United States Effluent Guidelines Division EPA 440/1-79/078-b
Environmental Protection WH-552- December 1979
Agency Washington, DC 20460 pf, >i •* i /-
Water and Waste Management / ». / / • •
vvEPA Development
Document for ^
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for the
Gum and Wood Chemicals
Manufacturing
Point Source Category
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES,
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, AND
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
for the
GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Douglas M. Costle
Administrator
Robert B. Schaffer
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
John E. Riley
Chief, Wood Products and Fibers Branch
William Thomson II, P.E.
Project Officer
December, 1979
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of an extensive study of the gum
and wood chemicals industry for the purpose of developing effluent
limitations for existing sources, standards of performance for new
sources, and pretreatment standards for existing and new sources to
implement Sections 301, 304, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act. The
study covers approximately 119 gum and wood chemicals facilities in
SIC Group 2861 of which seven are specifically affected by the
findings.
Effluent limitations guidelines are set forth for the degree of
effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (EPT) for a new
subcategory, Sulfate Turpentine processing. Effluent limitation
guidelines are set forth for the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) and the best conventional pollutant
control technoloyg (BCT), which must be achieved by existing point
sources by July 1, 1984. The standards of performance for new sources
(NSPS) set forth the degree of effluent reduction that is achievable
through the application of the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives.
Pretreatment standards for existing and new sources (PSES and PSNS)
set forth the degree of effluent reduction that must be achieved in
order to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
POTW.
The proposed regulation for BPT for Sulfate Turpentine processing is
based on the same methodology used to derive the existing BPT
regulations. The proposed regulations for BCT are based on best
practicable control technology. The proposed regulations for BAT and
NSPS are based on best practicable control technology (BPT) plus
metals removal at-the-source where the metals are used as catalysts.
The proposed regulations for PSES and PSNS are based on metals removal
at-the-source where the metals are used as catalysts.
Supportive data, rationale, and methods for development of the
proposed effluent limitation guidelines and standards of performance
are contained in this document.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 9
GENERAL 9
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 9
III INTRODUCTION 17
AUTHORITY 17
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 17
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY 18
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY 19
DATA AND INFORMATION GATHERING PROGRAM 20
308 Data Collection Portfolio 21
Plant Visits 22
Raw Materials Review 22
Screening Sampling 23
Verification Program 23
Processing of Information 24
PROFILE OF INDUSTRY 25
Char and Charcoal Briquets 25
Gum Rosin and Turpentine 26
Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Cil 26
Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch 26
Essential Oils 27
Rosin-Based Derivatives 27
Sulfate Turpentine 28
DESCRIPTIONS OF PROCESSES 28
Char and Charcoal Eriquets 28
Gum Rosin and Turpentine 29
Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Cil 29
Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch 32
Essential Oils 34
Rosin Derivatives 36
Sulfate Turpentine 36
111
-------
IV INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATICN 41
SUBCATEGORIZATION REVIEW 41
Manufacturing Process 42
Plant Location and Climate 42
Raw Materials 45
Plant Age 45
Plant Size and Flows 46
Product 46
Wastewater Characteristics and Treatability 46
POTENTIAL SUBCATEGORIES 47
V WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 49
GENERAL 49
Exclusion Under Paragraph 8 49
Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Oil 49
Tall Oil Rosin, Pitch, and Fatty Acids 52
Sulfate Turpentine 55
Rosin Derivatives 62
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 64
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF SIGNIFICANCE 65
CONVENTIONAL AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
PARAMETERS 65
BOD 65
TSS 66
pH 67
TOXIC POLLUTANTS 68
Organic Toxic Pollutants 68
Volatile Fraction 68
Semi-Volatile Fraction 75
Acidic Fraction 76
Inorganic Toxic Pollutants 77
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 81
GENERAL 81
IN-PLANT CONTROL MEASURES 81
Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Oil 81
IV
-------
Tall Oil Rosin, Pitch, and Fatty Acids 82
End-of-Pipe Treatment 85
In-Place Treatment; Technology—BPT 92
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS 97
COST INFORMATION 97
Energy Requirements cf Candidate Technologies 98
Total Cost of Candidate Technologies 98
Cost of Compliance for Individual Plants 98
NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLCGIES 98
IX EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 139
GENERAL 139
Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities 140
BEST PRACTICABLE TECHNOLOGY 140
X EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 145
INTRODUCTION 145
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE 146
Metals Removal 146
DEVELOPMENT OF BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 146
REGULATED POLLUTANTS 147
SIZE, AGE, PROCESSES EMPLOYED, LOCATION OF
FACILITIES 147
TOTAL COST OF APPLICATION 147
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE 148
Process Changes 148
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 148
XI EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE BY BEST CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 151
-------
XII NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 155
XIII PRETREATMENT GUIDELINES 159
INTRODUCTION 159
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES 160
Pretreatment Technology 160
RATIONALE FOR THE PRETREATMENT STANDARD
REGULATED POLLUTANTS 161
SIZE, AGE, PROCESSES EMPLOYED, LOCATION OF
FACILITIES 162
TOTAL COST OF APPLICATION 162
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND
RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS 162
IN-PLANT CHANGES 163
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCESS 165
RATIONALE FOR THE PRETREA1MENT STANDARD 165
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 165
XIV PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS 167
PURPOSE 167
FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE VARIATIONS IN PERFORMANCE
OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 167
Temperature 167
Shock Loading 167
System Stabilization 168
System Operation 168
Nutrient Requirements 168
System Controllability 168
XV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 169
XVI BIBLIOGRAPHY 171
XVII GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 183
APPENDIX A LIST OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS 195
APPENDIX B SAMPLE 308 DATA COLLECTION PORTFOLIO 203
APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED PARAGRAPH 8 EXCLUSION UNDER THE
NRDC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 217
APPENDIX D ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 225
APPENDIX E CONVERSION TABLE 245
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Summary Tables 3
II-1 BPT Effluent Limitations Guidelines 11
II-2 BCT Effluent Limitations Guidelines 12
II-3 BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines 13
II-4 New Source Performance Standards 14
II-5 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources 15
II-6 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources 16
III-1 List of Plants 22
IV-1 Tabulated Wastewater Flows by Plant 48
V-1 Sample Analysis, Plant 464 50
V-1A Sample Numbers, Plant 464 51
V-2 Sample Analysis, Plant 949 53
V-2A Sample Numbers, Plant 949 54
V-3 Sample Analysis, Plant 337 56
V-3A Sample Numbers, Plant 337 57
V-4 Sample Analysis, Plant 610 58
V-4A Sample Numbers, Plant 610 59
V-5 Sample Analysis, Plant 065—Turpene Sump 60
V-5A Sample Numbers, Plant 065 61
V-6 Sample Analysis, Plant 097—Rosin Derivatives Process 63
V-6A Sample Numbers, Plant 097 64
VI-1 Screening Sample Results for Halomethanes 69
VI-2 Screening Sample Results for Aromatic Solvents 70
VII
-------
VI-3 Toxic Pollutants Detected (Organics)
VI-4 Toxic Pollutants Detected (Metals)
VII-1 Plant 476—Comparison of Raw Wastewater and "Oily
Water" Cooling System
VI1-2 Secondary Treatment Feed and Effluent Analysis and
Performance Data
VII-3 Typical Total Treatment System Performance Data
VII-4 Plant 976—Pollutant Reduction Across Fly Ash Slurry
VI1-5 Treatment Scheme
VIII-1 Cost Assumptions
VIII-2 Gum and Wood Candidate Treatment Technologies—
Indirect Discharge
VIII-3 Gum and Wood Candidate Treatment Technologies—
Direct Discharge
VIII-4 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acid, and Pitch Producing
Plants—Model Plant Design Criteria
VIII-5 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acid, Pitch, and Rosin
Based Derivatives Producing Plant—Model Plant
Design Criteria
VIII-6 Sulfate Turpentine Producing Plants—Model Plant
Design Criteria
VIII-7 Sulfate Turpentine and Rosin Eased Derivatives
Producing Plants—Model Plant Design Criteria
VIII-8 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch
Producing Plants
VIII-9 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch
Producing Plants
VTII-10 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and
Rosin Based Derivatives
VIII-11 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and
Rosin Based Derivatives
71
73
84
90
91
94
95
100
•
101
101
102
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
vixi
-------
VIII-12 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin
Based Derivatives 109
VIII-13 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin
Based Derivatives 110
VIII-14 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin
Derivatives 111
VIII-15 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin
Based Derivatives Producing Plants 111
VI11-16 Sulfate Turpentine 112
VIII-17 Sulfate Turpentine 113
VIII-18 Sulfate Turpentine 113
VIII-19 Sulfate Turpentine 114
VIII-20 Sulfate Turpentine 114
VI11-21 Sulfate Turpentine 115
VIII-22 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch;
Rosin Based Derivatives; and Sulfate Turpentine 116
VIII-23 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch;
Rosin Based Derivatives; and Sulfate Turpentine 117
VIII-2U Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch;
Rosin Based Derivatives; and Sulfate Turpentine 118
VIII-25 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch;
Rosin Based Derivatives; and Sulfate Turpentine 119
VI11-26 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch; Rosin
Based Derivatives; and Sulfate Turpentine 120
VIII-27 Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch; Rosin
Based Derivatives; and Sulfate Turpentine 121
VIII-28 Treatment Option for Plant 151 122
VIII-29 Treatment Option for Plant 151 123
VIII-30 Treatment Option for Plant 090 124
IX
-------
VI11-31 Treatment Option for Plant 090
VI11-32 Treatment Option for Plant 686
VIII-33 Treatment Option for Plant 686
VI11-34 Treatment Option for Plant 698
VIII-35 Treatment Option for Plant 948
VI11-36 Treatment Option for Plant 416
VIII-37 Treatment Option for Plant 333
VIII-38 Treatment Option for Plant 121
VI11-39 Treatment Option for Plant 087
VI11-40 Treatment Option for Plant 087
VIII-41 Treatment Option for Plant 266
VIII-42 Treatment Option for Plant 800
VI11-43 Treatment Option for Plant 606
VIII-44 Treatment Option for Plant 693
IX-1 Review of Individual Plants
IX-2 EPT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
IX-3 BPT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(Sulfate Turpentine)
X-1 BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
XI-1 BCT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
XII-1 NSPS Effluent Limitations Guidelines
XIII-1 PSES Effluent Limitations Guidelines
XIII-2 PSNS Effluent Limitations Guidelines
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
142
143
144
149
152
156
164
166
-------
LISr OF FIGURES
Figure Page
III-1 Gum Rosin and Turpentine Production 31
III-2 Wood Rosin, Pine Oil, and Turpentine
Via Solvent Extraction 32
III-3 Crude Tall Oil Fractionation and Refining 34
III-4 Distillation and Refining cf Essential Oils 36
III-5 Rosin Derivatives Manufacture 38
II1-6 Basic Process Flow Turpentine Distillation 39
IV-1 Location of Naval Stores Plants 43
IV-2 Location of Charcoal Plants 44
VI1-1 Stump Wash Water Treatment System—Plant 687 83
VI1-2 Solubility Curves for Chromium, Copper, Nickel,
and Zinc 88
XI
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The Gum and Wood Chemicals manufacturing point source category encom-
passes seven industrial segments. This document provides background
information and the technical data base used in the review of effluent
limitations guidelines for the Gum and Wood Chemicals pcint source
category. Technologies are defined as best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT), best conventional pollutant
technology (BCT), best available technology economically achievable
(BAT), and pretreatment standards (PSES and PSNS).
The rationale for the exclusion of three subcategories from regulation
is given in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 of the
Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources Defense Council^ et. al. v.
Train (June 8, 1976).
The Agency has extensively sampled the remaining four subcategories
(50 percent of the plants were sampled in the verification phase) for
the presence or absence of the 129 tcxic pollutants listed in Appendix
A. Many of the toxic pollutants fcund in the raw wastes and treated
effluents originate in specific process-related raw materials and
chemicals used in the manufacturing process. In the case of certain
pollutants found in widely varying amounts or with erratic frequencies
of occurrence, the precise sources generally remain unknown, but are
not suspected to be process-related.
The rationale by which the Agency then developed effluent limitations
guidelines based on each technology level is presented. A review of
the previously promulgated BPT limitations demonstrated that the
industry can meet the limitations with the EPT or equivalent
biological technologies in use. The BPT rationale was then used to
derive the BPT effluent limitations guidelines for the Sulfate
Turpentine subcategory.
Eased on data from the sampling program, it appears that BPT or
equivalent biological treatment (including oil/water separation,
activated sludge or aerated lagoons treatment, and polishing ponds)
provides effective control for the organic toxic pollutants. The data
available indicate that after the application of EPT technology, the
organic toxic pollutants decrease tc levels equal to or less than 0.2
mg/1.
Two of the subcategories, Rosin-Based Derivatives and Sulfate
Turpentine, employ modification cf intermediates by metallic
catalysts. These catalysts - copper and nickel in sulfate turpentine
and zinc in rosin-based derivatives - were detected in the effluent at
a number of the plants. Therefore, for these two subcategories, EPA
-------
proposes BAT numerical effluent limitations guidelines to limit these
metallic toxic pollutants. The remaining two subcategories—Wood
Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Oil and Tall Cil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and
Pitch do not use metals in their processes.
Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) recognize that
organic toxic pollutants in this industry are reduced by good
biological treatment. Numerical effluent limitations guidelines are
proposed for control of metallic toxic pollutants in the same
subcategories covered by metallic toxic pollutant limitations under
EAT.
New source performance standards for direct dischargers are equivalent
to BPT and BAT. New source performance standards for indirect
dischargers are equivalent to PSES.
The Agency estimates that the total investment cost to be incurred by
existing sources, both direct and indirect dischargers, to achieve
these effluent limitations guidelines (BPT for Sulfate Turpentine and
BAT) and pretreatment standards (PSES) is $H8H thousand, with total
operating cost of $937 thousand. A total of approximately 150
additional pounds per day of conventional pollutants will be removed
as a result of the proposed BPT regulations fcr Sulfate Turpentine.
In addition, a total of 2 pounds per day of nickel, 11 pounds per day
of copper, and 120 pounds per day of zinc, will be removed by
compliance with BAT and PSES regulations.
-------
&
4_)
y
]?« £
r £
4-1 65
q C>
I!
si
H H
3]
.2
1
1
w
o, o,
2 2
8 £
o 3
d d
d **
m o
r^ **^
• •
O -i
CN QO
St O
•M CS
^ 1-4
Is. II.
S to m vi
p ._! P •-<
U 13 u T3
1—41) 1—10)
(8 60 <0 60
.a "g .a •g
tf-s y-s
• 2 "S is -a
CQ w PQ to
i— 1 4) r-t
CO QM*H
q F o
<(j «Hg OHOj Q
&o |Ja fs- ?
OOT3CC &Ot-*'-4 GO{n*O &0
OJCJJ 0)<04J CJQG *B
r- 1 O> r-4 Ol
%
S4J CO
•U &J — ' fe
CQ CQ •-!
o
r-t C 60 CO 60
-I «J a) -i i)
° - y -y #
JZ CO c CO
— 4 ^ o o) y
•^ U ,£4 W _o
C8 "4 3 03 ^
H Oi Cfl W cfl
ON
2
(-H
q
d
i
d
5
p«l»
o*
I— 1
-------
u
.8
op
ft*
a M
3
*
a
en
01
I
V
«J
en
S
d
o>
d
in
O*
C-J
0a
uo*
co •-
^1
O
r«»
d
8
CM
v-l
o
<5
O*
CM
d
to
u
^ Q
•"- >>
cn
O
CM
r a tf
jr a>
—* TJ cj
— _i ^
&•£ A
- o
oc
!/•!
3
d
r-
O
e§ a
v|
O
vo
en
CM
CM
-------
Values for BATEA (1983)
30-Day 30-Day 30-Day
Average Average Average
Contaminants Treatment Copper Nickel Zinc
Subcategories of Interest Technology ng/1 rag/1 mg/1
Subcategory A No discharge of the process wastewater pollutants
Char and Charcoal
Briquets
Subcategory B
Gum Rosin and
Turpentine
Subcategory C
Wood Rosin, Turpentine
and Pine Oil
Subcategory D
Tall Oil Rosin,
Pitch and Fatty Acids
Essential Oils
Subcategory F Zinc Metals Removal 1.8
Rosin-Based and Sludge
Derivatives Disposal
Subcategory G Copper Metals Removal 1.8
SuLfate Turpentine Nickel and Sludge
Disposal 1.8
-------
.
> ap
•
_ "
-.
i
SiJx?at
U
en
u
II
1C 3
-» S
do
S
g g
•S
a
u
x
Id
so
u
o S
es o
* » *
%. Si. 2 1
.t
| S
to CB
j
•" (J
—
o
d
-------
y
e
N
x-\
CO
CO
0*
0)
y
3
O
CO
00 01
C X.
—4 y
to z
• «4
W
U
4)
X 00
CO tQ P S
*o ^!
s
3 »—
e x-^
x a a1
CO
01
X 00
aj co <-*
Q u-^.
1 0) 00
3 > S
~i <
e
3 -(
rt a) an
X O S
CO
S
.2
to
•a
u
CO
"O U
C 01
co a.
u a
CO O
u
e
01
e
01
x ao
w CD »-*
a u«-»
1 V 00
3 > S
n u 01
3 H E-
Q
en
e M
CO 01
c u
S w
CO C
e
o ^
CJ 0
to
V
u
0
30
0>
CO
y
3
01
e
j_i
e
-* 0)
co a.
o u
y 3
.o
o
60 CO
0) -i
XT5 W
Li
O
Q. y
O •-»
u z
01
c
y — y
3
00 RJ ••*
u I CO
C >
.e
3
cojcd
3 O 01
CO 06 Q
cn
-------
u
c
N
^\.
cn
0)
x ao
CO eo 1-1
Q u-^.
1 01 00
D > B
n-<
S
3 -*
6 >»^
•1 CO 00
xa s
CO
g*
z
cn
eu
^MX
W
Ol
O r*
U 01
3 J<
Z
3
01
z
l^
0)
x ao
CO co --
Q J-^
1 01 00
0 > 5
*^ ^5
3 -<
S X"-^
H CO 00
X Q S
CO
£
o
VW
CO
•o
u
CO
e 01
.u a.
en Q
U
e
01
e
01
01
x ao
CO CO <-*
Q U-v.
i 41 ao
33B
s
S >.^
H CO 00
XQ S
CO
41
U X
s o
U 41 <-•
o e o
U^ Lj {J
<0 X
CO 01 0
41 U 41
3 H H
CO
CO
e cn
co 41
e u
•H 41
S J->
co C
XJ ^"^
c
O U-*
C3 0
o)
41
• V*
u
0
00
Ol
u
CO
0
3
en
4)
C 0)
u ••-
e u
-j 41 <
CO Q.
o u . x
y , .3 c -i
•< U CQ T3 CJH a -i J
CO C <-• CO co
X £Z X CO X •»•-•* X O C1*
i- o u oi u c O u as
o occo- o-o
oO'nco oo ^ •-* aowoi aO"^c
Ol£-u U cn ^J OIOC OIMCO
UC04I uQC *J PS •- • -UO
CO 3 COPCOI COO- COX
cjUCT y Q. cj'O u-*O
^3 CO **^ ^3 £ t* o Q *^3 ^3 ™* ^
3£'-> 333 3OC 3CO--
enfcja: cn u H co t2 a: yj H °-
ao
OO
00
01
eg
01 01
£•£-
3 co
d) -* ffl
•-i en o
co a.
•i-t ^ co
41 e—4
j^ c^ £3
41
60
I •«
CO -<
0) cn
H-O-H
C CO
CO CO CO
^-i O
co u a.
4-1 C 0)
41 4) •*
S 5 Q
u
c
N
41 41
a..*
eu u
41
CJ
41
>43
u
o
XTJ«
ao
41
-" o
co ao
-, 41
41 41
W >
pa u
I CO
c >
ao
CO
o
O4I
en
C/3
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
This document recommends effluent limitations guidelines commensurate
with BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, NSPS, and PSNS for the Gum and Wood
Chemicals manufacturing point source category. A discussion of in-
plant and end-of-pipe control technology required to achieve the
recommended effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance
standards is included.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
After review of industry processes and wastewater treatment, the
Agency recommended exclusion of three subcategories from further
study. The basis for the exclusion of Char and Charcoal Briquets, Gum
Rosin and Turpentine, and Essential Oils appears in Appendix C.
Table II-1 presents effluent limitation guidelines commensurate with
EPT for the Sulfate Turpentine subcategory of the Gum and Wood
Chemicals industry. The effluent limitation guidelines represent the
maximum average of daily values for 30 consecutive days and the
maximum for any one day and were developed on the basis of performance
factors discussed in Sections IX and XIV of this Development Document.
Process wastewaters subject to these limitations do not include non-
contact sources such as boiler and cooling water blowdown, sanitary,
and other similar flows. BPT alsc includes the maximum utilization of
applicable in-plant pollution abatement technology to minimize capital
expenditures for end-of-pipe wastewater treatment facilities. Flow
for BPT is identical with flow for ECT and BAT in this document. End-
cf-pipe technology for BPT involves the application of biological
treatment, as typified by activated sludge or equivalent biological
treatment systems.
Effluent limitations guidelines to be attained by application of EAT
are presented in Table II-3. Treatment for BAT includes at-the-source
metals precipitation by pH adjustment and filtration or clarification
for sulfate turpentine and rosin-based derivatives. This treatment is
to be followed by BPT treatment of all process waste streams. It is
emphasied that the model treatment system does not preclude the use of
other metals removal technologies. EAT is further discussed in
Section X.
-------
Effluent limitations guidelines tc be attained by application of NSPS
are presented in Table II-4. Treatment for NSPS includes metals
precipitation at-the-source by pH adjustment and filtration or clari-
fication for sulfate turpentine and rosin-based derivatives followed
by biological treatment. NSPS is further discussed in Section XII.
Effluent limitations guidelines tc be attained by application of PSNS
and PSES are presented in Tables II-5 and II-6, respectively. PSNS
and PSES includes metals precipitation at-the-source by pH adjustment
and filtration or clarification fcr sulfate turpentine and rosin-based
derivatives.
10
-------
Table II-1. BPT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Effluent Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
Subcategory Characteristic (kq/kkg) * shall Not Exceed (kg/jckg) *
A No discharge of
B BODS
TSS
C BOD5
TSS
D BODS
TSS
E BODS
TSS
F BODS
TSS
G BODS
TSS
process
1.420
0.077
2.08
1.38
0.995
0.705
22.7
9.01
1.41
0.045
5.504
0.686
wastewater pollutants
0.755
0.026
1. 10
0.475
0.529
0.243
12.0
3. 11
0.748
0.015
2.924
0.236
* kg/kkg production is equivalent to Ibs/1,000 Ibs production.
11
-------
Table II-2. BCT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Effluent
Subcategory Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
(kg/kkg^,* _ Shall Not Exceed Jkg/kkgJ *
BOD5
TSS
BOD5
TSS
BOD5
TSS
BOD5
TSS
2.08
1.38
0.995
0.705
1.41
0.045
5.504
0.686
1.10
0.475
0.529
0.243
0.748
0.015
2.924
0.236
12
-------
Table II-3. BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Effluent limitations
Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Effluent Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
Subcategory Characteristic mg/1 Shall Not Exceed (mg/1)
F
G
Zinc**
Copper**
Nickel**
4.2
4.5
4.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
* kg/kkg production is equivalent to lbs/1,000 Ibs production.
** At the source (mg/1).
13
-------
Table II-4. New Source Performance Standards
Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Effluent Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
Subcatecfory Characteristic {kg/kkg) Shall Not Exceed (kg/kkg)*
C BOD5 2.08 1.10
TSS 1.38 0.475
D BOD5 0.995 0.529
TSS 0.705 0.243
F BOD5 1.41 0.748
TSS 0.045 0.015
Zinc** 4.2 1.8
G BOD5 5.504 2.924
TSS 0.686 0.236
Copper** 4.5 1.8
Nickel** 4.1 1.8
* kg/kkg production is equivalent tc lbs/1,000 Ibs production.
** At the source (mg/1).
14
-------
Table II"5. Pretreatment standards for New Sources
Effluent
Subcategory Characteristic
Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Any Cne Day for 30 Consecutive Days
(tng/1) Shall Not Exceed (mcp/1)
F
G
Zinc*
Copper*
Nickel*
4.2
a.5
* At the source (mg/1).
1.8
1.8
1.8
15
-------
Table II-6. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
Effluent Limitations
Maximum for
Effluent Any One Day
Subcategory Characteristic ___ (mq/1)
Average of Daily Values
fcr 30 Consecutive Days
Shall Not Exceed (mg/1)
Zinc*
Copper*
Nickel*
4.2
4.5
4.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
*At the source (mg/1)
16
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
AUTHORITY
Section 304(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972
required the Administrator to publish regulations providing guidelines
for effluent limitations, including BAT. Section 306 required the
Administrator to publish regulations establishing Federal standards of
performance for categories of new industrial sources (NSPS). Section
304(b) required the Administrator to publish regulations establishing
pretreatment standards for the introduction of incompatible pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works. Further, section 307 (a) required
the Administrator to publish regulations establishing effluent
standards for certain toxic pollutants. Finally, section 501
authorized the Administrator to prescribe such regulations in order to
carry out these functions under the Act.
EPA was unable to promulgate many of the regulations required by the
1972 Act's prescribed dates. In 1976, several environmental groups
sued EPA with respect to this issue. EPA and the plaintiffs executed
a "Settlement Agreement", with Court approval. The Agreement required
EPA to develop a program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating BAT
effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new
source performance standards for 65 "priority" (toxic) pollutants and
classes of pollutants. See Natural Resources Defence council. Inc. v^
Train 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976).
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean Water
Act of 1977, amending the prior Act. The amendment incorporates into
the Act many elements of the Settlement Agreement program for toxic
pollutants control. section 301 (b)(2) requires achievement, by July
1, 1984, of BAT for toxic pollutants. "Conventional pollutant"
parameters, including biochemical oxygen demand, suspended, solids,
fecal coliform bacteria and pH, are to be controlled, by the same
date, pursuant to BCT. For non-toxic, non-conventional pollutants,
sections 301 (b) (2) (A) and (b) (2) (F) require achievement of BAT
effluent limitations within three years after their establishment or
by July 1, 1984, whichever is later, but not later than July 1, 1987.
Guidelines and standards developed with reference to this document
will be directed toward implementation of those requirements.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document presents the technical data base used to establish
effluent limitations guidelines for the Gum and Wood Chemicals
Industry. The information presented is intended to support EPA's
17
-------
establishment of guidelines defining best practicable control
technology currently available ("EPT"; see sections 301(b) (1) (A), (B) ,
and (C) and 304 (b) (1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. e1251 et
seq.) for the Sulfate Turpentine subcategory and best available
technology economically achievable ("BAT"; see sections 301(b)(2)(A),
(C), (D) , and (E) and 304 (b) (2)), pretreatment standards for existing
sources ("PSES"; See Section 307 (b)), and pretreatment standards for
new sources ("PSNS"; See Section 304 (b)) for the Rosin-based
Derivatives and Sulfate Turpentine subcategories. The information is
also intended to support EPA1s establishment cf new source performance
standards ("NSPS"; See Section 306) for the Wood Rosin, Turpentine,
and Pine Oil; Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch; Rosin-based
Derivatives; and Sulfate Turpentine subcategories.
The document presents an industry profile and describes alternative
treatment and control technologies, both in-plant and end-of-pipe, for
the industry. It includes inforiraticn en the processes, procedures,
and effectiveness of technologies which eliminate or reduce pollutant
discharges from sources in the industry. It also includes data
concerning the costs of implementing the technologies.
EPA developed the information through review of all available
historical data, industry questionnaires, plant visits and sampling,
and analysis of samples for traditional and toxic pollutants. In
addition, monitoring data generated by individual plants under
existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES")
permits were collected and analyzed.
EPA promulgated Interim Final guidelines specifying best practicable
control technology currently available ("EPT") for six subcategories
of sources in the Gum and Wood Chemicals manufacturing point source
category on May 18, 1976. EPA has net established EAT guidelines, new
source performance standards, or pretreatment standards for the
industry.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY
This industry is identified as Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) Code 2861—Gum and Wood Chemicals. Within this classification
are establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing hardwood and
softwood distillation products, wood and gum naval stores, charcoal,
natural dyestuffs, and natural tanning materials.
Some materials produced under SIC 2861, such as resins, may be further
processed into materials classified under different SIC codes. Cases
in which materials change classifications within the same plant are
included in this study; not included, however, are those plants which
receive SIC 2861 products for further processing under different
codes.
18
-------
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 list is not
necessarily related to the nature cf the industry in terms of actual
plant operations, production processes, or considerations associated
with water pollution control.
More specifically, then, the scope of coverage of this study is as
follows:
1. Plants engaged in the manutacture of char and charcoal briquets,
as well as pyroligneous acids and other by-products;
2. Plants engaged in the manufacture of gum rosin and turpentine by
the distillation of crude pine gum;
3. Plants engaged in the manufacture of wocd resin, turpentine, and
pine oil from pine stump wood;
4. Plants engaged in the manufacture of tall oil rosin, fatty acids,
and pitch by fractionation of Kraft process crude tall oil;
5. Plants engaged in the manufacture of essential oils-turpenes,
hydrocarbons, alcohols, or ketones;
6. Plants engaged in the manufacture of rosin derivatives: esters,
adduct modified esters, and alkyds; and
7. Plants engaged in the processing of sulfate turpentine.
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY
The effluent limitations and pretreatment standards were developed in
the following manner. EPA reviewed the original development document
(1976) for possible industry subcategorization. This evaluation
studied whether differences in raw material used, product produced,
manufacturing process employed, equipment, age, size, wastewater
constituents, and other factors required development cf different
industry subcategories. The raw waste characteristics for each
sutcategory were identified and used in this analysis. Ihe analysis
included consideration of: (1) the sources and volume of water used
in the processes and the sources cf pollutants and wastewaters in the
plant and (2) the constituents (including thermal) of all wastewaters,
including toxics and other constituents which produce taste, odor, or
color in water or aquatic organisms. The wastewater constituents to
be considered for pretreatment standards were identified (see Section
VI).
19
-------
The Agency identified the full range of control and treatment
technology existing within the point source category. This included
identification of each distinct control and treatment technology,
including the amounts of constituents (including thermal) and the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, and
the effluent levels resulting frcm the application cf each of the
treatment and control technologies. The problems, limitations, and
reliability of each treatment and control technology were also
identified. Also discussed were the non-water quality environmental
impacts of such technologies upon other pollution problems, including
air, solid waste, and noise.
EPA considered various factors in assessing treatment and control
technologies. These included the total cost of technology
application, the equipment and facilities involved, the processes
employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types
of control techniques, process changes, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and other
factors.
DATA AND INFORMATION GATHERING PROGRAM
The first step in the review process was to assemble and evaluate all
existing sources of information on the wastewater management practices
and production processes of the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry.
Sources of information included:
1. Current literature, EPA demonstration project reports, EPA
Technology Transfer reports;
2- Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance Standards for the Gum
and Wood Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category, U.S. EPA,
April 1976;
3. Data submitted by individual plants and trade associations in
response to publication of proposed regulations, and information
provided directly for this study;
4. Information obtained from direct interviews, plant visits, and
sampling visits to production facilities.
Section XVI of this document presents a complete bibliography of all
literature reviewed during the course of this project. Analysis of
the above sources indicated the need for additional information,
particularly concerning the use and discharge of toxic pollutants.
The Agency also needed updated information en production-related
process raw waste loads (RWL), potential in-process waste control
20
-------
techniques, and the identity and effectiveness of end-of-pipe
treatment systems.
308 Data Collection Portfolio
Recognizing that the best sources cf existing information were the
individual plants, EPA prepared a data collection portfolio and sent
it directly to manufacturing plants. The portfolio was designed to
update the existing data base concerning water consumption, production
processes, wastewater characterization, ravs waste loads based on
historical production and wastewater data, method cf ultimate
wastewater disposal, in-process waste control techniques, and the
effectiveness of in-place external treatment technology. The
portfolio also requested information concerning the use of materials
which could contribute toxic pollutants to wastewater and asked for
any data on toxic pollutants in wastewater discharges. Responses
served as the source of updated, long-term, historical information for
the traditional parameters such as BOD, COD, solids, pH, phenols, and
metals. A copy of the blank survey form appears in Appendix B.
*
The mailing list for the data collection portfolio was derived from
the following sources:
1. Previous plant listings in the EPT administrative record;
2. 1977 Dun and Bradstreet listing for SIC 2861;
3. State Chambers of Commerce directories of manufacturing;
4. Standard and Poor listing;
5. 1977 Stanford Research Institute Directory of Chemical Producers.
The final revised mailing list consisted of 3H3 plants.
There were a total of 195 responses to the 308 survey. Since plant
visits and ether contacts with the industry indicated that in a number
of cases the survey had been received either late or not at all, the
Agency took a follow-up telephone survey to determine receipt of the
questionnaire. Eighty-seven plants were contacted by telephone.
21
-------
Table III-l.
List of Plants Identified in the Gum and Wood Chemicals
Study
Plant
Location
Reichhold Chemicals Inc.
Arizona Chemical Co., Inc.
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
S.C.M. Corp.
Sylvachem Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Hercules, Inc.
Hercules, Inc.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Arizona Chemical Co., Inc.
Westvaco
Crosby Chemicals, Inc.
Hercules, Inc.
Monsanto Company
Hercules, Inc.
Hercules, Inc.
Westvaco
Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.
Bay Minette, AL
Panama City, FL
Telogia, FL
Pensacola, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Port St. Joe, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Savannah, GA
Brunswick, GA
Valdosta,/ GA
Savannah, GA
Springhill, LA
DeRidder, LA
Picayune, MS
Hattiesburg, MS
Nitro, WV
Portland, OR
Franklin, VA
Charleston Heights, SC
Oakdale, LA
22
-------
Summary of Response to Industry^Survey
Total
Survey returned—Gum & Wood 35
Telephone responses—Gum & Wood 2 37
Survey returned—Charcoal 37
Telephone responses—Charcoal 8
Status unconfirmed—Charcoal 32 77
Survey returned—not applicable 117
Telephone responses—not applicable 63 180
Survey returned—out of business 6
Telephone responses—out of business 6 12
Onreachable—no listing 28
Unreachable—disconnected 4 32
TOTAL 338 338
Plant Visits
Survey teams of project engineers and scientists visited 12 plants
from December 1977 to June 1978. The selected plants were most
representative of the industrial processes and treatment systems
available in the industry.
Information on process plant operations and the associated RWL was
obtained through interviews with plant operating personnel,
examination of plant design and operating data (original design
specifications, flow sheets, and day-to-day material balances around
individual process modules or unit operations where possible), and
sampling of individual process wastewater. Information on the
identity and performance of wastewater treatment systems was obtained
through interviews with plant water pollution ccntrol or engineering
personnel, examination of treatment plant design and historical
operating data, and sampling of treatment plant influents and
effluents.
Raw Materials Review
Only in rare instances did plants acknowledge the presence of toxic
pollutants in waste discharges in the responses to the survey
questionnaires. Establishing toxic pollutant data in waste discharges
of the industry, therefore, required engineering review of raw
materials and production processes and a screening sampling and
analysis program. EPA made every effort to choose facilities where
23
-------
meaningful information for both treatment facilities and manufacturing
operations could be obtained.
Screening Sampling
The screening sampling program took place during April and May of
1978. Five plants were sampled, representing six of the seven major
Gum and wood Chemicals processes. (The seventh process, char and
charcoal briquets, is dry). A single 24-hour composite sample was
obtained from the raw and treated wastewater streams at each plant and
analyzed for the 129 toxic pollutants listed in Appendix A of this
document. Sampling and analyses were conducted according to Sampling
and Analysis Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for
Priority Pollutants^ U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, March~~1S77 (revised April
1977) , and Analytical Methods for the Verification Phase of the EAT
Review, U.S. EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C., June
1977.
The purpose of the screening sairpling and analysis program was to
determine which toxic pollutants were present in wastewaters from each
sairpled industrial segment and to determine the extent of the
contamination.
EPA then evaluated the results cf the screening analyses along with
the process engineering review for each subcategory. The toxic
pollutants found in levels above the detection limits for the analyses
or those suspected of being present due to their use as raw materials,
by-products, final products, etc., were selected for verification.
Asbestos, cyanide, PCB's, and the pesticides were not analyzed in the
verification phase because they did not appear in levels above the
detection limit in the screening phase. The screening sairpling visits
to the five selected plants also produced two 24-hour verification
samples at four of the plants.
Verification Program
The verification sampling and analysis program, conducted over a
three-month period, was intended to obtain for each subcategory as
much quantitative data as possible on the toxic pollutants selected
for verification during the screening program. The sampled plants
represented the full range of in-place process and wastewater
treatment technology for each subcategory. Nine plants were sairpled
during verification sampling. The verification program analyzed for
all 129 toxic pollutants except asbestos, cyanide, PCB's, and
pesticides.
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
24
-------
grab sample of incoming fresh process water also was taken at each
plant.
Processing of Information
The technical data base which established subcategcrizaticn within the
industry (Section IV), and identified the full range of in-process and
treatment technology options available within each subcategory
(Section VII) consisted of the following:
1. Review of available literature and previous studies;
2. Analysis of the data collection portfolios;
3. Information from industry and trade associations;
4. Information from plant visits; and
5. Results of analyses from the screening and verification sampling
programs.
The raw waste characteristics for each subcategory were then
identified (Section V). This included an analysis of:
1. The source and volume of water used in the specific processes and
the sources of wastes and wastewaters in the plant; and
2. The constituents of all wastewaters, including traditional and
toxic pollutants.
The full range of ccntrol and treatment technologies existing within
each candidate subcategory was identified. This included an identifi-
cation of each existing control and treatment technology, including
both in-plant and end-of-pipe systems. It also included an
identification of the wastewater characteristics resulting from the
application of each existing treatment and control technology.
The costs and energy requirements of each of the candidate
technologies identified were then estimated (Section VIII) both for a
flow-weighted average plant within the subcategory and on a plant-by-
plant basis. BPT technology costs were net considered except for
sulfate turpentine processing.
Additional evaluation was made of non-water quality environmental
impacts, such as the effects of the application of such technologies
on other pollution problems.
25
-------
PROFILE OF INDUSTRY
The Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry began in the United States when
early colonists harvested pine cleorosin for use in construction of
naval vessels. Since that -time the industry has grown and expanded as
new uses have been found for pine products. One of the more
significant innovations has been the development of by-products from
the Kraft paper process—tall oil and sulfate turpentine—as raw
materials for the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry.
The modern Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry can be grouped into the
following major areas:
1. Char and charcoal briquets;
2. Gum rosin and turpentine;
3. Wood rosin, turpentine, and pine oil;
4. Tall oil rosin, fatty acids, and pitch;
5. Essential oils;
6. Rosin derivatives; and
7. Sulfate turpentine.
Char and Charcoal Briquets
Char results from the destructive distillations of softwood and
hardwood (primarily the latter). Char, in turn, may be processed into
charcoal briquets or activated carbon. Pyroligneous acid was once a
by-product of the process, but has been discontinued in favor of
petroleum substitutes. With the rising cost of petrochemicals, some
plants are considering reinstituting the recovery process.
Charcoal is one of the more economically important products of the Guir
and Wood Chemicals Industry. It is widely used as a recreational
fuel, in the chemical and metallurgical industries, and in other
areas, including use as a filter for gaseous and liquid streams.
The char and charcoal industry in the United States consists of 77
plants primarily concentrated in the eastern section of the country,
with the heaviest concentration in the Ozark and Appalachian hardwood
areas. Plant ownership varies from companies with numerous plants to
singly-owned plants with local product distribution.
26
-------
Gum Rosin and Turpentine
In terms of product value, gum rosin and turpentine products are a
minor portion of the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry. High labor
costs for gum collection coupled with competition from foreign
products has reduced the number of plants and the value of product
shipments and the decline will probably continue.
Currently there are only seven plants in this segment of the industry,
all located in Georgia. The greatest production is concentrated in
southern and southeastern Georgia. The two largest plants have
diversified and now are producing rosin-based derivatives in
conjunction with gum rosin and turpentine.
The raw material comes from a few remaining pine gum farmers and from
gum wholesalers. Although gum rosin and turpentine are the highest
quality of such products in the naval stores industry, decreasing
availability of domestic gum rosins is forcing manufacturers to rely
on foreign sources or to use weed or tall oil rosin in derivative
operations.
Wood Rosin , Turpentine, and Pine Gil
Wood rosin, turpentine, and pine oil produced by the solvent
extraction and steam distillation of rosinous wood stumps, account for
19 percent of the total product value of the Gum and Wood Chemicals
Industry, according to the 1972 Census of Manufacturers. The economic
life of this segment of the industry is limited by diminishing raw
materials and the development of competitive processes.
Historically, the industry used the pine stumps remaining from the
harvesting of first-generation southern pine forests in the early part
of the twentieth century. Few such stumps remain at the present time
and second-generation stumps contain considerably lower rosin content.
This segment of the industry consists of five plants — one in
Mississippi, three in Florida, and one in Georgia. Each plant
occupies a land area of 40 to 60 hectares (100 to 150 acres), the
majority of which is used for raw material storage. Three of the
plants are located in urban areas; the remaining two are in rural
settings.
TJL.11 Oil Rosinf FattY Acids, and Fitch
The growth of tall oil refining has continued since 1949; however, the
production of fatty acids and rosins with low cross-product
contamination is a fairly recent development.
27
-------
Crude tall oil is particularly attractive as a raw material because of
its availability as a "waste" product of the Kraft pulp and paper
industry; this segment of the industry, therefore, provides increasing
supplies of raw materials for tall oil fractionators. While there is
a steady decline in naval stores production from gum and wood
extraction, there is a corresponding production increase from tall
oil.
Recent trends in the amount of tall oil produced by the kraft process
have indicated a reduced rate of increase in the amount available.
This has resulted from changes bcth in the Kraft process and in the
Kraft process raw materials. More hardwood and ycunger growth pines
are in use so that less oleoresin is available. If this trend
continues, the availability of tall oil may decline.
Twelve tall oil distillation plants are currently in operation,
primarily in the Southeast. Two additional plants are not in
operation, but could be made operational if economic conditions so
dictated.
Essential Oils
The essential oils produced in the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry are
cedarwood oil and pine scent. Cedarwood oil is produced by the
steaming of cedarwood sawdust in pressure retorts to remove the oil
from wood particles. One plant produces pine leaf oil for use as a
scent in Christmas products. Pine needles are steamed to extract the
oil.
In the eastern United States, cedarwood oil is a by-product of the
production of cedarwood lumber and furniture from Juniperus
virginiana. This wood contains 2 to 4 percent cil. Currently three
plants produce cedarwood oil from this type of cedarwood.
In the western portion of the country, cedarwood oil is produced
directly from a tree of the Cedarus family which is unsuitable for
lumber production. Five plants use this raw material. The process
involves grinding the whole tree into wood dust and extracting the oil
by steaming.
The growing concerns in the industry are competition with synthetic
oils and the dwindling supply of trees as raw material.
Rosin-Based Derivatives
Rosin-based derivatives are not included in SIC 2861, Gum and Wood
Chemicals, but in SIC 2821, Plastics and Synthetic Materials.
However, derivatives production is a natural extension of processing
in Gum and Wood Chemicals plants since the resin is available in the
28
-------
plants. This study applies only tc those derivatives operations which
are located within and in conjunction with Gum and Wood Chemicals
facilities.
Currently 13 Gum and Wood Chemicals plants are producing rosin
derivatives. These plants are located within all four types of rosin
producing plants.
Of all the Gum and Wood Chemicals processing operations, derivatives
processing is the most profitable, at least partly due to a large
product and market development effort in the industry. Derivatives
products include ink resins, paint additives, paper size, oil
additives, adhesives, wetting agents, chewing guir, base, and chemical-
resistant resins.
Sulfate Turpentine
Sulfate turpentine originally was considered a waste product in the
digester relief gas of the Kraft pulp and paper process; with modern
technology, however, it can be profitably recovered to such an extent
that sulfate turpentine is the major source of turpentine in the Gum
and Wood Chemicals Industry.
The distillation of sulfate turpentine yields four major compounds-a-
pinene, b-pinene, dipentene, and pine cil. The primary uses of these
compounds are for flavor, fragrances, resins, and insecticides. While
b-pinene and dipentene are the components of greatest use, new methods
and markets currently are being developed for a-pinene.
Turpene derivatives—generally produced in conjunction with sulfate
turpentine distillation with b-pinene and dipentene as raw materials—
provide tack (stickiness) in polymeiic mixtures and pressure sensitive
tapes.
DESCRIPTIONS OF PROCESSES
C*L§£ and Charcoal Briquets
Char and charcoal result from the combustion (thermal decomposition)
of raw wood which drives off gases and vapors and leaves about one-
third of the wood, by weight, as charcoal. Commercial charcoal is
produced at a temperature of about 400° tc 500°C.
During carbonization, distillates—collectively referred to as
pyroligneous acid—are formed. Pyrcligneous acid contains such
compounds as methanol, acetic acid, acetone, tars, and oils. Because
synthetic substitues are cheaper, current industry practice does not
recover the by-products, but feeds the distillate and other flue gases
to an afterburner for thermal destruction before exhausting them tc
29
-------
the atmosphere. This study found no facilities in the United States
which recover distillation by-products. The condensable distillates
or vapor also may be recycled as a fuel supply supplement, but this is
not common in the industry.
Gum Rosin and Turpentine
Crude gum is obtained from healthy pines by exposing the sapwood.
This operation usually takes place during December or January, since
early removal of the bark stimulates early gum flow in the spring.
The main flow of gum occurs from March through September, with the
wound typically being treated with sulfuric acid to prolong the period
of flow.
The processing plants receive the raw gum, composed of about 68
percent rosin and 20 percent turpentine, in 197.3 kg (435 Ib) barrels.
A typical process flow schematic is shewn in Figure III-1. The gum is
emptied into a vat by inverting the crude gum containers over a high-
pressure steam jet. This mixture is then filtered and washed, and the
prepared crude gum material is distilled to separate the turpentine
frcm the gum rosin. Non-contact shell-and-tube steam heating and
sparging steam are used in the stills. Turpentine and water are
distilled overhead and condensed with shell-and-tube condensers. The
water is separated from the turpentine in the downstream receivers.
The gum rosin is removed from the bottom of the still and transferred
to shipping containers while the rosin is in a molten state.
Wastewater usually originates in three areas:
1. The liquid waste from the raw gum wash tank;
2. The water fraction from the turpentine-water separator; and
3. In some plants, a brine waste frcm a sodium chloride dehydration
used to dewater the turpentine.
itood Rosirij, Turpentine and Pine Oil
Figure III-2 shows a typical process diagram. Pine stumps are washed
in the plant and the water and sedimert flow to a settling pond from
which water recycles back to the washing operation. Wood hogs,
chippers, and shredders mechanically reduce the wood stumps to chips
approximately 5 centimeters (2 inches) in length and 3 millimeters
(1/16 inch) thick. The chips are fed to a battery of retort
extractors, which employ the following steps:
1. Water is removed from the chips by azeotropic distillation with a
water-immiscible solvent;
30
-------
u •
<
0)
M
60
o
D
Q
O
cc
Q.
UI
Ul
C-
CC
Ul
H
t-
UJ
Q.
cc
15
O
CC
a
31
-------
i
H
M
M
0)
i-i
3
00
•H
O
CO
UJ
LU
Q_
o:
OO
o
cr:
o
o
o
-------
2. The resinous material is extracted from the wood chips with a
water-immiscible solvent; and
3. Residual solvent is removed from the spent wood chips by steaming.
After the steaming step, spent chips are removed from the retort and
sent to the boilers as fuel. Any entrained wood fines coming from the
retorts are removed in the entrainment separator and used also as
fuel. The vapors from the entrainirent separator are condensed and
proceed to one or more separators where the solvent-water mixture
separates. The solvent is recycled for use in the retorts.
The extract liquor is sent to a distillation column to separate the
solvent from the products. The overhead from the column is condensed
and enters a separator where condensed solvent is removed and recycled
to the retorts. The vapor phase from the separator condenses in a
shell-and-tube exchanger and enters a separator in which the remaining
solvent and is separated. The solvent is sent to recycle and
wastewater to treatment.
The bottom stream from the first distillation column enters a second
distillation column, as shown in Figure III-2. Steam introduced into
the bottom of the tower strips off the volatile compounds. This
overhead steam enters a condenser and separator. A portion of the
condensed liquor phase is refluxed back tc the distillation column,
but a larger portion is stored as crude turpene for further
processing. The non-aqueous phase from the separator is stored as
crude turpene while the aqueous phase is removed as wastewater. The
bottom stream from the second distillation column is the finished wood
rosin product.
The crude turpene removed in the second distillation column is stored
until a sufficient quantity accumulates for processing in a batch
distillation column. The distillation column is charged with the
crude turpene material, and the condensed material enters a separator.
The turpene and pine oil products are removed from the separator,
while the vapors and steam from the steam ejector enter a second
shell-and-tube exchanger and proceed tc a separator. The bottom from
this batch distillation column is a residue containing high-boiling
point materials, best described as pitch, which are used as fuel.
Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch
A schematic process flow diagram of a typical crude tall oil
fractionation process is presented in Figure III-3.
The crude tall oil is treated with dilute sulfuric acid tc remove some
residual lignins as well as irercaptans, disulfides, and color
33
-------
•
< UJ I-
_l -, 01
D - >
O t— 01
E 5 a
" S
01
O
U
= < o
a > o
I— IU U
2 5
> -1 6O
I
L.
O
UJ UJ
»->
3^ 0_
gg^s
— 0.-H-
CJ < O ">
Ouj > o >
t—ec ui o "*
<
>
<
o
UJ
z z
u. at
UJ O
cc £=
a
£ 2
•r uj
< UJ I—
^>^
O H- co
CC < rn
<= < o
o > o
I— ul O
fO
I
w
60
•H
C3
Z
2
u.
01
cc
a
2
O
2
g
P
u
<
cc
a.
L--c
UJ
Q
D
GC
U
UJ
oo *
-^
g: o s
— CC < I
K < UJ
01 co to
a <
» UJ
u cc
< I-
<
>-
UJ
34
-------
materials. Acid wash water is discharged to the process sewer. The
stock then proceeds to the fractionation process. In the first
fractionation column, the pitch is removed from the bottoms and is*
either sold, saponified for production of paper size, or burned in
boilers as fuel. The remaining fraction of the tall oil (rosin and
fatty acid) proceeds to the pale plant, which improves the quality of
the raw materials by removing unwanted materials such as color bodies.
The second column separates low-boiling point fatty acid material,
while the third column completes the separation cf fatty and rosin
acids.
The wastewater generated in this subcategory results from pulling a
vacuum on the distillation towers. This water generally is recycled,
but excess water is discharged to the plant sewer.
Essential Oils
Figure III-4 is a typical process flow schematic diagram for steam
distillation of cedarwood oil from scrap wood fines of red cedar.
Raw dry dust from the planing mill and raw grain dust from the sawmill
are mixed to obtain a desired blend and then fed pneumatically to
mechanical cyclone separators located on top of the retorts. The
cedarwood oil is extracted by injecting steam directly into the
retort. The steam diffuses through the cedarwocd dust, extracts the
oil of cedarwood, exits through the top of the retort, and condenses
to an oil/water mixture. Following the steam extraction, the spent
sawdust cools. It is then stored and eventually sent to the bciler as
a fuel.
The primary product is a crude light oil which is separated by two
oil/water separators immediately downstream of the condensers. The
light oil is removed and mixed with clay which lightens the product by
reiroving color bodies and stabilizes the color cf the product by
inhibiting further oxidation. The clay/oil slurry is filtered through
plate and frame filter presses, and the spent clay-filter material is
hauled to landfill for final disposal. The lightened oil product
proceeds to bulk storage and blending, and is finally drummed for
shipment.
The water phase, which is separated in the stillwells, contains a
heavy red crude oil. This material is separated from the water phase
in three consecutive settling tanks. The heavy red oil is
periodically removed and drummed for sale as a by-product, while the
underflow, or remaining water phase, is discharged as wastewater.
35
-------
z
a -±
-I O
<
cr
_
9
•-1
0
Q O
-------
FQsin Derivatives
Figure III-5 illustrates a typical rosin derivative process. Process
operating conditions in the reaction kettle depend on product
specifications, raw materials, and ether variables. A simple ester is
produced from stump wood rosin (WW grade) and U.S.P. glycerin under
high-temperature vacuum conditions. A steam sparge (lasting approxi-
mately 2-3 hours) removes excess water of esterification; this allows
completion of the reaction and removes fatty acid impurities for
compliance with product specifications. The condensable impurities
are condensed in a non-contact condenser on the vacuum leg and stored
in a receiver. Non-condensables escape tc the atmosphere through the
reflux vent and steam vacuum jets. The production of phenol and
maleic anhydride modified tall oil resin ester is similar to simple
rosin ester production except that steam sparging is seldom, if ever,
used; and other polyhydric alcohols may be used in the product
formulation.
Wastewater comes from the chemical reaction, separation of product,
and wash down of reaction vessels.
Sulfate Turpentine
Figure III-6 is a simple process flow schematic diagram for
distillation of sulfate turpentine, which is condensed from the relief
gas from the digestor of the Kraft pulping process. During
distillation, the first tower usually strips odor-causing mercaptans
frcm the turpentine. Subsequent fractionation breaks the turpentine
into its major components: alpha-finene, beta-pinene, dipentene, and
sulfated pine oil. Minor components include limonene, camphene, and
anethol.
The distillation of sulfate turpentine is an intermediate production
step. Some of these turpentine components are marketed after
distillation, but the majority of them remain in the plant for further
processing.
The operations are usually batch reactions that take place in reaction
kettles in the presence of some organic solvent and metal catalyst.
The selection of catalysts and solvents depends on the desired
products, of which there are approximately 200.
Wastewater usually is generated from the condensation in the distilla-
tion tower and from wash down of reactors.
37
-------
til
cr
13
O
u.
2
<
S
ta
a :±
oo K
cc
01
Q
CO
O
CC
o.it-
VJ\^>
38
-------
01
<
LU
H^2
O
o
x
V)
I-
ill
<
5
wnnovA
i o
53 cc
2°-
o
is
> 3
CC -1
< O
Q U
Z I-
o o
O 3
LU Q
W O
CC
Q.
LU
X
Z
LU
wnnovA
z
if
G
O
CC
a.
3
30
O
§5
U. _|
$ •-
01 «2
2 uj
< 0.
CO CC
D
H
I-
Is
u. )
5
o
5 cc
UJ ID
0= S
wnnovA
3
O
a
z
a!
a.
O
LU
Q
3
CC
u
UJ
H
u.
3
c/)
LU
Z LU
H W
z 2
LU CC
a. 0
CC 1-
3 ««
39
-------
SEC1ION IV
INDUSTRIAL SUECATEGORIZATICN
Review of existing industrial subcategorization fcr the Gum and Wood
Chemicals Industry required a determination cf whether sufficient
differences exist within the industry to support the current
subcategorization scheme, or whether modifications are required. The
rationale for subcategorization is based upon such factors as: (1)
plant characteristics and raw materials; (2) wastewater
characteristics, including toxic pollutant characteristics; (3)
manufacturing processes; and (4) applicable methods cf wastewater
treatment and disposal.
In developing the previously published effluent limitation guidelines
and pretreatment standards for the industry, EPA determined that
plants exhibited sufficient differences to justify multiple
subcategorization. That subcategorization was as follows:
1. Char and charcoal briquets;
2. Gum rosin and gum turpentine;
3. Wood rosin, turpentine, and pine oil;
H. Tall oil rosin, pitch, and fatty acids;
5. Essential oils; and
6. Rosin derivatives.
The subcategorization review confirmed the above subcategories were
appropriate, except that a seventh subcategory, Sulfate Turpentine,
shculd be included.
SUECATEGORIZATION REVIEW
The Agency considered the following factors in the subcategorization
review:
1. Manufacturing process;
2. Plant location and climate;
3. Raw materials;
4. Plant age, size, and flow;
-------
5. Products; and
6. Wastewater characteristics and treatability.
Manufacturing Process
The process step common to gum, weed, tall oil chemical, essential
oils, and sulfate turpentine production is the use of steam
distillation to separate the majcr constituents. However, there is a
large difference in the degree of technology used in the five
processes. Wood, rosin, tall oil chemicals, and sulfate turpentine
use fractionation towers for mult i- product separation. The gum and
essential oil subcategories use simple reactors to separate the
volatile from the non-volatile components.
The production of charcoal and resin-based derivatives differs from
the other processes because steam distillation is not employed. Char-
coal is a destructive distillation product of wood. The production of
rosin-based derivatives is not a distillation but a chemical
modification. For some reactions, a catalyst is employed. The Agency
has determined that these distinct manufacturing processes are a basis
for subcategorization.
Location and Climate
The 1972 Census of Manufacturers places the majority of the gum and
wood chemicals production facilities in the southern states (see
Figures IV- 1 and IV- 2). These plants produced over 84 percent of the
industry output in terms of dollar value added to the raw material.
Plant location and local climate can affect the performance of certain
end-of-pipe wastewater treatment systems, e.g., aerated lagoons and
activated sludge. However, treatment systems including biological
treatment, can be adapted to the sirall variation in climate found in
the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry. Plant location and climate are
not criteria for subcategorization because of the general southeastern
location of the plants and the adaptability of the treatment systems
to climatic conditions.
-------
CO
•u
en
01
cfl
cd
2
C
o
•H
0)
M
60
43
-------
91
4J
C
(0
O
u
M-f
O
c
O
•H
4-1
03
O
O
M
44
-------
Raw Materials
The basic raw materials for each of the product subcategories are as
follows:
Pr cduct
Raw Material Source
Char and
Charcoal Briquets
Gum Rosin and
Turpentine
Wood Rosin, Turpentine,
and Pine Oil
Tall Oil Rosin, Pitch,
and Fatty Acids
Essential Oils
Rosin Derivatives
Sulfate Turpentine
Hardwood and softwood scraps
Crude "gum" oleoresin from the
sapwood of living trees
Wood stumps and other resinous woods
from cut over forest
By-product crude tall oil
from the Kraft process
Scrap wood fines, twigs, barks, or roots
of select woods or plants
Rosin products from gum, wood, and
tall oil chemicals
Low boiling vapors condensed froir
the Kraft pulping of pine wood
Variations in raw materials within each subcategcry do occur. For
example, seasonal changes can change crude gum composition. Late in
the growing season, crude gum is termed scrape, which generally
contains less turpentine and mere rosin. Where variations in raw
materials require additional processing to achieve product quality,
additional wastes are generated.
Because of these factors, the Agency concluded that raw materials are
a basis for subcategorization. Variations in raw wastewater
generation due to seasonal changes are reflected in the analysis of
long term wastewater characteristics and were determined not to be a
factor requiring further subcategorization.
Plant Age
Manufacturers continuously upgrade and modernize their operations and
equipment as it becomes necessary, thus the actual age of production
facilities cannot be determined accurately. Furthermore, the age of
the equipment does not necessarily affect wastewater generation.
Operation and maintenance of the equipment are more important factors.
Therefore, plant age in itself is net a basis for subcategorization.
-------
Piant Size and Flows
Operations in gum and wood chemicals manufacturing range from
intermittent batch operations operated by a handful of personnel, to
large complexes which employ hundreds. Water use management
techniques are affected by economy of scale, as well as such factors
as geographical location. On the ether hand, smaller operations may
have waste treatment and disposal options, such as retention, land
spreading, and trucking to landfill, that are impractical for large-
scale operations.
The volume of wastewater produced by the plants in the Gum and Wood
Chemicals Industry ranges from 9 to 7,570 cubic meters per day (2,300
to 2,000,000 gallons per day). Discharge flow rates for each
subcategory are difficult to quantify because most plants have
combined processes that fall under several different subcategories,
and all process wastewater typically is discharged to a common sewer.
Although total plant flow can be determined from this discharge pipe,
a breakdown into components from each process is net possible. Table
IV-1 tabulates wastewater flows for each plant, and groups them
according to the processes within the plant.
Plant size does not appear tc affect wasteviater quantity and
characteristics; therefore, plant size is not a basis for
subcategorization.
Product
The major products of the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry differ
significantly as discussed in Section III. Therefore, product type is
a basis for subcategorization.
Wastewater Characteristics and Treatability
The physical characteristics of the wastewater from the Gum and Wood
Chemicals plants are similar. The raw wastewaters have floating oils
and emulsified oils; the organic components of the wastewater include
turpenes, natural components of the wood, and various solvents.
Metals are used as catalysts in two subcategories in the Gum and Wood
Chemicals Industry. The type of manufacturing process determines the
type of metals found in the waste stream.
The Gum and Wood Chemicals wastewater streams are amenable to
biological treatment, which is the major treatment method now used by
the direct discharging plants. Moreover, where nretals are used as
catalysts, they are subcategcry specific. The wastewater
characteristics and treatability themselves do not support the use of
this as a criterion for further subcategorization.
-------
POTENTIAL SUBCATEGORIES
Consideration of the plant characteristics, raw materials, wastewater
volume, wastewater characteristics, manufacturing processes, and
wastewater treatment and disposal methods current in the industry
confirms the existing subcategorization of the Guir and Wood Chemicals
Industry and adds the sulfate turpentine subcategory.
-------
Table IV-1. Tabulated Wastewater Flows by Plant
Subcate-
gories
G
G,F
G,C,F
G,D,F
E,F
C
C,F
D,F
D
Plant
NO.
009
885
159
571
222
743
993
485
934
242
334
244
714
660
454
040
049
759
436
590
Type
Discharge
Indirect
Indirect
Direct
Indirect
Indirect
Direct
*
Indirect
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
*
Indirect
*
*
*
Direct
Direct
*
Production
Ibs/day
126,900
190,000
99,715
480,000
1,023,000
460,000
1,028,000
100,000
106,000
740,000
438,000
306,000
422,900
152,300
675,000
499,000
595,000
360,000
335,000
425,000
Wastewater
Flow (GPD)
72,000
325,000
1,180,000
580,000
463,000
180,000
1,011,000
5,000
155,000
1,930,000
800,000
168,000
533,000
49,100
118,000
900,000
352,000
41,760
600,000
260,000
E = Gum rosin and turpentine
C = Wood rosin, turpentine, and pine oil.
D = Tall oil rosin, pitch, and fatty acid.
F = Rosin- and turpene-based derivatives.
G = Sulfate turpentine.
* Plant discharges into the waste stream of another plant.
48
-------
SECTION V
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
GENERAL
This section defines the plants wastewater quality -in those
subcategories identified in Section IV. Raw waste load (RWL) data are
also presented for some plants which produce in more than one
subcategory or process flows that produce data extending across more
than one subcategory. Raw waste load data are for both traditional
parameters and for toxic pollutants for each subcategory.
The term "raw waste load," as used in this document, refers to the
quantity of a pollutant in wastewater prior to a treatment process.
Where treatment processes are designed primarily to recover raw mate-
rials from the wastewater stream, raw waste loads are obtained
following these processes. An example is the use cf gravity oil-water
separators which remove the surface oils for reprocessing or recover
them for fuel value.
For purposes of cost analysis only, EPA has defined representative raw
waste characteristics for each subcategcry in crder to establish
design parameters for model plants.
The data in this document represent a summary of the most current
information available from each contacted plant. Sampling data in
most cases are the sole source of qualitative information for toxic
pollutant raw waste loads.
Exclusion Under Paragraph £
EPA has submitted three of the seven Gum and Wood Chemical
subcategories for exclusion under paragraph 8 of the NREC Settlement
Agreement. These subcategories are char and charcoal briquet, gum
rosin and turpentine, and essential oil. Appendix C is the
recommendation package containing the rationale for the exclusion of
these subcategories.
Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine oil
Five plants process wood stumps fcr their extractable components.
Only one plant has segregated wood rosin waste streams; the other four
plants have multi-process waste streams. The multi-process streams
could not be used to characterize the wastewater from the subcategory.
Table V-1 shows the analytical results of sampling conducted at this
plant. Levels for methylene chloride and benzene in the ground water
are unusually high and may indicate contamination of the sample for
-------
Table V-l. Sample Analysis, Plant 464
Parameters 1757
ug/1
Methylene
Chloride 910
Chloroform 20
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Arsenic
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Total Phenols 120
Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
COD.(mg/l) 11
BOD (mg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/1)
1758
190
50
Ind.
33
1500
15
160
460
240
1200
1500
1759
560
10
10
>400
980
17
89
980
220
1100
650
8676 1760 8678
Blank
NA 260 NA
NA 30 NA
NA NA
NA >400 NA
15 14 17
620
13
29 150 46
10
160
730
270
18
1761 8190
260 430
10
22 12
16
92 130
49 29
30
48 70
110 230
27 25
8187 8677
Blank
340 280
21
110
32 56
140
48
340
13
12
Values of <10 ug/1 have not been included.
Blank values have not been subtracted.
Ind.—Indeterminate because of high organic compound loading.
NA—Not analyzed.
50
-------
Table V-1A. Sample Numbers, Plant 464
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
8190
8187
Process make-up water—well water
Wastewater influent to equalization basin
Wastewater effluent from equalization basin of
approximately 15-day retention
Wastewater effluent from ash settling basin
Final wastewater effluent after aerated lagoon
and settling
Final wastewater effluent after aerated lagoon
and settling
Final wastewater effluent after aerated lagoon
and settling
8676, 8678, 8677 Blanks
51
-------
these two compounds. As shown in the analysis, toluene is the irajor
organic toxic pollutant contained in the wastestream.
Toluene is the extractive solvent in the production process and this
explains its presence in the wastestream. For removal of toluene
concentrations below 10 mg/1, biclcgical treatment is the least
expensive method. Table V-1 clearly shows a reduction from a
concentration greater than 400 ug/1 to a concentration of 10 ug/1 or
less. Benzene and ethylbenzene are trace contaminants found in
industrial grade toluene. These compounds appeared in concentrations
of 200 and 50 ug/1 in the raw process wastestream but were not
detected in the discharge effluent. These compounds are also amenable
to biological treatment, which this plant provides by use of an
aerated lagoon and a settling basin. This plant also employs a unique
pretreatment procedure of mixing wood ash from the boiler with the
equalized wastewater. The wastewater with ash is allowed to settle
and is then sent to the biological treatment. The adsorption
characteristics of the wood ash have net been determined.
The major inorganic toxic pollutants for this plant were chromium and
zinc. Chromium in the raw wastewater, as shown in Table V-1, was 1500
ug/1, and decreased to approximately 100 ug/1 in the treated effluent.
Zinc was reduced through the treatment system, frcm 160 ug/1 in the
raw wastewater to approximately 30 ug/1 in the treated effluent. The
other metals occurred at concentrations of less than 20 ug/1.
Tall Oil, Rosin, Pitch, and Fatty ftcids
Of the twelve tall oil distillation plants currently in the industry,
three perform only tall oil distillation and some rosin size
operations. One of these plants (Plant 949) was sampled during the
sampling program, and the results of that sampling are presented in
Table V-2. The nine other tall oil distillation plants have combined
processes which make them unsuitable for characterizing the waste
streams.
The plant's makeup water comes from wells located on plant property.
The analysis of the well water showed high concentration levels of
methylene chloride (710 ug/1) and also concentrations of benzene (120
ug/1) and toluene (20 ug/1). These are unusually high levels of these
compounds for well water and may be due to sample contamination. This
plant is the only plant in the industry that recycles all of its
barometric condenser water from the tall oil fractionaticn towers.
Sample Number 8186 presents an analysis of this recycled barometric
condenser water. Phenol was the major toxic pollutant found in this
waste stream. The concentration level was 7.5 mg/1. This
concentration may be due to a high equilibrium concentration of the
recycled wastewater.
52
-------
Table V-2. Sample Analysis, Plant 949
Parameters
ug/1
Methylene
Chloride
Chloroform
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Phenol
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Total Phenols
Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Oil & Grease
(mg/1)
8182 1718
740 710
10 10
120 120
20
20 20
150
110 83
14
13 19
11
50
550
44
1100
42
48
8675 8184
Blank
30 780
10
110
10
50
16 230
85 97
20 24
70 27
100
15
160
12
8186
210
30
70
7500
300
280
26
66
80
1700
170
8400
176
167
1735
850
10
120
20
220
88
43
44
29
19
130
13
8684
Blank
280
100
14
Values of <10 ug/1 have not been included.
Blank values have not been subtracted.
53
-------
Table V-2A. Sample Numbers, Plant 949
Sample Numbers
8182 Process make-up water—well water
1718 Raw effluent
8184 Effluent after initial settling
8186 Barometric condenser closed system
1735 Treated effluent
54
-------
Aerated lagoons are used in this plant to provide biological treatment
of the wastewater, supplemented by the use of alum coagulation to
enhance settling of emulsified oils.
Sulfate Turpentine
There are seven U.S. plants which fractionate sulfate turpentine. The
Agency sampled four of these plants. Tables V-3 through V-5A show the
results. Two of the sampled plants have waste streairs that are
combined with effluents from ether processing areas. Under normal
circumstances, the products of sulfate turpentine fraction are
chemical intermediates used in ether processing steps. The major
products of fraction are a-pinene, b-pinene, dipintene, camphene, and
pine oil. The final products of these intermediaries are "synthetic"
pine oil, poly-turpene resins, insecticides, fragrances, and sizes.
Plants 337 and 610 produce fragrances and Plant 065 produces
polyturpene resins and turpene specialty products. The sampling
results for Plants 337 and 610 appear in Tables V-3 and V-4.
The volatile organic toxic pollutants are toluene in concentrations of
approximately 2 mg/1 and benzene in the concentration range of 50 ug/1
to 220 ug/1. Chloroform was found in concentrations of 1 mg/1 to 1.4
mg/1 in Plant 337, but was not fcund in Plant 610. Methylene chloride
appeared in well water supplies cf both plants, which may indicate a
contamination problem.
The significant non-volatile organics were phenol at a concentration
of 700 to 850 ug/1 at Plant 337 and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at
Plant 610 at a concentration of 1,900 ug/1 after biological treatment.
Phenol is a natural component cf wocd. The bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate is not used in the processes of Plant 610 and was not found
in the raw effluent. It was detected in only one sample out of three
and may be either a contaminant or a result of the treatment process.
The major inorganic toxic pollutants are copper, nickel, and zinc.
These three metals are common catalysts in the gum and wood chemicals
industry. Copper was found ir concentrations as high as 4.5 mg/1,
nickel as high as 1.1 mg/1, and zinc at 2.4 mg/1.
The waste stream from Plant 065 differs greatly from that of Plants
337 and 610. Much higher concentrations cf volatile organic solvents
occur in this process waste stream than in those of the other two
plants. Toluene was found to be as high as 40 mg/1 and ethylbenzene
concentrations as high as 67 mg/1. Phenol was found in concentrations
cf 1.1 mg/1, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at a concentration of 3
mg/1. Table v-5 shews the results of the sample analysis.
55
-------
Table V-3. Sample Analysis, Plant 337
Parameters
ug/1
Methylene
Chloride
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Phenol
Arsenic
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Total Phenols
Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Oil & Grease
(mg/1)
801 802
400 450
1000
74
760
35
1800
1300
520
170
28 1600
60
18 6400
3400
354
804
740
1400
2200
130
43
6000
760
21
4100
530
1000
7300
3200
407
1745 743
Blank
980
1000
59 12
2700 32
580
12
3000
300 29
960
18
5400
2200
284
803
490
900
120
1900
850
35
2700
880
180
99
2600
36
6400
3900
485
805
2100
1400
240
2000
120
3100
850
13
700
430
1300
32
7400
4800
506
1753
980
1000
210
1100
73
1800
480
1100
260
1000
30
5800
2500
450
742
Blank
360
70
32
Values of <10 ug/1 have not been included.
Blank values have not been subtracted.
56
-------
Table V-3A. Sample Numbers, Plant 337
801 Process make-up water
802, 804, 1745 Process effluent after skimming and
initial settling
803, 805, 1753 Final effluent
57
-------
Table V-4. Sample Analysis, Plant 610
Parameters 705
ug/1
Methylene
Chloride 560
Benzene
Toluene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Arsenic
Copper 250
Chromium 120
Lead
Nickel 36
Selenium
Zinc
Total Phenols 18
Suspended
Solids (mg/1;
COD (mg/1) 16
BOD (mg/1)
Oil & Grease
(mg/1)
708
16000
2700
510
13
220
200
1300
300
15000
1200
450
710
3200
140
2100
110
1700
49
11
160
290
4500
240
7900
1200
260
726 8667 723
Blank
650 NA 1700
NA
920 NA
1900
1600 190 4700
51 36 250
14
140 13 46
19
240 30 320
530 14000
180 520
7500 5600
2000 590
160 49
703
1900
210
170
1900
94
19
310
450
2000
470
3800
400
74
711
2400
2300
100
14
340
320
1600
280
4600
330
300
8666
Blank
300
220
16
16
30
Values of <10 ug/1 have not been included.
Blank values have not been subtracted.
58
-------
Table V-4A. Sample Numbers, Plant 610
705 Process make-up water—well water
708, 710, 726 Raw process effluent
723, 703, 711 Final treated effluent
8667, 8666 Blanks
59
-------
Table V-5. Sample Analysis, Plant 065—Turpene Sump
Parameter (ug/1
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
1,1, 1-Tr ichloroethane
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
Phthalate
Arsenic
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Total Phenols
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/1)
1747
2000
320
180
67000
4300
150
20
100
130
57
66
680
2000
200
15000
4500
14
1751
2400
1000
640
Ind.
Ind.
>40000
180
190
130
810
970
190
19000
4800
1800
1755
510
80
90
6600
730
1100
3000
17
33
130
27
120
320
6000
170
7000
960
670
8668
Blank
52
60
11
39
Values of <10 ug/1 have not been included.
Blank values have not been subtracted.
Ind.—Indeterminate because of high organic compound loading.
60
-------
Table V-5A. Sample Numbers, Plant 065
1747 Turpene sump, first day
1751 Turpene sump, second day
1755 Turpene sump, third day
8668 Blank
61
-------
Hosin Derivatives
Rosin derivatives are a major product within the Gum and Wood
Chemicals Industry. These products are net classified under SIC Code
2861, but rather under SIC CCDE 2821 (rosin-modifed resins). The
Agency determined that these products should be covered under Guir and
Wocd Chemicals as long as they were directly related tc the Gum and
Wood Chemicals plants in SIC code 2861.
EPA selected Plant 097 for sampling because it separated the rosin
derivatives process wastewater frcm ether waste streams. The rosin
derivatives subcategory has a diverse product line, however, and these
results may not characterize all resin derivatives operations. The
results of the verification analyses appear in Table V-6.
The major toxic pollutants in this subcategory are the organic
solvents. Toluene is a standard solvent used in the industry.
Ethylbenzene is not used in the plant specifically, but is a
contaminant of the industrial grade xylene which the plant uses in its
process.
The only non-volatile organic found in sampling was phenol. High con-
centrations of phencl (23 mg/1) were present because this plant
produces a phenolic resin.
Zinc is a common catalyst used in the industry and the high levels
were not unexpected.
The consistently high levels of methylene chloride suggest a
contamination problem because it is not used in the plant processes.
Its presence could not be explained by the plant's raw materials,
production process, or through interviews with plant personnel.
62
-------
Table V-6. Sample Analysis, Plant 097—Rosin Derivatives Process
Parameter (ug/1
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Phenol
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Total Phenols
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
BOD (mg/1)
Oil & Grease (mg/1)
730
2700
12000
17000
>10620
41
95
300
48
54
100
38000
41000
71
31000
1260
92
706
7300
830
170
2200
5300
14000
53
120
180
62
72
34
38000
46000
87
40000
450
146
737 2694
Blank
520
6700 630
710
28000
>4000
23000
100
190
34
49
35
38000
53000
70
38000
62
Values of <10 ug/1 have not been included,
Blank values have not been subtracted.
63
-------
Table V-6A. Sample Numbers, Plant 097
730 Resin plant effluent, first day
706 Resin plant effluent, second day
737 Resin plant effluent, third day
2694 Blank
64
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETEES
WASTEWATER PARAMETERS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A thorough analysis of the literature, industry data and sampling data
obtained from this study and ZFA permit data demonstrates that the
following wastewater parameters are cf significance in the gum and
wood chemicals industry:
Conventional and Nonconventional Pollutant Parameters
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day, 20 degrees C., BOD5)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
PH
Toxic Pollutants
Organics
Volatile
Semi-Volatile
Basic/Neutral Fraction
Acidic Fraction
Inorganics
Metals
CONVENTIONALE AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Biochemical oxygen demand is the quantity of oxygen required for the
biological and chemical oxidaticn of waterborn substances under
ambient or test conditions. Material which may contribute to the BOD
include: carbonaceous organic materials usable as a food source by
aerobic organisms; cxidizable nitrcgen derived frcm nitrites, ammonia,
and organic nitrogen compounds which serve as food for specific
bacteria; and certain chemically oxidizable materials such as ferrous
ircn, sulfides, sulfite, etc., which will react with dissolved oxygen
or which are metabolized by bacteria.
In the gum and wood chemicals wastewaters, the BOD derives principally
from organic materials, such as fatty acids and resins.
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
65
-------
anaerobic conditions and the production of undersirable gases such as
hydrogen sulfide and methane. The reduction of dissolved oxygen can
be detrimental to fish populations, fish growth rate, and organisms
used as fish food. A total lack of oxygen due to excessive BOD can
result in the death of all aerobic aquatic inhabitants in the affected
area.
Water with a high BOD indicates the presence of decomposing organic
matter and associated increased bacterial concentrations that degrade
its quality and potential uses. High BCD 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 tc 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 treasuring the quantity of many
degradable substances and their reaction products. In such cases,
testing relies on the collective parameter, ECDj>. 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 biochemical reactions involved in the oxidation
of carbon compounds are related to the period of incubation. The 5-
day BOD normally measures only 60 to 80 percent of the carbonaceous
biochemical oxygen demand of the sample, and for many purposes this is
a reasonable parameter. Additionally, it can be used to estimate the
gross quantity of oxidizable organic matter.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Suspended solids include both organic and inorganic materials. The
inorganic compounds include sand, silt, clay, and toxic metals. The
organic fraction includes such materials as grease, oil, animal and
vegetable waste products, and adsorbed toxic organic pollutants.
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
phctosynthetic activity of aquatic plants.
Aside from any toxic effect attributable to substances leached out by
water, 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
66
-------
of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion. Suspended solids also
reduce the recreational value of the water.
£H
pH. Although not a specific pollutant, pH is related tc the acidity
or alkalinity of a wastewater stream. It is not a linear or direct
measure of either; however, it iray properly be used tc 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. To protect POTW from corrosion, pH levels of
wastewaters entering the sewerage system must remain above 5. 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 frcm 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 cr kill aquatic life.
Even moderate changes from "acceptable" pH limits can harm some
species. Changes in water pH increase the relative toxicity* to
aquatic life of many materials. Metalccyanide complexes can increase
a thousand-fold in toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units. The toxicity
of ammonia similarly is a function of pH. The bactericidal effect of
chlorine in most cases lessens as the pH increases, and it is
economically advantageous to keep the pH close to 7.
The lacrimal fluid of the human eye has a pH of approximately 7.0 and
a deviation of 0.1 pH unit from the norm may irritate the eyes;
appreciable irritation will cause severe pain.
Wastewater pH values below 6.0 can magnify problems of hydrogen
sulfide gas evolution and poor metals removal. Cn the ether hand,
unusually high pH (for instance 11.0) can cause significant loss of
active biomass in biological treatment systems, especially activated
sludge.
67
-------
TOXIC POLLUTANTS
The 129 toxic pollutants are divided into three major groups:
organics, pesticides and PCB's, and inorganics. Toxic pollutants
detected in gum and wood chemicals wastes are discussed on the basis
of these three groups.
Tables VI-3 and VI-4 present information on the irolecular structure,
number of plants where identified, concentration range in the
wastewater, and, wherever possible, a brief description of the gum and
wood chemical industry uses of these compounds.
Organic Toxic Pollutants
Several of the organic toxic pollutants appeared in the gum and wood
chemical wastewaters at concentrations of 10 ppb or higher. Crganics
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 fraction, and an
acidic fraction.
Volatile Fraction. Table VI-3 summarizes the volatile organic toxic
pollutants identified in the gum and wood chemical wastewaters.
Frequency of identification and concentration ranges for these
compounds also are summarized along with information on common uses.
Nine organic pollutants were found at least once in the sampled
effluents.
*The term toxic or toxicity is used herein in the normal scientific
sense of the word, not the legal.
Benzene appeared in raw effluents in levels ranging up to 3800 ppb,
and in concentrations up to 270 ppb in treated effluents. Benzene is
not a major process raw material in the gum and wood chemicals
industry. It is, however, a contaminant of toulene, which is a major
solvent used in the industry.
The EPA proposed water quality criterion to protect freshwater aquatic
life from the toxic effects of benzene is 3,100 ug/1 as a 24 hour
average; the concentration should never exceed 7,000 ug/1. For
saltwater aquatic life, the 24 hour average and maximum permissible
concentrations are 920 ug/1 and 2,100 ug/1, respectively.
Benzene is a suspected human carcinogen. Studies of the effect of
benzene vapors on humans indicate a relationship between chronic
benzene poisoning and a high incidence of leukemia. 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
68
-------
Table VI-1. Screening Sample Results for Halomethanes
Concentration ug/1
Plant
Sample #
Methylene
Chloride
Chloroform
868
055
723
013
001
0722
0728
2290-B
8182
1718
8184
8186
1735
8675-B
0705
0708
0723
8666-B
714
724
730
707
2694-B
1710
3150
1720
1714
8670-B
-108
>341
>568
710
680
750
180
820
30
260
15,700
1,400
300
-20
40
2070
1270
630
-1100
-200
-480
-720
1300
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
69
-------
Table VI-2. Screening Sample Results for Aromatic Solvents
Plant
Sample #
Benzene
Concentration ug/1
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
868
055
723
086
001
0720
0728
2290-B
8182
1718
8184
8186
1735
8675-B
0705
0708
0723
8666-B
714
724
730
707
2694-B
1710
3150
1720
1714
8670-B
90
>64
140
120
120
110
30
120
110
140
20
0
20
20
20
20
50
70
20
590
20
100
17,000
10
>1220
180
2500
12,000
2,700
70
-------
CO
o
I
(1)
1
s
Ja
•g
1
V-i ctj
en
-------
CM
14-1
o
CM
u
1!
I
I
•r^ i-^
^>
CLi
J I
js -a
'«? a
s S
•* o
^
i
^
.s aJ-!:
'% feb
.s.
03 •
i-l 03
CO (0
•3
ci-
S
n
72
-------
•s
o
I
-------
organisms, the Agency recommends an ambient water concentration of
zero.
Dichloromethane, also known as methylene chloride, was found in the
raw, primary, and secondary effluents of a number of plants. It is a
common solvent; found in insecticides; and is used also as a
degreasing and cleaning liquid.
The proposed criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is 4,000
ug/1 as a 24 hour average; the concentration should never exceed 9,000
ug/1. The proposed 24 hour average concentration to protect saltwater
aquatic life is 1,900 ug/1, and the maximum concentration is 4,400
ug/1. For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of
methylene chlroide ingested through water, the Agency recommends an
ambient water quality criterion cf 2 ug/1.
Ethylbenzene appeared in gum and wood chemical effluents at a higher
concentration than any other volatile organic pollutant.
Concentrations were as high as 67 ppm in raw wastewater and as high as
21 ppm in the -treated wastewater.
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 taste tc fish flesh. Fcr the protection of
human health from the toxic properties of ethylbenzene ingested
through water, the proposed ambient water quality criterion is 1,100
ug/1.
Tetrachloromethane, commonly known as carbon tetrachloride, is a
solvent for fats, oils, and waxes; an insecticide; and a chemical
intermediate. Toxicological data shew that rats and mice exposed -to
carbon tetrachloride incur liver and kidney damage, biochemical
changes in liver function, neurological damage, and liver cancer. It
is well documented that carbon tetrachloride is toxic to humans.
Poisoning symptoms include nausea, abdominal pain, liver enlargement,
and renal failure.
Carbon tetrachloride has been shown tc be a carcinogen in laboratory
animals and is a suspected human carcinogen. As there is nc
recognized safe concentration for a human carcinogen, EPA has
recommended that for the maximum protection of human health, the
ambient water concentration of carbon tetrachlcride equal zero. To
protect freshwater and saltwater aquatic life, the proposed 24 hour
average concentration is 620 ug/1 and 2,000 ug/1, respectively; the
recommended maximum concentrations of 1,400 ug/1 and 4,600 ug/1,
respectively.
74
-------
Toluene, a common general organic sclvent, appeared in concentrations
varying from trace to more than 30 ppn in raw wastewater. In treated
wastewater the highest concentration was 2000 ppb.
A study using mice showed that tcluene 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 proposed water quality criterion to protect
freshwater aquatic life is 2300 ug/1 as a 24 hour average; the
concentration should never exceed 5,200 ug/1. The 24 hour average and
maximum concentrations to protect saltwater aquatic life are 100 ug/1
and 230 ug/1, respectively.
1, 1,1-Trichloroethane was found in raw and treated effluents. Its
primary use is as a solvent and degreasing agent. It exhibits strong
solvent action on organics, especially oils, greases, waxes, and tars;
and it blends with other solvents to reduce their flairmability or
provide added solvent properties.
Trichlorofluoromethane was detected in the raw and treated effluents
of four plants. It is used in aerosals, as a refrigerant, and in air
conditioning. It is not used in the gum and wood chemicals processing
industry.
Trichloromethane, commonly known as chloroform, appeared in the raw
and treated effluents of several plants. It is a general solvent,
refrigerant, and cleaning agent, and 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 proposed 24 hour average and maximum concentrations to protect
freshwater aquatic life from the tcxic effect of chloroform are 500
ug/1 and 1,200 ug/1, respectively. The proposed water quality
criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life is 620 ug/1 as a 24 hour
average, with a maximum concentration cf 1,400 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.
Semi-Volatile Fraction
Easic/Neutral Fraction. The Agency identified only two basic/neutral
organic compounds. These were naphthalene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was the only phthalate ester
75
-------
identified in gum and wood chemical wastewater. It is not used in the
direct processing of gum and wood chemical, but was found in the raw
and treated effluents.
Phthalate esters can harm aquatic and terrestrial organisms at low
concentrations. The compounds exhibit teratogenic and mutagenic
effects under certain laboratory conditions. Of the fish species
tested, the rainbow trout was the least sensitive and the bluegill the
most sensitive to di-n-butyl phthalate. A cray fish species tested
was the least sensitive and a freshwater zooplanktcn the most
sensitive of all species tested.
High levels of phthalate concentration in water where reproductive
impairment in certain species are suggestive cf potential
environmental damage. The presence of these compounds in water
affects the growth and reproduction essential for maintenance of
animal populations.
As a class, the phthalate esters' response to biochemical oxidation is
inversely related to their molecular weight. Adsorption on activated
carbon is directly related to increasing molecular weight.
Naphthalene appeared in the raw and treated effluent frcm one plant.
It was found to be a contaminate in a industrial grade alcohol. Ihe
effects of naphthalene poisoning on humans have been studied.
Naphthalene poisoning can cause convulsions and hematolcgic 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 up to
concentrations twice that in overlying water and can be degraded by
microorganisms to 1,2-dehydro-1,2-dihydroxynaphthalene and ultimately
to carbon dioxide and water.
Acidic Fraction. EPA identified two acidic fraction organic compounds
from gum and wood chemicals plants; phenol and pentachlorcphenol.
Phenol was found in seven plants. Phenolic compounds can affect
freshwater fishes adversely by direct toxicity to fish and fish-food
organisms, by lowering the amount of available oxygen because of the
high oxygen demand of compounds, and by tainting fish flesh. The
toxicity of phenol to fish increases as the dissolved oxygen level
diminishs; the temperature rises; and hardness is lessens. Phenol
appears to act as a nerve poison, causing too irich blood to get to the
gills and to the heart cavity.
76
-------
Mixed phenolic substances are especially troublesome in imparting
taste to fish flesh. Monochlorophenols produce a bad taste in fish
far below lethal or toxic doses. Threshold concentrations for taste
or odor in chlorinated water supplies have been reported as low as
0.0003 mg/1.
The human ingestion of a concentrated phenol solution results in
severe pain, renal irritation, shock, and possibly death.
Various environmental conditions can 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 concentration should never
exceed 3,400 ug/1.
Pentachlorophenol was found in one raw wastewater sample at one plant
at a concentration of 47 ppb. 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 fcr the brown shrimp to 220 ug/1
for the gold fish. The recommended 24 hour average and iraximum
concentrations to protect freshwater aquatic life are 6.2 ug/1 and 14
ug/1, respectively. To protect saltwater aquatic life, the
recommended 24 hour average concentration is not to exceed 3.7 ug/1;
at no time should the pentachlorophenol concentration exceed 8.5 ug/1.
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. In humans, the results of pentachlorophenol
poisoning can range from elevated blood pressure and rapid respiration
to coma and death. For the protection of human health the ambient
water concentration should be no greater than 680 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.
Inorganic Toxic Pollutants
Several of the inorganic toxic pollutants were fcund in gum and wood
chemical wastewaters at levels of 10 ppb or more. The three metals
used in the industry copper, nickel, and zinc.
Chromium also appeared in the wastewater streams. It is not used in
the processing of gum and wood cheiricals except as a biocide in some
77
-------
coding towers. The raw wastewater's highest concentration was 1.5
ppm and the treated wastewater concentration was 0.88 ppir.
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 cf 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
ether 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 chrciriuir
is more toxic to fish of some types than is hexavalent chroir.ium.
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, tcth 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. Tcxicity varies with species,
chromium oxidation state, and pH.
Chromium concentration factors in marine organisms have been reported
to be 1,600 in benthic algae, 2,300 in phytcplankton, 1,900 in
zooplankton, and 440 in molluscan soft parts.
Copper. Copper oxides and sulfates are used for pesticides,
fungicides, and certain metallized dyes. The tcxicity 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. Eelatively 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
cr juvenile fish.
In most natural fresh waters in the United States, copper
concentrations below 0.025 mg/1 as ccpper evidently are not rapidly
fatal for most common fish species. In acute tests coppers sulfate in
soft water was toxic to rainbow trout at 0.06 irg/1 copper. In very
hard water the toxic concentration was 0.6 mg/1 ccpper. 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 hydrcus oxides of
manganese and iron and also as soluble and insoluble complexes with
78
-------
organic matter. Keeney and Walsh (1975) found that the extractable
copper content of sludge-treated sell decreased with time, which
suggests that 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 tc 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.
For copper, the proposed water quality criterion depends on water
hardness. At a hardness of 75 mg/1, the criterion to protect
freshwater aquatic life is 2.4 ug/1 as a 24 hour average, the
concentration should never exceed 16 ug/1 at this water hardness. The
recommended criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life is 0.79 ug/1
and 18 ug/1 as 24 hour average and rraximum concentrations,
respectively.
Nickel. Studies of the toxicity of nickel to aquatic life indicate
that tolerances vary widely and are influenced by species, pH
synergistic effects, and other factors.
Available data indicate that: (1) nickel in water is toxic to plant
life at concentrations as low as 100 ug/1; (2) nickel adversely
affects reproduction of a freshwater crustacean at concentrations as
low as 0.095 mg/1; (3) nickel concentrations as low as 0.31 mg/1 can
kill marine clam larvae; and (4) nickel seriously affects reproduction
of freshwater minnow at concentrations as low as 0.73 mg/1 and the
reproduction of Daphnia at 53 ug/1.
In nonhuman mammals nickel acts to inhibit insulin release, depress
growth, and reduce cholesterol. A high incidence of cancer of the
lung and nose has been reported in humans engaged in the refining of
nickel.
Zinc. 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. Grwoth and
maturation are retarded. In general, salmonids are most sensitive to
elemental zinc in soft water; the rainbcw trout is the most sensitive
in hard waters. In tests with several heavy metals, the immature
79
-------
aquatic insects seem to be less sensitive than many tested fish.
Although available data is sparse en the effects of zinc in the marine
environment, zinc accumulates in some species, and marine animals
contain zinc in the range of 6 tc 1,500 mg/kg. Fcr zinc, the proposed
water quality criterion depends on water hardness. At a hardness of
75 mg/1, the proposed criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life is
35 ug/1 as a 24 hour average and the concentration should never exceed
185 ug/1 at this hardness.
80
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
This section discusses the range of wastewater control and treatment
technologies available to the Gum and Wood Cheiricals Industry. In-
plant pollution abatement as well as end-of-pipe treatment
technologies are presented. For the purpose cf cost analysis, one or
more candidate technologies were selected for each subcategory.
There are many possible combinations of in-plant and end-of-pipe
systems capable of attaining the pollutant reductions reported for the
candidate technologies. Performance levels reported for the candidate
treatment technologies are based upon the demonstrated performance of
similar systems within the industry cr upon well documented results of
readily transferable technology. The industry can achieve these
performance levels by using the mcdel treatment systems proposed. The
purpose of the model treatment systems is to establish 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 best
suited to its particular situation.
IN-PLANT CONTROL MEASURES
Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Ojl
The major in-plant water control measure in this subcategory is the
recycling of stump wash water. Stumps are washed irainly to minimize
the abrasive effect of sand on subsequent processing equipment. The
quantity of sand has become a major factor only in the last few years.
The current practice of plowing stumps cut cf the ground with large
tractors does not loosen sand as the older blasting method did.
Spent wash water is collected and pumped to settling basins, the size
of which depends on the land available to the plant.
Plants 976 and 068 have basins large enough to allow for settling
without the addition of a settling aid. They use a two-basin system
in which one basin operates while the other is dredged. Dredging
varies with the plant work schedule.
Because of limited space, Plant 102 has a settling basin 9.7 meters
(32 feet) by 11.5 meters (38 feet) by 3.7 meters (12 feet). Because
of its size, polymer is added to the basin to enhance settling. Daily
dredging reiroves approximately 90 to 181 metric tens (100 to 200 tons)
81
-------
per day of wet sand and sediment, approximately 50 percent of which is
water.
Plant 687 does not recycle its stump wash water but routes it to a
basin for settling and solids removal followed by clarification and
discharge (see Figure VII-1). The long term average daily
concentration of solids discharged is 50 mg/1. The long term average
daily flow from the stump washing operation is 22,330 cubic meters per
day (5.9 mgd). The long term average daily solids loading from the
plant is approximately 1,080 kg/day (2,400 Ibs/day), which is
discharged to the surface water.
Tall Oil Rosinf Pitch, and Fatty Acids
Tall oil plants use barometric condensers to induce reduced pressure
in the distillation tower. The baronetric condenser water is contact
water and becomes contaminated with the low boiling point constituents
cf the tall oil.
The tall oil distillation industry recirculates its barometric
condenser water through separate "oily water" ccoling towers, which
skim off the condensed oil prior tc cycling through the main cooling
tower. The skimmed oil is returned to the process or is sold as a by-
product. The volume of water goirg into the "oily water" cooling
system depends on the amount of steam used for distillation. The
steam is then condensed by the barometric condenser along with any
water retained in the tall oil. The ccndensate is the source of make-
up water for the "oily water" cooling system.
Water volume in the "oily water" system is controlled by evaporation,
drift, and blowdown from the ceding tower. Plant 877 has zero
discharge from this type of system; the holding basin is large enough
to handle any excess "oily water" generated during times cf low
evaporation or rainy weather. The largest flow noted from an "oily
water" system was a long term average of 272 cubic meters per day (50
gpm) from Plant 476
Recycling this "oily water" concentrates it. The "oily water" in
Plant 476 was sampled in conjunction with that cf the waste streams.
The pollutants were more concentrated than those in the raw wastewater
discharged by the plant. Table VII-1 compares the raw wastewater and
the "oily water" cooling system.
The use of barometric condensers is standard throughout plants located
in the South; however, the size cf the holding basins varies signifi-
cantly between the plants. The holding pond at Plant 474 has a
capacity just equal to the volume of the cooling tower and the oil
skimmer. This plant uses a continuous cooling tower blowdown of
approximately 54.5 cubic meters per day (10 gpm) tc maintain the
82
-------
-------
Table VII-1. Plant 476—Comparison of Raw Wastewater and "Oily Water"
Cooling System
Raw
Wastewater
Total Phenol rag/1 550
Total Suspended Solids mg/1 44
COD mg/1 1100
Phenol mg/1 *
"Oily Water"
Cooling System
1700
170
8400
7500t
* Value was less than the detection limit.
t Value may vary from that for the total phenol because of analytical
technique.
84
-------
proper level in the system. Other plants have intermittent blowdowns
depending on the solids build-up in the tower and the need to control
the water level in the system.
Plants 140 and 864, located in a relatively cold climate, use steam
jets to reduce the water in the distillation towers, and non-contact
condensers to cool the condensate. The ccndensate is discharged to
the waste treatment process. Plant 140 estimates the flow due tc the
steam jet vacuum system and the ccndensate tc be approximately 272
cubic meters per day (50 gpm) .
End-of-Pipe Treatment
EPA identified the following end-of-pipe treatment unit operations for
potential inclusion in BPT Sulfate Turpentine, ECT, EAT, and New
Source Performance Standards.
Free Oil Removal—Oily products such as turpentine and fatty acids are
a major factor in this industry. Gravity oil-water separation is used
throughout the industry to recover oil for use as a fuel supplement
or, in some cases, for recycle to the plant process.
A baffle separator at the effluent end cf an equalization basin is the
most common system used in the industry. The oil can be skimmed from
the basin either manually or continuously, depending on the wastewater
flew and the quantity of oil products produced at the plant. This
study did not consider free oil removal as a part of the treatment
system, and wastewater characteristics across cil-water separators
were not considered.
Chemical Flocculation—Wastewater frcm the industry typically has high
concentrations of emulsified oil, the quantity of which varies from
plant to plant depending on the efficiency of the cil-water separator
and the pH of the waste stream. A pH less than 3 greatly reduces the
emulsion problem; however, the pH of industry waste streams industry
typically ranges from 3 to 9.
Chemical coagulation of the emulsified oil is a recognized method of
removal. The coagulants normally used in industrial wastewater
processes are lime, alum, and ferric chloride, with polymer often
added as a flocculant. The selection of a coagulant depends on the
characteristics of each particular vaste stream.
Plants 877 and 68 currently using chemical ccagulaticn. One plant
fractionates tall oil, and the other is a major producer in the wood
rosin and turpene area. These plants reduce oil and grease by 65 to
85 percent using coagulation and settling equipment with polymer as a
flocculation aid. The flocculated effluent generally contains from 7
to 16 mg/1 of oil and grease.
85
-------
Equalization—Equalization is a treatment step used to smooth out
surges in both flow and pollutant concentration. Because treatment
unit operations must be able to handle peak flow rates and
concentrations, plants can realize significant capital cost savings by
minimizing the peaks with equalization. Operating costs for chemical
addition processes also can be reduced by optimizing chemical dosage.
Plant wastewater flow rates and pollutant concentrations vary,
depending on the process and the process stage. The retention tiire in
the equalization basin can be reduced by using seme type of mixing
method such as aeration.
Neutralization—Gum and Wood Chemicals industrial waste streams vary
in pH from 3 to 9, which may require neutralization before the various
treatment steps. Oil emulsion breaking is best accomplished with a pH
of less than 3; metals precipitation is best accomplished with a pH of
approximately 9; and biological treatment is best accomplished with a
pH of approximately 7.
pH adjustment uses either alkalies or acids, depending on the pH
requirement. Commonly used alkalies are lime, caustic, cr soda ash.
Sulfuric acid is the usual acid.
Flctation--Flotation is a process which separates solids or oils from
the carrier wastewater by attaching them to floating gas bubbles.
Flotation occurs in three ways: (1) air flotation—aeration at
atmospheric pressure; (2) dissolved air flotation—aeration of a
liquid under pressure with subsequent release cf the pressure; and (3)
vacuum flotation--aeration of a liquid at atmospheric pressure
followed by application of a vacuum to the liquid. The basic
principle is that air bubbles attach themselves to oil globules or
suspended particles and float them tc the surface for skimming.
Chemicals such as coagulants, polymers, acids, and/or alkalies are
often used prior to flotation to promote the formation of larger more
easily removed particles.
Plants 778 and 767 use air flotation devices. A study conducted by
Plant 778 reported that air flotation removed 204 kg/day (450 Ibs/
day) of BOD, 181 kg/day (400 Ibs/day) of oil and grease, and 236
kg/day (521 Ibs/day) of COD. Plant 767 is currently installing the
flotation equipment, and pollutant removal rates are not available.
Plant 102 also uses a dissolved air flotation process. A plant study
shewed a reduction cf TOC across the flotation unit of 2,860 kg/day
(6,300 Ib/day). Oils recovered from the flotation unit are used as a
fuel supplement.
Metals Removal—Varying levels of copper, chrome, nickel, and zinc
appeared in the waste streams across the industry. Seme of these
metals are used as catalysts in industry processes.
86
-------
The most accepted method of metals removal is the formation of metal
hydroxides. Heavy metal ions can be precipitated from wastewater
streams as metal hydroxides. The first step in the process is to
adjust the wastewater pH to a level at which the solubility of heavy
metals is sufficiently low. The solubility curves for four common
metals in distilled water are shown in figure VII-2.
Figure VII-2 suggests that a pH of 9 can remove metals most
efficiently; however, the actual operating pH level must be determined
for each plant. Metal salt formation varies with the waste stream
matrix and the metal ions present. The Agency suggests the formation
of metal hydroxides instead of metal sulfides.
Although the particles formed by metal salts are colloidal in nature
and are kept in suspension by electrical surface charges, they can be
neutralized by the use of coagulants or polymers which bond the
smaller colloidal particles into larger floe particles and allow them
to settle with conventional settling techniques.
Biological Treatment—Biological treatment is the controlled oxidation
of organic matter to inorganic end products like C02, H20, NO3, and
SOt by aquatic microorganisms (primarily bacteria). The
microorganisms utilize organic matter as a food source; in so doing,
they simultaneously propogate themselves. Two types of biological
treatment processes treat Gum and wocd Chemicals wastewater: activated
sludge and aerated lagoons.
In the activated sludge system, wastewater, microorganism sludge, and
nutrients are fed into a tank with sufficient detention time for the
required BOD reduction. The tank is aerated to supply oxygen and mix
the sludge enough to keep it in suspension. The aeration tank
effluent then goes to a clarification tank where the sludge settles
out of the treated wastewater stream and is partially recycled to the
aeration tank. Because net solids are produced by the propogating
microorganisms, a portion of the sludge must be wasted to avoid build-
up of excess solids in the system.
Aerated lagoons use the same basic process. Wastewater and nutrients
are fed into the lagoon and aerated. However, the aerated lagoons do
not recycle sludge, excess sludge produced by the biological action
settles either in the poorly mixed zones of the lagoon or in a
separate clarification basin.
Carbon Adsorption—The efficacy cf activated carbon in wastewater
treatment has been "rediscovered" in recent years, although very
little of the work has been relevant to the Gum and Wood Chemicals
Industry.
87
-------
10 -
1.0
0.1
CQ
iJ
o
to
0.01
0.001
CHROMIUM
COPPER
10
1.0
0.1
0.01
0.001
10
11
12
Figure VII-2.
SOLUTION pH
(From EPA-440/1-73-003)
Solubility Curves for Chromium, Copper, Nickel, and Zinc
88
-------
One facility presently uses activated carbon adsorption. Plant 102
has oil-water separation, neutralization, dissolved air flotation,
filtration, and finally, granular activated carbon (GAC). This
granular activated carbon system is used in lieu cf biological
treatment.
Adsorption isotherms were developed by three separate laboratories
using the parameter COD. The results were carbon loadings of between
0.85 and 1.2 kg COD/kg carbon (0.85 Ib COD/1.2 Ib carbon). The pilot
plant studies revealed that the optimal conditions were flow rates of
176 to 293 m3/m2/day (3 to 5 gpm/ft2) and a contact time of 45 to 50
minutes. Under these conditions, COD removals were 75 tc 85 percent.
The pilot plant results confirmed the isotherm results by yielding a
carbon loading of approximately 1.0 kg COD/kg carbon (Ib CCD/lb
carbon) .
The GAC system was designed and is operating at a carbon loading of
approximately 1.2 kg COD/kg carbon (1.2 Ib CCD/lb carbon) and 0.44 kg
TOC/kg carbon (0.44 Ib TOC/lb carbon). Pollutant reductions were
approximately 84 percent COD and 79 percent TOC. Representative
performance data for the GAC systeir. appear in Table VII-2. The entire
treatment system removed better than 95 percent of CCD and TCC.
Typical performance data for the total treatment system are shown in
Table VII-3.
Very little data are available on adsorption of toxic pollutants in
Gum and Wood Chemicals wastewater. Carbon adsorption is not effective
for removing most metals. The crganics ccmmonly identified during
screening and verification were benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and
phenol. Guisti, et al. (1975) performed tests which indicated that
carbon adsorption probably could remove 75 percent of these compounds.
Actual screening and sampling data from Plant 102 showed removals for
benzene and toluene of approximately 64.4 percent and 74.9 percent,
respectively.
Evaporation—Due to the significant volumes cf plant wastewater
generated, evaporation is not a widely-used technology in the Gum and
wood Chemicals Industry. However, it may apply to disposal of
specific high-strength, low volume, process waste streams.
Spray evaporation involves containing the wastewater in lined lagoons
sufficiently large to accommodate several months of process
wastewater, as well as directly rainwater on the lagoon. The
wastewater is sprayed under pressure through nozzles, producing fine
aerosols which evaporate 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, relative humidity, pond dimensions, wind speed, spray
89
-------
Table VII-2.
Secondary Treatment Feed and Effluent Analysis and
Performance Data
Item
Influent Effluent
Reduction
Removal
Ib/day
Design:
12,260 m3/day (3.24 mgd)
COD, mg/1 600
TOC, mg/1 160
BOD, mg/1 250
Start-up period:
9,810 m3/day (2.592 mgd)
COD, mg/1 975
TOC, mg/1 222
Typical operation:
9,810 m3/day (2.592 mgd)
COD, mg/1 752
TOC, mg/1 203
Selected samples:
(2.592 mg/1)
BOD, mg/1
Phenols, mg/1
Ni, mg/1
Zn, mg/1
Cd, mg/1
Cu, mg/1
Cr, mg/1
TS, mg/1
SS, mg/1
DS, mg/1
Chlorides, mg/1
N02» mg/1
Oil and grease, mg/1
300
4.66
1.02
1.11
0.91
1.29
1.12
1,211
81
1,130
1.82
5.16
28.1
125
30
50
152
46
160
42
82
0.58
0.33
0.29
0.22
0.36
0.26
965
13
952
0.84
4.28
2.2
79
81
80
84
79
79
79
12,800
3,500
5,400
17,800
3,500
12,800
3,500
73
88
68
74
76
72
77
20
84
16
48
17
92
4,700
88
15
18
15
20
19
5,300
1,500
3,800
19
'19
560
90
-------
Table VII-3. Typical Total Treatment System Performance Data*
Parameter
COD
TOG
BOD
TSS
Oil and Grease
Raw Waste
Water
(mg/1)
3,200
1,200
1,600
320
500
Primary
Treated
Effluent
(mg/1)
670
198
267
72
25
Secondary
Treated
Effluent
(mg/1)
143
37
73
12
2
Overall
Reduction
(%)
95.5
96.9
95.4
96.3
99.6
* @ 9,810 m3/day (2.592 MGD).
91
-------
nozzle height, and pressure are all variables which affect the air.ount
of wastewater which can be evaporated.
To be effective, spray evaporation should fellow effective 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 minimizing the amount of wastewater tc be evaporated.
land Disposal Systems—Controlled application on land can dispose of
wastewater or sludge. Methods of application include spray
irrigation, subsurface injection, overland flow, and rapid
infiltration.
The pollutant removal mechanisms include biological oxidation by soil
microorganisms, ion exchange, physical straining, precipitation,
nutrient uptake by vegetation, and volatilization. Pretreatment of
wastewater is required to prevent odors; to maximize the application
rate; and to protect crops, public health, grcundwater, soil, and the
application equipment. Pretreatment processes typically include pH
adjustment, suspended solids removal, oil removal, and chlorination.
One plant practices land disposal cf aerated lagccn sludge. Current
EPA encouragement of land disposal and increasingly strict effluent
Limitations may result in more plants using this system in the future.
A major drawback for many existing plants is the absence of suitable
land.
In-Place Treatment Technology
This report assumes that "Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available" (BPT) requirements are being met. The direct
discharge plants in the industry have not all used the sanre treatment
scheme. The Gum and Wood Chemicals plants that discharge to municipal
treatment plants presently are not required by Federal law to treat
wastewater. Some municipalities do require pretreatment of
wastewater, but this is on a city-by-city basis only. The final group
of plants discharges wastewater to the waste streams of pulp and paper
mills. These waste stream flows are generally large—in the 20 MGD
range, while flows from the Gum and Wood Chemicals plants are 1 MGD or
less.
Metals removal is not practiced generally in the industry at this
time. Plant 17 treats for metals on a particular waste stream
containing heavy metals. The lack of industry-wide information
required a review of the technology available from other industrial
categories. While the levels of metals found in the plating industry
are higher than those in the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry, the
general technique of precipitating metal salts is a well accepted
treatment method. Additionally, the wastewaters from the metal
92
-------
plating operations more closely resemble the types of problems
encountered in the Gum and Wood Chemicals industry industry oil and
grease and chelating agents.
Plant 102 uses granular activated carbon in lieu of biological
treatment. Operational problems have resulted in the formation of
biomass in the columns, restricting the flow. Down time of the carbon
regeneration system due to equipment failure also has been a problem.
A new type of regeneration furnace is being installed and a biological
treatment study is underway.
Plant 976 slurries carbonaceous ash from the spent wood chip-fired
boiler with the wastewater to utilize the adsorption capacity of the
ash. Table VII-4 shows the effectiveness of this method.
Table VII-5 shows a matrix cf the current in-place treatment
technology in the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry. As mentioned pre-
viously, the direct dischargers have at least soire treatment in-place
at this time; pretreatment processes for indirect dischargers depend
on the requirements of the receiving treatment works. Eight plants
discharge their wastewater to POTW's and four plants discharge their
wastewater to the waste streams cf ether industries such as pulp and
paper mills. The plants that discharge to POTW's have treatment
equipment to meet POTW's requirements.
93
-------
Table VII-4. Plant 976—Pollutant Reduction Across Fly Ash Slurry
Parameter
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Toulene
Ethylbenzene
COD
Influent
3 ug/1
100 ug/1
ND
10 ug/1
1,100 mg/1
Concentration
Effluent
NF
10 ug/1
ND
NF
730 mg/1
NF = Not found.
ND = Not determined.
94
-------
Table VII-5. Treatment Scheme
778
476
976
068
291
649
017
110
687
974
474
573
877
286
102
140
479
864
943
767
I
Type of
Discharger
D
*
D
I
I
*
I
AI
BD
i
it
*
D
D
D
*
r
D
*
D
-,
i M ** -3
J" - I i In
•3 1 i 5 3 S
O ad < z Z <
X X X X X X
X
XX XX
X X
X
X
X XXX
X XX
X X
XX X
X
X
X X
XX X
X X X X
X
X X X X
XX XX
X
X X X X X X
$ >,
~a S. *
•p § w C 8 S a
3i S *4W 9p U
6 3S o i uu CO M zu
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
XXX X
X
X X
X
X
X
I
en cu
t !
il 1
X
X X
95
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NCN-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
COST INFORMATION
This section presents cost information for the candidate treatment
technologies developed in Section VII in order to assess the economic
impact on the industry.
EPA has arrived at two types of cost estimates. First, the total
battery limit costs of the technologies are estimated for the model
plants according to raw wastewater characteristics described in
Section V for each subcategory. These estimates include the cost of
each unit process associated with the suggested technology at each
level of treatment.
The second type of cost estimate presented is a plant-by-plant
estimate of the costs of achieving the applicable candidate
technologies within each subcategory. This estimate was prepared for
every plant in the technical data base.
A number of factors affect the cost cf a particular facility, and
these highly variable factors may differ from those assumed in this
study. One of the most variable factors is the cost of land. Other
site-specific factors include Iccal scil conditions, construction
materials (e.g., steel versus concrete tanks), building codes, labor
costs, and energy costs.
Some installations may use cost accounting systems which cause
reported costs to differ from those in this section. For example, it
is not uncommon for a portion of a manufacturing plant's
administrative costs to be allocated tc the waste treatment system.
Such factors are not included in this document.
Table VIII-1 lists the assumptions used in developing the costs
presented in this section. Tables VIII-2 and VIII-3 describe each
technology for which costs are estimated for the Gum and Wood
Chemicals Industry. In considering costs for these technologies, the
four existing plants who comingle their wastes with other industrial
wastewaters prior to treatment and discharge to waters cf the United
States are considered as indirect dischargers.
EPA developed model plants for four different types of Gum and Wood
manufacturing plants: (1) those which produce tall oil rosin, fatty
acids, and pitch; (2) those which produce tall oil rosin, fatty acids,
pitch, and rosin-based derivatives; (3) those which produce sulfate
turpentine; and (4) those which produce sulfate turpentine, and resin-
based derivatives. The development cf model plants was restricted to
97
-------
these four types of manufacturing facilities because the existing
market and raw material supply almost precludes construction of the
ether types of Gum and wood plants.
Raw wastewater characteristics for the model plants were based on data
provided by plants in the industry. The preduction and wastewater
flow data were based on historical data provided by the data
collection portfolio respondents. Tables VIII-4 through VIII-6
contain the design flow and raw wastewater characteristics for the
model plants.
Energy Requirements of Candidate Technologies
Energy costs are itemized in each cf the ccst estimates presented in
this section.
Total Cost of Candidate Technologies
Tables VIII-7 through VIII-27 present the total battery limit costs of
candidate treatment technologies for combinations of subcategories for
which new plants might reasonably be expected.
£2.§t of Compliance for Individual Plants
EPA performed a pi ant-by-plant analysis on each Gum and Wood plant in
the technical data base to determine the compliance cost for each
applicable candidate treatment technology. The individual plants'
wastewater flow, raw wastewater characteristics, and in-place
technology were all considered. Costs cf compliance fcr individual
Gum and Wood plants appear in Tables VIII-28 through VIII-44.
NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES
The most significant non-water quality impact of the candidate
technologies involves the disposal of wastewater sludges. Such
disposal must be managed properly tc mitigate ground or surface water
contamination.
Data in this document have indicated that organic toxic pollutants may
be removed by biological treatment. Organic materials may be
bicdegraded, stripped from the wastewater by aeration, or removed with
the waste sludge. Metals precipitated from the wastewater may appear
in the sludge.
It was not within the scope of this document to define whether wastes
from the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry are hazardous materials. No
effort was made to characterize accurately the sludge produced as a
result of wastewater treatment. No sludge samples were collected
during the screening or verification sampling program. However, some
98
-------
wastes generated as a result of these regulations may be classified as
hazardous under new RCRA regulations.
Some impacts on air quality may occur as a result of spray evaporation
or cooling tower evaporation, since the wastewater being evaporated
contains volatile organic compounds which may evaporate with the waste
and increase the equivalent hydrocarbon content of the air. Drift
losses caused by wind may also cause an air quality impact as a result
of spray evaporation or cooling tcwer evaporation. In addition,
volatile organic compounds may be stripped from wastewater by
aeration, such as in activated sludge units or aerated lagocns.
Precipitation of metals as hydroxide floes will result in sludges
containing some water. The disposal of these sludges will result in a
small increase in consumptive water losses. However, the industry is
located in areas with sufficient water supplies and no significant
impacts are anticipated.
Increased energy consumption resulting from implementation of these
effluent guidelines will be small. Cne of the two direct discharging
sulfate turpentine plants may have to upgrade the biological treatment
system by addition of aeration horsepower. For the EAT and PSES
treatment systems, six of the twenty plants may require seme pumps and
other ancillary equipment for operation of the system. The Agency
projects that increased energy consumption resulting from BPT, BAT and
PSES will be kilowatts per year.
99
-------
Table VIII-1. Cost Assumptions
1. All costs are reported in June 1977 dollars.
(Engineering News Record, "Construction Cost Index," Conversion
to March 1979 Dollars = 1.136)
2. Excavation costs $5.00 per cubic yard.
3. Reinforced concrete costs $210 per cubic yard.
4. Site preparation costs $2,000 per acre.
5. Contract hauling of sludge tc landfill costs $25 per cubic yard.
6. On-site sludge disposal costs $5 per cubic yard.
7. Land costs $10,000 per acre
8. Surface dressing for lagoons costs $0.03 per square foot.
9. Fencing costs $2.00 per linear foot, installed.
10. Clay lining for lagoons costs $0.23 per square foot.
11. New carbon costs $0.40 per pcund.
12. Epoxy coating costs $2.00 per square foot.
13. Electricity costs $0.05 per kilcwatt-hour.
14. Phosphoric acid costs $0.25 per pcund.
15. Anhydrous ammonia costs $0.18 per pound.
16. Polymer costs $0.60 per pound.
17. Sulfuric acid costs $0.06 per pcund.
18. Sodium hydroxide costs $0.10 per pound.
19. Sulfur dioxide costs $0.25 per pound.
20. Engineering costs 15 percent cf ccnstruction cost.
21. Contingency is 15 percent of the sum of the capital cost, land
cost, and engineering cost.
22. Annual insurance and taxes cost 3 percent of the sum of the capital
cost plus land cost.
23. Average labor costs $20,000 per man per year, including fringe
benefits and overhead.
24. Equipment Life Expectancy—20 years.
100
-------
Table VIII-2.
Gum and Wood Candidate Treatment
Technologies - Indirect Discharge
Technology 1
Technology 2:
Metals Penioval (At Source)
Monitoring Station
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul and/or
On-Site Landfill)
Metals Removal (End-of-Pipe)
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul and/or
On-Site Landfill)
Table VIII-3
Gum and Wood Candidate Treatment
Technologies - Direct Discharger
Technology 1
Technology 2;
Technology 3;
Technology U:
Equalization
Pump Stations (2)
pH Adjustment
Polymer Addition
Air Floatation (Tall Cil Only)
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Control Hcuse
Sludge Disposal
Metals Removal (At the Source)
Monitoring Station
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul and/or
On-Site Landfill)
Metals Removal (End-of-Pipe)
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul and/or
On-Site Landfill)
Filtration and Activated Carbon
Adsorption
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
101
-------
Table VIII-4. Tall oil Rosin, Fatty Acid, and Pitch Producing
Plants - Model Plant Eesign Criteria
Design Criteria
1 2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD) 290 (320) 290 (320)
Unit Wastewater Flow, bl/Kkg (kgal/ton) 1.7 (0.4) 8.3 (2.0)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD) 0.38 (0.1) 2.3 (0.6)
Influent BOD Concentration, mg/1 612 612
Influent OSG Concentration, mg/1 111 111
Influent pH 6.5 6.5
Table VIII-5. Tall Oil, Rosin, Fatty Acid, Pitch, and Resin Based
Derivatives Producing Plant - Model Plant Eesign Criteria
Eesign Criteria
1 2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD) 100 (110) 249 (275)
Unit Wastewater Flow, kl/Kkg (kgal/ton) 3.6 (0.87) 7.9 (1.9)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD) 0.38 (0.1) 1.9 (0.5)
Influent BOD Concentration, mg/1 850 850
Influent O&G Concentration, mg/1 467 467
Influent pH 5.0 5.0
102
-------
Table VIII-6. Sulfate Turpentine Producing Plants - Model Plant
Design Criteria
Eesign Criteria
Production, Kkg/day (TPD) 72 (79)
Unit Wastewater Flow, kl/Kkg (kgal/ton) 9.6 (2.3)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGE) 0.76 (0.2)
Influent BOD Concentration, rcg/1 1,916
Influent OSG Concentration, mg/1 448
Influent pH 9.0
103
-------
Table VIII-7. Sulfate Turpentine and Rosin Based Derivatives
Producting Plants - Model Plant Design Criteria
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
Unit Wastewater Flow, kl/Kkg (kgal/ton)
Wastewater Flow, kkl/day (M6D)
Influent BOD Concentration, mg/1
Influent 0&6 Concentration, mg/1
Influent pH
Design Criteria
45(50)
30 (7.2)
1.5 (0.4)
5,107
810
3.9
104
-------
Table VIII-8. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch Producing Plants
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1
Unit
Equalization
Pump- Stations (2)
pH Adjustment
(PH->2.5)
Polymer Addition
Air Flotation
Neutralizat ion
Activated Sludge
Nutrient Addition
Monitoring Station
Control House
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($)
275,000
76,000
39,300
6,500
142,000
46,800
629,000
23,800
16,390
31,000
10,000
192,870
223,800
Flow =0.6 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
24,000
8,600
54,040
22,500
5,300
111,050
72,170
15,000
2,170
1,600
8,000
20,000
38,580
Energy
($/YR)
16,000
2,680
810
750
580
810
37,500
1,250
530
350
TOTAL
1,711,960
383,010
61,260
105
-------
Table VIII-9. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch Producing Plants
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 4
Flow =0.6 MGD
Capital Operating Energy
Unit ($) ($/YR) ($/YR)
Activated Carbon 2,200,000 400,000 44,000
Land 10,000
Engineering 330,000
Contingency 381,000
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon) 9,600
Labor 20,000
Insurance and Taxes 66,300
TOTAL 2,921,000 44,000
106
-------
Table VIII-10. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin Based
Derivatives
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1
Unit
Equalization
Pump Stations (2)
pH Adjustment
(pH->2.5)
Polymer Addition
Air Flotation
Neutral izat ion
Activated Sludge
Nutrient Addition
Monitoring Station
Control House
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($)
246,000
70,000
26,200
6,300
205,000
40 , 200
449,000
24,800
16,390
31,000
10,000
167,240
193,820
Flow =0.5 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
20,800
7,800
28,660
19,800
8,700
92,730
39,250
17,500
2,170
1,600
4,000
20,000
33,750
Energy
($/YR)
13,500
2,300
800
750
1,400
800
19,000
1,250
530
350
TOTAL
1,485,950
296,760
40,680
107
-------
Table VIII-11.
Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin Based
Derivatives
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
40,100
16,390
10,000
8,474
9,973
84,937
Flow =0.1 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
59,840
2,170
31 , 000
20,000
1,995
115,005
Energy
($/YR)
2,870
530
3,400
108
-------
Table VIII-12.
Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin Based
Derivatives
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Capital
($)
Flow =0.5 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
98,000
10,000
14,700
18,405
258,060
141,105
62,000
20,000
3,240
343,300
2,990
2,990
109
-------
Table VIII-13. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin Based
Derivatives
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 4
Flow =0.5 MGD
Capital Operating Energy
Unit ($) ($/YR) ($/YR)
Activated Carbon 2,070,000 320,000 39,400
Land 10,000
Engineering 310,500
Contingency 358,575
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon) 8,000
Labor 20,000
Insurance and Taxes 62,400
TOTAL 2,749,075 410,400 39,400
110
-------
Table VIII-14. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin Based
Derivatives
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
40,100
16,390
10,000
8,473
11,245
86,208
Flow = 0.1 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
59,840
2,170
31,000
20,000
1,995
115,005
Energy
($/YR)
2,870
530
3,400
Table VIII-15. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch and Rosin Based
Derivatives
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
(?)
98 , 000
16,390
10,000
17,158
21,232
145,622
Flow - 0.5 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
258,060
2,170
62,000
20 , 000
3,732
345,962
Energy
($/YR)
2,990
530
3,520
111
-------
Table VHI-16. Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1
Unit
Equalization
Pump Stations (31
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Control House
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
220,000
96,000
34,000
27,500
1,005,000
16,390
62,000
10,000
219,134
255,004
1,945,028
Flow - 0.4 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
17,500
10,200
1,350
39,000
192,600
2,170
3,200
105,825
20,000
7,950
399,795
Energy
($/YR)
11,000
3,000
790
1,250
132,400
530
700
149,670
112
-------
Table VIII-17. Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
40,100
16,390
10,000
8,480
11,250
86,220
Flow =0.1 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
59 , 840
2,170
31,000
20 , 000
2,000
115,010
Energy
($/YR)
2,870
530
3,400
Table VIII-18, Sulfate Turoentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT uiSCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Tnsurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
86,000
10,000
12,900
16,335
125,235
Flow =0.4 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
217,150
48,000
20,000
2,880
288,030
Energy
($/YR)
2,960
2,960
113
-------
Table VIII-19. Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 4
Unit
Activated Carbon
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
1,950,000
10,000
292,500
337,875
2,590,375
Flow =0.4 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
250,000
6,400
20,000
58 , 800
335,200
Energy
($/YR)
35,000
35,000
Table VIII-20. Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
40,100
16,390
10,000
8,480
11,250
86,220
Flow - 0.1 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
59 , 840
2,170
31,000
20,000
2,000
115,010
Energy
($/YR)
2,870
530
3,400
114
-------
Table VIII-21. Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Flow - 0.4 MGD
Capital
($)
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
86,000
16,390
10,000
15,360
19,170
217,150
2,170
146,920
59,000
20,000
3,370
301,690
2,960
530
3,490
115
-------
Table VIII-22.
Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch: Rosin Based
Derivatives and Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1
Unit
Equalization
Pump Stations (2)
pH Adjustment
(PH->2.5)
Polymer Addition
Air Flotation
Activated Sludge
Nutrient Addition
Neutral ization
Monitoring Station
Control House
SUBTOTAL (1)
Engineering
Land
SUBTOTAL (2)
Contingency
Capital
($)
246 , 000
70,000
26 , 200
6,300
205,000
550,000
33,000
40,200
16,390
31 , 000
1,224,090
183,620
10,000
1,417,710
212,660
Flow - 0.5 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
20 , 800
7,800
28,660
19,800
8,700
114,750
52,000
92,730
2,170
1,600
349,010
Energy
($/YR)
13,500
2,300
800
750
1,400
87,660
1,250
800
530
350
109,340
Insurance and Taxes
Sludge Disposal
Labor
TOTAL
1,630,370
37,020
4,000
20,000
410,030
109,340
116
-------
Table VIII-23. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pilcn; Rosin Based
Derivatives and Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 2
Sulfate Turpentine Processing
Flow » 0.075 MGD
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
24,400
16,390
10,000
6,120
8,540
65,450
Operating
(S/YR)
29,945
2,170
26,000
20,000
1,530
79,645
Energy
($/YR)
1,990
530
2,520
Rosin Based Derivatives Processing
Flow » 0.1 MGD
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
27,700
16,390
10,000
6,620
9,110
69,820
Operating
($/YR)
37,075
2,170
31,000
20,000
1,630
91,875
Energy
($/YR)
1,990
530
2,520
117
-------
Table VIII-24. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch; Rosin Based
Derivatives and Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Flow - 0.5 MGD
Capital
($)
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
70,500
10,000
10,575
13,661
149,500
104,736
62,000
20,000
2,415
233,915
2,050
2,050
118
-------
Table VIII-25. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch; Rosin Based
Derivatives and Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
DIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 4
Flow =0.5 MGD
Capital Operating Energy
Unit ($) ($/YR) ($/YR)
Activated Carbon 2,172,000 323,200 40,700
Land 10,000
Engineering 325,800
Contingency 376,170
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon) 8,000
Labor 20,000
Insurance and Taxes 65,460
TOTAL 2,883,970 416,660 40,700
119
-------
Table VIII-26. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch; Rosin Based
Derivatives and Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 1
Sulfate Turpentine Processing
Flow - 0.075 MGD
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals;
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
24,400
16,390
10,000
6,120
8,540
65,450
Operating
($/YR)
29,945
2,170
26 , 000
20,000
1,530
79,675
Energy
($/YR)
1,990
530
2,520
Rosin Based Derivatives Processing
Flow =0.1 MGD
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
27,700
16,390
10,000
6,620
9,110
69,820
Operating
($/YR)
37,075
2,170
31,000
20,000
1,630
91,875
Energy
($/YR)
1,990
530
2,520
120
-------
Table VIII-27. Tall Oil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch; Rosin Based
Derivatives and Sulfate Turpentine
COST SUMMARY FOR NEW SOURCES
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Flow » 0.5 MGD
Capital
(S)
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
netals Removal End of Pipe
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
XOTAL
70,500
10,000
10,575
13,661
149,500
2,050
104,736
62,000
20,000
2,415
233,915
2,050
121
-------
Table VIII-28.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 151
TECHNOLOGY 2
Rosin Based
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Sulfate
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Derivatives Process
Flow - 0.133 MGD
Capital Operating
($) ($/YR)
29,650 46,109
16,390 2,170
6,910
7,942
32,000
20,000
1,381
60,892 101,660
Turpentine Process
Flow = 0.012 MGD
Capital Operating
($) ($/YR)
15,300 12,447
16,390 2,170
4,760
5,467
6,000
20,000
950
Energy
($/YR)
2,025
530
2,555
Energy
($/YR)
1,960
530
TOTAL
42,217
41,567
2,490
122
-------
Table VIII.29.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 151
TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($)
87,500
22,700
16,530
19,010
Flow— 0.58 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
276,550
1,250
65,000
20,000
3,310
Energy
($/YR)
2,190
800
TOTAL 145,740 366,110 2,990
123
-------
Table VIII-30,
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 090
TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Capital
($)
Flow—0.005 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
Er >rgy
($/YR)
Metals Removal at Source
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
14,560
2,180
2,510
11,313
2,058
2,500
20,000
440
TOTAL
19,250
34,250
2,058
124
-------
Table VIII-31.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 090
TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Capital
($)
Flow—-0.005 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
14,560
2,180
2.51C
11,313
2,500
20,000
440
2,058
TOTAL
19,250
34,250
2,058
125
-------
Table VIII-32.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 686
TECHNOLOGY 2
Flow = .001 MGD
Unit
Capital
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
12,100
16,390
4,280
4,915
37,685
9,107
2,170
500
20,000
854
32,631
1,910
530
2,440
126
-------
Table VIII-33.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 686
TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($)
33,600
10,400
6,600
7,590
Flow — 0.12 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
64,930
4,930
34,000
20,000
1,320
Energy
($/YR)
2,130
780
TOTAL 58,190 125,180 2,910
127
-------
Table VIII-34.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 698
TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
48,400
16,390
9,719
11,180
85,689
Flow =0.52 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
154,345
2,170
41,000
20,000
1,940
219,460
Energy
($/YR)
2,010
530
2,540
TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($)
216,500
32,470
37,350
Flow - 1.93 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
937,245
92,150
6,480
Energy
($/YR)
3,490
TOTAL
286,320
1,035,875
3,490
128
-------
Table VIII-35.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 948
TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
25,300
16,390
6,260
7,190
55,140
Flow =0.08 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
31,240
2,170
27,000
20,000
1,250
81,660
Energy
($/YR)
1,990
530
2,520
TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
39,200
5,880
6,762
51,842
Flow = 0.168 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
89,980
41,000
20,000
1,176
152,156
Energy
($/YR)
2,120
2,120
TECHNOLOGY 4
Unit
Filtration and Activated
Carbon Adsorption
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
1,470,000
5,000
220,500
254,325
1,949,825
Flow - 0.168 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
107,000
8,000
320,500
44,250
479,750
Energy
($/YR)
23,800
23,800
129
-------
Table VIII-36.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 416
TECHNOLOGY 4
Unit
Capital
($)
Flow— 0.042 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Filtration & Activated
Carbon Adsorption 950,000
Land 5,000
Engineering 143,250
Contingency 164,740
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL 1,262,990
38,000
15,500
670
150,000
28,650
217,320
15,500
130
-------
Table VIII-37.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 333
TECHNOLOGY 4
Flow— 0.6 MGD
Capital
Unit ($)
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Filtration & Activated
Carbon Adsorption 2,200,000
Land 5,000
Engineering 330,750
Contingency 380,360
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
380,000
9,600
340,000
79,910
45,000
TOTAL
2,916,110
66,150
45,000
131
-------
Table VIII-38.
TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR PLANT 121
TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
47,700
16,390
9,620
11,060
84,770
Flow * 0.288 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
89,168
2,170
45 , 000
20,000
1,920
158,260
Energy
($/YR)
2,030
530
2,560
TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
133,500
36,000
24,425
29,090
223,020
Flow * 1.18 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
493,320
40,423
80,000
5,090
618,830
Energy
($/YR)
2,340
860
3,200
TECHNOLOGY 4
Unit
Filtration and Activated
Carbon Adsorption
Land
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
Capital
($)
3,000,000
5,000
450,750
518,360
3,974,110
Flow - 1.18 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
800,000
18,880
420,000
90,150
1,329,080
Energy
($/YR)
73,000
73,000
132
-------
Table VIII-39.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 087
TECHNOLOGY 2
Unit
Metals Removal at Source
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($)
57,500
16,800
11,150
12,820
Flow — 0.325 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
159,210
11,810
53,500
20,000
2,230
Energy
($/YR)
2,140
785
TOTAL
98,270
246,750
2,925
133
-------
Table VIII-40,
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 087
TECHNOLOGY 3
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($)
57,500
16,800
11,150
12,820
Flow— 0.325 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
159,210
11,810
53,500
20,000
2,230
Energy
($/YR)
2,140
785
TOTAL
98,270
246,750
2,925
134
-------
Table VIII-41.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 266
TECHNOLOGY 3
Flow—0.072 MGD
Unit
Metals Removal End of Pipe
Neutralization
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal (Metals)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
Capital
($>
26,800
8,500 •
5,295
6,090
Operating
($/YR)
49,680
3,325
25,000
20,000
1,060
Energy
($/YR)
2,100
770
TOTAL
46,685
99,065
2,870
135
-------
Table VIII-42.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 800
TECHNOLOGY 4
Unit
Capital
($)
Flow— 0.18 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Filtration & Activated
Carbon Adsorption 1,500,000
Land 5,000
Engineering 225,750
Contingency 259,610
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL 1,990,360
115,000
24,000
2,800
235,000
45,150
397,950
24,000
136
-------
Table VIII-43.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 606
TECHNOLOGY 4
Flow — 0.155 MGD
Capital
Unit ($)
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Filtration & Activated
Carbon Adsorption 1,450,000
Land 5,000
Engineering 218,250
Contingency 250,990
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL 1,924,240
100,000
23,000
2,480
225,000
43,650
371,130
23,000
137
-------
Table VIII-44.
TREATMENT OPTION FOR PLANT 693
TECHNOLOGY 4
Unit
Capital
($)
Flow — 0.097 MGD
Operating
($/YR)
Energy
($/YR)
Filtration & Activated
Carbon Adsorption 1,240,000
Land 5,000
Engineering 186,750
Contingency 214,760
Sludge Disposal (Spent Carbon)
Labor
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL 1,651,510
680,000
19,700
1,550
200,000
37,350
918,900
19,700
138
-------
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF THE BEST PRACTICABLE CCNTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE—EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
GENERAL
The effluent limitations which were to be achieved by July 1, 1977,
specified the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the
application of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available (EPT). The best practicable control technology currently
available generally was based upon the average of the best existing
performance by plants of various sizes, ages, and unit processes
within the industry. This average was not based upon a bread range of
plants within the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry, but upon
performance levels achieved by exemplary plants. In industrial
categories where present control and treatment practices were
uniformly inadequate, a higher level of control than any currently in
place may have been required if the technology to achieve such higher
level could be practically applied.
In establishing the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available Effluent Limitations Guidelines, the Agency was to consider:
1. The total cost of applying the technology ir relation to the
effluent reduction benefits achieved froir such
application;
2. The age and size of equipment and facilities involved;
3. The processes employed;
14, The engineering aspects of applying various types of
control techniques;
5. Process changes; and
6. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
EPT emphasized treatment facilities at the end of manufacturing
processes, but also included control technologies within the process
itself when the latter were normal practice within an industry.
A further consideration was the degree of eccnomic and engineering
reliability which the technology must have demonstrated in order to
have been "currently available." As a result of demonstration
projects, pilot plants, and general use, there must have existed a
139
-------
high degree of confidence in the engineering and economic
practicability of the technology at the beginning of construction for
the control facilities.
Age and Sige of Equipment and Facilities
As indicated previously in this report, there appeared to have been no
significant data to substantiate that either the age or the size of
the Gum and Wood Chemicals plant justified special consideration of
different effluent limitations.
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST PRACTICABLE TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
EPT regulations were published Interim Final on May 18, 1976, for the
Char and Charcoal Briquets; Gum Resin and Turpentine; Wood Rosin,
Turpentine, and Pine Oil; Tall Cil Rosin, Fatty Acids, and Pitch;
Essential Oils; and Rosin-Based Derivatives subcategcries. The
following unit operations and unit processes served as the technology
base for these regulations:
Oil/water separation.
Equalization;
Dissolved air flotation (Wood Rosin and Tall Oil) ;
Secondary biolcgical treatment (Activated Sludge) ; and
Polishing Pond.
The current review of effluent guidelines limitations for the Gum and
Wocd Chemicals Industry has added the new subcategory of Sulfate
Turpentine to the regulations. Two options were evaluated for
developing the effluent limitations for this subcategory.
The first option would have required the industry to submit three or
four years of effluent data (flow, EOD5, TSS, and pH) and production
data (types and amounts of end-products) . The Agency use this
information to correlate production and effluent quality and develop
long-term treatability; additionally, the Agency would develop
variability factors for use in deriving statistically accurate maximum
30-day averages and maximum daily effluent limitations guidelines.
Several problems were apparent with this approach. Direct discharge
sulfate turpentine facilities are all associated with ether unit
operations in the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry and their wastewater
streams are comingled. Industry compilation of the data and the
statistical review by the Agency would have been very time- and
ma npower-intensive.
The second option involved reviewing the rationale for the previously
promulgated regulations. See Table IX-1. The basis of this rationale
had been long-term BODS data and short-term 1SS data frcm one
activated sludge treatment system in the industry, with performance
140
-------
factors transferred from the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category.
In evaluating the rationale, the Agency would use the production data
from the plants and the promulgated effluent guidelines limitations to
develop mass limitations. The Agency then would compare these
limitations to the actual data supplied by plants in response to the
308 survey questionnaire. If plants with EPT or equivalent biological
treatment in-place achieved the limitations, they would form a
reasonable basis for applying the same rationale to the Sulfate
Turpentine subcategory.
The Agency chose Option Two because it significantly reduced the
effort required by individual plants and would allow review of the
currently existing effluent limitations guidelines. Table IX-2
presents the results of the analysis. The review demonstrated that
the limitations were consistently achievable by the EPT or equivalent
biological treatment systems. The Agency is therefore basing EPT for
the Sulfate Turpentine subcategory en the EPT treatment system used in
the 1976 regulations.
This review has demonstrated that the methodology for developing the
original BPT effluent limitations guidelines is reasonable and
demonstrably achievable. To develop effluent limitations guidelines
for the sulfate turpentine subcategory, the Agency obtained raw waste
load data from an indirect discharge sulfate turpentine plant
exhibiting good water use. These data were compiled to establish a
long-term raw waste load and the resulting loads then were reduced by
90 percent, reflecting BPT long-term average daily effluent values.
EPA applied performance factors from the Petroleum Point Source
Category to the BPT long-term average daily effluent values to derive
the maximum 30-day average and maximum day effluent limitations
guidelines. These values are presented in Table IX-3.
These values plus the previously promulgated guidelines were then used
to calculate mass loading limitations for direct discharge plants with
sulfate turpentine unit operations. These were then compared with
data from the direct discharging plants with sulfate turpentine
production. Based on this analysis, the effluent limitations
guidelines can be achieved by existing plants by implementation of the
EP1 technology.
141
-------
Table IX-1. Review of Individual Plants
* Eight direct discharging plants
Three plants have products that are not in the Gum
and Wood Chemicals Industry
Two plants have insufficient data due to plant
transitions
Three plants were checked for compliance:
Plant A
In compliance
— 10 of 12 months
r
TSS — 0 of 12 months
Plant B
In compliance
12 of 12 months
c
TSS — 0 of 12 months
Plant C
In compliance
BOD5 — 6 of 12 months
TSS — 0 of 12 months
142
-------
—
^
«rf
It
•*
"e
c
V
3
8.s
* V
w v
> C
< 5
E «
4, 5
H- 3
C w
Jr
ffl 0
~s
s:
>- u
e. <
I
(^
^
•A
|Q
3
1
«
5
^
i
"w
J
—
1
1^
J vj»- fN^ C *« O *« OV1 Q t*
fi OmCWfOt^CviOw^
^ « ^- o ^ « >- aw n»»
«
Cv
mo so o oto ^ o «o
-j; ^ S*7* 2^
S OV)QiS*Gf*Ov)QiSl
w O ^ A h* w
Q.
-1{ O O C CO OO **"& ° ^^. ° ^S °
gj m ^ .
v tf A in rt 05 tf>
"oj 5«o SS5 So^R ^>A" 5^o
1 '«o e5«o e-e "• « « o«d
^1
2 i
U 3 t/\ U^ l/\ l/N U>
5 — O C b^ 5 P ^ QO @@^ ?1 £ *" O O w^ O O VI •
n ^ O O i/t a O i/i O O w^ O O v^ OOtA M
W & A W h- CD O ^- m O ^- flP W H- A W ^ A
2 I o
W l/l —
J X *
3 "" *
C O CO J* O O O **> O O CT\ ^*> 3
ft. O W^fn J1— SC-^ — J- f^-*-' V
Jt «.
_l _* i
0
e.
j t' 1
j — jj'
i r __• j« >
-------
a
J|
•s
•IP?!
o >
« Ml
o» 3:
(tt y
i. v
V vi
4 S
o m
—i -a-
"1 0
« H
<3- 00
vO
(M
«N O
O\ >T
CN O
C/2
H
m
3 en
D en
01
01
c
C
o
E
1-1
,J
C
0)
28
0. O
o>—"
en
CO
0)
c
I
x
0)
.a
C
C (U
c.
>> u
u 3
O H
CO
aj o
.u u
si a
O u-
144
-------
SECTION X
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE—
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1984, are
not based on an average of the best performance within an industrial
category, but on the very best control and treatment technology
employed by a specific point source within the industrial category or
subcategory or by another industry from which it is readily
transferable. The Agency must determine the availability of control
measures and practices to eliminate the discharge of pollutants,
taking into account the cost of such elimination.
EPA also considers:
1. The age of the equipment and facilities involved;
2. The process employed;
3. The engineering aspects of applying various types of
control techniques;
H. Process changes;
5. The cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
applying the technology; and
6. Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements) .
BAT emphasizes in-process controls as well as control or additional
treatment techniques employed at the end of the production process;
including those which are not coirmon industry practice.
This level of technology considers those plant processes and control
technologies which at the pilot plant, semi-works, and ether levels,
have demonstrated sufficient technological performance and economic
viability to justify investing in such facilities. BAT represents the
highest degree of demonstrated control technology for plant-scale
operation, up to and including "no discharge" of pollutants. Although
economic factors are considered, this level of control is intended to
incorporate the top-of-the-line current technology, subject to
limitations imposed by economic and engineering feasibility. There
may be some technical risk, however, with respect to performance and
certainty of costs; some technologies may require process development
and adaptation before application at a specific plant site.
145
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE ~~ '
EAT uses BPT as a basis for further improvements. The Agency has
selected the treatment of toxic metals by pH adjustment to form
hydroxide floes and the treatment of toxic organics by granular
activated carbon columns as candidate technologies. EPA has
determined, however, that the use of GAC is economically damaging to
the industry, and has not proposed it as a treatment process.
Conventional pollutants and the tcxic organics are treated adequately
by the biological treatment required by BPT.
Metals Removal
Three metals were identified as a significant problem—copper, zinc,
and nickel. These metals enter the waste stream through their use as
catalysts in sulfate turpentine and rosin-based derivatives
processing. Treatment of metals in the particular process streams
where they are used is the most economical method, because of lower
flews.
EEVELOPMENT OF EAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
The effluent limitations were developed for the control technology
options in a building block fashion, using EPT technology (oil and
grease removal, biological treatment) as a base.
After establishing the BPT base, the Agency selected a plant in each
subcategory that fulfilled the EPT requirements. The manufacturing
processes and sampling results for the plant were studied to determine
the incidence of toxic pollutants. This analysis showed that BAT
regulations for toxic organic pollutants would not be necessary; wood
rosin and tall oil distillation wastewaters showed reduced levels of
toxic pollutants when treated with the required EPT treatment scheme.
The Agency concluded that no further treatment for toxic pollutants
was required.
The remaining two subcategories, sulfate turpentine and rosin-based
derivatives, use metal catalysts - copper, nickel, and zinc - in the
processing. These metals appeared in the wastewater effluents of the
plants. The use of these catalysts is process-specific. Cne plant in
the sulfate turpentine industry has a metals removal unit for the
process in which a metal catalyst is used. Prior to treatment, the
initial concentration was 155 mg/1; metals removal reduced the
concentration to 1 mg/1. To supplement this information, the Agency
reviewed the wastewater characteristics and the treatability data from
several other industrial categories which already treated for these
metals. This review indicated that the wastewater from the
electroplating industry appears to resemble more closely the
146
-------
wastewater from gum and wood chemicals. Several of the same
characteristics which may present treatability problems (i.e; oil and
grease and chelating agents) also appear in electroplating
wastewaters. Therefore, EPA has transferred the numerical limitations
fcr copper, nickel, and zinc from the Electroplating Point Source
Category to the Gum and Wood Chemicals Point Source Category.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
1) Non-toxic, non-conventional pollutants—There are no non-toxic,
non-conventional pollutants limited by these proposed regulations.
2) Toxic pollutants—The toxic pollutants expressly controlled for
direct dischargers in two subcategcries are ccpper, zinc, nickel,
which are subject to numerical limitations expressed in milligrams per
liter of pollutant.
SIZE, AGE, PROCESSES EMPLOYED, LOCATION OF FACILITIES
In the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry, size, age, and location of the
plants do not affect the application of BAT technology. The
industrial process employed does affect EAT technology in that two
sufccategories, wood rosin and tall oil, dc not use metal catalysts and
do not require metals removal. The remaining subcategories, sulfate
turpentine and rosin-based derivatives, do use metals in processing
and require metals removal treatment.
TOTAL COST CF APPLICATION
The statutory assessment of BAT "considers" costs, but does not
require a balancing of costs against effluent reduction benefits (see
Weyerhaeuser v. Cos tie ^ supr a)^. In developing the proposed BAT,
however, EPA has given substantial weight to the reasonableness of
costs. The Agency has considered the volume and nature cf discharges,
the volume and nature of discharges expected after application of EAT,
the general environmental effects of the pollutants, and the costs and
economic impacts of the required pollution control levels.
Twelve plants in the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry are direct
dischargers subject to BAT standards for existing sources. Eight of
these plants are multiple-subcategcry plants (i.e., plants producing
in more than one subcategory). The estimated costs assume that all
plants have BPT technology in-place. A survey of sulfate turpentine
and rosin-based derivatives plants indicates that metals removal will
be required at two of the 12 plants. Total investment costs to meet
proposed BAT will be approximately $226 thousand with total annual
operating costs of about $460 thousand.
147
-------
EPA expects the achievement of BAT regulations to remove approximately
60 pounds per day of zinc from twc resin-based derivatives plants.
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE
Metals removal is the major treatment process for BAT and will impact
only the two subcategories - rosin-based derivatives and sulfate
turpentine - where metal catalysts are used. The use of metals is
process specific and not distributed throughout the whole category.
The most accepted method of metals removal is the precipitation of
metal salts. These include hydroxides, sulfides, and carbonates. The
one plant in the industry that currently removes metals uses hydroxide
salts for the precipitation process. The sulfide salts produce better
removal rates, but the system is ircre complex and the stability of the
sludges has not been determined. Carbonate salts have the least
effective removal rate.
Process Changes
The most cost- and performance-effective waste treatment approach is
to prevent the entry of pollutants into the waste stream, or to remove
the pollutants from the source stream before dilution, contamination,
or other interaction occurs in the mixing of several waste streams.
Aside from in-plant waste strean isolation and collection for
treatment, no in-plant process changes are required for achievement of
the recommended effluent limitations.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The primary non-water quality environmental impact of the proposed EAT
effluent limitations is the potential concentration of toxic metallic
pollutants removed from wastewater.
No increase in air pollution should result from the EAT technology
since metals removal is accomplished in the aqueous phase and no
release of hydrocarbons or metals to the air should result.
Consumptive water loss by entrainirent cf water in the hydroxide floes
should be minor. Small increases in energy requirements are expected
for operation of pumps and other ancillary equipment.
148
-------
TABLE X-1. BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
SUECATEGORY F—ROSIN-BASED DERIVATIVESS
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
EAT Effluent Linr.itations
Maximum for
Any One Day
Average of Daily Values
for 30 Consecutive Days
Zinc*
* At the source
milligrams per liter
4.2 1.8
SUECATEGORY G—SULFATE TURPENTINE
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
EAT Effluent Limitations
Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Any One Cay for 30 Consecutive Days
Ccpper*
Nickel*
* At the source
4.5
4.1
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
1.8
1.8
149
-------
SECTION XI
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE EY EEST
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The 1977 amendments to the Act added section 301 (b) (4) (E) establishing
"best conventional pollutant control technology" (ECT) for discharges
of conventional pollutants from existing industrial point sources.
Conventional pollutants are those defined in section 304 (b) (4) — BCD,
1SSf fecal coliform, and pH — and any additional pollutants defined by
the Administrator as "conventional." On July 29, 1979, EPA added oil
and grease to the conventional pollutant list (44 Fed. Reg. 44501) .
ECT is not an additional limitation, tut replaces BAT for the control
of conventional pollutants. ECT requires that limitations for
conventional pollutants be assessed in light of a new "cost-
reasonableness" test, which compare the cost and level of reduction of
conventional pollutants from the discharge of publicly-owned treatment
works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a
class or category of industrial sources. As part of its review of EAT
for certain "secondary" industries, the Agency proposed methodology
for this cost test. See 44 Fed. Reg^ 50732 (August 26, 1979).
The Agency conducted a search to upgrade the existing BPT t jchnolcgy
for evaluation as BCT. Various oxidaticn techniques have been studied
but none of them is in current use in the industry. Therefore, EPA is
proposing BCT effluent limitations at the same level as EFT effluent
limitations.
151
-------
TABLE XI-1. BCT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Subcategory C—Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Oil Subcategory
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
kg/kkg (or lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
ECD5 2.08 1.10
TSS 1.38 0.475
pH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
Subcategory D—Tall Oil Rosin, Pitch, and Fatty Acids Subcategory
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
kg/kkg (or lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
BCD5 0.995 0.529
TSS 0.705 0.243
pH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
152
-------
Subcategory F—Rosin-Based Derivatives
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
Maximum for
Any One Day
Average of Daily Values
for 30 Consecutive Days
BCD5
TSS
PH
kg/kkg (or lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
1.41 0.748
0.045 0.015
Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
Subcategory G—Sulfate Turpentine
Pollutant or
Pollutant Property
BCD5
TSS
PH
Maximum for
Any One Day
Average of Daily Values
for 30 Consecutive Days
kg/kkg (or lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
5.504 2.924
0.686 0.236
Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
153
-------
SECTION XII
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under section
306 of the Act is the best available demonstrated technology (BADT).
New plants have the opportunity tc design the best and mcst efficient
Guir and Wood Chemicals processes and wastewater treatment
technologies, and Congress therefore directed EPA to consider the best
demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies which reduce polluticn tc the maximum extent
feasible. A major difference between NSPS and BA1 is that the Act
does not require evaluation of NSPS in light of the BCT ccst test.
EPA has selected BPT plus metals removal for the sulfate turpentine
and rosin-based derivatives subcategory. Metals removal need not be
required if a plant can show that the metals are not used as
catalysts, active ingredients, or by-products. The new source
requirements for the wood rosin and the tall oil subcategory are the
EPT requirements currently in effect.
The biological treatment required by EPT has shown adequate removal of
the toxic organic compounds. EPA believes that GAC (granular
activated carbon) columns would be too expensive for the removal of
toxic chemicals.
Since the control and treatment techrolcgy basis for NSPS is the same
as for BPT, the methodology used to develop the effluent limitations,
the engineering aspects of this technology, and the numerical effluent
limitations are also the same.
155
-------
TABLE XII-1. NSPS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Subcategory C—Wood Rosin, Turpentine, and Pine Oil Subcategory
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Eay for 30 Consecutive Days
kg/kkg (or lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
BCD5 2.08 1.10
TSS 1.38 0.475
pH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
Subcategory D—Tall Oil Rosin, Pitch, and Fatty Acids Subcategory
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Eay for 30 Consecutive Days
kg/kkg (or lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
BCD5 0.995 0.529
TSS 0.705 0.243
pH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
156
-------
Subcategory F—Rosin-Based Derivatives
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
kg/kkg (or lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
BCD5 1.41 0.748
TSS 0.045 0.015
milligrams/liter (mg/1)
Zinc* 4.2 1.8
pH Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times
*At-the-source
Sutcategory G—Sulfate Turpentine
Pollutant or Maximum fcr Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
kg/kkg (cr lb/1,000 Ib) cf product
BCD5 5.504 2.924
TSS 0.686 0.236
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Zinc* 4.2 1.8
Nickel* 4.1 1.8
pH Within the range of 6.0 tc 9.0 at all times
*At-the-source
157
-------
SECTION XIII
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations that must be achieved by new and existing
sources in the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry discharging into a
publicly-owned treatment works (PCTW) are termed pretreatment
standards. Section 307 (b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate
pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) to prevent the
discharge of pollutants which pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the operation of PCTWs. The Clean Water
Act of 1977 adds a new dimension by requiring pretreatment for
pollutants, such as heavy metals, that limit FOTVi sludge management
alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on agricultural
lands. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be technology-based, analagous to the
best available technology for removal of toxic pollutants. The
general pretreatment regulations (HO CFR Part 403) can be found in 43
27736-27773 (June 26, 1978).
In establishing a pretreatment standard, the Agency also considered
the following:
1. The total cost of applying technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits achieved from such
application;
2. The size and age of equipment and facilities involved;
3. The processes employed;
4. The engineering aspects of applying pretreatment
technology and its relationship to POTW;
5. Process changes; and
6. Nonwater quality environment impact (including energy
requirements) .
Pretreatment standards must reflect effluent reduction achievable by
the application of the best available pretreatment technology . This
iray include preliminary treatment technology as used in the industry
and in-plant controls considered to be normal industry practice.
A final consideration is the determination of economic and engineering
reliability in the application of the pretreatment technology. This
is developed through demonstration projects, pilot plant experiments,
and, most preferably, general use within the industry.
159
-------
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Pretreatment Technology
Candidate control technologies for pretreatment include the same in-
plant. control and pretreatment technologies considered as candidate
EAT technologies for direct dischargers.
These technologies include:
Water conservation and reuse for reduced flow
Stream segregation for separate pretreatment
Metals removal by pH adjustment and filtration or
RATIONALE FCR THE PRETREATMENT STANDARD
The rationale for the pretreatment standard rests primarily on the
concept of interference with or pass-through POTW as used in section
307(b) of the Act and delineated in the recently promulgated
pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403, 43 Fed. Reg. 27773, June
26t 1978). Among the pollutants in the raw waste from Gum and wood
Chemicals plants, copper, nickel, and zinc appear in sufficient
concentrations to present potential problems of pollutant pass-through
or sludge disposal for POTW.
Within this technology-based analysis, EPA has assumed the following:
* Any joint municipal-industrial PCTW which receives Gum and wood
Chemicals wastewater includes primary sedimentation and secondary
biological treatment with final clarification and sludge management.
These facilities are properly designed and diligently operated.
* Analysis of pass-through and upset cf FOTW has been determined from
the point of wastewater release frcm the Gum and Wood Chemicals plant;
therefore, specific collection system circumstances must be considered
at the local level.
* Locally specific water quality constraints and unique operational or
sludge disposal problems, beyond the requirement fcr compliance with
section 405 (d) of the Clean Water Act, have not been considered within
this technology-based analysis.
* Strict adherence to and local enforcement of the general prohibited
discharge provisions of the pretreatment regulation, and siirilar
provisions in local ordinances, are essential to ensure that potential
problems of upset and/or pass-through noted below are not permitted to
occur.
160
-------
Wastewaters from sulfate turpentine and rosin-based derivatives plants
potentially can create or contribute to the following problems for a
POTW:
* A potential future problem with disposal of sludges.
* Potential sludge digestion problems.
These problems can be eliminated largely through strict adherence to
prohibited discharge provisions of local ordinances and the national
pretreatment regulation.
The data and information gathered during this study indicate that the
EOE5 and TSS found in Gum and Wood Chemicals wastewaters respond well
to properly designed and operated secondary biological treatment.
Similarly, oil and grease found in Gum and Wood Chemicals plants
decreased to low levels through a combination of cil/water separation
and biochemical oxidation in biological treatment systems. Properly
designed and operated oil/water separators prior to discharge to a
FOTW should result in treatable levels of oil and grease. This fact,
and the nature of the oil and grease being discharged (i.e., primarily
animal and/or vegetable origin) make pretreatment limitations
unnecessary.
The same data indicate that, in general, copper, nickel, and zinc are
removed from wastewater. Since these elements are not biodegradable,
the Agency suspects that they forir hydroxide floes at the elevated pH
necessary for biological treatment (i.e., pH 7) or that they complex
with other components of the waste stream. In either case, the metals
probably occur in the sludges formed by biological treatment. Studies
conducted at the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center indicate
that copper, zinc, and nickel may interfere with biological treatment.
In addition, copper and zinc may interfere with the digestion of
sludge in the activated sludge process.
Effluent data from Gum and Wood Chemicals plants with biological
treatment indicate that organic toxic pollutants of ccncern (i.e.,
phenol, toluene, benzene, and ethylbenzene) are discharged at
concentrations less than or equal to 0.2 mg/1. In consideration of
this performance and the enhanced treatment provided ty activated
sludge treatment systems, pretreatment limitations are unnecessary for
the toxic organic pollutants.
REGULATED POLLUTANTS
1) Conventional Pollutants - As noted above, the conventional
pollutants from Gum and Wood Chemicals plants respond well to properly
161
-------
designed and operated secondary biological treatment. therefore, no
limitations are proposed for the conventional pollutants.
2) Non-toxic, non-conventional pollutants - there are no non-toxic,
non-conventional pollutants limited by these proposed regulations.
3) Toxic pollutants - The toxic pollutants expressly controlled for
direct dischargers in two subcategories are copper, nickel, and zinc,
which are subject to numerical limitations expressed in milligrams per
liter of pollutant.
SIZE, AGE, PROCESSES EMPLOYED, LOCATION OF FACILITIES
The size and age of Gum and Wood Chenrical plants do not affect the
proposed pretreatment control technology. Neither is the location of
the facilities a factor. The processes employed were a factor in
prescribing pretreatment. Subcategories C and D use no metals and
those present are probably the result of corrosion or other forms of
non-process related contamination. For Subcategories F and G, which
use metals in the chemical modification of rosins and turpenes, at-
the-source effluent treatment is proposed as the pretreatment
standard.
TOTAL COST CF APPLICATION
At this time eight plants in the Gum and Wood Chemicals Industry
discharge to POTWs and are thus subject to pretreatment standards for
existing sources. The estimated costs are based on a survey of
sulfate turpentine and rosin-based derivatives plants indicating that
metals removal units will be required at four plants (this technology
is in-place at one of the four plants). Total investment costs to
meet proposed PSES will be approximately $259 thousand with total
annual operating costs of about $470 thousand.
Achievement of PSES regulations by metals removal ccntrol and
treatment technology is expected to remove approximately 13 pounds per
day of copper and nickel and 119 pounds per day of zinc.
ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY AND RELATIONSHIP TO
PUELICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
As noted earlier in this section, each of the problems associated with
Guir and Wood Chemicals wastewater can be controlled largely by strict
adherence to general prohibited discharge regulations and to these
pretreatment standards which liirit copper, nickel, and zinc. The
metals are being regulated directly as the most significant toxic
pollutants because of their pass-through of PCTWs and their potential
to reduce biodegradation at the POTW and affect sludge digestion.
Careful design and diligent operation of a PCTW are also extremely
162
-------
important for progress toward achievement of secondary treatment
standards by POTWs.
IN-PLANT CHANGES
While metals precipitation at-the-source is considered an end-of-pipe
treatment technology, the technology needs to be located near a
process unit dedicated to chemical mcdificaticn of rosins and
turpenes. Since these units are generally abovegrour.d, a repiping of
the wastewater piping and dedication of certain plant areas will be
required. These costs plus the cost of the unit will be generally
smaller than installation cf metals reiroval technology applied to the
total waste stream from a sulfate turpentine or rosin-based
derivatives plants.
163
-------
Table XIII-1 Subcategory F—Rosin-Based Derivatives
FSES Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Zinc* 4.2 1.8
*At-the-Source
Subcateqory G--gulfate Turpentine
PSES Effluent Limitations
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
Copper* 4.5 1.8
Nickel* 4.1 1.8
*At-the-Source
164
-------
FRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) at the same time that it promulgates
NSPS. New indirect dischargers, like new direct dischargers, have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated
technologies including process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-
pipe treatment technologies, and to use plant site selection to ensure
adequate treatment system installation.
Candidate control technologies fcr pretreatment for new sources
include the same in-plant control and pretreatment technologies
considered as candidate pretreatment technologies discussed previously
for existing sources.
RATIONALE FCR THE PRETREATMENT STANDARD
The rationale for the pretreatment standard rests primarily on the
concept of interference with or pass-through P01W as used in section
307(b) of the Act and delineated in the recently promulgated
pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403, FR27736-27773, June 26,
1978). Among the pollutants in the raw waste from Gum and Wood
Chemicals plants copper, nickel, and zinc appear in sufficient
concentrations to present potential problems of pollutant pass-through
or sludge disposal for POTW.
As noted in the rationale for PSES, metals removal pretreatment
technology should permit achievement by POTVis of EAT effluent
limitations resulting in levels of toxics less than or equal to that
achieved by BAT. While pass-through of toxic pollutants and the
presence of toxic pollutants in sludges will still occur, they should
be at levels low enough not to interfere with biological treatment
and, in the case of organic toxic pollutants, at levels lower than
achieved by BPT. The Agency has therefore chosen to propose PSNS at
the same effluent quality required by PSES. The numerical
concentration limitations for Subcategories F and G are listed as
follows:
NOK-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
As with BAT, the Agency expects the primary non-water quality impact
to be the concentration of toxic metal pollutants removed from the
wastewater. The Agency also expects no increase in air pollution and
small increases in consumptive water loss and energy requirements.
165
-------
Table XIII-2 Subcateqory F—Rosin-Eased Derivatives
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Zinc* 4.2 1.8
*At-the-Source
Suhcategory G—Sulfate Turpentine
Pollutant or Maximum for Average of Daily Values
Pollutant Property Any One Day for 30 Consecutive Days
milligrams per liter (mg/1)
Ccpper* 4.5 1.8
Nickel* 4.1 1.8
*At-the-Source
166
-------
SECTION XIV
PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS
PURPOSE
This section discusses the causes of variations in the performance of
wastewater treatment facilities and techniques fcr minimizing these
variations.
FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE VARIATIONS IN PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
The factors influencing the variation in performance of wastewater
treatment facilities are common to all subcategories. The most
important factors are summarized in this section.
Temperature
Temperature affects the rate of biolcgical reaction; lower temp-
eratures decrease biological activity and cause higher effluent BCD
levels. Effluent solids levels also increase as a result of
incomplete bio-oxidation and decreased settling rates under reduced
temperatures. Settling basins and aerated lagoons are susceptible to
thermal inversions. Significant variations in the levels of effluent
solids may result as settled solids rise to the surface and are
discharged.
Proper design and operation considerations can reduce the adverse
effects of temperature on treatment efficiencies. Such considerations
include the installation of insulation and the addition of heat.
Techniques for temperature control are both well known and commonly
used in the sanitary engineering field. Cost-effectiveness is usually
the critical criterion for the extent and effectiveness of temperature
control.
Shcck Loading
Once a system is acclimated to a given set of steady state conditions,
rapid quantitative or qualitative changes in loading rates can cause a
decrease in treatment efficiencies. Several days cr weeks are often
required for a system to adjust to a new set of operating conditions.
Systems with short retention times, such as activated sludge, are
particularly sensitive to shock leading.
While it is unlikely that total and permanent prevention of shock
loadings for a particular system can be achieved, proper design and
operation can greatly reduce adverse effects. Sufficient flow
equalization prior to biological treatment can mitigate shock loads.
167
-------
Coirplete mix activated sludge is less likely to upset conditions than
ether activated sludge modifications.
System Stabilization
A new biological system, or one that has been out cf operation,
requires a stabilizing period of up to several weeks before optimum,
consistent efficiency can be expected. During this start-up period,
large variations in pollutant parameters can be expected in the
discharge.
System Operation
Gocd operation and maintenance is essential to the successful
performance of any activated sludge system, operators must be well-
trained specialists thoroughly fairiliar with the system they are
operating.
Nutrient Requirements
Adequate amounts cf nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus,
are necessary to maintain a viable microbial population in a
biological system. Proper design and operation of a system will
provide sufficient nutrients for optimum performance.
System Controllability
In addition to the design considerations mentioned above, an activated
sludge system should include appropriate meters and accurate, control-
lable gates, valves, and pumps for cptinrum performance. A qualified
instrument technician should be available.
An adequate laboratory should be provided, along with monitoring
facilities. Essential control tests should be conducted at least once
every 8-hour shift, and more frequently when necessary.
168
-------
SECTION XV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency on the
basis of a comprehensive study of this manufacturing segment performed
by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. under contracts No. 68-
01-4728 and No. 78-A130.
The study was conducted and prepared for the Environmental Protection
Agency under the direction of Project Director John Crane, P.E., and
Technical Project Manager, Ernest E. Frey. The following individual
members of the staff of Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.,
significantly contributed to the overall effort: Eevin A. Eeaudet,
P.E., and Eric S. Hanson, P.E., assisted in writing and reviewing the
document; Dr. John J. Mousa managed analytical work; Mr. Russell V.
Eowen managed the development of the cost analysis; Ms. Patricia L.
McGhee coordinated the editing and production of the document; and Ms.
Kathleen Fariello and Ms. Eileen Smith typed the report in its
entirety.
The initial phases of the ESE study were conducted under the
supervision and guidance of Dr. James Gallup. The final phases of the
study and the preparation of this document were conducted under the
supervision and guidance of Mr. William Thomson II, P.E., Project
Officer.
Overall guidance and excellent assistance was provided the Project
Officer by his associates in the Effluent Guidelines Division,
particularly Messrs. Robert B. Shaffer, Director, and John E. Riley,
Eranch Chief. Special acknowledgement is also made to ethers in the
Effluent Guidelines Division: Messrs. James Gallup, Richard Williams,
Robert Dellinger, Donald Anderson, John Cunningham, Carl Kassebaum,
and James Berlow, for their helpful suggestions and timely comments.
Effluent Guidelines Division project personnel also wish to
acknowledge the assistance of the personnel at the Environmental
Protection Agency's regional centers for their special assistance.
Appreciation is extended to Ms. Dianne Clsson of the EPA Office of
General Counsel for her invaluable input.
In addition, Effluent Guidelines Division would like to extend its
gratitude to the following individuals for the significant input into
development of this document while serving as members of the EPA
working group which provided detailed review, advice, and assistance:
R. Williams, Interim Chairman, Effluent Guidelines Division
W. Thomson II, Chairman, Project Officer, Effluent Guidelines
Division
169
-------
D. Gibbons, Office of Analysis and Evaluation
J. Gallup, Effluent Guidelines Division
W.H. Cloward, Region IV, EPA
E. Notzen, Monitoring and Data Support Division
L. Delpire, Monitoring and Data Support Division
J. Riley, Effluent Guidelines Division
D. Olsson, Office of General Counsel
K. Mackenthun, Criteria and Standards Division
M. Halper, Monitoring and Data Support Division
J. Stiebing, Region VI, EPA
J. Noroian, Office of Analysis and Evaluation
M. Flaherty, Criteria and Standards Division
W. Lee, Region III, EPA
D. Bodien, Region X, EPA
H. Holroan, Economic Analysis Division
EGD would also like to acknowledge the Pulp Chemicals Association and
the personnel of selected plants cf the Gum and Wood Chemicals
manufacturing point source category for their help in the collection
of data relating to process raw waste loads and treatment plant
performance.
The cooperation of the individual Gum and wood chemicals companies who
offered their facilities for survey and contributed pertinent data is
gratefully appreciated. Alphabetically, the companies are:
1. Arizona Chemical, Inc.
2. Crosby Chemical, Inc.
3. Hercules
4. Monsanto-Emery
5. Reichhold
6. SCM Corporation
7. Union Camp
8. Westvaco
Manufacturing representatives playing a significant part in the success
of this study were:
H. Arlt (1) W. Lakusta (1)
J. Bowers (7) J. Ralston (7)
R. Gressang (8) D. Tippey (4)
J. Kruirbein (5)
170
-------
SECTION XVI
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APHA, ASCE, AWWA, and WPCF, Glossary of Water and Wastewater Control
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1969.
Biological and Chemical Treatability Studies of an Emulsified Chemical
Wastewater for Tenneco Chemicals, Inc., Newport Division, Oakdale,
Louisiana, Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.,
Nashville, Tennessee, October 1971.
Biological Treatability of the Effluent from an Existing Physical-
Chemical Treatment System for an Errulsified Chemical Wastewater for
Reichhcld Chemicals, Inc., Pensacola, Florida (Oakdale, Louisiana
plant), Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.,
Nashville, Tennessee, June 1974.
Biological Treatability of Wastewater from the Production of Naval
Stores for Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., Pensaccla, Florida (Telogia,
Florida), Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc.,
Nashville, Tennessee, June 1974.
Chemical Engineering, August 6, 1973, "Pollution Control at the Source."
Chemical Engineering, 68 (2), 1961, "Activated Sludge Process Solvents
Waste Problem."
Chemical Week, May 9, 1973, "Making Hard-to-Treat Chemical Wastes
Evaporate."
Cheremisinoff, P.N. and Feller, S.M., "Wastewater Solids Separation,"
Pollution Engineering.
Christensen, H.E. and Luginbyhl, T.T. (eds.), Registry of Toxic Effects
of Chemical Substances, U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, FHS,
Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Rockville, ME, 1975.
Clark, J.W. and Viessman, W., Jr., Water Supply and Pollution Control,
International Textbook Co., 1970.
Coe, R.H., "Bench Scale Method for Treating Waste fcy Activated Sludge,"
Petroleum Processing, 7:1128-1132, 1952.
Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Proceedings of the 1972 National
Conference on Control of Hazardous Material Spills, Sponsored by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the University of
Texas, March 1972.
171
-------
Gulp, R.L. , Wesner, G.M. and Gulp, G.C., Handbook of Advanced Wastewater
Treatment, Van Norstrand Reinhcld Co., 1978.
Davis, K.E. and Funk, R. J. , "Deep Well Disposal of Industrial Waste,"
Industrial Waste, January-February, 1975.
Davies, R.W., et al., "Pollution Control and Waste Treatment at an
Inland Refinery," Proc., 21st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. (1967),
pp. 126-138.
Dean, J.A., (ed.) , Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, 11th Edition,
McGraw-Hill Bock Company, New Ycrk, New Ycrk, 1973.
DeJohn, P.B. and Adams, A.D., "Activated Carbon Improves Wastewater
Treatment," Hydrocarbon Proc. (Oct. 1975) , p. 104.
DeWalle, F.B. and Chian, E.S.K., "Crganic Removal Efficiencies of
Secondary and Tertiary Treatment as Effected by Ccmbined Treatment
of a High-Strength Fatty Acid Wastewater," Proc. 31st Purdue Ind.
Waste Conf. 1976, pp. 1017-1073.
Dickerson, B.W. and Laffey, W.T., "Pilot Plant Studies of Phenolic
Wastes from Petro-Chemical Operations," Proc., 13th Purdue Ind.
Waste Conf. (1958), pp. 780-799.
Directory of Chemical Producers, Stanford Research Institute, 1977.
Dobbs, R.A., et al., Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic Crganics,
Municipal Environmental Research laboratory, Office cf Research and
Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Dorr Oliver, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut.
Durum, W.H., et al., "Reconnaissance of selected Minor Elements in
Surface Waters of the United States, October 1970," USGS Circular
643, Washington, D.C. (1971).
Durvel, W.A. and Helfgott, T., "Removal of Wastewater Organics by
Reverse Osmosis," JWPCE, 47:57 (1975).
Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., Industrial Waste Water Control, McGraw-Hill Bcok
Co., New York (1966).
Eckenfelder, W.W. and Ford, D.L., Water Pollution Control, Jenkins Book
Publishing Co., 1970.
Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., Water Quality Engineering for Practicing
Engineers, Barnes and Noble, Inc., New Ycrk, New York, 1970.
172
-------
Edde, H., "Field Research Studies of Hydraulic Mining Patterns in
Mechanically Aerated Stabilization Basins," Proc. Intl. Congress on
Industrial Waste Waters, Stockholm (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R., "Increased Rate and Efficiency cf Phenolic Waste
Ozonization," JWPCE, 43(2) :200 (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R., "Oxidation of Phenolic Wastes, Part I: Oxidation with
Hydrogen Peroxide and a Ferrous Salt," JWPCE, 36 (9): 1116 (1964).
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd Edition, Kirk-Othmer,
Interscience Publishers Division, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Vol. 4, 1965.
Evans, F.L. (ed.), Ozone in Water and Wastewater Treatment, Ann Arbor
Sci. Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbcr, Mich., 1972.
Fairhill, L.T., "Toxic Contaminants of Drinking Water," Jour. North East
Water Works Assn., 55:400 (1941).
Fang, H.H. and Chian, E.S., "Removal of Alcohols and Aliphatic Acids in
Aqueous Solution by NS-100 Meirbranes," Jour. Appl. Fclymer Sci.,
19:1347 (1975) .
Fleischer, M., et al., "Environmental Impact of Cadmium: A Review by
the Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances," Env. Health Perspectives,
USGPO, Washington, D.C., 7:253 (1974).
Ford, D.L., et al., "Temperature Predictions in Activated Sludge Easins
Using Mechanical Aerators," Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., XXVII (1972).
Gardner, Frank H., Jr. and Williamson, A.R., Naval Stores Wastewater
Purification and Reuse by Activated Carbcn Treatment, Craft Report,
Grant No. S-80 1431, for EPA, Herbert Skovronek, Industrial
Environment Research Laboratory, Edison, New Jersey, October 1975.
Goldsmith, R.L. et al., "Soluble Oil Waste Treatment Using
Ultrafiltration," presented at the 46th Annual Conf. of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Cleveland, Chic (1973).
Hager, D.G., "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Granular Activated
Carbon," Ind. Water Eng., (Jan/Feb, 1974), p. 14.
Hammer, J.J., Water and Waste Water Technology, John Wiley 6 Sons, Inc.,
1977.
Harlowe, H.W., et al., "A Petro-Chemical Waste Treatment System," Proc.,
16th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. (1961), pp. 156-166.
173
-------
Hauser, E.A., Colloidal Phenomena, 1st Edition, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, New York, 1939.
Henshaw, T.E., "Adsorption/Filtration Plant Cuts Phenols from Effluent,"
Chem. Eng., (May 1971), p. 47.
Hill, W.B., et al., "Argyria Investigation—Toxicological Properties of
Silver," Amer. Silver Producers, Res. Proj. Bept., Appendix II
(1957).
Hsu, C.P., et al., "Phenolic Industrial Wastes Treatment by a Trickling
Filter," K'ue Li Taiwan Ta Hseueh King Cheng Hsueh Kan, 10:162
(1966) and Chem. Abs. 67:8845 (1967).
Hutchins, R.A., "Thermal Regeneration Costs," Chero. Eng. Progr.,
71 (5) :80 (1975) .
Hyde, A.C., "Chemical Plant Waste Treatment by Ten Methods," JWPCF,
37(11) :1486 (1965).
Irukayama, K., "The Pollution of Minamata Eay and Minamata Disease,"
Adv. Water Poll. Res., 3:153 (1967).
Irukayama, F., et al., "Studies on the Origin of the Causative Agent of
Minamata Disease, III: Industrial Wastes Containing Mercury
Compounds from Minamata Factor," Kumamoto Medical Journal, 15(2):57
(1962) .
Jakobsen, K. and Laska, R., "Advanced Treatment Methods for
Electroplating Wastes," pollution Engineering, October 1977,
pp. 42-46.
Jenne, E.A., "Mercury in Waters of the United States, 1970-71," Open
File Report, U.S. Geol. Surv., Menlo Park, CA (1972).
Johnsen, R., "Chlorination of Waters for Disinfection—A Study of the
Production of Undesirable Chlorinated Products," Natl. Conf. on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls, EFA-56016-75-004.
Junk, G.A. , et al., "Contamination of Water by Synthetic Polymer Tubes,"
Environmental Science and Technology, 8(13) (December 1974).
Keboe, R.H., et al., "The Hygienic Significance of the Contamination of
Water with Certain Mineral Constituents," JAKWA, 36:645 (1944).
Kent, J.A., (ed.), Reigel's Industrial Chemistry, 7th Edition, Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, New York, 1974.
174
-------
Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 2nd Edition,
Interscience Publishers Division, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kopp, J.F., "The Occurrence of Trace Elements in Water, In: D.D. Hemp-
hill, (ed.), "Trace Substances in Environmental Health—III," Free,
Univ. of Missouri's 3rd Annual Conf. on Trace Substances in
Environmental Health, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia (1969), p. 59.
Kopp, J.F. and Kroner, R.C., "Trace Metals in Waters of the United
States," FWPCA, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Cincinnati, Chio (1967).
Kozlorowski, B. and Kucharski, J., Industrial Waste Disposal, Pergamon
Press, New York, 1972.
Kremen, S.S., "Reverse Osmosis Makes High Quality Water Now," Environ.
Sci. and Tech., 9:314 (1975).
Lange, N.A., (ed.), Handbook of Chemistry, 10th ed. McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, 1961.
Lanouette, K.H. and Paulson, E.G., "Treatment of Heavy Metals in
Wastewater," Pollution Engineering, Cctober 1976, pp. 55-57.
Lieber, M. and Welsch, W.E., "Contamination of Grcundwater by Cadmium,"
JAWWA, 46(51) (1954).
Lin, Y.H. and Lawson, J.R., "Treatment of Oily and Metal Containing
Wastewater," Poll. Eng. 5(11):45-4S (1973).
lindberg. P., "Selenium Determination in Plant and Animal Material in
Water," Acta Vet Scand., Suppl. 32, Stockholm (1968).
Lindner, G. and Nyberg, K., Environmental Engineering, A Chemical
Engineering Discipline, D. Reidel Publishing Corrpany, Boston,
Massachusetts, 1973.
Liptak, E.G., (ed.), Environmental Engineers1 Handbook, Volume I, Water
Pollution, Chilton Book Company, Radnor, Pa., 1974.
Livingstone, D.A., "Chemical Composition of Rivers and Lakes,"
Geological Survey Professional Paper 440-G, pp. G1-G64, In:
M. Fleischer, (ed.) , Data of Geochemistry (6th ed.) , USGPO,
Washington, D.C., 1963.
Martin, J.J., Jr., Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for Removal of
Heavy Metals, EPA Report, R2/73/044, 1973.
MacDonald, R.G., (ed.), "Pulp and Paper Manufacture," The Pulping of
Wood, Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., 1969.
175
-------
McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.W. , Water Quality Criteria, State Water Quality
Control Board, Sacramento, CA, Pub. 3-A, 1963.
McKeown, J.J. and Buckley, D.B., "Mixing Characteristics of Aerated
Stabilization Basins," TAPPI 8th Water and Air Conference, (1971).
McLain, L., "Giving Effluents the Czone Treatment. Could UK Innovation
Show the Way?" Process Eng., (February 1973), p. 101.
McVaugh, J. and Wall, W.T., Jr., "Optimization of Heavy Metals
Wastewater Treatment Effluent Quality Versus Sludge Treatment,"
Proc. 31st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 1976, pp. 17-25.
Merten, U. and Brey, D.T., "Reverse Osmosis for Water Reclamation,"
Advances in Water Pollution Res. Vclf 3, Proc. 3rd Inter. Conf.,
WPCF, Washington, D.C., (1966).
Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N. , Organic Chemistry, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1966, p. 1067.
Morton, S.C. and Sawyer, E.W., "Clay Minerals Remove Organics, Viruses,
and Heavy Metals from Water," Water and Sewage Works (1976).
Nakashio, M., "Phenolic Waste Treatment by an Activated Sludge Process,"
Hakko Kagaku Zasshi, 47:389, and Chem. Abs., 71(8):236, 1969.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Water
Quality Criteria, 1972, USGPC, 1974.
National Academy of Sciences, Chromium, USGPO, 1974a.
National Technical Information Service, "Polychlorinated Eiphenyls and
the Environment," NTIS Interdepartmental Task Force, Washington,
B.C., 1972.
Niegowski, S.J., "Destruction of Phenols by Oxidation with Ozone," Ind.
Eng. Chem., 45(3):632 (1953).
Niegowski, S.J., "Ozone Method for Destruction of Phenols in Petroleum
Waste Waters," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 28(10) :1266 (1956).
Nisbet, et al., "Rates and Routes of Transport of PCB's in the
Environment," Environmental Health Perspectives, 4(21) (1972).
NICSH, "Suspected Carcinogens, a Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances
List," DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 75-188 (1975), p. 93.
Parker, C.L., Estimating the Cost of Wastewater Treatment Ponds,
176
-------
Pollution Engineering, November 1975.
Parker, W.P., Wastewater Systems Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975.
Patterson, J.W., Scala, J.J., and Allen, H.E., "Heavy Metal Treatment by
Carbonate Precipitation," Proc. 30th Ind. Waste Conf., 1975,
pp. 132-150.
Patterson, J.W., Wastewater Treatment Technology, Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1975.
Pelczar, M.J., Jr. and Reid, R.D., Microbiology, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1972.
Perry, J.H., et al., Chemical Engineers' Handbook, 5th Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New Ycrk, New Ycrk, 1973.
Plastic Engineering Staff, "Engineering Resins Primer," Plastics
Engineering, December 1974, pp. 17, 32.
Pontman, J.E., "The Toxicity of 120 Substances to Marine Organisms,"
Shellfish Information Leaflet, Fisheries Experimental Station,
Conway, N. Wales, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food
(1970) .
Prather, B.V. and Gaudy, A.F., Jr., "Combined Chemical, Physical, and
Biological Processes in Refinery Kastewater Purification,11 Proc.
Am. Petro. Inst., HH (III) : 105-112 (1964).
Public Law 92-500, 92nd Congress, S.2770, October 18, 1972.
Quirk, T.P., "Application of Computerized Analysis to Comparative Costs
of Sludge Dewatering by Vacuum Filtration and Centrifugation,"
Proc., 23rd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1968,
pp. 69-709.
Reid, G.W. and Janson, R.J., "Pilot Plant Studies on Phenolic Wastes at
Tinker Air Force Base," Proc., 10th Industrial Waste Ccnf., Purdue,
1955, p. 28.
Reid, G.W. and Libby, R.W., "Phenolic Waste Treatment Studies," Proc.,
12th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., (1957), pp. 250-258.
Reid, G.W., et al., "Removal of Phenol with Biological Slimes," Proc.,
11th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., (1956), pp. 354-357.
Revised Treatment Design for a Tall Oil Waste for Tenneco Chemicals,
Inc., Newport Division, Bay Minette, Alabama, Associated Water and
177
-------
Air Resources Engineers, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee, June 1973.
Rose, A. and Rose, E., The Condensed Chemical Dictionary, 6th Edition,
Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1961.
Rosfjord, R.E., et al., "Phenols: A Water Pollution Control
Assessment," Water and Sewage Wcrks, 123 (3) : S6 (1976) .
Rouse, J.V., "Removal of Heavy Metals from Industrial Effluents,"
Journal of Env. Engineering Div., Prcc. cf ASCE 102 (EE5),
October 1976, pp. 929-936.
Rozelle, L.T., "Ultrathin Membranes for Treatment of Waste Effluents by
Reverse Osmosis," Appl. Polyirer Symp., 22:222 (1973), Chem. Abs.,
80:6355f (1974).
Rudolfs, W., Industrial Wastes, Their Eisposal and Treatment, Reinhold
Publishing Corporation, New Ycrk, 1953.
Runckel, W.J., "C-E Bauer Pressurized Double-Disc Refining Systems--
Application and Development in the Beard Field," Prcc.—7th Symp.
on Particleboard, (March 1973).
Ryan, J.P., Minerals Yearbook 1971, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1971.
Sax, N.I., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Material, 4th Edition,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New Ycrk, 1975.
Scaramelli, A.B. and DiGiano, F.A., "Wastewater Treatments: Physical
and Chemical Methods," JWPCF, 47(6):1249 (1975).
Schroeder, H.A., et al., "Abnormal Trace Elements in Man--Nickel," Jour.
Chron. Dis., 15:51 (1961).
Scott, M.E., "Sulfex—A New Process Technology for Removal of Heavy
Metals from Waste Streams," Froc. 32nd Purdue Ind. Waste conf.,
1977, pp. 622-629.
Shreve, R.N., Chemical Process Industries, Fourth Edition McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York, 1977.
Shukov, A.I., "The Treatment of Phenolic Wastewaters," Hygiene and
Sanitation, Moscow, 22(5):69 (1957), and Water Pollution Abs.,
32:424 (1959).
Skidmore, J.F., "Toxicity of Zinc Compounds to Aquatic Animals with
Special Reference to Fish," Quarterly Rev. of Biology, 39:227
(1964) .
178
-------
Skcgen, D.B-, "Treat HPI Wastes with Bugs," Hydrocarbon Processing,
46(7) :105 (1967) .
Smith, M.I., et al. , "The Seleniuir Problem in Eelaticn to Public
Health," Public Health Report, 51:1496 (1936).
Smith, M.I. and West, B.B., "Further Field Studies on the Selenium
Problem in Relation to Public Health," Public Health Report,
52:1375 (1937) .
Stecher, P.G., (ed.), The Merck Index, An Encyclopedia of Chemicals and
Drugs, 8th Edition, Merck and Company, Inc., Rahway, New Jersey,
1968.
Stevens, B.W. and Kerner, J.W., "Recovering Organic Materials from
Wastewater," Chem. Eng. (Feb. 1975), p. 84.
Stokinger, H.E., "Mercury Hg237," In: F.A. Patty, Ed., Industrial
Hygiene and Toxicology, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., New Ycrk Interscience,
1963, p. 1090.
Suhr, L.G. and Culp, G.L., "State of the Art—Activated Carbon Treatment
of Wastewater," Water and Sewage Works, Ref. No. R104 (1974).
Symons, J.M., et al., "National Organics Reconnaissance Survey for
Halogenated Organics," AWWA Journal, 5 67 (11) :593-662 (1975).
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures, 1972, Industry
Series 1: Industrial Organic Chemicals, MC72(2)—28F, U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Cffice, Washington, E.G., 1974.
U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Manufactures, 1967, Water Use in
Manufacturing, MC67(1)—7, U.S. Government Printing Cffice,
Washington, B.C., 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook for Analytical Quality
Control in Water and Waste Water Laboratories, U.S. EPA Technology
Transfer, EPA, Washington, D.C., June 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Manual of Analytical Methods for
the Analysis of Pesticide Residue in Human and Environmental
Samples," EPA (1974).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, EPA 625/6-74-003,
Washington, D.C., 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mcnitoring Industrial Waste Water,
179
-------
U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, EPA, Washington, B.C., August 1973,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Conference on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (November 19-21, 1975, Chicago,
Illinois)," Conference Proceedings, EPA-560/6-75-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Process Design Manual for
Upgrading Existing Waste Water Treatment Plants, U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer, EPA, Washington, D.C., October 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Process Design Manual for Carbon
Adsorption, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer, EPA, Washington, D.C.,
October 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S.
EPA-440/9-76-023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Survey of Two Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plants for Toxic Substances," Wastewater Research
Division, Municipal Environmental Research Division, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory (March 1977).
U.S. Government Printing Office, Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972.
U.S. Public Health Service, "Drinking Water Standards," 27 F.R, 2152
(1962).
University of Illinois, "Environmental Pollution by Lead and other
Metals," (NSF/RANN Grand 61-31605), Progress Report, May 1-
October 31, 1972, Chapter 6, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign (1972).
Vallee, B.L., "Zinc and Its Biological Significance," Arch. Indust.
Health, 16:147 (1957).
Verschueren, K., Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals,
Van Norstrand Reinhold Co., 1977.
Wang, Lawrence K., Environmental Engineering Glossary (Draft), Calspan
Corporation, Environmental Systems Division, Buffalo, New York,
1974.
Weast, R., (ed.), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 54th Edition,
CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio, 1973-1974.
Weber, C.I., (ed.), "Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for
Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents,"
Environmental Monitoring Series, EPA 670/4-73-001, EPA, Cincinnati,
180
-------
Ohio, July 1973.
Wershaw, R.I., "Mercury in the Environment," Geological Survey
Professional Paper #713, USGPO (1970).
Wilson, T.E., "Beneficial Use of Industrial Wastes in Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants," Proc. 32nd Purdue Ind. Waste Conf.,
1977, pp. 594-598.
Wynn, C.S., et al., Pilot Plant for Tertiary Treatment of Wastewater
with Ozone, EPA Rept. R2/73/146 (1973).
Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Report No. 440/9-76-023, Washington, B.C., July 1976.
Proposed Water Quality Criteria, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
44 FR 15926, March 15, 1979.
Benzene. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 292421, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, VA.
Proposed Water Quality Criteria, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
44 FR 43660, July 15, 1979.
Tetrachloroethylene. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 292424, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,
VA.
Toluene. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 296805, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, Va.
Trichloroethylene. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 292445, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,
VA.
Chloroform. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 292427, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, VA.
Dichlorobenzenes. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 292429, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,
VA.
Nitrosamines. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 292438, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, VA.
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, PB 296795, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, VA.
181
-------
Eenzidine. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 297918, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, VA.
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 296793, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,
VA.
Iscphorone. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 296798, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield, VA.
Naphthalene. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 296786, Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, Va.
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Draft Criteria Document, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. PE 297926, Natl. Tech. Info. Serv.,
Springfield, VA.
Phenol. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 296787, Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.
2,4-Dichlorophenol.
Protection Agency.
VA.
Chlorinated Phenols,
Protection Agency.
VA.
2,4-Dimethylphenol.
Protection Agency.
VA.
Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
PB 292431, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,
Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
PB 296790, Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield,
Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
PB 292432, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,
Pentachlorophenol. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 292439, Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv., Springfield,
VA.
Chromium. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 297922, Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.
Copper. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 296791, Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.
Nickel. Draft Criteria Document, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. PB 296800, Natl. Tech. Info. Serv., Springfield, VA.
182
-------
SECTION XVII
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Absorption—A process in which one material (the absorbent) takes up
and retains another (the absorbate) with the formation of a
homogeneous mixture having the attributes of a solution. Chemical
reaction may accompany or follow absorption.
Act—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
Public Law 92-500.
Activated Carbon—Carbon which is treated by high-temperature heating
with steam or carbon dioxide producing an internal porous particle
structure.
Activated Sludge—Sludge floe produced in raw or settled wastewater by
the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organises in the presence of
dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient concentration by
returning floe previously formed,.
Activated Sludge Process—A biological wastewater treatment process in
which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and
aerated. The activated sludge is subsequently separated from the
treated wastewater (mixed liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or
returned to the process as needed.
Adsorption—An advanced method of treating wastes in which a material
removes organic matter not necessarily responsive to clarification or
biological treatment by adherence en the surface cf solid bodies.
Aerated Lagoon—A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in
which mechanical or diffused-air aeration is used to supplement the
oxygen supply.
Aqueous Solution—One containing water or watery in nature.
Azeotrope—A liquid mixture that is characterized by a constant
minimum or maximum boiling point which is lower or higher than that of
any of the components and that distills without change in composition.
EAT (BATEA) Effluent Limitations—Limitations for point sources, other
than publicly-owned treatment works, which are based on the
application of the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable.
These limitations must be achieved by July 1, 1984.
183
-------
Biological Wastewater Treatment--Forms of wastewater treatment in
which bacterial or biochemical action is intensified to stabilize,
oxidize, and nitrify the unstable organic matter present.
Intermittent sand filters, contact beds, trickling filters, and
activated sludge processes are examples.
Elank—deionized water used to rinse automatic sampler prior to
collection of sample.
Blowdown—The removal of a portion of any process flow to maintain the
constituents of the flow at desired levels.
EOD—Biochemical Oxygen Demand is a measure of biological
decomposition of organic matter in a water sample. It is determined
by measuring the oxygen required by microorganisms to oxidize the
organic contaminants of a water sample under standard laboratory
conditions. The standard conditions include incubation for five days
at 20 C.
EOD7—A modification of the BOD test in which incubation is maintained
for seven days. The standard test in Sweden.
EPT(BPCTCA) Effluent Limitations—Limitations for point sources, other
than publicly-owned treatment wcrks, which are based on the
application of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available. These limitations must be achieved by July 1, 1977.
Carbonization—A process whereby a carbon residue is produced via the
destructive distillation of wood.
Chipper—A machine which reduces logs or wood scraps to chips.
Chlorination—The application cf chlorine tc water, sewage or
industrial wastes, generally for the purpose cf disinfection but
frequently for accomplishing other biological or chemical results.
Clarification—Process of removing turbidity and suspended solids by
settling. Chemicals can be added to improve and speed up the settling
process through coagulation.
Clarifier—A unit of which the primary purpose is to reduce the amount
of suspended matter in a liquid.
cm—Centimeters.
COE—Chemical Oxygen Demand. Its determination provides a measure of
the oxygen demand equivalent tc that portion cf matter in a sample
which is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.
184
-------
Composite Sample—A combination of individual samples of wastes taken
at selected intervals, generally hourly fcr 24 hours, to minimize the
effect of the variations in individual samples. Individual samples
making up the composite may be of equal volume or be roughly
apportioned to the volume of flow cf liquid at the time cf sampling.
cu m—Cubic meters.
cu ft—Cubic feet.
Cyclone—A conical-shaped vessel for separating either entrained
solids or liquid materials from the carrying air or vapor. The vessel
has a tangential entry nozzle at or near the largest diameter, with an
overhead exit for air or vapor and a lower exit for the more dense
materials.
Data Collection Portfolio—Information solicited from industry under
Section 308 of the Act.
Derivative—A substance extracted from another body or substance.
Destructive Distillation—Decomposition cf wood (cr a hydrocarbon) by
heat in a closed container and the collection of the volatile
substances produced.
Digester--(1) Device for conditioning chips using high pressure steam,
(2) A tank in which biological decomposition (digestion) of the
organic matter in sludge takes place.
Distillation—The separation, by vaporization, of a liquid mixture of
miscible and volatile substance into individual components, or, in
some cases, into a group of components. The process of raising the
temperature of a liquid to the boiling point and condensing the
resultant vapor to liquid form by cooling. It is used to remove
substances from a liquid or to obtain a pure liquid from one which
contains impurities or which is a mixture of several liquids having
different boiling temperatures. Used in the treatment of fermentation
products, yeast, etc., and ether wastes to remove recoverable
products.
DO—Dissolved Oxygen is a measure of the amount of free oxygen in a
water sample. It is dependent on the physical, chemical, and
biochemical activities of the water sample.
Effluent—A liquid which leaves a unit operation cr process. Sewage,
water or other liquids, partially or completely treated cr in their
natural states, flowing out of a reservoir basin, treatment plant or
any other unit operation. An influent is the incoming stream.
185
-------
Entrainment Separator—A device tc remove liquid and/or solids from a
gas stream. Energy source is usually derived froir pressure drop to
create centrifugal force.
Equalization Basin—A holding basin in which variations in flow and
composition of a liquid are averaged. Such basins are used to provide
a flow of reasonably uniform volume and composition to a treatment
unit.
Essential Oils—Oils composed mainly of terpene hydrocarbons
(turpentine), which are obtained by steam distillation of wood chips,
bark, or leaves of select trees.
Ester Gum—A resin made from resin or rosin acids and a polyhydric
alcohol, such as glycerin or pentaerythritol.
Esterification—This generally involves the combination of an alcohol
and an organic acid to produce an ester and water. The reaction is
carried out in the liquid phase, with aqueous sulfuric acid as the
catalyst. The use of sulfuric acid has in the past caused this type
of reaction to be called sulfation.
Exudate—Exuded matter.
Exude—To ooze or trickle forth through pores or gushes, as
gum, etc.
sweat or
Fatty Acids—An organic acid obtained by the hydrolysis
(saponification) of natural fats and oils, e.g., stearic and palmitic
acids. These acids are monobasic and may or may not contain some
double bonds. They usually contain sixteen or more carbon atoms.
Fines—Crushed solids sufficiently fine to pass through a screen, etc.
Flccculation—The agglomeration cf colloidal and finely
suspended matter.
divided
Flotation—The raising of suspended matter to the surface of the
liquid in a tank as scum—by aeration, the evolution of gas,
chemicals, electrolysis, heat, or bacterial decomposition—and the
subsequent removal of the scum by skimming.
F:M Ratio—The ratio of organic material (food) to mixed liquor
(microorganisms) in an aerated sludge aeration basin.
Fractionation (or Fractional Distillation) —The separation of
constituents, or group of constituents, of a liquid mixture of
miscible and volatile substances ty vaporization and recondensing at
specific boiling point ranges.
186
-------
Gal—Gallons.
Gland Water—Water used to lubricate a gland. Sometimes called
"packing water."
GPC—Gallons per day.
GPM—Gallons per minute.
Grab Sample—(1) Instantaneous sampling; (2) A sample taken at a
random place in space and time.
Gum—The crystallized pine oleoresin or "scrape" collected from
scarified "faces" of trees being worked for turpentine, exudates from
living long leaf and slash pine trees.
Hardwood (or Deciduous Woods)—Trees that lose their leaves annually.
Morphologically and chemically distinct from the conifers and commonly
referred to as hardwoods, despite the fact that certain species such
as basswood and poplar have woods that are relatively soft. Fibers
are substantially shorter than those of coniferous wood. Normally,
deciduous woods are not a source of turpentine.
Holding Ponds—See Impoundment.
Impoundment—A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space, either natural
cr created in whole or in part by the building of engineering
structures, which is used for storage, regulation, and control of
water, including wastewater.
Influent—Any sewage, water, or other liquid, either raw or partly
treated, flowing into a reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or any part
thereof. The influent is the stream entering a unit operation; the
effluent is the stream leaving it.
Kl/day—Thousands of liters per day.
Kraft (or Sulfate) Process—The digestion of wood chips with a
solution of sodium hydroxide, scdium sulfide, and scdium carbonate to
produce paper pulp. This process delignifies the wood chip and allows
separation of the cellulose fibers from a caustic solution of lignin
degradation products (sugars, hemicellulose, resin, and fatty acids)
and unsaponifiables.
Lagoon—A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which
aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
Leaching—Mass transfer of chemicals to water from wood which is in
contact with it.
187
-------
I/day—Liters per day.
Metric ton—One thousand kilograms.
MGD—Million gallons per day.
mg/1—Milligrams per liter (equal parts per million, ppm, when the
specific gravity is one).
Mixed Liquor—A mixture of activated sludge and organic matter under-
going activated sludge treatment in an aeration tank.
ml/1—Milliliters per liter.
mm—Millime ters.
Naval Stores—Chemically reactive oils, resins, tars, and pitches
derived froir the oleoresin contained in, exuded by, or extracted from
trees chiefly of the pine species (Genus Pinus), or from the wood of
such trees.
Neutralization—The restoration of the hydrogen or hydroxyl ion
balance in a solution so that the icnic concentrations of each are
equal. Conventionally, the notation "pH" (puissance d1hydrogen) is
used to describe the hydrogen ion concentration or activity present in
a given solution. For dilute solutions of strong acids, i.e., acids
which are considered to be completely dissociate (ionized in
solution), activity equals concentration.
Non-Condensables—Vapors or gases that remain in the gaseous state at
the temperature and pressure specified. These normally would be
considered the final vented gases under operating conditions.
No Discharge—The complete prevention of polluted process wastewater
frcm entering navigable waters.
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
NSPS—New Source Performance Standards.
Nutrients—The nutrients in contaminated water are routinely analyzed
to characterize the food available for microorganisms to promote
organic decomposition. They are:
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3), mg/1 as N
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ON), mg/1 as N
Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3), mg/1 as N
Total Phosphate (TP), mg/1 as P
Ortho Phosphate (OP), mg/1 as P
188
-------
Gil-Recovery System—Equipment used to reclaim oil from wastewater.
Oleoresin—Pine gum, the non-aqueous secretion of rosin acids
dissolved in a terpene hydrocarbon oil which is produced or exuded
from the intercellular resin ducts of a living tree or accumulated,
together with oxidation products, in the dead wood of weathered limbs
and stumps.
PCE—Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
PCP—Pentachlorophenol.
Pentachlorophenol—A chlorinated phenol with the formula C15C60H and
formula weight of 266.35 that is used as a wocd preservative.
Commercial grades of this chemical are usually adulterated with
tetrachlorophenol to improve its solubility.
pH—pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water sample.
It is equal to the negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration.
Phenol—The simplest aromatic alcohol.
Phenols, Phenolic Compounds—A wide range of organic compounds with
one or more hydroxyl groups attached to the aromatic ring.
Pine Tar Oil—The oil obtained by condensing the vapors from the
retorts in which resinous pine wocd is destructively distilled
(carbonized).
Pitch—A dark viscous substance obtained as residue in the
distillation of the volatile oils from retort pine oil or crude tall
oil.
Pitch, Brewer's—A term used tc designate a type of pitch made by
blending certain oils, waxes, or other ingredients with resin for the
coating of beer barrels.
Point Source—A discrete source of pollution. Channeled wastewater.
POTW—Publicly-owned treatment works.
Pretreatment—Any wastewater treatment processes used tc partially
reduce pollution load before the wastewater is delivered into a
treatment facility. Usually consists of removal of coarse solids by
screening or other means.
Primary Treatment—The first major treatment in a wastewater treatment
works. In the classical sense, it normally consists of clarification.
189
-------
As used in this document, it generally refers to treatment steps
preceding biological treatment.
Priority Pollutants—Those compounds listed in the 1976 Consent
Decree.
Process Wastewater—Water, which during manufacturing or processing,
comes into contact with or results in the production or use of any raw
material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste
product.
psi—Pounds per square inch.
Pyroligeneous Acid—A product cf the destructive distillation of
hardwoods composed primarily of acetic acid, crude methanol, acetone,
tars and oils, and water.
Resin—A large class of synthetic products that have properties
similar to natural resin, or rosin, but are chemically different.
Retort—A vessel in which substances are distilled or decomposed by
heat.
Rosin—A specific kind of natural resin obtained as a nitreous water-
insoluble material from pine oleoresin by removal of the volatile
oils, or from tall oil by the removal of the fatty acid components
thereof. It consists primarily of tricyclic monocarboxylic acids
having the general empirical formula C20 H30 02, with small quantities
of compounds saponifiable with bciling alcoholic potassium or sodium
hydroxide, and some unsaponifiable. The three general classifications
of kinds of rosins in commerce are: gum rosin, obtained from the
cleoresin collected from living trees; wood rosin, from the oleoresin
contained in dead wood, such as stumps and knots; and tall oil rosin,
frcm tall oil.
Rosin, Modified—Rosin that has been treated with heat cr catalysts,
or both; with or without added chemical substances, so as to cause
substantial change in the structure of the rosin acids, as
isomerization, hydrogenation, dehydrogenation, or polymerization;
without substantial effect on the carboxyl group.
RWL—Raw Waste Load. Pollutants contained in untreated wastewater.
Saponification—The reaction in which caustic combines with fat or oil
to produce soap.
Screening—The removal of relatively coarse, floating, and suspended
solids by straining through racks or screens.
190
-------
Seal Leg—The line through which an underflow liquid flows,
constructed to maintain a liquid trap that will net empty upon nominal
pressure changes in the vessel.
Secondary Treatment—The second major step in a waste treatment
system. As used in this document, the term refers to biological
treatment.
Sedimentation Tank—A basin or tank in which water or wastewater
containing settleable solids is retained to reirove by gravity a part
cf the suspended matter.
Separator—The vessel connected tc the vent-relief to separate wood
fines carried over in the vent-relief gases, and which permits the
steam and turpentine vapors (including non-condensables) to proceed in
vapor form to the condenser.
Settling Pcnds—An impoundment for the settling out cf settleable
solids.
Sludge—The accumulated solids separated from liquids, such as water
cr wastewater, during processing.
Softwood—Wood from evergreen or needle-bearing trees.
Soil Irrigation—A method of land disposal in which wastewater is
applied to a prepared field. Alsc referred to as soil percolation.
Solids—Various types of solids are commonly determined on water
sairples. These types of solids are:
Total Solids (TS)—The material left after evaporation and
drying a sample at 103 -105 C.
Suspended Solids (SS)—The material removed from a sample
filtered through a standard glass fiber filter. Then it is
dried at 103 -105 C.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—Same as Suspended Solids.
Dissolved Solids (DS) —The difference between the total and
suspended solids.
Volatile Solids (VS)—The material which is lost when the
sample is heated to 550 C.
Settleable Solids (STS)—The material which settles in an
Immhoff cone in one hour.
191
-------
Solvent Extraction—A mixture of two components is treated by a
solvent that preferentially dissolves one or more of the components in
the mixture. The solvent in the extract leaving the extractor is
usually recovered and reused.
Sparge—To heat a liquid by means of live steam entering through a
perforated or nozzled pipe.
Spray Evaporation—A method of wastewater disposal in which the water
in a holding lagoon equipped with spray nozzles is sprayed into the
air to expedite evaporation.
Spray Irrigation—A method of disposing of some organic wastewaters by
spraying them on land, usually frcir. pipes equipped with spray nozzles.
See Soil Irrigation.
sq m—Square meter.
Steam Distillation—Fractionation in which steam introduced as one of
the vapors or in which steam is injected to provide the heat of the
system.
Steaming—Treating wood material with steam to soften it.
Sump—(1) A tank or pit that receives drainage and stores it
temporarily, and from which the drainage is pumped or ejected; (2) A
tank or pit that receives liquids.
Tall Oil—A generic name for a number of products obtained from the
manufacture of wood . pulp by the alkali (sulfate) process, more
popularly known as the Kraft process. Tc provide some distinction
between the various products, designations are often applied in
accordance with the process or composition, seme of which are crude
tall oil, acid-refined tall oil, distilled tall oil, tall oil fatty
acids, and tall oil rosin.
Tall Oil, Crude—A dark brown mixture of fatty acids, rosin, and
neutral materials liberated by the acidification of soap skimmings.
The fatty acids are a mixture of oleic acid and linoleic acid with
lesser amounts of saturated and other unsaturated fatty acids. The
rosin is composed of resin acids similar to those found in gum and
wood rosin. The neutral materials are composed mostly of polycyclic
hydrocarbons, sterols, and other high-molecular-weight alcohols.
Terpenes—The major chemical components of turpentine. A class of
unsaturated organic compounds having the empirical formula C10 H16,
occurring in most essential oils and oleoresincus plants.
Structurally, the important terpenes and their derivatives are
192
-------
classified as monocyclic (dipentene) , bicyclic (pinene), and acyclic (
iryrcene) .
Tertiary Treatment—The third major step in a waste treatment
facility. As used in this document, the term refers to treatment
processes following biological treatment.
TOC—Total Organic Carbon is a measure of the organic contamination of
a water sample. It has an empirical relationship with the biochemical
and chemical oxygen demands.
T-FO4-P—Total phosphate as phosphorus. See Nutrients.
Total Phenols—See Phenols.
Traditional Parameters—Those parameters historically of interest,
e.g., BOD, COD, SS, as compared to Priority Pollutants.
Turpentine—A light-colored, volatile essential oil from resinous
exudates or resinous wood associated with living or dead coniferous
kinds of turpentine as follows: (1) gum turpentine, obtained by
distilling the gum collected from living pine trees; (2) steam-
distilled wood turpentine, from the oleoresin within the wood cf pine
stumps or cuttings, either by direct steaming of mechanically
disintegrated wood or after solvent extraction of the oleoresin from
the wood; (3) sulfate wood turpentine, recovered during the conversion
of wood pulp by the Kraft (sulfate) process. (Sulfate wood turpentine
is somewhat similar to gum turpentine in composition); and (4)
destructively distilled wood turpentine, obtained by fractionation of
certain oils recovered from the destructive distillation cf pine wood.
Vacuum Water—Water extracted from wocd during the vacuum period
following steam conditioning.
Vat—Large metal containers in which logs are "conditioned" or heated
prior to cutting. The two basic methods for heating are by direct
steam contact in "steam vats" or by steam-heated water in "hot water
vats."
Water Balance—The water gain (incoming water) of a system versus
water loss (water discharged or lest).
Water-Borne Preservative-'Any one of several formulations of inorganic
salts, the most common of which are based on ccpper, chromium, and
arsenic.
Wet Scrubber—An air pollution control device which involves the
wetting of particles in an air stream and the impingement of wet or
dry particles on collected surfaces, followed by flushing.
Zero Discharge—See No Discharge.
193
-------
APPENDIX A
EPA Effluent Guidelines Division List of
Priority Pollutants for B.A.T. Revision Studies
COMPOUND NAME
1. 'acenaphthene
2. *acrolein
3. 'acrylonitnle
4. 'benzene
5. 'benzidme
6. 'carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane)
•chlorinated benzenes (other than
d ich lorobenzenes)
7. chlorobenzene
8. 1,2.4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
•chlorinated ethanes (including 1 2-
dichloroethaie, 1,1.1-trichloro-
etnane and rtexachloroethane)
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1.1 -trichlorcethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dichlorr*thane
14. 1,I.2-tnchl3roeThane
15. 1.1,22-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
•chloroaikyl jthers (chloromethyl.
chloroethyl and mixed ethers)
77. bisfchloromethyl) ether
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
•chlorinated naphthalene
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
•chlorinated phenols (other than
those listed elsewhere; includes
trichlorophenols and chlorinated
cresols)
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. parachlorometa cresol
23. 'chloroform (trichloromethane)
24. *2
-------
APPENDIX A-l
TOXIC OR POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES NAMED IN CONSENT DECREE
Acenapthene
Acrolein
Aery lonit rile
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Benzidine
Benzene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated Benzene
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chlorinated Ethers
Chlorinated Phenol
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
DDT
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Di phenylhydrazi ne
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadi ene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadi ene
Isophorone
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol
Nitrosamines
197
-------
APPENDIX A-2
LIST OF SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS RECOMMENDED PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
3. hexachlorobenzene
4. chlorobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2-ch!oroethyl) ether
7. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
9. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
10. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
11. S.S'-dichlorobenzidine
12. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
13. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
14. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
15. ethyl benzene
16. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
17. 4-brotnophenyl phenyl ether
18. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
19. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
20. isophorone
21. nitrobenzene
22. N-nitrosodimethylamine
23. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
24. N-nitrosodiin-propylamine
25. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
26. butyl benzyl phthalate
27. di-n-butyl phthalate
28. diethyl phthalate
29. dimethyl phthalate
30. toluene
31. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
32. acrolein
33. acrylonitrile
34. acenaphthene
35. 2-chloronaphthalene
36. fluoranthene
37. naphthalene
38. 1,2-benzanthracene
39. benzo(a)pyrene(3,4-benzcpyrene)
40. 3,4-benzofluoranthene
41. 11,12-benzofluoranthene
42. chrysene
43. acenaphthylene
44. anthracene
45. 1,12-benzoperylene
46. fluorene
47. phenanthrene
48. 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
198
-------
2. List of Specific Unambiguous Recommended Priority Pollutants
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
3. hexachlorobenzene
4. chlorobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
7. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
9. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
10. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
11. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
12. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
13. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
14. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
15. ethyl benzene
16. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
17. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
18. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
19. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
20. isophorone
21. nitrobenzene
22. N-nitrosodimethylamine
23. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
24. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
25. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
26. butyl benzyl phthalate
27. di-n-butyl phthalate
28. diethyl phthalate
29. dimethyl phthalate
30. toluene
31. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
32. acrolein
33. acrylonitrile
34. acenaphthene
35. 2-chloronaphthalene
36. fluoranthene
37. naphthalene
38. 1,2-benzanthracene
39. benzo(a)pyrene(3,4-benzopyrene)
40. 3,4-benzofluoranthene
41. 11,12-benzofluoranthene
42. chrysene
43. acenaphthylene
44. anthracene
45. 1,12-benzoperylene
46. fluorene
47. phenanthrene
48. 1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene
199
-------
49. indeno (1,2,3-,cd)pyrene
50. pyrene
51. benzene
52. carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
53. 1,2-dichloroethane
54. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
55. hexachloroethane
56. 1,1-dichloroethane
57. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
58. 1,1,2,2-tetrachlorcethane
59. chloroethane
60. 1,1-dichlcroethylene
61. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
62. 1,2-dichloropropane
63. 1,2-dichloropropylene (1,2-dichloropropene)
64. methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
65. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
66. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
67. bromoform (tribromomethane)
68. dichlorobromomethane
69. trichlorofluoromethane
70. dichlorodifluoromethane
71. chlorodibromomethane
72. hexachlorobutadiene
73. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
74. tetrachloroethylene
75. chloroform (trichloromethane)
76. trichloroethylene
77. aldrine
78. dieldrin
79. chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
80. 4,4'-DDT
81. 4,4I-DDE (p.p'-DDX)
82. 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
83. a-endosulfan-Alpha
84. b-endosulfan-Beta
85. endosulfan sulfate
86. endrin
87. endrin aldehyde
88. endrin ketone
89. heptachlor
90. heptachlor epoxide
91. a-BHC-Alpha
92. b-BHC-Beta
93. r-BHC (lindane)-Gamma
94. g-BHC-Delta
95. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
96. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
97. toxaphene
98. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
99. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
200
-------
100. parachlorometa cresol
101. 2-chlorophenol
102. 2,4-dichlorophenol
103. 2,4-dimethylphenol
104. 2-nitrophenol
105. 4-nitrophenol
106. 2,4-dinitrophenol
107. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
108. pentachlorophenol
109. phenol
110. cyanide (Total)
111. asbestos (Fibrous)
112. arsenic (Total)
113. antimony (Total)
114. beryllium (Total)
115. cadmium (Total)
116. chromium (Total)
117. copper (Total)
118. lead (Total)
119. mercury (Total)
120. nickel (Total)
121. selenium (Total)
122. silver (Total)
123. thallium (Total)
124. zinc (Total)
201
-------
Table A-l. Itemization of Volatile Priority Pollutants
chloromethane
bromomethane
chloroethane
trichlorof1uoromethane
bromochloromethane (IS)
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
bis-chloromethyl ether (d)
trans-l,3-dichloropropene
di bromochloromethane
1,1,2-tri chloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
bromoform
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
toluene
ethyl benzene
aerylonitrile
dichlorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
1,1-di chloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethane
chloroform
1,1,1-tri chloroethane
bromodichloromethane
1,2-dichloropropane
trichloroethylene
cis-l,3-dichloropropene
benzene
2-bromo-l-chloropropane (IS)
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene
1,4-dichlorobutane (IS)
chlorobenzene
acrolein
202
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE 308 DATA COLLECTION PORTFOLIO
Plant Code/Subcat._
Date Response Rec'd.
GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
(SIC 2861)
Note: Carefully read Instructions and Definition
of Terms before responding to these questions.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
(1) Plant/finn name
(2) Plant Location
(3) Plant mailing address^
(4) Name of Respondent Title.
(5) Address of Respondent
(6) Telephone number of Respondent
8. PLANT OPERATIONS
(7) [] If this plant does no manufacturing on site (i.e., a sales office,
warehouse, etc.), do not complete the remainder of this survey. Check
this block and return the entire form in the enclosed envelope.
(8) [] If this plant manufactures only char and charcoal briquets,
check this block and answer questions 64 or 65, then return the entire
form in the enclosed envelope.
Has this plant filled out another industry survey for the EPA Effluent
Guidelines Division?
(9) [] Yes
(10) [] No
If yes, in what category was the questionnaire submitted? (11)
Indicate the type of operations at this site:
(12) [] Only Gum and Wood Chemicals (SIC 2861) are produced at this
site.
(13) [] This plant produces gum and wood chemicals (SIC 2861), but
also, produces other classes of products. (Specify)
203
-------
Indicate the date this plant was placed in operation (14)
Indicate the date of the most recent physical plant renovation
(15) .
C. PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES
Please provide a simple schematic diagram of the manufacturing processes
involving gum and wood chemicals.
Total 1977 production of Gum and Wood Chemicals was (16) pounds.
Average 1977 production of Gum and Wood Chemicals was (17) pounds
per day.
Number of days in 1977 with production of Gum and Wood Chemicals
(18) days.
Total 1977 production of all other products manufactured at plant location
was (19) pounds.
Average 1977 production of all other products manufactured at plant
location was (20) pounds per day.
Is the production of Gum and Wood Chemicals seasonal at your plant?
(21) [] yes
(22) [] no
Provide approximate percentages of total production of Gum and Wood
Chemicals for each of the following products, if produced in 1977:
Subcategory A -Sulfated turpentine, a by-product of the Kraft (sulfate)
pulping process:
a - Pinene (23)
b - Pinene (24)
Dipentine (25)
Limonene (26)
Other (27)
Subcategory B - Gum resin and turpentine manufacture by steam distillation
of crude gum (exudate) from living longleaf pine and
slash pine trees:
Gum Resin (28)
Gum Terpentine (29)
a - Pinene (30)
b - Pinene (31)
Paper Size (32)
Other (33)
204
-------
Subcategory C - Wood Resin, turpentine, and pine oil manufacture by
solvent extraction and steam distillation of old resinous
wood stumps from cut-over pine forests:
Wood Resin (34)
Wood Turpentine (35)
Dipentene (intermediate
terpenes) (36)
Wood Pine Oil (37)
a - Pinene (38)
b - Pinene (39)
Paper Size (40)
Other (41)
Subcategory D - Tall oil resin, pitch, and fatty acids manufacture by
fractionation of crude tall oil, a by-product of the
Kraft (sulfate) pulping process:
Tall Oil Resin (42)
Tall Oil Fatty Acids(43)
Tall Oil Pitch (44)
Sulfate Turpentine (45)
Sulfate Pine Oil (46)
Methyl Mercaptan (47)
a - Pinene (48)
b - Pinene (49)
Paper Size (50)
Other (51)
Subcategory E - Essential oils manufacture by steam distillation of scrap
wood fines from select lumbering operations:
Cedarwood Oil (52)
Wintergreen Oil (53)
Spearmint Oil (54)
Eucalyptus Oil (55)
Other (56)
Subcategory F - Resin based derivatives (specifically, resin esters and
modified resin esters) manufactured by the chemical
reaction of gum, wood, and tall oil resins:
Resin Oils (57)
Ester Gum (Glycerol
esters) (58)
Synthetic Resins:
Phenolic resins (59)
Alkyd resins (60)
Maleic resins (61)
Fumeric resins (62)
Other (63)
205
-------
D. WASTEWATER GENERATION
Note: Process wastewaters include those resulting from contact cooling.
wet scrubbers, and cleanup, or other process related use, i.e. water
contacting product or raw materials.
Segregated non-contact cooling waters, boiler blowdown, and
sanitary wastewaters are not included.
Does any process wastewater result from your operations?
(64) [] Yes
(65) [] No
Estimated volume of process wastewater in gallons per day that corresponds
to the production data given in Section C for each of the following
products during normal manufacturing of Gum and Wood Chemicals only:
Subcategory A -Sulfated turpentine, a by-product of the Kraft (sulfate)
pulping process:
a - Pinene (66)
b - Pinene (67)
Dipentine (68)
Limonene (69)
Other (70)__
Subcategory B - Gum resin and turpentine manufacture by steam distillation
of crude gum (exudate) from living longleaf pine "and
slash pine trees:
Gum Resin (71)
Gum Terpentine (72)
a - Pinene (73)
b - Pinene (74)
Paper Size (75)
Other (76J
Subcategory C - Wood Resin, turpentine, and pine oil manufacture by
solvent extration and steam distillation of old resinous
wood stumps from cut over pine forests:
Wood Resin (77)
Wood Turpentine (78)
Dipentene (intermediate
terpenes) (79)
Wood Pine Oil (80)
a - Pinene (81)
b - Pinene (82)
Paper Size (83)
Other (84)
206
-------
Subcategory D - Tall oil resin, pitch, and fatty acids manufacture by
fractionation of crude tall oil, by-products of the
Kraft (sulfate) pulping process:
Tall Oil Resin (85)
Tall Oil Fatty Acids(86)
Tall Oil Pitch (87)
Sulfate Turpentine (88)
Sulfate Pine Oil (89)
Methyl Mereaptan (90)
a - Pinene (91)
b - Pinene (92)
Paper Size (93)
Other (94)
Subcategory E - Essential oils manufacture by steam distillation of scrap
wood fines from select lumbering operations:
Cedarwood Oil (95)
Wintergreen Oil (96)
Spearmint Oil (97)
Eucalyptus Oil (98)
Other (99)
Subcategory F - Resin based derivatives (specifically, resin esters and
modified resin esters) manufactured by the chemical
reaction of gum, wood, and tall oil resins:
Resin Oils (100)
Ester Gum (Glycerol
esters) (101)
Synthetic Resins:
Phenolic resins (102)
Alkyd resins (103)
Maleic resins (104)
Fumeric resins (105)
Other (106)
If you have reason to believe that your Gum and Wood Chemicals manu-
facturing operations do not fit into any of the above subcategories,
please attach an explanation of your rationale and an estimate of the
gallons of wastewater generated each day for each product.
The average volume of process wastewater produced from Gum and Wood
Chemicals manufacturing operations (107) gallons/day.
The average volume of process wastewater produced from all other
manufacturing operations at plant location (108) gallons/day.
Do you use wet scrubbers in the Gum and Wood Chemicals manufacturing
for air pollution control?
(109) [J Yes
(110) [] No
207
-------
E. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
Please indicate method used to dispose of process wastewaters.
(Ill) [] Do you discharge treated or untreated process-related wastewaters
directly to a receiving body of water? If so, check this block.
(112) [] Do you discharge partially treated or untreated process-related
wastewaters directly to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
via municipal sewer system? If so, check this block.
(113) [] If you have a discharge other than that described by (111) or
(112), such as to the waste stream of another plant, a septic
tank, an evaporation lagoon, an irrigation system, etc., please
explain briefly below:
(114) [] If you answered Question 111 or 113 yes, do you have firm
plans to discharge process-related wastewater to a POTW in the
future? .
Do you have an NPDES permit?
(115) [] Yes
(116) [] No
If not, have you made application for an NPDES permit?
(117) [] Yes
(118) [] No
If you discharge directly to a receiving body of water, attach a copy of
your most recent permit and application if you answered yes to (115),
(117), above and provide agency name, complete address, telephone
number, and contact to which application, monitoring data, or other
permit information is sent:
(119)
If process-related wastewater is discharged to a publicly owned treatment
works, provide complete name, address, and telephone number of municipality
or sewer authority:
(120)
208
-------
If process-related wastewater is discharged to a city sewer, indicate if
the municipality or sewer authority utilizes any of the following:
(121)
(122)
(123)
(124)
Industrial Waste Ordinance (If yes, attach copy)
Wastewater sampling at your plant
Local permit system to discharge to the sewer
A requirement that you sample and analyze your own waste.
If you discharge to an industrial treatment plant or to the wastewater
stream of another plant, provide the complete name, address, and
telephone number of the plant that is providing this service to you.
(125) .
This plant makes use of the following method(s) of treatment or condition-
ing for Gum and Wood Chemicals process wastewater prior to discharge:
Note:
(126)
(127)
(128)
(129)
(130)
(131)
(132)
(133)
(134)
(135)
(136)
(137)
(138)
(139)
(140)
(141)
(142)
Please provide a_ simple schematic diagram of_ the treatment methods
involving gum and wood chemicals process wastewater.
None
Contract hauling
Equalization
Clarification
Aerated Lagoon
Activated Sludge
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Non-aerated Pond
Air Flotation Control
Granular Activated Carbon
Powdered Carbon Addition
Filtration
Evaporation
Oil Skimming
Settling
Other (specify) .
Do you discharge substandard or other spoiled batches with wastewater?
(143) [] Yes
(144) [] No
209
-------
F. WASTEWATER MONITORING DATA
This section refers to routine monitoring data for untreated or treated
process-related wastewaters or sludges resulting from the manufacture of
Gum and Wood Chemicals ONLY. Please note whenever data are for process
wastewater combined with non-process wastewater or wastewater from other
than Gum and Wood Chemical manufacturers.
Report average 1977 concentrations (mg/1) of treated and untreated
wastewater. Please attach copies of your 1977 monitoring data.
Parameter
(145) BODS
(146) COD
(147) Flow (MGD)
(148) pH
(149) Oil and Grease
(150) Phenols
(151) Phosphorus
(152) Dissolved Solids
(153) Nitrogen Compounds
(154) Sul fates
(155) Temperature
(156) TOC
(157) TSS
(158) Heavy Metals
(159) Trace Organics
(160) Other (specify)
Wastewater Sample Wastewater Sample
Untreated Frequency Treated Frequency
This facility is conducting or has conducted any of the following measures
in the past three years to abate water pollution:
(161) [] private consultant studies
(162) [] in-house engineering studies
163) [] bench scale treatability studies
164) [] pilot plant studies
(165) [] in-process hydraulic surveys
(166) [ treatment system improvements
(167) [] process changes or modifications
(168) [] other
210
-------
G. WATER POLLUTION COSTS: ALLOCATED ANNUAL COSTS TO GUM AND WOOD ONLY.
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Average/year
Before Projected
1975 1975 1976 1977 1978-83
(169) Annual Operating Costs $
(170) Capital Expenditures $
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS: ALLOCATED ANNUAL COSTS TO GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS ONLY.
Average/year
Projected
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978-83
(171) Annual User Charges $
(172) Annual Capital Cost
Recovery Charge $
(173) Pretreatment System
Capital Cost $
(174) Annual Operating Cost $
ENERGY USAGE FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.
(175) Electric power cost for 1977 { /kwh Total kilowatt/hours(176)_
(177) Other Energy Required 1977 BTU.
Approximate percentage of total energy usage in Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturina attributable tp water pollution controls (178) %.
H. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS FOR GUM AND WOOD CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING ONLY.
Please complete the following Priority Pollutant listing. For each
pollutant please check whether it is Known To Be Present, Suspected To
Be Present, Suspected To Be Absent, Known To Be Absent, or Unknown.
rui table responses should be based on the following descriptions:
Known To Be Present: The compound has been detected in the discharge or
is known to be present in the raw waste load.
Suspected To Be Present: The compound is a raw material in the processes
employed, a product, a by-product, catalyst, etc. Its presence in the
raw waste load and discharge is a reasonable technical judgment.
Suspected To Be Absent: No known reason to predict that the compound is
present in the discharge.
211
-------
Known To Be Absent: The compound has not been detected in the raw waste load.
Unknown: The compound has not been tested for in the raw waste load and is not
a raw material employed in the process, a product, a by-product, catalyst, etc.
Known Suspected Suspected Known
Priority Pollutant Present Present Absent Absent Unknown
(179) acenaphthene
(180) acrolein
(181) acrylonitrile
(182) benzene
(183) benzidine
(184) carbon tetrachloride
(tetra chloromethane)
(185) chlorobenezene
(186) 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
(187) hexachlorobenzene
(188) 1,2-dichloroethane
(189) 1,1,1, trichlorethane
(190) hexachloroethane
(191) 1,1-dichloroethane
(192) 1,1,2-trichloroethane
(193) 1,1,2,3-tetrachloroe-
thane
(194) chloroethane
(195) bis(chloromethyl) ether
(196) bis(2-chloroethyl)
ether
(197) 2-chloroethyl vinyl
ether (mixed)
(198) 2-chloronaphthalene
(199) 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
(200) parachlorometa cresol
(201) chloroform (trichlorome-
thane)
(202) 2-chlorophenol
(203) 1,2-dichlorobenzene
(204) 1,3-dichlorobenzene
(205) 1,4-dichlorobenzene
(206) 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
(207) 1,1-dichloroethylene
(208) 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
(209) 2,4-dTchToro phenol
212
-------
Part VI (Cont.)
Known Suspected Suspected Known
Priority Pollutant Present Present Absent Absent Unknown
(210) 1,2-dlchloropropane
(211) 1,3-dichloropropylene
(1,3-dichloropropene)
(212) 2,4-dimethyl phenol
(213) 2,4-dinitrotoluene
(214) 2,6-dinitrotoluene
(215) 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
(216) ethyl benzene
(217) fluoranthene
(218) 4-chlorophenyl phenyl
ether
(219) 4-bromophenyl phenyl
ether
(220) bis(2-chloroisopropyl)
ether
(221) bis(2-chloroethoxy)
methane
(222) methylene chloride
(dichloromethane)
(223) methyl chloride
(chloromethane)
(224) methyl bromide
(bromomethane)
(225) bromoform (tribromome-
thane
(226) dichlorobromomethane
(227) trichlorofluoromethane
(228) dichlorodifluoromethane
(229) chlorodibromomethane
(230) hexachlorobutadiene
(231) hexachlorocyclopentadiene
(232) isophorone
(233) napthalene
(234) nitrobenzene
213
-------
Part VI (Cont.)
Known Suspected Suspected Known
Priority Pollutant Present Present Absent Absent Unknown
(235) 2-nitrophenol
(236) 4-nitrophenol
(237) 2,4-dinitrophenol
(238) 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
(239) N-nitrosodimethylamine
(240) N-nitrosodiphenylamine
(24"H N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
(242) pentachlorophenol
(243) phenol
(244) bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
(245) butyl benzyl phthalate
(246) di-n-butyl phthalate
(247) diethyl phthalate
(248) dimethyl phthalate
(249) di-n-octyl phthalate
(250) 1,2-benzathracene
(251) benzo (a)pryene (3,4-benzo
pyrene)
(252) 3,4-benzofluoranthene
(253) 11,12-benzofluoranthene
(254) chrysene
(255) acenaphthylene
(256) anthracene
(257) 1,12-benzoperylene
(258) fluorene
(259) phenanthrene
(260) l,2:5,6-dibenzanthracent
(261) indeno(l,2,3-C.D) pyrene
(262) pyrene
(263) 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi-
benzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
(264) tetrachloroethylene
(265) toluene
(266) trichloroethylene
(267) vinyl chloride
(chloroethylene)
(268) xylene
214
-------
Part VI (Cont.)
Known Suspected Suspected Known
Priority Pollutant Present Present Absent Absent Unknown
Pesticides and Metabolites
(269) aldrin
(270) dieldrin
(271) chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)
(272) 4,4'-DDT
(273) 4,4'-DDE (p.p'-DDX)
(274) 4>4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
(275) a-endosulfan
(276) B-endosulfan
(277) endosulfan sulfate ~
(278) endrin
(279) endrin aldehyde "
(280) heptachlor
(281) heptachlor epoxide "
(282) a-BHC
(283) B-BHC
(284) -BHC (lindane)
(285) -BHC "
(286) PCB-1242 (Archlor 1242)
(287) PCB-1254 (Archlor 1254)
(288) PCB-1221, 1248, 1232, 1260,"
or 1016
(289) Toxaphene
Metals
(290) Antimony (Total)
(291) Arsenic (Total)
(292) Asbestos (Fibrow) ~
(293) Beryllium (Total)
(294) Cadmium (Total)
(295) Chromium (Total)
(296) Copper (Total)
(297) Cyanide (Total)
(298) Lead (Total)
(299) Mercury (Total)
(300) Nickel (Total)
(301) Selenium (Total)
(302) Silver (Total)
(303) Thallium (Total)
(304) Zinc (Total)
215
-------
For those Priority Pollutants which are known or suspected to be present,
please indicate to the best of your knowledge the prime source of the material.
Specific Pollutant Source (Raw Material/Process Line)
QUESTIONNAIRE COMPILATION
Please provide the following information regarding completion of questionnaire.
Compiler Title
Office Location Telephone_
Date Completed
If you have any questions, please contact
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. UPON COMPLETION OF THE SURVEY, PLACE THE
FORMS AND ALL REQUESTED ATTACHMENTS IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED AND RETURN TO:
U. S. EPA GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS INDUSTRY SURVEY
P. 0. BOX 13454
GAINESVILLE, FL. 32604
BE SURE TO RETAIN A COMPLETE COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS. RESPONDENTS WILL BE
CONTACTED WHEN NECESSARY TO COMPLETE OR CLARIFY ANSWERS.
216
-------
APPENDIX C
RECOMMENDED PARAGRAPH 8
EXCLUSION UNDER THE NREC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS INDUSTRY CHAR AND CHARCOAL BRIQUETS SUBCATEGORY.
Summary of Recommendations
EPA is recommending the exclusion of revise EAT and NSPS limitations
for all specific pollutants based on paragraph 8(a)(i) of the
Settlement Agreement since the existing EPT already requires no
discharge of process wastewater.
Production Processes and Effluents
Char and charcoal are produced by the thermal decomposition of raw
wood. Decomposition forms wood distillates which leave the kiln with
the flue gases. The condensable distillates are collectively referred
to as pyroligneous acid, which contains methanol, acetic acid,
acetone, tars, oils, and water. These materials have steadily
declined in economic importance because of cheaper synthetic
substitutes; therefore, most plants have discontinued recovery of the
by-products from the pyroligneous acid. Instead, the distillate and
other flue gases are exhausted to the atmosphere. The condensable
distillates may also be recycled as fuel for the kiln or recycled in
the vapor phase as a fuel supply supplement.
A typical flow diagram for char and charcoal briquets manufacturing is
illustrated in Figure 1. This study found no facilities which
recovered distillation by-products in the United States.
The off gases from the furnaces contain compounds such as acetic acid,
methanol, acetone, tars, and oils. These materials are presently
oxidized in the afterburners. The natural gas fuel required for the
afterburners is a significant operating cost. An alternative emission
control now under consideration scrubs the off gases from the furnace
to remove the condensables frcir the flue gases. The resulting
scrubber liquor would be sent to a separator where the pyroligneous
acid could be recovered. The water and soluble compounds would be
reused in the scrubber system. The separated products can then be
recovered for sale cr used as an auxiliary fuel.
217
-------
218
-------
Plants
Seventy-seven plants were identified in the industry profile and
fifty-five percent responded.
Toxic Pollutants
Toxic pollutant sampling was not conducted on this subcategcry because
current BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations call for zero discharge of
process wastewater. All of the plants responding had no discharge of
process wastewater.
EAT and NSPS Limitations
EPA is recommending the exclusion of revised EAT and NSPS under
paragraph 8 (a) (i) for all toxic pollutants based on the response of 55
percent of the plants, all of which had no process wastewater, and on
the basis of existing EPT limitations which require zero discharge of
process wastewater.
Pretreatment Limitations
EPA is recommending the exclusion of pretreatment limitations under
paragraph 8 (a) (i) based on a survey cf 55 percent of all plants, none
of which had process wastewater.
219
-------
RECOMMENDED PARAGRAPH 8 EXCLUSION UNDER THE NREC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS INDUSTRY ESSENTIAL OIL SUECATEGORY
Summary of Recommendations
EPA is recommending the exclusion cf BAT, NSPSr and pretreatment
standards for all specific toxic pollutants based on paragraph
8 (a) (iii) . This subcategory includes seven plants—none of which are
direct dischargers. One plant is an indirect discharger; the
remaining six do not discharge. Flows of process wastewater in this
subcategory are low (a maximum flow of 0.015 MGD from the indirect
discharger under full-scale producticn). The cnly toxic pollutants
detected from the screening of the indirect discharger were benzene
and metals, and all were at low levels.
EPA is recommending the exclusion of the NSPS limitation since no new
sources are expected due to competition from synthetic oils and the
lack of raw materials. Exclusion cf pretreatment also is recommended
since only one indirect discharger exists, discharging a sirall number
cf toxic pollutants at low concentrations from a small flew.
Production Processes and Effluents
The only essential oil produced in this subcategcry is cedarwood oil.
Cedarwood oil is produced by steaming cedarwood saw dust in pressure
retorts to remove the oil from the wood particles. The overhead
vapors are condensed and separated into cedar cil and wastewater.
Prcduction of cedarwood oil is under stiff competition from the
synthetic oils manufactured by petroleum companies. The cedarwood oil
industry is divided into two branches—the western cedar group and the
eastern cedar group. The western grcup is a more economical
production because its sole function is the production of cedarwood
oil. Entire cedar trees are ground up for the oil production. The
eastern branch, however, produces cedarwood oil as a by-product of the
production of cedar wood. The effluent from six of these plants is
self-contained by a lagoon or spray irrigation. The single indirect
discharger releases the effluent with no pretreatment to a POTW.
Wastewater from this plant is about 15,000 gallons per day when all
three pressure retorts are in operation.
Plants
Nine plants exist in this subcategory, one indirect discharger and
seven self-contained dischargers. The indirect discharger discharges
a maximum of approximately 0.015 MGD when all three retorts are in
operation. In 1977, the plant used only one retort (approximately
0.005 MGD) because of a shortage of raw materials and low market
221
-------
demand. Future retort use by this plant will depend primarily en the
market demand for cedarwood oil.
Toxic Pollutants Screen sampling was conducted at the indirect
discharger. The analytical results detected benzene and metals in low
concentrations.
EAT and NSPS Limitations
EPA is recommending the exclusion of BAT and NSPS limitations under
paragraph 8 (a) (iii) for all toxic pollutants on the basis that no
direct erist and no new plants dischargers are expected.
Pretreatment Limitations
EPA is recommending the exclusion cf pretreatment limitations under
paragraph 8 (a) (iii) for all tcxic pollutants on the basis that only
cne indirect discharger exists, the volume of discharge is low
(approximately 0.015 MGD maximum), the concentration of toxic
pollutants is low, and the industry is not expected to grow because of
competition from synthetic oils and raw material limitations.
222
-------
RECOMMENDED PARAGRAPH 8 EXCLUSION UNDER THE NREC SETTLEMEKT AGREEMENT
GUM AND WOOD CHEMICALS INDUSTRY GUM ROSIN AND TURPENTINE SUECATEGCRY
of Recommendations
EPA is recommending the exclusion cf BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment
standards for all specific toxic pollutants on the basis of paragraph
8(a) (iii) . Of seven plants in the industry, one is an indirect
discharger and the remaining six are self-contained. These six plants
operate on a seasonal basis between May and September (approximately
180 days per year) . Flows of process wastewaters in this subcategory
are quite low (averaging about 1,400 gals/day per plant).
The only toxic pollutants found during screening analysis of the
indirect discharger were benzene, toluene, d-EHC, and metals.
Exclusion of the NSPS limitations is recommended because no new
sources are expected and most existing plants are expected to close
within the next 10 years for economic reasons. Exclusion of
pretreatment also is recommended because only one indirect discharger
exists.
Production Processes and Effluent
Gum turpentine and rosin are produced by the distillation of pine
oleoresin. The crude oleoresin is collected from the exposed sapwood
of pine trees. This process is limited to the growing cycle of the
tree which occurs during May through September.
The crude oleoresin is delivered tc the processing plants in 435-lb
barrels, steam-washed, to remove trash, and stored or processed. The
process is a simple distillation. The crude gum is heated and the
lower boiling turpentine and water are collected as condensate. The
higher boiling rosin is taken from the bottom of the still as a hot
liquid.
The wastewater generated by this process is from the washing of the
crude gum and the water freed in the distillation process. The
condensed water is chemically treated, then recycled and used for gum
wash water.
In all but one of the gum processes the wastewater is collected on-
site and held in evaporation/percolation ponds. The one plant which
does not use this method discharges to a POTW.
223
-------
Plants
There are seven plants in Subcategory E (Gum Turpentine and Rosin).
Six have self-contained discharges cf low-volume process wastewaters,
and one plant, which is an indirect discharger, has a flow of
approximately 2,300 GPD from its Subcategory E operations and about
2,700 GPD from its Subcategory F (Resin-based derivatives) operation.
Toxic Pollutants
Sampling was conducted at the indirect discharging plant. The process
wastewater flow from the Gum Rosin and Turpentine production was
sampled separately from rosin-based derivatives wastewater flow. The
analytical results detected benzene, toluene, d-BHC, and metals.
EAT and NSPS Limitations
EPA is recommending exclusion under paragraph 8(a) (iii) for all toxic
pollutants on the basis that nc direct dischargers exist, no new
plants are expected, and most plants in this Subcategory are expected
to close within the next 10 years.
EPA is recommending the exclusion of pretreatment limitations under
paragraph 8 (a) (iii) for all toxic pollutants on the basis that only
one indirect discharger exists, and it discharges very low volumes
(2,300 gal/day) .
224
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
INTRODUCTION
Protocol
Sampling and analysis of samples for the Gum and Wood Chemicals Point
Source Category were conducted from March 1978 to October 1978
according to "Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of
Industrial Effluents," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March
1977 (revised April 1977).
Overview of Methods
The toxic pollutants may be conventionally considered according to the
broad classification of organics and metals. The organic toxic pollu-
tants constitute the larger group and were analyzed according to the
categories of purgeable volatiles, extractable semi-vclatiles, and
pesticides and PCB's. The principal analytical method for identifica-
tion and quantitation of organic toxic pollutants was repetitive
scanning Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). Pesticides and
PCE's were analyzed by Gas Chrcmatography/Electron Capture Detector
(GC/ECD) .
The mass spectrometers were tuned daily in a manner to provide
consistent compound fragmentation thereby permitting quantitation
directly from the mass spectral reconstructed chrcmatograms.
Compound identification entailed both gas chrcmatographic and mass
spectroscopic criteria. These criteria are enumerated as fellows: (1)
Appropriate retention time within a window defined as + 1 minute that
of the compound in the standard; (2) coincidence of the extracted ion
current profile maxima of two (volatiles) or three (extractables)
characteristic ions enumerated in the protocol; and (3) proper
relative ratios of these extracted ion current profile peaks.
Relative response factors for the individual compounds were determined
as:
R =Ac/Cc=Ac Cs
As/Cs As Cc
where A is the integrated area taken from the extracted ion current
profile, and C is the concentration of the component expressed in ppb,
and the subscripts c and s denote coirpcund and standard, respectively.
225
-------
Concentrations were calculated using these response factors according
to the expression:
C =Ac Cs
As R
with the terms as defined previously.
Cue to the variable nature of the samples as indicated by the presence
of very large peaks or large unresolved humps in the chrcmatograms,
all base neutral and phenolic extracts were subjected to GC/FID
screening under conditions quite similar to that employed in the GC/MS
analysis. Those extracts with very large peaks and/or large
unresolved humps were diluted appropriately prior to GC/MS analysis.
Due to the number of extracts requiring dilution, the internal
standard was added after dilution.
The concentrations cf compounds in these extracts were calculated
according to the above expression with the incorporation of a
multiplicative dilution factor. This factor is defined as the
quotient of the final diluted sairple extract volume and the original
sairple extract volume.
Pesticides and PCB's were analyzed by GC/ECD. Identification was
based on retention time relative to a standard analyzed under the
identical conditions. Quantitation was based on peak height for the
same standard injection. Confiriration analysis was routinely carried
out on a dissimilar chromatographic column with GC/MS confirmation
restricted to high level samples.
The metals were done by atomic absorption spectroscopy. All classical
parameters were done by standard methods.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS
Volatile Toxic Pollutants
The purgeable volatile toxic pollutants are those compounds which
possess a relatively high vapor pressure and low water solubility.
These compounds are readily stripped with high efficiency from the
water by bubbling an inert gas through the sample at ambient
temperature.
The analytical methodology employed for the volatiles was based on the
dynamic headspace technique of Bellar and Lichtenberg. This procedure
consists of two steps. Volatile organics are purged from the raw-
water sample onto a Tenax GC-silica gel trap with a stream of inert
gas. The volatile organics are then thermally desorbed into the GC
inlet for subsequent GC/MS identification and quantitation.
226
-------
The purgeable volatile toxic pollutants are listed in Table D-1,
Table D-1. Purgeable Volatile Toxic Pollutants
ch lorometh ane
brcmomethane
chloroethane
tr ichlorofluorometh ane
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
bis-chloromethyl ether (d)
tr ans-1,3-dichloropropene
dibromochloromethane
1, 1,2-trichloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
brcmoform
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
toluene
acrylonitrile
ethylbenzene
dichlorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
1,1-dichlcroethylene
1,1-dichloroethane
chloroform
1,1,1-trichloroethane
bromodichlorcmethane
1,2-dichloropropane
trichloroethylene
cis-1,3-dichlcropropene
benzene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene
chlorobenzene
227
-------
A 5-ml aliquot of the raw water sample spiked with the internal
standards bromochloromethane and 1,4-dichlorobutane was purged at
ambient temperature with He for 12 minutes onto a 25-cm x 1/8-in. o.d.
stainless steel trap containing an 18-cm bed of Tenax GC 60/80 mesh
and a 5-cm bed of Davison Grade 15 silica gel 35/60 mesh. This 5-ml
aliquot represented a single grab sample or a composite of the various
grab samples collected at the individual station.
The organics were thermally desorbed from the trap for U minutes at
180 with a He flow of 30 ml/min into the GC inlet. The collection of
repetitively scanned mass spectra was initiated with the application
of heat to the trap. The enumeration cf all instrument parameters is
presented in Table D-2.
The bromochloromethane internal standard was eirployed to quantitate
individual volatile compounds in a manner analogous to that discussed
previously in the Overview of Methods.
The high levels of organics contained in many of the process waste
streams necessitated preliminary screening of samples. Tc accomplish
such screening, a 10-ml portion of the sample was extracted with a
single 1-ml portion of isooctane, and the extract was subjected to
GC/FID analysis to permit the judicious selection of appropriate
sairple volume, i.e., less than 5 ml, fcr purge and trap analysis.
Organic-free water was employed for the dilution so that a uniform 5-
ml sample was purged in all cases.
Many samples contained milligram-per-liter levels of phenol, alkyl
sulfides and disulfides, and a variety of isoprenoid compounds. The
presence of phenol and the late eluting isoprenoid compounds caused
some difficulty in the volatile analyses as these compcunds are very
slowly eluted from the gas chromatographic column.
Although the nonvolatile compcunds purge poorly, significant
quantities can accumulate on the analytical column from samples
containing high levels of organics present in the wastewater. A
column of 0.1 percent SP-1000 (Carbowax 20 M esterified with
nitroterephthalic acid) on 80/100-mesh Carbopack C was employed. The
greater temperature stability of the SP-1000 stationary phase, as
compared with the lower molecular weight Carbowax 1500, permitted
column bake out at elevated temperatures for extended periods of time
without adverse effects.
For the same reasons, the purge and trap apparatus employed
emphasized: (1) short-heated transfer lines, (2) low dead-volume
construction, (3) manually-operated multiport valve, and (4) ready
replacement of all component parts. This design permitted the ready
substitution of component parts with thoroughly preconditioned
228
-------
replacement parts when serious contamination was indicated by system
blanks.
Foaming tended to be excessive with a number of the samples,
particularly those analyzed without dilution. The brief application
of localized heat to the foam trap, as foam began to accumulate, was
often ;ffective in breaking the foam. A stock standard was prepared
on a weight basis by dissolving the volatile solutes in methanol.
Intermediate concentrations prepared by dilution were employed to
prepare aqueous standards at the 20- and 100-ppb levels. A 5-ml
aliquot of these standards was spiked with the internal standards and
analyzed in a manner identical to that employed with the samples. The
attendant reconstructed total ion current chroiratcgram for a purgeable
volatile organic standard is presented in Figure D-1.
Semiyolatile Toxic Pollutants
The extractable semivolatile toxic pollutants are compounds which are
readily extracted with methylene chlcride. They are subjected to a
solubility class separation by serial extraction of the sample with
methylene chloride at pH of 11 or greater and at pH 2 or less. This
provides the groups referred tc as base neutrals and acidics
(phenolics) , respectively.
Ease neutrals and phenolics were fractionated on the basis of a
solubility class separation. Due to the widely varying chemical and
physical properties possessed by the individual semivolatile toxic
pollutants, the whole sample, i.e., suspended solids, oil and grease,
etc., was subjected to extraction. A listing of the base neutrals and
acidic semivolatiles is provided in Tables D-3 and D-4. A 0.7- to 1-
liter sample was subjected to two successive extractions with three
portions of methylene chloride (150-, 75-, and 75-ml) at pH 11 or
greater and pH 2 or less to provide the base neutral and acidic
fractions, respectively.
Emulsions were broken by the judicious addition of Na2SOt or methanol
and/or simply by standing.
The extract from each fraction was dried by passage through Na2SCU,
and the volume was reduced with a Kuderna-Danish evaporator to 5 to 10
ml. The extract was further concentrated to 1 ml in the Kuderna-
Danish tube, using a modified micrc Snyder column and gentle heating
on a water bath.
The solvent extract was subjected to GC/FID screening and spiked with
10 ul of the d10-anthracene internal standard solution of 2 ug/ul for
GC/MS analysis.
229
-------
CC
S Q
O oc
O CO
>-2
2i
SS o
£ oc
0°
z w
O
O
LU
<
O
H- "•
CO CC
IS
O
LJJ
ETHYLBENZENE
CHLOR08ENZENE
TOLUENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE & 1,4 - DICHLOROBUTANE
1,1,2,2 - TETRACHLOROETHANE
BROMOFORM
CIS -1,3 - DICHLOROPROPENE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE & BENZENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
TRANS - 1,3 - DICHLOROPROPENE
1,2 • DICHLOROPROPANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
1,1,1 - TRICHLOROETHANE
TRANS - 1,2 - DICHLOROETHYLENE
1,2 - OICHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
1,1 - DICHLOROETHANE
1,1 -DICHLOROETHYLENE
- If!
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Q
0)
3
00
230
-------
The presence of large quantities of a variety of organics in the
extracts of many of the process waste streams necessitated screening
of all extracts by GC/FID prior to GC/MS analysis. Sample extracts
were diluted as indicated by the GC/FID scan and subjected to GC/MS
analysis. Reconstructed total icn current chromatograms for base
neutrals and for phenolic standard are shown in Figures D-2 and D-3,
respectively.
GC/MS instrument parameters employed for the analysis of base neutrals
and phenolics are presented in Tables D-5 and D-6.
231
-------
BENZO (G,H,I) PERYLENE
-t/1
T
CO
<
DC
UJ
z
UJ
00
oc
O
u,
cc
O
O
Sc
5
O
QC
O
UJ
DC
DC
O
Z
O
O
O
UJ
O
z
O
O
UJ
QC
DIBENZO (A,H) ANTHRACENE.
INOENO (1,2,3 - C,D) PYRENE3
BENZO(A)PYRENE
.U)
C!
BENZO (A) ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BIS (2 - ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHYLATE
BUTYLBENZYLPHTHYLATE —
3,3' - OICHLOROBENZ10INE <
m
BENZIDINE'
PYRENE
FLUORANTHENE
Dl - N - BUTYLPHTHYLATE
N - NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
DIETHYLPHTHYLATE
AZOBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
Lui
.0
(U
FLUORENE
DIMETHYLPHTHYLATE <
ACENAPHTHENE'
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2 - CHLORONAPHTHALENE
HEX ACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE
1,2,4 - TRICHLOROBENZENE &
HEXACHLOROBUTAOIENE
NAPHTHALENE
N • NITROSODIPROPYLAMINE
1,2 - OICHLOROBENZENE &
HEXACHLOROETHANE
1,4 • DICHLOROBENZENE
t,3 - DICHLOROBENZENE
232
3
M
-------
o
DC
CO
o
O
z
114
a.
DC
O
DC
O
O
<
o
DC
Z
HI
DC
DC
<
O
Q
UJ
O
DC
CO
Z
o
o
UJ
cc
4 - NITROPHENOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL + 4,6 - DINITRO - 0 - CRESOL
4 - CHLORO - M - CRESOL
2,4,6 - TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4 • DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4 • DIMETHYLPHENOL
2 • NITROPHENOL
2 - CHLOROPHENOL
•a
•8
•2
.n
-CO
_v
T«
-01
•S
.05
.00
IA
M»h« 1
Q
3
00
•H
233
-------
Table D-2. Parameters for Volatile grganic^Analysis
Purge Parameters
Gas
Purge duration
Purge temperature
Sample purge volume
Trap
Desorption temperature
Desorption time
GC Parameter^
Column
Carrier
Program
Separator
MS Parameters
Instrument
Mass Range
lonization Mode
lonizatijon Potential
Emission Current
Scan time
He 40 ml/min
12 min
5 ml
Ambient
10 in x 1/8 in o.d. 316 ss and
0.010 in wall thickness containing
7 in Tenax GC 60/80 iresh plus
2 in Eavison Grade 15 silica gel
35/60 mesh
180
4 min
8 ft x 1/8 in nickel, 0.1» SP-1000
on Carbopack C 80/100
He 30 ml/min
50 isothermal 4 min then 8 /min to
175 isotheriral 10 min
Single-stage glass jet at 185
Hewlett Packard 5985A
35-335 amu
Electron impact
70 eV
210 uA
2 sec
234
-------
Table D-3. Base Neutral Extractables
1,3-dichlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
1,2,U-trichlorobenzene
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
nitrobenzene
2-chlorona phth alene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
N-nitrosod iph enylamine
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
anthracene
diethylphthalate
pyrene
benzidine
chrysene
benzo (a) anthracene
benzo (k) fluoranthene
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
benzo(g h i)perylene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
endrin aldehyde
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
di-n-octyl phthalate
1,U-dichlcrobenzene
1,2-dichlcrobenzene
hexachlorctutadiene
naphthalene
hexachlorccyclopentadiene
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
acenaphthylene
isophorone
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
hexachlorcbenzene
phenanthrene
dimethylphthalate
fluoranthene
di-n-butylphthalate
butyl benzylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
benzo (b) fluoranthene
benzo (a) pyrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
4-chloro-phenyl phenyl ether
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
bis(chlorcmethyl) ether
235
-------
Table D-4. Acidic Extractables
2-chlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
phenol
2,4-d imeth ylph enol
2,4-dichloroph enol
2,4,6—trichlorcphenol
4-chloro-m-cresol
2,4-d initrophenol
1,6-d initro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol
4-nitrophenol
236
-------
Table D-5. Parameters for Base Neutral Analysis
GC Parameters
Column
Carrier
Program
In jector
Separator
Injection Volume
MS Parameters
Instrument
Mass Range
lonization Mode
lonization Potential
Emission Current
Scan time
6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP-2250 on 100/120 mesh
Supelcopcrt
He 30 ml/min
50 isothermal 4 min then 8 /min to
275 for 8 min
285
Single-stage glass jet at 275
2 ul
Hewlett Packard 5985 A
35-400 amu
Electron impact
70 eV
2.10 uA
2.4 sec
237
-------
Table D-6. Parameters for Phenolic Analysis
GC Parameters
Co lumn
Carrier
Program
Injector
Separator
Injection Volume
MS Parameters
Instrument
Mass Range
lonization Mode
lonization Potential
Emission Current
Scan time
6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP-1240 LA on 100/120 mesh
Supelcopcrt
He 30 ml/irin
90 to 200 at 8 /min with 16 min
hold
250
Single-stage glass jet at 250
2 ul
Hewlett Packard 5985 A
35-400 amu
Electron impact
70 eV
210 UA
2.4 sec
238
-------
The SP-1240 DA chromatographic phase employed for the analysis of the
phenolic extracts provided superior performance as compared with that
achieved on Tenax GC. The SP-12UO DA phase provided improved separa-
tion, decreased tailing, decreased adsorption of nitrcphenols and
pentachlorophenol, and increased column life. The improved
chromatographic performance of this phase is clearly demonstrated in
Figure D-3.
PESTICIDES AND PCB'S
Pesticides and PCB's were extracted and analyzed as a separate sample.
These compounds were analyzed by gas chromatograph with electron
capture detection (GC/ECD). Only when the compounds were present at
high levels were the samples subjected to GC/MS confirmation.
GC/ECD detection limits vary with the degree of chlorination, but
range from one-half part per billicn for PCE's to 50 parts per
trillion for the chlorinated pesticides, while the GC/MS detection
limits are in the mid- to low-ppb range. The pesticides and PCE's
reported below 2 ppb have been confirmed on two columns using GC/ECD
but not by GC/MS. Table D-7 presents the GC/ECD parameters employed
for the analysis of pesticides and PCB's.
The procedure used for the analysis of pesticides and FCB's was a
modification of the procedure from the Federal Register. Figure D-4
provides a flow chart indicating the step-by-step procedure employed.
The major difference between the procedure used and the Federal
Register procedure is the substitution of silica gel clean-up for the
Flcrisil clean-up procedure. Sufficient quality control was run on
standard solutions in order to determine the proper eluticn volume for
the individual pesticides.
The compounds of this category are listed in Table D-8. A
chromatogram of selected representative compounds is provided in
Figure D-5.
METALS
The metals analysis was performed by atomic absorption speotroscopy.
The metals analyzed consisted of the following:
Beryllium Silver
Cadmium Arsenic
Chromium Ant imony
Copper Selenium
Nickel Thallium
Lead Mercury
Zinc
239
-------
FLOW CHART FOR PESTICIDES AND RGB'S
Sample Received
Adjust pH
Measure Volume
Serial
Solvent Extraction
Concentration
Silica Gel
Separation
i
Fraction I Fraction II Fraction III
Containing Containing Containing
PCB TOX, Chlordane, DDT Cyclodienes
1
Concentration! Concentration Concentration
i
GC/ECD GC/ECD GC/ECD
Column I Column I Column I
1
GC/ECD GCMS GC/ECD GCMS GCMS _. GC/ECD
Column II Conf. Column II Conf. Conf. Column II
i
i
' ' I
i i 1
Quantisation — J Quantitation — — J *— Quantisation
i
Tabulation
Report •
Figure D-4.
240
-------
Q
GC
CO
Q
UJ
X
UJ
o
o
CO
UJ
Q.
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
4,4 - DDT
4,4 • ODD
» O
- 00
in
I
O
241
-------
Table D-7, GC/BCD Parameters for Pesticide and PCE Analysis
Instrument
Column
Carrier
Program
Hewlett Packard 473 9A
Radiofrequency Pulsed 63Ni ECD
6 ft x 2 mm i.d. glass
1.5X OV-17/1.95% QF-1
Confirmation 6% SF-30/4% CV210
On Supelcoport 80/100
5% methane/Argon
50 ml/min
200 C isotheriral
212
-------
Table D-8. Pesticides and PCB's
-endosulfan
-BHC
-BHC
-BHC
-BHC
aldrin
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
-endosulfan
dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
endrin
endrin aldehyde
endosulfan sulfate
-BHC
chlordane
toxaphene
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
243
-------
Excluding the Hg analysis, all samples were worked up with three
successive digestions with concentrated nitric acid. Samples were
screened by flame for all metals except Hg. Samples with levels below
the flame detection limit were re-analyzed by graphite furnace. A
separate portion of the sample was worked up for the Hg analysis by
the cold vapor technique. The analyses for Be, 11, Se, Sb, and Ag
were not Table D-7. GC/ECD Parameters for Pesticide and PCB Analysis
performed on the verification samples since the screening data showed
no significant levels of these metals.
The metals analysis was characterized at times by severe matrix
problems. The method of standard additions was normally adequate to
compensate for these interferences; however, some analyses such as for
Se, As, and Hg required extensive dilution.
TRADITIONAL OR CLASSICAL PARAMETERS
The traditional parameters investigated included:
BOD
COD
TSS
Oil and Grease
Total Phenol
Total Cyanide
All of these parameters were analyzed by standard methods.
The colormetric method for cyanide entailed the steam distillation of
cyanide from strongly acidic solution. The hydrogen cyanide gas was
absorbed in a solution of sodium hydroxide, and the color was
developed with addition of pyridine-barbituric acid reagent.
244
-------
APPENDIX E
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) By
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion
acre
acre-feet
British Thermal
Unit
British Thermal
Unit/ pound
cubic feet
per minute
cubic feet
per second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Farenheit
feet
gallon
gallon per
minute
pounds per
square inch
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cf s
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
F
ft
gal
gpm
psi
* Actual conversion, not a
0.105
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555( F-32) *
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.06803
multiplier
To Obtain (Metric Units)
Abbreviation Metric Unit
ha hectares
cu m cubic meters
kg cal kilogram-
calories
kg cal/kg kilogram
calories
per kilo-
gram.
cu m/min cubic meters
per minute
cu m/min cubic meters
per minute
cu m cubic meters
1 liters
cu cm cubic centi-
meters
C degree
Centigrade
m meters
1 liter
I/sec liters per
seccnd
atm atmospheres
(absolute)
245
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) Ey To Obtain (Metric Units)
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
gallon per ton
horsepower
inches
trillion gallons
per day
pounds per square
inch (gauge)
pounds
board feet
ton
mile
square feet
gal/ton
hp
in
MGD
psi
Ib
b.f.
ton
mi
ft2
* Actual conversion^ not a
a. 173
0.7457
2.54
3.7 x 10-3
(0.06805 psi +1)*
0.454
0.0023
0.907
1.609
0.0929
multiplier.
1/kkg
kw
cm
cu m/day
atm
kg
cu m, m3
kkg
km
m2
liters per
metric ton
kilowatts
centimeters
cubic ireters
per day
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters
metric ton
kilometer
square meters
J.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE- 1979 O— 307-176/6665
246
-------
|