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
<
I—I
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	1—I  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	1—I  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
                                            T—I  I  III"
                                             5  6  7  8 9 10
1—I  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'ir—r 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-