United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Mail Code 4303
EPA-821-R-93-018
November, 1993
Cost Effectiveness Analysis Of
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines For The
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Industry
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
FOR THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
October 1993
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Cancte Ink on paperthat
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Paee
LIST OF TABLES iii
SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTIONTWO BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1 Pollutants Included in the CE Analysis 2-1
2.2 Toxic Weighting Factors 2-2
2.3 POTW Removal Factors 2-3
2.4 Pound-Equivalent Calculations 2-3
2.5 Annualized Costs of Compliance 2-4
2.6 Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness Ratios 2-4
2.7 Identifying and Eliminating "Inefficient" Options 2-5
SECnONTHREE POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS 3-1
3.1 Summary of Pollution Control Options by Subcategory 3-1
3.2 Pollution Control Options for Industry Cost-
Effectiveness Ratios 3-2
SECTIONFOUR COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS 4-1
4.1 CE Results for BAT 4-1
4.2 CE Results for PSES 4-1
4.3 Industry Cost-Effectiveness 4-2
-------
CONTENTS (cont)
SECnONFTVE AOXANALYSIS 5-1
5.1 AOX Analysis—Unweighted Removals 5-1
5.2 AOX Analysis—Weighted Removals 5-2
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
POLLUTANT REMOVALS IN POUNDS FOR EACH
POLLUTION CONTROL OPTION ... A-l
POLLUTANT REMOVALS IN POUND EQUIVALENTS
FOR EACH POLLUTION CONTROL OPTION B-l
INDUSTRY-WIDE REMOVALS IN POUNDS AND
POUND EQUIVALENTS C-l
-11-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Pollutants, Toxic Weighting Factors, and POTW
Removal Factors Included in the CE Analysis 2-6
Table 2-2 Examples of Toxic Weighting Factors Based on
Copper Freshwater Chronic Criteria 2-7
Table 3-1 Process Change Options for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory 3-4
Table 3-2 Process Change Options for the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory 3-5
Table 3-3 Process Change Options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
Subcategory 3-6
Table 3-4 Process Change Options for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory 3-7
Table 4-1 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers 4-4
Table 4-2 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers 4-4
Table 4-3 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Bleached Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers 4-5
Table 4-4 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers 4-5
Table 4-5 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Bleached Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers 4-6
Table 4-6 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers 4-6
Table 4-7 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, Direct Dischargers 4-7
Table 4-8 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, Indirect Dischargers 4-8
Table 4-9 Industry Comparison of BAT Cost-Effectiveness for
Direct Dischargers 4-9
Table 4-10 Industry Comparison of PSES Cost-Effectiveness for
Indirect Dischargers 4-10
-iii-
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont)
Page
Table 5-1 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-3
Table 5-2 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-3
Table 5-3 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Bleached Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-4
Table 5-4 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-4
Table 5-5 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Bleached Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-5
Table 5-6 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-5
Table 5-7 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-6
Table 5-8 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, Indirect Dischargers
AOX-Pounds 5-7
Table 5-9 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-8
Table 5-10 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-8
Table 5-11 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Bleached Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-9
-IV-
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont)
Table 5-12 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-9
Table 5-13 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Bleached Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-10
Table 5-14 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-10
Table 5-15 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, Direct Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-11
Table 5-16 Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Pollution Control Options
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, Indirect Dischargers
AOX-Pound Equivalents 5-12
Table A-l Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Dissolving Kraft Subcategory,
All Facilities A-l
Table A-2 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory,
All Facilities A-2
Table A-3 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Papergrade Kraft Subcategory,
All Facilities A-3
Table A-4 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory,
All Facilities A-4
Table A-5 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Dissolving Kraft Subcategory,
Direct Dischargers A-5
Table A-6 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory,
Direct Dischargers A-6
Table A-7 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Papergrade Kraft Subcategory,
Direct Dischargers A-7
Table A-8 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory,
Direct Dischargers A-8
-v-
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cent)
Table A-9 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Papergrade Kraft Subcategory,
Indirect Dischargers A-9
Table A-10 Pollutant Removals—Pounds, Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory,
Indirect Dischargers A-10
Table B-l Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, All Facilities B-l
Table B-2 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory, All Facilities B-2
Table B-3 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, All Facilities B-3
Table B-4 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, All Facilities B-4
Table B-5 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers B-5
Table B-6 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers B-6
Table B-7 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Direct Dischargers B-7
Table B-8 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Direct Dischargers B-8
Table B-9 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Papergrade Kraft Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers B-9
Table B-10 Pollutant Removals—Pound Equivalents,
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory, Indirect Dischargers B-10
Table C-l Total Pounds of Pollutants, Discharged at Baseline C-l
Table C-2 Total Pound Equivalents, Discharged at Baseline C-2
Table C-3 Total Pounds Removed at Selected Option C-3
Table C-4 Total Pound Equivalents Removed at Selected Option C-4
-------
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION
EPA is proposing effluent limitations guidelines and standards and MACT1 standards for
the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. This cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis presents an
evaluation of the technical efficiency of pollutant control options for the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines. The analysis covers the cost-effectiveness of effluent limitations based on
BAT and PSES.2
The proposed BAT and PSES apply to six subcategories:
• Dissolving Kraft
• Dissolving Sulfite
• Bleached Papergrade Kraft
• Papergrade Sulfite
• Unbleached Kraft
• Semichemical
This CE analysis evaluates several pollution control options for BAT and PSES in each
subcategory, each with differing levels of pollution abatement and compliance cost. Two
subcategories— unbleached kraft and semichemical—are not included in the CE analysis because
1 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards are set under the National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). The term "MACT floor" refers
to the minimum control technology on which MACT can be based.
2Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) is required under Section
304(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act. These rules control the discharge of priority and non-
conventional pollutants and apply to existing industrial direct dischargers. Pretreatment
Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are analogous to BAT; these rules apply to existing
indirect dischargers (whose discharges flow to publicly-owned treatment works, or POTWs).
1-1
-------
their only toxic and nonconventional pollutant removals are for COD (chemical oxygen demand),
for which there is no toxic weighting factor.
This document compares the total annualized cost incurred for each of the regulatory
options within each subcategory to the corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing the
discharge of pollutants. The effectiveness measure used is the cost-effectiveness ratio, which
compares the incremental cost of an option to the incremental pollutants removed by that
option. The pollutants removed are expressed as pounds of pollutant removed weighted by an
estimate of the relative toxicity of the pollutant. This measure, referred to as "pound equivalents
(PE) removed," is described later in this document.
Section Two discusses the cost-effectiveness methodology and identifies the pollutants
included in the analysis and their toxic weighting factors. Section Three describes the options
evaluated for each subcategory. Section Four presents the results of the CE analysis. Section
Five presents a separate analysis of AOX (adsorbable organic halides). Appendix A contains
tables of pollutant removals in pounds. Appendix B contains tables of pollutant removals
expressed in terms of weighted pound-equivalents. Appendix C contains the tables supporting
the calculation of the industry cost-effectiveness.
1-2
-------
SECTION TWO
BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY
Cost-effectiveness (CE) is defined as the incremental annualized cost of a pollution
control option in an industry or industry subcategory per incremental pound-equivalent of
pollutant removed by that control option. Several inputs are critical to calculating CE ratios:
• Toxic and nonconventional pollutants to be included in the CE calculations.
• Toxic weighting factors for the pollutants included in the CE calculations (the
adjustments to pounds of pollutants to reflect toxicity).
• POTW removal factors for the pollutants included in the CE calculations (the
adjustments to pounds of pollutants to reflect the ability of a publicly-owned
treatment works [POTW] to remove pollutants).
• Pollution control optioiss.
• Pollutant removals for each pollution control option.
• Annualized cost of each pollution control option.
The following sections discuss these six inputs and the cost-effectiveness calculations.
2.1 POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN THE CE ANALYSIS
The CE analysis includes 26 individual pollutants generated in the production of pulp,
paper, and paperboard. The pollutants in the analysis are listed in Table 2-1. A separate
analysis for adsorbable organic halides (AOX)—a general measure of the presence of chlorinated
organics in the wastestream—is presented in Section Five. Removals of AOX are not included
in the CE ratios. There are additional pollutants that are not included in the cost-effectiveness
analysis because pollutant removals were not estimated for each of the pollution control options.
These pollutants include other congeners of dioxin and furan. The pollution control options that
are evaluated in this report are likely to be effective in removing additional chlorinated phenolic
2-1
-------
compounds and other congeners of dioxins and furans. The cost-effectiveness results in this
report are likely to be overestimates due to the omission of these unspecified pollutants.
2.2 TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
Cost-effectiveness analysis accounts for differences in toxicity among the pollutants by
using toxic weighting factors. These factors are necessary because different pollutants have
different potential effects on human and aquatic life. For example, a pound of zinc in an
effluent stream has a significantly different effect than a pound of PCBs. Toxic weighting factors
for pollutants are derived using ambient water quality criteria and toxicity values. For most
industries, toxic weighting factors are derived from chronic freshwater aquatic criteria. In cases
where a human health criterion has also been established for the consumption of fish, then the
sum of both the human and aquatic criteria are used to derive toxic weighting factors. For
details on toxic weighting factors used in the analysis, see Toxic Weighting Factors for Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Industry Proposed Effluent Guidelines," Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Science and Technology, October 1993. The toxic weighting factors used in
this CE analysis are listed in Table 2-1.
The factors are standardized by relating them to the water quality criterion for copper.
Although this criterion has been revised, the cost-effectiveness analyses for effluent guideline
regulations use a previous criterion (of 5.6 jig/1) so that cost-effectiveness results can be
compared for effluent guidelines across industries. Examples of the effects of different aquatic
and human health criteria on weighting factors are presented in Table 2-2. As shown in this
table, the toxic weighting factor is the sum of two criteria-weighted ratios: the copper criterion
divided by the human health criterion for the particular pollutant and the copper criterion
divided by the aquatic chronic criterion. For example, using the values reported in Table 2-2,
10.96 pounds of copper pose the same relative hazard in surface waters as one pound of
cadmium because cadmium has a toxic weight 10.96 times as large as the toxic weight of copper
(5.124/0.467=10.96).
2-2
-------
2.3 POTW REMOVAL FACTORS
The calculation of pound-equivalents differs for direct and indirect dischargers because of
the ability of POTWs to remove certain pollutants. Table 2-1 presents the POTW removal
factors for pollutants included in the analysis. The POTW removal factors are used as follows.
If a facility is discharging 100 pounds of cadmium in its effluent stream to a POTW and the
POTW has a removal efficiency for cadmium of 38 percent, then the cadmium discharged to
surface waters is only 62 pounds. If the regulation results in a reduction of cadmium in the
effluent stream such that total cadmium discharged to the POTW is 50 pounds, then the amount
discharged to surface waters is calculated as 50 pounds multiplied by the POTW removal factor
(1 - 0.38, or 0.62 times 50 pounds equals 31 pounds). The cost-effectiveness calculations then
reflect the fact that the actual reduction of pollutant discharged to surface water is not 50
pounds (the change in the amount discharged to the POTW), but 31 pounds (the change in the
amount actually discharged to surface water). A pollutant that is unaffected by the POTW has a
removal factor of 1.
2.4 POUND-EQUIVALENT CALCULATIONS
Pollutant removals, in pounds, for each option are given by subcategory and pollution
control option in Appendix A. These pollutant removals are converted into pound-equivalents
(pe) for the CE analysis. For direct dischargers, removals in pound-equivalents are calculated as
follows:
Removals^ = Removals^,^ x Toxic weighting factor
For indirect dischargers, removals in pound-equivalents are calculated as:
RemovalSp,. = Removals^,,,^ x Toxic weighting factor x POTW removal factor
Total removals for each option are then calculated by summing the removals for each pollutant
for each facility affected by each option.
2-3
-------
For this analysis, pollutant removals for indirect dischargers were calculated at the point
of discharge to the water body, not discharge to the POTW. Pollutant removal by the POTW is
therefore already incorporated in the removals shown in Appendix A. For this report, pound-
equivalents are calculated as the product of the removals (in pounds) and the toxic weighting
factor for both direct and indirect dischargers. The removals—in terms of pound-
equivalents—are reported in Appendix B.
2.5 ANNUALIZED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
AnnualLzed costs of compliance have been developed for each regulatory option. A
detailed description of the methodology used to estimate compliance costs can be found in the
Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines and NESHAP
for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry (EPA, 1993). In brief, the annualized cost considers
the initial capital investment for new equipment (including installation), the annual costs of
operating and maintaining the equipment, and the cost of money needed to finance the
investment. The annualized costs presented in Section Four represent after-tax costs to the
industry.
The annualized cost for each pollution control option is expressed in 1991 dollars in all
tables in this analysis, with the exception of the industry comparisons for BAT and PSES (Tables
4-9 and 4-10), which are reported in 1981 dollars. Industry cost-effectiveness ratios are deflated
to 1981 dollars in Section Four for comparison with other effluent guidelines.
2.6 CALCULATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS RATIOS
Cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated separately for direct and indirect dischargers and
by subcategory. Within each of these groupings, the pollution control options are ranked in
ascending order of pound-equivalents of pollutants removed. The cost-effectiveness ratio for
each control option is calculated as the ratio of incremental annual cost of that option to the
incremental pound equivalents removed by that option.
2-4
-------
The equation to calculate cost-effectiveness is:
ATCk-
PEt -
where:
CEk=
ATCfc
PEk=
Cost-effectiveness of Option k
Total annualized treatment cost under Option k
Pound-equivalents removed by Option k
The numerator of the equation, ATC^ minus ATQ^, is the incremental annualized
treatment cost in going from Option k-1 (an option that removes fewer pound-equivalent
pollutants) to Option k (an option that removes more pound-equivalent pollutants). Similarly,
the denominator is the incremental removals achieved in going from Option k-1 to k. Thus, cost-
effectiveness measures the incremental unit cost of pollutant removal of Option k (in pound-
equivalents) in comparison to Option k-1.
2.7 IDENTIFYING AND ELIMINATING "INEFFICIENT1 OPTIONS
Because the options are ranked in ascending order of pound-equivalents of pollutants
removed, an option that has higher costs but lower removals than the subsequent option is
determined to be "inefficient" because the cost-effectiveness ratio for the subsequent option is
negative. When negative values are computed for Option k, Option k-1 is noted as inefficient
(having a higher cost and lower removals than Option k). Option k-1 is then removed from the
cost-effectiveness calculations, and all cost-effectiveness ratios within a regulatory grouping are
then recalculated without the inefficient option. The remaining options are then presented in
terms of their incremental cost-effectiveness values.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-1
POLLUTANTS, TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS, AND POTW REMOVAL FACTORS
INCLUDED IN THE CE ANALYSIS
Pollutant Name || Toxic Weighting Factor | POTW Removal Factor
2-Butanone (MEK)
2-Propanone (Acetone)
2,3.4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3.7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
2,3.7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,4-D ichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-DichlorosyringaIdehyde
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacx)l
3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-TrichIoroguaiacol
4-Chlorocatechol
4-Chlorophenol
4,5-Dichlorocatechol
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol
5,6-DichlorovaniIlin
6-Chlorovanillin
Chlorofonn (Trichloromethane)
Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane)
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachlorocatechol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
Trichlorosyringol
9.04xlO's
1.12xlO'2
5.62X10'1
6.69xlOs
4.24xl08
8.71xlO'2
1.25x10°
1.93x10°
3.46xlO'2
3.80xlO'2
3.11X10'1
7.47X10'1
1.47X10'1
l.SSxlO'1
7.09xlO'2
1.24xlO'2
1.26X10'1
1.81x10°
6.40xlO'2
5.23xlO'2
SJlxlO-3
9.30X10"4
4.99X10'1
7.67X10'1
1.75x10°
1.06X10'1
0.02
0.21
0.67
0.61
0.56
0.25
1.00
0.48
1.00
1.00
0.37
0.57
1.00
0.82
1.00
1.00
0.63
0.65
0.09
0.31
0.27
0.46
0.37
0.41
0.44
0.97
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-2
EXAMPLES OF TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
BASED ON COPPER FRESHWATER CHRONIC CRITERIA
Pollutant
Copper3
Acetone
Cadmium
Chloroform
Human Health
Criteria
fog/0
—
2,761,341
170
4707.9
Aquatic
Chronic
Criteria 0*g/l)
12.0
500
1.1
1240
Weighting
Calculation
5.6/12.0
5.6/2,761,341
+ 5.6/500
5.6/170 + 5.6/1.1
5.6/4707.9 +
5.6/1240
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
0.467
0.0112
5.124
5.71xlO'3
Sources: Versar, Inc. 1991. Toxic weighting factors for oil and gas extraction industry pollutants.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, October 1992.
Notes: Human health and aquatic chronic criteria are maximum contamination thresholds. Units for
criteria are micrograms of pollutant per liter of water.
aAlthough the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 /xg/1), the cost effectiveness
analysis used the previous criterion (5.6 jag/1) to facilitate comparisons with cost-effectiveness values for
other effluent limitations guidelines. The revised higher criteria for copper results in a toxic weighting
factor for copper equal to 0.467 instead of 1.0, which was the result of the previous criterion.
2-7
-------
-------
SECTION THREE
POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
Effluent limitations may be subcategorized based on manufacturing process or other
characteristics. The pulp, paper, and papei board industry is divided into 12 subcategories that
are subject to revised pollution control costs under the proposed regulations. Six of these
subcategories were considered for the CE analysis: dissolving kraft, dissolving sulfite, bleached
papergrade kraft and soda, papergrade sulfite, unbleached kraft, and semichemical.
In addition to subcategory descriptions, facilities are also characterized by discharge
status: direct or indirect. BAT applies to direct dischargers; PSES applies to indirect
dischargers. Both BAT and PSES control the toxic and nonconventional pollutants that are
included in this CE analysis. There are additional pollutants controlled by BAT and PSES (and
others that are expected to be reduced by BAT and PSES), but they are not part of this CE
analysis because (i) there is no toxic weighting factor for the pollutant, or (ii) accurate estimates
of pollutant removals are not available.
3.1 SUMMARY OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS BY SUBCATEGORY
A detailed description of the subcategories and the pollution control options is presented
in the Development Document. The following summary highlights various compliance
components of the pollution control options.
The technology basis for BAT and PSES includes process changes, best management
practices (BMP), and wastewater treatment. Process changes to pulping and bleaching
operations apply to approximately 103 mills, in four subcategories: dissolving kraft, dissolving
sulfite, bleached papergrade kraft and soda, and papergrade sulfite. The pulping and bleaching
process changes are directly responsible for removals of toxic and nonconventional pollutants. A
summary of the process changes for each of these four subcategories is presented in Tables 3-1
through 3-4.
3-1
-------
Process changes also include closing the pulping area screen room for the control of
chemical oxygen demand (COD), which is a nonconventional pollutant. For the unbleached
kraft and semichemical subcategories, screen room closure is the only process change (i.e., the
technology basis for those two subcategories does not include changes to bleaching operations).
COD does not have a toxic weighting factor; thus, removals of COD are not included in cost-
effectiveness calculations.
Best management practices are also included in the pollution control options for the six
subcategories in this analysis. BMP focus on the prevention and spills from pulping and chemical
recovery areas.
3.2 POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS FOR INDUSTRY COST-EFFECTIVENESS
RATIOS
In addition to subcategory-specific cost-effectiveness ratios, this analysis also includes
cost-effectiveness ratios for BAT and PSES for the entire industry. Because there are six
subcategories and several options within some subcategories, numerous combinations for the
industry CE ratios are possible. For the purpose of this analysis, one combination was chosen by
selecting one option for each of the six subcategories. That combination reflects the options that
form the basis of the proposed regulations:
• Dissolving Kraft—Option 2
• Dissolving Sulfite—Option 1
• Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda—Option 4
• Papergrade Sulfite—Option 2
"t . ' ' *"'",'
• Unbleached Kraft—Option 1 (BMP and COD control) ,
• Semichemical—Option,! (BMP and COD control) .
3-2
-------
In contrast to the subcategoiy-specific CE ratios, the industry CE ratios inciude costs for
pollution control options where the removals are not always incorporated. However, the industry
cost-effectiveness considers only the costs and removals for the effluent guidelines. The
calculation does not incorporate air pollution control costs or air pollutant removals. The
industry CE ratios do not represent the cost-effectiveness for the integrated regulatory
alternatives described in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1
PROCESS CHANGE OPTIONS FOR THE
DISSOLVING KRAFT SUBCATEGORY
Option
1
2
3
Abbreviated Description
70% C1O2
OD + 70% C1O2
OD + 100% C102
Description
Substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine at a rate of 70%
Oxygen delignification, substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine at a rate of
70%, and COD control
Oxygen delignification, complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine, and COD control ;
All options include:
Adequate wood chip size control
Eliminating dioxin precursor defoamers
Improving pulp washing
Eliminating hypochlorite
High shear mixing pulp
Enhancing extraction in bleaching (with oxygen or peroxide)
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-2
PROCESS CHANGE OPTIONS FOR THE DISSOLVING SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
Option
1
2
Abbreviated Description
OD and 100% C1O2
TCP
Description
Oxygen delignification and complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine
Totally chlorine-free bleaching using
oxygen delignification, ozone and/or
peroxide
Both options include:
Adequate wood chip size control
Eliminating dioxin precursor defoamers
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-3
PROCESS CHANGE OPTIONS FOR THE
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
Option
1
2
3
4
5
Abbreviated Description
Split C12
70% C102
OD or Ext. Cook + 70%
C102
OD or Ext. Cook + 100%
C1O2
OD and Ext. Cook + 100%
C102
Description
Split addition of chlorine
Substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine at a rate of 70%
Oxygen delignification or extended
delignification, substitution of chlorine
dioxide for chlorine at a rate of 70%,
and COD control
Oxygen delignification or extended
delignification, complete substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine, and COD
control 1
Oxygen delignification and extended
cooking, complete substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine, and COD
control
All options include:
Adequate wood chip size control
Eliminating dioxin precursor defoamers
Improving pulp washing
Eliminating hypochlorite
High shear mixing pulp
Enhancing extraction in bleaching (with oxygen or peroxide)
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-4
PROCESS CHANGE OPTIONS FOR THE PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
Option
1
2
Abbreviated Description
OD and 100% C1O2
TCP
Description
Oxygen delignification, complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine, and COD control
Totally chlorine-free bleaching using
oxygen delignification or extraction
followed by peroxide, and COD control
Both options include:
Adequate wood chip size control
Eliminating dioxin precursor defoamers
Eliminating hypochlorite
3-7
-------
-------
SECTION FOUR
COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-effectiveness (CE) ratios were calculated for direct and indirect dischargers in the
dissolving kraft, dissolving sulfite, bleached papergrade kraft and soda, and papergrade sulfite
subcategories. Section Three provides summaries of the options for each subcategory.
Section 4.1 presents the results for direct dischargers (BAT). Section 4.2 presents the
results for indirect dischargers (PSES). The CE ratios in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 are expressed in
1991 dollars. Section 4.3 summarizes the CE ratios for the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry
(in 1991 dollars) and compares the values to those for other industries (in 1981 dollars).
4.1 CE RESULTS FOR BAT
Table 4-1 presents the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for the dissolving kraft
subcategory. The CE ratio ranges from $0.84/pe to $254/pe. For the two options for the
dissolving sulfite subcategory (Table 4-2), the CE ratios are $13/pe and $17/pe. There are five
options for the bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory (Table 4-3). The CE ratio
ranges from $2/pe at Option 1 to $80/pe at Option 4 and $4,849/pe at Option 5. There is only
one cost-effective option for papergrade sulfite (Table 4-4). Option 1 was removed from the
analysis because it was inefficient compared to Option 2 (see Section Two for an explanation of
inefficient options). The CE ratio for Option 2 is less than $27/pe.
4.2 CE RESULTS FOR PSES
Jt
There are no indirect dischargers in the dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite
subcategories. Table 4-5 summarizes the results for the bleached papergrade kraft and soda
4-1
-------
subcategoiy. The CE ratio ranges from $3/pe to $7,444/pe. There is only one cost-effective
option for the papergrade sulfite subcategory, for which the CE ratio is $45/pe (Table 4-6).
43 INDUSTRY COST-EFFECTIVENESS
As explained in Section Two, the CE ratio for the industry is calculated by taking the
incremental annualized cost and incremental removals for the following combination of options
for each subcategory:
• Dissolving Kraft—Option 2
• Dissolving Sulfite—Option 1
" Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda—Option 4
» Papergrade Sulfite—Option 2
• Unbleached Kraft—Option 1 (BMP and COD control) ;
• Semichemical—Option 1 (BMP and COD control).
These incremental values are summed to provide the CE ratio for the industry.
Table 4-7 illustrates the process for BAT (direct dischargers). The value for the
dissolving kraft subcategory is taken from the incremental cost and removal columns on Table
4-1 for Option 2. The value for dissolving sulfite is taken from Table 4-2, Option 1. The value
for bleached papergrade kraft and soda is taken from Table 4-3, Option 4. The value for
papergrade sulfite is taken from Table 4-4. The costs for best management practices and COD
control for the unbleached kraft and semichemical subcategories are included in the calculation
of cost-effectiveness for the industry even though there are no pound-equivalent removals
associated with these costs. The industry CE ratio is $53/pe for direct dischargers.
4-2
-------
Table 4-8 illustrates the calculation of the industry CE ratio for indirect dischargers
(PSES). The data are taken from Tables 4-5 and 4-6. The CE ratio for PSES for the industry is
$89/pe.
The industry CE ratios are compared to cost-effectiveness results for other industries in
Tables 4-9 and 4-10 for direct and indirect dischargers, respectively. Appendix C contains
pollutant-specific data for pounds and pound-equivalents currently discharged and total removals
under the selected option. The pound-equivalents remaining, which is reported on the industry
comparison tables, is the difference between baseline loadings and removals.
The industry comparisons are all reported 1981 dollars. The Engineering News-Record
Construction Cost Index is used to deflate the CE values from this analysis to 1981 dollars. The
value of the index is 3535 and the value for 1991 is 4835. For BAT (direct dischargers), the
industry cost-effectiveness is $53.04/pe*(3535/4835) or $39/pe, which is reported in Table 4-9.
For PSES (indirect dischargers), the industry cost-effectiveness is $89.14/pe*(3535/4835) or
$65/pe, which is reported in Table 4-10.
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
DISSOLVING KRAFT SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pa)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
Pe
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
I ($/Pe)
Baseline
1
2
3
$0
$1.726
$11,900
$14.711
0
2,042,785
2,082,841
2.123.725
n/a
$1.726
$10,174
$2.812
n/a
2,042,785
40,056
40,884
n/a
$0.84
$253.99
$68.77
TABLE 4-2
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
DISSOLVING SULF1TE SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Annualized Cost Pound Equivalents
Option ($000. 1991) Removed (pe)
Baseline
1
2
$0
$4,943
$14,829
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000,1991)
0 n/a
384.664 $4,943
978,814 $9,885
pe Cost Effectiveness
Removed ($/pe)
n/a
384,664
594,150
n/a
$12.85
$16.64
S:\ECONy3ULP2\CEURPTTABLEVSEPTSEC4.WK4
s:\eccii\pulp2\ce\rprttbl\sec4tab4.wk3
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-3
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Option
Annualized Cost
{$000. 1991)
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
Pe
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
($/pe)
Baseline
1
2
3
4
5
$0
$97,480
$113,437
$200,190
$260,093
$561,570
48,599,678
53,599,234
54,356,066
55,104,321
55,166,488
n/a
$97,480
$15.957
$86,753
$59,903
$301,477
n/a
48,599,678
4,999,556
756,831
748,255
62.167
n/a
$2.01
$3.19
$114.63
$80.06
$4,849.44
TABLE 4-4
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Annualized Cost Pound Equivalents
Option ($000.1991) Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000,1991)
pe Cost Effectiveness
Removed ($/pe)
Baseline
$0
$24,500
0
920,232
n/a
$24,500
n/a
920,232
n/a
$26.62
S:\ECOrWULP2\CE\RPTTABLE\SEPTSEC4.WK4
s:\econ\pulp2\ce\rprttbl\sec4tab4.wk3
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-5
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Option
Baseline
1
2
3
4
5
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
$0
$24,693
$26,257
$37.003
$42,478
$79,006
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pe)
0
8,938,888
9,281,031
9,330,522
9,385,882
9,390,599
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
n/a
$24,693
$1,564
$10,746
$5,475
$36,528
Incremental
pe Cost
Removed
n/a
8,938,888
342,144
49,490
55,361
4,717
Effectiveness
($/pe)
n/a
$2.76
$4.57
$217.13
$98.90
$7,744.47
TABLE 4-6
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
pe Cost Effectiveness
Removed ($/pe)
Baseline
$0
$2,226
0
49,430
n/a
$2,226
n/a
49,430
n/a
$45.03
S:\ECON\PULP2\CE\RPTTABLBSEPTSEC4.WK4
3:\econ\pdp2\ce\rprttbl\sec4tab4.wk3
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-7
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTANT CONTROL OPTIONS
PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
BAT
Incremental
Subcategory
Annualized Cost
($000.1991)
pe
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
($/pe)
Dissolving Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Papergrade Sulfite
Unbleached Kraft
Semichemical
$10,174
$4,943
$59,903
$24,500
$4,772
$6,741
40,056
384,664
748,255
920,232
0
0
$253.99
$12.85
$80.06
$26.62
Industry Total
$111,033
2,093,207
$53.04
Notes: Incremental costs and removals are calculated from the selected option and
preceding option in the subcategory cost effectiveness analysis.
s:\econ\pulp2\ce\rprttbt\septsec4.wk3
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-8
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTANT CONTROL OPTIONS
PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Incremental
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Dissolving Sutfite
Steadied Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Papergrade Sutfite
Unbleached Kraft
Semlchemical
Industry Total
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
$0
$0
$5,475
$2.226
$1,232
$408
$9.341
pe Cost Effectiveness
Removed
0
0
55,361
49,430
0
0
104.791
($/pe)
$98.90
$45.03
$89.14
Notes: Incremental costs and removals are calculated from the selected option and
preceding option in the subcategory cost effectiveness analysis.
S:\ECON\PULP2\CE\RPTTABLE\SEPTSEC4.WK4
s:\econ\pulp2Vce\rprttbl\sec4tab4.vvk3
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-9
INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF BAT COST-EFFECTIVENESS
FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Copper-Based Weights"; $ 1981)
Industry
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics n
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals n
Iron & Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonfenous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I
Nonferrous Metals Mfg n
Offshore Oil and Gasb
Organic Chemicals
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding & Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Petroleum Refining
Pulp & Paper
Textile Mills
PE Currently
Discharged
(thousand!!)
1,340
4,126
12
BAT=BPT
2,289
70
9
NA
2,308
32,503
605
40,746
259
3,305
34
6,653
1,004
3,808
54,225
2,461
208
44
1,086
BAT=BPT
61,713
BAT=BPT
PE Remaining at
Selected Option
(thousands)
90
5
0.2
BAT=BPT
9
8
3
NA
39
1,290
27
1,040
112
3,268
2
313
12
2,328
9,735
371
4
41
63
BAT=BPT
2,628
BAT=BPT
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
($/PE removed)
121
2
10
BAT=BPT
49
27
404
NA
84
<1
6
2
BAT=BPT
12
69
4
6
33
5
15
1
BAT=BPT
6
BAT=BPT
39
BAT=BPT
'Although toxic weighting factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects the cost-effectiveness at
the time of regulation.
""Produced water only; for produced sand and drilling fluids and drill cuttings, BAT=NSPS.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-10
INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF PSES COST-EFFECTIVENESS
FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Copper-Based Weights'; $ 1981)
Industry
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Penning
Electronics I
Electronics U
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals n
Iron & Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonfcrrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I
Nonfcrrous Metals Mfg n
Offshore Oil and Gas*
Organic Chemicals
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding & Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp & Paper
PE Currently
Discharged (To Surface
Waters)
(thousands)
1,602
1,152
252
NA
2,503
34
75
260
2,136
3,971
4,760
5,599
16,830
11,680
189
3,187
38
NA
5,210
340
NA
1,565
9,539
PE Remaining at
Selected Option (To
Surface Waters
(thousands)
18
5
5
NA
10
4
35
24
18
3,004
6
1,404
1,899
755
5
19
0.41
NA
72
63
NA
96
103
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
Beyond BPT
($/PE removed)
155
15
38
NA°
10
10
14
14
116
9
<1
6
111
10
90
15
12
NA
34
1
NA
14
65
•Although toxic weighting factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects the cost-effectiveness at
the time of regulation.
*Nb known indirect dischargers at this time.
4-10
-------
SECTION FIVE
AOX ANALYSIS
AOX (adsorbable organic halides) is a measure of the chlorinated organics in the
wastestream. As such, it is a measure of a mixture of chlorine compounds whose composition
can change as pulping processes change. AOX is a nonconventional pollutant, and removals
were calculated for each option and each subcategory. Developing a toxic weighting factor
(TWF) for AOX, however, is a difficult process and involves a great deal of uncertainty. A TWF
for AOX was approximated by calculating a weighted average of 47 chlorinated organics that
could be present in the AOX fraction. The estimated TWF derived by this procedure is 2.7.1
Due to the uncertainty in the TWF for AOX, removals of AOX are not included in the
cost-effectiveness analysis. Subcategory costs and AOX removals are examined in this section as
a supplement to the cost-effectiveness analysis presented in Section Four. This supplemental
AOX analysis presents CE ratios for AOX in terms of both unweighted and weighted removals.
All costs are expressed in 1991 dollars. Section 5.1 examines the unweighted removals, while
Section 5.2 examines the weighted removals.
5.1 AOX ANALYSIS - UNWEIGHTED REMOVALS
Tables 5-1 through 5-4 show the CE ratios for BAT (direct dischargers) with the
unweighted AOX removals. Tables 5-5 and 5-6 list the CE ratios for PSES (indirect
dischargers). All ratios are less than $8/lb. Option 2 and Option 5 for the bleached papergrade
kraft subcategory are inefficient for both BAT and PSES and are removed from the analysis.
The only efficient option for the papergrade sulfite subcategory is Option 2 for both direct and
indirect dischargers.
1 Approach and Assumptions Used for Developing Toxic Weighting Factor (TWF) for AOX
Memorandum from Richard Healy (EPA, OW, Environmental Assessment Section) to Debra Nicoll
(EPA, OW, Economics Section), dated 14 July 1993.
5-1
-------
Tables 5-7 and 5-8 show the industry CE ratio for unweighted AOX removals for BAT
t
and PSES, respectively. The industry CE ratio is about $4/lb for both BAT and PSES.
5.2 AOX ANALYSIS - WEIGHTED REMOVALS
Tables 5-9 through 5-12 show the CE ratios for BAT (direct dischargers) with the
weighted AOX removals. Tables 5-13 and 5-14 list the CE ratios for PSES (indirect dischargers).
All ratios are less than $3/pe. Option 2 and Option 5 for the bleached papergrade kraft
subcategory are inefficient for both BAT and PSES and are removed from the analysis. The only
efficient option for the papergrade sulfite subcategory is Option 2 for both direct and indirect
dischargers.
Tables 5-15 and 5-16 show the industry CE ratio for weighted AOX removals for BAT
and PSES, respectively. The industry CE ratio is less than $1.60/pe for both BAT and PSES.
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
DISSOLVING KRAFT SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
Pounds
Removed
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
Pounds
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/lb
Baseline
1
2
3
$0
$1.726
$11,900
$14,711
0
511,361
3,677,076
4,627,830
n/a
$1.726
$10,174
$2,812
n/a
511,361
3,165,716
950.754
n/a
$3.38
$3.21
$2.96
TABLE 5-2
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
DISSOLVING SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
Pounds
Removed
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
Pounds
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/lb
Baseline
1
2
$0
$4,943
$14.829
0
2,216,028
4,587,852
n/a
$4,943
$9,885
n/a
2,216,028
2,371,824
n/a
$2.23
$4.17
INC.AOX2.WK4
5-3
-------
TABLE S3
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000.1991)
Pounds
Removed
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
Pounds
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/lb
Baseline
1
3
4
$0
$97,480
$200,190
$260,093
0
25,489,030
57,780,430
74,599,218
n/a
$97,480
$102,710
$59,903
n/a
25,489,030
32,291,400
16,818,788
n/a
$3.82
$3.18
$3.56
TABLE 5-4
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
Annualized Cost
Option ($000. 1991)
Basefine
2
$0
$24,500
Pounds
Removed
Incremental
Annualized Cost Pounds Cost Effectiveness
($000.1991) Removed $/lb
0 n/a
9,603,474 $24,500
n/a
9,603.474
n/a
$2.55
INC_AOX2.WK4
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-5
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
Pounds
Removed
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000,1991)
Pounds
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/lb
Baseline
1
3
4
$0
$24,693
$37,003
$42,478
0
3,169,802
7,076,532
8.544,736
n/a
$24,693
$12,310
$5,475
n/a
3,169,802
3,906.730
1,468,204
n/a
$7.79
$3.15
$3.73
TABLE 5-6
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
Option
Baseline
2
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
$0
$2,226
Pounds
Removed
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
0 n/a
820,228 $2,226
Incremental
Pounds
Removed
n/a
820,228
Cost Effectiveness
$/lb
n/a
$2.71
INC_AOX2.WK4
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-7
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
BAT
Incremental
Subcategory
Annualized
Cost
($000.1991)
Pounds
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/lb
Di$soMng Kraft $10,174 3.165,716
Dissolving Sulfrte $4.943 2,216.028
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda $59.903 16.818.788
Papergrade Sulfrte $24.500 9.603.474
Unbleached Kraft $4.772 0
Samicnemical $6.741 0
$3.21
$2.23
$3.56
$2.55
Industry Total
$111.033 31.804.005
$3.49
Notes: Incremental costs and removals are calculated from the selected option and
preceding option in the subcategory cost effectiveness analysis.
s:\ocon\pulp2\ce\indceax2.wk4
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-8
INCREMENTAL COST- EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PULP. PAPER. AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX-POUNDS
PSES
Incremental
Subcategory
Annualizod
Cost
($000.1991)
Pounds
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/lb
Dissolving Kraft $0 0
Dissolving Sulfite $0 0
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda $5,475 1,468,204
Papergrade Sulfite $2,226 820,228
Unbleached Kraft $1,232 0
Semichemical $408 0
$3.73
$2.71
Industry Total
$9,341 2,288,432
$4.08
Notes: Incremental costs and removals are calculated from the selected option and
preceding option in the subcategory cost effectiveness analysis.
s:\econ\pulp2\ce\indceax2.wk4
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-9
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
DISSOLVING KRAFT SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
pe
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/pe
Baseline
1
2
3
$0.00
$1.726
$11.900
$14.711
0
1,380.674
9,928.106
12.495.141
n/a
$1.726
$10.174
$2,812
n/a
1,380,674
8,547,433
2.567,035
n/a
1.25
1.19
1.10
TABLE 5-10
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
DISSOLVING SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
Annualized Cost Pound Equivalents
Option
Baseline
1
2
($000. 1991)
$0
$4.943
$14,829
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
0 n/a
5.983,277 $4,943
12,387,201 $9,885
pe Cost Effectiveness
Removed
n/a
5.983,277
6,403,924 [
$/pe
n/a
0.83
1.54
S:\ECON\PULP2\CE\RPTTABLE\INC_AOX1 -WK4
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-11
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
pe
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/oe
Baseline
1
3
4
$0.00
$97,480
$200,190
$260,093
68,820,381
156,007.161
201,417,887
n/a
$97.480
$102,710
$59,903
n/a
68,820.381
87.186.780
45,410,726
n/a
1.42
1.18
1.32
TABLE 5-12
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
Option
Baseline
2
Annualized Cost Pound Equivalents
($000. 1991)
$0.00
$24,500
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000, 1991)
0 n/a
25,929,379 $24,500
pe
Removed
n/a
25,929,379
Cost Effectiveness
$/pe
n/a
0.94
S:\ECON\PULP2\CE\RPTTABLE\INC_AOX1.WK4
5-9
-------
r
TABLE 5-13
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
Option
Annualized Cost
($000.1991)
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
pe
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/pe
Baseline
1
3
4
$0.00
$24,693
$37,003
$42,478
0
8,558,465
19.106,636
23,070,787
n/a
$24,693
$12,310
$5.475
n/a
8,558,465
10,548.171
3.964.151
n/a
2.89
1.17
1.38
TABLE 5-U
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PAPERGRADE SULFITE SUBCATEGORY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
Option
Baseline
2
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
$0.00
$2,226
Pound Equivalents
Removed (pe)
Incremental
Annualized Cost
($000. 1991)
0 n/a
2,214.615 $2,226
pe Cost Effectiveness
Removed $/pe
n/a
2.214.615
n/a
1.01
S:\ECON\PULP2\CE\RPTTABLE\INC_AOX1.WK4
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-15
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PULP. PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
DIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
BAT
Incremental
Subcategory
Annualized
Cost
($000.1991)
pe
Removed
Cost Effectiveness
$/pe
Dissolving Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Papergrade Sulfite
Unbleached Kraft
Semichemical
$10,174
$4,943
$59,903
$24,500
$4,772
$6.741
8,547.433
5,983.277
45.410.726
25,929,379
0
0
$1.19
$0.83
$1.32
$0.94
Industry Total
$111.033 85,870,815
$1.29
Notes: Incremental costs and removals are calculated from the selected option and
preceding option in the subcategory cost effectiveness analysis.
s:\econ\pulp2\ce\indceaox.wk4
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-16
INCREMENTAL COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
PULP, PAPER. AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
AOX - POUND-EQUIVALENTS
• ~~ " " Incremental
Subcateaorv
Dissolving Kraft
Dissolving Sutfite
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Papergrade Sutfrte
Unbleached Kraft
Semlchemteal
Industry Total
Annualized
Cost
($000, 1991)
$0
$0
$5,475
$2,226
$1,232
$408
$9,341
pe
Removed
0
0
3,964,151
2,214.615
0
0
6,178,766
Cost Effectiveness
$/pe
$1.38
$1.01
$1.51
Notes: Incremental costs and removals are calculated from the selected option and
preceding option in the subcategory cost effectiveness analysis.
s:\econ\puip2\ce\indceaox.wk4
5-12
-------
APPENDIX A
POLLUTANT REMOVALS IN POUNDS
FOR EACH POLLUTION CONTROL OPTION
-------
-------
K tQ
_
o
CM
I
cry!
P
S>m
uiz
IE
Ml
sills
I
j; _i i
o~<6 o x!
Oil CM CM~CM~CM~orcM~CM~CM"CM CO CT CO'eo"-* 4 •
-------
,5
ftt
o O Oi 2T O g> O)
5. O ••-; e> O. <0, -r;
TO.
8
CO
^
to
3.
o
CO
w
CM
!00
I
UJ
A-2
-------
a
S
111
tssis
85"
s g 5
I ^ tO CM T- CO O O I
> CM •* CM CM CM
*~ CO CO
s" s 2
ICO.
CM
o> ep to" nf
's N
SB-
882"* ?SW"
"CM*
OQQ.«
CM CM CM
of
S
i
9
S"
8
S
s
s
A-3
-------
g
a
2
CMCT
-
_
»- CM e 10 CM
ej 1
gggggSSS.ggg
---—"
^ ^ip;
pgs^ssrf||I|i
zggSSs^si?53*'
'^i-xzif
i§5S5S!
°|2
x$^
O§J
1
3 52-»~i^"i-Pin<699lo-l'i..«>.<
A-4
8
S
I
i
-------
g
111
Q
S
28
II
3%
&
• O
Ul
.
to o as o o ^ uj « co cp o o 3- •» c> c> e> o o o o to co o a> o
2S2 ^r^>2ico'U mu) cor^o
e3 to «T-O>-«-«O eoco 3n K
CM N-
4§i
ar^i
.QQ
UJZ^i^^SSMMISiSM
Hiipftss*
^issssiigsg
y
-
op a. n co,«
8
I
•o
•s
CM
•s
«
.£
p
e> •
1
I-
s
s
a
! <°
• J2
I
£
i'
A-5
-------
g
o
a
II
E
Si
o? zg
1 is
co co co
CM
*18
frill ?;
siggji
p Q S g O "
g-oqqqg
®
^ " LU
uSa.
A-6
I
CD
-------
_
c~
s
15
St
.o
cpco
W ^~
IO U> CO
cs o> " T-~ T-^ ^-" a> iC of in" pg ^
CM03T1- COT- r-CMr-CM T-T--*O)»-CM-»-
s
1
I
in"
- - u> o co' e>
aioocpaiacMcs
I--; r-^ ?5 •<- a> oj S
' ' '
-. j- CO T- O O> «M
•»- CO T- *- •«-
CO CO
CM
•«- ^- T- ep N. tO ^I
•v^t a> CM
i
CM
•s
t- us'W T^<^W«
•*- ** CM® T-
tN ^
>
aaco a>cM
t-S T-CM
co co
CM
!00
I
:S
P
o •
ie
5JU1
f 5«
•i £3
m 5o£
3 quj
$ oS:
p tS:
-^
UJ
i^ddrf
"^ ^L / ^ -I. #^
!o:
|l
^•LIJ
jSi
I O '
m
xi!
i5z
sil
,gi
iis!
ul
s
a
3
I-
3
2
o
! <»
• J2
A-7
-------
i
CM OJ.
CO
""S"*1""-
zz:
rig!
B|||||^l||.
S33Sw5£wSo9O3:
~^S ^Sf§gESaK¥9?!
QqqQgqqqq!
Q»—J—JQlK"-'—'—*-J(
SixSoziix
•"'- • ia o o o o!
illlf
>LU
SIS
18!
A-8
«H
8
2
81
n
I
CM
15
I
w
I-
a
e-
e
a
! a
• JS
-------
H itt
CMN.CM" Woo
«
P CM * »- O
O> CM »- f
CM
•••-CO T- •« CM IO N. CMI
« M SCM
a^eo *- o
to eo
s
a
3
J
8'
CM
CM
Zl!
r2i
"»*** 5c ,
iSli
l^ujtuy
^^>-^-
« «;«•* -»•<
IIIH
i^ll^l;
J^
i O O
iii^
!g!
!§ili
^i
5|
=!£<
i5i!
ill:
>.
-------
g
P
I
3
>
j
co
Is
i
P O.Q.
gggggg§gg8.gg.8Sg.8ggS?$S.8.ggf
— :X»-CX«-C«-iniaJ«ooOOOOOOOU3OJCpa3(DOOO
IO CO «3 CO C7
ii
(2a
o|i
rlag
IU
SHg;
S-UK
uis;
III!
j"i
;z a<
!lg
j wqqi
rlllXXX!
ScJieJcJcJ'cJorc'fworrteoci'eo'
iSo-l
A-10
ft
OJ
03
!
03
g
g
a
15
ta
E
D)
rx
•s
-------
APPENDIX B
POLLUTANT REMOVALS IN POUND EQUIVALENTS
FOR EACH POLLUTION CONTROL OPTION
-------
-------
W
i^i
Ulj
2^5
i C3 ^B
33|
I|l
^ Sfg
i JE5§
UJ ZjO1"
I g|Z
\— O.OT-
J
__ _ W N. C|4OO>^j't*.^T-e>jeo'
co co in in <
s
lm
o
!dsd
oo
iiiir
£353o -a§r!z
88885^811
§ goi
<22
ir
o^
5gg§
lugoo
ogggo.glHl
siios
• V^> T S3
. .
CMCMCNCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCOCO
*I •» •»: V 9 •" «> co O 2
:U
!P
rr
i
CM"
CM ^
CO
§
01
B-l
-------
co
a
el
Ps
cl i O
i^|
!3wS
fei
ill
isg
^ ill
en S 5 o
I 18?
8 ils
T- CD 03
oTl-.
CO CM
O
O> CM T- c
CO_tn CM_
moi-oi--oooooooooooop-o;flooo
c>~
-------
) CM •«- '
) v- (
CM
CO O) T" N«
T- Xf f- <«t
I
^_i
CNJ" N." iC oT W en" CM" c
!S s: T-.GO v-
*T ^ CM
to r-. o ^r in
^J IO W O O
cn_coioeo_
CD O) O T— CO OS CD O) Is- 00 CO CM CM 1O CO <
CMCDcoN-cooffc-a)r»-ioaJi^-oocoo<
co_o>wr-.««fr*-o^-CNeoa>cocO'»-i
T-O
^-CO
~
Tf C0 CM
CO CO CM O T-
CO OJ T- W
^f 01 CM
> co co r-
CO CO"
CM CM
CM
co"
CM
SIT) Tf (
CD O)
O CO t-
o ^- -t
I
i
s"
I CM_ r*^ O^ CO_ CM •*-
CM r- CM '
•r- CM IB
to"a>"
) CM T CO
r CM"
i-t-Tri
T-TTOJ
co
LU
ilil
i ;:; '
UJ
UJ
o
^UJU,:
i CD 00 CO !
• ^fc1 .^ -^ J
. co" co co" *t t" Tt" c6 CD t" t" rt" W O O in m" to O i uj LU uj uj S w
ICMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMeOCo"co"co"'«t^-Tf'
-------
r
tn
SB!
2
w
;CM»-0> cd"
1
ooosssisgl
IT. ">.
£g "•
eta
M
tulaa _,_,
:?Ss op
jgogd
'§^oP-
^.
-T- it •
°d
gggg^^^-jgaiai^ M§§ gog§
§ig|
^ssiSBi^Siiiai^il^s^B
10
8
8"
B-4
-------
7
> o> in N- co CN co *- •* CD ^
I CO CD v CM i- CO
§8
CO 1^.
• O 03 <
> U) »- I
j co in <
o o> oo CM m co <
O) "OOOOOOOCMCOOCDO
T- N.
CO
CM"
2* W
i8§ I-
arLugw ^^ Lugj
Slg8-.ii-.ial
t§§§°ys°ig:
roqooaSSLUf?S(
—' Q. O O g
J LU O O O O
illlllllls^iil
i ^-» S 5j xoSQ^gx^ggx
CMCMCM"cM"CM"cgeMCM"CMCMCOP>tOCO'«»-Tr'«»:''«<:'
-------
r
00
to
a
§;
> o o o o o o o
ooor*-otoooo
S 3
3
to
S
^8 = 8
1
Be *tc-IK9 |4cA.9 9 •*- •*- c°-ui>-3: ^ 9 "°-9 x
I
w
LU
g
a
s
B-6
-------
in
2
T- in in CM CM en
eg op ON*
oo to CM
T- CM in *- i
Sfc
»^-«^COiOiOi'^-^t^
cvf co" CN" CD" *-~
CM CN O T-
1
£
So
Sf
#%
in in CM T- TT
CO O O to
CO C5 CM
CO O)
CM^CM O CM
r-- c-~ m" T-"
fe
o
s
d
- v_ CN GO, t-._ C0_ r- CM T-_ CD IO CO O). S-_
- O) CO f- t— Ol ^st-r- *r-CO
CD «N O "^ CO CN CN
CO CN CN
CO O>~
-r-T-^-
OI^Ti'tTf-P-
O CM S 5
tO tO CN
-" ^f co"
^
s
3>
n
co"
s
(-.
>»
« to N. 00 CM N. ^~
o" oo" •»-" W CM"
CO I*- O CM
N- CO CM
CO"-*"
CM" co"
CMCM
to
of
U
z
_1
LU
itoucjintntotoIIQtol
— — , -.••*totD'tI
-------
r
>T-«i-0'«ftcoeouj;g;
IT- "»oocno£N eg o> co co
s-
K
i
CM
K
o
u
5|q
I
tn
LU
Q
I
o
§
o
a
eg
3
!
=-
%
B-8
-------
I O)
> h-
co
. eo o> eo
Sg^
o>" t"
! co i
» o
CO"
-.
co ^ CM
u> to cc>
1O T- CM f-
' 5 *"'*"
«
. ., _
U5 O
to
CO 1Q CO CM I
CO I
I
i eo CM o i
CM in ^ (
> CO
> CO
> h-
eo"
in" -r^
CM N._ S.. ^ V-_ I
in en co
in CM O)
;s
> to
CO*
|B
1?
iSI
$m **
o
-
CD Q. « CO'CO'TT •» -*
-------
r
I
i
in
CO
CM
CN
ioooooo
-------
APPENDIX C
INDUSTRY-WIDE REMOVALS UN POUNDS AND POUND EQUIVALENTS
-------
TABLE 04
TOTAL POUND EQUIVALENTS REMOVED AT SELECTED OPTION
Pollutant Namo
All Mills Direct Dischargers Indirect Dischargers
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2.3.4.6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,3,7.8-TETRACHLORODI8ENZOFURAN
2,3.7,e-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2.4-OICHLOROPHENOL
2,4.5-TFUCHLOROPHENOL
2.4.6-TR1CHLOROPHENOL
2,6-QICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-QICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
3.4.5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3.4.5-TR1CHLOROGUA1ACOL
3.4.6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4.6-TRlCHLOROGUAIACOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4,5-OICHLOROCATECHOL
4.5.6-TRICHLOROGUA1ACOL
5,6-QICHLOROVANILLIN
6-CHLOROVANIUJN
CHLOROFORM
M6THYLENE CHLORIDE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
TR1CHLOROSYRJNGOL
TOTAL
AOSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
25
510
2.469
4.968.486
62.895.646
2.915
211.987
100.066
186
4.487
12.325
93.679
1.048
606
24.162
28,813
2.581
38.552
671
856
14.028
52
52.047
12,266
50,087
1.377
68.510,027
268.544,052
24
465
2.228
4.385,523
54.072,314
2.736
202,734
95,203
173
4,456
11,782
87,599
963
557
22.483
28,810
2.285
37.412
619
789
12.466
50
51,432
11,404
48,789
1.315
50,084,613
243,258,649
1
45
241
582.963
8.823,332
178
9,253
4.863
13
31
543
6,080
85
49
1.679
2
296
1,140
51
67
1.562
2
615
863
1.297
62
0,435.313
25.285,402
Srt£CONlPULP2VCE\RPTTABLEe£PT_C1 .WK4
C-4
------- |