&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Wasnington, DC 20460
EPA 440/1-80/084-a
June 1980
Water and Waste Management
Contractor's Engineering
Report for the Development of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Point Source Category
-------
CONTRACTOR'S ENGINEERING REPORT
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Prepared for:
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Paul D. Fahrenthold
Chief, Organic Chemicals Branch
Joseph Vitalis
Project Officer
Prepared by:
Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corp.
Paramus, New Jersey
Under Contract to:
Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana
June 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
II INTRODUCTION II-1
Purpose and Authority II-1
Prior EPA Regulations II-3
Overview of the Industry II-3
Industry Definition II-3
Industry Data Base II-5
Industry Profile II-8
Production Processes II-9
III WASTE CHARACTERIZATION III-1
Introduction III-1
308 Portfolio Survey III-1
PEDCo Reports III-2
RTP Study III-3
Wastewater Sampling Programs III-4
Screening Program III-4
.Verification Program III-8
Screening/Verification Results 111-10
Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Characteristics 111-10
Traditional Pollutant Raw Waste Characteristics 111-12
Wastewater Plow Characteristics 111-14
IV SUBCATEGORIZATION IV-1
Introduction IV-1
Previous Subcategorization IV-1
Future Subcategorization IV-2
V SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS V-1
Introduction V-1
Priority Pollutants V-1
Traditional Pollutants V-2
Characteristics of Significant Pollutants V-2
VI CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY VI-1
Introduction VI-1
In-Plant Source Controls VI-1
In-Plant Treatment Vl-2
Cyanide Destruction Technologies VI-3
Metals Removal Technologies VI-6
Solvent Recovery Technologies VI-12
End-of-Pipe Treatment VI-13
Biological Treatment VI-13
Filtration VI-18
Ultimate Disposal VI-20
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Title Page
COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS VI1-1
Introduction VII-1
Cost Development VII-1
In-Plant Treatment Costs VII-2
Cyanide Destruction VII-3
Chromium Reduction VII-3
Metal Precipitation VII-4
Steam Stripping VII-4
End-of-Pipe Treatment Costs VII-4
Biological Enhancement VII-5
Biological Enhancement and Filtration VII-6
Cost Sensitivities- RBC's VII-6
Effectiveness of Technology Options VII-7
BCT Cost Test VII-9
Non-Water Quality Aspects VII-9
Solid Wastes VII-9
Air Pollution VII-10
BAT VII1-1
BCT ' IX-1
NSPS X-1
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS XI-1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XI1-1
BIBLIOGRAPHY XIII-1
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS XIV-1
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
APPENDICES:
A 308 Portfolio for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
B Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plants in the
Original 308 Data Base
C Supplemental 308 Portfolio for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Industry
D Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Plants in the
Supplemental 308 Data Base
E General Plant Information
F Screening/Verification Priority and Traditional
Pollutant Data
G 308 Portfolio Priority Pollutant Data
H 308 Portfolio Traditional Pollutant Data
I 308 Portfolio Wastewater Flow Data
J Wastewater Treatment Systems
K Long Term Data Summaries
L Wastewater Discharge Methods
M Capital Cost Indices
Section
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
TABLES
Number Title Pa^e.
II-1 Summary of 308 Portfolio Mailing 11-20
11-2 Geographical Distribution 11-21
II-3 Subcategory Breakdown 11-23
II-4 Production Operation Breakdown 11-24
III-1 List of EPA-Designated Priority Pollutants 111-16
III-2 Summary of Priority Pollutant Information: 111-17
308 Portfolio Data
III-3 Summary of Priority Pollutant Information: 111-20
PEDCo Reports
III-4 Compilation of Data Submitted by the PMA from 111-21
26 Manufacturers of Ethical Drugs: RTF Study
III-5 Summary of Volatile Organic Compound Emission 111-23
Data: RTP Study
III-6 Characteristics of the 26 Plants Selected for 111-24
Screening
III-7 Comparison of Screening Plants Versus Total 111-25
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Population
III-8 Characteristics of the 5 Plants Selected for 111-26
Verification
III-9 Summary of Priority Pollutant Information: 111-27
Screening/Verification Data
111-10 Summary of Major Priority Pollutants Identified 111-28
from Multiple Sources of Information
111-11 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Load 111-29
Concentrations (ug/1): Screening/Verification Data
111-12 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Load 111-30
Concentrations (ug/1): 308 Portfolio Data
111-13 Comparison of Major Priority Pollutant Raw Waste 111-31
Load Concentrations (ug/1): 308 Portfolio Versus
Screening/Verification Data
111-14 Comparison of Major Priority Pollutant Raw Waste 111-32
Load Concentrations (ug/1) by Subcategory:
Screening/Verification Data
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
TABLES
Number Title Page
111-15 Analysis of Traditional Pollutant Raw Waste Load 111-33
Concentrations (mg/1): Screening/Verification Data
111-16 Analysis of Traditional Pollutant Raw Waste Load 111-34
Concentrations (mg/1): 308 Portfolio Data
111-17 Comparison of Traditional Pollutant Raw Waste Load 111-35
Concentrations (mg/1): Screening/Verification Versus
308 Portfolio Data
111-18 Analysis of Wastewater Flow Characteristics 111-36
V-1 Summary of Significant Pollutant Parameters V-7
VI-1 Summary of In-Plant Treatment Processes VI-29
VI-2 Summary of End-of-Pipe Treatment Processes VI-30
VI-3 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Effluent VI-31
Concentrations (ug/1) From Single-stage Biological
Treatment: Screening/Verification Data
VI-4 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Effluent VI-32
Concentrations (ug/1) From Multi-Stage Biological
Treatment: Screening/Verification Data
Vl-5 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Effluent VI-33
Concentratons (ug/1) from Biological Treatment
Achieving Greater Than 95 Percent BOD Removal:
Screening/Verification Data
Vl-6 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Effluent VI-34
Concentrations (ug/1) From All Biological Treatment:
Screening/Verification Data
VI-7 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Effluent VI-35
Concentrations (ug/1) From All Biological Treatment:
308 Portfolio Data
VI-8 Comparison of Major Priority Pollutant Effluent VI-36
Concentrations (ug/1) From All Biological Treatment:
308 Portfolio Versus Screening/Verification Data
VI-9 Analysis of Traditional Pollutant Effluent VI-37
Concentrations (mg/1) From All Biological Treatment:
Screening/Verification Data
VI-10 Analysis of Traditional Pollutant Effluent VI-38
Concentrations (mg/1) From All Biological Treatment:
308 Portfolio Data
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
TABLES
Number Title Pa9e
Vl-11 Comparison of Traditional Pollutant Effluent VI-39
Concentrations (mg/1) Prom All Biological Treatment:
Screening/Verification Versus 308 Portfolio Data
VI-12 Analysis of Traditional Pollutant Effluent VI-40
Concentrations (mg/1) From Biological Treatment
Achieving Greater Than 95 Percent BOD Removal: Long Term
Data
VI-13 Analysis of Major Priority Pollutant Effluent VI-41
Concentrations (ug/1) From Biological Treatment
Achieving Less Than 50 mg/1 BOD Effluent:
Screening/Verification Data
VI-14 Analysis of Traditional Pollutant Effluent VI-42
Concentrations (mg/1) From Enhanced Biological
Treatment Achieving Less Than 39 mg/1 BOD Effluent:
Long Term Data
VI-15 Summary of Wastewater Discharges VI-43
VII-1 Raw Waste Loads for Subcategory Model Plants: VII-15
Traditional Pollutants
VII-2 Total Industry Raw Waste Loads for the 13 Priority VII-16
Pollutants of Concern
VII-3 Cyanide Destruction: Equipment Cost Bases and VII-17
Energy Requirements
VII-4 Cyanide Destruction: Capital Costs VII-18
VII-5 Cyanide Destruction: Total Annual Costs VII-19
VII-6 Chromium Reduction: Equipment Cost Bases and VII-20
Energy Requirements
VII-7 Chromium Reduction: Capital Costs VII-21
VII-8 Chromium Reduction: Total Annual Costs VII-22
VII-9 Metal Precipitation: Equipment Cost Bases and VII-23
Energy Requirements
VII-10 Metal Precipitation: Capital Costs VII-24
VII-11 Metal Precipitation: Total Annual Costs VII-25
VII-12 Steam Stripping: Cost Data VII-26
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
TABLES
Number Title Page
VII-13 Existing BPT Effluent Limitations for the VII-27
Subcategory Model Plants
VII-14 Activated Sludge System: Equipment Cost Bases VII-28
and Energy Requirements
VII-15 Activated Sludge System: Capital Costs VII-29
VII-16 Activated Sludge System: Total Annual Costs VII-30
VII-17 Rotating Biological Contactor System: VII-31
Equipment Cost Bases and Energy Requirements
VII-18 Rotating Biological Contactor System: VII-32
Capital and Total Annual Costs
VII-19 Polishing Pond: Cost Bases VII-33
VII-20 Polishing Pond: Capital and Total Annual Costs VII-34
VII-21 Activated Sludge System with Filtration: VII-35
Equipment Cost Bases and Energy Requirements
VII-22 Activated Sludge System with Filtration: VII-36
Capital Costs
VII-23 Activated Sludge System with Filtration: VII-37
Total Annual Costs
VII-24 Rotating Biological Contactor System with VII-38
Filtration: Equipment Cost Bases and Energy
Requirements
VII-25 Rotating Biological Contactor System with VII-39
Filtration: Capital and Total Annual Costs
VII-26 Summary of Treatment Technology Costs VII-40
VII-27 Pharmaceutical Industry: Fermentation Processing VII-41
Subcategory (A): Technology Options
VII-28 Pharmaceutical Industry: Biological Extraction VII-42
Subcategory (B): Technology Options
VII-29 Pharmaceutical Industry: Chemical Synthesis VII-43
Subcategory (C): Technology Options
VII-30 Pharmaceutical Industry: Formulation Subcategory VII-44
(D): Technology Options
VII-31 BCT Cost Test VII-45
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
FIGURES
Number Title page
1-1 Summary of the Overall Technical Effort 1-2
II-1 Geographical Distribution 11-19
VI-1 Cyanide Destruction System - Chlorination VI-21
VI-2 Cyanide Destruction System - Alkaline VI-22
Pyrolysis
VI-3 Chromium Reduction System VI-23
VI-4 Metals Removal System-Alkaline Precipitation VI-24
VI-5 Activated Carbon Adsorption Unit VI-25
VI-6 Steam Stripping Unit VI-26
VI-7 Examples of Biological Enhancement Systems VI-21
VI-8 Filtration Units VI-28
VII-1 RBC System Cost Sensitivity - Effect of Flow Rate VII-11
VII-2 RBC System Cost Sensitivity - Effect of
Influent BOD Level VII-12
VII-3 RBC System Cost Sensitivity - Effect of Target
Effluent BOD VII-13
VII-4 RBC Equipment Cost vs. Disc Surface Area VII-14
Vlll
-------
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document presents the technical data base to support
effluent limitations guidelines for the pharmaceutical manufac-
turing point source category. The technologies to achieve these
limitations are defined as best available technology economically
achievable (BAT), best conventional pollutant control technology
(BCT), and best available demonstrated technology (BADT). Sections
III through VII of this document describe in detail the technical
data and engineering analyses used to develop these technology
options for the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. A chart
summarizing the overall technical effort is presented in Figure
1-1.
The rationales by which the Agency selected the technology
options for each of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines
are presented in Sections VIII through XI. Effluent limitations
guidelines based on the application of BAT and BCT are to be
achieved by direct dischargers by July 1, 1984. New source perfor-
mance standards (NSPS), based on BADT, are to be achieved by new
facilities. Pretreatment standards for both existing sources
(PSES) and new sources (PSNS), based on the application of BAT for
those pollutants which are incompatible with or not susceptible to
treatment in a POTW, are to be achieved by indirect dischargers.
These effluent limitations guidelines and standards are required by
Sections 301, 304, and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L.
95-217).
[Note: The technical content of this report was prepared by Burns
and Roe Industrial Services Corp. (BRISC) under contract to
EPA. This revised issue was completed by BRISC under sub-
contract to Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc. who contri-
buted limited technical input and some editorial comments.]
[Note: The remaining text, discussing the proposal of specific
effluent limitations, is reserved for EPA.]
** In this report ug is equivalent to jug **
1-1
-------
FIGURE 1-1
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF THE OVERALL TECHNICAL EFFORT
Industry
Profiles
308 Portfolio
Program
Raw Data
Compilation
Wastewater
Characterization
Preliminary
Evaluation
Treatment
Technologies
1
Screening
Program
Verification
Program
Long
Data P
Tech
Term Cos
rogram Deve
ts
lopment
nical
Analysis
Summary of
Costs and Benefits
Selection of
Technology
Options
1-2
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters," Section 101(a). By July 1, 1977, existing industrial
dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limitations requir-
ing the application of the best practicable control technology
currently available" ("BPT"), Section 301(b)(1)(A); and by July 1,
1983, these dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limit-
ations requiring the application of the best available technology
economically achievable .... which will result in reasonable
further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants" ("BAT"), Section 301(b)(2)(A). New
industrial direct dischargers were required to comply with Section
306 new source performance standards ("NSPS"), based on best
available demonstrated technology; and new and existing dischargers
to publicly owned treatment works ("POTW's") were subject to
pretreatment standards under Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act.
While the requirements for direct dischargers were to be incorpor-
ated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits issued under Section 402 of the Act, pretreatment standards
were made enforceable directly against dischargers to POTW's
(indirect dischargers).
Although section 402(a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the
setting of requirements for direct dischargers on a case-by-case
basis, Congress intended that, for the most part, control require-
ments would be based on regulations promulgated by the Adminis-
trator of EPA. Section 304(b) of the Act required the
Administrator to promulgate regulatory guidelines for effluent
limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able through the application of BPT and BAT. Moreover, Sections
304(c) and 306 of the Act required promulgation of regulations for
NSPS, and Sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c) required promulgation
of regulations for pretreatment standards. In addition to these
regulations for designated industry categories, Section 307(a) of
the Act required the Administrator to promulgate effluent standards
applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollutants. Finally,
Section 501(a) of the Act authorized the Administrator to prescribe
any additional regulations "necessary to carry out his functions"
under the Act.
The EPA was unable to promulgate many of these regulations by
the dates contained in the Act. In 1976, EPA was sued by several
environmental groups, and in settlement of this lawsuit,
-------
EPA and the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement Agreement," which was
approved by the Court. This agreement required EPA to develop a
program and adhere to a schedule for promulgating, for 21 major
industries, BAT effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment stan-
dards, and new source performance standards for 65 "priority"
pollutants and classes of pollutants. See Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified
March 9, 1979 (40)
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean
Water Act of 1977. Although this law makes several important
changes in the federal water pollution control program, its most
significant feature is its incorporation into the Act of several of
the basic elements of the Settlement Agreement program for toxic
pollution control. Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 301(b)(2)(C) of the
Act now require the achievement by July 1, 1984, of effluent limi-
tations requiring application of BAT for "toxic" pollutants,
including the 65 "priority" pollutants and classes of pollutants
which Congress declared "toxic" under Section 307(a) of the Act.
Likewise, EPA's programs for new source performance standards and
pretreatment standards are now aimed principally at toxic pollutant
controls. Moreover, to strengthen the toxics control program,
Congress added Section 304(e) to the Act, authorizing the Adminis-
trator to prescribe "best management practices" ("BMP's") to pre-
vent the release of toxic and hazardous pollutants from plant site
runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage
from raw material storage associated with, or ancillary to, the
manufacturing or treatment process.
In keeping with its emphasis on toxic pollutants, the Clean
Water Act of 1977 also revised the control program for non-toxic
pollutants. Instead of BAT for "conventional" pollutants identi-
fied under Section 304(a)(4) (including biological oxygen demand,
suspended solids, fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH), the new
Section 301(b)(2)(E) requires achievement by July 1, 1984, of
"effluent limitations requiring the application of the best conven-
tional pollutant control technology" ("BCT"). The factors con-
sidered in assessing BCT for an industry include the costs of
attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction bene-
fits derived compared to the costs and effluent reduction benefits
from the discharge of publicly owned treatment works (Section
304(b)(4)(B)). For nontoxic, nonconventional pollutants, Sections
301(b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(F) require achievement of BAT effluent
limitations within three years after their establishment or July 1,
1984, whichever is later, but not later than July 1, 1987.
This document presents the technical basis for the Agency's
proposed effluent limitations, reflecting the application of BAT,
BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for the pharmaceutical manufacturing
point source category.
II-2
-------
PRIOR EPA REGULATIONS
On November 17, 1976 the EPA promulgated interim final BPT
regulations for the pharmaceutical manufacturing point source cate-
gory in the Federal Register; 41 CFR 50676, Subparts A-E (27). The
technical basis for these regulations was provided in a report, EPA
440/1-75/060, published in December 1976. This report is hence-
forth referred to as the 1976 Development Document (55).
OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRY
The following discussions present a general summary of the
pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, including: 1) facilities
covered by this study; 2) sources of information used; 3) various
profiles of the industry; and 4) descriptions of the types of pro-
duction processes.
Industry Definition
The Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category is
defined as those manufacturing plants covered by the following
products, processes, and activities:
1. Biological products covered by Standard Industrial
Classification Code No. 2831.
2. Medicinal chemicals and botanical products covered by
SIC Code No. 2833.
3. Pharmaceutical products covered by SIC Code No. 2834.
4. All fermentation, biological and natural extraction,
chemical synthesis, and formulation products which are con-
sidered as pharmaceutically active ingredients by the Food and Drug
Administration, but which are not covered by SIC Code Nos. 2831,
2833, or 2834. As a possible addition, certain products of these
types which are not regarded as pharmaceutically active ingredients
may be included if they are manufactured by processes and result in
wastewaters which closely correspond to those of a pharmaceutical
product. Examples of compounds which fall into this situation are
citric acid, benzoic acid, gluconic acid, fumaric acid and
caffeine.
5. Cosmetic preparations covered by SIC Code No. 2844
which function as a skin treatment. This would exclude products
such as lipsticks, eyeshadows, mascaras, rouges, perfumes and
colognes, which serve to enhance appearance or to provide a
pleasing odor, but do not provide skin care. In general, this
would also exclude deodorants, manicure preparations, and shaving
preparations which do not primarily function as a skin treatment.
6. The portion of a product with multiple end uses which
is attributable to pharmaceutical manufacturing either as a final
II-3
-------
pharmaceutical product, component of a pharmaceutical formulation
or a pharmaceutical intermediate. As an alternate, products with
pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical end uses may be entirely
covered by this point source category.
7. Pharmaceutical research which includes biological,
microbiological, and chemical research, product development,
clinical and pilot plant activities. This includes animal farms
at which pharmaceutical research is conducted or at which phar-
maceutically active ingredients are tested on the farm animals.
This does not include farms which breed, raise and/or hold animals
for research at another site and at which no research or product
testing takes place. This also does not include ordinary feedlot
or farm operations using feed which contains pharmaceutically
active ingredients, since the wastewater generated from these
operations is probably of a non-pharmaceutical nature.
The following products or activities are specifically
excluded from the pharmaceutical manufacturing category:
1 . Surgical and medical instruments and apparatus covered
by SIC Code No. 3841.
2. Orthopedic, prosthetic, and surgical appliances and
supplies covered by SIC Code No. 3842.
3. Dental equipment and supplies covered by SIC Code No.
3843.
4. Medical laboratories covered by SIC Code No. 8071.
5. Dental laboratories covered by SIC Code No. 8072.
6. Outpatient care facilities covered by SIC Code No.
8081.
7. Health and allied services, not elsewhere classified,
covered by SIC Code No. 8091.
8. Diagnostic devices not covered by SIC Code No. 3841.
9. Animal feeds which include pharmaceutically active
ingredients such as vitamins and antibiotics. The major portion of
the product is non-pharmaceutical, and thus the wastewater which
results from the manufacture of feed is probably of a non-
pharmaceutical nature.
10. Foods and beverages which are fortified with vitamins
or other pharmaceutically active ingredients. The major portion of
the product is non-pharmaceutical, and thus the wastewater which
results from the manufacture of these products is probably of a
ron-pharmaceutical nature.
II-4
-------
Under the regulation established for Best Practicable Con-
trol Technology Currently Available (BPT), the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Point Source Category was grouped into five product
or activity areas. This subcategorization was based on distinct
differences in manufacturing processes, raw materials, products,
and wastewater characteristics and treatability. The five sub-
categories that were selected are:
1. Subcategory A - Fermentation Products
2. Subcategory B - Biological and Natural Extraction
Products
3. Subcategory C - Chemical Synthesis Products
4. Subcategory D - Formulation Products
5. Subcategory E - Pharmaceutical Research
Industry Data Base
EPA used three basic sources in acquiring data to support new
regulations for the pharmaceutical manufacturing point source
category. These sources include:
1. Data acquired from the industry under Section 308 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL92-500)
and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL95-217). This approach included
first, the distribution of 308 Portfolios to a representative
sample of the industry population and second, wastewater sampling
of candidate plants which were selected in accordance with certain
criteria, as discussed in Section III.
2. Information acquired through an open literature search.
A major portion of this effort has been performed by The Research
Corporation of New England (TRC). Some of the important literature
sources were: documents prepared by the Pharmaceutical Manu-
facturers Association (PMA); the Executive Directory of U.S.
Pharmaceutical Industry, Third Edition, Chemical Economics
Services, Princeton, New Jersey; (51) and the Directory of_ Chemical
Producers - U.S.A., Medicinals, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo
Park, California. (50).
3. Data acquired from EPA regional offices, state and other
government offices, and pharmaceutical plant visits.
308 Portfolio for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
The objectives of the 308 Portfolio for Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing were as follows:
1. To obtain information for the construction of a compre-
hensive industry profile.
2. To obtain information on production, wastewater gen-
eration, and wastewater treatment at existing facilities to
expand the data base for guidelines development.
II-5
-------
3. To ascertain industry-specific problems which need to be
considered in guidelines development.
4. To develop a list of candidate plants for priority
pollutant sampling.
The 308 request was also used in part as a device to obtain
input from the industry as to information that they felt would be
important in this effort, and as a means to develop individual
plant contacts to lay the foundations for future work.
The 308 Portfolio for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, pre-
sented in Appendix A, was developed by EPA and Burns and Roe
Industrial Service Corp. (BRISC) in cooperation with the PMA
Environmental Task Force during the spring and summer of 1977.
During the same period, a distribution mailing list was formulated.
Since EPA was concerned about obtaining quality responses from
pharmaceutical firms, the 308 Portfolios initially were sent only
to PMA member firms and to nonmember plants included in previous
EPA guidelines work. This decision was based on the following
reasons:
1. PMA members probably had the resources to provide
quality responses to the 308 Portfolio.
2. Development and distribution of the 308 Portfolio could
in part be assisted and coordinated by the PMA.
3. Many of the essential contacts had already been estab-
lished with the PMA.
4. The Agency felt that the 308 Portfolio need cover only
a statistically representative sample of pharmaceutical plants in
the United States. The PMA has members which range from small one-
plant firms to firms with as many as 25 plants or firms with
several large pharmaceutical manufacturing operations. The PMA
members are principally manufacturers of prescription Pharma-
ceuticals, medical devices and diagnostics. However, PMA member
firms also produce a significant portion of the over-the-counter
drugs on the market. These members account for approximately 90 to
95 percent of the U.S. sales of prescription products and about 50
percent of the total free world's output. These figures include
only ethical Pharmaceuticals and do not include over-the-counter
drugs or proprietary Pharmaceuticals (51). For the purposes of the
308 Portfolio the PMA member firms were judged to provide a sta-
tistically representative distribution.
The PMA List of Administrative Officers of the Member Firms
and Associates, October 1976 Edition, which contains 130 member
firms, was used as a basis for the mailing list. Many of the 130
members are subsidiaries or divisions of common member or non-
II-6
-------
member parent firms. Table II-1 summarizes the original 308
Portfolio distribution and response. Of the 442 portfolios that
were mailed, a total of 431 were returned. One hundred-five of
these were from non-pharmaceutical/non-manufacturing plants, while
another 50 were duplicates of plants already covered. Also, for
the purpose of this study, EPA decided to de-emphasize phar-
maceutical research (Subcategory E), since this activity does not
fall within the SIC Code Nos. 2831, 2833, and 2834, which were
identified in the Consent Decree. Therefore, the 32 plants that
had only Subcategory E operations were also segregated from the
survey. Thus, a total of 244 pharmaceutical manufacturing plants
are presently included in the (original) 308 data base. They are
listed in Appendix B.
Supplemental 308 Portfolio
Since August 1977, EPA has identified more than 500 addi-
tional facilities that may be part of this industry. The open
literature file developed by TRC identified a total of 990 phar-
maceutical sites in the United States. The data file was reviewed
by BRISC and PEDCo, an EPA contractor with process design and
construction experience in the pharmaceutical industry. This led
to a revised listing of more than 500 plant sites of approximately
400 companies which were not included in the original 308 Portfolio
distribution, but which are possible producers of pharmaceutical
active ingredients.
Although EPA knew that this segment of the industry
(principally comprised of non-PMA member companies) accounts for
only a small fraction of sales (5-10 percent), the total wastewater
volume was unknown. The Agency also expected that these plants are
small producers, upon which BAT regulations could have a major
impact. In an effort to define the entire pharmaceutical
population, obtain a more complete profile of the industry, and
confirm the assertion that the PMA member firms included in the
initial survey do indeed statistically represent the industry, a
Supplemental 308 Portfolio for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing was
developed during the fall of 1978. This survey, presented in
Appendix C, is an abbreviated form of the original 308 Portfolio,
and was distributed to 540 possible pharmaceutical sites in April
1979. Table II-1 presents a summary of the Supplemental 308
Portfolio distribution program. Of the 540 supplemental
portfolios, 355 were returned. After accounting for the 128
non-pharmaceutical/non-manufacturing plants, 4 duplicate
portfolios, and 3 Subcategory E only plants, 220 plants were iden-
tified as pharmaceutical manufacturers. They are listed in
Appendix D.
The end result of the two questionnaire mailings was a
comprehensive pharmaceutical industry data base containing 464
manufacturing plants. Throughout later sections of this report the
discussions refer to 308 Portfolio data. Where this occurs, the
II-7
-------
text and tables are referring to the comprehensive data base of 464
plants.
Industry Profile
The objective of the 308 Portfolios was to obtain infor-
mation from pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities and develop an
industry profile, including plant size, age, location, and produc-
tion activities. Appendix E lists each of the 464 manufacturing
plants contained in the comprehensive EPA data base by plant code
number (assigned for identification purposes), applicable manufac-
turing subcategories, manufacturing employment, and year of opera-
tional start-up. Plants with code numbers in the 12000 series are
from the original 308 Portfolio survey, while those with 20000
series numbers are from the Supplemental 308 Portfolio survey.
Table II-2 shows the geographical distribution of the industry and
the number of manufacturing plants by state and EPA region. Also
shown are the average number of manufacturing employees per plant
and average plant start-up year. (In some instances the data were
not broken down by state to avoid the possibility of disclosing
individual plant data). The geographical distribution of the
industry is also displayed in Figure II-1.
As can be seen in Table II-2, most of the pharmaceutical
industry is located in the eastern half of the United States. Of
the 464 manufacturing plants in the comprehensive data base, almost
80 percent are in the East. A closer examination shows that New
Jersey, with about 16 percent, and Region II, with approximately 36
percent, are the largest pharmaceutical manufacturing state and EPA
region, respectively. Considering plant age, the data show that
Regions II, III, V, and VII (the Northeast and Midwest) have
generally older plants than Regions IV, VI, VIII, and IX (the South
and West). This is due to the recent trend to locate plants in the
"Sunbelt" of the United States. An important point is that Puerto
Rico has close to 10 percent of the industry. Data from the 308
Portfolio survey support other available information that indicates
that Puerto Rico is becoming a major pharmaceutical manufacturing
center.
Table II-3 breaks down the industry by manufacturing
subcategory- The top portion lists the various subcategory com-
binations and the number of plants in each, whereas the bottom por-
tion shows the total number of plants having each of the individual
manufacturing subcategories. Subcategory D, the formulating/mixing/
compounding subcategory, is by far the most numerically prevalent
pharmaceutical manufacturing operation with 80 percent of the
industry engaged in this activity. Breaking this down further, it
can be seen that most of the plants have operations in only
Subcategory D, while the remainder also have Subcategory A, B,
and/or C operations in addition to Subcategory D.
Table II-4 summarizes the total number of batch, continuous,
and semi-continuous manufacturing operations by subcategory for the
II-8
-------
entire pharmaceutical industry. This information shows that batch-
type production is by far the most common type of manufacturing
technique for each of the four subcategories.
Production Processes
The wastewater characteristics of this industry are directly
related to the production processes used. Therefore, a review of
the pharmaceutical operations will be informative in evaluating
alternatives for effluent limitations. The following discussions
present this information by the production subcategories developed
for the BPT guidelines.
Fermentation
Fermentation is an important production process in pharma-
ceutical manufacturing. This is the basic method used for pro-
ducing most antibiotics and steroids. The fermentation process
involves three basic steps: inoculum and seed preparation, fermen-
tation, and product recovery.
Production of a fermentation pharmaceutical begins with
spores from the plant master stock. The spores are activated with
water, nutrients and warmth, and then propagated through the use of
agar plates, test tubes, and flasks until enough mass is produced
for transfer to the seed tank. In less critical fermentations, a
single seed tank may serve several fermenters. In these
instances, the seed tank may be sterilized and inoculated only when
contamination occurs. In this type of operation, the seed tank may
never be completely emptied, such that the seed remaining serves as
the inoculum for the next seed batch.
Fermentation normally is a batch process, although most large
operations are highly automated requiring few operators. At the
end of each batch cycle, the broth is discharged, and the fermenter
is washed down with water and sterilized with live steam. Raw
materials, which have also been sterilized, are then charged into
the vessel. When optimum conditions are met, the microorganisms in
the seed tank are then charged into the fermenter, and fermentation
begins.
The discharging of a batch constitutes the most significant
waste stream from this process, and is normally referred to as
spent beers. Spent beers contain a large amount of organic
material, protein, and other nutrients. In fungi processes, the
broth is filtered to remove the mycelia (remains of the micro-
organisms) before product recovery. The mycelia is a solid waste
material which is almost one-third protein. After a fermentation
cycle from 12 hours to one week, depending on the process, the
broth is ready to be filtered and held for product recovery. There
are three common methods of product recovery: solvent extraction,
direct precipitation, and ion exchange or adsorption.
II-9
-------
Solvent extraction is a recovery process whereby an organic
solvent is used to remove the pharmaceutical product from the
aqueous broth and form a more concentrated, smaller volume solu-
tion. Also, by virtue of its removal from the fermentation beers,
with subsequent extractions, the product is separated from any con-
taminants. Following the solvent extraction step, further removal
of the product from the solvent can be by either precipitation,
distillation, or further extraction processes. Normally, solvents
used for product recovery are recovered and reused. However, small
portions left in the aqueous phase during the solvent "cut" can
appear in the plant's wastewater stream. From the published
literature (42), the typical processing solvents used in fermen-
tation operations were identified as: benzene; chloroform; 1,1
dichloroethylene; and 1,2 trans-dichloroethylene.
Direct precipitation consists of first precipitating the pro-
duct from the aqueous broth, filtering the broth, then extracting
the product from the solid residues. Particular priority pollu-
tants identified by the literature (42) and known to be used in the
precipitation process are copper and zinc.
Ion exchange or adsorption involves the removal of the pro-
duct from the broth using a solid material, either ion exchange
resin, adsorptive resin or activated carbon. The product is reco-
vered from the solid phase with the use of a solvent and then reco-
vered from the solvent.
Disinfectants used to clean fermentation equipment can
contribute to the pollutant load from fermentation processes.
Although steam is used to sterilize most equipment, many instru-
ments cannot withstand these high temperatures. Although there is
no published information indicating the disinfecting agents that
are used, a number of priority pollutants, such as phenol, can be
used for this purpose.
Sometimes a fermentation batch can become infested with a
phage, a virus that attacks microorganisms. Although phage
infestations are rare in a well-operated plant, when they do occur
they bring about very large wastewater discharges in short periods
of time. Usually these batches are discharged early and may be
higher in nutrient pollutant concentration than spent broth.
Another fermentation wastewater source is the control equip-
ment that is sometimes installed to clean waste fermentation off-
gas. The air and gas vented from the fermenters usually contain
odiferous substances and large quantities of carbon dioxide.
Treatment is often necessary to deodorize the gas before its
release to the atmosphere. Although some plants employ incinera-
tion methods, others use liquid scrubbers. The blowdown from these
scrubbers may contain absorption chemicals, light soluble organic
compounds, and heavier insoluble organic oils and waxes. Waste-
water from this source is unlikely to contain priority pollutants
however. '
11-10
-------
As noted above, the sources of wastewater from fermentation
operations are: (1) spent fermentation beers; (2) floor and
equipment wash waters; (3) chemical wastes, such as spent solvents
from the extraction processes; and (4) barometric condenser
water. Of these, the spent fermentation beer is by far the most
significant waste discharge.
The pollution contribution of the spent beer arises from the
fact that it contains substantial food materials, such as sugars,
starches, protein, nitrogen, phosphate, and other nutrients.
Methods for treating the fermentation wastes are generally biologi-
cal in nature. Although the spent beers, even in a highly con-
centrated form, can be satisfactorily handled by biological
treatment systems, it is much better and less likely to upset the
system if the wastes are first diluted to some degree. Dilution
normally results from the equalization of fermentation wastes with
the other waste streams. As a result, a satisfactory biological
reduction of the contaminants can be achieved.
There was not a great deal of pollutant information for the
fermentation operations in the current 308 pharmaceutical data
base. However, from that which was available, a preliminary analy-
sis could be performed. Generally speaking, wastewaters from fer-
mentation operations are characterized by high BOD, COD, and TSS
concentrations, large flows, and a pH range of about 4.0 to 8.0.
Biological and Natural Extraction
Many materials used as Pharmaceuticals are derived from the
extraction from natural sources. These sources include the roots
and leaves of plants, animal glands, and parasitic fungi, such as
ergot. These products have numerous pharmaceutical applications,
calling for diverse physiological activity, from tranquilizers and
allergy relief medications to insulin and morphine.
Included in this process grouping is blood fractionation,
which involves the production of plasma and its derivatives.
Despite their diversity, all extractive Pharmaceuticals have
a common characteristic. They are too complex to synthesize
commercially. They are either very large molecules, or they are
optically active in which only one of several stereoisomers has
pharmacological value. However, extraction is still an expensive
manufacturing process since it requires the collection and pro-
cessing of very large volumes of specialized plant or animal
matter to produce very small quantities of products.
The process of extracting pharmaceutical substances has been
developed to handle such a low ratio of product weight to raw
material weight. In fact, in comparison with the amount of raw
material brought into an extraction facility, the amount of
product is negligible.
11-11
-------
The extraction process consists of a series of operating
steps in which, following almost every step, a significant reduc-
tion in the volume of material being handled occurs. In some
processes, the reductions may be in orders of magnitude, and the
complex final purification operations may be conducted on quan-
tities of materials only a few thousandths of the material handled
in earlier steps. Therefore, neither continuous processing methods
nor conventional batch methods are suitable for extraction
processing. Instead, a unique processing method has been developed
which can be described as assembly-line small scale batch.
Material is transported in portable containers through the plant in
batches of 75 to 100 gallons. A continuous line of these con-
tainers is sent past a series of operating/ stations. At each
station, operators perform specific tasks on each batch in turn.
As the volume of material being handled decreases, individual
batches are continually combined to maintain reasonable operating
volumes, and the line moves more slowly. When the volume is
reduced to very small quantity, the containers used also become
smaller, with laboratory size equipment used in many cases.
An extractive plant may produce one product for a few weeks,
then simply by changing the logistical movement of pots and rede-
fining the tasks to be conducted at each station, a plant can con-
vert quickly to the manufacture of a different product.
Wastes from an extraction plant will be essentially equal to
the weight of raw material. Solid wastes will represent the
largest pollutant load; however, solvents used in the processing
steps will cause both air and water emissions. When solvents are
used on the assembly line, power ventilation systems are required,
causing atmospheric emissions.
The nature of the products of the pharmaceutical industry
dictates that any manufacturing facility be maintained at a
standard of cleanliness that is higher than most industrial
operations. Most of these plants are cleaned frequently, and
detergents and disinfectants will be a normal constituent in the
wastewater.
As in the fermentation process, a small number of priority
pollutants were identified by the published literature (41), as
being used in the manufacturing of extractive Pharmaceuticals.
Metallic ions, such a lead and zinc, are known to be used as pre-
cipitating chemicals. Phenol was identified as an equipment
sterlizing chemical, as well as an active ingredient. Otherwise,
the literature noted that priority pollutants are found to be used
only as processing solvents. Some which were identified as
solvents were: benzene; 1,2 dichloroethane; and chloroform.
Solvents are used in two ways in extraction operations.
From both plant and animal sources, fats and oils often are removed
which would otherwise contaminate the products. These "defatting"
11-12
-------
extractions use an organic liquid to dissolve the fat while not
dissolving the product material. Solvents are also used to extract
the product itself. Plant alkaloids, when treated with an alkali,
become soluble in selected organic solvents such as benzene,
chloroform, or 1,2 dichloroethane.
Ammonia is used in many extraction operations. It is
necessary to regulate the pH of water solutions from both animal
and plant sources to achieve separation of valuable components from
waste materials. Ammonium salts are used as buffering chemicals
and aqueous or anhydrous ammonia is used as an alkalizing reagent.
The high degree of water solubility of ammonium salts prevents
unwanted precipitation of salt, and ammonia does not react chemi-
cally with animal or plant tissue. Other basic materials, such as
hydroxides and carbonates of alkali metals, do not have these
advantages.
The principal sources of wastewater from biological/natural
extraction operations are: (1) spent raw materals, such as waste
plasma fractions, spent eggs, spent media broth, plant residues,
etc.; (2) floor and equipment washwaters; (3) chemical wastes,
such as spent solvents; and (4) spills.
In general, the bulk of the spent raw materials is col-
lected and sent to an incinerator or landfill. Likewise, the
spent solvents are recovered with the non-recoverable portions
being incinerated or landfilled. However, in both cases, portions
of the subject materials find their way into a plant's waste-
water. Also, floor and equipment washings and spills contribute
to the ordinary waste discharge.
Although pollutant information for the biological/natural
extraction operations in the pharmaceutical data base was minimal,
that which was available lent itself to a preliminary analysis.
Generally, wastewa'.ers from biological/natural extraction processes
are characterized by low BOD, COD and TSS concentrations, small
flows, and pH values of approximately 6.0 to 8.0.
Chemical Synthesis
Most of the compounds used as drugs today are prepared by
chemical synthesis, generally by a batch process. The basic
equipment item is the conventional batch reaction vessel, which
is one of the most standardized equipment designs in industry.
Generally, the vessel is equipped with a motor-driven agita-
tor and an internal baffle and IP made of either stainless steel or
glass-lined carbon steel and contains a carbon steel outer shell
suitable for either cooling water or steam. Vessels of this type
are made in many different sizes, with capacities ranging from 0.02
to 11.0 m or more.
11-13
-------
The basic vessels may be fitted with many different attach-
ments. Baffles usually contain temperature sensors to measure the
temperature of the reactor contents. An entire reactor may be
mounted on load cells to accurately weigh the reactor contents.
Dip tubes are available to introduce reagents into the vessels
below the liquid surface. One of the top nozzles may be fitted
with a floodlight and another with a glass cover to enable an
operator to observe the reactor contents. Agitators may be powered
by two-speed motors or by variable-speed motor drives. Typically,
batch reactors are installed with only the top heads extending
above the operating floor of the plant, thereby providing the
operator with simplified access for loading and cleaning.
With other suitable accessories, these vessels can be used in
many different ways. Solutions can be mixed, boiled, and chilled
in them. By addition of reflux condensation, complete reflux
operations are possible. By application of a vacuum, they can
become vacuum evaporators. Solvent extraction operations can be
conducted in them, and by operating the agitator at slow speed,
they serve as crystallizers.
Synthetic pharmaceutical manufacture consists of using one
or several of these vessels to perform in a step-by-step fashion
the various operations necessary to make the product. Following
a definite recipe, the operator (or increasingly, a programmed
computer) adds reagents, increases or decreases the flow rate of
cooling water, chilled water, or steam, and starts and stops
pumps to transfer the reactor contents into another similar vessel.
At the appropriate steps in the process, solutions are pumped
through filters or centrifuges, or pumped into solvent recovery
headers or into waste sewers.
The vessels, with an assembly of auxiliary equipment, are
usually arranged into independent process units; a large pharma-
ceutical plant may contain many such units. Each unit may be
suitable for the manufacture, or partial manufacture, of many
different pharmaceutical compounds. Only with the highest volume
products is the equipment "dedicated," or modified to be suitable
for only one process.
Each pharmaceutical is usually manufactured in a "campaign"
in which one or more process units is employed for a few weeks or
months to manufacture enough of this compound to satisfy its pro-
jected sales demand. Campaigns are usually tightly scheduled, with
detailed coordination extending from procurement of raw materials
to packaging and labeling of the product. For a variable period of
time, therefore, a process unit actively manufactures a specific
compound. At the end of this campaign, another is scheduled to
follow. The same equipment and operating personnel are used to
make a completely different product, utilizing different raw
materials, executing a different recipe, and creating different
wastes.
11-14
-------
The available literature (43) for this subcategory indicated
that the synthesized Pharmaceuticals industry uses a wide variety
of priority pollutants as reaction and purification solvents.
Water was reported as being used more often than would be expected
in an industry whose products are organic chemicals. However, ben-
zene and toluene were the most widely used organic solvents since
they are stable compounds that do not easily take part in chemical
reactions. Other similar ring-type compounds such as xylene,
cyclohexane, and pyridine were also reported as being used in the
manufacture of synthesized Pharmaceuticals and unw*"ted side
reactions.
Solvents serve several functions in a chemical synthesis.
As noted previously, solvents dissolve gaseous, solid, or viscous
reactants to bring all reactants into close molecular proximity.
They serve to transmit heat to or from the reacting molecules. By
physically separating molecules from each other, they slow down
some reactions that would otherwise take place too rapidly,
resulting in excessive temperature increases and unwanted side
reactions.
Other less obvious characteristics of solvents, however,
have a possible environmental significance. One of these is the
use of a solvent in the control of reaction temperature. It is
common practice in any batch-type synthesis process to select a
solvent whose boiling point is the same as the desired reaction
temperature. Heat is then applied to the reaction mass at a rate
sufficient to keep the mixture continuously boiling. Vapors that
rise from the reaction vessel are condensed, and the liquefied
solvent is allowed to drain back into the reaction vessel. Such
refluxing prevents both overheating and overcooling of the reactor
contents, and in addition can automatically compensate for
variations in the rate of release or absorption of chemical energy.
However, solvent vapor may escape from the reflux condensers,
causing an air pollution problem.
Essentially all production plants will operate solvent
recovery facilities that purify contaminated solvent for reuse.
These facilities usually contain distillation columns and may
also include extraction facilities where still another solvent is
used to separate impurities. Many of the wastes from the synthetic
pharmaceutical industry will be discharged from these solvent
recovery facilities. The wastes are normally not wastewaters,
but are anhydrous organic compounds withdrawn from the base of a
distillation column or as a residue from a solvent extraction
operation. Most often they are thick, far-ry, dark colored
mixtures that are made fluid by discarding also a small amount of
the solvent being recovered.
In processes that require completely water-free solvents and
reactants, additional losses of solvent usually occur since
complete dehydration is difficult.
11-15
-------
One other loss of solvent is likely to occur in most plants.
Bulk storage is most often in an unpressurized tank that is only
partially filled. The level of the liquid in the tank rises and
falls as liquid is added to the tank or removed from it. The vapor
in the tank above the surface of the liquid is therefore exhausted
when the liquid level is rising, and as the level falls, fresh
air (or nitrogen from a padding system) is introduced. The tank
is said to "breathe," and even if no liquid is added or removed,
it continues to breathe as a result of temperature and barometric
pressure changes. Each time a tank "exhales," the released vapor
is saturated with solvent vapor; rather large quantities of
solvent can be lost to the atmosphere through this mechanism. The
impact of these atmospheric emissions was studied by EPA and is
discussed at the end of this section of the report.
Chemical synthesis operations also produce large quantities
of pollutants normally measured as BOD and COD. Wastewater is
generally produced with each chemical modification that requires
the filling and emptying of the batch reactors. These waste-
waters can contain the unreacted raw materials, as well as some
solvents.
Compared to the others, the effluent from chemical synthesis
operations is the most difficult to treat because of the many
types of operations and chemical reactions, such as nitration,
amination, halogenation, sulfonation, alkylation, etc. The
production steps may generate acids, bases, cyanides, metals, and
many other pollutants. In some instances, process solutions and
vessel wash waters may also contain residual solvents. Sometimes,
this wastewater is incompatible with biological treatment systems.
Although it is possible to acclimate the bacteria to the various
substances, there may be instances where certain chemical wastes
are too concentrated or too toxic to make this feasible. Thus, it
may be necessary to equalize and/or chemically pretreat a process
wastewater prior to conventional treatment.
Primary sources of wastewater from chemical synthesis oper-
ations are: (1) process wastes, such as spent solvents, filtrates,
centrates, etc.; (2) floor and equipment wash waters; (3) pump
seal waters; (4) wet scrubber spent waters; and (5) spills.
From the available information on chemical synthesis opera-
tions in the pharmaceutical data base, wastewaters from these pro-
cesses can be characterized as having high BOD, COD and TSS
concentrations, large flows, and extremely variable pH, ranqinq
from 1.0 to 11.0. yy
Formulation
Although pharmaceutical active ingredients are produced in
bulk form, they must be prepared in dosage form for use by the
consumer. Pharmaceutical compounds can be formulated into
tablets, capsules, liquids or ointments, as described below
11-16
-------
Tablets are formed by blending the active ingredient,
filler, and binder. Tablets are produced from the mixture in a
tablet press machine. Some tablets are coated by tumbling with a
coating material and drying. The filler (usually starch, sugar,
etc.) is required to dilute the active medicinal to the proper
concentration, and binder (such as corn syrup or starch) is
necessary to bind the tablet particles together. A lubricant, such
as magnesium stearate, may be added for proper tablet machine
operation. The dust generated during the mixing and tableting
operation is collected and is usually recycled directly to the same
batch. Broken tablets are generally collected and recycled to the
granulation operation in a subsequent lot. After the tablets have
been coated and dried, they are bottled and packaged.
Capsules are produced by first forming the hard gelatine
shell. These shells are produced by machines that dip rows of
rounded metal dowels into a molten gelatine solution and then
strip the capsules from the dowels after the capsules have cooled
and solidified. Imperfect empty capsules are remelted and reused,
if possible, or sold for glue manufacture. Most pharmaceutical
companies purchase empty capsules from a few specialist producers.
The active ingredient and any filler are then mixed before
being poured by machine into the empty gelatine capsules. The
filled capsules are then bottled and packaged. As in the case of
tablet production, some dust is generated. This is recycled and
small amounts disposed of. Some glass and packaging waste from
broken bottles and cartons results from this operation.
Liquid preparations can be formulated for injection or
oral use. In either case, the liquid is first weighed and then
dissolved in water. Injectable solutions are heat sterilized or
bulk sterilized by filtration and then poured into sterilized
bottles. Oral liquid preparations are bottled directly without the
sterilization steps.
Wastewaters are generated by general cleanup operations,
spills, and breakage. Bad batches may create a solid waste dis-
posal problem.
As described above, mixing/compounding/formulation opera-
tions' primary objective is to convert the manufactured products
into a final, usable form. The necessary production steps have
typically small wastewater flows, because very few of the unit
operations use water in a way that would cause a wastewater
generation. The primary use of water in the actual formulating
process is for cooling water in the chilling units and for equip-
ment and floor wash.
Sources of wastewater from mixing/compounding/formulation
operations are: (1) floor and equipment wash waters; (2) wet
scrubbers; (3) spills; and (4) laboratory wastes. The use of
11-17
-------
water to clean out mixing tanks can flush materials of unusual
quantity and concentration into the plant sewer system. The
washouts from recipe kettles, which are used to prepare the
master batches of the pharmaceutical compounds, may contain
inorganic salts, sugars, syrup, etc. Dust fumes and scrubbers
used in connection with building ventilation systems or, more
directly, on dust and fume generating equipment, can be another
source of wastewater depending on the characteristics of the
material being removed from the air stream. In general, these
wastewaters are readily treatable by biological treatment systems,
An analysis of the pollutant information in the
pharmaceutical data base shows that wastewaters from mixing/
compounding/formulations operations normally have low BOD, COD
and TSS concentrations, relatively small flows, and pH values of
6.0 to 8.0.
11-18
-------
FIGURE II-l
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
H
I
-I*
HAWAII ?X
District
Columbia-0
VIRGIN ISLANDS
-------
TABLE II-l
PHARMACEUTICAL SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF 308 PORTFOLIO MAILING
Original Supplemental Comprehensive
308's 308's Data Base
Portfolios Distributed; 442 540 982
Plants in the Initial Mailing 396 523 919
"Additional" Plants Included
in Survey 46 17 63
Portfolios Not Returned; -11 -185 -196
Portfolio Processing; -187 -135 -322
Duplicate Portfolios -50 -4 -54
Non-Mfg. (Non-Pharm.) Portfolios -105 -128 -233
Exclusively Research
(Subcategory E) Portfolios -32 -3 -35
Manufacturing Portfolios; 244a 220 464
(a) These plants are listed in Appendix B.
(b) These plants are listed in Appendix D.
11-20
-------
TABLE II-2
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Location
Number of
Plants
Percent of
Total Plants
Average
Number
Employees
Per Plant
Average
Plant
Start-up
Year(1)
EASTERN U.S.
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION 1
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION 2
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
368
79.2
8
0
7
0
1
1
76
43
44
2
17
165
2
7
26
7
2
District of Columbia 0
REGION 3
Alabama
Georgia
Florida
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Kentucky
REGION 4
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
REGION 5
44
3
6
8
2
12
3
10
5
38
18
14
15
4
4
49
1.7
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.2
0.2
16.4
9.3
9.5
0.4
0.4
1.5
5.6
1.5
0.4
0.0
0.6
1.3
1.7
0.4
2.6
0.6
2.2
1.1
8.2
3.9
3.0
3.2
0.9
0.9
268
3.6
35.6
9.4
10.5
195
77
(2)
(2)
346
211
216
13
121
65
370
138
151
15
189
95
759
456
87
301
12
305
664
203
423
54
41
1952
161
239
267
250
1963
1961
(2)
(2)
1960
1950
1943
1970
1956
1965
1938
1949
1950
1950
1958
1956
1967
1949
1971
1968
1940
1962
1951
1944
1929
1933
1957
93
20.1
351
1943
11-21
-------
TABLE II-2 (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Number of
Location Plants
Percent of
Total Plants
Average
Number
Employees
Per Plant
Average
Plant
Start-up
Year(1)
WESTERN U.S.
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
New Mexico
REGION 6
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION 7
Colorado
Utah
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
REGION 8
Arizona
California
Nevada
Hawaii
REGION 9
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
REGION 10
96
20.8
2
2
0
12
0
3
4
17
4
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
38
1
0
0
0
2
4
16
28
40
0.4
0.4
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.6
0.9
3.7
0.9
1 . 1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
8.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
152
3.4
6.1
1.3
8.6
1558
9
127
77
123
108
201
96
(2)
(2)
139
(2)
25
33
1962
291
117
162
137
1970
1967
1968
1963
1954
1943
1962
1951
1967
(2)
1968
(2)
1967
(2)
1967
1.3
30
1955
1955
(1) Since data concerning plant start-up year were not solicited
from the Supplemental 308 plants, the figures were calculated
using only the (original) 308 plants' responses.
(2) Employment and start-up year figures are not presented to
avoid disclosing individual plant data.
11-22
-------
TABLE II-3
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORY BREAKDOWN
Manufacturing
Subcategory
Combination
A only
A B
ABC
A B C D
A B D
A C
A CD
A D
B only
B C
BCD
B D
C only
C D
D only
Not Available
Total Plants
Number of
Plants
464
Percent of
Total
Plants
0.9
0.2
0.4
1.7
0.9
0.6
2.2
1.1
4.5
2.6
1.9
5.0
10.1
9.1
58.4
0.4
100.0
Individual
Manufacturing
Subcategory
A
B
C
D
Not Available
Number of Plants
in Subcagetory
37
80
133
372
2
Total Number of Subcategories 624*
Percent of
Totals
6.0
12.8
21.3
59.6
0.3
* This represents the total number of subcategories covered by the
464 manufacturing plants.
11-23
-------
TABLE II-4
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
PRODUCTION OPERATION BREAKDOWN
Number of Operations
Type of Operation
Batch
Continuous
Semi-continuous
Total Number of Operations
Percent of Total Operations
A
32
3
11
46
6.7
Subcategory
BCD
76
0
9
85
12.4
129
14
19
162
23.6
359
16
17
392
57.2
Percent
of Total
Total Oper.
596 87.0
33 4.8
56 8.2
685* 100.0
100.0
Percent of Subcategory
Which is Batch
69.6 89.4 79.6 91.6 87.0
* Since each individual subcategory within a plant may be comprised of
more than one type of operation, this figure will be greater than
the total number of subcategories.
NOTE: The above data apply to 462 manufacturing plants. For two
plants no information was available on their subcategories
and types of production operations.
11-24
-------
SECTION III
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
As a result of past studies, particularly the 1976
Development Document, the EPA had available a limited amount of
data which characterized the wastewater discharges of the phar-
maceutical manufacturing industry. However, not only were some of
these data outdated, but for the most part, they were related only
to "traditional" pollutant parameters, such as BOD, COD, and TSS.
Information on the 65 toxic pollutants or classes of toxic pollu-
tants was almost nonexistent. Therefore, in order to fill this
void the Agency instituted a number of programs aimed at gathering
the necessary data on both toxic and traditional pollutants from
the pharmaceutical industry. Each of the data gathering programs
is discussed in detail in this section.
The aforementioned list of 65 toxic pollutants or classes of
toxic pollutants potentially includes thousands of specific
compounds. However, for purposes of rulemaking, the Agency has
selected 129 specific toxic (often called priority) pollutants for
analysis. The 129 priority pollutants are listed in Table III-1.
308 PORTFOLIO SURVEY
As can be seen in Section II, the 308 Portfolio Survey was an
invaluable source of information for developing various profiles of
the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Similarly, this survey
proved to be a major source of data for waste characterization
purposes. Not only did it provide more recent and detailed infor-
mation on traditional pollutant parameters and wastewater flow
characteristics, but the 308 Portfolio was the first major source
of data on the use and/or generation of priority pollutants by this
industry.
Since one purpose of the 308 survey was directed at quan-
tifying the nature and extent of priority pollutants in the phar-
maceutical industry, the results from the 308 Portfolio program are
discussed below.
Information on the industry's traditional pollutant and
wastewater flow characteristics obtained by the 308 Portfolio
will be discussed later in this section.
Of the 464 pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in the compre-
hensive 308 Portfolio data base, 212 provided responses to the
questions concerning priority pollutants. From these plants a
total of 115 different priority pollutants were identified.
Methylene chloride, phenol, toluene, chloroform, and zinc were most
-------
frequently reported with 94, 90, 79, 73, and 69 manufacturing
plants identifying them in the 308 Portfolios, respectively.
Eighty-two of the above 115 pollutants were designated as
being used as raw materials for a manufacturing operation.
However, only ten were used by 25 or more manufacturing plants.
These were: benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, methylene
chloride, phenol, toluene, copper, cyanide, mercury, and zinc.
Methylene chloride was the most extensively used with 90 manufac-
turing plants indicating it as a raw material, followed by toluene
with 78, phenol with 74, and chloroform with 69.
Eighty-seven priority pollutants were designated as inter-
mediate or final materials from a manufacturing operation.
However, none were produced by ten or more manufacturing plants.
In fact, phenol was the largest with nine manufacturing plants
indicating its presence in an intermediate or final product,
followed by benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and chloroform with four
each.
Six priority pollutants were identified as being analyzed in
the effluents of the manufacturing plants, but were not designated
as a raw or final material. They were: N-nitrosodimethylamine;
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine; 4,4* DDE; 4,4' ODD; endrin; and hepta-
chlor. Also, with respect to the other 109 indicated priority
pollutants, the majority of raw and final material counts did not
add to the "Identified By 308" counts. The above are probably
the result of: (1) regulatory actions requiring these pollutants
be sampled for; (2) incomplete 308 Portfolio responses; (3) pollu-
tants resulting from chemical "side" reactions; and/or (4) pollu-
tants resulting from the mixing of pharmaceutical and non-
pharmaceutical wastewaters. It is reasonably certain that the
first group is the result of (4), while the majority of the latter
group is probably due to (1) and (2).
The comprehensive data base indicates that, although the phar-
maceutical manufacturing industry uses/produces a large number of
priority pollutants, broad usage of specific chemical compounds is
1imited.
Table III-2 summarizes the priority pollutant data, submitted by
the 212 (out of 464) manufacturing plants in the comprehensive 308
Portfolio survey.
PEDCo REPORTS
Concurrent with the efforts to profile the pharmaceutical
manufacturing industry using the 308 Portfolio survey, PEDCo
Environmental, Inc., undertook a study to detail the various manu-
facturing processes/steps that are used in the production of fermen-
tation, extractive, and synthesized Pharmaceuticals.
III-2
-------
In their studies PEDCo examined recent industry data and
selected those products that comprise the major areas of production
for each of the three manufacturing subcategories, i.e. A, B, and
C. With these major product lines as a base, they then consulted
all available literature describing the step-by-step procedures to
be used in the production of each substance. As a result, PEDCo
was able to identify certain priority pollutants that were known to
be used by the pharmaceutical industry. These pollutants are
listed in Table III-3.
Because of the size and complexity of the industry and the
myriad of products manufactured, it was impossible for a study of
this kind to identify every priority pollutant that could be used.
The competitive nature of the industry and the fact that many pro-
ducts are still produced under patents make much of the necessary
data unavailable.
RTF STUDY
In December 1978, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards at Research Triangle Park published a document (70) pro-
viding guidance on air pollution control techniques for limiting
emissions of volatile organic compounds from the chemical for-
mulation subcategory of the pharmaceutical industry.
As part of this study, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Association (PMA) surveyed pharmaceutical plants to determine esti-
mates of the ten largest volume volatile organic compounds that
each company purchased and the mechanism by which they leave the
plant, i.e., sold as product, sent to the sewer, or emitted as an
air pollutant.
Table III-4 presents a summary of the results of this survey.
Twenty-five of the twenty-six reporting companies indicated that
their ten largest volume volatile organics accounted for 80 to 100
percent of their total plant usage. (The other company stated that
the ten highest volume compounds only accounted for 50 percent.)
It should be noted that these 26 companies accounted for 53 percent
of the domestic sales of ethical Pharmaceuticals in 1975.
Included in the list of 46 compounds presented in Table
III-4 are seven priority pollutants. These compounds are as
follows: methylene chloride, toluene, chloroform, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, trichloroethane and dichlorobenzene.
Table III-5 presents a summary and analysis of the data
outlined in Table III-4. As can be seen, priority pollutants
represent approximately 27 percent of the total volatile organic
usage in the segment of the industry analyzed. However, priority
pollutants represent only 13 percent of the total mass discharge of
volatile organics to the plant sewers. This indicates a tighter
control over the discharge of toxic materials than with other orga-
nic materials.
III-3
-------
Table III-5 also indicates that discharge of volatile orga-
nics to the sewer represents only a small fraction (16.7 percent)
of the total discharge. In fact, priority pollutants are
discharged to the sewer in even smaller quantities (9.7 percent).
In summary, the RTP report indicates that although the phar-
maceutical industry has a large involvement with volatile organic
materials, including some toxic compounds, there is presently tight
control over their discharge to the environment via plant sewers.
WASTEWATER SAMPLING PROGRAMS
Most of the priority pollutant information from the aforemen-
tioned reports and surveys was qualitative in nature, although the
308 Portfolio did provide some quantitative data. Therefore, in
order to obtain a statistically-significant amount of priority
pollutant data, the EPA instituted the screening and verification
sampling programs. In these data gathering efforts a number of
plants were selected for sampling, which were felt to be represen-
tative of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry as a whole.
And by using the analytical results from the sampling, the Agency
had available a complete and representative data base with which to
characterize the levels of the 129 priority pollutants in the
industry's wastewaters. Details on the Agency's screening and
verification, wastewater sampling programs are discussed in detail
below:
Quantitative data for the traditional pollutants, BOD, COD,
and TSS, were obtained with the priority pollutants. These data
will be discussed later in this section, after the discussion on
priority pollutants.
Screening Program
The screening program for the pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry was developed to obtain analytical data which could be
used to determine the presence of priority pollutants and to
characterize their nature and extent in the industry's waste-
water. In addition, the screening program served to cross-check
the information on the treatment efficiencies of various end-of-
pipe technologies, as they relate to priority pollutant removal.
Development of Screening Plant Candidates
In order to prepare a list of pharmaceutical manufacturing
plants for the screening program, specific criteria were developed
which served as the basis for the selection process. Each can-
didate plant was subjected to these criteria to determine its
acceptability as a screening candidate. The object of the selection
process was to prepare an optimal list of candidates which was
representative of the pharmaceutical industry in terms of pro-
duction methods, product lines, wastewater characteristics, treat-
III-4
-------
ment technology, and other characteristics, yet also comprised a
minimum number of sites. Brief discussions of each criterion used
in the selection process are presented in the paragraphs that
follow:
One of the major criteria for selecting candidate plants
for the screening program was concerned with the pharmaceutical
plant's subcategory or type of production operation. Four dif-
ferent types of production operations are utilized in the making
of pharmaceutical products. They are fermentation, biological/
natural extraction, chemical synthesis, and mixing/compounding/
formulation. Because of the distinct characteristics of each
operation, the properties of a plant's wastewater will be influ-
enced by the operation(s) employed at the site. Since the
majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing plants employ more than
one type of production operation at a particular site, the goal
of the selection process was to choose plants that would not only
cover the above four categories, but also provide a satisfactory
production operation mix, i.e., provide various combinations of the
above four subcategories. Also, past experience indicated that
subcategories A and C were more likely to have priority pollutants
present than subcategories B and D. Therefore, the selection pro-
cess concentrated on obtaining plants with these production opera-
tions. The end result would be that the screening list would have
relatively more subcategory A and C plants than would be represen-
tative of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
Another important criterion of the selection process dealt
with the type of treatment at the plant, since the final effluent
quality of any wastewater discharge will be dependent upon the
treatment used. For the screening program, the goal was to try to
select those plants that had significant treatment. In this analy-
sis, significant treatment was defined as treatment beyond equali-
zation, neutralization, and primary sedimentation; namely,
biological, physical-chemical, or other treatment. Therefore, the
end result would be that the screening list would reflect a relati-
vely higher degree of treatment compared to the pharmaceutical
industry as a whole.
As stated previously, the purpose of the screening program
was to determine the nature and extent of priority pollutants in
the pharmaceutical industry's wastewaters. Probably the most
important factor affecting the presence of these pollutants in a
plant's effluent is the use of them as raw materials in the
production operation. Thus, to optimize the screening program,
the selection process concentrated on selecting those plants that
used a large number of different priority pollutants in their
operations.
Some pharmaceutical plants indicated that they had performed
their own wastewater sampling over a period of time. Information
of this kind was thought to be important, since it could provide
III-5
-------
background information on the plant's effluent quality and assist
in the analyses of the sampling data gathered during the screening
program. Therefore, consideration was given to those facilities
known to have historical sampling data.
The amount of wastewater discharged by a particular pharma-
ceutical manufacturing plant is dependent upon many factors.
Some of the more important factors are: type of production
operation, product line, plant size, treatment costs, etc. For
the screening program, it was thought to be desirable to select
plants which discharged varying quantities of wastewater. In
this way, the screening could ascertain the effect of small and
large flows on priority pollutant levels and also be relatively
representative of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole. However,
since it was necessary for a plant to have a wastewater flow in
order to be sampled, the screening list would obviously be biased
from the total industry with respect to plants having zero (or very
low) wastewater flows.
Another criterion for selecting plant candidates had to do
with company ownership of the particular manufacturing plant. The
goal was to minimize, wherever possible, the number of plants
operated by a single company. First, this would avoid "biasing"
the screening data because of a particular company's operating
procedures. Second, it would minimize the resource impact
(personnel, time, costs, etc.) of sampling on an individual
company.
Although these criteria were not as significant as the
others in the selection of plant candidates, it was felt to be
desirable to consider each manufacturing plant's geographic
location, age, number of employees, etc. For plant location and
age, the selection process tried to obtain a good variety of
facilities reflecting the total pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry.
With respect to plant employment, the selection process, in
order to satisfy the more important criter.ia, tended to emphasize
larger facilities, because past experience indicated that the
larger plants generally had more complex operations. Thus, the
screening list would tend to contain more of the larger manufac-
turing plants than the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
The development of the final list of pharmaceutical plants
to comprise the screening program was accomplished in a step-wise
fashion. For each plant, the BPT data file, 308 Portfolio,
federal and state government documents, and other available
information were reviewed in order to prepare a preliminary
screening list. This list was frequently reviewed and revised on
the basis of the aforementioned criteria in an attempt to develop
an optimal final list. The goal was to ensure that the final list
of screening plants maximized the specified criteria, yet comprised
a minimum number of plants to be sampled.
III-6
-------
The end result of the selection process was that 26 pharma-
ceutical manufacturing plants comprised the final screening list.
Pertinent data on the selected plants are shown in Table III-6.
Also, Table III-7 presents a comparison of the 26 screening
plants versus the total pharmaceutical manufacturing population
of 464 plants. From these tables, it can be seen that the
screening plant selection process achieved the desired goals.
Screening Protocol
Following the final selection of the 26 screening plants,
preparations were made for the actual sampling activities. The
sampling protocol (60), developed by EPA, served as the basis for
the collection and analysis of screening samples at the subject
pharmaceutical manufacturing sites. An overview of the screening
methods is discussed below.
The general rule was to obtain 24-hour samples wherever
possible. In some instances, this was altered to accommodate a
particular aspect of the plant to be screened. Certain facilities
had batch operations and/or did not operate "around-the-clock."
For these situations, samples of less than 24 hours, generally 8
hours, were collected. On the other extreme, some facilities had
varying operations which showed fluctuating characteristics over a
period longer than 24 hours. Here a longer sampling time was
warranted, generally on the order of 48 hours. In summary, the
screening program was directed toward gathering 24-hour samples.
To cover certain unique situations, this time was increased or
decreased as necessary. No significant impact was expected from
these modifications, since the major goal of the screening program
was only to identify the presence and typical levels of priority
pollutants in the wastewaters of the pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry-
The types of samples collected during the screening program,
again, were based upon the sampling protocol developed by EPA.
To identify these priority pollutants, classified as acid or
base/neutral extractables and metals, composite samples were
obtained. For the volatile organics and phenols portion of the
priority pollutants, grab samples were taken.
Two sampling locations were of specific interest, namely, the
influent and effluent of the plants' wastewater treatment systems.
The influent to the treatment system was important in the analyses to
determine the levels of priority pollutants generated by the various
pharmaceutical manufacturing operations. The effluent from the treat-
ment system was critical in determining the effect of the various
treatment systems on the removal of priority pollutants and the
resultant levels reaching the receiving waters.
In addition to the above, samples were usually collected at
other locations throughout a particular facility. This was done to
III-7
-------
obtain supplementary information on a specific operation or treat-
ment step or to ensure that certain characteristics, unique to a cer-
tain plant, were adequately covered. Some examples of these sample
locations are: intake water, specific production wastewaters, holding
tanks, cooling water, etc. The end result was that more detailed
information for each screening plant was made available for the analy-
ses on the fate of priority pollutants in pharmaceutical wastewaters.
Verification Program
As previously mentioned, the screening program was developed
to obtain analytical data which could be used to determine the pre-
sence of priority pollutants and to characterize their nature and
extent in the pharmaceutical industry's wastewaters. Having
obtained these data, the EPA then selected five of the screening
plants for the verification program. The purpose of the verifica-
tion program was to confirm the data obtained during the screening
program and to quantify the concentrations, loadings, and percent
reductions of those pollutants found at significant levels during
the screening program.
The final list of pharmaceutical plants to comprise the verifi-
cation study is given in Table III-8. EPA developed this list by
selecting those plants that satisfied one or more of the following
criteria:
Those plants with "BPT" type treatment systems;
Those plants that use cyanide as a raw material; and
Those plants with in-plant control measures such as
cyanide destruction, steam stripping, and solvent
recovery.
In addition, EPA selected plants that would not only cover the
four subcategories, but also provide a satisfactory production
operation mix, i.e., provide various combinations of the sub-
categories at each plant.
Verification Protocol
Prior to verification sampling, preliminary grab samples were
collected from the verification sampling locations to determine the
applicability of the planned analytical methods. However, the
data obtained from these grab samples were not used to quantify
effluent levels or to calculate percent removals achieved by the
treatment systems.
The results of analyzing the screening visit samples were
usually discussed with operating personnel in relation to priority
pollutants used by the plant as either raw, intermediate, or final
products. These results and the data obtained from the aforementioned
III-8
-------
grab samples were used to determine the final verification sampling
locations and to define the priority pollutant verification analy-
ses to be performed.
For a detailed discussion of the sampling methods employed in
the verification program, the reader is referred to the sampling pro-
tocol (60). With respect to sampling time, the verification program
was directed toward gathering three days of 24-hour samples. Where
automatic composite samples were not feasible, manual composite
samples were obtained for analysis of acid and base/neutral extrac-
tables, metals, and conventional and non-conventional pollutants.
Grab samples were taken for analysis of volatile organics, phenols,
and cyanides. Some wastewater streams were grab sampled once for
analysis of all parameters.
The analysis of verification samples was performed under a
detailed quality assurance/quality control procedure. The proce-
dure required analyses of duplicate extractions for samples
collected on the first day of verification sampling. Samples taken
on the second and third days of verification sampling were
extracted and analyzed, spiked with appropriate amounts of pollu-
tants and reanalyzed. Spike recoveries were calculated from the
data generated during these analyses. The spiking and reanalysis
requirement was deleted if the original pollutant concentration was
below the detectable limit. Another requirement was that samples
not analyzed, spiked, and re-extracted within 72 hours of sample
collection were subjected to an additional spiking, holding, and
analysis. This requirement was designed to determine whether the
pollutants degrade during storage.
As in the case of the sampling programs, two sampling loca-
tions were of specific interest, namely, the influent to and
effluent from each plant's wastewater treatment systems. The
influent to the treatment system was important in the analyses to
determine the levels of priority pollutants generated by the
various pharmaceutical manufacturing operations. The effluent from
the treatment system was critical in determining the effect of the
various treatment systems on the removal of priority pollutants and
the resultant levels reaching the receiving waters.
In addition to the above, samples were usually collected at
other locations throughout a particular facility- This was done to
obtain supplementary information on a specific operation or treatment
step or to ensure that certain characteristics, unique to a plant,
were adequately covered. Examples of these sampling locations are:
intake water, cooling water, specific production wastewaters, etc.
The end result was that a more detailed analysis of the fate of
priority pollutants for each verification plant was available.
Since a goal of the verification program is to quantify those
pollutants found during the screening program, the sampling loca-
tions for the two programs were the same in most instances.
III-9
-------
Screening/Verification Results
The major objective of the screening and verification
programs was to define, using the analytical sampling results, the
important priority pollutants in the wastewaters of the phar-
maceutical manufacturing industry. One of the most important cri-
teria in making this determination was the frequency at which the
priority pollutants appeared in the raw wastewaters of the 26
plants that were sampled. (The total number sampled equals 26,
since the five verification plants were also sampled under the
screening program.) Table III-9 summarizes the number of times
each priority pollutant was found at the screening/verification
plants. The reader is referred to Appendix F for a presentation
of the raw analytical results for each of the 26 plants that were
sampled.
As can be seen in Table III-9, 60 priority pollutants were
detected in the wastewater of at least one of the 26
screening/verification plants. However, only 13 were found at ten
or more plants. They are phenol, benzene, chloroform,
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, toluene, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, zinc and cyanide. Phenol was the only significant
acid extractable, being found 15 times. Methylene chloride w»s the
most often detected volatile organic, being found 22 times.
Finally, chromium, copper and zinc were the major metals, being
found 24 times each. No significant base/neutral extractables were
detected at the screening/verification plants. Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate was not considered to be important, because its presence
was probably the result of contamination from the tubing used to
collect the wastewater samples.
PRIORITY POLLUTANT RAW WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
After finalizing the above data bases, work could begin on
analyzing the raw waste characteristics of the pharmaceutical manu-
facturing industry. Since the major emphasis of this study was
directed toward priority pollutants, these data were examined
first. The initial step in the analysis was to compare the various
data base results and see if any of the information agreed. Table
111-10 presents a summary of the "major" priority pollutants iden-
tified by each of the four data bases, i.e., RTF Study, PEDCo
Reports, 308 Portfolio, and Screening/Verification. As can be seen
in this table, fhpre is good agreement among the data bases as to
which priority pollutants are most significant in terms of their
presence in the industry's wastewaters: particularly between the
308 Portfolio and screening/verification data bases. Both of these
data bases contained analytical results which could be used to
quantify the specific priority pollutant levels in the industry.
In order to define the industry's priority pollutant raw waste load
(RWL) characteristics analyses performed on these data are
discussed below.
111-10
-------
Table 111-11 presents the results of an analysis performed on
the screening/verification data. The 13 priority pollutants listed
were selected from Table III-9 based upon the criterion that a
priority pollutant was defined as "major" if it was identified in
the wastewaters of ten or more of the 26 screening/verification
plants. All of the listed statistics were calculated for each
pollutant, using the raw analytical sampling results published in
Appendix F.
The results of a similar analysis, performed on the 308
Portfolio data, are presented in Table 111-12. In this instance,
the 13 priority pollutants listed were selected from Table III-2,
based upon the criterion: a priority pollutant was identified as
"major" if it was identified in the wastewaters of 25 or more of
the 464 manufacturing plants. The raw 308 Portfolio data,
published in Appendix G, were used to calculate the statistics
listed in Table 111-12.
Table 111-13 compares the median RWL values for 12 of the 13
"major" priority pollutants identified by the two data bases.
(Although each data base defined 13 priority pollutants as being
"major," only 12 could be directly compared. This is because
ethylbenzene was not a major pollutant in the 308 Portfolio data
base, while carbon tetrachloride was not a major one in the
screening/verification data base.) As can be seen in Table 111-13,
the RWL levels, derived from the two data bases, compare very well.
The slightly lower screening/verification values may be due to the
fact that this data (1978-79) is more recent than the 308
Portfolio data (1976-77) and reflects the industry's attempts to
reduce or eliminate the use of these compounds in production.
After thoroughly reviewing and evaluating the raw data and
statistical results, the screening/verification data base was
thought to be the most appropriate source of information for
selecting "major" priority pollutants, since it is more recent data
and the nature and scope of the sampling programs were specifically
directed at collecting priority pollutant data. However, in the
future the Agency may amend this list of 13 "major" priority
pollutants, based upon other selection criteria. Median values
were selected because they minimized the statistical impact of a
few extremely small and/or large values in the data base. A close
examination of each screening/verification pliant revealed that
priority pollutant levels are more the result of plant operating
procedures, e.g. solvent recovery, rather than levels of
production. Thus, the median values were felt to be more represen-
tative of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
With the median values from the screening/verification data
selected as being most appropriate, the final analysis dealt with
comparing the variation of priority pollutant raw waste loads
across each of the four individual subcategories. For example, are
the RWL characteristics of subcategory A the same as those in sub-
III-11
-------
category B or C or D and vice versa? Table 111-14 summarizes the
priority pollutant raw waste load concentrations for each of the
single subcategories and compares them with the results of the ana-
lysis for all subcategories combined.
Very little priority pollutant data were available which
could be directly tied to a particular subcategory, except for the
plants that had only single subcategory production. Therefore, for
this comparison the priority pollutant RWL data from a multiple
subcategory, screening/verification plant were used in each of the
single subcategory analyses for which the plant had a subcategory
operation. For example, data from an ABD plant were used in the A,
the B, and the D subcategory calculations. As a result, the data
from the appropriate multiple subcategory plants and the particular
single subcategory plants were combined in order to calculate the
priority pollutant median RWL values for each individual
subcategory. (In the case of the analysis for all subcategories
combined data from all of the plants, regardless of subcategory,
were compiled and the priority pollutant median RWL values were
calculated.)
As can be seen in Table 111-14, in most instances the results
do not vary significantly from one subcategory to another and in
general compare favorably with the values from all subcategories
combined. Based upon this observation and the fact that the analy-
sis of all subcategories combined utilizes a statistically larger
data base, it was felt that for purposes of regulatory evaluation
the priority pollutant median values from all subcategories would
best represent the raw waste load characteristics of the individual
subcategories in the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT RAW WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
Although the major emphasis of this project was directed at
defining and quantifying the priority pollutant characteristics of
this industry, the Agency was also deeply interested in the tradi-
tional pollutant parameters, namely BOD, COD, and TSS. A study of
these pollutants was critical to the development of potential
regulations for the control of conventional pollutants. As with
priority pollutants, only two data bases had specific information
with which to analyze the industry's raw waste characteristics in
terms of these three pollutants: 308 Portfolio and
screening/verification data bases. Discussions of the analyses
performed on these data bases in order to quantify the phar-
maceutical industry's traditional raw waste load characteristics
are presented below:
Based upon information from previous studies, particularly
the 1976 Development Document for BPT regulations, it was known
that the BOD, COD, and TSS characteristics of this industry showed
significant variations across the four individual subcategories.
This premise is different than in the case of priority pollutants,
where the aforementioned analyses could not positively demonstrate
111-12
-------
any significant variations in priority pollutant levels across the
four subcategories. Therefore, in the following determination of
traditional raw waste characteristics, the calculations involved
only individual subcategory analyses. No analysis for all sub-
categories combined was performed.
In conducting the individual subcategory analyses of BOD,
COD, and TSS raw waste characteristics a problem similar to that in
the priority pollutant analyses arose. Much of the traditional
pollutant data could not be directly tied to a particular
subcategory, except for the plants that had single subcategory
production. This problem was not as severe in this instance, since
some data were available on the individual subcategory operations
within a few multiple subcategory plants. However, for those
multiple subcategory plants that did not have specific data for an
individual subcategory the same technique as used in the priority
pollutant analyses was utilized. Data from a multiple subcategory
plant were used in each of the single subcategory analyses for which
the plant had a subcategory operation, e.g., a BCD plant's data were
used in the B, the C, and the D subcategory calculations.
Table 111-15 presents the results of an analysis of tradi-
tional pollutant raw waste loads, using the screening/verification
data base. A similar analysis, using the 308 Portfolio data base,
is presented in Table 111-16. The raw analytical data used to
prepare these tables are shown in Appendices F and H, respectively.
The mean or average values calculated for each subcategory's
BOD, COD, and TSS raw waste loads are compared in Table 111-17. As
can be seen from this table, the results from each analysis compare
favorably. However, as was the case for priority pollutants, the
screening/verification traditional pollutant values are somewhat
lower than those from the 308 Portfolio data base. Again, this is
probably due to the fact that the screening/verification data
(1978-79) are more recent than the 308 Portfolio data (1976-77)
and reflect the industry's attempts to reduce, as much as
possible, its traditional pollutant loads.
Upon reviewing and evaluating the raw data and calculated
statistical results, the screening/verification data were selected
as being representative. It is recent with respect to the tradi-
tional pollutants and directly correponds to the previously
discussed priority pollutant results, i.e., both samples were
collected at the same time and place. In addition, mean or average
values were chosen because BOD, COD, and TSS levels are generally
tied to a plant's level of production. Thus, the mean values would
best account for all of the varying production levels and be more
representative of the traditional pollutant raw waste load charac-
teristics of the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
111-13
-------
WASTEWATER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS
The last parameter of importance in the waste characteriza-
tion of the industry was the wastewater flow generated. These
data, along with the priority and traditional pollutant raw waste
concentrations, could then be used to determine the mass quantity
of pollutants being generated by the pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry. Because of a couple of important factors with regard to
the data bases, the procedures used in the analysis of wastewater
flows differed substantially from those used for priority and tra-
ditional pollutants. These are described below:
The first major difference involved the contents of the
available data bases. In the previous analyses of RWL
concentrations, the screening/verification data base was the pri-
mary information source with the 308 Portfolio data serving as a
cross-check. However, in terms of wastewater flow, the
screening/verification data base had almost no data, except for a
few plants (generally the plants covered by verification sampling).
Therefore, for purposes of analyzing the wastewater flow charac-
teristics of the industry, the 308 Portfolio data base served as
the primary (and only) information source.
As in the case of traditional pollutants, the information
from the 1976 Development Document indicated that significant dif-
ferences in wastewater generation could be expected among the four
individual subcategories. Thus, it was decided to conduct analyses
for the four individual subcategories. Herein lies the second
major difference in data source. The 308 Portfolio data base con-
tains a large amount of data, particularly with regards to flow
data from single subcategory plants. As a result, it was felt that
since enough single subcategory flow data were available, the ana-
lyses need not include data from the multiple subcategory plants;
as was the case in the priority and traditional pollutant study.
Therefore, flow data from only the single subcategory plants were
used to define the wastewater flows representative of the industry.
Table 111-18 presents the results of the wastewater flow
analysis using the 308 Portfolio data base. The first step in the
analysis was to determine the mean wastewater flow for each
subcategory. This was accomplished by using those single sub-
category plants that reported wastewater flow data. Next, the
total number of direct and/or indirect discharges was determined
for each subcategory. These data were obtained from Section VI and
the reader is referred to it for more details. It should be noted
that a few plants utilize a combination of direct and indirect
discharge methods. In these cases the plant/subcategory was
assumed to be one-half direct and one-half indirect for purposes of
this analysis. By knowing the mean wastewater flow and the number
of direct and indirect discharges for each subcategory, it was
possible to estimate the total wastewater flow discharged by each
111-14
-------
subcategory and for the entire industry. As can be seen in Table
III-18f this was estimated to be 65.2 MGD.
The final step in the analysis was to check the validity of
the above estimate. All direct and indirect discharge flows in the
308 Portfolio data base were summed to obtain a total flow for the
industry with a result of 60.4 MGD. In determining this number,
only 75 percent of the 332 discharging plants provided wastewater
flow data. Data from the remaining 25 percent of the plants were
either unknown or not reported. After examining these plants more
closely, it was found that, generally, they are the smaller manu-
facturing plants in the industry. Thus, the estimated total
industry flow of 65.2 MGD compares favorably with the 60.4 MGD
obtained by summing the individual plant flows available from the
data base. In conclusion, the total flow of 65.2 MGD is felt to be
representative of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry as a
whole.
All data used in characterizing the wastewater flows of each
subcategory and the entire industry are shown in Appendix I.
111-15
-------
TABLE 111-1
LIST OF EPA-DESIGNATED PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
*No. Compound
IB acenaphthene
2V acroleln
3V acrylonltrlle
4V benzene
5B benzldlne
6V carbon tetrachlorlde
7V chlorobenzene
8B 1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene
9B hexachIorobenzene
10V 1,2-dlchloroethane
11V 1,1,1-trIchIoroethane
128 hexachIoroethane
13V 1,1-dIchIoroethane
14V 1,1,2-trIchIoroethane
15V 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16V chIoroethane
17B b!s(chloromethyI) ether
188 bls(2-chloroethyl) ether
19V 2-chloroethyI vinyl ether
20B 2-chloronaphthalene
21A 2,4,6-trlchlorophenol
22A parachlorometa cresol
23V chloroform
24A 2-chlorophenol
25B 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26B 1,3-d I chlorobenzene
27B 1,4-dIchlorobenzene
288 3,3'-dichlorobenzidlne
29V 1,1-dichloroethylene
30V 1,2-trans-dIchIoroethyIene
31A 2,4-dIchIorophenoI
32V 1,2-dlchloropropane
33V 1,3-dlchloropropyIene
34A 2,4-dI methyl phenol
35B 2,4-dlnltrotoluene
36B 2,6-dlnltrotoluene
370 1,2-dlphenyIhydrazlne
38V ethyl benzene
398 fluoranthene
408 4-chlorophenyI phenyl ether
418 4-bromophenyI phenyl ether
428 bls(2-chlorolsopropyl) ether
43B bls(2-chloroethoxy) methane
44V methylene chloride
45V methyl chloride
46V methyl bromide
47V bromoform
48V dlchlorobromomethane
49V trIchlorofluoromethane
50V dIchIorodlfluoromethane
51V chlorodlbromomethane
528 hexachIorobutadIene
538 hexachlorocyclopentadlene
548 isophorone
558 naphthalene
568 nitrobenzene
57A 2-nltrophenol
58A 4-nltrophenol
59A 2,4-dinltrophenol
60A 4,6-dlnltro-o-cresol
618 N-nItrosodImethylamlne
628 N-nItrosodIphenylamine
63B N-n1trosodI-n-propylamlne
64A pentachIorophenoI
65A phenol
668 bls(2-ethyIhexyl) phthalate
67B butyl benzyl phthalate
688 dl-n-butyl phthalate
698 di-n-octyl phthalate
No. Compound
70S dI ethyl phthalate
71B dimethyl phthalate
726 benzo(a)anthracene
738 benzo(a)pyrene
74B 3,4-benzofluoranthene
758 benzo(k)fluoranthane
768 chrysene
77B acenaphthylene
78B anthracene
798 benzo(ghl)perylene
SOB fIuorene
81B phenanthrene
828 dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene
838 ideno(1,2,3-C,D)pyrene
84B pyrene
85V tetrachIorethyIene
86V toluene
87V trIchIoroethylene
88V vinyl chloride
89P aldrln
90P dleldrln
91P chlordane
92P 4,4'-DDT
93P 4,4'-DDE
94P 4,4'-ODD
95P a Ipha-endosulfan
96P beta-endosuI fan
97P endosulfan sulfate
98P endrln
99P endrln aldehyde
100P heptachlor
10IP heptachlor epoxlde
102P alpha-BHC
103P beta-BHC
104P gamma-BHC (llndane)
105P delta-BHC
106P PCB-1242
107P PCB-1254
108P PCS-1221
109P PCS-1232
HOP PCS-1248
111P PCS-1260
112P PCB-1016
113P toxaphene
114M antimony (total)
115M arsenic (total)
116 asbestos (fibrous)
117M beryllium (total)
118M cadmium (total)
119M chromium (total)
120M copper (total)
121 cyanide (total )
122M lead (total)
123M mercury (total)
124M nickel (total)
125M selenium (total)
126M silver (total)
127M thai 11 urn (total )
128M zinc (total)
1298 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro-
dlbenzo-p-dioxln (TCDO)
* V - volatile organlcs
A - acid extractables
B - base/neutral extractables
P - pesticides
M - metals
II1-16
-------
TABLE II1-2
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT INFORMATION: 308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Number of Plants;
Usage in
Identified Usage as Final
Priority Pollutant by 308 Raw Mat'l Product
acenaphthene 1 0 1
acrolein 3 2 1
acrylonitrile 6 5 1
benzene 47 46 4
benzidine 220
carbon tetrachloride
(tetrachloromethane) 30 27 4
chlorobenzene 14 11 1
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene 3 1 2
hexachlorobenzene 3 2 1
1,2-dichloroethane 17 16 2
1,1, 1-trichloroethane 22 21 2
hexachloroethane 1 0 1
1,1-dichloroethane 2 1 1
1,1,2-trichloroethane 4 2 1
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 542
chloroethane 762
bis(chloromethyl) ether 2 1 1
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 2 1 1
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed) 2 1 1
2-chloronaphthalene 1 0 1
2,4,6-trichlorophenol 2 1 1
parachlorometa cresol 5 4 1
chloroform (trichloromethane) 73 69 4
2-chlorophenol 4 3 1
1,2-dichlorobenzene 8 72
1,3-dichlorobenzene 4 3 1
1,4-dichlorobenzene 2 1 1
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine 1 0 1
1,1-dichloroethylene 1 0 1
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene 1 0 1
2,4-dichlorophenol 323
1, 2-dichloropropane 2 1 1
1/3-dichloropropylene
(1,3-dichloropropene) 1 0 1
2,4-dimethylphenol 2 0 1
2,4-dinitrotoluene 1 1 1
2-6-dinitrotoluene 000
1,2-diphenylhydrazine 220
ethylbenzene 3 2 1
fluoranthene 1 0 1
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 000
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether 0 00
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 1 0 1
bis(2-chloroethyoxy) methane 202
methylene chloride (dichloromethane) 94 90 2
methyl chloride (chloromethane) 17 16 1
111-17
-------
TABLE III-2 (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT INFORMATION: 308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Number of Plants^
Usage in
Identified Usage as Final
Priority Pollutant by 308 Raw Mat'l Product
methyl bromide (bromomethane) 10 9 1
bromoform (tribromomethane) 2 1 1
dichlorobromomethane 2 0 1
trichlorofluromethane 8 72
dichlorodifluoromethane 9 82
chlorodibromomethane 2 0 1
hexachlorobutadiene 1 0 1
hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1 0 1
isophorone 3 2 1
naphthalene 8 8 1
nitrobenzene 12 12 0
2-nitrophenol 3 1 1
4-nitrophenol 5 4 1
2,4-dinitrophenol 3 1 1
4,6-dinitro-o-cresoL 1 1 0
N-nitrosodimethylamine 1 0 0
N-nitrosodiphenylamine 1 0 1
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine 1 0 0
pentachlorophenol 3 1 2
phenol 90 74 9
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 2 0 1
butyl benzyl phthalate 2 1 1
di-n-butyl phthalate 4 2 1
di-n-octyl phthalate 7 6 1
diethyl phthalate 14 13 2
dimethyl phthalate 4 30
1,2-benzanthracene 0 00
benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene) 1 0 1
3,4-benzofluoranthene 0 00
1 1 ,12-benzofluoranthene 0 00
chrysene 1 0 0
acenaphthylene 1 0 1
anthracene 2 1 1
1,12-benzoperylene 1 0 1
fluorene 1 0 1
phenanthrene 1 0 1
1,2'5,6-dibenzanthracene 1 0 1
indeno(1,2,3-C,D) pyrene 1 0 1
pyrene 1 0 1
tetrachloroethylene 9 8 1
toluene 79 78 3
trichloroethylene 16 14 3
vinyl chloride (chloroethylene) 220
aldrin 1 1 Q
dieldrin 1 1 g
111-18
-------
TABLE III-2 (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT INFORMATION: 308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Number of Plants:
Priority Pollutant
chlordane (technical mixture
and metabolites)
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE (P,P'-DDX)
4,4'-ODD (P,P'-TDE)
alpha-endosulfan
beta-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC (lindane)
delta-BHC
PCB-1242 (arochlor
(arochlor
(arochlor
(arochlor
(arochlor
(arochlor
(arochlor
1242)
1254)
1221 )
1232)
1248)
1260)
1016)
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
toxaphene
antimony (total)
arsenic (total)
asbestos (fibrous)
beryllium (total)
cadmium (total)
chromium (total)
copper (total)
cyanide (total)
lead (total)
mercury (total)
nickel (total)
selenium (total)
silver (total)
thallium (total)
zinc (total)
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorod ibenzo-p-d ioxin
(TCDO)
Identified
by 308
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
20
4
4
21
36
54
47
27
43
31
20
24
3
69
Usage as
Raw Mat'l
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
2
4
9
4
0
5
17
37
34
11
25
17
10
12
1
53
Usage in
Final
Product
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
3
2
3
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANTS RESPONDING 212
TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANTS IN DATA BASE 464
111-19
-------
TABLE II1-3
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT INFORMATION: PEDCo REPORTS
Priority Pollutants Identified in;
Subcategory A
1
i
to
o
benzene
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
phenol
copper
zinc
Total No. of Pollutants: 23
1
2
3
Reference
Reference
Reference
No.
No.
No.
42
41
43
Subcategory B
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
1,2-d ichloroethane
chloroform
methylene chloride
phenol
toluene
cyanide
lead
mercury
nickel
zinc
Subcategory C
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chloroethane
chloroform
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
methylene chloride
methyl chloride
methyl bromide
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
phenol
toluene
chromium
copper
cyanide
lead
zinc
-------
TABLE 11 1-4
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
COMPILATION OF DATA SUBMITTED BY THE PMA FROM
26 MANUFACTURERS OF ETHICAL DRUGS: RTP STUDY
(metric tons)
Type of
Volatl le Organic Annual
Compound Purchase
Methyl ene Chloride
Skel ly Solvent 8
Methanol
To 1 uene
Acetone
Dimethyl Formamlde
Ethanol
Isopropanol
l_l Amy 1 A 1 coho 1
H Ethyl Acetate
1 Ch 1 orof orm
£} Benzene
Ethyl Ether
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Carbon Tetrach 1 or 1 de
Xy 1 ene
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Trlchloroethane
Hexane
Amyl Acetate
Isopropyl Acetate
Methyl Cellosolve
Butanol
Isobutyraldehyde
Acetonltrl le
Tetrahydrofuran
Isopropyl Ether
Acetic Acid
Acetic Anhydride
10,000
1,410
7,960
6,010
12,040
1,630
13,230
3,850
1,430
2,380
500
1,010
280
260
1,850
3,090
260
135
530
285
480
195
320
85
35
4
25
930
1,265
Annual Disposition
Air
Emissions
5,310
410
2,480
1,910
1,560
1,350
1,250
1,000
775
710
280
270
240
260
210
170
170
135
120
120
105
90
85
40
30
-
12
12
8
Sewer
455
23
3,550
835
2,580
60
785
1,130
-
1,110
23
350
12
-
120
510
30
-
-
165
45
100
30
40
6
-
12
770
550
Incineration
2,060
980
1,120
1,590
4,300
380
915
1,150
-
480
-
150
-
-
1,510
1,910
60
-
100
-
230
-
5
-
-
4
-
-
-
Contract
Haul
2,180
-
410
1,800
770
120
200
470
0
80
175
80
30
-
-
140
-
-
475
-
-
-
130
-
-
-
-
-
-
Solvent
Disposal* Product Recovery
5 73,400
90
30 340
23,850
2,210 40,760
5,100
10,000 7,570
25 3,090 3,880
9 76,900
715
17 - 1,210
90 20,500
110,800
65 6,160
_
3 9,400
6,460
-
25,670
3,510
1,840
360
110 1,040
145
125
-
12
160 1,040
410 300
-------
TABLE 11 1-4 (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
H
H
I
N)
to
Type of
Annual Disposition
Volatile Organic Annual Air
Compound Purchase Emissions
D 1 methy 1 acetam 1 de
Formaldehyde
D 1 methy 1 su 1 f ox 1 de
1,4-Dioxane
o-D 1 ch 1 orobenzene
Dl ethyl Carbonate
Slenda (Amoco)
Ethyl Bromide
Cyclohexy lamlne
Methy 1 Formate
Formamlde
Ethyl ene Glycol
Dlethy lamlne
Freons
D 1 ethy 1 -ortho Formate
Pyrldlne
Polyethylene Glycol 600
95
30
750
43
60
30
530
45
3,930
415
440
60
50
7,150
54
3
3
7
5
4
2
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
6
-
-
™
Sewer \ nc \ nerat 1 on
_ _
20
2)0 535
-
60
20
-
45
-
310
290
60
3
-
21
3
-» -.
Contract
Haul Disposal* Product
90
1
-
41
-
7
530
_
3,930
50 - 60
110 - 30
-
_
7,145
33
-
3
Solvent
Recovery
_
-
4,760
-
7,060
-
-
7,170
-
1,130
-
60
300
-
-
-
—
TOTALS
85,170 19,190 14,880 17,480
7,350
72
27,700
441,320
Source - 26 member companies of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PMA) reported these data which they
feel represent 85 percent of the volatile organic compounds used in their operations; these reporting
companies account for approximately 53 percent of the 1975 domestic sales of ethical Pharmaceuticals.
•DeepwelI or landf 11 I.
Annual disposition does not closely approximate annual purchase.
-------
TABLE II1-5
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION DATA: RTP STUDY
Amount:
Item;
Amount purchased (metric tons)
Amount discharged (metric tons)
Amount recovered within the
plant (metric tons)
Total amount used in plant
(sum of items 1 and 3)
(metric tons)
Percent recovered
Percent of total used that is
discharged
Percent of total used that is
discharged to sewer
Percent of total discharged that
is discharged to sewer
Total
Compounds
(total of 46)
85,170
86,142
441,320
526,490
83.8%
16%
2.7%
16.7%
Priority
Pollutants
(total of 7)
19,565
19,595
126,020
145,585
86.6%
13.5%
1.3%
9.7%
111-23
-------
TABLE III-6
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 26 PLANTS SELECTED FOR SCREENING
Screening
Code
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2015
2022
2026
2036
2038
2044
2066
2097
2108
2119
2132
2161
2204
2210
2231
2236
2248
2256
2257
2342
2411
2420
2439
2447
2462
2999*
Subcategory
A
A
A B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A B
B
A
A B
A B
A
B
B
A B
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Wastewater
Treatment
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
None
Biological
Biological
None
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Biological
Primary
Biological
None
Biological
Biological
Biological
Chemical
Biological
Chemical
Wastewater
Flow (Mgal/d)
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
.08
.30
.08
.20
.00
.13
.26
.10
.14
.05
.00
.00
.20
.01
.50
.90
.04
.00
.50
.06
.35
.17
.01
.50
.30
.45
EPA
Region
III
III
II
V
V
V
V
V
II
II
III
II
II
IV
II
IV
III
I
V
II
IV
V
II
V
VII
VII
Startup
Year
1960
1951
1950
1948
1954
1938
1953
1951
N/A
1977
1941
1969
1907
1973
1968
1952
1961
1948
1965
N/A
1970
1973
1974
N/A
1972
N/A
Employment
300
100
0 -
100
1000
800
600
100
300
N/A
300
900
2000
100
600
200
800
1200
2100
300
700
100
100
4000
0 -
N/A
- 400
- 200
100
- 200
- 1100
- 900
- 700
- 200
- 400
- 400
- 1000
- 2100
- 200
- 700
- 300
- 900
- 1300
- 2200
- 400
- 800
- 200
- 200
- 4100
100
Subcategory Totals:
A =
B =
C =
D =
15
9
18
19
* 308 Portfolio was not received from this plant
-------
TABLE III-7
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
COMPARISON OF SCREENING PLANTS
VERSUS TOTAL PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING POPULATION
Item Screening Plants Total Pharm. Mfr's.
Total Number of Plants 26 464
Subcategory
A 57.7% 8.0%
B 34.6 17.2
C 69.2 28.7
0 73.1 80.2
Wastewater Quantity
Less than 0.1 Mgal/d 23.1% 80.0%
0.1 to 1.0 Mgal/d 46.2 15.1
1.0 to 10.0 Mgal/d 26.9 4.3
Greater than 10.0 Mgal/d 3.8 0.6
EPA Region
I 3.7% 3.7%
II 29.6 35.6
PR 14.8 9.5
III 14.8 9.5
IV 11.1 10.6
V 33.3 20.0
VI 0.0 3.4
VII 7.4 6.0
VIII 0.0 1.3
IX 0.0 8.6
X 0.0 1.3
Plant Age (1978 Basis)
Less than 5 years 18.2% 16.2%(*)
5 to 10 years 18.2 22.7 (*)
10 to 25 years 22.7 27.8 (*)
25 to 50 years 36.4 19.9 (*)
50 to 100 years 4.5 12.0 (*)
Greater than 100 years 0.0 1.4 (*)
Employment
Less than 100 8.4% 36.9%
100 to 500 45.8 41 .0
500 to 1000 20.8 10.8
Greater than 1000 25.0 11.3
* Only (original) 308 Portfolio plants had these data and, thus, were
used to calculate these figures.
111-25
-------
TABLE III-8
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FIVE PLANTS SELECTED FOR VERIFICATION
H
H
H
I
ro
PLANT CODE
12026
12038
SUBCATEGORY
12097
12236
ABCD
CD
MAJOR TREATMENT
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Polishing Pond
Activated Carbon
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Physical-Chemical
Thermal Oxidation
Activated Sludge
Physical-Chemical
Activated Sludge
COMMENTS
Has Solvent Recovery
Uses Cyanide;
Has Steam Stripping;
Has Solvent Recovery
Uses Cyanide;
Has Solvent Recovery
Uses Cyanide;
Has Cyanide Destruction
Has Solvent Recovery
12411
BCD
Aerated Lagoon
On-Site Incineration of
Solvents
-------
TABLE 111-9
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT INFORMATION: SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority Number of
Pollutant Times Found
acenaphthene 3
acroleln 0
acrylonltrlla 0
benzene 16
benzldlne 0
carbon tatrachI or Ide 5
chlorobenzene 5
1,2,4-trlchlorobenzene 0
hexachlorobenzene 0
1,2-dlchloroethane 9
1,1,1-trlchloroethane 9
hexachloroethane 0
1,1-dlchloroethane 3
1,1,2-trIchloroethane 3
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 1
chloroethane 0
blsCchloromethyl) ether 0
bls(2-chloroethyl) ether 1
2-chloroethylvInyl ether 0
2-chloronaphthalene 0
2,4,6-trlchlorophenol 2
parachIorometa cresol 0
chloroform 17
2-chlorophenol 2
1,2-dichlorobenzane 3
1,3-dichlorobenzene 0
1,4-dIchlorobenzene 2
3,3'-dlchlorobenzldlne 0
1,1-dIchIoroethyIene 7
1,2-trans-dlchloroethylene 1
2,4-dlchlorophenol 0
1,2-dlchloropropane 0
1,3-dichloropropylene 1
2,4-dI methyl phenol 3
2,4-dlnltrotoluene 2
2,6-dlnltrotoluene 0
1,2-dlphenylhydrazlne 1
ethyl benzene 12
fIuoranthene 0
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 0
4-bromophenyI phenyl ether 0
bls(2-chlorolsopropyI) ether 3
bls(2-chloroethoxy) methane 0
methylene chloride 22
methyl chloride 2
methyl bromide 1
bromoform 1
dIchIorobromometha n e 0
trlchlorofluoromethane 3
dlchlorodlfluoromethane 0
chlorodlbromomethane 0
h exachIorobutadIene 0
hexachlorocyclopentadlene 0
Isophorone 2
naphthalene 1
nitrobenzene 1
2-nltrophenol 4
4-nltrophenol 3
2,4-dlnltrophenol 0
4,6-d t nItro-o-cresoI 1
N-nltrosodlmethylamlne 0
N-nItrosodlphenylamina 1
N-nltrosodl-n-propylamlne 0
pentachlorophenol 3
phenol 15
bls(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 12
butyl benzyl phthalate 4
dl-n-butyl phthalate 5
dl-n-octyl phthalate 0
Priority Number of
Pollutant Times Found
dlathy I phthalate 4
dimethyl phthalate 0
benzo(a)anthracene 0
benzo(a)pyrene 0
3,4-benzofIuoranthene 0
benzo(k)fluoranthane 0
chrysene 0
acenaphthylene 0
anthracene 1
benzoCghf)perylene 0
fluorene 2
phenanthrene 1
dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene 0
!deno(1,2,3-C,D)pyrene 0
pyrene 0
tetr achIorethylene 4
toluene 16
trIchIoroethyIene 4
vinyl chloride 0
aldrln 0
dleldrln 0
chlordane 0
4,4'-DDT 0
4,4'-DDE 0
4,4'-ODD 0
alpha-andosulfan 0
beta-endosulfan 0
endosulfan sulfate 0
endrln 0
endrln aldehyde 0
heptachI or 0
heptachlor epoxlde 0
alpha-BHC 0
beta-BHC 0
gamma-BHC 0
delta-BHC 0
PCB-1242 0
PCB-1254 0
PCB-1221 0
PCS-1232 0
PCB-1248 0
PCS-1260 0
PCB-1016 0
toxaphena 0
antimony (total) 9
arsenic (total) 6
asbestos (fibrous)
beryl Hum (total) 0
cadmium (total) 9
chromium (total) 24
copper (total) 24
cyanide (total) 13
lead (total) 17
mercury (total) 22
nickel (total) 15
selenium (total) 8
sliver (total) 8
thallium (total) 7
zinc (total) 24
2,3,7,8-tetrachloro- 0
dlbenzo-p-dloxln (TCDD)
Total Number Of Plants In The
Data Base: 26
I 11-27
-------
TABLE 111-10
I
to
CO
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF MAJOR* PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IDENTIFIED
FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION
priority
Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Base Extractables
25 1 / 2-Dichlorobenzene
Volatile Organics
4 Benzene
6 Carbon Tetrachloride
11 1,1,1 - Trichloroethylene
23 Chloroform
29 1 , 1-Dichloroethylene
30 1 , 2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene Chloride
86 Toluene
Metals
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
Others
121 Cyanide
* C^v t-H i a t-aK1 a 4-r*»v i r» r»r\TTnr^/^im/-
RTP
Study
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 o I.TQ v a H
PEDCo
Reports
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o-FinoH a c "TT
308
Portfolio
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Screening & Verification
Sampling Programs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
priority pollutants in accor-
dance with the following criteria for each data source:
RTP - The pollutant was reported by at least one plant (26 plants reporting)
PEDCo - The pollutant was found in two or more subcategories (130 plants studied).
308 - The pollutant was identified by 25 or more plants (464 plants surveyed).
Screening/Verification - The pollutant was detected at ten or more plants (26 plants
sampled).
-------
TABLE 111-11
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT RAH WASTE LOAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1):
SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 phenol
Volatile Organics
4 benzene
23 chloroform
38 ethylbenzene
44 methylene chloride
86 toluene
Metals
H
H
1
N)
V£>
119 chromium
1 20 copper
122 lead
1 23 mercury
124 nickel
128 zinc
Others
121 cyanide
Number of
Data Points
15
16
17
12
22
16
24
24
17
22
15
24
13
Minimum
10
5
16
5
0.
10
29
Maximum
16500
Median
180
Mean
2418
Standard
Deviation
5294
5
5
1
10
2
4000
145500
1600
1700000
63500
100
150
20
320
515
453
8984
171
82232
5832
980
351880
453
367225
15773
650
3110
500
50
630
1395
45
85
50
0.8
50
250
90
214
90
3.6
157
304
136
620
130
10.6
209
278
1980
280
478
597
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base: 26
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific influent value was reported, the data were used as the RWL.
2. If a specific effluent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" influent values, the detection limit was used as the RWL.
b. For "not detected" influent values, the RWL was assumed to be zero (0).
c. For plants with no treatment, the effluent value was used as the RWL.
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected", the data were not used.
-------
TABLE III-12
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT RAW WASTE LOAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1):
308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Priority Pollutant
Number of
Data Points
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Volatile Organics
4 Benzene
6 Carbon Tetrachloride
23 Chloroform
44 Methylene Chloride
86 Toluene
12
3
1
4
6
7
21
8000
196
987
2264
6
50
50
4
9
800
50
11000
22000000
290000
130
50
186
502
780
312
50
2856
37000000
48590
427
0
5431
9000000
100000
I
CO
o
Metals
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
15
13
12
10
11
18
4
10
4
0.1
7
5
2000
540
8400
35
500
120000
108
140
80
0.8
100
284
422
193
817
6
214
10373
632
173
2395
10.8
199
28900
Others
121 Cyanide
12
10
2300
200
510
543
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base: 34
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific influent value was reported, the data were used as the RWL.
2. If a specific effluent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" influent values, the detection limit was used as the RWL.
b. For "not detected" influent values, the RWL was assumed to be zero (0).
c. For plants with no treatment, the effluent value was used as the RWL.
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected," the data were not used.
-------
TABLE III-13
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
COMPARISON OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT RAW WASTE LOAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1)
308 PORTFOLIO VERSUS SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority
Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Volatile Organics
4 Benzene
6 Carbon Tetrachloride
23 Chloroform
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene Chloride
86 Toluene
Metals
119 Chromium
120 Copper
122 Lead
123 Mercury
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
Others
121 Cyanide
Regression Coefficients
Correlation:
Slope (m) :
Intercept (b)
308 Portfolio
196
130
50
186
*
502
780
108
140
80
0.8
100
284
200
( for 1 2 comparable
0.946
0.658
20.4
Median RWL • s ( ug/1 ) :
(X) Screen/Verification ( Y )
180
100
*
150
20
320
515
45
85
50
0.8
50
250
280
priority pollutants):
Y = mX + b
Not a major priority pollutant according to the data base.
111-31
-------
TABLE III-14
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
COMPARISON OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT RAW WASTE LOAD CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1)
BY SUBCATEGORY: SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority
Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol
Volatile Organics
4 Benzene
23 Chloroform
38 Ethylbenzene
44 Methylene
Choloride
86 Toluene
Metals
119 Chromium
1 20 Copper
122 Lead
1 23 Mercury
124 Nickel
128 Zinc
Others
Median
A
230
385
150
20
500
310
55
100
65
0.9
70
315
RWL'S by Sv
B
235
195
110
15
95
630
100
85
45
0.9
130
310
ibcategory* I
C
255
75
150
20
405
745
20
70
65
0.9
50
265
[mg/1) :
D
230
230
140
15
315
700
55
95
45
0.9
65
260
All
180
100
150
20
320
515
45
85
50
0.8
50
250
121 Cyanide 395 290 290 240 280
* For purposes of this comparison the data from a screening and
verification plant were used in each of the single subcategory
analyses for which the plant had a subcategory operation. For example;
data from an A B D plant were used in the subcategory A, B, and D
analyses.
111-32
-------
TABLE III-15
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT RAW WASTE LOAD CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
SCREENING AND VERIFICATION DATA
Traditional Pollutant
by Subcateogry
BOD:
A
B
C
D
Number of
Data Points
13
5
13
9
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Standard
Deviation
833
27
27
500
5810
3250
6433
3250
1900
1090
1428
1425
2440
1270
2190
1630
1685
1238
2034
999
I
U)
U)
COD;
A
B
C
D
12
4
12
10
1410
365
757
365
12840
5251
14267
6841
4407
1286
3802
2465
5180
2050
5160
2780
3522
2222
4287
2004
TSS;
A
B
C
D
10
3
12
7
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base: 26
113
30
15
15
3480
1200
3480
1200
900
316
436
316
1030
512
740
370
931
610
982
402
Notes:
For purposes of this analysis, the data from a screening and verification plant
were used in each of the single subcategory analyses for which the plant had a
subcategory operation. For example: data from an A B D plant were used in the
subcategory A, B, and D analyses.
Only reported data were used in the analysis. Assumed values for "less than, not
detected, and unknown" data were not used.
-------
TABLE 111-16
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT RAW WASTE LOAD CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1):
308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Traditional Pollutant
by Subcateogry
BOD:
A
B
C
D
Number of
Data Points
Minimum
Maximum
Median
Mean
Standard
Deviation
13
15
36
40
497
4
47
30
8460
7520
12374
10670
1551
611
1478
1312
2480
1600
2480
1970
2323
2242
3080
2658
COD:
H
H
I
A
B
C
D
9
11
28
27
430
10
154
50
16748
12032
22250
16748
2978
916
3219
2924
5200
3200
5270
3860
5477
4187
5763
4650
TSS;
A
B
C
D
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base: 61
7
10
20
23
266
3
7
30
2264
1645
4483
4128
650
262
258
273
910
380
630
560
728
477
1010
874
Notes:
For purposes of this analysis the data from a 308 Portfolio plant
were used in each of the single subcategory analyses for which the
plant had a subcategory operation. For example: data from an A B
D plant were used in the subcategory A, B, and D analyses.
Only reported data were used in the analysis. Assumed values for
"less than, not detected, and unknown" data were not used.
-------
TABLE III-17
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
COMPARISON OP TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT RAW WASTE LOAD
CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1): SCREENING/VERIFICATION VERSUS 308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Subcategory
Mean RWL's (mg/1)
BOD
Screening/Verification (Y);
A
B
C
D
308 Portfolio (X);
A
B
C
D
2440
1270
2190
1630
COD
5180
2050
5160
2780
TSS
1030
520
740
370
2480
1600
2480
1970
5200
3200
5270
3860
910
380
630
560
Regression Coefficients;
Correlation: 0.968
Slope (m): 0.912
Intercept (b): - 55.7
Y = mX + b
111-35
-------
TABLE III-18
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER FLOW CHARACTERISTICS 1
H
H
H
1
U)
^
Parameter
Single Subcategory Plant Flows ( Total )2
No. of Single Subcat. Plants w/Flow Data ^
Mean Subcategory Flows
No. of Discharges (All Subcategories)^
Direct
Indirect
Estimated Total Subcategory Flows ^
Sum of Raw Data Flows ^
A B C D
1.30 MGD 0.67 MGD 8.80 MGD 9.80 MGD
3 15 34 131
0.435 MGD 0.045 MGD 0.260 0.075
35 71 106 259
10 9 23.5 37
25 62 82.5 222
15.0 MGD 3.2 MGD 27.6 MGD 19.4 MGD
Total
—
—
—
471
79.5
391.5
65.2 MGD
60.4 MGD
^ All data, used in this analysis, are from 308 Portfolio data base.
2 Available data from single Subcategory cjilv_ plants.
3 All subcategories having direct and/or indirect discharges. For combined direct-indirect plants,
discharge was assumed to be one-half direct/one-half indirect. See Section VI for details.
^ Product of Mean Subcategory Flows and Number of Discharges
•* Sum of raw data flows for each plant in the data base. Note: This value is the result of data from
three-fourths of all direct and indirect discharging plants. The flows from the remaining one-fourth
of these plants are unknown.
-------
SECTION IV
SUBCATEGORIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Like so many other industries being studied by the Agency's
Effluent Guidelines Division, the pharmaceutical manufacturing
point source category exhibited a number of diverse characteristics
within itself. Thus, a subcategorization review was needed to
define the similarities and differences among the plants in the
industry. With this information the EPA could then determine where
separate regulations might be necessary.
PREVIOUS SUBCATEGORIZATION
In the 1976 Development Document a number of factors were
considered for the purpose of evaluating differences within the
pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. Some of the factors exa-
mined were:
1. Plant size, age, and location
2. Employment
3. Raw materials
4. Manufacturing processes
5. Products
6. Nature of wastes generated
7. Treatability of wastewaters
8. Housekeeping practices
After carefully reviewing each of the above, the 1976
Development Document concluded that from a wastewater standpoint
the types of manufacturing processes used were the most significant
factor for subcategorizing the industry. As a result, for purposes
of establishing BPT guidelines the pharmaceutical industry was
grouped into five subcategories according to the following manu-
facturing processes:
A. Fermentation
B. Biological Extraction
C. Chemical Synthesis
D. Mixing, Compounding and Formulating
E. Research
The 1976 Development Document summarized the wastewater
characteristics of each of the above subcategories as follows:
A. Fermentation processes are very large water users. With
the spent beers being the major source, these wastewa-
ters are characterized by very high BOD, COD, and
suspended solids levels.
IV-1
-------
B. Biological extraction processes, on the other hand, are
very small water users. Also, the concentrations of BOD,
COD, and suspended solids in these wastewaters are low.
C. Chemical synthesis processes, like fermentation, are
characterized as large water users with high pollutant
loadings. However, both the flows and BOD, COD, and
suspended solids levels are usually lower than those
from fermentation.
D. Formulation processes are also small water users. In
addition, these wastewaters have very low BOD, COD, and
suspended solids concentrations.
E. Research activities can produce wastewaters with a wide
range of pollutant loadings. However, the volume of
these wastewaters is usually extremely low.
FUTURE SUBCATEGORIZATION
One of the first tasks of the present project was to analyze
all of the newly acquired data to check the previous sub-
categorization of the industry. The purpose of this exercise was
not only to confirm the conclusions of the previous study, but to
examine the possibility of further sub-dividing the existing
subcategories. Also, since the previous study dealt only in terms
of traditional pollutants, an analysis was needed to determine the
appropriate subcategorization scheme for priority pollutants.
After examining the information in Sections II and III of
this report, it appeared that the 1976 Development Document's sub-
categorization scheme, i.e. wastewater flow and traditional pollu-
tant loads related to the types of manufacturing processes
employed, was still the best method of accounting for variations
within the pharmaceutical industry- Therefore, the previously
defined four principal subcategories (research activity was
de-emphasized, because of its relative insignificance) were felt to
be the most appropriate for purposes of any future regulatory
evaluations.
In terms of the subcategorization analysis for priority
pollutants, the information in Sections II and III of this report
provide different results. A close examination of the data
revealed that priority pollutant loads are not related to the type
of manufacturing process used. In fact, none of the previously
stated factors appeared to adequately describe any differences
within the industry. Priority pollutants in the industry seem to
be governed by each plant's individual preference for using them.
Therefore, one overall main category, covering the entire industry,
was felt to be the best subcategorization scheme for purposes of
evaluating any future priority pollutant regulations.
IV-2
-------
SECTION V
SELECTION OP POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
INTRODUCTION
A considerable effort was expended by the Agency to find and
quantify the presence of priority (toxic) pollutants and tradi-
tional (conventional and nonconventional) pollutants in the waste-
waters of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. The results
of that effort are presented in Section III of this document,
describing the waste characteristics of the industry.
The Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources Defense
Councilf Inc. v. Train, 8ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified March 9,
1979, requires that effluent limitations and standards be
established for each of the 65 toxic pollutants or classes of toxic
pollutants, unless the Administrator determines that it should be
excluded from rulemaking under Paragraph 8 of the subject
Agreement. Likewise, the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217) not
only upholds the above requirements, but also requires the
Administrator to establish effluent limitations and standards for
non-conventional and conventional pollutants, i.e. BAT, BCT, and
Pretreatment standards.
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
By examining the information in Section III of this report,
it can be seen that 115 of the total 129 priority pollutants were
identified in the wastewaters of the pharmaceutical industry. Prom
an administration or enforcement standpoint, however, the adoption
of effluent limitations and standards for each of the above
priority pollutants would be a regulatory nightmare. Although the
Settlement Agreement and the Clean Water Act of 1977 discussed the
control of only 65 toxic pollutants or classes of toxic pollutants,
it was felt that a burdensome number of regulations also would
result by this approach. Therefore, an alternative regulatory
approach should be developed.
After reviewing all of the data from Section III, 13 priority
pollutants were designated as being significant because of their
dominant occurrence in the industry's wastewater. These compounds
are listed in Table V-1, along with a brief summary of their pre-
sence in the pharmaceutical industry. Although the EPA can
establish limitations for all 13 priority pollutants, an alter-
native would be to select surrogates or indicators to represent
these compounds for purposes of developing effluent guidelines.
This decision would best be made by the EPA after a detailed
review by the appropriate divisions within the agency and after
further analysis of additional data presently being compiled within
the EPA.
V-1
-------
TRADITIONAL POLLUTANTS
After examining the available data on the pharmaceutical
industry, a wide variety of traditional pollutants were found in
its wastewaters. Only the pollutants covered by existing
BPT regulations, however, are thought to warrant continued
regulation. These are the conventional pollutants, BOD and TSS,
and the non-conventional pollutant COD. They are also listed in
Table V-1.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SIGNIFICANT POLLUTANTS
Presented below are brief summaries (108) of the important
environmental characteristics of the pollutants which were thought
to be significant in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry.
Phenol - Although it appears to be less toxic than the
chlorinated phenols and certain substituted phenols, its toxicity
to microorganisms, plants, aquatic organisms and mammals, including
man, has been demonstrated. Phenol also has been reported to exhi-
bit carcinogenic activity in mice. These findings, together with
potential pollution from waste sources and the possible chlorina-
tion of phenol, present in drinking water sources, indicate that
phenol is potentially hazardous to aquatic and terrestrial life.
Benzene - The solubility and volatile nature of benzene indi-
cate possible environmental mobility. Benzene has been detected at
various concentrations in lakes, streams, and drinking water.
Benzene may bioaccumulate in living organisms and appears to accu-
mulate in animal tissues that exhibit a high lipid content or
represent major metabolic sites such as the liver and the brain.
Benzene is suspected of being a human carcinogen. Studies, for
example, of the effect of benzene vapors on humans indicate a rela-
tionship between chronic benzene poisoning and a high incidence of
leukemia.
Chloroform - Many studies have shown chloroform to be toxic
to organisms at various levels of the food chain; in higher orga-
nisms it exhibits both temporary and lasting effects. Several stu-
dies indicate that chloroform is carcinogenic to rats and mice.
Human exposure to chloroform can lead to liver and renal damage,
and depression of the central nervous system. Epidemiological stu-
dies in humans hint that there may be a relationship between cancer
incidence and ingestion of water containing chloroform.
Ethylbenzene - 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 to fish
flesh. In man and in animals, ethylbenzene is an irritant of
mucous membranes.
Methylene Chloride - Methylene chloride has not generally
been regarded as highly toxic, but poisonings, primarily from inha-
V-2
-------
lation exposures, have been reported. Methylene chloride affects
the functioning of the central nervous system. It is also irri-
tating to mucous membranes (eyes, respiratory tract) and skin. In
addition, it results in production of carbon monoxide as a metabo-
lite which interferes with oxygen transfer and transport.
Gynecologic problems in female workers exposed for long periods to
methylene chloride vapors have been reported. In pregnant women,
chronic exposure resulted in methylene chloride passing through the
placenta into the fetus. Methylene chloride was also found in milk
of lactating women after a few hours into a work shift.
Toluene - Freshwater aquatic studies indicate that toluene is
toxic to fish. Several marine studies indicate that toluene is
toxic to marine bacteria, phytoplankton, and marine fish. A study
using mice showed that toluene is a central nervous system
depressant that can cause behavioral changes, »s well as loss of
consciousness and death at high concentrations. Human exposure to
toluene for a two year period has led to cerebellar disease and
impaired liver function.
Chromium - The level of chromate ions that would have no
effect on man appear to be so low as to prohibit determination.
The toxicity of chromium salts to fish and other aquatic life
varies widely with the species, temperature, pH, valence of the
chromium, and synergistic or antagonistic effects, especially those
of hard water. Studies show that trivalent chromium is more toxic
to fish of some types than is hexavalent chromium. Other studies
show opposite effects. Fish food organisms and other lower forms
of aquatic life are extremely sensitive to chromium; it also inhi-
bits the growth of algae. Therefore, both hexavalent and trivalent
chromium must be considered potentially harmful to particular fish
or organisms. Fish appear to be relatively tolerant of chromium,
but some aquatic invertebrates are quite sensitive.
Copper - The toxicity of copper to aquatic life is dependent
on the alkalinity of the water, as the copper ion is complexed by
anions present, which in turn affects toxicity. At lower alkali-
nity copper is generally more toxic to aquatic life. Other factors
affecting toxicity include pH, the presence of organic compounds,
and the species tested. Relatively high concentrations of copper
may be tolerated by adult fish for short periods of time; the cri-
tical effect of copper appears to be its higher toxicity to young
or juvenile fish.
Lead- Lead is a toxic material that is foreign to humans and
animals. The most common form of lead poisoning is called
plumbism. Lead can be introduced into the body from an atmosphere
containing lead or from food and water. Lead cannot be easily
excreted and is cumulative in the body over long periods of time,
eventually causing lead poisoning. In humans lead poisoning can
cause congestion of the lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys. Lead
exposure has been reported to decrease reproductive ability in man.
V-3
-------
It has also been shown to cause disturbances in blood chemistry,
neurological disorders, kidney damage, and adverse cardiovascular
effects. Lead has also caused the formation of tumors in rats and
mice.
Mercury - In humans, mercurials have been associated with
neurological disorders, sensory impairment, tremors, buccal
ulceration, gastro-intestinal complaints and multisystem involve-
ment due to general encephalopathy. Mercurials will damage the
bronchial epithelium and interrupt respiratory function in fresh-
water invertebrates. Rainbow trout will suffer loss of
equilibrium, and trout fry are more susceptible to mercury
poisoning than fingerlings. Mercurial compounds may interfere with
receptor membranes in fish. Nonhuman animals have been shown to
suffer central nervous system damage as well as teratogenesis and
spontaneous tumorigenesis. There are no data available on the
teratogenicity or mutagenicity of inorganic mercury in human
populations. Furthermore, there is no evidence of mercury exposure
producing carcinogenicity.
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 nickel is toxic to aquatic plant life, affects the reproduc-
tion of some freshwater Crustacea, and can kill various marine
larvae.
Zinc- Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse
change in the morphology and physiology of fish. Acutely toxic
concentrations induce cellular breakdown of the gills, and possibly
the clogging of the gills and mucous. Chronically toxic con-
centrations of zinc compounds, in contrast, cause general enfeeble-
ment and widespread histological changes to many organs, but not to
gills. Growth and maturation are retarded. In general, salmonids
are most sensitive to elemental zinc in soft water; the rainbow
trout is the most sensitive in hard waters. In tests with several
heavy metals, the immature aquatic insects seem to be less sen-
sitive than many tested fish. Although available data are sparse
on the effects of zinc in the marine environment, zinc does accumu-
late in some species. Toxicities of zinc in nutrient solutions
have been demonstrated for a number of plants. In humans, zinc
ingestion has produced no clinical symptoms at daily intakes of 150
mg/day for as long as six months. Food poisoning has been reported
from ingestion of a meal estimated to contain nearly 1,000 ppm of
zinc and another case among people who had drunk punch containing
zinc at a concentration of 2,200 ppm.
Cyanide - Cyanide toxicity is essentially an inhibition of
oxygen metabolism, i.e., rendering the tissues incapable of
exchanging oxygen. The cyanogen compounds are true noncumulative
protoplasmic poisons since they arrest the activity of all forms of
animal life. Cyanide shows a very specific type of toxic action.
V-4
-------
It inhibits the cytochrome oxidase system which facilitates
electron transfer from reduced metabolites to molecular oxygen.
Cyanides are more toxic to fish than to lower aquatic organisms
such as midge larvae, crustaceans, and mussels. Toxicity to fish
is a function of chemical form and concentration, and is influenced
by the rate of metabolism (temperature), the level of dissolved
oxygen, and pH. Also, cyanides are known to be degraded by the
human liver to the less toxic thiocyanate and despite their high
levels of acute toxicity they are not known to be chronically toxic
to humans.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) - The BOD of a waste adver-
sely affects the dissolved oxygen resources of a body of water by
reducing the oxygen available to fish, plant life, and other
aquatic species. It is possible to reach conditions which totally
exhaust the dissolved oxygen in the water, resulting in anaerobic
conditions and the production of undesirable gases such as hydrogen
sulfide and methane. The reduction of dissolved oxygen can be
detrimental to fish populations, fish growth rate, and organisms
used as fish food. A total lack of oxygen due to excessive BOD can
result in the death of all aerobic aquatic inhabitants in the
affected area.
Water with a high BOD may indicate the presence of decom-
posing organic matter and associated increased bacterial con-
centrations that degrade its quality and potential uses. High BOD
may increase algae concentrations and blooms which result from
increased nutrients made available from decaying organic matter.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - TSS may be inert, slowly
biodegradable materials, or rapidly decomposable substances. While
in suspension they increase the turbidity of the water, reduce
light penetration, and impair the photosynthetic activity of
aquatic plants.
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, by screening out light, and by promoting and maintaining
the development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.
Suspended solids also reduce the recreational value of the water.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) - COD compounds which can be
more resistant to biological oxidation are becoming of greater and
greater concern, not only because of their slow but continuing oxy-
gen demand on the resources of the receiving water, but also
because of their potential health effects on aquatic and human
life. Some of these compounds have been found to have
carcinogenic, mutagenic, and similar adverse effects, either singly
or in combination. Concern about these compounds has increased as
a result of demonstrations that their long life in receiving waters
— the result of a slow biochemical oxidation rate — allows them
V-5
-------
to contaminate downstream water intakes. The commonly used systems
of water purification are not effective in removing these types of
materials, and disinfection (such as chlorination) may convert them
into even more hazardous materials.
V-6
-------
TABLE V-1
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
Pollutant
Category
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS;
Acid Extractables
Phenol
Volatile Organics
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Metals
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Others
Cyanide
Raw Material*
(No. of Plants)
Final Product*
(No. of Plants)
Identified in
Wastewater"1"
(Percentage of
All Plants)
74
46
69
2
90
78
17
37
11
25
17
53
34
4
4
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
3
3
58%
62%
65%
46%
85%
62%
92%
92%
65%
85%
58%
92%
50%
CONVENTIONALS;
BOD
TSS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
100%
NONCONVENTIONALS:
COD
N/A
N/A
100%
From 308 Portfolio data base
From Screening/Verification data base
V-7
-------
SECTION VI
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the control and treatment technologies
which are currently used or available to remove or reduce those
wastewater pollutants generated by the pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry. Although the industry's wastewaters are known to vary in
quantity and quality, all should be readily treatable by the tech-
niques presented herein. In identifying appropriate control and
treatment technologies the Agency assumed that each manufacturing
plant had installed or would install the equipment necessary to
comply with limitations based on BPT. Thus, the technologies
described below are those which can further reduce the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters or POTW systems. They are divided
into two broad classes: in-plant and end-of-pipe technologies.
The final item of importance in this section is the discharge
methods employed by the industry. Since the ultimate receiving
point of a plant's wastewater can be critical in determining the
overall treatment effort required, information on the types of
discharges can be very important in the selection of appropriate
control and treatment technologies. A summary of the types of
discharge methods used by the pharmaceutical industry is presented
at the end of this section.
IN-PLANT SOURCE CONTROLS
The intent of in-plant source controls is to reduce or elimi-
nate the hydraulic and/or pollutant loads which are generated by
specific sources within the overall manufacturing process. By
implementing controls at the source, the impact on and requirements
of subsequent downstream treatment systems can be minimized.
Many of the newer pharmaceutical manufacturing plants are
being designed with the reduction of water use and subsequent mini-
mization of contamination as part of the overall planning and plant
design criteria. Improvements also have been made in existing
plants to better control their manufacturing processes and other
activities with regard to their environmental aspects. Some
examples of in-plant source controls that have been effective in
reducing pollution loads are:
1. Production processes have been modified or combined and
reaction mixtures have been concentrated, reducing waste loads,
as well as increasing yields. Processes have also been reviewed
and revised to reduce the number of toxic substances used.
2. Attempts are made to concentrate and segregate wastes
at their source, minimizing or eliminating wastes where possible.
New process equipment is designed to produce effluents requiring
no further treatment.
VI-1
-------
3. Several techniques have been employed by various Sub-
category A plants in an effort to reduce the volume of fermenta-
tion wastes discharged to end-of-pipe treatment systems. These
include concentration of "spent beer" wastes by evaporation and
dewatering and drying of waste mycelia. The resulting dry product
in some instances has sufficient economic value as an animal feed
supplement to offset part of the drying cost.
4. Several plants have installed automatic TOC monitoring
instrumentation and others have utilized pH and TOC monitoring
to permit early detection of process upsets which may result in
excessive discharges to sewers.
5. The recovery of waste solvents is a common practice
among plants using solvents in their manufacturing processes.
However, several plants have instituted further measures to
reduce the amount of waste solvent discharge. Such measures
include incineration of solvents that cannot be recovered eco-
nomically and of "bottoms" from solvent recovery units, and design
and construction of solvent recovery columns to strip solvents
beyond the economical recovery point.
6. The use of barometric condensers can result in sig-
nificant water contamination, depending upon the nature of the
materials entering the discharge water stream. As an alterna-
tive, several plants are using surface condensers to reduce
hydraulic or organic loads.
7. Water-sealed vacuum pumps often create water pollution
problems. Several plants are using a recirculation system as a
means of greatly reducing the amount of water being discharged.
8. Reduction of once-through cooling water by recycling
through cooling towers is used in numerous plants and results in
decreased total volume of discharge.
9. Stormwater runoff from manufacturing areas can contain
significant quantities of pollutants. Separation of Stormwater
is practiced throughout the industry and often facilitates the
isolation and treatment of contaminated runoff.
IN-PLANT TREATMENT
Besides implementing source controls to reduce or eliminate
the waste loads generated within the manufacturing process itself,
another alternative is available. In-plant treatment is directed
at removing certain pollutant parameters before they are combined
with the plant's overall wastewaters and subsequently diluted. In
a general sense in-plant treatment processes are end-of-pipe treat-
ment within the plant itself, designed to treat specific waste
streams. Although in-plant technologies can remove a variety of
pollutants, their principal applications are for the treatment of
toxic or priority pollutants. In the pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry three classes of priority pollutants are of particular
VI-2
-------
importance. As indicated in Section III, the major priority pollu-
tants are: solvents, metals, and cyanide. Thus, the discussions
presented below on in-plant technologies concern the treatment of
these three classes of pollutants.
The 308 Portfolio data base was the principal source of
information relative to the use of in-plant treatment by the phar-
maceutical industry. However, before continuing, certain points
regarding the 308 Portfolio data base must be clarified. Specific
information on the use of in-plant treatment was requested only by
the Supplemental 308 Portfolio. Information on in-plant tech-
nologies was not specifically requested in the (original) 308
Portfolio. (At the time of the original 308 mailing, data on in-
plant treatment was not thought to be a critical item. This philo-
sophy was changed prior to the Supplemental 308 mailing). However,
some in-plant treatment information was obtained for the (original)
308 Portfolio plants. It was gathered via three mechanisms: 1)
some plants provided "additional" data or comments on the
questionnaire, relative to in-plant treatment; 2) a small amount of
information was gathered over the telephone; 3) the wastewater
sampling programs discussed in Section III identified the use of
a few in-plant technologies.
Table VI-1 presents a summary of the in-plant treatment
technologies identified from the various data bases, along with the
number of plants that employ each process. A listing of each
plant's treatment system, including in-plant treatment, is pre-
sented in Appendix J.
Cyanide Destruction Technologies
Present cyanide treatment processes that have been demon-
strated to be effective are based upon two fundamental techniques:
chemical oxidation and thermal/pressure treatment. Chemical oxida-
tion is a reaction in which one or more electrons are transferred
from the chemical being oxidized to the chemical initiating the
transfer (oxidizing agent). As a result of the valence change, the
oxidized substance can then react to form a more desirable com-
pound. Thermal/pressure treatment is the application of high tem-
perature and high pressure in order to break down chemical bonds.
The end result is that the substance is broken down into sub-
molecular form permitting reactions to more desirable compounds.
Technologies using the above two techniques, which have been shown
to be effective in reducing cyanide concentrations in industrial
process wastewaters, are discussed below. The use of cyanide
treatment in the pharmaceutical industry is summarized in Table
VI-1.
Chlorination
Destruction of cyanide by oxidation with either chlorine gas
under alkaline conditions or with sodium hypochlorite is a very
common method to treat industrial wastewaters containing cyanide.
Although more costly, sodium hypochlorite is less hazardous and
VI-3
-------
simpler to handle. The oxidation procedure can be approximated p5
by the following two step chemical reaction:
(1) C12 + NaCN + 2NaOH = NaCNO + 2NaC1 + H20
(2) 3C12 + 6NaOH + 2NCNO= 2NaHC03 + N2 + 6NaC1 + 2H20
Cyanide is oxidized to cyanate completely and rapidly at a pH
of about 9.5 to 10.0 as shown in equation (1). Usually 30 minutes
are required to insure a complete reaction. The oxidation of
cyanide to cyanate is accompanied by a marked reduction in the
volatility and a thousand fold reduction in toxicity.
However, since cyanate may revert back to cyanide under some
conditions, additional chlorine is provided to oxidize cyanate to
carbon dioxide and nitrogen as shown in Equation 2, above. At pH
levels around 9.5 to 10.0 several hours are required for the
complete oxidation of the cyanate, but only one hour is necessary
at pH between 8.0 and 8.5. Also, excess chlorine must be provided
to break down cyanogen chloride, a highly toxic intermediate com-
pound formed during the oxidation of cyanate.
Theoretically, oxidation of one part of cyanide to cyanate
requires 2.73 parts of chlorine, but in practice, 3 to 4 parts of
chlorine are used. Complete oxidation of one part cyanide to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen gas theoretically requires 6.82 parts of
chlorine, but nearly 8 parts are normally necessary in practice.
The chlorine required in practice is higher than the theoretical
amount because other substances in the wastewater compete for the
chlorine.
Soluble iron interferes seriously with the alkaline chlorina-
tion of cyanide wastes. Iron and cyanide form an extremely stable
complex, and chlorine is ineffective in oxidizing such complexes.
Similar difficulties result from formation of nickel cyanides.
Ferrocyanides are reported treatable by alkaline chlorination at
temperatures of 71°C (160°F) and a pH of about 12.0.
Ammonia interferes with the chlorine oxidation process, and
the demand is increased by the formation of chloramines. When
cyanide is only being oxidized to cyanate, it is usually not
economical to remove the ammonia by breakpoint chlorination, which
requires almost 10 parts of chlorine per part of ammonia. Complete
cyanate formation can be accomplished by allowing an extra 15 minu-
tes contact time. When complete oxidation of the cyanide is to be
accomplished, the ammonia must be removed by breakpoint chlorina-
tion so that a free chlorine residual can be maintained to break
down the cyanogen chloride.
An example of a cyanide destruction system using chlorination
is shown in Figure VI-1.
When considering some of the advantages of the chlorination
process, it can be seen why this technology has received widespread
VI-4
-------
application. First, it is a relatively low cost system and does
not require complicated equipment. It also fits well into the flow
scheme of a wastewater treatment facility. The process will
operate effectively at ambient conditions and is well suited for
automatic operation, minimizing labor requirements.
The chlorination process, however, is not without limitations
or disadvantages. For example, toxic, volatile intermediate reac-
tion products can be formed. Thus, it is essential to properly
control pH to ensure that all reactions are carried to their end
point. Also, for waste streams containing other oxidizable matter,
the chlorine may be consumed in oxidizing these materials and
interfere with the treatment of the cyanide. Finally, for those
systems using gaseous chlorine, a potentially hazardous situation
exists when it is stored and handled.
The oxidation of cyanide-bearing wastewaters using chlorine
is a classic technology. However, its use by the pharmaceutical
industry is limited to a few plants. From the study to develop BPT
regulations for the electroplating industry (109), conducted by the
EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division, it was shown that cyanide
levels around 40 ug/1 are achievable by in-plant chlorination
processes.
Ozonation
Although they are excellent from a biological standpoint, air
and oxygen are not considered to be effective chemical agents in
the treatment of industrial wastewaters. However, ozone
(allotropic form of oxygen) is a good oxidizing agent and can be
used to treat process wastewaters which contain cyanide. In fact,
it oxidizes many cyanide complexes that are not broken down by
chlorine, for instance, iron and nickel complexes. Ozonation is
primarily used to oxidize cyanide to cyanate and to oxidize phenols
and chromophores to a variety of nontoxic products.
With traces of copper and manganese, as catalysts, cyanide is
reduced to very low levels independent of starting concentrations
and form of the complex. The oxidation of cyanide by ozone to
cyanate occurs in about 15 minutes at a pH of 9.0 to 10.0, but the
reaction is almost instantaneous in the presence of traces of
copper. The pH of the cyanide waste is often raised to 12.0 so
that complete oxidation occurs before the pH drops to 8.0 in the
process.
Oxidation of cyanate to the final end products, nitrogen and
bicarbonate, is a much slower and more difficult process, unless
catalysts are present. Therefore, since ozonation will not readily
effect further oxidation of cyanate, it is often coupled with inde-
pendent processes, such as dialysis or bio-oxidation.
As with the chlorination process, ozonation has its advan-
tages and disadvantages. Like chlorination, the ozonation process
is well suited to automatic control and will operate effectively at
VI-5
-------
ambient conditions. Also, the reaction product (oxygen) is benefi-
cial to the treated wastewater. Since the ozone is generated
on-site, procurement, storage, and handling problems are
eliminated.
The ozonation process does have its drawbacks. First, it has
relatively higher capital and operating costs than chlorination.
And like chlorination, interference is possible, if other oxidi-
zable matter is present in the waste stream. Finally, in most
cases the cyanide is not effectively oxidized beyond the cyanate
level.
The use of the ozonation treatment process is beginning
to receive more and more usage. Its initial applications in the
metal finishing industry have shown it to be quite effective for
cyanide removal.
Alkaline Pyrolysis
Removal of cyanide from process wastewaters can be
accomplished without the use of strong oxidizing chemicals. For
the alkaline pyrolysis system, the principal treatment action is
based upon the application of heat and pressure. In this process,
a caustic solution is added to the cyanide-bearing wastewaters to
raise the pH to between 9.0 and 12.0. Next, the wastewater is
transferred to a continuous reactor, where it is subjected to tem-
peratures of about 165 to 185°C (329 to 365°F) and pressured from
approximately 90 to 110 psig. The breakdown of cyanide in the
reactor is generally accomplished with a residence time of about
1.5 hours.
An example of an alkaline pyrolysis system for treating
cyanide-bearing wastewaters is shown in Figure VI-2.
The absence of chemicals in this process eliminates
procurement, storage, and handling problems. As with other cyanide
processes, alkaline pyrolysis is well suited to automatic control.
However, since the process employs heat and pressure (and
related equipment), it has a relatively higher cost. Also, the
system tends to be more appropriate for smaller wastewater flows.
As was the case with chlorination, only a few plants in the
pharmaceutical industry reported using alkaline pyrolysis for
cyanide treatment. But, the data available from these plants indi-
cated that the cyanide levels, achievable by this technology, are
similar to those from the chlorination process.
Metals Removal Technologies
Proven metals treatment technologies are based upon two
basic techniques: reduction/precipitation and filtration.
Reduction/precipitation involves the adjustment of pH to a point
where the metallic substances become insoluble in water and
VI-6
-------
subsequently settle out. The reduction step is necessary for
those metals, such as chromium, that are highly soluble in the
high valence state. Filtration can then be used to polish the
clarified wastewaters to further remove the precipitated metallic
hydroxides. Treatment technologies using the above two tech-
niques, which have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing
metals concentrations in industrial process wastewaters, are
discussed below. The use of metals treatment in the pharmaceutical
industry is summarized in Table VI-1.
Chemical Reduction
Some metals, chromium in particular, must be reduced from
their high valence states before they can be precipitated. The
most common method in use presently is to perform the reduction
chemically. Chemical reduction is a reaction in which one or more
electrons are transferred to the chemical being reduced from the
chemical initiating the transfer (reducing agent). Since chromium
is the predominant metal requiring reduction, it will be discussed
in this report.
As noted above, the main application of chemical reduction in
the treatment of industrial wastewater is in the reduction of hexa-
valent chromium to trivalent chromium. The reduction enables the
trivalent chromium to be separated from solution in conjunction
with other metal salts by precipitation. Sulfur dioxide, sodium
bisulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and ferrous sulfate form strong
reducing agents in aqueous solution and are, therefore, useful in
industrial waste treatment facilities for the reduction of hexava-
lent chromium to trivalent chromium. Gaseous sulfur dioxide is
probably the most widely used agent in this process. The reactions
involved may be illustrated as follows:
(1) 3S02 + 3H20 = 3H2S03
(2) 3H2S03 + 2H2Cr04 = Cr2(S04)3 + 5H20
The above reaction is favored by low pH. A pH of 2.0 to 3.0
is normally required for situations requiring complete reduction.
At pH levels above 5.0, the reduction rate is slow. Oxidizing
agents such as dissolved oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the
reduction process by consuming the reducing agent.
An example of a chromium reduction system for treating pro-
cess wastewaters containing chromates is presented in Figure VI-3.
The principal advantage of this process is its demonstrated
effectiveness. In all of its applications within industry, chemi-
cal reduction has successfully treated high valence metals. In
addition, the process is well suited to automatic control.
Chemical reduction processes also operate at ambient conditions.
However, chemical reduction is not without some limitations.
Careful pH control is required for effective reduction. In
VI-7
-------
addition, when waste streams contain other reducible matter, the
reducing agent may be consumed in reducing these materials and
interfere with the treatment of the metals. Finally/ for those
systems using sulfur dioxide, a potentially hazardous situation
exists when it is stored and handled.
The chemical reduction of chromium wastes with sulfur dioxide
is a well-known and widely accepted treatment technology in
numerous plants employing chromium or other high valence compounds
in their manufacturing operations. Data from the previously cited
EPA study (109) indicated that chromium levels below 500 ug/1 can
be achieved from in-plant chromium reduction processes.
Alkaline Precipitation
Alterations in the pH of a plant's wastewater occur
throughout its flow scheme as alkaline and acidic waste streams are
mixed. Generally the wastewater is acidic and thus not suitable
for metals removal. Consequently, chemicals must be added in order
to raise the pH, so that dissolved heavy metals become insoluble
and are subsequently precipitated.
To accomplish this pH adjustment and precipitation, lime is
added to the wastewater to increase the pH above 8.0. This
decreases the solubility of the metal, which precipitates as a
metal hydroxide. The precipitated metal is often removed by a
clarification step.
If substantial sulfur compounds are present in the
wastewater, caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) may be used instead of
lime to prevent the precipitation of calcium sulfate, which
increases the sludge volume. Treatment chemicals for adjusting pH
prior to clarification may be added to a rapid mix tank, a mix box,
or directly to the clarifier, especially in batch clarification.
If metals such as cadmium and nickel are in the wastewater, a pH in
excess of 10.0 is required for effective precipitation. This pH,
however, is unacceptable for discharged wastewater, and the pH must
therefore be reduced by adding acid. The acid is usually added as
the treated wastewater flows through a small neutralization tank
prior to discharge.
An example of a metals removals system using alkaline preci-
pitation is shown in Figure VI-4.
Some advantages of alkaline precipitation are as follows:
The process is a proven technology. It is well suited to automatic
control and will operate at ambient conditions. Also, in many
instances preceding treatment steps adjust the waste (especially
pH) so as to aid the alkaline precipitation process. The end
result is that the costs associated with this technology may be
substantially lower.
However, alkaline precipitation does have some drawbacks. As
with some of the other technologies, chemical interference is
VI-8
-------
possible in the treatment of mixed wastes. In addition, this pro-
cess generates relatively high quantities of sludge, requiring
disposal.
Alkaline precipitation is another classic technology being
used by many industries, although its usage in the pharmaceutical
industry has been limited. Again, the EPA study to develop BPT
regulations for the electroplating industry (109) indicated that
the alkaline precipitation process is capable of achieving the
following approximate levels: 300 ug/1 for chromium and zinc; 200
ug/1 for copper; 100 ug/1 for lead, and 500 ug/1 for nickel.
Sulfide Precipitation
In this process, heavy metals are removed as a sulfide
precipitate. Sulfide is supplied by the addition of a very
slightly soluble metal sulfide which has a solubility somewhat
greater than that of the sulfide of the metal to be removed.
Normally, ferrous sulfide is used. It is fed into a precip-
itator where excess sulfide is retained in a sludge blanket that
acts both as a reservoir of available sulfide and as a medium to
capture colloidal particles.
The process equipment required includes a pH adjustment tank,
a precipitator, a filter, and pumps to transport the wastewater.
The filter is optional and may be a standard, dual media pressure
filter.
The process is applicable for treatment of all heavy metals.
It offers a distinct advantage in the treatment of wastewater con-
taining hexavalent chromium. The ferrous sulfide acts as a
reducing agent at a pH of 8.0 to 9.0 and this reduces the hexava-
lent chromium and then precipitates it as a hydroxide in one step
without pH adjustment. Therefore, hexavalent chromium wastes do
not have to be isolated and pretreated by reduction to the triva-
lent form.
Sulfide precipitation will effectively treat all metals in a
waste stream, and it does not require the preceding step of chromium
reduction. This helps minimize treatment costs. With respect to
the generated sludge, it has been found that sulfide sludges are
less subject to leaching than hydroxide sludges. This results in
minimal sludge disposal problems.
Although the sludge handling problems are minimized, sulfide
precipitation does generate greater sludge volumes. Thus, there is
a trade off of less leaching versus larger storage requirements.
Also, when compared to alkaline precipitation, sulfide precipita-
tion has relatively higher chemical costs.
Full size industrial units are presently being produced and
are in use at several manufacturing facilities. Treated levels,
obtainable with sulfide precipitation, are very similar to those
for alkaline precipitation; with this technology being more effec-
tive for some metals and less effective for others.
VI-9
-------
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Adsorption is defined as the adhesion of dissolved molecules
to the surface of solid bodies with which they are in contact.
Those molecules retained in the interior of any solid are subjected
to equal forces in all directions, whereas molecules on the surface
are subjected to unbalanced forces. This results in an inward
force which can only be satisfied if other molecules become
attached to the surface. Granular activated carbon particles have
two properties which make them effective and economical as
adsorbents. First, they have a high surface area per unit volume
which results in faster, more complete adsorption and second they
have a high hardness value which lends itself to reactivation and
repeated use.
The adsorption process typically uses preliminary filtration
or clarification to remove insolubles. Next, the wastewaters are
placed in contact with carbon so adsorption can take place.
Normally, two or more beds are used so that adsorption can continue
while a depleted bed is reactivated. Reactivation is accomplished
by heating the carbon to 870 to 980°C (1600 to 1800°P) to volatize
and oxidize the dissolved contaminants. Oxygen in the furnace is
normally controlled at less than 1 percent to effect selective oxi-
dation of contaminants.
The equipment necessary for an activated carbon adsorption
treatment system consists of the following: a preliminary clarifi-
cation and/or filtration unit to remove the bulk of the metallic
solids; two or three columns packed with activated carbon; and
pumps and piping. When regeneration is employed, a furnace, quench
tanks, spent carbon tank, and reactivated carbon tank are generally
required.
An example of an activated carbon adsorption unit is shown in
Figure VI-5.
Activated carbon adsorption systems have consistently pro-
duced effluents of extremely high quality. Not only has it been
demonstrated to be effective in metals removal, but activated car-
bon adsorption will also remove traditional pollutants as well as
many organic priority pollutants.
Although it is a very efficient process, activated carbon
does have some limitations. First, it has higher capital and
operating costs than most of the other metal removal technologies.
In addition, the waste stream may require preliminary treatment to
minimize plugging of the carbon granules with suspended material.
Activated carbon adsorption systems have been in full scale
commercial use for years, but its application for metals removal is
relatively new.
VI-10
-------
Diatomaceous Earth Filtration
Diatomaceous earth filtration, combined with pH adjustment
and precipitation, is an alternative to clarification treatment.
The diatomaceous earth filter is used to remove metal hydroxides
and other solids from the wastewater and provides an effluent of
high quality.
A diatomaceous filter is comprised of a filter, a filter
housing and associated pumping equipment. The filter element con-
sists of multiple peat screens which are coated with diatomaceous
earth. The size of the filter is a function of flow rate and
desired operating time between filter cleanings.
Normal operation of the system involves pumping a mixture of
diatomaceous earth and water through the screen leaves. This depo-
sits the diatomaceous earth filter media on the screens and pre-
pares them for treatment of the wastewater. Once the screens are
completely coated, the pH adjusted wastewater can be pumped through
the filter. The pH adjustment and precipitation tank perform the
same functions in this system as in clarification, i.e., they
transform dissolved metal ions into suspended metal hydroxides.
The metal hydroxides and other suspended solids are removed from
the effluent in the diatomaceous earth filter. The buildup of
solids in the filter increases the pressure drop across the filter.
At a certain pressure, the wastewater is stopped, the filter is
cleaned, and the cycle is repeated.
The principal advantage to using a diatomaceous earth filter
is the reduction in size of the waste treatment system compared to
a system using a clarifier. The filter system can be installed
within an existing plant structure even in cases where very little
free floor space is available. The filter system's performance is
comparable to that of a clarifier. One additional advantage is that
the sludge removed from the filter is much drier than that removed
from a clarifier (approximately 50 percent solids). This high
solids content can significantly reduce the cost of hauling and
landfill.
The major disadvantage to the use of a filter system is its
higher operation and maintenance costs. In some cases this
increase in O&M costs is offset by the lower capital costs required
when considering land and outside construction.
Filters with similar operating characteristics to those
described above are in common use by many industrial plants. In
most cases a filtration system will improve the performance of the
various precipitation technologies.
VI-11
-------
Solvent Recovery Technologies
As outlined in previous sections of this report, solvents are
used extensively in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry-
However, due to the economic value, solvents are generally reco-
vered and reused in the manufacturing processes. Solvent recovery
operations typically employ techniques such as decantation,
evaporation, distillation, and extraction. In many cases a plant
uses only one solvent, making its recovery in a pure form rather
easy. However, when a large number of different solvents are used,
then recovery operations can become quite complex. Sometimes,
rather than trying to separate out the individual materials, it is
more economical to dispose of the recovered solvent mixture by
incineration, landfilling, deep-well injection, or contract
disposal.
Even if solvent recovery operations are utilized, the
wastewater that remains after the solvents have been separated will
still contain small amounts of these materials. In terms of in-
plant technologies only one treatment process has been demonstrated
to be effective in solvent removal: steam stripping. A discussion
of this in-plant treatment process is presented below. The use of
solvent treatment in the pharmaceutical industry is summarized in
Table VI-1.
Steam Stripping
Steam stripping is a variation of distillation whereby steam
is used as both the heating medium and driving force for the remo-
val of volatile materials. Steam is added at the bottom of a tower
and the wastewater being treated is fed at either the middle or
near the top of the unit. As the steam passes through the
wastewater, volatile materials are vaporized and removed with the
steam, which exits the top of the tower.
In packed columns, the column is packed with materials that
are inert and corrosion resistant. Packing materials have shapes
that maximize the surface area for a given volume. Materials of
construction for packing include steel, porcelain, stoneware and
plastic. In tray towers, the column contains a series of trays
which contain bubble caps or sieve perforations to allow for
liquid-vapor contact.
The tower bottoms will contain only trace quantities of vola-
tile materials. Tower overheads will contain the volatile
materials removed along with condensed steam. If more than one
compound has been removed, then further separation may be desired.
Separation techniques include selective condensation, extraction
and distillation.
An example of a steam stripping unit for removing solvents
from process wastewaters is shown in Figure VI-6.
Steam stripping of organic-bearing wastewaters has been used
to a limited extent in pharmaceutical manufacturing as well as in
VI-12
-------
other industries. A preliminary study (72) by the EPA's Organic
Chemical Branch has shown that very low pollutant levels are
obtainable when steam stripping is used as an in-plant technology.
With respect to the major priority pollutants in the pharmaceutical
industry the study has shown that the following, approximate
results can be obtained: 50 ug/1 for benzene, 1,2 dichloroethane,
chloroform, ethylbenzene, methylene chloride, and toluene; and 25
percent removal for phenol.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT
As opposed to in-plant treatment processes, which are used to
treat specific pollutants in segregated waste streams, end-of-pipe
technologies are usually designed to treat a number of pollutants
in a plant's overall wastewater discharge. Although their most
common applications are for the treatment of traditional
pollutants, this study also evaluated the impact of these tech-
nologies on the removal of priority pollutants. In selecting end-
of-pipe treatment processes for consideration as BAT, BCT, NSPS,
PSES, and PSNS technologies, only those that would follow primary
treatment were examined.
As in the case of in-plant treatment, the 308 Portfolio data
base was the principal source of information for identifying the
use of end-of-pipe treatment by the pharmaceutical industry.
This information was requested by both 308 Portfolio mailings. As
a cross-check for accuracy and completeness, the 308 Portfolio
responses were compared with information available from the other
data bases.
Table VI-2 presents a summary of the end-of-pipe tech-
nologies identified by the various data bases, along with the
number of plants that employ each process. A listing of each
plant's end-of-pipe treatment system is presented in Appendix J.
Biological Treatment
Biological treatment is the principal treatment method by
which the majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing plants are now
meeting existing BPT regulations. Therefore, this technology would
be one of the first steps toward compliance with future BAT, BCT,
and NSPS guidelines. Also, since many pharmaceutical plants have
indirect discharges to POTW's and therefore, may not provide as
high a degree of treatment as direct dischargers, biological treat-
ment could be an important technology in meeting future PSES and
PSNS guidelines.
Although it is discussed as one end-of-pipe treatment
alternative, biological treatment actually encompasses a numbfr of
specific technologies, such as: activated sludge, trickling
filters, aerated lagoons, rotating biological contactors, etc.
Numerous publications are available for each of the biological
treatment technologies, describing all aspects of the operations,
advantages and limitations, etc. Therefore, for the sake of bre-
VI-13
-------
vity, discussions of these specific treatment processes will not be
presented in this report. Although each has its own unique
characteristics, they are all based on one fundamental principle.
All of the treatment processes rely on biological microorganisms
for the removal of oxygen-demanding compounds. The use of biologi-
cal treatment in the pharmaceutical industry is summarized in Table
VI-2.
Besides the direct utilization of the treatment processes
mentioned above, biological treatment can also encompass two other
variations in the application of this technology, sometimes
referred to as biological enhancement. Generally, these variations
are accomplished by two methods: (1) modifications can be made in
the conventional biological treatment itself, or (2) the conven-
tional processes can be combined into a multistage system.
Examples of modified conventional treatment are pure oxygen acti-
vated sludge, and biological treatment with powdered activated
carbon. On the other hand, multi-stage biological treatment
could be trickling filter-activated sludge, activated sludge
rotating biological contactor, aerated lagoon-polishing pond, or
any combination of two or more conventional biological treatment
processes.
Some examples of typical biological enhancement con-
figurations are shown in Figure Vl-7.
Priority Pollutants
Just as it was for the raw waste load analyses in Section
III, the screening/verification data base was the principal source
of data for evaluating the performance of biological treatment. To
analyze the priority pollutant effluent levels from this technology
the procedures and assumptions that were used are similar to those
used in the RWL determinations: In particular, no distinction was
made on the impact of the different subcategories on biological
treatment (if there were no significant variations in the RWL's or
influents across the subcategories, none were expected in the
effluents) and the median results were thought to be the more
representative results. The only major difference was that a
screening/verification plant had to have biological treatment to be
considered in the following analyses.
Because the application of biological treatment could be
accomplished in two ways, i.e. conventional treatment or
enhancement, the priority pollutant effluent levels from both
alternatives were evaluated. Table VI-3 presents the results of
the analysis, performed on the screening/verification data, with
respect to single-stage (conventional) biological treatment, while
Table VI-4 presents a similar analysis for multistage (enhanced)
biological treatment.
Upon comparing the median results from these two tables, vir-
tually no difference could be noted between the performances of
either biological alternative. (Note: Since the principal purpose
VI-14
-------
of all types of biological treatment is the removal of traditional
rather than toxic pollutants, it was anticipated that the two
results would not show any significant differences). Therefore, in
an attempt to supplement this comparison a separate analysis was
conducted for purposes of evaluating enhanced biological treatment.
For this supplemental analysis, plants achieving greater than 95
percent BOD removal were used as surrogates for multistage biolo-
gical treatment, because it was thought that their performance
would also be representative of enhanced biological treatment. The
results of the analysis are presented in Table VI-5.
After examining the data in Tables VI-3, 4, and 5, the
following observations were made: First, the results showed that no
statistically significant differences in the priority pollutant
levels, achievable by either biological alternative (conventional
or enhanced) could be specifically defined. Second, the analytical
results from the multi-stage systems appear to be closely related
to the results from the single-stage systems. Therefore, in order
to resolve these apparent discrepancies, the following assumptions
were made: Since the multistage analytical results were similar to
those from the single-stage analysis, both sets of data were com-
bined and reanalyzed. This not only maximized the use of available
data for analyzing the performance of biological treatment, but the
results were thought to be more representative of the priority
pollutant effluent levels being achieved by the industry as a
whole. Table VI-6 presents the results of the analysis of priority
pollutant effluent levels from all biological treatment, using data
from both single-stage and multistage biological plants in the
screening/verification data base. Thus, although multistage biolo-
gical treatment was defined as biological enhancement, for this
section of the study its data were used as if it were a conven-
tional technology.
The next assumption dealt with quantifying the priority
pollutant effluent levels for biological enhancement. Since
neither the multistage analysis nor the surrogate analysis could
document that lower levels were achievable by this biological
treatment alternative, the median values from Table VI-6, the ana-
lysis of all biological treatment, were selected as being represen-
tative also of biological enhancement. Thus, for the purposes of
this study the priority pollutant effluent levels achievable by
conventional biological treatment and enhanced biological treatment
were assumed to be the same.
As a cross-check, a similar analysis was conducted on the
priority pollutant effluents levels from all biological treatment
processes available from the 308 Portfolio data base. These
results are presented in Table Vl-7. As can be seen in Table VI-8
which presents a statistical comparison of the median values from
Tables VI-6 and 7, the results from both data bases compare rather
well. The discrepancies between the results of two analyses are
probably due to the time differential between the data bases
(screening/verification data are 1978-79, while 308 Portfolio
VI-I5
-------
data are 1976-77), which could reflect the industry's attempts to
lower its priority pollutant discharges.
In conclusion, the screening/verification data were thought to
be more appropriate for this study, since they are more recent
information and the nature and scope of the sampling programs were
specifically directed at gathering priority pollutant data.
Therefore, the median priority effluent levels from all biological
treatment, as shown in Table VI-6, were selected as being represen-
tative of the performance of conventional and enhanced biological
treatment in the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
Traditional Pollutants
In the case of end-of-pipe technologies, an evaluation of tra-
ditional pollutant removals is just as important as one for
priority pollutants. This is particularly true with respect to
biological treatment, since it is specifically designed to treat
most traditional pollutants.
Prior to conducting the analysis of this technology, a number
of important procedures and assumptions were developed. They are
discussed below.
Like the RWL determinations, the impact of the various pro-
duction subcategories was expected to be a significant factor in
biological treatment performance. So, the screening/verification
data, pertaining to biological treatment effluents, was segregated
by individual subcategory prior to analysis. Another assumption,
probably the most important, dealt with the two types of biological
treatment, namely conventional treatment and biological
enhancement. As in the case of priority pollutants, a review of
the screening/verification data base indicated that the effluent
levels from the multistage biological plants were no better than
those from single-stage biological plants. Thus, the single-stage
and multistage biological effluent data were combined for the ana-
lysis of conventional biological treatment. As a result, although
multistage biological treatment was defined as biological enhance-
ment in this section of the study its data was again used as if it
was a conventional technology.
Table VI-9 presents the results of the analysis of tradition-
al pollutant effluent levels by subcategory from all (conventional)
biological treatment, using data from both single-stage and multi-
stage biological plants in the screening/verification data base.
Like the similar RWL analyses, the mean or average results were
felt to be the more representative values for traditional
pollutants.
The 308 Portfolio data base was also analyzed for traditional
pollutant effluent levels from all (conventional) biological
treatment, as a method for cross-checking the screening/
verification data base results. Table VI-10 presents the results
of analyzing the 308 Portfolio data. As can be seen from Table
VI-16
-------
VI-11, which shows a statistical comparison of the mean values from
Tables VI-9 and 10, the results from the 308 Portfolio analysis
support the results of the screening/verification analysis. Again,
as discussed above, the discrepancies between the results are pro-
bably due to the time differential between the two data bases,
which could reflect the industry's attempts to lower its tradi-
tional pollutant discharge.
Since the screening/verification data for the multistage
biological plants appeared to be more representative of conven-
tional biological treatment, a new methodology had to be developed
for the analysis of biological enhancement. In the area of tradi-
tional pollutant control, the analysis of conventional biological
treatment was principally directed at quantifying: "What is the
industry doing today?" On the other hand, the analysis of biologi-
cal enhancement tried to examine: "What more can the industry do?"
Therefore, to perform this analysis the following approach was
taken.
Another of the Agency's data gathering programs was to
request long-term traditional pollutant data from the industry. As
opposed to the screening/verification data wnich were obtained by a
few days of sampling and the 308 Portfolio data which were
annualized data, the long term data consisted of raw daily or
weekly influent and effluent data, covering a period of one year,
obtained from 22 plants with some type of biological treatment.
Summaries of the long-term data are presented in Appendix K.
Therefore, for purposes of "predicting what the industry can
achieve" in the way of traditional pollutant control by biological
enhancement, the long-term data were selected as being the best
available.
Both the priority pollutant and traditional pollutant analy-
ses of biological treatment, conducted above, showed that multi-
stage biological plants more closely represented conventional
rather than enhanced treatment. Thus, the same types of plants in
the long term data base would probably yield the same conclusion.
To circumvent this problem it was decided to approach the analysis
via a surrogate parameter. The surrogate selected was the same as
the one chosen for the analysis of priority pollutant biological
enhancement, namely, those plants achieving greater than 95 percent
BOD removal. These would be the better performing plants, and
therefore, better represent the results achievable by biological
enhancement.
Table VII-12 presents the results of analyzing the long term
effluent data from plants achieving greater than 95 percent BOD
removals, i.e., plants representing biological enhancement. Also
shown in this table is the individual plant data and were obtained
from Appendix K used in the analysis. Again, the mean or average
effluent values were thought to be the more meaningful values for
traditional pollutant. Note that for this analysis subcategory eva-
luations were not thought to be significant. It was assumed that
the effluent from conventional treatment (which would precede a
VI-17
-------
biological enhancement technology) would provide relatively uniform
pollutant concentrations to any downstream technologies, negating
the impact of the varying waste characteristics of each individual
subcategory.
Filtration
Another technology for end-of-pipe treatment is filtration.
Used as a polishing step, its principal function is to provide for
the removal of suspended solids to a level not achievable by end-
of-pipe biological technologies alone. A description of this end-
of-pipe treatment is presented below. The use of filtration
treatment in the pharmaceutical industry is summarized in Table
VI-2.
Filtration is a basic solids removal technology in water and
wastewater treatment. Silica sand, anthracite coal, garnet, etc.
are among the most common media used in this technology, with gra-
vel serving as a support material. The above media may be used
separately or in combinations. Multimedia filters may be arranged
in relatively distinct layers by virtue of balancing the forces of
gravity, flow, and buoyancy on the individual particles. This is
accomplished by selecting appropriate filter flow rates, media
grain size, and media densities.
This technology can be further defined in terms of major
operating characteristics. The most common filtration system is
the conventional gravity filter which normally consists of a deep
bed of granular media in an open-top tank. The direction of flow
through the filter is downward and the flow rate is dependent
solely on the hydrostatic pressure of the water above the filter
bed. Another type of filter is the pressure filter. In this case
the basic approach is the same as a gravity filter, except the tank
is enclosed and pressurized.
As wastewater is processed through the filter bed, the solids
collect in the spaces between the filter particles. Periodically,
the filter media must be cleaned. This is accomplished by back-
washing the filter (reversing the flow through the filter bed).
The flow rate for backwashing is adjusted such that the bed is
expanded by lifting the media particles a given amount. This
expansion and subsequent motion provides a scouring action which
effectively dislodges the entrapped solids from the media grain
surfaces. The backwash water fills the tank up to the level of a
trough below the top lip of the tank wall. The backwash is
collected in the trough and fed to a storage tank and recycled into
the waste treatment stream. The backwash flow is continued until
the filter is clean.
Auxiliary filter cleaning is sometimes employed in the upper
few inches of filter beds. This is conventionally referred to as
surface wash and is in the form of water jets just below the sur-
face of the expanded bed during the backwash cycle. These jets
enhance the scouring action in the bed by increasing the agitation.
VI-18
-------
An example of a filtration unit is shown in Figure VI-8.
The principal advantages of filtration are: Generally,
filtration units have low capital and operating costs. No treat-
ment chemicals are required, which eliminates procurement, storage,
and handling problems and costs. Most units require very little
space, and increases in wastewater flow can easily be accommodated
by installing additional filters. Finally, filtration units are
one of the best performers in terms of solids removal.
Filters require a higher level of operator skill, due to
control and backwashing requirements. If the proper operation of
the units is not maintained, fouling of the filters can be a
problem. In some instances, certain types of pollutants may
deteriorate the filter media.
Priority Pollutants
None of the plants in the screening/verification data base
had data available on the performance of filtration in removing
priority pollutants, nor did the 308 Portfolio data base. As a
result, a surrogate approach, similar to the one for biological
enhancement, was developed for purposes of analyzing priority
pollutant effluent levels from this technology.
Upon reviewing the screening/verification data base, it was
found that a few plants had very low BOD effluent levels, which
could be expected from the use of filtration. Therefore, in order
to evaluate the performance of this technology, priority pollutant
data from those plants achieving BOD effluent levels of less than
50 mg/1 were analyzed. The results of this surrogate analysis are
presented in Table VI-13. In lieu of actual sampling data from
filtration systems, these results were the best that could be
obtained from the existing data bases.
Realizing that the results in Table VI-13 were obtained by
analyses of surrogate parameters and not filtration specifically, a
further review was warranted. The next step was to review the
above results with those from Table VI-6 representing all biologi-
cal treatment. As can be seen from these tables, the priority
pollutant levels from (assumed) filtration are no better than all
biological treatment. Therefore, because: 1) the analysis of
filtration was conducted with surrogate parameters; 2) the filtra-
tion results were somewhat higher than all biological treatment;
and 3) it was desirable to maximize the use of the screening/ veri-
fication data base, it was decided that the median effluent levels
from Table VI-6 would better represent the performance of filtra-
tion technology in terms of priority pollutants.
The result of all of the preceding analyses was that each of
the end-of-pipe treatment technologies, conventional biological,
biological enhancement, and filtration, could be expected to yield
similar priority pollutant effluent levels.
VI-19
-------
Traditional Pollutants
As in the case of previously discussed analysis of biological
enhancement, the long term data base served as the principal source
of data for evaluating the performance of filtration technology in
achieving traditional pollutant removals. Upon examining this data
base it was found that only two plants employed filtration in their
treatment systems; not enough to provide meaningful results. There-
fore a surrogate approach had to be devised.
For the analysis of priority pollutants those plants
achieving BOD effluents of less than 50 mg/1 were selected as
surrogate to filtration. However, for traditional pollutants a
slightly different approach was taken. After examining the results
in Table Vl-12, it was found that the average BOD effluent con-
centration from plants with biological enhancement was 39 mg/1.
Therefore, since filtration is supposed to provide additional
treatment after biological enhancement, it was decided to select
plants from the long term data base with enhanced biological
treatment, that had BOD effluent levels of less than 39 mg/1, and
use them as surrogates in the filtration technology analysis.
The results of this surrogate analysis are presented in Table
VI-14, along with the individual plant data which were obtained
from Appendix K. Since two plants had filtration, the average of
their results are shown in parentheses next to the mean values
obtained from the surrogate analyses, for purposes of comparison.
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
In any evaluation of control and treatment technologies one of
the most important considerations is the ultimate disposal methods
used by the industry. Whether or not a plant is a direct
discharger to surface waters, indirect discharger to publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), or a zero discharger, can be a critical
factor in determining what types of technologies are most appro-
priate for controlling its waste discharge. Table VI-15 summarizes
the methods used by the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry for
the ultimate disposal of its process wastewaters. This table was
prepared from a listing of each plant's individual disposal
techniques, presented in Appendix L.
As can be seen in Table VI-15, approximately one-eighth of
the 464 manufacturing plants have direct discharges. Seven of
these plants also have indirect discharges, while another nine use
zero discharge methods for some of their smaller waste streams.
The majority of the industry are indirect discharges. Almost five-
eighths of the plants in the 308 Portfolio data base discharge to
POTW's. As noted above, seven of these also have direct
discharges, but another 25 use zero discharge techniques for some
of their smaller waste streams. Finally, over one-fourth of the
manufacturing plants use strictly zero discharge methods, such as
contract disposal, evaporation, ocean dumping, recycling, etc.
However 75 percent of the zero discharges were classified as such,
because they generated no process wastewaters requiring disposal.
VI-20
-------
FIGURE VI-1
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION SYSTEM - CHLORINATION
(oe
PEED)
LL
a
00
EFfLUEVJT
-------
FIGURE VI-2
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION SYSTEM - ALKALINE PYROLYSIS
I
NJ
NJ
CAUSTIC FEED
1
INFLUENT
FEED
TANK
STEAM IN
STEAM OUT
/ ,
REACTOR VESSEL
HEAT
EXCHANGER
RECOVERED
MATERIALS
FLASH
TANK
EFFLUENT
-------
FIGURE VI-3
CHROMIUM REDUCTION SYSTEM
4CID FEED
M
10
Ui
IKiFLUEMT
-*-
ASOj
FEED
a
CO
CAUSTIC FEED
u
&1SPOSAL
COklTACT
-------
FIGURE VI-4
METALS REMOVAL SYSTEM -ALKALINE PRECIPITATION
LJ
LIME PEED
ALUM
ofe ,
lUflUEMT
TO KLUDGE DISPOSAL
60LID5 COMTACT FILTER,
EFFLUENiT
-------
WASH
WATER
b
in
ex
CARBON
INLET &
OUTLET
16'
n
n
.- X' ' *' ' •
% •> "* f
II
\
.SURFACE
WASH
•CARBON
BED SURFACE
-SAND
-GRAVEL
-FILTER BLOCK
WATER OUTLET
FIGURE VI-5
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION UNIT
VI-25
-------
Condenser
H
I
NJ
CTl
Aqueous Layer
Organic Layer
(Product, Recycle)
Manometer
FIGURE VI-6
STEAM STRIPPING UNIT
-------
BPT System
FIGURE VI-7
EXAMPLES OF BIOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT SYSTEMS
Activated Sludge
Aeration Basin
Effluent
Sludge Disposal
i
to
-J
BPT System
Rotating Biological Contactors
Effluent
Sludge Disposal
Polishing Pond
BPT System
Effluent
-------
FLOAT-
CONTROL
VALVE
UNDERORAIN
SYSTEM
I I
EFFLUENT |J[
FIGURE VI-8
FILTRATION UNIT
VI-28
-------
TABLE VI-1
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF IN-PLANT TREATMENT PROCESSES
In-Plant Technology Number of Plants
Cyanide Destruction 6
Chromium Reduction 1
Metals Precipitation 3
Solvent Recovery 29
Steam Stripping 7
Other Technologies 19
Evaporation 9
Neutralization 5
VI-29
-------
TABLE VI-2
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF-END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT PROCESSES
End-of-Pipe Technology
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Treatment
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Chemical Flocculation/Clarification
Dissolved Air Flotation
Biological Treatment
Activated Sludge
Pure Oxygen
Powdered Activated Carbon
Trickling Filter
Aerated Lagoon
Waste Stabilization Pond
Rotating Biological Contactor
Other Biological Treatment
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Thermal Oxidation
Evaporation
Additional Treatment
Number of Plants
60
79
61
41
37
11
3
74
51
1
2
9
23
9
1
1
17
3
5
40
Polishing Ponds 10
Filtration 16
Multimedia 7
Activated Carbon 2
S a nd 5
Other Polishing 17
Secondary Chemical Flocculation/Clarification 5
Secondary Neutralization 4
Chlorination 10
Note: Subtotals may not add to totals because: 1) some plants
employ more than one treatment process; 2) minor treatment
processes were not listed separately; 3) details for some
treatment processes were not available.
VI-30
-------
TABLE VI-3
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FROM SINGLE-STAGE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 phenol
Volatile Organics
4 benzene
23 chloroform
38 ethylbenzene
44 methylene chloride
86 toluene
Number of
Data Points
7
6
3
10
6
Minimum
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
10
130
10
4800
28
Median
5
52
0
40
7
Mean
5
54
3
563
9
Standard
Deviation
2.2
5.0
56.2
5.8
1494.0
10.6
Metals
.... 119 chromium
H 120 copper
u> 122 lead
H 123 mercury
124 nickel
128 zinc
Others
121 cyanide
9
9
8
8
6
9
2
10
13
0.
6
78
304
106
89
1.3
190
1060
19
20
25
0.4
44
163
67
30
35
0.5
63
310
106.0
30.0
24.0
0.4
65.8
322.0
7700
119
1605
3408.0
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Single-stage Biological Treatment: 10
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific effluent value was reported, the data was used as the biological effluent.
2. If a specific influent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" effluent values, the detection limit was used as the biological effluent.
b. For "not detected" effluent values, the biological effluent was assumed to be zero (0).
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected," the data
were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-4
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FROM MULTI-STAGE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 phenol
Volatile Organics
4 benzene
23 chloroform
38 ethylbenzene
44 methylene chloride
86 toluene
Metals
Number of
Data Points
Minimum
<
H
1
(jJ
NJ
119 chromium
1 20 copper
122 lead
123 mercury
124 nickel
128 zinc
7
8
7
9
7
10
10
5
9
5
9
Others
121 cyanide
0
0
0
0
0
16
30
Max imum
20
120
110
22
260
315
Median
10
0
10
0
70
0
Mean
11
23
21
7
92
72
Standard
Deviation
7.2
44.3
36.3
9.4
97.1
126
166
59
89
1.3
310
254
13
26
10
0.5
45
100
35
28
24
0.6
82
104
51.9
21.1
36.8
0.4
130
69
400
58
153
166
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Multistage Biological Treatment: 10
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific effluent value was reported, the data was used as the biological effluent.
2. If a specific influent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" effluent values, the detection limit was used as the biological effluent.
b. For "not detected" effluent values, the biological effluent was assumed to be zero (0) .
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected," the data
were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-5
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OP MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FROM BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT ACHIEVING
GREATER THAN 95 PERCENT BOD REMOVAL:
SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 phenol
Volatile Organics
4 benzene
23 chloroform
38 ethylbenzene
44 methylene chloride
86 toluene
Metals
Number of
Data Points
Minimum
H
1
10
CO
119 chromium
1 20 copper
122 lead
1 23 mercury
124 nickel
128 zinc
6
5
4
9
6
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
0.1
0
16
Others
121 cyanide
Maximum
20
120
110
22
349
180
304
59
89
1.0
30
403
7700
Median
Mean
8
10
5
21
10
19
20
42
0.
50
83
58
28
27
8
88
38
74
27
49
0.
94
118
1624
Standard
Deviation
7.5
46.7
46.8
10.5
128.0
70.3
105.0
21.4
33.0
0.3
114.0
114.0
3399.0
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Biological Treatment Achieving Greater Than 95 Percent BOD
Removal: 9
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific effluent value was reported, the data was used as the biological effluent.
2. If a specific influent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" effluent values, the detection limit was used as the biological effluent.
b. For "not detected" effluent values, the biological effluent was assumed to be zero (0).
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected," the data were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-6
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FROM ALL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 phenol
Volatile Organics
4 benzene
23 chloroform
38 ethylbenzene
44 raethylene chloride
86 toluene
Number of
Data Points
12
14
14
10
19
13
Minimum
Maximum
20
120
130
22
4800
315
Median
Mean
0
10
0
70
3
14
35
6
335
43
Standard
Deviation
7.5
31.8
47.0
8.3
1085.0
95.1
I
co
Metals
119 chromium
120 copper
122 lead
1 23 mercury
124 nickel
1 28 zinc
19
19
13
17
11
18
0
0
0
0
0
16
304
106
89
1.3
310
1060
16
20
17
0.5
45
10
50
29
28
0.6
72
207
81.5
26.0
28.8
0.39
94.9
249.0
Others
121 cyanide
11
7700
63
813
2288.0
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Biological Treatment: 20
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific effluent value was reported, the data was used as the biological effluent.
2. If a specific influent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" effluent values, the detection limit was used as the biological effluent.
b. For "not detected" effluent values, the biological effluent was assumed to be zero (0).
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected," the data
were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-7
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FROM ALL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
308 PORTFOLIO DATA
CO
cn
Number of
Priority Pollutant Data Points
Acid Extractables
65 phenol 15
Volatile Organics
4 benzene 3
6 carbon tetrachloride
23 chloroform 5
44 methylene chloride 4
86 toluene 4
Metals
119 chromium 11
120 copper 9
122 lead 8
123 mercury 8
124 nickel 7
128 zinc 10
Others
121 cyanide 12
Minimum
6
2
1
10
23
2
0.
2
21
Maximum
1100
250
3990
1650
1400
Median
65
9
374
9
Mean
140
85
811
600
3505
Standard
Deviation
271
143
1777
782
6997
100
541
170
10
2100
3500
50
55
80
0.5
225
250
52
151
78
2.2
567
629
36.6
177.0
50.1
3.4
813.0
1050.0
2300
55
426
833.0
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Biological Treatment: 76
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific effluent value was reported, the data was used as the biological effluent.
2. If a specific influent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" effluent values, the detection limit was used as the biological effluent.
b. For "not detected" effluent values, the biological effluent was assumed to be zero (0).
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected," the data
were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-8
COMPARISON OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1)
FROM ALL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
308 PORTFOLIO VERSUS SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Priority Median Effluent Concentrations (ug/1);
Pollutant 308 Portfolios (X) Screen/Verification (Y)
Acid Extractables
65 Phenol 65 5
Volatile Organics
4 Benzene 3 0
6 Carbon Tetrachloride *
23 Chloroform 9 10
38 Ethylbenzene * 0
44 Methylene Chloride 374 70
86 Toluene 9 3
Metals
119 Chromium 50 16
120 Copper 55 20
122 Lead 80 17
123 Mercury 0.5 0.
124 Nickel 225 45
128 Zinc 250 100
Others
121 Cyanide 55 63
REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS (for 12 comparable priority pollutants);
Correlation: 0.795 Y = mX+b
Slope (m): 0.218
Intercept (B): 7.8
* Not a major priority pollutant according to the data base.
VI-36
-------
TABLE VI- 9
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1) FROM ALL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
Traditional Pollutant Number of Standard
by Subcategory _____ Data Points Minimum Maximum Median Mean Deviation
BOD;
A 10 10 251 59 90 74.3
B 7 46 294 98 120 89.5
C 12 39 348 87 130 107
D 10 10 294 68 100 86
COD;
A 9 232 1686 436 650 521
B 6 263 3130 632 940 1091
C 11 160 3130 637 1000 960
D 11 232 3130 626 890 939
to
^J
TSS
A 10 10 1000 74 170 297
B 6 46 585 167 260 220
C 12 10 585 119 140 152
D 10 10 585 104 160 205
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Biological Treatment: 20
Notes:
1. For purposes of this analysis the data from a screening and verification plant were used in each of the single
subcategory analyses for which the plant had a subcategory operation. For example: data from an A B D plant
were used in the subcategory A, B, and D analyses.
2. Only reported data were used in the analysis. Assumed values for "less than, not detected, and unknown" data
were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-10
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1) FROM ALL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Traditional Pollutant
by Subcategory
BOD;
A
B
C
D
Number of
Data Points
11
10
24
37
Minimum
7
6
5
4
Maximum
244
869
3636
3636
Median
105
133
125
35
Mean
100
200
410
270
Standard
Deviation
76.8
262
821
670
H
I
U>
00
COD;
A
B
C
D
TSS;
A
B
C
D
10
3
18
24
11
9
26
35
40
29
74
29
29
9
6
2
2370
407
9880
8481
500
1793
2340
2340
352
113
650
290
70
150
107
47
660
120
1790
830
150
350
310
210
744
198
2898
1782
158
567
550
483
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Biological Treatment: 53
Notes:
1. For purposes of this analysis the data from a 308 Portfolio plant were used in each of the single subcategory
analyses for which the plant had a subcategory operation. For example: data from an A B D plant were used in
the subcategory A, B, and D analyses.
2. Only reported data were used in the analysis. Assumed values for "less than, not detected, and unknown" data
were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-11
COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
FROM ALL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
SCREENING/VERIFICATION VERSUS 308 PORTFOLIO DATA
Mean Effluent Concentrations (mg/1);
Subcategory BOD COD TSS
Screening/Verification (Y);
A 90 650 170
B 120 940 260
C 130 1000 140
D 100 890 160
308 Portfolio (X);
A 100 660 150
B 200 180 350
C 410 1790 310
D 270 830 210
Regression Coefficients;
Correlation: 0.690 Y=mX+b
Slope (m): 0.537
Intercept (b): 143.0
VI-39
-------
TABLE VI-12
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1) FROM BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT ACHIEVING
GREATER THAN 95 PERCENT BOD REMOVAL: LONG TERM DATA
H
I
Traditional Pollutant
by Plant Code
BOD;
12022
12026
12036
12097
12117
12161
12294
12317
12459
LONG TERM AVERAGE:"1"
COD;
12022
12026
12036
12097
12117
12161
12294
12317
12459
LONG TERM AVERAGE:+
TSS;
12022
12026
12036
12097
12117
12161
12294
12317
12459
LONG TERM AVERAGE:"1"
Number of
Data Points
392
44
365
225
49
253
55
52
52
52
25
313
92
359
55
263
53
8
395
365
253
51
365
55
262
53
8
Minimum
3
20
1
0
0
6
4
1
0
520
17
4
1
180
119
4
0
25
1
1
1
5
0
0
0
10
Maximum
630
469
40
228
5
165
185
31
10
110
3040
2951
797
73
3580
587
194
325
1222
343
262
937
51
2080
420
74
123
84
Median
22
172
22
Mean
110
108
7
49
2
22
45
8
4
39
1222
278
44
25
850
233
42
111
351
84
17
27
16
64
53
10
15
36
Standard
Deviation
107.3
103.1
5.1
53.5
1.4
20.2
41.8
8.0
2.7
43.0
443.0
699.3
63.7
12.6
396.6
105.2
38.3
82.1
444.1
52.8
23.0
77.5
13.0
216.0
72.8
12.2
20.1
27.6
Total number of Plants in the Data Base with Biological Treatment Achieving Greater Than 95 Percent BOD Removal: 9
Long term average values were calculated using mean results for each individual plant.
-------
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF MAJOR PRIORITY POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (ug/1) FROM BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT ACHIEVING
LESS THAN 50 mg/1 BOD EFFLUENT:
SCREENING/VERIFICATION DATA
H
Priority Pollutant
Acid Extractables
65 phenol
Volatile Organics
4 benzene
23 chloroform
38 ethylbenzene
44 methylene chloride
86 toluene
Metals
119 chromium
120 copper
122 lead
123 mercury
124 nickel
128 zinc
Others
121 cyanide
Number of
Data Points
Minimum
3
3
3
4
3
4
4
1
4
3
4
0
10
0
10
0
10
9
89
0.
0
75
30
Maximum
10
Median
10
Mean
120
110
22
349
180
33
10
10
141
10
51
47
11
160
63
75
59
89
1.0
310
403
20
30
89
0.6
50
100
29
32
89
0
120
170
330
58
139
Standard
Deviation
5.8
62.0
57.7
11.0
171.0
101.0
31.3
22.0
0.0
0.3
166.a
156.0
166.0
Total Number of Plants in the Data Base with Biological Treatment Achieving Less Than 50 mg/1 BOD Effluent: 4
Notes:
The following criteria were used to select data points for this analysis:
1. If a specific effluent value was reported, the data were used as the biological effluent.
2. If a specific influent value was reported, then:
a. For "less than" effluent values, the detection limit was used as the biological effluent.
b. For "not detected" effluent values, the biological effluent was assumed to be zero (0).
3. If both influent and effluent values were "less than" and/or "not detected," the data
were not used.
-------
TABLE VI-14
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1) FROM ENHANCED BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT ACHIEVING
LESS THAN 39 mg/1* BOD EFFLUENT: LONG TERM DATA
H
*>.
to
Traditional Pollutant
by Plant Code
BOD;
12036
12117
12161
12317
12459
LONG TERM AVERAGE:"1"
COD;
12036
12117
12161
12317
12459
LONG TERM AVERAGE:
TSS:
12036
12117
12161
12317
12459
LONG TERM AVERAGE:*
Number of
Data Points
365
49
253
52
52
25
92
359
263
53
365
51
365
262
53
Minimum
1
0
6
1
0
24
1
1
5
0
0
10
Maximum
40
5
165
31
10
22
17
1
180
4
0
2951
73
3580
194
325
850
262
51
2080
74
123
64
Median
111
16
Mean
7
2
22
8
4
278
24
850
42
111
261
17
16
64
10
15
24
Standard
Deviation
5.1
(27)
1.4
20.2
8.0
2.7
7.9
699.3
12.6
396.6
38.3
82.1
(137) 344.2
23.0
13.0
216.0
12.2
20.1
(32) 22.3
Total number of Plants in the Data Base with Enhanced Biological Treatment Achieving Less Than 39 mg/1 BOD
Effluent: 5
*This criterion was determined from the long term average BOD value in Table VI-12.
Long term average values were calculated using mean results for each individual plant. For comparison purposes
an average of the values from the two plants in the long term data base, using filtration, are shown in
parenthesis.
-------
00
TABLE VI-15
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
Number of Plants Number of Plants
Method of Discharge in the Industry by Subcategories;
Direct Dischargers
Direct Only
Direct with
Indirect Disch
Indirect Only
SUBTOTAL
Zero Dischargers
TOTAL
•gers
r
i minor Zero Discharge
largers
ily
.th minor Zero Discharge
rt/Indirect Dischargers
>rs
FATE OF WASTEWATERS AT
Discharge Method
No Process Wastewater
Contract Disposal
Deep Well Injection
Evaporation
Land Application
Ocean Dumping
Recycle/Re-use
Septic System
Subsurface Discharge
54
45
9
271
246
25
7
322
132
464
ZERO DISCHARGE PLANTS (TOTAL
Zero
Dischargers
98
7
0
7
6
2
2
6
4
Direct
w/Zero
0
3
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
A B C D
9 8 22 34
6 4 14 30
3484
24 61 81 219
17 53 68 202
7 8 14 17
2236
35 71 106 259
2 9 27 113
37 80 233 372
INDUSTRY )
Indirect
w/Zero
0
7
2
3
5
2
1
2
3
TOTAL 132 9 25
NOTE; Subcategory counts will not add to industry totals because of multiple subcategory plants,
-------
SECTION VII
COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
This section addresses the costs, energy requirements and
non-water quality environmental impacts associated with the control
and treatment technologies presented in Section VI. As such, the
cost estimates contained herein represent the additional investment
required over and above the capital and operating costs associated
with BPT guidelines technology. These differential costs,
therefore, relate to specific control and treatment alternatives
that may be necessary for compliance with recommended effluent
limitations.
A critical factor to be considered in the adoption of any
effluent limitations guidelines is the potential economic impact of
such regulations on the industry. Since it was not cost-effective
to examine this impact on each individual plant in the comprehen-
sive data base, model plants were developed which would statisti-
cally represent each pharmaceutical subcategory. Cost estimates
for the various in-plant and end-of-pipe treatment technologies
were prepared for four subcategory model plants and are presented
in this section.
COST DEVELOPMENT
Subcategory model plants were established based upon the
discussion in Section III of raw waste load characteristics of
each subcategory. Representative values for wastewater flow rate
and traditional pollutant loadings for each model plant are sum-
marized in Table VII-1. As indicated in Section III, the priority
pollutant loadings for the individual subcategories are best repre-
sented by the median values from all plants in the screening and
verification data bases. Therefore, the four subcategory model
plants were considered to have similar priority pollutant con-
centrations in their raw waste loads, as presented in Table VII-2.
The major capital and operating costs were determined for
treatment alternatives discussed in Section VI for the four sub-
category model plants. The following assumptions were used
throughout the costing effort.
Land - The cost estimates presented do not include land
costs. The cost of land is variable and site dependent and cannot
be estimated on a national basis. For in-plant systems in most
cases, the necessary equipment can be placed in existing structures
near the source stream being treated. For end-of-pipe systems, the
total area required is indicated.
VII-1
-------
Piping and Pumps - Where required, piping and pumps are
assumed to be 20 percent of basic equipment costs.
Delivery and Installation - These costs were assumed to be
50 percent of total equipment costs.
Engineering and Contingency - These costs were assumed to
be 30 percent of total installed costs.
Energy - Electricity costs were assumed to be $0.04 per KWh.
Annual power costs for mixing and pumping were computed as
follows:
(Total horsepower) x (8760 hr/yr) x (0.746 KW/hp) x
($0.04/KWh)
Labor - A rate of $10./hr, including taxes and fringe
benefits, was assumed.
Maintenance - Assumed to be 3 percent of total capital
costs.
Sludge Disposal - This cost, including transportation, was
assumed to be $0.30 per gallon.
Capital Recovery plus Return - 10 percent at 10 years.
All cost data presented in this section are expressed in
January 1978 dollars, when the Engineering News Record
Construction Index was 2670 and the Chemical Engineering Plant
Cost Index was 210.6. See Appendix M for tabulation of these
indices. Capital costs for major equipment items such as tanks,
clarifiers, filters, mixers, sludge thickeners and vacuum filters
were obtained from equipment manufacturers and from a wastewater
treatment cost data base developed by Catalytic, Inc. for
Effluent Guidelines Division.
IN-PLANT TREATMENT COSTS
In-plant treatment is directed at removing certain pollu-
tant parameters from specific waste streams before combining with
other wastewaters. The costs of in-plant treatment alternatives
allocated to any pharmaceutical plant must be based upon the flow
of the process wastewater stream bearing the specific pollutant
or pollutants of interest. For the purpose of preparing costs
for the subcategory model plants, the flow rate of the process
waste stream to be treated was assumed to be 10 percent of a
plant's total wastewater flow. In addition, it was assumed that
the model plant's entire mass loading of the subject pollutant,
calculated from the data in Table VII-2, was contained in the
process waste stream. The major priority pollutants found in
pharmaceutical wastewaters were cyanide, metals, and solvents.
VII-2
-------
Therefore, cost estimates were developed for treating these three
classes of pollutants. Achievable effluent concentrations for
the in-plant treatment technologies discussed below were pre-
sented in Section VI.
Cyanide Destruction
Cyanide has been identified as being present in the
wastewaters of a number of pharmaceutical plants. Table VII-3
contains the equipment cost bases and energy requirements for
oxidation with hypochlorite in an alkaline environment. In
general, batch systems are more economical for flow rates below
15 gallons per minute. Thus, batch systems have been assumed for
Plants B and D, whereas continuous operations are used for Plants
A and C.
Capital cost items are presented in Table VII-4 and include
detention tanks, mixers, piping and pumps, and automatic chemical
feed systems. The annual operating costs are shown in Table
VII-5. To estimate the annual cost of chemicals, it was assumed
that 1.2 Ibs of hypochlorite ($ .60/lb) and 1.4 Ibs of caustic
($ .12/lb) were added to each 1000 gallons of wastewater treated.
Chromium Reduction
Chromium can occur in wastewaters in the hexavalent and
trivalent state. Hexavalent chromium is extremely soluble,
whereas trivalent chromium is very insoluble. Therefore, the
first step in the treatment of chromium is the reduction of the
hexavalent ions to the trivalent state. This is usually
accomplished with sulfur dioxide at low pH values; however, other
reducing agents can be used.
The pH of the wastewater containing the trivalent chromium
is then adjusted to the range of 8 to 10, where chromium
hydroxide is precipitated and clarified. In general, the proce-
dure described above is performed on a batch basis for systems
below 15 gallons per minute, and on a continuous basis for larger
systems. Table VII-6 presents the equipment cost bases and
energy requirements for chromium reduction systems. Adjustment
of pH and clarification are included as part of the systems being
costed.
Tables VII-7 and VII-8 present the capital and operating
costs for the treatment schemes outlined in Table VII-4. The
chemical requirements for the systems presented include 0.45 Ibs
of sulfur dioxide ($ .15/lb), 0.45 Ibs of sulfuric acid ($ .06/lb),
and 2 Ibs of caustic ($ .12/lb) for each 1000 gallons of wastewater
treated.
VII-3
-------
Metal Precipitation
Metal removal generally consists of pH adjustment, usually
to a pH in the range of 8 to 10, after which the metal hydroxide
precipitates formed by the pH adjustment are clarified. There
are a variety of chemicals that can be used to aid in the preci-
pitation and clarification process; however, the data presented
in Tables VII-9 and VII-11 are based upon lime and alum addition.
Table VII-9 presents the design bases and energy require-
ments for metal precipitation. The smaller systems of Plants B
and D are batch operations, while Plants A and C are assumed to
use continuous systems. Solids contact type clarifiers were used
for costing purposes. These units include a flash mix zone,
flocculation zone, and settling zone in one unit.
Metal removal by precipitation requires very little head
loss, so that most systems will generally be operated by the head
already available in the wastewater effluent line. The miscella-
neous energy requirements shown in Table VII-9 include those for
chemical addition and sludge removal.
Table VII-10 presents the capital cost items for the
systems outlined, while Table VII-11 shows the associated
operating costs for these treatment units. It should be noted
that capital recovery plus return is by far the largest annual
cost.
Steam Stripping
As dicussed in Section VI, a study (72) was conducted by
EPA on the applicability of steam stripping for treating wastewa-
ters containing organic priority pollutants. Indications are
that this technology is a feasible in-plant treatment method for
the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. However, more work on
this subject is needed.
In the study some preliminary cost information was
presented. Since EPA is still reviewing this technology and no
other specific cost data was available, the figures, reported in
the study, were used in this document. Table VII-12 presents the
capital and annual operating costs of steam stripping. As work
continues in this area, more detailed cost information can be
developed and incorporated into the analysis.
END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT COSTS
Section VI summarizes the end-of-pipe technologies that
have been identified as being used by the pharmaceutical
industry- The impacts of these technologies on the removal of
traditional and priority pollutants from pharmaceutical wastewa-
ters were evaluated during this study.
VII-4
-------
Biological treatment was found to be the principal end-of-
pipe method by which the majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing
plants are now meeting existing BPT limitations guidelines. This
treatment alternative consists of a number of specific
technologies, such as activated sludge systems, trickling
filters, rotating biological contactors, and lagoons. In
addition, variations in the application of these specific tech-
nologies can enhance biological treatment. Modifications or com-
binations of conventional biological treatment processes are
referred to as biological enhancement.
Biological Enhancement
For the purpose of developing model costs, combinations of
biological treatment processes were considered for biological
enhancement. The assumption was made that a conventional biolo-
gical process would be added to the BPT system already in place.
The characteristics of the influent streams to the add-on systems
were assumed to be the existing BPT effluent limitations for the
subcategory model plants, as shown in Table VII-13.
Data analyses conducted during this study indicate that
biological enhancement can achieve effluent levels of 40 mg/1 BOD
and 40 mg/1 TSS, showing an improvement over BPT systems. However,
no significant differences in priority pollutant effluent con-
centrations were found between conventional biological systems and
biological enhancement.
Table VII-14 presents equipment cost bases and energy
requirements for activated sludge systems that were designed for
four subcategory model plants. Capital cost items are presented in
Table Vll-15 and include aeration basins, aerators, nutrient addi-
tion equipment, clarifiers, and sludge handling facilities. The
total annual costs for each subcategory model plant are shown in
Table VII-16.
Rotating biological contactors (RBC's) were also considered
for biological enhancement. RBC systems were sized for each of the
model plants and based upon the data in Table VII-17. The major
capital and operating costs are presented in Table VII-18.
Enhanced treatment can also be accomplished with the use of
polishing ponds. Costs were developed based on the data shown in
Table VII-19. For each model plant, a pond was sized for a depth
of 10 feet and a detention time as shown. Capital cost items are
presented in Table VII-20 and include excavation, grading,
compaction, an impervious liner, and piping. Sludge disposal costs
were not included in the annual costs in Table VII-20, because
cleanout should be required only once every several years.
VII-5
-------
Biological Enhancement and Filtration
Filtration can be used as a polishing step following biologi-
cal treatment for increased solids removal. Analyses conducted
during this study have indicated that effluent concentrations of 20
mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 TSS are achievable with biological enhancement
and filtration of pharmaceutical wastewaters. However, as was the
case with biological enhancement alone, data did not indicate any
improvements in effluent quality over BPT in terms of priority
pollutants.
Table VII-21 presents equipment cost bases and energy
requirements for activated sludge systems followed by dual media
filters that were designed to perform as noted above. Influent
characteristics for the four subcategory model plants are shown in
Table VII-13. Aeration basins were sized for longer detention times
than those noted in Table VII-14. The two filters provided for
each model plant are dual media, gravity flow units with bed depths
of four feet and automatic backwashing. Capital and total annual
costs are presented in Tables VII-21 and VII-22.
Cost estimates were also prepared for filtration units
following RBC systems. The RBC units were sized for the desired
effluent quality, increasing the total RBC surface area above those
shown in Table VII-17. The same dual media filters as those pro-
vided above are specified in Table VII-24. Capital and total
annual costs are given in Table VII-25.
COST SENSITIVITIES - RBC's
In a separate study (110) for the EPA, the sensitivities in
estimating treatment costs for the pharmaceutical industry were
examined by Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc. Using the rotating
biological contactor option as the example technology, this study
analyzed the sensitivity of annual cost estimates to a number of
different parameters. A summary of the Walk, Haydel report is pre-
sented below:
The series of curves presented in Figures VII-1, VII-2, and
VII-3 indicate the sensivitity of annual costs for the rotating
biological contactor (RBC) option in treatment of pharmaceutical
wastewater. The RBC sizing is based on the addition of this equip-
ment to an existing system which is achieving BPT.
The base points for the curves are the model plant costs for
each subcategory. Parameters considered are wastewater flow rate,
influent BOD concentration to the RBC, and target effluent BOD
concentration.
It should be noted that a curve is not plotted for Case D
cost sensitivity with variations in influent BOD level (Figure
VII-2). There are two reasons for this. First, the 40 mg/1
VII-6
-------
influent level for this case is markedly below those of the other
cases, which range from 120 to 164 mg/1. Second, there is some
question as to whether the sludge handling costs for Case D can be
extrapolated. Although not of major importance at base conditions,
sludge removal costs may be distorted at higher influent BOD
levels.
The investment portion of each cost was developed with the
cooperation of the Environmental Systems Division of George A.
Hormel & Co. Figure VII-4 plots RBC equipment costs estimated by
Hormel, as a function of disc surface. These costs are directly
related to disc surface to the 0.7 power. This same exponential
relationship was used to represent cost variations of other
equipment, such as clarifiers and sludge dewatering.
Other key assumptions and bases include the following:
Disc loadings (pounds of BOD per day per square foot)
vary with influent and effluent BOD concentrations in
accordance with pilot and commercial data utilized by
Hormel in their design estimates.
Disc area is directly proportional to wastewater flow
rate, other conditions being equal.
Base case RBC effluent BOD concentrations are approxima-
tely 20 mg/1.
All cost factors are patterned directly after those used
for Table VII-18.
Clarifier area requirements are a direct function of
wastewater flow rate.
Sludge dewatering equipment size and/or sludge storage
volume is a direct function of the amount of BOD
reduction.
Energy requirements are directly proportional to RBC disc
area.
Total annual labor costs are constant regardless of equip-
ment size.
Sludge disposal costs are constant per unit of sludge
handled.
EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Section VI presented the in-plant and end-of-pipe technologies
that are available for treating and controlling traditional and
priority pollutants in wastewaters from the pharmaceutical manufac-
VII-7
-------
turing industry. The discussions addressed methods of reducing
pollutants beyond BPT limitations and suggested achievable effluent
concentrations. The cost estimates presented previously in this
section represent investments, beyond BPT costs, for treatment
alternatives that may be necessary for compliance with recommended
effluent limitations. A summary of total annual costs developed for
the four subcategory model plants to install these in-plant and
end-of-pipe treatment methods is given in Table VII-26. Also shown
are the costs associated with BPT guidelines technology for the
model plants.
Based upon the information gathered during this study, Tables
VII-27 through VII-30 were prepared to summarize the effectiveness
of the various technology options for each subcategory. Raw waste
load characteristics developed from the screening/verification data
base and existing BPT guidelines for traditional pollutants are
shown in both concentration and mass discharge for the entire
subcategory. As noted in Table VII-2, the total priority pollutant
raw waste load for an entire subcategory was calculated by
multiplying the appropriate pollutant concentration by the total
subcategory flow, and then adjusting by the percent of occurrence in
screening/verification plants.
Technology 1 is BPT technology based on biological treatment.
The discharge values shown for both the traditional and priority
pollutants are representative of each subcategory and were obtained
from analyses of data from screening/verification plants with
biological treatment in place. Costs per pound of removal of con-
ventional (BOD plus TSS) and priority pollutants were based on the
BPT costs presented in Table VII-26.
Technologies 2 and 2A are biological enhancement and enhan-
cement followed by filtration. These technologies can be con-
sidered as options for BCT, BAT, and NSPS regulations. Achievable
effluent values for traditional pollutants were developed from
long-term data gathered from the industry. Note that for
Subcategories B and D, these technologies do not provide TSS reduc-
tions beyond those identified as BPT. Costs per pound of conven-
tional pollutants removed for each process shown are based on the
total annual costs given in Table VII-26. As discussed in Section
VI, the screening/verification data base indicated that priority
pollutant removals by biological enhancement are no better than
conventional biological treatment. Thus, priority pollutant levels
for these technologies are assumed to be the same as for BPT.
Technologies 3 through 5 are the in-plant methods discussed
in Section VI for the control of cyanide, metals, and solvents.
The effluent concentration values shown are for the in-plant pro-
cess waste streams being treated. Estimated discharge values for
an entire subcategory were obtained by multiplying the pollutant
concentrations by the process stream flow, then by the number of
plants in the subcategory, and finally adjusting by the percent
VII-8
-------
occurrence noted in Table VII-2. The costs per pound of pollutants
removed were determined by using the appropriate total annual costs
from Table Vii-26. Each of these technologies or combinations
thereof can be considered as options for PSES and PSNS regulations.
BCT COST TEST
BCT requires that limitations for conventional pollutants be
assessed by a "cost reasonableness" test. As specified in the
Federal Register (44 PR 50732, August 29, 1979), "the BCT test com-
pares the cost for industry to remove a pound of conventional
pollutants to the cost incurred by a POTW for removing a pound of
conventional pollutants. If the industry cost for a specific tech-
nology is lower than the POTW cost, the test is passed and the
level of control of conventional pollutants is considered
reasonable. If the industry costs of removal are higher than the
POTW costs, the test is failed and BCT cannot be set at that
level."
BPT is the base point for the BCT cost evaluation. All costs
beyond BPT associated with the control of conventional pollutants
are used in the BCT test. The costs per pound of conventionals
(BOD and TSS) removed must be compared with a cost reasonableness
ratio of $1.27 per pound (January 1978). This figure was based on
the costs for an "average" POTW with a flow of two million gallons
per day to upgrade its facility from secondary treatment (30 mg/1
BOD, 30 mg/1 TSS) to advanced secondary treatment (10 mg/1 BOD, 10
mg/1 TSS).
Table VII-31 presents the results of the BCT cost test for
Technologies 2 and 2A. EPA's procedure is to use 30 day maximum
effluent values for the BCT cost evaluation. BOD and TSS variabi-
lity factors were applied to the achievable effluent
concentrations, shown in Tables VII-27 and VII-30, to obtain
monthly maximum effluent values for each technology. Variability
factors for the recently acquired long term data have not yet been
determined. In the interim, the monthly variability factors of 2.4
for BOD and 2.8 for TSS that were developed during the 1976 BPT
study for the pharmaceutical industry were applied. The summary of
total annual costs presented in Table VII-26 was then used to
calculate the cost of conventional pollutant removal.
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Solid Wastes
Sludges will be generated by the in-plant and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies summarized in Tables VII-27 through VII-30.
Sludge production rates for model plants, in pounds per day of dry
solids, are shown for each treatment process in the cost bases
tables presented in this section. The amount of sludge produced by
pharmaceutical plants will vary markedly from site to site.
VII-9
-------
However, the production quantities presented in this section are
conservative estimates and are expected to be equal to or higher
than the actual amounts experienced by any given production site.
In addition, not all pharmaceutical plants will generate each of
the pollutants associated with all treatment technologies.
Based upon these factors, it is expected that the environmen-
tal impact of the sludge production will be minimal, especially
when compared to the large quantities of sludges produced by BPT
type technology.
Air Pollution
Steam stripping is one technology discussed in this report
that may generate an air pollution problem. However, due to the
economic value of the compounds being removed, it will often be
cost effective as well as environmentally necessary to recondense
and recover these compounds, rather than emit them to the
atmosphere.
VII-10
-------
FIGURE Vll-l
RBC SYSTEM
COST SENSITIVITY
EFFECT OF FLOW RATE
300-
200-
t"
SUB CAT. "A" INFLUENT BOD = 120 MG/L
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
SUB CAT. "C" INFLUENT BOD = 164 MG/L
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
100-
500
FLOW RATE - 1000 GPD
1000
100
o
o
o
50-
SUB CAT. "B" INFLUENT BOD = 150 MG/L
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
SUB CAT. "D" INFLUENT BOD = 40 MG/L
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
100
FLOW RATE - 1000 GPD
200
VII-11
-------
FIGURE VII-2
RBC SYSTEM
COST SENSITIVITY
EFFECT OF INFLUENT BOO LEVEL
SUB CAT. "A" FLOW = 435,000 GPD
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
SUB CAT. "B" FLOW = 45,000 GPD
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
SUB CAT. "C" FLOW = 260,000 GPD
EFFLUENT BOD = 20 MG/L
600
500-
400-
Vi
<=>
CJ
300-
200-
100-
100 200
400
INFLUENT BOD - MG/L
VII-12
-------
FIGURE Vll-3
RBC SYSTEM
COST SENSITIVITY
EFFECT OF EFFLUENT TARGET BOO
300
SUB CAT. "A" FLOW = 435,000 GPD
INFLUENT BOD = 120 MG/L
SUB CAT. "B" FLOW = 45,000 GPD
INFLUENT BOD = 150 MG/L
SUB CAT. "C" FLOW = 260,000 GPD
INFLUENT BOD = 164 MG/L
SUB CAT. "D" FLOW = 75,000 GPD
INFLUENT BOD = 40 MG/L
200-
CO
o
to
100-
10
20 30
EFFLUENT BOD LEVEL-MG/L
VII-13
40
-------
FIGURE VII-4
RBC EQUIPMENT COST
VS. DISC SURFACE AREA
<
M
M
I
CO
CD
CJ
CJ
CO
S HORMEL DATA FOR BRISC STUDY
•> HORMEL DATA FOR WH&A ADDITIONS
10"
2 3 45678 9104
2 3 45678 9I05
RBC SURFACE AREA - FT2
3 4 5678910
-------
TABLE VI1-1
RAW WASTE LOADS FOR SUBCATEGORY MODEL PLANTS
TRADITIONAL POLLUTANTS
Subcategory Model Plants
Traditional Pollutant A B
BOD, mg/1 2,440 1,270 2,190 1,630
Ibs/day 8,850 480 4,750 1,020
COD, mg/1 5,180 2,050 5,160 2,780
Ibs/day 18,800 770 11,200 1,740
TSS, mg/1 1,030 520 740 370
Ibs/day 3,740 200 1,600 230
Wastewater Flow
Mean Plant Flow,
gal/day 435,000 45,000 260,000 75,000
Notes:
1. Wastewater concentrations (mg/1) were developed using the
results of the screening and verification programs.
Twenty-six individual plants comprise this data base.
2. BOD, COD, and TSS concentrations are the mean of the
results in the screening and verification data base for
each of the three pollutants. The mean concentrations are
based on the data from all plants that had that particular
type of operation (Example: data from an ABC plant were
used in the A, the B, and the C determinations). These
concentrations were verified by the BAT 308 and BPT data
bases.
Vll-15
-------
TABLE VII-2
Pollutant
TOTAL INDUSTRY* RAW WASTE LOADS FOR THE
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN **
Median Screening and Verification RWL's
ug/1 pounds/day +
Acid Extractables
Phenol
Volatile Organics
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Metals
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Other
Cyanide
180
100
150
20
320
515
45
85
50
8
50
250
280
56.8
33.7
53.0
5.0
147.9
173.6
22.5
42.5
17.7
0.4
15.8
125.1
76.1
(+) The total pounds discharged for each pollutant were calculated by
multiplying the pollutant concentration by the total industry
flow. The resultant loading was adjusted by the percent of the
total screening and verification plants in which it occurs as
follows:
Pollutant
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Z inc
Cyanide
For all subcategories (A, B, C and D)
Total industry flow - 65.2 MGD
** The 13 priority pollutants of concern are those that were found
10 or more times in the screening and verification data base.
Adjustment Factor
.58
.62
.65
.46
.85
.62
.92
.92
.65
.85
.58
.92
.50
VII-16
-------
Description
Mean flow, cv;.(/day
Type of Operation
Detention Ta:
Mixer(s), hp
Mixing Req., kWh/yr
Hypochlorite Feed
Rate, Ib/yr
Caustic Feed Rate,
Ib/yr
Pumping Req.
Manpower Req., h/yr
EQUIPMENT
day
on
s) , gal
rh/yr
ed
te,
:Wh/yr
h/yr
TABLE VII-3
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
COST BASES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Subcategory
A B
43,500 4,500
Continuous Batch
One, 1,000 Two, 4,500
One, 0.25 Two, 1.5
1,600 9,600
19,200 2,000
22,200 2,300
3,300 400
500 500
Model Plants
C
26,000
Continuous
One, 600
One, 0.25
1,600
11 ,500
13,300
2,000
500
D
7,500
Batch
Two, 7,500
Two, 2
12,800
3,300
3,900
600
500
VII-17
-------
TABLE VII-4
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
CAPITAL COSTS
Description
Detention Tank(s)
Mixer(s)
Hypochlorite Feed
System
Caustic Feed System
pH and ORP Control
Systems
Piping and Pumps
Equipment Cost
Installation
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
A B C D
$ 3,000
800
11,000
11,000
10,000
7,200
43,000
21 ,500
9,700
9,800
$84,000
$13,000
5,000
3,600
21,600
10,800
4,800
4,800
$42,000
$ 2,000
800
9,500
9,500
10,000
6,400
38,200
19,100
8,800
8,900
$75,000
$17,000
6,000
4,600
27,600
13,800
6,300
6,300
$54,000
VII-18
-------
TABLE VI1-5
CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Description
Chemicals
Hypochlorite
Caustic
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Capital Recovery
plus Return
Total Annual Cost
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
A B C D
$11,600
2,700
200
5,000
2,500
14,000
$36,000
$ 1,200
300
400
5,000
1,300
6,800
$15,000
$ 6,900
1,600
200
5,000
2,300
12,000
$28,000
$ 2,000
500
600
5,000
1,600
9,300
$19,000
VII-19
-------
TABLE VI 1-6
CHROMIUM REDUCTION
EQUIPMENT
Description
Mean flow, gal/day
Type of Operation
Detention Tank(s), gal
Mixers, hp
Mixing Req., kWh/yr
Clarifier Dia., ft
S02 Feed Rate, Ib/yr
Acid Feed Rate, Ib/yr
Caustic Feed Rate,
Ib/yr
Pumping Req., kWh/yr
Manpower Req., h/yr
Sludge Produced,
COST BASES
A
43,500
Continuous
One, 2,000
2 sections
One , 0.5
One, 0.25
4,800
10
7,200
7,200
31,800
3,300
500
8,000
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Subcategory
B
4,500
Batch
Two, 4,500
Two , 1.5
9,600
-
800
800
3,300
400
500
900
Model Plants
C D
26,000 7,500
Continuous Batch
One, 1,200 Two, 7,500
2 sections
One, 0.5 Two, 2
One, 0.25
4,800 12,800
8
4,300 1,300
4,300 1,300
19,000 5,500
2,000 600
500 500
4,800 1,400
Ib/yr dry solids
VII-20
-------
TABLE VI1-7
CHROMIUM REDUCTION
CAPITAL COSTS
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
Description
Detention Tank(s)
Mixers
Acid and S02
Feed Systems
pH and ORP
Control Systems
Caustic Feed System
Clarifier
Piping and Pumps
Equipment Cost
Installation
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
A
$ 6,000
2,500
22,000
10,000
11,000
32,000
16,700
100,200
50,100
22,800
22,900
$196,000
B
$20,000
5,000
-
-
-
-
5,000
30,000
15,000
6,800
7,200
$59,000
C
$ 4,500
2,500
19,000
10,000
9,500
27,000
13,500
86,000
43,000
19,500
19,500
$168,000
D
$26,000
6,000
-
-
-
-
6,400
38,400
19,200
8,700
8,700
$75,000
VII-21
-------
TABLE VI1-8
CHROMIUM
REDUCTION
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
Description
Chemicals
so2
Acid
Caustic
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
plus Return
Total Annual Cost
A
$ 1,100
450
3,800
350
5,000
5,900
5,800
31 ,600
$54,000
B
$ 100
50
400
400
5,000
1,800
650
9,600
$18,000
C
$ 650
250
2,300
300
5,000
5,100
3,500
27,900
$45,000
D
$ 200
100
650
550
5,000
2,300
1,000
12,200
$22,000
VII-22
-------
TABLE VI1-9
Description
Mean flow, gal/day
Type of Operation
Detention Tanks, gal
Mixers, hp
Mixing Req., kWh/yr
«
Clarifier Dia., ft
Filters Dia., ft
Lime Feed Rate, Ib/yr
Alum Feed Rate, Ib/yr
Misc. Energy Req., kWh/yr 500
Manpower Req., h/yr
Sludge Produced,
Ib/yr dry solids
METAL PRECIPITATION
:OST BASES
A
43,500
Continuous
-
-
-
10
Two, 3
13,200
2,600
500
500
15,900
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Subcategory
B
4,500
Batch
Two, 4,500
Two , 1.5
9,600
-
-
1,400
300
50
500
1,700
Model Plants
C
26,000
Continuous
-
-
-
8
Two, 3
7,900
1,600
300
500
9,500
D
7,500
Batch
Two, 7,500
Two, 2
12,800
-
-
2,300
500
100
500
2,800
VII-23
-------
TABLE VII-10
METAL PRECIPITATION
CAPITAL COSTS
Description
Detention Tanks
Mixers
Clarifier, Solids
Contact Type
Lime and Alum
Feed Systems
Filtration Units
Piping
Equipment Cost
Installation
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
A B C D
32,000
$20,000
5,000
27,000
$26,000
6,000
22,000
30,000
8,400
$ 92,400
$46,200
20,700
20,700
$180,000
—
-
2,500
$27,500
$13,800
6,300
6,400
$54,000
19,000
30,000
7,600
$ 83,600
$41 ,800
18,800
18,800
$163,000
—
-
3,200
$35,200
$17,600
8,100
8,100
$69,000
VII-24
-------
TABLE VII-11
METAL PRECIPITATION
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Description
Chemicals
Lime
Alum
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
plus Return
Total Annual Cost
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
A B C D
$ 550
200
50
5,000
5,400
11,500
29,300
$52,000
$ 100
50
400
5,000
1,700
1,250
8,500
$17,000
$ 350
100
50
5,000
4,900
6,800
26,800
$44,000
$ 100
50
550
5,000
2,100
2,000
11,200
$21,000
VII-25
-------
TABLE VII-12
STEAM STRIPPING
COST DATA
Description
Process Equipment
Steam stripper with 20 trays, 4 ft. I.D,
Feed rate = 200,000 Ibs/hr (400 gpm)
Physical Plant
207% of equipment cost
Engineering and Construction
30% of the total equipment cost
Direct Plant Cost
Capital Cost, Dollars
$ 98,000
203,000
90,000
$ 391,000
Fixed Capital
120% of direct plant cost
Working Capital
15% of fixed capital
Total Capital Cost
$ 469,000
71,000
$ 540,000
Steam
$3/1000 Ibs. steam
0.1 Ibs steam/lb feed
Steam for Feed Heating
70°C to 100°C
0.056 Ibs steam/lb feed
Electricity
$0.04/kwh
Labor
$10/h
Operating time = 8000 h/yr
Maintenance
3% of capital cost
Capital Recovery plus Return
16.3% of capital cost
Total Annual Cost
Source: Reference No. 72
Note: Costs have been adjusted to January 1978 dollars.
VII-26
Annual Cost, Dollars/1000 gal
$ 2.50
1.40
0.33
0.42
0.08
0.47
$ 5.20/1000 gal
-------
TABLE VII-13
EXISTING BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS ( ' *
FOR THE SUBCATEGORY MODEL PLANTS
Subcategory Model Plants
Pollutant A B
BOD, % Removal 90 90 90 90
mg/1 244 127 219 163
Ibs/day 885 48 475 102
COD, % Removal 74 74 74 74
mg/1 1,350 533 1,340 723
Ibs/day 4,900 200 2,910 452
TSS, mg/1 178 18 178 18
Ibs/day 646 7 386 11
1. BOD and COD effluent levels are based on BPT percent removal
regulations.
2. TSS effluent levels are from BPT data base. TSS regulation for
Subcategories B and D is 52 mg/1 monthly maximum. TSS regulations
for Subcategories A and C were not promulgated.
VII-27
-------
Description
Mean flow, gal/day
Detention Tii
Aerators, hp
Ammonia
Phos
Lime
TABLE VII-14
ACTIVATED
EQUIPMENT COST BASES
A
'day 435,000
days 2.2
Four , 60
.on, Ibs/day
i 32
>rous 6
30
Chloride 8
SLUDGE SYSTEM
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Subcategory
B
45,000
0.2
Two, 5
1.4
0.3
Model Plants
C D
260,000 75,000
1.2 0.3
Four, 30 Two, 5
16 1.4
3 0.3
17
4.5
Clarifiers, Dia., ft Two, 30
Sludge Thickener Surface
Area, ft2 28
Vacuum Filter Area, ft2 19
Energy Req., kwh/yr 1,625,000
Sludge Produced,
Ibs/day dry solids 130
Area Req., ft2 61,000
Two, 10 Two, 24 Two, 12
20
10
104,000 845,000 111,000
6 85 8
13,000 35,000 13,000
VII-28
-------
TABLE VII-15
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE SYSTEM
CAPITAL COSTS
Cost, Dollars, for
Description
Activated Sludge Unit
Aeration
Nutrient Addition
Clarification
Sludge Thickening
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Storage
Piping (installed)
Installed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
A
$ 420,000
218,000
13,000
180,000
33,000
142,000
-
151,000
1,157,000
174,000
174,000
B
$ 12,000
40,000
1,000
75,000
-
-
18,000
22,000
168,000
25,000
25,000
Subcategory Model Plants
C
$ 290,000
154,000
7,000
120,000
24,000
132,000
-
108,000
835,000
125,000
125,000
D
$ 34,000
40,000
1,000
96,000
^
-
18,000
28,000
217,000
33,000
33,000
Total Capital Cost $ 1,505,000 $ 218,000 $ 1,085,000 $ 283,000
VII-29
-------
Description
Chemicals
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
plus Return
TABLE VII-16
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
A
$ 2,600
65,000
110,000
45,200
5,700
B
$ 200
4,200
80,000
6,500
7,900
C
$ 1,400
33,800
110,000
32,600
3,700
D
$ 200
4,400
80,000
8,500
10,500
246,500
35,200
176,500
46,400
Total Annual Cost $ 475,000 $ 134,000 $ 358,000 $ 150,000
VII-30
-------
TABLE VII-17
ROTATING
EQUIPMENT
Description
Mean Flow, gal/day
Number of RBC Units
Shaft Lengths, ft
Total RBC Surface Area, ft2
Energy Req. , kwh/hr
Clarifiers, Dia., ft
Manpower Req. , h/yr
Sludge Produced,
Ibs/day dry solids
Sludge Dewatering
Manpower Req. , h/yr
Energy Req. , kwh/yr
Area Req. , ft2
BIOLOGICAL
COST BASES
A
435,000
Four
20
304,000
130,000
Two, 30
2,000
220
Yes
1500
195,000
30,000
CONTACTOR (RBC) SYSTEM
AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Subcategory
B
45,000
One
10
24,000
13,000
Two, 10
2,000
20
No
-
-
2,500
Model Plants
C
260,000
Three
20
228,000
98,000
Two, 24
2,000
130
Yes
1500
115,000
20,000
D
75,000
One
20
65,000
33,000
Two, 12
2,000
40
No
-
-
4,000
VII-31
-------
TABLE VII-18
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
CAPITAL AND
(RBC) SYSTEM
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Capital Costs ($)
Description
RBC Units, Steel Tankage,
Insulated Covers
Clarifiers
Sludge Dewatering
Sludge Storage
Piping
Equipment Cost
Installation
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
A
$ 205,000
120,000
96,000
-
42,000
463,000
232,000
104,000
104,000
$ 903,000
Subcategory
B
$ 40,000
50,000
-
8,000
10,000
108,000
54,000
24,000
24,000
$ 210,000
Model Plants
C
$ 155,000
80,000
84,000
-
32,000
351,000
176,000
79,000
79,000
$ 685,000
D
$ 50,000
64,000
-
12,000
13,000
139,000
70,000
31,000
31,000
$ 271,000
Annual Costs ($/Yr)
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
$ 13,000
35,000
27,100
9,600
Capital Recovery plus Return 147,300
Total Annual Cost
$ 232,000
$ 600
20,000
6,300
5,300
34,800
$ 67,000
$ 8,500
35,000
20,600
5,700
112,200
$ 182,000
$ 1,400
20,000
8,100
10,500
44,000
$ 84,000
VII-32
-------
TABLE VII-19
POLISHING POND
COST BASES
Subcategory Model Plants
Description
Mean Flow, gal/day
Detention Time, days
Excavated Volume,
Lined Area, ft2
A
435,000
5.5
15,000
40,000
230
Basin Width at Top, ft
Square basin, 1:3 slope
Freeboard = 1 ft
Water depth = 8 ft
Sludge depth = 1 ft
Manpower Req., h/yr
Area Req., ft2
200
62,000
B
45,000
3.3
1,000
3,300
SO
200
10,000
C
260,000
5.0
8,000
22,000
175
200
40,000
D
75,000
4.0
2,000
5,700
100
200
14,000
VII-33
-------
TABLE VII-20
POLISHING POND
CAPITAL AND
Description A
Excavation, Grading, $ 135,000
Compaction
Impervious Liner 26,000
( installed)
Piping (installed) 24,000
Installed Cost 185,000
Engineering 28,000
Contingency 28,000
Total Capital Cost $ 241,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Capital
Subcategory
B
$ 9,000
2,200
1,700
12,900
2,000
2,100
$ 17,000
Costs ($)
Model Plants
C
$ 72,000
14,300
12,900
99,200
14,900
14,900
$ 129,000
D
$ 18,000
3,700
3,300
25,000
4,000
4,000
$ 33,000
Annual Costs ($/yr)
Labor $ 2,000
Maintenance 7,200
Capital Recovery
plus Return 38,800
Total Annual Cost $ 48,000
$ 2,000
500
2,500
$ 5,000
$ 2,000
3,900
21,100
$ 27,000
$ 2,000
1,000
5,000
$ 8,000
VII-34
-------
TABLE VI1-21
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
WITH FILTRATION
EQUIPMENT COST BASES AND ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Subcategory Model Plants
Description
Mean Flow, gal/day
Detention Time, days
Aerators, hp
Nutrient Addition, Ibs/day
Ammonia
Phosphorous
Lime
Ferric Chloride
435,000
8
Six, 125
32
6
B
45,000
1
Two, 7.5
1.4
0.3
16
3
C D
260,000 75,000
5.5 1
Four, 75 Two, 7.5
1.4
0.3
Clarifiers, Dia., ft
Number of Dual Media
Filtration Units
Filter Diameters, ft
Sludge Thickener Surface
Area, ft 2
Vacuum Filter Area, ft2
Energy Req., kwh/yr
Sludge Produced,
Ibs/day dry solids
Area Req., ft2
Two, 30 Two, 10
Two, 24 Two, 12
600,
165,
Two
10
20
10
000
90
000
Two
3
-
-
130,000
20
17,000
Two
8
20
10
2,340,000
60
74,000
Two
4
-
-
140,000
20
17,000
VII-35
-------
TABLE VII-22
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE SYSTEM
WITH FILTRATION
CAPITAL COSTS
Description
Activated Sludge Unit
Aeration
Nutrient Addition
Clarification
Dual Media Filtration
Sludge Thickening
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Storage
Piping (installed)
Installed Cost
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Cost,
A
$ 778,000
465,000
13,000
180,000
180,000
24,000
132,000
-
266,000
2,038,000
306,000
306,000
$ 2,650,000
Dollars, for
B
$ 63,000
44,000
1,000
75,000
54,000
-
-
44,000
43,000
324,000
48,000
48,000
$ 420,000
Subcategory
C
$ 508,000
245,000
7,000
120,000
120,000
24,000
132,000
-
174,000
1,330,000
200,000
200,000
$ 1,730,000
Model Plants
D
$ 86,000
44,000
1,000
96,000
63,000
-
-
44,000
50,000
384,000
58,000
58,000
$ 500,000
VII-36
-------
TABLE VII-23
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
WITH FILTRATION
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Cost, Dollars, for Subcategory Model Plants
Description
Chemicals
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
plus Return
A
$ 2,500
224,000
130,000
79,500
4,000
432,000
B
$ 200
5,200
100,000
12,600
26,300
68,700
C
$ 1,200
93,600
130,000
51,900
2,600
280,700
D
$ 200
5,600
100,000
15,000
26,300
81,900
Total Annual Cost
$ 872,000 $ 213,000 $ 560,000 $ 229,000
VII-37
-------
TABLE VII-24
ROTATING
BIOLOGICAL
CONTACTOR (RBC) SYSTEM
WITH FILTRATION
EQUIPMENT
COST BASES
AND ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
Subcategory Model Plants
Description
Mean Flow, gal/day
Number of RBC Units
Shaft Lengths, ft
Total RBC Surface Area, ft2
Energy Req. , kwh/hr
Clarifiers, Dia., ft
Number of Dual Media
Filtration Units
Filter Diameters, ft
Manpower Req. , h/yr
Sludge Produced,
Ibs/day dry solids
Sludge Dewatering
Manpower Req. , h/yr
Energy Req. , kwh/yr
Area Req. , ft2
A
435,000
Four
25
442,000
260,000
Two, 30
Two
10
4,500
300
Yes
1500
265,000
31,000
B
45,000
One
20
65,000
33,000
Two, 10
Two
3
4,500
30
No
-
-
3,000
C
260,000
Four
20
364,000
195,000
Two, 24
Two
8
4,500
180
Yes
1500
160,000
21,000
D
75,000
One
20
65,000
33,000
Two, 12
Two
4
4,500
50
No
-
-
4,500
VII-38
-------
TABLE VII-25
ROTATING
BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR (RBC)
WITH
CAPITAL AND
Description
RBC Units, Steel Tankage, $
Insulated Covers
Clarif iers
Filtration Units
Sludge Dewatering
Sludge Storage
Piping
Equipment Cost
Installation
Engineering
Contingency
Total Capital Cost $ 1
A
235,000
120,000
120,000
108,000
-
58,000
641,000
321,000
144,000
144,000
,250,000
FILTRATION
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Capital Costs (
Subcategory Model
B
$ 50,000 $
50,000
36,000
-
12,000
15,000
163,000
82,000
37,000
37,000
$ 319,000 $
SYSTEM
$)
Plants
C
205,000
80,000
80,000
92,000
-
46,000
503,000
251,000
113,000
113,000
980,000
D
$ 50,000
64,000
42,000
-
18,000
17,000
191,000
96,000
43,000
43,000
$ 373,000
Annual Costs ($/Yr)
Energy
Labor
Maintenance
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery plus Return
Total Annual Cost $
$ 21,000
60,000
37,400
13,100
203,500
335,000
$ 1,400
45,000
9,600
7,900
52,100
$ 116,000 $
$ 14,200
60,000
29,400
7,900
159,500
271,000
$ 1,400
45,000
11,200
13,100
61,300
$ 132,000
VII-39
-------
TABLE VI1-26
H
I
End-of-pipe:
Mean Flow (gal/day)
Technology 1 - BPT
Technology 2 - A/S
RBC
Pond
Technology 2A - A/S + Filtration
RBC + Filtr;
In-Plant:
Process Flow (gal/day)
Technology 3 - Cr Reduction
Metals Precij
Technology 4 - CN Destruction
Technology 5 - Steam Stripping
Number of Plants in Subcategory
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY COSTS
Total
A
435,000
$ 2,290,000
475,000
232,000
48,000
tion 872,000
tion 335,000
43,500
itation 106,000
n 36,000
ng 83,000
Annual Cost ($/yr) for
B
45,000
$ 689,000
134,000
67,000
5,000
213,000
116,000
4,500
35,000
15,000
9,000
Subcategory
C
260,000
$ 939,000
358,000
182,000
27,000
560,000
271,000
26,000
89,000
28,000
49,000
Model Plants
D
75,000
$ 455,000
150,000
84,000
8,000
229,000
132,000
7,500
43,000
19,000
14,000
35
71
106
259
Notes: Total annual cost includes maintenance, labor, energy, chemicals, sludge disposal, and
capital recovery plus return.
Costs for Technologies 2-5 are incremental costs over BPT cost.
Costs are in January 1978 dollars. ENR = 2670
-------
TABLE VI1-27
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Pollutant
BOO
COO
TSS
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Methylone Chloride
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nlckol
Zinc
Cyanide
Total P.P.
Total Volatile P.P.
Total Metalt
Treatment
F ERMEMTATI ON PROCESS 1 NO SUBCATEGORY
TECHNOLOGV OPTIONS
Total Flo* for the Subcategory - 15,000,000 GPO; Mean Plant Flo*
RWL Existing BPT Guidelines
•a/I
Ibs/day % Removal mq/l fbs/day t Re
- 435,000 GPD; Dischargers - 31} Direct. 695 Indirect
Technology
rnoval mq/l
1 - BPT
Ibs/day Cost S/lb
(Total Subcat) (Total Subcat) (Total Subcat)
2440. 505,000. 90.0 244. 30,500. 96.3 90. 11,300. JO. 54
3180. 648,000. 74.0 1350. 169,000. 87.5 650. 81,300.
1030. 129,000. 178. 22,300. 83.5 170. 21,300. Incl. In above
.180 13.1 .005 .4
.100 7.8
.150 12.2 Note: BOD and COD effluent .010 .81
.020
.320
.515
.043
.085
.050
.0008
.050
.250
.280
1.2 levels based on BPT percent
34.0 removal regulations. TSS level
40.0 from BPT data base; regulation
5.2 was not promulgated.
9.8
4.1
.09
3.6
28.8
17.5
177.4
95.2
31.6
Technology 2
ma/I bs/day
(Total Subcat)
40. 5,000.
360. 45,000.
40. 5,000.
Cost S/lb
Costs based on BOO removal only:
.070
.003
.016
.020
.017
.0005
.045
.100
.063
7.4
.2
1.8
2.3
1.4
.03
3.3
11.3
3.9
33.1 $1, 300.
8.4
20.4
A/S
RBC + Clar.
Polishing Lagoon
Costs based on BOO and
vs
RBC t Clar.
Polishing Lagoon
JI.75
S .85
I .20
TSS removals:
$1.05
t .50
i .10
Biological Treatnent
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stage Biological Treatnent)
<
H
M
I
Single Subcategory A Plants -
All Subcategory A Plants -
Total Industry -
Solid Wastes
Pol lutant
BOO
COD
TSS
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Methyl en* Chloride
To I uene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Total P.P.
Technology 2A
mg/l Ibs/day
(Total Subcat)
20. 2,500.
270. 33,800.
30. 3,750.
Costs based on 800 and
VS + Flit.
RflC +Clar. + Flit.
2 2
14 13
63 74
120.000 Ibs dry sol Ids/day
Technology 3 Technology 4
Cost
S/lb
TSS removals!
12.93
$1.15
Costs based on BOO and TSS removals;
VS + Flit.
RBC + Clar. + Flit.
SI. 73
t .70
•9A
(In-plant
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
Total Volatile P.P.
Total Metals
I Cost mg/1 Cost
value) Ibs/day S/lb (In-plant value) Ibs/day S/lb
(Total Subcat) (Total Subcat)
3.3
2.3
.8
3.6
3.3
0.04 O.J 1198.
13.7 S264.
2
6
22
8.000 Ibs dry solids/day
Technology 5
mg/1 Cost
(Id-plant value) Ibs/day S/lb
(Total Subcat)
.03 .39
.03 .41
.03 .29
.03 .33
.03 .39
2.01 SS4.
Treatment
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stage Bio. Trt. + Filter)
I Units Ini
Subcategory B only Plants - 0
AM Subcategory B Plants - 0
Total Industry - 3
Solid Wastes
Notes
11,000 Ibs dry solids/day
Chromium Reduction Plus Metal
Precipitation
0
0
3
1,300 Ibs dry solids/day
This technology eliminates ill
•etaIs from secondary
Cyanide Destruction Kith Chlorine
0
t
6
None
This technology eliminates
cyanide from secondary sludge.
Steem Stripping
0
3
7
None
This technology eliminate* the
problem of air stripping In
secondary treatment system.
-------
TABLE VI 1-28
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Pollutant
BOO
COO
TSS
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
CyanIde
Total P.P.
Total Volatile P.P.
Total Metals
BIOLOGICAL EXTRACTION SUBCATEGORY (B)
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Total Flo* for the Subcategory - 3,200,000 GPD; Mean
nq/1
1270.
2050.
920.
.180
.100
.150
.020
.320
.515
.045
.085
0 50
',oooe
.050
.250
.280
RML
1 bs/day
(Total Subcat)
33,900.
54,700.
13,900.
2.8
1.7
2.6
0.2
7.3
8.5
l.t
2.1
.02
0.8
6.1
3.7
37.8
20.3
11.0
Existing
{ Removal
90.
74.
BPT Guidelines
mq/l 1 bs/day
(Total
127. 3,
533. 14,
18.
Subcat)
390.
200.
480.
Note; BOO and COD effluent
levels based on BPT
removal
regulations.
percent
TSS level
Is 52 mg/1 monthly maximum.
Plant Flo* - 45,000 GPD;
Technology
% Removal mq/l
(To
90.6 120.
54. 1 940.
50.0 260.
.005
_
.010
-
.070
.003
.016
.020
,017
!fl005
.045
.100
.063
Dischargers - 13> Direct, Blf
1 - BPT
1 bs/day Cost t/lb
3,200. 13.56
25,100. Incl. In above
6,940. Incl. In above
.08
_
.17
-
1.6
.05
.39
.49
,30
.01
.69
2.5
.84
7.1 $4,370.
1.8
4.4
Indirect
Technology 2
mq/1 Ibs/day Cost l/lb
(Total Subcat)
40. 1,070.
360. 9,600.
18. 480.
Costs based on BOO removal
A/S HI.
RBC + Clar. I 5.
Polishing Lagoon $ .
only
10
60
40
*No TSS reductions achieved by
this technology option
Biological Treatment
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stage Biological Treatment)
<
H
1 |
1
£>.
K)
Single Subcategory B Plants - 22
All Subcateqorv B Plants - 19 18
Total Industry - 83 74
Solid Wastes 11,200 Ibs dry solids/day
Technology 2A Technology 3 Technology 4
Cost mg/1 Cost mg/1 Cost
Pollutant mq/1 Ibs/day J/lb (In-p lent value) Ibs/day $/lb ( In-p lent value) Ibs/day l/lb
(Total Subcat) (Total Subcat) (Total Subcat)
BOO 20. 535.
COO 270. 7,200.
TSS 18, 480.
Phenol
Benzene
Ch loroform
Ethyl benzene Costs based on BOD and TSS removal si
Methylene Chloride A/S + Fl It. J14.50
Toluene RBC + Clar. + Flit, t 7.90
Chromium 0.3 .74
Copper 0.2 .5
Lead 0.1 .17
Mercury
Nickel 0.5 .77
Zinc 0.3 .74
Cyanide 0.01 0.05 J802,
Total P.P.
Total Volatile P.P.
Total Metals 2.92 J843.
1
4
22
1.500 Ibs dry
Technology 5
mg/1
(In-plant value) Ibs/day
sol Ids/day
Cost
t/lb
(Total Subcat)
.05 .08
.05 .09
.05 .06
.05 .11
.05 .08
.42
S88.
Treatment
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stage Bio. Trt. + Filter)
/ Units In:
Subcategory B only Plants - 0
AlI Subcategory B Plants - 0
Total Industry - 3
Sol Id Wastes
Notes
2,200 Ibs dry solids/day
Chromium Reduction Plus Metal
Precipitation
0
0
3
320 Ibs dry solids/day
This technology eliminates all
metals from secondary sludge.
Cyanide Destruction with Chlorine
This technology a Mm I nates
cyanide from secondary sludge.
Steam Stripping
1
2
7
None
This technology eliminates the
problem of air stripping In
secondary treatment system.
-------
TABLE VI I-29
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Pollutant
BOO
COO
T5S
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Methylane Chlorite
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Total P.P.
Total Volatile P.P.
Total (totals
Treatment
CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS SUBCATEGORY (C)
«9/1
2190.
5160.
740.
.180
.100
.150
.020
.320
.515
.045
.085
.050
.0006
.050
.250
.280
Totiil Flo* for
RWL
1 bs/day
ITotal Subcat)
504,000.
1,190,000.
170,000.
24.1
14.4
22.4
2.2
62.6
73.6
9.6
18.0
7.5
.17
6.6
53.0
32.2
326.4
175.2
94.9
TECH
the Subcategory - 27,600,000 GPD; Mean
Existing BPT Guldullnes
% Removal mq/1 1 bs/day
(Total Subcat)
90. 219. 50,400.
74. 1340. 308,000.
178. 41,000.
Note: BOD and COO effluent
levels based on BPT percent
removal regulations. TSS level
from BPT data base; regulation
was not promt gated.
NOLOGY OPTIONS
Plant Flow - 260.000
GPD; Dischargers - 23J Direct, 11%
Technology 1 - BPT
% Removal mq/1
94.1 130.
80.6 1000.
81.1 140.
.005
_
.010
1 bs/day Cost t/lb
(Total Subcat)
29,900. $0.45
230,000. Incl. In above
32,000. Incl. In above
.74
—
1.5
Indirect
Technology 2
mq/1 1 bs/day
(Total Subcat)
40. 9,210.
360. 82,900.
40. 9,210.
Cost S/lb
Costs based on BOO removal only:
.070
.003
.016
.020
.017
.0005
.045
.100
.063
13.6
0.37
3.3
4.2
2.6
.09
6.1
21.2
7.2
60.9 $1,030.
15.5
37.5
A/S
RBC * Clar.
Pol Ishlng Lagoon
Costs based on BOD and
A/S
RBC + Clar.
Pol Ishlng Lagoon
52.50
SI. 30
$ .20
TSS removals:
it. 45
$ .75
$ .10
Biological Treatment
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stage Biological Treatment)
H
H
I
4^
U)
Single Subcategory C Plant* -
Al 1 Subcategory C Plant* -
Total Industry -
Sol Id Wastes
Pollutant
BOD
COD
TSS
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chlorite
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Total P.P.
Total Volatile P.P.
Total Metal*
•q/l
20.
270.
30.
Co«t»
A/S
RBC
Technology 2A
1 bs/day
(Total Subcat)
4,600.
62,100.
6,910.
16 15
42 36
83 74
119,000 Ibs dry solids/day
Technology 3 Technology 4
Cost
S/lb
mg/1
(In-plant
1 Cost mg/l Coat
value) Its/day t/lb (In-olant value) 1 bs/day S/lb
(Total Subcat) (Total Subcat)
bated on BOP removal on IYI
T F 1 1 1. J3. 53
+ Clar. + Flit.
Costs based on BOD and
A/5
RBC
+ Fl It.
+ Clar. + Flit.
tl.75
TSS removals:
S2.05
SI. 00
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.3
6.3
4.2
1.3
6.7
6.3
0.04 .05 S257.
25.0 $371.
4
10
22
14.000 Ibs dry solids/day
Technology 5
mg/1
(In-plant value)
.05
.05
.09
.05
.0)
1 bs/day
(Total Subcat)
.72
.75
.S3
.98
.72
3.70
Cost
S/lb
$83.
Treatment
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stage Bio. Trt. + FlIter)
/ Units In:
Subcategory C only Plants - 0
AI I Subcategory C Plants - 0
Total Industry - 3
Solid Wastes
Notes
19,000 Ibs dry solids/day
Chromium Reduction Plus Metal
Precipitation
2
2
3
2,800 Ibs dry solids/day
This technology eliminate* all
metals from secondary sludge.
Cyanide Destruction with Chlorine
This technology eliminate*
cyanide from secondary sludge.
'team Stripping
2
6
7
Nona
This technology eliminate* the
problem of air stripping In
secondary treatment system.
-------
TABLE VII-30
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Pollutant
BOO
COO
TSS
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroforn
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chloride
To tuene
Chromlun
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Total P.P.
Total Volatile P.P.
Total Metals
Treatment
FORMULAT ION SUBCATEGORY _ (0)
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
Total Flow for the Subcategory - 19,400,000 GPO; Mean
•VI
1630.
2780.
370.
.180
.100
.150
.020
.320
.515
.045
.085
.050
.0008
.050
.250
.280
RWL
Ibs/day
(Total Subcat)
264,000.
450,000.
59,900.
16.9
10.1
15.8
1.6
44.0
51.7
6.7
12.7
5.3
.12
4.7
37.2
22.6
229.4
123.2
66.7
Existing BPT
% Removal ma/1 1 bs/day
(Total Subcat)
90. 163. 26,400.
74. 723. 117,000.
18. 2,910.
Note: BOO and COO effluent
levels based on BPT percent
removal regulations. TSS level
from BPT data base; regulation
Is 52 mg/t monthly maximum.
Plant Flo» - 75,000
GPD; Discharger* - 15$ Direct, 85J Indirect
Technology 1 - BPT
} Removal mg/1
93.9 100.
68.0 890.
56.8 160.
.005
-
.010
.
.070
.003
.016
.020
.017
.0005
.045
.100
.063
Ibs/dav Cost S/lb
(Total Subcat)
16,200. $1.53
144,000. Incl. In above
96,illO. Incl. In above
.52
-
1.0
-
9.6
.3
2.3
3.0
1.8
.06
4.3
14.9
5.0
$1,730.
42.8
10.9
26.4
Technology 2
•a/I Ibs/day Cost $/lb
40. 6,480.
360. 58,200.
18. 2,910.
Costs based on BOD and TSS removals onlyt
A/5 + Fl It. $ 5.35
RBC + Clar. + Fl It. $ 3.00
Polishing Lagoon $ .30
Biological Treatment
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stage Bio. Trt. + Filter)
Single Subcategory D Plants -
Al 1 Subcategory 0 Plant* -
£>
£»
Pollutant
BOO
COO
TSS
Phenol
Benzene
Ch loroforn
Etnylben/ene
Methyl ene Chloride
To luene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyan Ida
Total P.P.
Total Volatile P.
Total Metals
Technology 2A
mg/1 Cost
(In-plant value) Ibs/day S/lb
(Total Subcat)
20. 3,240
270. 43,700
18. 2,910
Costa based on BOD removal onlyt *
A/S + Fl It. $7.00
RBC + Clar.+ Fl It. $4.05
* This technology option does not
provide TSS reductions bayond
BPT.
P.
29
57
83
Technology
cng/1
tin-plant value)
(Tot
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.3
3
Cost
Ibs/day $/lb
al Subcat)
4.5
3.0
1.0
4.7
4.5
17.7 $622.
26
49
74
14,000 Ibs dry solids/day 11.000
Technology 4 Technology
mg/t Cost mg/1
(In-plant value) Ibs/day J/lb (In-plant value)
(Total Subcat)
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
0.04 .3 $603.
7
14
22
Ibs dry solids/day
5
Cost
Ibs/day S/lb
.50
.33
.38
.69
.50
2.60 $82.
Technology 6
Zero Dlscharga-
(Contract
Handling)
$.30/gal.
Treatment
Biological Enhancement
(2-Stoge Bo! I, Trt. + Fl I lar)
/ Units In:
Subcategory 0 only Plants - 3
AM Subcategory D Plants - 3
Total Industry - 3
Solid Wastes
Notes
13,000 Ibs dry solids/day
Chromlun Reduction Plus Metal
Precipitation
1,940 Ibs dry solids/day
This technology eliminates all
nopals from secondary sludge.
Cyanide Destruction with Chlorine
This technology eliminates
cyanide from secondary sludge*
Stem Stripping
This technology eliminates the
Problem of air stripping In
Secondary Treatment systems.
-------
TABLE VI1-31
BCT COST TEST
Total Annual Cost ($/lb) for Conventional Pollutant
Removal at Subcategory Model Plants
Technology 2
Activated Sludge
RBC
Polishing Lagoon
Technology 2A
Activated Sludge
and Filtration
RBC and Filtration
(BOD s. TSS)
0.42
0.20
0.04
0.70
0.27
B
(BOD Only)
4.68
2.34
0.17
6.04
3.30
(BOD & TSS)
0.55
0.28
0.04
0.79
0.38
(BOD Only)
2.23
1.25
0.12
2.92
1.68
Assumptions;
1. Cost test based on 30 day maximum removal rates for BOD & TSS or BOD
only.
2. TSS for subcategories A & C not previously regulated but TSS data
available from 1976 BPT study.
3. Costs are in Jan. 1978 dollars where ENR equals 2670.
4. BCT for cost comparison is indexed at ?1.27/lb for 1st quarter 1978.
VII-45
-------
SECTION VIII
BAT
[NOTE: This section, discussing Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable, is reserved for EPA.]
VIIl-l
-------
SECTION IX
BCT
[NOTE: This section, discussing Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology, is reserved for EPA.]
IX-1
-------
SECTION X
NSPS
[NOTE: This section, discussing New Source £erformance Standards,
is reserved for EPA.]
X-1
-------
SECTION XI
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
[NOTE: This section, discussing Pretreatment Standards, is
reserved for EPA.]
XI-1
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Acknowledgment is made to all Environmental Protection
Agency personnel contributing to this effort. Specifically, the
development of this report was under the direction of the following
personnel:
Robert Schaffer
Jeffrey Denit
Paul Fahrenthold
James Gallup
Michael Kosakowski
Joseph Vitalis
Susan Delpiro
Director, Effluent Guidelines
Division
Deputy Director, Effluent
Guidelines Division
Branch Chief
Chief, Office of Quality Review
Senior Project Officer
Project Officer
Chemical Engineer
The following members of the Burns and Roe technical staff
made significant contributions to the overall project effort and
the development of this report:
Arnold S. Vernick, P.E.
Barry S. Langer, P.E.
Jeffrey A. Arnold, P.E.
Tom H. Fieldsend
Thomas Gunder, P.E.
Vaidyanathan Ramaiah,P.E,
Mark Sadowski
Mary Surdovel
Jeffrey Walters
Samuel Zwickler
Manager, Environmental
Engineering
Project Manager
Project Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Engineer
Senior Supervising Engineer
The assistance of Mrs. S. Frances Thompson, Mrs. Jeanne
Hamilton,and the Word Processing Center of Burns and Roe in the
typing of this report is specifically noted.
The assistance of all personnel at EPA Regional Offices and
State environmental departments who participated in the data
gathering efforts is greatly appreciated.
The assistance of Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc., under the
direction of Forrest Dryden, Project Manager, is acknowledged for
some technical input and review.
The assistance of PEDCo, Cincinnati, Ohio, is also
acknowledged for their technical input and text preparation used in
the process description portion of Section II.
XII-1
-------
Acknowledgment is made to all of the pharmaceutical plants
that participated in the sampling programs included in this
study.
Acknowledgment is made to the environmental committees of
the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PMA) for their
assistance during the course of this project.
The efforts of The Research Corporation of New England (TRC)
in developing and maintaining an open literature data base are also
acknowledged.
XII-2
-------
SECTION XIII
BIBLIOGRPAHY
1. Anderson, Dewey R., et al, "Pharmaceutical Wastewater:
Characteristics and Treatment," Industrial Wastes, March/
April 1971, pp. 2-6.
2. APHA Project Staff, Factbook '76, Prescription Drug Industry
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 1976.
3. APHA Project Staff, Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs,
American Pharmaceutical Association, Washington, D.C., 1977.
4. Breaz, Emil, "Drug Firm Cuts Sludge Handling Costs," Water
and Wastes Engineering, January 1972, pp. 22-23.
5. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Burns and Roe Review
of TRC Data Base," May 8,1978 revised June 7, 1978 .
6. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Preliminary
Profile," February 15, 1978.
7. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Profile Report No.2,
308 Portfolio, Subcategory A Report," June 2, 1978.
8. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Profile Report No.
3, Industry Population," June 22, 1978.
9. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Profile Report No.
4, Fate of Industry Wastewater," August 18,1978.
10. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA,"Profile Report No.5,
Treatment Technology," September 8, 1978.
11. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA," Profile Report No.
6A, Production Data by Plant Site," August 30, 1978.
12. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Summary Report No.
1, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Data Base Acquisition,"
February 14, 1978.
13. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Summary Report No.
1A, 308 Portfolio Development, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing,"
May, 1978.
14. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA,"Summary Report No.2,
308 Portfolio Computerization, Phase I, Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing," February 24, 1978.
15. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Summary Report
No. 3, Industrial Subcategorization, Review of Alterna-
tives," February 14, 1978.
XIII-1
-------
16. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Summary Report
No. 4, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category
Definitio," February 14, 1978.
17. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Summary Report
No. 5, 308 Portfolio Computerization, Phase II, Pharma-
ceutical Manufacturing," April 21, 1978.
18. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Screening Plants
Coverage of Pharmaceutical Products," letter transmitted,
December 12, 1978.
19. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "308 Treatment
Plant Performance Data," letter report dated December 11,
1978.
20. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Profile Report
No. 1A," June 15, 1978.
21. Crane, Leonard W., "Activated Sludge Enhancement: A Viable
Alternative to Tertiary Carbon Adsorption," Proceedings of
the Open Forum on Management of Petroleum Refinery Waste-
water, June 6-9, 1977.
22. Dlouhy, P.E. and Dahlstrom, D.A., "Continuous Filtration in
Pharmaceutical Production," Chemical Engineering Progress,
Vol. 64, No. 4, April 1968, pp. 116-121.
23. Dunphy, Joseph F. and Hall, Alan, "Waste Disposal: Settling on
Safer Solution for Chemicals," Chemical Week, March 8, 1978,
pp. 28-32
24. Echelberger, Wayne F., Jr., "Treatability Investigations for
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Wastes," presented at the ASCE
National Environmental Engineering Conference, Vanderbilt
University, July 13-15, 1977.
25. Federal Register, Vol. 41, No.31 - Friday, February 13, 1976,
pp. 6878-6894.
26. Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 106 - Tuesday, June 1, 1976,
pp. 22202-22219.
27. Federal Register, Vol.41, No. 223 -Wednesday, November 17,
1976, pp. 50676-50686.
28. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 20 - Monday, January 31, 1977
pp. 5697.
29. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 24 - Friday, February 4, 1977,
pp. 6813-6814.
30. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 148, - Tuesday, August 2, 1977,
pp. 39182-39193.
XIII-2
-------
31. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 191, - Monday, October 3, 1977,
pp. 53804-53820.
32. Pox, Jeffrey L., " Ames Test Success Paves Way for Short-Term
Cancer Testing," Chemical and Engineering News, December 12,
1977, pp. 34-46.
33. Grieves, C.G., et al, "Powdered Carbon Improves Activated
Sludge Treatment," Environmental Management, October 1977, pp.
125-130.
34. Humphrey, Arthur E., "Current Developments in Fermentation,"
Chemical Engineering, December 9, 1974, pp. 98-112.
35. Lawson, C.T., and Hovious, J.L., "Realistic Performance
Criteria for Activated Carbon Treatment of Wastewaters from
the Manufacture of Organic Chemicals and Plastics," Union
Carbide Corporation, February 14,1977.
36. Lund, Herbert F-, Industrial Pollution Control Handbook,
McGraw-Hill.
37. Marek, Anton C., Jrif and Askins, William, "Advanced
Wastewater Treatment for an Organic Chemicals Manufacturing
Complex," U.S./U.S.S R. Symposium on Physical/Chemical
Treatment, November 12-14, 1975.
38. Mohanrao, G.J., et al, "Waste Treatment at a Synthetic Drug
Factory in India," Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 42, No.8, Part 1, August 1970, pp.1530-1543.
40. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. Train, 8 E.R.C.
2120 (D.D.C. 1976).
41. PEDCo Environmental submittal to the U.S. EPA, "The Presence
of Priority Pollutants in the Extractive Manufacture of
Pharmaceuticals," October 1978.
42. PEDCo Environmental submittal to the U.S. EPA, "The Presence
of Priority Pollutant Materials in the Fermentation
Manufacture of Pharmaceuticals," no date.
43. PEDCo Environmental submittal to the U.S. EPA, "The Presence
of Priority Pollutants in the Synthetic Manufacture of
Pharmaceuticals," March 1979.
44. Shumaker, Thomas P., "Carbon Treatment of Complex Organic
Wastewaters," presented at Manufacturing Chemists Associ-
ation, Carbon Adsorption Workshop, November 16, 1977.
45. Stracke, R.J., and Bauman, E.R., "Biological Treatment of a
Toxic Industrial Waste - Performance of an Activated Sludge
and Trickling Filter Plant: Salisbury Laboratories."
XIII-3
-------
46. Struzeski, E.J., Jr., "Waste Treatment in the Pharmaceuticals
Industry/Part 1," Industrial Wastes July/August 1976,
pp. 17-21.
47. Struzeski, E.J., Jr., "Waste Treatment in the Pharmaceuticals
Industry/Part 2," Industrial Wastes September/October 1976,
pp. 40-43.
48. Stumpf, Mark R., "Pollution Control at Abbott", Industrial
Wastes, July/August 1973, pp. 20-26.
49. "Super Bugs Rescue Waste Plants," Chemical Week Novem-
ber 30, 1977, p. 47 (unauthored).
50. The Directory of Chemical Producers - U.S.A., Medicinals.
Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
51. The Executive Directory of U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry, Third
Edition. Chemical Economics Services, Princeton, NJ.
52. U.S. EPA, "Assessment of the Environmental Effect of the
Pharmaceutical Industry," Contract No. 68-03-2510, December
1978.
53. U.S. EPA, "Characterization of Wastewaters from the Ethical
Pharmaceutical Industry," Report No. 670/2-74-057, July
1974.
54. U.S. EPA, "Control Techniques for Volatile Organic Emissions
from Stationary Sources," Contract No. 68-02-2608, Task 12,
September, 1977.
55. U.S. EPA, "Development Document for Interim Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance
Standards for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source
Category," Report No. 440/1-75/060, December 1976.
56. U.S. EPA, "Development Document for Proposed Existing Source
Pretreatment Standards for the Electroplating Point Source
Category," Report No. 440/1-78/085, February 1978.
57. U.S. EPA, Draft of "Pretreatment Standards for Ammonia,
Phenols, and Cyanides", Contract No. 68-01-3289, March 1976.
58. U.S. EPA, "Pharmaceutical Industry: Hazardous Waste Gen-
eration, Treatment, and Disposal," Report No. SW-508, 1976.
59. U.S. EPA, "Preliminary Evaluation of Sources and Control of
the Wastewater Discharges of Three High Volume Pharmaceutical
Production Processes," Contract No. 68-03-2870, November 1977.
60. U.S. EPA, "Sampling and Analysis Procedures for Screening of
Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants," April 1977.
XIII-4
-------
61. U.S. EPA, "Waste Treatment and Disposal Methods for the
Pharmaceutical Industry," Report No. 330/1-75-001, February
1975.
62. Willey, William J., and Vinnecombe, Anne T., Industrial
Microbiology. McGraw-Hill, 1976.
63. Windholz, Martha, The Merck Index 9th Edition. Merck and
Co., Rahway, NJ, 1976.
64. Wu, Yeun C. and Kao, Chiao F., "Activated Sludge Treatment
of Yeast Industry Wastewater," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation Vol. 48, No. 11, November 1976, pp.2609-2618
65. DeWalle, F.B., et al, "Organic Matter Removal by Powdered
Activated Carbon Added to Activated Sludge," Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, April 1977.
66. Grieves, C.G., et al, "Powdered Activated Carbon Enhancement
of Activated Sludge for BATEA Refinery Wastewater Treatment,"
Proceedings of the Open Forum on Management of Petroleum
Refinery Wastewater, June 6-9, 1977.
67. Grulich, G., et al, "Treatment of Organic Chemicals Plant
Wastewater with DuPont PACT Process," presented at AICHE
Meeting, February 1972.
68. Heath, H.W., Jr., "Combined Powdered Activated Carbon -
Biological ("PACT") Treatment of 40 MGD Industrial Waste,"
presented to Symposium on Industrial Waste Pollution Control
at ACS National Meeting, March 24, 1977.
69. Button, D.C., and Robertaccio, F.L., U.S. Patent 3,904,518,
September 9, 1975.
70. U.S. EPA, "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from the
Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products," Report
No. 450/2-78-029, December 1978.
71. U.S. EPA, "Draft Development Document Including the Data Base
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines (BATEA), New Source
Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the
Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Point Source Category,"
Contract No. 68-01-4492, April 1979.
72. Hwang, Seong T., and Fahrenthold, Paul, "Treatability of the
Organic Priority Pollutants by Steam Stripping," presented at
A.I.Ch.E. meeting, August 1979.
73. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S EPA, "Executive Summary of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical
Industry," July 1979.
XIII-5
-------
74. Burns and Roe submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Supplement to the
Draft Contractors Engineering Report for the Development of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical
Industry," July 1979.
75. Fox, C.R., "Removing Toxic Organics from Wastewater," Chemical
Engineering and Process, August 1979.
76. Boznowski, J.H., and Hanks, D.L., "low-energy Separation
Processes," Chemical Engineering, May 7, 1979, pp.65-71.
77. Heist, James A., "Freeze Crystallization," Chemical
Engineering, May 7, 1979, pp. 72-82.
78. Hanson, Carl, "Solvent Extraction-An Economically Competitive
Process," Chemical Engineering, May 7, 1979, pp. 83-87.
79. Region 2 S&A Chemistry Section memo to William Telliard of
Effluent Guidelines, "Quantitative Organic Priority Pollutant
Analyses-Proposed Modifications to Screening Procedures for
Organics," December 12, 1978.
80. Arthur D. Little submittal to the U.S EPA, "Economic Analyses
of Interim Final Effluent Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical
Industry," August 1976.
81. Arthur D. Little submittal to the U.S. EPA, "Preliminary
Economic Assessment of the Pharmaceutical Industry for BATEA
Effluent Limitation Guidelines Studies," February 1978.
82. Office of Quality Review to Robert B. Schaffer of Effluent
Guidelines Division, "Treatability of "65" Chemicals Part B-
Adsorption of Organic Compounds on Activated Charcoal,"
December 8, 1977.
83. Waugh, Thomas H., "Incineration, Deep Wells Gain New
Importance," Science, Vol. 204, June 15, 1979, pp. 1188-1190.
84. Wild, Norman H., "Calculator program for Sour-Water-Stripper
Design," Chemical Engineering, February 12, 1979, pp. 103-113.
85. M & I preliminary submittal to the U.S. EPA, "A Demonstrated
Approach for Improving Performance and Reliability of
Biological Wastewatch Treatment Plants," December 1977.
86. U.S. EPA, "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from
Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products," Report
No. 450/2-78-029, December 1978.
87. Swan, Raymond, "Pharmaceutical Industry Sludge: Drug Makers
Face Waste Management Headache," Sludge, July-August 1979,
pp. 21-25.
XIII-6
-------
88. Robins, Winston K., "Representation of Extraction
Efficiencies," Analytical Chemistry Vol. 51, No. 11, September
1979, pp. 1860, 1861.
89. Dietz, Edward A., and Singley, Kenneth F-, "Determination of
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in Water by Headspace Gas
Chromotography," Analyical Chemistry Vol. 51, No. 11,
September 1979, pp. 1809-1814.
90. U.S. EPA, "Indicatory Fate Study," Report No. 600/2-79-175,
August 1979.
91. U.S. EPA, "Biological Treatment of High Strength Petrochemical
Wastewater," Report No. 600/2-179-172, August 1979.
92. U.S. EPA, "Activated Carbon Treatment of Industrial
Wastewaters: Selected Technical Papers," Report No.
600/2-79-177, August 1979.
93. U.S. EPA, "Biodegradation and Treatability of Specific
Pollutants," Report No. 600/9-79-03, October 1979.
94. Interagency Regulatory Liasion Group, "Publications on Toxic
Substances: A Descriptive Listing," 1979.
95. Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 233 - Monday, December 3, 1979,
pp. 69464-69575.
96. Engineering-Science, Inc. submittal to the U.S. EPA,
"Effectiveness of Waste Stabilization Pond Systems for Removal
of the Priority Pollutants," December 1979.
97. U.S. EPA, "Seminar for Analytical Methods for Priority
Pollutants," May 1978.
98. Strier, Murray P., "Pollutant Treatability: A Molecular
Engineering Approach," Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 14, No. 1., January 1980, pp. 28-31.
99. U.S. EPA, "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works - Pilot Study," Report No. 440/1-79-300,
October 1979.
100. Malina, Joseph F., Jr., "Biodisc Treatment," no date.
101. Gloyna, Earnest F., and Tischler, Lial F., "Design of Waste
Stabilization Pond Systems," presented at International
Association on Water Pollution Research, Conference on
Developments on Land Methods of Waste Treatment and
Utilization, October 1978.
102. Gulp, Ressell L., "GAG Water Treatment Systems," Publics
Works, February 1980, pp. 83-87.
XIII-7
-------
103. Lawson, C.T., and Hovious, V.C., "Realistic Performance
Criteria for Activated Carbon Treatment of Wastewaters from
the Manufacture of Organic Chemicals and Plastics," Union
Carbide Corporation, February 14, 1977.
104. U.S. EPA, "Development of Treatment and Control Technology for
Refractory Petrochemical Wastes," Report No. 600/2-79-080,
April 1979.
105. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, "Administrative
Officers of the Member Firms and Associates of the PMA,"
October 1976.
106. Manufacturing Chemists Association submittal to Paul
Fahrenthold of Effluent Guidelines Division, "Comments on the
Molecular Engineering Approach to Effluent Guideline
Development," January 23, 1979.
107. Chemical Manufacturers Association submitted to the U.S. EPA
"CMA Comments on EPA's Proposed Leather Tanning and Finishing
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards," March 27,
1980.
108. U.S. EPA, "Ambient Water Quality Criteria," Criteria and
Standards Division, unpublished draft report.
109. U.S. EPA, "Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Copper, Nickel, Chromium, and Zinc Segment of the
Electroplating Point Source Category," Report No.
440/1-74-003a, March 1974.
110. Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc., "Summary Report for the
Pharmaceutical BAT/Priority Pollutant Orientation Study,"
Contract No. 68-01-6024, Work Assignment No. 3, May 20, 1980.
XIII-8
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Abatement. The measures taken to reduce or eliminate pollution.
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.
Acclimation. The ability of an organism to adapt to changes in its
immediate environment.
Acid. A substance which dissolves in water with the formation of
hydrogen ions.
Acidulate. To make somewhat acidic.
Act. Clean Water Act of 1977, PL 95-217.
Activated Carbon. Carbon which is treated by high temperature
heating with steam or carbon dioxide producing an internal porous
particle structure.
Activated Sludge Process. A process which removes the organic
matter from sewage by saturating it with air and biologically
active sludge. The recycled "activated" microoganisms are able to
remove both the soluble and colloidal organic material from the
wastewater.
Active Ingredient. The chemical constituent in a medicine which
is responsible for its activity-
Adsorption. An advanced method of treating wastes in which a
material removes organic matter not necessarily responsive to
clarification or biological treatment by adherence on the surface
of solid bodies.
Advanced Waste Treatment. Any treatment method or process employed
following biological treatment to increase the removal of pollution
load, to remove substances that may be deleterious to receiving
waters or the environment or to produce a high-quality effluent
suitable for reuse in any specific manner or for discharge under
critical conditions. The term tertiary treatment is commonly used
to denote advanced waste treatment methods.
Aeration. (1) The bringing about of intimate contact between air
and a liquid by one of the following methods: spraying the liquid
in the air, bubbling air through the liquid, or agitation of the
liquid to promote surface absorption of air. (2) The
process or state of being supplied or impregnated with air; in
waste treatment, a process in which liquid from the primary
clarifier is mixed with compressed air and with biologically
active sludge.
XIV-1
-------
Aerobic. Ability to live, grow, or take place only where free
oxygen is present.
Algae. One-celled or many-celled plants which grow in sunlit
waters and which are capable of photosynthesis. They are a food
for fish and small aquatic animals and, like all plants, put oxygen
in the water.
Algicide. Chemical agent used to destroy or control algae.
Alkali. A water-soluble metallic hydroxide that ionizes strongly.
Alkalinity. The presence of salts of alkali metals. The hydroxides,
carbonates, and bicarbonates of calcium, sodium and magnesium
are common impurities that cause alkalinity. A quantitative
measure of the capacity of liquids or suspensions to neutralize
strong acids or to resist the establishment of acidic conditions.
Alkalinity results from the presence of bicarbonates, carbonates,
hydroxides, alkaline salts and occasionally borates and is usually
expressed in terms of the amount of calcium carbonate that would
have an equivalent capacity to neutralize strong acids.
Alkaloids. Basic (alkaline) nitrogenous botanical products which
produce a marked physiological action when administered to ani-
mals or humans.
Alkylation. The addition of a aliphatic group to another molecule.
The media in which this reaction is accomplished can be vapor or
liquid phase, as well as aqueous or non-aqueous.
Ammonia Nitrogen. A gas released by the microbiological decay of
plant and animal protein. When ammonia nitrogen is found in
waters, it is indicative of incomplete treatment.
Ampules. A small glass container that can be sealed and its con-
tents sterilized. Ampules are used to hold hypodermic solutions.
Anaerobic. Ability to live, grow, or take place where there is no
air or free oxygen present.
Anion. Ion with a negative charge.
Antagonistic Effect. The simultaneous action of separate agents
mutually opposing each other.
Antibiotic. A substance produced by a living organism which has
power to inhibit the multiplication of, or to destroy, other
organisms, especially bacteria.
Aqueous Solution. One containing water or watery in nature.
Arithmetic Mean. The arithmetic mean of a number of items is
obtained by adding all the items together and dividing the total
by the number of items. It is frequently called the average. It
is greatly affected by extreme values.
XIV-2
-------
Autoclave. A heavy vessel with thick walls for conducting
chemical reactions under high pressure. Also an apparatus using
steam under pressure for sterilization.
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.
Bacteria. Unicellular, plant-like microorganisms, lacking chloro-
phyll. Any water supply contaminated by sewage is certain to
contain a bacterial group called "coliform."
BADCT. Limitations for new sources which are based on the appli-
cation of the Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology.
Base. A substance that in aqueous solution turns red litmus
blue, furnishes hydroxyl ions and reacts with an acid to form a
salt and water only.
Batch Process. A process which has an intermittent flow of raw
materials into the the process and a resultant intermittent flow of
product from the process.
BAT (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 Achiev-
able. These limitations must be achieved by July 1, 1983.
BCT. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology.
Bioassay. An assessment which is made by using living organisms
as the sensors.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). A measure of the oxygen required
to oxidize the organic material in a sample of wastewater by
natural biological process under standard conditions. This test is
presently universally accepted as the yardstick of pollution and is
utilized as a means to determine the degree of treatment in a waste
treatment process. Usually given in mg/1(or ppm)
units), meaning milligrams of oxygen required per liter of waste-
water, it can also be expressed in pounds of total oxygen required
per wastewater or sludge batch. The standard BOD test is five days
at 20 degrees C.
Biota. The flora and fauna (plant and animal life) of a stream
or other water body.
Biological Products. In the pharmaceutical industry, medicinal
products derived from animals or humans, such as vaccines,
toxoids, antisera and human blood fractions.
Biological Treatment System. A system that uses microoganisms to
remove organic pollutant material from a wastewater.
XIV-3
-------
Blood Fractionation. The separation of human blood into its
various protein fractions.
Slowdown. (1) Water intentionally discharged from a cooling or
heating system to maintain the dissolved solids concentration of
the circulating water below a specific critical level. The removal
of a portion of any process flow to maintain the constituents of
the flow within desired levels. Process may be intermittent or
continuous. (2) The water discharged from a boiler or cooling
tower to dispose of accumulated salts.
BODS. Biochemical oxygen Demand (BOD) is the amount of oxygen
required by bacteria while stabilizing decomposable organic matter
under aerobic conditions. The BOD test has been developed on the
basis of a 5-day incubation period (i.e. BOD5J.
Botanicals. Drugs made from a part of a plant, such as roots,
bark, or leaves.
BPT (BPCTA) Effluent Limitations. Limitations for point sources,
other than publicly owned treatment works, which are based on the
application of the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available. These Limitations must be achieved by July 1,1977.
Brine. Water saturated with a salt.
Buffer. A solution containing either a weak acid and its salt or a
weak base and its salt which thereby resists changes in acidity or
basicity, resists changes in pH.
Capsules. A gelatinous shell used to contain medicinal chemicals
and as a dosage form for administering medicine.
Carbohydrate. A compound of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, usually
having hydrogen and oxygen in the proportion of two to one.
Carbonaceous. Containing or composed of carbon.
Catalyst. A substance which changes the rate of a chemical reac-
tion but undergoes no permanent chemical change itself.
Cation. The ion in an electrolyte which carries the positive
charge and which migrates toward the cathode under the influence of
a potential difference.
Cellulose. The fibrous constituent of trees which is the principal
raw material of paper and paperboard. Commonly thought of as a
fibrous material of vegetable origin.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). A measure of oxygen-consuming capa-
city of organic and inorganic matter present in water or
wastewater. It is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed from
a chemical oxidant in a specific test. It does not differentiate
between stable and unstable organic matter and thus does not corre-
late with biochemical oxygen demand.
XIV-4
-------
Chemical Synthesis. The processes of chemically combining two or
more constituent substances into a single substance.
Chlorination. The application of chlorine to water, sewage or
industrial wastes, generally for the purpose of disinfection but
frequently for accomplishing other biological or chemical results.
Coagulation. The clumping together of solids to make them settle
out of the sewage faster. Coagulation of solids is brought about
with the use of certain chemicals, such as lime, alum or poly-
electrolytes.
Combined Sewer. One which carries both sewage and storm water
run-off.
Composite Sample. A combination of individual samples of wastes
taken at selected intervals, generally hourly for 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 of liquid at the time
of sampling.
Comprehensive Pharmaceutical Data Base. Combined data base formed
by the first 308 survey of PMA-member companies plus the second, or
Supplemental 308 survey.
Concentration. The total mass of the suspended or dissolved par-
ticles contained in a unit volume at a given temperature and pressure,
Conductivity. A reliable measurement of electrolyte concentration
in a water sample. The conductivity measurement can be related to
the concentration of dissolved solids and is almost directly pro-
portional to the ionic concentration of the total electrolytes.
Contact Process Wastewaters. These are process-generated waste-
waters which have come in direct or indirect contact with the
reactants used in the process. These include such streams as con-
tact cooling water, filtrates, centrates, wash waters, etc.
Continuous Process. A process which has a constant flow of raw
materialsinto the process and resultant constant flow of product
from the process.
Contract Disposal. Disposal of waste products through an outside
party for a fee.
Crustaceae. These are small animals ranging in size form 0.2 to
0.3 millimeters long which move very rapidly through the water in
search of food. They have recognizable head and posterior sec-
tions. They form a principal source of food for small fish and are
found largely in relatively fresh natural water.
Crystallization. The formation of solid particles within a homo-
geneous phase. Formation of crystals separates a solute from a
solution and generally leaves impurities behind in the mother liquid.
XIV-5
-------
Culture. A mass of microorganisms growing in a media.
Cyanidef Total. Total cyanide as determined by the test prodecure
specified in 40 CFR Part 136 (Federal Register, Vol. 38, no. 199,
October 16,1973).
Cyanide A. Cyanides amenable to chlorination as described in
"1972 Annual Book of ASTM Standards" 1972: Standard 2036-72,
Method B, p. 553.
Derivative. A substance extracted from another body or substance.
Desorption. The opposite of adsorption. A phenomenon where an
adsorbed molecule leaves the surface of the adsorbent.
Diluent. A diluting agent.
Direct Discharge. The discharge of process wastewaters to navi-
gable waters such as rivers, streams and lakes.
Disinfectant. A chemical agent which kills bacteria.
Disinfection. The process of killing the larger portion (but not
necessarily all) of the harmful and objectionable microorganisms in
or on a medium.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO). The oxygen dissolved in sewage, water or
other liquids, usually expressed either in milligrams per liter or
percent of saturation. It is the test used in BOD determination.
Distillation. The separation, by vaporization, of a liquid
miscible and volatile mixture into individual components, or, in
some cases, into groups 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 fermen-
tation products, yeast, etc., and other wastes to remove recoverable
products.
Effluent. A liquid which leaves a unit operation or process.
Sewage, water or other liquids, partially or completely treated
or in their natural states, flowing out of a reservoir basin,
treatment plant or any other unit operation. An influent is the
incoming stream.
Elution. (1) The process of washing out, or removing with the
use of a solvent. (2) In an ion exchange process it is defined
as the stripping of adsorbed ions from an ion exchange resin by
passing through the resin solutions containing other ions in
relatively high concentrations.
Emulsion. A suspension of fine droplets of one liquid in another.
XIV-6
-------
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.
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 a catalyst. The use of sulfuric acid has, in the past,
caused this type of reaction to be called sulfation.
Ethical Products. Pharmaceuticals promoted by advertising to the
medical, dental and veterinary professions.
Fatty Acids. An organic acid obtained by the hydrolysis
(saponification) of natural fats and oils, e.g., stearic and palmi-
tic acids. These acids are monobasic and may or may not contain
some double bonds. They usually contain sixteen or more carbon
atoms.
Fauna. The animal life adapted for living in a specified
environment.
Fermentation. Oxidative decomposition of complex substances
through the action of enzymes or ferments produced by
microorganisms. '
Fermentor Broth. A slurry of microorganisms in water containing
nutrients (carbohydrates, nitrogen) necessary for the
microorganisms' growth.
Filter Cakes. Wet solids generated by the filtration of solids
from a liquid. This filter cake may be a pure material (product)
or a waste material containing additional fine solids (i.e., diato-
maceous earth) that has been added to aid in the filtration.
Crushed solids sufficiently fine to pass through a screen,
Flocculants. Those water-soluble organic polyelectrolytes that
are used alone or in conjunction with inorganic coagulants such
as lime, alum or ferric chloride or coagulant aids to agglomerate
solids suspended in aqueous systems or both; the large dense
floes resulting from this process permit more rapid and more
efficient solids-liquid separations.
Flora. The plant life characteristic of a region.
Flotation. A method of raising suspended matter as scum to the
surface of the liquid in a tank by aeration, vacuum, evolution of
gas, chemicals, electrolysis, heat or bacterial decomposition and
the subsequent removel of the scum by skimming.
Fractionation (or Fractional Distillation). The separation of
constituents, or groups of constituents, of a liquid mixture of
miscible and volatile mixtures by vaporization and recondensation
over specific boiling point ranges.
XIV-7
-------
Fungus. A vegetative cellular organism that subsists on organic
material such as bacteria.
Gland. A device utilizing a soft wear-resistant material used to
minimize leakage between a rotating shaft and the stationary
portion of a vessel such as a pump.
Gland Water. Water used to lubricate a gland. Sometimes called
"packing water."
Grab Sample. (1) Instantaneous sampling. (2) A sample taken at
a random place in space and time.
Grease. In sewage, grease includes fats, waxes, free fatty acids,
calcium and magnesium soaps, mineral oils and other non-fatty
materials. The type of solvent to be used for its extraction
should be stated.
Hardness. A measure of the capacity of water for precipitating
soap. It is reported as the hardness that would be produced if a
certain amount of CaCo were dissolved in water. More than one
ion contributes to watdr hardness. The "Glossary of Water and
Wastewater Control Engineering" defines hardness as: A character-
istic of water imparted by salts of calcium, magnesium and iron,
such as bicarbonates, carbonates, sulfates, chlorides and nitrates,
that causes curdling of soap, deposition of scale in boilers,
damage in some industrial processes, and sometimes objectionable
taste. Calcium and magnesium are the most significant constituents,
Hormone. Any of a number of substances formed in the body which
activate specifically receptive organs when transported to them
by the body fluids. A material secreted by ductless glands
(endocrine glands). Most hormones as well as synthetic analogues
have in common the cyclopentanophenanthrene nucleus.
Indirect Discharge. The discharge of (process) wastewaters to
publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
Injectables. Medicinals prepared in a sterile (buffered) form
suitable for administration by injection.
New Source. Any facility from which there is or may be a discharge
of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced after the
publication of proposed regulations prescribing a standard of per-
formance under section 306 of the Act.
Non-contact Cooling Water. Water used for cooling that does not
come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate pro-
duct, waste product or finished product.
Non-contact Process Wastewaters. Wastewaters generated by a manu-
facturing process which have not come in direct contact with the
reactants used in the process. These include such streams as non-
contact cooling water, cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown,
etc.
XIV-8
-------
NSPS. New Source Performance Standards.
NPDES. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. A federal
program requiring industry to obtain permits to discharge plant
effluents to the nation's water courses.
Nutrient. Any substance assimilated by an organism which promotes
growth and replacement of cellular constituents.
Operation and Maintenance. Costs required to operate and maintain
pollution abatement equipment including labor, material, insurance,
taxes, solid waste disposal, etc.
Organic Loading. In the activated sludge process,the food to
microorganisms (P/M) ratio defined as the amount of biodegradable
material available to a given amount of microorganisms per unit of
time.
Oxidation. A process in which an atom or group of atoms loses
electrons; the combination of a substance with oxygen, accompanied
with the release of energy. The oxidized atom usually becomes a
positive ion while the oxidizing agent becomes a negative ion (in
chlorination, for example).
Oxidation Reduction (OR). A class of chemical reactions in which
one of the reacting species gives up electrons (oxidation) while
another species in the reaction accepts electrons (reductions). At
one time, the term oxidation was restricted to reactions
involving hydrogen. Current chemical technology has broadened the
scope of these terms to include all reactions where electrons are
given up and taken on by reacting species; in fact, the' donating
and accepting of electrons must take place simultaneously.
Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP). A measurement that indicates
the activity ratio of the oxidizing and reducing species present.
Oxygen, Available. The quantity of atmospheric oxygen dissolved in
the water of a stream; the quantity of dissolved oxygen available
for the oxidation of organic matter in sewage.
Oxygen, Dissolved. The oxygen (usually designated as DO) dissolved
in sewage, water or another liquid and usually expressed in mg/1,
parts per million, or percent of saturation.
Parts Per Million (ppm). Parts by weight in sewage analysis;ppm by
weight is equal to milligrams per liter divided by the specific
gravity. It should be noted that in water analysis, ppm is always
understood to imply a weight/weight ratio, even though in practice
volume may be measured instead of a weight.
Pathogenic. Disease producing.
pH. The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration or
activity in a solution. The number 7 indicates neutrality, numbers
less than 7 indicate increasing acidity and numbers greater than 7
indicate increasing alkalinity.
XIV-9
-------
Photosynthesis. The mechanism by which chlorophyll-bearing plants
utilize light energy to produce carbohydrate and oxygen from carbon
dioxide and water(the reverse of respiration.).
Physical/Chemical Treatment System. A system that utilizes physi-
cal (i.e., sedimentation, filtration, centrifugation, activated
carbon, reverse osmosis, etc.) and /or chemical means (i.e. coagu-
lation, oxidation, precipitation, etc.) to treat wastewaters.
Plasma. The liquid part of the lymph and of the blood.
PMA. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.
Point Source. Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,
including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating
craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
Potable Water. Drinking water sufficiently pure for human use.
Potash. Potassium compounds used in agriculture and industry.
Potassium carbonate can be obtained from wood ashes. The mineral
potash is usually a muriate. Caustic potash is its hydrated
form.
Preaeration. A preparatory treatment of sewage, consisting of
aeration to remove gases and add oxygen or to promote the flo-
tation of grease and aid coagulation.
Precipitation. The phenomenon which occurs when a substance held
in solution passes out of that solution into solid form. The
adjustment of pH can reduce solubility and cause precipitation.
Alum and lime are frequently used chemicals in such operations as
water softening or alkalinity reduction.
Pretreatment. Any wastewater treatment process used to partially
reduce the pollution load before the wastewater is introduced into
a main sewer system or delivered to a treatment plant for substan-
tial reduction of the pollution load.
Process Waste Water. Any water which, during manufacturing or pro-
cessing, comes into direct contact with or results from the produc-
tion or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product, or waste product.
Process Water. Any water(solid, liquid or vapor) which, during the
manufacturing process, comes into direct contact with any raw
material, interdediate product, by-product, waste product, or
finished product.
Proprietary Products. Pharmaceuticals promoted by advertising
directly to the consumer.
PSES. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources.
PSNS. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources.
XIV-10
-------
Raw Waste Load (RWL). The quantity (kg) of pollutant being
discharged in a plant's wastewater measured in terms of some common
denominator (i.e., kkg of production or nr of floor area).
Receiving Waters. Rivers, lakes, oceans or other courses that
receive treated or untreated wastewaters.
Reduction. A process in which an atom (or group of atoms) gains
electrons. Such a process always requires the input of energy -
Refractory Organics. Organic materials that are only partially
nonbiodegradable in biological waste treatment processes.
Refractory organics include detergents, pesticides, color- and
odor-causing agents, tannins, lignins, ethers, olefins, alcohols,
amines, aldehydes, ketones, etc.
Residual Chlorine. The amount of chlorine left in the treated
water that is available to oxidize contaminants if they enter the
stream. It is usually in the form of hypochlorous acid of
hypochlorite ion or of one of the chloramines. Hypochlorite
concentration alone is called "free chlorine residual" while
together with the chloramine concentration their sum is called
"combined chlorine residual."
Retort. A vessel, commonly a glass bulb with a long neck bent
downward,used for distilling or decomposing substances by heat.
Sanitary Sewers. In a separate system, pipes in a city that carry
only domestic wastewater. The storm water runoff is handled by a
separate system of pipes.
Saprophytic Organism. One that lives on dead or decaying organic
matter.
Secondary Treatment. The second step in most waste treatment
systems in which bacteria consume the organic part of the wastes.
This is accomplished by bringing the sewage and bacteria together
either in trickling filters or in the activated sludge process.
Seed. To introduce microorganisms into a culture medium.
Serum. A fluid which is extracted from an animal rendered immune
against a pathogenic organism and injected into a patient with the
disease resulting from the same organism.
Settleable Solids. Suspended solids which will settle out of a
liquid waste in a given period of time.
Sewage, Storm. The liquid flowing in sewers during or following a
period of heavy rainfall and resulting therefrom.
Sewerage. A comprehensive term which includes facilities for
collecting, pumping, treating and disposing of sewage; the sewerage
system and the sewage treatment works.
SIC Codes. Standard Industrial Classification. Numbers used by
the U.S. Department of Commerce to denote segments of industry.
XIV-11
-------
Sludge, Activated. Sludge floe produced in raw or settled sewage
by the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organisms in the pre-
sence of dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient con-
centration by returning the floe previously formed.
Sludge, Age. The ratio of the weight of volatile solids in the
digester to the weight of volatile solids added per day. There is
a maximum sludge age beyond which no significant reduction in the
concentration of volatile solids will occur.
Sludge, Digested. Sludge digested under anaerobic conditions until
the volatile content has been reduced, usually by approximately 50
percent or more.
Solution. A homogeneous mixture of two or more substances of
dissimilar molecular structure. In a solution, there is a
dissolving medium-solvent and a dissolved substance-solute.
Solvent Extraction. The treatment of a mixture of two or more com-
ponents '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.
Steam Distillation. Fractionation in which steam is introduced as
one of the vapors or in which steam is injected to provide the
heat of the system.
Sterilization. The complete destruction of all living organisms
in or on a medium; heat to 121°C at 5 psig for 15 minutes.
Steroid. Term applied to any one of a large group of substances
chemically related to various alcohols found in plants and animals.
Still Bottom. The residue remaining after distillation of a
material. Varies from a watery slurry to a thick tar which may
turn hard when cool.
Stillwell. A pipe, chamber, or compartment with comparatively
small inlet or inlets communicating with a main body of water.
Its purpose is to dampen waves or surges while permitting the
water level within the well to rise and fall with the major
fluctuations of the main body of water. It is used with water-
measuring devices to improve accuracy of measurement.
Stoichiometric. Characterized by being a proportion of substances
exactly right for a specific chemical reaction with no excess of
any reactant or product.
Stripper. A device in which relatively volatile components are
removed from a mixture by distillation or by passage of steam
through the mixture.
Supernatant. Floating above or on the surface.
Surge Tank. A tank for absorbing and dampening the wavelike motion of
a volume of liquid; an in-process storage tank that acts as a flow
buffer between process tanks.
XIV-12
-------
Suspended Solids. The wastes that will not sink or settle in sewage.
The quantity of material deposited on a filter when a liquid is drawn
through a Gooch crucible.
Synergistic. An effect which is more than the sum of the individual
contributors.
Tablet. A small, disc-like mass of medicinal powder used as a dosage
form for administering medicine.
Tertiary Treatment. A process to remove practically all solids and
organic matter from wastewater. Granular activated carbon filtration
is a tertiary treatment process. Phosphate removal by chemical coagu-
lation is also regarded as a step in tertiary treatment.
Thermal Oxidation. The wet combustion of organic materials through
the application of heat in the presence of oxygen.
Total Organic Carbon (TOC). A measure of the amount of carbon in a
sample originating from organic matter only. The test is run by
burning the sample and measuring the carbon dioxide produced.
Total Solids. The total amount of solids in a wastewater both in
solution and suspension.
Toxoid. Toxin treated so as to destroy its toxicity, but still
capable of inducing formation of antibodies.
Vaccine. A killed or modified live virus or bacteria prepared in
suspension for inoculation to prevent or treat certain infectious
diseases.
Viruses. (1) An obligate intracellular parasitic microorganism
smaller than bacteria. Most can pass through filters that retain
bacteria. (2) The smallest (10-300 urn in diameter) form capable of
producing infection and diseases in man or other large species.
Occurring in a variety of shapes, viruses consist of a nucleic acid
core surrounded by an outer shell (capsid) which consists of numerous
protein subunits (capsomeres). Some of the larger viruses contain
additional chemical substances. The true viruses are insensitive to
antibiotics. They multiply only in living cells where they are
assembled as complex macromolecules utilizing the cells' biochemical
systems. They do not multiply by division as do intracellular
bacteria.
Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS). The quantity of suspended solids
lost after the ignition of total suspended solids.
Water Quality Criteria. Those specific values of water quality asso-
ciated with an identified beneficial use of the water under
consideration.
Zero Discharge. Plants that do not discharge wastewaters to either
publicly owned treatment works or to navigable waters. Plants that
use evaporation ponds or deep well sites are considered zero
dischargers.
XIV-13
-------
APPENDIX A
308 PORTFOLIO
FOR
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING
A-l
-------
Instructions
308 PORTFOLIO
FOR
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Please complete this portfolio for each pharmaceutical manufacturing site In your company which manufactures
Fermentation Products (Subcategory A), Biological and Natural Extraction Products (Subcategory B), Chemical
Synthesis Products (Subcategory C) and Formulation Products (Subcategory D). This portfolio 1s also to be
completed for each pharmaceutical research facility (Subcategory E) 1n your company. If this copy has been
received by or for a non-manufacturing site (I.e. main office, warehouse, sales office, etc.) or by or for a
non-manufacturing site which also does not conduct pharmaceutical research, please follow the procedure below:
A. Please check the carbon copies 11st attached to Mr. Schaffer's letter to see 1f each of your company's
manufacturing locations has received a separate portfolio. If any of your manufacturing locations has not
received a portfolio, please request additional copies as Indicated 1n (C) below. Please ensure that the
requested Information 1s provided for each site where your company manufactures pharmaceutical products or
conducts pharmaceutical research.
B. Please complete Part I, questions 1 through 5 of the portfolio only, write "not a manufacturing site" and
return the portfolio 1n the enclosed envelope. Portfolios have been sent to company headquarters as notifi-
cation that each manufacturing site will receive and should complete a separate portfolio. You may reproduce
this document and maintain a copy 1n your files for future reference.
C. Extra copies of the portfolio may be obtained by contacting Mr. J. S. Vitalis at 202-426-2497. Since
each copy of this portfolio is coded, 1t 1s necessary to obtain additional copies from Mr. Vitalis.
2. Please read all definitions which follow these instructions carefully before completing this portfolio. It is
preferred that the Individuals who respond to this portfolio be familiar with the manufacturing processes and
the wastewater treatment systems and operations at this site.
3. Please check the appropriate box or boxes in each question where they appear throughout this portfolio. (More
than one box may be checked for some questions, where appropriate.) Please complete all questions which
require written responses by printing or typing 1n the spaces provided. If separate sheets or attachments are
used to clarify or answer a question, please make certain that the code number for this portfolio, which
appears at the top right hand corner of each page, is also placed at the top right hand corner of each page of
the attachments.
4. Please Indicate which Information in your responses is confidential so that it may be treated properly.
5. Please answer all items. Also, please provide a separate set of responses for each plant. The purpose of
this request 1s to gather all available, pertinent information and is not designed to create an undue burden
of sampling requirements on your plant personnel. If a question is not applicable to a particular facility,
indicate by writing "N/A". If an item is not known, indicate unknown and explain why such information is not
available. If an item seems ambiguous, complete as best as possible and state your assumptions in clarifying
the apparent ambiguity.
6. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will review the information submitted and may, at a later date,
request your cooperation for site visits and additional sampling in order to complete the data base. Please
retain a copy of the completed portfolio in case future contact is necessary to verify your responses.
7. Use the Merck Index, Ninth Edition, 1976, to specify the Merck Index Identification Numbers (Merck Index
Number) in Part II of this questionnaire. Many of the Chemical Abstract Service Registry Numbers (CAS Numbers)
may be found in the Merck Index beginning on page REG-1 for use in completing Part II of this portfolio.
8. Please use the enclosed, pre-addressed envelope to return the completed portfolio and appropriate attachments.
If you are sending supplemental information that will not fit into the return envelope provided, please send
1t under separate cover to:
Mr. Robert B. Schaffer, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. EPA (WH-552)
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attention: J.S. Vitalis
9. If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. J.S. Vitalis at 202-426-2497
Definitions
Subcategory A - fermentation Products-Pharmaceutical products derived from fermentation processes.
Subcategory B Biological and Natural Extraction Products-Pharmaceutical products which include blood
fractions; vaccines; serums; animal bile derivatives; endocrine products; and isolation of
medicinal products, such as alkaloids, from botanical drugs and herbs.
Subcategory C - Chemical Synthesis Products-Pharmaceutical products which result from chemical synthesis.
Subcategory D - Mixing/Compounding and Formulation Products- Pharmaceutical products from plants which
blend, mix, compound, and formulate pharmaceutical ingredients and includes pharmaceutical
preparations for human and veterinary use such as ampules, tablets, capsules, vials,
ointments, medicinal powders, and solutions.
Subcategory E Research - Products or services which result from pharmaceutical research, which includes
micro-biological, biological and chemical operations.
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works Municipal sewage treatment plant
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
TSS Total Suspended Sol Ids
A 7
TOC Total Organic Carbon
-------
308 PORTFOLIO FOR
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
For multiple plant companies, please complete one portfolio for each manufacturing and research site, and return
within 60 days of receipt to:
Robert B. Schaffer, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. EPA (WH-552)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attention: J. S. Vitalis
PART I
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of Firm
2. Address of Firm Headquarters:
Street
City
State
3. Name of Plant
4. Address of Plant:
Street CityStateZip
5. Name(s) of firm personnel to be contacted for information pertaining to this data collection portfolio:
Name Title (Area Code) Telephone
Minimum
Number of Manufacturing Employees in 1976:
Year of operational startup
Type of production operation within this site for each subcategory:
Subcategory
Maximum
Average_
Batch
Continuous
Semicontinuous
D
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
9.a. Indicate below the type of research and development activities conducted at this site and, for each activity
checked, provide the total laboratory square footage in column A, the number of employees in column B and, if
applicable, the animal capacity in column C.
Activities
I— 1 Microbiological
1 — 1 Biological
I— 1 Chemical
C3 Clinical
1— 1 Development
D Pilot Plant
A
Total Laboratory
Square Footage
B
Number of
Employees
C
Animal
Capacity
b. If animals are used in the above research activities, list their type below:
1-1
A-3
-------
10. Does this plant have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)? Yes
11. Has plant submitted NPOtS permit application? Yes Q No[~~]
12. Permit or application number ___
13. Date of permit expiration
14. Does this plant have wastewater treatment facilities on site? Yes Q No | |
15. Name and address of publicly owned treatment works (POTW) receiving plant wastewater, if any:
Name
Address
16. Type of wastewater discharge to POTW: ProcessQ SanitaryQ Coo1ing|~l
17. Level of treatment provided by POTW: Primary^] Secondary^] Tertiary[~]
18. Is there a user charge for discharge to the POTW? Yes Q No ["]
If yes, provide the net annual charge below and indicate which parameters listed below serve as a basis for this
charge.
Net Annual Charge
Basis for Charge
D Flow
D BOD5
D COD
D TSS
D TOC
Other (5pecify)_
19. Is the plant under the requirements of a municipal sewer use ordinance or other ordinance regulating sewer use?
Yes Q No Q
20. Has an industrial wastewater survey report been submitted to the State and/or U.S. EPA Regional Office in
compliance with a municipal NPDES Permit compliance schedule for industrial discharge to POTW?
Yes fj No Q
If yes, attach copy of survey report.
1-2
-------
PART II
PRODUCTS AND PRODUCTION PROCESSES
1. A. For products which are produced at this site, list the Fermentation Products (Subcategory A) in Table
II A, the Biological and Natural Extraction Products (Subcategory B) in Table II B, and the Chemical Synthesis
Products {Subcategory C) in Table II C. In each table, indicate for each product the number of production
steps (chemical processes and physical operations) which result in wastewater generation in column A and the
annual production as kilograms in column B. For the Chemical Synthesis Products (Subcategory C), list only
the products which are produced in quantities of 100 kilograms per year or greater. For each of the Fermen-
tation Products (in Subcategory A) that you list in Table II A provide a separate list of raw materials and
solvents, along with quantities used 1n kilograms per day. Fermentation Products, which constitute less than
5% of the active ingredient production by weight, may be grouped together and submitted as a composite annual
production number; however, each production product comprising such a grouping, should be identified and
listed in Table II A. Provide the above information for the period January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1976 or for
the exact period of production if less than this two year period. For each product listed, provide the Merck
Index Identification Number (Merck Index Number) and the Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CAS
Number) in the columns provided, If these numbers exist for the product. If these numbers do not exist for
the particular product, please note NA 1n the appropriate space. The production data should match with the
wastewater data tables in Part III. Please photocopy each table prior to filling in the requested Information
to allow for adequate space to cover the products produced at this plant.
B. List in Table II D Chemical Synthesis Products not in Table II C if they account for an unusually high
pollution load either in terms of pounds discharged per 1,000 pounds of production (Raw Waste Load) or if they
present difficult treatment problems.
2. Indicate which of the following are sources of wastewater:
L] Floor, Equipment, Tanks, etc. - Washwater
[__] Waste Plasma, Blood and Blood Fractions
LJ Spent media broth from vaccine production
[_J Wet Scrubber spent waters
LJ Spent Beer
LJ Noncontact cooling water
L~J Pump seal water
L] Research laboratory waste other than solvents
LJ Bad batches of production seed and/or final product
L_ Inorganic Solids Diatomaceous earth Filter cake washdown
Ql Chemical wastes organic and inorganic, process waste solvents, cleanup waste solvents
Q"] Barometric condenser water
L! Process chemical synthesis liquids
L"] Spills, leakage from processes
_"^_] Solvents from research laboratories
L~] Ejector condensate
Ql Stormwater
LU Sanitary wastewater
Describe any production process changes made to date for the primary purpose of pollution control. Also
describe other process changes which have resulted in an increase or decrease of raw waste load indicating the
change accordingly.
II-l
A-5
-------
TABLE II A
List below Fermentation Products (Subcategory A).
For each of the Fermentation Products (1n Subcategory A) that you 11st In Table IIA provide a separate list of raw
materials and solvents, along with quantities used 1n kilograms per day. Fermentation Products, which constitute
less than 5% of the active Ingredient production by weight, may be grouped together and submitted as a composite
annual production number; however, each production product comprising such a grouping, should be Identified and
listed in Table IIA.
Abbreviations:
Merck Index Number Merck Index Identification Number
CAS Number - Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
Photocopy this table before filling out
CAS Number
Merck
Index
Number
Product
A
No. of
Production
Steps
which result
in wastewater
Generation
Annual
Production
Kilograms
A-6
-------
TABLE II B
List below Biological and Natural Extraction Products (Subcategory B).
Abbreviations:
Merck Index Number - Merck Index Identification Number
CAS Number - Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
Photocopy this table before filling out
CAS Number
Merck
Index
Number
Product
A
No. of
Production
Steps
which result
In wastewater
Generation
Annual
Production
(Kilograms)
-------
TABLE II C
List below Chemical Synthesis Products (Subcategory C).
Abbreviations:
Merck Index Number - Merck Index Identification Number
CAS Number Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
Photocooy this table before filling out.
CAS Number
Merck
Index
Number
Product
A
No. of
Production
Steps
which result
in wastewater
Generation
Annual
Production
(Kilograms)
II-4
A-8
-------
TABLE II D
List below Chemical Synthesis Products not In Table II C If they account for an unusually high pollution load either
1n terms of pounds discharged per 1,000 pounds of production (Raw Waste Load) or 1f they present difficult treatment
problems.
-------
PART III
WATER USE, REUSE AND DISCHARGE
1.
A.
Hater Use, Total Plant Needs During the Period January 1, 1975 to December 31. 1976
List below for your plant, the sources and quantities of water used and describe the disposition of waste waters.
If a time period of less than January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1976 1s used, state the reason that the values are
representative of that period. Check appropriate boxes.
Average Flow
(Million gallons per day)
Specify other_
Average Flow
(Million gallons per day)
Time Period
of Calculation
Water Source
n Municipal
Q Surface
£] Ground
Q Recycle Process
[] Other
Time Period
of Calculation
B. Water Uses
Q] Non-contact cooling
Q Direct process contact (as diluent,
solvent carrier, reactant, by-product,
cooling, etc.)
Q Indirect process contact
(pumps, seals, etc.)
Q Non-contact ancillary uses
(boilers, utilities, etc.)
n Maintenance, equipment cleaning and
work area washdown
n Air pollution control
Q Sanitary and potable
n Other
Specify other_
Average Flow
(Million gallons per day)
Time Period
of Calculation
Sources of Wastewater Flows
Q] Non-contact cooling
n Direct process contact
Q] Indirect process contact
n Non-contact ancillary uses
Q] Maintenance, equipment cleaning and
work area washdown
n Air pollution control
[] Sanitary/Potable water
Q Storm water (collected in treatment
system)
C] Other
Specify other_
III-l
A-10
-------
D. Method of Disposal of Process Wastewater (exclude non-contact cooling water)
n Surface Water
[~1 Subsurface
n Deep Well
n Publicly Owned Treatment Works
l~1 Land Application
O Recycle/Reuse
D Other
Treated
Average Flow
(Million gallons T1ne Period
per day) of Calculation
Untreated
Average Flow
(Million gallons Tine Period
per day) of Calculation
Specify other_
E. Method of disposal of non-contact cooling water
Q Surface Water
Q Subsurface
[] Deep Well
D Publicly Owned Treatment Works
n Land Application
Q Recycle/Reuse
D Other
Average Flow
(Million gallons per dayj
Time Period
of Calculation
Specify other
2. Quality of Water Discharged
For the period January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1976, summarize your influent, effluent and raw waste loads in
Tables III A, III B, III C, and III D. For plants discharging directly to publicly owned waste treatment plants,
summarize the effluent and raw waste load. Information for combined waste streams should be furnished which
represents the greatest degree of detail available. The tables are located at the end of this section.
Instructions for Completing Tables III A. Ill B, III C and III D
For Tables III A, III B, III C and III D, use the following definitions and notes. The period covered
should correspond with that used for Part II.
A. Flow - Do not include rainfall runoff, unless 1t is collected in the treatment system. If collected, estimate
the percent of total flow which is attributed to this source in Tables III B, III C and III D.
B. Maximum Monthly Average Quantity - The value for the highest 30 consecutive day average over the period January 1,
1975 to December 31, 1976 or over the actual period of analysis if less than this two year period. The 30
consecutive day period may be a calendar month or any other 30 consecutive day period for values which are
computed on a monthly basis.
C. Maximum Daily Average Quantity The highest average of any day's samples if samples are taken daily or more
frequently or the highest value if samples are taken less frequently than daily, over the period January 1,
1975 to December 31, 1976 or over the actual period of analysis if less than this two year period.
D. Annual Average Quantity - The highest twelve consecutive month average over the period January 1, 1975 to
December 31, 1976 or over the actual period of analysis if less than this two year period. If the period of
analysis is less than one year, provide the average for the entire period of analysis.
E. Type of Sample - Insert a number from the following list in Tables III A, III B, III C, and III D to indicate
the type of samples collected.
Type of Sample
Number
Flow composite
Time composite
Grab
Continuous
Other
1
2
3
4
5
A-ll
III-2
-------
F. Frequency of Sample - Insert a number from the following 11st 1n Tables III A, III B, III C and III D to
Indicate the frequncy of samples collected.
Number
1
2
3
4
5
Less than once
per month 6
One time sample 7
Other 8
G. Use the blank lines at the end of each table to 11st additional pollutants not specifically listed, which are
Introduced Into the wastewater as the result of materials used or products produced, for which you have test
data. (Exclude the chemicals listed 1n Table V A of Part V of this portfolio.)
H. Identify all data which results from abnormal operating or other conditions.
I. If use of a different time period (a portion of the time period January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1976) results
in more adequate representation of the pollution loads, you may do so if the time period is not less than six
months. You should specify the time period and explain why that period is more representative in an attach-
ment to this portfolio.
J. Tables
Table III A - Complete a separate Table III A for each plant Intake water source at this site.
Table III B Complete a separate Table III B for each untreated waste discharge point from this site (to
publicly owned treatment works, surface waters, deep wells, land application, etc.).
Table III C Complete a separate Table III C for the combined influent to each treatment facility on this
site. Not applicable to plants that have not yet Installed waste treatment facilities. This section is not
restricted by type or level of treatment.
Table III D - Complete a separate Table III D for the treated effluent from each treatment facility on this
site. Not applicable to plants that have not yet Installed waste treatment facilities. This section is not
restricted by type or level of treatment.
So that you may have sufficient tables to report the requested information, please photocopy each of Tables
III A, III B. Ill C and III D before filling in. A separate table 1s required for each plant intake water
source, each untreated wastewater discharge from this site, and the influent to and the effluent from each
wastewater treatment facility on this site.
-------
TABLE III A
INTAKE WATER
With the available information, complete, to the best of your ability, a separate Table III A for each plant intake
water source.
Abbreviations:
mgd - million gallons per day
mg/1 milligrams per liter
Ib/day pounds per day
Photocopy this table before filling in the requested information
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
BOD 5 (mg/1)
BOD 5 (Ib/day)
COD (mg/1)
COD ( Ib/day)
TSS (mg/1)
TSS (Ib/day)
TOC (mg/1)
TOC (Ib/day)
NH,-N (mg/1)
NH,-N (Ib/day)
PH
Sul fides (mg/1)
Oil and Grease (mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Alkalinity (mg/1 as CaCO,)
Hardness (mg/1 as CaCO-j)
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Quantity
Maximum
Daily
Average
Quantity
Annual
Average
Quantity
Time
Period
of
Analysis
Type
of
Sample
Frequency
of
Sample
A-13
III-4
-------
TABLE III B
UNTREATED HASTE DISCHARGE
With the available information, complete a separate Table III B for each untreated waste discharge point from this
site (to publicly owned treatment works, surface waters, deep wells, land application, etc.)
Abbreviations:
mgd - million gallons per day
mg/1 milligrams per liter
Ib/day pounds per day
Photocopy this table before filling in the requested information
Percent Storm Water
Parameter
Flow (mqd)
BOD 5 (mq/1)
BOD 5 (Ib/day)
COD (mq/1)
COD (Ib/day)
TSS (mq/1)
TSS (Ib/day)
TOC (mq/1)
TOC (Ib/day)
NH,N (mg/1)
NH,N (Ib/day)
PH
Sulfides (mg/1)
Oil and Grease (mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Quantity
Maximum
Daily
Average
Quantity
Annual
Average
Quantity
Time
Period
of
Analysis
Type
of
Sample
Frequency
of
Sample
A-14
III-5
-------
TABLE III C
COMBINED INFLUENT
With the available information, complete a separate Table III C for the combined influent to each treatment facility
on this site. Not applicable to plants that have not yet installed waste treatment facilities. This section is
not restricted by type or level of treatment.
Abbreviations:
mgd - million gallons per day
mg/1 - milligrams per liter
Ib/day - pounds per day
Photocopy this table before filling in the requested information.
Percent Storm Water
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
BOD 5 (mg/1)
BOD 5 (Ib/day)
COD (mg/1)
COD (Ib/day)
TSS (mg/1)
TSS (Ib/day)
TOC (mg/1)
TOC (Ib/day)
NH,N (mg/1)
NH,N (Ib/day)
PH
Sul fides (mg/1)
Oil and Grease (mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Quanti ty
Maximum
Daily
Average
Quantity
Annual
Average
Quantity
Time
Period
of
Analysis
Type
of
Sample
Frequency
of
Sample
A-15
III-6
-------
TABLE III D
TREATED EFFLUENT
With the available information, complete a separate Table III D for the treated effluent from each treatment facility
on this site. Not applicable to plants that have not yet installed waste treatment facilities. This section is
not restricted by type or level of treatment.
Abbreviations:
mgd million gallons per day
mg/1 milligrams per liter
Ib/day -pounds per day
Photocopy this table before filling in the requested information.
Percent Storm Water
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
BOD 5 (mg/1)
BOD 5 (Ib/day)
COD (mg/1)
COD (Ib/day)
TSS (mg/1)
T5S (Ib/day)
TOC (mg/1)
TOC (Ib/day)
NH,-N (mg/1)
NH,-N (Ib/day)
pH
Sul fides (mg/1)
Oil and Grease (mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Quantity
Maximum
Daily
Average
Quantity
Annual
Average
Quantity
Time
Period
of
Analysis
Type
of
Sample
Frequency
ol
Sample
-------
3. Indicate all parameters listed in Part III, Tables III A through III D, which were not measured by EPA approved
methods.
Has the seed used In the BOD 5 test been acclimated to the waste waters that have been treated?
Yes D NoQ
If yes, what is the source of the seed?
Q Sewage treatment plant
n Plant treatment facility
Q Laboratory acclimation
n Other
Explain
III-8
A-17
-------
PART IV
A. Do you have a treatment system(s) at this plant? Yes Q No [~~l
If yes, attach a separate flow sheet for each distinct treatment facility indicating waste streams treated,
unit sizes of treatment equipment, detention times, recycle rates, effluent concentration or design criteria
and other pertinent engineering information for operation of the treatment facility. Include treatment of
storm runoff, where applicable. Indicate the process lines for which any portion of the waste water flow is
diverted to separate treatment, pretreatment or disposal (e.g., deep well, solvent recovery, incineration,
etc.). Which portions are so diverted and which portions are combined for joint treatment?
For each treatment facility complete the following:
Name of Facility
Source(s) of Waste Water
1. Check which of the treatment processes listed below are employed at this plant:
n Equalization
Q] Neutralization
[] Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Separation
Q Primary Sedimentation
Q Primary Chemical Flocculation/Clarification
D Other
Specify Other
Biological Treatment
Q Activated Sludge
D Trickling Filter
Q Aerated Lagoon
n Waste Stabilization Ponds
n Bio-Discs
O Intermittent Sand Filtration
n Other
Specify Other
[] Physical/Chemical Treatment
Polishing
Q Pond
O Multi-media Filtration
n Activated Carbon
Q Other
Specify Other
Sludge Handling
Thickening
Q Mechanical
dl Flotation
Q Centrifugation
Stabilization
Q Anaerobic Digestion
O Chemical
Q Heat
Q Composting
Q] Other
Specify Other
-------
Condition-ing
D Heat
D Chemical
D Elutriation
Dewatering
H] Vacuum Filtration
O Centrifugation
C] Drying Beds
D Other
Specify Other_
Reduction
Q Incineration
[] Wet Air Oxidation
n Pyolysis
Final Disposal
n Landfill
O Cropland Use
D Ocean
Q Other
Specify Other_
Design Conditions for overall treatment facility
Flow (million gallons per day) TSS (milligrams per liter)
BOD (milligrams per liter) TSS (pounds per day)
BOD (pounds per day)
Year Cost (1976 dollars)
2. a. Original Installation (treatment only)
b. Other costs (include collection system, piping, pumping, etc.)
3. Estimated replacement cost
4. Estimated total capital expenditure for this facility to date
5. Annual cost of operation and maintenance
(exclude depreciation and debt service cost).
6. List major modifications or additions since original installation and state the purpose of the
modification or addition.
Treatment Cost Purpose of
Modification-Addition Facility Year (1976 Dollars) Modification
A-19 iv-2
-------
7. List future scheduled modifications or additions and estimated date of completion and state the purpose of
the modification or addition.
Treatment Cost Purpose of
Modification-Addition Facility Year (1976 Dollars) Modification
8. Is nutrient addition practiced? Yes Q No Q
9. How many employees (equivalent man-years/year) are primarily engaged as operators of the waste water
treatment facility? (exclude maintenance)
How many employees (equivalent man-years/year) are engaged as support personnel for the waste water
treatment facility?
10. Is an operator always present? Yes Q No 1 |
11. Quantity of wastewater treatment facility solid wastes disposed of at present (dry basis).
pounds per day
12. Moisture content of waste solids disposed of at present.
percent moisture.
13. Present disposition of solids
14. Estimated annual cost of solids handling and disposal (1976 dollars).
dollars per ton dry basis
15. Planned future disposition of solids:
16. What are the total annual energy requirements for the treatment facility?
Electrical kilowatt-hours
Other (e.g., Heat) British thermal units
A-20
IV-3
-------
Carbon Adsorption Technology
Yes No
Have you determined carbon adsorption isotherms on your waste waters? LJ LJ
Have carbon adsorption isotherms been determined for waste waters from Q Q
your plant(s) by a person(s) other than company personnel?
Have you or anyone else evaluated carbon columns on waste waters from this plant? Q] Q
Do you have carbon adsorption data from your plant(s) on: fl L]
raw wastes Q] Q
biologically treated wastes d Q
individual process lines Q CD
combined process lines |I II
pilot plant studies Q] Q
contractor evaluations Q Q
cost evaluations Q |~l
plant scale evaluations O O
operational units Q] Q
For each question above which was answered affirmatively, give a brief description of the data (source and
types of wastes, period of time covered, plant involved, extent of data base and contact personnel
suggested) in the space below.
C. Filtration
Have you done filtration studies on your wastewaters (sand, multi-media, etc.) beyond what was
described in Section A, Part IV?
Yes Q No [J
If yes, give a brief description of the data (source and types of wastes, period of time covered, process
stream involved, extent of data base and contact personnel suggested) in the space below.
D. Biological Treatment
Have biological treatability studies been conducted on your wastewaters beyond what was described in
Section A, Part IV?
Yes n NO n
If yes, give a brief description of the data and results (source and types of wastes treated, duration of
the study, extent of data base, conclusions of study, and contact personnel suggested) in the space below:
A-21
-------
E. Have other treatability studies, beyond what was described in Section A, Part IV, employing treatment
processes such as sedimentation, neutralization, hydrolysis, precipitation, oxidation/reduction, ion
exchange, phenol recovery, etc., been run on any of the process wastewater streams from the plant?
Yes n NO n
If yes, list below those product/process streams on which such treatability studies were conducted.
Note: Use the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Index to project costs to December 1976 Dollars where requested
in this portfolio. ENR Indices for January 1964 through December 1976 are shown on page IV-6 of this
portfolio.
IV-5
A-22
-------
YEAR
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Jan.
917.94
947.56
987.94
1039.05
1107.37
1216.13
1308.61
1465.07
1685.72
1837.87
1939.47
2103.00
2300.42
Feb.
920.40
957.43
997.43
1040.67
1113.63
1229.56
1310.90
1466.85
1690.76
1849.70
1939.74
2127.72
2309.97
Mar.
922.41
957.70
998.32
1043.31
1117.15
1238.14
1314.45
1494.06
1696.68
1858.96
1940.19
2127.65
2317.14
ENC
Apr.
926.27
957.43
1006.06
1043.54
1123.73
1248.85
1329.21
1511.49
1706.89
1873.62
1961.25
2135.03
2327.33
TINKERING 1
May
929.74
957.92
1014.03
1059.20
1140.31
1258.33
1345.36
1542.95
1735.15
1880.26
196,0.88
2163.72
2356.76
1EWS - RED
June
935.42
969.34
1028.65
1067.88
1152.78
1284.96
\
1368.66
1575.05
1760.78
1896.21
1993.47
2205.00
2409.51
3RD (ENR) ]
July
944.97
977.08
1030.56
1078.45
1159.04
1282.77
1413.91
1597.80
1771.56
1901.24
2041.36
2247.65
2413.60
INDICES *
Aug.
947.92
984.16
1033.37
1089.14
1169.68
1292.20
1418.44
1614.78
1776.80
1920.79
2075.49
2274.30
2444.94
Sept.
947.36
986.29
1033.72
1092.22
1184.20
1285.29
1422.54
1639.64
1785.29
1929.03
2088.82
2275.34
2468.38
Oct.
947.74
986.18
1032.40
1096.22
1189.08
1299.31
1433.64
1642.59
1793.75
1933.19
2094.74
2293.03
2478.22
Nov.
948.25
985.83
1032.71
1096.74
1190.73
1305.23
1445.13
1644.06
1807.60
1934.85
2094.06
2291.65
2486.32
Dec.
948.12
987.74
1033.71
1098.39
1200 . 82
1304.76
1445.08
1654.75
1815.86
1938.84
2098.26
2297.15
2489.66
ANNUAL
INDEX
936.38
971.22
1019.08
1070.40
1154.04
1270.46
1379.66
1570.57
1752.23
1896.74
2019.31
2211.77
2399.94
* CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX - BASE YEAR 1913=100
-------
PART V
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
A. Please provide the information requested in Table V A, concerning the chemicals which are considered as priority
pollutants and which are listed in Table V A, in conformance with the following instructions:
1. In column A, place a check mark to indicate all of the listed chemicals which are used as raw or intermediate
material.
2. In column B, place a check mark to indicate all of the listed chemicals which are manufactured at this plant
as a final or intermediate material.
3. In column C, place a check mark to indicate all of the listed chemicals for which you have analyzed in your
wastewater.
4. In column D, insert a number from the following list to indicate the frequency that the influent (I) and
effluent (E) in your wastewater is analyzed for the presence of the listed chemicals.
Frequency
Continuously
Hourly
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Less than once per
One time sample
Other
Number
1
2
3
4
5
month 6
7
8
5. In column E, insert a number from the following list to indicate the type of sample used to analyze the influent
(I) and effluent (E) in your wastewater for the presence of the listed chemicals.
Type of Sample Number
Flow Composite 1
Time Composite 2
Grab 3
Continuous 4
Other 5
6. In columns F, G, and H, insert a value to indicate the average loading per day as pounds per day (Ib/day),
average flow as million gallons per day (mgd), and the average concentration as micrograms per liter (ug/1)
respectively, for influent (I) and effluent (E) over a period January 1, 1975 to December 31, 1976, or over
the actual period of analysis if shorter than this two year period, for all the listed chemicals for which you
have analyzed in your wastewater.
B. If there is an indication in column C that an analysis is performed on your wastewater for a listed chemical,
please describe in an attachment to this portfolio which analytical method(s) and specialized equipment are
used for that substance.
C. If there is an indication in column C that an analysis is performed on your wastewater for a listed chemical,
please provide the following information in an attachment to this portfolio:
1. If available, please provide plant data which correlate the removal of any of the chemicals in Table V A with
the removal of BOD, TOC, COD and any other pollutants.
2. If available, please provide data from any treatability study which shows the effectiveness of carbon adsorption,
filtration, biological treatment and other treatment technology for removal of any of the chemicals in Table V A.
3. If available, please provide any data which indicate how any of the chemicals in Table V A are removed by the
treatment units at this site.
D. If there is an indication in column C that an analysis is performed on your wastewater for a listed chemical,
and if there is an indication that a listed chemical is removed to any degree by the treatment units at this
site, please attach a separate flow sheet for each of those treatment facilities, which indicates waste streams
treated, unit sizes of treatment equipment, detention times, recycle rates, effluent concentration or design
criteria and other pertinent engineering information for operation of the treatment facility. Please note
that the above flow sheets may be identical to those provided in response to Part IV, Question A of the portfolio
but the flow sheets should indicate clearly which chemicals are removed and which treatment equipment is used
for the removal.
-------
TABLE V A
TABLE V A
TABLE V A
PROCESSING OF CHEMICALS CONSIDERED AS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
1. 83-32-9 19 acenaphthene
2. 107-02-8 123 acrolein
3. 107-13-1 127 acrylonitrile
4. 71-43-2 1069 benzene
5. 92-87-5 1083 benzidine
6. 56-23-5 1821 carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
7. 108-90-7 2095 chlorobenzene
8. 120-82-1 9310 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. 118-74-1 4544 hexachlorobenzene
10. 107-06-2 3733 1 , 2-dichloroethane
> 11. 71-55-6 9316 1 , 1 , 1-trichloroethane
^ 12. 67-72-1 4545 hexachloroethane
1
13. 75-34-3 3750 1 , 1-dichloroethane
14. 79-00-5 9317 1 , 1 , 2 , -trichloroethane
15. 79-34-5 8906 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. 75-00-3 3713 chloroethane
17. 542-88-1 3046 bis (chloromethyl) ether
18. 111-44-4 3040 bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 110-75-8 2119 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
20. 91-58-7 2127 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 88-06-2 9323 2 , 4 , 6-trichlorophenol
22. 59-50-7 2108 parachlorometa cresol
23. 67-66-3 2120 chloroform (trichloromethane)
24. 95-57-8 2134 2-chlorophenol
25. 95-50-1 3029 1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
26. 541-73-1 3028 1, 3-dichlorobenzene
27. 106-46-7 3030 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 91-94-1 3032 3 , 3 '-dichlorobenzidine
29. 75-35-4 9647 1 , 1-dichloroethylene
30. 540-59-0 85 1,2- trans-dichloroethylene
ABCDE F G H
Raw or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Final or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Analyzed
in
Wastewater
Frequency
Analyzed
I*
E**
Type
I*| E"
Loading
(Ib/day)
I *
E**
Flow
Million Gallons
/Day
I *
E**
Concen-
tration
I *
E"
* I = Influent
** E • Effluent
-------
TABLE V A
PROCESSING OF CHEMICALS CONSIDERED AS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
31. 2,4-dichlorophenol
3 2 . 78-87-5 7643 1 , 2-dichloropropane
33 . 542-75-6 3051 1 , 3-dlchloropropy lene { 1 , 3-dichloropropene)
34. 1300-71-6 9744 2,4-dimethylphenol
35, 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36 . 2 , 6-dinitro toluene
37 . 1 , 2-dipheny Ihydrazine
38 . 100-41-4 3695 ethylfcenzene
39 . f luoranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethyoxy) methane
44. 75-09-2 5932 methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
45. 74-87-3 5916 methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. 74-83-9 5904 methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. 75-25-2 1418 bromoform (tribromomethane)
48 . dichlorobromome thane
49. 75-69-4 9320 trichlorofluorome thane
50. 75-71-8 3038 dichlorodif luorome thane
51 . chlorodibromomethane
52 . hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54 . isophorone
55. 91-20-3 6194 naphthalene
56. 96-95-3 6409 nitrobenzene
57. 88-75-5 6442 2-nitrophenol
58 . 100-02-7 644 3 4-nitrophenol
59. 51-28-5 3277 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 534-52-1 3275 4 ,6-do.nitro-o-cresol
Raw or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Final or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Analyzed
in
Wastewater
Frequency
Analyzed
I*
E **
Type
Saiyle
I *
E **
Loading
(Ib/day)
I *
E «
Flow
Million Gallons
/Day
I *
E **
Concen-
tration
\Ug/l)
I *
E**
N)
ON
I = Influent
E = Effluent
-------
Ni
VI
TABLE V A
TABLE V A
.SING OF CHEMICALS CONSIDERED AS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ABC D
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
61. 62-75-9 645B N-nitrosodimethylamine
62 . N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63 . N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. 87-86-5 6901 pentachlorophenol
65. 108-95-2 7038 phenol
66. 117-81-7 1270 bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. 84-74-2 1575 di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. 84-66-2 3783 diethyl phthalate
71. !3i -11-3 3244 dimethyl phthalate
72. 56-55-3 1063 1 , 2-benzanthracene
73. 50-32-8 1113 benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
74. 3,4-benzof luoranthene
75. 11,12-benzofluoranthene
76. 218-01-9 2252 chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. 120-12-7 718 anthracene
79. ~ 1,12-benzoperylene
80. 86-73-7 4037 fluorene
81. 85-01-8 6996 phenanthrene
82. 53-70-3 2971 1 , 2 : 5 , 6-dibenzanthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-C,D) pyrene
84. 129-00-0 7746 pyrene
35. 127-18-4 8907 tetrachloroethylene
86. 108-88-3 9225 toluene
87. 79-01-6 9319 trichloroethylene
88. 75-01-4 9645 vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. 309-00-2 220 aldrin
90. 60-57-1 3075 dieldrin
Raw or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Final or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Analyzed
in
Wastewater
Frequency
Analyzed
I *
E«*
Ty
Sam
I *
pe
Pie
£**
Loading
(Ib/day)
I*
E**
Flow
Million Gallons
/Day
I *
E**
Concen-
tration
-------
TABLE V A
PROCESSING OF CHEMICALS CONSIDERED AS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
N>
00
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
91. 57-74-9 2051 chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites?
92, 50-29-3 2822 4, 4 '-DDT
93 . 4,4' -DDE (p , p ' -DDX )
94. 6088-51-3 2821 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
95. 115-29-7 3519 alpha-endosulf an
96. 115-29-7 3519 beta-endosulf an
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. 72-20-8 3522 endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
100. 76-44-8 4514 heptachlor
101 . heptachlor epoxide
102 . 58-89-9 5341 alpha-BHC
103 . 58-89-9 5341 beta-BHC
104. 58-89-9 5341 gairana-BHC (lindane)
105. 58-89-9 5341 delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
HO. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112. PCB-1016 {Arochlor 1016)
113. 8001-35-2 9252 Toxaphene
114. 7440-36-0 729 Antimony (Total)
115. 7440-38-2 820 Arsenic (Total)
116. 850 Asbestos (Fibrous)
117 . 7440-41-7 1184 Beryllium (Total)
118 . 7440-43-9 1600 Cadmium (Total)
119. 7440-47-3 2229 Chromium (Total)
120. 7-340-50-8 2496 Copper (Total)
ABCDE F G H
Raw or
Inter-
mediate
Final or
Inter-
mediate
Analyzed
in
Frequency
Analyzed
Type
Loading
(Ib/day)
I* £**
Flow
Million Gallons
/ ay
I* E**
Concen-
tration
(uVD
I* E**
Influent
Effluent
-------
TABLE V A
PROCESSING OF CHEMICALS CONSIDERED AS PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
121. 420-05-3 2694 Cyanide (Total)
122. 7439-92-1 5242 Lead (Total)
123. 7439-97-6 5742 Mercury (Total)
124. 6312 Nickel (Total)
125. 7782-49-2 8179 Selenium (Total)
126. 7440-22-4 8244 Silver (Total
127. 7440-28-0 8970 Thallium (Total)
128. 7440-66-6 9782 Zinc (Total)
129. 2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Raw or
Inter-
mediate
Final or
Inter-
mediate
Analyzed
in
Frequency
Analyzed
Type
Loading
lib/day)
Flow
Million Gallons
/D v
I* P**
Concen-
tration
( q/D
NJ
* I = Influent
** E - Effluent
-------
APPENDIX B
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS
IN THE
ORIGINAL 308 DATA BASE
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE ORIGINAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME
A. H. ROBINS COMPANY
A. H. ROBINS MANUFACTURING COMPANY
ABBOTT LABORATORIES
ABBOTT LABORATORIES
ABBOTT LABORATORIES - N. CHICAGO
ABBOTT: HOSPITAL PRODUCTS DIVISION
ABBOTT: MURINE COMPANY
ABBOTT: SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION
AHSC: DADE DIVISION
AHSC: HARLECO DIVISION
ALCON LABORATORIES (P.R.). INC.
ALCON LABORATORIES - OPHTHALMIC
ALCON: CENTER LABORATORIES, INC.
ALCON: OWEN LABORATORIES, INC.
ALZA CORPORATION
ALZA CORPORATION - BUILDING A
ALZA CORPORATION - BUILDING J
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY
AMES COMPANY
AMES IMMUNOLOGY MANUFACTURING DIV.
ARBROOK, INC.
ARMOUR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
ARNAR-STONE LABORATORIES, INC.
ARNAR-STONE, INC.
ASTRA PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC.
AYERST LABORATORIES, INC.
BARNES-HIND DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
BARNES-HIND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
BARRY LABORATORIES, INC.
BEECHAM LABORATORIES
BEECHAM PHARMACEUTICALS
BIO-REAGENTS AND DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC.
BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC.
BOWMAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
BRISTOL ALPHA AND BRISCHEM
BRISTOL LABORATORIES CORP.
BRISTOL-MYERS PRODUCTS
BRISTOL-MYERS PRODUCTS
BRISTOL-MYERS: IND. & BRISTOL LABS.
BURDICK & JACKSON LABORATORIES, INC.
BURROUGHS WELLCOME COMPANY
BURROUGHS WELLCOME: VACCINE DIVISION
BYK-GULDEN, INC.
BYK-GULDEN: DAY-BALDWIN DIVISION
CARTER-WALLACE, INC.
CARTER-WALLACE: DENV. CHEM. (P.R.)
CENTRAL PHARMACAL COMPANY
CERTIFIED LABORATORIES, INC.
CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION
LOCATION
RICHMOND
BARCELONETA
BARCELONETA
NORTH CHICAGO
NORTH CHICAGO
ROCKY MOUNT
CHICAGO
LOS ANGELES
MIAMI
GIBBSTOWN
HUMACAO
FORT WORTH
PORT WASHINGTON
ADDISON
PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
HANNIBAL
SOUTH BEND
ELKHART
ARLINGTON
KANKAKEE
MT. PROSPECT
AGUIGALLA
WORCESTER
ROUSES POINT
CANOVANAS
SUNNYVALE
POMPANO BEACH
BRISTOL
PISCATAWAY
IRVINE
JERSEY CITY
MEMPHIS
CANTON
BARCELONETA
MAYAQUEZ
HILLSIDE
ST. LOUIS
EAST SYRACUSE
MUSKEGON
GREENVILLE
DENVER
HICKSVILLE
HILLSIDE
CRANBURY
HUMACAO
SEYMOUR
WARRINGTON
CRANSTON
VA
PR
PR
IL
IL
NC
IL
CA
FL
NJ
PR
TX
NY
TX
CA
CA
CA
MO
IN
IN
TX
IL
IL
PR
MA
NY
PR
CA
FL
TN
NJ
CA
NJ
TN
OH
PR
PR
NJ
MO
NY
MI
NC
CO
NY
NJ
NJ
PR
IN
PA
RI
B-2
-------
APPENDIX B (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE ORIGINAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME LOCATION
CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION
CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION
CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES, INC.
COOPER LABORATORIES (P.R.), INC.
COOPER LABORATORIES (P.R.): SMP DIV.
COOPER LABORATORIES: WAYNE OLD DIV.
CUTTER LABORATORIES, INC.
CUTTER LABORATORIES, INC.
CUTTER LABORATORIES, INC.
CUTTER LABORATORIES, INC.
CUTTER LABORATORIES: BAYVET DIVISION
DADE DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
DAVIS AND GECK, INC.
DENTCO, INC.
DOME LABORATORIES DIVISION
DORSEY LABORATORIES DIVISION
DOW PHARMACEUTICALS
E. R. SQUIBB AND SONS, INC.
E. R. SQUIBB MANUFACTURING, INC.
EATON LABORATORIES, INC.
ELI LILLY - CLINTON LABS.
ELI LILLY - INDUSTRIAL CIR. 1200
ELI LILLY - OMAHA LABS
ELI LILLY - PARK FLETCHER
ELI LILLY - TIPPECANOE LABS.
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
ELI LILLY INDUSTRIES
ENDO LABORATORIES, INC.
ENDO, INC.
FERNDALE LABORATORIES, INC.
FIRST TEXAS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
HILTON DAVIS CHEMICAL COMPANY
HOECHST-ROUSSEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE - AG. DIVISION
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC.
HOLLISTER-STIER LABORATORIES
HYNSON, WESTCOTT, & DUNNING DIVISION
ICI AMERICAS, INC.
IMC, INC.
INOLEX CORPORATION: PHARM. DIVISION
IVERS-LEE DIVISION
IVERS-LEE DIVISION
SUFFERN NY
SUMMIT NJ
SWIFTWATER PA
SAN GERMAN PR
PALO ALTO CA
WAYNE NJ
BERKELEY CA
CHATTANOOGA TN
CLAYTON NC
OGDEN UT
SHAWNEE KS
AGUADA PR
MANATI PR
HUMACAO PR
WEST HAVEN CT
LINCOLN NE
INDIANAPOLIS IN
NEW BRUNSWICK NJ
HUMACAO PR
MANATI PR
CLINTON IN
INDIANAPOLIS IN
OMAHA NE
INDIANAPOLIS IN
LAFAYETTE IN
CAROLINA PR
GREENFIELD IN
INDIANAPOLIS IN
MAYAGUEZ PR
CAROLINA PR
GARDEN CITY NY
MANATI PR
FERNDALE MI
DALLAS TX
CINCINNATI OH
SOMERVILLE NJ
FORT WORTH TX
AMES IA
BELVIDERE NJ
FRESNO CA
NUTLEY NJ
SALISBURY MD
TOTOWA NJ
SPOKANE WA
BALTIMORE MD
DIGHTON MA
TERRE HAUTE IN
PARK FOREST SOUTH IL
NEWARK NJ
SHIPSHEWANA IN
B-3
-------
APPENDIX B (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE ORIGINAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME
IVERS-LEE DIVISION
J. T. BAKER CHEMICAL COMPANY
J. T. CLARK COMPANY
JELCO LABORATORIES, INC.
JELCO LABORATORIES, INC.
JENSEN-SALSBERY LABORATORIES
JENSEN-SALSBERY LABORATORIES
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON - EAST. SURG. DR.
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON - MIDWEST SUR. DR.
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON - SW. SURG. DRESS.
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON D.O.C., INC.
KNOLL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
KREMERS-URBAN COMPANY
LEDERLE LABORATORIES DIVISION
LEHN AND FINK PRODUCTS COMPANY
MALLINCKRODT, INC.
MALLINCKRODT, INC.
MALLINCKRODT, INC
MALLINCKRODT, INC
MALLINCKRODT, INC
MALLINCKRODT,
INC. -
BULK LYSATE
NUCLEAR
RALEIGH CHEMICAL
RALEIGH PARENT.
RALEIGH PLASTICS
MALLINCKRODT, INC.
MARION HEALTH AND SAFETY, INC.
MARION LABORATORIES, INC.
MCGRAW LABORATORIES
MCGRAW LABORATORIES
MCGRAW LABORATORIES
MCGRAW LABORATORIES
MCNEIL LABORATORIES, INC.
MCNEIL LABORATORIES, INC.
MEAD JOHNSON AND COMPANY
MEDIPHYSICS, INC.
MEDIPHYSICS, INC.
MEDIPHYSICS, INC.
MEDIPHYSICS, INC.
MEDIPHYSICS, INC.
MERCK AND CO., INC.
MERCK AND CO., INC. - CHEROKEE
MERCK AND CO., INC. - FLINT RIVER
MERCK AND CO., INC. - STONEWALL
MERCK SHARP AND DOHME, INC.
MERCK SHARP AND DOHME (P.R.), INC.
MERRELL-NATIONAL LABORATORIES, INC.
MEPxRELL-NATIONAL LABORATORIES, INC.
MILES LABORATORIES, INC.
NORWICH-EATON PHARM. DIV. - NORWICH
NORWICH-EATON PHARM. DIV. - W'DS CORNER
NORWICH-EATON PHARM. DIVISION
ORGANON, INC.
LOCATION
WEST CALDWELL
PHILLIPSBURG
GENEVA
RARITAN
RIVIERA BEACH
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
NORTH BRUNSWICK
NORTH BRUNSWICK
CHICAGO
SHERMAN
GURABO
WHIPPANY
MEQUON
PEARL RIVER
LINCOLN
DECATUR
ST. LOUIS
BEAUFORT
MARYLAND HEIGHTS
RALEIGH
RALEIGH
RALEIGH
ROCKFORD
KANSAS CITY
IRVINE
IRVINE
MILLEDGEVILLE
SABANA GRANDE
DORADO
FORT WASHINGTON
EVANSVILLE
EMERYVILLE
GLENDALE
MIAMI LAKES
ROSEMONT
SOUTH PLAINFIELD
RAHWAY
DANVILLE
ALBANY
ELKTON
WEST POINT
BARCELONETA
CAYEY
CINCINNATI
ELKHART
NORWICH
NORWICH
GREENVILLE
WEST ORANGE
NJ
NJ
IL
NJ
FL
KS
MO
NJ
NJ
IL
TX
PR
NJ
WI
NY
IL
IL
MO
NC
MO
NC
NC
NC
IL
MO
CA
CA
GA
PR
PR
PA
IN
CA
CA
FL
IL
NJ
NJ
PA
GA
VA
PA
PR
PR
OH
IN
NY
NY
SC
NJ
-------
APPENDIX B (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE ORIGINAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME
ORTHO DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
ORTHO DIAGNOSITCS, INC.
ORTHO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
PARKE-DAVIS AND COMPANY
PARKE-DAVIS AND COMPANY
PARKE-DAVIS AND COMPANY
PARKE-DAVIS AND COMPANY
PARKE-DAVIS LABORATORIES
PENNWALT CORPORATION
PFIZER PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
PFIZER, INC.
PFIZER, INC.
PFIZER, INC. - MAYW'D CANCER RES'RCH
PFIZER, INC. - VIGO
PHARMASEAL LABORATORIES
PHILIPS ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.
PLOUGH, INC.
PURDUE FREDERICK LABORATORIES, INC.
R. P. SCHERER (MIDWEST) CORP.
R. P. SCHERER (SOUTHEAST) CORP-
REEDCO, INC.
REHEIS CHEMICAL COMPANY
RIKER LABORATORIES, INC.
ROSS LABORATORIES
ROSS LABORATORIES
S. B. PENICK AND COMPANY
S. B. PENICK AND COMPANY
S. B. PENICK AND COMPANY
S. B. PENICK AND COMPANY
S. B. PENICK AND COMPANY
SANDOZ, INC.
SCHERING (P.R.) CORPORATION
SCHERING CORPORATION
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION
SCHERING: AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC LABS.
SEARLE AND COMPANY
SEARLE LABORATORIES
SMITHKLINE AND FRENCH COMPANY
SMITHKLINE AND FRENCH LABORATORIES
SMITHKLINE AND FRENCH LABORATORIES
SMITHKLINE CORPORATION
SMITHKLINE: NORDEN LABORATORIES
SMITHKLINE: SEA AND SKI CORP-
STERLING DRUG, INC.
STERLING DRUG, INC.
STERLING DRUG, INC.
STERLING DRUG, INC.
STERLING DRUG, INC.
STERLING DRUG, INC.
STERLING DRUG, INC. - EAST GREENBUSH
LOCATION
ARLINGTON
RARITAN
DORADO
DETROIT
GREENWOOD
HOLLAND
ROCHESTER
FAJARDO
ROCHESTER
BARCELONETA
BROOKLYN
GROTON
MAYWOOD
TERRE HAUTE
IRWINDALE
COLUMBUS
MEMPHIS
TOTOWA
DETROIT
MONROE
HUMACAO
BERKELEY HEIGHTS
NORTHRIDGE
ALTAVISTA
COLUMBUS
LYNDHURST
MONTVILLE
NEWARK
VANCOUVER
WALLINGFORD
EAST HANOVER
MANATI
UNION
KENILWORTH
MADISON
CAGUAS
SKOKIE
CAROLINA
PHILADELPHIA
SWEDELAND
LOWELL
LINCOLN
RENO
GULFPORT
MONTICELLO
MYERSTOWN
MYERSTOWN
RENSSELAER
TRENTON
RENSSELAER
TX
NJ
PR
MI
SC
MI
MI
PR
NY
PR
NY
CT
NJ
IN
CA
OH
TN
NJ
MI
NC
PR
NJ
CA
VA
OH
NJ
NJ
NJ
WA
CT
NJ
PR
NJ
NJ
WI
PR
IL
PR
PA
PA
AR
NE
NV
MS
IL
PA
PA
NY
NJ
NY
B-5
-------
APPENDIX B (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE ORIGINAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME LOCATION
STERLING DRUG, INC.
STERWIN LABORATORIES, INC.
STERWIN LABORATORIES, INC.
STUART PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION
STUART PHARMACEUTICALS DIVISION
SYNTEX (P.P.), INC.
SYNTEX AGRIBUSINESS, INC.
SYNTEX LABORATORIES, INC.
TENNECO CHEMICALS, INC.
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC,
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC.
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC.
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC.
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC.
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC.
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC.
TRAVENOL LABORATORIES, INC.
TRAVENOL: CLINICAL ASSAYS
TRAVENOL: DAYTON FLEXIBLE PROD. DIV.
TRAVENOL: HYLAND DIVISION
TRAVENOL: HYLAND DIVISION
TRAVENOL: HYLAND DIVISION
UPJOHN COMPANY
UPJOHN COMPANY
UPJOHN COMPANY
USV LABORATORIES
USV PHARMACEUTICAL CORP.
VICKS HEALTH CARE DIVISION
VICKS HEALTH CARE DIVISION
VICKS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIV.
WARNER-CHILCOTT DIVISION
WARNER-CHILCOTT LABORATORIES
WARNER-CHILCOTT PHARMACEUTICAL CO.
WARREN-TEED LABORATORIES, INC.
WARREN-TEED, INC.
WESTWOOD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
WILLIAM H. RORER, INC.
WILLIAM H. RORER, INC.
WILLIAM P. POYTHRESS AND CO., INC.
WINTHROP LABORATORIES, INC.
WYETH LABORATORIES, INC.
WYETH LABORATORIES, INC.
WYETH LABORATORIES, INC.
WYETH LABORATORIES, INC. - GR. VALLEY
MCPHERSON
MILLSBORO
OPBLIKA
NEWARK
PASADENA
HUMACAO
DBS MOINES
PALO ALTO
GARFIELD
CAROLINA
CLEVELAND
COSTA MESA
JAYUYA
MARICAO
MARION
MORTON GROVE
MOUNTAIN HOME
CAMBRIDGE
KINGSTREE
GLENDALE
LOS ANGELES
ROUND LAKE
ARECIBO
KALAMAZOO
KALAMAZOO
MANATI
TUCKAHOE
GREENSBORO
HATBORO
MT. VERNON
MORRIS PLAINS
CAROLINA
VEGA BAJA
COLUMBUS
HUMACAO
BUFFALO
FORT WASHINGTON
SAN LEANDRO
RICHMOND
BARC.ELONETA
MARIETTA
SKOKIE
WEST CHESTER
MALVERN
KS
DE
AL
DE
CA
PR
IA
CA
NJ
PR
MS
CA
PR
PR
NC
IL
AR
MA
SC
CA
CA
IL
PR
MI
HI
PR
NY
NC
PA
NY
NJ
PR
PR
OH
PR
NY
PA
CA
•7?
IL
PA
PA
TOTAL NUMBER OF MFG. PLANTS IN THE ORIGINAL 308 DATA BASE: 244
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTAL 308 PORTFOLIO
FOR THE
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
C-l
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL 308 PORTFOLIO
FOR THE
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Instructions
1. Please complete the following portfolio and return within 30 days
of receipt to:
Mr. Robert B. Schaffer, Director
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. EPA (WH-552)
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attention: J. S. Vital is
2. Please read all instructions and questions carefully before completing
this portfolio. It is preferred that the individual(s) who responds
to this portfolio be familiar with manufacturing processes and
wastewater treatment operations at the plant.
3. Please check the appropriate box or boxes in each question where
they appear throughout this portfolio. (More than one box may be
checked for some questions, where appropriate.) Please complete
all questions which require written responses by printing or typing
in the spaces provided.
4. Please indicate which information in your responses is confidential
so that it may be treated properly.
5. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will review the information
submitted and may, at a later date, request your cooperation for
site visits and additional sampling in order to complete the data
base. Please retain a copy of the completed portfolio in case
future contact is necessary to verify your responses.
6. If you have any questions, please telephone Mr. J. S. Vitalis at
202-426-2497.
C-2
-------
FORM APPROVED
OMB No. 158-R0160
PLANT CODE NO.
(For EPA Use OnTyT
PART I
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Name of Plant
2. Address of Plant:
3.
Street
Name of Parent Firm
State
Zip
4. Address of Parent Firm Headquarters:
Street City State Zip
5. Name(s) of plant personnel to be contacted for Information pertaining to this data collection portfolio:
Name Title (Area Code) Telephone
PART II
PLANT DATA
1. a.
Does this plant manufacture or formulate pharmaceutical active Ingredients?
(Research and development activities should not be considered.)
Yes
No
b. If the answer to (a) Is no, please describe the operations at this facility, but do not complete the
remainder of this portfoTTo.
c. If the answer to (a) is yes, please complete the remainder of this portfolio.
2. Type of production operation(s) at this facility (check all items that are appropriate):
a. Fermentation
b. Biological and Natural Extraction
c. Chemical Synthesis
d. Mixing/Compounding and Formulation
Batch
D
D
D
D
Continuous
D
D
D
D
3. Number of manufacturing or formulating employees in 1978:
Average_
Minimum
Semi continuous
D
D
D
D
Maximum
-1-
C-3
-------
PLANT CODE NO.
Please list in Table 1 all products manufactured at this plant site by the following production subcategoHes
during 1978: (A) Fermentation, (B) Biological and Natural Extraction, and/or (C) Chemical Synthesis. Place
an A, B, or C in the appropriate column to indicate the type of production subcategory used. Use the Merck
Index, Ninth Edition, 1976, to specify the Merck Index Identification Numbers (Merck Index Number). Many of
the Chemical Abstract Service Registry Numbers (CAS Numbers) may be found in the Merck Index beginning on
page REG-1.
Note: Make as many photocopies of this sheet as necessary before filling in the requested Information.
TABLE 1
CAS NUMBER
Examples:
87081
.
103902
MERCK INDEX NO.
6890
.
36
PRODUCT NAME
Penicillin V
Allerqenic extracts
Acetaminophen
PRODUCTION
SUBCATEGORY
A
B
C
ANNUAL
PRODUCTION (kg/yr)
10,000
300
5,000
-2-
-------
PLANT CODE NO.
PART III
HASTEHATER DATA
1. a. Does this plant site generate process wastewaters? Yes Q Nof"!
Note: Process wastewater is any water which, during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct
contact with or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, by-product, or waste product. This does not include sanitary wastewaters, non-contact cooling
waters, nor stormwater.
b. Average daily quantity of process wastewaters generated during 1978, in gallons per day
2. a. Does this plant have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES) for the discharge
of process wastewaters? Yes (_] No|"~l
b. Permit or application number_
c. Average daily flow rate of permitted discharge during 1978, in gallons per day
3. a. Does this plant discharge process wastewaters to a municipal sewage treatment plant? Yes Q No|~|
b. Average daily flow rate of discharge to municipal sewage treatment plant during 1978, in gallons per day
4. List other methods used for process wastewater disposal (e.g., incineration, evaporation, deep well disposal,
etc.)
Method Average daily flow rate during 1978, gallons per day
Note: Flow rates presented in Questions 2.c., 3.b. and 4. should total the flow rate given in Question l.b.
5. Are there wastewater treatment facilities on site? Yes Q Complete Question III.6.
No Q Go to Part IV.
6. Check which of the treatment processes listed below are employed at this plant:
a. In-plant
Q Cyanide Destruction
D Metal Precipitation
Q Chromium Reduction
D Steam Stripping
Q Solvent Recovery
D Other, Specify
b. End-of-Pipe
[~1 Equalization
Q] Neutralization
Q Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Separation
rj Primary Sedimentation
Q Primary Chemical Flocculation/Clarification
D Other, Specify
Biological Treatment
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Aerated Lagoon
Waste Stabilization Ponds
Rotating Biological Contactor
C-5
-------
PLANT CODE NO.
D
D
D
Powdered Activated Carbon
Other, Specify
Physical /Chemical Treatment
Polishing
Pond
Multi-media Filtration
PI Activated Carbon
D Other, Specify
c. Sludge Disposal
[_] Landfill
Q Cropland Use
r~l Ocean
Other, Specify
If this plant operates an end-of-pipe treatment system and one or more boxes in Question 6.b were checked,
then please provide available data on the performance of that system by completing Table 2. Data used to
compute long term average flow rates and concentrations should be for the time period from July 1, 1977 to
December 31, 1978. If data is not available for the entire 1-1/2 year period, then please provide data that
is available and indicate the actual time period used to compute long term average values. Do not Include
data obtained before July 1, 1977. In addition, please indicate the frequency of sampling that occurred for
the subject parameter during the indicated time period. In Table 2, please insert a number from the following
list that corresponds to that frequency.
Frequency
One time sample
Less than one sample per month
One sample per month to less than one
sample per week 3
One sample per week to one sample per day 4
More than one sample per day 5
Note:
gal/d = gallons per day
mg/1 = milligrams per liter
Long Term Average Value
TABLE 2
Parameter
Influent to
End-of-Pipe System
Effluent from
End-of-Pipe System
Time Period over
which average
cone, occurred
Frequency of
sampling during the
indicated time period
Flow (gal/d)
BODC (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Cyanide (mg/1)
Phenol (mg/1)
PART IV
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
Please provide the information requested in Table 3 concerning the chemicals which are considered as priority
pollutants and which are listed in Table 3 in conformance with the following instructions:
1. In column A, place a check mark to indicate all of the listed chemicals which were used as raw or intermediate
material during 1978.
2. In column B, place a check mark to indicate all of the listed chemicals which were manufactured at this plant
as a final or intermediate material during 1978.
3. In column C, place a check mark to indicate all of the listed chemicals for which you have analyzed in your
raw (untreated) process wastewater (R) and/or treated effluent (E), and for which analytical data are available.
4. If one or more check marks have been placed in column C, then please attach a copy of the analytical results.
However, if the results are voluminous, the data may be summarized on a separate sheet of paper by computing
an average concentration and flow rate and stating minimum and maximum concentrations and flow rates for each
pollutant. In addition, please indicate the time period over which this data was collected and the frequency
of sampling that occurred during that time period.
-4-
C-6
-------
TABLES
PLANT CODE MO.
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
1. 83-32-9 19 acenaphthene
2. 107-02-8 123 acrolein
3. 107-13-1 127 acrylonitrile
4. 71-43-2 1069 benzene
5. 92-87-5 1083 benzidine
6. 56-23-5 1821 carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
7. 108-90-7 2095 chlorobenzene
8. 120-82-1 9310 1 , 2 , 4-trichlorobenzene
9. 118-74-1 4544 hexachlorobenzene
10. 107-06-2 3733 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 71-55-6 9316 1 , 1 , 1-trichloroethane
12. 67-72-1 4545 hexachloroethane
13. 75-34-3 3750 1 , 1-dichloroethane
14. 79-00-5 9317 1 , 1 , 2 , -trichloroethane
15. 79-34-5 8906 1 , 1 , 2 , 2-tetrachloroethane
16. 75-00-3 3713 chloroethane
17. 542-88-1 3046 bis(chloromethyl) ether
18. 111-44-4 3040 bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 110-75-8 2119 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
20. 91-58-7 2127 2-chloronaphthalene
21. 88-06-2 9323 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. 59-50-7 2108 parachlorometa cresol
23. 67-66-3 2120 chloroform (trichloromethane)
24. 95-57-8 2134 2-chlorophenol
25. 95-50-1 3029 1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
26. 541-73-1 3028 1 , 3-dichlorobenzene
27. 106-46-7 3030 1,4-dichlorobenzene
28. 91-94-1 3032 3 , 3 ' -dichlorobenzidine
29. 75-35-4 9647 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 540-59-0 85 1,2- trans -dichloroethylene
31 . — — 2 , 4-dichlorephenol
32. 78-87-5 7643 1 , 2-dichloropropane
33. 542-75-6 3051 1 , 3-dlchloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
34. 1300-71-6 9744 2 , 4-dimethy Iphenol
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2f6-dinitrotoluene
37 . 1 , 2-dipheny Ihydrazine
38. 100-41-4 3695 ethylbenzene
39. fluoranthene
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
43. bls(2-chloroethyoxy) methane
ABC
Raw or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Final or
Inter-
mediate
Material
Analyzed
in
Wastewater
R
E
C-7
-5-
-------
TABLE 3
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PLANT CODE HU.
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
44. 75-09-2 5932 roethylene chloride (dichloromethane)
45. 74-87-3 5916 methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. 74-83-9 5904 methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. 75-25-2 1418 bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. 75-69-4 9320 trichlorof luoromethane
50. 75-71-8 3038 dichlorodif luoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
52. hexachlorobutadiene
53. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. isophorone
55. 91-20-3 6194 naphthalene
56. 98-95-3 6409 nitrobenzene
57. 88-75-5 6442 l2-nitrophenol
58. 100-02-7 6443 4-nitrophenol
59. 51-28-5 3277 2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 534-52-1 3275 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
61. 62-75-9 6458 N-nitrosodimethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. . N-nitrosodi-n-propylam±ne
64. 87-86-5 6901 pentachlorophenol
65. 108-95-2 7038 phenol
66. 117-81-7 1270 bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. 84-74-2 1575 di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. 84-66-2 3783 diethyl phthalate
71- 131 -11-3 3244 dimethyl phthalate
72. 56-55-3 1063 1 , 2-benzanthracene
73. 50-32-8 1113 benzo (a)pyrene (3 ,4-benzopyrene)
74. j ,4-benzof luoranthene
75. 11, 12-benzof luoranthene
76. 218-01-9 2252 chrysene
77. acenaphthylene
78. 120-12-7 718 anthracene
79, 1,12-benzoperylene
80. 86-73-7 4037 fluorene
81. 85-01-8 6996 phenanthrene
82. 53-70-3 2971 1,2 : 5,6-dibenzanthracene
83. indeno(l,2,3-C,D) pyrene
84. 129-00-0 7746 pyrene
85. 127-18-4 8907 tetrachloroethylene
86. 108-88-3 9225 toluene
Raw or
Inter-
mediate
Material
F.inj-' or
Intei -
mediate
Maten .i
"
.Q n a
•i. ;ti
p
--
, '.ed
•f - 1-
1
^_ !
,
i — i
— !
1
C-8
-6-
-------
TABLE 3
PLANT CODE NO.
Merck
CAS Index
Number Number Chemical
87. 79-01-6 9319 trichloroethylene
88. 75-01-4 9645 vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. 309-00-2 220 aldrin
90. 60-57-1 3075 dieldrin
91. 57-74-9 2051 chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
92. 50-29-3 2822 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
94. 6088-51-3 2821 4,4'-DDD (p.p'-TDE)
95. 115-29-7 3519 alpha-endosulfan
96. 115-29-7 3519 beta-endosulfan
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. 72-20-8 3522 endrin
99 . endrin aldehyde
100. 76-44-a 4514 heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
102. 58-89-9 5341 alpha-BHC
103. 58-89-9 5341 beta-BHC
104. 58-89-9 5341 gamma-BBC (lindane)
105. 58-89-9 5341 delta-BHC
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113. 8001-35-2 9252 Toxaphene
114. 7440-36-0 729 Antimony (Total)
115. 7440-38-2 020 Arsenic (Total)
116. 850 Asbestos (Fibrous)
117. ^440-41-7 1184 Beryllium (Total)
118. 7440-43-9 1600 Cadmium (Total)
119. 7440-47-3 2229 chromium (Total)
120. 7440-50-8 2496 Copper (Total)
121. 420-05-3 2694 Cyanide (Total)
122. 7439-92-1 5242 Lead (Total)
123. 7439-97-6 5742 Mercury (Total)
124. 6312 Nickel (Total)
125. 7782-49-2 8179 Selenium (Total)
126. 7440-22-4 8244 Silver (Total
127. 7440-28-0 8970 Thallium (Total)
128. 7440-66-6 9782 Zinc (Total)
129. 2,3,7,8 tetrad' ar
-------
APPENDIX D
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS
IN THE
SUPPLEMENTAL 308 DATA BASE
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME LOCATION
A. E. STALEY MANUFACTURING COMPANY
AJAY CHEMICALS, INC.
ALLIED CHEMICAL COMPANY
AMERCHOL, INC.
AMERICAN AGAR AND CHEMICAL COMPANY
AMERICAN APOTHECARIES COMPANY
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. - FINE CHEM.
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. - FINE CHEM.
AMERICAN LABORATORIES, INC.
ANABOLIC, INC.
ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ARAPAHOE CHEMICALS, INC.
ARAPAHOE CHEMICALS, INC.
ARENOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
ASH STEVENS, INC. (PILOT PLT.)
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY
BANNER GELATIN PRODUCTS CORPORATION
BARR LABORATORIES
BAYLOR LABORATORIES, INC.
BEIERSDORF, INC.
BELPORT COMPANY, INC.
BEN VENUE LABORATORIES, INC.
BIOCRAFT LABORATORIES, INC.
BIOCRAFT LABORATORIES, INC.
BIOCRAFT LABORATORIES, INC.
BLISTEX, INC.
BOLAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC.
BOOTS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
BRIOSCHI, INC.
C AND M PHARMACAL, INC.
C. M. BUNDY COMPANY
CAMPANA CORPORATION
CARSON CHEMCIALS, INC.
CARTER-GLOGAU LABORATORIES
CARTER-GLOGAU LABORATORIES
CENTURY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
CHAP STICK COMPANY
CHASE CHEMICAL COMPANY
CHATTEM CHEMICALS DIVISION
CHATTEM LABORATORIES DIVISION
CHROMALLOY LABORATORIES
COHELFRED LABORATORIES, INC.
CORD LABORATORIES, INC.
CORWOOD LABORATORIES, INC.
CREOMULSTON COMPANY
CUMBERLAND MANUFACTURING COMPANY
D. M. GRAHAM LABORATORIES, INC.
DANBURY PHARMACAL, INC.
DEL LABORATORIES, INC.
DEL-RAY LABORATORY, INC.
DECATUR
POWDER SPRINGS
CHICAGO
EDISON
SAN DIEGO
LONG ISLAND CITY
BOUND BROOK
WILLOW ISLAND
OMAHA
IRVINE
ARDIAN
BOULDER
NEWPORT
LONG ISLAND CITY
DETROIT
TAMAQUA
CHATSWORTH
NORTHVALE
HURST
SOUTH NORWALK
CAMARILLO
BEDFORD
ELMWOOD PARK
ELMWOOD PARK
WALDWICK
OAK BROOK
COPTAGUE
SHREVEPORT
FAIR LAWN
HAZEL PARK
ERLANGER
BATAVIA
NEW CASTLE
GLENDALE
MELROSE PARK
INDIANAPOLIS
LYNCHBURG
NEWARK
CHATTANOOGA
CHATTANOOGA
LOS ANGELES
CHICAGO
BROOMFIELD
HAUPPAUGE
ATLANTA
NASHVILLE
HOBART
DANBURY
FARMINGDALE
BIRMINGHAM
IL
GA
IL
NJ
CA
NY
NJ
WV
NE
CA
MI
CO
TN
NY
MI
PA
CA
NJ
TX
CT
CA
OH
NJ
NJ
NJ
IL
NY
LA
NJ
MI
KY
IL
IN
AZ
IL
IN
VA
NJ
TN
TN
CA
IL
CO
NY
GA
TN
NY
CT
NY
AL
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME LOCATION
DELL LABORATORIES, INC.
DEPREE COMPANY
DEVLIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
DEWEY PRODUCTS COMPANY
DIAMOND SHAMROCK CORPORATION
DON HALL LABORATORIES
DORASOL LABORATORIES
DR. G. H. TICHENOR ANTISEPTIC CO.
DR. MADIS LABORATORIES, INC.
DR. ROSE, INC.
DRUGS, INC.
E. E. DICKINSON COMPANY, INC.
E-Z-EM COMPANY
EASTMAN KODAK CO. - KODAK PARK
ELKINS-SINN, INC.
EMERSON LABORATORIES
ENZYME PROCESS COMPANY, INC.
EX-LAX, INC.
FERMCO BIOCHEMICS, INC.
FLEMING AND COMPANY
FOREST/INWOOD LABORATORIES, INC.
FORT DODGE LABORATORIES
FRANKLIN LABORATORIES, INC.
FRESH LABORATORIES, INC.
FROMM LABORATORIES, INC.
G AND W LABORATORIES, INC.
G. E. LABORATORIES, INC.
GANES CHEMICALS, INC.
GANES CHEMICALS, INC.
GEBAUER CHEMICAL COMPANY
GENERIC PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION
GIBO/INVENEX DIVISION
GOODY'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY
GORDON LABORATORIES
GRANDPA BRANDS COMPANY
GUARDIAN CHEMICAL CORPORATION
H. CLAY GLOVER COMPANY, INC.
HALSEY DRUG COMPANY, INC.
HEATHER DRUG COMPANY, INC.
HENKEL CORPORATION
HEUN/NORWOOD LABORATORIES
HEXAGON LABORATORIES, INC.
HEXCEL SPECIALTY CHEMICALS
HIGH CHEMICAL COMPANY
HOBART LABORATORIES, INC.
HOLLAND-RANTOS COMPANY, INC.
HOPPE PHARMACAL CORPORTION
HUMPHREYS PHARMACAL, INC.
ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: COVINA DIVISION
INFRACORP, LTD.
TEANECK
HOLLAND
EL SEGUNDO
GRAND RAPIDS
LOUISVILLE
PORTLAND
HATO REY
NEW ORLEANS
SOUTH HACKENSACK
MADISON
ELIZABETH
ESSEX
WESTBURY
ROCHESTER
CHERRY HILL
DALLAS
NORTHRIDGE
HUMACAO
ELK GROVE VILLAGE
FENTON
INWOOD, L.I.
FORT DODGE
AMARILLO
WARREN
GRAFTON
SOUTH PLAINFIELD
SHAMOKIN
CARLSTADT
PENNSVILLE
CLEVELAND
PALISADES PARK
GRAND ISLAND
WINSTON-SALEM
UPPER DARBY
CINCINNATI
HAUPPAUGE
TOMS RIVER
BROOKLYN
CHERRY HILL
KANKAKEE
ST. LOUIS
BRONX
LODI
PHILADELPHIA
CHICAGO
TRENTON
GRAND HAVEN
RUTHERFORD
COVINA
PETERSBURG
NJ
MI
CA
MI
KY
OR
PR
LA
NJ
CT
NJ
CT
NY
NY
NJ
TX
CA
PR
IL
MO
NY
IA
TX
MI
WI
NJ
PA
NE
NJ
OH
NJ
NY
NC
PA
OH
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
IL
MO
NY
NJ
PA
IL
NJ
MI
NJ
CA
VA
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME LOCATION
INTERNATIONAL HORMONES, INC.
J. H. GUILD COMPANY, INC.
JOHN D. COPANOS COMPANY, INC.
KALLESTAD LABORATORIES, INC.
KENDALL COMPANY
KENDALL COMPANY
KEY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.
L. T. YORK COMPANY
LANNETT COMPANY, INC.
LARSON LABORATORIES, INC.
LEE PHARMACEUTICALS
LEWIS/HOWE COMPANY
LIBBY LABORATORIES, INC.
LILY WHITE SALES COMPANY, INC.
LORVIC CORPORATION
LYNE LABORATORIES, INC.
LYPHO-MED, INC.
M. K. LABORATORIES, INC.
MANHATTAN DRUG COMPANY
MANN CHEMICAL CORPORATION
MARSHALL PHARMACAL CORPORATION
MAURRY BIOLOGICAL COMPANY, INC.
MBH CHEMICAL CORPORATION
McCONNON AND COMPANY
MENTHOLAIUM COMPANY
MERICON INDUSTRIES, INC.
MERRICK MEDICINE COMPANY
MERRILL-NATIONAL LABORATORIES
MICROBIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES
MILEX PRODUCTS, INC.
MILLER-MORTON COMPANY
MILROY LABORATORIES
MONSANTO CO. - JOHN F. QUEENY PLT.
MORTON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
MOYCO INDUSTRIES, INC.
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
N.E.N. - MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC DIVISION
NAPP CHEMICALS, INC.
NATCON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
NATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL MFG. COMPANY
NELCO LABORATORIES, INC.
NEPERA CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
NORTH AMERICAN BIOLOGICALS, INC.
NUTRILITE PRODUCTS, INC.
O'NEAL, JONES, AND FELDMAN, INC.
O'NEAL, JONES, AND FELDMAN, INC.
ORGANICS, INC.
ORMONT DRUG AND CHEMICAL CO., INC.
OTIS CLAPP AND SONS
FORT MITCHELL
RUPERT
BALTIMORE
CHASKA
AUGUSTA
FRANKLIN
MIAMI
PETROLIA
BROOKFIELD
PHILADELPHIA
ERIE
SOUTH EL MONTE
ST. LOUIS
BERKELEY
ORISKANY FALLS
ST. LOUIS
NEEDHAM HEIGHTS
CHICAGO
FAIRFIELD
HILLSIDE
LOUISVILLE
SOUTH HACKENSACK
LOS ANGELES
ORANGE
WINONA
BUFFALO
PEORIA
WACO
MILWAUKEE
WALKERSVILLE
CHICAGO
RICHMOND
SARASOTA
ST. LOUIS
MEMPHIS
PHILADELPHIA
MORGANTOWN
NORTH BILLERICA
LODI
PLAINVIEW
BALTIMORE
DEER PARK
HARRIMAN
MIAMI
BUENA PARK
ST. LOUIS
CINCINNATI
CHICAGO
ENGLEWOOD
CAMBRIDGE
KY
VT
MD
MN
GA
KY
PL
PA
MD
PA
PA
CA
MO
CA
NY
MO
MA
IL
CT
NJ
KY
NJ
CA
NJ
MN
NY
IL
TX
WI
MD
IL
VA
PL
MO
TN
PA
WV
MA
NJ
NY
MD
NY
NY
PL
CA
MO
OH
IL
NJ
MA
-------
APPENDIX D (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME LOCATION
OTTAWA CHEMICAL DIVISION
PASCAL COMPANY, INC.
PAUL B. ELDER COMPANY
PETERSON OINTMENT COMPANY
PFANSTIEHL LABORATORIES, INC.
PHARMACARE, INC.
PHARMACIA, INC.
PHILIPS ROXANNE, INC.
PIERCE CHEMICAL COMPANY
PITMAN-MOORE, INC.
PRALEX CORPORATION
PREMO PHARMACEUTICAL LABS., INC.
PRIVATE FORMULATIONS, INC.
RACHELLE LABORATORIES, INC.
RECSEI LABORATORIES
REED AND CARNRICK, INC.
REID-PROVIDENT LABORATORIES, INC.
REXALL DRUG COMPANY
REXAR PHARMACAL CORPORATION
RHONE-POULENC, INC.
RHONE-POULENC: HESS AND CLARK DIV.
RIKER LABORATORIES, INC.
ROEHR CHEMICALS COMPANY
RUETGERS-NEASE CHEMICAL COMPANY
RYSTAN COMPANY, INC.
SCHOLL, INC.
SCHUYLKILL CHEMICAL COMPANY
SEIN/MENDEZ LABORATORIES
SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY
SHERWOOD LABORATORIES, INC.
SINCLAIR PHARMACAL COMPANY, INC.
SOUTHLAND CORPORATION
STANBACK COMPANY, LTD.
STANLABS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
STIEFEL LABORATORIES, INC.
SUPPOSITORIA LABORATORIES, INC.
SYNTEX AGRI-BUSINESS, INC.
SYNTEX AGRI-BUSINESS, INC.
SYNTEX (F.P.), INC.
TABLICAPS, INC.
TAYLOR PHARMACAL COMPANY
TENNESSEE EASTMAN COMPANY
THOMPSON-HAYWARD CHEMICALS
TRUETT LABORATORIES
UPSHER SMITH LABORATORIES
V- K. BHAT
VALE CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC.
VINELAND LABORATORIES, INC.
VINELAND/EVSCO, INC.
VIOBIN CORPORATION
D-5
TOLEDO OH
BELLEVUE WA
BRYAN OH
BUFFALO NY
WAUKEGAN IL
LARGO FL
PISCATAWAY NJ
ST. JOSEPH MO
ROCKFORD IL
WASHINGTON CROSSING NJ
ST. CROIX VI
SOUTH HACKENSACK NJ
EDISON NJ
LONG BEACH CA
GOLETA CA
KENILWORTH NJ
ATLANTA GA
ST. LOUIS MO
VALLEY STREAM NY
NEW BRUNSWICK NJ
ASHLAND OH
NORTHRIDGE CA
LONG ISLAND CITY NY
STATE COLLEGE PA
LITTLE FALLS NJ
CHICAGO IL
PHILADELPHIA PA
RIO PIEDRAS PR
DENVER CO
EASTLAKE OH
FISHERS ISLAND NY
GREAT MEADOWS NJ
SALISBURY NC
PORTLAND OR
OAK HILL NY
FARMINGDALE NY
SPRINGFIELD MO
VERONA MO
HUMACAO PR
FRANKLINVILLE NJ
DECATUR IL
KINGSPORT TN
KANSAS CITY KS
DALLAS TX
MINNEAPOLIS MN
EVERETT WA
ALLENTOWN PA
VINELAND NJ
BUENA NJ
MONTICELLO IL
-------
APPENDIX D (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL 308 DATA BASE
NAME
VISTA LABORATORIES, INC.
VITA-FORE PRODUCTS COMPANY
VITAMINS, INC.
VITARINE COMPANY, INC.
W. F. YOUNG, INC.
WALGREEN LABORATORIES, INC.
WATKINS,INC
WEST ARGO-CHEMICALS, INC.
WEST ARGO-CHEMICALS, INC.
WEST-WARD, INC.
WESTERN RESEARCH LABORATORIES
WESTWOOD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC,
WHITEHALL LABORATORIES
WHITEWORTH, INC.
WHORTON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
WILLIAM T. THOMPSON COMPANY
WORTHINGTON DIAGNOSTICS
XTTRIUM LABORATORIES, INC.
YAGER DRUG COMPANY
ZENITH LABORATORIES, INC.
LOCATION
ST. CROIX VI
OZONE PARK NY
CHICAGO IL
SPRINGFIELD GARDENS NY
SPRINGFIELD MA
CHICAGO IL
WINONA MN
EIGHTY FOUR PA
KANSAS CITY MO
EATONTOWN NJ
DENVER CO
BUFFALO NY
ELKHART IN
GARDENA CA
FAIRFIELD AL
CARSON CA
FREEHOLD NJ
CHICAGO IL
BALTIMORE MD
NORTHVALE NJ
TOTAL NUMBER OF MFG. PLANTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL 308 DATA BASE: 220
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
E-l
-------
APPENDIX E
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
12000
12001
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12011
12012
12014
12015
12016
12018
12019
12021
12022
12023
12024
12026
12030
12031
12035
12036
12037
12038
12040
12042
12043
12044
12048
12051
12052
12053
12054
12055
12056
12057
12058
12060
12061
12062
12063
12065
12066
12068
12069
12073
12074
12076
12077
Subcategories
D
D
A CD
C D
B
D
D
A B D
B D
B
D
D
A CD
D
D
A C
D
D
C
D
D
D
A
C D
A B C D
B D
A B D
C
A D
C D
D
C D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
D
B
C D
N/A
D
BCD
D
D
C
D
D
C D
Average
Employment(1)
2200
380
5930
72
10
54
1710
224
3540
N/A
365
132
210
850
39
176
442
1240
30
200
60
208
184
1118
1053
433
183
14
873
425
19
503
250
350
100
200
750
100
546
152
300
313
980
666
17
176
6
220
50
493
Start-Up
Year(2)
1965
1959
1931
1972
1971
1963
1933
1968
1947
1977
1960
1968
1916
1960
1973
1951
1967
1920
1950
1966
1897
1972
1948
1937
1954
1967
1974
1973
1938
1951
1963
1971
1963
1958
1956
1971
1934
1955
1962
1967
1950
1974
1960
1953
1934
1964
1961
1897
1972
1970
E-2
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
12078
12080
12083
12084
12085
12087
12088
12089
12093
12094
12095
12097
12098
12099
12100
12102
12104
12107
12108
12110
12111
12112
12113
12115
12117
12118
12119
12120
12122
12123
12125
12128
12129
12131
12132
12133
12135
12141
12143
12144
12145
12147
12155
12157
12159
12160
12161
12166
12168
12171
Subcategories
D
D
D
BCD
D
C
D
B D
C D
D
C D
C D
D
D
C D
C D
D
B D
A CD
D
B D
C
D
A B D
B D
D
A D
D
D
C D
D
D
D
D
A C
D
BCD
D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
C D
D
A CD
D
A B C D
BCD
Average
Employment(1)
N/A
1640
190
275
74
90
250
32
560
135
102
160
54
75
17
265
1415
105
372
10
444
12
922
271
455
280
N/A
22
6
211
32
24
615
32
383
10
875
112
175
20
18
231
1668
8
356
215
905
90
250
70
Start-Up
Year(2)
1977
1948
1972
1958
N/A
1957
1950
1914
1948
1967
1947
1951
1975
1970
N/A
N/A
1951
1923
1974
1974
1949
1959
1962
1963
1882
1972
1977
1974
1937
1937
1974
N/A
1975
1970
1941
1969
1896
1971
1924
1972
1972
1965
1849
1973
1942
1974
1969
1974
1938
1970
E-3
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
12172
12173
1217.4
12175
12177
12178
12183
12185
12186
12187
12191
12194
12195
12198
12199
12201
12204
12205
12206
12207
12210
12211
12212
12217
12219
12224
12225
12226
12227
12230
12231
12233
12235
12236
12238
12239
12240
12243
12244
12245
12246
12247
12248
12249
12250
12251
12252
12254
12256
12257
Subcategories
D
B
D
D
D
B D
B
B C
C D
C
ABC
D
C
B D
A CD
D
A B C D
D
D
D
B C
C
D
D
D
D
D
B
D
B
A D
D
C
C
D
D
C D
D
C
ABC
C D
C
D
D
D
D
A CD
A D
A B C D
A B C D
Average
Employment(1)
34
3
75
66
70
40
270
26
051
0632
450
20
N/A
70
2061
N/A
2000
300
220
55
190
22
212
140
544
1333
22
124
25
20
685
341
84
250
42
46
53
70
224
230
716
6
810
115
259
53
1400
444
1239
4600
Start-Up
Year(2)
1974
1940
1939
1975
1960
1962
1903
1941
1976
1949
N/A
1973
1975
1949
1946
N/A
1907
1968
1971
1962
1973
1976
1976
1975
1964
1915
1972
1973
1963
1969
1968
1895
1971
1952
1976
1973
1972
1973
1947
1951
1948
1969
1961
1968
1940
1968
1939
1971
1948
1922
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
12260
12261
12263
12264
12265
12267
12268
12269
12273
12275
12277
12281
12282
12283
12287
12289
12290
12194
12295
12296
12297
12298
12300
12302
12305
12306
12307
12308
12309
12310
12311
12312
12317
12318
12322
12326
12330
12331
12332
12333
12338
12339
12340
12342
12343
12345
12375
12384
12385
12392
Subcategories
D
C
D
A B D
B D
D
D
D
D
B C
D
D
BCD
D
D
D
D
C D
B D
D
D
D
B
C
D
D
D
D
B C
C D
A B C D
B D
D
D
D
D
A B C D
D
C
C D
D
A CD
D
A CD
A CD
D
B
B
D
D
Average
Employment(1)
176
128
28
4450
65
122
112
135
14
1297
15
303
85
37
3112
31
59
332
8
685
70
88
410
144
174
4
151
1052
30
170
1008
693
2387
210
98
60
2438
374
N/A
198
150
555
1595
377
166
389
91
35
60
110
Start-Up
Year(2)
1943
1966
1973
1910
1965
1969
1974
1957
1975
1925
1965
1957
1900
1972
1964
N/A
1975
1969
1925
N/A
1972
1962
1953
1901
1971
1976
1975
N/A
1967
1970
1953
1873
1972
1960
1969
1975
1906
1967
N/A
1970
1974
1970
1957
1944
1967
1963
1953
1970
1966
1959
E-5
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
12401
12405
12406
12407
12409
12411
12414
12415
12417
12419
12420
12427
12429
12433
12438
12439
12440
12441
12444
12447
12454
12458
12459
12460
12462
12463
12464
12465
12466
12467
12468
12470
12471
12472
12473
12474
12475
12476
12477
12479
12481
12482
12495
12499
20006
20008
20012
20014
20015
20016
Subcategories
A D
C D
C
C
D
BCD
D
D
D
B D
B D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
C
D
A B C D
B D
C D
D
B D
A
B D
D
D
B
B
D
A
B
B C
B C
D
C
D
B C
B
D
N/A
D
D
D
B D
C
D
D
D
Average
Employment(1)
1324
85
163
67
18
750
627
450
10
123
160
579
51
180
560
115
235
1108
78
4095
710
120
4
70
25
224
4
315
18
67
628
14
328
44
242
64
153
55
298
5
N/A
N/A
130
1150
2
20
4
210
45
4
Start-Up
Year(2)
1968
1964
1948 .
1904
1920
1970
1951
1968
1950
1969
1973
1958
1886
1953
1964
1974
1965
1923
1977
1948
1947
1968
1977
1975
1972
1926
N/A
1967
1958
1959
1947
1967
1972
1971
1947
1969
1966
1967
1867
1977
1918
N/A
1959
1961
See
Footnote
#2
E-6
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
20017
20020
20026
20030
20032
20033
20034
20035
20037
20038
20040
20041
20045
20048
20049
20050
20051
20052
20054
20055
20057
20058
20062
20064
20070
20073
20075
20078
20080
20081
20082
20084
20087
20089
20090
20093
20094
20099
20100
20103
20106
20108
20115
20117
20120
20125
20126
20134
20139
20141
Subcategories
D
D
D
C D
B D
C D
D
C
D
D
B
D
D
D
D
A B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C D
C D
D
Average
Employment(1)
13
68
3
1
79
38
14
25
1
81
12
20
12
10
31
31
6
30
21
4
30
15
35
16
150
2
4
1
35
14
6
75
10
55
40
3
2
5
34
3
3
62
7
127
14
50
12
6
40
6
Start-Up
Year(2)
See
Footnote
#2
E-7
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
20142
20147
20148
20151
20153
20155
20159
20165
20169
20173
20174
20176
20177
20178
20187
20188
20195
20197
20201
20203
20204
20205
20206
20208
20209
20210
20215
20216
20218
20220
20224
20225
20226
20228
20229
20231
20234
20235
20236
20237
20240
20241
20242
20244
20245
20246
20247
20249
20254
20256
Subcategories
D
D
D
BCD
D
D
B C
B C
D
C
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C D
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
B
C
D
C D
C
A C
C
B
C
C
D
Average
Employment(1)
^
15
15
6
10
20
22
10
30
3
6
2
5
12
10
200
100
3
8
93
84
37
49
2
12
3
13
6
15
20
6
65
22
2
86
20
N/A
7
120
28
20
31
10
1
59
171
25
3
3
90
Start-Up
Year(2)
See
Footnote
12
E-8
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
20257
20258
20261
20263
20264
20266
20267
20269
20270
20271
20273
20282
20288
20294
20295
20297
20298
20300
20303
20305
20307
20308
20310
20311
20312
20316
20319
20321
20325
20328
20331
20332
20333
20338
20339
20340
20342
20346
20347
20349
20350
20353
20355
20356
20359
20361
20362
20363
20364
20366
Subcategories
C
C D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
D
C
C
D
B
D
B
D
C
C
BCD
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
D
D
D
C
C
B C
D
C
C D
B C
C
C D
B D
A
C D
A CD
B D
BCD
Average
Employment(1)
60
20
15
2
11
13
116
10
6
6
70
2
38
9
53
10
N/A
40
1
19
29
3
15
15
44
60
272
100
5
10
60
24
3
130
4
4
35
60
1
50
20
35
25
2
16
N/A
4
N/A
9
315
Start-Up
Year(2)
See
Footnote
#2
E-9
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
20370
20371
20373
20376
20377
20385
20387
20389
20390
20394
20396
20397
20400
20402
20405
20413
20416
20421
20423
20424
20425
20435
20436
20439
20440
20441
20443
20444
20446
20448
20450
20452
20453
20456
20460
20462
20464
20465
20466
20467
20470
20473
20476
20483
20485
20486
20490
20492
20494
20496
Subcategories
B C
D
C
D
C D
D
C
C
D
B D
C D
C D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
C D
D
D
D
D
B D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B D
D
B
D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
D
Average
Employment(1)
45
3
N/A
15
3
240
7
40
40
4
4
18
N/A
65
21
3
25
2
85
60
2
2
80
200
11
25
3
5
3
6
15
7
20
6
4
2
4
240
110
3
1
150
50
2
30
5
250
3
65
12
Start-Up
Year(2)
See
Footnote
#2
E-10
-------
APPENDIX E (cont'd)
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION
Plant
Code No.
20498
20500
20502
20503
20504
20507
20509
20511
20518
20519
20522
20526
20527
20529
Subcategories
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
D
Average
Employment(1)
31
3
1
2
3
33
8
5
13
6
18
24
2
Start-Up
Year(2)
See
Footnote
No. 2
(1) Average employment for orignal 308 (12000 series) plants is for
1976; for Supplemental 308 (20000 series) plants it is 1978.
(2) Data on year of operational start-up was not requested of the
Supplemental 308 (20000 series) plants.
E-ll
-------
APPENDIX F
SCREENING/VERIFICATION
PRIORITY AND TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT DATA
F-l
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12015
SUMMARY
Biological
Acid Extractables
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
Bla (2 Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Volatile Orcanics
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,2 - Dichloroethar.e
Trichloroethylene
Metals
Cr Chromium
Zn Zinc
Cd Cadmium
Hi Nickel
Ag Silver
OF SCREENING DATA
Concentration,
Influent
62
8
170
20
300
470
11
900
36
19
6
30
L60
L2
LS
LI
Micrograms/Li tor
Effluent
-
-
30
3
14
12
-
3
_
10
100
4
LS
LI
HASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge with Powdered Activated Carbon
Secondary Chemical Flocculatlon/Clarlfication
Gravity Dewatering
ftexobic Digestion
Landfill
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Mastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
D 0.08 300-400
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mgA) COD (nw/1) TSS (mq/1)
Inf. Eff. * Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
On*. Unk. — On*. Unk. — Unfc. 0 —
HA5TEHATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location
1. Influent to primary clarifier
2. XAD-2 resin
'2. Tenax column
3. Rccurn filudge
4. Clarifipr &£tlucnt
No. of Samples
4
4
4
4
4
-------
SCREENING PBX;RAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
1:2022
SUMMARY OF SC.'RFFNING DATA
Biological
Acid Extra-tables
2,4,6 - Trichlorephenol
2 - Chlorcphenol
2,4 - Dichlorophenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
1,2 - Dichiorober.zene
1,4 - Dichlorober.zer.e
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Volatile Crganics
Benzene
Chloroform
Mothylene Chloride
Ethyl Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2 - Dichloroethane
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Metals
Kg Mercury
Cu Copper
Hi Nickel
Cr Chromium
Cd Cadniun
Ag Silver
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
As Arsenic
Pb Lead
Se Selenium
Tl Thalliun
Cyanide
Concentration,
Influent
20
50
L10
1400
20
90
-
120
80
170
20
6400
11000
11000
U.O
1.40
70
510
125
3
3
480
L50
L50
L20
L50
L50
500
Microqrams/Liter
Effluent
L10
L10
-
L10
L10
-
L10
L10
-
.
500
_
_
1.00
20
310
75
1
2
100
L50
L50
L20
L50
L50
330
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Mechanical Thickening
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Incineration
Landfill
PLACT CHARACTERISTICS
Subeatogory Wastewiter Quantity (Mqal/d) Emplo.
gnent
A,C 1.30 100-200
PERFORHHICE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mo/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. *
Rem.
1423 39 97.3 Dnk- °"k- ~ Dn]c- 60
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
am/MHMEd
H«tE.
V
Hct
Hell
r™?
Stitlon
U
equal-
ization
1 Tank
Plint Cooling Hattr
SAHPLINC PPO'JRAM
Sample location
No. of
1. Influent to Molocjtr.-al treatment
2. Final, el'tluott tcfo/o dilution
PotaLlc waiter
F-3
-------
SCREFNTNG PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
SUMMARY OF
Biological
Acid Extractables
2,4,6 - Trichlorophenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extr.ictables
Bis (2 Etnylhe*vl) Fhthalate
Nipthaler.o
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
1,2 - Dichloroethane
Benzene
Metals
Cu Copper
Cr Chromium
Zn Zinc
Hg Mercury
Sb Antimony
A3 Arsenic
Cd Cadmiun
Pfa Lead
Ni Nickel
Se Selenium
Ag Silver
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SCREENING DATA
Concentration ,
Influent
13
64
11
10
11000
3170
130
470
17
?
41
11
120
0.79
L5
L20
LI
L10
L4
L20
L3
L8
1980
Micrograms/Liter
Effluent
6
15
7
8
8
4
71
0.20
L5
L20
LI
0.0
L4
L20
L3
L8
63
WASTEWATSR TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPRKATIONS
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagcon
Polishing Pond
Anaerobic Digestion
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategorv Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
C 0.08 0-100
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
300 (ng/1) COD (mg/1) TSS !r,g/l)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. % Ren. Inf. E£f. » Fern.
1418 348 75.5 2375 160 93.3 621 113 81.0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
AfRvriOiJ POME? »JOM
REreUTioJ
5 5O tf A.eoAToH-6
0
r^"i
|OJTHOL|
OUTP^LL
9 DA,T RETElJTIOtJ
. cooL-i>J<3, WA,Tea.«
SAMPLING PPOGRAM
- Discharge from Treatment Plane
Influent-to Neutralizatior. Building
Lab and Sanitary Waste
Concentrated Waste Buildi.-.g
Animal and Sanitary Waste
Well Kl
Wfil; 12
woujn
Ho. of Sample^
5
5
c
3
5
2
2
-------
APPENDIX F
VERIFICATION PROGRAM
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PLANT 12026
Concentration Pollutant Loading
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
(ug/Liter) (ug/Liter) (kg/day) (kg/day)
Priority Pollutants
Volatile Organics
Acid Extractables
Base/Neutral Extractables
Metals
Pesticides
Cyanides
Asbestos (Verification program did not analyze for this compound)
Conventional
Non-Conventional
Note: Due to other laboratory commitments, the analytical data for this plant
was not available at the time this document was published.
F-5
-------
SCREENING I'ROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12036
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
Phenol 74 L10
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 160 68
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 56 15
Diethyl Phthalate - 15
1,2 - Diphenylhydrazine - TJ.O
Fluoranthene . L10
Nitrobenzene L10
Diethyl Phthalate L10
Volatile Organics
Benzene 260 120
Carbon Tetrachloride 18 is
Chloroform 180 no
Methylene Chloride 6200 2600
Ethyl Benzene 18 22
Toluene 310 180
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 22 11
1,1 - Dichloroethylene 230 igo
Trichlorofluoromethane 970 420
Tetrachloroethylene 14 18
Trichloroethylene L10 L10
Chlorobenzene L10
Bromoform L10
Metals
Hg Mercury 1.20 0 70
Cu Copper 73 9
Cr Chromium 16 10
Zn Zinc 251 loo
Tl Thallium 18 u
As Arsenic L50 n
SB Antimony L20 L20
Cd Cadmium LI .,
Pb Lead L5 LS
Ni Nickel Llo L1Q
Se Selenium L200 L20
Ag Silver LI LI
Cyanide 280 30
WASTEWATER THEATMZM
(I) f
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location No. of Samples
1 - Influent to Wastewater Treatment System at 1
Manhole M-5
2 - Agricultural Research Farm Discharge to the WTP 3
3 - Sond 4 Effluent Before Chlorination 6
4 - 001 Discharge 3
Raw Water Supply 1
Process Waste Discharge from penicillin
Packaging Operation-Manhole 12A 3
Combined Process Wasteatream at Manhole M-7 3
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Aerated Lagoon
Waste stablization Pond
Polishing Pond
Aerobic Digestion
Cropland Use
PLMCT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcateqory Wasteoater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
A,D 1.20 100-200
PERFOmMlCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
•BOD (sng/1) COD (mg/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
1900 35 98.2 4230 262 93.8 840 49 94.2
T PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
tpio.'' . 4't^Ki^"S*t ' W"~t,fg
COMPLETE Ct«ltE5^K5 r .CO""**"
yrf t> ACTIVATED • — *" OZXDAT;OtI ^ ^ LACOOM
R.- S"S°v.) j* ZFf^r™" <1° »•»»! 11 »"*•
1 1
L J
i
BL«3Ct " LAUD
Q^), (3)
DXSCOAUCE 5^**— -•?— ^— CIMC7MATZOII C~ "™ ' -VX. STR8IL12ATIOM •-
*j I ACCOM
I 1 | I 1
F-6
-------
SCtiKENINU 1'KOCRAM
SUMMARY Of PLANT
12U3U
SUMMARY OF SCREENING CATA
iological Concentration, Micrograga/Liter
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
pentaehlorophenol 11
Phenol 3100 uo
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethylhexyl) phthalate 52 uo
,2 - Dichlorobenaene 290 -
volatile Organics
Benzene 3BU **•
Carbon Tetrachloride 50 L10
Chloroform 130 56
Bethylene Chloride 4800 Very high
Ethyl Benzene 1600 160
Toluene 560 Very high
Chlorobenzene 19 ~
,,1 - Diohloroethylene 190 90
Iriehlorofluoromethane 620 280
Kg~Mer"cury 9.60 0.40
cu copper 3110 63
Cr Chromium I60 26
». »<„,. 390 63
Tl Thallium 234
Se Selenium 860 300
MftSTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
r*t*rvtmtian
V a.,1.11 1 41) '"" '" H"°
\nutf _ ~\J*J ' ro.>lim H.P
~""\l
HASTEKATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Fermentation Waste Treatment System chem. Waste Treatment System
Equalisation Equalization
Neutrjilization Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solida Removal Coarse Scttlcable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation Primary Sedimentation
Centrifuqal Oewatorinq Clarification
Anaerobic Digestion Aerated Lat^on
Landfill Centrifugal Dewatering
Thermal Oxidation System Landfill
Equalisation
Neutralization Pretreatmer.!: System
Thermal Oxidation In-Plant Trsatneiit
Heat Conditioning
PMNT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Hastewater Quantity (X?al/d) Employment
A,B,C,D 1.00 1000-1100
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TSS (ing/1)
Inf. Eff. * Rem. Inf. Eff. % Ren. Inf. Eff. % Hen.
Fermentation Waste Treatment System
Unx. 180 ~ Unx. 2080 — Onk. 244 —
Chemical Waste Treatment System
Qnx. 196 — Unit. 1856 — Dnk. 69 —
Pretreatment System
Unk. Unk. — Dnk. Hnk. — OnJt. Unk. —
Thermal Oxidation System
Onk. Dnk. — Onk. Onk. — Unk. Dnk. —
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location No. of Samples
1. OO1 Discharge 4
2. Combined effluent from limestone bed and
hillside storm sewer 3
4. Chemical synthesis influent, T302 to T303 3
5. Influent to T307B (clarifier) 1
6. Process waste line feeding lagoon
T-310 from Building T-€5 1
7. Clarifier T-312 effluent 3
biological treatment 1
Storm sewer 3
F-7
-------
APPENDIX F
VERIFICATION PROGRAM
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PLANT 12036
INFLUENT
From Fermentation Operations
From Other
Apparent
Concentration
(ug/Llter)
Operations
Pollutant
Load 1 ng
(kg/Day)
From Chemical
Apparent
Concentration
(ug/Llter)
Operations Spent
Pol lutant Apparent
Load 1 ng Concentr at 1 on
(kg/Day) (ug/Llter)
Beer
Pollutant
Loading
(kg/Oay)
Dilute
Apparent
Concentration
(ug/Llter)
Hastes
Pollutant
Loading
(kg/Day)
EFFLUENT
Apparent
Concentration
(ug/Llter)
Pollutant
Loading
tKg/Day)
Priority Pollutants
Volatile Organic*
Benzene
1,2-Dlchloroethsne
Chloroform
1,1-DIchI oroethy I ene
1,2-Trans-O I eh I oroethy I ene
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chloride
To Iuene
MonochIorobenzene
Acid Extractablas
Phenol
YJ 2-ChIorophenoI
Oo PentachIorophenoI
Phenol (4 AAP)
10
10-30
10
10
10-105
10
10-560
10
10
10-50
10-50
10
81-279
.001- .0027
.001- .0079
.001- .0027
.001- .0027
.001- .011
.001- .0027
.001- .148
.001- .0027
.001- .0027
.0023-. 0068
.0023-. 0056
.0027
.009-.075
100-10,300
3,500-14,000
160-690
10-20
to
5,600-42,000
6,400-16,000
26,000-227,000
100-123,000
3,500-6,400
10-25
21,500-48,500
.09-9.74
3.31-13.2
.151-. 653
.009
.009
5.30-39.7
6.05-15.1
24.6-215
.09-1 16
3.31-6.05
.009-. 024
20.3-45.9
10
22-44
10
10
10
10
16-26
10
10
20-23
.275
.605-1.21
.275
.275
.275
.275
.44-.715
.275
.275
.5S-.63
Base/Neutral Extractables
Pesticides
Product X
01 propy I n I trosoam I ne
Metals
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Zinc
13,000-17,000
170-5,500
49-180
40-115
1
50-202
3.03-4.49
.04-1.5
.0067-.OI9
.004-. 018
.0001-.0002
.006-. 055
1
5
37-126
5,170-6,670
1-15
313-2,690
.0009
.0047
.035-. 119
4.89-6.65
.0009-.0142
.296-2.54
1-1.9
1- 2
60-61
57-61
I
68-82
.028-.05
.028-.05
1.65-2.23
1.65-1.68
.0275
1.87-2.26
104,00-135,000
11.1-15
32-136
.036-.159
10-32
.01I-.031
56-85
1.54-2.34
(Verification program did not analyze for this compound)
Conventionals (concentrations In mg/l)
BOO,
TSS
Non-Convent I ona I s (concentrat I ons In mg/1)
CCO 4,390-7,130
696-1,640
3,790-9,300 3,590-8,800
892-2,140 844-2,020
9,800-21,000 9,440-19,800
9,900-10,500 11,600-11,900 674-1,210 745-946 21-46 578-1,270
1,210-1,430 1,410-1,730 548-1,100 524-1,070 28-46 770-1,270
17,100-20,300 20,700-22,900 1,520-2,200 1,450-1,840 216-274 5,940-7,540
78-128 91.3-145 2.3-21.8 2.24-24.1 23.7-25 652-688
-------
SCREENING PKOCRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
1M44
SUMMARY OF
No Treatment
Acid Extractables
None
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethylhexvl) Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Volatile Organics
Methylene Chloride
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Bromofora
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Metals
Sb Antifflony
Cr chromium
Cu Copper
pK Lead
Hg Mercury
Hi Nickel
Ag Silver
Zn Zinc
As Arsenic
Cd Cadmium
Se Selenium
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SCREENING DATA
Concentration .
Influent
N/A
N/A
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
-
"
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
-
-
N/A
Hicroqrams/Liter
Effluent
~
10
L10
L10
16
21
11
22
12
L10
L10
L10
L10
210
102
148
30
0.10
23
4
254
L20
L2
L2
L100
7
HASTEWATRR TREATMENT PIJWT raiT OPERATIONS
Neutralization
PLABT CHARACTESISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employnient
A,D 0.13 800-900
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mq/1) COD (mo/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. % Ren.
N/A 1425 — N/A 3390 — N/A
WASIEWATER TREATMENT PIAHT FLOW DIAGRAM
NOT APPLICABLE
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample location No. of Saaples
Citric Acid Effluent After Lime
Neutralization-ttai Manhole 5
Effluent At #83 Manhole 4
Effluent At #37A Manhole 4
Effluent At #6 Manhole 4
Effluent At »74 Manhole 4
F-9
-------
SCREENING PSOGRS.H
SUMMARY CF PLANT
120o6
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Biological Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
4,6 - Dinitro-G-Cresol - li
Phenol « L10
2,4 - Dichlorophenol - 1*13
Pentachlorophenol U-0
Base Neutral ExtractabLes
1,2 - Dichlorobenzene 12
N-Nitrosodiphenylaroine 12
1,2 - DiphenylhyJrazine L10
Fluoranthene Llo
Naphthalene - L10
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate L10
Diethyl Phthalate L10
Anthracene L10
Phenanthrene L10
Volatile Organics
Chloroform LSI L10
Methylene Chloride 35 31
Chloromethane 51
Benzene L10 L10
Carbon Tetrachloride L10
Chlorobenzene L10 U.O
1,2 - Dichloroethane L10 L10
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane L10 L10
1,1 - Dichloroethane L10
1,2 - Dichloropropylene - L10
Ethylbenzene L10
Bromomethane L10 L10
Bromoform L10 L10
Dichlorobromomethane L10
Trichlorofluoromethane Llo L10
Chlordibromomethane LIU
Tetrachloroethylene L10 L10
Toluene L10 L10
Trichloroethylene L10 L10
Metals
Hg Mercury 0.90 0.50
Cu Copper 22 41
Cr Chromium 136 166
Zn Zinc 191 2S4
Sb Antimony 28 9
As Arsenic 20 30
Se Selenium 16 30
Cd Cadmium 7 9
Pb Lead L20 L20
Hi Nickel 15 L5
Ag Silver LI LI
Tl Thallium LSO L50
Cyanide L5 L5
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location Bo. of Samples
1. Influent to Pretreatment Facility 5
2. Effluent from Pretreatment Facility 5
WASTEKATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lajoon
Mechanical Thickening
Sludge to POTW
P1ANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastevater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
B,C,O 0.26 600-700
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOO (mg/1) COD (ma/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. » Ram. Inf. Eff. 4 Ram. Inf. Eff. » Rem.
500 98 80.4 757 687 9.2 Bnk. Unk.
9KASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
f PH C.9U.-TSO-- TN
\ fftlTlOW QH9
|¥ Sl! Q^aiMta
' * , , X£. 2
« © SL'JOSf Pitt*.0, S/0.- Z.
© iLUOSc P'JrtP, /&. - f
j&i:
F-10
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OT PLANT
12097
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Biological Concentration. Microqrans/Liter (1>
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
4-Nitrophcnol 19
Base Neutral Extractables
Acenaphthene 135 -
2,4 - Dinitrotoluene 32
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether 38
Butylbenzl Phthalate 11
Diethyl Phthalate 10
Fluorene 11
Anthracene L10
Phenanthrena L10
Volatile Organics
Benzene 19 -
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 11
Methylene Chloride 160
Chlorobenzene L10
Chloroform L10
Ethylbenzene L10 -
trichlorofluoromethane L10
Tetrachloroethylene L10
Toluene 110
Metals
Cd Cadmium 6 L2
Cr Chromium 55 8
Cu Copper 154 13
Pb Lead 119
Bg Mercury 1.80 L0.10
Ni Nickel 31 L5
Zn Zinc 458' L60
Sb Antimony L2000- L2
As Arsenic L2000 L2
Se Selenium L2000 L2
Ag Silver LI LI
Tl Thallium L2000 L2
Cyanide 250 480
HASTEUATER TSEATMEl
f~
l^ffi
*l S
SAMPLIBG PROGRAM
Sample Location *>• e« Sample.
Rav Waste for Deep Well 2
Treated Haste for Deep Well 2
Raw Waste from Floor Drains 2 .
.River Intake 2 ^
Cooling Water Discharge 2
.Well Water 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Chemical Waste Treatment System
Equalization
Neutralization
Physical-chemical Treatment
Filtration/Presses
Chemical Stabilization
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Landfill
Floor Wash Treatment System
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Activated Sludge with Powdered Activated Carbon
Physical-Chemical Treatment
Secondary chenical Flocculation/Clarification
Chemical Stabilization
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Landfill
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
C,D 0.10 100-200
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/11 TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
Floor Wash Treatment System
1533 48 96.9 1460 240 83.6 262 5 98.1
T PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
4
[ ~l
I^J-^^^^^f^f^^)^
1 t.t./ 1 ^F|
^7\
^" /
1
•^\ (eZL. \
^/ >(
-------
TJ
H—
N>
APPENDIX F
VERIFICATION PROSRAM
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PLAHT 12097
WEAK CHEMICAL WASTE STRONG CHEMICAL WASTE (Deep Well)
TAP WATER CONCENTRATION (ug/l) POLLUTANT LOADING (Kg/day) CONCENTRATION (ug/l) POLLUTANT LOADING (Kg/day)
Concentration (uq/l) Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
Priority Pollutants
Volatile Organic!
Benzene
To 1 uene
Acid Extractables
Phenol
Base/Neutra 1 Extractab 1 as
Pesticides
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryl HUM
Cad (mum
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Sliver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanides
Asbestos
Conventional! (concentrations In i
Oil and Grease
BOO.
TSS5
Ph
Non-Convent 1 ona 1 s (concentrations
TVSS
TS
TVS
TOS
TVDS
SS
COO
TOG
NH -N
4 13-180
3 90-6600
12 24-38
.-
_
1 2
1 3-4
1 1
2 6-11
2 1-13
3 244-336
45 91-206
1 1
6 15-36
1 1-2
1 1
1 1
1 134-397
— 31-154
(Verification program did not
•9/1)
— 1000-3973
85-109
7. 1-7.3
in ng/1)
39-43
612 798-1234
308 350-750
609 689-1 148
307 309-710
.25-7.5
3-6
7-49
3-3
-
~
1-2
1
1
2
2
3-22
40-44
1
6
1-2
1
1
1-134
3
analyze for this compound)
186-240
3.5-16
7.1-7.6
2-5
1380-1662
176-392
1377-1646
174-387
H62-4685 304-508
51 1-665
1.18-4.31
80-150
.8-1.1
15000-87000
1400-130000
44-3700
-
-
1-2
1-10
1
7-23
2-222
431-922
93-409
1-30
91-447
3-12
1
1
254-540
220-1090
164Z7-72320
118-354
5.0-6.7
79-216
19742-31148
1596-3736
19624-30794
1517-3520
.3-130
40000-92928
13000-18000
252-435
1100-10000
720-75000
140-4600
—
-
1-2
1-3
1
6-19
2-155
562-665
67-291
1-22
94-378
1-11
1
1
308-687
69-5900
37760-54400
9-22
4.6-6.6
6-20
20652-30364
2068-3616
20634-30355
2582-3610
.1-.4
20200-78731
14500-20200
297-435
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY
No Treatment
teid Extractablea
Phenol
Base Ssutral Extractables
None
Volatile Organics
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hethylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1*1* - Triehloroethane
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Metals
Cd Cadnium
Cc Chromium
Cu Copper
Pb Lead
Hg Mercury
Mi Nickel
Ag silver
Zn Zinc
Cyanide
OF SCREENING DATA
Concentration,
Influent
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
n/n
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12108
Hicroqrama/Liter
Effluent
HO
-
390
300
1350
200000
S3
1300
L10
L10
32
107
lie
286
50.10
137
24
S22
L2
MASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Neutralization
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcateqory Hastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
A,C,D 0.14 300-400
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (m?/l) TSS (ng/1)
Inf. Sff. 4 Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. * Hem.
N/A 11300 — N/A 25900 — N/A 2640
MASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
NOT APPLICABLE
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location No. of Samples
Baw Process Wastewater 1
F-13
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12119
Sl'MMARY Of
Biological
Acid Extractables
4- Nitrophenol
Pentachlorcphenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
Isophorone
Acenaphthene
Bis (2 Chloroisopropyl) Ether
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
1,2 - Diphenylhydrazine
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Volatile Orcanics
Methylene Chloride
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
1,3 •• Dichloropropene
Benzene
1,1,2 — Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Chlorome thane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Metals
Sb Antimony
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
Pb Lead
Hg Mercury
Ni Nickel
SI Selenium
Zn Zinc
As Arsenic
Cd Cadmium
Ag Silver
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SCREENING PATA
Concentration,
Influent
L42
L10
L10
11
2
448
18
HO
-
L10
L10
L10
77
L10
100
L10
L10
L10
L10
L10
L10
L10
L10
L10
40
57
93
75
5.50
112
28
1395
L10
L10
L10
-
L2
Micrograms/Liter
Effluent
L10
.
-
-
L10
L10
.
L10
349
10
-
-
19
39
89
0.51
50
403
L10
L10
L2
2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Phys./Ch«?m: Evaporation
Anaerobic- Digestion
Drying Beds
Sludge to POTH
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
A,D 0.05 Unlc.
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem.
833 10 98.8 1410 232 83. 5 47S 10 97.9
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
Not available.
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location
Raw process water
Process Wastewater
Stripped Wastewater
Influent to treatment
Effluent from treatment
Ko. of Samples
1
1
1
3
3
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF
Biological
Acid Extractables
2 - Nitrophenol
Base Neutral Extractables
None
Volatile Orqanics
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
1,2 - Dichloroethane
I»lr2,2 - Tetrachloroethane
1,1 - Dichloroethylene
Metals
Cu Copper
Cr chromium
Cd C&dmiur?
ph Lead
Hg Mercury
Ni Nickel
Ag Silver
Cyanide
SUMMARY OF P[JVNT
1-U3J
SCREENING DATA
Concentration, Microqrams/Liter
Influent Effluent
119
-
4000
370
11000 240
130
50
12
20
5 —
3
200
200
20
200
0.70
50
10
1500 400
WASTTOATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Scttleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Chemical Flocculation/Clarification
Activated Sludqe
Trickling Filter
Haste Stablization Ponds
Flotation Thickening
Centrifugal Thickening
Centrifuqnl Dewatering
Incineration '
Landfill
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Uastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
A,C 1.00 300-400
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. % Ram. Inf. Eff . t Rem.
2083 251 88.0 4603 1686 63.4 620 120 80.6
eenir
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
Sedimentation Basin Effluent
Final Clarifier Sludge
Final Clarifier Effluents
OAF Skimmings
SuVaa-i^i-l i'lPJ
^x'° taJgU-^kriCN
.. Ri-l'.:*;,
SCDIMCNTATION
F-15
-------
SCREENING TKOUUAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12161
SUMMARY OF
Biological
Acid Extractables
None
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethylhexyl) Phtlialate
Volatile Organics
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Acrolein
Metals
Cu Copper
Ni Nickel
pb Lead
Cr Chromium
Cd Cadmium
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
Ag Silver
As Arsenic
Hg Mercury
Se Selenium
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SCREENING DATA
Concentration ,
39
820
1050
20
10400
3
8
LI 00
27
89
46
14
32
250
24
4
L20
L0.20
L20
L8
L40
Microg rams /Liter
Effluent
3
2
L100
56
L10
L2
LI
16
L5
L3
L20
L0.20
L20
L8
L40
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization Landfill
Coarse settleable solids Removal
primary sedimentation
Primary Chemical Flocculation/Clarif ication
Activated Sludge
Polishing Ponds
Gravity Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Composting
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
A,C,D 1.00 900-1000
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD !mc/l) COD (mg/1) TSS (ng/1)
Inf. Eff. * Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem.
1043 61 94.2 3000 780 74.0 398 83 77.9
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
AMMONIA
l?^P?eLDCation
SAMPLING PROGRAM
1. Raw waste (confined) to WWTP
2. Discharge 001 - Treated from WWTP
Raw waste - Pl-int A
Raw waste - Plant B
Raw waste - Plant C
HO. of Sanqales
5
5
4
4
4
F-16
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
SUMMARY OF
Biological
Acid Extractables
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis {2 Ethylhexyl Phthalate)
Volatile Orqanics
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
l,lfl - Trichloroethane
1,2 - Dichloroe thane
Benzene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
1,1 - Dichloroethylene
Trichlorfluorome thane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Acrolein
Chlorobenzene
Metals
Hg Mercury
Cu Copper
Mi Nickel
Fb Lead
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
Cd Cadmium
Ag Silver
As Arsenic
Se Selenium
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SCREENING DATA
Concentration, Microorams/Liter
Influent
62
38
150
1400
14
190
27
28
7
-
2
i
2
7
L100
L2
1.34
88
28
63
500
20
4
6
L20
L20
L7
L40
Effluent
4
25
90
-
33
»
1
.
1
1
LI 00
1.31
16
37
20
300
a
LI
3
L20
L20
L7
L40
WASTEKATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Neutralization
Coarse Sottleable Solids Rcnoval
Primary chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Activated Sludge with Pure Oxygen
Mechanical Thickening
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Composting
PUiMT CHARACTERISTICS
Subeateaory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
A,B,C,D .20 2000-2100
PERFORMANCE QF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD imq/1) TSS (mg/1!
Inf. Eff. % Ram. Inf. Eff. * Bern. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
1090 75 93.1 1815 263 85.5 1200 90 92.5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
Sample Location
Municipal water
Well water
Combined influent
Final effluent
Hot available.
SAMPLING PROGRAM
No. of Samples
4
4
S
S
Building "A" process wastewaters 5
F-17
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF
Biological
Acid rxtractables
4 - Nitropheiiol
Pentachlorop^enol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethyliiexyl) Phthalate
Butylienzyl Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl rhthalate
Diethvl Phthalate
Fluorene
Volatile Orcanics
Benzer.e
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Hethylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichioroethylene
Metals
Cu Cooper
Pb Lead
Cr Chromium
Zn Zinc
As Arsenic
Cd Cadmium
Hg Mercury
Ni Nickel
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SCREENING DATA
Concentration,
Influent
HO
L10
L10
160
L10
L10
-
L10
7
-
L5
63
L5
IS
-
60
L10
L5
140
L10
L10
L0.89
L10
L2
121
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12210
Micrograms/Llter
Eftluent
-
-
-
IS
-
L10
L10
LID
10
61
130
130
L5
L5
L5
106
13
12
507
L10
L10
L0.3S
L10
L2
12
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Aerated Lagoon
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcateaory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
B,C 0.01 100-200
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mq/1) TSS (mq/1)
Inf. Eff. \ Rem. Inf. Eff . % Rem. Inf. Eff. t..tem
27 106 — Onk. Dnk. -- 30 190
HASTE WATtR TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
Not available
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location No. of Samples
Process wastewater at waste storage tanks 2
Influent to
vastewater
pretreatmer.t system for sanitary
1
Effluent from pretreatnent system for sanitary
wastewater
1
F-18
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY Of PLANT
12231
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Concentration, Hierograms/Liter
Acid Extractables
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
None
Volatile Organic3
Methylene Chloride
Metals
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
Pb Lead
Rg Mercury
Ni Nickel
Tl Thallium
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
As Arsenic
Cd Cadmium
Se Selenium
Ag Silver
Cyanide
Influent
180
link.
57
150
IS
0.72
L10
-
208
L20
L10
L10
L10
L10
L2
Effluent
20
72
SI
59
39
0.51
45
5
48
L20
L20
L10
U.0
L10
L2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Neutral ization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aerated Lagoon
Waste Stabilization Ponds
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfill
PLAHT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wa3teva-
-------
SCREENING PROUKAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12J36
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
tiological Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Intluont Effluent
Acid Extractables
None
Base Neutral Extractables
1,2 - Diphenylhydrazine 20
Bis (2 Chloroethyl) Ether 10
Benzene 40
Chloroform 30
Meth'-lene Chloride 40000 200
Ethyl Benzene 12
Toluene 33000 1350
1,1 - Dichloroethylene 190
Chloromsthane 1300
Bromcaethane 30
Cr Chromium 34 L10
Pb Lead 96
Ni Nickel 63 63
Tl Thallium 30
Zn Zinc 191 34
Cd Cadmium L10 L10
Hg Mercury L0.20 L0.80
Ag Silver L10 L10
Cyanide 560 220
S
B
n
u
SAMPLING PROGRAM
.. Influent to wastewater treatment system 3
!. Effluent from wastewater treatment system 3
n-con c coo ing wa er sc. arge
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewaterinj
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
C 0.90 200-300
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. * Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem.
G1200 300 75.0 3500 1370 60.6 188 94 50.0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
TO RIVER EFFLUENT
FLOW METER
LUDGE •
INS / N /"^\ SEi3NtM.,
n n n (. ) \ ) &**<*&*
vftcwh \*^/ \*^/
U LJ LJ/^ PLTT**
DID* ^
i — i
r i
M
C
c
t r i AERATION
• BLOV/ERS
O1LV04E . i
IC*EM — -• — ...
NEUTRALIZATION j... .I
AREA I
- ' ! h
i "^
..WET
n f-*- "~ J^JIN''
D£6RirrEjl
f
m
CHEM1CAI U
SEWKR
F-20
-------
APPENDIX F
VERIFICATION PROGRAM
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PLANT 12236
Adjusted Concentration Pollutant Loading
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
(ug/Liter) (ug/Liter) (kg/day) (kg/day)
Priority Pollutants
Volatile Organics
Toluene
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Chloromethane
Acid Extractables
56,000-71,000
14,000-80,000
10
10-16
68-560
10-27
10-12
8,000-13,000
10
1500-8100
10
10
62-300
10
10
100-410
Base/Neutral Extractables
Pesticides
Metals
Berylium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Cyanides
Phenol (4AAP)
Asbestos
10
10
42-152
14-16
40
0.62-0.69
26-39
40
10
69-159
10
10
10-16
10
25
0.2-0.56
21-30
40
10
13-173
20-270
940-1900
9-228
55-455
170-210
42-2403
.030
.030-.048
.2-1.7
.030-.081
.030-.036
24-39
.030
4.8-26
.032
.030
.2-.96
.030
.030
.32-1.3
(Verification program
compound)
.030 .030
.030 .030
.126-.456 .03-.048
.042-.048 .030
.12 .075
.002 .0006-.0017
.078-. 117 .063-.09
.12 .12
.030 .030
.2-.477 .039-.52
.06-.81 .027-.684
2.82-5.7 .16-1.4
did not analyze for this
Conventionals (concentrations in mg/1)
BOD 1023-1266
130-140 3070-3800 390-420
Non-Conventionals (concentrations in mg/1)
COD 1904-2641 633-640
5712-7923 1900-1920
F-21
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Biological Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Influent
Acid Extractatles
None
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethylhexyl) phthalate 50
Di-«-Butyl Phthalate 20
Diethyl Phthalate
Chloroform 130
Methylene Chloride 800
1,1.1 - Trichloroethane 17
1,2 - Dichloroethane 15
Toluene 2
Hetals
Cyanide G25°
n v3
CO
(I
Effluent
10
4
1
250
G250
WASTEWATER TRTATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Coarso SettloaMe Solids Removal
Activated SUui.Te
Mechanical Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Gravity Dewatering
Landfill
WANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Coiar.tity (Mgal/d) Employment
D 0.04 800-900
PERFOgBUICE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mo/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. 4 Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
ONK UNK — OfK ONK — UNK ONK —
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM |
HP
MHINUTOR
\F
\ pa.OOC
I«.OCO GAl]
^ —I**
1 14,000
1
1
\i
1 7.000
-J
i L ff ', 7, 000 GAL.
• 1 — Cmoziue.
-f?") ciA?iFiet>js
* **s
3
GAL. _
Q
-^ ! A
SAUJ | °-a
_J 1
1 60 GPM 301
fifli 'i 1 (\— HP^~^
GAL. >^— >j- __ I 2 i 1
•^ - \ i A
! ~l
f "*— i
T.OOO
GflL SKI MM fa
jrj
LL _
-
4
n 1 \ 78 COO OAL.
A ^^ i
i ;*~*
' >d ' f> " | "33 GP« ] ^j [..
HD llOOGP--t«0'H^V.t/ 78.0CO GAL.
-J^0J/T^TH- i'35^
vzf' y C fy i t .
en , , • ^4^ T IC" Cf™
SOS--M30HJ. I ,- »_^j.
& i ( '5 H'- EO'JALI2ATIOH\T*N.0f
I V
.11 (ID(,F. 7AHK.
SAMPLIHG PROGRAM
Samplf; Loc.it-.ion
1. Influent To WWTP
2. Effluent from KWTP
-------
SCRT-ENTNG FROGMAN
SUMMARY OF PLANT
l2->56
SUMMARY OF SCRERNING DATA
Concentret ion, Hicronrams/Liter
Influent
Acid Extractables
tone
Sase Neutral Extractables
Hone
Volatile Organic3
Hone
Metals
Kg Mercury
Ni Nickel
Pb Lead
Cd Cadmium
Zn Zinc
Kg Silver
As Arsenic
Se Selenium
Sb Antijnony
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
1.10
300
500
40
310
40
13
21
L1000
L50
LI 00
L100
Effluunt
0.70
300
400
40
230
40
14
12
L1000
L50
L100
LiOO
60
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sed'jnentation w/ Skimming
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subeateqory Wastewater Quantity (Mqal/d) Employment
A,B,C,D 30.00 1200-1300
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
JOD (nig/1) COD (mg/1) . TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. » Ran. Inf. Eff. » Ren.
ONK. 189
UWC. 357 —
UNK. 38 —
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
NOT AVAILABLE
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location
Well Area before Discharge Through Outfall 4001
Split Manhole Discharging To Outfall #002
Manhole Prior to Discharge To Outfall #003
Skimming Basin Which Discharges To Outfall #008
Collection Basin Discharge to the Skimming Basin
Municipal Sewers Puntping Station
Raw Freshwater Supply
Saltwater Supply At Intake Structures
F-23
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12257
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Biological Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
4,6 -Dinitro-O-Cresol - 1^>
Phenol "5 10
2,4 - Dichlorophenol - L10
Pentachlorophenol - L10
Base Neutral Extractables
1,2 - Dichlorobenzene 12
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 12
1,2 - Diphenylhydrazine L10
Fluoranthene L10
Naphthalene L10
Di-H-Butyl Phthalate - L10
Diethyl Phthalate L10
Anthracene L10
Phenanthrene L10
Volatile Oraanics
Chloroform 51 L10
Hethylene Chloride 35 31
Chloromethane 35 31
Benzene L10 L10
Carbon Tetrachloride L10
Chlororbenzene L10 L10
1,2 - Dichloroethane L10 L10
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane L10 L10
1,1 -Dichloroethane L10
1,2 -Dichlorpropylene - L10
Ethylbenzene L10
Bromomethane L10 L10
Bromoforn U.O L10
Dichlorobromomethane L10 -
Trichlorofluoromethane L10 L10
Chlorodibromome thane L10
Tetrachloroethylene L10 L10
Toluene L10 L10
Trichloroethylene L10 L10
Metals
Hg Mercury 0.90 0.50
Cu Copper 22 41
Cr chromium 136 166
Zn Zinc 191 254
Sb Antimony 28 9
Ar Arsenic 20 30
Se Selenium 16 30
Cd Cadmium 7 9
Pb Lead L20 L20
Ni Nickel L5 L5
Ag Silver LI LI
Tl Thallium L50 L50
Cyanide L5 L5
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPE.TATIONS
Equalization
Activated Sludge
Centrifugal Dcwatoring
Cropland Use
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity
A,S,C,D
0.50
(Mgal/d) Employment
2100-2200
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mj/l) COD (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf.
3750 56 98.5 6215
3900 56 98.6 5080
56
Eff. % Rem.
TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem.
626 89.9 H36 144 87.3 (1)
626 87.7 — — — (2)
626 — — 144 -- (3)
(1) Fermentation
(2) Chemical Synthesis
(3) Biological Extraction &
Formulation
WASTEWATER TREATIENT PLANT FLC'n" DIAGRAM
Vq, "MS
1 ~f
t-QUAUZAncxJ
(J)%%!£^
~
EXCESS 3UJQrf£ l$
MIXEP turtH A'J/fSV}tf
fSrP-J/l f'ELDS <*£ol'JiAJ(. ^ ftMOf
/lUMftt. fero (Hepj S%rs^
SAMPL
>>'{•
7U"3
1 i
j Et tO- Sah
fairri £
TO&&
f%?a?
U iUJCGE.
**„*,**
ING PROGRAM
Sample Location
• >l *""'* < 1
1
K; awes DS.&ISS/HS
P&fJZB, laoa en* er
f
3£?7f£J*JG
•CJOfrg
TP-£A?£P ^f^LifE^n
re tonuceo HMK.HHL
NO. of Stmplos
1. Raw fermentation process wastes 6
2. Raw chemical synth'ss.is process wastes 5
3. Combined plant pro':eis wastes after
neutralization 4
4. Treated effluent to WWTP 6
Cooling water discharge at bypass line 1
Municipal water supply 2
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12342
SUMMARY OF
No Treatment
Acid Extractables
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethylhexyl) Phthaiate
Volatile Organics
Chloroform
Toluene
1,1 - Dichloroethane
Ethylbenaene
Aero le in
Metals
Cu Copper
Ni Nickel
Cr Chromium
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
Hg Mercury
As Arsenic
Cd Cadmium
Pb Lead
Se Selenium
Ag Silver
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SCREENING DATA
Concentration ,
Influent
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
-
.
*•
S
Microqrams/Liter
Effluent
14000
760
2
2
2
1
L100
130
20
530
27
0.20
L20
LI
L10
L20
L3
L8
L40
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
NO TREATMENT PROVIDED
PIJUTT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcateqory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
A,C,D 1.06 300-400
PERFOSMADCE OP TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TBS (ng/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
N/A 5810 — N/A 12840 — N/A 3480
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
NOT APPLICABLE
SAMPLING PROGRAM
•ample Location No. of Samples
Discharge from Manhole No. 1 3
Discharge from Manhole No. 5 3
Discharge from Manhole No. 6 3
Discharge from Manhole No. 7 3
Potable Water Building 28 1
Potable Water Building 1 1
Potable Water - Building 5 1
Potable Water - Building 20A 1
F-25
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
Sl'MMARV OF PLANT
12111
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Biological Concentration, Micrograiss/Liter
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
Phenol 34
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 ethvUiaxyl.) Phthalate 38 28
Di-N-Butyli>hthalate - L10
Diethyl Fhthalate - L10
Volatile Organics
Chloroform 860 LS
Hethylene Chloride 1100 32
Toluene 290 LS
Benzene 7
Ethylbenzene LS
Tetrachloroethylene - LS
Metals
Hg Mercury - 1.60
Cu Copper 35 26
Hi Nickel 20 40
Pb Lead 80
Cr Chromiur. 16 16
Zn Zinc 146 99
Tl Thallium 5 58
Sb Antimony 68
As Arsenic 32
Se Selenium 30
Cd Cadmium L10 L10
Ad Silver UO L10
Cyanide 590 52
KASTEKATER TEEATCSNT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Neutralization
Aerated Lagoon
Incineration
PLAHT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal'd) Employment
B,C,D 0.35 700-800
PERFORMMICE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TS3 (mq/1)
Inf. Eff. » Ren. Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. t Ram.
G167G167 — Unk. Dnk. — 316 585
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
niiMiir'ini 1 (t 1
1IIIIU IUI 0
l»i »« O ii El
1M. s ,.v „
r!PM! nm
Pi \ FOR raw cmim
ntirim f ( ^ ^ j " [ — oie-neuumi
ts™ T 1 1 litfss ""-3 9 •»'••/
\^/ wnemeo M i-H J 1 ' ^ Trlll
umnui
itfi ravi - i
FT] IOC
L-^»X] j, ,
jl'-U^.i^^jj]!^ (|j
S^' *— * TKtM |Q STP
D O ruir irriuitti
1 ] runai
utto
U9GIB 1 EVIL
muuiE
ucsiaii
TJIIL CIHISM
Ulii BIGiXIC !il!3H
SAMPLING PJOGRAM
Sample Location Mo. of Samples
1. Influent to pretreauient system 3
2. Effluent from pretreatrccnt system 3
Combined sanitary cooling water and pretreated
process wastewater at access pit 3
F-26
-------
APPENDIX F
VERIFICATION PROGRAM
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PLANT 12411
Concentration
Priority Pollutants
Volatile Organics
Toluene
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Acid Extractables
Influent
(ug/Liter)
Effluent
(ug/Liter)
Pollutant Loading
Influent Effluent
(kg/day) (kg/day)
10
110-180
11000-280,000
2-Chlorophenol 10
2-Nitrophenol 14
Phenol 10
2,4-DimethyIpheno1 10
2,4-Dichlorophenol 10
2,4,6-Trichloro Phenol 10
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol 10
2,4-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol 10
Pentachlorophenol 10
4-Nitrophenol 10
Base/Neutral Extractables
Pesticides
10
10
10-170
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
48
114
10
.0086-.011
.095-.33
9.5-310
.01
.015
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.0086-.011
.0086-.011
.0086-.19
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.011
.053
.13
.011
Metals
Berylium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Mercury
Cyanides
Asbestos
10
10
35-89
20-30
126-130
25
40
111-388
1-310
96-268
10
10
27-40
19-21
51-85
25
40
110-2009
.74-.96
144-254
.009
.009
.03-.095
,018-.03
.113-.136
.027
.04
.12-.39
0.0-.0045
106-260
.009
.009
.036
.02
.055-.07
.27
.04
.12-1.7
0.0
160-246
(Verification program did not analyze for this
compound)
Conventionals (concentrations in mg/1)
BOD 1470
294
1270
254
Non-Conventionals (concentrations in mg/1)
COD 4400-5750 2900-3300
4830-5600 2770-3610
F-27
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
11420
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Biological Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
Base Neutral Extractables
Bis (2 Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 30 L10
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate L10 L10
Volatile Or^anics
Benzene 580 1O
Methvlene chloride 76 L10
Toluene 1050 L10
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane L10 L10
Chloroform L10
Ethylbenzene L10 L10
Tetrachloroethylene - LlO
Metals
Cr Chromium 212 3O4
Cu Copper 106 14
Pb Lead 27 42
Kg Mercury 0.40 0.10
Zn Zinc 151 83
Cd Cadmium L2 L2
Ni Nickel L5 L5
Cyanide L5 L5
MASTEWATER TKZATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Activated Sludge
Chemical Conditioning
Centrifugal Dewatering
Landfill
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
B,D 0.17 100-200
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TSS (mg/1)
Inf. Eff. * Rem. Inf. Iff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. 4 Rem.
3250 195 94.0 355 638 — unk. 490 -
WASTEHATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
f !
!l*» U
n j^ i=
r'-^-ai-^ff1 £ |
r 0 i i ^
,Jr^ Q ?
\ T. Tjtlcr (C?-.lorJl) fS: 2T
fcN o»t,«. , ., / i>.
o
o
y * 60 Hp •rrauro
O ®
Eilva I^t
"M-®
Cl a filler i ^— ^ iKlwtttf.
k 'SlMOJlrfK. S»ui.-.= Tro..rh
w V"'"V Y"" — " '
NT n»t.ts32— : — • '
A -— g-r)E-v±^1J1"' .-ds /s\^
^-— - T l», 5.v.».., ^.j.,,
^*~~~~*^ «tj
j . t ^^^~~*^ rii-i'wicr
^^ fc.id oW\
tr..lMS« ^. J
(fc4il riox) V
SAMPLING FSDGRAM
Sample Location No. of Samples
1. Influent to pretreatmcr.t system 3
2. Effluent from pretreatmont yystem 3
Rescr'/oninqi 1. Inflnvnt to pretreatment 2
2. Efflut'nf- trom prti'-.rRatment 4
F-28
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF PLANT
134J9
SUMMARY
Biological
Acid Extractables
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
pentachlorophenol
phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Isophorone
Anthracene
Acenaphthene
Bis (2 chloroisopropyl) St
2,4 - Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Bis (2 chloroethyl) Ether
Phenanthrene
Volatile Orqanics
Benezene
Chloroform
Kethylene chloride
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,1 - Dichloroethylene
1,2 - Trans-Dichloroethyl
Metals
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
Pb Lead
Hg Mercury
Tl Thallium
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
As Arsenic
Cd Cadmium
Pb Lead
Hi Nickel
Ag Silver
Cyanide
OF SCREENING DATA
Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Influent Effluent
L10 15
L10 L10
L10
19
61 L10
1014 L10
14 UO
92
her 300 181
65
27 L10
719
L10
14 UO
73 L10
26 18
640 120
82 17
786 315
12
261 12
26
124 14
19 L10
L10
L10
>ne L10
9 15
32 32
14
0.67 0.76
5 8
29 153
L20 L20
L10 L10
L10 L10
L10
L10 L10
L10 L10
L10 L10
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Landfill
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcategory Hastewater Quantity (Mgal/d) Employment
C,D 0.01 100-200
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mg/1) COD (mg/1) TSS (mo/1)
Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. » Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
Unk. Unit. — 6841 22C7 66.4 10 125
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
(activated sludge) ^-Lagooning.
Design Considerations
Detention time of Aerators — 2 hrs
Detention time of lagoons 60 days
Treatment Plant Capacity 30,000 gpd
Solvent Wastes >-recovery
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location
No. of Samples
Industrial Stre.im Influent 2
Secondary Clarifier Effluent
F-29
-------
SCREENING PROGRAM
SUMMARY OK PLANT
12447
SUMMARY OP SCREENING DATA
Acid Extractables
Base Neutral Extractahles
tone
Volatile Organics
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1.1 - Trichloroethane
1,1 - Dichloroethylene
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1 - Dichloroethane
1,2 - Trans-Dichloroethylene
Metals
Sb Antimony
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
Fb Lead
Hg Mercury
Hi Nickel
sc selenium
Ag Silver
Zn Zinc
As Arsenic
Cd Cadmium
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
Concentration, MicroqramVLiter
Influent Effluent
280
500
900
1700000
700
720000
20
14000
54
1100
57
91
86
21
0.70
50
48
4
311
L20
L2
L100
19
HA3TEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Deep Hell Injection Syatea
Equalization
Neutralisation
Coarse Sottlenhle Solids Removal
Priinary Sedimentation
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Diata-naceous-Eartn Filtration
PLMIT CHARACTERISTICS
Surcategory Wastevater Quantity (Mgal/d)
A,B,C,D 1.50
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (mq/1)
COD (mq/U
TSS (mg/1)
Inf. iff. * Rem. Inf. Eff. * Rem. Inf. Eff. % Ren.
2600 N'/A
7400 N/A
DDK. N/A
WASTEHATER TREATMENT PLANT FLCM DIAGRAM
NOT AVAILABLE
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location
No- of Samples
Process Wastes From Building 197 5
Process Wastes From Building 42 5
Process Wastes To Injection Wells 4
Non-Contact Cooling Water to Outfall 001 5
Non-Contact Cooling Water to 85 Acre Pond 5
F-30
-------
SCREENING I'ROUKAM
SUMMARY
Biological
Acid Extractables
4-Nitrophenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
None
Volatile Organics
Methylene Chloride
Metals
Hg Mercury
Cu Copper
Cr Chromium
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
As Arsenic
Se Selenium
Pb Lead
Cd Cadmium
As Arsenic
Mi Nickel
Ag Silver
Tl Thallium
Cyanide
SUMMARY OF PLANT
12462
OF SCREENING LiftTA
Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Influent Effluent
1600 MOO
70 L20
70
L0.20 1.30
29 48
L10 17
89 122
28 50
31 -
60 56
5 6
LI LI
L20
L50 LSO
LI T.I
L100 L100
L30
HASTEHATEK TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Sludge Hauling
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcateoorv Wastewater praantitv (Mqal/d) Employment
A 0.30 0-100
PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT SYSTEM
BOD (rog/1) COD (mq/1) TSS (mg/i)
Inf. Eff. 1 Rem. Inf. Eff. * Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem.
1000 156 84.4 4660 liOO 72.1 960 1000 —
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM
Hot available.
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location No. of Samples
Raw water supply 1
Existing backwash lagoon effluent 1
Biological waste treatment system effluent 6
Process wastes influent line to the biological
treatment system 3
Combined influent to the biological wastewater
treatment system 2
Effluent from final clarifier 4
F-31
-------
SCREENING PRCX;».Vt
SUMMARY OF PIACT
129M
Chemical
SUMMARY OF SCREENING DATA
Concentration, Micrograms/Liter
Influent Effluent
Acid Extractables
2,4 - Dimethylphenol
2 - Nitrophenol
Phenol
Base Neutral Extractables
Nitrobenzene
Volatile Orqanics
1,1 - Dichloroethylene
1,2 - Dichloroethane
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Metals
Cu Copper
Cr Chromium
Zn Zinc
Sb Antimony
A3 Arsenic
Se Selcaiun
Cd Cadmium
Pb Lead
Hi Nickel
Ag Sil/er
Tl Thallium
UNK.
DNK.
UNK.
UNK.
UNK.
UNK.
36
L10
80
UNK.
UNK.
UNK.
4100
1100
16500
30
370
20
6650
35
9
70
90
7200
310
LI
L5
L50
L2
L10
HASTEHATER TREATMENT PLANT UNIT OPERATIONS
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary chemical Plocculation/Clarification
Detention Pond
PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
Subcateqory Wastewater Quantity (Mgal/d)
C,D 0-"5
BOD (mg/1)
PEiiFOaMANCE CF TREATMENT SYSTEM
COD (mg/1)
TSS (mq/1)
Inf. Eff. t Rem. Inf. Eff. % Rem. Inf. Eff. t
Unk. 625
Cnk. 1380
Dnk. 31
WASTSWATER TRZATMENT PLANT FIOW DIASRAM
NOT AVAILABLE
SAMPLING PROGRAM
Sample Location
No. of Samples
Detention Pond Effluent 3
Raw Waste Feed for Bench Scale Treatment 2
Units
Activated Sludge Effluent 1
Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT)
^fluent i
F-32
-------
APPENDIX G
308 PORTFOLIO
PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
G-l
-------
APPENDIX G
308 PORTFOLIO PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
Concentrations (mg/1)
Priority Pollutants by Plant
Plant 12003; A CD N*
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Influent
Effluent
Plant 12018:
A CD
N*
Zinc
Plant 12037;
CD
N*
Methylene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12038:
Chloride
Phenol
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Cyanide
Plant 12052:
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12056:
Chromium
Zinc
Plant 12057;
Toluene
ABCD
AS, AL, PC*
CD
AS*
AC*
CD
N*
10
80
5
100
12
930
190
50
0,
100
40
89
102
20
100
0.
30
1100
21
45
100
10,
100
92
100
5
17900
780
G-2
-------
APPENDIX G (cont.)
308 PORTFOLIO PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
Concentrations (mg/1)
Priority Pollutants by Plant Influent Effluent
Plant 12062: CD N*
Zinc200
Plant 12065; D N*
Cyanide 1000
Plant 12089; B D TFf ASf PP*
Mercury 0.3
Plant 12102; CD N*
Phenol8000
Chromium 100
Copper 50°
Lead 100
Mercury 1-0
Nickel 50°
Zinc 100°
Cyanide 1°0°
Plant 12107; B D N*
Phenol 290
Chromium 29°
Lead 90
Plant 12123; CD N*
Benzene "
Carbon Tetrachloride 50
Chloroform 50
Methylene Chloride I5
Toluene {"
Chromium ^
Copper J3
Lead II
Mercury ">u
Nickel 50
Zinc J68
Cyanide "J
Phenol 3°
Chromium ;™
Zinc 37°
G-3
-------
APPENDIX G (cont.)
308 PORTFOLIO PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
Priority Pollutants by Plant
Plant 12161
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Toleune
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Plant 12186:
Cyanide
Plant 12236;
Cyanide
Plant 12244;
Chromium
Mercury
Plant 12245;
Toluene
Plant 12252;
Chromium
A CD
CD
ABC
A CD
AS, PP*
AS, AL*
Copper
Plant 12195: C
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12204: ABCD
Chromium
Plant 12224: D
Copper
Zinc
Plant 12235: C
N*
AS*
N*
N*
AS*
N*
N*
P*
Concentrations (mg/1)
Influent Effluent
14
800 250
11000 6
9100 17
10
80
70
2.
2100
137
240
200
200
200
0.
300
400
10
9 15
97
177
34 14
120 290
500
0.
0
1
5
290000
14000
70
G-4
-------
APPENDIX G (cont.)
308 PORTFOLIO PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
Priority Pollutants by Plant
Concentrations (mg/1)
Influent
Effluent
Plant 12257:
ABCD
AS*
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12282:
BCD
SF*
Mercury
Plant 12287:
D
AL*
Phenol
Chromium
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12289;
31
100
80
N*
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12302:
N*
Toleune
Plant 12339:
A CD
AS, PC*
Phenol
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Cyanide
22000000
117
120000
Plant 12342:
A CD
N*
Phenol
Methylene
Chloride
30
100
50
50
0,
1300
250
10
80.0
10
100
80
20
300
540
680
7.0
200
2050
15
79
9
742
85
541
117
4.
983
2100
210
9300
G-5
-------
APPENDIX G (cont.)
308 PORTFOLIO PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
Concentrations (mg/1)
Priority Pollutants by Plant
Influent
Effluent
Plant 12407:
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12411:
AS, PC, PP*
BCD
AL*
Phenol
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Plant 12414; _ D
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Plant 12420:
B D
AS*
Phenol
Toluene
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12440:
168
174
N*
Phenol
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 12458:
CD
N*
Phenol
Plant 12468:
N*
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
70
23
90
10.0
21
2300
106
3990
1650
4
49
4
7
130
160
174
300
170
260
600
3
750
300
1000
11
70
70
0,
26
80
200
192
140
24
0,
100
180
G-6
-------
APPENDIX G (cont.)
308 PORTFOLIO PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
Priority Pollutants by Plant
Plant 12475: C AS*
Phenol
Plant 12477:
BC
N*
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 20033:
Concentrations (mg/1)
Influent Effluent
10 10
50
2000
300
50
5,
500
5600
760
CD
P*
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Plant 20037:
200
AS, AL, PP*
Phenol
Plant 20245:
A C
AS*
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Plant 20246: C ASf MF*
Phenol
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
130
130
72
4
40000
1700
37
8400
0,
490
37000
1500
G-7
200
250
110
0.2
200
250
8
34
2
42
2
1
86
23
41
0.1
6
3500
40
172
3
8
6
1
19
55
2
0,
2
88
36
-------
APPENDIX G (cont. )
308 PORTFOLIO PRIORITY POLLUTANT DATA
Concentrations (mg/1)
Priority Pollutants by Plant Influent _ Effluent
Plant 20254; _ C _ AL, PP*
Phenol 65
Cyanide 70
Plant 20297; _ C _ TF, AS, PC*
Phenol 1800 60
Cyanide 200 110
Plant 20321; D N
_ _
Copper 300
Zinc 2000
Plant 20342; C P
_ _
Phenol 21 12
Chloroform 20
Toluene 8
Chromium 50
Copper 50
Mercury 0.2
Nickel 50
*End-of-Pipe Treatment Abbreviations:
N = No Treatment
P = Primary
TF = Trickling Filter
AS = Activated Sludge
AL = Aerated Lagoon
PP = Polishing Pond
PC = Physical/Chemical
AC = Activated Carbon
MF = Multimedia Filter
SF = Sand Filtration
G-8
-------
APPENDIX H
308 PORTFOLIO
TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT DATA
H-l
-------
APPENDIX H
308 PORTFOLIO TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT DATA
Plant
Code
12000
12001
12012
12015
12016
12018
12022
12023
12026
12031
12036
12037
12038
12040
12053
12062
12066
12069
12084
12087
12089
12095
12097
12098
12102
12104
12119
12125
12132
12135
12141
12143
12159
12160
Sub-
Category
D
D
B D
D
D
A CD
A C
D
C
D
A
CD
ABCD
B D
D
CD
BCD
D
BCD
C
B D
CD
CD
D
CD
D
A D
D
A C
BCD
D
D
CD
D
Major End-of-Pipe
Treatment*
N
AL
P
AS, AC, OP
N
N
TF, AS
N
AS, AL, PP
N
TF, AS, AL, PP
N
Fermentation Wastes
AS, PC
Chemical Wastes
AL, PC
N
TF, AS, SF
N
AS, AL
N
N
P
TF, AS, PP
PC, OP
ASw/PAC, OP
AS
N
SP
AS, PC
PC
TF, AS, SP
P
AS
N
N
AS, PC, MF
BOD(mg/l)
Inf.
80
611
259
1210
33
1551
4597
1865
344
1340
1811
6210
5717
210
229
2600
1195
320
5772
27416
465
2705
85
2330
200
93
79
530
Eff.
21
19
105
93
13
244
1140
8
331
13
28
693
12
7
218
29
4
5
COD(mg/l)
Inf.
916
489
76
4240
2521
6893
12023
1741
800
1205
2924
450
10450
56902
2556
5124
157
256
4800
400
358
Eff.
54
946
197
1453
4470
67
289
2886
40
40
456
203
TSS(mg/l)
Inf.
80
273
146
135
11
512
84
222
705
775
2264
4483
280
383
49
116
30
1465
2501
193
354
143
19
53
200
143
4128
Eff.
15
38
326
44
306
457
2
251
13
6
29
336
22
70
88
29
12
43
-------
APPENDIX H (cont.)
308 PORTFOLIO TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT DATA
Plant
Code
12161
12168
12183
12185
12186
12187
12191
12195
12199
12204
12205
12231
12235
12236
12239
12240
12248
12257
12261
12275
12283
12287
12294
12298
12307
12308
12317
12338
12339
12343
12406
12407
12411
12420
12454
12462
12463
Sub-
Category
A CD
ABCD
B
BC
CD
C
BCD
C
A CD
ABCD
D
D
C
C
D
CD
D
ABCD
C
BC
D
D
CD
D
D
D
D
D
A CD
A CD
C
C
BCD
B D
B D
A
B D
Major End-of-Pipe
Treatment*
AS, PP
N
N
N
AS, AL
TF
P
N
N
AS
AS, SP
AL, SP
N
AS
AS
PC
AS
AS
AL, PC
P
AS
AL
AS, MF
AS
AS, AL
AS
AS, PC, MF
AS, SF
AS, PC
P
PC, PP, OP
AS, PC, PP
AL
AS
TF
AS, AL
AS, SP, PC, OP
BOD(mg/l)
Inf.
987
1300
4
47
653
215
2180
1220
2500
12374
1117
1573
244
3000
366
30
1404
732
130
760
200
636
54
7100
7520
102
Eff.
72
129
146
60
200
149
284
3636
10
120
35
56
208
15
18
32
30
45
869
4636
288
143
6
COD(mg/l)
Inf.
2978
3300
10
154
1950
1352
584
2628
22250
2674
1608
486
15574
50
3288
2390
372
1064
430
15700
12032
Eff.
944
683
407
81
600
553
290
8481
63
9880
51
658
83
107
2370
7418
297
29
TSS(mg/l)
Inf.
398
500
3
7
124
92
650
2000
100
950
3089
12
67
39
200
420
30
369
4923
Eff.
196
328
320
40
50
90
174
286
35
500
567
50
13
28
26
90
50
30
10
17
1793
4048
97
9
-------
APPENDIX H (cont.)
308 PORTFOLIO TRADITIONAL POLLUTANT DATA
Plant
Code
12471
12475
12476
12477
20037
20165
20201
20204
20206
20245
20246
20257
20297
20312
20319
20342
20363
Sub-
Category
B
C
D
BC
D
BC
D
CD
C
A C
C
C
C
BCD
D
C
A CD
Major End-of-Pipe
Treatment*
AL, PP, OP
AS
AS
N
AS, AL, PP
AL
AS
AL
AL
AS
AS, MF,
AS
TF, AS, PC
AL
TF, SP
P
P
BOD(mg/l)
COD(mg/l)
Inf.
50
10670
10670
327
200
1600
1600
497
484
380
1500
609
8460
Eff.
14
1960
1960
20
32
6
370
5
56
13
143
20
150
15
Inf.
169
16140
16140
725
541
1370
12000
1350
1358
870
16748
Eff.
6440
6440
113
50
340
74
128
329
TSS(mg/l)
Inf. Eff.
93
47
147
500
32
1535
59
2340
2340
47
24
14
10
32
33
36
150
9
* ABBREVIATIONS:
N = No Treatment
P = Primary
TF = Trickling Filter
AS = Activated Sludge (w/PAC = with Powdered Activated Carbon)
AL = Aerated Lagoon
SP = Stabilization Pond
PP = Polishing Pond
OP = Other Polishing
PC = Physical/Chemical
AC = Activated Carbon
MF = Multimedia Filter
SF = Sand Filtration
-------
APPENDIX I
308 PORTFOLIO
WASTEWATER PLOW DATA
1-1
-------
APPENDIX I
308 PORTFOLIO
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Plant No.
DIRECT DISCHARGERS!
12001
12006
12022
12026
12030
12036
12038
12053
12057*
12073
12085
12089
12095
12097
12098
12104*
12117
12119
12132
12160
12161
12175
12187*
12194
12205
12235
12236
12239
12248
12256*
12261
12264*
12267
12283
12287*
12294
12298
12307
12308
12317
12338
12339
12406
Subcategory
D
D
A C
C
D
A
A B C D
D
C D
C
D
B D
C D
C D
D
D
B D
A D
A C
D
A CD
D
C
D
D
C
C
D
D
A B C D
C
A B D
D
D
D
C D
D
D
D
D
D
A CD
C
Discharge Flow, MGD
0.155
0.125
1.300
0.101
0.030
1.128
2.607
0.004
0.005
0.015
0.420
0.155
0.071
0.035
0.002
0.367
0.010
0.032
0.460
0.006
1.332
0.004
0.913
0.002
0.030
0.171
0.810
0.002
0.035
7.250
0.051
0.044
0.005
0.013
0.131
0.089
0.003
0.001
0.059
0.390
0.001
1.600
0.310
1-2
-------
APPENDIX I
308 PORTFOLIO
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Plant No.
12407
12459
12462
12463
12471
20037
20165
20245
20246
20257
20319
20370
20402
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS;
12000
12005
12007
12011
12016
12018
12023
12024
12031
12035
12037
12040
12043
12044
12048
12051
12054
12055
12056
12057*
12058
12060
12061
12062
12065
12066
12069
12073
Subcategory
C
D
A
B D
B
D
B C
A C
C
C
D
B C
D
D
B
D
A B D
D
A CD
D
D
D
D
C D
B D
C
A D
C D
D
D
D
D
C D
D
D
B
C D
D
BCD
D
C
Discharge Flowf MGD
0.731
0.073
0.170
0.003
0.043
0.037
0.004
0.500
1.250
0.115
0.003
0.140
0.024
0.140
0.001
0.527
0.031
0.009
0.020
0.020
0.033
0.001
0.003
0.125
0.063
0.001
2.973
0.089
0.009
0.008
0.002
0.110
0.080
0.005
0.104
0.042
0.075
0.005
0.259
0.013
0.815
1-3
-------
APPENDIX I
308 PORTFOLIO
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Plant No.
12074
12076
12077
12080
12083
12084
12087
12088
12093
12100
12104*
12107
12112
12113
12115
12118
12120
12123
12131
12135
12141
12143
12145
12155
12166
12168
12171
12178
12183
12186
12187*
12195
12198
12199
12204
12206
12210
12212
12219
12226
12230
12238
12240
12244
12245
12246
Subcategory
D
D
C D
D
D
BCD
C
D
C D
C D
D
B D
C
D
A B D
D
D
C D
D
BCD
D
D
D
C D
D
A B C D
BCD
B
B
C D
C
C
B D
A CD
A B C D
D
B C
D
D
B
B
D
C D
C
ABC
C D
Discharge Flowy MGD
0.037
0.001
0.022
0.090
0.217
0.008
0.232
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.190
0.009
0.005
0.380
0.010
0.009
0.001
0.404
0.004
1.650
0.001
0.037
0.001
1.170
0.004
0.159
0.001
0.005
0.090
0.052
0.078
0.080
0.012
0.500
0.850
0.130
0.002
0.040
0.053
0.040
0.001
0.010
0.013
0.042
0.085
0.362
-------
APPENDIX I
308 PORTFOLIO
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Plant No.
12247
12249
12250
12251
12252
12254
12256*
12257
12260
12264*
12265
12275
12281*
12282
12287*
12289
12296
12300
12302
12305
12309
12310
12311
12318
12322
12330
12331
12332
12333
12340
12342
12343
12345
12384
12401
12411
12414
12415
12427
12429
12438
12441
12444
12454
12458
12465
Subcategory
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Discharge Flow, MGD
0.029
0.002
0.047
0.001
0.865
0.213
0.410
0.600
0.125
0.127
0.003
0.426
0.034
0.004
0.070
0.003
0.016
0.160
1.028
0.034
0.007
0.018
0.240
0.100
0.010
1.606
0.380
0.045
0.017
0.034
0.701
0.088
0.020
0.002
0.223
0.300
0.464
0.080
0.011
0.005
0.004
1.300
0.076
0.100
0.778
0.018
1-5
-------
APPENDIX I
308 PORTFOLIO
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Plant No,
12467
12468
12470
12472
12473
12474
12477
20008
20020
20033
20034
20058
20064
20139
20142
20169
20177
20187
20188
20203
20216
20229
20237
20240
20244
20247
20254
20263
20267
20270
20288
20310
20311
20312
20321
20328
20331
20339
20342
20349
20350
20353
20355
Subcategory
B
A
D
B C
B C
D
B C
B D
D
C D
D
D
D
C D
D
D
C
D
D
C
D
D
B
C
C
B
C
D
D
D
D
C
C
BCD
D
D
C
D
C
C
C D
B C
C
Discharge Flow, MGD
0.002
0.038
0.001
0.001
0.023
0.003
2.400
0.005
0.001
0.200
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.060
0.001
0.026
0.001
0.002
0.008
0.034
0.001
0.025
0.040
0.002
0.001
0.059
0.020
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.037
0.190
0.034
0.900
0.008
0.001
0.107
0.500
0.039
0.018
0.003
0.006
0.033
1-6
-------
APPENDIX I
308 PORTFOLIO
WASTEWATER FLOW DATA
Plant No. Subcategory Discharge Flow, MGD
20363 A CD 0.125
20364 B D 0.006
20366 BCD 0.010
20443 B D 0.023
20453 D 0.010
20466 D 0.001
20473 B 0.001
20494 D 0.001
20519 D 0.010
20527 D 0.001
* These plants are combined direct/indirect dischargers. The
value reported is for the appropriate portion of the total
discharge.
Notes:
1. The above plants were the only ones to report flow data in
the 308 Portfolio. For all others the discharge flows were
unknown or negligible.
2. The discharge flows consist of wastewater from the
following sources:
- Direct process contact
- Indirect process contact
- Non-contact
- Maintenance and equipment cleaning
- Air pollution control
3. The discharge flows do not contain:
- Non-contact cooling water
- Sanitary/potable water
- Storm water
1-7
-------
APPENDIX J
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
3-1
-------
APPENDIX J
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Plant
Code No.
12001
12022
Subcategories
D
12003
12007
12011
12012
12014
12015
A C
D
A B
B
B
D
D
D
D
A C
Treatment
System
Industrial Wastes
Equalization
Primary Chemical Plocculation/
Clarification
Aerated Lagoon
Drying Beds
Landfill
Sanitary Wastes
Activated Sludge
Sand Filtration
Mechanical Thickening
Sludge to POTW
Neutralization
Neutralization
Sludge to Sewer System
Neutralization
Equalization
Biological Treatment
Equalization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge with Powdered
Activated Carbon
Secondary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Gravity Dewatering
Aerobic Digestion
Landfill
Cyanide Destruction
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Mechanical Thickening
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Incineration
Landfill
BPT
Treatment
X
X
3-2
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12026
Subcategories
C
12030
12036
D
A
12038
A B C D
Treatment
System
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Polishing Pond
Anaerobic Digestion
Retention for Radioactive Decay
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Aerated Lagoon
Waste Stabilization Pond
Polishing Pond
Aerobic Digestion
Cropland Use
Fermentation Wastes
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Setteable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Tertiary Plant
Centrifugal Dewatering
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfill
Chemical Wastes
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Chemical Plocculation/
Clarification
Aerated Lagoon
Tertiary Plant
Centrifugal Dewatering
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfill
Pretreatment
Solvent Recovery
In-Plant Evaporation
Steam Stripping
Tertiary Plant
Heat Conditioning
BPT
Treatment
J-3
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No. Subcategories
12038 (cont.) A B C D
12042
12043
12044
12052
12053
12056
12066
12077
ABO
A D
C D
BCD
C D
12085
Treatment
System
Thermal Oxidation
Equalization
Neutralization
P/C: Thermal Oxidation
Tertiary Plant
Equalization
Neutralization
Solvent Recovery
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Equalization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Sand Filtration
Mechanical Thickening
Drying Beds
Cropland Use
De-Gasifier
De-Mineralizer
Neutralization
Activated Carbon Filtration
Neutralizat ion
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Mechanical Thickening
Sludge to POTW
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Dissolved Air Flotation
Sludge to POTW
Activated Sludge
Landfill
BPT
Treatment
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12087
Subcateqories
C
12089
B D
12093
12095
C D
C D
12097
C D
Treatment
System
Solvent Recovery
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Dissolved Air Flotation
Sludge Hauling
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Polishing Pond
Mechanical Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Drying Beds
Cropland Use
Equalization
Aerated Equalization Tanks
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Secondary Neutralization
Flotation Thickening
Sludge Hauling
Chemical Wastes
Equalization
Neutralization
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Filtration/Presses
Chemical Stabilization
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Landfill
Floor Washes
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Activated Sludge with Powdered
Activated Carbon
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Secondary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Chemical Stabilization
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Landfill
BPT
Treatment
X
3-5
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12098
12102
12104
12108
12113
12117
12119
12123
12125
12132
Subcategories
D
C D
A C D
D
B D
A D
C D
A C
Treatment
System
Activated Sludge
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Equalization
Neutralization
Waste Stabilization Ponds
Chemical Conditioning
Mechanical Dewatering
Landfill
Neutralization
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Chlorination
Gravity
Aerobic Digestion
Dewatering
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
P/C: Evaporation
Anaerobic Digestion
Drying Beds
Sludge to POTW
Equalization
Neutralization
Neutralization
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Secondary Neutralization
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Chemical Plocculation/
Clarification
BPT
Treatment
X
X
3-6
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No. Subcategories
12132 (cont'd) A C
12135
12141
12159
12160
BCD
C D
12161
A C D
12175
Treatment
System
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
Waste Stablization Ponds
Flotation Thickening
Centrifugal Thickening
Centrifugal Dewatering
Incineration
Landfill
Cyanide Destruction
Equalization
Neutralization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Sludge Hauling
Solvent Recovery
Steam Stripping
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
P/C: Evaporation
Multi-Media Filtration
Flotation Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Sludge Hauling
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Activated Sludge
Polishing Pond
Gravity Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Composting
Landfill
Cropland Use
Equalization
BPT
Treatment
J-7
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12186
12187
Subcategories
C P
12191
12199
12204
ABC
A C D
A B C D
12205
12210
12231
B C
A D
Treatment
System
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Ozone Polishing
Solvent Recovery
Zinc Isolation
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Dissolved Air Flotation
Trickling Filter
Gravity Thickening
Sludge to POTW
Vacuum Dewatering
Landfill
Neutralization
Solvent Recovery
Solvent Recovery
Mercury Collection
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Activated Sludge with Pure Oxygen
Mechanical Thickening
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Dewatering
Composting
Equalization
Activated Sludge
Sand Filtration
.Mechanical Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Sludge to POTW
Aerated Lagoon
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aerated Lagoon
Waste Stabilization Ponds
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfill
BPT
Treatment
X
X
3-8
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12236
Subcategories
C
12239
12240
12246
12248
C D
C D
12252
12254
A C D
A D
Treatment
System
Weak Wastes
Cyanide Destruction
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Oil/Solvent Skimming
Strong Wastes
Cyanide Destruction
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Flotation Thickening
Chemical Conditioning
Vacuum Filtration
Landfill
Activated Sludge
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Chlorination
Solvent Recovery
In-Plant Evaporation
Equalization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Activated Sludge
Mechanical Thickening
Gravity Dewatering
Aerobic Digestion
Dewatering
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Equalization
Neutralization
BPT
Treatment
J-9
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12256
Subcategories
A B C D
12257
A B C D
12261
12275
12282
B C
BCD
12283
12287
12294
C D
Treatment
System
Solvent Recovery
In-Plant Evaporation
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation w/Skimming
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Centrifugal Dewatering
Cropland Use
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aerated Lagoon
P/C: Thermal Oxidation
Secondary Neutralization
Chlorination
Vacuum Dewatering
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Sand Filtration
Gravity Dewatering
Sludge Storage
Activated Sludge
Landfill
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Aerated Lagoon
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Multi-Media Filtration
Centrifugal Thickening
Centrifugal Dewatering
Incineration
Landfill
3-10
BPT
Treatment
X
X
X
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12298
12305
12307
12308
12311
12317
12330
12332
12333
12338
Subcategories
D
D
A B C D
A B C D
C
C D
Treatment
System
Activated Sludge
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Chlorination
Mechanical Thickening
Flotation Thickening
Activated Sludge
Chlorination
Landfill
Activated Sludge
Mechanical Thickening
Centrifugal Thickening
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Activated Sludge
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Multi-Media Filtration
Mechanical Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Cropland Use
Neutralization
Equalization
Neutralization
Waste Stabilization Pond
Solvent Recovery
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Multi-Media Filtration
Landfill
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Sand Filtration
Mechanical Thickening
Anaerobic Digestion
Sludge Hauling
BPT
Treatment
J-ll
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12339
Subcategories
A C D
12343
12392
12406
A C D
D
C
Treatment
System
Thermal Oxidation (3 Units)
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
P/C: Thermal Oxidation
Tertiary Plant
Oil Dehydration
Neutralization
P/C: Evaporation
Tertiary Plant
Centrifugal Dewatering
Pyrolysis
Landfill
Sanitary Wastes
Primary Separation
Activated Sludge
Tertiary Plant
Mechanical Thickening
Evaporation
Aerobic Digestion
Dewatering
Pyrolysis
Landfill
Solvents
Solvent Recovery
Steam Stripping
Tertiary Plant
Neutralization
Neutralization
Neutralization
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Secondary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Polishing Pond
Sludge Dewatering
Landfill
BPT
Treatment
J-12
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12407
Subcategories
C
12411
BCD
Treatment
System
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Primary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Activated Sludge
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Polishing Pond
Flotation Thickening
Landfill
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Aerated Lagoon
Incineration
BPT
Treatment
12420
12438
12439
B D
D
C D
12441
12447
A B C D
Activated Sludge
Chemical Conditioning
Centrifugal Dewatering
Landfill
Aerated Equalization Tanks
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Deep Well Injection
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Diatomaceous-Earth Filtration
X
3-13
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
12454
12458
12459
12462
12463
12471
12475
12476
12477
Subcategories
B D
C D
D
B D
B
D
B C
Treatment
System
Primary Sedimentation
Trickling Filter
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Equalization
Aerated Lagoon
Polishing Pond
Chlorination
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Sludge Hauling
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Activated Sludge
Waste Stabilization Pond
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Secondary Chemical Plocculation/
Clarification
Flotation Thickening
Sludge Hauling
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Aerated Lagoon
Secondary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Polishing Pond
Secondary Neutralization
Chlorination
Drying Beds
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Forest Land Use
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Forest Land Use
Equalization
Neutralization
BPT
Treatment
X
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
20014
20017
20030
20033
20037
20057
20139
20203
20204
Subcategories
D
D
C D
C D
D
C D
20153
20165
20177
20195
20201
D
B C
C
D
D
C D
Treatment
System
In-Plant Evaporation
Activated Carbon Filtration
Landfill
In-Plant Evaporation
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Aerated Lagoon
Polishing Pond
Landfill
Primary Sedimentation
Landfill
Cyanide Destruction
Solvent Recovery
In-Plant Neutralization
Multi-Media Filtration
Aerated Lagoon
Neutralization
P/C: Evaporat ion
Solvent Recovery
Activated Sludge
Cyanide Destruction
Chromium Reduction
Metals Precipitation
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Landfill
Solvent Recovery
In-Plant Neutralization
Neutralization
Aerated Lagoon
Sludge Lagoon
BPT
Treatment
X
X
X
X
J-15
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
20205
Subcategpries
20206
20234
20236
20237
20244
B
20245
A C
20246
Treatment
System
Solvent Recovery
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Aerated Lagoon
Landfill
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Aerated Lagoon
Landfill
Solvent Recovery
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Solvent Recovery
Steam Stripping
Equalization
Solvent Recovery
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Chemical Plocculation/
Clarification
Landfill
Solvent Recovery
Steam Stripping
In-Plant Neutralization
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Chemical Flocculation/
Clarification
Activated Sludge
Landfill
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Multi-Media Filtration
Chlorination
Vacuum Filtration
Incineration
BPT
Treatment
3-16
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
20254
Subcategories
C
20257
20258
20263
20273
20297
C D
D
D
20298
20310
20312
20319
BCD
Treatment
System
Solvent Recovery
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Aerated Lagoon
Polishing Pond
Equalization
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Sludge Lagoon
Equalization
Neutralization
Activated Sludge
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Sludge Hauling
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filter
P/C: Evaporation
Metals Precipitation
In-Plant Evaporation
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Incineration
Cropland Use
Cyanide Destruction
Solvent Recovery
Steam Stripping
Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Aerated Lagoon
Landfill
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
P/C: Oxidation
Trickling Filter
Waste Stabilization Pond
Sludge Hauling
BPT
Treatment
X
J-17
-------
APPENDIX J (continued)
Plant
Code No.
20339
20342
20349
20355
20356
20363
20370
20373
20376
20389
20402
20423
20456
20476
Subcategories
D
C
C
C
C D
A CD
B C
D
D
D
D
Treatment
System
Waste Stabilization Pond
In-Plant Neutralization
Coarse Settleable Solids Removal
Sludge Hauling
Neutralization
Neutralization
In-Plant Neutralization
Equalization
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation
Rotating Biological Contactor
Chlorination
Sludge Hauling
Steam Stripping
In-Plant Evaporation
Neutralization
Primary Sedimentation w/Skimming
In-Plant Evaporation
Aerated Lagoon
Primary Sedimentation
Waste Stabilization Pond
Multi-Media Filtration
In-Plant Evaporation
Primary Sedimentation
Metals Precipitation
Ultraviolet Sterilization
Chlorination
BPT
Treatment
X
X
X
3-18
-------
APPENDIX K
LONG TERM DATA SUMMARIES
K-l
-------
APPENDIX K
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
SUMMARY OF LONG TERM DATA
PLANT
12015
12022
12026
12036
12097
12098
12117
:l2123
12160
:l 2 1 6 1
12186
12.187
12236
12235
12236
112248
12257
7* :12294
(Jj 12307
12317
12420
12439
12459
112462
SUBCAT
D
A C
C
A
CD
D
B
CD
D
A CD
CD
C
C
C
C
D
A-BCD
CD
D
D
B D
CD
D
A
FLOW
EFF
0.101
1.448
0.161
5.157
0.064
0.006
0,101
0,932
0.029
1.653
0.037
1.065
0.722
0.907
0.849
0. 110
0 . 754
0.118
0.002
0.740
0.164
0.040
0.049
0.209
INFLUENT
232.528
2141.616
3669.956
1570.773
1577.262
ND
34,500
ND
490.185
1538.897
ND
ND
831 .724
ND
710.614
294.442
2961.696
1584.286
ND
1003.722
ND
ND
69.500
1804.981
BOD
EFFLUENT
9.696
110.245
108.136
7.019
48.687
603.480
1 .541
ND
166.853
21.932
77.007
707.250
106.714
ND
132.817
26.000
228.375
44.679
11.349
7.810
786.797
495.364
3 . 742
726.806
REMOVAL
0 . 958
0.949
0.971
0.996
0,969
ND
0 . 955
ND
0,660
0 . 986
ND
ND
0.872
ND
0.813
0.912
0.923
0.972
ND
0.992
ND
ND
0.946
0.597
INFLUENT
552.682
ND
7334,695
3542,269
1884.840
ND
95.412
ND
2160,444
4332.562
ND
ND
2421.750
ND
1881 .679
473.902
ND
3429.607
ND
1102.250
ND
ND
298.857
5182.391
COD
EFFLUENT
43.977
ND
1221.750
278.000
43,721
ND
24.488
ND
516.687
850.237
447.536
ND
396.382
991 ,000
537,829
95.847
ND
232.286
106.387
42.249
ND
971.197
110.660
2490.448
REMOVAL
0.920
ND
0.833
0.922
0.977
ND
0.743
ND
0.761
0.804
ND
ND
0.836
Nil
0.714
0.798
ND
0.932
ND
0.962
ND
ND
0.630
0.519
INFLUENT
124.254
260.000
87.943
1059.129
ND
ND
ND
ND
1615,192
795.940
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1009.375
ND
NH
42,111
ND
ND
58.571
2034.595
TSS
EFFLUENT
10.046
84.253
283.679
17.359
26.803
392.080
16.000
ND
115.406
63.602
146.061
60.500
64.714
ND
61.036
60.423
715.268
52.868
31.472
9.819
966.396
ND
14.845
2020.433
REMOVAL
0.919
0.676
-2.226
0.984
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.929
0.920
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
"NU
0,291
ND
ND
0.767
ND
ND
0.747
0.007
CYANIDE
EFFLUENT
ND
ND
ND
NP
0,030
ND
ND
1 .307
ND
ND
ND
NU
0.282
0,350
0.262
NI.i
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND = NO DATA
-------
APPENDIX K
BOD
LONG TERM DATA SUMMARY
INFLUENT g EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION CMG/L)
PLANT-
CODE
12015
12022
12026
12036
12097
12098
12117
12123
12160
12161
12186
12187
12236
12235
12236
12248
12257
12294
12307
12317
12420
12439
12459
12462
SUB
CAT
D
A C
C
A
CD
D
B
CD
D
A CD
CD
C
C
C
C
D
ABCD
CD
D
D
B D
CD
D
A
AVG
232,53
2141,62
3669,96
1570,77
1577,26
ND
34,50
ND
490,19
1538,90
ND
ND
831,72
ND
710,61
294,44
2961,70
1584,29
ND
1003,72
ND
ND
69,50
1804,98
INFLUENT
M:I:N
77,00
315,00
1665,00
48,00
64,00
ND
0,0
ND
1.07,00
105,00
ND
ND
300,00
ND
1,00
60,00
2119,00
701,00
ND
44,00
ND
ND
18,00
60,10
MAX
440,00
8485,00
5877,00
3400,00
4692,00
ND
126,00
ND
1660,00
4800,00
ND
ND
2280,00
ND
1530,00
700,00
4414*00
2726,00
ND
2266,00
ND
ND
114,00
5522,00
AMG
9 , 70
110,24
108,14
7 , 02
48,69
603,48
1 , 54
ND
166,85
21,93
77,01
707,25
106,71
ND
132,82
26 , 00
228,37
44,68
11,35
7,81
786,80
495,36
3 , 74
726,81
EFFLUENT
MIN
1*00
3,00
20,00
1 , 00
0 , 0
15,00
0,0
ND
13,00
6,00
6 , 70
500,00
6 , 00
ND
28,00
2,00
51,00
4*30
0*90
1*10
20*00
32*00
0*0
20*00
MAX
43,00
630,00
469,00
40,00
228,30
5250,00
5,00
ND
653,00
165,00
264,70
908,00
366,00
ND
1050,00
76 , 00
770,00
185,00
91,00
31.30
4566*00
2500,00
9*90
4140*00
ND = NO DATA
-------
APPENDIX K
LONG TERM DATA SUMMARY
COD INFLUENT & EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (MG/L)
•p-
PLANT
CODE
12015
12022
12026
12036
12097
12098
12117
12123
12160
12.1.61
12186
1 7187
12236
12235
12236
12248
12257
12294
12307
12317
12420
12439
12459
12462
SUB
CAT
D
A C
C
A
CD
D
B
CD
D
A CD
CD
C
C
C
C
D
ABCD
CD
D
D
B D
CD
D
A
AUG
552,68
ND
7334,70
3542,27
1884.84
ND
95,41
ND
2160,44
4332,56
ND
ND
2421,75
ND
1881,68
473,90
ND
3429,61
ND
1102,25
ND
ND
298,86
5182,39
INFLUENT
MIN
180,00
ND
2500,00
166,00
.1.38,00
ND
19,00
ND
244,00
240,00
ND
ND
1040,00
ND
706,00
159,00
ND
2432,00
ND
44,00
ND
ND
112,00
81,00
MAX
3070,00
0,0
14000,00
5360,00
3393,00
ND
236,00
ND
9820,00
23200,00
ND
ND
5676,00
ND
3266,00
1372,00
ND
5045,00
ND
2254,00
ND
ND
437,00
36000,00
AVG
43,98
ND
1221*75
278,00
43,72
ND
24,49
ND
516,69
850,24
447,54
ND
396 , 38
991,00
537,83
95,85
ND
232,29
106,39
42,25
ND
971,20
110,66
2490,45
EFFLUENT
MIN
9,00
ND
520,00
17.00
4,00
ND
0,90
ND
28,00
180,00
164,00
ND
178,00
991,00
136,00
14,00
ND
119.00
6,00
4,40
ND
50 , 00
0,0
0,0
MAX
179,00
0,0
3040,00
2951,00
797,00
ND
73,00
ND
1911,00
3580.00
946.00
ND
1234.00
991.00
1954.00
374 , 00
ND
587,00
571,00
194.40
ND
4136,00
325,00
11971,00
ND
NO DATA
-------
APPENDIX K
LONG TERM DATA SUMMARY
TSS INFLUENT & EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS (MG/L)
PLANT
CODE
12015
12022
12026
12036
12097
12098
12117
12123
12160
12161
12186
12187
12236
12235
12236
12248
12257
12294
12307
12317
12420
12439
12459
12462
SUB
CAT
D
A C
C
A
CD
D
B
CD
D
A CD
CD
C
C
C
C
D
A BCD
CD
D
D
B D
CD
D
A
AVG
124,25
260,00
87,94
1059,13
ND
ND
ND
ND
1615,19
795,94
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1009,37
ND
ND
42,1.1.
ND
ND
58,57
2034,59
INFLUENT
MIN
0,0
260,00
11,00
30,00
ND
ND
ND
ND
32,00
24,00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
510,00
ND
ND
0,0
ND
ND
40,00
16,00
MAX
440,00
260,00
226,00
2520,00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10910,00
8220,00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1570,00
ND
ND
116,00
ND
ND
96,00
30239,00
AVG
10,05
84,25
283,68
17,36
26 , 80
392,08
16,00
ND
115,41
63 , 60
146,06
60,50
64,71
ND
61,04
60,42
715,27
52,87
31,47
9,82
966,40
ND
14,85
2020,43
EFFLUENT
MIN
0,0
5,00
50,00
1 , 00
1,30
52,00
1 , 00
ND
5,00
5,00
20 , 00
37,00
10,00
ND
6,00
6,00
64,00
0,0
0,0
0,40
4,00
ND
0,0
9,00
MAX
268,00
343,00
6.1.5,00
262,00
936,90
2664,00
51 ,00
ND
490,00
2080,00
940,00
95,00
560,00
ND
332,00
164,00
3320,00
419,80
204,00
74,20
7890,00
ND
123,00
9585,00
ND = NO DATA
-------
APPENDIX K
LONG TERM DATA SUMMARY
EFFLUENT FLOW (MOD) & EFFLUENT CYANIDE (UG/L)
PLANT
CODE
.1.2015
12022
12026
12036
12097
12098
12117
12123
12160
12161
12.186
12187
12236
12235
12236
12248
12257
12294
12307
12317
12420
12439
12459
12462
SUB
CAT
D
A C
C
A
CD
D
B
CD
D
A CD
CD
C
C
C
C
D
ABCD
CD
D
D
B D
CD
D
A
AVG
0*101
1.448
0.161
5.157
0.064
0.006
0.101
0.932
0.029
1.653
0.037
1 .065
0.722
0.907
0.849
0.11 0
0.754
0.118
0.002
0.740
0.164
0.040
0.049
0.209
FLOW
MIN
0.056
0.810
0.078
0.859
0.004
0.001
0.050
0.250
0.013
0.489
0.003
0.890
0.153
0.907
0.519
0.043
0.444
0.043
0.001
0.200
0.022
0.040
0.016
0.067
MAX
0.142
2.050
0.246
12.001
0.173
0.014
0.177
1.000
0.050
2.432
0.102
1.290
1.061
0.907
1.245
0.169
0.989
0.173
0.004
1.150
0.230
0.040
0.160
0.601
AVG
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.030
ND
ND
1 . 307
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.282
0.350
0.262
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
CYANIDE
MIN
ND
ND
ND
ND
0 . 030
ND
ND
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
0,100
0.350
0.100
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAX
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.030
ND
ND
.1.4.200
ND
ND
ND
ND
8 . 000
0.350
0 . 620
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO DATA
K-6
-------
APPENDIX L
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE METHODS
L-l
-------
APPENDIX L
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE METHODS
Type of Discharge
Plant
Code No.
12000
12001
12003
12004
12005
12006
12007
12011
12012
12014
12015
12016
12018
12019
12021
12022
12023
12024
12026
12030
12031
12035
12036
12037
12038
12040
12042
12043
12044
12048
12051
12052
12053
12054
12055
12056
12057
12058
12060
12061
12062
12063
12065
12066
12068
POTW1
Treatment
Indirect Direct
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zero Comment
X Recycle/Reuse
Land Application
X No Process Wastewater
Recycle/Reuse
Private Treatment System
Evaporation
Subsurface Discharge
Subsurface Discharge
X Subsurface Discharge
X Subsurface Discharge
Septic System
Level
T
P
S
S
S
S
T
S
S
-
S
-
T
T
S
S
—
S
S
S
S
—
—
S
P
S
S
S
S
S
T
L-2
-------
Plant
Code No.
12069
12073
12074
12076
12077
12078
12080
12083
12084
12085
12087
12088
12089
12093
12094
12095
12097
12098
12099
12100
12102
12104
12107
12108
12110
12111
12112
12113
12115
12117
12118
12119
12120
12122
12123
12125
12128
12129
12131
12132
12133
12135
12141
12143
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
Indirect Direct
Zero
Comment
POTW1
Treatment
Level
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Private Treatment System
Contract Disposal
X
X
X
X
X
Deep Well Injection
Contract Disposal
Ocean Discharge
Ocean Discharge
X
X
Private Treatment System
Subsurface Discharge
Land Application
No Process Wastewater
T
P
p
P
S
p
T
S
P
S
T
P
P
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
L-3
-------
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
Plant
Code No.
12144
12145
12147
12155
12157
12159
12160
12161
12166
12168
12171
12172
12173
12174
12175
12177
12178
12183
12185
12186
12187
12191
12194
12195
12198
12199
12201
12204
12205
12206
12207
12210
12211
12212
12217
12219
12224
12225
12226
12227
12230
12231
12233
12235
POTW
Treatment
Indirect Direct
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zero Comment
X Recycle/Reuse
Private Treatment System
Evaporation
X No Process Wastewater
X Evaporation
Private Treatment System
X Ocean Discharge
(Also Contract Disposal)
Private Treatment System
Land Application
Contract Disposal
X No Process Wastewater
Level
_
T
S
S
-
-
S
S
-
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
p
S
—
p
S
p
S
—
S
—
Subsurface Discharge
Ocean Discharge
-------
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
Plant
Code No.
12236
12238
12239
12240
12243
12244
12245
12246
12247
12248
12249
12250
12251
12252
12254
12256
12257
12260
12261
12263
12264
12265
12267
12268
12269
12273
12275
12277
12281
12282
12283
12287
12289
12290
12294
12295
12296
12297
12298
12300
12302
12305
12306
12307
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direct
X
X
Zero Comment
Contract Disposal
Evaporation
Contract Disposal
POTW1
Treatment
Level
S
P
T
S
P
S
Private Treatment System
X
X
X
(Also Land Application)
Land Application
Septic System
Septic System
X
X
Contract Disposal
Septic System
S
S
S
S
S
S
T
T
S
S
P
T
S
S
P
S
T
S
S
L-5
-------
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
Plant
Code No.
12308
12309
12310
12311
12312
12317
12318
12322
12326
12330
12331
12332
12333
12338
12339
12340
12342
12343
12345
12375
12384
12385
12392
12401
12405
12406
12407
12409
12411
12414
12415
12417
12419
12420
12427
12429
12433
12438
12439
12440
12441
12444
12447
12454
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direct Zero
Comment
Septic System
X
X
Land Application
Land Application
X
X
Contract Disposal
Land Application
Deep Well Injection
POTW1
Treatment
Level
P
S
s
S
P
P
s
s
P
P
s
P
s
s
s
T
S
S
T
T
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
L-6
-------
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
Plant
Code No.
12458
12459
12460
12462
12463
12464
12465
12466
12467
12468
12470
12471
12472
12473
12474
12475
12476
12477
12479
12481
12482
12495
12499
20006
20008
20012
20014
20015
20016
20017
20020
20026
20030
20032
20033
20034
20035
20037
20038
20040
20041
20045
20048
20049
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direct
X
X
Zero
X
X
X
X
X
Comment
POTW1
Treatment
Level
Land Application
Septic System
Land Application
Land Application
Ocean Discharge
No Process Wastewater
Evaporation
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Evaporation
No Process Wastewater
S
S
P
P
S
P
S
P
See
Footnote
No. 2
X
X
X
X
X
X
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
L-7
-------
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
Plant
Code No.
20050
20051
20052
20054
20055
20057
20058
20062
20064
20070
20073
20075
20078
20080
20081
20082
20084
20087
20089
20090
20093
20094
20099
20100
20103
20106
20108
20115
20117
20120
20125
20126
20134
20139
20141
20142
20147
20148
20151
20153
20155
20159
20165
20169
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direct
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zero
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comment
No Process Wastewater
Septic System
Contract Disposal
No Process Wastewater
POTW1
Treatment
Level
See
Footnote
No. 2
No Process
No Process
No Process
No Process
No Process
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Evaporation
Septic System
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Contract Disposal
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Contract Disposal
L-8
-------
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Plant
Code No.
20173
20174
20176
20177
20178
20187
20188
20195
20197
20201
20203
20204
20205
20206
20208
20209
20210
20215
20216
20218
20220
20224
20225
20226
20228
20229
20231
20234
20235
20236
20237
20240
20241
20242
20244
20245
20246
20247
20249
20254
20256
20257
20258
20261
Indirect Direct
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zero
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Comment
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Evaporation
No Process Wastewater
Land Application
Land Application
Land Application
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Contract Disposal
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
POTW1
Treatment
Level
X
X
X
X
X
X
See
Footnote
No. 2
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
Contract Disposal
L-9
-------
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
Plant
Code No.
20263
20264
20266
20267
20269
20270
20271
20273
20282
20288
20294
20295
20297
20298
20300
20303
20305
20307
20308
20310
20311
20312
20316
20319
20321
20325
20328
20331
20332
20333
20338
20339
20340
20342
20346
20347
20349
20350
20353
20355
20356
20359
20361
20362
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direct
X
X
Zero Comment
X No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
Contract Disposal
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X Evaporation
X No Process Wastewater
POTW1
Treatment
Level
See
Footnote
No. 2
L-10
-------
APPENDIX L (conf d)
Plant
Code No.
20363
20364
20366
20370
20371
20373
20376
20377
20385
20387
20389
20390
20394
20396
20397
20400
20402
20405
20413
20416
20421
20423
20424
20425
20435
20436
20439
20440
20441
20443
20444
20446
20448
20450
20452
20453
20456
20460
20462
20464
20465
20466
20467
20470
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-•*-»•
Direct Zero
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_, -
Comment
Contract Disposal
Land Application
Evaporation
Contract Disposal
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Contract Disposal
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
Evaporation
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
No Process Wastewater
POTW1
Treatment
Level
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
See
Footnote
No. 2
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X Subsurface Discharge
X No Process Wastewater
L-ll
-------
Plant
Code No.
20473
20476
20483
20485
20486
20490
20492
20494
20496
20498
20500
20502
20503
20504
20507
20509
20511
20518
20519
20522
20526
20527
20529
APPENDIX L (cont'd)
Type of Discharge
POTW
1
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
Direct Zero Comment
Deep Well Injection
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X No Process Wastewater
X Contract Disposal
X No Process Wastewater
Treatment
Level
See
Footnote 2
No. 2
1
POTW Treatment Level Symbols:
P - Primary
S - Secondary
T - Tertiary
'Data on POTW treatment level was not requested from the Supplemental 308
(20000 series) plants
L-12
-------
APPENDIX M
ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD (ENR) INDICES
M-l
-------
APPENDIX M
ENGINEERING NEWS - RECORD (ENR) CONSTRUCTION COST INDICES *
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
Jan.
918
948
988
1039
1107
1216
1309
1465
1686
1838
1940
2103
2305
2494
2672
2872
Feb.
920
957
997
1041
1114
1229
1311
1467
1691
1850
1940
2128
2314
2505
2681
2877
Mar.
922
958
998
1043
1117
1238
1314
1496
1697
1859
1940
2128
2322
2513
2693
2886
Apr.
926
957
1006
1044
1124
1249
1329
1513
1707
1874
1961
2135
2327
2514
2698
2886
May
930
958
1014
1059
1142
1258
1351
1551
1735
1880
1961
2164
2357
2515
2733
2889
June
935
969
1029
1068
1154
1270
1375
1589
1761
1896
1993
2205
2410
2541
2753
2984
July
945
977
1031
1078
1158
1283
1414
1618
1772
1901
2040
2248
2414
2579
2821
3052
Aug.
948
984
1033
1089
1171
1292
1418
1629
1777
1902
2076
2274
2445
2611
2829
3071
Sept.
947
986
1034
1092
1186
1285
1421
1654
1786
1929
2089
2275
2465
2644
2851
3120
Oct.
948
986
[1032
1096
1190
I 1299
1434
1657
1794
1933
2100
2293
2478
2675
2851
3122
Nov.
948
986
1033
1097
1191
1305
1445
1665
1808
1935
2094
2292
2486
2659
2861
3131
Dec.
948
988
1034
1098
1201
1305
1445
1672
1816
1939
2101
2297
2490
2660
2869
3140
Annual
Index
936
971
1019
1070
1155
1269
1385
1581
1753
1895
2020
2212
2401
2557
2776
3003
* Construction Cost Index - Base Year 1913 = 100
-------
APPENDIX H
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING (CE) PLANT COST INDICES*
Year
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
Jan.
136.5
140.8
150.0
179.6
187.1
198.7
210.6
225.9
249.9
Feb.
136.0
140.4
150.7
179.5
187.5
198.5
213.1
231.0
255.1
Mar.
137.0
141.5
153.8
180.7
188.4
199.3
214.1
232.5
Apr.
137.1
141.8
156.7
180.7
188.9
200.3
215.7
234.0
May
137.1
142.4
161.4
181.0
190.2
201.4
216.9
236.6
June
136.5
144.5
164.7
181.8
191.1
202.3
217.7
237.2
July
136.5
144.6
168.8
181.8
192.0
204.7
219.2
239.3
Aug.
137.0
145.0
172.2
181.9
193.9
206.4
221.6
240.7
Sept.
137.8
146.4
174.8
183.7
195.6
208.8
221.6
243.4
Oct.
138.2
146.7
176.0
185.4
196.3
209.0
223.5
245.8
Nov.
138.4
147.5
177.4
185.7
196.4
209.4
224.7
246.8
Dec.
139.1
148.2
177.8
186.6
197.4
210.3
225.9
247.6
Annual
Index
137.2
144.1
165.4
182.4
192.1
204.1
218.8
238.7
* CE Plant Cost Index - Base Year 1957-59 = 100
------- |