EPA 440/1-74/026
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT FOR
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR THE
BUILDERS PAPER AND ROOFING FELT
SEGMENT OF THE
BUILDERS PAPER AND BOARD MILlS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 1974
-------
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
for
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
and
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
for the
BUILDERS PAPER AND ROOFING FELT
SEGMENT OF THE
BUILDERS PAPER AND BOARD MILLS
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Russell Train
Administrator
Robert L. Sansom
Assistant Administrator for Air & Water Programs
Allen Cywin
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Craig Vogt
Project Officer
January 1974
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Air and Water Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
Abstract
This document presents the findings of a study of the builders paper and
roofing felt segment of the builders paper and board industry for the
purpose of developing waste water effluent limitation guidelines and
Federal standards of performance for new sources in order to implement
Section '304 (b) and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (The "Act").
Effluent limitations guidelines are set forth for the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of the "Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available", and the "Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable", which must be achieved by existing
point sources by July 1, 1977 and July 1, 1983, respectively.
"Standards of Performance for New Sources" set forth the degree of
effluent reduction which is achievable through the application of the
best availabe demonstrated control technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives.
The proposed regulations for July 1, 1977, require in-plant waste
management and operating methods, together with the best secondary
biological treatment technology currently available for discharge into
navigable water bodies. This technology is represented by preliminary
screening, primary treatment and secondary biological treatment (one or
two stage) .
The recommended technology for July 1, 1983, and for new source
performance standards, is in-plant waste management and preliminary
screening, primary sedimentation and the two stage biological secondary
treatment. In addition, multi-media filtration with, if necessary,
chemical addition and coagulation is recommended.
Supportive data and rationale for development of the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards of performance are contained in
this report.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
Purpose and Authority 5
Summary of Methods Used for Development of the 6
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
of Performance
Discussion of Data Sources 8
Mill Records 8
Short Term Survey 8
RAPP Applications 9
Literature 10
Use of Data Sources 10
General Description of Industry Segment 10
Production Processes 12
Stock Preparation 15
Papermaking 16
Production Classification 16
Capacity Projections 16.
IV Subcategorization of the Industry 19
Factors of Consideration 19
Rationale for Selection of Sutcategory 19
Raw Materials 19
Production Processes 19
Size and Age of Mills 20
Geographical Location 20
V Water Utilization and Waste Characteristics 21
Process Water Utilization V 21
General Use N 21
Specific Process Use 21
Stock Preparation Area .22
Wet End Area 22
Ery End Area 24
Asphalt Saturating Process 24
Unit Process Waste Loads 24
Total Raw Waste Load 24
iii
-------
VI Selection of Pollutant Parameters 29
Waste Water Parameters of Significance 29
Rationale for Section of Identified Parameters 29
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (Srday, 20°C) 29
Total Suspended Solids 29
PH 29
Rationale for Parameters Not Selected 30
Cil and Hexane Soluables 30
Color 30
Nutrients 30
Settleable Solids 30
Turbidity 31
Polychlorinaled Biphenyls 31
VII Control and Treatment Technology 33
Internal Controls 35
Recovery and Recycle Concepts 35
Internal Recovery Equipment 36
Machine Showers 37
Seal Water 37
Stock cleaning Systems 38
Cooling Water 39
Asphalt Cooling 39
External Treatment Technology 40
Removal of Suspended solids 40
Biological Treatment 41
Two Stage Biological Treatment 43
Temperature Effects 47
Tertiary Suspended Solids Reduction Technologies 48
tfixed-Media Filtration 48
Flocculation, Coagulation, and Sedimentation 48
for Suspended Solids Removal
Sludge Dewatering and Disposal 50
Effluent Levels Achieved by Existing Treatment 52
Systems at Builders Paper and Roofing Felt Mills
VIII Cost, Energy, Non-Water Quality Aspects, and 59
/ Implementation Requirements
s
Costs 59
Energy Requirements 62
Non-Water Quality Aspects of Control Treatment 64
Technologies
Air Pollution Potential 64
Noise Potential 64
Solid Wastes and Their Disposal 65
IV
-------
Implementation Requirements 67
Availability of Equipment 67
Availability of Construction Manpower 70
Construction Cost Index 70
Land Requirements 71
Time Required to Construct Treatment Facilities 71
IX Best Practicable Control Technology Currently 75
Available
Introduction 75
Effluent Reduction Attainable Through the Application 76
of Eest Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available
Temperature Variance 76
Identification of Best Practicable Control Technology 77
Currently Available
Internal Controls 77
External Treatment 78
Rational for Selection of Best Practicable Control 79
Technology Currently Available
Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities 79
Process Change 79
Engineering Aspects of Control Technique 79
Application
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact 79
Cost of Application in Relation to Effluent 80
Reduction Benefits
Process Employed 80
Rationale for Selection of BPCTCA Effluent Limitation 80
Guidelines
X Best Available Technology Economically Achievable 85
Introduction 85
Effluent Reduction Attainable Through the Application 86
of Eest Available Technology Economically Achievable
Identification of Best Available Technology 86
Economically Achievable
Internal Controls 87
External Treatment 87
Rationale for Selection of Best Available Technology 88
Economically Achievable
Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities 88
Process Changes 23
Engineering Aspects of Control Technique 83
Applications
Won-Water Quality Environmental Impact 89
v
-------
Cost of Application in Relation to Effluent 89
Reduction Benefits
Processes Employed 89
Rationale for Selection of 'BATEA Effluent Limitation 90
Guidelines
XI New Source Performance Standards 91
I
Introduction 91
Recommended New Source Performance Standards 91
Identification of Technology to Achieve New Source 91
Performance Standards
Rationale for Selection of Technology for New Source 92
Performance Standards
Type of Process Employed and Process Changes 92
Operating Methods 92
Batch as Opposed to Continuous Operation 92
Use of Alternative Raw Materials and Mixes of 92
Raw Materials
Use of Dry Rather Than Wet Processes (Including 92
Substitution of Recoverable Solvents for Water)
Recovery of Pollutants as By-products 92
Fretreatment Requirements for Discharges to 93
Municipal Systems
Cost of Application in Relation to Effluent 93
Reduction Benefits
XII Acknowledgements 95
XIII References 97
XIV Glossary 99
Appendices 103
VI
-------
TABLES
1 Recommended Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards 3
2 Raw Waste Characteristics 27
3 Summary of Internal Technologies 33
4 Summary of External Technologies 34
5 Estimated Distribution of External Treatment Systems 34
6 Effluent Levels Achieved By Existing Treatment Systems. ... 54
7 Summary of Recommended Internal and External Control
Technologies 55
8 Effluent Treatment Cost and Quality 63
9 Recommended BPCTCA Effluent Limitation Guidelines 76
10 Recommended BATEA Effluent Limitation Guidelines 86
VII
-------
FIGURES
1 Distribution of Building Paper and Roofing Felt
Mills in the U. S. (1973) 14
2 Building Paper and Roofing Felt Process Diagram 17
3 Process Flow Diagram of Building Paper and Felt Mill 23
U Effluent Treatment at Building Paper Mills . . 45
5 Sludge Dewatering and Disposal 53
6 Total Water Pollution Control Expenditures 68
7 Waste water Treatment Equipment Sales 69
8 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 72
9 Land Required For Waste Water Treatment 73
10 Time Required to Construct Waste Water Facilities
Conventional and Turnkey Contract 74
VI11
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
For the purpose of establishing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards of performance, the builders paper and builders board industry
has been subcategorized. The building paper and roofing felts
subcategory is presented in this report. The hard board segment is
covered in a separate report on the forest products industry.
within the building paper and roofing felts subcategory, factors such as
age, size of plant, process employed, climate, and waste treatability
confirm and substantiate this subcategorization for the purpose of
establishing effluent limitations and performance standards to be
achieved through the application of recommended treatment and control
technologies.
At this time, some trills within the subcategory are achieving the 1977
requirement of best practicable control technology currently available
(BPCTCA), and it is estimated that increases in production costs to
achieve this level will average $8.63 per metric ton ($7.83 per short
ton) but will vary depending upon specific mill conditions relating to
available technologies at that location. This technology level suggests
biological waste treatment as the basic treatment process, and
limitation, on BODS, suspended solids, and pH range are set forth.
Best available technology economically achievable (BATEA) is a
requirement for 1983, and a few mills in the subcategory studied are
currently achieving this for most identified pollutants. The estimated
increases in producticn costs of upgrading existing mills from the 1977
requirements to those of 1983 will average $2.94 per metric ton ($2.67
per short ton), but will vary depending on specific mill conditions.
This technology level suggests major internal mill improvements,
biological waste treatment, and some physical-chemical waste treatment
as the basic treatment and control processes, and limitations on BODS,
suspended solids, and pH range are set forth.
New source performance standards (NSPS) are proposed which reflect
internal improvements which can be achieved through effective design and
layout of mill operations. Effluent limitations are set forth on BODS,
suspended solids, and pH range, at levels equal to those cited for
existing mills by 1983. The basic treatment and control processes which
are suggested as a means of meeting these effluent standards are the
same as those proposed for existing mills by 1983.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the information in this report, the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards of performance shown in Table 1 are recommended
for the building paper and roofing felt sufccategory.
Table 1
Recommended_Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards
Values in kg/kkg (Ibs/tgn)^
BODS TSS pH
P.aily__Max 30 Day
BPCTCA
2.5(5.0) 3.75(7.5) 2.5(5.0) 3.9(7.8) 6.0-9.0
BATEA
1.0(2.0) 1.4(2.8) 1.0(2.0) 1.55(3.1) 6.0-9.0
NSPS
1.0(2.0) 1.4(2.8) 1.0(2.0) 1.55(3.1) 6.0-9.0
The maximum average of daily values for any 30 consecutive day period
should not exceed the 30 day effluent limitation guidelines shown above.
The maximum for any one day should not exceed the daily maximum effluent
limitation guideline shewn above. The guidelines are in kilograms of
pollutant per metric ton of production (pounds of pollutant per short
ton of production) except for the pH range guidelines. Mill effluents
should always be within the pH range guidelines shown.
The above effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance
standards for TSS are for TSS as measured by the technique utilizing
glass fiber filter disks as specified in Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Waste Water (13
Edition) (1) ."
-------
Production, in air dry tons, is defined as the highest average level of
production (off the machine) sustained for seven consecutive operating
days of normai production.
These recommended levels can be achieved through the application of
available treatment and control technologies.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Section 301 (b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in
1972, requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1977, of
effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned
treatment works, which are based on the application of the best practi-
cable control technology currently available as defined by the Adminis-
trator pursuant to Section 304 (b) of the Act. Section 301 (b) also
requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1983, of effluent
limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment
works, which are based on the application of the best available tech-
nology economically achievable which will result in reasonable further
progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants, as determined in accordance with regulations issued by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 304 (b) of the Act. Section 306 of the
Act requires the achievement by new sources of a Federal standard of
performance providing for the control of the discharge of pollutants
which reflects the greatest degree of effluent reduction which the
Administrator determines to be achievable through the application of the
best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating
methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard
permitting no discharge of pollutants.
Section 304 (b) of the Act requires the Administrator to publish within
one year of enactment of the Act, regulations providing guidelines for
effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluent reduction
attainable through the application of the best control measures and
practices achievable including treatment techniques, process and pro-
cedure innovations, operating methods, and other alternatives. The
regulations proposed herein set forth effluent limitations guidelines
pursuant to Section 304 (b) of the Act for the builders paper segment of
the builders paper and builders board point source category.
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within one year after
a category of sources is included in a list published pursuant to
Section 306(b) (1) (A) of the Act, to propose regulations establishing
Federal standards oF performance for new sources within such categories.
The Administrator published in the Federal Register of January 16, 1973,
(38 F.R. 1624) , a list of 27 source categories. Publication of the list
constituted announcement of the Administrator's intention of
establishing, under Section 306, standards of performance applicable to
new sources within the builders paper and builders board point source
category, which was included within the list published January 16, 1973.
-------
This report proposes such standards for the building paper and roofing
felt segment of this point source category.
SUMMARY OF METHODS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE EFFLUENT LIMITATION
GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
The basic procedures used in developing the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards of performance are discussed below.
with an objective cf determining mills which could be considered as
representing the best existing control technology, a list of every mill
in the above subcategory was compiled and is shown in Appendix I. All
available information regarding the internal processes employed, types
of products, waste treatment facilities in operation, and
quantity/quality of the waste water discharge was then tabulated for
each mill. Evaluation of the results of this search activity made
apparent that very few mills provided biological treatment of their
effluent. Tables 2-5, Appendix II, list those for which data was
obtained. The majority, on the order of 50 - 70 percent of mills in
this subcategory, discharge to a public sewer system. Mills noted with
an M, R, or L in Appendix I are mills for which definite information
regarding their discharge was obtained. There is no available
information on the remainder.
This information was then evaluated to determine which mills should be
further investigated by on-site surveys. The main criteria used during
the evaluation were the quantity of waste water discharge and quality of
the discharge as characterized by BOD5 and suspended solids. The former
indicated the extent of in-plant control measure practices and the
latter showed the extent and performance capabilities of their waste
treatment facilities.
Previous to sending a full survey team to the above mills, a
reconnaissance team of two men was sent to the site of the mills
selected from the above list of qualified candidates. At this time the
mill personnel were briefed on the objectives of the project, the
information that was necessary for the successful completion of the
project, and the work program to be carried out by a survey team. A
copy of the reconnaissance and mill survey questionnaires is shown in
Appendix III. At this time the availability of laboratory facilities,
and the feasibility of obtaining verification data by a field survey was
determined. A tour of the plant and the treatment facilities, and a
review of the available mill records on waste streams, both internal and
external, were made. The objective of this effort was to verify that
the mill was an exemplary mill and that the mill records could be
validated by a field survey team. The types of cost records and
information required for the project were described at this time so that
-------
the mill would have the time to compile this information which was then
collected by the mill survey team.
The field survey team consisted of three to seven men. The goal was to
obtain analytical and flow data on various in-plant and out-of-plant
treatment systems. Samples were collected every hour for 3-7 days,
composited on a 24 hour basis, and analyzed on-site by the survey team
or by an independent laboratory. All analyses were performed following
mathods described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Waste Water (13th Edition) (1) or equivalent EPA-accepted methods, (See
Appendix III).
During the survey, samples were split between the mill laboratory
personnel and the survey team. The results of this effort are tabulated
in Table 6, Section VII. The objective of this effort was, if
necessary, to generate an "analytical procedure factor" to be applied to
the 12 month data collected by the mill. This would place all data on
the same analytical base. Table 1, Appendix II, shows a sample
comparison between results of the split samples.
The data, subject to any corrections indicated from the above
procedures, was used to generate a broad based data bank. The tons per
day of production for each mill were corrected to air-dry tons (ADT) as
required. Reported flows by mills were evaluated and corrected if
necessary to include all waste water flows which should be reported as
contributing pollutant loads.
The summary bloc of data shown in Table 6, Section VII, is the basis for
the recommendations made in this report. They were developed from
twelve months of daily records from each mill, when available. The data
that have been selected are believed to be in accordance with accepted
standards of the analytical procedures verified by survey programs
described in detail atove.
In addition to the above accumulated data and information, the full
range of control and treatment technologies existing applicable to
builders paper and roofing felt segment was identified. This included
an identification of each distinct control and treatment technology,
including both inplant and end-of-process technologies, which are
existent or capable of being designed for each subcategory. It also
included an identification in terms of the amount of constituents and
the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, of
the effluent level resulting from the application of each of the
treatment and control technologies. The problems, limitations, and
reliability of each treatment and control technology and the required
implementation time were also identified. In addition, the non-water
quality environmental impact, such as the effects of the application of
such technologies upon other pollution problems, including air, solid
waste, noise, and radiation was also identified. The energy
-------
requirements of each of the control and treatment technologies were
identified as well as the cost of the application of such technologies.
The information, as outlined above, was then evaluated in order to
determine what levels of technology constitute the "best practicable
control technology currently available", "best available technology
economically achievable", and the "best available demonstrated control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives". In
identifying such technologies, various factors were considered. These
included the total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application, the
age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the
engineering aspects of the application of various types of control
techniques or process changes, non-water quality environmental impact
(including energy requirements) , and other factors.
Digcussion of Data_Sources
The data and information base which was used in the development of the
effluent guideline limitations was generated by the methods discussed
above. The sources of data included the following:
1. Mill records of exemplary mills
2. Short term survey results of exemplary mills
3. EPA Refuse Act Permit Program (RAPP) Applications
4. Literature
Mill Records
Data was accumulated from one of the exemplary mills. The records
covered 13 months operating time. Most of the mill data was a result of
daily sampling and analysis. The mill data was carefully screened in
order to have an accurate set of data for the mill. In order to screen
the data, a survey of sampling and analytical techniques was made as
discussed previously. Mill waste waters were sampled for a period of 3-
7 days with samples being split between the mill laboratory and a
contract laboratory.
Short Term Survey
As mentioned above, surveys were conducted of the two exemplary mills
for 3-7 days with a basic objective of evaluation of mill data. Twenty-
four hour composites cf hourly samples were taken of the mills' waste
water during the surveys. Sampling and analytical techniques were
conducted using EPA-accepted procedures.
-------
HAPP
Data from RAPP applications represents an average operating condition
for the mills. Unfortunately, the reliability of some of the data for
the mills is questionable as it does net compare with data from reliable
sources for the same mills. One possibility is that the RAPP data does
not represent the latest year's operating period.
-------
Literature
Frequently, the data in published literature is not correlated with -the
particular mill which it represents. Also, the reliability of the data
is sometimes questionable since sampling and analytical methods are
usually not presented and since the time period which the data
represents is frequently omitted. Thus, the data in literature was
carefully screened before consideration.
Use of Data Sources
All of the above sources were used in developing the effluent guideline
limitations. However, it should be pointed out that the data sources
are not equal in reliability and thus, they were weighted accordingly.
The data from the exemplary mill records was used as the major source.
In addition, the short term survey data for the exemplary mill without
adequate mill records was used in conjunction with the mill records data
in developing the guidelines. The short term survey data represents
essentially one data point over a year's time and thus should be within
the range of the year's operating data. These two sources were used as
the basis for the effluent limitation guidelines. The data from other
sources was used mainly as backup data from which to check the mill and
short term survey data. The RAPP data was used as a comparison check.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INDUSTRY SEGMENT
This report pertains to the builders paper segment of the builders paper
and board point source category. The terms "building papers" and
"roofing felts" are more commonly applied to the products of this
segment and are, of course, aptly descriptive of heavy papers used in
the construction industry. As a group, they are identified more by
nomemclature appropriate to their use rather than by significant
variations in the raw materials or the process used to manufacture them.
Both products are composed of varying combinations of wood, waste paper
and/or rags, The process used for the production of both types of
product is similar in concept, differing basically to accommodate the
particular combinations of raw materials used. Each of the raw mate-
rials described above requires different equipment to reduce the mate-
rial to individual fibers. The fibers are then blended in varying pro-
portions and formed on a paper machine which is common to both types of
product.
Building papers are generally characterized as saturating papers, floor-
ing paper, and deadening papers which are used in the construction and
automotive industries. They differ from unsaturated roofing felts only
in thickness and possible chemical additives added to the process in
order to achieve a specific property, i.e., strength, density, wet
strength, water repellant capability, or similar physical qualities.
10
-------
The function of dry roofing felt, is to provide a strong, highly absor-
bent material as support and backing for the bituminous coatings neces-
sary for the water-proofing characteristics essential to the finished
product (2) . One or more saturating coats of melted asphalt are applied
to the finished roll of felt in a process which follows the papermaking
process. If the product is a roofing roll, the sheet is given a thin
coat of mica and talc after the saturating process and is then the
finished product. "Mineral-surfaced" products used as roof-flashing
rolls or shingles, are surfaced with granules of slate, stone, or ce-
ramic following the saturating and talc processes (3). This coating
provides resistance to weathering and to damage caused by roof main-
tenance activities. Roll roofing does not require this granular coating
since it is protected by gravel placed in a heavy coat of bitumen when
installed. Roll roofing felts of wood and asbestos fibers are
exceptionally strong and weather and heat resistant, making it possible
to install them without providing a protective coat of gravel or
granular material. The roofing materials described above account for a
high percentage of the production of the mills which are the subject of
this report.
The objective of this project is to study mills that generate a waste-
load that is attendant to the manufacture of building paper and roofing
felt. Some of these products are made by mills which also produce other
paper and paperboard products, manufacturing building paper and dry felt
only on an intermittent basis. These products also derive from mills
which produce both building paper and building board, insulating board,
or other combinations of products. In keeping with the objective,
therefore, this report deals exclusively with those mills which produce
building papers and felts as their primary product.
Fifty-six mills in this group are listed in Appendix I. Although there
is some overlapping, they are divided generally in accord with their
announced production as follows:
Dry Roofing Felt 7 mills
Saturated/Coated Roofing Felt 40 mills
Combination of The Above 9 mills
It was found during the course of this study that these mills quite
frequently change their production, discontinuing one or more products
and introducing new ones. Thus, this list is illustrative only.
11
-------
The total daily production capacity of these 56 mills is approximately
4898 metric tons (5400 short tons) per day. The daily capacity of the
largest mill is 295 metric tons (325 short tons) and the smallest output
is 20 metric tons (22 short tons) . The size distribution of the mills
is shown below.
kkq/day (short tons/day) % of mills
Less than 45.3 (50) 30%
55.3-87.7 (50-99) 40%
90.7-135 (100-149) 20%
Greater than 136 (150) 10%
They are geographically distributed over most of the United States as
illustrated in Figure 1. The majority of them are located in or near
metropolitan areas where the quantity of waste paper required is
available. Because they are so located, many of them, 60 to 75 percent
is estimated, dispose of their wastes in municipal sewerage systems.
Total annual U.S. production of construction paper, the term utilized by
the Bureau of the Census and the American Paper Institute (API), in 1971
was 1,473,000 metric tons (1,623,000 short tons) (4).
Production Processes
In terms of quality, raw material requirements for building paper and
felt are not, generally, as demanding as those for finer grade papers.
Thus, more flexibility exists in those that can be used and in the way
they are prepared. These products generally consist of waste paper and
defibrinated wood, wood flour, or pulp mill rejects although some rags
or other materials can be employed
Some mills receive wood as logs which are chipped on the premises.
Others purchase wood chips, sawdust, or wood flour. Or in the case of
many mills, equipment is available to handle these materials alter-
natively. Rags and waste paper arrive at the mill in bales. Old, low
grade rags not suitable for recycling into fine paper may be utilized
for building paper and felt. Similarly lower specifications for
reclaimed paper result in frequent variations in quality of this raw
material.
Various specifications require different preparations of raw materials
to impart desired characteristics such as strength, absorptive capacity,
heat and flame resistance, and flexibility.
The furnish for roofing felt must be such that the product can meet
specifications of weight, tensile strength, and flexibility to enable it
to withstand any strain to which it may be later subjected in the
roofing plant (3) . It must be able to absorb from two to three times
12
-------
its weight in bituminous saturants and six times its weight in saturants
and granule coatings.
13
-------
Figure 1
DISTRIBUTION OF BUILDING PAPER AND ROOFING FELT
MILLS IN THE U.S. (1973)
c.
-------
§tock Preparation
Fibers are prepared for use by various methods which are determined by
the fiber source. Wood chips are pulped mechanically in an attrition
mill. This is a refiner containing fixed and rotating discs between
which the chips pass on a stream of water. In some operations, this is
preceded by cooking, or steaming, the chips with water for a short
period in a digester, a large metal pressure vessel. This softens the
chips and reduces the mechanical energy required. Chemicals are not
generally utilized.
The pulp is discharged from the attrition operation as a slurry which
goes to a stock chest for storage. It is then blended with other raw
materials. Wood flour requires no pretreatment and enters the system in
the blending chest.
After they are cut and shredded, rags are placed, along with fresh or
process water, in a beater tank at about six percent consistency. Here
a rotating cyclindrical bladed element, which operates in conjunction
with stationary blades, both impacts the fiber and causes its continuous
circulation around the beater and back through the attrition zone.
Thus, progressive fiberizing occurs. After a period of several hours,
when the charge is sufficiently defibered, the pulp is diluted and
removed to a dump chest (U) .
Waste paper is similarly treated in beaters or pulpers. In the pulper
operation, the paper follows the water circulation in a large open vat
and is repeatedly expcsed to rotating impeller blades. Over a period of
time it is ripped, shredded, and finally defibered (2). Accessory
equipment separates and removes metal and other contaminants.
After the stock is blended, it is subjected to refining and screening
ahead of the forming process.
Some building papers are highly sized with resins and alum. Felts may
be sized with bituminous materials or contain mold-proofing or fungi-
cidal materials.
15
-------
PggermaKing
These products are manufactured principally on single-cylinder paper
machines from the raw materials reduced to fiber in the stock prepa-
ration area and transported to the machine in a dilute slurry. A
rotating wire-covered cylinder retains the fibers which form a sheet on
its surface and permits water to drain through. This sheet is then
removed from the wire by a cloth felt which carries it through a press
section where additional water is removed from the sheet. It is self
supporting as it leaves the press sections and passes through the steam-
heated multi-drum drier section from which it is cut to width and
rolled. At this stage it is considered a dry or unsaturated felt. The
above paper forming and drying process is the type used by all
manufacturers treated in this study.
A process flow diagram of a building paper and roofing felt mill is
shown in Figure 2.
PRODUCTION CLASSIFICATION
The U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Manufactures (4), classifies
construction paper (dry basis before saturating) as Product Code No.
26612 under the four-digit category 2661, building paper and board.
CAPACITY PROJECTIONS
Only a very minor increase in construction paper capacity is forecast
through 1975 (6) . The percentage of waste paper used as a constituent
is projected to rise from 27.1 percent in 1969 to 40 percent in 1985
(7) . Research, development, and implementation of programs in response
to environmental problems associated with the disposal of solid wastes,
to which "paper" makes a large contribution, may support this
projection.
16
-------
FIGURE 2
BUILDING PAPER AND ROOFING
FELT PROCESS DIAGRAM
WOOD CHIPS
DEFIBRINATOR
'STOCK
CHEST
REFINER
CHEST
WHITE
WATER
CHEST
SAVE-ALL
BUILDING PAPER
or
LINSAT. FELTS
EFFLUENT
SCREEN
FORMING
MACHINE
DRIER
SATURATING &
COATING
WASTE
PAPER
PULPFR
STOCK
CHEST
JORDAN
CHEST
REJECTS
PROCESS
WATER
ROOFING FELTS
SHINGLES
LEGEND
PRODUCT 8 RAW MAT'L -
PROCESS WATER-
BACK WATER
STEAM
REJECTS ***-****
EFFLUENT
17
-------
SECTION IV
SUECATEGORIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY
FACTORS _OF_CQ NSI DE RAT IO N
This study is concerned with the building paper and roofing felt segment
of the builders paper and board mills pcint source category. In order
to identify any relevant discrete subcategories within this segment, the
following factors were considered:
1. Raw materials
2. Production processes
3. Products produced
4. Size and age of mills
5. Waste water characteristics and treatability
6. Geographical location
After analyzing these factors, it is concluded that this segment consti-
tutes one discrete sutcategory defined as BUILDING PAPER AND ROOFING
FELT, which is the production of heavy papers used in the construction
industry from cellulose and mineral fibers derived from waste paper,
wood flour and sawdust, wood chips < asbestos, and rags, without
bleaching or chemical pulping.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION _OF SUBCATEGORY
Materials
Cellulose fiber is the principal raw material used. While there are
differences in the sources of these fibers, as noted above and in
Sections III and V, such differences have only a minor impact on waste
water characteristics and treatability. All raw wastes containing
cellulose respond to the same treatment techniques for removal of
suspended solids and BODS. The details of these techniques are
described in Section VII.
Other raw materials, such as asphalt used in some roofing felt mills, do
not contribute significantly to waste water characteristics, as
described in Section V.
Production Processes
19
-------
As delineated in Section III, there is a wide variety of products
produced, ranging from roofing felts to gasket materials. As shown in
Section Vr waste water characteristics do not vary significantly as a
function of product produced.
Size and Age of Mills
While elder mills tend to have higher levels of pollutants in the waste
water than newer mills, there are "old" mills which have applied
available technology, principally in the area of recycle, to reduce such
pollutant levels to approach those obtained by "new" mills. Size of
most mills varies only within a relatively narrow range from nearly 50
to about 250 tons per day.
Geographical Location
Waste water characteristics and treatability do not differ significantly
with geographical Iccation. Climatic differences, however, have an
important effect upon treatability due to the effect of temperature upon
some biological treatment methods used to remove BODS. The effect of
climate upon treatment efficiencies was not used as a basis of
subcategorization. Instead, a variance is allowed for mills operating
in extremely cold weather. The variance is discussed in Section IX.
20
-------
SECTION V
WATER UTILIZATION AND WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
PROCESS WATER^UTILIZATJCN
General Use
.A building paper and/or roofing felt mill utilizes water in its process,
exclusive of steam generation, for the following purposes:
1. To act as an agent for separating the raw materials into
discrete fibers which is essential for: the formation of the end
product; the removal of contaminants and undesirable fibers from the
stock system; and the control and metering of stock to the paper
machine. This water, which is generally recycled, acts as a vehicle for
transporting the fiber to the process.
2. To clean those areas, particularly on the wet end of the
machine, which tend to develop fiber buildup. These areas are the paper
forming section of the machine and the felts used to carry the formed
sheet through the machine and press sections. This water enters the
system via shower nozzles and represents the largest contribution to the
volume of raw waste water generated since it is nearly all excess water
in terms of process water needs.
3. To keep production equipment throughout the mill operational or
permit the equipment to perform its design function. Typical
applications are the seal and cooling waters used on pumps, agitators,
drives, bearings, vacuum pumps, and process controls. Also cooling
water is required ty those mills that include the asphalt saturating
process for the production of roofing felts and shingles. This water
represents the second largest contributor to the volume of waste water
generated by the process.
4. To supply emergency make-up water, under automatic control, to
various storage tanks to avoid operational problems resulting in reduced
production or complete mill shut down.
5. To provide power boiler condenser, heat exchange condensate, and
non-contact cooling water that can be segregated and discharged
separately without treatment. However, there are many mills that still
permit all or part cf this water to enter the waste water sewer system
which increases the volume of water requiring treatment.
Specific Process Use
The manufacture of building paper involves three relatively discrete
process systems in terms of quantity and quality of water utilization:
21
-------
stock preparation and the wet end and dry end of the machine.
illustrative process flow diagram is shown in Figure 3.
An
Stock Preparation Area
The stock preparation area uses water for purposes described in Items 1,
3, 4, and 5 of the General Use section. Viater in the form of steam may
also be used directly tc maintain stock temperature which contributes to
the volume of waste water generated since it represents excess water in
terms of the process water balance.
Process water is mixed with baled waste paper in the pulper or beater
and the resulting slurry is then carried through the stock cleaning
system where additional process water is introduced. The stock is then
thickened to increase consistency for refining or jordaning (fiber
control). The process water removed by the thickener or decker is
recirculated back to the pulper and cleaning system. A mill utilizing
wood flour instead of wcod pulp from an attrition mill adds the flour in
the above waste paper stock system ahead of the jordans or refiners.
However, those that use wood chips and/or rags and/or inorganic
materials such as asbestos require a preparation process for each type
of furnish used. These are generally low volume water users although
each system contributes to the waste load generated. The various stock
components are blended and passed through the refiners and discharged to
a machine stock chest.
Wet End Area
The stock is pumped to a head box which meters the quantity of stock of
the paper machine. At this point process water is added to reduce the
stock consistency to 0.25-0.5 percent in the vat which is the forming
section of the machine. The stock deposits on a cylinder wire and the
excess machine white water passes through the wire. A large portion of
this white water is recycled back through the machine stock loop and the
excess is pumped to a white water collection chest for reuse in the
stock preparation area. It is on the wet end that excess water is
created by the use of fresh water showers as described in Item 2 of the
General Use Section. The sheet is carried by felts to the press
sections where additional quantities of water are removed. Felt
cleaning showers add more excess water, but are necessary for the
maintenance of the drainability of the felt.
22
-------
ro
to
WASTE PAPER
AND/OR RAGS
I 80 Tons
""I
BROKE
WOOD
CHIPS
SHORT-COOK
DIGESTER
30 Tons
MG
0.025 MG
I
STEAM •-•'
PUI.PER
2 Tons Rejects
3 Tons
D
0.625 MG
RIFFLERS
Rejects
2.9 MG
KLrlNtkb
JORDANS
0.74 MG
i
m Rl F
CH
2.9 MG
SHOWERS
SCREENS
,. — , 0 8 MR EVAPO
(STOCK
CHEST
ATTRITION
MILL
0.12 MG l Ton Rejec
i
NDTNG —
EST
ALTERNATE FOR CHIPS
WOOD FLOUR
RATION i *
FRESH
WATER
| \ 0.06 MG J II
2 Tons Rejects
2.8 MG
WHITE WATER
CHEST
VACUUM
SAVE-ALL
| f 0.06 MG
FORMING J } DRYING
SECTION J PRESS J SECTION
1
1.2 MG
3.5 MG
CLEAR
WELL
II
t
VACUUM
PUMP
Hl.O MG
=
\
|| TOO Tons
S ft
I '
j !
_j
If *
II
II 0.05 MG
fe = ^
1
UNSATURATED ! SATURATING
PRODUCT II & COATING
II
Figure 3
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
OF A
BUILDING PAPER AND FELT MILL
1.2 MG
SEWER
STOCK
WATER
===== EXTENSIVE WATER RE-USE
ROOFING FELT
OR SHINGLES
MISC.&FLOOR
DRAINS
SETTLING
BASIN
rr
.U.™
RIVER
COOLING
TOWER
-------
Dry End Area
The sheet passes through the drier section to the dry end where water
use is generally low in volume consisting principally of cooling water
and sheet moisture ccntrol. The product at this point may be the
finished product or it may be subject to additional processes in the
mill. For some products, the saturating process is the next waste
generating step after the papermaking process. However, the production
of deadening or flooring felts from the paper produced does not require
processing which generates a waste water load.
AsghaIt Saturating_Process
The paper is carried through one or two stations for asphalt saturation
and application of a coat of talc on one side of the sheet. This
requires the utilization of cooling water applied by spray nozzles after
each saturation which represents the waste load sewered from the area.
This process has the capability of making roofing shingles as well as
roofing felts; therefore a section for coating the saturated felt with a
granular stone and/or mica is part of the operation. These particles
fall to the floor and are washed to the sewer and represent the
principal source of inert suspended solids in the waste water generated
in the area. As explained in Section VII, the volume of water used for
this application varies widely, and the resulting waste water is very
low in BODS.
UNIT PROCESS WASTE LCADS
Definitive data on individual waste loads from each of the above process
sources do not presently exist, and are difficult to develop: First,
many, if not most, mills in this subcategory change raw materials and
products manufactured in response to short term pricing, availability,
and demand. Figure 3 demonstrates the complexity of process options
which may be used in even a single mill in response to these factors.
Second, the pronounced tendency in these mills toward increased recycle
could erroneously attribute a waste load to one unit process which
actually originated in another. Such recycle, as explained below and in
Section VII, reduces pollutant levels in the raw waste and in the final
discharge.
TOTAL RAW WASTE LOAD
Definition of "total raw waste load" from mills in this subcategory is
subject to interpretation dependent upon the particular scheme of
recycle used. Three principal schemes have been identified, each being
effective insofar as reduction of final discharge pollutants is
-------
concerned, and each dependent upon product quality, mill layout, and
other factors:
1. An internal device such as a save-all or DSM screen is used to
remove suspended solids. Both the solids and the clarified process
water may then be recycled, at least in part, resulting in a low "raw
waste" level of suspended solids.
2. An external device such as a mechanical clarifier is used to
serve the same functions. The influent to the clarifier may technically
be called "raw waste," but any effluent not reused would be the
definition comparable to scheme #1.
3. The third scheme relies principally upon internal recycle, with
internal or external storage facilities to hold surge flows due to grade
changes and other process upsets. Most of these surge flows are then
returned to the process as production equilibrium is again approached,
with only a small and sometimes intermittent final waste flow occurring.
25
-------
Thusr raw waste loads from mills in this subcategory vary widely,
depending upon the definition used. Data developed in 1971 illustrate
this point. Of 13 mills in this subcategory, raw waste suspended solids
varied typically from 2.5 kilograms per metric ton (5 pounds per short
ton) to 30 kilograms per metric ton (60 pounds per short ton).
Raw waste suspended solids for the two exemplary mills ranged from 4
kg/kkg (8 Ibs/ton) to 42 kg/kkg(84 Ibs/ton) . Raw waste BOD5 for the two
exemplary mills ranged from 7 kg/kkg (14 Ibs/ton) to 15 kg/kkg(30
Ibs/ton) . The above raw waste characteristics are show in Table 2.
Although no definition of "total raw waste load" fits all cases, the
"primary effluent not recycled" probably meets most field conditions as
the best definition.
Final effluent flow is a measure of the degree of reuse employed by a
given mill. The first surveyed mill employed extensive recycle and used
only 4200 liters per metric ton (1000 gallons per short ton) during the
four days of the survey. The second mill, which did not employ
extensive recycle, used 54,000 liters per metric ton (13,000 gallons per
short ton) during the survey.
Longer term data from the 13 mills mentioned above show a wide variation
in water usage, primarily as a function of recycle. The typical range
among these mills was from 8400 liters per metric ton (2,000 gallons per
short ton) to 42,000 liters per metric ton (10,000 gallons per short
ton) .
26
-------
Table 2
Paw Waste Characteristics
Mill BOD5 TSS
k2/kJ$2llbs/ton}_ kq/kkq (Ibs/ton)
a*
a**
15(30)
9.5(19)
41 (82)
42(84)
b** 7.2(14.3) 4.1(8.3)
* Mill Records
** Short term survey data (3-7 days)
27
-------
SECTION VI
SEIECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
WASTE WATER PARAMETER S__O F_ SIGNIFICANCE
A thorough analysis of the literature, mill records, sampling data which
has been derived from this study, and the RAPP applications demonstrates
that the following constituents represent pollutants according to the
Water Pollution Control Act for the sutcategories under study:
BODS
Total Suspended Solids
PH
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF IDENTIFIED PARAMETERS
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day^ 20°C)
This parameter is a measure of the amount of biologically degradable or-
ganic matter which is present in the waste stream. Failure to substan-
tially reduce the amount of BOD5 in the waste stream before discharge to
receiving waters would adversely affect water quality by consuming large
amounts of dissolved cxygen. Although the amount of BOD5 per ton of
product in the discharge from an industrial process varies to a signif-
icant degree between mills, its treatability is essentially constant.
Measurement of BOD5 requires uniform procedures and trained personnel.
Suspended Solids
This parameter is a measure of non-dissolved solids in the waste water
which are trapped or "suspended" on a test filter medium. Coarse and
floating matter is not included in the test. Total suspended solids,
also called suspended solids, are divided into settleable and
nonsettleable fractions, the former being those solids which will settle
in one hour under quiescent conditions. If not removed from waste
flows, the heavier and larger portion of suspended solids may deposit on
the bottom of receiving waters, causing interference with normal benthic
growths. Also, such deposits, due to anaerobic biological action, may
generate gasses which cause clumps of solids to float, producing an
unsightly condition on the water surface together with offensive odors.
The effluent from a typical biological treatment process will normally
have a pH in the range of 6.0 to 9.0, which is not detrimental to most
receiving waters. However, the application of some external
29
-------
technologies can result in major adjustments in pH. The effluent
limitations which are cited insure that these adjustments are
compensated prior to final discharge of treated wastes in order to avoid
harmful effects within the receiving waters.
RATIONALE FOR PARAMETERS NOT SELECTED
Oil and^Hexane Solubles
The asphalt saturation process associated with the production of roofing
felts has a potential for developing an oil and grease (hexane soluble)
constituent in the waste water generated by the process. Useful data
regarding the concentrations of oil and grease in the treated waste
water generated by mills engaged in this activity are almost negligible.
However, if the recommended treatment systems are operated efficiently,
any oil and grease should be effectively removed. Thus, oil and grease
is not considered as a separate pollutant parameter.
Color_
Color is defined as either "true" or "apparent" color. In Standard
Methods jfor the Examination of Water and Waste Water (1) , the
true color of water is defined as "the color of water from which the
turbidity has been removed." Apparent color includes "not only the color
due to substances in solution, but also due to suspended matter." Color
has not been a problem in the builders paper and roofing felt
subcategory. Short term survey data substantiated this as it showed
only two kilograms per metric ton (four pounds per short ton) of color.
Thus, color was not included as a separate pollutant parameter.
Nutrients
Waste water discharged from builders paper and roofing felt mills is
deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus. Frequently, nutrients must be
added to mill effluents to enhance biological treatment. Thus,
nutrients were not included as separate pollutant parameters.
Settleable Solids
Settleable solids are a measure of that fraction of suspended solids
which settles after one hour in a quiescent vessel. While a few mills
30
-------
have measured settleable solids, data on settleable solids are not
generally or widely available. Since settleable solids are measured as
a part of the suspended solids, settleable solids are not considered a
separate pollutant.
Turbidity
Turbidity is an expression of the optical property of the fine suspended
matter in a sample of water. The suspended matter may be clay silt,
finely divided organic and inorganic matter, plankton, and other
microscopic organisms. The suspended matter causes light to be
scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted in straight lines through
the sample. The builders paper and and roofing felt subcategory may
have effluents which have high turbidities. However, turbidity is not
considered as a pollutant parameter because an adequate data base does
not exist for turbidity in builders paper and roofing felt mill
effluents.
Polvchorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) are chemically and thermally stable
compounds found in waste paper and are known to cause deleterious
effects upon biological organisms. They have been shown to concentrate
in food chains and few restrictions on their control exist at present.
Recycled office papers are the main source at present, although
occasionally paperboard extracts show evidence of Monsanto1s Aroclor
1254 (PCB) from environmental and other sources. Quantities of PCB in
recycled wastepaper are generally low. PCE's are not being added to
paper products and are being purged from the system through process
waters, volatilization and paper destruction. This parameter is not
considered as a separate pollutant parameter because an adequate data
base and an adequate means of control technology do not exist at this
time.
31
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Waste waters discharged from mills in the building paper and roofing
felt industry to receiving waters can be reduced to required levels by
conscientious application of established in-plant process loss control
and water recycle measures and by well designed and operated external
treatment facilities.
This section describes both the in-plant and external technologies which
are either presently available or under intensive development to achieve
various levels of pollutant reduction. External technology is used to
treat the residual waste concentration levels to achieve the final
reduction of pollutants discharged tc the environment. Tables 3 and 4
summarize internal and external pollution control technologies,
respectively, which are applicable to builder's paper and roofing felt
mills. Table 5 shows the estimated distribution of external treatment
systems employed at builders paper and roofing felt mills. The
recommended internal and external control technologies for BPCTCA,
BATEA, and NSPS are summarized in Table 7 at the end of this section.
TABLE 3
STJMN.ARY OF INTERNAL TECHNOLOGIES
Building Paper and Roofing Felt Mills
1. Reuse of white water
2. Saveall system
3. Shower water reduction/reuse
4. Gland water reduction/reuse
5. Vacuum pump seal water reduction/reuse
6. Internal spill collection
7. Segregation of non-contact process water
8. Low volume cooling spray shower nozzles
33
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL TECHNOLOGIES
Building Paper and Roofing Felt Mills
BASIC FUNCTION
Screening
Suspended Solids
Removal
EOD5 Removal
Temperature Control
ALTERNATIVE^TECHNOLOGIES
Traveling, self-cleaning Bar Screen
>
(C) Mechanical Clarifier
(L) Earthen Basin
(MMF) Mixed (Multi) -media Filtration
(Coag) Coagulation '
(ASB) Aerated Stabilization Basin
(AS) Activated Sludge
(SO) Storage Oxidation Ponds
Cooling Tower
Table 5
Estimated Distribution of Treatment Systems Employed at
Builders Paper and Roofing Felt Mills
Number of Plants
Plants Using Municipal Systems*
Non-Municipal Plants with Access to
Municipal Systems*
Plants with No Treatment
Primary Only or Equivalent
Plants Using Activated Sludge
Plants Using Aerated Stabilization
Basins
Plants Using Storage Cxidation Ponds
56
50%
25%
7%
10%
4%
4%
None
*Rough Estimates - very little information available.
34
-------
JENTERNAL_CONTROLS
Recovery and Recycle Concepts
Generally, mills that reduce effluent volume through recycle reduce raw
waste pollutant loads concommitantly. As discussed in Section V, in
some cases a mill may employ extensive suspended solids removal
equipment internally, reusing both the clarified water for manufacture
and the recovered solids in the product, whereas another mill depends on
an extensive primary clarifier for suspended solids removal. This study
indicated that similar reductions in pollution loads are achieved by
both methods of treatment.
Large quantities of water are necessary to form a sheet of paper.
Typically, the fibrous stock is diluted to about 0.5 percent consistency
before entering the paper machine itself. Such dilutions are necessary
in order to provide uniform dispersion of the fibers in the sheet
forming section. Most of this water must be removed in the wet end of
the machine since only a small amount of moisture, typically five to
eight percent by weight, is retained in the product at the dry end.
After leaving the forming section of the machine, the sheet of paper or
board contains about 80 percent moisture. A press section employing
squeeze rolls, sometimes utilizing vacuum, is used to further reduce
moisture to a level of about 40 percent. The remaining moisture is
evaporated by steam-heated drying rolls.
Water leaving the forming and press sections is called white water, and
approximates 104,325 liters per metric ton (25,000 gallons per short
ton) of product. Due to recycling, only a relatively small portion of
the total is wasted. Mills which utilize varying amounts of extensive
recycling discharge only 2087 to 20,865 liters of white water per metric
ton (500 to 5000 gallons of white water per short ton) from the system.
Recycling of this white water within the stock preparation and wet end
of the papermaking machine has long been practiced in the industry.
However, in recent years very extensive reuse of treated white water has
been achieved. The replacement of fresh water with treated white water
is the mechanism by which final waste water volume is reduced. It has
been demonstrated that with a closed water system the concentration of
solids increases significantly to a high level at which plateau it
remains, varying only plus or minus 10 to 15 percent. Thus, a
significant result of total or near total recycle of process water is
that dissolved solids, derived primarily from raw materials, are removed
from the process water system via the product manufactured rather than
in the waste stream.
Problems are experienced, however, as near total recycle of process
water is approached. It appears, though, that the production process
35
-------
and product quality of mills in the building paper industry, and
particularly those manufacturing roofing felt paper, are such that with
good system design these problems can be overcome. This posture is
supported, to some extent, by a report from one mill in the industry.
In this instance both in-plant and external biological treatment
facilities, using the activated sludge process and final chlorination,
were installed. After a year of operation, the mill is near a decision
to eliminate its discharge to the environment and operate a completely
closed process water system. In addition, an on-going EPA supported
project will demonstrate the elimination of discharge from a roofing
felt mill and will also provide information on conversion to closed loop
operation, its costs and effect on product quality. The overall costs
of closed loop operation are expected to be much less than the costs of
end-of-the-pipe treatment technologies.
Saturated roofing felt mills have a water use requirement which is
independent of that for the papermaking process. This water is
essentially cooling water that becomes contaminated by the granular
particles used to coat the saturated felts. The cooling water is
applied across the festconed sheet immediately after it passes through
the hot liquor asphalt saturation bath. This study indicated that there
is no measurable contamination of the water due to its contact with the
hot asphalt. The volume required depends entirely on the types of
showers used and therefore varies over a wide range, perhaps as low as
209 liters per metric ton (50 gallons per short ton) to as high as 4173
liters per metric ton (1000 gallons per short ton) of paper saturated.
There are mills that segregate this water and convey it to a settling
pond for the removal of readily settleable suspended solids. However,
in order to reuse it as cooling water it is necessary to employ a
cooling tower process application. The success of this recycle system,
on a year round basis, is not well documented since the reduction in
pollution load that can be achieved does not necessarily warrant the
capital investment, increased operating costs, and potential loss of
production inherent in the operation of such a system. Those systems
that have been installed have not been operated on a continuous basis by
virtue of the weather-dependent nature of a cooling tower.
Internal Recovery Equipment
Most mills employ a save-all to recover fibrous and other suspended
solids from the process water of which there are three principal types.
(1) One is the gravity cr vacuum drum type which employs a rotating
screen-covered drum immersed in a vat containing the waste water. The
water passes through the drum, leaving a mat of fiber which is removed
continuously for reuse. (2) The vacuum disc filter is another type of
save-all which utilizes a series of screen-covered discs on a rotating
shaft immersed in the vat. Both types filter the white water through a
filter mat; however, the disc type has the advantage of greater fil-
36
-------
tering area or capacity per unit volume. This filtering medium in each
case is provided by a side-stream of "sweetener" stock added to the
influent to act as a filtering mat for the removal of suspended solids.
The recovered fiber and sweetener stock is returned for reuse directly
to the stock system. (3) A third type is a stationary bar screen with
very fine slots between the bars which has in recent years been employed
by mills in this industry for the recovery of fiber from the process
water system. There is a significant economic advantage in this type of
system. However, the quality of the effluent is not as good in terms of
suspended solids as that generated by vacuum filters.
All or part of the effluent from a save-all may be discharged directly
to a sewer, but most mills reuse a significant portion for such services
as:
1. Machine Showers
2. Stock clean elutriation
3. Fump and agitator seals
4. Vacuum pump seals
5. Wash-ups
6. Consistency regulation dilution
Machine Showers
Machine and felt showers are used in both the forming and press sections
to clean the wire, felts, and other machine elements subject to contact
with the stock. Formerly, large volumes of fresh water were used for
this purpose, but in recent years, attention has focused on the use of
recycled white water. However, a suspended solids content of less than
120 milligrams per liter (one pound per thousand gallons) is generally
required to avoid plugging of shower nozzles. Concurrently, the use of
high pressure (up to 52 atm. or 750 psig), low volume showers using
fresh water has increased. These are employed where product,
operability, cleanliness, or other factors mitigate against the use of
white water showers. These high pressure showers are operated on a time
cycle, so that flow occurs only a small percentage, 10 to 20 percent, of
the time.
Whether recycled water or lower volumes of fresh water are used for
showers, a reduction in fresh water usage and its concomitant waste
water flow results. Significantlyf this reduction also decreases the
fiber losses to sewer.
Seal Water
37
-------
Vacuum pumps are essential to the paper forming process as presently
practiced to provide a vacuum source to accelerate the removal of water
from the sheet as formed, and to dry the felts for each pass through the
wet end. Most such pumps are of the ring seal type, which requires
water to provide a seal between the moving parts of the pump and avoid
backflow of air to the vacuum side. Water used for this purpose must be
sufficiently free of suspended solids tc avoid plugging of the orifices
or other control devices used to meter it to the pump. Further, it must
not be corrosive tc the mechanical parts of the pump, and it must be
relatively cool (typically less than 32 C (90 F) to permit development
of high vacuums of o.67-0.74 atm. (20-22 in. Hg.) . For lower vacuum
requirements 0.17-0.40 atm. (5-12in. hg.), somewhat higher temperatures
are permissible.
Seal water is also used on packing glands of process pumps, agitators,
and other equipment employing rotating shafts. It cools bearings,
lubricates the packing, and minimizes leakage of the process fluid.
Even though the amount of water used per packing is small — generally
in the range of 1.86 to 11.34 liters per minute (0.5 to 3 gpm) -- the
total usage is quite extensive because of the large number of rotating
shafts required in the processes. The total usage may approximate 4173-
8346 liters per metric ten (1000-2000 gallons per short ton) of product.
Methods used to control and reduce the quantities of water required
include proper maintenance of packings and flow control of individual
seal water lines.
As more extensive recycle is employed the significance of the quantity
of seal water used for all purposes in the mill increases in terms of
waste water volume. The use of mechanical seals has reduced the amount
of seal water, but they have so far not proven satisfactory in terms of
maintenance and reliability for many applications.
The replacement of fresh water with clarified waste water in the
building paper industry is dependent largely on maintaining a level of
suspended solids in the recycled seal water at 120 mg/1 or less. The
vacuum required on the paper machines in these mills indicates that a
seal water temperature of 49 degrees centigrade can be tolerated. The
limits to recycle in the water use area will be more completely
documented as more mills develop reuse systems.
S t o c k C1eaning^Sy stems
A majority of mills in this industry employ a stock cleaning system that
dates back many years, the riffler. This is a simple device that
removes sand, grit, metals, and other readily settled contaminants from
the stock slurry. This system subjects the process water system to
insignificant, if any, fresh water requirements and satisfies the
38
-------
cleaning needs of the production quality. The contribution to the waste
water load is also small since the solids removed from the stock can be
removed at intervals from the bottom of the riffler trough, generally at
most, once a week. This material is disposed of by trucking to a plant-
owned or municipal land disposal area.
If cleaning at the machine is practiced, flat bed slotted plate vi-
brating screens are generally employed. This method of cleaning, as
with a riffler, has been in use for many years. Again, rejects are
removed in a relatively dry state for truck disposal and the impact on
the waste water generated by the mill is negligible.
The trend toward replacement of these older cleaning systems with more
modern equipment will increase in this industry as labor and maintenance
costs exceed the increased power costs associated with the new
equipment. With newer cleaning equipment there is potential for
increased quantities of rejects and, more importantly, fiber discharged
to the sewer. This phenomenon has already been experienced by many
mills in the waste paperboard industry. The effect on the waste water
load generated can be minimized or eliminated by the inclusion of a well
designed rejects handling system along with an improved cleaning system.
The effectiveness of these systems becomes more significant to a mill as
it approaches near total recycle of process water. In fact, under this
condition it becomes cf paramount importance since rejects cannot escape
from the mill in the waste water, and therefore build up in the system
unless removed in a relatively dry state by an adequate rejects handling
system.
Cooling Water
Cooling water is used for bearings, particularly in older mills using
sleeve bearings instead of the anti-friction bearings employed in new or
rebuilt mills. Cooling water is not contaminated and can be collected
and reused either directly (after heat removal), or indirectly by
discharge into the fresh water system, if heat buildup is not a problem.
Similarly, water used tc cool brake linings in paper rewind applications
may be reused, but because of high heat loads cooling of this water by
cooling towers or other means would usually be necessary. None of the
mills surveyed in this study cooled this water. However, one mill
surveyed returned dryer condensate directly to the feed water heater at
the boiler plant under 1.20-1.34 atm. (three-five psig) pressure,
thereby reducing the cooling water requirement. This approach could be
used more generally where dryers are operated at pressures above 1.34
atm. (five psig) .
Asphalt Cooling
The volume of waste water generated in the felt saturating cooling
process is entirely dependent on the type of shower nozzles used to
39
-------
spray the sheet. A very high reduction in water requirements with
increased cooling efficiency -- i.e., temperature drop per unit time --
has been achieved with special nozzles. The need to settle the waste
water generated by this process is established, and the ability to
recycle after cooling has been demonstrated. However, because of its
low pollutant load, the need to recycle this waste after settling versus
discharge to the environment appears to be an issue to be determined on
an individual mill basis. Surveyed mill "b"r for example, used 209
liters of cooling water per metric ton of production (50 gal/ton). It
utilized a cooling tower to cool this water on a seasonal basis for
reuse. When the cooling tower was operating, net discharge flow was
reduced to an estimated 19 liters (five gallons) per metric ton.
EXTERNAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Waste treatment requirements do not vary appreciably among mills in the
building paper industry. Although there are variations in
concentrations and specific waste constituents, the general classes of
compounds which can be expected to occur in their wastes derive from the
pulping of wood fiber or repulping of waste fiber and are, thus,
characteristic of them all. These substances are dissolved organic
components of wood and cellulose degradation products. They make up the
bulk of the oxygen demanding wastes of this subcategory. The pulping of
rags adds to the waste load generated. In addition, other compounds
such as adhesives, sizing material, and resinates are used by the
industry depending on product. The residual of all of these substances
in the waste load or combinations of them, appears to be amenable to the
various biological treatment processes used by the industry.
Removal of Suspended golids
The physical process of removing suspended organic and inorganic
materials, commonly termed "primary treatment", is generally
accomplished by sedimentation. Screening ahead of treatment units is
necessary to remove trash materials which could seriously damage or clog
succeeding equipment. Automatically cleaned screens, operating in
response to level contrcl, are commonly employed and represent preferred
practice.
Primary treatment can be accomplished in mechanical clarifiers or
sedimentation lagoons. Although the latter enjoyed widespread use in
the past, the large land requirements, coupled with inefficient
performance and high cost for cleaning, have made them less popular in
recent years (8).
The most widely used method for sedimentation in this industry is the
mechanically-cleaned quiescent sedimentation basin (8). Large circular
tanks of concrete construction are normally utilized with rotating
sludge scraper mechanisms mounted in the center. Flow usually enters
-------
the tank through a well which is located at the center of the tank.
Settled sludge is raked to a center sump or concentric hopper and is
conveyed back to the process system. Floating material is collected by
a surface skimmer attached to the rotating mechanism and discharged to a
hopper. This material may be brought back to the process or carried to
land disposal.
A properly designed and installed mechanical clarifier is capable of
removing over 95 percent of the settleable suspended solids from the
waste water. The removal efficiency cf this fraction of the total
suspended solids is the true measure of performance for this device
since it cannot be expected to separate those solids which will not
settle under the most favorable conditions.
Because of the biodegradable nature of a portion of the settleable
solids present in the effluents of these mills, clarification results in
some EOD5 reduction.
Biological Treatment
BOD reduction is generally accomplished by biological means, again
because of the relative biodegradatility of most of the organic
substances in the waste. Advances in reduction of internal losses and
recycling of process water have increased BOD concentrations in the
waste to be treated. However, this, in general, seems to improve the
removal efficiency of the process.
Current biological treatment practice includes the use of very large
storage oxidation basins, aerated stabilization basins, or the activated
sludge process and modifications thereof. The storage oxidation basin
and the aerated stabilization basin because of their large land
requirements have not found wide application in this industry. Most of
the mills are located in relatively populated areas with minimum land
availability. Therefore, the activated sludge process has had wider
acceptance.
The land requirements of the oxidation basin are due to the fact that it
is a relatively low-rate process. Because of the availability of land,
and the warmer climate which helps to maintain consistent biological
activity, most natural oxidation basins are found in the Southern states
(8). Design loading rates of 56 kilograms BOD5 per hectare per day (50
pounds BOD5_ per acre per day) for natural oxidation basins to achieve
95-90 percent removal in warm climates have been reported (9).
By installing aeration equipment in a natural basin, its ability to
assimilate BOD per unit of surface area is greatly increased. The
aerated stabilization basin originally evolved out of the necessity of
increasing performance of existing natural basins due to increasing
effluent flows and/or more stringent water quality standards. Due to
-------
its inherent acceleration of the biological process, the aerated
stabilization basin requires much less land than the natural
stabilization basin and because of the long reaction period less
nutrient addition than that required for activated sludge. Typically,
0.21 hectares per million liters (two acres per MGD) of the aerated
stabilization basin compares with 4.8 hectares per million liters (40
acres per MGD) for natural,basins for equivalent treatment levels (9).
Detention times in the aerated stabilization basin normally range from
five to fifteen days, averaging less than 10 days.
Due to the relatively long aeration time, the buildup of sludge solids
is considerably less than for higher rate processes, particularly where
primary clarification is employed. Typical rates are 45.4 to 90.8 grams
(0.1 to 0.2 pounds) of sludge generated for each 454 grams (1 pound) of
BOD removed (8). The sludge is removed as formed by endogenous
respiration, sludge loss in the effluent, and sedimentation within the
aeration basin. However, discharge of untreated waste to an aerated
stabilization basin without prior clarification can result in a buildup
of sludge which after a period of time will impede its efficiency.
Most mill wastes are deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus. Therefore,
the addition of nutrients to the aeration basin is generally practiced.
Reported optimum ratios of BOD to nitrogen are 50: 1 with four days
aeration, and 100:1 with 10-15 days aeration (9). Aeration is normally
accomplished using either gear-driven turbine-type aerators, direct-
drive axial flow-pump aerators, and, in a few cases, diffused aerators.
Oxygenation efficiencies under actual operating conditions range from
0.61 to 1.52 kilograms of oxygen per kilowatt per hour (one to 2.5
pounds of oxygen per horsepower per hour) , depending on the type of
equipment used, the amount of aeration power per unit lagoon volume,
oasin configuration, and the biological characteristics of the system.
A. dissolved oxygen level of 0.5 mg/1 remaining in the lagoon liquid is
required to sustain aerobic conditions (10). Approximately 1.1 to 1.3
kilograms of oxygen per kilogram BODS (1.1 to 1.3 pounds oxygen per
pound BODS) have been reported to maintain adequate DO for waste
oxidation and endogenous respiration of the biological mass produced.
Although the activated sludge process has been employed for many years
to treat domestic sewage, it was first applied to the building paper
industry only very recently. The process is similar to the aerated
stabilization basin except that it is much faster, usually designed for
four to eight hours of total detention time. The biological mass grown
in the aeration tank is settled in a secondary clarifier and returned to
the aeration tank, building up a large concentration of active
biological material. Since there is approximately 2000-4000 mg/1 of
active sludge mass in the aeration section of this process, as opposed
to 50-200 mg/1 in the aerated stabilization basin, dissolved and
suspended organic matter are degraded much more rapidly, greatly
reducing necessary .tank volume as well as required detention time.
Since biological organisms are in continuous circulation throughout the
42
-------
process, complete mixing and suspension of solids in the aeration basin
is required. The active microbial mass consists mainly of bacteria,
protozoa, rotifers, fungi, and cynthonemotodes. Because the process
involves intimate contact of organic waste with biological organisms,
followed by sedimentation, a high degree of BOD and solids removals is
obtained.
The contact stabilization process is a variation of activated sludge
wherein two aeration steps are utilized rather than one. First, the
incoming waste is contacted for a short period with active organisms
prior to sedimentation. Settled solids are then aerated for a longer
period to complete waste assimilation. Contact stabilization has not
been applied successfully; however, conventional activated sludge has
found accepted use in this industry.
The secondary clarifier in the activated sludge process performs the
function of sedimentation of the active microbial mass for return to the
aeration tank. Loading rates of about 211 liters per day per square
meter (600 gallons per day per square foot) have been reported (11).
Due to the fact that the volume of bio-mass in the activated sludge
process is greatly reduced because of the hydraulic detention time,
endogenous respiration of the concentrated sludge is considerably
lessened. Thus^ there are additional quantities of excess sludge, three
fourths kilogram of excess sludge per kilogram of BOD5 (three fourths
pound of excess sludge per pound of BOD5), which must be disposed of.
As in the case of the aerated stabilization basin, aeration can be
accomplished by mechanical or diffused aeration. The more efficient and
more easily maintained mechanical method is generally preferred by the
industry. Oxygen requirements where activated sludge processes are
utilized are in the range of one kilogram of oxygen per kilogram of BODS
(one pound of oxygen per pound of BCD5) removed.
Short detention times and low volumes make the activated sludge process
more susceptible to upset due to shock loads. When the process is
disrupted, several days are usually required to return the biological
activity and high BOD removal rates back to normal. Thus, particular
attention is required to avoid such shock loads in mills utilizing this
process.
A flow diagram of alternative waste treatment systems at building paper
mills is shown in Figure U.
Two-Stage Biological Treatment
-------
Two-stage biological treatment is employed to enhance the BOD removal
obtained with a single stage. This concept consists of two biological
treatments systems, usually arranged in series. In the literature (12)
a two stage system is described which employs the activated sludge
process in both stages in the treatment of municipal wastes. The
authors note that the sludge may be returned or wasted within each
stage, or that excess sludge from one stage may be recycled to the
other. A principal advantage of this particular arrangement is that the
sludge flows may be utilized to maximize BOD5 removal.
-------
MILL
EFFLUENT
BAR
SCREENS
H
CLARIFIER
1
1 WAS
1
1
1
1
SLUDGE
BEDS
m
» ^^ «^
TE
•
AERATION
TANK
SECONDARY L
CLARIFIER |
1
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE 1
• * - '
, 1
ALTERNATE
AERATED
BASIN
LAND
DISPOSAL
•
SETTLING
BASINS
OUTFALL
h
FIGURE A
EFFLUENT TREATMENT AT
BUILDING PAPER MILLS
-------
Other combinations of biological treatment may be employed in a two-
stage arrangement. For example, a trickling filter may precede an
aerated stabilization basin or an activated sludge system. This
arrangment may be employed where the second stage is required because of
insufficient performance of the trickling filter alone. It may also be
used in cases where cooling of the waste is required before further
biological treatment may proceed. In the latter case, the trickling
filter serves as a partial cooling tower, and also accomplishes some
BODj> reduction.
Two-stage aerated stabilization basins, operated in series, may have
particular appeal for this industry. This arrangement usually requires
less land than a single unit, and can be expected to provide better
treatment on an equal-volume basis. For the first stage, a detention
time up to two days or more is usually recommended, and up to 10 days or
more for the second stage. If sufficient land is available at
reasonable cost, this system is usually a less expensive approach than a
two-stage system involving activated sludge. It has the further
advantage of providing more detention time which is helpful in treating
surges of flow or pollutant load. Under conditions of proper design and
operation, including nutrient addition and surge basins located prior to
biological treatment, BCDjj removals of 90-95 percent can ultimately be
expected to be achieved with this system.
A two-stage biological system currently employed by some Southern
unbleached kraft mills utilizes aerated stabilization basins followed by
storage oxidation. Typically, detention time of the former is eight to
14 days and for the latter is eight to 40 days. In these installations,
overall BODjj removal (compared to raw waste) of 85 percent is being
achieved, with 70 percent removal after first stage. These data do not,
however, reflect usage of nutrients. It is probable that the addition
of surge basins, coupled with nutrient addition, proper aeration and
mixing capacity, will ultimately permit BOD5 reductions of 90-95 percent
in this system. For mills with adequate land and other favorable
factors, this system may be the most economical approach.
Other combinations cf two-stage biological treatment are, of course,
possible. These would include use of activated sludge followed by an
aerated stabilization basin, storage oxidation, or trickling filters.
Such combinations, with rare exceptions, would not usually be the more
economical or practicable solution, however.
46
-------
Temgerature Ef f ect s
All biological treatment systems are sensitive to temperature. Optimum
temperature for these systems is generally in the 16° to 38°C (60° to
100°F) range. Impaired EOD removal efficiency is usually encountered as
temperature of the waste water drops significantly below or rises
significantly above this range.
Temperatures over 38°C may be encountered in warm climates where heat is
also added to the waste stream during processing. Cooling towers or
trickling filters have been employed to reduce these higher temperatures
prior to biological treatment. In colder climates, waste water
temperature is likely to drop below 16°C in the winter, particularly
where detention time of the biological unit exceeds 12 to 24 hours.
With greater detention times, heat loss to atmosphere from the treatment
unit generally becomes significant. Thus activated sludge units, which
are usually designed for two to 10 hours detention, are less susceptible
to reduction of EOD removal efficiency in cold climates than are aerated
stabilization basins or storage oxidation tasins.
To some degree, this drop-off of BOD removal efficiency can be mitigated
in cclder climates by improved design of aeration and mixing factors.
Two-stage aerated stabilization basins are likely to perform better in
cold temperatures than a single stage of greater total detention time.
A large amount of precise data on the performance of aerated
stabilization basins relative to temperature is lacking. Studies
conducted at a mill in Michigan indicated that at waste water
temperatures of 2°C (35° F) , BOD5 levels increased to more than twice of
those obtained at 16°C (60°F) (13). In addition a research project
operating on pilot scale indicated that BOD5 levels at waste water
temperatures of 2°C (35° F) increased to just greater than twice of
those obtained at 16°C (60°F) (14). More study also is needed in this
area, since other design variables, as well as operating variables,
affect BOD removal. For example, mixing efficiency varies as
temperature changes in the basin. Other design parameters, such as
lagoon geometry, depth, detention time, nutrient addition, BOD loading
rate, and aerator spacing, and horsepower, are significant. Other
factors which affect heat loss in basin are wind velocity, ambient air
temperature and humidity, solar radiation, aeration turbulence, and foam
cover.
-------
Tertiary Suspended solids Reduction Technologies
Mixed -Media Filtration
Mixed-medium filters are similar to conventional single medium deep-bed
sand filters, but employ more than one filter media. Typical
arrangements employ garnet, sand, or anthracite.
Conventional sand filters have the finer mesh material on top of the
bed, with coarser grades below. Flow is downward. Thus most of the
suspended solids are trapped in the top inch or two of the bed. Certain
types of suspended solids, such as those from biological treatment,
rapidly plug the top of the bed, requiring very frequent backwashes.
Multi-media filters have been designed with the objective of overcoming
this disadvantage of single-medium filters. Large size medium is
employed on the top layer, over a second layer of finer media. Usually
anthracite coal is used in the top layer, and sand in the lower layer.
Thus larger particles of suspended solids are trapped in the top layer,
and finer particles in the lower layer. The result is to extend the
filter "run" before fcackwashing is required. An extension of this
principle is to add a third, finer, layer of garnet below the sand
continuously decreasing particle size of media as depth increases. The
different media are selected so that the top bed has the lowest specific
gravity, and successively lower beds have successively higher specific
gravities. With this arrangement, the bed layers tend to maintain their
respective physical locations during and after the turbulence created by
backwashing. Typical arrangements for dual media filters are anthracite
(specific gravity 1.6) over sand (specific gravity 2.65). A layer of
garnet (specific gravity 4.2) is imposed below the sand for a three-
media filter.
Studies on municipal wastes have indicated that multi-media filters
outperform single-medium sand filters. Better removal of suspended
solids was obtained with longer runs and at higher flow rates per unit
area of filter bed.
HG^ Sedimentation for Suspended Solids
Removal
To avoid rapid plugging of mixed media filters, an additional step to
remove suspended solids contained in biological treatment effluents may
be required.
U8
-------
Traditional treatment systems have utilized rapid-mix and flocculation
basins ahead of sedimentation tanks for chemical clarification. The
rapid mix is designed to provide a thorough and complete dispersal of
chemical throughout the waste water being treated to insure uniform
exposure to pollutants which are to be removed. In-line blenders can be
used as well as the traditional high-powered mixers which may require as
much as 0.35 kilowatts/MLD (1 horsepower/MGD). In essence, the rapid
mix performs two functions, the one previously noted (mixing) and a
rapid coagulation. These functions are enhanced by increased
turbulence.
Flocculation promotes the contact, coalescence and size increase of
coagulated particles. Flocculation devices vary in form, but are
generally divided into two categories. These are mechanically-mixed and
baffled flocculators. Baffled basins have the advantage of low
operating and maintenance costs, but they are not normally used because
of their space requirement, inability to be easily modified for changing
conditions and high head losses. Most installations utilize horizontal
or vertical shaft mechanical flocculators which are easily adjusted to
changing requirements.
Solids-contact clarifiers have become popular for advanced waste water
treatment in recent years because of their inherent size reduction when
compared to separate mixing, flocculation and sedimentation basins in
series. Their use in water clarification and softening was carried over
to waste treatment when chemical treatment of waste water was initiated.
Theoretically, the advantage of reduced size accrues to their ability to
maintain a high concentration of previously formed chemical solids for
enhanced orthokinetic flocculation or precipitation and their physical
design, whereby three unit processes are combined in one unit. In
practice this amounts to savings in equipment size and capital cost.
Problems have occurred with the sludge-blanket clarifiers for reasons
which include possible anaerobic conditions in the slurry; lack of
individual process ccntrol for the mixing, flocculation and
sedimentation steps; and uncontrolled blanket upsets under varying
hydraulic and organic loading conditions. The major allegation is the
instability of the blanket, which has presented operational problems in
the chemical treatment of waste waters. Possibly the most effective
method of control to date, other than close manual control, has been to
mimimize the blanket height to allow for upsets. The advantages of
higher flow rates and solids-contacting are maintained, but the
advantage of the blanket is minimized. Another possiblility which has
not been fully evaluated is the use of sludge-blanket sensors for
automatic control of solids wasting.
-------
Solids-contact clarifiers have been used for the treatment of secondary
and primary effluents, as well as for the treatment of raw, degritted
wastewater. Lime as the treatment chemical has been used with overflow
rates from 48,900 to 69,300 liters per day per square meter (1200 to
1700 gpd/sq ft) in solidscontact units, while iron compounds and alum
have been used at lower values, usually between 20,400 to 40,700 liters
per day per square meter (500 and 1000 gpd/sq ft) . All of these rates
from 48,900 to 69,300 liters per day per square meter (1200 to 1700
gpd/sq ft) in solids-contact units. All of these rates come from pilot
studies of less than 3.78 MLD (1 MGD) capacity, and may be subject to
change at a larger scale due to differences in hydraulics. Polymer
treatment can also influence the choice of overflow rates used for
design if their cost can be economically justified when compared to the
cost of lower overflow rates. Detention times in these solids-contact
basins have ranged frcm just over one to almost five hours. Sludge
removal rate is dependent on the solids concentration of the underflow,
which is a function of the unit design as well as the chemical employed.
These pilot plants have reported lime sludge drawoffs from 0.5 to 1.5
percent of the waste water flow at concentrations of from 3 to 17
percent solids. Alum and iron sludges have not been monitored
extensively, but drawoffs have been reported to be 1 to 6 percent of the
flow with 0.2 to 1.5 percent solids.
Much of the design information necessary for solids-contact clarifiers
has been obtained from water treatment experience. This is not
surprising in that the principles of treatment are identical. The
characteristics of the solids that are formed and separated are the
source of differences. The organic matter contained in the chemically-
created sludges causes the sludge to become lighter and also more
susceptible to septicity due to the action of microorganisms. The
former condition suggests lower hydraulic loadings, while the latter
suggests higher ones, given a set physical design. Since sludge
septicity is neither universal nor uncontrollable, a lower design
overflow rate may comprise much of the necessary adjustment to waste
treatment conditions from those of water treatment. As indicated
previously, design overflow rates from 48,900 to 69,300 liters per day
per square meter (1200 to 1700 gpd/sq ft) for lime treatment and from
29,400 to 40,700 liters per day per square meter (500 to 1000 gpd/sq ft)
for alum or iron treatment have been successful at less than 3.78 MLD (1
MGD) capacity. Cold weather peak flow conditions will probably
constitute the limiting condition, as water treatment practice has shown
that overflow rates are reduced by as much as 50 percent at near-
freezing temperature. Waste water will probably not reach such low
temperatures in most areas, but the effects are significant.
Sludge Dewaterjnq and Disposal
50
-------
Due to their high organic content, the dewatering and disposal of
sludges resulting from the waste treatment of mill effluents can pose a
major problem and cost more than the treatment itself. In early
practice, these sludges were placed in holding basins from which free
water from natural compaction and rainfall was decanted. When a basin
was full, it was abandoned, or, if sufficient drying took place, the
cake was excavated and dumped on waste land. In this case, the basin
was returned to service.
Odor problems from drying, as well as land limitations, have demanded
the adoption of more advanced practices. These are covered in detail in
Technical Bulletin NCK J9.0 _Q.5JL and are described briefly below.
Depending on the performance of dewatering equipment, in some cases it
is either necessary or desirable to prethicken sludges. This is
accomplished by gravity thickeners of the "picket-fence" type or by
providing a high level of sludge storage capacity in mechanical
clarifiers. Small mills sometimes employ high conical tanks which serve
as both storage tanks and thickeners. These have side wall slopes in
excess of 60 degrees tut contain no rake mechanism.
Sludges from building paper mills can generally be thickened to a
consistency in excess of four percent dry solids by prethickening. If
activated sludge from secondary treatment is included, this figure can
be somewhat lower.
Vacuum filters are in use for dewatering sludges and produce filter
cakes ranging from 20 to 30 percent solids. Observed capacities for
this poorly filterable sludges can generally be about doubled by
chemical conditioning with ferric chloride, alum, or polyelectrolytes at
a cost of from $2.72 to $4.54 per metric ton ($3.00 to $5.00 per short
ton) of dry solids. Such treatment is generally necessary when
activated sludge is included in the sludge to be dewatered since the
addition of 20 percent of this material on a dry solids basis can reduce
filtration rates as much as 50 percent.
Complete vacuum filter installations, including all accessories, range
from $4,306 to $5,382 per square meter of filter area ($400 to $500 per
square foot of filter area) . Although a number of different types of
filters are in service, coil or belt types are the most popular among
recent installations. At one mill using coil filters, average cake
content of 23 percent was reported, with an influent sludge
concentration of 3.3 percent. Loading rates averaged 27.37 kilograms
solids per square meter of filter area per day (5.6 pounds solids per
square foot of filter area per day) .
Centrifuges are also used for sludge dewatering. In practice, the
higher the consistency of the feed, the more effective they are in terms
of solids capture in relation to through-put as well as reduced cake
51
-------
moisture. Moisture is generally lower than in cakes produced by vacuum
filters. Cakes range from 25 to 35 percent dry solids content and are
in a pelletized easily manageable form. To operate effectively,
centrifuges must capture in excess cf 85 percent of the solids in the
feed stream. Centrifuges cost from $106 to $159 per liter per minute
($400 to $600 per gpm) of feed capacity. At a two percent solids feed
consistency, this is equivalent to 97.6 kilograms of dry solids (215
pounds of dry solids) daily at 90 percent capture. Although drying beds
are employed for dewatering sludges, they are not constructed as
elaborately as are those employed for sanitary sewage. They generally
consist only of multiple earthen basins without a complex underdrain
system.
Detailed experiments en this method of dewatering sludge set forth
parameters of good practice and area requirements (16) . The latter vary
naturally with the climate, although adjustments as to the depth of
sludge deposited and its initial moisture content are also involved.
The most effective depth is less than one foot.
Sludge generated by mills in this industry can be removed for disposal
on the land as soon as it becomes "spadeable" or handleable with earth
moving equipment, which is about 25 percent solids content. Land
disposal, via dumping or lagooning, has been a common means of disposing
of waste sludges and ether solid wastes from many builder's paper and
roofing felt mills. Cdors formed upon decomposition of these materials,
the potential for pollution of nearby surface waters, and the
elimination of affected lands from potential future usages, have made
such practices generally undersirable: If disposed of using proper
sanitary landfill techniques however most solids from this industry
should create no environmental problems. In the rare cases in which
sludges may contain leachable quantities of taste or odor imparting,
toxic, or otherwise undesirable substances, simple sanitary landfilling
may not be sufficient to protect groundwater quality. A sludge
dewatering and disposal operation is shown in Figure 5.
Effluent Levels Achieved by. Existing Treatment Systems at Builders Paper
Roofing Felt Mills
Final effluent levels presently being achieved by existing treatment
systems at builder's paper and roofing felt mills are shown in Table 6.
BOD5 ranges from 0.055 kg/kkg (0.11 Ibs/ton) to 2.65 kg/kkg (14
Ibs/ton) . Total suspended solids ranges from 0.45 kg/kkg (0.09 Ibs/ton)
to 2.75 kg/kkg (5.5 Ibs/ton). It should be noted that the data for mill
"a" is the most reliable data in the table as it represents a year' s
operating data.
52
-------
SLUDGE FROM
TREATMENT PLANT
WASTE SLUDGE
METER
GRAVITY
THICKENER
U)
1
FILTERS
ALTERNATE
CENTRIFUGES
ALTERNATE
DRYING BEDS
I
I
1
4>
1
I
1
1
_^
1
1
1
*
— m
— •
— •
_ FILTRATES TO .
^ TREATMENT PLANT
STACK
(OFF-GASES)
f
•
1
•
1
INCINERATOR
ALTERNATE
, LAND
DISPOSAL AREA
" m ASHtb
1
1
1
I
1
»™J
SLUDGE DEWATERING AND DISPOSAL
FIGURE 5
-------
Table 6
Effluent Levels Achieved by Existing Treatment Systems
Mill Treatment
Exemplary Mills
a* DAF-AS
a** DAF-AS
b** C-ASB-L
Mills from RAPP Data
1 C-TF
2 C-ASB
3 . C-AS
4 C-ASB
Production
kg/day
(tons/day)
232(256)
304(335)
Flow
kiloliters/kkg
(lOOOgal/ton)
75.1(18)
4.2(1.0)
150(165)
59(65)
227(250)
73(80)
7.9(1.9)
0.37(0.09)
—
1.8(0.44)
BODS
Inf. Eff.
kg/kkg(lbs/ton)
TSS
Inf. Eff.
15(30) 2.6(5.3)
9.5(19) 3.9(7.9)
7.2(14.3) 0.37(0.75)
41(82) 2.7(5.5)
42(84) 4.8(9.6)
4.1(8.3) 0.045(0.09)
0.3(0.6)
—
1.4(2.8)
0.05(0.11)
0.95(1.9)
0.4(0.8)
1.0(2.0)
0.13(0.26)
* Mill Records
** Short term survey data (3-7 days)
Note: Mill "a" is Mill # 3 and Mill "b" is Mill # 2.
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY_QF RECOMMENDED INTERNAL AND EXTEENAL CQNTBOL TECHNOLOGIES
Preliminary Upgrading
Internal measures
The internal measures selected can be summarized as follows:
control of asphalt spills
installations of low volume, high pressure self-
cleaning showers on paper machine
filtering and reuse of press water
External Treatment
For all mills the liguid external treatment consists of raw waste
screening by bar screens, primary treatment by mechanical clarifiers,
foam control, effluent ircnitoring and automatic sampling and outfall
diffuser.
The screenings are sanitary landfilled.
BPCTCA_TeghnolocrY
Internal Measures
The internal measures selected to bring the mills up to BPCTCA, consist
of the preliminary additions already made plus the following:
segregation and reuse of white waters
collection and reuse of vacuum pump seal waters
installation of savealls
gland water reduction
press water filtering, and
water showers
save-alls and associated equipment
External Measures
Screening, primary, and secondary treatment are provided to total mill
effluents for all mills, where the screening is by bar screens and
primary sedimentation in mechanical clarifiers as was used when the
upgrading was done in the previous upgrading step.
55
-------
Secondary treatment is provided by one or two stage biological treatment
with nutrient addition. An emergency spill basin is installed prior to
the secondary treatment step.
Foam control, flow monitoring and sampling and outfall system are as
used under previous upgrading step.
BATEA Technology
Internal measures
The internal measures selected to bring the mills up to BATEA consist of
BPCTCA installations plus the following additions:
a. control of spills whereby major pollutional loads bypass
the waste water treatment system to a retention basin and
are ultimately either reused, gradually discharged into the
treatment system, or treated separately;
b. intensive internal reuse of process waters;
c. separation of cooling waters from other waste water streams,
and subsequent heat removal and reuse;
d. intensive reduction of gland water spillage.
External measures
All mill effluents are screened by bar screens, and are subjected to
primary solids separation in mechanical clarifiers and secondary
treatment by two-stage biological treatment with nutrient addition.
Suspended solids are further reduced by mixed media filtration with, if
necessary, chemical addition and coagulation. Emergency spill basins
are provided prior to the secondary treatment step.
Effluents receive foam control treatment, monitoring and automatic
sampling prior to entering the receiving waters through diff users.
Screenings are disposed of by sanitary landfilling. Primary sludges and
waste activated sludge are thickened in gravity sludge thickeners, and
dewatered mechanically by vacuum filters and presses prior to ultimate
disposal.
Ultimate sludge disposal is by sanitary landfilling.
Internal Measures
56
-------
The internal measures selected for NSPS include those for EPCTCA and
BATEA as previously discussed.
External Measures
The same as those for BATEA.
57
-------
Section VIII
COST, ENERGY, NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS,
AND IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
COSTS
This section of the report summarizes the costs of internal and external
effluent treatment associated with the technologies of BPCTCA, BATEA,
and NSPS. The cost functions used are for conventional treatment
methods based on industry experience with full scale installations and
equipment suppliers' estimates. For more advanced processes, where full
scale installations are few or nonexistent, the cost estimates are
largely based on experience with pilot installations and on estimates
from and discussions with equipment suppliers. Cost estimates for
closed-loop operation are based on information obtained from mills
presently operating at closed or nearly closed-loop.
It should be recognized that actual treatment costs vary largely from
mill to mill depending upon the design and operation of the production
facilities and local conditions. Furthermore, effluent treatment costs
reported by the industry vary greatly from one installation to another,
depending upon bookkeeping procedures. The estimates of effluent
volumes and treatment methods described in this section are intended to
be descriptive of the segments of the industry that they cover.
However, the industry is extremely heterogeneous in that almost every
installation has some uniqueness which could be of critical importance
in assessing effluent treatment problems and their associated costs.
Costs of effluent treatment which are presented have considered the
following (See Appendix IV):
Investment Cost
Design
Land
Mechanical and electrical equipment
Instrumentation
Site preparation
Plant sewers
Construction work
Installation
Testing
59
-------
Annual Cost
Interest
Depreciation
Operation and maintenance
Costs of effluent treatment are presented as investment and annual
costs. The annual costs are further broken down into capital costs and
depreciation, and operating and maintenance costs. Investment costs are
defined as the capital expenditures required to bring the treatment or
control technology into operation. These include the traditional
expenditures such as design, purchase of land and all mechanical and
electrical equipment, instrumentation, site preparation, plant sewers,
all construction work, installation, and testing.
The capital costs are the financial charges on the capital expenditures
for pollution control.
The depreciation is the accounting charges which reflect the
deterioration of a capital asset over its useful life. Straight line
depreciation has been used in all case study cost calculations.
Operation and maintenance costs are those costs required to operate and
maintain the pollution abatement equipment. They include such items as
labor, parts, chemicals, energy, insurance, taxes, solid waste disposal,
quality control, monitoring, and administration. Productivity increases
or by-product revenues as a result of improved effluent control are
subtracted with the result that the operation and maintenance costs
reported are the net costs.
All costs in this report are expressed in terms of August 1971 prices.
This is comparable to the following costs indexes:
Indexes Index a August 197J
EPA Treatment Plant Construction Cost 164.5
Index (1957-59 = 100)
EPA Sewer Line Construction Cost 166.8
Index (1957-59 = 100)
Engineering News Fecord (ENR) Construction Cost
Index (1913 = 100) 1614
ENR Labor Cost
Index (1949 = 100) 420
60
-------
Effluent treatment or control technology is grouped into internal and
external measures. Available methods for reduction of pollutant
discharges by internal measures include effective pulp washing,
chemicals and fiber recovery, treatment and reuse of selected waste
streams and collection of spills and prevention of "accidental"
discharges. Internal measures are essentially reduction of pollutant
discharges at the origin and results in recovery of chemicals, by-
products, and in conservation of heat and water.
The treatment unit operations which are discussed are grouped into pre-
primary, secondary and tertiary treatment and sludge dewatering and
disposal.
Pretreatment are those processes which are used as required to prepare
the effluent for the subsequent treatment steps.
Primary treatment is designed to remove suspended solids, and is usually
the first major external treatment step.
The primary purpose of secondary treatment is to remove BOD.
The tertiary treatment steps are designed to remove suspended solids and
BOD to degrees which are not obtainable through primary and secondary
treatment processes, or designed to remove substances which are
refractory to the primary and secondary steps. A detailed discussion of
external treatment unit operations and processes considered in this
study, considered with their costs is summarized in Appendix IV to this
report.
The specific internal and external control technologies upon which costs
of treatment were based were previously shown in Tables 3 and 4 in
Section VII.
Table 8 illustrates the costs and resultant pollutant levels for the
recommended treatment and control technologies for the subject
subcategory for a 90.7 metric ton/day (100 short ton/day) mill. Each
cost shown reflects the total amount necessary to upgrade a mill which
has only minimal internal control of spills, minimal recycling and
recovery, and no treatment of waste waters to the specified technology
level. It should be recognized that most mills have some existing
capability beyond this base line, thus resulting in reduced costs over
those shown.
61
-------
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Specific energy and pcwer prices were based on the following and are
reported as annual expenditures.
External treatment
power cost = 1.1«:/KWH
fuel price = $0.24/mill Kg Cal ($0.95/mill BTU)
Internal treatment
steam = $1.86/metric ton ($2.05/short ton)
power = 0.60/KWH
The lower power unit price used for internal treatment takes into
consideration the lower cost of power generated by the mill, while power
from external sources is assumed for external treatment.
For a 91 metric ton (100 short ton) per day mill, energy costs for
EPCTCA, BATEA, and NSPS will be $43,000, $45,000 and $25,000,
respectively.
62
-------
Table 8
Effluent Treatment Cost and Quality for 90.7 mtpd (100 tpd) Building Paper Mill
None
E T
Pre
BPCTCA
I *)
BATEA
NSPS
a. 0. 0. 0. 122 344 456 428 487 915
b. 0. 0. 0. 34 84 118 98 137 235
c. 0. 0. 0. 17 47 64 64 62 126
d. 0. 0. 0. 17 37 54 34 75 109
428
98
64
34
1035
217
138
79
1463
315
202
113
NA
NA
NA
NA
725
162
100
62
725
162
100
62
kg/kkg (Ibs/ton)
TSS
BOD5
35 (70)
35 (70)
5 (10)
17.5 (35)
Approximate gallons per ton x 1000
4.17 (10) 8.3 (2)
2.5 (5
2.5 5
1.0
1.0
4.2 (1)
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.2 (1)
Note: In going from *) to **) practical considerations dictate that the internal
investment be made at BPCTCA. Therefore, although a decrease in internal
water use is expected between BPCTCA and BATEA, the total required invest-
ment is given in BPCTCA.
Key for Table
Data are in $1000's unless otherwise indicated.
I = Costs for Internal Controls
E = Costs for External Controls
T = Sum of costs I and E
a = Investment cost
b = Total annual cost (sum of c and d)
c = Interest cost plus Depreciation cost @ 15% per yr.
d = Operating and Maintenance cost (including energy
and power) per year.
-------
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS CF CONTROL ANE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Air Pollution Potential
There is virtually no potential for an air pollution problem arising
from the external treatment of effluents from building paper mills,
although such problems are encountered in sludge disposal.
The physical processes employed in suspended solids removal do not
involve any activity which would create air pollution, since detention
times rarely exceed six hours which is not conducive to development of
anaerobic or other odors. The subsequent biological processes are
aerobic in nature when properly designed and operated, and the products
of decomposition consist almost entirely of carbon dioxide, water,
sulfates, and a trace of nitrates, all of which are odorless. The
absence of objectionable odor has been confirmed by innumerable field
observations by contractor personnel and regulatory officials. The only
odors detectable were the characteristic odor associated with wood
extractants.
Odors can arise from land disposal of liquid sludges as a result of
their anaerobic decomposition. These derive primarily from organic
acids and hydrogen sulfide produced on reduction of sulfates dissolved
in the water content of the sludges. Dewatering prior to disposal on
the land arrests such decomposition and represents an adequate odor
control measure, as do land fill practices.
Incineration of sludges produced in the effluent treatment processes
can, without appropriate control equipment, result in the discharge of
particulates to the atmosphere. However, emission control devices are
available to meet state regulatory requirements in most instances.
Incinerators are either sold with integral emission control appliances
or are equipped with them on installation. Gaseous pollutant emissions
from such incinerators are negligible.
In-mill controls which effect a reduction in fiber and additive losses
such as save-alls and recycling of process waters do not generate an air
pollution problem.
Noise Potential
There are no official records of public noise problems arising from the
operation of effluent treatment by building paper mills. However, based
on many years of contractor association with industry operations, it can
be stated that public complaints engendered by such noise are very
infrequent. This is due in part to their confinement, in some
instances, to manufacturing or utility areas and to the fact that the
noise level of most of the devices employed for treatment is generally
lower than that of some manufacturing machinery.
-------
The sources of noise are for the.most part air compressors or mechanical
surface aerators supplying air to treatment processes, vacuum pumps and
centrifuges involved in sludge dewatering, and fans serving sludge
incinerators. With the exception of surface aerators, these devices are
most frequently operated in buildings which serve to muffle their noise.
Since many building paper mills are located in populated areas, noise
from surface aerators could be a problem. However, these mills are
small and employ small aerators which, if not driven through gear boxes,
produce little noise. The problem of noise emanating from gear boxes
used in these aerators and elsewhere is the subject of an extensive
investigation by the Philadelphia Gear Company which manufactures many
of these units. It is anticipated that this study will lead to a
reduction in noise from these sources.
It can be concluded that noise produced by equipment used for treating
building paper mill effluent is not a major public problem at present.
Efforts being made to reduce the noise level of mechanical equipment in
general, motivated by industrial health protection programs, will lend
assistance in preventing it from becoming one.
Solid wastes and Their Disposal
Solid wastes generated by building paper mills, in addition to sludges
produced by effluent treatment, are trash, waste paper, ash, and
garbage.
Trash such as metals, glass, and plastics is removed from waste paper
and used rags in the beaters and pulpers and in stock cleaning
operations. The material and grit from the rifflers are disposed of by
land fill on the irill premises or hauled to a suitable location for
disposal in this manner.
Wood rejects occur only in small quantities since less than 50 tons of
wood a day is generally processed. In most instances, the rejects can
be recycled in the process.
Ash from coal-fired boilers can be discharged hydraulically to ash
ponds. There the solids settle and compact and the clear supernatant
water is discharged tc the mill effluent system. If ash is hauled to a
disposal area, these materials should be transported wet in order to
avoid being blown into the atmosphere.
Waste paper and garbage are either incinerated on the site or hauled
away for disposal by contractors engaged in this business. Particulates
from incineration must be controlled by effective devices such as bag
filters or wet scrubbers.
65
-------
Research recently has been conducted on solid wastes generated in the
pulp and paper industry and their disposal for EPA's Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs (EPA Contract No. 68-03-0207) .
66
-------
IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Ay. ai 1 ab i 1 it y_ o f_ Eg ui Ement
Since 1966, when major Federal water pollution control expenditures
began, various Federal and private organizations have analyzed the
projected levels of water pollution control activity and their economic
impact on the construction and equipment industries. As a result, a
plethora of studies has been developed which is related to the levels of
municipal and industrial water pollution control construction and the
respective markets for waste water treatment equipment. Less
information is available concerning the actual and anticipated levels of
expenditure by any specific industry.
In recent years, the trend in the waste water equipment industry has
seen the larger firms acquiring smaller companies in order to broaden
their market coverage.
Figure 6 shows graphically past expenditures and projected future
outlays for the construction of industrial waste water treatment
facilities, as well as total water pollution control expenditures.
Obviously, the level of expenditures by industry is related to the
Federal compliance schedule. This will increase until industry is in
compliance with Federal standards. Once that occurs, the level of
spending will return to a level commensurate with the construction of
new facilities, replacement of existing facilities, and the construction
of advance waste treatment facilities.
Figure 7 shows past expenditures for and projected future trends in
total sales of waste water treatment equipment and the dollar amounts
attributable to industrial and municipal sales.
The data in Figures 6 and 7 related to industrial water pollution
expenditures include only those costs external to the industrial
activity. Internal process changes made to accomplish water pollution
control are not included.
Recent market studies have projected the total available production
capacity for water and waste water treatment equipment. Most of them
have indicated that the level of sales is currently only 30-40 percent
contracted to verify these figures and indications are that they are
still accurate. A partial reason for this overcapacity is that the
demand for equipment has been lower than anticipated. Production
capacity was increased assuming Federal expenditures in accord with
funds authorized by Congress and conformance to compliance schedules.
67
-------
CO
PIGURE 6
TOTAU W/XTER POUUUTIOM
CONTROL &XPEWOITUKES
-------
900
1980
YEAR
FlGUEt 7
WASTEWATt??. .Tee.ATM6.MT
EQUIPMfcNT SAUE.S
-------
For the immediate future, increased demands for waste water treatment
equipment can be absorbed by the existing overcapacity. Long term
requirements will probably necessitate expansion of production capacity
in various product lines where the demand is expected to increase
dramatically — specifically, advanced treatment systems and waste
solids handling equipirent.
It should also be noted that the capacity to produce waste water
treatment equipment cculd be expanded significantly through the use of
independent metal fabricators as subcontractors. Even at the present
time work loads are heavy and excessive shipping costs make it desirable
to use a fabricator close to the delivery site.
There appear to be no substantial geographical limitations to the
distribution of waste water treatment equipment to industry. In various
areas, certain suppliers may be more successful than others; however,
this seems to be more related to the effectiveness of the sales
activities than to any geographical limitation. The use of independent
metal fabricators as subcontractors to manufacture certain pieces of
equipment further reduces geographical limitations.
Equipment delivery schedules may vary substantially depending upon the
manufacturer, the current demand, and the specific equipment in
question. Obviously, the greater the demand or the more specialized the
equipment, the greater the delivery time.
Ayailabilitv^gf Construction Manpower
After consultation with the Associated General Contractors of America
and other industry groups, it is concluded that sufficient manpower
exists to construct any required treatment facilities.
This conclusion has reportedly been substantiated by EPA in an
independent study (17) although there 'is still some concern about
localized problems. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been requested
to conduct another study.
Cons true tion_Cost_Ijidex
The most detailed study and careful analysis of cost trends in prior
years still leaves much to be desired in predicting construction cost
through the next ten years.
During the years 1955 through 1965 there was a very consistent price
rise. The Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index in
January 1955 was 644. Kith slight deviations from a straight line,
costs rose at a steady rate to an index of 988 in December 1965. This
represented an increase in cost of 53.4 percent over an eleven-year
period or approximately 5 percent per year.
70
-------
The first six months of 1966 saw an increase of 6.6 percent which then
leveled off abruptly cnly to rise sharply again in 1967 at a rate of 6.2
percent, then increasing to 9.4 percent in 1968.
The increase in costs continued at about 10.5 percent per year through
1970. During 1971, construction costs rose at the unprecedented rate of
15.7 percent primarily due to larger increases in labor rates.
With the application oF Federal wage and price controls in 1972, the
rate of increase dropped to 8.7 percent. The first three months of 1973
saw some escalation of cost due to allowable materials price gains. EPA
determined the increase in Treatment Plant Construction Cost during this
period to be 3.1 percent. This compares with a rise of only 0.9 percent
during the previous three months.
The opinion of some officials of the Associated General Contractors is
that rate of cost increase for general construction work, including
waste water treatment and industrial construction/ should average no
more than five to six percent over the next several years. This is,
therefore, the basis used for extention of the ENR index curve at an
annual six percent increase for construction costs through the year
1983. This is shown in Figure 8.
Land Requirements
Land requirements for a number of external treatment systems have been
evaluated and are shown in Figure 9 for a range of plant sizes.
Incineration or off-site disposal of dewatered sludge has been assumed.
Should sludge lagoons be used on site, additional land would be
required.
Time Required to Construct Treatment Facilities
The time required to construct treatment facilities has been determined
for a range of plant sizes and for two different project contract
possibilities. The treatment sizes evaluated were under 18,925
kiloliters per day (five MGD), 18,925-189,250 kiloliters per day (five
to 10 MGD), and over 189,250 kiloliters per day (10 MGD). The contract
bases evaluated were 1) separate engineering and construction and 2)
turnkey performance. The components considered for both approaches
included preliminary engineering, final design engineering, bid and
construction award, and construction.
It is concluded from reviewing the data shown in Figure 10 that it
should be possible in all cases to meet the implementation requirements
of the July 1977 deadlines.
71
-------
ro
D
I
0
1
8
300O
ZCoOO
2200
1800
1400
IOOO
6>00-
- I JULY \983
/=T 3040 ±
1955
I9BO
1983
YEAR
FIGURE 8'
ENGINEERING N£.WS RECORD
CONSTRUCTION COST
-------
\n
u
a
u
4
OJ
IOOO
500
NATURAL
STABILIZATION
1. ^~ AERATED
STABILIZATION
10 IS
FLOW - tVlGD
F1GURG 9
LAND REQUIRED
WASTE WATER. TREATMENT
73
-------
SIZE
COMV.
UMDCR 5
TURNKEY
5-10
COMV
5-10
TURNKEY
OVER 10
CONJV
OV&R IO
TURNKEY
1974
J
...
FMAMJJASOND
'
»_
j
' —
--
1
-•
mil
inn
Illll
HIM
.11
Hill
•
.,-,.
IMIII
iiiin
1975
JFM AMJ JASOND
,,.
"1 "
i
iniiiiiiii
!
—
mm
1 M 1
• 1 1
• 1 •
"""1
rt-
•i 1 1
1 .1
• i •
,,.
L _L_J _L .L_1_.J_
1976
J
FM AMJJ ASON-0
L I-
1977
JFM AMJJ A
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
FINAL DESIGN ENGINEERING
BIO AND CONSTRUCTION AWARD
CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE 1Q
TO
CONSTRUCT WASTEWATtR
COMVEK1TIOKJAL 4 TURKJK&Y
-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
INTRODUCTION
The effluent limitations which must be achieved by July 1, 1977 are to
specify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the appli-
cation of the best practicable control technology currently available.
Best practicable control technology currently available is generally
based upon the average cf the best existing performance by plants of
various sizes, ages, and unit processes within the industrial subcate-
gory.
Consideration was also given to:
a. the total cost of application of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such applica-
tion;
b. the size and age of equipment and facilities involved;
c. the processes employed;
d. the engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques;
e. process changes;
f. non-water quality environmental impact (including energy re-
quirements) .
Also, best practicable control technology currently available emphasizes
treatment facilities at the end of a manufacturing process but includes
the control technologies within the process itself when the latter are
considered to be normal practice within an industry.
A further consideration is the degree of economic feasibility and engi-
neering reliability which must be established for the technology to be
"currently available." As a result of demonstration projects, pilot
plants, and general use, there must exist a high degree of confidence in
the engineering feasibility and economic practicability of the tech-
nology at the time of commencement of construction of installation of
the control facilities.
75
-------
30 Day
2.5(5.0)
EOD5
Daily Max
3.75(7.5)
30 Day
2.5 (5.0)
TSS
Daily Max
3.9(7.8)
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF BEST
PRACTICABLE CONTRQL_TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Based upon the information contained in Sections III through VIII and
the appendices of this report, a determination has been made that the
point source discharge guidelines for each identified pollutant shown in
Table 9 can be obtained through the application of the best practicable
pollution control technology currently available.
Table 9
Recommended EPCTCA Effluent Limitation Guidelines
Values in kg/kkg (Ibs/ton)
pH
Range
6.0-9.0
The maximum average of daily values for any 30 consecutive day period
should not exceed the 30 day effluent limitation guidelines shown above.
The maximum for any one day should not exceed the daily maximum effluent
limitation guidelines shown above. The guidelines are in kilograms of
pollutant per metric ton of production except for the pH guideline.
Mill effluents should always be within the pH range shown.
The above effluent limitation guidelines for TSS are for TSS as measured
by the technique utilizing glass fiber filter disks as specified in
Standard 53£tl32^§ f°r the Examination of Water and Waste water (13
Edition) (1) .
Production, in air dry tons, is defined as the highest level of
production (off the machine) sustained for seven consecutive operating
days of normal production.
Temperature Variance
Additional allocations equal to the above guidelines, (excluding pH),
are allowed during periods when the waste water temperature within the
treatment system is 35 °F or lower. If 35 °F is the maximum temperature
which occurs in the waste water within the treatment system for one day
or for 30 consecutive days, the allocation may be applied to the daily
maximum and 30 day maximum guidelines, respectively.
76
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF BEST IRACTICABLE POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY~CyRRENTLY~AvilLABLE
Internal Control
a. Water Showers
Fresh water showers used to clean wire, felt, and other
machine elements (of both fourdrinier and cylinder ma-
chines) should be low-volume and high^pressure; white
water showers should be low-pressure, high volume, and
self-cleaning.
b. Segregation of White Water Systems
The segregation of white water systems should be designed
to permit maximum reuse within the stock preparation/
machine systems and to permit only low fiber content white
water to enter the sewer.
c. Press Water filtering
A vibrating or centrifugal screen should be employed to remove
felt hairs prior to press water reuse.
d. Collection Systems for Vacuum Fump Seal Water
Seal water should be collected for partial reuse and/or cascade
to or from other water users.
e. Save-all with Associated Equipment
An effective save-all should be employed to recover fibrous and
other suspended material .which escapes from the paper machine.
f. Gland Water Reduction
Flow control of individual seal water lines to equipment packing
glands, or equivalent measures, should be exercised.
g. Control of Asphalt Spills
Floor drains are connected to a spill basin which is equipped
with asphalt removal facilities.
77
-------
External Treatment.
a. Suspended Solids Reduction
This step involves removal of suspended solids from the
raw waste stream. It can incorporate either 1) an
earthen stilling basin; or 2) mechanical clarification and
sludge removal. Solids dewatering screens can also be in-
corporated pricr to solids settling as a means of removing
coarse solids.
b. BOD Reduction
The treatment system for reduction of BOD5 may be either
one-or two- stage biological treatment. The treatment
system may consist of activated sludge process (AS),
aerated basins (ASB) , and/or storage oxidation ponds (SO) .
c. Secondary Solids Reduction
The system should provide for the removal of biological
solids by either mechanical clarifiers, stilling ponds
(or a SO following an AS or an ASB), or a quiescent zone in an
aerated basin which is beyond the influence of the
aeration equipment.
d. Sludge Disposal
When compatible with other unit processes, sludge disposal can
often be carried out in a stilling pond. However, this neces-
sitates periodic dredging, removal, and disposal of solids.
Where activated sludge and mechanical clarification are utilized,
ultimate sludge disposal can be accomplished through sludge
thickening by vacuum filtration or centrifugation, followed by
sludge dewatering and ultimate solids disposal. Disposal can be
accomplished by either land disposal or incineration. Combus-
tion of sludges can be carried out either in a sludge incinerator
or a power bciler.
73
-------
RATIONALE_FOR THE_SELECTION_OF_BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
Age and Size of Equipment and^Facilities
There is a wide range, in both size and age among mills in the sub-
category studied. However, internal operations of most older mills have
been upgraded, and some of these mills currently operate very
efficiently. The technology for upgrading of older mills is well
established, and does not vary significantly from mill to mill within
the subcategory. Studies have also shown that waste treatment plant
performance does not relate to mill size. Most mills are constructed on
a "modular" concept, where key process elements are duplicated as mill
size expands. Consequently, there is no significant variation in either
the waste water characteristics or in the waste water loading rates, in
kilograms per metric ton (in pounds per short ton of product), between
mills of varying sizes.
Process Change
Application of best technology currently available does not require
major changes in existing industrial processes. Incorporation of
additional systems, treatment processes, and control measures can be
accomplished in most cases through changes in piping, and through design
modifications to existing equipment. Such alterations can be carried
out in all mills within the subcategory.
Engineering Aspects gf_Ccntrgl Technique Applications
The technology to achieve these effluent limitations is practiced within
the subcategory under study. The concepts are proven, available for
implementation, and applicable to the wastes in question. The waste
treatment techniques are also broadly applied within many other indus-
tries. The technology required will necessitate improved monitoring of
waste discharges and of waste treatment components on the part of many
mills, as well as more extensive training of personnel in operation and
maintenance of waste treatment facilities. However, these procedures
are currently practiced in some mills and are common practice in many
other industries.
Non-water Quality Environmental Impact
Application of the activated sludge waste treatment process offers a
potential for adverse iirpact upon air quality if dewatered sludges are
incinerated. However, proper selection and operation of particulate
-------
emission control equipment can minimize this impact. Dredged or dewa-
tered sludges disposed of on land can present an odor problem if a solid
waste disposal program is not properly implemented.
The technology cited will not create any significant increase in noise
levels beyond those observed in well designed municipal waste water
treatment systems which currently are being approved by the Federal gov-
ernment for construction in populated areas. Further, no hazardous
chemicals are required as part of this technology.
The greatest proportion of energy consumed will be for pumping and for
biological treatment. The total energy requirements for implementation
of best available technology are not substantial and should not be
enough to warrant concern on either a national or regional basis.
However, it should be cautioned that no investigation has been made in
this study into the cumulative effect of energy requirements when all
industries within the country simultaneously implement best available
technology levels.
£2St of Application in Relation to Effluent Reduction Benefits
For a 90.7 metric ten (100 short ton) per day mill, the total annual
cost of this level of technology is estimated at $235,000, including
energy requirements. This results in an increase in production costs of
approximately $8.60 per metric ton (7.83 per short ton).
Ths increase reflects both all internal mill and external waste treat-
ment improvements. It is based on 300 days of prod uction /year . It
should be emphasized, however, that most mills have already carried out
many of these improvements. Subsequently, their increased costs would
be less than those shewn above.
Processes Employed
All mills within the sutcategory studied utilize the same basic produc-
tion processes. Although there are deviations in equipment and produc-
tion procedures, these deviations do not significantly alter either the
characteristics or the treatability of the waste water generated.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF BPCTCA EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES
The 30 day limitation guidelines were determined by averaging the final
effluent waste loads from the exemplary mills and adding an assumed
standard deviation to that average. Addition of the standard deviation
to the average of the exemplary mills allows for the natural variability
-------
of mill and treatment plant operations over a year's time. The average
plus one standard deviation value theoretically allows the exemplary
mills to be within the effluent limitation guidelines 83.5% of the time
(67% for one standard deviation plus 16.555 - derived from 33%/2=16.5%) .
Tighter controls by the mills to eliminate unnatural variations in mill
and treatment system operations, such as spills and human errors, should
allow the exemplary trills to be within the effluent limitation
guidelines all of the time.
The daily maximum effluent limitation guideline was determined by
applying a "variability factor" to the average of the exemplary mills
effluent waste loads. Because of a lack of daily data for the exemplary
mills, factors of 2.5 and 2.8 for BOD5 and TSS , respectively, were used
in determining the daily maximum guidelines. These factors were
transferred from other segments of the pulp and paper industry and they
indicate the daily variations from the annual average for biological
treatment systems. Thus, the daily maximum guidelines were determined
by multiplying 2.5 and 2.8 times the annual average BOD5 and TSS
exemplary mill effluent waste loads, respectively.
BQD5 - 30 Day Limitation Guideline
f
The average BOD5 value of mill "a" (from mill records) and mill "b"
(from the short term survey) is 1.5 kg/kkg (3.0 Ibs/ton) . A coefficient
of variation (CV) of 0.75 was assumed in order to determine the standard
deviation. The average plus the standard deviation is 2.62 kg/kkg (5. 25
Ibs/ton), Thus, a 30 day limitation guideline of 2.5 kg/kkg(5.0
Ibs/ton) was chosen.
BODS ^_ Daily Maximum L i m itatjon Guideline
The daily maximum limitation guideline was determined by multiplying 2.5
times the average of the exemplary mills.
2. 5 x 1.5 kg/kkg(3.0 Ibs/ton) = 3.75 kg/kkg(7.5 Ibs/ton)
TSS - 30 Day Limitation Guideline
The average TSS value of mill "a" (from mill records) and mill "b" (from
the short term survey) is 1.4 kg/kkg (2. 8 Ibs/ton). Assuming a CV of
0.75, the average plus the standard deyiation is 2.45 kg/kkg (4. 9
Ibs/ton). Thus, a 30-day limitation guideline of 2.5 kg/kkg(5.0
Ibs/ton) was chosen.
TSS - Daily Maximum Limitation Guideline
The daily maximum guideline was determined by multiplying 2.8 times the
average of the exemplary mills.
-------
2.8 x 1.4 kg/kkg(2.8 Ibs/ton) =3.9 kg/kkg(7.8 Ibs/ton)
pH Range Limitation Guideline
The pH range of 6.0-9.0 in receiving waters is satisfactory for aquatic
life as specified in the draft document by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) on Water Quality Criteria. Thus, the effluent limitation
of pH range 6.0-9.0 was chosen for all subcategories.
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
INTRODUCTION
Best available technology economically achievable is to be achieved not
later than July 1, 1983. It is not based upon an average of the best
performance within the subcategory under study, but has been determined
by identifying the very best control and treatment technology employed
by a specific point source within the subcategory, or by applying tech-
nology from other industry areas where it is transferable.
Consideration was also given to:
a. the age of equipment and facilities involved;
b. the process eirployed;
c. the engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques;
d. process changes;
e. cost of achieving the effluent reduction resulting from
application of the technology;
f. non-water quality environmental impact, including energy
requirements.
This level of technology emphasizes both internal process improvements
and external treatment of waste waters. It will, therefore, require
existing mills to implement significant internal changes in water reuse
and recycle as well as to apply more advanced waste treatment processes
and other improved internal and external controls in order to meet the
suggested effluent guidelines. In some cases, the industry may be
required to conduct applied research and demonstration studies in order
to firmly establish the most economical approach toward meeting the
guidelines. In some cases, closed loop operation may be an economically
and environmentally favorable alterative.
85
-------
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
Based upon the information contained in Sections III through VIII and in
the appendices of this report, a determination has been made that the
point source discharge guidelines for each identified pollutant shown in
Table 10 can be obtained through the application of best available
technology.
Table 10
Recommended^ BATEA Ef fluent^Limitation Guidelines
Values in kg/kkg (Ibs/ton)
BODS TSS
30 Day Daily Max 30 Day Daily Max pH range
1.02(2.0) 1.4(2.8) 1.0(2.0) 1.55(3.1) 6.0-9.0
The maximum average of daily values for any 30 consecutive day period
should not exceed the 30 day effluent limitation guidelines shown above.
The maximum for any one day should not exceed the daily maximum effluent
limitation guidelines shown above. The guidelines are in kilograms of
pollutant per metric ton of production except for the pH guideline.
Mill effluents should always be within the pH range shown.
The above effluent limitation guidelines for TSS are for TSS as measured
by the techniques utilizing glass fiber filter disks as specified in
St^H^ard Methods For The Exarnination of Water and Waste Water (13th
Edition) (1) .
Production, in air-dry tons, is defined as the highest average level of
production (off the machine) sustained for seven consecutive operating
days of normal production.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The best available technology economically achievable consists of the
best practicable control technology currently available as defined in
Section IX of this report. It also includes the following additional
internal mill improvements and external advanced waste water treatment
practices.
86
-------
Internal Controls
Building paper operations will be able to implement modifications and
operating procedures for:
a. control of spills whereby major pollutional loads bypass the
waste water treatment system to a retention basin and are ulti-
mately either reused, gradually discharged into the treatment
system, or treated separately;
b. intensive internal reuse of process waters;
c. separation of cooling waters from other waste water streams,
and subsequent heat removal and reuse;
d. intensive reduction of gland water spillage.
External_Treatment
Section IX of the report describes best practicable external control
technology currently available. Application of that technology in con-
junction with several additional recognized and potential technologies
described in section VII constitutes best available technology econom-
ically achievable. The additional external processes applicable to this
more advanced technology are as follows:
a. BODjj Reduction
The treatment system should consist of two stage
biological treatment.
b. Suspended Solids Reduction
The treatment to further reduce suspended solids should
consist of mixed media filtration with , if necessary,
chemical addition and coagulation.
87
-------
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY
ACHIEVABLE
Age and Size of Equipment and Facilities
There is a wide range, in both size and age, among mills in the subcate-
gory studied. However, internal operations of most older mills have
been upgraded, and some of these mills currently operate very efficient-
ly. The technology for upgrading of elder mills is well established,
and does not vary significantly from mill to mill. Studies have also
shown that waste treatment plant performance does not relate to mill
size. Most mills are constructed on a "modular" concept, where key
process elements are duplicated as mill size expands. Consequently,
there is no significant variation in either the waste water character-
istics or in the waste water loading rates, in kilograms per metric ton
(in pounds per short ton of product), between mills of varying sizes.
Process_ Changes
Application of best available technology economically achievable does
not require major changes in existing industrial processes. Incor-
poration of additional systems, treatment processes, and control
measures can be accomplished in most cases through changes in piping,
and through design modifications to existing equipment. Such altera-
tions can be carried out on all mills within the subcategory.
Several mills within the builders paper and roofing felt sutcategory
have closed or nearly closed loop recycling systems. An EPA project
investigating recycling possibilities in builders paper and roofing felt
mills is scheduled for completion late in 1973. The project is
determining the cost-effectiveness of various recycling concepts.
Results of the project in conjunction with information on the several
mills already practicing closed loop technologies indicate that closed
loop operations which are at or nearly at zero discharge may be
economically and environmentally advantageous over external treatment
systems as recommended in BATEA. Thus, the technologies of biological
and physical-chemical treatment systems may be changed at a later time
after further demostration of closed loop systems to a BATEA technology
of closed loop systems which would result in no discharge of pollutants.
Engineering Aspects of Control Technique Applications
The technology to achieve most of these effluent limitations is either
practiced by an outstanding mill in the subcategory, or is demonstrated
in other industries and is transferable. The technology required for
all best available treatment and control systems will necessitate
sophisticated monitoring, sampling, and control programs, as well as
properly trained perscnnel.
88
-------
Non-water Quality Environmental Impact
Application of the activated sludge waste treatment process offers a
potential for adverse iirpact upon air quality if dewatered sludges are
incinerated. However, proper selection and operation of particulate
emission control equipment can minimize this impact. Dredged or dewa-
tered sludges disposed of on land can present an odor problem if a solid
waste disposal program is not properly implemented.
The technology cited will not create any significant increase in noise
levels beyond those observed in well designed municipal waste water
treatment systems which currently are being approved by the Federal
government for construction in populated areas. Further, no hazardous
chemicals are required as part of this technology.
The greatest proportion of energy consumed will be for pumping and for
biological treatment. The total energy requirements for implementation
of best available technology for the categories under study are not sub-
stantial and should not be enough to warrant concern on either a
national or regional basis. However, it should be cautioned that no
investigation has been made in this study into the cumulative effect of
energy requirements when all industries within the country
simultaneously implement best available technology levels.
Cost of Application in gelation to^Effluent Reduction_Benefits
Based upon the information contained in Section VIII and the appendices
of this report, total projected cost of upgrading a 90.7 metric ton (100
short ton) per day mill incorporating best practicable control
technology currently available to the level of best available technology
economically achievable reflects an increase in production expenses of
$2.94 per metric ton ($2.67 per short ton). This is based upon total
annual cost of $80,000, including energy requirements.
This increase reflects both all internal mill and external waste treat-
ment improvements and is based on 300 days of production per year.
Processes Employed
All mills within the sutcategory studied utilize the same basic produc-
tion processes. Although there are deviations in equipment and produc-
tion procedures, these deviations do not significantly alter either the
characteristics or the treatability of the waste water generated.
89
-------
FOR SELECTION OF BATEA EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES
The rationale used in developing the BATEA effluent limitation
guidelines for BODS, 1SS, and pH is discussed below.
BOD5 - 30-Day Limitation Guideline
As in the development of the EPCTCA guidelines, the average of the final
effluent waste loads from exemplary mills plus one standard deviation
was used as a basis for the BATEA guidelines. The recommended BATEA
treatment system should remove 95% of the BOD5. Thus, the 30-day
limitation was determined by applying 95% BGDjj removal to the average
exemplary mill raw waste load and then adding the calculated standard
deviation. The CV was assumed to be equal to 0.75.
BOD5 - Daily Maximum Limitatjon^Guideline
The daily maximum limitation guideline was determined in the same manner
as the BPCTCA BOD5 guidelines as discussed in Section IX.
2.5 x 0.55kg/kkg(l.l Ibs/ton) =1.38 kg/kkg(2.77 Ibs/ton)
TSS - 30-Dav Limitatign_Guideline
The 30-day limitation guidelines were determined by reducing the BPCTCA
30-day limitation guidelines by 60%. This reflects the addition of
mixed media filtration to the recommended treatment system for BATEA.
Mixed media filtration can reduce well flocculated suspended solids
levels by at least 90%. Suspended solids which are relatively dispersed
can be reduced up to 80-85% by mixed media filtration with chemical
addition and coagulation prior to the mixed media filtration units.
Thus, a very conservative reduction of 60% was applied to the BPCTCA
effluent limitation guidelines.
T§§ ~ P.£ily. Maxiffilirn Limitation Guideline
The daily maximum limitation guideline was determined by applying 60%
reduction to the BPCTCA daily maximum guidelines.
J23 B^nge Limitation Guideline
The pH range of 6.0-9.0 in receiving waters is satisfactory for aquatic
life as specified in the draft document by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) on Water Quality. Criteria. Thus, the effluent limitation
guideline of 6,0-9.0 was chosen.
90
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
INTRODUCTION
This level of technology is to be achieved by new sources. The term
"new source" is defined in the Act to mean "any source, the construction
of which is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations pre-
scribing a standard of performance." Such commencement of construction
can occur within the near future, certainly before either the 1977 or
1983 compliance dates for either best practicable or best achievable
technologies. Therefore, new source performance standards utilize best
practicable control technology currently available as a base, but also
encompass additional treatment and control technologies through the
application of improved production processes which are designed to
reduce pollutant loads.
Consideration has also been given to:
a. The type of process employed and process changes;
b. Operating methods;
c. Batch as opposed to continuous operations;
d. Use of alternative raw materials and mixes of raw materials;
e. Use of dry rather than wet processes (including substitution
of recoverable solvents for water);
f. Recovery of pollutants as byproducts.
RECOMMENDED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The NSPS are the same as BATEA guidelines as presented in Section X.
IDENTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGY TO ACHIEVE NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The technology for NSFS consists of the best available pollution control
technology economically achievable as defined in Section X of this
report.
91
-------
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION ^QF TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
Type of Process Employed and^ Process Changes
No radical new in- plant processes are proposed as a means of achieving
new source performance standards for this sufccategory.
Operating Methods
Significant revisions in operating methods, both in-plant and at the
waste water treatment facility, will te necessary. However, these im-
provements are not beyond the scope of well- trained personnel, and are
currently being practiced in other industries. The primary areas of
operational change will pertain to required activities for recycle, re-
use, and spill control, as well as for optimal performance of waste
water treatment facilities.
Ba.tchL.ag Opposed^ to Continuous Operations
For the subcategory studied, it was determined that batch as opposed to
continuous operations is not a significant factor in waste load
characteristics and no additional control of pollutants could be
achieved through the use of one type process over the other.
r Materials and Mixes of Raw Materials
The raw materials requirements for a given mill do vary, depending upon
supply and demand, desired end product, and other conditions. However,
alteration of raw materials as a means of reducing pollutants is not
considered feasible over the long term even though such a change could
possibly realize benefits of short duration in a given instance.
Us_§ of Dry_ Rather Than Wet Processes (Including Substitution of
Solvents for Water
For this subcategory, it was determined that technology for dry pulping
beyond that already practiced or papermaking processes does not exist
nor is it in a sufficiently viable experimental stage to be considered
here.
Recovery of^Pollutants as Byproducts
It is anticipated that these performance standards will motivate in-
creased research on recovering materials for byproduct sale the recovery
of which is not presently economically feasible.
92
-------
Pretreattnent Reguirernents_f or Discharges to Municipal Systems
None of the pollutant parameters identified in Section VI of this
report, with the possible exception of pH, can be expected to disrupt or
interfere with the normal operation of a municipal waste water treatment
system which is designed to accommodate the industrial pollutant load
discharged to it from any mill within the subcategory studied. In the
case of pH, some pre- treatment may be required if it can be shown that
the normal pH range in the waste discharged from a given mill exceeds
6.0-9.0.
of Application in Relation to Effluent Reduction Benefits
Based upon the information contained in Section VIII and the Appendices
of this report, the total projected cost of the external technologies
recommended for NSPS for a 90.7 metric ton (100 short ton) per day mill
reflects an increase in production expenses of $5.95 per metric ton
($5.40 per short ten) . This is based upon a total annual cost of
$162,000, including energy requirements and 300 days of production per
year. Costs for internal technologies are not available.
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Environmental Protection Agency wishes to acknowledge the
contributions of WAPORA, Inc., and its subcontractors, E. C. Jordan Co.
and EKONO, who prepared the original draft of this document. The
efforts of Mr. E. N. Poss, Dr. Harry Gehm, Mr. William Groff, Dr. Howard
Eddy, and Mr. James Vamvakias are appreciated.
The cooperation of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
in providing liaison with the industry was an invaluable asset, and this
service is greatly appreciated. Thanks are also extended to the
American Paper Institute for its continued assistance.
Appreciation is expressed for the contributions of several individuals
within the Environmental Protection Agency: Kirk Willard and Ralph
Scott, National Environmental Research Center at Corvallis, Oregon, and
Richard Williams, Ernst Hall, and Allen Cywin of the Effluent Guidelines
Division.
Special thanks are due George Webster, Effluent Guidelines Division, who
has made an invaluable contribution to the preparation of this report
through his assistance, guidance, and reviews. The efforts of Gary
Fisher and Taffy Neuturg in data handling and computer analysis are
appreciated. Thanks are also due to the many secretaries who typed and
retyped this document: Jan Beale, Pearl Smith, Acqua McNeal, Vanessa
Datcher, Karen Thompson, Cynthia Wright, Jane Mitchell, ( and Georgette
Web.
Appreciation is also extended to companies who granted access to their
mills and treatment works from field surveys and for the assistance lent
by mill personnel to field crews. The operation records furnished by
these manufacturers and information supplied by other individuals in the
industry contributed significantly to the project.
95
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
1. American Publi6. Health Association (APHA) , AWWA, WPCF, Standard
Methods for^the Examination of Water and Waste Water, New York,
1971.
2. Greenfield, S. H., "A Study of the Variables Involved in the Saturat-
ing of Roofing Felts," National Bureau of Standards^ Building Science
Series 19, (June 1969).
3- Roofing^and^Siding^Products, 9th Ed., Asphalt Roofing Industry Bureau,
New York (1966).
4. Britt, K. W., Handbook of Pulp^and Paper Techno logy., 2nd Ed., Van
Nostrand Reinhold Cc., New York (1970).
5. 1967 Census of Manufactures, Major Group 26, Paper and Allied_ProductsT
U. S. Bureau of the Census, MC 67(2)-26A, (Oct. 1970).
6. Paper^Paperboard, Wood Pulp Capacity 1971-1974, American Paper Insti-
tute, (Oct. 1972) .
7. Slatin, B., "Fiber Requirements of the Paper Industry in the Seventies
and Eighties," TAFPI Secondary Fiber Conf. (1971).
8. Gehm, H. W. , State-'pf-the-Art Review of Pulp and^Paper Waste Treatment
EFA Contract No."68-01-1-00127 (April 1973).
9. Edde, H., "A Manual cf Practice for Biological Waste Treatment in the
Pulp and Paper Industry," NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 2114 (1968).
10. Gellman, I., "Aerated Stabilization Basin Treatment of Mill Effluents,"
NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 185 (1965).
11. Timpe, W. G.r Lange, E., and Miller, R. L., Kraft Pulping Effluent
Treatment and Reuse - StaterQf-the^Art, Environmental Protection
Technology Series EFA-R-2-73-164 (1973).
12. Fair, Geyer, Okum. Vjater and Waste Water Engineering, John Wiley
& Sons, 1968.
13. The Mead Corporation. Escanaba, Michigan.
14. WAPORA, Inc. Washington, D. C.
15. Follett, R., and Gehm, H. W., "Manual of Practice for Sludge Handling
in the Pulp and Paper Industry," NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 190
97
-------
(1966) .
16. Voegler, J., "Brainability and Dewatering of White Water Sludges,"
^S (1950) .
17. "Availability of Construction Manpower," Engineering
News Record, June 7< 1973.
98
-------
SECTION XIV
GLOSSARY
Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1972.
Air Dry Ton
Measurement of production including moisture content, which usually
varies between four and ten percent.
Broke
Partly or completely manufactured paper that does not leave the machine
room as salable paper or board; also paper damaged in finishing opera-
tions such as rewinding rolls, cutting, and trimming.
Cellulose
The fibrous constituent of trees.
Chest
A tank used for storage of wet fiber or furnish.
Small pieces of wood used to make pulp.
Coatings
Materials such as clay, starch, alum, synthetic adhesives, etc., applied
to the surface of paper to impart special characteristics.
Consistency
The weight percent of solids in a solids-water mixture used in the manu-
facture of pulp or paper.
Cylinder Machine
A papermaking machine in which the sheet is formed on a wire-covered
cylinder rotating in a vat of furnish.
99
-------
Decker or Thickener
A mechanical device used to remove water from pulp.
External Treatment
Technology applied to raw waste streams to reduce pollutant levels.
Fiber
The cellulosic portion of the tree used to make paper.
Furnish
The mixture of fibers used to manufacture paper.
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."
Grade
The type of building paper or felt manufactured.
In-Piant Measures
Technology applied within the manufacturing process to reduce or
eliminate pollutant in the raw waste water. Sometimes called "internal
measures."
Machine Felt
An endless belt of wool or plastic used to convey and dewater the sheet
during the papermaking process.
Press
A device using two rolls for pressing water from the sheet and/or the
felts carrying the sheet, prior to drying.
Pulp
100
-------
Cellulosic fibers from wood chips, waste paper, or other fiber sources.
Pulper or Beater
A mechanical device used to separate fiber bundles in the presence of
water prior to papermaking.
Material unsuitable for papermaking which has been separated in the
manufacturing process.
Sanitary Landfill
A sanitary landfill is a land disposal site employing an engineered
method of disposing of solid waste on land in a manner that minimizes
environmental hazards by spreading the wastes in thin layers, compacting
the solid wastes to the smallest practical volume, and applying cover
material at the end of each operating day.
Saye^all
A mechanical device used to recover papermaking fibers and other
suspended solids from a waste water or process stream.
Sheet
The web of paper as manufactured on a paper machine.
Stock
Wet pulp with or without chemical additions.
Suction Box
A rectangular box with holes or slots on its top surface, used to suck
water out of a felt or paper sheet by the application of vacuum.
Virc[in_Wood_Pul£ (or fiter)
Pulp made from wood, as contrasted to waste paper sources of fiber.
Whjte, Water
Water which drains through the wires of a paper machine which contains
fiber, filler, and chemicals.
101
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix Page
I Building Paper and Roofing Felt Mills in the U. S 103
II Table 1 Split Sample Comparitive Test Result 108
2 Mill « a " EOD5 Data 109
3 Mill » a " TSS Data 110
4 Mill " b " BOD5 Data Ill
5 Mill " b " 1SS Data 112
6 RAPP Data 113
III Exhibit 1 Preliminary Mill Survey Format 114
2 Mill Survey Format 117
IV Development of Costs - Supporting Data 121
Figure 1 Capital and Operating Cost for Raw Waste
Settling 122
2 Construction Cost of Earthern Settling Ponds. 124
3 Capial and Operating Cost for Mechanical
Clarifiers 126
U Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plant 127
5 Completely Mixed Activated Sludge 128
6 Spill control Installations 139
7 Spill Basin and Controls 140
APPENDIX I
BUILDING 'PAPER AND ROOFING FELT MILLS IN THE U.S.*
Sa. t ur at ed / Co a t e d_ Roofing Felt
GAF Corp. (M)
.Mobile, Alabama
Bear Brand Roofing, Inc.
Bearden, Arkansas
Celotex Corp.
Camden, Arkansas
A-R Felt Mills, Inc.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Elk Roofing Co. (R) (L)
103
-------
Stephens, Arkansas
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Compton, California
Celotex Corp. (M)
Los Angeles, California
Certain-Teed Products Corp.(M)
Richmond, California
Anchor Paper Mills, Inc.(M)
South Gate, California
Reynolds Metals Co.
Stratford, Connecticut
Fry Roofing Co.(M)
Jacksonville, Florida
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Miami, Florida
GAF Corp. (R)
Savannah, Georgia
Bird & Son, Inc. (M)
Chicago, Illinois
104
-------
Flintkote Co.(M)
Mt. Carmel, Illinois
Carey Co. (M)
Wilmington, Illinois
Fry Hoofing Co.
Brookville, Indiana
Fry Roofing Co.
Mishawaka, Indiana
Bird & Son, Inc. (M)
Shreveport, Louisiana
Atlas Roofing Mfg. Co., Inc.
Meridian, Mississippi
Tamko Asphalt Products Inc. (R) (L)
Joplin, Missouri
GAF Corp. (M)
Kansas City, Missouri
Fry Roofing Co.(M)
N. Kansas City, Missouri
U.S. Gypsum Co. (M)
Jersey City, New Jersey
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Morehead City, North Carolina
Certain-Teed Products Corp.(M)
Milan, Ohio
Big Chief Roofing Co.
Ardmore, Oklahoma
Allied Materials Corp.
Strand, Oklahoma
Bird & Son Inc. of Mass. (M)
Portland, Oregon
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Portland, Oregon
105
-------
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Emmaus, Pennsylvania I
Celotex Corp.(M)
Phila., Pennsylvania
Certain Teed Products Corp.(M)
York, Pennsylvania
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Memphis, Tennessee
GAF Corp. (M)
Dallas, Texas
Southern Johns-Manvilie Corp. (M)
Ft. Worth, Texas
Carey Co.(M)
Houston, Texas
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Houston, Texas
Fry Roofing Co. (M)
Irving, Texas
Celotex Corp.(M)
San Antonio, Texas
Fontana Paper Mills Ire. (M)
Fontana, California
Celotex Corp.(M)
Peoria, Illinois
Royal Brand Roofing, Inc.(Tamko)
Phillipsburg, Kansas
GAF Corp.
Gloucester City, New Jersey
Carey Co.(M)
Perth Amboy, New Jersey
Conwed Corp.(M)
Riverside, New Jersey
106
-------
GAP Corp. (M)
Erie, Pennsylvania
Combination of the Above
GAP Corp. (R) (L)
Joliet, Illinois
Johns-Manville Perlite Corp. (M)
Joliet, Illinois
Grace & Co.
Owensburg, Kansas
U.S. Gypsum Co.
Lisbon Falls, Maine
Latex Fiber Industries, Inc. (M)
Camden, New Jersey
Carey Co. (M)
Linden, New Jersey
Logan-Long Co.
Franklin, Ohio
Malarkey Paper Co.(M)
Portland, Oregon
Nicolet Industries, Inc.
Ambler, Pennsylvania
*Key: (R) = RAPP (Refuse Act Permit Program) Data Available
(M) = Discharge into public sewer system
(L) = Literature (Data Available)
107
-------
APPENDIX II
Table 1
BUILDING PAPER AND ROOFING FELT SUBCATEGORY
COMPARATIVE TEST RESULTS ON SPLIT SAMPLES
BY MILL "a" AND BY EPA
Data in mg/1
FINAL EFFLUENT
DAY BODS TSS
1
2
3
4
5
*25/51
75/84
55/64
35/53
38/56
78/94
89/72
81/65
68/44
21/31
Averages 46/62 67/61
*mill result/EPA result
-------
APPENDIX II
Table 2
Mill "a "
BOD5 kg/kkg (Ibs/ton)
Mill Data Contractor RAPP
Annual Ave. 3.95(7.9) 1.4(2.8)
Monthly Ave. 2.6(5.3)*-!!
Max Month 3.17(7.35)
*0ne data point per week,
Four data points per month.
Note-Number following parenthesis indicate .# of data points.
109
-------
APPENDIX II
Table 3
Mill " a "
TSS kg/kkg (Ibs/ton)
Mill Data Contractor RAPP
Annual Ave. 4.8(9.6) 1.0(2.0)
Monthly Ave. 2.75(5.5)*-ll
Max Month 3.93 (7.87)
*Two data points per week,
E^our data points per month.
Note-Numbers following parenthesis indicate # of data points,
110
-------
APPENDIX II
Table 4
II V. II
Mill " b
BODS kg/kkg (Ibs/ton)
Mill Data Contractor RAPP
Annual Ave. 0.37(0.75) 0.0005(0.001)
Monthly Ave.
Max Month
111
-------
APPENDIX II
Table 5
II v. II
Mill " b
TSS kg/kkg (Ibs/ton)
Mill Data Contractor RAPP
Annual Ave. 0.045(0.09) 0.4(0.8)
Monthly Ave.
Max Month
11?
-------
Appendix II
Table 6
RAPP DATA - BUILDING PAPER MILLS
(..o
Mill
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tons/ Treatment
Day C ASB AS
165 X trickling filter
65 X X
240
250 X
250 X X
80 X X
Flow
G/Ton
xlOOO
1.9
0.09
2.5
Discharge
TSS BOD
#/Ton #/Ton
1.9
0.8
11.0
Poor operation
state
NA
0.44
2.0
0.26
0.58
0.001
30.5
reported by
2.8
0.11
Comments
Felt
Roofing felt
Construction felt
Roofing felts
Flooring felt
Roofing felt
Key to treatment codes:
C = Clarifier
ASB = Stabilization Basin
AS = Activated Sludge
-------
APPENDIX III
Exhibit 1
PRELIMINARY MILL SURVEY FORMAT
Information to be determined prior to mill survey.
1. PRE-VISIT INFORMATION - Obtain information describing the plant
prior to the reconnaissance survey. This could include magazine
articles describing the facilities, data or drawings furnished by the
mill, RAPP data, or any ether pertinent information available. This
will enable us to get familiar with the mill before we meet with the
mill personnel.
2. EVALUATION OF EXISTING DATA - Check the availability of existing
data that the mill will make available for our inspection.
Included in this should be any drawings of the inplant or external
treatment facilities such as:
a. Layouts and sewer locations
b. Flow diagrams of treatment facilities
c. Flow diagrams of mill process areas
d. Water balance
e. Material balances
3. INITIAL MEETING - Establish what procedures will be required of
us during the sampling survey. For example, are there any areas of the
mill off limits or will the mill want someone with us at all times?
What-safety requirements must we follow? Do we need safety shoes,
life preservers, hard hats, respirators, etc.? Can the mill supply
these?
4. INSPECTION OF MILL - In inspecting the various process areas of the
mill, we should identify the following:
a. Location of individual discharges to the process sewers.
b. Relative quality and type of individual discharges, i.e.,
clean, cooling water, contaminated, etc.
c. Types of sewers, i.e., open, closed; and direction of flow.
d. Location of existing flow measurement and sampling points
and type of equipment in use.
114
-------
e. Tentative locations of additional sampling and gauging points.
Where possible, an estimation of the average flow and possible
peak conditions will be indicated. Upstream conditions and
sewer characteristics will be inspected to ascertain that no
flooding or other problems will be encountered during measure-
ment.
f. Methods and procedures in use to prevent or intercept strong
spills.
g. Relative amount of process water reuse and adequacy of exist-
ing information such as flow diagrams to explain and document
the extent* methods, and equipment required for reuse.
5. INSPECTION OF EFFLUENT TREATMENT FACILITIES -« In addition to loca-
tion of existing flow measurement and sampling points we should evaluate
the need for additional points and any special equipment needed.
Sampling points should be available at the following locations:
a. Primary influent
b. Primary effluent
c. Primary sludge
d. Secondary effluent
e. Secondary sludge (if any)
f. Chemical feed systems
g. Sludge disposal
h. Additional treatment facilities
6. LABORATORY FACILITIES - A complete check of the procedures used by
the mill in running its chemical and biological tests should be made by
the plant chemist or ether responsible party.
Determine whether the mill will allow us to use its lab and/or personnel
during the survey. If the mill will allow us to use its facilities, a
complete list of equipment available should be made and a list of
supplies needed to perform the various tests.
If we cannot use the irill's lab, we must determine where we intend to
have the samples tested and make the appropriate arrangements.
7. REVIEW INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON FRESH WATER USED AND WHERE USED -
a. Process
b. Sanitary
c. Cooling water
d. Other
115
-------
Review records showing quantity and quality of fresh water and flow
measurement device used.
8. REVIEW INFORMATICS AVAILABLE ON THE WASTE WATER DISCHARGE FROM THE
PCWER PLANT -
a. Determine water treatment facilities employed
b. Facilities used on water discharge
c. Frequency of waste discharges
d. Quality of discharge
9. COST INFORMATION - Cetermine or have the mill get for us (if they
will) any information on the cost of the internal and external treat-
ment facilities. This should include both capital and operating cost
for the facilities, preferably for a number of years. The method used
by the mill to finance the facilities and the number of years used to
write the expense off would be useful.
If possible the cost data should be gotten by area, such as internal
treatment, primary, secondary, etc. Operating costs should include
labor, maintenance, chemicals, utilities, hauling, supplies, and any
other costs available from the mill.
10. TIME CONSIDERATIONS - Obtain any available information on the
following:
a. Time required to design the facility including the
preliminary study and final design.
b. Time to construct the facility.
c. Was construction bid after completion of engineering
or done turn-key?
d. What were delivery times for major pieces of equipment,
both internal and external?
e. What delays were encountered in getting approval by the
various regulatory agencies?
Determine the availability of any schedules, CPM or Pert charts for
the engineering or construction.
116
-------
Exhibit 2
MILL SURVEY FORMAT
Building Paper and Roofing Felt Mills
GENERAL INFORMATION
I. Geographic and Physical
1. Describe mill by SIC # and name
2. Location: state, city
3. Age of mill - .startup date
4. Water Source - riverr well, lake, other
Name Flow Characteristics - cfs
Maximum Average Minimum
5. Production, 1965 1968 1971 1973* 1977* 1983*
annual tonnage (*-projected)
6. Current design capacity of mill, tons/yr.
II. Obtain the following information from daily mill records over
13-month period, where available.
1. Production, tens/day
2. Principal grades run (use raw materials changes as criterion)
3. Raw materials used; % of total tons/day
4. Waste water characteristics
a. Total raw waste water
b. Primary treatment effluent
c. Primary sludge
d." Secondary treatment effluent
e. Secondary settling effluent
f. Secondary sludge
g* Characteristics of influent and effluent of
any additional waste treatment facilities
117
-------
5. In-^plant water/waste water characteristics
a. Stock preparation area
b. Paper machine area - wet end
c. Paper machine area - dry end
d. Power plant - demineralizer
e. Other waste water discharges
f. Asphalt saturation process
III. Determine type of equipment, design parameters, capital and operating
costs of all out-of-plant waste treatment facilities and of those
in-plant processes contributing to a significant reduction in
waste loads generated.
1. Primary treatment
a. sump pumps controls and screen
b. surge tank and controls
c. removal of suspended solids
d. chemical treatment (cost/day or yr)
e. system for removal of floating contaminants
2. Primary sludge handling facilities
a. pump and control station
b. storage tank and controls
c. chemical treatment (cost/day or yr)
d. dewatering facilities
e. disposal facilities (cost/day or yr)
3. Secondary treatment - biological process
a. land area required
b. power required - hp, $/hp
c. nutrients required - $/.dr gpd,
d. other systeir components
14. Secondary solids handling facilities
a. sludge pumping station and controls
b. sludge storage tank and controls
c. other systeir components'
5. Other out-of-plant treatment facilities
6. In-plant facilities
IV. Obtain the following information on Process Equipment.
118
-------
1. Paper mill in-plant treatment, water re-use and clear water
segregation systems
a. overall volume used (provide best estimate)
b. where occurring (indicate yes, no or unknown)
1. stock preparation area
a) tcp, under, back and filler pulpers
b) white water chest make-up
c) cleaning system, dilution-elutriation water
d) pump and/or agitator seal water
e) decker or thickener shower water
f) wash-up hoses
2. machine room
a) wire showers
b) headbox showers and dilution water
c) felt showers
d) couch roll, breast roll, suction drum, couch
pit showers
e) vacuum pump seal water
f) pumps and agitator seal and gland water
g) wash-up hoses
c. Cooling water segregation of pulper drives, refiner drives,
vacuum pump separators, saturating process, other areas.
V. Obtain sufficient information to complete the following:
1. Schematic diagram of plant, including all significant in-plant
and waste water treatment processes.
2. block flow diagram showing:
a. water source (s)
b. in-plant effluent discharge(s)
1) location
2) gpm
d. existing sampling stations
1) location
2) types samples
3) freguency
119
-------
e. water recycling
1) location
2} gpm
f. Contractor sampling stations
3. description of shut-down operations, frequency and effect
on water quality.
U. comprehensive report on:
a. mill laboratory procedures and effectiveness
b. housekeeping procedures
c. in-plant and/or waste treatment process improvements
contemplated or under laboratory/pilot study
d. evaluation of operation and maintenance procedures,
both in-plant and waste treatment
e. reliability of existing waste treatment facilities
at average and maximum efficiency levels
f. availability of back-up systems in waste treatment
process (i.e., dual power, by-pass storage and re-cycle,
standby equipment and parts, etc.)
g. sensitivity of waste treatment process to shock loads;
shock lead frequency
h. extent of impact of existing waste treatment system
on air quality, noise, etc.
i. treatment and disposal of solid wastes
j. source, use and ultimate disposal of cooling water
k. recovery/reuse of waste water constituents
1. potential for significant upgrading of waste treatment
process performance through
1) modifications in operation and maintenance procedures
2) minor additions of equipment (i.e. additional aerators,
monitoring equipment, etc.)
3) major additions of equipment (i.e. clarifier, holding
basin, etc.) \
m. desirability of additional waste stream segregation or
integration for improvement of final effluent quality
n. description of in-plant operating procedures and design
features for processes demonstrating above--aver age per^
formance re water and materials usage.
VI. Conduct on-site sampling program, if required, according to the
Analytical Verification Program outline dated March 16, 1973.
Sampling will be conducted whenever, in the opinion of the on-site
contractor teams, there is sufficient reason to question the validity
of existing mill data. If sampling is not conducted, justification
and documentation of the rationale used in arriving at this decision
should be provided.
120
-------
Appendix IV
DEyELOPMENT_OF_COST EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
SUPPORTING DATA
External_Treatment
Pretreatment
Pretreatment consists of screening only for all alternatives considered
in this report.
Total effluents from all mills considered in this study usually lose
coarse material in the form of chips, bark, wet strength paper, etc., in
quantities that require screening to avoid plugging of sludge lines and
escape of floating objects over overflow weirs.
Although vibrating screens have proven satisfactory when the flows are
small (2-4 MGD), travelling screens with 1" openings have been
recommended (2) and are used for all mills included in this study.
Design Criteria: Type: Travelling bar screens
Design Flow: Average daily
Bar Spacing: 1 inch
Capital Cost in $1,000 =
11 + .27 x Q + 7.64 x Q**.625
(see note below)
where: Q = average daily flow in MGD
(ccst information from numerous individual
installations was also considered in all cases).
Annual operation and maintenance costs are 8.0 and 5.0% of cost,
respectively.
Capital cost and annual operation and maintenance costs for raw waste
screening are shown graphically in Figure 1, Appendix IV.
Note: The symbol ** indicates quantity squared; i.e., Q** =Q2.
121
-------
o
8 100
- 50
o
t
15
0
in
O
O
ID
O
ll
D \
s o
o
"i -
§ -cn-
o>
Op
10 20
FLOW, MGD
30
Figure 1 Capital And Operation Cost For
Raw Waste Screening
-------
P r imagy Jlr ea tment
Primary treatment is irost economically done when all fiber containing
wastes are mixed before treatment. Besides the fact that large units
give lesser treatment costs than a series of smaller units, mixed
effluents generally also have improved settling characteristics, thus
decreasing the total treatment units requirements. Internal fiber
recovery is assumed done to the maximum economic justifiable degree,
with the result that no external fiber recovery for reuse is considered
in the treatment process design.
Three unit operations for suspended solids separation have been
considered. These are:
a) settling ponds
b) mechanical clarifiers
c) dissolved air flotation
Settling Ponds - Design Criteria:
Construction: earthen construction, concrete inlet
and outlet structures
Detention time: 24 hours
Water depth: 12 feet
Sludge removal: manual
Cost Functions:
Capital cost in $1000 = 27.3 x V **0.75
V = pond volume in million gallons
This construction cost function is based on work in Reference (3). The
construction cost, which includes plan sewers, and all diversion -
inflow -, and outflow- structures, but excludes land costs, is shown
graphically in Figure 2, Appendix IV. The function is "verified" by
plotting data from the field survey phase of the same figure.
Operations Costs:
The operation cost of sedimentation ponds consists mainly of sludge
dredging and disposal which was estimated to cost $6.50 per ton of dry
solids removed.
Annual maintenance was estimated to be 1% of capital cost.
123
-------
40O
300
o
o
o
S3
o
Q.
o
o
200
100
Figure 2
x
\L_
/
*
/
/
0 -IO 20 30
FLOW, MGD
Construction Cost of Earthen Settling Ponds
Project Cost Files
-------
Secondary Treatment
Primary Clarifiers
Design Criteria:
Construction: Circular heavy duty plow type rotary sludge
scraper, scum collection and removal facilities,
Overflow rate: 700 gpd/ft**2 (t)
Sidewater depth: 15 feet
Capital cost in $1000 (3)
62 x ((1.5 - 0.001Q)QxlOOO./OR)**0.60
where: Q = flow in MGD
OR = overflow rate in gpd/ft**2
The construction cost includes all mechanical and electrical equipment,
all construction costs, instrumentation, installation, and sludge pumps
and plant sewers. Land costs are not included. This cost function is
shown graphically in Figure 3, Appendix IV and includes data from the
field survey phase of the project.
BOD removal, i.e. secondary treatment, in the builders paper and board
industry is usually done by a biological process: Biological filters,
natural oxidation ponds, aerated lagocns (or aerated stabilization
basins) or activated sludge. Activated sludge treatment was considered
in this report since a majority of the mills are close to population
centers, where alternate biological treatment systems would not apply
because of the high cost of land. A two stage aerated lagoon treatment
system is shown in Figure H as an alternative to activated sludge.
Activated Sludge
All costs for activated sludge treatment considered in this study are
for completely mixed systems, and with biological reaction and oxygen
utilization rates representative of the particular effluents undergoing
treatment. The completely mixed system was selected because of its
ability to handle surges of organic loads and slugs of biological growth
inhibitors. The activated sludge plant used for the costing basis is
shown in Figure 5, Appendix IV.
-------
o
o
2 750
•w-
3
o
250
10 20
FLOW, MGD
60
O
o
o
40-w-
_c
o
20 S.
O
30
Figure 3 Capital and Operating Costs For Mechical Clarifiers
Capital Cost Case Studies:
A
O
Project Cost Files
126
-------
RAW
WASTEWATEfT
PRE-
TREATMENT
1
K
ff
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
PRIMARY
TREATMENT
TI
r*
1 ' ir»
FIRST
AERATION
CELL
GET. TIME
0.5-2.0 DYS
SECOND
AERATION
CELL
DET. TIME
1.5-10 DYS
SCREENINGS,
ETC.
SLUDGE
TREATED
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
Figure
Aerated Lagoon Treatment Plant
-------
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
Row Waste Water
°r * b
v>
Primary Treatment
,
AERATION
' TANK
DETEN. TIME
1-5 HRS.
> Recycled
J^SECONDARri Secondary
^ICLARIFIER J Effluent
Sludge
Figure 5
Completely Mixed Activated Sludge System
128
-------
Design Criteria:
Aeration Tank:
Construction:
reinforced concrete with pier mounted surface
aerators.
Liquid Depth: 15 feet
Nutrient addition:
4 pounds of nitrogen and 0.6 pounds of
phosphorus per every 100 pounds of BOD
removed. Influent nutrients are subtracted
from these values.
Process design criteria:
Aerators: Type: mechanical surface aerators
Secondary Clarifiers:
Construction: circular concrete tanks with rotary suction
type sludge collector
Sidewater depth: 15 feet
Cost Functions: Capital costs in $1000
Aeration tank (3) = 225 x V**0.71
where V = tank volume in million gallons
Aerators (3)
where
= 1.75 x HP**0.81
HP = total horse power installed
Secondary clarifiers (3) = 62.*((1.5-0.002Q)Q*1000./OR)**0.60
where Q = flow in MGD, including recycle
OR = overflow rate in gpd/ft**2
Sludge recycle pumps (3) = 5.36 + 1.66 x Q
where Q = average daily flow in MG
ipn
-------
Operation and Maintenance costs
Cost of operation and maintenance of activated sludge system has been
calculated using a cost function developed in Reference (5). This cost
function includes operation and maintenance of aeration basin, aerators,
final sedimentation tanks and sludge return pumps:
Operation cost (0/1000 gal) = R x (3.40 + 4.95/v**0.5
where v= basin volume in million gallons
F= retention time in days
The breakdown between operation and maintenance is 60% and 40%,
respectively (10).
Power cost is calculated from the net horsepower requirements at
1.1 2/kwh.
Nutrient costs are calculated on the basis of $250 per ton of nitrogen
and $380 per ton of phosphorus.
Sludge_ Dewatering
The sludges drawn from the primary and secondary clarifiers require
dewatering prior to final disposal. A large number of unit operations
are available for this purpose, from which the specific selection de-
pends upon local conditions like sludge characteristics, proportion of
primary and secondary sludges, distance to ultimate disposal site, and
ultimate disposal considerations. The units operations considered in
this study are sludge settlings ponds, gravity thickeners, vacuum
filters, centrifuges and sludge presses. The selected sludge dewatering
process might consist of one or more sludge dewatering unit operations.
The dewatered sludge solids are usually disposed of either by
landfilling or incineration, according to local conditions and the level
of technology required. Sludge disposal by landfilling might give very
satisfactory solutions provided a suitable site can be found within a
reasonable distance from the mill.
Possible harmful effects from landfilling are groundwater pollution by
leaching of chemical constituents or decomposition products and erosion
by precipitation. Thus, both soil conditions and climate must be
130
-------
suitable to make sludge disposal by landfilling successful, or the
required site work might result in a very expensive solution.
Provided air pollution requirements are metr sludge incineration is,
from an environmental point of view, a very satisfactory solution since
only inert ashes need to be disposed of. Although the solution is
usually quite expensive, especially for small installations lack of
other solutions might make it the only alternative.
Cost of sludge dewatering and disposal commonly accounts for 30-50%
of the total treatment cost.
Cost Functions:
Sludge dewatering ponds: Capital cost in $1000 (3) = 125 x V**0.70
where V = volume in MG
The operation cost of sludge ponds consists mainly of sludge dredging
and disposal which was estimated to cost $6.50 per ton of dry solids
removed.
Annual maintenance cost was estimated to be 1% of capital cost.
Gravity Thickeners: capital cost in $1000 (3)
= (SA) (34. + 16.5/exp (SA/13.3)
where SA = surface area in thousands of square feet
Annual operation and maintenance costs of gravity sludge thickeners was
estimated to 8% of the capital cost.
Vacuum Filters: capital costs in $1000 (12) = 4.70 x A**.58
where A = filter area in.square feet
Operating and maintenance cost for vacuum filtration was based on the
following (3) :
Labor: 0.5 man-hcurs per filter hour a) $5.25 per hour
Power cost: 0.15 HF per square foot of filter 3)1.10 2/kwh
131
-------
Chemicals: $10.00 per dry ton for waste activated sludge, and
$4.00 per dry ton for primary sludges
Maintenance: 5% of capital cost, annually
Centrifuges: capital costs $1000 (12) = 15.65 * (HP)**0.4
where HP = total installed horsepower of the centrifuge.
Operation and maintenance costs have been calculated as follows:
Labor: 0.25 man-hours per hour of centrifuge operation 35.25 per
hour (3) .
Power cost: 1.10 2/kwh
Chemicals: None required for primary sludges increasing linearly
with the fraction of secondary sludges to 8 pounds of
polymer per dry ton of solids o)$1.25 per pound of polymer.
Maintenance: 10% of capital cost, annually.
Sludge Presses: capital cost in $1000 = 5.75 x (S/F)**0.95
where S = dry weight of sludge, ton/day
F = press load, as a fraction of nominal load
Operation Cost:
Labor: 0.25 hours per hour of press operation o)$5.25 per hour
of press operation.
Power: 1.1 £/kwh
Maintenance: 10% of operation cost, annually.
Landfilling: Transport cost: 200/ton mile
Transport distance: 10 miles
Incineration: capital cost $1000 (3) = (S/9.6)
(170 + 735 x S**0.61)
S = total solids in tons/day
Incineration: capital cost $1000 (3) = (S/9.6)
(170 + 735 x S**0.61)
where S = total solids in tons/day
Operation cost in $1000/yr (3)
132
-------
(0.001 + 0.004 SE/P)S + S**0.85 x 0.001
where SE = secondary sludge in Ibs/day
P = primary sludge in Ib/day
S = total pounds of sludge/day
133
-------
_ __Fi It ra ti on
Builders Paper 100T/C .
capital: $75,000 + 35% = $1C1,COO
operating: $ 6,200
add: 15% of 101,000
15,000
total annual cost = $ 21,200
less: 35% of 6,200 energy = 2,200
annual cost less energy = $ 19,000
IJxOJO = $0.63/ton less energy
100x300
2,2 CO = 0.07/ton energy
100x300 $ .70/ton total
Internal Treatment
The following unit prices have been used for the internal measures:
Power 0.60 0/kwh
Heat 3.50 $/10**9 cal
Maintenance: 2.5% of capital cost, annually
Costs of heat exchangers, storage tanks, pumps and pipes are estimated
according to Chemical Engineering, March 24, 1969 issue and updated to
August 1971 price levels.
It should be recognized that costs of internal process modifications may
vary greatly from mill tc mill, and that cost of internal improvements
should be evaluated upon consideration of local conditions.
Land Disposal of Junk Materials
The cost has been calculated on the basis of an external transportation
contract, and no capital cost has been assumed. The cost of
transportation has been estimated to 20 cents/ton-mile, and cost of
disposal to $1.5/ton. Transportation distance has been taken to 10
miles. The amount of junk materials for a building paper mill is the
following:
2 ton/day (350U/ton) = 2800 0/d
-------
of Asphalt Wastes and Spiles
Floor drains are collected to a sedimentation basin equipped with
asphalt removal system. The cost of sedimentation basin according to
formulas given in the part discussing the external treatment is $43,000.
Maintenance at 2.5% equals $0.34/tp. Cost of operation will be
$1.64/tp.
Paper Machine Controls
High pressure self cleaning, low volume showers for paper machine, and
press water filter for removing felt hairs will be provided.
The following paper machine widths have been assumed:
building paper machine 14 feet
Capital cost has been calculated to 14 feet width.
Cost for each unit:
-4 shower pipes 14 feet 2,000
-2 pumps (10 kw) 2,000
-1 smith screen 1,000
-4 water saveall pans 3,000
-2 hair screens, smith 1,000
-tank, piping, hoses 4,000
-spares 1,000
-design, instrumentation,
electricity, installation, etc. 11A^0 C
TOTAL $35,000
For building paper machine:
Wire part $ 35,000
Press part _ 35,000
$ 70,000
Spill_Cgntrol
By spills are meant releases of wood fibers and/or process additions to
those which are "ncrrral" for the process. The release of the "normal"
pollutant load for a process depends upon the process design and
equipment used, and is therefore reasonably well defined or
deterministic in nature. The spills are caused by "accidents" or
mechanical failures in the production facilities and are as such
probatilistic in nature.
135
-------
The accidental spills are in general of short duration and usually have
a fiber and/or concentration of chemical substances which are several
times those of the normal mill effluents (1). Another undesirable
property associated with accidental spills is that they might not be
intercepted by the waste water collection system, and they find their
way into the storm sewers and therefore bypass all treatment systems.
The main sources of accidental losses are:
a) leaks and overflows from storage tanks, b) leaks and spills resulting
from repairs, system changes and mistakes in departments handling strong
liquor, and c) overflows from screens and filters in departments
handling fiber.
Controls of spills can be done by connecting overflow lines to holding
tanks equipped with pumps which return chemicals to storage or to the
recovery system, and fibers to the stock chest.
Cost of spill control is based on systems shown schematically in Figure
6, Appendix IV.
Costs of spill controls are lump sums as shown in the cost summary.
These costs include ccnstruction costs and mechanical and electrical
equipment as shown in Figure 6, Appendix IV.
Large Spills
Large accidental losses caused by mechanical failures can be prevented
by an effective contrcl system, e.g. conductivity measurements in the
waste water lines. As these losses might render the effluent unsuitable
for treatment, an emergency spill basin is constructed to intercept
these wastes. The spill basin content is pumped back to the treatment
process at a rate which does not "upset" the treatment process.
Construction cost of the spill basin is based on a system which is shown
schematically in Figure 7, Appendix IV.
Design Criteria for Spill Basin:
Volume: 12 hours of average flow
Pump Capacity: Basin volume returned to treatment process in
12 hours at 30 feet head.
Easin: Earthen ccnstruction with 12 foot depth
Seweirs
Plant Sewers
-------
Plant sewers are defined as the gravity flow type conveyance facilities
within the boundaries of the treatment plant. These may be both closed
conduits and open channels. The capital costs of these items are
included under the respective treatment plant components.
Annual operation and maintenance costs of in-plant sewers have been
taken at a flat 0.50% of the estimated construction cost with no
differentiation between materials of construction, except as reflected
in the construction cost.
Interceptor Sewers
Interceptor sewers are defined as the conveyance facilities which
connect the mill to the treatment plant and the treatment plant to the
outfall system. Thus, they may vary from being insignificant in a
situation where land is available adjacent to the mill, whereas they may
amount to a large percentage of the treatment plant cost where long
interceptor sewers are required. For this reason no interceptor sewers
are included in this study.
Land Eeguirements and Costs
Land Requirements: A site suitable for an effluent treatment facility
should have the following properties:
- should be within a reasonable distance from the production
facilities so that long and expensive interceptor sewers
are eliminated.
- should be far enough from the production facilities so that
their expansion possibilities are not hampered.
- should be at a suitable elevation relative to the production
facilities so that pumping costs are minimized, and ideally
allow for gravity flow through all treatment units.
- should allow fcr orderly future treatment plant expansion on land
which can be purchased at a reasonable price and with adequate
soil properties.
The two major factors affecting the area requirements for external waste
water treatment are the type of secondary treatment and type of sludge
disposal.- The approximate land requirements for activated sludge
systems are 0.04 acres/mgd.
137
-------
Land required for ultimate solids disposal depends on the sludge
quantities generated, moisture content, ash content, and method of
placement.
Land requirement for different ultimate sludge disposal
methods (Disposed effluent at 12 feet depth)
Disposal Condition
Land Requirements
sq ft / ton dry solids
Thickened clarifier underflow, 5% solids
Centrifuge cake, 20% solids
Pressed cake, 35% solids
Incineration, 3% ash
Incineration, 12% ash
53.0
16.5
11.6
0.15
0.60
Land Costs
The value of land is often difficult to establish. Depending upon land
availability and alternate land use, the land cost might vary from $1.00
per square foot or more down to only a few cents per square foot.
For the purpose of this study a land cost selected was $4,000 per acre.
-------
,
r
J
Storage
Tank
4
To Recovery
1
Holding Tank
a) Control Of Chemical Spills And Losses
Stock
Storage
Filter/ Screen
Holding Tank
b) Control Of Fiber Containing Spills
To Process
w Emergency Overflow To
Treatment Rant
To Process
Emergency overflow to
treatment plant
Rgure 6
Spill Control Installations
13°
-------
Process Effluent
Sewer
To Treatment
Process
Spill Basin
Figure 7
Spill Basin and Controls
1UO
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX IV
1- Engineering-News Record. Published Weekly by McGraw Hill, Inc.,
Highstown, New Jersey.
2- NC.ASI Technical Bulletin No._ .178, "Settleable Solids Removal in the
Pulp and Paper Industry" (November 196U).
3. Barnard, J. L., Treatment Cost Relationships for Industrial Waste
Treatment^ E£L.JX.A Dissertation. Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
(1971).
4. NCASI Technical Bulletin No^ 190. "Manual of Practice for Sludge
Handling in the Pulp and Paper industry." (June 1959).
5. Swanson, C.I., "Unit Process Operating and Maintenance Costs for
Conventional Waste Treatment Plants" FWQA, Cincinnati, Ohio (June 1968)
6. "A Manual of Practice for Biological Waste Treatment in the Pulp and
Paper Industry", NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 214 (1968).
7. "Cost of Clean Water, Industrial Waste Profil^ No. 3," FWQA, US
Department of the Interior (November 1967).
8. Helmers, E. N., J. D. Frame, A. F. Greenberg, and C. N. Sawyer,
"Nutritional Requirements in the Biological Stabilization of Industrial
wastes, "Sewage and Industrial Wastes^ ND 23X Vol... 7 J195J1 p. 884.
9. Eckenfelder, W. E., and D. L. Ford, Water Pollution Control -
ExEerimental Procedures for Process Design, Pemberton Press, Austin,
Texas.
10. "Study of Pulp and Paper Industry's Effluent Treatment," A Report
Prepared for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy, 1972 by EKONO.
11. Development of Operator Training Materials, Prepared by Enviromental
Science Services Corp., Stanford, Conn., under the direction of W. W.
Eckenfelder, Jr. (August 1968).
12. Quirk, T. P., "Application of Computerized Analysis to Comparative
Costs of Sludge Dewatering by Vacuum Filtration and Centrifuge". Proc.T
23rd Indj. Waste Conf._, Purdue University 1968, pp. 691-709.b
13. Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology in the Pulp, and Paper
Industry, prepared by OECD, Paris, France, General Distribution,
February 28, 1973.
11*1
-------
METRIC UNITS
CONVERSION TABLE
MULTIPLY (ENGLISH UNITS)
ENGLISH UNIT ABBREVIATION
acre
acre - feet
British Thermal
Unit
British Thermal
Unit/pound
cubic feet/minute
cubic feet/second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Fahrenheit
feet
gallon
gallon/minute
horsepower
inches
inches of mercury
pounds
million gallons/day
mile
pound/square
inch (gauge)
square feet
square inches
tons (short)
yard
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
by TO OBTAIN (METRIC UNITS)
CONVERSION ABBREVIATION METRIC UNIT
hectares
cubic meters
kilogram - calories
kilogram calories/kilogram
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters/minute
cubic meters
liters
cubic centimeters
degree Centigrade
meters
liters
liters/second
killowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters/day
kilometer
atmospheres (absolute)
square meters
square centimeters
metric tons (1000 kilograms)
meters
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
F°
ft
gal
gpm
hp
in
in Hg
Ib
mgd
mi
psig
sq ft
sq in
t
y
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
0.7457
2.54
0.03342
0.454
3,785
1.609
(0.06805 psig +1)*
0.0929
6.452
0.907
0.9144
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal/kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/sec
kw
cm
atm
kg
cu m/day
km
atm
sq m
sq cm
kkg
m
------- |