PB-233 116
CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATERS FROM THE ETHICAL
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
GULF SOUTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE
PREPARED FOR
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
JULY 1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing/
I REPORT NO
EPA-670/2-74-057
2.
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATERS FROM THE
ETHICAL PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
3. REi
PB 233 116
5 REPORT DATE
July 1974
Issuing Date
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
James H. Mayes
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Gulf South Research
Institute for
8000 GSRI Avenue
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Pharmaceutical Mfgrs.
the Association
1155 15th Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 2000E
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
1BB036;ROAP 21AZQ;TASK 09
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
R-801159
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY MOTES
16. ABSTRACT : ~ " " " ~ ~~ '
This report presents a first attempt to categorize the ethical pharma-
ceutical industry on the basis of manufacturing processes and resulting
effluent characteristics. The available information allowed a break-
down into (1) pharmaceutical (formulation) plants, (2) pharmaceutical
and chemical (synthesis) plants,,and (3) all others (those using fermen-
tation, biological preparation, extraction, and combinations).
Analysis of the collected raw effluent data indicated tha sanitary
wastes were a major contributor in pharmaceutical plants. The wastes
of the other categories were more dependent on specific operations and
were, consequently, more variable. Fermentation wastes were, as
expected, very high in biodegradable organics and usually were the
predominant contributor in complex plants.
Conventional biological treatment, both in-plant and at central facil-
ities, is widely used and appears capable of achieving 90% removal of
degradable organics. Advanced technology appears to be limited in
application to specific wastes not amenable to biological treatment.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Jrugs
'harmaceuticals
industrial wastes
Jaste water
Waste treatment
'•produced by " ~
BSSSSkSf1**"
8 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Water pollution
sources
Waste water disposal
Chemical wastes
'•'aste water treatmen
ater pollution con-
trol
13B
Release to public
. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21 NO OF PAGJES.
20 SECURITY CLASS {Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
EPA-670/2-74-057
17 I;. &£ July 1974
CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATERS
FROM THE
ETHICAL PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
By
James H. Mayes
Gulf South Research Institute
for
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
Project No. R-801159
Program Element No. 1BB036
Project Officer
Herbert S. Skovronek
Industrial Waste Treatment Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
The National Environmental Research Center - - Cincinnati
has reviewed this report and approved its publication. Approval
does not signify that the comments necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Man and his environment must be protected from the adverse
effects of pesticides, radiation, noise and other forms of pollution,
and the unwise management of solid waste. Efforts to protect the
environment require a focus that recognizes that interplay between
the components of our physical environment--air, water, and land.
The National Environmental Research Center provides the multi-
disciplinary focus through programs engaged in
^ studies on the effects of environmental contaminants
on man and the biosphere, and
• a search for ways to prevent contamination and to
recycle valuable resources.
The goals of this study were to characterize the wastewaters
being generated by the ethical pharmaceutical industry, identify
current treatment methods and their effectiveness, and define
technology needed to upgrade the industry's wastewater management
practices over the coming years.
In collecting, compiling, and analyzing the data for this report,
the subcontractor found it necessary to incorporate considerable
professional judgement. The reader is urged to bear this in mind and
use discretion when exercising his professional prerogative by making
further interpretations or forming additional, quantitative conclusions.
A. W. Breidenbach, Ph.D.
Director
National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati
in
-------
ABSTRACT
Effluents from the ethical pharmaceutical industry have been evaluated
based on three categories. The following two tables uuiicnlc the weighted
averages of the reported values. However, variations in Ihe observed
values were lar^e. The companies reporting represent three-fourths of
the industry's sales.
Table 1
PLANT SUMMARY
Hem
Total Plants
Reporting
Report inq Plants
With Usable Data
Total employees
In Plants
Mith Usable Data
Total Treatable
Tfflucnt in Plants
V.'itli Usdblc Data
{Gallons Per Montli)
Cfflucnt Per employee
(Gd lions for Montli
I'cr Employee)
Number of Plants
Sel f TrcJtitui
Willi Usable Data
Treatment Cost
(Dollars Per Year)
Treatment Cost
(Dollars I'er 1000 Gallons
of Treatable Effluent)
Pharmaceutical
Plants
27
17
17,724
85,704,000
1.810
3
$114,850
$1.52
Chemical Plants
and
Pharmaceutical/
Chemical Plants
17
13
10,855
149,235,000
13,750
4
$671,660
$0.97
All Other
Plants
30
26
36,546
615,713,000
16,850
12
17, 3U, 500
52.28
IV
-------
Table II
EFFLUENT SUMMARY FOR SELF TREATING PLANTS
Weighted Averages
BOD5
Pounds Per Month
Per Employer
Pounds
.Per 1000 Pounds Ratf Mat'l
(Pounds Per Month
CC3 ^Per Employes
(Pounds
\J>er 10:0 Pounds Raw f-'at'l
pounds Per Month
Suspended .Psr Empl°*eft
Solids I Pounds
[Per 1000 Pounds Raw Mat'l
Percent BOD Removal
Percent COO Removal
Percent SS Removal
Pharmaceutical
Plants
Self Treating
In Raw In Treated
Effluent Effluent
3.18 -29
5.2 .47
7.4 .66
53.3 3-8
Ktftirt irr T
- TfJCtlfFFH
91
90
-
Chemical Plants and
Pharmaceutics! /Chemical
Plants Self Treating
In Raw
Effluent
687
134
1,520
175
rirwi DATA
In Treated
Effluent
85
16.7
670
73
-- *-
88
59
-
All Other Plants
Self Treating
In Raw In Treated
Effluent Effluent
ZSl 35
123 15
632 182
27C 57
75 8-6
42.7 4.9
83
79
84
-------
All companies reported no pathogens in the effluent and only
infrequent indications of heavy metals (mercury, chromium, lead,
zinc) being present in low concentrations (Tables VI, VIII and X).
This report was submitted in fulfullment of Grant No.
R801159 to the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (PMA)
by the Office of Research and Development of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The PMA subcontracted
with Gulf South Research Institute (GSRI) of New Orleans, Louisiana,
for the investigation.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT iv
TABLES ix
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 4
IV GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
Section 133. 8 Production and Control
Procedures 6
V INITIAL WORKPLAN 7
VI buUKCES OF EFFLUENT
CONTAMINATION 8
Pharmaceutical Plants
Production Techniques and Typical
Effluents 8
Chemical Plants 10
Fermentation 12
Biological Plants 13
Natural Product Extraction 13
VII PLANT EFFLUENT EVALUATION
SCHEME 15
VIII PRESENTATION OF PLANT
EFFLUENT DATA 17
IX TREATED EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS 25
X LEVELS AND COST OF EFFLUENT
TREATMENT 28
XI DISCUSSION OF RESULTS BY
INDUSTRY 29
Pharmaceutical Plants 29
Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/
Chemical Plants 30
All Other Plants 31
XII DISCUSSION OF WATER USAGE . . . 32
Pharmaceutical Plants 33
Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/
Chemical Plants 34
All Othc-r Plants 34
VII
-------
Mil El-'FLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY . 3^
Pharmaceutical Plants 35
Gnomical Plants and Pharmaceutical/ .
Chcmic.nl Plants 36
All Other Plants . ?••'•
XIV NEW TECHNOLOGY 3H
Pharmaccnilical Ualch Vessel Cleaning . 38
Chemical Processes 3H
Fcrmcnlalion 30
Carbon in l^aw Material 39
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS -H
rUBLLOGRAPHY 44
APPENDIX A -
Vlll
-------
'I ABiJ'.S
No. P£ii/.-
l PLAN"! SUMMAR Y ........ ... iv
II rFFLUKNT SUMMAUV FOR SKl-F-'I H I-J/'I 1 \-C.
PLANTS .......... ....... v
iii PLA-.VS RESPONDING uv PROCESS
C A i FC.GR1KS ............... 1"
IV R F.SPONS1T5 ACCORDING 'J O FINAL PROCESS
CATKiiORiKS .............. 18
\' I-IIARMAC I:;UJ fC.M, PLAN- i S-KAW
KFIMAIKiNiT CHAKACTlLUIS'l ICS ..... 19
vi I'lfAK.vi.xci'itrriCAi. PLANTS-KAW
liIi-'KI.UKN I CHAUAC'I ICUiSI'lC-S
VII C,1IKM[(,A1, PI., ANTS AND PHAI< MACKiri'ICA I. /
CMICMKJAl, Pf ANTrf-UAW l-JKl'LUl^NT
CMI.MI.AC I i-Jia.S'l JCS ............ 21
v[iF I? AW KKKMU-JNT CUAK ACTEKISTJCS-
(.Hl-'iVllCAi, PT.AX'TS AND
(Heavy MvM.ili) ................ ^2
].\ Al.J, OI'llJCK 1JL,AN PS-HAW EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS ........... ^3
X ALLO'llllJIt I'l.ANTS-KAW LFl'LUENT
c.iiAi!/\C'n-:i<[STics
(Uv avy N'U-i.tK) ................ 2J
v 1 F I \' A L TR L: \ I1 u D K ir FLL- K'\'T LOA DFNCiS-
J'LAM I\S W i I'll Si'JJ.F- 1 Uj^A'J'MENT ..... 26
Nfl Tf\Af. i'UEA TED EFFLUENT l.OADtNC.S-
PI.A\TS WIT'.! SELF-TKEA'J'MENT
(lh-.-i\y Mi-t.-ilb) ................ 27
Mil COSTS AND TREATMENT LEVELS-
PLANT.^ WITH SELF-TREATMENT ... 28
XIV Pfl'XU.Vi/UJEUTlCAL PLAN'I'S ........ 2')
XV C.llkMiCAL LM. ANTS AND PI JAR MACEUTICAL/
CHEMICAL PLAN'IS ............. 31
XVI ALLOTHtR PLANTS .......... 32
XVII TKKATAMLE EFFLUENT UY CATEGOl<\ . . 33
>V1I1 PFRCKYi1 CAR13ON IN KAW MATERIAL
VERSUS CONTAMINANTS IN' J< A \\r
KF1- LUKN I1 .................. 41
IX
-------
XIX" PERCENT CARBON IN R.AW MATERIAL
VERSUS CONTAMINANTS EN RAW
AFFLUENT
(Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/
Chemical PlantsJ 41
XX PERCENT CARBON IN R>HW MATERIAL
VERSUS CONTAMINANTS IN RAW
EFFLUENT
(All Other Plants) 42
-------
I CONCL USIONS
1. The industry was segregated into three types of plants according
to the nature of Iheir manufacturing operation.
(a) Pharmaceutical Plants
(b) Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/Chemical Plants
(c) All Other Plants
2. Since the industry manufactures many and varied product
mixes, frequent process changes (job shop operations) generate
industry wastes which may be cyclical, intermittent, and highly
variable in nature, thus adding to the complexity of the treatment
problems.
3. The majority of the plants in this industry discharge their
effluents into municipal sewage collection systems with subsequent
public treatment.
4. Pharmaceutical plants generate effluents largely sanitary in
nature and readily treatable in a biological facility.
5. The "All Other Plants" category includes processes such as
fermentation, extraction, pharmaceutical, biological, chemical,
or a combination of these. Where fermentation is an integrated
part of the manufacturing procedure, its high BOD and suspended
solids loadings usually predominate the nature of the raw effluent.
6. Fermentation processes are usually conducted in a plant along
with other processes such as chemical, pharmaceutical, biological
and natural products extraction, or a combination of these. The
raw fermentation effluent is characterized by a high BOD and usually
high suspended solids.
7. Several self-treating plants reported high pounds of dissolved
solids in their effluents which may be attributed to the dissolved
solids present in their intake once-through cooling water.
8. Based on the data available, the treatability of the plant
effluents is comparable to the levels normally associated with a
regional biological facility's influents.
-------
9. Specifications and standards in "The Good Manufacturing
Practices Regulations" place severe restrictions on the ability
to reuse and recycle process effluents because of cross-product
contamination considerations.
-------
II RECOMMENDATIONS
A number of factors need to be considered to allow more
complete characterization of the industry. These are.
1. Better definition of the effluents from
each manufacturing process;
2. Determination of economics and feasibility
of recovery, recycle and disposal methods
for specific waste streams;
3. Identification of areas where transfer of
treatment technology within the industry
or from other industries is possible;
4. More in-depth evaluation of existing
operations to identify those plants using
the most practical treatment technology.
5. Fermentation should be extracted, and
separate data obtained.
-------
Ill INTRODUCTION
Over the past several years, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has been striving to establish effluent guideline levels for con-
taminants from all industrial and domestic point sources. As part of
this program, 27 major industry categories have been identified in
Public Law 92-500 and are now being investigated in depth by checking
and surveying the member plants and obtaining data on selected con-
taminants, average plant discharge rates, treatment costs, and other
pertinent factors.
Since the pharmaceutical industry can be expected to be investi-
gated at a later time, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association
(PMA) has been following the procedures of EPA in anticipation of
the need for information on the effluents from the pharmaceutical
industry. It is the intention of PMA to take an active part in the study
of the industry and to assist the EPA in developing meaningful
information from which satisfactory effluent guidelines can be
established. To svipport such a cooperative effort, the PMA and the
EPA agreed to jointly sponsor an industry study to collect preliminary
data. This data is to be used to aid the EPA in eventually setting these
initial effluent standards and to define areas where additional research
related to waste treatment is needed.
Although there are over 1, 300 producers of ethical pharmaceuticals
in the United States, 115 of these are responsible for 95 percent of the
industry's sales. The PMA represents these 115 manufacturers, and
thus is the logical agency to represent and coordinate the effort to
evaluate the effluents from the ethical pharmaceutical industry. The
companies which are not members of the PMA are very small in terms
of sales and employees, and consequently the plant effluents are usually
very small and are discharged directly to municipal facilities. As will
be explained later, these small companies are also regulated by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA guidelines for good
manufacturing plant practices are a check on plant effluent contaminant
loadings.
-------
IV GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES
Actually, the pharmaceutical industry has been under a form of
pollution control for a number of years. Certain cleanliness, hygienic,
sanitation, and process control standards are matters of particular
importance to this industry because of its concern for product quality.
As a result of these considerations, the pharmaceutical industry has,
as a matter of course, practiced usually good manufacturing and house-
keeping procedures as they apply to both processes and personnel. In
addition, the pharmaceutical industry has for years been subject to
certain manufacturing and operational restrictions and inspections
pertaining to the regulations of the Federal Food and Drug and Cosmetic
Act. Periodically, FDA personnel will call on a pharmaceutical
manufacturer for an unannounced in-plant inspection covering some of
the above factors. Good manufacturing practices regulations pro-
mulgated by the FDA have been in force, with modifications, since 1963.
Through action by the entire industry, in cooperation with the FDA
and other governmental agencies, the industry took action in 1969 to
strenghten the overall manufacturing procedures described in FDA's
Good Manufacturing Practices Regulations.
In the Federal Register of August 22, 1969 (34 F. R. 13553), a notice
was published proposing a revision of sections 133.1 to 133. 4 to clarify,
strengthen and make more specific these regulations which, if put into
effect, will reduce potentials for water contamination.
The Good Manufacturing Practices Regulations covered the following
areas.
Section 133.1 Definitions
Section 133. 2 Finished pharmaceutical manufacturing practice
Section 133. 3 Buildings
Section 133. 4 Equipment
Section 133. 5 Personnel
Section 133. 6 Components
Section 133. 7 Master production and control records
Batch production and control records
Section 133. 8 Production and control procedures
Section 133. 9 Product containers and their components
Section 133. 10 Packaging and labeling
-------
Section 133. 11 Laboratory controls
Section 133. 12 Distribution records
Section 133. 13 Stability
Section 133. 14 Expiration dating
Section 133. 15 Complaint files
Several of the sections have significant impact on the control of
effluent contamination from a raw material, intermediate, or product
standpoint. For example.
Section 133. 8 Production and Control Procedures
"Production and control procedures include all reasonable
precautions, including the following, to insure that the
drugs produced have the safety, identity, strength, quality,
and purity they purport to possess:
1. Each significant step in the process, such
as the selection, weighing, and measuring
of components, the addition of ingredients
during the process, weighing and measuring
during various stages of processing, and
the determination of-the finished yield,
shall be performed by a competent and
responsible individual and checked by a
second competent and responsible individual.
2. All containers, lines, and equipment used
during the production of a batch of a drug
shall be properly identified at all times
to indicate accurately and completely their
contents and, when necessary, the stage of
processing of the batch. "
These good manufacturing procedures promulgated by the FDA
indicate that the processing operations are more closely controlled
than other industries. With such a close check on raw materials and
products, it should be possible to determine the degree of contamina-
tion in the contact cooling and process water. In addition, since
inventories are closely watched and checked, inadvertent spills and
batch discharges are completely monitored and housekeeping practices
are kept at the optimum.
-------
V INITIAL WORK PLAN
In one of the initial meetings of the PMA, EPA, and Gulf South
Research Institute (GSRI), it was decided to categorize the pharma-
ceutical industry into five processing categories so that these
individual areas could be examined from a segregated effluent view-
point with the attendant types and concentrations of contaminants, as
well as flow volumes and rates. The five categories originally agreed
upon at that time were:
1. Pharmaceutical
2. Chemical
3. Fermentation
4. Biological
5. Natural Product Extraction
It was felt that by initially identifying these five separate manufacturing
categories, the contaminant loadings of the respective effluents could
better be defined.
During the course of site visits and subsequent evaluations of data
submitted by member firms of the PMA, it was realized that the actual
identification and categorization of each effluent discharged from the
above processing categories would be difficult at this time since many
firms do not have the historical documentation needed.
Asa result, the final data was tabulated in the following three
general categories.
Pharmaceutical
Chemical plants and pharmaceutical/chemical plants
All other plants consisting of a combination of two
or more of the above listed process categories.
Even though the data was evaluated in the above three categories,
it was felt that an examination of the individual processes would be
of importance in evaluating treatment practices and would aid in
establishing the overall industry's present level of effluent treatment.
-------
VI SOURCES OF EFFLUENT CONTAMINATION
Pharmaceutical Plants
Production Techniques and Typical Effluents
The products which come under this category are primarily (a)
ethical pharmaceuticals sold on prescription and (b) ethical over-
the-counter preparations. Also included in this category may be
certain of the following: (c) proprietary medicines (advertised
directly), (d) diagnostic agents, (e) animal health products, and (f)
miscellaneous products.
The majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing firms are
compounders, special processors, formulators, and product
specialists. Their primary objective is to convert the desired
prescription to tablets, pills, lozenges, powders, capsules, extracts,
emulsions, solutions, syrups, parenterals, suspensions, tinctures,
ointments, aerosols, suppositories, and other miscellaneous
consumable forms. These operations can be classified as labor
intensive and low in waste production.
In respect to the ingredients going into the end product, two factors
are of importance:
a. The industry requirement that the weight of all
components going into a specific application
be recorded at all separate intervals during
the process; and
b. The fact that each ingredient is usually expensive
and any loss is reflected in company profits where
close quality and raw material control is not
practiced.
There are several sources within a manufacturing plant which can
contribute to effluent contamination:
a. Plant personnel sanitation wastes;
b. Plant and equipment washdowns and cleanouts;
c. Oily wastes from operating machinery and
various maintenance facilities;
-------
d. Inadvertent raw material, intermediate and
product spills;
e. Normal process and utilities operations;
f. Off quality material; and
g. Laboratory facilities.
The current manufacturing practices established by industry and
codified by the FDA have insured a number of safeguards with regard
to several of these items.
a. It has become standard plant practice to
insure adequate hygienic and sanitation
facilities for personnel.
b. Tableting, pill, encapsulating, and powder
preparation areas are segregated with air
control to remove airborne particles through
adequate recovery systems.
c. Bulk chemical preparation areas involving
aqueous solutions are generally curbed and
guttered so that spills and washdowns can be
directed to the proper treatment system.
c. Generally, pharmaceutical operations are
under roof so that storm water contamination
does not present a problem.
e. Generally, pharmaceutical operations utilize
vacuum and vent scrubbing systems. Thus,
seal and scrubber water can be discharged to
the proper drain system for appropriate treatment.
Plants engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical items fall
into two categories: (1) those which treat their own plant effluent,
and (2) those which discharge their untreated combined plant effluent
directly to a public collection system for subsequent central treatment.
There are some plants that partially treat their effluents and then
discharge to a central system.
Self-treatment of pharmaceutical wastes generally consists of a
mixing system where the various plant effluents (including sanitary
wastes) are collected for pre-settling prior to treatment in a bio-
oxidation unit. This unit can either be a trickling filter or activated
sludge. The overflow may then go to sand filter beds, post-chlorination
and dischargee
-------
None of the plants investigated exhibited any unusual types of
treatment of their plant effluent. Conventional treatment methods
are capable of reducing contaminant loadings to specific levels.
Many plants utilize incineration or steam sterilization to treat
certain wastes.
Some plant production lines do generate wastewaters containing
dissolved inorganic salts. When mixed with effluents from other
plant operations, the concentration of such salts usually does not
present any difficult treatment problems. The technique presently
used most frequently for such material is dilution with other
effluents to concentrations which do not interfere with conventional
treatment.
Chemical Plants
In most cases, chemical processing is part of a manufacturing
complex and the resulting waste streams are combined with other
plant streams so that the total plant effluent can be treated centrally
or, if compatible with domestic sewage, discharged to a regional
facility.
In general, the chemical processing area of a plant is made up
of a number of batch reactors followed by intermediate product
storage and purification steps, such as crystallization, distillation,
filtration, centrifugation, solvent extraction, and other well known
unit operations, singularly or in combination. Since some equipment
may be common to several product needs, careful equipment cleaning
is necessary to avoid cross-contamination.
To meet rigid quality standards for subsequent use in pharma-
ceutical preparations, all intermediate and finished chemical production
steps and procedures are well defined and monitored by production,
technical and laboratory personnel.
This segment of the pharmaceutical industry probably generates
the most difficult to treat effluent when compared with the others.
Because of the many batch type operations and chemical reactions
including nitration, amination, halogenation, sulfonation, alkylation,
etc. , the processing may generate wastes containing high COD, acids,
bases, solvents, cyanides, refractory organics, suspended and dis-
solved solids, and many other specific contaminants. As an example,
one class of pharmaceutical chemicals produced is bacteriostats,
disinfectants, and compounds used for sterilizing public facilities,
10
-------
hospitals, etc. Certain formulations containing phenolics have been
effective in this area. Since these products are, by nature, dis-
infecting, a biological treatment system may be deactivated if the
raw effluent from such a manufacturing sequence is directly charged
to the treatment system at too high a concentration. Thus, it may
be necessary to equalize or chemically treat the process effluents.
This treated effluent in certain circumstances may then be acceptable
for treatment in a conventional central system. Solids, precipitates
and sludges are usually disposed of at designated landfills. It should
be realized that the quantity of pollutants is small and these effluents
are relatively minor when compared to the main plant effluents.
In some instances, process solutions and vessel washwater may
also contain residual organic solvents. A number of companies main-
tain solvent stripping facilities where the solvent is recovered and
recycled. Others concentrate the organic wastewaters by evaporation
to the point where they may be effectively incinerated. This method
is particularly effective where an animal testing facility is operated
in the same complex. The test animals may be disposed of in the
same properly designed incineration system, and thus a two-fold pur-
pose is served.
Usually the entire chemical processing and production operations
are carried out in buildings constructed specifically for these purposes.
In most instances, the buildings are multi-storied and the process flow
can then be from top to bottom making intermediate transfers simple
and easy to handle. Most process areas are designed to direct spills
to a designated holding system from which they are then added at a
controlled rate to the central treatment system.
Since the usual batch procedure requires equipment cleaning for
the next product, considerable washing is necessary. The washings
follow the drainage system, and can thus be collected for subsequent
treatment. Where a solvent is necessary in the cleaning steps for a
vessel cleanout, the vessel will be closed and cleaned by recirculation
of the solvent through a pump system. The contaminant solvent may
then be discharged to a tank for purification by stripping and subsequent
recovery. The tars or sludges are usually incinerated or hauled to a
landfill. In some very small production facilities, the solvent may be
disposed of to an approved disposal firm.
Where solvents are used for cleaning, one of the primary concerns
is plant safety. It is extremely important not to let any of the water
insoluble solvents get into the plant drains as a simple spark could create
11
-------
a major catastrophe. Plant safely is of constant concern and fire
hazards are to be avoided as much as possible. Consequently, plant
safety measures contribute to elimination of gross discharges of
such organics although low concentrations remain in dissolved, dis-
persed or emulsified form and require subsequent treatment.
Several plants practice deep well disposal of certain chemical
plant effluents. Pre-treatment usually consists of neutralization
and suspended solids settling followed by filtering prior to injection.
Fermentation Plants
Fermentation is an important production process in the pharma-
ceutical industry. This type of process is the basic method used for
producing most antibiotics (penicillin, streptomycin, aureomycin)
and many of the steroids (cortisone, etc. ).
The major waste of the fermentation process, and the one most
likely to be involved in water pollution problems, is spent beer,
although purification and clean-up wastes also exist. The beer is
the fermented broth from which the valuable fraction, antibiotic or
steroid, has been extracted usually by the use of a solvent. Spent
beer contains the residual food materials such as sugars, starches,
and vegetable oils not consumed in the fermentation process. Dis-
charging this high BOD, concentrated effluent to a receiving stream
without eliminating or drastically reducing dissolved and suspended
solids could only result in a serious water pollution problem.
Methods for treating the liquid fermentation waste are generally
biological in nature. Although fermentation wastes, even in a highly
concentrated form, can be satisfactorily treated by biological systems,
it is much better and less likely to upset the system if these wastes are
first diluted to some degree by addition of other waste streams. One
such recommended method is to combine it with large volumes of
sanitary effluents. No further nitrogen, phosphorus or trace elements
is generally needed to carry out a satisfactory biological reduction of
the contaminants in the combined wastes.
In a number of fermentation operations, it is possible to recover
the suspended mycelia and nutrients present in the spent beer. They
can then be concentrated, dried, and sold as an animal feed supplement.
Of course, the utilization of these solids in such a manner is dependent
on the nature of the fermentation waste which must be free of hazardous
components. Designated landfill areas for such solids are employed by
some companies when reuse is not feasible.
12
-------
The waste beer from these fermenters makes an excellent dilution
medium for several selected industrial and domestic effluents. The
mixing with domestic effluents has been described previously. In
another regional treatment operation, the filtered spent beer is com-
bined with the waste liquors from a paper mill for joint treatment with
the community sanitary wastes. The treatment plant personnel have
proven that this combination of effluents requires no additional nutrients
for satisfactory bio-oxidation to reduce the contaminant loadings to
meet local effluent specifications for BOD, SS and possibly COD. Other
waste sources of fermentation manufacturing include equipment wash-
down,filter backwashes, and solvent recovery operations. These are
customarily combined with the major waste stream since all pollutants
generated are believed to be relatively easily biodegradable.
Biological Plants
One of the first significant efforts to utilize animals for pharmaceu-
tical purposes was the recovery of serum from horses for use in manu-
facturing tetanus and diptheria anti-toxins and typhoid vaccines. During
World War II, the need for protecting American armed forces overseas
caused this segment of the industry to be greatly expanded. Large
quantities of gas-gangrene anti-toxin, tetanus toxoid, typhus and influenza
vaccines were produced from the serums extracted from certain animals.
There are two primary sources of pollution from a facility housing
live animals for the purpose of isolating serums. Where there is a need
for large amounts of serum, the number of animals housed at one location
may require several hundred acres. The two basic sources of pollutants
are: (1) the used hay and waste animal feeds which are generally
impregnated with animal wastes, and (2) the water soluble runoff which
also is rich in animal wastes.
Treatment of such wastes is quite conventional and really does not
need much elaboration. The animal waste impregnated bedding material
is usually picked up by front loaders and removed to a landfill location
or spread on farm land as a fertilizer supplement. The liquid runoff is
usually collected and either discharged to a regional treatment plant or
discharged to an in-plant treatment system. In either case, the effluent
can be reduced to what have been acceptable levels of BOD and SS by
conventional treatment. Sludge may be removed and also used as landfill.
Conversion of the crude animal isolates to consumable products
generates negligible effluent contaminants.
13
-------
Natural Product Extraction Plants
Perhaps the classic process which typifies this segment of the
industry is the extraction of insulin from animal glands. In this
category, the raw waste would be high in the solid residues from the
animal organs or plant tissues and the washwaters containing some
residual organic solvents. Most of these extraction processes do
practice solvent recovery and recycle; the degree of contamination
remaining in the stripped wash water depends on the extent of the
recovery facilities and the efficiency of operations.
It should be pointed out the amount of suspended solids and total
effluent is not particularly large. A plant capable of extracting
several million pounds annually of animal organs and plant tissue
would be one of the large natural products extraction businesses in
operation in this country.
The used organs, plant tissues and still bottoms may be
incinerated. Used organs may be isolated and sold as animal feed
supplement. Landfill is the most widely used method of handling
plant tissue. Therefore, these wastes seldom enter the washwater
stream.
14
-------
VII PLANT EFFLUENT EVALUATION SCHEME
After the initial meeting, it was felt that a field investigation
of selected processing plants in the previously described manu-
facturing categories would help in developing firsthand knowledge
of the treatment systems in operation at the present time. In
addition, through on-site discussions with engineers, ideas might
be developed on technology which might be forthcoming in the years
ahead to resolve persisting problems. These site visits were to
be followed by requesting PMA member firms to submit data on the
quantity and quality of their raw process effluents. Data on treated
effluents and methods of treatment were also requested. Seventy-
four plants of member firms acknowledged the request for data.
There were 56 plants which submitted usable data on effluents
from various plant areas at corresponding levels of contaminant
loadings. Based on the identification of these plants, the PMA has
estimated that companies represented by the 56 responding plants
constitute more than three-fourths of the gross sales generated by
the industry. As an approximation, it may be assumed that these
56 plants are responsible for a major percentage of the effluents
discharged by the industry.
After making the initial site visits, it became apparent that it
was not going to be possible to distinguish between effluent types
being discharged in terms of the five categories originally designated.
The reason for this is that while there are some manufacturers who
have pharmaceutical operations at a single location, and some who
have chemical operations at a single location, there are no individual
fermentation, extraction or biological processors of any consequence
at any one manufacturing location. The number of plants reporting
by process categories is shown in Table III.
15
-------
Table III
PLANTS RESPONDING BY PROCESS CATEGORIES
Category
*
A
X*
B
***
C
Total
Number of
Plants
27
8
9
3
3
3
4
?
4
4
1
2
2
1
1
74
Pharmaceutical
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chemical
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fermentation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Extraction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Biological
X
X
X
X
**
***
Pharmaceutical Plants
Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/Chemical Plants
All Other Plants
16
-------
VIII PRESENTATION OF PLANT EFFLUENT DATA
To develop the information obtained from the PMA member firms
and establish the levels of effluent treatment being accomplished by
the industry, a tabulation was made of the various parameters of the
raw and treated effluents. After reviewing all of the available
responses, it was decided to divide the industry into three categories;
(1) pharmaceutical processors only, (2) chemical plants and
pharmaceutical/chemical plants, and (3) all other plants (Table IV).
A breakdown of the raw effluent characteristics for all the company
responses is listed in Tables V, VII and IX. The PMA firms supplied
the number of plant personnel and the pounds of raw material. The
data has been normalized on these two bases in an endeavor to find a
correlatable base.
The information requested also included a section covering the
types of effluent treatment practiced by each of the operating plants.
The various types of treatments within the plants are also summarized
in Tables V, VII and IX. As indicated in these tables, the various types
and sequences of effluent treatments present no new and variable
technology except for the use of pure oxygen activated sludge in one
case not shown by code due to the confidentiality of the survey.
While there was a variation of pH of the final effluent, all reported
values were within the nominal 6. 5 - 7. 5 range. No excessive discharge
temperatures were noted with the average being less than 95°F.
Information on the heavy metals content of the raw effluent was also
requested. Tables VI, VIII, and X report the levels of Hg, Cr, Pb and
Zn in both ppm and pounds per month.
All companies reported that no pathogens were present in their waste'
water discharges.
17
-------
Table IV
RESPONSES ACCORDING TO
FINAL PROCESS CATEGORIES
Category
Pharmaceutical
Plants
Chemical Plants
Pharmaceutical/
rhpmiral Plants
All Other Plants
Totals
Responses
27
17
30
74
Responses Where Raw Effluent
Could 3e Evaluated
Total
17
13
26
56
Effluent to
Municipal
Treatment
15
9
13
37
Effluent
Self-
Treated
3
4
12
19
18
-------
Table V
PHARMACEUTICAL PLANT RAW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Company
Code
0792
Ida
1Z34C
123«F
12 56 A
1690
1695
I7I2B
2«67B
35258
3897A
38970
4064
49;4B
B297B
9570-1
9«35B
-ployees
900
660
US
530
2.500
40
903
l.ZOO
638
385
2.400
9)6
2,000
1.350
1.400
750
9>0
Pounds
of **«
jtenal
Per Ma
.772.000
750.000
340.000
320.000
2,000,000
S.170
.330,000
400.000
148.400
103.000
1.833.000
2,000.000
1.470.000
1.700.000
178.000
1.64*. 000
900.000
Gallons/Mo
Treatable
Effluent
3.955.000
2.750,000
1 .020.000
1.030,000
4.250.000
182.000
1,777.000
2.370.000
1,413,000
2.297. 000
23.ZOO.OOO
8,800.000
21.600.000
1.700.000
3.100.000
1,654,000
4. 114. 000
Gallons/Ho
)nce through
Cooling
2.S69.000
1 .000.000
200,000
3.000.000
87,000
10,583,000
^(OO.OOO
-
-
330,000,000
-
1 ,400.000
500.000
-
Pounds BOOj
Per
>ployee
Per Ho.
i
1.5
i
3.1
6 2
23.6
3.6
10.9
1.8
1.9
5.0
2 1
11.4
12 1
6 7
2.6
3 2
1 4
3 2
Per 1000*
Haw
Material
O.S
7.1
2.6
39.0
4.S
84.0
1.2
5.7
9.2
7.8
14.9
5.9
9.1
2.1
35.0
.64
3.4
Pounds COO
1
Per
EnplQyee
Per Ho.
9.5
-
8.5
11.4
3.1
3.0
9.0
4.7
14.4
51.0
-
5.7
9.4
3 3
5.0
Per 1000*
Raw
Material
8.4
-
10.6
87.5
2.1
9.6
16.5
17 6
18.9
25 0
-
4.5
103
1.5
5.3
Pounds O.S.
Per
Employee
Per Ho.
11.2
14.0
-
17.0
24.0
1.1
2.0
-
19 5
18.1
31.0
-
3 1
-
5.4
36.0
cr 1000*
Raw
aterial
3.;
12.1
-
28.0
18S.O
0.7S
6.0
-
73.0
21.7
15.1
-
2.5
-
2.5
38.0
Pounds S.S.
Per
ployce
er Ko.
0.2
3.5
6 3
B.5
0.3
2 9
1.3
-
2 7
1.1
U 4
-
3.2
-
2.3
10.3
Per ]000*i
Raw
Material
.07
3 1
2 J
14.0
2.3 '
2.0
3.9
-
10.1
1.4
7.0
-
2.5
-
1.1
10.9
Type of Effluent Treatrents
Primary settling, solids removal, municipal treat-lent
Municipal treatment
Segregation, incineration, municipal treatment
Segregation, activated sludge, landfill, incineration,
post Cl_
Segregation, neutralization, municipal treatment
Municipal treatment
Sedimentation, bio-oiidation. past Cl. chemical
coagulation, sand filtration, segregation
Municipal treatment
Segregation, bio-oxidation, settling
Segregation, municipal treatment
Municipal treatment
Municipal treatment
Municipal treatment
Municipal treatment
Sesrejation^actlnted sludge, landfill, flotation.
post Cl^pondirg
Evaporation, se;res«t(cn, nunlcfpal treatment,
Irclneratton. recycle
Separation, segregation, municipal treatment.
recycle
-------
Table VI
PHARMACEUTICAL PLANT RAW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
(Heavy Metals)
Company
Code
0792
1016
1234C
1234F
1256A
1690
1695
1712B
2467B
3524B
3897A
38970
4064
19540
8297B
9370-1
9435U
Kg
ppm
-
0
NIL
MIL
NIL
0
-
-
NIL
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
Pounds
Per llo.
-
0
NIL
NIL
-
0
-
-
MIL
0
0
-
0
-
-
-
Cr
ppm
_.005
-
UK
MIL
NIL
0
-
-
NIL
NIL
0
-
.01
-
-
-
Pounds
Per Mo.
0.16
— urn n'Tf
MIL
NIL
-
0
-
-
NIL
HIL
0
-
.11
'-
-
-
Zn
ppm
.09
TTJIRI F
HIL
NIL
.015
0
-
-
HIL
NIL
0
-
0.4
-
-
-
Pounds
I'er Mo.
3.0
-
till
«IL
.07
0
-
-
NIL
NIL
0
-
5.6
-
-
-
Pt»
ppm
.03
0
HIL-
niL
.05
0
-
-
NIL
0
0
-
.04
-
-
-
Pounds
Per flo.
1.0
^
0
HIL
NIL
.08
0
-
-
NIL
0
0
-
0.56
-
-
-
Nil. - Is as reported by plant
O - Is as reported by plant
Is as reported by plant and Is interpreted to
mean nol
20
-------
Table VII
CHEMICAL PLANTS AND PHARMACEUTICAL/CHEMICAL PLANTS RAW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Company
Code
0947
1234G
1712A
2662
3524A
3897 B
49S4A
5722A
5722B
616?
7794A
7794B
54 -U
Employees
175
120
500
700
1,600
325
-
3,500
150
1.500
1,400
135
750
Pounds
of Raw
Material
Per Mo.
300,000
1,400,000
800,000
275.000
300,000
750,000
1,800,000
6,660,000
3,300,000
550.000
1,600,000
79b,000
5,000,000
Gallons/Mo.
Treatable
Effluent
257,000
766.000
5.950,000
4,225,000
9,200,000
1.700.000
64,000,000
43,400,000
47,350,000
11,400,000
5,600.000
3.060,000
16.327,000
Gal Ions /Mo
Once Through
Cool inj
-
-
15,000,000
3,800,000
9,200,000
210,000,000
-
-
185,000,000
6.500.000
4.200,000
-
60,830.000
Pounds BODg
Per
Employee.
Per Ho.
1.8
135.0
300.0
33.0
15.0
8.8
-
215.0
3,500.0
12.0
12.6
580.0
ao.o
Per 1000"
Raw
Material
1.0
11.6
187
84.0
80.0
3.8
21.0
113.0
159.0
32.7
11.0
99.0
12.0
Pounds COD
Per
Employee
Per Ho.
4.1
200.0
425.0
34.0
23.0
12.4
-
359.0
5,750.0
29.0
26.0
910.0
160.0
Per 1000»
Raw
Material
2.4
17.1
266.0
87.0
123.0
5.4
30.0
189.0
261.0
79.0
22.8
155.0
24.0
-------
Table VII (continued)
CHEMICAL PLANTS AND PHARMACEUTICAL/CHEMICAL PLANTS RAW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Company
Code
0947
1234G
1712A
2662
3524A
3397B
4954A
5722A
5722B
616?
7794A
7794B
34 J 2
Pounds D.S.
Per
Employee
Per Ho.
3.8
308.0
20.0
40.0
-
-
680.0
1.190.0
2.2
27.0
1,120.0
Per 1000*
Raw
Material
2.2
2C.4
51.0
214.0
-
18.0
358.0
54.0
6.0
23.6
168.0
Pounds S.S.
Per
employee
Pfer Ho.
2.2
10.6
12.5
1.3
0.6
-
-
4.0
795.0
2.4
1.8
43.0
Per 1000*
Raw
Material
1.3
0.9
7.8
3.3
3.2
-
2.0
2.1
36.0
6.5
1.6
6.4
Type of Effluent Treatment
Production Control,
Segregation, municipal treatment
Neutralization, aeration Iqgoon. landfill
Coagulation, sedimentation, post CK
Neutralization, coagulation activated sludge
Segregation, sedimentation, landfill, post C1-
Municipal treatment
Municipal treatment
Self treatment not defined
Primary treatment,
Municipal treatment
Municipal treatment
Solvent recovery, recycle^
Segregation, dilution
Neutralization solvent recycle
Settling, incineratior) municipal treatment
Neutralization, incineration,
Municipal treatment, segregation, landfill
Segregation, evaporation, recycle.
Settling, incineration, activated sludge,
Landfill Cl.
Settling, coagulation, aeration, lagoon.
Floatation, clarification, landfill, C12
Process Type
C PC
PC
C
C
PC
PC
C
PC
C
C
PC
C
C
C
C Chemical
PC Pharmaceutical and Chemical
-------
Table VIII
RAW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
CHEMICAL PLANTS AMD PHAKIlACCUriCAL/CIIEMICAL PLANTS
(Heavy Hetals)
Company
Code
0947
1234G
1712A
2662
3524A
389XB
4954A
- 57228
6165
7794A
7794B
8442
8632
Hg
ppm
NIL
-
NIL
0
0
fltL
0
.02
0
.003
.01
NIL-
.01
Pounds
Per Me.
MIL
-
,'IIL
0
0
NIL
0
7.9
0
0.14
0.25
NIL
1.4
Cr
pptn
0
1.28
NIL
0
0
NIL
.01
.05
0
.06
0.15
NIL
.6
Pounds
Per Mo.
0
8.2
NIL
0
0
MJL
5.4
19.8
0
2.8
3.75
NIL
84.0
Zn
PP">
0
-
NIL
0
0
NIL
.07
.6
0
.6
2.8
MIL
1.0
Pciuncls
Per Mo.
0
-
NIL
0
0
NIL
37.8
237.0
i)
28.0
70.0
NIL
140.0
Pb
pom
0
-
MIL
0
0
NIL
.023
.01
0
.04
0.1
NIL
Z.Q
Pounds
Per l'.o.
0
-
ML
0
0
ML
12.4
3.9
0
1.9
2.5
ML
280.0
Nil - fb as reported by plant
O - l<3 us reported l>y plant
- Ih us reported by plant and is
to mean not detectable
23
-------
Table IX
ALL OTHER PLANT RAW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Cenptny
Code
0347
0526
0979
1088
1234A
I234B
12340
1234E
12S6B
3559
3897C
509?
57Z2C.
S722D
S722E
5921
6301 A
6301B
74S7
8266A
82668
8297A
BS9M
9I2SC
94J5A
9949
employees
6.000
675
.
480
4.500
2.300
824
417
400
650
280
2.500
450
400
3.250
1.350
1.000
800
750
275
235
975
5.500
350
IBS
2.000
Pounds
of Raw
Material
Per Mo.
6.700,000
330,000
2.750.000
400.000
1.153.000
2.500.000
10.000,000
2.200,000
742,000
477.000
226.000
730.000
5.000,000
6.700.000
768.000
470,000
863,000
3.050,000
600.000
1,000.000
2.700.000
2,000.000
22.000.000
250.000
750.000
7.000.000
Gallons/Ho.
Treatable
Effluent
22. 500 .000
4.500,000
36.000.000
2.700,000
38.000.000
2I.SOO.OOO
33.000,000
60.200,000
320.000
10.000.000
14.100,000
6. 615. 000
50.400,000
25.200.000
14.000.000
2.100.000
40.500,000
33.000,000
1 .930.000
18.810.000
11 .200.000
11.574,000
16S .000.000
714.000
1 .850.000
26,000.000
Gallons/Ho
Once Through
Cooling
420.000,000
100,000
50.600,000
.
21.000.000
154.000,000
124.700,000
125.000,000
320.000
-
900,000
9.400.000
244 .000,000
300.000.000
.
14.660.000
2,000,000
60.000.000
14,000.000
14.530.000
45.200.000
-
-
900,000
300.000
-
Pounds BODj
Per
Enployee
Per fa.
111.0
13.9
-
22.0
101 0
204.0
1 .200.0
1.830.0
2.0
31.0
79.0
5.0
2,400.0
1 .460.0
20.0
17.0
114.0
550.0
10.5
211.0
1.700.0
31.0
180.0
1.9
8.4
6,000.0
Per 1000-J
Raw
Material
99.0
28.4
230.0
26.0
394.0
188.0
98.0
340.0
1.0
42.0
97.0
17.1
2)6.0
87.0
84.0
48.0
145.0
138.0
13.0
58.0
147.0
15.0
45. 0
2.7
2.1
1,710.0
Pounds COO
Per
Employee
Per Ho.
16.6
-
29.0
-
-
3.000.0
4.280.0
-
-
-
8.0
5,330.0
2.920.0
48.0
22.0
163.0
280.0
24.4
259.0
3.860.0
100.0
800.0
-
-
-
Per 10001
Raw
Material
34.0
460.0
35.9
-
-
246.0
810.0
-
-
-
27.4
480.0
174.0
203.0
63.0
186.0
73.0
30.0
71.0
333.0
49.0
200.0
-
-
-
Pounds 0.5.
Per
Employee
Per Mo.
189.0
435.0
.
28.0
-
74.0
1.100.0
835.0
-
-
-
8.0
4.500.0
4.360.0
28.0
12.0
-
480.0
7.4
434.0
5,580.0
244.0
37.0
-
-
-
Per 1000'
Raw
Ha tern)
170.0
892.0
230.0
34.0
-
67.0
94.0
isro
-
-
-
27.4
406.0
260.0
1)1.0
34.0
-
125.0
9.2
119.0
482.0
119.0
9.3
-
-
-
Pounds S.S.
Per
Employee
Per Ng.
50.0
16.6
.
2.8
20.0
12.0
70.0
S97.0
-
44.0
-
3.0
212.0
SM.O
11. 0
t.4
ai.o
53.0
4.0
18.0
846.0
•9.0
1 .250.0
6.6
•
t.MO.O
Per 10001
Ran
Naterial
45.0
34.8
276 0
3.4
78.0
11.0
6.0
109.0
-
62.0
-
10.3
21.0
21.0
42.0
1.1
24.0
14.0
5.5
4.9
73.0
34.0
313.0
9.3
-
1 .570.0
ro
-------
ro
tn
Table IX (Continued)
ALL OTHER PLANT RAW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Company
Code
0347
0526
0979
1088
1234 A
I234B
1234D
I234E
1256B
3559
3897C
5092 .
5722C
5722D
572ZE
5921
6301A
6301B
74S7
8266A
6266B
8297A
8599A
9125C
941SA
9949
Type of Effluent Treatment
Solvent recovery, landfill, filtration, neutralization. Incineration, sterilization, seg.. act. sludqe. chlorlnatlon
Same as Above
Filtration, concentration, landfill, act. sludge, seg. .solvent recovery. Incineration. municipal treatment
Seg.. solvent recovery. Incineration, odor control, concentration recycle, landfill, act. sludge
Evaporation, landfill, incineration, neutralization, municipal treatment
Seg., recycle, municipal treatment, neutralization, reuse
Neutralization, sedimentation, solvent recovery recycle, seg.. coagulation, act. sludge, aerated laqoon
Solvent recovery, evaporation, concentration, neutralization, burning, Incineration, act. sludge, landfill
Chemical coagulation, settling, neutralization, municipal treatnent
Seg.. odor control, aerated lagoon, landfill, settllng.neutrallzation. municipal treatment
Seg., Incineration, municipal treatment
Seg.. sludge disposal, chlorlnatlon. sedimentation, bio-oxidation, sand filtration
Seg.. solvent recovery, bio-oxidation, sedimentation. Incineration, landfill, chlorination
Same as Above
Sedimentation, sand filtration, sea disposal, bio-oxidation, filtration
Seg.. recycle. Incineration, landfill, chemical recovery, bio-oxidation, municipal treatment
Seg.. landfill, sedimentation, septic tanks
Seg.. chemical recovery, recycle, land disposal, chlorlnatlon. coagulation, sedimentation, neutralization, bio-oxidation
Sedimentation, municipal treatment
Sterilization, solvent recovery, landfill, municipal treatment
Seg.. bio-oxidation, settling, landfill, municipal treatment
Seg^settling, bio-oxidation, landfill, municipal treatment
Sterilization, landfill, seg.. municipal treatment
Seg.. landfill, bio-oxidation, post chlorlnatlon
Activated sludgy d1gest1on,chlorjnat1on,landf1ll
Solvent recovery, recycle, neutralization, municipal treatment
Process
Type
F-C-P
B-P-E
F-C-P-B
F-C-P-E
P-E
F-P
F-C
F-C
P-E
E
B
B-P
F-C
F-C
B-P
F-P
P-E
F-P
P-C-E
P-C-E
F-C-E
F-C-P
F-C-P
B
B
F-C-P
P Pharmaceutical j
C Chemical
B Biological |
F Fermentation
Solvent Extraction '
-------
Table X
ALL OTHER PLANT RAN EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
(Heavy Metals)
Company
Codo
0347
052GA&B
0979
10S3
1234A
U34B
12340
24C7A
3559
£521
6301A
63013
7457
82C6A
82G&B
8599A
9125A
9125S
912SC
9435A
9949
Hg
ppn
NIL
.005
HIL
.001
HIL
NIL
0
.
NIL
.016
0
0
0
NIL
NIL
.0077
-
•
0
.
0
Pounds
Per Mo.
NIL
0.?
NIL
.02
NIL
HIL
-
«
NIL
.28
0
0
0
NIL
HIL
10,6
-
-
0
•
0
Cr
ppm
HIL
.053
NIL
.09
NIL
HIL
NIL
_
NIL
.03
0
0
0
NIL
NIL
0
_
-
0
.
0
Pounds
Per Ka.
NIL
2.2
NIL
2.0
MI
NIL
-
—
NIL
1.*
0
0
0
HIL
ML
0
_
.
0
.
0
Zn
ppri
NIL
0.31
NIL
.1
NIL
NIL
0
.
NIL
0.12
0
0
0
NIL
NIL
.745
_
_
0
.
0
Pouids
Per Ho.
NIL
• 11.6
NIL
Z.2
NIL
NIL
-
t NIL
2.1
0 "
0
0
NIL
NIL
1 .020
^
«
0
•»
0
Pb
ppm
NIL
0
HIL
.005
NIL
NIL
0
NIL
.01
0
0
0
NIL
HIL
.031
_
—
0
—
0
-
Pounds
Per Ho.
NIL
0.1
NIL
NIL
.
MIL
0.2
0
0
N!L
NIL
125
^
0
0
ro
Nil - Is as reported by plant
0 - Is as reported by plant
- - Is as reported by plant and is interpreted to mean not detectable
-------
IX TREATED EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
There was a total of 25 plants which practiced varying degrees
of self-treatment of their effluent. Of these, only 19 presented suf-
ficient data which could be inteprrted with any certainty. These 19
reporting plants have been arranged by industry category and are
shown in Table XT. The heavy mclal concentrations and pounds in
the treated effluent are shown in Table XIL.
Here again, the data are presented in pounds of contaminant
per-employec per-month and per-l, 000 pounds of raw material in
an effort to find a correlatable base. Concentrations and pounds
are shown in Table XII.
Table XI
FINAL TREATED EFFLUENT LOADINGS
PLANTS WITH SELF-TREATMENT
Plint Category
(nd
Corptny Cott
phirroceutlcal Plinlt
1695
24678
829 78
ChtniC'l Pljnu ind
Pnimccullcil/ChNiol
Plinlt
I712A
38973
57723
77«8
All Other Pllntl
SC9?
94354
9I25C
5772f
S7??0
12310
!?)![
S7?2C
OJ47
C97J
0526
63018
,,.,,
100
638
1.400
500
325
150
135
2.500
IBS
350
3.250
400
824
417
450
6.000
67S
CCO
Pounds
at RJW
Or Ponlh
1.330.000
348.400
128.000
800.000
750.000
3.300.000
775.000
730.000
750.000
250.000
753. COO
6. 700 .000
10.000.000
2,203.000
5.003.000
6. 700 .CCO
t. 750.000
330.000
3.050.000
Pounil BOO
Per
Crrjloyee
ftr Ha.
0 23
0 38
0 28
13.9
5.3
S20.0
53 0
0.44
0.9
0.1D
0.4
242 0
425.0
145.0
218.0
6 3
.
1.0
15 0
Per 1030*
Miter-til
0.16
0.70
3.2
9.6
1.3
2C.O
J.O
I.S
.22
0.25
I.S
14.4
35.0
27.0
21.0
S.7
75.1
2.0
4 2
Pat-ids COJ
Per
fir Ho.
0.34
1.25
0.6
10 8
!. tOO 0
127.0
1.2
4.5
-
0.8
414.0
76S 0
352 0
1.526 0
9.S
.
2.0
60.0
ttr ICOC»
Riw '
Miterlil
' '0.2J
2.30
6.5
4.7
'118.0
21.6
4.1
1.1
*
3.1
>3.3
63 0
66 0
137.0
8 6
54. 0
4.1
16.0
Pounds 0.5.
Per
[••ylovee
Per Ho.
0.18
.
0.1
.
1.200 0
1.900 0
R S
176.0
-
2.4
4.500 0
2.6SO 0
1.3(0 0
4.800 0
6.3
.
45.0
—
P:r 10COI
Raw
Kltcriil
0.12
.
1.1
-
55 0
370.0
290
310.0
•
9.0
258 0
214.0
254.0
470.0
S 7
2S.O
9t
m"
Pounci 55. |
Per
Enployet
Per KD.
1.2
0.15
0.4S
270.0
190.0
O.I
12.6
0.2
-
1C4.0
183 0
44 0
380.0
3.2
-
3.7
"
Prr IMOJi
Kit/ 1
0.7
0.23
5.0
-
12.1
32.0
1 |J
31.0
0 23
-
6.2
IS 0
8.0
37 0
2.9
22.0
1.5
"
27
-------
Table XII
FINAL TREATED EFFLUENT LOADINGS
PLANTS WITH SCLF-1REATMENF
(Heavy Metals)
Plant Category
and
Company Code
Mg
ppm
Pounds
Per Ho.
Cr
ppm
Pounds
Per Mo.
Zn
ppn
Pharmaceutical Plants
1695
2467B
02978
0
-
-
0 ^
-
-'
0
-
0.05
0
-
1.25
0
-
0.15
Pounds
Per Mo.
0
-
3.7
Pb
pom
0
-
-
Pounds
Per ^o.
0
-
-
Chemical Plants and
Pharmaceutical/
Chemical Plants
1712A
3897D
S722B
7794B
MIL
ML
MIL
(III
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
MIL
NIL
MIL
NIL-
NIL
Ml
mi
NIL
NIL
MIL
NIL
NIL
All Other Plants
5092
9435A
9125C
5722E
5722D
12340
123-5E
5722C
0347
0979
05Z6
C301B
0
-
0
-
NIL
0
NIL
MIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0
0
-
0 ,
-
NIL
0
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
MIL
0
0
-
0
-
NIL
0
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0
0
-
0
-
NIL
0
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
MIL
0
0
-
1.3
-
NIL
U
0.9
7.8
MIL
NIL
.06
0
NIL
ML
NIL
NIL
0
-
7.8
-
NIL
0
450.0
3.270.0
NIL
NIL
2.4
0
NIL
NIL
NIL
MIL
0
-
0
-
MIL
0
NIL
MIL
NIL
ML
0
0
NIL
NIL
NIL
NIL
0
-
0
-
NIL
0
NIL
NIL.
NIL
NIL
MIL
0
28
-------
X LEVELS AND COST OF EFFLUENT TREATMENT
The levels of pollutant removal for those plants practicing self-
treatment are presented in Table XIII, along with the actual (or
estimated) cost of treatment per 1, 000 gallons. The data has been
separated into the three individual process categories with weighted
averages for each category. Treatment cost figures were furnished
by PMA member companies and reflect both capital amortization and
operating costs.
29
-------
Table XH1
COSTS AND TREATMENT LEVELS
PLANTS WITH SELF-TREATMENT
riant C it«*Koiy
ni.J
Cari|-.iiiy Cudr
'tiarm.ict ul It til Flams
U13
246711
8J97H
-------
XI DISCUSSION OF RESULTS BY INDUSTRY CATEGORY
Pharmaceutical Plants
Of the plant responses for data on their raw effluent, there were Z7
which were exclusively pharmaceutical. The following table breaks down
this industry category into several applicable areas.
Table XIV
PHARMACEUTICAL PLANTS
Pharmaceutical Plants
Number
Number
Number
Number
of Responding Plants
Discharging to Municipal
Self-Treating
With Data Breakdown on Raw Effluent
Pharmaceutical
Plants
27
Z3
4
17
It became apparent during the plant visits and also was verified
later through examination of the industry data that (he dominant
effluent from the pharmaceutical manufacturers was the sanitary
loading generated by the employees d\iring the daily production periods,
as reflected in normal banilary BOD loadings and low COD/BOD
ratios.
Only 14 of those plants which discharged to a municipal system
provided sufficient data for evaluation of raw effluent. Three of the
four self-treating plants presented sufficient data for analysis.
31
-------
One of the main reasons for regarding the effluents for pharmaceu-
tical plants as primarily sanitary in nature is the correlation of
contaminant loadings with the number of employees. If the contaminant
loadings are normalized against the number of employees, the amount
of deviation from the lowest to highest values is quite low. For example,
in the case of BODg, the lowest reported value in the raw effluent is 1. 4
pounds of BODs per employee per month, while the highest value is 25. 0.
Nine out of the 17 reported values fall between 1. 4 and 3. 6. Typical
sanitary loadings reported in the literature for industrial environments
range between 0. 06 and 0. 1 pounds of BOD per person per working day. *
Since there are approximately 20 working days per month, a typical
sanitary load would vary between 1.2 and 2. 0 pounds of BOD per person
per month.
With a large proportion of the pharmaceutical plants discharging to
municipal treating systems, it is quite obvious that the local sewerage
treating capabilities are the determining factor for treatment of these
plant effluents.
Three of the four plants which practiced total in-plant effluent treat-
ment responded to the request for effluent treatment data. The data have
been examined and the results obtained for the pharmaceutical plant
category are summarized in Table XIII. The treated effluent is fairly
consistent, with the three companies reporting self-treatment removal
of BOD5 averaging 90 percent, which is also in the range expected from
public treatment plants. In addition, the BODg per employee in the
treated effluent is fairly constant, as previously discussed. The COD per
employee also followed the same correlation as BODg. The ratio is
reasonably low in the raw waste and COD removals of 90 percent were
achieved. The data for dissolved and suspended solids were not sufficient
to reach any conclusions. One company also showed some trace metals
in their effluent, as shown in Table XII.
The various treatment sequences listed for these self-treatment plants
present no unusual procedures. A typical system might be as follows:
(I) grit removal, (2) bio-oxidation, (3) settling and sludge recycle, (4)
sand filtration, (5) selected landfill, (6) post chlorination, and (7) discharge.
Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/Chemical Plants
There were a total of 17 plants responding which fell into this category.
*1. Wastewater Engineering, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. , Collection, Treatment,
Disposal, 1972.
2. Industrial Water Pollution Control, McGraw-Hill Series in Sanitary
Science and Water Resources Engineering, 1966.
32
-------
Table XV
CHEMICAL PLANTS AND PHARMACEUTICAL/CHEMICAL PLANTS
Plants
Number of Responding Plants
Number Discharging to Municipal
Number Self-Treating
Number With Data Breakdown on Raw Effluent
Chemical Plants and
Pharmaceutical/
Chemical Plants
17
11
6
13
There was a wide variation in the raw effluent loadings, both per
employee and per 1000 pounds of raw material. This would be expected
since the contaminants present may vary widely. The average treatment
efficiency (88% BOD removal, 59% COD removal) is not quite as good as
those levels achievable in public treatment facilities and was considerably
more variable. To establish dependable data for this segment of the
industry, it will be necessary to gather additional information, both for
the plants studied and also for other facilities.
All Other Plants
There were a total of 30 plants placed in this category. Actually,
some of these performed only two of the five processing operations. In
addition, there were several which did not generate significant wastes.
33
-------
Table XVI
ALL OTHER PLANTS
Plants
Number
Number
Number
Number
of Responding Plants
Discharging to Municipal
Self-Treating
With Data Breakdown on Raw Effluent
All Other Plants
30
15
15
26
There was a wide variation in the amount of contaminants in both the
raw and treated effluents when related to either the number of employees
or the raw material input. Therefore, it will be difficult to establish any
direct correlatablc relationships. It will be necessary to find another
basis for categorization for this segment and may, in fact, be necessary
to subcategorize further to identify any correlations. However, at this
time, insufficient information is available to make such a breakdown.
XII DISCUSSION OF WATER USAGE
It would appear that where the sanitary wastes dominate the day-to
day effluent loadings of an operating plant, the removal of contaminants
by conventional methods Ls adequate and conforms quite closely with that
achievable by regional treatment systems.
There will always be some problems that will arise as a result of
a special process. The washdowns and contaminated process waters from
these operations may require other treatment approaches.
The entire industry generates an estimated average of 13,100 gallons
of treatable effluent per employee per month, with a breakdown of usage
by category as follows:
34
-------
Table XVII
TREATABLE EFFLUENT BY CATEGORY
Category
Pharmaceutical Plants
Chemical Plants and
Pharmaceutical /Chemical
Plants
All Other Plants
All Plants
Gallons of
Treatable
Effluent
Per
Month
85, 764, 000
149,235,000
615,713,000
850, 712,000
Number of
R eporting
Employees Per
Category
17,727
10, 855
36,546
65,125
Gallons of
Treatable
Effluent
Per Month
Per Employee
4, 840
13, 750
16,850
13,060
Pharmaceutical Plants
It should be realized that most of the pharmaceutical plants operate on
an eight-hour day and a five-day week. The usage of water is primarily
limited to that period. The operation of the production plants during the
working part of the day is quite compatible with the influent to a regional
treatment facility.
The amount of treatable effluent for the pharmaceutical plants is quite
low when compared with other industry categories. For example, in the
petroleum refining and petrochemical industry, where operations are
continuous and highly automated, the treatable effluent can run from 20, 000
to 100, 000 gallons per month per employee, while in this segment, the
average is only 4, 850 gallons per month per employee.
35
-------
Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/Chemical Plants
The amount of treatable effluent from this category is sharply higher
than that for the pharmaceutical processors, reflecting the increased
amounts of process water, vessel cleaning, contaminated cooling water,
wash water, etc. , in the manufacture of the intermediate chemicals.
A greater evaluation of this segment of the pharmaceutical industry
is needed to better determine the most practical methods of effluent
treatment. In certain specific areas individual process effluents need to
be examined in-depth so that material balances can be determined for the
overall raw effluent.
All Other Plants
This industry category utilizes the greatest amount of water per
employee. This is primarily due to the larger processing units in the
fermentation area and its water demand.
36
-------
XIII EFFLUENT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Since each industry category has different effluent characteristics
and loadings, the degree of treatment will vary for the different
categories.
Perhaps one area unique to this industry is the handling of
possible pathogenic material and experimental animals, such as mice.
In general, there are two methods for handling these wastes. With
respect to the toxic materials, they are generally sterilized or
incinerated. The animals are generally incinerated.
The research and development facilities are generally located
adjacent to the central pharmaceutical plant. Where experimental work
on the development of new drugs, serums, etc. is being carried out,
the area is usually segregated and isolated by research type. In the
case of research on a specific material with a toxic or contagious aspect,
a great deal of effort is made to carry out the program in an atmosphere
of isolation with physical communication checked by a security officer.
1. Pharmaceutical Plants
As previously discussed, the pharmaceutical plant effluents are
predominantly sanitary in nature and the majority have their wastes
treated in a municipal system. Only some of the larger plants have
opted to self-treat their effluent.
In the inspection of all the treatment practices of the pharmaceutical
plants, there were no special techniques applied to effluent treatment.
Levels of treatment for this category should be comparable to
levels achievable by a conventional municipal treatment plant. As a
matter of fact, some consideration should be given to this category having
its effluent treated in a joint public-industry facility. One of the main
reasons would be the load factor; since the pharmaceutical plant operates
during the day, the total treatment plant load would be comparable with
the decreased daytime influent from domestic sources.
The washouts of the recipe kettles which are used to prepare the
master batches of the pharmaceutical compounds do not appear to be a
major problem. The types of contaminants present in these washouts
are primarily inorganic salts, sugar, syrup, etc. The surges in
effluent resulting from these washout volumes are well within the capa-
city of the central in-plant or public treatment facility. Where a more
37
-------
exotic compound is involved, the raw materials are so expensive that
care is taken to reduce the loss in the master kettle to a minimum.
2. Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/Chemical Plants
In those plants which carry out chemical or a combination of
pharmaceutical and chemical processes, it is obvious that chemical
operations can contribute some undesirable contaminants to the plant
effluents. As mentioned earlier, the chemical products are obtained
through amination, alkylation, chlonnation, sulfonation, etc. The
purification steps usually involve one or more conventional chemical
engineering unit operations, all of which may generate wastewater
containing organic intermediates, solvents, catalysts, etc.
There are several areas of possible major pollution sources. If the
reaction is carried out in a batch kettle or autoclave, then the washout
solutions will be high in contaminant loadings. If distillation is done with
vacuum, the process vacuum jet water will be saturated with the lighter
components of the reaction mix. If filtration is involved, two possibilities
exist. If the filter cake is the undesirable, then there is a solids disposal
problem. If the filtrate is the unwanted material, this portion usually goes
to the process sewer where it is either treated separately or combined
with the main effluent for subsequent treatment. Unless material balances
are obtained and more careful analyses of manufacturing processes is
possible, it is impossible to identify major sources of pollution.
Since chemical reactions frequently involve acids or bases, an
effluent needing pH adjustment may result. Reactor effluent will sometimes
contain emulsions from which the oil may be separable by pH adjustment.
Where solvents are used, both for process and vessel cleaning, a
number of plants practice solvent recovery. A few plants also strip weak
organic solutions to reduce contaminant loadings further. The stripping
operation is carried to the point where the organic solution can safely be
combined with other process wastes.
A number of the plants have evaporation and incineration units to aid
in their disposal of specific organic wastes which might be difficult to treat
biologically.
3. All Other Plants
A great deal or organic matter is present in the spent beers in
the fermentation operation. Some of the plants involved have developed
ways to reduce this organic matter to a material which can be incinerated
38
-------
or used as a possible source of animal feed supplements. In some cases,
however, toxic residues prohibits its use as a food supplement.
If the plant involved is self-treating and does not filter out the
solids for sale or burning, then a considerable landfill operation is
sometimes carried out.
In reality, none of the problems involved in spent beer wastes
require a technology which must be expanded to any great degree. Per-
haps additional data on this segment of the pharmaceutical industry
need to be obtained so that the loadings to be assigned are well established.
Since the raw effluent loadings are quite high, this additional information
is all the more important.
Further information should be obtained with regard to the
solvent recovery for the natural product extraction processors. At
present, this segment of the industry is a relatively small contributor
to plant effluent loadings. If information is desired on the extent of
this processing category's contribution, then it will have to be
developed in a later program.
Even less quantitative information is available concerning the
wastes derived from the biological segment of the industry. Additional
time and manpower would be necessary to develop the needed data
concerning process and purification wastes. Known technology such
as land disposal of solids and animal wastes and biological treatment
of liquid wastes appears adequate to meet current and immediately
anticipated standards.
39
-------
XIV NEW TECHNOLOGY
According to the observations of GSPI, there are a few processing
sequences in several of the categories which might be investigated for
improvement.
1. Pharmaceutical batch vessel cleaning
In general, the conventional approach is used in cleaning a
vessel for the next manufacturing operation. The mix is transferred
to a holding tank through a bottom cone. As a result of the cone draw-
off, minimum residual is retained. The walls are then washed and
the rinse goes to the process sewer. It would be logical to conduct a
study of the possibility of utilizing a small holding tank to collect
wash water from previous similar operations for recycle. Eventually
the solids or solute levels would rise to a point where the washwater
could be added to the master batch going into production. Of course,
the possibility of cross-contamination is an ogre hanging over the
producer of pharmaceuticals. One contaminated batch can incur the
possibility of law suits and possible criminal action. A thorough
investigation of this area of water reuse by individual plants would
have to be undertaken to increase water conservation, yet not
jeopardize the integrity of the industry and its ability to supply
quality products.
2. Chemical
Most of the materials coming from the chemical area are
intermediates used in making final pharmaceutical products. As
explained earlier in this report, there are always a number of
chemical engineering unit operations associated with the manufacture
of such chemical intermediates. With so many batch processes in-
volved, it should be possible for individual plants to study these areas
for water conservation. Holding tanks for recycle of contaminated
wash water, further solvent stripping, and process water
decontamination should be areas for investigation.
No doubt, as planned regional treatment plants inform various
industries of their proportion of capital and the subsequent processing
charges, many manufacturers will re-evaluate their water reuse pro-
grams and raw effluent loadings.
40
-------
3. Fermentation
Investigations of the sterilization of spent beer and its
solids might reveal the possibility of making this a constant
source of animal feed supplements, even when biologically
active or toxic components are initially present. Some experi-
mental work has shown that the vitamin and nutrient content of
spent beer would aid in animal growth.
Further thought needs to be given to basic physical -
chemical treatment systems for the further reduction of
contaminant levels. Such development work might be given
processes such as ion exchange, carbon adsorption, air
flotation, reverse osmosis, etc. Various sequences of these
treatment methods might also be important both from an
economic and a technical standpoint.
Carbon in Raw Material
One other effort was made to correlate the amount of
contamination with another measurable parameter connected
with plant operations. The companies were asked to estimate
the percent of elemental carbon in their raw material. This
number was then correlated with the pounds of BODg and pre-
sented in Tables XVIII, XIX, and XX.
The degree of variation was less for the pharmaceutical
plants than for the other two categories. Normalizing the
pounds of BODc or COD per 1000 pounds of carbon in the raw
material does show some consistency although there are ratios
in each of the three categories which are extreme. There are
several obvious explanations for this. If a company were
manufacturing a very common over-the counter item high in
carbon such as cough syrup it could do so on a highly
automated basis with minimum personnel. Thus, their raw
material carbon content and raw effluent loadings versus
personnel would be extremely high. On the other hand,
another company manufacturing an inorganic antacid could
also do so on a highly automated basis with minimum per-
sonnel. Their corresponding carbon content in the raw material
and effluent loadings versus employee would be minimal.
41
-------
The actual data for the categories reflects the variation in
such operations as illustrated. Comparison of BOD and COD
relative to carbon in raw material versus total raw material
weight shows the latter to be somewhat more consistent, although
only slightly more so. The correlation for both is, in general,
very poor.
42
-------
Table XVIII
PERCENT CARBON IN RAW MATERIAL VERSUS CONTAMINANTS
IN RAW EFFLUENT
Pharmaceutical Plants
Pharmaceutical
Plants
0792
1256A
3524U
3897D
495/IB
8297B
9435B
Percent Carbon
In Raw Material
40
27
80
35
35
40
60
Pounds BOD,- In
Raw Effluent
Per 1000# Carbon
In Raw
Material
1.23
16.7
9.8
16.9
6.0
87.0
5.7
Pounds COD In
Raw Effluent
Per 1000// Carbon
In Raw
Material
_
39.3
22.0
71.5
12.9
257.0
8.8
Table XIX
PERCENT CARBON IN RAW MATERIAL VERSUS CONTAMINANTS
IN RAW OTLUENT
Chemical Plants and Pharmaceutical/Chemical Plants
Chemical Plants
and
Pharmaceutical/Chemical
Plants
0917
1712A
3524A
5722A
5722B
6165
7794A
7794B
Percent Carbon
In Raw Material
14
50
40
25
25
36
15
54
Pounds BODr In
Raw Effluent
Per 1000// Carbon
In Raw Material
7.2
374'. 0
200.0
452.0
636.0
91.0
73.0
183.0
Pounds COD In
Raw Effluent
Per 10000 Carbon
In Raw Material
17.1
532.0
308.0
756.0
1,044.0
220.0
152.0
287.0
43
-------
Table XX
PERCENT CARBON IN RAW MATERIAL VERSUS CONTAMINANTS
IN RAW EFFLUENT
All Other Plants
All Other Plants
1234B
1234E
5092
5722C
5722D
5921
7157
826CA
9949
Percent Carbon In
Raw Material
72.0
17.0
25.0
25.0
31.0
13.0
47.0
37.5
20.0
Pounds BOD,- In
Raw Effluent
Per 10000 Carbon
In Raw Material
260
2,000
19
864
256
369
28
154
8,550
Pounds COD In
Raw Effluent
Per 1000# Carbon
In Raw Material
4,760
30
1,920
512
485
64
189
44
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The collection and compilation of data for this project was
completed by the Environmental Technology Department of Gulf
South Research Institute under the general supervision of Dr. James
H. Mayes.
The contributions of Dr. Herbert S. Skovronek, EPA Project
Officer, and members of the Environmental Control Committee of
the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, as well as the
individual member companies' technical representatives, are grate-
fully acknowledged.
45
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
High-Rate Activated Sludge Treatment of Fine Chemical Wastes, F. E. Dryden,
P. A. Barrett, J. C. Kissinger, Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
Vol. 28, No. 2 (1956) pp. 183-194.
Treatment of Pharmaceutical Wastes, J. M. Brown, Sewage and Industrial
Wastes, Vol. 23, No. 8 (195), pp. 1017-1024.
Effects of Penicillin Wastes in Ley Creek, Sewage Treatment Plant,
Syracuse, New York, Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 23, No. 11
(1951), pp. 1457-1460.
High Rate Filters Treat Mixed Wastes at Sharp and Dohmet Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, Vol. 20, No. 3 (1953), pp. 314-316.
Experiences in Treating Fermentation Process "astes, Vol. 27, No. 8 (1953),
pp. 970-977.
Pilot Plant Studies of Pharmaceutical Wastes, Upjohn Eleventh Purdue,
Wastes Treatment Conference (1956) pp. 62-72.
Pharmaceutical Waste Disposal, Industrial Wastes, November 1954,
pp. 1355-1362.
Industrial Wastes - Fine Chemicals, Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
Vol. 26, No. 1 (1956), pp. 51-58.
Two Treatment Installations for Pharmaceutical Wastes, Eighteenth
Purdue Waste Conference (1963), pp. 218-232.
The Treatment of Penicillin Wastes, Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
Vol. 23, No. 4 (1951), pp. 486-496.
Use of Industry Wastes in Poultry Feeding, Sixth Purdue Water Conference
(1951), pp. 130-134.
Design and Operation of a Treatment Plant for Penicillin and Streptomycin
Wastes, Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Vol. 22, No. 2 (1950),
pp. 209-211.
46
-------
Biological Degradation of Wastes Containing Certain Toxic Chemical
Compounds, Sixteenth Purdue Water Conference (1961) pp. 262-276.
Composting Waste Sludge, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Sewaqe and
Industrial Wastes, Vol. 31, No. 10 (1959) pp. 1175-1180.
Disposal of Fine Chemical Wastes, Eleventh Purdue Water Conference
(1955) pp. 49-60.
Treatment of Animal Wastes at the Greenfield Laboratories of E.I. Lilly,
Twenty Second Purdue Water Conference (1966).
Squibb Solves Its Pharmaceutical Wastewater Problems in Puerto Eico,
Chemical Engineer Symposium Series Water, 1970, pp. 401-404.
Pharmaceutical Wastewater Characteristics and Treatment, Twenty Fifth
Purdue Waste Conference, May 1970, pp. 1W-1-6.
Treatment of Pharmaceutical Wastes, Fifteenth Purdue Wastes Conference,
(1960), pp. 235-239.
Pharmaceutical Waste Disposal Studies, Fifteenth Purdue Wastes Conference
(1960) pp. 58-67.
Study of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Wastewater Characteristics and
Aerated Treatment System, Twenty Fifth Purdue Waste Conference
(1970) pp. 26-35.
Characteristics and Treatment of Penicillin Waste, Industrial and
Engineer Chemical, Vol. 41, July 1941, pp. 1411-1415.
Sand Filtration of Some Organic Wastes, Water and Sewaqe Works,
September 1947, pp. 349-351.
Chemical and Antibiotic Waste Treatment, Sewaqe and Industrial Wastes,
Vol. 24, No. 4 (1952), pp. 485-495.
Pharmaceutical Waste Disposal Studies, Thirteenth Purdue Waste
Conference (1958), pp. 1-11.
Anaerobic Lagooning, Eithteenth Purdue Waste Conference (1963).
pp. 233-242
Incineration of Wastes from Large Pharmaceutical Plants,
Fourth Purdue Waste Conference (1948), pp. 255.
47
-------
Disposal of Antibiotic Spent Beers by Evaporation, Eight Purdue Waste
Conference (1953), pp. 52.
Anti-toxin and Vaccine Waste Treatment at E.I. Lilly, Wastes Engineer,
pp. 26, 235, 1955.
Disposal of Fine Chemical Wastes, Tenth Purdue Waste Conference,
(1955), pp. 49.
Treatment of Fine Chemical Wastes by High-Rate Activated kludge,
Tenth Purdue Conference (1955), pp. 416.
Waste Solvent Incineration Successful at UpJohn, Industrial Wastes,
pp. 2, 29 (1957).
Handling Wastes from the Billion Dollar Pharmaceutical Industry,
Wastes Engineering, pp. 31, 728 (1960).
Study of Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Wastewater Characteristics
and Aerated Treatment System, Twenty Fifth Purdue Waste
Conference (1970), pp. 26.
48
-------
Appendix A
DATA GUIDE FOR PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
WASTE WATERS SURVEY
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Be sure to include the confidential company identification number
on each information shoe-- lo be submitted.
In filling in the several forms (tables 1.1, 2. 1, etc. ), give
specific information whenever available. Otherwise use good estimates
and put the estimated figures in parentheses. If a given datum is not
applicable, place a dash in the space. V/here a value is unknown and no
estimate can be made, leave the space blank. If it is known to be
negligible, use a "nil" ; use "0" if it is known to be zero.
Whenever enough, room is not available on a given form, use the
notation "over" in the applicable space and use the back of the form.
Alternatively, use a second (identical) form and call attention to it
by writing "see additional form" at the bottom of the first form.
Separate blank sheets may also be used for additional information.
In such cases staple addendum sheets to the original.
Terms used in the questionnaire are defined below to insure
a clear understanding of the information desired. Following these
definitions are specific instructions for responding to each.section of the
questionnaire. Be oure to_read_ all of the instructions before starting
to complete the form. For clarification of any specific items in the form,
contact GSR I (Dr. James Mayes - (504) 766-3300 or Dr. Elias Klein
or Dr. Ralph Rawls - (504) Z83-42Z3).
DEFINITIONS
Manufacturing Process - A single or series of operations required in
going from raw materials to final product, or from a semifinished product
to a rcady-for-market product -- including all measures normally considered
to be nood manufacturing practice. Five categories have been selected which,
it is believed, adequately describe manufacturing in the pharmaceutical
industry. These are defined below. A manufacturing process should not
be confused with a unit operation. It may be a unit operation, a series
of unit operations, or an entire production line.
Fermentation Processes - All those manufacturing processes including
all steps for the recovery of the fermented products, which employ the
use of microbial action in producing a product.
A-l
49
-------
DEFINITIONS (continued)
Chemical S ynlhosis Proronscn - All those manufacturing processes which
primarily employ chemical changes in producing a product including all
product recovery steps.
Natural Products Errtraclion Processes - Those processes making use of
preferential solubility to remove constituents from plant or animal
substances in producing a product including all product recovery steps.
Biological Processes - All those manufacturing processes making
primary use of animal fluids and tissue cultures in producing a product
including all product recovery steps.
Pharmaceutical Processes - All those processes used in the formulation
of the finished dosage form. (Mixing of ingredients, drying, tableting,
encapsulating, coating, sterilization, and packaging are examples. )
Waste Treatments - Those operations utilized solely for the purpose
of reducing tho quantity or changing the character of wastes produced
by a manufacturing process. For the purposes of this questionnaire,
"treatment" means the use of some specific operation such aa filtration,
evaporation, incineration or anaerobic digestion, subsequent to primary
manufacturing steps.
Raw Materials - All materials exclusive of process, non-contact and
solution walci a consumed each year in a given Manufacturing Process
Category.
Process or Contact Water - That water which comes into contact with the
materials utilized in a manufacturing process.
Non-Contact Water - That water which does not come into contact with
the materials being processed. Cooling water is the major example.
Raw Wastes - Leftover materials at the end of a manufacturing process
which have had no waste-treatment procedures applied to them.
Treated Wastes - Materials remaining after waste-treatments have been
applied to raw wastes.
A-2
50
-------
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING
THE DATA GUIDE
TABLE I. 1 PROCESSED RAW'MATERIALS
Line A: For each of the five types of processes in your plant, and
for the cumulative plant indicate the current annual
consumption (thousands-of-poundo) of raw materials on a
dry basis.
Line B: Show the hip-host monthly utilization of raw materials for
each of the five processes. Leave B-60 blank.
Line C: Write in under each process category the source of water
used in that process. If a single source is used for all
processes, note this amount under the total and leave the
other spaces blank.
Line D: If your water presents special purification problems, indicate
this in these spaces, on the back of table 1. 1 or on a
separ ate sheet.
Line E: Indicate the current annual consumption of non-contact
cooling water, by process category. If central services
require cooling water, include this in total figure.
(Mark this total figure with an asterisk if you have included
such non-contact usage cooling water. )
Line F: Indicate the maximum usage of cooling water in any single
month. (Treat last column as in line E. )
Line G: Indicate the current annual usage of process water for
each category. Count only in-take; do not count recycled
water here. No non-contact water should be included.
Column 60 should show the cumulative total usage.
Line H: Indicate the maximum monthly usage of process water for
each category, and the maximum monthly usage by
the entire plant site. (Column 60 will not necessarily
equal the sum of columns 10 through 50, unless maximum
process water usage by each category occurs in the same
month. }
A-3
51
-------
TABLE 2. 1 EFFLUENTS FROM MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Note: The information for Table 2. 1 should be reported in terms of
the specifications'shown in ".Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and
Waste Water, " 13th edition published by American Public health Association,
unless indicated otherwise.
Fermentation Processes
Column 11;
Column 12:
Column 13:
Column 14:
Indicate the average monthly volume and composition
of the raw waste effluents from all fermentation
reactors, prior to any waste treatment steps.
The flow should be in terms of average monthly values
during which production occurs, and the analyses should
correspond to this flow.
Indicate the average monthly volume and composition of
waste -water after waste treatment or controls are
carried out on the fermentation effluents shown in
column 11. If you do not take any control or treatment
measures in this process area, show a "0" and include
the effluent in column 81 of Table 2. 2 unless you discharge
to a public sewer system.
If you use a municipal or regional sanitary disposal system
for fermentation wastes, indicate the volume and
composition in this column.
Indicate the appropriate parameters for water used
to cool fermentation processes.
Chemical Synthesis Processes
Column 21: Indicate the average monthly volume and compositions of
the raw waste effluents from all chemical synthesis
reactors, wash downs, neutralizations, etc. from
chemical synthesis proccsses--prior to any waste-
treatment steps. The average monthly flow (line A)
should be in terms of average monthly values during
the time in which production occurs, and the analyses
should correspond to tins flow.
Column 22: Indicate the average monthly volume and composition of
waste water after waste treatment or controls have been
carried out on the chemical synthesis effluents shown
in column 21. If no waste treatment or control measures
are taken within the chemical synthesis process areas.
show a "0" in the spaces and include these effluents in
column 81 (Table 2. 2) unless discharge is to a public
sewer system.
A-4
52
-------
TABLE 2. 1 (continued)
Column 23:
If chemical synthesis process wastes are discharged to a
municipal or regional sanitary disposal system, show the
volume and composition in this column.
Column 24: See Column 14
Natural-Products Extraction Processes
Column 31: Show the average monthly volume and compositions of
the raw waste effluenttrfvom Sill 'solvent-extractors and
associated extraction processes — prior to any waste
treatment or waste control steps. The flow (line A)
should be in terms of average monthly volumes during
the time in which production occurs, and the analyses
should correspond to tins flow.
Column 32: Indicate the average monthly volume and composition of
waste water after waste treatment and/or waste control
measures have been carried out on the extraction process
effluents shown in column 31. If no waste treatment
or control measures are carried out within the extraction
process areas, show a "0" in these spaces and include
these effluents in column 81 of Table 2. 2--unless discharge
is to a public sewer system.
Column 33: If natural product extraction wastes are discharged to a
municipal or regional sanitary disposal system, show the
volume and composition in this column.
Column 34: See Column 14
Biological Processing
Column 41:
Show the average monthly volume and composition of
raw biological wastes prior to any waste treatment or
waste control measures. If a major portion of the
effluent load is due to animal wastes, place the word
"over" on line A (Avg. monthly flow)--below the number
which represents average monthly volume of raw
biological wastes—and give an explanation on the back of
the form. The flow (line A) should be in terms of average
monthly volumes during the time in which production occurs,
and the analyses should correspond to this flow.
A-5
53
-------
TABLE 2. 1 (continued)
Column 42: Indicate the average monthly volume and composition
of waste water aftt-r waste treatment or control measures
have been taken for biological effluents as shown in
column 41. If no waste treatment or control measures
arc carried out within the biological processes, show a
"0" in these spaces and include these effluents in column
81 of Table 2. 2--unless discharge is to a public sewer
system.
Column 43: If biological process wastes are discharged to a municipal
or regional sanitary disposal system, show the volume and
composition in this' column.
Column 44: See Column 14
Pharmaceutical Processes-
Column 51: Show the average monthly volume and compositions of the
raw waste effluents from all pharmaceutical processes
(see definitions) such as, for example, dry mixing,
blending, formulating, packaging — prior to any waste
control measures. The average monthly flow (line A)
should be in terms of average monthly volumes during
the lime in which production actually occurs, and the
analyses should correspond to this flow.
Column 52: Indicate the average monthly volume and composition of
waste water after waste treatment or control measures
are taken for pharmaceutical processes effluents as
shown in column 51. If no waste treatment or control
measures are carried out on pharmaceutical processes
wastes, show a "0" in these spaces and include these
effluents in column 81 of Table 2. 2--unless discharge is to
a public sewer system.
Column 53: If pharmaceutical processes wastes are discharged to a
municipal or regional sanitary disposal system, show the
volume and composition in this column.
Column 54: See Column 14
A-6
54
-------
TABLE 2. 2 TOTAL WASTE EFFLUENTS FROM ENTIRE PLANT
Column 60: Show the average monthly volume and composition of
waste water originating with operations which service
the entire plant area, such as boiler and/or cooling
tower blow-down, demineralizers, etc. If more than
one such waste stream exists and these are not combined.
use more than one Table"2.'2 form.
Column 70
Column 81
Column 82:
Column 83:
Column 84:
Column 85:
If once-through, non-contact, cooling water is combined
from all manufacturing processes and discharged, use this
column to show the combined volume and the analyses
of the combined stream at the point of discharge. If more
than one such waste stream exists and these are not
combined, use more than one Table 2. 2 form.
If two or more process waste streams are combined and
sent to an on-site treatment facility (cither before or after
process-area, treatment), use this column to show the
total volume of such waste streams and their analyses.
If two or more on-site treatment facilities are used, use
more than one Table 2. 2 form and label each according
to the figure 3 codes appropriate to the treatment facility
which it represents.
Show the average monthly volume and analyses of the
waste stream which results from collecting wastes from
various process categories and sending them to a public
sanitary disposal system.
Show the average monthly volume and analyses of the waste
stream which results from collecting wastes from various
process categories and sending them to deep-well
injection.
Show the average monthly volume and analyses of the waste
etream leaving the plant-site treatment facility.
The facility referred to in this column should be the same
as the one referred to in column 81.
If non-treated water from any source is combined with
effluents from the treatment facility referred to in columns
81 and 84, show the total average monthly volume and
analyses of the flow resulting from this combination.
A-7
55
-------
TABLE ?.. 2 (continued)
Column 90 If any waste streams from your manufacturing plant are
sent to a public sanitary disposal system, obtain the
available analyses of this discharge for an average month
during which your plant is discharging to this facility.
Section 3. Waste Flow Relationships
1. Provide on separate sheets a waste flow sketch showing the relationship
between each manufacturing category (fermentation,
extraction, etc. ) and other sources of waste effluents,
and waste treatment and/or waste control measures.
Up to eight waste stream sources should be shown (the five
manufacturing categories plus utility effluents, once
through cooling and sanitary wastes).
Z. The diagram attached is an example.
3. Identify the samplfe points which correspond to various columns in
Tables 2. 1 and 2.2. For example, "Column 11, Table
2. 1" should be used to identify the point in the diagram
which corresponds to the analyses shown in Table 2. 1
for raw fermpnlation process effluents prior to any
treatment. "Column 81, Table 2. 2" should be used
to identify the point in the diagram which corresponds
to the analyses shown in Table 2. 2 for the total combined
process effluents to main plant site treatment. It is not
expected that there will be a point in the diagram to
correspond to every column heading in Tables 2. 1 and
2. 2, since many of the columns may not be applicable
to a given plant's operations.
4. Use the code numbers given in figure 3 to identify process/waste control
measures, waste treatment measures, and disposal
measures. If, for example, the wastes from a
fermentation process are disposed of by spray irrigation,
an arrow should terminate with the code number 904.
List only these waste treatment and waste control
measures which contribute a significant reduction in
effluent volumes, concentrations or temperatures.
5. In cases where a code ending in 9--"not defined above"--is used, provide
enough of an explanation to identify what measure has been
taken.
A-8
56
-------
TABLE Z. Z (continued)
6. In all cases indicate the eventual disposal of wastes, even if they are
not contributions to \vater pollution. Where wastes are
dried and then incinerated, for example, indicate this
code 850 followed by an arrow leading to the word
"incineration". Another such disposal method which is
not associated with water pollution is, for example, land
fill usage.
7. Uae code 304--"rccycle or reuse of water"--to indicate usage of both
process contact water, and non-contact cooling water.
However, provide a reference mark and an explanation
to distinguish between the two.
8. Label the sheets used in px-eparing diagrams with your assigned company
I. D. number in the upper right-hand corner.
A-9
57
-------
EXAMPLES OK WASTE-PLOW DIAGRAMS
Company ID Code:
b
FERMENTATION
CHfl-iDCAL
SYNTHESIS
NATURAL
PRODUCTS
KXTR/.CTIO;.'
BIOLOGICAL
PROCESS )•'
-------
F IGURE 3
CODES
IN-PRHCF.SS CONTROL MI.ASUKES
ion sTRi>s-i NM.N'i I.HIM. UISH.N CONSIDERATIONS
101 Install Jl Ion ol separate drainage systems
102 Segregation and collection of specific wastes
103 Use of surface condensers In place of barometric
condense rs
104 Use of various water conservation measures and
facilities
IDS Emergency storage facilities
106 Countercurrent use of chemicals and/or washwatera
107 Use of pumps and valves with special seals to
minimize leakage
109 Not defined above
200 SfcRIFS-PROCESS DESIGN MODI FICATIONS
201 Use of reaction chemicals or feed stocks pro-
ducing minimum waste
202 Continuous vs batch processes
203 Chemical rcgene i .11 ion
204 Downgraded use of chemicals
205 Elimination of air blowing and water washing
206 Physical separators
207 Change in design basis for chemical recovery
facilities
208 Modifying operating conditions
209 Not defined above
300 SERIES-RECOVERY & lil 11.1 ZAT10N
301 Recovery of material for reuse in process
302 Downgraded use of spent chemicals in other
processes
303 Use or sale of wastes as raw material for other
processes
304 Recycle or reuse of water
305 Heat recovery
309 Not defined above
400 SERIFS-LOCAL PRETREATHI.N1 OR DISPOSAL
401 Local separators and tr.ips
402 Evaporation and incineration of noxious liquid
was tcs
403 Use of emulsion prevention chemicals
409 Not defined above
500 SERIES-OPERATION CONTROL
501 Automatic vs. nanual process controls
502 Control of production to minimize losses
503 Administrative control of wastewatcr discharge
504 Monitoring sewer effluents
505 Management follow-up on losses
509 Not defined above
WASTEWATTR DISPOSAL MfcASURES
700 SLK1LS-D1SCHAKCE TO TKESfME'iT FACILITY
701 Private facilities
702 Public facilities
703 Cooperative facilities
704 Contract disposal
705 Transportation to more receptive environment
706 Storm water drainage
709 Not defined above
WASTEWATER TREATMhNT UNIT OPFRATION5
800 SERILS-PHYSLCAL TREATMENT
800 Equalization
801 Screening
802 Pre-aeratlon
803 Sedimentation
804 Flotation
805 Temperature control
809 Not defined above
810 SERIES-CHEMICAL TREATMENT
810 Neutralization
811 Primary chemical coagulation
812 Chemical treatment
813 Odor control
814 Nutrient addition
819 Not defined above
820 SERIES-BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
820 Stabilization basins
821 Activated sludge
822 Trickling filter
823 Aerated lagoon
824 Aneroblc contact (6 to 12 hours)
825 Anerobic pond (3 to 30 days)
826 Dcnltrification
827 Aerobic or anaerobic digestion of solids
829 Not defined above
830 SERIES-SLUDCH HANDLING
830 Thickening
831 Lagoonlng or drying bed
832 Centrlfugation
833 Vacuum filtration
834 Dry combustion
835 Wet combustion
836 Land disposal
837 Sea disposal
839 Not defined above
840 SERIES-TERMIN'AL SECONDARY TREATMENT
840 Biological sedimentation
841 Final chemical coagulation and
sedimentation
842 Sand filtration
843 Diatomitc filtration
844 Chlorlnatlon
849 Not defined above
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
850 SERIE-S-TEMPERATLRE CHANCE PROCESSES
850 Evaporation
851 Freezing
8S2 Distillation
653 Eutectic Freezing
854 Wet Oxidation
855 Process Residue, Handling and Disposal
859 Not defined above
860 SERIES-ALL OTHER
860 Adsorption 870 ACTIVATED CARBON
861 Electrodialysis
862 Ion Exchange
863 Solvent Extraction
864 Reverse Osmosis
865 Foaming
866 Chemical Treatment
867 Electrochemical Treatment
868 Process Residue, Handling and Disposal
869 Not defined above
900 SERIES-TREATED WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
901 Controlled discharge
902 Surface storage and evaporation
903 Dcepwell disposal
904 Surface (spray) irrigation
905 Ocean disposal
906 Surface discharge
909 Not defined above
A-ll
59
-------
Company ID. Code:
1. Materials Input.
Table 1. 1 PROCESSED RAW MATERIALS
READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING THIS FORM.
PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION
TO DEFINITION'S.
A. Annual Dry
Weight
B. Maximum Dry
\VeicM/Mo.
C. Y/ater Source
(river, purchased
well, recycled,
etc. )
D. Special
Problems *•
Cooling V/atcr
Usage:
E. Annual
F. \:.i::. /Mo.
Process V/atcr
Usage:
C. Annual
H. Ma?:. /Mo.
10.
Fermentation
Processes
20.
Chemical
Synthesis
Processes
•
30.
Natural Product
Extraction
Processes
40.
Biological
Processes
50.
Pharmaceutical
Processes
60.
Totals
ro
If a special problem or consideration c::ists for a given source of water, place a number (1, 2, ... 5) in the
appropriate space next to "Special Problems". Use these as reference numbers and give a brief explanation.
(Use the back of this form or extra sheets if necessary).
-------
Table 2. 1 E5TLUEN7S FaO.Vt PROCESS ARZAS - RSAD I.VST.1UCT:CNS CARSrULLY BEFORE PSSPASTN'G THIS FORM. Co-rpanv !D. Code-
PAY PAaT'.CL"_\S ATTENTION TO DEFINITION'S
PROCESS:
ANALYSES PARAMETERS
A. A\S. .V.o^:hly
Flaw (1000 C\\s. 1
3. Sp Cr -3 60- ~
C Tci-a (°n
O prf
O\vi;i:r> Stinntl.
E. i3O3; 0')-n/wt.
K. CO!) nnu/wi.
Solid i p >i-/wt.
C. Ton! Solii'?
H. Diss1'^''1 .'lo'.ius
I. Sylpf nJad Su:.r- "
J. Tot. Or^. Caruon
risavy !.:i.:ais.
K. K- ->r— i/v»t.
L C.- TI -i/w t.
.V. Zr. ,-.,->- /wt.
FrR.'.'ZNTATION'
P'?OC=:5SES
(11) Raw Process
Effluent Prior to
Anv Treatment
(12) Process Efilncnl
Aflcr Fermentation
Area Treatment
1
•
N. Pb ?p.-n/«t. j
(13)Hroccsi Efilucnt
to T1)! Ill ic Scwrr
(M)Coolii)g W.ilcr once-
throuch (Non-Contact)
C.-ISM SYNTH.
PROCESSES
(2l)Rau.' Process Effluent
Prior to Any
Trc.itmint
1
1
|
(22) Process r/flucnt
After Cliem Synth.
Arra Trcat-iiml
(23) Process Kfilucnl to
Public Stwcr
(2-1) Cooling Waicr once-
through
(Non-Cont.TCI)
NATURAL PPODUCT
L/:TRi.CT!OV PROCESSES
(ll)IUv- froccss Hf fluent
Prior to any
Treatment
1
t
(32) Combined Process
Affluent After
Extraction Area
Trc.ilTiTit
(33) Proc< ss Kfflucni to
PiiMir Scwrr
(3D Coolui)'. V.'nicr
once -Hi lough
fNon-Conl.-icI)
3IOLCGICA- l->.- /i .'.:.'.- Ci ..T:C.--i
PRCC-SS-NO |r«-ocr."rs
(11) Haw Pioccss
Effluent Prior to
Anv Trcatnirnl
.- oi-.
y *£ "
u — -
-s=;
ire
~ ^
^ l"^
m
m
0
c
V
cu,
L:I
A^
1
c—
^
:
1
1
1
ill
5 ei
H|
s.i'
E"S; 1
-s
?2
?
|
I |
- H
\t
£ °
» ?
3£
"i
i*
U
ill
^ = S!
:il
«•*•—.
j
£ ^ :
i < -?
«
a
o
£
J^u
^•^
'">
-:«
1
rn
*.T
[T>l.nii>')-ii>'M V|">nOJV|l
-3DUO JJ|",\\ !' 11 IIHO"} (1C)
1 • '
j
i
i
i
i
:
i t
i
co
-------
Table 2.2 TOTAL, W/ STE EFFLUENTS FROM ENTIRE PLANT
READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE PREPARING THIS FORM.
PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO DEFINITIONS.
Company ID. Code:
DESIGNATED
WASTE FLOW
STREAMS
ANALYSES PARAMETERS
A. Avg. Monthly Flow
HOOO Gals. )
B. STJ. Gr. @ 60° F
C. Temo. f°F)
£>. oH
Oxygep. Deplane:
E. BODs pnrnAvt.
F. COD o-imAvt.
Solids. ppmAvl.
G. Total Solids
H. Dissolved Solids
I. Suspended Sonus
J. Tot. Org. Carbon
Heavy 1/ieta.ls:
K. Hp ppmAvt.
L. Cr nnm/v/t.
>.':. Zn DDrnAvt.
N. Pb pprn/v/t.
Utility Effluents:
Boiler micl/or
(60) Cooling Tower
Blow -down,
Domincralizcr s,
etc.
1
a '^ -
u o 5
co-;
O u ir
o"
•
Total Combined
Process Efflucnls
(81) to Main Plant-Site
- Treatment
Total Process -
(82) Area, Effluents
to Public Scvur
Tol.il Combined
(83) Piocd.s-Arc-a
Effluents to Drop
V/c'll Inject ion
•J
Jslli
G — 1! ,— i fi
'— , r^ ^ r^ L^
CO
"*"*
- = ~ i-
j3 ° ^ -^
° jE -I-! ^ -,
"^3 »-4 ™ **- ">
•* ^« ^ ** •••
1 S 3 £ « ^
y £ S = 2 '7
L.1
1 CO
•J
i if •:
r" J: C
: c1
c^
,
ro
-------
Company ID. Code:
NARRATIVE QUESTIONS
3. 1 Please identify unit operations (for waste water load reduction) which
you feel should be developed to meet special needs of this industry,
and for which your company has no practicable technology available.
(Note: This question is very important in determining the future
availability of Federal demonstration funds to meet needs specific
to our industry. Please be detailed; your responses are coded
and confidential. }
3. Z Estimate your annual operating budget for your waslc water treatment
operations. If you allocate costs to each of the five manufacturing
areas, please do so. Otherwise, give total costs. Please distinguish
chemical costs, operating cost (labor, overhead, power); do not
include capital amortization.
Note: Include those waste treatment operations early
in your process, which reduce loads to your central treatment plant.
A-15
63
-------
Company ID. Code:_
NARRATIVE QUESTIONS (continued)
3. 3 Give the average number of employees at your plant site. Include
office personnel, R fie D. , etc.
3.4 It is believed that some rational parameter for the measurement of
waste loads per unit of plant throughput is needed. For example,
waste loads per employee, or waste loads per dollar volume of
product have been used in the past. The data requested in the
earlier sections will yield waste loads per unit of raw material
input for each process category. A possible alternate might be
the expression of waste load per pound of organic carbon processed.
This could be a measure of the efficiency of processing in a given
industry.
Please estimate the organic carbon percentage in the raw
materials shown on line A, Table 1. 1. If your plant processes
non-carbonaceous materials, indicate another element as the
"marker" and give its percentage.
A-16
64
-------
Company ID. Code:
NARRATIVE QUESTIONS (continued)
3.5 Pathogens.
If any of your manufacturing processes include the use of
pathogenic organisms, briefly describe how they are removed
from inclusion in your waste streams.
A-17
65
------- |