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

-------