PRELIMINARY DATA BASE
FOR REVIEW OF BATEA
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
GUIDELINES, NSPS,
& PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR THE PULP, PAPER,
& PAPERBOARD POINT
SOURCE CATEGORY
PREPARED FOR THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
BY THE
EDWARD C. JORDAN CO., INC.
PORTLAND, MAINE 04112
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-4624
JUNE 1979
-------
PRELIMINARY DATA BASE
FOR REVIEW OF BATEA EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES,
NSPS, AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
PREPARED FOR THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY THE
EDWARD C. JORDAN CO., INC.
PORTLAND, MAINE 04112
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-^4624
JUNE, 1979
20104-00
-------
NOTICE
This document is a CONTRACTOR'S REPORT. It includes technical information
submitted by the Contractor to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regarding the subject industry. It is being distributed for
review and comment only. The report is not an official EPA publication and it
has not been reviewed by Agency personnel.
The report will be undergoing extensive review by EPA, federal and state
agencies, public interest organizations, and other interested groups and
persons during the coming weeks.
The regulations to be published by EPA under Sections 301 (b) and (d), 304
(b), 306, and 307 (b) and (c) of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, will
be based in part, on the report and the comments received on it. EPA will
also be considering economic and environmental impact information that is
presently being developed. Upon completion of the review and evaluation of the
technical, economic, and environmental information, an EPA report will be
drafted. The report will be issued concurrent with the proposed rulemaking
and will set forth EPA's preliminary conclusions regarding the subject indus-
try. The proposed rules will include effluent guidelines and standards,
standards of performance, and pretreatment standards applicable to the indus-
try. EPA is making this draft contractor's report available to encourage
broad public participation early in the rule-making process.
The report shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court proceeding only
to the extent that it represents the views of the Contractor who studied the
subject industry and prepared the information. It cannot be cited, refer-
enced, or represented in any respect in any such proceedings as a statement of
EPA's views regarding the subject industry.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Waste Management
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, B.C. 20460
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of an extensive study of the pulp, paper
and paperboard industry for the purpose of developing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for new and existing point sources in compliance with
the Clean Water Act.
The subcategories of the pulp, paper and paperboard point source category, as
refined and presented in this document, are the following:
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 SemiChemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached & Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp ^
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine & Tissue
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter & Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
Other mills in this point source category are included in the following mis-
cellaneous groupings:
Integrated-Miscellaneous, including
Alkaline-Miscellaneous
Chemi-Mechanical Pulp and
Nonwood Pulping;
Secondary Fiber-Miscellaneous; and
Nonintegrated-Miscellaneous
This document presents raw waste loads reported by 644 of the approximately
730 mills in the pulp, paper and paperboard industry, supplemented by the
results of in-situ raw waste and effluent sampling and analysis conducted by
the E.C. Jordan Co., Inc. and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) at representative mills throughout the industry.
iii
-------
Available in-plant production process controls and end-of-pipe effluent treat-
ment technologies are identified which can reduce the raw waste loads and
effluent pollutant levels discharged by mills in the industry subcategories.
Several levels of improved wastewater management are described which can be
implemented by mills to achieve effluent limitations guidelines and standards
to be promulgated by EPA in accordance with Best Available Technology Eco-
nomically Achievable. Levels 1 and 2 consist of in-plant production process
controls which reduce raw waste flow, BODS^ and TSS loadings. Levels 3 and 4
consist of Level 1 and 2 controls plus designated effluent treatment technolo-
gies described for direct discharge mills, indirect discharge mills and new
source mills in each subcategory.
This document also reports the results of a literature research, sampling and
analysis program, and control technology assessments relating to toxic pollu-
tants generated and discharged by the pulp, paper and paperboard industry.
Supportive data and rationale for development of the effluent limitations and
standards of performance are contained in this report.
IV
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This program has been conducted under the direction of Donald R. Cote, P.E.,
Principal-in-Charge, and Willard C. Warren, P.E., Project Manager. The Edward
C. Jordan Co., Inc., wishes to thank the project staff members for their many
contributions throughout the project and especially during the report prepara-
tion. Special recognition is given to John C. Tarbell, P.E. and Charles D.
Cox, P.E., for their special efforts contributing to the successful completion
of the project. The efforts of Mr. John G. Casana, P.E. and William Welch are
also appreciated. Special recognition is also given to Lloyd Fogg, Constance
Michaud, and Patricia Beaulieu for their efforts in the preparation of this
document.
The cooperation and efforts of Gulf South Research Institute personnel are
appreciated. Recognition is given to Dr. Roger Novak, Ph.D., and Kathy
Olavesen, Ph.D. for their special efforts and timely performance of analysis.
The contributions of Robert Schaffer and John Riley of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division, is acknowledged. A special
thanks is given to Mr. Robert W. Dellinger, Technical Project Officer, for his
direction and input throughout the project, including during the report pre-
paration. Recognition is also given to the efforts of Mr. Craig P. Vogt,
former Technical Project Officer.
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 input received from the representatives of the many research facilities is
recognized and appreciated. In addition, appreciation is expressed to the
many equipment manufacturers and suppliers which expeditously responded to
requests for information relating to their products.
The cooperation and assistance provided by Russell 0. Blasser, and William
Gillespie of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) are
appreciated. Thanks are also extended to the American Paper Institute and
their API-BAT task group.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
NOTICE ii
ABSTRACT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF FIGURES xv
LIST OF TABLES xx
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS xxx
I. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 1-1
II. INTRODUCTION ' II-l
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY II-l
STATUS OF THE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDE-
LINES II-2
SCOPE OF PROJECT INVESTIGATIONS II-2
Existing Data Evaluation II-3
Administrative Record II-4
Regulatory Agencies and Research
Facilities II-4
The Literature II-5
Data Request Program II-6
Data Request Development II-6
Data Processing System II-8
Data Verification and Edit Tech-
niques II-9
Response to Data Request II-9
Screening Program II-9
Mill Selection for Sampling 11-13
Sampling Program 11-14
Split Sampling Program 11-17
Sample Analysis Procedures 11-17
Industry Profile and Review of Subcate-
gorization 11-18
Verification Program 11-1.8
Selection of Significant Parameters 11-20
Selection of Mills for Verification
Program 11-20
Sampling Program 11-26
Split Sampling Program 11-29
Analytical Methods for Verification
Program Analysis 11-29
Analysis by E.G. Jordan Co 11-30
Analysis by GRSI 11-30
Volatile Organic Analysis ... 11-30
Extractable Organic Analysis. 11-30
Quality Control/Quality Assur-
ance II-31
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page No.
II. (Continued) Data Analysis 11-33
Analysis of Treatment Alternatives 11-34
Analysis of Cost and Energy Data . 11-34
III. THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY III-l
INTRODUCTION III-l
BASIC PRODUCTION PROCESSES III-l
Raw Material Preparation III-l
Pulping III-l
Mechanical Pulping III-2
Chemical Pulping IH-2
0 Alkaline Pulping III-2
Sulfite Pulping III-3
Semi-Chemical Pulping III-3
Use of Secondary Fibers III-5
Non-Deink Waste Paper Applications III-5
Deinking III-5
Bleaching III-6
Papermaking II1-6
PRODUCTION PROFILE III-7
Pulp III-7
Paper and Paperboard Products III-8
WATER USE AND POLLUTION CONTROL PROFILE III-l1
Pulping Processes IH-13
Stock Preparation 111-14
Papermaking Ill-14
Summary II1-17
IV. REVIEW OF INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION AND PRO-
FILE IV-1
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW IV-1
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION IV-2
Purpo se IV-2
Existing Subcategorization and Factors
Considered IV-2
Raw Materials IV-2
Pulping Processes IV-4
Products Produced IV-4
Age and Size of Mills IV-5
Geographic Location IV-5
Review of Existing Subcategorization .. IV-5
Description of Subcategories - Inte-
grated Mills IV-8
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving IV-8
012 Alkaline-Market IV-8
013 Alkaline-BCT IV-8
014 Alkaline-Fine IV-8
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section ; Title Page No.
IV. (Continued) 015 Alkaline-Unbleached IV-9
016 Semi-Chemical IV-9
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-
Chemical IV-9
019 Alkaline-Newsprint IV-9
021 Sulfite-Dissolving IV-9
022 Sulfite-Papergrade IV-9
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp (TMP) . IV-9
033 Groundwood-CMN IV-10
034 Groundwood-Fine IV-10
Integrated-Miscellaneous IV-10-
Description of Subcategories - Secondary
Fiber Mills IV-10
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue IV-10
102 De ink-News print IV-10
111 Wastepaper-Tissue IV-10
112 Wastepaper-Board IV-10
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products ... IV-10
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products IV-11
Secondary Fiber-Miscellaneous .... IV-11
Description of Subcategories - Noninte-
grated Mills IV-11
201 Nonintegrated-Fine IV-11
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue IV-11
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight IV-11
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Non-
woven IV-12
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard IV-12
Nonintegrated-Miscellaneous IV-12
The Model Mill and Pure Mill Concepts.. IV-12
Pure Mill IV-12
Model Mill IV-13
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF MILLS BY SUBCATE-
GORY IV-17
PRODUCTION BY SUBCATEGORY IV-17
V. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION V-l
INTRODUCTION V-l
Characterization Strategy V-l
Model and Pure Mill Concepts V-l
Model Mill V-l
Pure Mill V-2
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS V-2
Model Mill Raw Waste Loads by Subcategory V-3
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving V-3
012 Alkaline-Market ' V-3
013 Alkaline-BCT V-3
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
Title
Page No.
V. (Continued)
014 Alkaline-Fine V-6
015 Alkaline-Unbleached V-9
016 Semi-Chemical V-l 1
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-
Chemical V-ll
019 Alkaline-Newsprint V-13
021 Sulfite-Dissolving V-16
022 Sulfite-Papergrade V-16
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp (TMP) . V-18
033 Groundwood-CMN V-21
034 Groundwood-Fine V-21
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue V-24
102 De ink-News print V-24
111 Wastepaper-Tissue V-26
112 Wastepaper-Board V-26
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products ... V-29
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products V-29
201 Nonintegrated-Fine V-33
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue V-33
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight .... V-35
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Non-
woven V-38
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard V-38
Summary of Raw Waste Loads for Model
Mills V-41
Pure Mill Raw Waste Loads by Subcate-
gory V-41
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving V-41
012 Alkaline-Market V-41
013 Alkaline-BCT V-44
014 Alkaline-Fine V-44
015 Alkaline-Unbleached V-44
016 Semi-Chemical V-44
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-
Chemical V-45
019 Alkaline-Newsprint V-45
021 Sulfite-Dissolving V-45
022 Sulfite-Papergrade V-46
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp (TMP) . V-46
033 Groundwood-CMN V-46
034 Groundwood-Fine V-46
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue V-47
102 De ink-News print V-47
111 Wastepaper-Tissue V-48
112 Wastepaper-Board V-48
113 Wastepaper-Construction Products V-48
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products V-48
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title [ Page No.
V. (Continued) 201 Nonintegrated-Fine V-49
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue V-49
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight .... V-49
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Non-
woven V-49
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard V-50
TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS ,,.,,,, V-50
Literature Review V-51
Measuring Acute Toxicity V-51
Raw Effluent Acute Toxicity V-51
Sublethal Toxicity V-52
Mutagenic and Carcinogenic Effects V-52
Specific Toxic Compounds V-52
96-hr LC-50rs V-57
Potentially Toxic Compounds V-57
Screening Program V-59
Verification Program V-59
SUMMARY V-59
VI. PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS VI-1
INTRODUCTION VI-1
SPECIFIC PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS VI-4
Woodyard/Woodroom VI-4
Close-up or Dry Operation VI-4
Segregate Cooling Water VI-4
Pulp Mill VI-8
Reuse Relief and Blow Condensates. VI-8
Reduce Thickener Overflow VI-8
Spill Collection VI-11
Brown Stock Washers and Screen Room ... VI-11
Add Third or Fourth-Stage Washer
or Press VI-11
Recycle More Decker Filtrate VI-14
Cleaner Rejects to Landfill VI-14
Replace Sidehill Screens VI-14
Bleaching Systems VI-17
Countercurrent or Jump-Stage Wash. VI-17
Evaporate Caustic Extract Filtrate VI-21
Evaporation and Recovery Areas VI-21
Recycle of Condensates VI-21
Replace Barometric Condenser VI-24
Boilout Tank VI-24
Neutralize Spent Sulfite Liquor .. VI-24
Segregate Cooling Water VI-28
Spill Collection VI-28
Liquor Preparation Area VI-28
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
Page No.
VI. (Continued)
VII.
Green Liquor Dregs Filter VI-28
Lime Mud Pond VI-30
Papermill VI-30
Spill Collection VI-33
Improve Saveall VI-33
High-Pressure Showers for Wire and
Felt Cleaning VI-41
Whitewater Use For Vacuum Pump
Sealing VI-41
Papermachine Whitewater Use On
Wire Cleaning Showers VI-41
Whitewater Storage for Upsets and
Pulper Dilution VI-41
Recycle of Press Water VI-44
Reuse of Vacuum Pump Water VI-44
Additional Broke Storage VI-44
Installation of Wet Lap Machines . VI-45
Segregate Cooling Water VI-45
Cleaner Rejects to Landfill VI-45
Fourth-Stage Cleaners VI-46
Steam Plant and Utility Areas VI-46
Segregate Cooling Water VI-46
Lagoon for Boiler Slowdown and
Backwash Waters VI-46
Recycle of Effluent VI-46
EFFECTIVENESS OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 PRODUCTION PRO-
CESS CONTROLS BY SUBCATEGORY VI-48
OTHER PROCESS CONTROLS VI-85
EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES VII-1
REVIEW OF SELECTED EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECH-
NOLOGIES VII-1
Introduction VII-1
Preliminary/Primary Treatment VII-1
Biological Treatment VII-2
Introduction VII-2
Impact of Temperature Variations . VI1-3
Oxidation Basins VII-5
Aerated Stabilization Basins (ASB) VEI-6
Activated Sludge Process VII-7
Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge System VII-8
Zurn/Attisholz (Z/A) Process VII-10
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC) VII-10
Anaerobic Contact Filter VII-11
Chemically Assisted Clarification VII-12
Introduction VII-12
Case Studies - Full Scale Systems VII-13
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
Title
Page No.
VII. (Continued)
Case Studies - Pilot and Laboratory
Scale VII-15
Filtration VII-16
Activated Carbon Adsorption VII-20
Granular Activated Carbon VII-21
Powdered Activated Carbon VII-24
Fine Activated Carbon VII-25
Existing Activated Carbon Installa-
tions VII-26
Foam Separation VII-26
Microstraining VII-31
Electrochemical Treatment VII-32
Ion Flotation VII-32
Air/Catalytic/Chemical Oxidation VII-33
Steam Stripping VII-33
Ultrafiltration VI1-34
Reverse Osmosis VII-35
Reverse Osmosis/Freeze Concentration .. VII-35
Amine Treatment VII-36
Polymeric Resin Treatment VII-36
EVALUATION OF CURRENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES VI1-37
Identification of Current Treatment Tech-
nologies VII-37
Performance of Current Treatment Tech-
nologies VII-37
Model Mill Existing Effluent Treatment
Facilities VII-43
PROJECTED EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR
MODEL MILLS VII-43
Selection of Effluent Treatment Techno-
logy Options VII-43
Direct Discharge Mills VI1-48
Level 1 VI1-48
Level 2 VI1-48
Level 3 VI1-4 8
Level 4 VI1-48
Indirect Discharge Mills VII-48
Level 1 VII-49
Level 2 VTI-49
Level 3 VII-49
New Point Source Discharge Mills VII-50
Design Criteria for Selected Effluent
Treatment Technologies VII-50
Preliminary Treatment VII-50
Mill Effluent Pumping VI1-53
Primary Clarification VII-53
Aerated Stabilization Basin VII-53
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
Page No.
VII. (Continued)
VIII.
IX.
Activated Sludge Basin VII-55
Chemically Assisted Clarification. VII-56
Neutralization VII-57
Carbon Adsorption VII-57
Sludge Dewatering VII-57
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening VII-58
Solids Disposal VII-59
Primary Solids Production VII-59
Biological Solids Production VII-61
Chemical Solids Production VII-61
Design Organic Loading to Biologi-
cal Treatment Systems VII-62
Foam Control VII-63
Outfall Sewer VII-63
Diffuser VII-63
EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT
OPTIONS VIII-1
INTRODUCTION VIII-1
ATTAINABLE EFFLUENT QUALITY VIII-1
CONTINUING DATA ANALYSIS EFFORTS VIII-2
COST, ENERGY AND NON-WATER-QUALITY ASPECTS . IX-1
INTRODUCTION IX-1
DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS IX-1
Introduction IX-1
Model Mil Is IX-2
Cost Criteria IX-2
Capital Costs Criteria LX-2
Annual Fixed Charges IX-11
Energy Costs IX-12
Operating and Maintenance
Labor IX-12
Chemicals IX-13
Production Process Control Costs IX-13
Effluent Treatment Costs IX-19
COST ESTIMATES BY SUBCATEGORY IX-2 7
FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS IX-131
Location IX-131
Climate IX-131
Production Capacity IX-133
Age IX-133
Material and Energy Savings IX-133
Retrofit Requirements IX-133
Site Limitations IX-137
Raw Wastewater Characteristics IX-137
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS IX-138
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IX-138
Air Pollution IX-141
Noise Potential IX-141
Solid Wastes IX-141
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.
IX. (Continued) Available Solid Waste Disposal Tech-
nology IX-142
Flocculant Recovery IX-144
IMPLEMENTATION EQUIPMENTS IX-145
Availability of Equipment IX-145
Availability of Labor Force IX-145
Construction Cost Index IX-145
Time Required IX-145
APPENDICES
A VERIFICATION SURVEY DATA
B GLOSSARY OF TERMS
C REFERENCES
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
II-l
1 1-2
III-l
IV-1
IV-2
IV-3
IV-4
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
VI-4
VI-5
VI-6
VI-7
VI-8
VI-9
VI-10
VI-11
VI- 12
Title
LOCATION OF SCREENING MILL SURVEYS
LOCATION OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM MILL
SURVEYS
GENERAL FLOW SHEET PULPING AND PAPER MAKING
PROCESS
AVERAGE FLOW VARIATION WITH AVERAGE %
DEINK STOCK
TSS VARIATION WITH % DEINK STOCK USED . . .
AVERAGE BOD VARIATION WITH AVERAGE %
DEINK STOCK
PULP AND PAPER MILLS IN THE UNITED STATES
- BY STATES
CONVERT HYDRAULIC WOODYARD SYSTEMS TO DRY
SYSTEMS
FLUME REPLACED BY MECHANICAL CONVEYOR . . .
SEGREGATE COOLING WATER AND CONDENSATE -
WOODROOM
REUSE OF DIGESTER CONDENSATE
REDUCE GROUNDWOOD THICKENER FILTRATE OVER-
FLOW
PULP MILL SPILL COLLECTION - DIGESTER AREA.
ADDITION OF THIRD OR FOURTH STAGE WASHER. .
RECYCLE DECKER FILTRATE
CLEANER REJECTS TO LANDFILL
ELIMINATE SIDE HILL SCREENS - ALKALINE
DISSOLVING
JUMP STAGE WASHING IN BLEACH PLANT
FULL COUNTER-CURRENT WASHING IN BLEACH
PLANT
Page No.
11-15
11-25
111-12
IV-1 4
IV-1 5
IV-1 6
IV- 19
VI-5
VI-6
VI-7
VI-9
VI-10
VI- 12
VI-1 3
VI- 15
VI-1 6
VI- 18
VI-19
VI-20
XV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No.
VI-13
VI- 14
VI-15
VI-16
VI- 17
VI-18
VI-19
VI-20
VI-21
Title
BLEACHERY - JUMP STAGE WASHING SULFITE
DISSOLVING
COMPLETE REUSE OF EVAPORATOR CONDENSATE -
ALKALINE PULP MILLS
REPLACE BAROMETRIC CONDENSER WITH SURFACE
CONDENSER. . .
EVAPORATOR BOILOUT TANK
NEUTRALIZATION OF SPENT SULFITE LIQUOR ..
SPILL COLLECTION - EVAPORATOR, RECOVERY,
CAUSTICIZING AND LIQUOR STORAGE
AREAS
GREEN LIQUOR DREGS FILTER
LIME MUD STORAGE POND
STOCK SPILL COLLECTION - PULP BLEACHING &
Page No.
VI-22
VI-23
VI-25
VI-26
VI-27
VI- 2 9
VI-31
VI- 3 2
VI-22
VI-23
VI-24
VI-25
VI-26
VI-27
VI-28
VI-29
PAPER MACHINE AREAS - SULFITE - PAPER
GRADE
STOCK SPILL COLLECTION SYSTEM - PULP
BLEACHING AND DRYER AREAS ALKALINE
PULP MILLS
STOCK SPILL COLLECTION - PAPER MILL AREA
- GROUNDWOOD - CMN OR FINE
SPILL COLLECTION COLOR PLANT
PAPERMILL IMPROVEMENTS - UNBLEACHED
KRAFT
SAVEALL ON PULP AND PAPER MILL EFFLUENTS
BUILDERS PAPER
SAVEALL ON PAPER MILL EFFLUENT - MOLDED
PULP
WHITE WATER TO VACUUM PUMPS AND COLLECTION
TANKS FOR PUMP SEAL WATER AND PRESS
EFFLUENT
INCREASED WHITE WATER STORAGE CAPACITY . .
VI-34
VI-35
VI-36
VI-37
VI-38
VI-39
VI-40
VI-42
VI-43
xvi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No.
VI-30
VI-31
VI-32
VI-33
VI-34
IX-1
IX-2
IX-3
IX-4
IX-5
IX-6
IX- 7
IX-8
IX-9
IX- 10
IX-11
IX- 12
IX-13
IX-14
IX-15
IX-1 6
Title
4-STAGE CENTRICLEANER SYSTEM WITH ELUTRAI-
TION
IMPROVED EFFLUENT REUSE - CLARIFIER SLUDGE .
UDDERHOLM-KAMYR NON-POLLUTING BEACH PLANT,
RAPSON-REEVE PROCESS CLOSED CYCLE BLEACHED
KRAFT PULP MILL
RAPSON-REEVE CLOSED CYCLE MILL SALT RECOVERY
SYSTEM
TYPICAL SITE CAPITAL COST FOR SLUDGE
LANDFILLING
TYPICAL SITE OPERATING COST FOR SLUDGE
LANDFILLING
TREATMENT COST 012 ALKALINE - MARKET ....
TREATMENT COST 013 ALKALINE - BCT
TREATMENT COST 014 ALKALINE - FINE
TREATMENT COST 015 ALKALINE - UNBLEACHED . .
TREATMENT COST 016 SEMI-CHEMICAL
TREATMENT COST 017 ALKALINE UNBLEACHED AND
SEMI-CHEMICAL
TREATMENT COST 019 ALKALINE NEWSPRINT. . . .
TREATMENT COST 021 SULFITE - DISSOLVING. . .
TREATMENT COST 022 SULFITE - PAPERGRADE. . .
TREATMENT COST 033 GROUNDWOOD - CMN
TREATMENT COST 034 GROUNDWOOD - FINE ....
TREATMENT COST 101 DEINK - FINE AND TISSUE .
TREATMENT COST 111 WASTEPAPER - TISSUE . . .
TREATMENT COST 112 WASTEPAPER - BOARD. . . .
Page No.
VI-47
VI-49
VI=SS
VI-89
VI-91
IX-2 5
IX-2 6
IX-90
IX- 91
IX-9 2
IX-93
IX-94
IX-9 5
IX-96
IX-9 7
IX- 9 8
IX-9 9
IX-100
IX-101
IX-1 02
IX- 103
XVll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No.
IX- 17
IX-18
IX- 19
IX-20
IX-21
IX-22
IX-23
IX-24
IX-25
IX-26
IX-27
IX-28
IX- 29
IX-30
IX-31
IX-32
IX-33
IX-34
IX-35
Title
TREATMENT COST 113 WASTEPAPER - MOLDED
PRODUCTS
TREATMENT COST 114 WASTEPAPER - CONSTRUC-
TION PRODUCTS
TREATMENT COST 201 NONINTERGRATED - FINE . .
TREATMENT COST 202 NONINTERGRATED - TISSUE .
TREATMENT COST 204 NONINTEGRATED - LIGHT-
WEIGHT
TREATMENT COST 205 NONINTERGRATED - FILTER
AND NONWOVEN
TREATMENT COST 211 NONINTERGRATED - PAPER-
BOARD
TREATMENT COST 014 ALKALINE - FINE
TREATMENT COST 101 DEINK - FINE AND TISSUE .
TREATMENT COST 102 DEINK - NEWSPRINT ....
TREATMENT COST 111 WASTEPAPER - TISSUE'. . .
TREATMENT COST 112 WASTEPAPER - BOARD. . . .
TREATMENT COST 113 WASTEPAPER - MOLDED
PRODUCTS
TREATMENT COST 114 WASTEPAPER - CONSTRUC-
TION PRODUCTS
TREATMENT COST 201 NONINTERGRATED - FINE . .
TREATMENT COST 202 NONINTERGRATED - TISSUE .
TREATMENT COST 204 NONINTERGRATED - LIGHT-
WEIGHT
TREATMENT COST 205 NONINTERGRATED - FILTER
AND NONWOVEN
TREATMENT COST 211 NONINTERGRATED - PAPER-
BOARD
Page No.
IX-104
IX-105
IX-106
IX-107
IX-108
IX-109
IX-110
IX-111
IX-112
IX-113
IX-114
IX-115
IX-116
IX-117
IX-118
IX-119
IX-120
IX-121
IX-122
XVlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No.
IX-36
IX-37
IX-38
IX-39
IX-40
IX-41
Title
CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION CAPITAL COST ....
CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION ANNUAL COST
CARBON ADSORPTION PLUS CHEMICAL CLARIFICA-
TION CAPITAL COST
CARBON ADSORPTION PLUS CHEMICAL CLARIFICA-
TION ANNUAL COST
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION CAPITAL COST
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION ANNUAL COST
Page No.
IX-123
IX-124
IX-125
IX-126
IX-127
IX-128
IX-42 ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST
INDEX IX-146
IX-43 TIME REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT SOLIDS CONTACT
CLARIFIERS IX-147
IX-45 TIME REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT CARBON ADSORPTION
TREATMENT SYSTEM IX-148
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
II-1 TOXIC POLLUTANTS IDENTIFIED IN PULP, PAPER,
AND PAPERBOARD MILL EFFLUENTS II-6
II-2 RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST II-9
I1-3 TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS UNDER
INVESTIGATION IN THE SCREENING PROGRAM . 11-10
II-4 SUBCATEGORY GROUPS SELECTED FOR SCREENING
PROGRAM 11-13
II-5 TYPICAL SCREENING PROGRAM SURVEY 11-16
I1-6 CURRENT AND REVISED INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORIZATION 11-19
I1-7 VERIFICATION PROGRAM COMPOUNTS ANALYZED . . 11-21
II-8 VERIFICATION PROGRAM SUMMARY OF MILLS
SAMPLED 11-24
II-9 VERIFICATION PROGRAM SAMPLING POINTS . . . 11-27
11-10 TYPICAL VERIFICATION PROGRAM SURVEY .... 11-28
11-11 SUMMARY OF INTERNAL STANDARDS 11-32
11-12 PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS AND EFFLUENT
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 11-35
III-l BLEACHING SYMBOLS III-7
III-2 ESTIMATED PULP PRODUCTION III-8
III-3 PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY . III-9
III-4 PRODUCTION STATISTICS PAPER AND PAPERBOARD
PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY 111-10
III-5 TYPICAL WATER USE IN PULP, PAPER, AND
PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY III-ll
111-6 WASTE LOADS AND WASTEWATER QUANTITIES IN TYPICAL
PULP AND PAPER MILLS III-l5
IV-1 CURRENT INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION .... IV-3
IV-2 REVISED INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION .... IV-7
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Title Page No.
IV-3 U.S. PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD MILLS BY GROUP IV-18
IV-4 REPORTED PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTION BY SUB-
CATEGORY IV-20
V-l SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY Oil - ALKALINE-DISSOLVING ... V-4
V-2 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 012 - ALKALINE-MARKET .... V-5
V-3 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUB CATEGORY 013 - ALKALINE-BCT V-7
V-4 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 014 - ALKALINE-FINE V-8
V-5 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 015 - ALKALINE-UNBLEACHED . '. V-10
V-6 . SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 016 - SEMICHEMICAL V-12
V-7 RAW WASTE LOAD COMPARISON - NSSC VS NO
SULFUR PULPING V-13
V-8 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 017 - ALKALINE-UNBLEACHED
AND SEMICHEMICAL V-l4
V-9 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 019 - ALKALINE-NEWSPRINT . . V-l5
V^IO SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 021 - SULFITE-DISSOLVING . . V-l7
V-ll SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 022 - SULFITE-PAPERGRADE . . V-19
V-12 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 032 - THERMO-MECHANICAL PULP V-20
V-13 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 033 - GROUNDWOOD-CMN .... V-22
V-l4 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 034 - GROUNDWOOD-FINE .... V-23
V-15 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 101 - DEINK-FINE AND TISSUE . V-25
xxi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Title Page No.
V-16 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 111 - WASTEPAPER-TISSUE ... V-27
V-17 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER-BOARD
(BY PRODUCT TYPE) ..;.,,. V-28
V-18 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER-BOARD
(BY DISCHARGE LEVEL) V-28
V-19 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 113 - WASTEPAPER-
MOLDED PRODUCTS V-30
V-20 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 114 - WASTEPAPER-
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS V-31
V-21 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 201 NONINTEGRATED-FINE . . . V-34
V-22 SUMMARY OF RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 202 - NONINTEGRATED-TISSUE . V-36
V-23 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 204 - NONINTEGRATED-
LIGHTWEIGHT V-37
V-24 SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 205 - NONINTEGRATED FILTER
AND NONWOVEN V-39
V-25 SUMMARY OF RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 211 - NONINTEGRATED
PAPERBOARD V-40
V-26 SUMMARY OF MODEL MILL RAW WASTE LOADS ... V-42
V-27 SUMMARY OF RAW WASTE LOADS FOR PURE MILLS . V-43
V-28 REPORTED MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF
VARIOUS RAW PULPING EFFLUENTS V-52
V-29 THRESHHOLD OF SUBLETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF
KRAFT MILL AND SULFITE MILL EFFLUENTS . . V-53
XXXI
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Title Page No.
V-30 RELATIVE TOXICITY CONTRIBUTION OF
COMPOUNDS IN PULP MILL EFFLUENT V-54
V-31 TYPICAL RESIN AND FATTY ACID CONTENTS
OF RAW WOOD TYPES V-55
V-32 RESIN ACID CONTENT OF PINUS BANSIANA FOR
TREE DIAMETERS V-55
V-33 SUMMARY OF HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF WASTE
WATER FROM PAPER COATING AND GLAZING ... V-56
V-34 MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF CERTAIN
TOXICANTS KNOWN TO BE PRESENT IN VARIOUS
PULP AND PAPER MILL EFFLUENTS V-58
V-35 SUMMARY OF SCREENING PROGRAM ANALYSIS
RESULTS V-60
V-36 ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS - SUMMARY OF
SCREENING PROGRAM - RESULTS FOR EPA
REGIONAL SURVEYS V-65
VI-1 LEVEL 1 AND 2 PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS . VI-2
VI-2 RAW WASTE LOADS RESULTING FROM
LEVEL 1 AND 2 PRODUCTION PROCESS
CONTROL MODIFICATION VI-50
VI-3 PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS VI-55
VI-4 SUBGROUPS IN THE WASTEPAPER BOARD
SUBCATEGORY VI-96
VII-1 CALCULATED TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT
REMOVAL RATES VI1-4
VI1-2 OXYGEN ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATABILITY .... VI1-9
VII-3 PILOT RBC FINAL EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR
BLEACHED KRAFT WASTEWATER VII-11
VII-4 SUMMARY OF CHEMICALLY ASSISTED
CLARIFICATION TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE
DATA VII-14
xxiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Title ====== Page No.
VII-5 COLOR REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED USING FERRIC
SULFATE, ALUM, AND LIME VII-17
VII-6 TSS REDUCTION CAPABILITIES AND RELATED
FACTORS FOR THE FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY
WHEN NO CHEMICALS ARE USED t , = = , s , s VII-18
VI1-7 TSS REDUCTION CAPABILITIES AND RELATED
FACTORS FOR THE FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY
WHEN CHEMICALS ARE USED VII-19
VII-8 SAND FILTRATION RESULTS VII-20
VI1-9 RESULTS OF GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON COLUMN
PILOT PLANT TREATING UNBLEACHED KRAFT
MILL WASTE VII-23
VII-10 POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON OPERATING DATA ON
A CHEMICAL PLANT WASTEWATER VI1-24
VII-11 FULL SCALE I'PACT" PROCESS RESULTS ON
CHEMICAL PLANT WASTEWATER VI1-25
VII-12 RESULTS OF ACTIVATED CARBON PILOT PLANTS
TREATING UNBLEACHED KRAFT MILL EFFLUENT . VI1-27
VII-13 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT ACTIVATED
CARBON INSTALLATIONS VI1-28
VII-14 MUNICIPAL CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS
FOLLOWING BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT VI1-29
VII-15 MUNICIPAL PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL CARBON
ADSORPTION TREATMENT FACILITIES VII-30
VII-16 SUMMARY OF METHOD OF DISCHARGE AND
INPLACE TECHNOLOGY VI1-38
VII-17 MILLS REPORTING BEST PERCENT REMOVAL OF
BOD_5 AND TSS BY SUBCATEGORY VII-39
VII-18 PRIMARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW RATE SUMMARY . . VII-40
VII-19 AERATED STABILIZATION BASIN DETENTION
TIME SUMMARY VII-41
xx iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No.
Title
Page No.
VII-20
VI1-21
VI1-22
VI1-23
VII-24
VI1-25
VI1-26
VII-27
VI1-28
VIII-1
VI11-2
VII1-3
VIII-4
VI11-5
VIII-6
VII1-7
ACTIVATED SLUDGE DETENTION TIME SUMMARY
AERATED STABILIZATION BASIN AERATOR
HORSEPOWER SUMMARY
ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATOR HORSEPOWER
SUMMARY
SECONDARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW RATE SUMMARY
MODEL MILL EXISTING EFFLUENT TREATMENT . .
EFFLUENT TREATMENT DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY
HYDRAULIC PEAKING FACTORS USED FOR
WASTEWATER PUMPING
PERCENT RAW TSS REMOVAL IN PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
PERCENT OF RAW BODS^ LOADING ON WHICH-
INDIRECT AND NEW POINT SOURCE BIOBASIN
DESIGN IS BASED
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY Oil - ALKALINE DISSOLVING .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 012 - ALKALINE MARKET . . .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 013 - ALKALINE BCT
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 014 - ALKALINE FINE ....
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 015 - ALKALINE UNBLEACHED
UNDERBOARD
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 015 - ALKALINE UNBLEACHED
BAG
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 016 - SEMI-CHEMICAL (80%). .
VI1-42
VII-44
VI1-45
VI1-4 6
VI1-47
VI1-51
VI1-54
VI1-60
VII-62
VIII-4
VII1-5
VIII-6
VII1-7
VIII-8
VI11-9
VIII-10
XXV
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No.
Title
Page No.
VIII-8
VIII-9
VI11-10
VIII-11
VIII-12
VIII-13
VIII-14
VII1-15
VIII-16
VIII-17
VIII-18
VII1-19
VIII-20
VIII-21
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 016 - SEMI-CHEMICAL (100%) . .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 017 - ALKALINE UNBLEACHED AND
SEMI-CHEMICAL
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 019 - ALKALINE NEWS ....
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 021 - SULFITE DISSOLVING . .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 022 - SULFITE
PAPERGRADE (100%)
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 022 - SULFITE
PAPERGRADE (67%)
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY -032 - THERMO-MECHANICAL PULP
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 033 - GROUNDWOOD CMN (74%) .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 033 - GROUNDWOOD CMN (100%).
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 034 - GROUNDWOOD FINE (59%).
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 034 - GROUNDWOOD FINE (100%)
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 101 - DEINK FINE & TISSUE -
TISSUE PAPERS
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 101 - DEINK FINE & TISSUE -
FINE PAPERS ,
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 102 - DEINK NEWSPRINT . . . ,
VIII-11
VIII-12
VIII-13
VIII-14
VIII-15
VIII-16
VIII-17
VIII-18
VIII-19
VIII-20
VIII-21
VII1-22
VIII-23
VI11-24
xxvx
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No.
VIII-22
VI I 1-2 3
VI 1 1-2 4
VI 1 1-2 5
Title
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 111 - WASTE PAPER TISSUE -
100% INDUSTRIAL
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER BOARD. . . .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER LINERBOARD .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER CORRUGATED .
Page No.
VI I 1-2 5
VI I 1-2 6
VIII-27
VIII-28
VIII-26
VIII-27
VIII-28
VIII-29
VIII-30
VIII-31
VIII-32
VIII-33
VII1-34
VI11-3 5
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER CHIP &
FILLER
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER FOLDING BOX.
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER SET-UP BOX .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER GYPSUM . . .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 113 - WASTEPAPER MOLDED
PRODUCTS
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 114 - WASTEPAPER CONSTRUCTION
PRODUCTS - WASTEPAPER
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 114 - WASTEPAPER CONSTRUCTION
PRODUCTS - 50% WASTEPAPER & 50% TMP . . .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 201 - NONINTERGRATED FINE . .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 202 - NONINTERGRATED TISSUE .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 204 - NONINTERGRATED LIGHT-
WEIGHT
VIII-29
VIII-30
VIII-31
VIII-32
VIII-33
VIII-34
VIII-35
VI11-36
VIII-37
VIII-38
xxvii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No.
VIII-36
VII 1-3 7
VIII-38
VIII-39
IX-1
IX-2
IX-3
IX-4
IX-5
IX-6
IX-7
IX-8
IX-9
IX-10
IX-11
IX-1 2
IX-1 3
IX- 14
Title
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 204 - NONINTERGRATED
ELECTRICAL
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 205 - NONINTERGRATED FILTER.
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 211 - NONINTERGRATED BOARD .
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF "PURE" MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 211 - NONINTERGRATED
ELECTRICAL
MODEL MILL WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS. . .
MODEL MILL SIZES
COST CRITERIA ASSUMPTIONS
MODEL MILL SIZES NEW POINT SOURCE MILLS. .
COST CRITERIA
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED EFFLUENT TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
SUMMARY OF PULP LINES, BLEACH LINES, AND
PAPERMACHINES IN MODEL MILLS
LEVEL 2 PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS SAMPLE
COST CALCULATON
SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED EFFLUENT TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
UNIT PROCESS EFFLUENT TREATMENT SUMMARY
LEVEL 4 TREATMENT COST
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COST
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COST
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COST
SUMMARY OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 PURE MILL WASTE-
WATER FLOWS
Page No.
VIII-39
VII 1-40
VI 1 1-41
VIII-42
IX-3
IX-7
IX-8
IX-9
IX-10
IX-1 4
IX- 16
IX-20
IX-2 3
IX-2 8
IX-29
IX-5 2
IX-65
IX-1 30
xxviii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Title Page No.
IX-15 REGIONAL COST ADJUSTMENT FACTORS IX-131
IX-16 DISTRIBUTION OF MILLS BY REGION AND SUBCA-
TEGORY IX-132
IX-17 GROSS 0 & M AND ENERGY COST AND SAVINGS FOR
PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS IX-134
IX-18 CURRENT MILL ENERGY USE AND EFFECT OF LEVEL
1 PLUS 2 PRODUCTION CONTROLS . IX-139
IX-19 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFLUENT TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES IX-140
IX-20 WASTEWATER SLUDGE PRODUCTION SUMMARY .... IX-143
xxix
-------
LEGEND OF ABBREVIATIONS
A.
APHA
API
ASB
3d
BATEA
BCPTCA
BCT
Bl.Kr.
BP
BPCTCA
BS
BTU
C
°C
Ca
Caust. or
Caustic
CMN
CMP
COD
Cont.
Acid
American Public Health Association
American Paper Institute
Aerated Stabilization Basin
Board or Paperboard
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Best Conventional Pollutant Technology Currently
Available
Paperboard, Coarse, Tissue
Bleached Kraft
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five-day)
Blow Pit
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available
Bisulfite
British Thermal Units
Chlorination Stage (bleach)
degrees Centigrade
Calcium
Causticizing
Coarse, Molded, Newsprint
Chemi-mechanical Pulp
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Contained
xxx
-------
Corrug.
Ctd.
D
DAF
Diss.
DO
DR
E
E. Coli.
Effl. or Eff.
EM
Excl.
F
°F
FW
gal
gpd/sq. ft.
gpm
GW
GW. Spec.
hp
HW
H
Ind.
Inf.
Corrugating
/
Coated
Chlorine Dioxide Stage (bleach)
Dissolved Air Flotation
Dissolving
Dissolved Oxygen
Drum Wash
Extraction Stage (caustic bleach)
Escherica Coliform
Effluent
Engineering News Record
Excluding
Fine
degrees Fahrenheit
Fresh Water
gallons
gallons per day per square foot
gallons per minute
Groundwood
Groundwood Specialty
horsepower
Hardwood
Hypochlorite (bleach)
Industrial
Influent
xxxi
-------
kg
kg/kkg
kg/sq cm
kgal
kgal/ton
or kgal/t
kl/kkg
kw
kwh
Ib
Ib/ac/day
Ib/ton or Ib/t
mach.
misc.
mgd
mg/1
MgO
min
mkt
MLSS
MLVSS
MST
N.A.
Na
kilogram, 1000 grams
kilograms per 1000 kilograms
kilograms per square centimetre
1000 gallons
1000 gallons per ton
1000 kilograms, metric ton
kilolitres per thousand kilograms
kilowatt
kilowatt hour
pound
pound per acre per day
pounds per ton
machine
mi seellaneous
million gallons per day
milligrams per litre
magnesium oxide
minute
market
Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids
Median Survival Time
Not Available or Not Applicable
Sodium
xxxi i
-------
NCASI
NH3
NPDES
NSPS
NSSC
PCS
Pt-Co
ppm
prod.
PS
psi
psig
purch.
RBC
S
San.
sat.
SB
SSL
Std. Meth.
SW
T
TAP PI
Temp
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
Ammonia
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
New Source Performance Standards
Neutral Sulfite Semi-Chemical
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Platinum Cobalt Units
parts per million
production
Post Storage
pounds per square inch
pounds per square inch gage
purchased
Rotating Biological Contactor
Sulfite
Sanitary .
saturated
Settling Basin
Spent Sulfite Liquor
Standard Methods
Softwood
Tissue
Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper
Industry
Temperature
xxxiii
-------
IMP
TOG
TOD
ton
td
TS
TSS
TVS
UBKr
Unctd.
Vibra.
v/v
WF
WP
WW
ug/1
Z/A
Thermo-mechahical Pulp
Total Organic Carbon
Total Oxygen Demand
1000 pounds (short ton)
tons per day
Total Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Volatile Solids
Unbleached Kraft
Uncoated
Vibrating
percent by volume
Wood Flour
Wastepaper
Whitewater
Micrograms per litre
Zurn/Attisholz
xxxiv
-------
PROCESS DESIGNATIONS
FLOW DIRECTION
IX*- VALVE
CONTROL VALVE
CHECK VALVE
FLOOR DRAIN
A
PUMP
BLOWER
SHOWERS
DISTRIBUTION NOZZLE
AGITATOR
INSTRUMENTATION
INSTRUMENTATION LINES
PROBE
o...
CONTROLLER
CONDUCTIVITY CONTROL
CONSISTENCY CONTROL
LA} LEVEL ALARM
LC] LEVEL CONTROL
,LCA) LEVEL CONTROL WITH ALARM
rL!C) LEVEL INDICATOR AND CONTROL
(PHC) pH CONTROL
CA) CONDUCTIVITY CONTROL S ALARM (RC) REMOTE CONTROL
FC J FLOW CONTROLLER
HLA) HIGH LEVEL ALARM
TC ) TEMPERATURE CONTROL
[TRC) TEMPERATURE RECORDER 8 CONTRO
FIGURE
LEGEND OF SYMBOLS ON DIAGRAM*
XXXV
-------
SECTION I
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will propose recom-
mended effluent limitations, guidelines and standards for Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA), Best Conventional Pollutant Con-
trol Technology (BCT), New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and pretreat-
ment standards for new and existing sources of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Point Source Category.
The EPA will also propose general conclusions regarding industry subcategor-
ization, impacting pollutant parameters, alternative treatment technologies,
and treatment costs. The proposed effluent limitations guidelines and stan-
dards, and the general conclusions, will be published following review and
evaluation of the technical information contained in this document, the com-
ments from reviewers of this document, the economic impact on the industry if
required to install additional pollution control technology, and other infor-
mation as appropriate.
1-1
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has undertaken extensive in-
vestigative efforts to provide a realistic basis for establishing effluent
limitations and standards for essentially all industrial point source cate-
gories. To date, these effluent limitations and standards have included best
practicable control technology currently available (BPCTCA), best available
technology economically achievable (BATEA), new source performance standards
(NSPS), and pretreatment standards for new (PSNS) and for existing sources
(PSES).
Section 301 of PL 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, later amended by PL 95-217, the Clean Water Act of 1977, requires
that the EPA review and, if necessary, revise effluent limitations and stan-
dards within five years of promulgation. In addition, as a result of a Set-
tlement Agreement, dated June 7, 1976, amended March 19, 1979, between the EPA
and several environmental groups represented by the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), the EPA is required to develop regulations taking into account
certain toxic pollutants which may be discharged from 21 industrial point
source categories.(1) To meet these responsibilities, the EPA's Effluent
Guidelines Division has been given the task of developing the technical data
bases necessary to review, and possibly revise and/or expand the following:
1. effluent limitations based on the best available technology economically
achievable (BATEA) to be met by industrial dischargers by July 1, 1984;
2. effluent limitations based upon best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCPCT) to be met by July 1, 1984;
3. new source performance standards (NSPS) based on the best available
demonstrated control technology (BADT) to be met by new source industrial
discharges;
4. pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) discharging to pu-
blicly owned treatment works (POTW's); and
5. pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) discharging to publicly
owned treatment works (POTW's).
In July 1977 the Edward C. Jordan Co., Inc. (E.G. Jordan Co.), of Portland,
Maine, was retained by the EPA under Contract No. 68-01-4624 to conduct the
technical studies for the pulp, paper and paperboard point source category
required as a result of Settlement Agreement and the Clean Water Act. Meta
Systems Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was retained by EPA to undertake the
economic project investigations. The scope of the study includes those mills
producing pulp., paper, paperboard, and builders' paper.
II-l
-------
STATUS OF THE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards program for the pulp, paper
and paperboard point source category has been active since 1972. In proposing
and then promulgating effluent limitations and standards for the pulp, paper
and paperboard point source category, the EPA divided the industry into two
segments. These segments have been referred to as Phases I and II. In addi-
tion to these segments, the industrial point source category now includes
builders' paper operations, which had earlier been addressed by EPA as a
separate category.
The timing and status of the effluent limitation guidelines resulting from PL
92-500 vary for the industry. Technical studies for the Phase I segment were
completed in late 1973, with an EPA Development Document published in May
1974.(2) Proposed BPCTCA, BATEA and NSPS effluent limitations were introduced
on January 15, 1974.(3) After a review period, the proposed regulations were
adjusted and promulgated for the Phase I mills on May 29, 1974.(4)
The technical studies for the Phase II segment began in late 1973. In July
1974, a draft contractor's report was submitted to the EPA.(5) Additional
technical studies were undertaken, and in August 1975 a "Development Document
for Advanced Notice of Proposed or Promulgated Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards" was published.(6) On February 19, 1976, the EPA published
interim-final effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the Phase II
segment.(7) On January 6, 1977, BPCTCA effluent limitations were promulgated
for the Phase II segment.(8) Subsequently, effluent standards for the dis-,
solving sulfite-subcategory acetate grade pulp were remanded by the Court of'
Appeals.(9)
On January 14, 1974, effluent limitation guidelines and standards were pro-
posed for the builders' paper and roofing felt mills.(10) These regulations
were subsequently promulgated on May 9, 1974.(11)
SCOPE OF PROJECT INVESTIGATIONS
The goal of the effluent guidelines program is to develop a basis for the EPA
to regulate three specific categories of pollutants. In carrying out the
intent of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has a varying compliance schedule for
each category of pollutants. The categories of pollutants outlined in the Act
are:
1. conventional pollutants;
2. toxic pollutants; and
3. nonconventional pollutants.
Included in the conventional pollutant category are 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD 5), total suspended solids (TSS), pH, and fecal coliform. In
general, effluent limitations have been developed based on best practicable
control technology currently available (BPCTCA). BOD5, TSS, and pH are regu-
II-2
-------
lated for all subcategories. Extensive investigations were completed between
1972 and 1976 on the discharge of these conventional pollutants from the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry.
The next category of pollutants consists of 65 "priority" pollutants or clas-
ses of pollutants listed in the settlement agreement between EPA and the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).(l) Prior to undertaking these
investigations, limited data was available on the presence of these pollutants
in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry wastewater discharges. As a
result, the project investigations were structured to develop the required
data base.
Nonconventional pollutants are those not named in one of the previous cate-
gories of pollutants. Discharge of these pollutants in this category may be
industry-specific and upon a determination by EPA, may be regulated. In
addition to industry-specific compounds identified, ammonia and chemical
oxygen demand (COD) are included as nonconventional pollutants. COD has been
proposed as a conventional pollutant, but it has not been promulgated. Conse-
quently, it will be discussed subsequently as a nonconventional pollutant.
The purpose of project investigations undertaken for this report was to assem-
ble the necessary data that would allow the EPA to promulgate effluent limita-
tions guidelines and standards for the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry in
the three categories of pollutants. A work program was prepared and presented
to the EPA in September 1977, which included the following major project
tasks:
1. existing data evaluation;
2. data request program;
3. screening program;
4. industry profile and review of subcategorization;
5. verification program;
6. data analysis;
7. analysis of treatment alternatives; and
8. analysis of cost and energy data.
The approach to each of these major project tasks is discussed below.
Existing Data Evaluation
To assess existing data on pollutants and their control/reduction in the pulp
and paper industry, several data sources were investigated, including:
11-3
-------
the EPA's administrative record;
information from state regulatory agencies, the EPA regions, and
research facilities; and
the literature.
Administrative Record. The administrative record for the previous Phase I and
II segment effluent guidelines studies and for builders' papers was reviewed
for:
o the use of chemical additives;
o the use or suspected presence of the 129 toxic compounds;
o the use or suspected presence of other (nonconventional) pollutants;
o available production process controls; and
o available effluent treatment techniques.
Regulatory Agencies and Research Facilities. During the initial months of the
project, it was determined that the state regulatory agencies and the EPA
regional offices had very few past or ongoing projects which would relate to
the toxic pollutants and the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. The state
of Wisconsin and EPA did, however, recently complete a study which deals with
toxic pollutants found in the discharges from pulp, paper and paperboard
mills.(12) Results show that pulp, paper, and paperboard mill effluents
contained numerous organic compounds which are not on the EPA's list of toxic
pollutants.
In recent months many of the EPA regional offices have been conducting sam-
pling programs to supplement those being conducted by the E.G. Jordan Co.
Future project reporting will include summaries of all available data con-
cerning the supplemental EPA sampling efforts.
In addition, representatives of several research and other facilities have
been contacted for information on ongoing or unpublished work. Facilities
contacted included:
University of Washington
College of Forest Resources
Seattle, Washington
Washington Department of
Fisheries Laboratory
Quilcene, Washington
B.C. Research, Inc.
Vancouver, B.C.
Institute of Paper Chemistry
Appleton, WS
Forest Products Laboratory
Madison, WS
II-4
-------
Simpson Paper Company
Anderson, California
University of California Forest
Products Laboratory
Richmond, California
State University of New York
College of Environmental Science
and Forestry
Syracuse, New York
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada
Pulp & Paper Research Institute of
Canada
Point Claire, Quebec
HSA Reactors Ltd.
Toronto, Canada
Lundberg Ahlen, Inc.
Richmond (Vancouver), Canada
The Literature. In order to develop background information on the toxic
pollutants and their control in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry, the
E.G. Jordan Co. completed an assessment of available data through a review of
literature. This review focused on identifying which of the 129 toxic and
which other (nonconventional) pollutants, if any, may be present in the waste-
waters discharged from pulp, paper and paperboard mills. This included a
review of materials, chemicals, and processes which might contribute to the
discharge of these pollutants. Additional data was sought on the technology
to remove or control the toxic pollutants under investigation.
Several automated document searches were undertaken to identify relevant
literature. Sources searched included:
1. The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion's Environmental Data Service (Environmental Data Index - ENDEX and
the Oceanic Atmospheric Scientific Information System - OASIS);
2. University microfilm's xerographic dissertation abstract service.(DATRIX
ID;
3. Environment Canada's Water Resources Document Reference Center through
Canada's Inland Waters Directorate (WATDOC); and
4.. The Institute of Paper Chemistry's Abstract Service (PAPERCHEM and Chemi-
cal Abstracts).
Through these services, over one million articles/papers and 3,500 environ-
mental data files were searched. Those which appeared relevant were obtained
and reviewed.
Several other summary documents were also reviewed, including:
1. work conducted by the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada;
2. a report entitled, "Multi-Media Pollution Assessment in Pulp, Paper, and
Other Wood Products Industry," prepared for the U.S. EPA by Battelle-
Columbus Laboratories, December 1976; and
II-5
-------
3. the U.S. EPA's Office of Research and Development Publication Summary
(December 1976, Cincinnati, Ohio).
4. Environment Canada's Publication Summary of work conducted under the
Canadian Pollution Abatement Research Program, March 1977 and March 1978.
5. "A position paper documenting the toxicity of pulp and paper mill dis-
chargers and recommending regulatory guidelines and measurement proce-
dures" prepared for the Canadian Pulp & Paper Association, by B.C. Re-
search, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, December 1974.
Through these reviews several compounds contained on the toxic pollutant list,
as well as certain nonconventional pollutants known to be toxic, were noted as
being present in the discharge from pulp, paper and paperboard mills.(13)
Table II-l presents the toxic pollutants identified through these efforts.
TABLE II-l
TOXIC POLLUTANTS
IDENTIFIED IN PULP, PAPER & PAPERBOARD MILL EFFLUENTS (13)
Chlorinated Phenolics Lead
Chloroform Lindane (Y-BHC)
Chromium Mercury
Copper Pentachlorophenol
ODD Phenol (Methyl Ether)
DDE Polychlorinated
DDT Biphenyls (PCB)
Dioctyl Phthalate Zinc
Iron
Data Request Program
To develop an up-to-date industry profile, data from previous effluent guide-
lines studies was supplemented by a new data request program. The program was
developed to collect information for each manufacturing facility, including
raw materials, processes, products, production process controls, effluent
treatment technologies and the toxic and nonconventional pollutants dis-
charged.
Data Request Development. The process leading to the development of the final
data request included considerable input from the industry and EPA. It was
initially envisioned that a separate survey form would be developed for each
of eight basic types of manufacturing facilities: kraft and soda, sulfite,
groundwood, deink, NSSC, and CMP/TMP, builders paper mills, and non-
II-6
-------
integrated mills. After numerous discussions with industry representatives
and the EPA, it was decided that only two survey forms would be developed for
the basic types of manufacturing facilities:(14)
(1) Multiple Pulping/Integrated Mills; including
Kraft and Soda Mills
Sulfite Mills
Groundwood Mills
Deink Mills
NSSC and CMP/TMP Mills
Faperboard from Wastepaper Plants
Builders Paper Mills
(2) Nonintegrated Mills, including
Fine
Coarse
Tissue
Other Mills
The data request development was coordinated with the API-BAT Task Group, an
industry committee formed to interact with EPA during the ongoing BATEA review
project. This group brought together numerous individuals representing indi-
vidual companies and technical associations. The committee participated in
the review and the development of the survey form and made suggestions con-
cerning its content. Meetings with the API-BAT task group were held on July
12, August 2, and August 18, 1977 to review the draft data request survey
forms. Revisions were made to the data requests in accordance with discus-
sions at the meetings.
The final data requests were in two parts. Part I requested information to be
used in selection of mills to be sampled in the verification program. Part II
contained responses to be used for profiling the industry and for subcategor-
ization.
During the industry meetings, the EPA requested input from the industry group
on the required population of mills that should receive a data request. Mill
representatives from both large and small mills recommended 100 percent cover-
age of the industry. The data requests were forwarded by EPA under the au-
thority of Section 308 of PL 92-500 during the last week in September 1977.
The response times for Parts I and II were 45 and 90 days, respectively. The
response were due in mid-November 1977 and early January 1978.
Due to the complex nature of the data request, representatives of the National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI),
requested that representatives of the EPA and the E.G. Jordan Co. attend an
instructional meeting on October 6, 1977, in Chicago, Illinois, to answer
questions from mill representatives on completing the data requests. As a
result of this meeting, an errata sheet was assembled and distributed to mills
which had received the data request.(15)
II-7
-------
Throughout the response time, numerous questions were asked of E.G. Jordan Co.
personnel on the data request. The largest number of questions related to:
production information, raw material utilization, process chemicals, and
process description.
Representatives of the surveyed mills were allowed to request that information
be held confidential. The program also included a release statement giving
the NCASI access to a mill's response and to additional mill data developed in
the program. As a result, the EPA and E.G. Jordan Co. could communicate with
the NCASI on data including confidential data, except for those mills that
elected not to release the information to the NCASI.
Data Processing System. Since there were 700 anticipated responses to the
data request program, it was imperative that a definite methodology be devel-
oped for processing the responses. A multi-phase procedure was developed for
receiving and processing responses to the data requests. The first step in
the processing system was to develop a mill code to ensure mill anonymity in
reports and to facilitate computer analysis of the data request and sampling
data. Principal steps included keytape of data, data verification, and data
processing.
As responses to the data requests were received, they were first dated and
logged into the data processing system.
Since numerous nonstandard and lengthy responses were anticipated, the survey
forms were manually reviewed before the data was keytaped. This review was'
primarily for compatibility with the data input format, and for reasonableness
of responses.
In the review for reasonableness, numeric responses totally out of line with
expected values were either reconciled with other responses in the mill's data
request, or the respondent was contacted for clarification and correction.
The same was true for responses which indicated a misunderstanding or mis-
interpretation of the question.
Responses were stored as they appeared on the original survey form or through
the use of codes. If a question requiring a numeric response (e.g., year,
quantity, etc.) was answered by a number plus text explanation, or simply
text, then a code was inserted in the data base which indicated the presence
of the additional information. A similar code was used to indicate an answer
which had been calculated by the reviewing engineer; such an answer normally
consisted of conversions to standard units, often confirmed by communication
with the respondent. Codes for "unknown" or "not available" information were
also utilized where appropriate. All codes and notes indicating additional
information can be retrieved so that all responses are accounted for during
the data analysis phase.
In general, it was necessary to contact 30 to 40 percent of the responding
mills for verification of responses. In some cases obviously erroneous data
was submitted relative to some mills. The production and wood utilization
data for all responding mills was reviewed to ensure consistent results and
reliable data interpretation.
II-8
-------
Data Verification and Edit Techniques. Information contained in the data
files was verified by comparing the printed output file copy with the original
data request responses. The purpose was to ensure accuracy in the data. Data
files were updated according to the verified printouts.
Response to Data Request. Responses to both the integrated and nonintegrated
data request forms was good. The total number of respondents and the per-
centage of the total that this represented are shown in Table II-2.
TABLE II-2
RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST
Number of surveys sent: 730
Number of 308 surveys returned: 644
Percentage response: (88%)
Summary of Non-Response
No reply: 45
Shut down: 21
Exempt: 20
Total 86
Overall Percentage Response: 94%
Method of Discharge - Responding Mills
Direct Dischargers: 359
Indirect Dischargers: 230
Self Contained: 55
The EPA is currently developing a strategy to survey those mills not respond-
ing to the data request.
Screening Program
As a result of the settlement agreement the EPA was to determine the presence
or absence of 65 "priority" pollutants or classes of pollutants in industrial
effluent discharges. Prior to commencing the technical studies required, the
EPA expanded the list of "priority pollutants" to include 129 toxic pollu-
tants. (16)
The screening program was established to determine the presence or absence of
the 129 toxic and 14 nonconventional pollutants listed in Table II-3 in pulp,
paper, and paperboard wastewaters. This information would be used to develop
II-9
-------
TABLE II-3
TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS UNDER INVESTIGATION IN THE SCREENING PROGRAM
i
h-'
O
1. *acenaphthene
2. *acroleln
3. *acrylonltrile
4. *benzene
5. *benzidine
6. *carbon tetrachlorlde
(tetrachloromethane)
*CHLORINATED BENZENES (other than DICHLOROBENZENES)
7. chlorobenezene
8. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
9. hexachlorobenzene
*CHLORINATED ETHANES
10. 1,2-dlchloroethane
11. I,1,1-trLchloroethane
12. hexachloroethane
13. 1,1-dtchloroethane
14. 1,1,2-trlchloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
16. chloroethane
*CHLOROAKLYL ETHERS
17. bis(chloromethyl) ether
18. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
19. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
*CHLORINATED NAPTHALENE
20. 2-chloronaphthalene
*SpSRrfic compounds and chemical classes as listed
in^me
*CHLORINATED PHENOLS (Other than those listed elsewhere;
includes chlorinated cresols
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. parachlorometa cresol
23. *chloroform (trichloremethane)
24. *2-chlorophenol
*DICHLOROBENZENES
25. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
26. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
27. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
*DICHLOROBENZIDINE
28. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
*DICHLOROETHYLENES
29. 1,1-dichloroethylene
30. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
31. *2,4-dichlorophenol
*DICHLOROPROPANE AND DICHLOROPROPENE
32. 1,2-dichloropropane
33. 1,3-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
34. *2,4-dimenthylphenol
*DINITROTOLUENE
35. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
36. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
37. *l,2-diphenylhydrazine
38. *ethylbenzene
39. *fluoranthene
e consent degree.
-------
TABM^E-3 (Continued)
M
M
I
*HALOETHERS (other than those listed elsewhere)
40. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
41. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
42. bis(2-chlorolsopropyl) ether
43. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
*HALOMETHANES (other than those listed elsewhere)
44. methylene chloride (dischloromethane
45. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
46. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
47. bromoform (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobromomethane
49. trichlorofluoromethane
50. dLchlorodifluoromethane
51. chlorodlbromomethane
52. *hexachlorobutadlene
53. *hexachlorocyclopentadiene
54. *Lsophorone
55. *naphthalene
56. *nitrobenzene
*NITROPHENOLS
57. 2-nitrophenol
58. 4-nitrophenol
59. *2,4-dinitrophenol
60. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
*NITROSAM1NES
61. N-nitrosodLmethylamine
62. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
63. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
64. *pentachlorophenol
65. *phenol
*PHTHALATE ESTERS
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. di-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
71. dimethyl phthalate
*POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
72. benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-benzanthracene)
73. benzo (A)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
74. 3,4-benzo fluoranthene
75. benzo (k) fluoranthene (11,12-betizo fluoranthene)
76. chrysene
77. acenaphthlene
78. anthracene
79. benzo(ghi)perylene (1,12-benzoperylene)
80. fluorene
81. phenathrene
82. dibenzo (a,h) anthracene (1,2,5,6-dibenzanthracene)
83. indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (2,3-0-phenylenepyrene)
84. pyrene
85. *tetrachloroethylene
86. *toluene
87. *trichloroethylene
88. *vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
PESTICIDES AND METABOLITES
89. *aldrin
90. *dieldrin
91. *chlordane (technical mixture & metabolites)
*SpecLfic compounds and chemical classes as listed in the consent degree.
-------
TABLE II-3 (Continued)
M
M
I
I-"
Ni
*DDT AND METABOLITES
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
94. 4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
*ENDOSULFAN AND METABOLITES
95. a-endosulfan-Alpha
96. b-endosulfan-Beta
97. endosulfan sulfate
*ENDRIN AND METABOLITES
98. endrin
99. endrin aldehyde
*HEPTACHLOR AND METABOLITES
100. heptachlor
101. heptachlor epoxide
*HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE (all isomers)
102. a-BHC-Alpha
103. b-BHC-Beta
104. r-BHC (llndane)-Gamma
105. g-BHC-Delta
*POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB's)
106. PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108. PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109. PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110. PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112. PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113. *Toxaphene
114. *Antlmony (Total)
115. *Arsenic (Total)
116. *Asbestos (Fibrous)
117. *Beryllium (Total)
118. *Cadmlura (Total)
119. *Chromium (Total)
120. *Copper (Total)
121. *Cyanide (Total)
122. *Lead (Total)
123. *Mercury (Total)
124. *Nickel (Total)
125. *Selenium (Total)
126. *Silver (Total)
127. *Thalliura (Total)
128. *Zinc (Total)
129. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
ADDITIONAL COMPOUNDS
130. Abietic Acid
131. Dehydroabietic Acid
132. Isopimaric Acid
133. Primarlc Acid
134. Oleic Acid
135. Linolelc Acid
136. Linolenic Acid
137. 9,10-Epoxystearic Acid
138. 9,10-Dichlorostearic Acid
139. Monochlorodehydroabietic Acid
140. Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
141. 3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
142. Tetrachloroguaiacol
143. Xylenes
fLc compounds and chemical classes as listed Li^Bbe consent degree.
-------
a verification sampling program. To limit the amount of sampling required
during the screening program, specific criteria were developed for selecting
representative pulp, paper and paperboard mills.
Mill Selection for Sampling. The initial step in selecting mills for sampling
during the screening program was to obtain an adequate cross-section of the
pulp, paper and paperboard industry. Discussions between the E.G. Jordan Co.
and EPA representatives led to the selection of 15 subcategory groups within
the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry for inclusion in the screening pro-
gram. These 15 groups are listed in Table II-4.
TABLE II-4
SUBCATEGORY GROUPS SELECTED FOR SCREENING PROGRAM
Bleached Kraft: Fine Papers
Bleached Kraft: BCT/Market Pulp/Dissolving
Unbleached Kraft
Unbleached Kraft/NSSC
NSSC
Sulfite
Groundwood: Fine Papers
Deink
Nonintegrated: Fine Papers
Nonintegrated: Tissue Papers
Nonintegrated: Coarse Papers
Nonintegrated: Specialty Papers (I)
Nonintegrated: Specialty Papers (II)
Paperboard from Wastepaper
Builders' Paper
It was concluded that one mill in each of these groupings would adequately
represent the grouping if the following criteria were met:
1. a biological treatment system is employed at the mill and it is direct
discharging;
2. the flow and BOD_5_ raw wastewater characteristics of the mill discharge
approximate BPCTCA raw wastewater levels used in development of regula-
tions for the specific mill grouping; and
3. the manufacturing process is representative of the respective mill group-
ing.
Based upon these criteria, mills were selected for 11 of the 15 subcategory
groups. Because of insufficient data, representative mills meeting the selec-
tion criteria could not be found for the following subcategory groups:
11-13
-------
Nonintegrated Coarse Papers;
Nonintegrated Specialty Papers (I);
Nonintegrated Specialty Papers (II); and
Builders' Paper.
For these subcategory groups, it was noted that additional data would be
forthcoming as a result of the data request program included in the current
study program. Therefore, screening program visits to facilities included in
these subcategory groups were delayed until the early phase of the verifica-
tion program.
In addition to the 11 screening program sampling surveys conducted by the E.G.
Jordan Co., EPA regional sampling and analysis teams surveyed an additional 47
mills to provide supplemental information. The additional mills were selected
on the basis of the criteria detailed earlier.
A total of 32 of the 47 EPA regional surveys were performed as part of the
verification sampling program. However, the analytical procedures used by the
contracting analytical laboratories were those used in the screening program.
Therefore, the results are comparable to those developed in the E.G. Jordan
Company's screening program.
Figure II-l shows the location of the 58 mills sampled as part of the screen-
ing program.
Sampling Program. Three sample locations for each mill were chosen for the
sampling program: 1) the raw process water prior to any treatment; 2) the raw
wastewater discharge to the wastewater treatment system; and 3) the final
effluent from the wastewater treatment system(s).
The raw process water was selected to obtain background concentration levels
for the toxic pollutants present in the water supply prior to use at the mill.
The raw wastewater was selected because it would provide data on the toxic
pollutants resulting from the industrial process and being discharged to the
wastewater treatment system. The final effluent was sampled to determine the
presence of and quantify the toxic pollutants remaining after wastewater
treatment.
Prior to the sampling program, E.G. Jordan Co. prepared a "Screening Program
Work Booklet" detailing the specific procedures to be followed during the
program.(17) The specific procedures were derived from, and are consistent
with, the EPA's March 1977 booklet entitled "Sampling and Analysis Procedures
for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants".(18)
The screening program survey at each of the 11 mills included the taking of
both composite and grab samples during the 3-day survey. Composite sampling
was conducted for a period of 72 consecutive hours at the raw wastewater and
final effluent sample locations. Grab samples were collected once daily at
these two locations, as well as once on the second day of the sampling survey
at the raw process water location. Table II-5 shows the work items covered1
during a typical screening sampling program survey.
11-14
-------
I
*
Oi
! " I
TT«Tco-Ail8M 1 -
! I
JL'OUIS i
LEGEND
0 CONTRACTOR SURVEYS
|T| AGENCY SURVEYS
FIGURE H-l
LOCATION OF SCREENING
MILL SURVEYS
-------
TABLE II-5
TYPICAL SCREENING PROGRAM SURVEY
Day 1 of the Survey
Day 2 of the Survey
Day 3 of the Survey
Day 4 of the Survey
1. Meet with mill personnel
and discuss the program
2. Select sample locations
3. Set up automatic samplers
4. Collect all grab samples
required
5. Take pH and temperature
readings at each sample
location twice during
24 hours
6. Check automatic samplers
periodically and keep
composite sample container
iced
Check automatic 1.
samplers
Collect all grab 2.
samples required
Take pH and tempera- 3.
ture readings at each
sample location twice
during 24 hours
Check automatic samplers 4.
periodically and keep
composite sample container
iced
Check automatic 1.
samplers
Collect all grab
samples required 2.
Take pH and tempera-
ture readings at each 3.
sample location twice
during 24 hours
Check automatic samplers 4.
periodically and keep
composite sample container
iced 5.
Distribute 72 hour
composite between the
required composite samples
Break down automatic
samplers
Final meeting with mill
personnel to wrap up the
survey
Pack the samples and equip-
ment for shipment
Ship samples to the approp-
riate analytical laboratory
-------
The composite sample was made up of approximately a 75-millilitre (ml) sample
aliquot collected every 30 minutes using an ISCO model 1580 -superspeed or
1680 automatic sampler. The Teflon tubing used to collect samples was re-
placed after use at each mill. The tubing was prepared in accordance with the
criteria established by the EPA.(18)
The particular categories of compounds sampled, as well as the type of con-
tainer used to collect the sample during the screening program, were as fol-
lows :
Composite Samples Container Size and Material
Extractable Organics 1 gallon glass
Metals 500-ml glass
Asbestos 1-litre, amber plastic
Grab Samples
Volatile Organics 125-ml glass
Phenol 1-litre, glass
Cyanide 1-litre, amber plastic
Mercury 500-ml, plastic
To minimize biochemical degradation of the sample, the composite sampler jar
was packed in ice during the 72-hr sampling period. Grab samples were col-
lected and immediately packed in ice. All composite samples were also packed
in ice immediately after the appropriate containers were filled at the end of
the 72-hr period at each location.
Split Sampling Program. At each mill sampled by the E.G. Jordan Co. the
screening survey team also split samples, both grab and composite, for ana-
lysis by representatives of the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement (NCASI). The bottles for the NCASI samples were pre-
pared and delivered to each mill by NCASI personnel in Gainesville, Florida.
The mill personnel assumed responsibility for the bottles prior to and imme-
diately after sample collection. At most of the mills sampled, a member of
the mill staff was present during the sample collection process.
Sample Analysis Procedures. The screening program samples were analyzed in
accordance with EPA procedures.(18) The organic compounds were analyzed by
gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Metals were analyzed by the
following method(s):
1. beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, silver, arsenic,
antimony, selenium, and thallium were first analyzed by flameless atomic
adsorption (AA). If the metal was above the dynamic range of the flame-
less AA the metal was then analyzed by flame AA.
11-17
-------
2. zinc was analyzed by flame AA.
3. mercury was analyzed by cold vapor flameless AA;
Industry Profile and Review of Subcategorization
During the screening program, available data and newly obtained information
from the data request program were reviewed to develop a revised profile of
the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. The review recognized such factors
as plant size, age, location, raw materials, production process controls,
products and effluent treatment systems. Based on these factors, the industry
subcategorization has been reviewed and adjusted to reflect current practices.
By grouping similar mills together into subcategories, uniform national ef-
fluent limitations and standards can be developed (as required by PL95-217)
which are applicable to groups of mills that fit discreet production and
process patterns. If properly classified, a grouping (or subcategory) of
similar mills will use similar production processes, show similar raw waste
characteristics, experience similar effects resulting from specific process
modifications, and share similar costs for those modifications in proportion
to each mill's individual production rate.
Earlier efforts in subcategorizing the pulp, paper and paperboard industry
resulted in establishing current Phase I and Phase II subcategories, as shown
in Table II-6.
As part of this updated industry-wide survey, the existing subcategorizaton
was reviewed based on more comprehensive data obtained during the screening
program, the data request program and related efforts. As a result, a new
subcategorization scheme has been developed as shown in Table II-6. This
revised subcategorization better reflects the industry as it now operates with
respect to raw materials, processing sequences and product mix.
A more detailed explanation of the rationale and process of subcategorization
is presented in Section IV of this document, along with profile information
for each of the revised subcategories.
The revised subcategorization was used in designing and conducting the verifi-
cation program, as discussed below.
Verification Program
The verification program was established to verify the presence of the com-
pounds found during the screening program, and to obtain information on the
quantity of toxic and nonconventional pollutants present in pulp, paper and
paperboard effluents. The selection of the compounds to be analyzed during
the verification program was based on the screening program results at the
mills sampled by the E.G. Jordan Co.
11-18
-------
TABLE II-6
CURRENT AND REVISED INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
Current Subcategorles
Revised Subcategories
Phase I
Unbleached Kraft
NSSC - Ammonia
NSSC - Sodium
Unbleached Kraft-NSSC
Paperboard from Wastepaper
Phase II
Dissolving Kraft
Market Kraft
BCT-Kraft
Fine Kraft
Papergrade Sulfite
- Blow Pit Wash (plus allowances)
Papergrade Sulfite-Drum Wash
- Drum Wash (plus allowances)
Dissolving Sulfite (allowances by
grade)
Groundwood Chemi-Mechanical
Groundwood Thermo-Mechanical
Groundwood-CMN
Ground wood-Fine
Soda
Deink
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
- from Waste Paper
Builders Paper and Roofing Felt
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline Unbleached and Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
Mill Groupings:
*Integrated Miscellaneous including
o Alkaline-Miscellaneous
o Groundwood Chemi-Mechanical
o Nonwood Pulping
*Secondary Fiber-Miscellaneous
*Nonintegrated-Miscellaneous
*Groupings of miscellaneous mills - not subcategories.
11-19
-------
Selection of Significant Parameters. Many of the toxic pollutants were not
detected in pulp, paper and paperboard wastewaters during the screening pro-
gram. Pollutants selected for the verification program included those de-
tected during the screening program, plus specific compounds thought to be
present in pulp, paper, and paperboard wastewaters based on literature reviews
and industry data responses. The compounds included in the verification
program are listed on Table II-7.
Selection of Mills for Verification Program. Part I of the EPA Survey Form,
(14) returned by representatives of 644 mills, was used in selecting mills for
verification program surveys. One of the first items that had to be addressed
in selecting verification mills involved industry subcategorization. A pre-
liminary revised subcategorization scheme was developed based on initial
evaluations of the information submitted in Part I of the EPA Survey Form.
Candidate mills for the verification program were listed for each of the
revised subcategories. The criteria used to determine a mills candidacy for
verification sampling were as follows:
1. the mill was direct discharging;
2. a secondary treatment system was employed at the mill;
3. the final effluent flow and BODJ5 from the wastewater treatment system
were less than twice the average day BPCTCA limitations for the subcate-
gory.
Those mills which met the above criteria were considered as primary candidates
for the verification program. Some of the subcategories analyzed had pri-
marily mills with only primary treatment systems, or discharge was to a pri-
vate or publicly owned treatment works (POTW). For such subcategories the
selection criteria were altered to include mills with these methods of hand-
ling their wastewater.
After determining which mills were primary candidates for the verification
program, more specific process and wastewater selection criteria were evalu-
ated, including:
1. raw wastewater and final effluent flow and BOD5^ and the percentage above
or below the average day BPCTCA limitations;
2. the average daily production rates (raw materials, pulp manufactured, and
paper);
3. the Kappa or permanganate number (if applicable to the subcategory that
was analyzed);
4. the type of debarking used, i.e., wet or dry (if applicable to the sub-
category analyzed);
5. the brown stock washer efficiency in terms of pounds of soda loss (if
applicable to the subcategory analyzed);
11-20
-------
TABLE II-7
4. *benzene
6. *carbon tetrachlorlde
(tetrachloromethane)
*CHLORINATED BENZENES (other than
dichlorobenzenes
7. chlorobenzene
*CHLORINATED ETHANES
10. 1,2-dichloroethane
11. 1,1,1-tr.ichloroethane
13. 1,1-dlchloroethane
15. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
*CHLORINATED PHENOLS (other than those
listed elsewhere; Includes chlorinated
cresols)
21. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
22. parachlorometa cresol
23. *chloroform (trichloromethane)
24. *2-chlorophenol
*DICHLOROETHYLENES
31. *2,4-dtchlorophenol
*DINITROTOLUENE
VERIFICATION PROGRAM COMPOUNDS ANALYZED
*HALOMETHANES (other than those listed elsewhere)
44. methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
47. broraoforra (tribromomethane)
48. dichlorobroraomethane
49. trlchlorofluoromethane
51. chlorodibromomethane
54. *isophorone
55. *naphthalene
*NITROPHENOLS
59. *2,4-dinitrophenol
*NITROSAMINES
64. *pentachlorophenol
65. *phenol
*PHTHALATE ESTERS
66. bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
67. butyl benzyl phthalate
68. di-n-butyl phthalate
69. dl-n-octyl phthalate
70. diethyl phthalate
*POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
38. *ethylbenzene
*Speclfic compounds and chemical classes as listed in the consent degree.
76. chrysene
78. anthracene
80. fluorene
84. pyrene
-------
TABLE H-7 (Continued)
85. *tetrachloroethylene
86. *toluene
87. *trichloroethylene
*POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCB's)
I
N3
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
126.
128.
PCB-1242 (Arochlor
PCB-1254 (Arochlor
PCB-1221 (Arochlor
PCB-1232 (Arochlor
PCB-1248 (Arochlor
PCB-1260 (Arochlor
PCB-1016 (Arochlor
*Chromium (Total)
*Copper (Total)
*Cyanlde (Total) as
*Lead (Total)
*Mercury (Total)
*NLckel (Total)
*S.ilver (Total)
*Z.inc (Total)
1242)
1254)
1221)
1232)
1248)
1260)
1016)
as
as
as
as
as
as
as
required
required
required
required
required
required
required
required
ADDITIONAL COMPOUNDS
Abietlc Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isoplmarlc Acid
Pimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Linoleic Acid
Linolenic Acid
9,10-Epoxystearic Acid
9,10-Dichlorostearic Acid
Monochlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
3,4,5-Trichlorogualacol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
Xylenes
COD
Ammonia
*Speclfic compounds and chemical classes as listed in the consent degree.
-------
6. bleach plant data (if applicable to the subcategory analyzed) including:
a. bleaching sequence;
b. tonnage;
c. shrinkage;
d. brightness;
e. fresh water usage; and
f. type of washing;
7. the type of evaporator condenser used (if applicable to the subcategory
analyzed);
8. the number of papermachines used (if applicable to the mill analyzed);
9. the number of papermachines for which savealls were utilized for fiber
recovery (if applicable to the mill analyzed); and
10. the effluent treatment system used at the mill.
Based on the above data, the E.G. Jordan Co. selected mills which best repre-
sented each subcategory. The selected mills and data employed to make the
selection were reviewed by EPA personnel. Based on this review, 59 mills were
selected for the verification program being conducted by E.G. Jordan Co. The
number of mills selected was based on the total required to represent each of
the revised subcategories.
An additional 32 mills were subsequently selected and surveyed by the EPA's
regional survey teams to provide additional coverage in specific subcate-
gories. However, the analytical procedures used were screening protocol
methods; therefore, the analytical results are comparable to that obtained in
the E.G. Jordan Co. screening program.
Two of the 59 facilities selected for sampling by the E.G. Jordan Co. were not
visited during the verification program. At one of the mills union employees
were on strike; at the other mill, the aeration system was being dredged
causing much higher levels of solids then normally experienced. No adequate
replacement mills were available. It was decided to review all data prior to
making a determination of whether additional sampling or substitutions would
be necessary.
Table II-8 lists the preliminary subcategories included in the verification
sampling program, and shows the total number of mills surveyed in each sub-
category. The geographical distribution of the verification program surveys
is shown on Figure I1-2.
11-23
-------
TABLE II-8
VERIFICATION PROGRAM SUMMARY OF MILLS SAMPLED
Number of Mills Surveyed
Subcategory
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Firie
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
102 De ink-News print
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated -Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
*Integrated-Miscel laneous
*Secondary Fiber-Miscellaneous
*Nonintegrated-Miscel laneous
Total
E.G. Jordan
0
2
3
3
3
2
2
0
0
4
0
1
2
3
1
3
6
2
4
3
2
1
2
2
3
0
3
57
Agency
Regional
1
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
32
Total Mills
S&A's Surveyet
1
4
5
5
7
3
3
1
3
5
2
2
2
3
1
3
6
3
2
1
2
2
6
1
4
89
*Groupings of miscellaneous mills - not subcategories.
11-24
-------
NORTH DAKOTA
j ^MINNESOTA
I
SOUTH DAKOTA \
' Y*VoM(N-G-
luiraoA eis A m%* *"VJ
"'"
LEGEND
© CONTRACTOR SURVEYS
FIGUFJE IE-2
LOCATION OF VERIFICATION PROGRAM
MILL SURVEYS
-------
Sampling Program. The purpose of the verification program surveys was to
verify the presence of and quantify those toxic and nonconventional pollutants
detected during the screening program. The verification program surveys were
to provide a more thorough examination of the possible process sources of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants discharged; the quantity discharged to
the biological treatment system; the levels in the final mill effluent; and
the relative efficiency of the treatment system for removing specific com-
pounds. Several different sampling procedures were examined for accomplishing
these goals. Table II-9 presents the general format for sampling in parti-
cular subcategories which were chosen to meet the verification program goals.
This table presents the sample points and the sample duration proposed for
each.
Representatives of the selected mills were contacted by telephone, and a
confirmation letter was sent verifying the scheduled survey. This confirma-
tion letter submitted two separate forms which detailed the data requests for
the survey period and for identification of management practices as they
relate to Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act of 1977.(19)
A "Verification Program Work Booklet", similar to the "Screening Program Work
Booklet", was developed prior to initiation of the sampling surveys.(20) The
work booklet detailed the specific procedures to be followed during the survey
period.
The survey included collecting composite and grab samples during the 3-day
survey. Composite sampling was normally performed for three separate 24-hr
periods at each sample location. However, certain internal sewers were moni-
tored, usually for one 24-hr period. Compositing usually started between 8:00
and 11:00 a.m. on the first day of the survey and ended 24 hours later. Table
11-10 shows the work items performed during each day of a typical verification
survey.
Composite sampling was performed using a model 1580 ISCO superspeed automatic
sampler, except for the raw water sample which was done manually.
After completing one 24-hr period, the composite sample was divided as fol-
lows :
1. metals and color;
2. extractable organics;
3. COD;
4. PCB's and pesticides (where appropriate); and
5. ammonia (where appropriate).
After dividing the sample, the composite sample container was thoroughly
rinsed with blank water, and the sampling was resumed for the next 24-hr
period. Internal sewers were not sampled for COD.
11-26
-------
TABLE II-9
VERIFICATION PROGRAM SAMPLING POINTS
Subcategory
Type of Samples
Duration of
Sampling (days)
Bleached Kraft/Sulfite Mills
2. Pulp MilI/Screening
3. Bleach Plant
4. Secondary Treatment Influent
5. Final Effluent
Groundwood Mills
1. Raw Water
2. Pulp MilI/Screening
3. Secondary Treatment Influent
4. Final Effluent
Unbleached Kraft/Semi-Chemical Mills
1. Raw Water
2. Pulp MilI/Screening
3. Secondary Treatment Influent
4. Final Effluent
Secondary Fiber Mills ,
1.
2.
3.
4.
Raw Water
Stock Preparation
Secondary Treatment Influent
Final Effluent
Builders Paper Mills
1. Raw Water
2. Saturating
3. Secondary Treatment Influent
4. Final Effluent
Gtab Samples (3 per day)
24-hr composite
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
Grab samples (3 per day)
24-hr composite
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
Grab Samples (3 per day)
24-hr composite
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
Grab samples (3 per day)
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
Grab samples (3 per day)
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
Paperboard From Wastepaper Mills & Nonintegrated Mills
1. Raw Water
2. Secondary Treatment Influent
3. Final Effluent
Grab Samples (3 per day)
24-hr composites
24-hr composites
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
11-27
-------
TABLE 11-10
TYPICAL VERIFICATION SAMPLING PROGRAM SURVEY
Day 1 of the Survey
Day 2 of the Survey
Day 3 of the Survey
Day 4 of the Survey
i
K>
OO
1. Meet with mill person-
nel and discuss the
program
2. Select sample locations
3. IHscuss mill's manage-
ment practices and tour
mill to observe the
items covered
4. Set up the automatic
samplers
5. Collect all grab
samples required
6. Take pH and tempera-
ture readings at each
sample point twice
during 24 hours
7. Check automatic samplers
periodically and keep
composite sample con-
tainer Iced
1. Distribute 24 hour
composite between the
required composite
samples
2. Rinse sample composite
container and start
automatic sampler for
the next 24 hr period
3. Collect all grab samples
required
4. Take pH and temperature
readings at each sample
location twice during
24 hours
5. Check automatic samplers
periodically and keep
composite sample
container iced
1. Distribute 24 hour
composite between the
required composite
samples
2. Rinse sample composite
container and start
automatic sampler for
the next 24 hr period
3. Collect all grab samples
required
4. Take pH and temperature
readings at each sample
location twice during
24 hours
5. Check automatic samplers
periodically and keep
composite sample
container iced
1. Distribute 24 hour
composite between the
required composite
samples
2. Break down automatic
sampler at each loca-
tion and pack equip-
ment
3. Final meeting with
mill personnel to
wrap up the survey
4. Pack samples in ice
and ship to the
appropriate laboratory
-------
Grab samples were taken once per day at each of the sample locations including
the raw process water. The grab samples included the following samples:
1. volatile organics;
2. mercury; and
3. cyanide (where necessary).
An attempt was made to obtain grab samples directly from the sample location;
however, the sample location often required that personnel use the ISCO sam-
pler to safely collect the grab sample (i.e., limited access).
The raw water composite sample consisted of three 1-litre grabs per day over
the 3-day survey period. At the completion of the survey the 1-litre con-
tainers were emptied into a 3-gallon composite container and mixed thoroughly,
prior to dividing the sample among the required sample containers.
Temperature and pH readings were taken at least three times per day at each of
the sample locations.
Split Sampling Program. As with the screening program, representatives of the
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
(NCASI) obtained split samples. The NCASI shipped the necessary sample con-
tainers to the mills. The E.G. Jordan Co.'s sampling team collected the
samples for NCASI and returned them to the mill personnel for shipment to the
appropriate NCASI laboratory for analysis. The NCASI split sampling effort
did not include collection of all of the samples collected by the E.G. Jordan
Co. sampling team at each mill. Generally the NCASI samples were collected as
follows:(21)
Parameter
Raw Water
Influent to Treatment Final Effluent
Extractable Organics
Resin Acids
Metals
Mercury
Volatile Organics
Cyanide
Day 3 of Survey
Day 3 of Survey
n
Day 2 of Survey
Day 1 of Survey
Day 2 of Survey
Day 2 of Survey
Day 2 of Survey
Day 1 of Survey
Day 3 of Survey
Day 2 of Survey
Analytical Methods for Verification Program Analysis. Samples collected for
the verification program were analyzed by the E.G. Jordan Co. and Gulf South
Research Institute (GSRI) in New Orleans, Louisiana. Analysis undertaken by
E.G. Jordan Co. included metals, mercury, cyanide, ammonia, color and COD.
GSRI analyzed the samples from each verification mill for 15 volatile (VOA),
and 33 extractable organic pollutants. Included in the extractable organics
were 13 resin and fatty acids and bleach plant derivatives, nonconventtonal
pollutants specific to the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. In addition,
samples from mills utilizing wastepaper as a source of raw material were
analyzed by GSRI for PCB's.
11-29
-------
Analysis By E.G. Jordan Co. Copper, chromium, lead, nickel, zinc and mercury
were analyzed by the same procedures described earlier in the screening pro-
gram analysis methods.
Cyanide was analyzed in accordance with the total cyanide method described in
the 14th edition of Standard Methods.(22) Ammonia was analyzed by distilla-
tion and Nesslerization as described in the same edition of Standard
Methods.(22) Color was analyzed in accordance with the procedures set forth
in the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI) Technical Bulletin Number 253. (23) Chemical oxygen demand (COD) was
analyzed in accordance with the procedures presented in the 14th edition of
Standard Methods.(22)
Analysis By GSRI. The analytical procedures conducted by GSRI in the analysis
of the toxic organic pollutants were a modification of the procedures detailed
in EPA's screening program document.(18) Gas chromatography mass spectrometry
(GC/MS), interfaced with a computer system was the primary analytical instru-
ment for volatile and extractable organic analysis.
The computer system interfaced with the mass spectrometer allowed acquisition
of continuous mass scans throughout the chromatogram. Standards were obtained
for each pollutant to be assayed in the samples and the mass spectrum for each
of these standards was determined daily throughout the analysis program. The
computer software was capable of searching a GC/MS run for specific ions and
plotting the intensity of the ions with respect to time. The standard spectra(
provided the retention time and characteristic ions for each compound of
interest. The characteristic ions for a pollutant maximize in the same mass
spectrum when the compound is eluted from a GC column, and comparing the
chromatographic and mass spectral data recorded for each sample with chroma-
tographic and mass spectral data of toxic pollutant standards, it was possible
to identify and quantify the organic pollutants present. In general, to
confirm the presence of a compound it was necessary that the retention time
agree with standard data within _+ 1 minute, and that the relative intensities
of the characteristic ions agree with standard data within _+ 20 percent.
Volatile Organic Analysis
Duplicate 125-ml samples were collected at each sampling point for vola-
tile organic analysis (VOA). Volatile samples were checked for chlorine
content in the field and preserved with sodium thiosulfate as necessary.
Volatile organic analysis utilized the purge and trap method, which is a
modified gas sparging-resin adsorption technique, followed by thermal
desorption and analysis by packed column GC/MS, as outlined above.
Extractable Organic Analysis
The E.G. Jordan Co. provided duplicate 1-litre samples of wastewaters for
analysis of extractable organic compounds. Extractable organic samples
were preserved in the field with sodium hydroxide to a pH of approxi-
11-30
-------
mately 10 or higher. For extractable organic analysis, the sample was
acidified to a pH of 2 or below, extracted with methylene chloride,
concentrated, and chromatographed on a GC/MS system equipped with a
support coated open tubular (SCOT) capillary column.
Extracts prepared for PCB analysis were analyzed by electron capture
detection/gas chromatography (EC/GC). Extracts in which PCB's were
detected were confirmed by GC/MS.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
The verification program included the .Implementation of a quality con-
trol/quality assurance (QC/QA) program consisting of internal standards,
field blanks, method blanks, and replicate analysis. Deuterated internal
standards were selected to provide QC/QA data on primary groups of pollu-
tants under evaluations in the verification program. The deuterated
compounds selected are shown in Table 11-11. These compounds were se-
lected because of their similarity to the compounds under investigation.
By adding deuterated internal standards to each sample analyzed by GC/MS,
it was possible to assess system performance on a per-sample basis. Upon
completion of each GC/MS analysis, the characteristic ions of the inter-
nal standards were profiled with extracted ion currents. The area of the
100 percent ion for each standard was integrated and a judgment was made
on the validity of the analysis.
Recovery of the internal standards in the volatile organic analysis
assured that the apparatus was leakproof and that the analysis was valid.
For extractable organic analyses, percent recoveries of the internal
standards indicated the complexity of the sample matrix and the validity
of the analysis. In each case, low recovery of internal standards
signalled possible instrument malfunction or operator error; if low
recovery occurred, the analysis was repeated.
To demonstrate satisfactory operation of the GC/MS system, the mass
spectrometers were tuned each day with perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) to
optimize operating parameters according to the manufacturer's specifica-
tions. Calibration logs were maintained to document instrument perfor-
mance. The entire GC/MS system was further evaluated with the analysis
of a composite standard which contained all pollutants of interest and
the various deuterated internal standards. This standard was analyzed
with each sample set or with each change in instrument calibration/tune.
This daily analysis of the composite standard supplied data which 1)
verified the integrity of the chromatographic systems, 2) produced ac-
ceptable low-resolution mass spectra of the compounds assayed, and 3)
verified machine sensitivity.
The field and method blanks were included in the analytical program to
indicate possible sample contamination and confirm analytical methodolo-
gies. Field blanks were spiked with deuterated internal standards.
Method blanks were spiked with the deuterated internal standards and
standards for compounds under evaluation, as discussed previously. The
11-31
-------
TABLE 11-11
SUMMARY OF INTERNAL STANDARDS
Volatile*
Methylene chloride-d2_
1,2-dichloroethane-d^
1,1, l-trichloroethane-d3_
benzene-dj3
toluene-d_3_
p-xylene-dlO
Extractable
phenol-d_5_-TMS
naphthalene-d8
diamylphthalates-d£
stearic acid-d35-TMS
*Relative to benzene-d3
11-32
-------
mass spectrum for each of these standard compounds was determined daily
throughout the analysis program. The blanks provided additional quality
assurance, including: 1) data on clean matrix recoveries; and 2) repli-
cate analysis for precision determinations.
Data Analysis
The data analysis task is a multi-fold program bringing together data obtained
from each task previously outlined, including:
o existing data evaluation;
o screening data;
o industry profile and subcategorization; and
o verification data.
Industry data gathered through the data request program has been utilized
extensively in reviewing subcategorization and profiling the industry. Fac-
tors considered in these efforts have been presented previously and are re-
ported on in subsequent sections of the report. These efforts have included
profile developments for production process controls and effluent treatment
systems.
As outlined previously, several areas of existing data have been evaluated.
These efforts have included assessment of the reduction/removal capabilities
of the production process controls and effluent treatment technology for
conventional toxic, and nonconventional pollutants.
In the verification program sampling data was gathered for toxic and non-
conventional pollutants. This data presented in Section V has recently been
finalized and may now be evaluated and analyzed to quantify the level of toxic
and nonconventional pollutant discharge in the pulp, paper and paperboard
industry. Additional evaluations will include determining the effectiveness
of various control and treatment systems in removing the toxic and nonconven-
tional pollutants.
During the verification program the Jordan Company requested long-term data at
each of the 57 surveyed mills for the conventional pollutants. This data was
obtained to analyze the effectiveness of in-place BPCTCA technology, as well
as statistically quantify the variability in effluent quality. The data has
been evaluated to determine if sufficient data were obtained in the verifica-
tion program to complete the analysis. Initial reviews of the data have
determined that it will be necessary to supplement the current conventional
pollutant data base. The EPA is currently developing a strategy to request
the supplemental information.
11-33
-------
Analysis of Treatment Alternatives
As a result of the literature reviews, numerous available production process
controls and effluent treatment systems have been identified. These processes
and systems for reduction/removal of the conventional, nonconventional and
toxic pollutants include those:
o in place within the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry; and
o at laboratory, pilot plant and/or demonstration levels within an
industrial category including pulp, paper, and paperboard.
This data, along with the data developed through the screening and verifica-
tion program, has been analyzed to determine reduction/removal capabilities of
the control and treatment technologies.
The production process controls and effluent treatment technology under evalu-
ation and their area of application are presented in Table 11-12.
Based on the technical investigations the EPA will develop effluent limita-
tions guidelines and standards of performance for the pulp, paper and paper-
board point source category. In developing the limitations and standards EPA
must consider the environmental benefit and economic impact of the proposed
regulations. This project task has quantified the reduction/removal capabil-
ities of numerous control and treatment strategies. In order to complete the
assessment outlined above, four levels of control have been developed. Based
on the application of the specified technologies, predicted effluent qualities
are presented in Section VIII. Subsequent evaluations and analysis will be
made in the forthcoming months. The suggested available production process
controls are discussed in detaLl in Section VI and effluent treatment tech-
nologies are described in Section VII.
Analysis of Cost and Energy Data
Previous project tasks have described production process controls and effluent
treatment technologies available for implementation. The technologies have
been investigated to develop four levels of control which represent the range
of effluent quality under investigation. As part of the program, the E.G.
Jordan Co. has addressed the cost, energy, and non-water-quality aspects of
the technology.
Because the pulp, paper and paperboard industry is diverse, the "model mill"
concept has been used to address the cost for implementation of the identified
technology. Several model mill sizes have been developed for each subcate-
gory.
Through the data assessment phase, mill surveys, and EPA data requests, base-
line data has been gathered for analysis. Data obtained and evaluated in-
cludes: 1) age of mill; 2) production process controls employed; 3) effluent
treatment technology employed; 4) cost for the technology employed (if avail-
able); 5) site conditions, i.e., ledge, poor soils, etc.; and 6) land avail-
11-34
-------
TABLE 11-12
PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS AND EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Production Process Controls:
1. Woodyard/Woodroom
a. Close-up or dry woodyard and
barking operation
b. Segregate cooling water
2. Pulp Mill
a. Reuse relief and blow condensates
b. Reduce ground wood thickener over-
flow
c. Spill collection
3. Washers and Screen Room
a. Add 3rd or 4th stage washer or
press
b. Recycle more decker filtrate
c. Reduce cleaner rejects and direct
to landfill
d. Replace sidehill screens
4. Bleaching
a. Countercurrent or jump stage
washing
b. Evap. caustic extract filtrate
5. Evaporation and Recovery Areas
a. Recycle condensate
b. Replace barometric condenser
c. Boil out tank
d. Neutralize spent sulfite liquor
e. Segregate cooling water
f. Spill collection
Other Technologies
a. Oxygen bleaching process
b. Rapson/Reeves process
c. Oxygen pulping process
6. Liquor Preparation Area
a. Green liquor dregs filter
b. Lime mud pond
c. Spill collection
d. Spare tank
7. Papermill
g-
h.
i.
j.
k.
Spill Collection
1. Papermachine and bleached pulp
spill collection
2. Color plant
Improve saveall
High pressure showers for wire and
felt cleaning
Whitewater use for vacuum pump
seal water
Paper machine Whitewater showers for
wire cleaning
Additional Whitewater storage for
upsets and pulper dilution
Recycle press effluent
Reuse of vacuum pump water
Broke storage
Wet lap machine
Separate cooling water
1. Cleaner rejects to landfill
8. Steam Plant and Utility Areas
a. Segregate cooling water
b. Lagoon for boiler blowdown & back-
wash waters
9. Recycle of Effluent
a. Filtrate
b. Sludge
Effluent Treatment Technology
1. primary clarification 7.
2. biological treatment 8.
a. activated sludge 9.
b. aerated stabilization basin 10.
3. chemically assisted clarification 11.
4. foam separation 12.
5. carbon adsorption 13.
6. steam stripping
reverse osmisis
filtration
dissolved air flotation
ultrafiltration
resin separation and ion exchange
amine
electro-chemical
11-35
-------
ability. Such data has been retrieved from the industry profile and used to
characterize a model facility.
In developing cost data for the production process controls and effluent
treatment, construction materials were estimated in 1978 dollars. Equipment
and material suppliers were contacted for cost estimates. Installation,
labor, and miscellaneous costs for such items as electrical, instrumentation,
and contingencies have been added to determine a total construction cost,
depending on the controlling parameters. The cost data that has been devel-
oped is discussed in Section IX of this report.
As part of this work task the E.G. Jordan Co. has evaluated baseline energy
consumption and also the increase resulting from implementation of the tech-
nology levels. Data developed through the EPA data request has been used in
establishing this baseline. Energy consumption data is presented in Secton IX
of this report.
11-36
-------
SECTION III
THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION
With approximately 730 operating mills, the pulp, paper and paperboard indus-
try is one of the largest industries in the United States. The mills vary in
size, age, location, raw material usage, products manufactured, production
processes, and effluent treatment systems. This highly diversified industry
comprises not only the primary production of wood pulp and paper, but also the
use of such nonwood pulp materials such as asbestos, jute, hemp, rags, cotton
linters, bagasse and esparto. Included are mills which produce only pulp,
mills which produce both pulp and paper products, and mills which produce only
paper products from pulp manufactured elsewhere. Also included in this indus-
try are mills which use secondary fibers (usually waste paper) to produce
paper and paperboard products.
End-products of the industry include stationery, tissue, printing newspaper,
boxes, builders' papers, and numerous other grades of industrial and consumer
papers. The industry is highly sensitive to changing demands for paper and
paperboard products, and is constantly adjusting to changes in market condi-
tions. Mills frequently expand or modify their operations to accommodate
different raw materials, or new product demands.
BASIC PRODUCTION PROCESSES
Raw Material Preparation
Mills which produce pulp on-site must first prepare raw materials for the
pulping process. During the nineteenth century, wood began to supplant cotton
and linen rags, straw, and other less plentiful fiber sources as a raw mate-
rial for the manufacture of paper products. Today, wood is the most widely
used fiber source for the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. Wood accounts
for over 98 percent of the virgin fiber sources used in papermaking.
Steps which may be required to prepare wood for pulping include log washing,
bark removal and chipping. A mill may use all these steps, or none of them,
depending on the form in which the raw materials arrive at the mill.
Pulping
There are several methods for pulping wood. In some, the wood is cooked with
chemicals under controlled conditions of temperature, pressure, time and
cooking liquor composition.(24) These processes use different chemicals or
combinations of them. Other methods reduce the wood to a fibrous state by
mechanical means alone, or by the combination of chemical and mechanical
action. The primary types of pulping process employed are: 1) mechanical
pulping (groundwood); and 2) chemical pulping (alkaline, sulfite or semi-
chemical processes).
III-l
-------
Mechanical Pulping. Mechanical pulp is commonly known as groundwood. There
are two basic processes: 1) stone groundwood, in which pulp is made by tear-1
ing fiber from the side of short logs (called billets) with a grindstone; and
2) refiner groundwood, in which pulp is produced by passing wood chips through
a disc refiner.
In the chemi-mechanical modification of the process, wood is softened with
chemicals to reduce the power required for grinding. In a new process called
thermo-mechanical pulping, chips are first softened with heat and then refined
under pressure.
The resulting mechanical pulps are obtained at a high yield, generally over 90
percent of the original substrate. The pulp produced is relatively inexpen-
sive and it requires minimal use of forest resources. However, the process
does not remove most of the natural wood binder (lignin) and resin acids
inherent in the wood; therefore, mechanical pulp deteriorates quite rapidly.
The pulp is suitable for use in a wide variety of consumer products including
newspapers, tissue, catalogs, one-time publications, and throw-away molded
items. An observable yellowing, resulting from natural oxidation of the
impure cellulose, is noted early in the life of such papers, and a physical
weakening soon occurs. Thus, the use of extensive quantities of groundwood in
higher quality grades -of paper requiring permanence is not generally permissi-
ble.
Chemical Pulping. Chemical pulping involves controlled conditions and chem-
icals to yield a variety of pulps with unique properties for conversion into
paper products that have high quality standards or require special properties.
There are three basic types of chemical pulping: 1) alkaline; 2) sulfite; and
3) semi-chemical.
Alkaline Pulping
The initial alkaline pulping process developed in the nineteenth century
was the soda process. This was the alkaline forebearer of the kraft
process, which produces a stronger pulp and is currently the dominant
pulping process in the world. At the current time, only two soda mills
in the United States have not converted to the kraft process.(25)
Early in the twentieth century, the kraft process became the major compe-
titor of the sulfite process for some grades of pulp. Kraft pulp now
accounts for over 80 percent of the chemical pulp produced in this coun-
try. Sulfite is still preferred for some grades of products, but the
role of kraft continues to increase, while sulfite production is declin-
ing.
Several major process modifications/achievements have resulted in wide-
spread application of the kraft process. First, because of the increas-
ing cost of chemicals used, chemical recovery became an economic neces-
sity of this process. In the 1930's, successful recovery techniques were
III-2
-------
applied and have since been vastly improved. Second, the process was
found to be adaptable to nearly all wood species. Its application to the
pulping of southern pines resulted in a rapid expansion of kraft pulp-
ing. (25) Third, new developments in the kraft bleaching techniques
(primarily use of chlorine dioxide) spurred another dramatic growth
period in the late 1940's and early 1950's. This bleaching agent, for
the first time, enabled production of high brightness kraft pulps, with
good strength retention in simplified bleach sequences of four or five
stages.
Sulfite Fulpiug
Sulfite pulps are associated with the production of both tissue and fine
papers. In combination with other pulps, sulfite pulps have many paper-
making capabilities. In addition, dissolving pulps (i.e., the highly
purified chemical cellulose used in the manufacture of rayon, cellophane
and explosives) were produced solely by the sulfite process for many
years.
Sulfite pulping developed using calcium (lime slurries sulfited with
sulfur dioxide) as the sulfite liquor base, because of an ample and
inexpensive supply of limestone (calcium carbonate). The use of calcium
as a sulfite base has declined in recent years because: 1) it is diffi-
cult and expensive to recover or burn spent liquor from this base; 2) the
lack of spent liquor recovery makes it difficult to comply with water
quality standards and effluent limitations; and 3) the availability of
softwoods, which are most suitable for calcium-base pulping, is diminish-
ing. (26) (27) In addition, attempts to use more than about 10 percent of
the spent liquor in various byproducts failed. As a result, most cal-
cium-base sulfite mills have changed to a soluble base (magnesium, ammo-
nia, or sodium), which permit recovery or incineration of the spent
liquor.
In recent years, some sulfite mills have been switched to the kraft
pulping process.(27)(28) In addition, several sulfite mills have shut
down rather than install recovery/incineration technology or convert to
other pulping processes. During the EPA Survey Program, only six paper-
grade mills used a calcium base; three employed magnesium, eight used
ammonia, and one used a sodium and calcium mixed base.
Semi-Chemical Pulping
The early applications of the semi-chemical process in the nineteenth
century consisted of the cooking of chips with a neutral or slightly
alkaline sodium sulfite solution. This is termed neutral sulfite semi-
chemical (NSSC) pulping. In the 1920's, the U.S. Forest Products Labora-
tory demonstrated the advantages of NSSC pulping. The first NSSC mill
began operation in 1925 for production of corrugating board.(25)
III-3
-------
The NSSC process gained rapid acceptance because of its ability to uti-
lize the vast quantities of inexpensive hardwoods previously considered
unsuitable for producing quality pulp.(29) Also, the quality of stiff-
ness which hardwood NSSC pulps Impart to corrugating board, and the large
demand for this material have promoted a rapid expansion of the pro-
cess. (25)
The future of NSSC pulping depends on the development of economic chem-
ical recovery systems and nonpolluting-chemical disposal. In the past,
the small size of mills, the low organic content and heat value of the
spent liquor, and the low cost of cooking chemicals provided little
incentive for large capital investment for NSSC chemical recovery
plants.(25) Somewhat lower cost fluidized bed recovery systems have been
extensively used in these mills. However, with NH^ base, only SO^ re-
covery is practiced, so recovery economics are marginal with sodium base
a by-product saltcake is obtained, which cannot be recycled. Sales of
this material to alkaline pulp mills have been very limited because of
variable composition.
Advances have been made in semi-chemical pulping process technology with
respect to liquor recovery systems. There are basically three no-sulfur
semi-chemical processes: 1) the Owens-Illinois process; 2) the soda ash
process; and 3) the modified soda ash process. The present use of the
patented Owens-Illinois soda ash-caustic pulping process permits ready
recovery of sodium carbonate. With either a balanced caustic make-up or
selective recausticizing, a balanced pulping liquor is assured. Their
process uses 15 to 50 percent caustic as Na^O, with the remainder con-
sisting of soda ash. Spent liquor is burned in a modified kraft-type
furnace or fluidized bed. Traditionally, the difficulty has been in
reclaiming sodium sulfite from normal liquors made up of both sodium
carbonate and sodium sulfite.
In the soda ash process, soda ash is used at 6 to 8 percent, based on the
wood. Spent liquor is burned in a fluidized bed, and the soda ash is
recovered. Caustic make-up provides a balanced pfl liquor for reuse.
The modified soda ash process uses a small amount of caustic along with
the soda ash, typically 7 to 8 percent NaOH (as Na2.0). (30) There are
valid reasons for mills to convert from the standard NSSC pulping pro-
cess:
1. A poor market for the saltcake (Na2S040 byproduct derived from
fluidized bed recovery of NSSC liquors.
2. High make-up chemical costs, as saltcake cannot be reused in the
NSSC process, and sodium sulfite is not produced in most recovery
schemes.
3. Sulfur emission problems result from burning the waste liquors.
There has been a significant increase in combined alkaline semi-chemical
mills with cross-recovery liquor systems. A balanced operation, using
111-4
-------
the semi-chemical side for total mill chemical make-up, permits a ratio
. of about 4:1 kraftrNSSC (or comparable). Use of green liquor as part of
the semi-chemical cooking liquor gives a new flexibility to balanced
operations, and it permits greater semi-chemical production while main-
taining a balanced liquor system.
Use of Secondary Fibers
In recent years, secondary fiber sources such as waste paper of various class-
ifications have gained increasing acceptance as a raw material fiber source.
Many uses of such secondary fiber allow its use without processing. Other
uses, however, require that the reclaimed waste papers be deinked prior to
use. In 1976, more than 22 percent of the fiber furnish in the U.S. was
derived from waste paper.
Non-Deink Waste Paper Applications. Some waste paper can be used with little
or no preparation, particularly if the waste paper is purchased directly from
other mills or converting operations producing a similar product grade. Such
material is usually relatively free of dirt and can sometimes be directly
slushed or blended with other virgin pulps to provide a suitable furnish for
the papermachine. The only cleaning and screening performed in such applica-
tions would occur with the combined stock in the papermachine's own stock
preparation system.
Mills making low quality paper products, such as industrial tissue, coarse
consumer tissue, molded items, builders' papers and many types of paperboard,
may rely extensively on waste paper in the raw material furnish. Such opera-
tions typically involve a dispersion process using warm recycled papermachine
Whitewater, followed by coarse screening to remove gross contamination and
debris which may have been received with the waste paper. More extensive fine
screening and centrifugal cleaners may then be used before the papermaking
step.
Higher quality products such as tissue, printing and other quality grades, may
use small percentages of waste paper. These products require clean, segre-
gated waste paper and a more extensive preparation system, usually including a
deinking system.
Deinking. Deinking of waste paper was in commercial application during the
nineteenth century. However, the large-scale operations existing today devel-
oped much more recently. Materials which must be removed in order to reclaim
a useful pulp include ink, fillers, coatings and other noncellulosic mate-
rials. Deinked pulp is used in business, bank and printing papers, tissue and
toweling, as a liner for some paperboards, and in molded products and news-
print.
The existing use of detergents and solvents, instead of harsh alkalis, has
permitted effective reuse of many previously uneconomical types of waste
paper. Similar advances, such as flotation deinking and recovery of waste
sludge by centrifuges, may yield more effective deinking processes with inher-
ently lower waste loads as development proceeds.
III-5
-------
Presently, however, the secondary fiber field is critically dependent upon
balancing available waste paper type (pre-or post-consumer) with the demands
of the product produced. Upgrading is difficult and costly, with inherently
high discharge of both BOD_5 and TSS to ensure adequate deinked pulp quality.
Bleaching
After pulping, the unbleached pulp is brown, or deeply colored because of the
presence of lignins and resins and sometimes because the inefficient washing
of the spent cooking liquor from the pulp. In order to remove these color
bodies from the pulp and produce a light colored or white product, it is
necessary to bleach the pulp.
The degree of bleaching pulp for paper manufacture is measured in terms of
units of brightness and is determined optically using methods established by
the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI).(31) Par-
tially bleached pulps (semi-bleached) are employed in making newsprint, food
containers, computer cards, and similar papers. Fully bleached pulp is used
for white paper products. By different degrees of bleaching, pulp of the
desired brightness can be manufactured up to a level of 96 on the brightness
scale of 100. These techniques are described in detail in a TAPPI mono-
graph. (32)
Bleaching is frequently performed in several stages in which different chemi-
cals are applied. The symbols commonly used to describe a bleaching sequence
are shown and defined in Table III-l. The table can be used to interpret
bleaching "shorthand", which is used extensively in later sections of this
report. For example, a common sequence in kraft bleaching, CEDED, is inter-
preted as follows:
C = chlorination and washing;
E = alkaline extraction and washing;
D = chlorine dioxide addition and washing;
E = alkaline extraction and washing; and
D = chlorine dioxide addition and washing.
Almost all sulfite pulps are bleached, but usually a shorter sequence such as
CEH is sufficient to obtain bright pulps from this lower yield product with an
inherently lower residual lignin content. This sequence involves chlorina-
tion, alkaline extraction, and hypochlorite application, each followed by
washing.
Papermaking
Some mills manufacture paper and/or paperboard, but do not make pulp. These
are called nonintegrated paper mills, and the pulp they use is either shipped
from another of the company's facilities or is purchased. Pulp mills which do
not have attendant papermaking operations are a major source of pulp for these
nonintegrated mills. Pulp may also be provided by integrated mills which
produce pulp for their own papermaking, plus "market" pulp for sale to nonin-
tegrated operations.
111-6
-------
TABLE III-l
BLEACHING SYMBOLS
Symbol Bleach Chemical or Step Represented by Symbol
A Acid Treatment or Dechlorlnation
C Chlorination
D Chlorine Dioxide
E Alkaline Extraction
H Hypochlorite
HS Hydrosulfite
0 Oxygen
P Peroxide
PA Peracetic Acid
W Water Soak
( ) Simultaneous Addition of the Respective Agents
/ Successive Addition of the Respective Agents
Without Washing in Between
The papermaking process has basic similarities regardless of the type of pulp
used or the end-product produced. A layer of fiber is deposited from a dilute
water suspension of pulp on a fine screen, called the "wire", which permits
the water to drain through and retains the fiber layer.(25) This layer is
then removed from the wire, pressed, and dried. Two basic types of paper-
machines and variations thereof are commonly employed. One is the cylinder
machine in which the wire is on cylinders which rotate in the dilute furnish.
The other is the fourdrinier in which the dilute furnish is deposited upon an
endless wire belt. Generally, the fourdrinier is associated with the manufac-
ture of paper, and the cylinder with heavier paperboard grades.
PRODUCTION PROFILE
Many types of pulp are manufactured. Some are naturally more suitable for
certain paper grades than others. Suitability is influenced by fiber length,
strength and other factors which can be controlled by the type(s) of wood
.employed, the selection of a pulping process, cooking chemicals, cooking time
and other variables. With improved techniques and the ability to mix pulps to
achieve desired properties, few paper grades are a product of one pulp only.
The total daily pulp production listed in Table III-2 has been tabulated by
pulp type. These figures represent the best estimates which can be made
utilizing published information and data gathered during the course of the
project.
III-7
-------
TABLE III-2
ESTIMATED PULP PRODUCTION - 1977 (33, 34)
Pulp Type Production
(short tons x l.OOOJ
Dissolving and Special Alpha 1,465
Sulfite-Bleached 1,653
-Unbleached 389
Alkaline-Bleached 14,929
-Semi-Bleached 1,523
-Unbleached 18,411.
Groundwood 4,481W
Semi-Chemical 3,876, »
Other Mechanical 2,94lja^
Screenings 110U;
TOTAL 49,777
Market Pulp 4,881
Waste Paper Used 14,015
(a)
Includes insulation and hard-pressed wood fiberboard
not evaluated within the scope of this report.
Paper and Paperboard Products
The pulp, paper and paperboard industry manufactures a diversity of products.
The various grades or types of products are delineated according to end use
and/or furnish. The basic differences in the various papers include durabil-
ity, basis weight, thickness, flexibility, brightness, opacity, smoothness,
printability, strength and color. These characteristics are a function of raw
material selection, pulping methods and papermaking techniques.
In addition to variations in stock preparation and sheet control on the paper-
machine, the papermaking operation may enhance the basic qualities of paper,
or achieve other properties (e.g., wet strength, greaseproofness, printing
excellence) through the use of additives. These additives include a variety
of substances such as starch, clay, and resins used as fillers, sizing, and
coatings.
Table III-3 presents a general list of the various products produced by the
industry. The grades listed are, for the most part, self-explanatory. Defi-
nitions according to industry usage may be found in the publication, Paper &
Pulp Mill Catalog and Engineering Handbook 1978, by Paper Industry Management
111-8
-------
TABLE III-3
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY (34)
A. PAPER
I.
PRINTING, WRITING AND RELATED
a. Newsprint
b. Ground wood paper, uncoated
1. Publication and printing
B. PAPERBOARD
I. SOLID WOODPULP FURNISH
a. Unbleached kraft packaging and
industrial converting
1. Unbleached linerboard
c. Coated printing and converting
1. Coated, one side
2. Coated, two sides
d. Book paper, uncoated
1. Publication and printing
2. Body stock for coating
3. Other converting and
miscellaneous book
e. Bleached bristols, excluding
cotton fiber, index, and bogus
1. Tab, index tag and file folder
2. Other uncoated bristols
3. Coated bristols
f. Writing and related papers not
elsewhere classified
1. Writing, cotton fiber
2. Writing, chemical woodpulp
3. Cover and text II.
4. Thin paper
II. PACKAGING AND INDUSTRIAL CONV.
a. Unbleached kraft packaging and
industrial converting
1. Wrapping
2. Shipping sack
3. Bag and sack, other than
shipping sack
4. Other converting
. Glassine, greaseproof and
vegetable-parchment III
c. Special industrial paper
III. TISSUE AND OTHER MACHINE CREPED
a. Sanitary paper
1. Toilet tissue
2. Facial tissue
3. Napkin
4. Toweling, excluding wiper
stock
5. Other sanitary stock
b. Tissue, excluding sanitary and
thin
3. Folding carton type
4. Tube, can and drum
5. Other unbleached packaging
and industrial converting
kraft
b. Bleached packaging and industrial
conv. (85% or more bleached fiber)
1. Folding carton type
2. Milk carton
3. Heavyweight cup stock
4. Plate, dish and tray
5. Linerboard
6. Tube, can and drum
7. Other, including solid
groundwood pulp board
c. Semi-chemical paperboard
COMBINATION FURNISH
a. Combination-shipping container-
board
1. Linerboard
2. Corrugating medium
3. Container chip and filler
. Combination-bending
. Combination-nonbending
. Gypsum linerboard
. Special packaging and
industrial conv.
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
a. Wet machine board
b. Construction paper and board
Construction paper
111-9
-------
Association (PIMA). For purposes of this study, the many separate grades have
been grouped under the following major classifications: newsprint, tissue,
fine papers, coarse papers-packaging and industrial converting, paperboard,
and construction products. Table III-4 presents 1977 production statistics
for each major group.
TABLE III-4
PRODUCTION STATISTICS
PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS OF INDUSTRY (33)
Product Short Tons x 10
Paper
Newsprint 3,515
Tissue 4,097
Fine 13,929
Coarse - Packaging and Industrial
Converting 5,740
Paperboard 27,881
Construction Products 5,567
Newsprint includes paper made largely from groundwood pulp, used chiefly in
the printing of newspapers.
Tissue is set apart from other paper grades, and includes many different types
of tissue and thin papers. These range from typical sanitary tissue products
to industrial tissue which includes packing, wadding, and wrapping papers.
Also many special purpose grades with unique process and product requirements
such as glassine, greaseproof, electrical, and cigarette papers are produced.
Fine papers include printing, reproductive and writing papers.
Coarse papers-packaging and industrial converting include kraft packaging
papers used for grocery and shopping bags, sacks and special industrial
papers.
Paperboard includes a wide range of types and weights of products made on both
cylinder and fourdrinier machines for packaging and special purposes, from
lignin pulps, waste paper, or combination furnishes. Board products include
such items as shoe board, automotive board, and luggage board.
Construction products include various paper and board products. Paper pro-
ducts include sheathing paper, roofing felts, and asbestos filled papers.
111-10
-------
WATER USE AND POLLUTION CONTROL PROFILE
Significant progress has been made in reducing water use in the pulp, paper,
and paperboard industry, as shown by the water use comparison in Table III-5.
TABLE III-5
TYPICAL WATER USE IN PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
Alkaline
Sulfite
Groundwood
Deink
Semi-Chemical
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated-Construction
1952(36)
(kgal/t)
58.2
97.6
40.5
35.8
21.0
44.9
8.7
1968(35)
(kgal/t)
45.0
55.0
18.0
BPT(37)
(kgal/t)
30.9
(44.5-53)
21.9
24.4
(8.3-14.0)
15.2
«4K
1976*
(kgal/t)
28.3
35.7
19.2
15.3
17.8
16.1
3.2
*Average from response to data request program.
In 12 subcategories, average water use is now below earlier published BPT
guidelines. In only three is it greater. The industry, of economic neces-
sity, has learned to live with significantly less water use. This decrease
usually accompanies internal modifications, which yield savings in fiber,
chemicals, and heat. Over 20 years ago many integrated kraft fine paper mills
used up to 89.7 kilolitres (kl) per thousand kilograms (kkg) of product, or
about 93 thousand gallons (kgal) per ton (t); average water use was about 243
kl/kkg (58 kgal/t). (36) Today's average for that type of mill is about 125.7
kl/kkg (30 kgal/t).(36)
Figure III-l schematically shows points of effluent discharge from a typical
pulp and paper mill. The figure illustrates major unit operations for an
integrated pulp and paper mill using a fully cooked, bleached wood pulp for
making high quality printing, writing, business, or converting papers. How-
ever, it must be remembered that there are a wide variety of raw materials,
processes, and products in this industry, and often multiple combinations of
these at specific manufacturing sites.
High water use is clearly synonymous with the industry. Starting with the
wood pulped, typically 50 percent of its weight is water. Large quantities of
water can be required to wash dirt and debris from the logs and for chip
preparation. In older mills, water is also used to convey logs through the
woodyard. Water is used for cooling drive gears on conveyors, barking drums,
and chippers. In total, up to 41.9 kl/kkg (10 kgal/t) with an average of 14.2
kl/kkg (3.4 kgal/t) of water is used in processing wood from tree length logs
to clean chips suitable for cooking into chemical pulps, or for mechanical
processing into groundwood type pulps.(35)
III-l1
-------
RAW MATERIALS
FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS
GASEOUS
WASTES
LIQUID
SOLID
PULP 1.03
AGIO SULFITC LIQUOR
ALKALINE SULFATE LIQUOR
(KRAFT)
NEUTRAL 3ULFITE
WHITE WATER OR
REUSE WATER
WHITE WATER OR
FRESH WATER
BLEACHING AND OTHER
NECESSARY CHEMICALS
FRESH WATER OR WHITE
WATER REUSE
FILLERS
DYE
SIZE
ALUM
STARCH
FRESH WATER OR
WHITE WATER REUSE
COATING CHEMICALS
^EVAPORATION LOSS
-SYSTEM
EMISSION
SMELT TANK
EMISSION
LIME KILN EMISSION
RECOVERY FURNACE
EMISSION
EVAPORATION
EMISSION
EVAPORATION
AND RECOVERY
L08 FLUME
BLOWOOWN
BARKER BBARINO
COOL! NO WATER
BARK REFUSE
WOOD PARTICLES
AND SLIVERS
SAWDUST
8ULFITE SPENT
LIQUOR
BLOW PIT COLLECTED
SPILLS
CONDENSATB
OREO WASHING
MUD WASHINS
ACID PLANT
WASTE
RESIDUES
WEAK LIQUOR KNOTS
FIBER
WASH WATERS
WASTE WATERS
BLEACH WASTES
CLEAN - UP
WHITE WATER
CLEAN - UP
FIBER
FIBER
DIRT
FIBER
FILLERS
BROKE
BROKE
COATINGS
FINISHED PAPER
PRODUCTS
FIGURE HI- I
GENERAL FLOW SHEET
PULPING AND PAPERMAKING PROCESS
-------
Effluent losses from woodyard operations include:
1. the log transport flume overflow;
2. log washing and debarking effluent; and
3. equipment cooling, lubrication and condensate streams.
Additionally, small losses occur as evaporation, particularly from log storage
ponds and flumes.
Present operations include extensive recycle of water in the woodyard, and US6
of wastewater from other mill areas to convey and wash the wood. Wastewater
used in this way can be treated in sedimentation ponds and/or strainers to
remove waste bark, dirt and other debris. This allows continuous reuse of
woodyard water for floating, washing and hydraulic barking operations. Re-
moved woodyard solids are then discharged dry to landfill, and a very small
load of BOD^ and TSS remains, which may be discharged with the mill effluent.
Pulping Processes
As outlined previously, the two most common types of pulping processes are
mechanical and chemical.
Chemical pulping uses controlled alkaline and acidic conditions to yield a
variety of pulps with unique properties for conversion into paper products
that have high quality standards and/or special properties.
There is little direct loss in the pulping process except for release of steam
and vapors, which can be subsequently condensed and reused. Generally, except
for accidental spills, leaks, or washups, losses of effluent from this area of
the mill are minor in volume.
After cooking, the brown stock is washed and screened. Pulping liquors are
clarified and the chemicals recovered for reuse. The likelihood of liquid
loss in these operations is great. Extensive use is made of efficient coun-
tercurrent washing systems, as well as the use of excess weak effluents from
other operations, such as papennaking. With such recycling, however, an upset
in one area can create further process imbalances, often leading to generation
of low-strength, but potentially high-volume loads of various cooking and
recycled liquor streams. These loads can exceed the available storage capa-
city for the capabilities of in-line processing units such as black liquor
evaporators. To avoid high-volume loads resulting from upsets, excess weak
spent liquor, wash waters, alkaline streams from lime mud washing, and from
other reclaim systems commonly have to be sewered. Storage system controls
and surge control systems can reduce the effects of upsets while minimizing
economic loss to the mill in terms of heat, cooking chemicals, and pulp qual-
ity.
Very few of today's chemical pulp mills operate without chemical and waste
liquor recovery systems. Those which do not practice recovery are small mills
111-13
-------
or those with a low loss resulting from cooking wood or other fibers to a high
yield. However, a few. full cook sulfite mills still operate without recovery
systems.
Any imbalanced flow in the pulp screening and washing operations may create
excess weak black liquor. Losses can be minimized by providing sufficient
storage capabilities in excess evaporator capacity. Even so, pulp loss may
occur during startup, shutdowns, washups, and breakdowns. Unless pulp spill
collection and. reclaim systems are provided, such losses may overload waste
treatment systems, while representing the economic loss of fiber and cooking
chemicals to the manufacturer.
Th bleachery area is often a major contributor to the total effluent flow.
However, with the exception of the first two bleaching stages, losses from
succeeding "bleachery stages are very low in terms of either dissolved-solids
or BOD_5. The latter-stage bleachery filtrates can therefore be recycled
forward to earlier-stage bleach steps. However, even in large modern alkaline
pulp bleaching systems, very few mill bleacheries practice complete counter-
current recycling of filtrate from the chlorine dioxide and preceding stages.
To the extent that recycling is practiced, water use is reduced.
In integrated mill complexes, effluent flows from bleaching have been drastic-
ally reduced in recent years because of improved countercurrent use of fil-
trates. Typical effluent flows range from 16.7 kl/kkg (4 kgal/t) for a simple
groundwood system to as much as 133.4 kl/kkg (32 kgal/t) for a fully bleached
kraft pulp mill. Sulfite bleaching, although generally of three or fewer
stages, contributes 260.8 kl/kkg (15 kgal/t), and deinking systems 22.9 kl/kkg
(5.5 kgal/t). (See Table III-6.)
Stock Preparation
In the stock preparation area, the pulps are blended with materials such as
alum and rosin for sizing the paper sheets. Fillers such as clay can be added
to give improved brightness, smoothness and opacity; dyes are added for color
and shade control. Process losses in the stock preparation area are usually
minimal; they normally occur with washups, order changes, shutdowns, and other
upsets to the normal production process. The use of spill prevention and
control systems can reduce the loss of stock on such changeovers. Reclaimed
stock can subsequently be processed as broke with other furnishes.
Pape making
After stock preparation, the final blended furnish is conveyed to the paper-
machine headbox. The blended stock is carefully diluted to create a machine
furnish containing less than 1 part solid material per 100 parts of total
water. This dilute stock is evenly spread over a large porous forming cylin-
der or belt. Water drains through the forming wire and is recycled back to
the headbox where it is mixed with the incoming stock. Water is also removed
from the sheet during pressing and in the form of trim; this water is also
recycled, generally via a saveall which thickens the stock. The thickened
111-14
-------
TABLE IU-6
WASTE LOADS AND WASTEWATER QUANTITIES IN TYPICAL PULP AND PAPER MILLS(35)
Waste Load, In Ib/t of Product
Process
Wood Preparation
Pulping
Groundwooil
Sulfate (kraft)
Blow tower
Dirty cojidensate
Evaporator
ejector
Caustlclz:lng waste
Green dreg
Floor drain
SUBTOTAL
Sulfite
Blow tower
Condensato
Uncollected liquor
Acid plane wastes
Boiler blowdown
SUBTOTAL
Semi-Chemical
Blow tower
Condensate
Recovery system
Uncollected liquor
SUBTOTAL
Deinking
(all sources)
Pulp screening
Groundwood
Sulfate (kraft)
Sulfite
Semi-Chemicals
Deinking
Pulp washing and
thickeninfi
Groundwood
(no washing)
Suspended
Range
1.9-40
(3.7)
0-0.5
0.06-0.2:
2.2-5.7
(1.0)
0.5-10
0.42-1.9
0.05-0.2
0.3-43
(5)
(2)
(2)
(0.1)
(9)
(11)
(22)
5-8
1.7-14
9-14
Solids
Mean
9
4
0.1
0.1
5
1
6
17
1
0.1
21
5
2
29
2
0.1
9
11
22
4
8
11
Dissolved Solids
Range Mean
4
17
4
2
96
21
1
141
246
47
84
(5) 5
382
(6) 6
(2) 2
(111) 111
(29) 29
148
58
19
,44
Total
Range
4-50
(21.0)
6-11
1-3
46-240
(22)
11.0-11.
36-348
18-87
50-515
(10)
(22)
(8)
(2)
(150)
(40)
60-63
51-107
Solids
Mean
13
21
7
2
101
22
.5 11
164
247
47
105
10
22
411
8
2
150
40
200
62
27
75
BODS
Range
2-10
(1.3)
6.5-9.0
1.6-4.5
8.0-10.5
(1.0)
0.3-1.7
29-194
48-71
50-61
(0.05)
(1)
(3)
(8)
(18)
11-25
10-18
22-10.7
22-46
Mean
3
1
8
3
9
1
1
23
116
66
53
0.05
235
1
3
8
18
30
14
8
33
pH
Range
6.5-8.0
(12)
9.5-10
9-10
9-11.0
(12)
11.6-12
2.2-2.9
2.3-3.1
2.2-2.6
(1.2)
12-2.9
2.5-4.0
9-10
5.4-5.7
5.0-6.25
Mean
7.0
12.0
10.0
9.5
10.0
12.0
12.0
2.7
2.6
2.4
1.2
11.0
4.0
3.5
2.5
10.0
5.6
6.0
gal/ton
Range
1,000-10,000
(1,000)
950-1,900
290-640
600-9,600
(200)
340-580
1,840-1,950
750-1,700
2,000-10,000
(300)
(100)
(1,000)
(2,000)
(2,000)
(2,000)
9,700-36,000
900-9,600
1,700-14,300
4,800-10,000
Mean
3,400
1,000
1,200
300
2,500
200
400
5,600
1,900
1,100
7,500
300
100
10,900
1,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
7,000
3,600
6,000
7,500
IIt-15
-------
TABLE III-5 (Continued)
Haste Load, In Ib/t of Product
Suspended Solids
Process
Sulfate (kraft)
Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Deinking
Bleaching
Groundwood
Sulfate (kraft)
Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Deinking
Papermaklng
General
Related products
Newsprint
Uncoated
groundwood
Coated printing
paper
Uncoated book
paper
Fine paper
Coarse paper
Special Industrial
paper
Sanitary and
tissue paper
Total mill effluent
(integrated pulp and
paper mills)
Bleached sulflte
and paper
Unbleached .sulfate
and paper
Bleached sulfite
and paper
Single pieces of data
Range"
10-30
6.5-9.0
0.9-6.0
14-124
4-44
10-166
20-60
47-100
10-30
200-400
50-100
50-200
40-100
are entered
.considered to be probable average
The delnklng process
Mean
15
8
3
60
15
6
46
40
30
73
20
300
50
170
50
100
under
Dissolved Solids
Range Mean
127
123
90
92-280 180
126-409 205
119
21-425 73
66
80
150
150-1130 640
460
560-1600 1040
the "Range" column
Total Solids
Range
94-180
68-1037
42-141
216-294
131-415
31-591
200-1300
600-1700
in parentheses.
Mean
142
131
93
240
220
125
119
116
153
200
810
510
1140
BODS pH
Range
10-35
7.4-34.0
10-42
8-88
17-44
3-80
10-12
15-40
10-25
140-170
15-30
30-220
235-430
The mean values
Mean Range
25 8.9-9.4
18 2.4-3.9
24 7.0-7.9
30
25 2.9-6.8
12
16 4.3-6.9
15
16
20
15
155
22
120
330
shown are not truly
gal/ton
Mean Range
9.0 3,
2.9 1,
7.4 2,
000-11,000
800-15,000
400-7,800
2.9 12,000-32,000
3.8 9,
2.2
5 5,
37
8,
9,
2,
20
8,
39
000-30,000
700-40,000
,000
000-28,000
000-40.000
000-29,000
,000-100,000
000-37,000
,000-54,000
40,000-70,000
statistical averages; they
Mean
7
7
5
4
19
15
5
13
14
18
10
14
45
27
55
, 000
,500
,400
,000
,000
,000
,500
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
are
values based on the available data.
includes pulping,
screening, washing.
and thickening.
.Wastewaters from papermaking Include those from stock preparation, paper-machining
Data fnr 1 n f ooi-n ff»H nnHl 0af"nE>*1 ottlFflt'0 nitln antt nanrtr fnl 1 1 c !\rft ot*nc*ratt*A hu cnhfi
j, and finishing and converting
~at*t\na Hiti rlaFa Fnr hi napli 1 no
; operations.
Frnm !l*nup
for the integrated bleached sulfate pulp and paper mill.
111-16
-------
stock is pumped back to the machine chest, along with the accompanying new
stock to be formed into a sheet.
The relatively clear filtrate which passes through the" sheet on the saveall is
subsequently utilized for showers, for stock dilution on the paper machine, or
for stock preparation. Also, the clarified Whitewater from the machine system
can be discharged to the sewer system or recycled to the pulp mill for dilu-
tion purposes. An attempt can be made to recycle as many of these streams as
possible and minimize discharge from the paper machine area.
After the paper has been formed, it may be further treated by coating to
improve printing and writing characteristics or to achieve desired color
characteristics. The surface coating of adhesives or pigments contributes
little or no effluent during normal operations. However, on order changes,
and as a result of upsets, breaks, spills, washups, or dumps due to contamina-
tion, high sudden loadings of suspended solids and high BODJj (resulting from
the starch adhesive utilized) may be suddenly discharged to the mill sewer
system.
Improved instrumentation can be used to control flow rates and thus minimize
losses from coating and sizing operations. Spill collection systems can be
designed to reclaim and reuse as much of these materials as possible. It is
also possible to design systems to enable discharge to the mill treatment
system at a controlled rate. Because the pigments and adhesives are so expen-
sive, there is an economic incentive for the mill to minimize losses. As a
"total contribution in terms of flow, BOD_5_, and TSS, such losses are generally
minimal compared to the pulping, liquor recovery and papermaking operations.
Summary
Table III-6 shows typical effluents for major manufacturing areas in inte-
grated pulp and paper mills. As shown, the highest losses per ton of product
are experienced by sulfite pulp mills, from the bleacheries of both sulfite
and alkaline pulp mills, and from the papermaking operations for most types of
fine papers.
A more detailed discussion of the generation of wastewater in pulp, paper, and
paperboard mills is presented by subcategory in Section V of this report.
111-17
-------
SECTION IV
REVIEW OF INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION AND PROFILE
INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
At the time of this study, the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry consisted
of approximately 730 operating facilities. - These operations vary from large
integrated kraft pulp, paper, and paperboard mills producing over 1,814
kkg/day (2,000 tons/day), to small nonintegrated single machine mills making
less than 0.9 kkg/day (1 ton/day) of product.
There are three general classifications of mills: integrated mills; secondary
fiber mills; and nonintegrated mills. At integrated mills pulp is produced
from wood and nonwood raw materials (i.e., hemp or flax); paper and board
products are produced on site. At secondary fiber mills no pulp is produced
on-site; most of the furnish is derived from waste paper. At nonintegrated
mills, the furnish consists of purchased wood pulp (or other fibers). No pulp
is made on-site, but some waste paper can be used, as long as the mill does
not have a full deink process.
Pulping processes at the integrated mills range from simple groundwood opera-
tions, using only mechanical defibration of full logs and limited bleaching
operations, to the complex dissolving pulp mills employing extensive chemical
pulping operations and attendant recovery systems coupled with multi-stage
bleaching operations. Also included with the integrated pulp mills are those
producing pulps from a variety of nonwood fibers such as flax, hemp, cotton,
abaca, and sisal. Pulping operations include groundwood and modified ground-
wood operations, sulfite (acid) processes, unbleached and bleached kraft or
soda processes (alkaline), and modified high-yield processes utilizing mild
chemical treatments coupled with mechanical defibration.
Mills using secondary fiber are a large and growing segment of the industry.
At these mills waste paper in various forms is utilized. At one extreme are
processes involving the direct slushing of waste papers with no additional
processing, followed by conversion into coarse products such as construction
papers, corrugating media and other coarse board stock. At the other extreme
are mills utilizing high quality waste papers which subsequently are deinked
by chemical means, screened, cleaned, and processed through multi-stage
bleaching systems in a manner very similar to wood pulping. High quality
deink pulps are utilized in the production of fine quality tissue, printing,
and business papers.
Fibers are purchased by nonintegrated mills, where a wide range of products
are manufactured. The products range from specialty board items through the
highest quality fine papers.
IV-1
-------
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
Purpose
The purpose of subcategorization is to group together mills with similar
production and process patterns. This allows for the development of repre-
sentative raw waste loads and production characteristics for a relatively
homogeneous groups of mills. In this manner, the technical investigations and
national effluent limitations guidelines and standards can focus on typical
operations which can be found throughout the industry. The resulting data can
then form a statistically valid basis for estimating costs and writing ef-
fluent discharge permits which are reasonable for each mill in the industry,
based on the operation of other mills with similar characteristics.
Existing Subcategorization and Factors Considered
The two segments of the industry are presently subcategorized as shown in
Table IV-1. Factors which were considered in establishing these subcategories
include:
o raw materials;
o mill age;
o production processes;
o products produced;
o mill size and complexity; and
o mill location.
These factors and their relationship to subcategorization are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Raw Materials. In most pulping processes, wood species native to the geo-
graphical area of the mill under evaluation are the primary raw material.
Blends of local species, usually separated with respect to hardwood and soft-
woods, are pulped to produce either market pulps or papers with specific
physical and optical properties.
Hardwoods are generally pulped more readily than softwoods in alkaline pro-
cesses, yielding more bleached pulp in a less intense pulping and bleaching
process. Mills may utilize nonwood materials to produce both the pulp and
papergrades derived. Cotton linters may be converted into highly purified
cellulose fibers used in fine papers, filter papers and specialty products.
Likewise, fibers derived from hemp, sisal, abaca and flax yield .the pulps
required in items as diverse as cigarette papers and tea bags. Processing
characteristics and inherent cellulose content vary widely.
IV-2
-------
TABLE IV-1
CURRENT INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
Phase I
Unbleached Kraft
NSSC - Ammonia
Unbleached Kraft-NSSC
Paperboard from Wastepaper
Phase II
Dissolving Kraft
Market Kraft
BCT-Kraft
Fine Kraft
Papergrade Sulfite
- Blow Pit Wash (plus allowances)
- Drum Wash (plus allowances)
Dissolving Sulfite (allowances by grade)
Groundwiod Chemi-Mechanical
Groundwood Thermo-Mechanical
Groundwood CMN
Groundwood Fine
Soda
Deink
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Nonintegrated-Tissue
- from Waste Paper
Builders Paper and Roofing Felt
IV-3
-------
Although there are inherent differences in cellulose content of the original
wood or nonwood fiber source used, the pulping and liquor recovery systems and
the bleaching sequence applied are far more significant in influencing raw
waste characteristics.
In nonintegrated mills, no pulp is produced on-site. This eliminates the
potential losses associated with recovery of pulping liquors and bleachery
effluents in integrated mill operations. Only the losses inherent with stock
preparation and the papermachine operations are significant.
If waste paper is used for the furnish, the raw waste load depends greatly on
the subsequent processing performed. If waste paper is used without deinking,
as in board or construction papers, losses are very small. However, when
waste paper is fully deinked and bleached to produce stock suitable for fine
or tissue papers, raw waste losses are among the highest in the industry.
Thus, while inherent differences exist in terms of possible fibrous yield from
different raw materials, the raw waste loads are more significantly influenced
by the processing of the material(s) than by the inherent differences in
cellulose levels in the raw materials. For example, at a mill with (say 93
percent) liquor, a 10 percent difference in cellulose content represents less
than a 1 percent change in raw waste BOD5_ load.
Quantitative information on raw materials or mix of grades of waste paper used
is not usually provided in adequate detail to establish a consistent relation-
ship to raw waste load. Thus, while raw waste factors may be influenced by
raw materials used, the combined effect of both raw material and production
process must be considered in developing a subcategorization scheme.
Pulping Processes. The processes used to produce pulp from wood or other
substrates significantly influence raw waste loads. For example, the raw
waste BODJ5^ load for alkaline (kraft) pulp mills is generally lower for un-
bleached pulp mills than for fine paper mills; however, the BOD^ load is
higher still for mills making highly purified alkaline dissolving pulps. The
basic process difference is the intensity of the bleaching system, and the
inability to recover dissolved substrate in the alkaline dissolving pulping
process. The liquors from the alkaline pulping operations are generally
evaporated and recovered. To further illustrate the effect of production
process, sulfite dissolving pulp mills generally have a much higher BOD^
loading than alkaline dissolving pulp mills. This reflects both a high degree
of purification during bleaching and a less effective liquor recovery system
than in the corresponding alkaline operations. Thus the production process is
a key factor in subcategorization.
Products Produced. While pulping process variations are the key to the inher-
ent raw waste load generation, the next most significant factor is the pro-
duct (s) produced.
IV-4
-------
Coarse grades of paper and board generally can accept higher levels of dirt,
shives and other contaminants. Therefore, it is possible to operate with
extensive Whitewater recycle, and to extensively recycle effluent from the
mill's treatment plant. As the demand for quality increases, increasing
levels of dirt must be purged from the system with attendant higher losses.
Electrical grades must be highly uniform and free of dissolved metal salts;
this makes higher raw waste loads and water use inevitable. Production of
thin electrical papers involves the use of 50 percent more fresh water per ton
than comparable thin grades. The type of product thus often helps to deli-
neate a particular group or subcategory of mills.
Clearly, products of increasing quality standards require more extensive
processing with respect to bleaching, pulp screening and cleaning. The recy-
cling of contaminated materials cannot be tolerated in fine paper operations,
but provides a ready source of raw material for production of many unbleached
and coarse grades of board and industrial grades.
Age and Size of Mills. The age of a mill appears to have minimal impact upon
raw or final waste load characteristics. Process and product differences far
overshadow age and size factors. For example, deink mills which produce
newsprint are relatively new, but exhibit the highest TSS loads in the entire
industry. Nonintegrated paperboard mills are the oldest, but have very low
raw waste loads. Equipment age, rather than mill age, has a more measurable
correlation with waste characteristics. But even old equipment may not result
in high waste loads if the equipment is well maintained, properly sized and
properly operated with respect to current process demands. Mill size, as
shown in earlier development documents, also has little relationship to waste
load.(2)(37)
Geographical Location. Mill location may have a significant bearing upon wood
species availability, land availability or suitability for proper effluent
disposal and solids disposal, availability of receiving waters to assimilate
the final effluent, and climate. However, factors affecting effluent treat-
ment can be minimized by proper design of the biological treatment systems.
As indicated by U.S. Department of Commerce information, cost factors, such as
fuels, construction labor and electric power vary by region in the U.S.(38)
However, such factors do not .influence raw waste load characteristics, and can
be accounted for in development of cost data for implementation of control and
treatment technologies. Because regional factors are not significant in terms
of raw waste loads and water usage, no additional subcategorization by geo-
graphical location is warranted.
Review of Existing Subcategorization
As part of the BATEA review program, an updated and more complete data base
has been collected from 644 mills in the pulp, paper and paperboard industry.
A review of existing subcategorization was undertaken in order to determine
the adequacy of the existing subcategorization scheme in representing current
IV-5
-------
industry practices. Based on this review, it was apparent that the previous
subcategorization scheme should be revised. A revised subcategorization
scheme has been developed and is presented in Table IV-2. Revisions are based
primarily on review of production processes and the products produced.
Also as part of the review, raw waste loads were assessed taking into account
the size and age of the mills, the treatability of the wastes produced, and
the effect of unique geographical factors such as climate.
The existing Phase I and Phase II subcategories recognize two classifications
of mills: integrated and nonintegrated mills. Review of the industry's
operations showed that a large number of mills are using significant quanti-
ties of waste paper as a major portion of their furnish. At some of these
mills waste paper is slushed to form coarse boards or molded items; at others
complete deinking systems are operated including all the unit operations
common to most pulp mills. Thus, some waste paper mills could be called
integrated and some nonintegrated. To separately recognize the waste paper
mills, a third major grouping has been developed: secondary fiber mills.
Secondary fiber subcategories include Deink-Fine and Tissue, Deink-Newsprint,
Wastepaper-Tissue, Wastepaper-Board, Wastepaper-Molded Products, and Waste
paper-Construction Products. The subcategories replace the current subcate-
gories, Deink, Non-Integrated-Tissue (from Waste Paper), Builders Paper and
Roofing Felt, and Paperboard from Wastepaper.
As a result of the review of subcategorization, several subcategories have
been redefined. Integrated mill subcategories which have been redefined
include kraft, neutral sulfite semi-chemical (NSSC), and sulfite. The kraft
subcategories have been redefined as alkaline and include soda mills.
Existing Phase I and II subcategories included special allowances for process
variations in dissolving and papergrade sulfite subcategories. These allow-
ances, which were based on limited data, tended to allow higher discharges,
although technology existed for achievement of consistently lower discharges.
Mill-to-mill variations are more significant than established differences by
grade. Since the earlier survey, many of these mills have revised their
processes or have shut down, further obviating the need for allowances for
grades produced within the subcategories.
Furthermore, the existing Phase I subcategories do not recognize the various
types of semi-chemical pulping operations that now exist. NSSC is only one
type and is decreasing in its application. Also, there are integrated mills
specifically producing both groundwood and alkaline pulps in the desired ratio
to make newsprint on-site; thus, a new Alkaline-Newsprint subcategory has been
recommended for these mills.
Previous subcategorization efforts did not address all nonintegrated mills;
consequently, the data for nonintegrated mills was reviewed to develop a
logical subcategorization scheme. As a result of this review, subcategories
were developed for nonintegrated production of fine paper, tissue paper,
lightweight paper, filter and nonwoven papers, and paperboard products. In
this subcategorization scheme the latter three product groupings are new
subcategories.
IV-6
-------
TABLE IV-2
REVISED INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
A. Integrated Mills
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Aikaline-BCT (for paperboard,
coarse and tissue (BCT)
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
B. Secondary Fiber Mills
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products
C. Nonintegrated Mills
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter & Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
D. Miscellaneous Mill Groupings
Integrated-Miscellaneous, including
o Alkaline-Miscellaneous
o Groundwood Chemi-Mechanical
o Nonwood Pulping
Secondary Fiber-Miscellaneous
Nonintegrated-Miscellaneous
IV-7
-------
As a result of the subcategorization review, groups of mills have been identi-
fied which do not logically fit into the subcategorization scheme. In each of
the three mill classifications (i.e., integrated, secondary fiber and non-
integrated) there are mills which do not fit the subcategorization scheme
because of the complex variety of pulping processes and products produced.
These are grouped into the Integrated-Miscellaneous, Secondary Fiber-Miscella-
neous and Nonintegrated-Miscellaneous groupings shown in Table IV-2. Also
included within the miscellaneous mill groupings are mills which have no
common rational process identity and mills for which too little data is avail-
able to develop typical process characteristics (e.g., high-yield acid pulping
and nonwood pulping). Effluent limitations guidelines and standards for mills
in the miscellaneous groupings may be pro-rated or established for an indivi-
dual mill by the permitting authority.
With the revised and expanded subcategorization, 512 of the 644 mills respond-
ing to the data request program are included in the subcategorization scheme.
Presented below are descriptions of the types of processes and products asso-
ciated with each subcategory within the integrated, secondary fiber, and
nonintegrated mill classifications.
Description of Subcategories - Integrated Mills
Integrated mill operations are those where pulp is produced and processed into
pulp, pulp bales, paper, or paperboard at the same site.
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving . At these mills a highly bleached wood pulp is
produced in a full cook process using a sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide
cooking liquor and a pre-cook operation called "pre-hydrolysis". The princi-
pal product is a highly purified dissolving pulp used mostly for the manufac-
ture of rayon and other products requiring the virtual absence of lignin and a
very high alpha cellulose content.
012 Alkaline-Market. At mills in this subcategory, a bleached papergrade
market wood pulp is produced in a full cook process using a highly alkaline
sodium hydroxide cooking liquor. Sodium sulfide is also usually present in
the cooking liquor in varying amounts.
013 Alkaline-BCT. At these mills, bleached alkaline pulp is produced and
manufactured into paperboard, coarse, and tissue (BCT) grades of paper.
Bleached alkaline pulp is produced by a process similar to that presented for
the Alkaline-Market subcategory.
014 Alkaline-Fine. At these mills, bleached alkaline pulp is produced and
manufactured into fine papers, including business, writing, and printing
papers. The pulping process is as discussed in the previous two subcate-
gories.
IV-8
-------
015 Alkaline-Unbleached. At these mills, an unbleached wood pulp is produced
in a full cook process using a highly alkaline sodium hydroxide cooking
liquor. Sodium sulfide is also usually present in the cooking liquor in
varying amounts. The products are coarse papers, paperboard, and may include
market pulp, unbleached kraft specialties, towels, corrugating medium and tube
stock.
016 Semi-Chemical. At semi-chemical mills^ a high-yield wood pulp is produced
and manufactured into corrugating medium, insulating board, partition board,
chip board, tube stock, and specialty boards. A variety of cooking liquors
are used to cook the wood chips under pressure; the cooked chips are usually
refined before being converted into board or similar products.
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical. At mills in this subcategory,
high-yield semi-chemical pulp (as defined in the Semi-Chemical subcategory)
and unbleached kraft pulp (as defined in the Alkaline-Unbleached subcategory)
are produced. Cooking liquors from both processes are recovered in the same
recovery furnace. Major products include linerboard, corrugating medium, and
market pulp.
019 Alkaline-Newsprint. At these mills bleached alkaline pulp (as defined in
Alkaline-Market subcategory) and groundwood pulp (as defined in the Ground-
wood-CMN and Thermo-Mechanical Pulp subcategories) are produced. Newsprint is
the principal product produced.
021 Sulfite-Dissolving. At mills in this subcategory, a highly bleached and
purified wood pulp is produced in a full cook process using strong solutions
of calcium, magnesium, ammonia or sodium bisulfite, and sulfur dioxide. The
pulps produced are viscose, nitration, cellophane or acetate grades; and they
are used principally for the manufacture of rayon and other products that
require the virtual absence of lignin and a high alpha cellulose content.
022 Sulfite-Papergrade. At mills in this subcategory, sulfite pulp and paper
or papergrade market pulp are produced. The sulfite wood pulp is produced by
a full cook process using strong solutions of calcium, magnesium, ammonia or
sodium bisulfite, and sulfur dioxide. Purchased groundwood, secondary fibers
or virgin pulp are commonly used in addition to sulfite pulp to produce tissue
paper, fine paper, newsprint, market pulp, chip board, glassine, wax paper,
and sulfite specialties.
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp (TMP). At mills in this subcategory, wood pulp is
produced in a process using rapid steaming followed by refining. A cooking
liquor, such as sodium sulfite, is added. The principal products are fine
paper, newsprint and tissue papers.
IV-9
-------
033 Groundwood-CMN. At these mills, groundwood pulp is produced using stone^
grinders or refiners; no separate steaming vessel is used before the defibra^
tion. Purchased fibers are used in addition to groundwood pulp to produce
coarse papers, molded fiber products, and newsprint (CMN).
034 Groundwood-Fine. At mills in this subcategory, groundwood pulp is pro-
duced using stone grinders or refiners; no separate steaming vessel is used
before the defibration. Purchased fibers are used in addition to groundwood
pulp to produce fine papers, including business, writing and printing papers.
Integrated-Miscellaneous. This mill grouping includes three types of misc-
ellaneous mills: 1) mills employing more than one pulping process (exceptions
are the Alkaline-Newsprint and Alklaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical sub-
categories); 2) miscellaneous processes not described above (i.e., nonwood
pulping, chemi-mechanical, miscellaneous acid and alkaline pulping mills); and
3) mills producing a wide variety of products not covered above.
Description of Subcategories - Secondary Fiber Mills
No pulp is produced at secondary fiber mills; most of the new material furnish
is waste paper. Some secondary fiber mills include deinking to produce a
pulp, paper or paperboard product.
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue. At mills in this subcategory, a deink pulp ifl
produced from waste paper. The principal products made from the deinked pulp
include printing, writing, business and tissue papers, but may also include
products such as wallpaper, converting stock and wadding.
102 Deink-Newsprint. Mills in this subcategory produce newsprint from deink
pulp derived mostly from over-issue and waste news.
Ill Wastepaper-Tissue. In this subcategory, paper stock furnish is derived
from waste paper without deinking. The principal products are facial and
toilet paper, paper towels, glassine, paper diapers and wadding.
112 Wastepaper-Board. Mills in this subcategory use a furnish derived from
waste paper without deinking. A wide range of products are made, including
setup and folding boxboards, corrugating medium, tube stock, chip board,
gypsum liner and linerboard. Other board products include fiber and partition
board, building board, shoe board, bogus, blotting, cover, auto, filter,
gasket, tag, liner, electrical board, fiber pipe, food board, wrapper, and
specialty boards.
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products. At these mills, most of the furnish is^
obtained from waste paper without deinking. The principal products are moldedH
IV-10
-------
items, such as fruit and vegetable packs and similar throwaway containers and
display items.
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products. In this subcategory are mills primar-
ily producing saturated and coated building paper and boards. Waste paper is
the furnish; no deinking is employed. The principal products include roofing
felt, shingles, rolled and prepared roofing. Asphalt may be used for saturat-
ing, and various mineral coatings may be used. Some asbestos and nonwood
fibers (fiberglass) may also be used. At many mills some groundwood, defi-
brated pulp or wood flour may be processed and used in production of the final
product.
Secondary Fiber-Miscellaneous. These mills manufacture products or product
mixes not included in the Wastepaper-Tissue, Wastepaper-Board, Wastepaper-
Molded Products and Wastepaper-Construction Products subcategories. Their
furnish is more than 50 percent waste paper without deinking.
Products may include market pulp from waste paper and polycoated waste, fil-
ters, gaskets, mats, absorbent papers, groundwood specialties and other grade
mixtures. A mill producing less than 50 percent construction paper or any
other combination of products, other than secondary fiber subcategory pro-
ducts, would be classified in this grouping.
Description of Subcategories - Nonintegrated Mills
Nonintegrated mills purchase wood pulp or other fiber source(s) to produce
paper or paperboard products.
201 Nonintegrated-Fine. These nonintegrated mills produce fine papers from
wood pulp or secondary fibers, prepared at another site. No deinking is em-
ployed at the papermill site. The principal products are printing, writing,
business, technical papers, bleached bristols, and rag papers.
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue. Mills in this subcategory produce sanitary or
industrial tissue papers from wood pulp or secondary fiber prepared at another
site. No deink pulp is prepared at the papermill site. The principal pro-
ducts are facial and toilet paper, paper towels, glassine, paper diapers,
wadding and wrapping.
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight. These mills produce lightweight or thin
papers from wood pulp or secondary fiber prepared at another site, as well as
from nonwood fibers and additives. The principal products are uncoated thin
papers, such as carbonizing, cigarette papers and some special grades of
tissue such as capacitor, pattern, and interleaf.
IV-11
-------
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven. Mills in this subcategory produce
filter papers and nonwoven items using a furnish of purchased wood pulp, waste
paper and nonwood fibers. The principal products are filter and blotting
paper, nonwoven packaging and specialties, insulation, technical papers and
gaskets.
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard. Mills in this subcategory produce various
types of paperboard from purchased wood pulps or secondary fibers. Products
include linerboard, folding boxboard, milk cartons, food, chip, stereotype,
pressboard, electrical and other specialty board grades.
Nonintegrated-Miscellaneous. This grouping includes any nonintegrated mill
not included in the above subcategories. Included are mills making mostly
asbestos and synthetic products; paper and paperboard products that are too
diverse to be classified; or products with unique process or product specifi-
cations, commonly called specialty items.
The Model Mill and Pure Mill Concepts
The concept of subcategorization assumes that mills can be grouped based on
their similarities. Ideally, within a particular grouping, there would be
close similarity in processes employed, products manufactured, and effluent
treatment technologies employed. As outlined previously, the purpose of
subcategorization is to group together mills with similar production charac-
teristics and processes employed. In conducting the project investigations,
two representative mills have been conceptualized for each subcategory: the
"pure" mill and the "model" mill.
Pure Mill. The "pure mill" concept establishes a basis for the development of
effluent limitations, guidelines and standards which can be used in pro-rating
guidelines for mills not fitting the subcategorization scheme. A mill may be
termed "pure" if its characteristics completely fit the subcategory defini-
tion.
For example, a mill producing only fine quality printing papers from on-site
alkaline pulps may be called a "pure" mill in the Alkaline-Fine subcategory.
In this situation the effluent loads from wood processing, pulping, bleaching
and papermaking are totalled to give a characteristic raw waste load for the
balanced mill operation. Commonly, however, mills that have been generally
placed within a subcategory cannot be considered "pure". Often these mills
may make a small quantity of a different product type; pulp mill output may
not match the papermill requirements; and/or the production process may differ
substantially from that used at a pure mill.
For each subcategory, "pure mill" data are developed for the basis of pro-rata
effluent guidelines development. Some subcategories contain more than one
pure mill, reflecting more than one distinct product or production process
within the subcategory.
IV-12
-------
Data from the pure mills can be used to develop guidelines on a pro-rated for
unique mill operations which have not been included in the subcategorization
scheme. For example, a mill may operate two separate pulping processes,
called Process A and Process B. Pure mill guidelines established for each
process can be applied to the unique mill combination by establishing which
proportion of its operations consists of Process A or Process B. Final ef-
fluent waste loads projected for the pure Process A mill and the pure Process
B mill can be mathematically combined and weighted to match the ratio of
production using each process at the unique mill. This approach to guidelines
development requires the use of pure mill data. To establish such data where
none presently exists, the following approaches can be taken:
1. Where data over a wide range exists, graphical interpretation may be made
from plots of raw waste loads like those shown in Figures IV-1, IV-2 and
IV-3. For example SOD5_ curves for a mixture of deinked and virgin pulp
can be used to extrapolate BOD_5_ for 100 percent deink furnish.
2. If insufficient data is available from which to plot a curve, then pure
mill data can be generated from the subcategory model mill and related
pure mill data from another subcategory. For example, mills in the
Groundwood-Fine subcategory average 59 percent groundwood and 41 percent
purchased pulp in their furnish. The purchased pulp/fine paper component
of the raw waste load would be comparable to that from a pure noninte-
grated fine mill, for which "pure" mill data is available. The purchased
pulp component of the Groundwood-Fine operation can thus be isolated and
subtracted from the subcategory average. The remaining load is from the
groundwood operation and can be extrapolated from 59 percent to 100
percent to generate Groundwood-Fine "pure" mill data.
It should be noted that linear graphical extrapolation of "pure" mill data may
not accurately reflect efficiencies or process balances which might be
achieved in an actual pure mill operation. Thus, the pure mill projections
may in some cases result in raw waste loadings that are higher than would
occur in actual practice.
Model Mill. For each of the revised subcategories, a "model" mill has also
been established based on a review of data collected during the data request
program. Model mill statistics are based on average, median or representative
production and raw waste load characteristics. The purpose of the model mill
is to establish a statistical base which can be used in developing average raw
waste characteristics and in developing cost and energy data for a representa-
tive mill to achieve effluent limitations guidelines and standards. The model
mill concept does not develop a basis for establishing guidelines on a pro-
rated basis.
The purpose and application of pure mill and model mill data are described
more fully in Section V, Waste Characterization.
IV-13
-------
0
I-
-x
o»
O
U.
30
20
Y = .I35X +12.2
A
O, 12.2
N.I. FINE
10
A
A
A
SUB IO4
A
A A
Q
0
Q
0
E3
21.1, 627
OEINK FINE
oo
O
SUB 101
PURE
25.7,1007
PURE
OEINK
FINE
O
25 SO
% OEINK STOCK - DEINK FINE
75
O
100
FIGURE EZM
AVERAGE FLOW VARIATIC0 WITH
AVERAGE % DEINK STOCK
-------
450r
0
400 h
'60.1,07
N.I.FINE
A .
O
309,627.
OEINK FINE
Y* 359.7X + 7I.6
20
40
60
80
431.3,1007.
PURE
OEINK
FINE
O
100
% DEINK STOCK- DEINK FINE
IV-15
FIGURE J3T-2
TSS VARIATION WITH
% DEINK STOCK USED
-------
100
99.9, 1007.
PURE
DEINK
FINE
Y=.8OX +
75
72.6,627.
OEINK FINE
<
i
O
o
00
50
17.0, 07
N.I. FINE
25
75
% OEINK 7TOCK- DEINK FINE
AVERAGE BOD
IGBT-3
rARIATION
-------
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF MILLS BY SUBCATEGORY
Table IV-3 shows the geographical distribution of pulp and paper mills
throughout the United States. The largest single concentration of mills is in
the upper Midwest area, including the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. In total, 169 mills are located in these
states, including one-third of the total number of U.S. Wastepaper-Board
mills. Other significant subcategory groupings in the upper Midwest include
15 Nonintegrated-Fine papermills and over half the existing operating Sul-
fite-Papergrade mills. Nearly half the total U.S. Deink-Fine and Tissue mills
are also located in this region, which generally corresponds to EPA's Region
V. This region is characterized by a large number of small mills which are
generally older than mills in the southern and western regions of the United
States.
The northeastern region of the United States also has a large number of mills,
many of which are small, nonintegrated mills operating on sites where they
were first established more than 75 years ago. The area is characterized by
relatively few large integrated pulp mills. There are significant concentra-
tions of small Wastepaper-Board operations, Nonintegrated-Fine mills utilizing
rag pulping operations, and a variety of other small nonintegrated pulp mills.
The third major production area in the United States is the southern region,
which is the area of prime concentration of large integrated alkaline pulp
mills. There are no sulfite operations in the region. The southern states
support a large number of Wastepaper-Board operations and builders paper
'mills. However, the major subcategory represented is the Alkaline-Unbleached
subcategory, primarily producing a wide variety of board grades on large
machines.
The central states area, comprising the plains area and the mountain states,
covers nearly half of the land area of the United States. This area supports
very few pulp or papermaking operations and has very few productive forests.
With the exception of locally-based board and builders paper mills, there is
minimal activity.
The West Coast region Is also characterized by locally-based Wastepaper-Board
and builders paper manufacturing operations. However, the Pacific Northwest
features the second largest concentration of sulfite mills, including both
papergrade and dissolving pulp production. Five of the six operating Sul-
fite-Dissolving mills in the U.S. are in the Pacific Northwest. This subcate-
gory has the highest raw waste load of the industry. One third of the U.S.
Sulfite-Papergrade mills are located in this region. The region also supports
a general distribution of alkaline pulp mills. Figure IV-4 shows the number
of pulp, paper and paperboard mills located in each of the 50 United States
and Puerto Rico.
PRODUCTION BY SUBCATEGORY
In Table IV-4 reported production data is summarized by subcategory. As
shown, the greatest tonnage (9,072,000 tons/year) is produced at the Alka-
IV-17
-------
TABLE IV-3
U.S. PULP, PAPER AND PAPERBOARD MILLS BY REGION
EPA Region Number
Subcategory
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
021
022
032
033
034
101
102
111
112
113
114
201
202
.204
205
211
*
*
*
- Alkaline-Dissolving
- Alkaline-Market
- Alkaline-BCT
- Alkaline-Fine
- Alkaline-Unbleached
- Semi-Chemical
- Alkaline-Unbleached
and Semi-Chemical
- Alkaline-Newsprint
- Sulfite-Dissolving
- Sulfite-Papergrade
- Thermo-Mechanical
Pulp
- Groundwood-CMN
- Ground wsod-Fine
- De ink-Fine and Tissue
- De ink-News print
- Wastepaper-Tissue
- Wastepaper-Board
- Wastepaper-Molded
Products
I
1
3
1
1
2
1
5
5
20
3
II
1
1
2
1
4
10
III
5
2
1
1
2
1
4
33
IV
3
3
4
1
17
5
3
2
1
1
3
14
1
V
1
4
2
8
10
6
8
1
4
49
6
VI VII
1
2
3
7
1 1
3
1
3 4
1
VIII IX
2
1
2
1
2
1 12
2
X
1
2
3
1
3
5
6
1
1
2
Total
3
9
8
18
29
19
10
3
6
18
6
8
17
3f
22
147
15
- Wastepaper-Construction
Products
- Nonintegrated-Fine
- Nonintegrated-Tissue
- Nonintegrated-Light-
weight
- Nonintegrated-Filter
and Nonwoven
- Nonintegrated-Paper-
board
- Integrated-Miscella-
neous
- Secondary Fiber-Misc.
- Nonintegrated-Misc .
Total
2
12
3
7
5
6
19
2
12
110
5
6
4
3
1
10
3
4
55
6
6
4
1
2
1
6
5
80
12
4
1
2
21
2
100
15
15
5
5
3
3
11
5
8
169
11 4
1
7
41 9
5
1
4
1
1 3
2
2 38
3
10
1
40
58
39
26
18
16
12
88
13
31
644
*Groupings of mills with mixed or unique processes or products.
IV-18
-------
MINNESOTA
\
I
1 __ _
_J GEORGIA
FLO RIO A*
PUERTO
RICO
2 NUMBER OF MILLS IN STATE
FIGURE
PULP AND PAPER MILLS
IN THE U.S. BY STATES
-------
TABLE IV-4
REPORTED PULP AND PAPER PRODUCTION BY SUBCATEGORY
Average
Subcategory
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached
& Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Nesprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded
Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction
Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and
Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
SUBTOTAL
Miscellaneous
Groups
No. of
Mills
3
9
8
18
29
19
10
3
6
18
2
6
8
17
3
22
147
15
58
39
26
18
16
12
512
134
Mill Production
kg /day
1,022
752
790
639
788
414
1,194
1,214
493
324
257
249
421
152
325
30
133
44
74
188
114
52
18
33
(t/d)
(1,127)
(829)
(871)
(705)
(869)
(456)
(1,316)
(1,338)
(544)
(357)
(283)
(275)
(464)
(168)
(358)
(33)
(147)
(49)
(82)
(207)
(126)
(57)
(19.4)
(35.9)
Average
Production
Per Machine
kg /day
432
471
250
55
404
241
338
303
493
83
102
74
125
39 52
^ 244
12
127*
5
54
73
58
19
39
20
(t/d)
(476)
(519)
(276)
(61)
(445)
(266)
(373)
(334)
(544)
(91)
(113)
(82)
(138)
(57)
(269)
(13)
(140)
(5)
(60)
(81)
(64)
(21)
(43)
(22)
Total
Annual Production
kkg
1,107
2,436
2,275
4,143
8,228
1,638
4,297
1,311
1,066
2,098
185
539
1,212
939
39
Jy 351
237
* 7,056
240
1,553
2,095
1,193
317
102
164
226,172
13,344
(1,000 t)
(1,221)
(2,686)
(2,508)
(4,568)
(9,072)
(1,806)
(4,738)
(1,445)
(1,175)
(2,313)
(204)
(594)
(1,336)
U,024t
(387^
(261)
(7,779)
(265)
(1,712)
(2,310)
(1,315)
(349)
(112)
(181)
(249,363)
(14,712)
TOTAL
646
239,516 (264,075)
Source: Data Request Response
*Estimated
IV-20
-------
line-Unbleached mills followed by Wastepaper-Board mills at 7,779,000 tons/
year. The smallest production is reported by the Nonintegrated-Filter and
Nonwoven mills (112,000 tons/year).
The three largest subcategories in terms of tonnage produce packaging mate-
rials. The smallest subcategories in terms of tonnage generally produce
consumer products with unique characteristics.
The largest average size mills are the Alkaline-Newsprint operations, followed
closely by the Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical board mills, and the
Alkaline-Dissolving pulp mills. The nonintegrated subcategories, Wastepaper-
Tissue, and Wastepaper-Molded Products mills, represent the smallest average
size mills. Generally, the more unique the product, the smaller the mill.
In terms of the number of mills in the respective subcategories, the largest
(at 147) occurs in the Wastepaper-Board subcategory, followed by Wastepaper-
Construction Products with 58 mills. There are several small subcategories
with three or fewer mills: Alkaline-Dissolving, Alkaline-Newsprint, Thermo-
Mechanical Pulp and Deink-Newsprint.
IV-21
-------
SECTION V
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
INTRODUCTION
Characterization. Strategy
The purpose of this section is to define the wastewater characteristics for
mills in the subcategories identified in Section IV. As outlined previously,
three categories of pollutants are under investigation: 1=) conventional
pollutants; 2.) toxic pollutants; and 3.) nonconventional pollutants.
The data-gathering strategy has included a literature review, industry re-
sponse to the data request program, and a mill sampling program. This section
will summarize the data gathered through these efforts for each category of
pollutants.
Model and Pure Mill Concepts
Raw waste load data has been collected and tabulated for mills in each sub-
category of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. This data will be used:
1. to develop representative mills in each subcategory, so that the cost of
achieving effluent limitations guidelines and standards can be estimated;
and
2. to develop wastewater data that can be used by the EPA to establish
specific effluent limitations guidelines and standards for each mill in
the industry.
To meet these objectives, two representative mills have been conceptualized
for each subcategory: the "model mill" and the "pure mill." These concepts
are defined below.
Model Mill. A "model mill" is developed for each subcategory in order to
present a typical operation of mills within the subcategory. The model mill
has been selected to serve as the basis for subsequent cost and energy evalua-
tions, which are part of the BCT cost test required to judge the economic
impact of various levels of effluent control which may be specified by EPA in
accordance with the Clean Water Act.
The raw waste load presented for the model mill in some subcategories is the
average raw waste load of mills within the subcategory. In other cases, the
model mill raw waste load may reflect an operation or set of operations which
typify the subcategory, but which may not be the arithmetic average of the
subcategory.
In all cases, model mill raw waste loads for the subcategories form the basis
for projected raw waste load reductions which can be achieved by implementing
V-l
-------
designated production process controls and effluent treatment technologies at
the model mill in each subcategory. '
Model mill raw waste loads do not serve as the basis for effluent limitations
guidelines and standards development. As outlined they are used to estimate
the cost of implementing selected production process controls and effluent
treatment technologies.
Pure Mill. The "pure mill" concept establishes a basis for the development of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards which can be applied to each
mill in the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. Because most mills are
characterized by complex combinations of processes and products, it is neces-
sary to isolate distinct operations which can be found in the industry. Raw
waste loads attributable to each distinct process can then be pro-rated to
match the combination of processes which may be found at a particular mill.
Pure mill raw waste loads represent the operation of distinct processes or, in
some cases, the manufacture of particular products using a distinct process.
These waste loads may be based on actual operations by a group of mills which
produce a particular product using a distinct process, or they may be based on
mathematical interpretation of data from more complex operations.
Pure mill raw waste loads are presented for each subcategory. For some sub-
categories which are particularly well-defined and discrete, the pure mill and
model mill raw waste loads may be the same. However, there are many subcate-,-
gories where pure mill data and model mill data differ. Also, some subcate-v
gories are represented by more than one pure mill, thus recognizing a variety
of processes or products which can be isolated within those subcategories.
In the following text on conventional pollutants, raw waste loads will be
presented first for the model mill situation in each subcategory, and then for
the pure mill situations.
CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
The Clean Water Act defined four conventional pollutants: BOD5, TSS, pH, and
fecal coliform. An additional three conventional pollutants - COD, phosphorus
and oil and grease - have been proposed by EPA. As a result of past efforts,
effluent limitations have been promulgated for the industry for BODI5, TSS and
pH. For these pollutants considerable long-term data exists, while there is
only limited available data on the other conventional pollutants, including
those proposed. The primary pollutants discussed in this section are BOD5^ and
TSS. COD data will be subsequently presented with the verification sampling
program data. COD is presented as a nonconventional pollutant since it has
not been promulgated as a conventional pollutant.
This section will present conventional pollutant characterization for the
model mill and pure mill facilities. The legend presented earlier in the
report provides the reference for abbreviations used in presenting model and,
pure mill raw waste loads.
V-2
-------
Model Mill Raw Waste Loads by Subcategory
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving. With an average initial construction date of 1952,
the three mills in the Alkaline-Dissolving subcategory produce blends of
dissolving pulps, as well as market pulps for papermaking. These mills use
hardwood and/or softwood species, ranging from 100 percent hardwood to 100
percent softwood. Although the bleaching sequences vary even within indivi-
dual mills, all three generally practice jump-stage countercurrent washing.
Calculated net bleached yield approximates 40 percent for bleached softwood
and 46 percent for hardwood.
As shovvTi in Table V-l, the mill which processes 100 percent hardwood species
exhibits higher BOD5_ and TSS loadings per ton of product than the two mills
using softwood as their principal raw material. This contradicts the expected
higher BOD5_ loading for softwood production, which is demonstrated by a large
number of mills in the Alkaline-Market and Alkaline-Fine subcategories.
The model mill raw waste load for this subcategory is: 198.1 kl/kkg (47.5
kgal/t) flow; 53.8 kg/kkg (107.6 Ib/ton) BOD5; and 76.8 kg/kkg (153.7 Ib/ton)
TSS. The flow and TSS loads are the average for the three mills in the sub-
category. The BOD5 load for the model mill is the median BOD5 for the three-
mill group, which was selected because of the apparent disparity in the BOD5
data for the mill using 100 percent hardwood as its raw material.
012 Alkaline-Market. The nine mills in the Alkaline-Market subcategory have
an average chronological age of 23 years, making this one of the more modern
subcategories in the industry. These mills primarily produce market pulp, at
an average production of 570.5 kkg/day (629 tons/day). Four mills produce
pulp from predominately softwood, three use mostly hardwood, and two use a
mixture of hardwood and softwood.
Raw waste loads for mills in this subcategory are presented in Table V-2. As
shown, the softwood mills generate higher waste loads per ton of product than
the hardwood or mixed species mills. The loadings from three predominantly
softwood mills have been averaged to establish the following model mill raw
waste load:
Flow 178.2 kl/kkg (42.8 kgal/t);
BOD5 41.5 kg/kkg (83.0 Ib/ton); and
TSS 31.8 kg/kkg (63.6 Ib/ton).
The predominantly softwood mills average 85 percent softwood and 15 percent
hardwood as their raw material. For mills generally exceeding 15 percent
hardwood production, raw waste load allowances can be decreased to reflect the
lower inherent potential loading from hardwood production. For each percent-
age of hardwood production in excess of 15 percent, allowances can be de-
creased 0.18 kg/kkg (0.36 Ib/ton) for BOD 5 and 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton) for
TSS.
013 Alkaline-BCT. In this subcategory of eight mills, bleached alkaline
pulps are produced for use on-site in paperboard, tissue and coarse grade-
V-3
-------
<
-P-
TABLE V-l
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY Oil - ALKALINE-DISSOLVING
Raw Waste Load
Production, Prof lie Flow
Mill No. Raw MaterlalU;
032001 100% HW
032002 100% SW
032003 88% SW
Average
Median
Model Mill
Dissolving Pulp (%) kl/kkg
72 136.8
45 218.1
59 238.9
58.7 198.1
198.1
(kgal/t)
(32.8)
(52.3)
(57.3)
(47.5)
(47.5)
BODS
kg/kkg (Ib/t)
109.5
35.4
53.8
61.2
53.8
53.8
(219.0)
(70.8)
(107.6)
(132.4)
(107.6)
(107.6)
TSS
kg/kkg (Ib/t)
120.4
28.7
81.6
76.8
76.8
(240.7)
(57.3)
(163.2)
(153.7)
(153.7)
(a)
HW = Hardwood; SW = Softwood.
-------
TABLE
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 012 - ALKALINE-MARKET
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Pulp (t/d)
Mill No. Hardwood
Softwood Mills
030006
030018
030030
030031
Average
Hardwood Mills
030005
030009
030012
Average
Mixed Mills
030028
030042
Average
Subcategory
Average
Model Mill
103
153(a)
87(a)
86
369
592
383(a)
448
438
261
350
Softwood
582
441
570(a)
254(a)
462
45(a)
Product
bales
bales
bales
bales
bales
bales
bales
bales &
tissue
15
board/
1210 bales/roll
148 slush
679
(t/d)
582
544
723
341
548
369
592
455
472
1,649
409
1,029
629
Flow
kl/kkg
179.4
184.4
171.1
332.2
178.2
73.3
134.9
154.0
120.7
149.1
78.3
113.7
134.7
178.2
(kgal/t)
(43.
(44.
(41.
(79.
(42.
(17.
(32.
(37.
(27.
(35.
(18.
(27.
(32.
(42.
1)
3)
1)
8)(b)
8)
6)
4)
0)
0)
8)
8)
3)
3)
8)
BODS
kg/kkg
41.3
39.2
44.1
44.0
41.5
17.5
35.7
26.6
35.5
37.4
36.45
32.7
41.5
(lb/t)
(82.5)
(78.3)
(88.1)
(88.0)(b)
(83.0)
(35.0)
(71.4)
(53.2)
(71.0)
(74.8)
(72.9)
(65.3)
(83.0)
kg/kkg
22.4
48.40
24.7
132.0
31.8
20.4
98.0
20.4
24.0
14.35
19.2
29.2
31.8
TSS
(lb/t)
(44.7)
(96.8)
(49.4)
(264.0)(b)
(63.6)
(40.8)
(196.0)(b)
( 40.8)
(47.9)
(28.7)
(38.3)
(58.3)
(63.6)
(a) Adjusted to equal total production, revised per discussion with mill.
(b) Not Included In average because of apparent inconsistency in reported data.
-------
papers (bag, packaging, etc.)- The average original construction date of
these mills is 1958. Average production is about 789 kkg/day (870 tons/day)J
Based on data shown in Table V-3, the ratio of hardwood to softwood has little
effect on raw waste load parameters. Mills making all softwood average the
same flow and lower BOD5_ than the eight-mill average.
The model mill raw waste load for this subcategory is the average for the
eight mills:
Flow: 152.2 kl/kkg (36.5 kgal/t);
BOD.5: 45.7 kg/kkg (91.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS: 42.6 kg/kkg (85.0 Ib/ton).
The predominantly softwood mills average 85 percent softwood and 15 percent
hardwood as their raw material. For mills generally exceeding 15 percent
hardwood production, raw waste load allowances can be decreased to reflect the
lower inherent potential loading from hardwood production. For each percent-
age of hardwood production in excess of 15 percent, allowances can be de-
creased 0.18 kg/kkg (0.36 Ib/ton) for BOD_5 and 0.14 kg/kkg (0.28 Ib/ton) for
TSS.
014 Alkaline-Fine. The 18 mills in this subcategory have an average initial
construction date of 1911. Most of these mills produce both hardwood and
softwood pulps on-site, enabling the blending of pulps to give the desired
strength and optical properties to a variety of fine printing, writing, and'
business papers. Both coated and uncoated papers are produced. Typically,
clay, titanium dioxide, and other mineral fillers are used extensively in the
base sheet, as well as in the coatings to give the desired appearance and
printing properties.
Table V-4 summarizes the raw waste load data from the 18 mills in this sub-
category. While there are observable differences between mills with respect
to filler loading, the pattern is not consistent except for a possible decline
in BODJ^ as total filler (or coating pigment) in the furnish increases. Sur-
prisingly, there is not a clear indication of the expected increase in TSS
with the increased addition of filler.
Three mills make some groundwood pulp in addition to alkaline pulp; these
three mills have BOD5_ loads nearly 88 percent higher than the average of other
mills in the Alkaline-Fine subcategory. The higher BODj[ loads possibly re-
flect difficulty in adequately balancing Whitewater systems in the more com-
plex mills.
Product requirements apparently have a significant influence on raw waste
loads. To recognize the unique papermaking requirements in most fine paper
mills, the subcategory average is selected to serve as the model mill raw
waste load. This subcategory average excludes the three mills making some
groundwood, and one mill which reported data which appear inconsistent with
the remaining mills in the subcategory. The model mill average raw waste load,
is:
V-6
-------
TABLE V-3
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 013 - ALKALINE-BCT
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
f
Pulp (t/d)
Mill No.
030004
030010
030022
030024
030026
030047
030032
030039
Average
HW
436
352
512
306
584
291
310
SW
535
335
943
368
1,073
204
576
238
534
Product (t/d)
Board
548
907
714
727
583
895
487
608
Tissue
343
231
59
80
Coarse
69
84
394 1
106
367 1
348 1
107
184
Total
960
315
,301
820
,153
583
,243
594
871
Flow
kl/kkg
186.5
191.5
156.5
137.4
120.7
130.3
137.8
154.9
152.2
(kgal/t)
(44.8)
(46.0)
(37.6)
(33.0)
(29.0)
(31.3)
(33.1)
(37.2)
(36.5)
BODS
kg/kkg
57.5
37.2
33.2
57.5
44.1
64.0
42.6
29.2
45.7
(lb/t)
(115.0)
(74.3)
(66.4)
(115.0)
(88.2)
(128.0)
(85.2)
(58.4)
(91.3)
TSS
kg/kkg
41.7
42.9
--
14.7
79.5
48.3
24.0
42.5
(lb/t)
(83.3)
(85.7)
( )
(»)
(29.3)
(159.0)
(96.5)
(47.9)
(85.0)
Model Mill
152.2 (36.5) 45.7
(91.3) 42.5 (85.0)
-------
TABLE V-4
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 014 - ALKALINE-FINE
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Pulp
Mill No. HW
Mills making
030027 232
030049 499
030015 124
Average 305
Mills making
030013 146
030037 449
030046 408
030052 237
Average 310
Mills - High
(t/d) Purchased (t/d)
SW
more than
199
224
123
182
more than
129
476
232
311
287
Softwood
Pulp Broke Ctd
95
18
9
11
13
95
25
60
4
22
percent
78
33
45
52
percent
154
102
72
32
of their
110
1,137
370
539
of their
68
348
104
Product (t/d)
Flow
BODS
TSS
Unctd Other Total kl/kkg (kgal/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t) ki>/kkg (Ib/t)
own
310
41
117
own
120
114
342
600
294
pulp and using
345
115
pulp i
322
914
50
87
343
765
1178
370
771
md using
510
1028
748
687
741
high clay
72.0
72.4
123.7
89.5
low clay
122.4
118.2
132.4
127.4
124.9
(17.3)
(17.4)
(29.7)
(21.5)
(29.4)
(28.4)
(31.8)
(30.6)
(30.0)
21.5
21.5
50.95
31.3
31.12
31.12
(43.0)
(43.0)
(101.9)
(62.6)
( )
( )
(62.3)
76273)
32.9
54.95
31.0
56.3
30.5
"SO
(65.3)
(109.9)
(162.0)(a)
(112.6)
(~)
( )
(161)
( )
iray
030051 113 213 194
Mills Making Some Groundwood(b)
612
612
93.7 (22.5) 32.67 (65.3) 40.85 (31.7)
030033
030045
030043
Average
High Clay
030020
High Clay
030034
Low Clay
030001
030057
030059
030060
130001
Average
216
270
359
282
Mills
Mills
341
Mills
101
131
540
193
535
310
334 130 28 412
460 55 139 524
240 72 10
345 36 46 312
- High Softwood
174 118 27
- High Hardwood
109 90
- High Hardwood
35 23 10
132
370 100
110 102 5
129 70
29 151 37
242
51
98
378
1160
456
458
490
184
388
956
509
417
708
191
54
233
96
338
963
956
919
417
708
191
378
1160
510
691
586
Model Mill (d)
139.4
148.2
111.2
132.8
115.7
119.1
101.6
106.6
122.4
163.2
74.1
113.7
110.5
(33.4)
(35.6)
(26.7)
(31.9)
(27.3)
(23.6)
(24.4)
(25.6)
(29.4)
(39.2)
(17.8)
(27.3)
(26.5)
75.4
65.2
31.5
5774
25.5
22.7
39.9
39.1
39.2
39.3
36.1
30.5
(150.7)
(130.4)
(63.0)
(114.7)
(51.0)(c
(45.3)
(79.3)
(78.1)
(78.3)
(79.5)
(72.2)
(61.0)
126.0
90.0
108.0
) 78.5
46.6
79.5
147.5
101.5
23.7
3.0
66.2
(252)
(180)
(216)
(157)
(93.2)
(159.0)
(295.0)
(203.0)
(47.4)
(160.0)
(132.3)
(a) Data appears inconsistent; not included in average.
(b) Not producing enough groundwood to be included tn groundwood subcategory; because of high loadings, these mills
not included in Alkaline-Fine subcategory average for model mill.
(c) Calculated data.
(d) Average of subcategory, excluding Mills Ho. 030015, 030033, 030045, and 030048.
-------
Flow 110.5 kl/kkg (26.5 kgal/t);
BOD_5 30.5 kg/kkg (61.0 Ib/ton); and
TSS 66.2 kg/kkg (132.3 Ib/ton).
015 Alkaline-Unbleached. The Alkaline-Unbleached subcategory includes 29
mills, having an average chronological age of 29 years. Fifteen of these
mills produce linerboard plus some market pulp; however, one mill makes liner-
board but uses too much waste paper to be considered typical for this subcate-
gory. The typical linerboard mill produces about 907 kkg/day (1,000 tons/
day). Eleven mills make bag paper or a mixture which includes bag paper;
these eleven average 797 kkg/day (879 tons/day production). Three other mills
make greater than 50 percent specialty packaging, carbonizing or tissue
papers.
These 29 mills are large, but relatively simple in process. Unbleached soft-
wood pulp is produced with only a trace of hardwood. Waste paper use is
minimal (averaging 3 percent), but is apparently increasing in this subcate-
gory as a cost reduction step. The impact of waste paper use on raw waste
loads can not be determined because of the low levels now used.
As shown in Table V-5, average raw waste load data is presented separately for
the 15 linerboard mills, the 3 specialty mills and the 11 bag mills. The
average raw waste load for the linerboard mills is:
Flow 46.6 kl/kkg (11.2 kgal/t);
BOD5_ 14.2 kg/kkg (28.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 16.3 kg/kkg (32.5 Ib/ton).
The 11 bag mills have a slightly higher average raw waste loads, reflecting
modified processing conditions, more refining and less tolerance for low
quality, or off-specification stock. The average raw waste load for the bag
mills is:
Flow 70.5 kl/kkg (16.9 kgal/t);
BOD^ 18.9 kg/kkg (37.7 Ib/ton); and
TSS 20.7 kg/kkg (41.4 Ib/ton).
The three mills making consumer items, packaging and industrial tissue grades
from unbleached pulp demonstrate much higher raw waste loads than the liner-
board or bag mills. These three specialty mills are not representative of the
subcategory and may be considered for transfer to the Integrated-Miscellaneous
mill grouping.
Because linerboard mills are the most numerous within this subcategory, their
average raw waste load is chosen to represent the model mill in the cost
evaluations presented later in this report. Effluent limitations guidelines
and standards development will separately recognize the two major products
(i.e., linerboard and bag) produced by mills in this subcategory. The average
raw waste load for the model mill in the Alkaline-Unbleached subcategory is:
V-9
-------
TABLE V-5
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 015 - ALKALINE-UNBLEACHED
Linerboard:
Production Profile
Furnish
Mill No.
010001
010002
010018
010019
010020
010025
010038
010049
010042
010043
010046
010047
010057
010063
010064
Average
Packaging
Kraft
450
923
1,170
1,127
390
523
750
1,195
965
1,539
1,176
1,299
540
615
644
942
Item:
WP
30
39
55
39
63
85
10
78
51
27
Purch
Broke
20
27
61
5
27
35
16
Production (t/d)
Liner Bd Other Total
450 450
934 934
1,081 1,081
1,141 7 1,151
965 44 1,009
563 4 567
789 739
1,220 1,220
965 965
1,549 1,549
1,102 21 1,123
1,194 1,194
620 620
694 694
666 5 666
946
5 951
Flow
kl/kkg
46.2
44.1
44.1
35.0
56.2
44.5
104.9
64.9
22.9
44.1
49.1
26.2
38.3
31.7
33.7
46.6
(kgal/t)
(11.1)
(10.6)
(10.6)
( 8.4)
(13.5)
(10.7)
(25.2)
(15.6)
( 5.5)
(10.6)
(11.8)
( 6.3)
( 9.2)
( 7.6)
( 8.1)
(11.2)
Production Profile
Furnish
Mill No.
010034
010035
010048
Average
Bag:
Kraft
943
249
347
519
WP
~
Purch
Broke
43
17
57
41
Production
Furnish
Mill No.
010003
010005
010006
010008
010023
010032
010033
010044
010055
010060
010062
Average
Kraft
243
1,286
1,685
1,395
400
372
865
1,020
743
470
231
833
WP
108
10
2
11
Purch
Broke
12
3
51
32
12
25
10
13
Production
Bag Other
925
231
402
519
Profile
Production
Bag Other
350
332 898
473 1,115
434 1,540
279 120
323
325
709 365
726
443
234
512 367
(t/d)
Total
925
231
402
519
Flow
kl/kkg
94.6
227.3
223.1
175.1
(kgal/t)
(17.9)
(54.5)
(53.5)
(42.0)
Raw Waste Load
BODS
kg/kkg
3.3
12.7
18.1
9.6
20.5
13.9
16.5
14.7
11.1
21.7
14.1
6.7
46.3
14.3
14.2
(Ib/t)
(16.5)
(28.3)
(36.1)
(19.1)
(41.0)
(27.8)
(32.9)
(29.4)
(22.2)
(43.4)
(28.2)
(13.4)
( )
(92.6)
(29.6)
(28.3)
TSS
kg/kkg
26.9
24.7
14.1
4.8
27.5
9.8
15.9
11.4
5.7
13.9
20.1
10.8
9.9
24.3
16.3
(Ib/t)
(53.7)
(49.4)
(28.2)
( 9.6)
(55.1)
(19.6)
(31.7)
(22.7)
(11.3)
(27.7)
(40.2)
(21.5)
(19.8)(a)
(49.5)
(32.5)
Raw Waste Load
BODS
kg/kkg
36.3
34.2
32.8
34.6
(Ib/t)
(73.5)
(68.4)
(65.7)
(69.2)
TSS
kg/kkg
24.3
56.3
23.2
81.3
db/t)
(48.6)
(112.6)
(146.3)
(102.5)
flaw Waste Load
(t/d)
Total
350
1,230
1,593
1,974
399
823
825
1,074
726
443
234
879
Subcategory
Average
Model Mill
Flow
kl/kkg
33.4
61.3
52.5
73.3
110.1
47.1
48.4
57.1
53.4
85.1
151.4
70.5
70.0
46.6
(kgal/t)
(8.0)
(14.7)
(12.6)
(17.7)
(26.4)
(11.3)
(11.6)
(13.7)
(14.0)
(20.4)
(36.3)
(16.9)
(15.3)
(11.2)
BODS
kg/kkg
18.8
12.5
13.3
13.3
19.4
12.5
30.5
20.5
18.9
19.1
14.2
(Ib/t)
( )
(37.6)
(25.0)
(37.6)
( )
(36.5)
(38.8)
(24.9)
(60.9)
( )
(41.0)
(37.7)
(38.1)
(28.3)
TSS
kg/kkg
18.9
45.7
13.3
17.4
17.8
23.2
8.6
207
28.3
16.3
(Ib/t)
( )
(37.3)
( )
(91.3)
(26.6)
(34.3)
( )
(35.6)
(46.4)
( )
(17.2)
(41.4)
(56.6)
(32.5)
(a) Mil 1 No. 010063 produces linerboard but uses too much waste paper to be considered typical for this subcategory;
data not included in average.
-------
Flow 46.6 kl/kkg (11.2 kgal/t);
BOD_5 14.2 kg/kkg (28.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 16.3 kg/kkg (32.5 Ib/ton).
016 Semi-Chemical. The 19 mills in the Semi-Chemical subcategory have an
average initial construction date of 1926. These mills produce corrugating
media and other paperboard products. Pulping processes, chemical bases, and
liquor recovery systems vary within this subcategory.
Raw waste loads for the 19 mills in this subcategory are presented in Table
V-6. As can be seen, mills without liquor recovery generally exhibit much
higher raw waste BOD_5 and TSS loads than mills with suitable recovery systems.
Mills without liquor recovery systems are not meeting existing BPT model mill
raw waste loads and therefore are not included as part of the base for the
updated model mill in this subcategory.
Differences in raw waste load related to pulping processes are addressed in
Table V-7 for neutral sulfite semi-chemical (NSSC) versus no-sulfur proces-
sing. Except for the new no-sulfur process, earlier allowances for differing
semi-chemical bases are not warranted. NH3_ base is nearly gone except for two
mills, and no-sulfur and green liquor (cross-recovery) pulping methods are
rapidly displacing NSSC. Such approaches are being taken in the industry to:
1) enable more semi-chemical production relative to kraft; or 2) to facilitate
recovery of liquor, which was difficult to recover in the desired chemical
form with NSSC.
Based on the very limited data shown in Table V-7, a slightly lower BOD_5_ and
TSS raw waste loading appears to result from no-sulfur processing. Since the
survey, many mills have switched to modified processes and the acquisition of
additional confirmatory data would be useful. The model mill raw waste flow
and BOD_5_ load for the Semi-Chemical subcategory are based on the average raw
waste loads for mills No. 020002, 020003, 020008, 020009, 020017 and 060004.
The model mill TSS data is the average of Mills No. 020002, 020003, 020008 and
020009. These mills have liquor recovery systems and produce about 80 percent
of their furnish as Semi-Chemical; average flow, BOD^ and TSS loads are:
Flow 32.5 kl/kkg (7.8 kgal/t);
BOD_5 18.5 kg.kkg (36.9 Ib/ton); and
TSS 21.6 kg/kkg (43.1 Ib/ton).
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical. The ten mills making alkaline-
unbleached and semi-chemical pulps have an average initial construction date
of 1945. These mills have an average production of nearly 1,360.5 kkg/day
(1500 tons/day), ranging from 649 kkg/day (716 tons/day) to a high of 2,356
kkg/day (2,598 tons/day). The mills all produce unbleached kraft pulps
together with high-yield unbleached semi-chemical pulps, utilized primarily in
the manufacture of linerboard and corrugated media. Often other types of
kraft board, bag and converting papers are also made on-site.
V-ll
-------
TABLE V-6
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 016 - SEMI-CHEMICAL
Production Profile
Total
Furnish (t/d)
Mill No.
Mills With
020002
020003
020008
020009
020017
060004
Average
Mills With
020005
020014
020015
Average
Mills With
020001
020004
020006
020007
020011(c)
Average
Prod.
Flow
Semi-Chem WP Broke (t/d) kl/kkg
Raw Waste
Load
BODS
(kgal/t) kg/kkg (lb/t)
TSS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Liquor Recovery
248
582
231
691
506
385
442
90
(a) 61
(a)125
(a)100
173
(a) 98
108
20 331
618
318
583
595
9 492
5 490
24.1
40.0
22.9
28.7
30.4
48.7 (
32.5 (
(5.8)
(9.6)
(5.5)
(6.9)
(7.3)
11.7)
7.8)
12.9
25.3
9.6
14.4
21.0
27.8
18.5
(25
(50
(19
(28
(41
(55
(36
.7)
.5)
.2)
.8)
.3)
6)
.9)
30
13
6
14
44
54
27
21
.2
.2
.0
.9
.5
.6
.4
.6
(60.4)
(26.3)
(13.7)
(29.8)
(89.0)
( 43.1)(b)
No Liquor Recovery
137
394
118
216
More
204
160
190
183
235
194
Mills Producing
020018
020010
020012
020013
020016(d)
Model Mill
217
542
388
472
200
46
117
50
71
Than One-Third
116
106
99
(a)123
157
120
Products Which
450
(a) 80
(a)243
173
221
183
511
169
283
Wastepaper
302
266
291
346
377
316
47.0
26.6
21.0
32.0
and Liquor
19.2
25.8
16.2
11.7
34.1
18.2
(11.3)
( 6.4)
( 5.0)
( 7.6)
56.0
31.2
33.2
40.1
(111
( 62
( 66
( 80
.9)
.3)
.3)
.2)
52
18
27
33
.3
.8
.9
.0
(104.5)
( 37.6)
( 55.7)
( 65.9)
Recovery
( 4.6)
( 6.2)
( 3.9)
( 2.8)
( 8.2)
( 4.4)
23.6
1.4
21.7
--
22.6
16.4
( 47
( 2
( 48
(
( 45
( 32
.1)
.7)
.3)
)
.2)
.7)
8
0
5
4
.1
.15
--
.9
.1
( 16.1)
( 0.3)
(--)
( )
( 11.9)
( 8.2)
Are Not Representative of Subcategory
673
622
604
599
525
30.4
60.5
28.4
58.0
55.5
32.5
( 7.3)
(14.5)
( 6.8)
(13.9)
(13.3)
( 7.8)
62.7
17.9
38.9
50.5
18.5
(125
( 35
(
( 77
(101
( 36
-5)
.7)
--)
-8)
.0)
.9)
61
49
37
9
21
.5
.3
--
.7
.5
.6
(123.0)
( 98.5)
( )
( 75.4)
( 19.0)
( 43.1)
(a) No-sulfur pulping.
(b) TSS data is the average of four mills in this subgroup excluding mills No. 020017 and 060004,
which appear inconsistent).
(c) Mill No. 020011 combines effluent with other mills; data not included in subgroup average.
(d) Mill No. 020016 is not typical and has poor liquor recovery; data not included in subgroup
average.
-------
TABLE V-7
RAW WASTE LOAD COMPARISON - NSSC VS NO-SULFUR PULPING
Flow BODS TSS
Process Used kl/kkg (kgal/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
Typical Semi-chemical
Mill with recovery
No Sulfur with recovery
32.5
36.2
(7.8)
(8.7)
18.5
16.2
(36.9)
(32.5)
21.6
19.3
(43.1)
(38.6)
As shown in Table V-8, the typical mill produces about four times as much
kraft pulp as NSSC. This reflects a typical balanced cross-recovery system,
with fresh liquor make-up to the NSSC side counterbalancing losses from that
operation and from the kraft mill. The distribution of production, as well as
the range in the ratio of NSSC to unbleached kraft, are reasonably constant in
this subcategory, except for one mill which produces about 10 times as much
kraft as NSSC.
There are no clear trends in raw waste effluent loads relative to either
changes in the semi-chemical pulp production or to variations in the products
produced. Six mills in this subcategory are utilizing varying levels of green
liquor for pulping in the semi-chemical operation; however there appears to be
no statistical basis for any appreciable difference in the raw waste loads of
the NSSC type cook compared to the increasingly popular green liquor cook.
The model mill, based on the ten mill average, has the following raw waste
load:
Flow 55.8 kl/kkg (13.4 kgal/t);
BOD_5 18.7 kg/kkg (37.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 23.5 kg/kkg (47.0 Ib/ton).
019 Alkaline-Newsprint. There are three mills in this new subcategory, all
producing newsprint from blends of kraft and groundwood pulps prepared on-
site. Production ranges from 816.3 to 1,269.8 kkg/day (900 to 1,400
tons/day). The average mill in this subcategory was built in 1947. Operation
of these reasonably modern mills is simplified because of the relatively few
and minor changes in the grades commonly produced. Bleaching operations
generally consist of only three stages, using CEH; thus, total water use is
significantly reduced compared to multi-stage full bleach operations.
In two of the mills, a small portion of the pulp is sold as market kraft, and
in one about 6 percent of the production is sold as other groundwood-con-
taining printing grades. As shown in Table V-9, the bleached kraft production
in all three ranges from 32 to 39 percent of the total furnish. Groundwood is
refiner and stone groundwood, ranging from 54 to 68 percent of the furnish.
V-13
-------
TABLE V-8
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 017 - ALKALINE-UNBLEACHED AND SEMI-CHEMICAL
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Mill No.
015001(a)
015002
015003
015004
015005 (a)
015006(a)
015007(a)
015008(a)
015009(a)
010017(c)
Average
Model Mill
NSSC,,
(%)
17
20
16
16
16
9
14
18
28
13
17
UBK
(%)
86
67
85
77
84
90
76
84
65
91
79
Corrug.
(%)
21
24
20
18
21
12
21
16
38
16
21
Brd
(%)
74
60
80
70
0
50
79
84
62
58
62
Bag
(%)
5
17
0
12
79
38
0
0
0
26
17
Prod.
(t/d)
1,745
873
1,792
1,509
1,394
2,598
1,700
1,133
716
1,428
1,494
Flow
kl/kkg
58.3
47.0
50.1
67.4
38.7
50.4
52.0
80.7
57.5
36.6
55.8
55.8
(kg/t)
(14.0)
(11.3)
(12.2)
(16.2)
( 9-3)
(12.1)
(12.5)
(19.4)
(13.8)
( 8.8)
(13.4)
(13.4)
BODS
kg/kkg
23.6
13.5
18.8
17.1
12.4
18.9
16.3
19.0
28.1
17.5
18.7
18.7
(lb/t)
(47.5)
(27.0)
(37.6)
(34.1)
(24.8)
(37.7)
(32.6)
(38.0)
(56.1)
(34.9)
(37.3)
(37.3)
TSS
kg/kkg
27.5
13.5
29.0
47.0
33.5
9.8
25.1
20.7
29.2
38.3
23.5
23.5
(lb/t)
(55.0)
(26.9)
(58.0)
(37. 3) (b)
(67.0)
(19.5)
(50.1)
(41.4)
(58.4)
(76.5)
(47.0)
(47.0)
(a) Market pulp production is included with board production data; production of converting papers is included
with bag production.
(b) Mill No. 015004 produces coated board; therefore TSS data is not included in subcategory average.
(c) Mill No. 010017 is in litigation and provided late data; this data is not included in subcategory average.
(d) Calculated percentage based on claimed product production. Other fibers and/or losses not accounted for.
-------
TABLE V-9
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY
Furnish
Mill No.
054005
052010
054003
Mill No.
054005
052010
054003
Mill No.
054005
052010
054003
Average
Ref./
Bl.Kr. Stone G.W.
(%) (t/d) (%) (t/d)
32 565 56 987
39 578 54 801
32 348 68 755
Newsprint Market Kraft
(%) (t/d) (%) (t/d)
91 1412 3 54
84 1190 16 221
89 919 - 0
Flow
kl/kkg (kgal/t)
97.6 (23.5)
107.4 (25.8)
93.8 (18.2)
93.8 (22.5)
TMP, Cold Soda
(%) (t/d)
12 219
8 113
Production
Printing
' (%) (t/d)
6 99
0
0
Raw Waste Load
BODS
kg/kkg (Ib/t)
26.6 (53.2)
24.7 (49.4)
12.0 (24.0)
21.1 (42.2)
Broke
(%) (t/d)
0 0
0 4
0
GW Specialties
(%) (t/d)
0
0
11 118
TSS
kg/kkg (Ib/t)
44.8 (89.5)
67.0 (133.9)
55.8 (111.5)
56.7 (113.3)
Total
(t/d)
1,771
1,496
1,103
Total
(t/d)
1,565
1,411
1,037
Model Mill 93.8 (22.5)
21.1
(42.2)
56.7 (113.3)
V-15
-------
In two mills, thermo-mechanical type pulps are also produced, ranging from 8
to 12 percent.
Even with the complex operations noted, water use per ton averages only 93.8
kl/kkg (22.5 kgal/t) for the three mills. Raw waste load BOD_5 averages 21.1
kg/kkg (42.2 Ib/ton), and raw waste load TSS averages 56.7 kg/kkg (113.3
Ib/ton). The three-mill average serves as the model mill raw waste load for
this subcategory.
021 Sulfite-Dissolving. The Sulfite-Dissolving subcategory consists of six
operating mills with an average age of 36 years. Most of the mills produce a
range of products including papergrade pulps, as well as several types of high
alpha cellulose content dissolving pulps. The mills average 493 kkg/day (544
tons/day) production, typically utilizing all roundwood (predominantly soft-
wood) with a small amount of associated hardwood.
Batch digesters are generally utilized, followed by brown stock washers and
evaporators. Both magnesium and ammonium base pulping operations are noted.
Extensive evaporation systems are required and usually entail two evaporator
lines operating in series. The magnesium base operation facilitates the use
of MgO to neutralize spent sulfite liquor and subsequently results in a reduc-
tion of BOD^ from the evaporator condensate. Presently, this is only done in
one of the six mills.
Bleaching sequences vary widely; however, sequential or mixed stage bleaching
is commonly employed, using chlorine and chlorine dioxide followed by extrac-
tion, and typically one or more hypochlorite and dioxide stages. A typical
mill would operate two separate bleach lines to accommodate the product mix.
Average raw waste flow and B0^5_ for the mills in this subcategory are higher
than those in any other subcategory of the pulp, paper and paperboard indus-
try. The high BOD^ results from the bleaching operations. Because of the
very high wood substrate loss occurring during bleaching, any material sub-
sequently dissolved and discharged as filtrate appears as a high B0^5_ load,
even though the spent sulfite liquors resulting from the cooking operations
are effectively evaporated and recovered in efficient recovery furnaces. One
mill also has provision for the reclamation of the caustic bleach stage fil-
trate, thus significantly reducing its BOD5_ discharge.
As shown in Table V-10, the raw waste load for the six mills in this subcate-
gory averages 256.9 kl/kkg (61.6 kgal/t) flow, 153 kg/kkg (306 Ib/ton) BOD_5,
and 90.3 kg/kkg (180.6 Ib/ton) TSS. This average serves as the model mill raw
waste load for this subcategory.
022 Sulfite-Papergrade. This subcategory consists of 18 mills with an aver-
age initial construction date of 1908. These mills utilize the sulfite cook-
ing process to produce pulps from which writing, printing, business, and
tissue papers are made. Mills included in this subcategory produce pulps
using calcium, sodium, ammonium and magnesium base in cooking. Production
ranges from 97 to 874 kkg/day (107 to 964 tons/day).
V-16
-------
TABLE V-10
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 021 - SULFITE-DISSOLVING
Raw Waste Load
Production
Mill No. (t/d)
046001
046002
046003
046402
046403
046050
Average
Model Mill
451
557
620
787
464
387
544
Flow
kl/kkg
200
289
290
190
357
210
256
256
.3
.4
.6
.3
.3
.3
.5
.5
(kgal/t)
(48.
(69.
(69.
(45.
(85.
(50.
(61.
(61.
1)
5)
8)
7)
9)
5)
6)
6)
BODS
kg/kkg (lb/t)
132.
156.
114.
97.
276.
142.
153.
153.
5
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
(265)
(312)
(229)
(194)
(552)
(285)
(306)
(306)
TSS
kg/kkg
44.0
39.6
15.2
140.9
90.3
90.3
(lb/t)
(88.0)
(
(
(79
(30
(281
(180
(180
->
")
.2)
.4)
.9)
.6)
.6)
V-17
-------
Mill operations range from those without any recovery system to those utiliz-
ing evaporation and modern recovery furnaces. As shown in Table V-ll, mills
which had blowpit (BP) washing and no recovery systems (such as mill No.
040006) had high raw waste flow and BOD_5 loads. Since the survey period, two
mills without recovery systems and with blow pit washing have been shut down
thus leaving only one calcium base pulping operation without a recovery sys-
tem.
Earlier BPT model mill raw waste load characteristics for this subcategory
were high, thus reflecting the presence of mills without recovery systems.
However, updated model mill characteristics are based on the operation of
effective recovery systems or provisions for disposal of the evaporated liquor
from the pulping operations. Thus, Table V-ll presents the following model
mill raw waste load:
Flow 152.6 kl/kkg (36.6 kgal/t);
BOD5_ 48.7 kg/kkg (97.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 33.1 kg/kkg (66.2 Ib/ton).
Based on the raw waste load data provided presented in Table V-ll, there is
not adequate justification for establishing different allowances reflecting
the type of base used in pulping, although such allowances have been made in
the past. Factors such as the percent of pulp produced relative to the total
furnish requirements, and the impact of sulfite liquor recovery, far over-
shadow differences in the base used.
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp (TMP). This subcategory contains only two mills.
However, the use of TMP type pulps is increasing rapidly. Therefore, a raw
waste load analysis is made to serve as a basis for guidelines which subse-
quently would be required in writing discharge permits for larger complex
mills employing the thermo-mechanical pulping process. The two mills now in
this subcategory make 140 and 373 kkg (155 and 411 tons) per day, respec-
tively. One mill produces coarse uncoated printing grades, with 90 percent of
its furnish consisting of TMP pulp produced from softwood as roundwood and
chips. At this mill pulp is bleached with sodium hydrosulfite to approx-
imately 61 GE brightness. An increasing use of purchased chips is noted; the
barking system is operated dry but with an extensive chip washing system.
The second mill produces newsprint exclusively, with only 55 percent of its
furnish consisting of TMP pulp. Raw wastewater data for this mill is incom-
plete.
Because the first mill reported complete raw and final effluent data, and
because it produces a greater percentage of TMP, it serves as the basis for
the model mill B0^5_ and TSS raw waste load determinations. The average raw
waste flow for the two mills is about 60 kl/kkg (14.4 kgal/t), which serves as
the model mill raw waste load flow. Typical raw waste load characteristics,
as reported in Table V-12, are lower than those postulated for the model mill
during earlier guidelines development.
V-18
-------
TABLE V-ll
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 022 - SULFITE-PAPERGRADE
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Production
Mill No.
040001
040002
040003
040006
040007
040008
040009
040010
fe
040012
040013
040014
040015
040016
040017
040018
040019
040020
Average
Model Mill
(t/d) Product
107
547
493
131
135
964
566
224
284
270
334
146
155
437
412
359
769
671
389
(c)
Cor rug.
Market
Market
Tissue
Newsprint
Market
Tissue
Market
Market
Tissue
Market
Write
Market
Glassine
Package
Write
Thin
Write
Print
Printing
Write
Laminating
Market
Writing
Print
Market
Tissue
Tissue
Tissue
Tissue
Pr-
BP
DR
DR
BP
BP
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
BP
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
ocess /JX
Base
NH3
BS
Ca,Na
A, BS
MgO.BS
NH3.A
NH3.A
NH3,A
MgO.BS
Ca,A
Ca,A
NH3.A
MgO,BS
Ca,A
Ca.BS
NH3.BS
Ca,A
Ca,A
NH3.A
NH3.A
Flow
kl/kkg
113.9
312.8
93.0
346.5
196.0
239.4
83.8
316.5
97.2
247.3
118.0
170.0
159.3
116.3
93.0
58.8
100.5
143.0
152.6
(kgal/t)
(32
(75
(22
(83
(47
(47
(20
(75
(23
(49
(28
(40
(
(38
(27
(22
(14
(24
(34
(36
.1)
.0)
.3)
.1)
.0)
.4)
.1)
.9)
.3)
.3)
.3)
.8)
)
.2)
.9)
.3)
1)
.1)
.3)
.6)
BODS
kg/kkg
68.0
84.0
39.5
25.1
421.5
49.0
30.5
45.0
63.5
50.5
109.5
109.0
97.0
44.0
36.5
57.5
48.7
(lb/t)
(136)
(168)
(79)
(502)
(843)
( )
(98)
(61)
(90)
(127)
(101)
(219)
( )
(218)
(194)
( )
(88+)
(73)
(115)
(97.3)
TSS
kg/kkg
! ,
21.0
93.5
28.5
56.0
26.0
16.5
27.5
19.5
140.0
37.0
19.5
12.0
45.6
33.1
(lb/t)
<->
(42)
(187)
( )
( )
( )
(57)
(112)
(52)
(33)
(55)
(39)
( )
(280)
(74)
( )
(39+)
(24)
(91.3)
(66.2)
(a)
(b)
BP = blow pit washing (these mills do not have recovery systems); DR = drum washing.
i
'Excludes Mills No. 040006, 040007, and 040014, which have blow pit washing.
;Model mill flow and BOD^ data is the average of Mills No. 040008, 040012, 040013,
040013, and 040019, which use NH3_ and MgO bases with good drum washing and effective
recovery systems; model mill TSS data is the average of the same five mills plus six
..additional mills with drum washing.
A = acid, BS = bisulfite, Ca = calcium, NA = sodium, NH3_ = ammonia, MgO - magnesium oxide
V-19
-------
TABLE V-12
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 032 - THERMO-MECHANICAL PULP
g Model Mill
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Total Flow BODS TSS
Mill No. % TMP
070001 90
070002 55
Average
% GW (t/d) Product kl/kkg
90 155 Coarse, Uncoated 79.1
Printing
72 411 Newsprint 48.0
60.0
(kgal/t) kg/kkg
(19.0) 18.3
(9.8)
(14.4)
(Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
(36.5) 38.7 (77.4)
(--) " (")
60.0 (14.4) 18.3
(36.5) 38.7 (77.4)
-------
033 Groundwood-CMN. This subcategory consists of six mills with an average
age since initial construction of 41 years. The mills range in size from 10
to 892 kkg/day (11 to 983 tons/day) total production, including newsprint,
molded products and groundwood specialty and printing grades. Both refiner
and stone groundwood processes are in use. Approximately one-third of the
furnish is purchased softwood baled pulps.
Two molded pulp mills are the smallest, at 10 and 45 kkg/day ( 11 and 50 tons/
day) capacity, while the newsprint operations range from 421.8 to 891.6
kkg/day (465 to 983 tons/day). The typical mill uses predominantly softwoods
for the manufacture of on-site groundwood.
The woodroom operation generally utilizes a dry barking system. The present
technology and the typical grinding and screening operations entail the use of
a central Whitewater tank and reuse of thickener filtrate for dilution at the
grinders and the screen room. The only major continuous sources of wastewater
are from the screens and centricleaners. Papermachines typically do not
utilize savealls, and reuse of Whitewater is consequently limited in the
papermaking operations. Therefore, average effluent loads are slightly higher
in terms of water use and BOD5_ discharge than loads from mills in the Ground-
wood-Fine subcategory.
Raw waste load factors and production data are shown on Table V-13. As shown,
the three mills making newsprint are the largest in this subcategory. Their
average raw waste flows and BOD_5_ loads are selected for the model mill raw
waste load. However, TSS data for these three mills is not adequate; there-
fore, the model mill TSS load has been taken from model mill characteristics
established in earlier BPT guidelines development for this subcategory. Model
mill raw waste loads are:
Flow 88.4 kl/kkg (21. 2 kgal/t);
BOD_5_ 18.6 kl/kkg (37.1 Ib/ton); and
TSS 48.5 kl/kkg (97.0 Ib/ton).
034 Groundwood-Fine. The subcategory consists of eight mills, the average of
which was built in 1902. These mills produce an average of 421.8 kkg/ day
(465 tons/day) of printing and publication grades, both coated and uncoated.
The percent of the furnish produced as groundwood ranges from 52 to 73 per-
cent. The average mill produces a product containing approximately 22 percent
total filler.
Although a wide range of production is noted, the raw waste characteristics of
these mills per ton of production are closely grouped compared to many other
subcategories. As shown in Table V-14, average raw waste characteristics for
the whole subcategory are: 68.4 kl/kkg (16.4 kgal/t) flow; 17.6 kg/kkg (35.2
Ib/ton) BOD5_; and 53.9 kg/kkg (107.9 Ib/ton) TSS.
Total suspended solids loss for this subcategory is high, reflecting the loss
of pigments from the predominantly filled and coated sheets produced. How-
ever, the BOD5_ loading is among the lowest of integrated mills, reflecting the
simple operation and almost complete retention of the wood in the finished
V-21
-------
TABLE V-13
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 033 - GROUNDWOOD-CMN
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
<
Mill No.
052015
052016
054006
054010
054013
054015
Average
Model Mill
G.W.
(t/d)
74
369
36
8
30
693
202
b)
Production
(t/d) Type
94
465
50
11
45
983
275
Newsprint, Fine
Newsprint
Molded
Molded
G.W. Specialty
Newsprint G.W.
Spec
Newsprint/Molded
Newsprint
Flow
kl/kkg
99.5
46.6
108.3
121.6
180.3
118.7
112.4
88.4
(kgal/t)
(23.9)
(11.2)
(26.0)
(29.2)
(43.3)
(28.5)
(27.0)
(21.2)
BODS
(kg/kkg
19.5
19.0
15.1
17.9
21.4
19.4
18.6
(lb/t)
(--)
(38.9)
(38.0)
(30.1)(a
(35.8)
(42.7)
(38.9)
(37.1)
TSS
kg/kkg
56
} "
97.5
47.25
66.9
48.5
(lb/t)
(")
(")
(112.0)
(")
(195.0)
(94.5)
(133.8)
(97.0)
(a)
(b)
Calculated data, based on final effluent; not included in average.
Model mill flow and BOD5 loads are based on three newsprint mills. Because of lack of TSS data and wide variation
in the three mills, the BPT model mill TSS load of 48.5 kg/kkg (97 Ib/ton) was used as the updated model mill
TSS loading.
-------
TABLE V-14
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 034 - GROUNDWOOD-FINE
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Mill No.
052003
052004
052005
052007
052008
052013
052014
054014
Average
Production Groundwood
(t/d) Type (%)
536
481
755
224
787
572
285
76
465
Printing
Coated
Printing
Printing
Coated
Coated
Coated
Printing
Specialties
62
55
52 '
67
58
54
53
73
59
Flow
kl/kkg
87
65
55
96
54
69
54
61
68
.8
.8
.4
.6
.5
.9
.5
.2
.4
(kgal/t)
(21
(15
(13
(23
(13
(16
(13
(14
(16
.1)
.8)
.3)
.2)
.1)
.8)
.1)
.7)
.4)
BODS
kg/kkg
12.2
28.6
27.8
10.1
15.6
12.0
16.9
17.6
Clb/t)
(24.3)
(57.2)
(55.6)
(20.1)
(31.2)
(24.0)
(33.7)
(35.2)
TSS
kg/kkg
60.9
79.2
56.7
56.0
41.4
36.9
46.7
53.9
(Ib/t)
(121.8)
(158.4)
(113.3)
--
(112.0)
(82.7)
(73.7)
(93.4)
(107.9)
Model Mill
68.4 (16.4) 17.6 (35.2) 53.9
(107.9)
-------
product. Likewise, compared to other integrated operations, water use per ton
is generally low. Average raw waste flow is considerably lower than that for
the model mill established earlier for BPT guidelines development. The up-
dated model mill raw waste load is the average of the eight mills in this
subcategory.
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue. The 17 mills in this subcategory are among the
oldest in the industry, dating back to an average mill construction date of
1908. Nine of these mills produce essentially 100 percent deink stock on-site
for conversion into sanitary tissue. The remaining eight mills incorporate
higher percentages of purchased pulp in their furnish. Five of these eight
produce a variety of uncoated and coated printing and writing grades. The
other three produce sanitary tissue.
The difference in raw waste load between these three groups of mills is rela-
tively minor. As shown in Table V-15, raw waste averages for nine tissue
mills predominantly utilizing deinked stock are: 81.3 kl/kkg (19.5 kgal/t)
flow; 48.7 kg/kkg (97.4 Ib/ton) BOD_5; and 143.0 kg/kkg (286.0 Ib/ton) TSS.
These nine mills comprise the largest subgroup within this subcategory and
their average raw waste load is chosen for the representative model mill.
A predominant characteristic of this deink subcategory is the high TSS loss
per ton of production. This loss exceeds that from every other subcategory,
including Sulfite-Dissolving. It is difficult to deink mixed waste papers to
produce tissue with essentially no filler content, or fine papers with a very
low controlled level of filler acceptable to meet the final product specifica-
tions. Excess filler is received along with the fiber source for these deink
mills, and this imbalance results in high TSS discharges from the production
process.
102 Deink-Newsprint. There are three mills in this subcategory, all operated
by the same company. The deinking process is proprietary. All of these mills
are of modern design, with an average construction date of 1965. Likewise,
they were constructed emphasizing water recycle and minimum water use and
designed with minimal RQD5_ and TSS loss in the raw effluent, which in every
case goes to a POTW.
Raw waste loads from the three mills in this subcategory are significantly
lower than those for the Deink-Fine and Tissue subcategory. BOD^ loads are
approximately one-third as high, and TSS is about 40 percent that of the
Deink-Fine and Tissue subcategory. This is to be expected, as the furnish for
these operations is essentially 100 percent waste and over-issue news, which
is prepared, screened, cleaned and deinked and subsequently reconverted into
newsprint. This uniformity of raw material is in contrast to the mixed waste
paper which is utilized in tissue grade deinking operations. Raw waste loads
average: 67.6 kl/kkg (16.2 kgal/t) flow, 15.9 kg/kkg (31.7 Ib/ton) BOD_5, and
123.0 kg/kkg (246.0 Ib/ton) TSS. These averages represent the model mill raw
waste loads for this subcategory.
V-24
-------
TABLE V-15
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 101 - DEINK-FINE AND TISSUE
Production Profile
Furnish (t/d)
Mill No. Deink W.P.
Tissue and
140011
140014
140015
140016
140018
140021
140024
140025
140028
Average
Fine Paper
140005
140007
140017
140019
Average
Market Pulp
124
824
54
146 ~
36
170
35
92
168
183
Purch. Broke
Production
Flow
(t/d) Type kl/kkg
Mills Utilizing Predominantly Deink
1
49
4
6
Mills Utilizing
188
155 55
77 9
96
43
111 13
Tissue Mills Utilizing
140010
140029
140030
Average
46 4
20
60 30
42 11
166
54
10
37
8
55
3
1
20
11
2
4
92
845
51
146
36
150
23
100
147
177
San. Tissue
San. Tissue
Tissue
Mkt. Pulp
Ind.Wrap.Tiss.
San. Tissue
San. Tissue
San. Tissue
San. Tissue
Mkt. Pulp
San. Tissue
(kgal/t)
Raw
Waste Load
BODS
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
TSS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Furnish
90.3
90.3
138.6
8.3
25.4
77.9
199.8
62.4
155.7
81.3
(11. 1')
(21.7)
(33.3)
(2.0)
(6.1)
(18.7)
(48.0)
(15.0)
(37.4)
(19.5)
104.5
73.0
17.5
34.5
1.5
10.5
145.5
36.0
112.0
48.7
(209)
(146)
(35)
(69)
(3)
(21)
(291)
(72)
(224)
(97.4)
292.5
225.5
14.5
69.0
1.5
3.5
315.0
161.5
374.0
143.0
(585)
(451)
(29)
(138)
(3)
(63(0>>
(323)
(748)
(286)
Mixed Furnish
19
41
29
23
18
26
379
349
128
152
65
215
Unctd. Print
Writing
Ctd & Unctd
Print
Unctd. Print
Writing
Ctd Print
Unct. Print
Print
99.9
53.7
114.5
126.2
44.5
87.8
(24.0)
(12.9)
(27.5)
(30.3)
(10.7)
(21.1)
17.4
55.0
72.5
20.5
16.0
36.3
(34.8)
(110.0)
(145.0)
(41.0)
(32.0)
(72.6)
197.0
162.0
188.5
216.5
8.0
154.5
(394)
(324)
(377)
(433)
(16)
(309)
Mixed Furnish
28
6
30
21
6
2
76
22
100
66
San. Tissue
San. Tissue
San. Tissue
San. Tissue
Subcategory
Average
Model Mill
118.2
74.9
96.6
92.6
81.3
(28.4)
(--)
(18.0)
(23.2)
(22.2)
(19.5)
56.0
56.5
56.5
51.8
48.7
(112.0)
(113.0)
(113.0)
(103.6)
(97.4)
134.0
166.5
150.5
158.1
143.0
(268)
( )
(333)
(301)
(316.2)
(286.0)
RAM Ufl<;rp loflri HafA fnr Mill Nn . 140024 annpars inrnnsl sf pnt vi rh rifhpr HAfa Fnr rMs Qiihornnn- fhprpfnrp
not included in subgroup average.
-------
Ill Wastepaper-Tissue. This subcategory comprises 22 mills which produce,
industrial tissue, sanitary tissue, industrial packaging, wadding, and pack-'
aging and wrapping tissue. The average mill age since initial construction is
33 years. The typical mill utilizes 100 percent mixed waste paper, which is
generally processed with little preparation, except for screening and cleaning
prior to the papermachine.
There are more mills making industrial grades than sanitary tissue; further-
more, these mills have a lower effluent load than the sanitary tissue mills.
As shown in Table V-16, the average raw effluent load for 13 industrial tissue
mills, excluding those which are self-contained, is 56.6 kl/kkg (13.6 kgal/t)
flow, 13.2 kg/kkg (26.3 Ib/ton) BOD_5 and 40.5 kg/kkg (81.0 Ib/ton) TSS. There
are four self-contained mills in this group. If these are included, the
average becomes 39.2 kl/kkg (9.4 kgal/t) flow, 8.8 kg/kkg (17.5 Ib/ton) BOD5_
and 27.0 kg/kkg (54 Ib/ton) of TSS. The selected model mill raw waste load is
the average of the industrial tissue mills, including those which are self-
contained.
A number of mills in both the sanitary and industrial tissue groupings have
been able to achieve self-contained systems; therefore, this should be a
realistic goal for all mills in the Wastepaper-Tissue subcategory. Recycle of
clarifier overflow as well as sludge is being practiced in many of these
mills.
The BOD^ raw waste load from these mills is considerably higher than from
either Nonintegrated-Tissue or Nonintegrated-Fine subcategories, even though
the flow is somewhat less. The high BOD5_ appears to be inherent with the use
of waste paper and the subsequent shrinkage that results.
112 Wastepaper-Board. With 147 operating mills, this is the largest sub-
category in the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. The average mill age is
43 years. Mill size ranges from 2.3 to 871 kkg/day (2.5 to 960 tons/day),
averaging 133 kkg/day (147 tons/day). Products made by mills in this sub-
category include linerboard, corrugated board, chip and filler, folding box-
board, set-up box, gypsum board, and other construction boards, packaging
materials, and automotive boards. Most mills produce three or more types of
products on-site.
For the whole subcategory, raw waste characteristics are low compared to other
industry subcategories. Only the Wastepaper-Construction Products subcategory
has a lower flow per ton; BOD_5_ and TSS loads are among the lowest in the
industry. Mill performance on average surpasses existing BPT model mill
characteristics. Attempts were made to determine the relative raw waste load
characteristics by product grouping. Results are tabulated in Table V-17 for
mills which produced 80 percent or more of a given type of product. As shown,
the linerboard operations have the highest raw waste flow and BOD_5 per ton,
with an intermediate level of TSS discharge. The groups of products with the
lowest flow per ton are the corrugated and chip and filler boards. As mills
make combinations of grades, BOD^ losses generally increase above those from
the individual pure mills. TSS loss for combined grades approximate the
average for the whole subcategory.
V-26
-------
TABLE V-16
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
S'JBCATEGORY 111 - WASTEPAPER-TISSUE
Raw Waste Load
Mill No.
Prod
(t/d)
Industrial Tissue
040002
085004
085006
090006
100008
100003
100005
100008
100011
100012
100013
100015
1^317
Average
Average
Sanitary
090004
090010
100002
100004
100007
100016
140022
090014
100014
Average
19.5
47.0
46.3
10.5
6.9
83.0
15.2
16.0
11.2
7.0
20.0
5.5
11.9
(excl.
self-cont
(incl.
self-cont
Flow
kl/kkg
Mills
72.4
32.1
137.8
29.1
68.7
51.6
62.0
(kgal/t)
(17.4)
(7.7)
(33.1)
(7.0)
(16.5)
(12.4)
(14.9)
BODS
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
5.2 (10.4)
6.8 (13.7)
37.5 (75.1)
6.5 (13.0)
8.6 (17.3)
14.2 (28.4)
kg/kkg
32.6
103.2
46.8
13.2
9.2
38.0
TSS
(Ib/t)
(65.2)-
(206.5)
(93.5)
(26.6)
(18.4)
(76.1)
35.4
22.1
56.6
.)
39.2
.)
(8.5)
(5.3)
(13.6)
(9.4)
LJl* JL .L. W w L& U«A J..LAWU.
Self-contained
13.2
8.8
(26.3)
(17.5)
40.5
27.0
( )
(81.0)
(54.0)
Tissue Mills
20.0
165.0
7.5
15.0
20.0
7.3
50.0
20.7
Model Mill
-^ - --
59.6
76.7
(14.3)
(18.4)
18.9 (37.6)
59.3
(118.7)
287.7
166.8
9.2
0.2
135.1
39.2
(57.0)
(40.0)
(2.2)
(0.1)
(32.4)
(9.4)
53.5 (107.0)
36.4
8.8
(72.3)
(17.5)
128.0
93.7
27.0
(256)
(187.4)
(54.0)
V-27
-------
TABLE V-17
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER-BOARD
(BY PRODUCT TYPE)a
Raw Waste Load
Flow
BODS
TSS
Product
kl/kkg (kgal/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
kg/kkg (Ib/t)
Linerboard
Corrugated
Chip & Filler
Folding
Se t-up
Gypsum
27.9
4.2
10.0
16.3
20.4
11.7
(6.7)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(3.9)
(4.9)
(2.8)
8.9
5.4
3.5
6.1
7.3
5.9
(17.8)
(10.7)
(6.9)
(12.1)
(14.6)
(11.6)
10.3
3.9
4.5
7.1
5.7
15.9
(21.5)
(7.9)
(8.9)
(14.1)
(11.4)
(31.8)
Mills making more than 80% of particular product type.
Because 29 percent of the mills are either completely self-contained (with
zero discharge) or have extremely low flow (less than 1.6 kgal/ton), it is
clear that the other mills in this subcategory could achieve significantly
greater close-up than has been attained thus far. Table V-18 presents raw,
waste load data corresponding to mills with zero, low, medium or high flows
per ton of product. If mills with low or zero discharge are included, the
average raw waste load for the whole subcategory is 15.4 kl/kkg (3.7 kgal/t)
flow, 6.5 kg/kkg (12.9 Ib/ton) BODJ5, and 7.7 kg/kkg (15.3 Ib/ton) TSS. These
averages are selected for the model mill representing this subcategory.
TABLE V-18
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPAPER-BOARD
(BY DISCHARGE LEVEL)
Raw Waste Load
No. of
Mills Type
Flow
BODS
TSS
t/d
kg/kkg (kgal/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
21
22
85
9
10
Self Contained
Low Flow
Medium Flow
High Flow
Insufficient
Data
98
116
163
136
Subcategory Average
0
2.1
16.7
67.1
15.4
(0)
(0.5)
(4.0)
(16.1)
()
(3.7)
0
3.5
8.2
12.5
6.5
(0)
(6.9)
(16.3)
(25.0)
(--)
(12.9)
0
2.9
9.2
22.3
7.7
(0)
(5.8)
(18.4)
(44.5)
(--)
(15.3)
Model Mill
15.4
(3.7)
6.5 (12.9)
7.7 (15.3)
V-28
-------
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products. This subcategory consists of 15 mills making
a variety of molded products mainly from waste paper. This is a new subcate-
gory and comprises a group of mills which has expanded significantly in recent
years in the consumer market. The average initial construction date is 1942.
Typical products include food packs such as seat display trays, egg cartons
and other containers of special design. Also included are items such as
molded sewer pipe and flower pots. These mills range in size from 1.8 kg/day
(2 tons/day) up to 168.7 kg/day (186 tons/day), and have an average age of 37
years. While these operations utilize a furnish prepared from waste paper,
some grades also incorporate filler and sizing materials, as would many types
of heavier paper products. However, these operations do not utilize four-
drinier papermachines; typically they utilize forming machines on which
several vacuum pick-up forming dies are located. The individual products are
formed in one operation, pressed and then subsequently dried in drying ovens.
In terms of water use, the operations are simple compared to most papermaking
systems. Effluent loads vary widely from completely self-contained opera-
tions, up to as much as 172.8 kl/kkg, (41.5 .kgal/t) of production. The high
water usage per ton generally correlates with the low production capabilities
of these units.
As noted in Table V-19, nine mills utilize 100 percent waste paper in the
furnish. The others incorporate varying amounts of purchased pulp. The model
mill raw waste load is the average of the nine mills utilizing waste paper
exclusively in the furnish as shown below:
Flow - 47.1 kl/kkg (11.3 kgal/t)
BOD5_ - 5.7 kg/kkg (11.4 Ib/ton)
TSS - 10.7 kg/kkg (21.3 Ib/ton)
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products. This is a large subcategory (58 oper-
ating mills) producing a variety of construction building papers such as
roofing felt and shingles for the building trade. The typical mill is about
40 years old, and utilizes predominantly mixed waste paper for its furnish.
Generally, this is very low grade material, consisting of some corrugating and
a great deal of mixed waste.
Twenty-five of these mills also produce some coarse defibrator groundwood type
pulp on the premises; this is similar to a IMP pulp, only it is very coarse
and has little, if any, subsequent screening. The refiner pulp produced has
over a 90 percent yield. Even in these mills, well over half the total fur-
nish is waste paper. The WV5_ average in this group is somewhat higher than
that for the mills that utilize essentially all waste paper for the furnish.
There are five other mills that make groundwood as part of the furnish (not
IMP). These five mills have lower effluent characteristics than the subcate-
gory average.
Model mill raw waste loads for this subcategory are the average of all mills
shown in Table V-20:
V-29
-------
SUMMARY
SUBCATEGORY 113 -
TABLE V-19
RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
WASTEPAPER-MOLDED PRODUCTS
Production Profile
Production
Mill No.
150002
150004
150005
150006
150007
150009
150010
150011
150021
150022
150023
150024
150025
150030
Average
Model Mill
Furnish
Wastepaper
Mix Wasteppr
Wastepaper
GW & Pulp
Subst.
Wastepaper
News &
GW Subst.
News
News & Black
Pur GW & Fr
News, GW
Peat Moss
Box Cut
GW Subst.
GW, BL Kr
9% Wastepaper
Kr, GW, 55%
Wastepaper
News
Spec-Waste
News
49.0
(a)
(t/d)
20.0
2.8
5.5
43.7
81.0
50.5
60.0
68.0
16.8
Product (s)
Pipe &
Conduit
Egg Cartons
Containers
Molded
Molded
Molded
Molded
Prod.
Prod.
Prod.
Prod.
Egg Cartons 4
Trays
Molded
Prod &
Flow
kl/kkg
20
74
25
46
89
18
31
70
172
.4
.5
.0
.2
.5
.7
.2
.8
.8
(kgal/t)
(4.9)
(17.9)
(6.0)
(11.1)
(21.5)**
(4.5)
(7.5)
(17.0)
(41.5)
Raw Waste Load
BODS
kg/kkg
4.6
2.85
10.35
15.9
9.5
10.35
5.2
(lb/t)
(9.2)
( )
(4.7)
(20.7)
(31.8)
( )
(18.8)
(20.7)
(10.4)
TSS
kg/kkg
20.1
8.9
18.9
23.7
0.5
15.0
23.2
11.2
(lb/t)
(40.2)
( )
(16.7)
(37.7)
(47.4)
(1.0)
(30.0)
(46.4)
(22.3)
Peat Moss
62.0
186.0
93.0
26.5
Uf\
3.0
Molded
Molded
Molded
Molded
Molded
Prod.
Prod.
Prod.
Prod.
Prod.
54
86
84
109
.5
.6
.9
.1
(13.1)
(20.8)
(20.4)
(26.2)
7.55
8.6
5.05
(15.1)
(17.2)
(10.1)
0.2 (0.4)
16.8
10.9
12.8
1.0
(33.5)
(21.7)
(25.6)
(1.9)
Considered Self-contained
67
47
.9
.1
(16.3)
(11.3)
7.25
5.7
(14.5)
(11.4)
13.5
10.7
(27.0)
(21.3)
(a)
Model mill raw waste load is the average of Mills No. 150002, 150004, 150005, 150007, 150009, 150010,
150022, 150025, and 150030. These mills use only wastepaper (i.e., wastepaper, GW substitute, news,
and/or box cut) in the furnish.
V-30
-------
TABLE V-20
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 114 - WASTEPAPER - CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Mill No.
120001
120002
120003
120004
120005
120006
120007
120008
120009
120010
120011
120012
120013
120014
120015
120016
120017
120018
120020
120022
120023
120024
120025
120026
120027
120028
120030
120031
120032
120033
120034
Production
Furnish (t/d)
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
UD
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
UD
WP,
WP,
UD
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
WP,
TMP
WP,
WP,
UD
WP,
WP,
TMP
WP,
WP,
WP,
WF
WF, Rag
Chips
Rags, GW
GW
GW
GW
UI'
We
WF
WF
Chips
TMP
Chips
Baled Pulp
Chips
RW
TMP
TMP
TMP
Irlr
Chips, TMP
DLf
KW
WF, Rag
Chips
TMP
WF, Rag
, Chips
GW
TMP
WF, Rag
, Chips
TMP
TMP
WF, Rag
32
116
100
69
170
123
90
-re
fj
40
29
325
228
97
21
92
30
73
88
82
51
74.5
126
44
76
20
193
10
jy
28
167
77
60
30
Product
Construction
Construction
Roofing Felt
Construction
Construction
Asbestos Felt
Organic Felt
Construction
Construction
Construction
Roofing Felt
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Roofing Felt
Roofing Felt
Roofing Felt
Roofing Felt
Roofing Felt
Roofing Felt
Construction
Roofing Felt
Roofing Felt
Roofing Felt
Construction
Construction
Construction
Roofing Felt
Dnn£4nrt Jfft 1 fr
Kooning felt
Roofing Felt
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Construction
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Paper
Felt
Finish (a)
S
U
S
0 .
U
S
S
S
S
S
U
U
U
U
S
U
U
U
U
U
U
S
S
U
S
S
U
U
U
Subgroup
W
W
T
G
G
G
G
W
W
T
T
T
W
T
T
T
T
T
W
T
T
W
T
G
T
W
T
T
T
W
kl/kkg
65.0
3.3
8.3
4.2
1.3
26.3
28.8
7.4
2.8
13.8
5.0
7.0
4.0
0.8
19.2
2.0
9.6
Flow
(kgal/t)
(15.6)
(0.8)
(2.0)
(1.0)
(0.3)
(6.3)
(6.9)
(1.8)
(0.7)
(3.3)
(1.2)
(1.7)
(1.0)
(0.2)
(4.6)
(0.5)
(2.3)
BODS
TSS
kg/kkg (Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
5.5 (10.9) 1.5
4.2 (8.3) 2.2
2.1 (4.2)
12.8 (25.5)
8.9 (17.8)
33.4 (66.8)
11.2 (22.3)
1.7 (3.3)
3.4 (6.8)
24.0 (48.0)
(2.9)
(4.3)
2.3 (4.6)
5.1 (10.1)
2.9 (5.8)
10.1 (20.2)
4.1 (8.2)
7.4 (14.7)
0.2 (0.4)
2.4 (4.7)
71.6 (143.2)
Self-Con tained
40.8
5.8
16.6
43.4
0.8
(9.8)
(1.4)
(4.0)
(10.4)
(0.2)
22.1 (44.2)
2.2 (4.3)
6.2 (12.4)
25.7 (51.4)
17.7 (35.4)
6.9 (13.8)
6.0 (12.0)
40.9 (81.8)
Self-Contalned
V-31
-------
TABLE V-20 (Continued)
Mill No.
120035
120036
120037
120038
120039
120040
120041
120042
120043
120044
120045
140046
140047
140049
140050
140051
140052
140054
140055
140057
140058
Subgroup
Subgroup
Subgroup
Furnish
WP, WF, Rag
UP, WF, Rag
WP, WF, Rag
WP, WF, Rag
WP
WP, WF, Rag
WP, WF, Rag
WP, WF, Rag
WP, WF, Rag
WP, WF, Rag
WP, WF, Rag
WP.WF
WP, WF, Rag
WF, Purch.
Pulp
WP, WF
IMP
IMP
IMP
Production Profile
Production
(t/d) Product
71 Construction Paper
Construction Felt
54 Construction Paper
Construction Felt
49 Construction Paper
Construction Felt
51 Construction Paper
Construction Felt
350 Gypsum Wallboard
Construction Paper
44 Construction Paper
30 Construction Paper
55 Construction Paper
43 Construction Paper
21 Construction Paper
36 Construction Paper
72 Construction Paper
63 Construction Paper
22 Construction Paper
55 Construction Paper
60 Construction Paper
39 Construction Paper
60 Builders Board
334 Construction Paper
125 Construction Paper
118 Construction Paper
W Average (excluding self contained mills)
Raw Waste Load
Finish (a)
S
S
U
S
U
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
U
S
U
U
U
U
S
U
Subgroup
Code1 '
W
W
W
W
T
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
0
W
0
T
T
T Average (excluding self-contained mills)
G Average (excluding self-contained mil'ls)
Subcategory Average
Model Mill
Flow
kl/kkg
5
14
4
0
4
.4
.2
.6
.4
.6
(kgal/t)
U.
(3.
(1.
(0.
(I.
3)
4)
1)
1)
1)
BODS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
-Sel f-Con tained
-Self-Cont
TSS
kg/kkg (Ib/t)
15.7 (31.4)
10
8
13
.0
.9
.8
(2.
(1.
(3.
4)
9)
3)
4.6
-Self-Cont
3.9
C«1 f_(
(9.1)
(7.7)
^ontained-
14.1 (28.2)
7.6 (15.2)
6.5 (13.0)
15.3 (30.5)
Self-Con tained
14
12
2
9
9
.6
.5
.9
.2
.2
(3.
(3.
(0.
(2.
(2.
5)
0)
7)
2)
2)
7.6
13.9
4.8
5.8
5.8
(15.2)
(27.8)
(9.6)
(11.5)
(11.5)
19.3 (38.7)
10.2 (20.4)
1.8 (3.6)
8.2 (16.3)
8.2 (16.3)
,S = Saturated; U = Unsaturated
W = Predominantly wastepaper furnish
T = Furnish includes IMP
G = Furnish includes other types of groundwood
0 = Other furnish
V-32
-------
Flow: 9.2 kl/kkg (2.2 kgal/t)
BOD_5: 5.8 kg/kkg (11.5 Ib/ton)
TSS: 8.2 kg/kkg (16.3 Ib/ton)
Raw waste loads for this subcategory are already among the lowest in the whole
industry. Because quality requirements in most of the products are very
minimal, the opportunity exists for recycling and reusing sludge and effluents
in the final product. Physical separation of large metallic objects and
contaminants is the main process requirement in the preparation of the waste
paper furnish. As shown in Table V-20, there is no significant difference in
the raw waste load characteristics between the saturated and unsaturated mill
operations. Such operations frequently are done in a separate off-site con-
verting plant. Generally the asphalt saturator utilizes a closed-cycle appli-
cation system.
Further significant reductions in raw waste loads appear possible in this
subcategory, as 17 mills are completely self-contained.
201 Nonintegrated-Fine. With 39 mills, this is the largest nonintegrated
subcategory. The mills are generally very old^ dating back to 1892 as the
average original year of construction. Products include high-quality coated
and uncoated printing, writing and other business papers. The mills range in
size from 11.8 kkg/day (13 tons/day) to nearly 998 kkg/day (1,100 tons/day).
At the average mill, 170 tons/day of product is produced. Pulp is not pro-
duced on-site, although a small amount of waste paper may be used, depending
on the relative market conditions.
As shown in Table V-21, the raw waste averages for the model mill are as
follows:
Flow 48.5 kl/kkg (11.6 kgal/t);
BOD5_ 8.5 kg/kkg (17.0 Ib/ton); and
TSS 30.1 kg/kkg (60.1 Ib/ton).
Mills in this subcategory generally use small machines, typically of ancient
vintage, in facilities not usually planned for most efficient flow of mate-
rials. Process inefficiencies and upsets due to weight changes, color
changes, and frequent grade changes are prevalent. Raw waste loads are vari-
able, particularly in terms of flow.
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue. Twenty-six mills are in this subcategory, mostly
producing sanitary and industrial tissues. Production ranges from 5.0 kkg/day
(5.5 tons/ day) to 807.2 kkg/day (890 tons/day), averaging 113.4 kkg/day (125
tons/day). The mills utilize purchased pulps and up to 25 percent waste paper
in their furnish. The average mill was originally built 54 years ago. They
are equally split between direct and indirect dischargers. Several noninte-
grated mills that were previously grouped with tissue operations have now been
put into a separate Nonintegrated-Lightweight subcategory, including electri-
cal papers.
V-33
-------
TABLE V-21
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 201 - NONINTEGRATED-FINE
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Furnish (t/d)
Mill No.
080001
080007
080009
080017
080019
080028
080031
080038
080040
080045
080046
080047
080048
080051
Average
Purch.
148
139
658
88
41
59
29
164
393
100
332
153
88
22
GW WP-Broke
0.2
13
270 8
30
0.3
18
4
133
1 31
68
31
39
8.6
%Clay
5
8
14
6
23
5
0
24
10
8
12
4
27
13
Prod.
(t/d)
156
165
1,088
125
54
81
29
221
587
144
455
191
173
35
Flow
Products
Uncoated Printing
Uncoated Printing
Coated & Uncoated
Printing
Coated Printing
Uncoated Printing
Uncoated Printing
& Writing
Uncoated Printing
Coated & Uncoated
Printing
Coating Printing &
Uncoated Writing
Uncoated Printing
& Writing
Uncoated Printing
& Writing
Uncoated Writing
Uncoated Printing
Uncoated Printing
kl/kkg
26.7
68.4
76.7
17.9
81.7
43.0
44.6
85.9
32.9
61.3
11.7
50.5
73.8
48.5
(kgal/t)
(6.4)
(16.4)
(18.4)
(4.3)
(19.6)
(10.3)
(10.7)
(20.6)
(7.9)
(14.7)
(2.8)
(12.1)
(17.7)
(11.6)
BODS
kg/kkg
8.9
7.6(a)
5.9
(lb/t)
(17.8)
(15.1)
(11.8)
-Self-contalned-
4.7
10.5
16.9
10.8
13.8
3.3
11.1
8.5
(9.4)
( )
( )
(20.9)
(33.8)
(21.6)
(27.6)
(6.5)
(22.1)
( )
(17.0)
TSS
kg/kkg
14.0
19.8
25.0
2.6
44.9
43.5
115.2
41.7
31.5
4.5
18.3
30.1
(lb/t)
(27.9)
(39.6)
(50.0)
(5.2)
(89.7)
( )
(87.0)
(230.3)
(83.3)
(62.9)
(8.9)
(36.5)
( )
(60.1)
Model Mill
48.5 (11.6) 8.5 (17.0) 30.1 (60.1)
(a)
Assume 85% raw BOD_5_ out of primary clarlfier.
-------
Table V-22 shows raw waste load data for all 26 mills in the Nonintegrated-
Tissue subcategory. The model mill is based on nine sanitary tissue mills
using only purchased pulps and waste paper for furnish (no purchased deink
fiber). The only distinctly different grouping of mills consists of the
industrial tissue mills, which exhibit markedly lower nQD5_ and TSS loads,
reflecting the lower quality items produced and the higher degree of close-up
possible.
The model mill raw waste load is:
Flow 73.4 kl/kkg (17.6 kgal/t);
BOD^ 13.3 kg/kkg (26.5 Ib/ton); and
TSS 39.0 kg/kkg (77.9 Ib/ton).
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight. After extensive review of the Nonintegrated-
Tissue subcategory, it was observed that the raw waste load associated with
very dense lightweight sheets (such as carbonizing, cigarette papers and elec-
trical papers) was far greater than that associated with the sanitary tissue
mills. The lightweight mills are predominantly small manufacturers utilizing
plants which were initially constructed over 70 years ago. A typical mill in
this subcategory makes approximately 54.5 kkg/day (60 tons/day) of product.
The papers in this subcategory are characterized by very severe refining
conditions and, in the case of electrical papers, extremely high quality
parameters that must be met in the final sheet. It is difficult to close up
mills producing electrical papers because of the build-up of salts in recycled
Whitewaters.
These mills have been reviewed in four groupings, as shown in Table V-23. The
first group consists of those mills making only electrical papers. This group
exhibits the highest load in the subcategory, averaging 407.0 kl/kkg (97.6
kgal/t). Only one mill in this group reported BOD^ data - at 11.6 kg/kkg
(23.1 Ib/ton). Average TSS, based upon two mills, is 37.7 kg/kkg (75.3 lb/
ton). Results such as this are not unexpected, as these grades are made free
of filler and with a very open system to minimize contamination due to build-
up of salts in the water.
The second grouping of mills produces miscellaneous grades of tissue and
carbonizing papers utilizing higher percentages of waste paper. These mills
exhibit lower flow characteristics than the electrical papers subgroup; how-
ever, BOD5_ and TSS loadings are higher, apparently due to the incorporation of
the waste paper totaling nearly 40 percent of the furnish.
The third grouping consists of those making some printing grades, as well as
thin paper from essentially 100 percent purchased pulp. Again, flow charac-
teristics were less than the preceding two subcategories; BOD_5_ was approxi-
mately the same as the prior group; but TSS is 71.3 kg/kkg (142.6 Ib/ton),
reflecting the production of filled sheets with very low basis weights.
The fourth grouping uses some waste paper and miscellaneous fibers in the
production of such products as cigarette papers. This grouping has the lowest
raw waste characteristics.
V-35
-------
TABLE V-22
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 202 - NONINTEGRATED-TISSUE
Production Profile
Furnish
Mill No. (t/d)
090001 20
090005 41
090007 246
090008 194
090009 290
090011 70
090012 59
090013 37
090016 176
090017 22
090018 17
090019 159
090020 890
090021 176
090022 189
090023 67
090024 103
090025 6
090026 50
090027 140
090028 61
090029 44
090030 255
090031 17
090032 27
090033 14
Subcategory
Average 129.6
090001 + 090029
(31 t/d)
Model Mill3
Product
Industrial-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Mixed Product
Mixed Product
Mixed Product
Sanitary-Tissue
Mixed Product
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Indus trial -Tissue
Sanitary-Tissue
Mixed Product
Mixed Product
Mixed Product
Sanitary &
Industrial Tissue
Industrial Tissue
Only
Sanitary Tissue
Only
Pur.
23
38
150
133
159
62
62
35
179
139
887
119
154
40
85
6
21
140
42
41
263
14
26
14
109.3
32
212
GW
1
19
57
11
7
3.7
11
D-l
__
88
75
22
7
,--
5
23
8.
___
WP
5
24
20
163
12
3
13
1
11
48
5
40
33
18
28
1
14
4
4
1
5 17.2
9
32
Flow
kl/kkg
104.3
22.5
107.2
96.6
89.5
78.8
35.9
41.6
56.7
56.3
79.6
105.1
79.5
170.6
66.6
31.3
45.5
286.5
72.1
17.9
143.4
94.7
32.5
98.0
177.6
29.6
85.4
95.9
73.4
(No
(kgal/t)
(25.0)
(5.41)
(25.7)
(23.2)
(21.5)
(18.9)
(8.6)
(10.0)
(13.6)
(13.5)
(19.1)
(25.2)
(19.1)
(40.9)
(16.0)
(7.5)
(10.9)
(68.7)
(17.3)
(4-3)
(34.4)
(22.7)
(7.8)
(23.5)
(42.6)
(7.1)
(20.5)
(23.0)
(17.6)
Raw Waste Load
BODS
kg/kkg
4.5
5.6
8.0
15.3
9.9
4.2
18.0
14.9
12.8
22.8
9.1
14.6
16.9
0.7
1.7
1.0
10.0
4.5
13.3
(lb/t)
(9.0)
(11.2)
(115.9)
(30.6)
(19.7)
( )
(--)
(8.3)
(36.4)
(29.7)
(25.6)
( )
(45.6)
( )
(18.2)
( )
( )
(29.1)
(33.8)
(1.3)
(-)
( )
(3.3)
(--)
(--)
(2.0)
(20.0)
(9.0)
(26.5)
TSS
kg/kkg
5.0
11.5
28.5
47.1
25.7
27.3
53.2
48.3
43.9
54.5
31.2
26.9
15.8
14.6
52.2
4.1
6.6
5.8
27.9
5.0
39.0
Deink)
(lb/t)
(10.0)
(22.9)
(57.0)
(94.2)
(51.4)
(--)
( )
(52.6)
(106.4)
(965.0)
(87.8)
( )
(108.9)
(62.3)
(53.8)
(31.6)
(--)
(29.1)
(104.4)
(8.2)
(")
(--)
(13.1)
(--)
<--)
(11.5)
(55.8)
(10.0)
(77.9)
Average of Mills No. 090007,9,11,13,16,19,20,22, and 24
V-36
-------
TABLE V-23
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 204 - NONINTEGRATED-LIGHTWEIGHT
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Furnish (t/d) Product
Mill No.
Electrical
105003
105015
105017
105018
105071
Average
Purch
Paper
11.2
13.0
3.2
11.1
26.0
12.9
W.P. Misc. Broke (t/d)
__ __ j 2 .
_ __ _ _ 3 _
1.8 11.
26.
0.4 12.
2
0
1
6
0
3
Flow
kl/kkg
445.9
312.3
268.5
749.8
256.1
406.6
(kgal/t)
(107
(75
(64
(180
(61
(97
.1)
.0)
.5)
.1)
.5)
.6)
BODS
kg/kkg
11.55
11.5
TSS
(lb/t) kg/kkg
(23.1)
(23.1)
56
19
37
.25
.65
(lb/t)
) (112) (a)
(38.5)
(75.3)
Miscellaneous Tissue and Carbonizing
090015
15057
15058
15061
Average
Printing &
08^U9
l^BR
Average
Carbonize,
080024
080021
080022
090003
105013
105016
Average
Subcategory
Average
Model Mill
47.4
33.0
34.0
213.0
82.0
Thin
33.3
36.0
203.0
91.0
Thin,
29.6
30.3
102.4
12.0
15.1
21.8
35.2
49.0
25.6 64.
5.1 34.
4.9 35.
217.0 -- 409.
63.0 135.
Paper
3.2, .36.
__ 10.5(C)46.
4 2 203.
1 1 5.0 95.
Cigarette - Less Wastepaper
5.3 32.
0.04 26.
11.3 --, ,10.
1.6 4.4('c'l8.
5.3 20.
5.2 -- 25.
2.2 1.8 1.6 38.
15.0 1 2 62.
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
5
9
5
0
4
0
9
0
146.9
208.2
529.2
529.1
277.3
307.7
170.3
201.1
226.5
61.2
10.8
112.8
129.5
134.9
516.3
161.1
266.5
266.5
(55
(35
(50
(127
(66
(73
(40
(48
(54
(14
(2
(27
(31
(32
(124
(38
(63
(63
.0)
.3)
.0)
.1)
.6)
.9)
.9)
.3)
.4)
«<«
!i) 0.2~
>} 1.2
19.9
7.1
15.3
15.3
(115.7)
(5.7)
(23.6)
(12.9)
(39.5)
(66.6)
(16.4)
(41.5)
(0.3)
(2.4)
(39.7)
(14.1)
(30.6)
(30.6)
150
5
25
48
57
127
15
71
(b)
(b) ]_
57
19
45
45
.5
.2
.7
.8
.55
.0
.55
.3
.1
.8
.0
.6
.6
.6
(301.0)
(10.3)
(51.4)
(97.6)
(115.1)
(254.0)
(31.1)
(142.6)
(:K5)*b)
(114.0)
(39.2)
(91.2)
(91.2)
(b)
(c)
Estimated from other data.
Recycled treated effluent.
Estimated to balance.
V-37
-------
Raw waste loads for this subcategory differ based on the product (in particu-
lar, the manufacture of high quality electrical papers) and also the effect of
significant levels of waste paper in the furnish. The model mill raw waste
load is the average of all mills in the subcategory, thus representing a
composite of products. For the subcategory, average raw waste load character-
istics, used as the model mill raw waste load are: 266.5 kl/kkg (63.9 kgal/t)
flow, 15.3 kg/kkg (30.6 Ib/ton) BOD_5, and 45.6 kg/kkg (91.2 Ib/ton) TSS.
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven. Sixteen mills comprise this new
subcategory. They produce a variety of filter, blotting, absorbent, and
nonwoven papers using both wood pulps and synthetic fibers and resin combina-
tions. Although these mills date back to a typical original construction date
of 1905, they make extensive use of innovative technologies. The mills are
small, averaging 17.2 kkg/day (19 tons/day) production. Two-thirds of the
average furnish consists of purchased pulps and one-third consists of miscel-
laneous materials, including artificial fibers.
As shown in Table V-24, average raw waste flow for the subcategory is 171.8
kl/kkg (41.2 kgal/t), which is selected as the model mill raw waste load flow.
Median subcategory values are used for model mill BOD_5_ and TSS, more nearly
reflecting typical conditions. Model mill BOD_5 and TSS loads are 5.0 kg/kkg
(10.0 Ib/ton) and 25.0 kg/kkg (50 Ib/ton), respectively. The TSS appears high
for the type of product, primarily reflecting the low production rates.
Effluent flow also tends to be high, reflecting the difficulty in closing up
these operations while meeting product specifications.
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard. This subcategory consists of 12 mills pro-
ducing a variety of special board grades from purchased pulps and synthetic
materials. The average mill has an original construction date of 1899.
Average production is 31.7 kkg/day (35 tons/day). Many of these mills operate
small updated single cylinder machines.
As shown in Table V-25, the following raw waste loads are selected for the
model mill:
Flow 102.4 kl/kkg (24.6 kgal/t);
BOD5_ 10.0 kg/kkg (20.0 Ib/ton); and
TSS 42.3 kg/kkg (84.5 Ib/ton).
Flow and TSS values are subcategory averages, while model mill BOD5_ load is a
median value selected to better represent the subcategory.
Raw waste load characteristics vary significantly in the two mills producing
electrical board. As was noted earlier with electrical tissue papers, the
water requirements per ton of electrical board are distinctly higher than
average for the subcategory. Approximately a 179.3 kl/kkg (43 kgal/t) allow-
ance is suggested for mills manufacturing 100 percent electrical board.
V-38
-------
TABLE V-24
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SU3CATEGORY 205 - NONINTEGRATED-FILTER AND NONWOVEN
Production Profile
Raw Waste Load
Production
Mill No.
105005
105029
105030
105031
105033
105034
105035
105043
105044
f'45
51
i52
105053
105054
105055
105066
Average
Median ^
Model Mill
(t/d)
5.9
4.1
0.4
0.7
33.5
10.2
44.0
17.4
22.4
13.2
12.2
16.1
39.1
10.5
43.4
27.0
Product (s)
Saturated Filter &
Non-Woven
Technical & Filter
Filter
Filter .
Filter, Wall Cover
Miscellaneous
Filter
Asbestos Gasket,
Elec. Insul.
Filter, Blotting,
Photo
Filter, Blotting,
Pkg.
Filter, Pkg.
Filter, Satur. Tech.
Filter
Filter
Filter, photo,
wrap.
Filter, saturated
Lightweight, tech-
nical, asbestos
papers
Flow
kl/kkg
329.7
142.0
588.6
407.8
222.1
170.4
162.1
278.0
25.6
30.7
169.6
17.8
42.2
6.6
285.8
220.5
171.8
171.8
(kgal/t)
(79.7)
(34.4)
(50.0)
(98.6)
(53.7)
(41.2)
(39.2)
(67.2)
(6.2)
(9.6)
(41.0)
(4.3)
(10.2)
(1.6)
(69.1)
(53.3)
(41.2)
(41.2)
BODS
kg/kkg
M ,
18.2
"
24.9
3.8
3.6
4.9
8.9
4.3
9.8
5.0
5.0
(lb/t)
f \
v >
(36.3)
(--)
( )
( )
(~ )
( )
(49.9)
(7.5)
(7.1)
(9.9)
( )
( )
( )
(17.9)
(8.6)
(19.6)
(10.0)
(10.0)
TSS
kg/kkg
24.6
14.6
~
30.2
54.8
12.8
0.7
19.5
38.3
156.0
39.1
25.0
25.0
(lb/t)
/in 1 \
{*? £)
(29.3)
( )
( )
( )
( )
(60.3)
(109.5)
(25.5)
(1.4)
(38.9)
( )
( )
( )
(76.5)
(312.0)
(78.1)
(50.0)
(50.0)
(a)
Median BOD_5_ and TSS values selected as more typical of subcategory.
V-39
-------
TABLE V-25
SUMMARY RAW WASTE LOAD DATA
SUBCATEGORY 211 - NONINTEGRATED-PAPERBOARD
Production Profile
Raw Effluent
Furnish
Mill No. Purch. W.P.
085001
085007
085003
085010
105001
1 05002 (a)
105039
105048
105049, ,
( f\ 1
105070V '
105073
110021
Average
Model Mill
60.0 12
7.0
32.0 22
2.1
33.5
9.2 --
46.0
44.0
5.0 7
17.1
32.2 17
24.0 5
Production
(t/d)
82.0
12.2
50.0
2.7
38.2
8.4
7.0
62.0
51.0
216.0
15.0
76.0
Product (s)
Bag , Wrapping
Matrix Board
Bag, Specialty
Matrix
Ctd. Food Board,
Gift
Hi-Density
Electrical Board
Latex & Sat.
Gaskets
Impreg. Fiber
Irapreg. Fiber
Electrical Board
Asbestos spec.
Sat. paper for
vulcanizing
Press board
Flow
kl/kkg
30.4
133.2
62.5
169.5
30.0
272.7
48.7
38.7
52.9
,221.0
105.3
62.9
102.4
102.4
(kgal/t)
(7.3)
(30.0)
(15.0)
(40.7)
(7.2)
(65.5)
(11.7)
(9.3)
(12.7)
(53.1)
(25.3)
(15.1)
(24.6)
(24.6)
BODS
TSS
kg/kkg (Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
MM
0.8
10.0
7.0
8.2
1.4
87.5
13.0
10.0
10.0
(--)
(1.6)
(20.0)
(14.1)
(16.4)
( )
(2.7)
(-)
( )
(175.0)
(26.0)
( )
(20.0)
(20.0)
__
1.4
25.0
46.9
43.2
0.4
136.5
42.4
(b)42.3
(b)42.3
<-->
(2.8)
(50.0)
(93.7)
(86.4)
()
(0.7)
(--)
( )
(273.0)
(84.7)
(-)
(84.5)
(84.5)
(a)
(b)
A flow allowance of 179.3 kl/kkg (43 kgal/t) is therefore suggested for mills manufacturing 100
percent electrical board.
BOD_5_ value is a median value, not an average.
-------
Summary of Raw Waste Loads for Model Mills. Table V-26 summarizes raw waste
load data developed for model mills in the preceding subcategories.
Pure Mill Raw Waste Loads by Subcategory
While the model mill concept has been developed to present representative raw
waste loads for each subcategory, it must be recognized that model mill raw
waste loads are used for cost and energy impact analyses, and not for the
development of effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Most pulp, paper and paperboard mills are complex and difficult to categorize.
Many mills operate unique combinations of production processes. To present
data in a form which can be applied to the development of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the complex mills, Table V-27 presents raw waste
loads for pure mills. The "pure mill" concept allows for the isolation of
distinct processes, so that raw waste loads for mills with combined operations
can be pro-rated in accordance with the percentage of production attributable
to each distinct process. The following text explains how the pure mill data
has been developed for each subcategory.
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving. Raw waste loads for the pure Alkaline-Dissolving
mill are based on data for the model mill and data from the Alkaline-Market
subcategory. The model Alkaline-Dissolving mill produces 58.7 percent dis-
solving pulp. To determine loadings at a mill producing 100 percent dissolv-
ing pulps, projections have been made on an assumption that 41.3 percent of
the model mill production is responsible for the generation of a raw waste
loading equivalent to that generated in the manufacture of Alkaline-Market
pulp. This allows the calculation of raw waste loadings attributable to a
pure mill producing 100 percent Alkaline-Dissolving pulp, as shown in Table
V-27.
Flow 221.4 kl/kkg (53.1 kgal/t);
BOD_5 65.2 kg/kkg (130.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 96.8 kg/kkg (193.5 Ib/ton).
Previous limitations guidelines have recognized that some dissolving pulp
grades with higher level alpha cellulose content reflect an inherently more
intense processing condition. However, data collected for this review of
earlier guidelines limitations provides insufficient justification for further
delineation based on either the grade produced or its alpha cellulose content.
Likewise, the data does not indicate significant differences attributable to
raw material used, i.e., hardwood or softwood. If additional data is provided
in the comment period to justify differentiation by grade and/or wood specie,
then such data can be incorporated in further review prior to finalizing
effluent limitations guidelines for this subcategory.
012 Alkaline-Market. For the Alkaline-Market subcategory, pure mill raw
waste loads presented in Table V-27 reflect the average loadings for the seven
mills in this subcategory which produce-only alkaline market pulps:
V-41
-------
TABLE V-26
SUMMARY OF MODEL MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
Raw Waste Load
Model Mill
Flow
Subcategory Size (t/d) kl/kkg (kgal/t)
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
101
102
111
112
113
114
201
202
204
205
211
Alkaline-Dissolving
Alkaline-Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkaline-Fine
Alka line-Unb leached
Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-Unbleached
& Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-Newsprint
Sulf ite-Dissolving
Sulfite-Papergrade
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Groundwood-CMN
Groundwood-Fine
De ink-Fine and Tissue
De ink-Newsprint
Wastepaper-Tissue
Wastepaper-Board
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Was tepaper-Const ruction
Products
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Nonintegrated-Lightweight
Nonintegrated-Filter
Nonintegrated-Paperboard
1,000
600
800
800
1,000
425
1500
1400
600
450
350
600
500
180
400
45
160
50
100
215
180
60
20
40
198.
178.
152.
110.
46.
32.
55.
93.
256.
152.
60.
88.
68.
81.
67.
39.
15.
47.
9.
48.
73.
266.
171.
102.
1
2
2
5
6
5
8
8
9
6
0
4
4
3
6
2
4
1
2
5
4
5
8
4
(47.
(42.
(36.
(26.
(11.
(7.
(13.
(22.
(61.
(36.
(14.
(21.
(16.
(19.
(16.
(9.
(3.
(11.
(2.
(11.
(17.
(63.
(41.
(24.
5)
8)
5)
5)
2)
8)
4)
5)
6)
6)
4)
2)
4)
5)
2)
4)
7)
3)
2)
6)
6)
9)
2)
6)
BODS
kg/kkg
53.8
41.5
45.7
30.5
14.2
18.5
18.7
21.1
153.0
48.7
18.3
18.6
17.6
48.7
15.9
8.8
6.5
5.7
5.8
8.5
13.3
15.3
5.0
10.0
(lb/t)
(107
(83
(91
(61
(28
(36
(37
(42
(306
(97
(36
(37
(35
(97
(31
(17
(12
(11
(11
(17
(26
(30
(10
(20
.6)
.0)
.3)
.0)
.3)
.9)
.3)
.2)
.0)
.3)
.5)
.1)
.2)
.4)
.7)
.5)
.9)
.4)
.5)
.0)
5)
.6)
.0)
.0)
TSS
kg/kkg
76.8
31.8
42.5
66.2
16.3
21.6
23.5
56.7
90.3
33.1
38.7
48.5
53.9
143.0
123.0
27.0
7.7
10.7
8.2
30.1
39.0
45.6
25.0
42.3
(lb/t)
(153
(63
(85
(132
(32
(43
(47
(113
(180
(66
(77
(97
(107
(286
(246
^^^f 3 A
^^^^\ ^ -^
(21
(16
(60
(77
(91
(50
(84
V-42
-------
TABLE V-27
SUMMARY OF RAW WASTE LOADS
FOR PURE MILLS
Raw Waste Load
Flow
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
101
102
111
112
113
114
201
202
204
205
211
Subcategory
Alkaline-Dissolving
Alkaline-Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkaline-Fine
Alkaline-Unbleached
. Linerboard
. Bag
Semi-Chemical
. 80%
. 100%
kl/kks
221.4
164.7
152.2
105.0
. 46.7
70.5
32.5
48.4
Alkaline-Unbleached & Semi-Chem.55.9
Alkaline-News
Sulfite-Dissolving
Sulfite-Papergrade
. 67%
. 100%
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Ground wood-CMN
. 74%
. 100%
Groundwood-Fine
. 59%
. 100%
De ink-Fine
. Pure Tissue
. Pure Fine
Deink-Newsprint , .
Wastepaper Tissue
. 100% Industrial
Wastepaper-Board
. Board
. Linerboard
. Corrugated
. Chip & Filler
. Folding Box
. Set-Up Box
. Gyp sum
Wastepaper-Molded Products (a)
93.8
266.4
152.6
203.9
60.0
88.4
134.3
68.4
110.9
81.3
107.2
67.6
56.7
15.4
27.9
4.2
10.0
16.3
20.4
11.7
52,5
(kgal/t)
(53.1)
(39.5)
(36.5)
(25.9)
(11.2)
(16.9)
(7.8)
(11.6)
(13.4)
(22.5)
(63.9)
(36.6)
(48.9)
(14.4)
(21.2)
(32.2)
(16.4)
(26.6)
(19.5)
(25.7)
(16.2)
(13.6)
(3.7)
(6.7)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(3.9)
(4.9)
(2.8)
(12.6)
BODS
kg/kkg
65.2
37.7
45.7
25.7
14.2
18.9
18.5
19.3
18.7
21.1
168.5
48.7
68.5
18.3
18.6
22.9
17.6
18.6
48.7
50.0
15.9
13.2
10.6
8.9
5.3
3.5
6.1
7.3
5.8
6.5
(lb/t)
(130.3)
(75.3)
(91.3)
(57.4)
(28.3)
(37.7)
(36.9)
(38.6)
(37.3)
(42.2)
(336.9)
(97.3)
(136.9)
(36.5)
(37.1)
(45.8)
(35.2)
(37.2)
(97.4)
(99.9)
(31.7)
(26.3)
(21.2)
(17.8)
(10.7)
(6.9)
(12.1)
(H.7)
(11.6)
(13.0)
TSS
kg/kkg
96.8
48.4
42.5
53.4
16.3
20.7
21.6
38.5
23.5
56.7
100.1
33.1
34.7
38.7
43.5
77.6
53.9
55.2
143.0
215.7
123.0
40.5
9.9
10.8
4.0
4.5
7.1
5.7
15.9
11.4
(lb/t)
(193.5)
(96.7)
(85.0)
(106.7)
(32.5)
(41.4)
(43.1)
(76.9)
(47.0)
(113.3)
(200.2)
(66.2)
(69.3)
(77.4)
(97.0)
(155.1)
(107.9)
(110.4)
(286.0)
(431.3)
(246.0)
(81.0)
(19.7)
(21.5)
(7.9)
(8.9)
(14.1)
(11.4)
(31.8)
(22.7)
Was tepaper-Const ruction Product s1'"'
. 100% Waste Paper
. 50% WP/50% TMP
Nonintegra ted-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Nonintegra ted-Lightweight
. Lightweight-Electrical
14.6
12.5
48.4
73.4
266.5
407.0
Nonintegrated-Filter & Nonwovenl71.8
Nonintegrated
. Board
. Electrical Board
102.6
247.3
(3.5)
(3.0)
(11.6)
(17.6)
(63.9)
(97.6)
(41.2)
(24.6)
(59.3)
7.6
13.9
8.5
13.3
15.3
11.6
5.0
10.0
~~
(15.2)
(27.8)
(17.0)
(26.5)
(30.6)
(23.1)
(10.0)
(20.0)
(--)
19.4
10.2
30.1
39.0
45.6
37.7
25.0
42.3
__
(38.7)
(20.4)
(60.1)
(77.9)
(91.2)
(75.3)
(50.0)
(84.5)
( )
(a) Excludes self-contained mills.
V-43
-------
Flow 164.7 kl/kkg (39.5 kgal/t);
BOD5i 37.7 kg/kkg (75.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 48.4 kg/kkg (96.7 Ib/ton).
013 Alkaline-BCT. The mills in this subcategory produce paperboard, coarse
products, and tissue grades of paper, either separately or in combination.
This mixture of products is reflected in the model mill raw waste loads. The
mills produce 100 percent alkaline pulp on-site. Therefore, Alkaline-BCT pure
mill raw waste loads are the same as those for the model mill:
Flow 152.2 kl/kkg (36.5 kgal/t);
BOD5. 45.7 kg/kkg (91.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 42.5 kg/kkg (85.6 Ib/ton).
014 Alkaline-Fine. Raw waste loads for the pure Alkaline-Fine mill are based
on the average data from eight mills which produce both high filler and low
filler products from a furnish which consists of greater than 95 percent
alkaline pulp manufactured on-site. Thus the pure mill data represents an
average for the integrated production of alkaline fine papers. As shown in
Table V-27, pure mill raw waste loads are:
Flow 108.0 kl/kkg (25.9 kgal/t);
BOD_5 28.7 kg/kkg (57.4 Ib/ton); and
TSS 53.4 kg/kkg (106.7 Ib/ton).
015 Alkaline-Unbleached. The model mill raw waste load data for this sub-
category was based upon the average data for those mills exclusively producing
linerboard. Such mills comprise the largest subgroup within the subcategory.
However, another major subgroup produces predominantly bag papers. As shown
in the Table V-27, pure mill raw waste loads are presented for each of the two
subgroups, thus allowing for the pro-rating of raw waste loads based on actual
product mix:
Linerboard
Flow 46.7 kl/kkg (11.2 kgal/t);
BOD_5 14.2 kg/kkg (28.3 Ib/t) ; and
TSS 16.3 kg/kkg (32.5 Ib/t).
Bag
Flow 70.5 kl/kkg (16.9 kgal/t);
BOD^ 18.9 kg/kkg (37.7 Ib/t) ; and
TSS 20.7 kg/kkg (41.4 Ib/t).
016 Semi-Chemical. The typical mill in the Semi-Chemical subcategory pro-
duces its products using 80 percent semi-chemical pulp and 20 percent waste
paper. Pure mill raw waste loads for a mill using 100 percent semi-chemical
pulp have been projected graphically from curves showing the loads attributed
to different percentages of semi-chemical production level, ranging from 60
percent to 97 percent.
The extrapolated raw waste loads for 100 percent semi-chemical pulp production
are:
V-44
-------
Flow 48.4 kl/kkg (11.6 kgal/t);
BOD_5 19.3 kg/kkg (38.6 lb/ton); and
TSS 38.5 kg/kkg (76.9 lb/ton).
These loads should be utilized in pro-rating guidelines for mills which de-
viate significantly from the typical 80 percent semi-chemical operation, or
for mills which use other types of alkaline pulping processes in combination
with semi-chemical pulps. Pure mill raw waste load data is also presented for
the 80 percent semi-chemical operation as follows:
Flow 32.5 kl/kkg (7.8 kgal/t);
BOD_5 18.5 kg/kkg (36.9 lb/ton); and
TSS 21.6 kg/kkg (43.1 lb/ton).
From data made available for the year (1976), it appears that no-sulfur pulp-
ing operations may exhibit lower BOD5_ and TSS raw waste loads than the classi-
cal NSSC operations. As more and newer data is accumulated, consideration
should be given to establishing reduced raw waste load guidelines for the
no-sulfur mills. Data pertaining to mills which have switched to no-sulfur
processes since 1976 is solicited in the comment period.
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical. The average mill in this subcate-
gory produces 17 percent semi-chemical and 79 percent unbleached alkaline
pulp, or about four parts kraft to one part semi-chemical. This ratio remains
fairly consistent, and shows a relatively small standard deviation with
respect to raw waste loads. Therefore, this subcategory is considered pure at
the 4:1 alkaline:semi-chemical production ratio, making raw waste loads for
the model mill and the pure mill the same:
Flow 55.9 kl/kkg (13.4 kgal/t);
BOD_5_ 18.7 kg/kkg (37.3 lb/ton); and
TSS 23.5 kg/kkg (47.0 lb/ton).
If the ratio of unbleached alkaline to semi-chemical pulp production varies
significantly from the 4:1 ratio, then consideration should be given to devel-
oping limitatons guidelines based on the pro-rating technique.
019 Alkaline-Newsprint. This subcategory consists of three mills which, by
definition, operate combined on-site groundwood and alkaline pulping processes
in the ratios necessary to produce the finished newsprint sheet. Therefore,
the model mill and the pure mill raw waste loadings are the same:
Flow 93.8 kl/kkg (22.5 kgal/t);
BOD_5_ 21.1 kg/kkg (42.2 lb/ton); and
TSS 56.7 kg/kkg (113.3 lb/ton).
021 Sulfite-Dissolving. The typical Sulfite-Dissolving mill produces 85
percent dissolving sulfite pulp; the remaining production is papergrade sul-
fite. Raw waste loads for this level of production have been extrapolated to
V-45
-------
yield an expected raw waste load for the pure 100 percent dissolving sulfite
mill. As shown in Table V-27, the pure mill raw waste load is:
Flow 266.4 kl/kkg (63.9 kgal/t);
BOD_5 168.5 kg/kkg (336.9 Ib/ton); and
TSS 100.1 kg/kkg (200.2 Ib/ton).
022 Sulfite-Papergrade. Raw waste loads for the Sulfite-Papergrade model
mill correspond to a mill where 67 percent of production is from papergrade
sulfite pulps. The remaining production is from purchased pulps, thus com-
parable to nonintegrated operations. To determine raw waste loads at a mill
producing paper from 100 percent papergrade sulfite pulp, projections are made
based on an assumption that 33 percent of the model mill production is re-
sponsible for the generation of a raw waste loading equivalent to that pro-
duced in the nonintegrated manufacture of fine paper. The remaining loading,
which corresponds to 67 percent typical sulfite pulp production, has been
extrapolated to 100 percent sulfite production, thus representing the pure
mill. The extrapolated raw waste load data, as indicated in Table V-27, is:
Flow 203.9 kl/kkg (48.9 kgal/t);
BOD5_ 68.5 kg/kkg (136.9 Ib/ton); and
TSS 34.7 kg/kkg (69.3 Ib/ton).
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp. The pure mill raw waste loads are reflected in
the model mill loadings representative of this subcategory. These loadings
are based on a mill which is producing 90 percent of its required furnish as
TMP pulp:
Flow 60.0 kl/kkg (14.4 kgal/t);
BOD_5 18.3 kg/kkg (36.5 Ib/ton); and
TSS 38.7 kg/kkg (77.4 Ib/ton).
033 Groundwood-CMN. The pure mill raw waste loads for this subcategory are
estimated from model mill data which shows an average of 74 percent groundwood
furnish with the remaining production from purchased pulp. Projections are
made based on the assumption that 26 percent of the model mill production is
responsible for the generation of raw waste loads equivalent to those produced
in nonintegrated manufacture of fine paper. The remaining production from
groundwood is extrapolated from 74 percent to 100 percent to yield the pure
mill raw waste loads for this subcategory:
Flow 134.3 kl/kkg (32.2 kgal/t);
BOD^ 22.9 kg/kkg (45.8 Ib/ton); and
TSS 77.6 kg/kkg (155.1 Ib/ton).
034 Groundwood-Fine. The model mill in the Groundwood-Fine subcategory
produces approximately 59 percent of its furnish as groundwood pulp. The
remaining furnish consists of purchased kraft and other long-fiber pulps,
V-46
-------
which are required to meet product specifications. Because product require-
ments necessitate this proportion of groundwood and long-fiber pulps, the
model mill data for the Groundwood-Fine subcategory also can be interpreted as
pure mill data, even though the pulp furnish is less than 100 percent ground-
wood.
However, in order to present data which can be used in establishing mill-
specific effluent limitations guidelines , it is necessary to establish pure
mill data for a mill in this subcategory producing fine paper from 100 percent
groundwood pulp. To establish such data, the typical 59 percent groundwood
level has been extrapolated to 100 percent. Although no fine paper can be
produced in this manner, the 100 percent extrapolation can be used in pro-
rating raw waste load data for mills producing less than the typical 59 per-
cent groundwood, or for mills producing groundwood as part of a more complex
operation. The extrapolated raw waste loads are:
Flow 110.9 kl/kkg (26.6 kgal/t);
EOD5_ 18.6 kg/kkg (37.2 Ib/ton) ; and
TSS 55.2 kg/kkg (110.4 Ib/ton).
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue. For the Deink-Fine and Tissue subcategory, a
grouping of nine mills producing sanitary tissue was chosen as the basis for
development of model mill raw waste loadings. This data can be considered as
pure mill data representing the production of sanitary tissue grades from 100
percent deink stock:
Flow 81.3 kl/kkg (19.5 kgal/t);
BOD_5 48.7 kg/kkg (97.4 Ib/ton); and
TSS 143.0 kg/kkg (286.0 Ib/ton).
The second largest group of mills consists of those where fine papers are
produced using approximately 88 percent deink stock in the furnish. The
furnish consists of waste paper and purchased pulps. When the data is extra-
polated to reflect 100 percent deink stock for fine paper production, raw
waste loads become:
Flow 107.2 kl/kkg (25.7 kgal/t);
BOD_5 50.0 kg/kkg (99.9 Ib/ton); and
TSS: 215.7 kg/kkg (431.2 Ib/ton).
102 Deink-Newsprint. Model mill raw waste loads for this subcategory repre-
sent three similar mills producing newsprint from 100 percent deinked over-
issue and waste newspaper. In this homogenous subcategory, model mill data is
reflective of the pure mill situation:
Flow 67.7 kl/kkg (16.2 kgal/t);
BOD_5 15.9 kg/kkg (31.7 Ib/ton); and
TSS 123.0 kg/kkg (246.0 Ib/ton).
V-47
-------
Ill Wastepaper-Tissue. For the Wastepaper-Tissue subcategory pure mill raw
waste load data, as shown in Table V-27, is derived from the average of mills
producing industrial tissue, and utilizing 100 percent waste paper for that
production. In averaging this data, self-contained mills are excluded. No
extrapolation is necessary, as these mills are producing tissue from 100
percent waste paper. The pure mill raw waste load is:
Flow 56.7 kl/kkg (13.6 kgal/t);
BOD5 13.2 kg/kkg (26.3 Ib/ton); and
TSS 40.5 kg/kkg (81.0 Ib/ton).
112 Wastepaper-Board. Pure mill raw waste load data for the Wastepaper-Board
subcategory is derived from average data for mills where products are manufac-
tured from 100 percent waste paper (self-contained mills were excluded from
the analysis). Pure mill data is presented in Table V-27 for board mills, as
well as for mills producing mostly (in excess of 80 percent) linerboard,
corrugated, chip and filler board, folding box board, set-up box, and gypsum
board grades. Pure mill raw waste loads for mills producing these products
are as follows:
Pure Mill Raw Waste Load
Flow BODS TSS
Product kl/kkg (kgal/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
Board
Linerboard
Corrugated
Chip & Filler
Folding Box
Set-up Box
Gypsum Board
15.4
27.9
4.2
10.0
16.3
20.4
11.7
(3.7)
(6.7)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(3.9)
(4.9)
(2.8)
10.6
8.9
5.3
3.5
6.1
7.3
5.8
(21.2)
(17.8)
(10.7)
(6.9)
(12.1)
(14.7)
(11.6)
9.9
10.8
4.0
4.5
7.1
5.7
15.9
(19.7)
(21.5)
(7.9)
(8.9)
(14.1)
(11.4)
(31.8)
113 Vastepaper-Molded Products. As with the other waste paper subcategories,
raw waste loads for the pure mill in the Wastepaper-Molded Products subcate-
gory are based on average data for mills where molded products are made util-
izing 100 percent waste paper (self-contained mills were excluded from the
analysis). Pure mill raw waste loads are:
Flow 52.5 kl/kkg (12.6 kgal/t);
BOD5 6.5 kg/kkg (13.0 Ib/ton); and
TSS 11.4 kg/kkg (22.7 Ib/ton).
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products. Two sets of pure mill raw waste load
data are presented in Table V-27 for this subcategory. The first set is based
on the average raw waste loads for those mills utilizing 100 percent waste
paper (self-contained mills were excluded from the analysis). The second set
V-48
-------
is based on the average raw waste loads for mills where approximately 50
percent waste paper and 50 percent IMP pulp are used in production of the
final product (self-contained mills were excluded from the analysis).
Pure Mill Utilizing 100% Waste Paper
Pure Mill Utilizing 50% Waste Paper
and 50% IMP
Flow 14.6 kl/kkg (3.5 kgal/t);
BOD5 7.6 kg/kkg (15.2 Ib/t); and
TSS 19.4 kg/kkg (38.7 Ib/t).
Flow 12.5 kl/kkg (3.0 kgal/t);
BOD5 13.9 kg/kkg (27.8 Ib/t); and
TSS 10.2 kg/kkg (20.4 Ib/t).
201 Nonintegrated-Fine. Model mill raw waste load data for the Noninte-
grated-Fine subcategory reflect the pure mill situation:
Flow 48.5 kl/kkg (11.6 kgal/t);
BOD5 8.5 kg/kkg (17.0 Ib/ton); and
TSS 30.1 kg/kkg (60.1 Ib/ton).
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue. Model mill raw waste load data for the Noninte-
grated-Tissue subcategory reflect the pure mill situation:
Flow 84.2 kl/kkg (20.2 kgal/t);
BOD5 11.4 kg/kkg (22.8 Ib/ton); and
TSS 33.3 kg/kkg (66.5 Ib/ton).
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight. Two pure mill situations have been developed
for this subcategory. For most mills, pure mill raw waste load data is re-
flected in the average flow, BOD5 and TSS loadings for the whole subcategory,
(excluding mills making electrical papers):
Flow 266.5 kl/kkg (63.9 kgal/t);
BOD5 15.3 kg/kkg (30 Ib/ton); and
TSS 45.6 kg/kkg (91.2 Ib/ton).
A separate set of pure mill raw waste load data is presented for a small group
of mills within the subcategory where electrical papers are produced. These
mills require higher water usage per ton, but contribute reduced BOD5_ and TSS
discharges per ton:
Flow 407.0 kl/kkg (97.6 kgal/t);
BOD5 11.6 kg/kkg (23.1 Ib/ton); and
TSS 37.7 kg/kkg (75.3 Ib/ton).
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven. The pure mill raw waste loading for
this subcategory is reflected in the model mill raw waste load data, which is
the average flow and median BOD 5 and TSS values for the 16 mills in this
subcategory:
V-49
-------
Flow 171.8 kl/kkg (41.2 kgal/t);
BOD5 9.8 kg/kkg (19.6 Ib/ton); and
TSS 39.1 kg/kkg (78.1 Ib/ton).
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard. The pure mill raw waste loading for the Non-
integrated-Paperboard subcategory is generally reflected in the model mill raw
waste loads:
Flow 102.6 kl/kkg (24.6 kgal/t);
BOD5 10.0 kg/kkg (20.0 Ib/ton); and
TSS 42.3 kg/kkg (84.5 Ib/ton).
However, recognition is given to mills where electrical board is produced,
requiring greater water use to meet product specifications. The pure mill raw
waste flow for a pure mill producing electrical board is:
Flow 247.3 kl/kkg (59.3 kgal/t).
TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
As a result of a settlement agreement between the EPA and the NRDC, a list of
129 toxic pollutants was developed for investigation as part of this
study.(1)(16) Prior to undertaking these investigations, limited data was
available on these pollutants and their presence in the pulp, paper and paper-
board industry.
Nonconventional pollutants are those not named as conventional pollutants or
included in the list of toxic pollutants. Pollutants in this category may be
industry specific and may require regulation. Preliminary literature searches
identified approximately 200 organic compounds identified as present in pulp,
paper and paperboard wastewaters which were considered potentially toxic.(13)
Of these 200 compounds, several of the more commonly found compounds have
received considerable investigations by personnel at such research facilities
as B.C. Research, Inc., in Vancouver, British Columbia; the Institute of Paper
Chemistry, Appleton, Wisconsin; the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources;
EPA's Office of Research and Development; and the Pulp & Paper Research Insti-
tute of Canada (PPRIC). These nonconventional pollutants are generally known
as fatty and resin acids and bleach plant derivatives. The fatty and resin
acids identified include:
Abietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Pimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Linoleic Acid
Linolenic Acid
V-50
-------
The bleach plant derivatives include:
9, 10 - Epoxystearic Acid
9, 10 - Dichlorostearic Acid
Monochlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
3, 4, 5 - Trichloroguaiacol
3, 4, 5, 6 - Tetrachloroguaiacol
Other nonconventional pollutants evaluated include color, COD, ammonia, and
xylene.
As outlined previously, the data development involved a literature review, a
screening sampling program, and a verification sampling program.
Literature Review
As presented in Section II, project investigations have included a review of
literature on toxic and nonconventional pollutants, supplemented by discus-
sions with researchers. Potentially toxic pollutants in pulp, paper and
paperboard mill effluents are derived primarily from the wood furnish. These
are resin and fatty acids and, where pulp bleaching is practiced, their chlor-
inated analogs. Resin acids are present in many softwoods but are often
absent in hardwoods. Toxic materials can originate from chemical additives,
such as dyes containing heavy metals. Toxic pollutant and toxicity informa-
tion for pulp, paper and paperboard wastewaters (as reported in the litera-
ture) is summarized below.
Measuring Acute Toxicity. Most studies of the toxicity of pulp, paper, and
paperboard wastes are based on bio-assay procedures which indicate effluent
concentrations at which fish survival is threatened. Toxic compounds which
are diluted in large quantities of wastewater will have less toxicity than
those compounds which are present at higher concentrations. The concentration
which results in a 50 percent fish survival rate after 96 hours of exposure is
termed the 96-hr LC-50. This concentration can be expressed either as a
percentage of dilution or in terms of milligrams/litre (mg/1).
Toxicity is substantially affected by pH, with higher toxicities generally
occurring in the lower pH range. For this reason, 96-hr LC-50 values are
usually reported for pH 7.5.
Raw Effluent Acute Toxicity. Many raw pulp, paper and paperboard mill efflu-
ents exhibit a limited degree of toxicity. The major concern over this toxi-
city originates from a generally high water use. Typical water usage by
subcategory is presented in Section VIII.
A summary of the range of LC-50 concentrations (expressed as percent dilution
of raw waste) for various wood pulping and bleaching processes is shown in
V-51
-------
Table V-28. As shown, the 96-hr LC-50 of the various effluents can vary from-
4 to 100 percent by volume, with mechanical pulping effluents being the most'
toxic. It should be noted, however, that the non-chlorinated resin and fatty
acids contributing to mechanical pulping effluent toxicity are more amenable
to biodegradation than chlorinated compounds in bleachery wastes.
TABLE V-28
REPORTED MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF VARIOUS RAW PULPING EFFLUENTS
Raw Waste
Pulping Process
Unbleached Kraft
Bleached Kraft
Mechanical Pulping
Sulfite
Deink
Paperboard
Woodroom
96-Hr LC-50 (%v/v)
10-100
10-100
4- 10
10-100
3- 20
20- 40
1- 50
Reference
(40,41,42
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(47)
(48)
,43)
Sublethal Toxicity. As solutions approach lethal concentrations, adverse
sublethal effects have been observed for aquatic organisms. A summary of
reported sublethal concentrations of kraft and sulfite effluents for various!
organisms is indicated in Table V-29.
Mutagenic and Carcinogenic Effects. In a recent study, Ander (49) has ob-
served chlorination stage effluents from kraft bleaching to cause mutations in
two strains of Salmonella bacteria. A weak mutagenic effect was also observed
for hypochlorite stage bleaching effluent. The addition of human liver micro-
somes to the chlorination stage effluent decreased the mutagenic effect. This
suggests that the mutagenic compounds would be partly degraded in the liver.
Chloroform also has been shown to induce carcinogenic effects in laboratory
animals.(50)
Identification and Origin Of Specific Toxic Compounds Contributing to Raw
Effluent Toxicity. Specific toxic pollutant concentrations have been reported
for various pulp, paper, and wood products industry effluents. In most cases,
the data which has been reported relates to specific mill effluents, rather
than industry-wide surveys.
Walden has summarized the pollutants shown to be contributing the great major-
ity of the observed toxicity in major pulping effluents.(51) His findings are
presented in Table V-30. Resin acids reportedly contribute substantially to
the toxicity in all the pulping processes indicated.
V-52
-------
TABLE V-29
THRESHOLD OF SUBLETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF KRAFT MILL AND SULFITE MILL EFFLUENTS(51)
.(a)
Specie
Sublethal Effects
Kraft Mill Effluents
Spring and coho
Coho
Spring
Coho
Rainbow
Sockeye
Sockeye
Sparus
Growth, distress
Swimming
Growth
Growth
Growth
Respiration
Respiration
Arterial tension
Various histochemical
0.12-0.14
0.1 -0.2
0.12
10% v/v
>0.25
0.08-0.18
0.2
<0.33
macrocephalus
Coho
Coho
Coho
Coho
Spring
Fish food
Spring
Aquatic plants
Insects, fish
food
Spring
Coho
Lobsters
Atlantic Salmon
Oysters
Freshwater shrimp
Oysters
Oysters
changes
Histochemical
Biochemical
Plasma glucose
Biochemical (200 days)
Fish biomass
Abundance
Fish biomass
Abundance
Diversity
Abundance
Fish biomass
Swimming
Avoidance
Avoidance
Embryo deformity
Growth
Pumping
Embryonic development
3.6% v/v
>0.25
<0.33
0.1 -0.3
<0.1
0.08-0.14
>0.03
>0.03
>0.05
>0.05
>0.05
>0.05
0.15
> 20% v/v
50% v/v
0.6% v/v
Sulfite Mill Effluents^
< 1 . 6% v/v
55
6-12
(a)
Concentrations expressed as % v/v or as fraction of 96 hr LC50 static bioassay
value, unless otherwise noted.
V-53
-------
Type of Chemical
Compound
TABLE V-30
RELATIVE TOXICITY CONTRIBUTION OF COMPOUNDS IN PULP MILL EFFLUENT (51)
Kraft Effluents
Specific Examples
Bleachery
Pulping Chlorination Caustic
Debarking
Effluent
Mechanical Sulflte
Pulping Pulping
Effluent Effluent
Naturally occurring
resin acids
Chlorinated llgnlns
Chlorinated resin
acids
Unsaturated fatty
acids
Chlorinated phe-
nollcs
Diterpene alcohols
Juvablones
Other addles
Other neutrals
Lignin degrada-
tion products
Abietic, dehydro-
abletic, isopimarlc,
levopimaric, palus-
tric, plmarlc, sanda-
racoplmaric, neoabi-
etic.
Mono- and dlchloro-
dehydroabietic
Olelc, linoleic,
linolenic, palml-
toleic
Tri- and tetraclor-
ogualacol
Pimarol, isopimarol,
dehydroabietal, abi-
etal
Juvabione, juvabiol
1'-dehydroajuvabione,
1'-dehydrojuvablol,
dehydrojuvabione
Epoxystearlc acid
Dichlorostearlc acid,
Pitch dlspersant
Ab.Lenol, 12E-abienol,
13-epimanool
Eugenol, isoeugenol .
3,3 dlmethoxy, 4,4
dihydroxyst tlbene
Major
Minor
Major
Major
Major
Inter-
mediate
Intermediate -
- Minor
Intermediate -
Minor
Intermediate -
Minor
Major
Major
Intermediate
Minor
Intermediate
-------
Swan has summarized the resin acid contents of major wood species used in the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry.(52) His results, summarized in Table
V-31, show that pines contain by far the highest resin acid content of the
species studied.
TABLE V-31
TYPICAL RESIN AND FATTY ACID CONTENTS OF RAW WOOD TYPES(52)
Total Resin Acids Total Fatty Acids
Species (percent Oven Dryed Wood) (percent o.d. wood)
Pines 1.5% 1.0%
Other Softwoods 0.1% 0.1%
Hardwoods negligible 0.5%
Variance was observed within the major species groups indicated. One study
showed substantial variance in resin acid content within the same species for
differing tree ages. Specifically, pinus bansiana was evaluated for six resin
acids in trees of differing diameters.(53) The relative percentage of indivi-
dual resin acid content was almost always progressively higher with an in-
crease in diameter. The total identified resin acid contents and respective
tree diameters are summarized in Table V-32.
TABLE V-32
RESIN ACID CONTENT OF PINUS BANSIANA FOR VARIOUS TREE DIAMETERS(53)
Diameter (inches)
Total Identified Resin Acid Content
(% o.d. wood)
4
1.55
8
1.59
12
2.38
15
2.91
20
6.0
These results illustrate some of the complexities of attempting to charac-
terize the toxic pollutant content of various raw effluents. No meaningful
correlation has been established to date among toxic pollutant loads, pulping
process and wood source. This may be caused by general lack of data on this
subject.
Other potentially toxic pollutants of concern in pulp, paper, and paperboard
effluents are heavy metals which can originate from dyes or other chemicals
used in papermaking. There is an apparent lack of published literature with
respect to specific effluent toxicity originating from additives used in
various papers. Heavy metals originate largely from pigments added in paper
coating and glazing operations. A summary of heavy metal content in these
effluents is shown in Table V-33.
V-55
-------
TABLE V-33
SUMMARY OF HEAVY METAL CONTENT OF WASTEWATER FROM PAPER COATING AND GLAZING (54)
Source of
Plant Coating Pigment
1 Black
Orange
Red
Yellow
Carbon Black
Organic Pigment
Precipitated
Dyestuff
Lead Chromate
3 2 Total Washup N.D.
n
3 Lamlnator
Washup N.D.
Water Use
(gal/ton
of Product)
80
30
140
290
N.D.
N.D.
Concentration of
Pb
0.05-0.
0.14-3.
0.06-0.
420-1,
0.64-0.
0.26-0.
61
5
58
100
83
29
Cr
0.01-0
0.03-1
0.06-0
130-1
0.42-0
0.04-0
.04
.01
.37
,400
.83
.09
Cu
0.11-2.9
0.2 -130
0.12-1.5
0.25-2.8
0.68-1.4
0.3 -0.71
Toxic Substances (mg/1) ,_\
Zn
0.06-1.1
5.6 -73
0.34-7.2
5.7 -13
8.7 -19
1.4 -2.1
Cd Hgv"'
0.
0.003-0
0.0002-0
0.005 -0
0.015 -0
0.13 -0
005
.01
.27
.034
.027
.31
8-16
0.2-18
0.2
0.2-0.7
0.2-0.6
0.2-0.5
(a)
The concentrations in ug/1.
N.D. No Data
-------
Detergents used for deinking can also contribute to toxicity. Martin (55)
determined that the detergents Nalco 808 and Sterox MS-b which are used in
deinking were lethal to fish at a concentration of 4.0 mg/1. PCB's which were
formerly used in carbonless copy paper are still present in some waste paper
mill effluents by x^irtue of the waste paper cycle.
The New York State Department of Conservation has conducted a study concerning
PCB's in wastepaper mill effluents. (56) Of the 40 mills in New York State
using some waste paper, 18 were selected as potential direct dischargers of
PCB's. Final effluent samples were analyzed for each month from October 1976
to September 1978. Sample types ranged from grab samples to flow-proportioned
24-hour composite samples taken at the 13 mills. At most mills secondary
treatment was employed prior to discharge.
The results are summarized as follows:
81 percent of all samples showed PCB concentrations of less than 1
microgram/litre.
The average of all reported median mill PCB concentrations was 0.76
micrograms/litre.
The average of all median mill PCB levels, excluding mills without
effluent treatment, was 0.61 micrograms/litre.
The discharge of PCB's for any given mill was variable, with several
reported values above 10 micrograms/litre. The highest value was
18 micrograms/litre.
These results imply that PCB concentrations from waste paper mills are gener-
ally below 1 microgram/litre and that the concentration is reduced by second-
ary treatment. Occasional periods of higher concentrations have occurred,
although their cause is not precisely known.
Heavy metals generally originate from pigments added in paper dyeing, coating
and glazing operations. The sampling conducted during this program should
provide more specific information concerning the effect of these processes on
whole mill effluents.
96-Hr-LC-50's for Specific Compounds. Selected pollutants in pulp and paper
wastes and reported 96-hr LC-50 values are shown in Table V-34.
Reported Raw Wastewater Concentrations of Potentially Toxic Compounds
The toxicity of various raw pulp, paper, and paperboard wastewaters and rela-
tive toxicity contribution of specific compounds in those wastes has been
discussed. Also, the reported toxicity of specific toxic compounds has been
V-57
-------
TABLE V-34
MEDIAN LETHAL CONCENTRATIONS OF CERTAIN TOXICANTS KNOWN
TO BE PRESENT IN VARIOUS PULP AND PAPER MILL EFFLUENTS(69)
96-hr LC-50, mg/1
Substance (Rainbow Trout)
Resin Acids
Isopimaric . 0.4
Palustric 0.5
Abietic 0.7
Pimaric 0.8
Dehydroabietic 1.1
Diterpene Alcohols
Isopimarol 0.3
Pimarol 0.3
Dehydroabietol 0.8
Abietol 1.8
Chlorinated Resin Acids
Monochlorodehydroabietic acid 0.6
Dichlorodehydroabietic acid 0.6
Chlorinated Phenolics
Trichloroguaiacol 0.72
Tetrachloroguaiacol 0.32
Fatty Acids
C_18-Unsatuated fatty acid 9
Other Acids
Epoxystearic acid 1.5
Juvabiones
Iso-Dehydrojuvabione 0.8
Juvabione 1.5
DihydroJuvabiones 1.8
Juvabiols 2.0
Heavy Metals
Zinc 1.0
Volatiles
Hydrogen sulfide 0.3-0.7
Methyl mercaptan 0.5-0.9
Sodium sulfide 1.0-1.8
V-58
-------
summarized. Investigations concerning the specific concentrations of toxic
and potentially toxic compounds found in raw pulp and paper effluents have
been published. No attempt will be made here to summarize these results,
however, the following are some of the more relevant studies on this topic:
(57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68).
Screening Program
As part of the overall project investigations, the screening program was
undertaken to provide information on the presence or absence and the relative
levels of toxic and non-conventional pollutants discharged by the pulp, paper
and paperboard industry. Screening surveys were undertaken by the Jordan
Company and by EPA regional surveillance and analysis (S & A) teams. As
outlined previously, the Jordan Company undertook 11 screening surveys. Table
V-35 presents a summary of the screening program analysis results. The EPA
regional surveillance and analysis teams undertook 47 surveys which have or
will develop screening survey analysis results. Table V-36 presents a summary
of the results from 17 of the EPA S & A surveys.
Verification Program
As described previously, the screening survey results, industry survey res-
ponses, and available literature were reviewed to develop a list of parameters
to be studied in verification sampling. The verification program was devel-
oped to provide data on the toxic compounds and nonconventional pollutants
present in pulp, paper and paperboard mill effluents. Analysis results are
summarized by subcategory in Appendix A. Only those compounds which were
detected at the raw water, aeration influent (or equivalent) and final ef-
fluent have been summarized. The analysis results listed are preliminary.
Confirmation of the results is currently in progress.
The procedure used to develop this summary is similar to that used in summar-
izing the screening program results. Each compound and sample point was
examined individually and the analysis results are reported in concentration
ranges of: less than 10 ug/1; 10 to 100 ug/1; and more than 100 ug/1. Also
included in the summary is the total of all samples analyzed for which toxic
or nonconventional pollutants were not detected and the average concentration
for each compound at each sample point.
SUMMARY
This section has presented waste characteristics by subcategory for the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry. Data developed through these and continuing
project investigations will be analyzed in further detail to provide the basis
for establishment of effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the
pulp, paper and paperboard industry.
V-59
-------
TABLE V-35
SUMMARY OF SCREENING PROGRAM ANALYSIS RESULTS
Raw Water (ug/1)
Raw Wastewater (ug/1)
Final Effluent (ug/1)
Toxic Not
Pollutant Detected < 10 10-100
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
acenaphthene
ac role In
aery lonltrile
benzene
benzldlne
carbon tetrachlorlde
( to trachlorometliane)
chlorobenezene
1, 2,4-tr Ichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
1 , 2-d Ichloroethane
1, 1,1-trlchloroe thane
hexachlo roe thane
1 , 1-dtchloroethane
1, 1,2-tr Lchloroethane
1,1, 2,2-tetrachloroethane
chloroethane
bls(chloroniethyl) ether
bls(2-chloroethly) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
2-chloronaphthalene
2,4,6-trlchiorophenol
parachlorometa cresol
chloroform (trlchloremethane)
2-chlorophenol
1 , 2-d Ichlorobenzene
1 , 3-d Ichlorobenzene
1,4-d Ichlorobenzene
3 , 3 ' d ichlorobenz Id Lne
1 , 1-dlchloroethylene
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
9 2
11
11
11
11
11
11
Not
> 100 Ave Detected
12
12
12
4
12
12
10
12
12
11
7
12
11
12
11
12
12
12
12
11
12
1 2
12
12
12
12
12
12
Not
< 10 10-100 > 100 Ave Detected < 10 10-100 >
11
11
11
62 365
11
11
11 8 11
11
11
1 1 10 1
23 6 11
11
1 1 10 1
11
1 1 11
11
11
11
12 11
11
1 2 11
11
22 6 269 3 53
11
11
11
11
11
11
100 Ave
1
1
1
16
V-60
-------
TABLE V-35 (continued)
Raw Water (ug/1)
Raw Wastewater (ug/1)
Final Effluent (ug/1)
Toxic Not
Pollutant Detected
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
1 , 2-trans-dlcli luroethy lene
2 , 4-d Ichlorophenol
1 , 2-d Ichlorupropane
1 ,3-dlchloropropylene (1,3 dlch-
loropropene)
2, 4-d Imenthy 1 phenol
2 , 4-d in Itrotoluene
2 ,6-d In It co toluene
1 , 2-d Ipheny 1 hydraz Ine
ethylbenzene
*{ luoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophonyl plienyl ether
bls(2-chlorolsopropyl) ether
bls(2-chloroethoxy) inetlmne
methylene chloride (dlchloro-
methane)
inethyl chloride (chloromethane)
metliyl bromide (bromome thane)
bromof orin (tr Lbromoinethane)
d ichiorobroinoine thane
trlchlorolMuorome thane
d Ichlorodlf luorome thane
chlorod Lbromoniethane
hexachlorobutad Lene
hcxachlorocyclopentad lene
.Isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-nltrophenol
4-n Ltrophenol
2 , 4-d In L trophenol
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
3
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Not
< 10 10-100 > 100 Avg Detected
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
6
10
12
12
12
12
23 3 72 1
12
12
12
11
11
12
11
12
12
11
10
12
12
12
12
Not
< 10 10-100 > 100 Avg Detected
11
1 1 9
11
11
11
11
11
11
5 199
2 1 10
11
11
11
11
16 4 81 1
11
11
11
1 1 11
1 23 10
11
1 1 11
11
11
1 5 11
1 1 13 11
11
11
11
11
< 10 10-100 > 100 Av£
2 1
2 1
1 1
24 4 55
1 19
V-61
-------
TABLE V-35 (continued)
Raw Water (ug/1)
Raw Wastewater (ug/1)
Final Effluent (ug/1)
Toxic Not
Pollutant Detected
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
yy.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
4 , 6-d In 1 tro-o-cresol
N-n Ltrosod Lmethylamlnii
N-nltrosodlphenylamlne
N-nUrosod L-n-propylamlne
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bls(2-ethy Ihexy 1) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
dt-n-butyl phthalate
dl-n-octyl phthalate
dlethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a)anthracene (1,2-benza-
nthracene)
benzo (a) pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
3,4-benzo Eluoranthene
benzo(k) fluoranthene (1 1,12-benzo
f luoranthene)
chrysene
acenaphthlene
antliracene
benzo(gh L)perylene (1 , 12-benzo-
perylene)
f luroene
phenathrene
dlbenzo (a,h) anthracene
(1 ,2,5,6-dlbenzantliracene)
Indeno (l,2,3-cd) pyrene
(2 , 3-o-pheny lenepyrene)
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
11
11
11
11
11
0
7
11
4
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
a
11
10
Not
< 10 10-100 > 100 Avg Detected
12
12
12
12
12
92 60
13 52
12
33 1 16 3
1 I 12
1 1 7
12
12
11
12
12
11
12
8
12
12
12
12
12
12
10
1 1 2
Not
< 10 10-100 >100 Avg Detected
11
11
11
11
11
26 4 624 0
16 3 66 5
11
13 5 85 5
11
14 77
11
11
12
11
11
I 1 11
11
22 9 10
11
11
11
11
11
11
2 1 10
82 44
< 10 10-100 > 100 Avg
55 I 89
05 1 22
3.2 1 16
4 1
11
1 1
1 7
6 1 4
V-62
-------
TABLE V-35 (continued)
Raw Water (ug/1)
Raw Wastewater (ug/1)
Final Effluent (ug/l)
Toxic
Pol lutant
87. tr Ichloroethylene
88. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
89. aldrin
90. dleldrln
91. clilordane (technical mixture &
metabolites)
92. 4,4'-DDT
93. 4,4'-DDE (p,p'-DDX)
94. 4,4'-DDD (p.p'-TDE)
95. a-endosu I fan-Alpha
96. b-endosulfan-Beta
97. endosulfan sulfate
98. endrln
99. endrln aldehyde
lOO.heptachlor
lOl.heptachlor epoxlde
l02.a-BHC-Alpha
103.b-BHC-Ber.a
104.r-BHC (Mndane)-f:ainma
105.g-BHC-Delta
106.PCB-1242 (Arochlor 1242)
107.PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
108.PCB-1221 (Arochlor 1221)
109.PCB-1232 (Arochlor 1232)
110.PCB-1248 (Arochlor 1248)
lll.PCB-1260 (Arochlor 1260)
112.PCB-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
113.Toxaphene
114. Antimony (Total)
115. Arsenic (Total)
116. Asbestos (Fibrous)
117. Beryllium (Total)
Not
Detected < 10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
0 11
0 11
11
0 11
Not
10-100 > 100 Avg Detected
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
1 0
3 0
12
1 0
Not
<10 10-100 > 100 Avg Detected < 10
2 1 11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1 1 10 1
11
11
11
11
11
11
10 2 7 0 10
11 1 5 0 10
11
12 1 0 11
10-100 * 100 Avg
1
1 4
1 3
1
V-63
-------
TABLE V-35 (continued)
Raw Water (ug/1)
Raw Wastewater (ug/1)
Final Effluent (ug/1)
Toxic
Pollutant
118. Cadmium (Total)
119. Chromium (Total)**
120. Copper (Total)**
121. Cyanide (Total)
122. Lead (Total)**
123. Mercury (Total)
124. Nickel (Total)**
125. Selenium (Total)
126. Silver (Total)
127. Thallium (Total)
128. Zinc (Total)**
1 29 . 2 , 3 , 7, 8-te trachlorod Ibenzo-p-
dioxln (TCDD)
130.Abletlc Acid
131.Deliydroablettc Acid
132. Isop Lmaric Acid
133.Prlmarlc Acid
134.0lelc Acid
135.Llnolelc Acid
136. Lino lenlc Acid
137.9, 10-Epoxystearlc Acid
138.9,10-lHchlorostearlc Acid
139.Monochlorodehydroabletlc Acid
140.Dlchlorodehydroabletlc Acid
141.3,4, 5-Tr Ichlorogua lacol
142 .Tetrachlorogua lacol
143.Xylene
Not
Detected
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
<10 10-100
11
6 5
1 10
11
6 5
11
6 5
11
10 1
11
0 9
Not
> 100 Avg Detected < 10
1
8
27
10
10
1.2
13
2
5
2
2 55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1
1
11
2
3
6
11
11
12
8
11
11
11
11
12
3
0
11
4
12
2
12
12
12
0
0
0
2
1
1
10-100
8
8
7
10
6
4
1
5
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
> 100
1
4
1
1
6
7
10
1
5
3
3
1
1
1
Not
Avg Detected
2
42
80
27
36
1.5
35
2.4
2
2
555
365
700
9
87
99
192
18
5
41
5
1
1
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
7
5
11
8
6
10
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
11
< 10
11
7
0
11
5
11
3
11
10
11
0
0
1
1
2
1
1
10-100
4
11
6
7
1
7
3
3
2
3
1
» 100 Avg
2
12
53
10
16
1.5
1 38
2
6
2
4 124
1 94
2 89
12
16
6
1
1
**Conslstent discrepancies existed between split sample results for this compound.
V-64
-------
TABLE V-36
ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
SUMMARY OF SCREENING PROGRAM
RESULTS FOR EPA REGIONAL SURVEYS
Raw Wastewater (ug/1)
Final Effluent (ug/1)
Priority Pollutant
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
1,2, 4- tr ichlorobenzene
1 , 2-dichloroethane
1,1, 1- trichloroethane
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2,4, 6-trichlorophenol
chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorbenzene
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
2, 6-dinitrotoluene
1 , 2-diphenylhydrazine
ethj^ienzene
f l^Hbn thene
bis (2-chloroisopropyl)ether
bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
methyl bromide
bromoform
trichlorfluoromethane
dichlorobromome thane
isophorone
naphthalene
nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
pentachlorophenol
phenol
bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl phthalate
benzo (a) anthracene
benzo (a) pyrene
ND
34
34
36
36
30
36
18
13
35
36
36
26
31
36
36
35
37
36
36
36
35
36
37
35
33
32
36
36
34
31
16
33
34
34
34
31
34
35
36
< 10
3
3
0
1
6
0
11
1
2
1
1
8
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
2
2
5
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
10-100
0
0
1
0
1
1
7
5
0
0
0
3
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
2
0
1
1
4
12
2
1
3
1
4
1
0
0
>100
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
18
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
30
31
31
31
27
31
20
12
31
30
31
24
30
31
31
31
30
30
30
31
31
31
30
31
29
30
31
30
30
27
25
28
29
29
27
30
31
31
31
<10
1
0
0
0
4
0
10
3
0
1
0
7
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
4
5
1
2
2
4
1
0
0
0
100-100
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V-65
-------
TABLE V-36 (continued)
Raw Wastewater (ug/1)
Final Effluent (ug/1)
Priority Pollutant
chrysene
acenaphthylene
anthracene/phenanthrene
fluorene
dibenzo (a,h) anthracene
ideno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
pyrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
trichloroethylene
aldrin
dieldrin
4, 4 '-DDT
4,4'-DDD
a-endosulfan-alpha
b-endosulfan-beta
endrin
heptachlor epoxide
a-BHC-alpha
b-BHC-beta
c-BHC-gamma
PCB - 1242
PCB - 1260
ND
34
36
30
35
36
37
37
34
33
36
37
36
37
36
36
36
37
35
36
36
37
34
36
< 10
3
1
6
2
1
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
2
1
10-100
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
> 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
31
30
31
31
31
30
29
28
26
30
29
31
30
31
30
31
30
30
29
28
28
31
31
< 10
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
3
3
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
3
3
0
0
100-100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
> 100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V-66
-------
SECTION VI
PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS
INTRODUCTION
Many mills within the pulp, paper and paperboard industry have made signifi-
cant progress in implementing process controls to reduce effluent volume and
loading. Mills have developed many alternative approaches for their diverse
production processes. The implementation of appropriate production process
controls at a given mill can reduce effluent loads, alter energy consumption
and affect production costs.
Earlier effluent limitations guidelines development documents have identified
technologies commonly employed by the industry to control pulping, bleaching,
washing, liquor recovery and papermaking processes.(2)(37) These technologies
are not employed solely to reduce raw waste loads. Of greater concern to the
industry is the consistent production of high quality products with minimum
loss of substrate. Production process controls have historically been part of
an integrated pulp and papermaking operation concerned mostly with product
characteristics and process economics.
As part of the data request program, production process control information
was received from a total of 644 mills. Review of this information indicated
that the control items generally fall into nine specific mill areas:
1. woodyard/woodroom;
2. pulp mill;
3. washers/screen room;
4. bleachery;
5. evaporators and recovery;
6. liquor preparation area;
7. papermill;
8. steam plant and utilities; and
9. effluent recycle.
With the development of BCT effluent limitations guidelines, the BCT cost test
can be applied to progressive levels of control technology. To apply the cost
test, the various production process controls have been classified as Level 1
or Level 2 technologies for application within each subcategory of the pulp,
paper and paperboard industry. Level 1 technologies offer the most effective-
ness in terms of raw waste load reduction. Level 2 technologies are expected
to have less impact in reducing raw waste load and are primarily for reducing
TSS raw waste loading. Table VI-1 summarizes the production process
VI-1
-------
Control
TABLE VI-1
LEVEL 1 AND 2 PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS
Subcategory
Oil 012 013 014 015 016 017 019 021 022 032 033 034 101 102 111 112 113 114 201 202 204 205 211
1. Woodyard/Hoodroom
a. Close-up or dry woodyard
and barking operation
b. Segregate cooling water
2. Pulp Mill
a. Reuse relief and blow
condensates
b. Reduce grounduood thick-
ener overflow
c. Spill Collection
3. Washers and Screen Room
a. Add 3rd or 4th stage
washer or press
b. Recycle more decker
filtrate
c. Cleaner rejects to landfill
d. Replace sidehill screens
with vibrating
4. Bleaching
a. Countercurrent or jump
stage washing
b. Evaporator caustic extract
filtrate
5. Evaporation and Recovery Areas
a. Recycle condensate
b. Replace barometric con-
denser 2
c. Boll out tank 2
d. Neutralize spent sul-
fite liquor
e. Segregate cooling water
f. Spill Collection 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
2 2
1 1
11111111
1 1 1
111 1
1 1
2 2
2 1 1
1
1 I
1 1 1
1 1
VI-2
-------
TABLE VI-1 (Continued)
Oil 012 013 OH 015 016 017 019 021 022 032 033 034 101 102 111 112 113 114 201 202 204 205 211
6.
a.
b.
c.
d.
7.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
8-
h.
I.
J.
k.
1.
8.
a.
Liquor Preparation Area
Green liquor dregs
filter 22222 22
Lime mud pond 22 2
Spill Collection 1 11 111
Spare tank 1111 11
Pa^er Hill
Spill Collection
1. Paper machine and
bleached pulp spill
collection 1111 2 111111
2. Color plant 1 11
Improve saveall 1211 111 1 1
High pressure showers
for wire and felt
cleaning 112 1
Whitewater use for
vacuum pump sealing 1 11121121 1211
Paper machine Whitewater
showers for wire cleaning 12 1
Whitewater storage for
upsets and pulper
dilution 11 12111 1
Recycle press water 1 12 1 1 12
Reuse of vacuum pump
water 1121 21 12
Broke storage
Wet lap machine 1 111
Segregate cooling water
Cleaner rejects to land-
fill 22222 2 2 22221
Steam Plant and Utility Areas
Segregate cooling
1 1 I 1
1
1 1 1 I 1
1 1 1
1 1 I
1 1 I
1
1
1 I
1
1 1 1
222
water 1
Lagoon for boiler blow-
down & backwash
waters 2
Recycle of effluent
1 1 1
1 1
-------
controls which would be considered Level 1 or 2 technologies applicable to
each subcategory. These controls and their general effectiveness are des-
cribed below.
SPECIFIC PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS
Woodyard/Woodroom
Production process controls that reduce raw waste loading in the woodroom area
include: 1) conversion to mechanical or dry systems or close-up of wet opera-
tions with variations in sources of make-up water and means of handling flume
overflow and dumping; and 2) the segregation and reuse or direct discharge of
uncontaminated cooling waters. These controls, their applicability to the
various subcategories, and their general effectiveness are described below.
Close-Up or Dry Operation. This production process control item is commonly
practiced at most mills; however, it has not been commonly employed at mills
in the Sulfite-Dissolving and Groundwood-Fine subcategories. For the Sulfite-
Dissolving subcategory, hydraulic barking systems can be closed up by install-
ing a collecton tank and cleaning system for recycled water and by using pulp
mill wastewater as make-up. At mills in the Groundwood-Fine subcategory,
conversion to dry barking and mechanical conveyors is possible. In colder
climates it may be necessary to use steam in the barking drums. These control
items are illustrated in Figures VI-1 and VI-2.
Application of these controls in the woodroom will result in reduced water use
and a lower water content in the bark. With drier bark, combustion (and heat
reclamation) is possible without further processing.
Close-up of the woodroom by conversion to dry debarking or a closed-cycle
hydraulic system typically results in flow reductions of 8.3 to 12.5 kl/kkg (2
to 3 kgal/ton) and TSS reductions in the range of 5 to 10 kg/kkg (10 to 20
Ib/ton).(70)(25) (71) Factors affecting the level of reduction are the source
of water utilized in the woodroom, the type of operation, the type of wood,
seasonal factors, and ultimate disposal. In all cases, these control items
are designated as Level 1 technology.
Segregate Cooling Water. This control item involves the collection of water
used for motor, chip blower, and bearing cooling. These noncontact cooling
water can be returned to an existing water collection tank. At mills in some
subcategories, this control could also include the return of condensate from
the heating system to the steam plant through a separate line. The technology
is illustrated in Figure VI-3.
Woodroom noncontact cooling water segregation has been neglected at most mills
in the integrated subcategories. It is designated as an applicable Level 1
technology in the 13 integrated subcategories that employ woodrooms. Its
implementation can result in a measurable flow reduction and significant
energy savings. Segregation of cooling water via a separate discharge typ-
ically reduces effluent flow by approximately 2.0 kl/kkg (0.5 kgal/t). Flow
VI-4
-------
BARK COLLECTION CONVEYORS
i
Ul
(RC)
1
' RC 1
V. /
rl
* 1 ! I \ f 1 '
('RCNI
I
it
60 LB. STEAM MAIN
EXISTIN8
NEW
BARKIN8 DRUMS
INLET UNO
FIGURE 3ZI - I
CONVERT HYDRAULIC BARKING
SYSTEM TO DRY SYSTEM
-------
AV\
x£
OUTLINE ELEVATION OF CONVEYORS
WOODROOM
CONVEYOR
<
H
UNLOADING DECK
TYPICAL CONVEYOR SECTION
FLUME
FIGURE 21-2
FLUME REPINED BY
MECHANICAL CONVEYOR
-------
<
M
I
STEAM
t r
rfOOOROOM HEATER CHIP (BLOWER
AND IMOTOR
1
M.CNl ...*
^r
t
/^^V ^wW J
i " j
CVUtBD 1
OKWCJy"~v «
h--^t (LC|. .! f
1 STX '
1
>- M»| rWo*-!
FRESH
^f ^ WATER
BARKING (DRUM TRUNNIONS CHIP 1 SCREEN
1 1 MOTORS
*
* »*|
1
1
--fr+»l
IT CONDEN8ATE TANK j I*" COOLING WATER |
I
y . TANK y
SEWER ? SEWER
f WATER COLLECTION Jf
STEAM PLANT
CONOENSATE
TANK
FANK AT STEAM PLANT
EXISTING
..... NEW
FIGURE 3d-3
SEGREGATE COOLING WATER
AND CONDENSATE-WOODROOM
-------
reduction ranges from about 1.25 to 4.17 kl/kkg (.3 to 1.0 kgal/t), depending
upon the subcategory. Little reduction in BOD_5 or TSS raw waste loads result
from application of this technology.
Pulp Mill
Production process controls that reduce raw waste loading in the pulp mill
area include: 1) reuse of digester relief and blow condensates; 2) reduction
of groundwood thickener overflow; and 3) spill collection in the brown stock,
digester and liquor storage areas. These controls and their applicability are
described below.
Reuse Relief and Blow Condensates. Digester relief and blow condensates may
be major contributors to the total BOD5_ discharge from a mill. Particularly
with continuous digesters, the relatively small flows are highly contaminated
with foul smelling organic mercaptans and other organic compounds. Figure
VI-4 illustrates a control system for relief and blow condensates. This
control is designated as an applicable Level 1 technology for all of the
alkaline subcategories. Digester condensate is collected in a tank and pumped
to the area of greatest benefit, which could be in order of general pre-
ference:
1. first shower of last stage brown stock washer;
2. add at salt cake dissolving tank;
3. use for mud washing or smelt dissolving;
4. add directly to black liquor (extra evaporation costs); and
5. strip or use reverse osmosis to reduce BOD_5_.
A collection tank should be equipped with a conductivity alarm to alert the
operator of unusually strong condensate.
Wastewater BOD5_ reductions ranging from 0.9 kg to 3.0 kg/kkg (1.8 to 6 Ib/t)
can be achieved by incorporating digester relief and blow condensates back
into the black liquor recovery cycle where possible.(72)(73)(74) However, at
many mills with strict air emission standards, this may not be an easy task;
this must be taken into account when estimating the cost of implementation of
this technology. Possible alternatives would be steam stripping or reverse
osmosis to remove 75-90 percent of the BOD_5_ before discharge or recycle.
Reduce Groundwood Thickener Overflow. At a typical mill in the Groundwood-
Fine subcategory, excess thickener filtrate overflows to the sewer at a rate
of up to 16.6 kl/kkg (4.0 kgal/t) of pulp produced.(75) This overflow repre-
sents a small source of fiber loss and contributes 5.0 kg/kkg (10 Ib/ton) of
TSS at a typical mill. Modifications shown in Figure VI-5 can be imple-
VI-8
-------
DIGESTER
CONDENSATE
ICA
SEWER
__JL_
\
LA)
DIGESTER
CONDENSATE
TANK
CAUSTIC AREA
EXISTING
----- NEW
FIGURE 3d-4
REUSE OF DIGESTER CONDENSATE
-------
M
I
EXISTING
__ NEW
MACHINE WHITE
WATER MAKE-UP
THICKENER
THICKENER
FILTRATE
CHEST
HEAT
EXCHANGER
FRESH WATER J
MACHINES
FIGURE 3ZI-5
REDUCE GROM0PWOOD
THICKENERjnLTRATE OVERFLOW
-------
merited to close up the Whitewater system, essentially eliminating thickener
filtrate overflow to the sewer. A small bleed would be maintained to control
the build-up of pulp fines in the final accepted groundwood. Water make-up to
the groundwood system would be excess papermachine Whitewater. A heat ex-
changer would be required to control heat build-up in the filtrate, at least
during the warmer months of the year. Fresh water used as cooling water in
the heat exchanger would subsequently be returned as make-up to the paper-
machine systems. This closeup would be considered as Level 2 because of the
insignificant effect on BODJ^.
Spill Collection. Improved spill collection systems can be employed in the
digester, liquor storage, and brown stock areas. A system designed to recover
leaks, spills, dumps, and weak liquor overflows would result in a recovery of
approximately 1.5 to 3.5 kg/kkg (3 to 7 Ib/ton) of BOD5.. (76) In the brown
stock area, the combination of stock and liquor spills would generally be
pumped with the brown stock entering the first-stage washer vat. This control
is designated as an applicable Level 1 technology in 10 subcategories. A pulp
mill liquor spill system is illustrated in Figure VI-6.
A separate spill collection system can be employed using a sump in conjunction
with conductivity measurements to detect and pickup any leaks, spills, or
overflows from the pulp mill digester and liquor storage tanks. Any liquor
recovered would be diverted to its appropriate tank or to a spare liquor tank.
This is considered a Level 1 technology for the Alkaline-Dissolving, Market,
BCT, Fine and Newsprint subcategories.
Brown Stock Washers and Screen Room
Production process controls that reduce raw waste loading in the washer and
screen room areas include: 1) addition of a third or fourth-stage washer; 2)
recycle of more decker filtrate; 3) discharge of cleaner rejects to landfill;
and 4.) replacement of sidehill screens with vibrating screens (in dissolving
pulp mills). These controls are discussed below.
Add Third or Fourth-Stage Washer or Press. This control is applicable to
mills in the Alkaline, Semi-Chemical, Sulfite-Papergrade, and Deink-Newsprint
subcategories. The control includes a fourth-stage washer to be added to all
alkaline washing lines, a third-stage washer to be added to all Semi-Chemical
and Sulfite-Papergrade washing lines, and a press to be added following the
last stage of washing in the Deink-Newsprint subcategory. The systems requir-
ing an additional washer stage are shown in Figure VI-7. For these systems,
this control is primarily a BOD5_ reduction measure, as dissolved solids losses
from the pulping operation are reduced. For the Deink-Newsprint subcategory,
three-stage countercurrent washing and reuse of papermachine Whitewater is
typical. However, by adding a press after the final washer to bring the pulp
to 15 percent consistency, the washing is improved. By reusing the press
effluent on the washers, this system reduces the effluent flow as well as BODS
and TSS. ~
VI-11
-------
PULP MILL FLOOR DRAINS
I II I
I
fCCAt*
SUMP
-C-
SEWER
SURGE
LAGOON'
EXISTING
- NEW
FIGURE 3ZI -6
PULP MILL SPILL COi^ECTION
DIGESTER AREA
-------
*
i
M
OJ
ft
9 RD STA
WASHER
^_^
r>
1 r
1 y^HL
1 7 v:
U
2 ND STAGE
SHOWERS
t
^- 1 / ,
5 i {
m, i » t
»
b-*
GE 1 4 TH STAGE
HOOD ^H WASHER
a FAN y\
^^ HOT WATER
-^ #-O
^ 1" | / "^ n Jl RELOCATED
1 JJ.±1 jTll '. | »f lyl SHREDDER CONVEYOR
1^ ] T ri c:,
^t 1
1
1
1 BROWN STOCK
1-.-..) STORAGE
1
1 1 1
t J t_
I 1
1
1
i i '
I ' '
Qf-H^-L J
FOAM TANK
EXISTING
9 RD STAGE BLACK
LIQUOR FILTRATE
TANK
4 TH STAGE BLACK
LIQUOR FILTRATE
TANK
NEW
FIGURE ZL-7
ADDITION OF THIRD OR
FOURTH STAGE PULP WASHER
-------
In all bleached subcategories, improved washing facilitates better bleaching
and lower bleach chemical costs. In terms of raw waste load, the main effect
is a reduction in BOD_5_, ranging from about 2.5 kg/kkg (5 Ib/ton) for Alkaline-
Dissolving mills to as much as 4 kg/kkg (8 Ib/ton) for the Alkaline-BCT sub-
category. In the Alkaline-Newsprint subcategory (with generally newer, more
modern mills, and more properly sized washers), such losses are estimated at 1
kg/kkg (2 lb/t).(77)(78)(79)
Recycle More Decker Filtrate. This Level 1 control item is generally applic-
able to the Sulfite-Dissolving subcategory and to all the alkaline subcategor-
ies except Alkaline-Dissolving. The unique quality demands of the dissolving
pulps preclude the practicality of such complete closeup; few mills have a
closed-up decker filtrate system. Tightening up by using decker filtrate for
brown stock washer showers can substantially reduce decker filtrate overflow
to the sewer, thus reducing effluent flow and BOD_5_. Efficient washing on the
decker is required to reduce liquor carry-over to bleaching. A schematic of
this control is shown in Figure VI-8.
Typically, reductions of about 4.2 kl/kkg (1.0 kgal/t) of flow and 0.5 to 1.0
kg/kkg (1 to 2 Ib/ton) of BOD_5_ can be realized by such a close-up. (80) (81)
Implementation of this technology requires a detailed study at each mill; the
efficiency of the existing washing and screening systems should be taken into
account, prior to further modification.
Cleaner Rejects to Landfill. Centricleaner rejects and continuous-screen
rejects from the screen room are generally sewered directly and processed in
the wastewater treatment facility. Most of such rejects are removed in the
primary clarifier and handled in the solids dewatering system, or often mixed
with solids from the secondary clarifier. Dry collection of screen and
cleaner rejects, as shown on Figure VI-9, with separate discharge to landfill
(in effect bypassing the wastewater treatment facility) will reduce TSS raw
waste loads. This technology is considered to be a Level 2 technology applic-
able to the Alkaline-Newsprint, Sulfite-Papergrade, Groundwood-CMN and Fine,
and Deink-Newsprint subcategories.
Typically 2 to 3 kg/kkg (4 to 6 Ib/ton) of TSS would be removed from the raw
waste in most of the integrated subcategories. This may or may not be a
significant factor in final effluent characteristics, depending on the exist-
ing balance of the primary clarifier. If the clarifier is overloaded, TSS
reduction can have an appreciable effect on overall treatment facility per-
formance. If the clarifier can readily accommodate this loading, it may be
advantageous to continue sewering these wastes in that the accompanying fi-
brous material, when mixed with secondary solids, can aid in dewatering of the
combined solids.
Replace Sidehill Screens. For the Alkaline-Dissolving subcategory, sidehill
screens used to fractionate the pulp can be replaced with a continuous screen-
ing system. Dry discharge to landfill can then be employed to significantly
reduce raw waste load, both in terms of BOD5 and TSS. A reduction of approx-<
VI-14
-------
WHITE WATER
TANK
6
^ 11m lm
RECOVERY
LAST STAGE
BROWN STOCK WASHER
T
I
I
I
i
^^ BLEACH
"" PLANT*
DECKER
SEAL
TANK
EXISTING
NEW
FIGURE ₯1-8
RECYCLE DECKER FILTRATE
-------
ACCEPTS
ACCEPTS
I
M
CTi
FOURTH STAGE
PULP MILL
CLEANERS
THIRD STAGE
PAPER MILL
CLEANERS
REJECTS
SIDEHILL SCREEN
DUMP8TER TO
LANDFILL
EXISTING
TO SEWER
SUMP
----- NEW
REJECTS
SUMP
ACCEPTS
TANK
- 9
CLEANER REJECTS TO LANDFILL
-------
imately 7.5 kg/kkg (15 Ib/ton) each of BOD^ and TSS is estimated. To obtain
the necessary dissolving pulp purity, additional vibrating slotted screens and
extra bleach plant purification can be employed. The pulp on the sidehill
screens is handled at very low consistency and the resulting large effluent
flow cannot generally be recycled or screened to remove solid material. The
rejects from the vibrating slotted screens, however, can be removed and thick-
ened and subsequently separately discharged. Figure VI-10 shows this control
technology, which is considered to be a Level 1 technology applicable to the
Alakaline-Dissolving subcategory.
Bleaching Systems
Bleaching systems vary widely from single stage operations in groundwood and
deinked mills, to three (CEH) stages in sulfite and semi-bleached alkaline
mills. In fully bleached alkaline mills a common sequence is CEDED. Gener-
ally effluent from the first two stages is mostly sewered, although some of
the first-stage chlorination filtrate may be used to dilute incoming washed
brown stock. The following technologies address further steps which may be
implemented to reduce effluent flow from multi-stage bleacheries - a major
source of process effluent in bleached alkaline pulp mills.
Countercurrent or Jump-stage Wash. This control is applicable to all alkaline
mills and many sulfite mills. In jump-stage washing, the filtrate from the
second chlorine dioxide washer is used on the showers of the first chlorine
dioxide washer, and the filtrate from the first chlorine dioxide washer is
used on the showers of the chlorine washer. The filtrate from the second
caustic washer will be used on the first caustic washer. Jump-stage, instead
of straight countercurrent washing, is necessary if the first and second
caustic washers are constructed of materials that are not sufficiently corro-
sion resistant (i.e., either 304 stainless steel (ss) or rubber covered,
rather than the more resistant 317 ss). Water savings equivalent to that
previously used on three stages may be obtained.
In newer mills where all bleach plant washers, pumps, pipelines, repulpers,
etc. are constructed of 317 ss or equivalent, full countercurrent washing may
be implemented. Fresh water, or preferably pulp machine or papermachine
Whitewater, is used for the last stage washer showers and for dilution after
high density bleached pulp storage. All washer filtrate would be used for
showers and dilution for the preceding stage. Compared to a bleach plant with
all fresh water showers, the conversion of full countercurrent washing can
reduce bleach plant effluent volume by up to 80 percent. See Figures VI-11
and VI-12 for typical flow diagrams.
Full countercurrent bleaching utilizing chlorine dioxide necessitates the use
of 317 ss or titanium materials of construction for all washers, pumps, and
pipelines in the system. If not already in place, such equipment is extremely
expensive, whereas jump-stage washing sequences can often be readily imple-
mented utilizing the existing major items of equipment with relatively minor
alterations, such as the addition of pumps and pipelines to service additional
showers.
VI-17
-------
DECKERS
EXIST. WHITE WATER HEADER
H I
VIBRATINO
SCREEN
LAST STAGE
BLEACH WASHER
I
M
00
ELIMINATED
SIDE HILL
SCREENS
HIGH DENSITY
TANK
LOW DENSITY
TANK
BLEACH SYSTEM
PULP MACHINE
WHITE WATER
rb.
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUMPSTER TO
LANDFILL
/""N
(LC I
PULP
MACHINE
ACCEPTS TANK
EXI8TIN6
-- NEW
FIGURE 21- 10
ELIMINATE SIDE HILL «*EENS
ALKALINE-DISSOLVING
-------
WHITE WATER.
DECKER
nOH W J
STEAM MIXER S \
FIGURE IDE- II
JUMP STAGE WASHING IN
BLEACH PLANT
-------
FRESH
PAPER MACHINE
WHITE WATER
OR
FRESH WATER
-*T-I
to
O
WATER
m
* r
Lz^t
n
n
SEWER
FIGURE 3ZI-I2
FULL COUNTER - O^RENT
WASHING IN BLEACH^LANT
-------
Earlier studies have proposed full countercurrent washing or jump-stage wash-
ing in multi-stage alkaline pulp mill bleach plants. Jump-stage washing or
modifications of such a system are utilized at many mills. Bleach plant water
use has declined sharply as a result of these changes. Greater water reuse on
preceding stages would be effective in reducing raw waste flows from the
Alkaline-Market, BCT, Fine, Newsprint, and Sulfite-Dissolving and Papergrade
subcategories. For the alkaline subcategories, this modification is desig-
nated as Level 2 technology because of the high cost and essentially only a
resulting flow reduction. Flow reductions of 9 to 25 kl/kkg (2 to 6 kgal/t)
are possible through improved countercurrent reuse of filtrates in the bleach-
ing sequence at mills in the alkaline and sulfite subcategories. For the two
sulfite subcategories this technology is designated as Level 1. For the
simpler Sulfite-Papergrade bleach plants, savings would be about 29 kl/kkg (7
kgal/ t).(82)(83)(74)
Evaporate Caustic Extraction Stage Filtrate. This control item is designated
as an applicable Level 1 technology for the Sulfite-Dissolving subcategory.
The hot caustic extraction stage would have a three-stage washing system
similar to a red stock washer with carefully controlled hot showers. The
effluent from this stage would be evaporated and incinerated separately from
the rest of the bleaching effluent; therefore, flow would be kept to a mini-
mum. Implementation of this control will greatly reduce the BOD5 loadings 25
kg/kkg (50 Ib/ton) and substantially reduce the TSS loading.(37) A flow
diagram for this system is shown in Figure VI-13.
Evaporation and Recovery
Production process controls that reduce raw waste loading in the evaporator
and recovery areas include: 1) recycle of condensates; 2) replacement of the
barometric condenser with a surface condenser; 3) addition of a boil-out tank;
4) neutralization of spent sulfite liquor; 5) segregation of cooling water;
and 6) various spill collection measures. These controls are discussed below.
Recycle of Condensates. In the evaporator and recovery area, the analysis of
mill responses indicates that considerable progress has been made in utilizing
essentially all condensates. Only in the Alkaline-BCT, Semi-Chemical, and
Alkaline-Newsprint subcategories does extensive increased recycle of conden-
sate appear feasible when compared to present modes of operation. At Alka-
line-BCT mills, improved use of condensate is projected to eliminate up to 7.5
kg/kkg (15 Ib/ton) of BOD5_ from the raw waste. In the Alkaline-Semi-Chemical
operations, where lower levels of substrate are dissolved, the reuse of con-
densate represents a far lower BOD 5 saving, generally less than 0.25 kg/kkg
(0.5 Ib/ton).(78)(84)(90)(81) For mills in the Alkaline-Newsprint subcate-
gory, reductions of approximately 1.5 kg/kkg (3 Ib/ton) of BOD 5_ can be
achieved. As BOD5_ reductions are significant such steps are designated as
Level 1. A flow diagram for this system is shown in Figure VI-14.
VI-21
-------
RED PULP WASHER
HOT WATER
HOT WATER
i
t-o
NJ
.FILTRATE
(STORAGE
|T AN 1C
BLEACHED PULP
STORAGE
EXISTING
DRYER WHITE
WATER
* *
SEWER IT
WASHER
FILTRATE
TANK*
EVAPORATORS
«*
HOT
WATER
MIXER
i!₯
WER
WASHER
FILTRATE
TANK
3*4_lr M [WLjl
TOWER V i f
I I'LANI 8EV
1
F-
MIXER
TOWER
jSID£ .
""SCREENS
SEWER
_X WASHER
FILTRATE
TANK
FIGURE 3ZI- 13
BLEACHERY- JUMP STAGE^SHING
SULFITE-DISSOLVING
-------
V
>(LC
CAUSTIC
AREA
to
CONDEN3ATE
TANK
i
to
u>
I
O
LAST STAGE
BROWN STOCK
WASHER
EXISTING
_...,__ NEW
FIGURE in: -14
COMPLETE REUSE OF EVAPORATOR COMPENSATE
ALKALINE PULP MILLS
-------
Replace Barometric Condenser. Most mills in all integrated subcategories,
except for Alkaline-Dissolving, use surface condensers. For this subcategory,
the barometric condenser can be replaced with a surface condenser, thus assur-
ing a clean, warm condenser water stream usable in most applications. This
also results in a smaller concentrated stream of condensate that may be reused
in the causticizing area or in the brown stock washer area. The existing
barometric condenser seal tank would be reused as a seal tank for the new
surface condenser. The air ejectors would be retained as standby, for system
startup.
A cooling water pump would be provided to pump mill process water through the
condenser and return it to the process water main. In summer the cooling
water may be too hot to return entirely to process. Automatic temperature
control could be implemented to divert excess water to a noncontact water
thermal sewer and return only the acceptable amount to the process water line.
A new condensate pump would be provided to pump to the required discharge
point or to washers for reuse if possible. This production process control is
shown schematically in Figure VI-15. This high cost item would result in less
than 0.5 kg/kkg (1.0 Ib/ton) BOD_5_ reduction, and less than 4.2 kl/kkg (1.0
kgal/t), flow reduction, and is therefore considered as a Level 2 technology
item.(74) (85)
Boilout Tank. This control item is designated as an applicable Level 2 tech-
nology for mills in the Alkaline-Dissolving and Alkaline-Market subcategories.
Water for the boilout would be pumped to the evaporators from the boilout
tank, which would be full at the start of the process. When the concentration
of the black liquor coming out of the evaporators starts to decrease, the flow
would be diverted to the weak black liquor tank. When the concentration
decreases further to a predetermined value, the flow is diverted (evaporator
discharge) to the boilout tank. Overflow from the condensate tank, which
occurs during boilout because of an increased rate of evaporation, would also
be put into the boilout tank. After the boilout is complete and weak black
liquor is again being fed to the evaporator causing the concentration from the
evaporators to rise, weak black liquor flow would be diverted to the weak
black liquor tank and eventually to the strong black liquor tank. This system
is shown in Figure VI-16.
Neutralize Spent Sulfite Liquor. In both the Sulfite-Dissolving and Paper-
grade subcategories, some mills (particularly those with MgO systems) can
benefit from neutralization of spent sulfite liquor before evaporation.
Neutralization gives a significant reduction in the carry-over of organic
compounds to the condensate. Depending on the mode of operation, this can
range from 1 to 1.5 kg/kkg (2 to 3 Ib/ton) of BOD_5 at Sulfite-Papergrade mills
and up to 25 kg/kkg (50 Ib/ton) of BOD_5 at Sulf ite-Dissolving mills. Figure
VI-17 shows the modifications. This item is a Level 1 control because of the
significant BOD_5_ reduction. Mills other than MgO or Na base would have to use
an organics removal system and evaporator condensate recycle. The reduction
in 30D_5_ load to the effluent in the evaporator condensate is of the same order
of magnitude as with spent sulfite liquor neutralization. The capital cost
can be more. Organics removal is essential to prevent buildup in the system
when recycled.
VI-2 4
-------
TO EXISTING BAROMETRIC
CONDENSER EJECTORS
STEAM
_±_
NJ
Ol
FR
r >j~ 1 | j i
* ' J 1 i
EVAPORATORS "*~ ' f r"-i
^^xHM !
A
\ / SURFACE / \
MILL
PROCESS
WATER i
MAIN
i
(
i
\ / CONDENSER / \
* / r^ "^ ^
SEPARATOR l_
>
f"""1
1
_Jk__ J!_,
INTERCONDENSERf
i >»..
\ r CONDENSATE
i i
^h 1 ^Sr^H
j
1
^ - ^* . - .^ W
v' 1
. 1
»(TRC ! C""!
^^ A s~*\
SEWER \^J
^^.
^PROCESS 2C
-if
1^. 1 1
i
^^^_j
*^^p*
* H
r
II
1 1
I i
i!
i
I r^1
-i
i
i
i
i
i
A
V
/\
V
Jl
if
Ik
|
ir
II
.J
I (VENT
'if
j j 1
1 1 !
rl*
"]
1
. . NEW
TO ATMOSPHERE
START-UP
SEAL TANK
SEWER
FIGURE ~SL- 15
REPLACE BAROMETRIC CONDENSER
WITH SURFACE CONDENSER
-------
BROWN STOCK
WASHERS
V
L
1
VEAK BLACK
IQUOR TANK
>
1 J i
*
1
1
EVAPORATORS
1
f
8EV
'F~CV . ^
v^x . 1^
: : I
: A i
^ i
., <
SEWER
-^
.^LCJ
I
-*y ll
h*i
f j
fER 1
1
_J_J
1
1
1
RECOVERY
' *"* BOILER
1
| STRONG BLACK
LIQUOR STORAGE
BROWN STOCK
CAUSTIC AREA
U
|
1
1
EXISTING
-. _-.- NEW
*-*» -[;,. J.
|
BOIL OUT
TANK
SEWER
FIGURE
- 16
EVAPORATOR BOIL OUT TANK
-------
ABSORPTION
<
M
I
WASHERS
TOWER
FLOW METER L
L
-CKJ.J4*
«"
/ N
ILCAJ...^.^.
RED LIQUOR
STORAGE
HEADER
/"N
IPHC)
MgO SLURRY
TANK
MIX TANK
<> /-N
3 RD ST
LIQUOR
ABSORPTION
TOWER
EXISTING
NEW
WARM
AGE RE
WASHER
r^i
1 WATEf
° V
t V^
t, "^
^^ ~
\ ...| FC 1...
!<**
X~N
\FV HEAT
"" EXCHANGER i
**_**_ j~ ?_7___
EVAPORATORS
» »
l\-A] j
I
CONDENSATE
STORAGE TANK
FRESH WATER
HEADER
CONDENSATE
TANK
EVAPORATOR
WASH
FIGURE 3ZE- 17
NEUTRALIZE SPENT
SULFITE LIQUOR
-------
Segregate Cooling Water. Segregation and reuse of cooling water in the eva-
porator and recovery area of semi-chemical mills can result in substantial
flow reductions. At some of these mills, extensive reuse of cooling water is
practiced; however, smaller streams are typically discharged to the sewer.
Elimination of the discharge of these sewered streams would reduce the flow to
the treatment facility. The equipment requirements are similar to those shown
earlier in Figure VI-3 for application in the woodroom area.
Cooling water segregation in the evaporator and recovery area is a viable
production process control for semi-chemical pulp mills. Estimated flow
reductions of approximately 1.7 kl/kkg (0.4 kgal/t) result.(74) (75) This is
considered as a Level 1 technology.
Spill Collection. Spill collection in the evaporator, recovery, causticizing
and liquor storage areas could be implemented to varying degrees at mills in
the Alkaline Unbleached subcategories. The spill collection system applicable
to mills in each subcategory varies widely, depending on the existing level of
implementation. This technology involves the use of the following techniques,
all of which are being used at some mills in certain subcategories:
o spill collection in the evaporator and recovery boiler area;
o spill collection in the liquor storage area;
o spill collection in the causticizing area; and
o addition of a spare liquor tank to accept spills from any of these
three areas, and a pump to return a spill to its point of origin.
All spill collection systems involve the use of a sump and a pump to divert
the spill to the spill tank. If the tank were full, spills would be diverted
to a surge lagoon. The spill collection sump for the liquor storage area
would be equipped with a conductivity controller which allows surface runoff
and low conductivity spills to be diverted to the surge lagoon, while high
conductivity spills would be sent to the spill tank to be recovered. A flow
diagram for a typical system is shown in Figure VI-18. These modifications
are considered as Level 1 because of the effective reduction of both BOD5_ and
TSS.(78)(86)(87)
Liquor Preparation Area
Production process controls that reduce raw waste loads in the liquor pre-
paration area include installation of a green liquor dregs filter and lime mud
pond, as described below.
Installation of Green Liquor Dregs Filter. At an alkaline pulp mill with a
modern recovery furnace, green liquor dregs contribute approximately 5 kg/kkg
(10 Ib/ton) of TSS.(25) Diversion of this material from the primary clarifier
can have a beneficial effect, as the dregs are usually pumped from a gravity-
VI-28
-------
WEAK
BLACK
LIQUOR
WHITE
LIQUOR
<
M
I
S~UM"P ~ J-C*
RECOVERY arH 1 f ^
EVAPORATOR 1 $-*
AREA 1 | U*l£?"«***1
CAUSTIC
AREA
1 SUMP " J-C* * '
! ' ' ^
1 1 4^--j*-4x»»
SUMP t'-b
EXISTING '
' *«
^
r
i
SURGE |
LAGOOIf 1
SURGE
LAGOOI*
~
SURGED
[?'
| SPILL
1
1
1
J
1
1
* »! .
i
l
><>*
TANK
WI-AK BLACK
f» ** «« »
J[ LIQUOR
6REEN LIQUOR
t WHITE LIQUOR
HXJ- -^.
CLARIFIER
MEW
FIGURE 3ZI- 18
SPILL COLLECTION-EVAPORATOR,
RECOVERY, CAUSTICIZING AND
LIQUOR STORAGE AREAS
-------
type dregs washer or clarifier at very low consistencies with accompanying
high strength alkaline liquor entrainment. This may have an appreciable
effect on pH at the clarif ier. In addition, the material tends to be of a
fine colloidal nature and can be difficult to settle.
At many modern mills belt-type filters have been installed to improve washing
and sodium recovery from the dregs. This results in a drier material that can
readily be disposed of at a landfill site. For mills having only a gravity-
type unit, a small vacuum filter can be employed. Condensate can be applied
for washing the cake on the filter with subsequent use of the filtrate in the
dregs washer itself. This creates a countercurrent system that is effective
in the recovery of sodium and for dry dregs disposal. Generally, such pro-
jects are justified on the basis of alkali saving. This decision depends on
the capability of the existing primary clarifier and sludge thickening opera-
tions. Figure VI-19 presents a schematic of this Level 2 control technology.
Such devices are generally applicable to all alkaline subcategories.
Lime Mud Pond. At alkaline pulp mills, the use of a lime mud pond can also
reduce TSS caused by upsets, startups, and shutdowns in the white liquor
clarification and mud washing area. Use of a lime mud pond can also aid in
operation of the entire lime system by maintaining high lime availability for
minimum requirements during processing and in avoiding a dead recycled load of
lime. This minimizes potential overloading problems in the white liquor
recovery area, and .reduced operating costs at the lime kiln.
A spill collection diversion system, incorporating a pond for liquors con-
taining high quantities of lime mud, enables the reuse of this mud. It also
assures minimum upsets to the primary clarifier in the case of a dump of a
unit containing high concentrations of lime for an extended period of outage
or repair. Typical long-term savings average 1.5 to 2.5 kg/kkg (3 to 5
Ib/ton) of TSS in alkaline pulp mills.(79) This Level 2 item is applicable to
the Alkaline-Fine, Unbleached, and Newsprint subcategories. It has been
commonly applied to other alkaline subcategories. Figure VI-20 presents a
schematic of this control technology.
Papermill
Production process controls that reduce raw waste loading in the papermill
area include: 1) papermachine, bleached pulp and color plant spill collection;
2) saveall improvement; 3.) high-pressure showers for wire and felt cleaning;
4) Whitewater use for vacuum pump sealing; 5) Whitewater showers for wire
cleaning; 6) Whitewater storage for upsets and pulper dilution; 7) recycle of
press effluent; 8) reuse of vacuum pump water; 9) provision for additional
broke storage; 10) installation of wet lap machines; 11) segregation of cool-
ing water; and 12) collection of cleaner rejects for landfill disposal and/or
fourth-stage cleaners. These specific controls, their applicability to the
various subcategories, and their general effectiveness are described individ-
ually in the following paragraphs.
VI-30
-------
GREEN LIQUOR CLARIFIER
DRE68 MIXEFI
SEAL
WATER
~r~;:i-
R r*-T
}-< I
A-Ai
VACUUM
PUMP
_
^-^
_<-J II fr
^/^
J
1
|
1
1
s~\
(LC )
*
*
J-
V
T DREOS
| WASHER
f **
_ SEWER f
1
i_.
j-*-!
1
T
SEWER
-. WEAK WASH
HOOD
EXHAUST
1
£\
I ' ' ~\
irri^
-\-
DRIEOS FILTER
CONDENSATE
^^tHolTET "" ""
*»
! 1 DUMP8TER
' 1 TO
L « LANDFILL
SEPARATOR
EXISTIN6
SEWER
- NEW
FIGURE 3ZI-I9
GREEN LIQUOR DREGS FILTER
-------
LIME MUD STORAGE
DUMP TANK
<
II
I
:
A'*l MHO TAT
IIIIIJ 1 VA 1 u **** 1
LJ - I-_J 1 i
1
f
1 I
i
MUD FILTER
jf
CONTAMINATED
-. -.. NEW
CONCRETE LIME MUD
HOLDING TANK
(HIGH PRESSURE)
FIGURE0LL-20
LIME MUD STORAGE POND
-------
Spill Collection. Papennachine and bleached pulp storage area spill collec-
tion is applicable to mills in all the bleached alkaline, sulfite, groundwood,
and nonintegrated subcategories. The extensiveness of the control varies by
subcategory, depending on factors such as the number of machines and the
extent to which spill collection already exists at typical mills. For the
bleached alkaline and sulfite subcategories, spill collection systems would
handle overflows and equipment drains along with spills from the bleached
stock storage area, the stock preparation areas, and the papermachine or pulp
machine wet ends. As shown in Figures VI-21 through VI-23, these systems
would generally require installation of a new sump, a new stock tank and a
pump to return the spills to a point where they could be blended back into the
process. This Level 1 control should result in substantial stock savings, and
a reduction in TSS load. Savings estimates vary widely, but may typically be
2-2.5 kg/kkg, (4-5 Ib/ton) for both BOD5_ and TSS.
Color plant spill collection is applicable to mills in all subcategories
manufacturing fine papers. One spill collection system would be applied for
each machine which has a coater or size press. With this system, a spill
would be collected in a sump and stored for reuse. The system provides for
control of spills in all the storage and mix tank areas of the color plant,
and at the coater, tanks, and screens. Implementation of this Level 1 control
would result in a saving of expensive coating pigments and adhesives, as well
as a reduction in the TSS load. A flow diagram is shown in Figure VI-24.
Improvement of Savealls. Mills in the majority of subcategories will benefit
from saveall improvements such as new vacuum disc saveall installations or re-
working of existing savealls with addition of some new equipment. Savealls
can be employed on all types of machines, producing all types of production
including: fine paper, board, tissue, molded products and newsprint. This
technology is general practice in the Alkaline-Fine and BCT, Groundwood-Fine,
and Deink-Fine subcategories. Most of the savealls being installed today are
of the vacuum disc filter type. They are flexible in handling various types
of stock and shock loadings and exhibit high separation efficiencies. As a
control item, their usefulness results mostly from flow and solids reductions.
Nearly all stock saved is stored or reused immediately. The clear Whitewater
can be readily reused within the mill, replacing some fresh water uses. If
not reused, it becomes a relatively clear overflow to the sewer. Thus sig-
nificant flow reductions, as well as TSS and BOD5_ are permitted when an effec-
tive saveall is used. Extensive filtrate recycle then becomes possible. Such
modifications are considered as Level 1 technology.
Mills with existing savealls may not require entire installations. In these
cases a new saveall could replace the existing saveall on the largest machine,
making use of existing pumps, tanks, and piping. The existing saveall could
be repiped for the next smaller machine, and so on down the line, so that each
machine may have a larger, more effective saveall. Figures VI-25 through
VI-27 illustrate typical saveall installations. The resulting overall white-
water balance determines the net saving, but saveall flow reductions of from
about 0.8 kl/kkg (0.2 kgal/t) to 41.7 kl/kkg (10 kgal/t) are possible depend-
ing on the type of mill.(81)
VI-33
-------
BLEACH PLANT
HIOH DENSITY BLEACHED PULP
8TORA6E
PAPER MACHINES
i
OJ
o
0,0
riJ
SEWER r
BLEACH TOWERS
_SL_
C
BLEACHED
UNBLEACHED^*
1
BROKE TANKS 1 \^l
_J
| J_.
i
-~i
I
i
L - -, _
cj^__ _j_ ][__
294
Ii >> h
!! . !! !
» 3B^^B SMHHB |
FLOOR TRENCHES
^_ J
MM^^B^E
i i
..n..iLC^
1 1 1 1
II 1
II 1
1 ; ' ii
, ! L4*I -.2--.-. «... 1
lix*-1 T*4^ r 2, ll|
STOCK CHEST 1 ,f f A, /."\
..'«. ! v»lLAJ
VI < | 1 x '
^Xfc^r-x |
,,< l*^O^ |
vh; SUMP
----- NEW
r~ ix»i i "»" t»i «»
^---Jl
Aeooi
STOCK SPILL COLLECTION
PULP BLEACHING S PAPER MACHIN0VREAS
-------
8RD-6TH STAGE BLEACH TOWERS
BLEACHED STOCK TANKS PULP DRYER WET END
t_n
1
4
1
T
1
i
9
1
RD - 6T
O
<
H
T
8
C
: Y :
1
CAGE 1
)|(
Y
1
1
1
1
u~
?v t*.
* , .
j i
1 1
II
II
ILEACH WASHERS J|
D|O !
V V ' '
i + '
w »^« . . i
;.Ui;
L i*»*
h»»'
.__!
i
i
,-x r
ILCA)*.'.
^-' 1
1
1
1
1
1
IBL
,81
1
o-^
g^-H
1
1
1
A
BLEACH PLANT
-~T /-» HIGH DENSITY
F«- '71 {"''CHARM PUBF
/ f"0'"!
/ ' ^ f")
'1 1 1 ^-x
^i H«-:
L.t,»iJf Vt?^?.H_pi*!lfc.
1 1 ^"S PEED PUMP
.EACHED STOCK
ORAOE TANK
EXISTING
NEW
G-j
SURGE LAGOONY
FIGURE 3OI-22
STOCK SPILL COLLECTION SYSTEM
PULP BLEACHING AND DRYER AREAS
ALKALINE PULP MILLS
-------
PAPER MACHINES
STOCK PREP AREA-STOCK TANKS
OJ
CT>
F ^
1
2
li
n
1 L _l
L- n
3
. I
_ _ __ __ J
1
1 PURCHASE
r- r-
r
4 CA \* JT*« ^LA i
v^-,y i i i
1 Mr -|
i , G* L
..... ^^ ^r-v»«
i-ix!^?** -**-^l
L. j^^*^ / 1
SUMP 4
^v«IAVI&l*% WW IW r ^* ^f**
i i i
i i i
Ii i
^^^^^^t ^^^^^^^^ i
J STOCK "TANK '** [
» , , ^^.^^ , j
i I
__ _ «^^"^^^ _ _
r
GROUND
WOOD
No.l PAPER MACHINE
BROKE *^
PAPER MACHINE
f*^ "" BROkF " "" ^
_ *No.3 PAPER MACHINE
L ^|^4 g.--. ^
1 PURCHASED STOCK
1^ CHEST *
* J feROUNOWOOD STOCK
SURGE LAGOON
..... NEW
FIGURE 3H- 23
STOCK SPILL COLLECTION SYSTEM
PAPER Ml£ AREA
GROUNDWOOD - CMN OR FINE
-------
<
M
I
t
EXISTING
NEW
SPARE
TANK
i
₯
'LCI***; p--
' +
: j* tj,
|
SUMP
STORAGE TANKS
i
MIX TANKS
DRAIN FROM COATER
OR SIZE PRESS
FIGURE 3ZL- 24
SPILL COLLECTION SYSTEM
COLOR PLANT ALKALINE-FINE
-------
HEAD BOX
WIRE
COUCH
PRESSES
r* 1
- J
A. S N
Y_// \ '
VACUUM t-rf \ f-^
SAVEALL | 1' | ' ; (HLA;
L,_l sCC!-V^'/Lrj5 - - SWEETNER
* i \ 4
i \ *
*, i »
t ' *
f L;;;::;""":
Y t
CLOUDY CLEAR
WHITE WHITE
WATER WATER
SEWER WHITE (WATER CHEST.
{ y+4
i n Jt
rf T * "
fHLAl
' *\ t~N '
| STOCK ^'l
i CHEST ......
1 ft I f\
«.J (""» ^y~J&*4--l
-NT_ _r*o-*.r T
1
1
1
Y
BLEND CHEST
.i EXISTING
L
'
._ ___ ____ _ _ .
^o'"^ n n n
.y ^.a \uuuc
\ ^^n ^ «i* .n A^~T / 1
1' \ ^^ af\ \ /COUCH
WIRF 1 PIT ""11 /PIT FRESH
WIRE 1 PIT 1 | | / WATER
* t-^c-^. I ' 1 1
I V-T ^"~L ** Ti^-i^_
^ ,. ,_ .T__ f l-*-P*"
tT^L» ^< '
1 VV
* :
f ^
flj SEAL WATER '0-* ;
' nf fc' ' i j i Y i ' ' i ' i fc
EXISTINB WHITE WATER Y Y I fcY fcf fc Y
'» LINE TO PAPER MACHINE TJ EXISTIN* !
SEAL BOXES '
VACUUM PUMPS 1
r** ^ Y
rin-iiniin i.i Jj
. j ^
II ^~N
1 1 | ILCA)
! * *»! "
I 9EAL BOX
L vi_^x»<-- I J FIGURE "\
1 PAPER MILL IMPR
-------
<
M
I
VACUUM
SAVEALL
DUMPSTER
TO
LANDFILL
STOCK
CHEST
TO PULPER.8
CLEAR
WHITE
WATER
CHEST
i
CLOUDY
WHITE
WATER
CHEST
1 1
r
t i
PAPER MILL SEWER
PULP MILL SEWER
TO PROCESS DILUTION
TO MACHINE SHOWERS (WIRE)
TO COOLIN0 TOWER(VACUUM SEALS)
^» TO MACHINE SHOWERS (KNOCKOFF)
FIGURE 2T-26
SAVEALL ON PULP AND PAPER
MILL EFFLUENTS
BUILDERS PAPER
r.4
-------
SWEETNER STOCK
<
M
I
O
VACUUM
8AVEALL
DUMPSTER
TO
LANDFILL
0REY
STOCK
CHEST
SEWER WATER FROM
MILL SUMP
CLEAR
WHITE
WATER
CHEST
T0 ""-""i SEWER
I
CLOUDY
WHITE
WATER
CHEST
X TO PROCE8
01 DILUTION
t
TO MACHINE FO
SHOWERS,VACUUM
AND SUCH.
ALS,
TO PUMP
SEALS
SEWER
FIGURE :ZE- 27
SAVEALL ON RAM MILL
EFFLUENT- MOLDED PULP
-------
Use of High-Pressure Showers for Wire and Felt Cleaning. High-pressure show-
ers to replace low-pressure, high-volume showers (i.e., those used for felt
cleaning, return wire cleaning, and couch roll cleaning) may save up to 90
percent of the water used in conventional shower applications and may be more
effective. It is generally considered that felt cleaning showers are operated
at 35.2 kg/sq cm (500 psi), and fourdrinier showers at 21.1 kg/sq cm (300
psi). A typical installation is shown in Figure VI-25. High-pressure showers
are identified as Level 1 technology for the Alkaline-Dissolving, Alkaline-
Unbleached, Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven subcategories. They are desig-
nated as Level 2 technology applicable to the Sulfite-Dissolving subcate-
gory.(81)(88)(89)(90)(91)
Whitewater Use for Vacuum Pump Sealing. Excess clarified Whitewater has been
successfully used to replace fresh wate-r on mill vacuum pumps. The vacuum
pump seal water is then recycled or discharged. At the least, the equivalent
quantity of fresh water use is directly displaced. Corrosion and abrasion may
be deterrents to implementation of this system, particularly at low pH or high
filler levels. As shown in Figure VI-28, fresh water addition may be required
and can be provided to maintain temperatures below 32°C. This technology can
be applied at mills in all subcategories. It is generally considered Level 1
because of the flow reduction obtained. The result again is part of the
overall balance, but flows of 6.6-26.4 litres/minute (25-100 gpm) per pump are
common.(88)(89)(90)(92)(93)
Papermachine Whitewater Use on Wire Cleaning Showers. Clarified Whitewater
from the papermachine saveall, containing low levels of additives and fillers,
allows installation of self-cleaning Whitewater showers. In this system, the
Whitewater would be used for fourdrinier showers and knock-off showers as
shown earlier in Figures VI-25 through VI-27. The system includes a white-
water supply pump, supply piping, and showers. A fresh water backup supply
header is provided, with controls for introduction of fresh water to the
Whitewater chest in event of low volume in the chest. This Level 1 technology
can be applied to mills in the Alkaline-Unbleached, Semi-Chemical, Deink-News-
print, Wastepaper-Contruction Products, and Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven
subcategores. The effect varies widely by machine and type of mill.
Whitewater Storage for Upsets and Pulper Dilution. As illustrated in Figure
VI-29, this system consists of an additional storage tank to store excess
Whitewater that would overflow from the existing clear Whitewater tank. Where
possible, the tank could be adjacent to or added onto the existing tank to
eliminate pumping costs.
The Whitewater from this tank can be used in the pulper or bleach plant. The
tank would be sized to hold adequate Whitewater needed for pulper dilution
after pulping, bleach plant washing, or continuous washing requirements. A
fresh water header is provided to the tank for make-up.
A system may be needed for each machine, depending on the variability of
furnish. Each machine may have its own pulper, and require a completely
separate Whitewater system.
VI-41
-------
FROM PAPER MACHINE
WHITE WATER TO
VACUUM PUMP SEALS
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
TO EXISTING COLLECTION
TANK
FRESH
WATER
ft
I
FROM
PRESSES
I
VACUUM PUMPS
LEVEL CONTROL
AND ALARM
0
. '
TO SAVEALL
COLLECTION
TANK
C7
EXISTING
NEW
FIGURE 3ZI-28
WHITE «TER TO VACUUM PUMPS AND COLLECT^ TANK
FOR PUMP SEAL WATER AND PRESS EFFLUENT
-------
THICKENER
<
M
I
BOILER SLOWDOWN
SAVEALL WHITE
KNOCK OUT SECTION OF
EXISTING WALL OR CONNECT
WITH LARGE DIAMETER PIPE
TO PROCESS
EXISTING
NEW
FIGURE
INCREASED WHITE WATER STORAGE CAPACITY
-------
For model mills in the Alkaline-BCT, Fine and Newsprint, Sulfite-Dissolving
and Papergrade, Groundwood-CMN, Deink-Fine and Tissue, Wastepaper-Board, and
Nonintegrated Lightweight subcategories, increased storage facilities can be
provided, resulting in significant flow reductions. This is Level 1 if
needed, as significant BOD_5_ and TSS reduction may result. (81)
Recycle of Press Water. Effluent from the press section of a papermachine
contains fibrous fines and fillers that can be reintroduced into the white-
water system and recovered. Water from the vacuum presses, as well as pres-
sure rolls, can be piped to a collection tank (or wire pit) often without use
of pumps. From the tank the water can be pumped to the saveall system to
reclaim the fiber and fillers and to make the water available for use in the
Whitewater systems. This would reduce solids and may reduce flow to the
wastewater treatment plant. Generally, a separate system would be required
for each machine.
Felt hairs, previously a deterrent in some systems, have been largely elimi-
nated with the advent of synthetic felts. Thus, no provision for the removal
of felt hairs has been included in the system, although such provision may be
required on top-of-the-line printing or specialty grades.
This system could be installed at mills in the Alkaline-Dissolving and Alka-
line-Newsprint subcategories and would result in significant flow and TSS
reductions. When BOD_5_ reduction is significant, this control is considered as
Level 1; otherwise it is considered Level 2 for a TSS reduction.
Reuse of Vacuum Pump Water. Recycle of vacuum pump water (most of which is
seal water) and use of Whitewater as seal water (see Figure VI-28), will
nearly eliminate fresh water additions for this purpose. Installation of the
system would require piping, a collection tank, and a pump to return the water
to storage for reuse. One system is needed for each machine.
This system is not used at the majority of mills in four subcategories:
Sulfite-Dissolving; Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical; Alkaline-Fine; and
Nonintegrated-Fine. Most of the mills in another six subcategories do not
have specific collection systems for press effluent and vacuum pump seal
water. By combining the two systems, cost reductions could be realized in the
Alkaline-Unbleached, Semi-Chemical, Sulfite-Papergrade, Groundwood-CMN and
Fine, and Nonintegrated-Paperboard subcategories. Based on flow, TSS, and
BOD_5_ reductions, these items are generally considered as Level 1. Up to 21.0
kl/kkg or (5.0 kgal/t) may be saved.(70)
Additional Broke Storage. An additional broke storage chest could be in-
stalled at most mills in the Nonintegrated-Lightweight subcategory. The
system consists of a central broke storage chest and pumps and piping to bring
excess broke to the chest; it can be returned to the proper machine once the
upset is over. At some other mills, more than one chest would be required,
depending on the number of machines and product mix. Generally, the tank is
sized to hold 30 minutes of broke from the couch pit. It would allow for
breaks or grade changes to occur with a minimum of overflow to the sewers. Up
VI-4 4
-------
to 10 kg/kkg (20 Ib/ton) TSS might be saved. The effectiveness of such a con-
trol in terms of reducing impact on wastewater treatment and as a stock saving
for the mill would preclude a Level 1 designation.
Installation of Wet Lap Machines. Wet lap machines can be installed at mills
in several subcategories as part of an overall stock spill collection system.
The wet lap machine would be preceded by a screen for removal of rejects and
dirt from spilled stock. Rejects would be hauled to landfill. The accepts
would be fed to the wet lap machine, allowing recovered stock to be stored in
a convenient form for later reintroduction to the system or sale to another
plant. The significant effectiveness as an effluent reduction tool would
suggest a Level 1 classification for this approach.
Mills in the Alkaline-Fine, Groundwood-Fine, Deink-Fine and Tissue, and Sul-
fite-Papergrade subcategories could employ one or more wet lap machines to
reduce stock losses. In some mills devices such as sidehill or inclined
screens may be effective at lower cost. The wet lap is however, very useful
as a way to create excess broke storage.
Segregate Cooling Water. Improvements in cooling water segregation in the
papermill could be employed at mills in three of the nonintegrated subcate-
gories (Fine, Tissue and Lightweight) resulting in reductions in water usage.
Implementation of this control requires modifications to eliminate pump seal,
calender stack, and bearing and other cooling waters from the sewer. These
waters would be collected in a sump and, depending on the mill's warm water
requirements, either pumped to the mill water system or discharged via a
separate thermal sewer. Such modifications are considered as Level 1 because
of the significant impact on raw waste flow. At least 4 kl/kkg (1.0 kgal/t)
would be expected to be reduced in most of the above types of mills.
Cleaner Rejects to Landfill. Collection and screening of rejects from sources
such as pulp cleaners, papermill cleaners, pressure screens, and centriscreens
will eliminate up to 40 percent of the solids to the treatment plant from
these sources.(73)(81) The system would consist of piping from the reject
sources to a collection tank, pump and piping to the screen headbox, a side-
hill type screen, and rejects dumpster. In the case of remote cleaner reject
sources, an accept tank and pump and piping from the accepts tank to the
source for sluice water would be required. Figure VI-9 presented earlier,
shows this Level 2 modification.
This type of system could generally be applied at alkaline pulp and paper
mills, nonintegrated mills, and mills in the Deink-Fine and Tissue subcat-
egory. For mills with ample primary clarifier capacity, implementation of
this technology may not be deemed necessary, depending on the adequacy of
existing equipment. These fiber losses have been reported to aid in the
dewatering of combined primary-secondary sludges. Savings of 1.5 to 5.0
kg/kkg (3 to 10 Ib/ton) are possible.
VI-45
-------
Fourth-Stage Cleaners. The addition of a fourth cleaner stage reduces by 80
to 90 percent the flow and solids being discharged from a three stage system.
The pulp stock saving alone usually is ample justification for implementing
such a system, which is shown in Figure VI-30. This Level 2 item may be an
alternative to the above depending on relative mill operating parameters.
Steam Plant and Utility Areas
Production process controls that reduce raw waste loads in the steam plant and
utility areas include: 1) segregation of cooling waters; and 2) installation
of lagoons for boiler blowdown and backwash waters. These controls are dis-
cussed below.
Segregate Cooling Water. At mills in many subcategories, as noted in Table
VI-1 this Level 1 control technology has been adequately implemented; however,
this technology is not widely practiced at mills in eight subcategories. This
control requires modifications to sewers and floor drains to keep cooling
water out of the sewer, plus installation of a warm water storage tank. The
sources of cooling water that are to be handled by this system differ at mills
in the various subcategories. Generally, they are limited to miscellaneous
items such as pump and bearing cooling water, air compressors, and major
sources in the steam plant area, such as turbine and condenser cooling waters.
This control is a flow reduction measure, but should also result in consider-
able energy savings.
Lagoon for Boiler Blowdown and Backwash Waters. This control could be effec-
tive at mills in about half of the subcategories. Mills in the remaining
subcategories already have a separate discharge for these sources or reuse
these waters in their process. The boiler blowdown water and the backwash
would be pumped to a new lagoon, from which they are discharged to receiving
waters. This keeps these sources out of the treatment plant, and provides
enough settling time to remove most of the suspended solids. By mixing the
blowdown water and the backwash water in the same lagoon, the thermal dis-
charge limit, in most cases, should be no problem. Facilities for pH adjust-
ment (usually alum) may be required in some cases. Implementation of this
Level 2 control will reduce the flow to the treatment plant. While univer-
sally applicable, only a few subcategories now use such segregation.(74)
Recycle of Effluent
Mills in three subcategories can reduce fresh water usage by recycling clari-
fied effluent to the mill for use as hose and pump seal water. These mills
are in the Deink-Fine and Tissue, Nonintegrated-Fine, and Nonintegrated Filter
and Non-Woven subcategories. The industrial tissue mills may also reduce
purchased waste paper requirements through recycle of the clarifier solids to
the system. Benefits from clarifier effluent recycle are effluent flow reduc-
tions corresponding to the amount recycled. Recycle of clarifier solids
yields expected cost savings in the purchased furnish, and in handling and
disposal of the remaining solids.
VI-46
-------
CLEANERS
PROCESS
CLEANER
FEED
<
M
I
ELUTRIATION
FEED WATER
^REJECTS
FEED TANKS
EXISTING
- NEW
FIGURE 3d-30
4-STAGE CEMTRICLEANER
SYSTEM WITH ELUTRIATION
-------
A system to recycle the clarified effluent would consist of a holding tank,
piping from the clarifier to the holding tank, and a pump and piping from the
holding tank to existing headers. The solids recycle system, as shown in
Figure VI-31 would consist of a pump drawing from the existing sludge dis-
charge line and piping to the pulpers. This Level 1 technology would be
difficult to implement at mills with severe product quality constraints.
Some waste paper mills use effluent recycle now; however, the water clarity is
not as good as it could be. Improved savealls permit use of more effluent for
machine showers and eliminate the use of fresh water on the machine. Such
recycle schemes are now commonly practiced in the Wastepaper-Board Molded
Products, and Construction Products subcategories. Savealls may serve as
means of recycling both effluent and reclaimed stock in these latter subcate-
gories. Nonintegrated-Tissue and Nonintegrated-Lightweight paper mills can
use a settling basin to handle cleaner floor drains and reuse this water for
hoses and seal water instead of fresh water. Deink mills and Nonintegrated-
Fine paper mills can also use this system. Higher grade product mills such as
fine paper do not recycle solids; this is used primarily by waste paper
mills.(88) A total of nine subcategories, including Nonintegrated-Paperboard,
have some form of effluent recycle systems for the model mill.
EFFECTIVENESS OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS BY SUBCATEGORY
As noted earlier in Table VI-1, two ranges of production process control
technology have been designated for application in the pulp, paper and paper-
board industry. Level 1 technologies are those which would, if implemented,
result in the most effective reduction of a mill's raw waste loading, particu-
larly in terms of flow and BOD^. Additional reductions in raw waste load can
be achieved through implementation of the Level 2 technologies; these are
identified primarily for TSS reductions and result in lesser reductions of
BOD5_ and flow.
Individual production process controls have been described, along with their
general application and effectiveness within the industry. The combined
effect of Level 1 and 2 controls will now be presented for each subcategory.
Table VI-2 summarizes the effectiveness of Level 1 and 2 technologies by
listing the following for each subcategory:
1. the raw waste load for the model mill;
2. anticipated raw waste load reduction which can be achieved by implement-
ing Level 1 technology;
3. resultant raw waste load, termed Level 1 Raw Waste Load (RWL);
4. further raw waste load reduction which can be achieved by implementing
Level 2 technology; and
5. resultant raw waste load, termed Level 2 RWL.
VI-48
-------
INSIDE MILL
i
-P-
BALES
TO PROCESS
OUTSIDE MILL
PAPER MILL SEWER
SEWER
FIGURE 1ZI-31
IMPROVED EFFLUENT REUSE
CLARIFIER SLUDGE
-------
TABLE VI-2
MODEL MILL RAW WASTE LOADS RESULTING FROM LEVEL 1 AND
PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROL MODIFICATIONS
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
Name
Alkaline-Dissolving
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-Market
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-BCT
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-Fine
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-Unbleached
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Semi-Chemical
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg (kgal/t)
198.1
12.9
185.2
8.0
177.2
178.2
29.1
149.1
15.9
133.2
152.2
26.3
125.9
23.7
102.2
110.5
20.0
90.5
16.7
73.8
46.6
10.4
36.2
0.9
35.3
32.5
3.3
29.2
7.5
21.7
(47.5)
( 3.1)
(44.4)
( 1.9)
(42.5)
(42.8)
( 7.0)
(35.8)
( 3.8)
(32.0)
(36.5)
( 6.3)
(30.2)
( 5.7)
(24.5)
(26.5)
( 4.8)
(21.7)
( 4.0)
(17.7)
(11.2)
( 2.5)
( 8.7)
( 0.2)
( 8.5)
( 7.8)
( 0.8)
( 7.0)
( 1.8)
( 5.2)
BOD5
kg/kkg
53.8
21.2
32.6
0.6
32.0
41.5
13.2
28.3
0.4
27.9
45.7
19.9
25.8
-
25.8
30.5
13.8
16.7
-
16.7
14.2
4.0
10.2
-
10.2
13.5
1.9
16.6
1.0
15.6
(lb/t)
(107.6)
( 42.3)
( 65.3)
( 1.3)
( 64.0)
( 83.0)
( 26.4)
( 56.6)
( 0.8)
( 55.8)
( 91.3)
( 39.7)
( 51.6)
-
( 51.6)
( 61.0)
( 27.7)
( 33.3)
-
(33.3)
(28.3)
( 8.0)
(20.3)
-
(20.3)
(36.9)
( 3.3)
(33.1)
( 1.9)
(31.2)
TSS
kg/kkg
76.8
12.3
64.5
4.3
60.2
31.8
1.5
30.3
3.5
26.8
42.5
3.6
38.9
2.6
36.3
66.2
14.0
52.2
5.5
46.7
16.3
0.8
15.5
3.6
11.9
21.6
-
21.6
7.1
14.5
(lb/t)
(153.7;
( 24.5;
(129.2;
( 8.6;
(120.6;
( 63.6]
( 3.0)
( 60.6]
( 7.0)
( 53.6)
A
(^R. 0)
( 7.3)
( 77.7)
( 5.2)
( 72.5)
(132.3)
( 28.0)
(104.3)
( 11.0)
( 93.3)
( 32.5)
( 1.5)
( 31.0)
( 7.3)
( 23.7)
( 43.1)
-
( 43.1)
(^^,2)
(9)
VI-50
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Continued)
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
Name
Alkaline-Unbleached and
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline Newsprint
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Sulfite-Dissolving
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Sulfite-Papergrade
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Groundwood-CMN
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Ground wood-Fine
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
kl/kkg
(kgal/t)
BODS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
TSS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Semi-Chemical
55.8
20.4
35.4
-
35.4
93.8
25.9
67.9
10.4
57.5
256.9
59.7
197.2
20.0
177.2
152.6
62.6
90.0
2.4
87.6
60.0
17.5
42.5
-
42.5
88.4
33.8
54.6
54.6
68.4
14.2
(13.4)
( 4.9)
( 8.5)
-
( 8.5)
(22.5)
( 6.2)
(16.3)
( 2.5)
(13.8)
(61.6)
(14.3)
(47.3)
( 4.8)
(42.5)
(36.6)
(15.0)
(21.6)
( 0.6)
(21.0)
(14.4)
( 4.2)
(10.2)
-
(10.2)
(21.2)
( 8.1)
(13.1)
( )
(13.1)
(16.4)
( 3.4)
18.7
5.2
13.5
-
13.5
21.1
6.3
14.8
-
14.8
153.0
59.3
93.7
1.0
92.7
48.7
20.7
28.0
-
28.0
18.3
2.6
15.7
-
15.7
18.6
7.0
11.6
11.6
17.6
4.6
(37.3)
(10.4)
(26.9)
-
(26.9)
(42.2)
(12.7)
(29.5)
-
(29.5)
(306.0)
(118.6)
(187.4)
( 2.0)
(185.4)
( 97.3)
( 41.4)
( 55.9)
( 55.9)
( 36.5)
( 5.2)
( 31.3)
-
( 31.3)
(37.1)
(13.9)
(23.2)
( )
(23.2)
(35.2)
( 9.3)
23.5
5.5
18.0
1.0
17.0
56.7
10.8
45.9
7.0
38.9
90.3
6.6
83.7
5.0
78.7
33.1
1.6
31.5
2.2
29.3
38.7
12.4
26.3
-
26.3
48.5
13.0
35.5
6.5
29.0
53.9
16.0
( 47.0)
( n.o)
( 36.0)
( 2.0)
( 34.0)
(113.3)
( 21.5)
( 91.8)
( 13.9)
( 77.9)
(180.6)
( 13.3)
(167.3)
( 10.0)
(157.3)
( 66.2)
( 3.2)
( 63.0)
( 4.4)
( 58.6)
( 77.4)
( 24.8)
( 52.6)
( 52.6)
(97.0)
(26.0)
(71.0)
(13.0)
(58.0)
(107.9)
(32.1)
VI-51
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Continued)
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
101
102
111
112
113
114
Name
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Deink-Fine and Tissue
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
De ink-Newsprint
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reducton
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Wastepaper-Tissue
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Wastepaper-Board
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg
54.2
10.4
43.8
81.3
22.9
58.4
2.9
55.5
67.6
10.1
57.5
2.0
55.5
39.2
5.8
33.4
-
33.4
15.4
7.1
8.3
-
8.3
(kgal/t)
(13.0)
( 2.5)
(10.5)
(19.5)
( 5.5)
(14.0)
( 0.7)
(13.3)
(16.2)
( 2.4)
(13.8)
( 0.5)
(13.3)
( 9.4)
( 1.4)
( 8.0)
-
( 8.0)
(3.7)
(1.7)
(2.0)
-
(2.0)
BODS
kg/kkg
13.0
0.8
12.2
48.7
8.0
40.7
-
40.7
15.9
2.5
13.4
-
13.4
8.8
1.3
7.5
-
7.5
6.5
3.8
2.7
-
2.7
(lb/t)
(25.9)
( 1.5)
(24.4)
(97.4)
(16.1)
(81.3)
-
(81.3)
(31.7)
( 5.0)
(26.7)
-
(26.7)
(17.5)
( 2.6)
(14.9)
-
(14.9)
(12.9)
( 7.6)
( 5.3)
-
( 5.3)
kg/kkg
37.9
3.9
34.0
143.0
12.8
130.2
2.0
128.2
123.0
5.0
118.0
15.0
103.0
27.0
4.0
23.0
-
23.0
7.7
5.8
1.9
-
1.9
TSS
(lb/t)
( 75.8)
( 7.8)
( 68.0)
(286.0)
( 25.5)
(260.5)
( 4.0)
(256.5)
(246.0)
( 10.0)
(236.0)
( 30.0)
(206.0)
_
( 46.0)
(15.3)
(11.5)
( 3.8)
( 3.8)
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Wastepaper-Construction
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
47.1
10.0
37.1
-
37.1
Products
9.2
5.01
4.2
-
4.2
(11.3)
( 2.4)
( 8.9)
-
( 8.9)
( 2.2)
( 1.2)
( i.o)
-
( 1.0)
5.7
1.4 .
4.3
-
4.3
5.8
4.8
1.0
-
1.0
(11.4)
( 2.8)
( 8.6)
-
( 8.6)
(11.5)
( 9.6)
( 1-9)
-
( 1.9)
10.7
5.7
5.0
-
5.0
8.2
7.7
0.5
-
0.5
(21.3)
(11.3)
(10.0)
(10.0)
(16.3)
(15.3)
( 1.0)
-
( 1.0)
VI-52
-------
TABLE VI-2 (Continued)
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
201
202
204
205
211
Name
Nonintegrated-Fine
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 KWL
Nonintegrated-Tissue
kl/kkg
48.5
14.2
34.3
1.7
32.6
Model Mill RWL 73.4
Level 1 Reduction 37.1
Level 1 RWL 36.3
Level 2 Reduction 2.1
Level 2 RWL 34.2
Nonintegrated-Lightweight
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated-Filter
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated-Paperboard
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
266.5
52.9
213.6
4.2
209.4
171.8
45.9
125.9
125.9
102.4
40.0
62.4
62.4
(kgal/t)
( 11.6)
( 3.4)
( 8.2)
( 0.4)
( 7-8)
( 17.6)
( 8.9)
( 8.7)
( 0.5)
( 8.2)
( 63.9)
( 12.7)
( 51.2)
( 1-0)
( 50.2)
( 41.2)
( 11.0)
( 30.2)
( 30.2)
( 24.6)
( 9.6)
( 15.0)
( 15.0)
BODS
kg/kkg
8.5
3.0
5.5
5.5
13.3
7.8
5.5
5.5
15.3
5.0
10.3
10.3
5.0
1.5
3.5
3.5
10.0
3.5
6.5
6.5
(lb/t)
(17.0)
( 6.0)
(11-0)
(26.5)
(15.5)
(11.0)
(11.0)
(30.6)
( 9.9)
(20.7)
(20.7)
(10.0)
( 3.0)
( 7.0)
( 7.0)
(20.0)
( 7.0)
(13.0)
(13.0)
TSS
kg/kkg
30.1
7.2
22.9
4.2
18.7
39.0
14.4
24.6
8.3
16.3
45.6
17.1
28.5
8.3
20.2
25.0
10.2
14.8
14.8
42.3
16.5
25.8
25.8
(lb/t)
(60.1)
(14.3)
(45.8)
( 8.5)
X *» * A \
(.j/.j;
(77.9)
(28.8)
(49.1)
(16.5)
(32.6)
(91.2)
(34.3)
(56.9)
(16.5)
(40.4)
(50.0)
(20.5)
(29.5)
(29.5)
(84.5)
(33.0)
(51.5)
(51.5)
VI-53
-------
The control technologies and their effects are described below by subcategory.
Cumulative waste load reductions have been adjusted to reflect material bal-
ances for each subcategory. The applicability and effects of implementing
designated production process controls will vary at specific mills. To pre-
dict the combined effect of applicable controls would require development of a
revised flow and material balance for any particular mill.
Table VI-3 shows the effects of the same internal controls applied to the pure
mills established for each subcategory. As discussed in Section V, pure mill.
raw waste loadings have in some cases been graphically projected from actual
mill data. Likewise, raw waste load reductions resulting from implementing
production process controls at the pure mills have in some cases been appro-
priately scaled from corresponding model mill data.
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
The Alkaline-Dissolving model mill has a raw waste load of 198.1 kl/kkg (47.5
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ loading of 53.8 kg/kkg (107.6 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 76.8 kg/kkg (153.7 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure mill in this subcategory is: 221.4 kl/kkg (53.1 kgal/t), BODS^ 65.2
kg/kkg (130.3 Ib/ton), and 96.8 kg/kkg (193.5 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model Pure
Flow 185.2 kl/kkg (44.4 kgal/t) 207.2 kl/kkg (49.7 kgal/t)
BODS^ 32.6 kg/kkg (65.3 Ib/ton) 39.6 kg/kkg (79.1 Ib/ton)
TSS 64.5 kg/kkg (129.2 Ib/ton) 81.1 kg/kkg (162.2 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items could produces the
following predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model Pure
Flow 177.2 kl/kkg (42.5 kgal/t) 198.5 kl/kkg (47.6 kgal/t)
BOD5^ 32.0 kg/kkg (64.0 Ib/ton) 38.8 kg/kkg (77.5 Ib/ton)
TSS 60.2 kg/kkg (120.6 Ib/ton) 76.0 kg/kkg (151.9 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregation of noncontact cooling water in the woodroom operation;
o reduction in the wastage of blow condensate and relief condensate
from the digester;
VI-54
-------
Ui
TABLE VI-3
PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
Flow
BODS
TSS
Subcategory
Oil
012
013
014
015
kl/kkg
(kgal/t)
kg/kkg
(lb/
t)
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Alkaline-Dissolving
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
Alkaline-Market
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
Alkaline-BCT
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
Alkaline-Fine
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
221
207
198
164
137
123
152
125
102
108
88
72
.4
.2
.5
.7
.6
.0
.2
.9
.2
.0
.4
.1
(53.
(49.
(47.
(39.
(33.
(29.
(36.
(30.
(24.
(25.
(21.
(17.
1)
7)
6)
5)
0)
5)
5)
2)
5)
9)
2)
3)
65.2
39.6
38.8
37.7
25.7
25.4
45.7
25.8
25.8
28.7
15.7
15.7
(130.
(79.
(77.
(75.
(51.
(50.
(91.
(51.
(51.
(57.
(31.
(31.
3)
1)
5)
3)
4)
7)
3)
6)
6)
4)
3)
3)
96.8
81.1
76.0
48.4
46.1
40.8
42.5
38.9
36.3
53.4
42.1
37.6
(193.5)
(162.2)
(151.9)
(96.7)
(92.1)
(81.5)
(85.0)
(77.7)
(72.5)
(106.7)
(84.1)
(75.2)
Alkaline-Unbleached
. Linerboard
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
. Bag
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
46
36
35
70
54
53
.7
.3
.5
.5
.6
.4
(11.
(8.
(8.
(16.
(13.
(12.
2)
7)
5)
9)
1)
8)
14.2
10.2
10.2
18.9
13.5
13.5
(28.
(20.
(20.
(37.
(27.
(27.
3)
3)
3)
7)
0)
0)
16.3
15.5
11.9
20.7
19.8
18.7
(32.5)
(31.0)
(23.7)
(41.4)
(39.5)
(37.4)
-------
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
Flow BODS TSS
Subcategory kl/kkg (kgal/t) kg/kkg (lb/t) kg/kkg (lb/t)
016 Serai-Chemical
Pure Mill RWL 32.5 (7.8) 18.5 (36.9) 21.6 (43.1)
Level 1 RWL 29.2 (7.0) 16.6 (33.1) 21.6 (43.1)
Level 2 RWL 21.7 (5.2) 15.6 (31.2) 14.5 (28.9)
. 100%
Pure Mill RWL 48.4 (11.6) 19.3 (38.6) 38.5 (76.9)
Level 1 RWL 43.4 (10.4) 17.3 (34.6) 38.5 (76.9)
Level 2 RWL 32.1 (7.7) 16.3 (32.6) 25.8 (51.6)
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical
Pure Mill RWL 55.8 (13.4) 18.7 (37.3) 23.5 (47.0)
H Level 1 RWL 35.4 (8.5) 13.5 (26.9) 18.0 (36.0)
un Level 2 RWL 35.4 (8.5) 13.5 (26.9) 17.0 (34.0)
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
Pure Mill RWL 93.8 (22.5) 21.1 (42.2) 56.7 (113.3)
Level 1 RWL 67.9 (16.3) 14.8 (29.5) 45.9 (91.8)
Level 2 RWL 57.5 (13.8) 14.8 (29.5) 38.9 (77.9)
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
Pure Mill RWL 266.4 (63.9) 168.5 (336.9) 100.1 (200.2)
Level 1 RWL 204.7 (49.1) 103.2 (206.4) 92.7 (185.5)
Level 2 RWL 183.9 (44.1) 102.1 (204.2) 87.2 (174.4)
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
. 100%
Pure Mill RWL 203.9 (48.9) 68.5 (136.9) 34.7 (69.3)
Level 1 RWL 120.5 (28.9) 39.4 (78.7) 33.0 (66.0)
Level 2 RWL 117.2 (28.1) 39.4 (78.7) 30.7 (61.4)
-------
H
Ln
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
Flow
BODS
TSS
Subcategory
. 67%
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
kl/kkg
RWL
RWL
RWL
152.
90.
87.
6
0
6
(kgal/t)
(36.
(21.
(21.
6)
6)
0)
kg/kkg (lb/t)
48.
28.
28.
7
0
0
(97.
(55.
(55.
3)
9)
9)
kg/kkg
33.1
31.5
29.3
(lb/t)
(66.2)
(63.0)
(58.6)
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
033 Ground wood -CMN
. 74%
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
. 100%
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
034 Groundwood-Fine
. 59%
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
. 100%
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
60.
42.
42.
88.
54.
54.
134.
83.
83.
68.
54.
43.
110.
88.
71.
0
5
5
4
6
6
3
0
0
4
2
8
9
0
9
(14.
(10.
(10.
(21.
(13.
(13.
(32.
(19.
(19.
(16.
(13.
(10.
(26.
(21.
(17.
4)
2)
2)
2)
1)
1)
2)
9)
9)
4)
0)
5)
6)
1)
0)
18.
15.
15.
18.
11.
11.
22.
14.
14.
17.
13.
12.
18.
13.
12.
3
7
7
6
6
6
9
3
3
6
0
2
6
7
9
(36.
(31.
(31.
(37.
(23.
(23.
(45.
(28.
(28.
(35.
(25.
(24.
(37.
(27.
(25.
5)
3)
3)
1)
2)
2)
8)
6)
6)
2)
9)
2)
2)
4)
8)
38.7
26.3
26.3
48.5
35.5
29.0
77.6
56.8
46.4
53.9
37.9
34.0
55.2
38.8
34.8
(77.4)
(52.6)
(52.6)
(97.0)
(71.0)
(58.0)
(155.1)
(113.5)
(92.7)
(107.9)
(75.8)
(68.0)
(110.4)
(77.6)
(69.6)
-------
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
Flow
BODS
i
Ul
00
TSS
Subcategory
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
. Tissue
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. Fine
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
102 Deink-Newsprint
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
111 Wastepaper-Tissue 100% WP-
Indus trial- No S.C.
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
112 Wastepaper-Board
. Board
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. Linerboard
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg
81.3
58.4
55.5
107.2
77.2
73.4
67.6
57.5
55.5
56.7
48.4
48.4
15.4
8.3
8.3
27.9
15.0
15.0
(kgal/t)
(19.5)
(14.0)
(13.3)
(25.7)
(18.5)
(17.6)
(16.2)
(13.8)
(13.3)
(13.6)
(11.6)
(11.6)
(3.7)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(6.7)
(3.6)
(3.6)
kg/kkg
48.7
40.7
40.7
50.0
41.7
41.7
15.9
13.4
13.4
13.2
11.2
11.2
10.6
4.4
4.4
8.9
3.7
3.7
(lb/t)
(97.4)
(81.3)
(81.3)
(99.9)
(83.4)
(83.4)
(31.7)
(26.7)
(26.7)
(26.3)
(22.4)
(22.4)
(21.2)
(8.7)
(8.7)
(17.8)
(7.3)
(7.3)
kg/kkg
143.0
130.2
128.2
215.7
196.4
193.4
123.0
118.0
103.0
40.5
34.5
34.5
9.9
2.5
2.5
10.8
2.7
2.7
(lb/t)
(286.0)
(260.5)
(256.5)
(431.3)
(392.8)
(386.8)
(246.0)
(236.0)
(206.0)
(81.0)
(69.0)
(69.0)
(19.7)
(4.9)
(4.9)
(21.5)
(5.3)
(5.3)
-------
I
Ul
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
Flow
BODS
TSS
Subcategory
. Corrugated
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. Chip & Filler
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. Folding Box
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. Setup Box
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. Gyp sum
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
113 Wastepaper Molded-No S.C.
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg
4.
2.
2.
10.
5.
5.
16.
8.
8.
20.
10.
10.
11.
6.
6.
52.
41.
41.
2
1
1
0
4
4
3
8
8
4
8
8
7
3
3
5
3
3
(kgal/t)
(1.
(0.
(0.
(2.
(1.
(1.
(3.
(2.
(2.
(4.
(2.
(2.
(2.
(1.
(1.
(12.
(9.
(9.
0)
5)
5)
4)
3)
3)
9)
1)
1)
9)
6)
6)
8)
5)
5)
\
6)
9)
9)
kg/kkg (lb/t)
5
2
2
3
1
1
6
2
2
7
3
3
5
2
2
6
4
4
.3
.2
.2
.5
.4
.4
.1
.5
.5
.3
.0
.0
.8
.4
.4
.5
.9
.9
(10
(4
(4
(6
(2
(2
(12
(5
(5
(14
(6
(6
(11
(4
(4
(13
(9
(9
.7)
.4)
.4)
.9)
.8)
.8)
.1)
.0)
.0)
.7)
.0)
.0)
.6)
.8)
.8)
.0)
.8)
.8)
kg/kkg
4
1
1
4
1
1
7
1
1
5
1
1
15
6
6
11
5
5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.1
.1
.1
.8
.8
.7
.4
.4
.9
.9
.9
.4
.4
.4
(lb/t)
(7.9)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(8.9)
(2.2)
(2.2)
(14.1)
(3.5)
(3.5)
(11.4)
(2.8)
(2.8)
(31.8)
(13.8)
(13.8)
(22.7)
(10.7)
(10.7)
-------
<3
M
I
O
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
Flow
BODS
TSS
Subcategory
114
201
202
204
Wastepaper Construction
. 100% Wastepaper
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. 50% Wastepaper/50% IMP
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated-Fine
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated
. Lightweight
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
. Electrical
Pure Mill RWL
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg
14.6
6.7
6.7
12.5
5.8
5.8
48.5
34.3
32.6
73.4
36.3
34.2
266.5
213.5
209.3
407.0
326.1
319.8
(kgal/t)
(3.5)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(3.0)
(1-4)
(1.4)
(11.6)
(8.2)
(7.8)
(17.6)
(8.7)
(8.2)
(63.9)
(51.2)
(50.2)
(97.6)
(78.2)
(76.7)
kg/kkg
7.6
1.3
1.3
13.9
2.3
2.3
8.5
5.5
5.5
13.3
5.5
5.5
15.3
10.4
10.4
11.6
2.8
2.8
(lb/t)
(15.2)
(2.5)
(2.5)
(27.8)
(4.6)
(4.6)
(17.0)
(11.0)
(11.0)
(26.5)
(11.0)
(11.0)
(30.6)
(20.7)
(20.7)
(23.1)
(5.6)
(5.6)
kg/kkg
19.4
1.2
1.2
10.2
0.7
0.7
30.1
22.9
18.7
39.0
24.6
16.3
45.6
28.5
20.2
37.7
23.5
16.7
(lb/t)
(38.7)
(2.4)
(2.4)
(20.4)
(1.3)
(1.3)
(60.1)
(45.8)
(37.3)
(77.9)
(49.1)
(32.6)
(91.2)
(56.9)
(40.4)
(75.3)
(47.0)
(33.4)
-------
TABLE VI-3 (Continued)
PURE MILL RAW WASTE LOADS
<
M
I
Flow
Subcategory
kl/kkg
(kgal/t)
BODS
kg/kkg (lb/t)
TSS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
211 Nonintegrated
. Board
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
RWL
171
125
125
102
62
62
.8
.9
.9
.6
.6
.6
(41
(30
(30
(24
(15
(15
.2)
.2)
.2)
.6)
.0)
.0)
5.
3.
3.
10.
6.
6.
0
5
5
0
5
5
(10.
( 7.
( 7.
(20.
(13.
(13.
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
25.0
14.8
14.8
42.3
25.8
25.8
(50.0)
(29.5)
(29.5)
(84.5)
(51.5)
(51.5)
. Electrical Board
Pure Mill
Level 1
Level 2
RWL
RWL
RWL
247
151
151
.3
.0
.0
(59
(36
(36
3)
.2)
.2)
10.
6.
6.
0
5
5
(20.
(13.
(13.
0)
0)
0)
42.3
25.8
25.8
(84.5)
(51.5)
(51.5)
-------
o modifications in the washing and screening areas, entailing the
addition of a fourth-stage washer or modifications enabling compara-
ble washing efficiencies;
o implementation of spill collection and high-level alarms in the
digester, washing, and screen room areas; and
o replacement of existing sidehill screens with slotted vibrating
screens, enabling fiber recovery and reduced fiber loss.
Level 2:
o fourth-stage centricleaning system with rejects routed to landfill;
o replacement of barometric condensers with surface condensers;
o installation of a pulp mill spill collection system;
o installation of a green liquor dregs filter; and
o diversion of water treatment plant backwash water and steam plant
blowdown water to a separate lagoon.
012 Alkaline-Market
The Alkaline-Market model mill has a raw waste load of 178.2 kl/kkg (42.8
kgal/t) of production, a BODS^ load of 41.5 kg/kkg (83.0 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 31.8 kg/kkg (63.6 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure mill in this subcategory is: 164.7 kl/kkg (39.5 kgal/t), BODS^ 37.7
kg/kkg (75.3 Ib/ton), and 48.4 kg/kkg (96.7 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yield the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model Pure
Flow 149.1 kl/kkg (35.8 kgal/t) 137.6 kl/kkg (33.0 kgal/t)
BOD^ 28.3 kg/kkg (56.6 Ib/ton) 25.7 kg/kkg (51.4 Ib/ton)
TSS 30.3 kg/kkg (60..6 Ib/ton) 46.1 kg/kkg (92.1 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model Pure
Flow 133.2 kl/kkg (32.0 kgal/t) 123.0 kl/kkg (29.5 kgal/t)
BOD_5 27.9 kg/kkg (55.8 Ib/ton) 25.4 kg/kkg (50.7 Ib/ton)
TSS 26.8 kg/kkg (53.6 Ib/ton) 40.8 kg/kkg (81.5 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
VI-62
-------
Level I
o segregate cooling water in woodroom;
o use digester blow and relief condensates;
o install fourth-stage brownstock washer;
o recycle brownstock decker filtrate;
o brownstock area spill collection:
o liquor storage area spill collection;
o evaporator area spill collection and spare liquor tank; and
o pulp dryer spill collection.
Level 2:
o jump-stage washing in bleach plant;
o install evaporator boilout tank;
o install green liquor dregs filter;
o centricleaner rejects - divert to landfill; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant backwash
water.
013 Alkaline-BCT
The Alkaline-BCT model and pure mills have the same raw waste load: 152.2
kl/kkg (36.5 kgal/t) of production, a BODS^ load of 45.7 kg/kkg (91.3 Ib/ton),
and a TSS load of 42.5 kg/kkg (85.0 Ib/ton). The application of Level 1
technology items yields the following predicted Level 1 raw waste loads for
these mills:
Model and Pure Mill
Flow 125.9 kl/kkg (30.2 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 25.8 kg/kkg (51.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 38.9 kg/kkg (77.7 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste load:
VI-63
-------
Model and Pure Mill
Flow 102.2 kl/kkg (24.5 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 25.8 kg/kkg (51.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 36.3 kg/kkg (72.5 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1
o segregation of woodroom cooling water;
o digester relief and blow condensate use;
o fourth stage brownstock washer;
o recycle more decker filtrate;
o install brownstock area spill collection;
o install pulp mill liquor storage spill collection;
o evaporator condensate recycle;
o install evaporator area spill collection, and spare tank;
o install bleach plant spill collection;
o white water for vacuum, pump sealing; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash water.
Level 2:
o install jump-stage washing in bleach plant;
o install green liquor dregs filter; and
o cleaner rejects to landfill.
014 Alkaline-Fine
The Alkaline-Fine model mill has a raw waste load of 110.5 kl/kkg (26.5
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 30.5 kg/kkg (61.0 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 66.2 kg/kkg (132.3 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure mill in this subcategory is: 108.0 kl/kkg (25.9 kgal/t), BODS^ 28.7
kg/kkg (57.4 Ib/ton), and 53.4 kg/kkg (106.7 Ib/ton) TSS.
VI-64
-------
The application of Level 1 technology items could yield the following pre-
dicted Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model
Flow 90.5 kl/kkg (21.7 kgal/t)
WT>5_ 16.7 kg/kkg (33.3 Ib/ton)
TSS 52.2 kg/kkg (104.3 Ib/ton)
Pure
88.4 kl/kkg (21.2 kgal/t)
15.7 kg/kkg (31.3 Ib/ton)
42.1 kg/kkg (84.1 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model
Flow 73.8 kl/kkg (17.7 kgal/t)
BODS^ 16.7 kg/kkg (33.3 Ib/ton)
TSS 46.7 kg/kkg (93.3 Ib/ton)
Pure
72.1 kl/kkg (17.3 kgal/t)
15.7 kg/kkg (31.3 Ib/ton)
37.6 kg/kkg (75.2 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below:
Level 1:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Level 2:
o
o
o
segregate woodroom cooling water;
dispose of digester relief and blow condensate;
fourth-stage brownstock washer;
recycle decker filtrate;
brownstock area spill collection;
liquor storage area spill collection;
evaporator and liquor area spill collection and spare tank;
bleached pulp area spill collection;
Whitewater for vacuum pump sealing; and
central Whitewater chest installation.
countercurrent washing in bleach plant;
green liquor dregs filter;
lime mud pond;
VI-65
-------
o cleaner rejects to landfill; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash water.
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
The Alkaline-Unbleached model mill has a raw waste load of 46.6 kl/kk'g (11.2
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 14.2 kg/kkg (28.3 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 16.3 kg/kkg (32.5 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure mills in this subcategory making liner board is: 46.7 kl/kkg (11.2
kgal/t), BOD5_ 14.2 kg/kkg (28.3 Ib/ton), and 16.3 kg/kkg (32.5 Ib/ton) TSS.
The raw waste load for a pure mill making bag paper is: 70.5 kl/kkg (16.9
kgal/t), BOD 2 18.9 kg/kkg (37.7 Ib/ton), and TSS 20.7 kg/kkg (41.4 Ib/ton).
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model
Pure Linerboard
Flow 36.2 kl/kkg
BODS^ 10.2 kg/kkg
TSS 15.5 kg/kkg
(8.7 kgal/t)
(20.3 Ib/ton)
(31.0 Ib/ton)
36.3 kl/kkg
10.2 kg/kkg
15.5 kg/kkg
(8.7 kgal/t)
(20.3 Ib/ton)
(31.0 Ib/ton)
Pure Bag
Flow 54.6 kl/kkg (13.1 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 13.5 kg/kkg (27.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 19.8 kg/kkg (39.5 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model
Pure Linerboard
Flow 35.3 kl/kkg
BOD_5 10.2 kg/kkg
TSS 11.9 kg/kkg
(8.5 kgal/t)
(20.3 Ib/ton)
(23.7 Ib/ton)
35.5 kl/kkg
10.2 kg/kkg
11.9 kg/kkg
(8.5 kgal/t)
(20.3 Ib/ton)
(23.7 Ib/ton)
Pure Bag
Flow 53.4 kl/kkg (12.8 kgal/t)
BODJ^ 13.5 kg/kkg (27.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 18.7 kg/kkg (37.4 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
VI-66
-------
o segregate woodroom cooling water;
o vise digester blow and relief condensates;
o install fourth stage brownstock washer;
o install improved savealls;
o high pressure freshwater showers on machine;
o Whitewater showers;
o Whitewater to vacuum pumps; and
o " recycle press effluent.
Level 2:
o green liquor dregs filter;
o lime mud pond; and
o fourth-stage centricleaners.
016 Semi-Chemical
The Semi-Chemical model mill has a raw waste load of 32.5 kl/kkg (7.8 kgal/t)
of production, a BOD5_ load of 18.5 kg/kkg (36.9 Ib/ton), and a TSS load of
21.6 kg/kkg (43.1 Ib/ton). The raw waste loading for the pure mill at 80
percent semi-chemical production is the same as that for the model mill. The
corresponding raw waste load for the pure mill extrapolated to 100% semi-
chemical production is: 48.4 kl/kkg (11.6 kgal/t), BOD5^ 19.3 kg/kkg (38.6
Ib/ton), and 38.5 kg/kkg (76.9 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure-80% Pure-100%
Flow 29.2 kl/kkg (7.0 kgal/t) 43.4 kl/kkg (10.4 kgal/t)
BOD^ 16.6 kg/kkg (33.1 Ib/ton) 17.3 kg/kkg (34.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 21.6 kg/kkg (43.1 Ib/ton) 38.5 kg/kkg (76.9 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste load:
Model and Pure-80% Pure-100%
Flow 21.7 kl/kkg (5.2 kgal/t) 32.1 kl/kkg (7.7 kgal/t)
BOD^ 15.6 kg/kkg (31.2 Ib/ton) 16.3 kg/kkg (32.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 14.5 kg/kkg (28.9 Ib/ton) 25.8 kg/kkg (51.6 Ib/ton)
VI-67
-------
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregate woodroom cooling water;
o add third stage press washer;
o recycle evaporator condensate; and
o segregate cooling water in recovery building.
Level 2:
o papermill spill collection;
o improved saveall;
o Whitewater for vacuum pumps; and
o recycle press effluent.
The Level 2 items normally are Level 1 controls in other subcategories.
However, at some Semi-Chemical mills papermachine is in effect a pulp washer
integrated with the pulp mill. In total, the Level 2 items are an expensive
package with lesser benefits than in most other subcategories.
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical
The Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical model mill has a raw waste load of
55.8 kl/kkg (13.4 kgal/t) of production, a BOD_5 load of 18.7 kg/kkg (37.3
Ib/ton), and a TSS load of 23.5 kg/kkg (47.0 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw
waste load for the pure mill in this subcategory is the same.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure
Flow 35.4 kl/kkg (8.5 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 13.5 kg/kkg (26.9 Ib/ton)
TSS 18.0 kg/kkg (36.0 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste load:
VI-68
-------
Model and Pure
Flow 35.4 kl/kkg (8.5 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 13.5 kg/kkg (26.9 Ib/ton)
TSS 17.0 kg/kkg (34.0 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregate woodroom cooling water;
o install fourth-stage brownstock washer or equivalent;
o evaporator and recovery area spill collection and spare tank;
o improved savealls; and
o Whitewater for vacuum pump sealing and recycle.
Level 2:
o Green liquor dregs filter.
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
The Alkaline-Newsprint model mill has a raw waste load of 93.8 kl/kkg (22.5
kgal/t) of production, a BODS^ load of 21.1 kg/kkg (42.2 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 56.7 kg/kkg (113.3 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure mill in this subcategory is the same.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure
Flow 67.9 kl/kkg (16.3 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 14.8 kg/kkg (29.5 Ib/ton)
TSS 45.9 kg/kkg (91.8 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste load:
Model and Pure
Flow 57.5 kl/kkg (13.8 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 14.8 kg/kkg (29.5 Ib/ton)
TSS 38.9 kg/kkg (77.9 Ib/ton)
VI-69
-------
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregate woodroom cooling waters;
o use relief and blow condensate;
o add fourth-stage brownstock washer;
o recycle more decker filtrate;
o brownstock spill collection;
o brownstock liquor storage tank;
o recycle more evaporator condensate;
o evaporator area spill collection and liquor tank;
o pulp storage spill collection;
o improved savealls;
o Whitewater for vacuum pumps;
o Whitewater storage;
o recycle press effluent; and
o segregate cooling water (utility area).
Level 2:
o bleaching-countercurrent washing;
o green liquor dregs filter;
o lime mud storage pond;
o cleaner rejects to landfill; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash water.
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
The Sulfite-Dissolving model mill has a raw waste load of 256.9 kl/kkg (61.6
kgal/t) of production, a BOD_5 load of 153.0 kg/kkg (306.0 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 90.3 kg/kkg (180.6 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
VI-70
-------
pure mill In this subcategory is: 266.4 kl/kkg (63.9 kgal/t), BODS^ 168.5
kg/kkg (336.9 Ib/ton), and 100.1 kg/kkg (200.2 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yield the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model Pure
Flow 197.2 kl/kkg (47.3 kgal/t) 204.7 kl/kkg (49.1 kgal/t)
BOD5^ 93.7 kg/kkg (187.4 Ib/ton) 103.2 kg/kkg (206.4 Ib/ton)
TSS 83.7 kg/kkg (167.3 Ib/ton) 92.7 kg/kkg (185.5 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste load:
Model Pure
Flow 177.2 kl/kkg (42.5 kgal/t) 183.9 kl/kkg (44.1 kgal/t)
BODS^ 92.7 kg/kkg (185.4 Ib/ton) 102.1 kg/kkg (204.2 Ib/ton)
TSS 78.7 kg/kkg (157.3 Ib/ton) 87.2 kg/kkg (174.4 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregate woodroom cooling water;
o recycle decker filtrate;
o pulp mill spill collection;
o improved bleach plant washing;
o neutralize spent sulfite liquor;
o liquor area spill collection;
o pulp dryer spill collection; and
o segregate utility area cooling water.
Level 2:
o recycle woodroom hydraulic barker water;
o evaporate caustic stage filtrate;
o high pressure showers for pulp dryer;
VI-71
-------
o Whitewater to pulp mill; and
o Whitewater for vacuum pumps.
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
The Sulf ite-Papergrade model mill has a raw waste load of 152.6 kl/kkg (36.6
kgal/t) of production, a BODS^ load of 48.7 kg/kkg (97.3 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 33.1 kg/kkg (66.2 Ib/ton). This loading is the same for the pure mill
at 67 percent sulfite-papergrade production. The corresponding raw waste load
for the pure mill making 100% sulfite pulp and on-site paper is: 203.9 kl/kkg
(48.9 kgal/t), BODS^ 68.5 kg/kkg (136.9 Ib/ton), and 34.7 kg/kkg (69.3 Ib/ton)
TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure-67% Pure-100%
Flow 90.0 kl/kkg (21.6 kgal/t) 120.5 kl/kkg (28.9 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 28.0 kg/kkg (55.9 Ib/ton) 39.4 kg/kkg (78.7 Ib/ton)
TSS 31.5 kg/kkg (63.0 Ib/ton) 33.0 kg/kkg (66.0 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model and Pure 67% Pure-100%
Flow 87.6 kl/kkg (21.0 kgal/t) 117.2 kl/kkg (28.1 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 28.0 kg/kkg (55.9 Ib/ton) 39.4 kg/kkg (78.7 Ib/ton)
TSS 29.3 kg/kkg (58.6 Ib/ton) 30.7 kg/kkg (61.4 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregate woodroom cooling water;
o add extra red stock washer;
o pulp mill spill collection;
o countercurrent washing in bleach plant;
o neutralize spent sulfite liquor;
o liquor preparation area spill collection;
VI-7 2
-------
o papermill spill collection;
o color plant spill collection;
o improved savealls;
o control Whitewater chest;
o Whitewater to vacuum pumps;
o recycle press effluent;
o wet lap machine for spills; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant "filter
backwash waters.
Level 2:
o cleaner rejects to landfill; and
o segregate utility area cooling water.
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
The Thermo-Mechanical Pulp model mill has a raw waste load of 60.0 kl/kkg
(14.4 kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 18.3 kg/kkg (36.5 Ib/ton), and a
TSS load of 38.7 kg/kkg (77.4 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for
the pure mill in this subcategory is the same.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure
Flow 42.5 kl/kkg (10.2 kgal/t)
BOD_5 15.7 kg/kkg (31.3 Ib/ton)
TSS 26.3 kg/kkg (52.6 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregate woodroom cooling water;
o papermachine spill collection;
o high-level alarms; and
o improved savealls.
VI-7 3
-------
There are no Level 2 production process controls designated for this subcate-
gory.
033 Groundwood-CMN
The Groundwood-CMN model mill has a raw waste load of 88.4 kl/kkg (21.2
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 18.6 kg/kkg (37.1 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 48.5 kg/kkg (97.0 Ib/ton). These loadings are the same for the pure
mill at 74 percent Groundwood-CMN production. The corresponding raw waste
load for the pure mill at 100 percent Groundwood-CMN production in this sub-
category would be: 134.3 kl/kkg (32.2 kgal/t), BODS^ 22.9 kg/kkg (45.8
Ib/ton), and TSS 77.6 kg/kkg (155.1 Ib/ton).
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure-74% Pure-100%
Flow 54.6 kl/kkg (13.1 kgal/t) 83.0 kl/kkg (19.9 kgal/t)
BOD^ 11.6 kg/kkg (23.2 Ib/ton) 14.3 kg/kkg (28.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 35.5 kg/kkg (71.0 Ib/ton) 56.8 kg/kkg (113.5 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model and Pure-74% Pure-100%
Flow 54.6 kl/kkg (13.1 kgal/t) 83.0 kl/kkg (19.9 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 11.6 kg/kkg (23.2 Ib/ton) 14.3 kg/kkg (28.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 29.0 kg/kkg (58.0 Ib/ton) 46.4 kg/kkg (92.7 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o segregate woodroom cooling water;
o pulp mill spill collection;
o papermill spill collection;
o improve savealls;
o Whitewater for vacuum pumps;
o central Whitewater tanks;
o recycle press effluent; and
o collect pulp mill overflow.
VI-7 4
-------
Level 2:
cleaner rejects to landfill.
034 Groundwood-Fine
The Groundwood-Fine model mill has a raw waste load of 68.4 kl/kkg (16.4
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 17.6 kg/kkg (35.2 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 53.9 kg/kkg (107.9 Ib/ton). The raw waste loading for the pure mill
at 59% groundwood production is the same «« that for the model mill. The raw
waste load for the 100 percent groundwood pure mill in this subcategory is:
110.9 kl/kkg (26.6 kgal/t), BOD_5 18.6 kg/kkg (37.2 Ib/ton), and 55.2 kg/kkg
(110.4 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure-59%
the following predicted
Pure-100%
Flow
BODS^
TSS
54.2 kl/kkg
13.0 kg/kkg
37.9 kg/kkg
(13.0 kgal/t)
(25.9 Ib/ton)
(75.8 Ib/ton)
88.0 kl/kkg
13.7 kg/kkg
38.8 kg/kkg
(21.1 kgal/t)
(27.4 Ib/ton)
(77.6 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model and Pure-59%
Pure-100%
Flow
BOD_5
TSS
43.8 kl/kkg
12.2 kg/kkg
34.0 kg/kkg
(10.5 kgal/t)
(24.4 Ib/ton)
(68.0 Ib/ton)
71.9 kl/kkg
12.9 kg/kkg
34.8 kg/kkg
(17.0 kgal/t)
(25.8 Ib/ton)
(69.6 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o
o
o
o
dry debarking system;
segregate woodroom cooling water;
pulp mill spill collection;
pulp mill high level alarms;
papermill spill collection;
papermill wet lap machine;
VI-75
-------
o papermill color plant spill collection; and
o segregate utility area cooling waters.
Level 2:
o reduce groundwood thickener overflow;
o Whitewater to vacuum pumps;
o recycle press effluent; and
o cleaner rejects to landfill.
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
The Deink-Fine and Tissue model mill has a raw waste load of 81.3 kl/kkg (19.5
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 48.7 kg/kkg (97.4 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 143.0 kg/kkg (286.0 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure tissue mill would be the same. The loadings for the pure fine mills in
this subcategory are: 107.2 kl/kkg (25.7 kgal/t), BOD5_ 50.0 kg/kkg (99.9
Ib/ton), and 215.7 kg/kkg (431.3 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model or Pure Tissue Pure-Fine
Flow 58.4 kl/kkg (14.0 kgal/t) 77.2 kl/kkg (18.5 kgal/t)
BOD5^ 40.7 kg/kkg (81.3 Ib/ton) 41.7 kg/kkg (83.4 Ib/ton)
TSS 130.2 kg/kkg (260.5 Ib/ton) 196.4 kg/kkg (392.8 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste load:
Model or Pure Tissue Pure-Fine
Flow 55.5 kl/kkg (13.3 kgal/t) 73.4 kl/kkg (17.6 kgal/t)
BOD_5 40.7 kg/kkg (81.3 Ib/ton) 41.7 kg/kkg (83.4 Ib/ton)
TSS 128.2 kg/kkg (256.5 Ib/ton) 193.4 kg/kkg (386.8 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o pulp mill spill collection;
o high-pressure showers;
VI-7 6
-------
o Whitewater to vacuum pumps;
o Whitewater to pulp mill;
o wet lap machine for spills and runout; and
o segregate cooling waters.
Level 2:
o cleaner rejects to landfill; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash waters.
102 Deink-Newsprint
The Deink-Newsprint model mill has a raw waste load of 67.6 kl/kkg (16.2
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 15.9 kg/kkg (31.7 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 123.0 kg/kkg (246.0 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure mill in this subcategory is the same.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model or Pure
Flow 57.5 kl/kkg (13.8 kgal/t)
BOD5_ 13.4 kg/kkg (26.7 Ib/ton)
TSS 118.0 kg/kkg (236.0 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model or Pure
Flow 55.5 kl/kkg (13.3 kgal/t)
BOD5^ 13.4 kg/kkg (26.7 Ib/ton)
TSS 103.0 kg/kkg (206.0 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o improved stock washing in pulp mill;
o improved saveall;
VI-7 7
-------
o Whitewater for vacuum pump sealing; and
o Whitewater for machine showers.
Level 2:
o cleaner rejects to landfill.
Ill Wastepaper-Tissue
The Wastepaper-Tissue model mill has a raw waste load of 39.2 kl/kkg (9.4
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 8.8 kg/kkg (17.5 Ib/ton), and a TSS load
of 27.0 kg/kkg (54.0 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the pure
industrial tissue mill in this subcategory is: 56.7 kl/kkg (13.6 kgal/t),
BOD.5 13.2 kg/kkg (26.3 Ib/ton), and 40.5 kg/kkg (81.0 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model Pure
Flow 33.4 kl/kkg (8.0 kgal/t) 48.4 kl/kkg (11.6 kgal/t)
BOD^ 7.5 kg/kkg (14.9 Ib/ton) 11.2 kg/kkg (22.4 Ib/ton)
TSS 23.0 kg/kkg (46.0 Ib/ton) 34.5 kg/kkg (69.0 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
Level 1:
o high level alarms;
o cleaner rejects to landfill;
o improve level of recycle of effluent to process; and
o improve level of recycle of sludge to process.
There are no Level 2 control items suggested for this subcategory.
112 Wastepaper-Board
The Wastepaper-Board model mill has a raw waste load of 15.4 kl/kkg (3.7
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 6.5 kg/kkg (12.9 Ib/ton), and a TSS load
of 7.7 kg/kkg (15.3 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the pure
board mill in this subcategory is: 15.4 kl/kkg (3.7 kgal/t), BOD5_ 10.6 kg/kkg
(21.2 Ib/ton), and 9.9 kg/kkg (19.7 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following modified
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure board mills:
VI-78
-------
Model
Pure Board
Flow
BOD5_
TSS
8.3 kl/kkg
2.7 kg/kkg
1.9 kg/kkg
(2.0 kgal/t)
(5.3 Ib/ton)
(3.8 Ib/ton)
8.3 kl/kkg
4.4 kg/kkg
2.5 kg/kkg
(2.0 kgal/t)
(8.7 Ib/ton)
(4.9 Ib/ton)
Pure Mill Raw Waste Load
Product
Flow
kl/kkg (kgal/t)
BOD
kg/kkg (Ib/t)
TSS
kg/kkg (Ib./t
Pure Mill
Linerboard
Corrugated
Chip & Filler
Folding Box
Set-Up Box
Gypsum
27.9
4.2
10.0
16.3
20.4
11.7
(6.7)
(1.0)
(2.4)
(3.9)
(4.9)
(2.8)
8.9
5.3
3.5
6.1
7.3
5.8
(17.8)
(10.7)
(6.9)
(12.1)
(14.7)
(11.6)
10.8
4.0
4.5
7.1
5.7
15.9
(21.5)
(7.9)
(8.9)
(14.1)
(11.4)
(31.8)
Level 1 Raw Waste Load
Linerboard
^Arrugated
^Lp & Filler
Folding Box
Set-Up Box
Gyp sum
15.0
2.1
5.4
8.8
10.8
6.3
(3.6)
(0.5)
(1.3)
(2.1)
(2.6)
(1.5)
3.7
2.2
1.4
2.5
3.0
2.4
(7.3)
(4.4)
(2.8)
(5.0)
(6.0)
(4.8)
2.7
1.0
1.1.
1.8
1.4
6.9
(5.3)
(2.0)
(2.2)
(3.5)
(2.8)
(13.8)
The Level 1 items for this subcategory are tabulated below.
Level 1:
o Improved savealls;
o increased Whitewater usage; and
o high-level alarms.
There are no Level 2 items suggested for this subcategory.
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
The Wastepaper-Molded Products model mill has a raw waste load of 47.1 kl/kkg
(11.3 kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 5.7 kg/kkg (11.4 Ib/ton), and a
TSS load of 10.7 kg/kkg (21.3 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for
the pure mill in this subcategory is: 52.5 kl/kkg (12.6 kgal/t), BOD_5 6.5
kg/kkg (13.0 Ib/ton), and 11.4 kg/kkg (22.7 Ib/ton) TSS.
VI-79
-------
The application of Level I technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model
Flow
BOD_5
TSS
37.1 kl/kkg
4.3 kg/kkg
5.0 kg/kkg
(8.9 kgal/t)
(8.6 Ib/ton)
(10.0 Ib/ton)
41.3 kl/kkg
4.9 kg/kkg
5.4 kg/kkg
Pure
(9.9 kgal/ton)
(9.8 Ib/ton)
(10.7 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 items for this subcategory are tabulated below.
Level 1:
o improved recycle of effluent; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash water.
There are no Level 2 production process controls designated for this subcate-
gory.
114 Wastepaper-Construction Products
The Wastepaper-Construction Products model mill has a raw waste load of 9.2
kl/kkg (2.2 kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 5.8 kg/kkg (11.5 Ib/ton),
and a TSS load of 8.2 kg/kkg (16.3 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load
for the pure mill in this subcategory is: 14.6 kl/kkg (3.5 kgal/t), BOD5_ 7.6
kg/kkg (15.2 Ib/ton), and 19.4 kg/kkg (38.7 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Flow
BOD5_
TSS
Model
4.2 kl/kkg
1.0 kg/kkg
0.5 kg/kkg
(1.0 kgal/t)
(1.9 Ib/ton)
(1.0 Ib/ton)
Pure
6.7 kl/kkg
1.3 kg/kkg
1.2 kg/kkg
(1.6 kgal/t)
(2.5 Ib/ton)
(2.4 Ib/ton)
The pure mill with 50 percent waste paper and 50 percent TMP pulp has the
following raw waste loads:
Pure-50% WP and 50% TMP
Flow
BOD
TSS
12.5 kl/kkg
13.9 kg/kkg
10.2 kg/kkg
(3.0 kgal/t)
(27.8 Ib/ton)
(20.4 Ib/ton)
The application of Level 1 production process controls results in the follow-
ing predicted Level 1 raw waste loads for the pure mill using 50 percent waste
paper and 50 percent TMP pulp:
VI-80
-------
Flow 5.8 kl/kkg (1.4 kgal/t)
BOD 2.3 kg/kkg (4.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 0.7 kg/kkg (1.3 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 items for this subcategory are tabulated below.
Level 1:
o improved saveall;
o Whitewater showers;
o high-level alarms; and
o more effluent recycle.
There are no Level 2 controls designated for this subcategory.
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
The Nonintegrated-Fine model mill has a raw waste load of 48.5 kl/kkg. (11.6
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 8.5 kg/kkg (17.0 Ib/ton), and a TSS load
of 30.1 kg/kkg (60.1 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the pure
mill in this subcategory is the same.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure
Flow 34.3 kl/kkg (8.2 kgal/t)
BOD5^ 5.5 kg/kkg (11.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 22.9 kg/kkg (45.8 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model and Pure
Flow 32.6 kl/kkg (7.8 kgal/t)
BODS^ 5.5 kg/kkg (11.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 18.7 kg/kkg (37.3 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
VI-81
-------
Level 1:
o papermill stock spill collection;
o color plant spill collection;
o improved savealls;
o high-pressure machine fresh water showers;
o Whitewater to vacuum pumps and recycle; and
o segregate cooling waters.
Level II
o cleaner rejects to landfill; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash water.
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
The Nonintegrated-Tissue model mill has a raw waste load of 73.4 kl/kkg (17.6
kgal/t) of production, a BOD5 load of 13.3 kg/kkg (26.5 Ib/ton), and a TSS
load of 39.0 kg/kkg (77.9 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for the
pure mill in this subcategory is the same.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills.
Model and Pure
Flow 36.3 kl/kkg (8.7 kgal/t)
BODS^ 5.5 kg/kkg (11.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 24.6 kg/kkg (49.1 Ib/ton)
Similarly, the additional application of the Level 2 technology items could
produce the following predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model and Pure
Flow 34.2 kl/kkg (8.2 kgal/t)
BODS^ 5.5 kg/kkg (11.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 16.3 kg/kkg (32.6 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
VI-82
-------
Level 1:
o papermill spill collection system;
o papermill high-level alarms;
o papermill improved savealls; and
o segregate cooling water.
Level 2:
o cleaner rejects to landfill;
o fourth-stage centricleaner; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash waters.
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
The Nonintegrated-Lightweight model mill has a raw waste load of 266.5 kl/kkg
(63.9 kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 15.3 kg/kkg (30.6 Ib/ton), and a
TSS load of 45.6 kg/kkg (91.2 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load for
the pure mill in this subcategory is the same, except for the manufacture of
electrical paper which has the following loadings: 407.0 kl/kkg (97.6 kgal/t),
BODS^ 11.6 kg/kkg (23.1 Ib/ton), and 37.7 kg/kkg (75.3 Ib/ton) TSS.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure Pure-Electrical
Flow 213.6 kl/kkg (51.2 kgal/t) 326.1 kl/kkg (78.2 kgal/t)
BOD^ 10.3 kg/kkg (20.7 Ib/ton) 2.8 kg/kkg (5.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 28.5 kg/kkg (56.9 Ib/ton) 23.5 kg/kkg (47.0 Ib/ton)
The additional application of the Level 2 technology items produces the fol-
lowing predicted Level 2 raw waste loads:
Model and Pure Pure-Electrical
Flow 209.4 kl/kkg (50.2 kgal/t) 319.8 kl/kkg (76.7 kgal/t)
BODS^ 10.3 kg/kkg (20.7 Ib/ton) 2.8 kg/kkg (5.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 20.2 kg/kkg (40.4 Ib/ton) 16.7 kg/kkg (33.4 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 and 2 modifications suggested for this subcategory are tabulated
below.
VI-8 3
-------
Level 1:
o spill collection;
o high-level alarms;
o Whitewater for vacuum pumps;
o high-pressure showers;
o increase Whitewater and broke storage;
o segregate cooling waters; and
o recycle effluent.
Level 2:
o cleaner rejects to landfill;
o fourth-stage centricleaner; and
o lagoon for boiler blowdown water and water treatment plant filter
backwash waters.
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven
The Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven model mill has a raw waste load of 171.8
kl/kkg (41.2 kgal/t) of production, a BOD5_ load of 5.0 kg/kkg (10.0 Ib/ton),
and a TSS load of 25.0 kg/kkg (50.0 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load
for the pure mill in this subcategory is the same.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following modified
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure
Flow 125.9 kl/kkg (30.2 kgal/t)
BOD5^ 3.5 kg/kkg (7.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 14.8 kg/kkg (29.5 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 modifications for this subcategory are tabulated below.
Level 1:
o spill collection;
o improved saveall;
VI-84
-------
o high pressure showers;
o Whitewater showers;
o segregate cooling water; and
o improved recycle and use of effluent.
There are no Level 2 production process controls designated for this subcate-
gory.
211 Nonintegrated-Board
The Nonintegrated paperboard model mill has a raw waste load of 102.4 kl/kkg
(24.6 kgal/t) of production; a BOD5_ loading of 10.0 kg/kkg (20.0 Ib/ton), and
a TSS loading of 42.3 kg/kkg (84.5 Ib/ton). The corresponding raw waste load
for the pure mill in this subcategory is the same, except for a higher flow
allowance of 247.3 kl/kkg (59.3 kgal/t) for the manufacture for electrical
board.
The application of Level 1 technology items yields the following predicted
Level 1 raw waste loads for the model and pure mills:
Model and Pure Pure-Electrical
Flow 62.4 kl/kkg (15.0 kgal/t) 151.0 kl/kkg (36.2 kgal/t)
BOD^ 6.5 kg/kkg (13.0 Ib/ton) 6.5 kg/kkg (13.0 Ib/ton)
TSS 25.8 kg/kkg (51.5 Ib/ton) 25.8 kg/kkg (51.5 Ib/ton)
The Level 1 control items suggested for this subcategory are tabulated below.
Level 1:
o Whitewater to vacuum pumps;
o Whitewater to machine showers;
o recycle press effluent;
o segregate cooling water;
o improve effluent recycle; and
o add grey stock chest and cooling tower.
There are no Level 2 controls suggested for this subcategory.
OTHER PROCESS CONTROLS
The bleach plant is commonly the largest contributor to water pollution at
bleached kraft mills. For this reason, much effort in the past few years has
VI-8 5
-------
been spent on taking the bleach plant effluent back into the liquor recovery
cycle, where the organic constituents can be burned. One process which lends
itself to this is oxygen bleaching. The oxygen bleaching theory has existed
for a long time, but has just recently begun to come into commercial use.
Other processes which return bleach plant effluent to the liquor cycle are the
Rapson-Reeve closed-cycle process and Uddeholm-Kamyr non-polluting bleach
plant.
Oxygen Bleaching
Oxygen bleaching is currently used at only one mill in the United States, the
Chesapeake Corporation in Virginia. Oxygen bleaching is used outside the
U.S., at one mill in Canada, one in South Africa, one in France, one in Japan,
and three in Sweden.
The advantage of oxygen bleaching comes from the recycling of the alkaline 02_
stage effluent to the black liquor recovery system. In order to recycle the
effluent it is necessary to keep the chloride content of the 02_ stage low.
For this reason, the 02^ bleach sequences being used generally have the 02_
stage preceding any C12_ or ClOj^ stage. The exception to this is the Chesa-
peake Corporation, which uses a CDOD sequence and therefore cannot recycle the
p£ stage to the recovery system.
In work done by the NCASI, effluent characteristics from conventional and
oxygen bleaching sequences were compared. The conventional sequences CEHDED
and CEDED were compared in the lab to those from OCEDED and OCED for both
hardwood and softwood kraft pulps. By recycling all of the 02_ stage effluent,
a BOD_5_ reducton of 81 percent and a color reduction of 89 percent over the
conventional sequences were achieved for softwood pulps. For hardwood, reduc-
tions of 81 percent of BOD5_ and 92 percent of color were achieved.(84)
The Cellulose d'Aquitaine mill in St. Gaudens, France, has reportedly reduced
its total BOD_5_ load by about 30 percent and the total color load by 50 per-
cent, by converting from a CEDED sequence to an OCEDED.(95) The claimed
operating cost for the new oxygen bleach sequence is $2.10/ton less than the
old sequence. The Enstra oxygen bleaching operation in South Africa achieved
a cost reduction of $5'/ton with an AODED sequence. The capital cost of adding
an oxygen stage was given as $2.0 million (1972) for a 272 kkg/day (300 ton/
day) mill, and $4.0 million for a 680 kkg/day (750 ton/day) mill.(96)
Caustic Extract Stream Closeup
The caustic extraction stage effluent is the major source of BOD_5_ and color in
bleached kraft mills. Because of this, much work has been done to develop a
method by which most of the organic dissolved solids can be removed from this
stream and burned in the recovery boiler. Methods which are being investi-
gated to accomplish this include the use of: adsorption resins; ultrafil-
tration and reverse osmosis; and freeze concentration. These and other treat-
ment processes are discussed further in Section VII of this report.
VI-86
-------
The adsorption restn approach is being pursued by three companies: Uddeholm-
Kamyr, Rohm and Haas, and Dow Chemical Company. The Rohm and Haas and the Dow
Chemical processes are at the pilot plant stage. The Uddeholm-Kamyr color
removal process has been in commercial operation in Skoghai, Sweden, since
1973, and is now used on a full scale at a mill in Iwanuma, Japan.
Based on the experience in these full-scale operations with the purification
of El_ caustic effluent, the concept has been expanded into purification of the
entire effluent from the bleach plant. The first full-scale installation
started up in the spring of 1978 at Skoghai, Sweden. In this system a full
counteiruuirrertt wash is used, and the effliieat frOffl the El_ stage is reused on
the C stage after two stages of decolorization by resin adsorption.(97)
The pollutants are removed by elution with caustic or oxidized white liquor.
The eluate at 10 percent concentration is mixed with the weak black liquor to
be evaporated and burned in the recovery boiler. During the activation
process the chlorination effluent is simultaneously decolorized. The flow
diagram of this process is shown in Figure VI-32.
Acid required for activation of the resin is adequately supplied by using
chlorination filtrate in the activation stage. The total mill BOD5_ load is
reduced by 30 percent and the color load by 90 percent.
The operating costs for the Uddeholm-Kamyr system are reported as $1.20 per
ton (1977). The investment cost of an installation for treatment of the
effluent from a 454 kkg/day (500 ton/day) fully bleach kraft pulp bleach plant
is in the range of $3 to $6 million (1977) depending on wood species, kappa
number and local conditions.
Rapson-Reeve Closed-Cycle Process
The Rapson-Reeve closed-cycle process for kraft pulp mills encompasses what
likely will be the standard design parameters in kraft pulp mills several
years from now.(98) The closed-cycle mill concepts, as proposed by ERCO-
Envirotech, Ltd. and illustrated in Figure VI-33 are included in the process
being developed at Great Lakes Paper Co. Ltd., Thunder Bay, Ontario. Main
features of the closed-cycle process include:
o stripping of contaminated condensates for reuse;
o closed screen room;
o use of spill tanks;
o countercurrent washing in bleachery;
o use of 70 percent (+) chlorine dioxide in first stage;
o recovery of salt from recovery cycle; and
VI-87
-------
FROM
SCREENING
BACK TO
SCREENING
RECOVERY
SYSTEM
ELUTION
THE ONLY EFFLUENT
- DECOLORIZED
- DETOXIFIED
- DEMUTAOENIZED
- BOD-REDUCED
- CHLORIDE OUTLET
T
n
^
'
E2
1
ki
1
i
r
*
i
r
FRESH WATER
Fill 1 Y Rl FACHf-n,
PULP
r^\
CLEANING
OECOLORIZATION
A PURIFICATION, OECOLORIZATION,
DETOXIFICATION, DEMUTAOENIZATION ,
AND CHLORIDE REMOVAL TECHNIQUE.
FIGURE 3ZI- 32
UDDEHOLM-KAMYR
NON-POLLUTING BLEACH PLANT
-------
H2O
(D
PURGE
REGS a GRIT)
PURGE
i
oo
YO ATMOSPHERE
H20
H2
LIQUOR
PREPARATION
I
FURNACE
I
BLACK LIQUOR
EVAPORATOR
WHITE LIQUOR
EVAPORATOR
ICONDENSATI-
NaCL
PULPING
CHEMICALS
NaOH,Na2,8
.WOOD
COOKING
H20
CONDENSATE
STRIPPING
i
BLEACHING
CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURE
BLEACHING
DoEDED
CL02
CL2
No OH
UNBLEACHED
PULP
H20
BLEACHED
PULP
FRESH
WATER
FIGURE Id-33
RAPSON-REEVE PROCESS
CLOSED CYCLE BLEACHED KRAFT PULP MILL
-------
o reuse of bleach plant filtrate.
Of these features, the only one which is unique to the closed-cycle mill is
the salt recovery process. In the closed-cycle mill the white liquor is
evaporated and sodium chloride is crystalized and removed from the white
liquor. Most of the salt is reused for generation of C102; however, some must
be purged from the cycle. Figure VI-34 shows the salt recovery process.
The major benefits of the closed-cycle mill are as follows:
o no contaminated effluent from the kraft pulp mill;
o decreased water consumption;
o energy savings;
o fiber and pulp yield gains;
o decreased chemical costs; and
o return on investment.
Present full-scale operating experience is less favorable than the early
literature had generally projected. At Great Lakes Paper some contaminated
effluent is reportedly still being discharged from the bleachery. Chlorina-
tion stage effluent goes to the kiln scrubber, and some "E" stage filtrate is
sewered. The salt recovery system has been operated, but the recovered salt'
is not used onsite. Corrosion problems have occurred, apparently even in the
recovery furnace, and have seriously restricted full implementation of the
closed-cycle process.
There are a number of advantages to high chlorine-dioxide substitution in the
closed-cycle mill. These include:
o maximum pulp viscosity, strength, brightness, and stability;
o increased yield;
o reduced shives;
o decreased pulp resin content;
o decreased acidity load;
o decreased sodium chloride load; and
o decreased overall bleaching costs.
Even in a mill which is not completely closed, the use of chlorine dioxide
will decrease effluent BOD5^ color, chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved
solids and toxicity.
VI-90
-------
COOLIN0
WATER
M WHITE LIQUOR
FEED
I
_
j^~x
*n
["*
7^~X
*1
r*~
^k
«*
i
STB
i
<
AM
.1
^X
*n
PROCESS
CONOENSATE
CONCENTRATED
WHITE LIQUOR WATER
TO DIGESTERS * '"
WATER
Fin
~
' 1
STEAM
ONDENSATE
PER
1
(J
LEA
5 ^
CH HO
1
JOR
i
(a
1 T i
1 _
k
Bf
1
.
1
I
PURIFIED
SODIUM
CHLORIDE
FIGURE 3ZI-34
RAPSON-REEVE
CLOSED CYCLE MILL
SALT RECOVERY SYSTEM
-------
The disadvantages of high chlorine dioxide substitution for chlorine include
increased water input with C102 solution and increased capital investment for
generation of C102. If the mill is not completely closed, savings in NaOH
applied to the bleach plant, and for waste neutralization, may not offset the
cost of using C102 instead of C12. In addition, excess salt cake is produced
if HC1 is not used. The bleach sequence for the closed-cycle bleached kraft
mill is DCEDED. The washing is straight countercurrent except on the last two
stages. The D filtrate is split between the D_l and the E2 stages. Excess E
filtrate goes to salt recovery process, cooking liquor, dilution, and to the
brown stock washers. The DC filtrate goes to brown stock washing, screen room
dilution, and to the kiln scrubber.
The first-stage washer shower has a displacement ratio of 0.65 for D filtrate
and 0.75 for E filtrate. This results in a total displacement ratio of 1.4.
The only fresh water used in the bleach plant is on timed wire cleaning
showers on each washer. Some of the E2 stage filtrate is used for caustic
dilution. The diluted caustic is used for extraction, as a buffer, and for
anti-chlor and pH control.
The salt recovery process (SRP) is necessary in the closed-cycle mill in order
to remove the sodium chloride which would otherwise build up in the system.
The major sources of sodium chloride contamination are as follows:
Range
Sources of Sodium Chloride
Salt Water Borne Logs
"Brackish" process water
Saltcake
Other makeup
NaOH Filtrate reuse
Dioxide "Spent Liquor"
Bleachery Filtrate Recycle
kg/kkg (lb/t)
1
2
10
.5 -
.05-
.05-
.1 -
28
25
7
7
10
.05-
-175
.5
.5
.25
2
5
10
.1 -
.1 -
.2 -
.1 -
55
50
1
15
20
175
.5
.5
The sodium chloride contribution from the kraft bleach plant varies dras-
tically with the sequence used.
Sodium Chloride Contribution
Sequence
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
CEDED
CD E D E D
DC E D E D
115
97.5
60
(230)
(195)
(120)
In the SRP system the white liquor is evaporated to a high concentration of
sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide. This crystalizes the sodium chloride,
sodium carbonate and sodium sulfate. The sodium chloride is separated and
purified and then may be used for C102 generation. The sodium carbonate and
sodium sulfate leave the SRP sytem as concentrated white liquor. The SRP
system is a two-stage system which yields Na2C03 and Na2S04 from stage one,
then NaCl from stage two.
VI-92
-------
The following constraints must be considered in the design of such a closed-
cycle mill:
o dry barking or closed water system;
o brown stock washer capability for minimum soda loss;
o closed screen room;
o corrosion resistant construction of first bleaching stage washers;
o bleached washer capability for displacement ratio of 3:0;
o seal tanks sized for adequate accumulation;
o extra evaporator capacity to handle spills;
o condensate steam stripper;
o salt recovery capabilities; and
o extra recovery capability for more organics.
The following is a list of acceptable materials of construction for the
closed-cycle pulp mill:
Digesters: Carbon steel, 304 Stainless Steel (SS), 316 SS
Washers: Carbon steel, 304 SS, 316 SS
Evaporators: Carbon steel, 304 SS, 316 SS
Screens: 304 SS, 316 SS, 317 SS
D Stages: Ti (titanium), FRP, (Fiberglass Reinforced Polyester)
Hastelloy C-276
E Stages: High Moly Alloys or 317 SS
Seal Tanks: FRP
Pumps: High Moly Alloys, 317 SS, 316 SS
Mixers: Ti, FRP, 316 SS, 304 SS
Pipes: High'Moly, FRP, 316 SS, 304 SS
Recent experiences have indicated that with high recycled salt levels, even
317 SS may be marginal. Also, a critical part of a closed cycle, or any
minimal liquor loss pulping operation, is adequate storage to avoid accidental
discharge of liquids.
According to a Swedish study (72) 50 percent of chemical, fiber and liquid
volume losses are due to accidental discharge. The capacity of spill tanks at
Great Lakes is: fiber spills 454,000 1 (120,000 gal.); acid bleach filtrate -
681,000 1 (180,000 gal.); alkaline bleach filtrate - 870,550 1 (230,000 gal.);
and causticizing spills - 1,022,000 1 (270,000 gal.).
According to ERCO-Envirotech, for a closed-cycle kraft mill a 635 kkg/day (700
air dry tons (ADT) per day), an SRP system would have a capital cost of $4.2
million. Implementation of internal controls could run as high as $3.8 mil-
lion. Additional controls required for a closed-cycle mill are: dry barking
VI-93
-------
or a closed wet barking system; closed screen room; countercurrent washing in<
bleachery; condensate steam stripping; reuse of bleach plant filtrate, ano|
spill tanks. This makes the total added cost for a closed-cycle mill $8
million or more. The additional ClO^ generating capacity, and any major
bleachery modifications requiring more corrosion resistant materials, will
result in yet higher costs.
ERCO-Envirotech have stated that the closed-cycle mill would result in the
following operating cost savings: 1.) heat savings from decreased steam
consumption and increased steam production; 2.) fiber savings; 3.) yield
increase; 4.) water savings; and 5.) savings in effluent treatment costs. It
was originally thought that chemical costs would be lower for a closed-cycle
mill than for a conventional mill. However, actual chemical costs at Great
Lakes Paper Co., Ltd. have been higher than those for a conventional mill.
Present savings at Great Lakes are about $1 million. The original estimate
was for $4 million in savings; however, this is somewhat deceiving because the
comparison was made with a mill having none of the internal controls mentioned
previously. Most mills, however, use many of the mentioned controls to some
extent, with the exception of condensate steam stripping. Therefore, it is
probably safe to assume that a mill with good internal controls could realize
most of the cost savings that ERCO-Envirotech has attributed to their closed-
cycle mill.
Sequential Chlorination
Another method of reducing the pollution load from the bleach plant is with
sequential chlorination.
MacMillian Bloedel Research views the sequential chlorination sequences as an
interim solution while technology develops on oxygen bleaching, C102 genera-
tion and salt recovery. When these technologies are fully developed, they
might be incorporated with lower capital expenditures.
Hooker Chemical has done much work on sequential chlorination. Their work has
been exclusively on modification of fully bleached sequences. The first se-
quential chlorination system studied by Hooker Chemical was the APS-I. In
this system the standard CEHD or CEDED is modified by replacing the conven-
tional chlorination with sequential chlorination at a D:C ratio of 50:50.
Hypochlorination is substituted for the first extraction stage. The system
can be used for hardwood or softwood pulps. Substantial reductions in ef-
fluent color and toxicity, and moderate reductions in BOD5 were reported.(99)
Chemical costs for the APS-I system were equivalent or slightly higher than
those for the conventional sequence. Estimated capital costs range from
$20,000 to $500,000 (1973 costs), depending on the mill size and condition of
the existing bleach plant. Pulp quality is equivalent to that from the con-
trol sequences.
VI-94
-------
The Hooker APS-II and III systems operate differently than the APS-I. Chlor-
ination is replaced by sequential chlorination, at a high D:C ratio (75:25),
followed by caustic extraction. This minimizes the chloride content of the
bleach plant effluent and permits recycling of the effluent into the kraft
recovery system, which results in incineration of the major organic waste
load. The APS-II and III systems suggest a sequence of antipollution steps
which may be implemented one at a time. These steps and the BOD5_ and color
reductions obtained by each step are shown in Table VI-4. This process is
reported to use existing or slightly modified bleach plant equipment and
produces pulp with properties equivalent or superior to the conventional
processes. Hooker also claims reduced chemical and operating costs. The
process recovers caustic, sodium sulfate, and sodium chloride which would
normally be sewered.
No-Sulfur Pulping
In the past two years many semi-chemical corrugating medium mills have changed
their pulping processes from neutral sulfite semi-chemical (NSSC) and green
liquor processes to non-sulfur pulping. A survey conducted in early 1978 by
Pulp and Paper magazine showed that 10 of the 41 semi-chemical mills in the
U.S.A. and Canada had changed to non-sulfur processes and another four mills
were considering the change.(100)
The main reasons for changing to non-sulfur pulping included: the poor market
for the salt cake byproduct; the high chemical costs of sodium carbonate and
sulfur for NSSC; and the sulfur emissions problems associated with the NSSC
process. Responses to the survey indicates that the non-sulfur mills general-
ly have somewhat lower raw waste loads, as well.
There are basically three non-sulfur processes: 1.) the Owens-Illinois pro-
cess; 2.) the soda ash process; and 3.) the modified soda ash process.
Owens-Illinois was the first to develop a no-sulfur process in 1972. Their
process uses 15-50 percent caustic as Na20. The remainder is soda ash. Spent
liquor is burned in a modified kraft-type furnace or fluidized bed.
In the soda ash process, soda ash is used at 6 to 8 percent on wood. Spent
liquor is burned in a fluidized bed, and the soda ash is recovered.
The modified soda ash process uses a small amount of caustic along with the
soda ash, typically 7-8 percent NaOH (as Na20).
Displacement Bleaching
There are presently only two mills in the country which use a displacement
bleaching process. The first was at the EasTex mill in Evadale, Texas, which
started up in 1975.(101) This was followed by the start of a system at Weyer-
haeuser Corporation in Plymouth, North Carolina, in 1976. Both systems are
Kamyr designs, with conventional D/C first stage tower and washer preceding an
EDEDW displacement tower. The caustic is applied at the repulper of the
conventional washer. The pulp is then pumped into the bottom of the displace-
VI-95
-------
TABLE VI-4
WASTE LOAD REDUCTIONS FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF
HOOKER APS II AND APS III SYSTEMS
Effluent BOD5 % BOD5 Color % Color
Step No., Operation _ kgal/ton Ibs/ton Reduction _ Ibs/ton Reduction
:ontrol standard 18 - 20 25 - 650
Countercurrent wash-jump 11 - 13 25 - 650
slate, split flow
Replace chlorination with 11 - 13 22 12 376 42
sequential chlorination -
75:25 D:C ratio
Recycle D/C effluent to dilute 6-8 22 12 376 42
incoming brown stock
Dilute sequential chlorination 4 - 6 10 60 87 87
stock with part E_l and recycle
remainder to recovery via brown
stock washers and smelt dis-
solving system
Use salt separation process to 4 - 6 10 60 87 87
purge Nad and separate Na2S04
from precipitator catch
Treat D/C effluent in a resin 4-6 9 64 23 96
packed column and regenerate
resin with a portion of El^
effluent.
VI-96
-------
ment tower at about 10 percent consistency. The displacement tower has a
retention time of about 90 minutes. Each stage in the tower has a retention
time of about 90 minutes. Each stage in the tower is followed by a stage of
diffusion washing with the filtrate being extracted to a seal tank and then
partially reused.
There are four filtrate tanks for the displacement towers. These tanks are of
a stacked design with one set of tanks for the caustic extraction and one set
for the chlorine dioxide. Some caustic extract is generally reused back on
the conventional washer as well as being mixed with the NaOH for the dis-
placement tower. Some dioxide filtrate is also mixed with C102 to be reused
on the Dl_ and D2^ stages. Overflows from the seal tanks are sewered. Water
use for a D/CEDED displacement bleach sequence is typically 3.0 to 4.5 kgal/t
compared to a conventional tower washer system often exceeding 12 kgal/t.
The benefits are primarily the lower water use and slightly lower initial
capital costs. Based on limited data, it appears that chemical usage may be
higher than that for conventional bleaching systems.
VI-97
-------
SECTION VII
EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
REVIEW OF SELECTED EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Introduction
The pulp, paper and paperboard industry employs many types of wastewater
treatment systems to reduce the levels of pollutants contained in mill ef-
fluents. This section describes and evaluates the performance of existing
treatment systems employed within each subcategory of the industry. Also
presented in this section is a discussion and evaluation of other applicable
effluent treatment technologies.
Preliminary/Primary Treatment
Wastewater must often be screened to remove materials that could seriously
damage or clog downstream treatment equipment. Automatically cleaned screens
are commonly employed prior to primary treatment.
The primary treatment process of removing suspended organic and inorganic
materials can be accomplished by sedimentation (with or without flocculants or
coagulants), flotation, or filtration. Sedimentation can involve mechanical
clarifiers, flotation units, or sedimentation lagoons.
The most widely applied technology for removing suspended solids from pulp,
paper, and paperboard mill wastewaters is the mechanical clarifier. Circular
tanks of concrete construction are normally used with rotating sludge scraper
mechanisms mounted in the center. The wastewater effluent usually enters the
tank through a well that is located on a center pier. Settled solids are
raked to a center sump or concentric hopper. The solids are generally con-
veyed to solids dewatering facilities prior to disposal. Floating material is
collected by a surface skimmer attached to the rotating mechanism, discharged
to a hopper and is then disposed of.
Dissolved air flotation (DAF) units have also been applied to effluents from
papermills and have in some cases effectively removed suspended solids.(102)
DAT units are somewhat limited because of their inability to handle high
pollutant concentrations and shock loads.
Fine screens, microstrainers, and pressure filters are not commonly used in
the industry for suspended solids removal. Adequate fine screening systems
cost approximately the same as an equivalent clarifier and reportedly have
more inherent operating problems.(103)
Because of the biodegradable nature of a portion of the settleable solids
present in pulp, paper and paperboard wastewaters, clarification results in
vn-i
-------
some BOD5_ reduction. Typical BOD 5 removals through primary clarification in
integrated pulp and paper mills varies between 10 and 30 percent. The exact
BOD5 removal depends on the relative amount of soluble BOD5 present in the raw
wastewater. Primary clarification can result in significantly higher BOD 5
reductions at nonintegrated mills than at integrated mills. Responses to the
data request program indicate that roughly 50 percent of the raw wastewater
BOD5 is commonly removed at nonintegrated mills through primary clarification.
Easty(58) has recently observed that very little reduction of fatty acids,
resin acids or their chlorinated derivatives occurs during primary clarifi-
cation. This observation suggests that these compounds are not associated
with the suspended solids content of the wastewater. Polychlorinated bi-
phenyls (PCB's) have been observed to undergo significant reductions through
primary treatment.(12) At a waste paper tissue mill, PCB's were reduced from
25 to 2.2 micrograms per litre (ug/1) through primary clarification, while TSS
was reduced from 2,020 to 77 milligrams per litre (mg/l).(12) It has not yet
been established whether reductions occur for other chloro-organic compounds;
this phenomenon is undergoing further study as part of future data evaluation
efforts.
Biological Treatment
Introduction. Currently, the most common types of biological treatment used
in the pulp, paper and paperboard industry include oxidation basins, aerated
stabilization basins, and the activated sludge process or its modifications.
Other biological systems include oxygen activated sludge, the Zurn/Attisholz
process, rotating biological contactors and anaerobic contact filters.
A principal benefit obtained from biological treatment is the reduction of
oxygen-consuming pollutants which can cause depletion of dissolved oxygen in
receiving waters. Fish and other aquatic organisms are particularly sensitive
to reduced levels of dissolved oxygen. Significant reductions in toxic pollu-
tants have also been observed through application of biological treatment as
illustrated by recent data gathering efforts (see Section V). When adequately
designed and operated, biological treatment consistently achieves 80 to 90
percent and higher BOD5_ reductions when applied to pulp and paper mill ef-
fluents. Biological treatment can also yield a nontoxic effluent a high
percentage of the time.(104)
Due to the variance of influent wastewater characteristics, specific pollutant
removal capabilities are not readily obtainable unless long-term field sam-
pling is employed. In a laboratory study, Leach, Mueller, and Thakore deter-
mined the specific biodegradabilities of six toxic pollutants in pulp and
papermill wastewater.(105) The relative ease with which these six compounds
were degraded was, in descending order: dehydroabietic acid; pimaric acid;
tetrachloroguiacol; monochlorodehydroabietic acid; dichlorodehydroabietic
acid; and trichloroguaiacol. The researchers reported that chlorinated bleach
plant derivatives are more difficult to degrade than are nonchlorinated wood
derivatives.
VII-2
-------
A recent study investigated influent and effluent concentrations of noncon-
ventional and toxic pollutants after full-scale biological treatment.(59)
Removal rates of these pollutants, as derived from the published design and
treatment data, are shown in Table VII-1. The relative removal rates gener-
ally agree with those obtained in laboratory studies.(105)
BOD 5 and toxic pollutant removals from bleached kraft wastewater through
application of activated sludge treatment and aerated stabilization were
investigated in an attempt to establish a relation between pollutant concen-
tration and toxicity.(104) The authors concluded that, in general, a reduc-
tion in BOD5 to about 45 mg/1 was sufficient to achieve detoxification. Also,
a total resia and fatty acid couceutfation of less than 1 ing/1 was necessary
to effect detoxification. The correlation between total resin and fatty acid
content and toxicity was better than the correlation between BOD5_ and tox-
icity.
Impact of Temperature Variations. All biological treatment systems are af-
fected by temperature, particularly by large and/or sudden temperature
changes. The effect of temperature variations on aerobic biological systems
has been demonstrated in both theory and practice; therefore, temperature is
of importance in the choice of design and operation of treatment systems.
Pelczar and Reid (106) have stated that all processes of growth are dependent
on chemical reactions and the rates of these reactions are influenced by
environmental conditions, including temperature. The discussion below pre-
sents theoretical and operating data on temperature variations and their
effects. Included is an evaluation of the effect of temperature on biological
treatment system as measured by BODS^ and TSS removals.
BOD5 is a measurement of the dissolved oxygen used by microorganisms for the
biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a wastewater. BOD5_ removal occurs
in two stages: a first stage in which the carbonaceous (organic) matter is
oxidized and a second stage in which nitrification occurs. The oxidation of
the carbonaceous matter results from the biological activity of bacteria and
other organisms in the wastewater. For a stated set of environmental condi-
tions, growth of microorganisms will follow a predictable and reproducible
pattern closely allied to the amount of BOD5_ present in a wastewater and its
rate of utilization by the microorganisms present.(107)
The heterogeneous population of bacteria found in aerobic biological systems
treating wastewaters at temperatures such as those resulting from the produc-
tion of pulp and paper encompass three classified groupings of bacteria:
psychrophilic, mesophilic, and thermophilic organisms.
Seasonal wastewater temperature variations change the specific growth rate of
the heterogeneous population, and to a lesser extent, the relative distribu-
tion of the types of bacteria comprising the population. McKinney (108) has
depicted the rate of growth for mesophilic organisms with the maximum rate
occurring in the range of 35° to 40°C. Similar growth rate-temperature dis-
tributions exist for both psychrophilic and thermophilic organisms, with the
optimal growth rate occurring in the range of 10° to 15°C for psychrophiles,
VII-3
-------
TABLE VII-1
CALCULATED TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT REMOVAL RATES(a)(59)
Mill 9(b)
10-Day
ASB
Resin Acids
Abietic 0.85
Dehydroabietic 1.05
Isopimaric 0.30
Pimaric 0.10
Unsaturated Fatty Acids
Oleic
Linoleic
Linolenic
Other Acidics
Epoxysteric Acid
Dichlorosteric Acid
Chlorinated Resin Acids
Monochlorodehydroabietic
Dichlorodehydroabietic
Chlorinated Phenolics
Trichloroguaiacol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
Chloroform
Mill ll(b)
6-Day
ASB
0.86
2.65
0.37
0.14
0.7
2.6
0.4
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.02
2.2
Mill 12(c)
3.5-Hr
AS
0.3
0.6
0.26
0.3
0.35
0.30
0.006
0.019
2.1
Mill 13(b)
12-Day
ASB
1.5
1.85
1.25
0.3
0.55
0.15
10.4
0.03
0.10
Mill 14(b) Mill 15(b)
7-Day 15-Day
ASB ASB
1.0 0.45
1.1 0.72
3.0 0.12
0.1 0.15
0.67
0.47
0.03
0.12
0.01
0.03
(a) Removal rates shown as micrograms removed per milligrams/litre (mg/1) of biomass per day.
(by Aerated stabilization basin (ASB) biomass assumed to be 200 mg/1.
(c) Activated sludge (AS) biomass reported to be 2,500 mg/1.
NOTE: Blank spaces indicate no data.
-------
and 60° to 65°C for thermophiles.(109) However, the predominant group found
at all normal operating temperatures in aerobic systems are the meso-
philes.(HO)
A number of studies have been conducted to quantify various aspects of micro-
bial growth, temperature, and BOD5_ reduction. Degradation of BOD5_ in pulp and
paper wastewater has been evaluated and found to proceed at rates similar to
other wastewater sources.(Ill, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118)
Soluble BOD5_ removal by microorganisms approximates first-order kinetics.(110)
A temperature decrease of 10°C from the optimal temperature would necessitate
an increase in detention or reaction time of approximately 35 percent to
attain the same effluent BOD^ level as that attained at the optimal tempera-
ture. Conversely, an increase in temperature of 10°C would theoretically
shorten the detention time by 25 percent to attain the same effluent BOD_5_
level.
The above concept is of substantial practical importance in treatment system
design, since flexiblity in design allows treatment systems to sustain effi-
cient operation over a wide range of conditions (i.e., increasing microbial
(solids) recirculation rates will increase waste/microbe contact time when
microbial activity is reduced in colder temperatures). Additional studies
relate the specific effects of changes in temperature on BOD^ and suspended
solids removal to performance for specific systems.(119)
Oxidation Basins. The first type of biological treatment systems used in the
pulp, paper and paperboard industry were oxidation basins. These are large
natural or manmade basins of various depths; natural aeration from the atmos-
phere is relied on as an oxygen source. Since oxidation through natural
aeration results in a relatively low-rate process, large land areas are re-
quired to implement this technology. Because of availability of land and a
warm climate that increases bioactivity, most oxidation basins are found in
southern states. This technology can be more effective if settleable solids
are removed from the wastewater before it enters the basins, since solids can
contribute to the BOD_5_ wastewater loads and an excess of settleable solids
would tend to rapidly fill the basins.
Typical design BOD5_ loads range from 56 to 67 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) of
surface area/day (50 to 60 Ib/acre/day).(37) Retention times can vary from 20
to over 60 days.(37) This method of treatment has two principal advantages:
1) it can be capable of handling (buffering) accidental discharges of strong
wastewater without significant upset; and 2) it requires no mechanical devices
with inherent maintenance problems. Thus, oxidation basins are capable of
good performance on a continuous basis. Generally, suspended solids are
effectively removed in oxidation basins. Literature presenting data on the
removal of toxic and nonconventional pollutants through application of oxida-
tion basin technology is limited.
VI1-5
-------
Aerated Stabilization Basins (ASB) . The aerated stabilization basin (ASB)|
evolved from the necessity of increasing performance of existing oxidation
basins due to increasing effluent flows and/or more stringent water quality
standards. Induced aeration provides a greater supply of oxygen, thus sub-
stantially reducing the retention time required to achieve treatment compara-
ble to that attained in an oxidation basin. Nitrogen and phosphorus (nu-
trients) are usually added prior to the ASB if the wastewater is determined to
be nutrient deficient. These additions are commonly made in the form of
ammonia and phosphoric acid. The longer the retention period of the waste
undergoing biological oxidation, the lower the nutrient requirement. The
specific detention time used depends upon the characteristics of the waste-
waters to be treated. Retention times of 8 to 10 days, and sometimes up to 15
days, have been used in order to obtain BOD_5_ levels of less than 30 mg/l.(120,
121, 122)
Aeration is normally accomplished using either gear-driven turbine type sur-
face aerators or direct-drive axial flow-pump aerators. Diffused air can also
be employed. Oxygen transfer efficiencies under actual operating conditions
range from 0.61 to 1.52 kilograms (kg) of oxygen per kilowatt-hour (kWh) , or
about (1.0 to 2.5 Ib of oxygen per horsepower-hour) depending on the type of
equipment used, the amount of aeration power per unit lagoon volume, basin
configuration, and the biological characteristics of the system. (123, 124) It
is necessary to maintain a dissolved oxygen (DO) level of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/1 in
the basin to sustain aerobic conditions.
^ and suspended solids levels, oxygen uptake, and DO levels throughout the
basins are related to aerator location and performance and basin configura-
tion. There have been extensive studies (125) of eleven existing aerated
stabilization basins that have subsequently been used in the design of other
ASB's.
Some solids accumulate in the bottom of ASB's, but these are relatively inert
and can be removed with periodic dredging. Solids accumulation diminishes as
the detention time and degree of mixing within the basin increases. At some
mills a settling basin or clarifier is used to improve effluent clarity.
The removal efficiency of an ASB treating unbleached kraft waste was evaluated
over a 1-month period in late 1976. (126) Although the raw wastewater exhib-
ited an LC-50 of from 1 to 2 percent by volume, all but one of the 26 treated
effluent samples were either nontoxic or exhibited greater than 50 percent
fish survival after 96 hours of exposure. The one failure was attributed to a
black liquor spill at the mill. Average reductions of 87 percent BOD_5, 90
percent toxicity and 96 percent total resin acids were achieved. Dehydro-
abietic acid was the only resin acid identified in the treated effluent;
pimaric, isopimaric and abietic acids tended to concentrate in the foam.
Pilot-scale ASB treatment of bleached kraft wastewater was evaluated over a
5-month period. (104) Two basins, one with a 5-day and one with a 3-day hy-
draulic detention time, were studied with and without surge equalization. The
raw wastewater EOD5_ varied from 108 mg/1 to 509 mg/1 and was consistently
toxic. The median survival times (MST) of fish ranged from 7 to 1,440 min-
VI1-6
-------
utes, while total resin and fatty acid concentrations ranged from 2 to 8
mg/l.(104) Mean BOD5_ removals with surge equalization were 85 percent for the
5-day basin and 77 percent for the 3-day basin. Mean effluent B0^5_ levels
with surge equalization were 40 mg/1 for the 5-day basin and 59 mg/1 for the
3-day basin. Detoxification was attained 98 percent of the time by the 5-day
basin with surge equalization, and 85 percent of the time by the 3-day basin
with surge equalization. Mean reported effluent BOD5_ values for the 5-day and
3-day basins without equalization were 51 mg/1 and 67 mg/1, respectively. The
detoxification rate without equalization dropped to 73 percent for the 5-day
basin and 70 percent for the 3-day basin. The authors concluded that surge
equalization appeared to have a more significant effect on detoxification than
BOD5_ removal.
Since the surge capacity of an aerated stabilization basin is related to
hydraulic detention time, the 6-to 10-day basins which are commonly employed
in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry in the United States should have a
higher capacity for shock loading than those used in this study.
Aerated stabilization basins provide a high degree of BOD5_ reduction and also
can remove or reduce the wastewater toxicity. ASB capital and operating cost
may be lower than those for the activated sludge process. The treatment
efficiency is not as dependent on ambient air temperature as with oxidation
basins; however, efficiency can be more dependent on ambient air temperature
for ASB's than for higher rate processes (i.e., activated sludge).
Activated Sludge Process. The activated sludge process is a high-rate bio-
logical wastewater treatment system. The biological mass grown in the aera-
tion tanks is settled in a secondary clarifier and returned to the aeration
tanks, building up a large concentration of active biological material. There
can be 3,000 to 4,000 mg/1 of active sludge mass in the aeration basin section
associated with an activated sludge system as opposed to the 50 to 200 mg/1
common to aerated stabilization basins. Loadings in excess of 45.4 kilograms
of BOD5 per 35.3 litres (100 Ibs of BOD_5 per 1,000 ft_3) of aeration capacity
per day are sometimes used, allowing for relatively small aeration tanks.
Since biological organisms are in continuous circulation throughout the sys-
tem, complete mixing and suspension of solids in the aeration basin are re-
quired. Mechanical surface aerators similar to those used in aerated stabil-
ization basins are normally used; diffused air can also be used.
The characteristically short detention times tend to make the activated sludge
process more susceptible to upset due to shock loads. When the process is
disrupted, it may require several days for biological activity to return to
normal. Particular operator attention is required to avoid such shock load-
ings at mills utilizing this process. This effect can be avoided through
provision of sufficient equalization to minimize the effects of shock load-
ings.
Compared with aerated stabilization basins, the activated sludge process has
less shock load tolerance, greater solids handling problems, and higher costs.
VI I-7
-------
However, the activated sludge process requires less land than ASB's. Thus
may be preferred in cases where sufficient land for ASB installation is either
unavailable or too expensive.
The contact stabilization process is a variation of the activated sludge
process in which two aeration steps are used rather than one. The incoming
wastewater is contacted for a short period with active organisms prior to
sedimentation. Settled solids are then aerated for a longer period to com-
plete waste assimilation. Contact stabilization has been applied successfully
to treat kraft mill effluent.
The ability of activated sludge basins to detoxify bleached kraft mill ef-
fluents was analyzed over a 5-month period. (104) Two pilot-scale activated
sludge systems (8-hr and 24-hr detention) were operated with and without surge
equalization. Raw wastewater BOD _5_ varied from 108 to 509 mg/1. The raw
wastewater was consistently toxic. Reported raw wastewater median survival
times (MST) to fish ranged from 7 to 1,440 minutes. Total resin and fatty
acid concentrations in the raw wastewater ranged from 2 to 8 mg/1. Mean BOD_5
removals for the 8-hr and 24-hr activated sludge lagoon with a 12-hr surge
equalization basin achieved an average of 76 percent and 72 percent BOD^
removal, respectively. Effluent BOD^ concentration for the 24-hr system
ranged from 5 mg/1 to 263 mg/1, with a mean of 64 mg/1. The 24-hr system
detoxified the effluent 76 percent of the time.
The 8-hr activated sludge system removed an average of 72 percent of the BOD5_.
Final effluent BOD_5_ concentrations ranged from 14 to 270 mg/1 with a mean of
64 mg/1. The effluent was detoxified 72 percent of the time. (104) The 24-hr
activated sludge system, when operated without equalization, was subjected to
more vigorous mixing plus addition of 10 mg/1 alum. Under these conditions,
an average of 90 percent BOD^ removal was obtained and detoxification was
achieved 100 percent of the time. The 8-hr activated sludge system, when
operated without surge equalization, was also subjected to more vigorous
mixing with no addition of alum. Under these conditions, an average of 84
percent BOD_5 removal was obtained, although detoxification was attained only
55 percent of the time. (104) The authors concluded that equalization did not
affect BOD_5_ removal efficiency, but improved the detoxification efficiency by
15 to 30 percent. Addition of alum to the activated sludge system appeared to
reduce toxicity. The authors speculated that the mechanism of toxicity re-
moval was a chemical reaction.(104) Failures to detoxify were attributed in
some instances to hydraulic shocks, black liquor spills or inadequate treat-
ment system operation, although in many instances, no cause could be deter-
mined. (104)
Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge System. The pure oxygen activated sludge process
uses oxygen, rather than air, to stimulate biological activity. This scheme
allows for a lesser detention time and lower aeration power requirement than
activated sludge; however, additional power is required for oxygen generation
which may result in a net increased power requirement. Solids volumes that
must be dewatered and disposed of are similar to those produced by air acti-
vated sludge systems.
VI I-8
-------
Field test data by Union Carbide Corp. confirms that the oxygen activated
sludge process is capable of achieving final effluent BOD^ concentrations on
the order of 20 to 30 mg/1 with pulp, paper, and paperboard mill wastes.(127)
Effluent TSS after clarification was generally in the range of 40 to 60
mg/1.(127) A summary of pilot scale information is presented in Table VII-2.
TABLE VII-2
OXYGEN ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATABILITY
PILOT SCALE
Production Process
Alkaline-Unbleached
Alkaline-Unbleached
Alkaline-Unbleached
Retention
(Hrs)
1.3
1.8
2.0
- 2
- 3
- 2
.2
.0
.9
BOD5 (mg/1)
Influent
277 -
214 -
265 -
464
214
300
Effluent
20
16
25
- 41
- 22
- 30
TSS (mg/1)
Influent
57 -
123 -
95 -
86
123
120
Effluent
46
36
60
- 61
- 36
- 70
Sulfite/newsprint effluent was treated using an oxygen activated sludge pilot
plant facility over an 11-month period. BOD_5_ reductions during this time were
over 90 percent. (128) Final BOD_5 and TSS concentrations ranged from 23 to 42
mg/1 and 61 to 111 mg/1, respectively. (30) The effluent from the oxygen
activated sludge system was found to be acutely toxic.(128) Total resin acids
before and after oxygen activated sludge treatment were 25 and 6 mg/1, re-
spectively. (128) Ammonia was found at levels on the order of 50 mg/1. The
treated effluent was air stripped to determine if ammonia was the major cause
of the high toxicity. Although air stripping reduced the ammonia concentra-
tion to less than 1 mg/1 and the total resin acid concentration to 1 mg/1, the
effluent remained acutely toxic.
Easty (59) studied two examples of pure oxygen activated sludge systems: one
treating an integrated bleached kraft wastewater and the other treating an
unbleached kraft pulp mill wastewater. Both significantly reduced all identi-
fied pollutants. The pollutants evaluated included resin and fatty acids,
their chlorinated derivatives, and chloroform. The first system incorporated
an oxygen activated sludge basin with hydraulic detention of 3 hours and 10
minutes and a sludge recycle rate of 35 percent. The pH was maintained be-
tween 6.2 and 7.5. It was determined from Easty's data that 43 to 92 percent
of identified toxic pollutants were removed, with the chlorinated resin acids
exhibiting relatively low removal efficiencies. This is consistent with
observed biodegradabilities of the nonconventional pollutants.(109)
The second oxygen activated sludge system operated with a detention time of
3.7 hours and a mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS) concentration of 2,500
mg/1.(59) Bench-scale alum/polyelectrolyte coagulation followed. The ef-
fluent was adjusted to pH 5 with alum and 1 mg/1 polyelectrolyte was added.
Essentially complete removal of all identified resin and fatty acids was
VI1-9
-------
obtained. It should also be noted that initial concentrations in the raw
waste were relatively low. Since no data was reported for the oxygen actij
vated sludge system without chemically assisted clarification, the relative
effects of each of the two processes on removal efficiencies could not be
determined.
Zurn/Attisholz (Z/A) Process. The Zurn/Attisholz (Z/A) process is a two-stage
activated sludge system. The first stage operates at DO less than 1.0 mg/1
and the second stage maintains DO at 4 to 5 mg/1. Nutrient and power require-
ments for the two-stage system are similar to those for the conventional
activated sludge process. A total Z/A detention time of 4 hours may be re-
quired to achieve BOD and solids reductions comparable to activated sludge and
aerated stabilization systems.
Seven full-scale Zurn/Attisholz systems are currently in use at pulp and paper
mills in the United States. These installations treat wastewaters from the
following types of manufacturing:
Deink-Fine and Tissue (5 mills)
Sulfite-Papergrade (1 mill)
Integrated-Miscellaneous (1 mill)
Most of these mills reportedly maintain final effluent' BOD5 and TSS concentra-
tions in the range of 20 to 25 mg/1 each. (129) One mill reportedly achieves
BOD5 and TSS levels in the range of 5 to 10 mg/1 each.(129) Another mill also,
attained a 96 percent BOD5_ and 99 percent TSS reduction using the Z/A pro-
cess. (130)
A pilot study comparing a two-stage, to a single-stage activated sludge system
has recently been performed. It was concluded that the two-stage system
achieved a higher toxicity reduction in treating bleached kraft wastewater
than did a single-stage system.(131, 132)
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC). This system involves a series of discs
on a shaft supported above a basin containing wastewater. The discs are 40 to
45 percent submerged in the wastewater and are slowly rotated; a biological
slime grows on the disc surfaces. Closely spaced 12-ft-diameter discs mounted
on a 25-ft shaft can result in 100,000 ft2 of surface area.
Pilot-scale evaluations of the RBC system treating bleached kraft wastewater
with an average influent BOD5_ content of 235 mg/1 have resulted in substantial
BOD5_ reductions. (133) The degree of removal is related to the hydraulic load-
ing rate, as seen in Table VII-3.
VII-10
-------
TABLE VII-3
PILOT RBC FINAL EFFLUENT QUALITY FOR
BLEACHED KRAFT WASTEWATER
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(gpd/£t2)
3
2
1
70%
of Time Final
Effluent BOD5
Less Than
(mg/I)
70
30
22
90%
of Time Final
Effluent BOD5
Less Than
(mg/I)
90
45
39
Note: Raw Effluent BOD5 = 235 mg/1
Sludge production reportedly ranged from 0.3 to 0.5 Ib of solids per Ib of
BOD5 removed.(133)
Two pilot plant evaluations (134) reported essentially complete detoxification
of board mill, integrated kraft and magnesium-based sulfite mill effluents.
Final efflunt BOD5 of 59 mg/1 for the kraft mill, 65 mg/1 for the board mill,
and 338 mg/1 for the sulfite mill effluent were reported. Raw wastewater BOD5_
levels for these mills were 290 mg/1, 285 mg/1 and 1,300 mg/1, respectively.
No TSS data were reported.(134) This pilot plant work indicates good toxicity.
and BOD5_ reduction capabilities. To date, mill-scale systems in the United
States treating pulp mill wastewater have encountered operating difficulties.
Anaerobic Contact Filter. This process involves use of a basin filled with
crushed rock or other media. Wastewater is passed through the media at a
temperature of 90 to 95°F under anaerobic conditions; detention times on the
order of three days are common. Steam stripping, nutrient addition, neutrali-
zation and dilution of waste liquor with wash water may be required as pre-
treatments.
A laboratory study of the process showed that 80 to 88 percent BOD5_ removal
from sulfite wastewaters to levels as low as 34 mg/1 have been achieved. (135)
The major advantage of the process is a low solids production (0.08 pounds of
solids per pound BOD5^). This results because methane gas rather than biolog-
ical solids is the byproduct of anaerobic digestion. The author concludes
that the cost for the anaerobic process was approximately the same as that for
aerated stabilization.(135)
Partial detoxification of sulfite mill wastewater was obtained in a laboratory
study.(121) The anaerobic contact filter altered the LC-50 from 4.5 percent
VII-11
-------
to 7.8 percent for rainbow trout. No specific data concerning the toxiq
pollutants was reported.
Chemically Assisted Clarification
Introduction. Dissolved and colloidal particles in treated effluents are not
readily removed from solution by simple settling. The stability of these
materials in solution results primarily from electrostatic forces of like
charge.(136) Destabilization can occur through minimizing these forces by the
addition of chemical coagulants. Once destabilized, the particles agglomerate
and associated TSS, BOD5 and color can be reduced through settling. This
process can be enhanced by slow mixing and/or by the addition of small amounts
of polyelectrolyte. The latter serve as nuclei for floe formation. Coagu-
lants in common use include lime, alum, ferric chloride, ferric sulfate and
magnesia. Detailed discussions of the chemistry of coagulants are avail-
able. (136)
Suspended solids levels and the BODS^ associated with the suspended solids can
be substantially reduced at much lower coagulant dosages than are required for
effective color removal. This is because color is primarily caused by parti-
cles with diameters of 10-3 to 10-1 micrometres, while total solids are due
primarily to colloidal clay (10^_1 micrometres), bacteria (1-10 micrometres)
and chemical floe (102-103 micrometres).(137) Large particles generally
settle at a faster rate.
Rebhum (138) and others suggest that the most efficient method of pulp and
paper mill effluent flocculation is a solids-contact type clarifier. Ives
(139) suggested a theory for the operation of solids-contact clarifiers which
considers their integrated roll as flocculators, fluidized beds, and phase
separators. His theory suggests that the criterion for good performance is
the dimensionless product of velocity gradient, time, and floe concentration.
He suggests that model floe blanket studies can be meaningful for full-scale
operation provided that the concentration of floe in the blanket and the
blanket depth are the same in both model and prototype.
Ives also suggests a number of design considerations for solids-contact clari-
fiers. For floe particles to form a blanket in a circular tank, the upflow
velocity of the water must be equal to the hindered settlement velocity of
floe suspension. It is important that the floe removed from the blanket
balance the rate of floe formation. The clarifier should be symmetrical; the
inlet flow should be uniformly dispersed and the collection at the outlet
should also be uniform. The clear water zone should have a minimum depth
equal to half the spacing between collection troughs.
Upon floe formation, settling is accomplished in a quiescent zone. The clar-
ification process results in a sludge which must be collected, dewatered and
disposed of. The quantity, settleability, and dewaterablity of the sludge
depend largely on the coagulant employed. In some cases the coagulant can be
recovered from the sludge and reused.
VII-12
-------
Case studies of full, pilot and laboratory-scale chemical clarification sys-
tems are discussed in the following sections.
Case Studies°Full Scale Systems. Recent experience with full-scale alum-
assisted clarification of biologically treated kraft mill effluent suggests
that with proper pH adjustment, final effluent qualities of 15 mg/1 each of
BOD 5 and TSS can be achieved. The desired alum dosage to attain these levels
would be between 100 and 150 mg/1. A significantly lower alum dosage could
provide insufficient floe formation, while a higher dosage would result in
proportionately high levels of chemical solids and sludge quantities that must
be removed and disposed of.
Chemical clarification following activated sludge is currently being used at a
groundwood chemi-mechanical mill. According to data provided by mill per-
sonnel, alum is added at a dosage of about 150 mg/1 to bring the pH to 6.1.
This pH has been observed to achieve best results. Polyelectrolyte is also
added at a rate of 0.9 to 1.0 mg/1 to improve flocculation. Neutralization
using NaOH is practiced prior to final discharge to bring the pH within ac-
ceptable discharge limits. The chemical/biological sludge is recycled through
the activated sludge system with no observed adverse effects on biological
organisms. Average reported results for 12 months of sampling data (as sup-
plied by mill personnel) show a raw wastewater to final effluent BOD5_ reduc-
tion of 426 mg/1 to 12 mg/1 and TSS reduction of 186 mg/1 to 12 mg/1.
The same groundwood chemi-mechanical mill was evaluated as part of a study
conducted for the EPA.(140) Data obtained over 22 months shows average final
effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations of 13 and 11 mg/1, respectively. As part
of this study, four full-scale chemically assisted precipitation systems in
other industries were evaluated. Alum coagulation at a canned soup and juice
plant reduced final effluent BOD5_ concentrations from 20 mg/1 to 11 mg/1 and
TSS levels from 65 mg/1 to 22 mg/1. Twenty-five mg/1 of alum plus 0.5 mg/1
polyelectrolyte are added to the biologically treated wastewater to achieve
these final effluent levels. A winery utilizing biological treatment followed
by chemically assisted clarification was also evaluated. Final effluent of
39.6 mg/1 BOD5 and 15.2 mg/1 TSS from a raw wastewater of 2,368 mg/1 BOD5 and
4,069 mg/1 TSS was achieved. The influent wastewater concentrations to the
clarifiers were not reported. The chemical dosage was 10 to 15 mg/1 of
polymer.(140) A detailed summary of the results of the study of full-scale
systems is presented in Table VII-4.(140)
Scott (141) reported on a cellulose mill located on the shore of Lake Baikal
in the USSR. This mill produces 99,880 kkg (110,000 tons) of tire cord
cellulose per year and 10,987 kkg (12,100 tons) of kraft pulp per year. Water
use is about 287,660 m3/day (76 mgd). The pH is adjusted and nutrients are
added prior to an activated sludge system with 8 hours hydraulic detention
time. Return sludge is aerated for 2 hours in a separate basin. The mixed
liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) are settled for 3 hours. The settled
effluent passes to a chemically assisted clarifier where 30 mg/1 of aluminum
oxide plus 1.0 mg/1 of polyacrylamide flocculant, a nonionic polymer are added
for color and TSS removal. The clarifier effluent flows to 22 gravity fil-
VII-13
-------
TABLE
- 4
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATION
TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE DATA (I4O)
Major
Category
1 Pulp
1 and
, Paper
Synthetic
Fiber
Manufact-
urer
For "Site"
Canned
Foods
Wine
Haklng
Plant & Location
B-12
B-13
System
B-IU
B-1L
i
Subcategory
or Products
Croundwood
Cheni-Hech.
DacronQx
and ethlyene
glycol
Juices
ULne
1
Deacriptlon of
Biological Treatment
Aerated Stabilisation
Baaln
2 lbBODj/1000 cu.lt. ID
Hydraulic detention
time - 8 daya at 2.25
IICD
Nitrogen & phoaphoroue
added
(extended aeration)
F/M - 0.05 to 0.1
Ib.BOOj applled/lb MLSS
MLSS - 2000-2500 mg/1
Hydraulic detention tine
30 houra et 2 HGD
Nitrogen & phoaphoroua
added
filter follovied by
aerated lagoon with 5
daya detention with Bub-
18" diameter x 12 (eat
long.
Activated aludge
IB. 6 Ib BOD/1000 cu.ft.
F/M - 0.07
MLSS - 4069
Detention Time 8 daya
0.176 HGD
Phoaphorouu and nitrogen
added
AVEBAGE OF PERIOD - CLARIFIER
Influent Effluent
BODj TSS BOD5 TSS
Average Averege Average Average
of 12 of 12 of 12 of 12
nontha nonthB nonthe oontha
of dally of dally of dally of daily
data data data data
N.D. 1295.7 U0.7 172.8
ib/day Ib/day ib/day
- 1
of 10 of 10 of 10 of 10
montha month* nontha months
data data data data
315.5 737.7 158.2 177.2
Ib/day Ib/day Ib/day Ib/day
Data not rovlded Average Average
of 4 of 4
quarterl quarterly
averagea averages
with with
chemical chemlcala
113.3 Ib/ 203.8 Ib/
Data not rovlded Average Average
of 4 of 4
quarterl quarterly
without without
chemical chemicals
151 Ib/D 665.3 Ib/
June '75 June '7 data
to May to May
'76 '76
20 mg/1 65 mg/1 11 mg/1 22 ng/1
Ho back No back Annual Annual
provided provide June ' 7 June ' 75
to Hay to May
'76 '76
Average Averag Average of period
of perio of per od from Ap 11 26,
from from 1976 to July 31,
April 2t> April , 1976
1976 to 1976 t
July 31 July 3 39.6 Dg 1 15.2 mg/
aeratlo and
2368 og/ 4069 a 1 chlorln tlon
MAXIMUM DAY
Clarifier Effluent
BODj TSS
504.4 1502.6
Ib/day Ib/day
473.3 1400.2
Ib/day Ib/day
Data not provided.
D
Data not provided.
I
Data af er post
aeratlo and
chlorln tlon
70 mg/1 36 mg/1
1 for per od April
1976 to July 31,
1976
MAXIMUM 30
CONSECUTIVE
DAYS AVERAGE
Clarifier Effluent
BOD,. TSS
Baaed Based
on 12 on 12
nontha man t ha
of daily of dally
data data
201.3 250.5
Ib/day lb/d«y
Based Baaed
on 10 on 10
nontha months
of dally of daily
data data
239.7 257.9
Ib/day Ib/day
Data not provided.
Data not provided.
Data not available
6,
Recent Removals
Across Clarifier
BOD5 1 TSS
I
Baaed on annual
average
Baaed on mean of
30 consecutive day
averages
N.D. 1 871
t
I
j
Based oo annual
average (10 months^
29Z J 76X
Baaed on Bean of
30 consecutive day
averagea
35X | 76X
1
Data not avall-
' able for
calculations
1
1
1
1
1
Data not avail-
able for
calculations
1
j
i
i
i
Ho back up data
provided for
calculation
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Average of period
from April 26,
1976 to July 31.
1976
ll
N/A jj 99.61
r
j
Surface
Overflow
Rataa and
Detention
Time
For annual
ave. flow of
1.6 HGD
369 gal/day/
sq.ft.
For max. day
flow of 2.8
-6*1 gal/day/
aq.ft .
For annual
average flow
of 1.9 HCD -
432 gal/day
/aq.ft.
For max. day
flow of 2.5
MOD - 564 gal/
an. ft.
For average
period flow-
2.097 HCD
220 gal/D/
aq.ft.
7 houra
detention
For average
period flow-
1.67 MO)
?« rjan
.a. ft.
7 houra
detention.
558 gal/day/
sq. ft.
8 4.3 HCD
- 3.5 houra
detention
time
At average
flow 0.17 HG
HGD
140 gol/D
shift
11.5 hours
Chemicals
Added and
Dosage Rate
Average
Alim -
Silica -
Alum -
150 »g/l
average
Polymer
O.S mg/l~
average
Polymer
only
catlooic
0-10 mg/1
average
a mg/1
one
added
Campbell
soup had no
record of
when cheml-
cala were
added or no
added
added at
lagoon ef-
fluent weir
25 m./l
Polymer adde
at flow spll
ting box be-
fore clarlfl
O.S mg/1
Polymer at
10-15 08/1
Testing
period for
proper dosa
KPDES Permit
Average
Maximum Day
BODS 1 TSS
1
30 Day j JO Day
average 1 average
275 lb/DJ«00 Ib/D
ORDER | No. 74-69
NPDES NO. { CA0004B21
1 July '75J effective
1
Average flow of
2.2 mgd. j
Max. day JMax. Day
550 Ib/D ! 800 Ib/D
30 mg/1 1 40 mg/1
1
1
1
Dally | Daily
average j average
750 Ib/ 0,1040 Ib/D
1
WDES NO.'NC0000663
31 Dec. 73 to
11 Dec. 76
Ave. flow 2.5 HCD
Dally j Dally
maximum 1 maximum
100 Ib/D J2000 Ib/D
1
1
1
1
1
Dally average -
45 mg/1 TSS
Dally maximum -
90 mg/1 TSS
Daily average -
30 mg/1 BODS
Daily maximum -
HO. H221 *AD
e
d
t-
ers
Proceaa Season -
Dally average -
30 mg/1 - BOD5
Dally maximum -
« 50 mg/1 - BOOS
Dally average -
20 mg/1 - TSS
Dally maximum -
50 mg/1 TSS
1
Average of Period
Plant Influent
Flow BOD5 1 TSS
1
HCD 475.7 1.6 Ib./
1.95 mg/1 I 1000 gal.
average average average
of 12 of 12 of 12
ntontha nontha montha
of dally of dally of dally
data data data
1.9 HGD
Average
of 10
moo the
of daily
data
Data not
Data not
4.3 KCD
average
Number
provided
no back-
up data
provided
0.177
HCD
Average
to July
Caution
the pres
aeason o
1.7 Ibs/
1000 gal
N.D. Average of
10 Month*
of dally
data t
rovlded.
rovlded.
473 ng/1 364 ng/1
averane average
Number Number
provided provided,
no back- no back-
up data up data
provided provided
|
|
2368 mg/1 215.5 mg/1
af period April 26, 1976
31. 1976
^^b& not Include the
^^^ftason wfalch la the
^^^Kst loading.
!
-------
ters, each with 74.0 m2 (796 ft2) of area. (141) No data is given on the
efficiency of the clarification process. Total plant removals are detailed in
the discussions of filtration.
Case Studies-Pilot and Laboratory Scale. As part of an EPA-sponsored study,
biologically treated effluent from an alkaline kraft mill was evaluated with
alum precipitation on a laboratory scale.(59) Existing full-scale treatment
consisted of a primary clarifier, aerated stabilization basin and polishing
pond. Twenty-four-hour composite samples of the polishing pond effluent were
taken on three separate days. The samples were adjusted to pH 4.6 with alum
and four drops of polymer per litre of sample were added. The results are
summarized below:
Polishing Pond Effluent Alum-Treated Effluent
Total Resin and Fatty Acids
Total Chlorinated Derivatives
Chloroform
BOD5
Range (mg/1)
2.82 - 3.75
0.43 - 0.45
0.025 - 0.032
43. - 51.
Range (mg/1)
Undetected
Undetected - 0.04
0.018 - 0.022
0. - 14.
As part of a study of various solids reduction techniques, Great Southern
Paper Co. supported a pilot study of chemical clarification.(142) Great
Southern operates an integrated unbleached kraft mill. Treatment consists of
primary clarification and aerated stabilization followed by a holding pond.
The average suspended solids in the discharge from the holding pond were 65
mg/1 for the period January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1974. In tests on this
wastewater 70 to 100 mg/1 of alum at a pH of 4.5 provided optimum coagulation.
Three alum dosages were tested. At the optimum dosages, the removals after 24
hours of settling ranged from 83 to 86 percent. Influent TSS of the sample
tested was 78 mg/1. Effluent TSS concentrations ranged from 11 to 13 mg/1.
In a recent EPA-sponsored laboratory study, alum, ferric chloride and lime in
combination with five polymers were evaluated in further treatment of biolog-
ical effluent from four pulp and paper mills.(143) Of the three chemical
coagulants, alum provided the most consistent flocculation at minimum dosages,
while lime was the least effective of the three. The optimum alum dose was
determined for four of the effluents and ranged between 40 and 180 mg/1 at a
constant dosage of 2 mg/1 polymer. Column tests were run on three of the four
effluents, with and without chemical addition. Initial TSS levels were 110
mg/1, 5.5 mg/1 and 70 mg/1, respectively. After 6 hours of settling, the
samples to which alum was added showed a small net increase in TSS. This was
attributed to more solids being introduced into suspension as a result of alum
than were removed.(143) The untreated samples remained at about the same TSS
level during the 6-hour test. These results are largely inconclusive and
conflict with previous data presented. This may be due in part to inherent
differences in laboratory vs full-scale and pilot-scale conditions.
VII-15
-------
Althof and Eckenfelder report on the use of ferric sulfate, lime and alum to
effect effluent color reductions at two bleached kraft mills and one un-
bleached kraft paperboard mill.(144, 145) Their results, as shown in Table
VII-5, provide both an optimum pH and optimum dosage for each case.
All three coagulants were able to achieve a reduction in color of from 1,000
to 300 platinum-cobalt (Pt-Co) units to 125 to 300 Pt-Co units. Note that the
dosage required for color reduction is higher than that generally applied for
BOD5 and TSS reduction only.
Chemically assisted clarification will improve effluent quality as documented
by numerous full, pilot and laboratory-scale studies conducted on pulp, paper,
paperboard and other wastewaters. Therefore, chemically assisted clarifica-
tion has been included as an alternative treatment option in Sections VIII and
IX of this document.
Filtration
This process refers to granular bed (rather than membrane) filtration. The
granular material may be sand, or sand with other materials such as coal,
diatomaceous earth and/or garnet in combination with sand. The various media,
grain sizes and bed depths may be varied for optimal results. It is common to
vary grain sizes, with the larger sizes at the top of the filter bed to im-
prove TSS removal and extend filter run time between backwashings. The addi-
tion of a proper chemical flocculant prior to filtration can further improve
performance.
Filtration technology was evaluated as part of a recent study conducted for
the EPA.(140) Results obtained during this study of nine pulp and paper and
other industrial effluents utilizing filtration are shown in Tables VII-6 and
VII-7. Also summarized in the tables are the results of pertinent published
results from other filtration studies. Table VII-6 summarizes those systems
not utilizing coagulants prior to filtration, while Table VII-7 addresses
those employing coagulants.
As seen, those facilities not utilizing chemical coagulants achieved final
effluent levels of TSS ranging from 5.9 to 35 mg/1 with reductions of 45 to 70
percent across the filter. Those using coagulants prior to filtration
achieved final effluent TSS levels ranging from 5 to 27.5 mg/1 with removals
of 52 to 85 percent. At the paperboard mill employing single medium sand
filtration without chemical addition, an effluent TSS level of 7 mg/1 was
attained subsequent to filtration.
An EPA-sponsored laboratory study evaluated the efficiency of sand filtration
on four pulp and paper mill effluents.(143) A flow rate of 5 gpm/ft2 was used
and the results are shown in Table VII-8.
As seen, in one of the two cases where coagulation was not employed prior to
filtering, substantially better results were obtained than when coagulants
were added. It was explained by the authors that natural coagulation which
may have occurred during shipment of samples could have affected the results.
VII-16
-------
Ferric Sulfate
TABLE VI1-5
COLOR REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED USING
FERRIC SULFATE, ALUM, AND LIME (144, 145)
Alum
Lime
Optimum Percent Final Optimum Percent Final Optimum Percent Final
Dosage Color Color Value Optimum Dosage Color Color Value Optimum Dosage Color Color Value Optimum
Mill Type (mg/1) Reduction (Pt-Co. Units*) pH (mg/1) Reduction (Pt-Co. Units*) pH (mg/1) Reduction (Pt-Co. Units*) pH
Bleached 500 92 250 3.5-4.5 400 92 200
Kraft
Bleached 275 91 125 3.5-4.5 250 93 100
Kraft
Unbleached 250 95 150 4.5-5.5 250 91 100
KrafL
Paperboard
4-5 1,500 92 300 12. -12. 5
4-5 1,000 85 200 12. -12. 5
5-6 1,000 85 150 12. -12. 5
^Platinum-Cobalt Units
VII-17
-------
TABLE 3Z3I-6
TSS REDUCTION CAPABILITIES AND RELATED FACTORS
FOR THE FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY
WHEN NO CHEMICALS ARE USED(I4O)
A-l
A- 2
A- 3
A- 7
A- 4
Literature
Greater South-
thern Paper Co.
Cedar Springs,
GA, Pilot study
Literature
Clinton Corn
Processing Co.
Clinton. IA
Literature
Welch Foods
Brockton, NY
Literature
New Brunuwlck
ductlvlty Council
Pilot Plant
Oil refinery
Oil refinery
Oil refinery
Paperboard products
Manmade fiber pro-
cessing
kraft neutral -
sulflce semi chem-
ical pulp & paper
food processing
grape processing
pulp mill
Biological Treatment Process
Description
Activated sludge: F/M - 0.3
MLSS - 1200 tflg/1
Capacity of 2 basins - ND
Detention time - ND
Average flow - 4.37 MOD
DO mln - 1.0 mg/1
Activated sludge: 10 Ib BOD/
1000 cu ft, F/M - ND
MLSS - ND. DO mln -
Detention time - 24 hra @
1.15 HGD, Mechanical Aeration
Average flow - 1.15 MCD
Activated sludge: complete
mix, F/M - .02 Ib BOD/lb
MLUSS. MLSS - 3.500 ng/1
DO nln -
Detention cine - 12 hra @
23 MGD, Mechanical Aeration
Average flow - 19.11 MGD
Activated sludge - complete
nix, 20.5 Ib BOD/1000 cu ft
F/M - .5, MLSS - 3,500 mg/1
DO min -
Detention time - 12 hra @
2 MGD
Average flow - 2.0 MGD
Activated sludge - 18 Ib BOD/
1000 cu ft, F/M -
MLSS -
DO min -
Detention time - 48 hrs @
0.5 MGD
Average flow - 2.6 HGD
Aerated stabilization basin:
Activated sludge complete mix
F/M -
MLSS -
DO mln -
Detention time -
Average flow -
Activated sludge
Aerated lagoon - Ib BOD/1000
cu ft - DO mln -
Total aeration only 8 daya
Average flow -
Filter Influent TSS
Concentration &
Source of Data
10.8 mg/1 average
of dally data for
June 1976
ND
ND
ND
49.5 mg/1 average
of 2 monthly averagea
Doea not Include old
aeration system flow
average for 3
runs -
68 mg/1
season average -
28 mg/1
40 mg/1 grab samples
Filter Influent
TSS Size -
Percent < microns*
<1.25 - 19.0
<2.5 - 57.0
<5.0 - 89.8
<1. 25 - 28.5
<2.5 - 76.3
<5.0 - 89.2
<1.25 - 53.0
<2.5 - 88.3
<5.0 - 97.5
<1.25 - 69.3
<2.5 - 91.6
<5.0 - 95.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
<5u - 601
between 5 & lOp
Hydraulic Loading
at 4.37 MGD 4 3
filters -
3.2 gpm/aq ft
at 1.15 MGD 4 3
filters -
2.4 gpm/aq, ft
at 19.11 MGD 4 9
filters -
3.5 gpm/aq ft
at 2.0 MGD 4 3
filters -
3.7 gpm/sq ft
at 2.83 HGD 4 3
filters -
2.15 gpm/aq ft
2 gpm/sq ft
2.4 to 3.6 gpm/sq
ft
Filter Media: No. of
Media, Depth, U.S., E.S.,
Type of Filtration
2 media: coal, sand -
coal - 18", 0.6 to 0.8 mm
sand - 9" 0.4 to 0.5 mm
In depth filtration
2 media: coal, aand -
coal - 24"; UC - ND
ES - ND. sand - 12"
DC - ND, ES - ND
in depth filtration
2 media: coal, sand -
coal - 24"; UC - ND
ES - ND. sand - 12"
UC - ND, ES - ND
in depth filtration
1 media: sand
sand - 6'0"; ES -
2-3 mm, Sp.Cr. - 2.7
4 mediaa: 2 coal, sand,
garnet -
Coal - 12" Sp.Gr.-1.45
UC 4 ES - ND
Coal - 12" Sp.Cr. -1.5
UC 6 ES - ND
Sand - 9", UC » ES - ND
Garnet - 3", UC 4 ES -
ND
ND
3 media - 7" of coarse
coal , 3" medium sand -
5" of coarse sand -
ES - 1.42, UC - 1.34
TSS Filter Effluent
5.9 mg/1, average
of daily data June
1976
ND
11 mg/1, average
of 12 monthly
averagea
7.0 mg/1, average
of 5 monthly aver-
ages Feb 76-June 76
16.2 mg/1, average
of 2 monthly aver-
ages
average for 3
runs -
35 mg/1
8.4 mg/1 aeason
average
21 mg/1
Percent Removal
Across Filter, Avg.
for Period of Data
TSS - 451
ND
ND
ND
67Z, Includes post
aeration
50Z
Reported by
Researchers
77Z, Nov. 25, 1974
to Feb. 16, 1975
702, season aver-
age
50Z
Based on one grab sample.
H) - No Data
VII-18
-------
TABLE 3ZU-7
TSS REDUCTION CAPABILITIES AND RELATED FACTORS
FOR THE FILTRATION TECHNOLOGY
WHEN CHEMICALS ARE USED ( I-4O)
A-5
A-6
Cellulobu mill on
Luku Uulkol USSU
full gcale
Inutullatlui.
LlLutdLurd-
Anoco Oil
Yorktuwn.VA.
process Inn
Reconstituted
tobacco
and napkins
Hut food
ouinufacturur
and kruft puper pulp
Oil re lining
'
16 Ib BODj/1000 cu. fC.
FM -
MI.SS - 9500-4000 tag/ 1
DO Mln -
Detention time - 68 hra.
@ 0.5 HCD
Average flow - 0.44 MOD
1ft Ib BOD5/IOQO cu. Cc.
P/M -
M1.SS -
DO Mln. -
Detention time - 26 lira @
2.83 MOD
Average flow - 2.83 HCD
Ac tl voted ttludge -
15.1 Ib BOD5/1000 cu.ft.
P/M - .07
MLSS - 3500 mg/1
DO Mln -
Detention time - 120 hra
Q 1 .0 HGD
Average flow - 1.0 MCI)
basin
Activated sludge - complete mix
N.D.
F/M - N.D.
MLSS - 3500 rng/L
00 Hln -
Detention time 90 hra
@ 0.3 MtiD
Mechanical deration
Average flow - 0.3 MOD
MI.SS - 2500 rag/1
DO Mln -
Detention time - 8 hra
@ 76 MOD
Average flow -
Aerated lagoon -
F/M -
MLSS -
DO. Hin. -
Detention time -
Average flow -
Ave aga of 10 monthly
ave agea - from grab
asm lea
Doe not Include old
ano Ion system flow
. N.D.
Average of 6 monthly
averages of one grab
a ample
N.D.
57.6 mg/1
TSS Size - Percent
2.5u - 78.5
5.0u - 93.5
2.5u - 83.9
5.0u - 91.1
1.25 u - 21.2
2.5u - 52.9
5.0u - 78.2
2.5u - 84.2
5.0,1 - 90.4
1.2V, - 30
2.5u - 55
5.0u - 85
N.D.
Hydraulic Loading
Cal. Per Hln. Per
**
2 filters
1.9 gpm/sq. ft.
3 filters
2.15 gpm/sq.ft.
at 1.0 HCD and
3 filters
46 gpm/sq.ft.
0 .3 HCD and
3 filters
2 gpa/aq.fc.
3.6 gpm/aq. ft.
Filter Media t of Medlaa.
Depth U.C.. E.S..
ype ra
Coal - 18"
UC - N.D.
es - N.D.
Sand - 10"
IK - N.D.
ES - N.D.
Garnet - 9"
UC - N.D.
ES - N.D.
Coal - 12"
Sp Cr - 1.45
UC 1 ES - N.D.
Coal - 12"
Sp.Cr. - 1.5
UC i ES - N.D.
Sand - 9"
UC & ES - N.D.
Garnet - 3"
UC t ES - N.D.
2 Media - coal .sand
Coal - 24"
ES - 1.2 an
UC - N.D.
Sand - 19"
ES - 0.5 ID
UC - N.D.
2 Hedlss-coal.sand
ES - 1.5 cm ,
Sond - 12"
ES - 0.7 mil
2 Media- coal, aand
Coal - 36"
Sand - 24"
1 Hedia - sand
ES - 1.2 - 2.0 am
9.6 ft deep
3 Media-coal, aand, garnet
Coal - 22"
Sand - 11"
Illmenlte - 7"
TSS In Filter
20 2 Kg/1
Average of 11
BODthly averages
Average of 10
monthly avdragea
following: post-
aeration 4
activated carbon
N.D.
N.D.
6.5 mg/1
average fur
April 197, i
5 mg/1
following 6 hr.
settling lagoon
& 6 hr aerated
lagoon
27.5 mg/1
Average of 5
period averages
June 1971 to
December 1972
Percent Removal
Acroaa Filter Ave.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
521
Alua - 00-120 £/!
polywir - 1.5 M/l
Added Juat ahead of
secondary cUrlfier
PolyoMr - 0.1 ag/1
Activated Carbon - 35 ng/1
added ID- Hoc just ahead
filters
Polvnor added at overflow
weir of aeration basin
Dosage - N.D.
N.D.
Cationic polymer added
to flow Just ahead of
clarlfler
DosaRe - N.D.
Alum - 30 og/l
Polymer - 1.0 mg/1
nonlonic
ahead of chemical
cUrlfier
Alua - just ahead.
filters
)Ti:,S: * On ned on une t4 rub uumplu.
N!> - No Dntii
VI1-19
-------
Filtration is an available technology for application in treating pulp, paper
and paperboard wastewaters. If properly designed and operated, filtration can1
yield significant solids removals.
TABLE VII-8
SAND FILTRATION RESULTS(143)
TSS Removal (%)
Mill No.
1
2
3
5
Initial TSS (mg/1)
110
5.5
70
60
w/ chera
64
71 .
w/o chem
14
36
68
23
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Currently, there are two basic approaches for the use of activated carbon: 1)
use in a tertiary 'sequence following conventional primary and biological pro-
cesses; and 2) use in a "physical-chemical" treatment in which raw wastewater
is treated in a primary clarifier with chemical coagulants prior to carbon
adsorption.
The tertiary approach attempts to reduce organics to the carbon system to
provide longer carbon life. The physical-chemical treatment process removes
biodegradable and other impurities using activated carbon. Activated carbon
can achieve high removals of dissolved and colloidal pollutants in water and
wastewater. When applied to a well treated secondary effluent, it is capable
of reducing BOD5 to less than 2 mg/1.(147)
The primary means by which removal occurs is by surface adsorption. The key
to the carbon adsorption process is the extremely large surface area of the
carbon, typically 500 to 1,400 square metres per gram (m2/g), (17,335 to
48,538 ft2/lb).(146)
Activated carbon will not remove certain low molecular weight organic sub-
stances, particularly methanol, a common constituent of pulping ef-
fluents. (148) Additionally, carbon columns do a relatively poor job of re-
moving turbidity and associated organic matter.(149) Some highly polar or-
ganic molecules such as carbohydrates also will not be removed through carbon
columns.(149, 150) However, most of these materials are biodegradable and
therefore should not be present in appreciable quantities in a well bio-
oxidized secondary effluent.
Activated carbon may be employed in several forms including: 1) granular; 2)
powdered; and 3) fine. The ultimate adsorption capacities for each may be
similar.(151) The optimal carbon form for a given application should be
VII-20
-------
determined by laboratory and/or pilot testing. Each of the three forms of
carbon listed above is discussed in the following sections.
Granular Activated Carbon. Granular activated carbon has been used for many
years by municipalities and industry to purify potable and process water. In
recent years it has also been used for removal of organics in industrial and
municipal wastewater treatment plants.(152)
The granular activated carbon (GAG) process usually consists of one or more
trains of carbon columns, consisting of one or more columns per train. The
flow scheme may be down through the column, up through the packed carbon bed
or up through the expanded carbon bed.
The optimum column configuration, flow scheme and carbon requirements can best
be determined through field testing. Design aspects for various systems are
readily available in the literature.(146)
It is economically advantageous in most granular activated carbon applications
to regenerate the exhausted carbon. Controlled heating in a multiple-hearth
furnace is currently the best procedure for removing adsorbed organics from
activated carbon.
Typically, the regeneration sequence is as follows:
1. Pump exhausted carbon in a water slurry to regeneration system for de-
watering.
2. After dewatering, feed carbon to a furnace at 816 to 927°C (1,500 to
1,700°F) where the adsorbed organics and other impurities are oxidized
and volatized.
3. Quench regenerated carbon in water.
4. Wash carbon to remove fines; hydraulically transport regenerated carbon
to storage.
5. Scrub furnace off-gases and return scrubber water to plant for treatment.
The West Wastewater Treatment plant at Fitchburg, Massachusetts treats com-
bined papermill and sanitary wastes at a 15-mgd chemical coagulation/carbon
adsorption facility.(154) Approximately 90 percent of the flow originates
from three papermills, with the remaining 10 percent originating from muni-
cipal sanitary wastewater. The industrial wastewater undergoes 5 minutes of
rapid mixing and 30 minutes of flocculation prior to mixing with the chlori-
nated sanitary wastewater. The combined waste is then settled after lime and
alum addition. This pretreatment has resulted in a 96 percent suspended
solids reduction and a 39 percent BOD5 reduction. The wastewater is then
pumped through granular activated carbon filters that yield a 99 percent
suspended solids reduction and 97 percent BOD 5 reduction over the raw ef-
fluent. Final effluent concentrations are reported as 5.0 mg/1 BOD5_ and 7.0
VII-21
-------
mg/1 TSS. No data has been reported concerning toxicity or toxic pollutant
removal/ reduction from the plant.
Pilot testing by Beak Consultants, Ltd. (154 ), with laboratory analysis con-
firmed by B.C. Research, indicate that approximately 80 percent of each of the
following resin and fatty acids were removed from raw bleached kraft effluent
by application of granular carbon adsorption: pimaric, isopimaric, abietic,
dehydroabietic, oleic, linoleic and linolenic. Initial total resin acid
content was 10.6 to 12.6 mg/1 and was reduced to a total fatty acid content of
2.2 to 3.9 mg/1 after treatment. A contact time of 7.5 minutes with a carbon
exhaustion rate of 5 to 6 pounds per 1,000 gallons was employed in the study.
Detoxification of the raw woodroom wastewater was successful. However, the
authors report that the carbon system, did not detoxify whole mill effluent
during a simulated black liquor spill, even with a contact time of 30 minutes.
It is noteworthy that the carbon exhaustion rate for BOD5_ removal was 20 times
shorter than that for toxicity removal. These results imply that 1) carbon
life may be significantly increased if competing organics are removed prior to
carbon adsorption; and 2) the carbon adsorption capacity for resin and fatty
acids is greater than that for other biodegradable organics.
Several researchers have considered the reuse of wastewaters following carbon
adsorption treatment. Kimura (155) showed that the use of activated carbon
following biological treatment and sand filtration was capable of completely
detoxifying kraft board mill wastewater. In this application, the final ef-
fluent was recycled as process water.
According to Smith and Berger (156), pulp and papermill wastewater suitable
for reuse can be obtained using granular carbon without a biological oxidation
step, particularly if the raw waste exhibits a BODJ5 of 200 to 300 mg/1. Color
due to refractory organic compounds contained in pulping effluents can also be
reduced by such treatment. Table VII-9 presents the pilot plant results
obtained by the authors.
Condensate streams account for only 2 to 10 percent of the flow, but contrib-
ute significantly higher or proportions of toxicity and BOD_5_ when discharged.
Tests by Hasen and Burgess (157) showed that 70 to 75 percent of the BOD5_, COD
and TOG in kraft evaporator condensate could be removed using 3.8 Ib of carbon
per 1,000 gallons of wastewater. Treatment with granular activated carbon was
also able to reduce the effluent toxicity effects on bay mussels by a factor
of up to 17. The toxicity removal efficiency was found to be much more depen-
dent on contact time than were BODJ5 and COD removals. For example, a contact
time of 30 minutes and carbon dosage of 40,000 mg/1 (0.334 Ib/gal.) resulted
in an 80 percent COD reduction to 186 mg/1 and 85 percent larval survival in a
10 percent condensate solution. However, an extended contact time of 19 hours
under otherwise similar conditions resulted in an increase to only 82 percent
COD reduction or 163 mg/1, while larval survival in 10 percent solution in-
creased to essentially 100 percent.
Weber and Morris (158) found that the adsorption capacity of granular acti-
vated carbon increased with a decrease in pH. The effect on the rate of
adsorption with changes in temperature is not well defined.
VII-22
-------
TABLE VII-9
i
ho
RESULTS OF GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON COLUMN
PILOT PLANT TREATING UNBLEACHED KRAFT MILL WASTE(156)
Columns(a)
Preceded by Lime
Columns(a)
Precipitation and
Biological Oxidation
Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent
BOD5, (mg/1)
COD, (mg/1)
SS, (mg/1)
Turbidity, (JTU)
48 23 52% 102 32
__
__
__
Color, (Pt-Co Units)--
Odor
PH
TSS (mg/1)
365 13 96% 185 23
__
* "" ~ "" * "~ " * ""
Preceded by Lime
Precipitation
Removal Influent
69% 82
320
115
35
28
88%
11.9
1,285
Effluent
12
209
74
35
0
10.5
1,205
Removal
85%
35%
36%
0%
100%
__
12%
6%
GOColumns loaded at 3.6 - 4.0 gpm/ft2
-------
Powdered Activated Carbon . A recent variation of activated carbon technology.
consists of the addition of powdered activated carbon to biological treatment
systems. The adsorbant quality of carbon, which has been known for many
years, aids in the removal of organic materials in the biological treatment
unit.(159) This treatment technique also enhances color removal, clarifica-
tion, system stability, BOD 5 and COD removal.(160, 161) Results of pilot
testing (162, 163) indicate that this type of treatment, when used as a part
of the activated sludge process, is a viable alternative to granular carbon
systems. Pilot tests (163) have also shown that powdered activated carbon can
be used successfully with rotating biological contactors.
One chemical manufacturing complex has installed a full-scale, 40-mgd powdered
activated carbon system that started up during the spring of 1977.(165) This
system includes carbon regeneration. The waste sludge, which contains pow-
dered carbon, is removed from the activated sludge system and is thickened in
a gravity thickener. The sludge is then dewatered in a filter press prior to
being fed to the regeneration furnace. The regenerated carbon is washed in an
acid solution to remove metals as well as other inorganic materials. Fresh
carbon is added as make-up to replace the carbon lost in the overflow from the
activated sludge process or in the regeneration system.
The process was originally developed because biological treatment alone could
not adequately remove the poorly biodegradable organics in the effluent.
Average values for six months of data on a laboratory scale powdered activated
carbon unit using a carbon dosage of 160 mg/1 and 6.1-hr hydraulic retention,
yielded results shown in Table VII-10.(166)
TABLE VII-10
POWDERED ACTIVATED CARBON
OPERATING DATA ON A CHEMICAL PLANT WASTEWATER(166)
Parameter Raw Effluent Final Effluent % Removal
Soluble BODS (mg/1)
Color (APHA Units)
300
1,690
23
310
92.3
81.6
The powdered activated carbon is thermally regenerated and acid-washed prior
to reuse.(166)
It is noteworthy that the estimated capital costs of using powdered activated
carbon v£ conventional activated sludge systems for the plant are within 10
percent of each other. Operating cost of the powdered activated carbon system
was estimated at about 25 percent above that for conventional activated sludge
alone.(166)
VII-24
-------
The powdered activated carbon system described above is a very comprehensive
treatment system that includes operations which may not be required at all
installations. The need for a filter press system or acid cleaning system as
well as a carbon regeneration furnace should be determined on a case-by-case
basis.
In a follow-up study on the full-scale powdered activated carbon activated
sludge plant the average results of three months of data are reported in Table
VII-11. The carbon dosage was 182 mg/1, while the hydraulic retention was
14.6 hours.(167)
TABLE VII-11
FULL SCALE "PACT" PROCESS RESULTS
ON CHEMICAL PLANT WASTEWATER(l67)
Parameter Raw Effluent Final Effluent Percent Reduction
Soluble BODS (mg/1) 504 15.2
Color (APHA Units) 1,416 311
95
78
Comparison of the laboratory and full-scale results in Tables VII-10 and
VII-11 reflect an increase in BOD 5_ and color removal with the full-scale
system.
Fine Activated Carbon. The fine activated carbon system studied by Tirape and
Lang is the subject of a patent application. (151) It is a multi-stage, coun-
tercurrent, agitated system with a continuous transfer of both carbon and
liquid. One of the major aspects of the fine activated carbon system is the
use of an intermediate size carbon in an attempt to combine the advantages of
both powdered and granular carbon while minimizing their limitations. Equip-
ment size and carbon inventory are decreased due to the increased adsorption
rate of the intermediate carbon. Timpe and Lang reported that the fine acti-
vated carbon system showed distinct advantages over the granular activated
carbon system.
Timpe and Lange (151) ran extensive pilot plant tests for treating unbleached
kraft mill wastewater with granular and fine activated carbon. Their 30-gpm
pilot plant utilized four different treatment processes, as follows:
1. clarification followed by downflow granular carbon activated columns;
2. lime treatment and clarification followed by granular activated carbon
columns;
VII-25
-------
3. biological oxidation and clarification followed by granular activated
carbon columns; and
4. lime treatment and clarification followed by fine activated carbon ef-
fluent treatment (subject of a patent application.)
All treatment processes were operated in an attempt to obtain a treated ef-
fluent with less than 100 APHA color units and less than 100 mg/1 TOG. This
would allow for reuse of the wastewater in the process. The lime-carbon
treatment achieved the desired effluent criteria and was considered the most
economical of three processes utilizing carbon columns. A relatively small
lime dosage of 320 to 600 mg/1 CaO without carbonation prior to carbon treat-
ment was reported to be the optimum operating condition for the lime-carbon
process. It was determined that the effluent should contain about 80 mg/1 Ca
for successful optimization of treatment. The required fresh carbon dosage
was 2.5 Ib of carbon per 1,000 gallons treated.
Timpe and Lang (151) reported lower rates of adsorption, resulting in larger
projected capital and operating costs, for the biological-carbon and primary
carbon processes for treating unbleached kraft mill effluent. The lower rates
of adsorption were believed to be caused by coagulation of colloidal color
bodies on the carbon surface. They also determined that the use of sand
filters prior to the activated carbon was not necessary. The carbon columns
operated with a suspended solids concentration of 200 mg/1 without problems
when backwashed every day or two. Filtration or coagulation of the effluent
from the fine activated carbon process was necessary in order to remove the
color bodies that formed on the outer surfaces of the activated carbon gra-
nules.
It was found that nonadsorptive mechanisms accounted for a significant amount
of color and TOG removal in the clarification-carbon process. It was felt
that the removals were not due to any biological degradation which might have
occurred with the carbon columns. The color colloids were subsequently re-
moved as large settleable solids during the backwashing process.(151) Table
VII-12 tabulates the pilot plant results obtained from Timpe and Lang's in-
vestigation.
Existing Activated Carbon Installations. It is estimated that there are 100
full-scale activated carbon systems currently treating industrial and/or
municipal wastewater treatment.(168) A summary of selected municipal and
industrial carbon treatment systems is presented in Tables VII-13, VII-14 and
VII-15.
Foam Separation
This process involves physical removal of surface active substances. This is
accomplished by the injection of fine air bubbles into a basin containing the
effluent. Surface-active substances in the effluents (i.e., resin acids) are
attracted to the large surface area of the air bubbles. The air bubbles cause
VII-26
-------
TABLE VII-12
RESULTS OF ACTIVATED CARBON PILOT PLANTS
TREATING UNBLEACHED KRAFT MILL EFFLUENT(l68)
Description of
Carbon Process
Hydraulic
Load (gpm/ft2)
Carbon
Contact Time, Min.
BOD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Turbidity (JTU)
Color, Units
Fresh Carbon
Dosage
(Ib carbon/
1000 gal.)
pH
Columns
Preceded By Columns Columns Columns
Biological Preceded By Preceded By Preceded By
Oxidation & Primary Primary Lime Treatment
Clarification Clarification Clarification & Clarification
Inf. Eff. Removal Inf. Eff. Removal Inf. Eff. Removal Inf. Eff. Removal
2.13 1.42 0.71 1.42
Granular Granular Granular Granular
140 108
26% Removal
148 57 61% 220 83 62% 310 121 61% 177 100 44%
5-15
740 212, 71% 925 185 80% 1160 202 83% 252 76 70%
8 20.5 28 2.5
11.3
FACET System
Inf. Eff. Removal
N.A.
Intermediate
158 101 36%
157 73(a)
3.9
(a)Filtered
-------
TABLE VII-13
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT ACTIVATED CARBON INSTALLATIONS(169)
Design
Contact
Installation Flow Rate Organic
Industry Location Date (1000 gpd) Contaminants
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Carpet Mill, British
Columbia
Textile Mill, Virginia
Oil Refinery, California(a)
6/73
7/70
3/71
Oil Refinery, Pennsylvania^ 3/73
Detergent, New Jersey
Chemicals, Alabama
Resins, New York
Herbicide, Oregon
Chemicals, New York
Chemicals, Texas
Chemicals, New Jersey
Explosives, Switzerland
Pharmaceuticals, Switzerland
Insecticide, England
Wood Chemicals, Mississippi
Dyestuffs, Pennsylvania
6/72
11/72
3/73
11/69
3/69
11/71
3/72
10/72
1962
8/73
8/73
50
60
4200
2200
15
500
22
150
15
1500
100
5
25
3000
1500
Dyes
Dyes
COD
BOD
Xylene
alcohols, TOC
Phenolics,
resin, inter-
mediates
Xylene, phe-
nolics, re-
sorcinol
Chlorophenols
cresol
Phenol , COD
Nitrated
aroma tics
Polyols
Nitrated
phenols
Phenol
Chlorophenol
TOC
Color, TOC
Pretreatment
Screens
Filtration
Equalization,
oil flotation
Equalization,
oil flotation,
filtration
None
Chemical
clarification
Chemical
clarification
.None
Equalization
Activated
Time
(min)
57
60
540
173
30
105
200
40
Adsorber Carbon
Type Regeneration
Moving bed
Moving bed
Gravity beds
In parallel
Moving bed
Downflow beds
in series
Moving beds
Downflow beds
in series
Up flow beds
in series
Downflow beds
in series
Moving beds
None
None
Multiple
furnace
Multiple
furnace
Multiple
furnace
Multiple
furnace
hearth
hearth
hearth
hearth
Rotary kiln
Multiple
furnace
None
hearth
Rotary kiln
sludge filtration
Equalization,
clarification
Equalization
Equalization,
pH adjusted
settling
Equalization,
clarification
pH adjustment
flotation fil-
tration
Equalization,
clarification,
filtration
150
90
50
50
Moving bed
Downflow beds
in series
Downflow beds
In series
Downflow beds
In series
Moving beds
Moving beds
Multiple
furnace
None
None
hearth
Rotary kiln
Multiple
furnace
Multiple
furnace
hearth
hearth
(a) Used only during periods of high rainfall.
(b) No longer in operation.
VII-28
-------
TABLE VII-14
MUNICIPAL CARBON ADSORPTION SYSTEMS FOLLOWING BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT(169)
Average
Plant
Capacity
Site (mgd)
No. Of Contact Hydraulic
Contactor Contactors Time (a) Loading
Type In Series (Hin) (gpm/ft2)
Total
Carbon Effluent
Depth Carbon Requirements
(ft) Size (Oxygen Demand)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Arlington, Virginia
Colorado Springs, Colo
Dallas, Texas
Fairfax County, VA
Los Angeles, Calif.
Montgomery County, MD
Occoquan, Va.
Orange Cty, Calif.
Piscataway, Md
St. Charles, MD
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Windhoek, South
Africa
30
3
100
36
5(b)
60
18
15
5
5.5
7.5
1.3
Downf low
Gravity
Downf low
Present
Upflow
Packed
Downflow
Gravity
Downflow
Gravity
Upflow
Packed
Upflow
Packed
Upflow
Packed
Downflow
Pressure
Downflow
Gravity
Upflow
Packed
Downflow
Pressure
1 38 2.9
2 30 5
1 10 8
1 36 3
2 50 4
1 30 6.5
I 30 5.8
1 30 5.8
2 37 6.5
1 30 3.7
1 17 6.2
2 30 3.8
15 8 x 30 BOD
20 8 x 30 BOD
10 8 x 30 BOD
BOD
(by
15 8 x 30 BOD
26 8 x 30 COD
26 8 x 30 BOD
COD
24 8 x 30 BOD
COD
24 8 x 30 COD
32 8 x 30 BOD
15 8 x 30
14 8 x 30 BOD
COD
15 2 x 40 COD
3 mg/1
2 mg/1
10 mg/1
5 mg/1
1980)
3 mg/1
12 mg/1
1 mg/1
10 mg/1
1 mg/1
10 mg/1
30 mg/1
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
30 mg/1
10 mg/1
(a)Empty bed (superficial) contact time for average plant flow.
(b)50 mgd ultimate capacity
VII-29
-------
TABLE VTI-15
MUNICIPAL PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL CARBON ADSORPTION TREATMENT FACI.LITIES(169)
Site
Average
Plant No. Of Contact Hydraulic
Capacity Contactor Contactors Time(a) Loading
(mgd) Type In Series (Min) (gpm/ft2)
Total
Carbon Effluent
Depth Carbon Requirements
(ft) Size (Oxygen Demand)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Cortland, NY
Cleveland Westerly,
Ohio
Fltchburg, Mass
Garland, Texas
LeRoy, NY
Niagara Falls, NY
Owosso, Michigan
Rosemount, Minn.
Rocky River, Ohio
Vallejo, Calif.
10
50
15
30(b)
1
48
6
0.6
10
13
Downflow
Pressure
Downflow
Pressure
Downflow
Pressure
Upflow
Downflow
Downflow
Pressure
Downflow
Gravity
Upflow
Packed
Upflow
Downflow
Pressure
Downflow
Pressure
Upflow
Expanded
1 or 2
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
(max . )
1
1
30
35
35
30
27
20
38
66
(max . )
26
26
4.3 17
3.7 17
3.3 15.5
2.5 10
7.3 26.8
3.3 9
6.2 30
4.2 36
(max . )
4.3 15
4.6 16
8 x
8 x
8 x
8 x
12 x
8 x
12 x
12 x
8 x
12 x
30
30
30
30
40
30
40
40
30
40
TOD 35 mg/1
BOD 15 mg/1
BOD 10 mg/1
BOD 10 mg/1
BOD 10 mg/1
COD 112 mg/1
BOD 7 mg/1
BOD 10 mg/1
BOD 15 mg/1
BOD 45 mg/1
(90% of time)
(a)Empty bed (superficial) contact time for average plant flow
(b)90 mgd ultimate capacity
VII-30
-------
generation of foam in which surface active compounds are concentrated. The
air bubbles float to the surface where the resulting foam can be removed. The
process works most efficiently when the effluent is adjusted to pH 8.0.(170)
Foam generation techniques have been evaluated on a pilot scale for pulp,
paper, and paperboard wastewaters. This is a significant aspect of the pro-
cess since the air bubble size determines the surface area available for
pollutant attraction. Jet air dispersion was found to be the most efficient
technique when compared to turbine and helical generation systems.(171)
Black liquor' from kraft pulp mills may contain 2 to 3 percent soaps which
produce a very stable foam. The technology for foam breaking is available.
Commercial systems including turbine and centrifugal processes have been
developed which can successfully break this foam. Pilot investigations show
turbine foam breaking to be most advantageous for the foam produced.(171)
Several full-scale foam separation facilities have been built for the removal
of detergents from municipal wastes.(172, 173) The Los Angeles County Sani-
tation District system operated on a flow of 12 mgd at a 7-minute detention.
Water reclamation was the primary purpose of the unit, which operated success-
fully and trouble-free during two years of continuous operation.(170) This
system, like other municipal systems, has ceased operation due to regulations
that require the use of biodegradable detergents.
Bleached kraft whole mill effluent, was analyzed for total resin acid content
before and after pilot-scale foam separation.(170) Two mill effluents treated
a 2-hour detention using a foam pilot unit. The resin acid content in all
cases was reduced by between 46 and 66 percent. The range of total resin acid
content in the influents and effluents were 2.6 to 5.1 mg/1 and 0.1 to 1.0
mg/1, respectively. In all cases the treated effluent was rendered nontoxic
to fish.
Pilot studies have been performed using foam separation as a pretreatment for
activated sludge and for aerated stabilization treatment of bleached kraft
effluent.(174) These studies have shown the detoxification efficiency of
biological treatment to improve from 50 to 85 percent of the time without foam
separation to over 90 percent of the time with foam.(174)
Microstraining
At two nonintegrated papermills, full-scale coagulation/microstraining faci-
lities are used for treating rag pulp and fine paper effluents. (175, 176)
Coagulant usage include addition of 1 mg/1 polymer plus addition of alum or
caustic for pH adjustment. Typically solids and BOD^ removals of 97 percent
to 10 mg/1 and 67 percent to 50 mg/1, respectively, are achieved. Thus, when
properly operating, treatment approaching that achievable by biological treat-
ment has been obtained. Upsets to flocculation have occurred for many rea-
sons, for example, papermachine wash as with high alkaline cleaners.(175)
VI1-31
-------
Electrochemical Treatment
Electrochemical treatment technology involves the application of an electrical
current to the effluent to convert chloride to .chlorate, hypochlorite and
chlorine. The chlorine and hypochlorite can oxidize organic compounds and be
reduced again to chloride ions. The process then repeat in a catalytic
fashion. The oxidation of organic compounds reduces the BOD_5_, color and
toxicity of the effluent. A significant advantage of the process is that no
sludge is produced.
Oher (177) found that whole mill bleached kraft effluent could be reduced in
color by 80 percent and caustic extract by more than 90 percent by electro-
chemical treatment. Utilizing a lead dioxide anode similar effluent results
were achieved when compared with a graphite anode. The lead dioxide anode
required a fraction of the energy. No toxicity or toxic pollutant data was
reported.
In a variation of the process, Barringer Research Ltd. (178) investigated the
use of a carbon fiber electrochemical reactor on kraft caustic bleach ex-
tracts. The high surface to volume ratio of the carbon greatly decreased
reactor volume (a 1.6-mgd unit required a 17-cubic-meter reactor). At an
effluent to water volume ratio of 60 percent (v/v) toxicity was reported to be
reduced from 100 percent mortality in 22 hrs (60 percent) to 0 percent mor-
tality in 96 hrs. Color reduction of 90 percent 1,300 Pt.-Co. and BOD5_ and
COD reductions of 50 percent and 60 percent, to 540 mg/1 and 1,164 mg/1,
respectively, were reported. This process is in full-scale use in the mining
industry but has had no pilot or mill-scale facility in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry.(179) The primary drawback of the process is failure of
the carbon cell to perform for extended periods.(179)
Another variation to this process involves the use of hydrogen gas bubbles
generated in the process to float solids and separate scum. Selivanov (180)
found that an electrochemical unit with graphite anodes and stainless steel
cathodes could cause coagulation in kraft Whitewater. Release of hydrogen
bubbles in the process caused solids removal by floatation. Total suspended
solids were reduced to 2 to 4 mg/1. No toxicity data was reported.
Herer and Woodard (181) found significant color and TOG reductions in bleach-
ing wastes by application of electrolytic cells using an aluminum anode.
Color removals for chlorination and caustic extraction effluents were 92
percent and 99 percent, respectively, while TOC removals were 69 percent and
89 percent, respectively. Specific concentrations, however, were not re-
ported.
Ion Flotation
This process involves the addition of a surfactant ion of opposite charge to
the ion to be removed. The combining of these ions results in a precipitate
(the colligend). The colligend is removed by passage of air bubbles through
the waste and collection of the resulting floating solids.
VI1-32
-------
Many of the chromophoric (color producing) organics in pulp, paper, and paper-
board mill wastewaters are negatively charged, making this process suitable
for the removal of color. Chan (182) investigated the process on a laboratory
scale. A variety of commercial grade cationic surfactants were tested and
Aliquat 221 produced by General Mills was found very effective. The process
removed over 95 percent of the chromophoric compounds from bleached kraft
effluents. No specific removals of toxicity or toxic pollutants were
reported.
Air/Catalytic/Chemical Oxidation '
Complete oxidation of organics in pulp and paper wastes to carbon dioxide and
water is a significant potential advantage of these processes. Partial oxida-
tion coupled with biological treatment may have economic and/or technical
advantages over biological treatment alone.
Past studies of oxidative processes have dealt principally with COD or TOG as
a measure of performance. Barclay (183) has done a thorough compilation of
related studies, and found that most were performed with wastewater other than
those from pulp and paper operations. Some tentative conclusions, though, may
still be drawn:
1. Complete oxidation with air can occur under extreme temperature and
pressure; high intensity irradiation; with air at ambient conditions with
excessive amounts of strong oxidants (03_, H2jD2_ or C102_)"or air or oxygen
in the presence of catalysts such as certain metal oxides.
2. Sulfite wastes can be partially detoxified by simple air oxidation for a
period of seven days.
3. Ozone oxidation achieved only slight detoxification of sulfite wastes
after 2 hours, and partial detoxification after 8 hours.(183)
4. Major BODJ^ reductions can only be achieved under conditions similar to
those required for nearly complete oxidation.
No data specifically relating to toxic pollutant removal was reported.
Steam Stripping
Steam stripping involves the removal of volatiles from concentrated streams.
Hough (184) reports that steam stripping is capable of removing 60 to 85 per-
cent of the BOD_5_ from condensate streams. The ability of the process to
remove specific pollutants (including the toxic and nonconventional pollu-
tants) depends on the relative boiling points of the pollutants with respect
to that of water (i.e., the pollutants must be volatile). Resin acids have
boiling points in the range of 250°C (185) and thus are not readily stripped
by the process.
VI1-33
-------
Steam stripping was evaluated for its ability to detoxify condensates from
sulfite waste liquor evaporators.(186) This stream accounted for 10 percent
of the whole mill effluent toxicity and 28 percent of the total BOD 5 load.
Toxicity in the condensate stream was attributed to acetic acid, furfural,
eugenol, juviabone and abietic acid. Steam stripping had no observable effect
on the toxicity of the stream, although the total organic content was reduced.
Steam stripping of kraft mill digester and evaporator condensates was employed
on a mill scale for control of total reduced sulfur compounds and toxici-
ty. (186) The 96-hour LC-50 of the condensate was altered from 1.4 percent to
2.7 percent'. Thus, the stream remained highly toxic after steam stripping.
The process did remove 97 percent of the Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) compounds,
which may have accounted for some of the toxicity reduction. Production
process changes, (including minimizing condensate volume, installation of a
spill collection system, reduction of fresh water use and conversion to dry
debarking) along with steam stripping resulted in a nontoxic effluent.
Ultrafiltration
Ultrafiltration utilizes membranes of a specified molecular size to treat
wastewater. The process relies on an external pressure (i.e., pumping) to
input the driving force to the wastewater as it is transported through the
membranes. The size opening for the ultrafiltration membrane depends on the
size molecules to be removed from the wastewater.
Data is available from Easty (59) for nonconventional pollutant removal of two
bleached kraft caustic extraction effluents utilizing two types of ultra-
filtration systems. Good removals of epoxystearic and dichlorostearic acids
and trichloro-and tetrachloroguaiacol were obtained in each case. Chlorinated
resin acids were effectively removed by one system but not the other.
The first system employed only one spiral wound membrane, with a surface area
of 40 ft_2_. Filtration of suspended solids' larger than 10 micrometres was
performed prior to ultrafiltration. The 7.5-gpm system operated with a pH of
11 to 11.5. The system achieved 50 to 80 percent reduction of chlorinated
phenolics and other acidics, but only 0 to 15 percent removal of chlorinated
resin acids. The lower percent removals of chlorinated resin acids reflect a
low initial concentration of these pollutants in the waste.
The second system treated an effluent volume of 3.3 gpm by a tubular cellu-
lose acetate membrane with a surface area of 12.1 ft_2_. The system operated at
a pH of 9.5 to 10.5 and inlet and outlet pressures of 220 psi and 100 psi,
respectively. Filtration of all particles larger than 10 micrometres was
performed prior to ultrafiltration. This system achieved removals of 73 to 93
percent of all chlorinated resin acids, chlorinated phenolics and other aci-
dics.
Color, lignosulfonate, COD and solids removals from sulfite liquor by ultra-
filtration were studied by Lewell and Williams.(188) Removals on the order of
30 to 50 percent were observed for color, lignosulfonate, COD and TSS. No
VII-34
-------
toxicity or toxic pollutant data was reported. Costs (1971) were estimated at
$1.50/kgal for a 1.0-mgd permeate flow. It was concluded that ultrafiltration
could not compete economically with lime as a means of removing lignosul-
fonate, color, COD and solids.(188)
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis employs pressure to force a solvent through the membrane
against the natural osmotic force. This is the same type of process as ultra-
filtration except that the membranes used for reverse osmosis reject lower
molecular weight solutes. This means that lower flux rates occur along with a
need for higher operating pressure difference across the membrane than those
experienced with ultrafiltration.
Reverse osmosis is employed at a midwest NSSC mill producing 272 kkg/day (300
tons/day) of corrugating medium. The system allows the mill to operate a
closed Whitewater system. Easty (59) reported that the system achieved BOD5_
reductions of approximately. 90 percent and removed essentially all resin and
fatty acids. The 85-gpm reverse osmosis unit employs 288 modules, each with
16.7 ft_2_ of area provided by 18 cellulose acetate tubes. The system operates
at 100 psi and 38°C. During Easty's testing, the Whitewater feed contained
300 mg/1 TSS and 4,000 to 6,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids. Initial resin
and fatty acid levels were: abietic, 1.5 mg/1, dehydroabietic, 262 mg/1;
isopimaric, 2.75 mg/1; pimaric, 0.82 mg/1; oleic, 4.86 mg/1; linoleic, 7.23
rag/1; and linolenic, 0.27 mg/1.(59) The maximum removal capacity is not known
since final concentrations were below detection limits.
Reverse Osmosis/Freeze Concentration
Reverse osmosis can be followed by freeze concentration whereby the effluent
is frozen to selectively remove pollutants. Freeze concentration takes advan-
tage of the fact that when most aqueous solutions freeze, the ice crystal is
almost 100 percent water.
This process was evaluated by Wiley (189) on three bleach plant effluents.
Reverse osmosis alone resulted in a concentrate stream of roughly 10 percent
of the volume of the raw feed. Freeze concentration reduced the concentrate
stream volume by a factor of five while essentially all the impurities were
retained in the concentrate. Thus the two processes employed in tandem re-
sulted in a concentrate stream consisting of roughly 2 percent of the original
feed volume containing essentially all of the dissolved solids.(189) It was
reported that the purified effluent was of sufficient quality that it could be
returned to the process for reuse.(189) Wiley did not investigate final dis-
posal of the concentrate.
VII-35
-------
Amine Treatment
This treatment is based upon the ability of high molecular weight amines to
form organophillic precipitates. These precipitates are separated and re-
dissolved in a small amount of strong alkaline solution (whitewater). By so
doing, the amine is regenerated for use, with no sludge produced.
The Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada (PPRIC) conducted a study
(190) to determine the optimum process conditions for employing high molecular
weight amines for color, EOD5_ and toxicity reductions of bleached kraft mill
effluents. While no specific toxic or nonconventional pollutants were re-
ported, whole mill bleached kraft effluent remained toxic after application of
the treatment in two reported tests. Likewise, acid bleach effluent could not
be detoxified. However, alkaline bleaching wastewater was detoxified in three
out of four samples at 65 percent dilution. Final effluent concentrations for
BOD_5_, COD and color of bleached kraft whole mill wastewater were 80 to 350
mg/1, 380 to 760 mg/1, and 2,670 APHA units, respectively. Reported removals
were 10 to 74 percent, 36 to 78 percent and 90 to 99 percent, respectively,
using Kemaminest-1902D in a solvent of Soltrol 170.
Polymeric Resin Treatment
Polymeric resin treatment involves the use of resins in columns to treat
wastewater. The process utilizes adsorption and ion exchange mechanisms to
remove pollutants from the wastewater. The columns are regenerated after a
treatment cycle is completed. Regeneration can be achieved by utilizing an
alkaline solution.
The Rhom and Haas process involves the use of amberlite XAD-8 resin to de-
colorize bleaching effluent after filtration. The resin can be regenerated
without producing waste sludge as a byproduct. This regeneration may be
accomplished by using mill white liquor.
In one study (191) the adsorption capacity of amberlite XAD-2 resin was com-
pared to Filtrasorb 300 activated carbon. The resin was more effective in
removing most aromatic compounds, phthalate esters and pesticides while carbon
was more effective at removing alkenes. Neither adsorbant was effective at
the removal of acidic compounds. The tests involved use of laboratory solu-
tions of 100 organic compounds at an initial concentration of 100 ug/1.
Another study (192) has shown synthetic resin to be capable of removing a
higher percentage of COD from secondary effluent than carbon. Also, resin
treated wastewater quality was improved when further treated with carbon,
although the reverse was not true. The economics of this system could prove
favorable since resin may be regenerated in situ. Thus, total regeneration
costs may be more economical than for either system alone since carbon life
could be significantly extended.
Elimination of toxic constituents from bleached kraft effluents has been
achieved with Amberlite XAD-2 resin.(193, 194) Wilson and Chappel (195) have
VII-36
-------
reported that treatment with Amberlite XAD-2 resin resulted in a nontoxic
semi-chemical mill effluent.
EVALUATION OF CURRENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Identification Of Current Treatment Technologies
Biological treatment systems are currently employed extensively by pulp,
paper, and paperboard mills to reduce BOD5_ and TSS loads. A summary of treat-
ment systems currently employed in the pulp, paper and paperboard industry is
shown in Table VII-16. As seen, aerated stabilization is the most common
treatment process employed at mills discharging directly to a receiving water.
At a relatively large number of plants in the nonintegrated and secondary
fiber subcategories only primary treatment is employed. Primary treatment
can often achieve substantial BOD^ reductions if BOD^ is predominantly con-
tained in suspended solids.
The mills with treatment systems exhibiting the greatest percent BOD5_ and TSS
removals are shown in Table VII-17 for each subcategory. BOD^ removals for
these mills range from 70 to 99 percent with effluent concentrations between 9
and 235 mg/1. Activated sludge is employed at 9 of the 18 mills.
Performance of Current Treatment Technologies
Utilizing the treatment system design information collected through the data
request program, profiles of the primary and biological treatment systems
utilized by the mills were developed. These design information summaries will
be utilized at a later date to assist in evaluating the long-term wastewater
data obtained as part of the verification survey and the data to be collected
in the supplemental data request program.
A primary clarifier design criteria summary for existing systems is tabulated
in Table VII-18. A summary of the ASB aeration basin detention times is
presented by subcategory in Table VII-19. These values were determined from
reported wastewater flows and aeration basin volumes. Approximately 42 per-
cent of the mills reporting sufficient data had ASB detention times in the
range of 6 to 10 days. Approximately 30 percent had systems with over 10 days
detention, and the remaining 28 percent had systems with less than 6 days'
detention.
Activated sludge basin detention times are shown in Table VII-20. About 46
percent of the mills for which sufficient data were reported had aeration
basin detention times of six hours or less. Approximately 28 percent had
detention times over 12 hours with the remaining 26 percent between 6 and 12
hours detention time.
Installed aeration capacity was also evaluated both on an organic and mixing
basis. The following criteria were established for means of comparison of the
existing systems:
VII-37
-------
TABLE VI1-16
SUMMARY OF METHOD OF DISCHARGE AND INPLACE TECHNOLOGY
Treatment Scheme - Direct Discharge
Subcategory
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkallne-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulflte-Dlssolving
022 Stilfite-Papergrade
032 thermo-Mechanlcal Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Grouridwbod-Flrie
101 De Ink-Fine & Tissue
102 De ink-Hews print
111 Wastepaper-Tlssue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Hastepaper-Molded Products
114 Uastepaper-Constructlon
Products
201 Nonlntegrated-Flne
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Llgntwelght
205 Nonlntegrated-Fllter &
Nonwoven
211 Nonlntegrated-Paperboard
*Integrated-Mlscellaneoua
*Secondary Fiber-Miscellaneous
*Nonintegrated-Mlscellaneoua
TOTAL
lumber
of
Mills
3
9
8
18
29
19
10
3
6
18
2
6
8
i?
3
.22
147
15
58
39
26
18
16
12
88
13
31
644
Method of Discharge
Direct
3
9
8
14
28
17
9
3
6
17
2
5
7
... 10
11
45
2
.
4
18
14
14
6
5
71
7
24
359
Self
Indirect Contained
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
5 2
3
3 8
84 18
11 2
36 18
19 2
12
4
10
7
14 3
6
5 2
230 55
No
External
Treatment
2
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
3
1
22
Primary
Only
2
1
3
6
1
1
1
4
8
1
1
6
10
6
3
3
10
1
12
80
Aerated
Lagoon
2
4
3
2
9
1
7
1
3
2
2
21
1
3
2
1
1
2
18
1
3
89
Lagoon w/
Polishing
Pond
1
4
2
5
6
1
2
1
8
1
1
31
Activated
Sludge
1
1
5
4
3
3
7
1
4
2
1
15
3
1
59
Trickling
Filter Other
1
1
5
1 7
4
1
1
1
5
3
2
2
9
3
1
1 6
1
2 13
2
6
4 74
^Groupings of miscellaneous mills - not subcategories.
NOTE: Data for 1976 calendar year.
VII-38
-------
TABLE VII-17
MILLS REPORTING BEST PERCENT REMOVAL OF BODS & TSS BY SUBCATEGORY
Final Effluent Average Day
Production
Subcategory (tons/day)
<
M
H
1
CO
VO
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
101
111
112
201
202
204
205
Alkaline-Dissolving
Alkaline-Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkaline-Fine
Alkaline-Unbleached
Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-Newsprint
Sulfite-Dissolving
Sulfite-Papergrade
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Groundwood-CMN
Groundwood-Fine
Deink-Fine & Tissue
Wastepaper-Tissue
Wastepaper-Board
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated -Tissue
Nonintegrated-Lightweight
Nonintegrated-Filter &
Nonwoven
1,152
722
314
765
1,074
491
1,700
1,565
387
493
155
982
787
845
164
322
411
194
64
43
Flow
(kgal/t)
57.2
41.1
44.8
16.8
11.6
8.1
12.5
23.6
41.6
22.2
19.5
28.4
13.9
21.7
21.1
1.4
26.4
16.4
53.8
69.1
BOD5
Ib/ton
14.9
5.4
4.2
1.2
1.5
2.5
4.1
4.6
81.7
10.2
11.1
12.7
1.0
6.9
2.6
0.1
3.5
4.2
16.1
4.1
(mg/1)
34
16
11
9
16
38
40
23
235
60
68
54
9
38
15
11
16
31
36
7
TSS
Ib/ton
28.99
6.1
7.7
3.9
3.3
2,9
6.9
4.7
22.2
14.8
58.7
9.0
3.9
12.5
0.8
0.5
5.4
1.1
4.7
6.2
Percent
Treatment Reduction
(mg/1) Type BODS TSS
61
18
21
30
34
43
67
24
64
80
360
38
34
69
5
41
25
9
10
11
ASB
ASBw/Hold.
ASB
Act. SI.
ASB
Act. SI.
Act. SI.
ASB
ASB
ASB
Act. SI.
Act. SI.
Act. SI.
Act . SI .
Act. SI.
ASB
ASB w/Hold.
No Sec.Trtmt
Trick. Filter
ASB
86
94
94
97
94
95
87
91
71
87
71
70
95
95
93
99
88
86
86
87
82
88
91
94
99
97
86
95
92
92
29
90
96
97
99
98
94
99
98
92
Note: Data represents 1976 calendar year.
-------
TABLE VII-18
PRIMARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW RATE SUMMARY
Number
of Mills
Subcategory Reporting
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 De ink-Fine & Tissue
102 De ink-News print
*Secondary Fiber Miscel.
Ill Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction
201 Nonintetrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter
and Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
*Integrated-Miscel laneous
*Nonintegrated-Miscel .
Products
TOTAL
2
4
8
13
22
8
6
3
2
11
1
3
6
10
0
4
1
44
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
43
3
199
Overflow Rate - gpd/ft2
Average
465
445
473
900
389
577
800
474
667
680
920
508
439
457
-
455
650
697
657
1,171
-
-
-
-
-
565
1,251
640
Less Than
400
1
2
4
0
12
4
1
1
0
0
0
1
2
4
-
2
0
10
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
11
1
56
Over
400 to 600 600
1
2
2
7
8
2
2
1
1
5
0
0
4
3
-
0
0
10
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
16
1
65
0
0
2
6
1
2
3
1
1
5
1
1
0
3
-
2
1
14
1
1
-
-
-
-
-
14
1
60
Exceeding Insufficient
Design Data
Capacity Rate/Design
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
-
0
1
4
1
0
-
-
-
-
-
5
1
22
0/0
0/1
0/2
0/1
1/2
. 0/1
0/0
0/1
0/0
1/1
0/1
1/1
0/0
0/1
-
0/1
0/0
10/22
0/0
1/1
-
-
-
-
2/5
0/0
18/43
lanpniic mill arnnne nnt- auKs» a **»«»«>»
-------
TABLE VII-19
AERATED STABILIZATION
BASIN DETENTION TIME SUMMARY
Mills
Reporting
ubcategory Data
11 Alkaline-Dissolving
12 Alkaline-Market
13 Alkaline-BCT
14 Alkaline-Fine
15 Alkaline-Unbleached
16 Semi-Chemical
17 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
19 Alkaline-Newsprint
22 Sulfite-Papergrade
32 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
33 Groundwood-CMN
01 Deink-Fine & Tissue
02 De ink-News print
11 Wastepaper-Tissue
12^M|stepaper-Board
13^Vstepaper-Molded Products
01 Nonintegrated-Fine
02 Nonintegrated-Tissue
04 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
11 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
integrated -Mi seel laneous
*Secondary Fiber Miscel.
TOTAL
1
5
8
5
15
11
8
2
3
0
1
2
0
0
21
1
0
0
0
0
27
1
112
Detention Time
Over
10 Days
rt
\j
1
5
1
4
4
1
1
0
-
0
0
-
-
1
0
-
-
-
-
5
0
23
6 to
10 Days
i
.L
3
0
1
4
3
4
0
3
-
0
1
-
-
3
0
-
-
-
-
8
1
32
Under
6 Days
n
W
1
0
0
3
1
2
0
0
-
0
1
-
-
3
0
-
-
-
-
8
0
21
Insufficient
Data
0
0
3
3
4
3
1
1
0
.
1
0
-
-
14
1
-
-
-
-
5
0
36
Miscellaneous mill groups - not subcategories.
DTE: Subcategories not included had no mills reporting appropriate data.
VI1-41
-------
TABLE VII-20
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
DETENTION TIME SUMMARY
Mills
Reporting
Subcategory Data
012 Alkaline-Market
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached
& Seraichemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine & Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
114 Wastepaper-Construction
Products
*Nonintegrated-Miscel.
*Integrated-Miscel .
*Secondary Fiber Misc.
TOTAL
1
5
6
2
1
1
1
5
1
7
7
3
1
2
16
2
61
Detention Time-Hours
Less Than
4
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
4
0
11
4 to 6
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
9
6 to 8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
4
More Than Insufficient
8 to 12 12 Data
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
7
1
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
12
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
4
2
1
0
4
0
18
*Miscellaneous mill groups - not subcategories.
Note: Subcategories not included had no mills reporting appropriate data.
-------
1. Organic Loading
ASB 36 pounds of BOD5^ per day per hp
AS 30 pounds of BODS^ per day per hp
2. Mixing
ASB & AS 10 hp per million gallons of volume
for the basins.
Table VII-21 shows the comparison for mills with aerated stabilization basins
(ASB), and Table VI1-22 shows the comparison for activated sludge (AS).
Table VII-23 summarizes reported secondary clarifier overflow rate informa-
tion. As seen, about 24 percent of those mills reporting sufficient data show
a rate greater than 600 gpd/ft_2_. Also 19 percent reporting show an existing
secondary clarifier rate exceeding the reported design rate for that clari-
fier.
In order to more accurately assess current effluent qualities, more recent
data has been and will be requested from selected mills. This data will not
only provide recent treatment levels, but will also provide a basis on which
effluent quality variablity may be evaluated.
Model Mill Existing Effluent Treatment Facilities
The existing model mill for each subcategory is assumed to have an adequately
designed and properly operating effluent treatment system capable of attaining
BPT effluent limitations.
Based on existing effluent treatment systems employed in the industry and
their capability of removing pollutants, the direct discharging model mill in
each subcategory is considered to have the effluent treatment processes indi-
cated in Table VII-24. Mills discharging to publicly owned treatment works
(POTW's) are assumed to have no on-site effluent treatment.
PROJECTED EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR MODEL MILLS
Selection of Effluent Treatment Technology Options
Production process controls and effluent treatment technologies have been
identified which can be implemented at mills in the pulp, paper and paper-
board industry to improve the raw wastewater and/or final effluent quality.
Effluent treatment options have been selected for cost analyses and evaluation
of effluent quality attainable.
The selection of proposed treatment options involved a consideration of ex-
pected treatment efficiency, availability, and the anticipated cost of imple-
mentation of the various technologies. In order to assess the overall econo-
VII-43
-------
TABLE VI1-21
AERATED STABILIZATION BASIN
AERATOR HORSEPOWER SUMMARY
<
M
M
I
Mills
Reporting
Subcategory Data
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached
and Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
023 Sulfite-Papergrade
033 Groundwood-CMN
101 Deink-Fine & Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded
Products
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
*Integrated-Miscel .
*Secondary Fiber Misc.
TOTAL
1
5
8
5
15
11
8
2
3
1
1
2
21
1
1
27
1
112
HP for BODS
Above
Criteria
1
4
5
1
6
8
3
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
1
13
0
50
Below
Criteria
0
1
0
1
5
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
19
Insufficient Above
Data Criteria
0
0
3
3
4
3
1
1
0
1
1
2
14
1
0
9
1
43
0
1
0
2
6
11
5
0
3
1
0
2
18
0
1
13
1
63
HP for Mixing
Below Insufficient
Criteria Data
1
4
7
3
9
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
13
0
45
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
4
*Miscellaneous mill groups - not subcategories
Note: Subcategories not included had no mills reporting appropriate data.
-------
TABLE VI1-22
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
AERATOR HORSEPOWER SUMMARY
Subcategory
012 Alkaline-Market
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine & Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
114 Wastepaper-Construction
Products
*Nonintegrated-Miscel .
*Integrated-Miscel.
*Secondary Fiber-Miscel
TOTAL
Mills
Reporting
Data
1
5
6
2
1
1
1
5
1
7
7
3
1
2
16
2
5
HP for BODS
Above
Criteria
0
1
3
2
0
1
1
2
1
5
3
0
0
1
5
2
27
Below
Criteria
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
5
0
14
Insufficient
Data
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
3
2
1
0
6
0
20
Above
Criteria
1
5
5
2
1
1
1
4
1
6
5
3
0
2
12
2
51
HP for
Mixing
Below Insufficient
Criteria Data
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
0
3
0
9
*Miscellaneous mill groups - not subcategories
Note: Subcategories not included had no mills reporting appropriate data.
-------
TABLE VI1-23
SECONDARY CLARIFIER
OVERFLOW RATE SUMMARY
<
M
H
I
No. Mills
Reporting
Subcategory Data
012 Alkaline-Market
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached &
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine & Tissue
Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded
*Nonintegrated-Misc .
*Integrated-Miscel .
*Secondary Fiber-Miscel.
TOTAL
1
8
6
5
1
2
1
7
1
1
6
6
11
1
2
21
2
82
Exceeding
Reported
Overflow Rate-gpd/ft2 Design Insufficient
Average
418
619
444
718
392
284
875
408
909
639
447
885
574
456
194
443
606
532
Less Than Over
400 400 to 600 600
0
3
2
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
3
0
2
9
0
24
1
2
4
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
4
4
1
0
8
1
33
0
3
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
4
1
18
Overflow Data
Rate Rate/Design
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
4
0
14
0/0
0/0
0/0
1/1
0/0
1/1
0/0
0/1
0/0
o/o
1/1
1/1
3/3
0/0
0/0
0/1
0/0
7/9
*Miscellaneous mill groups - not subcategories.
Note: Subcategories not included had no mills reporting appropriate data.
-------
TABLE VI1-24
MODEL MILL EXISTING EFFLUENT TREATMENT
Subcategory Treatment
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving P/B
012 Alkaline-Market P/B
013 Alkaline-BCT P/B
014 Alkaline-Fine P/B
015 Alkaline-Unbleached P/B
016 Semi-Chemical P/B
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and P/B
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint P/B
021 Sulfite-Dissolving P/B
022 Sulfite-Papergrade P/B
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp P/B
033 Groundwood-CMN P/B
034 Groundwood-Fine P/B
101 Deink-Fine & Tissue P/B
102 Deink-Newsprint P/B
111 Wastepaper-Tissue P/B
112 Wastepaper-Board P
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products P/B
114 Wastepaper-Construction P/B
Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine P/B
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue P
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight P
205 Nonintegrated-Filter & P
Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard P
P - Primary
B - Biological
VI1-47
-------
mic impact of future effluent limitations and standards on the pulp, paper and
paperboard industry, three discharge characteristics have been chosen: 1)
direct discharge; 2) indirect discharge; and 3) new point source mills.
Direct Discharge Mills
Direct discharge mills are those mills where discharge is direct to a receiv-
ing water. The levels of treatment applicable at direct discharge mills are
summarized as follows:
Level 1 . Level. 1 technology comprises implementation of production process
controls expected to yield significant reductions in raw waste discharges of
and flow, as outlined in Section VI.
Level 2. Level 2 technology consists of additional production process con-
trols which can be implemented in addition to those specified in Level 1.
These are expected to result in significant reductions in TSS raw waste loads,
with additional reduction in flow and/or BOD5_.
Level 3. Level 3 technology involves the addition of chemically assisted
clarification to provide for additional treatment of Level 2 raw waste loads.
Implementation of Level 3 technology is expected to yield further reductions
in final effluent TSS, BOD5^ and toxic and nonconventional pollutants will be!
removed to the extent that they are contained in TSS.
Level 4. Addition of chemically assisted clarification and carbon adsorption
to further treat Level 2 raw waste loads to yield further reductions in final
effluent BOD5,, and TSS. Significant removals of toxic and nonconventional
organic pollutants are anticipated.
Indirect Discharge Mills
Based on responses to the data request program, there are 230 pulp, paper, or
paperboard mills where discharge is to publicly or privately owned treatment
works (POTW's). In several of the integrated mill subcategories under invest-
igation, there are no indirect dischargers; while some of the nonintegrated
subcategories have 10 or more indirect dischargers.
As part of the BATEA review program, it is required that pretreatment stan-
dards for facilities discharging to POTW's be established. The toxic and
nonconventional pollutants under investigation are of primary importance. Be-
cause the subcategories under investigation have few or no indirect dis-
chargers, costs for implementation of pretreatment options at indirect dis-
charging mills were not evaluated. This included the following subcategories:
VII-48
-------
Alkaline-Dissolving (0) Alkaline-Market (0)
Alkaline-BCT Alkaline-Unbleached (1)
Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical(1) Semi-Chemical (2)
Alkaline-Newsprint (0) Sulfite-Dissolving (0)
Sulfite-Papergrade (1) Groundwood-CMN (1)
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp (0)
Groundwood-Fine (1)
( ) Number of indirect discharging mills.
Three levels of technology have been developed for application at the indirect
discharge mills and are summarized below:
Level 1. Level 1 technology for indirect discharge mills involves imple-
mentation of production process controls expected to yield significant reduc-
tions in raw wastewater discharges of BOD5^and flow, with associated reduction
in toxic pollutants (production process controls specified in option Level 1
for direct discharging mills).
Level 2. Implementation of additional production process controls in addition
to those specified in Level 1, (these are expected to result in significant
reductions in TSS raw wastewater load with additional reduction in flow and/or
BODj[) plus the addition of primary clarification.
Level 3. For all subcategories under consideration, Level 3 provides for the
addition of effluent treatment technology to provide further treatment of
Level 2 effluent.
For the Alkaline-Fine, Deink-Fine and Tissue, and Deink-Newsprint subcate-
gories, Level 3 effluent treatment would be biological treatment. Preliminary
analysis of data for the remaining subcategories under consideration indicates
that low levels of toxic and nonconventional pollutants will be present after
implementation of Level 2 technology. For the Wastepaper-Tissue, Waste-
paper-Board, Wastepaper-Molded Products, Wastepaper-Construction Products,
Nonintegrated-Fine, and Nonintegrated-Tissue subcategories, Level 3 effluent
treatment would involve the addition of chemicals to improve the efficiency of
the primary clarification system. In the event that future analysis of data
for these subcategories indicates the presence of significant levels of toxic
pollutants, the addition of activated carbon adsorption to treat the effluent
from chemically assisted clarification has been contemplated.
VI1-49
-------
New Point Source Discharge Mills
In this evaluation, one level of technology has been considered for applica-
tion at new point sources. The technology presented includes production
process controls and effluent treatment technology. Production process con-
trols under consideration are those included in Level 1 for direct discharge
mills. After application of these production process controls, implementation
of chemically assisted clarification has been assumed at new mills in the
following subcategories:
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Nonintegrated-Lightweight
Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven
At new mills in the Wastepaper-Tissue, Board and Construction Products sub-
categories, zero discharge is predicted upon the installation of Level 2
production process controls. This is supported by the observation that many
of these mills are currently achieving zero discharge.
At new mills in the remaining subcategories it has been assumed that produc-
tion process controls, primary clarification, biological treatment, and chem-
ically assisted clarification technologies will be employed.
Design Criteria for Selected Effluent Treatment Technologies
In order to estimate the cost associated with implementation of the various
control and treatment options, design criteria for each unit process have been
developed. These criteria are summarized in Table VII-25 and are discussed in
the following paragraphs. The equipment and installation criteria presented
on the following pages are the basis on which capital costs have been esti-
mated in Section IX.
Preliminary Treatment. Many foreign objects enter mill sewers, either through
mill floor drains or process sewers. These objects, such as wood chips, bark,
wet strength paper, etc., could interfere with the treatment processes or
increase wear on the process equipment. Consequently, it is necessary that
these objects be removed from the mill sewers prior to treatment. A mechan-
ically cleaned bar screen is generally used at most pulp, paper, and paper-
board mills for preliminary treatment. The mill sewers containing larger
amounts of solids flow into this facility, with the low solids sewers by-
passing it. The bar screen assumed is a mechanically operated, self-cleaning
travelling bar screen with a bar spacing of 1-2 inches. A bypass channel and
manual bar screen are incorporated into the design to allow for screening
during periods of maintenance on the mechanical bar screen. A "dumpster" unit
is used for containment of the removed solids.
VII-50
-------
TABLE VI1-25
EFFLUENT TREATMENT DESIGN CRITERIA SUMMARY
Preliminary Treatment
Bar Screen - mechanically operated
Flow monitoring - parshall flume
Continuous sampling
Wastewater Pumping
Design Flow: 1.3 to 2.0 x average annual flow depending on subcategory
Basis for power cost - 40ft. TDH, 70% efficient
Primary Clarification
Thickener type clarifier with rotary sludge scraper and scum collection
equipment
Two parallel units used for flows greater than 5 mgd
Design overflow criteria - 600 gpd/ft^ at average flow rate
Sidewater depth - 12 ft
Aerated Stabilization Basin
Number of basins: 1
Loading rate (use larger value)
Biological detention - 50 Ibs/ac.-ft/day
Hydraulic detention - 11 days (10 days aeration, 1 day settling)
Aeration: 1.25 Ibs 02!/lb BOD_5 removed
37 Ib 02/HP-day
Sidewater depth: 12 feet
Nutrient addition: BOD_5:N:P = 100:5:1
Activated Sludge Basin
Number of basins: 2
Loading rate (use larger value)
50 lbs/BOD/1,000 cu. ft./day
8 hour hydraulic retention time
Nutrient feed: BOD_5:N:P = 100:5:1
Aeration design requirements:
1 Ib 027Ib BOD^S removed
37 Ib 02/aerator hp-day
Length/width ratio: 4/1
Side water depth: 12 ft
Side slope: 1/1
Chemically assisted clarification - Solids contact clarifier
2 units for flows greater than 5 mgd
Overflow rate = 500 gpd/ft2_
Sidewater depth = 14 ft
VI1-51
-------
TABLE VI1-25 (Continued)
Chemical dosage:
Alum 150 mg/1
Polyelectrolite 1 mg/1
Neutralization
Number of units: 1
Detention time: 1 min at peak daily flow
Mixer: 1 hp/1,000 gal
Dosage: 10 mg/1 sodium hydroxide
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Design flow: 4 gpm/ft2_
Contact time: 30 min
Carbon exhaustion rate: 3,000 Ib/million gallons
Regeneration furnace: (for flow exceeding 0.25 mgd only)
Hearth area: 40 Ibs carbon/day/ft2_
Allow for 40 percent downtime
Solids Dewatering
Horizontal belt filter press
700 Ibs of dry solids per hour per meter of belt width
8 Ibs of polymer/tons of solids
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening for Secondary Solids
Sludge loading rate - 2 Ibs/hr/ft2^
Hydraulic loading rate - .8 gpm/ft2_
Sludge to Landfill
Sludge solids content - 30 percent primary and biological sludge
20 percent alum sludge
Foam Control Facility:
Detention time: 5 minutes
Freeboard: maintain 12 ft for foam buildup
Outfall
1,000 foot length
Multiple Port Diffuser
12 ft diffuser length per mgd
Minimum velocity in diffuser - 2.5 fps
VII-52
-------
It is advantageous to monitor and sample the flow to the treatment process.
Therefore, the preliminary treatment facility includes the necessary flumes
and monitoring and sampling equipment for complete flow measurement and samp-
ling. The capital costs prepared for the preliminary treatment facility
include the necessary excavations, backfill, concrete, mechanical equipment,
flow monitoring equipment (with necessary ancillary equipment), and the super-
structure.
Mill Effluent Pumping. Normally, the topography of the effluent treatment
site is not conducive to gravity flow through the entire treatment process.
Consequently, it is necessary to construct an effluent pumping facility which
is capable of pumping the maximum daily flow of the treatment facility. The
pumping facility used includes a wet well and dry well. The mill effluent
flows into the wet well (with detention time of five minutes at maximum daily
flow), while the variable speed pumps are located in a dry well adjacent to
the wet well. The construction costs prepared for the mill effluent pumping
facility include excavation, backfill, concrete, pumps, variable speed con-
trols, ancillary piping and equipment, and superstructure.
A flow peaking factor was used in the design of pumping facilities. The
peaking factor used for each model mill was derived from mill survey data and
varied from 1.3 to 2.0, depending on the subcategory. A summary of the peak-
ing factor used for the model mills in each subcategory is presented in Table
VII-26.
Primary Clarification. Sizing of primary clarification equipment assumes
fiber recovery is already being accomplished to the extent possible in the
mill. Therefore, external fiber recovery for reuse has not been considered in
the treatment process design. All mill sewers containing suspended solids are
combined prior to primary clarification. For purposes of determining the
amount of sludge produced, reductions by primary clarification of 75 to 80
percent of total suspended solids were used. The clarifier used for the cost
model is a heavy-duty thickener type with rotary sludge scraper, and scum
removal capabilities. The units were sized based on an average design over-
flow rate of 600 gpd/ft2_. The rotary sludge scraper drive mechanism is sized
for a torque rating of 15D2_. For flows in excess of 5 mgd, two parallel
units, each capable of handling 50 percent of the daily flow, were used.
Waste solids are withdrawn by pumping from the primary clarifier at an antic-
ipated solids content of 3 to 4 percent to a mechanical dewatering device.
Scum collected in the clarifier discharges into a storage tank where it is
then pumped to the dewatering units. The capital costs calculated for primary
clarification include excavation, backfill, concrete, mechanical, electrical,
instrumentation equipment, scum facilities, waste sludge pumps, and yard
piping.
Aerated Stabilization Basin. Aerated stabilization basins provide a high
degree of BOD^ reduction with minimal decreases in efficiencies due to shock
loadings. Nutrients are added in proportion to the organic (BOD5_) loading of
the facility. The ratio used for the cost analysis is 100:5:1, BOD5_:N:P.
VII-53
-------
TABLE VI1-26
HYDRAULIC PEAKING FACTORS USED FOR WASTEWATER PUMPING
Subcategory
Factor
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
101
102
111
112
113
114
201
202
204
205
211
Al ka 1 ine-Di s so 1 ving
Alkaline-Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkaline-Fine
Alkaline-Unbleached
Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-Unbleached and Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-Newsprint
Sulfite-Dissolving
Sulfite-Papergrade
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Groundwood-CMN
Groundwood-Fine
Deink-Fine and Tissue
Deink-Newsprint
Wastepaper-Tissue
Wastepaper-Board
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Wastepaper-Construction Products
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Nonintegrated -Lightweight
Nonintegrated-Filter and Nonwoven
Nonintegrated-Paperboard
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.7
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.5
VII-54
-------
The basins chosen for calculating the cost was a single cell earthen-basin.
In most instances the basins are constructed in areas where the soils are
impervious, or can be made impervious by lining with an impervious soil. For
cost purposes it is assumed that an impervious soil liner will be required to
make the basin watertight. The cost of a synthetic liner is not included.
Aeration for the ASB was sized with mechanical aerators under actual operating
conditions for 1.54 pounds of 02^ per horsepower-hour or 37 Ibs of Oj2_ per
horsepower day. An aerator capacity of 10 horsepower per million gallons of
basin volume was also used to ensure adequate mixing in the basin. The larger
of the two aerator horsepower determinations was used.
The sizing of the aerated stabilization basins was evaluated on both organic
loading rate and detention time design criteria. The design detention time is
11 days, which assumed 10 days of aeration with one day of quiescent settling.
The design organic loading is 50 Ib BOD5_ per acre-ft per day. The basin sizes
obtained for the above cited detention time and organic loading were compared
to determine which criteria was the governing value. The larger volume of the
two methods was selected.
The capital costs prepared for the aerated stabilization basin include excava-
tion, dike construction, impervious soil material, nutrient feed systems, yard
piping, stone slope protection, instrumentation, and electrical costs.
Activated Sludge Basin. The activated sludge process has numerous modifi-
cations in detention times, organic loadings, and oxygenation. The process
selected for consideration in this report is commonly referred to as the
conventional activated sludge process (6 to 8 hours detention .time). Nutri-
ents are added in proportion to the organic (BOD5) loading to the facility. A
BOD5_:N:P ratio of 100:5:1 is used for cost analysis.
Final clarifiers are required with the activated sludge basin to allow separa-
tion of the biological mass and treated stream. This biological mass is
necessary to achieve high removal efficiencies. The high rate activated
sludge system also generates large quantities of biological solids which are
not oxidized as in ASB systems. It is necessary, therefore, to continuously
remove excess biological solids. These excess solids (waste activated sludge)
can be extremely gelatinous with a solids concentration of approximately 0.5
to 1.0 percent by weight.
In an activated sludge system, most of the biological solids settled in the
secondary clarifiers are recycled to the aeration basin to maintain an active
biological mass in the aeration basin. Pumping capacity is provided for a
maximum recycle rate of 75 percent of the average daily flow with an average
recycle rate of 40 percent of the average daily flow.
The .costs prepared for the activated sludge basin are based on a two-cell
concrete tank. The cells would be operated in parallel to provide operational
flexibility.
VI1-55
-------
The activated sludge system requires approximately one Ib of oxygen/lb of BOD5
removed. Mechanical aerator performance for the activated sludge (AS) system
was assumed to be the same as that described earlier for the ASB. An aerator
capacity of 10 horsepower per million gallons of basin volume was also used to
ensure adequate mixing in the basin. The larger of the two aerator horsepower
determinations was used.
Sizing of the activated sludge system is based on both detention time and
organic loading. The detention time is 8 hours (excluding recycle), while the
organic loading rate is 50 Ib BOD5_ per 1000 cubic ft of aeration volume. The
larger volume of the two values was selected for cost analysis.
The capital costs prepared for the activated sludge basins (presented as a
function of the basin capacity) includes excavation, tank construction, con-
crete, nutrient feed systems, yard piping, electrical and instrumentation
costs.
Chemically Assisted Clarification. A solids-contract type clarifier is re-
quired to accomplish flocculation, settling and sludge removal. The effluent
flows into a flocculation chamber .in the clarifier. In this chamber floccu-
lants such as alum and polymer are added to the wastewater stream. Low-speed
mixers disperse the flocculants throughout the chamber allowing for coagula-
tion and floe formation. The wastewater stream then flows into the clarifier
area for solids separation.
For flows in excess of 5 mgd, two parallel units, each capable of 50 percent
of the daily flow, were assumed to be used. The design overflow rate for the
clarifiers, excluding flocculation area, is 500 gpd/ft£. The drive mechanism
would be designed for a torque of 10DJL
At mills where activated sludge treatment is employed, the chemical clarifi-
cation design reflects an additional solids contact clarifier following the
existing secondary clarifier. It is likely that at many mills, an existing
secondary clarifier would be modified to allow for chemically assisted clarif-
ication; this would result in less capital expenditure. The additional clari-
fier however, would allow sludge recycle to occur without being affected by
chemical addition, and would provide for the possibility of chemical recovery
if it becomes economically advantageous.
The primary flocculant used in the design is alum. Polymer is added to im-
prove settling. Addition of 150 mg/1 alum and 1 mg/1 polymer is assumed.
Alum addition tends to lower the pH of the effluent. Optimum alum floccula-
tion is reached at a pH of 5.5 to 6.0. If the effluent pH changes to a value
where the effectiveness of flocculation deteriorates and/or the effluent does
not meet pH limitations, neutralization may be required. Therefore, neutral-
ization is included whenever chemically assisted clarification is applied.
Sodium hydroxide is used for neutralization and an average dosage of 10 mg/1
is assumed for cost purposes.
VII-56
-------
The capital costs presented for chemically assisted clarification include
excavation, backfill, concrete, recycle pumps, mechanical equipment, elec-
trical, instrumentation, yard piping, chemical storage and mixing equipment,
and ancillary equipment for proper operations.
Neutralization. Pulping processes significantly change the pH of a waste-
water. Such variations in pH can affect the wastewater treatment process.
Therefore, it is necessary to add chemicals to the wastewater for neutraliza-
tion. Sodium hydroxide at a dosage of 10 mg/1 was utilized for the neutrali-
zation chemical.
The capital cost for pH adjustment includes excavation, backfill, concrete,
mixer, chemical feed system, electrical and instrumentation costs. The flash
mix tank provides a 1-minute detention time at peak flow with a mixer sized at
1 hp/1000 gal. capacity of mix tank.
Carbon Adsorption. The carbon adsorption design assumes downflow granular
activated carbon columns. The columns have a design flow rate of 4 gpm/ft2_,
and a contact time of 30 minutes. One to ten spare columns are considered,
depending on effluent flow.
The carbon dosage rate is assumed to be 3000 Ib carbon per million gallons of
treated effluent. On-site carbon regeneration is assumed for all flows
greater than 0.25 mgd. Flow under 0.25 mgd was determined to operate more
economically on a carbon throw-away basis. A regeneration furnace hearth area
of 40 Ib carbon per day per square foot is assumed. The furnace capacity is
designed for 40 percent down time.
The topography of many mill sites may require effluent pumping prior to carbon
adsorption. Therefore, an additional pump facility has been assumed when
carbon adsorption is applied. The design of the pump facility is similar to
that described earlier. The peaking factor, however, is 1.3 for all subcate-
gories.
Sludge Dewatering. Several unit processes are used by the pulp and paper
industry for sludge dewatering. A method which is gaining wide acceptance is
horizontal belt filter press. Many different types of horizontal belt filter
presses are available. However, they basically achieve sludge dewatering
through the use of gravity draining of the sludge through a continuously
moving belt filter and then further dewater the sludge in a one or two-stage
pressure zone. The pressure is applied to the sludge by a second belt which
converges on the main belt at the start of the initial pressure zone. These
belts rotate continuously over and around a series of varying size rollers
which are utilized to exert the pressing action on the sludge mat between the
two belts. Some models of the horizontal belt filter press utilize a vacuum
system to aid in the initial dewatering prior to the pressure zone(s).
Blades, which are at the end of the final stage of the belt filter press,
scrapes the dewatered sludge off the belts. The solids content achievable in
the dewatered sludge will depend upon the sludge being handled.
VII-57
-------
Primary sludge usually has a solids content of 3 to 5 percent. These sludges
normally contain fibrous material that enhance filterability. Biological
sludge can be extremely gelatinous and difficult to dewater, and require
thickening prior to dewatering. Biological sludge may be added to primary
sludge to further improve dewatering characteristics of a biological sludge.
Chemical coagulants are often added to improve dewaterability, although pri-
mary sludge may sometimes be dewatered without coagulants. For cost purposes,
8 Ibs of polymer per ton of solids are assumed for both primary and secondary
sludge dewatering. A final solids concentration of 30 percent is assumed for
the combined sludge.
Alum sludge is also very gelatinous and difficult to dewater. Mixing with
primary sludge and addition of polymer, however, can improve dewaterability.
For cost purposes, the dewatering of alum sludge was determined based on the
design of a separate horizontal belt filter press dewatering facility. An
addition of 8 Ib of polymer per ton of solids was assumed for alum sludge de-
watering. Due to its gelatinous nature, a final solids concentration of 20
percent was assumed for dewatered alum sludge. In an actual mill, the de-
watering of alum sludge could be performed by modifying existing facilities
used for current sludge dewatering.
The horizontal belt filter press was assumed to have a design loading rate of
700 Ib of solids per hour per metre of belt width. Actual throughput rates
vary depending on the solids level of the sludge being dewatered and the type
of sludge being handled. They can range from 500 to 2,000 Ib/hr/metre of belt
width. Smaller units have been designed to operate at 8 hrs/day, while larger
systems operate 16 hrs/day.
The capital costs for horizontal belt filtration include: solids storage tank
and sludge pumping building, mechanical equipment and appropriate ancillary
equipment, piping, electrical and instrumentation.
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening. Waste biological and/or biological-
chemical solids from the secondary clarification process require thickening
before they can be efficiently dewatered. If these solids are not thickened
prior to dewatering the capacity of the horizontal belt filter press is
greatly reduced. Air flotation was selected as the thickening process used
for the development of costs. Air flotation requires addition of a flocculant
such as a polymer to assist in the thickening process. The polymer is added
to the waste solids prior to introduction into the flotation unit.
Air flotation requires the diffusion of air into the waste solids. This may
be accomplished by a so-called "pressurization system". Basically, three
types of pressurization systems are available: total, partial, and recycle
pressurization.
The pressurized influent enters the flotation unit and the diffused air bub-
bles are allowed to surface. Diffusion of the air bubbles promotes coagu-
lation and transports the sludge to the surface where it is skimmed off. It
VII-58
-------
is anticipated that air flotation will.increase the secondary waste solids to
3 to 4 percent solids. The filtrate and scum from the air flotation is re-
cycled back to the treatment process. There are numerous process variables to
be considered in sizing air flotation units. For this study it was assumed
that the hours of operation of the flotation thickening equipment would vary
depending on the solids loading.
An air flotation loading rate of 2 Ib of dry solids/ft2/hour was used in
design of these facilities. The capital costs for air flotation thickening of
waste biological and biological-chemical solids include building process
equipment, chemical feed system, electrical, instrumentation, and ancillary
equipment.
Solids Disposal. Solids are assumed to be disposed of in a landfill opera-
tion. The cost of a landfill is dependent on a variety of factors including
sludge characteristics, hydrogeologic conditions of the disposal site, and
proximity of the site to the mill. Due to this wide variability, no specific
landfill technique was selected for the model mill.
Literature on several acceptable landfill techniques with associated require-
ments and estimated costs has been published by EPA relating to municipal
sludges.(196) The techniques evaluated by EPA include: area fill layer, area
fill mount, diked containment, narrow trench, wide trench, co-disposal with
soil, and co-disposal with refuse.
The fiber present in pulp and paper wastewater can aid in solids dewatering
resulting in sludge with a relatively low moisture content. The presence of
clay and aluminum hydroxide in sludges would generally make dewatering more
difficult and could result in higher disposal costs. Therefore, mid-range
disposal costs for the cited techniques have been assumed for primary and
secondary sludge disposal, while upper-range costs of disposal are assumed for
chemical sludge disposal. A hauling distance of 10 miles has been considered
in development of sludge transportation cost estimates.
Primary Solids Production. Primary suspended solids removal depends upon the
relative size and weight of the particles involved. Usually, nonintegrated
mills tend to achieve a higher percent TSS removal in primary treatment than
integrated mills, due to the fine particles released during pulping processes.
Other factors affecting solids removal include the type and amount of addi-
tives including inorganic clays employed in papermaking.
Based on information obtained through data request program, model mill primary
solids removal rates were developed as shown in Table VII-27. Although these
removal rates are believed to be representative, the primary solids removal
for a given mill will vary. The primary solids yield may be estimated by the
following:
VI1-59
-------
CP
where: Y_l = Primary Clarification, Solids Yield (Ib/mil gal.)
P - Influent TSS to Primary (Ib/mil gal.)
C = Constant (percent solids removal in primary, see Table
VII-27).
TABLE VII-27
PERCENT RAW TSS REMOVAL IN PRIMARY CLARIFIER
Subcategory Percent TSS Removal
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
101
102
111
112
113
114
201
202
204
205
211
Alkaline-Dissolving
Alkaline-Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkaline-Fine
Alkaline-Unbleached
Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-Unbleached & Semi-Chemical
Al kal ine-News pr int
Sulfite-Dissolving
Sulf ite-Papergrade
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Groundwood-CMN
Groundwood-Fine
De ink-Fine & Tissue
De ink-News pr int
Wastepaper-Tissue
Wastepaper-Board
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Wastepaper-Construction Products
Nonintegrated-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Nonintegrated -Lightweight
Nonintegrated-Filter & Nonwoven
Nonintegrated-Paperboard
75
75
75
75
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
VII-60
-------
Biological Solids Production. The BOD5_ content of wastewaters is converted to
cell mass by biological treatment systems. These cells in turn die and become
assimilated by other cells. The energy required for these processes results
in a net reduction in BOD5^. Typically, the net biological solids yield, Y, is
0.65 Ibs cells per Ib BOD5_ utilized. Mean death rate, kd, is usually 0.10
The secondary solids produced in model mill aerated stabilization basins
undergo settling in a quiescent zone following the completely mixed aeration
basin. Biological solids removed in this manner are degraded in the sludge
blanket which forms on the bottom of the basin. Therefore, a secondary clari-
fier is not considered for aerated stabilization. Occasionally, the sludge
blanket may accumulate to the point where solids are removed by dredging.
This would be an intermittant operation, if required.
The activated sludge process characteristics allow the effluent quality to be
controlled by the mean cell residence time, 9c_(lll). This is based on the
fact that to control the growth rate of microorganisms and hence their degree
of waste stabilization, a specified percentage of cells must be wasted
daily. (Ill) This cell recycle also results in a lower sludge yield per pound
of BOD5_ utilized. Therefore, a biological solids yield of 0.32 Ib biomass per
Ib BOD5_ utilized was considered in estimating activated sludge biological
solids production.
The solids removed in the activated sludge secondary clarifier would also
include some nonbiological solids that were not removed during primary clar-
ification. To approximate the solids from these inorganics, the activated
sludge clarifier solids is estimated to remove one tenth of the total sus-
pended solids content of the primary influent. Therefore, the total (biolog-
ical plus inorganic) solids yield of the activated sludge secondary solids
removal is estimated by the following:
\2_ - 0.32B + 0.1P
Where: Y2. = Total Activated Sludge Solids Yield (Ibs/MG)
B = Secondary Influent BOD5^ (Ibs/MG)
P - Primary Influent TSS (Ibs/MG)
Chemical Solids Production. The design criteria for chemically assisted
clarification considered the following coagulant dosage:
Alum 150 mg/1
Polyelectrolyte 1 mg/1
After solution in the wastewater, the alum dosage results in about 39 mg/1 of
aluminum hydroxide. With the polyelectrolyte floe added this increases to
approximately 40 mg/1, or 334 Ib solids per million gallons of wastewater.
VII-61
-------
The additional wastewater solids removal with chemically assisted clarifi-
cation is considered to be 0.1 times the primary influent TSS load. There-
fore, the total chemical plus wastewater solids yield for chemically assisted
clarification is estimated by the following:
Y3_ = 0.1P + 334
Where: Y_3 = Total Chemically Assisted Solids Yield
P - TSS to Primary (Ibs/MG)
Design Organic Loading to Biological Treatment Systems. The organic load to
aerated stabilization basins is considered to be the raw BODJ5_ load minus BOD5_
removal in the primary clarifier. Data obtained through the data request
program confirms previous data used in BPCTCA guidelines development, that a
significantly higher BOD^ removal in primary treatment of nonintegrated mill
wastewaters than for integrated mills. The design organic loading to acti-
vated sludge systems is higher than an aerated stabilization basin treating
the same wastewater. This results from the additional BOD5_ load contributed
by the sludge.recycle process. Therefore, based on these criteria, the fac-
tors shown in Table VII-28 were developed to estimate the portion of the raw
organic load that is used for indirect' and new point source biobasin design
calculations.
TABLE VII-28
PERCENT OF RAW BOD5^ LOADING ON
WHICH INDIRECT AND NEW POINT SOURCE BIOBASIN DESIGN IS BASED
Subcategory Aerated Stabilization Activated Sludge
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
019
021
022
033
034
101
102
Alkaline-Dissolving
Alkaline-Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkaline-Fine
Alkaline-Unbleached
Semi- Chemical
Alkaline-Unbleached
Alkaline-Newsprint
Sulfite-Dissolving
Sulfite-Papergrade
Groundwood-CMN
Groundwood-Fine
Deink-Fine & Tissue
De ink-News print
90
90
90
90
90
90
& Semi-Chemical 90
90
90
90
90
90
40
40
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
50
Note: Only those subcategories where biological treatment is considered
for indirect and new point source model mills are presented.
VII-62
-------
Foam Control. In many alkaline pulping installations, foam control is very
critical. Included in the cost calculations, as required, is a foam control
tank with adequate capacity for storage of foam. The foam builds up in the
facility and eventually collapses because of its inability to support its own
weight. The foam control tank provides for a 5-minute hydraulic detention.
Outfall Sewer. The outfall sewer is defined as the sewer required to connect
the mill to the treatment facility and the treatment facility to the diffuser.
For this analysis, 1000 ft of outfall sewer is assumed to be required to make
these connections.
Diffuser. Discharge from the outfall sewer is assumed to be through a multi-
ple-port diffuser which will facilitate mixing of the treatment facility
effluent with the receiving water. Such induced mixing will minimize any
horizontal and vertical stratification of the effluent in the receiving
waters. The design includes 12 ft of diffuser length per mgd. This can vary
substantially depending on the desired diffusion characteristics. The capital
costs include excavation backfill, and laying and jointing of the diffuser
pipe.
VI1-63
-------
SECTION VIII
EFFECTIVENESS OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
Sections VI and VII have presented several levels of production process con-
trols and effluent treatment technologies which can reduce raw waste loads and
effluent pollutant levels discharged by the pulp, paper and paperboard indus-
try. In Section VI, two levels of production process controls have been
identified and their effectiveness has been evaluated. Information on the
effluent treatment technologies under consideration and their effectiveness
has been presented in Section VII. The purpose of this section is to summa-
rize the overall effectiveness of the control and treatment options. The pure
mill situation is evaluated in this section as it is anticipated that effluent
limitations and standards will be developed on the basis of pure mills.
Under investigation are three classifications of pulp, paper and paperboard
mills: direct discharge mills; indirect discharge mills; and new point source
mills. Direct discharge mills are those mills where discharge is direct to a
receiving water. Indirect discharge mills are those mills where discharge is
to publicly or privately owned treatment works (POTW). New point source mills
can include newly constructed mills or expansions of existing mills. Subse-
quent discussions of the effectiveness of control and treatment options will
present effluent quality data for each discharge classification, where applic-
able.
A comprehensive, data base has been developed for conventional, toxic, and
nonconventional pollutants. This data has been gathered from existing data
sources (i.e., literature, research), industry responses to the data request
program, and sampling surveys. This section will primarily present data on
the conventional pollutants that have been developed through evaluations of
existing data and responses to the data request program. Continuing efforts
by the E.G. Jordan Co. will supplement the data on the conventional pollutants
and assess the levels of toxic and nonconventional pollutants being discharged
by the industry.
ATTAINABLE EFFLUENT QUALITY
Production process control technologies and effluent treatment technologies
have been identified that, upon implementation, will result in improved ef-
fluent quality. This section presents preliminary estimates of the overall
effluent quality attainable through implementation of the identified technolo-
gies. The following basic approach has been utilized: 1) raw waste loads
have been developed for pure mills in each subcategory (see Section VI); and
2) the performance of the identified effluent treatment technologies has been
evaluated (see Section VII).
VIII-1
-------
Development of the raw waste loads for the pure mill in each subcategory
included the identification of in-place production process controls and theirf
extent of application. Based on industry data provided in response to the
data request program, raw waste loads were projected for existing pure mills,
sometimes based on an extrapolation of data to the pure mill situation (see
Section V). An assessment has been made of the overall raw waste load reduc-
tions that could be anticipated with the implementation of various production
process control technologies at the pure mills.
The application of and effectiveness of BPCTCA effluent treatment technology
on the Level 1 and 2 raw waste loads has been evaluated. In reviewing BATEA
technology, the treatabilities of pulp, paper and paperboard wastewaters have
been determined based on the assumption that well-designed and operated BPCTCA
technology is in-place.
Tables VIII-1 through VIII-39 present final effluent quality projected after
implementing designated production process controls and effluent treatment
technologies at the pure mills established for each subcategory. The effluent
quality data is presented in terms of units per unit of production, expressed
as kl/kkg (kgal/t) for flow and kg/kkg (Ib/t) for effluent BOD_5 and TSS
levels. BOD_5_ and TSS levels are also shown as concentrations (mg/1), adjusted
where appropriate to show the impact of reduced flow levels achieved through
implementation of production process controls. The data is presented sepa-
rately for the three types of mill discharges, i.e., direct discharge, indi-
rect discharge and new point sources. Blank spaces in the tables indicate
that discharge types and technology levels were determined as not being ap-
plicable to the respective subcategory.
In continuing project investigations, additional data analysis efforts will
establish wastewater treatability by subcategory. Data on the variability of
effluent discharges will also be developed. At this time a treatability level
of 30 mg/1 BOD_5 and 50 mg/1 TSS has been assumed after application of biologi-
cal treatment to Level 1 and 2 raw waste loads. Two subcategories which are
exceptions are the Deink-Fine and Tissue and Deink-Newsprint subcategories.
Based on data currently available, a treatability level of 100 mg/1 after
biological treatment was established for TSS. This figure will be confirmed
by supplemental data gathering as outlined below.
Section VII summarized data on the effectiveness of chemically assisted clar-
ification (CAC) and granular activated carbon adsorption (GAG) in treating
pulp, paper and paperboard wastewaters, as well as other industrial and munic-
ipal wastewaters. Data has been presented for full-scale and pilot-scale
installations. Treatability levels have been presented in the tables for the
application of CAC and GAG (Levels 3 and 4) to biologically treated pulp,
paper and paperboard effluents. These levels will be reviewed following the
acquisition of supplemental data as outlined below.
CONTINUING DATA ANALYSIS EFFORTS
In the coming months, additional data analyses will be undertaken for conven-
tional, toxic and nonconventional pollutants under investigation.
VIII-2
-------
For the conventional pollutants, continuing efforts will focus on defining the
effluent quality which can be achieved using well-designed and operated bio-
logical treatment technology. At the time of the data request program, BPCTCA
technologies had not been fully implemented. Ongoing efforts will include
assessment of additional data for approximately 60 mills obtained since the
data request program.
Preliminary review of this additional data on conventional pollutants has
indicated the need for further supplemental data to better assess conventional
pollutant treatability and treatment system variability on a subcategory
basis. At the recommendation of the E.G. Jordan Co., the EPA will request
additional long-term conventional pollutaat data for numerous pulp, paper and
paperboard mills.
Statistical analysis of the conventional pollutant data will also be under-
taken to determine the variability of the data. The specific statistical
procedures for this effort will be selected following a review of existing and
supplemental data received.
For the toxic and nonconventional pollutants, ongoing efforts will include
further assessment of the levels of pollutants discharged by the pulp, paper
and paperboard industry, as well as further assessment of the capabilities of
in-place technology to reduce or remove the pollutants under investigation.
Through the verification program, data has been generated on the discharge of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants from pulp, paper and paperboard mills.
Final data developed through sampling surveys conducted by the E.G. Jordan Co.
has only recently become available for the 57 surveyed mills.
VIII-3
-------
TABLE VltC-1
PREDICTED KKKLUKNT QUALITY Of PUKE MILLS
SUBCATCORY OIL - ALKALINE-DISSOLVING
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOD5
Direct.
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODS^
Indirect
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg /I
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels Levels
0123401 2 3
221.4 207.2 198.5 198.5 198.5 221.4 207.2 198.5 198.5
(53.1) (49.7) (47.6) (47.6) (47.6) (53.1) (49.7) (47.6) (47.6)
294 191 195 195 195 30 30 30 15
62.2 39.6 38.8 38.8 38.8 6.6 6.2 6.0 3.0
(130.3) (79.1) (7/.5) (77.5) (77.5) (13.3) (12.4) (11.9) (6.0)
437 391 383 383 383 50 50 50 15
96.8 81.1 76.0 76.0 76.0 11.0 10.4 9.9 3.0
(193.5) (162.2) (151.9) (151.9) (151.9) (22.1) (20.7) (19.9) (6.0)
4
198.5
(47.6)
5
1.0
(2.0)
7
1.4
(2.8
Raw Waste Load Final Effluent
New Flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
198.5 198.5
(47.6) (47.6)
195 15
38.8 3.0
(77.5) (6.0)
383 15
76.0 3.0
(151.9) (6.0)
-------
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOD5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODS
indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source 15005
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUAL^^Bl? I'UKK MILLS
SUBCATKUORy. 012 - AlMK INK-MARKET
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
01234
164.7 137.6 123.0 123.0 123.0
(39.5) (33.0) (29.5) (29.5) (29.5)
229 187 206 206 206
37.7 25.7 ' 25.4 25.4 25.4
(75.3) (51.4) (50.7) (50.7) (50.7)
294 334 331 331 331
48.4 46.1 40.8 40.8 40.8
(96.7) (92.1) (81.5) (81.5) (81.5)
Raw Waste Load
123.0
(29.5)
206
25.4
(50.7)
331
40.8
(81.5)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
164.7 137.6 123.0 123.0
(39.5) (33.0) (29.5) (29.5)
30 30 30 15
4.9 4.1 - 3.7 1.3
(9.9) (8.2) (7.4) (3.7)
50 50 50 15
8.2 6.9 6.2 1.8
(16.5) (13.8) (12.3) (3.7)
Final Effluent
123.0
(29.5)
15
1.8
(3.7)
15
1.8
(3.7)
4
123.0
(29.5)
5
0.6
(1.2)
7
0.9
(1.7)
-------
TABLE VI It-3
PREDICTED EFKLUENT QUALITY OF I'UKE MILLS
SUBCATKGORY 013 - ALKALINE-BCT
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOD5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
0 1 2 34
152.2 125.9 102.2 102.2 102.2
(36.5) (30.2) (24.5) (24.5) (24.5)
300 205 253 253 253
45.7 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8
(91.3) (51.6) (51.6) (51.6) .(51.6)
279 308 355 355 355
42.5 38.9 36.3 36.3 36.3
(85.0) (77.7) (72.5) (72.5) (72.5)
Raw Waste Load
102.2
(24.5)
253
25.8
(51.6)
355
36.3
(72.5)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
152.2 125.9 102.2 102.2
(36.5) (30.2) (24.5) (24.5)
30 30 30 15
4.6 3.9 3.1 1.5
(9.1) (7.8) (6.1) (3.1)
50 50 50 15
7.6 6.3 5.1 1.5
(15.2) (12.6) (10.2) (3.1)
Final Effluent
102.2
(24.5)
15
1.5
(3.1)
15
1.5
(3.1)
4
102.2
(24.5)
5
0.5
(1.0)
7
0.7
(1.4)
-------
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Fl ow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Kx Is ting
Source Flow
Mills
BOD5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD^
Mills
TSS
I'UGUICTEU EFFLUENT QUAI.^Hl? I'UKK MILL
SUBCATKGORY 014 -PRALINE-FINK
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0
108.0
(25.9)
266
28.7
(57.4)
494
53.4
(106.7)
108.0
(25.9)
266
28.7
(57.4)
494
53.4
(106.7)
1
83.4
(21.2)
177
15.7
(31.3)
476
42.1
(84.1)
88.4
(21.2)
177
15.7
(31.3)
476
42.1
(84.1)
Raw
2
72.1
(17.3)
217
15.7
(31.3)
521
37.6
(75.2)
72.1
(17.3)
217
15.7
(31.3)
521
37.6
(75.2)
Waste Load
72.1
(17.3)
217
15.7
(31.3)
521
37.6
(75.2)
3
72.1
(17.3)
217
15.7
(31.3)
521
37.6
(75.2)
72.1
(17.3)
217
15.7
(31.3)
521
37.6
(75.2)
S
4
72.1
(17.3)
217
15.7
(31.3)
521
37.6
(75.2)
72.1
(17.3)
217
15.7
(31.3)
521
37.6
(75.2)
Existing
Levels
0
108.0
.(25.9)
30
3.2
(6.5)
50
5.4
(10.8)
108.0
(25.9)
266
28.7
(57.4)
494
53.4
(106.7)
1
88.4
(21.2)
30
2.6
(5.3)
50
4.4
(8.8)
88.4
(21.2)
177
15.7
(31.3)
476
42.1
(84.1)
Final Effluent Levels
2
72.1
(17.3)
30
2.2
(4.3)
50
3.6
(7.2)
72.1
(17.3)
196
14.1
(28.2)
157
11.3
(22.6)
3
72.1
(17.3)
15
1.1
(2.2)
15
l.l
(2.2)
72.1
(17.3)
30
2.2
(4.3)
50
3.6
(7.2)
4
72.1
(17.3)
5
0.4
(0.7)
7
0.5
(1.0)
Final Effluent
72.1
(17.3)
15
1.1
(2.2)
15
1.1
(2.2)
-------
TABLE VI11-5
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY Of PUKE MII.I.S
SUBCATEGORY 015 - ALKALINE UNBLEACHED - LINERBOARO
I
CO
Existing
Source
Mills
New
Source
Mills
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOM
Direct
TSS
Flow
BODS
Indirect
TSS
Flow
BOD5_
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
0 1 2 3 4
46.7 36.3 35.5 35.5 35.5
(11.2) (8.7) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5)
303 280 286 286 286
14.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2
(28.3) (20.3) (20.3) (20.3) (20.3)
348 427 334 334 334
16.3 15.5 11.9 11.9 11.9
(32.5) (31.0) (23.7) (23.7) (23.7)
Raw Waste Load
35.5
(8.5)
286
10.2
(20.3)
334
11.9
(23.7)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 234
46.7 36.3 35.5 35.5 35.5
(11.2) (8.7) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5)
30 30 30 15 5
1.4 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.2
(2.8) (2.2) (2.1) (1.1) (0.4)
50 50 50 15 7
2.3 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.2
(4.7) (3.6) (3.5) (1.1) (0.5)
Final Effluent
35.5
(8.5)
15
0.5
(1.1)
15
0.5
(1.1)
-------
TABLE ^^
PREDICTED EKKLUENT QUAL^^OK PUKE MILLS
SUBCATKUORY 015 - ALKALINE UNKLEACHED - BAG
Existing
Source
Mills
New
Source
Mills
Discharge Type
&
Pa r arae t e r
1-Mow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Flow
BOD5
Indirect
TSS
flow
BOD5
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
Ub/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste load Levels
Levels
01234
70.5 54.6 53.4 53.4 53.4
(16.9) (13.1.) (12.8) (12.8) (12.8)
268 247 253 253 253
18.9 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
(37.7) (27.0) (27.0) (27.0) (27.0)
294 362 350 350 350
20.7 19.8 18.7 18.7 18.7
(41.4) (39.5) (37.4) (37.4) (37.4)
Raw Waste Load
53.4
(12.8)
253
13.5
(27.0)
350
18.7
(37.4)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 234
70.5 54.6 53.4 53.4 53.4
(16.9) (13.1) (12.8) (12.8) (12.8)
30 30 30 15 5
2.1 1.6 1.6 0.8 0.3
(4.2) (3.3) (3.2) (1.6) (0.5)
50 50 50 15 . 7
3.5 2.7 2.7 0.8 0.4
(7.0) . (5.5) (5.5) (1.6) (0.8)
Final Effluent
53.4
(12.8)
15
0.8
(1.6)
15
0.8
(1.6)
-------
TABLE VIt1-7
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY 01' PUKE MILLS
SUBCATKGORY 016 - SEMI-CHEMICAL (80%)
Discharge Type
fit
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
< BOD5
M
M
7* Indirect
o
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton
mg/1
kg/kkg
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels Levels
I) 123401 2 3
32.5 29.2 21.7 21.7 21.7 32.5 29.2 21.7 21.7
(7.8) (7.0) (5.2) (5.2) (5.2) (7.8) (7.0) (5.2) (5.2)
567 567 719 719 719 30 30 30 15
18.5 16.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.3
(36.9) (33.1) (31.2) (31.2) (31.2) (2.0) (1.8) (1.3) (0.7)
662 738 666 666 666 50 50 50 15
21.6 21.6 14.5 14.5 14.5 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.3
(43.1) (43.1) (28.9) (28.9) (28.9) (3.3) (2.9) (2.2) (0.7)
4
21.7
(5.2)
5
0.1
(0.2)
7
0.2
(0.3)
Raw Waste Load Final Effluent
New Flow
Source BODS^
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
21.7 21.7
(5.2) (5.2)
719 15
15.6 0.3
(31.2) (0.7)
666 15
14.5 0.3
(28.9) (0.7)
-------
TABLE VI1^^
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUAL^^bl'1 PURE MILLS
SUBCATECORY 016 - SEMI-CHEMICAL (100%)
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODJj^
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
Ub/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
0 1 2-3 4
48.4 43.4 32.1 32.1 32.1
(11.6) (10.4) (7.7) (7.7) (7.7)
399 399 508 508 508
19.3 17.3 16.3 16.3 16.3
(38.6) (34.6) (32.6) (32.6) (32.6)
795 887 804 804 804
38.5 38.5 25.8 25.8 25.8
(76.9) (76.9) (51.6) (51.6) (51.6)
Raw Waste Load
32.1
(7.7)
508
16.3
(32.6)
804
25.8
(51.6)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
48.4 43.4 32.1 32.1
(11.6) (10.4) (7.7) (7.7)
30 30 30 15
1.5 1.3 1.0 0.5
(2.9) (2.6) (1.9) (1.0)
50 50 50 15
2.4 2.2 1.6 0.5
(4.8) (A. 3) (3.2) (1.0)
Final Effluent
32.1
(7.7)
15
0.5
(1.0)
15
0.5
(1.0)
4
32.1
(7.7)
5
0.2
(0.3)
7
0.2
(0.4)
-------
TABLE VIt[-9
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY 01'' PUKE MILLS
SUBCATKGORY 017 - ALKALINE UNBLEACHED & SEMI-CHEMICAL
Existing
Source
Mills
New
Source
Mills
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Flow
BODS
Indirect
TSS
Flow
BOD5
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
0 1 2 3 A
55.9 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
(13.4) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5)
334 380 380 380 380
8.7 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
(37.3) (26.9) (26.9) (26.9) (26.9)
421 508 480 480 480
23.5 1.8.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
(47.0) (36.0) (34.0) (34.0) (34.0)
Raw Waste Load
35.5
(8-5)
380
13.5
(26.9)
480
17.0
(34.0)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 234
55.9 35.5 35.5 35.5 35.5
(13.4) (8.5) (8.5) (8.5.) (8.5)
30 30 30 15 5
1.7 l.l 1.1 0.5 0.2
(3.4) (2.1) (2.1) (1.1) (0.4)
50 50 50 15 7
2.8 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.2
(5.6) (3.5) (3.5) (1.1) (0.5)
Final Effluent
35.5
(8.5)
15
0.5
(1.1)
15
0.5
(1.1)
-------
TABLE VtLfj
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Plow
BOD5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOI)1
Indirect
TSS
Now Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
PREDICTED UK FLUENT QUAL^BF PURE MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 019 - ALK^HwE- NEW SPRINT
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
01234
93.8 68.0 57.5 57.5 57.5
(22.5) (16.3) (13.8) (13.8) (13.8)
225 217 256 256 256
21.1 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
(42.2) (29.5) (29.5) (29.5) (29.5)
604 675 677 677 677
56.7 45.9 39.0 39.0 39.0
(113. 3) (91.8) (77.9) (77.9) (77.9)
Raw Waste Load
57.5
(13.8)
256
14.8
(29.5)
677
39.0
(77.9)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 234
93.8 68.0 57.5 57.5 57.5
(22.5) (16.3) (13.8) (13.8) (13.8)
30 30 30 15 5
2.8 2.0 1.7 0.9 0.3
(5.6) (4.1) (3.4) (1.7) (0.6)
50 50 50 15 7
4.7 3.4 2.9 0.9 0.4
(9.4) (6.8) (5.8) (1.7) (0.8)
Final Effluent
57.5
(13.8)
15
0.9
(1.7)
15
0.9
(1.7)
-------
TABLE VlII-ll
PREDICTED Eh'1'LUENT QUALITY 01' PURE MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 012 - SULHTL'K-DISSOLVING
Existing
Source
Mil Is
New
Source
Mills
Discharge Type
&
Car a meter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Flow
BOI)5_
Indirect
TSS
Flow
BODS
TSS
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0 I 2
266.4 204.7 183.
(63.9) (49.1) (44.
632 504 555
108.5 103.2 102.
(336.9) (206.4) (204.
376 453 474
100.1 92.7 87.
(200.2) (185.5) (174.
Raw Waste
183.
(44.
555
102.
(204.
474
87.
(174.
3 4
9 183.9 183.9
1) (44.1) (44.1)
555 555
1 102.1 102.1
2) (204.2) (204.2)
474 474
2 87.2 87.2
4) (174.4) (174.4)
Load
9
1)
1
2)
2
4)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
266.4 204.7 183.9 183.9
(63.9) (49.1) (44.1) (44.1)
30 30 30 15
8.0 6.2 5.5 2.8
(16.0) (12.3) (11.0) (5.5)
50 50 50 15
13.3 10.2 9.2 2.8
(26.6) (20.5) (18.3) (5.5)
Final Effluent
183.9
(44.1)
15
2.8
(5.5)
15
2.8
(5.5)
4
183.9
(44.1)
5
0.9
(1.8)
7
1.3
(2.6)
-------
TABLE VI li
PKKDICTEO EFFLUENT QMAII^^JL- PURE MILLS
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOD5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
MUJs
BODS
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source B005
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(legal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
SUBCATEGORY
Existing
Levels
0
152.6
(36.6)
319
48.7
(97.3)
217
33.1
(66.2)
022 - SULFlTTPPAPIiRGKADE (67%)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1234
90.1 87.6 87.6 87.6
(21.6) (21.0) (21.0) (21.0)
310 319 319 319
28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
(55.9) (55.9) (55.9) (55.9)
350 334 334 334
31.5 29.3 29.3 29.3
(63.0) (58.6) (58.6) (58.6)
Raw Waste Load
87.6
(21.1)
319
28.0
(55.9)
334
29.3
(58.6)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
152.6 90.1 87.6 87.6
(36.6) (21.6) (21.0) (21.0)
30 30 30 15
4.6 2.7 2.6 1.3
(9.2) (5.4) (5.1) (2.6)
50 50 50 15
7.6 4.5 4.4 1.3
(15.3) (9.0) (8.8) (2.6)
Final Effluent
87.6
(21.0)
15
1.3
(2.6)
15
1.3
(2.6)
4
87.6
(21.0)
15
0.4
(0.9
7
0.6
(1.2)
-------
TABLE VI £[-13
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF PUKE MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 022 - SULFITE-PAPERGRADE (100%)
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BO 05
Indirect
TSS
Hew Flow
Source BODS
Mi lls
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
203.9
(48.9)
336
68.5
(136.9)
170
34.7
(69.3)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1234
120.5 117.2 117.2 117.2
(28.9) (28.1) (28.1) (28.1)
326 336 336 336
39.4 39.4 39.4 39.4
(78.7) (78.7) (78.7) (78.7)
274 262 262 262
33.0 30.7 30.7 30.7
(66.0) (61.4) (61.4) (61.4)
Raw Waste Load
117.2
(28.1)
336
39.4
(78.7)
262
30.7
(61.4)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
203.9 120.5 117.2 117.2
(48.9) (28.9) (28.1) (28.1
30 30 30 15
6.1 3.6 3.5 1.8
(12.2) (7.2) (7.0) (3.5)
50 50 50 15
10.2 6.0 5.8 1.8
(20.4) (12.0) (11.7) (3.5)
Final Effluent
117.2
(28.1)
15
1.8
(3.5)
15
1.8
(3.5)
4
117.2
(28.1)
5
0.6
(1.2)
7
0.8
(1.6)
-------
TABLE ^^
PREDICTED EFFLDF.NT QUAl^^OF PURE HILLS
SUBCATEC;ORY 032 - THKKMO-HECHANICAL PULP
Existing
Source
Mills
New
Source
Mil Is
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
B01W
Direct
TSS
Flow
BO 1)5
In direct
TSS
Flow
BODS
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
rag/ 1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
01234
60.0 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5
(14.4) (10.2) (10.2) (10.2) (10.2)
304 368 368 368 368
18.3 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7
(36.5) (31.3) (31.3) (31.3) (31.3)
644 618 618 618 618
38.7 26.3 26.3 26.3 26.3
(77.4) (52.6) (52.6) (52.6) (52.6)
Raw Waste Load
42.5
(10.2)
368
15.7
(31.3)
618
26.3
(52.6)
Existing Final
Levels
01 2
60.0 42.5 42
(14.4) (10.2) (10
30 30 30
1.8 1.3 1
(3.6) (2.5) (2
50 50 50
3.0 2.1 2
(6.0) (4.3) (4
Effluent Levels
3
.5 42.5
.2) (10.2)
15
.3 0.6
.5) (1.3)
15
.1 0.6
3) (1.3)
4
42.5
(10.2)
5
0.2
(0.4)
7
0.3
(0.6)
Final Effluent
52
(10
15
0
(i
15
0
(1
.5
.2)
.6
.3)
.6
.3)
-------
TABLE V LI I-15
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY Ob' PUKE MILLS
SUBCATKCORY 033 - CROUNDWOOD-CMN (742)
i
H-1
CO
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
8005
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
801)5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
01234
88.4 54.6 54.6 54.6 54.6
(21.2) (13.1) (13.1) (13.1) (13.1)
210 212 212 212 212
18.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6
(37.1) (23.2) (23.2) (23.2) (23.2)
549 650 531 531 531
43.5 35.5 29.0 29.0 29.0
(97.0) (71.0) (58.0) (58.0) (58.0)
Raw Waste Load
54.6
(13.1)
212
11.6
(23.2)
531
29.0
(58.0)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
88.4 54.6 54.6 54.6
(21.2) (13.1) (13.1) (13.1)
30 30 30 15
2.6 1.6 1.6 0.8
(5.3) (3.3) (3.3) (1.6)
50 50 50 15
4.4 2.7 2.7 0.8
(8.8) (5.5) (5.5) (1.6)
Final Effluent
54.6
(13.1)
15
0.8
(V.6)
15
0.8
(1-6)
4
54.6
(13.1)
5
0.3
(0.5)
7
0.4
(0.8)
-------
TABLE ^^
I'KEI) ICTEI) KFKI.UENT QUAfflW Of I'URE MILLS
SUBCATECJORY 033 - CROUNDWOOD-CMN (100%)
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOD5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODS^
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
mg/1
kg/kkg
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
01234
134.3 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0
(32.2) (19.9) (19.9) (19.9) (19.9)
170 172 172 172 172
22.9 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
(45.8) (28.6) (28.6) (28.6) (28.6)
577 684 558 558 558
77.6 56.8 46.4 46.4 46.4
(155.1) (113.5) (92.7) (92.7) (92.7)
Raw Waste Load
83.0
(19.9)
172
14.3
(28.6)
558
46.4
(92.7)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
134.3 83.0 83.0 83.0
(32.2) (19.9) (19.9) (19.9)
30 30 30 15
4.0 2.5 2.5 1.2
(3.1) (5.0) (5.0) (2.5)
50 50 50 15
6.7 4.1 4.1 1.2
(13.4) (8.3) (8.3) C!.5)
Final Effluent
83.0
(19.9)
15
1.2
(2.5)
15
1.2
(2.5)
4
83.0
(19.9)
5
0.4
(0.8)
7
0.6
(1.2)
-------
TABLE VUf-17
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY 01' I'URK MILLS
SUBCATKGORY 034 - CROUNDWOOD-F1NK (59%)
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct:
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODS
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Sou rce BOD5_
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/ I
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/tcm)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
68.4
(16.4)
257
17.6
(35.2)
789
53.9
(107.9)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1 2 34
54.2 43.8 43.8 43.8
(13.0) (10.5) (10.5) (10.5)
239 279 279 279
13. 0 12.2 12.2 12.2
(25.9) (24.4) (24.4) (24.4)
699 776 776 776
37.9 34.0 34.0 34.0
(75.8) (68.0) (68.0) (68.0)
Raw Waste Load
43.8
(10.5)
279
12.2
(24.4)
776
34.0
(68.0)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
68.4 54.2 43.8 43.8
(16.4) (13.0) (10.5) (10.5)
30 30 30 15
2.0 1.6 1.3 0.7
(4.1) (3.3) (2.6) (1.3)
50 50 50 15
3.4 2.7 2.2 0.7
(6.8) (5.4) (4.4) (1.3)
Final Effluent
43.8
(10.5)
15
0.7
(1.3)
15
0.7
(1.3)
4
43.8
.(10.5)
5
0.2
(0.4)
7
0.3
(0.6)
-------
TABLE V
PREDICTED EFFLUENT Qll.
SUBCATEU08Y 034 - GKO
m
ourowi
Of I'UKK MILLS
WOOD-FINE (.100%)
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
801)5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BO 1)5
indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/ 1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
0 1 2 3 A
110.9 88.0 71.9 71.9 71.9
(26.6) (21.1) (17.0) (17.0) (17.0)
168 156 182 182 182
18.6 13.7 12.9 12.9 12.9
(37.2) (27.4) (25.8) (25.8) (25.8)
498 441 ' 491 491 491
55.2 38.8 34.8 34.8 34.8
(110.4) (77.6) (69.6) (69.6) (69.6)
Raw Waste Load
71.9
(17.0)
182
12.9
(25.8)
491
34.8
(69.6)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
01 23
110.9 88.0 71.9 71.9
(26.6) (21.1) (17.0) (17.0)
30 30 30 15
3.4 2.6 2.1 1.1
(6.7) (5.3) (4.2) (2.1)
50 50 50 If.
5.5 4.4 3.5 I. I
(11.1) (8.8) (7.1) (2.1)
Final Effluent
71.9
(17.0)
15
1.1
(2.1)
15
l.l
(2.1)
4
71.9
(17.0)
5
0.4
(0.7)
7
0.5
(1.0)
-------
TABLE VI£1-19
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF PUKE MILLS
SUBCATECORY 101 - DRINK FINE AND TISSUE - PURE TISSUE
Discharge Type
&
Pa r ante t e r
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOD5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODS
Mil 1 s
TSS
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
ing/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0
81.3
(19.5)
599
48.7
(97.4)
1,759
143.0
(286.0)
81.3
(19.5)
599
48.7
(97.4)
1,759
143.0
(286.0)
1
58.4
(14.0)
696
40.7
(81.3)
2,231
130. 3
(260.5)
58.4
(14.0)
696
40.7
(31.3)
2,231
130.3
(260.5)
Raw
2
55.3
(13.3)
733
40.7
(81.3)
2,312 2
128.3
(256.5)
55.3
(13.3)
733
40.7
(81.3)
2,312 2
128.3
(256.5)
Waste Load
55.3
(13.3)
733
40.7
(31.3)
2,312
128.3
(256.5)
3
55.3
(13.3)
733
40.7
(81.3)
,312
128.3
(256.5)
55.3
(13.3)
733
40.7
(31.3)
,312
128.3
(256.5)
4
55.3
(13.3)
733
40.7
(31.3)
2,312
128.3
(256.5)
55.3
(13.3)
733
40.7
(81.3)
2,312
128.3
(256.5)
Existing Final Effluent Levels
Levels
0
81.3
(19.5)
30
2.4
(4.9)
100
8.2
(16.3)
81.3
(19.5)
599
48.7
(97.4)
1,759
143.0
(286.0)
1
58.4
(14.0)
30
1.7
(3.3)
100
5.8
(H.7)
58.4
(14.0)
696
40.7
(31.3)
2,231
130.2
(260.5)
Final
2
55.3
(13.3)
30
1.7
(3.3)
100
5.6
(11.1)
55.3
(13.3)
366
20.3
(40.6)
462
25.2
(51.3)
Effluent
55.3
(13.3)
15
0.8
(1.7)
15
0.8
(1.7)
3
55.3
(13.3)
15
0.8
(1.7)
15
0.8
(1.7)
55.3
(13.3)
30
1.7
(3.3)
50
2.8
(5.6)
4
55.3
(13.3)
5
0.3
(0.6)
7
0.4
(0.8)
-------
TABLE VI[j
PREDICTED EFFLUKNT QUfl^^ 01' PUKE MII.LS
SUBCATECMRY 101 - DEINK FINE AND TISSUE - PURE FINE
Discharge Type
&
Pa fame ter
Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
BODS rag/ 1
Direct kg/kkg
(lb/t)
TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
Existing (lb/t)
Source Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
Mills
BODS rag/1
kg/kkg
Indirect (lb/t)
TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
New Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
Source BODS mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Mills
TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
Levels
0
107.2
(25.7)
466
50.0
(99.9)
2,012
215.7
(431.3)
107.2
(25.7)
466
50.0
(99.9)
2,012
215.7
(431.3)
1
77.2
(18.5)
540
41.7
(33.4)
2,546
196.4
(392.8)
77.2
(18.5)
540
41.7
(83.4)
2,546
196.4
(392.8)
Raw
2
73.4
(17.6)
568
41.7
(83.4)
2,635 2
193.4
(386.8)
73.4
(17.6)
568
41.7
(33.4)
2,635 2
193.4
(386.8)
Waste l/i ad
73.4
(17.6)
563
41.7
(83.4)
2,635
193.4
(386.8)
3
73.4
(17.6)
568
41.7
(83.4)
,635
193.4
(386.8)
73.4
(17.6)
568
41.7
(83.4)
,635
193.4
(386.8)
4
73.4
(17.6)
568
41.7
(83.4)
2,635
193.4
(386.8)
73.4
(17.6)
568
41.7
(33.4)
2,635
193.4
(386.8)
Existii
Levels
0
107.2
(25.7)
30
3.2
(6.4)
100
10.7
(21.4)
107.2
(25.7)
466
50.0
(99.9)
2,012
215.7
(431.3)
ig Final Effluent Levels
I
77
(18
30
2
(4
100
7
(15
77
(18
540
41
(83
2,546
196
(392
.2
-5)
.3
.6)
.7
.4)
_2
.5)
.7
.4)
.4
.8)
Final
2
73.4
(17.6)
30
2.2
(4.4)
100
7.3
(14.7)
73.4
(17.6)
284
20.8
(41.7)
527
38.7
(77.4)
Effluent
73.4
(17.6)
15
1.1
(2.2)
15
1.1
(2.2)
3
73.4
(17.6)
15
1.1
(2.2)
15
1.1
(2.2)
73.4
(17.6)
30
2.2
(A. 4)
50
3.7
(7.3)
4
73.4
(17.6)
5
0.4
(0.7)
7
0.5
(1.0)
-------
TABLE V![[-21
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY 01- PURE MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 102 - DRINK NEWSPRINT
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOD5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0
67.6
(16.2)
234
15.9
(31.7)
1,821
123.0
(246.0)
67.6
(16.2)
234
15.9
(31.7)
1,821
123.0
(246.0)
1
57.5
(13.8)
232
13.4
(26.7)
2,050
118.0
(236.0)
57.5
(13.8)
232
13.4
(26.7)
2,050
118.0
(236.0)
Raw
2
55.5
(13.3)
241
13.4
(26.7)
1,857 I
103.0
(206.0)
55.5
(13.3)
241
13.4
(26.7)
1,857 1
103.0
(206.0)
Waste Load
5.5.5
(13.3)
241
13.4
(26.7)
1,857
103.0
(206.0)
3
55.5
(13.3)
241
13.4
(26.7)
,857
103.0
(206.0)
55.5
(13.3)
241
13.4
(26.7)
,857
103.0
(206.0)
4
55.5
(13.3)
241
13.4
(26.7)
1,857
103.0
(206.0)
55.5
(13.3)
241
13.4
(26.7)
1,857
103.0
(206.0)
Existing
Levels
0
67.6
(16.2)
30
2.0
(4.0)
100
6.8
(13.5)
67.6
(16.2)
234
15.9
(31.7)
1,821
123.0
(246.0)
1
57.5
(13.8)
30
1.7
(3.4)
100
5.8
(11.5)
57.5
(13.8)
232
13.4
(26.7)
2,050
118.0
(236.0)
Final Effluent Levels
2
55.5
(13.3)
30
1.7
(3.4)
100
5.5
(11.1)
55.5
(13.3)
120
6.7
(13.4)
371
20.6
(41.2)
Final Effluent
55.5
(13.3)
15
0.8
(1.7)
15
0.8
(1.7)
3
55.5
(13.3)
15
0.8
(1.7)
15
0.8
(1.7)
55.5
(13.3)
30
1.7
(3.3)
50
2.8
(5.6)
4
55.5
(13.3)
5
0.3
(0.6)
7
0.4
(0.8)
-------
TAItLE ^
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QH,^ OF I'UKE MILLS
SUBCATK«)RY 111 - WASTEPAPEK TISSUE-100% INDUSTRIAL
Discharge Type
(,
Parameter
Flow
1101)5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOM
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
56.7
(13.6)
232
13.2
(26.3)
714
40.5
(81.0)
56.7
(13.6)
232
13.2
(26.3)
714
40.5
(81.0)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
Raw
2
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
48.4
(11. 6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
Waste Load
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
3
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
4
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
Existing
Levels
0
56.7
(13.6)
116
6.6
(13.1)
141
8.0
(16.0)
56.7
(13.6)
232
13.2
(26.3)
714
40.5
(81.0)
1
48.4
(11.6)
116
5.6
(11.2)
143
6.9
(13.8)
48.4
(11.6)
231
11.2
(22.4)
713
34.5
(69.0)
Final Effluent Levels
2
48.4
(11.6)
116
5.6
(11.2)
143
6.9
(13.8)
48.4
(11.6)
116
5.6
(11.2)
143
6.9
(13.8)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
3
48.4
(11.6)
25
1.2
(2.4)
12
0.6
(1.2)
48.4
(11.6)
5
0.2
(0.5)
7
0.3
(0.7)
4
48.4
(11.6)
5
0.2
(0.5)
7
0.3
(0.7)
-------
TABLE VI[[-23
I'REI) CCTEO EFFLUENT QUALITY Of PURE Mf.l.LS
SUBCATKGORY 112 - WASTKHAPEIt BOARD - BOARD
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOI«
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOI)5^
Indirect:
TSS
New Flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
15.4
(3.7)
687
10.6
(21.2)
638
9.9
(19.7)
15.4
(3.7)
687
10.6
(21.2)
638
9.9
(19.7)
Raw Waste Load Levels '
1
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
Raw
2
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(A. 9)
8.3
(2.0)
52;;
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
Waste Load
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(A. 9)
3
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
4
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(3.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
Existing
Levels
0
15.4
(3.7)
30
0.4
(0.9)
50
0.8
(1.5)
15.4
(3.7)
687
10.6
(21.2)
638
9.9
(19.7)
1
8.3
(2.0)
30
0.2
(0.5)
50
0.4
(0.8)
8.3
(2.0)
522
4.4
(8.7)
294
2.5
(4.9)
Final Effluent Levels
2
8.3
(2.0)
30
0.2
(0.5)
50
0.4
(0.8)
8.3
(2.0)
260
2.2
(4.3)
59
0.5
(1.0)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
3
8.3
(2.0)
15
0.1
(0.3)
15
0.1
(0.3)
8.3
(2.0)
5
0.04
(0.08)
7
0.06
(0.12)
4
8.3
(2.0)
5
0.04
(0.08)
7
0.06
(0.12)
-------
TABLE Vlj
PREDICTED EFFLUENT
-------
TABLE VU. [-25
PREDICTED EKKLUENT (JUAI.ITY Of PUKE MILLS
SUBCATKGORY 112 - WASTEPAPKK BOARD - CORRUGATED
Ex (.sting
Source
Mills
New
Source
Mills
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
801)5
Direct
TSS
Flow
BOD^
Indirect
TSS
Flow
BODS
TSS
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0
4.2
(1.0)
1,283
5.3
(10.7)
947
4.0
(7.9)
4.2
(1.0)
1,283
5.3
(10.7)
947
4.0
(7.9)
1
2.1
(0.5)
1,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
2.1
(0.5)
1,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
Raw
1
2
2.1
(0.5)
1,055 1
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
2.1
(0.5)
1,055 1
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
Waste lx>ad
2.1
(0.5)
,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
3
2.1
(0.5)
,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
2.1
(0.5)
,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
4
2.1
(0.5)
1,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
2.1
(0.5)
1,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
Existing
Levels
0
4.2
(1.0)
30
0.1
(0.3)
50
0.2
(0.4)
4.2
(1.0)
1,283
5.3
(10.7)
947
4.0
(7.9)
1
2.1
(0.5)
30
0.06
(0.12)
50
0.1
(0.2)
2.1
(0.5)
1,055
2.2
(4.4)
480
1.0
(2.0)
Final Effluent Levels
2
2.1
(0.5)
30
0.06
(0.12)
50
0.1
(0.2)
2.1
(0.5)
528
1.1
(2.2)
96
0.2
(0.4)
3
2.1
(0.5)
15
0.03
(0.06)
1*5
0.03
(0.06)
2.1
(0.5)
5
0.01
(0.02)
7
0.01
(0.03)
4
2.1
(0.5)
5
0.01
(0.02)
7
0.01
(0.03)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
-------
TABLK Via
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUA^^J OF PUKE MILLS
SIJBCATF.GORY 112 - WASTEPAPEK BOARD - CHIP & FILLER
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
BODS mg/1
Direct kg/kkg
(lb/t)
TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
Existing (lb/t)
Source Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
Mills
BOD5 mg/1
kg/kkg
Indirect (lb/t)
TSS rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
New Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
Source BOD5 mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Mills
TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing Raw Waste
Load Levels
Existing
Levels
0
10.
(2.
345
3.
(6.
445
It.
(8.
10.
(2.
345
3.
(6.
445
4.
(8.
0
4)
5
9)
5
9)
0
4)
5
9)
5
9)
1
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
l.l
(2.2)
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
1.1
(2.2)
Raw
2
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
l.l
(2.2)
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
1.1
(2.2)
Waste
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
1.1
(2.2)
3
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
1.1
(2.2)
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
l.l
(2.2)
Load
4
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
1.1
(2.2)
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
1.1
(2.2)
Levels
0
10.0
(2.4)
30
0.3
(0.6)
50
0.5
(1.0)
10.0
(2.4)
345
3.5
(6.9)
445
4.5
(8.9)
1
5.4
(1.3)
30
0.2
(0.3)
50
0.3
(0.5)
5.4
(1.3)
258
1.4
(2.8)
203
1.1
(2.2)
Final Effluent Levels
2
5.4
(1.3)
30
0.2
(0.3)
50
0.3
(0.5)
5.4
(1.3)
129
0.7
(1.4)
41
0.2
(0.4)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
3
5.4
(1.3)
15
0.1
(0.2)
15
0.1
(0.2)
5.4
(1.3)
5
0.03
(0.06)
7
0.04
(0.08)
4
5.4
(1.3)
5
0.03
(0.06)
7
0.04
(0.08)
-------
TAISLE V1LC-27
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY. OF PUKE MCLI.S
SUBCATEGORY 1.12 - WASTEPAPEK HOARD - FOLDING1 BOX
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOD5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mil Is
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
ing/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
16.3
(3.9)
372
6.1
(12.1)
434
7.1
(14.1)
16.3
(3.9)
372
6.1
(12.1)
434
7.1
(14.1)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
Raw
2
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
Waste Load
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
3
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
4
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
8.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
Existing
Levels
0
16.3
(3.9)
30
0.5
(1.0)
50
0.8
(1.6)
16.3
(3.9)
372
6.1
(12.1)
434
7.1
(14.1)
1
8.8
(2.1)
30
0.3
(0.5)
50
0.4
(0.9)
3.8
(2.1)
285
2.5
(5.0)
200
1.8
(3.5)
Final Effluent Levels
2
8.8
(2.1)
30
0.3
(0.5)
50
0.4
(0.9)
8.8
(2.1)
143
1.2
(2.5)
40
0.4
(0.7)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
3
8.8
(2.1)
15
0.1
(0.3)
15
0.1
(0.3)
8.8
(2.1)
5
0.04
(0.08)
7
0.06
(0.12)
4
8.8
(2.1)
5
0.04
(0.08)
7
0.06
(0.12)
-------
TABLE VL
PREDICTED EFFLUENT
SUBCATEGORY 112 - WASTEPA
AraT
PURE MILLS
BOARD - SETUl' BOX
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODS
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
kl/kkg
(legal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
Existing
Levels
0
20.4
(4.9)
360
7.3
(14.7)
279
5.7
(11.4)
20.4
(4.9)
360
7.3
(14.7)
279
5.7
(11.4)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
. 10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
Raw
2
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
Waste Load
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
3
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
4
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
Existing
Levels
0
20.4
(4.9)
30
0.6
(1.2)
50
1.0
(2.0)
20.4
(4.9)
360
7.3
(14.7)
279
5.7
(11.4)
Final Effluent Levels
1
10.8
(2.6)
30
0.3
(0.7)
50
0.5
(l.l)
10.8
(2.6)
277
3.0
(6.0)
129
1.4
(2.8)
2
10.8
(2.6)
30
0.3
(0.7)
50
0.5
(l.l)
10.8
(2.6)
138
1.5
(3.0)
26
0.3
(0.6)
3
10.8
(2.6)
15
0.2
(0.3)
15
0.2
(0.3)
10.8
(2.6)
5
0.05
(0.1)
7
O.J.
(0.:'.)
4
10.8
(2.6)
5
0.05
(0.1)
7
0.1
(0.2)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
-------
TABLE VHC-29
PKEIHCTE1) EFFLUENT QUALITY 01" PUKE MILLS
SUBCATKCORY 112 - WASTEPAPF.K BOARD - GYPSUM
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
601)5
Direct
T'SS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODS
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(legal /ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0
11.7
(2.8)
497
5.8
(11.6)
1,362
15.9
(31.8)
11.7
(2.8)
497
5.8
(11.6)
1,362
15.9
(31.8)
1
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(4.8)
1 , 103
6.9
(13.8)
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(A. 8)
1,103
6.9
(13.8)
Raw
2
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(A. 8)
1 , 103 1
6.9
(13.8)
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(4.8)
1,103 1
6.9
(13.8)
Waste Load
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(4.8)
1,103
6.9
(13.8)
3
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(4.8)
,103
6.9
(13.8)
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(4.8)
,103
6.9
(13.8)
4
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(4.8)
1,103
6.9
(13.8)
6.3
(1.5)
384
2.4
(4.8)
1,103
6.9
(13.8)
Existing
Levels
0
11.7
(2.8)
30
0.4
(0.7)
50
0.6
(1.2)
11.7
(2.8)
497
5.8
(11.6)
1,362
15.9
(31.8)
1
6.
(1.
30
0.
(0.
50
0.
(0.
6.
(1.
384
2.
(4.
1,103
6.
(13
Final Effluent Levels
2
3 6.3
5) (1.5)
30
2 0.2
4) (0.4)
50
3 0.3
6) (0.6)
3 6.3
5) (1.5)
192
4 1.2
8) (2.4)
221
9 1.4
.8) (2.8)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
3
6.3
(1.5)
15
0.1
(0.2)
15
0.1
(0.2)
6.3
(1.5)
5
0.03
(0.06)
7
0.04
(0.08)
4
6.3
(1.5)
5
0.03
(0.06)
7
0.04
(0.08)
-------
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
801)5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BODS
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
.Source BOU5
Mills
TSS
PKEIHCTEI) EFKLUEN'l^BlLm OF I'URE MULLS
SUBCATEGORY 113 - WASTEPAPER - MOLDED PRODUCTS
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0
52.5
(12.6)
124
6.5
(13.0)
216
11.4
(22.7)
52.5
(12.6)
124
6.5
(13.0)
216
11.4
(22.7)
1
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
2
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
Raw Waste
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
3
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
Load
4
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
Existing
Levels
0
52.5
(12.6)
30
1.6
(3.2)
50
2.6
(5.3)
52.5
(12.6)
124
6.5
(13.0)
216
11.4
(22.7)
Final Effluent Levels
1
41.3
(9.9)
30
1.2
(2.5)
50
2.1
(4.1)
41.3
(9.9)
119
4.9
(9.8)
130
5.4
(10.7)
2
41.3
(9.9)
30
1.2
(2.5)
50
2.1
(4. 1)
41.3
(9.9)
59
2.4
(4.9)
26
1.1
(2.1)
3
41.3
(9.9)
15
0.6
(1.2)
15
0.6
(1.2)
41.3
(9.9)
5
0.2
(0.4)
7
0.3
(0.6)
4
41.3
(9.9)
5
0.2
(0.4)
7
0.3
(0.6)
Final Effluent
41.3
(9.9)
15
0.6
(1.2)
15
0.6
(1.2)
-------
TAHLE VHC-31
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY Of L'UKE MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 114 - WASTEPAPER CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS - 100% WASTEPAPER
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
1)01)5
IHreot
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BO 1)5
Imlirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/tou)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
14.6
(3.5)
521
7.6
(15.2)
1,326
19.4
(38.7)
14.6
(3.5)
521
7.6
(15.2)
1.326
19.4
(38.7)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2. '5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
Raw
2
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
Waste Load
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
3
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
4
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
Existing
Levels
0
14.6
(3.5)
30
0.4
(0.9)
50
0.8
(1.5)
14.6
(3.5)
521
7.6
(15.2)
1,326
19.4
(38.7)
1
6.7
(1.6)
30
0.2
(0.4)
50
0.3
(0.7)
6.7
(1.6)
187
1.3
(2.5)
180
1.2
(2.4)
Final Effluent Levels
2
6.7
(1.6)
30
0.2
(0.4)
50
0.3
(0.7)
6.7
(1.6)
93
0.6
(1.2)
36
0.2
(0.5)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
3
6.
(I.
15
0.
(0.
15
0.
(0.
6.
(1.
5
0.
(0.
7
0.
(0.
4
7 6.7
6) (1.6)
5
1 0.03
2) (0.06)
7
1 0.04
2) (0.08)
7
6)
03
06)
04
08)
-------
TABLE
PREDICTED EFKLUENT QUA 01' PURE MILLS
SUHCATKGORY 114 - WASTEPAP^KoNSTRUCTlON 1'ROOUCTS
50% WP AND 30% TMP
Discharge Type
f.
Parameter
Flow
BOD5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
801)5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODJ5
Mills
TSS
. kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
12.5
(3.0)
1,111
13.9
(27.8)
315
10.2
(20.4)
12.5
(3.0)
1,111
13.9
(27.8)
815
10.2
(20.4)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1.3)
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1.3)
Raw
2
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
III
0.7
(1.3)
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1.3)
Waste Load
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1.3)
3
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1.3)
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1-3)
4
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1.3)
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1-3)
Existing
Levels
0
12.5
(3.0)
30
0.4
(0.8)
50
0.6
(1.3)
12.5
(3.0)
1,111
13.9
(27.8)
815
10.2
(20.4)
1
5.8
(1.4)
30
0.2
(0.4)
50
0.3
(0.6)
5.8
(1.4)
394
2.3
(4.6)
111
0.7
(1.3)
Final
2
5
(1
30
0
(0
50
0
(0
5
(1
197
1
(2
22
0
(0
Effluent Levels
.8
.4)
.2
.4)
.3
.6)
.8
.4)
.2
.3)
.1
.3)
3
5.8
(1.4)
15
0.1
(0.2)
15
0.1
(0.2)
5.8
(1.4)
5
0.03
(0.06)
7
0.04
(0.08)
4
5.8
(1.4)
5
0.03
(0.06)
7
0.04
(0.08)
Final Effluent
Zero
Discharge
-------
TABLE V1C [-33
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF PUKE MILLS
SUBCATKGORY. 201 - NONINTKGRATKD-FINE
Disci large Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOD5
Direct
TSS
Kxls ting
Source Flow
Mills
B005_
Indirect
TSS
Now Flow
Source BODJ>
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/toa)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
48.4
(11.6)
175
8.5
(17.0)
621
30.1
(60.1)
48.4
(U.6)
175
8.5
(17.0)
621
30.1
(60.1)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11.0)
670
22.9
(45.8)
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(H.O)
670
22.9
(45.8)
Raw
2
32.5
(7.8)
169
5.5
(11.0)
573
18.7
(37.3)
32.5
(7.8)
169
5.5
(11.0)
573
18.7
(37.3)
Waste Load
32.5
(7.8)
169
5.5
(11.0)
573
18.7
(37.3)
3
32.5
(7.8)
169
5.5
(11.0)
573
18.7
(37.3)
32.5
(7-8)
169
5.5
(11.0)
573
18.7
(37.3)
4
32.5
(7.8)
169
5.5
(11.0)
573
18.7
(37.3)
32.5
(7.8)
169
5.5
(11.0)
573
18.7
(37.3)
Existing
Levels
0
48.4
(11.6)
30
1.4
(2.9)
50
2.4
(4.8)
48.4
(U.6)
175
8.5
(17.0)
621
30.1
(60.1)
I Final Effluent Levels
1
34.2
(8.2)
30
1.0
(2.0)
50
1.7
(3.4)
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11.0)
670
22.9
(45.8)
Final
2
32.5
(7.8)
30
1.4
(2.8)
50
1.6
(3.2)
32.5
(7.8)
85
2.8
(5.5)
115
3.7
(7.5)
Effluent
32.5
(7.8)
15
0.5
(1.0)
15
0.5
(1.0)
3
32.5
(7.8)
15
0.5
(1.0)
15
0.5
(1.0)
32.5
(7.8)
5
0.2
(0.3)
7
0.2
(0.5)
4
32.5
(7.8)
5
0.2
(0.3)'
7
0.2
(0.5)
-------
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Fl ow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source flow
Mil. Is
BODS
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
TABLE VH^H
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUAL^^JoF PUKE MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 202 - NONINTECRATED-TISSUE
Existing Raw Waste Load Levels
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
rag/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Levels
0
73.4
(17.6)
181
13.3
(26.5)
531
39.0
(77.9)
73.4
(17.6)
181
13.3
(26.5)
531
39.0
(77.9)
1
36.3
(8.7)
152
5.5
(U-.O)
677
24.6
(49.1)
36.3
(3.7)
152
5.5
(11.0)
677
24.6
(49.1)
Raw
2
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11.0)
477
16.3
(32.6)
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11.0)
477
16.3
(32.6)
Waste Load
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11.0)
477
16.3
(32.6)
3
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11.0)
477
16.3
(32.6)
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11- 0)
477
16.3
(32.6)
4
34.2
(8.2)
161.
5.5
(11-0)
477
16.3
(32.6)
34.2
(8.2)
161
5.5
(11. 0)
477
16.3
(32.6)
Existing
Levels
0
73.4
(17.6)
91
6.7
(13.3)
106
7.8
(15.6)
73.4
(17.6)
181
13.3
(26.5)
531
39.0
(77.9)
Final Effluent Levels
1
36.3
(8.7)
76
2.8
(5.5)
135
4.9
(9.8)
36.3
(8.7)
152
5.5
(11.0)
'677
24.6
(49.1)
Final
2
34.2
(8.2)
80
2.8
(5.5)
95
3.3
(6.5)
34.2
(8.2)
80
2.8
(5.5)
95
3.3
(6.5)
Effluent
34.2
(8.2)
25
0.9
(1.7)
12
0.4
(0.8)
3
34.2
(8,2)
25
0.9
(1.7)
12
0.4
(0.8)
34.2
(8.2)
5
0.2
(0.3)
7
0.2
(0.5)
4
34.2
(8.2)
5
0.2
(0.3)
7
0.2
(0.5)
-------
TABLE VII. [-35
PREDICTED EKKLUENT QUALITY OK PUKK Mf.l.LS
SUHCATKCORY 204 - NONINTEGRATED-LrCHTWEICHT
Dlscliarge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
BOIW
Direct
TSS
Ex Luting
Source Flow
Mil Is
BOW
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BOD5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
ing/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l.
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/l
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
266.5
(63.9)
57
15.3
(30.6)
171
45.6
(91.2)
266.5
(63.9)
57
15.3
(30.6)
171
45.6
(9.1.2)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
213.5
(51.2)
48
10.4
(20.7)
133
28.5
(56.9)
213.5
(51.2)
48
10.4
(20.7)
133
28.5
(56.9)
Raw
2
209 . 3
(50.2)
49
10.4
(20.7)
96
20.2
(40.4)
209.3
(50.2)
49
10.4
(20.7)
96
20.2
(40.4)
Waste Load
209.3
(50.2)
49
10.4
(20.7)
96
20.2
(40.4)
3
209 . 3
(50.2)
49
10.4
(20.7)
96
20.2
(40.4)
209.3
(50.2)
49
10.4
(20.7)
96
20.2
(40.4)
4
209.3
(50.2)
49
10.4
(20.7)
96
20.2
(40.4)
209.3
(50.2)
49
10.4
(20.7)
96
20.2
(40.4)
Existing
Levels
0
266.5
(63.9)
29
7.6
(15.3)
86
22.8
(45.6)
266.5
(63.9)
57
15.3
(30.6)
171
45.6
(91.2)
1
213.5
(51.2)
24
5.2
(10.4)
27
5.7
(U.4)
213.5
(51.2)
48
10.4
(20.7)
133
28.5
(56.9)
Final Effluent Levels
2
209 . 3
(50.2)
25
5.2
(10.5)
19
4.0
(8.1)
209.3
(50.2)
25
5.2
(10.5)
19
4.0
(8.1)
Final Effluent
209.3
(50.2)
25
5.2
(10.5)
12
2.5
(5.0)
3
209.3
(50.2)
25
5.2
(10.5)
12
2.5
(5.0)
209.3
(50.2)
5
1.0
(2.1)
7
1.5
(3.0)
4
209.3
(50.2)
5
1.0
(2.1)
7
1.5
(3.0)
-------
TABLE VIll
I'HEDICTGI) EFFLUENT QUAL^^J)F PURE MILLS
SUBOATKGORY 204 - NONINTECRATED-LICUTWEIGUT ELECTRICAL
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
801)5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source flow
Mills
BO 1)5
Indirect
TSS
New flow
Source BODS
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
nig /I
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
407.0
(97.6)
28
11.6
(23.1)
93
37.7
(75.3)
407.0
(97.6)
28
11.6
(23.1)
93
37.7
(75.3)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
326.1
(78.2)
9
2.8
(5.6)
72
23.5
(47.0)
326.1
(78.2)
9
2.8
(5.6)
72
23.5
(47.0)
Raw
2
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
Waste Load
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
3
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
4
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
Existing
Levels
0
407.0
(97.6)
14
5.8
(11.6)
46.3
18.8
(37.7)
407.0
(97.6)
28
11.6
(23.1)
93
37.7
(75.3)
Final Effluent Levels
1
326.1
(78.2)
9
2.8
(5.6)
72
23.5
(47.0)
326.1
(78.2)
9
2.8
(5.6)
72
23.5
(47.0)
Final
2
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
52
16.7
(33.4)
319.8
(76.7)
9
2.8
(5.6)
10
3.3
(6.7)
Effluent
319.8
(76.7)
8
2.5
(5.1)
12
3.8
(7.7)
3
319.8
(76.7)
8
2.5
(5.1)
12
3.8
(7.7)
319.8
(76.7)
5
1.6
(3.2)
7
2.2
(4.4)
4
319.8
(76.7)
5
1.6
(3.2)
7
2.2
(4.5)
-------
TABLE VIII-37
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY OF I'UKE MCI.'LS
SUBCATF.CORY 205 - NONINTEGRATIJD-FILTER AND NONWOVEN
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
BODS mg/1
Direct kg/kkg
(lb/t)
TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
Existing (lb/t)
Source Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
Mills
BODS mg/ 1
< kg/kkg
£ Indirect (lb/t)
i
S TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
New Flow kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
Source BODS mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Mills
TSS mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Exis ting
Raw Waste Loai
1 Levels
Levels
0
171.
(41.
57
9.
(19.
227
39.
(78.
171.
(41.
57
9.
(19.
227
39.
(78.
8
2)
8
6)
1
1)
8
2)
8
6)
1
1)
1
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
Raw
2
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
Waste Load
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
3
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
4
- 125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
Existing
Levels
0
171.8
(41.2)
28
4.9
(9.8)
45
7.8
(15.6)
171.8
(41.2)
57
9.8
(19.6)
227
39.1
(78.1)
Final Effluent Levels
1
125.9
(30.2)
27
3.4
(6.9)
37
4.6
(9.2)
125.9
(30.2)
54
6.9
(13.7)
183
23.1
(46.1)
Final
2
125.9
(30.2)
27
3.4
(6.9)
37
4.6
(9.2)
125.9
(30.2)
27
3.4
(6.9)
37
4.6
(9.2)
Effluent
125.9
(30.2)
12
1.5
(3.0)
12
1.5
(3.0)
3
125.9
(30.2)
12
1.5
(3.0)
12
1.5
(3.0)
125.9
(30.2)
5
0.6
(1.2)
7
0.9
(1.8)
4
125.9
(30.2)
5
0.6
(1.2)
7
0.9
(1.8)
-------
TABLE Vllj^^
PREDICTED EFFLUENT Q|IAU^^)F PURE MILLS
SUBCATEGORY 21L - NONINTKGRATED-BOARD
Discharge Type
&
Parameter
Flow
801)5
Direct
TSS
Existing
Source Flow
Mills
BOOS
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BODJ5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ih/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
mg/ 1
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Existing
Levels
0
102.6
(24.6)
98
10.0
(20.0)
412
42.3
(84.5)
102.2
(24.6)
98
10.0
(20.0)
412
42.3
(84.5)
Raw Waste Load Levels
1
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
Raw
2
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
Waste Load
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
3
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
62.6
(15.0)
'104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
4
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
Existing
Levels
0
102.6
(24.6)
49
5.0
(10.0)
82
8.4
(16.9)
102.6
(24.6)
98
10.0
(20.0)
412
42.3
(84.5)
Final Effluent Levels
1
62.6
(15.0)
52
3.2
(6.5)
82
5.2
(10.3)
62.6
(15.0)
104
6.5
(13.0)
412
25.8
(51.5)
Final
2
62.6
(15.0)
52
3.2
(6.5)
82
5.2
(10.3)
62.6
(15.0)
52
3.2
(6.5)
82
5.2
(10.3)
Effluent
62.6
(15.0)
25
1.6
(3.1)
12
0.8
(1.5)
3
62.6
(15.0)
25
1.6
(3.1)
12
0.8
(1.5)
62.6
(15.0)
5
0.3
(0.6)
7
0.4
(0.9)
4
62.6
(15.0)
5
0.3
(0.6)
7
0.4
(0.9)
-------
TABLE VJ.If.-39
PREDICTED EFFLUENT QUALITY 01' PUKE MILLS
SUUCATKGORY 211 - NONINTKURATliU BOARD-ELECTKICAL
Discharge Type
£
Parameter
Flow
BODS
Direct
TSS
Existing
Si.Hirce Flow
Mills
1JOD5
Indirect
TSS
New Flow
Source BO 1)5
Mills
TSS
kl/kkg
(legal/con)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
mg/ 1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
mg/1
kg/kkg
(Ib/t)
Existing
Levels
0
247.3
(59.3)
40
10.0
(20.0)
171
42.3
(84.5)
247.3
(59.3)
40
10.0
(20.0)
171
42.3
(84.5)
Raw Waste lj>ad Levels
1
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8 '
(51.5)
Raw
2
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
Waste Load
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
3
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
4
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
. (51.5)
Existing
Levels
0
247.3
(59.3)
20
5.0
(10.0)
34
8.4
(16.9)
247.3
(59.3)
40
10.0
(20.0)
171
42.3
(84.5)
1
151.0
(36.2)
22
3.2
(6.5)
34
5.2
(10.3)
151.0
(36.2)
43
6.5
(13.0)
171
25.8
(51.5)
Final. Effluent Levels
2
151.0
(36.2)
22
3.2
(6.5)
34
5.2
(10.3)
151.0
(36.2)
22
3.2
(6.5)
34
5.2
(10.3)
Final Effluent
151.0
(36.2)
15
2.8
(4.5)
12
1.8
(3.6)
3
151.0
(36.2)
15
2.8
(4.5)
12
1.8
(3.6)
151.0
(36.2)
5
0.8
(1.5)
7
1.0
(2.1)
4
151.0
(36.2)
5
0.7
(1.5)
7
1.0
(2.1)
-------
SECTION IX
COST, ENERGY AND NON-WATER-QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
As part of the Effluent Limitations Guidelines Review Program for the Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Industry, the E.G. Jordan Co. is addressing the cost,
energy, and non-water-quality aspects of the technologies available to achieve
the various levels of control. Previous sections have described production
process controls and effluent treatment technologies available for imple-
mentation. Levels of control have been developed and associated effluent
quality has been determined for each control and treatment option. This
section summarizes the cost, energy, and non-water-quality impacts of the
various control and treatment options. The non-water-quality aspects to be
addressed are:
1. air pollution;
2. noise pollution;
3. solid waste;
4. byproduct recovery; and
5. implementation.
DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
Introduction
Compliance with effluent limitations guidelines and standards requires the
implementation of production process controls and effluent treatment techno-
logies. This section will describe how representative cost data has been
developed relative to the implementation of various control and treatment
options.
Full assessment of the cost of implementing each control and treatment option
at each of over 700 pulp, paper or paperboard mills would require numerous
detailed engineering studies that would be extremely costly and beyond the
scope of this investigation. The actual cost of implementing production
process controls and effluent treatment options can vary at each individual
facility, depending on the design and operation of the production facilities.
Local conditions and effluent treatment costs reported by the industry vary
greatly from one installation to another, depending, in part, upon bookkeep-
ing procedures. To provide a representative estimate of implementation costs,
the cost analyses in this document are based on the model mill concept, thus
reflecting raw waste characteristics and control and treatment methods that
are representative of each subcategory of the pulp, paper and paperboard
industry.
IX-1
-------
In order to assess the overall impact of future effluent regulations on the
pulp, paper and paperboard industry, three discharge characteristics have been
studied: 1) direct discharge; 2) indirect discharge; and 3) new point source
mills.
Model Mills
As a result of current subcategorization investigations, the pulp, paper and
paperboard industry has been divided into 24 discreet subcategories, plus
miscellaneous mill groupings. Previous sections of the report have summarized
the development of representative model mills for each subcategory. In-place
production process control and effluent treatment technology have been sum-
marized, including raw waste and final effluent characteristics. Estimates
have been made of the resulting raw waste and final effluent characteristics
after implementation of the various levels of controls at a model mill. These
waste characteristics are summarized in Table IX-1.
As noted earlier, the purpose of establishing a model mill for each subcate-
gory has been to develop representative cost data as presented in this section
of the report. In order to assess the variability of the costs, factors af-
fecting costs are also presented in this section. Model mills have been
developed for several production capacities within the size range found in
each subcategory. The model mills, therefore, reflect the significance of
size (economies of scale) affecting the cost of implementing the technology.
The selected mill sizes for each subcategory are shown in Tables IX-2, 3, and
4.
The miscellaneous mill groupings are not addressed by the model mill concept.
Mills in these groupings generally employ several processes at one site, and
therefore cannot be represented by a single model mill. In order to assess
the cost of control technology implementation at these mills, a methodology
has been developed and is discussed subsequently in this section. Mills in
the nonwood pulping group of the integrated miscellaneous mill grouping are
not included in the cost data development.
Cost Criteria
In order to develop cost estimates for the various control and treatment
options under consideration, criteria have been developed relating to capital
costs, operating/maintenance costs and energy expenditures. These criteria
are shown in Table IX-5. The pre-engineering cost estimates developed for
this study are considered to have a variability of plus or minus 30 percent.
Information on which these criteria are based is summarized in the following
discussions.
Capital Cost Criteria
All costs presented in this section except as noted are in terms of first
quarter 1978 dollars. Since construction costs escalate, this may be adjusted
IX-2
-------
TABLE IX-1
MODEL MILL RAW WASTE LOADS RESULTING FROM LEVEL 1 AND 2
PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROL MODIFICATIONS
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
Name
Alkaline-Dissolving
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-Market
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-BCT
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-Fine
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline-Unbleached
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Seni-Chemical
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg (kgal/t)
198.1
12.9
185.2
8.0
177.2
178.2
29.1
149.1
15.9
133.2
152.2
26.3
125.9
23.7
102.2
110.5
20.0
90.5
16.7
73.8
46.6
10.4
36.2
0.9
35.3
32.5
3.3
29.2
7.5
21.7
(47.5)
( 3.1)
(44.4)
( 1.9)
(42.5)
(42.8)
( 7.0)
(35.8)
( 3.8)
(32.0)
(36.5)
( 6.3)
(30.2)
( 5.7)
(24.5)
(26.5)
( 4.8)
(21.7)
( 4.0)
(17.7)
(11.2)
( 2.5)
( 8.7)
( 0.2)
( 8.5)
( 7.8)
( 0.3)
( 7.0)
( 1.8)
( 5.2)
BODS
kg/kkg
53.8
21.2
32.6
0.6
32.0
41.5
13.2
28.3
0.4
27.9
45.7
19.9
25.8
-
25.8
30.5
13.8
16.7
-
16.7
14.2
4.0
10.2
-
10.2
13.5
1.9
16.6
1.0
15.6
(lb/t)
(107.6)
( 42.3)
( 65.3)
( 1.3)
( 64.0)
( 83.0)
( 26.4)
( 56.6)
( 0.8)
( 55.8)
( 91.3)
( 39.7)
( 51.6)
-
( 51.6)
( 61.0)
( 27.7)
( 33.3)
-
(33.3)
(23.3)
( 8.0)
(20.3)
-
(20.3)
(36.9)
( 3.3)
(33.1)
( 1.9)
(31.2)
kg/kkg
76.8
12.3
64.5
4.3
60.2
31.8
1.5
30.3
3.5
26.8
42.5
3.6
38.9
2.6
36.3
66.2
14.0
52.2
5.5
46.7
16.3
0.8
15.5
3.6
11.9
21.6
-
21.6
7.1
14.5
TSS
(lb/t)
(153.7)
( 24.5)
(129.2)
( 8.6)
(120.6)
( 63.6)
( 3.0)
( 60.6)
( 7.0)
( 53.6)
( 85.0)
( 7.3)
( 77.7)
( 5.2)
( 72.5)
(132.3)
( 28.0)
(104.3)
( 11.0)
( 93.3)
( 32.5)
( 1.5)
( 31.0)
( 7.3)
( 23.7)
( 43.1)
-
( 43.1)
( 14.2)
( 28.9)
IX-3
-------
TABLE IX-1 (Continued)
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
Name
Alkaline-Unbleached and
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Alkaline Newsprint
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Sulfite-Dissolving
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Sulf ite-Papergrade
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Groundwood-CMN
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Groundwood-Fine
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
kl/kkg
(kgal/t)
BODS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
TSS
kg/kkg
(lb/t)
Semi-Chemical
55.8
20.4
35.4
-
35.4
93.8
25.9
67.9
10.4
57.5
256.9
59.7
197.2
20.0
177.2
152.6
62.6
90.0
2.4
87.6
60.0
17.5
42.5
-
42.5
88.4
33.8
54.6
54.6
68.4
14.2
(13.4)
( 4.9)
( 8.5)
-
( 8.5)
(22.5)
( 6.2)
(16.3)
( 2.5)
(13.8)
(61.6)
(14.3)
(47.3)
( 4.8)
(42.5)
(36.6)
(15.0)
(21.6)
( 0.6)
(21.0)
(14.4)
( 4.2)
(10.2)
-
(10.2)
(21.2)
( 8.1)
(13.1)
( )
(13.1)
(16.4)
( 3.4)
18.7
5.2
13.5
-
13.5
21.1
6.3
14.8
-
14.8
153.0
59.3
93.7
1.0
92.7
48.7
20.7
23.0
-
28.0
18.3
2.6
15.7
-
15.7
18.6
7.0
11.6
11.6
17.6
4.6
(37.3)
(10.4)
(26.9)
-
(26.9)
(42.2)
(12.7)
(29.5)
-
(29.5)
(306.0)
(118.6)
(187.4)
( 2.0)
(185.4)
( 97.3)
( 41.4)
( 55.9)
-
( 55.9)
( 36.5)
( 5.2)
( 31.3)
-
( 31.3)
(37.1)
(13.9)
(23.2)
( )
(23.2)
(35.2)
( 9.3)
23.5
5.5
18.0
1.0
17.0
56.7
10.8
45.9
7.0
38.9
90.3
6.6
83.7
5.0
78.7
33.1
1.6
31.5
2.2
29.3
38.7
12.4
26.3
-
26.3
48.5
13.0
35.5
6.5
29.0
53.9
16.0
( 47.0)
( 11.0)
( 36.0)
( 2.0)
( 34.0)
(113.3)
( 21.5)
( 91.8)
( 13.9)
( 77.9)
(180.6)
( 13.3)
(167.3)
( 10.0)
(1^3)
( 66.2)
( 3.2)
( 63.0)
( 4.4)
< 58.6)
( 77.4)
( 24.8)
( 52.6)
-
( 52.6)
(97.0)
(26.0)
(71.0)
(13.0)
(58.0)
(107.9)
(32.1)
IX-4
-------
TABLE IX-1 (Continued)
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
101
102
111
112
113
114
Name
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Deink-Fine and Tissue
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
De ink-News print
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reducton
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Wastepaper-Tissue
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Wastepaper-Board
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg
54.2
10.4
43.8
81.3
22.9
58.4
2.9
55.5
67.6
10.1
57.5
2.0
55.5
39.2
5.8
33.4
-
33.4
15.4
7.1
8.3
-
8.3
(kgal/t)
(13.0)
( 2.5)
(10.5)
(19.5)
( 5.5)
(14.0)
( 0.7)
(13.3)
(16.2)
( 2.4)
(13.8)
( 0.5)
(13.3)
( 9.4)
( 1.4)
( 8.0)
-
( 8.0)
(3.7)
(1.7)
(2.0)
-
(2.0)
BODS
kg/kkg
13.0
0.8
12.2
48.7
8.0
40.7
-
40.7
15.9
2.5
13.4
-
13.4
8.8
1.3
7.5
-
7.5
6.5
3.8
2.7
-
2.7
(lb/t)
(25.9)
( 1.5)
(24.4)
(97.4)
(16.1)
(81.3)
-
(81.3)
(31.7)
( 5.0)
(26.7)
-
(26.7)
(17.5)
( 2.6)
(14.9)
-
(14.9)
(12.9)
( 7.6)
( 5.3)
-
( 5.3)
kg/kkg
37.9
3.9
34.0
143.0
12.8
130.2
2.0
128.2
123.0
5.0
118.0
15.0
103.0
27.0
4.0
23.0
-
23.0
7.7
5.8
1.9
-
1.9
TSS
(lb/t)
( 75.8)
C 7.8)
( 68.0)
(286.0)
( 25.5)
(260.5)
( 4.0)
(256.5)
(246.0)
( 10.0)
(236.0)
( 30.0)
(206.0)
( 54.0)
( 8.0)
( 46.0)
-
( 46.0)
(15.3)
(11.5)
( 3.8)
-
( 3.8)
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Wastepaper-Construction
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
47.1
10.0
37.1
-
37.1
Products
9.2
5.01
4.2
-
4.2
(11.3)
( 2.4)
( 8.9)
-
( 8.9)
( 2.2)
( 1.2)
( 1-0)
-
( 1.0)
5.7
1.4
4.3
-
4.3
5.8
4.3
1.0
-
1.0
(11.4)
( 2.8)
( 8.6)
-
( 8.6)
(11.5)
( 9.6)
( 1.9)
-
( 1.9)
10.7
5.7
5.0
-
5.0
8.2
7.7
0.5
-
0.5
(21.3)
(11.3)
(10.0)
-
(10.0)
(16.3)
(15.3)
( 1-0)
-
( 1.0)
IX-5
-------
TABLE IX-1 (Continued)
Subcategory
Raw Waste Load (RWL)
Flow
No.
201
202
204
205
211
Name
Nonintegrated-Fine
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
kl/kkg
48.5
14.2
34.3
1.7
32.6
73.4
37.1
36.3
2.1
34.2
(kgal/t)
( 11.6)
( 3.4)
( 8.2)
.( 0.4)
( 7.8)
( 17.6)
( 8.9)
( 8.7)
( 0.5)
( 8.2)
BODS
kg/kkg
8.5
3.0
5.5
-
5.5
13.3
7.8
5.5
-
5.5
(lb/t)
(17.0)
( 6.0)
(11.0)
-
(11.0)
(26.5)
(15.5)
(11.0)
( )
(11.0)
TSS
kg/kkg
30.1
7.2
22.9
4.2
18.7
39.0
14.4
24.6
8.3
16.3
(lb/t)
(60.1)
(14.3)
(45.8)
( 8.5)
(37.3)
(77.9)
(28.8)
(49.1)
(16.5)
(32.6)
Nonintegrated -Lightweight
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated-Filter
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
Nonintegrated-Paperboard
Model Mill RWL
Level 1 Reduction
Level 1 RWL
Level 2 Reduction
Level 2 RWL
266.5
52.9
213.6
4.2
209.4
171.8
45.9
125.9
-
125.9
102.4
40.0
62.4
-
62.4
( 63.9)
( 12.7)
( 51.2)
( 1.0)
( 50.2)
( 41.2)
( n.o)
( 30.2)
-
( 30.2)
( 24.6)
( 9.6)
( 15.0)
-
( 15.0)
15.3
5.0
10.3
-
10.3
5.0 .
1.5
3.5
-
3.5
10.0
3.5
6.5
-
6.5
(30.6)
( 9.9)
(20.7)
-
(20.7)
(10.0)
( 3.0)
( 7.0)
-
( 7.0)
(20.0)
( 7.0)
(13.0)
-
(13.0)
45.6
17.1
28.5
8.3
20.2
25.0
10.2
14.8
-
14.8
42.3
16.5
25.8
-
25.8
(91.2)
(34.3)
(56.9)
(16.5)
(40^4)
9
(50.0)
(20.5)
(29.5)
-
(29.5)
(84.5)
(33.0)
(51.5)
-
(51.5)
IX-6
-------
TABLE IX-2
MODEL MILL SIZES
DIRECT DISCHARGE MILLS
Model Mill Size
Small
Subcategory
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction
Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and
Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
kkg/day
*
318
272
181
408
181
635
--
408
91
--
45
68
45
9
45
18
91
32
32
9
4
9
(t/d)
_ ..
(350)
(300)
(200)
(450)
(200)
(700)
(450)
(100)
(50)
(75)
(50)
(10)
(50)
(20)
(100)
(35)
(35)
(10)
(5)
(10)
Medium
kkg/d
907
544
726
726
907
386
1,361
907
544
408
318
544
454
163
41
145
45
205
125
163
54
18
36
(t/d)
(1,000)
(600)
(800)
(800)
(1,000)
(425)
(1,500)
(1,000)
(600)
(450)
(350)
(600)
(500)
(180)
(45)
(160)
(50)
(225)
(215)
(180)
(60)
(20)
(40)
Large
kkg/d
>. M
1,452
1,180
1,089
1,361
544
2,359
1,270
681
907
--
907
681
726
635
136
318
907
907
181
41
68
(t/d)
.*
(1,600)
(1,300)
(1,200)
(1,500)
(600)
(2,600)
(1,400)
(750)
(1,000)
--
(1,000)
(750)
(800)
(700)
(150)
(350)
(1,000)
(1,000)
(200)
(45)
(75)
IX-7
-------
TABLE IX-3
MODEL MILL SIZES
INDIRECT DISCHARGE MILLS
Model Mill Size
Small
Medium
Subcategory
Large
kkg/day (t/d) kkg/d (t/d) kkg/d (t/d)
014 Alkaline-Fine 336 (370)
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue 68 (75)
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue 9 (10)
112 Wastepaper-Board 45 (50)
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products 18 (20)
114 Wastepaper-Construction
Products 91 (100)
201 Nonintegrated-Fine 14 (15)
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue 9 (10)
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight 23 (25)
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and
Nonwoven 5 (5)
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard 9 (10)
726 (800)
163 (180)
363 (400)
32 (35)
127 (140)
50 (55)
204 (225)
104 (115)
82 (90)
27 (30)
14
23
(15)
(25)
1,070
345
77
372
168
318
531
263
32
41
45
(1,180)
(380)
(85)
(410)
(135)
(350)
(585)
(290)
(35)
(45)
(50)
IX-8
-------
TABLE IX-4
MODEL MILL SIZES
NEW POINT SOURCE MILLS
Model Mill Size
Small
Subcategory
w j. i <~ij. (CcLj.Xll£==j-/a.33 O t. VxtlS
012 Alkaline-Market **
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction
Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter and
Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
kkg/day
318
272
181
408
181
635
907
408
91
45
68
45
9
45
18
91
32
32
9
5
9
(t/d)
(350)
(300)
(200)
(450)
(200)
(700)
(1,000)
(450)
(100)
(50)
(75)
(50)
(10)
(50)
(20)
(100)
(35)
(35)
(10)
(5)
(10)
Medium
kkg/d
907
544
726
726
907
386
1,361
1,270
544
408
318
544
454
171
363
41
145
45
204
195
163
54
18
36
(t/d)
f 1 nr»r\\
V ± » \J\J\J J
(600)
(800)
(800)
(1,000)
(425)
(1,500)
(1,400)
(600)
(450)
(350)
(600)
(500)
(189)
(400)
(45)
(160)
(50)
(225)
(215)
(180)
(60)
(20)
(40)
Large
kkg/d
1,451
1,179
1,089
1,361
544
2,359
680
907
907
680
726
635
136
318
907
907
181
41
68
(t/d)
(1,600)
(1,300)
(1,200)
(1,500)
(600)
(2,600)
(750)
(1,000)
(1,000)
(750)
(800)
(700)
(150)
(350)
(1,000)
(1,000)
(200)
(45)
(75)
IX-9
-------
TABLE IX-5
COST CRITERIA(38, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201)
1.
2.
3.
Capital costs - February, 1978; ENR = 2,683
Annual fixed costs:
General 15 percent of capital expenditures.
Solids disposal 24 percent of capital expenditures for solids disposal.
Energy:
Electrical
Fuel
4. Operation/maintenance:
Labor:
General
Solids disposal
Chemicals:
Alum
Polymer
Phosphoric Acid
Anhydrous ammonia
Sodium hydroxide
Granular Activated Carbon
3.25 cents per kWh
$12.00/barrel
$10.00/hr
$ 8.00/hr
$100/ton, dry basis
$2.50/lb
$0.20/lb - 85%
$1.40/ton, dry basis
$150/ton - 50%
$0.40/lb
IX-10
-------
by appropriate cost indices to represent the time reference necessary. The
most accepted and used cost index in the engineering field is the Engineering
News-Record (ENR) construction cost index. The ENR index value of 2,683 used
in this report was taken from the "U.S. - 20 Cities Average" for February,
1978.(197)
Equipment costs were based upon supplier quotes, published literature, engi-
neering experience and data request program mill responses. Capital costs
include allowances for lost production during construction or for additional
power facilities as warranted. Additional costs such as engineering and
contingencies are based on a percentage of capital and vary from 15 to 25
percent depending on the technology..
A total labor rate of $23.00 per hour was used for installation of production
process controls. This wage rate is based upon a $19.00 national average wage
rate including fringe benefits plus a net supervision rate of $4 per laborer
hour.(202) Construction and installation cost estimates for effluent treat-
ment were based on a varying percentage of capital items.
The cost for land may vary from $500 per acre to $10,000 per acre, depending
on the particular location of a facility. The U.S. pulp, paper and paperboard
mills vary in location from densely populated areas to isolated mills located
several miles from neighboring communities. Consequently, the costs associ-
ated with land acquisition may vary significantly from mill to mill. There-
fore, in developing the cost estimates, the cost of land acquisition has not
been included except as noted.
Annual Fixed Charges. The annual fixed charges are those operating costs
which are directly related to the construction of the pollution abatement
facilities. These charges commonly include such items as depreciation of the
control equipment and the interest on the capital borrowed for construction.
In addition, such costs as maintenance materials, spare parts, insurance and
taxes are expressed as a percentage of initial capital expenditures.
The useful life of each structure and mechanical unit varies depending on the
physical wear or duty of it. Such pieces of mechanical equipment which expe-
rience high service wear may have a useful life of 5 to 10 years as compared
to a structure (such as a building) which will have a useful life of 40 to 50
years. Depreciation costs are those accounting charges for the eventual
replacement of a given asset (equipment or structure) at the end of its useful
life.
The depreciation rate will vary depending on the complexities of the system.
A system with large quantities of earthwork and structures may have a depre-
ciation rate of 6 percent, as compared to a system with complex mechanical
equipment having a useful life of 10 to 15 years, which may have a deprecia-
tion rate of 8 percent.
Depreciation of the capital assets may be by accumulation of digits (rapid
depreciation) or method of averages (straight-line). Recent tax regulations
allow for the rapid 60-month depreciation of capital assets for pollution
IX-11
-------
abatement. Review of data from private communications indicates that this is
not a widely used method in this industry. This is confirmed by a NCASI
report which showed an average depreciation rate of 16.5 years.(203)
Interest is that annual charge for financing the capital expenditures for
construction of a facility. Such financing may be through corporate bonds,
conventional lending markets, or tax-exempt municipal revenue bonds. Munici-
pal revenue bonds have lower interest rates compared to corporate bonds. A
NCASI report states that 44 percent of the pollution abatement expenditures in
1976 were financed through tax-exempt municipal bonds; the average annual
interest rate reported was 7.1 percent(203).
The annual interest rate on tax-exempt municipal bonds is currently between 6
and 7 percent. For some mills it may be required that facilities be financed
through either corporate bonds or conventional lending markets. Such bonds
are likely to have interest rates of 10.5 to 11 percent. Based on the above
data, a depreciation period of 15 years and an interest of 9 percent have been
utilized for the cost data development. This results in a capital recovery
factor of approximately 12.5 percent.
NCASI (203) reported the average 1976 taxes for pollution abatement in the
pulp and paper industry to be 0.42 percent of the capital spent for that
purpose from 1967 to 1976. This low rate reflects the large percentage of
environmental protection expenditures claimed for property and/or sales tax
relief. Therefore, a tax rate of 0.50 percent has been assumed for this
analysis.
.Costs for insurance, spare parts, and maintenance materials are often ex-
pressed as a percentage of the capital investment. Although these costs may
vary, factors of 1.5 percent for insurance and 0.5 percent for spare parts are
considered reasonable. For the purposes of calculating annual costs, an
average fixed charge of 15 percent of the capital expenditure was used which
includes all of the above items. It is realized that these charges may vary
and are dependent upon several items, such as the complexities of the system
installed, financing availability, insurance coverage, property tax credits,
spare parts inventory, and maintenance materials.
Energy Costs. An average national electric power cost for large industrial
users (200,000 kWh, 1,000 kW demand) was estimated at 3.66 cents per kilo-
watt-hour (kWh). This figure is derived from average cost information by
state, which is based on electric rates from approximately 200 public and
private utilities.(198) Information concerning actual revenues from ap-
proximately 200 public and private utilities indicates a cost of 2.81
cents/kWh.(198) Energy costs are estimated at 3.25 cents per kWh, an average
of the two figures.
Fuel for steam generation was estimated at $12 per barrel(38).
Operating and Maintenance Labor. The average nonsupervisory labor rate in the
pulp and paper industry was reported to be $7.14 per hour in February
IX-12
-------
1978.(199) Average total benefits for the pulp, paper, lumber and furniture'
industry for the year 1977 are reported as 34 percent of wages.(200) Although
no industry-wide data concerning supervisory costs was available, the proposed
technologies under consideration are anticipated to require only minimal
supervisory labor.
A supervisory and benefits cost of 45 percent of the labor rate has been
assumed. This results in a total labor rate of $10.00/hr or approximately
$21,000 per man-year, which is assumed in all cases except in estimating
solids disposal costs. The total labor rate for solids disposal is estimated
at $8.00/hr and reflects the lower level of skill required of operating per-
sonnel .
Chemicals. Many of the technologies under evaluation include the use of
chemicals. These chemicals include alum, polymer, phosphoric acid, anhydrous
ammonia and sodium hydroxide which are required for optimizing the technology
processes. Make-up carbon is also required for activated carbon adsorption.
Based on quotes from chemical suppliers and chemical marketing reports, the
following chemical costs have been assumed:(201)
Alum $100/ton, dry basis
Polymer $2.50/lb
Phosphoric Acid $0.20/lb - 85%
Anhydrous Ammonia $1.40/ton, dry basis
Sodium Hydroxide $150/ton - 50%
Granular Activated Carbon $0.40/lb
Production Process Control Costs
Previous sections of the report have detailed the production process controls
being considered in the development of technology options applicable at mills
in the various subcategories of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. As
outlined, these production process controls have been classified as technology
Levels 1 or 2. The Level 1 controls are those that result in significant
reductions in BOD 5 and flow. The Level 2 items are those that result in
significant reductions of TSS in addition to reductions in flow and/or BOD5.
Table IX-6 presents a summary of the production process controls being con-
sidered in the development of the technology options.
Costs for the production process controls are based on flow schematics pre-
sented previously. Costs are based on the application or technology at a
representative model mill of the typical sizes and configuration of mills that
have been placed in each respective subcategory. Table IX-7 presents the
number of pulp lines, bleach lines, and papermachines used, where appropriate,
as a basis for production process control development.
Capital costs were prepared for each technology. Equipment manufacturers were
contacted for cost estimates in February 1978 dollars. These estimates were
supplemented by the use of standard cost estimating procedures for pipelines
and small equipment items. Other factors such as freight, engineering and
contingencies are included in the total capital costs.
IX-13
-------
TABLE 1
PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS
LEVEL 1 AND 2
Oil 012 013 OH 015 016 017 019 021 022 032 033 034 101 102 111 112 113 114 201 202 204 205 2H
Woodroom
Close up or dry operation 1 I
Segregate cooling water 1 lllllltlllll
Pulp Mill Digester
Dispose relief and blow
conderisate 1 1 1 1 I 1
Grinder
Reduce thick overflow 2
Washer
Add 3rd or 4th stage
or press 1 1 I 1 I I I I I
Screen
Recycle more decker
filtrate 111 II
Cleaner reject landfill 2 2 22
Eliminate side hill
screens 1
Spill Collection
Brownstock area and
waste paper 1 111
Pulp mill liquor
storage 1 lit
Bleaching
C.C. or jump stage wash 2 22
Evap. caustic extract
filtrate
Evaporation and Recovery
1 1
I
2 1
1
I I
Recycle cond.
Replace barometric con-
densor 2
Boil out tank 2
Neutralize SSL 1 I
Segregate cooling water 1
Spill Collection
Evap. and recov. Ill II
Liquor preparation 1 II 111
Spare liquor tank 1 III II
IX-1 '
-------
TABLE I (Continued)
Oil 012 013 014 015 016 017 019 021 022 032 033 034 101 102 111 112 113 114 201 202 204 205 211
Ltqu id Preparation-Caustic
Green liquor dregs
filter 2
Lime mud pond
Sptll Collection
Paper machine and
bleached pulp 1
Color plant
Paper Machine or Dryer
Improve saved! I
High pressure fr.
water shower 1
W.W. to vacuum pump I
W.W. showers
W.W. storage and/or to
pulp mill
Recycle press water I
Recycle vacuum pump water
Broke storage
Wet lap machine
Segregate cooling water
Cleaner rejects to land
fill 2
Steam Plant and Utility
Segregate cooling water 1
Improve recycle of
effluent
Lagoon for boiler blow-
down & backwash
waters 2
2222 22
22 2
111 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1. I
1 I 1
1211 III 1 1 I 1 I I I
1 2 1 111
11121121 1211. I 1 1
12 1 I 11
11 12111 I I
121112 I
1112112 1 I
1
1 III
1 I 1
2222 2 2 22211 222
111 11 11
1 11 111
222 22 2 1222
C.C. - Counter-current
W.W. - White water
S.S.L. - Spent sulflte liquor
-------
TABLE IX-7
SUMMARY OF PULP LINES, BLEACH LINES, AND PAPERMACHINES
IN MODEL MILLS
Subcategory
Small
Model
Large
I
M
C^
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
01A Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached
& Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
1 Pulp Line
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
3 Papermachines
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
3 Papermachines
1 Pulp Line
1 Papermachine
1 Line
1 Papermachine
2 Pulp Lines & 1 Semi-
Chemical
2 Papermachines
1 Pulp Line & GWD
4 Papermachines
2 Pulp Lines
1 Pulp Line
2 Pulp & Bleach Lines
3 Papermachines
2 Pulp & Bleach Lines
4 Papermachines
2 Pulp Lines
1 Papermachine
1 Line
1 Papermachine
2 Pulp Lines & 1 Semi-
Chemical
3 Papermachines
1 Pulp Line & GWD
4 Papermachines
3 Pulp Lines
(washer, bleaching
& dryers)
2 Pulp Lines
3 Bleach Lines
4 Papermachines
2 Pulp & Bleach Lines
8 Papermachines
2 Pulp Lines
2 Papermachines
2 Lines
3 Papermachines
(1 extra washer)
3 Pulp Lines & 1 Semi-
Chemical
4 Papermachines
-------
TABLE IX-7 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PULP LINES, BLEACH LINES, AND PAPERMACHINES
IN MODEL MILLS
Subcategory
Small
Model
Large
I
M
-J
021 Sulfile-Dissolving
022 Sulfc'ite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical
Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
10.1 Deink-Fine & Tissue
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
2 Papermachines
1 Pulp Line Molded
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
1 Papermachine
1 Deink Line
2 Papermachines
1 Papermachine
] Board Machine
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
4 Papermachines
1 Pulp Line
2 Papermachines
1 Pulp Line
2 Papermachines
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
3 Papermachines
1 Deink Line
3 Papermachines
1 Deink Line
1 Papermachine
1 Papermachine
1 Board Machine
2 Pulp & Bleach Lines
2 Pulp & Bleach Lines
4 Papermachines
1 Pulp Line
6 Papermachines
1 Pulp & Bleach Line
4 Papermachines
1 Deink Line
9 Papermachines
6 Board Machines
(2 new Savealls)
(2 relocated Savealls)
-------
TABLE IX-7 (continued)
SUMMARY OF PULP LINES, BLEACH LINES, AND PAPERMACHINES
IN MODEL MILLS
Subcategory
Small
Model
Large
X
M
CO
113 Wastepaper Molded
Products
114 Wastepaper-Construc-
tion
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Light-
weight
204 Nonintegrated-Filter
& Nonwoven
2 Molding Machines
1 Machine
2 Papermachines
1 Papermachine
2 Papermachines
(1 Saveall)
1 Papermachine
8 Molding Machines
1 Machine
2 Papermachines
2 Papermachines
3 Papermachines
1 Papermachine
20 Molding Machines
3 Machines
8 Papermachines
11 Papermachines
6 Papermachines
3 Papermachines
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard 1 Board Machine
1 Board Machine
3 Board Machines
-------
The costs developed for the model mill were then adjusted for mills and sub-
categories of different size or type from that used for the base estimate.
The exponent-based technique of estimating was utilized in adjusting the
costs. The appropriate exponent factors were used in development of estimates
for each type of equipment or construction. Such methodology provides a
reliable technique for preliminary evaluations such as those required in
assessing the economic impact of implementation of each level of techno-
logy. (204)
Net operating and maintenance (materials, power, chemicals, labor) costs were
estimated for each technology option and compared with expected savings in
power, fiber, heat, and chemicals resulting from application of each tech-
nology option. Maintenance costs are assumed to range from 3 to 5 percent of
the capital costs as appropriate. The operating and maintenance costs pre-
sented reflect net costs. Gross savings and costs for operating, maintenance,
and energy are presented separately for comparative purposes. In cases where
savings are equal to or greater than the associated operation, maintenance,
and energy costs, net costs are assumed to be zero.
Table IX-8 presents a sample cost summary for a 726 kkg/day (800 ton/day)
Alkaline-Fine mill.
Effluent Treatment Costs
As part of the data analysis efforts, effluent treatment system design cri-
teria and operating procedures have been reviewed in order to establish repre-
sentative design criteria and standard operating procedures for the cost
analysis. The design criteria associated with each treatment technology are
discussed in Section VII. Table IX-9 presents a summary of effluent technolo-
gies considered for each level of treatment by subcategory. The technologies
are generally cumulative by level (i.e., Level 4 technology also includes
Level 3 technology). The only exception occurs for.Level 2, primary clari-
fication for indirect dischargers. In this case, primary treatment is modi-
fied to include the addition of chemicals (chemically assisted clarification)
for Level 3, where the installation of biological treatment is not antici-
pated. One level of treatment has been contemplated for new point source
mills; "x" is used to identify treatment type in this case. For levels where
no effluent control technology is indicated, only production process controls
are proposed.
Treatment technology equipment was sized based on the appropriate design
criteria at various flows characteristic for the subcategory. Quantity esti-
mates were prepared for large equipment and material items such as tanks,
basins, and yard piping. Several manufacturers were contacted to obtain
quotations for major pieces of process equipment.
The construction costs for these facilities are those defined as the capital
expenditures required to implement the treatment technology. Included in
these costs are the traditional expenditures for such items as mechanical and
electrical equipment, instrumentation, yard and process piping, earthwork,
unit construction, site preparation and grading, equipment installation and
testing, and engineering.
IX-19
-------
TABLE IX-8
LEVEL 2 PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS
SAMPLE COST CALCULATION
A. Capital Costs
Item No.
1 Segregate cooling water in wood room $ 31,800
2 Reuse digester relief and blow condensate 23,000
3 Fourth-stage brown stock washer 973,700
4 Recycle all screen room decker filtrate and modify 143,200
heat recovery system
5 Spill collection for pulp mill brownstock area 268,500
6 Spill collection for liquor storage in digester, 30,000
washer area
7 Full countercurrent washing for bleaching 2,661,000
8 Spill collection and spare liquor tank-evaporator 274,8001
and causticizing area
9 Green liquor dregs filter with removal to landfill 198,000
10 Lime mud pond to collect surges, spills 335,000
11 Spill collection for bleached pulp and papermachine 532,800
areas including wet lap machines for stock recovery
12 Spill collection for color plants and size press 132,000
13 Pulp cleaner rejects removed to landfill 23,500
14 Machine Whitewater used on vacuum pumps 65,000
15 Central Whitewater chest and increased Whitewater 130,700
use in pulp mill
16 Machine vacuum pump water recycled to Whitewater system 118,000
17 Lagoon for separate discharge of boiler blowdown and 144,500
water treatment backwash
18 Lost production, added construction labor. Electric 380,500
substations and power distribution
Total Capital Cost $6,466,000
IX-20
-------
TABLE IX-8 (continued)
B. Energy Requirements
Item No.
Increase in elect.
Power kwhr/t
Reduction in Steam
used - Ib/t
1
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Segregate cooling water in wood room
Reuse digester condensate
Fourth-stage washer
Recycle decker filtrate
Spill Collection - Pulp Mill
Spill Collection - Liquor Storage
Full countercurrent wash - bleach
Spill collection evaporator -
causticizing
Green liquor - dregs filter
Lime mud pond
Spill collection - bleach pulp
and machine
Spill collection - color plant
Pulp cleaner rejects to landfill
Whitewater to vacuum pumps
Central Whitewater chest
Recycle vacuum pump water
Lagoon for boiler blowdown water
and water treatment plant filter
backwash
Total
Cost of electric power $.0325/kwh x 25.95 kwh/t
Steam saving 191 x 1100 BTU/lb x $1 .24/million
0.30 27
1.20
7.50
3 . 00 82
2.40
2.40
2.10 72
1.50 10
0.30
2.40
3.00
0.42
0.15
1.23
1.23
1.23
0.45
25-95 191
.84/t
BTU = (.25/t)
IX-21
-------
TABLE IX-8 (Continued)
Steam cost based on $2.4/million BTU fuel cost less $.94/106 BTU net increase
in electric cost because of lost back pressure power.
Net increase in cost of energy $.59/ton
C. Net Annual Costs
As an example of the details of the annual cost - Item 4 - recycle screen
room decker filtrate - is used.
1. Fixed cost = 15% of $152,200 capital cost (includes
Item 18 - misc. cap. costs prorated) for interest,
depreciation, taxes. $22,800
2. Maintenance 4.5% of capital cost 6,800
3. Added labor 0
4. Electric power 3.0 kwhr/ton x $.0325/kwhr
x 281,600 ton/year 27,500
5 Cost for misc. items, contracts, etc. 0
Annual Cost $57,100
Savings - Items 3 and 4 are actually combined and save both salt cake with
better washing and steam system.
The typical mill has a blow heat recovery system to heat fresh water for
brownstock washing. When the decker filtrate is closed up by using this for
brownstock washing, the temperature is sufficient for washing without heating
provided warm water showers are used on the decker and cold water makeup in
screening is held to a minimum. As a result, papermachine Whitewater is
pumped to the heat recovery system for the model mill, heated and used for
both decker showers and bleach washing. The steam saved is in bleaching with
650 gpm Whitewater being used and the temperature 80°F. above the typical
fresh water temperature for 6 months of the year. Steam saved at a net cost
of $1.24/million BTU's.
Saving = 650 gpm x Ib/hr/gpm x 80°F. x 6 mos/12 mos x $1.24/million BTU
x 24 hr/day x 35 days/yr = $136,200
7. No savings were taken as more than the annual cost so net cost is zero.
IX-22
-------
TABLE IX-9
SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Subcategory No.
X
ro
U)
Treatment Technology
Direct
Wastewater Pumping
Chemical Clarification
Solids Dewatering
Landfill
Carbon Adsorption
Indirect
Preliminary Screening
Wastewater Pumping
Primary Clarification
Biological Treatment
Secondary Clarification
Chemical Clarification
Solids De water ing
Landfill
Carbon Adsorption
Outfall
New Point Source
Preliminary Screening
Wastewater Pumping
Primary Clarification
Biological Treatment
Secondary Clarification
Chemical Clarification
Solids Dewatering
Landfill
Outfall
Dif fuser
Oil
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
012
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
013
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
014
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
015
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
016
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
017
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
019
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
021
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
022
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
032
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
033
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
034
3
3
3
3
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
101
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
102
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
111
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
112
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
113
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
114
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
201
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
202
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
204
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
205
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
211
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(a),
.no numbers or "x's" are shown only production process controls are proposed.
(Table indcates level to which technology is assigned (i.e., Level 2, 3 or 4); all New Point Source technologies are
at the same level (designated as "x").
-------
The sum of both the quantity estimates and process equipment estimates com-
prises the base capital cost. For estimates of this nature, it is not feas-
ible to obtain detailed estimates for items such as electrical, instrumenta-
tion, process piping, and site preparation. Therefore, these items are in-
cluded in the capital construction costs as a percentage of the base capital
cost. These percentages vary for the different control technologies.
The annual operating costs are those associated with proper and continued
operation of the facility and include:
1. operating labor;
2. maintenance labor;
3. energy requirements; and
4. chemicals.
Operating labor costs are based on the annual manhours required to perform the
tasks necessary to ensure proper operation, administration, quality control,
and monitoring. The maintenance costs are the annual manhours required for
preventive maintenance"tasks such as lubrication, equipment inspection, minor
parts replacement, and painting. Major equipment repair and/or replacement
and miscellaneous yard work is considered to be performed by the existing mill
personnel. The cost estimates do not include major equipment repair or re-
placement; depreciation accounting includes costs for writeoff or replacement
of the equipment.
Chemical cost estimates are based on anticipated quantities required to opti-
mize operation of the particular technology under consideration. Chemicals
are normally required to optimize the flocculation and solids dewatering
processes associated with chemically assisted clarification.
The cost of a landfill is dependent on a variety of factors including sludge
characteristics and hydrogeologic conditions of the disposal site. Therefore,
a deviation from considering a specific technology was made in the case of
sludge disposal. Several acceptable sludge landfill techniques with associ-
ated requirements and estimated costs have been outlined in a recent publica-
tion. (196) The techniques evaluated include: area fill layer, area fill
mound, diked containment, narrow trench, wide trench, co-disposal with soil,
and co-disposal with refuse. The range of costs for these various methods is
shown in Figures IX-1 and IX-2:(196)
The fiber present in pulp and paper wastes can aid in solids dewatering,
resulting in sludge with a relatively low moisture content. The presence of
clay and aluminum hydroxide in alum sludge, however, would hinder dewatering
and increase disposal costs. Therefore, mid-range disposal costs are assumed
for primary and secondary sludge handling, while upper-range costs are assumed
for alum sludge disposal.
Capital, operating and energy cost relations were developed for each treatment
technology based on a standard design parameter (i.e., flow, BOD5, TSS,).
IX-2 4
-------
FIGURE IX-1
TYPICAL SITE CAPITAL COST
FOR SLUDGE LANDFILLING (1961
8
O)
cc
O
u.
t-
ui
5
CO
O
o
50.00*
40.00-
30.00-
20.00'
15.00'
10.00- j?;i
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
-I-
4-
4-
10
20
30
40 50
100
200
300 400 500
SLUDGE QUANTITY RECEIVED (WET TONS /DAY]
IX-2 5
-------
FIGURE IX-2
TYPICAL SITE OPERATING COST
FOR SLUDGE LANDFILLING (1961
CO
^
at
T-
E
o
Z
O
ui
co
O
o
2.00' '
1.00
40 50
100
200
300 400 500
SLUDGE QUANTITY RECEIVED (WET TONS/DAY I
IX-2 6
-------
Based on the raw waste and final effluent characteristics developed as a
result of data analysis, costs were developed for the specific model mills.
The methodology utilized allows for variations of such factors as peak flows,
quantity of solids generated, and BOD5 loading. An example of the calculation
of design parameters from raw waste characteristics follows. Associated unit
process costs for Level 4 treatment for the direct discharge Alkaline-Fine
model mill is shown in Table IX-10. Design parameters used to develop the
process costs for Level 4 treatment are calculated below.
SUBCATEGORY 014 - ALKALINE-FINE (800 t/d)
Raw Waste Characteristics:
Flow 17.7 kgal/t;
BOD5 33.3 Ib/t; and
TSS 93.3 Ib/t.
Design Parameters:
Flow:
800 t/d x 17.7 kgal/t = 14,160 kgal/d = 14.2 mgd
Raw Wastewater TSS:
800 t/d x 93.3 Ib/t = 74,660 Ib/day
Chemical Solids Production (Dry Basis):
74,600 Ib TSS/day x 0.1 =7,460 Ib/day
+ 334 Ib Al(OH)3/mil.gal. x 14.1 mgd = 4,709 Ib/day
= 12,169 Ib/day
COST ESTIMATES BY SUBCATEGORY
Capital, operating, and annual fixed costs for various production and effluent
control and treatment technology options are presented in this section for
each subcategory of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. The costs pre-
sented herein have been developed for the purpose of assessing the overall
industry expenditure for compliance with effluent limitations.
Costs have been developed for three types of dischargers: direct dischargers,
indirect dischargers, and new point source mills. Tables IX-11, 12, and 13
summarize the costs for the model mills for each respective discharge charac-
teristic. The capital costs have been developed as discussed above. The
operating and maintenance costs include operating and maintenance labor,
energy requirements, and chemicals. The annual fixed charges include depreci-
ation and interest, insurance, taxes, spare parts, and miscellaneous mainte-
nance materials. These items are included as 15 percent of the investment
costs, except as noted. Total annual costs include operating and maintenance
costs plus the annual fixed charges.
IX-2 7
-------
TABLE IX-10
UNIT PROCESS EFFLUENT TREATMENT COST SUMMARY
LEVEL 4 TREATMENT COSTS
800 ton/day Alkaline-Fine Model Mill
Effluent Flow =14.2 mgd
Solids (Dry Basis) = 12,169 Ib/day
Treatment
Capital
Cost
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
KJ
00
Effluent Treatment Technology
Wastewater Pumping (Peaking
Factor =1.3)
Neutralization
Chemicals for Neutralization
Secondary Clarification
Chemical Coagulants
Wastewater Pumping (Peaking
Factor =1.3)
Carbon Adsorption
Make-Up Carbon for Carbon
Adsorption
Horizontal Belt-Filter
Dewatering Polymer
Alum Sludge Landfill at 20%
Solids
716.
43.
0.
2995.
0.
716.
9632.
0.
685.
0.
349.
107.
6.
0.
449.
0.
107.
1445.
0.
103.
0.
84.
22.
15.
62.
51.
420.
22.
407.
409.
4.
44.
126.
31.
3.
0.
23.
0.
31.
180.
0.
28.
0.
0.
160.
24.
62.
522.
420.
160.
2031.
409.
135.
44.
209.
Subtotal
15135.
2302.
1582.
296.
4179.
-------
M
VO
TABLE IX-11
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level.
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3
4
4,830
6,096
15,049
39,744
Oil Alkaline Dissolving
lOOOt/d
725
914
2,315
6,020
1,820
3,698
302
293
298
1,043
1,027
1,207
4,433
10,761
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
x
OJ
o
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1,471
1,940
5,874
15,747
1,856
2,565
8,713
21,139
3,768
5,539
16,537
47,743
012 Alkaline Market
350 t/d
221
291
898
2,362
586
1,534
012 Alkaline Market
600 t/d
278
385
1,307
3,197
1,075
1,937
012 Alkaline Market
1600 t/d
565
831
2,481
7,161
2,499
5,070
73
77
145
246
126
132
179
507
336
353
430
962
294
368
1,629
4,141
404
517
2,561
5,641
901
1,184
5,409
13,193
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
x
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
1,794
2,144
5,369
11,473
3,165
3,951
9,773
23,135
4,356
5,670
13,485
33,102
013 Alkaline BCT
300 t/d
269
322
820
1,736
436
978
80
72
126
241
013 Alkaline BCT
800 t/d
475
593
1,498
3,503
936
1,985
213
192
293
576
013 Alkaline BCT
1300 t/d
653
851
2,070
5,012
1,412
2,913
346
312
454
895
349
394
1,381
2,954
688
785
2,726
6,064
999
1,163
3,936
8,820
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
OJ
to
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1,271
2,690
4,788
8,198
2,894
6,503
11,290
21,638
3,942
9,770
15,862
30,083
014 Alkaline Fine
200 t/d
191
404
729
1,241
277
629
014 Alkaline Fine
800 t/d
434
975
1,725
3,277
744
1,582
014 Alkaline Fine
1200 t/d
591
1,466
2,423
4,556
1,031
2,141
35
40
77
135
140
162
247
458
210
243
353
657
226
444
1,083
2,005
574
1,137
2,716
5,316
801
1,708
3,806
7,354
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1,162
1,619
3,781
7,421
2,101
2,953
6,433
13,321
015 Alkaline Unbleached
450 t/d
1.74
243
577
1,122
279
648
015 Alkaline Unbleached
1000 t/d
315
443
981
2,014
485
1,082
37
49
86
149
81
110
168
300
211
292
942
1,919
396
553
1,634
3,396
2,670
3,829
8,252
17,723
015 Alkaline Unbleached
1500 t/d
401
574
1,259
2,680
658
1,435
122
165
240
431
523
739
2,157
4,546
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
M
X
1
2
3
4
I
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
812
1,306
2,354
3,619
1,113
1,858
3,504
5,865
1,288
2,194
4,200
7,297
016 Semi-Chemical
200 t/d
122
196
357
547
6
10
152
339
016 Semi-Chemical
425 t/d
167
279
533
887
213
487
016 Semi-Chemical
600 t/d
193
329
640
1,104
268
588
19
32
52
71
40
69
98
137
56
97
132
185
147
238
562
956
209
347
844
1,511
249
426
1,040
1,877
-------
X
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
I
2
3
4
Capital
($1000)
2,639
2,837
5,638
10,795
3,725
4,121
8,526
17,997
5,153
5,797
11,929
26,627
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
017 Alkaline Unbleached
700 t/d
396
426
860
1,633
017 Alkaline Unbleached
1500 t/d
559
618
1,304
2,725
017 Alkaline Unbleached
2600 t/d
773
869
1,828
4,033
0 & M
($1000/yr)
and Semi-Chemical
382
858
and Semi-Chemical
671
1,447
and Semi-Chemical
1,049
2,194
Energy
($1000/yr)
85
86
135
229
182
185
262
452
316
320
431
748
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
481
512
1,377
2,721
741
803
2,237
4,624
1,089
1,189
3,308
6,975
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment.
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3
4
I
2
3
4
3,060
4,365
9,312
19,428
3,784
5,437
11,496
24,696
019 Alkaline Newsprint
1000 t/d
459
655
1,429
2,946
731
1,553
019 Alkaline Newsprint
1400 t/d
568
816
1,766
3,746
958
1,996
33
40
124
329
47
57
161
440
492
695
2,284
4,828
615
872
2,885
6,182
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
OJ
1
2
3
4
I.
2
3
4
2
3
4
14,257
14,948
20,544
33,635
17,387
18,271
24,929
41,393
20,457
21,552
29,171
48,837
021 Sulfite Dissolving
450 t/d
2,139
2,242
3,116
5,079
286
318
1,244
2,275
021 Sulfite Dissolving
600 t/d
2,608
2,741
3,782
6,252
247
306
1,365
2,637
021 Sulfite Dissolving
750 t/d
3,069
3,233
4,427
7,377
237
149
1,578
3,083
587
534
635
911
782
712
835
1,195
978
890
1,034
1,476
3,012
3,094
4,995
8,265
3,637
3,759
5,982
10,084
4,284
4,272
7,039
11,936
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
I
2
3
4
1,883
1,962
3,468
5,744
3,930
4,071
7,686
15,147
6,821
6,976
12,816
26,390
022 Sulfite Papergrade
100 t/d
282
294
525
866
197
465
27
64
022 Sulfite Papergrade
450 t/d
590
611
1,170
2,289
523
1,160
62
207
022 Sulfite Papergrade
1000 t/d
1,023
1,046
1,955
4,072
989
2,092
105
407
282
294
749
1,395
590
611
1,756
3,656
1,023
1,046
3,050
6,572
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
350 t/d
1
2
3
4
892
892
3,038
6,525
134
134
466
989
281
638
38
98
134
134
784
1,725
CO
VO
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
-e-
o
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
II IB
1
2
3
4
376
376
1,196
2,150
1,813
1,837
5,176
11,674
2,714
2,745
7,257
16,964
033 Groundwood CMN
50 t/d
56
56
181
324
118
276
16
30
033 Groundwood CMN
600 t/d
272
276
794
1,769
472
1,041
033 Groundwood CMN
1000 t/d
58
181
407
412
1,116
2,572
691
1,484
79
275
56
56
314
630
272
276
1,324
2,992
407
412
1,886
4,331
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
M
X
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
695
749
1,686
2,746
1,943
2,200
4,971
9,708
2,577
2,840
6,344
12,214
034 Groundwood Fine
75 t/d
104 6
112 7
256 138
416 306
034 Groundwood Fine
500 t/d
291
330
762
1,472
368
814
034 Groundwood Fine
750 t/d
387
426
973
1,948
485
1,055
18
34
110
119
413
755
48
134
60
183
291
330
1,177
2,420
387
426
1,518
3,186
-------
TABLE IX-11
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
-P-
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
230
266
1,230
2,184
491
557
2,500
5,029
1,500
1,669
6,307
14,513
101 Deink Fine & Tissue
50 t/d
35
40
190
333
10
10
151
309
101 Deink Fine & Tissue
180 t/d
74
84
391
771
259
546
101 Deink Fine & Tissue
800 t/d
225
250
1,000
2,231
688
1,377
21
34
37
79
82
244
45
50
362
677
74
84
688
1,396
225
250
1,771
3,852
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3
4
111 Wastepaper Tissue
10 t/d
126
126
432
524
19
19
65
79
30
30
92
154
7
10
49
49
165
243
x
1
2
3
4
111 Wastepaper Tissue
45 t/d
275
275
898
1,511
41
41
136
228
34
34
129
253
13
21
75
75
278
502
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
286
286
597
689
558
558
1,093
1,581
1,284
1,284
2,428
4,019
112 Wastepaper Board
50 t/d
43
43
90
104
31
31
93
155
112 Wastepaper Board
160 t/d
84
84
165
238
43
43
127
237
112 Wastepaper Board
700 t/d
193
193
383
631
86
86
241
459
7
10
11
17
21
47
74
74
196
269
127
127
303
492
279
279
645
1,137
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
ol:
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
-P>
Ln
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
244
244
644
820
377
377
963
1,576
718
718
1,849
3,406
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
20 t/d
37
37
98
129
12
12
82
191
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
50 t/d
57
57
146
238
19
19
108
233
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
150 t/d
108
108
280
514
36
36
184
394
1
1
10
13
3
3
15
23
8
8
29
52
5Q
50
189
333
78
78
268
493
152
152
492
961
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
100 t/d
363
363
665
758
54
54
100
114
25
25
87
149
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
225 t/d
533
533
933
1,109
696
696
1,213
1,701
80
80
141
167
11
11
81
190
114 Wastepaper Contruction Products
350 t/d
104
104
182
256
84
194
8
8
16
18
18
18
27
30
28
28
39
46
87
87
203
281
109
109
249
387
132
132
304
495
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
-fs
i
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
366
396
1,187
1,675
814
875
2,278
4,203
2,117
2,202
5,605
12,040
201 Non-Int. Fine
35 t/d
55
59
138
211
1
2
86
196
11
17
56
61
235
424
201 Non-Int. Fine
215 t/d
122
131
347
636
183
423
26
56
201 Non-Int. Fine
1000 t/d
318
330
859
1,824
470
1,035
58
180
122
131
555
1,115
318
330
1,386
3,039
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment.
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
00
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
113
229
746
1,234
552
612
1,900
3,644
1,313
1,547
5,015
11,710
202 Non-Int. Tissue
35 t/d
17
34
113
186
84
194
202 Non-Int. Tissue
180 t/d
83
92
290
551
168
395
202 Non-Int. Tissue
1000 t/d
197
232
770
1,775
482
1,065
2
3
14
20
8
15
38
65
45
82
141
269
19
37
211
401
91
107
496
1,011
242
314
1,392
3,108
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
I.
2
3
4
310
345
983
1,714
717
779
2,555
5,573
874
1,602
5,242
13,078
204 Non-Integrated Lightweight
10 t/d
47
52
149
258
11
12
107
243
204 Non-Integrated Lightweight
60 t/d
108
117
388
841
18
20
250
573
204 Non-Integrated Lightweight
200 t/d
131
243
800
1,975
25
26
555
1,218
13
22
1
113
164
62
215
58
64
269
523
126
138
751
1,578
156
269
1,417
3,408
-------
TABLE 1X-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
2
3
4
78
179
576
753
205 Non-Int. Filter & Non-Woven
5 t/d
12
27
88
114
7
7
77
185
9
12
19
34
173
312
x
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
364
364
1,099
1,944
637
637
1,810
3,460
205 Non-Int. Filter & Non-Woven
20 t/d
55
55
166
293
12
12
117
265
205 Non-Int. Filter & Non-Woven
45 t/d
96
96
274
522
19
19
171
390
14
26
21
46
67
67
298
584
115
115.
466
958
-------
TABLE IX-11 (Continued)
DIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
I
Ui
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
114
152
454
547
269
269
1,028
1,872
412
412
1,491
2,855
211 Non-Int. Paperboard
10 t/d
17
23
69
83
40
40
156
283
62
62
227
432
5
5
67
129
211 Non-Int. Paperboard
40 t/d
6
6
115
263
211 Non-Int. Paperboard
75 t/d
7
7
152
346
1
1
8
11
1
1
16
28
2
2
22
43
23
29
144
223
47
47
287
574
71
71
401
821
-------
TABLE IX-12
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
Ui
ho
1
2
3 (AS)
3 (ASB)
1,836
6,627
9,626
9,042
1.
2
3 (AS)
3 (ASB)
2,894
10,691
15,945
14,797
.1.
2
3 (AS)
3 (ASB)
3,888
14,105
2.1,152
19,511
014 Alkaline Fine
370 t/d
275
1,017
1,471
1,379
140
485
382
65
142
230
288
014 Alkaline Fine
800 t/d
434
1,644
2,440
2,260
199
814
650
140
275
450
591
014 Alkaline Fine
1180 t/d
583
2,168
3,490
3,233
239
1,081
868
207
390
639
855
340
1,299
2,186
2,049
574
2,118
3,704
3,501
790
2,797
5,210
4,956
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3 (AS)
3 (ASB)
278
1,655
2,604
2,557
1
2
3 (AS)
3 (ASB)
491
2,703
4,380
4,276
1
2
3 (AS)
3 (ASB)
828
4,216
7,075
6,809
101 Deink Fine and Tissue
75 t/d
42
266
409
400
118
290
238
33
60
65
101 Deink Fine and Tissue
180 t/d
74
435
690
691
180
493
408
50
104
127
101 Deink Fine and Tissue
380 t/d
124
682
1,117
1,071
209
772
636
71
175
234
42
417
759
703
74
665
1,287
1,206
124
962
2,064
1,941
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE! IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3 (AS)
3 (ASB)
102 Deink Newsprint
400 t/d
1,486
5,329
7,122
6,715
223
854
1,118
1,052
195
677
564
69
121
190
223
1,118
1,916
1,806
X
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of:
Treatment
Capital.
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
Ln
111 Wastepaper Tissue
10 t/d
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
127
410
542
634
19
63
83
97
30
61
130
192
111 Wastepaper Tissue
35 t/d
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
I.
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
255
764
1,028
1,516
432
1,237
1,670
2,624
38
117
159
232
27
70
173
283
111 Wastepaper Tissue
85 t/d
65
191
263
406
38
97
241
399
7
10
13
12
18
24
18
26
39
49
131
223
301
65
199
350
539
103
306
530
844
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Leve 1
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
I.
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
112 Wastepaper Board
50 t/d
274
515
642
734
41
78
96
110
30
58
120
182
112 Wastepaper Board
140 t/d
514
911
1,173
1,661
945
1,652
2,085
3,145
77
138
176
249
25
61
151
262
112 Wastepaper Board
410 t/d
142
251
313
472
49
182
350
2
8
11
13
6
14
20
26
18
31
39
55
73
144
227
305
108
213
347
537
160
331
534
877
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Leve 1
of:
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
M
X
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
20 t/d
300
530
708
884
45
81
106
133
12
44
113
222
1.13 Wastepaper Molded Products
55 t/d
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
400
857
1,199
1,930
800
1,722
2,322
4,157
60
130
183
293
20
60
163
300
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
185 t/d
120
262
356
631
40
98
270
503
1
7
11
14
3
12
19
29
10
27
38
66
58
132
230
369
83
201
365
622
170
386
664
1,201
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carhon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
l_n
oo
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
100 t/d
I
2
2 (CC)
3 (CA)
363
560
685
777
54
84
103
117
25
51
107
169
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
225 t/d
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
553
839
1,045
1,222
698
1,053
1,297
1,785
83
127
157
183
10
36
111
219
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
350 t/d
105
159
195
268
35
119
230
8
13
16
18
18
24
29
32
28
36
41
47
87
148
226
304
111
187
297
434
133
230
355
545
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
Ln
VO
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
100 t/d
I
2
2 (CC)
3 (CA)
363
560
685
777
54
84
103
117
25
51
107
169
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
225 t/d
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
553
839
1,045
1,222
698
1,053
1,297
1,785
83
127
157
183
10
36
ill
219
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
350 t/d
105
159
195
268
35
119
230
8
13
16
18
18
24
29
32
28
36
41
47
87
148
226
304
111
187
297
434
133
230
355
545
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($lOOO/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
M
X
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
201 Non-Integrated Fine
15 t/d
252
553
705
797
38
84
108
122
5
37
110
171
201 Non-Integrated Fine
115 t/d
618
1,538
2,033
3,1.97
1,514
3,793
5,042
9,276
93
237
319
493
62
219
396
201 Non-Integrated Fine
585 t/d
227
587
805
1,441
118
502
913
7
11
14
19
28
45
44
60
136
43
128
229
307
93
318
566
934
227
749
1,367
2,490
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Level
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
97
366
495
588
364
1,146
1,571
2,525
704
2,257
3,084
5,613
202 Non-Integrated Tissue
10 t/d
15
56
76
90
29
95
157
202 Non-Integrated Tissue
90 t/d
55
176
246
389
55
193
351
202 Non-Integrated Tissue
290 t/d
106
348
487
866
86
334
621
1
8
11
13
4
24
32
45
13
53
66
107
16
93
182
260
59
255
470
785
119
487
887
1,594
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
LeveJ
of
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
CTv
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
475
1,267
1,800
3,357
518
1,389
1,895
3,638
557
1,513
2,155
4,169
204 Non-Integrated Lightweight
25 t/d
71
192
275
509
15
67
225
436
204 Non-Integrated Lightweight
30 t/d
78
21.1
301
563
16
71
233
459
204 Non-Integrated Lightweight
35 t/d
84
229
329
632
10
71
249
497
13
23
47
14
25
52
15
28
59
86
272
523
992
94
296
559
1,074
94
315
606
1,188
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT lllSCHARGIi TREATMENT COSTS
Level
oJ
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($!000/yr)
Total
Annua 1
($1000/yr)
ON
U)
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
205 Non-Integrated Filter and Non-Woven
5 t/d
188
429
643
819
28
65
98
124
7
37
108
217
205 Non-Integrated Filter and Non-Woven
15 t/d
300
771
1,063
1,794
637
1,467
2,014
3,665
45
117
162
272
10
49
147
284
205 Non-Integrated Filter and Non-Woven
45 t/d
96
223
308
556
19
73
230
448
5
10
13
9
15
25
14
25
50
35
107
216
354
55
175
324
580
115
310
563
1,055
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-12 (Continued)
INDIRECT DISCHARGE TREATMENT COSTS
Leve L
o.l
Treatment
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($lOOO/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($lOOO/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
.1
2
3 (CC)
3 (CA)
211 Non-Integrated Paperboard
10 t/d
153
432
584
676
23
66
90
104
4
35
108
170
211 Non-Integrated Paperboard
25 t/d
221
730
1,037
1,650
307
1,028
1,442
2,396
33
112
160
252
4
49
156
280
211 Non-Integrated Paperboard
50 t/d
46
158
225
368
2
58
194
352
8
11
14
1
12
19
27
3
18
25
39
27
109
209
288
38
173
335
559
51
234
444
759
CC = Chemical Clarification
CA = Carbon Adsorption
-------
TABLE IX-13
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
Oil Alkaline Dissolving
1000 t/d
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
33,524
30,404
5,157
4,675
3,041
2,709
1,036
1,470
9,234
8,854
x
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital.
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
12,970
11,840
18,308
16,554
012 Alkaline MKT
350 t/d
1,984
1,808
1,039
883
012 Alkaline MKT
600 t/d
2,803
2,531
1,532
1,324
328
423
524
691
3,350
3,114
4,859
4,546
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
36,188
32,164
012 Alkaline MKT
1600 t/d
5,546
4,926
3,352
2,976
1,276
1,737
10,175
9,639
AS = Activated Sludge
ASI.i = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
X
ON
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
10,993
10,323
20,758
19,254
29,000
26,720
013 Alkaline BCT
300 t/d
1,685
1,580
855
718
013 Alkaline BCT
800 t/d
3,189
2,953
1,720
1,487
013 Alkaline BCT
1300 t/d
4,458
4,102
2,519
2,204
280
341
659
827
1,025
1,302
2,821
2,639
5,568
5,267
8,002
7,608
AS = Activated Sludge
ASK = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS - AS
NSEJS - ASB
8,474
7,990
014 Alkaline Fine
200 t/d
1,299
1,224
595
495
163
186
2,057
1,905
M NSPS -
* NSPS -
ON
CO
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
AS
ASB
20,366
18,988
26,956
25,030
014 Alkaline Fine
800 t/d
3,134
2,920
1,496
1,294
014 Alkaline Fine
1200 t/d
4,150
3,850
2,033
1,776
519
613
743
886
5,150
4,827
6,926
6,512
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yrJ
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
X
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
7,568
7,212
12,780
12,165
16,170
15,271
015 Alkaline Unbleached
450 t/d
1,158
1,101
579
476
015 Alkaline Unbleached
1000 t/d
1,959
1,860
957
806
015 Alkaline Unbleached
1500 t/d
2,481
2,338
1,269
1,079
184
219
360
442
514
639
1,920
1,796
3,276
3,107
4,263
4,057
AS = Activated Sludge
ASK = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
4,541
4,712
7,084
7,294
016 Serai-Chemical
200 t/d
695
718
367
289
016 Semi-Chemical
425 t/d
1,086
1,113
537
425
120
145
224
280
1,181
1,152
1,848
1,819
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
8,695
8,931
016 Semi-Chemical
600 t/d
1,334
1,364
666
532
302
383
2,303
2,279
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
11,168
10,896
17,875
17,231
25,780
24,619
017 Alkaline Unbl. & Semi-Chem.
700 t/d
1,714
1,667
832
689
314
391
017 Alkaline Unbl. & Semi-Chem.
1500 t/d
2,748
2,642
1,413
1,193
615
783
017 Alkaline Unbl. & Semi-Chem.
2600 t/d
3,764
3,576
2,150
1,840
1,017
1,312
2,860
2,747
4,775
4,618
6,931
6,728
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
18,426
17,363
22,959
21,553
019 Alkaline Newsprint
1000 t/d
2,849
2,680
1,529
1,322
019 Alkaline Newsprint
1400 t/d
3,551
3,330
1,974
1,721
419
527
559
710
4,797
4,528
6,083
5,760
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
i
Co
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
34,567
33,855
42,381
41,273
49,910
48,381
021 Sulfite Dissolving
450 t/d
5,276
5,153
2,309
1,977
021 Sulfite Dissolving
600 t/d
6,469
6,283
2,796
2,388
021 Sulfite Dissolving
750 t/d
7,619
7,367
3,101
2,732
1,301
1,669
1,710
2,202
2,117
2,734
8,886
8,799
10,975
10,874
12,837
12,833
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB - Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual,
($1000/yr)
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
X
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
6,089
5,908
14,680
14,062
25,054
23,771
022 Sulfite Papergrade
100 t/d
928
899
422
342
022 Sulfite Papergrade
450 t/d
2,246
2,147
1,044
876
022 Sulfite Papergrade
1000 t/d
3,838
3,634
1,879
1,612
92
113
290
395
575
813
1,442
1,353
3,581
3,418
6,292
6,059
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
032 Thermo Mechanical Pulp
350 t/d
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
6,152
6,863
953
1,055
633
522
155
198
1,741
1,775
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
X
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
Capital
($1000)
2,558
2,364
11,175
10,331
15,687
14,421
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
033
390
360
033
1,724
1,592
033
2,422
2,226
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Groundwood CMN
50 t/d
254
205
Groundwood CMN
600 t/d
956
814
Groundwood CMN
1000 t/d
1,364
1,179
Energy
($1000/yr)
42
45
213
272
318
418
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
686
610
2,892
2,678
4,104
3,822
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annua 1
($1000/yr)
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
X
J
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
3,285
3,126
9,917
9,485
12,759
12,173
034 Groundwood Fine
75 t/d
504 302
479 246
034 Groundwood Fine
500 t/d
1,532 818
1,463 691
034 Groundwood Fine
750 t/d
1,973 1,070
1,879 912
52
59
188
231
257
322
858
783
2,538
2,385
3,300
3,113
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
NSPS
NSPS
OO
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
NSPS
NSPS
AS
ASB
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
3,022
2,886
6,245
5,990
15,930
15,018
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
101. Deirik Fine & Tissue
50 t/d
473
451
375
313
101 Deink Fine & Tissue
189 t/d
987
945
744
630
101 Deink Fine & Tissue
800 t/d
2,540
2,392
2,018
1,740
Energy
($1000/yr)
64
68
148
158
469
503
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
912
832
1,879
1,733
5,028
4,635
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Capital
($1000)
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS - AS
NSPS - ASB
9,823
9,314
102 Deink Newsprint
400 t/d
1,550 1,040
1,469 900
178
227
2,768
2,596
I
-J
VD
AS = Activated Sludge
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
-------
Capital
($1000)
Self-Contained
126
Self-Contained
275
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
111 Wastepaper Tissue
10 t/d
19
30
111 Wastepaper Tissue
45 t/d
41
34
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
49
75
X
oo
o
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr).
Se If-Contained
Self-Contained
Self-contained
X
00
286
558
875
112 Wastepaper Board
50 t/d
43
31
112 Wastepaper Board
160 t/d
84
43
112 Wastepaper Board
700 t/d
131
102
76
134
233
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
oo NSPS - CC
IS3
767
1,088
2,062
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
20 t/d
117
110
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
50 t/d
166
144
113 Wastepaper Molded Products
150 t/d
315
237
11
18
33
238
327
585
CC = Chemical Clarification
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
Self-Contained
363
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
100 t/d
54
25
87
Self-Contained
422
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
225 t/d
63
18
86
00
114 Wastepaper Construction Products
350 t/d
Se I. f-Contained
465
70
28
98
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital.
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
1,120
2,739
6,613
201 Non-Int. Fine
35 t/d
171
127
201 Non-Int. Fine
215 t/d
425
279
201 Non-Int. Fine
1000 t/d
1,036
718
17
37
80
315
741
1,834
CC = Chemical Clarification
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
X
oo
Ln
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
933
2,300
5,964
202 Non-Int. Tissue
35 t/d
143 124
202 Non-Int. Tissue
180 t/d
357 252
202 Non-Int. Tissue
1000 t/d
936 710
19
48
161
286
657
1,807
CC = Chemical. Clarification
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
oo
ON
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
1,096
2,834
5,762
20A Non-Int. Ltwt
10 t/d
166
135
204 Non-Int. Ltwt
60 t/d
434
318
204 Non-Int. Ltwt
200 t/d
887
672
15
37
70
316
789
1,629
CC = Chemical Clarification
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
X
oo
NSPS - CC
652
1,225
2,008
205 Non-Int. Filter & Non-Woven
5 t/d
99
104
205 Non-Int. Filter & Non-Woven
20 t/d
187
156
205 Non-Int. Filter & Non-Woven
45 t/d
307
224
10
17
25
213
360
555
CC = Chemical Clarification
-------
Capital
($1000)
TABLE IX-13 (Continued)
NEW POINT SOURCE TREATMENT COSTS
Amortized
Capital
($1000/yr)
0 & M
($1000/yr)
Energy
($1000/yr)
Total
Annual
($1000/yr)
NSPS - CC
NSPS - CC
00
00
NSPS - CC
658
1,275
1,816
211 Non-Int. Paperboard
10 t/d
101
99
211 Non-Int. Paperboard
40 t/d
197
163
211 Non-Int. Paperboard
75 t/d
281
220
12
23
31
212
383
532
CC = Chemical Clarification
-------
Based on the model mill costs summarized on Tables IX-11, 12, and 13 for the
three discharge characteristics, production vs cost curves were developed for
the capital and total annual costs for the subcategories. These costs curves
are presented as Figures IX-3 through IX-35, and can be directly applied to
mills that fit into one of the subcategories defined in Section IV. If a mill
fits the requirements established for the subcategory, the cost of implement-
ing the production process control or effluent treatment technology option can
be obtained by using the mill's production rate and determining the cost from
the curves.
Mills with combined operations in the miscellaneous mill groupings are not
represented by model mills. However, the cost curves can still be used to
estimate the cost for implementing production process controls or effluent
treatment technology options at these mills. Costs for production controls in
one process would not be significantly affected by controls for a second
process in a combined mill. Therefore, the costs associated with each produc-
tion level can be determined directly from the appropriate curves, and pro-
duction process control costs for the combined operations can be considered
additive.
Economies of scale must be accounted for in development of effluent treatment
costs. Aggregate curves relating cost to effluent flow rate are presented in
Figures IX-36 through IX-41 for carbon adsorption, chemically assisted clarif-
ication and primary clarification. Actual costs for effluent treatment can be
affected by factors other than flow (e.g., raw wastewater solids). However,
these variations are not expected to result in a cost increase that would
exceed the cost variability associated with model mill development.
Effluent treatment costs for each level of technology can be estimated for
mills in the miscellaneous groupings based on representative model mill data.
This requires that a flow rate be determined that is representative of ef-
fluent discharged from each miscellaneous mill. The flow rate associated with
each miscellaneous mill can be estimated from Table IX-14, which provides flow
information for pure mills in each subcategory. The production rate associ-
ated with each production process employed at miscellaneous mills should be
multiplied by the model flow associated with that process. Addition of the
respective model flows associated with each production process employed yields
a total flow representative of the miscellaneous mill.
Using the methodology outlined, production process control costs and effluent
treatment costs may be estimated for miscellaneous mills. The costs associ-
ated with the implementation of production process controls and effluent
treatment may then be added to yield an estimate of the costs incurred at a
mill in the miscellaneous grouping. The sample calculation presented sub-
sequently illustrates this procedure.
IX-89
-------
io,ooc
1,000
100,000
10,000
1,000
10,000
100
I I I I I I
I l I I I i l I
I I I I I I I
l i l i i i 11
''00°
100
10,000
iii ..
°
I.OOO
100
10,000
u *~
30 1,000
O y,
100
10,000
10
I I I ! I I I I
100
IOOO
*
IO.DOO
-------
100.000 I
5 ° 10,000 -
100 1000
TONS PER OAT
TREATMENT COST
013 'ALKALINE - BCT
100 1000 IO.DOO
TOWS PER O»Y FIGURE IX-4
-------
tno.'SANDS ; = DO
10,00
2° 10,000
u. to
^ 0
100
1000
100
-------
100
iu.Cc:>
°
100
10,000
= 0 I.OOO
100
I I I l l I I
I I I I I I II
! I I i I I I I
I I I I I I I I
X
TONS PER DAY
10,000
TREATMENT COST
015 ALKALINE - UNBLEACHED
100 IOOO IO.OOO
TONS PER DAY FIGURE \X~6
-------
10,00
= 0
ss
10,000
10UO
100
100
1000
1000
100
3 o 1000
100
100
10
i i 11 11
TONS PER DAT
'10,000 10
TREATMENT COST
100
1000
TONC. ?|R OAT
FIGURE IX-7
-------
100,000 r
3° 10,000
u. \ft
I I I I I I I I I 11)1! ' 111'!
IOC
100 1000
TONS PER DAr
IO.OOO * 10
TREATMENT COST
017 ALKALINE UNBLEACHED AND SEMI-CHEMICAL
TONS PER DAY FIGURE IX-8
-------
10,00'
1.000
3° 10,000
U. 1/1
1,000
10,000
1.000
10
I I I I 11 I
J I I I 1 I 11
20
3° 1,000
u. If
U. O
100
10.000
J I I 111
100
1000
I I I I I I 11
I I I I 1111
100
1000
10,000
-------
100,CO
TO'AL 4V.-.A
oS I>OOC
-J
. IQC
10,000
1,000
100
10,000
00 I.OOO
I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I
I IIIII
g&
*u
^
J I I I I I
I lllll!
IOOO
10,000
100
1000
TONS PER OAT
TREATMENT COST
021 SULFITE - DISSOLVING
FIGURE IX-10
-------
10
10,000
1000
10,XO
-------
X
OT.li. ;V._iL COST
t- J
z
100
10,000
.
2° 1,000
100
10,000
100
1000
I I I II
I I I I I
I I I I 1 I I I
I I I I I
TONS PER DAY
10,000 10
TREATMENT COST
033 GRDUNDWOOD - CNN
100 1000 10,000
TONS PER OAT FIGURE IX-12
-------
X
M
O
O
1,000
10,000
100
10,000
1000
10,000
100
I I I II
I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I
1 I I I I I i I
10
100
IO.DOO
-------
T;:AL 5',..;-.. TOST
-1 n ^ j s A N :. s ;" ; _ u . - ~ :
000
TONS PER 04*
cc
10,000
ZO
^u-
3° 1,000
100
o o
- o
o ^>
30 I 000
100
I I I I I I II
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I 111
10,000 " 10
TREATMENT COST
101 DEINK - FINE AND TISSUE
100
TONS PER DAY
1000 10,000
FIGURE IX~14
-------
h-1
o
10,00
1000
_
10.Wo
= 0 1000
100
10,000
oo 1000
100
10
I t I I I t 1 1
I I I I I I.-U-
i ii : . < i i
I I I I I I 11
100
1000
10,000
1000
lop
10,000
1000
_100
1000
.
30
8"1
2°
100
10
I i I i i i 11
I I I l I I I I
,000 10
TREATMENT COST
I 1 I I I II I
100
1000
1^00
FIGURE IY-15
-------
O
OO
10,00
1000
100
10,000
1000
100
10,000
oo
- Q
= o 1000
100
10
svLi-ufsr :cs-
i:we . s A s : s :e .11<. L i H s
i i i i i i
100
1000
TONS PER Oil
t I I 1 1 I t
10,000 r
100
10,000
1000
_10Q
1000
30 100
10
TOTAL
I I I I lli i
10,000 10
TREATMENT COST
112 WASTEPAPER - BOARD
| I I I I I ! I
100
TONt 'ER OAT
1000 10,000
FIGURE IX-16
-------
X
10,on
1000
_
io,"66b
1000
_iop
10,000
00
- o
1000
100
10
-1 __ -U.I 1 I I LLL
_l - 1 I I I-LJ
I I l_
100 1000
TOMS PFH TAY
10,000
1000
_ 100
10,000
1000
_100
Tooo
00
^ o
9°
100
10
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
OUSANDS Of DOLLARS;
1 LI ] I 11
_1 I I 1 1 111
_l LI I I 1 II
J I I I 1111
I I I I 1 I I I
I I
I I I I I III
10
TREATMENT COST
100
1000
PIRURP IY-17
-------
x
T :OST
T L1 L L 4 1 S I
10,001 C~
100C
100
10.000
1000
100
10,000
o&
1000
i i i i i i n
i i i i i i 11
i i i i i 11
10,000
1000
100
ioTooo
1000
100
1000
£ O
(_> u.
30
100
10
TOTAL A *i'. U A L r ? S *
i i i.
Mil
I I I I I I I I
10
100 1000
TONS PER OAT
10,000 10
TREATMENT COST
114 WASTEPAPER - CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
100
TONS PER BAT
iooo 10,000
FIGURE IX-18
-------
X
M
o
10,00
00
- o
100
10,000
1000
100
10,000
1000
100
1000
100
10
I i i l i i n
I 1 I I I I I
J I I I 1111
10
100
1000
10,000
10
100
1000
10,000 I
-------
1
10,on
10,000
100
10
10,000 :
TOTAL 4N-.J4L COST
iTHCuSASOS ;tr DOLLAR
IOC 1000
TONS Pff OAr
10
10.000 10
TREATMENT COST
202 NON-INTEGRATED - TISSUE
100
TONS ?E
1000 10,000
FIGURE IX-20
-------
£, ° (0,000
1.000
10,000
1000
100
10,000
1.000
IN . t ? * M:' '. " ; ; r '
i.. -SAs;5 ^ .;... ASS )
I 1 1 i I 1 I
Jill 111
I I I 1 I 1 11
I I I I I I 11
£c 1,000
O in '
*- .3
IO.OOO
1000
o **
5° 100
10
10,000
10
SANDS :r"0^LARS'
i i i i i i i i l l i l l i i i
1000
10.000
-------
r
X
I-1
o
.Nvti-MKSr COST
ItnOuSANOS OF 00.LiRS:
10,00
lOOi
100
10,000
1000
100
10,000
oo
- o
OX.
DO
1000
100
10
TONS PER
I I I I-1J.U.
10,000
1000
100
-A
1000
100
1000
100
10
T3I4L 4M.J4L COST
&
1>^
s^J-
_J I L_1_1.1_LL
100 1000 1
TREATMENT COST
205 NON-INTEGRATED - FILTER AND NCN-WCWEN
10
TON*. »«. MY
100 1000
FIGURE IX-22
-------
TOTAL a.Vif-AL C3ST
10,001
1000
_100
10.000
1000
_100
10,000
1000
100
10
100
10,000
1000
100
10,000
1000
100
100
10
1 I I I 1 I 11
I I I I 1 I I I
1000
TREATMENT COST
10
100
IY-O-S
-------
:N.tSTMENT COST
. TOTAL 4NNUSL COST
I THOUSANDS Of DOLLAR
10,000
100
10.000
1000
_ioq
10,660"
8 3
100
100
1000
100
I I I II I
TONS PER 3*r
10,000 1Q
TREATMENT COST
014 ALKALINE - FINE
i i i i i i i i
^
I I I I I I I !
100
TONS PER OAT
1000 10,000
FIGURE IX-24
-------
INVESTUFS T COST
I THOUSANDS C^ 00 L LA i?S >
100,00
100,000 :
TC^AL ANNUAL C OST
i THOUSANDS 0*-" "O^LAR
too
IOO 1000
TONS PER DAY
1.000
LOS
10.000
<
_J
-o
100"
10
1 I I I I I I I
MX
I Mill I I I I I IJJ
'O.I
TREATMENT COST
TONS PER CAY FIGURE \X-25
-------
TOTAL ANN,.!.. C05T
10,000
1,000
(00,000
3°
10,000
1,000
10,000
-
0 | 000
i i i i 1 1 i
t i 1 t i I i
10,000
FFLUENT
DS OF DOL
"o
§
100
10,000
^
«$7
r
\ ! i
: 1 .
lOOO tO.O
Z
(J
= 1,000
°
0.
o
i
100
OC i
-
-
-
i i ' 1 : 1 ; !
i i i i M i i
t»a
1 1 !!'!
3 100 1000 10.
,00
TONS PER DAY TREATMENT COST TONSPEROAY FIGURE IX-26
102 DEINK - NEWSPRim1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------
I
M
I-1
*-
10,00
100C
_1PJ>
10,000
1000
100
10,000
wF N r COST
OF ?OLLJ
_1 I 1I I I I I
_l I I I I I I I
_l I I I III
_LI_U
I I I I I I 11
10,000
20
"u.
2° i.ooo
u. i«
u. O
100
10.000
io 100
TO'iL iNNCAL COST
I THOl-'SASOS OF DOi-LiSS'
i i i i i u
10 I I - I I I I IlI
10 too
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !
1000 10,
TONS PER OAT
TREATMENT COST
TONS PER DAY FIGURE IX-27
-------
r
I
M
M
Ol
10,1)0.
00
- Q
So 1000
10,000
100
10,000 :
100
1000
TONS PER D»r
10
10,000 10
TREATMENT COST
112 WASTEPAPER - BOARD
100
TOKS ?ER OAV
1000 10,000
FIGURE IX-28
-------
lo.uu
100'
SS
i i n i 11, _..i i i i M 11
100 1000
TONS PE« OAT
TREATMENT COST
-------
NvsfsTMENr :OST
^OuSANC} ." f i C '.. k A f 5 I
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
(THOUSANDS Cl: DOLLARS)
io,uo r
10,000 r
_I-Q£
10.000
»-
o
o
o
100
10,000
oo 1,000 -
100 1000
TONS PER DAT .
J I I I 1 I I I
I I I I 1 I I
TREATMENT COST
114 WASTEPAPER - CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
100 1000 10,000
TONS PCS DAY FIGURE IX-30
-------
I THOl'SANCS OF COLLARS)
TOTAL ANNJSL COST
(THOUSAISOS C>c OOLLAOSl
I
I-1
M
00
10,00 P
1000
100
10
TONS PER 3*r
-------
10,00
1000
100
10,000
1000
_
10.000
= ° 1000
100
10,000
1000
10,000 :
DO
s
10
100 1000
TONS PE") DAr
10
10.000 10
TREATMENT COST
202 NCN-INTEGRATED - TISSUE
100
1000 10,000
FIGURE IX-32
-------
(THO.jSANC'S C1" OOllARSI
TOTAL ANNUAL CCST
(THOUSANDS Of DOLLARS!
M
X
M
NJ
o
10,000p
100
10,000
1000
100
107600
1000
= ° 100
2o
10
I 1 I 11 II
K<^
,!£^rv
tf&
&^
TONS PER 3Ar
PO 10
:ATMENT COST
_i i i 111ii
100
TONS ?ER DAT
1000 1
FIGURE IX
-------
TOTAL AMNiML COST
tTMCuSANOS Of DOLLARS)
10,001
X
10,000
100
1000
100
TONS PER OAT
100
10,000
1000
_100
1000
100
10
I I 11 II
I I I I 111
I I I I I I I
1000 10
TREATMENT COST
205 NCN-INTEGRATED - FILTER AND NON-WWEN
I I I I I II !
I I i I I 1 I
100
TOWS ?ES OAT
1000 10,000
FIGURE IX-34
-------
NVtS'MfNT COST
ITnOt SANCS Of X'LLASS I
10,00
100C
IOT
10,600
1000
100
10,000
30 1000
100
_l I I I I I I
i I I I 1 i I
i i I i I I 11
J 1I I 1 I II
10.000
1000
100
10,060
1000
100
1000
si
^o
3° 100
10
100 1000
TONS PER 04Y
10
TOT»L ANNUAL COST
llnOuSASOS OF DOLLARS!
i i i i i i 11
t I I I I I 11
I I I I I I I
1111
I I I I I 111
0 10
ATMENT COST
100
TONS ?ER 04»
1000 10
FIGURE IX
-------
CHEMICAL CLARIFWTION
CAPITAL COST I$10001
7 8 9 1.0
Flow
4 I
IMGDI
6 7 8 9 10
Tl
5678
FIGURE IX-36
-------
CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION
ANNUAL COST I$10007yrI
Flow (MGD
5 ^JT 8 9 100
FIGURE BX-37
-------
CARBON ADSORPTION PLUS CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION
CAPITAL COST I$10001
IX-125
FIGURE IX-38
-------
o
o
o
(A
o
o
"5
3
CARBON ADSORPTION PLUS CHEMICAL CLARIFICATION
ANNUAL COST l$1000/yrl
4
6 7 8 9 1.0
Flow
6
1 U
1 4
MGD]
100
FIGURE IX 39
-------
o
o
o
'o.
CO
o
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION
Capital Cost ($1000)
I
6
T i i r
7 8 9 1.0
I
5
I
6
i i n
7 8 9 10
Flow (MGDI
I I I I I I I
4 5 67891
FIGURE IX-40
-------
10000
9
8
7
6
5
1000-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
100-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
10-
o
o
o
(0
o
o
"5
3
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION
ANNUAL COST ($1000)
I I i i i I
5 6 7 8 9 1.0
TI I III"
5 6 7 8 9 10
1I I I I I
5 6 7 8 9 10<
Flow IMGD)
IX-128
FIGURE IX-41
-------
SAMPLE CALCULATION
COST ESTIMATE FOR MILL IN THE
INTEGRATED-MISCELLANEOUS GROUPING
Assume a 1,000-tpd mill producing 40% Alkaline-Market pulp (Subcategory 012)
and 60% Alkaline-Fine paper (subcategory 014). Therefore, 400 tpd of Alkaline-
Market pulp is produced along with 600 tpd of Alkaline-Fine paper.
From Figure IX-3, Level 2 production process control costs are as follows for a
400-tpd Subcategory 012 mill:
Capital Cost = $2,000,000
Annual Cost = 410,000
From Figure IX-5, Level 2 production process control costs are as follows for a
600-tpd Subcategory 014 mill:
Capital Cost = $5,500,000
Annual Cost = 900,000
Therefore, total capital cost = $7,500,000, and total annual cost = $1,310,000
External treatment costs for miscellaneous mills are obtained by computing
the flow corresponding to each portion of production. From Table IX-14:
Flow (Subcategory 012) = 400 tpd x 29.5 kgal/t = 11,800 kgal/day
= 11.8 mgd
Flow (Subcategory 014) = 600 tpd x 17.3 kgal/t = 10,400 kgal/day
= 10.4 mgd
Therefore, total flow for this miscellaneous mill = 22.2 mgd.
Level 3 external treatment consists of chemical clarification and ancillary
processes. Capital cost is estimated from Figure IX-36; annual cost is esti-
mated from Figure IX-37, as follows:
Capital Cost = $6,100,000
Annual Cost = 2,250,000
The total capital and total annual cost for Level 2 production controls plus
chemically assisted clarification may be determined by adding their respective
costs as follows:
Total Capital Cost (Level 2 plus 3) = $7,500,000 + $6,100,000 = $13,600,000
Total Annual Cost (Level 2 plus 3) = 1,310,000 + 2,250,000 = 3,560,000
IX-129
-------
TABLE IX-14
SUMMARY OF LEVEL 1 AND 2 PURE MILL WASTEWATER FLOWS
Level
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
019
021
022
032
033
034
101
102
111
112
113
114
201
202
204
205
211
Production Process
Alkaline-Dissolving
Alkaline-Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkaline-Fine
Alkaline-Unbleached
. Linerboard
. BAG
Semi-Chemical (100%)
Unbleached-Alkaline and
Semi-Chemical
Alkaline-News
Sulfite-Dis solving
Sulf ite-Papergrade
"'Chemi-Mechanical Pulp
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Groundwood-CMN (100%)
Groundwood-Fine (100%)
Deink-Fine and Tissue
. Tissue
. Fine
Deink-Newsprint
Wastepaper-Tissue
. 100% Industrial
Wastepaper-Board
. Board
. Linerboard
. Corrugated
. Chip and Filler
. Folding Box
. Set-up Box
. Gypsum Board
Wastepaper-Molded Products
kl/kkg
207.
137.
125.
88.
36.
54.
43.
35.
67.
204.
120.
42.
83.
88.
58.
77.
57.
48.
8.
15.
2.
5.
8.
10.
6.
41.
2
6
9
4
3
6
4
4
9
7
5
5
0
0
4
2
5
4
3
0
1
4
8
8
3
3
1 Flow
(kgal/t)
(49
(33
(30
(21
(8
(13
(10
(8
(16
(49
(28
(10
(19
(21
(14
(18
(13
(11
(2
(3
(0
(1
(2
(2
(1
(9
.7)
-0)
.2)
.2)
.7)
.1)
.4)
.5)
.3)
.1)
.9)
2)
.9)
.1)
.0)
-5)
-8)
.6)
.0)
.6)
-5)
.3)
.1)
.6)
.5)
.9)
Level 2 Flow
kl/kkg
198
123
102
72
35
53
32
35
57
183
117
67
42
83
71
55
73
55
48
8
15
2
5
8
10
6
41
.5
.0
.2
.1
.5
.4
.1
.4
.5
.9
.2
.5
.5
.0
.9
.5
.4
.5
.4
.3
.0
.1
.4
.8
.8
.3
.3
(kgal/t)
(47
(29
(24
(17
( 8
(12
( 7
( 8
(13
(44
(28
(16
(10
(19
(17
(13
(17
(13
(11
( 2
( 3
( o
( 1
( 2
( 2
( 1
( 9
-6)
.5)
.5)
.3)
.5)
.8)
.7)
.5)
.8)
.1)
.1)
.2)
.2)
.9)
.0)
.3)
.6)
.3)
-6)
.0)
.6)
.5)
.3)
.1)
.6)
.5)
-9)
Wastepaper-Construction Products
. Wastepaper
. 50% Wastepaper/50% TMP
Nonintegra ted-Fine
Nonintegrated-Tissue
Nonintegra ted-Lightweight
. Lightweight
. Electrical
Nonintegrated Filter
and Nonwoven
Nonintegrated Paperboard
. Board
. Electrical
6.
5.
34.
36.
213.
326.
125.
62.
151.
7
8
3
3
5
1
9
6
0
(1
(1
(8
(8
(51
(78
(30
(15
(36
.6)
.4)
2)
.7)
2)
.2)
.2)
0)
.2)
6
5
32
34
209
319
125
62
151
.7
.8
.6
.2
.3
.8
.9
.6
.0
( 1
( 1
( 7
( 8
(50
(76
(30
(15
(36
.6)
.4)
.8)
-2)
.2)
.7)
.2)
.0)
.2)
"^Miscellaneous Grouping - not a subcategory.
IX-130
-------
FACTORS AFFECTING COSTS
Each mill in a subcategory can be expected to differ in certain respects from
the representative model mill. These differences will alter the costs for
achieving the various applicable levels of treatment. Among the factors
affecting costs are location, climate, mill age, savings, retrofit require-
ments, site limitations, raw wastewater quality, and production capacity. In
addition at certain mills may combination of production processes may be
employed.
Location
Due to differences in construction, labor and energy costs, similar mills in
different locations may incur different costs for similar controls. To esti-
mate the magnitude of these effects, Table IX-15 shows average regional fac-
tors that may be applied to the model mill costs. Table IX-16 presents the
regional distribution of mills by subcategory.
TABLE IX-15
REGIONAL COST ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Region Capital Cost (205) O&M Cost (198) Energy Cost (200)
Northeast
North Central
South
Plains /Mountain
West
1.03
1.01
0.90
0.96
1.09
0.92
1.11
0.73
0.99
1.18
1.22
1.05
1.04
0.90
0.78
Climate
Biological treatment systems constructed in cold climates often require longer
detention times due to bio-kinetic considerations (in Section VII) that result
in higher capital and operating costs. The costs presented are representative
of moderate climate design criteria.
Climate can also affect the design of other unit processes. For example, warm
climate mills may be operated with open pit pumps, above ground piping, and
exposed process equipment, while at colder climate mills such designs cannot
be utilized. Model mill cost estimates reflect design based on cold climates.
At those mills in warm climates, lower costs may be realized than those pre-
sented in the cost estimates.
IX-131
-------
TABLE IX-16
DISTRIBUTION OF MILLS BY REGION AND SUBCATEGORY
Region
North-
Subcategory Northeast Central
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached and
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergrade
*Chemi-Mechanical Pulp
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine and Tissue
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded
Products
114 Wastepaper-Construction
Products
201 Nonintegrated-Fine
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
1
-
8
-
1
-
-
2
-
-
1
4
2
7
1
13
58
2
8
22
12
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweightl2
205 Nonintegrated-Filter
and Nonwoven
211 Nonintegrated-Paperboard
Totals
7
8
169
2
1
4
2
9
-
-
-
10
1
-
-
6
8
1
4
49
6
16
15
6
5
3
3
151
Southeast
3
2
4
2
17
6
4
2
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
3
19
2
12
-
4
1
1
~
84
Plains
& Mtn.
1
2
3
7
2
3
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
8
1
15
-
-
-
2
1
47
West
3
1
1
3
1
3
-
5
6
1
1
1
-
1
1
2
13
4
7
2
4
-
1
~
61
Total
3
9
8
18
29
19
10
3
8
16
2
2
6
8
17
3
22
147
15
58
39
26
18
14
12
512
"''Miscellaneous grouping - not a subcategory.
IX-132
-------
Production Capacity
Economies of scale are realized when facilities are installed and vary depend-
ing on the item under consideration. In order to estimate the net effects of
production capacity, each level of treatment has been evaluated over a repre-
sentative range of mill sizes for each subcategory.
Age
Mill age can have an impact on the cost of implementing various production
process controls. This factor was considered in the development of model mill
costs by accounting for relative difficulty in installing and replacing pro-
cess equipment and effluent sewers.
The chronological age of a mill, however, is not always a good measure of the
relative ease with which production process controls may be implemented. This
results from the fact that older mills often have undergone extensive rebuild-
ing or expansion, often resulting in better implementation conditions.
Savings
Material and Energy Savings. The production process controls discussed herein
can result in more efficient operation, with substantial savings of material
and energy. Tables IX-11, 12, and 13 presented the net costs for operation,
maintenance and energy. Table IX-17 compares operating and maintenance costs
to savings realized after implementation of Level 1 and 2 production process
controls.
Other Savings. The savings in materials and energy which may result from
implementation of production process controls are supplemented by other possi-
ble savings not accounted for in Table IX-17. Such additional savings include
the benefits which can result from improved recovery systems and the manufac-
ture of byproducts such as black liquor soap, turpentine, solvents, glues and
nutrients. The recycle of effluent streams may also recycle heat which may
represent a possible savings at some mills, particularly in colder climates.
Such savings may not be common to all mills in a subcategory, but may be
considerations at selected mills depending on location, production processes
and other factors.
Retrofit Requirements
The model mill costs presented assume that production process and effluent
treatment controls have been installed and are properly operated so as to
attain BPT discharge limits. For those cases where mills are not currently
meeting existing BPT discharge limitations, an additional cost for retro-
fitting existing treatment may be incurred for the mill to attain BATEA dis-
charge limits.
IX-133
-------
TABLE IX-17
GROSS 0 & M AND ENERGY COSTS AND SAVINGS FOR
PRODUCTION PROCESS CONTROLS ($1000/yr)
Siihcategory
Production (t/d) Level
Gross O&M
Cost Savings
Gross Energy
Cost Savings
Oil
012
013
M
>L 014
U)
015
016
017
019
Alkaline-Dissolving
Alkaline -Market
Alkaline-BCT
Alkal ine-Fine
Alkaline-Unbleached
Semi -Chemical.
Alkaline-Unbleached & Semi-Chemical
Alkaline -Newsprint
1,000
600
800
800
1,000
425
1,500
1,400
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
209 . 1
262.7
78.2
107.2
121.8
144.0
106.5
172.0
60.0
105.0
45.6
61.2
128.5
146.2
153.9
202.8
524.3
524.3
224.5
224.5
424.9
424.9
353.5
387.7
323-1
330.8
43.8
70.6
454.8
454.8
513.2
532.9
353.1
373.7
135.3
178.3
220.0
264.6
182.1
232.0
151.9
180.5
65.5
141.3
273.5
276.2
204.2
259.5
51.0
80.6
9.2
46.0
7.1
72.4
42.0
69.7
70.7
70.7
20.6
72.6
91.4
91.4
157.7
202.9
-------
TABLE IX-17 (Continued)
X
U)
Ln
S u be
021
022
032
033
034
101
102
111
112
113
114
ategory
Su Ifite-Dissolving
Sul.fi te-Papergrade
Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
Groundwood-CMN
Groundwood-Fine
Deink-Fine & Tissue
Deink-Newsprint
Wastepaper-Tissue
Was tepape r-Board
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Wastepa per- Con struct ion Products
Production (t/d)
600
450
350
600
500
180
400
45
160
50
100
Level
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Gross
Cost
903.5
962.8
165.4
170.4
22.9
22.9
72.6
73.5
97.1
109.9
42.8
45.9
62.6
63.3
38.8
38.8
53.9
53.9
18.8
18.8
43.2
43.2
O&M
Savings
656.5
656.5
571.5
571.5
80.4
80.4
182.6
182.6
189.4
210.5
80.7
80.7
88.3
88.3
4.9
4.9
11.1
11.1
0
0
18.6
18.6
Gross
Cost
808.7
850.2
166.3
171.1
24.4
24.4
44.3
46.5
21.2
40.3
23.3
26.2
42.0
44.8
8.4
8.4
18.0
18.0
11.2
11.2
13.8
13.8
Energy
Savings
26.0
138.0
176.9
176.9
54.0
54.0
206.0
206.0
37.1
63.4
29.8
29.8
96.0
96.0
11.0
11.0
29.8
29.8
8.4
8.4
5.7
5.7
-------
TABLE IX-17 (Continued)
Subcategory
Production (t/d) Level
Gross O&M
Cost Savings
Gross Energy
Cost Savings
M
1
1 '
U>
201 Nonintegrated-Fine 215
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue 180
204 Nonintegrated-Lightweight 60
205 Nonintegrated-Filter & Nonwoven 20
211 Noniritegrated-Paperboard 40
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
24.7
27.1
17.6
20.4
28.7
31.2
14.6
14.6
10.7
10.7
64.6
64.6
79.0
79.0
10.7
11.6
2.9
2.9
5.1
5.1
62.8
69.6
38.8
45.5
21.5
23.4
5.5
5.5
4.4
4.4
71.2
71.2
30.7
30.7
22.8
24.8
9.0
9.0
3.0
3.0
-------
The estimated cost for the industry to attain BPT limits has previously been
addressed.(2, 37) Therefore, retrofitting costs to attain BPT discharge
limits are not included in the cost analysis for this study.
Site Limitations
At certain mills site considerations such as insufficient land availability
and/or poor soil conditions may result in additional costs to the mill to
attain effluent discharge limitations guidelines. A summary of responses to
questions concerning availability of expansion in the data request program has
been evaluated. From this data, it was determined that about one third of the
reporting mills feel they have no available land on-site for expansion.
However, it should be noted that no indication concerning the amount of land
or type of expansion was indicated in the question. Less than 10 percent of
the mills responding believed expansion land could be purchased.
The identified effluent treatment technologies of chemically assisted clari-
fication and carbon adsorption are not land-intensive. The largest land
requirement anticipated for chemical clarification is 3.0 acres, and that for
carbon adsorption is 0.5 acres. Therefore, many mills reporting no available
land for expansion may have sufficient area for these technologies which are
not land-intensive.
Indirect discharge Level 3 treatment incorporates biological treatment for
some subcategories. Where land availability precludes the use of aerated
stabilization, the less land-intensive activated sludge process may be re-
quired. Model mill cost estimates for each of these alternatives has been
presented, in cases where biological treatment is proposed as an alternative
treatment.
In some cases the land available for expansion may require special construc-
tion and/or site development procedures due to existing soil conditions. Mill
responses to whether special construction procedures would be required re-
vealed that in about 25 percent of the cases, special considerations are known
to be required.
For mills with insufficient land for proposed technologies and/or poor soil
conditions, additional capital investment may be required to attain the
identified levels of control. Without site-specific information concerning
land availability and soil conditions, however, it is difficult to further
evaluate possible additional costs. Such site-specific information is not
currently available.
Raw Wastewater Characteristics
The flow and pollutant loading for an individual mill may vary from those of
the model mill. These differences could affect the costs of effluent treat-
ment. For example, carbon adsorption costs are highly dependent on flow for a
given system design. However, a higher flow with lower pollutant loadings
could result in no net change in cost to attain a given effluent quality due
to different design requirements.
IX-137
-------
While variation in raw waste characteristics may occur, it is not anticipated
that their net effect on costs will exceed the associated cost confidence
interval for model mills.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
Introduction
Implementation of production process controls and effluent treatment technolo-
gies discussed in Sections VI and VII would affect existing energy demand.
The estimated energy effects for the various technology options are presented
in this section. In some cases, production process controls result in a net
energy saving. It is possible that, even where a net energy savings is
achieved in terms of total BTU's, the net energy cost could increase, because
of the relative amounts of fuels and electricity used, and their respective
prices.
The total model mill energy usage prior to implementation of the various
technology options was determined from data in the American Paper Institute
(API) monthly energy reports, and average power and fuel usage information
from the data request program. An energy balance was developed for each model
mill including spent liquor and hogged fuel where applicable.
Table IX-18 summarizes the model mill energy usage after installation of
Levels 1 and 2 production controls. The table also provides an estimate of
the percent change in energy (BTU) resulting from technology implementation.
In all subcategories except Sulfite-Dissolving, a slight reduction in total
energy usage results from the implementation of Level 1 and 2 production
controls.
Implementation of effluent treatment processes such as wastewater pumping,
chemically assisted clarification and solids dewatering would cause additional
power demands. Carbon adsorption requires fuel for the regeneration process,
as well as power for wastewater pumping and other unit operations.
The energy requirements for effluent treatment options including the energy
requirements for ancillary processes such as pumping and sludge dewatering,
are shown in Table IX-19.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Benefits other than improved water quality can result from production process
technology modifications. As noted earlier, these benefits include savings
resulting from: 1) improved raw material usage; 2) better operating effi-
ciency; and 3) improved byproduct recovery. The economic savings associated
with these benefits have been estimated and were presented previously in Table
IX-17.
There are other non-water-quality concerns to be considered in implementing
effluent treatment and control technology, including: air pollution, noise,
IX-138
-------
TABLE IX-IS
CURRENT HIM, ENERGY USE AND IJKFKCT
OF LEVEL I PLUS 2 PRODUCTION CONTROLS
Current Energy Used
(Million BTU/ton)
Subcategory
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkallne-BCT
014 Alkaline-Vine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Cherailcal
017 Alkaline-Unbleached
& Sera.i-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dlssolving
022 Sulf ite-Papergrade
032 Thermo-Mechanical
Pulp
033 CIroundwooci-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Oeink-Fine & Tissue
102 Deink-New:3prlnt
HI Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded
Products
114 Wastepaper-Construc-
tion Products
201 Nonintegra ted-Fine
202 Nontntegrated-Tissue
204 Non in teg rated -Light-
we igh t
205 Nonintegrated-FLlter
& Nonwoven
211 Nonlntegrated-Paper-
board
Fuel
42.2
31.5
33.8
31.6
26.4
17.3
25.2
27.1
38.3
28.5
12.4
11.5
13.2
17.8
13.5
18.0
12.2
18.4
11.7
16.7
15.2
33.8
21.5
18.6
(Purch.)
(15.0)
(12.4)
(14.6)
(14.9)
(11.7)
(11.6)
(13.0)
(18.1)
(12.8)
(14.7)
(12.4)
(10.3)
(12.2)
(17.6)
(13.5)
(18.0)
(12.2)
(18.4)
(11.7)
(16.4)
(15.2)
(32.8)
(21.5)
(18.6)
Electric (Purch.)
2.83
2.55
3.26
3.53
2.01
2.35
2.21
4.66
2.55
3.20
5.44
6.12
5.44
1.70
1.02
2.72
1.94
2.72
1.36
1.94
3.37
3.83
3.55
3.89
(0.48)
(0.77)
(1.34)
(1.45)
(0.70)
(2.35)
(0.66)
(2.31)
(1.33)
(2.65)
(3.54)
(3.10)
(3.70)
(1.39)
(0.51)
(2.72)
(1.80)
(2.72)
(1.36)
(1.32)
(2.35)
(0.20)
(3.55)
(3.89)
Total (a)
42.7
32.3
35.1
33.0
27. I
19.6
25.9
29.4
39.6
31.1
15.9
16.6
16.9
19.2
14.0
20.7
14.0
21.1
13.1
18.0
17.5
34.0
25.0
22.5
Energy Used By
Level I Plus 2
Production Control
Million BTU/ton)
Fuel Electric
0.22*
0.21*
0.24*
0.25*
0.21*
0.29*
0. 16*
0.40*
0.95*
0.70*
0.35*
0.65*
0.45*
0.63*
0.37*
0.44*
0. 15*
0.28*
0.09*
0.86*
0.43*
1.02*
0.93*
0.18*
0.10
0.09
0. 10
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0. 11
0. 11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.04
0. 10
0.08
0.10
0. 10
0.04
Percent OE
Purchased Energy
Change Because Of
Total Production Controls
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.12*
.12*
. 14*
.16*
. 16*
.24*
. 11*
.35*
.06
.59*
.33*
.63*
.43*
.59*
.34*
.37*
. 11*
.21*
.05*
.76*
.35*
.92*
.83*
. 14*
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
0.
I.
7.
3.
2.
4.
2.
3.
2.
I.
0.
1.
0.
4.
2.
2.
3.
0.
8*
9*
9*
0*
3*
7*
8*
7*
5
4*
I*
1*
7*
1*
4*
8*
8*
0*
4*
3*
0*
8*
3*
6*
*Indieates net reduction in purchased energy usage.
(a)Total energy use reflects total fuel plus purchased electricity.
-------
TABLE IX-19
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR EFFLUENT TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Energy (Thousand BTU/Ton) By Technology Option
Chemical(a) Carbon(a)
Subcategory Clarification Adsorption
Oil Alkaline-Dissolving
012 Alkaline-Market
013 Alkaline-BCT
014 Alkaline-Fine
015 Alkaline-Unbleached
016 Semi-Chemical
017 Alkaline-Unbleached &
Semi-Chemical
019 Alkaline-Newsprint
021 Sulfite-Dissolving
022 Sulfite-Papergr.ide
032 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp
033 Groundwood-CMN
034 Groundwood-Fine
101 Deink-Fine & Tissue
102 Deink-Newsprint
111 Wastepaper-Tissue
112 Wastepaper-Board
113 Wastepaper-Molded
114 Wastepaper-Constructio
201 Nonintegrated-Firie
202 Nonintegrated-Tissue
204 Nonintegrated-Li.ght-
weight
205 Nonintegrated-Filter
& Nonwoven
21] Nonintegrated-Paper-
boa rd
51.9
47.8
37.2
31.4
17.4
20.8
15.0
21.8
60. 1
40.6
32.1
28.7
28.3
65.9
--
97.7
21.8
78.9
n 11.7
35.8
115.0
158.0
245
158
671
490
380
277
134
81
131
213
676
320
147
203
156
253
--
317
45
284
39
128
406
850
1130
679
Act. Sludge(c)
Primary(b^ I'lus Chemical
Clarification Clarification
--
--
31
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
89
58
116
17
51
10
48
55
147
188
191
219
191
236
133
75
109
85
109
492
198
277
106
160
72
106
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Aerated(c)
Stabi .'] ization
Plus Chemical
Clarification
348
277
143
167
140
147
120
137
734
143
352
133
195
78
133
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
(a)Where considered as an opti.on for direct dischargers.
(b)Where considered as an option for indirect dischargers.
(c)Where considered as an option for new point sources.
IX-140
-------
and solid waste disposal. These aspects of implementation are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Air Pollution
Most of the proposed Level 1 and 2 internal control measures would have little
direct impact upon air emissions. Many items reduce energy use per ton by
promoting extensive water reuse and stock savings. However, when additional
steam is required, as for evaporation of bleach plant effluent (Sulfite-
Dissolving subcategory) then potentially more sulfur dioxide generation could
occur. Such an increase would be directly proportional to the increased
boiler firing rate and the sulfur content of the fuel used.
Production process controls which help retain more spent liquor in the liquor
recovery cycle include: improved brownstock washing, decker filtrate reuse,
use of relief and blow condensates, neutralization of spent sulfite liquor
before evaporation, and more complete use of evaporator condensates. These
controls tend to retain more sulfur containing compounds in the liquor system.
As sulfur levels increase, along with increased total liquor solids to re-
covery, potential emissions will increase. With modern design recovery sys-
tems of adequate capacity, emission levels of mercaptans, hydrogen sulfide,
and other compounds to the atmosphere would not increase beyond allowable
limits. If, however, the mill is operating an overloaded recovery furnace, or
is at peak allowable load, a small incremental addition to the emission level
could occur. Generally, the normal variations in firing rates, sulfidity, and
liquor solids overshadow the effects resulting from production process con-
trol.
Noise Potential
There is no readily identifiable potential for substantially increased noise
associated with any of the proposed production control technology options.
Existing effluent treatment processes are not currently a significant source
of noise. The implementation of the various effluent technology options
considered is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in noise.
Solid Wastes. Solid wastes generated by the pulp, paper and paperboard indus-
try originate from wastewater treatment, wood processing, power generation and
personnel activity.
The total solid waste generated by the pulp and paper industry in 1974 was
560-630 pounds per ton of production.(208) The largest single source of waste
is wood processing, which accounts for about half the total. This waste
consists primarily of bark with some wood and dirt included. Much of this
waste is burned in a hogged fuel boiler for power generation. There are
apparently no statistics concerning the amount of wood processing waste
currently being used for power generation.
IX-141
-------
In a 1974 study, pulp, paper, and paperboard industry personnel generated
about 0.227 kg (0.5 Ib) of refuse per employee per shift, resulting in a total
annual industry generation rate of 16,546 metric tons (16,546 tons).(37)
Wastewater treatment facilities produce both primary and biological sludges
which are usually dewatered prior to disposal. The amount of wastewater
treatment facility sludge generated depends on a number of conditions in-
cluding: 1) raw waste characteristics; 2) the existence and efficiency of the
primary clarifier; 3) the type of biological treatment system employed; and 4)
the efficiency of biological solids removal from the wastewater. The amount
of wastewater treatment facility sludge at a given mill is anticipated to far
exceed the amount of refuse generated by mill personnel.
Installation of chemically assisted clarification would have an impact on the
amount of wastewater sludge generated. To assess this impact, the amount of
primary and secondary sludge generated at the model mill in each subcategory
has been estimated. The amount of additional sludge anticipated from chemical
clarification has also been estimated. These quantity estimates were based on
sludge production criteria outlined in Section VII.
This analysis yielded increases of from 13 to 63 percent over current sludge
production on a dry solids basis due to chemically assisted clarification. A
summary of anticipated sludge productions is shown in Table IX-20.
This additional sludge production would have an impact on sludge disposal
systems and practices. For example, landfill sites would be more rapidly
filled.
Implementation of carbon adsorption as a polishing treatment is not antici-
pated to affect the sludge production rates of primary, biological and/or
chemically assisted clarification technologies.
The use of primary and/or biological treatment for indirect dischargers is not
anticipated to greatly alter current sludge production. Rather, less sludge
will be generated at the POTW and a roughly equivalent amount generated at the
mill.
Available Solid Waste Disposal Technology. Acceptable techniques for solid
waste disposal include: incineration, composting, pyrolysis-gasification and
landfill.
Incineration is a preferred method for disposal of organic wastes with low
moisture contents. For the pulp, paper and paperboard industry these include
log sorting and mill yard wastes, but usually exclude sludge. No mills which
responded to the data request program indicated that they were incinerating
wastewater sludges.
Composting is an emerging technology that theoretically could be applied to
pulp, paper and paperboard mill wastewater treatment sludges. By this method,
sludge is converted to inert organic material which may be used as a soil
conditioner. Pyrolysis-gasification may play a future role in solid waste
IX-142
-------
TABLE IX-20
WASTEWATER SLUDGE PRODUCTION SUMMARY
Estimated Solids Production
(1000 Ib/day, dry basis)
Percent Increase For
Chemical Clarification
Over
Primary
Prod.
ubcategory (t/d)
11 Alkaline-Dissolving 1000
12 Alkaline-Market 600
13 Alkaline-BCT 800
14 Alkaline-Fine 800
15 Alkaline-Unbleached 1000
16 Semi-Chemical 425
17 Alkaline-Unbleached
& Semi-Chemical 1500
19 Alkaline-Newsprint 1400
21 Sulfite-Dissolving 600
22 Sulfite-Papergrade 450
32 Thermo-Mechanical Pulp 350
33 Groundwood-CMN 600
34^koundwood-Fine
O^JPink-Fine & Tissue
11 Wastepaper-Tissue
12 Wastepaper-Board
13 Wastepaper-Molded
Products
14 Wastepaper-Construction
Products
01 Nonintegrated-Fine
02 Nonintegrated-Tissue
04 Nonintegrated-Light-
weight
05 Nonintegrated-Filter
& Nonwoven
11 Nonintegrated-Paper-
board
500
180
45
160
50
350
215
180
60
20
40
Primary
Plus Primary Chemical
Biological (a )0nly(b) Clarification
103
38
63
72
27
15
59
112
121
32
20
36
36
44
2
0.5
0.4
0.3
7.5
5.5
2.3
0.4
1.8
70
24
44
56
19
10
41
87
76
21
15
28
27
37
1.6
0.4
0.3
. 0.2
6.4
4.6
1.9
0.4
1.6
26
10
12
12
5
2
9
17
18
6
3
6
5
5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.3
1.0
1.2
0.2
0.4
and
Biological
Solids
25
26
19
17
19
13
15
15
14
19
15
17
14
11
15
20
25
33
17
18
52
50
22
Over
Primary
Solids
37
42
27
21
26
13
15
20
24
29
20
21
19
14
19
25
33
50
20
22
63
50
25
to model mills employing biological treatment followed by a secondary clarifier.
b_Mpplies to model mills without a secondary clarifier.
IX-143
-------
disposal. Commercial scale units from which economics and operating experi-
ence may be obtained have yet to be demonstrated.
Land application of wastewater treatment plant sludges is a viable disposal
option. Sludge is applied to a field which will be used for agricultural
production. The organics, nutrients and bulk of the sludge serve to enhance
crop production capacity. A prerequisite for the technique is to have ade-
quate and suitable land in reasonable proximity to the plant.
Landfills are the most prevalent means of solid waste disposal in the indus-
try. The primary environmental problem associated with landfill disposal of
wastewater sludges is the potential for contaminating ground and surface
waters. Ground and surface water contamination will occur when leachate
generated by the sludge comes in contact with uncontaminated waters. Leachate
will be formed if rainfall or runoff is permitted to contact the sludge or if
sludge is placed directly into ground or surface water. Leachate is also
formed as water drains from the sludge after it is placed on the land.
Environmental safety procedures and knowledge of proper landfilling practices
have increased widely in recent years. The EPA has established proper oper-
ating and design criteria for several landfll techniques for sludges of from
20 to 30 percent solids.(201) These techniques include:
Area Fill Layer
Area Fill Mound
Diked Containment
Narrow Trench
Wide Trench
Co-Disposal With Soil
Co-Disposal With Refuse
The cited reference describes required site and operating conditions for each
method. Information concerning existing landfill practices and site condi-
tions is limited. It is not anticipated that significant environmental pro-
blems would result from the landfilling of the chemical sludge, as long as
proper disposal techniques are employed.
Flocculant Recovery
The potential exists for recovery of chemical flocculants used for effluent
clarification. However, at this time an economical recovery technology does
not exist. Should technology become available to economically recover and
reuse alum, chemically assisted clarification would become less expensive, and
sludge disposal requirements would be reduced.
IX-144
-------
IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
Availability of Equipment
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act and amendments have spurred the devel-
opment of many new control techniques and associated equipment. As the 1980's
approach, industries in the pollution control field are continuing to grow and
anticipate a good market for their products. This anticipation allows manu-
facturers to maintain a production capability above what the market currently
demands.
By using this additional capability, an increased demand for either production
process control equipment (Levels 1 and 2) or wastewater treatment equipment
(Level 3 and 4) could be handled without any major delays. This ability
appears to have no geographical limitations, because of the size of the indus-
try and its ability to use local independent contractors to fabricate certain
pieces of equipment. Therefore, due to present manufacturing capabilities it
is anticipated that required equipment could be readily produced.
Availability of Labor Force
Manpower necessary for implementation of technology alternatives could come
from two sources: 1) mill personnel; and 2) outside contractors. On jobs
which cannot be completed during a normal shut-down or which are considered
too complex for mill personnel, an outside contractor would be hired to per-
form the necessary tasks.
A Bureau of Labor Statistics study concluded that the availability of con-
struction laborers to perform the required work is sufficient.(209) This
availability is based on two major factors. This first factor is the short
training time which is required for construction labor (6 to 12 months). The
second factor is the willingness of construction labor to relocate. There-
fore, availability of labor is not anticipated to be a problem in implementing
the technology alternatives.
Construction Cost Index
The Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index is presented in
Figure IX-42 for the period 1955 through 1977.
Time Required
It is difficult to estimate the time required to implement Level 1 and Level 2
technologies. Mill personnel will try to coordinate the project with a sche-
duled shut-down.
For Level 3 and 4, however, it was assumed that the work would be outside the
mill and would require normal construction techniques and crews. The bar
graphs presented in Figures IX-43 and 44 show the estimated time required to
implement the Level 3 and 4 technologies, respectively.
IX-145
-------
FIGURE IX-42
ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
3800
3400
X
LJ
O
3000
8 2600
2200
MA'
1974
O
O
o:
8
1800
200C
1400
JU
Y I
97
1900
1000
600
1955
I960
1965
1970
YEAR
1973 1975 1977
1980
1983
IX-146
-------
MONTHS
SIZEMGD
UNDER
5
CONV.
UNDER
5
TURN
KEY
5-10.
CONV.
5-10
TURN
KEY
OVER
10
CONV.
OVER
10
TURM
KEY
1
i
_
_
2
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
3
i
IB
4
i §
1
mm
1
5
l_i
_
H
^m
_
_
6
_1
_
^m
m i
_
_
7
Ul
2
K-
?
UJ
>
UJ
Of
^
1
B
ill
ill
UJ
S
t-
S
UJ
>
UJ
cc
^H
G
III
III
Illl
II
UJ
S
1-
S
UJ
>
UJ
-------
MONTHS
SIZE MGD
UNDER
5
CONV.
UNDER
5
TURN
KEY
5-10
CONV.
5-IO
TURN
KEY
OVER
10
CONV.
OVER
10
TURN"
KEY
1
Mi
MH
1^
2
i
M
M
I^B
3
4
i
i
i
i
i
5
M
!
mmm
IM
warn
mmm
6
^i
^i
i
^m
IM
7
UJ
2
K
?
UJ
>
UJ
£C
8
III!
mi
UJ
2
t-
5e
UJ
>
UJ
(E
9
ill
in
Illl
Ill
^i
10
III
III
Illl
III
^ 1
It
III
III
Illl
Illl
III
h"
12
ill
in
nil
in
UJ
2
1-
*
UJ
J>
UJ
K
13
III
III
III
III
III
III
14
III
ill
in
ill
MI
nil
IS
III
ill
n
ill
ill
ill
16
III
Illl
in
Illl
ill
ill
17
III
nil
ill
III
ill
III
IS
ill
ill
III
III
ill
III
19
Illl
nil
ill
nil
ill
III
20
III
ill
in
mi
III
ill
21
ill
HI
in
in
ill
in
22
III
III
in
III
III
III
23
1
llli
ill
Illl
III
24
mm
ill
ill
III
ill
25
in
in
mi
Mil
26
§
-
ini
in
27
-.
Ill
III
28
ill
III
29
ill
ill
3C
ill
III
31
ill
III
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
46
4
50
51
52
.. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
iimiiiiiiimmiiiii DESIGN ENGINEERING
m- PROCUREMENT
_...., CONSTRUCTION
FIGURE IX-44
TIME REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT CAR
ADSORPTION TREATMENT SYSTEM
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS
-------
TABLE A-l
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 012 - ALKALINE-MARKET
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent and
final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-l
-------
co
SUPCAT=
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 1
R I OHl T^BCHF MICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFR^^ LOCATION
4 BENZFNF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
21 ?.4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
23 CHLOROFORM
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
31 2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
38 FTHYLHF.NZENF
AERATION INF
44 MFTHYLFNE CHLORIDE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
6F> PHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
66 RIS(2-FTHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
6R DI-N-HUTYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
5
4
1
0
1
0
2
2
5
1
3
4
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
<10
1
?
2
6
0
3
4
4
0
1
3
2
0
5
1
2
2
5
3
RANGE
10-100
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
1
3
4
0
2
>ioo
0
0
0
Q
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERA^V
CONC, UG/L
<1
-------
*«E.C. JORDAN CO «» SUHCAT= ALKALINE-MARKET
PRIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME
NUMHER
70
Hh
120
122
123
124
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
TOLUFNF
CHROMIUM-CR
COPPER-CU
LFAD-P8
MERCURY
NICKEL-MI
12H ZINC-ZN
130 ARIETIC ACID
SAMPLE
LOCATION
Af.RATION INF
AERATION INF
RA^ WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
ND
PAGE 2
RANGE
<10 10-100 >100
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
4
1
1
0
3
2
4
4
2
6
6
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
1
f>
3 '
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
6
5
1
1
S
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
<,
1
2
12
26
22
31
14
«,
9
10
0
< ]
-------
»«t.C. JOHUAN (,U
5UHLAI= ALK AL 1 Nt -
ur vc.n ir iu« i tun u« I
r-^oc.
NUMHhH
a.
130 AOIETIC ACID
131 OEHYDROAHIETIC ACID
13? ISOPIMAP1C ACID
133 PIMAHIC ACID
134 OLE1C ACID
13b LIN'OLEIC ACID
136 LINOLENIC ACID
139 1-CHLORODEHYDROABIETIC ACID
140 DICHLORODEHYDROAHIETIC ACID
TNICHLOWOGUAIACOL
SAMPLE
LOCATION
(CONT.)
FINAL EFE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
RANGE
NO <10 10-100 MOO CONC. UG/L
4
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
1
0
1
3
5
?
3
3
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
?
0
?
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
2
2
3
3
2
0
3
3
1
3
3
3
5
4
5
0
1
1
1
0
0
583
1?
2?4
430 -
5R
203
7B
215
29ft
153
698
47
35
50
42
29
19
-------
««f.C. JORDAN CO *« SUBCATs ALKALINE-MARKET
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 4
PRIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHER LOCATION
14? TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
AERATION INF
PKIOHlTY CHFMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFR LOCATION
14fc STEARIC ACIU
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
14S PHFMOL 05
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
> FINAL EFF
i
Ul
146 NAPTHALENE D8
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
148 OI-AMYL PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
PRIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHtR LOCATION
149 COLOR(PLATINUM-COBALT UNITS)
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
0
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
<10
3
<50
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
100
0
>85
2
3
3
0
0
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
>500
0
6
6
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
11
AVERAGE
% RECOVERY
V
114
BO
84
72
70
75
81
7Q
73
121
84
82
AVERAGE
VALUF
52
lf>80
1597
V'OI) (MG/LITER)
AFRAT'OM
-------
TABLE A-2
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 013 - ALKALINE-BCT
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent and
final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-6
-------
<»»E.C. JOKOAN CO ** SURCAT= ALKALINE-BCT
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 1
RIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHER LOCATION
4 REN^FNF
RAW WATFR
FINAL EFF
21 2,4.6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
23 CHLOROFORM
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
31 2,4-DlCHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
3fl ETHYLBEN2ENE
- FINAL EFF
44 WFTHYLENE CHLORIDE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
65 PHENOL
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
2
8
1
a
0
i
5
7
8
p
?
4 ,
6
6
?
0
5
<10
1
1
ft
1
0
6
4
2
1
1
7
5
1
0
1
0
2
RANGE
10-100
0
0
?
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
9
2
AVERAGE
>100 CONC. UG/L
0 <1
0 <1
0 A
0 <1
9 1550
0 6
0 1
0 <1
0 <1
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 ft
0 6
0 <1
0 55
0 5
BIS(2-FTHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
-------
nurvHLl'T OV.I
ur
n tun
oo
fcHE.MlCAL-NAME
68
7H
Hf,
87
Yd?
SAMPLF
LOCATION
PIS(?-ETHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE (COM.)
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
ANTHRACENE
Tt TRACHLOROETHYLENE
TOLUENF
TRICHLOROF.THYLENE
CHHOMIUM-CR
COPPFR-CU
L.F AD-PM
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
i*
AERATION INF
HAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
HAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
ND
RANGE
<10! lOrlOO >100
CONC. UG/L
1
3
4
8
8
6
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
h !
i
5
1
I
1
3
6
3
3
I
3
1
0
a
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
2
9
7
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
?
?
<1
<1
<1
1
<1
1
85
55
?1
46
17
4
17
18
-------
100
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
7
3
7
3
8
5
3
0
3
0
7
6
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
< i
<1
<1
3
36
12
68
138
110
1043
123
739
123
9ft
21
115
22
1084
508
-------
O
PH JOKIT^^fchftMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
rUJMhfr.R ^^ LOCATION
139 1-CHLOROUFHYUROAHIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
140 niCHLOROOEHYDROABIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
141 TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
AERATION INF
14? TF.TRACHLOROGUAIACOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
PRIORITY ChEMlCAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFR LOCATION
*
144 STfAKIC ACIU
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
145 PHF.NOL r>b
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
14^ NAPTHALFNE 08
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
4
6
7
a
8
3
8
NO
0
1 ..
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
<10
i
0
1
1
1
1
4
1
<50
0
3
3
1
2
3
1
?.
1
RANGE
10-100
4
2
1
0
0
2
0
RANGE
50-85
i
3
2
2
6
1
0
1
2
>100
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
>85
2
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
AVFRA(1^
CONC. UG/L
5?
6
?
<1
<1
5
<1
AVERAGE
% RECOVERY
R8
57
51
48
59
60
42
4f»
59
-------
»<>K.C. JORDAN co *» SUBCAT= ALKALINE-BCT
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 5
HRTORMY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFt< LOCATION
148 DI-AMYL PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
PKIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHER LOCATION
149 COLOR (PLATINUM-COBALT UNITS)
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
151 COO (MG/L1TER)
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
ND
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
<50
0
1
0
<5
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
50-H5
1
2
3
RANGE
5-500
3
0
0
3
9
>85
0
0
0
>500
0
9
6
ft
0
AVERAGE
* RECOVERY
fl?
60
58
AVERAGE
VALUE
67
1233
1619
766
397
-------
TABLE A-3
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 014 - ALKALINE-FINE
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent and
final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-12
-------
«<>t:..C. JORDAN CO »» SUHCAT= ALKALINE-FINE
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 1
PRIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME
NUMHKR
M
LO
11
?1
31
64
1 . 1f 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
?«4,b-TRICHLOROPHENOL
CHLOROFORM
2*4-DICHLOROPHENOL
METHYLENE CHLOHIDE
SAMPLE
LOCATION
D I CHLOROBROMETHANE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PHENOL
B1S(?-ETHYL HEAYL) PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL fcFF
RAW WATER
RANGE AVERAGE
NO <10 10-100 >100 CONC. UG/L
8
0
2
3
0
?
7
8
2
6
7
7
6
7
3
7
0
b
7
0
3
1
2
1
1
3
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
4
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
5
3
o ;
o ;
0 i
i
I
0 :
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
11
3
7B1
52
2
<1
<1
2
<1
<1
4
3
<1
7
<1
-------
PRIOR I TY^^HFMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMREP ^^ LOCATION
66 HIS(?-ETHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE (CONT.)
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
68 PI-N-HUTYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
70 OIFTHYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
85 TFTRACHLOROETHYLENE
AERATION INF
«6 TOLUFNF
AERATION INF
i
119 CHROMIUM-CR
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
1?0 COPPFR-CU
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
12? LEAD-PR
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
2
3
7
8
8
e
i
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<10
2
0
2
1
1
1
7
3
4
6
2
1
5
3
8
7
RANGE
10-100
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
b
3
1
8
4
0
1
2
MOO
1
0
0
o
0
1
0
:
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGES'
CONC. TTG/L
2fl
16
<1
*l.
<1
< 1
23
?
26
7
6
22
8
3
6
6
1?3 MERCURY
RAW WATER
<1
-------
*«h.C. JORDAN CO «» SUBCAT= ALKALINE-FINE
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 3
NIOHITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
WiMHf-H LOCATION
1?3 MERCURY (CONT.)
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
1?4 NICKFL-NI
RAW WATFR
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
l?ft ZINC-ZN
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
130 AHIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
*
131 DEHYDROABIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
13? ISOPIMARIC ACID
AERATION INF
133 PIMARIC ACID
AERATION INF
134 OLE 1C ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
8
3
5
3
3
6
7
<10
9
9
3
3
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
RANGE
10-100
0
0
0
6
4
2
3
8
0
1
0
0
5
6
0
1
>100
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
5
0
6
0
1
0
3
1
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
< i
<1
2
16
8
19
149
71
191
1
181
3
48
40
175
18
13b LINOLEIC ACID
AERATION INF
94
-------
nv-Hi »i_Fv«i_ i'irr i PIC
ur vtKiritAliUN DAIA
PAGE 4
RRIORIT Y^^eMICAL-NAMt SAMPLE
NUMHfcR ^^ LOCATION
136 LINOLENIC ACID
AERATION INF
137 FPOAYSTKAR1C ACID
RAW WATER
139 l-CHLORODEHYDROABIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
140 OICHLOROhKHYDROABlETIC ACIf)
AERATION INF
14] TR1CHLOROGUAIACOL
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
; 14? TETRACHLOR06UAIACOL
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
143 XYLENES
AERATION INF
HWIOHITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFR LOCATION
144 STEARIC ACID
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
8
2
2
7
2
5
8
2
2
6
7
ND
0
0
0
<10
0
0
1
1
0
4
1
0
5
3
2
<50
0
2
0
RANGE
10-100
1
0
b
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
RANGE
50-85
1
4
4
MOO
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>85
2
3
5
AVERAG09
CONC. UG/L
10
37
41
4
4
?
<1
8
f>
2
1
AVERAGE
% RECOVERY
93
73
90
-------
.C. JORDAN CO »» SUHCAT= ALKALINE-FINE
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 5
PRIORITY CHHMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFR LOCATION
145 PHFNOL 05
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
146 MAPTHALENE D8
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
.FINAL EFF
14H OI-AMYL PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL FFF
PRIORITY CHfcMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMRF.R LOCATION
I
~j
149 COLOR(PLATINUM-COBALT UNITS)
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
151 COP (MG/LITER)
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
0
0
<50
2
4
?
1
3
1
0
1
0
<5
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
50-85
1
5
6
1
3
5
0
2
2
RANGE
5-500
3
0
2
2
9
>85
0
0
1
0
0
0
?
3
4
>500
0
9
7
7
0
AVERAGE
% RECOVERY
32
54
61
50
44
68
111
73
100
AVERAGE
VALUE
5
850
826
576
244
-------
TABLE A-4
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 015 - ALKALINE-UNBLEACHED
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent,
aeration effluent and final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-18
-------
«»»h.C. JORDAN CO «« SUHCAT= ALK AL INE-UNHLfc ACHED ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA . PAGE 1
nlOKHY CHK"-ICAL-NAI"E SAMPLE
NltMMj N LOCATION
4 RFNZFNF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
?3 CHLOROFORM
AERATION INF
3« K'THYLHFNZFNF
AERATION INF
uu MF THYLFNE CHLORIDE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
b<* ISORHORONF
AERATION INF
>
h5 PHENOL
RAW MATER
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
f»6 hIS(?-FTHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
X
ND
ft
4
6
f>
?
2
1
6 .
1
0
0
?
4
?
5
<10
1
?
3
3
0
6
5
1
2
0
3
1
3
1
1
RANKE
10-100
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
2
0
7
0
0
1
0
0
AVERAGE
MOO CONC. UG/L
i . . -
i - .', ii .. !
0 < 1
0 <1
0 <1
0 <1
0,3
! 1 ; 34
0 4
0 : -i' "'. 4 '
; ".'
0 <1
? es
0 3
o
-------
I 0^1 1 ₯
N>
O
6H
f<6
[)I-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
TFTHAC.HLOhOETHYLFNE
TOLUFNF
1?? LFAO-PH
MICKEL-NI
SAMPLF
LUCATldN
(CONT.)
AEHATION EFF
AERATION INF
AEMAT10N INF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
'AERATION INF
"AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATFR
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL tFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL IFF
RAW WATER
NO
0
7
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
<10
3
2
6
2
1
3
3
3
?
3
3
?
4
2
3
3
g
3
h
RANGE
10-100
0
0
1
1
7
0
3
0
7
0
3
1
B
1
3
0
0
0
0
MOO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGED
CONC. P;/L
1
1
4
\
''"."'' 7
14
7
1?
4
19
5
9
21
14
S
16
<,
<]
<1
< i
-------
««K.C. JORDAN CO «» SUHCAT= ALKALINE-UNBLEACHED
ANALYSIS OF VE&IKICATION DATA
PAGE
124 NICKFL-NI
T
130 AMIfTIC ACID
J31 nEHYDROAHlETIC ACID
13?
ACID
133 PI^AHIC ACID
134 OLfc'IC ACID
SAMPLE
LOCATION
o
7
3
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
i
0
0
i
0
0
i
0
1
0
1
10-100
p
n
i
3
f,
3
3
0
3
0
2
6
2
1
3
3
0
4
0
0
2
>100
0
n
0
0
4
0
3
Q
3
9
0
0
7
n
0
6
0
0
0
Q
0
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
6
«s
5
14
114
ft7
81
?02ft
121
741
11
b?
325
ft
15
323
<1
17
,,
1070
3H
-------
«»n~.C. JOMJAN CO «» SUHCATs ALK AL INE-UNRLE ACHE D
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA PAGE 4
HrtlOHl TY ^THFMICAL-NAMt SAMPLE
NllMHt^ LOCATION
134 OLE 1C AC 10 (CONT.)
FINAL EFF
135 LINOLEIC ACID
AERATION INF
136 L1NOLENIC ACID
AFRATION INF
MO niCHLOROOFHYOHOAHIETlC ACID
AERATION INF
143 XYLFNFS
AERATION INF
, HH10MTY CHfrMJCAL-NAME SAMPLE
i, NUMHFM LOCATION
o «
144 STKARIC ACID
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
I4b PHf NOL 05
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
ND
0
0
6
8
3
NO
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
<10
0
0
0
1
1
<50
1
3
0
3
?
4
0
3
RANGE
10-100
?
0
1
0
5
RANGE
50-Hb
2
1
?
1
1
2
3
3
MOO
4
9
2
0
0
J-85
0
4
1
?
0
3
0
0
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
107
453
1*9
<1
14
AVFRAGE
» RECOVERY
54
55
7ft
59
37
5H
64
47
NAPTHALFNE P8
RAW WATKR
44
-------
*»E.C. JORDAN CO «»
OHITY ChFMICAL-NAME
NbMHJ-
NUMHER
I
-o
149
151
SURCATs ALKALiNE-UNRLEACHfcD
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE
NAPTHALFNE Dfl
OI-AMYL PHTHALATE
CHtMICAL-NAME
C.OLOW (PLATINUM-COBALT UNITS)
COO (MG/LITEW)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
(CONT.)
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
SAMPLE
LOCATION
PAW WATFR
AERATION INF
AERATION EFF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
NO
0
.0
0
0
0
0
<5o
A
1
4
1
2
0
3
<5
0
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
50-Hb
2
2
?
1
3
3
2
RANGE
5-500
3
5
3
3
0
5
>85
1
0
0
1
4
0
1
>500
0
4
0
3
9
4
AVERAGE
% RECOVERY
45
53
35
75
PO
*?
49
AVERAGE
VALUE
Oil
213
1208
948
545
-------
TABLE A-5
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 016 - SEMI-CHEMICAL
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent and
final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-24
-------
»*E.C. JORDAN CO *« SURCAT= SE'M I-CHtM ICAL
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 1
PIORITY CHF. MICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NI.IN-HER LOCATION
4 PF.N/FNF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
?3 CHLOROFORM
AERATION INF
3H FThYLhFNZFNF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
AERATION INF
FINAL tFF
5S NAHTHALF.NF.
AERATION INF
64 PFNTACHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
65 PHENOL
HAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL tFF
66 RIS(2-FTHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL fcFF
NO
3
4
3
4
4
2
0
H
4
5
5
1
0
0
1
1
0
<10
3
2
3
2
2
3
5
?
1
1
1
0
3
0
1
3
RANGE
10-100
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
4
3
AVERAGE
MOO CONC. UG/L
0 3
0 <1
0 1
0 <1
0 <1
0 6
0 5
0 2
0 <1
0 <1
0 ?
6 230
0 14
0 11
0 21
0 IS
67 RUTYL PFNZYL PHTHALATE
68 OI-N-RUTYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
AERATION
<1
-------
»»E.C. JORDAN CO ** SUBCAT= SEMI-CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA PAGE 2
PR I OP I T^^hF MICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHHR LOCATION
fl6 TOLUENE
AERATION INF
EINAL FFF
fl7 TR1CHLOROFTHYLENE
AERATION INF
119 CHROMIUM-CR
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
1?0 COPPER-CU
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
> FINAL tFF
i
ISJ
* 1?1 CYANIDE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
1?? LEAD-PR
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
1?3 MERCURY
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
124 NICKEL-NI
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
Nl)
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
00
3
3
2
?
0
0
?
0
1
3
3
3
?
0
0
1
6
6
?
?
3
RANGE
10-100
0
0
1
0
6
6
0
4
b
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
0
. 0
4
3
AVFRAdPr
MOO CONC. UG/L
0 ?
0 1
0 B
0 ?
0 ?9
0 19
0 «S
? 79
0 ?5
0 9
0 9
0 9
0 4
3 95
0 35
0 <1
0 <1
0 <1
0 3
0 1?
0 10
-------
»»E.C. JOHDAN CO «» SUBCAT= SEMI-CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGF 3
HlOMTY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMBER LOCATION
1?H ZINC-ZN
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
130 AHIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
131 OEHYDROAP1ETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
13? ISOPIMAP1C ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
133 PI MAR 1C ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
134 OLE 1C ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
135 LINOLEIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
136 LINOLENIC ACID
AERATION INF
139 1-CHLORODFHYDROAHIETIC ACID
FINAL EFF
140 niCHLORODFHYDROABIETIC ACID
FINAL EFF
ND
0
0
1
3
3
0
2
0
3
3
5
0
5
3
4
3
4
4
<10
2
0
0
0
0
n
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
RANGE
10-100
0
3
4
0
3
1
3
6
3
2
1
?
1
1
2
?
1
2
>100
n
3
1
3
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
0
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
p
143
61
12ft
10
168
14
34
7
27
2
IIS
*
61
4
49
4
7 !
-------
»*t.C. JORDAN CO «« bUHLAT=
I -CHt"i J L AL
ur vr. n i r i v.« i iur»
r » ur. ^
PPIORI^P' CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUN HER LOCATION
143 XYLENES
AERATION INF
t INAL EFF
HHlOHITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHER LOCATION
144 STEARIC ACID
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
i4b PHENOL os
RAW WATER
> AERATION INF
^ FINAL EFF
00
146 NAPTHALENE 08
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
14H DI-AMYL PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
Af. RATION INF
FINAL EFF
PRIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHER LOCATION
1<»9 COLOR (PLATINUM-COHALT UNITS)
RAW MATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
151 COP (MG/LITFR)
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
4
3
KT>
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO
0
0
0
0
0
<10
?
3
<*0
0
?
5
1
?
3
0
n
i
0
3
*
<5
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
10-100
n
0
RANGE
50-HS
2
4
1
1
4
3
2
4
s
0
3
2
RANGE
S-BOO
?
0
0
0
0
>100
n
0
>85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
>500
0
f.
f.
£
fr
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
<1
<»
AVERAGE
* RECOVERY
83
SS
37
S3
SO
49
7?
70
53
100
S3
39
AVERAGE
VALUE
SH
391S
30?S
?41 0
1493
-------
TABLE A-6
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 017 - ALKALINE UNBLEACHED & SEMI-CHEMICAL
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent and
final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-29
-------
KIOMT^BCHFMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NliMHFR ^^ LOCATION
4 HENZFNF
AERATION INF
11 1 .1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANF.
AERATION INF
23 CHLOROFORM
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
RAW WATER
. AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
65 PHENOL
AERATION INF
66 BIS(?-ETHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
68 DI-N-RUTYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
86 TOLUENF
AERATION INF
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
AERATION INF
ND
3
3
1
4
1
3
5
5
0
1
1
2
4
3
4
<10
3
3
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
3
0
3
2
RANGE
10-100
0
0
0
0
o
0
1
0
6
3
4
1
2
0
0
>1QO
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
AVERAfll
CONC.^JG/L
1
3
<1
1
3
5P
13
1
56
10
10
5
7
2
<1
-------
«<»F.C. JORDAN CO *« SUHCAT= ALKALINE UNBL+SEMI -CHEM ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA PAGE 2
HIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
MUMhhR LOCATION
107 P.C.R. 1?B4
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
109 P.C.H. 1?32
RAW WATER
119 CHPOMIUM-CR
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
1?0 COPPER-CU
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
**
1?1 CYANIDE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
12? LEAD-PR
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
1?3 MFRCURY
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
ND
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
<10
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
1
0
2
1
3
3
2
1
3
2
6
5
2
4
RANGE
10-100
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
1
6
4
5
3
3
0
5
3
0
0
0
0
2
>100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERAGE
CONC, UG/L
?
<1
2
<1
?
29
19
fl
3fl
15
in
if>
10
2
24
13
<1
< j
-------
RIOKITYdfcHF.MICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHER ^^ LOCATION
124 NICKEL-NI 100
0
0
0
0
0
6
6
0
6
6
6
6
3
3
6
6
5
1
n m
AVERA
CONC,
5
6
40
25
24
139?
710
9
607
235
547
187
15?
95
618
407
441
59
r ^ WK,
<
UG/L
137 EPOAYSTEARIC ACID
AERATION INF
133
-------
VJORITY CHKMICAL.-NAME SAMPLF
IfUMHf-k LOCATION
137 EPOXYSTFARIC ACID (CONT.)
FINAL EFF
143 XYLF.NES
AERATION INF
"KlORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMBER LOCATION
144 STEARIC ACID
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
145 PHENOL 05
RAW WATER
> AF.RATION INF
i P-INAL EFF
OJ
146 MAHTHALFNE D8
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
148 DJ-AMYL PHTHALATE
RAW WATFR
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
'RIOR1TY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFR LOCATION
149 COLOR(PLATINUM-COBALT UNITS)
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
4
3
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ND
0
0
0
<10
0
0
<50
0
6
5
?
4
0
1
2
4
0
2
0
<5
0
0
0
RANGE
10-100
0
3
RANGE
50-85
?
0
1
0
2
6
\
4
1
1
4
5
RANGE
5-500
2
5
6
>100
2
0
>85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
>500
0
1
0
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
57
11
AVERAGE
% RECOVERY
6?
?7
47
45
53
59
44
57
55
BR
57
7?
AVERAGE
VALUE
23
425
25fl
151
COD (MG/LITER)
-------
TABLE A-7
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBGATEGORY 022 - SULFITE-PAPERGRADE
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent,
secondary clarifier effluent and final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-34
-------
*«E.C. JORDAN CO «<» SUBCAT= SULF ITE-PAPERGRADE
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 1
HJORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMBER LOCATION
4 HENZFNF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
11 1 . 1 ,1-TRICHLOROETHANF
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
13 1 , 1-OICHLOROETHANE
AERATION INF
21 ?,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
?3 CHLOROFORM
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
?4 ?-CHLOROPHENOL
FINAL EFF
31 2f4-DKHLOROPHENOL
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
NO
5
7
6
1
9
6
6
7
1
0
0
9
6
9
2
2
0
<10
0
2
0
2
3
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
7
RANGE
10-100
1
3
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
3
0
3
0
2
3
1
4
MOO
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
e
0
12
0
o .
i
3
0
1
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
53
1.2
414
3
2
4
4
39
3211
56
433
9
<]
27
464
5
271
PICHLOROHROMETHANE
AERATION INF
-------
««t..C. JORDAN CU »« bUHLATs bULh 1 1 t-H AKtKbK AUt
H i U* i T Y ^BHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
MJMHER LOCATION
48 DICHLOPOHROMETHANE (CONT.)
FINAL EFF
55 NAPTHALENE
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
64 PFNTACHLOHOPHENOL
HA* WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
65 PHENOL
HAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
1 **
66 HIS(?-ETHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
RAW WATtR
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
68 DI-N-RUTYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
86 TOLUENE
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AIMALT
NO
11
6
9
3
6
11
3
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
e
. e
11
3
5
bis ur
<10
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
4
2
6
1
1
0
?
3
vrr ir iu
RANGE
10-100
0
2
2
0
?
0
0
4
0
1
0
2
0
5
0
0
1
4
4
\ II 1 UIN
>100
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
p
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UM 1 H
AVFRAG
CONC.
-------
««E'.C. JORDAN CO »» bUHCAT= SULFITE-PAPERGRAOE
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE
CHEMICAL-NAME
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
CHROMIUM-CR
COPPER-CU
OJ
12? LEAD-PR
NICKFL-NI
2INOZN
SAMPLE
LOCATION
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAM MATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
RANGE
NO <10 10-100 >100
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
ft
10
0
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
3
2
1
5
2
1
0
1
3
3
1
4
4
9
3
12
4
0
0
5
2
0
1
5
2
4
2
2
3
8
1
4
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
7
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
<1
fl
13
in
7
IS
fll
20
29
B
13
10
10
<1
<1
<1
<1
3
1ft
17
ft
26
-------
V, « W W f I/ P
ur vr.n
tun UA I
PMIONITY^PHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMRFk ^^ LOCATION
1?8 2INC-ZN (CONT.)
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
130 AHIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL FFF
131 DFHYDROARIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
13? ISOP1MARIC ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
133 PIMARIC ACID
AtHATION INF
FINAL EFF
134 OLtIC ACID
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
135 LINOLE1C ACID
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
0
0
0
3
6
0
3
3
5
7
11
0
0
5
3
8
<10
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
10-100
3
3
9
2
4
3
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
5
5
3
>100
5
0
3
4
2
6
4
2
0
0
0
5
0
2
1
1
AVERAGMp
CONC. UG/L
91
SB
IIP
135
51
555
246
62
13
R
4
16fl
25
47
57
26
LINOLFNIC ACID
AERATION INF
2
12
137 FPOAYSTFARIC ACID
AERATION INF
-------
100 CONC. UG/L
11
3
9
fl
11
10
8
6
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
3
<50
2
2
3
5
3
3
1
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
50-85
1
4
0
6
0
6
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
>«5
1
3
0
1
1
0
2
fl2
20
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
AVERAGE
* RECOVERY
f>7
72
24
52
47
57
-------
Ml OH] T^^kt'Mp MICAL-NAMF SAMPLE
NUMHER^P LOCATION
145 PHFNOL 05 (CONT.)
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
146 NAPTHALFNE 08
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
14H OI-AMYL PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
RIOKITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMBER "LOCATION
149 COLOR (PLATINUM-COBALT UNITS)
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
150 AMMUNIA (MG/LITER AS N)
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<50
3
8
2
1
1
7
2
2
3
8
<5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
RANGE
50-85
0
4
1
8
?
4
1
5
0
4
RANGE
5-500
4
3
0
3
1
2
2
3
>85
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
>500
0
6
3
9
0
0
0
0
AVERAM
% RECWFRY
40
43
50
72
53
47
71
66
26
39
AVERAGE
VALUE
93
2013
4887
1502
210
105
32
21
151
COP (MG/LITER)
AERATION INF
4794
-------
500 VALUE
151
COf) (MO/LI TEH)
(CONT.)
SEC. CLARIF
FINAL EFF
0
0
0
0
3
12
?887
1342
-------
TABLE A-8
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 031 - CHEMI-MECHANICAL PULP
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, aeration influent and
final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-42
-------
*«E.C. JORDAN CO «» SUPCATs CHEMI-MECHANICAL PULP ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
HHIOMITY CHEMICAL-NAME
PAGE 1
SAMPLE
LOCATION
ND
RANGE AVERAGE
<10 10-100 >1QO CONC. UG/L
38
65
66
68
ETHYLBF.NZENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
PHENOL
HIS(?-ETHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
OI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
TOLUENE
107 P.C.B. 1254
CHHOMIUM-CR
1?0 COPPER-CU
1?1 CYANIDE
AERATION INF
HAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF .
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
2
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
4
5
ft
31
7
3
3
1
<1
<1
?
3
4
?
40
16
10
-------
PHlORIIY^CHhMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHFK ^P LOCATION
121 CYANIDE
14
403
110
2700
143
1400
105
10?0
67
133 PIMARIC ACID
AERATION INF
747
-------
«»E.C. JORDAN CO » SUPCATs CHEMI-MECHANICAL PULP ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 3
PRIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMHER LOCATION
133 PIMARIC ACID (CONT.)
FINAL EFF
134 OLEIC AGIO
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
135 LINOLEIC ACID
AERATION INF
139 I-CHLOROUEHYDROABIETIC ACID
AERATION INF
143 XYLFNES
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
f PRIORITY CHEMICAL-NAME "§AMPLF
£ NUMHER LOCATION
144 STEARIC ACID
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
145 PHENOL D5
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
146 NAPTHALFNE 08
RAW WATER
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
148 ^|3I-AMYL PHTHALATE
^P RAW WATER
AERATION INF
ND
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
p
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
42
12BO
66
307
54
57
1
AVERAGE
* RECOVERY
QQ
57
10?
44
5?
50
54
70
56
11?
«5
-------
HIOHITi^CHfMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMRFR^P LOCATION
149 COLOR(PLAT1NUM-COHALT UNITS)
RAW WATF.R
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
151 COO (MG/LITER)
AERATION INF
FINAL EFF
NO
0
0
0
0
0
<5
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
5-500
1
3
3
0
3
>500
0
0
0
3
0
AVERAQ^
VALUE V
90
235
4?
bA7
96
-------
TABLE A-9
SUMMARY OF VERIFICATION ANALYSIS RESULTS*
SUBCATEGORY 033 - GROUNDWOOD-CMN
*0nly those compounds detected at the raw water, oxidation influent and
final effluent have been summarized.
The analysis results presented are preliminary, confirmation of the
results are presently in progress.
A-47
-------
n IOH 11^^ CHb MICAL-NflME SAMPLE
MIJMHfH^F LOCATION
4 REN2FNF
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
23 CHLOROFORM
OXID. INF
44 METHYLFNE CHLORIDE
FINAL EFF
65 PHFNOL
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
66 H1S(2-KTHYL HEXYL) PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
-OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
86 TOLUENF
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
119 CHROMIUM-CR
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
120 COPPER-CU
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
NO
0
2
?
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<10
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
?
3
0
0
2
RANGE
10-100
2
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
3
1
MOO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
AVERA^B
CONC.^JG/L
9
-------
*»f.'.C. JORDAN CO »* bURCAT= GROUNOWOOD-CMN
ANALYSIS OF VERIFICATION DATA
PAGE 2
RJORITY CHKMICAL-NAME SAMPLE
NUMRER LOCATION
121 CYANIDE (CONT.)
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
1?? LFAD-PH
RAW WATER
OX ID. INF .
FINAL EFF
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
1^4 MCKFL-NI
RAW WATFR
OXID. INF
"FINAL EFF
l.r'B /MNC-ZN
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
130 AHIETIC ACID
OXID. INF
131 OFHYDROA8IETIC ACID
RAW WATFR
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
ND
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
<10
3
3
I
2
3
1
3
3
1
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
10-100
0
0
1 o
: i
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
>100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
0
3
0
AVERAGE
CONC. UG/L
9
9
p
13
?
-------
Ln
O
PHIORIT Y^BHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLF
NUMRF.R LOCATION
134 OLE 1C ACID
OXID. INF
135 LINOLFIC ACID
OXID. INF
143 XYLENES
OXID. INF
HKIOPITY CHEMICAL-NAME SAMPLF
NUMBER LOCATION
144 STEARIC ACID
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
"FINAL EFF
145 PHENOL OB
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
146 NAPTHALENF. D8
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
14H DI-AMYL PHTHALATE
RAW WATER
OXID. INF
FINAL EFF
ND
0
2
1
NO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<10
0
0
1
<50
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
RANGE
10-100
?
1
1
RANGE
1 50- |