
dischargers  to  publicly owned treatment works ("POTWs") were subject
to pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) and (c)  of  the  Act.
While  the requirements for direct dischargers were to be incorporated
into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES)  permits
issued under Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment standards were  to be
enforceable   directly   against   dischargers   to   POTWs  (indirect
dischargers).

Although Section 402(a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the  setting  of
requirements  for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis, Congress
intended that, for the most part, control requirements would be   based
on  regulations  promulgated  by  the  Administrator  of EPA.  Section
304(b) of the Act required the Administrator to promulgate regulations
providing guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application  of  BPT  and
BAT.    Moreover,   Sections  304(c)  and  306  of  the  Act  required
promulgation of regulations for NSPS, and Sections 304(f), 307(b), and
307(c)  required  promulgation   of   regulations   for   pretreatment
standards.   In  addition to these regulations for designated industry
categories, Section 307(a) of the Act required  the  Administrator  to
promulgate  effluent  standards applicable to all dischargers of  toxic

-------
pollutants.   Finally,  Section  501(a)  of  the  Act  authorized  the
Administrator  to  prescribe  any additional regulations "necessary to
carry out his functions" under the Act.

The EPA  was  unable  to  promulgate  many  of  these  guidelines  and
standards by the dates contained in the Act.  In 1976, EPA was sued by
several  environmental  groups  and in settlement of this lawsuit, EPA
and the  plaintiffs  executed  a  "Settlement  Agreement,"  which  was
approved  by  the  Court.   This  Agreement  required EPA to develop a
program and adhere  to  a  schedule  for  promulgation  for  21  major
industries BAT effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards
and  new  source  performance  standards for 65 "toxic" pollutants and
classes of pollutants.  See Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9, 1979.

On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law  the  Clean  Water
Act of 1977.  Although this law makes several important changes in the
Federal  water pollution control program, its most significant feature
is its incorporation of many of the basic elements of  the  Settlement
Agreement  program for toxic pollutant control.  Sections 301(b)(2)(A)
and 301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now require the  achievement  by  July  1,
1984,  of  effluent limitations requiring application of BAT for toxic
pollutants,  including  the  65  "toxic"  pollutants  and  classes  of
pollutants which Congress declared "toxic" under Section 307(a) of the
Act.   Likewise,  EPA's  programs for new source performance standards
and  pretreatment  standards  are  now  aimed  principally  at   toxic
pollutant  controls.   Moreover,  to  strengthen  the  toxics  control
program, Section 304(e) of the Act  authorizes  the  Administrator  to
prescribe  "best management practices" ("BMPs") to prevent the release
of toxic and hazardous pollutants from plant site runoff, spillage  or
leaks,  sludge  or  waste  disposal,  and  drainage  from raw material
storage  associated  with,  or  ancillary  to,  the  manufacturing  or
treatment process.

In  keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean Water Act
of 1977 also revises the control  program  for  non-toxic  pollutants.
Instead  of BAT for "conventional" pollutants identified under Section
304(a)(4), (including biochemical  oxygen  demand,  suspended  solids,
fecal   coliform  and  pH),  the  new  Section  301(b)(2)(E)  requires
achievement by July 1, 1984 of  "effluent  limitations  requiring  the
application  of  the  best  conventional pollutant control technology"
("BCT").  The factors considered in  assessing  BCT  for  an  industry
include  the costs and benefits of attaining a reduction in effluents,
compared to  the  costs  and  effluent  reduction  benefits  from  the
discharge  of a publicly owned treatment works (Section 304(b)(4)(B)).
For non-toxic, non-conventional pollutants, Sections 301(b)(2)(A)  and
301(b)(2)(F)  require  achievement  of BAT effluent limitations within
three years after their establishment, or July 1, 1984,  whichever  is
later, but not later than July 1, 1987.

-------
The  purpose  of  these  proposed  regulations  is to provide effluent
limitations and guidelines for BPT, BAT and BCT and to establish  NSPS
and   pretreatment   standards   for   existing  sources  (PSES),  and
pretreatment standards for new sources  (PSNS),  under  sections  301,
304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean Water Act.

STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS

The  Standard  Industrial  Classifications  list  was developed by the
United States Department  of  Commerce  and  is  oriented  toward  the
collection  of  economic  data related to gross production, sales, and
unit costs.  The list is useful in that it divides  American  industry
into discrete product-related segments.


The  SIC  codes  investigated  during the study of the Timber Products
Processing industry (timber industry) are:

SIC       2411        Logging Camps and Logging Contractors
SIC       2421        Sawmills and Planing Mills
SIC       2426        Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills
SIC       2429        Special Product Sawmills
SIC       2431        Millwork
SIC       2434        Wood Kitchen Cabinets
SIC       2435        Hardwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC       2436        Softwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC       2439        Structural Wood Members
SIC       2491        Wood Preserving
SIC       2499        Timber Products not elsewhere classified
                     (Hardboard)
SIC       2661        Building Paper and Building Board Mills
                     (Insulation Board)

The industry segments addressed in this document are  wood  preserving
(SIC  2491),  insulation  board production (SIC 2661), and wet process
hardboard production (SIC 2499).

DATA AND INFORMATION GATHERING PROGRAM

The first step in the guidelines and standards process was to assemble
and evaluate all existing sources of  information  on  the  wastewater
management practices and production processes of the Timber industry.

Sources of information reviewed included:

1.    Current  literature,  EPA  demonstration  project  reports,  EPA
technology transfer reports.

-------
2.  Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards, Timber Products Processing Industry,
including supplemental information.
3.   Draft  Development  Document  for  Pretreatment  Standards,  Wood
Preserving  Segment,  Timber  Products  Processing Industry, including
supplemental information.
4.  Summary Report on the Re-evaluation of the Effluent Guidelines for
the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the  Timber  Products  Processing
Industry, including supplemental information.
5.   Information  obtained  from  regional  EPA  and  state regulatory
agencies on timber industry plants within their jurisdiction.
6.   Data  submitted  by  individuals,  plants  and   industry   trade
associations in response to publication of EPA regulations.

A complete bibliography of all literature reviewed during this project
is  presented  in  Section  XVI  of this document.  An analysis of the
above sources indicated that additional information would be required,
particularly concerning the source, use, treatment  and  discharge  of
toxic  pollutants.  Updated information was also needed on production-
related process raw waste  loads  (RWL),  potential  in-process  waste
control  techniques, and the identity and effectiveness of end-of-pipe
treatment systems.

In  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  best  source  of   existing
information  was  the  individual  plants, a data collection portfolio
(DCP) was prepared and sent directly to manufacturing  plants  of  the
wood  preserving,  insulation  board,  and  hardboard  segments of the
industry.  This data collection portfolio  was  the  major  source  of
information  used  to  develop  the  profile of each industry which is
presented later in this section of the document.   The  portfolio  was
designed  to  update  the  existing  data  base  concerning production
processes, wastewater  characterization,  raw  waste  loads  based  on
historical   production   and  wastewater  data,  method  of  ultimate
wastewater disposal, in-process  waste  control  techniques,  and  the
effectiveness   of   in-place  external  treatment  technology.   Data
concerning description of production processes are presented later  in
this  section.   Data  concerning  raw  wastewater characteristics are
presented in Section V.  Section VII contains  a  compilation  of  the
data  concerning  treated  effluent characteristics as well as end-of-
pipe and in-process treatment and control technology.   The  DCP  also
requested  information concerning the extent of use of materials which
could contribute toxic pollutants to wastewater and any data for toxic
pollutants in wastewater discharges.   These  data  are  presented  in
Section  VI  of  this  document.   Responses  to the DCP served as the
source  of  updated,  long-term,  historical   information   for   the
traditional  parameters  such  as  BOD,  COD, solids, pH, phenols, and
metals.
                                 10

-------
Additional sources of information included  NPDES,  state,  and  local
discharge    permits;   information   provided   by   industry   trade
associations; and information  obtained  from  direct  interviews  and
sampling visits to production facilities.

Survey  teams  composed  of project engineers and scientists conducted
plant  visits.   Information  on  the  identity  and  performance   of
wastewater  treatment  systems  was  obtained  through interviews with
plant water pollution control or engineering personnel, examination of
treatment plant design and historical operating data, and sampling  of
treatment plant influents and effluents.  Nine wood preserving plants,
six  insulation  board plants, and eight hardboard plants were visited
from November 1976 through May 1978,  with  several  plants  receiving
more than one visit.

Only in rare instances did plants report any knowledge of the presence
of  toxic  pollutants in waste discharges.  Therefore, toxic pollutant
data in waste discharges of the industry were obtained by  a  thorough
engineering  review  of raw materials and production processes used in
each industry and by a screening sampling  and  analysis  program  for
toxic  pollutants at selected plants.  Every effort was made to choose
facilities where meaningful information on both  treatment  facilities
and manufacturing operations could be obtained.

The  screening  sampling  and  analysis  program  was conducted during
November  and  December  of  1976.    Seventeen   plants   in   eleven
subcategories  of the Timber Products Processing category were visited
and sampled.  Among these plants were three  wood  preserving  plants,
three  insulation board plants, and one hardboard plant.  A single 24-
hour composite sample was obtained from the raw and treated wastewater
streams at each plant and analyzed for the 124 toxic pollutants listed
in Appendix A of this  document.   Sampling  procedures  followed  the
Sampling  Protocol  for Measurement of Toxics, U.S. EPA, October 1976.
Analytical  methods  followed  the  first  draft  Protocol   for   the
Measurement of Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, October 1976.

The purpose of the screening program was to determine toxic pollutants
presence  in  wastewaters from each industrial segment sampled, and to
determine the order of  magnitude  of  the  contamination.   Screening
analyses  were  not  used  to characterize or quantitate the levels of
contamination in the raw or treated effluent.

The results of the screening analyses were evaluated  along  with  the
process engineering review for each subcategory.  The toxic pollutants
which  were  found  to be present in levels above the detection limits
for the analyses, or those which were suspected to  be  present  as  a
result  of  their  use  as raw materials, by-products, final products,
etc., were selected for verification.
                                 11

-------
The verification sampling and analysis program, conducted over  a  14-
month  period,  was  designed  to  obtain as much quantitative data as
possible for each subcategory on  those  toxic  pollutants  identified
during  the screening program.  The plants for sampling were chosen to
represent the full range of in-place technology for each  subcategory.
Seven  wood  preserving plants were sampled during verification (three
were sampled twice).  Five insulation-board plants and seven hardboard
plants were  also  sampled  during  the  verification  program  (three
insulation board and three hardboard plants were sampled twice).

Three  consecutive  24-hour  composite  samples of the raw wastewater,
final treated effluent,  and,  in  appropriate  cases,  effluent  from
intermediate  treatment  steps  were obtained at each plant.  A single
grab sample of incoming fresh process water was also obtained at  each
plant.

Sampling  and  analyses  were  conducted  according  to  Sampling  and
Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial  Effluents  for  Toxic
Pollutants  U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, March 1977 (revised April 1977), and
Analytical Methods for the Verification Phase of the BAT Review,  U.S.
EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C., June 1977.

A detailed discussion of analytical methods, procedures and techniques
used during the study is presented in Appendix B of this document.

The  review  of available literature and of previous studies; analysis
of the data  collection  portfolios;  information  obtained  from  EPA
regions,  state  and local regulatory agencies, and industry and trade
associations;  information  obtained  during  plant  visits;  and  the
results  of  analyses  from  the  screening  and verification sampling
programs comprised the technical data base which served as  the  basis
for review of subcategorization of the industry and for identification
of  the  full  range  of  in-process  and treatment technology options
available  within  each  subcategory.   Among   other   factors,   the
subcategorization  review  took  into  consideration the raw materials
used,   products   manufactured,   production   processes    employed,
wastewaters  generated,  and  plant characteristics such as size, age,
and location.

The  raw  waste  characteristics  for  each  subcategory   were   then
identified.   This included an analysis of:  (1) the source and volume
of water used, the process employed and  the  sources  of  wastes  and
wastewater  in the plant; and (2) the constituents of all wastewaters,
including conventional, nonconventional and toxic pollutants.

The full range of control and  treatment  technologies  applicable  to
each  candidate  subcategory  were identified,  including both in-plant
and end-of-pipe technologies which are existent or  capable  of  being
used  by  the  plants  in  each  subcategory.   It  also  included  an
                                  12

-------
identification, in terms of the amount  of  constituents  and  of  the
chemical,  physical,  and  biological  characteristics  of pollutants,
including toxic pollutants, of the effluent level resulting  from  the
application of each of the treatment and control technologies.

The   costs   and   energy  requirements  of  each  of  the  candidate
technologies identified were then estimated, both for  a  typical,  or
model  plant  or plants within the subcategory and on a piant-by-plant
basis, taking into consideration in-place technology.

The problems, limitations,  and  reliability  of  each  treatment  and
control  technology, as well as the required implementation time, were
identified. In order to derive variability factors based  on  existing
treatment  plant  performance,  statistical analyses were performed on
those treatment systems for  which  sufficient  historical  data  were
available.

In  addition,  non-water  quality  environmental  impacts, such as the
effects of the application of such  technologies  on  other  pollution
problems, were addressed.

The  following  text  describes the details of the scope of study, the
coverage of the technical data base, and the technical  approach  used
to  select  candidate  treatment technologies for the wood preserving,
insulation board,  and  hardboard  segments  of  the  Timber  Products
Processing Point Source category.


WOOD PRESERVING

      of. Study

The  wood  preserving  industry applies chemical treatment to round or
sawn  wood  products  for  the  purpose  of  imparting   insecticidal,
fungicidal,  or  fire  resistant properties to the wood.  The scope of
this study includes all wood preserving plants (SIC  2491)  regardless
of  the types of raw materials used, methods of preconditioning stock,
types of products produced, or means of ultimate waste disposal.

General Description ojE Industry

According  to  information  from   the   American   Wood   Preserver's
Association   (AWPA),   approximately  300  companies,  with  a  total
employment of about 11,000, engage in wood preserving  in  the  United
States.   Fifty  percent of the industry capacity is controlled by ten
companies.  Over three-quarters of the plants are concentrated in  two
distinct  regions.   One  area extends from east Texas to Maryland and
corresponds roughly to the natural range of the  Southern  pines,  the
major species utilized.  The second, smaller area is located along the
                                 13

-------
Pacific  Coast,  where  Douglas  fir  and  western  red  cedar are the
predominant species.  The distribution of plants by type and  location
is given in Table III-l, and depicted in Figure III-l.

The major types of preservatives used in wood preserving are creosote,
pentachlorophenol   (PCP),  and  various  formulations of water-soluble
inorganic chemicals, the most common of which are the salts of copper,
chromium, and arsenic.  Fire retardants are formulations of salts, the
principal ones being  borates,  phosphates,  and  ammonium  compounds.
Eighty  percent of the plants in the United States use at least two of
the three types of preservatives.

Consumption data for the principal  preservatives  for  the  five-year
period  from 1970 through 1974 are given in Table III-2.  Creosote and
creosote solutions were used to treat more  than  55  percent  of  the
total  industry production in 1975.  PCP was the preservative used for
more than 25 percent of the 1975 production.  About 13 percent of  the
1975  production  was treated with water-borne inorganic salts.  Table
III-3 presents a summary of the materials treated, by product, for all
preservatives during the five-year period from 1969 through 1973.

Background

The EPA conducted an extensive study of the wood  preserving  industry
in  1973-1974.   The  information developed during that study provided
the technical basis for the effluent guidelines and^standards for  the
industry  promulgated   in  April 1974 (40 CFR Part 429, Subparts F, G,
and H).  Another  study  was  conducted  in  1976,  resulting  in  the
promulgation  of  pretreatment  standards for the indirect discharging
portion of the wood  preserving  industry.   These  technical  studies
included  the  use of data collection portfolios to obtain information
regarding plant operations, waste loads generated,  treatment  systems
in  place, and historical treatment system efficiencies.  Plant visits
were also conducted in  conjunction with the above studies, as was  the
sampling and analysis of raw and treated wastewaters.

To  enhance  the  quality  of  the current BAT Review project, the EPA
determined that the existing information base should  be  updated  and
expanded.

Data Collection Portfolio Development

The  primary  source  of  survey information regarding wood preserving
plants in the U.S.  is Wood Preservation Statistics, published annually
by the American Wood Preservers' Association (AWPA).  This survey  was
underwritten,   in   addition  to  the  AWPA,  by  the  American  Wood
Preservers' Institute,  the Railway Tie  Association,  the  Society  of
American  Wood  Preservers,  Inc.,  and the Southern Pressure Treaters
Association.  This  survey, published in  the  1975  AWPA  Proceedings,
                                 14

-------
Table III-1.
Type, 1974
Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Commercial
Railroad and Other
Pressure
Non- and Non- Non-
Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure
Northeast
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
Total
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total

0
0

0
0
6
2
1
3
4
8
1
0
6
31

6
4
0
0
7
5
3
8
0
0
7
3
43

0
0

0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0
0
7

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
5

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
3

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1

1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
Total
Number
Plants

0
0

0
1
6
2
1
5
5
9
1
0
6
36

7
4
1
0
8
6
10
11
1
0
7
6
61
                                   15

-------
Table III-l.  Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1974  (continued)
                     Commercial

                          Non-
              Pressure  Pressure
             Railroad and Other
     Pressure                      Total
     and Non-              Non-    Number
     Pressure  Pressure  Pressure  Plants
Southeast

Florida           24
Georgia           24
North Carolina    17
South Carolina    11
Virginia          14
Puerto Rico        1
 Total            91

South Central

Alabama           25
Arkansas           9
Louisiana         21
Mississippi       18
Oklahoma           5
Tennessee          5
Texas             25
 Total           108

Rocky Mountain

Arizona            1
Colorado           3
Idaho              4
Montana            2
Nevada             0
New Mexico         2
South Dakota       1
Utah               0
Wyoming            1
 Total            14
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
5
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
5
 0
 2
 0
 0
 1
 0
 3
 1
 3
 0
 4
 0
 0
 3
11
 0
 0
 0
 1
 0
 0
 1
 1
 1
 4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
I
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
25
26
18
11
16
 1
97
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
12
21
23
5
6
31
125
 1
 3
 6
 7
 0
 2
 2
 2
 2
25
                                   16

-------
Table III-l.  Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1974 (continued)
                     Commercial           Railroad and Other
                                  Pressure                      Total
                          Non-    and Non-              Non-    Number
              Pressure  Pressure  Pressure  Pressure  Pressure  Plants


Pacific

Alaska             000000
California         8         0         2         0         1       11
Hawaii             401005
Oregon             504009
Washington         8         5         4         0         1       18
 Total            25         5        11         0         2       43

United States
 Total           312        27        34         6         8      387


SOURCE:  AWPA, 1975.
                                   17

-------
                                                              s
                                                             .1
                                                             ii.
18

-------
Table II1-2.  Consumption of Principal Preservatives and fire
Retardants of Reporting Plants in the United States, 1970-1974
Material

Creosote
Creosote-
Coal Tar
Creosote-
Petroleum
Total
Creosote
Total
Petroleum
Pentachlor-
ophenol
Chromated
Zinc Chloride

CCA

ACC

FCAP
Fire
Retardants
Other Preser-
vative Solids
(Units)
Million
Liters
Million
Liters
Million
Liters
Million
Liters
Million
Liters
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
1970

256

229

125

475

286

12.9

0.2

2.7

0.3

1.2

8.1

0.4
1971

241

218

118

441

307

14

0

3

0

1

8

0
YEAR
1972

230

220

108

418

324

.5 16.6

.2 0.3

.9 4.4

.5 0.6

.0 0.9

.1 9.9

.3 0.5
1973

218

177

83.8

369

303

17.6

0.3

5.3

0.7

0.8

9.6

0.6
1974

250

201

96.

421

292

19.

0.

6.

0.

0.

9.

0.






5





7

2

9

8

7

7

6
NOTE:  Data based on information supplied by an average of 331 plants
for each year during the five-year period.

SOURCE:  AWPA, 1975.
                                   19

-------
Table II1-3.  Materials Treated in the United States by Product
                                   Thousand Cubic Meters
                                          YEAR
Material                  1969      1970     1971      1972      1973
Cross-ties
Switch-ties
Piling
Poles
Cross-arms
Lumber & timbers
Fence posts
Other
Total
2,020
180
417
2,107
91.9
1,689
443
231
7,179
2,248
223
428
2,174
97.8
1,577
428
195
7,371
2,465
176
388
2,106
87.1
1,695
472
218
7,607
2,432
169
406
2,111
70.4
1,811
515
205
7,719
1,915
142
368
2,135
73.4
1,950
430
194
7,207
NOTE:  Components may not add due to rounding.

SOURCE:  AWPA, 1975.
                                   20

-------
identified 387, out of an estimated 415 wood treating plants, of which
352 are pressure treating plants.

Using  the  AWPA  information,  a list of plants was developed for the
Data Collection Portfolio (DCP).  Because the AWPA statistics did  not
include  mailing  addresses or the appropriate contact person for each
plant, additional resources were required to obtain this  information.
The  1976  Directory  of  the Forest Products Industry, Miller Freeman
Publications, contained addresses and contacts for many of the plants.

Dr.  Warren  S.  Thompson,  Director,  Forest   Products   Utilization
Laboratory,  Mississippi  State  University,  was the Agency's special
consultant for this study and all previous  wood  preserving  effluent
guidelines  development studies.  He has also been involved in studies
of wood preserving processes and wastewater treatment, and possesses a
unique knowledge and familiarity  with  the  industry.   Dr.  Thompson
reviewed  the list and provided addresses and contacts for a number of
plants.

The Agency identified  the  complete  mailing  addresses  and  contact
persons  for  284  plants.   Previous EPA experience with the industry
indicated that the 284 recipients of the DCP included  all  previously
identified  dischargers,  both  direct  and  indirect,  and included a
representative cross section of plants  in  all  size  categories  and
geographical  locations.   The  DCP  recipients  included plants which
represented the full range of in-process and end-of-pipe  control  and
treatment technologies.

Response to the DCP

Two hundred sixteen plants responded to the DCP—a 76 percent response
rate.   One  hundred  ninety three of the responses were from pressure
treating plants and 23 responses were from non-pressure plants.


Table II1-4 compares the response to the technical DCP with the plants
listed in the AWPA statistics.  The table  illustrates  that  the  DCP
response  included  55  percent  of  the  population  of the 1975 AWPA
listings.

Characterization of. Non-Responders

Thirteen of the 68 plants that did not respond to the DCP are operated
by the industry's largest single company.  This  company  received  27
DCP's.   The  company requested and received permission to respond for
14 of their plants.  The request was approved in  order  to  alleviate
the  paperwork  burden  placed  on the company's technical staff.  The
approval was contingent, however, on the company  providing  responses
for  all plants discharging process wastewater and for a cross section
                                 21

-------













£1
O
4_)
1C

Q.
O
CL.
4_>
C
to
ex
i--.
co
CO

<:
0.
3
<

f
1 *
ffm

0)
u»
/n
•v
t~
MM
CU

O
U
CL
O
O
l+_
o
o
co
'L
0}
Q.
E
8


«r*-
7
*— 4
K-t
*»-«
0)

3
<0
O_
<»2
O
O
4->
O)
C
*«"•
T3

o
Q.
CO
0)
Ct
CO
+J
C
(O

ex


a.
H
i«j
o>
c
•f
>
•1—
CU
o
CO
CU

CO
+J
c


i—

«c
a. c
••» /**%
35
+j
^_>  T-
Jj
CD CO
C -i-
•r- .4J
•o 
o to
U
3


(/)
i_
S. (U
CU "O
£k C
g «r~
z'xj
&
;^
n> o



«fOO(oo^oco r-^co
pomfOunCT)^- LOLO
^ttot^-iovDLO voir>








CMfOCr>«n«<5|cO COVO
VO VO <*> «-•» <-l| O> CM f-l
1 »-1 CM






OIOOOPOOO co^j-
0°aJ2H2'-^c? :?£>
iftoococr>CT>'~~ rv. (>«»









CO t— 1 ^J- CT» t— (1 CO VO «*
co o> ,3- •— « cal LO CM co
1 CM CM









*
. *
M CO CO O fM C^ UO f**
^- 1-4 \r> CM CM! \r> co co
i— 1 i— I | P> PO





CU CU >,
i. $-4-^
O 3 C
E co O
CU * r- CO
U CO i.  O +J 1- 4->
w> i- o a- t- — i
»/>o.-iCMco-'-' io<
CO •«-» J3 C 4J H-
t- CU 3 0 CO O
c. a: to z Q: »—






*
CO
4J
s_
o
4^
s
2!
3
CO
CO
CU
CX
CO

CU
5_
CU
L. •
3 CO
CO +J
CO C
CU 
U r—
Q. Q.
s ^
o <— •
c >sr

CU •(->
co co
3 -i-
o *~
CO CO
r— U
fo «f—
- -tJ
>> CO
 CO

-------
of processes and wastewater treatment systems  characteristic  of  the
company's operations.

Using  AWPA  statistics  information,  21  of  the non-responders were
identified as plants that treat either with only  inorganic  salts  or
use  non-pressure  processes  exclusively.  These plants are currently
subject to a no discharge of process wastewater  limitation.   Of  the
remaining  34  non-responders, 12 are one-cylinder pressure plants and
16 are two-cylinder pressure plants.  Data presented in Sections V and
VII of this  document  will  demonstrate  that  plants  of  this  size
generate  very  low  volumes  of  process wastewater, and these plants
generally do not discharge either directly or indirectly.

Comparison with Independent Survey

Following the distribution of the technical DCP, EPA's Office of Anal-
ysis and Evaluation  (OAE) conducted an information collection activity
designed to provide  information relating to the financial viability of
the wood preserving  industry, i.e., to determine the  economic  impact
of  pollution  control costs that might result from these regulations.
The mailing list for this economic DCP was developed from   1976  Dun's
Marketing  Statistics,  published by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc.  The OAE
survey was sent to a total of 574  addressees.   Eighty-six  responded
that  they  were  not involved in wood preserving operations, and one-
hundred-fifty did not respond.  The remaining  three  hundred  thirty-
eight  recipients  indicated that they were engaged in wood preserving
operations.  The  OAE  survey  included  responses  from  94  pressure
treating plants that were not included in the technical DCP response.

Information  from  these  94  plants  was  collected  by the technical
contractor through a telephone survey.  Eight of the  94  plants  were
determined   to   be  indirect  dischargers.   There  were  no  direct
dischargers of process wastewater identified by the  economic  survey.
Information  concerning  the  eight  indirect  discharging  plants was
incorporated into the technical information base and is  presented  in
this document.

Summary

The OAE information  survey mailing list was developed from  a business/
financially  oriented  population  (Dun  and Bradstreet) rather than a
production  oriented  population  (AWPA).    The  objectives  of   the
technical  information  collection activity were achieved in the sense
that the response to the technical DCP included information sufficient
to address all process variations, wastewater  treatment  systems  in-
place, and the treatment systems' effectiveness and efficiencies.
                                 23

-------
Methods of Discharge According to the DCP

Tables  II1-5  through  II1-8  present  a  summary  of  the methods of
wastewater disposal practiced by plants in the  various  subcategories
of the wood preserving industry.

Units of_ Expression

Units of production in the wood preserving industry are shown in cubic
meters  (cu  m).    In-plant  liquid  flows are shown in liters per day
(I/day).  The industry is not yet metricized and uses English units to
express production, cubic feet (cu ft);  and  in-plant  flow,  gallons
(gal)  per day.  Conversion factors from English units to metric units
are shown in Appendix C.

Process Description

The wood preserving process consists of two basic steps:   (1)  condi-
tioning  the  wood to reduce its natural moisture content and increase
the permeability, and (2) impregnating the wood with the preservative.
Figure II1-2 shows several treatment sequences.

The conditioning step may be  performed  by  one  of  several  methods
including  (1) seasoning or drying wood in large, open yards; (2) kiln
drying; (3) steaming  the  wood  at  elevated  pressure  in  a  retort
followed  by  application  of  a  vacuum;  (4)  heating the stock in a
preservative  bath  under  reduced  pressure  in  a  retort   (Boulton
process);  or  (5)  vapor  drying, heating of the unseasoned wood in a
solvent to prepare  it  for  preservative  treatment.   All  of  these
conditioning methods have as their objective the reduction of moisture
content  of  the unseasoned stock to a point where the required amount
of preservative can be retained in the wood.

Conventional steam conditioning (open steaming) is a process in  which
unseasoned  or  partially  seasoned stock is subjected to direct steam
impingement at an elevated pressure in a retort.  The maximum  permis-
sible  temperature  is set by AWPA standards at 118°C and the duration
of the steaming cycle is limited by these standards to no more than 20
hours.  Steam condensate that forms in the retort exits through  traps
and  is  conducted  to  oil-water separators for removal of free oils.
Removal of emulsified oils requires further treatment.   Figure  III-3
shows a diagram of a typical open steaming wood preserving plant.

In  closed  steaming,  a  widely  used variation of conventional steam
conditioning, the steam needed for conditioning is generated  in  situ
by  covering  the  coils in the retort with water from a reservoir and
heating the water by passing process steam  through  the  coils.   The
water  is  returned  to  the reservoir after oil separation and reused
during the next steaming cycle.  There is a slight increase in  volume
                                 24

-------
Table III-5.   Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Boulton Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method                        Number of Plants


Direct Discharge                                   0

Discharge to POTW                                 11

Self-Contained (No-Discharge)                     24
 -Containment and Evaporation                     17
 -Cooling Tower Evaporation                        4
 -Soil Irrigation                                  1
 -Treated Effluent Recycle                         1
 -Thermal Evaporation                              1

TOTAL Number of Plants                            35
Table II1-6.  Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Steaming Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method                        Number of Plants


Direct Discharge                                  1

Discharge to POTW                                31

Self-Contained (No-Discharge)                    65
-Containment and Evaporation                     55
-Soil Irrigation                                 10

No Longer in Business                             7

TOTAL Number of Plants                          104
                                  25

-------
Table II1-7.  Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Inorganic Salt Plants Responding to Data Collection
Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method                        Number of Plants


Direct Discharge*                                  1

Discharge to POTW*                                 5

Self-Contained (No-Discharge)                     56
-Generate No Wastewater or Recycle All
Wastewater as Makeup Dilution Water               52
-Containment and Evaporation                       4

Total Number of Plants                            62


* Note:  Current regulations prohibit discharge of process wastewaters
from this subcategory, either directly to navigible waters or
indirectly to a POTW.


Table 111-8.  Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving-Nonpressure Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method                        Number of Plants


No Discharge                                            23

TOTAL Number of Plants                                  23
                                   26

-------
                     TREATING PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT

                           0
                                                A. PRELIMINARY VACUUM
                                                8  FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
                                                C. PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
                                                0. MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
                                                E. PRESSURE RELEASED
                                                F. PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
                                                G. FINAL VACUUM
                                                H  VACUUM RELEASED
                        TIME, HOURS
                        TIME, HOURS
      I  11
\J
                      I   '   1   '
                      i      i
                        TIME, HOURS
                                                A. PRE STEAM VACUUM
                                                8. STEAM INTRODUCED
                                                C. STEAM MAINTAINED
                                                O. STEAM RELEASED
                                                E. POST-STEAM VACUUM
                                                f. VACUUM RELEASED
                                                G. CONDENSATE DRAINED
                                                H PRELIMINARY VACUUM PERIOD
                                                I. FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
                                                J. PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
                                                K. MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
                                                L. PRESSURE RELEASED
                                                M PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
                                                A. PRELIMINARY AIR PRESSURE APPLIED
                                                B. FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
                                                C. PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
                                                O. MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
                                                E. PRESSURE RELEASED
                                                F  PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
                                                G. FINAL VACUUM
                                                H. VACUUM RELEASED
 SOURCE:   toppers  Company
TYPICAL TREATING CYCLES USED FOR TREATING LUMBER,
POLES, AND PILES.
A.  FULL-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR DRY SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER
B.  FULL-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR GREEN SOUTHERN PINE PILES
C.  EMPTY-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR DRY SOUTHERN PINE POLES
                              27                                      Figure 111-2

-------
of  water  in  the  storage tank after each cycle because of the water
removed from the wood.  A small blowdown  from  the  storage  tank  is
necessary to remove this excess water and also to control the level of
wood  sugars  in the water.  Figure II1-4 shows a diagram of a typical
closed steaming wood preserving plant.

Modified closed steaming is a  variation  of  the  steam  conditioning
process  in  which  steam  condensate  is allowed to accumulate in the
retort during the steaming  operation  until  it  covers  the  heating
coils.   At  that  point,  direct  steaming  is  discontinued  and the
remaining steam required for the cycle is generated within the  retort
by  utilizing  the heating coils.  Upon completing the steaming cycle,
the water in the cylinder is discarded after recovery of oils.  Figure
II1-5 shows a diagram of a typical modified steaming  wood  preserving
plant.

Preconditioning  is accomplished in the Boulton process by heating the
stock in a preservative bath under reduced  pressure  in  the  retort.
The preservative serves as a heat transfer medium.  After the cylinder
temperature  has  been  raised  to  operating temperature, a vacuum is
drawn and water removed in vapor form from the wood passes  through  a
condenser to an oil-water separator where low-boiling fractions of the
preservative are removed.  The Boulton cycle may have a duration of 48
hours  or  longer for large poles and piling, a fact that accounts for
the lower production per retort day as compared to plants  that  steam
condition.  Figure II1-6 illustrates the Boulton process.

The  vapor-drying  process,  illustrated  in  Figure  II1-7,  consists
essentially of exposing wood in a closed vessel to vapors from any one
of many organic chemicals that are immiscible with water  and  have  a
narrow boiling range.  Selected derivatives of petroleum and coal tar,
such   as   xylol,  high-flash  naphtha,  and  Stoddard  solvent,  are
preferred; but numerous chemicals, including blends, can be  and  have
been employed as drying agents in the process.  Chemicals with initial
boiling points of from 212°F to 400F° (100°C to 204°C) may be used.

Vapors  for  drying  are  generated  by  boiling  the  chemical  in an
evaporator.  The vapors are conducted to  the  retort  containing  the
wood,  where  they  condense on the wood, give up their latent heat of
vaporization, and cause the water in the wood to vaporize.  The  water
vapor  thus  produced,  along  with excess organic vapor, is conducted
from the vessel to a condenser and then to a  gravity-type  separator.
The  water  layer  is  discharged  from  the separator and the organic
chemical is returned to the evaporator for reuse.

At the termination of the heating period, the flow of  organic  vapors
to  the  vessel is stopped and a 30-minute to 2-hour vacuum is imposed
to remove the condensed chemical adsorbed by the wood, along with  the
additional  water  that  is  removed  from  the wood during the vacuum
                                 28

-------
                                                             £
                                                             i
                                                            iZ
                                                   O.

                                                   o
                                                   111
                                                   QC
                                                   H

                                                   Q
                                                   O
                                                   O


                                                   (0
                                                   0)
                                                   HI
                                                   O
                                                   O
                                                   QC
                                                   0.
                                                    UJ

                                                    CO

                                                    z
                                                    UJ
                                                    0.
                                                    O
29

-------
                                                            2

                                                            2

                                                            iZ
                                                  <
                                                  CD
                                                  Z
                                                  tu
                                                  Q
                                                  O
                                                  O


                                                  (0
                                                  V)
                                                  \u
                                                  O
                                                  O
                                                  K
                                                  O.

                                                  O
                                                  111
                                                  O
                                                  UJ
                                                  (0
                                                  O

                                                  O
30

-------
                                                           O)
                                                 H
                                                 O.

                                                 O
                                                 ui
                                                 cc
                                                 I-
                                                 o
                                                 O
                                                 O
                                                 CO
                                                 (0
                                                 UI
                                                 O
                                                 O
                                                 cc
                                                 a.

                                                 O
                                                 01

                                                 0)

                                                 Q
                                                 UI
31

-------
                                                         CD
                                                         w
                                               Q.

                                               a
                                               z


                                               <
                                               ui
                                               cc
                                               H
                                               Q
                                               O
                                               o
                                               Z
                                               O
                                               O
                                               CQ
32

-------
                                                   i
                                           Q.

                                           o
                                           Ul
                                           oc
                                           H

                                           Q
                                           o
                                           o


                                           (0
                                           (O
                                           IU
                                           O
                                           O
                                           oc
                                           a.

                                           o
                                           o
                                           p
                                           S
                                           z
                                           o
                                           o
                                           oc
                                           o
                                           a.
33

-------
cycle.  Since the drying vessel is usually also the  retort  used  for
preservative  treatment, the wood can be treated immediately using any
one of the standard preservative processes.

Following any of the above conditioning steps, the treatment step  may
be accomplished by either pressure or non-pressure processes.

Non-pressure  (thermal) processes utilize open tanks which contain the
preservative chemicals.  Stock to be treated is immersed in the treat-
ing chemicals, which may be  at  ambient  temperature,  heated,  or  a
combination  thereof.   Stock  treated  in  nonpressure  processes  is
normally conditioned by air seasoning or kiln drying.

Treatment methods employing pressure processes consist of three  basic
types, independent of the preconditioning method.  Two of the pressure
methods,  referred  to  in the industry as "empty-cell" processes, are
based on the principle that part of the preservative forced  into  the
wood  is expelled by entrapped air upon the release of pressure at the
conclusion of the treating cycle, thus leaving the cell  walls  coated
with  preservative.   The  pressure  cycle  is followed by a vacuum to
remove  additional  preservative.   The  retention  of   preservatives
attained is controlled in part by the initial air pressure employed at
the beginning of the cycle.

The  third  method, which is known as the "full-cell" process, differs
from the other two in that the treating cycle is begun  by  evacuating
the  retort  and  breaking  the  vacuum  with  the  preservative.  The
preservative is then forced into the wood under pressure,  as  in  the
other  processes.   Most  of the preservative remains in the wood when
the pressure is released.  Retentions  of  preservatives  achieved  in
this process are substantially higher than those achieved in the empty
cell processes.

Stock  treated  by any of the three methods may be given a short steam
treatment to "clean" the surface of poles and pilings  and  to  reduce
exudation of oil after the products are placed in service.

INSULATION BOARD

Scope of_ Study

The coverage of this document is limited those insulation board plants
in  SIC  2661  
-------
cellulosic fibers.  Insulation board is a "non-compressed" fiberboard,
which is differentiated from "compressed" fiberboards, such  as  hard-
board,  on  the basis of density.  Densities of insulation board range
from about 0.15 to a maximum 0.50 g/cu cm (9.5 to 31 Ib/cu ft).

The principal types of insulation board include:

      1.  Building board—A general purpose product for interior
          construction.
      2.  Insulating roof deck—A three-in-one component which
          provides roof deck, insulation, and finished inside
          ceiling.  (Insulation board sheets are laminated together
          with waterproof adhesives, with a vapor barrier in between
          the sheets.)
      3.  Roof insulation—Insulation board designed for flat
          roof decks.
      4.  Ceiling tile—Insulation board embossed and decorated
          for interior use.  It is also useful for acoustical
          qualities.
      5.  Lay-in panels—A ceiling tile used for suspended
          ceilings.
      6>  Sheathing—Insulation board used extensively in
          construction because of its insulative, bracing strength and
          noise control qualities.
      7.  Sound-deadening insulation board—A special product
          designed explicitly for use in buildings to control noise
          level.

The  American  Society  for  Testing  and  Materials   sets   standard
specifications  for  the  categories  of insulation board.  Decorative
type board products,  such  as  ceiling  tiles,  lay-in-panels,  etc.,
receive  a  higher  degree of finishing than do structural type boards
such as sheathing and building board.  Consequently, stricter  control
during  fiber  preparation  and formation is required in production of
decorative-type board to insure that the product can be  ironed,  edge
fabricated,  sanded,  coated,  and  painted,  resulting  in  a smooth,
beveled, finished surface.  Decorative board products  cannot  contain
high  amounts  of  dissolved solids in the production process for this
reason.  This factor will  be  significant  in  later  discussions  of
wastewater recycle.

There  are  16 insulation board plants in the United States using wood
as the predominant raw material with a combined production capacity of
over 330 million square meters (3,600 million square feet) on a  13-mm
(one-half  inch)  basis.   Sixteen  of  the  plants  use wood as a raw
material for some or all of their production.  Four plants use mineral
wool, a non-wood based product, as a raw material for  part  of  their
insulation  board  production.   Production  of  mineral wool board is
classified under SIC  3296  and  is  not  within  the  scope  of  this
                                 35

-------
rulemaking.   Five  plants  produce  hardboard  products  as  well  as
insulation board at the same facility.  A list of the 16 plants  which
produce  insulation  board  using wood as raw material is presented in
Table  II1-9.   The  geographical  distribution  of  these  plants  is
depicted in Figure III-8.

Production  of  insulation  board in the U.S. between 1968 and 1976 is
presented in Figure III-9.

Scope of Coverage for Data Base

The data collection portfolio was sent to all  16  of  the  insulation
board  plants  which  use  wood  as a raw material.  All of the plants
responded to the survey.  Table 111-10 presents the method of ultimate
waste disposal utilized by the plants responding to the  survey.   Six
of these plants were selected for visits and sampling.

Units of Expression

Units  of  production in the insulation board industry are reported in
square meters (sq m) on a 13 mm (1/2 in) thick basis.  Density figures
obtained from the surveyed plants are used to convert this  production
to  metric  tons.  The insulation board industry is not yet metricized
and uses English units to express production, square feet (sq ft) on a
one-half inch (in) basis.  Liquid flows from the industry are reported
in kiloliters per day (kl/day) and  million  gallons  per  day   (MGD).
Conversion  factors  from  English  units to metric units are shown in
Appendix C.

Process Description

Insulation board can  be  formed  from  a  variety  of  raw  materials
including  wood  from  a softwood and hardwood species, mineral  fiber,
waste paper, bagasse, and other fibrous  materials.   In  this   study,
only  those  processes  employing wood as raw material are considered.
Plants utilizing wood may receive it as roundwood, fractionated  wood,
and/or  whole  tree  chips.   Fractionated  wood can be in the form of
chips,  sawdust,  or  planer  shavings.   Figure  111-10  provides  an
illustration of a representative insulation board process.

When roundwood is used as a raw material, it is usually shipped  to the
plant  by  rail  or  truck  and  stored in a dry deck before use.  The
roundwood is usually debarked by drum  or  ring  barkers  before use,
although  in  some operations a percentage of bark is allowable  in the
board.  The barked wood then may be chipped, in which  case  the unit
processes  are the same as those plants using chips exclusively  as raw
materials.  Those plants utilizing groundwood normally  cut  the logs
into  1.2- to 1.5-meter  (4- to 5-foot) sections either before or after
debarking so that they will fit into  the  groundwood  machines.   The
equipment  used  in  these  operations  is similar to that used  in the
handling of raw materials in other segments  of  the  timber  products
industry.
                                 36

-------
Table II1-9.  Inventory of Insulation Board Plants Using Wood as Raw
Material
Abitibi Corporation
Blounstown, Florida

Armstrong Cork Company
Macon, Georgia

Boise Cascade Corporation
International Falls, Minnesota

The Celotex Corporation
Dubuque, Iowa

The Celotex Corporation
L'Anse, Michigan

The Celotex Corporation
Sunbury, Pennsylvania

Owens Corning
Meridian, Mississippi

Huebert Fiberboard, Inc.
Boonville, Missouri
Owens Corning
St. Helens, Oregon

National Gypsum Company
Mobile, Alabama

Georgia-Pacific
Jarratt, Virginia

Temple-Eastex
Diboll, Texas

United States Gypsum Company
Lisbon Falls, Maine

United States Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi

United States Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon

Weyerhaeuser Company
(Craig) Broken Bow, Oklahoma
Source:  1977 Directory of the Forest Products Industry.
                                   37

-------
o
%
<

1^-
02
Z c^
^2
sg
02
0<
^ <
O
                                    00



                                    i
                38

-------
^^


S

10-


 9-



 8-


 7-


 6-



 5


 4-


 3-


 2-


 1-
            TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTION FIGURES: INSULATION BOARD
         1964  65   66   67   68   69   70   71
                                          72
 i
73
 r
74
75   78
                             TIME(YEARS)
                                                           Figure 111--
                                39

-------
Table 111-10.  Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Insulation Board
Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method                        Number of Plants


Direct Discharge                                         5

Discharge to POTW                                        6

Self-Contained Dischargers                               3*
  Spray Irrigation

No-Discharge                                             2
  (Plants generating no wastewater
   or recycling all wastewater)


* One plant uses spray irrigation as a treatment method; however, the
effluent from this system is directly discharged.

Source:  Data collection portfolios.
                                  40

-------
s
o
oc
0.

o
oc

o
00
o
H
13
O 55
g
S!


<
                UJ

                3

                S
                £
 
-------
Groundwood,  as  used  by  two insulation board plants in the U.S.  is
usually produced  in  conventional  pulpwood  grinders  equipped  with
coarse  burred  artificial  stones  of  16-  to  25-grit  with various
patterns.   The  operation  of  the  machine  consists  primarily   of
hydraulically forcing a piece of wood against a rotating stone mounted
horizontally.   The  wood  held  against  the  abrasive surface of the
revolving stone is reduced to fiber bundles.  Water is sprayed on  the
stone  not  only to carry away the fibers into the system, but also to
keep the stone cool and clean and lubricate its  surface.   The  water
spray  onto  the stone also reduces the possibility of fires occurring
from the friction of the stone against the wood.

While most fractionated wood is purchased from other  timber  products
operations,  in  some cases it is produced on-site.  Currently, little
chipping occurs in the forest; however, in the future this is expected
to become a major source of chips.  Chips are usually  transported  to
the  plants  in  large  trucks  or railcars.  They are stored in piles
which may be covered but are more commonly  exposed.   The  chips  may
pass through a device used to remove metal grit, dirt, and other trash
which  could  harm  equipment  and  possibly cause plate damage in the
refiners.  This may be done wet or dry.  Pulp preparation  is  usually
accomplished by mechanical or thermo-mechanical refining.

Refining  Operations—Mechanical  refiners  basically  consist  of two
discs between which the chips or  wood  residues  are  passed.   In  a
single  disc  refiner, one disc rotates while the other  is stationary.
The feed material passes between the plates and is discharged  at  the
bottom  of  the case.  The two discs in double disc refiners rotate in
opposite directions, but the product flows are  similar  to  a  single
disc  refiner.   Disc  refiners produce fibers that may pass through a
30- or 40-mesh screen, although 60 percent of the fibers will not pass
through a 65-mesh screen.  The disc plates generally rotate  at  1,200
or  1,800  rpm  or a relative speed of 2,400 or 3,600 rpm for a double
disc mill.  Plate separations are generally less  than   1.0  cm  (0.40
in).  A variety of the disc patterns are available, and  the particular
pattern  used  depends  on  the feed characteristics and type of fiber
desired.

A thermo-mechanical refiner is basically the same as  a  disc  refiner
except that the feed material is subjected to a steam pressure of 4 to
15  atm  (40  to  200  psi)  for a period of time from 1 to 45 minutes
before it enters the refiner.  In some cases, the  pressure  continues
through the actual refining process.

Pre-steaming  softens the feed material and thus makes refining easier
and provides savings on energy requirements;  however,   yield  may  be
reduced  up to 10 percent.  The longer the pre-steaming  and the higher
the pressure, the softer  the  wood  becomes.   The  heat  plasticizes
portions of the hemicellulose and lignin components of wood which bind
                                  42

-------
the  fibers  together  and  results  in  a  longer  and stronger fiber
produced.

Subsequent to the refining  of  the  wood,  the  fibers  produced  are
dispersed  in  water  to  achieve consistencies amenable to screening.
For  most  screening  operations,  consistencies  of  approximately  1
percent  fiber  are  required.   Screening is done primarily to remove
coarse fiber bundles, knots, and slivers.  The coarse material may  be
recycled  and  passed  through secondary refiners which further reduce
the rejects into usable fibers  for  return  to  the  process.   After
screening,  the  fibers produced by any method may be sent to a decker
or washer.

Decker  Operations—Deckers  are  essentially  rotating   wire-covered
cylinders,  usually with an internal vacuum, into which the suspension
of fibers in water is passed.  The fibers are separated and the  water
is  usually  recirculated  into  the  system.   There  are a number of
reasons for deckering or washing, the two primary ones being to  clean
the  pulp, and for consistency control. Control of dissolved solids is
also a factor in some cases.  While being variable on a plant-to-plant
basis, the consistency of the pulp upon reaching the  forming  machine
in  any insulation board process is extremely critical.  By dewatering
the pulp from the water suspension at this point, it can be mixed with
greater accuracy to the desired consistency.  Washing of the  pulp  is
sometimes  desirable  in  order to remove dissolved solids and soluble
organics which may result in surface flaws in  the  board.   The  high
concentration  of  these  substances  tends  to  stay in the board and
during the drying stages migrates to the  surface.   This  results  in
stains when a finish is applied to the board.

After  the  washing  or deckering operation, the pulp is reslurried in
stages.  The initial dilution to approximately 5  percent  consistency
is  usually followed by dilutions to 3 percent and finally, just prior
to mat formation, a  dilution  to  approximately  1.5  percent.   This
procedure  is  followed  primarily for two reasons:  (1) it allows for
accurate consistency controls and more efficient dispersion  of  addi-
tives; and (2) it reduces the required pump and storage capacities for
the  pulp.   During  the  various  stages  of  dilution, additives are
usually added to the pulp  suspension.   These  range  from  5  to  20
percent  of  the  weight  of the board, depending on the product used.
Additives  may  include  wax  emulsion,  paraffin,  asphalt,   starch,
polyelectrolytes,  and  aluminum sulfate.  The purpose of additives is
to give the board desired properties  such  as  strength,  dimensional
stability, and water absorption resistance.

After  passing through the series of storage and consistency controls,
the pulp may pass through a pump-through refiner,  directly  ahead  of
the  forming  machine.   The purpose of the pump-through refiner is to
disperse agglomerated fiber clumps and to shorten the  fiber  bundles.
                                 43

-------
The  fibrous slurry, at approximately 1.5 percent consistency, is then
pumped into a forming  machine  which  removes  water  from  the  pump
suspension and forms a mat.

Forming  Operations—While there are various types of forming machines
used to make insulation board, the two most common are the fourdrinier
and the cylinder  machines.   The  fourdrinier  machine  used  in  the
manufacture  of insulation board is similar in nature to those used in
the manufacture of hardboard or paper.  The stock is pumped  into  the
head  box  and  onto  a table with an endless traveling screen running
over it.  The stock is spread evenly  across  the  screen  by  special
control  devices  and  an interlaced fibrous blanket, referred to as a
mat, is formed by allowing the dewatering of  the  stock  through  the
screen  by gravity assisted by vacuum boxes.  The partially formed mat
travelling on the wire screen then passes through press rollers,  some
with a vacuum imposed, for further dewatering.

Cylinder  machines  are  basically  large rotating drum vacuum filters
with screens.  Stock is pumped through a head box to a vat where again
a mat is formed onto the screen.  In this case, the mat is  formed  by
use  of  a  vacuum  imposed  on  the interior of the rotating drum.  A
portion of the rotating drum is immersed into the stock solution.   As
water  is forced through a screen, a mat is formed when the portion of
the cylinder rotates beyond the water level in the tank  and  required
amount  of  fiber  is  deposited  on  the  screen.  The mat is further
dewatered by the vacuum in the interior of the rotating  drum  and  is
then  transferred  off  the  cylinder onto a screen conveyor, or felt,
where it then passes through roller presses similar to those  utilized
in fourdrinier operations.

Both  the  fourdrinier  and  the  cylinder machines produce a mat that
leaves the roller press with a moisture content  of  about  40  to  45
percent  and  the  ability to support its own weight over short spans.
At this point, the mat leaves the forming  screen  and  continues  its
travel  over a conveyor.  The wet mat is then trimmed to width and cut
to length by a traveling saw which moves across the  mat  on  a  bias,
making  a  square cut without the necessity of stopping the continuous
wetlap sheet.

After being cut to desired lengths, the mats are dried to  a  moisture
content of 5 percent or less.  Most dryers now in use are gas- or oil-
fired  tunnel dryers.  Mats are conveyed on rollers through the tunnel
with hot air being circulated throughout.  Most dryers have  8  or  10
decks  and  various  zones  of  heat control the rate of drying and to
reduce the  danger  of  fire.   These  heat  zones  allow  for  higher
temperatures  when the board is "wet" (where the mat first enters) and
lower temperatures when the mat is almost dry.
                                 44

-------
The dried board then goes through various finishing operations such as
painting, asphalt coating,  and  embossing.   Those  operations  which
manufacture decorative products will usually have finishing operations
which  use  water-base  paints  containing  such  chemicals as various
inorganic pigments, i.e., clays, talc, carbonates, and certain amounts
of  binders  such  as  starch,  protein,  PVA,  PVAC,  acrylics,  urea
formaldehyde  resin,  and  melamine  formaldehyde  resins.   These are
applied in stages by rollers, sprayers, or  brushes.   The  decorative
tile  then  may  be embossed, beveled, or cut to size depending on the
product desired.

Sheathing  in  some  operations  receives  additional  molten  asphalt
applications  to  both  sides  and the edges.  It is then sprayed with
water and stacked  to  allow  humidification  to  a  uniform  moisture
content.

Various  sanding  and sawing operations give insulation board products
the  correct  dimensions.   Generally,  the  dust,  trim,  and  reject
materials  created  in  finishing  operations  are  recycled  into the
process.

WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD
The scope of this document includes all wet-process  hardboard  plants
(SIC 2499) in the U.S. using wood as the primary raw material.

General Description of the Industry

Hardboard  is  a  form  of  fiberboard,  which is a broad generic term
applied to sheet materials constructed from  ligno-cellulosic  fibers.
Hardboard  is  a  "compressed" fiberboard, with a density greater than
0.50 g/cu cm (greater than 31 Ib/cu ft).  The thickness  of  hardboard
products ranges between 2 to 13 mm (nominal 1/12 to 7/16 in).

Production   of  hardboard  by  the  wet  process  method  is  usually
accomplished by thermo-mechanical fiberization of  the  wood  furnish.
Dilution  of the wood fiber with water is followed by forming of a wet
mat of a desired thickness on a forming machine.  This wet mat is then
pressed either wet or  after  drying.   Chemical  additives  help  the
overall strength and uniformity of the product.  The use of hardboards
are  many  and  varied,  requiring  different  processes  and  control
measures.  The quality and type of board is important in the  end  use
of the product.

The following are some of the end uses of hardboard:

      Interior Wall Paneling
                                 45

-------
      Exterior Siding
      Display Cabinets
      Base of Painted Tile Panels
      Concrete Forms
      Nonconductor Material for Electrical Equipment
      Door Skins (panels)
      TV Cabinets and Furniture

The  American Society for Testing and Materials sets standards for the
various types of hardboard produced.

•Hardboard which is pressed wet immediately following  forming  of  the
wet-lap  is  called  wet-wet  or smooth-one-side (SIS) hardboard; that
which is pressed after the wet-lap has been dried is called wet-dry or
smooth-two-side (S2S) hardboard.

There are 16 wet-process hardboard plants in the United States, repre-
senting an annual production in excess of 1.5 million metric tons  per
year.   Seven  of  the plants produce only SIS hardboard.  Of the nine
plants producing S2S hardboard, three plants produce both S2S and SIS,
five plants produce S2S and insulation board, and one  plant  produces
S2S  only.  Table I11-11 lists the wet-process hardboard plants in the
U.S.

The geographic distribution of these plants is depicted in Figure Hi-
ll.  The total annual U.S. production of hardboard from  1964  through
1976  is  shown in Figure 111-12.  This total production includes dry-
process hardboard as well  as  wet-process  hardboard.   Although  the
relative  amounts of production between dry- and wet-process hardboard
vary from year to year, a generalized rule of thumb is that 25 percent
of the total production is wet-process hardboard.

Scope of_ Coverage of Data Base

Data collection portfolios were sent to 15 of the 16 wet-process hard-
board plants.  The remaining plant did not receive a  data  collection
portfolio,  but did provide historical monitoring and production data,
as well as  complete  process  and  wastewater  treatment  information
requested.   All 15 plants responded to the survey.  Eight plants were
visited during this study, and seven were sampled.  In  addition,  the
full record compiled by the E.G. Jordan Company during their 1975-1976
study  of  the  wet-process hardboard industry was reviewed during the
course of this study.  All 16  plants  were  visited  by  E.G.  Jordan
personnel  at that time.  Table 111-12 presents the method of ultimate
disposal utilized by each of the 16 wet-process hardboard plants.
                                 46

-------
Table I11-11.  Inventory of Wet-Process Hardboard Plants
Evans Products
Corvallis, Oregon

Champion Building Products
Dee (Hood River), Oregon

Masonite Corporation
Laurel, Mississippi

Abitibi Corporation
Roaring River, North Carolina

Superior Fibre
Superior, Wisconsin

Temple-Eastex
Diboll, Texas

Weyerhaeuser Company
Broken Bow, Oklahoma

Forest Fibre
Stimpson Lumber Company
Forest Grove, Oregon
Masonite Corporation
Ukiah, California

Superwood Corporation
Duluth, Minnesota

Superwood Corporation
North Little Rock, Arkansas

U.S. Gypsum Company
Danville, Virginia

Abitibi Corporation
Alpena, Michigan

Boise Cascade
International Falls, Minnesota

U.S. Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon

U.S. Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi
Source:  1977 Directory of the Forest Products Industry.
                                   47

-------
48

-------
         TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTION FIGURES: HARDBOARD
CM
a
o
o
§
lo-




 g-




 s'




 7-




 6




 5




 4




 3




 2




 1
         1964  65   66   67    68   69   70   71   72   73   74    75  '76
                               TIME (YEARS)
                                                            Figure
                                49

-------
Table II1-12.  Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Wet-Process
Hardboard Plants
Ultimate Disposal Method                        Number of Plants


Direct Discharge                                        12

Discharge to POTW                                        2

*Self-Contained Dischargers                              2
  Spray Irrigation (1 plant)
  Total Recycle of Treated Effluent (1 plant)
* Two other plants use spray irrigation to dispose of part of their
wastewater.  One plant spray irrigates a portion of its sludge.

Source:  Data collection portfolios.
                                   50

-------
Units of Expression

Units of production in the hardboard industry are reported  in  square
meters (sq m) on a 3.2-mm (1/8-in) thick basis, as well as in thousand
kilograms  per  day  (Kkg/day).   Most plants provided production data
directly on a  weight  basis.   The  hardboard  industry  is  not  yet
metricized  and  uses English units to express production, square feet
(sq ft) on a one-eighth inch (in) basis or  in  tons  per  day  (TPD).
Liquid  flows  from  the  industry  are reported in kiloliters per day
(kl/day) and million gallons per day (MGD).  Conversion  factors  from
English units to metric units are shown in Appendix C.

Process Description

Raw  Material Usage—The basic raw material used in the manufacture of
hardboard is wood.  The wood species include both hardwoods (oak, gum,
aspen, cottonwood, willow, sycamore, ash, elm, maple,  cherry,  birch,
and beech) and softwoods (pine, Douglas fir, and redwood).

Wood  receipts  may  vary in form from unbarked long and short logs to
chips.  Chip receipts may be from whole tree chipping, forest  residue
(which includes limbs, bark, and stumps), sawmill waste, plywood trim,
and sawdust.  The deliveries may be of one species, a mixture of hard-
wood, or a mixture of softwoods.  The geographic location of each mill
determines  the  species  of  wood used to produce the hardboard.  The
species  and  mixture  at  a  given  plant  may  change  according  to
availability.

Moisture  content  of  the  wood  receipts  varies  from 10 percent in
plywood trim to 60 percent in green (fresh) wood.

Chemicals used as raw material in the  hardboard  process  consist  of
vegetable  oils,  primarily linseed or tung, tall oil, ferric sulfate,
wax,  sulphuric  acid,  thermoplastic  and/or   thermosetting   resin,
aluminum  sulfate,  petrolatum, defoamer, and paint.  No one mill uses
all these chemicals in its process, nor is the degree of chemical  use
the  same for all mills.  Some of the functions of these chemicals are
for binding, sizing, pH control, retention, weather-proofing, and foam
reduction.  The chemical usage ranges from 0.5 to 11.0 percent of  the
total production.

Wood  Storage arid Chipping—Most of the mills surveyed stored the wood
raw material as chips in segregated storage piles.  In  most  cases  a
paved base is provided for the storage piles.  Rough logs received are
stockpiled prior to debarking and chipping.

Of those mills receiving rough logs, four out of eight remove the bark
by  mechanical means and either burn it or dispose of it in landfills.
The other four mills chip the logs  with  the  bark  attached.   Seven
                                 51

-------
mills receive wood in chip form only, which in most cases includes the
bark  from  the  log.   Only six mills screen chips before processing.
Some of the mills using chips containing  bark  can  tolerate  only  a
minimal  amount  of  bark  in  the  final  product  and have auxiliary
equipment  (i.e.,  centricleaners)  to  clean  the  stock.   One  mill
reported  that  bark in the stock improves the cleanliness of the caul
plates in the press and presents  no  problems  in  production.   Only
seven   of   the  sixteen  mills  surveyed  washed  the  chips  before
processing.

For production control and consistency,  the  majority  of  the  mills
maintain  a  chip  inventory  of 60 to 90 days.  Although the yield is
lower and the chips are more contaminated (bark, dirt, etc.), the  use
of  waste  material  and forest residue is increasing each year in the
production  of  hardboard.   As  the  availability  of  quality  chips
decreases  and  the  costs  increase, the greater use of lower quality
fiber  requires  additional  equipment  to  clean  the  chips   before
processing.

Fiber  Preparation—Before  refining  or  defibering,  the  chips  are
pretreated with steam in a pressure vessel or digester.  The  steaming
of the chips under pressure softens the lignin material that binds the
individual  fibers together and reduces the power consumption required
for mechanical defibering.  The degree of softening when the chips are
raised to a certain temperature varies with  different  wood  species.
Steaming  of  the chips also increases the bonding between fibers when
the board is pressed.

Cooking conditions are determined by the wood species involved and the
pulp required for the grade of  hardboard  being  produced.   A  major
difference  exists in the cooking conditions used in the manufacturing
of SIS (smooth-one-side)  and  S2S   (smooth-two-sides).   The  cooking
cycles  for SIS hardboard have ranges of 2 to 5 minutes at 5.4 to 10.2
atm (80 to 150 psi) for softwood and 40 seconds to 15 minutes  at  9.5
to  12.2  atm  (140  to  180  psi) for hardwood.  S2S hardboard, which
requires stronger and finer fibers,  is produced with cooking times  of
1.5 to 14 minutes at 10.2 to 13.6 atm  (150 to 200 psi).

Most  SIS  hardboard  is  usually  manufactured  with  the  same  pulp
throughout the board, but occasionally it is produced with a thick mat
of coarsely refined fiber and an overlay of a  thin  layer  of  highly
refined  fiber.   The  overlay  produces  a  high quality, shive-free,
smooth surface.  The bulk of the board can contain coarse fiber, which
allows proper drainage during the pressing  operation.   The  refining
requires less energy and the cooking conditions are less stringent.

S2S  hardboard  requires  more  highly refined fiber and more thorough
softening than SIS.  This requires   higher  preheating  pressures  and
longer  retention  time  and,  therefore,  more refining equipment and
                                 52

-------
horsepower.  The severity of the cook significantly  affects  the  raw
waste   loading   of   the  mill  effluent.   Most  S2S  hardboard  is
manufactured using an overlay system of fine fiber.

To contend  with  frozen  chips,  some  mills  in  cold  climates  add
preheating for thawing prior to the cooking cycle.

The  predominant  method  used  for  fiber  preparation  consists of a
combination of  thermal  and  mechanical  pulping.   This  involves  a
preliminary  treatment  of the raw chips with steam and pressure prior
to mechanical pulping of the softened  chips.   The  thermo-mechanical
process  may  take  place  with  a digester-refiner as one unit (e.g.,
Asplund system), or in separate units.

Primary, secondary, and tickler refiners may be found in  the  process
depending  on  the  type  of pulp required.  The pulp becomes stronger
with more refining, but its drainage characteristics are reduced.

Some mills use raw chips which bypass the digester and are refined  in
a  raffinator  or  refiner.  These chips are usually of a species that
breaks down easily and has a tendency to  overcook  in  the  digester.
The  raw chips, which produce a weaker pulp and are a small percentage
of the total chips used, are blended, after refining, with the  cooked
chips.

Two mills employ a method of fiber preparation called the explosion or
gun  process.   The  chips  are  cooked in a small pressure vessel and
released—suddenly and at a  high  pressure—through  a  quick-opening
valve to a cyclone.  The sudden release of pressure explodes the chips
into  a  mass of fiber.  The steam condenses in the cyclone and fibers
fall into a stock chest where they are mixed with water.  Fiber  yield
is  lower than the thermo-mechanical process because of the hydrolysis
of the hemicelluloses under high pressure, and the raw  waste  loading
is considerably higher.

To  restore moisture to chips containing a low moisture content (e.g.,
plywood trim), one mill injects water with the chips as they are being
cooked in the digester.

Refining or defibering equipment is of the disc  type,  in  which  one
disc  or  both  may  rotate;  the unit may be pressurized or a gravity
type.  A combination of pressure- and gravity-type refiners is usually
used  in  the  process.   Both  types  of  refiners  have   adjustable
clearances  between the rotating or fixed discs, depending on the type
of stock desired.  The maintenance and life of the refiner  discs  are
dependent on the cleanliness of incoming chips.

Small  tickler or tertiary pump-through refiners are used to provide a
highly refined, shive-free stock for the overlay  system  required  by
                                 53

-------
some  mills.   Small refiners are also used for rejects from the stock
cleaning systems.

Primary and most secondary refiners use large amounts of  fresh  water
for  non-contact  cooling  which  may  be  reused in the process water
system.  Fresh or process white water is injected  directly  into  the
refiner to facilitate refining.

Stock  Washing  and  Deckers—A  washer  is  used  to  remove  soluble
materials.  A decker, which is a screen used to separate  fibers  from
the  main  body  of  water,  also removes some solubles from the fiber
bundles.

After primary refining and dilution with white water, the majority  of
the  mills wash the stock to remove dissolved solids.  The most widely
used washing equipment is of the drum-type, which may operate under  a
gravity or vacuum mode.  The washer is equipped with showers that wash
the  stock  as  it  is picked up by the drum.  Two mills used counter-
current washers which consist of two or three drum washers in  series.
The  extracted solids are used in a byproduct system.  One mill uses a
two-roll press for washing.  As the water is squeezed from  the  stock
passing  through  the  nip  of  the  press,  it carries away dissolved
solids.

The effluent from a stock washer has a high concentration  of  soluble
organics  which are usually mixed into the white water system and must
be discharged for treatment or be recycled within the washing  system.
The  amount of dissolved solids that are readily washed from the stock
depends on the species of wood and the amount of cooking.

Of the sixteen hardboard mills surveyed, four of seven SIS  mills  and
seven of nine S2S mills wash their stock before mat formation.

Stock  washers  are  usually located after the primary refiners.  Some
mills screen the washed stock and send the slivers and  oversize  back
through  the primary refiner.  Five mills, one without a stock washer,
used centri-cleaners in the system to remove non-fiber material (bark,
dirt, etc.) from the stock.

Consistency of  the  stock  as  it  travels  through  the  process  is
controlled  by  instruments  using  recycled white water for dilution.
One mill, based on experience, checks the consistency by "feel."   The
pH  may  be  controlled  by  the addition of fresh water or chemicals.
Other chemicals are added at various locations as required.

Forming—Most wet process mills form their product on  a  fourdrinier-
type  machine  similar to that used in producing paper.  Diluted stock
is pumped to the headbox where the consistency is controlled   (usually
with  white water) to  an average of 1.5 to 1.7 percent while the stock
                                 54

-------
is being fed to the traveling wire of the fourdrinier.  As  the  stock
travels  with  the  wire,  water  is drained away.  At first the water
drains by gravity, but as the stock and wire  continue,  a  series  of
suction boxes remove additional water.  As the water is being removed,
the  stock is felted together into a continuous fibrous sheet called a
"wet mat."  At the end of the forming machine the wet mat  leaves  the
traveling  wire and is picked up by another moving screen that carries
the mat through one or more roll presses.  This step not only  removes
more  water  but  also  compacts  and solidifies the mat to a level at
which it can support its own weight over short spans.  As the wet  mat
leaves  the  prepress  section, it is cut, on the fly, into lengths as
required for the board being  produced.   In  the  production  of  SIS
hardboard  the mat, still with a moisture content of 50 to 65 percent,
is carried to the hydraulic press section.  In the manufacture of  S2S
hardboard,  the  mat  is  conveyed first through the dryer and then is
pressed in a dry state.

The water drained from the  mat  as  it  travels  across  the  forming
machine  is  collected in a pit under the machine or in a chest.  This
"white water" contains a certain  amount  of  wood  fibers  (suspended
solids),  wood  chemicals  (dissolved  solids), and dissolved additive
chemicals depending on the size of the machine wire,  the  amount  and
number  of  suction  boxes, the freeness or drainage of the stock, and
the physical properties of the product.

The water draining by gravity from the first  section  of  the  former
contains  the larger amount (rich) of fiber and is usually recycled to
the fan pumps that supply the stock to the forming machine.  The  lean
white  water  collected  under  vacuum in some plants is collected and
recycled as dilution water throughout the process.

The amount of white water that can be recycled may be limited by board
quality demands.  Recycled white water causes an increase in the sugar
content (dissolved solids) of the process water and therefore  in  the
board.  If the sugar content is allowed to accumulate beyond a certain
point,  problems  such as boards sticking in the press, bleedouts from
the  finished  products,  objectionable  board  color,  and  decreased
paintability  may  be encountered.  Some board products can tolerate a
degree of such problems, and in some cases, some of the  problems  can
be overcome by operational changes.

The  wet  trim  from  the  mat  on  the  forming  machine is sent to a
repulper, diluted, usually screened, and  recycled  into  the  process
system ahead of the forming machine.

Pressing—After  forming  to  the desired thickness, the fibers in the
mat are welded together into a grainless board by the hardboard press.
The hydraulically-operated press is capable of simultaneously pressing
8 to 26 boards.  Press plates may be heated with steam or with a  heat
                                 55

-------
transfer medium up to 230°C.  Unit pressures on the board up to 68 atm
(1,000 psi) are achieved in the press.  In SIS hardboard manufacturing
the  wet  mat  is  fed  into  the  press  as it comes from the forming
machine.  Screens are used on the back side of SIS mats in the  press.
In  this  state the SIS requires 4 to 10 minutes in the press.  In S2S
hardboard manufacturing, the press may be fitted with caul  plates  or
the  board  may  be  pressed directly between the press platens.  Caul
plates may be smooth or embossed for a special surface effect  on  the
board.  The press may be hand or automatically loaded and unloaded.

The  squeezing  of  the  water  from  the  wet mat removes some of the
dissolved solids.   The  water  from  the  press  squeeze-out  on  SIS
hardboard  has  a high organic content and is usually drained away for
treatment.  To assist the bond of the fibers in the press, resins  are
added  to  the  stock before it reaches the forming machine.  From the
press the  SIS  hardboard  may  be  conveyed  to  a  dryer,  kiln,  or
humidifier.

As  the  S2S hardboard leaves the forming machine, it may enter a pre-
drying oven which evaporates 95 percent of the moisture in the  board.
When  a  pre-dryer is used, the hot board is delivered directly to the
press.  After drying, the board may be pressed or sent to storage  and
pressed  when  required.   The strength of the S2S hardboard has to be
sufficient to withstand the many handling situations that occur  while
the board is in the unpressed state.

As  stated  before,  the S2S hardboard requires a harder cook and more
fine refining than SIS.  These finer fibers  allow  the  consolidating
chemical  reaction to take place when pressing the dry board.  Thermo-
setting phenolic resins cannot be used as a binder  in  S2S  hardboard
mat  because  it  pre-cures  in  the  mat dryer.  Higher temperatures,
higher pressures, and shorter pressing  time  (1  to  5  minutes)  are
required in pressing the dry S2S hardboard.

Oil  Tempering  and Baking—After pressing, both SIS and S2S hardboard
may receive a special treatment called tempering.   This  consists  of
treating  the sheets with various drying oils (usually vegetable oils)
either by pan-dripping or roll coaters.  In some cases  the  hardboard
is  passed  through  a  series  of  pressure  rolls which increase the
absorption of the oils and remove any excess.  The oil  is  stabilized
by  baking  the  sheet  from  1 to 4 hours at temperatures of 150°C to
177°C.   Tempering  increases  the  hardness,  strength,   and   water
resistance of the board.

Humidification—As the sheets of hardboard discharge from the press or
the  tempering  baking  oven  they  are hot and dry.  To stabilize the
board so  as  to  prevent  warping  and  dimensional  changes,  it  is
subjected to a humidification chamber in which the sheets are retained
until  the  proper  moisture  content,  usually  4.5  to 5 percent, is
reached.  In the  case  of  siding  products  where  exposure  to  the
elements is expected, humidification to 7 percent is common.

Figures  II1-13  and  II1-14  depict  diagrams  of typical SIS and S2S
production processes, respectively.

                                   56

-------

a
Ul
h-
*
i
c
u. |_

d
i
0 "
5 L
S
$
2 m
o o
£ ft
fc a
* i
j a.
0 0
Ecc
t S
- 00
< Q
M OC
X
cc £
0 OT

a
_j
u.









f
oc
z
u.
Ul
cc
' '
cc
Ul
Ul
a
o
J '

„ CO
13
O CO

h
Ul
O
S: <
H-
CO
J,

CHIPPING

i

i
cc
aa
Ul
o

f

Ul
o
a cc
H-
(0










































Ul
U





s
w
«



















i
^
2
u
i
L
*
•
m
m
a
,

Ul C
SC

j
I
u
g

1

FORMING

,


U
O



,







s
j
>
•

M>
L
•
\
3



§1


i
•

1

MACHINE




Ul
6



















1
K
Q
— » p
§
• *>fc iu
"> HO
1 j?S
i O <
tu*l
UJ 3 -.
cc Q O
CL on H>

!


t
a
u uj
K X
§3

36 o
1S
%





                                                         3
                                                         O)
57

-------


Z
Z

d

*
O £
CQ »
Q
OC
.
ac *E
^ UJ
11
(O
J.

ui i/5

j b

CC Ul
11
£S
4 L





Z
2
!-•


	 1
LU 1
Hui1
>s'
o J-.
BSI
l§l
ill








£31
_ O.
\l
HJ1
Ul ||
5 w
Is
S a z
= *• Q
ui a o




V

Ul
ac
a.

, ,


^o-
o *
, ,

3
i
, ,

(9
Z
Eu










                                                                         3

                                                                         O)
                                           ac
                                           O
                                           a.
                                                         ac  cc


                                                         II
58

-------
                              SECTION IV

                     INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION
GENERAL
In the review of existing industrial subcategorization  for  the  wood
preserving,  insulation  board,  and  hardboard segments of the timber
industry,  it  was  necessary   to   determine   whether   significant
differences   exist  within  each  segment  to  support  the  previous
subcategorization  scheme,  or  whether  modifications  are  required.
Subcategorization   is   based   upon   emphasized   differences   and
similarities  in  such  factors   as:    (1)   plant   characteristics
(geographical  location,  size,  age,  and  products produced) and raw
materials; (2) wastewater characteristics, including  toxic  pollutant
characteristics;  (3)  manufacturing  processes;  and  (4)  applicable
methods of wastewater treatment and disposal.

The entire technical data base, described in Section III, was used  in
the review of subcategorization.

WOOD PRESERVING

In  developing the previously published effluent limitation guidelines
and pretreatment standards for the  wood  preserving  segment  of  the
timber  products  industry,  it  was determined that plants comprising
this segment  exhibited  significant  differences  which  sufficiently
justified   subcategorization.   The  subcategorization  of  the  wood
preserving segment was based primarily on the method  of  conditioning
stock  preparatory  to preservative treatment.  The definitions of the
three previously published subcategories (1974) are as follows:

Wood Preserving—All pressure processes which employ water-borne salts
and in which steaming,  boultonizing,  or  vapor  drying  is  not  the
predominant method of conditioning.  All non-pressure processes.

Wood  Preserving-Steam—The Wood Preserving-Steam subcategory includes
all processes that  use  direct  steam  impingement  on  wood  as  the
predominant  conditioning  method,  processes that use vapor drying as
the predominant  conditioning  method,  fluor-chromium-arsenate-phenol
(FCAP)  processes,  processes  where  the same retort is used to treat
with both salt- and oil-type preservatives, and processes which  steam
condition and which apply both salt- and oil-type preservatives to the
same stock.

Wood    Preserving-Boultonizing—The    Wood   Preserving-Boultonizing
subcategory applies to those wood preserving processes which  use  the
Boulton process as the predominant method of conditioning stock.
                                 59

-------
The  rationale  for  selecting  these  subcategories  was  anchored to
differences within the industry in the volume  of  process  wastewater
generated  and  the applicable wastewater technology existing when the
subcategories  were  developed.   Plants  in   the   Wood   Preserving
subcategory were required to meet a no-discharge of process wastewater
limitation  because  a  widely  used technology existed to achieve no-
discharge through wastewater  recycling.   Likewise,  in  1974  plants
employing the Boulton method of conditioning had achieved no-discharge
of process wastewater by means of forced evaporation using waste heat,
and  this  was  the  basis  for  separate subcategorization of Boulton
plants.

Plants that used steaming as the predominant  method  of  conditioning
were  permitted  a discharge because of the relatively large volume of
wastewater generated by the open-steaming method used by most  of  the
plants  at  that  time,  and  because  steaming  plants  did  not have
sufficient waste heat available to achieve no-discharge through forced
evaporation.

SUBCATEGORIZATION REVIEW

Factors  considered  in  the  subcategorization  review  included  the
following:

      Plant characteristics and raw materials
      Wastewater characteristics
      Manufacturing processes
      Methods of wastewater treatment and disposal

Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials

Geographical  Location—Most  plants  employing the Boulton process as
the predominant method of conditioning are located  in the Douglas  fir
region  of  the  western states; those that use steam conditioning are
concentrated in the  Southern  pine  areas  of  the  South  and  East.
However,  many  plants  that  treat unseasoned Douglas fir also employ
steaming for special purposes such  as  thawing  frozen  stock  before
treatment  or  flash  cleaning  of  the  surfaces  of  stock following
treatment.   Likewise,  since  current  AWPA  standards  permit  steam
conditioning  of  certain western species such as Ponderosa pine, some
plants that use Boultonizing as the predominant method of conditioning
also use steam conditioning  occasionally.   Similarly,  some  eastern
plants  that  steam  condition most of their stock may use the Boulton
process to condition green oak piling or cross-ties.  Boultonizing  is
the  predominant  conditioning  method  at  a few of the plants in the
South and East that specialize in cross-tie production.

Age—With the exception of method of conditioning, which  is  dictated
by  timber  species,  Boulton  and  steaming  plants have very similar
                                 60

-------
characteristics.  Average plant age, for example, is 48 and  47  years
for  Boulton and steaming plants, respectively, based on the responses
to the data collection portfolio.

Plant age in and of itself is not a significant factor in  determining
the  efficiency  of  a plant; nor does it necessarily influence either
the volume or the quality of process wastewater.  Regardless  of  age,
all plants employ the same basic treating processes, use the same type
of  equipment, and treat with the same preservatives.  The average age
of wood preserving plants  is  high  because  the  industry  developed
rapidly  in  the  1920's  and  1930's  in  consort with the demand for
treated wood products by the railroads and utilities.  Most of the old
plants  have  been  modified  several  times  since  they  were  first
constructed.   In  most  cases, the waste management programs at these
plants are fully as advanced  as  those  at  plants  constructed  more
recently.

Size—Table IV-1 shows the size distribution of wood preserving plants
within  each  subcategory.  It can be readily observed from this table
that plants which treat only with inorganic preservatives have a  much
greater  percentage  (79 percent) of one- and two-cylinder plants than
do the Boulton (57 percent) or steaming  (53  percent)  subcategories.
Boulton  plants  have  a  greater percentage of large plants with over
four retorts (21 percent) as compared to steaming plants  (8  percent)
or inorganic preservative plants (2 percent).

Production  capacity  is perhaps a better indicator of plant size than
number of retorts.  For plants with the same number  of  retorts  that
treat  only  stump-green  stock,  the production of the steaming plant
would exceed that of the Boulton plant by a  factor  of  two  or  more
because  of  the  longer  treating cycle time required for the Boulton
process.  This inherent production advantage  of  steaming  plants  is
mitigated in part by the fact that the Boulton segment of the industry
has  a  higher  percentage  of four- and five-cylinder plants than the
steaming segment.

Products Treated—Boulton and steaming plants produce the  same  range
of  treated  products.   Overall,  the  Boulton plants tend to be more
diversified than the remainder of the industry.

Preservatives Used—The types of preservatives used by a plant are  an
important consideration in determining the pollutants contained in the
process wastewater and, to some degree, the quality of the wastewater.
Boulton  plants use the same range of preservatives as the industry as
a whole.  However, more Boulton  plants  use  creosote  and  salt-type
preservatives than the remainder of the industry.
                                 61

-------
Table IV-1.  Size Distribution of Wood Preserving Plants by
Subcategory
Boulton Steaminq
Number of
Retorts
1
2
3
4
>4
Components
Number
Plants
8
11
3
4
7
may not
of
Percent
24
33
9
12
21
add to 100
Number of
Plants
11
34
24
9
7
percent due
Inorganic
Preservatives
Percent
13
40
28
11
8
to rounding
Number of
Plants
30
13
11
0
1
•
Percent
55
24
20
0
2

Source:  Data Collection Portfolios and AWPA,  1975.
                                   62

-------
Wastewater Characteristics

Wastewater  Volume—Data  collected in 1973-1974 in preparation of the
Development Document for the Wood Preserving  Segment  of  the  Timber
Products Industry revealed that steaming plants generate a much larger
volume  of  wastewater  than Boulton plants of similar size.  However,
this difference has narrowed considerably during the period  1974-1978
as  a  result  of  aggressive pollution control efforts among steaming
plants in the East.  Factors that  have  contributed  to  this  change
include the following:

      1.  Adoption of closed steaming as a replacement for open
          steaming by some plants.
      2.  Replacement of barometric-type with surface-type
          condensers.
      3.  Recycling of barometric cooling water.
      4.  Predrying of a higher percentage of production, thus
          reducing total steaming time and excess wood water.
      5.  Segregation of contaminated and uncontaminated waste
          streams.
      6.  Inauguration of effective plant maintenance and sanita-
          tion programs.
      7.  Recycle of coil condensate.

Improvements  have  also been made in the waste management programs at
Boulton plants.  However,  the  changes  that  produced  the  greatest
result with the smallest investment were made at these plants prior to
1973  in  response  to  early enforcement of local and state pollution
control regulations.    '

Data presented in Section V of this document  demonstrate  that  while
differences  in wastewater volumes between steaming plants and Boulton
plants still exist, the differences are less than those which  existed
in  1973 and 1974.  The average steaming plant generates approximately
30 percent more wastewater on a  gallon-per-cubic-foot  of  production
basis  than  does  the  average  Boulton plant.  Steaming plants which
treat a large portion of dry stock and closed steaming plants generate
12 and 56 percent  less  wastewater,  respectively,  than  do  Boulton
plants.   In 1973 and 1974, 75 percent of all steaming plants surveyed
by EPA indicated that they either then practiced or were  planning  to
adopt  closed steaming technology.  Current information indicates that
fewer than 50 percent of  all  steaming  plants  have  adopted  closed
steaming.   Many  plants  reported  that  high  product  color and low
aesthetic quality of poles  and  lumber  treated  by  closed  steaming
techniques  were  instrumental in their decision to discontinue or not
to adopt closed steaming.

Wastewater Parameters—Since Boulton and steaming  plants  treat  with
the  same  types of preservatives, the wastewater generated by the two
                                 63

-------
types of plants contains similar preservative contaminants.   This  is
verified by data presented in Section V.

Differences  between Boulton and steaming wastewater in COD and penta-
chlorophenol concentrations are largely due to differences in oil  and
grease content.  Oil-water emulsions are more common in steaming plant
wastewaters,  a  fact  that  accounts  for  the correspondingly higher
average  oil  content.   It  is  probable   that   wood   extractives,
principally resins and carbohydrates, act as emulsifiers.  Because the
water  removed  from wood during the Boulton process leaves the retort
in vapor form and thus free of wood extractives, emulsions occur  with
considerably  less  frequency  in  Boulton wastewater.  The higher oil
content of the steaming wastewater accounts  in  large  part  for  the
relatively  higher  oxygen  demand  of  these  wastes  and serves as a
carrier for concentrations of pentachlorophenol that  far  exceed  its
solubility in water (17 mg/1 at 20°C).

Manufacturing Processes

The conditioning method employed is the only step in the manufacturing
process  that distinguishes Boulton plants from steaming plants.  Both
conditioning methods have the same function, i.e., to reduce the mois-
ture content of unseasoned stock to a level which allows the requisite
amount of preservative to be forced into the wood.  Conditioning  also
increases  the  depth  of  treatment  as  required  by AWPA standards.
Process descriptions of both Boulton  and  steaming  conditioning  are
presented in Section III of this document.

Methods of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal

Plants  which  treat  solely  with  inorganic  salts  can  achieve no-
discharge of process wastewater by collecting cylinder  drippings  and
rainfall  from  the  sump  under  the  cylinders  and  recycling  this
wastewater to dilute treating  solutions  for  future  charges.   This
technology  is  effective and widely employed in the industry.  Plants
that treat with salts have, with few exceptions, achieved no-discharge
as  required  by  previously  promulgated  effluent   guidelines   and
standards.

Capital  requirements  to achieve no-discharge for a plant that treats
only with salt-type preservatives are  relatively  small  compared  to
those  that  treat with oil-type preservatives.  Because of the nature
of the closed system for salt treating  plants,  operating  costs  are
low.   Some  small return on the initial investment can be realized in
that small quantities of otherwise wasted chemicals are recovered  and
reused.  Costs for recycle systems are presented in Section VIII.

Wastewater  treatment  methods  utilized  by plants treating with oily
preservatives  include gravity oil-water separation; chemical floccula-
                                 64

-------
tion followed by slow  sand  filtration;  biological  treatment;  soil
irrigation;  and  natural  or  forced  (spray,  pan  or cooling tower)
evaporation.   These  treatment  methods  are  equally  applicable  to
steaming  and  Boulton  plants  with  the  exception  of cooling tower
evaporation, which is more appropriate for Boulton plants, because  of
the availability of waste heat. •

Nearly  all  plants  treating with oily preservatives use gravity oil-
water separation, regardless of subsequent treatment steps or ultimate
disposal of wastewater.  Primary oil separation  is  used  partly  for
economic reasons—to recover oil and treating solutions, and partly to
facilitate  subsequent  treatment  steps.   Plants  which use chemical
flocculation/filtration and/or biological treatment technology  do  so
to  pretreat  the wastewater prior to discharge, additional treatment,
or disposal.

Plants treating with oily preservatives have generally chosen to  meet
previously  published  effluent  limitations by discharging pretreated
wastewater to a POTW  or  by  achieving  no-discharge  status  through
either  soil  irrigation  or  evaporation.   Soil irrigation and spray
evaporation, equally applicable to steaming and  Boulton  wastewaters,
require the availability of land.  The amount of land required depends
on  the  size  of the plant, amount of wastewater generated, and local
soil and atmospheric conditions.

Boulton plants have a significant source of waste  heat  available  in
the  vaporized  wood water and light oils sent to the condenser during
the long vacuum phase of the treating cycle.  This waste heat  can  be
used   to   evaporate  all  or  most  of  the  process  wastewater  by
recirculation through a mechanical draft cooling tower.   This  method
of  forced  evaporation, while occasionally requiring an external heat
source to evaporate  excess  rainwater  or  other  process  water,  is
currently  used  by many Boulton plants to achieve no-discharge.  This
technology requires very little land, generally less than one-tenth of
an acre.

The vacuum cycle of  steaming  plants  is  too  short  to  effectively
utilize  the waste heat of the vaporized wood water, and reliance must
be made on the more land-intensive technologies of soil irrigation  or
spray evaporation to achieve no-discharge.

Suggested Subcategories

A  careful  consideration of the plant characteristics, raw materials,
wastewater volume produced, wastewater characteristics,  manufacturing
processes,  and available methods of wastewater treatment and disposal
as currently exist in the industry today suggests  that  the  existing
subcategorization  of the wood preserving industry should be retained,
                                 65

-------
with minor  changes  in  wording  to  simplify  understanding  of  the
regulation.

The  changes  in  wording  do  not  change  the  applicability  of the
regulation previously promulgated, except  for  plants  treating  with
fluor-chromium-arsenic-phenol  (FCAP)  solution.   These  plants  were
previously included in the Wood Preserving-Steam  subcategory  because
use of FCAP is compatible with steam preconditioned wood.

Upon  completion of the current study, the Agency concluded that FCAP,
which is a water-borne solution, is more properly included in the Wood
Preserving-Water-Borne or  Non-Pressure  subcategory  (previously  the
Wood  Preserving  subcategory).   FCAP  may  be applied to air or kiln
dried wood, and its low volumes of wastewater may be recycled  in  the
same  manner  as  other  water-borne salt solutions.  Furthermore, the
technical  data  base  did  not  identify  any  direct   or   indirect
discharging plants treating with FCAP.

Although  there  are  significant  similarities among all plants which
treat with oily preservatives in terms of plant  characteristics,  raw
materials,  wastewater  volume  and characteristics, and manufacturing
processes, the ability of the plants in the Boulton subcategory to use
available waste heat to evaporate most, if not all, process wastewater
indicates that current subcategorization, with the minor,  recommended
changes, is still valid.

The  widespread  use  and  low  cost  of  technology  resulting in no-
discharge for plants which are currently in the Wood  Preserving-Water
Borne  or  Nonpressure subcategory is the primary reason for retaining
this subcategory.

The definitions of the wood preserving subcategories are:

Wood Preserving - Water-Borne or Non-Pressure  —   Includes  all  non-
pressure  processes,  and all pressure processes employing water-borne
salts.

Wood Preserving Steam — Includes all processes that use direct  steam
impingement  on wood as the predominant conditioning method, processes
that  use  vapor  drying  as  the  predominant  conditioning   method,
processes  where  the  same retort is used to treat with both salt and
oil-type preservatives, and processes which steam condition and  which
apply both salt- and oil-type preservatives to the  same stock.

Wood  Preserving  Boulton — Includes those wood preserving operations
that use the Boulton process as the predominant method of conditioning
stock.
                                 66

-------
INSULATION BOARD

Although effluent limitations guidelines for the  insulation  industry
were not previously promulgated, the Development Document for Proposed
Effluent  Limitations  Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Wet Storage,  Sawmills,  Particleboard  and  Insulation  Board
Segment  of  the  Timber  Products  Processing  Industry (August 1974)
proposed the following subcategories for insulation board:

Insulation Board—The  Insulation  Board  subcategory  includes  those
plants  whose  manufacturing procedure does not involve subjecting the
wood raw material to a pressure created by steam.  This subcategory is
referred to throughout the 1974  document  as  the  Insulation  Board-
Mechanical Refining subcategory.

Insulation Board Manufacturing With Steaming or Hardboard Production—
This  subcategory  includes those plants whose manufacturing procedure
includes steam conditioning of the wood raw material before  refining,
or  those  plants  which produce hardboard at the same facility.  This
subcategory is  referred  to  throughout  the  1974  document  as  the
Insulation    Board-Thermomechanical   and/or   Hardboard   Production
subcategory.

The rationale  for  selection  of  these  subcategories  was  anchored
primarily  to  differences  in the raw waste loads exhibited by plants
which employ steaming and/or hardboard production and plants which  do
not.  Other factors considered were the nature of raw materials, plant
size  and  age, plant location, and land availability.  The effects on
raw waste loading due to these factors were not considered  to  be  of
sufficient significance to warrant further subcategorization.

Subcategorization  Review—The industry was reviewed and surveyed with
a focus on wastewater characteristics and treatability as related to:

      Raw Materials
      Manufacturing Processes
      Products Produced
      Plant Size and Age
      Geographical Location

Raw Materials

The primary raw material used in the manufacture of wood fiber insula-
tion board is wood.   This  material  is  responsible  for  the  major
portion  of  the  BOD  and  suspended  solids in the raw waste.  Other
additives, such as  wax  emulsions,  asphalt,  paraffin,  starch,  and
aluminum  sulfate,  comprise  less than 20 percent of the board weight
and add very little to the raw waste load.  Information  submitted  by
several  mills  has  indicated  that  wood  species,  season  of  wood
                                 67

-------
harvesting, and the presence of bark and/or whole tree chips  in  wood
furnish  affect  the  raw  waste  load  of  insulation  board  plants.
However, due to a lack of sufficiently detailed plant data to quantify
the effects of these variables upon raw waste load, there was no sound
basis for subcategorization strictly on the basis of raw material used
to produce the board.

Four insulation board plants produce insulation  board  using  mineral
wool  as a raw material.  Two of these plants produce large quantities
of mineral wool insulation board on separate forming lines within  the
same facility or in facilities separate from the wood fiber insulation
board plant.  One plant produces approximately 50 percent of its total
production  as  mineral  wool  insulation  board  on  the same forming
machine that it uses to produce wood  fiber  insulation  board.   Wood
fiber  and  mineral wool wastewater from these three plants completely
comingle prior to monitoring.  These plants were not used to determine
raw waste loads for wood fiber insulation board.  One  plant  produces
less  than  10  percent  of  its  total  production  as  mineral  wool
insulation board, using the same forming equipment as is used for wood
fiber insulation board.  Raw waste load data from this plant were used
to develop raw waste loads for wood  fiber  insulation  board  as  the
contribution  from  the mineral wood production was considered to have
no significant effect on the overall raw waste load.  All other plants
analyzed for raw waste load used only wood as the primary material.

Four plants indicated in their response to the DCP that wastepaper was
used for  a  minor  portion  of  their  raw  material  in  wood  fiber
insulation  board production.  The small amounts of wastepaper furnish
used by these plants are not likely to appreciably  affect  their  raw
waste loads.

Manufacturing Process

Although  a  plant  may  have  various  auxiliary  components  in  its
operation, the major factor which affects raw waste loads  is  whether
steam,  under  pressure,  is  used  to precondition the chips prior to
refining.  Plants which do not steam  their  furnish  under  pressure,
i.e.,  mechanical refining plants, demonstrate significantly lower raw
waste loads than plants which precondition  chips  using  steam  under
pressure,  i.e.,  thermomechanical  refining  plants.   This  was  the
primary  reason  for  proposing  separate  subcategorization  of  this
industry  segment.   The steam cook softens the wood chips and results
in the release of more soluble organics.  Data presented in Section V,
Raw Waste Characteristics, support the validity  of  subcategorization
based  on whether or not a plant preconditions its furnish using steam
under pressure.
                                 68

-------
Products Produced

The ability of an insulation board plant to recycle process wastewater
is highly dependent upon the type  of  product  produced.   Insulation
board  plants  which  produce primarily structural-type board products
such as sheathing, shinglebacker, etc., demonstrate  lower  raw  waste
loads  primarily because of the increased opportunity of process water
recycle at these plants.  Two insulation  board  plants  that  do  not
steam condition their wood furnish have reduced their flow per unit of
production  to  less  than  3,000 liters/metric ton (750 gallons/ton).
These plants produce primarily structural-type  board  products.   Two
insulation  board  plants  that  steam  condition  their  wood furnish
achieved complete recycle  of  process  Whitewater,  resulting  in  no
discharge  of process wastewater.  Both of these plants produce solely
structural-type products.

Structural-type products do not  require  the  uniform  color  surface
finish of decorative products and can contain a greater amount of wood
sugars  and  other  dissolved  material  from  the  process Whitewater
system.

Consideration was given to subcategorization on the basis of  type  of
board  product produced, i.e., structural versus decorative.  However,
the equipment at most plants is readily adaptable to the production of
both types of board, and most plants rotate the type of board produced
based on product demand, which is highly variable.   Subcategorization
according  to  board  type  would  severely limit the ability of these
plants to  respond  to  competitive  pressures,  and  would  make  the
issuance   of  permits  by  enforcement  agencies  a  difficult  task.
Therefore, subcategorization solely on the basis of  product  type  is
not considered feasible.

Plant Size and Age

There is a substantial difference in the age and size of the plants in
the  insulation  board  industry.   However,  older  plants  have been
upgraded, modernized, and expanded to the point that age, in terms  of
process,   is  meaningless.   Because  of  this,  the  differences  in
wastewater characteristics related to the age of  the  plant  are  not
discernible,  nor  is  the  prorated raw waste load due to plant size.
Raw waste load data presented in Section V support this conclusion.

Geographical Location

Insulation board plants are widely  scattered  throughout  the  United
States, and the geographic location of each plant dictates the species
of  wood  that  is used in the plant's process.  Although each species
generates varying raw waste loads, each plant, with  its  own  process
methods,  produces  a salable product from many types of soft and hard
                                 69

-------
woods. Plants in cold climates may use frozen chips, necessitating the
use of pre-steaming to thaw the chips.  This can  result  in  a  small
increase  in  raw  waste  loading.   Plants  in cold climates are also
subject to more pronounced seasonal variations in treatment efficiency
of biological treatment systems; however, the effects of cold  climate
on  biological  treatment  systems  can  be mitigated by proper design
considerations.  The geographic location of the surveyed mills did not
reveal sufficient differences in  the  annual  raw  waste  loading  to
warrant further subcategorization.

Suggested Subcategorv

Although  raw  wasteload information presented in Section V-WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS,  shows  a  generally   higher   raw   wasteload   for
thermo-mechanical refining plants than for mechanical refining plants,
the  Agency  has  decided,  for  practical  reasons, to establish one,
inclusive subcategory for all insulation board producing plants.   The
reason  for  this action is that there is only one mechanical refining
plant which is a direct discharger and which would be affected by  the
proposed effluent limitations.  This plant exhibits a higher raw waste
load than all other plants in the mechanical refining group because it
uses  100  percent  whole  tree  chips  for raw material.  Differences
between the raw waste load of this plant and  the  average  raw  waste
load  of  the  thermomechanical  refining  plants are not significant.
Based on treatment system performance data  presented  for  this  sole
direct  discharging  mechanical refining plant in Section VII, CONTROL
AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY, it is expected that this plant will be  able
to  comply with proposed effluent limitations for all insulation board
plants.

The Insulation board subcategory is defined as follows:  This  subpart
applies to discharges to waters of the United States and introductions
of  pollutants  into  publicly owned treatment works from plants which
produce insulation board using wood as the raw material.  Specifically
excluded from this subpart is the manufacture of insulation board from
the primary raw material bagasse.

WET PROCESS HARDBOARD

Effluent  limitations  guidelines  for  wet-process  hardboard  plants
promulgated  previously   (1974)  included  all  wet-process  hardboard
plants in a single  subcategory  defined  as  plants  engaged  in  the
manufacture of hardboard using the wet matting process for forming the
board mat.

Since  these  regulations  were promulgated, industry representatives,
during discussion with EPA, have presented data which support separate
subcategorization  for  wet-wet   (SIS)  hardboard  and  wet-dry   (S2S)
hardboard.
                                 70

-------
In November 1975, the EPA retained a contractor to evaluate and review
the  regulations  and  the existing subcategorization of the industry.
The Summary Report on the Re-Evaluation of the Effluent Guidelines for
the Wet-Process Hardboard Segment of the  Timber  Products  Processing
Point  Source  Category,  completed in July 1976, recommended that the
wet-process hardboard industry  be  recategorized  into  two  subcate-
gories—wet-wet  hardboard and wet-dry hardboard.  This recommendation
was based on significant differences in the raw waste load  character-
istics  of  plants  which  produce  hardboard  by  the  two  different
processes.

SUBCATEGORIZATION REVIEW

In   order   to   determine   the   validity    of    the    suggested
resubcategorization  and  to  determine  whether  changes  within  the
industry since the Summary Evaluation Report  was  completed  in  1976
occurred,  the  industry  was  reviewed  and  surveyed with a focus on
wastewater characteristics and treatability as related to:

      Raw Materials
      Manufacturing Processes
      Products Produced
      Plant Size and Age
      Geographical Location

Raw Materials

The primary raw material used in the manufacture of hardboard is wood,
and this material is responsible for the major portion of the BOD  and
suspended solids in the raw waste.  Other additives, such as vegetable
oils,  tall  oil,  ferric sulfate, thermoplastic and/or thermo-setting
resins, and aluminum sulfate, comprise less than  15  percent  of  the
board  weight  and add very little to the raw waste load.  Information
submitted by several plants has indicated that wood species, season of
wood harvesting, and the presence of bark in wood furnish  affect  the
raw waste load of hardboard plants.  Because of a lack of sufficiently
detailed  plant  data  to quantify the effects of these variables upon
raw waste  load,  there  was  no  sound  basis  for  subcategorization
strictly on the basis of raw material used to produce the board.

Manufacturing Processes

A  plant  may  have  various  auxiliary  components  in its operation;
however, the basic processes in the production of either  SIS  or  S2S
hardboard are similar except for the pressing operation.  SIS board is
pressed  wet  immediately  after forming.  S2S board is dried prior to
being pressed.
                                 71

-------
SIS hardboard is produced with coarse fiber bundles cooked at a  rela-
tively  short  time  and  low  pressure—40  seconds  to  5 minutes at
pressures of 80 to 180  psi.   S2S  hardboard,  which  requires  finer
fibers,  is  produced  with  cooking  times  of  1.5  to 14 minutes at
pressures of 150 to 200 psi.  The  longer  time  and  higher  pressure
cooks release more soluble organics from the raw material (wood), thus
affecting the effluent raw waste loading.

The S2S board also requires more effective fiber washing to reduce the
soluble  solids  that affect the product in the pressing and finishing
operation.  These operations result in more raw waste discharge to the
effluent; less soluble solids are  retained  in  the  finished  board.
After  analyzing  the  available information and observing the obvious
differences between the processes for wet-wet (SIS) and wet-dry  (S2S)
hardboard,  it  appears  justifiable  to allow for differences between
wet-wet (SIS) and wet-dry (S2S) hardboard,

Products Produced

A hardboard plant may produce SIS or S2S board, or both, but  the  end
products  at  each  plant  cover a wide range of applications, surface
designs, and thickness.  The following are some of  the  end  uses  of
hardboard:


In conjunction with hardboard, some plants produce other products such
as  insulation  board,  battery  separators,  and  mineral insulation.
Insulation board is produced either on its own forming line or on  the
same line used for S2S hardboard.  The various effluents for each line
are   comingled  upon  discharge  for  treatment  with  little  or  no
monitoring of flow and/or wastewater characteristics of  the  separate
wastewater streams.

Three  plants  produce  a  marketable  animal  feed  byproduct  by the
evaporation of the  highly  concentrated  wastewater.   Several  other
mills  are investigating this process, which not only yields a salable
product but also  reduces  the  raw  waste  load  that  would  require
treatment.

Size and Age of_ Plants

There  are  considerable  differences  in  age  and  size of hardboard
plants.  Older plants have been upgraded, modernized, and expanded  to
the point that age in terms of manufacturing process is insignificant.
Because of this, the differences in wastewater characteristics related
to  age of the plant are not discernible nor is the prorated raw waste
flow due to the plant size.  Raw wasteload data presented in Section V
support this conclusion.
                                 72

-------
Geographical Location

Hardboard plants are widely scattered throughout  the  U.S.,  and  the
geographic location of each plant dictates the species of wood that is
used  in the plant's process.  Although each species generates varying
raw waste loads, each plant, with its own process methods, produces  a
salable product from many types of soft and hard woods.

Plants in cold climates may use frozen chips, necessitating the use of
pre-steaming  to  thaw the chips.  This can result in a small increase
in raw waste loading.  Plants in cold climates  are  also  subject  to
more   pronounced  seasonal  variations  in  treatment  efficiency  of
biological treatment systems/ however, the effects of cold climate  on
biological  treatment  systems  can  be  mitigated  by  proper  design
considerations.

The geographic location  of  the  plants  did  not  reveal  sufficient
differences  in  the  annual  raw  waste  loading  to  justify further
subcategor i zat ion.

Analysis of the above factors, supported by data presented in  Section
V  of  this  document,  Raw  Wastewater  Characteristics,  affirms the
validity of separate subcategorization for wet-wet (SIS) hardboard and
wet-dry (S2S) hardboard.

The Wet Process Hardboard subcategory is divided into two parts.  Part
(a) establishes limits for plants producing wet-wet  hardboard  (SIS),
part  (b)  establishes  limits  for plants producing wet-dry hardboard
(S2S).

Suggested Subcateqory

The Wet Process Hardboard subcategory is  defined  as  follows:   This
subpart  applies  to  discharges  to  waters  of the United States and
introductions of pollutants into publicly owned treatment  works  from
any  plant  which  produces  hardboard  products using the wet matting
process for forming the board mat.
                                 73

-------
                              SECTION V

                      WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS


GENERAL

The purpose of this section is to define the wastewater  quantity  and
quality  for  plants  in those subcategories identified in Section IV.
Raw waste load data are presented for both traditional parameters  and
for toxic pollutants for each subcategory.

The  term  "raw  waste  load"  (RWL), as utilized in this document, is
defined as the quantity of a  pollutant  in  wastewater  prior  to  an
end-of-pipe treatment process.  Where treatment processes are designed
primarily  to  recover  raw  materials from the wastewater stream, raw
waste loads are obtained  following  these  processes.   Examples  are
gravity  oil-water separators in wood preserving, or fine screens used
for fiber recovery in insulation board and hardboard plants.  The  raw
waste  load  is normally expressed in terms of mass (weight) units per
day or per production unit.

For the purpose  of  cost  analysis  only,  representative  raw  waste
characteristics  have  been  defined  for each subcategory in order to
establish design parameters for model plants.

The data presented in this document are based  on  the  most  current,
representative   information  available  from  each  plant  contacted.
Verification sampling data are  used  to  supplement  historical  data
obtained  from  the plants for the traditional pollutants, and in most
cases verification sampling data are the sole source  of  quantitative
information for toxic pollutant raw waste loads.

WOOD PRESERVING

General Characteristics

Wastewater characteristics vary with the particular preservative used,
the  volume  of  stock  that  is  conditioned  prior to treatment, the
conditioning method used, and the extent to which effluents  from  the
retorts are diluted with water from other sources.

Wastewaters  from creosote and pentachlorophenol treatments often have
high phenolic, COD, and oil concentrations  and  a  turbid  appearance
that  results from emulsified oils.  They are always acid in reaction,
the pH values usually falling within the range of  4.1  to  6.0.   The
high  COD  contents  of  such wastes are caused by entrained oils from
wood extractives, principally simple sugars,  that  are  removed  from
wood  during  steam  conditioning.  These wastewaters may also contain
                                 75

-------
traces of copper, chromium, arsenic, zinc, and boron  at  plants  that
use   the   same  retort  for  both  water-borne  salts  and  oil-type
preservatives, or that apply dual treatments to the same stock;  i.e.,
treat  with  two  preservatives,  one  of which is a salt formulation.
Organic toxic pollutants in wastewaters from plants which  treat  with
organic  preservatives  only are principally volatile organic solvents
such as benzene and toluene, and polynuclear  aromatic  components  of
creosote which are contained in the entrained oils.  Specific phenolic
compounds  identified  in  these  wastewaters  include phenol, chloro-
phenols, and the nitro-phenols.

Preservatives  and  basic  treating  practices  and,  therefore,   the
qualitative  natures  of  wastewaters vary little from plant to plant.
Quantitatively, however, wastewaters differ widely  among  plants  and
vary with time at the same plant.

Among the factors influencing both the concentration of pollutants and
volume  of  effluent,  the  moisture  content  of  the  wood  prior to
conditioning,  whether  by  steaming  or  Boultonizing,  is  the  most
important.   Water  removed from the wood during conditioning accounts
for most of the loading  of  pollutants  in  a  plant's  effluent  and
influences  wastewater  flow  rate.   The moisture content of the wood
before conditioning determines the length of the  conditioning  cycle;
the wetter the wood, the longer the conditioning cycle.

Rainwater  that  falls  on or in the immediate vicinity of the retorts
and work tank area—an area of from about one-quarter to  one-half  of
an  acre for the 'average plant—becomes contaminated and can present a
treatment and disposal problem at any plant, but especially at  plants
in  areas  of  high rainfall.  For example, a plant located in an area
that receives 152 cm (60 in) of rain  annually  must  be  equipped  to
process  an  additional  1.5 to 3.0 million liters  (400,000 to 800,000
gallons) per year of contaminated water.

Another factor  which  influences  the  concentration  of  pollutants,
particularly  organic  pollutants,  is the type of solution or solvent
used as a carrier for the preservative (coal tar, oil, etc.).

Wastewaters resulting from treatments with inorganic salt formulations
are low in organic content,  but  contain  varying  concentrations  of
heavy  metals  used in the preservatives and fire retardants employed.
The nature and concentration of a specific ion in wastewater from such
treatments depend on the formulation employed and the extent to  which
the waste is diluted by washwater and stormwater.

Wastewater Quantity

The  quantity  of wastewater generated by a wood preserving plant is a
function of the method of  conditioning used, the moisture  content  of
                                 76

-------
wood  to  be  treated,  the  amount  of  rainwater draining toward the
treating cylinder, and the quantity of other wastewater streams  (such
as   boiler   blowdown,  cooling  water,  sanitary  wastewater,  water
softening regenerant, etc.).  Ignoring the  amount  of  dilution  from
other  wastewater  streams,  the  sources  and  approximate  ranges of
wastewater generated per unit of production for Boulton  and  steaming
plants (including vapor drying plants) are discussed below.  It should
be  noted  that  most wood preserving plants treat stock having a wide
range  of  moisture  contents,  and  often  air-  or  kiln-dry  stock.
Although   most  plants  will  predominantly  use  one  of  the  major
conditioning methods, many plants will use a  combination  of  several
conditioning  methods.   For  this  reason,  the  actual  quantity  of
wastewater generated by a specific plant may vary considerably.

Steam Conditioning and Vapor Drying

Primary sources of wastewater from steam  conditioning  include  steam
condensate  in cylinders, wood water, and rainfall.  In open steaming,
steam is injected directly into the retort and allowed to condense  on
the  wood  and  cylinder  walls.   The  amount  of  water  produced is
dependent upon the length of  conditioning  time  and  the  amount  of
insulation,  if  any,  around  the  cylinder.  Steam condensate in the
cylinder may range between 240 to 1,200 kg/cu m (15  Ib/cu  ft  to  75
Ib/cu  ft).   In  modified  closed  steaming,  steam  is  added to the
cylinder until the steam coils are just covered with condensate.  Then
the steam is no longer injected directly into the cylinder but  passed
through  coils to boil the condensate.  Water added is about 112 kg/cu
m (7 Ib/cu ft), depending upon the diameter  of  the  retort  and  the
height of the steaming coils.

In  closed  steaming,  water is drawn from a storage tank and put into
the cylinder until the steam coils are covered.  Steam is 'turned  on,
through  the  coils,  the steam condensate returned to the boiler, and
the water in the cylinder is boiled  to  condition  the  wood.   After
steaming,  the  water in the cylinder is returned to the storage tank.
There is a slight increase in volume of water in the storage tank upon
each conditioning cycle due to wood water exuding when green  wood  is
conditioned.   There  is  a  small  blowdown  from the storage tank to
prevent the wood sugar concentration in the water  from  becoming  too
high.

In  the  vapor  drying  process, the primary sources of wastewater are
wood water and rainfall.  As in any  wood  preserving  process,  small
amounts  of  condensate may result from a short exposure to live steam
applied following preservative application to clean the surface of the
stock.  The vapor-drying process consists essentially of exposing wood
to a closed vessel to vapors from any one of  many  organic  chemicals
that  are  immiscible with water and that have a narrow boiling range.
Chemicals with initial boiling points of from 100°C to 204°C (212°F to
                                 77

-------
400°F) may be used.  Vapors for drying are generated  by  boiling  the
chemical  in  an  evaporator.   The vapors are conducted to the retort
containing the wood, where they condense on the wood, giving up  their
latent  heat  of  vaporization  and  causing  the water in the wood to
vaporize.  The water vapor thus produced, along  with  excess  organic
vapor,  is  conducted  from  the  vessel  to a condenser and then to a
gravity-type separator.   The  water  layer  is  discharged  from  the
separator,  and the organic chemical is returned to the evaporator for
reuse.

After the treating cylinder has been drained, a vacuum is pulled  from
one  to  three  hours  to remove water from the wood.  The quantity of
water removed depends upon the initial moisture concentration  of  the
wood,  the  strength  of the vacuum pulled, and the temperature in the
cylinder.  Common vacuums are 55 cm (22 in) to  70  cm  (28  in),  and
common  temperatures  are  from  118°C  (220°F) to 140°C (245°F).  The
maximum temperature allowable  is  140°C  (245°F),  above  which  wood
strength  deterioration  is experienced.  The vapors are condensed and
collected in an accumulator.  The amount of  water  removed  from  the
wood is generally between 64 and 128 kg/cu m (4 and 8 Ib/cu ft).

Cylinder drippings and rain water are often added to the flow from the
cylinder  and fed to the oil-water separator.  In some plants they are
fed to a separate oil-water separator to prevent  cross  contamination
of  preservatives.  Rain water can vary between 0 kg/cu m (0 Ib/cu ft)
when no rain is falling, to 181 kg/cu m (11.3 Ib cu ft) during a  5-cm
(2-in)  rainfall in 24 hours, depending on the area drained toward the
treating cylinder.  The minimum area in which rain water is  collected
includes  the immediate cylinder area, the area where the wood removed
from the cylinder drips extra preservatives, and the preservative work
tank area.

Sou1ton Conditioning

Primary sources of wastewater from Boulton conditioning  include  wood
water  and  rainfall.   Steam condensate inside the cylinders is not a
primary source of wastewater as it is in  steam  conditioning.   Small
amounts  of  condensate,  however, may result from a short exposure to
live steam applied following preservative  application  to  clean  the
surface of the stock.

Conditioning  is  accomplished  in  the Boulton process by heating the
stock in a preservative bath under reduced  pressure  in  the  retort.
The  preservative  serves as a heat transfer medium.  Water removed in
vapor form from the wood during the Boulton process passes  through  a
condenser to an oil-water separator where low-boiling fractions of the
preservative are removed.  The Boulton cycle may have a duration of 48
hours  or  longer for  large poles and piling, a fact that accounts for
                                 78

-------
the lower production per retort day as compared to plants  that  steam
condition.

After the oil has been heated a vacuum is drawn on the cylinder for 10
to  48 hours for Douglas fir and 6 to 12 hours for oak, depending upon
the initial moisture content of the wood.  The oil transfers  heat  to
the  wood and vaporizes the wood water.  Between 64 and 192 kg/cu m (4
and 12 Ib/cu ft) of water is removed.

Cylinder drippings and rain water are often added to the flow  in  the
same manner as steam conditioning.

Historical Data

Historical  data  on wastewater generation relating to production were
requested as part of the DCP, during plant visits, and in  conjunction
with  telephone  follow-up  requests  for information.  These data are
presented in Tables V-l through V-4.  Data appearing in  these  tables
represent  historical  information  on the average wastewater flow and
production of treated wood (oily preservatives only)  for  a  one-year
period, 1976.

Where  the  information  available  was  sufficiently  detailed, other
wastewater sources such as boiler blowdown, non-contact cooling water,
sanitary water, and rainfall  runoff  from  treated  material  storage
yards  were  subtracted from the total wastewater flow reported by the
plant in order to obtain information  on  the  generation  of  process
wastewater  only.   Rainfall  falling directly on or draining into the
cylinder or work tank  area  was  included  in  the  wastewater  flows
reported in Tables V-l through V-4.

It  is apparent from these data that closed steaming plants and plants
which treat predominantly dry  stock  generate  the  least  amount  of
wastewater per unit of production, followed by Boulton plants and open
steaming plants, respectively.

Information for some plants presented in these tables may differ some-
what  with  information presented later in this report, which is based
on average production and wastewater  generation  during  a  three-day
composite sampling period.

Plant and Wastewater Characteristics

Characteristics  of  wood  preserving  plants  which  were visited and
sampled during the pretreatment study and during the present study are
presented in Table V-5 for steam conditioning plants and in Table  V-6
for  Boulton  plants.  The preservatives used, conditioning processes,
wastewater volume,  and  production  information  presented  in  these
                                 79

-------
tables  correspond  to  conditions at the plant during the time of the
visit and sampling.

Data from three sampling and analytical programs are presented.   Data
for  plants  sampled  during the 1975 Pretreatment Study represent the
average of two or more grab samples collected at each plant.  Data for
plants sampled during the 1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs
represent the average of three 24-hour composite samples collected  at
each plant.  Unless otherwise noted, the raw wastewater sampling point
at each plant was immediately following gravity oil-water separation.

Pollutant concentrations and raw waste loads for individual plants are
shown  in Tables V-7 through V-19.  Variations in pollutant concentra-
tions from plant to plant can be attributed to the degree of emulsifi-
cation of oils in the wastewater, the type of  oily  preservatives  or
carrier  solution  used,  i.e., creosote in coal tar, creosote in oil,
pentachlorophenol  in  oil,  etc.,  and  the  amount  of   non-process
wastewater  added  to  the  process  wastewater  stream,  i.e., boiler
blowdown, rainfall, steam condensate, etc.

Metals data are presented separately  in  Tables  V-16  and  V-17  for
plants  which  treat  with oily preservatives only, and in Tables V-18
and V-19 for plants which also treat with inorganic  preservatives  at
the  same facility.  Increased concentrations and wasteloads for heavy
metals, particularly copper, chromium, and arsenic, are  apparent  for
plants  which  treat  with  both types of preservatives.  Although the
inorganic treating operations at these plants are for  the  most  part
self-contained  and  produce  little  or  no  wastewater,  the process
wastewater from the organic treating operations contains heavy metals.
This "fugitive metal" phenomenon is the result of cross  contamination
between  the  inorganic  and  organic treating operations.  Personnel,
vehicles, and soil which come in contact with heavy  metals  from  the
inorganic  treating  operations  can  transport  the  metals  into the
organic treating area  where  rainfall  washes  them  into  collection
sumps.   Some  plants may also alternate organic and inorganic charges
in the same retort, causing cross contamination.

Plants which treat with  inorganic  salts  only  are  not  allowed  to
discharge  process  wastewater  under previously published regulations
either to a navigable waterway or to a POTW.  All but a few  of  these
plants  recycle  all  their process water as dilution water for future
batches of treating solution.

No plants treating with inorganic salts only were sampled  during  the
verification  sampling  program.  One such plant, however, was sampled
once a week for one year in conjunction with the  Pretreatment  Study.
The  concentration ranges of COD, phenols, heavy metals, fluoride, and
nutrients found in the recycled wastewater at this plant are presented
in Table V-20.
                                 80

-------
Table V-l.  Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Boulton Plants
Plant
587*
1028
583
1078
67*
759+
1114+
176+
577
534*
61*
552*
555*
1110**
AVERAGE
PRODUCTION
(ft3/day)
17,950
2,040
7,370
8,475
1,765
1,665
2,175
4,400
8,430
1,365
7,140
6,085
5,310
1,700
5,420
(m3/day)
508
57.7
209
240
49.9
47.1
61.6
125
239
38.6
202
172
150
48.1
153
(gal/day)
7,000
1,000
7,000
5,000
2,010
5,040
1,500
2,510
15,000
900
5,500
4,320
17,300
4,320
5,600
VOLUME
flTday)
26,500
3,790
26,500
18,900
7,600
19,100
5,680
9,500
56,800
3,410
20,800
16,400
65,500
16,400
21,210
(gal/ft3)
0.39
0.49
0.95
0.59
1.14
3.03
0.69
0.57
1.78
0.66
0.77
0.71
3.26
2.54
1.03
( l/m3 )
52.1
65.5
127
78.9
152
405
92.3
76.2
238
88.2
103
94.9
436
340
139
* Achieving no-discharge.
+ Data from 1975 Pretreatment Study.
** Includes boiler blowdown, uncontaminated steam condensate.
                                .  81

-------
Table V-2.  Wastewater Volume Data for Eight Closed Steaming Plants
Plant
40*
237*
355*
335
750*
656
43*
226 +
AVERAGE
PRODUCTION
(ft3/day) (m3/day)
4,920
3,300
6,100
2,620
1,785
830
360
4,600
3,065
139
93.4
173
74.1
50.5
23.5
10.2
130
86.7
(gal/day)
3,000
800
3,300
2,500
300
500
350
230
1,370
VOLUME
(I/day)
11,400
3,030
12,500
9,460
1,140
1,890
1,320
870
5,200
(gal/ft3)
0.61
0.24
0.54
0.95
0.17
0.60
0.97
0.05
0.45
( l/m3 )
81.6
32.4
72.3
128
22.6
80.4
130
6.68
60.0
* Achieving no-discharge.
+ Data from 1975 Pretreatment Study.
                               82

-------
Table V-3.  Wastewater Volume Data for 11 Plants Which Treat
Significant Amounts of Dry Stock
Plant
596
591*
620
688
1105*
1071*
631*
350*
665*
267
140*
AVERAGE
PRODUCTION
(ft3/day) (m3/day)
1,200
19,000
1,370
360
800
4,660
2,040
985
37330
5,000
—
3,870
34.0
538
38.8
10.2
22.6
132
57.7
27.9
94.2
141
—
110
(gal/day)
2,500
12,500
7,200+
400
750
4,000
876
1,500
400
5,000
4,500
3,510
VOLUME
flTday)
9,
47,
27,
1,
2,
15,
3,
5,
1,
18,
17,
13,
460
300
300
510
840
100
320
680
510
920
000
300
(gal/ft3) (l/m3)
2
0
5
1
0
1
0
1
0
1

0
.08
.66
.26
.11
.94
.03
.43
.52
.15
.18
—
.91
278
87.
703
148
126
138
57.
203
20.
158
—
121

9




5

1



* Achieving no-discharge.

+ Includes 5,400 gal/day boiler blowdown and non-contact water;
process wastewater per cubic foot production = 1.31.

NOTE:  Plant 140 not included in average since no production data are
available.
                               83

-------
Table V-4.  Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Open Steaming Plants
Plant
847
895*
897*
900*
901
894
899
898
701
548*
693
1076
910
547
AVERAGE
PRODUCTION
(ft3/day) (m3/day)
800
4,160
10,300
8,170
4,225
6,580
1,110
5,000
6,275
10,000
1,445
3,865
1,040
6,150
4,940
22.6
118
291
231
120
186
31.4
142
178
238
40.9
109
29.4
174
137
(gal/day)
1,780
7,200+
33,000
16,500
3,000
5,000
10,000
2,750
15,000
14,000
2,500
5,750
3,000
10,000
9,250
VOLUME
(I/day)
6,740
27,300
12,500
62,500
11,400
18,900
37,800
10,400
56,800
53,000
9,460
21,800
11,400
37,800
32,300
(gal/ft3)
2.22
1.73
3.20
2.02
0.71
0.76
9.01
0.55
2.39
1.40
1.73
2.07
2.88
3.25
1.87
( l/m3 )
298
231
428
270
94.9
102
1200
73.5
320
187
231
111
385
435
236
* Achieving no-discharge.
+ Includes stormwater from treating area.
                                 84

-------

(U
i-oo

3 C7N
,_^

CO >",
T3
I-, 3
QJ AJ
it »*k
tflW
3 60

—i r-.
CU i-.
ON
00 -H
C
•H .
a ts
CO T3
fl) 3
W ~J
co co

60 AJ
C C
•H g
> E
Kl AJ
0) 10
w cu
(U U >,
V4 Aj "O
CX, Ol 3
1 W AJ
•o CM co
o
oin 60
^ r~ C
u-i -* — «
O CX
60 a
(0 C tQ
U -r-l CO
AJ 3 C
03 "O O
•i-l -H
>-, T3 AJ
CU CU CO
AJ AJ U
O O *^
CO 

m
i
0)
r-l
»o
CO
H
e
•H >-,
AJ (0
0 "0
3-^
'MCO
o a
V*4 ~*~S
0,



Jj •*~N*
O >%
—I to
fa -O
3 i— i
co ^-^
peJ















CN
AJ a
C AJ
0) CO
a H *^ OO **D
r«| i-H <— ( *-H







O O O O
O r- o o









O
CO

u

to
w
a.
co

































C3^
CO
^f







O
O
m
oT
CN
— <




•V
*o
c
o
a,

c
o
• I-l
) 1
to
T3
3

M
e

o
60
. 1
H-l
•o
cu
CO
W,
^








a,
o






60
C
B
CO
(U
^J
CO



u
1
ao

m


































e
0
•H
AJ
CO
r<
O
a.
n*
*W
>
U

CO
>-,
a.

































CM
r^
CN







O
 >»
•H Cfl

•< co








(X,
CJ*






60
C
a
Cfl

AJ
CO



.0
I
p-H
CTs
m



 >s
•r< Cfl

U CX
< CO









CJ






60
e
• f^
8
CO
eg
AJ
CO



u
1

C7%
in
85

-------


4)
hi 00

? C^
p^
CO
4) 73
f-H e
O. co
8
CO •
CO X
73
hi 3
0) JJ
JJ CO
CO
» 60
4) C
JJ-*
CO i-l
31?
CO
J2 CO
U
•* e
A O

jj
8 co
O u

•* CM
M hi
JJ 41 «W
e> o
CO
p-l !•>• CM
04 r-*.
0v 4)
60-1 60
C 3
•* •> O>
8 >>
CO 73 «
4) 373
JJ JJ 4)
CO CO 3

eowH
c e jj
.* oi e
> B 0
P JJO
4) qj>-x
CO 4)
4) hi >S
hi JJ 73
04 4> 3
1 hi JJ
73 04 CO

Jm eo
I"- C
U-l -* —4
O 0.
60 B
CO C co
CJ •* CO
•* hi
jj 3 e
CO 73 O
.* •*
hi "O JJ
4) 0) CO
JJ ,
jj co
U 73

73CO
0 S
hi1*-'
04



ft **"^
0 >.
-4 CO
to 73
^^
ft i^H
3-















o hi
««• . . . . .H
O oo o r^mvo ^ l*-i
CM —I \O -* CO CJN
• x-\
U
8
. c «
e o e
o •* o •<
•* JJ •* • • r 3
jj jj m jj c c <<
e co hi co o o
§60 O 60 •* O
•* a. •* jj 60  C hi hi J U
3 MM QMjJ \^>
••-1 •* i-l 73 CO
73 >> X JJ>\'*4) COhi*
•< ca CO CO 03 toJJ 01 O JJ
hi hi Uhl CO >JJC
x a a coo. 73 hi -H «j oj
a co co O.CO ,* ecu jj u ^
OIOCO^C CQCQCU ••
• e« co«coco >a, >»>»
73 CO O "O 73 U «73 hi > 73 73
C 73 •* C -1 C JJ « JJ C (U 0) J3 33
o e c jj o C'*O4> ceo co jj jj
04 O OCO O4 O O fri O OOIO4 0)0)73 COCO
•H 04 hi 'H CO •* 8 hi CL 0)
C JJ JJCjjXSOtiJJJJG O. >%'* • 60 60
o ca c — i o ca hi o cewo jj -4 co ec
•* —i O •* •* i— i Q. 1-173 •-* 3 .H 4) 1 O. 4) ••*•*
JJ 3 • i-l to JJ 3 "O JJ 01 3->-|JJ Q. >> Q. hi >.-^ •— i
CO U JJ <0 CJ C fl) JJ U 73 co >> jj 3 co TJ a. O.
73 U CQ73 73 U O "O CO O < 73 JJ'HCO 388
•* o hie-* o yHn O-* i> 4»jjco«o
X — i CU CO X -4 VXV -H9CX JJ 03 CO 60CO CO CO
O to >
• « . . . JSJJJC3
CJ cj u cj cj cj cj & co hi in r^ oo
O » 8 f*r- i^
hi 0) O *•* C^ O\ c^
O JJ hi 1-4) «H >-4J -H
60 60 -4 ca M-i co
e e ,cco<*460606o
.* •* u»73ecee
M ^"v ^>\ CQ AJ »f4 *^4 *i^ *^4
00 00 00 hi 606060 hi jJcoCcflhihihi
c c eo e e c a CCO-HUSSS
BS8hi888 hi a o jj to
oj cfl cfl O OJ CO C8 O O.OOI737373
4) 0) CU O. cococo > cj c — « o u y
>^ CO O U 4) 0) 0)
jj •* e —i 1—4 I-H
4) C JJ -^ — < — ' — I
jj co co O O O
o -H g CU u u u
CO O, hi M
cocou coceja co OO3COCQCO
1 1 1 1 t, I I OI-*«M60JJJJJJ
coinr^ oo vO O •-< W-HC-HCOCOCO
9\vOO\ ON r~ O — i CJ-
-------


cu oo
id f-
S2

CO ^3

C *"*
0 •>
•u X
^H T3
3 3
O 4J
oa co

00 4-1
c e

^ S
Id 4J
CU to
09 cu
01 l-l X
Id 4J -O
Pd (U 3

•o fa co

J*r\ 00
rx C
ON *H
Md i-H »-4
0 Cu
00 S
« e ts
0 -H CO
•-d U
*J 3 C
W -O O
•M 'H
I- T3 4J
CU CU to
4J xj U
y u •**
CO CU Ud
Id ~4 -H
« -) Id
j- O CU
O cj >

.
^o
1
^

V

A
CO
H
C
O «""•»
• id ^v
1^ ^S
i * qj
0 TJ
3 -v.
"o^
Id ^-f
CU



» ^
o >.
i-l CO
fa *O
• — .
» rH

06














CM
VI 4-1
o e
cu
•u e
C 4J
i "
4J 1-
CQ 4J
CU (U
Id M
H fa







«^
09
V

•id
4J
CO
^
(4
CU
03
CU

cm


00
c
•f4
e co
O 09
•id (0
•iJ ZJ
"* O
•o n
e Pd
o
w




^i
4J CU
C X)
to e
— . 3
P- Z



t 4-1
W CO
CO td
T3 U
C -^
O -H
U. fa

CO i^
CU
•* ^>
C to
O *
•H ca
w
CO •
i-i C
3 O
U •!-!
U 4J
O <0
I-I Id
fa co
Q.
CU CU
c co
•l-l
I-H — 1
C -H
i-i O





oi

«k
O
Nl
U
M
PH








C
O
^H
3
O
S3





U
1
J^
vO





es
vO







§

•t
oo
es


















^4
0)

o
H

C
0
• H
4J
< td
Vi O
CO CO
•a -o
c i^C
Q
y -H
CU -H
c« o



oi
fa
M
^*
U
<

oT
*
u








c
o
4-1
|M4
3
O
CO





ffl
1
00

o
i-d



00
o
en







o
0

M
fx»
1^










M
e
0
•i-i
4J
CO
^4 (Q
CO -H
ex -a
4) 4)
CO £
1-4 00
••-1 C
O -H
Xi
>•> Id
w o
CO CO
*O "O
o ***
U —I
eu -H
to O



as
fa

^4
o
•^J
A
Pd
M
t)








c
o
4-1
i-d
3
O
pa





ja
i
00

o

i
fa

03
4-1
C
CO
•o
^4
to
4J
CU

cu

• ^4
<4d

^
§

A
4^
y
•^3

*

Q
u
^«x •
03
CO Id
CU O
S* AJ
• H CO
4-> Id
«0 eo • •
> Q. >, >%
b CU T3 "O
CU 03 33
03 4J 4J
cu cu co co
Vi O.
O. >, 00 00
4J C C
CU 1 . -H -H
Ou >> >.^ •-"
>% 4J -a o. a.
4-i -H D s e
1 > 4J CO CO
4-1 CO CO CO CO
1o oo u c c
03 COO
,fi CU -H •!-!
• 00 S 4J 4J
^~> 3 4J to fO
Pd o to u y
*-f Id CU •••*  >
x: -u
cu to m r^ oo
O 3 r-» r^ r-»
V4 V ON ON ON
O 4J •— I *H i— 1
— » 09
j; CO 00 00 00
0 3 C C C
(0 .H -rl -rd
4J 03 Id Id Id
C CO 3 3 3
01 CU T3 "O "O
O *O *O "O
« id cu cu cu
x->, CU 4-1 4.) 4-1
u u u u
*«* 03 CU CU V
4) C — < -- — I
4J CO O O O
O — 1 U U U
CO Cu
O <0 to to
4) — i 4J 4J 4J
Id — < co CO co
o < a o o

— I (N CO Xt O
87

-------

1
$
s
I-
•tf O CO *-l
 •  •   •  •
r** CM 00 go
^O ^^ ^3" ON





co r** ir\ co
 • CM ^
^H  •   • Cj
-H co in CM





r~- co CM r~




"do d





ON O CM CO

cS ^H  "•  •
 •   o o
                       2
                       t-H co
                         • <-i
                       O
                                                  3
                                                      . CM CM co
                                                     *»  • *io   •
                                                     Mcoooo
                                                           •
                                                          O
                          CM CM \D O in ^ ON r*»
                          ON  • ••H -^ «— I Cj CM CM

                                                                    in
                                                                          GO
                       O\ CM »"H •—* if\ +& ^H lA -^ +& CM CO O "^
                       CO \D iA *-H lA \O »-H O CT\ r^* 10 \O ^^  •
                         •  • CO C^  •  • CO  * *^   * O1^  •  • ^^
                       r-H i-H  •  • ^-* »-H O CM  • r**«  • «-H »™l »~*
                             o o        -   o    o
                                       o
                          ^^ CO ^D GO ^X *^h
                          •—I         t—I «-H



                          in CM m CM   o



                             ON r-»    5



                          o o m ON o o
                                               co
                                                    co o

                                                    KcR
                                               GO    O CM O


                                               CM Q CO Q —I
                                               05 Q  o Q
                                               r- »o  in co
                                               oo
                                                                  CM
                                  ^^ C^ C^ ^^ lA






                                  r^ oo oo
                                                     88
                                               r-» oo   r— oo
                                               r^r^mr^r^
                                               -  -  r— -  -
                                                                    oo
                                                     £
        i-   i_ 4-* I- 4-*
        co f** r** r^ r** r* 10 f^


        ^CMCMCMCJC^IfOlA
                                                             *

                                                       «-H«-Hco
                                                     CM f=H AH co co m ,
                                                     CD ON O> ON O\ vO ON
S3
ON
                                                                                    in
                                                                                      •

                                                                                    O
                                                                                     0)
                                                                                             2    .
                                                                                             s.    s
                                                                                             «    3
                                                                                                  M
*    a

3   |


Tp    *•
     •s
                                                                                                  I
     i—I  W    ID

     ^^    TS
         O    Q)
      CO i—I    4J     *   •  •

      S3    ,2    cf;«^
         m    o    |_| |_| |_|


        ^    "g    ^ ^ £


         1 &JB    2
                                                                               •5-s §  I
                        H

                 S .5 .S .5
                 So

      i-5.s-^0)a>



      Ij


      I fi3.il 8
                   cu  
-------
(0
 Id

i
i—i


'•8

I
                    s
                           to
                    ti
                          1
                          ^O
                         fO
                       04
                                    CO *d~  O vO ON
                                      • ^3*   »   •   •

                                    "^ —  °fi Tl ^
                                              OO
                                     irv O^ •—(  i—i ^-H




                                      • CD   •   •   •

                                     ^3    C3  ^3 G?
                                           vO
                                    -«• . irt



                                           BEd
                                           K c/3
                                           Cu Ou

                                                           CO
                                                           ir\
                                                            o

                                                            S
00





I

88
CO
                                                                          i!

                                                                          I

                                                                          g
                                                                  si*   i
                                                        89

-------
ca

£
 w

£
                         m
                           1
                         (d
                                    oo   f»



                                    ^3   ^*

                                    d   o
                                           ITS   i>-   r^

                                           S   8   8
                                            •     •    •
                                           o   o   o
     Sro   ^^
     O   -H

S   o   8

o'   o'   d
                                           a   2   2

                                           S   8   8
                                            •     •    *
                                           o   o   o
                       r>.   o
                           SP»   Cd CO


                                     S *a »S c S § S
                                    x«/ 3 cu .3   to
                                      ^-1 4J _ Q) ^ tl

                                     g^l'S.'S SS
                                     ^•aJ-S g ** g
                                     u ju   t-i r-5 cu 8


                                             ""I
                                    SSIM8-*
                                    8S S   ^
                                    p g    •Con
                                    cu c Pu /~^ D AJ QJ

                                    b|Sj2 f-a Q




                                    *• S «fc *«a   ca
                                           4J 4J iJ qj
                                    CO CU CO JO C C JC
                                    u C xj g Q a 71

                                    S %& §5:5:1


                                    *    ^   Itl
                                                           90

-------
Table V-10.  Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Volatile Organic
Fractions During 1978 Verification Sampling
 vinyl chloride
 chloroethane
 chloromethane
 bromomethane
 tribromomethane
 bromod i ch1oromethane
 d i bromochloromethane
 carbon tetrachloride
 dichlorodifluoromethane
 trichlorofluoromethane
 1,2-dichloroethane
 1,1-dichloroethane
 lfI,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Bis-chloromethylether
Bis-chloroethylether
2-chloroethylvinylether
acrolein
acrylonitrile
Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is 10 ug/1
                                  91

-------

*

m

2
m
rs

O




0\


00

^





in


-*





^
^
•o
£
I
x
i:
3
O
GO
b
11
"I
3
as
M 1 1 (*) | oft i 1 O
-; ' ' -9 1 0 1 {S
0 d d d
i s i s s 1 i § i
o * o-o do
s^ssss^ss
=?0 -« S 8 o g S
o CM j (Min^SSS
** -H — • O O -* O O
"inr^N • K ^ "^ *
!!!!!!§!!

d

— r-. r* •*
-M O O W5 **"> """ O Ov
-« r^. .* 0 *-> — •* j 0
O r- CM o -* O r-. o


*2Z~~~%*~

1 1 1 1 — ' ) O O 1
i 1 i i OsO«??»«»S
NNfMinininmoo-^
f-i
i -* -*
d -^
: i i
d
i ! «
0
1 1 £
1 1
i ! •?
-a-
t i "^
i i :



s
1 ! °.
o
S °

i ^ ' "
*
! ! !

! ! I



i ! !

, , S
I 1 -»
d


t i i

! 1 S
d
S § 8
tS N O
111
S K '""
...
U fid W
! 1 "
2 S S
92 2










• V
k E
£ *
| i

i 1

1 ? i
V 9 •«
•; ;| &
5 'e ?
i i "r
eg.
Jj *• 5
£ 2 «
ace
! I ii
i s as
—i V 0 C
«M I •- 0
W * « AJ
U O *M O
| E IS

• 5 ^s
W -H « 5
*t « JJ -<
u "S O
s 2 Si
* 1 11
4J U
8;j 11
 *w
•owe* >>
8 S S &£ «
! •» S « -5" |
:lisss
0 u 3 -o Z m
u e 5 w M U w
I! ^ a -H « 2
''i-3!! •
I?5 $^ -s
« e a. • ^ ^
U 'S (b — * ^ 9
S 'o o = — •§
* * £ 3 « S 1
iiitll 2
* * * i >>
* ' 2


























w
s :
5«
*

i* &
53 2 2
e c * T
*nh s
« -^ ^ iJ 4) V 4J
~ sj«.-g.s s r
iii.il i£i

*2S 2222S

U
£ *
! f
18 Jf 1
II BJU
SS 1AM
gg 8 .2"
| £ £ a. " -j S
£ SS iCSj
:^7 «7 s7l
zli£-llil

_.CMI»l«ir>«>~
-------
u   M
 a   y
e   o
 g  *

-j   3
a.  z
•»
g
o

£
8
d

IN
8
O
o
d

CM

o
d
^
g


0
£
§
d
V
CM
§
d

^
o
a


|
O

-c
O
i
d
s/
8
d
V
C*
00
g
d

o
8
8

^H
1
V
C7-
m
O
O

§
u-i


O
O
*-


*•*
u
tn


^_
»•*
*"

g
d
m
r-
d


^
o


o
g
o
V
en
O
CM
o
O
O
o
d

o
r-
s
d

o
d

-H
i
v
r-

S
0

O
r-^


g
en


00
u
CO
u

t

in
O
g
O
V
GO
o
o

e>
CM
O
„,
g
d

o

o
d
£
e>

o
.A
O
g
O
V
_
g
d
V

2
d


§
o

^

S.
M
g
o"

^

CM
O
d

1
d

CO
§
o

04

o
o

o
o
00


g
3


00
UI
en
Id

J

CO
•3
g
d

en
O
O
d

in
O
CM
CM
O
o

m

m
O
O
00
-3-
O

O
o
g
d
V
o
i
o

r-
S
o


1
o
V
^
o
s
V
§
o
V
_

o
d

o
8
d

—
1
\/
en
O
CM
D
O

O
O
\o


g
s


r-
U

W


o
^
^
o
o
o
V
o
i
0

s
s
^H
i
d

CM

O
d
^-
^

o

en
§
5
^
CO
g
O
V
0
o
d
V

o
o
o
o

CM

o
s I
g s
d
V
f>

CM
o
d

t-
g
d

CM
»n
g
V
00

o
o







(D
41
00
(0
>

•O
0

tn A*1
a 93
S S
g O
d o
V
o o
g g
O 0

0 0
§o
0
V V
o o
o o
0 0
O 0
V S/
-H ^H
o o
§o
0
O 0
V V
o o
g g

0 0

§*^ o
g
s s
-H -H
i I
d d
V V
.-. —
I i
d d
V

o o
g g
o o
V V

o o
o o
o o
d d
o p
8 1
d o
V N/
-H P- -I
O O
8 g
O O
V V
§ i
d o

— -i — *
o o
g g
V x/
^H r-t
O O
o p
0 O
o o

S g
CM CM


g s
fW «O


00 r-
u w
en en


J* ^
m r-~
*>
£
O
d

0
8
o

*
o
o
^
CM
o
o

^

o
o
CO
Jn
o

o
o
g
e
^
§
d

^
o
d


g
o
o



d
0
o
o
o
V
m
CM
g
O

o
g
d
V

__,
o
g
V
en
en
O
O
O

I
O


o
o
s


'"-
Id
CO


^
CO
o
£
o
o
0
V
o
g
o
V
m
g
V
00
o
o
0
V
—1

o
o
en
0

o
V
2
g
°
CM
O
g

N/
00
g
o
d
V

1
o
o



o
0
g
d
V
00
o
g
o
V
g
d

— i
1
5
^

8
O







S
ec

>

•o
o
V

(D
































"O
o

£.
M)
C
£
D.
i

4)
f
C
•o
c
o
a

1
o
BJ
0
a
O
o en en
I I
SM
>
0- H
0- C

.u «
* 0
S V
£ S
o
a
00 l-
c
VI 4-t

V W
So

CD
C 4>
<0 to
--i 3 :

CD «
» c

H P-
* +-
                                                                                                                                              .
                                                                                                                                             CO      •—'  U  JJ   QJ
                                                                                                                                            ^o«£x:c
                                                                                                                                                 N  X  OL.  G.  01
                                                                                                                                                                o —
                                                                                                                                                              1  7  X-
                                                                                                                                            0)
                                                                                                                                            V-OG

-------
Table V-13.  Substances Not Found in Base Neutral Fractions During
1977 and 1978 Verification Sampling
2-chloronaphthalene
diethylphthalate
di-n-butylphthalate
butylbenzylphthalate
dimethylphthalate
4-chlorophenyl-phenylether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)  ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenylether
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
benzidine
3,3'-dichlorobenz idine
nitrobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachloroethane
isophorone
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
 p-dioxin
Generalized machine detection limit for these compounds is 10 ug/1
                                   94

-------
!
            i -a.
           kO r-l
            CM.
             1
            4J
             & in i


                               o    o    o

                               r>«    i-i    ro
                                                 01
                                                 m
                                                 m

                                                 CM



                                                  •

                                                 O
                                                           »n
                                                        o oo
                                                        *»*
                                                        R°.S
                                                         • r*» •
                                                        m CM o
                                                         I CS I
                                                          r^ i
                                                          S   B
                                                          B   g
                                                          CO
                                                          M   W
                                                          a.   o
                                                            «-«
                                                          •|   3
                                                          .5  3
                                                          .,  .55

                                                          *  .1

                                                          I  £
                                                          CO

                                                          "  I
                                                        '•" «   !E
                                                        HJ  I
                                                        •8 "   a)
                                                        *-3   a
                                                        an  -a-
                                                        *1  |
                                                        11  |   . .

                                                        a-8  I  S2

                                                        ^g-«  55
                                                        •e E cp jo   —I

                                                            0) § co H H
                                                        <—• *v W OH Su C C
                                                        a^   gp.s.5
                                                        (B Q)-3 co
                                                                    01 b U 3T
                                                                    ai £ -5 S • Wi M;
                                                                    B a)   t-< -a •!-•
                                                                      a>

                                                                      Q ,2 &  S S
    ill Bias
    j lC S «H "08 0> IB
    I el A] CD .O C C
^ ^li.4j C 4jT5 B S
s^fasaiss
                                    95

-------
Table V-15.  Phenols Analyzed for But Not Found During 1978 Verification
            Sampling
    2-nitrophenol
    4-nitrophenol
    2,4-dichlorophenol
    2,4-dinitrophenol
    para-chloro-meta-cresol
    4,6-dinitro-ortho-cresol

Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is 25 ug/1.
                                96

-------



















X
i
j
«
V
1
u

"c
DC
kd
o
£
••*
*
1

u
••4
£

«
|
1
1

hi

«
i
3
1


2>
H
















~
ff
|
i
1
i





















i
»i


i








£
N

S
~
1
ft)
.,4
CO
'c
s
At
u
B
>s
3
I

U
J
3
{
E
J
[
U
B
3
1


9
3
i— i
•-i
Jj1
&
I


<

J
V
I
**
X
•D
1
M


2
jb
w
V
U
1



c


o
CM
8
O
8
O

8
O
CM

8
O
tA
8

i

s


,





1
1


8
O




8



1



8
lA

^
i



\O
O
m
O
o
o
o
I
o

1

s

I

CM
IA
o

i

o
CO
o
o
o
o



CM

0
o

1





s



I



s


*
1



(M
o
CM
00
0

j

IA
8
O

i



1
1

-H
r-
O

00

O
*O
O
00
8
0



Ot

o
o

8
O




o



i



o
-*

CO
na



CM
§
r*»
O

8
O

1

8
O
8

!

^
8

8

CM
O

,





1
1


|





8



§
lA






^
&d
CO
bl



es
0,
M
0

,


1

8
0
o

8
O
«-*
0

rM
O

i
o

8
O





1


i
o




*



kA
*~*


S
CM
r>
00
w



CD
S
r.
-^
0

8
O

'

8
O
8

I

O
i

r-.
8

i
o

t





1
1


8
0




8



1
00



0
*M

^
u
to
w



00
s
i

0

,

1
'

i
0
o

i
0
r_t
o

8

O
o
CO
8
O




1



8
O




°



S



8
IA

CO
2



R
Si**
CM

O O

8 I
0 0
j j
i 1

— t CM
8 8
O O
S 2
0 0
1 1

_ *
8 S

§ i

0 S
IA 00
O O

, s
t •




t t



I 1
0




i i



I 1
•^ "^


S 8

•0
r. ~
ta vt



o! 8
i/* -*























J
J
e
o

u
V

•S
1
i


i
V*
£
•s
s,
I

i
V

1
S 2.
•
•I ki H
a. o j:
W W *-"
: s s
u a. M
1 s ]
w
S S 1
Vj M X
U. to. S
* t !
97

-------
                          o   o   3
                          §   §   §
            §   g   g
                     §   §   g
                              g   8
i  a
 a
g   g
                 
-------
£   £
     o    —    o
<    M    tst    00
2;    —i    m    r»
          51   g   £
                    §    §

                                    99

-------
                                 000
                                 000
                                 odd
        o   -«
        o*   c
                o   o  o
                IS   ff\  —«    CTv   O
                §   8  g    g   °.
        o   o   o  o  o   o
                arzjez
        o   o  g  o
        §§88
O   fM
8   §
        OOOOOOO
k. >
ft] —I

",e
to e
                                                      V  V
                                                     £  »
|5
PL. JJ
og
                             -H   -
-------
Table V-20.  Range of Pollutant Concentrations in Wastewater from a
Plant Treating with CCA- and FCAP-Type Preservatives and a Fire
Retardant
                                            Concentration Range
    Parameter                                    (mg/liter)
   COD                                           10-50

   As                                            13-50

   Phenols                                       0.005-0.16

   Cu                                            .05-1.1

   Cr+6                                          0.23-1.5

   Cr+3                                          0-0.8

   F                                             4-20

   P04                                           15-150

   NH3-N                                         80-200

   pH                                            5.0-6.8


Source of Data:  Pretreatment Document
                                  101

-------
go
.a
j_>
0)
•c
a
I
           v x ^i

           alJ
           .§>
           
                                oo       cs
                                      102

-------
Design for Model Plant

Solely for the purpose of estimating capital,  operating,  and  energy
costs  for  wood  preserving  candidate treatment systems described in
Section VII  of  this  document,  plants  having  the  characteristics
presented in Table V-21 were used as models.

The  flow  characteristics  of these model plants are based on average
historical unit flows  for  Boulton  and  closed  steaming  plants  as
presented  in  Tables V-l and V-2.  Pollutant concentrations are based
on average data presented in Table V-7.

Model plant wastewater characteristics for  plants  which  use  solely
inorganic  preservatives  are  not  presented in this document because
this subcategory is subject to a no discharge  of  process  wastewater
limitation, and that technology is available for complete recycling of
effluents  from  these  plants.   The cost of recycling technology for
these plants is independent of wastewater strength.

Raw waste concentrations and loadings of  heavy  metals  presented  in
Tables  V-17  and V-19 were used as a basis for estimating the cost of
metals removal technology described in Section VII.


INSULATION BOARD

Insulation board plants responding to the  data  collection  portfolio
reported  fresh  water  usage  rates  ranging from 95,000 to 5,700,000
liters per day for process water (0.025 to 1.5 MGD).   One  insulation
board plant, 108, which also produces hardboard in approximately equal
amounts,  uses  over  15 million liters per day (4 MGD) of fresh water
for process water.

Water becomes contaminated during the production of  insulation  board
primarily  through  contact with the wood during fiber preparation and
forming operations, and the vast majority of pollutants are fine  wood
fibers and soluble wood sugars and extractives.

The process Whitewater used to process and transport the wood from the
fiber  preparation  stage  through  mat formation accounts for over 95
percent of a plant's total  wastewater  discharge  (excluding  cooling
water).  The water produced by the dewatering of stock at any stage of
the  process  is  usually recycled to be used as stock dilution water.
However, as a result of the build-up of suspended solids and dissolved
organic material, which can cause undesirable effects  in  the  board,
there  may  be  a  need  to  bleed-off  a  quantity  of excess process
Whitewater.  Various additives used to improve the characteristics  of
the  board  also  enter  the  process Whitewater and contribute to the
waste load.
                                 103

-------
More specifically, potential sources of wastewater  in  an  insulation
board plant include:

      Chip wash water
      Process Whitewater generated during fiber preparation
         (refining and washing)
      Process Whitewater generated during forming
      Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
         (dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.)

Chip Wash Water

Water  used  for  chip washing is capable of being recycled to a large
extent.  A minimal makeup of approximately 400 liters per  metric  ton
(95  gallons  per ton) is required in a closed system because of water
leaving with the chips and with sludge removed  from  settling  tanks.
Water  used  for makeup in the chip washer may be fresh water, cooling
water, vacuum seal water from in-plant equipment, or recycled  process
water.   Chip  wash water, when not fully recycled, contributes to the
raw waste load of an insulation board plant.  Insulation board  plants
108,  537,  979,  943,  977, and 1035 indicated in the response to the
data collection portfolio that chip washing is done.  Plants  943  and
1035 fully recycle chip wash water.

Fiber Preparation

The fiber preparation or refiner Whitewater system is considered to be
the  water  used  in  the  refining  of  stock up to and including the
dewatering of stock by a decker or washer.  As  previously  discussed,
there  are  three  major  types of fiber preparation in the Insulation
board Industry:   (1) stone groundwood; (2)  mechanical  disc  refining
(refiner  groundwood);  and  (3) thermo-mechanical disc refining.  The
water volume required by each of the three methods is essentially  the
same.   In  the  general case, the wood enters the refining machine at
approximately  50  percent  moisture  content.   During  the  refining
operation,  the  fiber  bundles are diluted with either fresh water or
recycled Whitewater to a consistency of approximately 1 percent solids
prior to dewatering to about  15  percent  solids  at  the  decker  or
washer.   The  water which results from the stock washing or deckering
operation is rich in organic solids dissolved  from  the  wood  during
refining  and is referred to as refiner Whitewater.  This water may be
combined  with  Whitewater  produced  during  forming,   the   machine
Whitewater  (for  further  use in the system), or  it may be discharged
from the plant as wastewater.

Forming

After the dewatered  stock  leaves  the  decker  at  approximately  15
percent  consistency,   it  must  again  be diluted to a consistency of
                                  104

-------
approximately 1.5 percent to be suitable for  machine  forming.   This
requires a relatively large quantity of recycled process Whitewater or
fresh  water.   The  redilution  of stock is usually accomplished in a
series of steps to  allow  consistency  controls  and  more  efficient
dispersion  of  additives,  and  to reduce the required stock pump and
storage capacities.  The stock usually receives an initial dilution to
approximately 5 percent consistency, then to 3 percent,  and  finally,
just prior to mat formation, to approximately 1.5 percent.

During  the  mat  formation stage of the insulation board process, the
diluted stock is dewatered at the forming machine to a consistency  of
approximately  40  to  45  percent.   The water drained from the stock
during formation is referred to as machine Whitewater.  Water from the
machine Whitewater system may be recycled for use  as  stock  dilution
water   or  for  use  in  the  refining  operations.   Excess  machine
Whitewater may be discharged as wastewater.

Miscellaneous Operations

While the majority of wastewater  generated  during  insulation  board
production   occurs   during   fiber  preparation  and  mat  formation
operations, various other operations may contribute to the overall raw
waste load.

Drying—The boards leaving the forming machine with a  consistency  of
approximately 40 percent are dried to a consistency of greater than 97
percent  in  the  dryers.  This water is evaporated to the atmosphere.
It is occasionally necessary to remove wood dust from  the  dryers  to
reduce  fire  danger  and to maintain proper energy utilization.  This
produces a minor wastewater stream in most operations.

Finishing—After the board leaves the dryer, it is usually sanded  and
trimmed  to  size.   The  dust from the sanding and trim saws is often
controlled by dust collectors of a wet scrubber type,  and  the  water
supplied  to'the scrubbers is sometimes excess process water; however,
fresh water is occasionally used.  This water is usually  returned  to
the process with the dust.

Plants that produce coated products such as ceiling tile usually paint
the board after it is sanded and trimmed.  Paint composition will vary
with  both  plant  and  product; however, most plants utilize a water-
based paint.  The  resulting  washup  contributes  to  the  wastewater
stream  or  is metered to the process Whitewater system.  In addition,
there are  sometimes  imperfect  batches  of  paint  mixed  which  are
discharged  to  the  wastewater  stream  or  metered  to  the  process
Whitewater system.

Broke System—Reject boards  and  trim  are  reclaimed  as  fiber  and
recycled  by  placing  the waste board and trim into a hydropulper and
                                 105

-------
producing a reusable fiber slurry.  While there is need  for  a  large
quantity  of  water  in  the  hydropulping  operation,  it is normally
recycled process water.  There is normally no  water  discharged  from
this operation.

Other  Sources—Other potential sources of wastewater in an insulation
board plant include water used for screen washing, fire  control,  and
general  housekeeping.   The  water  used  for  washing screens in the
forming and decker areas usually enters the process Whitewater system.
Housekeeping water varies widely from  plant  to  plant  depending  on
plant  operation  and many other factors.  While wastewater can result
from water used to extinguish dryer fires, it  is  an  infrequent  and
intermittent source of wastewater.

Wastewater Characteristics

The  major  portion  of insulation board wastewater pollutants results
from leachable materials from the wood and materials added during  the
production  process.   If  a  chip  washer  is  used, a portion of the
solubles is leached into the chip wash water.  A small fraction of the
raw waste load results from cleanup and finishing operations; however,
these operations appear to have little influence on  the  overall  raw
waste  load.   The finishing wastewater in some plants is metered back
into the process water with no reported adverse effects.

Process Whitewater, accounting for over 95 percent of the  waste  load
and  flow  from  a typical insulation board plant, is characterized by
high quantities of BOD5_ (900 to 7,500 mg/1) and suspended solids  (500
to 4,000 mg/1).       "~

The  four  major factors affecting process wastewater quality are: (1)
the extent of steam pretreatment; (2) the types of  products  produced
(3)  raw  material  species;  and  (4) the extent of whole tree chips,
forest residue, and bark in the raw material.

The major source  of  dissolved  organic  material  is  the  wood  raw
material.   From  1  to  8  percent  (on a dry weight basis) of wood is
composed  of  water-soluble  sugars  stored  as  residual   sap   and,
regardless  of  the  type  of refining or pretreatment utilized, these
sugars form a major source of BOD and COD.  Steam conditioning of  the
furnish during thermo-mechanical refining greatly increases the amount
of  wood  sugars and hemicellulose decomposition products entering the
process Whitewater.  The use of steam under  pressure  during  thermo-
mechanical  refining   is  the  predominant factor in the increased raw
waste loads of plants which employ this refining method.

Back and Larsson (1972) observe that, basically, two  phenomena  occur
during  steaming:   the physically reversible thermal softening of the
lignin and hemicellulose, and time   dependent  chemical  reactions  in
                                 106

-------
which hemicellulose undergoes hydrolysis and produces oligosaccharides
(shortchained,  water-soluble  wood  sugars, including disaccharides).
In addition, hydrolysis of the acetyl groups forms acetic  acid.   The
resulting  lowered  pH  causes  an increase in the rate of hydrolysis.
Thus, the reactions can be said to be autocatalytic.  For this reason,
the reaction rates are  difficult  to  calculate.   Rough  estimations
indicate   that   the  reaction  rates  double  when  an  increase  in
temperature of 8°C to 10°C has been made.

Figure V-l demonstrates the increased BOD loading which  results  from
increasingly severe cooking conditions.

DalIons  (1976)  has  noted that the amount of BOD increase because of
cooking conditions varies with  wood  species.   Hardwoods  contain  a
greater  percentage of potentially soluble material than do softwoods.
The effect of species variations on raw waste load is  less  important
than the degree of steaming to which the furnish is subjected.

Two   insulation   board  plants,  108  and  1035,  presented  limited
information  concerning  the  effects  of  whole  tree  chips,  forest
residue,  and bark in wood furnish on raw waste load.  Plant 36, which
has  the  highest  raw  wasteloads  of  all  the  mechanical  refining
insulation  board  data  collection  portfolio respondents, uses whole
tree chips  (pine) for the majority of the wood furnish.  While the use
of whole tree chips, residue, and bark results in some increase in raw
waste loadings, information currently available is not  sufficient  to
quantify the effects for the industry as a whole.

While  the  larger  portion of the BOD5_ in the process wastewater is a
result of organics leaching  from  the  wood,  a  significant  portion
results  from  additives.   Additives  vary  in both type and quantity
according to the type of product being produced.

The three basic types  of  board  products  sheathing,  finished  tile
(ceiling tile, etc.), and hardboard (including medium density siding)-
-receive  various  amounts  of additives.  Sheathing contains up to 25
percent additives  which  include  asphalt,  alum,  starch,  and  size
(either  wax  or  rosin).   Finished  tile  contains  up to 10 percent
additives which are the same as those  used  in  sheathing,  with  the
exception  of  asphalt.  Hardboard contains up to 11 percent additives
including organic resins, as well as emulsions  and  tempering  agents
such  as tall oil.  Therefore, the process wastewater will contain not
only leachates from the wood and fibers, but also the portion  of  the
additives not retained in the product.

Maximum  retention  of  additives  in the product is advantageous from
both production cost and wastewater  standpoints.   Several  retention
aids  are  marketed—the  most common of which are alum, ferric salts,
and synthetic polyelectrolytes.
                                 107

-------
60
40 ^
20-
       TOTAL BOD7   IN kg
       0,/TON DRY CHIPS
               T    J    I    I    I    J    1     1
                   6       8       10       12
0       4
      PRE-HEATING PRESSURE (atm.g.)
   Figure V-1. Variation  of BOO with pre-heating pressure
                             108

-------
Raw Waste Loads

Tables V-22 and V-23 summarize the raw wastewater  characteristics  of
those insulation board plants which provided raw waste monitoring data
in  response  to  the  data  collection  portfolio.  Data presented in
Tables V-22 through V-23 are daily averages over  a  12-month  period,
unless  otherwise  specified.   The  average daily raw wasteloads were
calculated in the following manner:

     1.   All data from each plant were coded for keypunching directly
          from the data sheets provided  by  the  plant  according  to
          waste stream.

     2.   Concentration and flow data for each day were  converted  by
          the computer program to a corresponding waste load in pounds
          per day (Ibs/day).
                      «
     3.   Each plant's annual average daily production was  calculated
          in  tons per day for each plant by dividing the total year's
          production by the number of  actual  operating  days.   This
          value  was  then  used with applicable conversion factors to
          determine waste loadings on a pounds-per-ton basis.

     4.   The resulting waste loads were averaged  over  the  one-year
          period  to  determine  the  average  annual  daily raw waste
          loads.

Seven of the  sixteen  insulation  board  plants  provided  raw  waste
historical data for the 12-month period from January through
December  1976  and  two plants provided raw waste historical data for
the 12-month period from January through December 1977.

The raw waste loads  of  the  plants  which  employ  thermo-mechanical
refining  methods  or which also produce hardboard products are demon-
strably higher than the raw waste  loads  of  the  plants  which  only
employ  mechanical  refining  and which produce no hardboard products.
Plant 36, the only  direct  discharging  plant  among  the  mechanical
refining plants, is an exception to this trend as discussed below.

Of  the  five  plants  which  use  mechanical refining only, and which
produce no hardboard, four of the  plants  (360,  978,  36,  and  889)
provided sufficient 1976 historical raw waste data for analysis.  Data
from  these plants were for raw waste prior to primary treatment, with
the exception of Plant 360 which provided information  for  wastewater
following   polymer-assisted   primary   clarification  (flocculation-
clarification).  Verification sampling was performed at Plant 360  and
samples  were  collected  before and after the primary floc-clarifier.
Analysis of verification data  showed  that  a  BOD  reduction  of  24
percent and a TSS reduction of 79 percent were achieved in the primary
                                 109

-------
Table V-22.  Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant          Production
Nunber      kkg/day(TPD)
Flow
                                 BCD
kl/kkg   (kgal/ton)      kg/kkg   (Ibs/ton)
                                                                                              TSS
                                                                                      kg/kkg   (Ibs/ton)
360f
978
201
189
195

106
(220)
(208)
(215)

(117)
  3.13
  4.51
  3.80

 21.6
(0.750)
(1.08)
(0.912)

(5.21)
                                                              4.46
                                                              4.81
                                                              4.61

                                                              5.95
                              (8.91)
                              (9.62)
                              (9-22)

                             (11.9)
                                                    0.735
                                                    1.04
                                                    0.880

                                                    4.67
                                                                                                 (1.47)
                                                                                                 (2.07)
                                                                                                 (1.76)

                                                                                                 (9.33)
 36
889
606
600
603

246
(668)
(661)
(665)

(270)
10.4
 8.84
 9.60

 1.02
 (2.49)
 (2.12)
 (2.30)

 (0.24)
                                                              20.8
                                                              20.9
                                                              20.9

                                                              1.27
                             (41.6)t
                             (41.8)t
                             (41.8)t

                             (2.54)
                                                    45.2
                                                    31.4
                                                    38.4

                                                    0.46
                                                                                                 (90.5)
                                                                                                 (63.0)
                                                                                                 (76.8)

                                                                                                 (0.923)
    First  row of data  represents  1976  average  annual daily data;  so.ond row represents 1977 average annual
    daily  data; third  row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977;
    except as noted.

    In 1976,  0.075 kg/kkg (0.15 Ib/ton) of BCD is recycled.
    In 1977,  0.095 kg/kkg (0.19 Ib/ton) of BOD is recycled.
    For the two-year period of 1976-1977,  0.085 kg/kkg (0.17 Ib/ton) of BOD is recycled.
                                                 110

-------
Table V-23.  Insulation Board Theme-Mechanical Refining and/or Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
             (Annual Averages)*
Plant
Nuaber
183


537t

108

Production
kkg/day
193
144
169
139
145
605
—
(TPD)
(212)
(159)
(186)
(153)
(160)
(665)"
—
kl/kkg
8.11
5.05
6.84
D.5
12.8
74.0
—
Flow
(kgal/ton)
(1.95)
(1.21)
(1.64)
(3.23)
(3.08)
(17.8)
—

kg/kkg
33.6
35.5
34.5
17.0
23.5
29.8
26.3
BCD
(Ibs/ton)
(67.1)
(71.0)
(69.0)
(34.1)**
(47.0)**
(59.5)
(52.6)***

kg/kkg
17.3'
13.3
15.6
42.8
38.6
28.6
6.25
TSS
(ibs/ton)
(34.5)
(26.6)
(31.2)
(85.7)
(77.3)
(57.1)
(12.5)***
 1035          359     (395)ft      11.1      (2.68)          43.2     (86.3)
  * First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 1977 average
    annual daily data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977;
    except as noted.

  * Raw flow and wasteload data presented in first row obtained during 1977 verification sampling.
    Raw flow and wasteload data presented in second row Stained during 1978 verification sampling.

 ** In 1976, 12.5 kg/kkg (25.0 Ibs/ton) of BO) is recycled.
    In 1977, 12.2 kg/kkg (24.5 Ibs/ton) of BCD is recycled.
 tt
    Includes production of both insulation board and hardboard.
*** Raw waste loads based on 1977 estimated primary effluent data provided by plant, and on 1976 average
    daily production.
                                                  Ill

-------
floc-clarifier.    These  percentages were used to adjust the raw waste
loads to account for the pollutant reduction  achieved  in  the  floc-
clarif ier.   Raw waste loads for Plant 360 are presented in Table V-22
before and after the adjustment.

Plant 360 uses primarily Southern pine for  furnish  with  some  mixed
hardwoods.   Plant  531  uses  primarily  Douglas fir with other mixed
softwoods.  Plant 978 employs stone grinders to refine a pine furnish.
Plant 36 uses a mixture of predominantly Southern pine, in the form of
whole tree chips, and mixed hardwoods.  Plant 889 uses  a  furnish  of
Southern pine mixed with some hardwood.

Plant  36  demonstrated  raw waste loads for BOD and TSS significantly
higher than any other plant in the  mechanical  refining  subcategory.
This is most likely attributable to the use of wood furnish consisting
of predominantly whole tree chips.  In 1976, the plant recycled all of
its  waste activated sludge, in addition to all of the primary sludge,
back into the process.  The build-up in the process Whitewater  system
of  waste biological solids which are not retained in the board is the
most probable reason for the high 1976 average TSS wasteload.

Plant 725 does not monitor the raw  wastewater  from  its  wood  fiber
insulation  board  plant.  Effluent from this plant, following primary
treatment, is used as process Whitewater in the plant's  mineral  wool
insulation   board   facility.    Although  the  plant  provided  1976
historical data for raw wastewater  effluent  from  the  mineral  wool
facility,  these data could not be used to characterize raw wastewater
from the wood fiber plant; and thus, Plant 725  was  not  included  in
Table V-22.

The annual average daily unit flow, and waste load data for insulation
board,  mechanical  refining  Plant  36, presented in Table V-22, were
used to develop the design criteria presented in Table V-24  and  used
as  a  basis  for  cost  estimates  presented  in Section VIII of this
document.

The average  unit  flow  for  Plant  36,  which  is  8.3  kl/Kkg  (2.0
kgal/ton),  is considered to be representative of an insulation board,
mechanical refining plant which produces a  full  line  of  insulation
board  products  and  which practices internal recycling to the extent
practicable.  Plant 978 has a high unit  flow  of  21.6  kl/Kkg  (5.21
kgal/ton),  due  to  the  fact that this plant uses process water on a
once-through basis, with no internal  recycle.   Plants  360  and  889
achieve a much higher degree of internal recycle which is due to their
particular  product and raw material mix.  Therefore, their unit flows
are not considered to be applicable to the industry as a  whole.   The
raw waste load of TSS produced by Plant 36 is somewhat higher than the
other plants in the insulation board-mechanical refining group because
the  plant  uses  a furnish which predominantly consists of whole tree
                                 112

-------
chips.  The contribution of TSS to overall treatment system  costs  is
negligible  compared to the BOD contribution.  It should also be noted
that the plant recycles 90 percent of the primary settled solids  back
into the process.

Of  the  11  plants  which  produce  insulation  board  using  thermo-
mechanical  refining  and/or  which  produce  hardboard  at  the  same
facility,  only  three plants (183, 108, and 1035) provided sufficient
1976 historical data for calculation of raw waste  loads.   Plant  183
also provided sufficient 1977 historical data for raw waste analysis.

Plant  108  is currently upgrading its wastewater treatment system and
provided an estimate of the raw waste loads  (primary  effluent).   The
estimated  waste  loads  are 16,000 kg/day (35,000 Ibs/day) of BOD and
3,800 kg/day (8,300 Ibs/day) of TSS.  The raw waste loads presented in
the second row for  Plant  108  in  Table  V-23  are  based  on  these
estimated data and on 1976 average annual daily production data.

Plant  537  does  not  monitor  raw wastewater quality and provided no
historical raw wastewater quality  data.   Verification  sampling  was
performed at this plant in 1977 and 1978, and raw wastewater data were
obtained.  Verification data were used to calculate the raw waste load
using  historical average daily production and average daily flow data
provided by the plant in response to the data collection portfolio.

Of the four plants which provided  historical  raw  waste  data,  only
Plants  183  and 537 produce solely insulation board.  Plant 183 steam
conditions all of its furnish, which consists  primarily  of  hardwood
chips.   Plant  537 steam conditions all of  its furnish which consists
of softwood chips, primarily of Douglas fir.   Some  sawdust  is  also
used as furnish at this plant.

Plant  108  steam  conditions approximately  10 percent of its furnish,
which  consists  primarily  of  aspen  with  some  whole  tree  chips.
Although  this plant differs considerably from the other plants in the
subcategory in the proportion of furnish  that  is  preconditioned  by
steam,  the raw waste loads from this plant  fall well within the range
of other plants in the insulation board-thermomechanical  refining  or
hardboard production group, as demonstrated  in Table V-23.

Plant  1035  uses  thermo-mechanical  pulping  to  prepare  all of its
furnish, which consists primarily of pine with some hardwood and panel
trim.  This plant produces approximately 70 percent  insulation  board
and 30 percent hardboard.

Plant  943  produces  approximately 60 percent insulation board and 40
percent hardboard using a pine furnish for   hardboard,  and  pine  and
hardwood mix for insulation board.  This plant steam conditions all of
                                 113

-------
Table V-24.   Insulation Board, Mechanical Refining Subcategory--
              Design Criteria
           Unit Wastewater Flow = 8.3 kl/Kkg (2.0 kgal/ton)
                                           	Design Criteria
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
Influent BOD Concentrations, mg/1
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/1
230    (250)
  1.9  (0.5)
   2,200
   3,900
540    (600)
  4.5  (1.2)
   2,200
   3,900
Table V-25.   Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Subcategory--
              Design Criteria
          Unit Wastewater Flow = 10.0 kl/Kkg (2.4 kgal/ton)
                                           	Design Criteria
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
Influent BOD Concentrations, mg/1
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/1
180    (200)   360    (400)
  1.8  (0.48)    3.6  (0.96)
   3,600          3,600
   1,600          1,600
                                  114

-------
its  furnish.   Since  it does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the
raw waste load could not be determined.

Plant 979 produces approximately 60 percent insulation  board  and  40
percent  hardboard  using a pine furnish which is totally steam condi-
tioned.  Since this plant does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the
raw waste load could not be determined.

Plant 186 steam conditions all of its hardwood  furnish.   Since  this
plant  does  not  monitor  its  raw waste effluent, the raw waste load
could not be determined.

Plant 977 steam conditions all of its mixed  hardwood  furnish.   This
plant  produces  approximately  50  percent  insulation  board  and 50
percent hardboard.  Raw waste effluent from the wood  fiber  plant  at
this  facility is combined with raw waste effluent from a mineral wool
facility at the same location prior  to  monitoring.   Therefore,  the
actual wood fiber raw waste load could not be determined.

Plant  502  steam  conditions all of its hardwood furnish and produces
only insulation board.  Since this plant  does  not  monitor  its  raw
waste  effluent,  the  raw  waste  load  from  this plant could not be
determined.

Plants 184 and 2 have achieved  no  discharge  of  process  wastewater
through  complete close-up of process Whitewater systems.  Both plants
steam condition all furnish and produce solely  structural  insulation
board.   Plant  184 uses a hardwood furnish, and Plant 2 uses Southern
pine chips and shavings.

Raw wasteload data provided by Plants 183, 537, and 1035 were averaged
to develop the unit flow and raw wasteload data presented in Table  V-
25  as  the basis for cost estimates presented in Section VIII of this
document.   These  plants  are  considered  representative  of  plants
producing  insulation  board  thermomechanically  and hardboard.  Data
from Plant 108 were not used for two reasons:  (1) the raw waste  data
provided  by  this plant were following primary treatment, and (2) the
plant in 1976 practiced only a  minimal  amount  of  internal  recycle
which resulted in an unrepresentative unit flow of 11.1 kl/Kkg (17.8 K
gal/ton).

A  unit  flow  of  10.0  kl/Kkg  (2.4  kgal/ton)  is  considered to be
representative of  an  insulation  board,  thermo-mechanical  refining
plant  which  produces  a  full  line of insulation board products and
which practices internal recycle to the extent practicable.
                                 115

-------
Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads

Raw waste concentrations and raw waste loads  for  total  phenols  are
shown  for four insulation board plants in Table V-26.  Data presented
in this table were obtained during  the  1977  and  1978  verification
sampling  programs.  These data represent the average of three 24-hour
composite samples collected during each verification program.   Annual
average  daily production and annual average daily waste flow provided
by the plants in the data collection portfolio were used to  calculate
the  raw  waste  loads.  None of the insulation board plants presented
historical data on raw wastewater phenol concentrations in  their  raw
wastewater effluents.

Raw  waste  concentrations  of  13 heavy metals are presented for four
insulation board plants in Table V-27.  Data presented in  this  table
were  obtained  during the 1977 verification sampling program.  Annual
average daily production and annual average daily waste flow for  1976
provided  by  the plants in the data collection portfolio were used to
calculate the raw waste loads.

None of the insulation board  plants  presented  historical  data  for
wastewater heavy metals concentrations.

No  significant differences in heavy metals concentrations between the
two types of insulation board plants were found.  The source of  heavy
metals  in  the  wastewater from insulation board plants is:  (1) small
amounts of metals present in the wood raw material; and

(2) byproducts of the corrosion of metal equipment in contact with the
process Whitewater.

The average concentrations and the average raw wastewater loadings  of
each heavy metal are also presented in Table V-27.

Table V-28 presents the raw wastewater concentrations of organic toxic
pollutants  for  insulation  board plants that were sampled during the
1978 verification sampling program.   None  of  the   insulation  board
plants presented organic toxic pollutants historical data.

No organic toxic pollutants were found in the raw waste for Plant 537,
a  thermo-mechanical  refining plant.  Extremely low concentrations of
chloroform, benzene, and toluene were found in the raw wastewater  for
Plant  183,  also  a  thermo-mechanical  refining plant.  All of these
pollutants probably originated in common industrial solvents.

Extremely low concentrations of  benzene,  toluene,  and  phenol  were
found in the raw wastewater for Plant 36, a mechanical refining plant,
but  benzene  and  toluene  were also found in the plant intake water.
                                  116

-------
Table V-26.  Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Insulation Board
            Plants—Total Phenols
                 Raw Waste                       Average*
          Concentrations (mg/1)*       Raw Waste Loads
Plant
36
183
360
537
1977
0.09
0.29
0.14
0.11
1978
0.796
1.8
ND**
0.4.2
kg/Kkg
0.0040
0.0055
0.00040
0.0075
(Ibs/ton)
(0.0080)
(0.011)
(0.00079)
(0.015)
* Data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs.

+ Average of the 1977 and 1978 raw waste loads.  Average daily waste
flow and production data for 1977 and 1978 supplied by plants in
response to the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the
1977 and 1978 waste loads.

** ND « Plant 360 was not sampled during the 1978 verification
program.
                             117

-------
Phenol is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions that occur  as
the wood furnish is refined.

WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD

Production of hardboard by wet process requires significant amounts of
water.   Plants  responding  to the data collection portfolio reported
fresh water usage rates for process water ranging  from  approximately
190 thousand to 19 million liters per day (0.05 to 5 MGD).  One plant,
108,   which   produces   both   hardboard  and  insulation  board  in
approximately equal amounts, reported  fresh  water  use  of  over  15
million liters per day (4 MGD).

Water   becomes   contaminated  during  the  production  of  hardboard
primarily through contact with the wood raw material during the  fiber
preparation,  forming,  and—in  the  case  of SIS hardboard—pressing
operations.  The vast majority of  pollutants  consist  of  fine  wood
fibers,  soluble wood sugars, and extractives.  Additives not retained
in the board also add to the pollutant load.

The water used to process  and  transport  the  wood  from  the  fiber
preparation  stage  through  mat  formation  is referred to as process
Whitewater.  Process Whitewater produced by the dewatering of stock at
any stage of the process is usually  recycled  to  be  used  as  stock
dilution  water.  However, because of the build-up of suspended solids
and dissolved organic material which can cause undesirable effects  in
the  board,  there  may  be  a  need to bleed-off a quantity of excess
process Whitewater.

Potential  wastewater  sources  in  the  production  of  wet   process
hardboard include:

      Chip wash water
      Process Whitewater generated during fiber preparation
         (refining and washing)
      Process Whitewater generated during forming
      Hot press squeezeout water
      Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
         (dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.)

Chip Wash Water

Water  used  for  chip washing is capable of being recycled to a large
extent.  A minimum makeup of approximately 400 liters per  metric  ton
(95  gallons  per ton) is required in a closed system because of water
leaving with the chips and with sludge removed  from  settling  tanks.
Water  used  for makeup in the chip washer may be fresh water, cooling
water, vacuum seal water from  in-plant equipment, or recycled  process
water.   Chip  wash water, when not fully recycled, contributes to the
                                 118

-------
Table V-27.  Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Insulation Board—Metals
Raw Waste Concentrations

Beryllkm
CM.
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Ant irony
Arsenic
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chromuxn
Mercury

360
.0005
.00063
.450
.0013
.240
.720
.00063
.002
.005
.0005
.00063
.0013
.0066
Plant
183
.00083
.001
.280
.021
.105
.517
.003
.0033
.0043
.0006
.0005
.0075
.005
Nunber
537
.0005
.0005
.20
.0013
.012
.250
.00067
.003
.0047
.0005
.0008
.0023
.001
(ne/i)

36
.0005
.0005
.340
.0053
.0088
.550
.0021
.0016
.0033
.0005
.0006
.011
.0075
Raw Waste Loadings (kg/Kkg)/(lb/ton)
Average
Value
.0006
.0007
.320
.0072
.0920
.510
.0016
.0025
.0043
.0005
.0007
.0055
.005

360
.0000042
(.0000083)
.0000028
(.0000056)
.0019
(.0037)
.000006
(.000011)
.0008
(.0016)
.003
(.0059)
.0000021
(.0000042)
.000013
(.000025)
.000014
(.000027)
.0000021
(.0000042)
.0000028
(.0000056)
.0000055
(.000011)
.000028
(.000042)


(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Plant
183
.000007
.000014)
.000008
.000016)
.0023
.0046)
.00017
.00034)
.00085
.0017)
.0042
.0064)
.000025
.000049)
.000027
.000054)
.000035'
.00007)
.0000049
.0000098)
.0000041
.0000082)
.00006
.00012)
.000041
.000082)
Nunber
537
.00001
(.00002)
.00001
(.00002)
.000041
(.000082)
.000027
(.000053)
.00025
(.00049)
.005
(.01)
.000014
(.00027)
.00006
(.00012)
.00007
(.000014)
.00001
(.00002)
.000017
(.000033)
.00047
(.00084)
.000021
(.000041)

36
.0000055
(.000011)
.0000055
(.000011)
.0036
(.0072)
.000055
(.00011)
.00009
(.00018)
.006
(.012)
.000022
(.000044)
.000017
(.000034)
.000035
(.00007)
.0000055
(.000011)
.0000065
(.000013)
.00012
(.00023)
.00006
(.00016)
Average
Value
.0000067
.0000133
.0000065
.0000132
.0019
.0039
.000063
.000126
.0005
.0010
.0046
.0091
.000015
.000037
.000029
.000058
.000038
.000076
.0000056
.0000112
.0000076
.0000152
.00016
.00033
.000042
.000085
                                                    119

-------
Table V-28.  Insulation Board, Raw Wastewater Toxic Pollutant Data,
Organics
                     Average Concentration (uq/1)

                              Raw Wastewater
Parameter
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Phenol
Plant 183
20
70
60
—
Plant 36
— *
40**
40**
40
Plant 537
—
—
—
—
* One sample of raw wastewater contained 20 ug/1 of chloroform.  Plant
intake water contained 10 ug/1 of chloroform.

** Plant intake water contained 50 ug/1 and 30 ug/1 of benzene and
toluene, respectively.

— Hyphen denotes that the parameter was not detected above the
detection limit for the compound.
                              120

-------
raw waste load of a hardboard plant.  Hardboard Plants 980, 979,  977,
943,  108,  1035,  and 3 indicated in responses to the data collection
portfolio that chip washing is done.  Plants 943 and 1035 recycle chip
wash water.

Fiber Preparation

The fiber preparation or refiner Whitewater system is considered to be
the water used in the refining  of  stock  up  to  and  including  the
dewatering  of stock by a decker or washer.  There are two major types
of fiber preparation in the wet process  hardboard  industry:  thermo-
mechanical  pulping  and  refining/  and the explosion or gun process.
Steam, under pressure, is used to soften and prepare the chips in both
processes.

Fiber yield is lower in the explosion  process  than  in  the  thermo-
mechanical  process  due  to the hydrolysis of the hemicellulose under
the high pressures required in the gun digesters.  The  resulting  raw
waste loading is also higher.

The  wood  furnish  enters the refiner at moisture content of about 50
percent. Subsequent to refining, the fiber bundles  are  diluted  with
fresh or recycled process Whitewater to a consistency of approximately
1  percent solids prior to dewatering at the decker or stock washer to
about 15 percent solids.  The  water  which  results  from  the  stock
washing  or  deckering  operation  is rich in organic solids dissolved
from  the  wood  during  refining  and  is  referred  to  as  "refiner
Whitewater."   This water may be combined with the machine Whitewater,
which is produced during forming, for further use in the system; or it
may be discharged from the plant as wastewater.

Three plants, 678, 673, and 943 make use of the high dissolved organic
solids in this stream by collecting and evaporating the fiber prepara-
tion Whitewater to produce  a  concentrated  wood  molasses  byproduct
which is used for animal feed.

Forming

After the dewatered stock leaves the washer decker at approximately 15
percent  consistency,  it  must  again  be diluted to a consistency of
approximately 1.5 percent to be suitable for  machine  forming.   This
requires  a  relatively large amount of recycled process Whitewater or
fresh water.  The redilution of stock is  usually  accomplished  in  a
series  of steps to allow accurate consistency controls and more effi-
cient dispersion of additives and to reduce the  required  stock  pump
and  storage  capacities.   The  stock  usually  receives  an  initial
dilution down to  approximately  5  percent  consistency,  then  to  3
percent,  and  finally,  just prior to mat formation, to approximately
1.5 percent.
                                 121

-------
During the mat formation stage of the hardboard process,  the  diluted
stock  is  dewatered  at  the  forming  machine  to  a  consistency of
approximately 40 to 45 percent.  The  water  drained  from  the  stock
during formation is referred to as machine Whitewater.  Water from the
machine  Whitewater  system  may be recycled for use as stock dilution
water.  Excess machine Whitewater may be combined with  other  process
Whitewater and discharged as wastewater.

Pressing
In  the  production of SIS hardboard, the mat which leaves the forming
machine at 40 to 45 percent solids consistency is  loaded  into  "hot"
hydraulic presses to be pressed into hardboard.

The  board  leaves  the  press  at  about  5 percent moisture or less.
Although much of the water in the board is evaporated in the press,  a
considerable  amount of wastewater is generated during pressing.  This
wastewater is generally  collected  in  a  pit  below  the  press  and
discharged  as wastewater from the plant, although two plants, 929 and
673, return the press water to the process Whitewater system.   Waste-
water  resulting  from  the pressing operation is more concentrated  in
dissolved solids than the machine Whitewater due to the  large  amount
of water which is evaporated from the board during pressing.

Miscellaneous Operations

While  the  majority  of wastewater generated during the production  of
hardboard occurs during the fiber preparation,  forming  and  pressing
operations, various other operations may contribute to the overall raw
waste load.

Drying—It  is  occasionally  necessary  to  clean  the  dryers  in  a
hardboard plant to reduce fire danger and to  maintain  proper  energy
utilization.    This  produces  a  minor  wastewater  stream  in  most
operations.

Finishing—After the board leaves  the  press  or  humidifier,  it   is
usually  sanded  and  trimmed  to size.  The dust from the sanding and
trim saws is often controlled by dust collectors  of  a  wet  scrubber
type  and  the  water  supplied  to  the scrubbers is sometimes excess
process water; however, fresh water is occasionally used.  This  water
may  be returned to the process with the dust, or it may be discharged
as wastewater.

Many plants paint or stain the board after it  is sanded  and  trimmed.
Paint composition will vary with both plant and product; however, most
plants  utilize a water-based paint.  The resulting washup contributes
to the wastewater stream or to  the  process  Whitewater  system.    In
addition,  there  are  sometimes  imperfect batches of paint which are
                                 122

-------
discharged  to  the  wastewater  stream  or  metered  to  the  process
Whitewater system.

Caul or Press Plate—Another wastewater source is caul and press plate
wash  water.   After a period of use, cauls and press plates acquire a
surface build-up of resin and organics which results  in  sticking  in
the  presses  and  blemishes  on  the hardboard surface.  The cleaning
operation consists of submerging  the  cauls  in  a  caustic  cleaning
solution  for  a  period  of time to loosen the organic matter.  Press
plates are also cleaned in-place with a caustic solution.   The  cauls
are removed, rinsed with fresh water, then put back in use.  The tanks
used  for soaking the cauls are emptied as needed, normally only a few
times each year.  Rinse water volume varies with frequency of  washing
of cauls or plates.

Other  Sources—Other  potential  sources of wastewater in a hardboard
plant include water used for screen washing, fire control, and general
housekeeping.

The water used for washing screens in the  forming  and  decker  areas
usually  enters the process Whitewater system.  Housekeeping water can
vary widely from plant to plant depending on plant practices and  many
other  factors.   Wastewater  can result from water used to extinguish
dryer fires.   This  is  an  infrequent  and  intermittent  source  of
wastewater.

Wastewater Characteristics

The  major  portion  of  hardboard  wastewater pollutants results from
leachable materials from the  wood  and  materials  added  during  the
production  process.   If  a  chip  washer  is  used, a portion of the
solubles is leached into the chip wash water.  A small fraction of the
raw waste load results from cleanup and finishing operations; however,
these operations appear to have little influence on  the  overall  raw
waste load.

The major factors which affect process wastewater quality include: (1)
the  severity  of cook to which the wood furnish is subjected, (2) the
types of products produced and additives employed,  (3)  raw  material
species,  and  (4) the extent of whole tree chips, forest residue, and
bark in the raw material.

The effect of steaming on raw waste load was discussed in this section
for insulation board.  The severity of cook to which wood  furnish  is
subjected  in  S2S hardboard production generally exceeds that used in
SIS hardboard production because of the requirement  for  more  highly
refined  fiber  bundles  in  the  S2S  product.  It would be expected,
therefore, that the raw waste load of S2S plants would be higher  than
that  of  SIS plants.  Inspection of the raw waste characteristics for
                                 123

-------
both types of plants presented in Tables V-29 and V-30  supports  this
conclusion.

A  thorough  review  of  the  literature  and information presented by
industry sources pertaining to factors influencing  variation  in  raw
wastewater characteristics was performed by an EPA contractor in 1976.
The  conclusions  reached  were  published in Section V of the Summary
Report on the Re-Evaluation of the Effluent  Guidelines  for  the  Wet
Process  Hardboard  Segment  of  the  Timber Products Processing Point
Source Category.  An attempt was made in the 1976  study  to  quantify
the effects of wood species, seasonal variations in raw materials, and
the  use  of  whole  tree  chips  and/or  forest  residue on raw waste
characteristics.  The conclusion reached in  the  1976  study  was  as
follows:

It  is  easily  apparent,  from  the  sources  discussed,  that  large
variabilities in raw waste characteristics exist from plant  to  plant
in  the  hardboard  industry.   It  is  also apparent that the factors
identified as causing the variability are probably valid.  However, it
is equally apparent that none of the sources investigated thus far has
been able to supply the type of data necessary to  determine  how  the
reference   information  relates  to  quantification  of  the  factors
influencing variations in raw waste.

During the course of the present study, the material available to  the
1976  contractor was reviewed in detail, as well as current literature
and  material  presented  by  the  plants  in  the   data   collection
portfolios.   No  substantial  new  material  was  presented  to allow
quantification of the effects of wood species, whole tree chips and/or
forest residue, or seasonal variations in raw material.

While a large portion of the BOD in the process wastewater is a result
of organics leaching from the wood, a  significant  (although  lesser)
portion results from additives not retained in the product.  Additives
vary  in both type and quantity according to the type of product being
produced.  Chemicals used as additives in the production of  hardboard
include  vegetable oils, ferric sulfate, aluminum sulfate, petrolatum,
thermoplastic and/or  thermosetting  resins,  defoamers,  and  paints.
Thermosetti-ng resins are not used in S2S production since the board is
dried  prior to pressing.  The differences in the type and quantity of
additives used from plant to plant did  not  appear  to  significantly
affect raw waste loads.

Maximum  retention  of  these  additives  is  advantageous from both  a
production cost as well as a wastewater standpoint.  Several retention
aids are marketed for use in board products to increase the  retention
of  fiber  and additives in the mat, the most common of which are alum
and ferric salts.   Some  plants  use  synthetic  polyelectrolytes  as
retention aids.
                                 124

-------
Table V-29.  SIS Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics  (Annual Averages)*
 Plant
   Production
 Number      tag/day(TPD)
                    Flow
                                BOD
                      kl/kkg(kgal/ton)      kg/kkgClbs/ton)
                                               TSS
                                                              kg/kkg(Ibs/ton)
  348
  3.7     (97.5)
                                       32.7     (65.4)T
                                                  6.90
                                                  (13.8)t
  933
  297
 (326)
10.6
(2.54)
37.4
(74.7)
9.15
(18.3)
  931
  919tT
194
194
194
117
115
113
(213)
(213)
(213)
(129)
(127)
(125)**
7.68
6.17
7.05
8.82
8.14
8.14
(1.84)
(1.48)
(1.69)
(2.12)
(1.95)
(1.95)**
29.3
25.4
26.0
35.6
33.8
37.0
(58.6)
(50.7)
(52.0)
(71.2)
(67.7)
(74.1)**
12.4
12.8
12.6
22.5
D.O
13.8
(24.8)
(25.7)
(25.2)
(44.9)
(25.9)
(27.6)**
 91.9
 (101)
14.0
(3.36)
68.5
(137)
16.8
(33.5)
  207
  673***
 83.2
 79.7
 81.5

343
(91.7)
(87.8)
(89.8)

 (377)
13.6
(3.26)
X.I
33.8
32.2

 1.89
(60.2)
(67.6)
(64.3)

 (3.77)
10.2
 5.20
 7.70

 0.56
(20.3)
(10.4)
(15.4)

 (1.15)
  678ttt    1446
          (1589)
             12.3
          (2.%)
                21.9
         (43.8)
               5.85
          (11.7)
  * First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents  1977 average annual
    daily data; third row represents average annual daily data  for  two-year period of 1976 and  1977;
    except as noted.
  t After primary settling, hardboard and paper wastewater streams  are coningled.
 ** Data represent period of 10/1/76 through 12/31/77 when upgraded system was  in normal operation.
 Tt All of treated effluent is recycled to plant process.
*** Raw waste loads shown are for combined weak and strong wastewater streams.
Ttt Raw waste load data taken after primary clarification, pH adjustment,  and nutrient  addition.
                                                 125

-------
Table V-30.  S2S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant
Nunber
980



1035
Production
kkg/day
210
216
213
218
359
(TPD)
(231)
(238)
(235)t
(240)**
(395)tt
kl/kkg
24.7
24.9
24.9
24.5
11.1
Flow
(kgal/ton)
(5.93)
(5.97)
(5.96)t
(5.88)**
(2.68)

kg/kkg
66.5
61.5
64.5
—
43.2
BOD
(Ibs/ton)
(133)
(123)
(129)T
—
(86.3)

kg/kkg
^•D*
15.2
—
11.7
_
TSS
(Ibs/ton)
j^^
(30.4)
—
(23.4)**
—
               311     (343)        25.8      (6.18).          116     (232)          20.0      (40.0)
 * First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data; second row represents 1977 average
   annual daily data; third row represents average annual daily data for two-year period of 1976 and 1977;
   except as noted.
 t Data represents period of 1/1/76 through 4/30/7S.
** Data represents period of 6/16/76 through 4/30/78 vhen standard TSS analyses were performed.
tt Includes production of both insulation board and hardboard.
                                                        126

-------
As  previously  discussed,  the  primary effect of product type on raw
waste  loads  occurs  with  the  production  of  S2S  hardboard.   S2S
hardboard  production  exhibits  a  marked effect on raw wasteloads as
shown by data presented in  Tables  V-29  and  V-30.  -The  effect  of
product  type  on raw waste loads within the SIS and S2S subcategories
is generally not discernible, with the exception that  Plant  929  has
succeeded  in  significantly  reducing its raw waste load by achieving
nearly complete close-up of its process Whitewater system.  This plant
produces primarily industrial grade board.

Raw Waste Loads

Tables V-29 and V-30 summarize the raw waste characteristics of  those
hardboard  plants  which provided historical raw waste monitoring data
in response to the data collection portfolio.   Nine  of  the  sixteen
hardboard  plants  provided raw waste historical data for the 12-month
period from January through December 1976.  Plant  673  provided  data
from  May  1976  to  April  1977.   Three  plants  provided  raw waste
historical data for the 12-month period from January through  December
1977.   Plant 980 provided data from June 16, 1977 through April 1978.
The average annual daily raw waste concentrations presented in  Tables
V-29  and V-30 were calculated in the same manner as described for the
insulation board segment earlier in this section.

Plants 943 and 979 do not monitor raw waste effluents, and  Plant  977
combines  the  raw  waste effluent from its hardboard/insulation board
facility with the raw waste effluent from  an  adjacent  mineral  wool
fiber plant prior to monitoring.  The data provided by Plant 977 could
not be used to characterize raw waste loads for hardboard production.

Plant  929  provided  data from January 1976 through February 1977 for
its treated effluent only.  These data were not used  to  calculate  a
raw waste load.

Of  the  nine  predominantly  SIS hardboard plants, eight plants (348,
933, 3, 931, 919, 207, 673, and 678)  provided  sufficient  historical
raw waste data for analysis.

Approximately  90  percent of the total production of Plant 348 is SIS
hardboard produced with a plywood trim furnish.  The other 10  percent
of  the  plant's  production  consists  of battery separators—a paper
product.  Although the plant indicates that 80 to 90  percent  of  the
raw  waste  load  results from hardboard production, monitoring by the
plant is performed after the raw  waste  streams  are  combined.   The
plant  did  not  monitor  the  flow  rates  of the separate wastewater
streams during 1976.  No flow data were reported by  Plant  348.   BOD
and  TSS  raw  waste  loads were reported directly in Ib/ton.  The raw
waste load for this plant is  included  in  Table  V-29,  but  is  not
included in the calculation of the subcategory average.
                                 127

-------
Plant  919  produces  all SIS hardboard using Douglas fir for furnish.
The raw BOD waste load discharged  from  this  plant  is  68.7  kg/Kkg
(137.4  Ib/ton);  however, some of this waste load entered the process
through  recycle  of  treated  effluent.    Since   the   waste   load
contribution  resulting  from  recycle of treated effluent is unknown,
the raw waste loads for this plant were  not  used  to  calculate  the
subcategory average.

Plant 3 produces all SIS hardboard using a furnish which is 55 percent
mixed  hardwoods  and  45  percent mixed softwoods.  Thirty percent of
this plant's furnish is in the form of unbarked roundwood.

Plant 933 produces all SIS hardboard using an aspen furnish,  approxi-
mately  half  of  which  is unbarked roundwood and half is received as
whole tree chips.

Plant 931 produces all SIS hardboard  using  75  percent  oak  and  25
percent mixed hardwoods.

Plant 207 produces all SIS hardboard using all Douglas fir in the form
of  chips,  sawdust,  shavings,  and plywood trim.  The raw waste load
data presented for 1976 were not used  to  calculate  the  subcategory
average because a major in-plant refitting program which significantly
reduced  the  raw  waste  flow was completed during the latter half of
1976.

Plant 673, which produces approximately equal amounts of SIS  and  S2S
hardboard  using  redwood  and  Douglas  fir,  evaporates  most of its
process wastewater to produce a cattle feed byproduct.  Data for  this
plant are shown in Table V-29, but are not included in the subcategory
average.

Plant  678  produces  approximately  10 percent S2S and 90 percent SIS
hardboard using about 80 percent mixed hardwoods  (40 percent of  which
is  oak)  and 20 percent Southern pine.  This plant evaporates a large
amount of process water to produce a cattle feed byproduct.  Raw waste
data reported in Table V-29 for this  plant  were  obtained  following
primary  clarification,  pH  adjustment, and nutrient addition.  Plant
678 is not included in the subcategory average; however, data for  the
plant are shown in Table V-29.

The  average  annual  daily  flows  and  raw  waste  loads for the SIS
hardboard plants presented in  Table  V-29   (excluding  the  data  for
Plants  348,  919  673,  and  678)  were  used to determine the design
criteria  used  for  the  SIS  hardboard  subcategory  cost  estimates
presented  in  Section  VIII  of  this  document.   The  SIS hardboard
subcategory design criteria are presented in Table V-31.
                                 128

-------
Of the seven plants which produce predominantly S2S  hardboard,  three
provided  sufficient  1976  historical raw waste data for analysis and
one plant provided 1975 historical raw waste data.  One  of  the  four
plants  also  provided  sufficient  1977 historical raw waste data for
analysis.   Plant  108  uses  thermo-mechanical  pulping  to   prepare
approximately  10  percent of its furnish, which consists primarily of
aspen with some whole tree chips.  This plant  produces  approximately
50 percent insulation board and 50 percent hardboard.

Plant  1035  uses  thermo-mechanical  pulping  to  prepare  all of its
furnish, which consists primarily of pine with some hardwood and panel
trim.  This plant produces approximately 70 percent  insulation  board
and 30 percent hardboard.

The raw waste effluents from insulation board and hardboard production
of  Plants  108  and  1035 are combined prior to raw waste monitoring.
Therefore, the individual raw waste generalized by hardboard could not
be calculated, and values for these plants are  not  included  in  the
subcategory average.

Plant   980   used  a  non-standard  method  for  the  raw  waste  TSS
concentration analysis during 1976, and therefore the raw  waste  load
was  not  used  in calculating the average for the subcategory.  As of
June 16, 1977 the plant has changed its method of TSS analysis to  the
standard  method.  The data presented for 1977 are for the period from
June 16, 1977 through April 1978.

Plant 1 produces about 80 percent S2S hardboard  and  20  percent  SIS
hardboard.   Its  furnish  consists of poplar, birch, oak, and pine-23
percent received as bark-free chips and 77 percent as roundwood.   Raw
waste load BOD for this plant, 116 kg/Kkg (232 Ib/ton), is the highest
by  far of any fiberboard plant in the country and is considered to be
atypical of the S2S subcategory.  For this reason the  BOD  raw  waste
load  for  this plant is not included in the subcategory average.  Its
TSS raw waste load is, however, characteristic of S2S  plants  and  is
included in the subcategory average.

The  unit  flow  and raw BOD wasteload data for Plant 980 were used to
obtain the unit flow and BOD design criteria for the  S2S  subcategory
cost  estimates  as  presented  in Table V-32.  TSS raw wasteloads for
design criteria were developed using the average of data  from  Plants
980 and 1.

A  unit  flow  of  24.6  kl/Kkg   (5.9  kgal/ton)  is  considered to be
representative of an S2S hardboard plant which produces a full line of
hardboard products and  which  practices  internal  recycling  to  the
extent practicable.
                                 129

-------
Table V-31.  SIS Hardboard—Design Criteria
           Unit Wastewater Flow = 12 kl/Kkg (2.8 kgal/ton)
                                              Design Criteria
                                               1               2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
Influent BOD Concentrations, mg/1
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/1
 91  (100)
1.1  (0.28)
  3,300
  1,300
270  (300)
3.2  (0.84)
  3,300
  1,300
                                130

-------
Toxic Pollutant Raw Waste Loads

Raw  waste  concentrations  and  raw waste loads for total phenols are
shown in Table V-33.  Data  presented  in  this  table  were  obtained
during   the  1977  and  1978  verification  sampling  programs.   Two
hardboard plants provided historical  phenols  raw  waste  data,  also
included  in  Table  V-33.   Annual average daily production and waste
flow data for 1977 and 1978 provided by the plants in response to  the
data collection portfolio were used to calculate the 1977 and 1978 raw
waste  loads.  The average of the 1977 and 1978 loads are presented in
Table V-33.

Table V-32.  S2S Hardboard Subcategory—Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow =24.6 kl/Kkg (5.9 kgal/ton)

Production = 230 Kkg/day (250 TPD)

 Wastewater Flow =5.7 kl/day (1.5 MGD)

 Influent BOD Concentration = 2,600 mg/1

 Influent TSS Concentration = 600 mg/1
The average concentration of the total phenols for the five SIS  hard-
board  plants  (207, 673, 678, 931, 3) is 2.4 mg/1.  The concentration
of the single S2S  hardboard  plant   (980)  is  0.16  mg/1.   The  SIS
hardboard  average  raw  wasteload  for  total phenols is 0.019 kg/Kkg
(0.038 Ib/ton).  The S2S hardboard average is  0.0038  kg/Kkg  (0.0075
Ib/ton).  The lower total phenols in  the S2S raw wastewater are due to
the  fact  that  phenolic  thermo-setting  resins  are not used in the
manufacture of S2S hardboard.

Raw waste  concentrations  of  heavy  metals  are  presented  for  six
hardboard  plants  in  Table  V-34.   Data presented in this table were
obtained during the 1977 verification sampling program.  One hardboard
plant provided 1976 historical data for lead and  chromium  which  are
also  presented  in  the  table.   Annual average daily production and
annual daily waste flow provided by the plants in the data  collection
portfolio were used to calculate the  raw waste loads.

No  significant differences in heavy  metals concentrations between SIS
and S2S hardboard production were found.  The sources of heavy  metals
in the wastewater from hardboard plants are:  (1) trace metals present
in the wood raw material; and (2) byproducts of the corrosion of metal
                                 131

-------
Table V-33.  Raw Waste Concentrations and Loads for Hardboard Plants-
                                  Total Phenols
                 Raw Waste                       Average*
          Concentrations (mg/D*       Raw Waste Loads
Plant
980
207
673
678
931
3
1977
0.07
0.38
1.2
0.24
0.29**
6.4
3.4**
1978 kg/Kkg
0.243 0.0038
0.610 0.009
0.015
0.003
0.0037**
3.8 0.043
8.9** 0.040**
(Ibs/ton)
(0.0075)
(0.018)
(0.02)
(0.006)
(0.0074)**
(0.086)**
(0.080)**
* Data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs.
These data represent the average of three 24-hour composite samples.

+  Average of 1977 and 1978 raw waste loads.  Average daily waste flow
and production data for 1977 and 1978 supplied by plants in response
to data collection portfolio were used to calculate waste loads.

** Data are historical data supplied by plant in response to data
collection portfolio.
                               132

-------
 re
+j


^
 i
 «/>
•4-)
 c
 «J

^



 >-    vn   —«»n
                                                                 88
                                                                                                                                        s.
                      m m      •»
                      «q CM     i>J   f*» W
                        > _•   eg tn
                                                          Is   li
                                                                                       com   tecM   .  . _
                                                                                       **m   a •*   ** CM    ova
                                                                                       pa   aa   as    
i
O
                                                                                 i
                                                                                        !
                                                                                        i
                                                                                                        i      §
                                                                                                  £

                                                                                                  e
                                                                                                                                       u


                                                                                                                                       9
                                                                         133

-------
Table V-35.  Average Raw Waste Concentration and Loadings for
Hardboard Plants—Metals

Metal
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chromium
Mercury
Average Concentration
mg/1
0.00054
0.0020
0.31
0.21
0.061
0.84
0.0036
0.0012
0.0023
0.0016
0.00078
0.099
0.0038
Average Raw Waste
kg/Kkg
0.000008
0.000027
0.0053
0.00018
0.00087
0.010
0.000052
0.000017
0.000032
0.000036
0.000010
0.0011
0.000061
Load
Ib/ton
0.000016
0.000053
0.011
0.00036
0.0017
0.021
0.00010
0.000035
0.000065
0.000072
0.000021
0.0022
0.00012
                               134

-------
equipment  in  contact  with  the  process  wastewater.   The  average
concentrations and the average raw waste loadings of each heavy  metal
are presented in Table V-35.

Table  V-36  presents  the  raw  waste concentrations of organic toxic
pollutants for SIS hardboard plants that were sampled during the  1977
verification  sampling  program.   None  of  the  SIS hardboard plants
presented organic toxic pollutant historical data.

Extremely low concentrations of ethylbenzene and toluene were found in
the raw wastewater for Plant 207.  The  intake  water  for  Plant  207
contained  10  ug/1  of  toluene.   The  origin of these pollutants is
probably common industrial solvents.

Extremely low concentrations of chloroform, benzene, and toluene  were
found  in  the  raw  wastewater  for Plant 931.  These pollutants most
likely originated in industrial solvents-.  Phenol was  also  found  in
the  raw  wastewater  and  is  an  expected  byproduct  of  hydrolysis
reactions that occur as the wood furnish is refined.

Table V-37 presents the organic toxic pollutant concentrations of  the
raw  waste  for S2S hardboard plants that were sampled during the 1977
verification sampling program.   None  of  the  S2S  hardboard  plants
presented organic toxic pollutant data.

No organic toxic pollutants were found in the raw wastewater for Plant
980.  Extremely low concentrations of chloroform, benzene, and toluene
were  found  in  the  raw waste for Plant 1, however, the plant intake
water contained 120 ug/1 benzene and 80 ug/1 toluene.  Chloroform most
likely originated in industrial solvents.  Phenol was  also  found  in
the  raw  waste for Plant 1 and is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis
reactions that occur as the wood furnish is refined.

Extremely low concentrations of 1,2-trichloroethane and  toluene  were
found  in  the  raw  waste  for Plant 943, the origin of which is most
likely industrial solvents.
                                 135

-------
Table V-36.  SIS Hardboard, Raw Wastewater Toxic Pollutant Data,
Organ!cs
                     Average Concentration (ug/1)
                                    Raw Wastewater
Parameter
Chloroform
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene*
Phenol**
Plant 207
—
—
20
15
—
Plant 931
20
80
—
70
680
* Plant 207 intake water contained 10 ug/1 toluene.
** Plant 207 intake water contained 97 ug/1 phenol.
— Hyphen denotes that the parameter was not found in concentrations
above the detection limit for the compound.

Table V-37.  S2S Hardboard, Raw Wastewater Toxic Pollutant Data,
Organics
                     Average Concentration  (uq/1)
                              Raw Wastewater
Parameter             Plant 980       Plant 1     Plant 943
Chloroform                —           20
1,1,2 Trichloroethane     —           —           90
Benzene                   —           90*
Toluene                   —           60*          10
Phenol                    —          300

* Plant  intake water was measured at  120 ug/1  benzene and  80  ug/1
toluene.
— Hyphen  indicates that the parameter was  not found in concentrations
above the  detection limit for the compound.
                                136

-------
                              SECTION VI

                  SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS


WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF SIGNIFICANCE

A thorough analysis of the literature, industry data and sampling data
obtained from this study and EPA permit  data  demonstrates  that  the
following  wastewater  parameters  are  of  significance in the timber
products processing industry:

Wood Preserving Segment

Conventional Pollutant Parameters

     Chemical Oxygen Demand
     Oil and Grease
     pH

Toxic Pollutants

     Phenol and Substituted Phenolics,  particulary  pentachlorophenol
          (PCP)
     Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PNA's)
     Copper
     Chromium
     Arsenic
     Zinc

Insulation Board/Hardboard Segment

Conventional Pollutant Parameters

     Biological Oxygen Demand (5-day, 200C7 BOD50
     Total Suspended solids (TSS)              "
     PH

CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT PARAMETERS

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Biochemical  oxygen  demand is the quantity of oxygen required for the
biological  and  chemical  oxidation  of  waterborn  substances  under
ambient or test conditions.  Materials which may contribute to the BOD
include:  carbonaceous  organic  materials  usable as a food source by
aerobic organisms; oxidizable nitrogen derived from nitrites/ ammonia,
and organic nitrogen  compounds  which  serve  as  food  for  specific
bacteria;  and certain chemically oxidizable materials such as ferrous
                                 137

-------
iron, sulfides, sulfite, etc., which will react with dissolved  oxygen
or which are metabolized by bacteria.  In timber industry wastewaters,
the  BOD  derives  principally from organic materials leached from the
wood raw material.

The BOD of a waste adversely affects the dissolved oxygen resources of
a body of water by reducing the oxygen available to fish,  plant  life
and  other  aquatic species.  It is possible to reach conditions which
totally exhaust the  dissolved  oxygen  in  the  water,  resulting  in
anaerobic  conditions  and the production of undesirable gases such as
hydrogen sulfide and methane.  The reduction of dissolved  oxygen  can
be  detrimental  to  fish-populations, fish growth rate, and organisms
used as fish food.  A total lack of oxygen due to  excessive  BOD  can
result in the death of all aeorbic aquatic inhabitants in the affected
area.

Water  with  a  high BOD indicates the presence of decomposing organic
matter and associated increased bacterial concentrations that  degrade
its   quality   and   potential   uses.    High  BOD  increases  algal
concentrations and blooms; these result from decaying  organic  matter
and form the basis of algal populations.

The  BOD5_  (5-day  BOD)  test  is  used  widely to estimate the oxygen
requirements of discharged domestic and industrial  wastes.   Complete
biochemical  oxidation  of  a  given  waste  may  require  a period of
incubation too long for practical analytical test purposes.  For  this
reason,  the  5-day period has been accepted as standard, and the test
results have been designated as BOD5.  Specific chemical test  methods
are   not  readily  available  for  measuring  the  quantity  of  many
degradable susbstances and their reaction products.   In  such  cases,
testing  relies  on  the  collective  parameter, BOD5_.  This procedure
measures the weight of dissolved oxygen utilized by microorganisms  as
they  oxidize  or transform the gross mixture of chemical compounds in
the wastewater.  The biochamical reactions involved in  the  oxidation
of  carbon  compounds  are  related  to the period of incubation.  The
5-day BOD normally measures only 60 to 80 percent of the  carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand of the sample, and for many purposes this is
a  reasonable parameter.  Additionally, it can be used to estimate the
gross quantity of oxidizable organic matter.

Some treated wastewaters result from  treatment  systems  designed  to
remove  ammonia through the nitrification process.  In some cases, the
nitrifying bacteria present can exert an additional  non-carbonaceous,
nitrogenous   oxygen   demand   (NOD),  within  the  prescribed  5-day
incubation period.  In these  instances, special inhibitors  are  added
to  standard  dilution  waters  to  ensure  the  measurement  only  of
carbonaceous organic matter.  Ultimate BOD, which is measured after   a
20-day  incubation  period,   tests  for  aggregate measurement of both
carbonaceous  and  nitrogenous  oxygen   demand   when   nitrification
                                  138

-------
inhibitors  are  not  added to standard dilution waters.  The Ultimate
BOD is important in the evaluation and design of biological  treatment
systems.   Ultimate  BOD  can  also  be useful in estimating the total
dissolved  oxygen  demand  of  wastewaters  discharged  to  very  long
receiving streams with long residence periods.

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)

Chemical  Oxygen Demand is a purely chemical oxidation test devised as
an alternate method  of  estimating  the  total  oxygen  demand  of  a
wastewater.  Since the method relies on the oxidation-reduction system
of  chemical  analyses,  rather than on biological factors, it is more
precise, accurate,  and  rapid  than  the  BOD  test.   The  COD  test
estimates  the  total oxygen demand (ultimate) required to oxidize the
compounds in a wastewater.  It is  based  on  the  fact  that  organic
compounds,  with  a few exceptions, can be oxidized by strong chemical
oxidizing agents under acid conditions with the assistance of  certain
inorganic catalysts.

When  an  industrial  wastewater  contains  substances  which  tend to
inhibit biological degradation of the carbonaceous substrate, such  as
wood  preserving  wastewaters,  COD  is  a  more reliable indicator of
organic pollutant strength than is BODS..

The  COD  test  measures  those  pollutants  resistant  to  biological
oxidation  in  addition  to the one measured by the BOD5. test.  COD is
therefore a more inclusive measure of oxygen demand than is  BOD£  and
results in higher oxygen demand values than the BODI3 test.      ~"

The  compounds  which  are  more resistant to biological oxidation are
becoming of greater and greater concern, not  only  because  of  their
slow  but  continuing  oxygen demand on the resources of the receiving
water, but also because of their potential health effects  on  aquatic
and  human  life.   Many  of  these  compounds have been found to have
carcinogenic, mutagenic, and similar adverse effects, either singly or
in combination.  Concern about these  compounds  has  increased  as  a
result of demonstrations that their long life in receiving waters—the
result of a slow biochemical oxidation rate-allows them to contaminate
downstream   water  intakes.   The  commonly  used  systems  of  water
purification are not effective in removing these types  of  materials,
and  disinfection  (such  as  chlorination) may convert them into even
more hazardous materials.

Oil and grease contamination from preservative solutions, as  well  as
organic  material leached from the wood raw material contribute to the
relatively high COD  content  common  to  wastewaters  from  the  wood
preserving segment.
                                 139

-------
Oil and Grease

Oil  is a constituent of both creosote and pentachlorophenol petroleum
solutions which occurs in either a free or an emulsified form in  wood
preserving  wastewaters.   Concentrations  ranging  from less than 100
mg/liter to well over 1000  mg/liter  are  common  after  primary  oil
separation.   Many  of  the  toxic pollutants found in wood preserving
wastewaters, such as pentachlorophenol and polynuclear aromatics,  are
much  more  soluble  in  the  oil phase than in the water phase of the
waste  stream.   Oil  and  grease  contamination  in  the  wastewater,
therefore,  serves as a carrier of these toxic pollutants.  The key to
satisfactory control of toxic  and  conventional  pollutants  in  wood
preserving  wastewaters  is the removal of as much free and emulsified
oil and grease as possible.

Although oil and grease is itself a conventional pollutant, it  is  an
effective   indicator   of   toxic  pollutant  contamination  in  wood
preserving wastewaters.  Data from recent sampling  programs  indicate
that  removal  of  oil  and  grease  from  indirect  discharging  wood
preserving plants to levels below 100 mg/1 will result in  control  of
PCP  to  levels  consistent  with  this compound's solubility in water
(approximately 15 mg/1) and will result  in  control  of  total  toxic
pollutant PNA's to approximately one milligram per liter.

Aside from the fact that oil and grease in wood preserving wastewaters
serves as a carrier for toxic pollutants, the compounds which comprise
the  oil  and grease phase can settle or float in receiving waters and
may exist as solids or liquids.  Even  in  small  quantities  oil  and
grease  cause  troublesome taste and odor problems.  They produce scum
lines  on  water  treatment  basin  walls  and  other  containers  and
adversely affect fish and water fowl.  Oil emulsions may adhere to the
gills  of  fish,  causing suffocation, and may taint the flesh of fish
microorganisms that were exposed to waste oil.  Oil  deposits  in  the
bottom  sediments of water can serve to inhibit normal benthic growth.
Oil and grease exhibit an oxygen demand.

Oil and grease levels  which  are  toxic  to  aquatic  organisms  vary
greatly,   depending   on  the  type  of  pollutant  and  the  species
susceptibility.  In  addition,  the  presence  of  oil   in  water  can
increase   the  toxicity  of  other  substances  discharged  into  the
receiving bodies of water.

Total Suspended Solids  (TSS)

Suspended solids may include both  organic  and  inorganic  materials.
The  inorganic compounds may include sand, silt, clay and precipitated
metals.  The organic fraction  may  include  such  materials  as  wood
fibers and unsettled biomass from biological treatment systems.
                                  140

-------
These  solids  may  settle out rapidly and bottom deposits are often a
mixture of both organic and inorganic solids.  Solids may be suspended
in water for a time and then settle to the bed of the stream or  lake.
They   may  be  inert,  slowly  biodegradable  materials,  or  rapidly
decomposable  substances.   While  in  suspension  they  increase  the
turbidity  of  the  water,  reduce  light  penetration, and impair the
photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.

Suspended solids may kill  fish  and  shellfish  by  causing  abrasive
injuries,  by  clogging  gills  and respiratory passages screening out
light, and by promoting and maintaining  the  development  of  noxious
conditions through oxygen depletion.  Suspended solids also reduce the
recreational value of the water.

Total  suspended  solids  are a significant pollutant parameter in the
insulation  board  and  hardboard  segment  of  the   industry.    Raw
wastewaters  from this segment contain high amounts of wood fibers and
solids which are not retained in the wet-lap or on the forming screen.
Additionally, a significant amount of biological suspended  solids  is
generated  in  the  large  biological treatment systems common to this
segment.

EH

Although not a specific pollutant, pH is related  to  the  acidity  or
alkalinity  of  a  wastewater  stream.   It  is not a linear or direct
measure of either; however, it may properly be used  to  control  both
excess  acidity and excess alkalinity in water.  The term pH describes
the hydrogen ion-hydroxyl ion balance in water.   Technically,  pH  is
the  hydrogen  ion  concentration  or  activity  present  in  a  given
solution.  pH numbers are the negative logarithm of the  hydrogen  ion
concentration.   A pH of 7 generally indicates neutrality or a balance
between free hydrogen and free hydroxyl ions.   Solutions  with  a  pH
above  7  indicate  that  the solution is alkaline, while a pH below 7
indicates that the solution is acidic.

Knowledge of the  pH  of  water  or  wastewater  aids  in  determining
measures  necessary  for  corrosion  control,  pollution  control, and
disinfection.   Waters  with  a  pH  below  6.0   corrode   waterworks
structures, distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures.  This
corrosion can add such constituents to drinking water as iron, copper,
zinc,  cadmium,  and  lead.   Low  pH waters not only tend to dissolve
metals from structures and fixtures but also  tend  to  redissolve  or
leach  metals  from  sludges  and  bottom sediments.  The hydrogen ion
concentration also can affect the taste of water; at a low  pH,  water
tastes  "sour."  Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can stress or kill
aquatic life.  Even moderate changes from "acceptable" pH  limits  can
harm  some  species.   Changes  in  water  pH  increase  the  relative
                                 141

-------
toxicity2 to aquatic life of many materials.   Metalocyanide  complexes
can  increase a thousand-fold in toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units.
The  toxicity  of  ammonia  similarly  is  a  function  of  pH.    The
bactericidal  effect  of  chlorine  in  most  cases  lessens as the pH
increases, and it is economically advantageous to keet the pH close to
7.

The lacrimal fluid of the human eye has a pH of approximately 7.0  and
a  deviation of 0.1 pH unit from the norm may result in eye irritation
for the swimmer.  Appreciable irritation will cause severe pain.

Problems of hydrogen sulfide gas  evolution  and  "bulking"  of  mixed
liquor  in  biological treatment systems may occur if pH of wastewater
drops below 6.0.  On the other hand, unusually high pH  (for  instance
11.0)  can  cause  significant  loss  of  active biomass in biological
treatment systems, especially activated sludge.

TOXIC POLLUTANTS

The  124  toxic  pollutants  are  divided  into  three  major  groups:
organics,  pesticides  and  PCB's,  and  inorganics.  Toxic pollutants
detected in timber industry wastewaters are discussed below  according
to  the  major  groups within which they fall.  Table VI-1 illustrates
the type of information requested from the industry plants.

Organic Toxic Pollutants

Several of the organic toxic pollutants appeared  in  timber  industry
wastewaters at concentration ranges of 10 ppb or higher.  The organics
discussed  below  are  classified  by the physical-chemical properties
which permit GC/MS analysis of these  materials.   The  organic  toxic
pollutants  include  compounds  in  a  volatile  fraction,  a basic or
neutral extractive fraction, and an acidic extractive fraction.

Volatile Fraction

Six volatile organic pollutants  were  found  at  least  once   in  the
sampled  effluents.  Of these six, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and
trichloromethane  appeared  most  frequently  and  in   concentrations
ranging  up  to  140  ppb,  but generally less than 80 ppb.  Methylene
chloride was detected in most samples,  including  blanks,  at  levels
between 50 and 100 ppb.  since this compound was used as an extractant
in  the analytical protocol, its presence in these samples is strongly
2The term toxic or toxicity is used herein in  the  normal  scientific
sense of the word, not the legal.
                                 142

-------
suspected to be due to trace contamination of the air by  this  highly
volatile  compound.   All  of  the  volatile  organics detected in the
timber industry wastewaters are common industry solvents.

Benzene was detected in raw  wood  preserving  wastewaters  at  levels
greater  than  100  ppb.  In treated effluents, benzene levels did not
exceed 70 ppb in either wood preserving or insulation  board/hardboard
wastewaters.

The  EPA  recommended  water  quality  criterion to protect freshwater
aquatic life from the toxic effects of benzene is 3100 ug/1  as  a  24
hour  average,  and  the  concentration should never exceed 7000 ug/1.
For saltwater aquatic life the 24 hour average and maximum permissible
concentrations are 920 ug/1 and 2100 ug/1, respectively.

Benzene is suspected  of  being  a  human  carcinogen.   Studies,  for
example,  of  the  effect  of  benzene  vapors  on  humans  indicate a
relationship between chronic benzene poisoning and a high incidence of
leukemia.  As there is no recognized safe concentration  for  a  human
carcinogen,  for  the  maximum  protection  of  human  health from the
potential carcinogenic effect of benezene exposure  through  ingestion
of  water  and contaminated aquatic organisms, the recommended ambient
water concentration is zero.

Toluene,  a  common  industry  solvent,  was  detected  in  some  wood
preserving wastewaters at levels above 100 ppb.  In treated effluents,
toluene levels exceeded 100 ppb (140 ppb) in only one instance.

A  study  using  mice  showed that toluene is a central nervous system
depressant that can cause  behavioral  changes  as  well  as  loss  of
consciousness  and  death  at  high concentrations.  Human exposure to
toluene for a 2-year period has led to cerebellar disease and impaired
liver function.  The recommended water quality  criterion  to  protect
fresh  water  aquatic  life  is  2300  ug/1  as a 24 hour average; the
concentration should not exceed 5200 ug/1 at any time.   The  24  hour
average  and  maximum concentrations to protect saltwater aquatic life
are 100 ug/1 and 230 ug/1 respectively.

Ethylbenzene, another common industrial solvent, was detected  in  raw
wood preserving wastewaters at levels above 100 ppb.  Ethylbenzene was
detected in only two treated effluents, one wood preserving plant, and
one  hardboard plant; in both instances the compound was present at 20
ppb.

Exposure to ethylbenzene has  been  shown  to  adversely  affect  both
aquatic  and human life.  The compound can affect fish by direct toxic
action and by imparting a tast to fish flesh,  for the  protection  of
human  health  from  the  toxic  properties  of  ethylbenzene ingested
                                 143

-------
through water, the recommended ambient water quality criterion is 1100
ug/1.

Trichloromethane was detected at levels below 100 ppb in  several  raw
wastewaters  and  in four treated effluents at concentrations below 20
ppb.

Trichloromethane, commonly known as chloroform,  is a general  solvent,
refrigerant,  and  cleaning  agent, and it is registered for pesticide
use on cattle.  Lab tests show chloroform to be toxic to organisms  at
various levels of the food chain; in higher organisms it exhibits both
temporary   and   lasting  effects.   Several  studies  indicate  that
chloroform is carcinogenic  to  rats  and  mice.   Human  exposure  to
chloroform  can  lead  to  liver damage, hepatic and renal damage, and
depression of the central nervous system.

The recommended 24 hour average and maximum concentrations to  protect
freshwater  aquatic  life  from the toxic effect of chloroform are 500
ug/1 and 1200  ug/1,  respectively.   The  recommended  water  quality
criterion  to  protect saltwater aquatic life is 620 ug/1 as a 24 hour
average, with a maximum concentration of 1400 ug/1.  For  the  maximum
protection  of human health from the potential carcinogenic effects of
exposure to chloroform, the recommended ambient water concentration is
zero.

1,1,2-trichloroethane is the  only  other  volatile  organic  compound
detected  in  timber  products  treated  effluents.   It  is used as a
cleaning solvent for electrical equipment, and  was  detected  in  the
treated effluent at only one plant at 90 ppb.

Basic Neutral Fraction

Basic  neutral  fraction  pollutants  were  found  only  in  the  wood
preserving segment of the timber products industry.   The  polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon (PNA's), which are trace constituents of creosote
and  coal  tar  solutions  used  as  wood preservatives, were found at
levels as high as 50 mg/1 in raw wastewaters, and up to  1.5  mg/1  in
treated effluents.

As previously discussed PNA's are highly soluble in oil and relatively
insoluble  in  water.   Data presented in Section VII of this document
demonstrate that oil and grease serve as a carrier or indicator of PNA
contamination in wastewater, that control of oil and grease is the key
to control of PNA's and that removal of oil and grease to levels below
10 mg/1 will result in total PNA concentrations of about 1 mg/1.

On the basis of present studies, the evidence  is  not  clear  whether
individual  polynuclear  aromatics produce toxicity or carcinogenicity
in man; however, coal tars, creosote and other materials known  to  be
                                 144

-------
                                              TABLE  VI-1

                                   TOXIC CHEMICAL  INFORMATION


For each toxic chemical check on list, and for each wood preservative, fire retardant, fungicide, or mildewcide used
in plant, complete the following form:
1.   Name of Chemical  	
    Is this a (check one):

     	 Wood Preservative                          	Other

     	 Fire Retardant

     	 Fungicide

     	 Mildewcide


2.   Quantity and frequency of use
                       per
           amount             period

3.  Process or operation in which substance is used or generated.
4.  Is substance discharged from plant?    	Yes  	No  	Don't Know

    If yes, is it:   	 Air    	 Water    	  Solid Waste

    If water, is it: 	 Direct Discharge          	  To POTW


5.  Quantity and frequency of substance discharged:
                      Amount                        Period
                (in units, Ibs, tons etc.)            per (day, year, etc.)
    Gas


    Liquid


    Solid Waste
6.  Description of sampling or monitoring program.

    Does your plant sample or monitor for substance?

        	  Yes     	  No

    If yes, give details.	
                                                 145

-------
carcinogenic  to  man contain many of the PNA's that produce cancer in
animals.

The effects of naphthalene poisoning  on  humans  have  been  studied.
Naphthalene  poisoning  can  cause  convulsions and hematolic changes.
Reports  also  indicate  that  workers  exposed  to  naphthalene   for
extensive periods of time are likely to develop malignant tumors.

Naphthalene  bioconcentrates  in  aquatic  organisms  and  reduces  or
interferes with microbial  growth.   It  also  reduces  photosynthetic
rates  in  algae.  Naphthalene accumulates in sediments by a factor as
great as up to two in the concentration in overlying water and can  be
degraded by microorganisms to 1,2-dehydro-l,2-dihydroxynaphthalene and
ultimately to carbon dioxide and water.

A combination of fluoranthene and benz(a) pyrene produced tumors in 98
percent  of  the mice tested, which was more than double the number of
tumors produced in the benz(a) pyrene control animals.

For fluoranthene the water quality  criterion  to  protect  freshwater
aquatic  life  is 250 ug/1 as a 24 hour average, and the concentration
should not exceed 560 ug/1 at any  time.   The  24  hour  average  and
maximum concentrations to protect saltwater aquatic life are 0.30 ug/1
and  0.69 ug/1, respectively.  For the protection of human health from
the toxic properties  of  fluoranthene  exposure  through  water,  the
ambient   water   qualtiy   criterion  should  equal  200  ug/1.   For
acenaphthene the criterion should equal 200  ug/1.   For  acenaphthene
the  criterion  to protect freshwater aquatic life is 110 ug/1 and 240
ug/1 as 24 hour average and maximum concentrations, respectively.  For
saltwater aquatic life the 24 hour average and maximum  concentrations
are  7.5  ug/1 and 17 ug/1, respectively.  The ambient water criterion
for the protection of human health is 20 ug/1.  For the protection  of
human health from the toxic properties of naphthalene ingested through
contaminated  aquatic  organisms  and  water,  the recommended ambient
water criterion is 143 ug/1.

Acidic  (Phenolic) Fraction

Among the compounds which comprise the acidic extractive  fraction  of
the  organic toxic pollutants, phenols, defined as hydroxy derivatives
of benzene  and  its  condensed  nuclei,  as  well  as  a  variety  of
substituted phenols, were detected in timber products wastewaters.

In the  insulation board and hardboard segment, the only acidic organic
compound  detected  was  phenol itself.  This compound was detected at
levels up to 680 ppb in raw wastewaters.  Only three plants  exhibited
the  presence  of  phenol, at levels less than 40 ppb, in biologically
treated effluents.  Since no feasible  technology  exists  to  further
reduce  these  low  levels detected in the treated effluents from this
                                 146

-------
segment,  phenol  is  not  considered   a   pollutant   parameter   of
significance for insulation board/hardboard plants.

Phenol  itself  was  detected  in  raw  wood preserving wastewaters in
concentrations as  high  as  87  mg/1.   No  phenol  was  detected  in
biologically  treated effluents.  One plant, which treats with primary
and secondary oil removal, exhibited a  phenol  concentration  in  its
treated  effluent of 26 ppb.  Due to the fact that the compound phenol
appears to be easily removed in conventional treatment systems to very
low levels, this compound is not considered as a significant pollutant
parameter for the wood preserving segment.

The toxicity of phenol towards fish increases as  a  dissolved  oxygen
level is diminished, as the temperature is raised, and as the hardness
is  lessened.   Phenol  appears  to act as a nerve poison, causing too
much blood to get to the gills and to the heart cavity.

The human ingestion of  a  concentrated  phenol  solution  results  in
severe pain, renal irritation, shock, and possibly death.

Various environmental conditions will increase the toxicity of phenol.
Lower   dissolved   oxygen  concentrations,  increased  salinity,  and
increased  temperature  all  enhance  the  toxicity  of  phenol.   The
recommended water quality criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life
is  600  ug/1  as a 24 hour average, and the concentrations should not
exceed 3400 ug/1 at any time.

Toxic pollutant substituted phenols were detected  only  in  the  wood
preserving  segment.   2,4  dimethyl  phenol  was  found  in  the  raw
wastewater at three plants at levels ranging from 10 ug/1 to 6.6 mg/1.
2,4,6 trichlorophenol was detected in the raw wastewater of one  plant
at 18 ug/1.

PCP,  as it was found at relatively high levels in the raw and treated
effluents of all plants using PCP as  a  preservative,  is  the  major
substituted  phenolic  compound of significance in the wood preserving
industry.

Pentachlorophenol (PCP), a major wood preserving chemical,  was  found
in raw wastewaters at 14 plants in concentrations between 0.09 and 306
mg/1.   Several  bioassays have shown that pentachlorophenol is lethal
to various species of aquatic life at a concentration of approximately
200 ug/1.  The lethal concentration for species tested ranged from 195
ug/1 for the brown  shrimp  to  220  ug/1  for  the  gold  fish.   The
recommended  24  hour  average  and  maximum concentrations to protect
freshwater aquatic life are 6.2 ug/1 and 14  ug/1,  respectively.   To
protect  saltwater  aquatic  life the 24 hour average concentration is
recommended  to  not  exceed  3.7  ug/1;  at  no   time   should   the
pentachlorophenol concentration exceed 8.
                                 147

-------
A  study  of  genetic  activity  demonstrated  that  pentachlorophenol
exhibited weak but definite mutagenic activity.  In  nonhuman  mammals
the   sublethal   effects   of   pentachlorophenol  poisoning  include
pathological and histopathological  changes  in  the  kidneys,  liver,
spleen,  lungs,  and  brain.   For  the protection of human health the
ambient water concentration should be no greater than 140 ug/1.

Pentachlorophenol  is  highly  persistent  in  soils.   Reports   have
indicated  that  the compound can persist in moist soil for at least a
12 month period.

Dimethyl phenol was not detected  in  treated  effluents.   One  plant
exhibited  a  2,4,6  trichlorophenol concentration of 140 ug/1,  and 14
plants had  between  0.06  and  134  mg/1  of  PCP  in  their  treated
effluents.

Since   no  treated  effluents  exhibited  2,4 drmethyl  phenol,  this
parameter is not considered to be a  significant  pollutant  parameter
for    the    wood    preserving    segment.     The    presence    of
2,4,6 trichlorophenol is suspected because this chemical  is  a  trace
contaminant  in commercial PCP solutions.  Since 2,4,6 trichlorophenol
was present at only one plant, and this plant had  PCP  concentrations
several  orders  of  magnitude  higher,  2,4,6 trichlorophenol  is not
considered to be a  significant  pollutant  for  the  wood  preserving
segment.

In  a  study of genetic activity using an iji vitro mammalian spot test
with mice, 2,4,6 trichlorophenol exhibited  definite,  although  weak,
mutagenic  activity.   The  recommended  24  hour  average and maximum
concentrations to protect freshwater aquatic life are 52 ug/1 and  150
ug/1,  respectively.   To protect human health from adverse effects of
2,4,6 trichlorophenol, the recommended criterion is 100 ug/1.

2,4 dimethylphenol has also been  shown  to  have  a  tumor  promoting
action  in  mice.11 For 2,4 dimethyl phenol, the recommended criterion
to protect freshwater aquatic life is 38 ug/1 as a 24 hour average the
concentration should never exceed 86 ug/1.

Pesticides and PCS's

No pesticides or PCB's were detected in raw or treated wastewaters  in
the  timber  products  industry above the general detection limit of  1
ppb.

Inorganics

Copper, chromium, arsenic, and zinc  are  inorganic  toxic  pollutants
which  are  commonly  used  in various formulations as water borne wood
preservat i ves.
                                 148

-------
Process wastewater generated during treatment or wood  with  inorganic
salts may contain concentrations as high as several parts per thousand
of  these  metals.   It  is common practice in the industry to recycle
wastewater from inorganic salt treating operations for dilution  water
of future treating solutions.  Wastewater from plants which treat with
both  organic and inorganic preservatives may contain "fugitive" heavy
metals due to cross-contamination.  The concentrations  of  "fugitive"
metals  range  from  about<0.1 to 5 mg/1, and are commonly less than 1
mg/1 for each metal.

Additionally, copper and zinc may be leached into the wastewater  from
wood  preserving  and insulation board/hardboard plants from corrosion
of the metal piping and process fixtures in the plant.  This corrosion
is accelerated by  the  low  pH  of  the  wastewater.   Concentrations
generally  less  than 1 mg/1 can be expected for metals present due to
corrosion.

Concentrations  of  metals  in  insulation   board/hardboard   segment
wastewaters  are  due primarily to leaching of metals during corrosion
of plant equipment and have not been found to exceed  1  mg/1.   Heavy
metals  are  not  considered  to  be  a significant pollutant for this
segment.

Chromium in its various valence states is hazardous to  man.   It  can
produce  lung  tumors  when  inhaled  and induces skin sensitizations.
Large doses of chromates have  corrosive  effects  on  the  intestinal
tract  and  can cause inflammation of the kidneys.  Levels of chromate
ions that have no effect on man appear to be so  low  as  to  prohibit
determination  to  date.   The  toxicity of chromium salts to fish and
other aquatic life varies widely with the  species,  temperature,  pH,
valence  of  the  chromium,  and  synergistic or antagonistic effects,
especially those of hard water.  Studies show that trivalent  chromium
is  more  toxic  to  fish  of  some types than is hexavalent chromium.
Other studies show opposite effects.  Fish food  organisms  and  other
lower  forms  of  aquatic life are extremely sensitive to chromium; it
also inhibits the growth of algae.   Therefore,  both  hexavalent  and
trivalent   chromium   must   be  considered  potentially  harmful  to
particular fish or organisms.

Fish appear to be relatively tolerant of chromium,  but  some  aquatic
invertebrates  are  quite  sensitive.   Toxicity  varies with species,
chromium oxidation state, and pH.

Chromium concentration factors in marine organisms have been  reported
to   be  1600  in  benthic  algae,  2300  in  phytoplankton,  1900  in
zooplankton, and 440 in molluscan soft parts.

The chemistry of chromium is very complex, especially in untreated raw
wastewaters where interferences from  complexing  mechanisms  such  as
                                 149

-------
chelation  by  organic  matter  and  dissolution  due  to  presence of
carbonates can cause deviation from predicted  behavior  in  treatment
systems.   Disposal of sludges containing very high trivalent chromium
concentrations  can  potentially  cause   problems   in   uncontrolled
landfills.   Incineration,  or similar destructive oxidation processes
can produce hexavalent chromium, which in  turn  is  potentially  more
toxic  than  trivalent cheomium under certain circumstances.  In other
cases where high rates of chrome sludge application are used, distinct
growth inhibition and plant tissue uptake have been noted.  Therefore,
the use of agricultural land for wood preserving plant or POTW  sludge
disposal should not be generally adopted in light of the potential for
long-term accumulation and toxicity in soils and plant tissue.

The  toxicity of copper to aquatic life is dependent on the alkalinity
of the water, as the copper ion is complexed by anions present,  which
in turn affect toxicity.  At lower alkalinity copper is generally more
toxic  to  aquatic life.  Other factors affecting toxicity include pH,
organic  compounds,  and  the   species   tested.    Relatively   high
concentrations  of  copper  may  be  tolerated by adult fish for short
periods of time; the critical effect  of  copper  appears  to  be  its
higher toxicity to young or juvenile fish.

In  most natural fresh waters in the U.S., copper concentrations below
0.025 mg/1 as copper evidently are not rapidly fatal for  most  common
fish  species.   In acute tests copper sulfate in soft water was toxic
to rainbow trout at 0.06 mg/1 copper.  In very hard  water  the  toxic
concentration  was 0.6 mg/1 copper.  In general the salmonids are very
sensitive and the sunfishes are less sensitive to copper.

Copper appears in all soils, and its concentration ranges from  10  to
80 ppm.  In soils, copper occurs in association with hydrous oxides of
manganese  and  iron  and also as soluble and insoluble complexes with
organic matter.  Keeney and Walsh (1975) found  that  the  extractable
copper  content  of  sludge-treated  soil  decreased  with time, which
suggests a reversion of copper to less soluble forms.

Copper is essential to the growth of plants, and the normal  range  of
concentrations   in  plant  tissue  is  from  5  to  20  ppm.   Copper
concentrations in plants normally do not build up to high levels  when
toxicity  occurs.   For  example,  the  concentrations  of  copper  in
snapbean leaves and pods was less than 50 and  20  ppm,  respectively,
under  conditions of severe copper toxicity.  Even under conditions of
copper toxicity, most  of  the  excess  copper  accumulates  in  plant
tissues.   Copper  toxicity  may develop in plants from application of
sewage sludge  if  the  concentration  of  copper  in  the  sludge  is
relatively high.
                                  150

-------
The  recommended  criterion  to protect saltwater aquatic life is 0.79
ug/1 and 18 ug/1  as  24  hour  average  and  maximum  concentrations,
respectively.

Toxic  concentrations  of  zinc compounds cause adverse changes in the
morphology and  physiology  of  fish.   Acutely  toxic  concentrations
induce  cellular  breakdown of the gills, and possibly the clogging of
the gills with  mucous.   Chronically  toxic  concentrations  of  zinc
compounds,  in  contrast,  cause  general  enfeeblement and widespread
histological changes to many organs, but not  to  gills.   Growth  and
maturation  are retarded.  In general, salmonids are most sensitive to
elemental zinc in soft water; the rainbow trout is the most  sensitive
in  hard  waters.   In  tests  with several heavy metals, the immature
aquatic insects seem to be  less  sensitive  than  many  tested  fish.
Although available data is sparse on the effects of zinc in the marine
environment,  zinc  accumulates  in  some  species, and marine animals
contain zinc in the range of 6 to 1500 mg/kg.  Toxicities of  zinc  in
nutrient solutions have been demonstrated for a number of plants.

Arsenic,  usually considered a non-essential element, is ubiquitous in
the environment and found in all plants  and  animals.   It  has  been
shown  to be mutagenic to bacteria and carcinogenic and teratogenic to
mammals under laboratory conditions.  Epidemiological data indicate  a
causal  relationship  between skin and lung cancers and heavy exposure
to inorganic arsenic compounds.  Acute and chronic exposure of  humans
to  toxic  quantities  of  arsenic  may  lead  to a variety of adverse
physiological reactions and possibly death.  This wide range of  toxic
effects  plus  the  mobility  and  ubiquitousness  of  arsenic  in the
environment form the basis for environmental concern.

Arsenic is toxic to a wide variety of organisms  including  both  land
and  aquatic  species.   The  degree  of toxicity encountered may vary
depending on the compound and the species.  In bacterial and mammalian
species, arsenite appears to be more toxic than arsenate  and  organic
arsenicals  less  toxic  than  the  inorganics.   Not  enough  data is
available  to  establish  this  hierarchy  in  aquatic  species.   The
trivalent  forms  appear to exert their toxic effects by reacting with
sulfhydryl groups of vital cellular  enzymes.   The  pentavalent  form
appears  to  interfere  with  phosphorylation  reactions which in turn
block energy requiring bioenergetic processes.  Little is known  about
how  the  organic  arsenicals  exert  their  toxicity, but it has been
suggested that these forms may be metabolized to trivalent arsenoxides
which in turn interfere with sulfhydryl groups.

A primary interim drinking water standard  of  50  ug/1  for  domestic
supplies  and 100 ug/1 for irrigation purposes has been promulgated by
EPA.
                                 151

-------
                             SECTION VII

                   CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
This section presents a discussion of the range of wastewater  control
and  treatment  technology  currently in use and available to the wood
preserving, insulation board, and hardboard  segments  of  the  timber
products processing industry.  In-plant pollution control is discussed
as well as end-of-pipe treatment.

Performance  data  for  plants in each industry segment are presented,
and also the technology readily transferred from  related  industries.
For  the  purpose of cost analysis, one or more candidate technologies
are selected for  each  subcategory.   For  each  technology,  treated
effluent pollutant concentrations are reported for traditional as well
as toxic pollutants.

It  should  be  noted that there are many possible combinations of in-
plant and end-of-pipe  systems  capable  of  attaining  the  pollutant
reductions  reported  for the candidate technologies.  The performance
levels reported for the candidate  treatment  technologies  are  based
upon  demonstrated  performance of similar systems within the industry
or upon well documented results of  readily  transferable  technology.
These performance levels can be achieved within the industry using the
model  treatment  systems proposed.  The model treatment systems serve
as a basis for  a  conservative  economic  analysis  of  the  cost  of
achieving  the  effluent  levels  reported for the candidate treatment
technologies.  Each individual plant  must  make  the  final  decision
concerning  the  specific  combination  of  pollution control measures
which are best suited to its particular situation, and  should  do  so
only  after  a  careful  study  of the treatability of its wastewater,
including waste characterization and pilot plant investigations.

Pollution  abatement  and  control  technologies  applicable  to   the
industry  as  a  whole  were  discussed  in  earlier Agency documents.
Summarized versions, which included  updated  information  on  current
industry  practice,  were  presented  in supplemental studies for wood
preserving and hardboard production.   The  portion  of  the  previous
studies   which   detailed   in-plant   process  changes,  waste  flow
management,  and  other  measures  having  the  potential  to   reduce
discharge  volume  or  improve  effluent  quality are repeated in this
document  for  the  purpose  of  continuity.   Additional  information
available  from  the  data  collection  portfolios  and/or the current
                                 153

-------
verification sampling program is included in order to present the most
recent information.

Various treatment technologies that are either currently employed,  or
which  may  be  readily transferred to the industry, are summarized in
this section.  Included in this section are descriptions of  exemplary
plants  and,  where  available,  wastewater  treatment  data for these
exemplary plants.  This description is  followed  by  a  selection  of
several treatment regimes applicable to each subcategory.

WOOD PRESERVING

jjn-Plant Control Measures

Reduction in Wastewater Volume—The characteristics of wood preserving
wastewater  differ among plants that practice open, modified-closed or
closed steaming.  In  the  modified  closed  steaming  process,  steam
condensate  is allowed to accumulate in the retort during the steaming
operation until it covers the heating coils.  At  that  point,  direct
steaming is stopped and the remaining steam needed is generated within
the  retort  by  utilizing  the heating coils.  Upon completion of the
steaming cycle and after recovery of oils, the water in  the  cylinder
is  discarded.   In  closed steaming, after recovery of free oils, the
water in the retort at the end of a steaming cycle is  returned  to  a
reservoir and is reused instead of being discarded.

The   principal   advantage  of  modified-closed  steaming  over  open
steaming, aside from reducing the volume of wastewater released  by  a
plant,  is  that effluents from the retorts are less likely to contain
emulsified oils.  Free oils are readily separated from the wastewater;
and, as a result of the reduction in oil content,  the  oxygen  demand
and the solids content of the waste are reduced significantly relative
to  effluents  from  plants using conventional open steaming.  Typical
oil and COD values for wastewater from a single plant before and after
the plant commenced modified closed steaming are shown in Figures VII-
1 and VI1-2, respectively.  The COD of the wastewater was  reduced  by
about  two-thirds  when  modified  closed steaming was initiated.  Oil
content was reduced by a factor of ten.

Water used  in closed-steaming operations increases in  oxygen  demand,
solids  content,  and  phenol concentration with each reuse.  The high
oxygen demand is attributable primarily to wood extracts,  principally
simple  sugars,  the concentration of which increases with each use of
the water.  Because practically all of the solids content of the waste
is dissolved solids, only insignificant reductions  in  oxygen  demand
and   improvement   in   color   result   from   treatments  involving
flocculation.  The progressive changes in  the  parameters  for  water
used  in  a closed steaming operation are shown in Table VII-1.  It is
                                 154

-------
 o>
 E
1
o
o
-4
6
                     Avg.  oil content
                     before closed
                     steaming-1360mg/l
                        Avg.  oil content
                        after  closed
                        steaming-136mg/l
                         8        12        16

                           TIME (WEEKS)
                                       20
Figure Vli-l
Variation in oil content of effluent with  time before and after
initiating closed steaming  (Thompson and Dust,1371)
                                 155

-------
0
1
10
1
20
i
30
i
40
i
50
i
60
"VYf-
1
120
i
130
                              TIME  (Days)
Figure Vil -2 Variation in COO  of effluent with time before and after closed
           steaming: Days 0-35 open steaming; Days 35-130 closed steaming
           (Thompson and Dust, 1971)
                                   156

-------
apparent that in time a blowdown of the steaming  water  is  necessary
because of the buildup of dissolved materials.

The  technical  feasibility of converting a wood preserving plant from
open steaming to modified or closed steaming has been demonstrated  by
many  plants  within  the  past five years.  The decision to convert a
plant is an economic and  product  quality  decision  related  to  the
reduced  cost  of  subsequent  end-of-pipe  treatment of the resulting
smaller volume of wastewater generated by a converted plant,  and  the
marketability of the plant's production.

Table VII-1.  Progressive Changes in Selected Characteristics of Water
Recycled in Closed Steaming Operations
(mg/liter )
Charge No.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
12
13
14
20
Phenol
46
169
200
215
231
254
315
208
230
223
323
COD
15,516
22,208
22,412
49,552
54,824
75,856
99,992
129,914
121,367
110,541
123,429
Solids
10,156
17,956
22,204
37,668
66,284
66,968
67,604
99,276
104,960
92,092
114,924
Dissolved
Solids
8,176
15,176
20,676
31,832
37,048
40,424
41,608
91,848
101,676
91,028
88,796
SOURCE:  Mississippi State Forest Products Laboratory, 1970.


Using  the  historical wastewater flow data presented in Section V, an
average  two-retort  open  steaming  plant  can  reduce  its   process
wastewater  flow from over 41,600 liters/day (11,000 gpd) to less than
11,400 liters/day (3,000 gpd).  Neither figure includes rainwater.

Other possible methods of reducing discharge volume are through  reuse
of  cooling  and  process  water  and  segregation  of  waste streams.
Recycling of cooling water at plants that employ barometric condensers
is essential because it is not  economically  feasible  to  treat  the
large volume of contaminated water generated when a single-pass system
is  used.   This  fact has been recognized by the industry, and within
                                 157

-------
the past five years there has  been  a  significant  increase  in  the
percentage of plants recycling barometric cooling water.

As  an  alternative solution to the problem associated with the use of
barometric  condensers,  many  plants  have   installed   surface-type
condensers as replacement equipment.

Reuse of process water is not widely practiced in the industry.  There
are,  however,  noteworthy exceptions to this generalization.  Process
wastewater from salt-type treatments is so widely used as makeup water
for treating solutions that the  practice  is  now  considered  common
practice.   One  hundred  sixty of 184 plants treating with salts that
were questioned in 1974 indicated that no discharge of direct  process
wastewater   has   been   achieved  through  a  combination  of  water
conservation measures, including recycling.

Several plants which treat with organic  preservatives  reuse  treated
wastewater  for boiler make-up or cooling water.  Due to the nature of
contamination present in wood preserving wastewater, a high degree  of
treatment is required prior to reuse of wastewater for these purposes.

One  of  the  main  sources of uncontaminated water at wood preserving
plants is steam coil condensate.  While in the  past  this  water  was
frequently  allowed  to  mix  with process wastewater, most plants now
segregate it, thus reducing the total volume of  polluted  water,  and
some  reuse  coil  condensate  for  boiler  feed  water.   This latter
practice became feasible with  the  development  of  turbidity-sensing
equipment  to  monitor the water and sound a warning if oil enters the
coil condensate return system.  Reuse of  coil  condensate,  while  of
some  consequence  from  a  pollution standpoint, can also represent a
significant energy saving to a plant.

End-of-Pipe Treatment

Primary Treatment—Primary treatment is defined in  this  document  as
treatment  applied  to the wastewater prior to biological treatment or
its equivalent.

OJjL-Water Separation—Because of the deleterious effects that  oil  has
on  all  subsequent steps in wastewater treatment, efficient oil-water
separation is necessary for effective treatment in the wood preserving
industry.  Oil, whether free or in an emulsified form, accounts for  a
significant part of the oxygen demand of wood preserving effluents and
serves as a carrier for concentrations of the toxic pollutants such as
PNA's   and   pentachlorophenol   that  far  exceed  their  respective
solubilities  in oil-free water.  In a real sense, control of   oils  is
the key to wastewater management in the wood preserving industry.
                                  158

-------
Oil-water separators of the API type are extensively used by wood pre-
serving  plants and are the equipment of choice to impart the "primary
oil separation" referred to in the proposed  treatment  regimes  which
follow.   It  is  preceded  and followed at many plants by a rough oil
separation and a  second  oil  separation  stage,  respectively.   The
former operation occurs either in the blowdown tank or in a surge tank
preceding  the  API separator.  Secondary separation usually occurs in
another API separator operated in series with the first, or it may  be
conducted  in  any  vessel  or  lagoon  where  the  detention  time is
sufficient to permit further separation  of  free  oil.   Primary  oil
separation,  as  used  in  this  document,  refers  to  a system which
contains rough oil separation in a blowdown tank followed  by  a  two-
stage gravity separator.

The  oil  content  of  wastewater entering the blowdown tank may be as
high as 10 percent, with 1 to 5 percent being  a  more  normal  range.
Depending  on  the efficiency of rough separation, the influent to the
primary separator will have a free oil content ranging from less  than
200  mg/1  to several thousand mg/1.  Removal efficiencies of 60 to 95
percent can be achieved, but the  results  obtained  are  affected  by
temperature,  oil  content, and separator design—especially detention
time.  Data published by the American Petroleum Institute (API,  1959)
show  that  80 percent removal of free oils is normal in the petroleum
industry.  Secondary separation should remove up to 90 percent of  the
residual free oil, depending on the technique used.

The  costs  for primary oil-water separation presented in Section VIII
include both the blowdown tanks and  the  API-type  separators  for  a
parallel    separation    system    handling    both    creosote   and
pentachlorophenol wastewaters.  Due to the value of the  oil  and  the
preservatives  recovered in this system, 50 percent of the capital and
annual operating costs can be returned.  Therefore, 50 percent of  the
capital  and  operating  costs  of  the  total  system  should  not be
allocated to pollution control.

The following example will serve to illustrate this hypothesis:  Table
VI1-2  depicts  a  cost  estimate  for  a primary oil-water separation
system for a plant treating with both creosote  and  pentachlorophenol
and   generating  12,500  gallons  per  day  of  combined  wastewater.
Assuming that:

1.  Half of the wastewater is due to creosote treating and half is due
to PCP treating (6,250 gpd each system);

      2.  Process wastewater enters the blowdown tanks at
          1.5 percent (15,000 mg/1) oil content and leaves the API
          separator at 500 mg/1;

      3.  Creosote cost is $0.75 per gallon;
                                 159

-------
Table VI1-2.  Annual Cost of Primary Oil-Water Separation System
        Creosote System
                                PCP System
          Capital Cost

  Slowdown Tanks            $ 15,800
  Surge, Skimming Tanks        9,000
  Reclaim Pumps                3,200
  Prim. Sep. w/5 hp Pump      22,000
  Sec. w/Skimmers             23,300
  Land, 0.75 Acre              7,500
  Engineering                 11,000
  Site Prep. Foundation,
    etc.                      20,200
  Contingency

     TOTAL                  $128,800
        16,800 Contingency
                      TOTAL
                               Capital Cost

                   Slowdown Tanks         $15,800
                   Surge,  Skimming Tanks    9,000
                   Reclaim Pumps            3,200
                   PCP Primary w/5 hp Pump  6,300
                   PCP Polishing Sep.       7,200
                   Land,  0.75 Acre          7,500
                   Engineering              6,200
                   Site Prep., Foundation
                     etc.                   12,000
                   10,000
                        $77,200
Amortization 20 yrs 3 10% « $15,100  Amortization 20 yrs G> 10% = $9,050
Annual Operating Cost:
  Labor
  Maint.
  Energy
  Sludge Disposal
  Ins. and Taxes

    TOTAL
$ 9,300
  1,900
  2,150
    500
3,850

$17,600
  Annual  Operating Cost:

    Labor            $ 9,300
    Maint.              1,150
    Energy              1,450
    Sludge  Disposal      500
Ins. and  Taxes   2,300
    TOTAL
$14,700
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - $32,700
                  TOTAL ANNUAL COST » $23,750
                                  160

-------
      4.   Fuel oil cost is $0.40 per gallon;

      5.   PCP (solid) cost is $0.60 per pound; and

      6.   PCP solution is 7 percent PCP and 93 percent oil;

then 831  Ibs/day of creosote  valued  at  approximately  $68  and  680
Ibs/day  of  PCP  solution  valued at $62 are recovered.  If the plant
operates  for 300 days per year, a total of $20,400 worth  of  creosote
and  $18,000  worth  of  PCP  solution  are  recovered per year.  This
represents 62 percent of the total annual cost of the creosote  system
and  78  percent  of  the total annual cost of the PCP system.  The 50
percent figure was chosen  to  reflect  the  decreased  value  of  the
recovered material as compared to new solutions.

It  should  be  noted  that  primary  oil  separation  was a specified
component of treatment technology recommended to achieve BPT  effluent
guidelines  limitations and current pretreatment standards.  The costs
of achieving satisfactory primary oil separation would  therefore  not
be  allocable to the costs of achieving the recommended NSPS, PSES, or
PSNS technologies.

Chemical  Flocculation—Because oil-water emulsions are not  broken  by
mechanical  oil-removal  procedures, chemical flocculation is required
to reduce the oil content of wastewaters containing emulsions.   Lime,
ferric  chloride, various polyelectrolytes, and clays of several types
are used in the industry for this purpose.  Automatic  metering  pumps
and  mixing  equipment  have been installed at some plants to expedite
the process, which is usually carried  out  on  a  batch  basis.   COD
reductions  of 30 to 80 percent or higher are achieved—primarily as a
result of oil removal.  Average COD removal is about 50 percent.

Influent oil concentration varies with the  efficiency  of  mechanical
oil  separation and the amount of emulsified oil.  The latter variable
in turn is affected by type of preservative (either  pentachlorophenol
in  petroleum,  creosote,  or  a  creosote  solution  of  coal  tar or
petroleum), conditioning  method  used,  and  design  of  oil-transfer
equipment.    Pentachlorophenol   preservative  solutions  cause  more
emulsion problems than creosote or  its  solutions,  and  plants  that
steam condition—especially those that employ open steaming—have more
emulsion  problems  than  plants  that  use  the  Boulton conditioning
method.  Plants that use low-pressure, high volume oil transfer  pumps
have  less  trouble  with emulsions than those that use high-pressure,
low-volume equipment.

Typically, influent to the  flocculation  equipment  from  a  creosote
process will have an oil content of less than 500 mg/liter, while that
from a pentachlorophenol process may have a value of 1,000 mg/liter or
                                 161

-------
higher.   For  example,  analyses  of samples taken from the separator
outfalls at ten plants revealed average oil contents of 1,470 mg/liter
and 365  mg/liter  for  pentachlorophenol  and  creosote  wastewaters,
respectively.   The  respective  ranges  of  values  were 540 to 2,640
mg/liter and 35 to 735  mg/liter.   Average  separator  effluents  for
three  steaming  plants  sampled in conjunction with the present study
gave oil and grease values of 1,690  mg/liter  and  935  mg/liter  for
pentachlorophenol and creosote separators, respectively.

Flocculated  effluent  generally  has  an oil content of less than 200
mg/liter and frequently less than 100 mg/liter.

A few plants achieve almost complete removal of free oils by filtering
the wastewater through an  oil-absorbent  medium.   This  practice  is
unnecessary if the wastewater is to be chemically flocculated.

Slow-Sand   Filtration—Many   plants   which   flocculate  wastewater
subsequently filter it through sand beds to remove the  solids.   When
properly  conducted,  this  procedure  is highly efficient in removing
both the solids resulting from the process as  well  as  some  of  the
residual  oil.   The  solids  which  accumulate on the bed are removed
periodically along with the upper inch or so of sand.

A common mistake that  renders  filter  beds  almost  useless  is  the
application  of incompletely flocculated wastewater.  The residual oil
retards percolation of the water through the bed,  thus  necessitating
the   replacement  of  the  oil-saturated  sand.   This  has  happened
frequently enough at some plants  that  the  sand  filters  have  been
abandoned  and  a  decantation  process  used instead.  At many plants
decantation is part of the flocculation  system.   Solids  removal  is
expedited by use of vessels with cone-shaped bottoms.  Frequently, the
solids are allowed to accumulate from batch to batch, a practice which
is reported to reduce the amount of flocculating agents required.

Biological  Treatment—Wastewater  generated  by  the  wood preserving
industry  is  amenable  to  biological  treatment.   A  discussion  of
biological treatment as well as specific examples of treatment systems
is presented in Appendix D of this document

Biological  treatment has been shown to be quite effective in reducing
concentrations of COD, phenols, oil and grease, pentachlorophenol, and
organic toxic pollutants from  wood  preserving  wastewaters.   Actual
reduction   of  these  pollutants  depends  upon  influent  wastewater
quality, detention time in the biological system, amount  of  aeration
provided,  and  the type of biological system employed.  The mechanism
of reduction of pentachlorophenol  and  high  molecular  weight  toxic
pollutants is thought to be that of adsorption upon the biomass rather
than complete biological degradation.
                                 162

-------
Trickling  filters,  aerated  lagoons,  oxidation ponds, and activated
sludge systems are all used by one or more  plants  in  the  industry.
Several  plants  also  use  spray  or  soil irrigation as a biological
treatment method.   In  this  system,  wastewater  is  sprayed  on  an
irrigation field, and the effluent is either allowed to run-off into a
collection basin or is collected in underdrains.

The  biological  systems  in-place  in  the industry vary from aerated
tanks with  insufficient  detention  time  and  aeration  capacity  to
sophisticated   multi-stage  systems  comprised  of  activated  sludge
followed by aerated lagoons and oxidation ponds.

Removal efficiencies for various pollutants by biological  systems  in
the industry are presented later in this section.

Most  plants  which employ biological treatment do so for pretreatment
prior to discharge to a POTW, or  for  pretreatment  prior  to  a  no-
discharge  system  such  as  spray  irrigation,  spray evaporation, or
recycle of treated effluent.

Removal  of  Metals  from  Wastewater—A  method  of  metals   removal
recommended  for wood preserving wastewaters as early as 1965 by Hyde,
but not used by that industry, was adopted from the plating  industry.
This  procedure  is  based on the fact that hexavalent chromium is the
only metal (boron  excepted)  used  by  the  industry  that  will  not
precipitate  from  solution  at  a  neutral or alkaline pH.  Thus, the
first step in treating wastewaters containing chromium is to reduce it
from the hexavalent to the trivalent form.  The use of sulfur  dioxide
for  this  purpose has been discussed in detail by Chamberline and Day
(1956).  Chromium reduction proceeds most rapidly  in  acid  solution.
Therefore, the wastewater is acidified with sulfuric acid to a pH of 4
or  less  before  introducing the sulfur dioxide.  The latter chemical
will itself lower the  pH  to  the  desired  level,  but  it  is  less
expensive to use the acid.

When  the  chromium  has  been  reduced,  the  pH of the wastewater is
increased to  8.5  or  9.0  to  precipitate  not  only  the  trivalent
chromium,  but  also  the copper and zinc.  If lime is used for the pH
adjustment,  fluorides  and  most  of  the  arsenic   will   also   be
precipitated.   Care  must  be  taken  not to raise the pH beyond 9.5,
since  trivalent  chromium  is  slightly  soluble  at  higher  values.
Additional  arsenic  and most residual copper and chromium in solution
can be  precipitated  by  hydrogen  sulfide  gas  or  sodium  sulfide.
Ammonium and phosphate compounds are also reduced by this process.

The  procedure  is based on the well-known fact that most heavy metals
are precipitated  as  relatively  insoluble  metal  hydroxides  at  an
alkaline  pH.   The theoretical solubilities of some of the hydroxides
are  quite  low,  ranging  down  to  less  than  10  ug/1.    However,
                                 163

-------
theoretical levels are seldom achieved because of unfavorable settling
properties  of  the precipitates, slow reaction rates, interference of
other ions in solution, and other factors.   Copper,  zinc,  chromium,
and  arsenic  can  be  reduced  to levels substantially lower than 1.0
mg/liter by the above procedure.

The metals removal  technology  upon  which  the  candidate  treatment
technology  is based consists of reduction of chromium by pH reduction
with sulfuric acid and the addition of S02 gas, followed by precipita-
tion of the metal hydroxides after pH adjustment with lime or  caustic
soda.   Final concentrations of copper, chromium, zinc, and arsenic of
less than 0.25 mg/1 can be expected, given influent levels similar  to
those  presented in Table V-18.  It should be noted that since no wood
preserving plant is currently applying metals  removal  technology  to
its  wastewater,  performance data are not available from the industry
to confirm the expected final effluent levels.

Carbon adsorption following metals removal by lime  precipitation  has
been  reported  to provide the most encouraging results for removal of
heavy metals, as  reported  in  an  EPA  study  (Technology  Transfer,
January  1977).   The  study  found  that pretreatments of wastes with
lime, ferric chloride, or alum  followed  by  carbon  adsorption  were
highly  effective.   Reductions of chromium, copper, zinc, and arsenic
following this treatment were, in order, 98.2, 90.0,  76.0,  and  84.0
percent.  Influent concentrations used in this study were 5.0 mg/1 for
all the above listed metals.

Carbon  Adsorption—The  efficacy  of  activated  carbon in wastewater
treatment  has  been  "rediscovered"  by  dozens  of  scientists   and
engineers  in  recent  years, and many have recorded their findings in
various scientific journals.  Relatively few  of  these  articles  are
relevant to the timber products industry.

To date, there is no known preserving plant that uses activated carbon
adsorption  as part of its wastewater treatment program.  However, the
South Orange, New Jersey, plant of  Atlantic  Creosoting  Company  has
engaged  an  engineering  firm  to study the possible use of activated
carbon to treat water from a wet scrubber installed as part of an odor
control system.

Results of carbon adsorption studies conducted by  Thompson  and  Dust
(1972)  on  a creosote wastewater are shown in Figure VI1-3.  Granular
carbon was used with a contact time of 24 hours.  The  wastewater  was
flocculated  with  ferric chloride and its pH adjusted to 4.0 prior to
exposure to the carbon.   Typical  concentrations  of  COD  and  total
phenols  in  flocculated  wastewater  are  4,000  mg/1  and  200 mg/1,
respectively.  As shown in the figure, 96 percent of the  phenols  and
80  percent  of  the  COD were removed from the wastewater at a carbon
dosage of 8 g/liter.  The loading rate dropped  off  sharply  at  that
                                 164

-------
point,  and  no  further  increases  in  phenol removal and only small
increases in COD removal occurred by increasing carbon  dosage  to  50
g/liter.     Similar    results   were   obtained   in   tests   using
pentachlorophenol wastewater.

Results of adsorption isotherms that were run on raw pentachlorophenol
wastewater and other samples of raw  creosote  wastewater  followed  a
pattern  similar  to  that shown in Figure VII-3.  In some instances a
residual content of phenolic compounds remained in wastewater after  a
contact period of 24 hours with the highest dosage of activated carbon
employed,  while  in  other instances all of the phenols were removed.
Loading rates of 0.16 kilogram of phenol and 1.2 kilograms of COD  per
kilogram  of  carbon  were typical, but much lower rates were obtained
with some wastewaters.

Adsorption isotherms have been developed for  wood  preserving  wastes
from several plants to determine the economic feasibility of employing
activated  carbon  in  lieu of conventional secondary treatments.  The
wastewater  used  for  this  purpose   was   usually   pretreated   by
flocculation  and filtration to remove oils.  Theoretical carbon usage
rates obtained from the isotherms ranged from 85 to almost 454 kg  per
3,785  liters  (187  to 1,000 pounds per 1,000 gallons) of wastewater.
However, values as low as 0.6 kg per 3,785 liters (1.4 pound per 1,000
gallons)—e.g., t^e waste from Atlantic Creosoting  Company  mentioned
above—have  been  found.   Because  of its source,  this waste was not
typical of that from a wood preserving plant, although  both  COD  and
phenols—4,000  mg/1  and  600 mg/1-were high.  It differed in quality
from a flocculated wood preserving  wastewater  in  that  it  did  not
contain  large amounts of readily adsorbable wood sugars; however, the
experience has been that, while activated carbon does an excellent job
in removing phenolic compounds,  these  readily  adsorbable  organics,
principally   water-soluble   wood  sugars,  greatly  increase  carbon
exhaustion rates.

Use of activated carbon to treat wastewater  from  a  plant  producing
herbicides  was  described  by  Henshaw.   With  the exception of wood
sugars,  this  waste  was  similar  to  wood   preserving   effluents,
especially  in  terms  of  COD (3,600 mg/liter) and phenolic materials
(210 mg/liter).   Raw  wastewater  was  piped  directly  to  a  carbon
adsorber  and  the  carbon  was  regenerated thermally.  Flow rate and
loading rate were not revealed, but the effluent from the system had a
phenol content of 1 mg/liter.  Cost of the treatment was  reported  to
be about $0.36 per 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons).

The  effect of high organic content on carbon usage rate is well known
in industry.  Recent work to  develop  adsorption  isotherms  for  220
wastewater  samples  representing  75  SIC  categories showed a strong
relationship between carbon usage rate  and  organic  content  of  the
samples,  as measured by TOC.  Usage rates as high as 681 kg per 3,785
                                 165

-------
1001
                   Activated Carbon (cm/liter)
       Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon Added
    and Removal of COO and  Phenols from a Creosote  Waste water
                              166
Figure V11-3

-------
liters (1,500 pounds per 1,000 gallons) were reported  for  wastewater
samples  from the organic chemicals industry.  For petroleum refining,
the values ranged from 0.1 to 64 kg per liter (0.2 to 141  pounds  per
gallon), depending upon the TOC of the waste.

Use  of  activated carbon in wastewater treatment in oil refineries is
common.  Because this industry is related to wood preserving in  terms
of  wastewater  characteristics,  a few of the more pertinent articles
dealing with activated carbon treatment  of  refinery  wastewater  are
summarized here.

Workers  dealing  with  treatment  process  methodology emphasized the
necessity of pretreatment of activated carbon column influent.   Based
on  these  reports,  suspended solids in amounts exceeding 50 mg/liter
should be removed.  Oil and grease in concentrations above 10 mg/liter
should likewise not be applied directly  to  carbon.   Both  materials
cause  head  loss  and can reduce adsorption efficiency by coating the
carbon particles.  This is apparently more critical in the case of oil
and grease than for suspended solids.

Common pretreatment processes used by the  industry  include  chemical
clarification,  oil  flotation, and filtration.  Adjustments in pH are
frequently made to enhance adsorption efficiency.  An acid pH has been
shown to be best for phenols and other weak acids.  Flow  equalization
is, of course, necessary for most treatment processes.

Efficiency  of  adsorption varies among molecular species.  In a study
of 93 petrochemicals commonly found  in  that  industry's  wastewater,
adsorption  was  found  to increase with molecular weight and decrease
with  polarity,  solubility,  and   branching.    However,   molecules
possessing  three  or  more  carbons  apparently  respond favorably to
adsorption treatments.

Researchers studied the relative efficiency of lignite and  bituminous
coal  carbons  and  concluded  that  the former is better for refinery
wastes because it contains more surface area due to its  20-  to  500-
Angstrom pore size.

The  feasibility  of  activated  carbon  adsorption  for  reduction of
phenolic compounds, including chlorophenols, and high molecular weight
organics, such as  polynuclear  aromatics  and  phthalates,  has  been
demonstrated  by  several  investigators.   Since carbon adsorption of
flocculated wood preserving wastewaters results in high  carbon  usage
rates  as  described  above,  the  concept  of  activated  carbon as a
polishing treatment for removal of phenols, PNA's,  and  residual  COD
following  biological  treatment  appears  to  have  merit.   In  this
configuration, biological treatment removes most of  the  wood  sugars
and  other  readily biodegradable organics prior to carbon adsorption,
thus decreasing carbon doses required and  greatly  increasing  carbon
                                 167

-------
life.   Such  a  system  has  been  chosen  as  a  candidate treatment
technology for wood preserving wastewaters.

Experience with carbon adsorption  of  biologically-treated  effluents
from  other  industries indicates that a conservative carbon dosage of
4.54 kg per 3,785 liters (10.0 lb/1,000 gal) with  two  hours  contact
time  is sufficient to result in an expected 80 percent removal of COD
and 95 percent removal of phenols, PCP, and  PNA's  from  biologically
treated  wood  preserving  effluent.  (Average concentrations of these
parameters present  in  biologically-treated  effluent  are  presented
later  in this section.)  The costs of the carbon adsorption candidate
technology presented in Section VIII are based  on  the  above  design
criteria  and  the  assumption  that  the  exhausted  carbon  will  be
discarded and not regenerated.  According to Hutchins  (1975),  it  is
most economical to discard carbon at usage rates lower than 159 to 182
kg  (350 to 400 pounds) per day, and to thermally regenerate at higher
usage rates.'

It should again be noted that the expected removals of pollutants  and
design  criteria  presented  above  are engineering judgments based on
experience with similar industries, and  have  not  been  demonstrated
within  the  wood  preserving  industry  since  there  are  no  carbon
adsorption systems operating for  the  treatment  of  wood  preserving
wastewaters.

Evaporation—Because  of  the  relatively  low  volumes  of wastewater
generated by wood preserving plants, evaporation  is  a  feasible  and
widely-used  technology  for  achieving no-discharge status.  Based on
the large number of plants which have adopted  evaporation  technology
to  achieve  no-discharge  status,  this  technology appears to be the
method of choice for  many  wood  preserving  plants  to  comply  with
effluent guidelines limitations and standards.

Three  types  of  evaporative systems are common in the industry.  The
first type, spray evaporation,  is  common  to  Boulton  and  steaming
plants.   This  technology involves containing the wastewater in lined
lagoons of sufficient size to accommodate several  months  of  process
wastewater,  as  well as the rainwater falling directly on the lagoon.
The wastewater is sprayed under  pressure  through  nozzles  producing
fine  aerosols  which  are  evaporated in the atmosphere.  The driving
force for this evaporation is  the  difference  in  relative  humidity
between  the  atmosphere and the humidity within the spray evaporation
area.  Temperature, wind speed, spray nozzle height, and pressure  are
all  variables  which  affect  the  amount  of wastewater which can be
evaporated.

Reynolds and Shack  (1976) have developed the following design equation
for spray evaporation ponds:
                                 168

-------
          E • 1260.5 Whe  1-e -Ky'L + CwWL   (l-Hr)Ps
                               5280 Whe         Pa      RLn
     Climatic Factors:  W = Wind Speed (MPH)
                        e » Air Density = 39.66 Pa
                                           460 + Ta
                          where:  Pa = Atmospheric Pres. (AT.)
                                  Ta = Atmospheric Temp. (°F)
                     Hr » Relative Humidity
                     Ps = Saturation Vapor Pressure

Operational Factors:   h » Height of spray above surface of pond
                    Ky' * Spray mass transfer coefficient
                     Cw = Surface mass transfer coefficient
                      L = Pond length (in direction of prevailing wind)
                      R = Ratio of width to the length of the pond
                     RL - Width of pond
                      n * Number of hours in the month
                      E = Evaporation in cu ft per month

This design is considered by the authors  to  be  conservative  as  it
neglects  pan evaporation (which occurs in most areas of the country),
assumes no drift loss, and assumes no evaporation when the sprays  are
off.

To  be  effective, spray evaporation should be preceded by primary and
secondary oil removal.  Excess  oil  content  in  the  wastewater  may
retard  evaporation  and  increase  the  potential  for air pollution.
Careful segregation of uncontaminated water from the wastewater stream
is particularly important in evaporative technologies to minimize  the
amount of wastewater to be evaporated.

The   second   type   of   evaporation  technology  is  cooling  tower
evaporation.  This technology is feasible for Boulton plants only.  In
this sytem, as the wood water vapor is condensed, it gives up heat  to
the   cooling  water  passing  through  the  surface  condenser.   The
condensed wood water is sent to an accumulator, and from there  to  an
oil-water  separator  for  removal  of  oils.  Rain water and cylinder
drippings may also be routed to the separator.  This wastewater stream
is then added to the cooling  water  which  recirculates  through  the
surface condenser picking up heat, then through a forced-draft cooling
tower  where evaporation occurs.  Figure VI1-4 depicts a cooling tower
evaporation system.

Since the vacuum cycle in a Boulton plant lasts from 12 to  40  hours,
sufficient  waste  heat  is  usually available to evaporate all of the
                                 169

-------
wastewater.  Heat from an external source, usually process steam,  can
be  added to an additional heat exchanger to assist the evaporation of
peaks in wastewater generated from time to time.

In steaming plants, the vacuum cycle is much shorter, ranging  from  1
to  3 hours.  Therefore, there is no continuous (or nearly continuous)
source  of  waste  heat  available  to  affect  the   evaporation   of
wastewater.   Generally, about 25 percent of the process wastewater is
the maximum amount that can be evaporated by cooling tower evaporation
at a steaming plant.

The third method  of  evaporation  is  thermal  evaporation  using  an
external heat source.  As this method is particularly energy-intensive
and  expensive,  it  is  not  generally  feasible  except when used to
supplement other treatment methods and when peak surges in  wastewater
generation occur, as in the cooling tower system.

Soil  Irrigation—Ten plants in the wood preserving industry currently
use spray or soil irrigation as a final treatment step.  As  shown  by
the  following  discussion,  this  technique  is  a  viable  method of
treatment for this industry even though it is more land-intensive  and
more expensive than other alternatives.

Several  applications of wastewaters containing high phenol concentra-
tions to soil irrigation have  been  reported.   One  such  report  by
Fisher  related the use of soil irrigation to treat wastewaters from a
chemical plant that had the following characteristics:

      pH            9 to 10
      Color         5,000 to 42,000 units
      COD           1,600 to 5,000 mg/liter
      BOD           800 to 2,000 mg/liter

Operating data from a 0.81 hectare (2 acre) field, when irrigated at a
rate of 7,570 liters (2,000 gal) per acre/day for a year, showed color
removal of 88 to 99 percent and COD removal of  85 to 99 percent.

The same author reported on  the  use  of  soil  irrigation  to  treat
effluent  from  two tar plants that contained 7,000 to 15,000 mg/liter
phenol and 20,000 to 54,000 mg/liter COD.  The  waste  was  applied  to
the field at a rate of about 20,000 liters (5,000 gal) per day.  Water
leaving  the  area  had  COD  and  phenol  concentrations  of 60 and 1
mg/liter, respectively.  Based on the lower influent concentration for
each parameter, these values represent oxidation efficiencies of  well
over 99 percent for both phenol and COD.

Bench-scale  treatment  of  coke plant effluent by soil irrigation was
also  studied  by  Fisher.    Wastes   containing   BOD   and   phenol
concentrations of 5,000 and 1,550 mg/liter, respectively, were reduced
                                 170

-------
                                                             -J CO
                                                             < (0

                                                             IS
                  am
                                                            Y
                                iiu
z
UJ
Q
Z
O
u
                                     CC
                                     o
                                     O
                                     o
I


cc
iu
K

I
                                                    UJUUJ
                                                           CC
                                                           O

                                                           <
                                                           cc
                                                           o
                                                           a.
                                                           <

                                                           UJ
                                                                   z*
                                                                   ±LU
05
CC
o
a
     CC
     UJ
     o
     a


     H

     UJ
     CC
                         CO

                         Off
                         5 LU
                         H

                         II
                         u
                           JU
                           >x
                          uiO
                          «H
                          a.
                                                                 il
                                                                         UJ

                                                                         (O
                                                                         >
                                                                         (0
                                                                         z
                                                                         o

                                                                         <
                                                                         CC
                                                                         o
                                                                         a.
                                                                          UJ
                                                                          QC
                                                                          UJ
                                                                          ^
                                                                          O
                                                                          »-
                                                                          a
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 o
                                                                                 o
                                                                                CC
                                                                                a
                                                                        o
                                                                                o
                                                                                UJ
                                                                                5
    a
    O
    o
a
o
o
                    IU _
                                   z
                                   cc
                                   O
                                                                 Figure VII-4
                               171

-------
by  95+  and 99+ percent when percolated through 0.9 meter (36 inches)
of soil.  Fisher pointed out that less efficient removal was  achieved
with  coke  plant  effluents  using the activated sludge process, even
when the waste was diluted with high-quality water prior to treatment.
The effluent from the units had a  color  rating  of  1,000  to  3,000
units,  compared  to 150 units for water that had been treated by soil
irrigation.

Both laboratory and pilot scale field tests of soil-irrigation  treat-
ments  of  wood  preserving  wastewater  were  conducted  by  Dust and
Thompson.   In  the  laboratory  tests,  210-liter  (55-gallon)  drums
containing  a  heavy  clay  soil  60 centimeters (24 inches) deep were
loaded at rates  of  32,800;  49,260;  and  82,000  liters/hectare/day
(13,500;  5,250; and 8,750 gallons/acre/day).  Influent COD and phenol
concentrations were 11,500 and 150 mg/liter, respectively.  Sufficient
nitrogen and phosphorus were added to the waste to provide  a  COD:N:P
ratio  of 100:5:1.  Weekly effluent samples collected at the bottom of
the drums were analyzed for COD and phenol.

Reductions of more than 99 percent in COD content  of  the  wastewater
were  observed  from  the  first  week  in the case of the two highest
loadings  and  from  the  fourth  week  for  the  lowest  loading.   A
breakthrough occurred during the 22nd week for the lowest loading rate
and  during  the  fourth  week  for the highest loading rate.  The COD
removal steadily decreased thereafter for the duration  of  the  test.
Phenol  removal  showed  no  such reduction, but instead remained high
throughout the test.  The average test results for the  three  loading
rates  are  given  in  Table  VI1-3.  Average  phenol  removal was 99+
percent.  Removal of COD exceeded 99 percent prior to breakthrough and
averaged over 85 percent during the last week of the test.

The field portion of Thompson and Dust's study (1972) was carried  out
on   an  0.28-hectare  (0.8-acre)  plot  prepared  by  grading  to  an
approximately uniform  slope  and  seeded  to  native  grasses.   Wood
preserving  wastewater  from  an  equalization pond was applied to the
field   at   the   rate   of    32,800    liters/hectare/day     (3,500
gallons/acre/day)  for  a  period  of  nine  months.   Average monthly
influent COD and phenol concentrations  ranged  from  2,000  to  3,800
mg/liter   and  235  to  900  mg/liter,  respectively.   Supplementary
nitrogen and phosphorus were not added.   Samples  for  analyses  were
collected  weekly  at  soil  depths  of  0   (surface), 30, 60, and 120
centimeters (1, 2, and 4 feet).

The major biological reduction in COD and phenol content  occurred  at
the  surface  and in the upper 30 centimeters (1 foot) of soil.  A COD
reduction of 55.0  percent  was  attributed  to  overland  flow.   The
comparable  reduction  for phenol content was 55.4 percent  (Table VII-
4).  COD reductions at the three soil depths, based on  raw  waste  to
the  field,  were  94.9, 95.3, and 97.4 percent, respectively, for the
30-, 60-,  and  120-centimeter   (1-,  2-,  and  4-foot)  depths.   For
phenols, the reductions were, in order, 98.9, 99.2, and 99.6 percent.
                                 172

-------
Table VII-3.  Results of Laboratory Tests of Soil Irrigation Method of
Wastewater Treatment*
Loading Rates
(Liter/ha/day)
32,800
(3,500)**
49,260
(5,250)
82,000
(8,750)
Length
of Test
(Meek)
31
13
14
Average
and COD
Removal to
Breakthrough
99.1 (22 wks)
99.6
99.0 (4 wks)
COD REMOVAL
Last Week
of Test %
85.8
99.2
84.3
Phenol
Average %
Removal
(All Weeks)
98.5
99.7
99.7
* Creosote wastewater containing 11,500 mg/liter of COD and 150
mg/liter of phenol was used.

** Loading rates in parentheses in gallons/acres/day.

SOURCE:  Thompson and Dust, 1972.
                                173

-------
Table VI1-4.  Reduction of COD and Phenol Content in Wastewater
Treated by Soil Irrigation*
 Month
Raw Waste
  Soil Depth (centimeters)
0        30        60        120
July                 2,235
August               2,030
 September            2,355
 October              1,780
 November             2,060
 December             3,810
 January              2,230
 February             2,420
 March                2,460
 April                2,980

 Average % Removal
    (weighted)
        COD (mq/liter)

             1,400
             1,150
              1,410
                960      150
              1,150      170
                670       72
                940      121
                580      144
                810      101
              2,410      126
               55.0     94.9
                   91
                  127
                   92
                  102
                 95.3
 66
 64
  90
  61
  46
  58
  64
  64
  68
  76
97.4
                          Phenol (mq/liter)
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
Average % Removal
(weighted)
235
512
923
310
234
327
236
246
277
236


186
268
433
150
86
6
70
111
77
172

55.4
—
—
—
4.6
7.7
1.8
1.9
4.9
2.3
1.9

98.9
—
—
—
—
3.8
9.0
3.8
2.3
1.9
0.0

99.2
1.8
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
3.8
0.0
1.8
1.3
0.8

99.6
 * Adapted  from Thompson and Dust  (1972).
                               174

-------
Other  Applicable  Technologies—Wood  Preserving—Several  additional
treatment technologies were evaluated to determine  their  feasibility
as  candidate  treatment  technologies for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment
standards.  The technologies evaluated for wood preserving included:

 Tertiary Metals Removal Systems
 Membrane Systems
 Adsorption on Synthetic Adsorbents
 Oxidation by Chlorine
 Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide
 Oxidation by Ozone

A discussion of each of these technologies and case studies  of  their
application  to the wood preserving industry are presented in Appendix
E, Discussion of Potentially Applicable Technologies.

None of these  technologies  were  chosen  as  candidate  technologies
because  they  are  experimental  in  nature,  and further research is
necessary to sufficiently determine  the  effectiveness  of  treatment
which  could  be  expected when these technologies are applied to wood
preserving wastewaters.

In-Place Technology

The current levels of in-place technology for plants responding to the
DCP and the follow-up telephone survey are presented in  Tables  VI1-5
through   VII-9   for   Boulton   no-dischargers,   Boulton   indirect
dischargers, steaming no-dischargers, steaming direct discharger,  and
steaming indirect dischargers, respectively.

Treated Effluent Characteristics

Treated  effluent  characteristics  for wood preserving plants sampled
during the pretreatment study and the  verification  sampling  program
are presented in Table VII-10 for traditional parameters and the toxic
pollutants.   Data  are  presented in terms of both concentrations and
waste loads.

Data from three sampling and analytical programs are presented.   Data
for  plants  sampled  during the 1975 Pretreatment Study represent the
average  of  two  or  more  grab  samples  collected  at  each  plant.
Variation  of  data  for  plants  sampled  during  the  1977  and 1978
verification sampling programs represents the average of three 24-hour
composite samples collected at each point.

Treated effluent flow data for some plants may  differ  somewhat  from
the  raw  wastewater flow presented for the same plant during the same
sampling period.  This is due to either dilution by steam  condensate,
cooling   water,  boiler  blowdown,  etc.,  occurring  after  the  raw
                                 175

-------
 09

 U

 OJ
 09
•v4

Q
I


a
T
 0)
          Jj  09
          a  u
             4)
          u —i
          C •<-<

          9.3
               «
            I S.
            P w.
             u
             5
            J_» CO
            a -g






            I
               s.
                                                        X   X
                      XXX
                                  x X X X X X    XX    XXXXX
                      xxxxxxxxx    x    x    xxxxxxxx    x
                                                                                           .3
 S °"H
£.2  S


 g€.3
•9   r-l
U Wl  O
 « o «-i
 U 
-------
Table VI1-6.  Current Level of In-Place Technology, Wood Preserving
Boulton Indirect Dischargers
Plant
65
549
555
577
655
743
1027
1028
1078
1110
1111
Chemical Flocculation
Primary Oil and/or Oil Absorbent
Separation Media
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
Biological
Treatment


X







X
SOURCE:  Data collection portfolio and follow-up telephone survey.
                                  177

-------
»
I
3
  gj oj Vj
  3 —< v,-i
$"*
          .3J2JL3
         , w o fa AJ
            afj
              w j-
      S<
     •H «F
     T3
     t—<

     Se


     ^
     I 60

     L'd.:
     ) C .
     M


     •O
      
-------





CN


o

CN
HL

1
.5
I
to
Jj
.53
?
$
«*
p*
'1
1
^
r— *
1
H
s
c
M

O
1
JS
4-J
C
11
1
7
(U
1
QJ -S
1
In ^
e |J
P w "
S'c
•H -H

i
&•?.§
M C 4-1
H- 1
•u
gj c
!" P.
k-i So
g
4^ X

|
CO
CJ3 -r-l -S

SO.
M
•— < -rt Q tfl
3AJ (S -H
flj i-< (U
O ^O O_>
(Vj tj LJ
0

c
w O
II |
^ — 4 cL
jj
S
H!
XX XX


XXX XXXXXX X





XXXX XXX XX X X XXX X






XX XXXXXX X X

XX X



XX XX



X XX

XX XX



X X





XXX XXX X X XXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX





















>,
E
g
w
§
£
a

• r— 1
a) o
1J <4-l
CO
1 .9
>, o

O kd
CD a.
a; e
y o
m "i
*J
en a)
01 — i
2 8
3 i
g M
s i
* r«
179

-------
4
 85
JS
?
8
                  q V- vj
               •y    °
               aj -
               3 *-^   J
                  H  W
                     •X3
                    fa u
-^ -t-l O «8
CQ XJ w •*•!


S u —i
         §
      11
                  <     <
                                X
                                X
                                X
                                            t
                             s
                             1
                             .S
8
2
                                     180

-------
 CO
• H
 a
3
4J a;
         « W « O
         H ->^ i— < B-'
         O. to Q «o
                eo S
                W 4-1
   i
               I.:
               2 8
               a*
                i
                u
            I J_l (O •-

            1.331
              O '
             fa   4J
                ug
              >> a> •••<
                                      X!
                  X X X! X X          X X X X X X X X X X X
                             XX
                                            X
                          X   X
                                                     X        X
                          X   XX
                                 XX          XX
                                                                                        X
                        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   XXX XX X
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 8
                                                                                                 .2
                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                 0)
                                                                                    a
                                                                                    CO

                                                                                    a
                                              181

-------
CU




I
  I
  I
  I
5



I
          a
          >^
          CO
C3




O




(0
O



o


en
                     §8   3   s
                     i—I   O   C<(
                      •    *    •
                     o   o   o
                 a
                     c3   d   -H
                 a
                         tn   in

                         "^   3
                         3
                     oo
                 O  •->   oi
      i-H   CO   CN
              ^•4














      V   «   *
          SQ

                             1C
                     a  a   a
      §
                  oo
                           £-a
                           4J-3
                           •«a

                           s*

                              E
                             • ^

                              I
                                 ^^     ^^

                                 .3     3
                                 I
           .s
      |2£l


      2.11


      11||


      lllj
      U .U JJ U
      a) dj oi a)
      i3 tfi U3 23
      •^j fly gj »Q
                                         CO   U
                                             § § § *
                                             •H «H »H «P
      « « « *
•o 01   C C C C
S TJJ   3 B B S
u *H   <0 *B w w




a» w   'o 'o 'y 'y
U 44   •<* -H ••< --J
*-i iw



3 $   '

S^


•sis
                                       
-------
I
 M
£

I
 S
.«
53
*

            en
                El
               It!
                                       co
                                                                 co
d   d   d   d
                                                                       5   2
                                                                 o   o
                              •     •**•••••--
                             OOOOOflr-nOOOO
                       co
 •   _•
                      •    *    •
OO-^oo-Hvocooom







_Q<**Q         Q        O^r-i
                       co    -^        o   O   O   cs    oo
                         •     •         •    •     •     •     •
                                               o    o
                                                •     •
                                                                                VO
\Q   O   Q    u"*
35   5   5    sj
GO   ^   *«T    en
                                                      s    i   §   a   2
                                  O   vO   vO   fO
                        ^    
-------
u
 00
.5

 3

£
CM
T
              en
               2
o

•J3

O



 (O


1
U
vO

o

                   CO  2j
                   4J  W

                   Q  O
                      «
                       CO

                      Cb
                                 en
                                 in     CM    Q     21     r-i     •—i
                                   •     ^H    o     o     o     oo
                                 O     O    O     O     O     CM
                                 d     d    d     d     d     d
                                 3     8
                                 t—i     •—i     -^     o
                                 3
                                 00
            5
                             oo

                             d
                                               o\
              R
                                                              R
                                                                     en
  .      =     888
d     d     d     d     d     d     d
                                               CO
                                               CN
                                                                             CN
                                        RO     en     *-H     vo     f^
                                        ON     O     Ol     O     CM
                                 CM     d     d     d     d     oo
                                 en             _            en
                                  •     \£      Cj              •
                                        KCM      Cw     ON     ON
                                        -H      .=«     en
                                 ON     vO     CM     Cw     Cv     C?     <~H

                                 d     d     d     d     d     Is*     d
                                               r»     —4     oo
                                 <5     S
                                 ^     S
                                 ON     CM
                                        -*
                                                                             8
                                                       ffi
                                               2,     i,     P.     g     i
                                                                  8
                                                                  3
                                                                                        8
                                                                  1
                                                                  2
                                                                  i
                                                                                                                      O  CO
                                                                                                  •a
                                                                                        S
                                                                                                                        -
                                                                                                                  C   ^ •O
                                                                                                                 -H   * -H
                                                                             *W      )M r^  *v  u/  ^N
                                                                             W  0) -3  O.     6  
-------
Table VI1-13.  Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Volatile
Organic Analysis During 1978 Verification Sampling
 vinyl chloride
 chloroethane
 chloromethane
 bromomethane
 tr i bromomethane
 bromodichloromethane
 dibromochloromethane
 carbon tetrachloride
 dichlorodifluoromethane
 trichlorofluoromethane
 1,2-dichloroethane
 1,1-dichloroethane
 1,1,1-trichloroethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
tetrachloroethane
1,1-dichloroethylene
trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
Bis-chloromethylether
Bis-chloroethylether
2-chloroethylvinylether
acrolein
acrylonitrile
Generalized machine detection limit for these compounds is 10 ug/1.
                                  185

-------







^
ff
"o
1
p

g
c^
S
Jj
1
£
1
5
5
•3
to
1
Q^
t.
5
u^
OJ
1
W
CJ
•i-4
^
-Si
•H
.U
CO
1
«
J
U-l
n j
U
T3
QJ
AJ
<8
QJ
^
S1
•H
E:
s *.
& QJ
1^
3 H-»
.

0)
S
H






s~*
ro
M-
5
5
.0
-^
w
T3
1
cu
.LJ
I



s
1
_J
S
S
§
1
•H
QJ

S
Qj
C
.a

|
ia

1
o
h

a
E





^-4
3
en
4J
2
y
S






s
s
3


^
0)
1
tt
S
1

1
0
i
i
"2
•^
•3
i
^•s
* ^*
"8:3
(Sen
£
,— N
11

2 I
CO
*
J
s
— i <->
d d
V
*— 4 C»
O O
d d
\/

— i O
O O
8 o
N/
— 1 — ,
8 8
d d
V V
§ §
9 9
S S
ON CP
d d
' !



i 1
1 d
0 8
O C5
d d

i i
1 1
1 1


s? s
• t_?
r-4 •
O

C^ ^3
r^» oo
CN| CN
Q CN
cs o^

S S
*
Ln p-^
^o ^o
CM
ro
d

i
Q



fO 03
o 21
O m
o

§ -
8 S
^ 1
Co
g qj
1 S
° -1
tO >
8 s
O 0)
s
CO
V) CO
rtl TJ
Q tp
O O
1-. r*
a. CD
.LJ
« a
" CO

1 3
i— i cd
€ *
g g
1 1
jj ^-*
g 0.
(\) (K

&" nj
s 1
m 73
§4)
ts
1 1
a.
j_i
§Q •
C CO
•S -S |
00 a) l-
s •« ^
"•< ^
00 HI aj
P ** "3
iJ *•-<
gj co u<
e a^
s 2-6
•3 Q)
> ^
en a) 
-------





QJ
0
tt)
^
c
t— i
s
*o
«
H


CO


i
3

.e
3
 CS
i/~\ r-» oo

1 1 1


CO 00 CO
r^ i — r^

§ 5; S;
u*i en GO
d
V
£
8 ^

• QJ
o S
N/ 10
HI
U

ro c
d 'o
v e
S ^
O (U
^5 iJ
• to
O 3
s? S

o
§ "
25 *3
d S

§
"§
o
.y *
J «
.§ '^

a °
1 §
P5 '9
^ n
2 'o

nj
y Q) ^
•§ uj ^
V^ EH Ja TJ

^ '^ $ ^
'K ^
N] nj <*H j_j
•^ cQ 'D ^9
nj ^ fl) 3
C QJ J_)
W 1-. "D
« TJ -U
3 Ql <4-t
•u "D O
^ ^J 3 -"in
§ U V* -H
3 *-»
4J U i-l
m — 4 C OJ
jC flj 1) JJ
w *j 0 a) — -
00 « O w
CO 1J •»-* QJ -*-)
!- 4-1 JS C


"O 13 O QJ
•o -3 >j
^ C tfl w "O
Q •!) u to
!— j _jj C • "^ yi
^ §^ — (3 £
CO -^ -t~
3
187

-------
Table VI1-16.  Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Base Neutral
Fractions During 1977 and 1978 Verification Sampling
2-chloronaphthalene
diethylphthalate
di-n-butylphthalate
butylbenzylphthalate
dimethylphthalate
4-chlorophenyl-phenylether
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenylether
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
benzidine
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
nitrobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachloroethane
isophorone
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
 p-dioxin
Generalized machine detection limit for these compounds is 10 ug/1
                                  188

-------
















}


'.



C
3















i-
ur

I'
fcb



•
U
S



£
C

2


T
~*

1
M

1


























>",
a
c
r~
.1
•*
x
a
O
«c
M)

V
U
w
I

b
V
a
1
0* -*
CM X
| 0 | 2
0 0
! ! °. 1
&

« $
' *? ^ ?
O so O*
a* o
! «° i •»
1 o r 2
cs o
0> o
t lA o
1 0 0 S
O 00* O
S S
» O 00
1 O * o"
1 1 1 1
o
! i "*. 1
1 ' en '
en » 9>
*o IA in
-H O O O
d o i^ o
«*>

1111
i i i >
11!!
! ! ! !
! § ° i
1 d * '
i : f i
! t g !
CM

CS
i !: '



o o o o
f- & 00 «0
« s . «
§OOO
O (N p


00 r- CO r-
rv r- r* r-
U K W U
SCO CO CO
H U U

u-> 00 r- r-


































*
•s
S.
1 £
u «
V « M
e b «> *
v £ e •-<
but) ni
Sat X e o A
C b. « «J u
4 e c o ^j— - u c M
H • • «T x« «•< x
bbCmbCM K
ft, • O O « V (Bf-*- W «
4J SDldopuuX C .C
a ehtb a. *-* c< -vc<-< —
at — ^ u « e a> x x
-* fs-**~* O^* k"*-—'f*j ^ * *
b C>^>-' '-'S^--' 4jw O tB X * C C «

V OMNftlN«i3cH«XCeOXI
ta
£ S 	
X •*->
as
i U 189

-------








i
*
M
to
a"











ml
c
'









-------












2

i
e
?
|
u
I
c
I
0
£

e
ft*
£
i

i
«
I
•
!•
i
V
z
1
H
Preserving Treated


i
M
M
>
3















c
}
|

:
M
J


















!
i

•«
2
M
ft.

"•

—
a-

:

•4

M


>



s

0





O

n



*


**

•4

„
•^
IM
I
M
8
1
t.
|
| 2 S
odd
S 2
d ' ' d
S~ 0 0
S S
odd d
11^®-:
000
o m o •* m
s * s i s
0 0 O 0 0
i 8 § 8 S
d d d d

1 ! ! ! !


! s , , i
d d ' ' 0

« § S , 3
— do d

i § i s i
d d ' d '


5 1 ! 1 !
d d o
O w^ O
« 0 1 O 1
do d

8r» m vi
i«* ~* r*
ft - 0 0 0
-. 0 O O 0
2 R 5?
d d ' d
o ^
S 1 ! S !
O O

s I § s *
— o e o o
88888
R R 2 § S
ff) ~+ •# W
00 • £ JO J*
S S s S S

« ^ ** f*. o
^ » o« e^ o
m m tn vo <^



























1
M
j
U
M
*
J
!
1

S
X
1 *
; is. s
. .. n ! i
! 1 !i M\ \
1 . S| !" Sl£2 . |
J 1 |EE K;|l.., | I
** •* jC^^ ^J* *A**^*^ * J ' JB JB
* ** e*^*" "^ ** *t^ o •, x B e v
| I I|]lllj]|||j|||
S 2 	 o ••••*-
| 0 	
i 31 191

-------








u
1
X
Technolo
g
E
3
X
4J
e
(0
ft.
hi
IM
•O
iJ
W
*
w
tri
3
X
Effluent Base
^
«
w
H
M
C
W
w
fe
1
3
O
M
g
W
3
H








*»>
0
J3
«
•o
V
a





*
i
wr
o
%

o
c .

V «
i 2^
S £ »5
0 «
8 S=*
V * " C
,T: i i , 3
s,.s E 5 g •;
SS3 . SS t 5 S £
"ii S f£ olsSf *
2 u v H SS «? xxT jj < "S,
•35- 2 §§ E .£'52 S |
JieS 3 SEC £-™-S5 -.8.5 I
« « *j w — <-
-------
Table VII-21.  Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found During 1978
Verification Sampling
    2-nitrophenol
    4-nitrophenol
    2,4-dichlorophenol
    2,4-dinitrophenol
    para-chloro-meta-cresol
    4,6-dinitro-ortho-cresol

Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is 25 ug/1.
Table VI1-34.  Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for Plants
With Less Than the Equivalent of BPT Technology In-Place
                               Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
                     COD        Phenols       Oil & Grease      PCP


Raw*                  92.8         1.77          8.71            0.498

Treated**             31.2         1.01          1.75            0.151

% Removal             66.4        42.9          79.9            69.7



* Averages calculated from data in Table V-7.

** Averages calculated from data in Table VII-10.
                               193

-------
i
•i
 TO
 TO




1
w
 00

-5
 WJ


£
s

JS
•8
            CO

             a
 u


i
             M)
             B
                    y
                   -l-l
•o


 c
                . m in
                                                £
                                          IA LTl 00
                                          \O vo r^
                                                O
                                                          §
                                                          d
                                                                             °-
                >£>

                s
                a

                J
                                                                              (0  W

                                                                                *o
                                                                                i~•

                                                                             J a

                                                                             II
                                *• Su,
                                 0)     O
                                T—I  OJ

                                "S "6  ^"

                                H    'H

                                    SW *^
                                    CD ^H

                                     e  5
                                                                                             •O  (C -J

                                                                                              Q>  H  w
                                                                                              8*8
                                                                                              JJ  CO
                                                                                 w




                                                                                I
                                                                    CO     -S  U


                                                                    CO     CO  n)  (0






                                                                   5     co  5
                                                                   73     0  Q>   •




                                                                -•8     -S ^ rS
                                                                                                *r*i  CO

                                                                                              CO AJ  g




                                                                                              CO  V-t
                                                                                             —i  CO  C
                                                                                             ft< > -H
                                                                                    >> _aj
                                                                                   — *  *w
                                                           194

-------

3

1
 co
I
w

"O
't
.2
•s
H
              C"1
                   t-a
                  CN  4J
                  O

                  "I



                      C
                      4
                      »—,
                       u

                       c
                  J>*
                      •a
                  CN
                      u

                      c

                      4
                      S,
                      60
                  PL,  Z
                                ro -H  in m  ro
                                ot CM  O •—i  --i ••*
                                IA *-H  o O  O oo
                                O O  O O  O CN

                                d d  o o  o d
                                    s
                                               CO

                                 CN     C> C5 CD CO
                                    CO  P"*- ^-H 00
                                                   O
                                        OO t«» 00
                                        r~. r~ r-.
                                        —i  —« P-  O
                                        G\  O^ O^  ^5
                                        in  ITS oo  *"™i
                                                              o
                                                              o
                                                             O
                                                             •—H

                                                             8
 2

I


!
 0)
 CO
                                                                            .3
                                                                          .1


                                                                        II
                                                                        •s   to
                                                                                       .S
                                                                                        fc.
                                                                                    s
                                                                                        3      O   0)

                                                                                        13      8   8

                      8-

                      8  u   .  S  «
                      3  QJ 1—( r—(  JJ
                      g U-j >*  U  CO
                      o>  o) M -S  S
                                                                            w  g  fr£
                                                                         I



                                                                         13  i  TO
                                                                         i-i   cn
                                                                         O    W
                                                                             l-i  O
                                                                         t-i  CO   0)

                                                                         S3   9
                                                                         B *"O   OJ

                                                                         is  i   ^
                                                                         8,'S   s
                                                                             j-i   co


                                                                         I  V?
                                                                     f~^





                                                                     1
                                                                         C  CO  r-l
                                                                         ffi      co
                                                                         •tS  co   o
                                                                            •H  -H
                                                                         C      VJ

                                                                         ^  c  S
                                                                         p.,  co   05

                                                                         ffS  a
 60 .C  O) T3  TO
 q  »  C  c

 «  B  *"  5  ?
 W   o  &0  3  C
 £   H  c  S
 a)  iC .a  u  co



    SlJ  Z3  *3
     U  U     05







•^   m "S  CD  .I


 Q   OJ     -^  T3
 C   Q)  U)  JJ  0)
    i—<  *j  fd  ij
 CO   Git C '""I  CD

 CO   CO* -H  W  C
                                                     195

-------


































2
x
i
•
i
;
£
u
"e
4
fit
£
fc
*
a
a
n
Q)
u «
£ IB

|?
> M
S SS
v 0
£ -;
fc8
^jj ^
JU
41

S

>
V
JB
H


















^
c
1

g
•H
a
u
e
J"


e

 *
I?
». a
M>«
^^

li
k. M


2
g
M

U
ft*
S £
•» «
c o
rs —«
8 8
0 0
§ I
0

! §
0
*O %C
g i
O O



1 I


g g
0 0



S 8
0 0



s s
CM O

0 0


* i
°


s >
e


1 i
0

§o
8
O O


o o
i i




s §
« N

S K

u w
SCO
w

PS fs

-------


















c
*
s
s

c
i
o
IU
"S

tt
4-1
c

fe
h>
«£

c
1
**rf


tr
w
^
X

1
«
>
"^
 W
hi


8.2
ft- 0
c
"o "5
o w
% H



*M
1

i>

11
£























x^
iJ
o
§

^




•o
2
w

i
^
B

IM
W



















i
HC
ft.





o

fe














u
E
N

B
3
• H
fi

ft)

CO

1
B

«,
4)
U
2



X
hi
U
1

•o
s

g
3

'e
o
JS
u

fc"
1
2

E
3
1
B
3

?»
hi
£

X
i
^
i


u
c
0
£

>>
•o
n
£
'*-'





Q.
^,



01
U
3
O
CO




e
(0
I-
S *
i 1

o o

o o
0 0
ft -H
§ §
§ §
0 0
V
•^ tn
o o
o o
V
n o
o
0


o o
I I
9 3
O> CM
-f O
o o

tA Ot




e o

oo r-
o e\
i i
0 0


o o
o o
V

O -H

1 i
O D
V


o o
0 g
o o


« U-,
§ i

o d

o o
a. o
CO 00
a* K





o o

*H O
M



CO r».
r^ r*

U M
CO CO




~ *
CM CM
S
1

0

1
o
^
g
§
o
V
1
o
V
1
,
o


§"

s
o

o

CM




O

ro
IT(
§
o


o
o
V

*£>

|
•
V


0
g
o
V

—
i

o














•o


J
ft)

CD
n
3:
w
00
a
<

























Si
0
IM

•o
V

O)
V

JK

£
g
2
hi
V
I


O
g
•rt
3
CM U
? .5
o

3
•O

U
«
0 -S

^ —
« 5
•; S *
U-l
•a o
a x
A -tJ




j= >

B W
0) w
S "3


Ji|

B •
O 0)

B "°
^ -H M

S 5 is
* *•
197

-------
I
s
5
a.

£
r
 w

 h
 il















^*
»

1
h
S
«
|
IM
M










i
».

i



i

1
*
*
CO
s
H
B
H
S
J
B
X
y
3
u
\t
£
•fl
5


|
i
S
|
S
I
1
s
••4

t
X
§
i
u
'e
1
^
1
£

i
Source

a
Ota
§
0
,

1
1


1

c*
o
e
i


s
o


o
e
00
o
o

8





*
o
0
§


1
n

I
S
§

1
g
e
,

1


8
0
8
e
,


i
o


8
O
i
0

!

,



§
e
m
s
e

i^


I
2

s
1
e
|

i
d

!

§
o
i
O

i
e


8
o
3
0

8





8
e
S
e

1


S
s
S

5
5
o
M
S
e
t
i


§
e
8
e
Ml
§

e
i



8
e
I
e

!

(



8
e
8
e

§
"*

1
R
S

S
2
e
I
e
§
e

i
o
S
e
,


§
e


8
O
S
o

!

1
t


1

•j
e

|
—

*
S

i






















.
1
i
s
Ml
4
S
i
1
3
c,
I
i
£
i
i
I
*
I
I

                                    198

-------
*


g
3
°S
».
g
I
I
i
«
t
!.*
II
       |


       I
       S

       1
       S
il
      E!
      **


       !
       K
       i
       I!
      II
          o o  °  o o
          5 5  9
                 i i
          ft O  A  O  M
          § i  i  i  s
          o •••.••
          8 8  »  8  8
              i    i
          i § i  §  i
          0 0 0  0  *
          8 S 5  S  8
                 e  8

                 5  S
    I  i  i i I

    1  I  i s 8
    I  !  5 s i

    ?  ?  ? ? ?
    if  s  s s s
          a a s  s  S
                            :  i  i
                            -  ?  =
                            :  11
                            •t  «* **
                            •s  s .
                             J- e  i
                             S *•  I
                            .si ^  a
                       i  JI
                       s  ?  t
                      I|  I  5
                      s:  s  v
                      t S .M
                      • ** 7 c  •
                             |.>"
                              v '
                                  .
                            M*  1
                                • -»•
                             199

-------














e
a

8J
«
.J
j:
AJ
CD
4J
e
«B
Cu

£


e
V
3
«w
U-l
U
•o
4)
to
4)
h
H
V
4)
>

BJ
>-
4>
W
E
&
u
c
a
oe
o
c
t-i 4)
U
•D V

u e
Is
1- O
0 "o
«
w
o
CD
«
1
oc
e
>
4>
CD
m .
P-
w
•o
55

00
f«l

>
41

2
H

















~
1
0
e
o
•H
(Q
h
C
41
U
C
S

c
s
«M
H































-t
e-



>





•
J





u
c
N
8
.3
*t
c
kl
at
>
ta
i
i
w
CO
41
^
U
«4
Z
^
3
J
g
"O
0)
3


B
3
!
k>
£
CJ

14
1
O
o

B
3
E
•o
«B
U

-
3

ZH
X
1


X




u
£

u
'c
4>
CO
v*
-<

_^
X
^
^
^/



I
*_,


4>
U
g
CQ
4J
e
 41
          II
200

-------
















c

1

*J
I
A.
W

C
S
IM
M
U
fc
j
w
1
u
1
1
1
u
h
il
*&
11
-il
od Prec«rvin|
•treatment T*
* £
2
*
2
ff



















^
j
S
0
4J
h
e
S
j
1
M









Itf

1

1




U
e
N
§
•-J
S
I

10
i

1
£
S
W
X

X
b
9
J!
J

g
3
•
14
g
i
i
§
*
§
>*4
1
X
1
u
B
U
^

1
w
i

f
w
|
k
s - *
O « j « —

S S

!££££!£

§ £ £ £ £ ! £
0



° £ £ £ £ 8. £
0 0
40 S
? £ £ £ £ " £
0 0


? £ £ £ £ ? £
0 0
S < < < s 8 «
d z s * * d *


e o § S 2 2 S
5 3 o «A o o o
sr «0 o o o o o

(MOO O f* O
» W f^- CD i/% *•* ri
O O IA ^. — r* *ft
O O O — O O O
^
f s i : i : i

lfiiili

lfiii s
— ' O Q Q f*
— *r% S (^ O
0 j 0 *- 0 0 j
d d d d d

a 1 I I 1 | 1

iiiilli
CO r~
i g s g g i s


-• i*> «-> O O




























.
u
1
j
1
1
s
s
1
1
•5
N
X
1
i
v
i
1
• «
II
I £•
X SB
£ i
201

-------
                  -«   o   —
    1   s
                                             §   I
r-.   —   cs
     o   o    o
     o   o    o
     00-^
                                                  CO)
                                                  0)  *J

                                                  3-3
                                             3    C

                                             — (    O
                                  202

-------
£

u


§
          11
          b. bO
                                          203

-------
Table VI1-35.  Wood Preserving Steaming Traditional Data Averages for
Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place
                               Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft»)
                     COD        Phenols       0 & G             PCP


Raw*                  80.7         3.11          7.82            0.294

Treated**             41.5         2.03          0.908           0.0716

% Removal             48.6        34.7          88.4            75.6



* Averages calculated from Tables V-7 and V-8.

** Averages calculated from Table VII-11.


Table VI1-36.  Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for Plants
with Current BPT Technology In-Place



                               Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft3)
                     COD        Phenols       0 & G             PCP


Raw*                  31.3         2.41          4.32            0.268

Treated**              6.00        0.0061        0.821           0.0135

% Removal             80.8        99.7         >81.0            95.0



* Averages calculated from Table V-7.

** Averages calculated from Table VII-12.
                                   204

-------
Table VI1-37.  Wood Preserving Volatile Organic Analysis Data Averages
for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place
                      Waste Loads (lb/10.000 ft3)
             mecl   trclme    benzene   etbenzene  toluene

Raw*         0.0049   0.0001   >0.0200    0.101     0.0237
Treated**    0.0043   0.0002    0.0003    0.0001    0.0009
% Removal     12.2              >98.5     >99.9      >96.2

* Averages calculated from data in Table V-9.
** Averages calculated from data in Table VII-15.

Table VI1-40.  Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for Plants with
Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place

                        Waste Loads (lb/1.000 ft3)
              phen    2-clph   2,4*dimeph   2,4,6-triclph    PCP

Raw*          0.0066   0.0001     0.0001         0.0001      0.419
Treated**     0.0002   0.0001     0.0001         0.0001      0.0697
% Removal      97.1                                           83.4

* Averages calculated from data in Table V-14.
** Averages calculated from data in Table VII-22.
                                205

-------
•s
u


1
rving
9
               83
                  58
               9
            •*  S  *

            S  8  £


            9  9


            r~  O  m


            S  8  si




               SCO  Ch
               O   "



            9  v



            ~*  Q  r»»
            q  q  **

            9  9
            9  9'
            9  9'
            0  0
            9
            9'  9
            9  9
            9  9
            9  9*
               9
            9
3




in

t«C
Ot
                       rf  T
                       .s  .s
                       ]
               Jii1    !
     •  IB    M
     33    5
            i
            2
                •II
                ' ^*> ^N
                 a^
                                           *
                          206

-------










g
1
$
S
i
#
is
y
£
3
|
I
u
1
f
I
<
I
a
1

1
S
B

i
J
•*
«
i
i

















•§
Q
*
§
1
S
1













S

in

a

en

CM




s


o»


00

'-

*


in

.*

<^


«M


"*



|
CM
i
9
i
d
I
d
i
d
1
*'
g
8
9
R
3
9
2
3
m
8
R
8

S
i
!
§
d
••4
O
d
S
8
9
S
o
d

1
|
in
8
9
in
8
9
CM
9
i
d
1
9
(-4
8
9
g
8
9
S
|
3
1
2
8

2
8
9
8
d
8
9
^4
8
9
i-i
g
d
,_
I
3
—
S3

Ot
^

o
X
en

00
^
m
S3

q
eS

9
^
o.
B
>o
S

o\
S3
o
s;

i

r»»
cS

sr
S

•3
1



























d t
^ £!
,2 4!
2 «
-S .3
<« 0)
Ja
5
ifi
"8 "8
^ J
3 3
1 1
i i
•fc 4*
207

-------
Table VI1-41.  Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In-Place


Raw*
Treated**
% Removal

phen
0.352
0.0002
>99.9
Waste
2-clph
|0.0004
0.0001
75.0
Loads (lb/1,
2,4-dimeph
0.0445
0.0010
>97.8
,000 ft3)
2,4,6-triclph
|0.0050
0.0001
98.0

PCP
0.0736
0.0135
97.6
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-14.

** Averages calculated from data in Table VI1-23.
                                   208

-------
a
£
•s
 0)
Ow

OS
4-1
£


                PI
                    i
                              3    §
                              d    d
                              o    o
                              9    9
                              -H    m
                              o    o
                              9
                                           o
                                           in
                              o    d
o     o


C«     r*.    cs
CO     ^p>      •
^-t     O    ^
8     S
 •      •
o     o
                             9    9

                             o    S


                               •      •

                             9    9

                             ^-t    C>*




                             9    d
                             co    >n



                             d    d
                       4J     ,3

                       3     £
                       H     H

                       -S     .3
                       I
                       45     43

                       3     3
                        3     S
                                                     I    I
                                                     *     •»-
                                                  209

-------
•s
 00
0)
I
s
CO
s
 V
0U
S ^
•?S
513
% ^
aj o
£ Q
                .a
                N
                w
                .2
                        8    8
                        d    d
                        0    9
                        O    •-!
                             cs
                        °    9
                        CM    f-H
                        4    «
                        I    £

                        9    9
                             9
                       a    *    *.
                       O    Q    f>
                                  oo
                                          *    3
                                          H    H
                                          .3    .5
JS   •rffi
g    g
J3   J3
1   1
I-H   <—I
J    3
3    g
01    01
                                          IH     U
                                          I    I
                                  210

-------
  £
  iS

  CO
  CO

  3
 s
  CO
 
-------
a v
M u
a «
         I

        ,6

         M

         I
        18
§  §
             §
             S
             o
                 •9  >

                 "  t
                 *J  U














H
i
e
01
b
M
3
£
'S
*0
U
I
a,
1
Averages
servatives,
1
U
•*4
1
l-t
•o
c
•
V
•H
e
S
«
2
«
*
M
M 0-
Is
« X
V O
£1
•§•5
S &
i
i
M
>
w
.6
«
H
















in

i
^
«
"5
0>
V
*





•j
c
>••(
N

§
«
b
01
•2
CO
1
e
«
S
BJ
.*
u
•*4

X
u
3
U
1
3
J


I
3
i
5

!.
3
)
!
e
3
*<
I
DQ
i










•
V
28
= 1
O n?
M S
O O
0 0
d d
o 5
d d
V V
§- -

d d
V \?
O O
i i
o d
V V
<* •*• in
-« o w
g § *
d d
«*» -H rs
o d
f\ O M
§o •
8 "
d d

m >n
•* o*
d d

m oo
§ i
d d
w **
1 i
5 8
8 8
R a i
«M P <-«
2 3









•8 I
* S 1
« b
as t- M


























2 §
1 M
> >
V *
i-< i-*
I I
5 3
» t
3 1
§ i
ki U
•D •«
V «
4J 4J
(0 W
3 5
3 3
* Average*
t Average!
                               212

-------
wastewater sampling point; or where no dilution occurs, it is  due  to
evaporative or percolation losses in the treatment system.

For  the  purpose  of data presentation and interpretation, the plants
are  grouped  into  categories  based  upon  the  type  of   treatment
technology which was in-place at the time of sampling.

One  category  represents  plants  which  have  BPT  technology or its
equivalent in-place.  BPT technology  consists  of  primary  oil-water
separation,   flocculation  and  slow  sand  filtration,  followed  by
effective biological treatment.  Flocculation and slow sand filtration
is an optional part of BPT technology which may  not  be  required  by
plants  whose wastewaters do not contain high enough concentrations of
emulsified oils to inhibit biological  treatment.   Only  one  of  the
plants  in this category is a direct discharger.  All of the remaining
plants discharge to a POTW  or  to  self-contained  systems  following
biological treatment.

A  second  category  of plants represents those with the equivalent of
current pretreatment technology in-place.  Current pretreatment  tech-
nology   consists   of   primary   oil-water  separation  followed  by
flocculation and slow sand filtration.  Some plants in  this  category
achieve   the  recommended  effluent  levels  without  the  slow  sand
filtration.  One plant  replaces  the  flocculation/filtration  system
with  oil  absorbent  media.   All  of  the  above plants are indirect
dischargers.

The final category of plants for which data are presented  are  plants
with  less  than  the  equivalent  of  BPT technology in-place.  These
plants  have  biological  systems  which  do  not  meet  the  effluent
limitations   for   BPT   because   of  insufficient  aeration  and/or
insufficient detention time, as compared to a properly designed  plant
with BPT technology.  These plants were visited and sampled during the
1975  Pretreatment  Study,  and  all of them discharge to a POTW after
treatment.

Metals data are presented according to whether the plants  treat  with
organic  preservatives  only,  or  with  both  organic  and  inorganic
preservat i ves.

Wood Preserving Candidate Treatment Technologies

Direct  Dischargers—Candidate  treatment  technologies   for   direct
dischargers  are  applicable  only  to  the steaming subcategory.  BPT
regulations require no discharge for the Boulton subcategory,  and  no
Boulton direct dischargers were identified.

These  direct discharge candidate technologies are presented primarily
for  information  purposes,  as  only  one  direct  discharging   wood
                                 213

-------
preserving-steam  plant  was  identified  during the BAT review.  This
plant, number 1275, discharges only during periods of heavy  rainfall,
currently  provides  primary oil-water separation followed by chemical
coagulation, sedimentation, and biological treatment, and is  planning
steps  to  eliminate  all direct discharges of process wastewater from
the plant in the near future.

Four basic treatment technologies are applicable  to  steaming  direct
dischargers:

     1.   BPT  technology  (primary   oil-water-separation,   chemical
          coagulation  and  sedimentation or filtration and biological
          treatment) treatment facilities;

     2.   BPT with increased biological treatment as  above  with  the
          addition  of  activated  carbon  adsorption  as  a polishing
          treatment for the biological effluent;

     3.   BPT with increased biological treatment as in (1) above with
          metals  removal  by   chromium   reduction   and   hydroxide
          precipitation; and

     4.   BPT with increased biological treatment and  metals  removal
          as  in   (3)  above  with  activated  carbon  adsorption as a
          polishing treatment for the biological effluent.

Increased biological treatment facilities can be achieved through  one
of  two options.  One option is to add an aerated lagoon followed by a
facultative lagoon for additional treatment and clarification  to  the
existing  BPT  biological  system.   The other option is to provide an
activated  sludge  system,  including   equalization   and   secondary
clarification in addition to the BPT technology.

The  effluent  quality  of  each option will be the same.  The aerated
lagoon option  is  less  costly  than  the  activated  sludge  system;
however, it requires more land.

The   candidate    treatment   systems  selected  for  steaming  direct
dischargers, including both biological treatment options for  each  of
the four basic treatment technologies are:

     A.   Candidate Treatment Technology A which represents BPT  tech-
          nology   plus  an  additional  aerated and facultative lagoon
          system for  increased  biological  treatment,  as  shown  in
          Figure VII-5.
     B.   Candidate Treatment Technology B which represents BPT  tech-
          nology   plus an additional activated sludge system including
          equalization  and  clarification  for  increased  biological
          treatment, as shown in Figure VI1-6.
                                 214

-------
        o
        o

        o

        X
        o
£IU
cc
         Q

         5


         o


z
o
K
<
h
V
C
i
Q.
Z
£


§
2
1




FILTRATION


z
p
P

2
j
3
U
C

L




5
j
L




si
Kt-
<
a
?<
-i a.
0



Ul
to



o
5
tl
^

OL
i

>































1
ac































|
3
c

•

1
i
2

Ul
/


FACULTATIVI
LAQOON


Z
o
o
(9
<
c
C
J
1
UJ
fr™
<
a
u

i



Z
c
>
0
1
_j
a
UJ
h-
oc
3

I^^M
z
o
p
«
r
^
ac
h-
3
UJ








JDGE DISPOSAL
TRUCK HAUL)
^" --^
^

















— 1
i
^
a
a

H-
z
UJ
c
H-
3























3
3
8
5



iz
So
p
t<
0«
2



                                                                                                           up


                                                                                                           >

                                                                                                            £

                                                                                                            §,
                                  UJ
                                  H-
                                  tf)


                                  5
                                  ee
                                             215

-------
                N
                O
                 §z
                <2

                ><
                *£

                35
                
-------
(O
a
o
o
o
        a
        a
        o



o
K
O.
s
a


SLOW SAND
FILTRATION










O


3
U
O
o
u.



OIL-WATER
SEPARATION





g
5
(0
CL
s
0.



















t
oc









§
§1
§1
>Q
g*


""'
FACULTATIVE
LAQOON

























E DISPOSAL
ICK HAUL) 1
oc
M
O
O
(3
_j
Q
Ul
1-

HI


Z
RATED LAQOO
Ui

•

z
o
N
^
CC
UI
2»














— 1
z
o
H-
a
a
t-
Ol
E
t-
z




























Ui
(9
OE
X
w
52
O

*

MONITORING
STATION




1

tfj
i
g



                                                                                                        r^.
                                                                                                        >
                                 Ul
                                 UJ
                                 s
                                 E
                                              217

-------
                    1
                    t-
                    O
                    ui
                    35
                    W) u.
(0
o
o
o

u
     £3
     S a
     £2
a
a
z

u
                    O
                    <

                    3
                   SI
                   55
                     B9
               <
               »-
               u>
               a
               2

               a
                    c
                    LU
                    K



                    UJ
                    I
                               §
                               i
                               i
                                                                 CO
                                                                 O)
                                   O
                                   gz
                              s§
                              gs
                              u



                               Ul
                              ai a

                              2§
                              0) O
                              • Ul
                              o5
                              t%
                                           "
                                        a^
                                        ui u
                                        o =
                               o
a
a


H

UJ

K
h-
3
<
N
Zj
                                              UI
                                              O
                                              c


                                              u
                                              
-------
                      e

                      3
  UJ
  S

  UJ
  >

  P

  O
  3
  U.



li


Uj (C
Z UJ

Ik
 uj
  O
  C


  o
  V)

  5


  o
  UJ
  cc
       o
       o

       o

       X
       U
       UJ
       2<
       Sol

       < m
       UJ

       K-


       Q
       <
       o
                I
a
     si
     3$
     Joe

      !T
                      U
     £2
                      H-
                      U)
                      ee
                      ui
                                      O
                                      O
                                      a
RATED
                      ec
                      H

                      i
                           o
                           a
                           a
                                           UJ

                                           £
§


£
i


s

i

i
s
o


s
a.

i
                                      I
                                                                   3
                                                                   at
SCHARGE
                      a
                      2z
                      OCO

                      §5
                                      g
                                      i
                                      £
                                                           o. <
                                                           «x

                                                           <=>*
                                                           ui u
                      Ui
                       5

                       a:
                              219

-------
  (0
  UJ

C3 X


ii

Ul ^
hw ^J
S5^
Q

O
O
  ac
  UJ
  a
  ec

  x
  u
  Ul
  cc
a
o

o
z

u
Ul i
uO
SOL