&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 ws 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 rr\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 71C (160F) 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 185C (329 to  365F)  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 980C (1600  to  1800P)  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
  70C to 100C
  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.



Cot
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  121C 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-propylamne
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
HtE.
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. Ef.  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 CtltE5^K5 r .CO""**"
yrf t> ACTIVATED   *" OZXDAT;OtI ^ ^ LACOOM
R.- S"Sv.) j* ZFf^r" <1 ! 11 "*
1 1
L J
i
BL3Ct 	 	 " 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
Ilr2,2 - 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''
D6RirrEjl
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--t0'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?7fJ*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
li  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 ot,. 	 , ., / i>.

o
o
y * 60 Hp rrauro
O 
Eilva I^t
"M-
Cl a filler i ^ ^ iKlwtttf.
k 'SlMOJlrfK. Sui.-.= Tro..rh
w V"'"V Y""  " 	 '
NT nt.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                                                  10

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

-------