REVISED
TECHNICAL RE\IEW OF THE
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY,
BEST DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY,
AND PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
FOR THE
TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
E SE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
-------
1524
REVISED TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE BEST.AVAILABLE"TECHNOLOGY,
BEST DEMONSTRATED TECHNOLOGY, ANDr
PRETREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 'FOR -THE .,;
TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION "AGENCY
October 15, 1978
Submitted by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC,
P.O. Bpx 13454, University Station
Gainesville, Florida 32604
Project No. 78-^052
-------
NOTICE
This document is a DRAFT CONTRACTOR’S REPORT. It includes technical
information submitted by the Contractor to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the subject industry.
It is being distributed for review and comment only. The report is not
an official EPA publication and it has not been reviewed by the Agency.
The report will be undergoing extensive review by EPA, Federal and State
agencies, public interest organizations, and other interest groups and
persons during the coming weeks.
The regulations to be published by EPA under Sections 301(d), 304(b),
and 306 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, wi l be
based in part, on the report and the comments received on it. EPA will
also be considering economic and environmental impact information that
is being developed. Upon completion of the revi-ew and evaluation of the
technical, economic, and environmental information, an EPA report will
be issued at the time of proposed rule—making setting forth EPA’s
preliminary conclusions regarding the subject industry. These proposed
rules will include proposed effluent guidelines, and standards, standards
of performance, and pretreatment standards appli•cable to the industry.
EPA is making this draft contractor’s report available to encourage
broad, public participation, early in the rule—majdng process.
The report shall have standing in any EPA proceeding or court proceeding
only to the extent that it represents the views of the Contractor who
studied the subject industry and prepared the information. It cannot be
cited, referenced, or represented in any respect in any such proceedings
as a statement of EPA’s views regarding the subject industry.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Effluent Guidelines Division
Washington, D.C.. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
This document presents the findings of a review by Environmental Science
n Engineering, Inc., of the proposed effluent limitations based on the
best available technology (BAT), pretreatment standards for existing
sources and new sources, and New Source Performance Standards (NSP jin
conformance with Contract 68—01-4827.
The development of information in this document relates to the wood
preserving, insulation board, and hardboard segments of the Timber
Products Point Source Category.
The purpose of this document and supporting file records is to develop a
.profile of the industry segments, assemble and analyze existing informa-
tion, collect and analyze new information, and evaluate the full range
of applicable treatment and control technology in order to provide to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a technical base for subsequent
development of revised guidelines.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
CONCLUSIONS 1—1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 2—1
III INTRODUCTION 3—1
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 3—1
DOCUMENT FORMAT 3-1
STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATIONS 3—1
METHODS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES 3-2
WOOD PRESERVING 3—6
Scope of Study 3—6
General Description of Industry 3—6
Background 3—6
Data Collection Portfolio Development —13
Response to the DCP 3—13
Characterization of Non—Responders 3—14
Comparison with Independent Survey 3—14
Summary 3—16
Methods of Discharge to the DCP 3—16
Units of Expression 3—16
Process Description 3—16
INSULATION BOARD 3—28
Scope of Study 3—28
General Description of the Industry 3—29
Scope of Coverage for Data Base 3—30
Units of Expression 3—30
Process Description 3—30
WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD 3—39
Scope of Study 3—39
General Description of the Industry 3—39
Scope of Coverage of Data Base 3—40
Units of Expression 3—40
Process Description 3—45
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, page 2 of 5)
IV INDUSTRIAL SUBCATEGORIZATION 4—1
GENERAL 4-1
WOOD PRESERVING 4-1
SUBCATEGORIZATION REVIEW 4-2
Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials 4—2
Wastewater Characteristics 4—3
Manufacturing Processes 4—6
Methods of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 4—6
Suggested Subcategories 4—7
INSULATION BOARD 4-7
Raw Materials 4—8
Manufacturing Process 4—9
Products Produced 4-9
4-10
Geographical Location 4—10
Suggested Subcategories 4-10
WET—PROCESS HARDBOARD 4-10
SUBCATEGORIZATION REVIEW 4—11
Raw Materials 4—11
Manufacturing Processes 4—11
Products Produced 4—12
Size and Age of Plants 4-12
Geographical Location 4—12
Suggested Subcategories 4-13
V WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
GENERAL 5—1
WOOD PRESERVING 5—1
General Characteristics 5—1
Wastewater Quantity 5—2
Steam Conditioning and Vapor Drying 5—3
BouJton Conditioning 5—4
Historical Data 5—5
Plant and Wastewater Characteristics 5—5
Design for Model Plant 5—6
II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, page 3 of 5)
INSULATION BOARD 5—30
Chip Wash Water 5—30
Fiber Preparation 5—31
Forming 5—31
Miscellaneous Operations 5—31
Wastewater Characteristics 5—32
Raw Waste Loads 5—35
Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Loads 5—43
WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD 5-46
Chip Wash Water 5—48
Fiber Preparation 5—48
Forming 5—49
Pressing 5—49
Miscellaneous Operations 5—49
Wastewater Characteristics 5—50
Raw Waste Loads 5—54
Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Loads 5—57
VI SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAMETERS 6—1
GENERAL 6—1
METHODOLOGY 6—1
THE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS 6-4
VII CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 7—1
GENERAL 7—1
WOOD PRESERVING 7—2
In—Plant Control Measures 7—2
End-of-Pipe Treatment 7-6
In—Place Technology 7—19
Treated Effluent Characteristics 7—26
Wood Preserving Candidate Treatment
Technologies 7—65
INSULATION BOARD AND WET PROCE-SS.- HARDBOARD 7-85
In—Plant Control Measures 7—85
End—of-Pipe Treatment — 7—90
In—Place Technology and Treated Effluent
Data. Insulation Board 7—92
I II
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, page 4 of 5)
In—Place Technology and Treated Effluent
Data. Hardboard 7—103
Insulation Board Candidate Treatment
Technologies 7—117
Hardboard Candidate Treatment Technologies 7—117
New Source Performance Standards 7—122
Pretreatment Technology 7—127
VIII COST. ENERGY, AND NON—WATER QUALITY ASPECTS 8—1
COST INFORMATION 8—1
Energy Requirements of Candidate
Technologies 8—2
Total Cost of Candidate Technologies 8—2
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants-—Wood Preserving 8—88
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants-—Insulation Board and Hardboard 8—88
NON—WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF CANDIDATE
TECHNOLOGIES 8—92
Sludge Generation, Wood Preserving 8—94
Sludge Generation-—Insulation Board
and Hardboard 8—96
Priority Pollutant Control of Sludge 8—96
Sludge Disposal Considerations 8—98
Other Non—Water Quality Impacts 8—100
IX BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY
AVAILABLE 9-1
X BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE 10—1
XI NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 11-1
XII PRETREATMENT GUIDELINES 12—1
XIII PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS 13-1
PURPOSE 13—1
Iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued, page 5 of 5)
FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE VARIATIONS IN
PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 13-1
Temperature 13—1
Shock Loading 13-1
System Stabilization 13—2
System Operation 13-2
Nutrient Requirements 13-2
System Controllability 13-2
VARIABILITY ANALYSIS 13-2
Hardboard Segment 13-3
Insulation Board Segment 13—4
Daily Variability Factors 13-5
30—Day Variability Factors 13—5
XIV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 14—1
XV BIBLIOGRAPHY 15—i
XVI GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 16—1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A-i--TOXIC OR POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES
NAMED IN CONSENT DEGREE A-i
APPENDIX A—2——LIST OF SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS RECOMMENDED
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS A-3
APPENDIX B——ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL
PROCEDURE B-i
APPENDIX C-—CONVERSION TABLE C—i
APPENDIX 0——LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT D—1
APPENDIX E——DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE
TECHNOLOGIES E-1
V
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Section III Page
1 1 1—1 Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by
State and Type, 1974 3—7
111—2 Consumption of Principal Preservatives and
Fire Retardants of Reporting Plants in the
United States, 1970—1974 3—11
111—3 Materials Treated in the United States by
Product 3—12
111—4 Comparison of DCP Coverage with AWPA 387
Plant Population 3—15
111—5 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving—Boulton Plants Responding to Data
Collection Portfolio 3—17
111—6 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving—Steaming Plants Responding to Data
Collection Portfolio 3—18
111—7 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving—Inorganic Salt Plants Responding to
Data Collection Portfolio 3—19
111—8 Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood
Preserving—Nonpressure Plants Responding to
Data Collection Portfolio 3—20
111—9 Inventory of Insulation Board Plants Using
Wood as Raw Material 3—31
111—10 Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by
Insulation Board Plants Responding to
Data Collection Portfolio 3—34
1 1 1—11 Inventory of Wet-Process Hardboard Plants 3—41
111—12 Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by
Wet—Process Hardboard Plants 3—44
Section IV
IV—1 Size Distribution of Wood Preserving Plants
by Subcategory 4-4
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 2 of 16)
Section V
V—i Wastewater Volume Data for 15 Boulton Plants 5—8
V-2 Wastewater Volume Data for Eight Closed
Steaming Plants 5—9
V-3 Wastewater Volume Data for 10 Plants Which
Treat Significant Amounts of Dry Stock 5—10
V-4 Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Open Steaming
Plants 5—11
V—5 Characteristics of Wood—Preserving Steaming
Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected During 1975 Pretreatment Study,
1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study 5—12
V-6 Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Boulton
Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected During 1975 Pretreatment Study,
1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study 5—14
V—7 Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter
Data——Steaming 5—15
V—8 Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter
Data——Boulton 5—16
V-9 Wood Preserving VOA Data 5—17
V-lU Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
Volatile Organic Fractions During 1978
Verification Sampling 5—18
V-li Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data 5—19
V-i2 Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data 5—20
V—13 Substances Not Found in Base Neutral Fractions
During 1977 and 1978 Verification Sampling 5—21
VI I
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 3 of 16)
Section V
V-14 Wood Preserving Phenols Data 5—22
V-15 Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found During
1978 Verification Sampling 5-23
V-16 Wood Preserving Metals Data-—Plants Which
Treat with Organic Preservatives Only 5—24
V—17 Wood Preserving Metals Data-—Plants Which
Treat with Organic Preservatives Only 5-25
V—18 Wood Preserving Metals Data-—Plants Which
Treat with Both Organic and Inorganic
Preservati yes 5-26
V-19 Wood Preserving Metals Data-—Plants Which
Treat with Both Organic and Inorganic
Preservati yes 5—27
V-20 Range of Pollutant Concentrations in
Wastewater from a Plant Treating with
CCA— and FCAP—Type Preservatives and a
Fire Retardant 5—28
V—21 Raw Waste Characteristics of Wood Preserving
Model Plants 5—29
V-22 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Raw
Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages) 5—36
V—23 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
and/or Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averages) 5—37
V-24 Insulation Board, Mechanical Refining
Subcategory-—Design Criteria 5-39
V—25 Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical
Subcategory-—Design Criteria 5—42
V-26 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
Insulation Board Plants——Total Phenols 5—44
V-27 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
Insulation Board——Metals 5—45
VI II
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 4 of 16)
Section V
V-28 Insulation Board, Raw Wastewater Priority
Pollutant Data, Organics 5—47
V-29 S1S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averages) 5—52
V-30 S2S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averages) 5—53
V-31 S1S Hardboard Subcategory——Design Criteria 5—56
V—32 S2S Hardboard Subcategory——Design Criteria 5—58
V—33 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loads for
Hardboard Plants——Total Phenols 5-59
V—34 Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for
Hardboard Plants—-Metals 5-62
V—35 Average Raw Waste Concentration and Loadings
for Hardboard Plants——Metals 5—63
V—36 S1S Hardboard Subcategory, Raw Wastewater
Priority Pollutant Data, Organics 5—64
V—37 S2S Hardboard Subcategory, Raw Wastewater
Priority Pollutant Data, Organics 5—65
Section VI
Vt—i Toxic Chemical Information 6—3
VI—2 Pesticides in Timber Products’ Processing
Wastewaters 6-6
VI—3 Range of Aromatic Solvent Concentrations
Found in Samples from Three Wood Preserving
Plants 6—10
VI—4 Range of PNA Concentrations Found in Samples
from Three Wood Preserving Plants 6-13
ix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 5 of 16)
Section VI
VI—5 Inorganic Priority Pollutants in Water—
Borne Preservatives and Fire Retardants 6—17
VI—6 Metals Analysis: Wood Preserving 6—19
VI—7 Metals Analysis: Insulation Board 6—20
VI—8 Metals Analysis: Hardboard 6—21
Section VII
Vu—i Progressive Changes in Selected Characteristics
of Water Recycled in Closed Steaming Operations 7—5
VII—2 Annual Cost of Primary Oil—Water Separation
System 7-8
VII-3 Current Level of In—Place Technology,
Boulton, No Dischargers 7—20
VII-4 Current Level of In-Place Technology, Wood
Preserving, Boulton, Indirect Dischargers 7—21
VII-5 Current Level of In-Place Technology,
Steaming, No Dischargers 7—22
VII-6 Current Level of In—Place Technology,
Steaming, Direct Dischargers 7—24
VII—7 Current Level of In-Place Technology,
Wood—Preserving—Steaming, Indirect Dischargers 7—25
VII—8 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
Parameters Data for Plants with Less than the
Equivalent of BPT Technology In—Place 7—28
VII-9 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
Parameters Data for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In—Place 7-29
Vil-lO Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional
Parameter Data for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In—Place 7-30
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 6 of 16)
Section VII
VU-li Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
Volatile Organic Analysis During 1978
Verification Sampling 7—31
VII—12 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile
Organics Data for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 7—32
VII-13 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile
Organics Data for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In—Place 7—33
VII—14 Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in
Base Neutral Fractions During 1977 and 1978
Verification Sampling 7—34
VII—15 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Concentrations for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In-Place 7—35
VII—16 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Wasteloads for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In—Place 7—36
VII—17 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Concentrations for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In—Place 7—37
VII-18 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Base Neutrals
Wasteloads for Plants with Current BPT Technology
In—Place 7—38
VII—19 Phenols Analyzed for but Not Found During
1978 Verification Sampling 7—39
VII—2O Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Phenols Data
for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
In—Place 7—40
VII—21 Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Phenols Data
for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place 7—41
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 7 of 16)
Section VII
VII-22 Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In—Place 7—42
VII-23 Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In—Place 7—43
VII-24 Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In—Place 7—44
VII-25 Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic Preservatives
Only Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In—Place 7—45
VII-26 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
Less than the Equivalent of BPT Technology
Treatment In—Place 7—46
VII—27 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
the Equivalent of BPT Technology Treatment
In-Place 7—47
VII—28 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current Pretreatment Technology In—Place 7—48
VII—29 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current Pretreatment Technology In—Place 7—49
VII—30 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In—Place 7-50
VII-31 Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In—Place 7—51
XI I
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 8 of 16)
Section VII
VII—32 Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for
Plants with Less than the Equivalent of BPT
Technology in—Place 7—52
VII—33 Wood Preserving Steaming Traditional Data
Averages for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Technology In—Place 7—53
VII—34 Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for
Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place 7-54
VII—35 Wood Preserving Volatile Organic Analysis Data
Averages for Plants with Current BPT Technology
In—Place 7—55
VII—36 Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data Averages
for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
In—Place 7—56
VII—37 Wood Preserving Base Neutrals Data Averages
for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place 7-57
VII—38 Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for
Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology
In—Place 7—58
VII—39 Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for
Plants with Current BPT Technology In—Place 7—59
VII—40 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic
Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants
with Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place 7—60
VII—41 Wood Preserving Metals Data, Organic
Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants
with Current BPT Technology In—Place 7-61
VII—42 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and
Inorganic Perservatives, Averages for Plants
with Less than the Current BPT Technology
In—Place 7-62
X II I
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 9 of 16)
Section VII
VII-43 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technology In—Place 7—63
VII-44 Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic
Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In-Place 7—64
VII-45 Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft 3 for
Candidate Treatment Technologies (Di rect
Dischargers) 7—75
VII-46 Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft 3 for
Candidate Treatment Technologies-Wood Preserving
(Indirect Dischargers) 7-82
VII—47 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Treated
Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average) 7—93
VII—48 Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining
Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual
Average) 7 .95
VII—49 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Annual
Average Raw and Treated Waste Characteristics 7—98
VII—5O Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining
Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste
Characteristics 7—99
VII-51 Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent
Reduction for Total Phenols——Insulation Board 7—100
VII—52 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent
Reduction for Insulation Board Metals 7-101
VII—53 Insulation Board, Priority Pollutant Data,
Organics 7—102
VII-54 S1S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics
(Annual Average) 7-104
VII-55 S2S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics
(Annual Average) 7—107
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 10 of 16)
Section VII
VII—56 S1S Hardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated
Waste Characteristics 7—111
VII—57 S2S Hardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated
Waste Characteristics 7—112
VII—58 Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent
Reduction for Total Phenols——Hardboard 7—113
VII—59 Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and
Percent Reduction for Hardboard Metals 7—114
VII—60 S1S Hardboard Subcategory, Priority
Pollutant Data, Organics 7—115
VII—61 S2S Hardboard Subcategory, Priority
Pollutant Data, Organics 7—116
VII—62 Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
Treatment Technologies——Insulation Board 7—121
VII—63 Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate
Treatment Technologies--Hardboard 7—126
Section VIII Page
VIII—1 Cost Assumptions 8—3
VIII—2 Wood Preserving (Steaming and Boulton)
Candidate Treatment Technologies 8—4
VIII—3 Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo—
Mechanical Refining) Candidate Treatment
Technologies 8—7
VIII-4 Hardboard (S1S and S2S) Candidate Treatment
Technologies 8—8
VIII-5 Wood Preserving Segment Design Criteria 8—9
VIII—6 Insulation Board Segment Design Criteria 8—10
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 11 of 16)
Hardboard Segment Design Criteria
Wood Preserving—-Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant A—i
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant A—2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant A—i
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant A—2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant B—i
Wood Preserving-—Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant B—2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant B—i
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant B—2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant C—i
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant C—2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant C—i
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant C—2
Wood Preserving—-Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant D—1
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant D—2
Section VIII
VIII—7
VIII —8
VIII-9
VIJI—lO
VIII-ii
VIII—12
VIII—i3
VIII—i4
VIII—15
VIII—16
VII 1—17
VIII-i8
VIII—i9
VIII —20
VIII—2i
8-11
8-12
8-13
8- i4
8-15
8-16
8-17
8—18
8— i9
8—20
8-21
8-22
8-23
8-24
8—25
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 12 of 16)
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant D—1
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant 0—2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant E-1
Wood Preserving—-Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant E—2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant E—1
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant E—2
Wood Preserving—-Boulton Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant F—i
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant F-2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant F-i
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant F—2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant G-1
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant G—2
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant G—1
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant G—2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant H—i
Section VIII
VIII—22
VIII —23
VIII —24
VIII—25
VIII—26
VIII—27
VIII —28
VIII—29
VIII—30
VIII—3i
VIII —32
VIII—33
VIII —34
VIII—35
VIII —36
8—26
8—27
8—28
8—29
8—30
8—31
8-32
8-33
8—34
8—35
8-36
8—37
8-38
8—39
8—40
xv i i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 13 of 16)
Wood Preserving—-Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant H—2
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant H—i
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant H—2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant I—i
Wood Preserving--Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant 1—2
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant I—i
Wood Preserving--Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant 1—2
Wood Preserving—-Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant J—1
Wood Preserving—-Boulton Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant J—2
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant J—1
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant J—2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant K—i
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant K-2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant K—i
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant K—2
Section VIII
VIII—37
VIII—38
VIII—39
VIII—40
VIII-41
VIII—42
VIII—43
VIII—44
VIII—45
VIII—46
VIII—47
VIII—48
VIII—49
VIII—50
VIII—51
8-41
8-42
8-43
8-44
8-45
8-46
8-47
8-48
8-49
8-50
8-51
8-52
8-53
8-54
8-55
XV III
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 14 of 16)
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant L—1
Wood Preserving-—Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant L-2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant L—1
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant L-2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant M—1
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant M-2
Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant M—1
Wood Preserving-—Steaming Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant M-2
Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant N-i
Wood Preserving—-Steaming Subcategory Cost
Sumary for Model Plant N—2
Wood Preserving--Steaming Subcategory
Inorganic Salts Only) Cost Summary for
Technology 0
VIII-63 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant A—i
VIII-64 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant A—2
VIII—65 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant B-i
Section VIII
VIII—52
VIII—53
VII 1—54
VIII—55
VIII—56
VIII—57
VIII—58
VIII —59
VIII—60
VIII—61
VIII—62
8-56
8-57
8-58
8-59
8-60
8-6i
8-62
8-63
8-64
8-65
8-66
8-67
8-68
8—69
xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 15 of 16)
Section VIII
VIII—66 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant B—2 8—70
VIII—67 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant C—i 8—71
VIII—68 Insulation Board Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model
Plant C-2 8—72
VIII-69 Insulation Board Therrno—Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Sumary for Model Plant A—i 8—73
VIII-70 Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cust Summary for Model Plant A—2 8—74
‘ 11 1 1—71 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model Plant B—i 8—75
‘1111-72 Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Summary for Model Plant B—2 8—76
VIII—73 Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Sumary for Model Plant C—i 8-77
VIII—74 Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining
Subcategory Cost Sumary for Model Plant C-2 8-78
‘1111-75 S1S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant A-i 8-79
VIII-76 S1S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant A-2 8-80
‘1111-77 SiS Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B-i 8-81
VIII—78 S1S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B—2 8-82
VIII—79 Wet Process Flardboard S1S Subcategory Cost
Summary for Model Plant C—i 8-83
xx
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued, Page 16 of 16)
Section VIII
VIII—80 Wet Process Hardboard S1S Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant C—2 8—84
VIII—81 S2S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant A 8—85
VIII—82 S2S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant B 8—86
VIII—83 Wet Process Hardboard S2S Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant C 8—87
VIII—84 Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants Direct Dischargers 8—89
VIII—85 Wood Preserving——Steaming Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants Indirect Dischargers 8—90
VIII—86 Wood Preserving——Boulton Subcategory
Costs of Compliance for Individual
Plants Indirect Dischargers 8—91
VIII—87 Hardboard Segment Costs of Compliance
for Individual Plants Direct Dischargers 8—93
VIII—88 Sludge Generation by In—Place Wood
Preserving Wastewater Treatment Systems 8—95
VIII—89 Sludge Generation by Insulation Board
and Hardboard Treatment Systems 8—97
VIII—90 Estimated Metals Content of Sludge 8—99
Section XIII Page
XIII—1 Number of Observations in Data Set 13—7
XIII—2 Non—Parametric Daily Variability Factors
for Insulation Board and Hardboard Plants 13—8
XIII—3 Non—Parametric 30—Day Variability Factors
for Insulation Board and Hardboard Plants 13—9
xxi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Section III
1 11—1
111—2
111—3
111-4
111—5
111-6
111—7
111-8
111-9
111-10
I l l—li
111-12
111—13
111-14
3-10
3—21
3—23
3—24
3—25
3—26
3—27
3—32
3—33
3—35
3-42
3-43
3—51
3—52
Section VII
VII- ’
Variation in Oil Content of Effluent with
Time Before and After Initiating Closed Steaming
7—3
Page
Geographical Distribution of Wood Preserving
Plants in the United States
Typical Treating Cycles Used for Treating
Lumber, Poles, and Piles
Open Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant
Closed Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant
Modified Steaming Process Wood Treating Plant
Boulton Wood Treating Plant
Vapor Conditioning Process Wood Treating Plant
Geographical Distribution of Insulation Board
Manufacturing Facilities in the United States
Total Board Production Figures: Insulation
Board
Diagram of a Typical Insulation Board Process
Geographical Distribution of Hardboard
Manufacturing Facilities in the United States
Total Board Production Figures: Hardboard
Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process
Hardboard Mill S1S Hardboard Production Line
Flow Diagram of a Typical Wet Process
Hardboard Mill S2S Hardboard Produciton Line
Variation of BOO with Pre—Heating Pressure
Section V
V—i
5-34
xxii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued, Page 2 of 3)
Section VII
VII-2 Variation in COD of Effluent with Time Before
and After Closed Steaming 7—4
VII—3 Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon
Added and Removal of COD and Phenols from a
Creosote Wastewater 7-13
VII—4 Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Evaporation
System 7—18
VII—5 Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Dischargers)——Model Plant A 7-66
VII-6 Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Dischargers)——Model Plant B 7—67
VU—i Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Dischargers)-—Model Plant C 7-68
VII—8 Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Dischargers)-—Model Plant D 7—70
VII—9 Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Dischargers—Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)——Model Plant E 7—71
Vu—b Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Oischargers—Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)——Model Plant F 7—72
VII.-11 Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Dischargers—Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)——Model Plant G 7—73
VII—12 Wood Preserving—Steaming (Direct
Dischargers—Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)——Model Plant H 7—74
VII—13 Wood Preserving—Steaming Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers)——Model Plant 1 7—77
VII—14 Wood Preserving—Steaming Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers)——Model Plant J 7—79
xx i ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued, Page 3 of 3)
Section VII
VII—15 Wood Preserving—Steaming, Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers-Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)—-Model Plant K 7—80
VII—16 Wood Preserving—Steaming, Boulton (Indirect
Dischargers—Oily Wastewater with Fugitive
Metals)——Model Plant L 7—81
VII—17 Wood Preserving—Boulton (Self Contained) 7-83
VII-18 Wood Preserving—Steaming (Self Contained) 7—84
VII—19 Plant 64—Flow Vs. Effluent BOO 7—87
VII—20 Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo—
Mechanical Refining) (Direct Dicharge)——
Model Plant A 7-118
VII—21 Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo—
Mechanical Refining) (Direct Discharge)——
Model Plant B 7—119
VtI-22 Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo—
Mechanical Refining) (Self Contained)—-
Model Plant C 7—120
VII—23 Hardboard (S1S and S2S) (Direct Discharge)——
Model Plant A 7—123
VII—24 Hardboard (S1S and S2S) (Direct Discharge)——
Model Plant B 7—124
VII—25 Hardboard (515. and S2S) (Self Contained)
——Model Plant C 7-125
XXIV
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUS I ONS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, coments from reviewers of this document,
and other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
1-1
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard—
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document,
and other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
2-1
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. (ESE) was contracted by the
Environmental Protection Agency, under Contract 68—01—4827, to develop
an industry profile and descriptions of treatment and
control technologies, both in—plant and end—of—pipe, for the wood pre-
serving, wet—process hardboard, and insulation board segments of the
Timber Products Processing Industry. The contract specified that all
available sources of historical data be reviewed, that plants would be
visited and sampled, and that the samples would be analyzed for tradi-
tional and priority pollutants. The priority pollutants are comprised
of 124 chemicals listed in Appendix A of this document designated by the
EPA as toxic or potentially toxic compounds. The contract further
specified that plant—generated monitoring data required by existing
permits be collected and analyzed.
The purpose of this document is to provide the technical data base for a
review by the Environmental Protection Agency of BAT, NSPS, and
Pretreatment Standards for the above listed segments of the Timber
Industry. Information is presented on the processes, procedures, and
effectiveness of technology which will result in the elimination or
reduction in pollutant discharge from the industry. Data concerning the
costs of implementing such technology are also included.
DOCUMENT FORMAT
For the sake of cost effectiveness in the preparation of subsequent
documents, the sections used in this report follow the standard format
for guidelines documents.
STANDARD INDUSTR IAL CLASSIFICATIONS
The Standard Industrial Classifications list was developed by the
United States Department of Comerce and is oriented toward the collec-
tion of economic data related to gross production, sales, and unit
costs. The list is useful in that it divides American industry into
discrete product—related segments. The SIC list is not related to the
nature of the industry in terms of actual plant operations, production
processes, or considerations associated with water pollution control.
3-1
-------
The SIC codes investigated during the Timber Products Processing
Effluent Limitations Review are as follows:
SIC 2411 Logging Camps and Logging Contractors
SIC 2421 Sawmills and Planing Mills
SIC 2426 Hardwood Dimension and Flooring Mills
SIC 2429 Special Product Sawmills
SIC 2431 Millwork
SIC 2434 Wood Kitchen Cabinets
SIC 2435 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC 2436 Softwood Veneer and Plywood
SIC 2439 Structural Wood Members
SIC 2491 Wood Preserving
SIC 2499 Timber Products not elsewhere classified
(Hardboard)
SIC 2661 Building Paper and Building Board Mills
(Insulation Board)
The industry segments addressed in this document are wood preserving
(SIC 2491), insulation board production (SIC 2661), and hardboard pro-
duction (SIC 2499).
METHODS USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES
The first step in the review process was to assemble and evaluate all
existing sources of information on the wastewater management practices
and production processes of the Timber Products Processing Industry.
Sources of information reviewed included:
1. Current literature, EPA demonstration project reports, EPA
technology transfer reports.
2. Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Timber
Products Processing Industry, including supplemental
information.
3. Draft Development Document for Pretreatment Standards,
Wood Preserving Segment, Timber Products Processing
Industry, including supplemental information.
4. Sumary Report on the Re—evaluation of the Effluent
Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the
Timber Products Processing Industry, including supple-
mentary information.
5. Information obtained from regional EPA and state regu-
latory agencies on timber products plants within their
area of jurisdiction.
6. Data submitted by individual plants and industry trade
associations in response to publication of EPA—proposed
regul ations.
A complete bibliography of all literature reviewed during the course of
this project is presented in Section XV of this document. An analysis
3-2
-------
of the above sources indicated that additional information would be
requi red, particul arly concerning the use and discharge of priority
pollutants. Updated information was also needed on production—related
process raw waste loads (RWL), potential in—process waste control tech-
niques, and the identity and effectiveness of end’-of’-pipe treatment
systems.
In recognition of the fact that the best source of existing information
was the individual plants, a data collection portfolio was prepared and
sent directly to manufacturing plants of the wood preserving, insulation
board, and hardboard segments of the industry. This data collection
portfolio was the major source of information used to develop the
profile of each industry which is presented later in this section of the
document. The portfolio was desi gned to update the existing data base
concerning production processes, wastewater characterization, raw waste
loads based on historical production and wastewater data, method of
ultimate wastewater disposal, in’-process waste control techniques, and
the effectiveness of in—place external treatment technology. Data
concerning Gescription of production processes are presented later in
this section of the document. Data concerning raw wastewater
characteristics are presentea in Section V. Section VII contains a
compilation of the data concerning treated effluent characteristics as
well as encl’-of’-pipe and in-process treatment and control technology.
The portfolio also requested information concerning the extent of use of
materials which could contribute priority pollutants to wastewater and
any data for priority pollutants in wastewater discharges. These data
are presented in Section VI of this document. Responses to the data
coil ecti on portfolio served as the source of updated, 1 ong’-term,
historical information for the traditional parameters such as BOD, COD,
solids, pH, phenols, and metals.
Additional sources of information included NPDES, state, and local dis’-
charge permits; information provided by industry trade associations; and
information obtained from direct interviews and sampling visits to
production facil ities.
Survey teams composed of project engineers and scientists conducted the
actual plant visits. Information on the identity and performance of
wastewater treatment systems was obtained through interviews with plant
water pollution control or engineering personnel, examination of
treatment plant design and historical operating data, and sampling of
treatment plant infi uents and effluents. Nine wood preserving plants,
six insulation board plants, and eight hardboard plants were visited
from November 1976 through May 1978, with several key plants receiving
more than one visit.
Information on process plant operations and the associated RWL was
obtained through interviews with plant operating personnel, examination
of plant design and operating data (original design specifications, flow
sheets, and day’-to’-day material balances around individual process
modules or unit operations where possible), and sampling of individual
process wastewater.
3.3
-------
Only in rare instances did plants report any knowledge of the presence
of priority pollutants in waste discharges. Therefore, priority pollu-
tant data in waste discharges of the industry were obtained by a
thorough engineering review of raw materials and production processes
used in each industry and by a screening sampling and analysis program
for priority pollutants at selected plants. Every effort was made to
choose facilities where meaningful information on both treatment
facilities and manufacturing operations could be obtained.
The screening sampling program was conducted during November and
December of 1976. Seventeen plants in eleven subcategories of the
Timber Products Processing category were visited and sampled. Among
these plants were three wood preserving plants, three insulation board
plants, and one hardboard plant. A single 24—hour composite sample was
obtained from the raw and treated wastewater streams at each plant and
analyzed for the 124 priority pollutants listed in Appendix A of this
document. Sampling procedures followed the Sampling Protocol for
Measurement of Toxics , U.S. EPA, October 1976. Analytical methods
followed the first draft Protocol for the Measurement of Toxic
Substances , U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, October 1976.
The purpose of the screening sampling and analysis program was to
determine which priority pollutants were present in wastewaters from
each industrial segment sampled, and to determine the order of magnitude
of the contamination. Screening analyses were not used to characterize
or quantitate the levels of contamination in the raw or treated effluent
presented later in this document.
The results of the screening analyses were evaluated along with the
process engineering review for each subcategory. The priority
pollutants which were found to be present in levels above the detection
limits for the analyses, or those which were suspected to be present due
to their use as raw materials, by—products, final products, etc., were
selected for verification.
The verification sampling and analysis program, conducted over a
14-month period, was intended to obtain as much quantitative data as
possible for each subcategory on those priority pollutants selected for
verification during the screening program. The plants for sampling were
chosen to represent the full range of in—place technology for each sub—
category. Seven wood preserving plants were sampled during verification
(three were sampled twice). Five insulation—board plants and seven
hardboard plants (three insulation board and three hardboard plants were
sampled twice) were also sampled during the verification program.
Three consecutive 24—hour composite samples of the raw wastewater, final
treated effluent, and, in appropriate cases, effluent from intermediate
treatment steps were obtained at each plant. A single grab sample of
incoming fresh process water was also obtained at each plant.
3-4
-------
Sampling and analyses were conducted according to Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants ,
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, March 1977 (revised April 1977), and Analytical
Methods for the Verification Phase of the BAT Review , U.S. EPA Effluent
Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C., June 1977.
The review of available literature and of previous studies; analysis of
the data collection portfolios; information obtained from EPA regions,
state and local regulatory agencies, and industry and trade associa-
tions; information obtained during plant visits; and the results of
analyses from the screening and verification sampling programs comprised
the technical data base which served as the basis for review of
subcategorization within the industry and for identification of the full
range of in—process and treatment technology options available within
each subcategory. Among other factors, the subcategorization review
took into consideration the raw materials used, products manufactured,
production processes employed, and wastewaters generated.
The raw waste characteristics for each subcategory were then identified.
This included an analysis of: (1) the source and volume of water used
in the process employed and the sources of wastes and wastewaters in the
plant; and (2) the constituents of all wastewaters, including tradi-
tional and priority pollutants.
The full range of control and treatment technologies applicable to each
candidate subcategory was identified, including both in-plant and
end-of-pipe technologies, which are existent or capable of being used by
the plants in each subcategory. It also included an identification, in
terms of the amount of constituents and of the chemical, physical, and
biological characteristics of pollutants, including priority pollutants
of the effluent level resulting from the application of each of the
treatment and control technologies.
The costs and energy requirements of each of the candidate technologies
identified were then estimated, both for a typical plant or plants
within the subcategory and on a plant—by—plant basis taking into
consideration in—place technology.
The problems, limitations, and reliability of each treatment and control
technology, as well as the required implementation time, were identi-
fied. In order to derive variability factors based on existing treatment
plant performance, statistical analyses were performed on those treat-
ment systems for which sufficient historical data were available.
In addition, non—water quality environmental impacts, such as the
effects of the application of such technologies on other pollution
problems, were addressed.
The following text describes the details of the scope of study, the
coverage of the technical data base, and the technical approach used to
select candidate treatment technologies for the wood preserving, insula-
tion board, and hardboard segments of the Timber Products Processing
Point Source category.
3-5
-------
WOOD PRESERVING
Scope of Study
The Wood Preserving Industry applies chemical treatment to round or sawn
wood products for the purpose of imparting insecticidal, fungicidal, or
fire resistant properties to the wood. The scope of this study includes
all wood preserving plants (SIC 2491) regardless of the types of raw
materials used, methods of preconditioning stock, types of products
produced, or means of ultimate waste disposal.
General Description of Industry
According to information from the 1 merican Wood Preserver’s Association
there are approximately 300 companies, with a total employment of about
11,000, are engaged in wood preserving in the United States. Fifty
percent of the industry capacity is controlled by ten companies. Over
three—quarters of the plants are concentrated in two distinct regions.
One area extends from east Texas to Maryland and corresponds roughly to
the natural range of the Southern pines, the major species utilized.
The second, smaller area is located along the Pacific Coast, where
Douglas fir and western red cedar are the predominant species. The
distribution of plants by type and location is given in Table 111—1, and
depicted in Figure Il l-i.
The three most prevalent types of preservatives used in wood preserving
are creosote, pentachiorophenol (PCP), and various formulations of
water-soluble inorganic chemicals, the most common of which are the
salts of copper, chromium, and arsenic. Fire retardants are forumula—
tions of salts, the principal ones being borates, phosphates, and
ammonium compounds. Eighty percent of the plants in the United States
use at least two of the three types of preservatives. Many plants treat
with one or two preservatives plus a fire retardant.
Consumption data for the principal preservatives for the five—year
period from 1970 through 1974 are given in Table 111—2. Creosote and
creosote solutions were used to treat more than 55 percent of the total
industry production in 1975. PCP was the preservative used for more
than 25 percent of the 1975 production. About 13 percent of the 1975
production was treated with water-borne inorganic salts. Table 111—3
presents a summary of the materials treated, by product, for all
preservatives during the five—year period from 1969 through 1973.
Background
The EPA conducted an extensive study of the Wood Preserving Industry in
1973—1974. The information developed during that study provided the
technical basis for the effluent guidelines and standards for the
industry promulgated in April 1974 (40 CFR Part 429, Subparts F, G,
and H). Another study was conducted in 1976, resulting in the promulga-
tion of pretreatment standards for the indirect discharging segment of
3-6
-------
Table I l l—i. Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1974 (page 1 of 3)
Commercial
Railroad
and
Other
Non—
Pressure
and Non—
Non-
Total
Number
Pressure Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Plants
Northeast
Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 0
Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0
District of
Columbia 0 0 0 0 () 0
Maine 0 1 0 0 0 1
Maryland 6 0 0 0 0 6
Massachusetts 2 0 0 0 0 2
New Hampshire 1 0 0 0 0 1
NewJersey 3 2 0 0 0 5
NewYork 4 0 0 0 1 5
Pennsylvania 8 0 0 1 0 9
Rhode Island 1 0 0 0 0 1
Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Virginia 6 0 0 0 0 6
Total 31 3 0 1 1 36
North Central
Illinois 6 0 0 0 1 7
Indiana 4 0 0 0 0 4
Iowa 0 0 0 0 1 1
Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kentucky 7 0 0 1 0 8
Michigan 5 1 0 0 0 6
Minnesota 3 3 3 1 0 10
Missouri 8 3 0 0 0 11
Nebraska 0 0 1 0 0 1
North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ohio 7 0 0 0 0 7
Wisconsin 3 0 1 1 1 6
Total 43 7 5 3 3 61
3-7
-------
Table 111—1. Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1974 (continued, page 2 of 3)
Commercial
Railroad
and
Other
Non—
Pressure
and Non—
Non—
Total
Number
Pressure Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Plants
Southeast
Florida 24 1 0 0 0 25
Georgia 24 0 2 0 0 26
North Carolina 17 0 0 0 1 18
South Carolina 11 0 0 0 0 11
Virginia 14 1 1 0 0 16
Puerto Rico 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total 91 2 3 0 1 97
South Central
Alabama 25 1 1 0 0 27
Arkansas 9 0 3 0 0 12
Louisiana 21 0 0 0 0 21
Mississippi 18 1 4 0 0 23
Oklahoma 5 0 0 0 0 5
Tennessee 5 1 0 0 0 6
Texas 25 2 3 1 0 31
Total 108 5 11 1 0 125
Rocky Mountain
Arizona 1 0 0 0 0 1
Colorado 3 0 0 0 0 3
Idaho 4 1 0 0 1 6
Montana 2 3 1 1 0 7
Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0
NewMexico 2 0 0 0 0 2
South Dakota 1 0 1 0 0 2
Utah 0 1 1 0 0 2
Wyoming 1 0 1 0 0 2
Total 14 5 4 1 1 25
3-8
-------
Table 111—1. Wood Preserving Plants in the United States by State and
Type, 1974 (continued, page 3 of 3)
Commercial
Railroad
and Other
Pressure
Total
Non—
and Non—
Non—
Number
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Plants
Pacific
Alaska
0
0
0
0
0
0
California
8
0
2
0
1
11
Hawaii
4
0
1
0
0
5
Oregon
5
0
4
0
0
9
Washington
8
5
4
0
1
18
Total
25
5
11
0
2
43
United States
Total
312
27
34
6
8
387
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
3-9
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF WOOD PRESERVING
PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
LEGEND
• Pressure
• Non Pressure
A Pressure and Non-Pressure
( .3
-I
D i
:jgure uul i
-------
Table 111—2. Consumption of Principal Preservatives and Fire Retardants
of Reporting Plants in the United States, 1970—1974
NOTE: Data based on information supplied
for each year during the five—year
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
by an average of 331 plants
period.
Material
Year
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
(Units)
Creosote
Mill ion
Liters
256
241
230
218
250
Creosote—
Coal Tar
Million
Liters
229
218
220
177
201
Creosote—
Petroleum
Million
Liters
125
118
108
83.8
96.5
Total
Creosote
Million
Liters
475
441
418
369
421
Total
Petroleum
Million
Liters
286
307
324
303
292
Pentachlor—
ophenol
Million
Kilograms
12.9
14.5
16.6
17.6
19.7
Chromated
Zinc Chloride
Million
Kilograms
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
CCA
Mill ion
Kilograms
2.7
3.9
4.4
5.3
6.9
ACC
Mill ion
Kilograms
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
FCAP
Million
Kilograms
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Fire
Retardants
Million
Kilograms
8.1
8.1
9.9
9.6
9.7
Other Preser—
vative Solids
Million
Kilograms
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
3-11
-------
Table 111-3. Materials Treated in the United States by Product
Material
(Thousand
Cubic Meters)
Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
Cross—ties
2,020
2,248
2,465
2,432
1,915
Switch—ties
180
223
176
169
142
Piling
417
428
388
406
368
Poles
2,107
2,174
2,106
2,111
2,135
Cross—arms
91.9
97.8
87.1
70.4
73.4
Lumber & Timbers
1,689
1,577
1,695
1,811
1,950
Fence posts
443
428
472
515
430
Other
231
195
218
205
194
Total
7,179
7,371
7,607
7,719
7,207
NOTE: Components may not add due to rounding.
SOURCE: AWPA, 1975.
3-12
-------
the Wood Preserving Industry. These technical studies included the use
of data collection portfolios to obtain information regarding plant
operations, waste loads generated, treatment systems in place, and
historical treatment system efficiencies. Plant visits were also
conducted in conjunction with the above studies, as was the sampling and
analysis of raw and treated wastewaters.
To enhance the quality of the current BAT Review project, the EPA
determined that the existing information base should be updated and
expanded.
Data Collection Portfolio Development
The primary source of survey information regarding wood preserving
plants in the U.S. is Wood Preservation Statistics , published by the
American Wood Preservers’ Association (AWPA). This survey was
underwritten, in addition to AWPA, by 1*inerican Wood Preservers’
Institute, the Railway Tie Association, the Society of Pinerican Wood
Preservers, Inc., and the Southern Pressure Treaters Association. This
survey, published in the 1975 AWPA Proceedings, identified 387 wood
treating plants, of which 352 are pressure treating plants.
Using the AWPA information, a list of plants was developed for the Data
Collection Portfolio (DCP). Because the AWPA statistics did not include
mailing addresses or the appropriate contact person for each plant,
additional resources were required to obtain this information. The 1976
Directory of the Forest Products Industry , Miller Freeman Publications,
contained addresses and contacts for many of the plants.
Dr. Warren S. Thompson, Director, Forest Products Utilization
Laboratory, Mississippi State University, was ESE’s special consultant
for this study and all previous wood preserving effluent guidelines
developuent studies. He has also been involved in studies of wood
preserving processes and waste water treatment, and possesses a unique
knowledge and familiarity with the industry and therefore reviewed the
list and provided addresses and contacts for a number of plants.
The Agency identified the complete mailing addresses and contact persons
for 284 plants. Previous EPA experience with the industry indicated
that the 284 recipients of the DCP included all previously identified
dischargers, both direct and indirect, and included a representative
cross section of plants in all size categories and geographical loca-
tions. The DCP address list included plants which represented the full
range of in—process and end—of—pipe control and treatment technologies.
Response to the DCP
Two hundred sixteen plants responded to the DCP——a 76 percent response
rate. One hundred ninety three of the responses were from pressure
treating plants (out of a population of 352) and 23 responses were from
non—pressure plants (out of a population of 35).
3-13
-------
Table 111—4 compares the response to the technical DCP with the plants
listed in the AWPA statistics. The table illustrates that the DCP
response included 55 percent of the population of the 1975 AWPA
listings.
Characteri zation of Non-Responders
Thirteen of the 68 plants that did not respond to the DCP are operated
by the industry’s largest single company. This company received
27 DCP’s. The company requested and received permission to respond for
14 of their plants. The request was approved in order to alleviate the
paperwork burden placed on the company’s technical staff. The approval
was contingent, however, on the company providing responses for all
plants discharging process waste water and for a cross section of
processes and wastewater treatment systems characteristic of the
company’s operations.
Using AWPA statistics information, 21 of the non—responders were identi-
fied as plants that treat either with only inorganic salts or use
non—pressure processes exclusively. These plants are currently subject
to a no discharge of process wastewater limitation. Of the remaining
34 non—responders, 12 are one-cylinder pressure plants and 16 are
two—cylinder pressure plants. Data presented in Sections V and VII of
this document will demonstrate that plants of this size generate very
low volumes of process wastewater, and these plants generally do not
discharge either directly or indirectly.
Comparison with Independent Survey
Following the distribution of the technical DCP, EPA’s Office of Anal-
ysis and Evaluation (OAE) conducted an information collection activity
designed to provide information relating to the financial viability of
the Wood Preserving Industry, i.e., to determine the economic impact of
the costs of pollution control that might result from this review of
regulations. The mailing list for this economic DCP was developed from
1976 Dun’s Marketing Statistics, published by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc.
The OAE survey was sent to a total of 574 addressees. Eighty—six
responded that they were not involved in wood preserving operations, and
150 did not respond. Three hundred thirty—eight of the recipients
indicated that they were engaged in wood preserving operations. The OAE
survey included responses from 94 pressure treating plants that were not
included in the technical DCP response.
Information from these 94 plants was collected by a telephone survey.
Only four of the 94 plants were determined to be either direct or
indirect dischargers. Information concerning the four discharging
p1 ants was incorporated into the p1 ant-by—pi ant cost analysis presented
in Section VIII of this document.
3 - 14
-------
Table 111—4. Comparison of DCP Coverage with AWPA 387 Plant Population
cit
* These plants may also use non—pressure retorts as well as pressure retorts.
** 1976 AWPA statistics list 415 plants.
Type Plant
and Number
of Cylinders
Number of Plants
According to AWPA
Statistics
Plants
Receiving DCP
Plants
Responding to DCP
Number
Percent F WPA
Population
Number
Percent AWPA
Population
Pressure
Retort s
1
143
83
58.0
62
43.4
2
113
91
80.5
63
55.8
3
53
44
83.0
39
73.6
4
20
19
95.0
13
65.0
5 or more
23
21
91.3
16
69.6
Subtotal
352
258
73.3
193
54.8
Non-Pressure
Retorts Only
35
26
74.3
23
65.7
TOTAL
387**
284
73.4
216
55.8
-------
Summary
The OAE information survey mailing list was developed from a business!
financially oriented population (Dun and Bradstreet) rather than a
production oriented population (AWPA). The objectives of the technical
information collection activity were achieved in the sense that the
response to the technical DCP included information sufficient to address
all process variations, wastewater treatment syst”ms in—place, and the
treatment systems’ effectiveness and efficiencies.
Methods of Discharge According to the DCP
Tables 111—5 through 111—8 present a summary of the methods of ultimate
wastewater disposal practiced by plants in the various subcategories of
the Wood Preserving Industry. Six plants, which were reported to be no
longer in business, are not included.
Units of Expression
Units of production in the Wood Preserving Industry are shown in cubic
meters (Cu m). In—plant liquid flows are shown in liters per day
(1/day). The Wood Preserving Industry is not yet rnetricized and uses
English units to express production, cubic feet (Cu ft); and in—plant
flow, gallons (gal) or million gallons per day (MGD). Conversion
factors from English units to metric units are shown in Appendix C.
Process Description
The wood preserving process consists of two basic steps: (1) precondi—
tioning the wood to reduce its natural moisture content and to increase
the permeability, and (2) impregnating the wood with the desired
preservatives. Figure 111—2 shows several treatment sequences.
The preconditioning step may be performed by one of several methods
including (1) seasoning or drying wood in large, open yards; (2) kiln
drying; (3) steaming the wood at elevated pressure in a retort followed
by application of a vacuum; (4) heating the stock in a preservative bath
under reduced pressure in a retort (Boulton process); or (5) vapor
drying, heating of the unseasoned wood in a solvent to prepare it for
preservative treatment. All of these preconditioning methods have as
their objective the reduction of moisture content of the unseasoned
stock to a point where the requisite amount of preservative can be
retained in the wood. Preconditioning also results in a more permeable
stock allowing penetration of the preservative into the wood as required
by American Wood Preservers’ Association (AWPA) standards.
Conventional steam conditioning (open steaming) is a process in which
unseasoned or partially seasoned stock is subjected to direct steam
impingement at an elevated pressure in a retort. The maximum permis-
sible temperature is set by industry standards at 118°C and the duration
of the steaming cycle is limited by these standards up to 20 hours.
Steam condensate that forms in the retort exits through traps and is
3-16
-------
Table 111-5. Method of Ultimate Wastewater Cisposal by Wood Preserving—
Boulton Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge
0
Discharge to POTW
11
Self—Contained (No—Discharge)
24
—Containment and Evaporation
14
—Cooling Tower Evaporation
4
—Soil Irrigation
1
-Treated Effluent Recycle
1
—Thermal Evaporation
1
—No Available Information
3
TOTAL Number of Plants
35
3-17
-------
Table 111-6. Method of Ultimate Wastewater Cisposal by Wood Preserving—
Steaming Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Cisposal Method Number of Plants
Direct Discharge 10
—Direct Discharge of Process Wastewater 3
-Direct Discharge of Process Contaminated
Stormwater Only 7
Discharge to P01W 23
Self-Contained (No-Discharge) 57
—Containment and Evaporation 51
—Soil Irrigation 6
TOTAL Number of Plants 90
3 - 18
-------
Table 111-7. Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood Preserving—
Inorganic Salt Plants Responding to Data Collection
Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method Number of Plants
Direct Discharge* 1
Discharge to POTW* 5
Self—Contained (No—Discharge) 56
-Generate No Wastewater or Recycle All
Wastewater as Makeup Dilution Water 52
-Containment and Evaporation 4
TOTAL Number of Plants 62
* Note: Current regulations prohibit discharge of process wastewaters
from this subcategory, either directly to navigible waters or
indirectly to a POTW.
3 - 19
-------
Table 111-8. Method of Ultimate Wastewater Disposal by Wood Preserving—
Nonpressure Plants Responding to Data Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
No Discharge
23
TOTAL Number
of Plants
23
3 - 20
-------
TREATING PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT
I C
I
ISO -
©
3 100-
L
I ,
SO-
! UIM
_FH
10
B/I E H
4
20 \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I
30
1 12 13 4 II I I I? I I 19 20 21 22 23 24
TIME. HOURS
©
‘I .
(0
( 0
U I
0 .
( 0
I
I
U
4
SOURCE: Koppers Company
A PRELIMINARY VACUUM
B FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
C PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
D MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
E PRESSURE RELEASED
F PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
G FINAL VACUUM
H VACUUM RELEASED
A PRESTEAMVACUUM
B STEAM tNTRODUCED
C STEAM MAINTAINED
D STEAM RELEASED
E POST STEAM VACUUM
F VACUUM RELEASED
G CONDENSATE DRAINED
H PRELIMINARY VACUUM PERIOD
I FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
J PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
IC MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
L PRESSURE RELEASED
M PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
A PRELIMINARY AIR PRESSURE APPLIED
B FILLING CYLINDER WITH PRESERVATIVE
C PRESSURE RISING TO MAXIMUM
D MAXIMUM PRESSURE MAINTAINED
E PRESSURE RELEASED
F PRESERVATIVE WITHDRAWN
G FINAL VACUUM
H VACUUM RELEASED
TYPICAL TREATING CYCLES USED FOR TREATING LUMBER,
POLES, AND PILES.
A. FULL-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR DRY SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER
B. FULL-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR GREEN SOUTHERN PINE PILES
C. EMPTY-CELL TREATING CYCLE USED FOR DRY SOUTHERN PINE POLES
Figure 111-2
10
0.
I I I
to
t 0
‘a
0.
( 0°
I
I
U
4
TIME. HOURS
1 50
100-
2
3 4
TIME. HOURS
S
3 - 21
-------
conducted to oil—water separators for removal of free oils. Removal of
emulsified oils requires further treatment. Figure 111—3 shows a
diagram of a typical open steaming wood preserving plant.
In closed steaming, a widely used variation of conventional steam
conditioning, the steam needed for conditioning is generated in situ by
covering the coils in the retort with water from a reservoir and heating
the water by passing process steam through the coils. The water is
returned to the reservoir after oil separation and reused during the
next steaming cycle. There is a slight increase in volume of water in
the storage tank after each cycle due to water exuded from the wood. A
small blowdown from the storage tank is necessary to account for this
excess water and also to control the level of wood sugars in the water.
Figure 111—4 shows a diagram of a typical closed steaming wood
preserving plant.
Modified closed steaming is a variation of the steam conditioning
process in which steam condensate is allowed to accumulate in the retort
during the steaming operation until it covers the heating coils. At
that point, direct steaming is discontinued and the remaining steam
required for the cycle is generated within the retort by utilizing the
heating coils. Upon completing the steaming cycle, the water in the
cylinder is discarded after recovery of oils. Figure 111—5 shows a
diagram of a typical modified steaming wood preserving plant.
Preconditioning is accomplished in the Boulton process by heating the
stock in a preservative bath under reduced pressure in the retort. The
preservative serves as a heat transfer medium. After the cylinder
temperature has been raised to operating temperature, a vacuum is drawn
and water removed in vapor form from the wood passes through a condenser
to an oil—water separator where low—boiling fractions of the preserva-
tive are removed. The Boulton cycle may have a duration of 48 hours or
longer for large poles and piling, a fact that accounts for the lower
production per retort day as compared to plants that steam condition.
Figure 111—6 illustrates the Boulton process.
The vapor-drying process, illustrated in Figure 111-7, consists
essentially of exposing wood in a closed vessel to vapors from any one
of many organic chemicals that are imiscible with water and have a
narrow boiling range. Selected derivatives of petroleum and coal tar,
such as xylol, high—flash naphtha, and Stoddard solvent, are preferred;
but numerous chemicals, including blends, can be and have been employed
as drying agents in the process. Chemicals with initial boiling points
of from 212°F to 400°F (100°C to 204°C) may be used.
Vapors for drying are generated by boiling the chemical in an
evaporator. The vapors are conducted to the retort containing the wood,
where they condense on the wood, give up their latent heat of vaporiza-
tion, and cause the water in the wood to vaporize. The water vapor thus
produced, along with excess organic vapor, is conducted from the vessel
to a condenser and thence to a gravity-type separator. The water layer
3 - 22
-------
VAPORS
WOOD IN
WOOD OUT
____ WATER
AIR AND
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK CYLINDER WATER VAPORS
VACUUM
STEAM PUMP
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS COOLING
WORK TANK PRESERVATIVES AND RAIN WATER WATER
TO CYLINDER
ACCUMULATOR
____ RECOVERED OILS OIL - WA
RATO CONDENSATE
WASTE WATER
0 -
OPEN STEAMING PROCESS WOOD TREATING PLANT
Figure 111-3
-------
VAPORS
WOOD IN
TREATING CYLINDER ______
WOOD OUT ____________ COOLING K.CONDEN Q}
WATER
_ --
_ _—v
AIR AND
VAPORS
PRESERVATIVES _______
TO WORK TANK CYLINDER
WATER _______
STORAGE
VACUUM
CONDENSATE PUMP
STEAM
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS COOLING
WORK TANK PRESERVATIVES AND RAIN WATER WATER
TO CYLINDER
ACCUMULATOR
____ RECOVERED OILS
OIL - WATER
___ _. SEPARATOR CONDENSATE
WASTE WATER
CLOSED STEAMING PROCESS WOOD TREATING PLANT
gure 111-4
-------
VAPORS
MODIFIED STEAMING PROCESS WOOD TREATING PLANT
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
WORK TANK
CYLINDER WATER
STEAM
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS
AND RAIN WATER
VACUUM
PUMP
ACCUMULATOR
COOLING
WATER
CONDENSATE
WASTE WATER
Figure 111-5
-------
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
WORK TANK
COOLING
WATER
CA)
PA)
0 )
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINDER
VACUUM
PUMP
OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
ACCUMULATOR
BOULTON WOOD TREATING PLANT
gure 111-6
-------
VAPOR CONDITIONING PROCESS WOOD TREATING PLANT
PRESERVATIVES
TO WORK TANK
WORK TANK
(A)
p .)
COOLING
WATER
STEAM
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS
AND RAIN WATER
AIR AND
VAPORS
PRESERVATIVES
TO CYLINDER
RECOVERED OILS OIL - WATER
SEPARATOR
VACUUM
PUMP
CONDENSATE
WASTE WATER
Figure 111-7
-------
is discharged from the separator and the organic chemical is returned to
the evaporator for reuse.
At the termination of the heating period, the flow of organic vapors to
the vessel is stopped and a 30—minute to 2—hour vacuum is imposed to
remove the condensed chemical adsorbed by the wood, along with the addi-
tional water that is removed from the wood during the vacuum cycle.
Since the drying vessel is usually also the retort used for preservative
treatment, the wood can be treated imediately using any one of the
standard preservative processes.
Following any of the above preconditioning steps, the treatment step may
be accomplished by either pressure or non—pressure processes.
Non—pressure (thermal) processes utilize open tanks which contain the
preservative chemicals. Stock to be treated is immersed in the treat-
ment chemicals, which may be at ambient temperature, heated, or a
combination thereof. Stock treated in nonpressure processes is normally
preconditioned by air seasoning or kiln drying.
Treatment methods employing pressure processes consist of three basic
types, independent of the preconditioning method. Two of the pressure
methods, referred to in the industry as “empty—cell” processes, are
based on the principle that part of the preservative forced into the
wood is expelled by entrapped air upon the release of pressure at the
conclusion of the treating cycle, thus leaving the cell walls coated
with preservative. The pressure cycle is followed by a vacuum to remove
additional preservative. The retention of preservatives attained is
controlled in part by the initial air pressure employed at the beginning
of the cycle.
The third method, which is known as the “full—cell” process, differs
from the other two in that the treating cycle is begun by evacuating the
retort and breaking the vacuum with the preservative. The preservative
is then forced into the wood under pressure, as in the other processes.
Most of the preservative remains in the wood when the pressure is
released. Retentions of preservatives achieved in this process are
substantially higher than those achieved in the empty cell processes.
Stock treated by any of the three methods may be given a short steam
treatment to Iicleana the surface of poles and pilings and to reduce
exudation of oil after the products are placed in service.
INSULATION BOARD
Scope of Study
The scope of this report includes those insulation board plants in
SIC 2661 (Building Paper and Building Board Mills) which produce insula-
tion board using wood furnish as the basic raw material.
3 -28
-------
General Description of the Industry
Insulation board is a form of fiberboard, which in turn is a broad
generic term applied to sheet materials constructed from ligno—
cellulosic fibers. Insulation board is a “non—compressed” fiberboard,
which is differentiated from “compressed” fiberboards, such as hard—
board, on the basis of density. Densities of insulation board range
from about 0.15 to 0.50 g/cu cm (9.5 to 31 lb/cu ft) .
The principal types of insulation board include:
1. Building board——A general purpose product for interior
construction.
2. Insulating roof deck——A three-in—one component which
provides roof, deck, insulation, and finished inside
ceiling. (Insulation board sheets are laminated together
with waterproof adhesives, with a vapor barrier in between
the sheets.)
3. Roof insulation——Insulation board designed for flat roof
decks.
4. Ceiling tile——Insulation board embossed and decorated for
interior use. It is also useful for acoustical qualities.
5. Lay—in panels——A ceiling tile used for suspended ceilings.
6. Sheathing——Insulation board used extensively in construc-
tion due to its insulative, bracing strength and noise
control qualities.
7. Sound—deadening insulation board-—A special product
designed explicitly for use in buildings to control noise
level.
The American Society for Testing and Materials sets standard specifica-
tions for the categories of insulation boards. Decorative type board
products, such as ceiling tiles, lay—in—panels, etc., receive a higher
degree of finishing than do structural type boards such as sheathing and
building board. Consequently, stricter control during fiber preparation
and information is required in production of decorative-type board to
insure that the product can be ironed, edge fabricated, sanded, coated,
and painted resulting in a smooth, beveled, finished surface. Decora-
tive board products cannot contain high amounts of dissolved solids in
the production process for this reason. This factor will be significant
in later discussions of wastewater recycle.
There are 18 insulation board plants in the United States with a
combined production capacity of over 330 million square meters
(3,600 million square feet) on a 13—rn (one—half inch) basis. Sixteen
of the plants use wood as a raw material for some or all of their
production. One plant uses bagasse exclusively, and one plant uses
waste paper exclusively for raw material. Four plants use mineral wool,
a non—wood based product, as a raw material for part of their insulation
board production. Production of mineral wood board is classified under
SIC 3296 and is not within the scope of this document. Five plants
produce hardboard products as well as insulation board at the same
3 - 29
-------
facility. A list of the 16 plants which produce insulation board using
wood as raw material is presented in Table 111—9. The geographical
distribution of these plants is depicted in Figure 111—8.
Production of insulation board in the U.S. from 1968 until 1974 is
presented in Figure 111-9.
Scope of Coverage for Data Base
The data collection portfolio was sent to all 16 of the insulation board
plants which use wood as a raw material. All of the plants responded to
the survey. Table 111-10 presents the method of ultimate waste disposal
utilized by the plants responding to the survey. Six of these plants
were selected for visits and sampling.
Units of Expression
Units of production in the Insulation Board Industry are reported in
square meters (sq m) on a 13 m (1/2 in) thick basis. Density figures
obtained from the surveyed plants are used to convert this production to
metric tons. The Insulation Board Industry is not yet metricized and
uses English units to express production, square feet (sq ft) on a
one—half inch (in) basis. Liquid flows from the industry are reported
in kiloliters per day (kl/day) and million gallons per day (MGD).
Conversion factors from English units to metric units are shown in
Appendix C.
Process Descri ption
Insulation board can be formed from a variety of raw materials including
wood from a softwood and hardwood species, mineral fiber, waste paper,
bagasse, and other fibrous materials. In this study, only those
processes employing wood as raw materials are considered. Plants
utilizing wood may receive it as roundwood, fractionated wood, and/or
whole tree chips. Fractionated wood can be in the form of chips,
sawdust, or planer shavings. Figure 111—10 provides an illustration of
a representative insulation board process.
When roundwood is used as a raw material, it is usually shipped to the
plant by rail or truck and stored in a dry deck before use. The round—
wood is usually debarked by drum or ring barkers before use, although in
some operations a percentage of bark is allowable in the board. The
barked wood then may be chipped, in which case the unit processes are
the same as those plants using chips exclusively as raw materials
(MacDonald, 1969). Those plants utilizing groundwood normally cut the
logs into 1.2— to 1.5-meter (4— to 5—foot) sections either before or
after debarking so that they will fit into the groundwood machines
(MacDonald, 1969). The equipment used in these operations is similar to
that used in the handling of raw materials in other segments of the
Timber Products Industry.
3 - 30
-------
Table 111—9. Inventory of Insulation Board Plants Using Wood as Raw
Material
Abitibi Corporation
Blounstown, Florida
Armstrong Cork Company
Macon, Georgia
Boise Cascade Corporation
International Falls, Minnesota
The Celotex Corporation
Dubuque, Iowa
The Celotex Corporation
L’Anse, Michigan
The Celotex Corporation
Sunbury, Pennsyl vani a
Flintkote Company
Meridian, Mississippi
Huebert Fiberboard, Inc.
Boonville, Missouri
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.
St. Helens, Oregon
National Gypsum Company
Mobile, Alabama
Georgia—Pacific
Jarratt, Virginia
Temp le-Eastex
Diboll, Texas
United States Gypsum Company
Lisbon Falls, Maine
United States Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi
United States Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon
Weyerhaeuser Company
(Craig) Broken Bow, Oklahoma
Source: 1977 Directory of the Forest Products Industry.
3 - 31
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF INSULATION BOARD
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
LEGEND
0 Mechanical Pulping
• Thermo-mechanical Pulping
£ Thermo-mechanical Pulping
and/or Hardboard
‘
( ‘3
(‘3
f4,)
3 ’
igure II -8
-------
TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTION FIGURES:
INSULATION BOARD
I I I I
1964 65 66 67
68
I I I I I I I I
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
TIME (YEARS)
3 - 33
U.
z
0
-I
-J
•1
10
9-
8 -
7.
6
5,
4.
3.
2-
1
Figure 111:9
-------
Table 111-10. Method of Ultimate Waste Cisposal by Insulation Board
Plants Responding to Cata Collection Portfolio
Ultimate Cisposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge
5
Discharge to POTW
6
Self-Contained Cischargers
Spray Irrigation
3*
No—Discharge
(Plants generating no wastewater
or recycling all wastewater)
2
* One plant uses spray irrigation as a treatment method; however, the
effluent from this system is directly discharged.
Source: Data collection portfolios.
3-34
-------
DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL INSULATION BOARD PROCESS
DIGESTER
CHIP CHIP ___ (Thermo-
LOG ___
STORAGE DEBARKERI CHIPPER STORAGE SILOS i Mechanical
_____________ ______________ _______________ _______________ _______________J Refining Only)
EVAPORATION$
_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ I
-‘ REFINING STOCK DECKER STOCK 1 FORMING —. DRIER —a. FINISHING
CHEST CHEST J MACHINE
I I
WHITE WATER WHITE WATER
RECYCLE OR RECYCLE OR
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
LEGEND
WATER IN
WATER OUT — - — — - —*
Figure 111-10
-------
Groundwood, as used by two insulation board plants in the United States,
is usually produced in conventional pulpwood grinders equipped with
coarse burred artificial stones of 16- to 25—grit with various patterns.
The operation of the machine consists primarily of hydraulically forcing
a piece of wood against a rotating stone mounted horizontally. The wood
held against the abrasive surface of the revolving stone is reduced to
fiber bundles. Water is sprayed on the stone not only to carry away the
fibers into the system, but also to keep the stone cool and clean and
lubricate its surface (MacDonald, 1969). The water spray onto the stone
also reduces the possibility of fires occurring from the friction of the
stone against the wood.
While most fractionated wood is purchased from other timber products
operations, in some cases it is produced on—site. Currently, little
chipping occurs in the forest; however, in the future this is expected
to become a major source of chips. Chips are usually transported to the
plants in large trucks or railcars. They are stored in piles which may
be covered but are more coninonly exposed. The chips may pass through a
device used to remove metal grit, dirt, and other trash which could harm
equipment and possibly cause plate damage in the refiners. This may be
done wet or dry. Pulp preparation is usually accomplished by mechanical
or thermo—mechanical refining.
Refining Operations——Mechanical refiners basically consist of two
discs between which the chips or residues are passed. In a single disc
mill, one disc rotates while the other is stationary. The feed material
passes between the plates and is discharged at the bottom of the case.
The two discs in double disc mills rotate in opposite directions, but
the product flows are similar to a single disc mill. Disc mills produce
fibers that may pass through a 30— or 40—mesh screen, although
60 percent of the fibers will not pass through a 65—mesh screen. The
disc plates generally rotate at 1,200 or 1,800 rpm or a relative speed
of 2,400 or 3,600 rpm for a double disc mill. Plate separations are
generally less than 1.0 cm (0.40 in). A variety of the disc patterns
are available, and the particular pattern used depends on the feed’s
characteristics and type of fiber desired (Runckel, 1973).
A thermo—mechanical refiner is basically the same as a disc refiner
except that the feed material is subjected to a steam pressure of 4 to
15 atm (40 to 200 psi) for a period of time from 1 to 45 minutes before
it enters the refiner. In some cases, the pressure continues through
the actual refining process.
Pre-steaming softens the feed material and thus makes refining easier
and provides savings on energy requirements; however, yield may be
reduced up to 10 percent. The longer the pretreatment and the higher
the pressure, the softer the wood becomes. The heat plasticizes
primarily portions of the hemicellulose and lignin components of wood
which bind the fibers together and results in a longer and stronger
fiber produced (Runckel, 1973).
3 -36
-------
Subsequent to the refining of the wood, the fibers produced are
dispersed in water to achieve consistencies amenable to screening. For
most screening operations, consistencies of approximately 1 percent
fiber are required. Screening is done primarily to remove coarse fiber
bundles, knots, and slivers. The coarse material may be recycled and
passed through secondary refiners which further reduce the rejects into
usable fibers for return to the process. After screening, the fibers
produced by any method may be sent to a decker or washer.
Decker Operations——Deckers are essentially rotating wire-covered
cylinders, usually with an internal vacuum, into which the suspension of
fibers in water is passed. The fibers are separated and the water is
often recirculated into the system. There are a number of reasons for
deckering or washing, one of which is to clean the pulp, but the major
reason is for consistency control. Control of dissolved solids is also a
factor in some cases. While being variable on a plant—to—plant basis,
the consistency of the pulp upon reaching the forming machine in any
insulation board process is extremely critical. By dewatering the pulp
from the water suspension at this point, it can be mixed with greater
accuracy to the desired consistency. Washing of the pulp is sometimes
desirable in order to remove dissolved solids and soluble organics which
may result in surface flaws in the board. The high concentration of
these substances tends to stay in the board and during the drying stages
migrates to the surface. This results in stains when a finish is
applied to the board.
After the washing or decking operation, the pulp is reslurried in stages
from a consistency of 15 percent solids to the 1.5 percent required for
the forming. The initial dilution to approximately 5 percent consist-
ency is usually followed by dilutions to 3 percent and finally, just
prior to mat formation, a dilution to approximately 1.5 percent. This
procedure is followed primarily for two reasons: (1) it allows for
accurate consistency controls and more efficient dispersion of addi-
tives; and (2) it reduces the required pump and storage capacities for
the pulp. During the various stages of dilution, additives are usually
added to the pulp suspension. These range from 5 to 20 percent of the
weight of the board, depending on the product used. Additives may
include wax emulsion, paraffin, asphalt, starch, polyelectrolytes, and
aluminum sulfate. The purpose of additives is to give the board desired
properties such as strength, dimensional stability, and water absorption
resi stance.
After passing through the series of storage and consistency controls,
the fibers in some cases pass through a pump-through refiner, directly
ahead of the forming machine. The main purpose øf the pump—through
refiner is to disperse agglomerated fiber clumps and to shorten the
fiber bundles. The fibrous slurry, at approximately 1.5 percent
consistency, is then pumped into a forming machine which removes water
from the pump suspension and forms a mat.
Forming Operations——While there are various types of forming
machines used to make insulation board, the two most common are the
3 -37
-------
fourdrinier and the cylinder forming machines. The fourdrinier machine
used in the manufacture of insulation board is similar in nature to
those used in the manufacture of hardboard or paper. The stock is
pumped into the head box and onto a table with an endless traveling
screen running over it. The stock is spread evenly across the screen by
special control devices and an interlaced fibrous blanket, referred to
as a mat, is formed by allowing the dewatering of the stock through the
screen by gravity assisted by vacuum boxes. The partially formed mat
travelling on the wire screen then passes through press rollers, some
with a vacuum imposed, for further dewatering.
Cylinder machines are basically large rotating drum vacuum filters with
screens. Stock is pumped through a head box to a vat where again a mat
is formed onto the screen. In this case, the mat is formed by use of a
vacuum imposed on the interior of the rotating drum. A portion of the
rotating drum is immersed into the stock solution. As water is forced
through a screen, a mat is eventually formed when the portion of the
cylinder rotates beyond the water level in the tank and required amount
of fiber is deposited on the screen. The mat is further dewatered by
the vacuum in the interior of the rotating drum and is then transferred
off the cylinder onto a screen conveyor, or felt, where it then passes
through roller presses similar to those utilized in fourdrinier
operations.
Both the fourdrinier and the cylinder machines produce a mat that leaves
the roller press with a moisture content of about 40 to 45 percent and
the ability to support its own weight over short spans. At this point,
the mat leaves the forming screen and continues its travel over a
conveyor. The wet mat is then trimmed to width and cut to length by a
traveling saw which moves across the mat on a bias, making a square cut
without the necessity of stopping the continuous wetlap sheet.
After being cut to desired lengths, the mats are dried to a moisture
content of 5 percent or less. Most dryers now in use are gas- or
oil—fired tunnel dryers. Mats are conveyed on rollers through the
tunnel with hot air being circulated throughout. Most dryers have 8 or
10 decks and various zones of heat to reduce the danger of fire. These
heat zones allow for higher temperatures when the board is “wet” (where
the mat first enters) and lower temperatures when the mat is almost dry.
The dried board then goes through various finishing operations such as
painting, asphalt coating, and embossing. Those operations which manu-
facture decorative products will usually have finishing operations which
use water—base paints containing such chemicals as various inorganic
pigments, i.e., clays, talc, carbonates, and certain amounts of binders
such as starch, protein, PVA, PVAC, acrylics, urea formaldehyde resin,
and melamine formaldehyde resins. These are applied in stages by
rollers, sprayers, or brushes. The decorative tile then may be
embossed, beveled, or cut to size depending on the product desired.
3-38
-------
Sheathing in some operations receives additional molten asphalt applica-
tions to all six surfaces. It is then sprayed with water and stacked to
allow humidification to a uniform moisture content.
Various sanding and sawing operations give insulation board products the
correct dimensions. Generally, the dust, trim, and reject materials
created in finishing operations are recycled into the process.
Wet—dry (S2S) hardboard is produced by some insulation board plants.
While the equipment for insulation board is the same as described above,
there are variations in furnish, degree of refining, and additives.
Allowing the mats to age, redrying them, and pressing the mat by large
steam—heated hydraulic presses consolidates the mat to the desired
density for hardboard.
WET—PROCESS HAROBOARD
Scope of Study
The scope of this document includes all wet-process hardboard plants
(SIC 2499) in the United States. Wood is used in wet-process hardboard
plants as the primary raw material.
General Description of the Industry
Hardboard is a form of fiberboard, which is a broad generic term applied
to sheet materials constructed from ligno—cellulosic fibers. Hardboard
is a “compressed fiberboard, with a density over 0.50 g/cu cm
(31 lb/cu ft). The thickness of hardboard products ranges between 2 to
13 rrin (nominal 1/12 to 7/16 in).
Production of hardboard by the wet process method is accomplished by
thermo—mechanical fiberization of the wood furnish. One plant produces
wet-dry hardboard using primarily mechanical refining. Dilution of the
wood fiber with fresh or process water then allows forming of a wet mat
of a desired thickness on a forming machine. This wet mat is then
pressed either wet or after drying. Chemical additives help the overall
strength and uniformity of the product. The use of manufactured
products are many and varied, requiring different processes and control
measures. The quality and type of board is important in the end use of
the product.
The following are but a few of the end uses of hardboard:
Interior Wall Paneling
Exterior Siding
Display Cabinets
Base of Painted Tile Panels
Concrete Forms
Nonconductor Material for Electrical Equipment
Door Skins (panels)
TV Cabinets and Furniture
3 . 39
-------
The 1 merican Society for Testing and Materials sets standards for the
various types of hardboard produced.
Hardboard which is pressed wet imediately following forming of the
wet-lap is called wet-wet or smooth-one-side (S1S) hardboard; that which
is pressed after the wet—lap has been dried is called wet-dry or
smooth—two- side (52S) hardboard.
There are 16 wet—process hardboard plants in the United States, repre-
senting an annual production in excess of 1.5 million metric tons per
year. Seven of the plants produce only S1S hardboard. Nine plants
produce S2S hardboard. Of these ni ne, fi ye p1 ants al so produce
insulation board, while three plants also produce S1S hardboard.
Table 1 11—11 lists the wet—process hardboard plants in the U.S.
The geographic distribution of these plants is depicted in
Figure 1 11—il. The total annual U.S. production of hardboard from 1964
through 1974 is shown in Figure 111—12. This total production includes
dry—process hardboard as well as wet-process hardboard. Although the
relative amounts of production between dry— and wet—process hardboard
vary from year to year, a generalized rule of thumb is that 25 percent
of the total production is wet-process hardboard.
Scope of Coverage of Data Base
Data collection portfolios were sent to 15 of the 16 wet-process hard—
board plants. The remaining plant did not receive a data collection
portfolio, but did provide the historical monitoring and production data
requested. All 15 plants responded to the survey. Eight plants were
visited during this study, and seven were sampled. In addition, the
full record compiled by the E.C. Jordan Company during their 1975-1976
study of the wet-process hardboard industry was reviewed during the
course of this study. All 16 plants were visited by E.C. Jordan person-
nel at that time. Table 111—12 presents the method of ultimate disposal
utilized by each of the 16 wet—process hardboard plants.
Units of Expression
Units of production in the hardboard industry are reported in square
meter (sq m) on a 3.2-rn (1/8—in) thick basis, as well as in thousand
kilograms per day (Kkg/day). Most plants provided production data
directly on a weight basis. The hardboard industry is not yet
metricized and uses English units to express production, square feet
(sq ft) on a one—eighth inch (in) basis or in tons per day (TPD).
Liquid flows from the industry are reported in kiloliters per day
(kl/day) and million gallons per day (MGD). Conversion factors from
English units to metric units are shown in Appendix C.
3-40
-------
Table 111-11. Inventory of Wet-Process Hardboard Plants
Evans Products
Corvallis, Oregon
Champion Building Products
Dee (Hood River), Oregon
Masonite Corporation
Laurel, Mississippi
Abitibi Corporation
Roaring River, North Carolina
Superior Fibre
Superior, Wisconsin
Temple—Eastex
Diboll, Texas
Weyerhaeuser Company
Broken Bow, Oklahoma
Forest Fibre
Stimpson Lumber Company
Forest Grove, Oregon
Masonite Corporation
Ukiah, California
Superwood Corporati on
Duluth, Minnesota
Superwood Corporation
North Little Rock, Arkansas
U.S. Gypsum Company
Danville, Virginia
Abitibi Corporation
Alpena, Michigan
Boise Cascade
International Falls, Minnesota
U.S. Gypsum Company
Pilot Rock, Oregon
U.S. Gypsum Company
Greenville, Mississippi
Source: 1977 Directory of the Forest Products Industry.
3-41
-------
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF HARDBOARD
MANUFACTURING FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
LEGEND
• W tWt Process (SIS)
WetDry Process (S2S)
Wet Dry/InsuIatIon
CA)
I. ’.
4 re Ill-il
-------
TOTAL BOARD PRODUCTION FIGURES: HARDBOARD
10-
9.
8-
a
‘a
U - 6-
z
2
-J
—a 5
< 4.
I I U I I III
1964 85 86 67 68 89 70 71 72 73 74 75 76
TIME(YEARS)
3-43
Figure 111-12
-------
Table 111-12. Method of Ultimate Waste Disposal by Wet-Process
Hardboard Plants
Ultimate Disposal Method
Number of Plants
Direct Discharge
12
Discharge to P01W
2
Self-Contained Dischargers
Spray Irrigation
Total Recycle of Treated Effluent
1
1
* Two other plants use sray irrigation to dispose of part of their
wastewater. One plant spray irrigates a portion of its sludge.
Source: Data collection portfolios.
3.44
-------
Process Description
Raw Material Usage——The basic raw material used in the manufacture
of hardboard is wood. The wood species include both hardwoods (oak,
gum, aspen, cottonwood, willow, sycamore, ash, elm, maple, cherry,
birch, and beech) and softwoods (pine, Douglas fir, and redwood).
Wood receipts may vary in form from unbarked long and short logs to
chips. Chip receipts may be from whole tree chipping, forest residue
(which includes limbs, bark, and stumps), sawmill waste, plywood trim,
and sawdust. The deliveries may be of one species, a mixture of hard-
wood, or mixed softwoods. The geographic location of each mill
determines the species of wood used to produce the hardboard. The
species and mixture may change according to availability.
Moisture content of the wood receipts varies from 10 percent in plywood
trim to 60 percent in green fresh wood.
Chemicals used as raw material in the hardboard process consist of vege-
table oils, primarily linseed or tung, tall oil, ferric sulfate, wax,
sulphuric acid, thermoplastic and/or thermosetting resin, aluminum
sulfate, petrolatum, defoamer, and paint. No one mill uses all these
chemicals in its process, nor is the degree of chemical use the same for
all mills. Some of the functions of these chemicals are for binding,
sizing, pH control, retention, weather—proofing, and foam reduction.
The chemical usage ranges from 0.5 to 11.0 percent of the total
producti on.
Wood Storage and Chipping——Most of the mills surveyed stored the
wood raw material as chips in segregated storage piles. In most cases a
paved base is provided for the storage piles. Rough logs received are
stockpiled prior to debarking and chipping.
Of those mills receiving rough logs, four out of eight remove the bark
by mechanical means and either burn it or dispose of it in landfills.
The other four mills chip the logs with the bark attached. Seven mills
receive wood in chip form only, which in most cases includes the bark
from the log. Only six mills screen chips before processing. Some of
the mills using chips containing bark can tolerate only a minimal amount
of bark in the final product and have auxiliary equipment (i.e.,
centricleaners) to clean the stock. One mill reported that bark in the
stock improves the cleanliness of the caul plates in the press and
presents no problems in production. Only seven of the sixteen mills
surveyed washed the chips before processing.
For production control and consistency, the majority of the mills
maintained a chip inventory of 60 to 90 days. Although the yield is
lower and the chips are more contaminated (bark, dirt, etc.), the use of
waste material and forest residue is increasing each year in the produc-
tion of hardboard. As the availability of quality chips decreases and
the costs increase, the greater use of lower quality fiber requires
additional equipment to clean the chips before processing.
3-45
-------
Fiber Preparation-—Before refining or defibering, the chips are
pretreated with steam in a pressure vessel or digester. The steaming of
the chips under pressure softens the lignin material that binds the
individual fibers together and reduces the power consumption required
for mechanical defibering. The degree of softening when the chips are
raised to a certain temperature varies with different wood species.
Steaming of the chips also increases the bonding between fibers when the
board is pressed.
Cooking conditions are determined by the wood species involved and the
pulp required for the grade of hardboard being produced. A major
difference exists in the cooking conditions used in the manufacturing of
S1S (smooth—one—side) and S2S (smooth—two—sides).
Most S1S hardboard is usually manufactured with the same pulp throughout
the board, but occasionally it is produced with a thick mat of coarsely
refined fiber and an overlay of a thin layer of highly refined fiber.
The overlay produces a high quality, shive—free, smooth surface. The
bulk of the board can contain coarse fiber, which allows proper drainage
during the pressing operation. The refining requires less energy and
the cooking conditions are less stringent.
S2S hardboard requires more highly refined fiber bundles and more
thorough softening than S1S. This requires higher preheating pressures
and longer retention time and, therefore, more refining equipment and
horsepower. The severity of the cook significantly affects the raw
waste loading of the mill effluent. Most S2S hardboard is manufactured
using an overlay system of fine fiber bundles.
To contend with frozen chips, some mills in cold climates add preheating
for thawing prior to the cooking cycle.
The predominant method used for fiber preparation consists of a combina-
tion of thermal and mechanical pulping. This involves a preliminary
treatment of the raw chips with steam and pressure prior to mechanical
pulping of the softened chips. The thermo—mechanical process may take
place with a digester—refiner as one unit (e.g., Asplund system), or in
separate units.
Primary, secondary, and tickler refiners may be found in the process
depending on the type of pulp required. The pulp becomes stronger with
more refining, but its drainage characteristics are reduced.
Some mills use raw chips which bypass the digester and are refined in a
raffinator or refiner. These chips are usually of a species that breaks
down easily and has a tendency to overcook in the digester. The raw
chips, which produce a weaker pulp and are a small percentage of the
total chips used, are blended, after refining, with the cooked chips.
The cooking cycles for S1S hardboard have ranges of 2 to 5 minutes at
5.4 to 10.2 atm (80 to 150 psi) for softwood and 40 seconds to
3-46
-------
15 minutes at 9.5 to 12.2 atm (140 to 180 psi) for hardwood. S2S hard-
board, which requires stronger and finer fibers, is produced with
cooking times of 1.5 to 14 minutes at 10.2 to 13.6 atm (150 to 200 psi).
Two mills employ a method Of fiber preparation called the explosion or
gun process. The chips are cooked in a small pressure vessel and
released——suddenly and at a high pressure——through a quick-opening valve
to a cyclone. The sudden release of pressure explodes the chips into a
mass of fiber. The steam condenses in the cyclone and fibers fall into
a stock chest where they are mixed with water. Fiber yield is lower
than the thermo—mechanical process due to the hydrolysis of the hemicel-
luloses under high pressure, and the raw waste loading is considerably
higher.
To restore moisture to chips containing a low moisture content (e.g.,
plywood trim), one mill injects water with the chips as they are being
cooked in the digester.
Refining or defibering equipment is of the disc type, in which one disc
or both may rotate; the unit may be pressurized or a gravity type. A
combination of pressure— and gravity—type refiners is usually used in
the process. Both types of refiners have adjustable clearances between
the rotating or fixed discs, depending on the type of stock desired.
The maintenance and life of the refiner discs are dependent on the
cleanliness of incoming chips.
Small tickler or tertiary pump—through refiners are used to provide a
highly refined, shive—free stock for the overlay system required by some
mills. Small refiners are also used for rejects from the stock cleaning
systems.
Primary and most secondary refiners use large amounts of fresh water for
non—contact cooling which may be reused in the process water system.
Fresh or process white water is injected directly into the refiner to
facilitate refining.
Stock Washing and Deckers——A washer is used to remove soluble
materials. A decker, which is a screen used to separate fibers from the
main body of water, also removes some solubles from the fiber bundles.
After primary refining and dilution with white water, the majority of
the mills surveyed wash the stock to remove dissolved solids. The most
widely used washing equipment is of the drum—type, which may operate
under a gravity or vacuum mode. The washer is equipped with showers
that wash the stock as it is picked up by the drum. Two mills used
counter—current washers which consist of two or three drum washers in
series. The extracted solids are used in a byproduct system. One mill
uses a two—roll press for washing. As the water is squeezed from the
stock passing through the nip of the press, it carries away dissolved
solids.
3 -47
-------
The effluent from a stock washer has a high concentration of soluble
organics which are usually mixed into the white water system and must be
discharged for treatment or be recycled within the washing system. The
amount of dissolved solids that are readily washed from the stock
depends on the species of wood and the amount of cooking.
Of the 16 mills surveyed, 4 out of 7 mills producing S1S hardboard and
7 out of 9 mills producing S2S had stock washers.
Stock washers are usually located after the primary refiners. Some
mills screen the washed stock and send the slivers and oversize back
through the primary refiner. Five mills, one without a stock washer,
used centri—cleaners in the system to remove non—fiber material (bark,
dirt, etc.) from the stock.
Consistency of the stock as it travels through the process is controlled
by instruments using recycled white water for dilution. One mill, based
on experience, checks the consistency by “feel.” The pH may be
controlled by the addition of fresh water or chemicals. Other chemicals
are added at various locations as required.
Forming——Most wet process mills form their product on a
fourdrinier—type machine similar to that used in producing paper.
Diluted stock is pumped to the headbox of the former where the
consistency is controlled (usually with white water) to an average of
1.5 to 1.7 percent while the stock is being fed to the traveling wire of
the fourdrinier. As the stock travels with the machine, wire water is
drained through the wire. At first the water drains by gravity, but as
the stock and wire continue, a series of suction boxes remove additional
water. As the water is being removed, the stock is felted together into
a continuous fibrous sheet called a “wet mat.” At the end of the
forming machine the wet mat leaves the traveling wire and is picked up
by another moving screen that carries the mat through one or more roll
presses. This step not only removes more water but also compacts and
solidifies the mat to a level at which it can support its own weight
over short spans. As the wet mat leaves the prepress section, it is
cut, on the fly, into lengths as required for the board being produced.
In the production of S1S hardboard the mat, still with a moisture
content of 50 to 65 percent, is carried to the hydraulic press section.
In the manufacture of S2S hardboard, the mat is conveyed first through
the dryer and then is pressed in a dry state.
The water drained from the mat as it travels across the forming machine
is collected in a pit under the machine or in a chest. This “white
water” contains a certain amount of wood fibers (suspended solids), wood
chemicals (dissolved solids), and dissolved additive chemicals depending
on the size of the machine wire, the amount and number of suction boxes,
the freeness or drainage of the stock, and the physical properties of
the product.
The water draining by gravity from the first section of the former
contains the larger amount (rich) of fiber and is usually recycled to
3 -48
-------
the fan pumps that supply the stock to the forming machine. The lean
white water collected under vacuum in some wells is collected and
recycled as dilution water throughout the process.
The amount of white water that can be recycled may be limited by board
quality demands. Recycled white water causes an increase in the sugar
content (dissolved solids) of the process water and therefore in the
board. If the sugar content is allowed to accumulate beyond a certain
point, problems such as boards sticking in the press, bleedouts from the
finish products, objectionable board color, and decreased paintability
can be encountered. Some board products can tolerate a degree of such
problems, and in some cases some of the problems can be overcome by
operational changes.
The wet trim from the mat on the forming machine is sent to a repulper,
diluted, usually screened, and recycled into the process system ahead of
the forming machine.
Pressing——After forming to the desired thickness, the fibers in the
mat are welded together into a tough grainless board by the hardboard
press. The hydraulically—operated press is capable of simultaneously
pressing 8 to 26 boards. Press plates may be heated with steam or with
a heat transfer medium up to 230°C. Unit pressures on the board up to
68 atn (1,000 psi) are achieved in the press. In S1S hardboard
manufacturing the wet mat is fed into the press as it comes from the
forming machine. Screens are used on the back side of S1S mats in the
press. In this state the S1S requires 4 to 10 minutes in the press. In
S2S hardboard manufacturing, the press may be fitted with caul plates or
the board may be pressed directly between the press plattens. Caul
plates may be smooth or embossed for a special surface effect on the
board. The press may be hand or automatically loaded and unloaded.
The squeezing of the water from the wet mat removes some of the
dissolved solids. The water from the press squeeze—out on S1S hardboard
has a high organic content and is usually drained away for treatment.
To assist the bond of the fibers in the press, resins are added to the
stock before it reaches the forming machine. From the press the S1S
hardboard may be conveyed to a dryer, kiln, or humidifier.
As the S2S hardboard leaves the forming machine, it may enter a
pre—drying oven which evaporates 95 percent of the moisture in the
board. When a pre—dryer is used, the hot board is delivered directly to
the press. After drying, the board may be pressed or sent to storage
and pressed when required. The strength of the S2S hardboard has to be
sufficient to withstand the many handling situations that occur while
the board is in the unpressed state.
As stated before, the S2S hardboard requires a harder cook and more fine
refining than S1S. These finer fibers allow the consolidating chemical
reaction to take place when pressing the dry board. Thermo-setting
phenolic resins cannot be used as a binder in S2S hardboard mat because
it pre—cures when the forming water is evaporated in the dryer. Higher
3-49
-------
temperatures, higher pressures, and shorter pressing time (1 to
5 minutes) are required in pressing the dry S2S hardboard.
Oil Tempering and Baking——After pressing, both S1S and S2S hard-
board may receive a special treatment called tempering. This consists
of treating the sheets with various drying oils (usually vegetable oils)
either by pan-dripping or roll coaters. In some cases the hardboard is
passed through a series of pressure rolls which increase the absorption
of the oils and remove any excess. The oil is stabilized by baking the
sheet from 1 to 4 hours at temperatures of 150°C to 177°C. Tempering
increases the hardness, strength, and water resistance of the board.
Humidification——As the sheets of hardboard discharge from the press
or the tempering baking oven they are hot and dry. To stabilize the
board so as to prevent warping and dimensional changes, it is subjected
to a humidification chamber in which the sheets are retained until the
proper moisture content, usually 4.5 to 5 percent, is reached. In the
case of siding products where exposure to the elements is expected,
humidification to 7 percent is comon.
Figures 111—13 and 111-14 depict diagrams of typical S1S and S2S
production processes, respectively.
3 - 50
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL WET PROCESS HARDBOARD MILL
SIS HARDBOARD PRODUCTION LINE STEAM FRESH WATER
________ __________ __________ __________ I
—. DEBARKING CHIPPING
LOG F CHIP 1 CHIP -
STORAGE STORAGEJ SILOS DIGESTER REFINER
I ____________ ____________ STEAM STEAM
(31! I
OVEN
I STOCK FORMING PRESS —. OR HUMIDIFY FINISHING
CHEST ‘ MACHINE} _________ KILN
I I I
WHITE WATER RECYCLE
r EVAPORATION
AND OR DISCHARGE SQUEEZE OUT VAPORATION
TO DISCHARGE
LEGEM )
WATER IN
WATER OUT —————
Figure 111-13
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL WET PROCESS HARDBOARD MILL
S2S HARDBOARD PRODUCTION LINE FRESH WATER
—a DEBARKING —‘
I
STEAM
1
FRESH WATER WHITE WATER
ENRICHED WHITE WATER FOR;
BY PRODUCT USE RECYCLE J
OR DISCHARGE
FRESH WATER
SECONDARY
‘ REFINER
-.
WHITE WATER
STOCK
CHEST
STEAM
I
WHITE WATER RECYCLE I
AND OR S H R _ J
EVAPORATION
p
EVAPORATION
t
STEAM
PRESS
EVAPORATION
LOG
STORAGE
CHIPPING
CHIP
-
STORAGE
CHIP
SILOS
a,
-a
PRIMARY
REFINER
CHIP
WASHER
FIBER
WASH
—.1 DIGESTER
FORMING
MACHI NE
PRE DRYER
—0
FINISHING
HUMIDIFY
OVEN
OR
KILN
jire 111-14
-------
SECTION IV
INDIJSTR IAL SUBCATEGOR IZAT ION
GENERAL
In the review of existing industrial subcategorization for the wood
preserving, insulation board, and hardboard industries, it was necessary
to determine whether significant differences exist within each industry
to support the current subcategorization scheme, or whether modifica-
tions are required. The rationale for subcategorization is based upon
emphasized differences and similarities in such factors as: (1) plant
characteristics (geographical location, size, age, and products
produced) and raw materials; (2) wastewater characteristics, including
priority pollutant characteristics; (3) manufacturing processes; and
(4) applicable methods of wastewater treatment and disposal.
The entire technical data base, described in Section III, was used in
the review of subcategorization.
WOOD PRESERVING
In developing the previously published effluent limitation guidelines
and pretreatment standards for the wood preserving segment of the Timber
Products Processing Industry, it was determined that plants comprising
this segment exhibited significant differences which sufficiently
justified subcategorization. The subcategorization of the wood
preserving segment was based primarily on the method of conditioning
stock preparatory to preservative treatment. The definitions of the
three existing subcategories are as follows:
Wood Preserving——All pressure processes which employ water-borne
salts and in which steaming, Boultonizing, or vapor drying is not the
predominant method of conditioning. All non—pressure processes.
Wood Preserving—Steam——The Wood Preserving—Steam subcategory
includes all processes that use direct steam impingement on wood as the
predominant conditioning method, processes that use vapor drying as the
predominant conditioning method, fluor—chromium—arsenate-phenol (FCAP)
processes, processes where the same retort is used to treat with both
salt— and oil—type preservatives, and processes which steam condition
and which apply both salt— and oil—type preservatives to the same stock.
Wood Preserving—Boultonizing——The Wood Preserving—Boultoni zi ng
subcategory applies to those wood preserving processes which use the
Boulton process as the predominant method of conditioning stock.
The rationale for choosing these subcategories was anchored to differ-
ences within the industry in the volume of process wastewater generated
and to variations in the state of applicable technology existing when
4 -1
-------
the subcategories were developed. Plants in the Wood Preserving
subcategory were required to meet a no—discharge limitation because a
widely used technology existed to achieve no—discharge through waste—
water recycling. Likewise, in 1974 exemplary plants employing the
Boul ton method of conditioning had achieved no—discharge of process
wastewater by means of forced (cooling tower) evaporation using waste
heat, and this was the basis for separate subcategorization of Boulton
plants.
Plants that used steaming as the predominant method of conditioning were
permitted a discharge because of the relatively large volume of waste-
water generated by the open—steaming method used by most of the plants
at that time, and because steaming plants did have sufficient waste heat
available to achieve no—discharge through forced (cooling tower)
evaporation.
SUBCATEGOR IZAT ION REVIEW
Factors considered in the subcategorization review included the
following:
Plant characteristics and raw materials
Wastewater characteristics
Manufacturing processes
Methods of wastewater treatment and disposal
Plant Characteristics and Raw Materials
Geographical Location——Plants employing the Boulton process as the
predominant method of conditioning are located in the Douglas fir region
of the western states; those that use steam conditioning are concen-
trated in the Southern pine areas of the South and East. However, many
plants that treat unseasoned Douglas fir, and thus are classified as
Boulton plants, also employ steaming for special purposes such as
thawing frozen stock before treatment or flash cleaning of the surfaces
of stock following treatment. Likewise, since current 144PA standards
permit steam conditioning of certain western species such as Ponderosa
pine, some plants that use Boultonizing as the predominant method of
conditioning also use steam conditioning occasionally. Similarly, some
eastern plants that steam condition most of their stock may use the
Boulton process to condition green oak piling or cross—ties.
Boultonizing is the predominant conditioning method at a few of the
plants in the South and East that specialize in cross—tie production.
——With the exception of method of conditioning, which is
dictated by timber species, Boulton and steaming plants have very
similar characteristics. Average plant age, for example, is 48 and
47 years for Boulton and steaming plants, respectively, based on the
responses to the data collection portfolio.
Age in and of itself is not a significant factor in determining the
efficiency of a plant; nor does it necessarily influence either the
volume or the quality of process wastewater. Regardless of age, all
4-2.
-------
plants employ the same basic treating processes, use the same type of
equipment, and treat with the same preservatives. The average age of
wood preserving plants is high because the industry developed rapidly in
the 1920’s and 1930’s in consort with the demand for treated wood
products by the railroads and utilities. Most of the old plants have
been updated several times since they were first constructed. In most
cases, the waste managsnent programs at these plants are fully as
advanced as those at plants constructed 30 years later.
Size——Table IV—1 shows the size distribution of wood preserving
plants within each subcategory. It can be readily observed from this
table that plants which treat with inorganic preservatives only have a
much greater percentage (79 percent) of one— and two—cylinder p1 ants
than do the Boulton (57 percent) or steaming (53 percent) subcategories.
Boulton plants also have a greater percentage (21 percent) of large
plants with over four retorts, as compared to steaming plants
(8 percent) or inorganic preservative plants (2 percent).
Production capacity is perhaps a better indicator of plant size than
number of retorts. For plants with the same number of retorts that
treat only stump—green stock, the production of the steaming plant would
exceed that of the Boulton plant by a factor of two or more because of
the longer time required for the Boulton process. This inherent produc-
tion advantage of steaming plants is mitigated in part by the fact that
the Boulton segment of the industry has a higher percentage of four— and
five—cylinder plants than the steaming segment.
Products Treated——Boulton and steaming plants produce the same
range of treated products. Overall, the West Coast (Boulton) plants
tend to be more diversified than the remainder of the industry.
Preservatives Used——The types of preservatives used by a plant are
an important consideration in determining the pollutants contained in
the process wastewater and, to some degree, the quality of the waste—
water. Boulton (West Coast) plants use the same range of preservatives
as the industry as a whole. However, more Boulton plants use creosote
and salt-type preservatives than the remainder of the industry.
Wastewater Characteri stics
Wastewater Volume——Data collected in 1973—1974 in preparation of
the DevelopTient Document for the Wood Preserving Segment of the Timber
Products Industry revealed that steaming plants generate a much larger
volume of wastewater than Boulton plants of similar size. However, this
difference has narrowed considerably during the period 1974—1978 as a
result of aggressive pollution control efforts among steaming plants in
the East. Factors that have contributed to this change include the
following:
1. Adoption of closed steaming as a replacement for open
steaming by many plants.
2. Replacement of barometric—type with surface—type
condensers.
4.3
-------
Table IV-l. Size Distribution of Wood Preserving Plants by Subcategory
Number of
Retorts
Boul
ton
Stea
ming
Inorganic
Preservatives
Number of
Plants
Percent
Number of
Plants
Percent
Number of
Plants Percent
1
8
24
11
13
30 55
2
11
33
34
40
13 24
3
3
9
24
28
11 20
4
4
12
9
11
0 0
74
7
21
7
8
1 2
Components
may not add
to 100
percent due
to rounding.
Source: Data Collection Portfolios and AWPA, 1975.
4-4
-------
3. Recycling of barometric cooling water.
4. Predrying of a higher percentage of production, thus
reducing total steaming time and excess wood water.
5. Segregation of contaminated and uncontaminated waste
streams.
6. Inauguration of effective plant maintenance and sanita-
tion programs.
7. Recycle of coil condensate.
Improvements have also been made in the waste management programs at
Boulton plants. However, the changes that produced the greatest result
with the smallest investment were made at these plants prior to 1973 in
response to early enforcement of stringent local and state pollution
control regulations.
Data presented in Section V of this document demonstrate that while
differences in wastewater volumes between steaming plants and Boulton
plants still exist, the differences are less than those which existed in
1973 and 1974. The average steaming plant generates approximately
30 percent more wastewater on a gallon—per—cubic-foot of production
basis than does the average Boulton plant. Steaming plants which treat
a large portion of dry stock and closed steaming plants generate 12 and
56 percent less wastewater, respectively, than do Boulton plants. In
1973 and 1974, 75 percent of all steaming plants surveyed by EPA indi-
cated that they either then practiced or were planning to adopt closed
steaming technology. Current information indicates that fewer than
50 percent of all steaming plants have adopted closed steaming. Many
plants reported that high product color and low aesthetic quality of
poles and lumber treated by closed steaming techniques were instrumental
in their decision not to adopt or to discontinue closed steaming.
Wastewater Parameters——Since Boulton and steaming plants treat with
the same types of preservatives, the wastewater generated by the two
types of plants contains similar preservative contaminants. This is
verified by data presented in Section V.
Differences between Boulton and steaming wastewater in COD and penta—
chlorophenol concentrations are largely due to differences in oil and
grease content. Oil-water emulsions are more comon in steaming plant
wastewaters, a fact that accounts for the correspondingly higher average
oil content. It is probable that wood extractives, principally resins
and carbohydrates, act as emulsifiers. Because the water removed from
wood during the Boulton process leaves the retort in vapor form and thus
free of wood extractives, emulsions occur with considerably less
frequency in Boulton wastewater. The higher oil content of the steaming
wastewater accounts in large part for the relatively higher oxygen
demand of these wastes and serves as a carrier for concentrations of
pentachiorophenol that far exceed its solubility in water (17 mg/l at
20°C).
4-5
-------
Manufacturing Processes
The conditioning method employed is the only step in the manufacturing
process that distinguishes Boulton plants from steaming plants. Both
conditioning methods have the same function, i.e., to reduce the mois-
ture content of unseasoned stock to a level which allows the requisite
amount of preservative to be forced into the wood. Conditioning also
increases the depth of treatment as required by AWPA standards. Process
descriptions of both Boulton and steaming conditioning are presented in
Section III of this document.
Methods of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Plants which treat solely with inorganic salts can achieve
of process wastewater by collecting cylinder drippings and
the sump under the cylinders and recycling this wastewater
treating solutions for future charges. This technology is
widely employed in the industry. Plants that treat with salts have,
with few exceptions, achieved no—discharge as required by EPA
guidelines.
Capital requirements to achieve no—discharge for a plant that treats
only with salt—type preservatives are relatively small compared to steam
and Boulton plants, which treat with oil—type preservatives. Because of
the nature of the closed system for salt treating plants, operating
costs are low. Some small return on the initial investment can be
realized in that small quantities of otherwise wasted chemicals are
recovered and reused. Costs for recycle systems are presented in
Section VIII.
Wastewater treatment methods utilized by plants treating with oily
preservatives include gravity oil-water separation; chemical floccula-
tion followed by slow sand filtration; biological treatment; soil
irrigation; and natural or forced (spray or cooling tower) evaporation.
These treatment methods are equally applicable to steaming and Boulton
plants with the exception of cooling tower evaporation, which is appli-
cable to Boulton plants.
Nearly all plants treating with oily preservatives use gravity oil—water
separation, regardless of subsequent treatment steps or ultimate
disposal of wastewater. Primary oil separation is used partly for
economic reasons——to recover oil and treating solutions, and partly to
facilitate subsequent treatment steps. Plants which use chemical
flocculation/filtration and/or biological treatment technology do so to
pretreat the wastewater prior to discharge, additional treatment, or
disposal.
Plants treating with oily preservatives have generally chosen to meet
current effluent limitations by discharging pretreated wastewater to a
P01W or by achieving no—discharge status through either soil irrigation
or evaporation. Soil irrigation and spray evaporation, equally appli-
cable to steaming and Boulton wastewaters, require the availability of
land. The amount of land required depends on the size of the plant,
no—discharge
rainfall from
to dilute
effective and
4-6
-------
amount of wastewater generated, and local soil or atmospheric
conditions.
Boulton plants have a significant source of waste heat available in the
vaporized v od water and light oils sent to the condenser during the
long vacuum phase of the treating cycle. This waste heat can be used to
evaporate all or most of the process wastewater by recirculation through
a mechanical draft cooling tower. This method of forced evaporation,
while occasionally requiring an external heat source to evaporate excess
rainwater or other process water, is currently used by many Boulton
plants to achieve no—discharge. This technology requires very little
land, generally less than one—tenth of an acre.
The vacuum cycle of steaming plants is too short to effectively utilize
the waste heat of the vaporized od water, and reliance must be made on
the more land—intensive technologies of soil irrigation or spray
evaporation to achieve no—discharge.
Suggested Subcategories
A careful consideration of the plant characteristics, raw materials,
wastewater volume produced, wastewater characteristics, manufacturing
processes, and available methods of wastewater treatment and disposal as
currently exist in the industry today suggests that the existing
subcategorization of the Wood Preserving Industry should be retained.
Although there are significant similarities among all plants which treat
with oily preservatives in terms of plant characteristics, raw
materials, wastewater volume and characteristics, and manufacturing
processes, the ability of the plants in the Boulton subcategory to use
available waste heat to evaporate most if not all process wastewater
indicates that current subcategorization is still valid.
The widespread use and low cost of technology resulting in no—discharge
f or plants which are currently in the Wood Preserving subcategory is the
primary reason for retaining this subcategory.
INSULATION BOARD
Although effluent limitations guidelines for the insulation industry
have not been promulgated, the final Draft Develoçnent Document for the
Timber Products Processing Point Source Category (Phase II) proposed the
following subcategories for insulation board:
Insulation Board——The Insulation Board subcategory includes those
plants whose manufacturing procedure does not involve subjecting the
wood raw material to a pressure created by steam. This subcategory is
referred to throughout this document as the Insulation Board-Mechanical
Refining subcategory.
Insulation Board Manufacturing With Steaming or Hardboard
Production——This subcategory includes those plants whose manufacturing
procedure includes steam conditioning of the wood raw material before
4.7
-------
refining, or those plants which produce hardboard at the same facility.
This subcategory is referred to throughout this document as the
Insul ati on Board—Thermomechani cal and/or Hardboard Production
subcategory.
The rationale for selection of these subcategories was anchored primar-
ily to differences in the raw waste loads exhibited by plants which
employ steaming and/or hardboard production and plants which do not.
Other factors considered were the nature of raw materials, plant size
and age, plant location, and land availability. The effects on raw
waste loading due to these factors were not considered to be of
sufficient significance to warrant further subcategorization.
Subcategorization Review—-The industry was reviewed and surveyed
with a focus on wastewater characteristics and treatability as related
to:
Raw Materials
Manufacturi ng Processes
Products Produced
Plant Size and Age
Geographical Location
Raw Materials
The primary raw material used in the manufacture of wood fiber insula-
tion board is wood. This material is responsible for the major portion
of the BOO and suspended solids in the raw waste. Other additives, such
as wax emulsions, asphalt, paraffin, starch, and aluminum sulfate,
comprise less than 20 percent of the board weight and add very little to
the raw waste load. Information submitted by several mills has indi-
cated that wood species, season of wood harvesting, and the presence of
bark and/or whole tree chips in wood furnish affect the raw waste load
of insulation board plants. However, due to a lack of sufficiently
detailed plant data to quantify the effects of these variables upon raw
waste load, there was no sound basis for subcategorization strictly on
the basis of raw material used to produce the board.
Four of the insulation board plants produce insulation board using
mineral wool as a raw material. Two of these plants produce large
quantities of mineral wool insulation board on separate forming lines
within the same facility or in facilities separate from the wood fiber
insulation board plant. One plant produces approximately 50 percent of
its total production as mineral wool insulation board on the same
forming machine that it uses to produce wood fiber insulation board.
Wood fiber and mineral wool wastewater from these three plants com-
pletely comingle prior to monitoring. These plants were not used to
determine raw waste loads for wood fiber insulation board. One plant
produces less than 10 percent of its total production as mineral wool
insulation board, using the same forming equipment as is used for wood
fiber insulation board. Raw waste load data from this plant were used
to develop raw waste loads for wood fiber insulation board as the
contribution from the mineral wood production was considered to have no
4-8
-------
significant effect on the overall raw waste load. All other plants
analyzed for raw waste load used only wood as the primary material.
Four plants indicated in their response to the DCP that wastepaper was
used for a minor portion of their raw material in wood fiber insulation
board production. The small amounts of wastepaper furnish used by these
plants are not likely to appreciably affect their raw waste loads.
Manufacturing Process
Although a plant may have various auxiliary components in its operation,
the major factor which affects raw waste loads is whether steam, under
pressure, is used to precondition the chips prior to refining. Plants
which do not steam their furnish under pressure——mechanical refining
plants, demonstrate significantly lower raw waste loads than plants
which precondition chips using steam under pressure——thermomechanical
refining plants. This is the primary reason for separate subcategori-
zation of this industry segment. The steam cook softens the wood chips
and results in the release of more soluble organics. Data presented in
Section V, Raw Waste Characteristics, support the validity of subcate-
gorization based on whether or not a plant preconditions its furnish
using steam under pressure.
Products Produced
The ability of an insulation board plant to recycle process wastewater
is highly dependent upon the type of product produced. Insulation board
plants which produce primarily structural—type board products such as
sheathing, shinglebacker, etc., demonstrate lower raw waste loads due
primarily to the increased opportunity of process water recycle at these
plants. Two insulation board plants that do not steam condition their
wood furnish have reduced their flow per unit of production to less than
3,000 liters/metric ton (750 gallons/ton). These plants produce
primarily structural—type board products. Two insulation board plants
that steam condition their wood furnish achieved complete recycle of
process whitewater, resulting in no—discharge of process wastewater.
Both of these plants produce solely structural—type products.
Structural—type products do not require the uniform color surface finish
of decorative products and can contain a greater amount of wood sugars
and other dissolved material from the process whitewater system.
Consideration was given to subcategorization on the basis of type of
board product produced, i.e., structural versus decorative. However,
the equipment at most plants is readily adaptable to the production of
both types of board, and most plants rotate the type of board produced
based on product demand, which is highly variable. Subcategorization
according to board type would severely limit the ability of these plants
to respond to competitive pressures, and would make the issuance of
permits by enforcement agencies a difficult task. Therefore, subcate-
gorization solely on the basis of product type is not considered
feasible.
4-9
-------
There is a substantial difference in the age and size of the plants in
the insulation board industry. However, older plants have been
upgraded, modernized, and expanded to the point that age, in terms of
process, is meaningless. Because of this, the differences in wastewater
characteristics related to the age of the plant are not discernible, nor
is the prorated raw waste load due to plant size. Raw waste load data
presented in Section V support this conclusion.
Geographical Location
Insul ation board p1 ants are widely scattered throughout the United
States, and the geographic location of each plant dictates the species
of wood that is used in the plant’s process. Although each species
generates varying raw waste loads, each plant, with its own process
methods, produces a salable product from many types of soft and hard
woods. Plants in cold climates may use frozen chips, necessitating the
use of pre—steaming to thaw the chips. This can result in a small
increase in raw waste loading. Plants in cold climates are also subject
to more pronounced seasonal variations in treatment efficiency of
biological treatment systems; however, the effects of cold climate on
biological treatment systems can be mitigated by proper design consider-
ations. The geographic location of the surveyed mills did not reveal
sufficient differences in the annual raw waste loading to warrant
further subcategori zation.
Suggested Subcategories
Analysis of the above factors, supported by data presented in Section V
of this document, Raw Wastewater Characteristics, affirms the validity
of separate subcategorization for the insulation board—mechanical
refining, and insulation board—thermomechanical refining and/or
h ardboard production subcategories.
WET-PROCESS HAR 8OAR 0
Effluent limitations guidelines for wet—process hardboard plants promul-
gated in 40 CFR 429 included all wet-process hardboard plants in a
single subcategory defined as plants engaged in the manufacture of hard—
board using the wet matting process for forming the board mat.
Since these regulations were promulgated, industry representatives have
presented data which support separate subcategorization for wet—wet
(S1S) hardboard and wet—dry (S2S) hardboard in negotiations with the
E PA.
In November 1975, the EPA retained a contractor to evaluate and review
the BAT regulations and the existing subcategorization of the industry.
The Summary Report on the Re-Evaluation of the Effluent Guidelines for
the Wet-Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber Products Processing
4 - 10
-------
Point Source Category, completed in July 1976, recomended that the
wet—process hardboard industry should be recategorized into two subcate-
gories-—wet-wet hardboard and wet-dry hardboard. This recomendation
was based on significant differences in the raw waste load character-
istics of plants which produce hardboard by the two different processes.
SUBCATEGOR IZAT ION REVIEW
In order to determine the validity of the suggested resubcategorization
and to determine whether changes within the industry since the Surnary
Evaluation Report was completed in 1976 occurred, the industry was
reviewed and surveyed with a focus on wastewater characteristics and
treatability as related to:
Raw Materi al s
Manufacturing Processes
Products Produced
Plant Size and Age
Geographical Location
Raw Materials
The primary raw material used in the manufacture of hardboard is wood,
and this material is responsible for the major portion of the BOO and
suspended solids in the raw waste. Other additives, such as vegetable
oils, tall oil, ferric sulfate, thermoplastic and/or thermo—setting
resins, and aluminun sulfate, comprise less than 15 percent of the board
weight and add very little to the raw waste load. Information submitted
by several plants has indicated that wood species, season of wood
harvesting, and the presence of bark in wood furnish affect the raw
waste load of hardboard plants. Due to a lack of sufficiently detailed
plant data to quantify the effects of these variables upon raw waste
load, there was no sound basis for subcategorization strictly on the
basis of raw material used to produce the board.
Manufacturing Processes
A plant may have various auxiliary components in its operation; however,
the basic processes in the production of either S1S or S2S hardboard are
similar except for the pressing operation. S1S board is pressed wet
imediately after forming. S2S board is dried prior to being pressed.
S1S hardboard is produced with coarse fiber bundles cooked at a rela-
tively short time and low pressure-—40 seconds to 5 minutes at pressures
of 80 to 180 psi. S2S hardboard, which requires finer fibers, is
produced with cooking times of 1.5 to 14 minutes at pressures of 150 to
200 psi. The longer time and higher pressure cooks release more soluble
organics from the raw material (wood), thus affecting the effluent raw
waste loading.
The S2S board al so requi res more effecti ye fiber washi ng to reduce the
soluble solids that affect the product in the pressing and finishing
4-11
-------
operation. These operations result in more raw waste discharge to the
effluent; less soluble solids are retained in the finished board. After
analyzing the available information and observing the obvious differ-
ences between the processes for wet—wet (S1S) and wet—dry (S2S) hard—
board, it appeared justifiable to categorize these two products into two
subcategories: wet-wet (S1S) and wet—dry (S2S).
Products Produced
A hardboard plant may produce S1S or S2S board, or both, but the end
products at each plant cover a wide range of applications, surface
designs, and thickness. The following are some of the end uses of
hardboard:
Interior Wall Paneling
Exterior Siding
Store Display Furniture
Base for Tile Panels
Concrete Forms
Non—Conductor Material for Electrical Equipment
Door Skins (Panels)
TV Cabinets and Furniture
In conjunction with hardboard, some plants produce other products such
as insulation board, battery separators, and mineral insulation.
Insulation board is produced either on its own forming line or on the
same line used for S2S hardboard. The various effluents for each line
are comingled upon discharge for treatment with little or no monitoring
of flow and/or wastewater characteristics of the separate wastewater
streams.
Three plants produce a marketable animal feed byproduct by the evapora-
tion of the highly concentrated wastewater. Several other mills are
investigating this process, which not only yields a salable product but
also reduces the raw waste load that would require treatment.
Size and Age of Plants
There are considerable differences in age and size of hardboard plants.
Older plants have been upgraded, modernized, and expanded to the point
that age in terms of manufacturing process is meaningless. Because of
this, the differences in wastewater characteristics related to age of
the plant are not discernible nor is the prorated raw waste flow due to
the plant size. Raw wasteload data presented in Section V support this
conclusion.
Geographical Location
Hardboard plants are widely scattered throughout the United States, and
the geographic location of each plant dictates the species of wood that
4 - 12
-------
is used in the plant’s process. Although each species generates varying
raw waste loads, each plant, with its own process methods, produces a
salable product from many types of soft and hard ods.
Plants in cold climates may use frozen chips, necessitating the use of
pre—steaming to thaw the chips. This can result in a small increase in
raw waste loading. Plants in cold climates are also subject to more
pronounced seasonal variations in treatment efficiency of biological
treatment systems; however, the effects of cold climate on biological
treatment systems can be mitigated by proper design considerations.
The geographic location of the plants did not reveal sufficient
differences in the annual raw waste loading to justify further
subcategori zation.
Suggested Subcategories
Analysis of the above factors, supported by data presented in Section V
of this document, Raw Wastewater Characteristics, affirms the validity
of separate subcategorization for wet—wet (S1S) hardboard and wet—dry
(S2S) hardboard.
4 - 13
-------
SECTION V
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
GENERAL
The purpose of this section is to define the wastewater quantity and
quality for plants in those subcategories identified in Section IV. Raw
waste load (RWL) data are also presented for plants which produce in
more than one subcategory, and which have sampling procedures or process
flows that produce data extending across more than one subcategory. Raw
waste load data are presented for both traditional parameters and for
priority pollutants for each subcategory.
The term “raw waste load,” as utilized in this document, is defined as
the quantity of a pollutant in wastewater prior to a treatment process.
Where treatment processes are designed primarily to recover raw mate-
rials from the wastewater stream, raw waste loads are obtained following
these processes. Examples are gravity oil-water separators in wood
preserving, or fine screens used for fiber recovery in insulation board
and hardboard plants. The raw waste load is normally expressed in terms
of mass (weight) units per day or per production unit.
For the purpose of cost analysis only, representative raw waste charac-
teristics have been defined for each subcategory in order to establish
design parameters for model plants.
The data presented in this document are based on the most current,
representative information available from each plant contacted. Verif i-
cation sampling data are used to supplement historical data obtained
from the plants for the traditional pollutants, and in most cases are
the sole source of quantitative information for priority pollutant raw
waste loads.
WOOD PRESERVING
General Characteristics
Wastewater characteristics vary with the particular preservative used,
the volume of stock that is conditioned prior to treatment, the
conditioning method used, and the extent to which effluents from the
retorts are diluted with water from other sources.
Wastewaters from creosote and pentachiorophenol treatments often have
high phenolic, COD, and oil concentrations and a turbid appearance that
results from emulsified oils. They are always acid in reaction, the pH
values usually falling within the range of 4.1 to 6.0. The high COD
contents of such wastes are caused by entrained oils from wood extrac-
tives, principally simple sugars, that are removed from wood during
5-1
-------
steam conditioning. These wastewaters may also contain traces of
copper, chromium, arsenic, zinc, and boron at plants that use the same
retort for both water—borne salts and oil—type preservatives, or that
apply dual treatments to the same stock; i.e., treat with two preserva-
tives, one of which is a salt formulation. Organic priority pollutants
in wastewaters from plants which treat with organic preservatives only
are principally volatile organic solvents such as benzene and toluene,
and polynuclear aromatic components of creosote which are contained in
the entrained oils. Specific phenolic compounds identified in these
wastewaters mci ude phenol, chioro—phenol s, and the nitro—phenol s.
Preservatives and basic treating practices and, therefore, the
qualitative natures of wastewaters vary little from plant to plant.
Quantitatively, however, wastewaters differ widely among plants and vary
with time at the same plant.
Among the several factors influencing both the concentration of
pollutants and volume of effluent, the moisture content of the wood
prior to conditioning, whether by steaming or Boultonizing, is the most
important. Wood water from conditioning accounts for most of the
loading of pollutants in a plant’s effluent and strongly influences
wastewater. The moisture content of the wood prior to conditioning
determines the duration of the conditioning cycle.
Rainwater that falls on or in the imediate vicinity of the retorts and
work tank area——an area of from about one—quarter to one—half of an acre
f or the average plant--becomes contaminated and can present a treatment
and disposal problem at any plant, but especially at plants in areas of
high rainfall. For example, a plant located in an area that receives
152 cm (60 in) of rain annually must be equipped to process an addi-
tional 1.5 to 3.0 million liters (400,000 to 800,000 gallons) per year
of contaminated water.
Another factor which influences the concentration of pollutants, parti-
cularly organic pollutants, is the type of solution or solvent used as a
carrier for the preservative (coal tar, oil, etc.).
Wastewaters resulting from treatments with inorganic salt formulations
are low in organic content, but contain varying concentrations of heavy
metals used in the preservatives and fire retardants employed. The
nature and concentration in wastewater of a specific ion from such
treatments depend on the particular formulation employed and the extent
to which the waste is diluted by washwater and stormwater.
Wastewater Quantity
The quantity of wastewater generated by a wood preserving plant is a
function of the method of conditioning used, the moisture content of
wood to be treated, the amount of rainwater draining toward the treating
cylinder, and the quantity of other wastewater streams (such as boiler
blowdown, cooling water, sanitary wastewater, water softening exchange
regenerant, etc.). Ignoring the amount of dilution from other
5-2
-------
wastewater streams, the sources and approximate ranges of wastewater
generated per unit of production for Boulton and steaming plants
(including vapor drying plants) are discussed below. It should be noted
that most wood preserving plants treat stock having a wide range of
moisture contents, and often air— or kiln-dry stock. Although most
plants will predominantly use one of the major conditioning methods,
many plants will use a combination of several conditioning methods. For
this reason, the actual quantity of wastewater generated by a specific
plant may vary considerably.
Steam Conditioning and Vapor Drying
Primary sources of wastewater from steam conditioning include steam
condensate in cylinders, wood water, and fãinfall. In open steaming,
steam is injected directly into the retort and allowed to condense on
the wood and cylinder walls. The amount of water produced is dependent
upon the length of conditioning time and the amount of insulation, if
any, around the cylinder. Steam condensate in the cylinder may range
between 240 to 1,200 kg/cu m (15 lb/cu ft to 75 lb/cu ft). In modified
closed steaming, steam is added to the cylinder until the steam coils
are just covered with condensate. Then the steam is no longer injected
into the cylinder but passed through coils to boil the condensate.
Water added is about 112 kg/cu m (7 lb/cu ft), depending upon the
diameter of the retort and the height of the steaming coils.
In closed steaming, water is drawn from a storage tank and put into the
cylinder until the steam coils are covered. The steam is turned on, the
steam condensate returned to the boiler, and the water in the cylinder
is boiled to condition the wood. After steaming, the water in the
cylinder is returned to the storage tank. There is a slight increase in
volume of water in the storage tank upon each conditioning cycle due to
wood water exuding when green wood is conditioned. There is a small
blowdown from the storage tank to prevent the wood sugar concentration
in the water from becoming too high.
In the vapor drying process, the primary sources of wastewater are wood
water and rainfall. As in any wood preserving process, small amounts of
condensate may result from a short exposure to live steam applied
following preservative application to clean the surface of the stock.
The vapor—drying process consists essentially of exposing wood to a
closed vessel to vapors from any one of many organic chemicals that are
immiscible with water and that have a narrow boiling range. Chemicals
with initial boiling points of from 100°C to 204°C (212°F to 400°F) may
be used. Vapors for drying are generated by boiling the chemical in an
evaporator. The vapors are conducted to the retort containing the wood,
where they condense on the wood, giving up their latent heat of
vaporization and causing the water in the wood to vaporize. The water
vapor thus produced, along with excess organic vapor, is conducted from
the vessel to a condenser and then to a gravity-type separator. The
water layer is discharged from the separator, and the organic chemical
is returned to the evaporator for reuse.
5-3
-------
After the treating cylinder has been drained, a vacuum is pulled from
one to three hours to remove water from the wood. The quantity of water
removed depends upon the initial moisture concentration of the wood, the
strength of the vacuum pulled, and the temperature in the cylinder.
Cornon vacuums are 55 cm (22 in) to 70 cm (28 in), and common tempera-
tures are from 140°C (220°F) to 118°C (245°F). The maximum temperature
allowable is 118°C (245°F), above which wood strength deterioration is
experienced. The vapors are condensed and collected in an accumulator.
The amount of water removed from the wood is generally between 64 and
128 kg/cu in (4 and 8 lb/cu ft).
Cylinder drippings and rain water are often added to the flow from the
cylinder and fed to the oil—water separator. In some plants they are
fed to a separate oil-water separator to prevent cross contamination of
preservatives. Rain water can vary between 0 kg/cu in (0 lb/cu ft) when
no rain is falling, to 181 kg/cu in (11.3 lb cu ft) during a 5—cm (2—in)
rainfall in 24 hours, depending on the area drained toward the treating
cylinder. The minimum area in which rain water is collected includes
the immediate cylinder area, the area where the wood removed from the
cylinder drips extra preservatives, and the preservative work tank
area.
Boulton Conditioning
Primary sources of wastewater from Boulton conditioning include wood
water and rainfall. Steam condensate inside the cylinders is not a
primary source of wastewater as it is in steam conditioning. Small
amounts of condensate, however, may result from a short exposure to live
steam applied following preservative application to clean the surface of
the stock.
Preconditioning is accomplished in the Boulton process by heating the
stock in a preservative bath under reduced pressure in the retort. The
preservative serves as a heat transfer medium. Water removed in vapor
form from the wood during the Boulton process passes through a condenser
to an oil—water separator where low—boiling fractions of the preserva-
tive are removed. The Boulton cycle may have a duration of 48 hours or
longer for large poles and piling, a fact that accounts for the lower
production per retort day as compared to plants that steam condition.
After the oil has been heated a vacuum is drawn on the cylinder for
10 to 48 hours for Douglas fir and 6 to 12 hours for oak, depending upon
the initial moisture content of the wood. The oil transfers heat to the
wood and vaporizes the wood water. Between 64 and 192 kg/cu in (4 and
12 lb/cu ft) of water is removed.
Cylinder drippings and rain water are often added to the flow in the
same manner as steam conditioning.
5-4
-------
Historical Data
Historical data on wastewater generation relating to production were
requested as part of the DCP, during plant visits, and in conjunction
with numerous telephone follow—up requests for information. These data
are presented in Tables V-i through V—4. Data appearing in these tables
represent historical information on the average wastewater flow and
production of treated wood (oily preservatives only) for a one—year
period during 1976.
Where the information available was sufficiently detailed, other waste-
water sources such as boiler blowdown, non-contact cooling water,
sanitary water, and rainfall runoff from treated material storage yards
were subtracted from the total wastewater flow reported by the plant in
order to obtain information on the generation of process wastewater
only. Rainfall falling directly on or draining into the cylinder or
work tank area was included in the wastewater flows reported in
Tables V—i through V-4.
It is apparent from these data that closed steaming plants and plants
which treat predominantly dry stock generate the least amount of waste-
water per unit of production, followed by Boulton plants and open
steaming plants, respectively.
Information for some plants presented in these tables may differ some-
what with information presented later in this report, which is based on
average production and wastewater generation during a three—day
composite sampling period.
Plant and Wastewater Characteristics
Characteristics of wood preserving plants which were visited and sampled
during the pretreatment study and during the present study are presented
in Table V-5 for steam conditioning plants and in Table V-6 for Boulton
plants. The preservatives used, conditioning processes, wastewater
volume, and production information presented in these tables correspond
to conditions at the plant during the time of the visit and sampling.
Data from three sampling and analytical programs are presented. Data
for plants sampled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study represent the
average of two or more grab samples collected at each plant. Variation
of data for plants sampled during the 1977 and 1978 verification
sampling programs represent the average of three 24—hour composite
samples collected at each plant. Unless otherwise noted, the raw
wastewater sampling point at each plant was immediately following
gravity oil-water separation.
Pollutant concentrations and raw waste loads for individual plants are
shown in Tables V—7 through V—19. Variations in pollutant concentra-
tions from plant to plant can be attributed to the degree of emulsifi-
cation of oils in the wastewater, the type of oily preservatives or
carrier solution used, i.e., creosote in coal tar, creosote in oil,
5-5
-------
pentachiorophenol in oil, etc., and the amount of non—process wastewater
added to the process wastewater stream, i.e., boiler blowdown, rainfall,
steam condensate, etc.
Metals data are presented separately in Tables V—16 and V—17 for plants
which treat with oily preservatives only, and in Tables V—18 and V-19
for plants which also treat with inorganic preservatives at the same
facility. Increased concentrations and wasteloads for heavy metals,
particularly copper, chromium, and arsenic, are apparent for plants
which treat with both types of preservatives. Although the inorganic
treating operations at these plants are for the most part self—contained
and produce little or no wastewater, the process wastewater from the
organic treating operations contains elevated amounts of heavy metals.
This “fugitive metal” phenomenon is due to cross contamination between
the inorganic and organic treating operations. Personnel , vehicles, and
soil which come in contact with heavy metals from the inorganic treating
operations can transport the metals into the organic treating area where
rainfall washes them into collection sumps. Some plants may also
alternate organic and inorganic changes in the same retort, causing
cross contamination.
Plants which treat with inorganic salts only are not allowed under
current regulations to discharge process wastewater either to a
navigable waterway or to a P01W. All but a few of these plants recycle
all their process wastewater as dilution water for future batches of
treating solution.
No plants treating with inorganic salts only were sampled during the
verification sampling program. One such plant, however, was sampled
once a week for one year in conjunction with the Pretreatment Study.
The concentration ranges of COD, phenols, heavy metals, fluoride, and
nutrients found in the recycled wastewater at this plant are presented
in Table V—20.
Design for Model Plant
Solely for the purpose of estimating capital, operating, and energy
costs for wood preserving candidate treatment systems described in
Section VII of this document, plants having the characteristics
presented in Table V-21 were used as models.
The flow characteristics of these model plants are based on average
historical unit flows for Boulton and closed steaming plants as
presented in Tables V-i and V—2. Pollutant concentrations are basedon
average data presented in Table V-7.
Model plant wastewater characteristics for plants which use solely
inorganic preservatives are not presented in this document due to the
fact that this subcategory is required to be at no—discharge by existing
regulations, and that well demonstrated technology is available for
complete recycling of effluents from these plants. The cost of
5-6
-------
recycling technology for these plants is independent of wastewater
strength.
Raw waste concentrations and loadings of heavy metals presented in
Tables V-17 and V-19 were used as a basis for estimating the cost of
metals removal technology described in Section VII.
5.7
-------
Table V-i. Wastewater Volume Data for 15 Boulton Plants
PRODUCTION VOLUME
Plant (ft 3 /day) (rn 3 /day) (gal/day) (1/day) (gal/ft 3 ) (1/rn 3 )
12* 17,950 508 7,000 26,500 0.39 52.1
35 2,040 57.7 1,000 3,790 0.49 65.5
70* 7,370 209 7,000 26,500 0.95 127
114 8,475 240 5,000 18,900 0.59 78.9
134* 1,765 49.9 2,010 7,600 1.14 152
98t 1,665 47.1 5,040 19,100 3.03 405
123t 2,175 61.6 1,500 5,680 0.69 92.3
i43t 4,400 125 2,510 9,500 0.57 76.2
176 8,430 239 15,000 56,800 1.78 238
199* 1,365 38.6 900 3,410 0.66 88.2
212* 7,140 202 5,500 20,800 0.77 103
234* 6,085 172 4,320 16,400 0.71 94.9
245* 5,310 150 17,300 65,500 3.26 436
271** 1,700 48.1 4,320 16,400 2.54 340
AVERAGE 5,420 153 5,600 21,210 1.03 139
* Achieving no—discharge.
t Data from 1975 Pretreatment Study.
** Includes boiler blowdown, uncontaminated steam condensate.
5-8
-------
Table V—2. Wastewater Volume Data for Eight Closed Steaming Plants
PRODUCTION
VOLUME
(gal/day)
(1/day)
(gal/ft 3 )
(1/rn 3 )
Plant
(ft 3 /day)
(rn 3 /day)
283*
4,920
139
3,000
11,400
0.61
81.6
132*
3,300
93.4
800
3,030
0.24
32.4
305*
6,100
173
3,300
12,500
0.54
72.3
198
2,620
74.1
2,500
9,460
0.95
128
318*
1,785
50.5
300
1,140
0.17
22.6
320
830
23.5
500
1,890
0.60
80.4
332*
360
10.2
350
1,320
0.97
130
344f
4,600
130
230
870
0.05
6.68
AVERAGE
3,065
86.7
1,370
5,200
0.45
60.0
* Achieving no—discharge.
t Data from 1975 Pretreatment Study.
5-9
-------
Table V—3. Wastewater Volume Data for 10 Plants Which Treat Significant
Amounts of Dry Stock
PRODUCTION
VOLUME
(gal/day)
(1/day)
(gal/ft 3 )
(1/rn 3 )
Plant
(ft 3 /day)
(m 3 /day)
355
1,200
34.0
2,500
9,460
2.08
278
156*
19,000
538
12,500
47,300
0.66
87.9
367
1,370
38.8
7,200t
27,300
5.26
703
379
360
10.2
400
1,510
1.11
148
381*
800
22.6
750
2,840
0.94
126
393*
4,660
132
4,000
15,100
1.03
138
405*
2,040
57.7
876
3,320
0.43
57.5
416*
985
27.9
1,500
5,680
1.52
203
428*
3,330
94.2
400
1,510
0.15
20.1
194
5,000
141
5,000
18,920
1.18
158
440*
--
--
4,500
17,000
--
--
AVERAGE
3,870
110
3,510
13,300
0.91
121
* Achieving no—discharge.
t Includes 5,400 gal/day boiler blowdown and non—contact water; process
wastewater per cubic foot production = 1.31.
NOTE: Plant 440 not included in average since no production data are
available.
5-10
-------
Table V-4. Wastewater Volume Data for 14 Open Steaming Plants
PRODUCTION VOLUME
Plant (ft 3 /day) (m 3 /day) (gal/day) (1/day) (gal/ft 3 ) (1/rn 3 )
847 800 22.6 1,780 6,740 2.22 298
453* 4,160 118 7,200t 27,300 1.73 231
465* 10,300 291 33,000 12,500 3.20 428
477* 8,170 231 16,500 62,500 2.02 270
489 4,225 120 3,000 11,400 0.71 94.9
490 6,580 186 5,000 18,900 0.76 102
497 1,110 31.4 10,000 37,800 9.01 120C
112 5,000 142 2,750 10,400 0.55 73.5
168* 10,000 238 14,000 53,000 1.40 187
100 1,445 40.9 2,500 9,460 1.73 231
192 3,865 109 5,750 21,800 2.07 277
511 1,040 29.4 3,000 11,400 2.88 385
186 6,150 174 10,000 37,800 3.25 435
AVERAGE 4,940 137 9,250 32,300 1.87 236
* Achieving no—discharge.
t Includes stormwater from treating area.
5-11
-------
Table V-5. Characteristics of Wood—Preserving Steaming Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study, 1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study
Plant
Number
Conditioning Treatment or
Process Preservatives’ Pretreatment 2
Raw Flow
(1/day)
Production
(m 3 /day)
164—a Steaming C,P,CCA pH Adjustment, Flocculation, 11,400 110
Chlorination, Sand Filtration
132—a Steaming C,P,CCA pH Adjustment 7,570 142
194—a Steaming C,P Flocculation 22,700 187
194—b Steaming C,P Flocculation 28,800 164
194—c Steaming C,P Flocculation, Sand Filtration 34,500 280
198—a Steaming C,CCA Flocculation, pH Adjustment, 6,430 96
Chlorination
130-a Steaming P,CCA pH Adjustment <950 55
186—a Steaming C,P Oxidation Pond 94,600 226
168—b Steaming C Aerated Lagoon, Oxidation Pond, 31,000 248*
Spray Evaporation
168-c Steaming C,P Aerated Lagoon, Oxidation Pond, 122,500 439
Spray Evaporation
142—a Steaming C,P,CCA,FR Flocculation 52,040 212
156—b Steaming C,P Activated Sludge, Oxidation Ponds, 35,400 320
Spray Irrigation
156—c Steaming C Activated Sludge, Oxidation Ponds, 13,200 224
Spray Irrigation
-------
Table V-5.
Characteristics of Wood-Preserving Steaming Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected during 1975 Pretreatnient Study, 1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study (Continued, page 2 of 2)
Plant
Number
Conditioning
Process
Preservatives 1
Treatment or
Pretreatment 2
Raw Flow
(1/day)
Production
(m 3 /day)
162—a
Steaming
C,P
Flocculation, Oxidation Pond,
Lagoon, Sand Filtration for
PCP Effluent
34,100
348
100—a
Steaming
C,P
Oxidation Pond, p11 Adjustment
20,800
85
180—a
Steaming
C
Flocculation
18,900
76
465—c
Steaming,
Vapor Drying
C,CCA
Aeration Ponds, Spray Irrigation,
Sand Filtration
160,5OO
515
112—a
Steaming
C,P
Oxidation Pond, Spray Evaporation
7,570
85
192—a
Steaming
C,P
Flocculation
45,360
156
150—b
Steaming
C,P
Secondary Oil Separation,
Oxidation Pond, Spray Irrigation,
Aerated Racetrack
236,600
461
170—a
Vapor Drying
C
Flocculation, Sand Filtration,
pH Adjustment, Aerated Lagoon,
Oxidation Pond
94,600
198
Creosote (C), pentachiorophenol (P), salt—type preservatives (CCA, ACA, CZC), fire retardants (FR).
All plants process wastewater through gravity—type separators.
Information obtained from historical data supplied by plant.
Figure includes rainfall runoff from large area.
Data collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study.
Data collected during 1977 Verification Sampling
Data collected during 1978 Verification Sampling
a’
- ,
(9
1
2
*
f
a
b
C
Study.
Study.
-------
Table V—6.
Characteristics of Wood Preserving Boulton Plants from which Wastewater Samples were
Collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study, 1977 Verification Sampling Study, and 1978
Verification Sampling Study
Plant
Number
Conditioning
Process
Preservatives’
Treatment or
Pretreatment 2
Raw Flow
(1/day)
Production
(m 3 /day)
154—a
Boulton
C,P,CZC,FR
Flocculation
18,900
142
154—c
Boulton
P,CZC,FR
Inline Flocculation, Secondary
Oil Separation, Gravel Filtration
8,330
78
134-b
Boulton
P
Evaporation Tower
28,400
62
114-a
Boulton
C,P,ACA,FR
Secondary Oil Separation,
Oil Adsorbing Media
26,500
283
114—b
Boulton
CP,ACA,FR
Secondary Oil Separation,
Oil Adsorbing Media
57,900
308
1 Creosote (C), pentachiorophenol (P), salt—type preservatives (CCA, ACA, CZC), fire retardants (FR).
2 All plants process wastewater through gravity—type separators.
a Data collected during 1975 Pretreatment Study.
b Data collected during 1977 Verification Sampling Study.
c Data collected during 1978 Verification Sampling Study.
(7 1
-I
-------
Table V—i. Wood Preserving Traditional Paraiiieter Data
STEAMING
Plant.
Nuiiiber
Data
Source
Flow
(gal/day)
Prod.
(ft 3 /day)
Raw
Concentrations
(mg/i)
Raw Wasteloads
(lb/1,000 f l . 3 )
phenols PCP
OIG COD
phenols
PCP OIG
COD
164tt
PS ‘75
3000
3880
10.8
306.0 1755
10460
0.0697 1.91
11.3 61.4
132
PS ‘75
2000
5000
302.4
49.0 979.2
3593
1.01 0.163
3.27 12.0
194tt
PS ‘15
6000
6600
69.2
34.5 718.5
6377
0.525 0.262
5.45 48.3
194 1t
[ SE ‘71
7600
5800
40.0
6.29 1902
8979
0.437 0.0687
20.8 98.1
194*
[ SE ‘78
9120
9890
14.9
16.0 143
14600
1941
[ SE ‘78
9120
9890
8.17
25.0 68.0
14300
198 1t
PS ‘75
1100
3400
334.4
- — 32.2
2457
1.39 <0.0001
0.134 10.2
186**
PS ‘75
25000
8000
62.1
35.4 518.0
7079
‘
1.62 0.923
13.5 184.5
168***
[ SE ‘ii
8200
8760
45.0
158.0 927.0
3706
0.351 1.23
7.24 28.9
168***
ESE ‘78
32260
15500
0.640
9.49 351.3
2806
0.011 0.165
6.10 48.7
142tt
PS ‘15
13150
7500
101.3
26.1 1185
15273
1.55 0.408
27.3 233.5
156***
ESE ‘71
9350
11300
231.5
22.3 474.0
3010
1.64 0.154
3.27 20.8
156***
ESE ‘18
3500
1920
22.0
1.20 11
3200
0.0811 0.0044
0.0627 11.8
162**
PS ‘15
9000
12300
335.3
47.9 1365
8880
2.05 0.292
8.33 54.2
100
PS ‘15
5500
3000
32.3
18.0 536.3
3079
0.494 0.275
8.20 47.1
180ff
PS ‘15
5000
2100
501.3
—— 732.8
15694
7.74 <0.0001
11.3 242
465***
[ SE ‘78
42400
18200
49.0
2.70 460
1900
0.952 0.0525
8.94 36.9
112**
PS ‘15
2000
3000
292.4
50.3 173.0
7116
1.63 0.280
4.30 39.6
150
[ SE ‘77
62500
16300
34.3
57.1 950.2
8844
1.10 1.83
30.4 283
iio***
PS ‘75
25000
1000
383.3
— — 11.0
1356
11.4 <0.0001
0.328 40.4
Average Wasteloads 1.89 0.539 9.46 83.1
NA: Not Analyzed.
- - Hyphen denotes that Iarameter was analyzed for but was below detection 1 imIt.
* Data from creosote separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the individual separators
were unobtainable). Not included in averages.
1 Data from PCP separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the Individual separators were
unobtainable). Not Included in averages.
** Plants used to calculate raw averages in Table VI1—32.
It Plants used to calculate raw averages In Table VI1—33.
Plants used to calculate raw averages in Table V11—34.
01
-------
Table V-B. Wood Preserving Traditional Parameter Data
BOULTON
Plant
Number
Data
Source
Flow
(gal/day)
Prod.
(ft 3 /day)
Raw
Concentrations
(mg/i)
Raw
Wasteloads (ib/1000 IL 3 )
phenols
PCP 0+G
COD
TSS
phenols
PCP OFG COl)
TSS
j54*
PS ‘15
5000
5000
184.0
5.70 34.7
1711
NA
1.53
0.0415 0.289 14.3
3.44
hA
0.537
154*
[ SE ‘78
2200
2770
0.910
21.0 164
520
81
0.0060
0.179
<0.0001 38.6 208.0
NA
134
ESE ‘77
1500
2200
--
-- 1357
7316
NA
<0.0001
0.0718 21.6
NA
114*
PS ‘15
1000
10000
508.6
0.01 12.3
3704
NA
2.97
0.0001
0.461 67.9
NA
114*
[ SE ‘77
15300
10900
1272
-— 39.4
5797
NA
14.9
? Wasteload Averages <3.88 <0.0454 8.10 63.0 0.537
NA: Not Analyzed.
* Plants use(1 to calculate raw averages In Table VlI—33.
-- Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
dl)le V-9. Wood Preserving VOA Data
STE AIlING
Plant Data Flow
Niiiiibei Souice (gal/day)
Prod.
(It’/day)
Raw
Concentrations (mg/i)
Raw Wasteloads (11)/1000 ft 3 )
tolue ie
med
trcline
heozene etbenzene
toltiene
med trcliiie benzene etbenzene
j94* [ SI ‘78 9120
9890
0.006
--
0.003 0.037
0.027
1941 [ SE ‘18 9120
9890
--
--
0.013 0.170
0.110
16811 [ SE ‘78 32360
15500
0.102
--
1.05 0.867
2.84
0.0122 <0.0001 0.0183 0.0151
0.0495
156 1t [ SE ‘78 3500
1920
0.280
0.020
2.80 2.10
3.20
0.0010 0.0001 0.0103 0.0071
(1.0118
4651 1 [ SE ‘78 42400
18200
0.071
--
>1.62 0.380
0.500
0.0015 <0.0001 >0.0315 0.0014
(1.009!
Wasteload Averages
0.0049 <0.0001 >0.0200 0.0101
(1.0231
BOLJI.TON
154&* (SE ‘78 2200
2710
2.60
0.009
—— --
——
0.0172 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
(0.0(1(11
* Data from creosote separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the individual separators
were unobtainable). Not included In averages.
t Data frouui PCP separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow measurements for the Individual separators were
unobtainable). Not included in averages.
Plant uses iiiethylene chloride as a carrier solvent In a proprietary treatment process. Nut included Iii averages.
It Plants ii ed to calculate raw averages in lable VII—35.
—— hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-&
-------
Table V-lU.
Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Volatile Organic
Fractions During 1978 Verification Sampling
vinyl chloride
chioroethane
chloromethane
bromomethane
t ri bromomethane
bromodi chioromethane
di bron;ochloromethane
carbon tetrachioride
di chlorodi fi uoromethane
t ri chiorofluoromethane
1 ,2—dichloroethane
1 ,1—dichloroethane
1,1 ,1—trichloroethane
1,1 ,2—trichloroethane
tetrachloroethane
1 ,1—dichloroethylene
trans 1,2—dichioroethylene
tetrachioroethylene
tn chi oroethyl ene
1 ,2-dichloropropane
1 ,3—dichloropropyl ene
Bi s—chl oromethyl ether
Bis—chi oroethylether
2—chioroethyl vinyl ether
acrolei n
acrylonitri le
Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is 10 ugh.
5-18
-------
I oh I . V- I 1. lhssaid Is i ei vi n j hla e 1k.at au lilt 4
Ilaisi 11.114 1 Ii*i I’(Oll.
thusilser Susaico (ijal/sioy) (It ‘/ d ay )
ShAH ltI
Itaw Waste Conceal rat Ions (usj/I)
I 1 4 5 I i 1 II 9 I I I
0.202
II I i Ii I I I ” lb
11414 liaci ci i osolo separator (wasleloads cawsot 11e calcuhted since flow measuremeusli (or tisu Individual separa1or
Wila slili iIltdhusdIiIiJ. Diet included ii i averages.
r1 1a huge P C I’ sopasator (walitela)44 1 5 caulnot lie cilcsi laled since flow measuremeusts (or the lisuhividual separators wesa
sissashit ui siable. hut hss luile ,i in avara us.
iIie u islauls wepe lreatIis solely wills PCP and not creosote (orwla liuns dsirin9 lisa sau4slIus9 period.
—— hlyishsru diiuiol iis that pu urneter was aisalyied for haul was below detection mdi.
‘ y
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
,.
I I.
I lsiisi aistisi sue
ileis,as (8) I lssuiaustise,so
Ocssio ( Ii) I lain, 4.51 Isesue
Pys else
lliisi ,, (A) i 1 ys ousaa
Inshore (I 2• 1111) i’ys eisa
iiiss€us 19 i 5 i ) P c, y lone
lIii ,s .siii I I I 1Ae dull/ui Assils. .s cisc
9. Benuo (al Aistisraceiw
10. I)iheuszo (a, is) Anthiraceno
I I. Diapislhsalene
12. Acenaislst h ,e,se
13. Acena .Istlsylesw
It. Iluai,eiso
IS. Chryseise
16. IIls—2-ethyl .-Iuexyl alsIIsel ate
o.tmi
1.36
2.10
0.4211
I ). Ills
6.50
0. 4106
0.006
0.4106
lit
151. 11
164114
515111
1.21
——
——
11.816
——
——
——
6.12
(1.111
——
0.318
I.II
1.111
2.31
14.105
94’
151 ‘ III
9 1g 1 1
‘iiiwi
15.0
41.1181
——
22.11
0.043
0. 135
—-
14.0
1.14)
——
45.0
56.0
1.21)
411.0
4.111
94”
(51 ‘Ill
91214
91194
4.01
——
——
3.40
——
——
——
111.0
2.4 11
——
11.0
10.0
——
8.40
—-
1(11
1St ‘I I
8115)
8164 )
0.633
0.021
0.021
0.36 (1
-—
——
2.52
0.1161
—-
2.2(1
1.116
1.21
0.82
11.1113
(1.431
nil
lb S
tsi ‘Ill
151 ‘1?
323644
93511
15501 1
III )’)
6.43
0.814)
1.68
——
1.68
0.011
4.115
0.644
0.491)
0.315
11.6
l.
1.11
0.151
—-
——
31.0
0.924 )
4.36
1.46
0.526
0.933
3.69
1.111
1.43
0.246
--
11.081
1W’
151 ‘I I I
351111
1921)
11.0
—-
3.911
13.0
39.0
1.441
0.4141
34.1
15.0
1.10
11.0
--
—-
4415
151 1111
4241141
18.1114
1.611
0.360
0.350
1.141
6.541
--
--
)1.41
1.10
0.4106
1.50
0.911
--
15(1
1St ‘II
625(11)
IIu i0
0.636
--
--
0.5112
--
--
--
2.96
0.004
--
0.464
1.11
0.125
1.11
0.111)0
11.2111
——
——
-—
--
—
—.
11.431
—-
—-
0.194
——
——
——
1.51
0.034
—-
3.14
2.83
2.06
( 1.824
11.0111
1.46
154” 151
‘10
221141
2114)
1*4”
(SI
‘11
6551)
221111
114
151
‘ii
151111
hI IthMl
-- -- -- -- -- - - -- 0.910
-------
lalile 11-12. Wood l’,c .ervin base IIeuLr.Iis 1)ata
Yi!! !!L’ i Data s!!!L5 !
I. I I iiuraiu(Iunie
2. lk ’.izo ( I I) I I tuirautlicue
3. Ileuizo (I) II usoraiitiieisu
4. I’ytene
5. Ilriizo (A) Py. cue
Ii. lutlero (I 2, 3-Li)) Pyre..e
7. Ik•uizo (9111) Pci ylcue
8. Phenauit lii cue audio, Aid Iii 4LCI IC
9. Beuzo (a) Authracene
10. I)Iheiizo (a • Ii) Authracene
I I. Naphthal ene
12. Aceuiaiuiuliuene
13. Acenaphtliylcne
14. Fluorene
15. Chryscue
16. iIis-2—eLhyl-Iueiiyl uIiti.aIate
l’lauiL l)ata I low
Iiuuiilivt Source (gal/day)
Pp oil.
(t1 3 /day) I
SILAHII IG
2 i I
Raw Waste Loads (15/1.111)0 I t )
6 7 9 10 I I 12 13 ii —iS-— 16
1 .3
Wosteload Ave,a ’jes
1941
151 ‘ii
1604)
511011
0.0139
(0.0801
(0.0801
0.00119
(0.000*
(0.0001
(0.0001
0.0134
0.0012 (0.0001 0.0041
0.0142
0.0110
0.0252
0. 111191
160
151 ‘11
41100
11160
0.0049
0.0002
0.0002
0.0020
0.000!
(0.000 !
(0.0001
0.0197
0.0005 (0.0(101 0.0112
0.0083
0.0094
0.0064
0.011116
I68 k
(St ‘18
32360
155011
0.112
0.0293
0.0293
0.0844
0.0235
0.0085
0.0055
0.200
0.0232 (0.000* 0.540
0.0159
0.0092
0.01111
0.0249
156’’
ISL 1!
9350
113110
0.111)60
(0.000!
0.0001
0.0044
(0.0001
(0.0001
(0.0001
0.0135
0.0811 (0.0001 0.0067
0.0101
0.0064
0.0010
0.111)11
I5b*
1 St ‘78
3500
7920
0.0621
(0.01101
0.0144
0.0479
0.0100
0.0203
0.000)
0.144
0.0213 0.11016 0.128
0.0553
0.0041
0.0405
(0.111101
46b’
151 ‘18
424(10
111201)
0.0311
0.0068
0.0068
0.0214
0.0082
0.00111
0.0001
0.126
(0.0001 (0.000! >0.0614
0.0330
0.0001
0.0291
0.0181
Wa ,Leloaui Avei ages
0.0358
(0.0052
(0.0013
0.11266
(0.0060
(0.0042
(0.0009
(0.0959
(0.0001
(0.0(103
>0.111
0.0332
0.0091
0.0292
11.091( 1
(9.0(1 !!
SOUL TOIl
Ui4 ’t
151
‘18
22110
2710
(0.0111)!
(0.0001
(0.0001
(0.0001
(0.0001
(0.0001
(0.0001
0.0061
(0.0001
(0.0001
(0.000)
(0.000!
(0.01101
(11.0001
0.I11U 1 1
(0.09111
iii ’
151
‘ii
6550
220(1
(0.001)!
(0.0(10!
<0.000!
(0.000!
(0.0001
(0.000!
(0.000!
(0.000)
(0.0001
(0.0001
(0.0001
(l).000l
(0.090!
(0.001)1
(0.001)1
0.0108
1141
[ SI I1
153111)
10901)
0.0933
(0.000!
<0.0001
0.0023
(0.000!
(0.000*
(0.000!
0.0111
0.0004 0.0II01 0.0368
0.0331
0.0241
0.01)96
11.1111112
11.0111
IIue e plants weuc treating solely with PCP and not creosote formulations during the sampling period.
I I’lauu(s uiseil to calculate raw averages In lable 1111—36.
Plants ui d Lu aicuiate raw aveiages in Jable 1111—31.
0.0012 (0.000! (0.0001 (0.0008 (0.000) (0.000! (0.000! 0.0008 (0.0002 (0.000! (0.0)23 (0.0111
(0.0 110 I <0.0033 (0.0(1111 (0.111)93
-------
Table V—13.
Substances Not Found in Base Neutral Fractions During 1977 and
1978 Verification Sampling
2—chi oronaphthal ene
diethyl phthal ate
di-n—butyl phthal ate
butyl benzyi phthal ate
dimethyl phthal ate
4—chi orophenyl —phenyl ether
bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
bi s(2—chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
N-nitrosodimethyl amine
N—nitrosodi-n—propyl amine
N—nitrosodiphenyl amine
1 ,2—dichlorobenzene
1 ,3—dichlorobenzene
1 ,4—dichiorobenzene
1,2 ,4—tri chlorobenzene
hexac hi orobenzene
2,6—dinitrotol uene
2,4—dinitrotol uene
benzidine
3,3’—dichlorobenzidine
ni trobenzene
hexachiorobutadiene
hexachiorocyclopentadiene
hexachioroethane
isophorone
1,2—diphenyl hydrazine
2,3,7,8—tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Generalized machine detection limit for these compounds is 10 ugh.
5-21
-------
Table V—14. Wood Preserving Phenols Data
STEAHI NG
Plant
Nuiuiber
liata
Source
Flow
(gal/day)
Prod.
(ft 3 /day)
Raw Concentrations (mg/i)
Raw Wasteloads (lb/1 ,000 ft 3 )
phen
2— 24— 2,4,6—
ciphen dimeph triciph
2- 24— 2,4,6-
PCP PI%en ciphen dimeph triciph PCP
164**
PS ‘15
3000
3880
NA
NA NA NA
306.0 NA NA NA NA 1.91
132
P S • 75
2000
5000
NA
NA NA NA
49.0 NA NA NA NA 0.163
194
PS ‘75
6000
6600
NA
NA NA NA
34.5 NA NA NA NA 0.262
194**
[ SE ‘17
1600
5800
NA
l ilA NA lilA
6.3 NA NA NA NA 0.0688
194*
[ SE ‘18
9120
9890
9.20
—- —— --
16.0
1941
[ SE ‘78
9120
9890
1.40
-- —— ——
25.0
186
PS ‘15
25000
8000
NA
NA NA NA
24.3 NA NA NA NA 0.633
16811
[ SE • 17
8200
8160
NA
NA NA NA
158.0 NA NA NA NA 1.23
168t 1
[ SE ‘18
32360
15500
24.4
0.042 0.130 0.252
9.41 0.425 0.0007 0.0023 0.0044 0.164
142**
PS ‘75
13750
7500
NA
NA NA NA
26.7 NA NA NA NA 0.408
lS6tt
[ SE ‘11
9350
11300
NA
NA lilA NA
22.3 NA NA NA NA 0.154
156tt
[ SE ‘lB
3500
7920
87.0
-— 6.60 ——
1.20 0.321 (0.0001 0.0243 (0.0001 0.0044
162
PS ‘75
9000
12300
NA
NA NA NA
47.8 HA NA NA NA 0.292
100
PS ‘iS
5500
3000
NA
NA NA NA
17.9 NA NA NA NA 0.274
46511
[ SE ‘78
42400
18200
16.0
0.015 5.50 0.533
2.70 0.311 0.0003 0.107 0.0104 0.0525
112
PS 15
2000
3000
NA
NA NA NA
50.3 NA NA NA NA 0.169
150
[ SE ‘11
62500
16300
lilA
NA NA NA
57.1 NA NA NA NA 1.83
Wasteloal
Averages
0.352 (0.0004 0.0445 (0.0050 0.552
BOULTON
j54*k
l 5 ‘75
5000
5000
NA
NA lilA NA
5.70 NA NA NA NA 0.0415
154**
[ SE ‘78
2200
2770
0.071
-- -- —-
27.0 0.0066 <0.0001 (0.0001 <0.0001 0.1/9
114**
PS ‘75
7000
10000
NA
HA NA NA
0.09 NA NA NA NA 0.0005
Wasteload Averages 0.0066 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
-— llyplieii denotes that. parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
* I)ata froiii creosote separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow iuieasureiiients for the Individual
were unohtdindble). Not Included In averages.
S Data froiiu PCP separator (wasteloads cannot be calculated since flow nieasureiuients for the individual separators were
unobtainable). Not included in averages.
*1 P ‘ts used In calculating averages in Table VlI—38.
II .s used in calculating averages in Table Vl1—39.
01
“3
M
0.0/57
separators
-------
Table V—15. Phenols Analyzed for But Not Found During 1978 Verification
Sampl ing
2-ni trophenol
4—ni trophenol
2 ,4-dichlorophenol
2,4—dinitrophenol
para—chl oro—meta—cresol
4, 6-di ni tro—ortho—cresol
Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is 25 ug/l.
5 - 23
-------
lable V-lb. Wood I,e urvuiicj Metals Ilata——Plants Which beat With 0( ijanIc Preservatives Ibuly
I-low
PluiiL Swi,Ce (6P0)
Prod.
(tt 3 /day) ksenic Antimony
Raw Concentrations
Cadinitin
Chrosniuni
( /l) —_______
Lead Mercury Nickel Silenlinii Silver Tha1fl i i Fnc
hlerylllian
Copper
0.0 1 )31
0.003
134
151 .11 /500
221)0
0.001
0.003
--
1.60
0.009
0.1)05
0.210
0.001
0.002
1 1.843
194
151 !U 91211
9890
0.093
--
0.0 (2
0.010
0.850
0.064
0.052
-- 0.028
--
0.006
0.010
0.U0
194
(94
151 /8 9)20
151 1 1 1600
9890
5800
0.033
0.003
0.003
--
0.019
--
0.008
--
0.610
0.125
0.090
0.001
(1.011
0.007
-- 0.150
-- 0.005
--
0.001
0.005
--
--
0.0(11
0.820
0.389
0.119
(68
151 18 32260
15500
14.2
0.041
-—
0.001
0.041
0.023
0.091
0.0011 0.015
0.001
-—
-—
Ibli
(SI I/ 821111
6/60
0.1109
0.002
--
--
0.008
0.007
0.009
-- 0. 0 1)6
0.001
--
0.1)01
0.111
(56
(56
(51 • /8 351)0
151 1/ 9351)
/920
1l300
0.OOb
(1.003
0.01)7
0.001
--
——
0.003
——
0.031
0.150
0.00,
0.001
0.011
0.001
0.0011 0.016
—— 0. 1103
0.007
0.0(11
——
——
-—
0.001
0.180
(1.351)
ISO
151 7 1 625 (K)
16300
0. Xlb
--
0.001
0.180
0.023
0.014
-- 9.135
0.002
——
0.004
0.621
I ruin
I i eoSoLu Sepa, atcir.
I roiii
PCP p ir Liii
-- hlyihicil iIeii Le tIwt hidrailieter was aiialy ed tar but was below detection I unit.
-------
labie V-il. WiuitI P,e erving P4eIals Uata--PIaiiIs Which Treat Wil, Organic Preservatives Only
AverdIp I1.i teioa’h 41.0(53 0.00014
ilasiI si uii in caictilat lug raw avera’jds in Table 1111—411.
I i’lauiL uI5eii iii Ca lCSuI4t i.iq raw averaqes in Table 1111—41.
(41.011081 (0.00001 41.08104 0.04102 (1.11111134 <0.0(1001 11.00163 0.1101103 <0.0(1001
(0.11411)413 1 1.081 12
01
1mw
114 1(1 SlilIrce 1L PD)
Piod.
(ltJ/day) Arsenic Antimony
Baw wasieI41g( s
Beryllium Cai iiia Copper Chromium
()b/l I1I10
lead
&3 —
I Iercusry Nickel Selenium Silver ThaliTmum Zinc
114
ISE 1?
lhflO
22110
0.000?
0.00809
(41.08001
(0. 110001 fl•0465
0.0003
0.041111 11.011011 0.00691
0.110009
0.11011113
11.110806
11. 1124 11
194a
1 ( ‘I ?
16841
51100
0.1104183
(0.801101
(0.00001
(0.000411 0.00131
0.IltlIlAI
0.00008 (0.0110111 0.110805
11.110001
(0.004101
0.0(111111
(1.003311
16(11
(SI ‘18
. 122611
15,5011
0.246
0.1111082
(0.000111
0.00002 11.011011
0.011040
11.0016 11.11110112 0.0(1026
0.0041412
(0.001101
(0.01111111
11.110211?
1681
151 ‘II
1L IUI
11160
0.411111(11
0.001102
(0.111111111
(0.410001 0.0411106
0.110005
0.118110/ (0.0(111111 0.11110415
0.0041111
(0.001)0 1
11.11011111
0.0111.111
ISbi
151 ‘I I I
351111
1920
0.410113?
0.1100413
(0.00001
(0.4104)01 0.111101 1
0.01141113
0.04111114 (0.11111101 0.0111106
41.011 111 13
(0.00801
(11.11011111
0.1101166
1581
151. ‘Ii
9.154)
113110
11.114111(12
11.00001
(0.00001
(0.0111101 0.110104
41.08001
0.0410411 (0.0111)01 0.011110?
0.04141111
<11.0110111
11.114111411
0.1111242
It ll
151 ‘II
625 (1 11
16311(1
0.414102
(11.0011111
(0.08001
0. 110803 0.00516 41.1111014
0.41(1045 (0.1111001 11.11114.12
0.114111116
(0.0000 1
11.0(11113 11.112111
-------
lelle V-ill. Uwid
lri survlng Hetals DaLa--Plaists Which Treat WiLls Both lbganic and Inorganic Preservatives
HA Hut d l i i i Iiieil lw.
flow P oiI.
Plasit uwce (610) (rt’/day)
AiSEflic ML teeny
kaw Concentrations (mlj/t)
Deryllisin Cai ii Copper Chroehes Lead Mercury Nickel
Selenitin Silver
•ui•;ilIIiiu it
154
I L ‘111
22110
2110
0.014
0.013
0.002
0.005
0.110
3.90
0.014
0.0002
0.020
0.053
0.001
•-
26.0
M
0 5
154
112
I’ll)
I ’S
is
1 5
I5
‘lb
‘lb
50110
2000
1100
51100
5(100
3400
--
0.050
0.250
NA
(IA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.060
0.1110
2.30
13.9
0.440
0.1110
(IA
(IA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(IA
NA
NA
hA
11*
HA
(IA
HA
HA
NA
NA
HA
10.2
NA
(IA
Iii )
is
‘15
(100
1950
1.00
(IA
NA
NA
3.91
1.23
NA
NA
MA
NA
HA
HA
HA
142
I ’S
‘15
13151)
1500
0.040
NA
NA
NA
0.600
(IA
NA
NA
NA
(IA
HA
HA
HA
4115
L I.
IIl
424(H)
18,201)
0.131)
--
--
0.001
0.019
0.023
0.016
0.01113
0.101)
--
--
--
0.121)
114
151
‘11
1531111
10,901)
0.003
--
--
--
0.081)
0.004
0.0111
0.00(12
0.094
114
I ’ S
‘IS
11100
10,01)11
--
(IA
NA
(IA
0.430
—-
NA
(IA
NA
0.1102 0.01 12 11.0111
NA HA HA
—- Ilyiihefl iie,uutes that ilarameter was auualy ed (or but was Idow detection iSelt.
-------
(mule V- 19. Wuoil I’,eserviiig Metals Data—-Plants Which Treat With ibiS Organic and Inorganic Preservatives
Aye, .iupm lI.mstcliia.Is (0.00055 (0.000114
hA Nut amid I yieih (ii ,
144 11 used iii calcmilat Ion ol averamjrs l cauise the process iiivolves direct motals
I P1 alit S imseti iii Ca Icu I at lug i1W averages in I aSIa VII —13.
P1 d ii i s misil In calum lat inq raw avaraijes in Table VII —44.
Ii Plaid iiceml lii i.alculal log raw avejaqes in l4hIe VlI— 12.
cositaminat ion or wastewater.
(0.0001) (11.0410 111 (QOhhilIll 1 1. 1 )1 51
(low (‘coil. Raw
Plant Snurce ((sPO) (It /tiay) Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Caubhsm Copper
Wasteloamis
Chromium
( 1 1/I 0041 ——
t id ercury NI il S leniimm Silver Tli llIirnu 7i W
1541
151 ‘18
22011
2111)
11.001109
0.001109
0.00110)
0.041003 0.1111013
0.1)258
0.001109 (0.0111 )01 11.00013
0.00035
0.04111(11
1 1.00llU 1
0.172
ISIS
I ’S ‘15
51)1111
51)1)0
(0.00001
MA
HA
HA
0.0(11)50
0.116 1
NA NA
HA
NA
HA
MA
(1.652 1
i 4
‘
112
19111
P S ‘15
I’S ‘15
21100
11(1 1)
5011(1
34(H)
0. 11(111 11
0.1111104
NA
MA
(IA
HA
(IA
(IA
0.0(1234
0.00959
0.0(1141
(1.00125
HA HA
(IA HA
(IA
( IA
(IA
NA
HA
HA
HA
(IA
(IA
(IA
13(111
PS ‘iS
clOt)
1950
0.110043
( (A
HR
NA
0.00161
0.00115)
MA NA
HA
MA
MA
NA
NA
i4 . l
PS iS
13151)
1500
0.0111161
MA
(IA
HA
0.00911
NA
HA (IA
MA
NA
NA
(IA
(IA
44m5
(St ‘ill
424011
182110
0.01)251
(0.00001
(0.0000)
0.00002
0.00)6
0.00045
(1.00031 0.1100(13
0.00194
(0.011111)1
(0.11(101)1
((1.01111411
0.111)231
liii
(SI Il
151(10
I0’Jll(l
0.0(1004
(0.00001
(0.00001
(0.11(100*
0.011094
0.00005
0.001101 (0.0011(11
0.111)11
0.0041112
(1.11110(12
0.1111114)1
0(14 13/6
Ill.
iS ‘15
1 11 11 (1
101104)
(0.01500 )
NA
HA
HA
0.00251
(0.0000)
(IA (IA
MA
(IA
MA
(IA
0.1)11155
(0.041001 (0.000112 0.0032 (0.0045) (1.00014 (0.00(102 0.01111
-------
Table V—20. Range of Pollutant Concentrations in Wastewater from a
Plant Treating with CCA— and FCAP—Type Preservatives and a
Fire Retardant
Concentration Range
Parameter (mg/liter)
COD 10—50
As 13—50
Phenols 0.005-0.16
Cu .05—1.1
Cr 6 0.23-1.5
Cr 3 0—0.8
F 4-20
P0 4 15—150
NH 3 —N 80—200
pH 5.0—6.8
Source of Data: Pretreatment Document
5 - 28
-------
Table V-21. Raw Waste Characteristics of Wood Preserving Model Plants
Area of
Total
.
Process
Cylinders &
Annual
Process
Design
COD
Oil
Grease
Phenols
Plant
Production
(cu ft)
Unit Flow
(gal/cu ft)
Wastewater
Flow (gpd)
Work Tank
(sq ft)
Rainfall
(in)
Contaminated
Runoff (ypd)
Wastewater
Flow (g )d)
(mg/i)
(mg/i)
(my/I)
-Boul ton
-
Model Plant
3,200
1.03
3,300
6,000
45
460
4,000
4,000
300
1
Boul ton
•
-
Model Plant
8,000
1.03
8,240
20,000
45
1,540
10,000
4,000
300
:
2
Steaming
800
115
Model Plant
6,000
0.45
2,700
6,000
50
510
3,250
6,000
3
Steaming
800
115
Model Plant
15,000
0.45
6,750
20,000
50
1,110
8,500
6,000
4
C u
f\3
C D
-------
INSULATION BOARD
Insulation board plants responding to the data collection portfolio
reported fresh water usage rates ranging from 95 to 5,700 thousand
liters per day for process water (0.025 to 1.5 MGD). One insulation
board plant, 543, which also produces hardboard in approximately equal
amounts, uses over 15 million liters per day (4 MGD) of fresh water for
process water.
Water becomes contaminated during the production of insulation board
primarily through contact with the wood during fiber preparation and
forming operations, and the vast majority of pollutants are fine wood
fibers and soluble wood sugars and extractives.
The process whitewater used to process and transport the wood from the
fiber preparation stage through mat formation accounts for over
95 percent of a plant’s total wastewater discharge (excluding cooling
water). The water produced by the dewatering of stock at any stage of
the process is usually recycled to be used as stock dilution water.
However, due to the build—up of suspended solids and dissolved organic
material, which can cause undesirable effects in the board, there may be
a need to bleed—off a quantity of excess process whitewater. Various
additives used to improve the characteristics of the board also enter
the process whitewater and contribute to the waste load.
More specifically, potential sources of wastewater in an insulation
board plant include:
Chip wash water
Process whitewater generated during fiber preparation
(refining and washing)
Process whitewater generated during forming
Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
(dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.)
Chip Wash Water
Water used for chip washing is capable of being recycled to a large
extent. A minimal makeup of approximately 400 liters per metric ton
(95 gallons per ton) is required in a closed system because of water
leaving with the chips and with sludge removed from settling tanks.
Water used for makeup in the chip washer may be fresh water, cooling
water, vacuum seal water from in—plant equipment, or recycled process
water. Chip wash water, when not fully recycled, contributes to the raw
waste load of an insulation board plant. Insulation board plants 543,
491, 75, 763, 67, and 85 indicated in the response to the data collec-
tion portfolio that chip washing is done. Plants 763 and 85 fully
recycle chip wash water.
5-30
-------
Fiber Preparation
The fiber preparation or refiner whitewater system is considered to be
the water used in the refining of stock up to and including the
dewatering of stock by a decker or washer. As previously discussed,
there are three major types of fiber preparation in the Insulation Board
Industry: (1) stone groundwood; (2) mechanical disc refining (refiner
groundwood); and (3) thermo-mechanical disc refining. The water ‘volume
required by each of the three methods is essentially the same. In the
general case, the wood enters the refining machine at approximately
50 percent moisture content. During the refining operation, the fiber
bundles are diluted with either fresh water or recycled whitewater to a
consistency of approximately 1 percent solids prior to dewatering to
about 15 percent solids at the decker or washer. The water which
results from the stock washing or deckering operation is rich in organic
solids dissolved from the wood during refining and is referred to as
refiner whitewater. This water may be combined with whitewater produced
during forming, the machine whitewater (for further use in the system),
or it may be discharged from the plant as wastewater.
Forming
After the dewatered stock leaves the decker at approximately 15 percent
consistency, it must again be diluted to a consistency of approximately
1.5 percent to be suitable for machine forming. This requires a rela-
tively large quantity of recycled process whitewater or fresh water.
The redilution of stock is usually accomplished in a series of steps to
allow consistency controls and more efficient dispersion of additives,
and to reduce the required stock pump and storage capacities. The stock
usually receives an initial dilution to approximately 5 percent
consistency, then to 3 percent, and finally, just prior to mat forma-
tion, to approximately 1.5 percent.
During the mat formation stage of the insulation board process, the
diluted stock is dewatered at the forming machine to a consistency of
approximately 40 to 45 percent. The water drained from the stock during
formation is referred to as machine whitewater. Water from the machine
whitewater system may be recycled for use as stock dilution water or for
use in the refining operations. Excess machine whitewater may be
discharged as wastewater.
Miscellaneous Operations
While the majority of wastewater generated during insulation board
production occurs during fiber preparation and mat formation operations,
various other operations may contribute to the overall raw waste load.
Drying—-The boards leaving the forming machine with a consistency
of approximately 40 percent are dried to a consistency of greater than
97 percent in the dryers. Although this water is evaporated to the
atmosphere, it is occasionally necessary to clean the dryers to reduce
5-31
-------
fire danger and to maintain proper energy utilization. This produces a
minor wastewater stream in most operations.
Finishing——After the board leaves the dryer, it is usually sanded
and trimmed to size. The dust from the sanding and trim saws is often
controlled by dust collectors of a wet scrubber type, and the water
supplied to the scrubbers is sometimes excess process water; however,
fresh water is occasionally used. This water is usually returned to the
process with the dust.
Plants that produce coated products such as ceiling tile usually paint
the board after it is sanded and trimmed. Paint composition will vary
with both plant and product; however, most plants utilize a water—based
paint. The resulting washup contributes to the wastewater stream or is
metered to the process whitewater system. In addition, there are
sometimes imperfect batches of paint mixed which are discharged to the
wastewater stream or metered to the process whitewater system.
Broke System——Reject boards and trim are reclaimed as fiber and
recycled by placing the waste board and trim into a hydropulper and
producing a reusable fiber slurry. While there is need for a large
quantity of water in the hydropulping operation, it is normally recycled
process water. There is normally no water discharged from this
operation.
Other Sources-—Other potential sources of wastewater in an insula-
tion board plant include water used for screen washing, fire control,
and general housekeeping. The water used for washing screens in the
forming and decker areas usually enters the process whitewater system.
Housekeeping water varies widely from plant to plant depending on plant
operation and many other factors. While wastewater can result from
water used to extinguish dryer fires, it is an infrequent and intermit-
tent source of wastewater.
Wastewater Characteristics
The major portion of insulation board wastewater pollutants results from
leachable materials from the wood and materials added during the produc-
tion process. If a chip washer is used, a portion of the solubles is
leached into the chip wash water. A small fraction of the raw waste
load results from cleanup and finishing operations; however, these
operations appear to have little influence on the overall raw waste
load. The finishing wastewater in some plants is metered back into the
process water with no reported adverse effects.
According to Gran (1972), the process whitewater, accounting for over
95 percent of the waste load and flow from a typical insulation board
plant, is characterized by high quantities of BOD (900 to 7,500 mg/l)
and suspended solids (500 to 4,000 mg/i).
The four major factors affecting process wastewater quality are:
(1) the extent of steam pretreatment; (2) the types of products produced
5-32
-------
and additives employed; (3) raw material species; and (4) the extent of
whole tree chips, forest residue, and bark in the raw material.
The major source of dissolved organic material originates from the wood
raw material. From 1 to 8 percent (on a dry weight basis) of wood is
composed of water-soluble sugars stored as residual sap and, regardless
of the type of refining or pretreatment utilized, these sugars form a
major source of BOD and COD. Steam conditioning of the furnish during
thermo—mechanical refining greatly increases the amount of wood sugars
and hemicellulose decomposition products entering the process white—
water. The use of steam under pressure during thermo-mechanical
refining is the predominant factor in the increased raw waste loads of
plants which employ this refining method.
Back and Larsson (1972) observe that, basically, two phenomena occur
during steaming: the physically reversible thermal softening of the
lignin and hemicellulose, and time dependent chemical reactions in which
hemicellulose undergoes hydrolysis and produces oligosaccharides (short—
chained, water—soluble wood sugars, including disaccharides). In addi-
tion, hydrolysis of the acetyl groups forms acetic acid. The resulting
lowered pH causes an increase in the rate of hydrolysis. Thus, the
reactions can be said to be autocatalytic. For this reason, the reac-
tion rates are difficult to calculate. Rough estimations indicate that
the reaction rates double when an increase in temperature of 8°C to 10°C
has been made.
Figure V—i demonstrates the increased BOO loading which results from
increasingly severe cooking conditions.
Dallons (1976) has noted that the amount of BOD increase due to cooking
conditions varies with wood species. Hardwoods contain a greater
percentage of potentially soluble material than do softwoods. The
effect of species variations on raw waste load is less important than
the degree of steaming to which the furnish is subjected.
Two insulation board plants, 543 and 85, presented limited information
concerning the effects of whole tree chips, forest residue, and bark in
wood furnish on raw waste load. Plant 97, which has the highest raw
wasteloads of all the mechanical refining insulation board data
portfolio respondents, uses whole pine tree chips for the majority of
the wood furnish. While the use of whole tree chips, residue, and bark
results in some increase in raw waste loadings, information currently
available is not sufficient to quantify the effects for the industry as
a whole.
While the larger portion of the BOO in the process wastewater is a
result of organics leaching from the wood, a significant portion results
from additives. Additives vary in both type and quantity according to
the type of product being produced.
The three basic types of product produced by insulation board plants—-
sheathing, finished tile (ceiling tile, etc.), and hardboard (including
5 - 33
-------
TOTAL BOO, IN kg
0 2 /TON DRY CHIPS
£
I
£
,
I I I
I
I
I
I I I
I
0
4
6
8
10
12
PRE-HEAT1NG
PRESSURE
(atm.g.)
Figure v-i. Variation of BOO with pre-heatlng pressure
60
A
40
20
0
I - ,
5.34
-------
medium density siding)——receive various amounts of additives. Sheathing
contains up to 25 percent additives which include asphalt, alum, starch,
and size (either wax or rosin). Finished tile contains up to 10 percent
additives which are the same as those used in sheathing, with the excep-
tion of asphalt. Hardboard contains up to 11 percent additives
including organic resins, as well as emulsions and tempering agents such
as tall oil. Therefore, the process wastewater will contain not only
leachates from the wood and fugitive fiber, but also the portion of the
additives not retained in the product.
Maximum retention of additives in the product is advantageous from both
production cost and wastewater standpoints. Several retention aids are
marketed——the most comon of which are alum, ferric salts, and synthetic
polyel ectrolytes.
The primary effect of product type occurs with the production of hard-
board in an insulation board plant. Hardboard requires finer fiber
bundles than does insulation board, and thus more fiber preparation is
usually necessary. For these reasons, the hardboard producing plants
will have a greater raw wastewater load than plants produce solely
insulation board.
Raw Waste Loads
Tables V—22 and V—23 summarize the raw wastewater characteristics of
those insulation board plants which provided raw waste monitoring data
in response to the data collection portfolio. Data presented in
Tables V—22 through V—23 are daily averages over a 12-month period,
unless otherwise specified. The average daily raw wasteloads were
calculated in the following manner:
1. All data from each plant were coded for keypunching directly
from the data sheets provided by the plant according to waste
stream. Special emphasis was placed on accuracy, with the data
being checked after coding and then again after keypunching.
2. Concentration and flow data for each day were converted by the
computer program to a corresponding waste load in pounds per
day (lbs/day).
3. Each plant’s annual average daily production was calculated in
tons per day for each plant by dividing the total year’s
production by the number of actual operating days. This value
was then used with applicable conversion factors to determine
waste loadings on a pounds—per—ton basis.
4. The resulting waste loads were averaged over the one—year
period to determine the average annual daily raw waste loads.
Seven of the sixteen insulation board plants provided raw waste
historical data for the 12—month period from January through
5-35
-------
Table V-22. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant
Production
Flow
(kgal/ton)
kg/kkg
BOO
(1
bs/ton)
k /kkg
TSS
(1
bs/ton)
kI/kkg
Number
kkg/day
(TPD)
9171
20!
—-
(220)
-—
2.96
——
(0.72)
-—
4.33
5.70
(8.67)
(11.4)
0.71
3.34
(1.42
(6.61
993
106
(111)
21.6
(5.21)
5.95
(11.9)
4.67
(9.33)
91
606
600
668
(661)
8.18
8.84
1.96
(2.12)
20.8
20.9
41.6 **
(41.8)**
45.2
31.4
90.5)
(62.9)
55
246
(210)
1.02
(0.24)
1:21
(2:54)
0.46
(31
(4
0)
* First row of data represents
annual (tally data, except as
1916 average annual daily data. Second row represents 1911 average
noted.
First row of data represents data from primary floc clarifier clearwell. Second row represents
data obtained during 1977 verificatIon sampling for influent to primary floc clarifier clearwell.
** In 1916, 20.7 kg/kkg (41.4 lbs/ton) of BOD entered the process through recycle of trealed effluent.
In 1971, 20.8 kg/kkg (41.6 lbs/ton) of BOD entered the twocess through recycle of treated effluent.
-------
U i
[ able V—23.
Insulation Board Theraio—Mechanlcal Refining and/or Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics
(Annual Averayes)*
1 Raw flow and wasteload data presented in first row obtained during 1917 verifIcation saniplirig.
Raw flow and wasteload data presented in second row obtained during 1918 verifIcation sampling.
** In 1916, 12.5 kg/kkg (25.0 lbs/ton) of BOD entered the process through recycle of treated effluent.
In 1971, 12.2 kg/kkg (24.5 lbs/ton) of BUD entered the process through recycle of treated effluent.
‘t Includes production of both insulation board and hardboard.
k*k Raw waste loads based on 1917 estimated primary effluent data Provided by I)laflt, and on 1916 average
daily production.
ttt 1916 data.
Plant
Production
Flow
BUD
TSS
Number
kkg/day
(TPD)
kl/kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/kkg
(lbs/ton)
31
193
144
212
(159)
8.11
5.05
(1.95
(1.21)
33.6
35.5
c67.1?
(71.0)
17.3
13.3
(34.5
(26.6
491k
139
145
153)
(160)
13.5
12.8
(3.23)
(3.08)
•
17.0
23.5
(34.1)**
(41.0)**
42.8
38.6
(85.7)
(71.3)
543
605
--
( 665 )tt
—-
14.0
-—
(17.8)
——
29.8
26.3
(59.5)
(52.6)***
28.6
6.25
(51.1)
(12.5)***
85111
359
( 3 95 )ft
11.1
(2.68)
43.2
(86.3)
--
--
* First row of data represents
annual daily data, except as
1976 average annual daily data. Second row represents 1977 average
noted.
—— hyphen denotes that I arameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
December 1976 and two plants provided raw waste historical data for the
12-month period from January through December 1977.
The raw waste loads of the plants which employ thermo—mechanical
refining methods or which also produce hardboard products are demon-
strably higher than the raw waste loads of the plants which only employ
mechanical refining and which produce no hardboard products.
Of the five plants which use mechanical refining only, and which produce
no hardboard, four of the plants (917, 993, 97, and 55) provided
sufficient 1976 historical raw waste data for analysis. Data from these
plants were for raw waste prior to primary treatment, with the exception
of Plant 917 which provided information for wastewater following
polymer-assisted primary clarification (floc-.clarification). Verifica-
tion sampling was performed at Plant 917 and samples were collected
before and after the primary floc—clarifier. Analysis of verification
data showed that a BOO reduction of 24 percent and a TSS reduction of
79 percent were achieved in the primary floc-clarifier. These
percentages were used to adjust the raw waste loads to account for the
pollutant reduction achieved in the floc—clarifier. Raw waste loads for
Plant 917 are presented in Table V—22 before and after the adjustment.
Plant 917 uses primarily Southern pine for furnish with some mixed hard-
woods. Plant 491 uses primarily Douglas fir with other mixed softwoods.
Plant 993 employs stone grinders to refine a pine furnish. Plant 97
uses a mixture of predominantly Southern pine, in the form of whole tree
chips, and mixed hardwoods. Plant 55 uses a furnish of Southern pine
mixed with some hardwood.
Plant 97 demonstrated raw waste loads for BOD and ISS significantly
higher than any other plant in the mechanical refining subcategory.
This is most likely attributable to the use of wood furnish consisting
of predominantly whole tree chips. In 1976, the plant recycled all of
its waste activated sludge, in addition to all of the primary sludge,
back into the process. The build-up in the process whitewater system of
waste biological solids which are not retained in the board is the most
probable reason for the high 1976 average TSS wasteload.
Plant 45 does not monitor the raw wastewater from its wood fiber insula-
tion board plant. Effluent from this plant, following primary treat-
ment, is used as process whitewater in the plant’s mineral wool insula-
tion board facility. Although the plant provided 1976 historical data
for raw wastewater effluent from the mineral wool facility, these data
could not be used to characterize raw wastewater from the wood fiber
plant; and thus, Plant 45 was not included in Table V—22.
The annual average daily unit flow, and waste load data for insulation
board, mechanical refining Plant 97, presented in Table V—22, were used
to develop the design criteria presented in Table V—24 and used as a
basis for cost estimates presented in Section VIII of this document.
5-38
-------
Table V—24. Insulation Board, Mechanical Refining Subcategory——
Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow = 8.3 kl/Kkg (2.0 kgal/ton)
Design Criteria
1 2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
230 (250)
540 (600)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
1.9 (0.5)
4.5 (1.2)
Influent BOO Concentrations, mg/i
2,200
2,200
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/i
3,900
3,900
5.39
-------
The average unit flow for Plant 97, which is 8.3 kl/Kkg (2.0 kgal/ton),
is considered to be representative of an insulation board, mechanical
refining plant which produces a full line of insulation board products
and which practices internal recycling to the extent practicable.
Plant 993 has a high unit flow of 21.6 kl/Kkg (5.21 kgal/ton), due to
the fact that this plant uses process water on a once—through basis,
with no internal recycle. Plants 917 and 55 achieve a rTuch higher
degree of internal recycle which is due to their particular product and
raw material mix. Therefore, their unit flows are not considered to be
applicable to the industry as a whole. The raw waste load of TSS
produced by Plant 97 is somewhat higher than the other plants in the
insulation board—mechanical refining subcategory because the plant uses
a furnish which predominantly consists of whole tree chips. The
contribution of TSS to overall treatment system costs is negliqible
compared to the BOD contribution. It should also be noted that the
plant recycles 90 percent of the primary settled solids back into the
process.
Of the 11 plants which produce insulation board using thermo—mechanical
refining and/or which produce hardboard at the same facility, only three
plants (31, 543, and 85) provided sufficient 1976 historical data for
calculation of raw waste loads. Plant 31 also provided sufficient 1977
historical data for raw waste analysis.
Plant 543 is currently upgrading its wastewater treatment system and
provided an estimate of the raw waste loads (primary effluent). The
estimated waste loads are 16,000 kg/day (35,000 lbs/day) of BOO and
3,800 kg/day (8,300 lbs/day) of TSS. The raw waste loads presented in
the second row for Plant 543 in Table V—23 are based on these estimated
data and on 1976 average annual daily production data.
Plant 491 does not monitor raw wastewater quality and provided no
historical raw wastewater quality data. Verification sampling was
performed at this plant in 1977 and 1978, and raw wastewater data were
obtained. Verification data were used to calculate the raw waste load
using historical average daily production and average daily flow data
provided by the plant in response to the data collection portfolio.
Of the four plants which provided historical raw waste data, only
Plants 31 and 491 produce solely insulation board. Plant 31 steam
conditions all of its furnish, which consists primarily of hardwood
chips. Plant 491 steam conditions all of its furnish which consists of
softwood chips, primarily of Douglas fir. Some sawdust is also used as
furnish at this plant.
Plant 543 steam conditions approximately 10 percent of its furnish,
which consists primarily of aspen with some whole tree chips. This
plant produces approximately 70 percent insulation board and 30 percent
hardboard. Although this plant differs considerably from the other
plants in the subcategory in the proportion of furnish that is
preconditioned by steam, the raw waste loads from this plant fall well
5-40
-------
within the range of other plants in the insulation board—therino—
mechanical refining or hardboard production subcategory, as demonstrated
in Table V-23.
Plant 85 uses thermo—mechanical pulping to prepare all of its furnish,
which consists primarily of pine with some hardwood and panel trim.
This plant produces approximately 70 percent insulation board and
30 percent hardboard.
Plant 763 produces approximately 60 percent insulation board and
40 percent hardboard using a pine furnish for hardboard, and pine and
hardwood mix for insulation board. This plant steam conditions all of
its furnish. Since it does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the raw
waste load could not be calculated.
Plant 75 produces approximately 60 percent insulation board and
40 percent hardboard using a pine furnish which is totally steam condi-
tioned. Since this plant does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the
raw waste load could not be calculated.
Plant 221 steam conditions all of its hardwood furnish. Since this
plant does not monitor its raw waste effluent, the raw waste load could
not be calculated.
Plant 67 steam conditions all of its mixed hardwood furnish. This plant
produces approximately 50 percent insulation board and 50 percent hard—
board. Raw waste effluent from the wood fiber plant at this facility is
combined with raw waste effluent from a mineral wool facility at the
same location prior to monitoring. Therefore, a representative wood
fiber raw waste load could not be calculated.
Plant 11 steam conditions all of its hardwood furnish and produces only
insulation board. Since this plant does not monitor its raw waste
effluent, the raw waste load from this plant could not be calculated.
Plants 19 and 69 have achieved no discharge of process wastewater
through complete close—up of process whitewater systems. Both plants
steam condition all furnish and produce solely structural insulation
board. Plant 19 uses a hardwood furnish, and Plant 69 uses Southern
pine chips and shavings.
Raw wasteload data provided by Plants 31, 491, and 85 were averaged to
develop the unit flow and raw wasteload data presented in Table V-25 as
the basis for cost estimates presented in Section VIII of this document.
These plants are considered representative of the insulation board—
thermomechanical refining or hardboard production subcategory. Data
from Plant 543 were not used for two reasons: (1) the raw waste data
provided by this plant were following primary treatment, and (2) the
plant in 1976 practiced only a minimal amount of internal recycle which
resulted in an unrepresentative unit flow of 11.1 kl/Kkg
(17.8 K gal/ton).
5-41
-------
Table V—25. Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Subcategory-—
Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow = 10.0 kl/Kkg (2.4 kgal/ton)
Design Criteria
1 2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
180 (200)
360 (400)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
1.8 (0.48)
3.6 (0.96)
Influent BOO Concentrations, mg/i
3,600
3,600
Influent TSS Concentrations, mg/i
1,600
1,600
5-42
-------
A unit flow of 10.0 kl/Kkg (2.4 kgal/ton) is considered to be represen-
tative of an insulation board, thermo—mechanical refining plant which
produces a full line of insulation board products and which practices
internal recycle to the extent practicable.
Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Loads
Raw waste concentrations and raw waste loads for total phenols are shown
for four insulation board plants in Table V—26. Data presented in this
table were obtained during the 1977 and 1978 verification sampling
programs. These data represent the average of three 24-hour composite
samples collected during each verification program. Annual average
daily production and annual average daily waste flow provided by the
plants in the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the raw
waste loads. None of the insulation board plants presented historical
data on raw wastewater phenol concentrations in their raw wastewater
effluents.
The average 1977 concentration of total phenols for the three mechanical
refining insulation board plants (97, 917, and 491) is 0.11 mg/l. The
average 1978 total phenols concentration for the two mechanical refining
plants which were sampled (Plants 97 and 491) is 0.61 mg/l.
The average of the total phenols average raw waste loads for the three
mechanical refining insulation board plants (97, 917, and 491) is
0.0040 kg/Kkg (0.0079 lbs/ton).
The 1976 and 1977 concentrations of total phenols for Plant 31, which
uses thermo—mechanical refining, are 0.29 and 1.8 mg/l, respectively.
The average total phenols raw waste load for Plant 31 is 0.0055 kg/Kkg
(0.011 lbs/ton).
The higher concentrations of total phenols for the insulation board
thermo—mechanical refining and/or hardboard production is primarily due
to generation of phenolic materials through hydrolysis of ligniri and
other wood chemicals during refining and under steam pressure.
Raw waste concentrations of 13 heavy metals are presented for four
insulation board plants in Table V—27. Data presented in this table
were obtained during the 1977 verification sampling program. Annual
average daily production and annual average daily waste flow for 1976
provided by the plants in the data collection portfolio were used to
calculate the raw waste loads.
None of the insulation board plants presented historical data for
wastewater heavy metals concentrations.
No significant differences in heavy metals concentrations between the
two subcategories of insulation board plants were found. The source of
heavy metals in the wastewater from insulation board plants is:
(1) small amounts of metals present in the wood raw material; and
5.43
-------
Table V—26. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loadings for Insulation Board
Plants——Total Phenols
Plant
Raw Waste
Concentrations
(mg/i) 1
Average
Raw Waste Loads 2
kg/Kkg (lbs/ton)
1977
1978
97
0.09
0.796
0.0040
(0.0080)
31
0.29
1.8
0.0055
(0.011)
917
0.14
ND 3
0.00040
(0.00079)
491
0.11
0.42
0.0075
(0.015)
1 Data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs.
2 Average of the 1977 and 1978 raw waste loads. Average daily waste
flow and production data for 1977 and 1978 supplied by plants in
response to the data collection portfolio were used to calculate the
1977 and 1978 waste loads.
3 ND = Plant 917 was not sampled during the 1978 verification
program.
5.44
-------
rable V—21. Raw WasLe Coisceiitrations and Loadings for Insuiatthn iloard—-MeLais
Raw Waste Conceiitrat Ions
Plant Niioiber
917 I 491
(iiig/I)
91
Raw
Waste
Loadings
Plant
(kg/Kkg)/(lb/tou)
Nun er
91
Average
Value
911
31
Ui
(31
Average
Va 1 ue
.0006
.0001
.320
.0012
.09 20
610
.0016
.0025
.0043
.0005
.0007
.0055
.0000042
(.0000083)
.0000028
(.0000056)
.0019
(.0031)
.000006
(.000011)
.0008
(.0016)
.003
(.0059)
.0000021
(.0000042)
.000013
(.000025)
.001)0 14
(.000027)
.0000021
(.0000042)
.00(10028
(.0000056)
.0000055
(.000011)
i3eryllitao
.0005
.00003
.0005
.0005
Cadiuiiuiiu
.00083
.001
.0005
.0005
Copper
.450
.200
.20
.340
Lead
.0013
.021
.0013
.0053
Ilickel
.240
.105
.012
.0008
Zinc
.721)
.517
.250
.650
Antimony
.00083
.003
.00067
.0021
Arsenic
.002
.0033
.003
.0016
Sele,iiti.i
.0(15
.0043
.0041
.0033
Silver
.0006
.0006
.0005
.0005
Ihal I iiiii
.0(1003
.0005
.0008
.0006
(Iiruiuiiuiii
.0013
.0075
.0023
IIerury
.00b6
.005
.001
.0015 .005 .000028 .000041 .000021 .00008 .00(1012
(.000042) (.000082) (.000041) (.00016) .000085
.00000 1
(.000014)
.000008
(.000016)
.0023
(.0016)
.00011
(.00034)
.00085
(.0011)
.004 2
(.0084)
.000025
(.000049)
.00002 7
(.000054)
.000035
(.00007)
.0000049
(.0000098)
.0000041
(.0000082)
.00006
(.00012)
.0000 1
(.00002)
.0000 1
(.00002)
.000041
(.000082)
.000027
(.000053)
.00025
(.00049)
.005
(.01)
.000014
(.00021)
.00006
(.00012)
.000(17
(.000014)
.00001
(.00002)
.000017
(.000033)
.00047
(.00084)
.0000055
(.000011)
.0000055
(.000011)
.0036
(.0072)
.000055
(.00011)
.00009
(.00018)
.006
(.012)
.000022
(.000044)
.000017
(.000034)
.000035
(.00007)
.0000055
(.000011)
.0000065
(.000013)
.00012
(.00023)
.001)0067
.0000 133
.0000065
.0000132
.0019
.0039
.000063
.0(10126
.0005
.0010
.0(146
.0091
.000015
.0(10037
.000029
.0(10058
.000030
.000076
.0000056
.0000 112
.0000076
.0000152
.000 16
.000 33
.011
-------
(2) byproducts of the corrosion of metal equipment in contact with the
process whitewater.
The average concentrations and the average raw wastewater loadings of
each heavy metal are also presented in Table V—27.
Table V-28 presents the raw wastewater concentrations of organic
priority pollutants for insulation board plants that were sampledduring
the 1978 verification sampling program. None of the insulation board
plants presented organic priority pollutants historical data.
No organic priority pollutants were found in the raw waste for
Plant 491, a thermo—mechanical refining plant. Extremely low concentra-
tions of chloroform, benzene, and toluene were found in the raw waste—
water for Plant 31, also a thermo—mechanical refining plant. All of
these pollutants probably originated In common industrial solvents.
Extremely low concentrations of benzene, toluene, and phenol were found
in the raw wastewater for Plant 97, a mechanical refining plant, but
benzene and toluene were also found in the plant intake water. Phenol
is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions that occur as the wood
furnish is refined.
WET-PROCESS HARDBOARD
Production of hardboard by wet process requires significant amounts of
water. Plants responding to the data collection portfolio reported
fresh water usage rates for process water ranging from approximately
190 thousand to 19 million liters per day (0.05 to 5 MGD). One plant,
543, which produces both hardboard and insulation board in approximately
equal amounts, reported fresh water use of over 15 million liters per
day (4 MGD).
Water becomes contaminated during the production of hardboard primarily
through contact with the wood raw material during the fiber preparation,
forming, and——in the case of S1S hardboard——pressing operations. The
vast majority of pollutants consist of fine wood fibers, soluble wood
sugars, and extractives. Additives not retained in the board also add
to the pollutant load.
The water used to process and transport the wood from the fiber prepara-
tion stage through mat formation is referred to as process whitewater.
Process whitewater produced by the dewatering of stock at any stage of
the process is usually recycled to be used as stock dilution water.
However, due to the build—up of suspended solids and dissolved organic
material which can cause undesirable effects in the board, there may be
a need to bleed-off a quantity of excess process whitewater.
More specifically, potential wastewater sources in the production of wet
process hardboard include:
5-46
-------
Table V—28. Insulation Board, Raw Wastewater Priority Pollutant Data,
Organics
Parameter
Average
Concentration (ug/
1)
Raw Wastewater
Plant
31
Plant 97
Plant
491
Chloroform
20
—-
Benzene
70
4Q**
Toluene
60
40**
Phenol
-—
40
——
* One sample of raw wastewater contained 20 ug/l of chloroform. Plant
intake water contained 10 ug/l of chloroform.
** Plant intake water contained 50 ugh and 30 ugh of benzene and
toluene, respectively.
—— Hyphen denotes that the parameter was not detected above the
detection limit for the compound.
5 -47
-------
Chip wash water
Process whitewater generated during fiber preparation
(refining and washing)
Process whitewater generated during forming
Hot press squeezeout water
Wastewater generated during miscellaneous operations
(dryer washing, finishing, housekeeping, etc.) -
Chip Wash Water
Water used for chip washing is capable of being recycled to a large
extent. A minimum makeup of approximately 400 liters per metric ton
(95 gallons per ton) is required in a closed system because of water
leaving with the chips and with sludge removed from settling tanks.
Water used for makeup in the chip washer may be fresh water, cooling
water, vacuum seal water from in—plant equipment, or recycled process
water. Chip wash water, when not fully recycled, contributes to the raw
waste load of a hardboard plant. Hardboard Plants 62, 75, 67, 763, 543,
85, and 406 indicated in responses to the data collection portfolio that
chip washing is done. Plants 763 and 85 recycle chip wash water.
Fiber Preparation
The fiber preparation or refiner whitewater system is considered to be
the water used in the refining of stock up to and including the
dewatering of stock by a decker or washer. There are two major types of
fiber preparation in the wet process hardboard industry: thermo—
mechanical pulping and refining, and the explosion or gun process.
Steam, under pressure, is used to soften and prepare the chips in both
processes.
Fiber yield is lower in the explosion process than in the thermo-
mechanical process due to the hydrolysis of the hemicellulose under the
high pressures required in the gun digesters. The resulting raw waste
loading is also higher.
The wood furnish enters the refiner at moisture content of about
50 percent. Subsequent to refining, the fiber bundles are diluted with
fresh or recycled process whitewater to a consistency of approximately
1 percent solids prior to dewatering at the decker or stock washer to
about 15 percent solids. The water which results from the stock washing
or deckering operation is rich in organic solids dissolved from the wood
during refining and is referred to as “refiner whitewater.” This water
may be combined with the machine whitewater, which is produced during
forming, for further use in the system; or it may be discharged from the
plant as wastewater.
Three plants, 864, 464, and 763 make use of the high dissolved organic
solids in this stream by collecting and evaporating the fiber prepara-
tion whitewater to produce a concentrated wood molasses byproduct which
is used for animal feed.
5-48
-------
Forming
After the dewatered stock leaves the washer decker at approximately
15 percent consistency, it must again be diluted to a consistency of
approximately 1.5 percent to be suitable for machine forming. This
requires a relatively large amount of recycled process whitewater or
fresh water. The redilution of stock is usually accomplished in a
series of steps to allow accurate consistency controls and more eff i—
cient dispersion of additives and to reduce the required stock pump and
storage capacities. The stock usually receives an initial dilution down
to approximately 5 percent consistency, then to 3 percent, and finally,
just prior to mat formation, to approximately 1.5 percent.
During the mat formation stage of the insulation board process, the
diluted stock is dewatered at the forming machine to a consistency of
approximately 40 to 45 percent. The water drained from the stock during
formation is referred to as machine whitewater. Water from the machine
whitewater system may be recycled for use as stock dilution water.
Excess machine whitewater may be combined with other process whitewater
and discharged as wastewater.
Pressing
In the production of S1S hardboard, the mat which leaves the forming
machine at 40 to 45 percent solids consistency is loaded into “hot”
hydraulic presses to be pressed into hardboard.
The board leaves the press at about 5 percent moisture or less.
Although much of the water in the board is evaporated in the press, a
considerable amount of wastewater is generated during pressing. This
wastewater is generally collected in a pit below the press and
discharged as wastewater from the plant, although two plants, 846 and
464, return the press water to the process whitewater system. Waste—
water resulting from the pressing operation is more concentrated in
dissolved solids than the machine whitewater due to the large amount of
water which is evaporated from the board during pressing.
Miscellaneous Operations
While the majority of wastewater generated during the production of
hardboard occurs during the fiber preparation, forming and pressing
operations, various other operations may contribute to the overall raw
waste load.
Drying——It is occasionally necessary to clean the dryers in a hard—
board plant to reduce fire danger and to maintain proper energy utiliza-
tion. This produces a minor wastewater stream in most operations.
Finishing——After the board leaves the press or humidifier, it is
usually sanded and trimmed to size. The dust from the sanding and trim
saws is often controlled by dust collectors of a wet scrubber type and
the water supplied to the scrubbers is sometimes excess process water;
5-49
-------
however, fresh water is occasionally used. This water may be returned
to the process with the dust, or it may be discharged as wastewater.
Many plants paint or stain the board after it is sanded and trinned.
Paint composition will vary with both plant and product; however, most
plants utilize a water—based paint. The resulting washup contributes to
the wastewater stream or to the process whitewater system. In addition,
there are sometimes imperfect batches of paint which are discharged to
the wastewater stream or metered to the process whitewater system.
Gaul or Press Plate——Another minor wastewater source is caul and
press plate wash water. After a period of use, cauls and press plates
acquire a surface build-up of resin and organics which results in
sticking in the presses and blemishes on the hardboard surface. The
cleaning operation consists of submerging the cauls in a caustic
cleaning solution for a period of time to loosen the organic matter.
Press plates are also cleaned in—place with a caustic solution. The
cauls are removed, rinsed with fresh water, then put back in use. The
tanks used for soaking the cauls are emptied as needed, normally only a
few times each year. Rinse water volume varies with frequency of
washing of cauls or plates.
Other Sources-Other potential sources of wastewater in a hardboard
plant include water used for screen washing, fire control, and general
housekeepi ng.
The water used for washing screens in the forming and decker areas
usually enters the process whitewater system. Housekeeping water can
vary widely from plant to plant depending on plant operation and many
other factors. Wastewater can result from water used to extinguish
dryer fires. This is an infrequent and intermittent source of
wastewater.
Wastewater Characteristics
The major portion of hardboard wastewater pollutants results from
leachable materials from the wood and materials added during the
production process. If a chip washer is used, a portion of the solubles
is leached into the chip wash water. A small fraction of the raw waste
load results from cleanup and finishing operations; however, these
operations appear to have little influence on the overall raw waste
load.
The major factors which affect process wastewater quality include:
(1) the severity of cook to which the wood furnish is subjected, (2) the
types of products produced and additives employed, (3) raw material
species, and (4) the extent of whole tree chips, forest residue, and
bark in the raw material.
The effect of steaming on raw waste load was discussed in this section
for insulation board. The severity of cook to which wood furnish is
subjected in S2S hardboard production generally exceeds that used in S1S
5-50
-------
hardboard production due to the requirement for more highly refined
fiber bundles in the S2S product. It would be expected, therefore, that
the raw waste load of S2S plants would be higher than that of S1S
plants. Inspection of the raw waste characteristics for both types of
plants presented in Tables V—29 and V—30 supports this conclusion.
A thorough review of the literature and information presented by
industry sources pertaining to factors influencing variation in raw
wastewater characteristics was performed by an EPA contractor in 1976.
The conclusions reached were published in Section V of the Summary
Report on the Re—Eval uation of the Effi uent Guidelines for the Wet
Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber Products Processing Point Source
Category. An attempt was made in the 1976 study to quantify the effects
of wood species, seasonal variations in raw materials, and the use of
whole tree chips and/or forest residue on new waste characteristics.
The conclusion reached in the 1976 study was as follows:
It is easily apparent, from the sources discussed, that large
variabilities in raw waste characteristics exist from plant to
plant in the hardboard industry. It is also apparent that the
factors identified as causing the variability are probably valid.
However, it is equally apparent that none of the sources
investigated thus far has been able to supply the type of data
necessary to determine how the reference information relates to
quantification of factors influencing variations in raw waste.
During the course of the present study, the material available to the
above-mentioned contractor was reviewed in detail, as well as current
literature and material presented by the plants in the data collection
portfolios. No substantial new material was presented to allow quanti-
fication of the effects of wood species, whole tree chips and/or forest
residue, or seasonal variations in raw material.
While a large portion of the BOO in the process wastewater is a result
of organics leaching from the wood, a significant (although lesser)
portion results from additives not retained in the product. Additives
vary in both type and quantity according to the type of product being
produced. Chemicals used as additives in the production of hardboard
include vegetable oils, ferric sulfate, aluminum sulfate, petrolatum,
thermoplastic and/or thermosetting resins, defoamers, and paints.
Thermosetting resins are not used in S2S production since the board is
dried prior to pressing. The differences in the type and quantity of
additives used from plant to plant did not appear to significantly
affect raw waste loads.
Maximum retention of these additives is advantageous from both a
production cost as well as a wastewater standpoint. Several retention
aids are marketed for use in board products to increase the retention of
fiber and additives in the mat, the most common of which are alum and
ferric salts. Some plants use synthetic polyelectrolytes as retention
aids.
5-51
-------
Table V—29. S1S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
* First row of data represents 1976 average
annual data, except as noted.
Raw waste loads shown are for combined weak and strong
After primary settling, hardboard and paper wastewater
Raw waste load data taken after primary clarification,
All of treated effluent is recycled to plant process.
wastewater streams.
streams are comingled.
pH adjustment, and nutrient addition.
ai
a’
Plant
Production
Flow
BUD
TSS
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
Number
Kkg/day
(TPD)
222
88.7
(97.5)
32.7
(65.4)**
6.90
(13:8)**
262
297
(326)
10.5
(2.54)
37.4
(74.7)
9.15
(18.3)
406
194
194
(213)
(213)
7.65
——
(1.84)
(1.48)
29.3
25.4
(58.6)
(50.7)
12.4
12.8
(24.8)
(25.7)
624
117
115
(129)
(127)
8.82
8.14
(2.12)
(1.95)
35.6
33.8
(71.2?
(67.7)
22.5
13.0
(44.9)
(25.9)
48***
91.9
(101)
14.0
(3.36)
68.5
(137)
16.8
(33.5)
242
70.0
64.1
73.8)
70.7)
21.4
——
(5.14)
——
37.4
42.0
(74.8
(84.0
12.6
6.45
(25.2)
(12.9)
464
343
(377)
13.6
(3.26)
1.89
(3.77)
0.56
(1.15)
864
1446
(1589)
12:3
(2:96)
21:9
(4 :8)
5:85
(11:7)
t
**
tt
annual daily data. Second row represents 1977 average
-------
Table V—30. S2S Hardboard Raw Waste Characteristics (Annual Averages)*
Plant
Produc
tion
Flow
BOD
TSS
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
Number
Kkg/day
(TPD)
62
210
(231)
24.7
(5.93)
66.5
(133)
——
—-
218
(240)
24.5
(5.88)
62.0
(124)
11.7
(23.4)
85
359
(395)**
11.1
(2.68)
43.2
(86.3)
——
——
644
311
(343)
25.8
(6.18)
116
(232)
20.0
(40.0)
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data. Second row represents 1977 average
annual data, except as noted.
CA) t 1976 data.
** Includes production of both insulation board and hardboard.
-------
As previously discussed, the primary effect of product type on raw waste
loads occurs with the production of S2S hardboard. S2S hardboard
production exhibits a marked effect on raw wasteloads as shown by data
presented in Tables V-29 and V-30. The effect of product type on raw
waste loads within the S1S and S2S subcategories is generally not
discernible, with the exception that Plant 846 has succeeded in
significantly reducing its raw waste load by achieving nearly complete
close—up of its process whitewater system. This plant produces
primarily industrial grade board.
Raw Waste Loads
Tables V—29 and V-30 summarize the raw waste characteristics of those
hardboard plar 1 ts which provided historical raw waste monitoring data in
response to the data collection portfolio. Nine of the sixteen
hardboard plants provided raw waste historical data for the 12-month
period from January through December 1976. Plant 464 provided data from
May 1976 to April 1977. Three plants provided raw waste historical data
for the 12-month period from January through December 1977. Plant 62
provided data from June 16, 1977 through April 1978. The average annual
daily raw waste concentrations presented in Tables V-29 and V-30 were
calculated in the same manner as described for the insulation board
segment earlier in this section.
Plants 763 and 75 do not monitor raw waste effluents, and Plant 67
combines the raw waste effluent from its hardboard/insulation board
facility with the raw waste effluent from an adjacent mineral wool fiber
plant prior to monitoring. The data provided by Plant 67 could not be
used to characterize raw waste loads for hardboard production.
Plant 846 provided data from January 1976 through February 1977 for its
treated effluent only. These data were not used to calculate a raw
waste load.
Of the nine predominantly S1S hardboard plants, eight plants (222, 262,
406, 624, 48, 242, 464, and 864) provided sufficient historical raw
waste data for analysis.
Approximately 90 percent of the total production of Plant 222 is S1S
hardboard produced with a plywood trim furnish. The other 10 percent of
the plant’s production consists of battery separators--a paper product.
Although the plant indicates that 80 to 90 percent of the raw waste load
is due to hardboard production, monitoring by the plant is performed
after the raw waste streams are combined. The plant did not monitor the
flow rates of the separate wastewater streams during 1976. No flow data
were reported by Plant 222. BOD and TSS raw waste loads were reported
directly in lb/ton. The raw waste load for this plant is included in
Table V—29, but is not included in the calculation of the subcategory
average.
Plant 48 produces all S1S hardboard using Douglas fir for furnish. The
raw BOD waste load discharged from this plant is 68.7 kg/Kkg
5-54
-------
(137.4 lb/ton); however, some of this waste load entered the process
through recycle of treated effluent. Since the waste load contribution
due to recycle of treated effluent is relatively unknown, the raw waste
loads for this plant were not used to calculate the subcategory average.
Plant 406 produces all S1S hardboard using a furnish which is 55 percent
mixed hardwoods and 45 percent mixed softwoods. Thirty percent of this
plant’s furnish is in the form of unbarked roundwood.
Plant 262 produces all S1S hardboard using an aspen furnish, approxi-
mately half of which is unbarked roundwood and half is received as whole
tree chips.
Plant 624 produces all S1S hardboard using 75 percent oak and 25 percent
mixed hardwoods.
Plant 242 produces all S1S hardboard using all Douglas fir in the form
of chips, sawdust, shavings, and plywood trim. The raw waste load data
presented for 1976 were not used to calculate the subcategory average
because a major in-plant refitting program which significantly reduced
the raw waste flow was completed during the latter half of 1976.
Plant 464, which produces approximately equal amounts of S1S and S2S
hardboard using redwood and Douglas fir, evaporates most of its process
wastewater to produce a cattle feed byproduct. Data for this plant are
shown in Table V—29, but are not included in the subcategory average.
Plant 864 produces approximately 10 percent S2S and 90 percent S1S hard—
board using about 80 percent mixed hardwoods (40 percent of which is
oak) and 20 percent Southern pine. This plant evaporates a large amount
of process water to produce a cattle feed byproduct. Raw waste data
reported in Table V—29 for this plant were obtained following primary
clarification, pH adjustment, and nutrient addition. Plant 864 is not
included in the subcategory average; however, data for the plant are
shown in Table V-29.
The average annual daily flows and raw waste loads for the S1S hardboard
plants presented in Table V-29 (excluding the data for Plants 222, 48,
464, and 864) were used to determine the design criteria used for the
S1S hardboard subcategory cost estimates presented in Section VIII of
this document. The S1S hardboard subcategory design criteria are
presented in Table V-31.
Of the seven plants which produce predominantly S2S hardboard, three
provided sufficient 1976 historical raw waste data for analysis and one
plant provided 1915 historical raw waste data. One of the four plants
also provided sufficient 1977 historical raw waste data for analysis.
Plant b’li uses thermo—mechanical pulping to prepare approximately
10 percent of its furnish, which consists primarily of aspen witn some
wnoie tree cnips. lnis plant produces approximately 50 percent insula-
tion board and 50 percent hardboard.
5 - 55
-------
Table V-31. S1S Hardboard Subcateogory—-Design Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow = 12 kl/Kkg (2.8 kgal/ton)
Design Criteria
1 2
Production, Kkg/day (TPD)
91 (100)
270 (300)
Wastewater Flow, Kkl/day (MGD)
1.1 (0.28)
3.2 (0.84)
Influent BOD Concentrations, mg/i
3,300
3,300
Infiuent TSS Concentrations, mg/i
1,300
1,300
5-56
-------
Plant 85 uses thermo—mechanical pulping to prepare all of its furnish,
which consists primarily of pine with some hardwood and panel trim.
This plant produces approximately 70 percent insulation board and
30 percent hardboard.
The raw waste effluents from insulation board and hardboard production
of Plants 543 and 85 are combined mixed prior to raw waste monitoring.
Therefore, the individual raw waste load due solely to hardboard could
not be calculated, and values for these plants are not included in the
subcategory average.
Plant 62 used a non—standard method for the raw waste TSS concentration
analysis during 1976, and therefore the raw waste load was not used to
determine the average for the subcategory. As of June 16, 1977 the
plant has changed its method of TSS analysis to the standard method.
The data presented for 1977 are for the period from June 16, 1977
through April 1978.
Plant 644 produces about 80 percent S2S hardboard and 20 percent S1S
hardboard. Its furnish consists of poplar, birch, oak, and pine——
23 percent received as bark-free chips and 77 percent as roundwood. Raw
waste load BOO for this plant, 116 kg/Kkg (232 lb/ton), is the highest
by far of any fiberboard plant in the country and is considered to be
atypical of the S2S subcategory. For this reason the BOD raw waste load
for this plant is not included in the subcategory average. Its ISS raw
waste load is, however, characteristic of S2S plants and is included in
the subcategory average.
The unit flow and raw BOO wasteload data for Plant 62 were used to
obtain the unit flow and BOD design criteria for the S2S subcategory
cost estimates as presented in Table V—32. TSS raw wasteloads for
design criteria were developed using the average of data from Plants 62
and 644.
A unit flow of 24.6 kl/Kkg (5.9 kgal/ton) is considered to be represen-
tative of an S2S hardboard plant which produces a full line of hardboard
products and which practices internal recycling to the extent
practicable.
Priority Pollutant Raw Waste Loads
Raw waste concentrations and raw waste loads for total phenols are shown
in Table V-33. Data presented in this table were obtained during the
1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs. Two hardboard plants
provided historical raw waste phenols data, also included in Table V—33.
Annual average daily production and waste flow data for 1977 and 1978
provided by the plants in response to the data collection portfolio were
used to calculate the 1977 and 1978 raw waste loads. The average of the
1977 and 1978 loads are presented in Table V—33.
The average concentration of the total phenols for the five S1S hard—
board plants (242, 464, 864, 624, 406) is 2.4 mg/l. The concentration
5.57
-------
Table V—32. S2S Hardboard Subcateogory——Desigr’ Criteria
Unit Wastewater Flow = 24.6 kl/Kkg (5.9 kgal/ton)
Production = 230 Kkg/day (250 TPD)
Wastewater Flow = 5.7 kl/day (1.5 MGD)
Influent BOO Concentration = 2,600 mg/i
Influent TSS Concentration = 600 mg/i
5 - 58
-------
Table V—33. Raw Waste Concentrations and Loads for Hardboard Plants—-
Total Phenols
Plant
Raw Waste
Concentrations
(mg/l)*
Average
Raw Waste Loadst
1977
1978
kg/Kkg (lbs/ton)
62
0.07
0.243
0.0038 (0.0075)
242
0.38
0.610
0.009 (0.018)
464
1.2
——
0.015 (0.02)
864
0.24
0.29**
——
——
0.003 (0.006)
0.0037** (0.0074)**
624
6.4
3.8
0.043 (0.086)**
406
34**
8.9**
0.040** (0.080)**
* Data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs.
These data represent the average of three 24—hour composite samples.
t Average of 1977 and 1978 raw waste loads. Average daily waste
flow and production data for 1977 and 1978 supplied by plants in
response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate waste
loads.
** Data are historical data supplied by plant in response to data
collection portfol io.
5-59
-------
of the single S2S hardboard plant (62) is 0.16 mg/i. The S1S hardboard
average raw wasteload for total phenols is 0.019 kg/Kkg (0.038 lb/ton).
The S2S hardboard average is 0.0038 kg/Kkg (0.0075 lb/ton). The total
phenols in the S2S raw wastewater are due to the fact that phenolic,
thermo—setting resins are not used in the manufacture of S2S hardboard.
Raw waste concentrations of heavy metals are presented for six hardboard
plants in Table V—34. Data presented in this table were obtainedduring
the 1977 verification sampling program. One hardboard plant provided
1976 historical data for lead and chromium which are also presented in
the table. Annual average daily production and annual daily waste flow
provided by the plants in the data collection portfolio were used to
calculate the raw waste loads.
No significant differences in heavy metals concentrations between the
two subcategories of hardboard plants were found. The sources of heavy
metals in the wastewater from hardboard plants are: (1) trace metals
present in the wood raw material; and (2) byproducts of the corrosion of
metal equipment in contact with the process wastewater. The average
concentrations and the average raw waste loadings of each heavy metal
are presented in Table V—35.
Table V—36 presents the raw waste concentrations of organic priority
pollutants for S1S hardboard plants that were sampled during the 1977
verification sampling program. None of the S1S hardboard plants
presented organic priority pollutant historical data.
Extremely low concentrations of ethylbenzene and toluene were found in
the raw wastewater for Plant 242. The intake water for Plant 242
contained 10 ug/l of toluene. The origin of these pollutants is
probably comon industrial solvents.
Extremely low concentrations of chloroform, benzene, and toluene were
found in the raw wastewater for Plant 624. These pollutants most likely
originated in industrial solvents. Phenol was also found in the raw
wastewater and is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions that
occur as the wood furnish is refined.
Table V—37 presents the organic priority pollutant concentrations of the
raw waste for S2S hardboard plants that were sampled during the 1977
verification sampling program. None of the S2S hardboard plants
presented organic priority pollutant data.
No organic priority pollutants were found in the raw wastewater for
Plant 62. Extremely low concentrations of chloroform, benzene, and
toluene were found in the raw waste for Plant 644; however, the plant
intake water contained 120 ug/l benzene and 80 ugh toluene. Chloroform
most likely originated in industrial solvents. Phenol was also found in
the raw waste for Plant 644 and is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis
reactions that occur as the wood furnish is refined.
5-60
-------
Extremely low concentrations of 1,2—trichioroethane and toluene were
found in the raw waste for Plant 763, the origin of which is most likely
industrial solvents.
5-61
-------
Table V-34. Raw Ilaste Concentrations and Loadings for Hardboard Plants--Metals
Raw Waste Concentrations
Plant Number
( mg/i)
Raw
Waste_Loadj s (k 9 /Kkg)/( lb/ton)
624 40
4 r
2
242 864
E 2T 40
4M
262
242 1l64
lieryllitan .00 ( 167 .00(15 .00059 .0005 .0005 .00(15 .000006 .000013 .000(108 .000005 .000009 .WO1IIJ 1
(.000012) (.000025) (.000(116) (.000001) (.000017) (.OUUUI1)
Cadnilum .0031 .0023 .0005 .005 .0006 .0005 .0011027 .00006 .000001 .00005 .000009 .000001
(.000054) (.00012) (.00(1013) (.0001) (.000017) (.000013)
Copper .450 .530 .033 .1 .49 .260 .0039 .014 .00044 .0011 .0(19 .11033
(.0078) (.027) (.00088) (.0021) (.017) (.0065)
Lead .1107 .0041 .055 .002 .002 .0033 .00006 .00012 .000(1 .00002 .000035 .000042
(.00012) (.00024) (.0015) (.00004) (.000069) (.000083)
053* .00(165*
(.IJU I3)*
Nickel .21u .0/0 .0057 .006 .0033 .009 .0024 .0018 .0008 .00006 .00006 .00012
(.0047) (.0035) (.00015) (.00012) (.00011) .00023
ZInc 1.0 .I 1U .19 2.3 .70 .550 .009 .0048 .003 .024 .014 .007
c 1 (.017) (.0096) (.005) (.048) (.021) (.014)
Antimony .0018 .003 .0058 .0023 .0005 .008 .000016 .00008 .00008 .UU01J24 .000009 .0001
(.000031) (.00015) (.00015) (.000048) (.000017) (.00020)
Arsenic .0013 .001 .0012 .0013 .IJOL .0012 .000016 .000026 .000016 .000014 .000017 .000015
(.000023) (.000051) (.000032) (.000027) (.000034) (.000(130)
Seleniuium .002 .U1 08 .0038 .0023 .0033 .0018 .000018 .000020 .00005 .000024 .0(1006 .000023
(.000035) (.000040) (.0001) (.000048) (.00011) (.000045)
Silver .0(1067 .1107 .0005 .0005 .0006 .OUObl .000006 .00018 .000007 .000005 .000009 .000009
(.000012) (.00035) (.00013) (.000010) (.000017) (.000017)
Thallium .0015 .00(15 .00099 .0005 .0005 .00067 .000013 .000013 .000013 .000005 .000009 .1100009
(.000026) (.000025) (.000026) (.000010) (.000017) (.000017)
Chromluim, .033 .0073 .072 .008 .001 .420 .00029 .00019 .11(101 .00009 .000017 .006
(.00058) (.00(137) (.0019) (.00017) (.000034) (.011)
47Q* .006*
(.0 12)
Mercury .002 .00005 .0002 .001 .018 .0017 .000018 .000(1012 .0000027 .000011 .00031 .000022
(.000035) (.11000025) (.0000053) (.0001)21) (.00062) (.000043)
DaLa are 191b historical data supplied by plant in response t data collection portroiio.
-------
Table V—35. Average Raw Waste Concentration and Loadings for Hardboard
Plants——Metals
Metal
Average Concentration
Average Raw Waste Load
mg/i
kg/Kkg
lb/ton
Beryllium
0.00054
0.000008
0.000016
Cadmium
0.0020
0.000027
0.000053
Copper
0.31
0.0053
0.011
Lead
0.21
0.00018
0.00036
Nickel
0.061
0.00087
0.0017
Zinc
0.84
0.010
0.021
Antimony
0.0036
0.000052
0.00010
Arsenic
0.0012
0.000017
0.000035
Selenium
0.0023
0.000032
0.000065
Silver
0.0016
0.000036
0.000072
Thallium
0.00078
0.000010
0.000021
Chromium
0.099
0.0011
0.0022
Mercury
0.0038
0.000061
0.00012
5-63
-------
Table V—36. S1S Hardboard Subcategory, Raw Wastewater Priority
Pollutant Data, Organics
Average Concentration (ugh )
Raw Wastewater
Parameter Plant 242 Plant 624
Chloroform
—-
20
Benzene
80
Ethyl benzene
20
Toluene*
15
70
Phenol**
—-
680
* Plant 207 intake water contained 10 ug/l toluene.
** Plant 207 intake water contained 97 ug/l phenol.
—— Hyphen denotes that the parameter was not found in concentrations
above the detection limit for the compound.
5-64
-------
Table V-37. S2S Hardboard Subcategory, Raw Wastewater Priority
Pollutant Data, Organics
Average Concentration (ugh )
Raw Wastewater
Parameter P1 ant 62 P1 ant 644 P1 ant 763
Chloroform
1,1,2 Trichloroethane
Benzene
Toluene
Phenol
* Plant intake water was measured at 120 ugh benzene and 80 ugh
toluene.
—- Hyphen indicates that the parameter was not found in concentrations
above the detection limit for the compound.
--
20
--
--
--
90
--
90*
--
-—
60*
10
-—
300
-—
5 -65
-------
SECTION VI
SELECTION OF POLLUTANT PARAIIETERS
GEN ERAL
One of the most important aspects of the BAT review is the investigation
of each industry segment for the presence of priority pollutants in the
raw and treated waste streams discharged either directly or indirectly
to the environment. The original consent decree listed 65 compounds or
classes of compounds which were to be investigated. This list appears
in Appendix A-i. For the purpose of this study, the EPA selected
124 specific compounds, referred to as “priority pollutants,” from the
65 classes. These compounds are listed in Appendix A—2.
In addition to priority pollutants, traditional parameters, including
the oxygen demand parameters (BOD, COD, and TOC); total dissolved solids
(TDS); total suspended solids (TSS), total phenols; and oil and grease
were also investigated during the course of the study. The traditional
parameters are, of course, the most widely used indicators of pollution.
They are used for design and operational control of waste treatment
systems, and are the terms in which current regulations are written.
Nearly all available historical information on pollution characteristics
of the Timber Products Processing Industry is limited to traditional
parameters.
The purpose of this section is to describe the methodology used in
identifying the priority pollutants present in the wood preserving,
insulation board, and hardboard segments of the Timber Products Pro-
cessing Industry.
METHODOLOGY
With few exceptions, very little information was available on the
presence of the priority pollutants in waste discharges from the Timber
Products Processing Point Source category. The principal raw material
used is wood, and, although wood itself possesses complex chemical
characteristics, pollution from the wood products industries has been
studied more in terms of general pollution characteristics, such as
oxygen depletion of receiving waters and suspended solids loadings, than
in terms of its contribution cf potentially toxic compounds to the
environment.
The first step in determining the presence or absence of priority pollu-
tants was to perform a complete analysis of raw materials used and
production processes employed in each segment of the industry. The
literature was thoroughly studied for any reference to the presence of
priority pollutants in the wood itself, chemical preservatives or addi—
tives, slimicides, fungicides, anti—foaming agents, finishing chemicals,
paints, etc. The chemistry of each applicable production process was
6 -1
-------
analyzed to determine the potential for formation of priority pollut-
ants. Each instance where priority pollutants were known to exist, or
were believed to be formed in the production process, was documented.
The second step in determining the presence of priority pollutants was
to survey each industry segment on the use, production, and/or discharge
of priority pollutants. Part IV of the data collection portfolio re-
quired each respondent to check whether any of the pollutants listed in
the consent decree were used as a raw material, produced in the pro-
duction process, and/or discharged to the environment. Table VI-1 shows
the attachment which the respondent was required to complete for each
chemical identified. With the exception of the Wood Preserving Indus-
try, which listed its preservatives as containing many of the priority
pollutants, few of the responses contained information on priority
pollutants.
The third step in determining the presence of the priority pollutants
was to conduct a screening sampling program. During the course of this
study, at least one plant in each subcategory of the Timber Products
Processing Industry was visited for the purpose of collecting samples of
the raw process wastewater and treated effluent. Sampling and analysis
procedures employed followed the Draft EPA Sampling Protocol for
Measurement of Toxics , October 1976, and the EPA Draft Analytical
Protocol for the Measurement of Toxic Substances , October 1976. A
complete discussion of sampling and analytical procedures employed is
contained in Appendix B.
The basic rationale for selection of plants for screening was to select
those plants in each subcategory from which the maximum amount of
priority pollutant information could be obtained for each subcategory.
Specific criteria applied in each plant selection were as follows:
1. Select a representative plant in subcategory in terms of size,
age, geographical location, and processes.
2. Select a plant which uses the greatest number of chemical
additives, preservatives, anti—foamants, cleaning solutions,
etc., which are commonly used in the subcategory to obtain the
maximum amount of priority pollutant information.
3. Select a plant that has most complete treatment in order to
obtain basic information about toxic pollutant reduction.
4. Insure that the selected plant is physically capable of being
properly sampled, i.e., the combined raw waste stream and
treated effluent can be readily sampled and the flow measured.
Upon completion of the screening program, all the above sources of data
were reviewed, and the results are discussed below.
6-2
-------
TABLE 111-1
TOXIC CHEMICAL INFORMATION
For each toxic chemical check on list, and for each wood preservative, fire retardant, fungicide, or mildewcide used
in plant, complete the following form:
1. Name of Chemical
Is this a (check one):
______ Wood Preservative ______ Other
______ Fire Retardant
_____ Fungicide
_____ Mildewcide
2. Quantity and frequency of use
_______ per ________
amount period
3. Process or operation in which substance is used or generated.
4. Is substance discharged from plant? ______Yes _____ No _____ Don’t Know
If yes, is it: ________ Air ________ Water ________ Solid Waste
If water, is it: _______ Direct Discharge _______ To P01W
5. Quantity and frequency of substance discharged:
Amount Period
( in units, lbs. tons etc.) per (day , year, etc.)
Gas __________________ _______
Liquid
Solid Waste ______________________ ________
6. Description of sampling or monitoring program.
Does your plant sample or monitor for substance?
____ Yes ____ No
If yes, give details. __________________________________
6-3
-------
THE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
The list of 124 priority pollutants investigated during the course of
this study can be divided into the following groups for discussion
purposes:
Pesticides
Polychiorinated Biphenyls (PCB’s)
Phenolic Compounds
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Semi-Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Inorganic Priority Pollutants
These groups are based upon chemical similarities and methods of
analysis employed in measuring the compound in wastewater. A discussion
of each group follows.
Pesticides and Metabolites
aidrin
dieldrin
chiordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
4,4’-DDT
4,4’—DDE (p,p’DDX)
4,4’-DDD (p,-’-TDE)
a-endosulfan
b-endosulfan
endosulfan sulfate
endri n
endrin aldehyde
heptachior
heptachior epoxide
a-BHC (hexachiorocylohexane)
b-BHC (hexachiorocylohexane)
c-BHC (hexachiorocylohexane)
d-BHC (hexachiorocylohexane)
toxaphene
Two references in the literature were found which documented the poten-
tial presence of pesticides in wastes from the Wood Products Industry.
The first (Loyttyniemi, 1975) presents evidence of lindane (c-BHC) in
barking drum effluent. Pine pulpwood being debarked in a drum had
recently been sprayed with large amounts of the pesticide. The second
reference to pesticides in wood products (Richards and Webb, 1975) is an
article describing a laboratory scale experiment in which endrin,
malathion, and kepone were added to creosote being used to treat test
coupons of pine woods. The purpose of the test was to determine the
effectiveness of the additives in preventing attack by marine borer
organisms. No commercial instance of pesticide additives to creosote
could be documented.
6-4
-------
Since the chlorinated organic pesticides are synthetically-produced
chemicals, and other than the above references, no instance of their use
was found in any of the wood products industries, it is highly unlikely
that pesticides would be of major concern as pollutants. Analytical
results of the screening program supported this assumption.
Table VI-2 shows the range of pesticides concentrations found in screen-
ing samples from wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process
hardboard plants. These values are well within the range of background
levels reported for U.S. surface waters by the EPA (EPA-STORET, 1977).
PCB’s
Arochior (Reg. T.M.) 1242
Arochior (Reg. T.M. 1254
No evidence of the use or production of PCB’s in timber products pro-
cessing operations was found in the literature. Presence of PCB’s in
wastewaters from the wood preserving, insulation board, or hardboard
industries is considered to be highly unlikely except incidentally, or
as a background contaminant. One S2S hardboard/insulation board plant
indicated that electric transformer oil containing PCB’s is used in the
plant’s electrical equipment. This is a comon use of PCB’s and is
highly unlikely to be confined to this single plant. Equipment using
this type of oil is designed to be completely self—contained, and no
discharge of PCB’s to the environment occurs except as a result of
equipment failure. Only one screening sample contained a measurable
concentration of a PCB—-the raw waste sample of one wood preserving
plant contained 20.3 ugh of Arochior (Reg. T.M.) 1242.
Phenol ic Compounds
phenol 2-nitrophenol
2—chiorophenol 4-nitrophenol
2 ,4—di chl orophenol 2 ,4-di nit rophenol
p—chlorometa cresol 4,6—dinitro—o-cresol
2 ,4—dimethyl phenol pentachiorophenol
2 ,4,6—trichlorophenol
Phenolic compounds include a wide variety of organic chemicals. Phenols
may be classified as monohydric, dihydric, or polyhydric depending on
the number of hydroxyl groups attached to the aromatic ring. Phenol
itself, which has one hydroxyl group, is the most typical of the group
and is often used as a model compound. The properties of phenol, with
certain modifications depending on the nature of the substituents on the
benzene ring, are shared by other phenolic compounds.
Since phenols are a natural constituent of wood, water in contact with
wood can be expected to contain some concentration of phenols.
Hydrolysis of wood is carried out at elevated temperatures in the
production of insulation board and hardboard. This reaction, particu-
larly the hydrolysis of lignin which serves as a natural binder in wood,
6-5
-------
Table VI—2. Pesticides in Timber Products’ Processing Wastewaters
Range of Pesticide Concentrations ugh (ppb )
BHC (all isomers) Heptachior Aidrin Chiordane
Segment
Wood
Preserving
0.001 - 0.050
0.013 -
0.684
<0.001
0.035
Insulation
Board
0.015 - 0.186
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
Wet Process
Hardboard
0.015
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6-6
-------
results in the production of phenolic compounds. Phenolic resins are
also used as additives in the production of S1S hardboard.
Phenolic compounds are invariably present in wastewaters that contact
creosote, pentachlorophenoi-petroleum solutions, and products treated
with these preservatives. The primary phenolic constituents present in
these wastes are para-, meta—, and ortho-cresol, phenol, and various
derivatives of each. Chiorophenol, di-, tn—, and tetrachiorophenols
are present to some extent in pentachiorophenol solutions used in the
Wood Preserving Industry. They can be present in process water in
concentrations of from less than 1 mg/i to 600 mg/i or higher.
Analytical difficulties occurred with the phenolic compounds during the
screening analyses, and the data were not considered sufficiently
reliable to report the concentrations of specific priority pollutant
phenols.
Analysis of each of the specific priority pollutant phenols was carried
out during the verification sampling programs due to the large amount of
information available on the presence of phenolic compounds in timber
products wastewaters.
Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Hal omethanes
bromoform (tn bromomethane)
carbon tetrachioride (tetrachioromethane)
chloroform (trichloromethane)
chlorodi bromomethane
di chlorodi fluoromethane
di chiorobromomethane
methyl bromide (bromomethane)
methyl chloride (chioromethane)
methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
tn chlorofluoromethane
The halomethanes are methane molecules with one or more substituted
halogen (chlorine, bromine, fluorine, etc.) atoms. Several of the
halomethanes are of coimiercial importance and are produced in large
quantities. Examples include methylene chloride, chloroform, and carbon
tetrachioride as solvents; chloroform and bromoform for medicinal
properties; and dichiorodifluoromethane and trichiorofluoromethane as
aerosol propellants and refrigerants. According to Symons, et al.,
1975; EPA, 1977, halomethanes are also formed as byproducts of DTe
chlorination of water and wastewater.
Methylene chloride is used as a solvent for pentachiorophenol in a
proprietary solvent-recovery treating process. A plant which uses this
process, in addition to the Boulton process, was sampled during the
screening program. The plant’s raw wastewater contained 96.6 mg/i of
6-7
-------
methylene chloride, and the treated waste contained 21.6 mg/i. Also
found in the treated waste at this plant were 5.7 mg/i of chloroform and
9.9 mg/i of trichiorofluoromethane.
One insulation board/S2S hardboard plant sampled during screening
contained 0.9 mg/i of methylene chloride in its raw process wastewater.
The fresh water used at this plant was heavily chlorinated, however, and
contained 0.5 mg/i of methylene chloride. Small amounts of chloroform
and methyiene chloride, generally less than 5 pounds per year, are used
in quality control laboratories of several hardboard mills. None of the
other wood preserving, insulation board, or wet process hardboard plants
sampled during the screening program contained halomethanes in their raw
or treated wastewaters.
Chlorinated Ethanes
1 ,1—dichloroethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1,1 ,1—trichloroethane
1,1 ,2—trichloroethane
1,1,2 ,2—tetrachioroethane
hexachi oroethane
The chlorinated ethanes are comercially important solvents, cleaning
agents, and chemical intermediates.
1,1,1—trichioroethane is used by several hardboard plants as a
degreasing and cleaning agent for electrical equipment, and by at least
one hardboard plant as a cleaning agent for hardboard press plates. The
amounts used are generally less than 5 pounds per day. Much of the
compound is degraded chemically during use, and none of the screening
plants exhibited measurable amounts in raw or treated wastewaters.
1,2—dichioroethane has been shown to be a comon byproduct of the
chlorination of drinking water (Symons, et al. , 1975) and was also the
only chlorinated ethane found in the screening program. A concentration
of 2.6 mg/i of 1,2—dichioroethane was detected in the raw wastewater of
an insulation board/S2S hardboard mill which chlorinates its fresh
process water. The freshwater sample at this plant, after chlorination,
contained 1.2 mg/i of the compound.
Aromatic Solvents
Benzene
Toluene (methyl benzene)
Ethyl benzene
Aromatic solvents are common industrial solvents and chemical inter-
mediates. All three compounds can be derived from the distillation of
coal and are found in varying amounts in coal tar products, including
creosote. Petroleum cuts containing benzene and toluene are commonly
used in wood preserving plants which use the vapor-drying process to
6-8
-------
season railroad ties prior to treatment. Toluene is used in laboratory
extractions of treated wood to determine creosote content. Benzene,
toluene, and ethylbenzene are used as solvents for finishing compounds
applied to finished hardboard panels.
Concentrations of all three solvents were found in both raw and treated
waste streams of wood preserving plants sampled during the screening
sampling program. Table VI-3 presents the range of concentrations
found. No measurable quantities were found during screening of insula-
tion board or wet process hardboard plants.
Chi oroal kyl Ethers
bis (chioromethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chioroalkyl ethers are synthetically produced as chemical intermediates
and for use in the production of pharmaceuticals. No incidence of use
in the Wood Products Industry has been reported in the literature or by
the surveyed plants. No measurable concentration of these compounds was
detected in the screening sampling program.
Dichioropropane and Dichioropropene
1 ,2—dichloropropane
1 ,2—dichloropropylene
1,2—dichloropropane is comercially produced as a solvent, a dry
cleaning agent, and for use as a soil fumigant. 1,2—dichloropropylene
is produced for use as a soil fumigant.
No incidence of use of these compounds in the Wood Products Industry has
been reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed. No
measurable concentration of either of these compounds has been detected
in the screening sampling program.
Chlorinated Ethylenes
vinyl chloride
1,1—dichioroethylene
1 ,2-trans—dichl oroethyl ene
tn chloroethyl ene
tetrachioroethylene
Vinyl chloride is widely used as a refrigerant, a chemical interrnedi ate,
and as a monomer for the cornon plastic polyvinyl chloride.
1,1—dichioroethylene is also produced as a chemical intermediate for use
in the plastics industry. 1,2-trans-dichioroethylene, trichioro—
ethylene, and tetrachioroethylene are produced for use as solvents,
degreasers, and dry cleaning chemicals.
6-9
-------
Table VI-3. Range of Aromatic Solvent Concentrations Founa in Samples
trom Three Wood Preserving Plants
Solvent
Concentrati
on mg/i
Raw Wastewater
Treated Effluent
Benzene
0.240—1.40
1.0
Toluene
1.48
4.3
Ethyibenzene
0.050—1.90
None Found
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program
6-10
-------
Polyvinyl chloride, a clear plastic material formed by polymerization of
vinyl chloride, is used by many hardboard plants as a decorative overlay
in finished panels. Trichloroethylene is used in very small amounts (5
to 10 pounds per year) in the laboratories of several hardboard plants.
No measurable concentration of any of these compounds was detected in
the screening sampling program.
Miscellaneous Volatile Organics
acrolein
acrylonitrile
chi orobenzene
Acrolein is manufactured for use in plastics, organic synthesis, and as
a warning agent in methyl chloride refrigerant. Acrylonitrile is used
in the manufacture of synthetic fibers, dyes, and adhesives. Chloro-
benzene is used as a solvent for paints, as a heat transfer medium, and
as an intermediate in production of phenol, aniline, and DDT.
No incidence of use of these compounds in the Wood Products Industry has
been reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed. No
measurable concentration of any of these compounds has been detected in
the screening sampling program.
Semi-Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
Polynuclear Aromatics (PNA’s )
*acenaphthene
*acenaphthyl ene
*anthracene
1 ,2-benzanthracene
3 ,4-benzofl uoranthene
11, 12—benzofl uoranthene
3 ,4-benzopyrene
1 ,12—benzoperyl ene
h ry s ene
*1,2,5 ,6—di beñzanthracene
*fl uorene
*f 1 uoranthene
i ndeno-(1 ,2,3—cd) pyrene
*naphthalene
*phenanthrene
*pyre ne
The polynuclear aromatic (PNA) compounds are so named because they
consist of two or more benzene rings which share a pair of carbon atoms.
These aromatic rings which share a pair of carbon atoms are also called
“fused-ring hydrocarbons.”
6-11
-------
All of these PNA’s are obtained from coal tar, which is a byproduct of
the high-temperature cooking of bituminous coal (Morrison and Boyd,
1966). Naphthalene is the most abundant of all constituents obtained
from coal tar, comprising approximately 5 percent of the coal tar
mixture. Since creosote is a product of the fractional distillation of
coal tar, creosote would be expected to contain many of the PNA’s.
Analyses performed on creosote mixtures by several investigators
[ (Lorenz and Gjovik, 1972) and (NRCC, 1945)] identified the PNA’s in the
above list marked with an asterisk.
As expected, PNA compounds were detected in the raw and treated waste-
water streams of the Wood Preserving Industry. Table VI-4 presents the
range of concentrations for specific PNA’s which were found in the raw
and treated wastewater samples collected at three wood preserving
plants, all of which treated with creosote.
No incidence of use or production of PNA’s was found in the insulation
board and wet process hardboard industries, and no measurable quantities
of PNA’s were detected during the screening program for these
industries.
Chlorobenzenes
1 ,2-di chlorobenzene
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2 ,4-tri chlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
These compounds are synthetically formed by substitution of two or more
chlorine atoms along the benzene ring. The dichlorobenzenes are used as
solvents, degreasing agents, and as insecticidal fumigants. The tn—
and hexachlorobenzenes are used primarily for their insecticidal and
fungicidal properties.
No incidence of use in the Wood Products Industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration
of these compounds has been detected in the screening sampling program.
Phthalate Esters
bis (2—ethyihexyl) phthlate
butyl benzyl phthlate
di-n-butyl phthlate
diethyl phthlate
dimethyl phthlate
The phthlate esters are comercially synthesized compounds used exten-
sively as plasticizers and as commercial polymers and plastic end
products. No incidence of the use or production of the phthlate esters
was found in the literature or in the survey of timber products plants.
Analysis of the manufacturing operations and raw materials of the wood
6 - 12
-------
Table VI-4. Range of PNA Concentrations Found in Samples from Three
Wood Preserving Plants
Concentration mg/i
Compound Raw Wastewater Treated Effluent
Acenaphthene 20.6 0.1
Acenaphthylene 2.4 - 3.15 0.36
Anthracene or
Phenanthrene* 0.01 — 39.8 0.04 - 7.1
1,2 benzanthracene 0.44 - 3.3 --
Chrysene 1.7 - 2.6 0.13
Fluoranthene 0.03 - 23.3 0.01
Fluorene 0.015 - 18.8 0.03 - 1.06
Naphthalene 0.09 - 27.8 1.1
Pyrene 0.03 - 16.5 0.01 — 1.18
*Analytjcal proceaure could not distinguish between the two isomers.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6-13
-------
preserving, insulation board, and wet process hardboard industries does
not provide any evidence for the presence of the phthlate esters in
either the raw wastewater streams or treated effluents.
Concentrations between 0.01 and 5.94 mg/i of di—n-butyl, di—ethyihexyl,
butyl benzyl, and di—ethyl phthlate esters were found in most of the
screening samples.
The possibility that phthlate contamination may have been due to the
plastic tubing used during the screening sampling program was investi-
gated. The inlet tubing specified by the EPA protocol was hospital!
surgical grade PVC tubing. Pexecon #6 Premium tubing with a 1/4—inch
inside diameter and a 1/16—inch wall thickness was used during the
collection of screening samples. It was assumed at the time that use of
this tubing would limit organic contamination of the samples. A paper
which appeared in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
(Junk, etal., 1974) contradicts this assumption.
Junk tested for organic contamination of purified water flowing through
25—foot lengths of several commercially obtained types of tubing,
including hospital/surgical grade PVC. The results clearly show that
significant amounts of organic contaminants were leached from the tubing
and that the phthlate esters appeared most frequently among the five
most dominant contaminants. None of the other contaminants were
priority poi lutarits.
Junk’s experimental conditions closely approximate conditions encoun-
tered during field sampling using peristaltic sampling equipment. The
low pH and organic solvents contained in many timber effluents can be
expected to increase the amount of contamination leached for the tubing.
Furthermore, Junk demonstrated that the amount of contamination may be
directly related to the linear velocity of the flow in the tube.
Sampling equipment with a high linear flow rate was used during
screening in order to prevent deposition of solids in the sampler.
Hal oethers
bis (2—chloroethyl) ether
bis (2—chioroisopropyl) ether
bis (2-chioroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
4—chiorophenyl phenyl ether
The haloethers are synthetically-produced compounds used comercially as
chemical intermediates, solvents, and for their heat transfer proper-
ties. No incidence of use of these compounds in the Wood Products
Industry has been reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed.
No measurable concentration of these compounds has been detected in the
screening sampling program.
6-14
-------
Nitrosami nes
N—nitrosodimethyl amine
N—nitrosodi phenyl amine
N—ni trosodi —n—propyl amine
No incidence of use of these compounds in the Wood Products Industry has
been reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed. One
screening sample of a treated effluent from a wood preserving plant
exhibited 0.006 mg/i of N—nitrosodiphenylamine; however, the presence of
this compound in the amount detected is considered to be incidental to
the wood preserving process. No other sample from this or from two
other wood preserving plants, two insulation board plants, or two wet
process hardboard plants showed a measurable amount of nitrosamines.
Nitro—Substituted Armoatics Other than Phenols
nitrobenzene
2 ,4—di nitrotoluene
2,6—dinitrotoiuene
Nitrobenzene is synthetically produced for commercial use in soaps, shoe
polish, and as a chemical intermediate. Dinitrotoluene (DNT) is an
important intermediate in the production of the explosive TNT
(trinitrotoluene).
No incidence of use of these compounds in the Wood Products Industry has
been reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measur-
able concentration of these compounds has been detected in the screening
sampling program.
Benzidine Compounds
benzidine
3,3’ —dichlorobenzidine
Benzidine compounds are synthetically—produced compounds used primarily
in the manufacture of dyes.
No incidence of use in the Wood Products Industry has been reported in
the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable concentration
of these compounds has been detected in the screening sampling program.
Miscellaneous Semi—Volatile Organic Priority Pollutants
1,2 diphenylhydrazine
hexachloroethane
hexachiorobutadjene
hexachiorocyclopentadi ene
2—chl oronaphthal ene
I sophorone
2 ,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p—dioxin
6-15
-------
1—1-diphenylhydrazine is a synthetically-produced, highly reactive
chemical intermediate. Hexachloroethane is a synthetically-produced
compound used comercially as a solvent and chemical intermediate.
Hexachlorobutadienes and hexachiorocylopentadiene are synthetically-
produced compounds of importance as monomers in the production of
plastics. 2—chloronaphthalene is synthetically produced for use as
solvent for fats, oils, and DOT. Isophorone is also synthetically
produced for use as a solvent for pesticides, polyvinyl and
nitrocellulose resins, and lacquers. 2,3,7,8—tetrachlorodibenzo—p-
dioxin (TCDD) is an extremely carcinogenic compound produced mainly as a
nuisance byproduct during chemical synthesis of the herbicide
2,4,5—trichiorophenoxy-acetic—acid (2,4,5—T). Although several
compounds of the dioxin family have been detected as contaminants in
comercial pentachlorophenol (Joynson, etal., 1975), TCDD has not been
detected and is not believed to occur in pentachlorophenol.
No incidence of use of these compounds in the Wood Products Industry has
been reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed for these
compounds. No measurable concentration of these compounds has been
detected in the screening sampling program.
Inorganic Priority Pollutants
antimony lead
arsenic mercury
asbestos nickel
beryllium selenium
cadmium silver
chromium thallium
copper zinc
cyanide
Asbestos was not analyzed due to the lack of a cost—effective analytical
procedure and the extreme improbability that asbestos would appear in
discharges from the Timber Products Industry.
No incidence of use of cyanide in the Wood Products Industry has been
reported in the literature or by the plants surveyed. No measurable
concentration of this compound was detected in the screening sampling
program.
Table VI-5 presents the common inorganic wood preservatives and fire
retardants, and lists the inorganic priority pollutants which are found
in these formulations. Process wastewater generated during treatment of
wood with inorganic salts may contain concentrations as high as several
parts per thousand of these metals. It is common practice in the
industry to recycle wastewater from inorganic salt treating operations
for dilution water of future treating solutions. Wastewater from plants
which treat with both organic and inorganic preservatives may contain
“fugitive” heavy metals due to cross-contamination. The concentrations
of “fugitive” metals range from about <0.1 to 5 mg/i.
6 - 16
-------
Table VI—5. Inorganic Priority Pollutants in Water—Borne Preservatives
and Fire Retardants
Industry Designation
Appe
ndix A Compounds
As
Cu
Cr
Zn
2,4
dinitrophenol
Acid Copper Chromate
(ACC)
X
X
Ammonical Copper
Arsenate (ACA)
X
X
Chromated Copper
Arsenate-—Type A
(CCA) Type B
TypeC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chromated Zinc
Chloride (CZC)
X
X
Fluor Chrome Arsenate
Phenol (FCAP)
X
X
X
Fire Retardants
X
X
SOURCE: Thompson, 1976.
6 - 17
-------
Insulation board and wet process hardboard plants which apply painted
finishes to their products reported the use of several of the heavy
metals including zinc, chromium, and lead as paint additives. Finishing
wastes discharged by these plants in raw wastewater are usually less
than 500 gallons per day of diluted paint in the washdown water.
Any industrial plant in which wastewater comes in contact with metal
equipment and pipes is subject to small concentrations of heavy metals
being leached into the wastewater. The presence of the inorganic heavy
metals in the raw and treated wastestreams ot plants from the wood
preserving, insulation board, anu hardboard inaustries as determined
during the screening sampling program are reported in Tables VI-6
through VI-8.
6-18
-------
Table VI-6. Metals Analysis: Wood Preserving
Parameter
Concentrations
in rng/l
Raw Wastewater
Treated
Effluent
Discharge
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Antimony
0.003
1.00
0.502
0.003
0.008
0.006
Arsenic
0.027
30.0
15.0 —
0.048
0.340
0.194
Beryllium
0.040
0.040
0.040
N.D.*
N.D.
N.D.
Cadmium
0.140
0.500
O.32O -
0.140
0.140
0.140
Chromium
0.685
6000
3000—
0.039
0.236
0.138
Copper
0.024
5000
2500-
0.062
0.062
0.062
Lead
0.188
4.00
2.O9
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Mercury
0.001
0.007
0.004
0.001
0.019
0.01
Nickel
0.623
1.50
1.06
0.055
0.055
0.055
Selenium
0.024
0.550
0.287
0.010
0.020
0.015
Silver
0.025
0.500
0.263
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Thallium
0.050
0.090
0.070
0.060
0.060
0.060
Zinc
0.048
80
40.0-
0.065
3.34
1.70
* N.D. indicates not detected.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6-19
-------
Table VI—7. Metals Analysis: Insulation Board
Parameter
Concentrations
in mg/i
Raw Wastewater
Treated
Effluent
Discharge
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Antimony
0.005
0.076
0.041
0.004
0.004
0.004
Arsenic
0.007
0.090
0.049
0.025
0.070
0.048
Beryllium
N.D.*
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Cadmium
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Chromium
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.039
0.039
0.039
Copper
0.020
0.057
0.039
0.135
0.135
0.135
Lead
0.077
0.077
0.077
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Mercury
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.019
0.010
Nickel
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Selenium
0.005
0.017
0.011
0.006
0.011
0.009
Silver
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Thallium
0.065
0.065
0.065
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Zinc
0.265
0.265
0.265
0.052
0.282
0.167
* N.D. indicates not detected.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6 - 20
-------
Table VI-8. Metals Analysis: Hardboard
Parameter
Concentrations
in mg/i
Raw Wastewater
Treated
Effluent
Discharge
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Antimony
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.017
0.017
0.017
Arsenic
0.042
0.125
0.084
0.150
0.150
0.150
Beryllium
N.D.*
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Cadmium
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Chromium
0.529
0.529
0.529
0.170
0.170
0.170
Copper
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.172
0.172
0.172
Lead
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Mercury
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Nickel
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
0.146
0.146
0.146
Selenium
0.006
0.010
0.008
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Silver
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Thallium
0.190
0.190
0.190
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
Zinc
0.032
5.86
2.95
1.66
1.66
1.66
* N.D. indicates not detected.
SOURCE: 1977 Screening Sampling Program.
6 - 21
-------
SECTION VII
CONTROL AND TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
GENERAL
This section presents a discussion of the range of wastewater control
and treatment technology at the disposal of the wood preserving, insula-
tion board, and hardboard segments of the Timber Products Processing
Industry. In—plant pollution abatement is discussed as well as end—of—
pipe treatment.
The available performance data for plants in each industry segment are
presented, and also the applicability of technology readily transferred
from related industries. For the purpose of cost analysis, one or more
candidate technologies are selected for each subcategory. For each
technology, treated effluent pollutant concentrations are reported, for
traditional as well as priority pollutants if available.
It should be noted that there are many possible combinations of in—plant
and end—of—pipe systems capable of attaining the pollutant reductions
reported for the candidate technologies. The performance levels
reported for the candidate treatment technologies are based upon
demonstrated performance of similar systems within the industry or upon
well documented results of readily transferable technology. These
performance levels can be achieved within the industry using the model
treatment systems proposed. The purpose of the model treatment systems
is to serve as a basis for a conservative economic analysis of the cost
of achieving the effluent levels reported for the candidate treatment
technologies. Each individual plant must make the final decision
concerning the specific combination of pollution control measures which
are best suited to its particular situation, and should do so only after
a careful study of the treatability of its wastewater, including waste
characterization and pilot plant investigations.
Pollution abatement and control technology applicable to the industry as
a whole were discussed in detail in the original Draft Development
Document. Summarized versions, which included updated information on
current industry practice, were presented in supplemental studies for
wood preserving and hardboard production. The portion of the previous
studies which detailed in—plant process changes, waste flow management,
and other measures having the potential to reduce discharge volume or
improve effluent quality are repeated in this document for the purpose
of continuity. Additional information available from the data collec-
tion portfolios and/or the current verification sampling program is
included in order to present the most recent information.
7-1 -
-------
Various treatment technologies that are either currently employed, or
which may be readily transferred to the industry, are summarized in this
section. Included in this section are descriptions of exemplary plants
and, where available, wastewater treatment data for these exemplary
plants. This description is followed by a selection of several treat-
ment regimes applicable to each subcategory.
WOOD PRESERVING
In—Plant Control Measures
Reduction in Wastewater Volume—-The characteristics of wood
preserving wastewater differ among plants that practice modified-closed
or closed steaming. In the former process, steam condensate is allowed
to accumulate in the retort during the steaming operation until it
covers the heating coils. At that point, direct steaming is stopped and
the remaining steam required for the cycle is generated within the
retort by utilizing the heating coils. Upon completion of the steaming
cycle and after recovery of oils, the water in the cylinder is
discarded. In closed steaming, after recovery of free oils, the water
in the retort at the end of a steaming cycle is returned to a reservoir
and is reused instead of being discarded.
The principal advantage of modified—closed steaming over open steaming,
aside from reducing the volume of waste released by a plant, is that
effluents from the retorts are less likely to contain emulsified oils.
Free oils are readily separated from the wastewater; and, as a result of
the reduction in oil content, the oxygen demand and the solids content
of the waste are reduced significantly relative to effluents from plants
using conventional open steaming. Typical oil and COD values for waste-
water from a single plant before and after the plant comenced modified—
closed steaming are shown in Figures Vu—i and VII—2, respectively. The
COD of the wastewater was reduced by about two—thirds when modified—
closed steaming was initiated. Oil content was reduced by a factor of
ten.
Water used in closed—steaming operations increases in oxygen demand,
solids content, and phenol concentration with each reuse. The high
oxygen demand is attributable primarily to wood extracts, principally
simple sugars, the concentration of which increases with each use of the
water. Because practically all of the solids content of the waste is
dissolved solids, only insignificant reductions in oxygen demand and
improvement in color result from treatments involving flocculation. The
progressive changes in the parameters for water used in a closed-
steaming operation are shown in Table Vu—i (Miss. Forest Prod. Lab.,
1970). It is apparent that in time a blowdown of the steaming water is
necessary because of the buildup of dissolved materials.
The technical feasibility of converting a wood preserving plant from
open steaming to modified or closed steaming has been demonstrated by
many plants within the past five years. The decision to convert a plant
is an economic decision related to the reduced cost of subsequent
7-2
-------
25
Variation In oil content of
Initiating closed steaming
effluent with time before and after
(Thompson and Dust, 1971)
0
15
o
C.)
Avg. oil content
before closed
steaming- 1360mg/I
5
Avg. oil content
after closed
steaming- 136mg/I
0
0 4 8 12 16 20
TIME (WEEKS)
Figure VU-i
7.3
-------
TIME (Days)
Fiqure VII 2
Variation in COD of effluent with time before and after closed
steaming: Days 0-35 open steaming; Days 35-130 closed steaming
(Thompson and Dust,1971)
I
0
0
C.)
I
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 120 130
7-4
-------
Table Vu-i. Progressive Changes in Selected Characteristics of Water
Recycled in Closed Steaming Operations
(mg/liter)
Dissol ved
Charge
No.
Phenol
COD
Solids
Solids
1
46
15,516
10,156
8,176
2
169
22,208
17,956
15,176
3
200
22,412
22,204
20,676
4
215
49,552
37,668
31,832
5
231
54,824
66,284
37,048
7
254
75,856
66,968
40,424
8
315
99,992
67,604
41,608
12
208
129,914
99,276
91,848
13
230
121,367
104,960
101,676
14
223
110,541
92,092
91,028
20
323
123,429
114,924
88,796
SOURCE: Mississippi State Forest Products Laboratory, 1970.
7-5
-------
end—of—pipe treatment of the resulting smaller volume of wastewater
generated by a converted plant.
Using the historical wastewater flow data presented in Section V, an
average two—retort open steaming plant can reduce its process wastewater
flow from over 41,600 liters/day (11,000 gpd) to less than
11,400 liters/day (3,000 gpd). Neither figure includes rainwater.
Other possible methods of reducing discharge volume are through reuse of
cooling and process water and segregation of waste streams. Recycling
of cooling water at plants that employ barometric condensers is essen-
tial because it is not economically feasible to treat the large volume
of contaminated water generated when a single—pass system is used. This
fact has been recognized by the industry, and within the past five years
there has been a significant increase in the percentage of plants
recycling barometric cooling water.
As an alternative solution to the problem associated with the use of
barometric condensers, many plants have installed surface—type
condensers as replacement equipment.
Reuse of process water is not widely practiced in the industry. There
are, however, noteworthy exceptions to this generalization. Process
wastewater from salt—type treatments is so widely used as makeup water
for treating solutions that the practice is now comon industry-wide.
One—hundred sixty of 184 plants treating with salts that were questioned
in 1974 indicated that no discharge of direct process wastewater has
been achieved through a combination of water conservation measures,
including recycling.
Several plants which treat with organic preservatives reuse treated
wastewater for boiler make—up or cooling water. Due to the nature of
contamination present in wood preserving wastewater, a high degree of
treatment is required prior to reuse of wastewater for these purposes.
One of the main sources of uncontaminated water at wood preserving
plants is steam coil condensate. While in the past this water was
frequently allowed to become mixed with process wastewater, most plants
now segregate it, thus reducing the total volume of polluted water, and
some reuse coil condensate for boiler feed water. This latter practice
became feasible with the development of turbidity—sensing equipment to
monitor the water and sound a warning if oil enters the coil condensate
return system. Reuse of coil condensate, while of some consequence from
a pollution standpoint, can represent a significant energy saving to a
plant.
End—of—Pipe Treatment
Primary Treatment-—Primary treatment is defined in this document as
treatment applied to the wastewater prior to biological treatment or its
equivalent.
7-6
-------
Oil-Water Separation--Because of the deleterious effects that oil
has on all subsequent steps in wastewater treatment, efficient oil—water
separation is necessary for effective treatment in the Wood Preserving
Industry. Oil, whether free or in an emulsified form, accounts for a
significant part of the oxygen demand of wood preserving effluents and
serves as a carrier for concentrations of the priority pollutants such
as PNA’s and pentachiorophenol that far exceed their respective
solubilities in oil—free water. In a real sense, control of oils is the
key to wastewater management in the Wood Preserving Industry.
Oil—water separators of the API type are extensively used by wood pre-
serving plants and are the equipment of choice to impart the “primary
oil separation” referred to in the proposed treatment regimes which
follow. It is preceded and followed at many plants by a rough oil sepa-
ration and a second oil separation stage, respectively. The former
operation occurs either in the blowdown tank or in a surge tank
preceding the API separator. Secondary separation usually occurs in
another API separator operated in series with the first, or it may be
conducted in any vessel or lagoon where the detention time is sufficient
to permit further separation of free oil. Primary oil separation, as
used in this document, refers to a system which contains rough oil
separation in a biowdown tank followed by a two—stage gravity separator.
The oil content of wastewater entering the blowdown tank may be as high
as 10 percent, with 1 to 5 percent being a more normal range. Depending
on the efficiency of rough separation, the influent to the primary
separator will have a free oil content ranging from less than 200 mg/i
to several thousand mg/i. Removal efficiencies of 60 to 95 percent can
be achieved, but the results obtained are affected by temperature, oil
content, and separator design-—especially detention time. Data
published by the American Petroleum Institute (API, 1959) show that
80 percent removal of free oils is normal in the petroleum industry.
Secondary separation should remove up to 90 percent of the residual free
oil, depending on the technique used.
The costs for primary oil—water separation presented in Section VIII
include both the blowdown tanks and the API-type separators for a
parallel separation system handling both creosote and pentachiorophenol
wastewaters. Due to the value of the oil and the preservatives
recovered in this system, 50 percent of the capital and annual operating
costs can be returned. Therefore, 50 percent of the capital and oper-
ating costs of the total system should not be allocated to pollution
control.
The following example will serve to illustrate this hypothesis:
Table VII—2 depicts a cost estimate for a primary oil—water separation
system for a plant treating with both creosote and pentachiorophenol and
generating 12,500 gallons per day of combined wastewater. Assuming
that:
1. Half of the wastewater is due to creosote treating and
half is due to PCP treating (6,250 gpd each system);
7-7
-------
Table VII—2.
Annual Cost of Primary Oil-Water Separation System
Creosote System PCP System
Capital Cost
Blowdown Tanks $15,800 $15,800
Surge, Skimming Tanks 9,000 9,000
Reclaim Pumps 3,200 3,200
Prim. Sep. w/5 hp Pump 22,000 6,300
Sec. w/Skimmers 23,300 7,200
Land, 0.75 Acre 7,500 7,500
Engineering 11,000 6,200
Site Prep. Foundation,
etc.
Contingency _______ ______
TOTAL
Annual Operating Cost:
Labor $ 9,300 $ 9,300
Maint. 1,900 1,150
Energy 2,150 1,450
Sludge Disposal 500 500
Ins, and Taxes 3,850 2,300
$17,600 $14,700
Capital Cost
Blowdown Tanks
Surge, Skimming Tanks
Reclaim Pumps
PCP Primary w/5 hp Pump
PCP Polishing Sep.
Land, 0.75 Acre
Engineering
Site Prep., Foundation
etc.
Contingency
20,200
16,800
$128,800 TOTAL
Amortization 20 yrs @ 10% = $15,100
12,000
10,000
$77,200
Amortization 20 yrs @ 10% = $9,050
Annual Operating Cost:
TOTAL
Labor
Maint.
Energy
Sludge Disposal
Ins, and Taxes
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST = $32,700
TOTAL ANNUAL COST = $23,750
7-8
-------
2. Process wastewater enters the blowdown tanks at
1.5 percent (15,000 mg/i) oil content and leaves the API
separator at 500 mg/i;
3. Creosote cost is $0.75 per gallon;
4. Fuel oil cost is $0.40 per gallon;
5. PCP (solid) cost is $0.60 per pound; and
6. PCP solution is 7 percent PCP and 93 percent oil;
then 831 lb/day of creosote valued at approximately $68 and 680 lb/day
of PCP solution valued at $62 are recovered. If the plant operates for
300 days per year, a total of $20,400 worth of creosote and $18,000
worth of PCP solution are recovered per year. This represents
62 percent of the total annual cost of the creosote system and
78 percent of the total annual cost of the PCP system. The 50 percent
figure was chosen to reflect the decreased value of the recovered
material as compared to new solutions.
It should be noted that primary oil separation was a specified component
of treatment technology recomended to achieve BPT effluent guidel ines
limitations and current pretreatment standards. The costs of achieving
satisfactory primary oil separation would therefore not be allocable to
the costs of achieving the recomended BAT technologies.
Chemical Flocculation——Because oil—water emulsions are not broken
by mechanical oil—removal procedures, chemical flocculation is required
to reduce the oil content of wastewaters containing emulsions to a
satisfactory level. Lime, ferric chloride, various polyelectrolytes,
and clays of several types are used in the industry for this purpose.
Automatic metering pumps and mixing equipment have been installed at
some plants to expedite the process, which is usually carried out on a
batch basis. COD reductions of 30 to 80 percent or higher are
achieved-—primarily as a result of oil removal. Average COD removal is
about 50 percent.
Influent oil concentration varies with the efficiency of mechanical oil
separation and the amount of emulsified oil. The latter variable in
turn is affected by type of preservative (either pentachlorophenol in
petroleum, creosote, or a creosote solution of coal tar or petroleum)
conditioning method used, and design of oil-transfer equipment. Penta—
chlorophenol preservative solutions cause more emulsion problems than
creosote or its solutions, and plants that steam condition——especially
those that employ open steaming——have more problems than plants that use
the Boulton conditioning method. Plants that use low—pressure, high—
volume oil transfer pumps have less trouble with emulsions than those
that use high—pressure, low—volume equipment.
7-9
-------
Typically, influent to the flocculation equipment from a creosote
process will have an oil content of less than 500 mg/liter, while that
from a pentachlorophenol process will have a value of 1,000 mg/liter or
higher. For example, analyses of samples taken from the separator
outfalls at ten plants revealed average oil contents of 1,470 and
365 mg/liter for pentachiorophenol and creosote wastewater, respec-
tively. The respective ranges of values were 540 to 2,640 mg/liter and
35 to 735 mg/liter. Average separator effluents for three steaming
plants sampled in conjunction with the present study gave oil and grease
values of 1,690 and 935 mg/liter for pentachlorophenol and creosote
separators, respectively.
Flocculated effluent generally has an oil content of less than
200 mg/liter and frequently less than 100 mg/liter.
A few plants achieve almost complete removal of free oils by filtering
the wastewater through an oil-absorbent medium. This practice is
unnecessary if the wastewater is to be chemically flocculated.
Slow—Sand Filtration——Many plants which flocculate wastewater
subsequently filter it through sand beds to remove the sludge. When
properly conducted, this procedure is highly efficient in removing both
the solids resulting from the process as well as some of the residual
oil. The solids which accumulate on the bed are removed periodically
along with the upper inch or so of sand.
A comon mistake that renders filter beds almost useless is the applica-
tion of incompletely flocculated wastewater. The residual oil retards
percolation of the water through the bed, thus necessitating the
replacement of the oil-saturated sand. This has happened frequently
enough at some plants that the sand filters have been abandoned and a
decantation process used instead. At many plants decantation is part of
the flocculation system. Solids removal is expedited by use of vessels
with cone—shaped bottoms. Frequently, the solids are allowed to accumu-
late from batch to batch, a practice which is reported to reduce the
amount of flocculating agents required.
Biological Treatment——Wastewater generated by the Wood Preserving
Industry is amenable to biological treatment. A discussion of biologi-
cal treatment as well as specific examples of treatment systems is
presented in Appendix 0.
Biological treatment has been shown to be quite effective in reducing
concentrations of BOO, COD, phenols, oil and grease, pentachiorophenol,
and organic priority pollutants from wood preserving wastewaters.
Actual reduction of these pollutants depends upon influent wastewater
quality, detention time in the biological system, amount of aeration
provided, and the type of biological system employed. The mechanism of
reduction of pentachlorophenol and high molecular weight priority
pollutants is thought to be that of adsorption upon the biomass rather
than complete biological degradation.
7 - 10
-------
Trickling filters, aerated lagoons, oxidation ponds, and activated
sludge systems are all used by one or more plants in the industry.
Several plants also use spray or soil irrigation as a biological treat-
ment method. In this sytem, wastewater is sprayed on an irrigation
field, and the effluent is either allowed to run—off into a collection
basin or is collected in underdrainS.
The biological systems in-place in the industry vary from aerated tanks
with insufficient detention time and aeration capacity to sophisticated
multi—stage systems comprised of activated sludge followed by aerated
lagoons and oxidation ponds.
Removal efficiencies of various pollutant parameters for biological
systems in the industry are presented later in this section.
Since there are a very few direct dischargers in the Wood Preserving
Industry, most plants which employ biological treatment do so for
pretreatment prior to discharge to a POTW, or for pretreatment prior to
a no—discharge system such as spray irrigation, spray evaporation, or
recycle of treated effluent.
Removal of Metals from Wastewater--A method of metals removal
recommended for wood preserving wastewaters as early as 1965 by Hyde,
but not used by that industry, was adopted from the plating industry
(Martin, 1973). This procedure is based on the fact that hexavalent
chromium is the only metal (boron excepted) used by the indusry that
will not precipitate from solution at a neutral or alkaline pH. Thus,
the first step in treating wastewaters containing this metal is to
reduce it from the hexavalent to the trivalent form. The use of sulfur
dioxide for this purpose has been discussed in detail by Chamberlirie and
Day (1956). Chromium reduction proceeds most rapidly in acid solution.
Therefore, the wastewater is acidified with sulfuric acid to a pH of
4 or less before introducing the sulfur dioxide. The latter chemical
will itself lower the pH to the desired level, but it is less expensive
to use the acid.
When the chromium has been reduced, the pH of the wastewater is
increased to 8.5 or 9.0 to precipitate not only the trivalent chromium,
but also the copper and zinc. If lime is used for the pH adjustment,
fluorides and most of the arsenic will also be precipitated. Care must
be taken not to raise the pH beyond 9.5, since trivalent chromium is
slightly soluble at higher values. Additional arsenic and most residual
copper and chromium in solution can be precipitated by hydrogen sulfide
gas or sodium sulfide. Ainmonium and phosphate compounds are also
reduced by this process.
The procedure is based on the well—known fact that most heavy metals are
precipitated as relatively insoluble metal hydroxides at an alkaline pH.
The theoretical solubilities of some of the hydroxides are quite low,
ranging down to less than 0.01 mg/liter. However, theoretical levels
are seldom achieved because of unfavorabl&Settliflg properties of the
precipitates, slow reaction rates, interference of other ions in
7-11
-------
solution, and other factors. Copper, zinc, chromium, and arsenic can be
reduced to levels substantially lower than 1.0 mg/liter by the above
procedure.
The metals removal technology upon which the candidate treatment
technology is based consists of reduction of chromium by pH reduction
with sulfuric acid and the addition of S02 gas, followed by precipita-
tion of the metal hydroxides upon pH adjustment with lime or caustic
soda. Final concentrations of copper, chromium, zinc, and arsenic of
less than 0.25 mg/l can be expected, given influent levels similar to
those presented in Table V.18. It should be noted that since no wood
preserving plant is currently applying metals removal technology to its
wastewater, performance data are not available from the industry to
confirm the expected final effluent levels.
Carbon adsorption following metals removal by lime precipitation has
been reported to provide the most encouraging results for removal of
heavy metals, as reported by EPA (Technology Transfer, January 1977).
The study found that pretreatments of wastes with lime, ferric chloride,
or alum followed by carbon adsorption were highly effective. Reductions
of chromium, copper, zinc, and arsenic following this treatment were, in
order, 98.2, 90.0, 76.0, and 84.0 percent. Influent concentrations used
in this study were 5.0 mg/i for all the above listed metals.
Carbon Adsorption-—The efficacy of activated carbon in wastewater
treatment has been “rediscovered” by dozens of scientists and engineers
in recent years, and it would appear that most have recorded their find-
ings in various scientific journals. Relatively few of these articles
are relevant to the Timber Products Industry.
To date, there is no known preserving plant that uses activated carbon
adsorption as part of its wastewater treatment program. However, the
South Orange, New Jersey, plant of Atlantic Creosoting Company has
engaged an engineering firm to study the possible use of activated
carbon to treat water from a wet scrubber installed as part of an odor—
control system (Straubing).
Results of carbon adsorption studies conducted by Thompson and Dust
(1972) on a creosote wastewater are shown in Figure VII—3. Granular
carbon was used with a contact time of 24 hours. The wastewater was
flocculated with ferric chloride and its pH adjusted to 4.0 prior to
exposure to the carbon. Typical concentrations of COD and total phenols
in flocculated wastewater use 4,000 mg/i and 200 mg/i, respectively. As
shown in the figure, 96 percent of the phenols and 80 percent of the COD
were removed from the wastewater at a carbon dosage of 8 g/liter. The
loading rate dropped off sharply at that point, and no further increases
in phenol removal and only small increases in COD removal occurred by
increasing carbon dosage to 50 gm/liter. Similar results were obtained
in tests using pentachiorophenol wastewater.
Results of adsorption isotherms that were run on raw pentachlorophenol
wastewater and other samples of raw creosote wastewater followed a
pattern similar to that shown in Figure VII—3. In some instances a
7-12
-------
Activated Carbon (gmlHter)
Relationship Between Weight of Activated Carbon Added
and Removal of COO and Phenols from a Creosote Wastewater
Figure V 11-3
I
E
—
—
a
•0
0
Phenol
COO
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
7 - 13
-------
residual content of phenolic compounds remained in wastewater after a
contact period of 24 hours with the highest dosage of activated carbon
employed, while in other instances all of the phenols were removed.
Loading rates of 0.16 kilogram of phenol and 1.2 kilograms of COD per
kilogram of carbon were typical, but much lower rates were obtained with
some wastewaters.
Adsorption isotherms have been developed for wood preserving wastes from
several plants to determine the economic feasibility of employing
activated carbon in lieu of conventional secondary treatments. The
wastewater used for this purpose was usually pretreated by flocculation
and filtration to remove oils. Theoretical carbon usage rates obtained
from the isotherms ranged from 85 to almost 454 kg per 3,785 liters (187
to 1,000 pounds per 1,000 gallons) of wastewater. However, values as
low as 0.6 kg per 3,785 liters (1.4 pound per 1,000 gallons)—-.e.g., the
waste from Atlantic Creosoting Company mentioned above-—have been found.
Because of its source, this waste was not typical of that from a wood
preserving plant, although both COD and phenols-—4,000 and 600 mg/i——
were high. It differed in quality from a flocculated wood preserving
wastewater in that it did not contain large amounts of readily
adsorbable wood sugars; however, the experience has been that, while
activated carbon does an excellent job in removing phenolic compounds,
these readily adsorbable organics, principally water—soluble wood
sugars, greatly increase carbon exhaustion rates.
Use of activated carbon to treat wastewater from a plant producing
herbicides was described by Henshaw (1971). With the exception of wood
sugars, this waste was similar to wood preserving effluents, especially
in terms of COD (3,600 mg/liter) and phenolic materials (210 mg/liter).
Raw wastewater was piped directly to a carbon adsorber and the carbon
was regenerated thermally. Flow rate and loading rate were not
revealed, but the effluent from the system had a phenol content of
1 mg/liter. Cost of the treatment was reported to be about $0.36 per
3,785 liters (1,000 gallons).
The effect of high organic content on carbon usage rate is well known in
industry. Recent work to develop adsorption isotherms for 220 waste—
water samples representing 75 SIC categories showed a strong relation-
ship between carbon usage rate and organic content of the samples, as
measured by TOC (Hager, 1974). Usage rates as high as 681 kg per
3,785 liters (1,500 pounds per 1,000 gallons) were reported for waste—
water samples from the organic chemicals industry. For petroleum re-
fining, the values ranged from 0.1 to 64 kg per liter (0.2 to 141 pounds
per gallon), depending upon the TOC of the waste.
Use of activated carbon in wastewater treatment in oil refineries is
comon (Paulson, 1972; Dejohn and Adams, 1975; Baker, 1976, Scaramelli
and DiGiano, 1975). Because this industry is related to wood preserving
in terms of wastewater characteristics, a few of the more pertinent
articles dealing with activated carbon treatment of refinery wastewater
are summarized here.
7 - 14
-------
Workers dealing with treatment process methodology emphasized the
necessity of pretreatment of activated carbon column influent (Suhr and
Cuip, 1974). Based on these reports, suspended solids in amounts ex-
ceeding 50 mg/liter should be removed. Oil and grease in concentrations
above 10 mg/liter should likewise not be applied directly to carbon.
Both materials cause head loss and can reduce adsorption efficiency by
coating the carbon particles. This is apparently more critical in the
case of oil and grease than for suspended solids.
Comon pretreatment processes used by the industry include chemical
clarification, oil flotation, and filtration. Adjustments in pH are
frequently made to enhance adsorption efficiency. An acid pH has been
shown to be best for phenols and other weak acids. Flow equalization
is, of course, necessary for most treatment processes.
Efficiency of adsorption varies among molecular species. In a study of
93 petrochemicals comonly found in that industry’s wastewater, adsorp-
tion was found to increase with molecular weight and decrease with
polarity, solubility, and branching (Scaramelli and DiGiano, 1975).
However, molecules possessing three or more carbons apparently respond
favorably to adsorption treatments (Hager, 1974).
Dejohn and Adams (1975) studied the relative efficiency of lignite and
bituminous coal carbons and concluded that the former is better for
refinery wastes because it contains more surface area due to its 20— to
500—Angstrom pore size.
The feasibility of activated carbon adsorption for reduction of phenolic
compounds, including chlorophenols, and high molecular weight organics,
such as polynuclear aromatics and phthalates, has been demonstrated by
several investigators ( Carbon Adsorption Handbook , 1978; Dobbs etal.,
1978). Since carbon adsorption of flocculated wood preserving waste—
waters results in high carbon usage rates as described above, the
concept of activated carbon as a polishing treatment for removal of
phenols, PNA’s, and residual COD following biological treatment appears
to have merit. In this configuration, biological treatment serves to
remove most of the wood sugars and other readily biodegradable organics
prior to carbon adsorption, thus decreasing carbon doses required and
greatly increasing carbon life. Such a system has been chosen as a
candidate treatment technology for wood preserving wastewaters.
Experience with carbon adsorption of biologically-treated effluents from
other industries indicates that a conservative carbon dosage of 4.54 kg
per 3,785 liters (10.0 lb/1,000 gal) with two hours contact time is
sufficient to result in an expected 80 percent removal of COD and
95 percent removal of phenols, PCP, and PNA’s from biologically treated
wood preserving effluent. (Average concentrations of these parameters
present in biologically—treated effluent are presented later in this
section.) The costs of the carbon adsorption candidate technology
presented in Section VIII are based on the above design criteria and the
assumption that the exhausted carbon will be discarded and not regener-
ated. According to Hutchins (1975), it is most economical to discard
7 - 15
-------
carbon at usage rates lower than 159 to 182 kg, 350 to 400 pounds per
day, and to thermally regenerate at higher usage rates.
It should again be noted that the expected removals of pollutants and
design criteria presented above are engineering judgments based on
experience with similar industries, and have not been demonstrated
within the wood preserving industry since there are no carbon adsorption
systems operating for the treatment of wood preserving wastewaters.
Evaporation——Due to the relatively low volumes of wastewater
generated by wood preserving plants, evaporation is a feasible and
widely—used technology for achieving no—discharge status. Based on the
large number of plants which have adopted evaporation technology to
achieve no—discharge status, this technology appears to be the method of
choice for many wood preserving plants to comply with effluent guide-
lines limitations.
Three types of evaporative systems are conwon in the industry. The
first type, spray evaporation, is coninon to Boulton and steaming plants.
This technology involves containing the wastewater in lined lagoons of
sufficient size to accomodate several months of process wastewater, as
well as the rainwater falling directly on the lagoon. The wastewater is
sprayed under pressure through nozzles thereby producing fine aerosols
which are evaporated in the atmosphere. The driving force for this
evaporation is the difference in relative humidity between the atmos-
phere and the humidity within the spray evaporation area. Temperature,
wind speed, spray nozzle height, and pressure are all variables which
affect the amount of wastewater which can be evaporated.
Reynolds and Shack (1976) have developed the following design equation
for spray evaporation ponds:
- Ky’ L + Cw WL7 rcl-Hr)Psl
E = 1260.5 Whe 5280 Whe J L Pa J RLn
Climatic Factors: W = Wind Speed (MPH) 39 66 Pa
e = Air Density = 46 + Ta
where: Pa = Atmospheric Pres. (AT.)
Ta = Atmospheric Temp. (°F)
Hr = Relative Humidity
Ps = Saturation Vapor Pressure
Operational Factors: h = Height of spray above surface of pond
Ky’ = Spray mass transfer coefficient
Cw = Surface mass transfer coefficient
L = Pond length (in direction of prevailing wind)
R = Ratio of width to the length of the pond
RL = Width of pond
n = Number of hours in the month
E = Evaporation in cu ft per month
7.16
-------
This design is considered by the authors to be conservative as it
neglects pan evaporation (which occurs in most areas of the country),
assumes no drift loss, and assumes no evaporation when the sprays are
off, when in fact the wind will cause surface evaporation.
To be effective, spray evaporation should be preceded by primary and
secondary oil removal. Excess oil content in the wastewater may retard
evaporation and increase the potential for air pollution. Careful
segregation of uncontaminated water from the wastewater stream is
particularly important in evaporative technologies to minimize the
amount of wastewater to be evaporated.
The second type of evaporation technology is cooling tower evaporation.
This technology is feasible for Boulton plants only. In this sytem, as
the wood water vapor is condensed, it gives up heat to the cooling water
passing through the surface condenser. The condensed wood water is sent
to an accumulator, and from there to an oil—water separator for removal
of oils. Rainwater and cylinder drippings may also be routed to the
separator. This wastewater stream is then added to the coolinq water
which recirculates through the surface condenser picking up heat, then
through a forced—draft cooling tower where evaporation occurs.
Figure VII-4 depicts a cooling tower evaporation system.
Since the vacuum cycle in a Boulton plant is from 12 to 40 hours, suffi-
cient waste heat is usually available to evaporate all of the waste—
water. Heat from an external source, usually process steam, can be
added to an additional heat exchanger to assist the evaporation of peaks
in wastewater generated from time to time.
In steaming plants, the vacuum cycle is much shorter, ranging from 1 to
3 hours. Therefore, there is no continuous (or nearly continuous)
source of waste heat available to affect the evaporation of wastewater.
Generally, about 25 percent of the process wastewater is the maximum
amount that can be evaporated by cooling tower evaporation at a steaming
p1 ant.
The third method of evaporation is thermal evaporation using an external
heat source. As this method is particularly energy—intensive and expen-
sive, it is not generally feasible except when used to supplement other
treatment methods and when peak surges in wastewater generation occur,
as in the cooling tower system.
Other Applicable Technologies-—Wood Preserving——Several additional
treatment technologies were evaluated to determine their feasibility as
candidate treatment technologies for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment
standards. The technologies evaluated for wood preserving included:
Tertiary Metals Removal Systems
Membrane Systems
Adsorption on Synthetic Adsorbents
Oxidation by Chlorine
Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide
Oxidation by Ozone
7 - 17
-------
VAPORS
WOOD OUT
WOOD IN AIR AND
VAPORS
PRESERVATIVES I ________
TO WORK TANK
VACUUM
PUMP
CYLINDER DRIPPINGS COOLING
WATER
WORK TANK PRESERVATIVES AND RAIN WATER _______
TO CYLINDER
ACCUMULATOR
____ RECOVERED OILS OIL - WA
ATO CONDENSATE
WATER VAPOR
VAPOR
_____— t:i: i
WASTE WATER F ________
____________________ ___________ EXTERNAL HEAT,
IF NECESSARY
EVAPORATOR
-n POLISHING
OIL REMOVAL COOLING
TOWER
CD
MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER EVAPORATION SYSTEM
-------
A discussion of each of these technologies and case studies of their
application to the wood preserving industry are presented in Appendix E,
Discussion of Potentially Applicable Technologies.
None of these technologies were chosen as candidate technologies because
they are experimental in nature, and further research is necessary to
sufficiently determine the effectiveness of treatment which could be
expected when these technologies are applied to wood preserving
wastewaters.
tn—Place Technology
The current levels of in—place technology for plants responding to the
DCP and the follow—up telephone survey are presented in Tables VII—3
through VII—7 for Boulton no- .dischargers, Boulton indirect ciischargers,
steaming no—dischargers, steaming direct dischargers, and steaming
indirect dischargers, respectively.
7.19
-------
Table VII—3. Current Level of In—Place lechnology, Boultori, No Di schargers
Ev.ipuraL ion——Ground Infiltration Ponds.
informalion not available for this plant • other than it is no—discharge.
souuci:. Data collect ton portfolio and follow—up tel ephone survey.
p .3
0
Plant
Primary Oil
Separation
Oil Separation
by Dissolved Air
Flotation
Evaporation
Ponds
Soil
Spray or
Irrigation
Cooling Tower
[ vaporation
Thernial
[ vaporation
[ ffluent Becycle
to Boilers or
Condensors
47
X
X
98
X
X
203
X
X
32
X
x 1
94
X
X
29
X
X
92
X
X
34
X
X
91
X
X
35
X
X
90
X
X
X
362
240
X
X
89
X
X
31
X
X
88
X
X
38
X
X
X
Ill
X
X
85
X
X
216
X
x
111
x
x
39
X
X
832
40
X
X
-------
Table VI1—4. Current Level of In—Place Technology, Wood Preserving
Boulton Indirect Dischargers
Plant
Primary Oil
Separation
Chemical Flocculation
and/or Oil Absorbent
Media
Biological
Treatment
82
X
X
41
X
X
112
X
X
862
X
81
X
44
X
80
X
45
X
79
X
X
46
X
199
X
X
X
SOURCE: Data collection portfolio and follow-up telephone survey 1
7 - 21
-------
Table VII—5. Current Level of In—Place Terhnoloqy, SLeaniinq, No—Pischarq rs
Spray-
Chemical
Asslstpd
rrfhzent
Gravity
Flocculation
Sand
Spray
Thermal
Solar
Solar
Recycle to
Oil—Water
or Oil Absorp-
Filtra-
Oxidation
aerated
Irriqa—
Holdlnq
I vapora-
Ivapora-
Evapora—
Roiler or
Plaril Separation
tive Media
tion
Laqoon
Laqoon
tion
Rasin
tion
tion Pond
tion
Condenser
117 X x
31 X X X
14 X X X
18 X
970* X X X
78 X
20 X X X X
740 X
11 X x x
17 x
23 X X X
84 X X
55 X
185 X X X X X X
65 X X X
745 X X X
971 X X X
66 X X X
553 X X X X X X
33 X X
71 X X
81 X X X
75 X X
69 X X X X
855 X X X
599 X X X X
30 X x
412
495 X
411 X X X X
5F X X X X X X
21 X X X
43 X X X
52
438 X X
999 X X X X
76 X x
13 X X X X
16 X
25 X x
-------
lahie VI1—5. 1urrt nt level of ln—Plat.e Eechiiology, Sleaiiiin , Nu—Dischargerc (Continued. page 2 of 2)
Si” ay—
Cliem ica I
Assisted
1ff 1 omit.
Gravil y
IlocculldL Ion
Sand
Spray
Thermal
Solar
Solar
ftccyi.le Lu
Oil—WaLer
or Oil Ahsorp—
Filt,a-
Oxidation
Aerated
Irriga—
Holding
[ vapora-
Evapora—
Eva iora—
Boiler or
P I ant
Separa Li on
live Mud ia
Li on
Lagoon
Lagoon
t ion
Qas in
Lion
t Ion Pond
Lion
Condenser
61
X
x
x
86
X
X
X
22
X
93
X
X
X
X
15
X
12
X
X
X
99
X
51/
X
X
X
X
331
X
X
X
X
19
X
x
9/
X
26
X
X
X
96
X
X
316
X
X
X
x
2 /
X
300
X
X
X
X
95
X
A
C*3
* PlaiiL inicincrates excess oily wasFewater.
SOIJI1CL: Data collection portfolio and follow—tip telephone survey
-------
laI,le VI 1-6. Current Level of In-Place Technology, Stedohing, Direct Dischargers
M
Gravity
Oil—Water
Plant S parat loll
Chiepilcal
Flocculation
or Oil Absorp—
t I ye Media
Sand
ultra-
t ion
Oxidation
Lagoon
Aerated
Lagoon
Spray
Irriga—
t ion
holding
Bas iii
Thermal
(vdpora—
t ion
Solar
(vapora-
t ion Pond
Spray—
Assisted
Solar
[ vapora—
Li on
I:ff liienl
Recycle to
Boih’r or
Condenser
637 X
X
X
X
X
X
1/I X
X
X
x
60 X
X
110 X
X
X
914 X
X
120 X
X
130 X
X
110 X
X
X
150 X
X
X
160 X
X
X
X
SOURCE: Data collect ion portfol in and follow—up telephone survey.
-------
Ial)le V I—i. Current Level ul In—Place TecIuniolu jy, Wood I’reserv ing—Steaiiiing, hid in cc t 1)1 sclnargers
U’
Sinray-
Chemical
Assisted
Effluent
Gravity
i1oc ulation
Sand
Spray
Thermal
Solar
Solar
Recycle to
OiI-Wdter
or Oil Absorp—
FllLra-
Oxidation
Aerated
Irriga—
Holding
Fvapora-
[ vapora—
[ vapora—
Boiler or
I lcirit
Separation
tive t4 dia
tion
Lagoon
Lagoon
tion
Basin
tion
Lion Pond
tion
Condenser
199
X
450
X
X
X
X
77
X
X
48
X
X
X
X
X
/4
X
X
X
49
X
X
X
X
/3
x
x
x
180
X
X
190
X
50
X
X
12
X
X
51
X
/0
X
X
53
X
X
68
X
X
X
54
X
X
67
X
X
139
X
X
58
X
X
X
62
X
X
X
X
59
X
X
56
X
X
63
X
X
X
SU(JIl( I:: I)ata col I ec lion port fol no and follow-UI) tel einlione survey.
-------
Treated Effluent Characteristics
Treated effluent characteristics for wood preserving plants sampled
during the pretreatment study and the verification sampling program are
presented in Tables VII-8 through VII-44 for traditional parameters and
the priority pollutants. Data are presented in terms of both concentra-
tions and waste loads.
Data from three sampling and analytical programs are presented. Data
for plants sampled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study represent the
average of two or more grab samples collected at each plant. Variation
of data for plants sampled during the 1977 and 1978 verification sam-
pling programs represent the average of three 24—hour composite samples
collected at each point.
Treated effluent flow data for some plants may differ somewhat from the
raw wastewater flow presented for the same plant during the same
sampling period. This is due to either dilution by steam condensate,
cooling water, boiler blowdown, etc., occurring after the raw wastewater
sampling point; or where no dilution occurs, it is due to evaporative or
percolation losses in the treatment system.
For the purpose of data presentation and interpretation, the plants are
grouped into categories based upon the type of treatment technology
which was in—place at the time of sampling.
One category represents plants which have BPT technology or its equiva-
lent in—place. BPT technology consists of primary oil—water separation,
flocculation and slow sand filtration, followed by effective biological
treatment. Flocculation and slow sand filtration is an optional part of
BPT technology which may not be required by plants whose wastewaters do
not contain high enough concentrations of emulsified oils to inhibit
biological treatment. Only one of the plants in this category is a
direct discharger. All of the remaining plants discharge to a POTW or
to self—contained soil irrigation systems following biological
treatment.
A second category of plants represents those with the equivalent of
current pretreatment technology in—place. Current pretreatment tech-
nology consists of primary oil—water separation followed by flocculation
and slow sand filtration. Some plants in this category achieve the
recomended effluent levels without the slow sand filtration. One plant
replaces the flocculation/filtration system with oil absorbent media.
All of the above plants are indirect dischargers.
The final category of plants for which data are presented are plants
with less than the equivalent of BPT technology in—place. These plants
have biological systems which do not meet the effluent standards for BPT
because of insufficient aeration and/or insufficient detention time, as
compared to a properly designed plant with BPT technology. These plants
were visited and sampled during the 1975 Pretreatment Study, and all of
them discharge to a P01W after treatment.
7 - 26
-------
Metals data are presented according to whether the plants treat with
organic preservatives only, or with both organic and inorganic
preservati yes.
7 - 27
-------
Table VII—8.
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
999
50
216
58
Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional Parameters Data for Plants with Less Than
the Equivalent of BPT Technology In_Place**
and
for
for
and
Plant
Data
Source
Flow
(GPO)
Production
(Cu—Ft/Day)
Concentrations (mg/i)
Wasteloads
(ib/1,000
Cu—Ft)
COD
Phenols
0 &
G
PCP
COD
Phenols
0 & G
PCP
999
PS’75
< 100
1,950
10,580
5.30
1,220
57.0
<4.52
<0.0023
<0.521
<0.0244
50*
PS’75
25,000
8,000
1,980
18.9
78.2
7.20
51.6
0.493
2.04
0.188
216*
PS’75
9,000
12,300
2,220
120
116
5.50
13.6
0.729
0.706
0.0336
58*
PS’75
2,000
3,000
5,100
325
449
41.5
28.4
1.81
2.49
0.231
Wasteload
Averages
<24.5
<0.759
<1.44 <0.119
*
Plants
used
to
calculate
treated
averages
in
Table
VII-32.
*
All four of
these plants
provide
a minimum
of
biological treatment
prior to
discharge to a P01W.
provides insufficient aeration
provides insufficient aeration
provides insufficient aeration
provides insufficient aeration
detention
effective
effecti ye
detention
time for effective biological treatment.
biological treatment.
biological treatment.
time for effective biological treatment.
-------
Table VII-9. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Traditional Parameters Data for Plants with Current
Pret reatnient Technology In—P 1 ace
Plant
Data
Source
Flow
(GPD)
Production
(Cu—Ft/Day)
Concentrations (mg/i)
Wasteloads (lb/1,000 Cu—Ft)
COD
Phenols
0 & G
PCP
COD
Phenols
0
& G
PCP
450*
PS’75
3,000
3,880
4,866
0.202
339.3
15.0
31.4
0.0013
2.19
0.097
48
ESE’78
9,120
9,890
5,440
13.6
14.1
5.80
41.8
0.105
0.108
0.0446
48*
ESE’77
12,000t
5,800
4,420
64.4
49
6.12
76.3
1.11
0.846
0.106
48*
PS’75
6,000
6,600
4,315
50.8
20.0
3.20
32.7
0.385
0.152
0.0243
74*
PS’75
1,700
3,400
2,290
230.2
15.0
NA
9.55
0.960
0.0626
NA
72*
PS’75
13,750
7,500
3,030
80.2
40.0
9.00
46.2
1.23
0.612
0.138
68*
PS’75
5,000
2,700
10,513
448.0
245.2
NA
162
6.92
3.79
NA
63
PS’75
12,000
5,500
4,644
169.7
87.8
134.0
84.5
3.09
1.60
2.44
82*
ESE’78
2,200
2,770
500
1.60
121
17.0
3.31
0.0106
0.801
0.113
82*
PS’75
5,000
5,000
528
73.7
19.67
2.71
4.40
0.615
0.164
0.0226
79*
ESE’77
10,500**
10,900
3,164
680
40.0
NA
25.4
5.46
0.321
NA
79*
PS’75
7,000
10,000
4,078
613.1
24.9
0.06
23.8
3.58
0.145
0.0004
Wasteload Averages 45.1 1.96 0.899 0.332
NA Not Analyzed.
* Plants used to calculate treated averages in Table V1I—33.
t Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of stormwater runoff in treated flow.
This data does not alter the validity of wasteloads.
** Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to flow equalization in the treatment system.
This data does not alter the validity of wasteloads.
-------
I able VII — III. Wood Preserving Treated [ flluent
Traditional Parameter I)ata for Piarils With Current DPI Technology In-Plact
I I alit
flat.a
Sourre
Flow
(qpd)
P od.
(IL /day)
Concentrations (mg/i)
Wasteloads
(lb/i ,(ll1O ft
p:p
COD
phenols
0
A 6
COD
Phenols
0 & 6
PCP
5i AA
is i:’78
36000
15500
661
0.927
52.3
2.70
12.8
0.0180
1.111
0.0.523
l1!)SAA
[ SE’ !!
14000k
8760
416
0.695
126
0.’)07
s.si
0.0093
i.iio
o.oi i
4,)I *k
[ 51 ,/H
14150fF
7920
63()
0.260
100
0.032
9.39
0.111 )39
1.4’)
0.0005
495
[ SL’71
9350
11300
119
0.048
3’)
0.21
0.821
0.0003
0.26’)
0.0014
331*A
15 1: 1/H
42400
18200
230
0.068
9.3
0.069
4.41
0.0013
0.181
0.01113
3161
1SL’ii
66300
16300
2122
7.00
398
8.27
72.0
0.237
13.5
0.?HL
I ) ’J
PS ’iS
2500()
7000
100
0.130
< 10
HA
2.98
0.0039
<0.298
HA
Wasteload Av irages
HA Not Ana1y ed.
£ PlaiiL is a self-contained discharger. Samples were taken alter Multi—Stage Biological Freataient.
data was used to calculate wasteloads.
I I)ata iiot included in averaging since the treatment system was operating under upset conditions during sampling.
Samples were col lected Irouui the plant to determine the effect of upset 111)011 PrioritY pollutant reuu val.
Plants used to (:aicu ilate treated averages in Table VJl—34.
II V riat ions between the raw and treated flow are due to Inclusion of boiler hiowdown and storuwater riiuiof I in
I real ed t low. Iii is does iiot alter the val Idi Ly of the was Lelnails.
-J
‘9
0
6.110 0.0(161
(0.821 0.0135
historical flow
-------
Table Vu— Il. Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Volatile Organic
Analysis During 1978 Verification Sampling
vinyl chloride
chloroethane
chloromethane
bromomethane
tn bromomethane
bromodi chioromethane
di bromochloromethane
carbon tetrachioride
di chiorodi fluoromethane
tn chiorofluoromethane
1, 2—dichioroethane
1, 1-dichioroethane
1,1, 1—trichioroethane
1,1, 2—trichloroethane
tetrachioroethane
1, 1—di chioroethyl ene
trans 1,2—dichioroethylene
tetrachioroethyl ene
tn chloroethylene
1 ,2—di chioropropane
1, 3—di chioropropyl ene
Bi s—chloromethyl ether
Bis—chioroethyl ether
2—chioroethylvi nyl ether
acrolein
acrylonitri le
Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is 10 ugh.
7 - 31
-------
laMe VU—i?. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile Organics Data for Plants With Current Pretreatment Technology
In-Macel
— Concentrations (mg/i) Wasteloads (lb/I fl0fl ft 3 ) —______
Data Flow Prod.
Plant Source (qpd) (ft 3 /day) niecl trclme hrdlclme henzene ethenzene toluene med trclme hrdiclnue henzene ethen7ene toluiene
82k
ESC’78
2200
2770
1.90
--
--
0.003
--
--
0.0126 <0.0001
<0.0001
(0.0001
(0.0001
<0.01101
48
ESF’78 9120
9890
0.061
--
--
0.033
0.020
0.033 0.01105 (0.0001 <0.0001
0.0003
11.1111(12
0.0003
Wacteload Averages
* Data not included in averaging since plant uses unique methylene chloride process.
I A corresponding averages table is not presented because Plant 48 raw wasteloads are unavailable and Plant 8? uses
a unique rnethylene chloride process.
—— hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for hut was below detection limit.
0.0005 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0(103
(1.00(12 0.0003
CA3
I ’ . )
-------
Table Vlt- 13. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Volatile Orqanics Data for Plants With Current RPT lechnoloqy In—Place
Plant
Data
Source
Flow
(gpd)
Prod.
(1t 3 /day)
Concentrations (ing/l)
Wasteloads (lh/1,000 ft 3 )
toluerie
med
trcliuue
benzene
etbenzene
toluene
med
trcluiue
hen7ene
etl)enzene
fl55*
ESF.’78
36000
15500
0.013
--
—-
--
--
0.0003
<0.0001
(0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
495*
[ SE’18
141501
1920
(1.660
0.023
0.010
--
0.140
0.0098
0.0001
0.0001
<0.0001
fl.flhl?1
331*
(SE78
42400
18200
0.140
0.003
0.030
--
0.023
0.0027
0.0001
0.0006
(0.0001
0.0005
Wasteload Averages 0.0043 <0.000? (0.0003 (0.0001
-------
Table VII—l4.
Substances Analyzed for but Not Found in Base Neutral
Fractions During 1977 and 1978 Verification Sampling
2-chi oronaphthal ene
di ethyl phthal ate
di -n—butyl phthal ate
butylbenzyl phthal ate
dimethyl phthal ate
4-chi orophenyl -phenyl ether
bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
bis(2—chloroethoxy) methane
4-bromophenyl phenylether
N—nitrosodimethyl amine
N—nitrosodi —n—propyl amine
N—nitrosodi phenyl amine
1 ,2—dichlorobenzene
1 ,3—dichlorobenzene
1 ,4—dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4—trichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
2 ,6—di nitrotol uene
2,4—di nitrotoluene
benzidi ne
3,3’ -dichlorobenzidine
ni trobenzene
hexachiorobutadi ene
hexachlorocyclopentadi ene
hexachioroethane
i sophorone
1 ,2—di phertyl hydrazi ne
2,3,7 ,8—tetrachlorodi benzo—p-dioxi n
Generalized machine detection limit for these compounds is 10 ugh.
7 -34
-------
fable VII .-15. Wood Preserving TreaLe(l (fflsieiit Base Neutrals roncentrations for Plants with Current Pretreatment
Tectinoloqy In-P I ace
Plant
theiber
Data
Source
flow Pied.
(yal/day) (ft 3 /day)
Concentrations (mg/I)
I
1
2
3
1
5
6
7
8
9
Ifl
II
I?
13
14
IS
82
I SI ‘78
2200
2710
——
— —
— —
——
——
——
0.133
——
——
——
——
——
——
——
——
79
ISI ‘77
105(10
10900
0.092
--
--
0.027
—-
--
-—
0.058
--
--
0.930
0.059
0.059
0.019
--
0.0? ’)
48
LSU ‘78
9I 0
9890
17.0
2.50
9.4( 1
——
——
——
37.0
3.10
—-
36.0
18.0
——
16.0
19.0
——
48
1S1 ‘1!
1201)0
5800
--
—-
-—
——
—-
——
——
0.059
-—
—-
0.820
0.100
0.140
0.03(i
-—
fl.l’ i4
-— Ilylilieui (leilotes that Iarauiieter was analyzed for hut was below detection limit.
I ey to Base Neutral I)ata lables
I. iluorauutbene
2. Benzo (B) rluorantherie
3. Benzo (IS) Fluorantheuue
4. Pyrene
5. Il’nzo (A) Pyrene
6. Indeno (1, 2, 3—CD) I’yrene
I. Benzo (ghi) Perylene
8. Phenanthrene and/or Aritliracene
9. Benzo (a) Anthracene
Ill. Dih ’nzo (a. h) Aiulhracene
II . Naplut_ha I c’ue
12. AcenaphLhene
13. Acenaphttiy 1 ene
II. I luoreuie
IS. Chrysene
16. Bis—?—tLliyl—hexyl lilitlialate
-------
Table Vll—16. Wooti Preserving Treated Effluent Ilase Neutrals Wasteloads for Plants with Current Pretreatnient
Technology In-Place
Plant
Number
nate
Source
Flow
(qal/day)
Prod.
(ft 3 /day)
1
2 3
4 S
6
Waste Loads
7
(lb/I,
8
000 ft 1 )
9
In •1 F
12
13
14
i c
i
821
[ SE ‘78
2200
2770
<0.0001
(0.0001 (0.0001
(0.0001 (0.0001
<0.0001
(0.0001
0.0009
(0.0001
<0.0001 <0.0001
<0.0001
(0.0(ff)1
(0.0001
(0.11001
(0.011(11
791
[ SE ‘77
10500
10900
0.0007
<0.0001 <0.0001
0.0002 <0.0001
(0.0001
<0.0001
n.onnc
(0.0001
(0.01101 0.0075
0.0005
0.0005
0.0002
(0.0(11)1
0.0002
48
[ SE ‘78
9120
9890
0.131
0.0192 (0.0001
0.0723 (0.0001
(0.0001
<0.0001
0.285
0.0261
<0.0001 0.277
0.138
(0.00(11
(1.123
0.0146
<0.0(11)1
481
[ SE 77
12000 1t
5800
<0.0001
(0.0001 <0.0001
(0.0001 (0.0001
(0.0001
<0.0091
0.0010
<0.0001
<0.0001 0.0141
0.0017
0.0024
0.0006
(0.011(11
0.11077
Wiisteload Averaqes <0.0330 (0.0049 <0.0001 <0.0182 (0.0001 (0.0001 (0.0(101 0.0119 (0.0066 (0.0001 0.0747 <0.03b 1 <0.0010 <0.0 l0 O.ulO3l <0.0(1(0
* Data nut included in averages.
t Plants used to calculate treated averages in Table 1 111—36.
Venal ions between the raw and treated flow are due to flow equalIzation In the treatment system.
Thus does not alter the validity of the wasteloads.
..j ti VariaLions between the raw arid treated flow are due to inclusion of stormeater runoff in treated flow.
This does hot alter the validity of the wasteloads.
Ca)
K’y to Base Neutral Data Tables
1. I luorantheuie
2. Benzo (B) Fluioranthene
3. Benzn (k) Fluoranthene
4. Pyrene
5. Beuuzo (A) Pyrene
6. Indeno (1. 2, 3-CD) Pyrene
7. Ileruzo (qhi) Perylene
8. Pheruanthrene and/or Anthracene
9. Beozo (a) Anthracene
10. Dibenzo (a, h) Anthracene
11. Naphthalrne
1?. Acenaplithene
13. AcenapluLhylene
14. 1luo ene
15. Chrysene
16. l3is—2—ethyl—iut xy1 plitlia late
-------
Tihlc Vu-h. Wood Preserving ireated Ftfitient Base Neutrals ronrentratlons for Plants with Current OPT Technology In-Place
Plaui l
N h•
flata
Source
(low pCod.
(gal/day) (tti/day)
.
Concentrations (mg/i)
—
I
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
II
12
13
14
Tc
ir
855
ISI ‘/8
360(10
15500
1.60
0.210
0.710
1.20
fl.?
0.110
0.063
1.40
0.440
0.370
—-
0.2(1)
0.?lfl
—-
a is
isi: ‘78
14150
19? ))
9.211)
—-
0.031
0.120
0.015
(1.940
0.002
0.017
0.055
——
0.031
(1.065
--
0.011
--
(1.009
495
1SF • 11
9350
11300
0.120
-—
—-
0.077
-—
——
-—
0.053
——
--
0.140
O.0 1 )
0.067
0.050
--
(1.010
331
FSF ‘78
42400
18200
(1.011
0.057
(1.057
0.013
0.070
0.050
0.011
——
-—
--
0.002
0 .0t1
0.004
0.019
——
3)6
1SF 77
66300
16100
0.106
--
—-
0.079
--
—-
-—
0.420
0.009
--
0.033
0.203
0. I m
0.1(10
--
(1.105
—— ) 1y 1 hen denotes (hat ularaineter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
Key to Base Neutral liata Tables
I. rituoranthene
2. Benzo (B) riuoranthene
3. Beuzo (k) Fluorantheiie
4. Pytene
5. l)enzo (A) Pyrene
6. l,id no (I, 2, 3—Cl)) Pytene
7. Benzo (ghi) Peryiene
8. Phirnantht ene and/or Anthracene
9. Benzo (a) Anthracene
10. Dihrnzo (a, h) Anthracene
II . N.iph( hal rue
12. Acenai hLhene
13. Acenaphthyl ene
14 Fluorene
IS. (hryseiie
II. Ris—?—eLliyI—hexy l phthalate
-------
I .iI.li• VI 1— 18. Wood I,eset vlnui Iroat ed I fIliieiit Base Npiitrals Wasielnatis for Plants with furient lIP ) Teclinoloqy hi—Place
P1 ,ii it flat a r low Prod
Iliuiihi• , ‘.ou, r (qa I / iIay) (It 1 fday) 1 —
Waste Loads (ib/I (I ,000 It
1 4 5 6 7 8 9
1A • fl1T 13 14 i’ 1i
tiasleloati Averaqec 0.0088 <0.0(1 14 (0.01)1’) 0.0032 <0.0018 ((1.0010 <0.0004 <0.0011 (0.0024
£ flat a ,u.iL 111(1 uided in averaiji 119 SI IU e treatment systeuli was operating tinder upset coildit ions during san i Ii nq.
II ,iuil s i ,st d Lo Ca ltii late treated averages In Table VI 1—3?.
“ V.1 Ia, louis between the raw and Ireated flow are kie Lo Inclusion of le i1er blowdown and storuiwater nitwIt in tueate .I flow.
Ibis ilues uiot alter Ike validity of tile wastelnails.
rt y)u hleisv Beutral flata laliles
I . I hunt alit hetie
2. I(i iizu (It) I I uioraiutlieuue
1. Ik uzO (k ) 1 loot alit hene
4. t’y, wile
I ) lIp,uo (A) I’yr (1 1i
I .. IiitIeiiu (I • 2. 3—( II) Pyi one
I. Iii•n,o (‘iP’ I) Pery I wile
8. I ’liin .i,itiiu ene nd/o, Ant ilraLene
9 Iteui,n (a) Auitlii airule
ill. Ill beiuio (a • Ii) Auttluracene
Ii. tLI lIlLIid I rule
12. Areusalhi Iueuii
13. At .euu,i 1 ihl by ieiie
14. I ltiisr int.
iS. i.ii , y ,t,ie
lb. 0 1 5—2—el h.y I —liexy I 11111 isat aLe
(0.000) (0.001)4 0.0022 <11.81102 <(1.001’) ((1.11111’) (11.11001
f (l i I
I •i3
• /8
itatllu)
)‘ ll0
0.031(1
0.01)41
(1.01141
0.021?
I I .00c6
0. 111121
0.001?
0.0211
(1.01)85
((1.0111)1 ((1.0001
0.0012
(0.111101
(1.111154
(1.1111’)?
(i i .1111(11
4 ) (
I ‘)t
‘18
14 iSli
19 i)
0.01)3)
((1.01101
0.0006
(1.111)18
0.110(12
(1.0(106
(0.0001
0.00(16
(0.01108
(0.11001 11.11005
0.01)1(1
(11.001)1
0.01)1)1
(0.11(1111
(11.011111
iu•.t
I Si
‘1/
‘13511
I 111)11
(1.0008
(0.1)1)0 1
(0.0001
0.0005
((1.0001
(0.1)001
(0.110111
0.011(11
<9.011111
-------
Table VII-19. Phenols Analyzed for But Not Found During 1978 Verification
Sampi ing
2—nit rophenol
4—nitrophenol
2 ,4—dichl orophenol
2 ,4—dinitrophenol
para—chl oro—meta—cresol
4 ,6-di nit ro—ortho—cresol
Generalized machine detection limits for these compounds is 25 ugh.
7 - 39
-------
Table VI1-20. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Phenols Data for Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology In-Place
Plant
Data
Flow
Prod.
Conc
entrations (mg/i)
Waste Loads
(lh/1,000 ft 3 )
2—
2,4— 2,4,6—
2—
2,4—
2,46—
Number
Source
(gal/day)
(ft 3 /day)
phen
ciphen
dinieph triciph
PCP
phen
clphen
dimeph
triciph
PCP
450t
PS ‘75
3000
3880
NA
NA
NA NA
15.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0967
48
ESE ‘78
9120
9890
16.0
-—
— - —-
5.80
0.123
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0446
48t
ESE ‘77
12000**
5800
NA
NA
NA NA
5.39
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0930
48t
PS ‘75
6000
6600
NA
NA
NA NA
3.20
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0243
12t
PS ‘75
13150
7500
NA
NA
NA NA
9.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.138
63
PS ‘75
12000
5500
NA
NA
NA NA
134.
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.44
BOU LION
82t
ESE ‘78
2200
2770
0.026
0.004
-- 0.005
17.0
0.0002
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.113
82t
PS ‘75
5000
5000
NA
NA
NA NA
2.71
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0226
79t
PS ‘15
7000
1(1000
NA
NA
NA NA
0.055
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0003
Wasteload Averages 0.0616 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
NA Not analyzed.
-- Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
* Data not included in averages.
I Plants used in calculating treated averages in Table VII—38.
** Variations between the raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of stornMater runoff
in treated flow. This does not alter the validity of the wasteloads.
0
0.330
-------
Table V1I-21. Wood Preserving Treated Effluent Phenols Data for Plants with Current BPT Technology In-Place
Plant
Number
Data
Source
Flow
(gal/day)
Prod.
(ft 3 /day)
Concentrations (mg/i)
Waste Loads
(lh/10,000 ft 3 )
phen
2-
ciphen
24-
dimeph
2,46—
trlclph
PCP
2-
phen ciphen
24—
diineph
24,6—
triciph PCI
855*k
[ SE ‘78
36000
15500
--
--
0.140
--
2.10
<0.0001 <0.0001
0.0027
<0.0001 0.0521
855**
ESE ‘77
14000*
8760
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.907
NA NA
NA
NA 0.0121
495**
ESE ‘78
14150tt
7920
0.015
—-
--
--
0.032
0.0002 <0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001 0.0005
495**
[ SE ‘17
9350
11300
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.213
NA NA
NA
NA 0,0015
331**
[ SE ‘78
42400
18200
0.015
--
0,005
0.005
0.069
0.0003
-------
idhie VII—??. Wood Preseiving Metal Data flrganic Preservatives Duly Treated Effluent for Plants with furrent Pretreatment
technology In—Place
Plant
Source
Flow
((WI))
Prod.
(ft 3 /day)
Effluent
Cakiuiuum
Concentrations (my/i)
Copper Chromium Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thalthuuui
Z1j1
Arsenic
Ant imeny
ReryBiurn
48
1SF ‘78
9120
9890
0.024
--
0.011
0.0(15
0.270
0.07?
0.025
--
0.046
-—
0.0(14
0.0117
0.4 )11
48
(SC ‘77
120110
5)110
0.003
0.001
--
--
0.056
0.005
0.001
--
0.006
0.003
--
0.0(11
0.’ FLI
—-
lIypheui
denoles
that para
meter was a
nalyzed for
but was below detection
limit.
-------
• 1
(9
1 ahli VII —21. Wood Preserving M I a 1 Ilata Organic Preservatives fluly ireated 1 ff luent for Plants wilhi liirreffl Pret.rpat iivnit
Teclinoloqy In-Place
Flow PCod. ____________________________ ____________________________________________
Plant Source (IWO) (ft 3 /iiay) Arsenic Ant inmoy
48 [ SF 78 9120 9890 0.00010 <0.00001
48 (SI 71 120001 5800 0.00005 0.0000?
Averaqe Wasleloads 0.00011 <0.00002
* ( I aol riced in ca Iculat I rig t reeLed averages In TaMe VII —4(1.
I Venal loris hetwiwn the raw and treated 110w are due to Ineluis Inn of stnrnwater runoff In treated flow.
1tii thins not alter validity of wasteloads.
Iteryl I hum
0.001110
<0.00001
<0.00001.
Fffluieut Waste Load (th/1 .flfluJ ft 3 )
faduruluim lopper Chrounluuuu Lean Mercury NTEE T
0.00004 0.00200 0.00055 0.00019 <0.00001 0.00035
<0.00001 0.00091 0.00009 0.0000? <0.00001 0.(N10l
<0.0 11001 0.00153 0.00032 0.00010 <0.00001 0.00023
Selenium Silver
<0.00001 0.011(101
0.00005 <0.00001
<0.00003 (0 .000(12
‘ (hail tom
0.01(005
0.0(1002
0.00004
I IflC
I) .00369
0.011999
((.00684
-------
Table VlI-?4. Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic Preservatives Only Treated lifluent for Plants with torrent BPT Technology
lace
Plant
Source
now
(GPO)
Prod.
(1t 3 /day)
Effluent
Concentrations (mg/I)
Arsenic
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
ZiiiE
85
151. ‘78
360 1)0
15500
6.98
(1.014
--
0.003
0.018
0.015
0.037
--
0.019
--
--
--
0.047
855
ES( 77
14000
8F60
0.035
0.002
--
--
0.020
0.003
0.004
——
0.0(15
0.002
--
--
o.o’ i
195
151 ‘78
14150
1920
0.028
0.001
--
0.001
0.034
0.007
0.004
0.002
0.009
--
0.001
--
0.a00
495
(SE 77
9350
11300
0.002
0.001
--
--
0.040
0.001
--
0.0005
0.002
0.001
--
0.002
0.145
316*
1SF 77
6h300
16300
0.227
--
--
--
0.092
0.003
0.003
--
0.057
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.?52
—— IIyI,IIP 1I denotes that pardirleter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
letup VII—?5. Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic Pueservativec Only Treated ( [ fluent for Plants with Current BPT lechnoloqy
lit—P lace
sampling. Saniples were
Plant Sounce
Flow Piod. Effluent Wasteload (lb/1 1 00( ) ft 1 )
( Gp O) (ft 3 /day) Arsenic Antimony Reryllium Ca ii1uni Copper Chromium lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver llThlTluni 71iiF
(j55*
[ SE ‘7H
36000
l 5Ofl
0.135*
0.00027
<0.00001
0.110006
0.001115
O.0002Q
0.0007?
(0.00001 0.00037
<0.00001
(0.00001
<0.0 1 )001
(1.01 11 191
)355*l
[ SE ‘17
l4000tl
876(1
0.001141
11.00003
(0.00001
(0.00001
0.00027
0.00004
0.000115
<0.00001 0.00(101
0.00003
(0.00(101
<0.0111)01
0. 1C107?
4 5
[ Sr ‘70
14l50*
7920
11.0001?
0.00001
<0.00001
0.00001
0.00051
0.0001
0.00006
0.000111 0.0001
<0.00(101
0.000111
(0.1)01191
0.1 101?
495**
(Si ‘71
9350
11300
0.011001
0.00001
(0.00001
<0.00901
0.00928
0.0000!
<0.00901
(0.00001 0.110001
0.00001
<0.0011(11
0.110(1111
0.110100
3161
1SF •17
66300
16300
0.00770
(0.00001
(0.0009!
(0.00001
0.0031
0.0001
0.0001
(0.00001 0.0019
0.0(101
0.1)01103
(1.000113
(I.0 1i8 ’ut
AverdUf ’ Wastelnads
0.0281
(0.00008
<0.000(11
(0.00902
0.0(1015
0.0001
<0.00021
(0.1100111 0.0001
(0.00(11)?
<(1.001)91
<0.0111)01
11.001016
-— hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for hut was below detection limit.
* Data not used in averaging.
Data riot included in averaging since treatment system was operating under upset conditions during
collected from the plant to determine the effect of upset upon priority pollutant removal.
* Plants used In calculating treated averages in Table VIt—41.
tt Plant is a self contained discharger. Saiuiples were taken after Multi—Stage Riological Treatment. Historical flow data
thiS used to calculate wasteloads.
Variations between raw and treated flow are due to inclusion of boiler blowdown and storuwater runoff in treated flow.
[ Pus does ,iot alter validity of wasteloads.
-------
-4
Tahie VII-?6. Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants With Less Ihan
the Equivalent or BPT Technology in—Place
Data Flow Prod. Effluent Concentrations (mg/i) ________
PlanL Source (gpd) (ft 3 /day) Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chromium Leail Mercury Nickel Selenium Sliver TfIi1lit n 7f,j
999 PS 75 (100 1050 1.02 NA NA NA 4.00 1.30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA--Not Analyzed.
-------
lable Vu—u. Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and Inorganic Preservatives Treated Fffluent for Plants With Less T han
the Iqulvalent of DPI lechnology Treatment In—Place
flat a
Source
P .15
Flow
(qpd)
<100
Prod.
(It /day)
I %fl
Average Wasi eloads
NA-—Nut Analyzed.
l’lanl. iced in calculating treated averages In Table VII—42.
RI ant
999 *
Effluent Wasteloads (lb/I 000 ft 3 )
Arsenic Antimony Beryll I urn ladmiumu Copper Chromium Lea Mercury
<0.99044 NA 1<4 1<4 41.00171 <0.00056 NA NA
N1 k 1 Selenium Silver Thalliumi ttnr
NA NA NA NA P tA
<0.90044 MA NA NA 41.00171 <0.00056 NA NA NA W i W i Wi NA
-------
Table VII-.28. Wood Preserving Metals Data Orqanic and inorganic Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
Pretreatment Technoloqy tn-Place
Plant
Data
Source
Flow
(gpd)
Prod.
(ft 3 /day)
Arsenic
Antimony
ileryllliim
Cadmium
Effluent
Copper
Concentrat
Chromium
ions (mg/i)
Lead Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
7T1F
82
ISE ‘78
2200
211(1
0.011
0.008
0.002
0.007
0.092
4.40
0.013
0.0001
0.018
0.039
0.001
—-
31.0
82
PS 75
5000
50(10
--
NA
NA
NA
0.020
6.110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
41.1
450
PS ‘15
3000
3800
0.050
NA
NA
NA
0.570
0.000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74
PS ‘15
1700
3400
0.731)
NA
NA
NA
1.78
0.530
NA
NA
(IA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72
PS ‘15
13750
7500
0.030
NA
NA
NA
0.150
0.010
NA
NA
NA
(IA
NA
NA
(1.1 (10
/9
1SF ‘17
1(1500
10000
0.002
——
—-
——
0.277
0.010
0.001
0.0012
0.150
0.001
—-
--
1.17
79
PS ‘75
7000
10000
--
NA
NA
NA
0.530
0.030
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.1)4
NA Pbt Analyze ,i.
—— Hyphen denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-------
Fahie VlI 2 ). Wood Preserving Metals Data 0rq nic and lnorqanlc Preservatives Treated Ifflijent for Plants with Current
Pretrpdtmpni. Technology lu—Place
.I
CD
Data
Plant Source
(low Pjod. ________ ( If luient Waste loads (lb/I 1100 It 3 ) ___________________
(‘jpd) (ft’/day) Arsenic l ntiunony Reryllluim Caduuuiu,m ropper r.hroinh,m Lea Mercur 1 e1 1uin Silver Thallium lu,ur
B?*
1SF ,78
2200
2770
0.000(17
0.00005
0.00001
0.0(1005
9.00061
0.0291
0.00009 <0.00001 0.00012 0.00026
0.00( 101
<(1.00001
0.2115
112*
PS 75
‘ 00D
50011
<0.0(1001
NA
NA
NA
0.00011
0.fl550t
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
fl.0143t
4’iO
I ’ S 75
3(1110
3811(1
0.00012
NA
NA
hA
0.00368
0.000 8
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
74’
PS 15
1700
3400
0.00304
NA
NA
NA
0.00742
0.00221
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
hA
/2 ’
PS 75
13750
7500
0.00016
NA
NA
NA
(1.00229
0.00015
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0. 11( 1 / 15
79’
1SF ‘Ii
I0500 ’
10900
0.00002
(0.00001
(0.00001
(0.00001
0.00221
0.011008
0.1101101 0.011001
0.00121
0.00001
<0.00001
(0.00(101
0.1)111)
79 ’
I ’S ‘15
7000
10000
(0.00001
NA
NA
NA
0.00309
0.00010
NA NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.110 (10 /
Avoraqi. Uact.•loads
(0.00056
(0.00003
<0.0(1001
(0.000(11
0.90278
0.00538
0.00005 <0.00001
0.110067
0.00(114
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.l (’6 1
* Plants used in calculatinq treated averages in Table Vil—43.
Nut includud in averages Iwcauice the process Involves direct n tals contaminat Ion of wastewater.
** Varial ions heiween the raw an(i treated flow are due to flow equalization in (he treatment system.
Ibis does riot alter the validity of wastelnads.
NA Not AIM lyzu’d.
-------
Table VU-3D. Wood Preserving Metals Data, Orqanlc and Inorganic Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with Current
BPT Technology In—Place
Plant
I)ata
Source
now
(ginl)
Pçod.
(It /day)
Concentrations (mg/i)
Thallium
Arsenic
Antimony
Reryllimim
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
331
FSL ‘78
66700
18200
0.083
--
--
0.005
0.058
0.031
0.009
0.0002
0.011
-—
--
--
0.101)
-- Ilyphemi denotes that parameter was analyzed for but was below detection limit.
-4
01
0
-------
- .4
01
-I
lable Vl1-31 Wood Preserving Metal Data Organic and Inorganic Preservatives Treated Effluent for Plants with Current RPT
Technology In-Place
Wasteloads (lb/I .000 ft 3 ) —__________________________________________
Dalii Flow P od.
Plant Source (qpd) (ft /day) Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Caknium Copper Chromium Lead Mercury Nickel Sele,ilumn Silver Thall iuiii Zinc
311* (SE 78 66700 18200 0.0025 (0.00001 (0.00001 0.0001 0.0018 0. 1101)95 0.0003 0.001)01 0.00034 <0.00001 (0.1)0001 <0.001)01 0.fllfltIi
Average Wasteloads 0.0025 <0.00001 <0.00001 0.0001 0.0018 0.00095 0.0003 0.00001 0.00034 <0.00001 <0.00001 (0.00001 0. 1 1030h
* Plant used in calculating treated averaqm s iii Table VIl—44.
-------
Table VII—32. Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for Plants With
Less Than the Equivalent of BPT Technology In—Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft 3 )
COD
Phenols
0
& G
PCP
Raw*
92.8
1.77
8.71
0.498
Treated
31.2
1.01
1.75
0.151
% Removal
66.4
42.9
79.9
69.7
* Averages calculated from data in Table V—7.
f Averages calculated from data in Table VII—8.
7 - 52
-------
Table VII-33. Wood Preserving Steaming Traditional Data Averages for
Plants with Current Pretreatment Technology In—Place
Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft 3 )
COD
Phenols
0
& G
PCP
Raw*
80.7
3.11
7.82
<0.294
Treatedt
41.5
2.03
0.908
0.0716
% Removal
48.6
34.7
88.4
<75.6
* Averages calculated from Tables V-7 and V—8.
t Averages calculated from Table VII—9.
7 - 53
-------
Table VII—34. Wood Preserving Traditional Data Averages for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In—Place
Waste Loads (lb/l,000 ft 3 )
COD
Phenols
0 & G
PCP
Raw*
31.3
2.41
4.32
<0.268
Treatedt
6.00
0.0061
<0.821
0.0135
% Removal
80.8
99.7
>81.0
<95.0
* Averages calculated from Table V—7.
t Averages calculated from Table Vil-lO.
7-54
-------
Table VII-35. Wood Preserving Volatile Organic Analysis Data Averages
for Plants with Current BPT Technology In—Place
Waste Loads
(lb/1O,000
ft 3 )
med
trclme
benzene
etbenzene
toluene
Raw*
0.0049
<0.0001
>0.0200
0.101
0.0237
Treatedf
0.0043
<0.0002
<0.0003
<0.0001
<0.0009
% Removal
12.2
>98.5
>99.9
>96.2
* Averages calculated from data in Table V-9.
t Averages calculated from data in Table VII-13.
7 - 55
-------
I.ibI . Vu-lb. Wood I’r servlng Base Neutrals l)ata Averaqes for Plants with Current PreIreatn nF
ru .cliuu louiy In-Place
Waste
1 2 3 4 5 6
Loads
7
(lh/l,fltI0 f 13)
8 I A 11 1? 13
(o.(l0’7 (0.0001 (0.0091 <0.0038 (0.010)1 <0.0001 <0.0091 0.0124 (0.0006 (0.0001 <0.9131 <0.0158 (9.0117 (0.01 lb (0.1111(13 ((I.flflb?
I real ed I 0.1)1)1)1 <0.0001 <11.0001 (0.0001 ((1.0001 (0.0091 (0.0001 0.0008 (0.0(1(11 (0.0001 (0.0(17? (11.0008 ((1.0010 <0.00(11 (0.0(1111 (0.110111
% I ( inoval (94.7 97.4 ‘11.5 83.3 41.4 ‘14.9 ‘11.5 ‘11.4 66.7 81.9
Av r, .’ies calculated lion. data in Table V-.12.
I AVr•IJI ( S CdlCui ldIPiI (mu. data in Eahie VI 1—16.
r tollasi• Neuulrol Ilata Tables
• I. Fluora uutluene ‘ I. Ben o (a) Anthracene
2. Il.•,uzo (II) iluioranthen. ’ 10. Dlhenzo (a, Ii) Anthracene
3. Ilerizo (k ) F IuuorauutIu uue Ii. Naphthalene
4. Pyn uue I?. Acenaphiherue
5. Ileuuzo (A) Pyrene 13. Acenaphthylene
6. Iuu I no (I, 2, 3— Il)) Pyrene 14. Fluorene
7. Ili’ruzo (qhi) Perylene 15. Clurysene
8. I’Iu iuanl Iuri’,up and/or Antliracene 16. ftis—2—ethyl —hexyl phttialat e
-------
lahie VII—37. Wood Preservinq Base Neutrals Dati Aveiaqes for Plants with Current RPT Technoloqy In—Place
TJ WR.4/IITBVI 1—37
10/18/78
Waste
Loads (lh/1 ,000
ft 3 )
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
II
12
13
14
Rau
0.0530
(0.0091
0.0127
0.0395
<0.0105
(0.0071
(0.0015
0.121
<0.0129
<0.0005
>0.186
0.0416
0.004’)
0.0314
(0.011?
<0.000?
lreaIe(It
0.0003
<0.0014
<0.0015
0.0032
<0.0018
<0.0010
<0.0004
<0.0071
<0.0024
<0.0001
<0.0004
0.00??
(0.0002
<0.0015
<0.0015
<0.fl(lflI
% Uemov il
85.4
85.7
>89.7
93.0
83.’)
89.6
78.0
>94.0
86.0
83.3
>99.8
95.3
>97.0
>05.0
83.1
66.1
* Averaqes ralcuulat d trouui data in Table V-12.
f Aver .uq, .s calculated from data in Table VU—iR.
. I y to Base Neutral Data Tables
Ui 1. Iluioranlherue
2. Benzo (8) F luoranthene
3. Ite,izo (k) rluioranthene
4. Pyrerie
5. Beuzo (A) Pyrene
6. Indeno (1, 2, 3-CD) ryrene
7. Bu nzo (qhi) Perylene
B. Plienanthrene and/or Ant hracene
9. Renzo (a) Anthracene
10. Ulhenzo (a, h) Anthracene
11. Naphthalene
12. Acenaphthene
13. Acenaphthylene
1’1. Fluorene
15. Chrysene
16. Bis-?—ethy l-Iiexyl phthalate
-------
Table VII—38. Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for Plants with
Current Pretreatment Technology In—Place
phen
Waste Loads (lb/i
2—clph 2,4—dimeph
000 ft 3
,4,5—triclph
PCP
Raw*
0.0066
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.419
Treatedt
0.0002
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0697
% Removal
97.1
83.4
* Averages calculated from data in Table V—14.
t Averages calculated from data in Table VII—20.
7 - 58
-------
Table VII—39. Wood Preserving Phenols Data Averages for Plants with
Current BPT Technology In-Place
phen
Waste Loads (lb/i
2—ciph 2,4—dimeph
000 ft 3 )
,4,6—triclph
PCP
Raw*
0.352
<0.0004
0.0445
<0.0050
0.0736
Treatedt
<0.0002
<0.0001
<0.0010
<0.0001
0.0135
% Removal
>99.9
75.0
>97.8
98.0
97.6
* Averages calculated from data in Table V—14.
t Averages calculated from data in Table VII—21.
7 59
-------
hihie VU—li). Wood Preserving Metals Data, Orqanic Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants with Current Pr t real nirnit
lechiiology lu—Place
wasteloadsJth/b000f ) - _____
Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chromium Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver Thäliiiiuiu 7T
Uaw*
0.01)003
(0.01)001
(0.00001
(0.00001
0.00137
0.00001
0.00008
(0.00001
0.00005
0.00001
<0.00001
0.0000)
0.003 )R
l,eaied
f
(1.00005
0.00002
(0.00001
(0.00001
0.00097
0.00009
0.00002
(0.0001))
0.0001
0.00005
<0.011(11)1
0.01)1)0?
9 flfl9o) )
% Uemovcil
29.2
15.0
A Averages calculated froiti data In Table V—17.
I AVerageS calculated from data in Table V1I—23.
-------
Table VII-41. Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic Preservatives Only, Averages for Plants with Current BPT
Technology In—Place
Waste
Loads (lh/1,000
ft 3 )
Arsenic
Antimony
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
I aw*
0.0616
0.00022
<0.00001
<0.00001
0.00048
0.00012
0.00043
<0.00001
0.00010
0.00002
<0.0001)1
(0.00001
(100163
‘Freatedf
0.0340
<0.00008
<0.00001
<0.00002
0.00035
0.0001
<0.00021
<0.00001
0.0001
<(1.00002
<0.00001
(0.00001
0.00096
% Removal
44.8
>63.6
27.1
16.7
>51.2
.
41.1
* Averages calculated froims data In Table V—li.
1 Averages calculated from data in Table V1I—25.
-------
Tahie V1I-42. Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic arid Inorganic Preservatives, Averages for Plants With Less Than Ciirren$.
BPT Tectinology In—Place
Wasteloads (lb/1,000 ft 3 ) —________
Arsenic Antimony Beryllium Cadmium Copper Chromium Lead Mercury Nickel Selenium Sliver Thallium Zinc
RaWA
0.00043
NA
NA
NA
0.00167
0.00053
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Treatedt
0.00044
NA
NA
NA
0.00111
0.00056
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
% Removal
* Averages calculated frouu data In Table V—19.
I Averages calculated from data In Table VII—27.
NA Not Analyzed.
-------
TIMKrR.41,llnvl 1-43
10/13/78
labir VlI-43. Wood Preserving Metals Data Organic and lnorqaolc Preservatives, Averaqes for Plants with (urrent
Pret rratiuient Technol oily In—Place
Dat.i Waste Loads (lh/1,000 ft 3 ) ______ —
Sources Arsenic Anthmny Reryliluim Cadmium Copper Chromium Lead Mercury NicLel Selenhuum T1ver Th lfluuiu 7lii
Raw ’
(0.00030
(0.0(1005
(0.00001
(0.00002
0.0039
(0.00728
0.00003
(0.00001 0.001)62
0.11)019
0.00002
<(1.110001
0.06(11
lreateut
t
(0.00061)
<0.00003
(0.001101
(0.00003
0.00264
0.00634
0.00005
<0.00001
0.11(1067
0.00014
<0.1111001
(0.000111
0.fl’i61
Removal
40.1)
32.3
(12.9
26.3
>5(1.0
6.7
* Averages calculated from data in Table V—19.
I Averagis calculated from data in Table VlI—29.
-------
lable VI 1-14. Wood Preserving Metals Data flrqanic and Inorganic Preservatives, Averages for Plants with Current RPT
Ieihnology In—Place
Data Waste Loads (lb/1,000 ft 3 ) ___________________________ __________
Sources Arsenic Antimony 8eryllium Ca Ium Copper Chromium l.ead Mercury Nickel Selenium Silver llijiii 11 iu 1 Zinc
llaw*
0.00253
<0.00001
(0.00001
0.00002
0.0015
0.00045
9.00031
0.00003 0.00194
<0.00001
(0.00001
(0.0(1001
0.01)233
Treated t
(1.0025
<0.00001
(0.00001
0.0001
0.0018
0.00095
0.0003
0.00001
0.00034
<0.00001
<0.0110(11
<0.00001
0.00306
Reiiioval
1.2
3.2
66.7
82.5
* Averaq s calculated from data in Table V.49.
t Averatp s calciilited from data in Table VII—31.
-------
Wood Preserving Candidate Treatment Technologies
Direct Dischargers——Candidate treatment technologies for direct
dischargers are applicable only to the steaming subcategory. BPT regu-
lations require no-discharge for the Boulton subcategory and no Boulton
direct dischargers were identified.
Four basic treatment technologies are applicable to steaming direct
dischargers. These four technologies are:
1. BPT technology with increased biological treatment facilities;
2. BPT with increased biological treatment as above with the
addition of activated carbon adsorption as a polishing treat-
ment for the biological effluent;
3. BPT with increased biological treatment as in (1) above with
metals removal by chromium reduction and hydroxide precipita-
tion; and
4. BPT with increased biological treatment and metals removal as
in (3) above with activated carbon adsorption as a polishing
treatment for the biological effluent.
Increased biological treatment facilities can be achieved through one of
two options. One option is to add an aerated lagoon followed by a
facultative lagoon for additional treatment and clarification to the
existing BPT biological system. The other option is to provide an
activated sludge system, including equalization and secondary clarifica-
tion in addition to the BPT technology.
The effluent quality of each option will be the same. The aerated
lagoon option is less costly than the activated sludge system; however,
it requires the availability of more land.
The candidate treatment systems selected for steaming direct
dischargers, including both biological treatment options for each of the
four basic treatment technologies are:
1. Candidate Treatment Technology A which represents BPT tech-
nology plus an additional aerated and facultative lagoon system
for increased biological treatment, as shown in Figure VII—5.
2. Candidate Treatment Technology B which represents BPT tech-
nology plus an additional activated sludge system including
equalization and clarification for increased biological treat-
ment, as shown in Figure VII—6.
3. Candidate Treatment Technology C which represents Technology A
plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown in Figure VII—7.
7 65
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT A
RAW
a)
0)
See Tables VII!-8 throuqh Vili—il for cost ioiiaries. FigureVfl-5
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT B
See Tables V1II—12 throurih “111—15 for cost suiiiiiiaries.
Figure VII-6
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT C
RAW WASTEWATER
See Tables V!II-16 through VI11-19 for cost lanes. ureVII-7
-------
4. Candidate Treatment Technology 0 which represents Technology B
plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown in Figure VII—8.
5. Candidate Treatment Technology E which represents Technology A
plus metals removal, as shown in Figure VII—9.
6. Candidate Treatment Technology F which represents Technology B
plus metals removal, as shown in Figure Vu—b.
7. Candidate Treatment Technology G which represents Technology E
plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown in Figure Vu—li.
8. Candidate Treatment Technology H which represents Technology F
plus activated carbon adsorption, as shown in Figure VuI-12.
The representative treated wasteloads for Candidate Treatment Technol-
ogies A through H are presented in Table VII—45. The wasteloads for
Technologies A and B were obtained from Table VIt-lO, with the exception
of those for oil and grease. The oil and grease wasteloads shown in
Table VII—45 were obtained by averaging the oil and grease wasteloads
demonstrated by plants 495 (ESE, 1977), 331 (ESE, 1978), and 199
(PS, 1975) as shown in Table Vil—lO. Plants 855 (ESE, 1977 and 1978)
and 495 (ESE, 1978) were not included in this average as both plants are
self-contained dischargers which either recycle a large portion of their
treated effluent or spray irrigate their treated effluent following
treatment. Neither plant met the 30-day average BPT standard for oil
and grease during the stated sampling period. There is no need for
these plants to optimize oil and grease removal since they do not
discharge. Plants 495 (ESE, 1977), 331 (ESE, 1978), and 199 (PS, 1975)
demonstrate that the BPT oil and grease standards are achievable with a
biological system.
Wasteloads after carbon treatment are calculated based on the assumption
that activated carbon will remove 80 percent of the COD, and 95 percent
of total phenols including PCP. It should be noted that these
reductions are assumptions supported only by literature data and have
not been demonstrated in the industry as there are no similar systems
currently in—place.
Wasteloads after metals removal are calculated based on the removals
reported in the literature, as described earlier in this section. They
have not been demonstrated in the industry as there are no similar
systems currently in—place.
Direct discharging steaming plants may also achieve no—discharge status
through the self-contained Candidate Treatment Technology M, which
consists of spray evaporation and is discussed under self—contained
dischargers later in this section.
rt is significant that of the ten direct dischargers identified during
the course of this study, only three are actually discharging process
wastewater following biological treatment. The battery limit costs of
7 - 69
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT D
RAW WASTEWATER
0
See Tables VI!I-?O throuqh V1I!-23 for cost ‘manes. ugureVll-8
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT E
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH 112
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
TRUCI( HAUL)
5ee Tahies IIJI-24 throunh ‘ 1111—27 fnr cost suiiu’iaries.
Figure VII-9
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT F
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H 2
RAW WASTEWATER
.4
.4
See Tables VIII-28 throu h “111-3] for cnst ‘unaries. Figure VU-iD
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT G
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H 2
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH NaOH
PSJTRIENT ADDITION
RAW
(A)
See Tab]es VTII—32 throu’jh ‘1111 —35 for cost suiiu’iaries.
FI9IIre Vu-li
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(DIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT H
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H 2
See Tables VUI-36 throurih VIII—39 for cost ‘u’iaries. sgureV II-12
RAW
-------
Table VII-45. Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft 3 for Candidate
Treatment Technologies (Direct Dischargers)
Pollutant
Parameter
Candidate
Technology
A or B
C or D*
E or F
G or H*
COD
6.0
1.2
6.0
1.2
Oil & Grease
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Total Phenols
0.0061
0.0003
0.0061
0.0003
PCP
0.014
0.0007
0.014
0.0007
VOA’s
See Table
VII-35
99+1 removal
(except
methylene
chloride)
See Table
VII—35
99+1 removal
(except
methylene
chloride)
Base Neutrals
See Table
VII—37
99+1
removal
See Table
VII—37
99+%
removal
Priority
Pollutant
Phenols
See Table
VII—39
99+1
removal
See Table
VIt—39
99+%
removal
Heavy Metals
See Table
VII—41
See Table
VII—41
About 75%
removal, cop—
per, chrome,
zinc, and
arsenic*
76—98% removal
of copper,
chrome, zinc,
and arsenic
* Expected treated effluent loads based on literature presented earlier
in this section.
7 - 75
-------
Technologies A through H are applicable primarily to these three plants
only. The other seven plants are direct dischargers because of seasonal
overflows of their spray or solar evaporation pond systems which are
normally no—discharge. The overflow experienced by these seven plants
occurs during periods of high rainfall. This discharge can be elimin-
ated by one of two ways: (1) Increasing the size of the evaporative
lagoon systems and installing properly designed spray equipment, if
required, and (2) Roofing the area which drains into the treating
cylinder sumps and the work tank area to prevent rainwater from becoming
contaminated with process wastewater and eliminating the major cause of
discharge. Although these remedies, readily available to seven of the
ten direct discharging plants, are not presented as a Candidate Treat-
ment Technology, they will result in these plants achieving no—discharge
status, and cost estimates for expanding the evaporative systems and/or
roofing the cylinder and work tank areas are presented for these plants
in the plant—by—plant cost estimates in Section VIII.
The costs associated with all the direct discharge wood preserving
candidate treatment technologies are presented in Section VIII.
Indirect Dischargers——There are two basic treatment technologies
applicable to indirect dischargers. These technologies are equally
applicable to both Boulton and steaming subcategory plants. These
technologies are:
1. Current pretreatment technology (primary oil separation
followed by chemical flocculation and slow sand filtration)
with the addition of biological treatment facilities sufficient
to meet current BPT standards.
2. Current pretreatment technology with biological treatment
facilities as above with the addition of heavy metals removal
by chromium reduction and hydroxide precipitation.
Biological treatment can be achieved through one of two options. One
option consists of an aerated lagoon followed by a facultative lagoon
for additional biological treatment and clarification. The other option
consists of a single basin activated sludge system including equaliza-
tion and clarification.
The effluent quality of each option will be the same. The aerated
lagoon option is less costly than the activated sludge system; however,
it requires the availability of more land.
The candidate treatment systems selected for indirect dischargers,
including both biological treatment options for each of the two basic
treatment technologies are:
1. Candidate Treatment Technology I which represents current
pretreatment technology plus an aerated lagoon followed by a
facultative lagoon for biological treatment, as shown in
Figure VII—13.
7 - 76
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT I
See lables %1I!T. 4() ttirou”h VIT!—43 for cost suiiii’iaries.
Figure VII-13
-------
2. Candidate Treatment Technology J which represents current
pretreatment technology plus an activated sludge system
including equalization and clarification, as shown in
Figure VII—14.
3. Candidate Treatment Technology K which represents Technology A
plus metals removal, as shown in Figure VII—15.
4. Candidate Treatment Technology L which represents Technology B
plus metals removal, as shown in Figure VII—16.
The representative treated wasteloads for Candidate Treatment Technol-
ogies I through L are presented in Table VII—46. Treated wasteloads
values for the biological systems presented in this table are based on
BPT standards. The design and cost estimates, presented in
Section VIII, for the indirect discharger biological systems are based
on minimum biological treatment required to provide a BPT effluent
quality. Expected treated effluent wasteloads of 0.05 lb/1,000 cu ft
for PCP for biological treatment systems is based on an estimate of PCP
removal for plants with sufficient biological treatment to meet minimum
BPT standards for regulated parameters. Table VII—8 shows that the
average PCP wasteload for plants with biological systems insufficient to
meet BPT is 0.119 lb/1,000 cu ft. Table Vil—lO shows that the average
PCP wasteload for plants which exceed BPT standards is 0.0135 lb/
1,000 Cu ft.
Wasteloads after metals removal are calculated based on the removals
reported in the literature discussed earlier in this section. They have
not been demonstrated in the industry as there are no similar systems
currently in—place.
Indirect discharging Boulton and steaming plants may also achieve
no—discharge status through the self-contained Candidate Treatment
Technology M, which consists of cooling tower evaporation for Boulton
plants and spray evaporation for steaming plants. Both of these tech-
nologies are further discussed below.
The costs associated with all the Candidate Treatment Technologies
applicable to indirect dischargers are presented in Section VIII.
Self—Contained Dischargers——One primary technology is applicable to
Boulton plants which will enable them to achieve no—discharge status.
Candidate Treatment Technology M for Boulton plants consists of primary
oil separation, chemical flocculation, and slow sand filtration followed
by cooling tower evaporation. This technology is shown in
Figure VII—17.
One primary technology is applicable to steaming plants which will
enable them to achieve no—discharge status. Candidate Treatment
Technology M for steaming plants consists of primary oil separation,
chemical flocculation, and slow sand filtration followed by spray
evaporation. This technology is shown in Figure VII—18. Spray
7 - 78
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT J
j •I
See Thbles ‘/111-44 throLI’ h I11I-Il7 for cost surrvtries
Figure VlI-14
-------
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT K
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH H 2
RAW WASTEWATER
-4
C
See Tables V1II-’!8 throu h Y!II-5] for cost ujmI1Iaries. Figure VU-lb
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING, BOULTON
(INDIRECT DISCHARGERS - OILY WASTEWATER WITH FUGITIVE METALS)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT L
pH ADJUSTMENT WITH
See Thbles V!I!-52 throu”h “111-55 for cost siimiiiaries.
Fiçjine V 11-16
-------
Table VII-46. Treated Effluent Loads in lb/1,000 ft 3 for Candidate
Treatment Technologies——Wood Preserving
(Indirect Dischargers)
Pollutant
Parameter
Candidate Technology
I or J
K or L
COD
34.5
68.5
Oil & Grease*
0.75
0.075
Total Phenols
0.04
0.04
PCP
0.05*
0.05*
VOA’s
See Table
VII—35
See Table
VII—35
Base Neutrals
See Table
VII—37
See Table
VII—37
Priority Pollutant
Phenols
See Table
VII—39
See Table
VII—39
Heavy Metals
See Table
VII—41
75 percent
removal, copper,
chrome, zinc,
and arsenic*
* Expected treated effluent loads based on literature presented earlier
in this section.
7 - 82
-------
RAW WASTEWAT R
WOOD PRESERVING - BOULTON
(SELF CONTAINED)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT M
St e Tahies ‘ III—56 and ‘/111—57 for cost stii:unariec.
Figure V It-li
-------
RAW WASTEWATER
WOOD PRESERVING - STEAMING
(SELF CONTAINED)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT M
See Tables V1IT—5 and VJLj- 9 fnr cast c i
ries.
Figure V$I-18
-------
evaporation technology can also be used by 8oulton plants if the land is
available for this system.
Costs for both the above technologies are presented in Section VIII.
Other Applicable Technologies——Candidate Treatment Technology N
represents conversion from open to closed steaming. This is applicable
to those open steaming plants wishing to reduce the flow of wastewater
generated at their plants, and thus reduce the total cost and land
requirements of subsequent treatment. Cost estimates for Technology N
are presented in Section VIII. The plant-by—plant cost estimates
presented in Section VIII were based upon the actual amount of waste—
water generated by each plant and do not include the cost of Technol-
ogy N, with the exception of two plants which are clearly identified in
Table VIII—85. For these open steaming plants, wastewater generation
was high enough that it was more cost—effective to convert to closed
steaming prior to applying other treatment options.
Candidate Technology 0 entails collection and recycle of rainwater and
cylinder drippings from inorganic salts plants. Cost information on
this technology is also presented in Section VIII for information
purposes only. All plants in the Wood Preserving—Inorganic Salts Only
subcategory are already required to achieve no—discharge status.
New Source Performance Standards——Candidate Technology M for both
Boulton and steaming plants can be applied to new pollution sources.
New sources have the ability to choose plant locations based on the
availability of sufficient land for this option, as well as other
potential no—discharge options such as soil irrigation.
INSULATION BOARD AND WET PROCESS HAROBOARD
In—Plant Control Measures
The production of either insulation board or hardboard requires exten-
sive amounts of process water which ultimately becomes contaminated with
dissolved and suspended substances through contact with the wood and
additives used as raw material. In the past, most plants used large
amounts of fresh water to produce fiberboard products in what was essen-
tially a once—through process. The exclusive use of fresh water in the
refining, washing, diluting, and forming of fiberboard results in only
one opportunity for dissolved and suspended solids to be retained in the
product, and leads to an extensive pollution problem due to the volumes
of wastewater generated and the large, costly end-of-pipe treatment
facilities required.
More recent technology used by most plants includes the use of recycled
process whitewater in place of fresh water at various points in the
system. Process water can be reused for stock dilution, shower water,
and pump seal water. The use of recycled process whitewater provides
the opportunity for increased retention of dissolved and suspended
7 - 85
-------
solids in the product, results in decreased fresh water consumption, and
decreased wastewater volume.
By closing the process whitewater system in a fiberboard plant, it is
possible to reduce the suspended solids in the raw waste load. As a
first approximation, suspended solids concentration is almost indepen-
dent of the total volume of wastewater per unit of fiberboard produced
(Gran, 1972). The total discharge of suspended solids will thus be
roughly proportional to the volume of wastewater.
The BOD raw waste load, on the other hand, is less influenced by a
moderate closing of the process whitewater system due to the build-up of
dissolved solids in the process whitewater system during recycle.
Operating data are available from Plant 64, an S1S hardboard plant,
which demonstrates the effect of plant close—up on BOO loads. Plant 64
began an extensive program to close its whitewater system in March 1976.
The wastewater flow from the plant was reduced in steps from an average
of 750,000 1/day (200,000 gpd) in March 1976, to 18,925 1/day
(5,000 gpd) in June 1977. The corresponding BOO loads were reduced from
2,710 kg! day (6,000 lb/day) to 340 kg/day (750 lb/day). Figure VII—19
illustrates the relationship between BOO load and discharge volume for
the plant during the close—up period. The most dramatic reduction in
BOO load occurred in October 1976, when the plant achieved a reduction
in flow of about 85 percent.
The ability of an insulation board or hardboard plant to close its
process whitewater system is highly dependent upon the type of board
products produced and the raw materials used. The increased dissolved
solids retained in the board tend to migrate to the board surface during
drying and/or pressing, increasing the risk of spot formation on the
board sheets and sticking in the press.
Decreased paintability, darker and inconsistent board color, surface
defects, increased water absorption, and decreased dimensional stability
are all quality problems which have been associated with the increased
dissolved solids in the whitewater system due to close-up (Coda, 1978).
Some board products, particularly structural grade insulation boards and
industrial grade hardboards, can tolerate a degree of quality deteriora-
tion. Excessive degradation of board quality cannot be tolerated in
decorative type insulation board, finished hardboard paneling, or
certain types of exterior hardboard siding.
Other problems associated with a high degree of process whitewater
recycle are corrosion of pumps, plumbing, and equipment due to the
decreased pH of recycled whitewater; plugging of shower sprays and
decreased freeness (drainage characteristics) of stack due to solids
build—up; and an elevation of temperature in the process whitewater
system.
Raw materials are an important factor in the ability of a mill to
close—up. Furnish must be free of bark. Coda (1978) reports that a
7 - 86
-------
PLANT 64
FLOW VS. EFFLUENT BOD
17600(8000)
13200(6000)
11000(5000)
8800 (4000)
6600 (3000)
4400 (2000)
2200 (1000)
0
• OCT.
- I U
.00038(.10) .00076(20)
FLOW KIIday(MGD)
DATA ARE FROM MARCH,1976 TO FEBRUARY 1977.
Figure VU-19
MARCH
S
APRIL
S
MAY
S
I-u,
ILj —
>1
-J
II-
W g
AUG.
S
SEPT.
S
• JULY
DEC.
•
JAN.
NOV.
S FEB.
-------
maximum of 1.5 percent bark can be tolerated by Plant 64, which has
nearly reached completely closed status. Whole tree chips and other
types of furnish which would increase the dissolved solids load cannot
be tolerated in a completely closed system. Moisture content of furnish
is also an important factor. One thermo—mechanical refining insulation
board plant (Plant liii), which has achieved complete close—up, attri-
butes the availability of low moisture plywood and furniture trim
furnish as a major reason for the success of its close—up program.
In order to achieve maximum closure, a plant must be willing to invest
considerable capital, and be prepared to accept decreased production
during the period of time that optimum plant operating conditions are
being tested. The primary benefit to a plant which succeeds in closing
its process whitewater system is effective pollution control without
reliance on expensive end—of-pipe treatment.
Some of the measures which can be used to achieve close—up or maximum
recycle of the process whitewater system are as follows:
1. Elimination of extraneous wastewater sources. Pump seal water
can be reduced or eliminated by the use of recycled whitewater
or by conversion to mechanically—sealed pumps where possible.
Chip wash water can be reduced by recycle following screening
and sedimentation of grit. Housekeeping water use should be
kept to an absolute minimum. High pressure sprays and/or dry
cleaning methods should be used where possible.
2. Provision of sufficient whitewater equalization. Sufficient
equalization capacity for control and containment of whitewater
surges should be provided. Several plants employ large outdoor
surge ponds for this purpose. Surge ponds also serve to
control whitewater temperature. Several plants use heat
exchangers for temperature control, and provide sufficient
capacity for plant start-up and shut-down.
3. The installation of cyclones following the refiner. This
allows the fiber to be blown into the cyclones for steam
release and cooling. No water should be added to these
cyclones. The added water condenses the steam which causes
higher whitewater temperatures and an additional source of
water to the system.
4. Clarification of whitewater. Several plants use gravity
clarifiers to remove grit and settleable solids from the
whitewater system. To use forming water for showers or pump
seal water, it is necessary to remove the majority of fiber.
Screens or filters are available for this purpose, and in some
cases a “save—all” installation may be justified. “Save—alls”
are used extensively in the pulp and paper industry. They can
result in fiber concentrations of less than 0.20 pound per
7 - 88
-------
1,000 gallons of water, which makes the water suitable for
showers and pump seals. This type of device can also dramat-
ically reduce the suspended solids leaving the mill in the raw
effluent. The hardboard process can use either a flotation-
type save—all or a drum—type unit. Fiber from the save-all can
be returned to the process.
5. Extraction of concentrated wastewater. The soluble sugars and
other dissolved materials released into the process whitewater
during refining can be extracted by efficient countercurrent
washing of the stock or by using a dewatering press. The
concentrated whitewater can then be evaporated for recovery of
an animal feed byproduct. Use of this process allows greater
recycle of the remaining whitewater, which is primarily leaner
machine whitewater. Plants 42, 24, and 663 currently use stock
washers to extract concentrated whitewater for subsequent
evaporation to animal feed. Plant 28 has successfully demon-
strated the capability of a dewatering press for the same
purpose on one of its production lines. This plant was able to
completely close the remaining process whitewater system
following the press. Successful application of this extraction
process depends on the use of an evaporator on the concentrated
whitewater, otherwise the plant has succeeded only in concen-
trating its wastewater, which may have adverse effects on
subsequent biological treatment. The high capital expense of
such systems must be at least partially amortized by byproduct
sales. The economics of applying this system will vary from
plant to plant, and must be evaluated on an individual basis.
Some considerations will be: amount of material available for
recovery; energy costs for liquor evaporation; proximity to
market; and market price.
6. Corrosion control. The corrosiveness of the recycled process
whitewater can be controlled with addition of caustic soda,
lime, or other basic chemicals. Most plants practice chemical
pH control to some extent. Corrosion—resistant pumps, piping,
and tanks can be used to replace corroded equipment or for new
construction.
7. Control of press sticking. Press sticking can be mitigated by
washing the surface of the press plates or cauls more
frequently, or by using release agents such as paraffin
emulsions. Lowering the temperature of the hot press may also
be effective.
Two thermo—rnechanical refining insulation board plants have achieved
complete close-up of process whitewater systems. Both plants produce
structural grade board only. Plant 137 uses a save—all device to clar-
ify the whitewater for further reuse. Plant 1111 uses external surge
ponds for whitewater equalization and temperature control, as well as a
gravity clarifier for solids control. As previously discussed,
Plant 1111 uses locally available low moisture plywood trim as furnish
7 - 89
-------
which helps to maintain the water balance in the mill. Both plants
indicated that extensive process experimentation and modification,
during a period of one to two years, was required before the major
problems due to close—up were solved.
Plant 64, as previously discussed, has approached full close—up. Major
modifications made at this plant were:
1. Installation of cyclones following the refiner to allow
much of the process steam to escape.
2. Increased whitewater equalization.
3. Replacement of fresh water packing seals on primary
grinders with steam, and replacement of pumps requiring
fresh sealing water with mechanically—sealed pumps.
This plant produces primarily industrial grade hardboard and has exper-
ienced some quality control problems as well as a loss in production
capacity compared to its previous operations.
Another method of close-up used by three plants is the recycle of
treated effluent from external biological treatment systems for use as
fresh process water in the plant. Plant 888 has achieved a complete
close—up in this manner. Plant 125 recycles approximately 85 percent of
its treated effluent, discharging the remaining 15 percent. Plant 555
recycles 28 percent of its effluent discharging the remaining
72 percent.
Although this approach may eliminate some of the problems associated
with close—up, such as temperature and corrosiveness of the recycled
water, the problems of board quality and process control remain. The
characteristics of high color and the secondary treatment solids in the
recycled water also pose problems unique to this method.
A review of potential in—plant process modifications for both insulation
board and hardboard plants indicates that some reductions in raw waste
loading can be accomplished. Specific recommendations for in—plant
modifications on a plant—to—plant basis require a detailed and thorough
working knowledge of each plant.
End-of—Pipe Treatment
Screening——Screens are used by many fiberboard plants to remove
bark, wood chips, and foreign materials from the wastewater prior to
further treatment. Screening equipment may consist of mechanically
cleaned bar screens, vibrating screens, or sidehill screens. Screening
serves to reduce wear and tear on treatment equipment, and also to
separate extraneous material from the wood fiber which is returned to
the plant after primary settling in most insulation board plants.
7-90
-------
Primary Settling——Most insulation board plants and many hardboard
plants use gravity-type primary settling facilities to remove a major
portion of the wood fibers from the raw wastewater. Primary sludge may
be returned to the process for reuse, or it may be thickened and/or
dewatered and disposed to a landfill. Common sludge handling devices
include gravity thickeners and mechanical dewatering equipment.
Settling ponds are the most common primary settling facilities used in
the industry; however, several plants are equipped with mechanical
clarifiers. Suspended solids removals in primary settling facilities
range from about 65 to 80 percent. Data from one plant demonstrated
that 10 to 15 percent BOO removal was being achieved by the primary
settling facility. One plant achieved 24 percent BOO removal in a
mechanical primary settling tank through the use of polymers as a
coagulant.
Biological Treatment-—Wastewater generated by the insulation board
and hardboard industries is amenable to biological treatment. A litera-
ture discussion on this subject is presented in Appendix D.
All direct discharging plants in the insulation board and hardboard
segments of the industry apply varying degrees of biological treatment
to their wastewaters. The contaminants in the wastewaters from the two
segments are comprised mainly of soluble oxygen demanding material
leached from the wood. These materials (wood sugars, hernicellulose,
lignins, etc.) are readily biodegradable. The suspended solids in the
raw wastewaters are primarily wood fibers, bark particles, and small
amounts of grit that easily settle in primary sedimentation basins or
aerated lagoons. Due to the large raw wastewater flows and high concen-
trations of BOD and TSS, as described in Section V, the biological
treatment systems required to treat these wastewaters must be of
considerable size to be effective. Most plants in both segments of the
industry have allocated considerable sums of money to construct and
operate these treatment systems.
The biological systems in the insulation board and hardboard segments
vary from single aerated lagoons, usually followed by facultative oxi-
dation ponds for increased solids and BOD removal, to complex contact
stabilization activated sludge systems.
Other Applicable Technologies—Insulation Board and Hardboard—-
Several additional treatment technologies were evaluated to determine
their feasibility as candidate treatment technologies for BAT, NSPS, and
pretreatment standards. The technologies evaluated for insulation board
and hardboard included:
Chemically Assisted Coagulation
Granular Media Filtration
Activated Carbon Adsorption
A discussion of each of these technologies and case studies of their
application to the insulation board and hardboard industries are
7-91
-------
presented in Appendix E, Discussion of Potentially Applicable
Technol ogi es.
None of these technologies were chosen as candidate technologies because
they are experimental in nature and further research is necessary to
sufficiently determine the effectiveness of treatment which could be
expected when these technologies are applied to insulation board and
hardboard wastewaters.
In-Place Technology and Treated Effluent Data, Insulation Board
Plant 555 produces structural and decorative insulation board. The
plant has reduced its raw waste flow from 13,250 ki/day (3.5 MGD) to
less than 5,678 ki/day (1.5 MGD) by modification of the pulping process,
reuse of process water, and recycle of treated effluent. The wastewater
is screened for removal of gross solids. The wastewater then goes to
two parallel primary clarifiers followed by an activated sludge system.
Discharge from the biological system is either recycled to the plant or
discharged to a creek.
In 1976, sludge resulting from primary clarification and a portion of
the waste sludge from secondary clarification was gravity thickened,
vacuum filtered, and reused in the process. In 1977, only sludge
resulting from primary clarification was recycled. Ten percent of the
primary sludge plus waste secondary sludge was thickened, vacuum fil-
tered, and sold as a soil conditioner. In 1977, the addition of polymer
in the secondary clarifier was initiated which improved the solids re-
moval. Historical data from the data collection portfolio show that in
1976 the system provided an overall BOD waste load removal of 99 percent
and a TSS waste load removal of 94 percent. In 1977, the system pro-
vided an overall BOO waste load removal of 99 percent and a TSS waste
load removal of 95 percent. Effluent waste loads are presented in
Table VII—47. Effluent BOO and TSS concentrations for 1976 were
34.3 mg/i and 324 mg/i, respectively. Effluent BOO and TSS concen-
trations for 1977 were 33.1 mg/i and 172 mg/i, respectively.
Plant 127 produces ceiling tiles and panels, sheathing, and mineral wool
fiber insulation board. Process water from the insulation board plant
receives primary sedimentation. Primary sludge is returned to the
process. The wastewater is then either reused in the insulation board
process for stock dilution and shower water, or used as makeup water for
the mineral wool fiber plant. The raw wastewater from the mineral wool
plant enters the treatment system, which consists of a primary clari-
fier, an aerated lagoon, and a secondary clarifier. Sludge from the
primary and secondary clarifier is dewatered, either in a settling pond
or by a vacuum filter, and hauled to a disposal site. Approximately
1,514 1/mm (400 gpm) of the treated wastewater from the secondary
clarifier is discharged to a P01W, while approximately 757 1/mm
(200 gpm) is recycled to a fresh water tank for use as makeup water in
both the insulation and mineral wool fiber plants. Historical data
obtained from the data collection portfolio indicate 1976 average
treated effluent concentrations of 7.74 mg/i BUD and 77.4 mg/i ISS.
7 -92
-------
Table VII—47. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average)*
C D
CA )
Plant
Produc
tion
Flow
BOD
TSS
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
Number
Kkg/day
(TPD)
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
931
201
(220)
2.96
(0.71)
1.05
(2.10)
1.15
(2.30)
555
606
(668)
8.18
(1.96)
0.28
(0.56)
2.64
(5.29)
600
(661)
8.47
(2.03)
0.28
(0.56)
1.46
(2.91)
531
246
(270)
1.02
(0.24)
0.07
(0.14)
0.16
(0.32)
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data. Second row represents 1977 average
annual data, except as noted.
-------
Plant 123 has no treatment or pretreatment facilities. Excess process
wastewater, combined with pump seal water and sanitary wastewater, are
discharged directly to a P01W. Plant personnel indicated in the data
collection portfolio that suspended solids removal equipment is being
considered to reduce current loads to the P01W.
Plant 931 produces structural and decorative insulation board. The
plant collects its process wastewater in a whitewater storage tank, re-
cycles a portion of the wastewater where needed, and sends the remaining
portion to the treatment system which consists of an equalization tank,
a floc—clarifier, and an aerated lagoon. Polymer addition in the
clarifier is used to aid settling. Fiber recovered in the clarifier is
recycled to the process. Data obtained from the 1976 verification
sampling program show removal efficiencies in the floc-clarifier of
24 percent BOD and 79 percent TSS. A portion of the clarifier overflow
is recycled to the process and the remaining wastewater enters the
aerated lagoon, where it is retained 30.4 days before discharge to a
P01W. In 1976, the solids levels increased in the aerated lagoon from
an average influent load of 0.71 kg/Kkg (1.42 lb/ton) to an effluent
load of 1.15 kg/Kkg (2.30 lbs/ton). Overall removal efficiency of the
system was 82 percent for BOO and 66 percent for suspended solids. The
treated waste loads for this plant are presented in Table VII-48.
Effluent ROD and ISS concentrations for 1976 were 355 mg/i and 388 mg/i,
respectively.
Plant 531 is a self—contained discharger and uses treated wastewater to
spray—irrigate a 2.3—hectare (5.6—acre) field. Whitewater enters the
treatment system at two points: an aerated lagoon and an evaporation
pond. Water from the evaporation pond is routed to the aerated lagoon.
The 1976 waste loads from the lagoon were 1.27 kg/Kkg (2.54 lb/ton) BOD
and 46 kg/Kkg (92 lb/ton) TSS. The lagoon removed 89 percent of the
BOO. Solids levels increased during mixing. From the aerated lagoon,
the wastewater is sent to a primary clarifier, where polymer and alum
aid in settling and pH adjustment. The supernatant from the clarifier
is directed to a holding pond. Sludge from the clarifier is thickened
in a flotation unit and hauled daily to a cinder dump. Water separated
from the sludge enters the holding pond of the spray irrigation system.
The total efficiency of the system in 1976, prior to spray irrigation,
was 94 percent BOO removal and 65 percent TSS removal. Effluent waste
loads determined from data supplied by the plant are presented in
Table VII—48.
Plant 125 produces structural and decorative insulation board. Its
process wastewater (combined with vacuum seal water, treated septic tank
effluent, and stormwater runoff) is routed to a primary clarifier.
Sludge drawn from the primary clarifier is recycled to the manufacturing
process. Overflow from the clarifier goes to an aerated lagoon.
Secondary clarification follows, and the waste secondary sludge is
recycled to the process. The treated effluent is collected in a sump
for reuse in the process. The excess treated effluent is discharged to
receiving waters. From historical data obtained in the data collection
7-94
-------
Table VII-48. Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining Treated Effluent Characteristics
(Annual Average)*
CD
U ’
Plant
Produc
tion
Flow
BOD
TSS
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
Number
Kkg/day
(TPD)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
125
139
(153)
1.88
(0.45)
2.03
(4.06)
1.71
(3.42)
145
(160)
1.75
(0.419)
1.94
(3.87)
1.13
(2.26)
373t
605
(665)**
51.3
(12.3)
4.06
(8.12)
12.3
(24.5)
1071
359
(395)**
21.9
(5.26)
2.15
(4.31)
0.94
(1.88)
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data. Second row represents 1977 average
annual data, except as noted.
t Data are taken before paper wastewater is added.
** Includes both insulation board and hardboard production.
-------
portfolio and data obtained during the verification sampling programs,
this system exhibited an 88 percent reduction in BOD waste load and a
96 percent ISS waste load reduction. In 1977, the system achieved a
92 percent BOD waste load reduction and a 97 percent TSS load reduction.
Effluent loads are presented in Table VII—48. In 1976, the BOD and ISS
effluent concentrations were 1,081 mg/i and 910 mg/l, respectively. In
1977, the BOD and ISS effluent concentrations were 1,108 mg/i and
648 mg/i, respectively.
Plant 373 produces both insulation board and hardboard. The plant is
currently upgrading its wastewater treatment system by installing an
oxygen—activated sludge system. Excess whitewater will pass through a
hydrasieve for removal of gross solids. After screening, the wastewater
will flow to a sump where nutrient addition will occur. From the sump,
the wastewater will be pumped to a four-cell aeration basin. The
aeration basin effluent will flow to a clarifier and the clarifier
effluent will be discharged to the receiving waters. Sludge removed in
the clarifier will be vacuum filtered and disposed of in a land fill.
Design treated effluent waste loads are less than 5 kg/Kkg (10 lb/ton)
of BOO and TSS, respectively.
The 1976 treated effluent concentrations for Plant 373 were 79.2 mg/i
BOD and 239 mg/i ISS. The effluent waste loads are presented in
Table VII-48. In 1977, however, this plant reduced its wastewater flow
from 41.6 1/day (11 MGD) to about 17 1/day (4.5 MGD) by recycling
process whitewater and by water conservation practices.
Plant 1071 produces insulation board and S2S hardboard. The plant has a
waste stream which consists of raw process wastewater, and another waste
stream which consists of lower strength miscellaneous wastewaters. The
raw process wastewater is screened for removal of gross solids by a bar
screen. The screened wastewater flows to a clarifier. Sludge removed
from the clarifier flows to a hydrasieve for screening. Screened solids
are recycled to the process and the wastewater is returned to the
clarifier. The clarifier effluent flows successively to two 1 1/2—acre
settling ponds (in series), a 60—acre settling pond, a 4—acre aeration
lagoon, a 2—acre aeration lagoon, and to a 1-acre aeration lagoon. Part
of the effluent from the 1—acre aeration lagoon flows to a 135-acre
oxidation pond, where the lower strength miscellaneous wastewater stream
enters the treatment system. The remaining effluent from the 1—acre
aeration lagoon flows to a 165—acre oxidation pond. The effluent from
both oxidation ponds is discharged to the receiving waters. The treat-
ment system achieved an overall BOD reduction of 95 percent. The 1976
treated effluent concentrations were 98.2 mg/i BOO and 42.9 mg/i TSS.
The treated effluent waste loads are presented in Table VII—48.
Plant 989, which produces decorative and mineral wool insulation board,
is a self—contained discharger with spray irrigation as the ultimate
means of wastewater disposal. The process wastewater from the plant
enters a series of three settling ponds with a total capacity of
587 million liters (155 million gallons). The ponds retain the waste—
water up to a period of six months, after which it is sprayed onto a
7 -96
-------
30-hectare (80—acre) field of Reed Canary grass. The spray irrigation
system operates 180 days per year at a rate of 6,435 ki/day (1.7 MGD).
No historical data were obtained from the plant.
Plant 1111 produces structural insulation board. Process whitewater is
completely recycled and the plant has no external treatment system.
Plant 695 has no wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater from the
thermo—mechanical pulping and refining of insulation board is collected
in a whitewater chest. A portion is recycled to the process and the
remaining wastewater is discharged to a P01W. No monitoring practices
for flow or other parameters exist.
Plant 231 uses thermo—mechanical pulping and refining to produce struc-
tural and decorative insulation board. The process wastewater is
screened for removal of gross solids prior to being collected and is
either recycled to the process or discharged with no further treatment
to a P01W. Annual effluent concentrations for 1976 were 4,126 mg/i BUD
and 2,121 mg/i TSS. Annual effluent concentrations for 1977 were
7,008 mg/i BOD and 2,625 mg/i TSS.
Plant 137 produces structural insulation board. There are no wastewater
treatment facilities, as no process wastewater is discharged. All
process whitewater is recirculated to a sump. Sump waters are screened,
stored in a clarified whitewater chest, and recycled to the process.
A sumary of the influent and effluent waste loads for insulation board
plants is presented in Tables VII—49 and VII—50. Treatment efficiencies
are calculated for the plants which supplied both influent and effluent
data.
Raw and treated effluent loads of total phenols for four insulation
board plants are presented in Table VU—Si. Raw and treated effluent
loads of heavy metals for four insulation board plants are presented in
Table VII—52.
Raw and treated waste concentrations for organic priority pollutants for
the insulation board plants that were sampled during the 1978 verifica-
tion sampling program are presented in Table VII—53. Only extremely low
concentrations of chloroform, benzene, toluene, and phenol were found in
the raw wastewaters of the three insulation board plants sampled.
Chloroform, benzene, and toluene most likely originated in industrial
solvents and phenol is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions
which occurs during refining of the wood furnish. The levels of the
heavy metals and organic priority pollutants which were found in the raw
wastewaters are so low that no specific technology exists to remove
these pollutants from the wastewater matrix. Biological treatment is
effective in reducing most raw heavy metals concentrations as shown in
Table VII—52, and in removing all of the few organic priority pollutants
present in the raw wastewater as shown in Table VII—53.
7 .97
-------
C D
Table VII-49. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Annual Average Raw and Treated
Waste Characteristics*
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data.
Second row represents 1977 average annual daily data.
BOD kg/Kkg (lb/ton)
TSS
kg/Kkg (lb/ton)
Treated
Percent
Plant
Treated
Percent
Number
Raw
Waste
Effluent
Reduction
Raw
Waste
Effluent
Reduction
931t
5.70
(11.4)
1.05 (2.10)
82
3.34
(6.67)
1.15 (2.30)
66
555
20.8
20.9
(41.6)
(41.8)
0.28 (0.56)
0.28 (0.56)
99
99
45.2
31.4
(90.5)
(62.9)
2.64 (5.29)
1.46 (2.91)
94
95
531
1.27
(2.54)
0.07 (0.14)
94
0.46
(0.923)
0.16 (0.32)
65
t Raw waste loads were calculated from 1977 verification sampling data.
-------
Table VII—50.
Insulation Board Thermo-Mechanical Refining Annual Average Raw and Treated
Waste Characteristics*
CD
CD
BOD
kg/Kkg (lb/ton)
TSS
kq/Kkg (lb/ton)
Treated
Percent
Plant
Treated
Percent
Number
Raw
Waste
Effluent
Reduction
Raw
Waste
Effluent
Reduction
125
17.0
23.5
(34.1)t
(47.0)t
2.03 (4.06)
1.94 (3.87)
88
92
42.8
38.6
(85.7)t
(77.3)t
1.71 (3.42)
1.13 (2.26)
96
97
373
29.8
(59.5)
4.06 (8.12)
86
28.6
(57.1)
12.3 (24.5)
57
1071
43.2
(86.3)
2.15 (4.31)
95
——
0.94 (1.88)
——
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data.
Second row represents 1977 average annual daily data.
t Data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling programs.
-------
-4
-I
0
0
Table VIL-51.
Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent Reduction for Total Phenols--
Insulation Board*
* First row of data represents data for 1976, second row of data represents data for 1977.
t Total phenols concentration data obtained during 1977 and 1978 verification sampling
programs. Average annual daily waste flow and production data for 1976 and 1977
supplied by plants in response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate
waste loads.
Plant
Raw Waste Loadt
Treated
Waste Loadt
% Reduction
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
Code
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
555
0.00095
0.007
(0.0019)
(0.014)
0.00010
0.00012
(0.00021)
(0.00025)
89
98
231
0.0024
0.009
0.0048
(0.018)
-—
--
--
--
--
--
931
0.00040
0.00079
0.00008
(0.00015)
81
125
0.0022
0.0055
0.0045
(0.011)
0.00014
0.00065
(0.00029)
(0.0013)
94
88
-------
Table VI!-52. Raw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction for Insulation Board Metals
Ilasit No. l ie Cd Cu Pb NI in Sb As Se Ag I I Cr Hg
Plant No. 93)
Raw W, ste load (kg/Ply) .0110111142 .0000020 .0019 .U0 1l 114J6 .0000 .003 .0000021 .01100)3 .00001 1 .001)002 ) .00 1I002 1J .000006 .111101)28
(lb/ton) (.001)011031 (.0000056) (.0031) (.0001111) (.0016) (.005) (.11000042) (.000025) (.000027) (.001100421 (.0000056) (.011001 1) (.01)0004
ireated Waste luau (kg/PIg) .0011002) .0000035 .11009 .0(10006 .0(106 .00)4 .0000)8 .0000(10 .000001 .000002) .000000 .000022 . 1 1 00 ) 1( 9)
(lb/ton) (.0011011421 (.0000U69) (.11018) (.000011) (.00))) (.0020) (.000035) (.000011) (.00110 13) (.001)0042) (.0000)5) (.04)0044) (.000000)
1 lleduucl.lon 491 6 23% 5 )1 0% 3(1. 441 4733% 561. 52% 0% + 167% * 3001. 8 )1%
Plant No. 231
flaw Waste load (kq/Ckg) .00111107 .000008 .04123 .00(117 .01)085 .0042 .1)00029 .000021 .U1J0U35 .00(10049 .0001104) .00006 .00004 )
(lb/ton) (.000014) (.0000)6) (.0046) (.0003Q) (.00)1) (.0084) (.000049) (.0(10054) (.11(1001) (.4 ) 1100098) (.00000112) (.000 )2) (.000062
treated Waste Load lkg/Kky) .000012 .000013 .01120 .00021 . 11(109 .0400 .000021 .0000)3 .1100025 .01)1101? .011)10041 .00020 .000)3
(lb/ton) (.00(1024) (.000026) (.00401 (.110041) . (.1. 1 0) 8) (.0095) (.000042) (.0001126) (.000049) (.0110033) (.0000002) (.00040) (.00026)
1. Reduction $ 1 )1. 6 621 I i i. 4 201. 51. $ 13% 142. 521. 30% 1 236% 0% 4 23)). • 2)1%
Ilant No. 125
o Raw Waste load (kg/1.kg) .001)0) .111 ) 1)01 .0(111(141 .1)00021 .011025 .005 .1100014 .00(100 .001 ) 01 .00001 .1 )00011 .11)1)47 .004)02)
—& (11*/ton) (.00002) (.001)02) (.4100062) (.1101)053) (.00049) (.0)) (.1)0002?) (.000)2) (.004114) (.00002) (.0011033) (.0111194) (.011004 1]
Irgated Waste Load (kg/Kkg) .001)001 .01141(1111 .0110111 .00(10030 .0000)3 .000)1 .0000020 .0041006 .011004)44 .00(10013 .00(10013 .0110(106 .1101100)’
(lb/ton) (.01)000)9) (.0000019) (.0(11135) (.11000015) (.000026) (.00033) (.0000056) (.0(111 ( 1 12) (.lM14100l ?) (.0000025) (.0000025) (.0011011) (.000(11)31
i Reuluc LIon 90% 911% 4 3261 89% 94% 961 19% 90% 93% (18% 92% 981. 9 1%
l’lant No. 555
Raw Waste load Ikij/kkg) .11000059 .000)1(155 .0036 .11001159 .00009 .1106 .000022 .0441)0)? .01)0035 .0(10005 .l10lJ0(J65 .1101))? .0414)08
(11*/ton) (.1)1100))) (.01)001)) (.0072) (.04)1)))) (.0(10)0) (.0)2) (.1.11)01)44) (.0(10034) (.011(101) 4.0(1001)) (.0000)3) (.110023) (.111016)
Ireated Waste Coal (ky/Ekgl .0110006 .01)01106 .01)12 .U0110118 .000031 .0008 .0001148 .0(1002 .000032 .00000? .011111)08 .011)119 .11000004
(lb/ton) (.04(001)) (.0001)))) (.1)023) (.000016) (.001)074) (.00)6) (.000095) (.00004) (.111)0063) (.0000)3) (.1111101(1 (.11001?) (.001 ) 001
1. Reulu Lion ( I I 0% 61)1 bS1. 5111. 86% 6 1)5% • 111. 10% • 181. 4 23% 26 1. 99%
Source: 1977 VerIfication Sampling Prouram
-------
Table VII—53. Insulation Board, Priority Pollutant Data, Organics
Parameter
Av
erage Concentration
(ugh)
Treated
Effluent
Raw Wastewater
Plant 555
Plant 125*
Plant
231
Plant 555t Plant
125
Chloroform
20
—— ——
-—
-—
Benzene
70
40** —-
—
--
Toluene
60
40**
Phenol
-—
40 —-
-—
-—
* One treated effluent sample contained 40 ugh of
tn chiorofluoromethane.
t One sample of raw wastewater contained 20 ugh of chloroform.
Plant intake water contained 10 ugh of chloroform.
** Plant intake water contained 50 ugh and 30 ugh of benzene and
toluene, respectively.
—— Hyphen denotes that the parameter was not found in concentrations
above the detection limit for the compound.
7 - 102
-------
TIMBER.4/VII .30
10/18/78
In—Place Technology and Treated Effluent Data, Hardboard
Plant 24 produces S1S and S2S hardboard for such uses as paneling, door—
skins, siding and concrete formboard. Process wastewaters are collected
in a sewer. Cooling, seal, boiler blowdown surface runoff, and conden-
sate from the distillation process are combined in a separate storm
sewer. After screening, primary clarification, and flow equalization of
each waste stream, the two streams are combined prior to biological
treatment. Solids removed during screening are landfilied. Solids from
primary clarification are either landfilled or dewatered and burned in
mill boilers. After the two waste streams are combined, they are routed
to a biological system consisting of two contact stabilization activated
sludge systems operating in parallel, followed by an aerated lagoon.
The activated sludge from the secondary clarifiers is pumped to two
stabilization basins, reaerated for sludge stabilization, and returned
to the contact basins. Waste sludge is either recycled to the produc-
tion units or landfilied. BOO removal calculated from 1976 historical
data for the contact stabilization system is 78 percent. Suspended
solids removal is 70 percent. ROD and TSS effluent concentrations from
the contact stabilization system are 436 mg/i and 157 mg/i,
respecti vely.
After secondary clarification the wastewater is routed to an aerated
lagoon and is discharged after approximately six days detention time to
old impoundment ponds. A portion of the lagoon effluent is reused as
log flume make—up water. Treated effluent is discharged from the
holding ponds to a creek. Treated concentrations calculated from 1976
historical data are 102 mg/i BOO and 120 mg/i TSS. Effluent waste loads
are presented in Table VII—54.
Plant 42, which produces S1S and S2S hardboard, collects all process
wastewaters and directs the flow in one of two streams to the wastewater
treatment facility. The two streams are designed as strong and weak.
The strong wastewater stream (which contains condensate from the evapor-
ation of process whitewater for animal feed) enters two activated sludge
units operating in parallel. Waste sludge is aerobically digested and
pumped to two humus ponds. Water decanted from the humus ponds enters
the weak wastewater system. After clarification, the strong wastewater
is combined with the weak wastewater and enters the weak treatment
system. The weak system consists of an aerated lagoon, an oxidation and
settling pond, and two storage ponds. The wastewater is subsequently
routed to either spray irrigation or discharge, depending on the season
of the year. Between October 1 and May 14, the effluent from the treat-
ment facility is usually recycled to the process or discharged to the
river. From May 15 through September 30, the mill directs the treated
effluent to a number of storage ponds. The stored treated effluent is
either discharged to spray irrigation fields or recycled to the manufac-
turing process. During 1976, because of drought conditions, the plant
was not allowed to discharge to the river for the major part of the
year, and effluent was discharged to the irrigation field. The 1976
treated effluent concentrations were 31.2 mg/i BOD and 28.8 mg/i ISS.
Effluent waste loads are presented in Table VII-54.
7 - 103
-------
Table VII—54.
S1S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Average)*
* First row of data represents
annual data, except as noted.
t Ilardboard and paper
** All of the treated
tt Second row of data
-a
0
Plant
Production
Flow
ROD
TSS
Number
Kkg/day
(TPD)
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
444
88.7
(97.5)
46.6
(11.2)t
9.00
(18.O)t
17.1
(34.1)t
606
194
194
(213
(213)
7.38
9.35
(1.78)
(2.24)
5.05
9.35
(10.1)
(18.7)
4.05
8.50
(8.10)
(17.0)
824
117
115
(129)
(127)
8.84
15.2
(2.12)
(3.65)
6.85
3.06
(13.7)
(6.13)
10.1
10.2
(20.2)
(20.4)
888**
91.9
(101)
--
—-
——
——
—-
—-
42
343
(377)
4.16
(1.00)
0.13
(0.26)
0.12
(0.24)
24
1446
(1589)
9.40
(2.26)
0.97
(1.93)
1.14
(2.27)
64tt
111
111
(122)
(122)
4.24
0.62
(1.02)
(0.15)
18.5
5.10
(36.9)
(10.2)
1.59
0.59
(3.18)
(1.17)
262
67.0
64.1
(73.8)
(70.7)
21.4
17.2
(5.14)
(4.12)
5.85
5.35
(11.7)
(10.7)
13.8
12.2
(27.6)
(24.5)
1976 average annual daily data.
waste streams are comingled.
effluent is recycled.
represents data from October 1976 through February 1977.
Second row represents 1977 average
-------
Plant 606 produces S1S hardboard which is used for exterior siding. The
process water is first screened to remove gross solids which are land-
filled. The wastewater then enters two settling ponds used alternately.
Sludge from these ponds is dredged as required and landfiiled. The
wastewater flows to the two—stage biological treatment system, consist-
ing of an activated sludge system and a second—stage aerated lagoon.
The practice of recycling a portion of the waste sludge from the secon-
dary clarifier is under evaluation. Overflow from the clarifier enters
a second—stage aerated lagoon. Treated effluent from this lagoon is
currently being reused in the process. Excess treated effluent is dis-
charged to the river. Historical data indicate an overall treatment
efficiency of 83 percent BOD removal and 67 percent TSS removal for
1976. For 1977, the overall treatment efficiency was 63 percent BOO
removal and 34 percent ISS removal. Effluent BOO and TSS concentrations
in 1976 were 680 mg/i and 546 mg/i, respectively. Effluent BOO and TSS
concentrations in 1977 were 1,001 mg/i and 910 mg/i, respectively.
Effluent waste loads are presented in Table VII—54.
Plant 444 produces S1S hardboard and specialty paper products. The
wastewaters from the two processes are comingled with cooling waters and
directed to the treatment system. The plant indicated in its data
collection portfoiio that piping modifications were to be completed by
June 1977, and that after these modifications the cooling waters will
not enter the wastewater stream. The treatment system consists of two
primary settling ponds, which can operate either in series or parallel,
an aerated lagoon, and a secondary settling pond. The primary settling
ponds are decanted and the sludge is pumped to a drying area and land-
filled. Secondary sludge is pumped and landfiiied. Historical data
obtained from the data collection portfolio indicate 1976 effluent
concentrations of 192 mg/i BOD and 365 mg/l TSS. Overall efficiency
removal in the biological system (aerated lagoon and secondary settling
pond) for 1976 was 72 percent for BOD. The soil ds level increased
147 percent. Effluent waste loads are presented in Table VII—54.
Plant 262 produces S1S hardboard. The non—contaminated fresh water is
collected and discharged directly to the river. Ali excess plant white—
water is processed through the treatment facility. The wastewater is
first screened for removal of gross solids and returned to the process.
The wastewater then enters a primary settling pond, where it is retained
for four days before entering the biological treatment system. Nutri-
ents are added prior to an aerated lagoon. After a two-day retention
period in the aerated lagoon, the wastewater enters a secondary settling
pond and is discharged to the river. Siudge from the settling ponds and
aerated lagoon is dredged as necessary and landfilled.
The 1976 annual average efficiency of this system was 84 percent BOO
removal and a 10 percent increase in TSS ioad. The 1977 annual average
efficiency was 87 percent BOO removal and a 90 percent increase in TSS
load. The lagoon settling pond system at this plant is obviously not
being operated properly and most likely requires maintenance for removal
of built-up solids. The 1976 effluent concentrations were 273 mg/i BOO
7 - 105
-------
and 644 mg/i TSS. The 1977 effluent concentrations were 311 mg/i BOO
and 713 mg/i TSS. Treated waste loads are presented in Table VII—54.
Plant 824, which produces S1S hardboard, significantly altered its bio-
logical treatment system during 1976 by expanding the facilities. The
treatment system presently consists of two pair of aerated lagoons (in
series), each pair operating in parallel. Each of the aerated lagoons
in the first pair have a capacity of 15 million liters (4 million
gallons) and the capacity of each lagoon in the second pair is
5.7 million liters (1.5 million gallons). Nutrients are added to the
lagoons. The effluent from the second pair of aerated lagoons flows to
two 4.9 million liter (1.3 million gallon) settling ponds which operate
in parallel. A third settling pond of the same capacity is currently
under construction. Cooling water is combined with the effluent from
the settling ponds prior to discharge to the receiving waters.
From historical data for 1976 the annual average effluent concentrations
were 775 mg/i BOO and 1,142 mg/i TSS. In 1977, the effluent concentra-
tions decreased to 201 mg/i BOD and 670 mg/i TSS. In 1976, the system
exhibited an overall efficiency of 81 percent BOO removal and 55 percent
TSS removal. In 1977, the system achieved an overall efficiency of
91 percent BOO removal and 21 percent TSS removal. Effluent waste loads
are presented in Table VII—54.
Plant 888 produces S1S hardboard for use in siding and industrial
furniture. The plant also operates a veneer plant sawmill. Process
waters from the hardboard and veneer plant are comingled and directed to
the treatment facility which consists of two primary settling ponds in
series followed by an activated sludge system. Detention time in the
primary settling ponds is approximately nine days. Solids are removed
annually by decanting the basins. Nutrients are added as the wastewater
enters the activated sludge system, consisting of an aerated lagoon and
secondary clarifier. Sludge is recycled from the clarifier to the aera-
tion basin at approximately 568 1/mm (150 gpm). Waste sludge enters a
small aerobic digester and is pumped to an irrigation field. After bio-
logical treatment the treated wastewater flows into two post storage
basins and is recycled to the manufacturing process.
Historical data obtained in the 308 data collection portfolio indicate a
62 percent BOO removal and an increase in TSS of 61 percent. Concentra-
tions of the treated effluent are 1,998 mg/i BOO and 1,930 mg/i TSS.
Effluent waste loads are presented in Table VII-54.
Plant 64 produces S1S hardboard. The treatment system consists of two
settling ponds in series. Process wastewater is collected in a sump and
directed to the ponds which have a theoretical retention time of 10 days
before discharge to receiving waters. The 1976 effluent concentrations
were 4,338 mg/i BOO and 374 mg/i TSS. In 1977, the effluent concen-
trations were 8,153 mg/i BOO and 935 mg/i TSS. The effluent waste loads
are presented in Table VII—55. As previously discussed in the section
on in—plant controls, Plant 64 has succeeded in closing up its process
7 - 106
-------
Table VII—55. S2S Hardboard Treated Effluent Characteristics (Annual Averaqe)*
-a
0
Plant
Production
Flow
ROD
TSS
kl/Kkg
(kgal/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lbs/ton)
Number
Kkg/day
(TPD)
248
210
(231)
18.3
(4.39)
4.44
(8.88)
-—
218
(240)
21.6
(5.17)
2.54
(5.07)
5.05
(10.1)
1071
359
(395)t
21.9
(5.26)
2.15
(4.31)
0.94
(1.88)
373
605
(665)t
51.3
(12.3)
4.06
(8.12)
12.3
(24.5)
428
311
(343)
25.8
(6.18)
20.8
(41.5)
43.8
(87.6)
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data. Second row represents P177 average annual
daily data. Second row represents 1977 average annual daily data.
t Includes both insulation board and hardboard production.
-------
whitewater system, achieving a daily wastewater flow of less than
18,925 1/day (5,000 gpd).
Plant 28, which produces S1S hardboard, collects all process wastewater
in a system of channels, gravity sewers, and force mains. The waste—
water flows into a collection and equalization tank and is pumped to a
lime neutralization tank, then to a P01W. Historical effluent data
indicate effluent BOO and TSS concentrations of 3,526 mg/l and 864 mg/i,
respectively.
Plant 248, which produces S2S hardboard, collects all plant wastewaters
into one sewer prior to any treatment. The treatment system consists of
a primary aerated pond (Kinecs Air Pond), two—stage biological treat-
ment, and secondary storage and/or settling. Wastewater is retained in
the Kinecs Air Pond for approximately 2.5 days. The primary function of
this system is flow and biological equalization, as no BOO or TSS reduc-
tion is achieved. After nutrient addition and pH adjustment, wastewater
enters the first stage of biological treatment which consists of two
Infilco Aero Accelators. Each Aero Accelator has an aeration compart-
ment and a clarification zone. Biological solids from the clarifier
zone are recycled to the aeration compartment. Waste sludge is detained
in a surge tank and spray irrigated. The wastewater is routed from the
Accelators to the secondary stage of biological treatment consisting of
two aerated lagoons in series. The retention time in each lagoon is
approximately 2.5 days. After final biological treatment the wastewater
flows into one of two 22.7 million liter (6 million gallon) facuitative
lagoons. The lagoons are used alternately to minimize the effects of
any thermal inversions. Solids are removed from each basin during the
periods it is not in use. Treated effluent is discharged to the river.
From historical data obtained in the data collection portfolios, this
system achieved an overall efficiency of 93 percent BOO removal. In
1976, a non—standard TSS method of analysis was used by the plant; con-
sequently, these data were not used for calculating loads or treatment
efficiencies. The 1976 annual average effluent BOO concentrations was
243 mg/i. In 1977, the treatment system achieved an overall efficiency
of 96 percent BOO removal and 57 percent TSS removal. The 1977 effluent
concentrations were 118 mg/l BOO and 234 mg/l TSS. The effluent waste
loads are presented in Table VII—55.
Plant 1071 produces thermo—mechanically puiped and refined insulation
board, fiberboard, and S2S hardboard. The hardboard is primarily used
for exterior siding. The wastewater from the insultion and hardboard
product lines are collected in a sump, screened, and directed to a pri-
mary clarifier. Clarifier underfiow is recycled to the process. The
solids are pumped over a Bauer hydrosieve, recovered, and recycled to
the process. Water may bypass the clarifier and flow directly to
settling basins. Water then flows to a 24.3—hectare (60—acre) holding
pond, used for flow equalization, and subsequently discharges to a
series of four aerated lagoons. The discharge from the fourth aerated
lagoon is split between two oxidation ponds. Effluent from the two oxi-
dation ponds are comingled and discharged to the river. Historical data
7- 108
-------
for 1976 exhibit an overall treatment efficiency for this system of
95 percent BOD reduction. The effluent concentrations were 98.2 mg/i
BOO and 43.9 mg/i TSS. The treated effluent waste loads are presented
in Table VII—55.
Plant 373 and its wastewater treatment system are described earlier in
the discussion of the insulation board plants. Effluent loads for this
treatment system are presented in Table VII-55.
Plant 428 produces S1S and S2S hardboard which is used in tile board,
furniture, and merchandising display panels. Wastewater is pumped to an
effluent holding tank and then to a primary clarifier with a detention
time of three hours. Sludge, consisting mainly of wood fiber, is con-
tinuously removed from the clarifier, dewatered, and either burned in a
power boiler or landfilled. The water removed froni the sludge is re-
cycled back to the primary clarifier. Clarified effluent flows to the
secondary treatment system consisting of a settling pond and two aerated
lagoons in series. Primary treated effluent is held one day in the
settling pond and then flows to the first aerated lagoon, where nutri-
ents are added. Average theoretical detention in each basin is 17 days.
The first basin was designed to maintain the totally mixed system. In
the 308 data collection portfolio, Plant 428 maintains that 70 to
80 percent of the BOO load is removed in the first basin. The water
flows by gravity to the second aerated lagoon, the second half of which
is a quiescent zone to allow the biological solids to settle. Treated
effluent is discharged from the second aerated lagoon to receiving
waters. Historical data for 1976 exhibit an overall treatment
efficiency for this system of 82 percent BOO removal. The TSS load
increased 119 percent. The 1976 effluent concentrations were 805 mg/i
BOO and 1,700 mg/i TSS. The treated effluent wasteloads are presented
in Table VII—55.
A dissolved air flotation system is presently under construction at
Plant 428.
Plant 22 produces S2S hardboard and thermo—mechanically pulped and re-
fined insulation board. The hardboard is used for paneling or cabinets.
The insulation board is used for ceiling tiles or sheathing. Plant
effluent, after screening to remove gross solids, enters a three- day
capacity holding pond. The wastewater then flows to two settling ponds
operating in parallel. After settling, the water enters a storage pond.
Discharge from the storage pond is pumped to irrigation fields. No
monitoring of wastewater is practiced at this plant.
Plant 666 produces S2S hardboard, thermo—mechanically pulped and refined
insulation board, and mineral wool fiber. Mineral wool fiber is
produced at a separate manufacturing facility. Wastewaters from the
mineral wood fiber plant are discharged to two settling ponds operating
in parallel. The hardboard and insulation board wastewaters are
combined with the settling pond effluent and discharged to a POTW.
7 - 109
-------
Plant 663 produces S2S hardboard for use in building siding and thermo—
mechanically pulped and refined insulation board. The plant uses a
combination of biological and physical wastewater treatment. All waste—
waters other than groundwood whitewater are discharged to a sump. The
groundwood whitewater is directed either to a wood molasses plant or to
a primary clarifier. Sludge from the clarifier is recycled to the
plant, and the overflow wastewater is directed to the holding tank. The
effluent from the holding tank is spray irrigated onto a field. Runoff
from the field is collected and discharged to the river.
A sun iiary of the influent and effluent waste loads for 13 wet process
hardboard plants is presented in Table VII—56 and Table VtI—57. Treat-
ment efficiencies are calculated for the plants which supplied both
influent and effluent data in the data collection portfolio.
Raw and treated effluent loads of total phenols for seven hardboard
plants are presented in Table VII—58. Raw and treated effluent loads of
heavy metals for six hardboard plants are presented in Table VII—59.
Table VII—60 presents the raw and treated waste concentrations of organ-
ic priority pollutants for two S1S hardboard plants which were sampled
during the 1978 verification sampling program. Extremely low concen-
trations of chloroform, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and phenol were
found in the raw wastes of the S1S hardboard plants. All of these
pollutants with the exception of phenol most likely originated in indus-
trial solvents or the chlorination of incoming process water. Phenol is
an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions which occur during ref in—
ing of the wood furnish. The levels of the heavy metals and organic
priority pollutants which were found in the raw wastewaters are so low
that no specific technology exists, other than biological treatment, to
remove these pollutants from the wastewater matrix.
Table VII—61 presents the organic priority pollutant concentrations of
the raw and treated wastes for the three S2S hardboard plants that were
sampled during the 1978 verification sampling program. Extremely low
concentrations of chloroform, 1 ,1,2—trichloromethane, benzene, toluene,
and phenol were found in the raw wastes of the plants sampled. All of
these pollutants, with the exception of phenol, most likely originated
in industrial solvents or as a result of the chlorination of incoming
process water. Phenol is an expected byproduct of hydrolysis reactions
which occur during refining of the wood furnish. The levels of the
heavy metals and organic priority pollutants which were found in the raw
wastewaters are so low that no specific technology exists to remove
these pollutants from the wastewater matrix. Biological treatment is
effective in reducing most raw heavy metals concentrations as shown in
Table VII—59 and in significantly reducing the concentrations of the few
organic priority pollutants found in the raw wastewater.
The treated effluent of Plant 248 contained 100 ugh of toluene which is
thought to have been caused by a minor solvent spill in the final
settling pond prior to sampling.
7 - 110
-------
Table VII—56. S1S Hardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste Characteristics*
-&
1
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data.
Second row represents 1977 average annual daily data.
t Hardboard and paper waste streams are comingled.
** Raw waste loads shown are for combined weak and strong wastewater streams.
tt Raw waste load taken after primary clarification, pH adjustment, and nutrient addition.
ROD
kg/Kkg (lb/ton)
TSS
k 9 /Kkg (lb/ton)
Plant
Number
Raw
Waste
Treated
Effluent
Percent
Reduction
Raw
Waste
Treated
Effluent
Percent
Reduction
444t
32.7
(65.4)
9.00 (18.0)
72
6.90
(13.8)
17.1 (34.1)
+147
606
29.3
25.4
(58.6)
(50.7)
5.05 (10.1)
9.35 (18.7)
83
63
12.4
12.8
(24.8)
(25.7)
4.05 (8.10)
8.50 (17.0)
67
34
824
35.6
33.8
(71.2)
(67.7)
6.85 (13.7)
3.06 (6.13)
81
91
22.5
13.0
(44.9)
(25.9)
10.1 (20.2)
10.2 (20.4)
55
21
262
37.4
42.0
(74.8)
(84.0)
5.85 (11.7)
5.35 (10.7)
84
87
12.6
6.45
(25.2)
(12. )
13.8 (27.6)
12.2 (24.5)
+10
+90
42
1.89
(377)**
0.13 (0.26)
93
0.56
(1.15)**
0.12 (0.24)
79
24
21.9
(43.8)tt
0.97 (1.93)
96
5.85
(11.7)tt
1.14 (2.27)
81
-------
Table VII-57. S2S Flardboard Annual Average Raw and Treated Waste Characteristics*
-&
-
“3
* First row of data represents 1976 average annual daily data.
Second row represents 1977 average annual daily data.
BOD kg/Kkg (lb/ton)
TSS kg/Kkg (lb/ton)
Treated Percent
Plant
Number
Raw
Waste
Treated
Effluent
Percent
Reduction
Raw
Waste
Effluent
Reduction
248
66.5
62.0
(133)
(124)
4.44 (8.88)
2.54 (5.07)
93
96
11.7
——
(23.4)
--
5.05 (10.1)
-—
57
1071
43.2
(86.3)
2.15 (4.31)
95
——
0.94 (1.88)
——
373
29.8
(59.5)
4.06 (8.12)
86
28.6
(57.1)
12.3 (24.5)
57
428
116
(232)
20.8 (41.5)
82
20.0
(40.0)
43.8 (87.6)
+119
-------
-4
-I
-I
Table VII-58.
Raw and Treated Effluent Loads and Percent Reduction for Total Phenols—-
Hardboard*
* First row of data represents data for 1976, second row of data represents data for 1977.
t Total phenols concentration data obtained during 1971 and 1978 verification sampling
programs. Average annual daily waste flow and production data supplied by plants in
response to data collection portfolio were used to calculate waste loads.
Plant
Raw Waste Loadt
Treated
Waste Loadt
% Reduction
Code
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
kg/Kkg
(lb/ton)
262
0.005
0.0010
(0.01)
(0.021)
0.00030
0.00020
(0.00059)
(0.00040)
94
98
42
0.01
(0.02)
0.00015
(0.0003)
98
24
0.003
(0.006)
--
--
—-
824
0.055
0.031
(0.11)
(0.062)
0.00046
0.065
(0.00092)
(0.13)
99
+110
28
--
--
0.003
(0.006)
--
22
0.0015
(0.003)
0.0028
(0.0055)
+83
428**
—-
0.10
--
(0.21)
0.0005
0.00095
(0.001)
(0.0019)
—-
99
** Data are 1976 historical data supplied by plant in response to data collection portfolio.
-------
Table 59. IThw and Treated Effluent Loadings and Percent Reduction for Hardlioard Metals
I (ant No. lie Cd Cu Pb HI in Sb Sc Aq I i Cr
4)24
R w o(c (n a Il (kj/K1 ijl .UIJ IIU )lb . 114)029 .00.4 9 .0(44 . 106 .0024 . 1)4 - 19 . 1IlJ02 •4JljlJ4J ( .Ij(JlJ (j I )I .0(1(141416 .IJUUUI3 .0(1(129 .0000(11
(b/toil) (.110414112) (.0114157) (.00711) (.004)42) (.U047) (.0 (1) (.004)03) (.0410023) (.UtjUU3S) (.11000(2) (.00)44126) (. 1.14 )0541) (.14)035)
Iri.ated Waste load (/K1 ) .11410)11)45 .00(11)4145 .00(4 .0(1002 .01102 .0(125 .1)0000 llb .144)4)4)2 . 114141001. .lJ(M )U4itlS . 1. 4 4 4 4 * 1( 11 . 11(1 ( 10 ( 11. . 1 ) 414)01 )1
( 0 1/ Io u) (.01)4)00’)) (.001)009) (.4 102 ( i) (.4)0004) (.0004) (.0049) (.110u 17 ) (.0001)4) (.0000(2) (.000uuI) (.UlutiI4) (.1100(4) (.0041035)
1 Heduclton 2 5’ 9th. 1.41 61 ( 92 ). 724. 961 l3 .. ijitrease 331. 92 1 4 W. 9 1 14, 41 1 .
2411
ftJw Waste load (1.y/I(luj ) .1.14)00(3 .41110011 .0(4 .4141042 .110141 .0114(1 .11001141 .01111)120 .04104)2 .4100( 1 1 .4101104) .000(9 .0 l) ) )0 l. lIi
( lb/Io u) (.000025) (.u(lUUlfl (.021) (.001)24) (.0035) (.41119u ) (.000(5) (.1110051) (.110004) (.00035) (.04 ) 4.4025) (. 1141031) (.0000025)
Iroated WaIte load (11t )/41119 ) .041410(19 .000031 .009 .0(111031 .1)0031 .00411) (100(109 .01141024 .1)114)049 .0001)05 .01)41(113 .00(104) .0)11)0’)?
(lb/toll) (.01)0048) (.0(141014) (.047) (.0110074) (.04)066) (.00(6) (.11000441) (.4100044)) (.004)037) (.00414 ?) (.1101.4025) (.0000tjb) (.4*10014)
1. l ledi Ct lon 34’ ) . 311’ ) . 3411. 694. 821 . 4. 133. 4191 4) ’ ). l It 533. 04. •I1’L u263L (acre
42
law Waste I oad (1.9/4419) .11141(14)4) .0410007 .110044 .00011 .000 ) 4 .4103 .0041041 .1)4101)11. .00005 .000001 .000043 .041411 .01 )01 )021
(1 1 ,/Ion) (.00111) 16) (.00(4043) (.0(10 )40) (.00(5) (.0(10(5) (.11(15) (.410045) (.($J 1J032) (.114)01) (.1)1100(3) (.(i 0 )1U26 ) (.1)4)19) (.0(111(4053
Ireateil Wj te load (119/441.9) .004)0028 .00001141 .00004? .110003) .000024 . 110016 .00(104 .01.44 ) 4)07 .110002 .4)04)4)033 .411100023 .0 (40024 .101 10014
( 1 0/ io u) (.000 1 054 i4 (.00(10(6) (.00033) 1.0011065) (.0041047) (.011052) (.0011020) (.0(100(4) (.110(11)39) (.114)04)11116) (.0144104)45) (.uuuu4/) (.0000(122)
1. )lc ,IuctIoui 1.5’& 4(4,). Increase 91.t 9 4 s 973. 943. 1111. 54 4’). 1.0. 514. 4123. 11.4 . 591.
2 ) )
kaw Waste load (1.9/4(1. ’)) .OOuOUS .11(141005 .0011 .04)01 )2 .1* 11106 .024 .4)011024 .0000)4 .1)00024 .000005 .0011(1)15 .4140419 .01)0044
(lo/toui) (.00(101) (.0(10(4 (.0021) (.11011044 (.000(2) (.0411) (.04)0044)) 1.0011(121) (.Ut )0h14)1) (.0t400 1) (.0114)0 1) (.414i0 (1) (.00002))
Ireated Waste load (1. /Kkq)
(lb/Lou)
‘1. )led iic 1(011
2112
(law (asic load (ky/K1. ) .01)0)409 .0110009 .1)09 .01j4 1113 5 .04)006 .0(4 .tjtjtjOlj9 .11444141(7 .00006 .0041(109 .tMjuUu9 .01111011 .1*14)31
(lb/ton) 1.11411 )011) (.04100 11) (.047) (.0(104169) (.000 1 1) (.021) (jjlj(j0 (7) (.001111311) (.01)0 1 1) (.04)00(7) (.0000(7) (.0u00 4) (.11001.2)
Ireated Waste toad (luj/Kkg) .004)00’) .0410 ( 109 .004 .4104)021. .0(111036 .011116 .000009 .11414)01? .001)47 .004)009 .11)1)009 . 0 11l1 11 3 , .04 )4107
flhi/tou ) (.01 )0( 111) (.01)4)017) (.111)19) (.0(10052) (.04)1)069) (.0(3) (.04)410(7) (.01)411134) (.01)4)093) (.04)4)0(7) (.001)4)17) (.0(1001.94 (.04)0(4)
1. Ileduction 0 1. 111. S lat 21.’). 42’). 53 ’t 01 IJ ’ . (St 0’). 0,. uI03’ IlbereaSe 171.
24
(law Wa5( 1.0449 (4,9/44449) .4)1)44001 .4)0 1)4)01 .04)33 .0004)42 .04)0(2 .001 .0004 .0000(5 .001)021 .410 1 1U 09 .1)001)0’) .001, .01)4 ) 022
(lb/to n) (.1 ) 1100))) (.0001)43) (.04)65) (.l1011003) (.410023) (.0(4) (.04102) (.004103) (.0001145) (.OouUll) (.444100(1) (.4th) (.4100043)
Ireated Waste load (k ,j/KI ,uj) .1)1)0(14)48 .414)4)00413 .000004)3 .0011031. .4)04106 . 1J0 19 .114)0114 1 .000004)4 .1*10049 .01)0116 .4)004)4111 .001)02 .110004)04
(10/ lou ,) (.001)11)496) (.410041096) (.0(14)00911) (.004)074) (.04)011) (.00111) (.0004)23) (.01401)009) (.04)1)0341) (.111)0111 (.01)1)1)11.) (.00(1.) (.0(14)0( 4 417
1. keuluc(oui Il l I I I . 99’L Ii .. 50% lit 419’ ) . 9)4. 471. sb4h Increase lIt (11.’!. 9 113.
Source: 1977 VerIfication arr’ linq Program
-------
Table VII—60. S1S Hardboard Subcategory, Priority Pollutant Data,
Organi Cs
Parameter
Average Concentration
(ug/l)
Treated
Efluent
Raw
Wastewater
Plant 262
Plant
824
Plant 262
Plant
824
Chloroform
——
20
--
——
Benzene
——
80
10
80
Ethylbenzene
20
-—
--
-—
Toluene
15*
70
70
Phenol
680
--
20
* Plant 262 intake water contained 10 ugh toluene.
** Plant 262 intake water contained 97 ug/l phenol.
—- Hyphen denotes that the concentration for the parameter is below the
detection limit for the Compound.
7- 115
-------
Table VII-61. S2S Hardboard Subcategory Priority Pollutant Data, Organics
Ave
rage Concentration (ugh)
Treated
Effluent
Raw Wastewater
Parameter Plant
248
Plant 428 Plant
663
Plant 248
Plant
428 Plant
663
Chloroform --
20
-—
--
--
--
1,1,2—
Trichioroethane ——
——
90
——
Benzene --
90*
--
40
--
Toluene --
60*
10
100
30
--
Phenol ——
300
——
——
* Plant intake water was measured at 120 ug/l benzene and 80 ugh toluene.
** Plant reported a minor solvent spill in final settling pond prior to sampling.
-— Hyphen denotes that the concentration for the parameter is below the detection
limit for the compound.
-
-I
-------
rnsulation Board Candidate Treatment Technologies
There are two basic treatment technologies applicable to insulation
board plants of both subcategories. One technology is biological treat-
ment. Two options for biological treatment are presented, an aerated
lagoon option and an activated sludge option. Within each subcategory,
both options will result in the same degree of treatment and final
effluent level. The aerated lagoon option is less costly, however, it
requires the availability of more land.
Although the biological candidate treatment technology schemes for the
insulation board mechanical refining and thermo—mechanical refining
and/or hardboard subcategories are the same, the final treated effluent
levels differ due to the significantly higher initial raw waste loads
representative of thermomechanical refining.
Candidate Treatment Technology A includes an activated sludge system for
biological treatment and secondary clarification with aerobic digestion,
sludge thickening, and vacuum filtration for waste sludge conditioning
and dewatering. Figure VII—20 presents a schematic of Candidate
Treatment Technology.
Candidate Treatment Technology B, as shown in Figure VII—21, includes an
aerated lagoon system with a facultative lagoon for additional biologi-
cal treatment and clarification. Sludge is dredged from the facultative
lagoon and landfilled.
The other technology applicable to insulation board plants of both
subcategories is spray irrigation of biologically treated wastewater.
This option, which is land intensive, will result in no—discharge to
navigable waterways.
Candidate Treatment Technology C, as shown in Figure VII-22, is a self-
contained system utilizing spray irrigation. Biological treatment
precedes spray irrigation to reduce the pollutant load on the spray
field. Sludge is removed from the facultative lagoon and landfilled.
Table VII—62 presents the expected treated effluent waste loads for the
candidate treatment technologies for the insulation board mechanical
refining and thermo—mechanical refining subcategories. These treated
waste loads are based on those being achieved by mechanical refining
Plant 555 and thermo—mechanical refining Plant 125.
The costs associated with the insulation board candidate treatment tech-
nologies are presented in Section VIII.
Hardboard Candidate Treatment Technologies
There are two basic treatment technologies applicable to hardboard
plants of both subcategories. One technology is biological treatment.
As demonstrated by plants in the industry and as discussed earlier in
this section, biological treatment facilities may be designed and
7-117
-------
INSULATION BOARD (MECHANICAL AND THERMO - MECHANICAL REFINING)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT A
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
1
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW
-I
- I
See Tables VIII-63, ‘ 1111-6 ”, “111-69, md ‘1II 7 ’) for cost sunnaries.
r ‘reVlI-20
-------
INSULATION BOARD (MECHANICAL AND THERMO-MECHANICAL REFINING)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT B
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW WASTEWATER
I
NUTRIENT ADDITION
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
See Tahies VI1I—t55, VI!I-F6, VIII—71, and ‘III-72 for cost suutinaries.
Figure VII- 21
-------
INSULATION BOARD (MECHANICAL AND THERMO-MECHANICAL REFINING)
(SELF CONTAINED)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT C
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
M
o
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
See Tables ‘III—67, “111—68, ‘II1—73, and VIIT—7 for cost summaries.
gure V 11-22
-------
Table VII—62. Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate Treatment
Technologies-—Insulation Board
Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Candi date
Treatment Average Treated Effluent Waste Loads kg/Kkg (lb/ton )
Technology BOO ISS
A, B 0.28 (0.56) 1.46 (2.19)
C 0 0
Insulation Board Thernio—Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Candidate
Treatment Average Treated Effluent Waste Loads k 9 /Kkg (lb/ton )
Technology BOO TSS
A, B 1.94 (3.87) 1.13 (2.26)
C 0 0
7 - 121
-------
operated to provide varying degrees of pollutant reduction. Since there
are many plants that have biological systems in the two hardboard
subcategories, demonstrated performance of three of these systems was
used to develop three levels of biological treatment as a basis for the
biological candidate treatment systems. Each of these candidate
treatment systems described for hardboard plants will result in
different final treated effluent levels.
Candidate Treatment Technology A, as shown in Figure VII—23, includes a
two—stage activated sludge system for biological treatment and secondary
clarification, with aerobic digestion, sludge thickening, and vacuum
filtration for sludge conditioning and dewatering. Candidate Treatment
Technology B, as shown in Figure VII—24, includes a two—stage aerated
lagoon system in conjunction with a facultative lagoon for additional
biological treatment and clarification. Candidate Treatment
Technology A provides a greater degree of pollutant reduction than
Candidate Treatment Technology B.
In Section VIII, cost analyses were completed on a plant—by—plant basis
to provide economic impact information for the industry. The analyses
were completed for three levels of treatment. Treatment Level 1 corre-
sponds to Candidate Treatment Technology A, and Level 2 corresponds to
Candidate Treatment Technology B. Level 3 corresponds to a treatment
system comprised of a primary settling lagoon, a single aerated lagoon,
followed by a facultative lagoon. This level of treatment was not esti-
mated for the total battery limit cost analysis since all but two hard—
board direct dischargers already meet or exceed this type of treatment.
The cost for these plants which do not meet Level 3 Technology is pre-
sented in the plant—by—plant analysis.
The second basic treatment technology applicable to hardboard plants is
spray irrigation of biologically treated effluent. This technology will
result in no—discharge to navigable waterways, however, it is land
intensive. Candidate Treatment Technology C, as shown in Figure VII—25,
is a self—contained system utilizing spray irrigation. Biological
treatment precedes spray irrigation to reduce the pollutant load on the
spray field. Sludge is removed from the facultative lagoon and
landfilled.
Table VII—63 presents the expected treated effluent waste loads for the
candidate treatment technologies. Data for Candidate A (Level 1) are
based on demonstrated performance by Plant 248. Data for Candidate B
(Level 2) are based on demonstrated performance by Plant 824. Data for
Level 3 are based on demonstrated performance by Plant 262. Cost
analyses for hardboard candidate treatment technologies are presented in
Section VIII.
New Source Performance Standards
The new source performance standards for insulation board and hardboard
segments corresponds to Candidate Treatment Technology C. Candidate
7 - 122
-------
HARDBOARD (S1S AND S2S)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT A
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW WASTEWATER
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
-4
‘ .3
U
See Tables VIII-75, VI I 1-76, and ‘1II-81 for cost suiiiaiaries
Figure VII-23
-------
HARDBOARD (S1S AND S2S)
(DIRECT DISCHARGE)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT B
CONTROL HOUSE
RAW WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
NUTRIENT ADDITION
-
t..J
See Tables ‘III—77, VIII-7 , and 1!III-R2 for cost surimaries.
‘ure VII-24
-------
HARDBOARD (S1S AND S2S)
(SELF CONTAINED)
CANDIDATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
MODEL PLANT C
RAW WASTEWATER
NUTRIENT ADDITION
CONTROL HOUSE
SLUDGE
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
(TRUCK HAUL)
See Tiibles V!I!-79, VLII-80, and V11I-I 3 for cost sunv’ii ries.
Figure VII- 25
-------
Table VII—63. Treated Effluent Waste Loads for Candidate Treatment
Technologies——Hardboard
Treated Effluent Wasteloads kg/Kkg (lb/ton)
Average Treated Effluent Waste Loads kg/Kkg (lb/ton )
BOO TSS
2.54
(5.07)
5.05
(10.1)
3.06
(6.13)
10.2
(20.4)
5.35
(10.7)
12.2
(24.5)
Candidate
Treatment
Technology
A (Level 1)
B (Level 2)
Level 3
C
7 - 126
-------
Treatment Technology C is a self-contained system utilizing spray
irrigation. Sites for new sources can be selected on a basis of land
availability and suitability for spray irrigation.
Pretreatment Technol ogy
No technology for pretreatment was developed for the insulation board
and hardboard segments due to the extremely low levels of heavy metals
and organic priority pollutants in the raw wastewater. A plant may
decide to adopt pretreatment in order to reduce its wasteloads to the
P01W as a matter of individual economics.
7 - 127
-------
SECTION VIII
COST, ENERGY, AND NON—WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
COST INFORMATION
Cost information for the candidate treatment technologies developed in
Section VII is presented in this section for the purpose of enabling an
assessment of the economic impact on the industry. A separate economic
analysis will be prepared and the results will be published in a
separate document.
Two types of cost estimates are presented in this section. First, the
total battery limit costs of the technologies are estimated for the
model plants according to raw wastewater characteristics developed in
Section V for each subcategory. These estimates include the cost of
each unit process associated with the technology irrespective of
specific treatment technology which may be in—place due to existing
regulations. As shown in Section VII, most plants already have
substantial treatment systems in operation. These total battery limit
costs, therefore, are presented for information only as they do not
reflect the true cost to the industry of achieving the candidate tech-
nologies. The single exception to this is the NSPS costs. Since no
technology can be assumed to be in—place for new sources, the total
battery limit NSPS cost estimates do represent the costs to the industry
of achieving the NSPS candidate technologies.
The second type of cost estimate presented is a plant-by—plant estimate
of the costs of achieving the applicable candidate technologies within
each subcategory. This estimate, prepared for every plant in the
technical data base, takes into consideration the plants’ raw and
treated wastewater characteristics and the treatment technology
currently in—place and is a more accurate estimate of the actual cost of
the candidate technologies to the industry as a whole.
It should be noted that a number of factors affect the cost of a partic-
ular facility, and that these highly variable factors may differ from
those assumed herein. One of the most variable factors is the cost of
land, which may range from a few hundred dollars per hectare in rural
areas to millions of dollars (or total unavailability) in urban areas.
Other site-specific factors which can cause variations in actual cost
include local soil conditions, building codes, labor costs, and so
forth.
In some cases, individual installations may use cost accounting systems
which cause reported costs to differ from those in this section. For
example, it is not uncommon for a portion of a manufacturing plant’s
administrative costs to be allocated to the waste treatment system.
Such factors are not included in this document.
8-1
-------
Assumptions used in developing the costs presented in this section are
listed in Table VIII—1. Tables VIII—2 through VIII—4 contain descrip-
tions of each technology for which costs are estimated for the wood
preserving, insulation board, and hardboard industry segments,
respectively. Tables VIII—5 through VIII—7 contain the design flow and
raw wastewater characteristics for the model plants in each subcategory.
Energy Requirements of Candidate Technologies
Itemized energy costs are shown in each of the cost estimates presented
in this section.
Total Cost of Candidate Technologies
Tables VIII—8 through VIII—62 present the total battery limit costs of
candidate technologies for the wood preserving segment. Tables VIII—63
through VIII—74 present the total battery limit costs of candidate tech-
nologies for the insulation board segment. Tables VIII—75 through
VIII—83 present the total battery limit costs of candidate technologies
f or the hardboard segment.
It should be noted that the costs shown for primary oil separation in
the wood preserving segment, including capital, annual operating, and
annual energy costs, are 50 percent of the actual values estimated
during the cost analysis. This is due to the fact, discussed in
Section VII of this document, that 50 percent of the total costs of this
technology can be amortized through recovery of oils.
8-2
-------
Table VIII—l. Cost Assumptions
1. All costs are reported in June 1977 dollars.
2. Excavation costs $5.00 per cubic yard.
3. Reinforced concrete costs $210 per cubic yard.
4. Site preparation costs $2,000 per acre.
5. Contract hauling of sludge to landfill costs $25 per cubic yard.
6. Land costs $10,000 per acre except for those alternatives including
spray irrigation, in which case land costs S2,000 per acre.
7. Surface dressing for lagoons costs $0.03 per square foot.
8. Fencing costs $2.00 per linear foot, installed.
9. Clay lining for lagoons costs $0.23 per square foot.
10. New carbon costs $0.40 per pound.
11. Epoxy coating costs $2.00 per square foot.
12. Electricity costs $0.05 per kilowatt—hour.
13. Phosphoric acid costs $0.25 per pound.
14. Anhydrous ammonia costs $0.18 per pound.
15. Polymer costs $0.60 per pound.
16. Sulfuric acid costs $0.06 per pound.
17. Sodium hydroxide costs $0.10 per pound.
18. Sulfur dioxide costs $0.25 per pound.
19. Average roofing costs $5.50 per square foot.
20. Engineering costs 15 percent of construction cost.
21. Contingency is 15 percent of the sum of the capital cost, land
cost, and engineering cost.
22. Capital recovery is based on 20 years at 10 percent.
23. Annual insurance and taxes cost 3 percent of the sum of the capital
cost plus land cost.
24. Average labor costs $20,000 per man per year, including fringe
benefits and overhead.
8-3
-------
Table VIII—2. Wood Preserving (Steaming and Boulton) Candidate
Treatment Technol ogi es
Direct Discharge Technologies
Technology A: Pump Stations (3)
Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation
Slow—Sand Filtration
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon (Equivalent Treatment of Two—Stage
Activated Sludge)
Facultative Lagoon
Monitoring Station
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul)
Technology B: Pump Stations (3)
Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation
Slow—Sand Filtration
Equal i zation
Neutral i zati on
Nutrient Addition
Two—Stage Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul)
Technology C: Same as Technology A with the addition of Activated
Carbon Adsorption following the Facultative Lagoon.
Technology D: Same as Technology B with the addition of Activated
Carbon Adsorption following Two—Stage Activated
Sludge.
Direct Discharge Technologies (Only Wastewater with Fugitive Metals )
Technology E: Same as Technology A with the addition of Metals
Removal following Slow—Sand Filtration.
Technology F: Same as Technology B with the addition of Metals
Removal following Slow—Sand Filtration.
Technology G: Same as Technology A with the addition of Metals
Removal following Slow—Sand Filtration and Activated
Carbon Adsorption following the Facultative Lagoon.
Technology H: Same as Technology B with the addition of Metals
Removal following Slow-Sand Filtration and Activated
Carbon Adsorption following Two—Stage Activated
Sludge.
8-4
-------
Table VIII—2. Wood Preserving (Steaming and Boulton) Candidate
Treatment Technologies (Continued, page 2 of 3)
Pretreatment Technologies
Technology I: Pump Stations (3)
Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation
Slow—Sand Filtration
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon (Equivalent Treatment of One-Stage
Activated Sludge)
Facultative Lagoon
Monitoring Station
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul)
Technology 3: Pump Stations (3)
Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation
Slow—Sand Filtration
Equalization
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
One—Stage Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul)
Pretreatment Technologies (Oily Wastewater with Fugitive Metals )
Technology K: Same as Technology I with the addition of Metals
Removal following Slow—Sand Filtration.
Technology L: Same as Technology J with the addition of Metals
Removal following Slow—Sand Filtration.
No—Discharge Technologies (Applicable to Direct and Indirect Discharges.
Represents Costs for NSPS )
Technology M: Pump Stations (2)
(Steaming Only) Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation
Slow—Sand Filtration
Spray Evaporation
Technology M: Pump Stations (2)
(Boulton Only) Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation
Slow-Sand Filtration
Cooling Tower Evaporation
8-5
-------
Table VIII—2. Wood Preserving (Steaming and Boulton) Candidate
Treatment Technologies (Continued, page 3 of 3)
In-Process Technology
Technology N: Conversion from Open to Closed Steaming for Flow
(Steaming Only) Reduction
No—Discharge Technology
Technology 0: Recycle of cylinder drippings and rainfall draining
(Wood Preserving directly on cylinder area.
Inorganic Salts
Only)
8-6
-------
Table VIII—3. Insulation Board (Mechanical and Thermo— echanical
Refining) Candidate Treatment Technologies
Direct Discharge Technologies
Technology A: Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equal ization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
One-Stage Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Control House
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul)
Technology B: Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon (Equivalent Treatment of One—Stage
Activated Sludge)
Facultative Lagoon
Monitoring Station
Control House
Sludge Handling and Disposal (Dredge and Truck Haul)
No-Discharge Technology (Represents Costs for NSPS )
Technology C: Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon
Spray Irrigation
Control House
Sludge Handling and Disposal (Dredge and Truck Haul)
8-7
-------
Table VIII-4. Hardboard (S1S and S2S) Candidate Treatment Technologies
Direct Discharge Technologies
Technology A: Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Two-Stage Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Control House
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Sludge Disposal (Truck Haul)
Technology B: Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon (Equivalent Treatment of Two-Stage
Activated Sludge)
Facultati ye Lagoon
Monitoring Station
Control House
Sludge Handling and Disposal (Dredge and Truck Haul)
No—Discharge Technology (Represents Costs for NSPS )
Technology C: Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon
Spray Irrigation
Sludge Handling and Disposal (Dredge and Truck Haul)
8-8
-------
Table VIII—5. Wood Preserving Segment Design Criteria
Wood Preserving——Steaming Catego y
Closed Steaming
Unit Wastewater Flow (gal/cu ft): 0.33
Average Annual Rainfall (inches): 50
Design
Plant 1
Criteria
Plant
2
Production (cu ft/day)
6,000
15,000
Wastewater Flow (GPO)
3,250
8,500
COD (mg/i)
6,000
6,000
Oil and Grease (mg/i)
800
800
Phenols (mg/l)
175
175
Wood Preserving--Boulton
Subcategory
Unit Wastewater Flow (gal/cu ft): 1.05
Average Annual Rainfall (inches): 45
Design
Plant 1
Criteria
Plant 2
Production (cu ft/day)
3,200
8,000
Treating Area (sq ft)
6,000
20,000
Wastewater Flow (GPO)
4,000
10,000
COD (mg/i)
4,000
4,000
Oil and Grease (mg/i)
300
300
Phenols (mg/i)
500
500
8-9
-------
Table VIII—6. Insulation Board Segment Design Criteria
Insulation Board Mechanical Re
fining Subcategory
Unit Wastewater Flow (kgai/ton): 2.0
Design Criteria
Plant 1 Plant
2
Production (TPD)
250 600
Wastewater Flov, (MGD)
0.5 1.2
Influent BOD Concentration (mg/i)
1,800 1,800
Influent TSS Concentration (mg/i)
2,200 2,200
Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical
Refining Subcategory
Unit Wastewater Flow (kgai/ton): 2.4
Design Criteria
Plant 1 Plant 2
Production (TPD)
200 400
Wastewater Flow (MGD)
0.48 0.96
Influent BOO Concentration (mg/i)
5,600 5,600
Infiuent TSS Concentration (mg/i)
1,600 1,600
8-10
-------
Table VIII-7. Hardboard Segment Design Criteria
S1S Hardboard
Subcategory
Unit Wastewater Flow (kgal/ton): 2.8
Design
Plant 1
Criteria
Plant
2
Production (TPD)
100
300
Wastewater Flow (MGD)
0.28
0.84
Influent BOO Concentration (mg/i)
3,300
3,300
Influent TSS Concentration (mg/i)
1,300
1,300
S2S Hardboard
Design Criteria:
Subcategory
Unit Wastewater Flow (kgal/ton)
5.9
Production (TPD)
250
Wastewater Flow (MGD)
1.5
Influent BOO Concentration (mg/i)
Influent TSS Concentration (mg/i)
2,600
600
8-11
-------
Table VIII—8. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant A_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $18,900 $ 4,410 $3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Neutralization and Nutrient
Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 93,000 4,120 2,080
Facultative Lagoon 28,700 ——
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 32,560
Land 8,000
Contingency 38,650 -—
Sludge Disposal 2,000
Capital Recovery 33,860
Insurance and Taxes 6,750
Labor 20,000
TOTAL $296,300 $81,980 $8,150
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—5.
8 - 12
-------
Table VIII—9. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant A_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 5,700 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Neutralization and Nutrient
Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 165,000 9,700 5,100
Facultative Lagoon 79,000 —— ——
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 54,520
Land 12,300
Contingency 64,550 --
Sludge Disposal —— 4,000
Capital Recovery 56,680
Insurance and Taxes 11,270
Labor —— 25,000 —-
TOTAL $494,860 $127,400 12,48O
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—5.
8 - 13
-------
Table Vill-lO. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant A_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) S 17,370 $ 3,870 53,060
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Neutralization and Nutrient
Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 71,000 2,750 1,320
Facultative Lagoon 20,600 —— ——
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 27,820 —— ——
Land 7,700
Contingency 33,150 -—
Sludge Disposal —- 2,000
Capital Recovery 28,950
Insurance and Taxes 5,790
Labor —— 20,000 ——
TOTAL $254,130 $73,630 $6,970
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—5.
8-14
-------
Table VI1I—11. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant A_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 $ 5,130 $ 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Neutralization and Nutrient
Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 130,000 6,900 3,600
Facultative Lagoon 49,400 —— ——
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 44,530
Land 12,300
Contingency 53,060 ——
Sludge Disposal —— 4,000
Capital Recovery 46,340
Insurance and Taxes 9,280
Labor —— 25,000 —-
TOTAL 406,78O $110,440 $10,490
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—5.
8-15
-------
Table VItI—12. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant B_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 18,900 $ 4,410 $3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow-Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Equalization 39,000 2,080 890
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 90,000 4,500 2,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 33,660
Land 10,000
Contingency 40,210 ——
Sludge Disposal 2,000
Capital Recovery 35,030
Insurance and Taxes 7,030
Labor 20,000 ——
TOTAL $308,260 85,890 $9,160
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—6.
8 - 16
-------
Table VIII-13. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 $ 5,700 $ 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 £00
Equalization 57,000 3,300 1,400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 200,000 10,500 5,600
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 56,470
Land 10,000
Conti ngency 66,440
Sludge Disposal 4,000
Capital Recovery 58,660
Insurance and Taxes 11,590
Labor 25,000 —-
TOTAL $509,400 $133,800 $14,380
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—6.
8-17
-------
Table VIII—14. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B_1*
Annual
Annua
1
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 17,370 S 3,870 53,060
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Equalization 33,500 1,700 740
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 65,000 3,000 1,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 28,850
Land 10,000
Contingency 34,680 ——
Sludge Disposal 2,000
Capital Recovery 30,060
Insurance and Taxes 6,070
Labor —— 20,000
TOTAL $265,890 $76,970 $7,890
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—6.
8 - 18
-------
Table VIII—15. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $20,400 5,130 $ 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Equalization 49,000 2,720 1,140
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 140,000 7,500 4,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 45,970
Land 10,000
Contingency 54,370 ——
Sludge Disposal 4,000
Capital Recovery 47,790
Insurance and Taxes 9,490
Labor 25,000
TOTAL $416,830 $115,420 $12,230
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—6.
8 - 19
-------
Table VIII—16. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant C_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) 18,900 $ 4,410 3,48O
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 93,000 4,120 2,080
Facultative Lagoon 28,700
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 9,000 900
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 39,310
Land 8,000
Contingency 46,410 ——
Sludge Disposal —— 3,250
Capital Recovery 40,850
Insurance and Taxes 8,100
Labor -— 24,400 ——
TOTAL 355,810 $104,970 $9,050
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—7.
8 - 20
-------
Table VIII—17. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant C_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) 5 21,900 $ 5,700 S 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 165,000 9,700 5,100
Facultative Lagoon 79,000
Activated Carbon Adsorption 60,000 18,000 1,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 63,520
Land 13,300
Contingency 75,050
Sludge Disposal 7,000
Capital Recovery 66,020
Insurance and Taxes 13,100
Labor 30,000 -—
TOTAL 5575,360 S164,570 513,980
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—7.
8 - 21
-------
Table VIII—18. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant C_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $17,370 $ 3,870 $3,060
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 71,000 2,750 1,320
Facultative Lagoon 20,600 -—
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 6,600 700
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 34,570
Land 7,700
Contingency 40,160
Sludge Disposal 2,860
Capital Recovery 35,940
Insurance and Taxes 7,170
Labor 23,550
TOTAL $312,890 $93,010 7,670
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—7.
8 - 22
-------
Table VIII-19. Wood Preserving-Steaming Suhcategory Cost Summary fnr
Model Plant C_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 S 5,130 $ 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 130,000 6,900 3,600
Facultative Lagoon 49,400 —— -—
Activated Carbon Adsorption 49,000 13,610 1,210
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 51,880
Land 12,300
Contingency 61,510 ——
Sludge Disposal —- 6,090
Capital Recovery 53,950
Insurance and Taxes 10,750
Labor -- 30,000 --
TOTAL $471,580 $140,220 $11,700
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—7.
8 -23
-------
Table VIII-20. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant D_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $18,900 $ 4,410 $ 3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Equalization 39,000 2,080 890
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 90,000 4,500 2,200
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 9,000 900
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 40,410
Land 10,000
Contingency 47,970 ——
Sludge Disposal 3,250
Capital Recovery 42,020
Insurance and Taxes 8,380
Labor —— 24,400 ——
TOTAL 367,770 $108,880 $10,060
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—8.
8- 24
-------
Table VIII—21. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant D_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 $ 5,700 $ 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Equalization 57,000 3,300 1,400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 200,000 10,500 5,600
Activated Carbon Adsorption 60,000 18,000 1,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 65,470
Land 10,000
Contingency 76,790
Sludge Disposal —— 7,000
Capital Recovery 67,980
Insurance and Taxes 13,390
Labor -— 30,000
TOTAL $588,750 $170,920 $15,880
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—8.
8 - 25
-------
Table VIII—22. Wood Preserving—Steaming Suhcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant D_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 17,370 $ 3,870 3,O6O
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Equalization 33,500 1,700 740
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 65,000 3,000 1,500
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 6,600 700
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 35,600
Land 10,000
Contingency 42,440 --
Sludge Disposal 2,860
Capital Recovery 37,050
Insurance and Taxes 7,420
Labor 23,550
TOTAL 325,4OO $96,320 $8,590
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—8.
8- 26
-------
Table VIII-23. Wood Preserving-Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant D_2*
Annual
Annua
1
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) S 20,400 $ 5,130 $ 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Equalization 49,000 2,720 1,140
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 140,000 7,500 4,200
Activated Carbon Adsorption 49,000 13,610 1,210
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 53,320
Land 10,000
Contingency 62,820
Sludge Disposal 6,090
Capital Recovery 55,400
Insurance and Taxes 10,960
Labor 30,000
TOTAL $481,630 $145,200 $13,440
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—8.
8-27
-------
Table VIII—24. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant E_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Enerçj.y
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 18,900 $ 4,410 3, 8O
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 88,000 8,000 1,190
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 93,000 4,120 2,080
Facultative Lagoon 28,700 ——
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 45,760
Land 8,000
Contingency 53,830
Sludge Disposal -— 4,000
Capital Recovery 47,530
Insurance and Taxes 9,390
Labor 30,000
TOTAL 412,680 $118,290 $9,340
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—9.
8-28
-------
Table VIII-25. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant E_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 5,700 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 115,000 13,900 1,800
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 165,000 9,700 5,100
Facultative Lagoon 79,000
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 71 ,770
Land 13,300
Contingency 84,530
Sludge Disposal 9,100
Capital Recovery 74,560
Insurance and Taxes 14,750
Labor 35,000
TOTAL $648,090 177,760 S14,280
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—9.
8 - 29
-------
Table VIII—26. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant E_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $17,370 $ 3,870 $3,060
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 78,000 6,400 480
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 71,000 2,750 1,320
Facultative Lagoon 20,600
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 39,520
Land 7,700
Contingency 46,600
Sludge Disposal —— 3,240
Capital Recovery 41,060
Insurance and Taxes 8,130
Labor 30,000
TOTAL $357,280 $105,720 $7,450
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—9.
8 - 30
-------
Table VIII—27. Wood Preserving-Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant E_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 $ 5,130 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 104,000 11,100 1,520
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 130,000 6,900 3,600
Facultative Lagoon 49,400 ——
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 60,130
Land 12,300
Contingency 71,000
Sludge Disposal 7,550
Capital Recovery 62,490
Insurance and Taxes 12,400
Labor -— 35,000 -—
TOTAL 544,320 S154,360 12,010
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—9.
8 31
-------
Table VIII-28. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant F_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 18,900 $ ,41O S 3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 88,000 8,000 1,190
Equalization 39,000 2,080 890
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 90,000 4,500 2,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 46,860 ——
Land 10,000
Contingency 55,390 ——
Sludge Disposal -— 4,000
Capital Recovery 48,700
Insurance and Taxes 9,670
Labor —— 30,000 ——
TOTAL $424,640 $122,200 10,35O
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vil—lO.
8 - 32
-------
Table VIII—29. Wood Preserving—BouTton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant F_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 S 5,700 $ 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 115,000 13,900 1,800
Equalization 57,000 3,300 1,400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 200,000 10,500 5,600
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 73,720
Land 10,000
Contingency 86,280 ——
Sludge Disposal 9,100
Capital Recovery 76,520
Insurance and Taxes 15,040
Labor 35,000
TOTAL $661,490 H84,110 $16,180
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vil—lO.
8 - 33
-------
Table VIII-30. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary or
Model Plant F_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $17,370 S 3,870 $3,060
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 78,000 6,400 980
Equalization 33,500 1,700 740
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 65,000 3,000 1,500
Monitoring Station 16,3g0 2,170 530
Engineering 40,550
Land 10,000
Contingency 48,140 ——
Sludge Disposal —— 3,240
Capital Recovery 42,170
Insurance and Taxes 8,410
Labor — — 30,000 - —
TOTAL $369,050 $109,060 $8,870
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vil—lO.
8-34
-------
Table VIII—31. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant F_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 $ 5,130 ! 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 104,000 11,100 1,520
Equalization 49,000 2,720 1,140
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 140,000 7,500 4,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 61,570
Land 10,000
Contingency 72,310 ——
Sludge Disposal —— 7,550
Capital Recovery 63,940
Insurance and Taxes 12,610
Labor —— 35,000 -—
TOTAL $554,370 $159,340 $13,750
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vil—lO.
8 - 35
-------
Table VIII-32. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant G_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $18,900 $ 4,410 3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 88,000 8,000 1,190
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 93,000 4,120 2,080
Facultative Lagoon 28,700 —— ——
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 9,000 900
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 52,510
Land 8,000
Contingency 61,590 ——
Sludge Disposal 5,250
Capital Recovery 54,520
Insurance and Taxes 10,740
Labor 34,400
TOTAL $472,190 fl41,280 $1O,2d0
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vu—il.
8 -36
-------
Table VIII—33. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant G_2*
Annual
Annua
1
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 $ 5,700 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 115,000 13,900 1,800
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Aerated Lagoon (Two-Stage) 165,000 9,700 5,100
Facultative Lagoon 79,000 ——
Activated Carbon Adsorption 60,000 18,000 1,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 80,770
Land 13,300
Contingency 94,880 —-
Sludge Disposal 12,100
Capital Recovery 83,880
Insurance and Taxes 16,550
Labor —- 40,000
TOTAL 727,440 S214,880 $15,780
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vu—li.
8 - 37
-------
Table VIII-34. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant G_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $17,370 $ 3,870 S3,060
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 78,000 6,400 480
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 71,000 2,750 1,320
Facultative Lagoon 20,600
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 6,600 700
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 46,270
Land 7,700
Contingency 54,360 ——
Sludge Disposal 4,100
Capital Recovery 48,050
Insurance and Taxes 9,480
Labor 33,550 ——
TOTAL $416,790 $125,070 $8,150
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vu—il.
8- 38
-------
Table VIII—35. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant G_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 $ 5,130 $ 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 104,000 11,100 1,520
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Aerated Lagoon (Two—Stage) 130,000 6,900 3,600
Facultative Lagoon 49,400 -— —-
Activated Carbon Adsorption 49,000 13,610 1,210
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 67,480
Land 12,300
Contingency 79,450 -—
Sludge Disposal —— 9,640
Capital Recovery 70,100
Insurance and Taxes 13,870
Labor -- 40,000 --
TOTAL $609,120 $184,140 $13,220
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure Vu—il.
8 - 39
-------
Table VIII—36. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant H_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 18,900 $ 4,410 $ 3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 88,000 8,000 1,190
Equalization 39,000 2,080 890
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 90,000 4,500 2,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 9,000 900
Engineering 53,610
Land 10,000
Contingency 63,150
Sludge Disposal 5,250
Capital Recovery 55,690
Insurance and Taxes 11,020
Labor —- 38,830 --
TOTAL $484,150 $149,620 fll,250
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—12.
8 - 40
-------
Table VIII-37. Wood Preserving-Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant H_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 $ 5,700 $ 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 115,000 13,900 1,800
Equalization 57,000 3,300 1,400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 200,000 10,500 5,600
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Activated Carbon Adsorption 60,000 18,000 1,500
Engineering 82,720
Land 10,000
Contingency 96,630
Sludge Disposal 12,100
Capital Recovery 85,840
Insurance and Taxes 16,840
Labor 40,000 —-
TOTAL $740,840 $221,230 $17,680
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-12.
8 - 41
-------
Table VIII-38. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant H_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $17,370 $ 3,870 $3,060
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Metals Removal 78,000 6,400 980
Equalization 33,500 1,700 740
Neutral ization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 65,000 3,000 1,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Activated Carbon Adsorption 45,000 6,600 700
Engineering 47,300
Land 10,000
Contingency 55,900 —-
Sludge Disposal 4,100
Capital Recovery 49,160
Insurance and Taxes 9,760
Labor —— 33,550 ——
TOTAL $428,560 $128,410 $9,570
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—12.
8 - 42
-------
Table VIII—39. Wood Preserving-Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary For
Model Plant H_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 $ 5,130 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Metals Removal 104,000 11,100 1,520
Equalization 49,000 2,720 1,140
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Activated Sludge (Two—Stage) 140,000 7,500 4,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Activated Carbon Adsorption 49,000 13,610 1,210
Engineering 68,920
Land 10,000
Contingency 80,760 ——
Sludge Disposal 9,640
Capital Recovery 71,550
Insurance and Taxes 14,080
Labor 40,000
TOTAL $619,170 $189,120 14,96O
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—12.
8 - 43
-------
Table VIII—40. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant I_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation $ 40,000 $ 2,500 $1,500
Flocculation and Slow-Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Pump Stations (3) 18,900 4,410 3,480
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Aerated Lagoon 55,000 3,450 1,900
Facultative Lagoon 28,700
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 26,860
Land 9,250
Contingency 32,280 ——
Sludge Disposal 2,000
Capital Recovery 27,980
Insurance and Taxes 5,650
Labor 20,000
TOTAL $247,480 $74,330 $7,970
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—13.
8-44
-------
Table VIII—41. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcateqory Cost Summary for
Model Plant I_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation $ 56,750 $ 3,000 $ 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Pump Stations (3) 21,900 5,700 4,440
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Aerated Lagoon 126,000 7,700 4,500
Facultative Lagoon 79,000 —— —-
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 48,670 —-
Land 16,200
Contingency 58,400 — —
Sludge Disposal —— 4,000
Capital Recovery 50,690
Insurance and Taxes 10,220
Labor —— 25,000 —-
TOTAL $447,760 $118,360 $11,880
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—13.
8 - 45
-------
Table VIII—42. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant I_it
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation $ 40,000 2,500 $1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Pump Stations (3) 17,370 3,870 3,060
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Aerated Lagoon 40,000 2,250 1,350
Facultative Lagoon 20,600
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 23,170 ——
Land 8,550
Contingency 27,930 ——
Sludge Disposal —— 2,000
Capital Recovery 24,140
Insurance and Taxes 4,890
Labor —- 20,000
TOTAL $214,110 $67,420 $7,000
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—13.
8 -46
-------
Table VIII-43. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant I_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 $ 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Pump Stations (3) 20,400 5,130 4,020
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Aerated Lagoon 88,000 5,650 3,200
Facultative Lagoon 49,400 -— -—
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 38,230
Land 14,350
Contingency 46,120 ——
Sludge Disposal 4,000
Capital Recovery 39,850
Insurance and Taxes 8,080
Labor 25,000 — —
TOTAL 353,590 $101,500 10,O9O
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—13.
8 -47
-------
Table VIII-44. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant J_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 18,900 4,410 S3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Equalization 39,000 2,080 890
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Activated Sludge (One—Stage) 50,000 3,700 2,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 27,660
Land 10,000
Contingency 33,310 —-
Sludge Disposal 2,000
Capital Recovery 28,820
Insurance and Taxes 5,830
Labor —— 20,000 — —
TOTAL $255,360 $77,680 $9,160
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—14.
8 -48
-------
Table VIII—45. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary or
Model Plant J_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 21,900 5,700 $ 4,440
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Equalization 57,000 3,300 1,400
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Activated Sludge (One-Stage) 160,000 8,000 5,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 50,470
Land 10,000
Contingency 59,540 ——
Sludge Disposal 4,000
Capital Recovery 52,450
Insurance and Taxes 10,390
Labor —— 25,000
TOTAL $456,500 $123,890 $14,280
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—14.
8 -49
-------
Table VIII—46. Wood Preserving-Steaming Suhcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant J_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) 17,370 $ 3,870 3,O6O
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow-Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Equalization 33,500 1,700 740
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Activated Sludge (One-Stage) 30,000 2,500 1,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 23,600
Land 10,000
Conti ngency 28,640
Sludge Disposal 2,000
Capital Recovery 24,620
Insurance and Taxes 5,020
Labor 20,000
TOTAL $219,600 $69,980 $7,890
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—14.
8-50
-------
Table VIII-47. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant J_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 $ 5,130 $ 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Equalization 49,000 2,720 1,140
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Activated Sludge (One—Stage) 100,000 6,000 3,800
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 39,970
Land 10,000
Contingency 47,470
Sludge Disposal —- 4,000
Capital Recovery 41,570
Insurance and Taxes 8,290
Labor —— 25,000
TOTAL $363,930 $106,500 $11,830
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—14.
8 - 51
-------
Table VIII—48. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant K_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation $ 40,000 $ 2,500 $ 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Pump Stations (3) 18,900 4,410 3,480
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Aerated Lagoon 55,000 3,450 1,900
Facultative Lagoon 28,700 —— ——
Metals Removal 88,000 8,000 1,190
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 40,060 ——
Land 9,250
Contingency 47,460 -—
Sludge Disposal —— 4,000
Capital Recovery 41,650
Insurance and Taxes 8,290
Labor —— 20,000 —-
TOTAL $363,860 $100,640 $9,160
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—15.
8 - 52
-------
Table VIII—49. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant K_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Enerqy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation $ 56,750 $ 3,000 S 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Pump Stations (3) 21,900 5,700 4,440
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,950 4,680 260
Aerated Lagoon 126,000 7,700 4,500
Facultative Lagoon 79,000 ——
Metals Removal 115,000 13,900 1,800
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 65,920
Land 16,200
Conti ngency 78,240
Sludge Disposal 9,100
Capital Recovery 68,560
Insurance and Taxes 13,670
Labor - — 25,000 --
TOTAL $599,850 $158,680 $13,680
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—15.
8 - 53
-------
Table V1II-50. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant K_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation $ 40,000 $ 2,500 $1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Pump Stations (3) 17,370 3,870 3,060
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 1,700 160
Aerated Lagoon 40,000 2,250 1,350
Facultative Lagoon 20,600
Metals Removal 78,000 6,400 480
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 34,870
Land 8,550
Contingency 41,380
Sludge Disposal 3,250
Capital Recovery 36,260
Insurance and Taxes 7,230
Labor 20,000 ——
TOTAL $317,260 89,530 $7,480
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—15.
8-54
-------
Table VIII-51. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant K_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Primary Oil Separation S 56,750 $ 3,000 $ 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Pump Stations (3) 2O 4OO 5,130 4,020
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Aerated Lagoon 88,000 5,650 3,200
Facultative Lagoon 49,400
Metals Removal 104,000 11,100 1,520
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Engineering 53,830
Land 14,350
Contingency 64,060 ——
Sludge Disposal 7,500
Capital Recovery 56,000
Insurance and Taxes 11,200
Labor 25,000 —-
TOTAL $491,130 $135,370 $11,610
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—15.
8-55
-------
Table VIII-52. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant L_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 18,900 $ 4,410 $ 3,480
Primary Oil Separation 40,000 2,500 1,500
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 16,000 3,900 400
Equalization 39,000 2,080 890
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,100 2,270 160
Activated Sludge (One—Stage) 50,000 3,700 2,200
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Metals Removal 88,000 8,000 1,190
Engineering 40,860
Land 10,000
Contingency 48,490 ——
Sludge Disposal 4,000
Capital Recovery 42,490
Insurance and Taxes 8,470
Labor 30,000 --
TOTAL $371,740 $113,990 $10,350
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—16.
8 - 56
-------
Table VIII—53. Wood Preserving—Boulton Suhcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant L_2*
Pump Stations (3)
Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration
Equalization
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge (One-Stage)
Monitoring Station
Metals Removal
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
TOTAL
4,950
160,000
16,390
115,000
67,720
10,000
79,380
9,100
70,310
13,840
35,000
$174,200
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
$ 21,900
56,750
19,500
57,000
$ 5,700
3,000
5,200
3,300
4,680
8,000
2,170
13,900
$ 4,440
1 ,750
4fl0
1,400
260
5,, 500
530
1,800
$16,080
$608,590
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—16.
8-57
-------
Table VIII-54. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant L_1*
Pump Stations (3)
Primary Oil Separation
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration
Equal izat ion
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge (One-Stage)
Monitoring Station
Metals Removal
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
TOTAL
4,100
30,000
16,390
78,000
35,300
10,000
42,100
3,240
36,740
7,360
30,000
$102,080
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
$ 17,370
40,000
16,000
33,500
$ 3,870
2,500
3,900
1,700
1,700
2,500
2,170
6,400
$3,060
1,500
400
740
160
1,500
530
980
$8,870
$322,760
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—16.
8 - 58
-------
Table VIII—55. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary for
Model Plant L_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 20,400 5,130 $ 4,020
Primary Oil Separation 56,750 3,000 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—Sand
Filtration 19,500 5,200 400
Equalization 49,000 2,720 1,140
Neutralization and
Nutrient Addition 4,450 3,420 190
Activated Sludge (One—Stage) 100,000 6,000 3,800
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Metals Removal 104,000 11,100 1,520
Engineering 55,570
Land 10,000
Contingency 65,410
Sludge Disposal —— 7,550
Capital Recovery 57,730
Insurance and Taxes 11,410
Labor 35,000 ——
TOTAL $501,470 $150,430 S13,350
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—16.
8 - 59
-------
Table VIII—56. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Sumary
for Model Plant M_1*
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation
S 40,000
$ 2,500
51,500
Flocculation and Slow—
Sand Filtration
16,000
3,900
400
Pump Station
6,300
1,470
1,160
Spray Evaporation
57,000
6,880
5,100
Engineering
17,900
——
——
Land
5,000
——
——
Contingency
21,330
——
——
Sludge Disposal
——
1,000
——
Capital Recovery
-—
18,620
-—
Insurance and Taxes
——
3,730
——
Labor
——
20,000
——
TOTAL
$163,530
$58,100
$8,160
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—17.
8 - 60
-------
Table VIIr—57. Wood Preserving—Boulton Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant M_2*
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation
$ 56,750
$ 3,000
$ 1,750
Flocculation and Slow—
Sand Filtration
19,500
5,200
400
Pump Station
7,300
1,900
1,480
Spray Evaporation
82,000
14,990
12,500
Engineering
24,830
——
——
Land
7,500
——
-—
Contingency
29,680
——
——
Sludge Disposal
——
2,000
——
Capital Recovery
——
25,850
——
Insurance and Taxes
——
5,190
——
Labor
——
25,000
——
TOTAL
$227,560
$83,130
$16,130
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—17.
8 - 61
-------
Table VIII—58. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Sumary
for Model Plant M_1*
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation
$ 40,000
$ 2,500
$1,500
Flocculation and Slow—
Sand Filtration
16,000
3,900
400
Pump Station
5,790
1,290
1,020
Spray Evaporation
92,000
1,590
270
Engineering
23,070
——
-—
Land
9,000
——
-—
Contingency
27,880
-—
-—
Sludge Disposal
--
1,000
——
Capital Recovery
——
24,050
——
Insurance and Taxes
——
4,880
——
Labor
-—
20,000
——
TOTAL
$213,700
$59,200
3,2OO
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—18.
8 - 62
-------
Table VIII—59. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant M_2*
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Primary Oil Separation
$ 56,750
S3,000
$1,750
Flocculation and Slow—
Sand Filtration
19,500
5,200
400
Pump Statithi
6,800
1,710
1,340
Spray Evaporation
155,000
1,620
280
Engineering
35,710
——
——
Land
19,500
——
——
Contingency
43,990
——
-—
Sludge Disposal
—-
2,000
——
Capital Recovery
——
37,320
-—
Insurance and Taxes
—-
7,730
——
Labor
—-
25,000
——
TOTAL
$337,250
$83,580
$3,770
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—18.
8 - 63
-------
Table VIII-.60. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant N—i
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Equipment and Installation
(Coils, Pumps, Reservoir,
Neutralization, Piping
and Fittings)
$60,400
——
-—
Engineering
9,100
——
——
Contingency
10,400
-—
-—
Capital Recovery
——
9,400
——
Maintenance
-—
600
——
Energy
-—
700
700
Insurance and Taxes
——
1,800
——
TOTAL
$79,900
$12,500
$700
8 - 64
-------
Table VIII-61. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory Cost Summary
for Model Plant N—2
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost
Annual
Energy Cost
Equipment and Installation
(Coils, Pumps, Reservoir,
Neutralization, Piping
and Fittings)
$100,000
——
——
Engineering
15,000
——
——
Contingency
17,200
-—
-—
Capital Recovery
——
15,500
——
Maintenance
——
1,300
Energy
-—
1,000
1,000
Insurance and Taxes
——
3,000
——
TOTAL
$132,200
$20,800
$1,000
8 - 65
-------
Table VIII—62. Wood Preserving—Steaming Subcategory (Inorganic Salts
Only) Cost Summary for Technology 0
Capital Cost
Concrete collection sump and drainage
works to collect cylinder drippings
and rain falling directly on cylinder
for recycle $50,000—$75,000
8-66
-------
Table VIII—63. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Subcateqory
Cost Summary for Model Plant A_1*
Annual
Annua
1
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) 5 105,000 S 11,700 5 3,540
Screening 16,000 1,220 --
Equalization 247,000 20,800 13,500
Primary Clarifier 180,000 8,700 500
Neutralization 11,800 3,600 140
Nutrient Addition 26,100 24,500
Activated Sludge 573,000 62,410 38,500
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Aerobic Digester 825,000 180,000 125,000
Sludge Thickener 327,000 16,000 4,380
Vacuum Filtration 283,000 70,000 7,000
Labor -- 80,000
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 402,900
Land 10,000
Contingency 464,830
Sludge Disposal —- 114,390
Capital Recovery 417,420
Insurance and Taxes 80,R80
TOTAL $3,563,700 $1,099,770 $196,040
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—20.
8-67
-------
Table VIII—64. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant A_2*
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Equalization
Primary Clarifier
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Activated Sludge
Monitoring Station
Aerobic Digester
Sludge Thickener
Vacuum Filtration
Labor
Control house
Engineering
Conti ngency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
$ 165,000
34,000
440 ,000
220,000
16,600
31,900
985,000
16,390
2,166,000
421,000
390,000
75,680
744,240
10,000
857 ,370
$ 20,100
1,900
42,800
10,000
7,280
56,500
129,000
2,170
453,000
22,300
150,000
80,000
5,980
274,530
770,910
149,150
2,175,620
$ 7,350
32,000
520
200
90,100
530
312,000
8,500
13,300
2,950
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Land
$6,573,180
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—20.
$467,450
8 -68
-------
Table VIII—65. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant B_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 105,000 $ 11,700 3,540
Screening 16,000 1,220 -—
Neutralization 11,800 3,600 140
Nutrient Addition 27,300 35,600
Aerated Lagoon 722,000 156,000 128,000
Facultative Lagoon 292,600 — —
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 190,020
Land 63,900
Contingency 228,100 -—
Sludge Disposal 8,000
Capital Recovery 197,910
Insurance and Taxes 39,920
Labor -— 40,000
TOTAL $1,748,790 $502,100 $135,160
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—21.
8 - 69
-------
Table VIII—66. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Suhcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant B_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon
Monitoring Station
Control House
Engineering
Land
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
Labor
$ 165,000
34,000
16,600
39,200
1,130,000
425,600
16,390
75,680
285,370
118,300
345,920
$ 20,100
1,900
7,280
82,000
338,000
2,170
5,980
19,200
297,620
60,620
40,000
$874,870
306,000
530
2,950
7,350
200
TOTAL
$2,652,060
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—21.
$317,030
8 - 70
-------
Table VIII—67. Insulation Board Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Sumary for Model Plant C_1*
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon
Spray Irrigation
Control House
Engineering
Land
Conti ngency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
$ 105,000
16,000
11,800
27,300
722,000
292,600
46,400
75,680
194,500
539,900
304,700
$11,700
1,220
3,600
35,600
156,000
14,800
5,980
8,000
211 ,000
55,100
40,000
$543,000
140
128,000
12,500
2,950
$ 3,540
Labor
TOTAL
$2,335,880
$147,130
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—22.
8 - 71
-------
Table VIII—68. Insulation Board f echanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant C_2*
Capital Cost Operating Cost Energy Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 165,000 $ 20,100 7,350
Screening 34,000 1,900
Neutralization 16,600 7,280 200
Nutrient Addition 39,200 82,000
Aerated Lagoon 1,130,000 338,000 306,000
Facultative Lagoon 425,600 ——
Spray Irrigation 76,000 25,700 21,000
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 294,300
Land 1,260,300
Contingency 527,500
Sludge Disposal -— 19,200
Capital Recovery 327,000
Insurance and Taxes 96,700
Labor 40,000
TOTAL $4,044,180 $963,860 $337,500
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—22.
8 - 72
-------
Table VIII—69. Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Sumary for Model Plant A_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 105,000 $ 11,700 $ 3,540
Screening 16,000 1,220
Equalization 245,000 20,700 13,000
Primary Clarifier 180,000 8,700 490
Neutralization 11,800 3,600 140
Nutrient Addition 36,000 68,200 ——
Activated Sludge 982,000 142,500 106,350
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Aerobic Digester 1,000,000 230,000 170,000
Sludge Thickener 357,000 17,700 5,380
Vacuum Filtration 313,000 90,000 8,600
Labor —— 80,000
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 500,680
Land 10,000
Contingency 577,280 ——
Sludge Disposal 151,340
Capital Recovery 518,680
Insurance and Taxes —— 100,440
TOTAL $4,425,830 $1,452,930 $310,980
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII-20.
8 - 73
-------
Table VIII—70. Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Sumary for Model Plant A_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 165,000 20,100 $ 7,350
Screening 34,000 1,900 ——
Equalization 378,000 35,500 25,700
Primary Clarifier 210,000 9,700 520
Neutralization 16,600 7,280 200
Nutrient Addition 46,200 133,800
Activated Sludge 1,602,000 337,900 210,900
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Aerobic Digester 2,000,000 454,000 336,000
Sludge Thickener 435,000 23,100 8,800
Vacuum Filtration 408,000 165,000 14,300
Labor -- 80,000 —-
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 808,030
Land 10,000
Contingency 930,740 —-
Sludge Disposal 302,690
Capital Recovery 836,980
Insurance and Taxes —— 161,910 ——
TOTAL $7,135,640 $2,578,010 $607,250
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—20.
8-74
-------
Table VIII—71. Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant B_1*
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon
Monitoring Station
Control House
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
TOTAL
$ 105,000
16,000
11,800
43,400
1,104,000
292,600
16,390
75,680
249,730
63,900
296,780
$11,700
1,220
3,600
104,000
422,000
2,170
5,980
8,000
259,750
51,860
40,000
$910,280
140
396,000
530
2,950
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
$ 3,540
Land
Labor
$2,275,280
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—21.
$403,160
8 - 75
-------
Table VIII—72. Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant B_2*
Pump Stations (3)
Screening
Neutralization
Nutrient Addition
Aerated Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon
Monitoring Station
Control House
Engineering
Contingency
Sludge Disposal
Capital Recovery
Insurance and Taxes
$ 165,000
34,000
16,600
55,300
2,206,900
425,600
16,390
75,680
449,320
119,000
534 ,570
$ 20,100
1,900
7,280
238,000
1,000,000
2,170
5,980
19,200
467,420
93,430
40,000
$1,895,480
200
960,000
530
2,950
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
$ 7,350
Land
Labor
TOTAL
$4,098,360
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—21.
971 ,030
8 - 76
-------
Table VIU—73. Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Summary for Model Plant C_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 105,000 $ 11,700 $ 3,540
Screening 16,000 1,220
Neutralization 11,800 3,600 140
Nutrient Addition 43,400 104,000 —-
Aerated Lagoon 1,104,000 422,000 396,000
Facultative Lagoon 292,600 ——
Spray Irrigation 46,400 14,800 12,500
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 254,200
Land 539,900
Contingency 373,400 ——
Sludge Disposal 8,000
Capital Recovery 272,800
Insurance and Taxes 67,000
Labor 40,000
TOTAL $2,862,380 $951,100 S415,130
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—22.
8 - 77
-------
Table VIII—74. Insulation Board Thermo—Mechanical Refining Subcategory
Cost Sumary for Model Plant C_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 165,000 $ 20,100 $ 7,350
Screening 34,000 1,900 — —
Neutralization 16,600 7,280 200
Nutrient Addition 55,300 238,000 ——
Aerated Lagoon 2,206,900 1,000,000 960,000
Facultative Lagoon 425,600 —— ——
Spray Irrigation 76,000 25,700 21,000
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 458,300 ——
Land 1,261,000
Contingency 716,200 ——
Sludge Disposal —— 19,200
Capital Recovery 496,800
Insurance and Taxes 129,500
Labor —— 40,000 -—
TOTAL $5,490,580 $1,984,460 $991,500
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—22.
8 78
-------
Table VIII-75. S1S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant A_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 84,000 $ 8,700 $ 2,340
Screening 9,500 1,000
Equalization 172,000 13,100 7,600
Primary Clarifier 160,000 8,000 480
Neutralization 9,600 2,440 120
Nutrient Addition 27,300 33,100 —-
Two—Stage Activated Sludge 590,500 69,500 45,970
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Aerobic Digester 600,000 116,000 78,900
Sludge Thickener 282,000 13,100 3,050
Vacuum Filtration 233,000 45,000 4,850
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Sludge Disposal 68,850
Engineering 339,000
Land 10,000
Contingency 391,350
Capital Recovery 351,240
Insurance and Taxes 68,100
Labor -— 80,000
TOTAL $3,000,320 $886,280 146,790
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—23.
8.79
-------
Table VIII—76. S1S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant A_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 135,000 15,900 $ 5,340
Screening 24,000 1,550
Equalization 345,000 31,900 22,200
Primary Clarifier 200,000 9,400 500
Neutralization 14,300 5,380 170
Nutrient Addition 42,100 94,500 —-
Two—Stage Activated Sludge 1,244,000 183,650 135,250
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Aerobic Digester 1,560,000 332,000 230,000
Sludge Thickener 390,000 20,000 6,700
Vacuum Filtration 350,000 117,000 10,800
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Sludge Disposal —— 206,550
Engineering 659,470
Land 10,000
Conti ngency 759,890
Capital Recovery 683,130
Insurance and Taxes 132,190
Labor 80,000 —-
TOTAL $5,825,830 $1,921,300 $414,440
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—23.
8 - 80
-------
Table VIII—77. S1S Flardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 84,000 8,700 2,340
Screening 9,500 1,000 -—
Neutralization 9,600 2,440 120
Nutrient Addition 27,700 36,300 ——
Aerated Lagoons (2) 904,320 176,000 146,000
Facultative Lagoon 233,400 -— -—
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 204,090
Land 84,600
Contingency 247,390 --
Sludge Disposal -— 4,480
Capital Recovery 212,850
Insurance and Taxes 43,360
Labor -— 40,000 —-
TOTAL $1,896,670 $533,280 151,940
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—24.
8 - 81
-------
Table VIII-78. S1S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 135,000 $ 15,900 $ 5,340
Screening 24,000 1,550
Neutralization 14,300 5,380 170
Nutrient Addition 43,300 104,800
Aerated Lagoons (2) 1,945,760 462,000 440,000
Facultative Lagoon 364,000 -- ——
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 392,760 ——
Land 192,400
Contingency 480,540
Sludge Disposal 13,440
Capital Recovery 410,140
rnsurance and Taxes 84,320
Labor -— 40,000
TOTAL 3,684,13O 1,145,68O $448,990
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—24.
8 - 82
-------
Table VIII—79. Wet Process Hardhoard S1S Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant C_1*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 84,000 $ 8,700 $ 2,340
Screening 9,500 1,000 ——
Neutralization 9,600 2,440 120
Nutrient Addition 27,700 36,300 ——
Aerated Lagoon 726,000 168,000 138,000
Facultative Lagoon 233,400
Spray Irrigation 35,500 10,900 9,200
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 180,200
Land 317,000
Contingency 254,800 ——
Sludge Disposal 4,480
Capital Recovery 192,200
Insurance and Taxes 45,600
Labor 40,000
TOTAL $1,953,380 $515,600 152,610
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—25.
883
-------
Table VIII—80. Wet Process Hardboard S1S Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant C_2*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 135,000 $15,900 $ 5,340
Screening 24,000 1,550
Neutralization 14,300 5,380 170
Nutrient Addition 43,300 104,800
Aerated Lagoon 726,000 168,000 138,000
Facultative Lagoon 364,000 —— ——
Spray Irrigation 62,000 20,100 16,900
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 216,600
Land 873,800
Contingency 380,200 ——
Sludge Disposal 13,440
Capital Recovery 239,700
Insurance and Taxes 69,500
Labor 40,000 ——
TOTAL $2,914,880 $684,350 $163,360
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—25.
8-84
-------
Table VIII-81. S2S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant A*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 187,500 23,400 9,000
Screening 40,000 2,200
Equalization 510,000 52,000 39,900
Primary Clarifier 235,000 10,600 540
Neutralization 18,000 8,850 230
Nutrient Addition 45,700 128,000
Two—Stage Activated Sludge 1,633,000 253,700 190,800
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Aerobic Digester 2,040,000 420,000 288,000
Sludge Thickener 418,000 21,500 7,600
Vacuum Filtration 379,000 140,000 12,500
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Sludge Disposal —— 250,200
Engineering 839,740
Land 10,000
Contingency 967,200 ——
Capital Recovery 869,820
Insurance and Taxes 168,250
Labor 80,000
TOTAL S7,415,210 $2,436,670 $552,050
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—23.
8. 85
-------
Table VIII-82. S2S Hardboard Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant B*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 187,500 $ 23,400 S 9,000
Screening 40,000 2,200 ——
Neutralization 18,000 8,850 230
Nutrient Addition 47,500 143,000 -—
Aerated Lagoons (2) 3,371,520 844,000 780,000
Facultative Lagoon 468,400
Monitoring Station 16,390 2,170 530
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 633,750
Land 307,200
Contingency 774,890 ——
Sludge Disposal 24,000
Capital Recovery 661,730
Insurance and Taxes 135,970
Labor 40,000 ——
TOTAL $5,940,830 $1,891,300 S792,710
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—24.
8- 86
-------
Table VIII-83. Wet Process Hardboard S2S Subcategory Cost Summary for
Model Plant C*
Annual
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost
Energy
Cost
Pump Stations (3) $ 187,500 $ 23,400 S 9,000
Screening 40,000 2,200
Neutralization 18,000 8,850 230
Nutrient Addition 47,500 143,000 —-
Aerated Lagoon 1,535,900 584,000 576,000
Facultative Lagoon 468,400 ——
Spray Irrigation 87,500 30,000 24,000
Control House 75,680 5,980 2,950
Engineering 369,100
Land 1,583,400
Contingency 662,000
Sludge Disposal 24,000
Capital Recovery 410,100
Insurance and Taxes 121,300
Labor —- 40,000 —-
TOTAL $5,074,980 $1,392,830 $612,180
*A diagram of the Candidate Treatment Technology is shown in
Figure VII—25.
8 - 87
-------
Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants——Wood Preserving
A plant-by—plant analysis was performed on each wood preserving plant in
the technical data base to determine the cost of compliance for each
applicable candidate treatment technology. The individual plants’
wastewater flow, raw and treated wastewater characteristics, and
in—place technology were all considered in determining the cost of
compi iance.
Assumptions made in estimating plant—by—plant costs were: (1) tech-
nology required to achieve BPT standards, or its equivalent, should be
in—place for direct dischargers, therefore no costs were included for
primary and secondary oil separation or for an aerated lagoon of
sufficient size and aeration capacity to achieve the BPT standards;
(2) technology required to achieve current pretreatment standards, or
its equivalent, should be in—place for indirect dischargers, therefore
no costs were included for primary and secondary oil removal; (3) plants
currently achieving no-discharge through self—containment (spray irriga-
tion, evaporation, recycle, etc.) will incur no costs of compliance; and
(4) the cost of converting a steaming subcategory plant from open to
closed steaming was estimated and included in the compliance cost only
when this conversion and subsequent treatment of a reduced flow results
in a lower overall cost than does treatment of the larger, open steaming
flow.
Costs of compliance for individual wood preserving plants are shown in
Tables VIII—84 through VIII—86.
Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants——Insulation Board and
Hardboard
A plant—by—plant analysis was performed on each insulation board and
hardboard plant to determine the cost of compliance for each applicable
level of biological treatment technology discussed in Section VII. The
individual plant’s wastewater flow, raw and treated wastewater charac-
teristics and in—place technology were all considered in determining
cost of compliance.
Insulation Board—Mechanical Refining——There is only one direct
discharger in the Insulation Board—Mechanical Refining subcategory.
This plant exhibits exemplary treatment, therefore no cost of compliance
will be incurred. The remaining plants in this subcategory are either
self—contained (no—discharge) or indirect dischargers, and no costs of
compliance will be incurred. As previously discussed in Section VII,
pretreatment of raw wastewaters from this subcategory is not considered
necessary due to the extremely low levels of priority pollutant
contami nati on.
Insulation Board—Thermo—Mechanical and/or Hardboard Production— —
There are four direct dischargers in the Insulation Board—Thermo—
Mechanical refining and/or Hardboard Production subcategory. Three of
these exhibit exemplary treatment and no cost of compliance will be
8- 88
-------
table VIiI-84. Wood Preserving——Steaming Sulicategory Costs of Compliance for l,ulividiual Plants
I)irect l)ischargers
Bioloyi al lreatment
(Technology A or B)
Annual Annual
(.apital Operating Inergy
I’lant (.ost Cost Cost
Biological Treatment
Plus Activated
Carbon Adsorption
( Technology C or U )
Annui Annual
Capital Operating Energy
Cost Cost Cost
Spray Evaporation
(Technology 11)
Annual A, i i T
(.apital Operating Inergy
Cost Cost Cost
Roof to Divert Storitiwater
Froiti Cylinder Area
Resulting in Ho-Discharge
A uuua1 AnnuaT
Capital Operatinq 1,u’rqy
Cost Cost Cost
421
0
0
0
68,800
30,qOO
1,300
176,600
36,000
200
0
0
I)
516
55,200
21,700
1,400
114,800
41,100
2,100
109,200
15,300
0
0
I)
(1
19R
185,200
6(1,100
8,700
264,500
91,200
10,200
230,91)0
53,900
300
I)
0
0
959
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49,700
6,900
0
o
(D
184
1117
156
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
( I
1 )
134,900
27,100
15,201)
18,901)
3,800
2,100
0
0
C)
54 1;
1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1
100,500
14,1(10
0
140
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,400
3,700
0
151
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1
29,400
4,200
0
960
0
(1
0
0
0
0
0
0
I)
72,700
10,100
(1
-------
lahie VlIi—85. Wood P,eservinq——Steaiiilnq Suhcategnry Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants
Indirect Oischarqers
Spray I vapoi at ion
Biological Treatment (technology K) Plus Conversion
Biological Ireatment Plus tietals Removal Spray Evaporation From Open to Closed Steaiiiiiug
( lechnology I or J) ( Technology K or 1) ( technology 11 ) — (Technology ti )
Annual Annual Annual Annual Anritia 1 Annual Annual Annual
(api t al Operal i,ig [ nergy Capital O ’erat trig [ nergy Capital Operating [ nergy Capital Operat I nq E nergy
Plant Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
115 65,101) 25,400 2,400 167,000 52,500 3,400 119,100 29,900 300 0 0 0
810 55,000 23,6(10 2,100 0 0 0 100,000 27,400 300 (1 0 0
108 118,000 37,100 4,000 0 0 0 198,000 40,200 300 0 0 0
566 80,800 29,400 2,900 191,900 59,000 4,000 147,900 33,700 300 0 0 0
951 83,100 30,100 3,000 0 0 0 152,500 34,300 300 0 0 0
(i/h 68,500 33,500 5,200 0 0 0 88,600 26,000 300 1) (1 0
251 /9,100 38,700 6,700 0 1) 0 116,400 29,900 300 0 0 0
391 163,100 46,800 5,400 308,600 91,500 7,100 256,400 49,700 1,700 0 0 1)
996 46,100 21,300 1,800 129,400 42,900 2,500 78,400 21,400 300 0 0 0
888 148,100 44,000 5,100 291,500 87,300 6,700 233,700 44,900 300 (1 1) 0
Co 386 10,300 21,200 2,100 0 0 0 133,500 31,800 300 0 0 0
625 110,2110 35,91)0 3,900 0 0 0 188,100 38,900 31)1) 1) 1) 0
240 119,400 4/,800 4,200 0 0 0 208.400 53,300 1,600 0 0 0
718 42,600 9,700 1,300 0 0 0 106,100 15,900 200 U 0 (1
922 210,900 66,300 6,800 369,600 116,400 8,700 296,600 65,200 1,800 0 0 0
131 75,100 20,200 2,800 0 0 0 145,600 34,700 1,400 0 0 0
516 82,200 29,900 3,000 1) 0 0 149,400 33,900 300 0 0 0
197 128,51)0 39,800 4,500 0 0 0 209,900 41,600 300 0 0 0
682 240,201) 61,800 7,400 0 0 0 322,800 57,500 31)0 0 0 0
439 164,600 47,300 5,600 311,301) 92,400 7,300 251,400 1/,200 300 0 0 0
769 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 226,000 48,300 1,900
56? () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112,200 31,100 1,100
-------
Table VIII-86. Wood Preserving--Boulton Subcategory Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants
mdi rect Dischargers
Biological Treatment
(Technology I or 1 J)
Biological Treatment
Plus Metals Removal
(Technology K or L)
Cooling Tower Evaporation
(Technology M)
Annual
Annual
Annual Annual
Annual
Annual
Capital Operating
Energy
Capital Operating Energy
Capital
Operating
Energy
Plant Cost Cost
Cost
Cost Cost Cost
Cost
Cost
Cost
114 104,000 35,100 4,100 231,000 72,900 5,400 71,900 36,800 6,500
985 976,000 203,100 21,400 0 0 0 178,200 110,100 62,000
448 0 0 0 0 0 0 110,400 55,300 18,500
135 352,000 84,300 10,000 536,100 148,700 12,400 118,500 59,900 22,000
422 238,000 61,700 7,400 406,200 116,800 9,400 103,500 51,000 15,500
222 82,300 33,300 3,000 0 0 0 62,100 33,000 4,400
425 173,900 48,800 5,600 322,300 96,000 7,300 92,000 44,600 11,000
772 61,200 24,100 2,200 160,800 50,600 3,100 50,600 29,400 2,500
495 134,500 41,000 4,700 273,500 83,700 6,200 81,600 40,700 8,800
584 104,000 35,100 4,100 0 0 0 71,900 36,800 6,500
586 0 0 0 0 0 0 103,500 51,100 15,500
-------
incurred. The fourth direct discharger is currently constructing exten-
sive treatment facilities expected to be on-line within the next year.
The design effluent levels at this plant are such that no additiona
costs of compliance are expected to be incurred by this plant. The
remaining plants are either self—contained (no—discharge) or indirect
dischargers, and no costs of compliance will be incurred. As previously
discussed in Section VII, pretreatment of raw wastewaters from this
subcategory is not considered necessary due to the extremely low levels
of priority pollutant contamination.
S1S Hardboard-—Of the nine S1S hardboard plants, eight are direct
dischargers. Three of these plants exhibit effluent levels lower in
pollutant loadings than the three candidate levels of biological treat-
ment described in Section VII. No costs of compliance will be incurred
by these plants. One plant is an indirect discharger and will not incur
a cost of compliance as pretreatment of wastewaters from this subcate—
gory is not considered to be necessary due to the extremely low levels
of priority pollutant contamination. Table VIII-87 presents the costs
of compliance for the remaining plants for each of the three candidate
levels of biological treatment.
S2S Hardboard——Of the seven S2S hardboard plants, five are direct
dischargers. Of the five, three plants exhibit effluent levels lower in
pollutant loadings than the three candidate levels of biological treat-
ment described in Section VII. No costs of compliance will be incurred
by these plants. The fourth direct discharger is currently constructing
extensive treatment facilities expected to be on—line within the next
year. The design effluent levels at this plant are such that no
additional costs of compliance are expected to be incurred by this
plant. Costs of compliance for the remaining direct dischargers are
presented in Table VIII—87 for each of the three candidate levels of
biological treatment. Of the remaining two plants, one is self-
contained (no—discharge) and the other is an indirect discharger. No
costs of compliance will be incurred by these plants. Pretreatment of
raw wastewater from this subcategory is not considered necessary due to
the extremely low levels of priority pollutant contamination.
NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGIES
The most significant non—water quality impact of the candidate technol-
ogies involves the disposal of wastewater sludges. Such disposal must
be managed properly to mitigate ground or surface water contamination.
Data have been presented in this document to demonstrate that priority
pollutants are removed by biological treatment. Organic materials may
be biodegraded, stripped from the wastewater by aeration, or removed
with the waste sludge. Metals are most certainly contained in the
sludge. Organic priority pollutants of high molecular weight, partic-
ularly the polynuclear aromatics and pentachlorophenol, are also quite
likely to be contained within the oily matrix of typical wood preserving
sludges.
8 - 92
-------
Table VIII-87. Flardboard Segment Costs of Compliance for Individual Plants
Direct Di sctiargers
Biological
Treatment
Level 1
Biological Treatment
Level 2
Biological
Treatment
Level 3
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cost
Capital
Plant Cost
Annual
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cost
Capital
Cost
Annual
Operating
Cost
Annual
Energy
Cost
S1S Hardboard
353 3,243,300
1,020,700
252,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
774 2,773,900
840,600
207,000
373,500
142,000
52,000
0
0
0
377 2,674,700
780,300
155,700
346,500
184,900
68,300
198,000
110,400
33,000
190 3,904,600
1,300,300
368,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
S2S Hardboard
644 7,027,100
2,922,900
768,700
2,307,800
1,466,400
1,001,000
2,165,000
1,371,000
968,000
-------
It was not within the scope of this study to define whether waste
materials from the Timber Products Industry are to be considered
hazardous. Consequently, no efforts were made to accurately charac-
terize the sludge produced as a result of wastewater treatment. No
sludge samples were collected during the verification sampling programs.
Limited information is available, however, from the data collection
portfolios and from interviews with plant personnel to estimate the
quantities of sludge generated by the various candidate treatment
technologies.
Sludge Generation, Wood Preserving
The three most comon wastewater treatment schemes in—place in the Wood
Preserving Industry are: 1) gravity oil—water separation followed by
chemical flocculation and frequently including slow sand filtration;
2) gravity oil-water separation followed by biological treatment
(flocculation/filtration may be included if oil—water emulsions are a
problem); and 3) no-discharge evaporation systems. Each of these
treatment schemes results in the generation of sludge. Data obtained
from the data collection portfolios and interviews with plant personnel
are available concerning the quantity of sludge generated by these
systems; these data are sumarized in Table VIII—88.
It is apparent from this table that the sludge generation for the three
in—place treatment schemes are about equal, and that the adoption of
evaporation technology as a basis for future regulations would not
result in an increase in sludge disposal costs over current pretreatment
technology or BPT technology.
The candidate treatment technologies which use activated carbon adsorp-
tion and metals removal by hydroxide precipitation will result in the
generation of increased sludge volumes as compared to the three in-place
technologies.
The source of the sludge from the carbon adsorption system is the spent
carbon. It is not economical to regenerate this carbon based on
predicted carbon usage and the low wastewater flows connon in this
industry. The volume of sludge resulting from activated carbon treatment
is estimated to be approximately 0.006 cubic yard per 1,000 cubic feet
of production. The additional cost of disposing this sludge will be
less than O.25 per 1,000 cubic feet of production. This sludge will
contain adsorbed organic priority pollutants as well as some adsorbed
metals.
The volume 0 f sludge resulting from hydroxide precipitation is estimated
to be approximately 0.03 cubic yard per 1,000 cubic feet of production.
Costs of disposing this sludge are estimated at $.75 per 1,000 cubic
feet.
8-94
-------
Table VIII-88. Sludge Generation by In-Place Wood Preserving
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Average Unit
Range of Unit
Sludge Generation
Sludge Generation
Treatment
Cu Yd/1,000
Cu
Ft
Cu Yd/1,000 Cu
Ft
Technology
Production
Production
Current Pretreatment —
0.018
0.002 — 0.055
Gravity Oil-Water
Separation Followed by
Chemical Flocculation and
Slow Sand Filtration or
Equivalent
Current BPT —
0.014
0.002 — 0.033
Gravity Oil—Water
Separation Followed by
Biological Treatment (some
plants also include
flocculation/fl ltration)
No-Dischargers -
0.016
0.001 — 0.074
Evaporation Systems
Source: Data Collection Portfolios.
8 - 95
-------
Sludge Generation—-Insulation Board and Hardboard
The large biological treatment systems in—place at discharging insula-
tion board and hardboard plants generate significant volumes of waste
biological sludge. The amount of sludge generated is a function of raw
wastewater strength and the amount of BOO and TSS removed by the
treatment system.
Systems with aerated lagoons generally design the quiescent settling
zone of the lagoon (or design the facultative settling lagoon which
follows the aerated lagoons) to provide sludge storage for 6 to
12 months or more. These lagoons are then periodically dredged, the
sludge is allowed to dewater by gravity, and the dewatered sludge is
generally disposed of in landfills.
Activated sludge systems generate waste sludge that must be stored
and/or disposed of daily. Plants with these systems will generally
route the waste sludge to gravity settling basins or to mechanical
dewatering equipment, prior to disposing of it in a landfill.
Several plants dispose of their sludge on—site through application to
the soil. Other plants are fortunate enough to have arrangements with
local businesses which use the sludge as a soil conditioner for nursery
and other agricultural purposes.
Table VIII—89 presents the range of sludge volume generated by plants in
each of the four subcategories of the insulation board and hardboard
segment of the industry. These data were obtained from the data
collection portfolios and interviews with plant personnel.
The costs of handling and disposal of sludges from the biological treat-
ment systems of this industry segment were considered during the eco-
nomic impact analysis performed as part of the overall study prior to
proposal of the original regulations applicable to insulation board and
hardboard plants. The degree of treatment which is achievable by any of
the candidate treatment systems proposed for insulation board and hard—
board candidate treatment technologies does not exceed the requirements
of the originally proposed regulations. Therefore, no significant cost
impact for sludge disposal is expected beyond that originally determined
necessary to meet BPT requirements.
Priority Pollutant Control of Sludge
Since it can be assumed that the majority of the metals removed by
wastewater treatment accumulate in the sludge, estimates of the metals
content of the sludge can be made. However, due to inconsistencies in
the sludge production data provided by the data collection portfolio
respondents——inconsistencies caused by the fact that the industry not
only practices varying degrees of sludge recycling but also practices
different methods of sludge handling and disposal,-—only rough estimates
8 -96
-------
Table VIII—89. Sludge Generation by Insulation Board and Hardhoard
Treatment Systems
Range of Unit
Sludge Generation
Cu Yd/Ton Production
0.0038 - 0.0909
0.016 - 0.028
0.0006 - 0.182
data from one plant
Average Unit
Sludge Generation
Subcategory Cu Yd/Ton Production
Insulation Board — 0.039
Mechani cal
Insulation Board — 0.022
Thermo—mechani cal
S1S Hardboard 0.038
S2S Hardboard 0.019
Source: Data Collection Portfolios.
8-97
-------
could be made of metals concentrations in the sludge for those plants
for which raw wastewater and treated effluent metals concentration data
as well as sludge production data are available. A mass balance was
applied to the plants’ treatment systems. Assuming that the metals
content in the sludge equaled the raw wastewater metals load minus the
treated effluent metals load, with the mass of sludge being generated as
a known factor, the concentration of the metals in the sludge could be
estimated. Table VIII-90 presents the estimated metals concentrations
in the sludge for a wood preserving plant which treats with both organic
and inorganic preservatives (Plant 114), a wood preserving plant which
treats only with organic preservatives (Plant 708), an insulation hoard
plant (Plant 945), and a hardboard plant (Plant 774).
Due to the lack of data on the ratio of heavy organic priority pollu-
tants which concentrate in the sludge to the amount which are biode—
graded, and the lack of analytical data on the sludge itself, no
realistic estimate can be made on the organic priority pollutant content
of the sludge.
Sludge Disposal Considerations
If land disposal is to be used for materials considered to be hazardous,
the disposal sites must not allow movement of pollutants to either
ground or surface waters. Natural conditions which must exist include
geological insurance that no hydraulic continuity can occur between
liquids and gases from the waste and natural ground or surface waters.
Disposal areas cannot be subject to washout, nor can they be located
over active forest zones or where geological changes can impair natural
barriers. Any rock fractures or fissures underlying the site must be
sealed.
As a safeguard, liners may be needed at landfill sites. Liner materials
should be pretested for compatibility with the wastes to be disposed.
Leachate from the landfill must be collected and treated. The nature of
the treatment will vary with the nature of the waste, and may consist of
neutralization, hydrolysis, biological treatment, or evaporation.
Treatment in some cases may be achieved by recycling the leachate into
the landfill.
In general, wastes considered to be hazardous should only be disposed of
at a “specially designated” landfill, which is defined by the Federal
Register (May 1, 1974) as a landfill at which complete long—term protec-
tion of subsurface waters is provided. Such sites should he designed to
avoid direct hydraulic continuity with surface and subsurface waters,
and any leachate or subsurface flow into the disposal area should he
contained within the site unless treatment is provided. Monitoring
wells should be established and a sampling and analysis program
conducted.
8- 98
-------
Table ‘/111—90. Estimated Aetals Content of Sludge
Metal
Metals
Content (gm/Kkci
of
Dry Sludge)
Wood Preserving
Organic and
Inorganic
Preservatives
Wood Preserving
Organic
Preservatives
Only
Insulation
Board
Hardboard
Beryllium
——
——
0.23
0.11
Cadmium
——
—
0.11
Copper
26
28
1,400
650
Lead
8.6
6.2
13
7.2
Nickel
8.6
9.3
30
270
Zinc
——
605
2,1GO
980
Silver
——
——
0.33
0.11
Thallium
——
3.1
2.8
——
Chromium
6,200
——
-—
—-
Mercury
——
-—
2.8
—-
Arsenic
8.6
6.2
-—
—-
Antimony
8.6
——
-—
--
Selenium
26
3.1
——
—-
8 - 99
-------
Other Non-Water Quality Impacts
If deep well injection is considered to be economically attractive for
ultimate wastewater disposal, the system must be located on a porous,
permeable formation of sufficient depth to insure continued, permanent
storage. It must be below the lowest ground water aquifer, be confined
above and below by impermeable zones, and contain no natural fractures
or faults. The wastewater so disposed must be compatible with the for-
mation, should be completely detoxified, and should have removal of any
solids which could result in stratum plugging. Provisions for continued
monitoring of well performance and subsurface movement of wastes must be
provided.
Percolation of wastes considered to be hazardous from earthen impound-
ments (aerated lagoons, evaporation ponds, etc.) must be prevented. If
the natural soil is pervious, artificial lining is necessary.
Monitoring wells must be provided.
If incineration is used for materials considered to be hazardous, and
thermal regeneration of carbon may fall into this category, provisions
must be made to prevent the entry of hazardous pollutants into the
atmosphere. In particular, incineration is not applicable to wastes
containing heavy metals. Equipment requirements for air pollution
control vary for different applications, but since the off gases of
incineration can be controlled by scrubbing, with the resulting effluent
being discharged to the wastewater treatment facility, air quality
impact need not be significant.
To date, no adverse impacts upon air quality have been identified which
would restrict the adoption of any of the candidate treatment
technologies.
Minor impacts on air quality may occur as a result of spray evaporation
or cooling tower evaporation since the wastewater being evaporated
contains volatile organic compounds which can evaporate with the waste
and increase the equivalent hydrocarbon content of the air. Drift
losses caused by wind may also cause an air quality impact as a result
of spray evaporation or cooling tower evaporation.
Volatile organic compounds may also be stripped from wastewater by
aeration, such as in activated sludge units or aerated lagoons. How-
ever, the resulting air quality impact is not considered to be signifi-
cant in the Timber Products Industry.
8-100
-------
SECTION IX
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard—
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document,
and other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
9-1
-------
SECTION X
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard—
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document,
and other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
10-1
-------
SECTION XI
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard-
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, comments from reviewers of this document,
and other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
11-1
-------
SECTION XII
PRETREATMENT GUIDELINES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will propose effluent limita-
tions for BAT, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources of the wood preserving, insulation board, and wet process hard—
board industries upon review and evaluation of technical information
contained in this document, coments from reviewers of this document,
and other information as appropriate.
Information pertaining to the potential toxicity of discharged wastes to
aquatic organisms, animals, and the human population, as well as infor-
mation concerning the economic impact on the industry if it is required
to install additional pollution control technology, will be considered
prior to determination of proposed effluent limitations and guidelines.
12-1
-------
SECTION XIII
PERFORMANCE FACTORS FOR TREATMENT PLANT OPERATIONS
PUR POSE
The purpose of this section is twofold. First, it provides a general
discussion of the causes of variations in the performance of wastewater
treatment facilities and techniques for minimizing these variations.
Second, it presents an analysis of the variability for the insulation
board and hardboard facilities for which sufficient historical data were
provided by the plants. In the past the EPA has used the analysis of
the variability in conjunction with the long—term pollutant wasteload
averages, presented in Section VII, as part of a methodology to obtain
effluent limitations.
FACTORS WHICH INFWENCE VARIATIONS IN PERFORMANCE OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FAC ILITIES
The factors influencing the variation in performance of wastewater
treatment facilities are cornon to all subcategories. The most
important factors are summarized in this section.
Temperature
Temperature can affect the rate of biological reaction with lower temp-
eratures resulting in decreased biological activity which, for a given
detention time, causes higher effluent BOD levels. Effluent solids
levels also increase as a result of incomplete bio—oxidation and
decreased settling rates under reduced temperatures. Settling basins
and aerated lagoons are susceptible to thermal inversions. Significant
variations in the levels of effluent solids may result as settled solids
rise to the surface and are discharged.
Proper design and operation considerations can reduce the adverse
effects of temperature on treatment efficiencies. Such considerations
include the installation of insulation and the addition of heat.
Techniques for temperature control are both well known and comonly used
in the sanitary engineering field. Cost—effectiveness is usually the
critical criterion for the extent and effectiveness of temperature
control.
Shock Loading
Once a system is acclimated to a given set of steady state conditions,
rapid quantitative or qualitative changes in loading rates can cause a
decrease in treatment efficiencies. Several days or weeks are often
required for a system to adjust to a new set of operating conditions.
13-1
-------
Systems with short retention times, such as activated sludge, are
particularly sensitive to shock loading.
While it is unlikely that total and permanent prevention of shock
loadings for a particular system can be accomplished, proper design and
operation can greatly reduce adverse effects. Sufficient flow equaliza-
tion prior to biological treatment can mitigate slug loads. Complete
mix activated sludge is less likely to upset conditions than other
activated sludge modifications.
System Stabilization
A new biological system, or one that has been out of operation, requires
a period of stabilization up to several weeks before optimum, consistent
efficiency can be expected. During this start—up period, large varia-
tions in pollutant parameters can be expected in the discharge.
System Operation
A primary disadvantage of any activated sludge system is operational
difficulty. Operators must be well—trained specialists who are
thoroughly familiar with the system they are operating.
Nutrient Requirements
Adequate amounts of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, are
required to maintain a viable microbial population in a biological
system. Proper design and operation of a system will provide sufficient
nutrients for optimum performance.
System Controllability
In addition to the design considerations mentioned above, an activated
sludge system should include appropriate meters and accurate, control-
lable gates, valves, and pumps for optimum performance. A qualified
instrument technician should be available.
An adequate laboratory should be provided, along with monitoring facili-
ties. Essential control tests should be conducted at least once every
8-hour shift, and more frequently when necessary.
VARIABILITY ANP LYSIS
The purpose of this section and of the document as a whole is to provide
the EPA with the information necessary to establish effluent guidelines.
One consideration in developing effluent limitations is the daily varia-
bility of the discharge from treatment systems in relation to the long
term average discharge. Consequently, a variability analysis was
performed on the available data.
Lack of daily long term data from the wood preserving segment prevented
any quantification of the variability for that segment. Unlike the wood
13 2
-------
preserving industry, many of the wet process insulation and hardboard
plants maintain extensive monitoring records. In most cases, one year’s
operating data were obtained for analysis with data reported on either a
daily or weekly basis.
The data collection portfolio requested hardboard and insulation board
plants to provide historical data for the most recent 12-month period
(1976) for which the data were available. Subsequently, 1977 data were
reported from certain plants. Data requested included daily production
figures and the plant’s monitoring results for both the raw process
wastewater and the treated effi uent. Intermediate treatment streams
were requested if the plants had data on these streams. Parameters of
interest were flow, BOO, COD, TOC, TSS, phenols, heavy metals, and any
of the substances on the Priority Pollutant List.
Twelve months worth of data was analyzed for nine wet process hardboard
plants and three insulation board plants. In the hardboard segment, six
of the plants primarily produce S1S hardboard, while three are primarily
S2S producers. One of the S2S producers also produce insulation board
at the same facility. The three insulation board plants include four
mechanical refining plants and two thermo—mechanical refining plants.
The historical data reported over a 12—month time period which was
provided by each plant formed the most descriptive data base for mean-
ingful analysis. Therefore, the available data from the 11 plants were
used in analysis exactly as received from each plant.
Data from the remaining plants which reported data in each industry
segment were not used for the following reasons:
Hardboard Segment
1. Plant 663——This plant produces both hardboard and
insulation board. The influent raw waste is monitored for
flow; however, the raw waste is combined with raw wastes
from other industrial processes. Consequently, no mean-
ingful waste characterization could be obtained from the
data.
2. Plant 1035——This plant is a self—contained discharger and
has no monitoring practices. Therefore, no data existed.
3. Plant 447—-This plant produces mineral wool fiber. The
process water from the hardboard and insulation board
processes receives no treatment and is completely mixed
with the mineral wool effluent before sampling and
discharge to the city sewer. No meaningful raw waste
characteri sti Cs could be obtained.
13-3
-------
Insulation Board Segment
1. Plants 137 and 447——These plants do not monitor effluent
quality.
2. Plant 989——This plant is a self—contained discharger.
No data were available.
3. Plant 1111——This plant did not respond to the collection
data portfolio with any information other than to state it
had no process water discharge.
4. Plant 127——This plant produces both insulation board and
mineral wool fiber in approximately equal amounts. The
wastewaters are comingled such that no meaningful data
could be obtained.
5. Plants 373, 663, 1035, 1071, and 123——These plants produce
both hardboard and insulation board and are included in
the explanation of the hardboard segment.
This study concentrated on the analysis of two pollutant parameters——BOO
and TSS. These parameters were chosen for two reasons. First, almost
every plant analyzed in each subcategory monitored them on a regular
basis (usually daily or weekly). Therefore, a large data base existed
for analysis. Second, they are parameters of special interest of both
the insulation and hardboard subcategories. Since most of the plants
utilize biological treatment systems, BOO is the logical oxygen demand
parameter to analyze. The importance of TSS analysis comes from the
nature of the process—-both insulation and hardboard plants produce
fibrous suspended solids in their raw waters and generate biological
suspended solids during biological treatment.
A statistical analysis was performed on the daily and 30—day average of
the effluents from the model plants to determine the effluent variabili-
ties associated with the biological treatment systems of the model
plants. The units used were lbs/day for both BOD and TSS throughout the
analysis. The ntanber of observations in each data set are shown in
Table XIII—1. This analysis can be used to predict effluent loadings
which will not be exceeded 99 percent of the time.
Goodness—of—fit tests were conducted on the daily readings of BOO and
TSS for the 1976 data from 11 companies and the 1977 data from seven
companies. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Anderson—Darling tests were used
to determine whether the normal distribution, logarithmic normal
distribution, or three-parameter logarithmic normal distribution
provides adequate fits to the data.
The results of the tests indicate a consistent lack of fit at the
5 percent level of significance using the Kolmogorov—Smirflov and
Anderson—Darling tests. Consequently, nonparametric estimates of the
variability factors were calculated. A non—parametric analysis makes no
13-4
-------
restrictive assumptions regarding the distributional form of the data
S et.
Daily Variability Factors
The daily maximum variability factor is defined as an estimate of the
99th percentile of the distribution of daily pollutant discharge,
denoted by K gg, divided by the average daily pollutant discharge.
Given a set of n daily observations, the daily variability factor is
U .99
x
where U 199 = an estimate of Kgg and
X = arithmetic average of the daily observations.
The value for U 99 was obtained as the rth smallest (where r < n)
sample value, denoted by X(r), chosen so the probability that X(r) is
greater than or equal to K gg was at least 0.50. The value of r for
which this criterion was satisfied was determined by non-parametric
methods (see e.g., J.D. Gibbons, Non-Parametric Statistical Inference ,
McGraw—Hill, 1971). An estimate chosen in this manner is referred to as
a non—parametric 50 percent tolerance level estimate for the 99th
percentile and is interpreted as the value below which 99 percent of the
values of a future sample of size n will fall with probability 0.50.
In some cases the number of observations available from a plant was not
sufficient to obtain a non—parametric 50 percent tolerance level
estimate of the 99th percentile. In those cases the plant’s data were
not used to calculate variability factors. The daily variability
factors are shown in Table XIII—2.
30—Day Variability Factors
The monthly variability factors were also determined using a
non—parametric analysis.
It is assumed th t the daily variable X has a distribution (F) with mean
u and variance a . Therefore, the monthly means will be approxi-
mately normally distributed with mean u and variance ci 2 /30 (assuming
a 30-day month). This approach is non—parametric or distribution free
in the sense that no restrictive assumption is made regarding the form
of F. If there are N daily measurements, then
N
E Xj
= i=1
x=
N
where X is the daily BOD or ISS in pounds per day,
13 - 5
-------
and
N
z (Xj- ) 2
= i=i
N—i
estimate u and 2, respectively. Therefore, the 99th percentile
estimate is:
+ 2.33 SI 130
and the monthly variability factor is:
VF 1 = X + 2.33 SI / O
x
These results are shown in Table XIII—3.
13-6
-------
Table XIII—l. Number of Observations in Data Set
P1 ant
Number
BOO
TSS
1976
1977
1976
1977
555
338
266
344
276
125
139
135
139
134
428
238
--
254
--
262
52
81
96
121
24
293
-—
207
-—
824
205
203
205
203
888
50
--
90
--
1071
333
——
335
——
248
361
356
360
356
606
45
——
51
——
444
143
——
147
--
13-7
-------
Table XIII—2. Non—Parametric Daily Variability Factors for Insulation
Board and Hardboard Plants
Plant
Number
BOO
TSS
1976
1977
1976
1977
555
5.9
6.08
4.7
7.71
24
4.1
——
5.4
—-
824
4.7
7.18
4.1
4.82
888
*
--
1.9
--
125
7.3
7.54
5.6
14.8
1071
4.1
——
3.3
——
606
*
*
262
*
4.87
3.3
4.24
248
3.6
3.89
2.7
6.79
444
2.2
--
1.8
--
428
5.7
——
4.2
——
* Insufficient data to obtain a 50 percent confidence estimate for the
99th percentile.
13-8
-------
Table XIII—3. Non—Parametric 30—Day Variability Factors for Insulation
Board and Hardboard Plants
Plant
Number
BOO
TSS
1g76
1977
1976
1977
555
1.52
1.58
1.55
1.71
125
1.45
1.67
1.41
1.76
428
1.48
—-
1.50
——
262
1.34
1.34
1.33
1.33
24
1.40
—-
1.59
-—
824
1.48
1.54
1.42
1.44
888
1.21
——
1.18
——
1071
1.41
——
1.32
——
248
1.31
1.40
1.27
1.72
606
1.3
——
1.27
——
444
1.17
——
1.15
——
13 - 9
-------
SECTION XIV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by Environmental Science and Engineering,
Inc., (ESE) of Gainesville, Florida. The Project Director and Project
Manager were Mr. John D. Crane, P.E., and Mr. Bevin A. Beaudet, P.E.,
respectively. Key staff engineers included Mr. Russel V. Bowen and
Mr. Mark A. Mangone. Analytical work was managed by Mr. Stuart A.
Whitlock. Ms. Patricia L. McGhee coordinated the editing and production
of the document, which was typed in its entirety by Ms. Kathleen
Fariel 10.
Special acknowledgement is due to Dr. Warren S. Thompson, Director of
the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory, who served as a special
consultant to ESE. He provided invaluable technical assistance, advice,
and input, especially to the portions of the study involving wood
preserving.
Acknowledgement is also due to Edward C. Jordan Company, Inc., of
Portland, Maine, for input to the hardboard study, and to R.E.T.A. of
St. Louis for field sampling and analytical efforts during the verifica-
tion phase of the project. Both firms operated under separate contract
to the Environmental Protection Agency. Of particular note were
Mr. Bill Warren, P.E., of E.C. Jordan Company, and Mr. Bruce Long, P.E.,
and Mr. David Kennedy of R.E.T.A.
Appreciation is expressed to the Effluent Guidelines Division of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and most particularly to Mr. Richard
Williams, Project Officer, and Mr. John Riley, Chief, Timber and Forest
Fibers Branch, for their direction and guidance throughout the course of
the study. Mr. Victor Dallons of the Food and Wood Products Branch of
the IERL in Corvallis, Oregon provided considerable technical expertise
to the study.
Assistance was provided by numerous members of the wood preserving and
fiberboard industries. Appreciation is expressed to the National Forest
Products Association, The American Wood Preservers Institute, The
American Board Products Association, and the American Wood Preserving
Association.
Individuals who particularly deserve mention are Mr. C.C. Stewart, who
provided valuable assistance in process descriptions for the fiberboard
industry; Mr. Curt Peterson of the ABPA; Mr. Paul Goydan, Mr. Thomas
Marr, and Mr. Charles Best of the AWPA.
14 - 1
-------
SECTION XV
BIBL IOGRAPHY
Abcor, Inc. “The Concentration of Pentachiorophenal Wastes by Abcor
Membrane System,” A report submitted to Fulco Lumber Co.,
Haleyville, Ala. (1974).
Amberg, H.R. “Aerated Stabilization of Board Mill White Water,” Purdue
Industrial Waste Conf . (1964).
American Petroleum Institute. Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes.
Vol. 1. Wastewater Containing Oil (6th ed.), 1960.
American Water Works Assn. Water Treatment Plant Design , AWWA, Inc.,
1969.
American Wood Preservers’ Association. “Report of Wastewater Disposal
Committee,” Proc. AWPA , 56:201—204.
American Wood Preservers’ Association. Proceedings, Vol. 71 (1975).
American Wood Preservers’ Association. Proceedings, Vol. 72 (1976).
Anderson, E.A., et al . “The Corrosion of Zinc in Various Waters,” Jour.
Amer. Water Works Assn. , 26:49 (1934).
Anonymous. “Trace Metal Removal by Wastewater Treatment,” Technology
Transfer (Jan. 1977), p. 2.
Anonymous. “Phenols in Refinery Waste Water can be Oxidized with
Hydrogen Peroxide,” Oil and Gas Jour . (January 1975), p. 84.
APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ,
(14th ed.), Washington, D.C., 1975.
Aub, J.C. and Fairhall, L.T. “Excretion of Silver in Urine,” Jour.
Amer. Medical Assn . (1942), pp. 118—316.
Austin, R.H., et al . “Biological Oxidation of Oil—Containing Waste—
waters,” md. Eng. Chem. , 46:316—318 (1954).
Back, E.L. and Larsson, S.A. “Increased Pump Yield as a Means of
Reducing the BOD of Hardwood Mill Effluent,” Swedish Forest
Products Research Laboratory (1972).
Badger, E.H.M. and Jackson, .I. “Loadings and Efficiencies in the
Biological Oxidation of Spent Gas Liquor,” Journal and Proceedings
of the Institute of Sewage Purification , 2:159 (1961).
15-1
-------
Baker, D.A. “Petroleum Processing Wastes,” JWPCF , 47(6):1476 (1976).
Bakir, F., etal. “Methylmercury Poisoning in Iraq,” Science, 181 :
230—240 (1973).
Bartow, E. and Weigle, O.M. “Zinc in Water Supplies,” Indus. Eng.
Chem. , 24:463 (1932).
Bergiund, F. and Berlin, M. “Risk of Accumulation in Men and Mammals
and the Relation between Body Burden of Methylmercury and Toxic
Effects,” In: Thomas, Chemical Fallout , Springfield, Illinois
(1969), pp. 258—273.
Best, C.W. “Water Use in Western Wood Preserving Plants,” Proceedings ,
American Wood Preservers’ Association, 1972.
Biczyski, Jr. and Suschka, J. “Investigations on Phenolic Wastes
Treatment in an Oxidation Ditch,” Advances in Water Pollution
Research , 2:285—289, Pergamon Press, New York, 1967.
Boen, D.F. and Jahannsen, G.L. Reverse Osmosis for Treated and
Untreated Secondary Sewage Effluent , EPA Rept. 670/2-74—007,
Washington, D.C. 1974.
Brislin, J.F., etal. “Literature Review on Creosote,” Report Submitted
to American Wood Preservers’ Institute by Industrial Health Founda-
tion (1976).
Browning, E. Toxicity of Industrial Metals , Appleton-Century Crofts,
New York, nd Ed., 1969, pp. 23—38.
Burns, O.B., Jr. and Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. “A Statistical Study of
Five Years’ Operation of West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company’s
Waste Treatment Plant,” Purdue md. Waste Conf. , XVIII (1963).
Cadman, T.W. “Techniques for Removing Metals from Process Wastewater,”
Chem. Eng. , 81(8):79, 1974.
Carus Chemical Co. “How to Clean Phenol from your Company’s Waste
Economically,” Carus Chemical Co. Form M—6001 (1971).
Chamberlin, N.S. and Day, R.V. “Technology of Chrome Reduction with
Sulfur Dioxide,” Proc. 11th md. Waste Conf. , Purdue Univ., 1956.
Cheremisinoff, P.N. and Ellerbusch, F. (eds.). Carbon Adsorption
Handbook , Ann Arbor Science Publishers, MI, 1978.
Chow, T.J. and Patterson, C.C. “The Occurrences and Significance of
Lead Isotopes in Pelagic Sediments,” Geochim. Cosmochim, Acta. ,
26(26) (1962).
15-2
-------
Christensen, H.E. and Luginbyhi, T.T. (eds.). Registry of Toxic Effects
of Chemical Substances , U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, PHS,
Center for Disease Control, Nati. Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Rockville, MD., 1975.
Clark, J.W. and Viessman, W., Jr. Water Supply and Pollution Control ,
International Textbook Co., 1970.
Coda, R.L. “Water Reuse in a Wet Process Hardboard Manufacturing
Plant,” U.S. EPA (March 1978).
Coe, R.H. “Bench Scale Method for Treating Waste by Activated Sludge,”
Petroleum Processing , 7:1128—1132, 1952.
Condren, A.J. and Warren, W.C. “Temperature Effects on the Aerobic
Biological Treatment of Wastewaters from the Pulp and Paper
Industry,” Unpubi ished.
Cooke, R. and Graham, P.W. “The Biological Purification of the Effluent
from a Lurgi Plant Gasifying Bituminous Coals,” International
Journal of Air and Water Pollution , 9(3):97, 1965.
Cooper, R.L. and Catchpole, J.R. “The Biological Treatment of Coke Oven
Effluents,” Yearbook Coke Oven Managers Assn. and Water Poll.
ObSe , 42:562, 1969.
Crane, L.E. “An Operational Pollution Control System for Pressure
Treating Plant Waste,” Proc. Conf. on Poll. Abatement and Control
in the Wood Preserving Industry (W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest
Products Lab., Miss. State Univ., State College, Miss. (1971),
pp. 261—270.
Dallons, V. “Comparison of Pollution Loads Resulting from Use of
Different Wood Species in the Production of Hardboard,” md.
Environ. Research Lab. Cincinnati, Corvallis Field Station (1976).
Davies, J.J. “Economic Considerations of Oxidation Towers,” Proc. Conf.
on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving Industry ,
(W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest Products Lab., Miss. State
Univ., State College, Miss. (1971), pp. 195—205.
Davies, R.W., etal. “Pollution Control and Waste Treatment at an
Inland Refinery,” Proc., 21st Purdue md. Waste Conf . (1967),
pp. 126—138.
DeJohn, P.B. and Adams, A.D. “Activated Carbon Improves Wastewater
Treatment,” Hydrocarbon Proc . (Oct. 1975), p. 104.
1977 DFPI Directory of the Forest Products Industry , Miller Freeman
Publications, San Francisco, CA, 1977.
15-3
-------
Dickerson, B.W. and Laffey, W.T. “Pilot Plant Studies of Phenolic
Wastes from Petro-Chemical Operations,” Proc., 13th Purdue md.
Waste Conf . (1958), pp. 780—799.
Dobbs, R.A., et al. Carbon Adsorption Isotherms for Toxic Organics ,
Municipa’EEnvironmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
Dorr Oliver, Inc. Stamford, Connecticut.
Durum, W.H., et al. “Reconnaissance of Selected Minor Elements in
Surface W t Fs of the United States, October, 1970,” USGS Circular
643, Washington, D.C. (1971).
Durvel, W.A. and Helfgott, 1. “Removal of Wastewater Organics by
Reverse Osmosis,” JWPCE , 47:57 (1975).
Dust, J.V. and Thompson, W.S. “Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry, Part 4: Biological Methods of Treating Wastewater,”
Forest Products Journal (1973).
Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr. Industrial Waste Water Control , McGraw—Hill Book
Co., New York (1966).
Eckenfelder, W.W. and Ford, D.L. Water Pollution Control , Jenkins Book
Publishing Co., 1970.
Edde, H. “Field Research Studies of Hydraulic Mining Patterns in
Mechanically Aerated Stabilization Basins,” Proc. Intl. Congress on
Industrial Waste Waters , Stockholm (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R. “Increased Rate and Efficiency of Phenolic Waste
Ozonization,” JWPCE , 43(2):200 (1970).
Eisenhauer, H.R. “Oxidation of Phenolic Wastes. Part I: Oxidation
with Hydrogen Peroxide and a Ferrous Salt,” JWPCE , 36(9):1116
(1964).
Evans, F.L. (ed.) Ozone in Water and Wastewater Treatment , Ann Arbor
Sci. Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1972.
Fairhill, L.T. “Toxic Contaminants of Drinking Water,” Jour. North East
Water Works Assn. , 55:400 (1941).
Fang, H.H. and Chian, E.S. “Removal of Alcohols and Aliphatic Acids in
Aqueous Solution by NS—100 Membranes,” Jour. Appl. Polymer Sci. ,
19:1347 (1975).
Fisher, C.W. “Kopper’s Experience Regarding Irrigation of Industrial
Effluent Waters and Especially Wood Treating Plant Effluents,”
Proc. Conf. on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving
md . (W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss. Forest Products Lab., MSU, State
College, Miss. (1971), pp. 232—248.
15-4
-------
Fitzgerald, W.F. and Lyons, W.B. “Organic Mercury Compounds in Coastal
Waters,” Nature , 242 (1973).
Fleischer, M., etal. “Environmental Impact of Cadmium: A Review by
the Panel on Hazardous Trace Substances,” Env. Health Perspectives ,
USGPO, Washington, D.C., 7:253 (1974).
Ford, D.L., et al. “Temperature Predictions in Activated Sludge Basins
Using M h Tcal Aerators,” Purdue md. Waste Conf. , XXVII (1972).
Francingues 1 N.R. “Evaluation of a Pilot Study on a Creosote Waste from
the Wood Preserving Industry,” Proc. of Miss. State Univ. Short
Course on Poll. Abatement and Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry (1970), p. 165.
Gaudy, A.F., Jr. “The Role of Oxidation Ponds in a Wood Treating Plant
Waste Abatement Program,” Proc., Conf. on Poll. Abatement and
Control in the Wood Preserving md . (W.S. Thompson, Ed.), Miss.
Forest Products Lab., MSU, State College, Miss. (1971),
pp. 150—164.
Gaudy, A.F., Jr. “Studies on the Treatment of Wood Preserving Wastes,”
Paper presented at 55th Natl. Meeting, M er. Inst. Chem. Eng. ,
Houston, TX (1965).
Goldberg, E.D., et al. “Marine Chemistry,” In: Radioactivity in the
Marine EnviF nment , Nati. Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
1971, p. 137.
Goldsmith, R.L. et al. “Soluble Oil Waste Treatment Using
Ultrafiltra ETo?i7” presented at the 46th Annual Conf. of the Water
Pollution Control Federation , Cleveland, Ohio (1973).
Gran, G. “Wastewater from Fibreboard Mills,” Pure and Applied
Chemistry , Vol. 29 (1972).
Hager, D.G. “Industrial Wastewater Treatment by Granular Activated
Carbon,” Ind. Water Eng. , (Jan/Feb, 1974), p. 14.
Harlowe, H.W., et al. “A Petro—Chemical Waste Treatment System,” Proc.,
16th Purdue md. Waste Conf . (1961), pp. 156—166.
Henshaw, T.B. “Adsorption/Filtration Plant Cuts Phenols from Effluent,”
Chem. Eng. , (May 1971) p. 47.
Hill, W.B., et al. “Argyria Investigation——Toxicological Properties of
Si1ver,’ Amer. Silver Producers, Res. Proj. Rept. , Appendix mm
(1957).
Hsu, C.P., et al. “Phenolic Industrial Wastes Treatment by a Trickling
Filter7’ R T tie Li Taiwan Ta Hsueh King Cheng Hsueh Kan , 10:162
(1966) and Chem. Abs . 67:8845 (1967).
15 - 5
-------
Hutchins, R.A. “Thermal Regeneration Costs,” Chem. Eng. Progr. ,
71(5):80 (1975).
Hyde, A.C. “Chemical Plant Waste Treatment by Ten Methods,” JWPCF ,
37(11) :1486 (1965).
Irukayama, K. “The Pollution of Minamata Bay and Minamata Disease,”
Adv. Water Poll. Res. , 3:153 (1967).
Irukayama, K., et al. “Studies on the Origin of the Causative Agent of
Minamata Diiease, III: Industrial Wastes Containing Mercury
Compounds from Minamata Factory,” Kumamoto Medical Journal ,
15(2):57 (1962).
Jenne, E.A. “Mercury in Waters of the United States, 1970—71,” Open
File Report, U.S. Geol. Surv. , Menlo Park, CA (1972).
Johnsen, R. “Chlorination of Waters for Disinfection——A Study of the
Production of Undesirable Chlorinated Products,” Natl. Conf. on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls , EPA—56O16—75—0O4.
Johnson, R.C., etal. “Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Pentachloro—
phenol,” Conference——Natl. Inst. of Environ. Health Science ,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. (April 2, 1973).
Jordan, E.C., Inc. “Direct Filtration and Chemically Assisted Clarifi-
cation of Biologically Treated Pulp and Paper Industry Wastewater,”
E.C. Jordon, Inc. (1977).
Jordan, E.C., Inc. “Summary Report on the Re—evaluation of the Effluent
Guidelines for the Wet Process Hardboard Segment of the Timber
Products Processing Point Source Category,” Prepared by Edward C.
Jordan Co., Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68—01—3287 (July 1976).
Junk, G.A., et al. “Contamination of Water by Synthetic Polymer Tubes,”
Environmen t T Science and Technology , 8(13) (December, 1974).
Keboe, R.H., et al. “The Hygienic Significance of the Contamination of
Water wfEff Ftain Mineral Constituents,” JAWWA , 36:645 (1944).
Kirsh, E.J. and Etzel, J.E. “Microbial Decomposition on Pentachioro—
phenol,” Personal correspondence submitted for publication to
JWPCF , 1972.
Kopp, J.F. “The Occurrence of Trace Elements in Water, In: D.D. Hemp—
hill, Ed., “Trace Substances in Environmental Health——Ill,” Proc.
Univ. of Missouri’s 3rd Annual Conf. on Trace Substances in
Environmental Health , Univ. of Missouri, Columbia (1969), p. 59.
15-6
-------
Kopp, J.F. and Kroner, R.C. “Trace Metals in Waters of the United
States,” FWPCA , U.S. Dept. of Interior, Cincinnati, Ohio (1967).
Kostenbader, P.O. and Flacksteiner, J.W. “Biological Oxidation of Coke
Plant Weak Ammonia Liquor,” JWPCF , 41(2):199, 1969.
Kremen, S.S. “Reverse Osmosis Makes High Quality Water Now,” Environ.
Sd. and Tech. , 9:314 (1975).
Lange, N.A., Ed. Handbook of Chemisfl y , 10th ed. McGraw—Hill Book Co.,
New York, 1961.
Lieber, M. and Welsch, W.E. “Contamination of Groundwater by Cadmium,”
JAWWA , 46(51) (1954).
Lin, Y.H. and Lawson, J.R. “Treatment of Oily and Metal Containing
Wastewater,” Poll. Eng . 5(11):45—49 (1973).
Lindberg, P. “Selenium Determination in Plant and Animal Material in
Water,” Acta Vet Scand. , Suppl. 32, Stockholm (1968).
Livingstone, D.A. “Chemical Composition of Rivers and Lakes,”
Geological Survey Professional Paper 440—G , pp. G1—G64, In:
M. Fleischer, Ed., Data of Geochemistry (6th ed.), USGPO,
Washington, D.C., 1963.
Lorenz, L.F. and Gjovik, L.R. “Analyzing Creosote by Gas
Chromatography: Relationship to Creosote Specifications,”
Proceedings , AWPA, Vol. 68 (1972), pp. 32—42.
Loyttyniemi, K. “Transfer of Lindane from Bark of Insecticide—Sprayed
Pine Pulpwood into Effluent from a Barking Drum,” Paperi Puu 57,
No. 10:666—668 (October, 1975) tFinnish——Eng. Sum.] (Abstract).
Ludberg, J.E. and Nicks, G.D. “Phenols and Thiocyanate Removed from
Coke Plant Effluent,” md. Wastes , Vol. 10—13 (November 1969).
Martin, J.J., Jr. Chemical Treatment of Plating Waste for Removal of
Heavy Metals , EPA Report, R2/73/044, 1973.
MacDonald, R.G., Ed. “Pulp and Paper Manufacture,” The Pulping of Wood ,
Vol. 1, 2nd Ed., 1969.
McKee, J.E. and Wolf, H.W. Water Quality Criteria , State Water Quality
Control Board, Sacramento, CA, Pub. 3—A, 1963.
McKeown, J.J. and Buckley, D.B. “Mixing Characteristics of Aerated
Stabilization Basins,” TAPPI 8th Water and Air Conference , (1971).
McLain, L. “Giving Effluents the Ozone Treatment. Could UK Innovation
Show the Way?” Process Eng. , (February 1973), p. 104.
15-7
-------
Meissner, B. “Investigations of the Disposal of Phenol—Containing
Wastes by Biological Procedures,” Wasserwerke—Wass Technology , 5:82
and Chem. Abs. , 49:14237 (1955).
Mero, J.L. Mineral Resources of the Sea , American Elsevier Publishing
Co., 1964.
Merten, U. and Brey, D.T. “Reverse Osmosis for Water Reclamation,”
Advances in Water Pollution REs Vol. 3, Proc. 3rd Inter. Conf. ,
WPCF, Washington, D.C. (1966).
Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory. Unpublished data. Miss. Forest
Products Laboratory, Mississippi State University, Mississippi
State, Mississippi, 1970.
Mitchell, R. Introduction to Environmental Microbiology , Prentice—Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974, pg. 181.
Montes, G.E., et al. “Petro—Chemical Waste Treatment Problems,” Sewage
md. Wastes, 8:5O7—512 (1956).
Morris, D.C., etal. Recycle of Papermill Wastewaters and Application
of Reverse Osmosis , ORM, EPA Program #12040 FUB, 1972.
Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N. Organic Chemistry , Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1966, p. 1067.
Morton, S.C. and Sawyer, E.W. “Clay Minerals Remove Organics, Viruses,
and Heavy Metals from Water,” Water and Sewage Works (1976).
Motto, H.L., et al. “Lead in Soils and Plants: Its Relationship to
Traffic V lume and Proximity to Highways,” Envir. Sd. Tech. , 4:231
(1970).
Nakashlo, M. “Phenolic Waste Treatment by an Activated Sludge Process,”
Hakko Kagaku Zasshi , 47:389, and Chem. Abs. , 71(8):236, 1969.
National Academy of Sciences, Comittee on Biologic Effects of Atmos-
pheric Pollutants. Lead: Airborne Lead in Perspective , NAS,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering. Water
Quality Criteria, 1972 , USGPO, 1974.
National Academy of Sciences, Chromium , USGPO, 1974a.
National Research Council Comittee. Chemistry of Coal Utilization ,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., N.Y., 1945.
National Technical Information Service. “Polychlorinated Biphenyls and
the Environment,” NTIS Interdepartmental Task Force, Washington,
D.C., 1972.
15-8
-------
NCASI, “Pilot Plant Studies of Turbidity and Residual Cell Material
Removal from Mill Effluent by Granular Media Filtration,” NCASI
Technical Bulletin , No. 266 (1973).
Niegowski, S.J. “Destruction of Phenols by Oxidation with Ozone,” md.
Eng. Chem. , 45(3):632 (1953).
Niegowski, S.J. “Ozone Method for Destruction of Phenols in Petroleum
Waste Waters,” Sewage and Industrial Wastes , 28(1O):1266 (1956).
Nisbet, et al. “Rates and Routes of Transport of PCB’s in the
EnvTFonment,” Environmental Health Perspectives , 4(21) (1972).
NIOSH, “Suspected Carcinogens, a Subfile of the NIOSH Toxic Substances
List,” OHEW Publication No. (NIOSH) 75—188 (1975), p. 93.
Pacific Wood Treating Corp. Wood Preserving Waste Recycle and
Incineration System , EPA Proj. Control No. 580517901 1976.
Patterson, J.W. Wastewater Treatment Technology , Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., 1975.
Paulson, E.G. “Adsorption as a Treatment of Refinery Effluent,” Calgon
Corp. Memeo (1972).
Pelczar, M.J., Jr. and Reid, R.D. Microbiology , McGraw—Hill Book Co.,
1972.
Philipp, A.H. “Disposal of Insulation Board Mill Effluent by Land
Irrigation,” J. of Water Pollution Control 43(8) (August, 1971).
Pontman, J.E. “The Toxicity of 120 Substances to Marine Organisms,”
Shellfish Information Leaflet , Fisheries Experimental Station,
Conway, N. Wales, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food
(1970).
Prather, B.V. and Gaudy, A.F., Jr. “Combined Chemical, Physical, and
Biological Processes in Refinery Wastewater Purification,” Proc.
Am. Petro. Inst. , 44(III):105—112 (1964).
Preussner, R.D. and Mancini, J. “Extended Aeration Activated Sludge
Treatment of Petrochemical Waste at the Houston Plant of Petro—Tex
Chemical Corporation,” Proc. 21st Purdue md. Waste Conf. , 1967,
pp. 591—599. —
Putilina, N.T. “Removal of Phenol from Coke Works Wastewaters,” Hygiene
and Sanitation , Moscow, 12:8 (1952), and Water Pollution Abs. ,
28:428 (1955).
Quirk, T.P. “Aerated Stabilization Basin Treatment of White Water,”
Water and Wastes Eng. Industrial (1969).
15-9
-------
Reid, G.W. and Janson, R.J. “Pilot Plant Studies on Phenolic Wastes at
Tinker Air Force Base,” Proc., 10th rndustrial Waste Conf., Purdue ,
1955, p. 28.
Reid, G.W. and Libby, R.W. “Phenolic Waste Treatment Studies,” Proc.,
12th Purdue md. Waste Conf . (1957), pp. 250—258.
Reid, G.W., et al. “Removal of Phenol with Biological Slimes, t ’ Proc.,
11th PuFffuIInd. Waste Conf . (1956), pp. 354—357.
Richards, B.R. and Webb, D.A. “Laboratory Screening Assays of Treated
Wood Samples Exposed to Limnoria Tripunctata: Part 111,” American
Wood Preservers’ Assn. Proceedings , Vol. 71 (April 1975).
Robertson, E.E., et al. “Battelle Northwest Contribution to the IDOE
Base—Line St y ” Battelle Northwest 1972 IDOE Workshop (1972),
p. 231.
Rosfjord, R.E., et al. “Phenols: A Water Pollution Control Assess-
ment,” Water a Sewage Works , 123(3):96(1976).
Ross, W.K. and Sheppard, A.A. “Biological Oxidation of Petroleum
Phenolic Wastewater,” Proc., 10th Purdue md. Waste Conf . (1955),
pp. 106—119.
Rozelle, L.T. “Ultrathin Membranes for Treatment of Waste Effluents by
Reverse Osmosis,” Appl. Polymer Symp. , 22:222 (1973). Chem. Abs. ,
80:6355f (1974).
Runckel, W.J. “C—E Bauer Pressurized Double—Disc Refining Systems-—
Application and Development in the Board Field,” Proc.——7th Symp.
on Particleboard , (March 1973).
Ryan, J.P. Minerals Yearbook 1971 , U.S. Dept. of Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1971.
Scaramelli, A.B. and DiGiano, F.A. “Wastewater Treatments: Physical
and Chemical Methods,” JWPCF , 47(6):1249 (1975).
Schroeder, H.A. “Chromium,” Air Quality Monograph #70—15 , American
Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C. (1970) .
Schroeder, l.A., et al. “Abnormal Trace Elements in Man——Nickel,” Jour.
Chron. Dis.,T5T51 (1961).
Shukov, A. I. “The Treatment of Phenolic Wastewaters,” Hygiene and
Sanitation , Moscow, 22(5):69 (1957), and Water Pollution Abs. ,
32:424 (1959).
Skidmore, J.F. “Toxicity of Zinc Compounds to Aquatic Animals with
Special Reference to Fish,” Quarterly Rev, of Biology , 39:227
(1964).
15-10
-------
Skogen, 0.8. “Treat HPI Wastes with Bugs,” Hydrocarbon Processing ,
46(7):105 (1967).
Smith, M.I., et al. “The Selenium Problem in Relation to Public
Health,’ u5Tic Health Report , 51:1496 (1936).
Smith, M.I. and West, B.B. “Further Field Studies on the Selenium
Problem in Relation to Public Health,” Public Health Report ,
52:1375 (1937).
Stadnisky, W. Personal Correspondence, Abcor, Inc., Cambridge,
Massachusetts (Sept. 27, 1974).
Stevens, B.W. and Kerner, J.W. “Recovering Organic Materials from
Wastewater,” Chem. Eng . (Feb. 1975) p. 84.
Stokinger, H.E. “Mercury 11g23 7 ,” In: F.A. Patty, Ed., Industrial
Hygiene and Toxicology , Vol. 2, 2nd ed., New York Interscience,
1 3, p. 1090 .
Straubing, A.L. Personal Correspondence, Straubing and Rubin Consulting
Engineers, South Orange, N.J.
Streeter, H.W. and Phelps, E.B. “A Study of the Pollution and Natural
Purification of the Ohio River,” Public Health Bulletin , 146,
U.S.P.H.S. (Feb. 1925).
Suhr, L.G. and Culp, G.L. “State of the Art——Activated Carbon Treatment
of Wastewater,” Water and Sewage Works , Ref. No. R1O4 (1974).
Sweets, W.H., et al. “Microbiological Studies on the Treatment of
Petroleum eTTnery Phenolic Wastes,” Sewage md. Wastes , 26:826—868
(1954).
Symons, J.M., et al. “National Organics Reconnaissance Survey for
Halogenated Fganics,” AWWA Journal , 5 67(11):593—662 (1975).
Thompson, W.S. “Draft Development Document for Pretreatment Standards
for the Wood Preserving Industry,” U.S. EPA (July 1976), pp. VIII
23—24.
Thompson, W.S. “Status of Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry,” Proceedings, AWPA (1973).
Thompson, W.S. “Status of Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry in 1974,” Proc., American Wood Preservers’ Assoc. ,
71:97—104 (1975).
Thompson, W.S. and Dust, J.V. “Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry,” Forest Products J. , 21(9), (Sept. 1971).
15-11
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Plywood, Hardboard and Wood Preserving Segments of the
Timber Products Industry, PA Rept. 440/1—73/023 .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “First Environmental Tab——Timber
Products Processing,” EPA—EGO (1977).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
the Analysis of Pesticide Residue
Samples,” EPA (1974).
“Manual of Analytical Methods for
in Human and Environmental
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
water Treatment Plants for Toxic
Division, Municipal Environmental
Envi ronmental Research Laboratory
“Survey of Two Municipal Waste—
Substances,” Wastewater Research
Research Division, Municipal
(March 1977).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Treatin9 Wood Preserving Plant
Wastewater by Chemical and Biological Methods , md. Env. Res. Lab.,
Off. of Res. and 0ev., Cincinnati, Ohio (1976) .
(EPA—600/2—76—231).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA—440/9—76-023.
Quality Criteria for Water ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants , U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 1972,
EPA—R2—72-081.
U.S. Public Health Service. “Drinking Water Standards,” 27 F.R . 2152
(1962).
University of Illinois. “Environmental Pollution by Lead and Other
Metals,” (NSF/RANN Grand 61—31605), Progress Report, May 1—
October 31, 1972, Chapter 6, University of Illinois at Urbana—
Champaign (1972).
Wershaw, R.L. “Mercury in the Environment,” Geological Survey
Professional Paper #713 , USGPO (1970).
Thompson, W.S. and Dust, J.V. “Pollution Control in the Wood Preserving
Industry, Part 2. In—Plant Process Changes and Sanitation,” Forest
Products Journal , 22(7), 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “National Conference on
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (November 19—21, 1975, Chicago,
Illinois),” Conference Proceedings , EPA—560/6—75—004.
Vallee, B.L.
Health ,
“Zinc and Its Biological Significance,” Arch. Indust .
16:147 (1957).
15- 12
-------
Wiley, A.J., et al. Reverse Osmosis Concentration of Dilute Pulp and
Paper Efiluents , Pulp Manufacturers’ Research League and Inst. of
Paper Chem., EPA Proj. #12040 EEL, 1972.
World Health Organization. “Chloroform, IARC Monographs on the Evalua-
tion of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man,” 1 (61) (1972).
World Health Organization. “Health Hazards of the Human Environment,”
Geneva (1972).
Wynn, C.S., et al. Pilot Plant for Tertiary Treatment of Wastewater
with Ozone , EPA Rept. R2/73/146 (1973).
15-13
-------
SECTION XVI
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACA—-Ammonical Copper Sulfate.
“Act——The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Activated Sludge——Sludge floc produced in raw or settled wastewater by
the growth of zoogleal bacteria and other organisms in the presence of
dissolved oxygen and accumulated in sufficient concentration by
returning floc previously formed.
Activated Sludge Process——A biological wastewater treatment process in
which a mixture of wastewater and activated sludge is agitated and
aerated. The activated sludge is subsequently separated from the
treated wastewater (mixed liquor) by sedimentation and wasted or
returned to the process as needed.
Additive——Any material introduced prior to the final consolidation of a
board to improve some property of the final board or to achieve a
desired effect in combination with another additive. Additives include
binders arid other materials. Sometimes a specific additive may perform
more than one function. Fillers and preservatives are included under
this term.
Aerated Lagoon--A natural or artificial wastewater treatment pond in
which mechanical or diffused—air aeration is used to supplement the
oxygen supply.
Aerobic——Condition in which free elemental oxygen is present.
Air—drying—-Drying veneer by placing the veneer in stacks open to the
atmosphere, in such a way as to allow good circulation of air. It is
used only in the production of low quality veneer.
Air—felting-—Term applied to the forming of a fiberboard from an air
suspension of wood or other cellulose fiber and to the arrangement of
such fibers into a mat for board.
Anaerobic——Condition in which free elemental oxygen is absent.
Asplund Method——An attrition mill which combines the steaming and
defibering in one unit in a continuous operation.
Attrition Mill——Machine which produces particles by forcing coarse
material, shavings, or pieces of wood between a stationary and a
rotating disk, fitted with slotted or grooved segments.
16 - 1
-------
Back-—The side reverse to the face of a panel, or the poorer side of a
panel in any grade of plywood that has a face and back.
Bagasse——The solid matter remaining after extraction of liquids from
sugar cane.
Barker——Machines which remove bark from logs. Barkers may be wet or
dry, depending on whether or not water is used in the operation. There
are several types of barkers including drum barkers, ring barkers, bag
barkers, hydraulic barkers, and cutterhead barkers. With the exception
of the hydraulic barker, all use abrasion or scraping actions to remove
bark. Hydraulic barkers utilize high pressure streams of water.
Biological Wastewater Treatment——Forms of wastewater treatment in which
bacterial or biochemical action is intensified to stabilize, oxidize,
and nitrify the unstable organic matter present. Intermittent sand
filters, contact beds, trickling filters, and activated sludge processes
are examples.
Blowdown——The removal of a portion of any process flow to maintain the
constituents of the flow at desired levels.
BOD——Biochemical Oxygen Demand is a measure of biological decomposition
of organic matter in a water sample. It is determined by measuring the
oxygen required by microorganisms to oxidize the organic contaminants of
a water sample under standard laboratory conditions. The standard
conditions include incubation for five days at 20°C.
BOD7——A modification of the BUD test in which incubation is main-
tained for seven days. The standard test in Sweden.
Boultonizing——A conditioning process in which unseasoned wood is heated
in an oily preservative under a partial vacuum to reduce its moisture
content prior to injection of the preservative.
Casein——A derivative of skimmed milk used in making glue.
Caul——A steel plate or screen on which the formed mat is placed for
transfer to the press, and on which the mat rests during the pressing
process.
CCA—type Preservative—-Any one of several inorganic salt formulations
based on salts of copper, chromium, and arsenic.
Chipper——A machine which reduces logs or wood scraps to chips.
Clarifier——A unit of which the primary purpose is to reduce the amount
of suspended matter in a liquid.
Closed Steamin9——A method of steaming in which the steam required is
generated in the retort by passing boiler steam through heating coils
that are covered with water. The water used for this purpose is
recycled.
16 - 2
-------
cm--Centimeters.
COD-—Chemical Oxygen Demand. Its determination provides a measure of
oxygen demand equivalent to that portion of matter in a sample which
is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant.
Coil Condensate——The condensate formed in steam lines and heating coils.
Cold Pressing——See Pressing.
Composite Board—-Any combination of different types of board, either
with another type board or with another sheet material. The composite
board may be laminated in a separate operation or at the same time as
the board is pressed. Examples of composite boards include veneer-faced
particle board, hardboard—faced insulation board and particle board, and
metal -faced hardboard.
Conditioning——The practice of heating logs prior to cutting in order to
improve the cutting properties of the wood and in some cases to
facilitate debarking.
Cooling Pond——A water reservoir equipped with spray aeration equipment
from which cooling water is drawn and to which it is returned.
Creosote——A complex mixture of organic materials obtained as a
by-product from coking and petroleum refining operations that is used as
a wood preservative.
cu rn——Cubic meters.
cu ft—-Cubic feet.
Curing——The physical—chemical change that takes place either to therrno—
setting synthetic resins (polymerization) in the hot presses or to
drying oils (oxidation) used for oil-treating board. The treatment to
produce that change.
Cutterhead Barker——See Debarker.
Cylinder Condensate——Steam condensate that forms on the walls of the
retort during steaming operations.
CZC--Chrornated Zinc Chloride.
Data Collection Portfolio-—Information solicited from industry under
Section 308 of the Act.
Decker, Deckering——A method of controlling pulp consistency in hardboard
production.
16-3
-------
Defiberization——The reduction of wood materials to fibers.
Di ester—-(1) Device for conditioning chips using high pressure steam,
(2) A tank in which biological decomposition (digestion) of the organic
matter in sludge takes place.
Disc Pulpers—-Machines which produce pulp or fiber through the shredding
action of rotating and stationary discs.
DO—-Dissolved Oxygen is a measure of the amount of free oxygen in a
water sample. It is dependent on the physical, chemical, and
biochemical activities of the water sample.
Dry-felting——See Air—felting.
Dry Process——See Air—felting.
Durability--As applied to wood, its lasting qualities or permanence in
service with particular reference to decay. May be related directly to
an exposure condition.
FCAP--Fluor—chrom-arsenate-phenol. An inorganic water-borne wood
preservati ye.
Fiber (Fibre)——The slender thread-like elements of wood or similar
cellulosic material, which, when separated by chemical and/or mechanical
means, as in pulping, can be formed into fiberboard.
Fiberboard——A sheet material manufactured from fibers of wood or other
ligno-cellulosic materials with the primary bond deriving from the
arrangement of the fibers and their inherent adhesive properties.
Bonding agents or other materials may be added during manufacture to
increase strength, resistance to moisture, fire, insects or decay, or to
improve some other property of the product. Alternative spelling:
fibreboard. Synonym: fibre building board.
Fiber Preparation—-The reduction of wood to fiber or pulp, utilizing
mechanical, thermal, or explosive methods.
Finishing——The final preparation of the product. Finishing may include
redrying, trimming, sanding, sorting, molding, and storing, depending on
the operation and product desired.
Fire Retardant--A formulation of inorganic salts that imparts fire
resistance when injected into wood in high concentrations.
Flocculation—-The agglomeration of colloidal and finely divided
suspended matter.
Flotation——The raising of suspended matter to the surface of the liquid
in a tank as scum——by aeration, the evolution of gas, chemicals,
electrolysis, heat, or bacterial decomposition——and the subsequent
removal of the scum by skimming.
16-4
-------
F:M ratio--The ratio of organic material (food) to mixed liquor (micro-
organisms) in an aerated sludge aeration basin.
Formation (Forming)--The felting of wood or other cellulose fibers into
a mat for fiberboard. Methods employed: air—felting and wet-felting.
Gal——Gallons.
GPO-—Gallons per day.
GPM——Gallons per minute.
Grading--The selection and categorization of different woods as to their
suitability for various uses. Criteria for selection include such
features of the wood as color, defects, and grain direction.
Hardboard-—A compressed fiberboard with a density greater than
0.5 g/cu m (31 lb/cu ft).
Hardboard Press—-Machine which completes the reassembly of wood
particles and welds them into a tough, durable, grainless board.
Hardwood--Wood from deciduous or broad-leaf trees. Hardwoods include
oak, walnut, lavan, elm, cherry, hickory, pecan, maple, birch, gum,
cativo, teak, rosewood, and mahogany.
Heat—treated Hardboard——Hardboard that has been subjected to special
heat treatment after hot—pressing to increase strength and water
resistance.
Holding Ponds——See Impoundment.
Hot Pressing——See Pressing.
Humidification——The seasoning operation to which newly pressed hardboard
is subjected to prevent warpage due to excessive dryness.
Impoundment—-A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space, either natural
or created in whole or in part by the building of engineering
structures, which is used for storage, regulation, and control of water,
including wastewater.
Insulation Board——A form of fiberboard having a density less than
0.5 g/cu ni (31 lb/cu ft).
Kjld-N——Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Total organic nitrogen plus ammonia of a
sample.
Kl/day—Thousands of liters per day.
Lagoon-—A pond containing raw or partially treated wastewater in which
aerobic or anaerobic stabilization occurs.
16-5
-------
Land Spreading——See Oil Irrigation.
Leaching——Mass transfer of chemicals to water from wood which is in
contact with it.
1/day——Liters per day.
Metric ton——One thousand kilograms.
MGD——Million gallons per day.
mg/i——Milligrams per liter (equal parts per million, ppm, when the
specific gravity is one).
Mixed Liquor——A mixture of activated sludge and organic matter under-
going activated sludge treatment in an aeration tank.
ml/i——Miliiliters per liter.
mm——Millimeters.
Modified—closed Steaming——A method of steam conditioning in which the
condensate formed during open steaming is retained in the retort until
sufficient condensate accumulates to cover the coils. The remaining
heat required is generated as in closed steaming.
No Discharge——The complete prevention of polluted process wastewater
from entering navigable waters.
Non—pressure Process——A method of treating wood at atmospheric pressure
in which the wood is simply soaked in hot or cold preservative.
NPDES——National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Nutrients——The nutrients in contaminated water are routinely analyzed to
characterize the food available for microorganisms to promote organic
decomposition. They are:
Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3), mg/l as N
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (ON), mg/i as N
Nitrate Nitrogen (N03), mg/i as N
Total Phosphate (TP), mg/i as P
Ortho Phosphate COP), mg/i as P
Oil—recovery System——Equipment used to reclaim oil from wastewater.
Oily Preservative-—Pentachlorophenol-petroleum solutions and creosote in
the various forms in which it is used.
Open Steaming——A method of steam conditioning in which live steam is
injected into the retort.
16 - 6
-------
PCB——Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
PCP--Pentachlorophenol.
Pearl Benson Index—-A measure of color—producing substances.
Pentachlorophenol——A chlorinated phenol with the formula C15C6OH
and formula weight of 266.35 that is used as a wood preservative.
Comercial grades of this chemical are usually adulterated with
tetrachiorophenol to improve its solubility.
jj-—pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water sample. It
is equal to the negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration.
Phenol——The simplest aromatic alcohol.
Phenols, Phenolic Compounds--A wide range of organic compounds with one
or more hydroxyl groups attached to the aromatic ring.
Point Source—-A discrete source of pollution. Channeled wastewater.
POTW——Publicly-owned treatment works.
Pressure Process—-A process in which wood preservatives and fire
retardants are forced into wood using air or hydrostatic pressure.
Pretreatment--Any wastewater treatment processes used to partially
reduce pollution load before the wastewater is delivered into a
treatment facility. Usually consists of removal of coarse solids by
screening or other means.
Primary Treatment——The first major treatment in a wastewater treatment
works. In the classical sense, it normally consists of clarification.
As used in this document, it generally refers to treatment steps
preceding biological treatment.
Priority Pollutants——Those compounds listed in the 1976 Consent Decree.
Process Wastewater——Water , which during manufacturing or processing,
comes into contact with or results in the production or use of any raw
material, intermediate product, finished product, by—product, or waste
product.
pfl——Pounds per square inch.
Radio Frequency Heat——Heat generated by the application of an alter-
nating electric current, oscillating in the radio frequency range, to a
dielectric material. In recent years the method has been used to cure
synthetic resin glues.
16-7
-------
Resin—-Secretions of saps of certain plants Or trees. It is an
oxidation or polymerization product of the terpenes, and generally
contains “resin” acids and ethers.
Retort-—A steel vessel in which wood products are pressure impregnated
with chemicals that protect the wood from biological deterioration or
that impart fire resistance. Also called treating cylinder.
Roundwood——Wood that is still in the form of a log, i.e., round.
RWL-—Raw Waste Load. Pollutants contained in untreated wastewater.
S1S Hardboard—-Hardboard finished so as to be smooth on one side.
S2S Hardboard——Hardboard finished so as to be smooth on both sides.
Secondary Treatment-—The second major step in a waste treatment system.
As used in this document, the term refers to biological treatment.
Sedimentation Tank-—A basin or tank in which water or wastewater
containing settleable solids is retained to remove by gravity a part of
the suspended matter.
Settling Ponds——An impoundment for the settling out of settleable
solids.
Sludge——The accumulated solids separated from liquids, such as water or
wastewater, during processing.
Softwood-—Wood from evergreen or needle-bearing trees.
Soil Irrigation——A method of land disposal in which wastewater is
applied to a prepared field. Also referred to as soil percolation.
Solids-—Various types of solids are commonly determined on water
samples. These types of solids are:
Total Solids (TS)—-The material left after evaporation and
drying a sample at 103°-105°C.
Suspended Solids ISSi—-The material removed from a sample
filtered through a standard glass fiber filter. Then it is
dried at 103°-105°C.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—-Same as Suspended Solids.
Dissolved Solids (DS)—-The difference between the total and
suspended solids.
Volatile Solids (VS)-—The material which is lost when the
sample is heated to 550°C.
Settleable Solids (STS)——The material which settles in an
Immhoff cone in one hour.
16 - 8
-------
Spray Evaporation-—A method of wastewater disposal in which the water in
a holding lagoon equipped with spray nozzles is sprayed into the air to
expedite evaporation.
Spray Irrigation——A method of disposing of some organic wastewaters by
spraying them on land, usually from pipes equipped with spray nozzles.
See Soil Irrigation.
sq m-—Square meter.
Steam Conditioning—-A conditioning method in which unseasoned wood is
subjected to an atmosphere of steam at 120°C (249°F) to reduce its
moisture content and improve its permeability preparatory to preserva-
tive treatment.
Steaming——Treating wood material with steam to soften it.
Sump-—(1) A tank or pit that receives drainage and stores it
temporarily, and from which the drainage is pumped or ejected; (2) A
tank or pit that receives liquids.
Synthetic Resin (Thermosetting)—-Artificial resin (as opposed to
natural) used in board manufacture as a binder. A combination of
chemicals which can be polymerized, e.g., by the application of heat,
into a compound which is used to produce the bond or improve the bond in
a fiberboard or particle board. Types usually used in board manufacture
are phenol formaldehyde, urea formaldehyde, or melamine formaldehyde.
Tempered Hardboard—-Hardboard that has been specially treated in
manufacture to improve its physical properties considerably. Includes,
for example, oil—tempered hardboard. Synonym: superhardboard.
Tertiary Treatment——The third major step in a waste treatment facility.
As used in this document, the term refers to treatment processes
following biological treatment.
Thermal Conductivity--The quantity of heat which flows per unit time
across unit area of the subsurface of unit thickness when the tempera-
ture of the faces differs by one degree.
Thermosetting——Adhesives which, when cured under heat or pressure, “set”
or harden to form films of great tenacity and strength. Subsequent
heating in no way softens the bending matrix.
TOC--Total Organic Carbon is a measure of the organic contamination of a
water sample. It has an empirical relationship with the biochemical and
chemical oxygen demands.
T—P04—P——Total phosphate as phosphorus. See Nutrients.
Total Phenols——See Phenols.
16-9
-------
Traditional Parameters--Those parameters historically of interest, e.g.,
BOO, COD, SS, as compared to Priority Pollutants.
Turbidity—-(1) A condition in water or wastewater caused by the presence
of suspended matter, resulting in the scattering and absorption of light
rays; (2) A measure of the fine suspended matter in liquids; (3) An
analytical quantity usually reported in arbitrary turbidity units
determined by measurements of light diffraction.
Vacuum Water-—Water extracted from wood during the vacuum period
following steam conditioning.
Vapor Drying——A process in which unseasoned wood is heated in the hot
vapors of an organic solvent, usually xylene, to season it prior to
preservative treatment.
Vat——Large metal containers in which logs are “conditioned” or heated
prior to cutting. The two basic methods for heating are by direct steam
contact in “steam vats” or by steam—heated water in “hot water vats.”
Veneer--A thin sheet of wood of uniform thickness produced by peeling,
slicing, or sawing logs, bolts, or flitches. Veneers may be categorized
as either hardwood or softwood, depending on the type of woods used and
the intended purpose.
Water Balance—-The water gain (incoming water) of a system versus water
loss (water discharged or lost).
Water-borne Preservative——Any one of several formulations of inorganic
salts, the most common of which are based on copper, chromium, and
arsenic.
Wet—felting——Term applied to the forming of a fiberboard from a
suspension of pulp in water usually on a cylinder, deckle box, or
Fourdrinier machine; the interfelting of wood fibers from a water
suspension into a mat for board.
Wet Process—-See Wet-felting.
Wet Scrubber-—An air pollution control device which involves the wetting
of particles in an air stream and the impingement of wet or dry
particles on collecting surfaces, followed by flushing.
Wood Extractives--A mixture of chemical compounds, primarily carbohy-
drates, removed from wood during steam conditioning.
Wood Preservatives-—A chemical or mixture of chemicals with fungistatic
and insecticidal properties that is injected into wood to protect it
from biological determination.
Zero Discharge——See No Discharge.
16 - 10
-------
APPENDIX A—i
TOXIC OR POTENTIALLY TOXIC SUBSTANCES 1 AMED IN CONSENT DECREE
Acenapthene
Acrolein
Acryl onitri 1 e
Al dri n/Di eldri n
Antimony
i rsenic
Asbestos
Benzidine
Benzene
Beryllium
Cadmi urn
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chi ordane
Chlorinated Benzene
Chlorinated Ethanes
Chlorinated Ethers
Chlorinated Phenol
Chi oroform
2-Chi orophenol
Chromi urn
Copper
Cyanide
DOT
Di chl orobenzene
Dichl orobenzidi ne
Dichl oroethyl ene
2 ,4—Dichl orophenol
Di chloropropane
2 ,4-Din’ethyl phenol
Di nit rotoluene
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethyl benzene
Fluoranthene
Hal oet hers
Hal omethanes
Heptachi or
Hexachiorobutadi ene
Hexachl orocyclohexane
Hexachl orocyci opentadi ene
I sophorone
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Nitrophenol
Nitrosami nes
A-i
-------
APPENDIX A—2
LIST OF SPECIFIC UNAMBIGUOUS RECOF’MENDED PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4—trichlorobenzene
3. hexachlorobenzene
4. chiorobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2—chloroethyl) ether
7. 2—chioroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1 ,2—dichlorobenzene
9. 1 ,3—dichlorobenzene
10. 1 ,4—dichlorobenzene
11. 3,3’—dichlorobenzidine
12. 2,4—dinitrotoluene
13. 2,6—dinitrotoluene
14. 1,2—diphenyihydrazine
15. ethylbenzene
16. 4-chiorophenyl phenyl ether
17. 4—bromophenyl phenyl ether
18. bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
19. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
20. isophorone
21. nitrobenzene
22. N—nitrosodimethylamine
23. N—nitrosodiphenylamine
24. N-nitrosodi—n-propyl amine
25. bis(2—ethylhexyl) phthalate
26. butyl benzyl phthalate
27. di—n—butyl phthalate
28. diethyl phthalate
29. dimethyl phthalate
30. toluene
31. vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
32. acrolein
33. acrylonitrile
34. acenaphthene
35. 2—chloronaphthalene
36. fluoranthene
37. naphthalene
38. 1 ,2—benzanthracene
39. benzo(a)pyrene(3 ,4-benzopyrene)
40. 3,4—benzofluoranthene
41. 11 ,12—benzofl uoranthene
42. chrysene
43. acenaphthyl ene
44. anthracene
45. 1 ,12—benzoperyl ene
46. fluorene
47. phenanthrene
48. 1,2,5 ,6—di benzanthracene
A-2
-------
2. List of Specific Unambiguous Recommended Priority Pollutants
1. benzidine
2. 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
3. hexachi orobenzene
4. chlorobenezene
5. bis(chloromethyl) ether
6. bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
7. 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
8. 1,2-dichlorobenzene
9. 1 ,3—dichlorobenzene
10. 1,4—dichlorobenzene
11. 3,3’—dichlorobenzidine
12. 2,4-dinitrotoluene
13. 2,6—dinitrotoluene
14. 1,2—diphenyihydrazine
15. ethylbenzene
16. 4—chiorophenyl phenyl ether
17. 4—bromophenyl phenyl ether
18. bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
19. bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
20. isophorone
21. nitrobenzene
22. N-nitrosodimethylami ne
23. N—nitrosodi phenyl amine
24. N-nitrosodi-n—propyl amine
25. bis(2—ethylhexyl) phthalate
26. butyl benzyl phthalate
27. di—n—butyl phthalate
28. diethyl phthalate
29. dimethyl phthalate
30. toluene
31. vinyl chloride (chioroethylene)
32. acrolein
33. acrylonitrile
34. acenaphthene
35. 2-chloronaphthalene
36. fluoranthene
37. naphthalene
38. 1 ,2-benzanthracene
39. benzo(a)pyrene(3 ,4—benzopyrene)
40. 3,4—benzofluoranthene
41. 11 ,12—benzofl uoranthene
42. chrysene
43. acenaphthyl ene
44. anthracene
45. 1 , 12—benzoperyl ene
46. fluorene
47. phenanthrene
48. 1,2,5,6—dibenzanthracene
A-3
-------
49. indeno (1,2,3-,cd)pyrene
50. pyrene
51. benzene
52. carbon tetrachioride (tetrachioromethane)
53. 1,2—dichioroethane
54. 1,1,1—trichioroethane
55. hexachloroethane
56. 1 ,1—dichloroethane
57. 1,1,2—trichioroethane
58. 1,1,2,2—tetrachioroethane
59. chloroethane
60. 1,1—dichioroethylene
61. 1 ,2—trans—dichloroethylene
62. 1 ,2—di chi oropropane
63. 1,2—dichioropropylene (1,2—dichioropropene)
64. methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
65. methyl chloride (chioromethane)
66. methyl bromide (bromomethane)
67. bromoform (tribromomethane)
68. dichiorobromomethane
69. trichlorofluoromethane
70. dichiorodifluoromethane
71. chiorodibromomethane
72. hexachiorobutadiene
73. hexachi orocyclopentadi ene
74. tetrachioroethylene
75. chloroform (trichioromethane)
76. trichioroethylene
77. aidrine
78. dieldrin
79. chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)
80. 4,4’-DDT
81. 4,4’—DDE (p,p’-DDX)
82. 4,4’-DDD (p,p’—TDE)
83. a—endosul fan—Alpha
84. b—endosul fan—Beta
85. endosulfan sulfate
86. endrin
87. endrin aldehyde
88. endrin ketone
89. heptachior
90. heptachior epoxide
91. a—BHC—Alpha
92. b—BHC—Beta
93. r-BHC (lindane)—Gamma
94. g-BHC—Delta
95. PCB—1242 (Arochior 1242)
96. PCB—1254 (Arochior 1254)
97. toxaphene
98. 2,3,7,8—tetrachlorodibenzo—p—dioxin (TCDD)
99. 2,4,6—trichiorophenol
A-4.
-------
100. parachlorometa cresol
101. 2-chiorophenol
102. 2,4-clichiorophenol
103. 2,4-dimethyl phenol
104. 2-nitrophenol
105. 4-nitrophenol
106. 2,4—dinitrophenol
107. 4,6-dinitro—o—cresol
108. pentachiorophenol
109. phenol
110. cyanide (Total)
111. asbestos (Fibrous)
112. arsenic (Total)
113. antimony (Total)
114. beryllium (Total)
115. cadmium (Total)
116. chromium (Total)
117. copper (Total)
118. lead (Total)
119. mercury (Total)
120. nickel (Total)
121. selenium (Total)
122. silver (Total)
123. thallium (Total)
124. zinc (Total)
A-5
-------
Table A-i. Itemization of Volatile Priority Pollutants
chlororiiethane
bromomethane
chioroethane
tn chlorofl uoromethane
bromochioromethane (IS)
trans—i ,2—dichloroethylene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachioride
bis-chioromethyl ether (d)
trans-i ,3—dichloropropene
di bromochioromethane
1 ,l,2-trichloroethane
2-chioroethyl vinyl ether
b romoform
1,1 ,2,2—tetrachloroethane
tol uene
ethyl benzene
acrylonitrile
dichiorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methyl ene chloride
1 ,1-di chi oroethyl ene
1, 1-dichioroethane
chi oro form
1,1 ,1-trichloroethane
bromodichioromethane
1 ,2-dichl oropropane
trichloroethylene
ci s-i, 3-di chi oropropene
benzene
2-bromo-1—chloropropane (IS)
1,1,2, 2—tetrachioroethene
1,4-dichiorobutane (IS)
chi orobenzene
acrolein
A-6
-------
Table A-2. Base Neutral Extractables
1 ,3—dichlorobenzene
hexachioroethane
bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
1 ,2,4—trichlorobenzene
bis(2—chloroethyl) ether
nitrobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
acenaphthene
fl uorene
1 ,2—di phenyl hydrazi ne
N—ni trosodi phenyl amine
4—bromophenyl phenyl ether
anthracene
diethyl phthal ate
pyre ne
benzidi ne
c h ryse ne
benzo(a) anthracene
benzo(k)fl uoranthene
I ndeno(1 ,2 ,3—cd)pyrene
benzo(g h i)perylene
N—nitrosodi-n-propylami ne
endrin aldehyde
2 ,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxi n
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-di chlorobenzene
hexachi orobutadi ene
naphthal ene
hexachi orocyclopentadiene
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
acenaphthylene
isophorone
2,6-di nitrotol uene
2 ,4-di ni trotol uene
hexachi orobenzene
phena nt h rene
dirnethyl phthal ate
fi uoranthene
di-n-butyl phthal ate
butyl benzyl phthal ate
bi s (2-ethyl hexyl ) phthal ate
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
di benzo(a ,h)anthracene
N—nitrosodimethylamine
4-chloro—phenyl phenyl ether
3,3’ -dichlorobenzidi ne
bis(chloromethyl) ether
A-7
-------
Table A-3. Acidic Extractables
2-chi orophenol
phenol
2 ,4-dichl orophenol
2—ni trophenol
p-chloro—m-cresol
2 ,4,6—trichlorophenol
2 ,4—dimethyl phenol
2 ,4-di nitrophenol
4, 6-di nitro-o-cresol
4-ni trophenol
pent ach lorophenol
A-8
-------
Table A—4. Pesticides and PCB’s
—endosul fan
-BHC
—BHC
-BHC
aldrin
heptachi or
heptachior epoxide
—endosul fan
dieldrin
4,4’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DDT
endrin
endosulfan sulfate
-BHC
chi ordane
t oxaphene
PCB—1242
PCB—1254
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
I NTRODUCTION
EPA Protocols Used
The analytical effort for the Timber Products Processing Point Source
Category began in November 1976 with the analyses of screening samples.
The protocol available at that time was the draft “Protocol for the
Measurement of Toxic Substances,” U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio,
October 1976.
Analyses of verification samples were conducted from February 1977 to
May 1978, by which time a new protocol, “Sampling and Analysis
Procedures for Screening of Industrial Effluents,” March 1977 (revised
April 1977) was available.
Nature of the Samples
The wastewaters analyzed are characterized by BOD values as high as
7,500 mg/i, suspended solids concentrations as high as 3,000 mg/i, and
oil and grease values as high as 10,000 mg/i. Such gross quantities of
materials in the samples provided the potential for interference during
workup and subsequent analysis. High concentrations of dissolved
organics also imposed constraints on the achievable sensitivity.
This problem was partially circumvented by the use of smaller samples
aliquot and by dilution of the resulting extract. The interference was
not of consequence when analyzing classical or inorganic parameters. It
should be noted that the existing protocol does not make allowance for
such remedies. Clean-up procedures could be used for specific para-
meters, but the need for screening and verification data on a large
number of compounds precludes the use of general clean—up procedures.
Overview of Methods
The priority pollutants may be conventionally considered according to
the broad classification of organics and metals. The organic priority
pollutants constitute the larger group and were analyzed according to
the categories of purgeable volatiles, extractable semi—volatiles, and
pesticides and PCB’s. The principal analytical method for identifica-
tion and quantitation of organic priority pollutants, other than
pesticides and PCB’s, was repetitive scanning GC/F4S.
In the screening phase, GC/MS compound identification was made in terms
of the proper chromatographic retention time and comparison of the
entire mass spectrum with that of an authentic standard or that from a
reference work when the standard was not available or the substance was
too toxic to obtain.
B-i
-------
Compound quantitation was performed in terms of the integrated areas of
individual peaks in the total ion current chromatogram compared with an
external standard.
In the verification phase, compound identification was based on the
following criteria: (1) appropriate retention time within a window
defined as + 1 minute that of the compound in the standard; (2) coinci-
dence of the extracted ion current profile maxima of two (volatiles) or
three (extractables) characteristic ions enumerated in the protocol; and
(3) proper relative ratios of these extracted ion current profile peaks.
Priority pollutants were quantitated with direct integration of peak
areas from extracted ion current profiles and relative response factors
in terms of the internal standard d 10 . anthracene.
An alternate GC/FID procedure (Chriswell, Chang, and Fritz, Anal. Chem.,
47, 1325, 1975) was employed for the phenols for the screening samples.
In the procedure phenol samples were steam distilled and the resultant
distillate was subjected to the ion exchange separation followed by
GC/FID identification and quantitation.
The use of this method was prompted due to the severe emulsion problems
encountered when extracting the samples by the draft protocol method.
Recovery data for the draft protocol method was unexceptable and there-
fore this procedure was substituted.
In both screening and verification phases the pesticides and PCB’s were
analyzed by the use of GC/ECD. Identification was based on retention
time relative to a standard injected under the same conditions. Quanti-
tation was based on peak area for the same standard injection. The
metals were done by flameless atomic absorption and all classical para-
meters were done by standard methods. There were slight differences
between the screening method and verification method that were largely
due to the evolution of the analytical protocol to its present form.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ANALYTICAL METHODS
Volatile Priority Pollutants
The purgeable volatile priority pollutants are those compounds which
possess a relatively high vapor pressure and low water solubility.
These compounds are readily stripped with high efficiency from the
water by bubbling an inert gas through the sample at ambient
temperature.
The analytical methodology employed for the volatiles was based on the
dynamic headspace technique of Bellar and Lichtenberg. This procedure
consists of two steps. Volatile organics are purged from the raw—water
sample onto a Tenax GC-silica gel trap with a stream of inert gas. The
volatile organics are then thermally desorbed into the GC inlet for
subsequent GC/MS identification and quantitation.
B- 2
-------
The purgeable volatile priority pollutants considered in the final veri-
fication phase are listed in Table B—i.
A 5 ml aliquot of the raw water sample was purged at ambient temperature
with He for 12 minutes onto a 25 cm x 1/8 in. o.d. stainless steel trap
containing an 18 cm bed of Tenax GC 60/80 mesh and a 5 cm bed of Davison
Grade 15 silica gel 35/60 mesh. This 5 ml aliquot represented a single
sample or a composite of the various volatile samples collected at the
inaividual station.
The organics were thermally desorbed from the trap for 4 minutes at 1800
with a He flow of 30 ml/min into the GC inlet. The collection of
repetitively scanned mass spectra was initiated with the application of
heat to the trap. The enumeration of all instrument parameters is
presented in Table B—2.
The gross quantities of organics contained in many of the process waste
streams necessitated preliminary screening of samples. To accomplish
such screening, a 10 ml portion of the sample was extracted with a
single portion of solvent and the extract was subjected to GC/FID
analysis to permit the judicious selection of appropriate sample volume,
i.e., less than 5 ml, for purge and trap analysis.
Although nonvolatile compounds purge poorly, significant quantities can
accumulate on the analytical column from samples containing high levels
of these materials. A column of 0.1 percent SP-1000 (Carbomax 20M
esterified with nitroterephthalic acid) on 80/100 mesh Carbopac C was
employed for the verification phase. The greater temperature stability
of the SP—i000 stationary phase, as compared with the lower molecular
weight Carbomax 1500, permitted column bake out at elevated temperatures
for extended periods of time without adverse effects.
The purge and trap apparatus enployed nphasized: (1) short—heated
transfer lines, (2) low dead—volume construction, (3) manually—operated
multiport valve, and (4) ready replacement of all component parts.
Although the operation of the purge and trap apparatus is straightfor-
ward conceptually, cross contamination between samples and/or standards
can be a serious problem. This design permitted the ready substitution
of component parts with thoroughly preconditioned replacement parts when
serious contamination was indicated by system blanks.
Foaming tended to be excessive with a number of the samples,
particularly those analyzed neat. The brief application of localized
heat to the foam trap, as foam began to accumulate, was effective in
breaking the foam.
A stock standard was prepared on a weight basis by dissolving the
volatile salutes in methanol. Intermediate concentrations prepared by
dilution were employed to prepare aqueous standards at the 20 and
100 ppb levels. A 5 ml aliquot of these standards was analyzed in a
r ianner identical to that employed with the samples. The attendant
B-3
-------
Table B-i.
Purgeable Volatile Priority Pollutants
chi oromethane
bromomethane
chi oroethane
trichiorofluoromethane
trans—i ,2-dichloroethylene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
carbon tetrachioride
bis-chloromethyl ether Cd)
trans—i ,3—dichloropropene
dibromochi oromethane
1,1 ,2—trichl oroethane
2—chi oroethyl vinyl ether
bromoform
1,1,2 ,2-tetrachloroethane
toluene
ethyl benzene
dichlorodifluoromethane
vinyl chloride
methylene chloride
1 ,1—dichl oroethyl ene
1 ,1—dichloroethane
chloroform
1,1 ,i—trichloroethane
bromodichioromethane
1 ,2-d ichi oropropane
trichi oroethyl ene
cis-1 ,3-dichloropropene
benzene
1,1,2 ,2-tetrachloroethene
chlorobenzene
B-4
-------
Table B—2. Parameters for Volatile Organic Analysis
Purge Parameters
Gas He 40 mi/mm
Purge duration 12 mm
Purge volume 5 ml
Purge temperature Ambient
Trap 7 in Tenax GC 60/80 mesh plus
2 in Davison Grade 15 silica gel
35/60 mesh in 10 in x 1/8 in
o.d. ss
Desorption temperature 1800
Desorption time 4 mm
GC Parameter
Column 8 ft x 1/8 in, nickel, 0.1% SP—1000
on Carbopac C 80/100
Carrier He 30 mi/mm
Program 50° isothermal 4 mm then 8°/mm to
175° isothermal 10 mm
Separator Single-stage glass jet at 185°
MS Parameters
Instrument Hewlett Packard 5985A
Mass Range 35—335 amu
Ionization Mode Electron impact
Ionization Potential 70 eU
Emission Current 200 uA
Scan time 2 sec
B-5
-------
reconstructed total ion current chromatograrn for a purgeable volatile
organic standard is presented in Figure B—i.
Sernivolatile Priority Pollutants
The extractable semivolatile priority pollutants are compounds which are
readily extracted with methylene chloride. They are subjected to a
solubility class separation by serial extraction of the sample with
methylene chloride at pH of 11 or greater and at pH 2 or less. This
provides the groups referred to as base neutrals and acidics
(phenolics), respectively.
Base neutrals and phenolics were fractionated on the basis of a
solubility class separation. Due to the widely varying chemical and
physical properties possessed by the individual semivolatile priority
pollutants, the whole sample, i.e., suspended solids, etc., was subjec-
ted to extraction. Enumeration of the base neutrals and acidic semi—
volatiles is provided in Tables B—3 and B—4. A 1—liter sample was
subjected to two successive extractions with three portions of methylene
chloride (150, 75, and 75 ml) at pH 11 or greater and pH 2 or less to
provide the base neutral and acidic fractions, respectively.
were broken by the addition of Na2SO4 or methanol or
standi fly.
The extract from each fraction was dried by passage through
the volume will be reduced with a Kuderna—Danish evaporator
10 ml. The extract was further concentrated to 1 ml in the
Danish tube under a gentle stream of organic-free nitrogen.
The solvent volume was reduced to 1.0 ml spiked
anthracene internal standard soution of 2 ug/ul
analysis.
The presence of gross quantities of a variety of organics in the
extracts of many of the process waste streams necessitated screening of
all extracts by GC/FID prior to GC/MS analysis. Sample extracts were
diluted as indicated by the GC/FID scan and subjected to GC/MS analysis.
A reconstructed total ion current chromatogram for base neutrals and for
phenolic standard are shown in Figures B—2 and B—3, respectively.
GC/MS instrument parameters employed for the analysis of base neutrals
and phenolics are presented in Tables B—5 and B—6.
The SP-1240 DA chromatographic phase employed for the analysis phenolic
extracts in the verification phase provided superior performance as
compared with that achieved on Tenax GC. The SP—1240 DA phase provided
improved separation, decreased tailing, decreased adsorption of
nitrophenols and pentachiorophenol, and increased column life.
Emulsions
simply by
Na2SO4, and
to 5 to
Kuderna—
with 10 ul of the dlO-
and subjected to GC/MS
B-6
-------
RECONSTRUCTED TOTAL ION CURRENT CHROMATOGRAM
FOR PURGABLE VOLATILE ORGANICS STANDARD
w
0
C)
I-
0
0
-I
I
z z
m
I
-C w
0
m z
z
m
2
F
0
m
I U I I I I
I I I I U
I I I I U
U I U I I
I I I I I
U I U
S
10
iS
20
2
Figure B-i
07
_ -I
I x
-I I
mO
I x
I-
0
0
C,
I
I-
0
0
w
in
-e
I )
-I
C,
I
0
!12
I
C)
I
0
m
in
-------
Table B—3. Base Neutral Extractables
1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
hexachi oroethane
bis(2—chloroisopropyl) ether
1 ,2,4—trichlorobenzene
bis(2—chloroethyl) ether
nitrobenzene
2—chi oronaphthal ene
acenaphthene
fi uorene
1 ,2-diphenyl hydrazi ne
N—nitrosodi phenyl amine
4—bromophenyl phenyl ether
anthracene
diethyl phthal ate
pyrene
benzidi ne
c h ryse ne
benzo(a) anthracene
benzo(k)fl uoranthene
i ndeno(1 ,2,3—cd)pyrene
benzo(g h i)perylene
N—nitrosodi-n—propyl amine
endrin aldehyde
2,3,7 ,8—tetrachlorodibenzo—p-dioxin
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-dichl orobenzene
hexachiorobutadiene
naphthalene
hexachiorocyclopentad i ene
bis(2—chloroethoxy) methane
acenaphthyl ene
i sophorone
2,6-di nitrotoluene
2,4-di nitrotol uene
hexachi orobenzene
phenant hrene
diniethyl phthal ate
fi uoranthene
di—n—butyl phthal ate
butyl benzyl phthal ate
bis(2—ethyl hexyl )phthal ate
benzo(b)fl uoranthene
benzo( a)pyrene
dibenzo(a ,h)anthracene
N—nitrosodimethyl amine
4—chioro—phenyl phenyl ether
3,3’ -dichi orobenzidi ne
bis(chloromethyl) ether
B-8
-------
Table B—4. Acidic Extractables
2-chi orophenol
2-ni trophenol
phenol
2,4-dimethyl phenol
2 ,4-dichl orophenol
2,4 ,6-trichl orophenol
4-chi oro—m-cresol
2,4—dinitrophenol
4,6-di nitro—o—cresol
pent achi orophenol
4-nitrophenol
B-9
-------
RECONSTRUCTED TOTAL ION CURRENT CHROMATOGRAM FOR BASE NEUTRALS
-& Z In
Z C I
ma
—
0
OX 2
2
• .(XZ 22
02 Z r Im> ON
N pXZ
X()
• -i-C i
>1 W
mm mx l i i C
o n’ 2 -4 - I
-< m —
9z -4Irn ‘I z
mmI I
- 0 N
0
O ZN C) in I 0
mrn -C ‘i x -<
‘I I-
- m p o io
rn mm
mm
A o
ZZ
Z 0 2 2 xr IO m
20 Z
X Z mm I m
rn N Z Z 2 Z
m - i m C) N
- I I X X I
w g m W -. Z
m o m
m Z
mN I I
w -C
m
I I
O I I
m N Z
.ii I I
m
-C I U
m I m____ _
9
r • •
Z
. .
I I
Zn ____ _
m
11111111 1111111 1111111 I I lull 1111111111 liii
S 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
gure B-2
-------
RECONSTRUCTED TOTAL ION CURRENT CHROMATOGRAM FOR PHENOLIC STANDARD
“3
•
0
-•1
2 :j
• C, —
C)
0
-I j 30
Q X
o 0 • m
w “3 0
I I F m
C) I r - +
0
I
F 0 !! o Z
-I
o ,- 0 0 0
F
o F- 0
m
I I • 2
2 2 0
F-
0 0
z
F F 00
• F-
0
I
2 p 0
0 ° in
F • (0
I
z
in
i . i i i . . .
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9tø111 i 1416i?tB19 O t
Figure B3
-------
Table B—5. Parameters for Base Neutral Analysis
GC Parameters
Column 6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP—2250 on 100/120 mesh
Supeicoport
Carrier He 30 mi/mm
Program 500 isothermal 4 mm then 8°/mm to
275° for 8 mm
Injector 285°
Separator Single—stage glass jet at 275°
Injection Volume 2 Ui
MS Parameters
Instrument Hewlett Packard 5985 A
Mass Range 35—335 amu
Ionization Mode Electron impact
Ionization Potential 70 eV
Emission Current 200 uA
Scan time 2.4 sec
B - 12
-------
Table B—6. Parameters for Phenolic Analysis
GC Parameters
Column 6 ft x 2 mm i.d., glass, 1%
SP—1240 DA on 100/120 mesh
Supelcopcrt
Carrier He 30 mi/mm
Program 90 to 2000 at 8°/mm with 16 mm
hold
Injector 2500
Separator Single—stage glass jet at 250°
Injection Volume 2 ul
MS Parameters
Instrument Hewlett Packard 5985 A
Mass Range 35—335
Ionization Mode Electron impact
Ionization Potential 70 eV
Emission Current 200 uA
Scan time 2.4 sec
B - 13 -
-------
Emulsion formation in basic solution under the protocol conditions
precluded an efficient extraction of phenolic compounds. An alternate
procedure, requiring a separate portion of sample for the acidic extrac-
tion, was employed to minimize this problem in the verification phase.
A 1—liter portion of sample was adjusted to pH of 2 or less and extrac-
ted with three portions of methylene chloride (100, 75, and 75 ml).
These extracts were combined and the acidic compounds were back-
extracted with two 100 ml portions of aqueous base (pH 12). The basic
aqueous extracts were then acidified to pH of 2 or less and extracted
again with two 100 ml portions of methylene chloride. The resultant
extract was then processed as discussed above under protocol procedure.
PESTICIDES AND PCB’s
Pesticides and PCB’s were extracted and analyzed as a separate sample.
These compounds were analyzed by gas chromatograph with electron capture
detection (GC/ECD). Only when the compounds were present at high levels
were the samples subjected to GC/MS confirmation.
The need for the increase in concentration is due to the sensitivity of
the GC/MS as compared to the GC/ECD. The absolute detection limit for
pesticides by GC/MS is approximately 2 parts per billion. GC/ECD
detection limit varies due to the degree of chlorination, but ranges
from one—half part per billion for PCB’s to 50 parts per trillion for
chlorinated pesticides. The implications of this fact are that all
pesticides and PCB’s that are reported below 2 ppb have been confirmed
on two columns using GC/ECD, but not confirmed on GC/MS. Table B-7
presents the GC/ECD parameters employed for the analysis of pesticides
and PCB’s.
The procedure used for the analysis of pesticides and PCB’s was taken
directly from the Federal Register. Figure B—4 is a graphic
demonstration of the step—by—step procedure used in this analysis.
The compounds of interest are listed in Table B-8 and a chromatogram of
some selected representatives is shown in Figure B—5.
METALS
Metals analyzed consisted of the following:
Beryllium Silver
Cadmium Arsenic
Chromium Antimony
Copper Selenium
Nickel Thallium
Lead Mercury
Zinc
With the exception of mercury, the screening metal analyses were
performed by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma at the EPA Laboratory in
Chicago. Mercury samples were collected separately in 500—mi glass
B-14
-------
Table 8-7. GC/ECD Parameters for Pesticide and PCB Analysis
Column 6 ft x 1/8-in glass
1.5% OV-17/1.95% QF-1
Confirmation 6% SFc-30/4% 0V210
On Supelcoport 80/100
Carrier 5% methane/Argon
50 mi/mm
Program 200°C isothermal
Nj63 Fc CD
B - 15
-------
FLOW CHART FOR PESTICIDES AND PCB’S
Sample Received
Adjust pH
Measure Volume
Serial
Solvent Extraction
I Concentrationj
Silica Gel
Separation
I I
Fraction
Containi
II
ng
TOX, Chiordan
e, DOT
I Concentration I
GC/ECD GC/ECD
Column I Column I
GC/ECD L_JGCMS GCMS _J GC/ECD
lumn II] IConf. Conf. IColumn II
I I I I
I Quantitationl——1 Quantitation I
Tabulation
Report
I
I
Fraction I
Containing
PCB
I
I Concentration I
Fraction III
Containing
Cyclodienes
I I
GC/ECD
Column
I
GC/ECD
Column
II
Concentration
GCMS
__________ Conf.
Quantitation I—_i
B - 16
Figure B-4
-------
Table B-S. Pesticides and PCB’s
a -endosulfan
a -BHC
8 -BHC
a -BHC
aldrin
heptachi or
heptachior epoxide
fl -endosulfan
dieldrin
4,4 ’-DDE
4,4’-DDD
4,4’-DOT
end r i n
endrin aldehyde
end osul fan sul fate
6 BHC
chlordane
toxaphene
PCB—1242
PCB—1254
B - 17
-------
PESTICIDE MIXED STANDARD
0
a
m
a
m
I-
a
z
a
0
a
m
z
a
a
-I
a
a
0Mm. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
w
Q
C)
m
x
I-
0
m
0
a
III
I-
a
a
a
-I
igure B-5
-------
containers with nitric acid preservative and analyzed by the standard
cold vapor technique.
Metals analysis for the verification phase were performed by atomic
absorption according to the protocol method. This method entailed the
complete digestion of the samples with strong acid and peroxide, then
injection into a graphite furnace. Quantitation was accomplished by the
standard addition method.
TRADITIONAL OR CLASSICAL PARAMETERS
The traditional parameters investigated included:
BOD
COD
TSS
TOC
Oil and Grease
Total Phenol
Total Cyanide
All of these parameters were analyzed by standard methods. There were
no deviations from these methods noted for any of the analyses.
The colornietric protocol method for cyanide entailed the steam distilla-
tion of cyanide from strongly acidic solution. The hydrogen cyanide gas
was absorbed in a solution of sodium hydroxide, and the color was
developed with addition of pyridine—pyrazolone.
B - 19
-------
APPENDIX C
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply (English Units) By To Obtain (Metric Units)
English Unit Abbreviation Conversion Abbreviation Metric Unit
acre ac 0.405 ha hectares
acre—feet ac ft 1233.5 cu m cubic meters
British Thermal BTU 0.252 kg cal kilogram—
Unit calories
British Thermal BTU/lb 0.555 kg cal/kg kilogram
Unit/pound calories
per kilo-
gram.
cubic feet cfm 0.028 Cu rn/mm cubic meters
per minute per minute
cubic feet cfs 1.7 cu rn/mm cubic meters
per second per minute
cubic feet cu ft 0.028 cu m cubic meters
cubic feet cu ft 28.32 1 liters
cubic inches cu in 16.39 cu cm cubic centi-
meters
degree Farenheit O.555(°F_32)* degree
Centigrade
feet ft 0.3048 m meters
gallon gal 3.785 1 liter
gallon per gpm 0.0631 1/sec liters per
minute second
gallon per ton gal/ton 4.173 1/kkg liters per
metric ton
horsepower hp 0.7457 kw kilowatts
inches in 2.54 cm centimeters
pounds per psi 0.06803 atm atmospheres
square inch (absolute)
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier
c-i
-------
Multiply (English Units)
English Unit Abbreviation
million gallons MGD
per day
pounds per square
inch (gauge) psi
pounds lb
board feet b.f.
ton ton
mile ml
square feet ft 2
CONVERSION TABLE
By
Conversion
3.7 x i —3
(0.06805 psi +
0.454
n nn
J.
0.907
1.609
r i no
fl ¼ ) .1
* Actual conversion, not a multiplier.
To Obtain (Metric Units)
Abbreviation Metric Unit
cu rn/day cubic meters
per day
atm
kg
Cu m, m 3
kk g
km
atmospheres
kilograms
cubic meters
metric ton
kilometer
square meters
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D
LITERATURE DISCUSSION OF BIOLOGICAL TREAThENT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Cooke and Graham (1965) performed laboratory scale studies on the bio-
logical degradation of phenolic wastes by the completed mixed activated
sludge system. While many of the basic parameters needed for design
were not presented, the final results were conclusive. The feed liquors
contained phenols, thiocyanates, amonia, and organic acids. Aeration
varied from 8 to 50 hours. Influent concentration and percentage
removal of phenol averaged 281 mg/i and 78 percent, respectively, at a
volumetric loading of 144 to 1,600 kg/100 cubic meters/day (9 to
100 lb/1,000 cubic feet/day).
Badger and Jackman (1961), studying bacteriological oxidation of phenols
in aerated reaction vessels on a continuous flow basis with a loading of
approximately 1,600 to 2,400 kg/1,000 cubic meters/day (100 to 150 lb of
phenol/1,000 cubic feet/day) and MLSS of 2,000 nig/l, found that with
wastes containing up to 5,000 mg/i phenol, a two—day retention period
could produce removal efficiencies in excess of 90 percent. Because the
investigators were working with a coke gasification plant waste, the
liquor contained thiocyanates. Higher oxidation efficiencies could be
achieved with a reduction of the thiocyanate in the waste. Gas chroma-
tography indicated no phenolic end products of degradation with original
waste being a mixture of 36 percent monohydric and 64 percent polyhydric
phenols.
Pruessner and Mancini (1967) obtained a 99 percent oxidation efficiency
for BOD in petrochemical wastes. Similarly, Coe (1952) reported reduc-
tions of both BOD and phenols of 95 percent from petroleum wastes in
bench—scale tests of the activated sludge process. Optimum BOD loads of
2,247 kilograms/1,000 cubic meters per day (140 lb/1,000 cubic feet per
day) were obtained. Coke plant effluents were successfully treated by
Ludberg and Nicks (1969), although some difficulty in start-up of the
activated sludge system was experienced because of the high phenol
content of the water.
The complete mixed, activated sludge process was employed to process a
high phenolic wastewater from a coal—tar distilling plant in Ontario
(American Wood Preservers’ Association, 1960). Initial phenol and COD
concentrations of 500 and 6,000 mg/liter, respectively, were reduced in
excess of 99 percent for phenols and 90 percent for COD.
Coal gas washing liquor was successfully treated by Nakashic (1969)
using activated sludge at a loading rate of 0.116 kg of phenol/kg
MLSS/day. An influent phenol concentration of 1,200 mg/i was reduced by
Dl
-------
more than 99 percent in this year—long study. Similar phenol removal
rates were obtained by Reid and Janson (1955) in treating wastewaters
generated by the washing and decarbonization of aircraft engine parts.
Other examples of biological treatment of phenolic wastes include work
by Putilena (1952, 1955), Meissner (1955), and Shukov, etal. (1957,
1959).
Of particular interest is a specific test on the biological treatment of
coke plant wastes containing phenols and various organics. In a report
of pilot and full scale studies performed by Kostenbader and
Flacksteiner (1969), the complete mixed activated sludge process
achieved greater than 99.8 percent oxidation efficiency of phenols.
Successful results were achieved with phenol loadings of 0.86 kg
phenol/kg MLSS/day with an equivalent BOO loading of 2 kg BOO/kg
MLSS/day. In comparison, a typical activated sludge loading is 0.4 kg
BOD/kg MLSS/day. Effluent concentrations of phenol from the pilot plant
were 0.2 mg/i in contrast to influent concentrations of 3,500 mg/i.
Slight variations in process efficiency were encountered with varying
temperatures and loading rates. Phosphoric acid was added to achieve a
phosphorus—to—phenol ratio of 1:70. At the termination of pilot plant
work, a similar large scale treatment plant processing of 424 cubic
meters/day (112,000 gpd) was installed and resulted in an effluent
containing less than 0.1 mg/l of phenol.
Dust and Thompson (1972) conducted bench—scale tests of complete mixed
activated sludge treatment of creosote and pentachiorophenol wastewaters
using 5—liter units and detention times of 5, 10, 15, and 20 days. The
operational data collected at steady—state conditions of substrate
removal for the creosote waste are shown in Table D—1. A plot of these
data showed that the treatability factor, K, was 0.30 days— 1
(Figure 0—1). The resulting design equation, with t expressed in days,
is:
Le = L 0 /(1 + O.30t)
A plot of percent COD removal versus detention time in the aerator based
on the above equation, shown in Figure 0—2, indicates that an oxidation
efficiency of about 90 percent can be expected with a detention time of
20 days in units of this type.
Dust and Thompson (1972) also attempted to determine the degree of bio-
degradability of pentachlorophenol waste. Cultures of bacteria prepared
from soil removed from a drainage ditch containing pentachlorophenol
waste were used to inoculate the treatment units. Feed to the units
contained 10 mg/liter of pentachlorophenol and 2,400 mg/liter COD. For
the two 5—liter units (A and B) the feed was 500 and 1,000 mi/day and
detention times were, in order, 10 and 5 days. Removal rates for penta—
chlorophenol and COD are given in Table D—2. For the first 20 days,
Unit A removed only 35 percent of the pentachiorophenol added to the
unit. However, removal increased dramatically afterward and averaged
94 percent during the remaining 10 days of the study. Unit B consist-
ently removed over 90 percent of the pentachiorophenol added. Beginning
D-2
-------
Table 0—1. Substrate Removal at Steady—State Conditions in Activated
Sludge Units Containing Creosote Wastewater
Aeration Time,
Days
5.0
10.0
14.7
20.1
COD Raw, mg/i
447
447
442
444
COD Effluent,
mg/i
178
103
79
67
% COD Removal
60.1
76.9
82.2
84.8
COD Raw/COD Effluent
2.5
4.3
5.6
6.6
SOURCE: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
D-3
-------
7
5
4
3
2
1
Aeration Time (Days)
Determination of Reaction Rate Constant for a Creosote Wastewater
6
0
0
11
3I
—1
Slope = K = 0.30 days
Le=
1 + 0.30t
0
0 5 10 15 20
D-4
Figure D - 1.
-------
80
i 70
I
80
0
0
50
An
0 5 10
Aeration Time (Days)
11
COD Removal from a Creosote Wastewater by Aerated Lagoon without Sludge Return
Lo
Le.
ltO.30t
15
20
-------
Table D—2. Reduction in Pentachiorophenol and COD in Wastewater
Treated in Activated Sludge Units
Raw
Waste
Effluent from Unit
1w
Removal)
Days (ni
g/l)
“A”
“B”
COD
1—5 2350 78 78
6—10 2181 79 79
11—15 Removal 2735 76 75
16—20 2361 82 68
21—25 2288 90 86
26-30 2490 —— 84
31—35 2407 83 80
PENTACHIOROPHENOL
1—5 7.9 20 77
6—10 10.2 55 95
11—15 7.4 33 94
16—20 6.6 30 79
21—25 7.0 —— 87
26—30 12.5 94 94
31—35 5.8 94 91
36—40 10.3 — - 91
41—45 10.0 —— 96
46-47 20.0 95
48-49 30.0 97
50—51 40.0 99
SOURCE: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
D-6
-------
on the 46th day and continuing through the 51st day, pentachlorophenol
loading was increased at two—day intervals to a maximum of about
59 mg/liter. Removal rates for the 3 two—day periods of increased
loadings were 94, 97, and 99 percent. COD removal for the two units
averaged about 90 percent over the duration of the study.
Also working with the activated sludge process, Kirsh and Etzel (1972)
obtained removal rates for pentachiorophenol in excess of 97 percent
using an 8—hour detention time and a feed concentration of 150 mg/liter.
The pentachiorophenol was supplied to the system in a mixture that
included 100 mg/liter phenol. Essentially complete decomposition of the
phenol was obtained, along with a 92 percent reduction in COD.
Cooper and Catchpole (1969) reported greater than 95 percent oxidation
of phenols using activated sludge units treating coke plant effluents
containing phenols, thiocyanates, and sulfides. Adequate data were not
available on the detailed operating parameters of the activated sludge
plant.
TRICKLING FILTERS
Hsu, Yany, and Weng (1967) reported successful treatment of coke plant
phenolic wastes with a trickling filter, removing over 80 percent of the
phenols. It was stated that influent phenol concentrations should not
exceed 100 mg/liter.
Using a Surfpac trickling filter, Francingues (1970) was able to remove
80 to 90 percent of the influent phenol from a wood preserving creosote
wastewater at a loading rate of about 16 kg/1,000 cubic meters/day
(1 pound phenol/1,000 cubic feet/day).
Sweets, Hamdy, and Weiser (1954) studied the bacteria responsible for
phenol reductions in industrial waste and reported good phenol removal
from synthesized waste containing concentrations of 400 mg/i. Reduc-
tions of 23 to 28 percent were achieved in a single pass of the waste-
water through a pilot trickling filter having a filter bed only
30 centimeters (12 inches) deep.
Waters containing phenol concentrations of up to 7,500 mg/i were
successfully treated in laboratory tests conducted by Reid and Libby
(1957). Phenol removals of 80 to 90 percent were obtained for concen-
trations on the order of 400 mg/i. Their work confirmed that of Ross
and Shepard (1955) who found that strains of bacteria isolated from a
trickling filter could survive phenol concentrations of 1,600 mg/liter
and were able to oxidize phenols in concentrations of 450 mg/liter at
better than 99 percent efficiency. Reid, Wortrnan, and Walker (1956)
found that many pure cultures of bacteria were able to live in phenol
concentrations of up to 200 mg/i, and although survived concentrations
above 900 mg/i, some were grown in concentrations as high as 3,700 mg/i.
Harlow, Shannon, and Sercu (1961) described the operation of a commer-
cial size trickling filter containing “Dowpac” filter medium that was
‘D-7
-------
used to process wastewater containing 25 mg/i phenol and 450 to 100 mg/i
BOO. Reductions of 96 percent for phenols and 97 percent for BOO were
obtained in this unit. Their results compare favorably with those
reported by Montes, Allen, and Schowell (1956) who obtained BOO reduc-
tions of 90 percent in a trickling filter using a 1:2 recycle ratio, and
Dickerson and Laffey (1958), who obtained phenol and BOO reductions of
99.9 and 96.5 percent, respectively, in a trickling filter used to
process refinery wastewater.
A combination biological waste-treatment system employing a trickling
filter and an oxidation pond was reported by Davies, Biehl, and Smith
(1967). The filter, which was packed with a plastic medium, was used
f or a roughing treatment of 10.6 million liters (2.8 million gallons) of
wastewater per day, with final treatment occurring in the oxidation
pond. Removal rates of 95 percent for phenols and 60 percent for BOD
were obtained in the filter, notwithstanding the fact that the pH of the
influent averaged 9.5.
A study of biological treatment of refinery wastewaters by Austin,
Meehan, and Stockham (1954) employed a series of four trickling filters,
with each filter operating at a different recycle ratio. The waste
contained 22 to 125 mg/i of oil which adversely affected BOO removal.
However, phenol removal was unaffected by oil concentrations within the
range studies.
Prather and Gaudy (1964) found that significant reductions of COD, BOO,
and phenol concentrations in refinery wastewater were achieved by simple
aeration treatments. They concluded that this phenomenon accounted for
the high allowable loading rates for biological treatments such as
trickling filtration.
The practicality of using trickling filters for secondary treatment of
wastewaters from the Wood Preserving Industry was explored by Thompson
and Dust (1972). Creosote wastewater was applied at BOO loading rates
of from 400 to 3,050 kg/1,000 cu rn/day (25 to 190 lb/1,000 cu ft/day) to
a pilot unit containing a 6.4 meter— (21 foot-) filter bed of plastic
media. The corresponding phenol loadings were 1.6 to 54.6 kg/
1,000 cu rn/day (0.1 to 3.4 lb/1,000 cu ft/day). Raw feed-to—recycle
ratios varied from 1:7 to 1:28. Daily samples were analyzed over a
period of seven months that included both winter and summer operating
conditions. Because of wastewater characteristics at the particular
plant cooperating in the study, the following pretreatment steps were
necessary: (1) equalization of wastes; (2) primary treatment by coagu-
lation for partial solids removal; (3) dilution of the wastewater to
obtain BOD loading rates commensurate with the raw flow levels provided
by the equipment; and (4) addition to the raw feed of supplementary
nitrogen and phosphorus. Dilution ratios of 0 to 14 were used.
The efficiency of the system was essentially stable for BOO loadings of
less than 1,200 kg/1,000 cu rn/day (75 lb/1,000 cu ft/day). The best
removal rate was achieved when the hydraulic application rate was
2.85 1/min/m (0.07 gpm/sq ft) of raw waste and 40.7 1/min/m
(1.0 gprnfsq ft) of recycled waste. The COD, BOD, and phenol removals
D-8
-------
obtained under these conditions are given in Table 0—3. Table 0—4 shows
the relationship between BOO loading rate and removal efficiency. BOO
removal efficiency at loading rates of 1,060 kg/1,000 cu rn/day (66 lb/
1,000 cu ft/day) was on the order of 92 percent, and was not improved at
reduced loadings. Comparable values for phenols at loading rates of
19.3 kg/1,000 cu rn/day (1.2 pounds/1,000 cu ft/day) were about
97 percent.
Since phenol concentrations were more readily reduced to levels compat-
ible with existing standards than were BOD concentrations, the sizing of
commercial units was based on BOO removal rates. Various combinations
of filter-bed depths, tower diameters, and volumes of filter media that
were calculated to provide a BOO removal rate of 90 percent for an
influent having a BOO of 1,500 mg/i are shown in Table D—5 for a plant
with a flow rate of 75,700 1/day (20,000 gpd).
STABILIZATION PONDS
The American Petroleum Institute’s “Manual on Disposal of Refinery
Wastes” (1960) refers to several industries that have successfully used
oxidation ponds to treat phenolic wastes. Montes (1956) reported on
results of field studies involving the treatment of petrochemical wastes
using oxidation ponds. He obtained BOO reductions of 90 to 95 percent
in ponds loaded at the rate of 84 kg of BOO per hectare per day
(75 lb/acre/day).
Phenol concentrations of 990 mg/i in coke oven effluents were reduced by
about 7 mg/i in field studies of oxidation ponds conducted by Biczyski
and Suschka (1967). Similar results have been reported by Skogen (1967)
for a refinery waste.
The literature contains operating data on only one pond used for
treating wastewater from wood preserving operations (Crane, 1971; Gaudy,
etal., 1965; Gaudy, 1971). The oxidation pond is used as part of a
waste treatment system by Weyerhaeuser Company at its DeQueen, Arkansas,
wood preserving plant. As originally designed and operated in the early
1960’s, the DeQueen waste treatment system consisted of holding tanks
into which water from oil—recovery system flowed. From the holding
tanks the water was sprayed into a terraced hillside from which it
flowed into a mixing chamber adjacent to the pond. Here it was diluted
1:1 with creek water, fertilized with ammonia and phosphates, and dis-
charged into the pond proper. Retention time in the pond was 45 days.
The quality of the effluent was quite variable, with phenol content
ranging up to 40 mg/i. In 1966, the system was modified by installing a
raceway containing a surface aerator and a settling basin in a portion
of the pond. The discharge from the mixing chamber now enters a raceway
where it is treated with a flocculating agent. The resulting fioc
collects in the settling basin. Detention time is 48 hours in the
raceway and 18 hours in the settling basin from which the wastewater
enters the pond proper.
D-9
-------
Table D-3. BUD, COD, and Phenol Loading and Removal Rates for Pilot
Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater*
Measurement
Characteri st
i cs
BUD
COD
Phenol
Raw Flow
Rate 1/mm/sq n
(gpm/sq ft)
2.85
(0.07)
2.85
(0.07)
2.85
(0.07)
Recycle
Flow Raw 1/mm/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
40.7
(1.0)
40.7
(1.0)
40.7
(1.0)
Influent
Concentration (mg/i)
1968
3105
31
Loading
Rate gm/cu rn/day
1075
(66.3)
1967
(121.3)
19.5
(1.2)
Effluent
Concentration (mg/i)
137
709
<1.0
Removal
(1)
91.9
77.0
99+
* Based on work at the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory as
reported by Davies (1971).
D-1O
-------
Table 0-4. Relationship Between BOO Loading and Treatability for
Pilot Trickling Filter Processing A Creosote Wastewater
BOO Loading
kg/cu m
BOO Loading
(lb/cu ft/day)
Removal
(%)
Treatability*
Factor
373
(23)
91
0.0301
421
(26)
95
0.0383
599
(37)
92
0.0458
859
(53)
93
0.0347
1069
(66)
92
0.0312
1231
(76)
82
0.0339
1377
(85)
80
0.0286
1863
(115)
75
0.0182
2527
(156)
62
0.0130
* Based on the equation:
Le = e ” 05 (EPA, 1976)
t
in which Le = BOO concentration of settled effluent, Lp = BOD of
feed, Q2 = hydraulic application rate of raw waste in gpm/sq ft,
O = depth of media in feet, and K = treatability factor (rate
coefficient).
Dii
-------
Table D-5. Sizing of Trickling Filter for a Wood Preserving Plant
NOTE: Data are based on a flow rate of 75,700 liters per
day (20,000 gallons per day) with filter influent
BOD of 1,500 and effluent BOD of 150 mg/i.
Depth of
Filter
Bed
m (ft)
Raw Flow
1/mm/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
Recycle Flow
1/mm/sq m
(gpm/sq ft)
Filter
Surface
Filter
Surface
Area
sq m
(sq ft)
Tower
dia
sq m
(sq ft)
Volume
of Media
Cu m
(cu ft)
3.26
(10.7)
0.774
(0.019)
29.7
(0.73)
65.8
(708)
9.14
(30.0)
213
(7617)
3.81
(12.5)
1.059
(0.206)
29.3
(0.72)
48.3
(520)
7.83
(25.7)
183
(6529)
4.36
(14.3)
1.385
(0.034)
28.9
(0.71)
37.0
(398)
6.86
(22.5)
160
(5724)
4.91
(16.1)
1.793
(0.044)
28.5
(0.70)
29.3
(315)
6.10
(20.0)
142
(5079)
5.46
(17.9)
2.200
(0.054)
28.1
(0.69)
23.7
(255)
5.49
(18.0)
128
(4572)
5.97
(19.6)
2.648
(0.065)
27.7
(0.68)
19.5
(210)
4.97
(16.3)
116
(4156)
6.52
(21.4)
3.178
(0.078)
27.3
(0.67)
16.4
(177)
4.57
(15.0)
107
(3810)
D-12
-------
These modifications in effect changed the treating system from an
oxidation pond to a combination aerated lagoon and polishing pond, and
the effect on the quality of the effluent was dramatic. Figure D—3
shows the phenol content at the outfall of the pond before and after
installation of the aerator. As shown by these data, phenol content
decreased abruptly from an average of about 40 mg/i to 5 mg/i.
Even with the modifications described, the efficiency of the system
remains seasonally dependent. Table D—6 gives phenol and BOO values for
the pond effluent by month for 1968 and 1970. The smaller fluctuations
in these parameters in 1970 as compared with 1968 indicate a gradual
improvement in the system.
Amberg (cir. 1964) reported on waste treatment measures at the Baltimore
Division of Crown Zelierbach Corporation. An aerated lagoon with an
oxygen supply of 2,620 kg/day (5,770 lb/day) was used to treat white—
water with a design BOO load of 2,780 kg/day (6,120 lb/day). The lagoon
was uniformly mixed and had an average dissolved oxygen concentration of
2.9 mg/i.
Suspended solids increased across the lagoon as a result of biological
floc formation, but could be readily removed by subsequent sedimenta-
tion. The final effluent averaged 87 mg/l suspended solids during the
three days of the study.
The overall plant efficiency for BOO removal was 94 percent, producing a
final effluent with an average BOO concentration of 60 mg/i.
Quirk (1969) reported on a pilot plant study of aerated stabilization of
boxboard wastewater. Detention times ranged from 0.5 to 0.6 day. The
study indicated that full-scale performance, with nutrient addition,
could achieve a 90 percent reduction of BOO with a detention time of
4 days.
SOIL IRRIGATION
Several applications of wastewaters containing high phenol concentra-
tions to soil irrigation have been reported. One such report by Fisher
(1977) related the use of soil irrigation to treat wastewaters from a
chemical plant that had the following characteristics:
pH 9to lO
Color 5,000 to 42,000 units
COD 1,600 to 5,000 mg/liter
BOO 800 to 2,000 mg/liter
Operating data from a 0.81 hectare (2 acre) field, when irrigated at a
rate of 7,570 liters (2,000 gal) per acre/day for a year, showed color
removal of 88 to 99 percent and COD removal of 85 to 99 percent.
The same author reported on the use of soil irrigation to treat effluent
from two tar plants that contained 7,000 to 15,000 mg/liter phenol and
D-13
-------
45.
40
35 -
30
25
20
I -.
-
w
o 15
0
-j
0
w
a.
5.
rn
C
0 -
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
• MONTH
PHENOL CONTENT IN OXIDATION POND EFFLUENT BEFORE AND AFTER INSTALLATION IN JUNE 1966 OF AERATOR
-------
Table 0—6. Average Monthly Phenol and BOO Concentrations in Effluent
from Oxidation Pond
Month
1968
1970
Phenol
BUD
Phenol
BUD
January
26
290
7
95
February
27
235
9
140
March
25
190
6
155
April
11
150
3
95
May
6
100
1
80
June
5
70
1
60
July
7
90
1
35
August
7
70
1
45
September
7
110
1
25
October
16
150
-—
--
November
7
155
--
--
December
11
205
-—
--
SOURCE: Crane, 1971; Gaudy, etal., 1965; Gaudy, 1971.
D-15
-------
20,000 to 54,000 mg/liter COD. The waste was applied to the field at a
rate of about 20,000 liters (5,000 gal) per day. Water leaving the area
had COD and phenol concentrations of 60 and 1 mg/liter, respectively.
Based on the lower influent concentration for each parameter, these
values represent oxidation efficiencies of well over 99 percent for both
phenol and COD.
Bench—scale treatment of coke plant effluent by soil irrigation was also
studied by Fisher. Wastes containing BOO and phenol concentrations of
5,000 and 1,550 mg/liter, respectively, were reduced by 95+ and
99+ percent when percolated through 0.9 meter (36 inches) of soil.
Fisher pointed out that less efficient removal was achieved with coke-
plant effluents using the activated sludge process, even when the waste
was diluted with high—quality water prior to treatment. The effluent
from the units had a color rating of 1,000 to 3,000 units, compared to
150 units for water that had been treated by soil irrigation.
Both laboratory and pilot scale field tests of soil—irrigation treat-
ments of wood preserving wastewater were conducted by Dust and Thompson
(1972). In the laboratory tests, 210—liter (55—gallon) drums containing
a heavy clay soil 60 centimeters (24 inches) deep were loaded at rates
of 32,800; 49,260; and 82,000 liters/hectare/day (13,500; 5,250; and
8,750 gallons/acre/day). Influent COD and phenol concentrations were
11,500 and 150 mg/liter, respectively. Sufficient nitrogen and
phosphorus were added to the waste to provide a COD:N:P ratio of
100:5:1. Weekly effluent samples collected at the bottom of the drums
were analyzed for COD and phenol.
Reductions of more than 99 percent in COD content of the wastewater were
observed from the first week in the case of the two highest loadings and
from the fourth week for the lowest loading. A breakthrough occurred
during the 22nd week for the lowest loading rate and during the fourth
week for the highest loading rate. The COD removal steadily decreased
thereafter for the duration of the test. Phenol removal showed no such
reduction, but instead remained high throughout the test. The average
test results for the three loading rates are given in Table 0—7. Average
phenol removal was 99+ percent. Removal of COD exceeded 99 percent
prior to breakthrough and averaged over 85 percent during the last week
of the test.
The field portion of Thompson and Dust’s study (1972) was carried out on
an 0.28—hectare (0.8—acre) plot prepared by grading to an approximately
uniform slope and seeded to native grasses. Wood preserving wastewater
from an equalization pond was applied to the field at the rate of
32,800 liters/hectare/day (3,500 gallons/acre/day) for a period of nine
months. Average monthly influent COD and phenol concentrations ranged
from 2,000 to 3,800 mg/liter and 235 to 900 mg/liter, respectively.
Supplementary nitrogen and phosphorus were not added. Samples for
analyses were collected weekly at soil depths of 0 (surface), 30, 60,
and 120 centimeters (1, 2, and 4 feet).
D-16
-------
Table D-7. Results of Laboratory Tests of Soil Irrigation Method of
Wastewater Treatment*
Loading Rates
(Liter/ha/day)
Length
of Test
(Week)
Average
and COD
Removal to
Breakthrough
COD REMOVAL
Last Week
of Test I
Phenol
Average %
Removal
(All Weeks)
32,800
(3,500)**
31
99.1 (22 wks)
85.8
98.5
49,260
(5,250)
13
99.6
99.2
99.7
82,000
(8,750)
14
99.0 (4 wks)
84.3
99.7
* Creosote wastewater containing 11,500 mg/liter of COD and
150 mg/liter of phenol was used.
** Loading rates in parentheses in gallons/acres/day.
SOURCE: Thompson and Dust, 1972.
D -17
-------
The major biological reduction in COD and phenol content occurred at the
surface and in the upper 30 centimeters (1 foot) of soil. A COD reduc-
tion of 55.0 percent was attributed to overland flow. The comparable
reduction for phenol content was 55.4 percent (Table D-8). COD reduc-
tions at the three soil depths, based on raw waste to the field, were
94.9, 95.3, and 97.4 percent, respectively, for the 30-, 60-, and
120—centimeter (1—, 2—, and 4—foot) depths. For phenols, the reductions
were, in order, 98.9, 99.2, and 99.6 percent.
Philipp (1971) reported on the land disposal of insulation board waste—
water at the Celotex Corporation plant in L’Anse, Michigan. Following
in—plant filtering for fiber recovery, the wastewater was pumped to a
0.4 ha settling pond and then to two holding ponds, the first having a
volume of about 100,000 cu m and the second about 378,500 cu m. All
wastewater was retained from late October through April. During the
period May to October, the effluent from the second holding pond was
pumped to the 40.5 ha spray field.
The spray field was located on a sand of high permeability and with a
depth of 2 to 4 m. An underdrainage system was installed at a depth of
1.5 m. The entire area was originally cleared and then seeded with Reed
Canary grass.
The discharge from the insulation board plant averaged 22 1/sec with a
BOO concentration prior to spray irrigation of 1,150 mg/i.
Although Philipp reported no data as such, he stated that the efficiency
of the system for removing BOO, as measured from the influent to the
field to the effluent of the underdrainage system, was in excess of
99 percent.
D-18
-------
Table 0-8. Reduction of COD and Phenol Content in Wastewater Treated
by Soil Irrigation*
Soil Depth
Month Raw Waste 30
(centimeters)
60 120
COD (mg/liter )
July 2,235 1,400 66
August 2,030 1,150 —— 64
September 2,355 1,410 — — 90
October 1,780 960 150 - - 61
November 2,060 1,150 170 -— 46
December 3,810 670 72 91 58
January 2,230 940 121 127 64
February 2,420 580 144 92 64
March 2,460 810 101 102 68
April 2,980 2,410 126 —— 76
Average % Removal
(weighted) 55.0 94.9 95.3 97.4
Phenol (mg/liter )
July 235 186 i.e
August 512 268 0.0
September 923 433 -- 0.0
October 310 150 4.6 —- 2.8
November 234 86 7.7 3.8 0.0
December 327 6 1.8 9.0 3.8
January 236 70 1.9 3.8 0.0
February 246 111 4.9 2.3 1.8
March 277 77 2.3 1.9 1.3
April 236 172 1.9 0.0 0.8
Average % Removal
(weighted) 55.4 98.9 99.2 99.6
* Adapted from Thompson and Dust (1972).
D19
-------
APPENDIX E
DISCUSSION OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TECHNOLOGIES
WOOD PRESERVING
Tertiary Metals Removal
The most difficult ion to reduce to acceptable concentrations levels is
arsenic. Treatment of water containing arsenic with lime generally
removes only about 85 percent of the metal. Removal rates in the range
of 94 to 98 percent have been reported for filtration through ferric
hydroxide. However, none of these methods is entirely satisfactory,
particularly for arsenic concentrations above 20 mg/liter.
A detailed treatise on treatment technology for wastewater containing
heavy metals was recently published in book form (Patterson, 1975).
Methods of treatment for arsenic presented by the author are shown in
Table E—1.
Chemical precipitation and filtration employing ferric compounds and
sulfides were at least as effective as lime precipitation, which, as
indicated above, has been employed to a limited extent by the Wood
Preserving Industry. However, with one or two possible exceptions, none
of the methods is as effective as the combination physical—chemical
method described in the EPA report discussed above (Technology Transfer,
January 1977), particularly when initial concentration is taken into
account. Chemical oxidation of arsenate to arsenite prior to coagula-
tion treatment was reported to improve arsenic removal. Incomplete re-
moval of the metal by coagulation treatments was believed by the author
to be caused by the formation of a stable complex with the precipitating
metal. More complete removal of arsenite was assumed to indicate that
arsenate forms the more stable complexes.
Among other methods of chemical precipitation, use of thioacetamide and
dibromo—oxine is mentioned in the literature (Cadman, 1974). “Complete”
recovery of chromium and zinc is claimed for the first-named chemical,
and “100—percent” recovery of copper, zinc, and chromium is reported for
di bromo—oxi ne.
Considering cost, no more efficient chemical method of removing hexa-
valent chromium and copper from solution than the standard method
(reduction of chromium to trivalent form followed by lime precipitation
of both metals) is revealed by the literature. However, to meet
increasingly stringent effluent standards, some industries have turned
to an ion exchange technique.
Cadman (1974) has reported excellent results in removing metals from
wastewater using ion exchange. The resin, Chelex—100, removed
E-1
-------
SI
Table E—1. Summary of Arsenic Treatment Methods and Removals
Achi eved*
•1
Ado pt ed from Patterson, 1975.
Initial
Final
Arsenic
Arsenic
Percent
Treatment (mg/i)
(mg/i)
Removal
Charcoal Filtration
Lime Softening
Precipitation with Lime plus Iron
- Precipitation with Alum
Precipitation with Ferric Sulfate
Precipitation with Ferric Sulfate
Precipitation with Ferric Chloride
Precipitation with Ferric Chloride
Precipitation with Ferric Hydroxide
Precipitation with Ferric Hydroxide
. erric Sulfide Filter Bed
Piecipltátion with Sulfide
a -
Precip irtation with Sulfide
0.2
0.2
0.35
0. 31—0. 35
25.0
3.0
0.58—0.90
362.0
0.8
132.0
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.003—0.006
5
0.05
0. 0—0. 13
15—20
0.05
0.05
26.4
70
85
85—92
98-99
80
98
81— 100
94-96
94
80
E-2
-------
“essentially” 100 percent of the zinc, copper, and chromium in his
tests. Chitosan, Amberlite, and Permutit—S1005 were also reported to be
highly effective. The Permutit resin removed 100 percent of the copper
and zinc but only 10 percent of the chromium.
Membrane Systems
This term refers to both ultrafiltration, which is employed primarily to
remove suspended and emulsified materials in wastewater, and to reverse
osmosis (RO), which removes all or part of the dissolved substances,
depending upon the molecular species involved, and virtually all of the
suspended substances. Both technologies are currently used as part of
the wastewater treatment system of many diverse industries (Lin and
Lawson, 1973; Goldsmith, etal., 1973; Stadnisky, 1974) and have
potential application in the Wood Preserving Industry for oil removed.
Ultrafiltration treatment of oily waste basically involves passing the
waste under a pressure of 2.1 to 3.6 atm (30 to 50 psi) over a membrane
cast onto the inside of a porous fiberglass tube. The water phase of
the waste is forced through the membrane and discarded, reused, or
further processed by other means. The oil and other solids not in
solution remain in the tube. The process in effect concentrates the
waste. Volume reductions on the order of 90 to 96 percent have been
reported (Goldsmith, etal., 1973; Stadnisky, 1974).
Results obtained in pilot— and full—scale operations of ultrafiltration
systems have been mixed. Goldsmith, et al., (1973), operated a pilot
unit continuously (24 hours per day) r six weeks processing waste
emulsions containing 1 to 3 percent oil. The permeate from the system,
which was 95 percent of the original volume, contained 212 gig./i iter
ether extractables——primarily water—soluble surfactants. A 15,140—1/day
(4,000 gpd) system installed, based on the pilot plant data.,- ij’.oduced a
permeate containing 25 mg/liter ether extractables. No significant
reduction in flux rate with time was observed in either-,the.-.pj]ot— or
full—scale operation.
Ultrafiltration tests of a pentachiorophenol wastewater,were- ooNIucted
by Abcor, Inc., in cooperation with the Mississippi Forest Products
Laboratory (1974). The samples contained 2,160 mg/liter oil and had a
total solids concentration of 3,900 mg/liter. Flow rate through the
system was 95 1/mm (25 gpm) at a pressure of 3.3 atm (48 psi). A
26—fold volumetric concentration, representing a volume reduction of
96.2 percent, was achieved. Two membrane types were tested. Both
showed a flux decline on the order of 55 to 60 percent with increasing
volumetric concentration. A detergent flush of the system was found to
be necessary at the end of each run to restore the normal flux values of
35 1/sq m/day (35 gal/sq ft/day). Oil content of the permeate was
55 mg/liter. While this value represents a reduction of over
97 percent, it does not meet the requirements for stream discharge. COD
was reduced 73 percent.
E-3
-------
The principal of RO is similar to that of ultrafiltration. However,
higher hydraulic pressures, 27.2 to 40.8 atm (400 to 600 psi), are
employed and the membranes are semipermeable and are manufactured to
achieve rejection of various molecular sizes. Efficiency varies, but
rejection of various salts in excess of 99 percent has been reported
(Merten and Bray, 1966). For organic chemicals, rejection appears to be
a function of molecular size and shape. Increases in chain length and
branching are reported to increase rejection (Durvel and Helfgott,
1975). Phenols are removed to the extent of only about 20 percent by
cellulose acetate membranes, while polyethylenimine membranes increase
this ‘percentage to 70 but achieve a lower flux rate (Fang and Chian,
1975). In case studies that have been cited, RO was found to be compet-
itive with conventional waste treatment systems only when extremely high
levels of treatment were required (Krernen, 1975).
Removals of 83 percent TOC and 96 percent IDS were reported for RO in
which ceflulose acetate membranes at 40.8 atm (600 psi) were used (Boen
and-Jahannsen, 1974). Flux rates in this work of 129 to 136 1/sq rn/day
(34 to 36 gal/sq ft/day) were achieved. However, in other work,
pretreatment by carbon adsorption or sand filtration was found to be
necessary to prevent membrane fouling (Rozelle, 1973). Work by the
Institute of Paper Chemistry (Morris, etal., 1972) indicates that
membrane foullngby suspended solids or large molecular weight organics
can be controlled in part by appropriate pretreatment, periodic pressure
pul sations; and washing of the membrane surfaces. In this and other
work- (Wiley, et al;, 1972), it was concluded that RO is effective in
concentratiñE iThte papermill waste and produces a clarified water that
carvbe recycled for process purposes.
Recycling of process wastewater, following ultrafiltration and RO treat-
‘mènt,’is currently being-demonstrated by Pacific Wood Treating Corpora-
:tiOn, Ridgefield, Washington. The concentrated waste is incinerated and
the permeate from the system is used for boiler feed water. The system,
which cost approximately $200,000 began operation in 1977. An evalua-
tion of the effectiveness-of the system will be made under an EPA grant.
Data on the-use of R0w’ith wood- preserving wastewater were provided by
‘the coopérative -work between-.Abcor, Inc., and the Mississippi Forest
-Pro Iucts Laboratory referred to above (1974). In this work, the per-
meate from the- UF system was processed further in an RU unit. Severe
pressure -drop acrbss the system indicated that fouling of the membranes
bccurreth However, module rejection remained consistent throughout the
run. Permeate from the system had an oil content of 17 mg/liter, down
from 55mg/liter, and the C OD was reduced by 73 percent. Total oil
removal and COD reductions in the UF and RU systems were 99 percent and
92 percent; respectively. -
Adsorptian’ofl Synthetic A-dsorbents
p:olym ri.c ad orbents -nave been recomended for use under conditions
siiflilaP:to those Where carbon adsorption is indicated (Stevens and
E-4
-------
Kerner, 1975). Advantages cited for these materials include efficient
removal of both polar and nonpolar molecules from wastewter, ability to
tailor—make an adsorbent for a particular contaminant, small energy
inputs for regeneration compared to carbon, and lower cost compared to
carbon where carbon depletion rates’ are greater. than 2.3 kg per
3,785 liters (5 pounds per 1,000 gallons). Data on ef’fi iency of
polymeric adsorbents were not presented.
Clay minerals, such as attapulgite clay, have been•.recorriuended f r use
in removing certain organics and-heavy metals from-wast-ew&ter L(Mc,rton
and Sawyer, 1976). -
Oxidation by Chlorine
The use of chlorine and hypochiorites as a treatmento.ox’tdize
phenol—based chemicals in wastewater is widely covered j rI4he:
literature. A review of this literature, with émphasi s-on the.-
employment of chlorine in treating wood preservln wastewaters;:was
presented in a recent EPA document (1973).
The continued use of chlorine a an,ox4diz ngagent fo in
question for at least two reasons - ’ There:is, rs f ali ;Ea concern
over recent supply problems andthe.increasing cost of;the chemical
(Rosfjord, et al., 1976). Secondly, ic
wastes from mono—, di-, and trichiorophenols persist yqieSs ‘sUfficient
dosages are used to rupture the benzéne ring EP,T973) ’.It,is-prob-
ably true that low—level chlorine treatments of these-waters ane worse
than no treatment at all because of the formation of such comoounds.
For these and possibly other reasons, attention hasrbeen focysed -on
other oxidizing agents equally as
phenolic compounds without creatinq these .additiona prob ems. -
Oxidation by Potassium-Perman riate -
This is a strong oxidizing a e ’thatwis beit arketedasr rep acement
for phenol. One vendor (Carus Chem1c 4’-Qo npany . 1971)Ec. .learn$ th t the
chemical “cleaves the aromatic carbon;rii’ g of the-phenol end. destroys
it” and then degrades the aliph’atic ctiafn -thus create,d tin ç tous
compounds. Stoicheometrically, 7.13kg: of i(MnO4 rer requjre I: o:’
oxidize one kilogram of phenol. Accordin.g:.to Rosfjord, et3* Lx(1976),
however, ring cleavage occurs at ratios of about 7 -t I”-. 1 .itgher ratio
is required to reduce the residua-l o g an4c-s t CP2 -and-bf2O ?
As in the case of chlorine (EPA, 1973), the
materials other than phenols in wastewater greatly increases the amount
of KMnO4 required to oxidize agt ier mount ofpherro__;-o. ’In the
trade literature cited above, it was stated that $1O wortfiThf KMnO4
was required to treat 3,785 liters (1—,000 galli, ) .*fojindry waste
containing 60 to 100 mg/liter of:phenols. E-ight ti i’grani per liter
of phenols in 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) is equivalent to 0.3 kg
(0.67 pounds). At a 7:1 ratio, the treatment should have cost $2.35.
E-5
-------
The actual ratio was 30:1 and the cost was about $15 per 0.454 kilograms
(one pound) of phenol removed.-- The latter figure agrees with one
vendor’s data, which indicated a cost of $0.15 per mg/liter of phenol
per 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) of wastewater.
Limited studies conducted by the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory
revealed no- cost advantage o ’f KMnO4 over chlorine in treating wood
preserving wastewater. ‘—The’ high content of oxidizable materials other
—than--phenol in this type of waste consumes so much of the chemical that
massive dos-es are required to eliminate the phenols.
Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide -
This is .a powerful oxidizing -agent, the efficacy of which is apparently
enhanc d- by the presence of ferrous sulfate which acts as a catalyst.
Reduct1ons in ‘phenol content of 99.9 percent (in wastewater containing
500 mg/liter) have been reported for H202 when applied in a
-2:1 ratio (Anonymous, 1975). A reaction time of 5 minutes was required.
-Ferrous sulfate concentrations of 0.1 to 0.3 percent were used. COD
concentration was reduced to 360 mg/liter from 1,105 mg/liter.
-According to Efsèrthauer (-1964)-, the reaction involves the intermediate
format-i-on of-catechol- and hydr’oquinone, which are oxidized by the ferric
ion-to qu nones. As-i is the case with other oxidizing agents, the degree
-of substitution- on -the phenol molecule affects the rate of reaction.
Substi tuents in the ortho and para positions reduced the reaction rate
the most, and complete substitution (e.g., pentachlorophenol) prevented
the reaction from taking place. Solution pH had a significant effect on
-the efficiency of the. treatment. - Optimum pH was in the range of 3.0 to
4.O, with -efficiency -decreasina raoidly at both higher and lower values.
Treatments of industrial wastes were reported by Eisenhauer to require
higher levels of H202 than simple phenol solutions because of
the presence of other oxidizable materials. In fact, the ratio of
H202 to phenols required varied-directly with COD above the
level contributed by the phenol i ’tiëli:. At all ratios studied with
-indust ’rta ’l wastes; phenol’ levels dropped rapidly during the early part
;oftheLreactfon- period, -then remained unchanged thereafter. For some
types of wastes, the-addition of high concentrations of H202, up
-to-mOlar ratios of 16:1,did ’not cause significant further decreases in
-phenol content. Similar results have been reported for wood preserving
wastewater treated with chlorine (EPA, 1973). Prechlorination of wastes
with high COD contents reduced the amount of H202 required -in
some cases, but-not in others
Hydrogen peroxide has not been usedon a comercial scale to treat
wastewater from the-Wood Preser&ing Industry or, based on the available
‘titerature, wastewaters from related industries. The cost of the chemi-
cal is such- that a-relatively high phenol removal efficiency must ensue
to justify its use. The available evidence suggests that, in comon
with— other oxidizing - compounds, organics other than phenol consume so
rmuch of ther reagent as to render the-treatment impractical. Its use in
E-6
-------
a tertiary treating capacity rnaybe.’prattical, tepéT dirig upon the resi-
dual COD of the treated effluent.
Oxidation by Ozone
Ozone has been studied extenstvel’y as a possible tr eatment fIor:4ndus-
trial wastewaters (Evans, 197’2 Eisenhau er,. F9VLO Ni egawskt, l 956). No
practical success has atten.d .d these’ e’? forts T’h litarat&re reveals
only one example in the it-he a pl1cattorrof ozane to:treat an
industrial waste. Boeing Corporation is reported to have operated a
6.8 kg/hour ozonator to treat
1973). Worldwide, the situation is similar. The literature mentions a
plant in France and one irf Cana ta; fb hd \ ’ hich seazcsne ‘to. tFeat
cyanide and phenolic wastes :fron fftbj rrt .e
Conversely, there have beeff num&rotts .p latYplarTt sttIdieSofT:tfre äpplica-
tion of ozone for industrial a stes, ‘and c zdne 4s iid ly üs d .fn Europe,
especially France, to treat .domestic .wafer- s p iies’.r: Ptiolr’stirdies to
assess the feasibility of usin’gazanet o-tre t”domEstic-wastEs’!1i-ave been
sponsored by EPA (Wynn, etal., 1q73);
The problem is one of economic .Ei nIiati i (19JO) cc xde t from his
work that the ozonization f ’phe iO’Tt C Y2 a d1+2 ’artr1olr bef
achieved economically. By contrast, N eg wsIei (195 3 ’reported that in
pilot plant tests of ozone, chl6rine and orine•tto ide ,’ ozone was
demonstrated to be the most economical t . me it for p1 n1l;s
No example of the use of orone to treat timber produc’ts’wasbewater
appears in the literature; Howev r, ’one’ qoo4. p ’esey ”rkig 1 ant ’ installed
a small ozone generator anddtr-ected -the gas.’tnt-o:al’arge lagôon. The
treatment had no measurable effect on wastewater quality.
INSULATION BOARD AND HARI BOARD
Chemical ly—Assi sted’:Cdago1atien
Chemically—assisted clarlfi cati on, as 1 déftned in tb$s docament ‘is the
use of coagulants or coagEJlarYta1’4 rtncr eage thesettie biltty of
biological suspended solids ’ln the cla ’tfier ’of theTht.olögical .treatment
system. This technology is parttoularly.applieabl e’tothe i bet ’board
industry, as this industry rel e hea 1l ó, biolog cai:tréatment for
end—of—pipe pollution control;
The mechanisms by which a coagulant atds:thê prectpitat on .:ofrcolloidal
matter, such as biological suspended solids, are discussed at length in
an AWWA Comittee Reportc(197] ; “S ate1of the Art:.of iCoagu at on.” The
chemicals generally used to incr se rémova1sLof rfinë nd:oU oi dal
particles in meta salfs of
aluminum and iron, as weVt- äs syntheticorganic po ymers -
When metal salts are used, P ydrbly 1 p ot1ncts are. formed’which desta-
bi 1 ize colloidal particles by comp x.ser es of chemical. and ‘physical
interactions. Polyelectrolytes are extended—chain polymers of high
molecular weight. Particles are adsorbed at sites along the chains of
E-7
-------
these poLyrners.,which .inte lockJo -.fotm physical bridge, thereby
destabilizing the sorbed partftlês.
Che jcallyassi t d’ coagulation-may be Used.as an additional treatment
process -applied to. the éffluèñt of the secondary clarifier of the bio-
logical treatmentsystem. This requires separate mixing, flocculation,
and ett1ing. facilit es, and a cons,ideral le capital investment. A re—
cent study performed..for the EP (E.C..Jordan Co., 1977) on chemically—
assjsted cTarificatiqn demónstraled that increased suspended solids
removal may be obtained ‘when applying CAC as an integral part of the
biological system. The advantage to this application is that capital
and operating cçsts. are kept, at a, minimum. Mixing takes place using the
natural T ,turbulence inherent in, the ,latter stages of the biological
system,. an settling occurs in tI e biological secondary clarifier.
.Insulation. bpard Plant 555. and S1S,ha,rdboard Plant 824 reported the use
of polyelectrolytes to increa e solic1s removal in the biological secon-
dary clarifiers of their respective treatmer t systems. Plant 824 adds
the polyelectrolyte at the influent ,eir., of the final settling pond;
Ji:ttie fl)tx ing is achleved,by 4pplicatiqn. of the polymer at this point.
the- annu41. a.v rage .daily.JSS ffl,tj,ent c,pnc ntration of this plant for
the last foux ni.onths of 197 (f ofl..p ’tir g completion of upgraded
treatmeni faci.liti s ) - was apoiIt 4 88m /l’. This represents an 81 percent
reductibn TSS. in the total system,.
Plant 555 adds polyeiectrolyfe in the aeration basin of the activated
sludge unit, achieving better mixing than Plant 824.
The annual average daily TSS concentration -of the final effluent is
about. 320 m /l , which tej resents a 93 .percent reduction in TSS. Both
pltsTnotédJnctea’se d 15S removal. us ng the polyelectrolyte, however,
no cdmparable data are available to qua ify the amount of TSS reduction
due o polymer addifton..
po öf addition, and optimum dose
fo _thi technology can be appro jmated fnthe laboratory using jar test
procedures. Since the capit l cOst is minimum, in—plant studies can be
easily conducted to optimize operating characteristics for maximum
effectiveness.
Granular Media Filtration
Granular media filtration as a tertiary process for control of
biological suspended solids, is receiving growing attention in the pulp
and paper, food processing, textile, and oil refining industries. It is
a physical/electrical/chemical process consisting of: (1) transport of
the particles from the suspension to the media; and (2) contact with and
adhesion to the media or other solids previously absorbed on the media.
There are currently no hardboard or insulation board plants using
granular filtration; however, several applications of this technology
exist in the pulp and paper industry.
E -..,8
-------
The National Council for A1f rid str a pilot
study to investigate the effectiGéne s of thr t’rnanufacturedgranu1ar
media filters in removing susppnde 1 olids,,R0 ,..a turbidity fro p
papermaking secondary 1 73).’ Tfte’thr êè -filteF -systems
were studied for TSS and.BOD ?en ov ls when : i ter th&éffluent’from
an integrated bleached kraft:miTj: rid . bo bbaI’ mi 1 The êport
sumarized the study findings by:st t ng hatca l.teejun t coUld
reduce suspended solids concentrations rt Y. Y 25 to 50percent
when chemicals were not.usea edcictiôr o 1 f greaser th n-9O, pérce t
were possible with chemical ‘addition. -
A recent study performed for EPA 4 t1 ie Direct Fi ltratThn and h nncally
Assisted Clarification of B’io1 gica11y Trea Pulp and aper 1iidustry
Wastewater concluded that, based on a ctual p-lan’toperàting ddt a’, direct
filtration systems can b e desi ned.wit c iemiçal additi9n to achieve, on
average, at least 50 per t reductipp In fil:t r eff uèntTSS coticentra—
tion, with maximum remo.vál5 o j80 t 9 pèrcent 2 c
It should be noted that infl,i i.t suspeflded sojjcf chal ct ristics are an
important factor in deter nirrin fi lter pérfo nance.-_ Biol i tr eated
effluent from the insulation bc ,fl:1 aj d
greatly from that of the pu l p,,,ar I .pape r I u t .: Pilo1 . p1-ant studies
are needed to properly design ajw s Iewàter fi1te1for ny sji ci fic
application. Actual plant operattng data wfll also -be equi’ret1 to
effectively estimate actual TSS removajs -fQr the .insulationboarci,and
hardboard industries. - -
Activated Carbon Ad5orpt:iotl
Several acti vated carbon i otherms were f rned on ‘the tr at e
effluents of two hardbo rd pTà’nt t et rmin f1 e a Thility of’carbon
adsorption as a tertiary t éátm&it or ti i ’ dus r . Mtt ótJ tlie
carbon was quite effective at reducing the Rflu t C b O e—h’á’tf or
less of its original coqçe ioq,t rbon dosage required this
purpose and the v eg 9 irei lents:weré soChf T &s to
rule out activated carbon s - a e ni ä11y
E-9
------- |