United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial-Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-82-062  August 1982
Project  Summary
Emissions and  Residue
Values from  Waste  Disposal
During  Wood  Preserving

B. DaRos, R. Merrill, H. K. Willard, and C. D. Wolbach
  Agency restrictions on the discharge
of wastewater generated during the
preservation of wood has resulted in
the increased use of evaporation
techniques for water removal by the
wood preserving industry. This report.
which further details the type of work
described in EPA report 600/2-81-
066 "Wood Preserving Industry Mul-
timedia  Emission  Inventory." dis-
cusses emissions and residues that
were measured during thermal (pan)
evaporation, spray pond evaporation.
and  direct thermal destruction  of
organic components in the wastewater.
The information  presented includes
plant and evaporation device descrip-
tions, wastewater and residue handling
procedures, sampling and analytical
results, and conclusions and recom-
mendations. Also presented are quali-
tative descriptions of the fugitive
emissions  and residues that  occur
during normal processing operations.
  It was concluded that toxic materials
are both emitted and disposed  as
residues. This includes organic com-
pounds  (phenols and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons) that were
emitted  to the atmosphere  during
thermal  (pan) evaporation. Similar
organic  emissions from the  spray
pond were below detectable levels.
Contrarily, solid residues from evapo-
rators had low concentrations of toxic
organic constituents while residues
in spray ponds contained much higher
levels than the  feed wastewater.
Fugitive  organic emissions from the
retort and vacuum vents were highly
concentrated although  limited  in
duration. Thermal destruction  of
wastewater sludge by cofiring in an
industrial wood-fired boiler was 96.1
to 99.99+ percent complete for the
measured organics. Chlorinated dioxin
and furan components were measured
in both sludge and ash wastes, but
varied too much to determine removal
or generation rates.
  Sludges produced from each process
contained a significant toxic organic
fraction. Waste sludge must be recy-
cled back to the process for reuse  or
disposed in a manner cognizant of the
toxic components identified.
  This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory,  Cincin-
nati, OH, to announce key findings of
the research project  that is fully
documented in a separate report  of
the same title (see Project  Report
ordering information at back).

Introduction
  The wood  preserving industry pri-
marily produces utility  poles, railroad
ties, and construction materials, chem-
ically treated  to enhance the useful
life—usually  with creosote,  penta-
chlorophenol  (penta) or waterborne
salts. Conditioning and  preserving the
wood generates a wastewater stream
of wood extracts and toxic preservative
components. To dispose of this waste in
accordance with Environmental Protec-
tion Agency  (EPA)  regulations, the

-------
industry generally discharges effluent
to POTWs or uses evaporation (thermal
or pan methods, cooling towers, and
solar and spray ponds) in conjunction
with oil/water separation and other in-
plant  modifications. This report sum-
marizes the results of test programs to
quantify the release of organic species
1) from the  pan evaporator treatment
system to the air, 2) of similar emissions
and residues to land from a spray pond
and 3) of  emissions and  ash from
preserving  oil-laden wastewater dis-
posal  in  an industrial steam boiler.
Other residue discharges were also
characterized for these systems.

Conclusions
  The results of this program confirmed
that the discharge of organic compounds
during wastewater evaporation  in
thermal (pan) evaporates occurred and
in greater amounts than usually pre-
dicted. The  toxic organic content  of
wastewater charged to the evaporators
was  many  times  higher than that  of
similar wastewater  reported in  litera-
ture. Spray pond emissions were such
that the cryogenic sampling systems did
not yield enough sample material  to
detect the low volatility components of
the wastewater if present. Therefore, of
the evaporation systems studied, therm-
al (pan) evaporation had the most emis-
sions and spray ponds the least. Solid
residues  in  spray  ponds have  much
higher concentrations of toxic organic
constituents while residues  in evapor-
ators contained much lower concentra-
tions than the feed wastewater.
  The destruction of the organic com-
pounds in an industrial steam boiler is a
viable  disposal  option. The system
tested accomplished a 96.1  to 99.99+
percent destruction efficiency of the
phenols and PNAs  measured; certain
chlorinated  dioxins  and furans were
present in the preserving waste feed
and ash  streams.  No generation  or
destruction efficiency  could  be  deter-
mined for such dioxin or furan constit-
uents due to limited analytical reliability.
  Industrywide,  the  air emissions from
onsite treatment of wastewater handling
had  been estimated at <100  metric
tons/year, based on the reported mass
of volatile organic compounds contained
in wastewater requiring treatment.
However, PNAs and  other aromatic
compounds were emitted at  rates up to
12  kg/hr for the plant  tested (which
uses two thermal  evaporators). The
wide variation in pollutant releases (<2
to 11,300 g/hr and ~0 to 52,000 ppm)
within  one day or less for individual
sources precludes establishing exact
mass emissions. Measured  fugitive
emissions, although of high concentra-
tion, were apparently of relatively short
duration. Thus,  although localized
emissions do occur, the wood preserving
industry in total does not emit as much
organic material as some other industry
segments. Table 1 presents a summary
of the organic materials discharged
from the evaporation devices.
  Solid residues produced from each
process must be  recycled back  to the
process for reuse or disposed in  a
manner cognizant of the toxic compo-
nents identified and quantified.

Recommendations
  If  evaporation technology  is  to be
employed, it must be  recognized that
the thermal (pan) evaporation system is
an emitter of organic components to the
atmosphere and its minimal use would
lessen air emittants.
  Regardless  of  the evaporator used,
care should be taken' to develop oil/
water  separation techniques which
minimize oil and sludge carryover to the
evaporator. A program  should be
conducted to establish the best available
separation systems or to develop meth-
ods to enhance the operation of existing
systems. Systems with  potential  ap-
plicability include chemical flocculation,
solvent extraction, biological pretreat-
ment,  and land  application. A pre-
liminary study (EPA-600/2-81-043)
has  covered  parts of the first three
mentioned treatments.  Disposal of
residue from systems that minimized air
emissions must be accomplished by
modes (preferrably by reuse) that do not
adversely impact the land.
  The  destruction of wood preserving
wastes by cofiring  in boilers can be
accomplished with minimal environ-
mental impacts. It is recommended that
industry pursue such  disposal. Also  a
program should be conducted to deter-
mine the proper  injection (atomization)
methods, and the residence times and
temperatures necessary to satisfactorily
destroy the  organics in  the  waste at
higher loadings.  Such an incineration
study could productively be extended to
include the ash and a variety of sludges.
Further analysis of the most toxic bypro-
ducts (possibly furans)  should be
extended for  better speciation and
quantification  of the chlorinated di-
benzodioxins and chlorinated dibenzo-
furans. Careful evaluation should be
conducted of the partitioning of these
organic components in ash, especially
where no baghouse is used.
  Fugitive emission and residue studies
should  be  extended to include the
duration  of  emission or  floyvrates and
extent of onsite land  (qr subsoil)
contamination. Such  information could
be  utilized  along with  the existing
concentration values to quantify these
pollutant sources.
  If  further  testing  of very  low level
emissions from ponds is  undertaken, it
is recommended that surface emissions
be sampled  separately from spray drift
sampling. Surface emissions  can  be
analyzed from  samples of the air layer
above the  surface. This air layer
contains  all pollutants emitted if the
surface is enclosed by a film bubble that
excludes all surrounding air transfer.
Particle or aerosol drift  can  be better
sampled  by  a  high volume  collection
device.

Wood Preserving Program

Onsite  Wastewater Disposal
by Evaporation
  Excess wastewater is most easily
managed onsite by water removal
treatment. The practice of using evap-
oration to achieve  water removal  is
reviewed  below  as well as a model
which predicts pollutant  losses associ-
ated with such practices. Results of a
program  funded by EPA lERL-Ci  and
reported as 600/2-81-066  indicated
that organic components of the wood
preserving wastewater could  be  dis-
charged to the air during evaporation. In
Table 1.    Summary of Emissions and Residues of Organic Compounds*
                               Emission       Emissions       Residues
                             concentration        rate        concentration
       Source                (ppm or fig/g)        g/hr            yg/g
Thermal evaporator
Spray pond evaporation
Retort emissions/ residues
Vacuum vent emissions
36 to 1.500
<1
220 to 3.700
22.000 to 52.000
1.8 to 11.300
0 to 20.000
75
48,000
2.100 to 14,000
* Organic constituents include  volatile and semivolatile (PNAs) compounds only.
Residues include only separately wasted material, not recycled streams.

-------
 a  mathematical expression developed
 for the evaporation rate of these organic
 chemical pollutants, diffusivity in-
 creased as a  function of increased
 temperature, which would then drive
 higher-molecular-weight  compounds
 out of solution. This evaporation model
 applies to both solar ponds (quiescent
 lagoons) and  thermal (pan) heated
 evaporators,  and indicates emissions
 from thermal evaporators should be
 higher.
   Thermal  evaporators  apply heat
 directly to accelerate evaporation. The
 wastewater is  contained in a tank or
 lined pond and heated by an external
 source such as boiler steam, or by using
 a  cooling fluid to condense vapor from
 the retort  before  recycling  to the
 evaporator
   Another way to enhance evaporation
 is to increase  liquid surface  area for
 greater  liquid-air contact. One such
 device is a spray pond which isa lined or
 unlined lagoon  with a pumping system
 and nozzles to spray the contained
 wastewater. Less land is  required for
 evaporation of  a given waste than is
 needed for solar ponds. The evaporation
 rate of organic compounds from sprayed
 wastewater was  estimated using the
 equation for the evaporation rate  of a
 free-falling drop. Diffusivity and  partial
 pressure, as well as air resistance, were
 included in the evaporation model that
 applies to spray ponds and cooling
 towers.
   With cooling tower evaporation using
 Boulton  conditioning, wastewater is
 condensed from the  retort and sent
 through an oil/water separator,  and is
 then  added to  the cooling water  that
 recirculates through the condenser and
 cooling tower The waste heat promotes
 evaporation. For processes  without
 Boulton conditioning,  there is insuffi-
 cient waste heat to  evaporate the
 wastewater generated. A field test at a
 cooling  tower site  had found low-
 molecular-weight compounds  being
 emitted to the atmosphere while non-
 volatile organics remained  in solution.
  Another evaporation process used by
the industry is  land irrigation. Waste-
water is sprayed onto a field and part of
the droplets evaporate, after which time
solar evaporation occurs as the  water
percolates into the soil
  Each of the  wastewater treatment
processes described produces a residual
sludge.  The amount  of  solid waste
 material  generated depends on  the
treatment technologies employed. This
material  is  typically  disposed  of in
landfills (usually onsite if  land is
available). Incineration of solid waste is
a  very limited  practice  at preserving
plants.

Characterization of Chemical
Discharges from Thermal (Pan)
Evaporators

   Field tests were conducted at a wood
preserving plant (Plant A) equipped for
thermal (pan) evaporation to determine
the organic residues and emissions
from two evaporators, one of which is
for wastewater containing penta  and
the other for creosote wastes.
   The plant used two treating cylinders
(one with penta, the other creosote) and
Boulton conditioning. Oil/water sep-
arators recovered  oil for  reuse, routing
the remaining wastewater to its respec-
tive evaporator. Steam was then pumped
through coils in the tanks to boil the
wastewater, driving  off the water. Post
evaporation oil/preservative was re-
turned to the work tanks while a resi-
dual sludge was subsequently landf illed
in drums.
   Source emission sampling was con-
ducted at the evaporator outlets; total
hydrocarbons and specific low-molecu-
lar-weight hydrocarbons were measured
at each emission point. The EPA Method
5 sampling train was used with XAD-2
resms for nonvolatile organics; volatile
organics  were measured by field gas
chromatography (GC). Grab samples
also were taken of  each evaporator's
contents,  of the treating  solutions,
penta in treating oil and creosote, and of
both fractions  from  each  oil/water
separator.
  Emissions concentrations were  cal-
culated by dividing the amount of each
component collected in  the resins by
the water volume  in the  impinger train
as water vapor was the major carrier
gas. Waste generation rates  were
based on  plant information and field
confirmed with measurements. Volume
emission rates were computed from the
rate of wastewater  volume change in
each evaporator.
  Because emission mass and concen-
trations reported for the field tests were
at times well above  their predicted
levels,  a  new  model for predicting
emissions was  developed. In  thermal
evaporation, the concentration of the
emitted specie varied in a cyclic pattern
depending on when  in the evaporation
cycle the sample was taken. This was
modeled as a series of physical mech-
anisms, each dependent on the distri-
bution of the particular component in
the sludge, water, and oil.
  The results of this study confirm that
all  organic species analyzed in the
wastewater stream  are emitted to the
atmosphere during pan evaporation.
The emissions  rate  of all organics
measured and of specific components is
highly variable and is cyclic (highest just
after charging) due to the once or twice-
a-day charging of the evaporators from
the oil/water separators. The rate of
emitted organics during the test period
varied from 11,300 to 1.8 g/hr for each
evaporator  (see Table  2).  Mass dis-
charges of  organic material was not
time weighted with the exception of a
creosote  charge.  In  that  case,  65
percent of  the daily charged organics
were emitted in 3 hours. The concentra-
ted residue consists of treating oil that
was recycled back to the working tanks
and a residual sludge (2 to 3 percent)
that contained toxic compounds.

Characterization of Chemical
Discharges from a Spray
Pond
  Field tests were conducted at a wood
treating plant (Plant B) with a spray
pond to determine the organic emissions
from the pond, the resulting sludge, and
the wastewater  input.  The program
focused  on determining  if organic
emissions were discharged  during
evaporation and  if the transport mech-
anisms could be established. Cryogenic
sampling and resin trapping methods
also were compared.
  The plant used two treating cylinders
(one with penta, the other with creosote)
and a closed steaming process. Individ-
ual oil/water separators,  operated
manually, recovered the treating form-
ulation for reuse from each wastewater
stream. Creosote  wastewater was
discharged  directly into the spray pond,
but penta  wastewater was treated
further by a three-zone gravity separator
and skimming device before discharge.
Sprays were operated 24 hr/day.
  The field tests included sampling to
determine characteristic of the air
above the spray  pond  using cryogenic
and resin trapping methods, and taking
grab samples of pond wastewater and
sludge.
  Toxic organic constituents contained
in the wastewater discharged into the
pond became concentrated  in the
bottom sludge layer. Concentrations of
penta and PNAs evidently decreased in
the  pond liquid layer as they were far
below  the  influent levels.  Ultimate

-------
 Table2.    Loading and Emitted Organic Compounds: PNAs, Penta 3 Phenol
            Combined
     Process Unit         Creosote          Penta          Industry Average
                        Evaporator       Evaporator        Wastewater**
 Flow                       (g/hr)           (g/hr)               (g/hr)
Average hourly rate
fed to evaporators
130
2,300
21
Exhaust emissions
rates measures
minimum
maximum
other sample


140
1,100*
960*


1.8
1 1.300*
8.0
* Measurements taken shortly after new charge addition.
**Value based on EPA-EGD data on wastewater requiring disposal by evaporation or
  equivalent.
sludge disposal was not monitored, but
is anticipated  to be affected after
several years.
  Emission rates  could not be deter-
mined due to the detection limits of the
sampling and analytical methodology.
Although the system  used is currently
the best way to determine  organic
emissions from surface waters,  the
sampling system's limited volume and
location (above surface) combined with
low pond evaporation rates prevented
the detection  of low and medium
volatile compounds.

Characterization  of Chemical
Discharges from  Cofiring
Wastes in a Boiler
  Field tests were  conducted at a wood
preserving facility (Plant C) using a 18
kg/hr pile-burning watertube boiler to
cofire wood waste and penta/creosote
wastewater. To determine the destruc-
tion and removal efficiencies of organic
compounds in the wastewater, inputs
(wood  waste  and sludge) and output
(hopper ash, baghouse ash, bottom ash,
and stack gases) were analyzed. Data
for a  material balance evaluation was
collected.
  The  facility used six retorts and a
steaming process to  treat  wood with
penta, creosote,  or waterborne pre-
servatives.  Individual oil/water sepa-
rators  handled wastewater from each
treating process,  recovering the  pre-
servative fraction for reuse. The remain-
ing wastewater and sludge was routed
to a  storage tank until enough had
accumulated to be fired in  the steam
boiler. The boiler,  consisting of a
furnace and auxiliary cell,  was fueled
using two metering bins and a contin-
uously operating screw conveyor. Fuel
is stored in either a wet or dry wood fuel
silo, or on a waste wood slab pile.
            The field tests included a preliminary
           characterization  of  the gas stream,
           isokinetic source  sampling of the flue
           gas, determination of total hydrocarbons
           and specific  low-molecular-weight
           hydrocarbons, composite sampling of
           the bottom ash, hopper ash and waste-
           water sludge, and grab samples of the
           baghouse ash, treating penta in oil, and
           bulk treating creosote. The EPA Method
           5 sampling train was used with XAD-2
           resins for nonvolatile organics. A field
           GC  was  used to determine volatile
           emissions.
            Air emission rates and ash estimates
           for naphthalene and phenol are sum-
           marized in Table 3. Other components
           were not detected in air emissions.
           Based on these emissions, destruction
           efficiencies of 96.1 to 99.99+ percent
           were calculated.
            Due to the  high  toxicity of some
           isomers, analyses for chlorodibenzo-
           furans (CDF)  and chlorodibenzodioxins
           (CDD) were undertaken. No CDF or CDD
           were detected in the air emissions. Ash,
           sludge, and penta in oil  samples were
           analyzed  by  three laboratories using
           split  samples.  Both  CDFs  and CDDs
           were  found  in  the treating  penta
           solution,  waste sludge  and  the ash.
           Although these materials were detected,
           the  quantities  measured were not
           consistent and evidently depended on
           the analyzing laboratory's procedure.
           Extraction and cleanup procedures
           were quite different  between the labs
           as  were  spiked sample recovery and
           detection limits. Unfortunately the
           toxicity of CDDs and CDFs are quite
           isomer  specific while the results
           reported do not contain isomer data that
           is clearly independent of contamination
           and  also  reproducible. In  terms of
           specific monomers, TCDDs are evidently
           generated in  the process while OCDDs
           are  reduced.  The highly  toxic isomer 2,
3, 7, 8-TCDD has not conclusively been
demonstrated as present and apparently
is not in ash samples. Values determined
are in the range reported for combustion
ash and especially of wood preserving
waste ash from other sources (see Table
4).  Measurements  of Mono-CDD,  Di-
CDD,  and  Tri-CDD  monomers are
significant as this is only the second
time combustion source measurements
have had positive values reported. Table
4 contains  typical  data for the three
laboratories.

Evaluation of Fugitive
Emission and Residue
Sources

  Fugitive emissions measured were
cylinder spillage and vapors released
during unloading/charging operations,
emissions from valves, fittings during
transfer or preservative formulation, or
open vessels, and vacuum vent exhaust
during  the treating cycles.  These
sources also are close to employee work
areas. Air samples were collected
directly  above the access doors during
unloading/charging using EPA Method
5 and XAD-2  cartridges; the fugitive
emissions released appeared as a dense
white plume. Emissions from preserv-
ative transport on the plant site were not
tested.
  Fugitive residues measured included
treating liquid spillage and deposition.
Samples of accumulated spillage were
collected directly falling from the access
doors of the penta and creosote treating
cylinders.
  Emissions resulting  from pressure
release  and vacuum exhaust during the
treating process were characterized.
Grab  samples from a vacuum  vent
common to both penta and creosote
treating cylinders were analyzed onsite
for total hydrocarbons; Table 1 sum-
marizes these and other hydrocarbon
results.  The grab samples also were
tested for low-molecular-weight hydro-
carbons—benzene, toluene, and ethyl-
benzene. Significant concentrations of
organic compounds were found to be
emitted, and  the vacuum vent was
determined as the greatest fugitive air
emission source with rates varying from
0 to 360 g/min of organics. The  most
significant  solid  fugitive discharges
were  retort drippings and spray  pond
residues.
  The final disposal of residues which
accumulate in treatment lagoons,
holding ponds or tanks depends on site
specific management practices. When

-------
 Table3.    Rates of Discharge and Efficiency of Destruction for Naphthalene and Phenol

Test 2
Naphthalene
Phenol
Solid rate
Test 3
Naphthalene
Phenol
Solid rate
Test 4
Naphthalene
Phenol
Solid rate
Feed
(g/sec)

0.10
0.10
79

0.08
0.08
79

0.05
0.11
79
Bottom ash
(g/sec)

>5 x W5
>5 x 70-7
>5

>9 x iO's
>4 x /CT6
>5

>4.8 x 70~5
>3 x 70~6
>5
Mech. hop.
(g/sec)

>J >
>7 *
>70

>7.7
>7 >
>70

>2.2
>7 >
>70

: 70""
: 70~6


x 70~4
'• 10'6


x 70~5
= 70~6

Baghouse
(g/sec)

>5>
>2.5
>5

>1.9

c 70~5
x 70~9


x 70"5
>7 x 70"6
>5

>2.5
>7.5
>5


x W'5
x 7CT6

Gas
(g/sec)

3.9 x 70~3
2.9 x ;o~5
re.ssr

7 x /o'3
>7.9 x 70"5
(6,85)*

1.10* W'3
1 6 x 70"5
P. or
Total out
(g/sec)

3.9x 70~3
2.9 x /O"5


7 x ;o~3
>2 x 70"5


7. 7 x 70~3
7.6x 70'5

Efficiency
(percent)

96.1
99.97


98.7
>99.99


97.8
99.99

Assumptions: Feedrate, all cases=79 g/sec sludge; ash quantity is 5 g/sec total, but some unburned organics were observed in
             the mechanical hopper thus >10g is used.
*Sm3/sec (23°C and 1 atm).

Table 4.    CDD Values in Penta and Ash Reported from Combustion Sources

Reporting source
This project (Plant A)
Ash
Lab A (d-2)
Lab A (d-3)
Lab A (d-4)
Lab C (d-2)
Bottom ash
Baghouse (fly)
Treating Solution
Lab A
LabB
Multiple sources wood
preserving waste ash
Lab combustion of
penta (smoke)
Lab combustion of
penta, 2, 4, 6 tri-.
and 2, 3. 4, 6-tetra-
chlorophenol (ash)
Oil combustion (Swiss)

TCDD


4
.8
3.3

10
960

1.1
i*


5.2

17



100

PCDD


32
2.6
6

20
1.400

33.
i


14 '

58



160

HiCDD


81
8.7
10

40
2,000

570
1,540
9-27

56

74



180

HpCDD
(U9/9)

117
42
4

100
640

260
17,000
90-135

172

18



130

OCDD


198
96
1

140
210

4,000
>1 7.000
575-2,510

710

6



40
TCDD
CDD


.009
.005
.10

.032
.18

.0002
small
0

.005

.1



.16
OCDD
CDD


.45
.61
.032

.45
.04

.82
>.5
.8:9

.74

.035



.066
*i = Interference precludes determining values
the equipment is part of the processing
plant,  the accumulated  material is
recycled if possible. On the other hand,
holding lagoons and spray ponds may be
cleaned  only occasionally  or  else
residue  may  accumulate until  the
lagoon is bypassed by some alternative
device. In the latter case, residues may
require removal  to prevent impacting
future land use. For the field sites
surveyed, Plants A  and C currently
transfer residual sludge or ash to onsite
landfills  by  direct hauling. Plant  B's
residue impacts the environment as a
continuous minor land application is
effected  indirectly  through  lagoon
bottom buildup. The character of this
material is presented in Table 5. Plant A
had a similar practice that was aban-
doned for evaporation.
  The  high values of spray pond
components in  Table 5 indicate that
incoming waste eventually decreases in
concentration while the bottom sludge
increases.  Higher molecular weight
organics are not emitted very rapidly at
low temperatures. Thus  it is assumed
that  toxic  organics settle  onto the
lagoon bottom and remain therefor some
period  of time.  Residues are thereby
slowly  transferred to land, albeit with
undocumented environmental effects.

-------
Table 5.    Characterization of wood preserving solid residues (concentrations in g/g)

                                                     Sample location
                           Cylinder
Spillage and Dnppage
Pan Evaporator Sludge
Evaporation Pond
                                                                                                      Incineration Ash

Compound
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzofluoranthenes
Chrysene
A cenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzol g. h, ijperylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1.2,3-c,d)pyren
Pyrene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Other PNAs
COO
CDF
*Not detectable.
** Abandon pond.
Penta
treating
1,800
<10
JOS
125
70
28
40
68
13
51
>40
125
235
<10
<10
82
0.1
0.3
<0.3





Creosote
treating
1,100
<20
310
1.350
940
220
600
780
126
1,350
40
1,850
2.150
20
50
1,000
7
<1
<1





Penta
treating
620
1.2
2.0
1.1
0.5
.05
0.2
0.4
.05
.5
.1
3
3.1
2.5
*
*
3.4
#
0.7
#
1.8
6.9
*
*
1.4



O.3
—
—


Bottom
ash
0.5
0.8
36
12
2.8
0.5
3.4
0.7
2.5
1.9
—
0.5
19
—
—
—








Mechanical
hopper ash
2.7
0.1
0.9
6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
—
0.1
0.5
—
—
—




0.4-2.3
0.1-1.1


  B. DaRos, R.  Merrill. H. K. Willard, and C. D.  Wolbach are with Acurex Corp.,
    Mountain View, CA 94042.
  Donald Wilson is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
  The complete report,  entitled "Emissions and Residue Values from  Waste
    Disposal During Wood Preserving." (Order No. PB 82-234 246; Cost: $19.50.
    subject to change) will be available only from:
          National Technical Information Service
          5285 Port Royal Road
          Springfield, VA 22161
          Telephone: 703-487-4650
  The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
          Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Cincinnati, OH 45268
                                                                                   OUSGPO: 1982 — 559-092/0496

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
                          Postage and
                          Fees Paid
                          Environmental
                          Protection
                          Agency
                          EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

RETURN POSTAGE GUARANTEED
PS
U  $
                                                                CHICAGO
                                      00005i29
                                      tNVlH
                                             LIBRAE
                                      S  UEAROOKN SIKEET
                                            IL  006U4

-------