^**5
TECHNICAL REVi
•
of the
"M »
Best Available Technology,
Best Demonstrated Technology, r\
and ., ,'• .-"•«•„.£•%
Pretreatment Technology -frx
for the
TIMBER PRODUCTS P»C)CESSIN<^,
Point Source Category _^.
^~
K
-
JPc*
.v iron men ta I Science Bnd Ert^ieering, Inc.
Gainesville, Florida
' ' • ifc.'
-------
NOTICE
This document is a DRAFT 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 the Agency.
The report will be undergoing extensive review by EPA, Federal
and State agencies, public interest organizations and other
interest groups and persons during the coming weeks.
The regulations to be published by EPA under Sections 301(d),
304(b) and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 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 being developed. Upon
completion of the review and evaluation of the technical, eco-
nomic, and environmental information, an EPA report will be issued
at the time of proposed rule-making setting forth EPA's prelim-
inary conclusions regarding the subject industry. These proposed
rules will include proposed effluent guidelines and standards,
standards of performance, and pretreatment standards applicable
to the industry. 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, referenced, 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 Hazardous Materials
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY,
BEST DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY, AND
PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY FOR THE
TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
July 29, 1977
Submitted by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC.
P.O. Box 13454, University Station
Gainesville, Florida 32604
Project No. 75-054
-------
DRAFT
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of a review by Environmental Science
and Engineering, Inc., of the proposed effluent limitations based on the
best available technology (BAT) and pretreatment standards for existing
sources and new sources, in conformance with a consent decree of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, June 7, 1976.
The development of information in this document relates to the wood pre-
serving, insulation board, and hardboard segments of the timber products
point source category.
The purpose of this document and supporting file records is to develop a
profile of the industry segments, assemble and analyze existing informa-
tion, collect and analyze new information, and evaluate the full range of
applicable treatment and control technology in order to provide to the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency a technical base for subsequent
development of revised guidelines.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I RECOMMENDATIONS 1-1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1
III INTRODUCTION 3-1
Purpose and Authority 3-1
Standard Industrial Classifications 3-3
Methods Used for Development of Candidate
Technologies 3-6
Wood Preserving 3-8
Process Descriptions 3-16
Insulation Board 3-17
Wet-Process Hardboard 3-29
IV INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION 4-1
General 4-1
Wood Preserving 4-1
Rationale for Subcategorization Review 4-2
Manufacturing Processes 4-14
Methods of Waste Treatment and Disposal 4-15
Proposed Subcategories 4-17
Insulation Board 4-19
Wet-Process Hardboard 4-22
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
General 5-1
Wood Preserving 5-1
-------
Section Page
Insulation Board 5-19
Wet-Process Hardboard 5-32
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 6-1
General 6-1
Methodology 6-1
The Priority Pollutants 6-4
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants 6-9
Semi-Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants 6-13
Traditional Parameters 6-28
Parameters of Interest 6-36
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 7-1
General 7-1
In-Plant Control Measures 7-2
End-of-Pipe Treatment . 7-12
Primary Treatment—Insulation Board and
Hardboard 7-17
Secondary Treatment 7-18
Soil Irrigation 7-31
Biological Treatment in the Insulation
Board Industry 7-42
Biological Treatment in the Wet Process
Hardboard Industry 7-45
Plants with Multi-Stage Biological Treatment 7-74
Plants with Single-Stage Biological Treatment 7-82
Plants with Flocculation 7-85
in
-------
Section Page
VIII COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS 8-1
Cost Information 8-1
Energy Requirements of Candidate Technologies 8-1
Non-Water Quality Aspects of Candidate
Technologies 8-1
IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE 9-1
X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE 10-1
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 11-1
XII PRETREATMENT GUIDELINES 12-1
XIII PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS 13-1
Factors Which Influence Variations in Performance
of Wastewater Treatment Facilities 13-1
Variability Analysis 13-2
Insulation Board Segment 13-3
XIV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 14-1
XV BIBLIOGRAPHY 15-1
XVI GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 16-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-l—TOXIC OR POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES
NAMED IN CONSENT DEGREE A-l
APPENDIX A-2—LIST OF SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS . A-3
APPENDIX B—ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL
PROCEDURE B-l
APPENDIX C—CONVERSION TABLE C-l
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Section . Page
III
III-l Geographical Distribution of Wood Preserving Plants - 3-14
in the United States
III-2 Geographical Distribution of Insulation Board 3-21
Manufacturing Facilities in the United States
111-3 Total Board Production Figures: Hardboard 3-22
III-4 Diagram of a Typical Insulation Board Process 3-24
III-5 Schematic Diagram of Cylinder Forming Machine 3-28
II1-6 Geographical Distribution of Hardboard Manufacturing 3-32
Facilities in the United States
III-7 Total Board Production Figures: Insulation Board 3-33
II1-8 Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process Hardboard 3-41
Mill SIS Hardboard Production Line
III-9 Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process Hardboard 3-42
Mill S2S Hardboard Production Line
V-l Variation of BOD with Preheating Pressure 5-23
V-2 Linear Correlation Between Standard and Non- 5-44
Standard Methods Raw Waste Concentrations Plant 62
VII
VII-1 Variation in Oil Content of Effluent with Time 7-3
Before and After Initiating Closed Steaming
VII-2 Variation in COD of Effluent with Time Before and 7-4
After Closed Steaming: Days 0-35 Open Steaming;
Days 35-130 Closed Steaming
VII-3 Plant 64 7-9
VII-4 Determination of Reaction Rate Constant for a 7-20
Creosote Wastewater
-------
LIST OF FIGURES- CONTINUED
Section Page
VI1-5 COD Removal from a Creosote Wastewater by Aerated 7-21
Lagoon without Sludge Return
VII-6 Phenol Content in Oxidation Pond Effluent Before and 7-31
After Installation in June 1966 of Aerator
VII-7 Final Effluent Concentrations - Plant 248 7-54
VII-8 Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon 7-65
Added and Removal of COD and Phenols from a Creosote
Wastewater
VII-9 Candidate Treatment Technology - Alternative A 7~99
VII-10 Candidate Treatment Technology - Alternative B 7-100
VII-11 Candidate Treatment Technology - Alternative C 7-101
VII-12 Candidate Treatment Technology - Alternative D 7-102
VII-13 Candidate Treatment Technology - Alternative E 7-103
VII-14 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-104
VII-15 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood. Preserving 7-105
VII-16 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-106
VII-17 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-107
VII-18 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-108
VII-19 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-109
VI1-20 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-110
VII-21 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-111
VII-22 Candidate Treatment Technology - Wood Preserving 7-112
XIII
XIII-1 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-9
Plant 42
XIII-2 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-10
Plant 824
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES-CONTINUED
Section Page
XIII-3 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-11
Plant 28
XIII-4 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-12
Plant 888
XIII-5 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-13
Plant 24
XIII-6 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-14
Plant 606
XIII-7 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-15
Plant 262
XIII-8 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-16
Plant 444
XIII-9 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-17
Plant 64
XIII-10 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-18
Plant 248
XIII-11 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-19
Plant 373
XIIl-12 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-20
Plant 1071
XIII-13 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-21
Plant 231
XIII-14 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-22
Plant 931
XIII-15 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-23
Plant 123
XIII-16 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-24
Plant 555
XI11-17 Monthly Variation in Waste Water Characteristic, 13-25
Plant 125
VII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES-CONTINUED
Section Page
XI11-18 Manthjly Variation in Waste Wa.ter Characteristic, 13-26
Plant ,531
APPENDICES
B
B-l Base-Neutral To.tal Ipn Current Chromatpgram B-4
B-2 Acidic Total Ion Chromatogram B-6
B-3 Pesticide Mixed Standard Br8
VIII
-------
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES—CONTINUED
Section Page
VI
VI-10 Parameters of Interest in the Insulation Board 6-38
Industry
VI-11 Parameters of Interest in the Wet Process 6-39
Hardboard Industry
VII
VII-1 Progressive Changes in Selected Characteristics 7-5
of Water Recycled in Closed Steaming Operations
VII-2 Equipment and System Used with Cooling Water by 7-7
U.S. Wood-Preserving Plants: 1972 and 1974
VI1-3 Summary of Arsenic Treatment Methods and 7-16
Removals Achieved
VI1-4 Substrate Removal at Steady-State Conditions 7-22
in Activated Sludge Units Containing Creosote
Wastewater
VII-5 Reduction in Pentachlorophenol and COD in 7-23
Wastewater Treated in Activated Sludge Units
VI1-6 BOD, COD, and Phenol Loading and Removal Rates 7-27
for Pilot Trickling Filter Processing a Creosote
Wastewater3
VII-7 Relationship Between BOD Loading and 7-28
Treatability for Pilot Trickling Filter
Processing a Creosote Wastewater
VII-8 Sizing of Trickling Filter for a Wood Preserving 7-29
Plant
VI1-9 Average Monthly Phenol and BOD Concentrations in 7-32
Effluent from Oxidation Pond
VII-10 Results of Laboratory Tests of Soil Irrigation 7-34
Method of Wastewaer Treatment*
VII-11 Reduction of COD and Phenol Content in 7-35
Wastewater Treated by Soil Irrigation*
IX
-------
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES—CONTINUED
Section Page
VII
VII-12 Plants that Employ Biological Treatments as 7-38
Part of Their Waste Management Program
VI1-13 Raw and Treated Wastewater Parameters and 7-39
Pollution Loads Per Unit of Production for
Seven Exemplary Plants in the Steaming Sub-
category
VII-14 Raw and Final Waste Loadings for Polynuclear 7-41
Aromatics*
VI1-15 Insulation Board Treated Effluent Character- 7-43
isties (Annual Average)
YII-16 Insulation Board Annual Average Raw and Treated 7-46
Waste Characteristics
VI1-17 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent 7-47
Reduction for Total Phenols Insulation Board
VI1-18 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent 7-48
Reduction for Insulation Board Metals
VII-19a SIS Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics 7-50
(Annual Average)
VII-19b S2S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics 7-51
(Annual Average)
VI1-20 Standard and Non-Standard Methods Comparison, 7-53
Final Effluent Concentrations, Plant 248
VII-21a Hardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste 7-59
Characteristics
VII-21b Hardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste 7-60
Characteristics (continued)
VII-22 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent 7-61
Reduction for Total Phenols Hardboard
VI1-23 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent 7-62
Reduction for Hardboard Metals
-------
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES—CONTINUED
Section Page
VII
VII-24 Best Demonstrated Final Effluent Concentra- 7-88
tions, Wood Preserving Organic Chemicals
Subcategory (mg/1)
VII-25 Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads 7-113
Achievable by Candidate Technologies,
kg/1,000 cu m (lbs/1,000 cu ft), Wood Pre-
serving Organic Chemicals Subcategories
VII-26 Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads 7-114
Achievable by Candidate Technologies, Insula-
tion Board Mechanical Pulping and Refining
VI1-27 Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads 7-115
Achievable by Candidate Technologies, Insula-
tion Board Thermo-Mechanical Pulping and Refining
VI1-28 Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads 7-116
Achievable by Candidate Technologies
VI1-29 Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads 7-117
Achievable by Candidate Technologies
VIII
VIII-1 Cost Assumptions 8-2
VIII-2 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-5
Plant A, Alternative A, Cost Summary
VIII-3 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-6
Plant A, Alternative B, Cost Summary
VIII-4 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-7
Plant A, Alternative C, Cost Summary
VIII-5 Insulation Board Me~hanical Pulp, Model 8-8
Plant A, Alternative D, Cost Summary
VIII-6 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-9
Plant A, Alternative E, Cost Summary
VIII-7 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-10
Plant B, Alternative A, Cost Summary
XI
-------
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES—CONTINUED
Sec tion Page
VIII
VIII-8 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-11
Plant B,, Alternative B, Cost Summary
VIII-9 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-12
Plant B, Alternative C, Cost Summary
VI11-10 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-13
Plant B, Alternative D, Cost Summary
VIII-11 Insulation Board Mechanical Pulp, Model 8-14
Plant B, Alternative E, Cost Summary
VIII-12 Insulation Board, Thermo-Mechanical Pulping 8-15
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant C,
Alternative A, Cost Summary
VII1-13 Insulation Board, Thermo-Mechanical Pulping 8-16
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant C,
Alternative B, Cost Summary
VI11-14 Insulation Board, Thermos-Mechanical Pulping 8-17
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant C,
Alternative C, Cost Summary
VIII-15 Insulation Board, Thermo-Mechanical Pulping &-18
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant C,
Alternative D, Cost Summary
VII1-16 Insulation Board, Thermo-Mechanical Pulping 8-19
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant C,
Alternative D, Cost Summary
VIII-17 Insulation Board, Thermo-Mechanical Pulping 8-20
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant D,
Alternative A, Cost Summary
VIII-18 Insulation Board, Thermo-Mechanical Pulping 8-21
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant D,
Alternative B, Cost Summary
VIII-19 Insulation Board, Thermo-Mechanical Pulping 8-22
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant D,
Alternative C, Cost Summary
XII
-------
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES—CONTINUED;
Section Page
VIII
VI11-20 Insulation Board,, Thermo-Meehanical Pulping 8-23
and/or? Hardboard Production, Model Pliant D,
Alternative D,. Cost Summary
VIII-21 Insulation Board, Thermo-Meehanical Pulping 8-24
and/or Hardboard Production, Model Plant D,
Alternative E, Cost Summary
VII1-22 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant E, 8-25
Alternative A, Cost Summary
VI11-23 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant E, 8-26
Alternative B, Cost Summary
VI11-24 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant E, 8-27
Alternative C, Cost Summary
VIII-25 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant E, 8-28
Alternative D, Cost Summary
VIII-26 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant E,, 8-29
Alternative E, Cost Summary
VII1-27 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant F, 8-30
Alternative A, Cost Summary
VIII-28 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant F, 8-31
Alternative B, Cost Summary
VIII-29 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant F, 8-32
Alternative C, Cost Summary
VI11-30 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant F, 8-33
Alternative D, Cost Summary
VII1-31 Wet Process Hardboard SIS, Model Plant F, 8-34
Alternative E, Cost Summary
VIII-32 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant G,, 8-35
Alternative A, Cost Summary
VIII-33 Wet Process Hardboardd S2S, Model Plant G, 8-36
Alterntive B, Cost Summary
XIII
-------
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES—CONTINUED
Section Page
VIII
VIII-34 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant G, 8-37
Alternative C, Cost Summary
VIII-35 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant 6, 8-38
Alternative D, Cost Summary
VIII-36 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant 6, 8-39
Alternative E, Cost Summary
VI11-37 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant H, 8-40
Alternative A, Cost Summary
VII1-38 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant H, 8-41
Alternative B, Cost Summary
VII1-39 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant H, 8-42
Alternative C, Cost Summary
VII1-40 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant H, 8-43
Alternative D, Cost Summary
VIII-41 Wet Process Hardboard S2S, Model Plant H, . 8-44
Alternative E, Cost Summary
VII1-42 Wood Preserving Direct Discharge—Option 1 v 8-45
with Activated Sludge Alternative
VIII-43 Wood Preserving Direct Discharge—Option 1 8-46
with Aerated Lagoon Alternative
VIII-44 Wood Preserving Direct Discharge—Option 2 8-47
with Activated Sludge Alternative
VIII-45 Wood Preserving Direct Discharge—Option 2 8-48
with Aerated Lagoon Alternative
VIII-46 Wood Preserving Direct Discharge—Option 3 8-49
VIII-47 Wood Preserving Indirect Discharge—Option 1 8-50
VIII-48 Wood Preserving Indirect Discharge—Option 2 8-51
VIII-49 Wood Preserving Indirect Discharge—Option 3 8-52
XIV
-------
DRAFT
LIST OF TABLES—CONTINUED
Section Page
VIII
VI11-50 Wood Preserving Self-Contained Discharge— 8-53
Option 1
VIII-51 Wood Preserving Self-Contained Discharge— 8-54
Option 2
VII1-52 Wood Preserving Self-Contained Discharge— 8-55
Option 3
VIII-53 Wood Preserving, Summary 8-56
VII1-54 Energy Cost Summary 8-57
VII1-55 Sludge Generation By Candidate Technologies 8-59
XIII
XIII-1 Environmental Protection Agency Wet Process 13-5
Hardboard Wastewater Stream Standard
Designation
XIII-2 Short-Term Variability Ratios, Wet Process 13-7
Hardboard
XIII-3 Short-Term Variability Ratios, Insulation 13-8
Board
XV
-------
DRAFT
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document, and
other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
1 -1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document, and
other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
2- 1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Authority
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act)
made a number of fundamental changes in the approach to achieving clean
water. One of the most significant changes was a shift from reliance en
effluent limitations related to water quality to direct control of
effluents through the establishment of technology-based effluent limi-
tations which form an additional and minimal basis for issuance of
discharge permits.
The Act requires EPA to establish guidelines for technology-based efflu-
ent limitations which must be achieved by point sources of discharges
into the navigable waters of the United States. Section 301(b) of the
Act requires the achievement by not later than July 1, 1977, of effluent
limitations for point sources, pther than publicly owned treatment
works, which are based on the application of the BPT as defined by the
Administrator pursuant to Section 304{b) of the Act.
Section 301(b) also requires the achievement by not later than July 1,
1983, of effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly
owned treatment works, which are based on the application of BAT techno-
logy, resulti.ig in progress toward the national goal of eliminating the
discharge of all pollutants, as determined in accordance with
regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant to Section 304(b) of
the Act.
Section 306 of the Act requires new sources to achieve standards of per-
formance providing for the greatest degree of effluent reduction which
the Administrator determines to be achievable through the application of
NSPS technology, operating methods, or other alternatives, including
where practicable a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.
Section 306 of the Act requires the Administrator, within one year after
a category of sources is included in a list published pursuant to Sec-
tion 306(b)(l)(A) of the Act, to propose regulations establishing
federal standards of performance for new sources within such categories.
The Administrator published in the Federal Register of January 16, 1973,
(38:FR:1624) a lift of 27 point source categories. Publication of the
list constituted ;nouncement of the Administrator's intention of
establishing, under Section 306, standards of performance applicable to
new sources.
3-1
-------
DRAFT
Section 307(b) provides that:
1. The Administrator shall, from time to time, publish proposed
regulations establishing pretreatment standards for intro-
duction of pollutants into treatment works (as defined in
Section 212 of this Act) which are publicly owned, for those
pollutants which are determined not to be susceptible to treat-
ment by such treatment works or which would interfere with the
operation of such treatment works. Not later than ninety days
after such publication and after opportunity for public hear-
ing, the Administrator shall promulgate such pretreatment
standards. Pretreatment standards under this subsection shall
specify a time for compliance not to exceed three years from
the date of promulgation and shall be established to prevent
the discharge of any pollutant through treatment works (as
defined in Section 212 of this Act) which are publicly owned,
which pollutant interferes with, passes through, or otherwise
is incompatible with such works.
2. The Administrator shall, from time to time, as control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other
alternatives change, revise such standards, following the
procedure established by this subsection for promulgation of
such standards.
3. When proposing or promulgating any pretreatment standard under
this section, the Administrator shall designate the category
or categories of sources to which such standard shall apply.
4. Nothing in this subsection shall affect any pretreatment
requirement establishment by any state or local law not in
conflict with any pretreatment standard established under this
subsection.
In order to insure that any source introducing pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works, which would be a new source subject to
Section 306 if it were to discharge pollutants, will not cause a vio-
lation of the effluent limitations established for the treatment works,
the Administrator shall promulgate pretreatment standards for the cate-
gory of such sources simultaneously with the promulgation of standards
of performance under Section 306 for the equivalent category of new
sources. Such pretreatment standards shall prevent the discharge into
the publicly owned treatment works of any pollutant which may interfere
with, pass through, or otherwise be incompatible with the works.
The Act defines a new source to mean any source for which the construc-
tion is commenced after the publication of proposed regulations
prescribing a standard of performance. Construction means any place-
ment, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment (including
contractual obligations to purchase such facilities or equipment) at the
premises where such equipment will be used, including preparation work at
such premises.
3-2
-------
DRAFT
Furthermore, in a consent agreement between EPA and the Natural
Resources Defense Council and other plaintiffs (Civil Actions Nos.
2153-73, 75-0172, 75-1699, and 75-1267) dated June 7, 1976, it was
stipulated and agreed that EPA would review the June 30, 1983, guide-
lines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for a
number of industry segments, including the Timber Products Processing
Point Source Category. The review is to specifically address a number of
pollutants, listed in Appendix A of this document and referred to in this
document as "priority pollutants." The review is also to recommend
technology-based limitations for, the priority pollutants, if applicable.
The Administrator published effluent guidelines and standards for the
timber products processing point source category in the Federal Register
of April 18, 1974, (39:FR:76). These guidelines and standards were
subsequently modified in the Federal Register on January 16, 1975
(40:FR:11). Included in these standards are those for the wood pre-
serving and wet process hardboard industries. Regulations for the
insulation board industry have not been promulgated. The published
effluent limitations and standards are shown in Tables III-l and III-2.
The purpose of this document is to provide the technical data base for a
review by EPA of BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards under Section
307(b)(2) and in accordance with the NRDC versus Train consent decree.
Information is presented on the processes, procedures, or operating
methods which will result in the elimination or reduction in the dis-
charge of pollutants from the industry, including data on the costs of
implementing such technology.
Standard Industrial Classifications
The Standard Industrial Classifications list was developed by the United
States Department of Commerce and is oriented toward the collection of
economic data related to gross production, sales, and unit costs. The
list is useful in that it divides American industry into discrete pro-
duct related segments.
The SIC list is not related to the nature of the industry in terms of
actual plant operations, production processes, or considerations associ-
ated with water pollution control. The SIC codes investigated during
the Timber Products Processing Effluent Limitations Review are:
SIC 2411 Logging Camps and Logging Contractors
SIC 2421 Sawmills and Planing Mills
SIC 2426 Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills
SIC 2429 Special Product Sawmills
SIC 2431 Mi 11 work
3-3
-------
DRAFT
Table III-l. Current Effluent Guidelines and Standards of Timber Products Processing.
w
Subcategory
1977 BPT 1983 BAT & NSPS
Max Day 30-Day Avg Max Day 30-Day^ Avs
COD Phenols O&G COD Phenols O&G COD Phenols O&G COD Phenols O&G
Wood preserving
Wood preserving
Boultonizing
NO DISCHARGE
NO DISCHARGE
NO DISCHARGE
NO DISCHARGE
Wood preserving 1,100 2.18 24.0 550 0.65 12.0 220 0.21 6.9 110 0.064 3.4
Steam (68.5) (0.14) (1.5) (34.5) (0.04) (0.75) (13.7) (0.014) (0.42) (6.9) (0.004) 0.21
"'
NOTE: Units for wood preserving limitations are Kg/1000 cm of product (lb/1000 CF).
pH will be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0. ,
SOURCE: 40 CFR, Part 429.
-------
DRAFT
Table III-2. Current Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Timber Products Processing, Wet Process
Hardboard
w
Subcategory
Wet Process
Hardboard
Max
BOD
7
(15
.8
.6)
1977
Day
TSS
16.5
(33.0)
BPT
30-Day
BOD
2.
(5.
6
2)
Avg
TSS
5.5
(11.0)
Max
BOD
2.7
(5.4)
1973 BAT
Day
TSS
3.3
(6.6)
& NSPS
30-Day
BOD
0
(1
.9
.8)
Avg
TSS
1.1
(2.2)
NOTE: Units for Wet Process Hardboard are Kg/1000 Kg of product (lb/2000 Ib of product).
pH will be in the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
SOURCE: 40 CFR, Part 429.
-------
DRAFT
SIC 2434 Wood Kitchen Cabinets
SIC 2435 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC 2436 Softwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC 2439 Structural Wood Members
SIC 2491 Wood Preserving
SIC 2499 Timber Products not elsewhere classified
(Hardboard)
SIC 2661 Building Paper and Building Board Mills
(Insulation Board)
The industry segments addressed in this document are wood preserving
(SIC 2491), insulation board production (SIC 2661), and hardboard pro-
duction (SIC 2499).
Methods Used for Development of Candidate Technologies
The first step in the review process was to assemble and evaluate all
existing sources of information on the wastewater management practices
and production processes of the timber products processing industry.
Sources of information reviewed included:
1. Current literature, EPA demonstration project reports, EPA
technology transfer reports.
2. Effluent Limitations Guidelines arid New Source Performance
Standards, Timber Products Processing Industry, including
supplemental information.
3. Draft Development Document for Pretreatment Standards, Wood Pre-
serving Segment, Timber Products Processing Industry, including
supplemental information.
4. Summary Report on the Re-evaluation of the Effluent Guidelines
for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber Products
Processing Industry, including supplementary information.
5. Information obtained from regional EPA and state regulatory
agencies on timber products plants within their area of
jurisdiction.
6. Data submitted by individual plants and industry trade
associations in response to publication of EPA proposed
regulations.
A preliminary analysis of the above data indicated that additional infor-
mation would be required, particularly concerning the use and discharge
of priority pollutants. Updated information was also needed on produc-
tion related process raw waste load (RWL) currently practiced or
potential in-process waste control techniques, and the identity and
effectiveness of end-of-pipe treatment systems.
3-6
-------
DRAFT
Recognizing that individual plants within the industry could help
provide the necessary information, EPA had a data collection portfolio
prepared and sent it directly to manufacturing plants of the wood
preserving, insulation board, and hardboard segments of the industry.
The portfolio was designed to update the existing data base concerning
water consumption, production processes, wastewater characterization,
raw waste loads based on historical production and wastewater data,
in-process waste control techniques, and the effectiveness of in-place
external treatment technology. The portfolio also requested information
concerning the extent of use> of materials which could contribute
priority pollutants to wastewater and any data for priority pollutants
in wastewater discharges.
Responses to the data collection portfolio served as the source of
updated information for the traditional parameters such as BOD, COD,
etc.
Additional sources of information included NPDES, state, and local dis-
charge permits; information provided by industry trade associations; and
information obtained from direct interviews and sampling visits to
production facilities.
Survey teams composed of project engineers and scientists conducted the
actual plant visits. Information on the identity and performance of
wastewater treatment systems was obtained through interviews with plant
water pollution control or engineering personnel, examination of treat-
ment plant design and historical operating data and sampling of treat-
ment plant influents and effluents.
Information on process plant operations and the associated RWL was
obtained through interviews with plant operating personnel, examination
of plant design and operating data (original design specifications, flow
sheets, and day-to-day material balances around individual process
modules or unit operations where possible), and sampling of individual
process wastewater.
Only in rare instances did plants report any knowledge of the presence
of priority pollutants in waste discharges. Therefore, priority pol-
lutant data in waste discharges of the industry were obtained by a
thorough engineering review of raw materials and production processes
used in each industry and by a sampling and analysis program for
priority pollutants at selected plants. Every effort was made to choose
facilities where meaningful information on both treatment facilities
and manufacturing operations could be obtained.
The technical data base served as the basis for a review of existing
subcategorization within the industry. Among other factors, subcategori-
zation review took into consideration the raw materials used, products
manufactured, production processes employed, and wastewaters generated.
The raw waste characteristics for each subcategory were then identified.
3-7
-------
DRAFT
This included an analysis of: (1) the source and volume of water used
in the process employed and the sources of wastes and wastewaters in the
plant; and (2) the constituents of all wastewaters including traditional
and priority pollutants. The full range of control and treatment
technologies existing within each candidate subcategory was identified.
This included an identification of each distinct control and treatment
technology, including both in-plant and end-of-pipe technologies, which
are existent or capable of being used by the plants in each subcategory.
It also included an identification, in terms of the amount of constit-
uents and of the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of
pollutants, including priority pollutants, of the effluent level
resulting from the application of each of the treatment and control
technologies. The problems, limitations, and reliability of each treat-
ment and control technology, as well as the required implementation time
were identified. In order to derive variability factors based on actual
treatment plant performance, statistical analyses were performed on
those treatment systems for which sufficient historical data were
available.
In addition, non-water quality environmental impacts, such as the
effects of the application of such technologies on other pollution
problems, were defined. The energy requirements of each of the candi-
date control and treatment technologies were identified, as well as the
cost of the application of such technologies.
The following text describes the details of the scope of study, the
coverage of the technical data base, and the technical approach used to
select candidate treatment technologies for the wood preserving, insula-
tion board, and hardboard segments of the timber products processing
point source category.
Mood Preserving
Scope of Study
The scope of this document includes all wood preserving plants (SIC
2491) regardless of the types of raw materials used, methods of precon-
ditioning stock, types of products produced, or means of ultimate waste
disposal.
General Description of Industry
The wood preserving industry applies chemical treatment to round or sawn
wood products for the purpose of imparting insecticidal, fungicidal , or
fire resistant properties to the wood.
The most common preservatives used in wood preserving are creosote, pen-
tachlorophenol, and various formulations of water-soluble inorganic
chemicals, the most common of which are the salts of copper, chromium,
and arsenic. Fire retardants are formulations of salts, the principal
ones being borates, phosphates, and ammonium compounds. Eighty percent
of the plants in the United States use at least two of the three types
3-8
-------
DRAFT
of preservatives. Many plants treat with one or two preservatives plus
a fire retardant (Thompson, 1973).
Consumption data for the principal preservatives for the f ve-year
period between 1970 and 1974 are given in Table III-3. In terms of
amount used, creosote in its various forms is the most important,
followed in order by pentachlorophenol and salt-type preservatives.
Among the latter, the copper-chromium-arsenic (CCA) formulations account
for most of that used.
The general trend in preservative use is a decrease in creosote consump-
tion and increase in the use of pentachlorophenol and salt-type
preservatives. This trend is expected to continue, with minor varia-
tions. The use of fire retardants has also increased significantly
during the five-year period due to to the modification of building codes
in many areas permitting the use of fire retardant treated wood in lieu
of other flameproof construction materials. Table III-4 presents a sum-
mary of the materials treated, by product, for all preservatives during
the five-year period between 1969 and 1973.
The wood preserving industry in the United States is composed of
approximately 387 plants, of which 312 use pressure retorts. Over
three-quarters of the plants are concentrated in two distinct regions.
One area ^xtends from east Texas to Maryland and corresponds roughly to
the natural rtnge of the southern pines, the major species utilized.
The second, ..laller area is located along the Pacific Coast, where
Douglas fir and western red cedar are the species primarily used. The
distribution of plants by type and location is given in Table III-5, and
depicted in Figure III-l.
The production of treated wood is very responsive to the general state
of the national economy, particularly the health of the construction
industry.
Scope Of Coverage for Data Base
The data collection portfolio was sent to 263 wood preserving plants
which had been selected to represent the full range of preservatives and
products; preconditioning methods; and geographical, size, and age dis-
tributions found within the industry. Two hundred and five replies were
received. Table 111-6 presents the method of ultimate waste disposal
utilized by the plants responding to the survey.
In addition to ui. plants surveyed, nine plants were selected for visits
and sampling. Recent data, from the 19 plants which had been visited
and sampled during the 1976 pretreatment study, were also included in
the data base.
3-9
-------
Table III-3.
DRAFT
Consumption of Principal Preservatives and Fire Retardants
of Reporting Plants in the United States, 1970-1974
Material
Creosote
Creosote-
Coal Tar
Creosote-
Petroleum
Total
Creosote
Total
Petroleum
Pentachlor-
ophenol
Chromated
Zinc Chloride
CCA
ACC
FCAP
Fire
Retardants
Other Perser-
vative Solids
(Units)
Million
Li ters
Million
Li ters
Million
Liters
Million
Liters
Million
Li ters
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Mi 1 1 on
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
1970
256
229
125
475
286
12.9
0.2
2.7
0.3
1.2
8.1
0.4
1971
241
218
118
441
307
14.5
0.2
3.9
0.5
1.0
8.1
0.3
Year
1972
230
220
108
418
324
16.6
0.3
4.4
0.6
0.9
9.9
0.5
1973
218
177
83.8
369
303
17.6
0.3
5.3
0.7
0.8
9.6
0.6
1974
250
201
96.5
421
292
19.7
0.2
6.9
0.8
0.7
9.7
0.6
NOTE: Data based on information supplied by an average of 331 plants for
each year during the five year period.
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
3-10
-------
DRAFT
of preservatives. Many plants treat with one or two preservatives plus
a fire retardan.t (Thompson, 1973).
Consumption data for the .principal preservative's for the f ve-year
•period between 1-970 and 1974 .are given in Table 111-3. In terms of
amount used, creosote in its various forms is the most important,
followed in order by pentaohlorophenol and salt-type preservatives.
Among the latter, -the copper-chromium-arsenic (CCA) formulations account
for most of that used.
The general trend in preservative use is a decrease in creosote consump-
tion and increase in the use of pentachlorophenol and salt-type
preservatives. This trend is expected to continue, with minor varia-
tions. The use of fire retardants has also increased significantly
during the five-year period due to to the modification of building codes
in many areas permitting the use of fire retardant treated wood in lieu
of other flameproof construction materials. Table II1-4 presents a sum-
mary of the materials treated, by product, for all preservatives during
the five-year period between 1969 and 1973.
The wood preserving industry in the United States is composed of
approximately 387 plants, of which 312 use pressure retorts. Over
three-quarters of the plants are concentrated in two distinct regions.
One area ^.xtends from east Texas to Maryland and corresponds roughly to
the natural rsnge of the southern pines, the major species utilized.
The second, .nailer area is located along the Pacific Coast, where
Douglas fir and western red cedar are the species primarily used. The
distribution of plants by type and location is given in Table III-5, and
dtpicted in Figure III-l.
The production of treated wood is very responsive to the general state
of the national economy, particularly the health of the construction
industry.
Scope Of Coverage for Data Base
The data collection portfolio was sent to 263 wood preserving plants
which had been selected to represent the full range of preservatives and
products; preconditioning methods; and geographical, size, and age dis-
tributions found within the industry. Two hundred and five replies were
received. Table 111-6 presents the method of ultimate waste disposal
utilized by the plants responding to the survey.
In addition to UK plants surveyed, nine plants were selected for visits
and sampling. Recent data, from the 19 plants which had been visited
and sampled during the 1976 pretreatment study, were also included in
the data base.
3-9
-------
Table III-3.
DRAFT
Consumption of Principal Preservatives and Fire Retardants
of Reporting Plants in the United States, 1970-1974
Material
Creosote
Creosote-
Coal Tar
Creosote-
Petroleum
Total
Creosote
Total
Petroleum
Pentachlor-
ophenol
Chromated
Zinc Chloride
CCA
ACC
FCAP
Fire
Retardants
Other Perser-
vative Solids
(Units)
Million
Liters
Million
Li ters
Million
Liters
Million
Liters
Million
Li ters
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
Millon
Kilograms
Million
Kilograms
1970
256
229
125
475
286
12.9
0.2
2.7
0.3
1.2
8.1
0.4
1971
241
218
118
441
307
14.5
0.2
3.9
0.5
1.0
8.1
0.3
Year
1972
230
220
108
418
324
16.6
0.3
4.4
0.6
0.9
9.9
0.5
1973
218
177
83.8
369
303
17.6
0.3
5.3
0.7
0.8
9.6
0.6
1974
250
201
96.5
421
292
19.7
-
0.2
6.9
0.8
0.7
9.7
0.6
NOTE: Data based on information supplied by an average of 331 plants for
each year during the five year period.
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
3-10
-------
DRAFT
Table III-4. Materials Treated in the United States by Product
(Thousand Cubic Meters)
Year
Material
Cross-ties
Switch- ties
Piling
Poles
Cross-arms
Lumber & Timbers
Fence posts
Other
Total
1969
2020
180
417
2107
91.9
1689
443
231
7179
1970
2248
223
428
2174
97.8
1577
428
195
7371
1971
2465
176
388
2106
87.1
1695
472
218
7607
1972
2432
169
406
2111
70.4
1811
515
205
7719
1973
1915
142
368
2135
73.4
1950
430
194
7207
NOTE: Components may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
3-11
-------
DRAFT
Table 111-5. Wood-Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1974.
Commercial
Non-
Pressure Pressure
Northeast
Connecticut
Del aware
District of
Columbia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
.West Virginia
Total
North "Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
Southeast
Florida
Georgia
North
Carolina
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
3
4
8
1
0
6
31
6
4
0
0
7
5
3
8
0
0
7
3
43
24
24
17
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3
0
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
Pressure
and Non-
Pressure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0.
1
5
0
2
0
Railroad and Other
Pressure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
,0
1
3
0
0
- 0
Non-
Pressure
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
Total
Number
Plants
0
0
0
1
6
2
1
5
5
9
1
0
6
36
7
4
1
0
8
6
10
11
1
0
7
6
61
25
26
18
3-12
-------
DRAFT
Table III-5.
Wood-Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1974 (continued).
Commercial
Pressure
Non-
Pressure
Pressure
and Non-
Pressure
Railroad and Other
Pressure
Non-
Pressure
Total
Number
Plants
South
Carolina 11
Virginia 14
Puerto Rico 1
Total 91
South Central
Alabama 25
Arkansas 9
Louisiana 21
Mississippi 18
Oklahoma 5
Tennessee 5
Texas 25
Total 108
Rocky Mountain
Arizona 1
Colorado 3
Idaho 4
Montana 2
Nevada 0
New Mexico 2
South Dakota 1
Utah 0
Wyoming 1
Total 14
Pacific
Alaska 0
California 8
Hawaii 4
Oregon 5
Washington 8
Total 25
United States
Total 312
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
5
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
27
0
1
0
3
1
3
0
4
0
0
3
11
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
4
0
2
1
4
4
11
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
11
16
1
97
27
12
21
23
5
6
31
125
1
3
6
7
0
2
2
2
2
25
0
11
5
9
18
43
387
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
3- 13
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF WOOD PRESERVING
PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
.R.I.
CO
LEGEND
• Pressure
• Non-Pressure
A Pressure and Non-Pressure
Figure III -1
-------
DRAFT
Table III-6. Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Wood Preserving Plants
Responding to .Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method Number of Plants
Direct Discharge 9
Discharge to POTW 42
Self-contained Dischargers
Containment and Evaporation 66
Soil Irrigation 14
Subsurface Injection 1
No Discharge 62
(Plants generating no wastewater or
recycling all wastewater)
NOTE: Nine plants responding to the data collection portfolio have gone
out of business.
SOURCE: Data collection portfolios.
3-15
-------
DRAFT
Units of Expression
Units of production in the wood preserving industry are shown in cubic
meters (cu m). In-plant liquid flows are shown in liters per day
(I/day). The wood preserving industry is not yet metricized and uses
English units to express production, cubic feet (cu ft); and in-plant
flow, gallons (gal) or million gallons per day (MGD). Conversion
factors from English units to metric units are shown in Appendix C.
Process Descriptions
Wood Preserving
The wood preserving process consists of two basic steps: (1) precondi-
tioning the wood to reduce its natural moisture content, and (2) impreg-
nating the wood with the desired preservatives.
The preconditioning step may be carried out by one of several methods
including (1) seasoning or drying wood in large, open yards, (2) kiln
drying, (3) steaming the wood at elevated pressure in a retort followed
by application of a vacuum, (4) heating the stock in a preservative bath
under reduced pressure in a retort (Boulton process), or (5) vapor dry-
ing. All of these preconditioning methods have as their objective the
reduction of moisture content of the unseasoned stock to a point where
the requisite amount of preservative can be retained in the wood. Pre-
conditioning also results in a more permeable stock allowing penetration
of the preservative into the wood as required by American Wood
Preservers Association (AWPA) standards.
Conventional steam conditioning (open steaming) is a process in which
unseasoned or partially seasoned stock is subjected to direct steam
impingement at an elevated pressure in a retort. The maximum permis-
sible temperature is set by industry standards at 118°C and the duration
of the steaming cycle is limited by these standards up to 20 hours.
Steam condensate that forms in the retort exits through traps and is
conducted to oil-water separators for removal of free oils. Removal of
emulsified oils requires further treatment.
In closed steaming, a widely used variation of conventional steam condi-
tioning, the steam needed for conditioning is generated in situ by
covering the coils in the retort with .water from a reservoir and heating
the water by passing process steam through the coils. The water is
returned to the reservoir after oil separation and reused during the
next steaming cycle.
Modified closed steaming is a variation of the steam conditioning pro-
cess in which steam condensate is allowed to accummulate in the retort
during the steaming operation until it covers the heating coils. At
that point, direct steaming is discontinued and the remaining steam
required for the cycle is generated within the retort by utilizing the
heating coils. Upon completing the steaming cycle, the water in the
cylinder is discarded, upon recovery of oils.
3-16
-------
DRAFT
Preconditioning is accomplished in the Boulton process by heating the
stock in a preservative bath under reduced pressure in the retort. The
preservative serves as a heat transfer medium. Water removed in vapor
form from the wood during the Boulton process passes through a condenser
to an oil-water separator where low-boiling fractions of the preserva-
tive are removed. The Boulton cycle may have a duration of 48 hours or
longer for large poles and piling, a fact that accounts for the lower
production per retort day as compared to plants that steam condition.
The treatment step may be accomplished by either pressure or non-
pressure processes.
Non-pressure processes (thermal) utilize open tanks which contain the
preservative chemicals. Stock to be treated is immersed in the treat-
ment chemicals, which may be at ambient temperature, heated, or a
combination thereof. Stock treated in nonpressure processes is normally
preconditioned by air seasoning or kiln drying.
Treatment methods employing pressure processes consist of three basic
types, independent of preconditioning method. Two of the pressure
methods, referred to in the industry as "empty-cell" processes, are
based on the principle that part of the preservative forced into the
wood is expelled by entrapped air upon the release of pressure at the
conclusion of the treating cycle, thus leaving the cell walls coated
with preservative. The pressure cycle is followed by a vacuum to
remove additional preservative. Retentions of 96 to 192 kilograms per
cubic meter are generally sought in these processes. The retention
attained is controlled in part by the initial air pressure employed at
the beginning of the cycle.
The third method, which is known as the "full-cell" process, differs
from the other two in that the treating cycle is begun by evacuating the
retort and breaking the vacuum with the preservative. The preservative
is then forced into the wood under pressure, as in the other processes.
Most of the preservative remains in the wood when the pressure is
released. Retentions of 320 kilograms per cubic meter or higher are
usually the goal for this process.
Stock treated by any of the three methods may be given a short steam
treatment to "clean" the surface of poles and pilings and to reduce
exudation of oil after the products are placed in service.
Insulation Board
Scope of Study
The scope of this report includes those insulation board plants in SIC
2661 (Building Paper and Building Board Mills) which produce insulation
board using wood furnish as the basic raw material.
3-17
-------
DRAFT
General Description of the Industry
Insulation board is a form of fiberboard, which in turn is a broad gene-
ric term applied to sheet materials constructed from ligno-cellulosic
fibers. Insulation board is a "non-compressed" fiberboard, which is
differentiated from "compressed" fiberboards, such as hardboard, on the
basis of density. Insulation boards have a density less than 0.50 g/cu
cm (31 Ib/cu ft). Insulation boards are usually manufactured in thick-
nesses between 5 and 25 mm (nominal 3/8 to one inch). On a basis of
density, insulation board may be subdivided into semi-rigid insulation
board and rigid insulation board with densities of up to 0.15 g/cu cm
(9.5 Ib/cu ft) and 0.15 to 0.50 g/cu cm (9.5 to 31 Ib/cu ft) respec-
tively. Semi-rigid insulation board is normally used only for
insulation and sound deadening purposes, while rigid insulation board
may be used for sheathing, interior panelling, and as a base for plaster
or siding.
The principle types of insulation board include:
1. Building board—A general purpose product for interior con-
struction.
2. Insulating roof deck—A three-in-one component which provides
roof deck, insulation, and finished inside ceiling. (Insu-
lation board sheets are laminated together with waterproof
adhesives, with a vapor barrier in between the sheets.)
3. Roof insulation—Insulation board designed for flat roof
• decks.
4. Ceiling tile—Insulation board embossed and decorated for
interior use. It is also useful for acoustical qualities.
5. Lay-in panels—A ceiling tile used for suspended ceilings.
6. Sheathing—Insulation board used extensively in construction
due to its insulative, bracing strength and noise control
qualities.
7. Sound-deadening insulation board—A special product designed
explicitly for use in buildings to control noise level.
The American Society for Testing and Materials sets standard specifica-
tions for the categories of insulation boards. Decorative type board
products, such as ceiling tiles, lay-in-panels, etc., receive a higher
degree of finishing than do structural type boards such as sheathing and
building board. Consequently, stricter control during fiber preparation
and formation is required in production of decorative-type board to
insure that the product can be ironed, edge fabricated, sanded, coated,
and painted resulting in a smooth, beveled, finished surface. Decora-
tive board products cannot absorb high amounts of dissolved solids in
the production process for this reason.
There are 18 insulation board plants in the United States, with a com-
bined production capacity of over 330 million square meters (3,600
million square feet) on a 13 mm (one-half inch) basis. Sixteen of the
3-18
-------
DRAFT
plants use wood as a raw material for some or all of their production.
One plant uses bagasse exclusively, and one plant uses waste paper
exclusively for raw material. Four plants use mineral wool as a raw
material for part of their insulation board production. Five plants
produce hardboard products at the same facility. A list of the 16
plants which produce insulation board using wood as raw material is
presented in Table III-7. The geographical distribution of these plants
is depicted in Figure 111-2.
Production of insulation board in the U.S. during 1968-1974 is pre-
sented in Figure 111-3.
Scope of Coverage for Data Base
The data collection portfolio was sent to all 16 of the insulation board
plants which use wood as a raw material. Each of the plants responded
to the survey. Table II1-8 presents the method of ultimate waste dis-
posal utilized by the plants responding to the survey. In addition to
the plants surveyed, six plants were selected for visits and sampling.
Units of Expression
Units of production in the insulation board industry are reported in
square meters (sq m) on a 13 mm thick basis. Density figures obtained
from the surveyed plants are used to convert this production to metric
tons. The i :sulation board industry is not yet metricized and uses
English units to express production, square feet (sq ft) on a one-half
inch (in) basis. Liquid flows from the industry are reported in kilo-
liters per day (Kl/day) and million gallons per day (MGD). Conversion
factors from English units to metric units are shown in Appendix C.
Process Description
Insulation board can be formed from a variety of raw materials including
wood from a softwood and hardwood species, mineral fiber, waste paper,
bagasse, and other fibrous materials. In this study, only those pro-
cesses employing wood as raw materials are considered. Plants utilizing
wood may receive it as roundwood, fractionated wood, and/or whole tree
chips. Fractionated wood can be in the form of chips, sawdust, or
planer shavings. Figure III-4 provides an illustration of a representa-
tive insulation board process.
3-19
-------
DRAFT
Table III-7. Inventory of Insulation Board Plants Using Wood as Raw
Material.
Abitibi Corporation
Blounstown, Florida
Armstrong Cork Company
Macon, Georgia
Boise Cascade Corporation
International Falls, Minnesota
The Celotex Corporation
Dubuque, Iowa
The Celotex Corporation
L'Anse, Michigan
The Celotex Corporation
Sunbury, Pennsylvania
F1i n tkote Compa ny
Meridian, Mississippi
Huebert Fiberboard, Inc.
Boonville, Missouri
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.
St. Helens, Oregon
National Gypsum Company
Mobile, Alabama
Georgia-Pacific
Jarratt, Virginia
Tempie-Eastex
Diboll, Texas
United States Gypsum Company
Lisbon Falls, Maine
United States Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi
United States Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon
Weyerhauser Company
(Craig) Broken Bow, Okalhoma
SOURCE: 1977 Directory of the Forest Products Industry.
3-20
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSULATION BOARD
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
CJ
WASH.
CALF.
MONT.
IDAHO
WYO.
UTAH
COLO.
N.MEX.
LEGEND
O Mechanical Pulping
0 Thermo-mechanical Pulping
A Thermo-mechanical Pulping
and/or Hardboard
O
N.DAK.
MINN.
WIS.
S.DAK.
IOWA
NEBR.
IND.
OHIO
iOEL.
ILL.
KANS.
MO.
KY-
N.C-
OKLA.
ARK.
MISS.
TEX.
LA.
TENN.
ALA.
s.c.
C7
Figure III - 2
-------
ID-
S'
TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTION FIGURES: HARDBOARD
S
a
cc
i
o
cc
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3
2-
1
1964 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
TIME (YEARS)
Figure III - 3
3-22
-------
DRAFT
Table III-8. Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Insulation Board
Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio.
Ultimate Disposal Method ' Number of Plants
Direct Discharge 5
Discharge to POTW 6
Self-Contained Dischargers 3*
Spray Irrigation
No Discharge 2
(Plants generating no wastewater
or recycling all wastewater)
* One plant uses spray irrigation as a treatment method; however, the
effluent from this system is directly discharged.
SOURCE: Data collection portfolios.
3-23
-------
DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL INSULATION BOARD PROCESS
LOG
STORAGE
»
DEBARKER
CHIPPER
CHIP
STORAGE
CHIP
SILOS
DIGESTER
(Thermo-
Mechanical
Refining Only)
fc
CO
*-
1 1
REFINING
STOCK
DECKER
WHITE WATER i
RECYCLE OR
DISCHARGE
1
STOCK
CHEST
FORMING
MACHINE
EVAPORATION}
i
DRIER
WHITE WATER y
RECYCLE OR
DISCHARGE
~
LEGEND
WATER IN
WATER OUT
Figure III - 4
-------
DRAFT
When roundwood is used as a raw material, it is usually shipped to the
plant by rail or truck and stored in a dry deck before use. The round-
wood is usually debarked by drum or ring barkers before use, although in
some operations a percentage of bark is allowable in the board, the
barked wood then may be chipped* in which case the unit processes are the
same as those plants using chips exclusively as raw materials (MacDonald,
1969.)i Those plants utilizing 'groundwood normally cut the logs into 1.2-
to 1.5-meter (4- to 5-foot) (MacDonald, 1969) sections either before or
after debarking so that they will fit into the groundwood machines-. The
equipment used in these operations is similar to that used in the hand-
ling of raw materials in other segments of the timber products industry.
Groundwood is used by two insulation board plants in the United States.
It is usually produced in conventional pulpwood grinders equipped with
coarse burred artificial stones of 16 to 25 grit with various patterns.
The operation of the machine consists primarily of hydraulically forcing
a piece of wood against a rotating stone mounted horizontally. The wood
held against the abrasive surface of the revolving stone is reduced to
fiber bundles. Water is sprayed on the stone not only to carry away the
fibers into the system, but also to keep the stone cool and clean and
lubricate its surface (Macdonald, 1969). The water spray onto the stone
is necessary as it not only accomplishes the above goals, but reduces the
possibility of fires occurring from the friction of the stone against the
wood.
While most fractionated wood is purchased from other timber products
operations, '.n some cases it is produced on site. Currently, little
chipping occurs in the forest; however, in the future this is expected
to become a major source of chips. Chips are usually transported to the
plonts in large trucks or rail cars. They are stored in piles which may
be covered but are more commonly exposed. The chips may pass through a
device used to remove metal grit, dirt, and other trash which could harm
equipment and possibly cause plate damage in the refiners. This may be
done wet or dry. Pulp preparation is usually accomplished by mechanical
or thermo-mechanical refining.
Refining Operations—Mechanical refiners basically consist of two
discs between which the chips or residues are passed. In a single disc
mill, one disc rotates while the other is stationary. The feed material
passes between the plates and is discharged at the bottom of the case.
The two discs in double disc mills rotate in opposite directions, but the
product flovs are similar to a single disc mill. Disc mills produce
fibers that may pass through a 30- or 40-mesh screen, although 60 percent
of the fibers wil not pass through a 65-mesh screen. The disc plates
generally rotate at 1,200 or 1,800 rpm or a relative speed of 2,400 or
3,600 rpm for a double disc mill. Plate separations are generally less
than 1.0 cm (0.40 in). A variety of disc patterns are available, and the
particular pattern used depends on the feed's characteristics and type of
fiber desired (Runckel, 1973).
3-25
-------
DRAFT
A thermo-mechanical refiner is basically the same as a disc refiner
except that the feed material is subjected to a steam pressure of 4 to 15
atm (40 to 200 psi) for a period of time from 1 to 45 minutes before it
enters the refiner. In some cases, the pressure continues through the
actual refining process.
Pre-steaming softens the feed material and thus makes refining easier and
provides savings on energy requirements; however, yield may be reduced up
to 10 percent. The longer the pretreatment and the higher the pressure,
the softer the wood becomes. The heat plasticizes primarily portions of
the hemicellulose and lignin components of wood which bind the fibers
together and results in a longer and stronger fiber produced (Runckel,
1973).
Subsequent to the refining of the wood, the fibers produced are dispersed
in water to achieve consistencies amenable to screening. For most screen-
ing operations, consistencies of approximately one percent fiber are
required. Screening is done primarily to remove coarse fiber bundles,
knots, and slivers. The coarse material may be recycled and passed
through secondary refiners which further reduce the rejects into usable
fibers for return to the process. After screening, the fibers produced
by any method may be sent to a decker or washer.
Decker Operations—Deckers are essentially rotating wire-covered
cylinders, usually with an internal vacuum, into which the suspension of
fibers in water is passed. The fibers are separated and the water is
often recirculated back into the system. There are a number of reasons
for deckering or washing, one of which is to clean the pulp. When clean-
ing the pulp a spray of water may be sprayed on the decker as it rotates.
The major reason for deckering, however, is for consistency control.
Control of dissolved solids is also a factor in some cases. While being
variable on a plant-to-plant basis, the consistency of the pulp upon
reaching the forming machine in any insulation board process is extreme-
ly critical. By dewatering the pulp from the water suspension at this
point, it can be mixed with greater accuracy to the desired consistency.
Washing of the pulp is sometimes desirable in order to remove dissolved
solids and soluble organics which may result in surface flaws in the
board. The high concentration of these substances tends to stay in the
board and during the drying stages migrates to the surface. This results
in stains when a finish is applied to the board.
After the washing or decking operation, the pulp is reslurried in stages
from a consistency of 15 percent to the 1.5 percent required for the
forming. The initial dilution of approximately 5 percent consistency is
usually followed by dilutions of 3 percent and finally, just prior to mat
formation, a dilution of approximately 1.5 percent. This procedure is
followed primarily for two reasons: (1) it allows for accurate consis-
tency controls and more efficient dispersion of additives; and (2) it
reduces the required pump and storage capacities for the pulp. During
the various stages of dilution, additives are usually added to the pulp
suspension. -These range from 5 to 20 percent of the weight of the board,
3-26
-------
DRAFT
depending on the product used. Additives may include wax emulsion, par-
affin, asphalt, starch, polyelectrolytes, aluminum sulfate, thermo-
plastic, and/or thermo-setting resin. The purpose of additives is to
give the board desired properties such as strength, dimensional stabil-
ity, and water absorption resistance.
After passing through the series of storage and consistency controls, the
fibers in some cases pass through a pump-through refiner, directly ahead
of the forming machine. The main purpose of the pump-through refiner is
to disperse agglomerated fiber clumps and to shorten the fiber bundles.
The fibrous slurry, at approximately 1.5 percent consistency, is then
pumped into a forming machine which removes water from the pulp suspen-
sion and forms a mat.
Forming Operations—While there are various types of forming
machines used to make insulation board, the two most common are the four-
drinier and the cylinder forming machines. The fourdrinier machine used
in the manufacture of insulation board is similar in nature to those used
in the manufacture of hardboard or paper. The stock is pumped into the
head box and onto a table with an endless traveling screen running
over it. The stock is spread evenly across the stream by special control
devices and an interlaced fibrous blanket, referred to as a mat, is
formed by allowing the dewatering of the stock through the screen by
gravity assisted by vacuum boxes. The partially formed mat travelling on
the wire screen then passes through press rollers, some with a vacuum
imposed, for further dewatering.
Cylinder machines are basically large rotating drum vacuum filters with
screens. Stock is pumped through a head box to a vat where again a mat
is formed onto the screen. In this case, the mat is formed by use of a
vacuum imposed on the interior of the rotating drum. A portion of the
rotating drum is immersed into the stock solution as indicated in Fig-
ure III-5. As water is forced through the screen, a mat is eventually
formed when the portion of the cylinder rotates beyond the water level in
the tank and the required amount of fiber is deposited on the screen. The
mat is further dewatered by the vacuum in the interior of the rotating
drum and is then transferred off the cylinder onto a screen conveyor, or
felt, where it then passes through roller presses similar to those
utilized in fourdrinier operations.
Both the fourdrinier and the cylinder machines produce a mat that leaves
the roller press with a moisture content of about 40 to 45 percent and
the ability to support its own weight over short spans. At this point,
the mat leaves the forming screen and continues its travel over a con-
veyor. The wet mat is then trimmed to width and cut to length by a
traveling saw which moves across the mat on a bias making a square cut
without the necessity of stopping the continuous wetlap sheet.
After being cut to desired lengths, the mats are dried to a moisture con-
tent of 5 percent or less. Most dryers now in use are gas or oil fired
tunnel dryers. Mats are conveyed on rollers through the tunnel with hot
3-27
-------
DIRECTION OF
ROTATION
STOCK
FROM x
HEAD BOX
(INFLOW)
VACCUM
IMPOSED
AREA
i I
SCREEN
CONVEYOR TO
ROLLER PRESS
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF CYLINDER FORMING MACHINE
Figure III - 5
3-28
-------
DRAFT
air being circulated throughout. Most dryers have 8 to 10 decks and var-
ious zones of heat to reduce the danger of fire. These heat zones allow
for higher temperatures when the board is "wet" (where the mat first
enters) and lower temperatures when the mat is almost dry.
The dried board then goes through various finishing operations such as
painting, asphalt coating, and embossing. Those operations which manu-
facture decorative products will usually have finishing operations which
use water-base paints containing such chemicals as various inorganic pig-
ments, i.e., clays, talc, carbonates, and certain amounts of binders such
as starch, protein, PVA, PVAC, acrylics, urea formaldehyde resin, and
melamine formaldehyde resins. These are applied in stages by rollers,
sprayers, or brushes. The decorative tile then may be embossed, beveled,
or cut to size depending on the product desired.
Sheathing in some operations receives additional molten asphalt applica-
tions to all six surfaces. It is then sprayed with water and stacked to
allow humidification to a uniform moisture content.
Wet-dry (S2S) hardboard is produced by some insulation board plants.
While the equipment as described for insulation board is the same as
described above including the dry mat trimmer; wood furnish, degree of
refining, and additives are varied. Allowing the mats to age, redrying
them, and pressing the mat by large steam heated hydraulic presses con-
solidates the mat to the desired density for hardboard.
Various sanding and sawing operations give board-products the correct
dimensions. Generally, the dust, trim, and reject materials created in
finishing operations are recycled back into the process.
Wet-Process Hardboard
Scope of Study
The scope of this document includes all wet-process hardboard plants
(SIC 2499) in the United States. Wood is used in wet-process hardboard
plants as the primary raw material.
General Description of the Industry
Hardboard is a form of fiberboard, which is a broad generic term applied
to sheet materials constructed from ligno-cellulosic fibers. Hardboard
is a "compressed" fiberboard, with a density over 0.50 g/cu cm (31 Ib/cu
ft). The thickness of hardboard products ranges between 2 to 13 mm
(nominal 1/12 to 7/16 in).
Production of hardboard by the wet process method is accomplished by
thermo-mechanical fiberization of the wood furnish. One plant produces
wet-dry hardboard using primarily mechanical refining. Dilution of the
wood fiber with fresh or process water then allows forming of a wet mat
3-29
-------
DRAFT
of a desired thickness on a forming machine. This wet mat is then
pressed either wet or after drying. Chemical additives help the overall
strength and uniformity of the product. The use of manufactured products
are many and varied requiring different processes and control measures.
The quality and type of board is important in the end use of the product.
The following are but a few of the end uses of hardboard:
Interior Wall Paneling
Exterior Siding
Display Cabinets
Base of Painted Tile Panels
Concrete Forms
Nonconductor Material for Electrical Equipment
Door Skins (panels)
TV Cabinets and Furniture
The American Society for Testing and Materials sets standards for the
various types of hardboard produced.
Hardboard which is pressed wet immediately following forming of the wet-
lap is called wet-wet or smooth-one-side (SIS) hardboard, that which is
pressed after the wet-lap has been dried is called wet-dry or smooth-
two-side (S2S) hardboard.
There are 16 wet-process hardboard plants in the United States, repre-
senting an annual production in excess of 1.5 million metric tons per
year. Seven of the plants produce only SIS hardboard. Nine plants pro-
duce S2S hardboard. Of these nine, five plants also produce insulation
board, while three plants also produce SIS hardboard.
Table III-9 lists the wet-process hardboard plants in the U.S.
The geographic distribution of these plants is depicted in Figure III-6.
The total annual U.S. production of hardboard from 1964 through 1976 is
shown in Figure III-7. This total production includes dry-process hard-
board as well as wet-process hardboard. Although the relative amounts of
production between dry- and wet-process hardboard vary from year to year,
a generalized rule of thumb is that 25 percent of the total production is
wet-process hardboard.
Scope of Coverage of Data Base
Data collection portfolios were sent to 15 of the 16 wet-process hard-
board plants. The remaining plant did not receive a data collection
portfolio, but did provide the historical monitoring and production data
requested. Each of the plants responded to the survey. Eight plants
were visited during this study, and seven were sampled. In addition, the
full record compiled by the E.C. Jordan Company during their 1975-1976
study of the wet-process hardboard industry was reviewed during the
course of this study. All 16 plants were visited by E. C. Jordan.
Table 111-10 presents the method of ultimate disposal utilized by each of
the 16 wet-process hardboard plants.
3-30
-------
DRAFT
Table III-9. Inventory of Wet-Process Hardboard Plants.
Evans Products
Corvallis, Oregon
Champion Building Products
Dee (Hood River), Oregon
Masonite Corporation
Laurel, Mississippi
Abitibi Corporation
Roaring River, North Carolina
Superior Fibre
Superior, Wisconsin
Tempie-Eastex
Diboll, Texas
Weyerhaeuser Company
Broken Bow, Oklahoma
Forest Fibre
Stimpson Lumber Company
Forest Grove, Oregon
Masonite Corporation
Ukiah, California
Superwood Corporation
Duluth, Minnesota
Superwood Corporation
North Little Rock, Arkansas
U.S. Gypsum Company
Danville, Virginia
Abitibi Corporation
Alpena, Michigan
Boise Cascade
International Falls, Minnesota
U.S. Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon
U.S. Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi
SOURCE: 1977 Directory of the Forest Products Industry.
3-31
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HARDBOARD
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
CO
w
CALF
MONT.
IDAHO
WYO.
UTAH
COLO.
N.MEX.
LEGEND
Wet-Wet Process (sis)
Wet-Dry Process (s2s)
Wet-Dry/Insulation
N.DAK.
MINN.
WIS.
S.DAK.
M.CH.
IOWA
NEBR.
IND.
OHIO
ILL.
KANS.
MO.
OKLA.
ARK.
MISS.
TEX.
LA.
TENN.
ALA.
N.C.
s.c.
FLA-
Figure III - 6
-------
10
9
TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTION FIGURES : INSULATION BOARD
O
2
o
I
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
1-
1964 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
TIME(YEARS)
FIGURE III-7
3-33
-------
DRAFT
Table I11-10. Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Wet-Process Hardboard
Plants.
Ultimate Disposal Method Number of Plants
Direct Discharge 13
Discharge to POTW 2
Self-Contained Dischargers 1*
Spray Irrigation
* Two other plants use spray irrigation to dispose of part of their
wastewater.
SOURCE: Data collection portfolios.
3-34
-------
DRAFT
Units of Expression
Units of production in the hardboard industry are reported in square
meters (sq m) on a 3.2 mm (1/8 in) thick basis, as well as in thousand
kilograms per day (Kkg/day). Most plants provided production data
directly on a weight basis. The hardboard industry is not yet metricized
and uses English units to express production, square feet (sq ft) on a
one-eighth inch (in) basis or in tons per day (TPD). Liquid flows from
the industry are reported in kiloliters per day (Kl/day) and million
gallons per day (MGD). Conversion factors from English units to metric
units are shown in Appendix C.
Process Description
Raw Material Usage—The basic raw material used in the manufacture
of hardboard is wood. The wood species involved range from hardwoods
(oak, gum, aspen, cottonwood, willow, sycamore, ash, elm, maple, cherry,
birch, and beech) to softwoods (pine, douglas fir, and redwood).
Wood receipts may vary in form from unbarked long and short logs to
chips. Chip receipts may be from whole tree chipping, forest residue
(which includes limbs, bark, and stumps), sawmill waste, plywood trim,
anii sawdust. The deliveries may be of one species, a mixture of
hardwood, or mixed softwoods. The geographic location of each mill
determines the species of wood used to produce the hardboard. The
species and mixture may change due to availability.
Moisture content of the wood receipts varies from 10 percent in the ply-
wood trim to 60 percent in green fresh wood.
Chemicals used as raw material in the hardboard process consist of vege-
table oils, primarily linseed or tung, tall oil, ferric sulfate, wax,
sulphuric acid, thermoplastic and/or thermosetting resin, aluminum
sulfate, petrolatum, defoamer, and paint. No one mill uses all these
chemicals in its process, nor is the degree of chemical use the same for
all mills. Some of the functions of these chemicals are for binding,
sizing, pH control, retention, weather-proofing, and foam reduction. The
chemical usage ranges from 0.5 to 11.0 percent of the total production.
Wood Storage and Chipping—Most of the mills surveyed stored the
wood raw material, in chip form, in segregated storage piles. Most mills
have a paved base under the chips. Rough logs received are stockpiled
prior to debarking and chipping.
Of those mills receiving rough logs, four out of eight remove the bark by
mechanical means with the bark either burned or used as landfill. The
remaining four mills that receive rough roundwood chip the logs with the
bark attached. Seven mills receive their wood in chip form only, which
in most cases includes the bark from the log. Only six mills screen
their chips before processing. Some of the mills using chips containing
bark can tolerate only a minimum amount of bark in the final product and
have auxiliary equipment (i.e., centricleaners) to clean the stock. One
3-35
-------
DRAFT
mill reported that bark in the stock improves the cleanliness of the caul
plates in the press and presents no problems in production. Only 7 of
the 16 mills surveyed washed the chips before processing.
For production control and consistency, the majority of the mills main-
tained a chip inventory of 60 to 90 days. Although the yield is lower
and the chips are more contaminated (bark, dirt, etc.), the use of waste
material and forest residue is increasing each year in the production of
hardboard. As the availability decreases and the costs increase for
quality chips, the greater use of lower quality fiber requires additional
equipment to clean the chips before processing.
Fiber Preparation—Before refining or defibering, the chips are pre-
treated with steam in a pressure vessel or digester. The steaming of the
chips under pressure softens the lignin material that binds the individ-
ual fibers together and produces a chip that reduces the power consump-
tion required for mechanical defibering. The degree of softening when
the chips are raised to a certain temperature varies with different wood
species. Steaming of the chips also increases the bonding between fibers
when the board is pressed.
Cooking conditions are determined by the wood species involved and the
pulp required for the grade of hardboard being produced. A major differ-
ence exists in the cooking conditions used in the manufacturing of SIS
(smooth-one-side) and S2S (smooth-two-sides).
SIS hardboard is sometimes produced with a thick mat of coarsely refined
fiber and an overlay of a thin layer of highly refined fiber. The over-
lay produces a high quality, shive-free, smooth surface. The bulk of the
board can contain coarse fiber, which allows proper drainage during the
pressing operation. The refining requires less energy and the cooking
conditions are less stringent. Although an overlay system is used in
some plants, most SIS hardboard is manufactured with the same pulp
throughout the board. S2S hardboard requires more highly refined fiber
bundles and more thorough softening. This requires higher preheating
pressures and longer retention time. More refining equipment and
horsepower is required to produce S2S hardboard. The severity of the
cook drastically affects the raw waste loading of the mill effluent.
Most S2S hardboard is manufactured using an overlay system of fine fiber
bundles.
To contend with frozen chips, some mills in cold climates add preheating
for thawing ahead of the cooking cycle.
The predominant method used for fiber preparation consists of thermal and
mechanical pulping. This involves a preliminary treatment of the raw
chips with steam and pressure and then mechanically defibering the soft-
ened chips to an acceptable pulp. The thermo-mechanical process may take
place with a digester-refiner as one unit (i.e., Asplund system), or the
stock may be discharged through a blow line to the refiners.
3-36
-------
DRAFT
Primary, secondary, and tickler refiners may be found in the process
depending on the type of pulp required. With more refining the pulp
becomes stronger, but its drainage characteristics are reduced.
Some mills use raw chips in the process which bypass the digester and are
refined in a raffinator or refiner. These chips are usually of a species
that breaks down easily and has a tendency to overcook in the digester.
The amount of raw chips, which produce a weaker pulp, are a small percen-
tage of the total chips used and are blended, after refining, with the
cooked chips.
The cooking cycles for the thermo-mechanical process for SIS hardboard
have ranges of 2 to 5 minutes at 5.4 to 10.2 atm (80 to 150 psi) for
softwood and 40 seconds at 9.5 to 12.2 atm (140 to 180 psi) for hardwood.
Another method of fiber preparation, used by two mills, is the explosion
or gun process. The chips are fed into a small pressure vessel and
cooked (at one mill) for 70 to 110 seconds at 20.4 to 27.2 atm (300 to
400 psi). Just prior to discharge, for approximately 5 seconds, the
pressure is increased to 44.2 atm (650 psi). The cooked chips are dis-
charged through a quick-opening valve to a cyclone. The sudden release
of pressure explodes the chips into a mass of fiber. The steam condenses
in the cyclone and fibers fall into a stock chest where they are mixed
with water. Fiber yield is lower than the thermo-mechanical process due
to the hydrolysis of the hemicelluloses under high pressure. The raw
waste loading is also considerably higher using the gun digesters.
To restore moisture to chips containing a low moisture content (e.g.;
plywood trim), one mill injects water with the chips as they are being
cooked in the digester.
The refining or defibering equipment is of the disc type, in which one
disc may be rotating or both may rotate; the unit may be pressurized or a
gravity type. A combination of pressure and gravity type refiners is
usually used in the process. Both types of refiners have adjustable
clearances between the rotating or fixed discs depending on the type of
stock desired. The maintenance and life of the refiner discs are depen-
dent on the cleanliness of chips that are fed to the refiners.
Small tickler or tertiary pump-through refiners are used to provide a
highly refined, shive-free stock for the overlay system as required by
some mills. Small refiners are also used for rejects from the stock
cleaning systems.
The primary and most secondary refiners use large amounts of fresh water
for cooling. This is uncontaminated water and is discharged without
treatment or may be reused in the process water system. Fresh or process
white water is injected directly into the refiner to facilitate refining.
Stock Washing and Deckers—A washer is used to remove solubles. A
decker is a screen used to separate fibers from the main body of water.
Deckering results in removing some solubles from the fiber bundles.
3-37
-------
DRAFT
After primary refining and dilution with white water, over 50 percent of
the mills surveyed wash the stock to remove the dissolved solids. The
most widely used washing equipment is the drum type, gravity or vacuum.
The washer is equipped with showers that wash the stock as it is picked
up by the drum. Two mills used counter-current washers for their stock.
This consists of two or three drum washers in a series, with the last
drum effluent used for shower water on the second drum and second drum
effluent sent to the first washer. White water is added as shower water
on the third drum. This type of washing is highly efficient and is used
to extract as much of the dissolved solids possible. The extracted
solids are used in a byproduct system. Another mill uses a two-roll
press for washing. As the water is squeezed from the stock passing
through the nip of the press, it carries away dissolved solids.
The effluent from all the above stock washers has a high concentration of
soluble organics which are usually mixed into the white water system and
must be discharged for treatment or be recycled within the washing sys-
tem. The amount of dissolved solids that are readily washed from the
stock depends on the species of wood, the amount of cooking, and amount
of defibering by the refiners.
Of the 16 mills surveyed, those having stock washers consist of 4 out of
7 mills producing SIS hardboard and 7 out of 9 mills producing S2S hard-
board.
Those mills having stock washers usually have them located after the
primary refiners. Some locations screen the stock after washing, sending
the slivers and oversize back through the primary refiner. Five mills,
one without a stock washer, used centri-cleaners in the system to remove
non-fiber material (bark, dirt, etc.) from the stock.
Consistency of the stock as it travels through the process is controlled
by instruments using recycled white water for dilution. One mill, based
on experience, checks the consistency by "feel." The pH may be con-
trolled with fresh water or chemicals. Other chemicals are added at
various locations as required.
Forming—Most of the mills using the wet process form their product
on a fourdrinier-type machine similar to those used in producing paper.
Diluted stock is pumped to the headbox of the former where the consis-
tency is controlled, usually with white water, to an average of 1.5 to
1.7 percent as the stock is fed to the travelling wire of the fourdri-
nier. As the stock travels with the machine, wire water is drained
through the wire. At first the water drains by gravity, but as the stock
and wire continue they pass over a series of suction boxes that remove
additional water with a vacuum. As the water is being removed the stock
is felted together into a continuous fibrous sheet called a "wet mat."
At the end of the forming machine the wet mat leaves the travelling wire
and is picked up by another moving screen that carries the mat through
3-38
-------
DRAFT
one or more roll presses. This step not only removes more water but also
compacts and solidifies the mat to a level at which it can support its
own weight over short spans. As the wet mat leaves the prepress section,
it is cut, on the fly, into lengths as required for the board being pro-
duced. The mat, still with a high moisture content (50 to 65 percent) is
carried to the hydraulic press section when producing SIS hardboard. In
the manufacturing of S2S hardboard, the mat is conveyed first through the
drier and then pressed, in a dry state.
The water drained from the mat as it travels across the forming machine
is collected in a pit under the machine or in a chest. This "white
water" contains a certain amount of wood fibers (suspended solids), wood
chemicals (dissolved solids), and dissolved additive chemicals depending
on the size of the machine wire, the amount and number of suction boxes,
the freeness or drainage of the stock, and the physical properties of the
product.
The water draining by gravity from the first section of the former con-
tains the larger amount (rich) of fiber and is usually recycled to the
fan pumps that supply the stock to the forming machine. The lean white
water collected under vacuum in some wells is collected and recycled as
dilution water throughout the process.
The amount of white water that can be recycled is dependent upon board
quality demands. Recycled white water causes an increase in the sugar
content of the process water and therefore in the board. If the sugar
content (dissolved solids) are allowed to accumulate beyond a certain
point, problems such as boards sticking in the press, bleedouts from the
finish products, objectionable board color, and decreased paintability
have been encountered.
The reuse of white water also reduces the amount of fresh water required.
The wet trim from the mat on the forming machine is sent to a repulper,
diluted, usually screened, and recycled back into the process system
ahead of the forming machine.
Pressing—After forming to the desired thickness, the fibers in the
mat are welded together into a tough grainless board, in the hardboard
press. The press is hydraulically operated, capable of pressing 14 to 26
boards at one time. Press plates may be heated with steam or with a heat
transfer medium up to 230° C. Unit pressures on the board up to 68 atn
(1000 psi) are achieved in the press. The press may be fitted with caul
plates or the board may be pressed directly between the press plattens.
Caul plates may be smooth or embossed for a special surface effect on the
board. The press may be hand or automatically loaded and unloaded.
In SIS hardboard manufacturing the wet mat is fed into the press as it
comes from the forming machine. Screens are used on the back side of SIS
mats in the press. In this state the SIS requires 4 to 10 minutes in the
press. The squeezing of the water from the wet mat results in washing
3-39
-------
DRAFT
much of the migrating sugars from the surface of the board. To assist
the bond of the fibers in the press, resins are added to the stock before
it reaches the forming machine. From the press the SIS hardboard may be
conveyed to a drier, or kiln, or humidifier.
As the S2S hardboard leaves the forming machine, it may enter a pre-
drying oven which evaporates 95 percent of the moisture in the board.
When a pre-dryer is used, hot board is delivered directly to the press.
After dryi ng the board may be pressed or sent to storage and pressed when
required. The .strength of the S2S hardboard has to be sufficient to
withstand the,'many''handling situations that take place while the board is
in the unpressed state.
As stated before, the S2S hardboard requires a much harder cook, and more
fine refining than SIS. These finer fibers allow the consolidating
chemical reaction to take place when pressing the dry board. Thermo-
setting resins cannot be used as a binder in S2S because it pre-cures
when the forming water is evaporated in the drier. Higher temperatures,
higher pressures, and shorter pressing time (1 to 5 minutes) are required
in pressing the dry S2S hardboard.
The water from the press squeeze-out on SIS hardboard has a high organic
content and is usually drained away for treatment.
nil Tempering and Baking—After pressing, both SIS and S2S hardboard
may receive a special treatment called tempering. This consists of
treating the sheets with various drying oils (usually vegetable oils)
either by pan-dripping or roll coaters. The ;hardboard is sometimes
passed thro'ugh a series of pressure rolls which increase the absorption
of the oilsrand remove any excess. The oil is stabilized by baking the
sheet from 1 to 4 hours at temperatures of 150° to 177°C. Tempering
increases the hardness, strength and water resistance of the board.
Humidification—As the sheets of hardboard discharge from the press
or the tempering baking oven they are hot and dry. To stabilize the
board so as to prevent warping and dimensional changes they are subject
to a humidification chamber. The sheets are retained here until the
proper moisture content, usually 4.5 to 5 percent, is reached. In the
case of siding products where exposure to the elements is expected,
humidification to 7 percent is common.
Figures III-8 and 111-9 depict diagrams of typical SIS and S2S production
processes, respectively.
3-40
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL WET PROCESS HARDBOARD MILL
SIS HAfilBOAflD PRODUCT ION LINE STEAM;
FRESH WATER
*>.
LOG
STORAGE
\A
fHITE
nCDADIf IKI/2
UtDAnMPiui
STOCK
CHEST
WATER RECYCLE
CHIPPING
FORMING
MACHINE
.. _ _._J
'RES
CHIP
STORAGE
.STEAM ..
..#.- .. .'....
PRESS
S •* -> i
CHIP
SILOS
OVEN
An,
UK*
KILN
1- CV/ADnDATlriM
fc-
niAccifcp
i/iuicwi En
.STEAM..
¥ • • ••
HIIMiniPY
DCCIKJCQ
rfcrincn
FINISHING
AND OR DISCHARGE
SQUEEZE dUf EVAPORATION
TO DISCHARGE
LEGEND
WATER IN
WATER OUT
Fiaure III - 8
-------
CO
*>.
N)
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL WET PROCESS HARDBOARD MILL
S2S HARDBOARD PRODUCTION LINE FRESH WATER STEAM
LOG
STORAGE
DEBARKING
CHIPPING
CHIP
STORAGE
CHIP
SILOS
>
CHIP
WASHER
i '
DIGESTER
FRESH WATER
1
PRIMARY
REFINER
WHITE WATER
*
FIBER
WASH
FRESH WATER
*
SECONDARY
REFINER
ENRICHED WHITE WATER FOR!
BY PRODUCT USE RECYCLE J
OR DISCHARGE
FINISHING
WHITE WATER
*
STOCK
CHEST
FORMING
MACHINE
EVAPORATION
t
PRE DRYER
WHITE WATER RECYCLE I
AND OR DISCHARGE _|
STEAM
*
HUMIDIFY
OVEN
OR
KILN
STEAM
*
PRESS
* EVAPORATION
EVAPORATION
LEGEND
WATER IN
WATER OUT
Figure III - 9
-------
DRAFT
SECTION IV
INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION
General
In the review of existing industrial subcategorization for the wood pre-
serving, insulation board, and hardboard industries, it was necessary to
determine whether significant differences exist within each industry to
support the current subcategorization scheme, or whether modifications
are required. The rationale for subcategorization is based upon empha-
sized differences and similarities in such factors as: (1) plant charac-
teristics and raw materials; (2) wastewater characteristics, including
priority pollutant characteristics; (3) manufacturing processes; and
(4) methods of wastewater treatment and disposal.
The entire technical data base, described in Section III, was used in the
review of subcategorization.
Wood Preserving
In developing the previously published effluent limitation guidelines and
pretreatment standards for the wood-preserving segment of the timber pro-
ducts processing industry, it was determined that plants comprising this
segment exhibited significant differences which sufficiently justified
multiple subcategorization. The subcategorization of the wood-preserving
segment was based primarily on the method of conditioning stock prepara-
tory to preservative treatment. The Wood-Preserving subcategory is com-
prised of plants that do not condition stock in the retort prior to
injection of preservative. The WoodPreserving-Steam subcategory includes
plants that employ steam conditioning or vapor drying. The Wood-Preser-
ving-Boultonizing subcategory is comprised of plants that use the Boulton
conditioning process. The complete definitions of the three existing
subcategories are as follows:
Wood-Preserving—The Wood-Preserving subcategory includes all wood-
preserving processes in which steaming or Boultonizing is not the pre-
dominant method of conditioning; and all pressure or non-pressure
processes which employ water-borne salts and in which steaming or vapor
drying is not the predominant method of conditioning.
Wood-Preserving-Steam—The Wood-Preserving-Steam.,subcategory
includes all processes that use direct steam impingement on the wood
being conditioned as the predominant method of conditioning, discharges
resulting from wood-preserving processes that use vapor drying as a means
of conditioning any portion of their stock, discharges that result from
direct steam conditioning wood-preserving processes that use fluor-
chromium-arsenate-phenol treating solutions (FGAP), discharges resulting
from direct steam conditioning processes and procedures where the same
retort is used to treat with both salt-type and oil-type preservatives,
4- 1
-------
DRAFT
and discharges from plants which direct steam condition and apply both
salt-type and oil-type treatments to the same stock.
Wood-Preserving-Boultorn'zing—The Wood-Preserving-Boultorn'zing sub-
category covers those wood-preserving processes which use the Boulton
process as the method of conditioning stock.
The rationale for choosing these subcategories was anchored to differ-
ences within the industry in the volume of process wastewater generated
and to variations in the state of technology existing when the subcate-
gories were developed. The economic viability of using process steam in
1973-1974 to evaporate wastewater was also a factor that was considered.
Plants in the Wood-Preserving subcategory were required to meet a no
discharge limitation because a widely used technology existed to achieve
a no discharge through wastewater recycling. Likewise, exemplary plants
employing the Boulton method of conditioning had achieved a no discharge
of process wastewater by forced evaporation in 1974, and this standard
was applied to all Boulton plants.
Plants that used steaming as the predominant method of conditioning were
permitted a discharge because of the relatively large volume of waste-
water generated by the open-steaming method used by most of the plants at
that time.
Rationale for Subcategorization Review
Since the original Draft Development Document was published in 1974,
several of the conditions which led to the separate subcategorization of
steam conditioning and Boultonizing plants have changed. Differences in
wastewater volume between the two subcategories have largely disappeared.
Furthermore, the primary method used by Boulton plants to achieve a no
discharge—forced evaporation of wastewater using process steam—is more
expensive than it was in 1974 due to increased energy costs.
Subcategorization of plants which treat only with inorganic salt-type
preservatives into a separate subcategory is still valid. Technology
currently available to achieve the existing no discharge limitation in
plants treating with inorganic type salts is effective, relatively
inexpensive, and widely employed in the industry.
The following discussion pertains to the rationale for a possible modi-
fication in those subcategorizies which treat with organic, oil-type
preservatives, the wood-preserving-steam, and wood-preserving-Boulton-
izing subcategories. Factors considered in this subcategorization review
are:
Plant characteristics and raw materials
Wastewater characteristics
Manufacturing processes
Methods of wastewater treatment and disposal
4-2
-------
DRAFT
Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials
Plants that employ the Boulton process as the predominant method of con-
ditioning are concentrated in the western states; those that use steam
conditioning are concentrated in the south and east. However, species of
wood, not geography, is the factor that determines the method of condi-
tioning employed. The Boulton process is used primarily to condition
unseasoned Douglas fir, which is the primary pole species in the" western
states, while steam conditioning is used with Southern pines. However,
many plants that treat unseasoned Douglas fir, and thus are classified as
Boulton plants, also employ steaming for special purposes such as thawing
frozen stock before treatment or flash cleaning of the surfaces of stock
following treatment. Likewise, since current AWPA standards permit steam
conditioning of certain western species such as Ponderosa pine, some
plants that use Boultonizing as the predominant method of conditioning
also use steam conditioning occasionally. Similarly, some eastern plants
that steam condition most of their stock may use the Boulton process to
condition green oak piling or cross-ties. Boultonizing is the predomi-
nant conditioning method at a few of the plants in the south and east
that specialize in cross-tie production.
Age—With the exception of method of conditioning, which is dictated
by timber species, Boulton and steaming plants have very similar charac-
teristics. Average plant age, for example, is 48 and 47 years for
Boulton and steaming plants, respectively, based on responses to the data
collection portfolio (Table IV-1).
Age in and of itself is not a significant factor in determining the
efficiency and economic viability of a plant; nor does it necessarily
influence either the volume or the quality of process wastewater.
Regardless of age, all plants employ the same basic treating processes,
use the same type of equipment, and treat with the same preservatives.
The average age of wood-preserving plants is high because the industry
developed rapidly in the 1920's and 1930's in consort with the demand by
the railroads and utilities for treated wood products. Most of the old
plants have been updated several times since they were first constructed.
The waste-management programs at these plants are fully as advanced in
most cases as those at plants constructed 30 years later.
Size—Boulton plants are of the same general size range, based on
number of pressure retorts, as plants that use steam conditioning. This
similarity is evident from Table IV-2, which shows the percentage of
plants by region of the U.S. that have one retort, two retorts, etc. For
example, 65 percent of the West Coast plants, which are primarily Boulton
plants, have fewer than three retorts. The comparable percentage for the
rest of the i-ndusty—where steam conditioning predominates—is also 65
percent.
4-3
-------
DRAFT
Table IV-1 Date of Construction of a Randomly Selected Sample of Boulton
and Steaming Plants.
Boulton
Plant No.
62
451
760
1120
1040
252
150
991
85
713
1100
384
969
101
827
996
243
377
566
Average age
Date
Constructed
1910
1928
1906
1907
1924
1924
1912
1962
1901
1913
1886
1924
1945
1959
1955
1952
1930
1965
1942
(years) 48
Steami ng
Plant No.
536
192
616
345
1021
972
864
786
528
695
963
437
166
1150
258
817
1093
* 670
939
879
233
749
144
Date
Constructed
1926
1927
1948
1946
1902
1922
1919
1926
1964
1924
1961
1936
1904
1928
1945
1940
1957
1896
1912
1946
1906
1945
1908
47
SOURCE: Data collection portfolios.
4-4
-------
DRAFT
T..ab'1'.e IV-2 Size -of PLan.ts :by Regi-on Based
-------
DRAFT
That portion of the industry that Boultonizes stock tends to have a
higher percentage of large plants than the steaming segment. For exam-
ple, 35 percent of the West Coast plants have more than three retorts as
compared to 15 percent for the rest of the industry. None of the West
Coast plants reported three retorts, while 20 percent of all other plants
are so equipped.
Production capacity is perhaps a better index of plant size than number
of retorts. For plants with the same number of retorts that treat only
stump-green stock, the production of the steaming plant would exceed that
of the Boulton plant by a factor of two or more because of the longer
time required for the Boulton process. This inherent production
advantage of steaming plants is mitigated in part by the fact that the
Boulton segment of the industry has a higher percentage of 4- and
5-cylinder plants than the steaming segment.
Products Treated—Boulton and steaming plants produce the same range
of treated products. This similarity can be seen in Table IV-3, which
shows the percentage of the plants by region that treat each of several
products. Overall, the West Coast (Boulton) plants tend to be more
diversified than the remainder of the industry in that a higher percen-
tage of these plants treat each product than the average for the industry
as a whole.
Preservatives Used—The type of preservatives used by a plant is an
important consideration in determining the pollutants contained in the
process wastewater and, to some degree, the quality of the wastewater.
Table IV-4 shows that Boulton (West Coast) plants use the same range of
preservatives as the industry as a whole. However, a considerably higher
percentage of Boulton plants use creosote and salt-type preservatives
than the remainder of the industry.
Method of Drying—As is the case with the foregoing plant character-
istics, method of drying stock preparatory to preservative treatment is
about the same industry-wide regardless of conditioning method. This
fact is shown in Table IV-5, which gives the number of plants by region
using air drying, vapor drying, kiln drying, and combinations thereof.
Wastewater Characteristics
Wastewater Volume—Data collected in 1973-1974 in preparation of the
Development Document for the wood-preserving segment of the timber pro-
ducts industry revealed that steaming plants generate a much larger vol-
ume of wastewater than Boulton plants of similar size. The difference in
wastewater generation between the two types of plants has been narrowed
considerably during the intervening years as a result of aggressive
pollution-control efforts among steaming plants in the East. Factors
that have contributed to this change include the following:
4-6
-------
DRAFT
Table IV-3 Percentage of Plants by Region that Produce Each Type of
Treated Product.
Percent of Region
Poles
Piling
Posts
Barn Poles
Dimension
Timbers
Ties
Other
NE
41
38
59
44
75
81
53
34
SE
51
56
56
56
65
76
40
20
SW
48
50
68
58
72
70
37
25
Atlantic
Coast
39
55
71
58
87
77
52
32
West
Coast
69
52
76
69
76
90
48
55
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
4-7
-------
DRAFT
Table IV-4', Types of Preservatives Used by Region.
Percent of Region
Preservatives
SE
SW
Atlantic
Coast
West
Coast
Creosote and Solutions 53 48 78 52
Pentachlorophenol 50 68 62 65
Salts 53 37 25 61
86
55
62
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
4-8
-------
DRAFT
Table IV^5 Percentage of Plants by Region that Employ Various Methods of
Drying Stock.
Drying Method
Kiln Drying
Vapor Drying
Air Drying
Kiln or Vapor
Kiln or Air
Vapor or Air
NE
16
9
81
0
13
9
SE
33
4
60
0
2:4
0
Percent
SW
28
15
65
0
20
8
of Region
Atlantic
Coast
35
13
74
3
22
10
West
Coast
45
3
83
3
38
3
SOURCE: Data collection portfolios and AWPA, 1975.
4-9
-------
DRAFT
1. Adoption of closed steaming as a replacement for open steaming
by a high percentage of plants.
2. Replacement of barometric-type with surface-type condensers.
3. Recycling of barometric cooling water.
4. Predrying of a higher percentage of production than previously,
thus reducing total steaming time.
5. Segregation of contaminated and uncontaminated waste streams.
6. Inauguration of effective plant maintenance and sanitation
programs.
7. Recycle of coil condensate.
Improvements were also made in the waste management programs at Boulton
plants between 1973 and 1977. However, the changes that produced the
greatest result with the smallest investment were made at these plants
prior to 1973 in response to early enforcement of stringent local and
state pollution control regulations.
Data on current wastewater volumes at steaming and Boulton plants are
given in Tables IV-6 and IV-7, respectively. Included in the tables are
the total daily volume of wastewater generated and the ratio of
wastewater generated to production for each of the plants that gave
definitive wastewater volume data in their respective data collection
portfolio responses.
The average wastewater volumes reported are 24,100 and 25,700 I/day for
steaming and Boulton plants, respectively, and the average volumes per
day per cubic meter of production are 163 and 138 liters. Two of the
Boulton plants (1.50 and 231) clearly have wastewater volumes that are
significantly different from the population as a whole. Omitting these
plants, the average daily volume and volume per unit of production are
12,900 and 98.1 1/day-cu m, respectively.
Eleven of the 41 steaming plants use open steaming. If these plants are
dropped from the calculation, the comparable volume data for steaming
plants become 12,200 I/day and 122 1/day-cu m. It appears from these
data that the average volume of wastewater per plant per day is approxi-
mately the same for Boulton plants and closed-steaming plants. When the
comparison is based on volume per unit of production, wastewater genera-
tion is approximately 78 percent higher for steaming than for Boulton
plants. This difference is even greater in the case of plants that use
open steaming. However, it is of interest that the range defined by X +
one standard deviation for this latter statistic has a high percentage
overlap between the Boulton and steaming processes. For example, the
range for the Boulton plants is 20.0 to 175 1/day-cu m, while that for
steaming plants is 17.4 to 226 1/day-cu m.
VJastewater Parameters—Since Boulton and steaming plants treat
with the same types of preservatives, the wastewater generated by the
two types of plants have similar preservative contaminants. This is
verified by data presented in Table IV-8. These data are based on
4-10
-------
DRAFT
Table IV-6 Wastewater Volume Data for 41 Steaming Plants.
Plant
986
689
199
192
197
455
333
817
247
322
983
258
749
233
111
879
105
813
326
856
670
241
1021
(I/day)
18,168
946
1,325
56,775
727
1,325
30,280
13,248
18,925
27,252
3,785
56,775
3,028
22,332
5,382
11,355
33,687
15,140
1,893
3,316
11,355
41,635
41,635
Volume
ll/cu m)
174
16.0
103
235
12.0
74.8
213
—
4.85
82.9
33.4
501
17.4
146
94.9
103
303
58.8
17.4
57.5
89.5
114
77.5
Plant
592
685
631
661
777
616
437
133
313
217
1004
1246
1300
1080
271
172
721
972
X41
*30
S
(I/day)
18,925
5,678
20,818
9,463
17,033
871
41,635
62,453
41,635
27,252
18,925
5,678
75,700
8,952
124,905
25,360
52,990
9,463
24,098
12,154
9,633
Vol ume
(1/cu m)
57.5
200
107
48.1
429
6.68
350
270
346
231
102
200
382
61.5
428
298
187
278
163
122
104
SOURCE: Data collection portfolios.
4-11
-------
DRAFT
Table IV-7. Wastewater Volume Data for 18 Boulton Plants.
Volume
Plant
364
536
377
713
85
757
499
503
612
781
622
150
252
1120
231
451 ,
Xl8
*16
S
(I/day)
9,724
26,495
3,785
26,495
1,136
1,223
20,818
26,495
7,570
11,355
5,678
9,463
189,250
3,407
20,818
16,351
65,405
16,351
25,657
12,948
9,152
(1/cu m)
279
128
38.8
70.8
4.01
18.7
69.5
93.6
122
106
52.1
76.2
668
56.1
105
74.8
255
275
138
98.1
77.5
SOURCE: Data collection portfolios.
4-12
-------
DRAFT
Table IV-S. Wastewater Parameters for Boulton and Steaming Plants. .
(mg/1)
Plant
Type
Boulton
conditioning
as practiced in
the West
Avg.
COD
1710
3705
2710
Total
Phenols
184.0
729.6
456.8
pep
5.73
5.73
Oil &
Grease
35
10
22
Closed Steaming
as practiced
in the East
Avg.
1430
12625
8167
7990
3595
16965
3080
6690
7567
482.2
264.5
48.5
221.9
302.4
120.0
32.3
81.0
194.1
143.5
73.5
152.5
49.0
81.0
17.9
540.0
151.1
35
1685
520
700
980
1380
535
1045
860
SOURCE: Sampling conducted during pretreatment study and verification
sampling conducted during the present study.
4-13
-------
DRAFT
analyses of two or three grab samples collected at the outfall of the
oil-water separators at each plant. The differences evident between
average values for the two types of plants are typical. Phenol
concentrations are higher for Boulton wastewater than for steaming
wastewater. However, the concentrations of the other parameters are
smaller for the Boulton wastewater than for the steaming wastewater.
Differences between Boulton and steaming wastewater in COD and penta-
chlorophenol contents are largely due to differences in oil and grease
content. Oil-water emulsions are of frequent occurrence in steaming
plant wastewaters, a fact that accounts for the correspondingly higher
average oil content. It is probable that wood extractives, principally
resins and carbohydrates, act as emulsifiers, thus contributing to this
condition. Because the water removed from wood during the Boulton
process leaves the retort in vapor form and thus is free of wood extrac-
tives, emulsions occur with considerably less frequency in Boulton waste-
water. The higher oil content of the steaming wastewater accounts in
large part for the high oxygen demand of these wastes and serves as a
carrier for concentrations of pentachlorophenol that far exceed its
solubility in water (17 mg/1 at 20°C).
Manufacturing Processes
The conditioning method employed is the only step in the manufacturing
process that distinguishes Boulton plants from steaming plants.. Both
conditioning "methods have the same function, i.e., to reduce the moisture
content of unseasoned stock to a level which allows the requisite amount
of preservative to be forced into the wood. Conditioning also increases
the permeability of the wood so that the preservative will penetrate the
sapwood zone as required by AWPA standards.
The above stated objectives are accomplished in the Boulton process by
heating the stock in a preservative bath under reduced pressure in the
retort. The preservative serves as a heat transfer medium. Water
removed in vapor form from the wood during the Boulton process passes
through a condenser to an oil-water separator where low-boiling fractions
of the preservative are removed. The Boulton cycle may have a duration
of 48 hours or longer for large poles and piling, a fact that accounts
for the lower production per retort day as compared to plants that steam
condition.
Conventional steam conditioning, is a process in which unseasoned or par-
tially seasoned stock is subjected to direct steam impingement at an ele-
vated pressure in a retort. The maximum permissible temperature is set
by industry standards at 118°C, and the duration of the steaming cycle is
limited by these standards to 20 hours. Steam condensate that forms in
the retort exits through traps and is conducted to oil-water separators
for removal of free oils. Removal of emulsified oils requires further
treatment.
4-14
-------
DRAFT
In closed steaming, a widely used process variation, the steam needed for
conditioning is generated in situ by covering the coils in the retort
with water from a reservoir and heating the water by passing process
steam through the coils. The water is returned to the reservoir after
oil separation and reused during the next steaming cycle.
The actual treating process employed is independent of conditioning
method and is of three basic types. Two of them are referred to in the
industry as "empty-cell" processes and are based on the principle that
part of the preservative oil forced into the wood is expelled by en-
trapped air upon the release of pressure at the conclusion of the treat-
ing cycle, thus leaving the cell walls coated with preservative. The
pressure cycle is followed by a vacuum to remove additional preservative.
Retentions of 96 to 192 kilograms per cubic meter are generally sought in
these processes. The retention attained is controlled in part by the
initial air pressure employed at the beginning of the cycle.
The third method, known as the "full-cell" process, differs from the
other two in that the treating cycle is begun by evacuating the retort
and breaking the vacuum with the preservative. The preservative is then
forced into the wood under pressure, as in the other processes. Most of
the preservative remains in the wood when the pressure is released.
Retentions of 320 kilograms per cubic meter or higher are usually the
goal for this process is used.
V
Stock treated by all three methods is frequently given a short steam
treatment to "clean" the surface of poles and pilings and to reduce
exudation of oil after the products are placed in service.
Methods of Waste Treatment and Disposal
Based on method of wastewater treatment and disposal, respondents to the
data collection portfolio were distributed as follows:
No. of Percent of
Method PI ants\. Plants
Recycle—No Discharge 62 32
Evaporation—Forced or Natural 66 34
Publicly Owned Treatment Works 42 21
Secondary ireatnent—Including Spray
Irrigation 15 8
Special (Injectiur, Incineration) 2 1
Direct Discharge 9 4
Total 196 100
Plants that recycle all process wastewater are primarily those that treat
only with salt-type preservatives and fire retardants. However, included
in the recycle category are a few plants that employ creosote and penta-
4-15
-------
DRAFT
chlorophenol to treat dry stock (lumber, millwork, etc.). Plants that
treat with salts have with few exceptions achieved no discharge as
required by current EPA guidelines. The exceptions are those few plants
that treat with the FCAP formulation. Because this formulation is com-
patible with steam conditioning, the plants were allowed a variance in
the guidelines. ACA and CZC preservatives are also compatible with steam
conditioning, but only one or two plants that using these formulations
are known to have a discharge.
Capital requirements to achieve no discharge for a plant that treats only
with salt-type preservatives are relatively small compared to steam or ,
Boulton plants, all of which treat with oil-type preservatives. Because
of the nature of the closed system for salt treating plants, operating
costs are low. Some small return on the initial investment can be real-
ized in that small quantities of otherwise wasted chemicals are recovered
and reused. Costs for recycle systems are presented in Section VIII.
With only a few exceptions plants that utilize the POTW as part of their
wastewater management program are those that treat with oil-type
preservatives. The number of such plants has increased from 17 percent
in 1974 to an estimated 21 percent in 1977, based on data supplied by the
data collection portfolios. The ratio of steaming to Boulton plants in
this group is roughly 80:20. This is the same approximate ratio between
the two types of plants that exists in the industry as a whole.
Utilization of the POTW by a wood preserving operation depends upon both
the location of the operation and the willingness of the municipal
authorities to accept industrial wastewater. Usually only those plants
located in or near urban areas have the opportunity to use the POTW for
wastewater disposal. Plants which for various reasons cannot utilize
POTW service represent roughly 50 percent of all plants in the industry.
With the exception of plants that treat with salt formulations, all of
the plants in this group generate a volume of wastewater that exceeds all
recycle capabilities that are technically feasible. This situation is
aggravated by rainwater, since rainwater that falls on or near the pro-
duction facilities must be collected and disposed of in a proper manner.
Evaporation, both natural and forced, is the method adopted by most of
the plants in this group, and is the only alternative for Boulton plants
which, under current guidelines, are not allowed a discharge. This
restriction was based on the fact that exemplary Boulton plants were
successfully achieving no discharge of process wastewater by forced
evaporation in 1973-1974 when the guidelines were developed.
Evaporation is a viable method of pollution abatement when land is avail-
able at a reasonable cost and can be so used. This situation exists in
many of the Atlantic Coastal, Southwestern, and Southeastern states where
most steaming plants are located. For this reason, all of the steaming
plants in these regions that depend upon evaporation for waste disposal —
either wholly or in part—have lagoons that frequently are equipped with
4-16
-------
DRAFT
spray systems to expedite evaporatf&k* Since thas.e plants have the
option of discharging treated wastewater within the constraints imposed
by the guidelines, evaporation is often used in combination with
biological treatment, aerated lagoons, or soil irrigation.
An option on evaporation system type is generally not available to Boul-
ton plants because of the non-availability or high cost of land. Eighty-
four percent of the plants in California, Oregon, and Washington are
located in densely populated areas such as Seattle, Portland, Longview,
Long Beach, Tacoma, Stockton, etc. Since these plants cannot use a bio-
logical treatment process because of discharge restrictions, they must
use forced evaporation to dispose of their excess wastewater. Seventy-
five percent of the Boulton plants from the West that responded to the
data collection portfolios use evaporation. The remainder discharge to a
POTW.
Evaporation systems actually used by Boulton plants vary from sophisti-
cated cooling towers equipped with auxiliary heating equipment to simple
open vats fitted with steam coils. The several-fold increase in the cost
of energy since 1974 has resulted in much higher operating costs of
forced evaporation, which is highly energy intensive. One plant owner
who recently installed a cooling tower specifically for wastewater evap-
oration reported that his annual gas consumption increased 97 percent, or
100,000 therms, during the first seven months of operation. Based on his
calculations, the cost for gas alone during this period amounted to
$1.80/cu m, or 4.8 percent of the plant's total operating cost. It is
estimated that fuel cost for evaporation is $115.22 per 1000 liters based
on a gas cost of $70.67/1000 cu m and an average heating efficiency of
60 percent. However, much higher costs have been reported by others
(EPA, 1976).
A second Boulton plant with a daily wastewater flow of 20,800 liters
reports that it is spending more than $200,000 for the equipment needed
to recycle its wastewater. Both ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis
units have been installed. The permeate from the system will be used as
boiler make-up water and the sludge will be burned for fuel. Although
this would be a considerable investment for most wood-preserving plants,
it may be less costly than evaporating the water using process steam.
Data released by the plant that installed a cooling tower for wastewater
evaporation indicate an average operating cost of $4,069 per month.
Proposed Subcategc* ^s
A careful consideration of the plant characteristics, raw materials,
wastewater volume produced, wastewater characteristics, manufacturing
processes, and available methods of wastewater treatment and disposal as
currently exist in the industry today suggests that wood preserving
plants could be subcategorized according to type of preservatives used
rather than method of preconditioning stock.
4-17
-------
DRAFT
This objective could be met by two subcategories, defined as follows:
Wood Preserving-Inorganic Chemicals—The wood-preserving-inorganic
chemicals subcategory includes all wood preserving processes in which
inorganic water-borne preservatives and fire retardants are the only
chemicals employed.
Wood Preserving-Organic Chemicals—The wood-preserving-organic chem-
icals subcategory includes all wood preserving processes in which organic
preservatives are used; all processes in which the same retort is used to
apply both organic and inorganic preservatives; all processes in which
both inorganic and organic preservatives are used to treat the same
stock; and all processes in which plant configuration is such that direct
cross contamination occurs between wastewaters from adjacent retorts, one
of which is used for inorganic salts.
The type of preservative used in the industry is a basis for subcategor-
ization in the original effluent guidelines. Possible modi fictions to
this subcategorization involve grouping all plants using inorganic salt-
type preservatives into one subcategory and all those using organic pre-
servatives into a second subcategory, as shown above. This modification
would change existing subcategories in the following manner:
The method of conditioning stock for preservative treatment would be
dropped as a criterion for subcategorization.
Furthermore all plants treating with inorganic salt-type preservatives
would be grouped into the same subcategory and would be required to meet
the same discharge requirements. Plants treating with FCAP currently are
included in the Wood-Preserving-Steaming subcategory. FCAP was treated
differently from other salt-type preservatives in developing the original
subcategories because, unlike CCA, it can be used to treat steam-condi-
tioned wood and was being so used by several plants in 1973-1974. Ammoni-
cal copper arsenate (ACA) and chromated zinc chloride (CZC) can be
similarly employed. Because the same well-developed and extensively used
technology by which the plants treating with CCA preservatives have
achieved no discharge is equally applicable to plants that employ these
other heavy-metal salts, all plants treating with inorganic salt-type
preservatives could be grouped into a common subcategory. Only two of
two hundred plants responding to data collection portfolios indicated
that FCAP is used. One of these (Plant 773) has already achieved no
discharge and the other (Plant 817) is discharging some FCAP wastewater
to the POTW. Industry-wide, 0.530 million kilograms of FCAP were used in
1S75 (AWPA, 1976). It would seem obvious, therefore, that more than two
plants are using this preservative. This amount represents 5.0 percent
of the total consumption of salt-type preservatives.
An additional change resulting from the modifications would be that
plants applying non-pressure treatments with organic preservatives would
be grouped with those applying organic preservatives by pressure
4-18
-------
DRAFT
processes. Plants using non-pressure processes are currently included in
the Wood-Preserving subcategory. Special consideration should be
afforded to plants that apply non-pressure organic treatments. Non-pres-
sure plants should be precluded from an allowable discharge, regardless
of whether pressure treating plants are allowed to discharge by final
proposed effluent limitations. This conclusion is supported by the fact
that non-pressure plants do not produce process wastewater, and all non-
pressure plants responding to the data collection portfolio are currently
achieving no discharge. Grouping non-pressure processes with pressure
processes would likewise have little effect on the industry. Total pro-
duction by non-pressure plants is estimated to be less than one percent
of the total for the industry.
Insulation Board
Although effluent limitations guidelines for the insulation industry have
not been promulgated, the final Draft Development Document for the Timber
Products Processing Point Source Category (Phase II) proposed the follow-
ing subcategories for insulation board:
Insulation Board—The Insulation Board Subcategory includes those
plants whose manufacturing procedure does not involve subjecting the wood
raw material to a pressure created by steam.
Insulation Board Manufacturing With Steaming or Hardboard
Production—This subcategory includes those plants whose manufacturing
procedure includes steam conditioning of the wood raw material before
refining, or those plants which produce hardboard at the same facility.
The rationale for selection of these subcategories was anchored primarily
to differences in the raw waste loads exhibited by plants which employ
steaming and/or hardboard production and plants which do not. Other
factors considered were the nature of raw materials, plant size and age,
nature of water supply, plant location and land availability, and water
usage. The effects on raw waste loading due to these factors were not
considered to be of sufficient significance to warrant further
subcategori zati on.
Rationale for Subcategorization Review—In order to determine the
validity of the proposed Subcategorization, and to determine whether
changes within the industry since 1974 warrant modification of sub-
categorization, the industry was reviewed and surveyed with a focus on
wastewater characteristics and treatability as related to:
Raw material s
Manufacturing processes
Products produced
Plant size and age
Geographical location
4- 19
-------
DRAFT
Analysis of thV above factors, supported by data presented in Section V,
Raw Wastewater Characteristics, of this document, affirms the validity of
separate subcategorization for insulation board, mechnical pulping and
refining, and insulation board, thermomechanical pulping and refining
and/or hardboard production at the same facility.
Raw Materials--The primary raw material used in the manufacture of
wood fiber insulation board is wood. This material is responsible for
the major portion of the BOD and suspended solids in the raw waste.
Other additives, such as wax emulsions, asphalt, paraffin, and aluminum
sulfate, comprise less than 20 percent of the board weight and add very
little to the raw waste load. Literature and operating data submitted by
several mills has indicated that wood species, season of wood harvesting,
and the presence of bark and/or whole tree chips in wood furnish affect
the raw waste load of fiberboard plants. Due to a lack of sufficiently
detailed plant data to quantify the effects of these variables upon raw
waste load, there was no sound basis for subcategorization strictly on
the basis of raw material used to produce the board.
Four of the insulation board plants produce insulation board using
mineral wool as a raw material. Two of these plants produce large
quantities of mineral wool insulation board on separate forming lines
within the same facility or in facilities separate from the wood fiber
insulation board plant. One plant produces approximately 50 percent of
its total production as mineral wool insulation board on the same forming
machine that it uses to produce wood fiber insulation board. Wood fiber
and mineral wool wastewater from these two plants completely comingle
prior to monitoring. These plants were not used to determine raw waste
loads for wood fiber insulation board. One plant produces less than 10
percent of its total production as mineral wool insulation board, using
the same forming equipment as is used for wood fiber insulation board.
Raw waste load data from this plant was used to develop raw waste loads
for wood fiber insulation board as the contribution from the mineral wood
production was considered to have no significant effect on the overall
raw waste load. All other plants analyzed for raw waste load used only
wood as the primary raw material.
Four plants indicated that wastepaper was used for a minor portion of
their raw material in wood fiber insulation board production. Insuffi-
cient information was available to determine the effect of small amounts
of wastepaper furnish on raw waste loads at these plants.
Manufacturing Process—Although a plant may have various auxiliary
components in its operation, the major difference in manufacturing
processes which affect raw waste loads is whether steam, under pressure,
is used to precondition the chips prior to refining. The steam cook
softens the wood chips and results in the release of more soluble
organics from the raw material. A discussion of this phenomena is
presented in Section V, Raw Waste Characteristics. Data received from
4-20
-------
DRAFT
insulation board plants supports the conclusion that steaming of furnish
significantly increases the raw waste load.
Of the five insulation board plants which also produce hardboard at the
same facility, all but one steam condition most or all of the wood
furnish used for insulation board. The remaining plant steam conditions
approximately 10 percent of the wood furnish for insulation board. Raw
waste load data from this plant is not significantly different from the
one plant which steam conditions all its wood furnish and which produces
solely insulation board.
Products Produced—The ability of an insulation board plant to
recycle process wastewater is highly dependent upon the type of product
produced. Insulation board plants which produce primarly structural type
board products such as sheathing, shinglebacker, etc., demonstrate lower
raw waste loads due primarily to the increased opportunity of process
water recycle at these plants. Two insulation board plants that do not
steam condition their wood furnish had reduced their flow per unit of
production to less than 3000 liters/metric ton (750 gallons/ton). One
of these plants produces primarily structural type board products. Two
insulation board plants that steam condition their wood furnish achieved
complete recycle of process Whitewater, resulting in no discharge of
process wastewater. Both of these plants produce solely structural type
products.
Structural type products do not require as smooth a surface finish as
decorative products and can absorb a greater amount of wood sugars and
other dissolved material from the process Whitewater system.
Consideration was given to subcategbrization on the basis of type of
board product produced, i.e. structural versus decorative. However, the
equipment at most plants is readily adaptable to the production of both
types of board, and most plants rotate the type of board produced based
on product demand, which is highly variable. Subcategorization according
to board type would severely limit the ability of these plants to respond
to competitive pressures, and would make the issuance of permits by en-
forcement agencies a difficult task. Therefore, Subcategorization solely
on the basis of product type is not considered feasible.
Plant Size and Age—There is a substantial difference in the age and
in the size of the plants in the insulation board industry. However,
older plants have been upgraded, modernized, and expanded so that age,
in terms of process, is meaningless. Because of this, the differences in
wastewater characteristics related to the age of the plant are not dis-
cernible, nor is the prorated raw waste load due to plant size. Raw
waste load data presented in Section V supports this conclusion.
Geographical Location—Insulation board plants are widely scattered
throughout the United States—from the east to west coast and from
Minnesota to Mississippi. The geographic location of each, plant dictates.
4-21
-------
DRAFT
the species of wood that is used in the plant's process. Although each
species generates varying raw waste loads, each plant, with its own
process methods, produces a salable product from many types of soft and
hard woods. Plants in cold climates may use frozen chips, necessitating
the use of pre-steaming to thaw the chips. This can result in a small
increase in raw waste loading. Plants in cold climates are also subject
to more pronounced seasonal variations in treatment efficiency of
biological treatment systems, however the effects of cold climate on
biological treatment systems can be mitigated by proper design con-
siderations. The geographic location of the surveyed mills did not
reveal significant differences in the annual raw waste loading.
Wet-Process Hardboard
Effluent limitations guidelines for wet-process hardboard plants promul-
gated in 40 CFR 429 included all wet-process hardboard plants in a single
subcategory defined as:
Wet-Process Hardboard—Plants engaged in the manufacture of hard-
board using the wet matting process for forming the board mat.
Since these regulations were promulgated, industry representatives have
presented data in negotiations with the EPA which support separate sub-
categorization for wet-wet (SIS) hardboard and wet-dry (S2S) hardboard.
In November, 1975, the EPA retained a contractor to evaluate and review
the BAT regulations and the existing subcategorization of the.industry.
The Summary Report on the Re-Evaluation of the Effluent Guidelines for
the Wet-Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber Products Processing Point
Source category was completed in July, 1976. The recommendation contained
in this report was that the wet-process hardboard industry should be
recategorized into two subcategories, one for wet-wet hardboard and one
for wet-dry hardboard. This recommendation was based on significant
differences in the raw waste load characteristics of plants which produce
hardboard by the two different processes.
Rationale for Subcategorization Review—In order to determine the
validity of the proposed resubcategorization and to determine whether
changes within the industry since the Summary Evaluation Report was
completed in 1976,"the industry was reviewed and surveyed with a focus on
wastewater characteristics and treatabiltty as related to:
Raw Materials
Manufacturing Processes
Products Produced
Plant Size and Age
Geographical Location
Analysis of the above factors, supported by data presented in Section V,
Raw Wastewater Characteristics, of this document, affirms the validity of
4-22
-------
DRAFT
separate subcategoriza.tion for wet-wet .(SIS) hardboard and wet-dry (S2S)
hardboard.
Raw Material s—The primary raw material used in the manufacture of
hardboard is wood. This material is responsible for the major portion of
the BOD and suspended solids in the raw waste. Other additives, such as
vegetable oils, tall oil, ferric sulfate, thermoplastic and/or thermo-
setting resins, and aluminum sulfate, comprise less than 15 percent of
the board weight and add very little to the raw waste load. Literature
and operating data submitted by several plants has indicated that wood
species, season of wood harvesting, and the presence of bark and/or whole
tree chips in wood furnish affect the raw waste load of fiberboard
plants. Due to a lack of sufficiently detailed plant data to quantify
the effects of these variables upon raw waste load, there was no sound
basis for subcategorization strictly on the basis of raw material used to
produce the board.
Manufacturing Processes—A plant may have various auxiliary compo-
nents in its operation; however, the basic process in the production of
SIS hardboard or S2S hardboard is similar for all wet process plants.
SIS hardboard is produced with coarse fiber bundles cooked at a rela-
tively low time and pressure, 40 seconds to 5 minutes at pressures of 80
to 180 psi. S2S hardboard, which requires stronger and finer fibers, is
produced with cooking times of 1.5 to 14 minutes at pressures of 150 to
200 psi. The longer time and higher pressure cooks release more soluble
organics from the raw material (wood), thus affecting the effluent raw
waste loading.
The S2S board also requires finer refining and fiber washing to reduce
the soluble solids that affect the product in the pressing and finishing
operation. These operations result in more raw waste discharge to the
effluent; less soluble solids are retained in the finished board.
After analyzing the available information and observing the obvious dif-
ferences between the processes for wet-wet (SIS) and wet-dry (S2S) hard-
board, it appeared justifiable to categorize these two products into two
subcategories: wet-wet (SIS) and wet-dry (S2S).
Products Produced—The hardboard plant may produce either SIS or S2S
board, or both, but the end products at each plant cover a wide range of
applications, surface designs, and thickness. The following are some of
the end uses of hardboard:
Interior wall panelling
Exterior siding
Store display furniture
Base for tile panels
Concrete forms
Non-conductor material for electrical equipment
Door skins (panels)
TV cabinets and furniture
4-23
-------
DRAFT
In conjunction with hardboard, some of the plants produced other products
such as insulation board, battery separators, and mineral insulation.
Insulation board was produced either on its own forming line or on the
same line used for the making of SIS hardboard. The various effluents
for each line were coming!ed upon discharge for treatment with little or
no monitoring of flow and/or wastewater characteristics of the separate
wastewater streams.
Three plants produce a byproduct by the evaporation of the highly con-
centrated wastewater which is marketed as an animal feed. Several other
mills are investigating this process, which not only yields a'salable
product but also reduces the raw waste load that would require treatment.
No attempt has been made in this document to justify the subcategoriza-
tion of those plants that reduce their raw waste flow by capitalizing on
the production of byproducts.
Size and Age of Plants—There is a considerable difference in age as
well as size of the plants in the hardboard industry. Older plants have
been upgraded, modernized, and expanded so that age in terms of
manufacturing process is meaningless. Because of this, the differences
in wastewater characteristics related to age of the plant are not
discernible nor is the prorated raw waste flow due to the plant size.
Raw wasteload data presented in Section V supports this conclusion.
Geographical Location—The plants are widely scattered throughout
the United States, from the east to west coast and from Minnesota to
Mississippi. The geographic location of each plant dictates the species
of wood that is used in the plant's process. Although each species
generates varying raw waste loads, each plant, with its own process
methods, produces a salable product from many types of soft and hard
woods.
Plants in cold climates may use frozen chips, necessitating the use of
pre-steaming to thaw the chips. This can result in a small increase in
raw waste loading. Plants in cold climates are also subject to more
pronounced seasonal variations in treatment efficiency of biological
treatment systems; however, the effects of cold climate on biological
treatment systems can be mitigated by proper design considerations. The
geographic location of the plants did not reveal significant differences
in the annual raw waste loading.
4-24
-------
DRAFT
SECTION V
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
General
The purpose of this section is to define the wastewater quantity and
quality for plants in those subcategories identified in Section IV. Raw
waste load (RWL) data are also presented for plants which produce in more
than one subcategory, and which have sampling procedures or process flows
that produce data extending across more than one subcategory. Raw waste
load data are presented for parameters of interest listed in Section VI
for each subcategory.
The term "raw waste load," as utilized in this document, is defined as
the quantity of a pollutant in wastewater prior to a treatment process.
Where treatment processes are designed primarily to recover raw materials
from the wastewater stream, raw waste loads are obtained following these
processes. Examples are gravity oil-water separators in wood preserving,
or fine screens used for fiber recovery in insulation board and hardboard
plants. The raw waste load is normally expressed in terms of mass
(weight) units per day or per production unit.
For the purpose of cost analysis, representative raw waste characteris-
tics have been defined for each subcategory in order to establish design
parameters for model plants.
For the insulation board and hardboard segments, model plants are pre-
sented for two size categories based on the range of production encoun-
tered in each subcategory. These representative raw waste load values
are developed for the purpose of estimating the cost of candidate
treatment modules only, and should not be construed to be exemplary.
The data presented in this document are based on the most current, repre-
sentative information available from each plant contacted. Verification
sampling data are used to supplement historical data obtained from the
plants for the traditional pollutants, and in most cases is the sole
source of quantitative information for priority pollutant raw waste
loads.
Wood Preserving
General Characteristics
Wastewater characteristics vary with the particular preservative used,
the volume of stock that is conditioned prior to treatment, the condi-
tioning method used, and the extent to which effluents from the retorts
are diluted with.water from other sources.
Typically, wastewaters from creosote and pentachlorophenol treatments
may have high phenolic, COD, and oil contents and may have a turbid
5-1
-------
DRAFT
appearance that results from emulsified oils. They are always acid in
reaction, the pH values usually falling within the range of 4.1 to 6.0.
The high COD contents of such wastes are caused by entrained oils from
wood extractives, principally simple sugars, that are removed from wood
during steam conditioning. These wastewaters may also contain traces of
copper, chromium, arsenic, zinc, and boron at plants that use the same
retort for both water-borne salts and oil-type preservatives, or that
apply dual treatments to the same stock; i.e., treat with two preserva-
tives, one of which is a salt formulation. Trace organic priority pol-
lutants of significance in the Organic Preservatives Subcategory are
principally volatile organic solvents such as benzene and toluene, and
polynuclear aromatic components of creosote which are contained in the
entrained oils. Specific phenolic compounds identified in the wastewater
included phenol, the chloro-phenols, and the nitro-phenol s.
Many plants use the same preservative, follow the same basic treating
practices, and, therefore, generate qualitatively similar wastewaters.
Quantitatively, however, wastewaters differ widely from plant to plant,
and even from month to month at the same plant. Plant-to-plant varia-
tions are illustrated in Table V-l, which gives the range of selected
parameters for wastewater collected at nine plants in 1975, during the
pretreatment study, and at six plants in 1977, during the verification
sampling program. These data are for samples collected from equalization
tanks or basins after gravity oil separation with existing equipment. In
many cases, only partial oil removal was being achieved.
Among the several factors influencing both the concentration of
pollutants and volume of effluent, total conditioning time, whether by
steaming or Boul tonizing, is the most important. Water from conditioning
accounts for most of the loading of pollutants in a plant's effluent, and
is usually also the most important from the standpoint of volume. With
regard to volume, rainwater that falls on or in the immediate vicinity of
the retorts and storage tank farms—an area of about 0.4 hectares (1
acre) for the average plant—is also important. Contaminated rainwater
presents a treatment and disposal problem at most plants, but can be
especially troublesome for plants in areas of high rainfall. For
example, a plant located in an area that receives 152 cm of rain annually
must be equipped to process an additional 5.3 million liters of
contaminated water.
Wastewaters resulting from treatments with inorganic salt formulations
are low in organic content, but contain traces of heavy metals used in
the preservatives and fire retardants employed. Average analytical data
based on weekly sampling of the effluent for a year from a plant treating
with both salt-type preservatives and a fire retardant are given in Table
V-2. The presence and concentration of a specific ion in wastewater from
such treatments depend on the particular formulation employed and the
extent to which the waste is diluted by washwater and stormwater.
5-2
-------
DRAFT
Table V-la. Range of Pollution Parameters for Wastewaters from Nine
Plants following Gravity Oil Separation. 1975 Data Based on
Two or More Grab Samples.
Parameter
Concentration Range
(mg/liter)
Creosote
Pentachlorophenol
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Phenol s
Pentachlorophenol
Oil and Grease
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
1,865-15,695
52-733
—
100-730
320-7,985
230-7,504
85-904
7,180-16,760
—
53-156
145-3,850
5,700-9,410
570-5,572
264-4,320
Table V-lb. Range of Pollution Parameters from Six Plants Following
Gravity Oil Separation. 1977 Verification Data Based on
Average of Three 24-Hour Composite Samples.
the
Parameter
Concentration Range
(mg/liter)
Creosote Pentachlorophenol Combined*
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Phenols
Pentachlorophenol
Oil and Grease
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
3,690-8,960
60.0-1,530
5.85-12.4
46.0-1,910
5.00-157
28.0-959
1,840-18,700
1.87-328
39.5-142
13.0-1,610
8.00-609
111-5,490
3,010-3,710
57.6-415
22.3-158
474-927
139-163
449-1,140
* Combined wastewaters occur after mixing wastewater streams from
creosote and PCP oil-water separators.
5-3
-------
DRAFT
Table V-2. Range of Pollutant Concentrations in Wastewater from a Plant
Treating with CCA- and FCAP-Type Preservatives and a Fire
Retardant
Concentration Range
Parameter (mg/liter)
COD
As
Phenols
Cu
Cr+6
Cr+3
F
P04
NH3-N
pH
10-50
13-50
0.005-0.16
.05-1.1
0.23-1.5
0-0.8
4-20
15-150
80-200
5.0-6.8
Source of Data: Pretreatment Document
5^4
-------
DRAFT
Overall, there has been considerable improvement in the industry in
recent years with regard to both volume and quality of raw wastewater.
Volume reductions have been achieved primarily through the use of closed
steaming and control of non-contact water. Improvements in quality,
particularly for oil and grease and COD content, have mainly resulted
from improvements in oil-water separating equipment and prevention of
emulsion formation by installation of positive-displacement pumps.
Mastewater and Plant Characteristics
Characteristics of wood preserving plants which were visited during the
pretreatment study and during the present study, or plants which pro-
vided historical data for raw waste streams in response to the data
collection portfolio, are presented in Table V-3, which also shows
discharge volume, preservatives used, conditioning process, and daily
production. Specific raw wastewater characteristics after gravity oil
separation are given in Table V-4. The amount of emulsified oils in the
raw wastewater cause characteristics to vary from plant to plant.
Characteristics are further effected by the efficiency of gravity
oil-water separation and the amount and quality of rainwater runoff or
other non-process wastewaters which may dilute the raw wastewater.
Seven of the nineteen plants sampled treat with inorganic as well as
organic preservatives. Although the inorganic treating operations are
for the most part self-contained and produce little or no wastewater,
the process wastewater from the organic treating operations contains
significant amounts of heavy metals. This "fugitive metal" phenomena
is due to cross contamination between the inorganic and organic treating
operations. Personnel, vehicles, and soil which come in contact with
heavy metals from the inorganic treating operations can transport the
metals into the organic treating area where rainfall washes them into
collection sumps. One plant visited (Plant 154) rinses material treated
with inorganic preservatives with a fresh-water spray and the resulting
contaminated wastewater flows into the collection sump of the organic
preservative retorts. Two organic preservative plants (194 and 150) had
concentrations of metals in their pre-treated wastewater discharged to a
POTW, although no inorganic treatments were employed at the plant.
Concentrations of copper, chromium, arsenic, and zinc found at the plant
outfall of these nine plants are presented in Table V-5.
These tabular values have been corrected for background concentrations
levels of the four metals. Plant 154, which treats with chromated zinc
chloride (CZC), exhibits the highest concentrations of chromium and
zinc.
Raw Waste Loadings
Waste load calculations for COD, total phenols, pentachlorophenol, and
oil and grease following gravity oil-water separation are shown in Table
V-6 for each of 19 plants sampled during the pretreatment study and the
5-5
-------
DRAFT
Table V-3. Characteristics of 19 Wood-Preserving Plants from which Wastewater Samples were Collected
during 1975 Pretreatment Study and during Verification Sampling Program of the Present Study.
Plant No.
Conditioning
Process
Preservatives1
Discharge Daily
Treatment or Volume Production
Pretreatment2 (liters/day) (m3/day)
en
i
o>
170
Steaming
Vapor Drying
C.P
186
112
130
192
180
132
142
100
Steaming
Steaming
Steaming
Steaming
Steaming
Steaming
Steaming
Steaming
C,P
C,P
P,
c,
C
c,
c,
c,
Floe, Oxidation 34,020
pond, Lagoon,
Sand filtration
for PCP effluent
Floe, Sand fil- 94,500
tration, pH adj.,
Aerated lagoon,
Oxidation pond
348
C,P
C,P
P, CCA
C, P
C
C, P, CCA
C, P, CCA, FR
C, P
Oxidati
Oxidati
Spray-e
pH adj.
Floe
Floe
pH adj.
Floe
Oxidati
198
Oxidation pond
Oxidation pond,
Spray -evap. pond
pH adj.
Floe
Floe
pH adj.
Floe
Oxidation pond,
94,500
20,790
<950
45,360
18,900
7,560
51,975
20,800
226
85
55
156
76
142
212
85
pH adj.
-------
DRAFT
01
Table V-3. Characteristics of 19 Wood-Preserving Plants from which Wastewater Samples were Collected
during 1975 Pretreatment Study and during Verification Sampling Program of the Present Study
(continued)
Conditioning
Plant No. Process
198 Steaming
164 Steaming
114-a Boulton
114-b Boulton
154 Boulton
194-a Steaming
194-b Steaming
134 Boulton
Treatment or
Preservatives1 Pretreatment2
C, CCA Floe, pH adj.,
Chlor.
C, P, CCA pH adj., Floe.*
Chlor., Sand
filtration
C, P, ACA, FR Secondary oil
separation, Oil
absorbing media
C, P, ACA, FR Secondary oil
separation, Oil
adsorbing media
C, P, CZC, FR Floe
C, P Floe
C, P Floe
PCP Evaporation
Tower
Discharge
Vol ume
(liters/day)
6,425
11,350
26,400
39,800
18,900
22,680
45,400
173,000
Daily
Production \
(nP/day)
96
110
283
329
142
187
204
62
156
Steaming
C, P
Activated 35,400
sludge, Oxida-
tion ponds, Spray
irrigation
335
-------
DRAFT
00
Table V-3. -Characteristics of 19 Wood-Preserving Plants from which Wastewater Samples were Collected
during 1975 Pretreatment Study and during Verification Sampling Program of the Present Study
(continued)
Plant No.
Conditioning
Process Preservatives1
Treatment or
Pretreatment2
Discharge ^
Vol ume
(liters/ day)
Daily
Production
(m3/day)
168
150
Steaming
Steaming
C, P
C, P
Aerated lagoon, 53,000*
Oxidation pond,
Spray evaporation
Secondary oil 251,000
separation,
Oxidation pond,
Spray irrigation,
Aerated Racetrack
269^
463
I—Creosote (C), pentachlorophenol -petroleum (P), salt-type preservatives (CCA-ACA-CZC),
fire retardants (FR)
2—All plants process wastewater through gravity-type separators.
*—Information obtained from historical data suplied by plant.
a—Data collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study.
b--Data collected during 1977 Verification Sampling Program.
-------
DRAFT
Table V-4. Wastewater Characteristics after Gravity Oil Separation for
19 Wood Preserving Plants.
Concentration (mg/1)
Plant
130
192
170
164
194-a
180
132
142
150
100
114-b
168
198
134
194-b
162
154
186
114-a
112
156
Total
Phenols
510.9
383.3
10.8
69.2
501.3
302.4
101.3
34.3
32.3
1272
45.0
334.4
40.0
335.3
184.0
62.1
508.6
292.9
238
PCP
860*
306.0
34.5
49.0
26.7
57.1
17.9
158
6.3
47.8
5.70
24.3
0.09
50.3
22.3
O&G
COD (
24,450*147,555*
35
1,755
720
735
980
1,785
951
535
39
927
35
1,357
1,903
1,365
35
520
10
605
474
1,355
10,460
6,375
15,695
3,595
15,275
8,844
3,080
.4 5,797
3,706
2,460
7,316
8,979
8,880
1,710
7,080
3,705
7,115
3,010
Discharge
Vol ume
liters/day)
<950
45,360
94,500
11,340
22,680
18,900
7,560
51,975
237,000
20,800
57,900
6,425
167,000
28,800
34,020
18,900
94,500
26,400
20,790
35,400
Daily
Production
(m /day)
55
156
198
110
187
76
142
212
463
85
329
96
62.3
204
348
142
226
283
85
335
* These values were not included in the average waste loadings listed
in Table V- 7.
Data presented were collected during the 1975 Pretreatment Study and the
Verification Sampling Program of the present study.
5-9
-------
DRAFT
Table V-5. Concentrations of Metals in Process Water at Plant Outfall
for Nine Wood Preserving Plants: Salts .
Plant No.
130
132
142
198
164
114-a
114-b
154
194-a
150
Background
Cu
3.91
0.70
0.15
1.68
0.47
0.43
0.13*
0.00
0.0350*
—
0.10
Total
Cr
1.23
0.44
0.0
0.46
0.02
0.00
—
6.53
—
0.09*
0.07
(mg/1)
As
1.00
0.05
0.01
0.71
0.03
0.00
—
—
—
—
0.02
Zn
—
—
0
—
—
0.78
1.68*
40.9
0.395*
0.00
0.22
Note: Table values have been corrected for background levels.
*--Background levels not available for these plants. The 1975 Pre-
treatment study background levels were used to correct these
values.
—Two non-salt preservative plants are included due to significant
amounts of metals present, these are plants 194-a and 150.
Data presented in the above table were obtained from the following
sources:
7 plants - Pretreatment Study
3 plants - current Verification Sampling and Analysis Program
1 plant - sampled during both studies
5-10
-------
DRAFT
Table V-6. Raw Waste Loadings After Gravity Oil Separation for 19 Wood Preserving Plants.
Ul
Total Phenols
Plant
112
114-a
192
kg /day
(Ib/day)
6.09
(13.4)
13.4
(29.5)
23.2
(51.2)
PCP
kg/1000m3 kg/day kg/1000m3
(Ib/1000ft3)( Ib/day) (lb/1000ft3)
71.6
(4.47)
47.4
(2.96)
149
(9.31)
1.05
(2.32)
0.00238
(0.00525)
12.3
(0.768)
0.000525
(0.00840)
O&G
COD
kg/day kg/1000m3 kg/day kg/1000m3
(Ib/day) (lb/1000ft3) (Ib/day) (lb/1000ft3)
12.6
(27.8)
0.264
(0.582)
148
(9.24)
0.933
(0.0583)
148
(326)
97.8
(216)
1740
(109)
346
(21.6)
168
100
180
132
150
142
134
164
162
154
194a
0.672
(1.48)
9.47
(20.9)
2.29
(5.05)
8.13
(17.9)
5.27
(11.6)
0.122
(0.269)
11.4
(25.1)
3.48
(7.67)
1.57
(3.46)
7.90
(0.493)
125
(7.81)
16.1
(1.01)
17.6
(1.10)
24.8
(1.55)
1.11
(0.0693)
32.8
(2.05)
24.5
(1.53)
8.39
(0.524)
0.372
(0.820)
0.370
(0.816)
13.5
(29.8)
1.39
(3.06)
3.47
(7.65)
1.63
(3.59)
0.108
(0.238)
0.782
(1.72)
4.38
(0.274)
2.61
(0.163)
29.2
(1.82)
6.55
(0.409)
31.5
(1.97)
4.67
(0.292)
0.759
(0.0474)
4.18
(0.261)
11.1
(24.5)
13.9
(30.6)
7.41
(16.3)
225
(496)
92.8
(204.6)
227
(500.5)
19.9
(43.9)
46.4
(102.3)
0.662
(1.46)
16.3
(35.9)
131
(8.18)
183
(11.4)
52.2
(3.26)
487
(30.4)
438
(27.4)
3638
(227)
181
(11.3)
133
(8.31)
4.66
(0.291)
87.3
(5.45)
64.1
(141)
297
(655)
27.2
(60.0)
2096
(4622)
794
(1751)
1222
(2695)
119
(262)
302
(666)
32.3
(71.2)
45
(320)
754
(47.1)
3903
(244)
191
(11.9)
4527
(283)
3745
(234)
19611
(1225)
1078
(67.3)
868
(54.2)
228
(14.2)
773
(48.3)
-------
; DRAFT
Table V-6. Raw Waste Loadings After Gravity Oil Separation for 1.9 Wood Preserving Plants (continued).
Plant
01
_>
NJ
Total Phenols
PCP
O&G
COD
kg/day kg/1000m3 kg/day
(Ib/day) (lb/1000ft3)(Ib/day)
kg/1000m3 kg/day kg/1000m3 kg/day kg/1000m3
(lb/1000ft3) (Ib/day) (lb/1000ft3) (Ib/day) (lb/1000ft3)
130
114-b
198
194-b
156
170
186
73.6
(162)
2.15
(4.74)
1.15
(2.54)
8.43
(18.6)
36.2
(79.8)
5.87
(12.9)
224
(14.0)
22.4
(1.40)
5.65
(0.353)
25.1
(1.57)
183
(11.4)
26.0
(1.62)
0.181
(0.399)
0.789
(1.74)
2.30
(5.07)
0.889
(0.0555)
2.36
(0.147)
!
10.2
(0.637)
2.28
(5.03)
0.225
(0.496)
54.8
(120.8)
16.8
(37.0)
3.31
(7.30)
49.1
(108.3)
6.93
(0.433)
2.34
(0.146)
269
(16.8)
50.1
(3.13)
16.7
(1.04)
217
(13.6)
336
(741)
15.8
(34.8)
259
(571)
107
(236)
128
(282)
669
(1475)
1020
(63.7)
165
(10.3)
1268
(79.2)
318
(19.9)
647
(40.4)
2960
(185)
Data presented in this table is an average of data from 15 plants compiled during the 1975 Pretreatment
Study and from 6 plants compiled during verification sampling of the present study. Two of these plants
were sampled during both studies. Information on all parameters was not available at every plant.
-------
DRAFT
present study. Waste loadings, averaged for the plants, are presented
in Table V-7. Comparable data for four metals are given in Table V-8.
Waste loadings for each pollutant are expressed in units of total daily
weight (kg/day, Ib/day) and weight per unit volume of treated wood pro-
duced based on daily production.
The 13 priority pollutant polynuclear aromatics (PNA's) are listed in
Table V-9 along with the number which is used to designate each PNA in
later tables.
PNA's are constitutents of creosote and coal tar, and as such are common
pollutants in oily wood preserving wastes. Table V-10 presents the con-
centration of PNA's found in the raw waste samples following gravity oil
separation of five wood preserving plants. Data shown are the average
concentrations of three 24-hour composite samples collected during the
verification sampling program. Corresponding raw waste loads for PNA's,
shown in Table V-ll, are for the combined effluents from the creosote and
PCP separators for plants which have two gravity separation systems.
Design Basis for Model Plant
For the purposes of sizing treatment facilities, computing pollution
loadings, and estimating capital and operating costs, a plant having the
following characteristics was used as a model:
Work days/year: 300
Preservatives used: Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Daily process water volume: 30,240 liters (8,000 gallons)
Other process-related water (1): 17,010 liters (4,500 gallons)
Average daily discharge: 47,250 liters (12,500 gallons^---—— —
Pollutant concentrations (mg/liter):
COD 6,500
Total phenols 135
Pentachlorophenol 25
Oil and grease 895
Daily production: 170 cubic meters (6,000 cubic feet)
These characteristics are based on average values for plants visited and
sampled during the original study, during the 1974 Pretreatment Study,
and during the present study. All available historical data were also
considered in selection of the model plant characteristics. It is
virtually impossible to develop a single model plant that is totally
representative of an industry composed of 400 plants, none of which is
exactly like the others. However, with the exception of plants treating
with salt-type preservatives and fire retardants, there is no basis for
subcategorization based on effluent parameters, flow rate, differences in
processing technology, plant characteristics, or preservatives employed.
Model plant wastewater characteristics for plants which use solely inor-
ganic preservatives are not presented in this document due to the well
demonstrated technology available for complete recycling of effluents
5- 13
-------
Table V-7. Average Waste Loadings
Pentachlorophenol.
for 19 Plants:
DRAFT
Creosote and
Units
kg/I000 m3
lb/1000 ft3
kg/day
Ib/day
kg/1.000 m3
lb/1000
kg/day
Ib/day
ft3
Total
Phenols
PCP
O&G
COD
Oil-Water Separator
56.2 8.43 336 2452
3.51 0.527 21.0 153
11.8 2.00 44.4 381
26.0 4.41 97.9 840
Plant Outfall
25.5 2.04 34.9 615
1.59 0.127 2.18 38.4
4.57 0.376 8.46 111
10.1 0.829 18.7 245
Percent Reduction
kg/1000 m3
kg/day
55
61
76
81
90
81
• 75
71
Note: Data presented in this table is an average of data from 15 plants
compiled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study and from 6 plants
compiled during verification sampling of the present study. Two
of these plants were sampled during both studies. Information on
all parameters was not available at every plant.
5-14
-------
DRAFT
Table V-8. Average Waste Loadings of Process Water at Plant Outfall for
Nine Wood Preserving Plants: Salts1.
Units
kg/1000 m3
lb/1000 ft3
kg/ day
Ib/day
Cu
0.0457
0.00285
0.00639
0.0141
Total
Cr
0.166
0.0104
0.0256
0.0564
As
0.0146
0.000912
0.00135
0.00298
Zn
1.45
0.0906
0.220
0.485
l--Two non-salt preservative plants were included due to significant
amounts of metals present.
Data presented in this table is an average of data from seven plants
sampled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study and four plants sampled during
the Verification Sampling Program of the present study. Two of these
plants were sampled during both studies.
5-15
-------
DRAFT
Table V-9 . List of Poly Nuclear Aromatics.
1. Acenapthene
2. Fluroanthene
3. Naphthalene
4. 1,2-Benzanthracene
5. Benzo(a)pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene)
6.. 3,4-Benzofluoranthrene
7. 11,12-Benzofluoranthene
8. Chrysene
9. Acenaphthylene
10. Anthracene
11. Fluorene
12. Phenanthrene
13. Pyrene
5-16
-------
DRAFT
Table V-10 . Raw Waste Concentrations of Poly Nuclear Aromatics Obtained at the Outfall of the Gravity Oil-Water Separator.
Type Separator
from which
Sample was
Plant Code Obtained
156 Creosote
168 Creosote
,, Combined**
j 194 Creosote
PCP
150 PCP
Creosote
114 Creosote
PCP
Concentrations of Poly Nuclear Aromatics* (mg/1 )
1
1.4
1.1
0.68
1.4
0.59
0.43
1.5
3.4
<0.01
2
0.87
0.63
0.50
1.4 ,
0.30
0.40
0.76
0.34
<0.01
3
0.97
2.2
1.3
0.32
0.87
0.11
0.65
3.7
0.60
4 5
0.15 —
0.07 0.01
0.03 <0.01
0.14 —
0.023 —
0.033 —
0.13 —
0.042 —
<0.01 —
678
0.02 0.24
30 0.03 0.077
<0.01 <0.01 0.03
0.078
0.011
0.033
0.14
0.025
<0.01
9
0.93
0.82
<0.01
1.1
0.13
0.05
1.1
2.5
<0.01
10
1.9
2.5
1.6
7.3
0.98
1.9
3.5
1.8
<0.01
11
1.0
0.82
0.;64
2.60
•0.68
0.77
1.20
1.0
<0.01
12
1.9
2.5
1.6
9.3
0.98
1.9
3.5
1.8
<0.01
13
0.64
0.36
0.36
1.7
0.19
0.42
0.54
0.23
<0.01
Total
PNA ' s
10
11
6.8
25
4.8
6.0
13
15
0.64
* See Table V-9 for names of Poly Nuclear Aromatics corresponding to numbers 1 through 13.
** Combined sample obtained after effluents from creosote and PCP separator are completely mixed.
Data obtained during verification sampling program.
-------
Table V-ll. Raw Waste Loads of PNA's* from the Combined Effluents from Gravity Oil-Water Separators
(71
00
Plant
Code
156
168**
194
150
114
1
.16
;.0097)
.086
.0054)
.24
.015)
.58
.036)
.59
.037)
2
.094
(.0059)
.062
(.0039)
.24
(.015) (
.32
(.02) (
.59
(.037) (
3
1.4
(.085)
.16
(.01) (
.058
.0036) (
.24
.015) (
:.66
.041) (
Raw Waste Lo<
4 5
2.24
(.14)
.0038 <.0012
.00024) (<. 000077)
.024
.0015)
.05
.0031)
.0077
.00048)
id by kg/km3 (lb/kft3'
6 7
.29
— : (.018)
<.0012 <.0012
(<. 000077) (<000077)
i
— ; —
— : —
I
8
3.4
(.21)
.0038
(.00024)
.013
(.00084)
.053
(.0033)
.005
(.00031)
9
13.0
(.81)
<.0012
(<. 000077)
.19
(.012)
.37
(.023)
.45
(.028)
10
27
(1.7)
.21
(.013)
1.3
(.079)
1.5
(.092)
.30
(.019)
11
14
(.88)
.08
(.005),
.45
(.028)
.53
(.033)
.18
(.011)
12
27
(1.7)
.21
(.013)
1.6
(0.1)
1.5
(.092)
.30
(.019)
13
8.5
(.53)
.038
(.0024)
.30'
(.019)
2.4
(.15)
.034
(.0021
Total
140
(8.8)
.85
(.053)
4.5
(.28)
5.4
(.34)
2.72
) (.17)
* See Table v-9 f°r names of poly nuclear aromatics corresponding to numbers 1 through 13.
** Combined sample obtained after effluents from creosote and PCP separator are completely mixed.
t
Data obtained during verification sampling program. \
-------
DRAFT
from these plants. The cost of recycling technology presented in Sec-
tion VIII, is independent of wastewater strength.
/ • •
Raw waste loadings of fugitive salts are presented in Table V-8 for
plants which treat with both organic and inorganic preservatives. These
values are used in Section VIII to estimate the cost of the technology
for metal reduction. .
Insulation Board .
Insulation board plants responding to the data collection portfolio re-
ported fresh water usage rates ranging from 95 to 5,700 thousand liters
per day for process water (0.025 to 1.5 MGD). One insulation board
plant, 543, which also produces hardboard in approximately equal amounts
uses over 4 million liters per day (11 MGD) of fresh water for process
water.
Water becomes contaminated during the production of insulation board
primarily through contact with the wood during fiber preparation and
forming operations, and the vast majority of pollutants are fine wood
fibers and soluble wood sugars and extractives.
The process Whitewater used to process and transport the wood from the
fiber preparation stage through mat formation accounts for over 95
percent of a plant's total wastewater discharge (excluding cooling
water). The water produced by the dewatering of stock at any stage of
the process is usually recycled to be used as stock dilution water.
However, due to the build-up of suspended solids and dissolved organic
material which can cause undesirable effects in the board, there may be
a need to bleed-off a quantity of excess process Whitewater. Various
additives used to improve the characteristics of the board also enter
the process Whitewater and contribute to the waste load.
More specifically, potential sources of wastewater in an insulation
board plant include:
- Chip wash water
- Process Whitewater generated during fiber preparation
(refining and washing)
- Process Whitewater generated during forming
- Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
(dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.)
Chip Wash Water
Chips are washed in order to remove materials such as grit, dirt, sand,
and metal which can cause excessive wear and possible destruction of the
refining equipment. Chip washing also provides an opportunity to
increase the moisture content of moisture deficient furnish such as
plywood or furniture trim. In northern climates, chip washing assists
the thaw of frozen chips.
5-19
-------
DRAFT
Water used for chip washing is capable of being recycled to a large
extent. A minimal makeup of approximately 400 liters per metric ton (95
gallons per ton) is required in a closed system because of water leaving
with the chips and with sludge removed from settling tanks. Water used
for makeup in the chip washer may be fresh water, cooling water, vacuum
seal water from inplant equipment, or recycled process water. Chip wash
water, when not fully recycled, contributes to the raw waste load of an
insulation board plant. Insulation board plants 543, 491, 75, 763, 67,
and 85 indicated in the response to the data collection portfolio that
chip washing is done. Plants 763 and 85 fully recycle chip wash water.
Fiber Preparation
The fiber preparation or refiner Whitewater system is considered to be
the water used in the refining of stock up to and including the dewater-
ing of stock by a decker or washer. As previously discussed, there are
three major types of fiber preparation in the insulation board industry:
(1) stone groundwood; (2) mechanical disc refining (refiner groundwood);
groundwood); and (3) thermo-rhechanical disc refining. The water volume
required by each of the three methods is essentially the same. In the
general case, the wood enters the refining machine at approximately 50
percent moisture content. During the refining operation, the fiber bun-
dles are diluted with either fresh water or recycled Whitewater to a
consistency of approximately 1 percent solids prior to dewatering to
about 15 percent solids at the decker or washer. The water which results
from the stock washing or deckering operation is rich in organic solids
dissolved from the wood during refining and is referred to as refiner
Whitewater. This water may be combined with Whitewater produced during
.forming, the machine Whitewater (for further use in the system), or it
may be discharged from the plant as wastewater.
Forming
After the dewatered stock leaves the decker at approximately 15 percent
consistency, it must again be diluted to a consistency of approximately
1.5 percent to be suitable for machine forming. This requires a rela-
tively large quantity of recycled process Whitewater or fresh water. The
redilution of stock is usually accomplished in a series of steps to allow
consistency controls and more efficient dispersion of additives, and to
reduce the required stock pump and storage capacities. The stock usually
receives an initial dilution down to approximately 5 percent consistency,
then to 3 percent, and finally, just prior to mat formation, to
approximately 1.5 percent.
During the mat formation stage of the insulation board process, the dilu-
ted stock is dewatered at the forming machine to a consistency of approx^-
imately 40 to 45 percent. The water drained from the stock during
formation is referred to as machine Whitewater. Water from the machine
Whitewater system may be recycled for use as stock dilution water or for
5-20
-------
DRAFT
use in the refining operations. Excess machine Whitewater may be dis-
charged as wastewater.
Miscellaneous Operations
While the majority of wastewater generated during insulation board pro-
duction occurs during fiber preparation and mat formation operations,
various other operations may contribute to the overall raw waste load.
Drying—The boards leaving the forming machine with a consistency of
approximately 40 percent are dried to a consistency of greater than 97
percent in the dryers. Although this water is evaporated to the atmos-
phere, it is occasionally necessary to clean the dryers to reduce fire
danger and to maintain proper energy utilization. This produces a minor
wastewater stream in most operations.
Finishing—After the board leaves the dryer, it is usually sanded
and trimmed to size. The dust from the sanding and trim saws is often
controlled by dust collectors of a wet scrubber type and the water sup-
plied to the scrubbers is sometimes excess process water; however, fresh
water is occasionally used. This water is usually returned to the pro-
cess with the dust.
Plants that produce coated products such as ceiling tile usually paint
the board after it is sanded and trimmed. Paint composition will vary
with both plant and product; however, most plants utilize a water-based
paint. The resulting washup contributes to the wastewater stream or is
metered to the process Whitewater system. In addition, there are some-
times imperfect batches of paint mixed which are discharged to the waste-
water stream or metered to the process Whitewater system.
Broke System—Reject boards and trim are reclaimed as fiber and
recycled by placing the waste board and trim into a hydropulper and pro-
ducing a reusable fiber slurry. While there is need for a large quantity
of water in the hydropulping operation, it is normally recycled process
water. There is normally no water discharged from this operation.
Other Sources—Other potential sources of wastewater in an insula-
tion board plant include water used for screen washing, fire control, and
general housekeeping. The water used for washing screens in the forming
and decker areas usually enters the process Whitewater system. House-
keeping water varies widely from plant to plant depending on plant
operation and many other factors. While wastewater can result from water
used to extinguish dryer fires, it is an infrequent and intermittent
source of wastewater.
Wastewater Characteristics
The major portion of insulation board wastewater pollutants results
from leachable materials from the wood and materials added during the
5-21
-------
DRAFT
production process. The materials leached from the wood will normally
enter into solution in the process Whitewater system. If a chip washer
is used, a portion of the solubles are dissolved. A small fraction of
the raw waste load results from cleanup and finishing operations; how-
ever, these operations appear to have little influence on the overall raw
waste load. The finishing wastewater in some plants is metered back into
the process water with no reported adverse effects.
The process Whitewater, accounting for over 95 percent of the waste load
and flow from a typical insulation board plant, is characterized by high
quantities of BOD (900 to 7,500 mg/1) and suspended solids (500 to 4,000
mg/1) (Gran, 1972).
The four major factors which affect process wastewater quality are: (1)
the extent of steam pretreatment; (2) the types of products produced and
additives employed; (3) raw material species; and (4) the extent of whole
tree chips, forest residue, and bark in the raw material.
The major source of dissolved organic material originates from the wood
raw material. From 1 to 8 percent (on a dry weight basis) of wood is
composed of water-soluble sugars stored as residual sap and, regardless
of the type of refining or pretreatment utilized, these sugars form a
a major source of BOD and COD. Steam conditioning of the furnish during
thermo^mechanical refining greatly increases the amount of wood sugars
and hemicellulose decomposition products entering the process Whitewater.
The use of steam under pressure during thermo-mechanical refining is the
predominant factor in the increased raw waste loads of plants which
utilize this refining method.
Basically, two phenomena occur during steaming (Back and Larsson, 1972).
The first of these is the physically reversible thermal softening of the
hemicellulose.
The second effect consists of time dependent chemical reactions in which
hemicellulose undergoes hydrolysis and produces oligosaccharides (short-
chained, water soluble wood sugars, including disaccharides). In addi-
tion, hydrolysis of the acetyl groups forms acetic acid. The resulting
lowered pH causes an increase in the rate of hydrolysis. Thus, the
reactions can be said to be autocatalytic. For this reason, the reaction
rates are difficult to calculate. Rough estimatations have been made by
Back and Larsson, 1972, that indicate the reaction rates double with an
increase in temperature of 8 to 10°C.
Figure V-l demonstrates the increased BOD loading which results from
increasingly severe cooking conditions.
The amount of BOD increase due to cooking conditions varies with wood
species (DalIons, 1976). Hardwoods contain a greater percentage of
potentially soluble material than do softwoods. The effect of species
5-22
-------
60-
40-
20-
TOTAL BOD7 IN kg
02/TON DRY CHIPS
0
4 68 10
PRE-HEATENG PRESSURE (atm.g.)
12
Figure V-1. Variation of BOD with pre-heating pressure
5-23
-------
DRAFT
variations on raw waste load is less important than the degree of steam-
ing to which the furnish is subjected.
Two insulation board .plants, 543 and 85, presented limited information
concerning the effects of whole tree chips, forest residue, and bark in
wood furnish on raw waste load. While the use of whole tree chips,
residue, and bark results in some increase in raw waste loadings, infor-
mation currently available is not sufficient to quantify the effects for
the industry as a whole.
While a large portion of the BOD in the process wastewater is a result of
organics leaching from the wood, a significant (although lesser) portion
results from additives. Additives vary in both type and quantity accord-
ing to the type of product being produced.
The three basic types of product produced by insulation board plants,
sheathing, finished tile (ceiling tile, etc.), and hardboard (including
medium density siding), receive various amounts of additives. Sheathing
contains up to 25 percent additives which include asphalt, alum, starch,
and size (either wax or rosin). Finished tile contains up to 10 percent
additives which are the same as used in sheathing, with the exception of
asphalt. Hardboard contains up to 11 percent additives including organic
resins, as well as emulsions and tempering agents such as tall oil.
Therefore, the process wastewater will contain not only leachates from
the wood and fugitive fiber, but also the portion of the additives not
retained in the product.
Maximum4 retention of these additives is "'advantageous from both a produc-
tion cost as well as a wastewater standpoint. Several retention aids are
marketed for use in board products to increase the retention of fiber and
additives in the mat, the most common of which are polymeric polyelectro-
lytes.
The primary effect of product type occurs with the production of hard-
board in an insulation board plant. Hardboard requires fiber bundles of
a higher quality than does insulation board and thus more fiber prepara-
tion is usually necessary. For these reasons, the hardboard producing
plants will have a greater raw wastewater load than plants which do not
produce hardboard.
Table V-12 summarizes the raw wastewater characteristics of those insula-
tion board plants which provided raw waste monitoring data in response to
the data collection portfolio. The raw waste loads of the two plants
which employ thermo-mechanical pulping methods or which also produce
hardboard products are significantly higher than the raw waste loads of
the plants which only employ mechanical pulping and refining and which
produce no hardboard products.
5-24
-------
01
IS)
en
DRAFT
Table V-12. Insulation Board Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages).
Plant Number
Production
kkg
day
(TPD)
Flow
kl
kkg
(kgal)
(ton)
BOD
kkg
TSS
(Ibs)
TtonT
kkg
(Ibs)
TtonT
Mechanical Pulping and Refining Insulation Board
917*
993
491**.
97
55
Thermo-mechanical
31
543
85
19
69
201
106
139
471
246"
Pulping
193
605
359
225
—
(220)
(117)
(153)
(517)
(270)
and Refinii
(212)
(665)***
(395)***
(248)
—
2
21
1
10
1
8
74
11
.96
.6
.88
.5
.02
and/or
.11
.0
.1
-0-
-0-
(0.72)
(5.21)
(0.45)
(2.53)
(0.24)
Hardboard
(1.95)
(17.8)
(2.68)
4.
5.
5.
2.
21.
1.
33
70
95
39
6
27
Production
33.
29.
43.
—
—
6
8
2
-
-
(8.67)
(11.4)
(11.9)
(4.78)
(43.2)
(2.54)
at Same
(67.1)
(59.5)
(86.3)
—
—
0
3
4
1
47
0
Faci
17
28
-
-
-
.71
.34
.67
.55
.1
.46
lity
.3
.6
—
—
—
(1.42)
(6.67)
(9.33)
(3.11)
(94.1)
(0.923)
(34.5)
(57.1)
>._
—
—
* First row of data represents data from primary floe clarifier clearwell. Second row of
data represents data obtained during verification sampling for influent to primary floe
clarifier clearwell.
** Data represent data obtained during verification sampling.
*** Includes both insulation and hardboard production.
-------
DRAFT
Raw Waste Loads
Table V-12 summarizes the raw wastewater characteristics of those insula-
tion board plants which provided historical raw waste monitoring data in
response to the data collection portfolio. Seven of the sixteen insula-
tion board plants provided raw waste historical daorical data for the 12-
period from January through December, 1976.
Of the six plants which use mechanical pulping and refining only, and
which produce no hardboard, four of the plants (917, 993, 97, and 55)
provided sufficient historical raw waste data for analysis. Data from
these plants were for raw waste prior to primary treatment, with the
exception of Plant 917 which provided information for wastewater
following polymer-assisted primary clarification (floe-clarification).
Verification sampling was performed at Plant 917 and samples were
collected before and after the primary floc-clarifier. Analysis of
verification data showed that a BOD reduction of 24 percent and a TSS
reduction of 79 percent were being achieved in the primary floc-
clarifier. These percentages were used to adjust the raw waste loads to
account for the pollutant reduction being achieved in the floc-clarifier.
Raw waste loads for Plant 917 are presented in Table V-12 before and
after the adjustment.
Plant 917 uses primarily Southern Pine for furnish with some mixed hard-
woods. Plant 491 uses primarily Douglas Fir with other mixed softwoods.
Plant 993 employs stone grinders to refine a pine furnish. Plant 97 uses
a mixture of Southern Pine and mixed hardwoods. Plant 55 uses a furnish
of Southern Pine with some mixed hardwood.
Plant 97 demonstrated raw waste loads for BOD and TSS significantly
higher than any other plant in the mechanical pulping and refining
subcategory, although raw materials, production process, and products
produced at Plant 97 are similar to other plants in the subcategory. One
factor which may account for the higher raw waste loads from Plant 97 is
that the plant recycles all of its primary sludge and waste activated
sludge back into the process for fiber recovery and reuse. The build-up
in the process Whitewater system of waste biological solids which are not
retained in the board is the most probable reason for the increased raw
waste load. This would also account for the fact that the suspended
solids raw waste load from Plant 97 shows a more pronounced increase over
other plants in the subcategory than does the BOD raw waste load.
Plant 45 does not monitor the raw wastewater from its wood fiber insula-
tion board plant. Effluent from this plant, following primary treatment,
is used as process Whitewater in the plant's mineral wool insulation
board facility. Although the plant provided historical data for raw
wastewater effluent from the mineral wool facility, these data could not
be used to characterize raw wastewater from the wood fiber plant; and
thus, Plant 45 was not included in Table V-12.
Plant 491 does not monitor raw wastewater quality and provided no histor-
ical raw wastewater quality data. Verification sampling was performed at
5-26
-------
DRAFT
this plant and raw wastewater data were obtained. Verification data were
used to calculate the raw waste load using historical average daily
production and average daily flow data provided by the plant in response
to the data collection portfolio.
The annual average daily raw waste loads for the five insulation board,
mechanical pulping plants for which data are presented in Table V-12 are
7.4 kg/Kkg (14.8 Ib/ton) for BOD and 11.4 kg/Kkg (22.8 Ib/ton) for TSS.
Of the ten plants which produce insulation board using thermo-mechanical
pulping and/or which produce hardboard at the same facility, only three
plants (31, 543, and 85) provided sufficient historical data for calcula-
tion of raw waste loads. Of these plants, Plant 31 is the only one which
produces just insulation board. This plant steam conditions all of its
furnish, which consists primarily of hardwood chips.
Plant 543 steam conditions approximately 10 percent of its furnish, which
consists primarily of aspen with some whole tree chips. This plant pro-
duces approximately 70 percent insulation board and 30 percent hardboard.
The raw waste effluents from insulation board and hardboard production of
Plants 543 and 85 are combined prior to raw waste monitoring. Therefore,
the individual raw waste load due solely to insulation board could not be
calculated.
Plant 763 produces approximately 60 percent insulation board and 40 per-
cent hardboard using a pine furnish for hardboard and pine and hardwood
mix for insulation board. This plant steam conditions all of its fur-
nish. Since it does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the raw waste
load could not be calculated.
Plant 75 produces approximately 60 percent insulation board and 40 per-
cent hardboard using a pine furnish which is totally steam conditioned.
Since this plant does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the raw waste
load could not be calculated.
Plant 221 steam conditions all of its hardwood furnish. Since this plant
does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the raw waste load could not be
calculated.
Plant 67 steam conditions all of its mixed hardwood furnish. This plant
produces approximately 50 percent insulation board and 50 percent hard-
board. Raw waste effluent from the wood fiber plant at this facility is
combined with raw waste effluent from a mineral wool facility at the same
location prior to monitoring. Therefore, a representative wood fiber raw
waste load could not be calculated.
Plant 11 steam conditions all of its hardwood furnish and produces only
insulation board. Since this plant does not monitor its raw waste
effluent, the raw waste load from this plant could not be calculated.
5-27
-------
DRAFT
Plants 19 and 69 have achieved no discharge of process wastewater through
complete close-up of process Whitewater systems. Both plants steam
condition all furnish and produce solely structured insulation board.
Plant 19 uses a hardwood furnish, and plant 69 uses Southern Pine chips
and shavings.
Raw waste load data for insulation board plants which use thermo-
mechanical pulping and/or produce hardboard at the same facility are
presented in Table V-12. It is difficult to obtain a meaningful average
for this subcategory since plant 31 is the only plant in the subcategory
for which historical data is available and which produces solely insu-
lation board. Historical data for Plants 543 and 85 include raw waste
contributions from hardboard production which cannot be separated from
the raw waste due to insulation board production.
For the above mentioned reasons, and because the production process and
raw materials used by Plant 31 are similar to other plants in the sub-
category, raw waste loads exhibited by Plant 31 can be considered as
representative of the subcategory. This raw waste load is 33.6 kg/Kkg
(67,1 Ib/ton) for BOD and 17.3 kg/Kkg (34.5 Ib/ton) for TSS.
Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Loads
Raw waste concentrations and raw waste loads for total phenols are shown
for four insulation board plants in Table V-13. Data presented in this
table were obtained during the verification sampling program. Annual
average daily production and annual average daily waste flow provided by
the plants in the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the
raw waste loads. None of the insulation board plants presented histori-
cal data on raw wastewater phenol concentrations in their raw wastewater
effluents.
The average concentration of total phenols for the three mechanical
pulping insulation board plants (97, 917, and 491) is 0.11 mg/1. The
corresponding average total phenols raw waste load for these plants is
0.0012 kg/Kkg (0.0024 Ib/ton).
The concentration of total phenols for Plant 31, which uses thermo-
mechanical pulping, is 0.29 mg/1. The raw waste load corresponding to
this concentration is 0.0024 kg/Kkg (0.0048 Ib/ton) of total phenols.
The higher concentration of total phenols for the insulation board
thermo-mechanical pulping and/or hardboard production is probably due to
generation of phenolic materials through hydrolysis of lignin and other
wood chemicals during refining under steam pressure.
Raw waste concentrations of 13 heavy metals are presented for four insu-
lation board plants in Table V-14. Data presented in this table were
obtained during the verification sampling program. Annual average daily
production and annual average daily waste flow provided by the plants in
the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the raw waste loads.
5-28
-------
DRAFT
Table Y-13. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Insulation Board
Plants-Total Phenol s
Raw Waste Concentrations1 Raw Waste Loadings2
Plant mg/1 kg/kkg(Ibs/ton)
97 0.09 .0001 (.0019)
31 0.29 .0024 (.0048)
917 0.14 .00040 (.00079)
491 0.11 .0023 (.0045)
1 Data obtained during the verification sampling program.
2 Average daily waste flow and production data for 1976 supplied by
plants in response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate
waste loadings.
5-29
-------
DRAFT
Table V-14. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Insulation Board—Metals.
Raw Waste Concentrations (mg/1)
Raw Waste Loadings
Plant Number
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
y, Nickel
i
w
0 Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chromium
Mercury
917
.0005
.00083
.450
.0013
.240
.720
.00083
.002
.005
.0005
.00083
.0013
.0066
31
.00083
.001
.280
.021
.105
..517
.003
.0033
.0043
.0006
.0005
.0075
.005
491
.0005
.0005
.20
.0013
.012
.250
.00067
.003
.0047
.0005
.0008
.0023
.001
97
.0005
.0005
.340
.0053
.0088
.550
.0021
.0016
.0033
.0005
.0006
.011
.0075
Average Value
.0006
.0007
.320
.0072
.0920
.510
.0016
.0025
.0043
.0005
.0007
.0055
.005
917
.0000042
(.0000083)
.0000028
(.0000056)
.0019 '
(.0037)
.000006
(.000011)
.0008
(.0016)
.003
(.0059)
.0000021
(.0000042)
.000013
(.000025)
.000014
(.000027)
.0000021
(.0000042)
.0000028
(.0000056)
.0000055
(.000011)
.000028
(.000042)
(kq/Kkg)/(lb/ton)
Plant Number
31
.000007
(.000014)
.000008
(.000016)
.0023
(.0046)
.00017
(.00034)
.00085
(.0017)
.0042
(.0084)
.000025
(.000049)
.000027
(.000054)
.000035
(.00007)
.0000049
(.0000098)
.0000041
(.0000082)
.00006
(.00012)
.000041
(.000082)
491
.00001
(.00002)
.00001
(.00002)
.000041
(.000082)
.000027
(.000053)
.00025
(.00049)
.005
(.01)
.000014
(.00027)
.00006
(.00012)
.00007
(.000014)
.00001
(.00002)
.000017
(.000033)
.00047
(.00084)
.000021
(.000041)
97
.0000055
(.000011)
.0000055
(.000011)
.0036
(.0072)
.000055
(.00011)
.00009
(.00018)
.006
(.012)
.000022
(.000044)
.000017
(.000034)
.000035
(.00007)
.0000055
(.000011)
.0000065
(.000013)
.00012
(.00023)
.00008
(.00016)
Average Va.l ue
.0000067
.0000133
.0000065
.0000132
.0019
.0039
.000063
.000126
.0005
.0010
.0046
.0091
.000015
.000037
.000029
.000058
.000038
.000076
.0000056
.0000112
.0000076
.0000152
.00016
.00033
.000042
.000085
-------
DRAFT
None of the insulation board plants presented historical data for waste-
water heavy metal concentrations.
No significant differences in heavy metals concentrations between the two
subcategories of insulation board plants were found. The source of heavy
metals in the wastewater from insulation board plants is: (1) trace
metals present in the wood raw material; and (2) by-products of the cor-
rosion of metal equipment in contact with the process Whitewater. The
average concentrations and the average raw wastewater loadings of each
heavy metal are also presented in Table V-14.
Design Basis for Model Plant
For the purposes of sizing treatment facilities, computing treated efflu-
ent pollutant loadings, and estimating capital and operating costs,
plants having the following characteristics were used as models for insu-
lation board:
Model Plant A
Insulation Board Mechanical Pulping
Daily Raw Waste Loads:
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 3.8 million liters/day (1.0 MGD)
BOD 7.4 kg/Kkg (14.8 Ib/ton)
TSS 11.4 kg/Kkg (22.8 Ib/ton)
Phenols 0.0012 kg/Kkg (0.0024 Ib/ton)
Metals See Table V-14.
Model Plant B
Insulation Board Mechanical Pulping
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 1.9 million liters/day (0.5 MGD)
Daily Raw Waste Loads:
BOD 7.4 kg/Kkg (14.8 Ib/ton)
TSS 11.4 kg/Kkg (22.8 Ib/ton)
Phenols 0.0012 kg/Kkg (0.0024 Ib/ton)
Metals See Table V-14.
Model Plant C
Insulation Board Thermo-mechanical Pulping and/or Hardboard Production
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 3.8 million liters/day (1.0 MGD)
Daily Raw Waste Loads:
BOD 33.6 kg/Kkg (67.1 Ib/ton)
TSS 17.3 kg/Kkg (34.5 Ib/ton)
Phenols 0.0024 kg/Kkg (0.0048 Ib/ton)
Metals See Table V-14.
Model Plant D
Insulation Board Thermo-mechanical Pulping and/or Hardboard Production
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 1.9 million liters/day (0.5 MGD)
Daily Raw Waste Loads:
BOD 33.6 kg/Kkg (67.1 Ib/ton)
TSS 17.3 kg/Kkg (34.5 Ib/ton)
5-31
-------
DRAFT
Phenols (0.0024 kg/Kkg (0.0048 Ib/ton)
Metals See Table V-14.
These characteristics are based on average values for plants which pro-
vided historical data on raw waste characteristics and on verification
sampling results.
Wet-Process Hardboard
Production of hardboard by wet process requires significant amounts of
water. Plants responding to the data collection portfolio reported fresh
water usage rates for process water ranging from approximately 190 thou-
sand to 19 million liters per day (0.05 to 5 MGD). One plant, 543, which
produces both hardboard and insulation board in approximately equal
amounts, reported fresh water use of over 41 million liters per day
(11 MGD).
Water becomes contaminated during the production of hardboard primarily
through contact with the wood raw material during the fiber preparation,
forming, and—in the case of SIS hardboard—pressing operations. The
vast majority of pollutants consist of fine wood fibers, soluble wood
sugars, and extractives. Additives not retained in the board also add to
the pollutant load.
The water used to process and transport the wood from the fiber prepara-
tion stage through mat formation is referred to as process Whitewater.
Process Whitewater produced by the dewatering of stock at any stage of
the process is usually recycled to be used as stock dilution water.
However, due to the build-up of suspended solids and dissolved organic
material which can cause undesirable effects in the board, there may be
a need to bleed-off a quantity of excess process Whitewater.
More specifically, potential wastewater sources in the production of wet
process hardboard include:
- Chip wash water
- Process Whitewater generated during fiber preparation
(refining and washing)
- Process Whitewater generated during forming
- Hot press squeezeout water
- Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
(dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.)
Chip Wash Water
Chips are washed in order to remove such materials as grit, dirt, sand,
and metal which can cause excessive wear and possible destruction of the
refining equipment. Chip washing also provides an opportunity to
increase the moisture content of moisture deficient furnish such as ply-
wood or furniture trim. In northern climates, chip washing assists the
thaw of frozen chips.
5-32
-------
DRAFT
Water used for cnip washing is capable of being recycled to a large
extent. A minimum makeup of approximately 400 liters per metric ton (95
gallons per ton) is required in a closed system because of water leaving
with the chips and with sludge removed from settling tanks. Uater used
for makeup in the chip washer may be fresh water, cooling water, vacuum
seal water from inplant equipment, or recycled process water. Chip wash
water, when not fully recycled, contributes to the raw waste load of a
hardboard plant. Hardboard plants 62, 75, 67, 763, 543, 85, and 406
indicated in responses to the data collection portfolio that chip washing
is done. Plants 763 and 85 recycle chip wash water.
Fiber Preparation
The fiber preparation or refiner Whitewater system is considered to be
the water used in the refining of stock up to and including the dewater-
ing of stock by a decker or washer. There are two major types of fiber
preparation in the wet process hardboard industry: thermo-mechanical
pulping and refining, and the explosion or gun process. Steam, under
pressure, is used to soften and prepare the chips in both processes.
Fiber yield is lower in the explosion process than in the thermo-mechan-
ical process due to the hydrolysis of the hemicellulose under the high
pressures required in the gun digesters. The resulting raw waste loading
is also higher.
The wood furnish enters the refiner at an approximate moisture content of
50 percent. Subsequent to refining, the fiber bundles are diluted with
fresh or recycled process Whitewater to a consistency of approximately
1 percent solids prior to dewatering at the decker or stock washer to
about 15 percent solids. The water which results from the stock washing
or deckering operation is rich in organic solids dissolved from the wood
during refining and is referred to as "refiner Whitewater". This water
may be combined with the machine Whitewater, which is produced during
forming, for further use in the system; or it may be discharged from the
plant as wastewater.
Three plants, 864, 464, and 763 make use of the high dissolved organic
solids in this stream by collecting and evaporating the fiber preparation
Whitewater to produce a concentrated wood molasses by-product which is
used for animal feed.
Forming
After the dewatered stock leaves the washer decker at approximately 15
percent consistency, it must again be diluted to a consistency of ap-
proximately 1.5 percent to be suitable for machine forming. This requires
a relatively large amount of recycled process Whitewater or fresh water.
The redilution of stock is usually accomplished in a series of steps to
allow accurate consistency controls and more efficient dispersion of
5-33
-------
DRAFT
additives and to reduce the required stock pump and storage capacities.
The stock usually receives an initial dilution down to approximately 5
percent consistency, then to 3 percent, and finally, just prior to mat
formation, to approximately 1.5 percent.
During the mat formation stage of the insulation board process, the
diluted stock is dewatered at the forming machine to a consistency of
approximately 40 to 45 percent. The water drained from the stock during
formation is referred to as machine Whitewater. Water from the machine
Whitewater system may be recycled for use as stock dilution water.
Excess machine Whitewater may be combined with other process Whitewater
and discharged as wastewater.
Pressing
In the production of SIS hardboard, the mat which leaves the forming
machine at 40 to 45 percent solids consistency is loaded into "hot"
hydraulic presses to be pressed into hardboard.
The board leaves the press at about 5 percent moisture or less. Although
much of the water in the board is evaporated in the press, a considerable
amount of wastewater is generated during pressing. This wastewater is
generally collected in a pit below the press and discharged as wastewater
from the plant, although two plants, 846 and 464, return the press water
to the process Whitewater system. Wastewater resulting from the pressing
operation is more concentrated in dissolved solids than the machine
Whitewater due to the large amount of water which is evaporated from the
board during pressing.
Miscellaneous Operations
While the majority of wastewater generated during the production of
hardboard occurs during the fiber preparation, forming and pressing
operations, various other operations may contribute to the overall raw
waste load.
Drying--!t is occasionally necessary to clean the driers in a hard-
board plant to reduce fire danger and to maintain proper energy utiliza-
tion. This produces a minor wastewater stream in most operations.
Finishing—After the board leaves the press or humidifier, it is
usually sanded and trimmed to size. The dust from the sanding and trim
saws is often controlled by dust collectors of a wet scrubber type and
the water supplied to the scrubbers is sometimes excess process water;
however, fresh water is occasionally used. This water,may be returned to
the process with the dust, or it may be discharged as wastewater.
Many plants paint or stain the board after it is sanded and trimmed.
Paint composition will vary with both plant and product; however, most
plants utilize a water-based paint. The resulting washup contributes to
5-34
-------
DRAFT
the wastewater stream or is metered to the process Whitewater system. In
addition, there are sometimes imperfect batches of paint which are
discharged to the wastewater stream or metered to the process Whitewater
system.
Caul or Press Plate—Another minor wastewater source is caul and
press plate wash water. After a period of use, cauls and press plates
acquire a surface build-up of resin and organics which results in stick-
ing in the presses and blemishes on the hardboard surface. The cleaning
operation consists of submerging the cauls in a caustic cleaning solution
for a period of time to loosen the organic matter. Press plates are also
cleaned in place with a caustic solution. The cauls are removed, rinsed
with fresh water, then put back in use. The tanks used for soaking the
cauls are emptied as needed, normally only a few times each year. Rinse
water volume varies with frequency of washing of cauls or plates.
Other Sources—Other potential sources of wastewater in a hardboard
plant include water used for screen washing, fire control, and general
housekeeping.
The water used for washing screens in the forming and decker areas
usually enters the process Whitewater system. Housekeeping water can
vary widely from plant to plant depending on plant operation and many
other factors. Wastewater can result from water used to extinguish dryer
fires. This is an infrequent and intermittent source of wastewater.
Wastewater Characteristics
The major portion of hardboard wastewater pollutants results from
Teachable materials from the wood and materials added during the
production process. The materials leached from the wood will normally
enter into solution in the process Whitewater system. If a chip washer
is used, a portion of the solubles are dissolved. A small fraction of
the raw waste load results from cleanup and finishing operations;
however, these operations appear to have little influence on the overall
raw waste load.
The major factors which affect process wastewater quality are 1) the
severity of cook to which the wood furnish is subjected, 2) the types of
products produced and additives employed, 3) raw material species, and
4) the extent of whole tree chips, forest residue, and bark in the raw
material.
The effect of steaming on raw waste load was discussed in this section
for Insulation Board. The severity of cook to which wood furnish is
subjected in S2S hardboard production generally exceeds that used in SIS
hardboard production due to the requirement for more highly refined fiber
bundles in the S2S product. It would be expected, therefore, that the
raw waste load of S2S plants would be higher than that of SIS plants.
5-35
-------
DRAFT
Inspection of the raw waste characteristics for both types of plants
presented in Table V-15 supports this conclusion.
A thorough review of the literature and information presented by
industry sources pertaining to factors influencing variation in raw
wastewater characteristics was performed by an EPA contractor in 1976.
The conclusions reached were published in Section V of the Summary
Report on the Re-evaluation of the Effluent Guidelines for the Wet
Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber Products Processing Point Source
Category. An attempt was made in the 1976 study to quantify the effects
of wood species, seasonal variations in raw materials, and the use of
whole tree chips and/or forest residue on new waste characteristics.
The conclusion reached in the 1976 study was as follows:
"It is easily apparent, from the sources discussed, that
large variabilities in raw waste characteristics exist from
plant to plant in the hardboard industry. It is also
apparent that the factors identified as causing the vari-
ability are probably valid. However, it is equally apparent
that none of the sources investigated thus far has been able
to supply the type of data necessary to determine how the
reference information relates to quantification of factors
influencing variations in raw waste."
During the course of the present study, the material available to the
above mentioned contractor was reviewed in detail, as well as current
literature and material presented by the plants in the data collection
portfolios. No substantial new material was presented to allow
quantification of the effects of wood species, whole tree chips and/or
forest residue, or seasonal variations in raw material.
While a large portion of the BOD in the process wastewater is a result
of organics leaching from the wood, a significant (although lesser)
portion results from additives not retained in the product. Additives
vary in both type and quantity according to the type of product being
produced. Chemicals used as additives in the production of hardboard
include vegetable oils, ferric sulfate, aluminum sulfate, petrolatum,
thermoplastic and/or thermosetting resins, defoamers, and paints.
Thermosetting resins are not used in S2S production since the board is
dried prior to pressing. The differences in the type and quantity of
additives used from plant to plant did not appear to significantly
affect raw waste loads.
Maximum retention of these additives is advantageous from both a pro-
duction cost as well as a wastewater standpoint. Several retention aids
are marketed for use in board products to increase the retention of
fiber and additives in the mat, the most common of which are polymeric
polyelectrolytes.
5-36
-------
Table V-15. SIS Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)
DRAFT
Plant Number
SIS Hardboard
222
262
406
624
48
242***
464 +
864 tt
Production
kkg (TPD)
day
88.7
297
194
117
91.9
83.6
83.6
343
1446
(97.5)
(326)
(213)
(129)
(101)
(91.9)
(91.9)
(377)
(1589)
Flow
kl (kgal)
kkg
10.5
7.65
8.82
14.0
17.1
11.1
13.6
12.3
(ton)
(2.54)
(1.84)
(2.12)
(3.36)
(4.12)
(2.66)
(3.26)
(2.96)
BOD
kg jibs)
kkg (ton)
32.7*
37.4
29.3
35.6
40.7**
30.1
26.3
1.89
21.9
(65.4)
(74.7)
(58.6)
(71.2)
(81.3)
(60.1)
(52.5)
(3.77)
(43.8)
TSS
kg (Ibs)
kkg (ton)
6.90*
9.15
12.4
22.5
16.8
10.1
10.1
0.56
5.85
(13.8)
(18.3)
(24.8)
(44.9)
(33.5)
(20.2)
(20.1)
(1.15)
(11.7)
* After primary settling. Hardboard and paper wastewater streams are comingled.
** Actual raw waste BOD is 68.7 kg/kkg. However, only 40.7 kg/kkg is due to production of
hardboard. 28.0 kg/kkg enters the process water through recycle of treated effluent.
*** First row represents data from January through December, 1976. Second row represents
data from June through December, 1976.
t Raw waste load shown is for combined weak and strong wastewater streams.
ft Data taken after primary clarification, pH adjustment and nutrient addition.
-------
Table V-lSa^ sls Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)
DRAFT
(71
Plant Number
SIS Hardboard
222
262
406
624
48
242***
464f
864™
Production
kkg (TPD)
day
88.7
297
194
117
91.9
83.6
83.6
343
1446
(97.5)
(326)
(213)
(129)
(101)
(91.9)
(91.9)
(377)
(1589)
Flow
kl (kgal)
kkg
10.5
7.65
8.82
14.0
17.1
11.1
13.6
12.3
(ton)
(2.54)
(1.84)
(2.12)
(3.36)
(4.12)
(2.66)
(3.26)
(2.96)
BOD
kg_ (Ibs)
kkg TtonT
32.7*
37.4
29.3
35.6
40.7**
30.1
26.3
1.89
21.9
(65.4)
(74.7)
(58.6)
(71.2)
(81.3)
(60.1)
(52.5)
(3.77)
(43.8)
TSS
kg_ (Ibs)
kkg TtonT
6.90*
9.15
12.4
22.5
16.8
10.1
10.1
0.56
5.85
(13.8)
(18.3)
(24.8)
(44.9)
(33.5)
(20.2)
(20.1)
(1.15)
(11.7)
* After primary settling. Hardboard and paper wastewater streams are comingled.
** Actual raw waste BOD is 68.7 kg/kkg. However, only 40.7 kg/kkg is due to production of
hardboard. 28.0 kg/kkg enters the process water through recycle of treated effluent.
*** First row represents data from January through December, 1976. Second row represents
data from June through December, 1976.
t Raw waste load shown is for combined weak and strong wastewater streams.
ft Data taken after primary clarification, pH adjustment and nutrient addition.
-------
Table V-15b. S2S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)
U R A F T
Plant Number Production Flow BOD TSS
kkg (TPD) kl (kgal) kg jibs) kg jibs)
day kkg (ton) kkg (ton) kkg (ton)
S2S Hardboard
62
68
210
359
(231)
(395)m
24.7
11.1
(5.93)
(2.68)
66.5
43.2
(133)
(86.3)
15.9 (31.8)
— —
w * Raw waste load adjusted from non-standard solids method to standard method.
tt Includes both hardboard and insulation board production.
-------
DRAFT
As previously discussed, the primary effect of product type on raw waste
loads occurs with the production of S2S hardboard. S2S hardboard
production- exhibits a marked effect on raw wasteloads as shown by data
presented in Table V-15. The effect of product type on raw waste loads
within the SIS and S2S subcategories is generally not discernible, with
the one exception being that plant 846 has succeeded in significantly
reducing its raw waste load by achieving nearly complete close-up of its
process Whitewater system. This plant produces primarily industrial
grade board.
Raw Waste Loads
Table V-15 summarizes the raw waste characteristics of those hardboard
plants which provided historical raw waste monitoring data in response
to the data collection portfolio. Ten of the 16 hardboard plants pro-
vided raw waste historical data for the 12-month period from January
through December 1976. Plant 464 provided data from May 1976, to April
1977.
Plants 763 and 75 do not monitor raw waste effluents, and plant 67
combines the raw waste effluent from its hardboard/insulation board
facility with the raw waste effluent from an adjacent mineral wool fiber
plant prior to monitoring. The data provided by Plant 67 could not be
used to characterize raw waste loads for hardboard production.
Plant 644 did not provide sufficient information to calculate its raw
waste load for 1976. The raw waste load presented in Table V-15 for
this plant was calculated using 1975 data.
Plant 846 provided data from January 1976 through February 1977 for its
treated effluent only. These data were not used to calculate a raw
waste load.
Of the nine predominantly SIS hardboard plants, eight plants (222, 262,
406, 624, 48, 242, 464, and 864) provided sufficient historical raw
waste data for analysis.
Approximately 90 percent of the total production of Plant 222 is SIS
hardboard produced with a plywood trim furnish. The other 10 percent of
the plant's production consists of battery separators, which is a paper
product. Although the plant indicates that 80 to 90 percent of the raw
waste load is due to hardboard production, monitoring by the plant is
performed after the raw waste streams are combined. The plant did not
monitor the flow rates of the separate wastewater streams during 1976.
No flow data were reported by Plant 222. BOD and TSS raw waste loads
were reported directly in Ib/ton. The raw waste load for this plant is
included in Table V-15, but is not included in the calculation of the
subcategory average.
5-40
-------
DRAFT
Plant 48 produces all SIS hardboard using Douglas Fir for furnish. The
raw waste load discharged from this plant is 68.7 kg/Kkg (137.4 lb/ton),
however the raw waste load produced during hardboard production is 40.7
kg/Kkg (81.3 lb/ton). The difference is due to the fact that this plant
recycles all its treated effluent, which contains 28.0 kg/Kkg (56.0
lb/ton), back to the plant for process water.
Plant 406 produces all SIS hardboard using a furnish which is 55 percent
mixed hardwoods and 45 percent mixed softwoods. Thirty percent of this
plant's furnish is in the form of unbarked roundwood.
Plant 262 produces all SIS hardboard using an aspen furnish, approxi-
mately half of which is unbarked roundwood and half is received as whole
tree chips.
Plant 624 produces all SIS hardboard using 75 percent oak and 25 percent
mixed hardwoods.
Plant 242 produces all SIS hardboard using all Douglas Fir in the form
of chips, sawdust, shavings and plywood trim. Two sets of raw waste
load data are presented for plant 242: one for the entire 12 months of
1976 and the other (which was used to calculate the subcategory average)
for the last six months of 1976. The latter set represents the raw
waste load of the plant after completion of a major in-plant refitting
program which reduced the raw waste flow.
Plant 464, which produces approximately equal amounts of SIS and S2S
hardboard using Redwood and Douglas Fir, evaporates most of its process
wastewater to produce a cattle feed by-product. Data for this plant are
shown in Table V-15, but are not included in the subcategory average.
Plant 864 produces approximately 10 percent S2S and 90 percent SIS
hardboard using about 80 percent mixed hardwoods (40 percent of which is
oak) and 20 percent Southern Pine. This plant evaporates a large amount
of process water to produce a cattle feed by-product. Raw waste data
reported in Table V-15 for this plant were obtained following primary
clarification, pH adjustment and nutrient addition. Plant 864 is not
included in the subcategory average; however, data for the plant are
shown in Table V-15.
The annual average daily raw waste loads for the SIS hardboard plants,
for which data is presented in Table V-15 (excluding Plants 222, 464, and
864), are 33.8 kg/Kkg (67.6 lb/ton) for BOD and 14.2 kg/Kkg (28.3 lb/ton)
for TSS.
Of the seven plants which produce predominantly S2S hardboard, four
provided sufficient historical raw waste data for analysis. Plant 543
uses thermo-mechanical pulping to prepare approximately 10 percent of its
furnish, which consists primarily of aspen with some whole tree chips.
5-41
-------
DRAFT
This plant produces approximately 50 percent insulation board and 50
percent hardboard.
Plant 85 uses thermo-mechanical pulping to prepare all of its furnish,
which consists primarily of pine with some hardwood and panel trim. This
plant produces approximately 70 percent insulation board and 30 percent
hardboard.
The raw waste effluents from insulation board and hardboard production of
Plants 543 and 85 are combined mixed prior to raw waste monitoring.
Therefore, the individual raw waste load due solely to hardboard could
not be calculated, and values for these plants are not included in the
subcategory averages-
Plant 62 is the only plant which produces all S2S hardboard, using vari-
ous combinations of soft hardwoods and oak. The annual average daily raw
waste load reported by this plant is 15.9 kg/Kkg (31.8 lb/ton). Since
this value is based on a non-standard analytical method for TSS, a study
was conducted during April and May of 1977 to determine the correlation
between the TSS as measured by the non-standard method used by the plant,
and TSS as measured by Standard Methods. Twenty-one raw waste samples
were collected by the plant over a 29-day period. The samples were split
at the plant with one fraction analyzed by the plant using the
non-standard method and one fraction sent by air freight to ESE's
Gainesville laboratory for analysis. The results of the study for raw
waste are presented in Table V-16. The least squares linear correlation
between the data is shown in Figure V-2.
The annual average daily raw waste load reported by the plant was con-
verted to a concentration using the annual average daily flow and produc-
tion, adjusted using the least squares linear correlation, and converted
back to an adjusted raw waste load. The resulting adjusted raw waste
load is 14.1 kg/Kkg (28.2 lb/ton).
Plant 644 produces about 80 percent S2S hardboard and 20 percent SIS
hardboard. Its furnish consists of poplar, birch, oak, and pine, 23
percent received as bark-free chips and 77 percent as roundwood. Raw
waste load BOD for this plant, 116 kg/Kkg (232 lb/ton), is the highest by
far of any fiberboard plant in the country with and is considered to be
atypical of the S2S subcategory. For this reason the BOD raw waste load
for this plant is not included in the subcategory average. Its TSS raw
waste load is, however, characteristic of S2S plants and is included in
the subcategory average.
The annual average daily raw waste loads for the S2S subcategory, using
BOD and adjusted TSS data from Plant 62 and TSS data from Plant 644 are
66.5 kg/Kkg (133 lb/ton) for BOD and 17.8 kg/Kkg (35.7 lb/ton) for TSS.
5-42
-------
DRAFT
Table V-16. Standard and Non-Standard Methods Comparison, Raw Waste
Concentrations, Plant 62.
TSS (mg/1)
Raw Wastewater
1977 Dates Standard Method Non-Standard Method
4/21
4/22
4/23
4/24
4/25
4/26
4/27
4/28
4/29
4/30
5/1
5/2
5/3
5/4
5/5
5/6
5/7
5/8
5/9
5/10
5/11
5/12
5/13
5/14
5/15
5/16
5/17
5/18
5/19
Mean
690
500
940
490
390
770
670
212
580
240
270
380
426
1900
430
510
1000
720
9830*
890
600
1068
1440
830
1400
, 460
520
690
280
370
710
510
420
490
620
2040
570
560
1020
410
7680*
550
710
1061
* These values were omitted from the calculations.
5-43
-------
cji
CM
V) <0
9
£
UJ
a
cc
5
O.
— 1200-1
—
<
CC
I 8
~ O
"
(0 u|
<
cc
2200
2000-
1800-
1600-
1400
1000-
800-
600-
400-
200-
LINEAR CORRELATION BETWEEN
STANDARD AND NON-STANDARD METHODS
RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS PLANT 62
200 400
I
600
y = 0.686 x + 129.71
r2- 0.640
r-0.800
I II I \ I 1 I
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
TSS ( mg/l ) NON-STANDARD METHOD
RAW WASTE CONCENTRATIONS PLANT 62
2400 2600 2800 3000
Figure V - 2
-------
DRAFT
Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Loads
Raw waste concentrations and raw waste loads for total phenols are shown
in Table V-17. Data presented in this table were obtained during the
verification sampling program. Two hardboard plants provided historical
data on phenols, which is also included in Table V-17. Annual average
daily production and annual average daily waste flow provided by the
plants in response to the data collection portfolio were used to calcu-
late the raw waste loads.
The average concentration of total phenols for the six hardboard plants
for which phenols data are available is 2.0 mg/1. The corresponding
average total phenols raw waste load is 0.019 kg/Kkg (0.038 Ib/ton). No
differentiation should be made between S2S and SIS subcategories based on
the available data since the data from Plant 62, the only predominantly
S2S plant represented, appears to be uncharacteristically low in total
phenols.
Raw waste concentrations of heavy metals are presented for six hardboard
plants in Table V-18. Data presented in this table were obtained during
the verification sampling program. One hardboard plant provided histori-
cal data for lead and chromium which are also presented in the table.
Annual average daily production and annual daily waste flow provided by
the plants in the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the
raw waste loads.
No significant differences in heavy metals concentrations between the two
subcategories of hardboard plants were found. The sources of heavy
metals in the wastewater from hardboard plants are: (1) trace metals
present in the wood raw material; and (2) by-products of the corrosion of
metal equipment in contact with the process wastewater. The average
concentrations and the average raw waste loadings of each heavy metal are
presented in Table V-19.
Design Basis for Model Plant
For the purposes of sizing treatment facilities, computing treated efflu-
ent pollutant loadings, and estimating capital and operating costs,
plants having the following characteristics were used as models for hard-
board:
Model Plant E
SIS Hardboard
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 3.8 million liters/day (1.0 MGD)
BOD 33.8 kg/Kkg (67.6 Ib/ton)
TSS 14.2 kg/Kkg (28.3 Ib/ton)
Phenols 0.019 kg/Kkg (0.038 Ib/ton)
Petals See Table V-18.
5-45
-------
. DRAFT
Table Y-17. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Hardboard Plants
Total Phenols.
Plant
Code
62
242
464
864
624
406
Raw Waste1
Concentrations (mg/1)
0.07
0.38
1.2
0.24
0.29*
6.4
3.4*
Raw Waste
kg/Kkg
0.0015
0.005
0.015
0.003
0.0037*
0.06
0.026*
Loadings^
(Ib/ton)
(0.003)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.006)
(0.0074)*
(0.11)
(0.051)*
1 Data obtained during verification sampling program.
2 Average daily waste flow and production data for 1976 supplied by
plants in response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate
waste loadings.
* Data are 1976 historical data supplied by plant in response to data
collection portfolio.
5-46
-------
DRAFT
Table V-lb. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Hardboard Plants—Metals.
Raw Waste Concentrations (mg/1)
Plant Number
624^
464 262
242
864
Raw Waste Loadings (kg/Kkg)/(1b/ton)
Plant Number
624^
262
242
864
Ul
Beryllium .00067 .0005 .00059 .0005 .0005
Cadmium .0031 .0023 .0005 .005 .0005
Copper .450 .530 .033 .1 .49
Lead .007 .0047 .055 .002 .002
Nickel .270 .070 .0057 .006 .0033
Zinc 1.0 .190 .19 2.3 .78
Antimony .0018 .003 .0058 .0023 .0005
Arsenic .0013 .001 .0012 .0013 .001
Selenium .002 .0008 .0038 .0023 .0033
Silver .00067 .007 .0005 .0005 .0005
Thallium .0015 .0005 .00099 .0005 .0005
Chromium .033 .0073 .072 .008 .001
Mercury .002 .00005 .0002 .001 .018
.0005
.0005
.260
.0033
.053*
.009
.550
.008
.0012
.0018
.00067
.00067
.420
.470*
.0017
.000006
(.000012)
.000027
(.000054)
.0039
(.0078)
.00006
(.00012)
.0024
(.0047)
.009
(.017)
.000016
(.000031)
.000016
(.000023)
.000018
(.000035)
.000006
(.000012)
.000013
(.000026)
.00029
(.00058)
.000018
(.000035)
.000013
(.000025)
.00006
(.00012)
.014
(.027)
.00012
(.00024)
.0018
(.0035)
.0048
(.0096)
.00008
(.00015)
.000026
(.000051)
.000020
(.000040)
.00018
(.00035)
.000013
(.000025)
.00019
(.00037)
.000008
(.000016)
.000007
(.000013)
.00044
(.00088)
.0008
(.0015)
.0008
(.00015)
.003
(.005)
.00008
(.00015)
.000016
(.000032)
.00005
(.0001)
.000007
(.00013)
.000013
(.000026)
.0001
(.0019)
.000005
(.000001)
.00005
(.0001)
.0011
(.0021)
.00002
(.00004)
.00006
(.00012)
.024
(.048)
.000024
(.000048)
.000014
(.000027)
.000024
(.000048)
.000005
(.000010)
.000005
(.000010)
.00009
(.00017)
.0000012 .0000027 .000011
(.0000025) (.0000053) (.000021)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
.009
(.017)
.000035
(.000069)
.00006
(.00011)
.014
(.027)
.000009
(.000017)
.000017
(.000034)
.00006
(.00011)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
.000017
(.000034)
.00031
(.00062)
.000007
(.000013)
.000007
(.000013)
.0033
(.0065)
.000042
(.000083)
.00065*
(.0013)*
.00012
.00023
.007
(.014)
.0001
(.00020)
.000015
(.000030)
.000023
(.000045)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
.006
(.011)
.006*
(.012)*
.000022
(.000043)
* Data are 1976 historical data supplied by plant in response to data collection portfolio.
-------
DRAFT
Table V-19. Average Raw Waste Concentration and Loadings for Hardboard
Plants—Metals.
Metal
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Antimony
Arsenic
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Chromium
Mercury
Average Concentration
mg/1
0. 00054
0.0020
0.31
0.21
0.061
0.84
0. 0036
.0.0012
0.0023
0.0016
0.00078
0.099
0.0038
Average Raw
kg/Kkg
0. 000008
0.000027
0. 0053
0.00018
0.00087
0.010
0.000052
0.000017
0. 000032
0.000036
0.000010
0.0011
0.000061
Waste Load
Ib/ton
0.000016
0.000053
0.011
0.00036
0.0017
0.021
0.00010
0.000035
0.000065
0.000072
0.000021
0.0022
0.00012
5-48
-------
DRAFT
Model Plant F
SIS Hardboard
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 1.9 million liters/day (0.5 MGD)
BOD 33.8 kg/Kkg (67.6 lb/ton)
TSS 14.2 kg/Kkg (28.3 lb/ton)
Phenols 0.019 kg/Kkg (0.038 lb/ton)
Metals See Table V-18.
Model Plant G
S2S Hardboard
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 3.8 million liters/day (1.0 MGD)
BOD 66.5 kg/Kkg (133 lb/ton)
TSS 17.8 kg/Kkg (35.7 lb/ton)
Phenols 0.019 kg/Kkg (0.038 lb/ton)
Metals See Table V-18.
Model Plant H
S2S Hardboard
Daily Process Wastewater Volume: 1.9 million liters/day (0.5 MGD)
BOD 66.5 kg/Kkg (133 lb/ton)
TSS 17.8 kg/Kkg (35.7 lb/ton)
Phenols 0.019 kg/Kkg (0.038 lb/ton)
Metals See Table V-18.
These characteristics are based on average values for plants which pro-
vided historical data on raw waste characteristics and on verification
sampling results.
5-49
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS
General
One of the most important aspects of the BAT review is to investigate
each industry studied for the presence of the priority pollutants in the
raw and treated wastes streams discharged either directly or indirectly
to the environment. The original consent decree listed 65 compounds or
classes of compounds which were to be investigated. This list of 65
appears in Appendix Al. For the purpose of this study, the EPA selected
124 specific compounds corresponding to the original list of 65. These
compounds, referred to as "priority pollutants," are listed in Appendix
A2.
In addition to the priority pollutants, the traditional parameters
including the oxygen demand parameters BOD, COD, and TOC; total dissolved
solids, TDS, and total suspended solids, TSS; total phenols; and oil and
grease were also investigated during the course of the study. The tra-
ditional parameters are, of course, the most widely used indicators of
pollution. They are used for design and operational control of waste
treatment systems, and are the terms in which current regulations are
written. Nearly all available historical information on pollution char-
acteristics of the timber products processing industry is limited to
traditional parameters.
The purpose of this section is to describe the methodology used in
selecting the priority pollutants of interest in the wood preserving,
insulation board, and hardboard segments of the timber products process-
ing industry, and to present the pollutants of specific interest for each
subcategory studied.
Methodology
With few exceptions, very little information was available on the pre-
sence of the priority pollutants in waste discharges from the timber pro-
ducts processing point source category. The principal raw material used
is wood, and although wood itself possesses complex chemical character-
istics, pollution from the wood products industries has been studied more
in terms of general pollution characteristics, such as oxygen depletion
of receiving waters and suspended solids loadings, than in terms of its
contribution of potentially toxic compounds to the environment.
The first step in establishing a data base on the priority pollutants was
to perform a complete analysis of raw materials used and production pro-
cesses employed in each segment of the industry. The literature was
thoroughly studied for any reference to the presence of priority pollu-
tants in the wood itself, chemical preservatives or additives, slimi-
cides, fungicides, anti-foaming agents, finishing chemicals, paints, etc.
The chemistry of each applicable production process was analyzed to
6-1
-------
DRAFT
determine the potential for formation of priority pollutants. Each
instance where priority pollutants were known to exist, or were believed
to be formed in the production process, was documented.
The second step in establishing the priority pollutant data base was to
survey each industry segment on the use, production, and/or discharge of
priority pollutants. Part IV of the data collection portfolio required
each respondent to check whether any of the pollutants listed in the
consent decree was used as a raw material, produced in the production
process, and/or discharged to the environment. Table VI-1 shows the
attachment which the respondent was required to complete for each chemi-
cal identified. With the exception of the wood preserving industry,
which listed its preservatives as containing many of the priority
pollutants, few of the responses contained information on priority
pollutants. Unless the plants used materials containing priority
pollutants as raw materials or additives, no knowledge of priority
pollutants contained in plant discharges was indicated.
The third step in establishing the priority pollutant data base was to
conduct a screening sampling program. During the course of this study,
at least one plant in each subcategory of the timber products processing
industry was visited for the purpose of collecting samples of the raw
process wastewater and treated effluent. Sampling and analysis proce-
dures employed followed the Draft EPA Sampling Protocol for Measurement
of Toxics, October, 1976, and the EPA Draft Analytical Protocol for the
Measurement of Toxic Substances, October, 1976. A complete discussion of
sampling and analytical procedures employed is contained in Appendix B.
The basic rationale for selection of plants for screening was to select
those plants in each subcategory from which the maximum amount of pri-
ority pollutant information could be obtained for each subcategory. Spe-
cific criteria applied in each plant selection were as follows:
1. Select a representative plant in subcategory in terms of size,
age, geographical location, and processes.
2. Select a plant which uses the greatest number of chemical
additives, preservatives, anti-foamants, cleaning solutions,
etc., which are commonly used in the subcategory to obtain
the maximum amount of priority pollutant information.
3. Select a plant that has most complete treatment in order to
obtain basic information about toxic pollutant reduction.
4. Select a plant that chlorinates effluent prior to discharge, if
possible, in order to ascertain the effects of post-chlorina-
tion.
6-2
-------
TABLE VI-1
TOXIC CHEMICAL INFORMATION
For each toxic chemical check on list, and for each wood preservative, fire retardant, fungicide, or mildewcide used
in plant, complete the following form:
1. Name of Chemical
Is this a (check one):
' Wood Preservative Other
Fire Retardant
Fungicide
Mildewcide
2. Quantity and frequency of use
per
amount period
3. Process or operation in which substance is used or generated.
4. Is substance discharged from plant? Yes No Don't Know
If yes, is it: Air Water Solid Waste
If water, is it: Direct Discharge To POTW
5. Quantity and frequency of substance discharged:
Amount Period
(in units, Ibs, tons etc.) per (day, year, etc.)
Gas
Liquid
Solid Waste
6. Description of sampling or-monitoring program.
Does your plant sample or monitor for substance?
Yes No
If yes, give details.
6-3
-------
DRAFT
5. Insure that the selected plant is physically capable of
being properly sampled, i.e., the combined raw waste stream and
treated effluent can be readily sampled and the flow measured.
Upon completion of the screening program, all the above sources of data
were reviewed, and a determination was made as to which priority pollu-
tants were of specific interest in each subcategory. The remainder of
the study .focused on establishing raw waste characteristics and treat-
ability of these specific priority pollutants, as well as the traditional
pollutant parameters.
The Priority Pollutants
The list of 124 priority pollutants investigated during the course of
this study can be divided into the following groups for discussion
purposes:
Pesticides
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB's)
Phenolic Compounds
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Semi-volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Inorganic Priority Pollutants
These groups are based upon chemical similarities and method of analysis
employed in measuring the compound in wastewater. A discussion of each
group foMows.
Pesticides and Metabolites
aldrin
dieldrin
chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE (p.p'DDX)
4,4'-DDD (p,p'-TDE)
a-endosulfan
b-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endrin
endrin aldehyde
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
a-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
b-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
c-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
d-BHC (hexachlorocylohexane)
toxaphene
6-4
-------
DRAFT
Analysis of pesticides was performed according to the Manual of Analyti-
cal Methods for the Analysis of Pesticide Residue in Human and Environ-
mental Samples (EPA, 1974). By their very nature and use, pesticides are
toxic to certain living organisms. They can be a hazard to aquatic life,
terrestrial life, and man when allowed to enter natural waters in suffi-
cient concentrations. Pesticides may affect the aquatic environment and
water quality in several ways. A pesticide with a slow rate of degra-
dation will persist in the environment, suppressing or destroying some
organism populations while allowing others to gain supremacy. An imbal-
ance in the ecosystem results. Other pesticides will degrade rapidly,
some to products that are more toxic than the parent compound and some to
harmless products. Many pesticides have a high potential for bioaccum-
ulation and biomagnification in the aquatic food chain, thereby posing a
serious threat to a large number of ecologically important organisms,
including man.
All of the priority pollutant pesticides are synthetically produced
chlorinated hydrocarbons. The chlorinated hydrocarbons are among the
most important groups of synthetic organic pesticides because of their
sizeable number, wide use, stability in the environment, toxicity to
wildlife and nontarget organisms, and adverse physiological effects on
humans. These pesticides readily accumulate in aquatic organisms and in
man. They are stored in fatty tissue and are not rapidly metabolized.
Humans may accumulate chlorinated hydrocarbon residues by direct inges-
tion of contaminated water or by consumption of contaminated organisms.
Regardless of how chlorinated hydrocarbons enter organisms, they induce
poisoning exhibiting similar symptoms but differing in severity. The
severity is related to the extent and concentration of the compound in
the nervous system, primarily the brain. Deleterious effects on human
health are also suspected to result from long-term, low-level exposure to
pesticides.
Two references in the literature were found which documented the poten-
tial presence of pesticides in wastes from the wood products industry.
The first (Loyttyniemi, 1975) presents evidence of lindane (c-BHC) in
barking drum effluent. Pine pulpwood being debarked in a drum had
recently been sprayed with large amounts of the pesticide. The second
reference to pesticides in wood products (Richards and Webb, 1975) is an
article describing a laboratory scale experiment in which endrin, mala-
thion, and kepone were added to creosote being used to treat test coupons
of pine wood. The purpose of the test was to determine the effectiveness
of the additives in preventing attack by marine borer organisms. No
commercial instance of pesticide additives to creosote could be
determined.
Since the chlorinated organic pesticides are synthetically produced chem-
icals, and other than the above references, no instance of their use was
found in any of the wood products industries, it is highly unlikely that
pesticides would be of major concern as pollutants. Analytical results of
the screening program supported this assumption.
6-5
-------
DRAFT
Table VI-2 shows the range of pesticides concentrations found in screen-
ing samples from wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process
hardboard plants. These values are well within the range of background
levels reported for U.S. surface waters by the EPA (EPA-STORET, 1977).
PCB's
Arochlor (Reg. T.M.) 1242
Arochlor (Reg. T.M.) 1254
PCB's were analyzed in the screening program by hexane extraction fol-
lowed by gas chromatography using an electron capture detector (GC/ECD).
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) are a class of compounds produced by
the chlorination of biphenyls and are registered in the United States
under the trade name, Arochlor (Reg. T.M.). The degree of chlorination
determines the chemical properties of PCB's, and generally their compo-
sition can be identified by the numerical nomenclature. The first two
digits represent the molecular type and the last two digits the average
percentage of weight of chlorine (NTIS, 1972).
The toxicity and persistence of PCB's in the environment is widely
documented (EPA, 1976). PCB compounds are slightly soluble in water
(25-200 ug/1 at 25°C), soluble in lipids, oils, organic solvents, and
resistant to both heat and biological degradation (NTIS, 1972; Nisbet, et
al., 1972). Typically, the specific gravity, boiling point, and melting
point of PCB's increase with their chlorine content. PCB's are
relatively non-flammable, have useful heat exchange and dielectric
properties, and now are used principally in the electrical industry in
capacitors and transformers. PCB's are synthetically produced chemicals,
although there is some evidence (Johnsen, 1977) that chlorination of
biphenyls present in some industrial wastewaters can result in production
of PCB's.
No evidence of the use or production of PCB's in timber products proces-
sing operations was found in the literature. Presence of PCB's in
wastewaters from the wood preserving, insulation board, or hardboard
industries is considered to be highly unlikely except incidentally, or as
a background contaminant. One S2S hardboard/insulation board plant
indicated that electric transformer oil containing PCB's is used in the
plant's electrical equipment. This is a common use of PCB's which is
probably not confined to the single plant. Equipment using this type of
oil is designed to be completely self contained, and no discharge of
PCB's to the environment occurs except as a result of equipment failure.
Only one screening sample contained a measurable concentration of a PCB.
The raw waste sample contained 20.3 ug/1 of Arochlor (Reg. T.M.) 1242.
Phenolic Compounds
phenol
2-chlorphenol
6-6
-------
DRAFT
Table VI-2. Pesticides in Timber Products' Processing Wastewaters.
Range of Pesticide Concentrations ug/1 (ppb)
Segment BHC (all isomers)HeptachlorAldrinChlordane
Wood
Preserving 0.001 - 0.050 0.013 - 0.684 <0.001 0.035
Insulation
Board 0.015 - 0.186 <0.001 0.001 <0.001
Wet Process
Hardboard 0.015 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6-7
-------
DRAFT
2,4-dichlorphenol
p-chlorometa cresol
2,4-dimethyl phenol
2,4,6-tri chlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol
Screening analysis of the phenolic compounds was by adsorption on an
am"on exchange resin followed by gas chromatography using a flame ioniza-
tion detector.
Phenolic compounds include a wide variety of organic chemicals. Phenols
may be classified as monohydric, dihydric, or polyhydric depending on the
number of hydroxyl groups attached to the aromatic ring. Phenol itself,
which has one hydroxyl group, is the most typical of the group and is
often used as a model compound. The properties of phenol, with certain
modifications depending on the nature of the substituents on the benzene
ring, are shared by other phenolic compounds.
Since phenols are a natural constituent of wood, water in contact with
wood can be expected to contain some concentration of phenols. Hydroly-
sis of wood is carried out at elevated temperatures in the production of
insulation board and hardboard. This reaction, particularly the hydro-
lysis of Tignin which serves as a natural.binder in wood, results in the
production of phenolic compounds. Phenolic compounds are invariably
present in wastewaters that contact creosote, pentachlorophenol-petroleum
solutions, and products treated with these preservatives. The primary
phenolic constituents present in these wastes are para-, meta-, and
ortho-cresol, phenol, and various derivatives of each. Chlorophenol, di-,
tri-, and tetrachlorophenols are present, to some extent, in pentachlo-
rophenol solutions used in the wood preserving industry. They can be
present in process water in concentrations of from less than 1 mg/1 to
600 mg/1 or higher.
Phenolic compounds can affect freshwater fishes adversely by direct toxi-
city to fish and fish-food organisms; by lowering the amount of available
oxygen because of the high oxygen demand of the compounds and by tainting
of fish flesh. The chlorinated phenols present problems in drinking
water supplies because phenol is not removed efficiently by conventional
water treatment and can be chlorinated during the final water treatment
process to form persistent odor-producing compounds in the distribution
system (EPA, 1976).
Concentrations of each of the specific phenols in excess of 1.0 mg/1 were
found in the raw waste streams of the wood preserving, insulation board,
6-8
-------
DRAFT
and wet process hardboard industries. Pentachlorophenol is present in
wastewaters from the wood preserving industry, due to its use as a pre-
servative chemical, and in the insulation board and hardboard industries,
due to its use as board additive with fungicidal properties.
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
All the volatile organic priority pollutant samples were collected in
hermetically sealed serum vials, purged with nitrogen gas, and trapped on
Tenax GC adsorbent. The volatiles were then thermally desorbed into the
Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer for analysis.
Halomethanes
bromoform (tribromomethane)
carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
chloroform (trichloromethane)
ch1orodi bromomethane
dichlorodiflouromethane
dichlorobromomethane
methyl bromide (bromomethane) ,
methyl chloride (chloromethane)
methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
tri chlorof1ouromethane
The halomethanes are methane molecules with one or more substituted halo-
gen (chlorine, bromine, fluorine, etc.) atoms. Several of the halome-
thanes are of commercial importance and are produced in large quantities.
Examples include methylene chloride, chloroform and carbon tetrachloride
as solvents; chloroform and bromoform for medicinal properties; and
dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane as aerosol propellants
and refrigerants. Halomethanes are also formed as by-products of the
chlorination of water and wastewater (Symons, et al_., 1975; EPA, 1977).
Carcinogenic properties of several of the halomethanes have been reported
(WHO, 1972; NIOSH, 1975).
Methylene chloride is used as a solvent for pentachlorophenol in a sol-
vent-recovery treating process developed by the Dow Chemical Company. A
plant which uses this process, in addition to the Boulton process, was
sampled during the screening program. The plant's raw wastewater con-
tained 96.6 mg/1 of methylene chloride, and the treated waste contained
21.6 mg/1. Also found in the treated waste at this plant were 5.7 mg/1
of chloroform and 9.9 mg/1 of trichlorofluoromethane.
One insulation board/S2S hardboard plant which was sampled during screen-
ing contained 0.9 mg/1 of methylene chloride in its raw process wastewa-
ter. The fresh water used at this plant was heavily chlorinated, however,
and contained 0.5 mg/1 of methylene chloride. Small amounts of chloro-
form and methylene chloride, generally less than 5 pounds per year, are
used in the quality control laboratories of several hardboard mills. None
6-9
-------
DRAFT
of the other wood preserving, insulation board, or wet process hardboard
plants sampled during the screening program contained halomethanes in
their raw or treated wastewaters.
Chlorinated Ethanes
1,1-dichloroethane
1,2-di chloroethane
1,1,1-tri chloroethane
1,1,2-tri chloroethane
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
hexachloroethane
The chlorinated ethanes are commercially important solvents, cleaning
agents, and chemical intermediates. Although their potential toxicity
due to direct exposure is well documented (Christensen, et al_., 1975),
their effect on biota in water is not as clearly established.
1,1,1-trichloroethane is used by several hardboard plants as a degrees ing
and cleaning agent for electrical equiment, and by at least one hardboard
plant as a cleaning agent for hardboard press plates. The amounts of this
chemical used for this purpose is generally less than 5 pounds per day.
Much of the compound is degraded chemically during use, and none of the
screening plants exhibited measurable amounts of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in
their raw or treated wastewaters. 1,2-dichloroethane has been shown to be
a common by-product of the chlorination of drinking water (Symons, et
a_l_., 1975) and was also the only chlorinated ethane found in the screen-
Trig program. A concentration of 2.6 mg/1 of 1,2-dichloroethane was
detected in the raw wastewater of an insulation board/S2S hardboard mill
which chlorinates its fresh process water. The fresh water sample at
this plant, after chlorination, contained 1.2 mg/1 of 1,2-dichloro-
ethane.
Aromatic Solvents
Benzene
Toluene (methylbenzene)
Ethyl benzene
The above compounds are common industrial solvents and chemical intermed-
iates. All three compounds can be derived from the distillation of coal
and are found in varying amounts in coal tar products, including creo-
sote. Petroleum cuts containing benzene and toluene are commonly used in
wood preserving plants which use the vapor-drying process to season rail-
road ties prior to treatment. Toluene is used in laboratory extractions
of treated wood to determine creosote content. Benzene, toluene, and
ethyl benzene are used as solvents for finishing compounds applied to
finished hardboard panels.
6-10
-------
DRAFT
Limited data exists on the toxicity to aquatic life of these solvents
(Pontman, 1970).
Concentrations of all three solvents were found in both raw and treated
waste streams of wood preserving plants sampled during the screening
sampling program. Table VI-3 presents the range of concentrations found
for each compound. No measurable quantities of these solvents were found
during screening of insulation board or wet process hardboard plants.
Chloroalkyl Ethers
bis (chloromethyl) ether
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
These ethers are synthetically produced as chemical intermediates and for
use in the production of Pharmaceuticals. Information on aquatic toxi-
city is extremely limited. No incidence of use in the wood products
industry has been reported in the literature or by the surveyed plants.
No measurable concentration of these compounds was detected in the
screening sampling program.
Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene
1,2-dichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropylene
1,2-dichloropropane is commercially produced as a solvent, a dry cleaning
agent, and for use as a soil fumigant. 1,3-dichloropropylene is produced
for use as a soil fumigant.
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration of
either of these compound has been detected in the screening sampling
program.
Chlorinated Ethylenes
vinyl chloride
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
tetrachlproethylene
Vinyl chloride is widely used as a refrigerant, a chemical intermediate,
and as a monomer for the common plastic polyvinylchloride. 1,1-dichloro-
ethylene is also produced as a chemical intermediate for use in the
plastics industry. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and
tetrachloroethylene are produced for use as solvents, degreasers, and dry
cleaning chemicals.
6-11
-------
Table VI-3.
DRAFT
Range of Aromatic Solvent Concentrations Found in Samples
from Three Wood Preserving Plants.
Solvent
Concentration mg/1
Raw Wastewater
Treated Effluent
Benzene
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
.240-1.40
1.48
.050-1.90
1.0
4.3
None Found
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6-12
-------
D R AFT
Polyvinyl' chloride, a clear plastic material formed by polymerization of
vinyl chloride, is used by many hardboard plants as a decorative overlay
in finished panels. Trichloroethylene is used in very small amounts, 5
to 10 pounds per year, in the laboratories of several hardboard plants.
No measurable concentration of any of these compound has been detected in
the screening sampling program.
Miscellaneous Volatile Organics
acrolein
acrylonitrile
chlorobenzene
Acrolein is manufactured for use in plastics, organic synthesis, and as a
warning agent in methyl chloride refrigerant. Acrylonitrile, a highly
toxic compound containing a cyanide group, is used in the manufacture of
synthetic fibers, dyes, and adhesives. Chlorobenzene is used as a sol-
vent for paints, as a heat transfer medium, and as an intermediate in
production of phenol, aniline, and DDT.
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration of
any of these compound has been detected in the screening sampling pro-
gram. ,
Semi-Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
The semi-volatile organic priority pollutants were analyzed using GC/MS
following liquid-liquid extraction. Extraction was carried out in two
steps, the first step at a pH of 11 or more (base-neutral extraction),
followed by an extraction at pH 2 or less (acid extraction).
Poly Nuclear Aromatics (PNA's)
*acenapthene
*acynapthylene
*anthracene
1,2-benzanthracene
3,4-benzof1uoranthene
11,12-benzaf1uoranthene
3,4-benzoperylene
1,12-benzopyrene
*chrysene
*l,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene
*fluorene
*fluoranthene
indeno-(l,2,3-C.D) pyrene
*napthalene
*phenanthrene
*pyrene
6-13
-------
DRAFT
The polynuclear aromatic compounds are so named because they consist of
two or more benzene rings which share a pair of carbon atoms. These
aromatic rings which share a pair of carbon atoms are also called fused-
ring hydrocarbons.
All of these PNA's are obtained from coal tar, which is obtained as a by-
product of the high temperature cooking of bituminous coal (Morrison and
Boyd, 1966). Napthalene is the most abundant of all constituents obtained
from coal tar, comprising approximately 5 percent of the coal tar mix-
ture. Since creosote is a product of the fractional distillation of coal
tar, creosote would be expected to contain many of the PNA's. Analyses
performed on creosote mixtures by several investigators [(Lorenz and
Gjovik, 1972) and (NRCC, 1945)] identified the PNA's in the above list
marked with an asterisk, as well as a great number of other PNA's not
included in the priority pollutant list. It is quite likely that the
PNA's listed above which are not marked with an asterisk are also present
in trace amounts in some creosote mixtures.
With a few exceptions, the toxicity of individual PNA's is not well docu-
mented in the literature. Derivatives of 1,2 benzanthracene have been
reported to have carcinogenic properties (Morrison and Boyd, 1966).
There is a great deal of information on the acute and chronic toxicity of
creosote mixtures (Brislin, et al_., 1976). While direct ingestion of
large amounts of creosote or prolonged skin contact may cause acute
toxicity in humans, animals, and aquatic biota, the chronic effects of
small amounts of creosote in the environment appear to pose a much
smaller health hazard than similar amounts of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
As expected, PNA compounds were detected in the raw and treated waste-
water streams of the wood preserving industry. Table VI-4 presents the
range of concentrations for specific PNA's which were found in the raw
and treated wastewater samples collected at three wood preserving plants,
all of which treated with creosote.
PNA's are relatively soluble in organic solvents and relatively insoluble
in water, indicating that efficient oil-water separation is necessary to
reduce the PNA content of wastewater. It is significant to note that the
one wood preserving plant sampled during screening which employed bio-
logical treatment exhibited complete removal of PNA's to below the level
of detection.
No incidence of use or production of PNA's was found in the insulation
board and wet process hardboard industries, and no measurable quantities
of PNA's were detected during the screening program for these industries.
Chlorobenzenes
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,3-di chlorobenzene
6-14
-------
DRAFT
Table VI-4. Range of PNA Concentrations Found in Samples from Three
Wood Preserving Plants.
Compound
Acenapthene
Acenapthylene
Anthracene or
Phenanthrene*
1,2 benzanthracene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Nap thai ene
Pyrene
Concentration,
Raw Wastewater
20.6
2.4 -
0.01 -
0.44 -
1.7 -
.03 -
.015 -
0.09 -
.03 -
3.15
39.8
3.3
2.6
23.3
18.8
27.8
16.5
mg/1
Treated Effluent
0.1
0.36
0.04 - 7.1
—
0.13
0.01
0.03 - 1.06
1.1
.01 - 1.18
*Analytical procedure could not distinguish between the two isomers.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6-15
-------
DRAFT
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-tri chlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
These compounds are synthetically formed by substitution of two or more
chlorine atoms along the benzene ring. The dichlorobenzenes are used as
solvents, degreasing agents, and as insecticidal fumigants. The tri- and
hexachlorobenzenes are used primarily for their insecticidal and fungi-
cidal properties.
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration of
these compounds has been detected in the screening sampling program.
Phthalate Esters
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthlate
butyl benzyl phthlate
di-n-butyl phthlate
diethyl phthlate
dimethyl phthlate
The phthlate esters are commercially synthesized compounds used exten-
sively as plasticizers and for commercial polymers and plastic end
products. No incidence of the use or production of the phthlate esters
was found in the literature or in the survey of timber products plants.
Analysis of the manufacturing operations and raw materials of the wood
preserving, insulation board, and wet process hardboard industries does
not provide any evidence for the presence of the phthlate esters in
either the raw wastewater streams or treated effluents.
Concentrations between 0.01 and 5.94 mg/1 of di-n-butyl, di-ethyl-hexyl,
butyl benzyl, and di-ethyl phthlate esters, were found in most of the
screening samples.
The possibility that phthlate contamination may have been due to the
plastic tubing used during the screening sampling program was investi-
gated. The inlet tubing specified by the EPA protocol was hospital/
surgical grade PVC tubing. Pexecon #6 PVC Premium tubing with a 1/4 in
inside diameter and a 1/16 in wall thickness was used during the
collection of screening samples. It was assumed at the time that use of
this tubing would limit organic contamination of the samples. A paper
which appeared in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
(Junk, et al_., 1974) contradicts this assumption.
Junk tested for organic contamination of purified water flowing through
25-foot lengths of several commercially obtained types of tubing, includ-
ing hospital/surgical grade PVC. The results clearly show that signi-
ficant amounts of organic contaminants were leached from the tubing and
that the phthlate esters appeared most frequently among the five most
6-16
-------
DRAFT
dominant contaminants. None of the other contaminants were priority
pollutants.
Junk's experimental conditions closely approximate conditions encountered
during field sampling using peristaltic sampling equipment. The low pH
and organic solvents contained in many timber effluents can be expected
to increase the amount of contamination leached from the tubing. Further-
more, Junk demonstrated that the amount of contamination may be directly
related to the linear velocity of the flow in the tube. Sampling equip-
ment with a high linear flow rate was used in order to prevent settling
out of solids in the sampler.
Haloethers
bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
The haloethers are synthetically produced compounds used commercially as
chemical intermediates, solvents, and for their heat transfer properties.
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration of
these compounds has been detected in the screening sampling program.
Nitrosamines
N-ni trosodi methyl ami ne
N-ni trosodi phenylami ne
N-ni trosodi-n-propy 1 ami ne
Nitrosamines are highly carcinogenic compounds, some of which may occur
in nature and some of which are commercially produced. N-nitrosodi-
methylamine occurs in trace amounts in tobacco smoke condensates. Nitro-
samines can also be formed inside the human digestive tract in the pre-
sence of nitrites and nitrates by interaction with secondary and tertiary
amines from protein (Mitchell, 1974). N-nitrosodiphenyl amine has been
commercially produced for use as an accelerator in vulcanizing rubber.
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. One screening sample of a
treated effluent from a wood preserving plant exhibited 0.006 mg/1 of N-
nitrosodiphenyl amine, however the presence of this compound in the
amount detected is considered to be incidental to the wood preserving
process. No other sample from this or from two other wood preserving
plants, two insulation board plants, and two wet process hardboard plants
showed a measurable amount of nitrosamines.
6-17
-------
DRAFT
Nitro-substituted Aromatics Other than Phenols
nitrobenzene
2,4-di nitrotoluene
2,6-di ni trotoluene
Nitrobenzene is synthetically produced for commercial use in soaps, shoe
polish, and as a chemical intermediate. Dinitrotoluene (DNT) is an
important intermediate in the production of the explosive TNT (trinitro-
toluene).
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration of
these compounds has been detected in the screening sampling program.
Benzidine Compounds
benzidine
3,3'-di chlorobenzi di ne
Benzidine compounds are synthetically produced compounds used primarily
in the manufacture of dyes. Carcinogenic properties of benzidine are
well established.
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has-been reported in
the litera-ture or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration of
these compounds has been detected in the screening sampling program.
Miscellaneous. Semi-Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
1,2 diphenylhydrazine
hexachlorethane
hexachlorobutadi ene
hexachloropentadi ene
2-ehloronapthaiene
i sophorone
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
1-1-diphenylhydrazine is a synthetically produced, highly reactive
chemical intermediate. Hexachloroethane is a synthetically produced
compound used commercially as a solvent and chemical intermediate.
Hexachlorobutadienes and hexachloropentadienes are synthetically produced
compounds of importance as monomers in the production of plastics.
2-chloronapthalene is synthetically produced for use as solvent for fats,
oils, and DDT. Isophorone is also synthetically produced for use as a
solvent for pesticides, polyvinyl and nitrocellulose resins, and
lacquers. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is an extremely
carcinogenic compound produced mainly as a nuisance by-product during
chemical synthesis of the herbicide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-acetic-acid
(2,4,5-T). Although several compounds of the dioxin family have been
detected as
6-18
-------
DRAFT
contaminants in commercial pentachlorophenol (Johnson, et al., 1975),
TCDD has not been detected and is not believed to occur in
pentachlorophenol.
No incidence of use in the wood products industry has .been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed for these compounds. No measur-
able concentration of these compounds has been detected in the screening
sampling program.
Inorganic Priority Pollutants
antimony
arsenic
asbestos
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
copper
cyani de
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
thallium
zinc
Cyanide was analyzed according to Standard Methods (AHPA, 1976). Asbes-
tos was not analyzed due to the lack of an acceptable procedure for anal-
ysis and the extreme improbability that asbestos would appear in dis-
charges of the timber products industry. Metals were analyzed by induc-
tively coupled argon plasma atomic-emission spectroscopy.
Of all the cyanides, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is probably the most acutely
lethal compound. HCN dissociates in water to hydrogen ions and cyanide
ions in a pH dependent reaction. The cyanide ion is less acutely lethal
than HCN. The relationship of pH to HCN shows that as the pH is lowered
below 7, there is less than 1 percent of the cyanide molecules in the
form of the CN ion while the rest is present as HCN. When the pH is
increased to 8, 9, and 10, the percentage of cyanide present as CN ion is
6.7, 42, and 87 percent, respectively.
The toxicity of cyanides is also increased by elevations in temperature
and reductions in oxygen tensions. A temperature rise of 10°C produces a
two- to threefold increase in the rate of the lethal action of cyanide.
The harmful effects of the cyanides on aquatic life are affected by the
pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen content, and the concentration of
minerals in the water. The biochemical degradation of cyanide is not
affected by temperature in the range of 10 to 35°C.
6- 19
-------
DRAFT
With lower forms of life, cyanide does not seem to be as toxic as it is
toward fish. The organisms that digest BOD were found to be inhibited at
1.0 mg/1 and at 60 mg/1, although the effect is more one of delay in
exertion of BOD than total reduction.
Certain metals, such as nickel, may complex with cyanide to reduce leth-
ality, especially at higher pH values. On the other hand, zinc and
cadmium cyanide complexes may be exceedingly toxic.
No incidence of use of cyanide in the wood products industry has been
reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable
concentration of this compound has been detected in the screening
sampling program.
Antimony is a silver-white, lustrous, hard, brittle metal found in nature
as stibnite and is used in manufacture of alloys such as hard lead, white
metal, type, Babbit metal, and bearing metal. It is also used in fire-
works, and for metal coating. Information on the toxicity of antimony
and its compounds due to direct exposure has been reported (Browning,
1969). Information on the toxicity of antimony to aquatic biota is more
limited.
Arsenic is a shiny, gray, brittle element possessing both metallic and
nonmetallic properties. Compounds of arsenic are ubiquitous in nature,
insoluble in water, and occur mostly as arsenides and arsenopyrites.
Samplings from 130 water stations in the United States have shown arsenic
concentrations of 5 to 336 ug/1 with a mean level of 64 ug/1 (Kopp,1969).
Arsenic normally is present in sea water at concentrations of 2 to 3
ug/1.
Arsenic exists in the trivalent and pentavalent states and its compounds
may be either organic or inorganic. Trivalent inorganic arsenicals are
more toxic than the pentavalent forms both to mammals and aquatic
species. Though most forms of arsenic are toxic to humans, arsenicals
have been used in the medical treatment of spirochaetal infections, blood
dyscrasias, and dermatitis (Merck Index, 1968). Arsenic and arsenicals
have many diversified industrial uses including hardening of copper and
lead alloys, pigmentation in paints and fireworks, and the manufacture of
glass, cloth and electrical semiconductors. Arsenicals are used in the
wood preserving industry as treatment chemicals. The most common pre-
servatives containing arsenic are CCA compounds which are mixtures of
copper, chromium, and arsenic salts, FCAP which contains chromium,
arsenic, and fluoride salts, as well as 2,4-dinitrophenol, and ACA which
contains both arsenic and copper. In both formulations, the arsenic
exists in pentavalent form.
Table VI-5 presents the common inorganic wood preservatives and fire
retardants, and lists the inorganic priority pollutants which are found
in these formulations.
6-20
-------
DRAFT
Table VI-5. Inorganic Priority Pollutants in Water-borne Preservatives
and Fire Retardants.
Industry Designation
Appendix A Compounds
2,4 dinitro-
As Cu Cr Zn phenol
Acid Copper Chromate
(ACC)
Ammonical Copper
Arsenate (ACA)
Chromated Copper
Arsenate — Type A
(CCA) Type B
Type C
Chromated Zinc
Chloride (CZC)
Fluor Chrome Arsenate
Phenol (FCAP)
Fire Retardants
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
SOURCE: Thompson, 1976.
6-21
-------
DRAFT
Beryllium is a rare earth metal produced industrially from the mineral
beryl (3 BeO-Al203'6Si02)« Beryllium is also found in chrysoberyl
(BeO-Al203) and phenate (Be-SiCty). It is a gray metal with a close-
packed hexagonal structure. Major industrial uses of beryllium are as a
neutron reflector and moderator in nuclear reactors, in radio tube parts,
and in the aerospace industry.
Beryllium is not likely to occur at significantly toxic levels in ambient
natural waters (McKee and Wolf, 1963). Although the chloride and nitrate
salts of beryllium are very water-soluble, and the sulfate is moderately
so, the carbonate and hydroxide are almost insoluble in cold water
(Lange, 1961). Kopp and Kroner (1967) reported that for 1,577 surface
water samples collected at 130 sampling points in the United States, 85
samples (5.4 percent) contained from 0.01 to 1.22 ug/1 with a mean of
0.19 ug/1 beryllium. The concentration' of beryllium in sea water is 6 x
10-* ug/1 (Goldberg, et al., 1977).
Cadmium is a soft, white, easily-fusible metal similar to zinc and lead
in many properties, and is readily soluble in mineral acids. Biologi-
cally, cadmium is a nonessential, nonbeneficial element recognized to be
of high toxic potential. It is deposited and accumulated in various body
tissues and is found in varying concentrations throughout all areas where
man lives. Within the past two decades industrial production and use of
the metal has increased. Concomitantly, there have been incidences of
acute cases of clinically identifiable cadmiosis. Cadmium may function in
or may be an etiological factor for various human pathological processes
including testicular tumors, renal dysfunction, hypertension, arterio-
sclerosis, growth inhibition, chronic diseases of old age, and cancer.
Cadmium occurs in nature chiefly as a sulfide salt, frequently in asso-
ciation with zinc and lead ores. Accumulations of cadmium in soils in
the vicinity of mines and smelters may result in high local concentra-
tions in nearby waters. The salts of the metal also may occur in wastes
from electroplating plants, pigment works, textile and chemical indus-
tries. Seepage of cadmium from electroplating plants has resulted in
groundwater cadmium concentrations of 0.01 to 3.2 mg/1 (Lieber and
Wei sen, 1954). Kopp and Kroner (1967) on one occasion reported 120 ug/1
dissolved cadmium in the Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio. However,
dissolved cadmium was found in less than 3 percent of 1,577 water samples
examined in the United States, with a mean of slightly under 10 ug/1.
Most fresh waters contain less than 1 ug/1 cadmium, and most analyses of
seawater indicate an average concentration of about 0.15 ug/1 (Fleischer,
et al., 1974).
Chromium is the seventeenth most abundant nongaseous element in the
earth's crust (Schroeder, 1970); its concentration range in the continen-
tal crust is 80 to 200 mg/kg, with an average of 125 mg/kg (NAS, 1974a).
Although chromium has oxidation states ranging from -2 to -6, the
6-22
-------
DRAFT
trivalent form most commonly is found in nature. Chromium is found
rarely in natural waters, ranking twenty-seventh or lower among the
elements in seawater and generally is well below 1 ug/1. Kopp (1969)
reported that for 1,577 surface water samples collected at 130 sampling
points in the United States, 386 samples contained from 1 to 112 ug/1;
the mean was 9.7 ug/1 chromium. Durum, et al_. (1971), in a similar
survey of 700 samples, found that none contained over 50 ug/1 of
hexavalent chromium and 11 contained over 5 ug/1. Chromium is found in
air, soil, some foods, and most biological systems; it is recognized as
an essential trace element for humans (NAS, 1974a).
Chromium salts are a major component of most common inorganic wood pre-
servative chemical mixtures, as shown in Table VI-5.
Copper occurs as a natural or native metal and in various mineral forms
such as cuprite and malachite. The most important copper ores are sul-
fides, oxides, and carbonates. Copper has been mined and used in a
variety of products since prehistoric times. Uses for copper include
electrical products, coins, and metal plating. Copper frequently is
alloyed with other metals to form various brasses and bronzes. Oxides
and sulfates of copper are used for pesticides, algicides, and fungi-
cides. Copper frequently is incorporated into paints and wood preserva-
tives to inhibit growth of algae and invertebrate organisms, such as the
woodborer, Teredo, on vessels. The use of copper salts in common inor-
ganic wood preservative chemical mixtures is shown in Table VI-5.
Copper is an essential trace element for the propagation of plants and
performs vital functions in several enzymes and a major role in the syn-
thesis of chlorophyll. A shortage of copper in soil may lead to chloro-
sis which is characterized by yellowing of plant leaves. In copper
deficient soils, it may be added as a trace nutrient supplement to other
fertilizers.
Copper is required in animal metabolism. It is important in invertebrate
blood chemistry and for the synthesis of hemoglobin. In some inverte-
brate organisms a protein, hemocyanin, contains copper and serves as the
oxygen-carrying mechanism in the blood. An overdose of ingested copper
in mammals acts as an emetic.
In examining over 1500 surface water samples from the United States, Kopp
and Kroner (1967) found soluble copper in 74 percent of the samples with
an average concentration of 15 ug/1 and a maximum concentration of 280
ug/1 of copper. The average concentration of copper in seawater is
approximately 3.0 ug/1 (Mero, 1964).
In addition to their natural occurrence, lead and its compounds may enter
and contaminate the global environment at any stage during mining, smelt-
ing, processing, and use. The annual increase in lead consumption in the
U.S. during the ten-year period from 1962-1971 averaged 2.9 percent,
largely due to increased demands for electrochemical batteries and
6-23
-------
.DRAFT
gasoline additives (Ryan, 1971). Of the 1971 U.S. lead consumption,
approximately 25 percent was as metallic lead or lead alloy (Ryan, 1971;
MAS, 1972). Non-industrial sources that may contribute to the possi-
bility of ingestion of lead by man include the indoor use of lead-bearing
paints and plaster, improperly glazed earthenware, lead fumes on ashes
produced in burning lead battery casings, and exhaust from internal
combustion engines.
Most lead salts are of low solubility. Lead exists in nature mainly as
lead sulfide (galena); other common natural forms are lead carbonate
(cerussite), lead sulfate (anglesite), and lead chlorophosphate (pyromor-
phite). Stable complexes result also from the interaction of lead with
the sulfhydryl, carboxyl, and amine coordination sites characteristically
found in living matter. The toxicity of lead in water, like that of
other heavy metals, is effected by pH, hardness, organic materials, and
the presence of other metals. The aqueous solubility of lead ranges from
500 ug/1 in soft water to 3 ug/1 in hard water.
Lead enters the aquatic environment through precipitation, lead dust
fallout, erosion and leaching of soil, municipal and industrial waste
discharges, and the runoff of fallout deposits from streets and other
surfaces. Extrapolations from recent studies (EPA, 1972; University of
Illinois, 1972) indicate that nationally as much as 5,000 tons of lead
per year may be added to the aquatic environment as a result of urban
runoff.
Mediterranean and Pacific surface waters contain up to 0.20 and 0.35 mg/1
of lead, respectively (NAS, 1972), which is about 10 times the estimated
p re-industrial lead content of marine waters. The lead content of rivers
and lakes also has increased in recent years (NAS, 1972). It may be
inferred from available data that the mean natural lead content of the
world's lakes and rivers ranges from 1 to 10 ug/1 (Livingstone, 1963);
the lead content of rural U.S. soils is 10 to 15 ug/g (Chow and Patter-
son, 1962), and the usual range of lead-in-soil concentrations is 2 to
200 ppm, exclusive of areas near lead ore deposits (Motto, et al_., 1970),
although many urban soil concentrations are much higher.
In the analyses of over 1,500 stream samples, Kopp and Kroner (1967)
report that lead was observed at measurable levels with a frequency of
under 20 percent. The mean concentration of the positive occurrences was
23 ug/1. The highest incidence of occurrence of lead was observed in the
Western Great Lakes Basin where the frequency was slightly above 40 per-
cent. The highest recorded concentration was 140 ug/1 in the Ohio River
at Evansville, Indiana.
As far as is known, lead has no beneficial or desirable nutritional ef-
fects. Lead is a toxic metal that tends to accumulate in the tissues of
man and other animals. Although seldom seen in the adult population, ir-
reversible damage to the brain is a frequent result of lead intoxication
6-24
-------
DRAFT
in children. Such lead intoxication most commonly results from ingestion
of lead-containing paint still found in older homes.
Mercury is a silver-white, liquid metal so.lidifying at -38.9°C to form a
tin-white, ductile, malleable mass. It boils at 356.9°C, has a specific
gravity of 13.6 and a vapor pressure of 1.2 x 10"3 mm of mercury.
Mercury has three oxidation states: (1) zero (elemental mercury); (2) +1
(mercurous compounds); and (3) +2 (mercuric compounds). Mercury is
widely distributed in the environment and biologically is a nonessential
or nonbeneficial element. Historically it was recognized to possess a
high toxic potential and was used as a germicidal or fungicidal agent for
medical and agricultural purposes. Mercury intoxication may be acute or
chronic and toxic effects vary with the form of mercury and its mode of
entry into the organism. The mercurous salts are less soluble than the
mercuric and consequently are less toxic. For man, the fatal oral dose
of mercuric salts ranges from 20 mg to 3.0 g (Stokinger, 1963). Symptoms
of acute, inorganic mercury poisoning include pharyngitis, gastroenteri-
tis, vomiting followed by ulcerative hemorrhagic colitis, and nephritis.
Human poisoning by mercury or its compounds clinically has been recog-
nized. Although its toxic properties are well known, dramatic instances
of toxicosis in man and animals have occurred recently, e.g., the Mina-
mata Bay poisonings (Irukayama, et al_., 1962; Irukayama, 1967). In
addition to the incidents in Japan, poisonings have also occurred in
Iraq, Pakistan, and Guatemala as a result of ingestion of flour and seed
treated with methyl and ethylmercury compounds (Bakir, et al_., 1973).
Chronic mercury poisoning results from exposure to small amounts of
mercury over extended time periods. Chronic poisoning from inorganic
mercurials most often has been associated with industrial exposure,
whereas poisoning from the organic derivatives has been the result of
accidents or environmental contamination. Alkyl compounds are the
derivatives of mercury most toxic to man, producing illness, irreversible
neurological damage, or death from the ingestion of amounts in milligrams
(Berglund and Berlin, 1969).
The mercury content of unpolluted U.S. rivers from 31 states where
natural mercury deposits are unknown is less than 0.1 ug/1 (Wershaw,
1970). Jenne (1972.) found also that the majority of U.S. waters con-
tained less than 0.1 ug/1 of mercury. The lower limit of detection in
these studies was 0.1 ug/1. Total mercury values of 0.045 ug/1 recently
were determined in Connecticut River water by Fitzgerald and Lyons (1973)
using more sensitive methods. Marine waters have been shown to contain
concentrations of mercury from a low of 0.03 to a high of 0.2 ug/1, but
most marine waters fall within range of 0.05 to 0.19 ug/1 mercury
(Robertson, et al_., 1972). Mining, agriculture, and waste discharges
contribute to the natural levels found.
Nickel is a silver-white, metallic element seldom occurring in nature in
the elemental form. Nickel salts are soluble and can occur as a leachate
6-25
-------
DRAFT
from nickel-bearing ores. Nickel is used industrially for nickel plat-
ing; various alloys, especially with silver, in batteries, electrical
contacts, and as a catalyst in organic chemical reactions. Kopp and
Kroner (1967) detected nickel in the Lake Erie Basin at a frequency of 53
percent and a mean concentration of 56 ug/1. At several selected sta-
tions, dissolved nickel ranged from 3 to 86 ug/1 and suspended nickel
from 5 to 900 ug/1. Nickel is present in sea water at 5 to 7 ug/1 (NAS,
1974).
Nickel is considered to be relatively nontoxic to man (Schroeder, et aK,
1961) and a limit for nickel is not included in the EPA National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 FR 59566, December 24, 1975). The
toxicity of nickel to aquatic life, as reported by McKee and Wolf (1963),
indicates tolerances that vary widely and that are influenced by species,
pH, synergistic effects and other factors.
Selenium is a trace element in the earth's crust which is found naturally
in the sulfide ores of the heavy metals. Major industrial uses of sele-
nium are as an ingredient of toning baths in photography, as a pigment
for colored glass, electrical components, and as a chemical catalyst.
Biologically, selenium is an essential, beneficial element recognized as
a metabolic requirement in trace amounts for animals but toxic to them
when ingested in amounts ranging from about 0.1 to 10 mg/kg of food. The
national levels of selenium in water are proportional to the selenium in
the soil. In low selenium areas, the content of water may be well below
1 ug/1 (Lindberg, 1968). In water from seleniferous areas, levels of
selenium of 50 to 300 ug/1 have been reported (WHO, 1972). Selenium
appears in the soil as basic ferric selenite, calcium selenate, and as
elemental selenium. Elemental selenium must be oxidized to selenite or
selenate before it has appreciable solubility in water.
Selenium is considered toxic to man. Symptoms appear similar to those of
arsenic poisoning (Keboe, et al_., 1944; Fairhill, 1941). Any considera-
tion of the toxicity of selenium to man must take into consideration the
dietary requirement for the element in amounts estimated to be 0.04 to
0.10 mg/kg of food. Considering this requirement in conjunction with
evidence that ingestion of selenium in amounts as low as 0.07 mg per day
has been shown to give rise to signs of selenium toxicity, selenium
concentrations above 10 ug/1 should not be permitted in drinking water
(Smith, et al_., 1936; Smith and West, 1937). The USPHS drinking water
standards recommend that drinking water supplies contain no more than
0.01 mg/1 of selenium (USPHS, 1962).
Selenium in water apparently is toxic at concentrations of 2.5 mg/1 or
less to those few species tested. Animals can beneficially metabolize
ingested selenium in amounts of 0.01 to 0.10 mg/kg of food.
Biologically, silver is a nonessential, nonbeneficial element recognized
as causing localized skin discoloration in humans, and as being
6-26
-------
•P R A F T
systemically toxic to aquatic life. Ingestion of silver or silver salts
by humans results in deposition of silver in skin, eyes and mucous mem-
branes that causes a blue-gray discoloration without apparent systemic
reaction (Hill, 1957). Because of its strong bactericidal action, silver
has been considered for use as a water disinfectant. Dosages of 0.001 to
500 ug/1 of silver have been reported sufficient to sterilize water
(McKee and Wolf, 1963). At these concentrations, the ingestion of silver
has no obvious detrimental effect on humans.
The 1962 USPHS Drinking Water Standards contained a limit for silver of
0.05 mg/1. This limit was established because of the evidence that sil-
ver, once absorbed, is held indefinitely in tissues, particularly the
skin, without evident loss through usual channels of elimination or
reduction by transmigration to other body sites, and because of the
probable high absorbability of silver bound to sulfur components of food
cooked in silver-containing water (Aub and Fairhall, 1942).
It is apparent that there is a wide variation in the toxicity of silver
compounds to aquatic life and that the degree of dissociation charac-
teristic of these compounds affects toxicity. Little information is
available on the movement and chemical stability of these compounds in
the aquatic environment.
Thallium is a bluish-white, very soft, easily fusible heavy metal. It
forms alloys with other metals and readily amalgamates with mercury.
Thallium is found in nature in several mineral forms, particularly in
association with the sulfide ores of other heavy metals. Thallium salts
are used in rat poison and in electrical components. Toxicity of
thallium, both acute and chronic, has been reported in the literature
(Browning, 1969).
Zinc is usually found in nature as the sulfide; it is often associated
with sulfides of other metals, especially lead, copper, cadmium, and
iron. Most other zinc minerals probably are formed as oxidation products
of the sulfide; they represent only minor sources of zinc. Nearly
3,000,000 short tons of recoverable zinc per year are mined in the world;
about 500,000 tons of this come from the United States.
Zinc (as metal) is used in galvanizing, i.e., coating (not dipping) of
various iron and steel surfaces with a thin layer of zinc to retard
corrosion of the coated metal. In contact with iron, zinc is oxidized
preferentially, thus protecting the iron. The second most important use
of zinc, reaching major proportions in the last quarter century, is in
the preparation of alloys for dye casting. Zinc is used also in brass
and bronze alloys, slush castings (in the rolled or extruded state), in
the production of zinc oxide and other chemical products, and in
photoengraving and printing plates. Zinc salts are widely used in
inorganic wood preservative chemicals, as shown in Table VI-5.
6-27
-------
DRAFT
Kopp and Kroner (1967) report that in 1,207 positive tests for zinc on
samples from U.S. waterways, the maximum observed value was 1,183 ug/1
(Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio) and the mean was 64 ug/1. Dissolved
zinc was measured in over 76 percent of all water samples tested. The
highest mean zinc value, 205 ug/1, was found in the Lake Erie Basin,
whereas the lowest mean zinc value, 16 ug/1, was observed in the Cali-
fornia Basin. In seawater, zinc is found at a maximum concentration of
about 10 ug/1.
Zinc is an essential and beneficial element in human metabolism (Vallee,
1957). The daily requirement of preschool-aged children is 0.3 mg Zn/kg
body weight. The daily adult human intake averages 0 to 15 mg zinc;
deficiency in children leads to growth retardation. Community water
supplies have contained 11 to 27 mg/1 without harmful effects (Anderson,
e_t aj.., 1934; Bartow and Weigle, 1932).
The toxicity of zinc compounds to aquatic animals is modified by several
environmental factors, particularly hardness, dissolved oxygen, and tem-
perature. Skidmore (1964), in undertaking a review of the literature on
the toxicity of zinc to fish, reported that salts of the alkaline-earth
metals are antagonistic to the action of zinc salts, and salts of certain
heavy metals are synergistic in soft water. Both an increase in tempera-
ture and a reduction in dissolved oxygen increase the toxicity of zinc.
Toxic concentrations of zinc compounds cause adverse changes in the
morphology and physiology of fish. Acutely toxic concentrations induce
cellular breakdown of the gills, and possibly the clogging of the gills
with mucus. Chronically toxic concentrations of zinc compounds, in
contrast, cause general enfeeblement and widespread histological changes
to many organs, but not to gills. Growth and maturation are retarded.
Insulation board and wet process hardboard plants which apply painted
finishes to their products reported the use of several of the heavy
metals including zinc, chromium, and lead as paint additives. Finish-
ing wastes discharged by these plants in raw wastewater are usually less
than 500 gallons per day of diluted paint in the washdown water.
The presence of the inorganic heavy metals in the raw and treated
wastestreams of plants from the wood preserving, insulation board, and
hardboard industries as determined during the screening sampling program
are reported in Tables VI-6 through VI-8.
Traditional Parameters
Organic Pollutants
Organic pollutants which are amenable to biological and chemical decompo-
sition in receiving waters exert an oxygen demand on these waters during
the process of decomposition. Oxygen demanding wastes consume dissolved
oxygen (DO). In appropriate concentrations, DO is essential not only to
keep organisms living but also to sustain species reproduction, vigor,
6-28
-------
DRAFT
N)
(D
Table VI-6. Metals Analysis: Wood Preserving
Concentrations in mg/1
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Si 1 ver
Thallium
Zinc
.
Minimum
0.003
0.027
0.040
0.140
0.685
0.024
0.188
0.001
0.623
0.024
0.025
0.050
0.048
Raw Wastewater
Maximum
1.00
30.0
0.040
0.500
6000
5000
4.00
0.007
1.50
0;550
0.500
0.090
80
Mean
0.502
15.0
0.040
0.320
3000
2500
2.09
0.004
1.06
0.287
0.263
0.070
40.0
Treated
Minimum
0.003
0.048
N.D.*
0.140
0.039
0.062
N.D.
0.001
0.055
0.010
N.D.
0.060
0.065
Effluent
Discharge
Maximum Mean
0.008
0.340
N.D.
0.140
0.236
0.062
N.D.
0.019
0.055
0.020
N.D.
0.060
3.34
0.006
0.194
N.D.
0.140
0.138
0.062
N.D.
0.01
0.055
0.015
N.D.
0.060
1.70
* NiD. indicates not detected.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
-------
DRAFT
o>
Table VI-7. Metals Analysis: Insulation Board.
Concentrations in mg/1
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Minimum
0.005
0.007
N.D.*
N.D.
0.053
0.020
0.077
0.003
N.D.
0.005
N.D.
0.065
0.265
Raw Was.tewater
Maximum
0.076
0.090
N.D.
N.D.
0.053
0.057
0.077
0.003
N.D.
0.017
N.D.
0.065
0.265
Mean
0.041
0.049
N.D.
N.D.
0.053
0.039
0.077
0.003
N.D.
0.011
N.D.
0.065
0.265
Treated
Minimum
0.004
0.025
N.D.
N.D.
0.039
0.135
N.D.
0.001
N.D.
0.006
N.D.
N.D.
0.052
Effluent
Discharge
Maximum Mean
0.004
0.070
N.D.
N.D.
0.039
0.135
N.D.
0.019
N.D.
0.011
N.D.
N.D.
0.282
0.004
0.048
N.D.
N.D.
0.039
0.135
N.D.
0.010
N.D.
0.009
N.D.
N.D.
0.167
* N.D. indicates not detected.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
-------
DRAFT
o>
GO
Table VI-8. Metals Analysis: Hardboard.
Concentrations in mg/1
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Minimum
0.003
0.042
N.D.*
N.D.
0.529
0.120
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.006
N.D.
0.190
0.032
Raw Wastewater
Maximum
0.003
0.125
N.D.
N.D.
0.529
0.120
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.010
N.D.
0.190
5.86
Mean
0.003
0.084
N.D.
N.D.
0.529
0.120
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.008
N.D.
0.190
2.95
Treated
Minimum
0.017
0.150
N.D.
N.D.
0.170
0.172
N.D.
N.D.
0.146
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.66
Effluent Di
Maximum
0.017
0.150
N.D.
N.D.
0.170
0.172
N.D.
N.D.
0.146
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.66
scharge
Mean
0.017
0.150
N.D.
N.D.
0.170
0.172
N.D.
N.D.
0.146
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.66
* N.D. indicates not detected.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
-------
DRAFT
and the development of populations. At reduced DO concentrations organ-
isms undergo stress that make them less competitive and less capable of
sustaining their species within the aquatic environment. For example,
reduced DO concentrations have been shown to interfere with fish popu-
lation through delayed hatching of eggs, reduced size and vigor of
embryos, production of deformities in the young, interference with food
digestion, acceleration of blood clotting, decreased tolerance to certain
toxicants, reduced food utilization efficiency and growth rate, and
reduced maximum sustained swimming speed. Fish food organisms are like-
wise effected adversely in conditions of depressed DO. Since all aerobic
aquatic organisms need a certain amount of oxygen, the occurrence of a
total lack of dissolved oxygen due to a high oxygen demand of wastes can
kill all aerobic inhabitants of the affected area.
The three methods commonly used to measure the organic content of waste-
waters are the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) analysis, the Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) analysis, and the Total Organic Carbon (TOO analy-
sis. Each of these methods have certain advantages and disadvantages
when applied to industrial wastewaters.
The BOD test is essentially a bioassay procedure involving the measure-
ment of oxygen consumed by living organisms while utilizing the organic
matter present in a wastewater under certain standard conditions. His-
torically, the BOD test has been used to evaluate the performance of bio-
logical wastewater treatment facilities and to establish effluent limita-
tion values. Some limitations to the use of the BOD test to control or
monitor effluent quality include the following:
1. The standard BOD test takes five days before the results are
available. This tends to decrease its usefulness as an opera-
tional control monitor.
2. At the start of the BOD test, a seed culture of microorganisms
is added to the BOD bottle. If the seed culture is not accli-
mated (i.e., exposed to a similar wastewater in the past), then
it may not readily biologically degrade the waste, and a low BOD
value may be reported. This situation is most likely to occur
when dealing with complex industrial wastes. The necessity of
using acclimated seed often contributes to the difficulty of
different analysts obtaining duplicate values of BOD on indus-
trial wastes.
3. The BOD test is sensitive to toxic materials, as are all
biological processes. Therefore, if toxic materials are present
in a particular wastewater, the reported BOD value may very well
be depressed. This situation can be remedied by conducting a
microorganism toxicity test, i.e., serially diluting the sample
until the BOD value reaches a plateau indicating that the ma-
terial is at a concentration which no longer inhibits biological
oxidation.
6-32
-------
DRAFT
It is important to note that most of the state, local, and regional
authorities have established water quality regulations utilizing BOD as
the major parameter for determination of oxygen demand on a water body.
Most of the large body of historical data on organic pollutant loading
compiled by the insulation board and hardboard industries is in terms of
BOD.
The chemical oxygen demand (COD) determination provides a measure of the
oxygen equivalent of that portion of the organic matter in a sample that
is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant. It is an im-
portant parameter that can be rapidly measured. However, the method
fails to include some organic compounds (such as acetic acid) which are
biologically available to the stream organisms, while including some
biologic compounds (such as cellulose) which are not a part of the
immediate biochemical load on the oxygen assets of the receiving water.
The carbonaceous portion of nitrogenous compounds can be determined, but
there is no reduction of the dichromate by ammonia in a waste or by any
ammonia liberated from the pr.oteinaceous matter.
When an industrial wastewater contains substances which tend to inhibit
biological degradation of the organic matter, COD or total organic carbon
(TOO may be the best method for determination of the organic load.
Because of its prolonged exposure to temperatures in the range of 110° to
121°C (230° to 250°F) and its relatively high content of phenolic com-
pounds, wood preserving process water is sterile upon its discharge from
retorts. Its successful biological treatment requires the employment of
strains of bacteria that have been acclimated to concentrations of phe-
nolic compounds of 300 mg/liter or higher. On a laboratory scale, this
requirement renders BOD determinations difficult and makes the determin-
ations almost impossible to interpret, especially as regards comparisons
of results obtained by different analysts. It is not possible to ascer-
tain whether the differences obtained are due to the characteristics of
the waste samples or to differences in the bacterial cultures employed
and their degree of acclimation to the waste. Since the correlation
between BOD and COD for wood preserving wastewaters is high, (Dust and
Thompson, 1973), COD is a more useful indicator of organic pollution due
to wood preserving wastewater than BOD.
The TOC analysis offers a third option for measurement of organic pol-
lutants in wastewaters. The method measures the total organic carbon
content of the wastewater by a combustion method. The results may be
used to assess the ultimate potential oxygen-demanding load exerted by
the carbonaceous portion of a waste on a receiving stream. There is
little inherent correlation among TOC and BOD or COD. A correlation must
be determined for each wastewater by comparison of analytical results.
TOC analysis is rapid and generally more accurate and reproducible than
either BOD or COD, but it requires analytical instrumentation which may
be relatively expensive if not utilized fully.
6-33
-------
DRAFT
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Suspended solids may be (and usually are) composed of organic and
inorganic fractions. These fractions, in turn, may be made up of readily
settleable, slowly settleable, or nonsettleable materials.
The biodegradable organic fraction will exert an oxygen demand on a
receiving water and are reflected in the analyses for organics discussed
above.
Suspended solids in water interfere with many industrial processes,
causing foaming in boilers and incrustation on equipment exposed to such
water, especially as the temperature rises. They are undesirable in
process water used in the manufacture of steel, in the textile industry,
in laundries, in dyeing, and in cooling systems.
When solids settle to form sludge deposits on a stream or lake bed, they
are often damaging to the life in water. Sludge deposits may blanket the
stream or lake bed and thereby destroy the living spaces for those
benthic organisms that would otherwise occupy the habitat. Organic
materials also serve as a food source for sludgeworms and associated
organisms.
Solids in suspension may be aesthetically displeasing. Also disregarding
any toxic effect attributable to substances leached out by water, sus-
pended solids may kill fish and shellfish by causing abrasive injuries
and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic
fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids are inimical to aquatic life because
they screen out light and promote and maintain the development of noxious
conditions through oxygen depletion. This results in the killing of fish
and fish food organisms. Suspended solids also reduce the recreational
value of the water.
The control of suspended solids from biological treatment systems is
especially critical. Not only does the biomass exert an oxygen demand
on receiving waters, but there is evidence that toxic residues may be
absorbed on or in the floe which if carried over will potentially cause a
toxic effect in the receiving waters.
TSS is a particularly important pollution parameter in the insulation
board and hardboard industries. Raw wastewaters from these industries
contain large amounts of fine cellulose fibers which are not retained in
the board. Since many plants in these industries employ biological
treatment systems, biological solids produced during treatment must be
settled prior to discharge.
Total Phenols
In order to characterize the total phenolic content of the wastewaters
from the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet-process hardboard
industries, sampling and analysis for total phenols according to Standard
Methods' procedure 510B was also carried out during the verification
6-34
-------
DRAFT
program. This procedure is a colorimetric analysis for all phenolic com-
pounds which does not discriminate between specific phenolic compounds.
Presumably, phenol compounds which are substituted in the para position
are not determined by this procedure. It should also be noted that
phenols reported by this procedure may be other than those phenols listed
as priority pollutants in Appendix A.
Total phenols, however, do give a reasonable indication of the phenolic
content of wastewaters, and the relative treatability of phenols in
treatment systems can also be determined using this method.
Data reported in Section V, Raw Wastewater Characteristics, and Sec-
tion VII, Control and Treatment Technology, are for total phenols
analyzed for by Standard Methods.
Due to the importance of pentachlorophenol in wood preserving wastes,
this compound was analyzed during the verification program using a con-
firmatory GC/MS procedure developed and tested by the Mississippi State
University Forest Products Laboratory.
Oil and Grease
Oil is a constituent of both creosote and pentachlorophenol -petroleum
solutions. It may occur in either a free or an emulsified form in wood
preserving wastewaters. Concentrations ranging from less than 100
mg/liter to well over 1,000 mg/liter are common after primary oil
separation. Many of the priority pollutants found in wood preserving
wastewaters, such as pentachlorophenol and polynuclear aromatics, are
much more soluble in the oil phase than in the water phase of the waste
stream. Oil and grease must be removed to a very low concentration in
order to remove these oil soluble pollutants.
pH is related to the acidity or alkalinity of a wastewater stream. It is
not a linear or direct measure of either; however, it may properly be
used as a surrogate to control both excess acidity and excess alkalinity
in water. The term pH is used to describe the hydrogen ion-hydroxyl ion
balance in water. Technically, pH is the negative logarithm of the
hydrogen ion concentration or activity present in a given solution. A
pH of 7 generally indicates neutrality or a balance between free hydrogen
and free hydroxyl ions. A pH above 7 indicates that a solution is alka-
line, while a pH below 7 indicates that the solution is acidic.
Knowledge of the pH of water or wastewater is useful in determining
necessary measures for corrosion control, pollution control, and disin-
fection. Waters with a pH below 6.0 tend to be corrosive to waterwork
structures, distribution lines, and household plumbing fixtures. Also,
corrosion can add constituents such as iron, copper, zinc, cadmium, and
6-35
-------
DRAFT
lead to drinking water. Low pH waters not only tend to dissolve metals
from structures and fixtures but also tend to dissolve or leach metals
from sludges and bottom sediments. The hydrogen ion concentration can
affect the "taste" of water and, at a low pH, water tastes "sour."
Extremes of pH or rapid pH changes can exert stress conditions or kill
aquatic life outright. Even moderate changes from "acceptable" criteria
limits of pH are deleterious to some species. The relative toxicity to
aquatic life of many materials is increased by changes in the water pH.
For example, metalocyanide complexes can increase a thousand-fold in
toxicity with a drop of 1.5 pH units. The bactericidal effect of
chlorine in most cases is less as the pH increases.
Parameters of Interest
Based on results of the raw materials analysis, production processes
analysis, plant surveys, and the screening sampling program, specific
parameters of interest in the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet
process hardboard industries are presented in Tables VI-9 through VI-11,
respectively.
6-36
-------
DRAFT
Table VI-9. Parameters of Interest in the Wood Preserving Industry.
Traditional
Parameters
Priority Pollutants
COD
Total Phenols
Oil and Grease
PH
at
Polynuclear Aromatics (PNA's)
acenapthene
acynapthylene
anthracene
1,2-benzanthracene
3,4-benzofluoranthene
11,12-benzafluoranthene
3,4-benzoperylene
1,12-benzopyrene
chrysene
1,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene
fluorene
fluoranthene
indeno-(l,2,3-C.D) pyrene
napthalene
phenanthrene
pyrene
Phenolic Compounds
phenol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
p-chlorometa cresol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4,6-triehlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
4,nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol
Halomethanes
bromoform (tribromomethane)
carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
chloroform (trichloromethane)
chlorodibromomethane
dichlorodi f1uoromethane
dichlorobromomethane
methyl bromide (bromomethane)
methyl chloride (chToromethane)
methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
trichlorof1uoromethane
Heavy Metals
arsenic
chromium
copper
zinc
Aromatic Solvents
benzene
toluene
ethyl benzene
-------
DRAFT
Table VI-10. Parameters of Interest in the Insulation Board Industry.
Traditional Parameters
Priority Pollutants
BOD
TSS
Total Phenols
pH
Phenolic Compounds
phenol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
p-chlorometa cresol
2,4-dimethyl phenol
2,4,6-tri chlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-di ni trophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol
6-38
-------
DRAFT
Table VI-11. Parameters of Interest in the Uet Process Hardboard
Industry.
Traditional Parameters
Priority Pollutants
BOD
TSS
Total Phenols
pH
Phenolic Compounds
phenol
2-chlorophenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
p-chlorometa cresol
2,4-dimethyl phenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
pentachlorophenol
6-39
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
General
This section presents a discussion of the range of wastewater control
and treatment technology at the disposal of the wood preserving, insula-
tion board, and hardboard segments of the timber products processing
industry. In-plant pollution abatement is discussed as well as end-of-
pipe treatment.
The available performance data for plants in each industry segment is
presented, and also the applicability of technology readily transferred
from related industries. For the purpose of cost analysis, one or more
candidate technologies are selected for each subcategory. For each
technology, the levels of reduction in pollutant concentration are
reported, for traditional as well as priority pollutants if available.
It should be noted that there are many possible combinations of in-plant
and end-of-pipe systems capable,of attaining the pollutant reductions
reported for the candidate technologies. The model treatment systems
proposed for each selected candidate technology are for the purposes of
economic analysis only. Each individual plant must make the final
decision concerning the specific combination of pollution control mea-
sures which are best suited to its particular situation, and should do
so only after a careful study of the treatability of its wastewater,
including waste characterization and pilot plant investigations.
Pollution abatement and control technology applicable to the industry as
a whole were discussed in detail in the original Draft Development Docu-
ment. Summarized versions, which included updated information ,on current
industry practice, were presented in supplemental studies for wood pre-
serving and hardboard production. The portion of the previous studies
which detailed in-plant process changes, waste flow management, and other
measures having the potential to reduce discharge volume or improve
effluent quality are repeated in this document for the purpose of contin-
uity. Additional information available from the data collection port-
folios and/or the current verification sampling program is included in
order to present the most recent information.
Various treatment technologies that are either currently employed, or
which may be readily transferred to the industry, are summarized in this
section. Included in this section are descriptions of exemplary plants
and, where available, wastewater treatment data for these exemplary
plants. This description is followed by a selection of several treatment
regimes applicable to each subcategory.
7-1
-------
DRAFT
In-Plant Control Measures
Wood Preserving
Reduction in wastewater volume—The characteristics of wood-
preserving wastewater differ among plants that practice modified-closed
or closed steaming. In the former process, steam condensate is allowed
to accumulate in the retort during the steaming operation until it covers
the heating coils. At that point, direct steaming is stopped and the
remaining steam required for the cycle is generated within the retort by
utilizing the heating coils. Upon completion of the steaming cycle and
after recovery of oils, the water in the cylinder is discarded. In
closed steaming, after recovery of free oils, the water in the retort at
the end of a steaming cycle is returned to a reservoir and is reused
instead of being discarded.
The principal advantage of modified-closed steaming over open steaming,
aside from reducing the volume of waste released by a plant, is that
effluents from the retorts are less likely to contain emulsified oils.
Free oils are readily separated from the wastewater; and, as a result of
the reduction in oil content, the oxygen demand and the solids content
of the waste are reduced significantly relative to effluents from plants
using conventional open steaming. Typical oil and COD values for waste-
water from a single plant before and after the plant commenced modified-
closed steaming are shown in Figures VII-1 and VII-2, respectively. The
COD of the wastewater was reduced by about two-thirds when modified-
closed steaming was initiated. Oil content was reduced by a factor of
ten.
Water used in closed-steaming operations increases in oxygen demand,
solids content, and phenol concentration with each reuse. The high
oxygen demand is attributable primarily to wood extracts, principally
simple sugars, the concentration of which increases with each use of the
water. Because practically all of the solids content of the waste is
dissolved solids, only insignificant reductions in oxygen demand and
improvement in color result from treatments involving flocculation. The
progressive changes in the parameters for water used in a closed-
steaming operation are shown in Table VII-1 (Miss. Forest Prod. Lab.,
1970). It is apparent that in time a blowdown of the steaming water is
necessary because of the buildup of dissolved materials.
Within the past two or three years, closed steaming has become a viable
technology in the wood-preserving industry. Recent data (Thompson, 1975)
show that 71 percent of the plants that steam condition stock are either
currently using or plan to adopt closed steaming. The overall effect
will be to reduce dramatically the volume of wastewater generated by the
average plant. A reduction from the 49,000 liters/day (13,000 gallons/
day) estimated in the Development Document to 19,000 liters/day (4,000
gallons/day) for an average two-retort plant is well within reason.
Neither value includes rainwater.
7-2
-------
Avg. oil content
before closed
steaming-1360mg/l
Avg. oil content
after closed
steaming-136mg/l
8 12 16
TIME (WEEKS)
20
Figure VM-1
Variation in oil content of effluent with time before and after
initiating closed steaming (Thompson and Dust, 1971)
-------
65n
10
i
20
i
30
40 50 60
TIME (Days)
120
Figure Vll-2 Variation in COD of effluent with time before and after closed
steaming: Days 0-35 open steaming; Days 35-130 closed steaming
(Thompson and Dust, 1971)
7-4
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-1. Progressive Changes in Selected Characteristics of Water
Recycled in Closed Steaming Operations.
(mg/liter)
Charge No.
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
12
13
14
20
Phenol
46
169
200
215
231
254
315
208
230
223
323
COD
15,516
22,208
22,412
49,552
54,824
75,856
99,992
129,914
121,367
110,541
123,429
Total
Solids
10,156
17,956
22,204
37,668
66,284
66,968
67,604
99,276
104,960
92,092
114,924
Dissolved
Solids
8,176
15,176
20,676
31,832
37,048
40,424
41,608
91,848
101,676
91,028
88,796
SOURCE: Mississippi State Forest Products Laboratory, 1970.
7-5
-------
DRAFT
Other possible methods of reducing discharge volume are through reuse of
cooling and process water and segregation of waste streams. Recycling
of cooling water at plants that employ barometric condensers is essen-
tial because it is not economically feasible to treat the large volume
of contaminated water generated when a single-pass system is used. This
fact has been recognized by the industry, and within the past five years
there has been a significant increase in the percentage of plants recy-
cling barometric cooling water. This change is indicated in Table VII-2,
in which data on disposition of cooling water in 1972 and 1974 are pre-
sented. Vacuum water, water removed from the wood during the vacuum
cycle following steam conditioning, ends up in the cooling water reser-
voir and is also recycled.
As an alternative solution to the problem associated with the use of
barometric condensers, many plants have installed surface-type condens-
ers as replacement equipment.
Reuse of process water is not widely practiced in the industry. There
are, however, noteworthy exceptions to this generalization. Process
wastewater from salt-type treatments is so widely used as makeup water
for treating solutions that the practice is now common industry-wide.
One-hundred and sixty of 184 plants treating with salts that were ques-
tioned in 1974 indicated that no discharge of direct process wastewater
has been achieved through a combination of water conservation measures,
including recycling.
Within that portion of the industry that uses oily preservatives, reuse
of process wastewater has been largely confined to some of those
that employ the Boulton process. Following oil removal, the process
water is discharged to a cooling tower where much of it is evaporated
during the normal operation of the tower. Heat can be added to the
system by means of a heat exchanger to expedite evaporation of excess
water. These and other systems designed to dispose of wastewater by
energy input were installed when energy was relatively abundant and
inexpensive. As shown elsewhere in this report, the several-fold
increase in energy costs since late 1973, when the Draft Development
Document was being prepared, has resulted in dramatically increased
costs to plants which use forced evaporation.
One of the main sources of uncontaminated water at wood preserving
plants is steam coil condensate. While in the past this water was fre-
quently allowed to become mixed with process wastewater, most plants now
segregate it, thus reducing the total volume of polluted water, and some
reuse coil condensate for boiler feed water. This latter practice
became feasible with the development of turbidity- sensing equipment to
monitor the water and sound a warning if oil enters the coil condensate
return system. Reuse of coil condensate, while of some consequence from
a pollution standpoint, can represent a significant energy saving to a
plant.
7-6
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-2. Equipment and System used with Cooling Water by U.S. Wood-
Preserving Plants: 1972 and 1974.
Equipment
or Percent of Plants
System 1972 1974
Barometric condensers 60 41
Recycle cooling water 74 84
One-pass system 26 16
Plan to install recycle system 8 33
7-7
-------
DRAFT
Insulation Board and Wet Process Hardboard
The production of either insulation board or hardboard requires exten-
sive amounts of process water which ultimately becomes contaminated with
dissolved and suspended substances through contact with the wood and
additives used as raw material. In the past, most plants used large
amounts of fresh water to produce fiberboard products in what was essen-
tially a once-through process. The exclusive use of fresh water in the
refining, washing, diluting, and forming of fiberboard results in only
one opportunity for dissolved and suspended solids to be retained in the
product, and leads to an extensive pollution problem due to the volumes
of wastewater generated and the large, costly end-of-pipe treatment
facilities required.
More recent technology used by most plants includes the use of recycled
process Whitewater in place of fresh water at various points in the sys-
tem. Process water can be reused for refiner stack dilution, forming
machine dilution, shower water, and pump seal water. The use of
recycled process Whitewater provides the opportunity for increased
retention of dissolved and suspended solids in the product, results in
decreased fresh water consumption, and decreased wastewater volume.
By closing the process Whitewater system in a fiberboard plant, it is
possible to reduce the suspended solids in the raw waste load. As a
first approximation, suspended solids concentration is almost indepen-
dent of the total volume of wastewater per unit of fiberboard produced
(Gran, 1972). The total discharge of suspended solids will thus be
roughly proportional to tfie volume of "wastewater."'
The BOD raw waste load, on the other hand, is less influenced by a
moderate closing of the process Whitewater system due to the build-up of
dissolved solids in the process Whitewater system during recycle.
Operating data are availabe from plant 64, a SIS hardboard plant, which
demonstrates the effect of plant close-up on BOD loads. Plant 64 began
an extensive program to close its Whitewater system in March 1976. The
wastewater flow from the plant was reduced in steps from an average of
700,000 I/day (187,000 gal/day) in March 1976, to 26,500 I/day (7,000
gal/day) in February 1977. The corresponding BOD loads were reduced
from 3,400 kg/day (7,500 Ib/day) to 400 kg/day (900 Ib/day). Figure VII-3
illustrates the relationship between BOD load and discharge volume for
the plant during the close-up period. The most dramatic reduction in
BOD load occurred in October 1976, when the plant achieved a reduction in
flow of about 85 percent. BOD data reported by this plant is monitored
at the discharge of two settling ponds; however, very little BOD removal
is effected in these ponds.
7-8
-------
Q >>
§5
£ J
UJ •-;
«
17600(8000) -1
13200(6000) .
11000(5000) .
8800 (4000)
6600 (3000) .
4400(2000) .
2200 (1000) -
DEC.
• FEB.
NOV
• OCT.
FIGURE PLANT 64
FLOW VS. EFFLUENT BOD
• JULY
.00038(.10)
.00076(.20)
FLOW KI/day(MGD)
DATA ARE FROM MARCH, 1976 TO FEBRUARY 1977.
Figure VII-3
-------
DRAFT
The ability of an insulation board or hardboard plant to close its
process Whitewater system is highly dependent upon the type of board
products produced. The increased dissolved solids retained in the board
tend to migrate to the board surface during drying and/or pressing,
increasing the risk of spot formation on the board sheets and sticking
in the press.
Excessive degradation of board quality cannot be tolerated in decorative
type insulation board, finished hardboard paneling, or certain types of
exterior hardboard siding. Other problems associated with a high degree
of process Whitewater recycle are corrosion of pumps, plumbing, and
equipment due to the decreased pH of recycled Whitewater; plugging of
shower sprays and decreased freeness (drainage characteristics) of stack
due to solids build-up; and an elevation of temperature in the process
Whitewater system.
In order to achieve maximum closure, a plant must be willing to invest
considerable capital, and be prepared to accept decreased production
during the period of time that optimum plant operating conditions are
being tested. The primary benefit to a plant which succeeds in closing
its process Whitewater system is effective pollution control without
reliance on expensive end-of-pipe treatment.
Some of the measures which can be used to achieve close-up or maximum
recycle of the process Whitewater system are as follows:
1. Elimination of extraneous wastewater sources. Pump seal water can
be reduced or eliminated by the use of recycled Whitewater or by
conversion to mechanically sealed pumps where possible. Chip wash
water can be reduced by recycle following screening and sedimenta-
tion of grit. Housekeeping water use should be kept to an absolute
minimum. High pressure sprays and/or dry cleaning methods should be
used where possible.
2. Provision of sufficient Whitewater equalization. Sufficient equali-
zation capacity for control and containment of Whitewater surges
should be provided. Several plants employ large outdoor surge ponds
for this purpose. Surge ponds also serve to control Whitewater
temperature. Several plants use heat exchangers for temperature
control, and provide sufficient capacity for plant start-up and
shut-down.
3. Clarification of Whitewater. Several plants use gravity clarifiers
to remove grit and settleable solids form the Whitewater system. To
use forming water for showers or pump seal water, it is necessary to
remove the majority of fiber. Screens or filters are available for
this purpose, and in some cases a "save-all" installation may be
justified. "Save-alls" are used extensively in the pulp and paper
industry. They can result in fiber concentrations of less than 0.20
pounds per 1,000 gallons of water, which makes the water suitable
7-10
-------
DRAFT
for showers and pump seals. This type of device can also dramat-
ically reduce the suspended solids leaving the mill in the raw
effluent. The hardboard process can use either a flotation-type
save-all or a drum-type unit. Fiber from the save-all can be
returned to the process.
4. Extraction of concentrated wastewater. The soluble sugars and other
dissolved materials released into the process Whitewater during
refining can be extracted by efficient countercurrent washing of the
stock or by using a dewatering press. The concentrated Whitewater
can then be evaporated for recovery of an animal feed by-product.
Use of this process allows greater recycle of the remaining white-
water, which is primarily leaner machine Whitewater. Plants 42, 24,
and 663 currently use stock washers to extract concentrated white-
water for subsequent evaporation to animal feed. Plant 663 has suc-
cessfully demonstrated the capability of a dewatering press for the
same purpose on one of its production lines. This plant was able to
completely close the remaining process Whitewater system following
the press. Successful application of this extraction process depends
on the use of an evaporator on the concentrated Whitewater, otherwise
the plant has succeeded only in concentrating its wastewater, which
may have adverse effects on subsequent biological treatment. The
high capital expense of such systems must be at least partially amor-
tized by by-product sales. The economics of applying this system
will vary from plant to plant, and must be evaluated on an individual
basis. Some considerations will be: amount of material available
for recovery; energy costs for liquor evaporation; proximity to
market; and market price.
5. Corrosion control. The corrosiveness of the recycled process white-
water can be controlled with addition of caustic soda, lime, or
other basic chemicals. Most plants practice chemical pH control to
some extent. Corrosion-resistant pumps, piping, and tanks can be
used to replace corroded equipment or for new construction.
6. Control of press sticking. Press sticking can be mitigated by wash-
ing the surface of the press plates or cauls more frequently, or by
using release agents such as paraffin emulsions. Lowering the
temperature of the hot press may also be effective.
Two thermo-mechanical refining insulation board plants have achieved
complete close-up of process Whitewater systems. Both plants produce
structural grade board only. Plant 137 uses a save-all device to clarify
the Whitewater for further reuse. Plant 1111 uses external surge ponds
for Whitewater equalization and temperature control, as well as a gravity
clarifier for solids control. Both plants indicated that extensive
process experimentation and modification, during a period of one to two
years, was required before the major process problems due to close-up
were solved.
7-11
-------
DRAFT
Plant 64, as previously discussed, is the sole hardboard plant which has
approached full close-up. This plant produces primarily industrial grade
hardboard and has encountered some quality control problems during the
course of the close-up.
Plant 888 has achieved a nearly complete close-up by recycling the
effluent from its biological treatment system into the plant for process
water. Details of the internal modifications required to accommodate the
treated effluent are not known.
A review of potential in-plant process modifications for both insulation
board and hardboard plants indicates that some reductions in raw waste
loading can be accomplished. Specific recommendations for in-plant modi-
fications on a plant to plant basis require a detailed and thorough work-
ing knowledge of each plant. Such a detailed evaluation is beyond the
scope of this study.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
Primary Treatment—Wood Preserving
Primary treatment is defined in this document as treatment applied to the
wastewater prior to biological treatment.
Oil-Water Separation—Because of the deleterious effects that oil
has on all subsequent steps in wastewater treatment, efficient oil-water
separation is necessary for effective treatment in the wood preserving
industry. Oil, whether.free or in an emulsified form, accounts-for a —
significant part of the oxygen demand of wood preserving effluents and
serves as a carrier for concentrations of the priority pollutants such as
PNA's and pentachlorophenol that far exceed their respective solubilities
in oil-free water. In a real sense, control of oils is the key to
wastewater management in the wood preserving industry.
Oil-water separators of the API type are extensively used by wood pre-
serving plants and are the equipment of choice to impart the "primary
oil separation" referred to in the proposed treatment regimes which fol-
low. It is preceded and followed at many plants by a rough oil separa-
tion and secondary oil separation, respectively. The former operation
occurs either in the blowdown tank or in a surge tank preceding the API
separator. Secondary separation usually occurs in another API separator
operated in series with the first, or it may be conducted in any vessel
or lagoon where the detention time is sufficient to permit further sepa-
ration of free oil. A few plants achieve almost complete removal of
free oils by filtering the wastewater through an oil-absorbent medium.
This practice is unnecessary if the wastewater is to be chemically floc-
culated.
The oil content of wastewater entering the blowdown tank may be as high
as 10 percent, with 1 to 5 percent being a more normal range. Depending
7-12
-------
DRAFT
on the efficiency of rough separation, the influent to the primary sepa-
rator will have a free oil content ranging from less than 200 mg/1
to several thousand mg/1. Removal efficiencies of 60 to 95 percent
can be achieved, but the results obtained are effected by temperature,
oil content, and separator design, especially as regards detention time.
Data published by the American Petroleum Institute (API, 1959) show that
80 percent removal of free oils is normal in the petroleum industry.
Secondary separation should remove up to 90 percent of the residual free
oil, depending on the technique used.
Chemi cal f 1 pccul ati on—Because oil-water emulsions are not broken
by mechanical oil-removal procedures, chemical flocculation is required
to reduce the oil content of wastewaters containing emulsions to a
satisfactory level. Lime, ferric chloride, various polyelectrolytes,
and clays of several types are used in the industry for this purpose.
Automatic metering pumps and mixing equipment have been installed at
some plants to expedite the process, which is usually carried out on a
batch basis. COD reductions of 30 to 80 percent or higher are achieved—
primarily as a result of oil removal. Average COD removal is about 50
percent.
Influent oil concentration varies with the efficiency of mechanical oil
separation and the amount of emulsified oil. The latter variable in
turn is effected by type of preservative (either pentachlorophenol in
petroleum, creosote, or a creosote solution of coal tar or petroleum)
conditioning method used, and design of oil-transfer equipment. Penta-
chlorophenol preservative solutions cause more emulsion problems than
creosote or its solutions, and plants that steam condition—especially
those that employ open steaming—have more problems than plants that use
the Boulton conditioning method. Plants that use low-pressure, high-
volume oil transfer pumps have less trouble with emulsions than those
that use high-pressure, low-volume equipment.
Typically, influent to the flocculation equipment from a creosote pro-
cess will have an oil content of less than 500 mg/liter, while that from
a pentachlorophenol process will have a value of 1000 mg/liter or
higher. For example, analyses of samples taken from the separator out-
falls at ten plants revealed average oil contents of 1,470 and 365
mg/liter for pentachlorophenol and creosote wastewater, respectively.
The respective ranges of values were 540 to 2,640 mg/liter and 35 to 735
mg/ liter. Average separator effluents for three steaming plants sam-
pled in conjunction with the present study gave oil and grease values of
1,690 and 935 mg/liter for pentachlorophenol and creosote separators,
respectively.
Flocculated effluent generally has an oil content of less than 200
mg/liter and frequently less than 100 mg/liter. Before and after oil
and grease values for several steaming plants visited in connection with
the pretreatment standards were as follows:
7- 13
-------
DRAFT
Influent (rug/liter) After F1 peculation (ing/liter)
900 20
35 <10
24,450 90
810 125
1,380 70
334 230
Some of the exceptionally low values are due in part to wastewater dilu-
tion after flocculation.
Filtration—Many plants which flocculate wastewater subsequently
filter it through sand beds to remove the sludge. When poorly conducted,
this procedure is highly efficient in removing both the solids resulting
from the process as well as some of the residual oil. The solids which
accumulate on the bed are removed periodically along with the upper inch
or so of sand.
A common mistake that renders filter beds almost useless is the applica-
tion of incompletely flocculated wastewater. The residual oil retards
percolation of the water through the bed, thus necessitating the replace-
ment of the oil-saturated sand. This has happened frequently enough at
some plants that the sand filters have been abandoned and a decantation
process used instead. At many plants decantation is part of the floccu-
lation system. Solids removal is expedited by use of vessels with cone-
shaped bottoms. Frequently, the solids are allowed to accumulate from
batch to batch, a practice which is reported to reduce the amount of
flocculating agents required.
Removal of Metals from Wastewater—A method of metals removal recom-
mended for wood preserving, but used to only a limited extent by that
industry (Hyde, 1965), was adopted from the plating industry (Martin,
1973). This procedure is based on the fact that hexavalent chromium is
the only metal (boron excepted) used by the industry that will not pre-
cipitate from solution at a neutral or alkaline pH. Thus, the first
step in treating wastewaters containing this metal is to reduce it from
the hexavalent to the trivalent form. The use of sulfur dioxide for this
purpose has been reported on in detail by Chamberline and Day (1956).
Chromium reduction proceeds most rapidly in acid solution. Therefore,
the wastewater is acidified with sulfuric acid to a pH of 4 or less
before introducing the sulfur dioxide. The latter chemical will itself
lower the pH to the desired level, but is less expensive to use than the
acid.
When the chromium has been reduced, the pH of the wastewater is increased
to 8.5 or 9.0 to precipitate not only the trivalent chromium, but also
the copper and zinc. If lime is used for the pH adjustment, fluorides
and most of the arsenic will also be precipitated. Care must be taken
not to raise the pH beyond 9.5, since trivalent chromium is slightly
7-14
-------
DRAFT
soluble at higher values. Additional arsenic and most residual copper
and chromium in solution can be precipitated by hydrogen sulfide gas or
sodium sulfide. Ammonium and phosphate compounds are also reduced by
this process.
The procedure is based on the well-known fact that most heavy metals are
precipitated as relatively insoluble metal hydroxides at an alkaline pH.
The theoretical solubilities of some of the hydroxides are quite low,
ranging down to less than 0.01 mg/liter. However, theoretical levels are
seldom achieved because of unfavorable settling properties of the preci-
pitates, slow reaction rates, interference of other ions in solution, and
other factors. Copper, zinc, and chromium can be reduced to levels
substantially lower than 1.0 mg/liter by the above procedure. Fluorides
have a theoretical solubility of 8.5 at a pH of 8.5 to 9.0 mg/liter, but
residual concentrations on the order of 10 to 20 mg/liter are more usual
because of slow settling of calcium fluoride. The use of additional
lime, alum coagulation, and filtration through bone char are reported to
reduce fluoride concentrations to 1.0 mg/liter or less.
The most difficult ion to reduce to acceptable concentrations levels is
arsenic. Treatment of water containing arsenic with lime generally
removes only about 85 percent of the metal. Removal rates in the range
of 94 to 98 percent have been reported for filtration through ferric
hydroxide. However, none of these methods is entirely satisfactory,
particularly for arsenic concentrations above 20 mg/liter.
More encouraging results in arsenic removal, as well as the removal of
other heavy metals, were recently reported by EPA (Technology Transfer,
January, 1977). The study found that pretreatments of wastes with lime
or ferric chloride or alum followed by carbon adsorption were highly
effective. Ferric chloride pretreatment was the most effective for
metals used in wood preserving. Reductions of chromium, copper, zinc,
and arsenic following treatment with ferric chloride and carbon
adsorption were, in order, 99.3, 96.0, 94.0, and 97.1 percent.
A detailed treatise on treatment technology for wastewater containing
heavy metals was recently published in book form (Patterson, 1975).
Methods of treatment for arsenic presented by the author are shown in
Table VII-3.
Chemical precipitation and filtration employing ferric compounds and
sulfides were at least as effective as lime precipitation, which, as
indicated above, has been employed to a limited extent by the wood
preserving industry. However, with one or two possible exceptions, none
of the methods is as effective as the combination physical-chemical
method described in the EPA report discussed above (Technology Transfer,
January, 1977), particularly when initial concentration is taken into
account. Chemical oxidation of arsenate to arsenite prior to coagulation
treatment was reported to improve arsenic removal. Incomplete removal of
the metal by coagulation treatments was believed by the author to be
7-15
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-3. Summary of Arsenic Treatment Methods and Removals Achieved*
Treatment
Charcoal Filtration
Lime Softening
Precipitation with Lime plus Iron
Precipitation with Alum
Precipitation with Ferric Sulfate
Precipitation with Ferric -Sulfate
Precipitation with Ferric Chloride
Precipitation with Ferric Chloride
Precipitation with Ferric Hydroxide
Precipitation with Ferric Hydroxide
Ferric Sulfide Filter Bed
Precipitation with Sulfide
Precipitation with Sulfide
Initial
Arsenic
(rag/1)
0.2
0.2
—
0.35
0.31-0.35
25.0
3.0
0.58-0.90
—
362.0
0.8
—
132.0
Final
Arsenic
(mg/1)
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.003-0.006
5
0.05
0.0-0.13
15-20
0.05
0.05
26.4
Percent
Remov al
70
85
—
85-92
98-99
80
98
81-100
94-96
94
80
* Adopted from Patterson, 1975.
7-16
-------
DRAFT
caused by the formation of a stable complex with the precipitating metal.
More complete removal of arsenite was assumed to indicate that arsenate
forms the more stable complexes.
Among other methods of chemical precipitation, use of thioacetamide and
dibromo-oxine is mentioned in the literature (Cadman, 1974). "Complete"
recovery of chromium and zinc is claimed for the first-named chemical,
and "100 percent" recovery of copper, zinc, and chromium is reported for
dibromo-oxine.
Considering cost, no more efficient chemical method of removing hexa-
valent chromium and copper from solution than the standard method
(reduction of chromium to trivalent form followed by lime precipitation
of both metals) is revealed by the literature. However, to meet increas-
ingly stringent effluent standards, some industries have turned to an ion
exchange technique.
Cadman (1974) has reported excellent results in removing metals from
wastewater using ion exchange. The resin, Chelex-100, removed "essen-
tially" 100 percent of the zinc, copper, and chromium in his tests.
Chitosan, Amberlite, and Permutit-51005 were also reported to be highly
effective. The Permutit resin removed 100 percent of the copper and zinc
but only 10 percent of the chromium.
Primary Treatment—Insulation Board and Hardboard
Screening—Screens are used by many fiberboard plants to remove
bark, wood chips, and foreign materials from the wastewater prior to
further treatment. Screening equipment may consist of mechanically
cleaned bar screens, vibrating screens, or sidehill screens. Screening
serves to reduce wear and tear on treatment equipment, and also separate
extraneous material from the wood fiber which is returned to the plant
after primary settling in most insulation-board plants.
Primary Settling—Most insulation board plants and many hardboard
plants use gravity type primary settling facilities to remove a major
portion of the wood fibers from the raw wastewater. Primary sludge may
be returned to the process for reuse, or it may be thickened and/or
dewatered and disposed to a landfill. Common sludge handling devices
include gravity thickeners and mechanical dewatering equipment.
Settling ponds are the most common primary settling facilities used in
the industry; however, several plants are equipped with mechanical
clarifiers. Suspended solids removals in primary settling facilities
range from about 65 to 80 percent. Data from one plant demonstrated that
10 to 15 percent BOD removal was being achieved by the primary settling
facility. One plant achieved 24 percent BOD removal in a mechanical
primary settling tank through the use of polymers as a coagulant.
7-17
-------
DRAFT
Secondary Treatment
Biological Treatments—Wastewater generated by the wood preserving,
insulation board, and hardboard industries is amenable to biological
treatment. A review of the literature on this subject follows.
Activated Sludge—Cooke and Graham (1965) performed laboratory scale
studies on the biological degradation of phenolic wastes by the completed
mixed activated sludge system. While many of the basic parameters needed
for design were not presented, the final results were conclusive. The
feed liquors contained phenols, thiocyanates, ammonia, and organic acids.
Aeration varied from 8 to 50 hours. Influent concentration and percentage
removal of phenol averaged 281 mg/1 and 78 percent, respectively, at a
volumetric loading of 144 to 1600 kg/100 cubic meters/day (9 to 100 lb/
1000 cubic feet/day).
Badger and Jackman (1961), studying bacteriological oxidation of phenols
in aerated reaction vessels on a continuous flow basis with a loading of
approximately 1600 to 2400 kg/1000 cubic meters/day (100 to 150 Ib of
phenol/1000 cubic feet/day) and a MLSS of 2000 mg/1, found that with
wastes containing up to 5000 mg/1 phenol, a two-day retention period
could produce removal efficiencies in excess of 90 percent. Because the
investigators were working with a coke gasification plant waste, the
liquor contained thiocyanates. Higher oxidation efficiencies could be
achieved with a reduction of the thiocyanate in the waste. Gas chroma-
tography indicated no phenolic end products of degradation with original
waste being a mixture of 36 percent monohydric and 64 percent polyhydric
phenols.
Pruessner and Mancini (.1.967). obtained, a. 9-9 percent oxidation efficiency
for BOD in petrochemical wastes. Similarly, Coe (1952) reported reduc-
tions of both BOD and phenols of 95 percent from petroleum wastes in
bench-scale tests of the activated sludge process. Optimum BOD loads of
2247 kilograms/1000 cubic meters per day (140 lb/1000 cubic feet per day)
were obtained. Coke plant effluents were successfully treated by Ludberg
and Nicks (1969) although some difficulty in start-up of the activated
sludge system was experienced because of the high phenol content of the
water.
The complete mixed, activated sludge process was employed to process a
high phenolic wastewater from a coal-tar distilling plant in Ontario
(American Wood Preservers Association, 1960). Initial phenol and COD
concentrations of 500 and 6,000 mg/liter, respectively, were reduced in
excess of 99 percent for phenols and 90 percent for COD.
Coal gas washing liquor was successfully treated by Nakashio (1969) using
activated sludge at a loading rate of 0.116 kg of phenol/kg MLSS/day. An
influent phenol concentration of 1200 mg/1 was reduced by more than 99
percent in this year-long study. Similar phenol removal rates were
obtained by Reid and Janson (1955) in treating wastewaters generated by
the washing and decarbonization of aircraft engine parts. Other examples
7-18
-------
DRAFT
of biological treatment of phenolic wastes include work by Putilena
(1952, 1955) Meissner (1955) and Shukov, et al. (1957, 1959).
Of particular interest is a specific test on the biological treatment of
coke plant wastes containing phenols and various organics. In a report
of pilot and full scale studies performed by Kostenbader and Flacksteiner
(1969), the complete mixed activated sludge process achieved greater than
99.8 percent oxidation efficiency of phenols. Successful results were
achieved with phenol loadings of 0.86 kg phenol/kg MLSS/day with an
equivalent BOD loading of 2 kg BOD/kg MLSS/day. In comparison, a typical
activated sludge loading is 0.4 kg BOD/kg MLSS/day. Effluent concen-
trations of phenol from the pilot plant were 0.2 mg/1 in contrast to
influent concentrations of 3500 mg/1. Slight variations in process
efficiency were encountered with varying temperatures and loading rates.
Phosphoric acid was added to achieve a phosphorus-to-phenol ratio of
1:70. At the termination of pilot plant work, a similar large scale
treatment plant processing of 424 cubic meters/day (112,000 gpd) was
installed and resulted in an effluent containing less than 0.1 mg/1 of
phenol.
Dust and Thompson (1972) conducted bench-scale tests of complete mixed
activated sludge treatment of creosote and pentachlorophenol wastewaters
using 5-liter units and detention times of 5, 10, 15, and 20 days. The
operational data collected at steady-state conditions of substrate re-
moval for the creosote waste are shown in Table VII-4. A plot of these
data showed that the treatability factor, K, was 0.30 days'T (Figure
VII-4). The resulting design equation, with t expressed in days, is:
Le = L0/(l + 0.30*)
A plot of percent COD removal versus detention time in the aerator based
on the above equation, shown in Figure VI1-5, indicates that an oxidation
efficiency of about 90 percent can be expected with a detention time of
20 days in units of this type.
Dust and Thompson (1972) also attempted to determine the degree of bio-
degradability of pentachlorophenol waste. Cultures of bacteria prepared
from soil removed from a drainage ditch containing pentachlorophenol
waste were used to inoculate the treatment units. Feed to the units con-
tained 10 mg/liter of pentachlorophenol and 2,400 mg/liter COD. For the
two 5-liter units (A and B) the feed was 500 and 1000 ml/day and deten-
tion times were, in order, 10 and 5 days. Removal rates for pentachloro-
phenol and COD are given in Table VII-5. For the first 20 days, Unit A
removed only 35 percent of the pentachlorophenol added to the unit.
However, removal increased dramatically afterward and averaged 94 per-
cent during the remaining 10 days of the study. Unit B consistently
removed over 90 percent of the pentachlorophenol added. Beginning on the
46th day and continuing through the 51st day, pentachlorophenol loading
was increased at two-day intervals to a maximum of about 59 mg/liter.
Removal rates for the 3 two-day periods of increased loadings were 94,
7-19
-------
2
3
Ul
O
Slope = K = 0.30 days
Le =
La
0.301
i
10
15
Aeration Time (Days)
20
Determination of Reaction Rate Constant for a Creosote Wastewater
Figure VII -4
7-20
-------
DRAFT
reported by Montes, Allen, and Schowell (1956) who obtained BOD reduo.
tions of 90 percent in a trickling filter using a 1:2 recycle ratio, and
Dickerson and Laffey (1958), who obtained phenol and BOD reductions of
99.9 and 96.5 percent, respectively, in a trickling filter used to pro-
cess refinery wastewater.
A combination biological waste-treatment system employing a trickling
filter and an oxidation pond was reported on by Davies, Biehl, and Smith
(1967). The filter, which was packed with a plastic medium, was used
for a roughing treatment of 10.6 million liters (2.8 million gallons) of
wastewater per day, with final treatment occurring in the oxidation
pond. Removal rates of 95 percent for phenols and 60 percent for BOD
were obtained in the filter, notwithstanding the fact that the pH of the
influent averaged 9.5
A study of biological treatment of refinery wastewaters by Austin,
Meehan, and Stockham (1954) employed a series of four trickling filters
with each filter operating at a different recycle ratio. The waste
contained 22 to 125 mg/1 of oil which adversely affected BOD removal.
However, phenol removal was uneffected by oil concentrations within the
range studies.
Prather and Gaudy (1964) found that significant reductions of COD, BOD,
and phenol concentrations in refinery wastewater were achieved by simple
aeration treatments. They concluded that this phenomenon accounted for
the high allowable loading rates for biological treatments such as
trickling filtration.
The practicality of using trickling filters for secondary treatment of
wastewaters from the wood preserving industry was explored by Thompson
and Dust (1972). Creosote wastewater was applied at BOD loading rates
of from 400 to 3050 kg/1000 cu m/day (25 to 190 lb/1000 cu ft/day) to a
pilot unit containing a 6.4 meter (21 feet) filter bed of plastic media.
The corresponding phenol loadings were 1.6 to 54.6 kg/1000 cu m/day (0.1
to 3.4 lb/1000 cu ft/day). Raw feed-to-recycle ratios varied from 1:7
to 1:28. Daily samples were analyzed over a period of seven months that
included both winter and summer operating conditions. Because of waste-
water characteristics at the particular plant cooperating in the study,
the following pretreatment steps were necessary: (a) equalization of
wastes; (b) primary treatment by coagulation for partial solids removal;
(c) dilution of the wastewater to obtain BOD loading rates commensurate
with the range of raw flow levels provided by the equipment; and (d)
addition to the raw feed of supplementary nitrogen and phosphorus.
Dilution ratios of 0 to 14 were used.
The efficiency of the system was essentially stable for BOD loadings of
less than 1200 kg/1000 cu m/day (75 lb/1000 cu ft/day). The best
removal rate was achieved when the hydraulic application rate was 2.85
1/min/m (0.07 gpm/sq ft) of raw waste and 40.7 1/min/m (1.0 gpm/sq ft) of
recycled waste. The COD, BOD, and phenol removals obtained under these
7-25
-------
DRAFT
conditions are given in Table VII-6. Table VII-7 shows the relationship
between BOD loading rate and removal efficiency. BOD removal efficiency
at loading rates of 1060 kg/1000 cu m/day (66 lb/1000 cu ft/day) was on
the order of 92 percent, and was not improved at reduced loadings.
Comparable values for phenols at loading rates of 19.3 kg/1000 cu m/day
(1.2 pounds/1000 cu ft/day) were about 97 percent.
Since phenol concentrations were more readily reduced to levels compat-
ible with existing standards than were BOD concentrations, the sizing of
commercial units was based on BOD removal rates. Various combinations
of filter-bed depths, tower diameters, and volumes of filter media that
were calculated to provide a BOD removal rate of 90 percent for an in-
fluent having a BOD of 1500 mg/1 are shown in Table VII-8 for a plant
with a flow rate of 75,700 I/day (20,000 gpd).
Stabilization Ponds—The American Petroleum Institute's "Manual on
Disposal of Refinery Wastes" (1960) refers to several industries that
have successfully used oxidation ponds to treat phenolic wastes. Montes
(1956) reported on results of field studies involving the treatment of
petrochemical wastes using oxidation ponds. He obtained BOD reductions
of 90 to 95 percent in ponds loaded at the rate of 84 kg of BOD per
hectare per day (75 Ib/acre/day).
Phenol concentrations of 990 mg/1 in coke oven effluents were reduced to
about 7 mg/1 in field studies of oxidation ponds conducted by Biczyski
and Suschka (1967). Similar results have been reported by Skogen (1967)
for a refinery waste.
The literature contains operating data on only one pond used for treat-
ing wastewater from wood preserving operations (Crane, 1971; Gaudy, et
al., 1965; Gaudy, 1971). The oxidation pond is used as part of a waste
treatment system by Weyerhaeuser Company at its DeQueen, Arkansas, wood
preserving plant. As originally designed and operated in the early
1960's, the DeQueen waste treatment system consisted of holding tanks
into which water from the oil-recovery system flowed. From the holding
tanks the water was sprayed into a terraced hillside from which it
flowed into a mixing chamber adjacent to the pond. Here it was diluted
1:1 with creek water, fortified with ammonia and phosphates, and dis-
charged into the pond proper. Retention time in the pond was 45 days.
The quality of the effluent was quite variable, with phenol content
ranging up to 40 mg/1. In 1966, the system was modified by installing a
raceway containing a surface aerator and a settling basin in a portion
of the pond. The discharge from the mixing chamber now enters a raceway
where it is treated with a flocculating agent. The resulting floe
collects in the settling basin. Detention time is 48 hours in the
raceway and 18 hours in the settling basin from which the wastewater
enters the pond proper.
These modifications in effect changed the treating system from an oxi-
dation pond to a combination aerated lagoon and polishing pond, and the
7-26
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-6. BOD, COD, and Phenol Loading and Removal Rates for Pilot
Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater3
Measurement
Raw Flow Rate 1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Recycle Flow Rate 1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Influent Concentration (mg/1)
Loading Rate gm/cu m/day
Effluent Concentration (mg/1)
Removal (%)
BOD
2.85
(0.07)
40.7
(1.0)
1968
1075
(66.3)
137
91.9
Characteristics
.COD
2.85
(0.07)
40.7
(1.0)
3105
1967
(121.3)
709
77.0
Phenol
2.85
(0.07)
40.7
(1.0)
31
19.5
(1.2)
< 1.0
99+
a Based on work at the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory as
reported by Davies (1971)
7-27
-------
Table VII-7.
DRAFT
Relationship Between BOD Loading and Treatability for
Pilot Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater
BOD Loading
kg/cu m
373
421
599
859
1069
1231
1377
1863
2527
BOD Loading
(Ib/cu. ft/ day)
(23)
(26)
(37)
(53)
(66)
(76)
(85)
(115)
(156)
Removal
91
95
92
93
92
82
80
75
62
Treatability3
Factor
0.0301
0.0383
0.0458
0.0347
0.0312
0.0339
0.0286
0*0182
0.0130
a Based on the equation:
Le = eKD/Q°-5 (EPA, 1976)
Lo
in which Le = BOD concentration of settled effluent, Lp = BOD of
feed, 0.2 = hydraulic application rate of raw waste in gpm/sq ft
D = depth of media in feet, and K = treatability factor (rate
coefficient).
7-28
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-8. Sizing of Trickling Filter for a Wood Preserving Plant
NOTE: Data are based on a flow rate of 75,700 liters per
day (20,000 gallons per day) with filter influent
BOD of 1,500 and effluent BOD of 150 mg/1.
Depth of
Filter
Bed
m (ft)
3.26
(10.7)
3.81
(12.5)
4.36
(14.3)
4.91
(16.1)
5.46
(17.9)
5.97
(19.6)
6.52
(21.4)
Raw Flow
1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
0.774
(0.019)
1.059
(0.206)
1.385
(0.034)
1.793
(0.044)
2.200
(0.054)
2.648
(0.065)
3.178
(0.078)
Recycle Flow
1/min/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
29.7
(0.73)
29.3
(0.72)
28.9
(0.71)
28.5
(0.70)
28.1
(0.69)
27.7
(0.68)
27.3
(0.67)
Filter
Surface
Area
sq m
(sq ft)
65.8
(708)
48.3
(520)
37.0
(398)
29.3
(315)
23.7
(255)
19.5
(210)
16.4
(177)
Tower
dia
sq m
(sq ft)
9.14
(30.0)
7.83
(25.7)
6.86
(22.5)
6.10
(20.0)
5.49
(18.0)
4.97
(16.3)
4.57
(15.0)
Vol ume
of Media
cu m
(cu ft)
213
(7617)
183
(6529)
160
(5724)
142
(5079)
128
(4572)
116
(4156)
107
(3810)
7-29
-------
DRAFT
effect on the quality of the effluent was dramatic. Figure VII-6 shows
the phenol content at the outfall of the pond before and after installa-
tion of the aerator. As shown by these data, phenol content decreased
abruptly from an average of about 40 mg/1 to 5 mg/1.
Even with the modifications described, the efficiency of the system
remains seasonally dependent. Table VII-9 gives phenol and BOD values
for the pond effluent by month for 1968 and 1970. The smaller fluctu-
ations in these parameters in 1970 as compared with 1968 indicate a
gradual improvement in the system.
Soil Irrigation—Several applications of wastewaters containing
high phenol concentrations to soil irrigation have been reported. One
such report by Fisher (1977) related the use of soil irrigation to treat
wastewaters from a chemical plant that had the following
characteristics:
pH 9 to 10
Color 5,000 to 42,000 units
COD 1,600 to 5,000 mg/liter
BOD 800 to 2,000 mg/liter
Operating data from a 0.81 hectare (2 acre) field, when irrigated at a
rate of 7570 liters (2,000 gal) per acre/day for a year, showed color
removal of 88 to 99 percent and COD removal of 85 to 99 percent.
The same author reported on the use of soil irrigation to treat effluent
from two tar plants that contained 7,000 to 15,000 mg/liter phenol and
20,000 to 54,000 mg/liter COD. The waste was applied to the field at a
rate of about 20,000 liters (5000 gal) per day. Water leaving the area
had COD and phenol concentrations of 60 and 1 mg/liter, respectively.
Based on the lower influent concentration for each parameter, these
values represent oxidation efficiencies of well over 99 percent for both
phenol and COD.
Bench-scale treatment of coke plant effluent by soil irrigation was also
studied by Fisher. Wastes containing BOD and phenol concentrations of
5,000 and 1,550 mg/liter, respectively, were reduced by 95+ and 99+ per-
cent when percolated through 0.9 meters (36 inches) of soil. Fisher
pointed out that less efficient removal was achieved with coke-plant
effluents using the activated sludge processs, even when the waste was
diluted with high-quality water prior to treatment. The effluent from
the units had a color rating of 1,000 to 3,000 units, compared to 150
units for water that had been treated by soil irrigation.
Both laboratory and pilot scale field tests of soil-irrigation treat-
ments of wood preserving wastewater were conducted by Dust and Thompson
(1972). In the laboratory tests, 210 liter (55 gallon) drums containing
a heavy clay soil 60 centimeters (24 inches) deep were loaded at rates
of 32,800; 49,260; and 82,000 liters/hectare/day (3,500; 5,250; and
7-30
-------
45-
40-
35-
30-
25-
•=• 20
CO
UJ
O
o
UJ
z-
15-
10-
5
0-
FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
PHENOL CONTENT IN OXIDATION POND EFFLUENT BEFORE AND AFTER INSTALLATION IN JUNE 1966 OF AERATOR
Figure VII-6
-------
DRAFT
Table VI1-9 Average Monthly Phenol and BOD Concentrations in Effluent
from Oxidation Pond
(mg/1
1968
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
.. *- .
August
September
October
November
December
Phenol
26
27
25
11
6
5
7,
7
7
16
7
11
BOD
290
235
190
150
100
70
90^
70
110
150
155
205
Her)
1970
Phenol
7
9
6
3
1
1
1
1
1
—
—
—
BOD
95
140
155
95
80
60
35
45
25
—
—
___
Source: Crane, 1971; Gaudy et al., 1965; Gaudy, 1971.
7-32
-------
DRAFT
8,750 gallons/acre/day). Influent COD and phenol concentrations were
11,500 and 150 mg/liter, respectively. Sufficient nitrogen and phos-
phorus were added to the waste to provide a COD:N:P ratio of 100:5:1.
Weekly effluent samples collected at the bottom of the drums were ana-
lyzed for COD and phenol.
Reductions of more than 99 percent in COD content of the wastewater were
observed from the 1st week in the case of the two highest loadings and
from the 4th week for the lowest loading. A breakthrough occurred dur-
ing the 22nd week for the lowest loading rate and during the 4th week for
the highest loading rate. The COD removal steadily decreased thereafter
for the duration of the test. Phenol removal showed no such reduction,
but instead remained high throughout the test. The average test results
for the three loading rates are given in Table VII-10. Average phenol
removal was 99+ percent. Removal of COD exceeded 99 percent prior to
breakthrough and averaged over 85 percent during the last week of the
test.
The field portion of Thompson and Dust's (1972) study was carried out on
an 0.28-hectare (0.8-acre) plot prepared by grading to an approximately
uniform slope and seeded to native grasses. Wood preserving wastewater
from an equalization pond was applied to the field at the rate of 32,800
liters/hectare/day (3,500 gallons/acre/day) for a period of nine months.
Average monthly influent COD and phenol concentrations ranged from 2,000
to 3,800 mg/liter and 235 to 900 mg/liter, respectively. Supplementary
nitrogen and phosphorus were not added. Samples for analyses were col-
lected weekly at soil depths of 0 (surface), 30, 60, and 120 centimeters
(1, 2, and 4 feet).
The major biological reduction in COD and phenol content occurred at the
surface and in the upper 30 centimeters (1 foot) of soil. A COD reduc-
tion of 55.0 percent was attributed to overland flow. The comparable
reduction for phenol content was 55.4 percent (Table VII-11). COD reduc-
tions at the three soil depths, based on raw waste to the field, were
94.9, 95.3, and 97.4 percent, respectively, for the 30-, 60-, and 120-
centimeter (1-, 2-, and 4-foot) depths. For phenols, the reductions
were, in order, 98.9, 99.2, and 99.6 percent.
Philipp (1971) reported on the land disposal of insulation board waste-
water at the Celotex Corporation plant in L'Anse, Michigan. Following
in-plant filtering for fiber recovery, the wastewater was pumped to a 0.4
ha settling pond and then to two holding ponds, the first having a volume
of about 100,000 cu m and the second about 378,500 cu m. All wastewater
was retained from late October through April. During the period May to
October, the effluent from the second holding pond was pumped to the 40.5
ha spray field.
The spray field was located on a sand of high permeability and with a
depth of 2 to 4 m. An underdrainage system was installed at a depth of
7-33
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-10. Results of Laboratory Tests of Soil Irrigation Method of
Wastewater Treatment*.
Loading Rates
(Liter/ha/day)
32,800
(3,500)**
49,260
(5,250)
82,000
(8,750)
Length
of Test
(Week)
31
13
14
Average
and COD
Removal to
Breakthrough
99.1 (22 wks)
99.6
99.0 (4 wks)
COD REMOVAL
Last Week
of Test
85.8
99.2
84.3
Phenol
Average %
Remov al
(All Weeks)
98.5
99.7
99.7
* Creosote wastewater containing 11,500 mg/liter of COD and 150
mg/liter of phenol was used.
** Loading rates in parentheses in gallons/acres/day.
Source: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
7-34
-------
DRAFT
Table V11-11. Reduction of COD and Phenol Content in Wastewater Treated
by Soil Irrigation.*
Month
Raw Waste
Soil Depth (centimeters)
0
60
120
COD (mg/liter)
July
August
September
October
Nov ember
December
January
February
March
April
2,235
2,030
2,355
1,780
2,060
3,810
2,230
2,420
2,460
2,980
1,400
1,150
1,410
960
1,150
670
940
580
810
2,410
• «
—
~
150
170
72
121
144 .
101
126
^ ^
—
—
—
170
91
127
92
102
—
66
64
90
61
46
58
64
64
68
76
Average % Removal
(weighted)
55.0
94.9
95.3
97.4
Phenol (mg/liter)
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
235
512
923
310
234
327
236
246
277
236
186
268
433
150
86
6
70
111
77
172
— —
—
—
4.6
7.7
1.8
1.9
4.9
2.3
1.9
^ ^
—
—
—
3.8
9.0
3.8
2.3
1.9
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
3.8
0.0
1.8
1.3
0.8
Average % Removal
(weighted)
55.4
98.9
99.2
99.6
* Adapted from Thompson and Dust (1972).
7-35
-------
DRAFT
1.5 m. The entire area was originally cleared and then seeded with Reed
Canary grass.
The discharge from the insulation board plant averaged 22 I/sec with a
BOD concentration prior to spray irrigation of 1,150 mg/1.
Although Philipp reported no data as such, he stated that the efficiency
of the system for removing BOD, as measured from the influent to the
field to the effluent of the underdrainage system, was in excess of 99
percent.
Amberg (cir. 1964) reported on waste treatment measures at the Baltimore
Division of Crown Zellerbach Corporation. An aerated lagoon with an
oxygen supply of 2,620 kg/day (5,770 Ib/day) was used to treat Whitewater
with a design BOD load of 2,780 kg/day (6,120 Ib/day). The lagoon was
uniformly mixed and had an average dissolved oxygen concentration of 2.9
mg/1.
Suspended solids increased across the lagoon, as a result of biological
floe formation, but could be readily removed by subsequent sedimenta-
tion. The final effluent averaged 87 mg/1 suspended solids during the
three days of the study.
The overall plant efficiency for BOD removal was 94 percent, producing a
final effluent with an*average BOD concentration of 60 mg/1.
Quirk (1969) reported on a pilot plant study of aerated stabilization of
boxboard wastewater. Detention times ranged from 0.5 to 0.6 days. The
study indicated that full-scale performance, with nutrient addition,
could achieve a 90 percent reduction of BOD with a detention time of 4
days.
In-Place Biological Treatment in the Wood Preserving Industry—The data
presented in the literature show that the conventional wastewater para-
meters~COD, total phenols, oil and grease, and suspended solids—can be
reduced to acceptable levels by treatment regimes that include biological
treatment. Furthermore, verification data collected during this study
indicate a high degree of removal of the organic priority pollutants of
specific interest from biological treatments.
Considerably less data on pentachlorophenol removal rates are available
for industrial installations than for other phenolic pollutants. The
reason for this is that there is no standard method for analyzing for
this chemical, and the methods available to the average plant (e.g., the
safranin method) are notoriously inaccurate. Moreover, neither the
effluent guidelines nor most EPA discharge permits or state standards
require separate monitoring for pentachlorophenol. There is, therefore,
an information gap that can be filled only in part by data from studies
previously discussed.
7-36
-------
DRAFT
Approximately 10 percent of the wood preserving plants have biological
treatment facilities. A listing of these plants is presented in
Table VII-12. Based on data supplied by the data collection portfolios,
the breakdown of these facilities by type is as follows:
Trickling filter 1
Activated sludge 3
Aerated lagoon 10
Soil irrigation 8
Not included in this tabulation are several plants that use oxidation
ponds alone. While it is true that some plants do obtain effective
wastewater treatment with oxidation ponds, this term has come into such
misuse that any body of water, including sumps, may at one time or
another be described as an oxidation pond.
The characteristics of the influent to a biological treatment unit vary
with the type and effectiveness of pretreatment and amount of dilution
water added to the process waste. With regard to the latter point, a
few plants mix process waste with coil condensate, boiler blowdown, etc.,
after flocculation and before biological treatment. For this reason, it
is difficult to compute treatment efficiency on a consistent basis.
Raw and treated wastewater characteristics for several plants for which
data are available are given in Table VII-13. Average efficiency of the
treatment systems for the five pi ants .for which both raw and treated
wastewater parameters are available is as follows:
Parameter Efficiency (%)
COD 94.8
Phenols >98.2
0 & G >90.5
Average pollution loadings at the plant outfalls, expressed as kg/1000
cu m of production, are given below for the seven plants:
Parameter Discharge (kg/1000 cu m)
COD 33.7
Phenols 0.048
0 & G 3.21
These data show that current BAT standards can be met by treatment
regimes that include biological treatments. The complete treatment sys-
tem used at each of the seven plants listed in Table VII-13 are described
below:
7-37
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-12. Plants that Employ Biological Treatments as Part of their
Waste Management Program*.
Plant
No. Type of Process
240
412
855
717
185
637
745
495
112
974
517
139
199
862
681
599
177
740
553
216
665
411
331
300
Activated sludge (Boulton)
Activated sludge + oxidation ponds +
Activated sludge + oxidation ponds +
Aerated lagoon
Aerated lagoons + soil irrigation
Aerated lagoon + soil irrigation
3 aerated lagoons + soil irrigation
Aerated lagoons + oxidation ponds
Aerated lagoon— 3 in series
Aerated lagoons
Aerated lagoons (2) + soil irrigation
Aerated lagoons
Aerated lagoon + settling lagoon
Oxidation lagoons
Oxidation ponds + soil irrigation
Oxidation ponds (6 in series) + soil
Oxidation ponds
Soil irrigation
Soil irrigation
Soil irrigation
Soil irrigation
Soil irrigation
Soil irrigation after spray pond
Soil irrigation
soil irrigation
soil irrigation
irrigation
^-Biological treatment as defined here includes soil irrigation.
7-38
-------
Table VII-13.
DRAFT
Raw and Treated Wastewater Parameters and Pollution Loads
Per Unit of Production for Seven Exemplary Plants in the
Steaming Subcategory
Raw Waste
Plant
No.
495
637
412
185
517
331
199
COD
„
1750
2135
9150
5490
1685
1430
(mg/1)
Phenol
„
4.6
161
25
17.6
60.2
482.2
O&G
„
145
__
1300
576
171
35
Treated Waste
COD
25
50
65
170
235
165
100
(mg/1)
Phenol
.036
<0.2
<.02
<.2
.65
.013
.12
Discharge Load
(kg/1000 cu
O&G
<10
<10
__
<10
15
15
<10
COD
5.29
8.82
8.66
37.7
53.5
70.2
59.3
Phenol
<0.016
<0.032
<0.016
<0.048
0.144b
<0.016
0.064
m)
O&G
<2.08
1.76
—
<2.24
3.37
6.41b
<5.93b
Flow and Production Data
Flow
(liters/day)
53,000
30,000
41,000
38,000
27,000
125,000
95,000
Production
(1000 cu m/day)
0.25
0.17
0.31
0.17
0.12
0.29
0.16
a—Based on 1974 data.
b~Note that an oil content of 10 mg/1 Her, which some authorities
report is the lowest value that can be measured with precision,
exceeds the current BAT guidelines for one of the plants.
7-39
-------
DRAFT
Plant 495
Rough oil-water separation---primary oil-water separation—equali-
zation lagoon—aerated lagoon (compressed air)1—oxidation
pond—aerated lagoon—-oxidation pond—oxidation pond—discharge
(none for two years).
Packaged bacteria added daily.
Plant 637
Rough oil-water separation—primary oil-water separation—floccu-
lation—aerated tank (75,000 liter capacity)—aerated lagoon—
spray evaporation as required—discharge as required.
Plant 412
Rough oil-water separation—primary oil-water separation—equali-
zation basin—-dual activated sludge treatment—three oxidation
ponds in series—soil irrigation.
Plant 331
Rough oil-water separation—primary oil-water separation—aerated
lagoon—aerated lagoon—aerated lagoon—soil irrigation—
aerated lagoon—recycle as needed.
Plant 517
Rough oil-water separation—primary oil-water separation—aerated
lagoon—aerated lagoon—soil irrigation—oxidation (collecting)
pond—recycle as needed.
Plant 185
Rough oil-water separation—primary oil-water separation—floccu-
lation—aerated lagoon—oxidation pond—-aerated lagoon—spray
evaporation (2 units).
Plant 199
Rough oil-water separation—primary oil-water separation (dual
system) —f 1 occul ation—sand fi 1 tration—aerated 1 agoon—oxida-
tion pond—POTW.
Multiphase biological treatment, in combination with appropriate primary
treatment, may be required to meet current BAT guidelines.
A summary of raw and final waste loadings of Polynuclear Aromatics for
five wood preserving plants sampled during the verification sampling
program is presented in Table VII-14.
7-40
-------
Table VII-14. Raw and Final Waste Loadings for Polynuclear Aromatlcs*
Plant
Code
310 Raw Waste
Final Effluent
312 Raw Waste
Final Effluent
314 Raw Waste
Final Effluent
316 Raw Waste
Final Effluent
318 Raw Waste
Final Effluent
1
.15
(.0093)
.099
(.0062)
.11
(.0069)
< .0012
: (.000017)
.18
(.011)
.03
(.0019)
.5
(.031)
.12
(.0074)
.37
(.023)
.0078
(.00049)
2
.093
(.0058)
.013
(.0008)
.069
(.0043)
.0012
(.000017)
.15
(.0093)
.003
(.00019)
.29
(.018)
.059
(.0037)
.037
(.0023)
.012
(.00077)
3
.10
(.0064)
.015
(.00093)
.22
(.014)
.0012
(.000017)
.11
(.0066)
.24
(.015)
.19
(.012)
.018
(.0011)
.46
(.0029)
.012
(.00077)
Raw and Final Effluent Loadings, kg/cu m (lb/1,000 cu ft)
4 5
.016
(.001)
< .0011
< (.000066)
.0062 < .0012
(.00039) < (.000077)
.0012 .0012
(.000017) (.000017)
.014
(.0009)
< .003
< (.00019)
.042
(.0026)
< .0054
< (.00034)
.0051
(.00032)
< .0013
< (.000082)
6 7
.0022
(.00014)
< .0011
< (.000066)
.0022 .0022
(.00014) (.00014)
.0012 .0012
(.000017) (.000017)
...
—
... ...
-.- _-.
...
... ...
... ...
...
8
.026
(.0016)
< .011
< (.000066)
.0067
(.00042)
.0012
(.000017)
.0008
(.0005)
< .003
< (.00019)
.045
(.0028)
< .0054
< (.00034)
.0032
(.0002)
< .0013
< (.000082)
9
.099
(.0062)
.0075
(.00047)
.051
(.0032)
.0012
(.000017)
.11
(.0067)
< .042
< (.0026)
.29
(.018)
.098
(.0061)
.27
(.017)
.0078
(.00049)
10
.21
(.013)
.0059
(.00037)
.26
(.016)
.0012
(.000017)
.72
(.045)
.018
(.0011)
1.4
(.087)
.22
(.014)
.19
(.012)
.08
(.005)
11
.11
(.0066)
.0058
(.00036)
.091
(.0057)
.0012
(.000017)
.27
(.017)
.011
(.00071)
.5
(.031)
.16
(.0098)
.11
(.0066)
.0029
(.00018)
"
.21
(.013)
.0059
(.00037)
.26 "
(.016)
.0012
(.000017)
.88
(.055)
.018
(.0011)
1.4
(.087)
.22
(.014)
.19
(.012)
.008
(.0005)
13
.067
(.0042)
.0085
(.00053)
.45
(.028)
.0012
(.000017)
.16
(.OlJ
< .003
< (.00019)
.24
(.015)
.042
(.0026)
.026
(.0016)
.0038
(.00024)
* See Table V-9 for names of poly nuclear aromatlcs corresponding to numbers 1 through 13;
Combined sample obtained after effluents from creosote and PCP separator are completely mixed.
Data obtained during verification sampling program.
-------
DRAFT
Biological Treatment in the Insulation Board Industry
Plant 55 produces structural and decorative insulation board. The plant
has reduced its raw waste flow from 13,250 kl/day (3.5 MGD) to less than
5,678 kl/day (1.5 MGD) by modification of the pulping process, reuse of
process water, and recycle of treated effluent. The wastewater is
screened for removal of gross solids. The wastewater then goes to two
parallel primary clarifiers followed by an activated sludge system.
Discharge from the biological system is either recycled to the plant or
discharged to a creek. Sludge resulting from primary clarification and n
excess sludge from secondary clarification are thickened, vacuum fil-
tered, and reused in the process. Historical data in the data col lectio
portfolio shows the system provides overall BOD removal of 98 percent
and a suspended solids removal of 93 percent. Effluent waste loadings
are presented in Table VII-15. Effluent BOD and TSS concentrations are
34.1 mg/1 and 323.7 mg/1, respectively.
Plant 125 produces structural and decorative insulation board. Its
process wastewater (combined with vacuum seal water, treated septic tank
effluent, and stormwater runoff) is routed to a primary clarifier.
Sludge drawn from the primary clarifier is recycled to the manufacturing
process. Overflow from the clarifier goes to an aerated lagoon. Secon-
dary clarification follows, and the waste secondary sludge is recycled
to the process. The treated effluent is collected in a sump for reuse
in the process. The excess treated effluent is discharged to receiving
waters. From historical data obtained in the data collection portfolio,
and data obtained during the verification sampling program, this system
exhibits a 15 percent reduction in BOD and a 10 percent increase in
solids level. Effluent loadings are presented in Table VII-15. BOD and
TSS effluent concentrations are 1081.8 mg/1 and 911.3 mg/1, respectively.
Plant 127 produces ceiling tiles and panels, sheathing, and mineral wool
fiber insulation board. Process water from the insulation board plant
receives primary sedimentation. Primary sludge is returned to the
process. The wastewater is then either reused in the insulation board
process for stock dilution and shower water, or used as makeup water for
the mineral wool fiber plant. The raw wastewater from the mineral wool
plant enters the treatment system, which consists of a primary clari-
fier, an aerated lagoon, and a secondary clarifier. Sludge from the
primary and secondary clarifier is dewatered, either in a settling pond
or a vacuum filter, and hauled to a disposal site. Approximately 1514
1/min (400 gpm) of the treated wastewater from the secondary clarifier
is discharged to a POTW, while approximately 757 1/min (200 gpm) is
recycled to a fresh water tank for use as makeup water in both the insu-
lation and mineral wool fiber plants. Historical data obtained from the
data collection portfolio indicate average treated effluent concentra-
tions of 7.74 mg/1 BOD and 77.4 mg/1 TSS.
Plant 123 has no treatment or pretreatment facilities. Excess process
wastewater, combined with pump seal water and sanitary wastewater, are
discharged directly to a POTW. Plant personnel indicated in the data
collection portfolio that suspended solids removal equipment is being
considered .to reduce current loads to the POTW.
7-42
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-15. Insulation Board Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average).
Plant Number Production Flow BOD TSS
<
Mechanical
kkg (TPD) kl (kgal) kg (Ibs) kg (Ibs)
day kkg (ton) kkg (ton) kkg (ton)
Pulping and Refining
931 201 (220) 2.96 (0.71) 1.05 (2.10) 1.15 (2.30)
125 139 (153) 1.88 (0.45) 2.03 (4.06) 1.71 (3.42)
555 471 (517) 10.5 (2.53) 0.36 (0.72) 3.42 (6.83)
531 246 (270) 1.02 (0.24) 0.07 (0.14) 0.16 (0.32)
Thermo Mechanical Pulping and Refining and/or Hardboard Production at Same Facility
373*
1071
605 (665)*t 51.3 (12.3) 4.06 (8.12) 12.3 (24.5)
359 (395)tt 21.9 (5.26) 2.15 (4.31) .94 (1.88)
are taken before paper wastewater is added.
"•"•"Includes both insulation board and hardboard production.
-------
DRAFT
Plant 931 produces structural and decorative insulation board. The
plant collects its process wastewater in a Whitewater storage tank,
recycles a portion of the wastewater where needed, and sends the remain-
ing portion to the treatment system which consists of an equalization
tank, a floc-clarifier, and an aerated lagoon. Polymer addition in the
clarifier is used to aid settling. Fiber recovered in the clarifier is
recycled to the process. Data obtained from the verification sampling
program show removal efficiencies in the floc-clarifier of 24 percent
BOD and 79 percent TSS. A portion of the clarifier overflow is recycled
to the process and the remaining wastewater enters the aerated lagoon,
where it is retained 30.4 days before discharge to a POTW. Solids lev-
els increase in the aerated lagoon from an average influent loading of
0.71 kg/kkg (1.42 Ib/ton) to an effluent loading of 1.15 kg/kkg (2.30
Ibs/ton). Overall removal efficiency at the system is 82 percent for
BOD and 60 percent for suspended solids. The treated waste loadings for
this plant are presented in Table VII-15. Effluent BOD and TSS concen-
trations are 354.6 mg/1 and 388.4 mg/1, respectively.
Plant 531 is a self-contained discharger and uses treated wastewater to
spray-irrigate a 2.3 hectare (5.6 acre) field. Whitewater enters the
treatment system at two points: an aerated lagoon and an evaporation
pond. Water from the evaporation pond is routed to the aerated lagoon.
Waste loadings from the lagoon are 1.27 kg/kkg (2.54 Ib/ton) BOD and 46
kg/kkg (92 Ib/ton) TSS. The lagoon removes 89 percent of the BOD. Sol-
ids levels increase during mixing. From the aerated lagoon, the waste-
water is sent to a primary clarifier, where polymer and alum aid in set-
tling and pH adjustment. The supernatant from the clarifier is directed
to a holding pond. Slu'dge from the clarifier is thickened in a flota-
tion unit and hauled daily to a cinder dump. Water separated from the
sludge enters the holding pond of the spray irrigation system. Total' "
efficiency of the system, prior to spray irrigation, is 95 percent BOD
removal and 65 percent solids removal. Effluent waste loadings from
data supplied by the plant are presented in Table VII-15.
Plant 989, which produces decorative and mineral wool insulation board,
is a self-contained discharger with spray irrigation as the ultimate
means of wastewater disposal. The process wastewater from the plant
enters a series of three settling ponds with a total capacity of 587
million liters (155 million gallons). The ponds retain the wastewater
up to a period of six months, after which it is sprayed onto a 30 hec-
tare (80 acre) field of Reed Canary grass. The spray irrigation system
operates 180 days per year at a rate of 6435 kl/day (1.7 MGD). No his-
torical data were obtained from the plant.
Plant 1111 produces structural insulation board. Process Whitewater is
completely recycled and the plant has no external treatment system.
Plant 695 has no wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater from the
thermo-mechanical pulping and refining of insulation board is collected
in a Whitewater chest. A portion is recycled to the process and the
7-44
-------
DRAFT
remaining wastewater is discharged to a POTW. No monitoring practices
for flow or other parameters exist.
Plant 231 uses thermo-mechanical pulping arid refining to produce struc-
tural and decorative insulation board. The process wastewater is
screened for removal of gross solids prior to being collected and is
either recycled to the process or discharged with no further treatment
to a POTW. Annual effluent concentrations for 1976 were 4125.9 mg/1 BOD
and 2121.4 mg/1 TSS.
Plant 137 produces structural insulation board. There are no wastewater
treatment facilities, as no process wastewater is discharged. All
process Whitewater is recirculated to a sump. Sump waters are screened,
stored in a clarified Whitewater chest, and recycled to the process.
A summary of the influent and effluent waste loads for insulation board
plants is presented in Table VII-16. Treatment efficiencies are calculated
for the plants which supplied both influent and effluent data.
Raw and treated effluent loadings of total phenols for four insulation
board plants are presented in Table VII-17. Raw and treated effluent
loadings of heavy metals for four insulation board plants are presented
in Table VII-18.
Biological Treatment in the Wet Process Hardboard Industry
Plant 24 produces SIS and S2S hardboard for such uses as paneling, door-
skins, siding and concrete formboard. Process wastewaters are collected
in a sewer. Cooling, seal, boiler blowdown surface runoff, and conden-
sate from the distillation process are combined in a separate storm
sewer. After screening, primary clarification, and flow equalization of
each waste stream, the two streams are combined prior to biological
treatment. Solids removed during screening are landfilled. Solids from
primary clarification are either landfilled or dewatered and burned in
mill boilers. After the two waste streams are combined, they are routed
to a biological system consisting of two contact stabilization activated
sludge systems operating in parallel, followed by an aerated lagoon. The
activated sludge from the secondary clarifiers is pumped to two stabili-
zation basins, reaerated for sludge stabilization, and returned to the
contact basins. Waste sludge is either recycled to the production units
or landfilled. BOD removal calculated from historical data for the
contact stabilization system is 78 percent. Suspended solids removal is
70 percent. BOD and TSS effluent concentrations from the contact stabil-
ization system-are 435.5 mg/1 and 157 mg/1, respectively.
After secondary clarification the wastewater is routed to an aerated
lagoon and is discharged after approximately 6 days detention time to
old impoundment ponds. A portion of the lagoon effluent is reused as
log flume make-up water. Treated effluent is discharged from the
holding ponds to a creek. Treated concentrations calculated from 1976
historical data are 102 mg/1 BOD and 120 mg/1 TSS. Effluent waste load-
ings are presented in Table VII-19a.
7-45
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-16. Insulation Board Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste Characteristics.
Plant
Code
BOD, kg/Kkg (Ib/ton)
TSS, kg/Kkg (Ib/ton)
Raw Waste
Treated
Effluent
Percent
Reduction
Raw
Waste
csj
Treated
Effluent
Percent
Reduction
Mechanical Pulping and Refining Insulation Board
931* 5.70 (11.4) 1.05 (2.10) 82%
123
5.95 (11.9)
555 21.6 (43.2)
531 1.27 (2.59)
125* 2.39 (4.78)
0.361(0.72) 98%
0.07 (0.14) 95%
2.03 (4.06) 15%
3.34 (6.67)
4.67 (9.33)
47.1 (94.1)
0.46 (0.92)
1.55 (3.11)
1.15 (2.30)
3.42 (6.83)
0.16 (0.32)
1.71 (3.42)
66%
93%
65%
+10%
increase
Thermo-Mechanical Pulping and Refining and/or Hardboard Production at Same Facility
231 33.6 (67.1)
373 29.8 (59.5)
1071 43.2 (86.3)
4.06 (8.12) 86%
2.15 (4.31) 95%
17.3 (34.5)
28.6 (57.1)
12.3 (24.5)
.94 (1.88)
57%
* Raw wastf
are calculated from verification sampling data.
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-17. Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction for
Total Phenols Insulation Board.
Plant
Code
555
231
931
125
kg/Kkg
0.00095
0.0024
0.00040
0.0022
Raw Waste1
Load Ib/ton
0.0019
.0048
.00079
.0045
kg/Kkg
0.00010
0.00008
0.00014
Treated Waste2
Load Ib/ton
.00021
—
.00015
.00029
% Reduction
89%
—
81%
94%
1 Data obtained during the verification sampling program.
2 Average daily waste flow and production data for 1976 supplied by
plants in response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate
waste loadings.
7-47
-------
Table VII-18. Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction for Insulation Board Metals.
DRAFT
sJ
^M
•k
£
Plant No.
Plant No. 931
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
* Reduction
Plant No. 231
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
% Reduction
Plant No. 125
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
% Reduction
Plant No. 655
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
Mb/ton)
% Reduction
Be
.0000042
(.0000083)
.0000021
(.0000042)
49*
.000007
(.000014)
.000012
(.000024)
+ 71*
.00001
(.00002)
.000001
(.0000019)
90%
.0000055
(.000011)
.000006
(.000011)
0%
Cd
.0000028
(.0000056)
.0000035
(.0000069)
+ 23%
.000008
(.000016)
.000013
(.000026)
+ 62%
.00001
(.00002)
. 000061
(.0000019)
90%
.0000055
(.000011)
.000006
(.000011)
0%
Cu
.0019
(.0037)
.0009
(.0018)
51%
.0023
(.0046)
.0020
(.0040)
134
.000041
(.000082)
.00018
(.00035)
+ 326%
.0036
(.0072)
.0012
(.0023)
68%
Pb
.000006
(.000011)
.000006
(.000011)
0*
.00017
(.00034)
.00021
(.00041)
+ 20%
.000027
(.000053)
.0000038
(.0000075)
85%
.000055
(.00011)
.000008
(.000016)
85%
Ni
.0008
(.0016)
.0006
(.0011)
31%
.00085
(.0017)
.0009
(.0018)
5%
.00025
(.00049)
.000013
(.000026)
94%
.00009
(.00018)
.000037
(.000074)
58%
Zn
.003
(.005)
.0014
(.0028)
44%
.0042
(.0084)
.0480
(.0095)
+ 13%
.005
(.01)
.00017
(.00033)
96%
.006
(.012)
.0008
(.0016)
86%
Sb
.0000021
(.0000042)
.000018
. (.000035)
+733%
.000025
(.000049)
.000021
(.000042)
14%
.000014
(.000027)
.0000028
(.0000056)
79%
.000022
(.000044)
.000048
(.000095)
+ 115%
As
.000013
(.000025)
.000006
(.000011)
56%
.000027
(.000054)
.000013
(.000026)
52%
.00006
(.00012)
.000006
(.000012)
90%
.000017
(.000034)
.00002
(.00004)
+ 17%
Se
.000014
(.000027)
.000007
(.000013)
52%
.000035
(.00007)
.000025
(.000049)
30%
.00007
(.00014)
.0000044
(.0000087)
93%
.000035
(.00007)
.000032
(.000063)
10%
Ag
.0000021
(.0000042)
.0000021
(.0000042)
0%
.0000049
(.0000098)
.000017
(.000033)
+ 236%
.00001
(.00002)
.0000013
(.0000025)
88%
.000005
(.000011)
.000007
(.000013)
+ 18%
Tl
.0000028
(.0000056)
.000008
'(.000015)
+ 167%
.0000041
(.0000082)
.0000041
(.0000082)
0%
.000017
(.000033)
.0000013
(.0000025)
92%
.0000065
(.000013)
.000008
(.000016)
+ 23%
Cr
.000006
(.000011)
.000022
(.000044)
+ 300%
.00006
(.00012)
.00020
(.00040)
+ 233%
.00047
(.00094)
.000006
(.000011)
98%
.00012
(.00023)
.00009
(.00017)
26%
Hg
.000028
(.0000042)
.00000042)
(.00000083)
80%
.000041
(.000082)
.00013
(.00026)
+ 217%
.000021
(.000041)
.0000019
(.0000038)
91%
.00008
(.00016)
.0000007
(.0000013)
99%
-------
DRAFT
Plant 42, which produces SIS and S2S hardboard, collects all process
wastewaters and directs the flow in one of two streams to the wastewater
treatment facility. The two streams are designated as strong and weak.
The strong wastewater stream (which contains condensate from the evapora-
tion of process Whitewater for animal feed) enters two activated sludge
units operating in parallel. Waste sludge is aerobically digested and
pumped to two humus ponds. Water decanted from the humus ponds enters
the weak wastewater system. After clarification, the strong wastewater
is combined with the weak wastewater and enters the weak treatment sys-
tem. The weak system consists of an aerated lagoon, an oxidation and
settling pond, and two storage ponds. The wastewater is subsequently
routed to either spray irrigation or discharge, depending on the season
of the year. Between October 1 and May 14, the effluent from the treat-
ment facility is usually recycled to the process or discharged to the
river. From May 15 through September 30, the mill directs the treated
effluent to a number of storage ponds. The stored treated effluent is
either discharged to spray irrigation fields or recycled to the manufac-
turing process. During 1976, because of drought conditions, the plant
was not allowed to discharge to the river for the major part of the year,
and effluent was discharged to the irrigation field. Effluent loadings
are presented in Table VII-19a.
Plant 606 produces SIS hardboard which is used for exterior siding. The
process water is first screened to remove gross solids which are land-
filled. The wastewater then enters two settling ponds used alternately.
Sludge from these ponds is dredged as required and landfilled. The
wastewater flows to the two stage biological treatment system, consist-
ing of an activated sludge system and a second stage aerated lagoon. The
practice of recycling a portion of the waste sludge from the secondary
clarifier is under evaluation. Overflow from the clarifier enters a
second stage aerated lagoon. Treated effluent from this lagoon is cur-
rently being reused in the process. Excess treated effluent is discharged
to the river. Historical data indicates an overall treatment effiency of
83 percent BOD removal and 24 percent TSS removal. Effluent BOD and TSS
concentrations are 681.7 mg/1 and 546.8 mg/1, respectively. Effluent
waste loadings are presented in Table VII-19a.
Plant 248, which produces S2S hardboard, collects all plant wastewaters
into one sewer prior to any treatment. The treatment system consists of
a primary aerated pond (Hinde Aqua Air Pond), two stage biological treat-
ment, and secondary storage and/or settling. Waste-water is retained in
the Hinde Aqua Air pond for approximately 2.5 days. The primary function
of this system is flow and biological equalization, as no BOD or TSS
reduction is achieved. After nutrient addition and pH adjustment, waste-
waster enters the first stage of biological treatment which consists of
two Infilco Aero Accelators. Each Aero Accelator has an aeration com-
partment and a clarification zone. Biological solids from the clarifier
zone are recycled to the aeration compartment. Waste sludge is detained
in a surge tank and spray irrigated. The wastewater is routed from the
7-49
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-19a. SIS Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average).
en
o
Plant Number
Production
kkg
day
(TPD)
Flow
kl
kkg
(kgal)
(ton)
BOD
kkg
(Ibs)
TtonT
TSS
kkg
(Ibs)
TtonT
SIS Hardboard
444
606
824**
888
42
24
64***
262****
88.7
194
117
113.8
91.9
343
1446
111
111
83.6
83.6
(97.5)
(213)
(129)
(125.0)
(101)
(377)
(1589)
(122)
(122)
(91.9)
(91.9)
46.6
7.38
8.82
8.82
14.0
4.16
9.40
4.24
.62
17.1
11.0
(11.2)*
1.78
(2.12)
(2.12)
(3.36)
(1.00)
(2.26)
(1.02)
(0.15)
(4.12)
(2.65)
9.00
5.05
6.85
1.30
28.0
0.13
.97
18.5
5.10
4.72
2.24
(18.0)*
(10.1)
(13.7)
(2.59)
(56.0)
(0.26)
(1.93)
(36.9)
(10.2)
(9.43)
(4.48)
17.1
4.05
10.1
4.31
27.1
0.12
1.14
1.59
.59
11.1
5.30
(34.1)*
(8.10)
(20.2)
(8.62)
(54.1)
(0.24)
(2.27)
(3.18)
(1.17)
(22.2)
(10.6)
* Hardboard and paper waste water streams are comingled.
** First row represents total year's data (January to December, 1976). Second row repre-
sents data from July through December, 1976.
*** First row represents data from January through December, 1976. Second row represents
data from October, 1976 through February, 1977.
*** First row represents data from January to December, 1976. Second row represents data
from June to December, 1976.
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-19b. S2S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average).
••J
-------
DRAFT
Accelators to the secondary stage of biological treatment consisting of
two aerated lagoons in series. The retention time in each lagoon is
approximately 2.5 days. After final biological treatment the wastewater
flows into one of two 22.7 million liter (6 million gallon) facultative
lagoons. The lagoons are used alternately to minimize the effects of any
thermal inversions. Solids are removed from each basin during the
periods it is not in use. Treated effluent is discharged to the river.
From historical data obtained in the data collection portfolio, this sys-
tem exhibits an overall efficiency of 93 percent BOD removal and 74 per-
cent TSS removal. Effluent concentrations are 242.5 mg/1 BOD and 224.4
mg/1 TSS. Treated effluent loadings are shown in Table VII-19b. The
above values are based on a non-standard analytical method for TSS. A
study was conducted during April and May of 1977, to determine the cor-
relation between the TSS as measured by the non-standard method used by
the plant, and TSS as measured by Standard Methods. Twenty-nine final
effluent samples were collected by the plant over a 29-day period. The
samples were split at the plant with one fraction analyzed by the plant
using the non-standard method, and one fraction sent by air freight to
ESE's Gainesville laboratory for analysis. The results of the study for
final effluent are presented in Table VII-20. The least squares linear
correlation between the data is shown in Figure VI1-7.
The annual average daily treated waste load reported by the plant was
converted to concentration using the annual average daily flow and pro-
duction, adjusted using the least squares linear correlation, and con-
verted back to an adjusted treated waste load. The resulting adjusted
treated waste load is 5.9 kg/kkg (11.8 Ib/ton). The adjusted final
effluent TSS concentration is 323 mg/1.
Plant 444 produces SIS hardboard and specialty paper products. The
wastewaters from the two processes are comingled with cooling waters
and directed to the treatment system. The plant indicated in its data
collection portfolio that piping modifications were to be completed by
June 1977, and that after these modifications the cooling waters will not
enter the wastewater stream. The treatment system consists of two
primary settling ponds, which can operate either in series or parallel,
an aerated lagoon, and a secondary settling pond. The primary settling
ponds are decanted and the sludge is pumped to a drying area and land-
filled. Secondary sludge is pumped and landfilled. Historical data
obtained from the data collection portfolio indicate effluent concentra-
tions of 192.7 mg/1 BOD and 365. mg/1 TSS. Overall efficiency removals
in the biological system (aerated lagoon and secondary settling pond) is
72 percent for BOD. The solids level increased 147 percent. Effluent
waste loadings are presented in Table VII-19a.
Plant 262 produces SIS hardboard. The non contaminated fresh water is
collected and discharged directly to the river. All excess plant white-
water is processed through the treatment facility. The wastewater is
first screened for removal of gross solids and returned to the process.
7-52
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-20. Standard and Non-Standard Methods Comparison, Final
Effluent Concentrations, Plant 248.
TSS (mg/1)
Final Effluent
1977 Dates
4/21
4/22
4/23
4/24
4/25
4/26
4/27
4/28
4/29
4/30
5/1
5/2
5/3
5/4
5/5
5/6
5/7
5/8
5/9
5/10
5/11
5/12
5/13
5/14
5/15
5/16
5/17
5/18
5/19
Mean
Standard Method
280
345
300
390
320
310
220
380
250
260
220
280
230
250
290
290
310
270
310
240
340
280
430
480
330
310
420
370
240*
311
Non-Standard Method
160
210
90
330
300
220
190
170
170
160
100
180
200
270
180
190
220
160
200
120
180
40
200
200
170
210
210
100
890*
183
* These values were omitted from the calculations.
7-53
-------
u z
5 o
O I-
oc <
< cc
O I-
z z
< Ul
H- O
(0 Z
— o
— o
O) I-
i 2
Ul
_l
<
800-
700-
600-
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
LINEAR CORRELATION BETWEEN
STANDARD AND NON-STANDARD METHODS
FINAL EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS PLANT 248
• •
C" .
y=0.2956 x t 256.7
r = 0.07426
100
200
300
400
500
I
600
700
800
I
900
1000
TSS ( mg/l ) NON-STANDARD METHOD
FINAL EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS PLANT 248
Ire VII-7
-------
DRAFT
The wastewater then enters a primary settling pond, where it is retained
for 4 days before entering the biological treatment system. Nutrients
are added prior to an aerated lagoon. After a two-day retention period
in the aerated lagoon, the wastewater enters a secondary settling pond
and is discharged to the river. Sludge from the settling ponds and
aerated lagoon is dredged as necessary and landfilled.
The annual average efficiency of this system is 84 percent BOD removal
and a 10 percent increase in solids levels. In-process modifications
completed in June 1976, however, significantly affected the efficiency
of the treatment system from June through December, 1976. The system
achieved BOD removal of 91 percent and TSS removal of 48 percent.
Treated waste loads are presented in Table VII-19a.
Plant 28, which produces SIS hardboard, collects all process wastewater
in a system of channels, gravity sewers, and force mains. The wastewater
flows into a collection and equalization tank and is pumped to a lime
neutralization tank, then to a POTW. Historical effluent data indicate
effluent BOD and TSS concentrations of 3526.3 mg/1 and 863.9 mg/1,
respectively.
Plant 824, which produces SIS hardboard, significantly altered its bio-
logical treatment system during 1976 by expanding the facilities. The
treatment system presently consists of a pair of two-stage biological
treatment facilities operating in parallel. Each system consists of two
aerated lagoons operating in series followed by a settling pond.
The first aerated lagoon has a capacity of 15.1 million liters (4 million
gallons) and is followed by a second aerated lagoon with a 5.7 million
liter (1.5 million gallon) capacity. Nutrients are added to the lagoons
and lime is added for pH adjustment prior to the settling ponds. Cooling
water is combined with the process wastewater from the settling ponds
before final discharge to the river. Modifications to the treatment sys-
tem were completed in July, 1976. From historical data for 1976 the
annual average effluent concentrations of BOD and TSS were 773.4 mg/1 and
1140.3 mg/1, respectively. The system exhibited overall efficiencies of
81 percent BOD removal and 55 percent TSS removal. Since the completion
of the modifications in July, the average effluent concentrations were
141.9 mg/1 BOD and 472.4 mg/1 BOD. The new system achieves 96 percent
BOD removal and 81 percent TSS removal. Effluent waste loadings are
presented in Table VII-19a.
Plant 428 produces SIS and S2S hardboard which is used in tile board,
furniture, and merchandising display panels. Wastewater is pumped to an
effluent holding tank and then to a primary clarifier with a detention
time of three hours. Sludge, consisting mainly of wood fiber, is con-
tinuously removed from the clarifier, dewatered, and either burned in a
power boiler or landfilled. The water removed from the sludge is( recy-
cled back to the primary clarifier. Clarified effluent flows to the
secondary treatment system consisting of a settling pond and two aerated
7-55
-------
DRAFT
lagoons in series. Primary treated effluent is held one day in the
settling pond and then flows ta the first aerated lagoon, where nutrients
are added. Average theoretical detention in each basin is 17 days. The
first basin was designed to maintain the totally mixed system. In the
308 data collection portfolio, plant 428 maintains that 70 to 80 percent
of the BOD load is removed in the first basin. The water flows by grav-
ity to the second aerated lagoon, the second half of which is a quiescent
zone to allow the biological solids to settle. Treated effluent is dis-
charged from the second aerated lagoon to receiving waters. Data from
1975 show overall efficiency of the system is 89 percent BOD removal and
3 percent TSS removal. Effluent concentrations are 516.8 mg/1 BOD and
868.2 mg/1 TSS. Effluent loadings are presented in Table VII-19b (1975
data).
Plant 888 produces SIS hardboard for use in siding and industrial furni-
ture. The plant also operates a veneer plant sawmill. Process waters
from the hardboard and veneer plant are comingled and directed to the
treatment facility which consists of two primary settling ponds in series
followed by an activated sludge system.Detention time in the primary
settling ponds is approximately nine days. Solids are removed annually
by decanting the basins. Nutrients are added as the wastewater enters
the activated sludge system, consisting of an aerated lagoon and second-
ary clarifier. Sludge is recycled from the clarifier to the aeration
basin at approximately 568 1/min (150 gpm). Waste sludge enters a small
aerobic digester and is pumped to an irrigation field. After biological
treatment the treated wastewater flows into two post storage basins and
is recycled to the manufacturing process.
Historical data obtained in the 308 data collection portfolio indicate
a 62 percent BOD removal and an increase in TSS of 61 percent. Concen-
trations of the treated effluent are 2005.4 mg/1 BOD and 1934.7 mg/1 TSS.
Effluent waste loadings are presented in Table VII-19a.
Plant 288 produces S2S hardboard for use in building siding and thermo
mechanically pulped and refined insulation board. The plant uses a
combination of biological and physical wastewater treatment. All waste-
waters other than groundwood Whitewater are discharged to a sump. The
groundwood Whitewater is directed to a newly constructed wood molasses
plant. The wastewater from the sump has previously been directed either
to an oxidation pond or to a primary clarifier; however, the state regu-
latory agency has ordered the plant to discontinue use of the oxidation
pond. At the time the contractor visited the plant in late 1976, a por-
tion of the wastewater was still directed to the oxidation pond and dis-
charged to the river. The plant plans to discontinue use of the pond by
routing all highly concentrated wastewaters to the molasses plant and the
remaining wastewater to the existing clarifier or directly to a holding
tank. Sludge from the clarifier is recycled to the plant, and the over-
flow wastewater is directed to the holding tank. The effluent from the
holding tank is spray irrigated onto a field. Runoff from the field is
collected and discharged to the river.
7-56
-------
DRAFT
Plant 373, which produces S2S hardboard and hermo-mechanically pulped and
refined insulation board, collects all process wastewater in a main sewer
and directs the water to the treatment system. The treatment system
consists of a series of hydrosieves, a rotating biological surface (RBS)
biological treatment, and a secondary clarifier. The solids removed by
the hydrosieves are recycled to the process. The liquid flows to a
holding tank, where a portion is either returned to the refiners, used in
repulping, or reused in the forming machines. The remaining flow enters
the biological treatment system and nutrients are added. The wastewater
then flows to a secondary clarifier where paper mill effluent is conbined
with the hardboard and insulation board treated effluent. Secondary
sludge is landfilled. The final effluent is discharged to the river.
Historical data obtained in the data collection portfolio indicate 32
percent BOD removal and 60 percent TSS removal from primary treatment
(hydrosieves). The RBS treatment system showed a 78 percent reduction in
BOD and an 8 percent increase in TSS. A mechanical failure at the RBS
system prompted investigation for a proper treatment system. At the time
the data collection portfolio was received, pilot studies were being
conducted to determine the best method of treatment. Effluent loadings
are presented in Table VII-19b.
Plant 64 produces SIS hardboard. The treatment system consists of two
settling ponds in series. Process wastewater is collected in a sump and
directed to the ponds which have a theoretical retention time of ten days
before discharge to receiving waters. Effluent loadings are presented in
Table VII-19a.
Plant 22 produces S2S hardboard and thermo-mechanically pulped and
refined insulation board. The hardboard is used for paneling or cabi-
nets. The insulation board is used for ceiling tiles or sheathing.
Plant effluent, after screening to remove gross solids, enters a three-
day capacity holding pond. The wastewater then flows to two settling
ponds operating in parallel. After settling, the water enters a storage
pond. Discharge from the storage pond is pumped to irrigation fields.
No monitoring of wastewater is practiced at this plant.
Plant 666 produces S2S hardboard, thermo-mechanically pulped and refined
insulation board, and mineral wool fiber. Mineral wool fiber is produced
at a separate manufacturing facility. Wastewaters from the mineral wood
fiber plant are discharged to two settling ponds operating in parallel.
The hardboard and insulation board wastewaters are combined with the
settling pond effluent and discharged to a POTW.
Plant 1071 produces thermo-mechanically pulped and refined insulation
board, fiberboard, and S2S hardboard. The hardboard is primarily used
for exterior siding. The wastewater from the insulation and hardboard
product lines are collected in a sump, screened, and directed to a
7-57
-------
DRAFT
primary clarifier. Clarifier underflow is recycled to the process. The
solids are pumped over a Bauer hydrosieve, recovered, and recycled to the
process. Water may bypass the clarifier and flow directly to settling
basins. Water then flows to a 24.3 hectare (60 acre) holding pond, used
for flow equalization, and subsequently discharges to a series of four
aerated lagoons. The discharge from the fourth aerated lagoon is split
between two oxidation ponds. Effluent from the two oxidation ponds are
comingled and discharged to the river.
Historical data show 95 percent BOD removal and effluent concentrations
of 98.1 mg/1 BOD and 42.8 mg/1 TSS. Waste loadings are presented in
Table VII-19b.
A summary of the influent and effluent waste loads for thirteen wet pro-
cess hardboard plants is presented in Table VII-21a and Table VII-21b.
Treatment efficiencies are calculated for the plants which supplied both
influent and effluent data in the data collection portfolio.
Raw and treated effluent loadings of total phenols for six hardboard
plants is presented in Table 22. Raw and treated effluent loadings of
heavy metals for six hardboard plants is presented in Table 23.
Tertiary Treatments
Candidate tertiary treatment technologies for wood preserving include
membrane systems, activated carbon adsorption, chemical oxidation, and
evaporation. Candidate tertiary treatment technologies for insulation
board and hardboard are chemically assisted coagulation of secondary
effluent and direct filtration of secondary effluent.
Membrane Systems—This term refers to both ultrafiltration, which is
employed primarily to remove suspended and emulsified materials in waste-
water, and to reverse osmosis (RO), which removes all or part of the dis-
solved substances, depending upon the molecular species involved, and
virtually all of the suspended substances. Both technologies are cur-
rently used as part of the wastewater treatment system of many diverse
industries (Lin and Lawson, 1973; Goldsmith, et al., 1973; Stadnisky,
1974) and have potential appplication in the wood preserving industry for
oil removed.
Ultrafiltration treatment of oily waste basically involves passing the
waste under a pressure of 2.1 to 3.6 atm (30 to 50 psi) over a membrane
cast onto the inside of a porous fiberglass tube. The water phase of the
waste is forced through the membrane and discarded, reused, or further
processed by other means. The oil and other solids not in solution
remain in the tube. The process in effect concentrates the waste.
Volume reductions on the order of 90 to 96 percent have been reported
(Goldsmith, et al.. 1973; Stadnisky, 1974).
Results obtained in pilot- and full-scale operations of ultrafiltration
systems have been mixed. Goldsmith, et al_. (1973), operated a pilot
unit continuously (24 hours per day) for six weeks processing waste
emulsions containing 1 to 3 percent oil. The permeate from the system,
which was 95 percent of the original volume, contained 212 mg/liter
7-58
-------
Table VH-Zla
Hardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste Characteristics.
01
CO
Plant
Code
Raw
BOD,
Waste
kg/Kkg
(Ib/ton)
Treated Percent
Effluent Reduction
TSS
Raw
Waste
jJ
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-21b. Hardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste Characteristics (continued),
o>
o
BOD,
Plant
Code Raw Waste
S2S
248
1071
373
428*
Hardboard
66.3 (132.6)
43.2 (86.3)
29.8 (59.5)
t 116 (232)
kg/Kkg (Ib/ton)
Treated
Effluent
4.5 (8.9)
2.15 (4.31)
4.06 (8.12)
12.5 (25.0)
Percent
Reduction
93% '
95%
86%
.89%
TSS
Raw
Waste
15.9 (31.8)
14.1 (28.2)*
—
28.6 (57.1)
21.6 (43.2)
, kg/Kkg (Ib/ton)
Treated
Effluent
4.11 ' (8.22)
5.90 (11.8)T
.94 (1.88)
12.3 (24.5)
21.0 (42.0)
Percent
Reduction
74%
—
57%
3%
* First row represents data from January through December, 1976; second row represents data
from July through December, 1976.
** First row represents data from January through December, 1976; second row represents data
from June through December, 1976.
*** First row represents data from January through December, 1976; second row represents data
from.October, 1976, through February, 1977.
t Solids data adjusted from non-standard method to standard method.
tt 1975 data.
-------
Table VII-22.
DRAFT
Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction
for Total Phenols Hardboard.
Plant
Code
262
42
24
824
28
22
428*
kg/Kkg
0.005
0.01
0.003
0.055
—
0.0015
___
Raw Wastel
Load Ib/ton
.01
.02
.006
.11
—
.003
— _
kg/Kkg
0.00030
0.00015
—
0.00046
0.003
0.0028
0.0005
Treated Waste^
Load Ib/ton %
.00059
.0003
—
.00092
.006
.0055
.001
Reduction
94%
98%
99%
—
+83%
—
1 Data obtained during verification sampling program.
2 Average daily waste flow and production data for 1976 supplied by
plants in response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate
waste loadings.
* Data are 1976 historical data supplied by plant in response to data
collection portfolio.
7-61
-------
Table VII-23. Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction for Hardboard Metals.
DRAFT
Plant No.
824
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
% Reduction
218
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
% Reduction
42
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
t Reduction
28
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
% Reduction
262
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
% Reduction
24
Raw Waste Load (kg/Kkg) •".
(Ib/ton)
Treated Waste Load (kg/Kkg)
(Ib/ton)
% Reduction
Be
.000006
(.000012)
.0000045
(.000009)
25%-
.000013
(.000025)
.000009
(.000018)
31%
.000008
(.000016)
.0000028
(.0000056)
65%
.000005
(.00001)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
0%
.000007
(.000013)
.0000048
(.0000096)
31%
Cd
.00029
(.00057)
.0000045
(.000009)
98%
.00006
(.000012)
.000037
(.000074)
38%
.000007
(.000013)
.000008
(.000016)
+14% increase
. .000005
(.0001)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
0%
.000007
(.000013)
.0000048
(.0000096)
31%
Cu
.0039
(.0078)
.0014
(.0028)
64i
.014
(.027)
.009
(.017)
36%
.00044
(.00088)
.000017
(.00033)
96%
.0011
(.0021)
.009
(.017)
.004
(.0079)
56%
.0033
(.0065)
.0000048
(.0000096)
99%
Pb
.00006
(.00012)
.00002
(.00004)
67%
.00012
(.00024)
.000037
(.000074)
69%
.0008
(.0015)
.000033
(.000065)
96%
.00002
(.00004)
.000035
(.000069)
.000026
(.000052)
26%
.000042
(.000083)
.000036
(.000071)
14%
Ni
.0024
(.0047)
.0002
(.0004)
92%
.0018
(.0035)
.00033
(.00066)
82%
.0008
(.00015)
.000024
(.000047)
97'i
.00006
(.00012)
.00006
(.00011)
.000035
(.000069)
42%
.00012
(.00023)
.00006
(.00011)
50%'
Zn
.009
(.017)
.0025
(.0049)
72%
.0048
(.0096)
.0008
(.0016)
83%
.003
(.005)
.00026
(.00052)
91%
.024
(.048)
.014
(.027)
.0066
(.013)
53%
.007
(.014)
.0019
(.0038) .
73%
Sb
.0002
(.00003)
.0000085
(.00017)
96%
.00008
(.00015)
.000009
(.000018)
89%
.00008
(.00015)
.00001
(.000020)
87%
.000024
(.000048)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
0%
.0001
(.0002)
.000011
(.000023)
89%
As
.000012
(.000023)
.00002
(.00004)
+73% increase
.000026
(.000051)
.000024
(.000048)
8%
.000016
(.000032)
.000007
(.000014)
56%
.000014
(.000027)
.000017
(.000034)
.000017
(.000034)
0%
.000015
(.00003)
.0000004
(.0000009)
97%
Se
.000018
(.000035)
.000006
(.000012)
33%
.00002
(.00004)
.000019
(.000037)
8%
.00005
(.0001)
.00002
(.000039)
60%
.000024
(.000048)
.00006
(.00011)
.00047
(.000093)
15%
.000023
(.000045)
.000019
(.000038)
17%
Ag
.000006
(.000012)
.0000005
(.000001)
92^
.00018
(.00035)
.000085
(.00017)
53%
.000007
(.000013)
.0000033
(.0000066)
53%
.000005
(.00001)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
0%
.000009
(.000017)
.00006
(.00011)
+547% increase
Tl
.000013
(.000026)
.000007
(.000014)
46%
.000013
(.000025)
.000013
(.000025)
0%
.000013
(.000026)
.0000023
(.0000045)
82%
.000005
(.00001)
.000009
(.000017)
.000009
(.000017)
0%
.000009
(.000017)
.000008
(.000016)
11%
Cr
.00029
(.00058)
.000006
(.00011)
98%
.00019
(.00037)
.000043
(.000085)
77%
.0001
(.0019)
.000024
(.000047)
76%
.00009
(.00017)
.000017
(.000034)
.000035
(.000069)
+103% increase
.006
(.011)
.00082
(.0016)
86%
Hg
'.000018
(.000035)
.000018
(.000035)
0%
.0000013
(.0000025)
.000037
(.000074)
+283% increase
.0000027
(.0000053)
.0000011
(.0000022)
59%
.000011
(.00002,1)
.00031
(.00062)
.00007
(.00014)
77%
.000022
(.000043)
.0000004
(.0000007)
98%
7-56
-------
DRAFT
ether extractables—primarily water-soluble surfactants. A 15,140 I/day
(4,000 gpd) system installed based on the pilot plant data produced a
permeate containing 25 mg/liter ether extractables. No significant
reduction in flux rate with time was observed in either the pilot- or
full-scale operation.
Ultrafiltration tests of a pentachlorophenol wastewater were conducted
by Abcor, Inc., in cooperation with the Mississippi Forest Products
Laboratory (1974). The samples contained 2,160 mg/liter oil and had a
total solids concentration of 3,900 mg/liter. Flow rate through the
system was 95 1/min (25 gpm) at a pressure of 3.3 atm (48 psi). A
26-fold volumetric concentration, representing a volume reduction of 96.2
percent, was achieved. Two membrane types were tested. Both showed a
flux decline on the order of 55 to 60 percent with increasing volumetric
concentration. A detergent flush of the system was found to be necessary
at the end of each run to restore the normal flux values of 35 1/sq m/day
(35 gal/sq ft/day). Oil content of the permeate was 55 mg/liter. While
this value represents a reduction of over 97 percent, it does not meet
the requirements for stream discharge. COD was reduced 73 percent.
The principal of RO is similar to that of ultrafiltration. However,
higher hydraulic pressures, 27.2 to 40.8 atm (400 to 600 psi), are
employed and the membranes are semi permeable and are manufactured to
achieve rejection of various molecular sizes. Efficiency varies, but
rejection of various salts in excess of 99 percent have been reported
(Merten and Bray, 1966). For organic chemicals, rejection appears to be
a function of molecular size and shape. Increases in chain length and
branching are reported to increase rejection (Durvel and Helfgott, 1975).
Phenols are removed to the extent of only about 20 percent by cellulose
acetate membranes, while polyethylenimine membranes increase this
percentage to 70 but achieve a lower flux rate (Fang and Chian, 1975).
In case studies that have been cited, RO was found to be competitive with
conventional waste treatment systems only when extremely high levels of
treatment were required (Kremen, 1975).
Removals of 83 percent TOC and 96 percent TDS were reported for RO in
which cellulose acetate membranes at 40.8 atm (600 psi) were used (Boen
and Jahannsen, 1974). Flux rates in this work of 129 to 136 1/sq m/day
(34 to 36 gal/sq ft/day) were achieved. However, in other work, pre-
treatment by carbon adsorption or sand filtration was found to be neces-
sary to prevent membrane fouling (Rozelle, 1973). Work by the Institute
of Paper Chemistry (Morris, et al., 1972) indicates that membrane fouling
by suspended solids or large molecular weight organics can be controlled
in part by appropriate pretreatment, periodic pressure pulsations, and
washing of the membrane surfaces. In this and other work (Wiley, et al.,
1972), it was concluded that RO is effective in concentrating dilute
papermill waste and produces a clarified water that can be recycled for
process purposes.
7-63
-------
DRAFT
Recycling of process wastewater, following ultrafiltration and RO treat-
ment, is the objective of a treatment installation currently being con-
structed by Pacific Wood Treating Corporation, Ridgefield, Washington
(1976). The concentrated waste will be incinerated and the permeate from
the system used for boiler feed water. The system, which is expected to
cost $200,000, is scheduled to start operating in April, 1977. An EPA
grant has been requested to provide funds for system evaluation when the
project goes on stream.
Data on the use of RO with wood preserving wastewater was provided by the
cooperative work between Abcor, Inc., and the Mississippi Forest Products
Laboratory referred to above (1974). In this work, the permeate from the
UF system was processed further in an RO unit. Severe pressure drop
across the system indicated that fouling of the membranes occurred. How-
ever, module rejection remained consistent throughout the run. Permeate
from the system had an oil content of 17 mg/liter, down from 55 mg/liter,
and the COD was reduced by 73 percent. Total oil removal and COD reduc-
tions in both the UF and RO systems were 99 percent and 92 percent,
respectively.
Carbon Adsorption—The efficacy of activated carbon in wastewater
treatment has been "rediscovered" by dozens of scientists and engineers
in recent years, and it would appear that most have recorded their
findings in various scientific journals. Relatively few of these
articles are relevant to the timber industry.
To date, there is no known wood preserving, insulation board, or hard-
board plant that uses activated carbon adsorption as part of its waste-
water treatment program. However, the South Orange, New Jersey, plant
of Atlantic Creosoting Company has engaged, an engineering firm to study
the possible use of activated carbon to treat water from a wet scrubber
installed as part of an odor-control system (Straubing).
Results of carbon adsorption studies conducted by Thompson and Dust
(1972) on a creosote wastewater are shown in Figure VII-8. Granular
carbon was used with a contact time of 24 hours. The wastewater was
flocculated with ferric chloride and its pH adjusted to 4.0 prior to
exposure to the carbon. As shown in the figure, 96 percent of the
phenols and 80 percent of the COD were removed from the wastewater at a
carbon dosage of 8 g/liter. The loading rate dropped off sharply at that
point, and no further increases in phenol removal and only small
increases in COD removal occurred by increasing carbon dosage to 50 gm/
liter. Similar results were obtained in tests using pentachlorophenol
wastewater.
Results of adsorption isotherms that were run on pentachlorophenol waste-
water and other samples of creosote wastewater followed a pattern similar
to that shown in Figure VII-8. In some instances a residual content of
phenolic compounds remained in wastewater after a contact period of 24
hours with the highest dosage of activated carbon employed, while in
7-64
-------
1001
20 30
Activated Carbon (gm/liter)
40
i
50
Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon Added
and Removal of COD and Phenols from a Creosote Wastewater
Figure VII -8
7-65
-------
DRAFT
other instances all of the phenols were removed. Loading-rates of 0.16
kilograms of phenol and 1.2 kilograms of COD per kilogram of carbon were
typical, but much lower rates were obtained with some wastewaters.
Adsorption isotherms have been developed for wood preserving wastes from
several plants to determine the economic feasibility of employing acti-
vated carbon in lieu of conventional secondary treatments. The waste-
water used for this purpose was usually pretreated by flocculation and
filtration to remove oils. Theoretical carbon usage rates obtained from
the isotherms ranged from 85 to almost 454 kg per 3,785 liters (1,000
pounds per 1,000 gallons) of wastewater. However, values as low as 0.6
kg per 3,785 liters (1.4 pound per 1,000 gallons)~e.g., the waste from
Atlantic Creosoting Company mentioned above—have been found. Because of
its source, this waste was not typical of that from a wood preserving
plant, although both COD and phenols—4,000 and 600 mg/liter—were high.
It differed in the quality of oil-water separation with few exceptions;
however, the experience has been that, while activated carbon does an
excellent job in removing phenolic compounds, other organics, principally
water- soluble wood sugars, greatly increase carbon exhaustion rates.
Use of activated carbon to treat wastewater from a plant producing herbi-
cides was described by Henshaw (1971). With the exception of wood sugars,
this waste was similar to wood preserving effluents, especially in terms
of COD (3,600 mg/liter) and phenolic materials (210 mg/liter). Raw
wastewater was piped directly to a carbon adsorber and the carbon was
regenerated thermally. Flow rate and loading rate were not revealed, but
the effluent from the system had a phenol content of 1 mg/liter. Cost of
the treatment was reported to be about $0.36 per 3,785 liters (1,000 gal-
lons).
The effect of high organic content on carbon usage rate is well known in
industry. Recent work to develop adsorption isotherms for 220 wastewater
samples representing 75 SIC categories showed a strong relationship
between carbon usage rate and organic content of the samples, as measured
by TOC (Hager, 1974). Usage rates as high as 681 kg per 3,785 liters
(1,500 pounds per 1,000 gallons) were reported for wastewater samples
from the organic chemicals industry. For petroleum refining, the values
ranged from 0.1 to 64 kg per liter (0.2 to 141 pounds per gallon),
depending upon the TOC of the waste.
Use of activated carbon in wastewater treatment in oil refineries is
.common (Paulson, 1972; Dejohn and Adams, 1975; Baker, 1976; Scaramelli
and DiGiano, 1975). Because this industry is related to wood preserving
in terms of wastewater characteristics, a few of the more pertinent
articles dealing with activated carbon treatment of refinery wastewater
are summarized here.
Workers dealing with treatment process methodology emphasized the neces-
sity of pretreatment of activated carbon column influent (Suhr and Culp,
1974). Based on these reports suspended solids in amounts exceeding 50
7-66
-------
DRAFT
mg/liter should be removed. Oil and grease in concentrations above 10
mg/liter should likewise not be applied directly to carbon. Both
materials cause head loss and can reduce adsorption efficiency by coating
the carbon particles. This is apparently more critical in the case of
oil and grease than for suspended solids.
Common pretreatment processes used by the industry include chemical clar-
ification, oil flotation, and filtration. Adjustments in pH are fre-
quently made to enhance adsorption efficiency. An acid pH has been shown
to be best for phenols and other weak acids. Flow equalization is, of
course, necessary for most treatment processes.
Efficiency of adsorption varies among molecular species. In a study of 93
petrochemicals commonly found in that industry's wastewater, adsorption
was found to increase with molecular weight and decrease with polarity,
solubility, and branching (Scaramelli and DiGiano, 1975). However, mole-
cules possessing three or more carbons apparently respond favorably to
adsorption treatments (Hager, 1974).
v
Dejohn and Adams (1975) studied the relative efficiency of lignite and
bituminous coal carbons and concluded that the former is better for
refinery wastes because it contains more surface area in the 20 to 500
A pores.
Several authors have discussed the economics of carbon adsorption.
Paulson (1972) stated that direct operating costs based on BOD removal
from refinery wastewater range between 4.8 and 10.9 cents per 1,000
gallons for primary effluents and between 5.3 and 9.4 cents per 1,000
gallons for secondary effluents. These estimates were based on a carbon
usage rate of 9.9 pounds per 1,000 gallons. Typical treatment facilities
for a primary effluents were listed as follows by this author:
Chemical clarifiers Backwash holding tanks
Coagulant and polymer feeders Backwash water storage tanks
Pump stations Carbon reactivation facilities
Carbon adsorbers Sludge handling facilities
The system for secondary effluent would include these items:
Pump stations
Carbon adsorbers
Backwash holding tank
Backwash storage tank
Carbon regeneration facilities
Much higher operating costs for carbon systems have been reported by
Rosfjord, et al. (1976). Costs of $0.40 to $6.00 per pound of phenols
removed were cited. The efficiency of the carbon regeneration facilities
were listed as an important consideration in computing operating costs.
Recovery of chemicals, particularly phenols, from carbon beds by either
7-67
-------
DRAFT
reactive or solvent methods was reported to be less costly than thermal
regeneration.
According to Hutchins (1975), it is most economical to discard carbon at
usage rates lower than 159 to 182 kg (350 to 400 pounds) per day and to
thermally regenerate at higher usage rates.
Limited data on activated carbon treatment of wood preserving waste
strongly indicate that the process is not economically viable when
applied as a secondary treatment. The high cost of carbon adsorption
when employed in this capacity is due primarily to the presence of high
wood sugar levels in the effluents from this industry. Use of the pro-
cess as a tertiary treatment following biological oxidation—assuming a
high oxidation efficiency of the sugars—is probably economically
viable.
Adsorption by Other Media—Polymeric adsorbents have been recom-
mended for use under conditions similar to those where carbon adsorption
is indicated (Stevens and Kerner, 1975). Advantages cited for these
materials include efficient removal of both polar and nonpolar molecules
from wastewater, ability to tailor-make an adsorbent for a particular
contaminant, small energy .inputs for regeneration compared to carbon, and
lower cost compared to carbon where carbon depletion rates are greater
than 2.3 kg per 3,785 liters (5 pounds per 1,000 gallons). Data on
efficiency of polymeric adsorbents were not presented.
Clay minerals, such as attapulgite clay, have been recommended for use in
removing certain organics and heavy metals from wastewater (Morton and
Sawyer, 1976).
Chemical Oxidation
Chlorine—The use of chlorine and hypochlorites as a treatment to
oxidize phenol-based chemicals in wastewater is widely covered in the
literature. A review of this literature, with emphasis on the employment
of chlorine in treating wood preserving wastewaters, was presented in a
recent EPA document (1973).
The continued use of chlorine as an oxidizing agent for phenols is in
question for at least two reasons. There is, first of all, a concern
over recent supply problems and the increasing cost of the chemical
(Rosfjord, et_al_., 1976). Secondly, chlorine treatments of phenolic
wastes form mono-, di-, and trichlorophenols which persist unless suf-
ficient dosages are used to rupture the benzene ring (EPA, 1973). It is
probably true that low-level chlorine treatments of these wastes are
worse than no treatment at all because of the formation of such com-
pounds.
7-68
-------
DRAFT
For these and possibly other reasons, attention has been focused on other
oxidizing agents equally as capable as chlorine of oxidizing phenolic
compounds without creating these additional problems.
Potassium Permanganate—This is a strong oxidizing agent that is
being marketed as a replacement for phenol. One vendor (Carus Chemical
Company, 1971) claims that the chemical "cleaves the aromatic carbon ring
of the phenol and destroys it" and then degrades the aliphatic chain thus
created to innocuous compounds. Stoicheometrically, 7.13 kg of KMnCty
are required ta oxidize one kilogram of phenol. According to Rosfjord,
£t jjl_. (1976), however, ring cleavage occurs at ratios of about 7 to 1.
A higher ratio is required to reduce the residual organics to CO? and
H20.
As in the case of chlorine (EPA, 1973), the presence of oxidizable mater-
ials other than phenols in wastewater greatly increases the amount of
KMn04 required to oxidize a given amount of phenols. In the trade
literature cited above, it was stated that $10 worth of KMn04 was
required to treat 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) of foundry waste contain-
ing 60 to 100 mg/ liter of phenols. Eighty milligrams per liter of
phenols in 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) is equivalent to 0.3 kg (0.67
pounds). At a 7:1 ratio, the treatment should have cost $2.35. The
actual ratio was 30:1 and the cost was about $15 per 0.454 kilograms (one
pound) of phenol removed. The latter figure agrees with one vendor's
data, which indicated a cost of $0.15 per mg/liter of phenol per 3,785
liters (1,000 gallons) of wastewater.
Limited studies conducted by the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory
revealed no cost advantage of KMn04 over chlorine in treating wood
preserving wastewater. The high content of oxidizable materials other
than phenol in this type of waste consumes so much of the chemical that
massive doses are required to eliminate the phenols.
Hydrogen Peroxide—This is a powerful oxidizing agent, the efficacy
of which is apparently enhanced by the presence of ferrous sulfate which
acts as a catalyst. Reductions in phenol content of 99.9 percent (in
wastewater containing 500 mg/liter) have been reported for ^02 when
applied in a 2:1 ratio (Anonymous, 1975). A reaction time of 5 minutes
was required. Ferrous sulfate concentrations of 0.1 to 0.3 percent were
used. COD concentration was reduced to 760 mg/liter from 1,105
mg/liter.
According to Eisenhauer (1964), the reaction involves the intermediate
formation of catechol and hydroquinone, which are oxidized by the ferric
ion to quinones. As is the case with other oxidizing agents, the degree
of substitution on the phenol molecule affects the rate of reaction.
Substituents in the ortho and para positions reduced the reaction rate
the most, and complete substitution (e.g., pentachlorophenol) prevented
the reaction from taking place. Solution pH had a significant effect on
7-69
-------
DRAFT
the efficiency of the treatment. Optimum pH was in the range of 3.0 to
4.0, with efficiency decreasing rapidly at both higher and lower values.
Treatments of industrial wastes were reported by Eisenhauer to require
higher levels of ^2 tnan simple phenol solutions because of the
presence of other oxidizable materials. In fact, the ratio of H202 to
phenols required varied directly with COD above the level contributed by
the phenol itself. At all ratios studied with industrial wastes, phenol
levels dropped rapidly during the early part of the reaction period, then
remained unchanged thereafter. For some types of wastes, the addition of
high concentrations of ^02, up to molar ratios of 16:1, did not cause
significant further decreases in phenol content. Similar results have
been reported for wood preserving wastewater treated with chlorine (EPA,
1973). Preehlorination of wastes with high COD contents reduced the
amount of H202 required in some cases, but not in others.
Hydrogen peroxide has not been used on a commercial scale to treat waste-
water from the wood preserving industry or, based on the available liter-
ature, wastewaters from related industries. The cost of the chemical is
such that a relatively high phenol removal efficiency must ensue to jus-
tify its use. The available evidence suggests that, in common with other
oxidizing compounds, organics other than phenol consume so much of the
reagent as to render the treatment impractical. Its use in a tertiary
treating capacity may be practical, depending upon the residual COD of
the treated effluent.
Ozone—Ozone has been studied extensively as a possible treatment
for industrial wastewaters (Evans, 1972; Eisenhauer, 1970; Niegowski,
1956). No practical success has attended these efforts. The literature
reveals only one example in the U.S. of the application of ozone to treat
an industrial waste. Boeing Corporation is reported to have operated a
6.8 kg/hour ozonator to treat cyanide and phenolic wastes (McLain, 1973).
Worldwide, the situation is similar. The literature mentions a plant in
France and one in Canada, both of which use ozone to treat cyanide and
phenolic wastes from biologically treated effluents. Conversely, there
have been numerous pilot plant studies of the application of ozone for
industrial wastes, and ozone is widely used in Europe, especially France,
to treat domestic water supplies. Pilot studies to assess the feasi-
bility of using ozone to treat domestic wastes have been sponsored by EPA
(Wynn, et al_., 1973).
The problem is one of economics. Eisenhauer (1970) concluded from his
work that the ozonization of phenol to C02 and \\% cannot be achieved
economically. By contrast, Niegowski (1953) reported that in pilot plant
tests of ozone, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide, ozone was demonstrated to
be the most economical treatment for phenols.
7-70
-------
DRAFT
No example of the use of ozone to treat timber products wastewater
appears in the literature. However, one wood preserving plant installed
a small ozone generator and directed the gas into a large lagoon., The
treatment had no measurable effect on wastewater quality.
Incineration—The ultimate method of oxidation is, of course, incin-
eration. At least two U.S. wood preserving plants and one in Canada
have installed and operated wastewater incinerators prior to the energy
crisis. At least one of the U.S. plants is still operating this equip-
ment. Unofficial reports place operating costs in excess of $50 per
3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) at this plant. Successful use of incinera-
tors by other industries have been based on concentrating the wastes to
an organic content of at least 50 percent. At this concentration, the
wastes can be incinerated without auxiliary fuel (Hyde, 1965).
Evaporation°°Some applications of evaporation are both economical
and effective, while others are not. Evaporation methods that require
the use of process steam to achieve the required rate of evaporation are
highly expensive. On the other hand, methods that depend on simple
surface evaporation from lagoons may be economical but are not effective,
since most such installations are located in regions where rainfall
exceeds lake evaporation by 25 to 51 centimeters per year.
The most effective and economical method employs one or more evaporation
lagoons equipped with spray equipment. By proper sizing of the lagoons
to account for seasonal differences in both rainfall and evaporation, a
zero discharge of process wastewater can be achieved. Actually, such
installations serve a dual purpose. In addition to evaporating all or
most of a plant's effluent, they also function in much the same fashion
as an aerated lagoon. Significant reductions in conventional wastewater
parameters are achieved with only a minimal accumulation of sludge.
Chemically Assisted Coagulation—Chemically assisted clarification,
as defined in this document, is the use of coagulants or coagulant aids
to increase the settleability of biological suspended solids in the
clarifier of the biological treatment system. This technology is
particularly applicable to the fiberboard industry, as this industry
relies heavily on biological treatment for end-of-pipe pollution control.
Removal of biological suspended solids from secondary treatment.
facilities is the single most critical problem for this industry in
achieving the goals set forth in the Act.
The mechanisms by which a coagulant aids the precipitation of colloidal
matter, such as biological suspended solids, are discussed at length in
an AWWA Committee Report (1971), "State of the Art of Coagulation." The
chemicals generally used to increase removals of fine and colloidal
particles in conjunction with this technology are the metal salts of
aluminum and iron, as well as synthetic organic polymers.
7-71
-------
DRAFT
When metal salts are used, hydrolysis products are formed which
destabilize colloidal particles by a complex series of chemical and
physical interactions. Polyelectrolytes are extended-chain polymers of
high molecular weight. Particles are adsorbed at sites along the chains
of these polymers which interlock to form a physical bridge, thereby
destabilizing the sorbed particles.
Chemically assisted coagulation may be used as an additional treatment
process applied to the effluent of the secondary clarifler of the bio-
logical treatment system. This requires separate mixing, flocculation,
and settling facilities, and a considerable capital investment. A recent
study performed for the EPA (E.C. Jordan Co., 1977) on chemically assis-
ted clarification demonstrated that increased suspended solids removal
may be obtained when applying CAC as an integral part of the biological
system. The advantage to this application is that capital and operating
costs are kept at a minimum. Mixing takes place using the natural turbu-
lence inherent in the latter stages of the biological system, and set-
tling occurs in the biological secondary clarifier.
Insulation board plant 555 and SIS hardboard plant 824 reported the use
of polyelectrolytes to increase solids removal in the biological
secondary clarifiers of their respective treatment systems. Plant 824
adds the polyelectrolyte at the influent weir of the final settling pond;
little mixing is achieved by application of the polymer at this point.
The annual average daily TSS effluent concentration of this plant for the
last four months of 1976 (following completion of upgraded treatment
facilities) was about 488 mg/1. This represents an 81 percent reduction
in TSS in the total system.
Plant 555 adds polyelectrolyte in the aeration basin of the activated
sludge unit, achieving better mixing than plant 824.
The annual average daily TSS concentration of the final effluent is about
320 mg/1, which represents a 93 percent reduction in TSS. Both plants
noted increased TSS removals using the polyelectrolyte, however no
comparable data are available to quantify the amount of TSS reduction due
to polymer addition.
Selection of the proper coagulant, point of addition, and optimum dose
for this technology can be approximated in the laboratory using jar test
procedures. Since the capital cost is minimum, in-plant studies can be
easily conducted to optimize operating characteristics for maximum
effectiveness.
Granular Media Filtration—Granular media filtration as a tertiary
process for control of biological suspended solids, is receiving growing
attention in the pulp and paper, food processing, textile, and oil
refining industries. It is a physical/electrical/chemical process
consisting of: (1) transport of the particles from the suspension to the
7-72
-------
DRAFT
media; and (2) contact with and adhesion to the media or other solids
previously absorbed on the media.
There are currently no hardboard or insulation board plants using granu-
lar filtration; however, several applications of this technology exist in
the pulp and paper industry.
The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement conducted a pilot
study to investigate the effectiveness of three manufactured granular
media filters in removing suspended solids, BOD, and turbidity from
papermaking secondary effluents (NCASI, 1973). The three filter systems
were studied for TSS and BOD removals when filtering the effluent from an
integrated bleached kraft mill and a boxboard mill. The report summa-
rized the study findings by stating that all three units could reduce
suspended solids concentrations and turbidity by 25 to 50 percent when
chemicals were not used. Reductions of greater than 90 percent were
possible with chemical addition.
A recent study performed for EPA on the Direct Filtration and Chemically
Assisted Clarification of Biologically Treated Pulp and Paper Industry
Westewater concluded that, based on actual plant operating data, direct
filtration systems can be designed with chemical addition to achieve, on
average, at least 50 percent reduction in filter effluent TSS concentra-
tion, with maximum removals of 80 to 90 percent.
It should be noted that influent suspended solids characteristics are an
important factor in determining filter performance. Biological treated
effluent from the insulation board and hardboard industries differs
greatly from that of the pulp and paper industry. Pilot plant studies
are needed to properly design a wastewater filter for any specific
application. Actual plant operating data will also be required to effec-
tively estimate actual TSS removals for the insulation board and
hardboard industries.
7-73
-------
DRAFT
Best Demonstrated Technology
Wood Preserving—The wastewater treatment systems at the wood
preserving plants presented below exhibit best demonstrated technology
for the wood preserving organic chemicals subcategories.
Plants with Multi-Stage Biological Treatment
Plant: 665
Subcategory: Steaming (Self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote
Production: 413 cubic meters/day
Wastewater Volume: 41,600 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Primary and secondary oil separation
2. Flocculation
3. Series of two solar oxidation ponds
4. Soil irrigation
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter):
COD Phenols O&G £H
«
Raw — — - «
Treated 250 0.29 <10
7-74
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 495
Subcategory: Steaming (Direct discharge)
Preservatives: Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Production: 6;510 cubic meters/month
Wastewater Volume: 53,000 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Oil-water separator--dual system
2. Equalization lagoon
3. Solar oxidation—2 lagoons in series
4. Aerated lagoon
5. Solar oxidation—2 lagoons in series
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter):
COD Phenols O&G PCP*
Raw 2485** 57.6** 476** 158
Treated 20 .03 <10 1.0
* Based on verification sampling program data.
** Based on 1974 data.
7-75
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 599
Subcategory: Steaming (Vapor drying; self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote
Production: 311 cubic meters/day (Design)
Wastewater Volume: 45,400 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Primary and secondary oil-water separation
2. Solar oxidation ponds (3)
3. Aerated lagoon
4. Solar oxidation ponds (2)
5. Spray irrigation
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter);
COD Phenols O&G
Raw* 1415 122 110
Treated <20* <2 <10*
* Based on 1973 data.
7-76
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 855
Subcategory: Steaming (Self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Production: 537 cubic meters/day
Wastewater Volume: 35,200 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Oil-water separator—separate system for each
preservative
2. Equalization pond
3. Activated sludge treatment
4. Two-lagoon, "solar-oxidation" system.
5. Spray irrigation
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter):
COD Phenols O&G PCP
Raw - 3010 237.5 475 22.3
Treated 118 .048 40 .231
7-77
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 185
Subcategory: Steaming (Self-contained)
Preservatives; Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Production: 170 cubic meters/day
Wastewater Volume: 37,900 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment;
1. Oil-water, gravity-type separation
2. Flocculation
3. Aerated lagoon
4. Settling pond
5. Spray evaporation lagoon
6. Holding lagoon
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter):
COD Phenols O&G
Raw 9150 25 1300
Point 5 170 <0.2 <10
7-78
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 412
Subcategory: Steaming (Vapor drying; self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote
Production: 366 cubic meters/day
Wastewater Volume: 41,600 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Oil-water separator
2. Equalization
3. Activated sludge treatment (dual aeration chambers)
4. Clarification
5. Lagoon system—85 days detention time
6. Spray irrigation field
Wastewater Quality* (nig/liter):
COD Phenols O&G
Raw 2135 161
Treated** 65 <.02 <10
* Based on 1974 data.
** Outfall of third lagoon prior to discharge to irrigation field.
7-79
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 331
Subcategory; Steaming (Self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote, pentachlorophenol, and CCA
Production: 292 cubic meters/day
Wastewater Volume; 125,000 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Oil-water separation
2. Aerated lagoons—3 in series
3. Soil irrigation
4. Catch basin for recycling discharge from irrigation
field to boiler, vacuum pumps, etc.
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter);
COD Phenols O&G
Raw 1685 60.2 170
Treated 165 .013 15
7-80
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 517
Subcategory: Steaming (Self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Production: 118 cubic meters/day
Wastewater Volume: 27,300 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Oil-water separator
2. Aerated lagoons—2 in series equipped with spray
nozzles
3. Spray irrigation
4. Catch basin for spray field runoff
5. Recycle of catch basin water as boiler water
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter):
COD Phenols O&G
Raw 5491 17.6 576
Treated 235 0.65 15
7-81
-------
DRAFT
Plants With Single-stage Biological Treatment
Plant: 777
Subcategory: Steaming (Direct discharge)
Preservatives: Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Production: 1,980 cubic meters/month
Wastewater Volume: Unknown
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Oil-water separator
2. Flocculation
3. Sand filtration
4. Aerated lagoon
5. Discharge as required
Wastewater Quality (ing/liter):
COD Phenols O&G
Raw
Treated 25 0.26 <10
7-82
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 199
Subcateqory: Steaming (Vapor drying; POTW)
Preservatives: Creosote
Production: 4050 cubic meters/month
Wastewater Volume: 94,600 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Oil-water separation
2. Flocculation
3. Filtration
4. Aerated lagoon
5. Clarification
6. Discharge to POTW as required
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter):
COD Phenols O&G
Raw 1430 482.2 35
Treated 100 .12 <10
7-83
-------
DRAFT
Plant; 637
Subcategory: Steaming (Direct discharge)
Preservatives: Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Production: 170 cubic meters/day
Wastewater Volume: 30,300 liters/day
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Dual oil-water separators
2. Equalization lagoon
3^ Chemical flocculation
4. Aerated lagoon equipped with spray evaporation
equipment
5. Settling pond
6. Discharge as required
Wastewater Quality (mg/liter):
COD Phenols O&G £H
Raw (?) 1750 4.6 145
Treated 50 <0.2 <10
7-84
-------
DRAFT
Plants Vllth Flocculation
Plant; 450
Subcategory; Steaming
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 203
Subcategory: Boulton (Self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote, pentachlorophenol, ACA, and FR
Production: 5580 cubic meters/month
Wastewater Volume: Not applicable
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Primary and secondary oil separation
2. Recycle via cooling tower equipped with heat exchanger
to evaporate excess water as required
3. Salt processes have zero discharge; all wastewater
recycled
Wastewater Quality:
Not applicable
Plant: 111
Subcategory: Boulton (Self-contained)
Preservatives: Creosote and pentachlorophenol
Production: 1610 cubic meters/month
Wastewater Volume: Not applicable
Wastewater Treatment:
1. Primary and secondary oil-water separation
2. Part of wastewater recycled via process cooling tower.
Remainder is evaporated in a cooling tower equipped
with heat exchanger built especially for this purpose.
Wastewater Quality: Not applicable
7-86
-------
DRAFT
Plant: 333
Subcategory: Wood preserving (zero discharge)
Preservatives: CCA and FR
Production: 18,800 fbm/day
Wastewater Volume: Not applicable
Wastewater Treatment:
No treatment is required. All wastewater is collected and
recycled as makeup solutions for CCA and FR.
Wastewater Quality: Not applicable
Based on the results demonstrated by the above plants, the final
effluent concentrations presented in Table VII-24 represent best
demonstrated technology. The concentration of fugitive metals in
organic chemical wood preservingplants is extremely variable from plant
to plant, depending on such factors as preservatives employed, waste
management practices, and rainfall. Concentrations of fugitive metals
in plant wastewater are estimated based on data collected since 1973.
As reported in the discussion of chemical flocculation earlier in this
section, flocculated effluent frequently has an oil and grease
concentration of less than 100 mg/1. Therefore 100 mg/1 is used as the
expected concentration for this parameter after flocculation. Extremely
low concentrations as that demonstrated by exemplary plant 450 are
usually a result of dilution after flocculation.
Although not currently demonstrated in the industry, activated carbon
adsorption following biological treatment and titration may be expected
to remove 95 percent of total phenols (including PCP), 80 percent of the
COD, and oil and grease concentrations to a limit of 10 mg/1, the limit
of detection for this parameter.
7-87
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-24. Best Demonstrated Final Effluent Concentrations, Wood Preserving Organic Chemicals Subcategory (mg/1).
Treatment System
Multi-Stage Biological
Treatment
Single-stage Biological
Treatment
Flocculation
COD
•
75-100
100
5,000
Phenol O&G
0.04 <10
0.12 <10
0.2 100
PCP
1.0
5.0
12.0
PNA's
(Total)
0.5
1.0
1.5
Cu
4.0
4.0
4.0
Cr
1.5
1.5
1.5
As
1.0
1.0
1.0
Zn
2.0
2.0
2.0
CO
00
-------
DRAFT
Insulation Board
The wastewater treatment system at insulation board Plant 127 exhibits
the lowest treated effluent concentrations of all plants in the insula-
tion board mechanical pulping and refining subcategory. Annual average
daily concentrations are 7.7 mg/1 for BOD and 77.4 mg/1 for TSS. The raw
wastewater going to the treatment system is not characteristic of wood
fiber insulation board, however. Wood fiber insulation board raw waste-
water is used for process water in the plant's mineral wool fiber plant
prior to being discharged to the treatment system. For the above reason,
the wastewater treatment system at Plant 127 cannot be considered with
other insulation board treatment systems.
The wastewater treatment system at insulation board Plant 555 in the
mechanical pulping and refining subcategory demonstrates exemplary per-
formance. Treatment units consist of bar screens, two parallel mechani-
cal clarifiers, and a single stage activated sludge system followed by
polymer assisted secondary clarification. Primary and waste secondary
sludge are conditioned in a gravity thickener, followed by a vacuum fil-
ter. Dewatered sludge is stored and returned to the plant for reuse in
the process.
The annual average daily raw waste loads for Plant 555 are 21.6 kg/kkg
(43.2 Ib/ton) for BOD, 47.0 kg/kkg (94.1 Ib/ton) for TSS, and 0.00095
kg/kkg (0.0019 Ib/ton) for total phenols. BOD and TSS raw waste loads
are substantially higher than other plants in the subcategory. Annual
average daily treated effluent waste loads are 0.36 kg/kkg (0.72 Ib/ton)
for BOD, 3.42 kg/kkg (6.83 Ib/ton) for TSS, and 0.00010 kg/kkg (0.00021
Ib/ton) for total phenols. Annual average daily treated effluent con-
centrations are 34.1 mg/1 for BOD, 324 mg/1 for TSS, and 0.010 mg/1 for
total phenols. It is estimated that 10 percent additional solids are
removed from the secondary effluent by the addition of polyelectrolyte
prior to clarification. The adjusted secondary effluent without the
chemically assisted clarification would then be 360 mg/1. The high sol-
ids concentrations in the effluent are due to the difficulty in settling
the biological solids produced in secondary treatment, a problem common
to all fiberboard plants.
The amount of biological solids produced in secondary treatment systems
is a function of the amount of BOD removed. The treatment system removes
98 percent of the raw BOD. Solids removal efficiency, based on raw waste
solids load, is 93 percent. It is felt, however, that treatment effi-
ciencies for suspended solids are not a reliable indicator of treatment
plant performance since they do not account for biological solids pro-
duced in the secondary treatment systems.
7-89
-------
DRAFT
Best demonstrated treatment for the insulation board, mechanical pulping
and refining subcategory, based on final effluent concentrations and an
annual average daily effluent flow of 10.5 kl/kkg (2.53 kgal/ton) demon-
strated by Plant 555 is 0.36 kg/kkg (0.72 Ib/ton) for BOD, 3.8 kg/kkg
(7.6 Ib/ton) for TSS, and 0.00010 kg/kkg (0.00021 Ib/ton) for total
phenols.
Application of chemically assisted clarification, as demonstrated by this
plant,, will reduce the treated waste load for TSS to an annual daily
average of 3.4 kg/kkg (6.8 Ib/ton).
Application of granular media filtration technology is expected to reduce
the effluent suspended solids concentration 35 percent, resulting in a
final effluent TSS of 2.5 kg/kkg (4.9 Ib/ton).
As previously discussed, none of the insulation board plants which pro-
duce solely insulation board by thermo-mechanical pulping and refining is
a direct discharger, and it follows that there are no treatment systems
upon which to base best demonstrated technology. Annual average daily
raw wastewater characteristics of the one thermo-mechanical plant which
does produce solely insulation board are 33.6 kg/kkg (67.1 Ib/ton) BOD,
17.3 kg/kkg (34.5 Ib/ton) TSS, and 0.0024 kg/kkg (0.004 Ib/ton) total
phenols. This raw waste load is similar to the average raw waste load
for SIS hardboard plants, which is 33.8 kg/kkg (67.6 Ib/ton) BOD, 14.2
kg/kkg (28.3 Ib/ton) TSS, and 0.019 kg/kkg (0.038 Ib/ton) total phenols,
and there is no reason to expect average annual daily treated effluent
concentrations from a properly designed biological treatment system for
thermo-mechanical insulation board to be different from those for SIS
hardboard. SIS hardboard treated effluents, as presented later in this
section, are 150 mg/1 BOD, 350 mg/1 TSS, and 0.052 mg/1 total phenols.
Based on an annual daily average effluent flow of 8.11 kl/kkg (1.95
kgal/ton) and an average production of 193 kkg/day (212 tons/day), the
best demonstrated treated effluent waste load is 1.2 kg/kkg (2.4 Ib/ton)
BOD, 2.8 kg/kkg (5.7 Ib/ton) TSS, and 0.00042 kg/kkg (0.00084 Ib/ton)
total phenols.
Application of chemically assisted clarification technology is expected
to result in a 10 percent reduction in suspended solids. This would
result in a treated effluent TSS load of 2.5 kg/kkg (5.0 Ib/ton).
Application of granular media filter technology is expected to result in
a 35 percent reduction in suspended solids. This would result in a
treated effluent TSS load of 1.8 kg/kkg (3.7 Ib/ton).
Due to the extremely low levels of heavy metals in the raw and final
effluents of the insulation board industry, best demonstrated treatment
plant performance technology is not defined for heavy metals.
Table VII-18 presents the raw and treated waste loads of heavy metals
for four insulation board plants. In general, reduction of heavy metals
of about 50 percent or more are common for biological treatment systems.
Data in Table VII-18 support this estimate.
7-90
-------
DRAFT
Wet Process Hardboard
The wastewater treatment system at Plant 24 exhibits the lowest treated
effluent concentrations of all the SIS hardboard plants. BOD and TSS
effluent concentrations from the contact stabilization activated sludge
system are 435.5 and 157 mg/1, respectively.
Following secondary clarification the wastewater is routed to an aerated
lagoon and is discharged after approximately 6 days detention time to old
impoundment ponds. Treated effluent is discharged from the holding ponds
to a creek. Treated concentrations calculated from 1976 historical data
are 102 mg/1 BOD and 120 mg/1 TSS.
Plant 24 evaporates much of its strong wastewater to produce an animal
feed by-product, and the wastewater treated in the contact stabilization
system includes large amounts of cooling, pump seal, and stormwater
runoff, as well as boiler blowdown. For these reasons, this plant cannot
be considered characteristic of the SIS hardboard segment.
Plant 444 achieves treated effluents concentrations of 193 and 365 mg/1
for BOD and TSS respectively. This plant produces paper products at the
same facility, and the wastewaters are combined before treatment. For
this reason, Plant 444 cannot be considered characteristic of the SIS
segment.
The wastewater treatment facility at Plant 824 consists of two, two-stage
aerated lagoons followed by two settling ponds, only one of which is
continuously on-stream. Modifications to this system were completed in
July 1976. Upon completion of the modifications, the average daily
effluent concentrations have been 142 mg/1 for BOD and 472, mg/1 for TSS.
Verification sampling performed at the plant found the treated effluent
concentration of total phenols to be 0.05 mg/1.
Although this plant adds a polyelectrolyte to the secondary settling
pond, very little mixing is achieved. The treatment system at plant 824
is not achieving the effluent solids concentrations which can be expected
from a plant that is properly designed and operated. S2S Plant 248
achieves an adjusted final effluent of 323 mg/1 TSS from a similar
settling pond arrangement. Insulation board Plant 555 obtains an
adjusted final effluent of 360 mg/1 TSS with a mechanical clarifier and
much higher solids loadings.
A final effluent suspended solids concentration of 350 mg/1 can be
achieved by a well designed and operated secondary settling facility, as
demonstrated by Plants 248 and 555. If 350 mg/1 is use to calculate the
suspended solids load from Plant 824, the resulting treated effluent
loadings are 1.3 kg/Kkg (2.6 Ib/ton) for BOD, 3.1 kg/Kkg (6.2 Ib/ton) for
TSS, and 0.00046 kg/Kkg (0.00092 Ib/ton) for total phenols.
7-91
-------
DRAFT
Application of chemically assisted clarification, with proper mixing
facilities, with an expected reduction in suspended solids of 10 percent,
will result in a treated effluent TSS load of 2.8 kg/Kkg (5.6 Ib/ton).
Application of granular media filtration, with an expected reduction in
solids of 35 percent, will result in a treated effluent TSS load of 2.0
kg/Kkg (4.0 Ib/ton).
S2S/Insulation Board Plant 1071 exhibits the lowest effluent concentra-
tions of any S2S hardboard producing plant. BOD and TSS annual average
daily concentrations are 98.1 mg/1 and 42.8 mg/1, respectively.
However, this plant cannot be considered characteristic of the S2S sub-
category for two reasons: 1) insulation board wastewater is completely
mixed with S2S wastewater, and 2) land availability for this plant is
such that treatment consists of a 24.3 hectare (60 acre) holding pond,
followed by a series of four aerated lagoons, followed by two oxidation
ponds.
Plant 248 provides solely S2S hardboard. Its treatment system, which
represents best demonstrated technology, consists of a primary aerated
pond .(Hinde Aqua Air Pond), two-stage biological treatment, secondary
storage and/or settling. Wastewater is retained in the Hinde Aqua Air
pond for approximately 2.5 days. The primary function of this system is
flow and biological equalization, as no BOD or TSS reduction is achieved.
After nutrient addition and pH adjustment, wastewater enters the first
stage of biological treatment which consists of two Infilco Aero Accela-
tors. Each Aero Accelator has an aeration compartment and a clarifica-
tion zone. Biological solids from the clarifier zone are recycled to the
aeration compartment. Waste sludge is detained in a surge tank and spray
irrigated. The wastewater is routed from the Accelators to the secondary
stage of biological treatment consisting of two aerated lagoons in
series. The retention time in each lagoon is approximately 2.5 days.
After final biological treatment the wastewater flows into one of two
22.7 million liter (6 million gallon) facultative lagoons. The lagoons
are used alternately to minimize the effects of any thermal inversions.
Solids are removed from each basin during the periods it is not in use.
Treated effluent is discharged to the river.
The annual average daily BOD concentration achieved by Plant 248 is
242.5 mg/1. The TSS concentration, adjusted to Standard Methods as
previously described in this section, is 323 mg/1. The total phenols
concentration of the effluent is 0.016 mg/1 as sampled during the veri-
fication sampling program. This value is uncharacteristically low for
fiberboard plants which use thermo-mechaincal pulping and refining. The
phenols effluent concentration of SIS Plant 824, 0.05 mg/1, is more char-
acteristic and will be used in calculating the treated effluent phenols
waste load for Plant 248.
Final effluent annual average daily treated waste loads for Plant 248,
representative of best demonstrated technology for the S2S subcategory,
are 2.2 kg/Kkg (4.3 Ib/ton) for BOD, 5.9 kg/Kkg (11.8 Ib/ton) for TSS and
0.0009 kg/Kkg (0.0018 Ib/ton) for phenols.
7-92
-------
DRAFT
Application of chemically assisted clarification, with an expected sus-
pended solids reduction of 10 percent, will result in a treated effluent
TSS load of 5.3 kg/Kkg (10.6 Ib/ton).
Application of granular media filtration, with an expected suspended
solids reduction of 35 percent, will result in a treated effluent load of
3.8 kg/Kkg (7.7 Ib/ton).
Due to the extremely low levels of heavy metals in the raw and final
effluents of the hardboard industry, best demonstrated technology treat-
ment plant performance is not defined for heavy metals. Table VII-23
presents the raw and treated waste loads of heavy metals for six hard-
board plants. In general, reduction of heavy metals of about 50 percent
or more are common for biological treatment systems. Data in Table
VII-23 support this estimate.
7-93
-------
DRAFT
Candidate Treatment Technologies
Wood Preserving
Direct discharge—Two basic treatment technology options are proposed
for plants that discharge directly to the environment. Option 1 uses
carbon adsorption in a tertiary treatment sequence following conven-
tional biological secondary treatment. The technical validity of this
treatment regime rests on the assumption that the primary treatment
phases will reduce oil content to a level compatible with biological
treatment, and that the efficiency of the biological treatment will be
such that after clarification or filtration the effluent to the carbon
unit will have a COD of less than 300 mg/liter.
Option 2 uses as a tertiary treatment biological oxidation to achieve
essentially the same result as carbon adsorption in Option 1. The
redundancy required in the biological treatment phase is not well
defined by information at hand. However, in terms of conventional
parameters, it is evident from Table VI1-13 that satisfactory results
can be achieved by multi-stage biological treatment.
The third technology option proposed for plants with a direct discharge
is identical to Option 2 except that superimposed on it is the techno-
logy required to remove metal contaminants from the wastewater. If lime
alone or lime in combination with a polyelectrolyte is used in Step 2,
additional treatment (Steps 4 to 6) may not be necessary for removal of
all metals except chromium. However, because of the substantial
solubility of hexavalent chromium, its presence in the wastewater will
require the full sequence of treatment steps shown.
Indirect discharge—Proposed technology in the Draft Development Docu-
ment for Pretreatment Standards basically consists of the treatment
sequence shown in Option 1 for indirect dischargers. This option gives
due recognition to what is perceived to be the intent of the Act with
respect to industry utilization of the POTW.
Option 3 is identical to Option 1 except that, as above, the technology
for removing fugitive metals from wastewater prior to discharge to the
POTW is included.
Option 2 is proposed in recognition of the fact that a higher level of
treatment technology is employed by several plants that utilize the
POTW. This option is similar to Option 2 for direct dischargers in that
it provides redundancy in the biological-oxidation phase, with the POTW
included in the tertiary treatment sequence.
Sufficient data are not available today to judge whether an on-site
secondary treatment is required to ensure that the priority organic
7-94
-------
DRAFT
pollutants do not pass through the POTW to the environment. Experience
gained by the wood preserving industry over the past 30 years, however,
clearly shows that this level of treatment is not required to protect
the POTW. There is no record of an upset having been caused by wood
preserving discharges, notwithstanding the fact that 17 percent of the
U.S. plants now utilize the POTW.
Self-contained discharge—The three options presuppose two distinct
wastewater management objectives. Options 1 and 2 are suggested for
plants that choose to dispose of their wastewater, while Option 3 is for
plants that choose to recycle it. The technologies represented by all
three options are in current use at one or more plants and are self-
explanatory. It should be noted, however, that most plants that dispose
of their waste by evaporation, as shown in Option 2, do not provide
flocculation.
Proposed Treatment Technology
Direct Discharge
Option 1 (Oily Wastewater Only)
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
3 Filtration
4 Single-stage biological treatment
5 Clarification or rapid sand filtration
6 Activated-carbon adsorption
7 Discharge-or recycle as required
Option 2 (Oily Wastewater Only)
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
3 Filtration
4 Multi-stage, biological treatment
5 Clarification
6 Discharge as required
Option 3 (Oily Wastewater with Fugitive Netals)
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
7-95
-------
DRAFT
3 Filtration
4 pH adjustment with
5 Chromium reduction
6 pH adjustment with Ca(OH)2
7 Multi-stage biological treatment
8 Clarification
9 Discharge as required
Indirect Discharge
Option 1 (Oily Wastewater Only)
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
3 Filtration
4 pH adjustment
5 Discharge to POTW
Option 2 (Oily Wastewater Only)
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
3 Filtration
4 Single-stage biological treatment
5 Clari fication
6 Discharge to POTW
Option 3 (Oily Wastewater with Fugitive Metals)
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
3 Filtration
4 pH adjustment with ^$04
5 Chromium reduction
6 pH adjustment with Ca(OH)4
7 Filtration
8 Discharge to POTW
Self-Contained Discharge
Option 1
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
7-96
-------
DRAFT
3 Filtration
4 Soil irrigation
Option 2
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
3 "' Filtration
4 Spray-pond or cooling tower evaporation
Option 3
Step Description
1 Oil-water separation
2 Flocculation
3 Filtration
4 . Single-stage biological treatment
5 Soil irrigation
6 Run-off collection
7 Recycle as required
Insulation Board and Hardboard
Four basic technology alternatives are proposed for insulation board and
hardboard. Alternative A consists of primary clarification, followed by
a two-stage activated sludge system, including secondary clarification.
For the insulation board mechanical pulping subcategory, single stage
activated sludge is proposed. The choice of a one- or two-stage system
is primarily one of economics rather than treatment effectiveness. When
properly designed and operated, a single stage unit will perform equally
as well as a two-stage unit. For larger waste loadings, two-stage
systems are more economical.
Alternative B includes Alternative A with the addition of polymers as
coagulant aids just prior to the outfall of the aeration basin. Preli-
minary data transferred from the pulp and paper industry indicate a
minimum of 10 percent solids reduction provided sufficient mixing is
achieved and the clarifier is properly designed.
7-97
-------
DRAFT
Alternative C includes Alternative A with the addition of dual media
filtration. Preliminary data transferred from the pulp and paper indus-
try indicates that 35 percent solids reduction can be expected from such
a system. It should be noted that filtration as a tertiary treatment is
not currently in use in the fiberboard industry. Pilot plant testing of
this sytem will be required prior to application of this alternative.
Alternative D is applicable to plants with sufficient land availability.
It consists of a two-stage aerated lagoon as an alternative to activated
sludge treatment.
Alternative E is again limited to plants with sufficient land availabil-
ity and appropriate climactic conditions. This alternative consists of
a roughing lagoon/holding pond followed by spray irrigation. Several
plants are successfully applying this technology to completely self-con-
tain all process wastewater.
Pretreatment technology is not presented from the insulation board and
hardboard industries due to the long-standing, demonstrated treatability
of their raw wastewaters. Several insulation board and hardboard indir-
ect dischargers provide varying levels of pretreatment prior to dis-
charge to a POTW, as discussed earlier in this section. The purpose of
this pretreatment is to reduce the waste load to the POTW, and thus
lower sewer charges. Figures VI1-9 through VI1-22 graphically depict
the candidate technologies. Tables VII-25 through VII-29 present the
annual average daily final effluent waste loads that can be expected
from each of the candidate technologies.
In order to allow an assessment of the economic impact of guidelines,
model treatment systems have been developed.
Since the model systems are for subcategories consisting of numerous
plants located throughout the United States, they are by necessity
generalized. Whenever a treatment system is to be designed for a
particular industrial operation, the design should be preceded by a
characterization of the wastewater of the specific plant and by pilot
plant studies in order to provide an optimum system for the given
process.
Specific assumptions for each unit operation of the model treatment
systems are as follows:
1. Monitoring Station—An installation to sample and measure the flow
of treated wastewater prior to discharge to a receiving water or
POTW. Flow is measured by a Parshall flume and recorded on a strip
chart. Flow proportioned samples are pumped to the control house.
Controls and sample pumps are under cover.
7-98
-------
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
ALTERNATIVE A
RAW
WASTE
PUMP
STATION
SCREENING
CO
CO
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
NEUTRALI-
ZATION
NEUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE
EQUALI-
ZATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
PUMP
STATION
PUMP
STATION
CONTROL
HOUSE
DISCHARGE
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
•»»
SLUDGE
THICKENER
— ^
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
DjSPOSAL
( TRUCK HAUL)
FIGURE VII-9
-------
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
ALTERNATIVE B
RAW
WASTE
PUMP
STATION
•sj
i
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
SCREENING
NEUTRALI-
ZATION
NEUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE
EQUALI-
ZATION
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
PUMP
STATION
PUMP
STATION
POLYMER ADDITION
CONTROL
HOUSE
DISCHARGE
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
SLUDGE
THICKENER
— »
VACUUM
FILTRATION
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
( TRUCK HAUL)
FIGURE VII-10
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
ALTERNATIVE C
RAW
WASTE
PUMP
* STATION
1
PRIMARY
CLARIFIER
NEl
•»
SCREENING
NEUTRALI-
ZATION
—
"1
TRIENT ADDITION
EQUALI-
ZATION
H
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
PUMP
STATION
— ^
PUMP
STATION
VACUUM
FILTRATION
CONTROL
HOUSE
DUAL MEDIA
FILTRATION
MONITORING
STATION
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
( TRUCK HAUL)
> DISCHARGE
FIGURE VII-11
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
ALTERNATIVE D
NUTRIENT ADDITION
RAW WASTE
PUMP
STATION
^
SCREENING
^
NEUTRALI -
ZATION
J
L
PUMP
STATION
o
ISJ
CONTROL
HOUSE
AERATED
LAGOON
I
PUMP
STATION
MONITORING
STATION
DISCHARGE FIGMgEVII-12
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
ALTERNATIVE E
NUTRIENT ADDITION
RAW WASTE
PUMP
STATION
^
SCREENING
^
NEUTRALI -
ZATION
J
I
PUMP
STATION
o
CO
CONTROL
HOUSE
I
AERATED
LAGOON
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
FIGURE VII-13
-------
Indirect Discharge
Option 1 ( Oily Wastewater Only )
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Oil-Water
Separation
pH Adjustment
Flocculation
Filtration
Discharge to POTW
FIGURE VII-14
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Indirect Discharge
Option 2 ( Oily Wastewater Only )
O
en
Oil- Water
Separator
CZ^i
Flocculatlon
\ A
Biological
Treatment
^^ Discharge to POTW
FIGURE VII-15
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
o
0)
Indirect Discharge
Option 3 ( Oily Wastewater With Fugitive Metals)
pH Adjustment With H2SO4 pH Adjustment With Ca ( OH )4
Oil-Water
Separation
d5
Flocculatlon
Filtration
Metals Removal
1
Filtration
FIGURE VII-16
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Self-Contained Discharge Option 1
Oil-Water
Separation
Filtration
Soil Irrigation
FIGURE VII-17
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Self-Contalned Discharge Option 2
Oil-Water
Separation
Flocculatlon
Filtration
V
7
Spray Pond
or
Cooling Tower Evaporation
FIGURE VII-18
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Self-Contained Discharge Option 3
O
CO
Oil-Water
Separation
C3>
Flocculatlon
Biological
Treatment
Soil T* T*
Irrigation 1
\ / ...
\/
^h
Run-Oft
Collection
1
1
1
Recycle as Required
TT
FIGUREVII-19
-------
Direct Discharge
Option 1 ( Oily Wastewater Only )
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Oil-water
Separation
Flocculatlon
Biological
Treatment
Clarification 1 Activated Carbon Adsorption
Rapid Sand Filtration
Discharge
Recycle
FIGURE VII-20
-------
Direct Discharge
Option 2 ( Oily Wastewater Only )
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Multl-Stago Biological Treatment
•
Oil-Water
separation
t^-
^^_ -
^ J
\
^^
L__
Discharge
FIGURE VII-21
-------
Candidate Treatment Technology
Wood Preserving
Direct Discharge
Option 3 ( Oily Wastewater With Fugitive Metals )
Ph Adjustment With H2SO4
pH Adjustment With Ce ( OH )2
IS)
Oil- Water
d ]>l
Filtration
Mulli-S
Multi-Stage Biological Treatment
I
I
I J
Discharge
Required
FIGURE VM-22
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-25.
Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads Achievable by Candidate Technologies, kg/1,000 cu m
(lbs/1,000 cu ft), Wood Preserving Organic Chemicals Subcategories.
Candidate Treatment Technology
Direct Discharge
Option 1
Single Stage Biological
Activated Carbon
Option 2
Multi -Stage Biological
Option 3
Multi-Stage Biological
Metal Reduction
Indirect Discharge
Option 1
Flocculation
Option 2
Single-Stage Biolgical
Option 3
Metals Reduction
Flocculation
COD
5.4
(0.34)
27.0
(1.7)
27.0
(1.7)
1400.0
(87.0)
28.0
(1.7)
1400.0
(87.0)
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
Phenol
.0017
.00010)
.011
.00070)
.011
.00070)
.056
.0035)
.033
.002)
.056
.0035)
O&G
2.8
(0.17)
2.79
(0.17)
2.8
(0.17)
2.8
(1.7)
2.8
(0.17)
27.0
(1.7)
0
(0
0
(0
0
(0
3
(0
1
(0
3
(0
PCP
.020
.0043)
.28
.017)
.28
.017)
.3
.21)
.4
.087)
.4
.21)
PNA's
(Total )
0.056
(0.0034)
0.14
(0.0087)
0.14
(0.0087)
0.42
(0.026)
0.279
(0.0174)
0.42
(0.026)
Cu
0.056
(0.0035)
1.1
(0.070)
0.014
(0.00087)
1.1
(0.070)
1.1
(0.070)
0.014
(0.00087)
Cr
0.021
(0.0013)
0.42
(0.026)
0.014
(0.00087)
0.42
(0,026)
0.42
(0.026)
0.014
(0.00087)
As
0.014
(0.00085)
0.28
(0.017)
0.014
(0.00087)
0.27
(0.017)
0.27
(0.017)
0.014
(0.00087)
In
0.028
(0.0018)
0.57
(0.035)
0.014
(0.00087)
0.56
(0.035)
0.56
(0.035)
0.014
(0.00087)
-------
Table VII-26.
DRAFT
Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads Achievable by
Candidate Technologies, Insulation Board Mechanical
Pulping and Refining.
Candidate
Technology
BOD
TSS
^_ Total Phenols
kg/KkgIb/ton kg/Kkg Ib/ton kg/KkgTbTton
Alternatives
A and D,
Biological
Treatment Only
Alternative B,
Polymer Addition
Chemically-Assisted
Clarification
Alternatiave C,
Filtration
0.36 0.72 3.8 7.6 0.00010 0.00021
0.36 0.72 3.4 6.8 0.00010 0.00021
0.36 0.72 2.5 4.9 0.00010 0.00021
7-114
-------
Table VII-27.
DRAFT
Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads Achievable by
Candidate Technologies, Insulation Board Thermo-
Mechanical Pulping and Refining.
Candidate
Technology
BOD
TSS
Total Phenols
kg/Kkg Ib/ton kg/Kkg Ib/ton kg/KkgTbTton
Alternatives
A and D,
Biological
Treatment Only 1.2
Alternative B,
Polymer Addition
Chemically-Assisted
Clarification 1.2
Alternatiave C,
Filtration 1.2
2.4 2.8 5.7 0.00042 0.00084
2.4 2.5 5.0 0.00042 0.00084
2.4 1.8 3.7 0.00042 0.00084
7-115
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-28.
Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads Achievable by
Candidate Technologies.
SIS Hardboard
Candidate
Technology
BOD
TSS
Total Phenols
kg/Kkg Ib/ton kg/Kkg Ib/ton kg/Kkg Ib/ton
Alternatives
A and D 1.3
Biological Treatment
Only
Alternative B 1.3
Polymer Addition
Chemically Assisted
Clarification
Alternative C
Filtration
1.3
2.6 3.1
2.6 2.8
2.6 2.0
6.2 0.00046 0.00092
5.6 0.00046 0.00092
4.0 0.00046 0.00092
7-116
-------
DRAFT
Table VII-29. Annual Average Final Effluent Waste Loads Achievable by
Candidate Technologies.
S2S Hardboard
Candidate BOD TSS Total Phenols
Technology kg/KkgIb/ton kg/KkgIb/ton kg/KkgIb/ton
Alternatives
A and D 2.2 4.3 5.9 11.8 0.0009 0.0018
Biological Treatment
Only
Alternative B 2.2 4.3 5.3 10.6 0.0009 0.0018
Polymer Addition
Chemically Assisted
Clarification
Alternative C 2.2 4.3 3.8 7.7 0.0009 0.0018
Filtration
7-117
-------
DRAFT
2. Control House—This facility contains office space for operators and
for a small laboratory. The laboratory is complete with supplies
and equipment for routine analysis. Furniture, electrical, sanitary
facilities, heating, etc., are included. When the treatment system
contains activated sludge, space is provided for sludge pumps.
3. Nutrient Addition to Biological Treatment—For anhydrous ammonia, a
steel pressure tank is used with 30 days storage. Feed is through a
commercial ammoniator. For phosphoric acid, a fiberglass-lined
• storage tank is used with 30 days storage capacity.
4. Complete Mix Activated SIudge—System includes: (a) a circular,
reinforced concrete aeration basin with fixed surface aerators, a
side water depth of 300 cm (10 ft), freeboard of 60 cm (2 ft); (b) a
circular steel clarifier with scum removal facilities, a side water
depth of 360 cm (12 ft), a surface overflow rate of 16,000 1/sq m
(400 gal/sq ft) per day, and a freeboard of 60 cm (2 ft); (c) three
sludge return pumps, each with capacity of pumping 100 percent of
influent.
System includes miscellaneous piping and all electrical require-
ments. A spray system for froth control is provided on the aeration
basin.
Unless otherwise stated, for a single storage unit, a MLSS of 2500
mg/1 and an F/M ratio of 0.3 are assumed. For a two-stage unit, the
MLSS in the first basin is assumed to be 3,000 mg/1, and in the
second stage, 2,500 mg/1; F/M ratio in the first stage is assumed to
be 0.5, and in the second stage, O.3..
5. Aerobic Digestion—System includes a 360 cm (12 ft) deep circular
steel tank with 20 days detention. Floating surface aerators are
provided. Batch operation with decanting is assumed. Thickened
sludge is assumed to enter the digester at 2 percent solids and
leave at 3.5 percent. Ratio of sludge produced to BOD loading is
assumed to be 0.3.
6. Dual Media Filtration—System consists of commercially available
pressured filter with media of anthracite and sand. Loading assumed
to be 4 gpm/sq ft. Backwash is automatically controlled. Backwash
duration is 12 minutes at 160 1/min/sq m (15 gpm/sq ft).
7. Pump Station—The pump station contains at least three pumps with
the capability of full capacity while one pump is out of service.
Efficiency is assumed to be 85 percent. The station includes a wet
well with protective covering and all piping and electrical.
7-118
-------
DRAFT
8. Aerated Lagoon—The aerated lagoon consists of two cells in series.
Solids are allowed to settle in both cells, and the cells are
dredged each 10 years. A slope of 3 to 1 is assumed for the dikes,
and a top width of 8 feet. While the biological rate constant can
be expected to decrease about 20 percent from the first cell to the
second, for simplicity of calculations a conservatively low value of
0.5 is assumed for both cells.
Floating surface aerators are used to provide 0.015 kw (0.02 hp) per
3785 liters (1000 gal) of volume, or enough energy to provide 1.4 kg
oxygen per kg BOD removed, whichever is larger.
The cells are assumed to be lined.
9. Spray Irrigation—A loading rate of 33,000 liters per hectare (3,500
gal/acre) per day is assumed. The system consists of prepared
(cleared, leveled, sodded) land with underground pipes, a pump sta-
tion, and all necessary piping and electrical.
10. Sludge Thickening by Flotation—A surface loading of 4 1/min/sq m
(0.4 gpm/sq ft) and a solids loading of 50 kg/sq m/day (10 Ib/sq
ft/day) are assumed. System includes the flotation unit, an efflu-
ent receiving tank, pressure relief valve, and all necessary piping
and electrical. Sludge pumping is also included.
It is assumed that the unit increases solids content from 1 percent
to 3.5 percent.
11. Vacuum Filtration of Sludge—A solids loading rate of 20 kg/sq m/hr
(4 Ib/sq ft/hr) is assumed. Ferric chloride is added at the rate of
7 percent by weight of dry solids. Sludge pumping and all electri-
cal and piping are included. It is assumed that the unit increases
solids concentration from 3.5 to 15 percent.
12.' Flow Equalization—A circular reinforced concrete tank with an epoxy
coating is assumed. Aeration (0.015 kw per sq m) (75 hp per million
gal) is provided to assist in mixing and to maintain aerobic condi-
tions. Detention time is 24 hours.
13. Carbon Adsorption—System consists of pressurized, fixed downflow
beds in parallel. A surface loading rate of 40 1/min/sq m (4
gal/min/sq ft) is assumed. Five percent of the flow is used for
backwash. Empty bed contact time is assumed to be 50 minutes.
14. Polymer Addition—System consists of a 30-day storage tank and feed
pumps.
7-119
-------
DRAFT
SECTION VITI
COST, ENERGY; AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
Cost Information
Cost Information for the candidate treatment technologies developed in
Section VII is presented in this section for the purpose of allowing an
assessment of the economic impact of the technologies. A separate eco-
nomic analysis, of cost impact on the industry will be prepared, and the
results will be published in a separate document.
The systems costed in this section are the hypothetical plants with no
treatment in place. As shown in Section VII, many plants already have
substantial treatment in operation. The assumptions used in developing
the costs are listed in Table VIII-1.
It should be noted that a number of factors affect the cost of a particu-
lar facility, and that these highly variable factors may differ from
those assumed herein. One of the most variable factors is the cost of
land, which may range from a few hundred dollars per hectare in rural
areas to millions of dollars (or total unavailability) in urban areas.
In some cases, individual installations may use cost accounting systems
which cause reported costs to differ from those in this section. For
example, it is not uncommon for a portion of a manufacturing plant's
administrative costs to be allocated to the waste treatment system. Such
factors are not included in this document.
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES
Itemized energy costs are presented in Tables VIII-2 through VIII-53.
Table VI11-54 presents a summary of energy costs.
NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES
The primary non-water quality aspect of the candidate technologies
involves the disposal of wastewater sludges on land or in landfills. Such
disposal must be done with proper management. Table VIII-55 presents a
summary of sludges generated by the various alternatives.
It has been shown in this document that priority pollutants are removed
by biological treatment. Organic materials are biodegraded, stripped
from the wastewater by aeration, or removed with the waste sludge.
Metals are most certainly contained in the sludge.
It is not within the scope of this document to define whether waste
materials from the timber products industry are to be considered haz-
ardous. Therefore, the discussions that follow are general in nature and
may or may not be applicable to the specific wastes from the industry.
8-1
-------
Table YIII-1. Cost Assumptions.
1. All costs are reported in June, 1977, dollars.
2. Excavation costs $5.00 per cubic yard.
3. Reinforced concrete costs $210 per cubic yard.
4. Site preparation costs $2,000 per acre.
5. Contract hauling of sludge to landfill costs $25 per cubic yard.
6. Land costs $20,000 per acre except for those alternatives including
aerated lagoons or spray irrigation, in which case land costs $2,000
per acre.
7. Surface dressing for lagoons costs $0.03 per square foot.
8. Fencing costs $2.00 per linear foot, installed.
9. Clay lining for lagoons costs $0.23 per square foot.
10. New carbon costs $0.96 per pound.
11. Epoxy coating costs $2.00 per square foot.
12. Electricity costs $0.05 per kilowatt-hour.
13. Phosphoric acid costs $0.25 per pound.
14. Anhydrous ammonia costs $0.18 per pound.
15. Polymer costs $0.60 per pound.
16. Engineering costs 15 percent of construction cost.
17. Contingency is 15 percent of capital cost.
18. Capital recovery is based on 20 years at 10 percent.
19. Annual insurance and taxes cost 3 percent of capital cost.
20. Average labor costs $20,000 per man per year.
8-2
-------
DRAFT
If land disposal is to be used for materials considered to be hazardous,
the disposal sites must not allow movement of pollutants to either ground
or surface waters. Natural conditions which must exist include geologi-
cal insurance that no hydraulic continuity can occur between liquids and
gases from the waste and natural ground or surface waters. Disposal
areas cannot be subject to washout, nor can they be located over active
forest zones or where geological changes can impair natural barriers.
Any rock fractures or fissures underlying the site must be sealed.
As a safeguard, lines may be needed at landfill sites. Liner materials
should be pretested for compatibility with the wastes to be disposed.
Leachate from the landfill must be collected and treated. The nature of
the treatment will vary with the nature of the waste, and may consist of
neutralization, hydrolysis, biological treatment, or evaporation. Treat-
ment in some cases may be achieved by recycling the leachate into the
landfill.
In general, wastes considered to be hazardous should only be disposed of
at a "specially designated" landfill, which is defined by the Federal
Register (May 1, 1974) as a landfill at which complete long-term protec-
tion of subsurface waters is provided. Such sites should be designed to
avoid direct hydraulic continuity with surface and subsurface waters, and
any leachate or subsurface flow into the disposal area should be con-
tained within the site unless treatment is provided. Monitoring wells
should be established and a sampling and analysis program conducted.
If deep well injection is considered to be economically attractive, the
system must be located on a porous, permeable formation of sufficient
depth to insure continued, permanent storage. It must be below the low-
est ground water aquifer, be confined above and below by impermeable
zones, and contain no natural fractures or faults. The wastewater so
disposed must be compatible with the formation, should be completely
detoxified, and should have removal of any solids which could result in
stratum plugging. Provisions for continued monitoring of well perfor-
mance and subsurface movement of wastes must be provided.
Percolation of wastes considered to be hazardous from earthen impound-
ments (aerated lagoons, evaporation ponds, etc.) must be prevented. If
the natural soild is pervious, artificial lining is necessary. Monitor-
ing wells must be provided.
If incineration is used for materials considered to be hazardous, and
thermal regeneration of carbon may fall into this category, provisions
must be made to prevent the entry of hazardous pollutants into the
atmosphere. In particular, incineration is not applicable to wastes con-
taining heavy metals. Equipment requirements for air pollution control
vary for different applications, but since the off gases of incineration
can be controlled by scrubbing, with the resulting effluent being dis-
8-3
-------
DRAFT
charged to the wastewater treatment facility, air quality impact need not
be significant.
The costs presented here are considered to be conservatively, but not
unreasonably, high. With careful management and good engineering, lower
costs can be attained in many cases. For example, electricity is assumed
to cost five cents per kilowatt-hour, but even in 1977 electricity can be
obtained for three to four cents per kilowatt-hour in many locations.
In any event, the costs presented in this section should not be applied
to a particular wastewater treatment facility. Cost estimates in speci-
fic cases must be based on designs, and specifications developed for
those cases.
Tables VIII-2 through VIII-55 present cost summaries for each of the
candidate technologies. In each case, energy cost is included in
operating cost and is also presented separately.
As mentioned above, volatile organic compounds may be stripped from
wastewater by aeration, such as in activated sludge units or aerated
lagoons. However, the resulting air quality impact is not considered to
be significant in the timber products industry.
Noise generated by the candidate treatment technologies should be equal
to comparable municipal treatment plants, and odor should be less objec-
tionable than municipal plants. Socioeconomic impacts are site-
specific.
8-4
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-2.
INSULATION BOARD MECHANICAL PULP
MODEL PLANT A
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
55,120
30,500
,071,530
960,000
330,000
285,000
75,680
16,390
544,490
20,000
629,160
$4,803,570
$ 16,740
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,540
51,700
167,590
210,000
15,500
71,000
288,900
5,980
2,170
561,880
144,100
120.000
$1,709,920
2,010
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
93,050
158,000
4,400
7,100
2,950
530
$ 298,830
8-5
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-3.
INSULATION BOARD MECHANICAL PULP
MODEL PLANT A
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Conti ngency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
55,120
30,500
1,071,530
7,290
960,000
330,000
285,000
75,680
16,390
545,580
20,000
630,420
$4,833,210
$
16,740
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,540
51,700
167,590
37,590
210,000
15,500
71,000
288,900
5,980
2,170
565,360
145,000
120,000
$1,751,890
2,010
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
93,050
750
158,000
4,400
7,100
2,950
530
$ 299,580
8-6
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-4.
INSULATION BOARD MECHANICAL PULP
MODEL PLANT A
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
55,120
30,500
,071,530
285,000
960,000
330,000
285,000
75,680
16,390
587,240
20,000
678,320
$5,200,480
$
16,740
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,540
51,700
167,590
71,000
210,000
15,500
71,000
288,900
5,980
2,170
608,500
156,000
120.000
$1,839,440
$
2,010
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
93,050
7,100
158,000
4,400
7,100
2,950
530
$ 305,930
8-7
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-5. INSULATION BOARD
MECHANICAL PULPING
MODEL PLANT A
ALTERNATIVE D
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,200 $ 1,340
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 55,120 3,540 1,250
Nutrient Addition 30,500 51,700 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 604,000 128,000 90,000
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 40,650 — —
Land 160,000
Contingency 46,750
Sludge Disposal — 185,200
Capital Recovery — 113,040
Insurance & Taxes — 33,670 —
Labor — 60.000 —
Total $1,122,410 $592,350 , $ 95,780
8-8
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-6. INSULATION BOARD
MECHANICAL PULPING
MODEL PLANT A
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,200 $ 4,000
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 55,100 3,540 1,210
Nutrient Addition 30,500 51,700 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 277,700 103,800 65,000
Spray Irrigation 5,332,400 180,300 19,000
Laboratory 20,000 1,200 100
Engineering 835,200
Land . 600,000 — —
Contingency 960,480
Sludge Disposal —- 185,200
Capital Recovery — 897,560
Insurance & Taxes — 247,240
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $8,241,380 $1,743,270 $ 91,240
8-9
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-7.
INSULATION BOARD MECHANICAL PULP
MODEL PLANT B
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
43,650
26,300
614,650
600,000
268,000
218,000
75,680
16,390
366,180
20,000
424,100
$3,251,480
$ 10,770
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,290
26,700
68,010
117,000
12,100
38,500
144,450
5,980
2,170
379,570
97,540
120.000
$1,058,880
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
41,530
79,500
2,680
4,280
2,950
530
$ 153,130
8-10
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-8.
INSULATION BOARD MECHANICAL PULP
MODEL PLANT B
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
43,650
26,300
614,650
6,030
600,000
268,000
218,000
75,680
16,390
367,080
20,000
425,150
$3,259,460
117
$ 10,770
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,290
26,700
68,010
19,310
000
12,100
38,500
144,450
5,980
2,170
380,500
97,780
120.000
$1,079,360
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
41,530
750
79,500
2,680
4,280
2,950
530
$ 153,880
8-11
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-9.
INSULATION BOARD MECHANICAL PULP
MODEL PLANT B
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
43,650
26,300
614,650
167,540
600,000
268,000
218,000
75,680
16,390
391,310
20,000
453,000
$3,473,050
$ 10,770
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,290
26,700
68,010
14,690
117,000
12,100
38,500
144,450
5,980
2,170
405,600
104,190
120.000
$1,106,250
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
41,530
4,360
79,500
2,680
4,280
2,950
530
$ 157,490
8-12
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-10. INSULATION BOARD
MECHANICAL PULPING
MODEL PLANT B
ALTERNATIVE D
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 68,800 $ 7,200 $ 2,820
Screening 19,500 1,380 680
Neutralization 43,650 3,290 1,180
Nutrient Addition 26,300 26,700 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 428,000 65,700 50,000
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 32,050
Land 80,000
Contingency 36,850 — —
Sludge Disposal — 92,600
Capital Recovery — 83,460
Insurance & Taxes — 23,720
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $ 790,540 $ 368,520 $ 57,190
8-13
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-11. INSULATION BOARD
MECHANICAL PULPING
MODEL PLANT B
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 68,800 $ 7,180 $ 2,800
Screening 19,500 1,380 680
Neutralization 43,600 3,290 1,180
Nutrient Addition 26,300 26,700 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 311,600 48,000 35,000
Spray Irrigation 2,681,200 93,600 11,500
Laboratory 20,000 1,200 100
Engineering 428,910
Land 300,000
Contingency 493,250
Sludge Disposal — 92,600
Capital Recovery — 480,780
Insurance & Taxes — 131,790 —
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $4,393,160 $ 946,520 $ 52,510
8-14
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-12.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT C
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
59,620
31,600
,590,060
670,000
280,000
230,000
75,680
16,390
563,860
20,000
648,440
$4,991,350
$ 16,740
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,580
53,500
208,450
137,000
13,000
44,000
168,900
5,980
2,170
583,930
149,740
120.000
$1,557,810
$ 6,030
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
138,600
94,000
3,000
4,800
2,950
530
$280,700
8-15
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-13.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR 'HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT C
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
59,620
31,600
1,590,060
7,290
670,000
280,000
230,000
75,680
16,390
564,950
20,000
649,690
$5,000,980
16,740
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,580
53,500
208,450
37,590
137,000
13,000
44,000
168,900
5,980
2,170
585,070
150,030
120,000
$1,596,830
$ 6
030
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
138,600
750
94,000
3,000
4,800
2,950
530
$281,450
8-16
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-14.
INSULATION BOARD
THEP.MO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT C
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
59,620
31,600
,590,060
267,060
670,000
280,000
230,000
75,680
16,390
603,920
20,000
694,500
$5,344,530
$ 16,740
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,580
53,500
208,450
25,340
137,000
13,000
44,000
168,900
5,980
2,170
625,420
160,340
120,000
$1,635,240
$ 6
030
680
26,710
940
1,210
250
138,600
8,550
94,000
3,000
4,800
2,950
530
$289,250
8-17
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-15.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT C
ALTERNATIVE D
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,200 $ 4,000
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 59,600 3,580 1,210
Nutrient Addition 31,600 53,500 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 723,000 199,000 160,000
Monitoring Station 16,400 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 41,490 — —
Land 220,000
Contingency 47,710 — —
Sludge Disposal — 185,200
Capital Recovery — 127,890
Insurance & Taxes — 39,260 —
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $1,308,800 $ 685,630 $168,400
8-18
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-16
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT C
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,160 $ 4,000
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 59,600 3,580 1,210
Nutrient Addition 31,600 53,500 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 343,800 113,500 90,000
Spray Irrigation 5,327,100 180,100 20,000
Laboratory 20,000 1,200 100
Engineering 835,250 — —
Land 600,000 —
Contingency 960,530
Sludge Disposal — 185,200
Capital Recovery — 905,370
Insurance & Taxes — 249,340
Labor —- 60,000 —
Total $8,307,880 $1,764,480 $117,240
8-19
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-17.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT D
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifter
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
> 103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
45,950
26,800
1,086,800
420,000
228,000
180,000
75,680
16,390
398,720
20,000
458,530
$3,535,400
11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,320
31,900
120,360
76,000
12,800
24,000
84,500
5,980
2,170
412,920
106,062
120,000
$1,044,512
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
71,560
47,300
1,850
2,900
2,950
530
$148,750
8-20
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-18.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT D
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
45,950
26,800
,086,800
6,030
420,000
228,000
180,000
75,680
16,390
399,630
20,000
459,570
$3,543,380
11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,320
31,900
120,360
19,310
76,000
12,800
24,000
84,500
5,980
2,170
413,860
106,300
120,000
$1,065,000
1,.
1,
4,230
680
13,490
830
,180
,250
71,560
750
47,300
1,850
2,900
2,950
530
$149,500
8-21
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-19.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT D
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
45,950
26,800
,086,800
167,540
420,000
228,000
180,000
75,680
16,390
423,850
20,000
487,430
$3,756,970
11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,320
31,900
120,360
14,690
76,000
12,800
24,000
84,500
5,980
2,170
438,940
112,710
120,000
$1,091,870
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
71,560
4,360
47,300
1,850
2,900
2,950
530
$153,110
8-22
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-20.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT D
ALTERNATIVE D
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 68,800 $ 7,800 $ 2,820
Screening 19,500 1,380 680
Neutralization 45,950 3,320 1,180
Nutrient Addition 26,800 31,900 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 550,600 106,600 80,000
Monitoring Station 16,400 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 32,470
Land 110,000
Contingency 37,340
Sludge Disposal ~ 92,600
Capital Recovery -- 98,300
Insurance & Taxes ~ 28,410
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $ 946,860 $ 434,780 $ 87,190
8-23
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-21.
INSULATION BOARD
THERMO-MECHANICAL PULPING AND/OR HARDBOARD PRODUCTION
MODEL PLANT D
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon
Spray Irrigation
Laboratory
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
68,800
19,500
45,950
26,800
328,000
,678,600
20,000
428,950
300,000
493,290
$4,409,890
7,800
1,380
3,320
31,900
64,700
93,600
1,200
92,600
482,750
132,300
60,000
$ 971,550
2,800
680
1,180
1,250
50,000
11,000
100
$ 67,010
8-24
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-22.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT E
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
( 160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
65,120
31,600
1,590,060
1,200,000
350,000
305,000
75,680
16,390
665,930
20,000
765,820
$5,891,300
$
17,850
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,640
53,500
208,450
255,000
17,400
85,000
356,900
5,980
2,170
689,640
176,740
120,000
$2,043,090
$
6,030
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
138,600
197,000
5,100
8,250
2,950
530
$ 389,250
8-25
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-23.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT E
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
65,120
31,600
,590,060
7,290
,200,000
350,000
305,000
75,680
16,390
667,030
20,000
767,080
$5,900,950
$ 17,850
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,640
53,500
208,450
37,590
255,000
17,400
85,000
356,900
5,980
2,170
690,780
177,030
120.000
$2,082,110
$
6,030
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
138,600
750
197,000
5,100
8,250
2,950
530
$ 390,000
8-26
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-24.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT E
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance & Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,380
241,770
65,120
31,600
,590,060
267,060
,200,000
350,000
305,000
75,680
16,390
705,990
20,000
811,890
$6,244,490
$ 17,850
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,640
53,500
208,450
25,340
255,000
17,400
85,000
356,900
5,980
2,170
731,130
187,330
120,000
$2,120,510
$
6,030
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
138,600
8,550
197,000
5,100
8,250
2,950
530
$ 397,800
8-27
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-25. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT E
ALTERNATIVE D
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,900 $ 4,000
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 65,100 3,640 1,210
Nutrient Addition 31,600 53,500 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 729,600 158,400 130,000
Monitoring Station 16,400 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 42,320
Land 184,000
Contingency 48,660
Sludge Disposal — 185,200
Capital Recovery — 129,520
Insurance and Taxes -- 38,600
Labor — 60.000 —
Total $1,286,680 $ 646,760 $ 138,400
8-28
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-26. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT E
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,160 $ 4,000
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 59,600 3,580 1,210
Nutrient Addition 31,600 53,500 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 343,800 113,500 90,000
Spray Irrigation 5,327,100 180,100 20,000
Laboratory 20,000 1,200 100
Engineering 835,250
Land 600,000
Contingency 960,530
Sludge Disposal — 185,200
Capital Recovery ~ 905,370
Insurance and Taxes — 249,340
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $8,307,880 $1,764,480 $117,240
8-29
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-27.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT F
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Central House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
48,250
26,800
,086,800
690,000
285,000
235,000
75,680
16,390
456,370
20,000
524,820
$4,043,640
$ 11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,360
31,900
120,360
145,000
13,200
46,500
178,400
5,980
2,170
472,620
121,310
120,000
$1,305,300
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
71,560
100,000
3,100
4,950
2,950
530
$ 204,750
8-30
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-28.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT F
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
48,250
26,800
,086,800
6,030
690,000
285,000
235,000
75,680
16,390
457,270
20,000
525,860
$4,051,610
$ 11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,360
31,900
120,360
19,310
145,000
13,200
46,500
178,400
5,980
2,170
473,550
121,550
120.000
$1,325,780
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
71,560
750
100,000
3,100
4,950
2,950
530
$ 205,500
8-31
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-29.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT F
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
& 103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
48,250
26,800
1,086,800
167,540
690,000
285,000
235,000
75,680
16,390
481,500
20,000
553,720
$4,265,210
$ 11
1
700
380
20,670
10,750
3,360
31,900
120,360
14,690
145,000
13,200
46,500
178,400
5,980
2,170
498,640
127,960
120.000
$1,352,660
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
180
250
1,
1,
71,
560
4,360
100,000
3,100
4,950
2,950
530
$ 209,110
8-32
-------
ft sue T
TABLE VIII-30. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT F
ALTERNATIVE D
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 68,800 $ 7,800 $ 2,800
Screening 19,500 1,380 680
Neutralization 48,200 3,360 1,180
Nutrient Addition 26,800 31,900 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 517,400 106,000 80,000
Monitoring Station 16,400 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 32,810
Land 90,000
Contingency 37,730
Sludge Disposal ~ 92,600
Capital Recovery — 94,750
Insurance and Taxes — 26,900
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $ 896,640 $ 429,160 $ 87,170
8-33
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-31. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD SIS
MODEL PLANT F
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 68,800 $ 7,800 $ 2,800
Screening 19,500 1,380 680
Neutralization 45,950 3,320 1,180
Nutrient Addition 26,800 31,900 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 328,000 64,700 50,000
Spray Irrigation 2,678,600 93,600 11,000
Laboratory 20,000 1,200 100
Engineering 428,950
Land 300,000
Contingency 493,290
Sludge Disposal — 92,600
Capital Recovery -- 482,750
Insurance and Taxes ~ 132,300
Labor — 60,000 —
Total $4,409,890 $ 971,550 $ 67,010
8-34
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-32.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT G
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
160,650
22,900
380,000
241,770
70,120
36,200
,698,060
,300,000
355,000
315,000
75,680
16,390
700,770
20,000
805,880
$6,198,420
$ 17,850
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,710
69,000
238,730
270,000
17,800
90,000
378,500
5,980
2,170
725,720
185,950
120,000
$2,176,230
6,030
680
26,710
940
1,210
250
161,600
210,000
5,350
8,600
2,950
530
$ 425,850
8-35
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-33.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT G
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
f 160,650
22,900
380,000
241,770
70,120
36,200
1,698,060
7,290
1
,300,000
355,000
315,000
75,680
16,390
701,860
20,000
807,140
$6,208,060
$ 17,850
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,710
69,000
238,730
37,590
270,000
17,800
90,000
378,500
5,980
2,170
726,850
186,240
120,000
$2,215,240
6,030
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
161,600
750
210,000
5,350
8,600
2,950
530
$ 426,600
8-36
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-34.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT G
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
1
160,650
22,900
380,000
241,770
70,120
36,200
698,060
267,060
1,300,000
355,000
315,000
75,680
16,390
740,820
20,000
851,950
$6,551,600
$ 17,850
1,530
37,210
12,080
3,710
69,000
238,730
25,340
270,000
17,800
90,000
378,500
5,980
2,170
767,200
196,550
120,000
$2,253,650
$
i,030
680
26,710
940
1,210
1,250
161,600
8,550
210,000
5,350
8,600
2,950
530
$ 434,400
8-37
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-35. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT 6
ALTERNATIVE D
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,900 $ 4,000
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 70,100 3,710 1,210
Nutrient Addition 36,200 69,000 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 881,900 239,000 210,000
Monitoring Station 16,400 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 43,760
Land . 210,000
Contingency 50,320
Sludge Disposal — 185,200
Capital Recovery — 148,900
Insurance and Taxes — 44,330
Labor — 60.000 —
Total $1,477,680 $ 768,040 $ 218,400
8-38
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-36. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT G
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 107,100 $ 11,900 $ 4,000
Screening 22,900 1,530 680
Neutralization 70,100 3,710 1,210
Nutrient Addition 36,200 69,000 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 543,600 153,800 130,000
Spray Irrigation 5,327,100 180,000 20,000
Laboratory 20,000 1,200 100
Engineering 837,510
Land 600,000
Contingency 963,140 —
Sludge Disposal — 185,200
Capital Recovery — 931,180
Insurance and Taxes — 255,830
Labor — 60,000 •
Total $8,527,650 $1,853,450 $ 157,240
8-39
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-37.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT H
ALTERNATIVE A
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
50,450
27,800
,164,300
725,000
290,000
240,000
75,680
16,390
475,220
20,000
546,510
$4,209,880
$ 11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,390
36,200
136,330
153,000
13,600
48,500
189,300
5,980
2,170
492,140
126,300
120,000
$1,371,410
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
84,060
104,000
3,300
5,170
2,950
530
$ 221,670
8-40
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-38.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT H
ALTERNATIVE B
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Polymer Addition
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
50,450
27,800
,164,300
6,030
725,000
290,000
240,000
75,680
16,390
476,130
20,000
547,550
$4,217,860
$ 11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,390
36,200
136,330
19,310
153,000
13,600
48,500
189,300
5,980
2,170
493,080
126,540
120,000
$1,391,900
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
84,060
750
104,000
3,300
5,170
2,950
' 530
$ 222,420
8-41
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-39.
WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT H
ALTERNATIVE C
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Filtration
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal
Control House
Monitoring Station
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
Total
$
103,140
19,500
248,890
207,000
50,450
27,800
,164,300
167,540
725,000
290,000
240,000
75,680
16,390
500,350
20,000
575,410
$4,431,450
$ 11,700
1,380
20,670
10,750
3,390
36,200
136,330
14,690
153,000
13,600
48,500
189,300
5,980
2,170
518,170
132,943
120.000
$1,418,770
$
4,230
680
13,490
830
1,180
1,250
84,060
4,360
104,000
3,300
5,170
2,950
530
$ 226,030
8-42
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VII1-40. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT H
ALTERNATIVES
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 68,800 $ 7,800 $ 2,800
Screening 19,500 1,380 680
Neutralization 50,400 3,390 1,180
Nutrient Addition 27,800 36,200 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 567,000 116,300 90,000
Monitoring Station 16,400 2,170 530
Laboratory 39,000 2,300 730
Engineering 33,290
Land 104,000
Contingency 38,280
Sludge Disposal — 92,600
Capital Recovery — 101,070
Insurance and Taxes — 28,930
Labor — 60,000 '
Total $ 964,470 $ 452,140 $ 97,170
8-43
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VIII-41. WET PROCESS HARDBOARD S2S
MODEL PLANT H
ALTERNATIVE E
COST SUMMARY
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (2) $ 68,800 $ 7,800 $ 2,800
Screening 19,500 1,380 680
Neutralization 50,450 3,390 1,180
Nutrient Addition 27,800 36,200 1,250
Aerated Lagoon 377,700 83,000 67,000
Spray Irrigation 2,678,600 93,600 11,000
Laboratory 20,000 1,200 100
Engineering 429,770
Land 300,000
Contingency 494,240
Sludge Disposal ~ 92,600
Capital Recovery — 489,440
Insurance and Taxes ~ 134,010
Labor — 60.000 —
Total $4,466,860 $1,002,620 $ 84,010
8-44
-------
TABLE VIII-42.
WOOD PRESERVING DIRECT DISCHARGE—OPTION I WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE
ALTERNATIVE.
oo
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration
Step 4 Activated Sludge
Step 5 Rapid Sand Filter
Step 6 Activated Carbon
Monitoring Station
Pump Station
Control House
Total
Cost Summary
Capi tal
Cost
$154,100
26,000
186,000
92,900
53,000
21,700
26,500
80,700
Cost of
Operation*
$ 19,900
13,600
20,300
6,800
7,000
2,900
2,600
8,400
Cost of
Energy
$ 3,500
400
3,400
500
100
500
300
3,000
Total
Annual Cost
$ 35,400
16,600
42,300
17,700
13,200
5,400
5,600
17,300
$640,900
$ 81,500
$ 11,700 $153,500
Includes cost of energy, .but not capital recovery.
-------
TABLE VII1-43.
WOOD PRESERVING DIRECT DISCHARGE-OPTION 1 WITH AERATED LAGOON
ALTERNATIVE.
oo
k
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration
Step 4 Activated Sludge
Step 5 Rapid Sand Filter
Step 6 Activated Carbon
Monitoring Station
Pump Station
Control House
Total
Cost Summary
Capital
Cost
Cost of
Operation*
$ 19,900
13,600
9,100
6,800
7,000
2,900
2,600
5,100
Cost of
Energy
$ 3,500
400
600
500
100
500
300
700
Total
Annual Cost
$ 35,400
16,600
23,200
17,700
13,200
5,400
5,600
12,400
$154,100
26,000
125,000
92,900
53,000
21,700
26,500
64.000
$563,200 $ 67,000 $ 6,600
$129,500
Includes cost of energy, but not capital recovery.
-------
TABLE VI11-44.
WOOD PRESERVING DIRECT DISCHARGE—OPTION
ALTERNATIVE.
2 WITH ACTIVATED SLUDGE
oo
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration
Step 4 Multi-Stage Activated
Sludge
Monitoring Station
Pump Station
Laboratory
Total
Cost Summary
Capi tal
Cost
$154,100
26,000
288,500
21,700
26,500
80,700
Cost of
Operation*
$ 19,900
13,600
32,800
2,900
2,600
, 8,400
Cost Of
Energy
$ 3,500
400
5,600
500
300
3,000
Total
Annual Cost
$ 35,400
16,600
66,700
5,400
5,600
17,300
$597,500
$ 80,200
$ 13,300 $142,000
* Includes cost of energy but not capital recovery,
-------
TABLE VII1-45. WOOD PRESERVING DIRECT DISCHARGE—OPTION 2 WITH AERATED LAGOON
ALTERNATIVE.
Capital Cost of Cost of Total
Cost Operation* Energy Annual Cost
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation $154,100 $ 19,900 $ 3,500 $ 35,400
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration 26,000 13,600 400 16,600
Step 4 Multi-Stage Aerated
Lagoon 250,000 18,200 1,200 46,400
Monitoring Station 21,700 , 2,900 500 5,400
Pump Station 26,500 2,600 300 5,600
Control House 64,000 5.100 700 12,400
Total $542,300 $ 62,300 $ 6,600 $121,800
°°
*.
00 * Includes cost of energy but not capital recovery.
-------
TABLE VI11-46. WOOD PRESERVING DIRECT DISCHARGE—OPTION 3.
Cost Summary
Capital Cost of Cost of Total
Cost Operation Energy Annual Cost
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation $154,100 $ 19,900 $ 3,500 $ 35,400
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration 26,000 13,600 400 16,600
Step 4, 5, 6 Chromium Reduction 154,000 18,500 3,500 36,300
Step 7 Multi-Stage Activated
Sludge Station 188,500 32,800 5,600 66,700
Monitoring Station 21,700 2,900 500 5,400
Control House 80,700 8,400 3,000 17,300
Pump Station 26,500 2,600 300 5,600
* , Total $751,500 $ 98,700 $ 16,800 $181,900
5
Aerated Lagoon Alternative $696,300 $ 80,800 $ 10,100 $156,700
-------
TABLE VI11-47. WOOD PRESERVING INDIRECT DISCHARGE—OPTION 1.
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration
Monitoring Station
Pump Station
Laboratory
Total
00
o
Cost Summary
Capital
Cost
$246,300
Cost of
Operation
$154,100
26,000
21,700
26,500
18,000
$ 19,900
13,600
2,900
2,600
4,000
$ 43,000
Cost of
Energy
$
3,500
400
500
300
700
$ 5,400
Total
Annual Cost
$ 35,400
16,600
5,400
5,600
6.100
$ 69,100
-------
TABLE VI11-48. WOOD PRESERVING INDIRECT DISCHARGE—OPTION 2.
Cost Summary
op
i
01
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation
Steps 2, 3" Flocculation/Filtration
Step 4 Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Pump Station
Laboratory
Total
Aerated Lagoon Alternative
Capital
Cost
$154,100
26,000
186,000
21,700
26,500
80,700
Cost of
Operation
$ 19,900
13,600
20,300
2,900
2,600
8,400
Cost of
Energy
$ 3,500
400
3,400
500
300
3,000
Total
Annual Cost
$ 35,400
16,600
42,300
5,400
5,600
17,300
$495,000
$417,300
$ 67,700 $ 11,100
$53,200
$122,600
$ 98,600
-------
TABLE VI11-49. WOOD PRESERVING INDIRECT DISCHARGE—OPTION 3.
Cost Summary
i
Capital Cost of Cost of Total
Cost Operation Energy Annual Cost
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation $154,100 $ 19,900 $ 3,500 $ 34,000
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration 26,000 13,600 400 16,600
Steps 4, 5, 6 Chromium Reduction 154,000 18,500 3,500 36,300
Monitoring Station 21,700 2,900 500 5,400
Control House 18,000 4,000 700 6,100
Pump Station 26.500 2.600 300 5.600
Total $400,300 $61,500 $ 8,900 $104,000
CO
Cfl
IS)
-------
TABLE VI11-50. WOOD PRESERVING SELF-CONTAINED DISCHARGE—OPTION 1.
Cost Summary
Capital Cost of Cost of Total
Cost Operation Energy Annual Cost
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation $154,100 $ 19,900 $ 3,500 $ 35,4t)0
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration 26,000 13,600 400 16,600
Steps 4 Spray Irrigation 197,300 17,000 3,600 35,500
Laboratory 18,000 4,000 700 6,100
Pump Station 26.500 2,600 300 5,600
Total $421,900 $ 57,100 $ 8,500 $ 99,200
00
s
-------
00
TABLE VIII-51. WOOD PRESERVING SELF-CONTAINED DISCHARGE— OPTION 2.
Cost Summary
Capital Cost of Cost of Total
Cost Operation Energy Annual Cost
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation $154,100 $ 19,900 $ 3,500 $ 35,400
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration 26,000 13,600 400 16,600
Steps 4 Spray Evaporation* 685,000 32,500 3,600 40,500
Laboratory 18,000 4,000 700 6,100
Pump Station 26.500 2,600 300 5.600
Total $909,600 $ 72,600 $ 8,500 $104,200
* Costs adopted from Treatment of Wood Preserving Wastewater by T.D. Reynolds and
P. A. Shack, .Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University, October, 1976.
-------
TABLE VIII-52. WOOD PRESERVING SELF-CONTAINED DISCHARGE—OPTION 3.
Cost Summary
Capital Cost of Cost of Total
Cost Operation Energy Annual Cost
Step 1 Oil-Water Separation $154,100 $ 19,900 $ 3,500 $ 35,400
Steps 2, 3 Flocculation, Filtration 26,000 13,600 400 16,600
Step 4 Activated Sludge 186,000 20,300 3,400 42,300
Step 5 Spray Irrigation 197,300 17,000 3,600 35,500
Laboratory 80,700 8,400 3,000 17,300
Monitoring Station 21,700 2,900 500 5,400
Pump Station 26,500 2.600 300 5.600
Total $692,300 $ 84,700 $ 14,700 $158,100
00
(Jl
Ul
Aerated Lagoon Alternative $614,600 $ 70,200 $ 9,600 $134,100
-------
TABLE VI11-53
WOOD PRESERVING
SUMMARY
Investment Costs
Capital Constructton Cost of
Cost Cost Land
Cost of
Operation
Annual Costs
Cost of
Labor
Cost of
Energy
Total
Annual Cost
Direct Discharge
Option
Option
Option
Option
« Option
01 Option
Indirect
Option
Option
Option
Option
1 (Activated Sludge)
1 (Aerated Lagoon)
2 (Activated Sludge)
2 (Aerated Lagoon)
3 (Activated Sludge)
3 (Aerated Lagoon)
Discharge
1
2 (Activated Sludge)
2 (Aerated Lagoon)
3
$640
563
597
542
751
696
$246
495
417
400
,900
,200
,500
,300
,000
,300
,300
,000
,300
,300
$624,
547,
579,
521,
730,
673,
$236,
479,
402,
388,
800
600
100
900
000
900
000
200r
000:
000!
$ 16,100
15,500
18,400
20,400
20,400
22,400
$ 10,300
15,800
15,300
12,300
$ 81,500
67,000
80,200
62,300
98,700
80,800
$ 43,000
67,700
53,200
61,500
$ 24,600
21,000
26,100
22,500
29,600
26,000
$ 15,500
22,600
19,000
19,000
$ 11
6
13
6
16
10
$ 5
11
6
8
,700
,600
,300
,600
,800
,100
,400
,100
,000
,900
$153,500
129,500
147,000
121,800
181,900
156,700
$ 69,100
122,600
98,600
104,000
Self-Contained Discharge
Option
Option
Option
Option
1
2
3 (Activated Sludge)
3 (Aerated Lagoon)
$421
909
692
614
,900
,600
,300
,600
$371,
798,
639,
559,
600'
500
500
300
$ 50,300
111,100
52,800
55,300
$ 57,100
72,600
84,700
70,200
$ 19,000
19,000
26,100
22,500
$ 8
8
14
9
,500
,500
,700
,600
$ 99,200
104,200
158,100
134,100
-------
DRAFT
TABLE VI11-54. ENERGY COST SUMMARY.
Model Plant
Alternative
Annual Energy Cost
A A
B
C
D
E
B A
B
C
D
E
C ~A
B
C
D
E
D A
B
C
D
E
E A
B
C
D
F
F A
B
C
D
E
G A
B
C
D
E
298,830
299,580
305,930
95,780
91 ,240
153,130
153,880
157,490
57,190
52,510
280,700
281 ,450
289,250
168,400
117,240
148,750
149,500
153,110
87,190
67,010
389,250
390,000
397,800
138,400
117,240
204,750
205,500
209,110
87,170
67,010
425,850
426,600
434,400
218,400
157,240
8-57
-------
TABLE VI11-54. ENERGY COST SUMMARY (Cont'd.).
Model Plant Alternative
Annual Energy Cost
H A
B
C
D
E
Wood Preserving Option 1 with
Direct Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 1 with
Direct Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 2 with
Direct Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 2 with
Direct Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 3 with
Direct Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 3 with
Direct Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 1
Indirect Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 2
Indirect Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 3
Indirect Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 1
Self-Contained Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 2
Self-Contained Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 3 with
Self-Contained Discharge
Wood Preserving Option 3 with
Self-Contained Discharge
221,670
222,420
226,030
97,170
84,010
Activated Sludge 11 ,700
Aerated Lagoon 6,600
Activated Sludge 13,300
Aerated Lagoon 6,600
Activated Sludge 16,800
Aerated Lagoon 10,100
5,400
11,100
8,900
8,500
8,500
Activated Sludge 14,700
Aerated Lagoon 9,600
8-58
-------
TABLE VI11-55. SLUDGE GENERATION BY CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES.
Plant Alternative
Dry Solids
kg /day
A A,
D,
B A,
D,
C A,
D,
D A,
D,
E A,
D,
F A,
D,
G . A,
D.
H A,
D,
B, C
E
B, C
E
B, C
E
B, C
E
B, C
E
B, C
E
B, C
E
B, C
E
4400
2800
2200
1400
2600
2800
1300
1400
5400
2800
6700
1400
5800
2800
2900
1400
8-59
-------
DRAFT
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document, and
other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
9- 1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document, and
other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
10-1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document, and
other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
10-1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document, and
other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
11-1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT GUIDELINES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document, and
other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
12-1
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XIII
PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS
Factors Which Influence Variations in Performance of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
The factors influencing the variation in performance of wastewater
treatment facilities are common to all sub-categories. The most im-
portant factors are summarized in this section.
Temperature
Temperature affects the rate of biological reaction with lower temper-
atures resulting in decreased biological activity which, for a given
detention time, causes higher effluent BOD levels. Effluent solids
levels also increase as a result of incomplete bio-oxidation and
decreased settling rates under reduced temperatures. Settling basins
and aerated lagoons are susceptible to thermal inversions. Significant
variations in the levels of effluent solids may result as settled solids
rise to the surface and are discharged.
Proper design and operation considerations can reduce the adverse
effects of temperature on treatment efficiencies. Such considerations
include the installation of insulation and the addition of heat. Tech-
niques for temperature control are both well known and commonly used in
the sanitary engineering field. Cost-effectiveness is usually the criti-
cal criterion for the extent and effectiveness of temperature control.
Shock Loading
Once a system is acclimated to a given set of steady state conditions,
rapid quantitative or qualitative changes in loading rates can cause a
decrease in treatment efficiencies. Several days or weeks are often
required for a system to adjust to a new set of operating conditions.
Systems with short retention times, such as activated sludge, are
particularly sensitive to shock loading.
While it is unlikely that total and permanent prevention of shock load-
ings for a particular system can be accomplished, proper design and
operation can greatly reduce adverse effects. Sufficient flow equali-
zation prior to biological treatment can mitigate slug loads. Complete
mix activated sludge is less likely to upset conditions than other
a' tivated sli/dge modifications.
System Stabilization
A new biological system, or one that has been out of operation, requires
a period of stabilization up to several weeks before optimum, consistent
efficiency can be expected. During this start-up period, large varia-
tions in pollutant parameters can be expected in the discharge.
13-1
-------
DRAFT
System Operation
A primary disadvantage of any activated sludge system is operational
difficulty. Operators must be well-trained specialists who are
thoroughly familiar with the system they are operating.
Nutrient Requirements .
Adequate amounts of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, are
required to maintain a viable microbial population in a biological sys-
tem. Proper design and operation of a system will provide sufficient
nutrients for optimum performance.
System Controllability
In addition to the design considerations mentioned above, an activated
sludge system should include appropriate meters and accurate, control-
lable gates, valves, and pumps for optimum performance. A qualified
instrument technician should be available.
An adequate laboratory should be provided, along with monitoring facili-
ties. Essential control tests should be conducted at least once every
8-hour shift, and more frequently when necessary.
Variability Analysis
In order to quantify demonstrated variations for the plants providing
sufficient data, a statistical data analysis was conducted as explained
below. - t^
The data collection portfolio requested the plants to provide historical
data for the most recent 12-month period for which the data were avail-
able. Data requested included daily production figures and the plant's
monitoring results for both the raw process wastewater and the treated
process effluent discharged from the plant. Intermediate treatment
streams were requested if the plants had data on these streams.
Parameters of interest were flow, BOD, COD, TOC, TSS, phenols, heavy
metals, and any of the substances on the Priority Pollutant List.
The purpose of the data analysis was: 1) to characterize the raw waste
levels in each subcategory; 2) to determine the reduction of pollutants
demonstrated by the plant treatment systems from actual long-term
operating data; and 3) to quantify the variables exhibited by the
treated effluent from the treatment systems.
Data were analyzed for twelve wet process hardboard plants and six
insulation board plants. In the hardboard segment, nine of the plants
primarily produce SIS hardboard, while three are primarily S2S pro-
ducers. Two of the S2S producers also produce insulation board at the
13-2
-------
DRAFT
same facility. The six insulation board plants include five mechanical
pulping and refining plants and one thermo-mechanical pulping and
refining plant.
The historical data provided by each plant reported over a 12-month time
period formed the most descriptive data base for meaningful analysis.
Therefore, all available data from the 18 plants were used in analysis
exactly as received from each plant. Not all of the eighteen plants
submitted both influent and effluent data. Available data were used
where applicable. Plants 262, 64, and 824 made process and/or treatment
system changes during the year that dramatically changed the resulting
raw waste or effluent characteristics. Two sets of analyses were made
for these plants. The first set was an annual average value using all
12 months of data. The second analyses were made on the data obtained
after the process and/or treatment changes were made and consisted of 4
to 6 months operating data.
Data from the remaining plants in each industry segment were not used
for the following reasons:
Hardboard Segment
1. Plant 288—This plant produces both hardboard and insulation
board. The influent raw waste is monitored for flow; how-
ever, the raw waste is combined with raw wastes from other
industrial processes. Consequently, no meaningful waste
characterization could be obtained from the data.
2. Plant 22—This plant is a self-contained discharger and has
no monitoring practices. Therefore, no data existed.
3. Plant 666~This plant produces mineral wool fiber. The pro-
cess water from the hardboard and insulation board processes
receives no treatment and is completely mixed with the
mineral wool effluent before sampling and discharge to the
city sewer. No meaningful raw waste characteristics could be
obtained.
4. Plant 428—This plant did not submit sufficient information
in time for accurate data analysis. 1975 data has been
reported for this plant.
Insulation Board Segment
1. Plants 137 and 447—These plants have no monitoring practices
and no data were submitted.
2. Plant 989—This plant is a self-contained discharger. Insuffi-
cient data was sent to provide any meaningful analysis.
3. Plant 1111—This plant did not respond to the collection data
portfolio with any information other than to state it had no
process water discharge.
4. Plant 127—This plant produces both insulation board and
mineral wool fiber in approximately equal amounts. The
wastewaters are comingled such that no meaningful data could
be obtained.
5. Plants 373, 663, 1035, 1071, and 123—These plants produce
both hardboard and insulation board and are included in the
explanation of the hardboard segment.
13-3
-------
DRAFT
Unlike the wood preserving Industry, many of the wet process Insulation
and hardboard plants maintain extensive monitoring records. In most
cases, one year's operating data was obtained for analysis with data
reported on either a daily or weekly basis. Because of the large volume
of data, analyses were assisted by use of the computer.
Data from each plant were coded for keypunching directly from the data
sheets provided by the plant according to waste stream. The code for
the waste streams used appear in Table XIII-1. The data were then key-
punched. Special emphasis was placed on accuracy. The data were
checked after coding and then again after keypunching to insure the
highest possible accuracy.
All pollutant waste loadings were converted to a pounds/ton basis. This
was accomplished by first computing the annual average production in
tons per day for each plant. This average was calculated by dividing
the total year's production by the number of actual operating days.
This value was then used with applicable conversion factors to determine
waste loadings on a pounds/ton basis. Final results are reported in
both metric and English units.
The computer output for each plant consisted of the following
information:
1. Annual daily averages for pollutant loadings for all para-
meters desired;
2. Values of daily maximum and daily minimum pollutant loadings;
3. Thirty-day moving averages for pollutant loadings;
4. Maximum 30-day and 7-day moving averages for pollutant load-
ings; and
5. Statistical variability analysis on daily and 30-day data.
This study concentrated on the analysis of two pollutant parameters—BOD
and TSS. These parameters were chosen for two reasons. First, almost
every plant analyzed in each subcategory monitored them on a regular
basis (usually daily or weekly). Therefore, a large data base existed
for analysis within and between plants. Second, they are parameters of
special interest of both the insulation and hardboard subcategories.
Since most of the plants utilize biological treatment systems, BOD is
the logical oxygen demand parameter to analyze. The importance of TSS
analysis comes from the nature of the process—both insulation and
hardboard plants produce fibrous suspended solids in their raw waters
and generate biological suspended solids during biological treatment.
Thirty-day moving averages were computed by summing 30 consecutive days
of data and then dividing by the number of data points in that 30-day
period. For this study a minimum of four data points per 30-day period
were required to compute a meaningful 30-day average. By using 30-day
moving averages rather than monthly averages, seasonality effects such
as climate and flow rate of the process waste water are more realisti-
cally analyzed.
13-4
-------
Table XIII-1.
DRAFT
Environmental Protection Agency Wet Process Hardboard
Wastewater Stream Standard Designation.
Designation
Description
20 Series
30 Series
40 Series
50 Series
60 Series
70 Series
80 Series
Raw Wastewater Receiving Treatment
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Treatment Effluent
Biological Treatment Effluent
Post Storage and/or Treatment
Final Discharge
Raw Wastewater not Receiving Treatment
13-5
-------
DRAFT
A statistical analysis was performed on the daily and 30-day average of
the effluents from the model plants to determine the effluent variabili-
ties associated with the biological treatment systems of the model
plants. This analysis can be used to predict maximum effluent loadings
which will not be exceeded 99 percent of the time.
The statistical analysis program provided by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency calculates variability using: 1) normal probability; 2)log-
arithmic normal probability; and 3) three-parameter logarithmic normal
probability. The EPA has found in past studies for these industries
that normal probability yields positive coefficients of symmetry; i.e.,
the data is skewed to the right. In this case the actual variability of
the data is underestimated. Log normal probability, on the other hand,
tends to give a negative coefficient of symmetry (data is skewed to the
left) and thus overestimates the actual variability. The three-
parameter log normal distribution most accurately describes the actual
variabilities in the data. The three-parameter log normal analysis adds
a constant to the data points prior to log normal analysis. The objec-
tive is to obtain a zero coefficient of symmetry (i.e., the data is
symmetrical about the mean). This distribution curve gives the most
accurate predictions of excursions using normal or log normal prob-
ability. A constant is added and the coefficient of symmetry is
calculated. If this coefficient approximates zero, the analysis stops.
If the symmetry coefficient does not approximate zero, a new constant is
added and the procedure continues until the coefficient of symmetry
approximates zero. The actual variability ratios were calculated as
follows: the value predicted by the three-parameter log normal analysis
as the maximum value at the 99 percent confidence level was divided by
the mean of the normal sample.
Lack of long-term data from the wood preserving segment prevented any
quantification of variability. However, the variability ratios for the,
wet process hardboard and insulation board plants that provided suffi-
cient treated effluent data for variability analysis are presented in
Table XIII-2 and Table XIII-3. The monthly variations in wastewater
characteristics for the eighteen plants for which data were analyzed are
shown,graphically in Figures XIII-1 through XIII-18.
13-6
-------
DRAFT
Table XIII-2. Short-Term Variability Ratios, Wet Process Hardboard.
BOD
Plant Maximum
No. Day
SIS Hardboard
24
262
444
606
888
824
42
64
S2S Hardboard
248
373
1071
5.7
4.3
2.3
3.5
2.4
11.1
11.4
2.3
3.6
1.8
5.6
30-Day
Maximum
4.0
5.0
3.2
11.7
3.0
4.5
20.5
2.3
2.5
1.6
4.3
TSS
Maximum
Day
5.8
4.2
1.9
3.2
2.5
5.7
9.3
3.4
3.0
2.4
3.7
30-Day
Maximum
3.7
3.9
1.8
5.0
2.3
4.8
12.8
2.1
1.8
1,5
1.9
13-7
-------
DRAFT
Table XIII-3. Short-Term Variability Ratios, Insulation Board.
BOD
Plant Maximum 30-Day
No. Day Maximum
TSS
Maximum 30-Day
Day Maximum
Mechanical Pulping and Refining
555 8.8 2.6 12.7 2.1
125 6.0 3.5 5.5 3.5
Thermo-Mechanical Pulping and Refining and/or Hardboard Production at
Same Facility
373 1.8 1.6 2.4 1.5
1071 5.6 , 4.3 3.7 1.9
13-8
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 42
0)
<
cc
o
o
o "•
h- Q
O
OL
CC
o
O
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -
50 (100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20 (40)
10(20) -
FMAM
—A-
—X-
J J A S 0 N D
MONTH
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
INFLUENT TSS
EFFLUENT TSS
NOTE: Infl. data include both strong and weak waste streams.
Figure XIII-1
13-9
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 824
0)
CO
<
oc
2
Q P
CO
LU
Q.
CO
O
HI
CO
O
O
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -1
50 (100)
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20 (40) -
10(20)
—X
— INFLUENT BOD
— EFFLUENT BOD
— INFLUENT TSS
- EFFLUENT TSS
A S O N D
Figure XI11 -2
13-10
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
O)
<
OC
o
85
o °-
X V)
t- a
2
O)
ec
o
O
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60(120)-
50(100)
40 (80) -
30 (60) .
20 (40) •
10(20)-
PLANT __2I_
x - --
•—x-
•-x-
—A-
—•-
—X-
FMAMJJ'ASOND
MONTH
— INFLUENT BOD
— EFFLUENT BOD
— INFLUENT TSS
— EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XIII -3
13-11
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
INFLUENT TSS
EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XI11-4
13-12
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 24
O>
< -p
CC o
o t:
O w
C/5
UJ
QL
03
Q
Z
O
Q.
(O
DC
O
O
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60(120)-
50 (100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20 (40) -
10(20)-
—X-
— INFLUENT BOD
— EFFLUENT BOD
— INFLUENT TSS
- EFFLUENT TSS
FMAMJJ A S O N D
MONTH
NOTE: Infl. data taken after primary clarification, neutralization
and nutrient addition
Figure XIII-5
13-13
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 606
O)
CO
CC
0
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
^ 604120)-
JX
0 P
O
UJ
2
oc
O
O
50 (100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20(40)
10(20)
•-x x
J F M A
MJJ ASOND
MONTH
—X—
- INFLUENT BOD
- EFFLUENT BOD
- INFLUENT TSS
- EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XIII -6
13-14
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 262
MAMJJ ASOND
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
- INFLUENT TSS
- EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XI11 -7
13-15
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 444
O>
CO
< -p
OC o
o i:
O
CO
UJ
CO
£ 2
co ^
OC
CD
o
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -
50 (100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20(40)
10(20)-
—j—• i
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
INFLUENT TSS
EFFLUENT TSS
FMAMJJ ASON
MONTH
NOTE: Infl. data are taken after primary settling
Figure XIII-8
13-16
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT _M.
O)
(0
I §
O s:
2 2
5 2
Q O
z i-
§ ffi
X <0
I- Q
MAM
J J A S O
MONTH
N
—X—
- INFLUENT BOD
- EFFLUENT BOD
- INFLUENT TSS
- EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XIII-9
13 -17
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
O>
>
2 g
O C
O y>
_i .Q
Q
z
g
2
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -
50 (100)
40 (80) -
30 (60)
O)
CC
O
O
20(40)
10(20)-
PLANT 248
V
F M A M
J J A
MONTH
S 0 N D
— INFLUENT BOD
— EFFLUENT BOD
— INFLUENT TSS
•- EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XI11 -10
13-18
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 373
O)
CO
1
QC
o
110 (220) -
100(200)-
90(180)-
80 (160) -
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
' \ '
•' I /
i t'
P
/ I
\
\
CO
<
QC
O
O
°-
CO
Q
2
50(100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20 (40) -
10(20) -
FMAMJJ ASOND
—X—
- INFLUENT BOD
- EFFLUENT BOD
- INFLUENT TSS
- EFFLUENT TSS
NOTE: Effl. data are before paper wastewater is added.
Figure XIII-11
13-19
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 1071
O)
CO
I §
o c
g
o °-
X (O
I- O
CO
cc
o
O
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -
50 (100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20 (40)
10(20) -
—X—
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
INFLUENT TSS
EFFLUENT TSS
F M A M
J J
MONTH
A S 0 N D
Figure XIII-12
13-20
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 231
O)
co
If
0 *
O o>
_J J3
5 z
Q P
CO
LU
o "•
X CO
h- Q
g
CO
1
OC
O
O
90 (180)
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -
50 (100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20(40) -
10(20) -
x x'
J F M
A M J j ASOND
MONTH
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
— INFLUENT TSS
— EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XIII-13
13-21
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
0)
^^ •
^^
•t
CO
s
ILOGRAf
0
1
o
1-
cc
.0-
CO
S
QC
O
g
—
"w
•t
0
CC
LU
CO
o
z>
O-
Q.
^^
-A
-B
90(180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60(120)-
50 (100) -
40(80) -
30 (60) -
^
20 (40) -
10(20)-
0
PLANT 931
. '
W^v^— — ^
J FMAMJJ ASOND
MONTH
INFLUENT BOD
NOTE: Infl. data are taken after primary Floe, clarifier.
EFFLUENT BOD
INFLUENT TSS
X EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XI11 -14
13-22
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
o>
•^
*\
CO
QC
0
o
2
Q
~f
THOUSAf
QC
UJ
O.
CO
**•
KILOGRJ
—
|
(O
~-
0
QC
UJ
O_
CO
O
0
Q.
""^
A
•
-•
PLANT 123
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -
50 (100) -
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20 (40) -
10(20) -
0
*
f \
• • ^"^ Y ^ -^x 'x
y ^ ''*' ~ -X "
--x x--
J FMAMJJASOND
MONTH
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
— INFLUENT TSS
X EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XIII-15
13-23
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 555
O)
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -I
2 §
o £:
O To 60(120H
cc
UJ
Q.
03
cc
o
o
cc
UJ
Q.
0)
o
o
Q.
50 (100)
40 (80) -
30 (60) -
20(40)
10(20)
-A INFLUENT BOD
-• EFFLUENT BOD
-•--- INFLUENT TSS
-X EFFLUENT TSS
Figure XIM -16
13-24
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION tN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 125
O)
o
2 ?
o £
O
-------
MONTHLY VARIATION IN WASTE WATER CHARACTERISTIC
PLANT 531
0)
CO
I
cc
o
o
I s
O £L
X CO
K- O
2
CO
O
O
90 (180) -
80 (160) -
70 (140) -
60 (120) -
50 (100)
40 (80) -
30 (60)
20 (40)
10(20).
--- X ---
INFLUENT BOD
EFFLUENT BOD
INFLUENT TSS
EFFLUENT TSS
»--»~HU
FMAM
J J
MONTH
ASOND
Figure XIII-18
13-26
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering,
Inc., (ESE) of Gainesville, Florida. The Project Director and Project
Manager were Mr. John D. Crane, P.E., and Mr. Bevin A. Beaudet, P.E.,
respectively. Key staff engineers included Ms. Patricia Markey Ng and
Dr. Don Tang, P.E. Analytical work was managed by Mr. Stuart A.
Whitlock.
Special acknowledgement is due to Dr. Warren S. Thompson, Director of the
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, who served as a special consul-
tant to ESE. He provided invaluable technical assistance, advice, and
input, especially to the portions of the study involving wood preserving.
Acknowledgement is also due to Edward C. Jordan Company, Inc., of
Portland, Maine, for input to the hardboard study, and to R.E.T.A. of
St. Louis for field sampling and analytical efforts during the verifica-
tion phase of the project. Both firms operated under separate contract
to the Environmental Protection Agency. Of particular note were Mr. Bill
Warren, P.E., of E. C. Jordan Company, and Mr. Bruce Long, P.E., and
Mr. David Kennedy of R.E.T.A.
Appreciation is expressed to the Effluent Guidelines Division of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and most particularly to Mr. Richard
Williams, Project Officer, and Mr. John Riley, Chief, Timber and Forest
Fibers Branch, for their direction and guidance throughout the course of
the study.
Assistance was provided by numerous members of the wood preserving and
fiberboard industries. Appreciation is expressed to the National Forest
Products Association, The American Wood Preservers Institute, The Ameri-
can Board Products Association, and the American Wood Preserving Associa-
tion.
Individuals who particularly deserve mention are Mr. C. C. Stewart, who
provided valuable assistance in process descriptions for the fiberboard
industry; Mr. Curt Peterson of the ABPA; and Mr. Paul Goydan of the AWPA.
14-1
-------
SECTION XV DRAFT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abcor, Inc., "The Concentration of Pentachlorophenal Wastes by Abcor
Membrane System," A report submitted to Fuleo Lumber Co.,
Haleyville, Ala. (1974).
Amberg, H.R., "Aerated Stabilization of Board Mill White Water," Purdue
Industrial Waste Conf. (1964).
American Petroleum Institute. Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes.
Vol. 1. Wastewater Containing Oil (6th ed.). 1960.
American Water Works Assn., Water Treatment Plant Design, AWWA, Inc.,
1969.
American Wood Preservers' Association. "Report of Wastewater Disposal
Committee," Proc. AWPA. 56:201-204.
American Wood Preservers' Association. Proceedings, Vol. 71 (1975).
American Wood Preservers' Association. Proceedings. Vol. 72 (1976).
Anderson, E.A., et al. "The Corrosion of Zinc in Various Waters," Jour.
Amer. Water Work's Assn., 26:49 (1934).
Anonymous. "Trace Metal Removal by Wastewater Treatment," Technology
Transfer (Jan. 1977), p. 2.
Anonymous. "Phenols in Refinery Waste Water can be Oxidized with
Hydrogen Peroxide," Oil and Gas Jour. (January, 1975), p. 84.
APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
(14th ed.), Washington, D.C., 1975.
Aub, J.C., Fairhall, L.T. "Excretion of Silver in Urine," Jour. Amer.
Medical Assn. (1942), pp. 118-316.
Austin, R.H., et aK, "Biological Oxidation of Oil-Containing Waste-
waters," Ind. Eng. Chem.. 46:316-318 (1954).
Back, E.L., and Larsson, S.A., "Increased Pulp Yield as a Means of
Reducing the BOD of Hardwood Mill Effluent," Swedish Forest Products
Research Laboratory (1972).
Badger, E.H.M., and Jackson, M.I. "Loadings and Efficiencies in the
Biological Oxidation of Spent Gas Liquor," Journal and Proceedings
of the Institute of Sewage Purification. 2:159 (1961).
Baker, D.A., "Petroleum Processing Wastes," JWPCF. 47(6):1476 (1976).
15-1
-------
DRAFT
Bakir, F., etal. "Methy!mercury Poisoning in Iraq," Science. 181: 230-
240 (197IT7
Bartow, E., Weigle, O.M. "Zinc in Water Supplies," Indus. Eng. Chem..
24:463 (1932).
Berglund, F., Berlin, M. "Risk of Accumulation in Men and Mammals and
the Relation between Body Burden of Methylmercury and Toxic
Effects," In: Thomas, Chemical Fallout. Springfield, Illinois
(1969), pp. 258-273.
Biczyski, Jr., Suschka, J. "Investigations on Phenolic Wastes Treatment
in an Oxidation Ditch," Advances in Water Pollution Research.
2:285-289, Pergamon Press, New York, 1967.
Boen, D.F., and Jahannsen, G.L., Reverse Osmosis for Treated and
Untreated Secondary Sewage Effluent^ EPA Pept.670/2-74-007,
Washington, D.C.1974.
Brislin, J.F., et al_. "Literature Review on Creosote," Report Submitted
to American Wood Preservers Institute by Industrial Health Founda-
tion (1976).
Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals. Appleton-Century Crofts, New
York, 2nd ed., 1969, pp. 23-38.
Burns, O.B., Jr., and Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., "A Statistical Study of
Five Years' Operation of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company's
Waste Treatment Plant," Purdue Ind. Waste Conf.. XVIII (1963).
Cadman, T.W. "Techniques for Removing Metals from Process Wastewater,"
Chem. Eng.. 81(8):79. 1974.
Carus Chemical Co., "How to Clean Phenol from your Company's Waste
Economically," Carus Chemical Co. Form M-6001 (1971).
Chamberlin, N.S., and Day, R.V. "Technology of Chrome Reduction with
Sulfur Dioxide," Proc. llth Ind. Waste Conf.. Purdue Univ., 1956.
Chow, T.J., Patterson, C.C. "The Occurrences and Significance of Lead
Isotopes in Pelagic Sediments," Geochim. Cosmochim, Acta., 26(26)
(1962).
Christensen, H.E., Luginbyhl, T.T. (eds.). Registry of Toxic Effects of
Chemical Substances. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, PHS, Center
for Disease Control, Natl. Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, Rockville, MD, 1975.
Clark, J.W., and Viessman, W., Jr., Water Supply and Pollution Control.
International Textbook Co., 1970.
15-2
-------
DRAFT
Coe, R.H. "Bench Scale Method for Treating Waste by Activated Sludge,"
Petroleum Processing. 7:1128-1132, 1952.
Condren, A.J., and Warren, W.C., "Temperature Effects on the Aerobic
Biological Treatment of Wastewaters from the Pulp and Paper
Industry, " Unpublished.
Cooke, R., and Graham, P.W. "The Biological Purification of the Effluent
from a Lurgi Plant Gasifying Bituminous Coals," International
Journal of Air and Water Pollution. 9(3):97, 1965.
Cooper, R.L., and Catchpole, J.R. "The Biological Treatment of Coke Oven
Effluents," Yearbook Coke Oven Managers Assn. and Water Poll. Obs.,
42:562, 1969.
Crane, L.E. "An Operational Pollution Control System for Pressure Treat-
ing Plant Waste," Proc. Conf. on Poll. Abatement and Control in the
Wood Preserving Industry (W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest Products
Lab., Miss. State Univ., State College, Miss. (1971), pp. 261-270.
Dal Ions, V., "Comparison of Pollution Loads Resulting from Use of
Different Wood Species in the Production of Hardboard," Ind.
Environ. Research Lab. Cincinnati, Corvallis Field Station (1976).
Davies, J.J., "Economic Considerations of Oxidation Towers," Proc. Conf.
on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving Industry.
(W.S.Thompson, Ed.), Miss.Forest Products Lab., Miss.State
Univ., State College, Miss. (1971), pp. 195-205.
Davies, R.W., et al_. "Pollution Control and Waste Treatment at an Inland
Re finery.1^ roc.. 21st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. (1967), pp. 126-138.
DeJohn, P.B., and Adams, A.D., "Activated Carbon Improves Wastewater
Treatment," Hydrocarbon Proc. (Oct. 1975), p. 104.
1977 DFPI Directory of the Forest Products Industry, Miller Freeman
Publications, San Francisco, CA, 1977.
Dickerson, B.W., and Laffey, W.T. "Pilot Plant Studies of Phenolic
Wastes from Petro-Chemical Operations," Proc., 13th Purdue Ind.
Waste Conf. (1958), pp. 780-799.
Dorr Oliver, Inc., Stamford, Connecticutt.
Durum, W.H., et aK "Reconnaissance of Selected Minor Elements in
Surface Waters of the United States, October, 1970," USGS Circular
643. Washington, D.C. (1971).
Durvel, W.A., and Helfgott, T., "Removal of Wastewater Organics by
Reverse Osmosis," JWPCE. 47:57 (1975).
15-3
-------
DRAFT
Dust, J.V., Thompson, U.S., "Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry, Part 4: Biological Methods of Treating Wastewater,"
Forest Products Journal (1973).
Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., Industrial Waste Water Control, McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York (1966T
Eckenfelder, W.W., and Ford, D.L., Water Pollution Control. Jenkins Book
Publishing Co., 1970.
Edde, H., "Field Research Studies of Hydraulic Mining Patterns in
Mechanically Aerated Stabilization Basins," Proc. Intl. Congress
on Industrial Waste Waters. Stockholm (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R., "Increased Rate and Efficiency of Phenolic Waste
Ozonization," JWPCE. 43(2):200 (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R., "Oxidation of Phenolic Wastes. Part I: Oxidation with
Hydrogen Peroxide and a Ferrous Salt," JWPCE. 36(9):1116 (1964).
Evans, F.L. (ed.), Ozone in Water and Wastewater Treatment, Ann Arbor
Sci. Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1972.
Fairhill, L.T. "Toxic Contaminants of Drinking Water," Jour. North East
Water Works Assn.. 55:400 (1941).
Fang, H.H., and Chian, E.S., "Removal of Alcohols and Aliphatic Acids in
Aqueous Solution by NS-100 Membranes," Jour. Appl. Polymer Sci..
19:1347 (1975).
Fisher, C.W. "Kopper's Experience Regarding Irrigation of Industrial
Effluent Waters and Especially Wood Treating Plant Effluents," Proc.
Conf. on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving Ind.
(W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest Products Lab., MSU, State
College, Miss. (1971), pp. 232-248.
Fitzgerald, W.F., Lyons, W.B. "Organic Mercury Compounds in Coastal
Waters," Nature. 242 (1973).
Fleischer, M., et al_., "Environmental Impact of Cadmium: A Review by the
Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances," Env. Health Perspectives,
USGPO, Washington, D.C., 7:253 (1974).
Ford, D.L., et aK, "Temperature Predictions in Activated Sludge Basins
Using Mechanical Aerators," Purdue Ind. Waste Conf.. XXVII (1972).
Francingues, N.R. "Evaluation of a Pilot Study on a Creosote Waste from
the Wood Preserving Industry," Proc. of Miss. State Univ. Short
Course on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry (1970). p. 165.
15-4
-------
DRAFT
Gaudy, A.F., Jr. "Trie Role of Oxidation Ponds in a Wood Treating Plant
Waste Abatement Program," Proc.. Conf. on Poll. Abatement and
Control in the Wood Preserving Ind. (W.S. Thompson. Ed.). Miss.
Forest Products Lab., MSU, State College, Miss. (1971), pp. 150-164.
Gaudy, A.F., Jr. "Studies on the Treatment of Wood Preserving Wastes,"
Paper presented at 55th Natl. Meeting, Amer. Inst. Chem. Eng..
Houston, TX (1965).
Goldberg, E.D., e_t ajk "Marine Chemistry," In: Radioactivity in the
Marine Environment. Natl. Academy of Sciences, Washington, O.C.,
1971, p. 137.
Goldsmith, R.L., et al., "Soluble Oil Waste Treatment Using
UltrafiltrationT* presented at the 46th Annual Conf. of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Cleveland, Ohio (1973).
Gran, G., "Wastewater from Fibreboard Mills," Pure and Applied Chemistry,
Vol.29 (1972).
Hager, D.G., "Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Granular Activated
Carbon," Ind. Water Eng.. (Jan/Feb, 1974), p. 14.
Marlowe, H.W., et al.* "A Petro-Chemical Waste Treatment System," Proc.,
16th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. (1961), pp. 156-166.
Henshaw, T.B., "Adsorption/Filtration Plant Cuts Phenols from Effluent,"
Chem. Eng.. (May, 1971) p. 47.
Hill, W.B., et a_l_. "Argyria Investigation—Toxicological Properties of
Silver/^Amer. Silver Producers, Res. Proj. Rept., Appendix II
(1957).
Hsu, C.P., et al. "Phenolic Industrial Wastes Treatment by a Trickling
Filter'?1'^ue Li Taiwan Ta Hsueh King Cheng Hsueh Kan. 10:162 (1966)
and Chem. Abs. 67:8845 (1967).
Hutchins, R.A., "Thermal Regeneration Costs," Chem. Eng. Progr.,
71(5):80 (1975).
Hyde, A.C. "Chemical Plant Waste Treatment by Ten Methods," JWPCF, 37_
(11):1486 (1965).
Irukayama, K. "The Pollution of Minamata Bay and Minamata Disease," Adv.
Water Poll. Res.. 3:153 (1967).
Irukayama, K., et al_. "Studies on the Origin of the Causative Agent of
Minamata Disease, III: Industrial Wastes Containing Mercury
Compounds from Minamata Factory," Kumamoto Medical Journal, ^(
(1962).
15-5
-------
DRAFT
Jenne, E.A. "Mercury in Waters of the United States, 1970-71," Open File
Report, U.S. Geol. Surv., Menlo Park, CA (1972).
Johnsen, R. "Chlorination of Waters for Disinfection—A Study of the
Production of Undesirable Chlorinated Products," Nat!. Conf. on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls. EPA-56016-75-004.
Johnson, R.C., et afL, "Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins and
Pentachlorophenol," Conference—Nat!. Inst. of Environ. Health
Science. Research Triangle Park, N.C.(April 2, 1973).
Jordan, E.C., Inc., "Direct Filtration and Chemically Assisted
Clarification of Biologically Treated Pulp and Paper Industry
Wastewater," E.C. Jordon, Inc.(1977).
Jordan, E.C., Inc., "Summary Report on the Re-evaluation of the Effluent
Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber
Products Processing Point Source Category," Prepared by Edward C.
Jordan Co., Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3287 (July, 1976).
Junk, G.A., et aK "Contamination of Water by Synthetic Polymer Tubes,"
Environmental Science and Technology. 8(13) (December, 1974).
Keboe, R.H., et al_. "The Hygienic Significance of the Contamination of
Water witE Certain Mineral Constituents," JAWWA. 36:645 (1944).
Kirsh, E.J., and Etzel, J.E. "Microbial Decomposition on Pentachloro-
phenol," Personal correspondence submitted for publication to JWPCF.
1972.
Kopp, J.F. "The Occurrence of Trace Elements in Water, In: D.D. Hemp-
hill, Ed., "Trace Substances in Environmental Health—III," Proc.
Univ. of Missouri's 3rd Annual Conf. on Trace Substances in Environ-
mental Health. Univ. of Missouri. Columbia (1969). p. 59.
Kopp, J.F., and Kroner, R.C. "Trace Metals in Waters of the United
States," FWPCA. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Cincinnati, Ohio (1967).
Kostenbader, P.O., and Flacksteiner, J.W. "Biological Oxidation of Coke
Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor," JWPCF. 41(2):199, 1969.
Kremen, S.S. "Reverse Osmosis makes High Quality Water Now," Environ.
Sci. and Tech.. 9:314 (1975).
Lange, N.A., Ed. Handbook of Chemistry, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York, 1961.
Lieber, M., and Welsch, W.E. "Contamination of Groundwater by Cadmium,"
JAWWA. 46(51) (1954).
15-6
-------
DRAFT
Lin, Y.H., and Lawson, J.R. "Treatment of Oily and Metal Containing
Wastewater," Poll. Eng. 5(ll):45-49 (1973).
Lindberg, P. "Selenium Determination in Plant and Animal Material in
Water," Acta Vet Scand.. Suppl. 32, Stockholm (1968).
Livingstone, D.A. "Chemical Composition of Rivers and Lakes," Geological
Survey Professional Paper 440-G, pp. G1-G64, In: M. Fleischer, Ed.,
Data of Geochemistry (6th ed.), USGPO, Washington, D.C., 1963.
Lorenz, L.F., and Gjovik, L.R. "Analyzing Creosote by Gas Chromatography:
RElationship to Creosote Specifications," Proceedings, AWPA, Vol. 68
(1972), pp. 32-42.
Loyttyniemi, K. "Transfer of Lindane from Bark of Insecticide-Sprayed
Pine Pulpwood into Effluent from a Barking Drum," Paperi Puu 57,
No. 10:666-668 (October, 1975) [Finnish—Eng. Sum.] (Abstract).
Ludberg, J.E., and Nicks, G.D. "Phenols and Thiocyanate Removed from
Coke Plant Effluent," Ind. Wastes. Vol. 10-13 (November, 1969).
Martin, J.J., Jr. Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for Removal of
Heavy Metals. EPA Rept. R2/73/044, 1973.
MacDonald, R.G., Ed. "Pulp and Paper Manufacture," The Pulping of Wood.
Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., 1969.
McKee, J.E., and Wolf, H.W. Water Quality Criteria. State Water Quality
Control Board, Sacramento, CA, Pub. 3-A, 1963.
McKeown, J.J.', and Buckley, D.B. "Mixing Characteristics of Aerated
Stabilization Basins," TAPPI 8th Water and Air Conference (1971).
McLain, L., "Giving Effluents the Ozone Treatment. Could UK Innovation
Show the Way?" Process Eng. (Feb, 1973), p. 104.
Meissner, B. "Investigations of the Disposal of Phenol-Containing Wastes
by Biological Procedures," Wasserwerke-Wass Technology, 5_:82, and
Chem. Abs.. 49:14237 (1955).
Mero, J.L. Mineral Resources of the Sea. American Elsevier Publishing
Co., 1964.
Merten, U., and Brey, D.T. "Reverse Osmosis for Water Reclamation,"
Advances in Water Pollution REs Vol. 3. Proc. 3rd Inter. Conf..
WPCF, Washington, D.C.(1966).
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory. Unpublished data. Miss. Forest
Products Lab., Miss. State Univ., Miss. State, Miss., 1970.
15-7
-------
DRAFT
Mitchell, R. Introduction to Environmental Microbiology. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974, pg. 181.
Montes, G.E., et al. "Retro-Chemical Waste Treatment Problems," Sewage
Ind. Wastes."28:507-512 (1956).
Morris, D.C. et aj. Recycle of Papermill Wastewaters and Application of
Reverse Osmosis. ORM. EPA Program #12040 FUB. 1972.
Morrison, R.T., and Boyd, R.N. Organic Chemistry, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1966, p. 1067.
Morton, S.C., and Sawyer, E.W., "Clay Minerals Remove Organics, Viruses,
and Heavy Metals from Water," Water and Sewage Works (1976).
Motto, H.L., et al_. "Lead in Soils and Plants: Its Relationship to
Traffic Volume and Proximity to Highways," Envir. Sci. Tech.. 4:231
(1970).
Nakashio, M. "Phenolic Waste Treatment by an Activated Sludge Process,"
Hakko Kagaku Zasshi. 47:389, and Chem. Abs.. 71(8):236, 1969.
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Biologic Effects of Atmos-
pheric Pollutants. Lead: Airborne Lead In Perspective. MAS,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering. Water
Quality Criteria. 1972. USGPO, 1974.
National Academy of Sciences. Chromium. USGPO, 1974a.
National Research Council Committee. Chemistry of Coal Utilization,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., N.Y., 1945.
National Technical Information Service. "Polychlorinated Biphenyls and
the Environment," NTIS Interdepartmental Task Force, Washington, DC,
1972.
NCASI, "Pilot Plant Studies of Turbidity and Residual Cell Material
Removal from Mill Effluent by Granular Media Filtration," NCASI
Technical Bulletin. No. 266 (1973).
Niegowski, S.J., "Destruction of Phenols by Oxidation with Ozone," Ind.
Eng. Chem.. 45(3):632 (1953).
Niegowski, S.J., "Ozone Method for Destruction of Phenols in Petroleum
Waste Waters," Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 28(10):1266 (1956).
Nisbet, et al_. "Rates and Routes of Transport of-PCB's in the
Environment," Environmental Health Perspectives, 4(21) (1972).
15-8
-------
DRAFT
NIOSH, "Suspected Carcinogens, a Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances
List," DHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 75-188 (1975), p. 93.
Pacific Wood Treating Corp., Wood Preserving Waste Recycle and
Incineration System. EPA Proj. Control No. 580517901 1976.
Patterson, J.W. Wastewater Treatment Technology. Ann Arbor Science Pub-
lishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1975.
Paulson, E.G., "Adsorption as a Treatment of Refinery Effluent," Calgon
Corp. Memeo (1972).
Pelczar, M.J., Jr., and Reid, R.D. Microbiology, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1972.
Philipp, A.H., "Disposal of Insulation Board Mill Effluent by Land
Irrigation" J. of Water Pollution Control 43(8) (August, 1971).
Pontman, J.E. "The Toxicity of 120 Substances to Marine Organisms,"
Shellfish Information Leaflet. Fisheries Experimental Station,
Conway, N. Wales, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food
(1970).
Prather, B.V., and Gaudy, A.F., Jr. "Combined Chemical Physical and
Biological Processes in Refinery Wastewater Purification," Proc. Am.
Petro. Inst.. 44(111):105-112 (1964).
Preussner, R.D., and Mancini, J. "Extended Aeration Activated Sludge
Treatment of Petrochemical Waste at the Houston Plant of Petro-Tex
Chemical Corporation," Proc. 21st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 1967,
pp. 591-599.
Putilina, N.T. "Removal of Phenol from Coke Works Wastewaters," Hygiene
and Sanitation, Moscow, 12:8 (1952), and Water Pollution Abs.,
28:428 (1955).
Quirk, T.P. "Aerated Stabilization Basin Treatment of White Water," Water
and Wastes Eng. Industrial (1969).
Reid, G.W., and Janson, R.J. "Pilot Plant Studies on Phenolic Wastes at
Tinker Air Force Base," Proc., 10th Industrial Waste Conf., Purdue,
1955, p. 28.
Reid, G.W., and Libby, R.W. "Phenolic Waste Treatment Studies," Proc..
12th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. (1957), pp. 250-258.
Reid, G.W., et al_. "Removal of Phenol with Biological Slimes," Proc.,
llth Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. (1956), pp. 354-357.
15-9
-------
DRAFT
Richards, B.R.,. and Webb, D.A. "Laboratory Screening Assays of Treated
Wood Samples Exposed to Limnoria Tripunctata: Part III," American
Wood Preservers Assn. Proceedings. Vol. 71 (April, 1975).
Robertson, E.E., et al. "Battelle Northwest Contribution to the IDOE
Base-Line Study?'' Battelle Northwest 1972 IDOE Workshop (1972),
p. 231.
Rosfjord, R. E., et. al., "Phenols: A Water Pollution Control Assess-
ment," Water and Sewage Works. 123(3):96(1976).
Ross, W.K., and Sheppard, A.A. "Biological Oxidation of Petroleum
Phenolic Wastewater," Proc.. 10th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf. (1955),
pp. 106-119.
Rozelle, L.T., "Ultrathin Membranes for Treatment of Waste Effluents by
Reverse Osmosis," Appl. Polymer Symp.. 22:222 (1973). Chem. Abs..
80:6355f (1974). '
Runckel, W.J., "C-E Bauer Pressurized Double-Disc Refining Systems-
Application and Development in the Board Field," Proc.—7th Symp.
on Particleboard. (March 1973).
Ryan, J.P. Minerals Yearbook 1971, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1971.
Scaramelli, A.B., and DiGiano, F.A., "Wastewater Treatments: Physical
and Chemical Methods," JWPCF. 47(6):1249 (1975).
Schroeder, H.A., "Chromium," Air Quality Monograph #70-15, American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. (1970).
Schroeder, H.A., et ajk "Abnormal Trace Elements in Man—Nickel," Jour.
Chron. Dis..T5:51 (1961).
Shukov, A.I. "The Treatment of Phenolic Wastewaters," Hygiene and Sani-
tation. Moscow, 22(5):69 (1957), and Water Pollution Abs.. 32:424
(1959).
Skidmore, J.F. "Toxicity of Zinc Compounds to Aquatic Animals with
Special Reference to Fish," Quarterly Rev, of Biology, 39:227
(1964).
Skogen, D.B. "Treat HPI Wastes with Bugs," Hydrocarbon Processing,
46(7):105 (1967).
Smith, M.I., et al. "The Selenium Problem in Relation to Public Health,"
Public Health Report. 51:1496 (1936).
15-10
-------
DRAFT
Smith, M.I., and West, B.B. "Further Field Studies on the Selenium
Problem in Relation to Public Health," Public Health Report. 52:1375
(1937).
Stadnisky, W., Personal Correspondence, Abcor, Inc., Cambridge,
Massachusetts {Sept. 27, 1974).
Stevens, B.W., and Kerner, J.W., "Recovering Organic Materials from
Wastewater," Chem. Eng. (Feb. 1975) p. 84.
Stokinger, H.E. "Mercury Hg237," In: F.A. Patty, Ed., Industrial
Hygiene and Toxicology, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., New York Interscience,
1963, p. 1090.
Straubing, A.L., Personal Correspondence, Straubing and Rubin Consulting
Engineers, South Orange, N.J.
Streeter, H.W., and Phelps, E.B., "A Study of the Pollution and Natural
Purification of the Ohio River," Public Health Bulletin, 146,
U.S.P.H.S. (Feb. 1925).
Suhr, L.G., and Culp, G.L., "State of the Art—Activated Carbon Treatment
of Wastewater," Water and Sewage Works, Ref. No. R104 (1974).
Sweets, W.H., et aK "Microbiological Studies on the Treatment of Petro-
leum Refinery Phenolic Wastes," Sewage Ind. Wastes. 26:826-868
(1954).
Symons, J.M., et a±. "National Orgam'cs Reconnaissance Survey for Halo-
genated Organics," AWWA Journal, 5 67(11):593-662 (1975).
Thompson, W.S. "Draft Development Document for Pretreatment Standards
for the Wood Preserving Industry," USEPA (July, 1976), pp. VIII
23-24.
Thompson, W.S. "Status of Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry," Proceedings. AWPA (1973).
Thompson, W.S. "Status of Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry in 1974," Proc., American Wood Preservers' Assoc.,
71:97-104 (1975).
Thompson, W.S., and Dust, J.V. "Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry," Forest Products J. , 2U9), (Sept., 1971).
Thompson, W.S., and Dust, J.V. "Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry, Part 2. In-Plant Process Changes and Sanitation," Forest
Products Journal. 22(7), 1972.
15-11
-------
DRAFT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Plywood, Hardboard, and Wood Preserving Segments of the
Timber Products Industry, EPA Rept. 440/1-73/023.~~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "First Environmental Tab—Timber
Products Processing," EPA-EGD (1977).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Manual of Analytical Methods for
the Analysis of Pesticide Residue in Human and Environmental
Samples," EPA (1974).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Conference on Polychlor-
inated Biphenyls (November 19-21, 1975, Chicago, Illinois)," Con-
ference Proceedings. EPA-560/6-75^004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Survey of Two Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants for Toxic Substances," Wastewater Research Divi-
sion, Municipal Environmental Research Division, Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory (March, 1977).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Treating Wood Preserving Plant
Wastewater by Chemical and Biological Methods, Ind. Env. Res. Lab.,
Off. of Res. and Dev., Cincinnati, Ohio (1976). (EPA-600/2-76-231).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Criteria for Water,
USEPA-440/9-76-023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants. USEPA, Washington, D.C., 1972, EPA-R2-72-081.
U.S. Public Health Service, "Drinking Water Standards," 27 F.R. 2152
(1962).
University of Illinois, "Environmental Pollution by Lead and Other
Metals," (NSF/RANN Grand 61-31605), Progress Report, May 1— October
31, 1972, Chapter 6, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
(1972).
Vallee, B.L., "Zinc and Its Biological Significance," Arch. Indust.
Health. 16:147 (1957).
Wershaw, R.L., "Mercury in the Environment," Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper #713. USGPO (1970).
Wiley, A.J., et^l_., Reverse Osmosis Concentration of Dilute Pulp and
Paper EfTTuents, Pulp Manufacturers' Research League and Inst. of
Paper Chem., EPA Proj. #12040 EEL, 1972.
15-12
-------
DRAFT
World Health Organization, "Chloroform, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation
of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man," ^ (61) (1972).
World Health Organization, "Health Hazards of the Human Environment,"
Geneva (1972).
Wynn, C.S., et al., Pilot Plant for Tertiary Treatment of Wastewater with
Ozone. EPA Rept. R2/73/146 (1973). w-
15- 13
-------
DRAFT
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACA—Ammonical Copper Sulfate.
"Act"—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Activated Sludge—Sludge floe produced in raw or settled wastewater by
the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organisms in the presence of
dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient concentration by return-
ing floe previously formed.
Activated Sludge Process—A biological wastewater treatment process in
which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and aer-
ated. The activated sludge is subsequently separated from the treated
wastewater (mixed liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or returned
the process as needed.
Additive—Any material introduced prior to the final consolidation of a
board to improve some property of the final board or to achieve a
desired effect in combination with another additive. Additives include
binders and other materials. Sometimes a specific additive may perform
more than one function. Fillers and preservatives are included under
this term.
Aerated Lagoon—A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in
which mechanical or diffused-air aeration is used to supplement the
oxygen supply.
Aerobic—Condition in which free elemental oxygen is present.
Air-drying—Drying veneer by placing the veneer in stacks open to the
atmosphere, in such a way as to allow good circulation of air. It is
used only in the production of low quality veneer.
Air-felting—Term applied to the forming of a fiberboard from an air
suspension of wood or other cellulose fiber and to the arrangement of
such fibers into a mat for board.
Anaerobic—Condition in which free elemental oxygen is absent.
Asplund Method—An attrition mill which combines the steaming and defi-
bering in one unit in a continuous operation.
Attrition Mill—Machine which produces particles by forcing coarse mate-
rial, shavings, or pieces of wood between a stationary and a rotating
disk, fitted with slotted or grooved segments.
16-1
-------
DRAFT
Back—The side reverse to the face of a panel, or the poorer side of a
panel in any grade of plywood that has a face and back.
Bagasse—The solid matter remaining after extraction of liquids from
sugar cane.
Biological Wastewater Treatment—Forms of wastewater treatment in which
bacterial or biochemical action is intensified to stabilize, oxidize,
and nitrify the unstable organic matter present. Intermittent sand
filters, contact beds, trickling filters, and activated sludge processes
are examples.
Slowdown—The removal of a portion of any process flow to maintain the
constituents of the flow at desired levels.
BOD—Biochemical Oxygen Demand is a measure of biological decomposition
of orgnaic matter in a water sample. It is determined by measuring the
oxygen required by microorganisms to oxidize the organic contaminants of
a water sample under standard laboratory conditions. The standard con-
ditions include incubation for five days at 20°C.
BODy--A modification of the BOD test in which incubation is main-
tained for seven days. The standard test in Sweden.
Boultorn'zing—A conditioning process in which unseasoned wood is heated
in an oily preservative under a partial vacuum to reduce its moisture
content prior to injection of the preservative.
Casein—A derivative of skimmed milk used in making glue.
Caul—A steel plate or screen on which the formed mat is placed for
transfer to the press, and on which the mat rests during the pressing
process.
CCA-type Preservative—Any one of several inorganic salt formulations
based on salts of copper, chromium, and arsenic.
Chipper—A machine which reduces logs or wood scraps to chips.
Clarifier—A unit of which the primary purpose is to reduce the amount
of suspended matter in a liquid.
Closed Steaming—A method of steaming in which the steam required is
generated in the retort by passing boiler steam through heating coils
that are covered with water. The water used for this purpose is
recycled.
cm—Centimeters.
16-2
-------
DRAFT
COD--Chemical Oxygen Demand. Its determination provides a measure of
the oxygen demand equivalent to that portion of matter in a sample which
is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.
Coil Condensate—The condensate formed in steam lines and heating coils.
Cold Pressing—See Pressing.
Composite Board--Any combination of different types of board, either
with another type board or with another sheet material. The composite
board may be laminated in a separate operation or at the same time as
the board is pressed. Examples of composite boards include veneer-faced
particle board, hardboard-faced insulation board and particle board, and
metal-faced hardboard.
Conditioning—The practice of heating logs prior to cutting in order to
improve the cutting properties of the wood and in some cases to facili-
tate debarking.
Cooling Pond—A water reservoir equipped with spray aeration equipment
from which cooling water is drawn and to which it is returned.
Creosote-^A complex mixture of organic materials obtained as a
by-product from coking and petroleum refining operations that is used as
a wood preservative.
cu m—Cubic meters.
cu ft—Cubic feet.
Curing—The physical-chemical change that takes place either to thermo-
setting synthetic resins (polymerization) in the hot presses or to
drying oils (oxidation) used for oil-treating board. The treatment to
produce that change.
Cutterhead Barker—See Debarker.
Cylinder Condensate—Steam condensate that forms on the walls'of the
retort during steaming operations.
CZC—Chromated Zinc Chloride.
Data Collection Portfolio—Information solicited from industry under
Section 308 of the Act.
Debarker--Machines which remove bark from logs. Debarkers may be wet or
dry, depending on whether or not water is used in the operation; There
are several types of debarkers including drum barkers, ring barkers, bag
barkers, hydraulic barkers, and cutterhead barkers. With the exception
16-3
-------
DRAFT
of the hydraulic barker, all use abrasion or scraping actions to remove
bark. Hydraulic barkers utilize high pressure streams of water.
Decker, Deckering—A method of controlling pulp consistency in hardboard
production.
Defiberization—The reduction of wood materials to fibers.
Digester--!) Device for conditioning chips using high pressure steam,
2) A tank in which biological decomposition (digestion) of the organic
matter in sludge takes place.
Disc Pulpers—Machines which produce pulp or fiber through the shredding
action of rotating and stationary discs.
DO--Dissolved Oxygen is a measure of the amount of free oxygen in a
water sample. It is dependent on the physical, chemical, and biochemi-
cal activities of the water sample.
Dry-felting—See Air-felting.
Dry Process—See Air-felting.
Durability--As applied to wood, its lasting qualities or permanence in
service with particular reference to decay. May be related directly to
an exposure condition.
FCAP—Fluor-chrom-arsenate-phenol. An inorganic water-borne wood pre-
servative.
Fiber (Fibre)--The slender thread-like elements of wood or similar
cellulosic material, which, when separated by chemical and/or mechanical
means, as in pulping, can be formed into fiberboard.
Fiberboard—A sheet material manufactured from fibers of wood or other
ligno-cellulosic materials with the primary bond deriving from the
arrangement of the fibers and their inherent adhesive properties.
Bonding agents or other materials may be added during manufacture to
increase strength, resistance to moisture, fire, insects or decay, or to
improve some other property of the product. Alternative spelling:
fibreboard. Synonym: fibre building board.
Fiber Preparation—The reduction of wood to fiber or pulp, utilizing
mechanical, thermal, or explosive methods.
Finishing—The final preparation of the product. Finishing may include
redrying, trimming, sanding, sorting, molding, and storing, depending on
the operation and product desired.
Fire Retardant—A formulation of inorganic salts that imparts fire
•resistance when injected into wood in high concentrations.
16-4
-------
DRAFT
F1peculation—The agglomeration of colloidal and finely divided sus-
pended matter.
Flotation—The raising of suspended matter to the surface of the liquid
in a tank as scum--by aeration, the evolution of gas, chemicals, elec-
trolysis, heat, or bacterial decomposition—and the subsequent removal
of the scum by skimming.
F:M ratio—The ratio of organic material (food) to mixed liquor (micro-
organisms) in an aerated sludge aeration basin.
Formation (Forming)—The felting of wood or other cellulose fibers into
a mat for fiberboard. Methods employed: air-felting and wet-felting.
Gal—Gallons.
GPD—Gallons per day.
GPM—Gallons per minute.
Grading—The selection and categorization of different woods as to their
suitability for various uses. Criteria for selection include such
features of the wood as color, defects, and grain direction.
Hardboard—A compressed fiberboard with a density greater than
0.5 g/cu m (31 Ib/cu ft).
Hardboard Press—Machine which completes the reassembly of wood parti-
cles and welds them into a tough, durable, grainless board.
Hardwood—Wood from deciduous or broad-leaf trees. Hardwoods include
oak, walnut, lavan, elm, cherry, hickory, pecan, maple, birch, gum,
cativo, teak, rosewood, and mahogany.
Heat-treated Hardboard—Hardboard that has been subjected to special
heat treatment after hot-pressing to increase strength and water resis-
tance.
Holding Ponds—See Impoundment.
Hot Pressing—See Pressing.
Humidification—The seasoning operation to which newly pressed hardboard
is subjected to prevent warpage due to excessive dryness.
Impoundment—A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space, either natural
or created in whole or in part by the building of engineering struc-
tures, which is used for storage, regulation, and control of water,
including wastewater.
16-5
-------
DRAFT
Insulation Board—A form of fiberboard having a density less than
0.5 g/cu m (31 Tb/cu ft).
KjId-N—Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Total organic nitrogen plus ammonia of a
sample.
KI'/day.—Thousands of liters per day.
Lagoon—A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which
aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
Land Spreading—see Soil Irrigation.
Leaching—Mass transfer of chemicals to water from wood which is in
contact with it.
1/day--Liters per day.
Metric ton—One thousand kilograms.
MGD—Million gallons per day.
mg/1—Milligrams per liter (equals parts per million, ppm, when the
specific gravity is one).
Mixed Liquoi—A mixture of activated sludge and organic matter under-
going activated sludge treatment in an aeration tank.
ml/T"—MtTTiliters per liter.' ----.- --
mm—Millimeters.
Modified-closed Steaming—A method of steam conditioning in which the
condensate formed during open steaming is retained in the retort until
sufficient condensate accumulates to cover the coils. The remaining
steam required is generated as in closed steaming.
No Discharge—The complete prevention of polluted process wastewater
from entering navigable waters.
Non-pressure Process—A method of treating wood at atmospheric pressure
in which the wood is simply soaked in hot or cold preservative.
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Nutrients—The nutrients in contaminated water are routinely analyzed to
characterize the food available for microorganisms to promote organic
decomposition. They are:
16-6
-------
DRAFT
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3). mg/1 as N
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ON), mg/1 as N
Nitrate Nitrogen (NO-Q. mg/1 as N
Total Phosphate (TP). mg/1 as P
Ortho Phosphate (OP), mg/1 as P
Oil -recovery System—Equipment used to reclaim oil from wastewater.
Oily Preservative — Pen tac hi orophenol- petroleum solutions and creosote in
the various forms in which it is used.
Open Steaming— A method of steam conditioning in which the steam
required is generated in a boiler.
PCB— Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
PCP—Pentachlorophenol .
Pearl Benson Index — A measure of color producing substances.
Pentachl orophenol —A chlorinated phenol with the formula ClsCsOH and
formula weight of 266.35 that is used as a wood preservative. Commer-
cial grades of this chemical are usually adulterated with tetrachl oro-
phenol to improve its solubility.
pJH—pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water sample. It
is equal to the negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration.
Phenol --The simplest aromatic alcohol.
Phenols. Phenolic Compounds — A wide range of organic compounds with one
or more hydroxyl groups attached to the aromatic ring.
Point Source — A discrete source of pollution. Channeled wastewater.
POTW — Publicly owned treatment works.
Pressure Process — A process in which wood preservatives and fire
retardants are forced into wood using air or hydrostatic pressure.
Pretreatment — Any wastewater treatment processes used to partially
reduce pollution load before the wastewater is delivered into a
treatment facility. Usually consists of removal of coarse solids by
screening or other means.
Primary Treatment — The first major treatment in a wastewater treatment
works. In the classical sense, it normally consists of clarification.
16-7
-------
DRAFT
As used in this document, it generally refers to treatment steps
preceding biological treatment.
Priority Pollutants—Those compounds listed in the 1976 Consent Decree.
Process Wastewatet—Water, which during manufacturing or processing,
comes into contact with or results in the production or use of any raw
material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste
product.
£§_[—Pounds per square inch.
Radio Frequency Heat—Heat generated by the application of an alternat-
ing electric current, oscillating in the radio frequency range, to a
dielectric material. In recent years the method has been used to cure
synthetic resin glues.
Resin—Secretions of saps of certain plants or trees. It is an
oxidation or polymerization product of the terpenes, and generally
contains "resin" acids and ethers.
Retort—A steel vessel in which wood products are pressure impregnated
with chemicals that protect the wood from biological deterioration or
that impart fire resistance. Also called treating cylinder.
Roundwood—Wood that is still in the form of a log, i.e., round.
RWL—Raw Waste Load. Pollutants contained in untreated wastewater.
SIS Hardboard—Hardboard finished so as to be smooth on one side*
S2S Hardboard—Hardboard finished so as to be smooth on both sides.
Secondary Treatment—The second major step in a waste treatment system.
As used in this document, the term refers to biological treatment.
Sedimentation Tank—A basin or tank in which water or wastewater
containing settleable solids is retained to remove by gravity a part of
the suspended matter.
Settling Ponds—An impoundment for the settling out of settleable
solids.
Sludge—The accumulated solids separated from liquids, such as water or
wastewater, during processing.
Softwood—Wood from evergreen or needle-bearing trees.
Soil Irrigation—A method of land disposal in which wastewater is
applied to a prepared field. Also referred to as soil percolation.
16-8
-------
DRAFT
Solids—Various types of solids are commonly determined on water
samples. These types of solids are:
Total Solids (TS)—The material left after evaporation
and drying a sample at 103°-105° C.
Suspended Solids ($$)--The material removed from a
sample filtered through a standard glass fiber filter.
Then it is dried at 103°-105°C.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—Same as Suspended Solids.
Dissolved Solids (PS)—The difference between the total
and suspended solids.
Volatile Solids (VS)—The material which is lost when
the sample is heated to 550°C.
Settleable Solids (STS)—The material which settles in
an Immhoff cone in one hour.
Spray Evaporation—A method of wastewater disposal in which the water in
a holding lagoon equipped with spray nozzles is sprayed into the air to
expedite evaporation.
Spray Irrigation—A method of disposing of some organic wastewaters by
spraying them on land, usually from pipes equipped with spray nozzles.
See Soil Irrigation.
sq m—Square meter.
Steam Conditiom'ng--A conditioning method in which unseasoned wood is
subjected to an atmosphere of steam at 120°C (249° F) to reduce its
moisture content and improve its permeability preparatory to preserva-
tive treatment.
Steaming--Treating wood material with steam to soften it.
Sump—(1) A tank or pit that receives drainage and stores it tempo-
rarily, and from which the drainage is pumped or ejected. (2) A tank or
pit that receives liquids.
Synthetic Resin (Thermosetting)—Artificial resin (as opposed to
natural) used in board manufacture as a binder. A combination of
chemicals which can be polymerized, e.g., by the application of heat,
into a compound which is used to produce the bond or improve the bond in
a fiberboard or particle board. Types usually used in board manufacture
are phenol formaldehyde, urea formaldehyde, or melamine formaldehyde.
16-9
-------
DRAFT
Tempered Hardboard—Hardboard that has been specially treated in manu-
facture to improve its physical properties considerably. Includes, for
example, oil-tempered hardboard. Synonym: superhardboard.
Tertiary Treatment—The third major step in a waste treatment facility.
As used in this document, the term refers to treatment processes follow-
ing biological treatment.
Thermal Conductivity—The quantity of heat which flows per unit time
across unit area of the subsurface of unit thickness when the tempera-
ture of the faces differs by one degree.
Thermosetting--Adhesives which, when cured under heat or pressure, "set"
or harden to form films of great tenacity and strength. Subsequent heat-
ing in no way softens the bending matrix.
TOC—Total Organic Carbon is a measure of the organic contamination of a
water sample. It has an empirical relationship with the biochemical and
chemical oxygen demands.
T-P04-P—Total phosphate as phosphorus. See Nutrients.
Total Phenols--See Phenols.
Traditional Parameters—Those parameters historically of interest, e.g.,
BOD, COD, SS, as compared to Priority Pollutants.
Turbidity--(l) A condition in water or wastewater caused by the presence
of suspended matterv resulting m the scattering and absorption of light
rays. (2) A measure of the fine suspended matter in liquids. (3) An
analytical quantity usually reported in arbitrary turbidity units deter-
mined by measurements of light diffraction.
Vacuum Water—Water extracted from wood during the vacuum period follow-
ing steam conditioning.
Vapor Drying—A process in which unseasoned wood is heated in the hot
vapors of an organic solvent, usually xylene, to season it prior to pre-
servative treatment.
Vat—Large metal containers in which logs are "conditioned" or heated
prior to cutting. The two basic methods for heating are by direct steam
contact in "steam vats" or by steam-heated water in "hot water vats."
Veneer—A thin sheet of wood of uniform thickness produced by peeling,
slicing, or sawing logs, bolts, or flitches. Veneers may be categorized
as either hardwood or softwood, depending on the type of woods used and
the intended purpose.
Water Balance—The water gain (incoming water) of a system versus water
loss (water discharged or lost).
16-10
-------
DRAFT
Water-borne Preservative—Any one of several formulations of inorganic
salts, the most common of which are based on copper, chromium, and
arsenic.
Wet-felting—Term applied to the forming of a fiberboard from a suspen-
sion of pulp in water usually on a cylinder, deckle box, or Fourdrinier
machine; the interfelting of wood fibers from a water suspension into a
mat for board.
Wet Process—See Wet-felting.
Wet Scrubber—An air pollution control device which involves the wetting
of particles in an air stream and the impingement of wet or dry particles
on collecting surfaces, followed by flushing.
Wood Extractives—A mixture of chemical compounds, primarily carbohy-
drates, removed from wood during steam conditioning.
Wood Preservatives—A chemical or mixture of chemicals with fungistatic
and insecticidal properties that is injected into wood to protect it from
biological deterioration.
Zero Discharge—See No Discharge.
16- 11
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX A-l
TOXIC OR POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES NAMED IN CONSENT DEGREE
Acenapthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Banzidine
Benzene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated Benzene
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chlorinated Ethers
Chlorinated Phenol
Chloroform
2-Chlorophenol
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
DDT
Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzidine
Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Dichloropropane
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethyl benzene
Flouranthene
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol
Nitrosamines
A-1
-------
D R A F
APPENDIX A-2
LIST OF SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS RECOMMENDED PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
3. hexachlorobenzene
4. chlorobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
7. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
9. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
10. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
11. 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
12. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
13. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
14. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
15. ethyl benzene
16. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
17. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
18. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
19. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
20. isophorone
21. nitrobenzene
22. N-m'trosodimethylamine
23. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
24. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
25. bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
26. butyl benzyl phthalate
27. di-n-butyl phthalate
28. diethyl phthalate
29. dimethyl phthalate
30. toluene
31. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
32. acrolein
33. acrylonitrile
34. acenaphthene
35. 2-chloronaphthalene
36. fluroanthene
37. naphthalene
38. 1,2-benzanthracene
39. benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
40. 3,4-benzofluoranthene
41. 11,12-benzofluoranthene
42. chrysene
43. acenaphthylene
44. anthracene
45. 1,12-benzoperylene
46. fluroene
47. phenanthrene
48. l,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene
A-2
-------
DRAFT
2. List of Specific Unambiguous Recommended Priority Pollutants
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4-tr xhlorobenzene
3. hexachlorobenzene
4. chlorobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
7. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
9. 1,3-dichlorobenzene
10. 1,4-dichlorobenzene
11. 3,3-dichlorobenzidine
12. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
13. 2,6-dinitrotoluene
14. 1,2-diphenylhydrazine
15. ethyl benzene
16. 4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
17. 4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
18. bis(2-chloroisopropy!) ether
19. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
20. isophorone
21. nitrobenzene
22. N-nitrosodimethylamine
23. N-nitrosodiphenylamine
24. N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
25. bis(2-ethy1hexyl) phthalate
26. butyl benzyl phthalate
27. di-n-butyl phthalate
28. diethyl phthalate
29. dimethyl phthalate
30. toluene
31. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
32. acrolein
33. acrylonitrile
34. acenaphthene
35. 2-chloronaphthalene
36. fluroanthene
37. naphthalene
38. 1,2-benzanthracene
39. benzo (a)pyrene (3,4-benzopyrene)
40. 3,4-benzofluoranthene
41. 11,12-benzofluoranthene
42. chrysene
43. acenaphthylene
44. anthracene
45. 1,12-benzoperylene
46. fluroene
47. phenanthrene
48. 1,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene
A-3
-------
DRAFT
49. indeno (l,2,3-,C,D)pyrene
50. pyrene-
51. benzene
52. carbon tetrachloride (tetrachloromethane)
53. 1,2-dichloroethane
54. 1,1,1-trichloroethane
55. hexachloroethane
56. 1,1-dichloroethane
57. 1,1,2-trichloroethane
58. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
59. chloroethane
60. 1,1-dichloroethylene
61. 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
62. 1,2-dichloropropane
63. 1,3-dichloropropylene (1,3-dichloropropene)
64. methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
65. methyl chloride (chloromethane)
66. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
67. bromoform (tribromomethane)
68. dichlorobromomethane
69. trichlorofluoromethane
70. dichlorodifluoromethane
71. chlorodibromomethane
72. hexachlorobutadiene
73. hexachlorocyclopentadiene
74. tetrachloroethylene
75. chloroform (trichloromethane)
76. trichloroethylene
77. aldrine
78. dieldrin
79. chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
80. 4,4-DDT
81. 4,4-DDE (p,p-DDX)
82. 4,4-DDD (p,p-TDE)
83. endosulfan
84. endosulfan
85. endosulfan sulfate
86. endrin
87. endrin aldehyde
88. endrin ketone
89. heptachlor
90. heptachlor epoxide
91. a-BHC
92. b-BHC
93. c-BHC (lindane)
94. d-BHC
95. PCB-1242(Arochlor 1242)
96. PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254)
97. toxaphene
98. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
A-4
-------
DRAFT
99. 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
100. parachlorometa cresol
101. 2-chlorophenol
102. 2,4-dichlorophenol
103. 2,4-dimethylphenol
104. 2-nitrophenol
105. 4-nitrophenol
106. 2,4-dinitrophenol
107. 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
108. pentachlorophenol
"109. phenol
110. cyanide (Total)
111. asbestos (Fibrous)
112. arsenic (Total)
113. antimony (Total)
114. beryllium
-------
Table A-l.- Itemization of Volatile Priority Pollutants
chloromethane
bromomethane
chloroethane
trichlorof1uoromethane
bromochloromethane (IS)
trans-l,2-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
bis-chloromethyl ether (d)
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
di bromochloromethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
bromoform
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
toluene
ethyl benzene
acrylonitrile
dichlorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethane
chloroform
• 1,1,1-tri chloroethane
bromodichloromethane
1,2-dichloropropane
trichloroethylene
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
benzene
2-bromo-l-chlqropropane (IS)
1,1,2,2-tetrachToroethene
1,4-dichlorobutane (1$)
chlorobenzene
acrolein
A-6
-------
DRAFT
Table A-2. Base Neutral Extractables.
1,3-dichlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
1,2,4-tri chlorobenzene
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
nitrobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
anthracene
diethylphthalate
pyrene
benzidine
chrysene
benzo(a)anthracene
benzo(k)f1uoranthene
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
benzo(g h i)perylene
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
endrin aldehyde
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
naphthalene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
acenaphthylene
isophorone
2j6-dinitrotoluene
2,4-di ni trotoluene
hexachlorobenzene
phenanthrene
dimethylphthalate
fluoranthene
di-n-butylphthalate
butyl benzylphthalate
bi s(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
N-ni trosodimethylamine
4-chloro-phenyl phenyl ether
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
bis(chloromethyl) ether
A-7
-------
Table A-3. Acidic Extractables.
2-chlorophenol
phenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2-m'trophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dim'trophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
4-m'trophenol
pentachlorophenol
A-8
-------
DRAFT
Table A-4. Pesticides and PCB's.
-endosulfan
-BHC
-BHC
_-BHC
aldrin
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
-endosulfan
dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
endrin
endosulfan sulfate
-BHC
chlordane
toxaphene
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
A-9
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Introduction
This appendix describes the analytical methods employed in the screening
and verification analyses of priority pollutants in the waste streams of
the timber products processing industry.
Since the timber industry was the first industry selected for BAT review,
extensive method development was necessary during the screening phase of
the project. A concerted effort was made to follow the first draft pro-
tocol issued by EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory
(EMSL) in Cincinnati. This first draft protocol outlines a method of
experimental procedure used to analyze priority pollutants in industrial
wastewater at part per billion (ppb) levels. Analysis at these levels is
complicated by the existence of gross interference of all types many
times more concentrated than the parameter of interest. This dictates
that the method must be very selective for the pollutant of interest.
Priority pollutant parameters may be divided into the following classes:
organic priority pollutants; cyanide; and metals. The organic class
includes volatiles (purgeable), semivolatiles (extractable), pesticides
and PCB's, and phenols. Traditional parameters (BOD, COD, TOC, TSS, oil
and grease, and total phenols) were analyzed during the verification
phase only.
Organic Priority Pollutants
Organic priority pollutants were divided into three groups as follows:
Volatile Organic Analysis (VOA)
Semivolatile Organic including
a) Base-neutral extractable (BN)
b) Acidic extractable (ACID)
Pesticides and PCB's
The volatile division was based on whether a compound could be purged
from water at room temperature with a dry stream of nitrogen. The
semivolatiles were those compounds which could be extracted from basic
solution (pH 12) referred to as base-neutral, and those which were
extracted from acidic solution (pH 1) referred to as acidic. The primary
method of analysis of volatile and semivolatile parameters was gas
chromatography—mass spectroscopy (GCMS).
Pesticides were treated as a separate class of compounds and analyzed by
gas chromatography equipped with an electron capture detector (GCEC).
B-1
-------
DRAFT
Phenols were also treated as a special case in the screening analysis.
They were not analyzed in the acidic portion of the semivolatile but as a
separate analysis using gas chromatography—flame ionization detector
(GC-FID). The rationale and procedure will be discussed later.
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
The analysis technique employed for VGA's was based on the Bellar-Lich-
tenberg method in which water is purged with an inert gas to vaporize the
volatile components. The components are then trapped on an appropriate
medium and flashed onto the GCMS column for analysis. A detailed
literature reference is included in the protocol.
The reference uses only GC for analysis since the method is for drinking
water. However, the wastewater samples from the timber industry have
sufficient interferences that GCMS is required. The screening samples
were analyzed using full scan spectra for identification and total ion
current peak area for quantisation.
The verification analyses were performed by the use of selected ion mon-
itoring which produced both qualitative and quantitative results. A list
of the compounds analyzed as VGA are presented in Table A-l.
Standards were prepared by injecting ul quantities of neat liquids into a
known amount of distilled water. The concentration was calculated by the
weight difference before and after the injection. Dilutions of this sol-
ution were made for working standards. Five-milliliter aliquots of these
standards were transferred to the purging device and purged with nitrogen
at 40 ul/min for 12 minutes onto a Tenax-4C trap of 18 cm in length and
0.3 cm outside diameter. The trap was immediately flashed into the
GCMS.
The samples were prepared by placing one five-millimeter aliquot per
sample hyprovial into the purge device and following the same procedure
as for the standard. If there was a foaming problem, glass wool was
employed to protect the tenax trap.
The following criteria were used for confirmation of parameters in the
screening analysis. The peak must elute at the same time as the standard
and the full spectra must match that of the standard for the compound to
be identified as present. The criteria varied somewhat for the verifica-
tion analysis in that the coelution of selected mass ions on extracted
ion plot was required. If these ions and the total ion current peak
eluted at the same time as the standard, with the same relative inten-
sity, the compound was identified as being present. The EPA protocol was
followed explicitly for the identification and quantisation of the
parameter. Also, all instrumental parameters were exactly as listed in
the EPA protocol.
B-2
-------
Table A-l. Itemization of Volatile Priority Pollutants
chloromethane
bromomethane
chloroethane
trichlorofluoromethane
bromochloromethane (IS)
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
bis-chloromethyl ether (d)
trans-l,3-dichloropropene
dibromochloromethane
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
bromoform
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
toluene
ethyl benzene
acrylonitrile
diehiorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
1,1-dichloroethylene
1,1-dichloroethane
chloroform
1,1,1-trichloroethane
bromodichl oromethane
1,2-dichloropropane
trichloroethylene
ci s-1,3-dic hioropropene
benzene
2-bromo-l-chloropropane (IS)
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene
1,4-dichlorobutane (IS)
chlorobenzene
acrolein
B-3
-------
DRAFT
Semivolatile Priority Pollutants
As previously discussed, the semivolatiles were divided into two sub-
classes by the acidic or basic properties of each parameter. The base-
neutral fraction was extracted from water after the pH was adjusted to
12. The solvent used was methylene chloride and there was no clean-up
procedure employed. It was presumed that any clean-up procedure would
not be universal for all parameters of interest and, therefore, the
sample was analyzed with all interferences present.
The method for analysis for all semivolatiles was GCMS. In the screening
phase, as for VGA's, the total ion chromatogram and full mass spectra
were used for both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
For the verification phase, extracted ion plots were used for both
qualitative and quantitative results.
Standards were prepared by dissolving a pure solute into a solvent.
Dilutions and composites of these stock solutions were made for working
solutions. These solutions were injected on the GCMS column in the same
manner as the samples.
A 900 ml aliquot of the sample was adjusted to pH 12 and extracted by
methylene chloride using a separatory funnel. Three successive extrac-
tions were performed and the organic layers were combined and concen-
trated in a Kuderna-Darrish concentrater apparatus. The sample was then
ready for injection oh the GCMS. Table A-2 is a listing of all compounds
that are extracted in the base-neutral fraction.
All GCMS parameters are noted in the EPA protocol for the verification
analysis. The only change used in the screening procedure was the use of
an SP1000 column instead of the SP2250. This is not a significant change
since both columns will achieve the separation. A typical total ion
current chromatogram is shown in Figure A-l. This figure does not show
all of the BN's. The method for identification and quantisation is
identical to that used for VGA's.
Variations in procedure between the screening and verification phases for
BN's are the same as for VGA's. The acidic fraction of the samples was
extracted from the same 900 ml sample as the base-neutral. After the BN
was extracted, the sample was adjusted to pH 1 and extracted three suc-
cessive times with methylene chloride. These extracts were concentrated
and injected on the GCMS. Standards were prepared in the same way as for
the base-neutral fraction. Table A-3 is a list of the parameters in the
acid fraction.
B-4
-------
DRAFT
Table A-2. Base Neutral Extractables.
1,3-dichlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
nitrobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
acenaphthene
fluorene
1,2-diphenylhydrazi ne
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
anthracene
diethylphthalate
pyrene
benzidine
chrysene
benzo(a)anthracene
benzot k)f 1uoranthene
indenod,2,3-cd) pyrene
benzo(g h Dperylene
N-ni trosodi-n-propylamine
endrin aldehyde
2 ,.3,7,8-tetrachl orodibenzo-
p-dioxin
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
hexachlorobutadiene
naphthalene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
b1s(2-chloroethoxy) methane
acenaphthylene
isophorone
2,6-dinitrotoluene
2,4-dinitrotoluene
hexachlorobenzene
phenanthrene
dimethylphthalate
f1uoranthene
di-n-butylphthal ate
butyl benzylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
di benzot a,h)anthracene
N-nitrosodimethylamine
4-chloro-phenyl phenyl ether
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
bi s(chloromethyl) ether
B-5
-------
I
0
00
o>
T
2
T
3
\
4
T
5
I
6
I
8
I
9
I
10
I
11
I
12
I
13
I
14
I
15
I
16
I
17
r
18
19
\
20
I
21
I
22
I
23
I
24
I
25
I
26
I
27
28 29
I
30
31
32
I
33
i
34
35 36
TIME IN MINUTES
FIGURE B -1. Base -Neutral Total Ion Current Chromatogram
-------
DRAFT
For the verification analysis the EPA protocol was followed explicitly.
It should be noted that there are very few data that would support the
extraction influences of the phenols under these stringent conditions.
Although the protocol was followed, the data may be deficient due to
potential deficiencies in the protocol. These problems were first en-
countered during screening analysis and an alternative method was chosen
from the literature (Ref. Anal. Chem., Vol.47, No. 8, July 1975 ,
p. 1325). This method involved the collection of a separate sample using
copper sulfate and phosphoric acid as preservatives. A standard phenol
steam distillation was used followed by an ion exhange separation. The
resin used was Amherlst A-26. Acid and acetone was used to elute the
phenols from the column. The eluate was then extracted with hexane,
concentrated and injected into a GC equipped with a hydrogen flame
ionization detector (6C-FIB). The chromatographic conditions were:
Instrument: Perkin-Elmer 3920
Column: 6' x 1/8", SS, packed with Tenax
GC 30/80 meh
Gas: He 40 ml/min
H2 25 psi
Air 50 psi
Injection: 5 y 1
Identification and quantisation was made by traditional GC methods which
are able to chromatograph the phenols and do not require such harsh con-
ditions. The recoveries are 75-100 percent for various phenols. This
procedure was discussed with EPA before it was adopted. All phenols on
Table A-3 are amenable to this procedure. The verification analysis
followed the EPA protocol and identification and quantisation were done
as previously discussed. Figure A-2 is a typical total ion current
chromatogram of the acidic mixed standard by GCMS.
Pesticides and PCB's
Pesticides and PCB's were separated from GCMS analysis since the GCMS
detection limit for pesticides is relatively high compared to electron
capture. Any concentrations that were sufficiently high, however, were
confirmed on GCMS. Polychlorinated biphenyls also are extracted with the
pesticides and may be analyzed in conjunction with pesticides. PCB's,
however, were analyzed by GCMS for the verification phase. The procedure
is well known and is outlined in the EPA protocol. Table A-4 is a list
of the pesticides of interest as priority pollutants. In the screening
phase some of these were not analyzed specifically since standards were
difficult to obtain from the literature and a search was conducted for
those pesticides. Figure 3 is a typical GCED chromatogram of a pesticide
standard.
B-7
-------
Table A-3.* Acidic Extractables.
2-chlorophenol
phenol
2,4-dichlorophenol
2-m'trophenol
p-chloro-m-cresol
2,4,6-tri chlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
4,6-dinitro-o-cresol
4-nitrophenol
pentachlorophenol
B-8
-------
2,4,6
Trichloro-phenol
4 Chloro-m-cresol
24 Dichlorophenol
2 Nltrophenol
2,4 Dimethylphenol
2 Chlorophenol
Phenol
d Anthracene
Pentachlorophenol
ra
o
_0
cvi
CO
=5
O)
4,6 Dinitro-o-cresol
4 Nitrophenol
B-9
-------
DRAFT
Table A-4. Pesticides and PCB's.
-endosulfan
-BHC
-BHC
-BHC
aldrin
heptachlor
heptachlor epoxide
-endosulfan
dieldrin
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
endrin
endosulfan sulfate
-BHC
chlordane
toxaphene
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
B-10
-------
DRAFT
Cyanide
The protocol method for cyanide was taken from "Methods of Chemical
Analysis of Water and Waste" (1974). This method entailed a steam dis-
tillation of hydrogen cyanide from a strongly acidic solution. The gas
was then absorbed in a solution of sodium hydroxide. The color was
developed by addition of pyridine-pyrazolone solution. Quantisation was
accomplished by use of a standard curve calculation.
Metals Analysis
Metals analyzed consisted of the following:
Beryl 1i urn
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Silver
Arsenic
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Mercury
Metal analyses for screening, with the exception of mercury, was done by
the Chicago EPA laboratory using Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma analy-
sis. Mercury was collected as a separate sample in a 500 ml glass con-
tainer with nitric acid as a preservative. The analysis was done by
standard cold vapor techniques using a calibration curve calculation for
quantisation. Verification analysis for metals was done by another EPA
contractor and the EPA protocol methods were followed. Quantisation was
accomplished by a calibration curve calculation. In summary, the sample
and standards were digested in an acid media then either aspirated into
the flame of an atomic absorption spectrometer or placed in the light
path of a flameless atomic absorption spectrometer. The absorption is
directly related to the concentration in the sample.
Traditional or Classical Parameters
The traditional parameters of interest were:
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
Oil and Grease
Total Phenol
B-11
-------
Heptachloro Epoxide
4,4 - DDT
4,4 -DDD
2,4 -DDD
Dieldrln
4,4 - DDE
•BHC
. CM
T"
_ o
"S
CO
•o
I
CO
"8
X
• 00
CO
I
CD
£
§.
• CM
B-12
-------
Appendix C
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) by To Obtain
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation
DRAFT
(Metric Units)
Metric Unit
acre
acre-feet
British Thermal
Unit
British Thermal
Unit/pound
cubic feet
per minute
cubic feet
per second
cubic feet
cubic feet
cubic inches
degree Farenheit
feet
gallon
gallon per
minute
gallon per ton
horsepower
inches
pounds per
square inch
ac
ac ft
BTU
BTU/lb
cfm
cfs
cu ft
cu ft
cu in
°F
ft
gal
gpm
gal /ton
hp
in
psi
0.405
1233.5
0.252
0.555
0.028
1.7
0.028
28.32
16.39
0.555(°F-32)*
0.3048
3.785
0.0631
4.173
0.7457
2.54
0.06803
ha
cu m
kg cal
kg cal /kg
cu m/min
cu m/min
cu m
1
cu cm
°C
m
1
I/sec
1/kkg
kw
cm
atm
hectares
cubic meters
ki 1 ogram-
calories
kilogram cal-
ories per
kilogram
cubic meters
per minute
cubic meters
per minute
cubic meters
1 i ters
cubic centi-
meters
degree Centi-
grade
meters
liter
liters per
second
liters per
metric ton
kilowatts
centimeters
atmospheres
(absolute)
Actual conversion, not a multiplier
C-1
-------
D R A F.T
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) by To Obtain (Metric Units)
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
million gallons
per day
pounds per square
inch (gauge)
pounds
board feet
ton
mile
square feet
MGD
psi
Ib
b.f.
ton
mi
«*
3.785
(0.06805 psi + 1)*
0.454
0.0023
0.907
1.609
0.0929
cu m/day
atm
kg
cu m, m^
kkg
km
*2
cubic meters
per day
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters
metric ton
kilometer
square meters
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
C-2
------- |