-------
Table 7-4
(Continued)
PoIIutant(a)
=====
No. of
Mills
Sampled
No. of
Mills
Non»
Detect
Symbol (fo)
Pesticides/Herbicides
alclrin*
alpha-BHC*
captafol
captan
dieldrin
gamma-BHC (lindane)*
gamma-chlordane*
isodrin
PCNB
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP (silvex)
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
Semi-volatiles
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate*
naphthalene*
3
3
2
2
Maximum
0.2
0.1
2.1
0.3
0:2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
2.2
2.2
29.0
1791.0
I
Units
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
(a)Priority pollutants are indicated by an asterisk (*). .
(b)A > symbol indicates that the review of the analysis used to derive the reported maximum value indicated
that the result may have actually been higher.
7-40
-------
Table 7-5
Priority and Nonconventional Pollutants Detected in Treated Effluents
At More Than One Chemical Pulp Mill That Bleaches
PoHutant(a)
No. of
Mills
Sampled
No, of
Mills
Non-
Detect
Symbol(b)
Maximum
Units
Pollutant
s Below
Level of
Concern
or Below
Treatable
Levels
CDDs/CDFs
octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin*
14
17
16
17
2
8
11
13
5995.0
320.0
100.0
74.0
Pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
Pg/L
Volatile Organics
carbon disulfide
chloroform
(trichlorometfaane) *
methylene chloride*
2-butanone (MEK)
2-propanone (acetone)
17
17
17
17
17
9
5
11
13
5
>
176.9
533.0
4493.3
232.0
1000.0
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Chlorinated Phenolics
4-chlorophenol
4-chlorocatechol
4-chloroguaiacol
6-chlorovanillin
2-chlorosyringaldehyde
2,4-dichlorophenol*
4,5-dichlorocatechol
3,4-dichloroguaiacol
4,5-dichloroguaiacol
13
9
13
16
13 '
14
16
9
17
10
5
10
6
11
8
7
7
12
>
>
>
4.1
13.2
28.0
26.0
5.8
9.0
39.0
4.8
8.1
Mg/L
/*g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
J«g/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
'
^
/
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
7-41
-------
Table 7-5
(Continued)
Pollutant(a)
4,6-dichIoroguaiacol
2,6-dichlorosyringaldehyde
2,4,6-trichlorophenol*
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichIoroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
trichlorosyringol
2,3,4,6-tctrachlorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
pentachlorophenol*
No. of
Mills
Sampled
16
13
17
16
17
13
17
17
17
17
16
No. of
Mills
Non-
Detect
14
8
7
10
10
11
10
11
14
11
13
Sj**nbol(b)
>
>
>
Maximum
6.8
11.0
18.0
26.8
1.6
1.5
7.6
8.2
2.6
2.5
18.7
Metals - • • . •.-••'. ••:;; '•••' • \ :?;••'• .::..:''- • • .
aluminum
barium
boron
calcium
iron
magnesium
manganese
mercury*
phosphorus
potassium
silicon
sodium
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
2480.0
380.0
1310.0
87600.0
1550.0
12600.0
2660.0
74.0
2400.0
3700.0
11900.0
765000.0
Units
Mg/L
MgA
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Pollutant
s Below
Level/of
Concern
or BelOW
Treatable
Levels
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
^
/
S
S
S
S
7-42
-------
Table 7-5
(Continued)
Pollutant(a)
strontium
sulfur
titanium
vanadium
zinc*
=====
•
No, of
Mills
Sampled
3
3
3
3
3
No. of
Mills
Non-
Defect
0
0
0
1
0
Symbol(b)
—
Maximum
300.0
164000.0
45.0
155.0
116.0
Semi-volatiles
biphenyl
dimethyl sulfone
o-cresol
3
3 •
3
1
0
1
•
572.0
148.0
18.0
Units
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
/zg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Pollutant
s Below
Level of
Concern
or Below
Treatable
Levels
S
s
S
S
S
•
S
(a)Priority pollutants are indicated by an asterisk (*).
(b) Where a > symbol was used, the review of the analysis used to derive the reported maximum value indicated
that the result may have actually been higher.
7-43
-------
Table 7-6
Number of Data Points and Final Effluent Concentrations for
Analytes Detected at Non-Chemical Pulp Mills and
Chemical Non-Wood Pulp Mills That Bleach
With Chlorine and/or Hypochlorite
— ^--i=g8i^^5==s==S====!
Analyte(a)
Chloroform*
======
No. of Mills
With Data
10
1
Total No. of
Data Points
64
2-chlorophenol*
2,4-dichlorophenol*
trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol*
4-chloro-3-methylphenol*
5
• 5
3
5
3
36
29
4
29
27
—
Total No.
of Detects
57
2
1
1
3
1
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin*
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
12
7
=====
28
14
3
8
=
Concentration
Range(b)
<1.0 - 36,480 ppb
<1.0-370ppb
< 1.0 - 20 ppb
<0.3 - 35 ppb
<1.0 -32 ppb
<5.0 - 18 ppb
<1.5 - 65 ppq
<2.0 - 490 ppq
1
(a)Priority pollutants are indicated by an asterisk (*).
(b)A < symbol indicates that the analyte was not detected above the reported concentration.
7-44
-------
M
2
II
9 4)
1|
ft
eg £
'S'S
tw wa
O *g
0- S
IS
£ £
-2 iL
"S °
g s*
08 O-i
£ Ja*
^^ wa
11
o *3
OH rh
Ch*
0 g
e3* "•§
a.S
i ^
3 *^S
cc
•2
1
"S
SW
'S
•P
•a
§
1
-g
I
o
^+
M
|f
'•g 5
§ »
p
|
U
1
c
^-Jjv
§ fe
rjv d
*»^ ^^
^*. t««
%%
u
c
a
Ct
o
1
•s s
*€ a
m "
of 8
- o
o 2
CJ 0
.SB
&«
8 •*-
2 m
ll
c .S
&§
. > a
S 1,2
2 a 2
o -c -C
^H
§s|^;
h -so «
5 J3"£ _r
O •" O
gifl
£ u .2 n
*O *O efl y
Q '{jj 3 O
o ^ o O
i "S S S
SS g -S '£
Ifi^
"T S o -3
0> - -fi C
mi
I- O O fi
•a S Si2
.2 S S -g
•0 0 0 -g
|Pi
G 1) .. (S
* S 8 ^r P
)2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodi
)VoIatiIe Organics:
iChlorinated Phenoli
2,4,5-trichloropheno
4,5,6- trichloroguaiac
C/3
1
03
LH
^
CQ
7-45
-------
Table 7-8
Jurisdictions Regulating AOX as a Wastewater Pollutant
1 Jurisdiction
I AUSTRALIA:
| CANADA:
Alberta:
British
Columbia:
1 Ontario(c):
Quebec:
1 EUROPE:
Austria:
Belgium:
I Finland:
AOX Regulation
Australia issued guidelines in 1989 for new bleached eucalypt kraft
pulp mills discharging to marine waters. These guidelines stipulate the
following limitations on the discharge of AOX:
Maximum 24 hour ave. (based on rated production capacity: 2.5
kg/ADMT(a)
Maximum 1 year moving ave. (based on actual production): 1.0
kg/ADMT
No federal regulations for AOX; however, several provinces have
regulated AOX as follows:
IjEas no AOX regulations; however, all existing and new bleached kraft
mills have AOX limitations in their licenses. These limitations range
from 0.29 kg/ADMT (annual average) for a new facility (Alpac) to 1.5
kg/ADMT (monthly average) for existing facilities.
1.5 kg/ADMT (monthly average) by 31 December 1995 and 0.0
kg/ADMT by 31 December 2002 or 0.0 kg/ADMT by 31 December
2000(b).
1.50 kg/ADMT (monthly average) by 31 December 1995
1.93 kg/ADMT (daily maximum) by 31 December 1995
0.80 kg/ADMT (monthly average) by 31 December 1999
1.03 kg/ADMT (daily maximum) by 31 December 1999
Goal of 0.00 kg/ADMT by 31 December 2002
1.5 kg/ADMT (monthly average) for hardwood by 31 December 1993
2.5 kg/ADMT (monthly average) for softwood by 31 December 1993
1.0 kg/ADMT (monthly average) for hardwood by 30 September 1995
2.0 kg/ADMT (monthly average) for softwood by 30 September 1995
0.8 kg/ADMT (monthly average) by 31 December 2000
1.5 kg/ADMT for kraft mills
0.5 kg/ADMT for sulfite mills
0.75 kg/ADMT for magnetite mills
One area of Austria, the Salzkammergut, required the attainment of
0.0 kg/ADMT by the year 1992.
1.5 kg/ADMT for kraft mills
2.0 kg/ADMT (maximum annual average) for softwood kraft by 1995
1.0 kg/ADMT (maximum annual average) for hardwood kraft by 1995
1.4 kg/ADMT (maximum annual average) for mixed hardwood and
softwood kraft by 1995
Reference
34
36
35
36
36
36,37
38
39
41
36,37,40
7-46
-------
Table 7-8
(Continued)
Jurisdiction
Germany:
Norway:
i
Sweden:
AOX Regulation
1.0 kg/ADMT for sulfite mills
2.0 kg/ADMT for kraft mills
1.0 kg/ADMT for sulfite mills
1.0 kg/ADMT (annual average) by 1995 for softwood
0.5 kg/ADMT (annual average) by 2000 for softwood
0.5 kg/ADMT (annual average) by 1995 for hardwood
0.3 kg/ADMT (annual average) by 2000 for hardwood
Reference
37,40
36,37,40
36,37,40,41
(a)A!I tons in this table are bleached metric tons. However, each jurisdiction does not necessarily define this
measurement the same way.
(b)This alternative allows the discharger an exemption from meeting the 31 December 1995
requirements provided a plan is submitted to the director on or before 30 June 1992 for
completely eliminating AOX discharges by 31 Decenber 2000.
(c)Draft regulations.
7-47
-------
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.0 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES
This section describes technologies that are in use at pulp, paper, and paperboard mills to
prevent the formation of wastewater pollutants or 'reduce the discharge of wastewater
pollutants. Various combinations of these technologies were considered as the basis for the
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the industry.
8.1 Introduction
There are two major approaches that may be used to improve effluent quality at pulp
paper, and paperboard mills: (a) in-process technology changes and controls to prevent or
reduce the formation of wastewater pollutants of concern, and (b) end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment technologies to remove pollutants from process wastewaters prior to discharge.
The Agency has defined pollution prevention as source reduction and other practices that
reduce or eliminate the formation of pollutants. Source reduction includes any practice that
reduces the amount of any hazardous substance or pollutant entering any waste stream or
otherwise released into the environment, or any practice that reduces the hazards to public
health and the environment associated with the release of such pollutants. Such practices
may include equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure modifications
reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of raw materials, and improvements iii
housekeeping, maintenance, training, and inventory control. Other pollution prevention
practices include increased efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water and other
resources.
The Agency has developed a model pollution prevention plan for the pulp and paper
industry, as part of the Agency's effort to encourage pollution prevention programs in U S
industries. The model plan is discussed in a series of reports:
• Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment and Implementation Plan for
Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, Tacoma, Washington. EPA 910/9-92-027.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, August 1992.
Model Pollution Prevention Plan for the Kraft Segment of the Pulp and Paper
Industry. EPA 910/9-92-030. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region
10, September 1992. y • &
Pollution Prevention for the Kraft Pulp and'Paper Industry, Bibliography
EPA 910/9-92-031. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
September 1992. '
8-1
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Pollution preventing process changes may be implemented in the pulping, bleaching,
chemical recovery, and papermaking areas of a null (shown on Figure 4-1). Many of the
in-process controls that prevent or reduce wastewater pollution also result in improved
product quality and/or fiber yield, as weU as reduced operating costs through more efficient
use of process materials and prevention and control of leaks and spills. Sections 8.2 through
8.4 describe applicable pollution prevention controls and technologies for the industry.
These sections also provide information on the performance of each technology and the
number of mills using each technology as of January 1, 1993.
Additional information on pollution prevention technologies for the pulp and paper industry
is available in these EPA documents:
• Summary of Technologies for the Control and Reduction of Chlorinated
Organics from the Bleached Chemical Pulping Subcategories of the Pulp and
Paper Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, April 27, 1990.
• Pollution Prevention Technologies for the Bleached Kraft Segment of the U.S.
Pulp and Paper Industry. EPA/600/R-93/110. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, August 1993.
End-of-pipe wastewater treatment includes physical, chemical, and biological processes that
remove pollutants from mill effluent prior to discharge to a receiving stream or publicly
owned treatment works (POTW). Section 8.5 describes end-of-pipe wastewater treatment
technologies applicable to the industry and provides information on the performance of each
technology and the number of mills using each technology.
S3, Pollution Prevention Controls Used in
and DeMgnification Processes
This section describes applicable technologies for reducing and preventing pollutant
discharges from the pulping area of a chemical pulp mill. Pulping area processes include
chipping, cooking, pulp washing, and screening. Pollution prevention technologies applicable
to pulping area processes include chip quality control, use of dioxin precursor-free
defoamers and pitch dispersants, extended cooking, effective brown stock washing, closing
the screen room, oxygen delignification, steam stripping of condensates, and pulping liquor
spiU prevention and control. This section discusses these technologies, as well as their
impact on the recovery boiler.
8.2.1 Chip Quality Control
In preparation for chemical pulping, wood is reduced to chips approximately 2 to 5
millimeters thick and 10 to 30 millimeters long. Some mills use chips obtained from an off-
8-2
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
site source such as a sawmill, although most mills perform at least some chipping on site
Several chipper designs are in use today, but the most common is the flywheel-type disc
chipper in which logs are fed to one side of the disc at a pre-determined angle through a
vertical directing chute. 6
After chipping, the chips are passed over a set of vibratory screens to separate chips of
acceptable length and width from fines and oversized pieces. Oversized chips are rechipped
and tines are usually burned in an on-site hog fuel boiler. '
Good quality chipping and screening equipment provides a uniform supply of chips to the
digester, leading to more uniform cooking and reduced digester chemical consumption The
uniform pulp produced results in less variation in bleach plant feed and better control of
the bleaching process, reducing overbleaching of the pulp to remove shives and colored
fiber This improves the effluent quality from the bleaching area, because when
overbleaching is avoided, lower levels of chlorinated organics are formed. A more uniform
pulp also reduces the amount of rejects from screening following brown stock washing.
Mills can improve the quality of chips going to the digester in several ways. Mills that
receive chips from an off-site source can develop a quality control program for suppliers to
ensure that uniform, high-quality chips are received. Mills that chip on site can closely
monitor the operation of the chipper to maintain optimum settings in order to produce chips
of consistent size. F
Mills can also provide uniform chip dimensions with chip thickness screens. Chip thickness
screens are rotating disc screens that separate overly thick chips, which are then sliced to
the desired thickness for pulping. Chip thickness screening also removes knots and
compression wood, in which dioxin precursors are reported to be concentrated (1)
Providing chips of uniform thickness, free of knots and compression wood, results in
improved pulping, reduced screen rejects, and improved bleaching, and may reduce the load
on the mill s wastewater treatment system. When knots and compression wood are removed
ETIJ*! °T g' Jitre tyPcalfy bumed in the mill's P°wer boiler- If these components
are instead removed from the pulp by screening after cooking, they may be sent to the
S^^eSdn"^^^ millS'in ^ U'S' tyPiCally USC °hiP eSS SCreeninS
woodyard or pulp mill upgrade.
8.2.2 Defoamers and Pitch Dispersants
Defoamers are added to pulp to decrease foaming from air entrained with the pulp during
brown stock washing. Pitch dispersants are added to pulp to prevent wood resins and fatty
acids from depositing on the paper at the paper machine. Both of these chemical additives
are introduced into the pulp flow prior to brown stock washing and are carried with the pulp
8-3
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
into the bleach plant. Defoamers and pitch dispersants have been shown to contain the
Started dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF precursors
dibenzo-p-dioxin (DBD) and dibenzofuran (DBF) (2,3). In^ the first (f™^*^
bleaching, the DBD and DBF are chlorinated to form 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Defoamers can be oil-based or water-based. Oil-based defoamers are a blend of 90 percent
oil and 10 percent additives. Defoamers made from re-refined oil are particularly high in
DBF concentration (4). DBD and DBF can essentially be eliminated from defoamer oils
(i.e., to a level of less than 1 ppb of both) by using two-stage severe hydrotreatmg
technology (4). Alternatively, completely oil-free defoamers that do not contain CDD and
CDF precursors may be used (5). Switching to non-contaminated defoamers can reduce the
content of 2 3,7,8-TCDF in bleached pulp and in mill effluent by at least 90 percent (6)
The Agency believes that the U.S. pulp industry has generally converted to the use of
precursor-free additives.
8.2.3 Extended Cooking
At chemical pulping mills, wood chips or a non-wood fiber furnish are cooked in * chemical
solution in a digester at elevated temperature and pressure to dissolve the lignm that holds
the cellulose fibers together. Chemical pulping occurs in either a batch or continuous
digester system.
The most common continuous digester is the vertical downflow type. The wood chips are
preheated in a steaming vessel before entering the digester, which removes air and volatile
wood constituents. The chips are mixed with the cooking liquor and are fedinto the top
of the digester so that they move downward by gravity through the tower The hydraulic
pressure in the tower is kept at approximately 1,140 kPa. After the chips have.been
impregnated with liquor, the temperature is raised to approximately 105 to 130 C at a
residence time of one to one and a half hours, until the pulping reaction is complete. The
reaction is stopped in the lower region of the tower, where diffusion washing of the pu p is
carried out, normally using a countercurrent flow of the'filtrate from the first brown stock
washer. The pulp is blown from the bottom of the digester at about 1,380 kPa to a tank at
atmospheric pressure.
For batch cooking, a mill normally uses several vessels. Mills in the U.S. with batch
digesters have reported using anywhere from 3 to 24 vessels. Wood chips and cooking
liq°uor are added simultaneously to the top of the digester, after which the digester is sealed
and raised to a target operating pressure of approximately 700 to 900 kPa and temperature
of approximately 170°C. After impregnation for approximately one hour, and cooking tor
one to two hours, the pulp is blown into an atmospheric tank, from which it is pumped to
the brown stock washing system. Usually a mill staggers the digester cycles to maintain a
continuous flow of pulp through its washing and pulping sections.
8-4
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The continuous process produces pulp at a consistent rate and with lower energy
requirements; however, a batch pulping system enables a mill to pulp several different
grades at once, by using different digesters for different pulping conditions or fiber furnishes.
Since the continuous process was commercialized in the 1950s, the amount of chemical pulp
produced by continuous digesters has increased. Most new installations are now continuous
systems.
Chemical pulp mills that bleach must remove enough residual lignin from the pulp prior to
bleaching to achieve their required final pulp brightness. The Kappa number (a measure
of a pulp's lignin content) of the pulp entering the bleach plant dictates the amount of
bleaching chemicals needed. Since decreasing bleaching chemical use lowers both the cost
for bleaching chemicals and the environmental impact of the effluent from the bleach plant,
it is generally desirable for mills that bleach to lower the prebleaching Kappa number as
much as possible, without affecting pulp strength.
Through work done by the Swedish'Forest Products Research Institute (STFI) in the late
1970s (7), the concept of "extended cooking" for papergrade kraft pulps was developed and
commercialized in 'the late 1980s. Extended cooking enables a mill to lower the Kappa
number of the pulp entering the bleach plant further than is possible with a traditional kraft
pulping digester, while increasing pulp strength and maintaining or increasing pulp yield.
During extended cooking, the pulp is mixed with the cooking liquor for a longer time than
in traditional cooking, under modified temperature and alkalinity conditions. The process
can be performed using either a batch or continuous pulping system. Eighteen of the 87
mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory used extended cooking as of
January 1,1993. Currently, extended cooking is not typically used for papergrade kraft pulps
that will not be bleached, because achieving a low Kappa number out of the digester is not
as important as it is for pulps that will be bleached.
Approximately 11 million metric tons per year of kraft pulp is produced worldwide using
extended cooking (8). This represents about 20 percent of world bleached kraft capacity.
Figure 8-1 shows the increase in the amount of kraft pulp produced by extended cooking
from 1983 through 1992. Capacities shown are as reported by mills and vendors, and have
been normalized to air dry metric tons per day. Extended cooking for dissolving kraft and
sulfite pulps has not been demonstrated on an industrial scale.
i
The types of continuous extended cooking processes most commonly used in the U.S. are
the Modified Continuous Cooking (MCC®) developed by Kamyr Inc. and Kamyr AB and
Extended Modified Continuous Cooking (EMCC®) processes developed by Kamyr Inc.
Figure 8-2 shows a typical EMCC® installation. These processes are similar, in that fresh
cooking liquor, comprising sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide, is added at several points
in the digester, instead of at just one point as with traditional continuous cooking. More
lignin is dissolved with these processes than is dissolved in the traditional digester, because
8-5
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
the active chemical concentration is kept more uniform throughout the cook. At the same
time, less damage is done to the wood fiber cellulose, because a high initial cooking liquor
concentration is avoided. The resulting pulp is stronger and has a lower Kappa number
than traditional pulps, while the pulp yield is maintained.
Extended cooking hi batch digesters yields similar results. Two systems are available
commercially: the Rapid Displacement Heating (RDH®) System, sold by Beloit Inc., and
the Super Batch® System, sold by Sunds Defibrator, Inc. These processes maintain a more
uniform cooking liquor concentration throughout the cook than traditional batch cooking.
The wood chips are initially impregnated with warm black liquor under pressure to remove
air in the chips. The warm black liquor is then displaced with hot black liquor and white
liquor to begin the cook. After cooking, the spent cooking liquor is displaced with wash
liquor from the first brown stock washer. The spent cooking liquor becomes the warm black
liquor used for impregnation during another cook. The batch extended cooking process
requires several large holding tanks to store liquor between the various stages of the cooking
process, and many older mills do not have the space to install a batch extended cooking
system. Most of the extended cooking installations in the world are continuous rather than
batch.
The unbleached Kappa number of softwood kraft pulps typically ranges from 30 to 32 for
traditional cooking. Extended cooking by either the continuous or batch processes can
achieve softwood pulp unbleached Kappa numbers ranging from 12 to 18. For hardwood
kraft pulps, the unbleached Kappa number of approximately 20 for traditional cooking can
be reduced to 8 to 10 using extended cooking (9).
8.2.4 Effective Brown Stock Washing
In a chemical pulping mill, after the pulp leaves the digester it is cleaned through a series
of knotters, screens, and countercurrent washers to remove impurities and uncooked fiber
and to recover as much spent cooking liquor as possible. Section 4.2.5 describes these
processes.
In brown stock washing, spent pulping chemicals, along with any dissolved wood
components, are separated from the pulp and sent to the recovery boiler for incineration.
Effective brown stock washing minimizes the amount of pulping liquor carried over to the
bleach plant with the pulp. This improves the mill's effluent quality, because residual black
liquor carried over to the bleach plant includes unchlorinated toxic substances, some of
which appear to resist degradation in biological treatment plants (10). If chlorine-based
bleaching chemicals are used, the organic compounds that are carried over with the pulp to
the bleach plant also react with the bleaching chemicals and, therefore, increase the mill's
effluent load of chlorinated organics.
8-6
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Effective brown stock washing also reduces the amount of bleaching chemicals required to
bleach the pulp to a given brightness, because well-washed pulp carries less organic material,
which competes with the pulp fiber for reaction with the bleaching chemicals. Finally,
effective brown stock washing is essential for satisfactory operation of an oxygen
delignification system.
Mills try to minimize the amount of water used for brown stock washing, because all water
added at this stage is .typically evaporated in the black liquor recovery cycle. Although using
more water increases the removal of pulping liquor and dissolved organic material from the
pulp, the maximum amount of water that can be used depends on the capacity of the black
liquor evaporators and the additional energy requirements necessary to evaporate more
black liquor.
Brown stock washing effectiveness at kraft mills is conventionally expressed as saltcake
(NajSOJ loss per mass of pulp, and is considered to be effective if the washing loss is less
than 10 kg NajSCymetric ton of pulp. This is approximately equivalent to 99 percent
recovery of spent pulping chemicals. The average washing loss for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Subcategory was 13.5 kg NajSCVmetric ton in 1989, and the average
washing loss for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory was 24.2 kg Na2SO4/metric ton, as
reported in the 1990 questionnaire. This is much lower than washing losses were ten vears
ago. * J
The traditional method of pulp washing using a rotary vacuum drum washer has been
supplemented or replaced in many mills with other, high-efficiency washers, including
pressure diffusion washers, belt washers, and presses of various types. All are capable of
providing well-washed pulp.
Pressure diffusion washers are enclosed and operate at elevated pressure and temperature
resulting in good washing efficiency. The pulp enters a pressure diffusion washer at the top
and moves downward as a fiber mat between the stationary central body of the washer and
the moving perforated cylindrical screen surrounding it. The wash water flows from the
center of the washer through the pulp mat and outer screen, and is extracted continuously
from the system. The pulp continues through the vessel and is removed at the bottom
Pressure diffusion washers require relatively less floor space than other types of washers and
are therefore often selected for upgrading a mill's washing system where there is little
available space.
In a belt washer, the pulp flows onto an endless moving horizontal filter cloth and is drawn
ott at the opposite end. Wash water is applied to the top of the pulp mat and is drawn
through the pulp by vacuum boxes located beneath the cloth. Each wash water addition
point is considered to be one "stage" of washing, and the wash water moves countercurrently
rrom the final stage through to the first stage on the belt. A belt washer can provide up to
8-7
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
seven stages of washing. The system can be enclosed to roinimize air emissions. Belt
washers are not currently used to incrementally increase brown stock washing capacity, but
are efficient systems for replacing an entire washing line.
A wash press consists of a cylindrical washer and a press roll. Pulp that is washed in a wash
press leaves the system at a higher consistency than with other washing systems. The
geometric configuration of the cylindrical washer causes the pulp to be dewatered during
washing, because the pulp is forced into a smaller space and ultimately passes through a nip
between the washing cylinder and the press roll. Instead of leaving the washer at the usual
consistency of between 10 and 15 percent solids, the pulp mat leaves at a consistency of
between 30 and 40 percent. This type of washer is beneficial when high consistency is
required downstream of the brown stock washing area.
8.2.5 Closed Screen Room Operation
After brown stock washing, pulp is usually screened to remove oversized particles. The pulp
is first diluted with fresh water, then screened using gravity or pressure screens, and then
thickened in a decker to an appropriate consistency for the next process operation. In an
open screen room, the filtrate from the decker goes to the sewer. This sewered stream
carries residual organics and cooking liquor solids from the pulping operation. Closing the
screen room eliminates the overflow of decker filtrate to the sewer. This operation
optimizes the water balance around the washing and screening operations, because all of the
decker filtrate is reused as dilution water for the screening operation, or as brown stock
wash water. Residual organics and cooking liquor are thus returned to the chemical
recovery cycle. The closed screen room concept has been discussed in the literature for
many years, and, based on information provided in the 1990 questionnaire, 47 mills in the
United States use closed screen rooms:
Subcategory
No. of Mills
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
1
23
20
1
2
The ability to operate the screen room as a closed process depends on a systematic
optimization of the pulping, washing, screening, and liquor recovery cycles, and the type of
washing and screening equipment available. Effective brown stock washing should be used
to minimize the amount of cooking liquor solids carried to the screening operation. In
8-8
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
addition, many mills are replacing gravity flow screens with pressure screens to prevent air
entrainment and resultant foaming problems (11).
8.2.6 Oxygen Delignification
Oxygen delignification uses oxygen gas to remove lignin from pulp after brown stock washing
and prior to bleaching. Using oxygen delignification between the kraft or sulfite pulping
processes and the bleach plant results in lower bleaching chemical demands than a
traditional bleaching sequence, because the unbleached Kappa number drops by
approximately 50 percent and the subsequent bleaching chemical requirements drop relative
to this (9). In addition, bleaching to a particular brightness can often be accomplished using
fewer bleaching stages than a traditional bleach line if oxygen delignification is used prior
to bleaching. Decreased bleaching chemical use reduces pollutant levels in the mill's bleach
plant effluent. Although the operation of an oxygen delignification system in itself does not
decrease the effluent flow from the bleach plant, it can lessen water use if older, less
efficient bleaching towers are bypassed.
As of January 1,1993, sixteen mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
reported using oxygen delignification. The amount of bleached papergrade kraft pulp
produced by these mills using oxygen delignification represented approximately 40 percent
of the total U.S. production. One mill in each of the Papergrade and Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategpries reported using oxygen delignification. Figure 8-3 illustrates the rate of
increase in the use of oxygen delignification systems in the U.S. and worldwide. Oxygen
delignification has been adopted much more extensively in foreign mills than in those in the
U.S., while U.S. mills have adopted extended cooking more rapidly than foreign mills.
Figures 8-4 and 8-5 show medium- and high-consistency oxygen delignification systems,
respectively, both of which are in use today. In both cases, it is important to start with well-
washed pulp, and to add magnesium salt (MgSO4) to protect the cellulose fibers from
degradation. After oxygen delignification, it is also necessary to wash the pulp well to
remove organic material so that the subsequent bleaching stages can operate effectively.
High-consistency oxygen delignification is accomplished at a consistency of approximately
25 to 30 percent, which is attained using a press prior to the oxygen delignification tower.
The pulp is then fed to a pressurized reactor into which oxygen and sodium hydroxide (or
oxidized white liquor) are added. The pulp is fluffed using baffles inside the tower to
achieve a more consistent reaction, and gaseous reaction products are purged from the
vessel to avoid a fire hazard. Pulp degradation has been a problem with high-consistency
systems, even though magnesium salt is added for pulp stabilization.
Medium-consistency oxygen delignification takes place at a consistency of between 10 and
20 percent, which is attained using a brown stock decker, avoiding the need for the more
8-9
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
expensive press frat is required for a high-consistency oxygen delignification system. Prior
to entering the reaction tower, the pulp is mixed with oxygen and sodium hydroxide (or
oxidized white liquor). Since fewer gaseous compounds are formed, the risk of fire is
eliminated with the medium-consistency system. There is less potential for pulp degradation
than in a high-consistency system, but slightly less delignification occurs than with a high-
consistency reaction due to a lower reaction rate.
The filtrate from the post-oxygen delignification washers is sent to the recovery boiler,
marginally increasing the load on the boiler, but concurrently increasing the amount of
recovered chemicals and energy. Recycling the filtrate from the oxygen delignification
washers, rather than sending it to wastewater treatment, reduces the bleach plant effluent
load of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) by 30 to 50 percent, chemical oxygen demand
(COD) by 40 percent, color by approximately 60 percent, and chlorinated organics by
approximately 35 to 50 percent (9,1). Currently, all kraft and sodium-based sulfite mills with
oxygen delignification recycle the associated filtrate.
8.2.7 Steam Stripping
Wastewater streams in the pulping and chemical recovery areas of a chemical pulp mill
contain organic and sulfur compounds that may be emitted to the air or conveyed to the
wastewater treatment system. Condensate streams from evaporators, digester blow tanks,
and turpentine recovery systems at kraft mills contain the highest loadings of these
compounds, with evaporator condensate representing the major volume of pulping area
condensate flow. Steam strippers are used to control air emissions of organic and sulfur
compounds from pulping area condensate streams, and at the same time reduce the organic
load of the stripped wastewater on the wastewater treatment system.
Steam stripping is a fractional distillation process that involves the direct contact of steam
with wastewater. Figure 8-6 presents a schematic of a continuous steam stripper system.
Wastewater is pumped into the top of the stripping column, and steam is injected near the
bottom of the column. The column is typically equipped with perforated trays or packing
to increase contact between the vapor and the liquid. Heat from the steam vaporizes the
volatile compounds in the wastewater, which are carried out the top of the column with the
steam. This overhead vapor stream is typically incinerated on site (12). Stripped
wastewater leaving the steam stripper passes through a heat exchanger to preheat the
unstripped wastewater entering the steam stripper. The stripped wastewater is then
discharged to the wastewater treatment system or reused in the mill for fresh hot water
applications. The removal efficiency of volatile compounds is determined by the steam-to-
feed ratio hi the column. The steam stripper may be a stand-alone piece of equipment, or,
at some mills, it may be integrated into the evaporator set.
8-10
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
A properly designed steam stripper can reduce the BOD5 load to a mill's wastewater
treatment system by removing organic compounds, primarily methanol, from the pulping
area condensate streams. Mills that currently use steam stripping to reduce the load of
organic constituents discharged to wastewater treatment report using steam-to-feed ratios
ranging from 145 to 215 kg/m3. A steam-to-feed ratio of 180 kg/m3 achieves approximately
90 percent removal of methanol. Total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds can be removed
at lower steam rates.
8.2.8 Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention, and Control
Mills that perform chemical or semi-chemical pulping of wood or other fibers generate
pulping liquors that are generally either recovered in a chemical recovery system or treated
in a wastewater treatment system. These mills may lose pulping liquor through spills
equipment leaks, and intentional diversions from the pulping and chemical recovery areas
of the mm. Spills and intentional diversions of pulping liquor are a principal cause of upsets
in biological wastewater treatment systems, which are used at most chemical and semi-
chemical pulp mills. Pulping liquor losses increase the need for pulping liquor make-up
chemicals, decrease energy generated from pulping liquor solids combustion, increase
hazardous air pollutant emissions, and may result in biological treatment upsets.
Unintentional pulping liquor losses at pulp mills are most commonly caused by process
upsets, equipment breakdowns, and tank overfillings. Maintenance and construction in a
mill s pulping and chemical recovery areas may cause intentional diversions of pulping liquor
to the wastewater treatment system. Pulping liquor may also be lost during normal mill
operations, such as planned shutdowns and start-ups and pulp grade changes.
Management programs, combined with engineered controls and monitoring systems can
prevent or control pulping liquor losses. These efforts should be both proactive to prevent
pulpmg liquor losses and reactive to control spills after they have occurred.
Practices to prevent or control pulping liquor losses at chemical pulp mills include the
following:
• Management of process operations to minimize variability.
• Preventative maintenance programs for equipment in pulping liquor service.1
• Automated spill detection, such as conductivity sensors in sewers ,'in the
pulping and chemical recovery areas.
• Frequent operator surveillance of pulping and chemical recovery areas to
quickly detect and repair leaks.
8-11
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
• Secondary containment and high-level alarms on weak and strong pulping
liquor tanks.
• Spill collection systems for the pulping and chemical recovery areas with
sufficient capacity to store collected spills and planned liquor diversions. The
collected liquor may then be recovered in the chemical recovery system or
slowly released to the wastewater treatment system (e.g., weak pulping liquor
that would not adversely impact the treatment system).
Mills with effective pulping liquor spill prevention and control programs have instituted a
combination of these practices to substantially eliminate black liquor losses. It has been
reported that the practical maximum reduction in BOD5 raw wastewater loading that can
be attained from spill prevention is 5 kg/metric ton (13). Based upon site visits by the
Agency it appears that sulfite mills are less likely than kraft or soda mills to have
engineered controls for collecting spills and leaks of pulping liquors at the immediate
process areas.
Details of the practices listed above, and the associated estimated costs and effluent
reduction benefits for nulls that chemically pulp wood or other fibers are in the document
entitled "Technical Support Document for Proposed Best Management Practices Programs,
Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention and Control," located in the Record for the
Rulemaking.
8.2.9 Maximizing Recovery Boiler Capacity
At kraft mills, spent cooking liquor (black liquor) from the digester and from brown stock
washing is sent to the chemical recoveiy area, where it is concentrated in multiple-effect
evaporators and then burned as part of the chemical recovery process. Section 4.2.4'
describes this process in detail. The organic fraction of the concentrated black liquor solids
generates heat as it is burned, and the inorganic material produces a molten smelt .that is
dissolved to regenerate the cooking chemicals.
When a mill improves its brown stock washing or installs oxygen delignification or extended
cooking, it is common practice to recycle the resulting filtrates to the recovery boiler, thus
increasing the amount of organics to the recovery boiler. The heating value of these
additional organics is an important factor in determining whether a mill needs to increase
the burning capacity of its recovery boiler when it makes these process changes. Thirty-nine
mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and one mill in the Dissolving
Kraft Subcategory indicated in the 1990 questionnaire that their pulp production capacity
was limited by the burning capacity of their recovery boilers.
8-12
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The increase in the heating load on the recovery boiler (referred to in this section as an
increase in boiler capacity) depends not only upon the amount of organics coming from the
process, but also upon their heating value. The heating value of the organics differs
depending upon the wood furnish (hardwood or softwood) and the process from which the
organics are obtained. For example, the solids recycled from an oxygen delignification
process have been oxidized and therefore have a lower heating value than those recycled
from a brown stock washer or digester. Also, more organics are recovered from softwood
pulp than from hardwood pulp. The increase of approximately 3 to 4 percent in organics
that is expected from upgrading a mill's brown stock washing system and adding oxygen
delignification and extended cooking generally requires an increase of about 2 to 4 percent
in recovery boiler capacity (14).
In U.S. mills, the increase in recovery boiler capacity that results from improving brown
stock washing alone is minimal (generally less than 1 percent) because, as indicated in
Section 8.2.3, U.S.. mills, on average, have fairly good brown stock washing. This
contribution to the recovery boiler is negligible when the accuracy of boiler flow
measurements is taken into account. However, the impact of extended delignification
processes such as extended cooking and oxygen delignification is significant in determining
increases in recovery boiler capacity.
A mill can compensate for an increase in solids loading to the recovery boiler in several
ways (15). One solution is to incrementally increase the capacity of the existing recovery,
boiler by expanding the boiler bed. Other options include making adjustments or modest
equipment upgrades to the existing boiler, modifying the air system, or replacing the, boiler
with a larger unit. However, because the capital cost of a new recovery boiler ranges from
50' to 100 million dollars, it is more economical to increase the capacity of the existing
boiler.
Alternatives to increasing the burning capacity of the recovery boiler are to reduce the load
on the boiler by using anthraquinone in the digester; installing high black liquor solids firing;
decreasing pulp production; removing the soap fraction of the black liquor; or transporting
black liquor to another mill for incineration. Methods for increasing recovery boiler
capacity and decreasing the load on' the recovery boiler are discussed below.
8.2.9.1
Recovery Boiler Expansion
To incrementally increase the boiler's capacity for burning black liquor, the boiler bed can
be physically expanded through rebuilds and equipment upgrades to combust a higher load
of solids. In some cases, relatively minor adjustments or modest equipment upgrades to
such items as liquor feed pumps will increase boiler capacity.
8-13
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.2.9.2
Air System Modifications
Modifications to the boiler's air system can increase recovery boiler capacity. The objective
of these modifications is to attain as complete combustion as possible in the lower part of
the boiler, to reduce carryover of unburned particles into the upper boiler, where plugging
is most likely to occur.
Most recent air system upgrades use high-pressure air. This air is fed through small ports,
creating higher than normal turbulence in the lower furnace. The increased heat transfer
to the lower water walls lowers temperatures in the upper area of the boiler, reducing
particulate carryover.
82.9.3
Anthraquinone
When wood chips are pulped in the digester, some loss of cellulose and hemicellulose along,
with the lignin occurs. Adding anthraquinone to the pulping liquor in the digester has been
shown to reduce the loss of these carbohydrates during pulping by stabilizing the molecules
from "peeling" reactions. Peeling is the detachment of sugar groups from the end 'of the
carbohydrate chain. As a result of anthraquinone's stabilization of cellulose, pulp yield
increases: less wood is pulped to achieve the same pulp yield. For a given production, the
amount of black liquor organics sent from the digester to the recovery boiler is thereby
reduced. Anthraquinone has also been shown to accelerate the pulping process and does
not affect pulp properties such as strength and viscosity.
The reacted anthraquinone is removed along with the spent cooking liquor, and is burned
in the recovery boiler. Anthraquinone has not been shown to remain with the pulp after
bleaching.
Pulp yield increases of 1 percent with boiler load reductions of about 4 percent are typical
when a mill adds anthraquinone. Anthraquinone use can also allow the pulping process to
occur at a slightly lower temperature, resulting in energy savings; also, pulping chemical
requirements are reduced. Five mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory reported using anthraquinone in their pulping operation.
8.2.9.4
High-Consistency Black Liquor Solids Firing
Traditional recovery boilers burn black liquor at a consistency of between 60 and 70 percent.
Firing of high-consistency (80 percent) black liquor solids has been shown to increase boiler
capacity (16).
Burning higher consistency black liquor reduces the gas flow through the boiler, which
reduces the tendency of the boiler to plug. A higher temperature will result in the
8-14
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
combustion zone, which will reduce the emissions of total reduced sulfur and improve the
reduction efficiency.of the recovery boiler. Carryover of unburned particles will also
decrease as the gas flow is lowered. Although these characteristics indicate that the boiler's
capability to burn increased quantities of black liquor solids will improve, some trials have
shown that the success of this method may be boiler-specific.
8.2.9.5
Other
In addition to the technologies discussed above, several other measures can be implemented
to increase recovery boiler capacity. These include lowering pulp production, removing
black liquor soap, and transporting spent liquor to another mill for incineration.
The most uncomplicated way to reduce recovery boiler load is by lowering pulp production
rate. However, this approach is economically unattractive to most mills.
If the soap fraction of the spent cooking liquor (consisting largely of resin and fatty acids
irom the wood that become ionized in the pulping liquor) is separated from the black liquor
and sold, burned outside the recovery boiler, or converted to tall oil, the heating value of
the black liquor can drop by 4 to 8 percent. A lower heating value from the black liquor
solids results in less heat produced per mass unit of solids in the boiler. Less recovery
boiler capacity is therefore required to burn the same mass of black liquor organics.
Kraft mills can sometimes transport their black liquor to other mills for incineration instead
of burning it on site. The green liquor produced would normally be returned to the
originating mill. This practice is generally impractical for mills that are not within
approximately 300 kilometers of a mill with excess recovery boiler capacity.
8-3 Pollution Prevention Controls Used in the Bleach Plant
This section describes applicable technologies for reducing and preventing poUutant
discharges from bleach plants at chemical pulp mills. For most facilities, the Agency defines
the bleach plant as including the stage where bleaching agents (e.g., chlorine, chlorine
dioxide, ozone, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, peroxide) are first applied, each subsequent
extraction stage, and each subsequent stage where bleaching agents are applied to the pulp
A limited number of mills produce specialty grades of pulp using hydrolysis or extraction
stages pnor to the first application of bleaching agents. For those mills, EPA considers the
bleach plant to include those pulp pretreatment stages. Although oxygen delignification
systems are integrated with pulping and chemical recovery systems, the convention in the
mdustry is to include oxygen delignification when specifying bleach sequences (e g O D/C
7*. '.'. ASency1S using that convention in this document, although it considers oxygen
delignification to be part of pulping rather than bleaching. Section 4.2.6.1 presents an
overview of bleach plant operation.
8-15
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.3.1 Counter-current Washing
In a typical bleach plant, each stage of bleaching is followed by washing in vacuum or
diffusion washers to remove residual chemicals and dissolved reaction products from the
pulp Prior to 1960, it was standard practice to use fresh water to wash pulp between
bleaching stages. This required a large amount of fresh water (approximately 300 m /metric
ton of pulp) and energy to heat that water, and resulted in large bleach plant effluent
discharges. In the 1960s, mills began to reuse bleach plant effluents for washing. Currently
almost all mills use some form of countercurrent washing between bleaching stages, which
conserves bleaching chemicals and heat, and reduces effluent discharge.
Various degrees of countercurrent washing can be performed. In jump-stage countercurrent
washing the most common form of countercurrent washing, wash water is recycled from the
final acid bleaching stage back through all the other acid bleaching stage washers skipping
the alkaline stage washers. Similarly, the wash water from the final alkaline bleaching stage
is recycled back through the alkaline stage washers. Two bleach plant effluents result: one
from the first acid bleaching stage and one from the first alkaline bleaching stage. Water
usage for a jump-stage countercurrent system is approximately 30 to 40 m /metric ton ot
pulp.
In a fully countercurrent washing system, fresh water is added to the final bleaching stage
washer and circulated back through each preceding washer to the first bleaching stage
washer. Effluent from the first bleaching stage washer is discharged to the sewer. The
amount of water used in this system is approximately 25 m3/rnetric ton of pulp. Mixing the
effluents from the acid and alkaline washing stages may produce foaming and precipitation
of chlorolignin compounds, but this can be controlled by installing washers with large
enough capacity such that they are not overloaded, sizing the seal tank large enough to
allow foam to break down, and installing better showers to remove scale from the washer
wires Modern countercurrent washing systems are normally constructed of materials able
to withstand thd more corrosive environment created by the concentration of chlorine
compounds in the washers.
Some mills use minimal wash water recirculation in the bleach plant, primarily by
recirculating water from the areas where the pulp is thickened rather than washed. This
reduces bleach plant flow by approximately 60 percent compared to the completely open
system.
8.3.2 Ozone Bleaching
Ozone is a powerful oxidizer, which has been studied for over 20 years as a potential
replacement for chlorine and chlorine dioxide in the first stage of pulp bleaching.
Historically, two major drawbacks have inhibited the adoption of industrial-scale ozone
i
8-16
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
bleaching: high cost and poor selectivity (i.e., a high degree of carbohydrate degradation
and therefore viscosity drop) (17). Recent technological developments, such as the
introduction of medium-consistency ozone bleaching and improvements in ozone efficiency
and selectivity, have removed these disadvantages to using ozone (17,18), and ozone
bleaching technology continues to evolve. The first full-scale ozone bleaching systems in a
sulfite mill and a kraft mill were started up in 1991 and 1992, respectively. Table 8-1 lists
current and planned ozone installations.
Ozone is generated either from oxygen or air, though it is normally produced using oxygen.
The oxygen (O2) passes through a series of tubes and a high voltage is applied, causing the
oxygen molecules to dissociate. The dissociated molecules recombine to form ozone (O3),
which is relatively unstable. Since ozone can easily decompose back to oxygen, ozone must
be generated on site for immediate use in the bleach plant.
Ozone bleaching has been researched at low, medium, and high consistencies. There are
no full-scale low-consistency systems at this time. Most currently operating full-scale systems
process the pulp at medium consistency (10 to 15 percent). Medium-consistency systems
have lower capital costs than do high-consistency systems (18).
Oxygen delignification with effective post-oxygen washing is necessary prior to ozone
bleaching to lower the lignin content of the pulp and therefore reduce the ozone charge
required. There ,are currently no defined "target" Kappa numbers documented for the pulp
entering the ozone stage; for ozone bleaching, target Kappa numbers tend to be site-specific.
Ozone oxidizes the carbohydrates in pulp as well as the lignin, so the ozone charge must be
optimized to achieve the maximum pulp delignification while minimizing the effects on pulp
viscosity. Mills currently operating ozone bleaching systems use between 5 and 12 kg ozone
per metric ton of pulp, although actual application rates and operating conditions for this
technology are usually confidential. A high-consistency system allows a higher ozone
application rate than a medium-consistency system.
The processes and equipment used for ozone bleaching and oxygen delignification are
similar. Prior to being fed to the ozone bleaching tower, the pulp is treated with either
acetic or sulfuric acid to lower the pH. As with oxygen delignification, the pulp may be
fluffed in the reactor to facilitate a more uniform reaction. Ozone is delivered to the
reactor with an oxygen carrier gas. This carrier gas can be recovered after ozone bleaching,
cleaned, and recycled to the ozone generator, or used elsewhere in the mill (e.g., in an
oxygen delignification system or an oxygen-enhanced extraction stage).
The reaction of the pulp with the ozone normally takes a few minutes, as opposed to a few
hours with other bleaching agents. The ozone bleaching reactor is therefore much smaller
than other reaction vessels in traditional bleach plants.
8-17
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Process effluents from ozone bleaching can be recycled to the recovery boiler, which
decreases the volume of bleach plant effluent and the amount of non-chlorinated
compounds discharged from the bleach plant. Because chlorine and chlorine derivatives are
not used for first stage bleaching, chlorinated organic compounds (e.g., CDDs/CDFs,
chlorinated phenolics) are not formed. The increase in the load of solids on the recovery
boiler from recycling the ozone stage filtrate is lower than that from an oxygen
delignification stage. The increase in solids for the ozone and subsequent extraction stages
cause an additional heating load on the recovery boiler of approximately 1 percent (19).
8.3.3 Split Addition of Chlorine
Split addition of chlorine involves separating the single chlorine charge to the first bleaching
stage into multiple smaller charges that are added sequentially, producing a more constant
chlorine charge in the first bleaching stage. High shear mixing is necessary for optimum
contact between, the chlorine and the pulp and to avoid localized high concentrations of
chlorine, and sodium hydroxide is used to raise the pH to a higher than normal level. This
pH level must be carefully controlled (20).
Split addition of chlorine has been shown to reduce, but not eliminate, the formation of
chlorinated phenolics and chlorinated dioxins and furans in the bleach plant, while retaining
pulp quality. This technology does not have a measurable effect on a mill's effluent
discharge of unchlorinated organics (21). An additional benefit of split addition is that the
capital expenditure is small compared to other technologies for reducing bleach plant
discharges of chlorinated organics.
As of January 1, 1993, 11 of the 87 mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory reported using this technology on one or all of their bleach lines. Split addition
has not been demonstrated at dissolving grade or sulfite mills.
8.3.4 Improved Mixing and Process Control
To realize the full benefits of technologies such as split addition of chlorine, high chlorine
dioxide substitution, oxygen-enhanced extraction, and oxygen delignification on the bleach
plant effluent, the pulp and bleaching agents must be well-mixed and the chemical addition
rate controlled as precisely as possible. Normally, when technologies such as these are
installed, mixing and process control are also upgraded.
High shear mixers, introduced in the late 1970s, dramatically increased the contact of the
pulp with gases such as oxygen, making the oxygen-enhanced extraction stage a practical,
effective bleaching technology (22). High shear mixing has similarly become a vital part of
a medium-consistency oxygen delignification system. To ensure uniform application of the
chemicals in a high chlorine dioxide substitution stage, the pulp must be well-mixed with the
8-18
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
chlorine dioxide gas. Finally, as noted in Section 8.3.3, the use of high shear mixers is
essential with split addition of chlorine to avoid high localized concentrations of chlorine.
8.3.5 Chlorine Dioxide Substitution
Substituting chlorine dioxide for some or all of the molecular chlorine in the first bleaching
stage has become common practice in the industry, because C1O2 substitution reduces the
formation of chlorinated organics in the bleach plant effluent and lowers bleach plant
chemical consumption (23). K
The amount of chlorine dioxide used is expressed as percent substitution. The percentage
of chlonne dioxide substitution is defined as the percentage of the total chlorine bleaching
power of the first bleaching stage that is provided by chlorine dioxide, and is calculated by
the following formula: J
Percent Substitution =
2.63 (C1O2 in kg/metric ton)
2.63 (C102 in kg/metric ton) + (C12 in kg/metric ton)
(1)
where 2.63 equals the oxidizing power of chlorine dioxide compared to chlorine.
Chlorine dioxide is a stronger oxidizing agent than chlorine. Consequently, less chemical
below ^ dlOXide 1S Substituted for chlorine. An example of this is shown
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
2.63 (C102 in kg/metric ton) + (C12 in kg/metric ton) = 65 kg/metric ton
(3)
Solving for the mass flow rates of chlorine and chlorine dioxide results in application rate
of 32.5 kg/metric ton chlorine and 12.4 kg/metric ton chlorine dioxide. Thus, the total
amount of chemical added at 50 percent substitution is 44.9 kg/metric ton^ instead of he
65 kg/metric ton that is added without chlorine dioxide substitution. This reduces the
amount of chlorine available to form chlorinated organics.
Chloroform formation is substantially reduced when a mill raises chlorine dioxide
substitution to between 50 and 100 percent (24). Discharges of under 10 g/metnc ton pulp
can be expected with 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution including the chloroform
emitted at all atmospheric vents. Chloroform levels also depend on he order of chlorine
STd chlorine dioxide addition in the first bleaching stage. Adding chlorine dioxide before
chlorine generates 2 to 5 times more chloroform than does adding them simultaneously (24).
Chlorine dioxide substitution also results in improved pulp quality because it minimizes
cellulose degradation. Chlorine dioxide substitution does not affect the discharge of
unchlorinated compounds.
Chlorine dioxide must be generated on site because it is unstable and cannot be transported
in a pure form by truck or rail. As of January I, 1993, most of the mills that bleach
chemically pulped wood pulps generated chlorine dioxide on site, and more than 60 percent
of those mills used chlorine dioxide substitution in the first bleaching stage, as shown below.
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
======
Total
Number of
Mills
3
87
5
10
==========
Number With
OOj Generation
On Site
3
79
3
5
========
Number With CIOZ
Substitution in
First Bleacbing
Stage
3
60
3
4
In generating chlorine dioxide, there is also some byproduct generation. Sodium sulfate
(Nis04) and chlorine are generated in different amounts, depending on the chlorine
dioxide generator, as shown below (25):
8-20
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Chlorine Dioxide Generator
Solvay
Mathieson
R2
R3
R8
CJj (kkg/kkg CIO*)
0
0
0.66
0.66
0
Sf%S04 (kkg/kkg CLOz)
3.5
3.5
7
2.4
1.4
It is important to control the ratio of chlorine applied in the first bleaching stage to lignin
content of the pulp entering the first bleaching stage, as well as the amount of C1O2
substitution, to most effectively reduce the formation of chlorinated compounds (23). The
ratio of molecular chlorine applied in the first bleaching stage (expressed as percent on
pulp) to Kappa number of the pulp entering the first bleaching stage is referred to in this
document as the gaseous chlorine multiple (GCM):
GCM =
C12 (kg/100 kg brown stock)
Pre-chlorination Kappa number
(4)
The ratio of total chlorine (from molecular chlorine and chlorine dioxide) in the first
bleaching stage (expressed as percent on pulp) to Kappa number of the pulp entering the
first bleaching stage is referred to in this document as the active chlorine multiple (ACM):
ACM = tcl2 (kg/100 kg brown stock) + 2.63 C1O2 (kg/100 kg brown stock)] (5)
Pre-chlorination Kappa number
It has been shown that mills that control chemical dosage to maintain a GCM of 0 15 or less
can be expected to have no detectable 2,3,7,8-TCDD or 2,3,7,8-TCDF in their bleach plant
effluent (26). This is primarily applicable to mills with low (30 percent or less) CIO
substitution.
The ACM is a more appropriate guideline for chemical dosage for mills with greater than
30 percent C1O2 substitution. A Canadian study evaluated formation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
A'™8/TCCDF in the final effluent from bleached kraft mills relative to C1O2 substitution and
ACM (27). The study developed an equation for the relationship between C1O2 substitution
and ACM, using three assumptions:
8-21
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
1) When chlorine is used alone, lignin very quickly consumes chlorine at an
ACM of 0.16;
2) When chlorine and C1O2 are both used in the first bleaching stage, chlorine
reacts with lignin three times faster than does C1O2; and
3) There is a possibility of measurable concentrations of TCDDs and TCDFs
forming only if residual molecular chlorine remains after the reaction with
lignin. (The detection limits in the study were 10 ppq for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and,
30 ppq for 2,3,7,8-TCDF.)
i
These assumptions had been previously supported by laboratory work (28,29).
The equation developed is shown below:
0.16
ACM (100 - % C1O2 substitution) ACM (% QO2 substitution)
100
3(100)
This equation simplifies to:
ACM <
24
150 - % C1O2 substitution
(7)
Dividing through by the right side of the equation gives:
ACM
24/(150 - % C1O2 substitution)
<; 1
(8)
The left side of this equation is referred to in this document as the ACM Ratio. It can be
used to calculate the amount of C1O2 substitution required for a mill to achieve non-
detectable final effluent concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, as indicated by
an ACM Ratio of less than or equal to 1.0. The relationship is shown on the following
graph:
8-22
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
20 40 60
% CIO2 Substitution
80
100
8.3.6 Enhanced Extraction
In the alkaline extraction stages of the bleach plant, lignin reaction products from the
preceding acid stages are dissolved, or extracted, by applying sodium hydroxide (caustic)
solutions to the pulp. These dissolved products are then washed from the pulp. The first
caustic extraction stage of the bleach plant can be enhanced with oxygen, hydrogen peroxide,
or both (shown as E0, Ep, and E^, respectively) to replace equivalent quantities of chlorine-
based bleaching chemicals in other bleaching stages (30). Enhanced extraction is a low
capital cost measure that improves effluent quality by reducing chlorine consumption,
therefore reducing the amount of chlorinated organics in the bleach plant effluent. Mills
implementing enhanced extraction typically reduce molecular chlorine use in the first
bleaching stage,.while keeping the chlorine dioxide addition rate constant (resulting in a
higher level of chlorine dioxide substitution).
Oxygen-enhanced extraction became commercially feasible in the early 1980s due to the
development and introduction of high-shear mixers for pulp stock. A high-shear mixer is
required to ensure'good mixing of the gaseous oxygen with the pulp. The extraction must
be carried out in either an upflow extraction tower or a downflow tower preceded by a small
upflow pre-retention tube to maintain the pressure required to keep the oxygen gas in
solution until it has reacted with the pulp. Adding oxygen to the extraction stage improves
delignification by approximately 25 percent (31), while allowing the mill to use less chlorine
or chlorine dioxide in the overall bleaching sequence. Adding between 4 and 6 kg of oxygen
per metric ton of pulp saves approximately 2 kg of active chlorine per kg of oxygen (22).
8-23
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and.Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Oxygen-enhanced extraction normally reduces overall bleaching chemical costs, thus
justifying, in many cases, the capital cost of the additional mixing power and piping required.
This is evidenced by many mills in the U.S. converting their bleaching sequences to E0
operation during the 1980s.
Hydrogen peroxide is usually added at the inlet to the oxygen mixer when E^ is used, or at
the inlet to the stock pump for Ep alone. Adding hydrogen peroxide in the first extraction
stage improves deligmfication and reduces chlorine-based chemical requirements either in
the first chlorination stage or further along in the bleaching sequence. Applying 1 kg of
peroxide per metric ton of pulp results in an active chlorine savings of approximately 2 to
3 kg (25). If hydrogen peroxide-enhanced extraction is used following 100 percent chlorine
dioxide substitution, a higher final brightness can be achieved (22).
Mills that use hydrogen peroxide-enhanced extraction are able to reduce the amount of
either molecular chlorine or chlorine dioxide in other bleaching stages. The cost .of
hydrogen peroxide is currently much higher than the cost of molecular chlorine and slightly
lower than the cost of chlorine dioxide (see Section 11.0). Therefore, a mill operating
hydrogen peroxide enhancement increases its operating costs if it reduces molecular chlorine
use, but decreases operating costs if it reduces chlorine dioxide use.
Adding oxygen to an extraction stage is more capital intensive than adding peroxide because,
as described above, a high shear mixer and other equipment must be used for the bleaching
stage to operate effectively. Therefore, the simplest way for a mill to enhance its extraction
stage is with hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide is also effective in enhancing the
second extraction stage, unlike oxygen.
A significant number of U.S. bleached pulp mills have implemented enhanced extraction.
As of January 1, 1993, mills in all four BAT subcategories were using some form of
enhanced extraction, as shown below:
Subcategoiy
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Total Number of Mills
3
87
5
10
Numbe* With Enhanced
Extraction (E^ Ep, or Eop)
1
65
2
4
8-24
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.3.7 Elimination of Hypochlorite
Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are effective bleaching agents that attack
lignin. Suffite pulps are more easily bleached with hypochlorite than kraft pulps because
the lignin is more easily solubilized (32). Hypochlorite can also degrade cellulose,
decreasing pulp viscosity. To limit cellulose degradation, hypochlorite is usually applied in
an intermediate bleaching stage for kraft pulps. Hypochlorite is also used to control pulp
viscosity in dissolving pulps, as discussed in Section 8.3.8.
Chloroform is generated when pulp is bleached with hypochlorite (33). Mills that use
sodium or calcium hypochlorite in one or more bleaching stages generate approximately ten
times as much chloroform as mills using a CEDED bleaching sequence (34). Controlling
chloroform releases generally entails eliminating hypochlorite as a bleaching agent. The
bleaching power of hypochlorite can be replaced by chlorine, chlorine dioxide, peroxide,
and/or oxygen. However, replacing hypochlorite with chlorine is counterproductive if the
purpose is to reduce chloroform generation, because bleaching with molecular chlorine also
generates chloroform.
For some mills, particularly those with short bleaching sequences (e.g., CEH), eliminating
hypochlorite requires replacing the hypochlorite bleaching tower with a new chlorine dioxide
tower, washer, and auxiliaries made of materials resistant to the more corrosive environment
of chlorine dioxide bleaching. Some nulls may be able to modify the bleaching chemical
additions to other stages (i.e., adding oxygen and/or peroxide to the first extraction stage)
and abandon the hypochlorite stage, rather than replacing it. This may apply to mills with
a CEHDED-rype of bleaching sequence and mills using hypochlorite only in extraction
stages.
Replacing hypochlorite reduces direct operating costs, because hypochlorite is more
expensive than chlorine dioxide, oxygen, and peroxide and has a lower chlorine equivalence
factor (see Section 11.1.2.6). The number of nulls using a hypochlorite stage or
hypochlorite-reinforced extraction as of January 1, 1993 is shown below:
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Total Number of Mills
3
87
5
10
=========================
Mills Using Hypochlorite
3
36
5
9
8-25
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
83.8 ffigh-Temperature/High-Alkalinity Hypochlorite Bleaching
Some mills, particularly dissolving kraft and suffite mills, may have difficulty eliminating
hypochlorite from their bleaching sequences because of hypochlorite's ability to control the
pulp viscosity required for dissolving pulp final products. An alternative for these mills to
reduce chloroform generation in the bleach plant is to use high-temperature/high-alkalmity
hypochlorite bleaching (35). This involves increasing the temperature in the hypochlonte
stage from approximately 60°C to between approximately 70°C and 80°C and increasing the
pH from approximately 10 to between approximately 12 and 13. This procedure appears
to destroy chloroform in the H stage after it is generated, but before it is emitted to air or
discharged to water (36). This process has been tested in several full-scale mill applications
with no adverse effects on pulp viscosity or brightness.
8.3.9 Enzyme Bleaching
Enzymes are organic compounds that act as catalysts in reactions. Xylanase enzymes
improve the bleachability of wood pulps by partially hydrolyzing the xylan, the primary
bonding agent between the cellulose and the lignin, although the exact mechanism by which
they aid in bleaching is not known (37). The lignin is therefore more easily removed in
subsequent bleaching stages. Xylanase may be added to the pulp after brown stock washing
or after oxygen delignification to reduce or eliminate the need for bleaching with chlorine
compounds. The optimum conditions for the xylanase reaction are temperatures between
40 and 55 °C, pH between 4 and 6, and detention time between 0.5 and 3 hours (37). The
xylanase is applied at less than 1 kg/metric ton of pulp.
Several mills worldwide have conducted full-scale trials with xylanase on kraft pulps with
resulting increases in brightness and viscosity and no loss of pulp strength (37). More
experimental work has been done using enzymes to bleach kraft pulps than to bleach sulfite
pulps.
83.10 Peroxide Bleaching
Though hydrogen peroxide is primarily used to reinforce caustic extraction stages, hydrogen
peroxide can replace chlorine compounds in bleaching chemical pulps. The brightness
achievable using peroxide can be increased by lowering the lignin content of the pulp as
much as possible prior to bleaching (e.g., by using oxygen delignification).
While bleaching stages that use chlorine compounds inherently remove metal ions from the
pulp, these ions will react with peroxide to form hydroxyl radicals that can degrade cellulose.
Therefore, the metal ions must be removed from solution by using chelating agents, followed
by effective pulp washing prior to applying peroxide (38). When a peroxide stage follows
8-26
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
a chlorine compound bleaching stage, separate addition of a chelating agent is not required.
One method of peroxide bleaching using chelating agents is the Lignox® process developed
by Eka Nobel (39).
The peroxide charge, required for a full peroxide stage is approximately 2.5 percent on pulp.
To fully utilize the peroxide charge and achieve high brightness requires a temperature of
between 70 and 90°C and retention time between 2 and 4 hours, but these conditions may
decrease pulp viscosity (38).
Peroxide bleaching has been demonstrated in full-scale applications at both kraft and sulfite
mills outside the U.S. As of January 1, 1993, no U.S. kraft mills bleached pulp with
peroxide alone, but peroxide bleaching was in use at one mill in the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory and two mills in the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory.
The capital cost of implementing peroxide bleaching is minimal, assuming use of existing
bleaching towers. Because the unit cost for hydrogen peroxide is higher than for chlorine,
operating costs for peroxide bleaching may be higher depending upon the amount of
peroxide used. The cost of the large amount of peroxide that is necessary to bleach a pulp
to full brightness has limited the use of peroxide bleaching.
8.3.11 Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching of Papergrade Kraft Pulps
The production of totally chlorine-free (TCP) bleached kraft pulp is accomplished using a
combination of ozone, oxygen, enzymes, and/or peroxide in place of chlorine or chlorine
derivatives. In the last several years, numerous TCP bleaching processes have been
developed, and at present, more than 15 mills worldwide produce TCP papergrade kraft
pulps. However, most kraft TCP bleaching lines are not dedicated to TCP production due
to lack of market demand. Most TCP kraft pulps are lower brightness pulps than market
kraft grades (75-80 ISO vs 88-90 ISO).
EPA found that only one mill, located in Sweden, routinely produces commercial quantities
of high brightness (88-90 ISO) TCP hardwood papergrade kraft pulp. This mill began
production of this high brightness pulp in September 1992 using a bleaching sequence that
includes ozone, and, in January 1993, began mill trials to produce TCP softwood kraft pulp
using ozone.
Two mills in Finland produce commercial quantities of pulp using a TCP bleaching process
for both hardwood and softwood, and a third mill has been running TCP trials (40,41). The
first two mills use extended cooking and oxygen delignification followed by enzyme and
peroxide bleaching to produce pulp with a brightness of over 80 ISO for softwood and
approximately 85 ISO for hardwood. One of these mills plans to convert all of its
production to TCP in 1994 after installing an ozone bleaching system to help lower
8-27
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
bleaching costs. The second mill plans to install ozone blea,ching after the first mill is
bleaching its full production with ozone.
A U.S. kraft mill began producing lower brightness pulp using a TCP bleaching process in
September 1992. The mill currently bleaches eight percent of its pulp with the TCP process
and will gradually increase this to 100 percent over the next three years. This mill pulps and
bleaches softwood (70/30 mix of Douglas Fir and redwood) to 80 Elrepho brightness. The
current bleaching sequence, following oxygen delignification, is QE^PPS (42). Q represents
an acidic chelant stage, followed by an enhanced extraction stage (E^), two alkaline
peroxide stages (PP), and a sodium bisulfite stage (S).
The mill referenced above reports significant environmental benefits from the TCP
bleaching sequence compared to the normal (DC/DEEDED sequence. For example, color
has decreased from 1,200 to less than 300 color units, and has been as low as 50 color units
when bleach plant effluents are recycled to the recovery system. None of the seventeen
2,3,7,8-substituted CDD and CDF congeners have been detected in the TCP bleach plant
effluent, and adsorbable organic halide (AOX), when detected, has been less than 0.1
kg/ADMT. It is expected that when bleach plant effluents are recycled, BOD5 discharge
loadings will be significantly reduced. Decreases in both effluent flow and heat losses are
also predicted. There is currently a discharge of approximately 1 mg/L of manganese in the
total mill effluent resulting from the discharge of the chelation (Q) stage filtrate.
In September 1992, a U.S. kraft mill began producing lower brightness kraft pulp using
ozone bleaching. This mill pulps and bleaches softwood to approximately 82-83 ISO;
however, the bleaching sequence at this mill (OZED) includes a final chlorine dioxide
brightening stage and thus is not a TCP process. The following description of this mill is
based upon a recent publication (43).
This mill reports significant environmental benefits from the OZED bleaching sequence
compared to sequences CEDED and OD/CED for both hardwood and softwood for
parameters such as color, BOD5, COD, chloroform, and total organic halides. Although
chlorine dioxide is used in the final bleaching stage, 2,3,7,8-TCDD has not been detected
in D-stage filtrate or bleached pulp. Another advantage of this sequence is the potential
to recycle filtrates from the oxygen, ozone, and extraction stages to the recovery system.
Compared to bleaching sequences of CEDED and OD/CED, the OZED sequence achieves
equivalent pulp properties, except for viscosity, for both hardwood and softwood. Since pulp
viscosity and strength have a different correlation for oxygen/ozone bleached pulps than for
chlorine compound bleached pulps, the mill reports the decrease in viscosity has not been
a problem.
Additional environmental benefits and further recycling of filtrates could be achieved if the
final chlorine dioxide stage would be converted to use a non-chlorine containing compound.
8-28
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The mill has studied combinations of oxygen and ozone with peroxide and believes that an
acceptable softwood TCP pulp can be made. The mill does not currently use a TCP
bleaching sequence because it would substantially increase operating costs over those of the
OZED sequence.
Although TCP bleaching has been demonstrated for both softwood and hardwood
papergrade kraft pulps with lower brightness, the Agency has determined that TCP
bleaching processes have not been adequately demonstrated for producing high brightness
softwood papergrade kraft pulp at this writing. Softwood papergrade kraft pulp comprises
a large percentage of U.S. bleached kraft pulp production.
8.3.12 Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching of Dissolving Kraft Pulps
At present, none of the three U.S. dissolving kraft mills use a TCP process to bleach their
pulp and the Agency is not aware of any non-U.S. mill that produces dissolving kraft pulp
using a TCP process. Although laboratory investigations of alternative bleaching sequences
for dissolving kraft pulps may be under way, at this time the Agency has determined that
TCP processes are not demonstrated for or transferable to this subcategory.
8.3.13 Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching of Dissolving Sulfite Pulps
At present, there are no mills in the U.S. that use a TCP process to bleach dissolving sulfite
pulps. The Agency has received information from one dissolving sulfite mill located in
Austria that uses a TCP bleaching process to produce viscose fiber-grade pulps using
peroxide-enhanced oxygen delignification followed by a medium-consistency ozone stage and
a peroxide stage. The mill uses magnesium-based sulfite cooking liquor to pulp hardwood
(beech) to a Kappa number of 6 to 8 prior to bleaching. The bleach plant filtrates from this
facility are incinerated in a dedicated incinerator, because sodium in the filtrates is not
compatible with magnesium in the pulping liquor, which is recovered.
Bleached pulp properties at this mill were reported as follows (44,45):
Pulp Property
Brightness
Cleanliness
alpha-Cellulose
Kappa
Ash
Quantify
90-92 ISO
<45 specks/m2
90.5 - 91%
<0.7
<0.06%
8-29
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The biological wastewater treatment system at this mill reduces COD by 93 percent, and an
average AOX of 0.04 kg/metric ton is reported for the final effluent. Across the treatment
system, BOD5 is reduced by 99 percent to approximately 0.5 kg/metric ton, and TSS is
reduced by 91 percent to approximately 1 kg/metric ton.
Although the Agency has determined that TCP bleaching is a viable technology for
dissolving suffite pulps, the process has not been demonstrated for all grades produced in
the U.S., particularly high purity acetate grade pulps.
8.3.14 Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching of Papergrade Suffite Pulps
At present, there are no mills in the U.S. that use a TCP process to bleach papergrade
sulfite pulps. There are at least 10 papergrade suffite mills worldwide located in Austria,
Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland that use TCP bleaching
processes. The Agency has information on these 10 mills and believes other papergrade
sulfite mills may be using TCP processes.
The bleaching sequences at most of the TCP papergrade suffite mills are based upon oxygen
delignification, followed by one or more peroxide bleaching stages. Many of these mills
describe their oxygen delignification stage as an enhanced extraction stage (Eop); however,
in form and function it is the same as oxygen delignification (i.e., a pressurized tower is used
to introduce oxygen to lower the pulp lignin content). Further delignification, or bleaching,
is performed with one or more peroxide stages. The peroxide stages are operated at
consistencies ranging from 12 to 30 percent; peroxide charges vary between 30 and 40
kg/ADMT. To prevent side reactions of metal ions in the peroxide stages, some mills use
acid washes or add,chelating agents before, between, or in the peroxide stages. Some mills
also add sodium silicate or nitrilamine to peroxide stages to further brighten the pulp.
The furnish used by papergrade suffite mills using TCP bleaching include a variety of
hardwoods (predominately birch and beech) and softwoods (mostly spruce). These TCP
sulfite mills also make a variety • of products including market pulp, tissue, and printing and
writing grades. Bleached pulp properties vary by product. Most mills report brightnesses
near 85 ISO; the range reported is 70 to 90 ISO. Table 8-2 compares pulping liquor base,
furnish, Kappa number, products, bleaching sequence, and product brightness for the TCP
papergrade suffite mills.
Information about other product qualities was provided by three mills. Two of these mills
provided data for comparison befpre and after the conversion to the TCP process. Most
significant product qualities at these three mills were either not changed by conversion to
the TCP process or were accommodated by the mills and their customers. Because
products, significant product qualities, and testing methods vary from mill to mill, each mill's
8-30
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
experience with the conversion was different. Table 8-3 summarizes the comparative data
provided by each mill.
The 10 papergrade sulfite mills that use TCP bleaching include mills that use calcium,
sodium, and magnesium base pulping liquors. One sodium base null has started to recycle
all bleach plant filtrates back to the recovery system (i.e., to close the bleach plant). Two
magnesium base mills are attempting to close the bleach plant by using magnesium oxide
instead of sodium hydroxide as the extraction stage base. So far, both of these nulls have
been unable to completely close their bleach plants, because some sodium hydroxide is still
used.
Limited final effluent data were provided by these 10 mills and are presented below:
Mill
l(a)
2(a)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9(a)
10
AOX
(kg/metric ton)
0.5
0.02 to 0.06
0.0(b)
No data
<0.01
<0.1
0.0(b)
No data
0.0(b)
0.0(b)
»ODS
(Jig/metric ton)
0.8
76
8.7(c) ,
No data
13(c)
0.8
35
No data
16
No data
COD
(kg/metric ton)
55
248
44
80
75
28
125
No data
55
50
Type of Wastewater Treatment
Primary and Secondary
Primary
Primary and Secondary
Primary
Primary and Secondary
Primary and Secondary
Primary
Primary and Secondary
Primary and Secondary
Primary
(a)Mill only bleached a portion of its pulp with a TCP process.
(b)Mill reported an AOX value of approximately zero but did not provide actual test results
(c)Test used was for BOD7.
Note that some of the effluent data reported above were developed using different analytical
methods, and are therefore not necessarily directly comparable with U.S. standard analytical
results.
8-31
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The Agency has determined that TCP bleaching is demonstrated for the full range of grades
of papergrade sulfite pulps produced in the U.S., including both hardwood and softwood
furnishes and similar brightness ranges.
8.4 Flow Reduction Technologies
This section describes applicable technologies for i-educing wastewater discharges from pulp,
paper and paperboard mills. Applicable flow reduction technologies serve either of the
following purposes:' (a) treat wastewater to a quality sufficient for recycle/reuse m the same
or other processes (e.g., savealls) or (b) reduce fresh water use by using more recycled
wastewater (e.g., self-cleaning machine showers). Many flow reduction technologies provide
additional benefits, including decreased pollutant load to wastewater treatment, improved
fiber and chemical recovery, reduced energy requirements, fresh water treatment cost
savings, and wastewater treatment cost savings.
8.4.1 Countercurrent Brown Stock Pulp Washing
Most chemical pulp mills use countercurrent brown stock pulp washing, where water from
later washing stages is reused as wash water in earlier washing stages. Because most brown
stock washing wastewater enters the pulping liquor recovery system, this flow reduction
technology has minimal impact on final effluent flow reduction, but does reduce the amount
of fresh water required for brown stock washing.
8.4.2 Screen Room Closure
Section 8.2.5 discusses screen room closure. In an open system, screen room wash water is
routed to wastewater treatment. In a closed system, screen room wash water is typically
reused in brown stock washing. Complete closure of the screen room area can reduce by
10 to 15 percent the total water consumed at an integrated mill.
8.43 Recycling of Evaporator Condensates
Mills can significantly reduce final effluent flow by stripping and reusing evaporator
condensates in brown stock washing, screening, cleaning, and thickening rather than
discharging these wastewater streams to wastewater treatment. Most mills currently recycle
clean evaporator condensates. With increased emphasis on condensate stripping, additional
hot water will be available for reuse and recycle (see Section 8.2.7).
8.4.4 Bleach Plant Countercurrent and Jump-Stage Pulp Washing
Wastewater discharged from the bleach plant can be significantly reduced by reusing wash
water from later bleaching stages in earlier stages via countercurrent washing or jump-stage
8-32
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
washing. These technologies are described in Section 8.3.1. Most chemical pulp mills that
bleach pulp perform countercurrent or jump-stage bleached pulp washing.
8.4.5 Flotation Clarification (Deinking)
Deinking of secondary fiber is accomplished by a "washing" process that removes inks clay
plastics, and organic material. In this washing process, fiber is diluted to approximately 1
percent consistency and is screened or pressed to retain usable fiber. Dilution to such low
consistency requires large amounts of water and results in large filtrate flows to wastewater
treatment from the screens and presses. If the filtrate is clarified, however, it can be reused
as dilution water in the washing process. Clarification is the preferred filtrate treatment
technology, because wash water, with its heat and chemicals, is recovered while
contaminants are removed from the filtrate. Flotation clarifiers have several advantages
over other types of clarifiers because their small volume minimizes retention time space
requirements, and installation costs, and they are more effective than gravity settlers at
separating fine ink particles. The sludge generated by the clarifier has a relatively high
solids content and is easily handled by a belt or screw press. Because the flotation clarifier
effectively removes all types of suspended solids (fibers and contaminants), it is commonly
preceded by a process water filter that recovers reusable fiber (46). Figure 8-7 includes
illustrations of two types of flotation clarifiers.
8.4.6 Savealls
Savealls are the primary technology used to remove reusable fibers and fillers from paper
machine white water. Many different types of savealls are used in the industry, including
drum filters, flotation devices, and disc filters. Disc savealls are generally preferred over
other types because they possess a larger filtration area for a given floor space an ability
to separate filtrates of different qualities, and an ability to handle large volumes and surge
loads (47). Disc savealls consist of a series of discs mounted on a center shaft, as illustrated
in Figure 8-8 White water flows through the filtering medium in each disk sector and
though the shaft core. Filtrates of varying quality are generated as the disks rotate (32)
The initial cloudy" filtrate can be reused in stock preparation processes prior to the
headbox. The subsequent "clear* filtrate can be reused in low-pressure, high-volume paper
machine showers (e.g., headbox showers, wire showers, knockoff showers, grooved roll
showers, and roll and fabric cleaning showers) which generally do not require very hieh
quality water. "Clear" filtrate may also be used in other pulp mill and bleach plant
operations A separate saveall should be instaUed for each paper/pulp machine, especially
if the machines are producing different products, to avoid mixing different qualities of white-
water and to prevent upsets on one machine affecting the performance of another
8-33
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
the
an
8.4.7 Gravity Strainers With High-Pressure, Self-cleaning Showers
Gravity strainers remove fine, long, and medium fiber from the "clear" filtrate
saveall, so that the filtrate can be reused in paper machine showers. Figure _8-
Sustration of a gravity strainer. Gravity strainers also guard against upsets in the saveaU
load that make "clear" filtrate too dirty for reuse in the machine showers <«)•»«£
pressure, self-cleaning showers are commonly installed in combination L with gravity strainers
Sd other filtration devices as an added safeguard against plugging of shower nozzles (49)
Self-cleaning shower nozzles are automatically cleaned by periodically applying a brush or
eSa water pressure to the nozzles. These showers can be installed to replace machine
showers (e.g. headbox showers, wire showers, knockoff showers, grooved roll showers and
roU and fabric cleaning showers) and require much less water than low-pressure, high-
volume showers. The automatic nozzle cleaning prevents plugging and makes them more
amenable to using clarified white water.
8.4.8 Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cascade System
Cascading seal water from high- to low-pressure vacuum pumps in the press section of the
paper machine reduces fresh water requirements to this ; area jty ' approximately 5Q i percent
(50) The low-pressure vacuum pumps can tolerate a slightly higher seal water temperature
kan the high-pressure pumps; however, the seal water entering the ^pressure pumps
must be cool enough that it can be used in the low-pressure pumps. Warm seal water
decreases pump efficiency, requires larger pumps to maintain the same vacuum, and causes
Lrmal degradation of the vacuum pump system. This technology is usually ess expensive
tta^fhe cooling tower technology discussed in Section 8.4.9, but its applicability is limited
to northern mills whose fresh water temperatures are sufficiently low (51).
8.4.9 Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cooling Tower System
Fresh water requirements for vacuum pump seal water in the press section of the paper
machine can be reduced beyond that achieved in cascade systems byinstalhng a cooling
tower to recirculate and cool all vacuum pump seal water (51) The accumulation of
chemicals and solids that cause corrosion will necessitate occasional bleeding of seal water
to wastewater treatment. Some fresh water make-up is required to compensate for bleeding
and evaporative losses, but the amount of make-up required is very smaU compared to the
amount of fresh water saved because of recirculation and cooling. This technology, although
generally more expensive than seal water cascade systems, is particularly applicable for
fouthern mills whose fresh water temperatures may be too high to operate seal water
cascade systems.
8-34
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.4.10 Adequate Wastewater Storage
Adequate wastewater storage (e.g., storage tanks and pits) is critical to achieve optimum
wastewater recycle and reuse during minor and most major process upsets and surges. For
example, during a process shutdown, mills that lack adequate wastewater storage are forced
to discharge recyclable wastewater to wastewater treatment. When the process restarts,
fresh water is required to satisfy water demands because adequate recycled wastewater is
not available.
Mills that operate closed or nearly closed wastewater systems often require some form of
disinfection to control build-up of biological contaminants. Disinfection systems range from
adding biocides to wastewater storage tanks, to wastewater treatment with chlorine dioxide
or peroxide or installation of in-process secondary treatment.
8-5 End-of-Pine Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Conventional end-of-pipe wastewater treatment at pulp and paper mills typically comprise
primary treatment followed by various secondary biological treatment. The application of
these treatments is nearly universal across most segments of the industry.
Primary treatment includes physical and chemical processes that achieve solids removal,
equalization, neutralization, and color reduction. Primary treatment is generally used in
combination with secondary biological treatment. The most common types of secondary
biological treatment at pulp and paper mills are activated sludge, aerated and non-aerated
stabilization basins. In these systems, bacteria convert soluble organic material that
contribute to BOD5 into settleable biological solids in the presence of oxygen; these solids
are then removed by sedimentation (52). Mills that have mixed treatment have both
activated sludge and basin systems.
This section describes the physical, chemical, and biological treatment technologies used to
treat pulp and paper mill wastewater and the pertinent design and operating parameters of
these technologies. Table 8-4 shows the number of mills, grouped by discharge status
(direct, indirect, and non-discharging), that have each type of wastewater treatment. In
general, more direct-discharging mills have biological treatment and more indirect and non-
discharging mills have primary treatment only. Basin systems are more common than
activated sludge systems at mills with biological treatment.
Table 8-5 summarizes the number of direct-discharging mills in each subcategory that have
each type of wastewater treatment. For the purpose of this table, mills were grouped into
the subcategory that represented the largest percentage of their total annual production
Of direct-discharging mills, chemical pulping and secondary fiber mills have secondary
biological treatment more frequently than non-integrated mills. At chemical pulping mills,
8-35
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Darticularly kraft mills, basins are twice as common as activated sludge systems Secondary
fiber deink mills use activated sludge more often, whereas non-deink mills use basins more
frequently. Most non-integrated mills have primary treatment only; at non-integrated mills
that also have secondary biological treatment, basins are used equally as often as activated
sludge. There are nine direct-discharging mills that have no treatment or less than complete
secondary treatment because of unique site-specific factors.
8.5.1 Primary Treatment: Screening, Solids Removal, Equalization, and Neutralization
The technologies discussed in this section are generally, but not always, used prior to
biological treatment. Some of these technologies may also constitute the major method ot
wastewater treatment at mills that do not need additional biological treatment in order to
meet current regulatory requirements.
Table 8-6 summarizes the number and types of solids removal, equalization, and
neutralization technologies currently used at pulp and paper mills.
8.5.1.1
Coarse Solids Removal
Screening
Numerous types "of screens are used in the pulp and paper industry. Such screens are
generally grouped into two types: bar (coarse) and fine screens. Bar screens are most often
the first unit operation in the treatment sequence as coarse solids must be removed from
wastewater streams to protect downstream treatment equipment, such as pumps and valves,
from plugging. Mechanically cleaned bar screens are the most common coarse screen used;
approximately 40 percent of nulls with wastewater treatment use this type. Bar screens have
at least 1.5 cm spacings through which the wastewater passes, retaining solids such as wood
chips, leaves, plastics, and rags.
A few mills use fine screens and microstrainers with spacings smaller than 1.5 cm; however,
fine screens, microstrainers, and pressure filters are more easily clogged by wastes (52).
Fine screens are often as expensive as comparable clarification units but more difficult to
maintain (13).
Grit Removal
Grit removal protects downstream equipment from abrasion and damaging deposit
formation. Therefore, grit chambers are usually located after screens and before
sedimentation clarifiers. Grit chambers remove mostly sand and other inorganic particles
greater than 0.2 mm (52). Approximately 10 percent of mills with wastewater treatment
operations perform grit removal.
8-36
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.5.1.2
Sedimentation
Suspended solids from pulp and paper wastewater are removed primarily by sedimentation
(settling). Sedimentation is desirable prior to biological treatment because it reduces the
load on the treatment system and prevents equipment wear (52). Most mills with
wastewater treatment systems use some type of sedimentation process. Because activated
sludge systems are particularly sensitive to load fluctuations, more than 90 percent of mills
with activated sludge treatment have sedimentation equipment. Sedimentation units are
also the major treatment operation at two-thirds of the mills that do not have biological
treatment systems. Sedimentation equipment can include mechanical clarifiers and settling
ponds. Chemically assisted flocculation is also used to improve sedimentation.
The sedimentation device used most in the pulp and paper industry is the mechanical
clarifier. This device is used approximately three times as often as all other sedimentation
devices at mills with biological treatment, but only equally as often as other sedimentation
devices at mills with no biological treatment. Suspended solids are removed by two types
of settling in the clarifier, discrete and floe. Zone type settling might also occur in the lower
regions of the clarifier.
A rotating sludge scraper mounted on the floor of the clarifier rakes the sludge into a center
sump, where a sludge pump removes it to sludge handling facilities. To facilitate sludge
removal, the bottom of the clarifier slopes towards the center at a 1:12 ratio (13). The table
below describes primary clarifier designs typically used at pulp and paper mills.
Typical Primary Clarifier Design
Construction Material
Construction Geometry
Depth
Detention Time
Overflow Rate
Concrete(a)
Circular(a)
3-4.5 m(a)
2-10 hours(a)
2.5-15 m3/d/m2(b)
(a)Based on mill responses to the 1990 questionnaire.
(b)Based on values obtained from literature (13).
Mills with no subsequent biological treatment reported slightly longer detention times than
mills with biological treatment.
Mechanical clarifiers can remove as much as 80-90 percent of suspended solids
(approximately 95-100 percent of settleable solids), producing a clarified effluent containing
35-60 mg/L suspended solids (13). Mechanical clarifiers also remove some of the
8-37
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
biodegradable portion of settleable solids present in pulp and paper wastewater. The
amount of BOD5 removed depends on the production operations at the mill. At non-
integrated mills producing tissue and board, most BOD5 is associated with the suspended
solids and, therefore, BOD5 removal efficiencies at these mills may be as high as 90 percent.
The more soluble BOD5 generated at integrated mills results in less BOD5 removed, ranging
from 20-60 percent (13).
The clarified effluent produced by mechanical elarifiers either undergoes further biological
treatment or is discharged as the mill's final effluent. Because mechanical elarifiers produce
a more constant solids loading, they are more often installed in front of activated sludge
treatment. The clarifier also generates a concentrated sludge stream that is easily handled
by conventional sludge handling equipment and can be disposed of by incineration or
landfilUng. Section 8.5.4 discusses sludge handling operations in more detail.
Mechanical elarifiers may also be located after biological treatment systems, particularly
activated sludge systems, where they remove additional solids generated by biological
treatment. Section 8.5.2 discusses the design and types of these elarifiers used in the pulp
and paper industry.
Settling ponds, a less sophisticated and less expensive alternative to mechanical elarifiers,
also remove suspended solids by sedimentation. Settling ponds are usually unlined and
earthen, and have longer detention times than elarifiers, ranging from 0.5 to several days.
Settling ponds produce a less constant solids loading than mechanical elarifiers, but will
usually provide sufficient solids removal prior to aerated stabilization basins and other
lagoon types of biological treatment.
8.5.1.3
Flocculation
Despite the good settling properties of the suspended solids present in pulp and paper mill
wastewater, a mill may need to improve the settling properties of the particles in wastewater
with flocculation. At pulp and paper mills, flocculation typically occurs in the mechanical
elarifiers; a few mills reported that they operate separate clari-flocculators. In either case,
flocculation involves chemical addition and gentle mechanical or air mixing of the
wastewater to increase the floe-type sedimentation that occurs in the clarifier. The
chemicals and mixing agglomerate particles to form heavier, settleable particles (usually
termed a "chemi-floc") that will settle faster. Less than 15 percent of mills with biological
treatment use flocculation before biological treatment, while one-half of all mills without
biological treatment use flocculation. Section 8.5.4 discusses flocculation in more detail.
8-38
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.5.1.4
Flotation Clarification
In flotation clarification units, a fine gas, usually air, is introduced into the wastewater where
it adheres to particles. The buoyancy of the air causes the particles to rise to the surface
of the water where they are collected by a skimming mechanism. A common modification
of this process is dissolved air flotation (DAF), in which air under pressure is injected into
the wastewater. As the pressure is released in the flotation tank, fine bubbles of
supersaturated air form and attach to particles, carrying them to the surface (52). The
advantage of flotation clarification over traditional sedimentation is that lighter particles that
require very long detention times to settle are removed more quickly. DAF units are more
efficient than conventional flotation clarifiers, because more air is introduced into the
wastewater, thereby removing more solids. Less than 5 percent of all mills with wastewater
treatment operations use flotation clarification. Responses to the 1990 questionnaire
indicate that, of the ten DAF units reportedly operated as primary treatment at pulp and
paper mills, eight are operated by mills with no biological treatment. In fact, at mills with
no biological treatment, approximately 30 percent use flotation clarifiers (most of these are
DAF units) making them the second most common solids removal devices after mechanical
clarifiers. The TSS concentrations in the final effluents at these mills range from 8.6 to 113,
mg/L; the average concentration is 37.4 mg/L.
8.5.1.5
Equalization
Wastewater flow and load variations can affect the performance of subsequent treatment
operations, especially biological treatment. Flow equalization and mixing dampens shock
loads, dilutes potentially inhibiting substances, and improves chemical feed control which
results in more efficient operation of downstream treatment (52). According to mill
responses to the 1990 questionnaire, equalization is normally performed after sedimentation
and before biological treatment. Detention times in equalization tanks and basins vary
greatly in the industry and are very dependent on the flow rate and variability at each mill
(52). Approximately 10 percent of all mills with wastewater treatment have equalization.
More mills with activated sludge treatment have equalization than do mills with other types
of treatment.
8.5.1.6
Neutralization (pH Adjustment)
Another method for improving the performance of wastewater treatment systems is
neutralization, or pH adjustment. Biological treatment relies on bacteria to degrade organic
substances dissolved in wastewater. These bacteria function optimally in neutral pH
environments of 6.5 to 7.5. Pulp and paper mill wastewater pH typically ranges from 5 to
9, and may therefore require some buffering to achieve optimal conditions, particularly in
activated sludge systems (13). At mills with no biological treatment, neutralization adjusts
the pH to levels acceptable for discharge to receiving streams. According to mill responses
8-39
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
to the 1990 questionnaire, one-third of mills with wastewater treatment use neutralization;
mills with activated sludge are more likely to use neutralization than other mills.
8.5.2 Activated Sludge Systems
In an activated sludge system, bacteria digest dissolved organic wastes in an aeration basin,
generating biological solids that are removed in a sedimentation clarifier. The solids are
removed from the bottom of the clarifier as sludge, a fraction of which is recycled back to
the aeration basin to maintain the high level of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)
Activated sludge treatment is a high-rate biological process where there is a relatively high
concentration of MLSS and mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) in the aeration;
basin; mills report most MLSS levels in the range of 1,000-6,000 mg/L and MLVSS levels
in the range of 1,000-4,000 mg/L. The main advantage of an activated sludge system over
other biological treatment processes in use in the industry is that it can treat up to 45 kg of
BODj/28 m3 of aerated volume, thus requiring relatively little space (13). A disadvantage
of an activated sludge system is that maintenance of optimum'performance and final effluent
quality requires a consistently higher level of attention to day-to-day operation than
aerated/non-aerated basin treatment systems. The presence of properly designed physical
components alone is not sufficient to achieve optimum performance. Therefore, O&M costs
for activated sludge systems are typically higher than for aerated/non-aerated basin
treatment systems.
The four most common activated sludge processes used by pulp and paper mills are
conventional (plug-flow), extended aeration, high-rate aeration, and pure-oxygen aeration
(UNOX®). Mills with activated sludge processes that are not included in one of these four
groups operate other modifications, such as complete-mix, oxidation ditch, step aeration,
contact stabilization, and reaeration. Approximately a third of all mills with biological
wastewater treatment and a quarter of all mills with any type of wastewater treatment have
activated sludge treatment. If mills that have mixed treatment are included, these
percentages increase to about 40 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Table 8-7 shows the
number of mills with activated sludge and mixed systems that use each type of activated
sludge process.
The activated sludge process used by each mill was determined from the description
provided by the mill in response to the 1990 questionnaire. If the process could not be
identified from the description, a detention tune criteria was applied. Some mills were not
included in Table 8-7 because they did not provide process descriptions or detention times.
Some mills also use more than one type of activated sludge process. Therefore, the total
number of mills indicated in Table 8-7 does not correspond to the total number of mills with
activated sludge and naked treatment mentioned previously..
8-40
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Almost one-third of mills with activated sludge or mixed treatment use the conventional
process. In a conventional activated sludge system, wastewater from the primary clarifier
and recycled activated sludge both enter the aeration tank at a single location. Mechanical
or diffused-air aerators supply the required oxygen and uniform mixing throughout the tank.
Microorganisms, in the presence of oxygen, oxidize dissolved organic matter (52). Food-to-i
microorganism (F/M) ratios, detention times, and MLSS levels for the conventional process
and other activated sludge processes common to the pulp and paper industry are
summarized in the table below.
Activated! Sludge
Pr0ee$$
Conventional
Extended Aeration
High Rate Aeration
Pure Oxygen Aeration
Typical Detention
Times(a) (hr$)
4-8
>18
2-4
2-4
F/Sf Rafio${a)
0.2-0.4
0.05-0.15
0.4-1.5
0.25-1.0
MLSS Levei$ Relative
to Conventional
Process(a)
-
Lower
Higher
Higher
(a) Values for each parameter were obtained from literature (52).
Values for these parameters reported by the industry in response to the 1990 questionnaire
compare well to values cited in literature and are given below:
Activated Sludge Design Parameter
F/M Ratio
Detention Tune
MLSS Concentrations
Range of Values Reported by Mills
0.06-1.6
1-130 hours
1-6,000 mg/L
Almost as many mills with activated sludge or mixed treatment have extended aeration as
have conventional activated sludge. Extended aeration differs from conventional activated
sludge only in that it uses a lower organic loading and a longer detention time. F/M ratios
in these systems are normally lower, and detention times are normally longer for the
conventional process (52).
Approximately 20 percent of the mills with activated sludge treatment operate a high-rate
modification. High-rate activated sludge combines high MLSS concentrations with high flow
rates. The result is higher F/M ratios and relatively short hydraulic detention times.
8-41
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Adequate mixing in the high-rate aeration tank is critical in order to maintain F/M ratios
(52).
Pure oxygen, or UNOX®, activated sludge systems use high-purity oxygen instead of air.
UNOX® detention times are typically even shorter than those for high-rate activated sludge
systems. Oxygen is diffused into covered aeration tanks and recirculated; pH is adjusted and
recirculated oxygen is occasionally purged to avoid carbon dioxide accumulating at toxic
levels in the effluent. Approximately four times as much oxygen can be added in this
process than in conventional activated sludge systems. As with high-rate aeration, the F/M
ratios for this system are generally higher, and detention times are shorter. The advantage
of a UNOX® system is that it is less sensitive to shock loads than other types of activated
sludge systems (52). About 10 percent of all mills with activated sludge use this process; no
mills with mixed treatment use this process.
Most of the aeration tanks constructed at pulp and paper mills are concrete; a few are lined
or earthen. Mechanical or diffused aerators create the aerobic environment in the tank.
These aerators supply approximately 1 kg of oxygen/kg of BOD5 removed. The aerators
supply oxygen to the bacteria while maintaining the mixing level required to achieve high
MLSS concentrations. The table below shows the approximate number of mills that use
each type of aerator in their activated sludge aeration tanks based on responses to the 1990
questionnaire.
*£ype of Aerator
Mechanical Surface
Diffused Air.
Mechanical Submerged Turbine
Total(a)
Howler of Mills
31
28
8
67
(a)The total number does not equal the number of mills that have activated sludge treatment as some mills did
not report the type of aerator used.
In order for biological systems to operate efficiently, the bacteria require sufficient amounts
of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. Supplemental nitrogen and phosphorus
are added at over 90 percent of all mills operating activated sludge systems. The average
dosage required is a ratio of 100:5:1 of BOD5:nitrogen:phosphorus (13).
Because activated sludge systems do not handle shock loads efficiently, the installation of
flow equalization, neutralization, and sedimentation units prior to the activated sludge unit
is necessary.
8-42
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
As mentioned previously, sedimentation clarifiers are necessary to remove the biological
solids generated in the aeration tanks. All of the mills with activated sludge systems use
mechanical clarifiers for solids removal following treatment. The typical design features of
activated sludge clarifiers are similar to those for primary clarifiers (discussed in Section
8.5.1.2) and are shown in the following table.
Topical Activated Sludge Clarifies Design
Construction Material
Construction Geometry
Depth
Detention Time
Overflow Rate
Concrete
Circular
3-4.5 m
3-10 hours
5-30 m3/day/m2
(average = 17.3)
The average surface overflow rate in these clarifiers is slightly lower than the value of 24.4
m /day/m2 reported in literature (13). Chemicals are added to enhance flocculation in
more than 15 percent of the activated sludge clarifiers. Section 8.5.4 describes the chemicals
used for flocculation.
Activated sludge systems are used by mills with a wide range of wastewater flows: 115 to
182,000 m3/day. Responses to the 1990 questionnaire indicate that activated sludge
treatment is used by nulls in every production subcategory. Activated sludge systems
achieve BOD5 removal of 80 to greater than 90 percent (52). The BOD5 and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations achieved at mills with activated sludge are
summarized below:
Range
Average
BOD5 Concentration (mg/L)
3.40-200
33.7
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
6.90-300
56.6
Approximately 13 percent of all mills with activated sludge achieve BOD5 concentrations
lower than 10 mg/L; approximately 7 percent achieve TSS concentrations lower than 10
mg/L.
8-43
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
8.5.3 Aerated and Non-aerated Stabilization Basins
Aerated and non-aerated basins are characterized by longer detention times, lower F/M
ratios, and lower MLSS concentrations than are typical for activated sludge systems. The
concentration of suspended solids in stabilization basins at pulp and paper mills is low
enough that subsequent mechanical clarification is unnecessary.
Slightly more than half of all basins operated at pulp and paper mills are aerated basins.
Mechanical surface aerators are used in three times as many basins as all other types of
aerators combined, including diffused-air and mechanical submerged turbine aerators.
Aerated basins may be configured in two ways. In one configuration, all the aeration
equipment is located near the wastewater Met to the basin, providing maximum oxygento
the bacteria that degrade the dissolved organic matter, reducing BOD5 levels. The
remaining portion of the basin is not aerated, providing a quiescent area for the biological
solids generated in the aerated portion to settle. The range of detention times in these
types of basins is approximately 1 to 18 days.
In the second configuration, the entire basin is aerated. The amount of aeration supplied
may be based on oxygen or oxygen and mixing requirements. In complete-mix conditions,
the contact between bacteria and the wastes they degrade is maximized. However, the
aeration capacity required to maintain a complete mix provides more oxygen than is
required for BOD5 removal. These types of aerated basins are often followed by non-
aerated basins that remove the solids kept in suspension by mixing. If the amount of
aeration supplied is based on oxygen requirements (not mixing), there will be some settling
of biological solids in the basin. However, because there is no quiescent zone to allow for
complete sedimentation, the detention times in these basins are slightly shorter than for the
first configuration, ranging from 1 to 12 days.
Non-aerated basins, or "polishing ponds," primarily serve to settle any biological solids that
may have been generated in previous treatment operations. The basin may, depending on
its size, also serve as a holding area, or "holding pond," from which the flow of final effluent
into a receiving stream can be controlled. Because fluctuations in flow and load are
dampened in large holding ponds, they function as equalization units as well. In general,
most BOD5 removal that occurs in holding ponds is associated with the settling of suspended
solids. However, active bacteria from previous treatment units may be carried over into
ponds, where they continue to digest organics, removing some BOD5. Because there are no
aerators to supply additional oxygen below the surface, there are zones of anaerobic
digestion. As a result, non-aerated basins are sometimes referred to as facultative basins
because biological processes occur with and without the presence of oxygen. In order to
sufficiently remove suspended solids, the detention times in non-aerated basins are from 1
to 27 days, longer than those required in aerated basins.
8-44
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Most basins, of any type, are earthen, while more than 20 percent are lined, usually with
compacted clay. Basins are constructed based on the topography of the available land, so
there is no preferred geometry. Basin depths are between 10 and 25 feet and may depend
on the type of aeration, if any, used. At approximately 20 percent of all basins used in the
industry, nutrients are added to facilitate biological processes, but typically in smaller
dosages than are added to activated sludge units (13).
Like activated sludge units, basins are used by mills with a wide range of flows: 190 to over
380,000 m3/day. The BOD5 and TSS concentrations achieved at mills with basins are given
below:
BOD5 Concentration (mg/L)
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
Range
3.00-536
2.00-400
Average
60.89
67.5
Approximately 7 percent of these mills achieve BOD5 concentrations lower than 10 mg/L.
In general, the BOD5 levels achieved at mills with basins are higher than those achieved by
activated sludge. However, the TSS concentrations achieved by basins and activated sludge
are more comparable; about 5 percent of these mills achieve TSS concentrations lower than
10 mg/L. The average TSS concentration reported by mills is comparable to literature
stating that solids concentrations in basins are typically less than 200 mg/L (13).
More than 25 pulp and paper mills operating wastewater treatment combine both activated
sludge and basin technologies. In most mixed treatment systems, activated sludge units
precede basins; however, other combinations do exist (one mill has parallel activated sludge
and basin systems). Flows at these mills range from 1,900 to 290,000 m3/day. The BOD5
and TSS concentrations achieved at mills that have mixed treatment are shown below:
f
BOD5 Concentration (mg/L)
TSS Concentration (mg/L)
Range
3.20-100
2.30-150
Average
31.99
94.33
The BOD5 levels achieved by mixed treatment are slightly better than those achieved by
basins or activated sludge systems alone. A higher portion of these mills, 22 percent,
achieve BOD5 concentrations lower than 10 mg/L. TSS concentrations achieved by mixed
8-45
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
systems are generally lower than those achieved by basins or activated sludge systems alone;
however, only one of these mills achieves a TSS concentration lower than 10 mg/L.
8.5.4 Sludge Handling Operations
Sludge handling and disposal operations may account for more than one-half of the costs
of operating a wastewater treatment system. Wastewater treatment systems at pulp and
paper mills generate two types of solid waste, or sludge, that require further handling and
disposal: biological and primary. Biological sludge is generated by mills that use clarifiers
after biological treatment to remove biological solids. Primary sludge is generated by mills
using clarifiers prior to biological treatment or at mills with no biological treatment.
Primary sludge is usually generated in greater quantities than biological sludge (13).
The dewaterability. of sludge varies greatly and depends on the type of pulp and paper
produced at the mill. Dewaterability is important because it determines the amount of
waste to be handled by other sludge operations; the more dewaterable the sludge, the
smaller the volume of waste to be handled and the lower the operating and disposal costs.
Primary sludges are easier to dewater than biological sludge because of their higher fiber
and lower ash content (13).
More than 90 percent of mills that treat biological sludge have activated sludge systems.
Only a few basin mills have clarifiers that follow then: basin systems; consequently,
approximately 90 percent of basin mills that have sludge handling facilities treat primary
sludge rather than biological sludge. Mills that operate trickling filters, flotation clarifiers,
and DAF units also generate sludges that require dewatering and disposal. According to
responses to the 1990 questionnaire, the solids content of primary sludge ranges from 1 to
6 percent and the solids content of the various biological sludges, regardless of type,.is
lower, ranging from 0.3 to 2.2 percent.
Table 8-8 summarizes the number of mills that have sludge handling operations. The
specific types of sludge handling operations commonly used in the industry are described in
detail below.
The sequence of sludge operations typically begins with a preliminary operation such as
sludge grinding, blending, or storage. Sludge is ground primarily to eliminate large material
that could clog downstream equipment. Particularly difficult-to-dewater biological sludge
may be blended with primary sludge to improve its dewaterability if neither type of sludge
is used individually as a by-product or in another application. Mills may store sludge to
dampen fluctuations in sludge generation, providing a constant feed to subsequent sludge
operations. Sludge is stored in tanks, basins, or ponds and lagoons. Blending may also!
occur in storage areas as well (52,13). Fewer than 10 percent of mills with sludge handling
operations blend or grind sludge and approximately 15 percent store sludge.
8-46
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Preliminary sludge operations are often followed by a preconditioning step. The most
common preconditioning operations are sludge thickening and chemical conditioning.
Sludge is thickened primarily by gravity and flotation clarifiers. About one-fourth of all
mills that have sludge handling facilities perform sludge thickening. The increased solids
content of sludge due to thickening allows more efficient operation of dewatering equipment
that usually requires higher feed concentrations than found in unthickened sludge. The
gravity and flotation clarifiers used for sludge thickening are similar in function and design
to sedimentation clarifiers and DAF units described in Section 8.5.1 (13). Flotation
thickeners achieve a higher solids content than gravity thickeners because they can generally
accept a higher solids loading rate (52). The solids content of primary and biological
sludges after flotation thickening are approximately 4 and up to 10 percent, respectively (13).
Chemical conditioning of sludge is also performed prior to dewatering to improve the
dewaterability of the sludge. Conditioners facilitate the coagulation and flocculation of
sludge particles, releasing absorbed water; this results in a 15 to 30 percent increase in
sludge solids content (52). The chemicals most commonly used for conditioning by pulp and
paper mills are ferric chloride, lime, and polymer. These chemicals may be used singly or
in conjunction. The more difficult-to-dewater sludges require larger dosages of conditioner;
biological sludge typically requires a larger dose of conditioner than primary sludge and is
therefore more costly to treat (13). Like sludge thickening, slightly more than one-fourth
of mills with sludge operations condition sludge before dewatering; about 15 percent of
these mills have both thickening and conditioning operations.
Preconditioning of sludge is followed by dewatering, the major sludge operation. The most
common dewatering equipment used in the pulp and paper industry includes belt filter
presses, screw presses, vacuum filters, coil filters, and V-presses. Because pulp and paper
sludge is amenable to mechanical dewatering, the types of equipment listed above
accomplish dewatering by physical means such as squeezing and vacuum withdrawal (52).
The most popular dewatering device is the belt filter press. Preconditioned (thickened or
chemically conditioned) sludge is fed to a gravity drainage section where much of the free
water is removed by gravity. The sludge is then fed to a low-pressure section where it is
squeezed between two porous cloth belts. Some presses also have a subsequent high-
pressure section where the sludge passes through a series of rollers. The squeezing and
shearing forces in the low- and high-pressure sections release more absorbed water from the
sludge. The dewatered sludge cake is scraped from the belts by blades. Belt filter presses
are relatively inexpensive to operate as they are energy-efficient and require little operator
attention (52). Their one major drawback is that the belt cloth has a short useful life and
often requires replacement. The sludge cake solids content is 20 to 50 percent for primary
sludge and 10 to 20 percent for biological sludge (13). Almost one-half of all mills with
8-47
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
sludge handling faculties operate belt filter presses; one-fourth of the belt filter presses
operated at mills are preceded by a thickening or conditioning step.
Screw presses are starting to replace belt filter presses as the dewatering technology of
choice in the pulp and paper industry. Screw presses achieve a sludge cake solids content
of 50 to 55 percent without preconditioning (13). Chemical conditioning is not necessary
prior to dewatering by screw presses because it has little impact upon the sludge cake
consistency; fewer than 10 percent of mills that have screw presses perform chemical
conditioning. About one-fifth of mills with sludge handling operations have screw presses.
Another dewatering device common to the pulp and paper industry is the vacuum filter
Vacuum filter systems consist of a horizontal cylinder partially submerged in a tank ot
sludge A layer of porous filter media of fabric or tightly wound coils covers the outer
surface of the cylinder. Fabric is used almost three times more frequently than coils. The
cylinder rotates at a rate of approximately 1 to 2 rpm. As the cylinder surface passes
through the sludge tank, a layer of sludge adheres to the cylinder. A vacuum is then applied
to the interior of the cylinder along a portion of the circumference just beyond the sludge
tank, withdrawing water from the sludge layer. The dewatered sludge cake layer then passes
by a blade that scrapes the sludge cake off the fabric (52). The solids content of sludge
cake from vacuum filters ranges from 20 to 30 percent. Vacuum filters are as preva ent as
screw presses at pulp and paper mills. About 20 percent of all vacuum filters are followed
by a V-press which increases the solids to 35 to 40 percent (13).
V-presses, or mechanical presses, are used by mills primarily to further dewater vacuum
filter sludge cake. They can dewater sludge cakes already containing 30 percent solids to
produce cakes with up to 45 percent solids content; cakes of this consistency can be
incinerated (13). Fewer than 5 percent of mills that handle sludge have V-presses and only
two mills operate a V-press independent of a vacuum filter.
Between 10 and 15 percent of nulls with sludge operations use some type of sludge pond
or lagoon Sludge lagoons serve a variety of purposes, such as equalization, stabilization,
and storage. Lagoons are not often used as the primary method of dewatering. They are
usually sites of sludge accumulation prior to dewatering where equalization and stabilization
can occur or they are storage sites for dewatered sludge prior to disposal.
Other sludge handling operations that are used in the pulp and paper industry, but by only
a few mills, include aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion, centrifuges, drying beds, dryers,
and plate-and-frame filter presses.
The pulp and paper industry disposes of dewatered sludge by several methods, including
landfilling, surface impoundment, incineration, and land application. Table 8-9 presents the
8-48
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
number of mills using various disposal methods for each type of sludge (primary, biological,
and combined).
Landfilling is by far the most prevalent method of sludge disposal used by more than one-
half of all mills that dispose of sludge. Because primary sludge is generated in greater
amounts than biological sludge, more primary sludge is landfilled than biological or
combined sludge. Landfills may be company-owned, municipal, or commercial; however,
more than three times as many mills use company-owned landfills than either municipal or
commercial landfills. Approximately 20 percent of mills that dispose of sludge send their
sludge to surface impoundments.
Incineration is the next most common method of sludge disposal at pulp and paper mills.
Sludge is generally incinerated in one of three places: a specialized sludge incinerator, the
bark boiler, or a power boiler that also burns fossil fuels (13). Combined sludge is more
often incinerated than either primary or biological sludge. About 15 percent of mills that
dispose of sludge do so by incineration.
Land application of sludge is another method of sludge disposal. Pulp and paper sludge is
classified as a soil amendment rather than a fertilizer because it does not meet the
elemental requirements for fertilizers; it is a particularly good amendment for sandy soils.
However, restrictions and guidelines governing the land spreading of solid wastes may limit
its use (13). Between 10 and 15 percent of mills disposing of sludge perform land
application. Primary, biological, and combined sludges are applied to land equally as often.
Other methods of sludge disposal used by pulp and paper mills include composting, sale of
sludge as by-products, and recycling sludge back to mill processes. Each of these methods
is used by less than 10 percent of mills requiring sludge disposal.
8.5.5 Chemical Addition
In the pulp and paper industry, the primary purpose for most chemical addition is to assist
sedimentation clarification by enhancing flocculation in the clarifier. More than 25 percent
of all mills with wastewater treatment use some type of chemically assisted clarification,
whether it precedes or follows biological treatment or is the only major method of
treatment. Certain chemicals, called coagulants, destabilize the colloidal material in
wastewater by reducing the electrostatic repulsive forces between colloids or, more typically,
by forming positively charged hydrous oxides that absorb to the colloidal surface.
Destabilized particles more easily coalesce to form heavier, more settleable particles called
floes. Flocculation is the actual transport of destabilized particles to make contact with
other particles in order to form floes. The floes containing the original material to be
removed are therefore settled out more efficiently (53).
8-49
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The coagulants most commonly used in the pulp and paper industry, in order of decreasing
usage, are:
• Polymer (polyelectrolytes);
• Aluminum sulfate, or alum (Al^SO^g);
• Calcium hydroxide, or lime (Ca(OH)2)
• Ferric sulfate and ferrous sulfate, or iron salts (Fe2(SO4)3 and Fe(SO4)); and
• Others (ferric chloride, calcium chloride).
Because there are so many varieties of polymer that may accomplish efficient flocculation,
it is used in mills twice as frequently as all other coagulants combined. The selection and
dosage of a coagulant depends on the ease of floe formation and generated solids handling.
8.5.6 Other Treatment Technologies
This section describes biological treatment technologies currently used by less than three
percent of pulp and paper mills. These technologies are used less frequently than activated
sludge and basin systems because they are generally more expensive and less efficient.
Two types of aerobic attached-growth biological treatment systems are used in the industry:
trickling filters and rotating biological contactors.
In a trickling filter system, wastewater trickles through a bed of permeable media to which
microorganisms are attached. The microorganisms degrade the dissolved organic matter
into biological solids. The treated wastewater passes through a sedimentation clarifier
where biological solids are removed (52). Four mills reported that they operate trickling
filter systems in conjunction with mechanical clarifiers for sedimentation. None of the four
mills chemically or mechanically pulp wood; two mills are secondary fiber non-deink mills
and two manufacture their products from purchased pulp. The average effluent flow rate
and BODj and TSS concentrations achieved at these mills are approximately 21,200 m /day,
29.2 mg/L, and 38.4 mg/L, respectively. One of the non-deink mills achieves BOD5 and
TSS concentrations as low as 8.50, mg/L and 6.0 mg/L. However, trickling filter systems
generally have very low BOD5 removal efficiencies for pulp and paper wastes, approximately
50 percent. Even the development of plastic media could not sufficiently solve this problem.
Therefore, trickling filters will probably not ever be a preferred biological treatment
alternative (13).
8-50
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
A rotating biological contactor (RBC) is a series of closely packed circular disks of
polystyrene or polyvinyl chloride that are partially submerged in wastewater and slowly'
rotated As biological growth attaches to the surface of the RBC, a layer of slime forms
Ihe disks rotate between contacting the dissolved organic matter in the wastewater and
adsorbing oxygen from the atmosphere. The shearing forces of rotation remove the excess
biological solids, which remain in suspension. The solids are removed in a sedimentation
clarifier (52). RBCs can achieve BOD5 and TSS concentrations of 20 mg/L each (13)
which is sufficient treatment at most pulp and paper mills. However, this system is more
expensive than the other types of biological treatment common in the industry Only one
mill, which produces fine and lightweight papers from purchased pulp, operates an RBC as
its major method of wastewater treatment. This mill achieves BOD5 and TSS concentrations
ot 20.6 and 23.6 mg/L, respectively.
Filtration processes used to treat pulp and paper wastewater typically are granular-medium
Miration rather than membrane filtration. Filtration usually follows clarification, and
removes additional suspended solids from wastewater. As wastewater passes through a bed
of granular medium or media, such as sand, anthracite, coal, garnet, ilmenite, and
diatomaceous earth, solids are removed via straining and sedimentation. Media, grain size
filter type and bed depth can be varied to achieve the desired results (52,54) At two
secondary fiber deink mills, continuous sand filters are the last polishing step in the
treatment sequence. One mill operates an activated sludge system and achieves effluent
t*n< i -r concfntrations of 6.7 and 6.9 mg/L, respectively; the second mill has an
aerated stabilization basin and achieves effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations of 20.3 and
16.0 mg/L, respectively. Filtration technologies are generally very expensive to operate
especially at rmUs where effluent flows can be as high as 190,000 m'/day. Both mills have
relatively low effluent flows (less than 11,000 m3/day) which helps miinmize their operating
Other minor treatment technologies used by a few mills include anaerobic digestion, land
filtration, comminution, oil skimming, and lamella separators.
8.5.7 Color Reduction Technologies
h P^P?r ^ wastewaters ^ primarily the result of chemical pulping
and bleaching processes. Color has potentially harmful effects on plant and aquatic life as
weU as downstream _ wastewater treatment operations. The biological treatment systems
g±ly T d, by. ™ES adueve ^ P°or color «™oval efficiencies, at best, 30 percent
Because biological treatment cannot achieve acceptable color removal, several
physicochemical processes have been developed. These color removal technologies include^
8-51
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
• Lime Precipitation or Coagulation;
• Enzyme Pretreatment;
• Magnesium and Lime;
• A1»m Coagulation and Precipitation;
• Ozone Oxidation;
• Resin Separation;
• Ion Exchange;
• Aluminum Oxide;
• Wood Adsorption;
• Activated Carbon Adsorption;
• Membrane Separation; and
j
• MYCOR Processing.
All of the technologies listed above, with the exception of activated carbon adsorption
reduce color by 90 percent or more (activated carbon achieves removals of 70 to 85
nercent) BOD5 and COD are also reduced by each technology. However, BODs and COD
removal is less expensive using biological treatment. Color removal technologies are not
widely used primarily due to their relatively high operating costs (13).
End-of-pipe treatment technologies are not the only methods available to reduce color. In-
plant process changes, such as oxygen delignification, can also reduce color in mill
wastewater Replacing conventional chlorine bleaching with oxygen, chlorine dioxide
hypochlorite, peroxide, or ozone bleaching would also reduce color loads. Environmental
pressures to reduce the use of chlorine bleaching make oxygen and ozone bleaching
particularly promising (13).
8.5.8 Ultrafiltration of Bleach Plant Filtrates
Membrane filtration processes, such as ultrafiltration (UF), were initially applied to pulp
and paper mill effluents for color removal. However, these systems were not implemented
because of high operating costs due to membrane replacement, energy requirements, and
8-52
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
large capital investments. TWO events within the past 15 years made UF a viable treatment
option for removal of high molecular weight chlorinated compounds that are not removed
by conventional biological treatment. One was an increasing pressure on the industry to
eliminate toxic organics, such as dioxin, from mill effluents; the second was the development
of more chemically and thermally resistant membranes, such as polysulphone and cellulose
acetate, that operated well in conditions similar to those found in alkaline stage filtrates.
Early studies of UF indicated that there was high rejection of chlorinated lignins and resin
acids and low rejection of low molecular weight chlorinated organic compounds (55).
Because isomers of dioxin and furan may attach to the high molecular weight chlorinated
lignins, a high rejection of dioxin and furan compounds by the membrane was also
anticipated (56). Tests showed that polysulphone was particularly well-suited for application
to alkaline stage effluents because it performed well over a range of pH and temperatures
and at high pressure (55,56).
The Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) conducted a bench-scale dioxin
treatability study in 1991 to assess the performance of UF in treating raw alkaline stage
filtrates. The first part of the study focused on membrane selection and testing. Two
membrane materials, polysulphone and vinyl copolymer, were evaluated for their ability to
remove chlorinated organic compounds. In general, the polysulphone membrane achieved
greater removal of chlorinated constituents than the vinyl copolymer. The test results also
indicated that optimal performance was achieved at a pH of 10 to 11. Lower pH did not
impact removal efficiencies, but did lower the flux rate across the membrane. Subsequent
clean water testing of the membrane indicated that flux rates increased with higher pressure
(prior to fouling) and temperature (56).
The second part of the ORD study measured the removal efficiencies of various compounds
in raw alkaline stage filtrates achieved by a UF system (using a polysulphone membrane).
The tests were performed using a grab sample of alkaline stage filtrate from a bleached
kraft pulp mill. Test results indicated that 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF were reduced
to concentrations lower than the method detection limit; chlorinated phenolic compounds
were essentially not removed; and TOC1, AOX, and COD were removed by 19, 25, and 40
percent, respectively. During the tests, the removal efficiencies decreased as the
concentration of the feed increased. Clean water testing of the membrane revealed that flux
rates before and after the performance tests were the same. This suggests that the alkaline
stage filtrate had a negligible short-term impact, due to fouling, upon membrane
performance (56).
The application of UF to bleach plant effluents focused on alkaline stage filtrates because
these had many high molecular weight compounds that are easily removed, had manageable
flows, and did not require pH and temperature adjustments (55).
8-53
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
In a UF installation, the permeate from the UF unit is further treated by biological
treatment, and the concentrate is incinerated. However, incineration could pose a problem
because of the chlorinated organics contained in the concentrate. Commercial UF
installations have achieved removals of 60 to 70 percent TOC1, 90 to 95 percent color, 80 to
85 percent AOX, and 70 to 80 percent COD in E-stage effluents. The cost of a UF system
applied to the alkaline stage filtrate is estimated at about $4 per ton of pulp. The successful
application of UF treatment to bleach plant effluents can ultimately reduce the amount ot
dioxin discharged in final effluents (55).
8.6 References
1 McCubbin, N., H. Edde, E. Barnes, J. Folke, E. Bergman, and D. Owen. Best
Available Technology for the Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry. ISBN 0-7729-9261-4.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Canada, February 1992.
2 Allen, L.H., R.M. Berry, B.L. Fleming, C.E. Luthe, and R.H. Voss. Evidence That
Oil-Based Additives are Potential Indirect Source of the TCDD and TCDF Produced
in Kraft Bleach Plants. In: Proceedings for the Eight International Symposium on
Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds, Umea, Sweden, August 21-26, 1988.
3 Voss, R.H., C.E. Luthe, B.L. Fleming, R.M. Berry, and L.H. Allen. Some New
Insights into the Origins of Dioxins Formed During Chemical Pulp Bleaching. In:
Proceedings for the 1988 CPPA Environment Conference, Vancouver, BC Canada,
October 25-26, 1988.
4 Cully, T.G. and S.C. Cohen. Lowering DBF and DBD Levels in Defoamer Oil. In:
Proceedings of the TAPPI 1990 Pulping Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
October 14-17, 1990. pp. 981-983.
5 Twomey L F New Oil-Free Brownstock Washer Defoamer Can Help Mills Reduce
Dioxin Related Problems. In: Proceedings of the TAPPI 1990 Pulping Conference,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 14-17, 1990. pp. 984-987.
6. Rempel, W., D.C. Pype, and M.D. Ouchi. Mill Trials of Substantial Substitution of
Chloride Dioxide for Chlorine-Part ffl: Medium Consistency. Unpublished.'
7. Hartler, N. Svensk Paperstidning 81(15):483, 1978.
8 Macleod, M. Extended Delignification in Kraft Mills Science, Technology, and
Installations Worldwide. Presented at the 1992 Conference on Emerging
Technologies in Non-Chlorine Bleaching, Hilton Head, South Carolina, March 2-5,
1992.
8-54
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Pollution Prevention
Technologies for the Bleached Kraft Segment of the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry.
EPA/600/R-93/100, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C
August 1993. '
European Environmental Research Group (MFG) and O. Duoplan. Chlorine
Dioxide in Pulp Bleaching -- Technical Aspects and Environmental Effects,
Literature Study. CEFIC, Sodium Chorate Sector Group, Brussels, Belgium
February 1993. '
Grace, T.M., B. Leopold, E.W. Malcolm, and MJ. Kocurek, eds. Pulp and Paper
Manufacture: Volume 5 - Alkaline Pulping. Joint Textbook Committee of the Paper
Industry, TAPPI, Technology Park, Atlanta, Georgia and CPPA, Montreal, Quebec
Canada, 1989.
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry - Background Information for Proposed Air Emission Standards
(Manufacturing Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical Mills), EPA
453/R93-050a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1993.
Springer, A.M. Industrial Environmental Control-Pulp and Paper Industry, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1986.
Personal communication with Neil McCubbin, October 6, 1993.
McCubbin, N. Technology Available to Compensate for Recovery Boiler Overloads.
CPPA Environmental Conference, Thunder Bay, Ontario, October 26-28, 1993.
Hyoty, P.A. and S.T. Ojala? High Solids Black Liquor Combustion. TAPPI Journal
January 1988. pp. 108-111.
Colodette, J.L., U.P. Singh, A.K. Ghosh, and R.P. Singh. Ozone Bleaching Research
Focuses on Reducing High Cost, Poor Selectivity. Pulp and Paper, 67(6): 139-147,
June 1993.
Henricson, K. New Generation Kraft Pulping and Bleaching Technology Paoeri ia
Puu, 74(4), 1992. F J
Shackford, L.D. Commercial Implementation of Ozone Bleaching Technology.
Presented at the 1992 Conference on Emerging Technologies in Non-Chlorine
Bleaching, Hilton Head, South Carolina, March 2-5, 1992.
8-55
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Hise, R.G., R. Streisel, and A.B. Bills. The Effect of Brown Stock Washing, Split
Addition of Chlorine and pH Control on the C-Stage Formation of AOX and
Chlorophenols During Bleaching. In: Proceedings. of the TAPPI 1992
Environmental Conference, Richmond, Virginia, April 12-15. pp. 1135-1142.
Burns, O.B., H.L. Hintz, and S.H. Tabor. Split Addition Technology from Concept
to Reality. Presentation by Westvaco.
Fredstrom, C., K. Idner, and C. Hastings. Current State-of-the-Art of E0, Ep and Epo
Technologies. Presented at the 1992 Conference on Emerging Technologies in Non-
Chlorine Bleaching, Hilton Head, South Carolina, March 2-5, 1992.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Summary of Technologies
for the Control and Reduction of Chlorinated Organics from the Bleached Chemical
Pulping Subcategories of the Pulp and Paper Industry. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., April 27, 1990.
Results of'Field Measurements of Chloroform Formation and Release From Pulp
Bleaching. Technical Bulletin No. 558. National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., December 1988. p. 2.
Fredette, M.C. New C1O2 Generation Capacity. In: Proceedings of the TAPPI 1990
Bleach Plant Operations Short Course, Hilton Head, South Carolina, June 17-22,
1990. pp. 159-168.
Axegard, P. "Environmentally Friendly" Processes of the Future. In: Proceedings
of the 1989 TAPPI Bleach Plant Operations Seminar, Charleston, South Carolina,
March 5-10, 1989.
Luthe, C.E., P.E. Wrist, and R.M. Berry. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Dioxins Control Strategies on Organochlorine Effluent Discharges from the Canadian
Bleached Chemical Pulp Industry. Pulp & Paper Canada, 93(9):40-49, 1992.
Kringstad, K.P., L. Johansson, M. Kolar, and F. de Sousa. The Influence of Chlorine
Ratio and Oxygen Bleaching on the Formation of PCDF's and PCDD's in Pulp
Bleaching. TAPPI Journal, June 1989.
Berry, R.M., B.I. Fleming, R.H. Voss, C.E. Luthe, and P.E. Wrist.
Preventing the Formation of Dioxins During Chemical Pulp Bleaching.
Paper Canada, 90(8):48, 1989.'
Toward
Pulp &
8-56
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Hastings, C. and K. Idner. Current State-of-the-Art of Eo, Ep and Eop Technologies.
Presented at the 1992 Conference on Emerging Technologies hi Non-Chlorine
Bleaching, Hilton Head, South Carolina, March 2-5, 1992.
O'Reardon, D. Review of Current Technology Vital to Bleach Plant Modernization
Study. Pulp & Paper, 66(4): 124-129, April 1992.
Smook, G.A. Handbook for Pulp & Paper Technologists. Joint Textbook
Committee of the Paper Industry, TAPPI, Technology Park, Atlanta, Georgia and
CPPA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1982.
Crawford, R.J., M.N. Stryker, S.W. Jett, W.L. Carpenter, R.P. Fisher, and A.K. Jain.
Laboratory Studies of Chloroform Formation in Pulp Bleaching. TAPPI Journal
November 1987. pp. 123-128.
Crawford, R.J., V.J. Dallons, A.K. Jain, and S.W. Jett. Chloroform,Generation at
Bleach Plants with High Chlorine Dioxide Substitution or Oxygen Delignification
TAPPI Journal, 74(4): 159-163, April 1991.
An Investigation of the Effect of Increased Hypochlorite Stage Temperature and pH
on Chloroform Generation at a Bleach Plant. Special Report No. 90-08. National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., August 1990.
Status of NCASI Laboratory Investigations of Factors Affecting Chloroform
Generation from Pulp Bleaching, as of September 1988. Report. National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., September 1988.
Farrell, R.L. Status of Enzyme Bleaching R&D and Mill Work. Presented at the
1992 Conference on Emerging Technologies in Non-Chlorine Bleaching, Hilton
Head, South Carolina, March 2-5, 1992.
Anderson, R. Peroxide Delignification and Bleaching. Presented at the 1992
Conference on Emerging Technologies in Non-Chlorine Bleaching, Hilton Head
South Carolina, March 2-5, 1992.
Basta, J., L. Andersson, W. Hermansson. Lignox and Complementary Combinations.
Presented at the 1992 Conference on Emerging Technologies in Non-Chlorine
Bleaching, Hilton Head, South Carolina, March 2-5, 1992.
Kukkonen, K. and I. Relama. Experiences and Conclusions with TCP Bleaching at
Metsa-Botnia. Presented at the 1993 Non-Chlorine Bleaching Conference, Hilton
Head, South Carolina, March 14-18, 1993.
8-57
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
41. Korhonen, H. and S. Hiljanen. EnoceU's New Pulp Mill Started Up. Paper! jaPuu,
March 1993.
42. Young, J. Louisiana-Pacific's Samoa Mill Establishes TCP Pulp Production. Pulp &
Paper, 67(8):61-63, August 1993.
43. Nutt, W.E., B.F. Griggs, S.W. Eachus, and M.A. Pikulin. Developing an Ozone
Bleaching Process. TAPPI Journal, 76(3):115-123, Ma,rch 1993.
j
44. Young, J. Lenzing Mill Bringing Second Ozone Bleaching Line Onstream. Pulp &
Paper, 66(9):93-95, September 1992.
45. Lenzing Aktiengesellschaft. Letter to Dan Bodien, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, May 10, 1993.
46. Guss, D.B. arid D. Brown. Clarification and Recycling of Deinking Process Water,
In: Proceedings of the TAPPI 1991 Environmental Conference, San Antonio, Texas,
April 7-10, 1991. pp. 179-183.
47. Panchapakesan, B. Closure of Mill White Water Systems Reduces Water Use,
Conserves Energy. Pulp & Paper, 66(3):57-60, March 1992.
48. Sullivan, T. Pope & Talbot Water Reuse Program Boosts Production, Cuts Steam
Use. Pulp & Paper, 65(4):73-75, April 1991.
49. Albany Engineered Systems.
50. Wyvill, C,, J. Adams, and G. Valentine. Mills Often Overlook Significant Water
Recycling Opportunities. Pulp & Paper, April 1986.
51. Nash-Clark and Vicario.
52. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., revised by Tchobanoglous, G. and F.L. Burton. Wastewater
Engineering-Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse, Third Edition, B.J. Clark and J.M.
Morris, eds. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 1991.
53. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Preliminary Data Summary for the Industrial Laundries
Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1989.
54. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines New Source Performance Standards and
Pretreatment Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard and the Builders' Paper
8-58
-------
8.0 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies
55.
56.
and Board Mills Point Source Categories. EPA-440/1-82-025, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1982.
Radian Corporation. Literature Search for Pulp and Paper Dioxin Removal
Treatability. EPA Contract No. 68-CO-0032, September 1991.
Radian Corporation. Bench-Scale Dioxin Treatability Study for Pulp and Paper
Wastewaters - Draft Report. Radian Corporation, Heradon, Virginia, July 1991.
8-59
-------
O
o
I
S
-e
o
00
ON
ON
eo cc
QJ
0)
c/
8-60
-------
oo
I
j
<»
0)
OJD
I
"*J
a
o
-e
a>
-------
•GO
o>
3
.3f>
d
!
&
.1
•3
Q
c
wo
•8
I
DH
-------
ac
i
.1
"3
P
I
O
U
•^^
-2
'.
ft
8-63
-------
Uj)
00
£
.1
fa
8-64
-------
2;
II
II
vo
oo
B
I
j?
Is
O.
f
oc
-------
!
•
i
CO
8
A I
I
I
Q
(4
,2
£
-------
c "lter cycle: (A) Mctor
«,,£ILoutwart; (B) vacuum «"•
filtrate collectod; (C) clear filtrate obtained; (D)
vacuum off; (E) atmospheric port opens; (F) knock-
off shower peels mat; (G) wire washing starts; (H)
atmospheric port closes; (I) thickened pulp dis-
charged.
Figure 8-8
Schematic of a Disc Saveall
Courtesy of G.A. Smook
Handbook for Pulp & Paper Technologists
Copyright 1982
8-67
-------
I
-------
Table 8-1
Full-Scale Installations of Ozone Bleaching Systems
Company
SCA, Ostrands
Fabriker
Sodra Skogsagarna
Sodra Skogsagarna
Stora Cell
MoDo
Metsa-Botnia
Wisaforest
(Kymmene)
Metsa Sellu
Union Camp Corp.
Lenzing AG
Lenzing AG
Ixwatfon
Timra
Monsteras
Morrum
Skogshall
Husum
Kaskinen
Pietersaari
Rauma
Franklin
Lenzing
Lenzing
Country
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Finland
Finland
Finland
U.S.
Austria
Austria
Start-up
1993
1992
1993/4
1993
1993
1993
1993
1995
1992
1991
1993
A»MT/d
300+
1,000
-600
100
1,000
1,450
1,000
1,000
900
100
400
Notes
Kraft
HW/SW
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
SW Kraft
SW Kraft
HW Kraft
SW Kraft
SW Kraft
Diss. Sulfite
Diss. Sulfite
8-69
-------
Table 8-2
Information for Several TCF Papergrade Sulfite Mills
Mill
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Pulping
Liquor Base
Ca
Na
Na
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mg
Mg
Furnish
SW/HW
SW/HW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW/HW
SW/HW
SW/HW
Kappa No.
10 - 40 SW
10-20HW
16
8-10
15
10-12
15
16-18
22
18 SW
15 HW
25
Products
Market pulp
Tissue
Market pulp: fluff
and tissue
Market pulp
Market pulp,
printing and
writing papers
Tissue
Printing, writing,
and coated papers
Market pulp:
printing, writing,
and tissue papers
Market pulp:
printing, writing,
and tissue papers
Printing and
writing papers
Bleaching
Sequence
EopP
P
E^P
QPsi
PPQ
PoPoPP
EopAp,,
OAQE0fAEf-
Eps
Eop
E^ and E^P
Brightness
(ISO)
70-90
84-85
85-90
85
85+
82-83
86-88
85-86
85
85
8-70
-------
Table 8-3
Properties of Several TCP Papergrade Sulfite Pulps
Mill Number
(from Table
8-2)
4(a)
6
7
•1
Parameter
Brightness
Kappa number
Drainability
Tensile index
Burst index
Tear index
Density
PH
Cleanliness
Extractives
Brightness
Breaking length
Bursting strength
Dirt count
Teargrowth work
Brightness
Breaking length
Dirt count
DCM pitch
Folding number
Tear strength
Tensile stretch
Units
(ISO)
SR
Nm/g
kPam2/g
mNm2/g
kg/dm2
mm2/dm2
%DKM
(ISO)
m
KPa
specks/m2
Nm/m
(ISO)
m
kg-'
%
mN
%
Old Sequence
76.0
23.0
23.2
95.2
6.0
6.7
821
9.7
3.1
0.70
89-90
7.0
353
570
1,030
89-90
6.85
< 1,900
<0.50
350
<455
<2.66
TCF Sequence
83.5
14.8
23.3
92.2
6.2
7.0
808
9.9
1.3
0.34
82-83
6.7
356
1,250
1,070
85-97
6.60
< 1,900
<0.30
350
<530
<2.72
Ret
5
6
7
(a)The comparison for this mill is from an old bleach line to a new line; both bleaching sequences were TCF.
8-71
-------
\if
s
OS
o»
Hi
.es Si
8
OO (9D
^ "I
8
s
cc
a
a
to
S3
CS
»
g
-S
tJ
1
1
CO
^3
OQ
S
1
s
_-S
i
8-72
-------
QO
I
I
cu
« QC
« .•>
s
g-g
•^ aa
C|B^ *V<
O ^2
fr*
C8 4>
E^
S Q
CO
aft
iss
8
1
I
1
I
I
1*
«£
ffl
CO
>0
CO
co
Q
grade S
S
\o
Groundwood, Chemi-
Chemi-thermo-mecha
en
CO
OO
cs
CO
cs
VO
00
8-73
-------
/— •*
«? 1
00 3
£ .S
(MB* ^J
•S ^
r* O
H B
'»
•M
o
§
*3
I
lOfWastewater'
1
i
ts
r^ •
gjj
* «£<
t> iS
i Basins
(Aerated an
Son-aerated
•«•;&
"S • *«
§ 55
• ....
•t
1
&?
i
g
,'. :1
wa
^
-1
co
»
s
*S*
^a Q.i
S3 __. i
J* U
W t/3
O CJ
[^ 3
A P4
o
^^ o
Q ^
§1
"''S
3 S
^ g
•^(2
to
«
£»•»
cS
2
s
$
*cd
g
a
O
•a
u
9
•0
O
IH
a
-a
a
1
1
(4-1
O
-------
QO
o
CO
to
to
00
to
to
s
8-75
-------
Table 8-7
Types of Activated Sludge Processes In Place
at Pulp and Paper Mills
Proc*ss{»>
Conventional (5-18 hrs)
Extended Aeration,
(>18hrs)
High Rate Aeration
(<5 hrs)
Pure Oxygen Aeration
Other
Total(c)
Number of Activated
Sludge Mills
31
25
10
9
8
83
Number of JVBMJd
misi$
7
8
6
0
0
21
Total
38
33
16
9
8
104
(a)The process used by each mill was determined from descriptions provided by mills in response to the pulp
and paper questionnaire. If no description was provided, detention time was used to identify the process.
(b)Mixed mills have both activated sludge and basin treatment.
(c)Some mills were not counted because they did not provide process descriptions or detention times and some
mills may use more than one process.
8-76
-------
Table 8-8
Summary of Sludge Handling/Dewatering Operations
In Place at Pulp and Paper Mills
Sludge Operation
Number of Mills
Sludge Conditioning and Handling
Blending
Storage
Thickening ,
Chemical Conditioning
21
43
68
73
Sludge Dewatering
Belt Filter Press
Screw Press
Vacuum Filter (Fabric Media)
Vacuum Filter (Coil Media)
V-Press
Sludge Lagoon
Other
Total Number of Mills With Sludge Operations(a)
122
53
40
15
11
35
29
262
(a)The sum of the number of mills having each operation does not necessarily equal the total number of mills
because most mills have more than one type of operation.
8-77
-------
Table 8-9
Sludge Disposal Methods Used by Pulp and Paper Mills
Disposal Method
Landfill (Company-owned)
Landfill (Municipal)
Landfill (Commercial)
Surface Impoundment
Incineration
Land Application
Saleable By-product
Recycle to Process
Composting
lumber of Mills(a) '*"'*" '' ''
Primary
Sludge
63
15
23
28
8
10
4
11
2
Biological
Sludge
16
2
3
8
2
9
1
5
1
Combined
Sludge
48
13
8
9
24
9
1
3
2
TotaKW
132
37
37
56
43
38
10
21
12
(a)Includes only those mills that use each method to dispose of 50% or greater of each type of sludge.
(b)Includes all mills that use each method to dispose of any portion of any or an unknown type of sludge.
8-78
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
9.0 DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
9.1 Introduction
This section describes the combinations of pulping and bleaching technologies, in-process
water conservation practices, and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment that the Agency
configured as technology options for consideration as bases for the following proposed
regulations:
BPT (Best practicable control technology currently available);
BCT (Best conventional pollutant control technology);
BAT (Best available technology economically achievable);
NSPS (New source performance standards);
PSES (Pfetreatment standards for existing sources); and
PSNS (Pretreatment standards for new sources).
These regulations establish quantitative limits on the discharge of pollutants from industrial
point sources. The applicability of the various regulations the Agency is proposing for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category is summarized below:
_,
BPT
BCT
BAT
NSPS
PSES
PSNS
Direct
Discharge
X
X
X
X
Indirect
Discharge
X
X
Existing
Source
X
X
X
X
New
Source
X
X
Conventional
PollofcWfc*
X
X
X
Priority and
Noneonventional
Pollutants
X
X
X
X
All of these regulations are based upon the performance of specific technologies but do not
require the use of any specific technology. The regulations applicable to direct dischargers
are effluent limitations guidelines which are applied to individual facilities through National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by EPA or authorized
states under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The regulations applicable to
indirect dischargers are standards, and are administered by local permitting authorities (i.e.,
the government entity controlling the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) to which
9-1
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
the industrial wastewater is discharged). The pretreatment standards are designed to control
pollutants that pass through or interfere with POTWs.
After the Agency developed technology options for each of the regulations that apply to
existing sources (BPT, BCT, BAT, and PSES), the Agency analyzed the impacts oft some of
the options for each regulation in combination with the technology bases developed for air
emissions standards. The combinations of air pollution and water pollution control
technologies were designed to evaluate the combination that would provide the most
pollution control at the least cost. To analyze the combinations of pollution control
technologies, the Agency used the mass of pollutants controlled (i.e., the mass of pollutants
no longer discharged or emitted) and the costs of the control technologies. These data were
used to evaluate the total environmental and economic impacts of the water and air
regulations. Estimation of the mass of pollutants controlled by the proposed water
regulations and costs of the proposed water regulations are discussed in Sections 10.0 and
11.0, respectively. How these estimates were combined with similar estimates of the effects
of the air regulations is discussed in Section 12.0 and in more detail in the Background
Information Document (BED) (1). Analysis of the environmental and economic impacts is
described in the economic impact analysis and the regulatory impact assessment (2,3).
92 BPT
Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT) effluent limitations guidelines
establish quantitative limits on the direct discharge of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. BPT effluent limitations guidelines axe based upon the average of
the best existing performance, generally in terms of treated effluent discharged by facilities
of various sizes, ages, and unit processes within an industry or subcategory.
BPT effluent limitations guidelines are based upon the performance of specific technologies,
but do not require the use of any specific technology. BPT effluent limitations guidelines
are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits issued by EPA or authorized
states under Section 402 of the CWA. The facility then chooses its own approach to
complying with its permit limitations.
In developing BPT, the Agency considers the total cost of application of the technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from the technologies; the size and
age of equipment and facilities; the processes employed; and non-water quality
environmental impacts, including energy requirements.
9.2.1 Approach to BPT Option Development
To develop the BPT effluent limitations guidelines promulgated from 1974 to 1982, the
Agency first developed equations that relate the final effluent biological oxygen demand
9-2
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
(BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations to the raw waste BOD5 and TSS
concentrations entering a biological treatment system. Next, long-term average BPT effluent
concentrations were developed by applying these removal equations to raw waste loads
characteristic of each subcategory. Finally, long-term average BOD5 and TSS production
normalized final effluent mass loads were calculated by multiplying calculated final effluent
concentrations by the effluent flow rates characteristic of each subcategory. This process
can be summarized as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Identification of the best practicable control technology and its performance
in terms of reduction in wastewater concentrations;
Calculation of long-term average effluent concentrations achievable by
applying the identified control technology;
Calculation of long-term average mass loads by multiplying the BPT effluent
concentrations by a "characteristic" production normalized effluent flow rate.
This approach reflected the state of the industry during the mid-to-late 1970s, when many
mills did not have biological wastewater treatment systems. For these proposed regulations,
the Agency used a different approach to develop BPT effluent limitations guidelines, an
approach reflecting the state of the industry in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when more
than 80 percent of the direct discharging mills had biological (secondary) wastewater
treatment.
Secondary treatment involves a biological process to remove organic matter through
biochemical oxidation. In the pulp and paper industry, activated sludge systems and
aerated/non-aerated basin systems are the most commonly used biological process. As
needed, secondary treatment is preceded by pretreatment (e.g., equalization, neutralization,
cooling) and primary treatment for the removal of suspended solids.
Tertiary treatment is advanced treatment, beyond secondary, to remove particular
contaminants. Common tertiary treatment operations are the removal of phosphorus by
alum precipitation and removal of toxic refractory organic compounds by activated carbon
adsorption. Tertiary treatment is not common in the pulp and paper industry.
The Agency decided that secondary wastewater treatment represented the state of the
industry, from which BPT effluent limitations guidelines would be developed, because more
than 80 percent of direct discharging mills use secondary treatment while only 2 percent use
tertiary treatment. Common elements of secondary wastewater treatment, as practiced in
the pulp and paper industry, include (but are not limited to):
9-3
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
• Equalization;
• Precooling;
• Primary sedimentation;
• Nutrient addition;
• Aeration;
• Addition of flocculants to secondary clarifiers to improve settling;
• Multi-basin systems, some of which act as polishing ponds; and
• Mixed or hybrid treatment systems (activated sludge and basin systems
operated in series or parallel).
Some of the basin treatment systems in use in the industry cover large areas. Many mills
are able to operate their treatment systems to meet stringent, water quality based discharge
limitations. Other treatment systems were enlarged in an add-on manner, as the capacity
of the mill increased over time. The Agency considers all of these scenarios as typical of
industry wastewater treatment practice, and included all of them in characterizing pulp and
paper industry secondary wastewater treatment performance.
The proposed revised BPT effluent limitations guidelines were developed in seven steps:
1. Identification of mills representing the performance of secondary wastewater
treatment in each subcategory;
2. Analysis of the performance (in terms of production normalized final effluent
BOD5 load) of the representative mills to determine "the average of the best
existing performance;"
3. Identification of combinations of in-process flow reduction and end-of-pipe
wastewater treatment used by the industry to achieve these performance
levels;
4. Estimation of the cost of applying these identified technologies at mills^that
do not currently achieve "the average of the best existing performance;"
5. Estimation of the benefits of applying the identified technologies, in terms of
the reduction in the mass of conventional pollutants discharged;
9-4
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
6. Comparison of the estimated costs and benefits; and
7. Review of non-water quality environmental impacts.
The remainder of Section 9.2 describes Items 1, 2, and 3 above: the identification of mills
representing secondary treatment performance, the determination of "the average of the best
existing performance" (i.e., BPT Option performance levels), and identification of
technologies used by the industry to achieve the BPT option performance levels. A different
approach used to develop Option 2 performance levels for the Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategory, and the reasons the Agency used this approach, are also discussed in this
section. The assessment of the options, in terms of pollutant reductions achieved, is
presented in Section 10.0. Section 11.0 presents estimated costs, while Section 12.0 presents
the non-water quality environmental impacts of the option selected to form the basis of the
proposed regulation. The comparison of costs and benefits for BPT is presented in the
Record for the Rulemaking.
9.2.2 Identification of Mills Representing Secondary Wastewater Treatment Performance
in Each Subcategory
BPT Imitations were based upon production normalized BOD5 and TSS mass loadings in
final effluents from mills representative of the performance of secondary wastewater
treatment in each subcategory. This group of mills is listed in Table 9-1. Identification of
these representative mills is described below.
In selecting the mills to represent secondary wastewater treatment performance in each
subcategory, the Agency began with the list of mills that responded to the 1990
questionnaire and deleted mills from the list that were not considered representative of
standard industry secondary treatment system design, operation, and performance for a
specific subcategory. Deleted mills included:
• Ineligible mills (27 mills);
• Closed mills (12 mills);
• Indirect or mixed discharge mills (212 mills);
• Mills not discharging wastewater (37 mills);
• Mills that provided less than 12 months of effluent data (27 mills);
• Mills known to be the subject of EPA enforcement actions due to wastewater
discharge practices (2 mills);
9-5
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
• Mills that do not operate secondary treatment (31 mills);
• Mills with tertiary treatment (2 mills);
• Mills with unique operations not representative of a specific subcategory (10
mills); and
• "Multiple" subcategory mills (85 mills).
Some mills received a 1990 questionnaire but were determined to be "ineligible" and were
not required to complete and return the questionnaire because: (1) mill operations were
not within the scope of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category (e.g., mill
products are derived from only synthetic materials such as glass or fiberglass) or (2) the mill
was not in operation in 1989 (e.g., mills under construction).
Closed mills included mills that received a 1990 questionnaire but were not required to
complete and return the questionnaire because they closed operations subsequent to 1989
and employees were no longer available to provide required information.
Mills that discharge wastewater indirectly or have a "mixed" discharge status (i.e., mills that
discharge wastewater both directly and indirectly and mills that discharge wastewater directly
and also dispose of wastewater via land irrigation and other methods) were not included in
developing BPT effluent limitations guidelines. These nulls were excluded because they
generally are not representative of treatment performance achieved by mills that discharge
wastewater directly (i.e., nearly all indirectly discharging mills lack on-site secondary
treatment).
Mills not discharging wastewater include mills that: (1) dispose of all wastewater on site
(e.g., operate surface impoundments or land application) or (2) completely recycle
wastewater. Complete recycle of wastewater is discussed in Section 6.2.6. These mills were
not included in developing BPT limitations because they do not represent the BPT
technology basis of secondary treatment. Section 9.2.3 describes the BPT technology basis
in detail. Although the Agency did not consider it a basis for BPT, complete recycle of
wastewater is the technology basis of NSPS for one segment of the Secondary Fiber Non-
Deink Subcategory, as discussed in Section 9.5.
Mills that provided less than 12 months of effluent data included those mills that did not
monitor their final effluent, mills that did not operate for significant portions of 1989, and
mills that discharge wastewater intermittently. These mills were not included in developing
BPT limitations because their data were unavailable, unrepresentative, or difficult to
interpret. As noted above, an adequate number of mills that monitored final effluent and
9-6
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
discharged wastewater continuously in 1989 were available within each subcategory for
development of the proposed BPT effluent limitations guidelines.
Mills known to be the subject of EPA enforcement actions resulting from their wastewater
discharge practices were not considered representative of standard industry secondary,
wastewater treatment system design, operation, and performance.
Similarly, mills that do not operate secondary treatment or that operate tertiary treatment
were not identified as representative of secondary treatment performance.
Mills with unique operations not representative of a specific subcategory include mills that
share wastewater treatment with another facility not included in the scope of this
rulemaking, such as chemical or sugar plants, that contribute significant flow and BOD5
and/or TSS pollutant loadings. Also included in this group are mills that did not report
other necessary information such as. 1989 final production.
Ideally, only mills with all of their final off-machine production in a single subcategory
would be used to represent the performance of secondary wastewater treatment for that
subcategory. After application of the selection parameters discussed above, the majority of
the subcategories included few or no mills with all of their production in a single
subcategory, reflecting the actual organization of the U.S. pulp and paper industry (a typical
mill has operations in more than one subcategory). To account for this situation, while at
the same time reflecting the characteristics of the principal subcategory at a mill, the Agency
chose to use mills with a large percentage of their final production in a single subcategory
to represent the subcategory. Based upon a review of direct discharging mills with
secondary treatment, the percentage of final production in each subcategory, and 'the
anticipated proportional BOD5 load contributed by each subcategory, the Agency selected
a final productions cut-off of 85 percent within a single subcategory for a mill to be
considered representative of that subcategory. Except as noted below, mills with less than
85 percent of their final production within a single subcategory were generally considered
to be "multiple subcategory mills" and were not selected to represent secondary treatment
performance for a subcategory. This final production cut-off was also applied to groups of
mills that combine treatment of their wastewater. The percent of final production in each
subcategory for the group of mills was calculated using a production-weighted average of
each individual mill's percentages of final production in each subcategory.
Because most mills in the Papergrade Sulfite, Semi-Chemical, Mechanical Pulp, and Non-
Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategories do not have more than 85 percent of their production
in one subcategory, the Agency selected different criteria for these subcategories, as
described below.
9-7
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options.
93,2.1
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
In responses to the 1990 questionnaire, 12 mills reported production in the Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory in 1989. Of these 12 mills, two were not selected to represent the
performance of secondary treatment in the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory because one
discharges wastewater both directly and indirectly, and one operates tertiary wastewater
treatment. Information concerning the remaining 10 mills is summarized in Table 9-2. As
shown in the table, production in the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory comprises an average
of 56 percent of final production at these mills and ranged from 37 percent to 96 percent
of final production. For most mills in this Subcategory, the remaining final production was
in the Purchased Pulp Subcategories as well as a combination of several other subcategories.
Two mills (observations 9 and 10 on Table 9-2) were eliminated from further consideration
because they are not considered to be representative of the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory.
One mill manufactures bleached papergrade kraft pulp, a pulping process that contributes
significant pollutant load to wastewater treatment. The second mill shares its wastewater
treatment system with another mill that manufactures bleached papergrade kraft pulp.,
After deleting the two mills discussed above, as shown in Table 9-2, the percentage of final
production in the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory is distributed within a range of 37 percent
to 96 percent with the majority of the remaining final production in the purchased pulp
subcategories. The Agency found relatively poor correlation between percent of final
production in the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory and the-production normalized BOD5 load
in final effluent (correlation coefficient 0.58). Because this Subcategory is characterized by
mills with significant quantities of final production in the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
and the two purchased pulp subcategories, the Agency selected mills with production in
these three subcategories to represent the performance of secondary treatment in the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. The Agency determined that these mills adequately
represent the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory because the majority of the pollutant loading
to wastewater treatment is generated by the papergrade sulfite pulping operations.
93,3.3,
Semi-Chemical Subcategory
In responses to the 1990 questionnaire, 21 mills reported production in the Semi-Chemical
Subcategory in 1989. Of these 21 mills, four were not selected to represent the performance
of secondary treatment in the Semi-Chemical Subcategory because one discharges
wastewater indirectly and three discharge wastewater directly without secondary treatment.
Information concerning the remaining 17 mills is summarized in Table 9-3. As shown in the
table, production in the Semi-Chemical Subcategory comprised an average of 55 percent of
final production at these mills and ranged from 10 percent to 78 percent of final production.
The remaining final production was in the Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory, the
purchased pulp subcategories, and/or the Bleached Papergrade Kraft Subcategory.
9-8
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Two mills (observations 16 and 17 on Table 9-3) were eliminated from further consideration
because they are not considered to be representative of the Semi-Chemical Subcategory.
These mills manufacture bleached papergrade kraft pulp with cross-recovery systems and
they are not representative of stand-alone semi-chemical mills.
After deleting the two mills discussed above, the percentage of final production in the Semi-
Chemical Subcategory is distributed within a range of 26 percent to 78 percent with the
remaining final production in the Secondary Fiber Non-deink and/or the purchased pulp
subcategories. The Agency found little correlation between percent of final production in
the Semi-Chemical Subcategory and the production normalized BOD5 load in final effluent
(correlation coefficient 0.14). .Because this Subcategory is characterized by mills with
significant quantities of final production in the Semi-Chemical and Secondary Fiber Non-
Deink and/or the two purchased pulp subcategories, the Agency selected mills with
production in these four subcategories to represent the performance of secondary treatment
in the Semi-Chemical Subcategory. The Agency determined that these mills adequately
represent the Semi-Chemical Subcategory because most of the pollutant loading to
wastewater treatment is generated by the semi-chemical pulping operations at these mills.
9.2.2.3
Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
In responses to the 1990 questionnaire, 57 mills reported production in the Mechanical Pulp
Subcategory in 1989. Of these 57 mills, 24 were not selected to represent the performance
of secondary treatment in the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory because nine discharge
wastewater indirectly, seven do not discharge any process wastewater, five provided less than
12 months of final effluent monitoring data, and three have unique operations not
representative of the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory. Paper products containing mechanical
pulp are typically manufactured from a mixture of mechanical pulp and bleached chemical
pulps. The source of bleached chemical pulp may be virgin bleached chemical pulp
manufactured on site, purchased bleached chemical pulp, or deink or non-deink secondary
fiber originally manufactured from bleached chemical pulp. To represent the performance
of secondary treatment in the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory, the Agency selected mills that
had a significant proportion of final production in the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory (i.e.,
greater than or equal to 50 percent), with the remainder of final production in subcategories
representing production processes that contribute a relatively low pollutant load to
wastewater treatment (e.g., the Secondary Fiber Non-Deink and purchased pulp
subcategories). Accordingly, 16 mills with final production in chemical pulping subcategories
or the Secondary Fiber Deink Subcategory were not considered representative of the
Mechanical Pulp Subcategory. Similarly, four mills that combine their wastewater for
treatment with wastewater from another mill with final production in chemical pulping
subcategories were also deleted from consideration. Finally, four mills were deleted from
consideration because less than 50 percent of their final production was in the Mechanical
Pulp Subcategory. An exception was made to this 50 percent production cut-off to include
9-9
-------
9.0. Development of Control and Treatment Options
a mill that manufactures chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp to ensure that data from this
segment of the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory were included in developing BPT performance
levels.
After deleting the mills discussed above, as shown in Table 9-4, the percentage of final
production in the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory is distributed between <50 and 87 with the
majority of the remaining final production in the Secondary Fiber Non-Deink and the two
purchased pulp subcategories. In spite of a limited correlation between composition of final
production and the production normalized BOD5 load in final effluent (correlation
coefficient of 0.70), the Agency determined that these mills adequately represent the
Mechanical Subcategory because the majority of the pollutant loading to wastewater
treatment is generated by the mechanical pulping operations.
9.2.2.4
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
In responses to the 1990 questionnaire, 12 mills reported production in the Non-Wood
Chemical Pulp Subcategory in 1989. Of these 12 mills, 6 were not selected to represent the
performance of secondary treatment in the Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory because
five discharge wastewater indirectly and one discharges wastewater directly without
secondary treatment. The remaining six mills operate four wastewater treatment systems
(three mills combine their wastewater for treatment). Information concerning these four
treatment systems is summarized in Table 9-5. As shown in the table, production in the
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory comprises an average of 41 percent of final
production at these mills and ranges from 3 percent to 100 percent of final production. The
majority of the remaining final production is in the two purchased pulp subcategories. The
Agency found relatively poor correlation between composition of final production and the
production normalized BOD5 load in final effluent (correlation coefficient -0.56). Mills
selected to represent the performance of secondary treatment in the Non-Wood Chemical
Subcategory had a significant proportion of final production in the Non-Wood Chemical
Subcategory (i.e., greater than or equal to 30 percent), with the remainder of final
production in the two purchased pulp subcategories. The Agency determined that these
mills adequately represent the Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory because the majority
of the pollutant loading to wastewater treatment is generated by the non-wood chemical
pulping operations.
9.2.3 Performance Levels
As discussed, the Agency based BPT upon the average of the best existing performance, in
terms of treated effluent discharged by facilities in a Subcategory. The Agency used final
effluent long-term average production normalized BOD5 mass loadings to characterize
existing performance. This measure of performance was selected because BOD5 control is
the primary objective of secondary treatment. Mills responding to the 1990 questionnaire
9-10
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
supplied final effluent data in two formats. They completed a table listing daily TSS and
BOD5 loadings (in Ib^day), averaged over each calendar month in 1989. They also provided
daily measurements of flow and BOD5 and TSS concentrations. For each subcategory, the
daily data reported by half of the mills selected to represent secondary treatment
performance were entered into a database for analysis. The mills whose daily data were
analyzed represent the best performers in each subcategory. Using these data, daily mass
loadings (in kg/day) were calculated using the following equation:
ML = kFC
(1)
where:
ML = Daily mass loading, kg/day
k = conversion factor
F = Daily flow, MOD
C = Daily pollutant concentration, mg/L.
The daily mass loadings were then averaged to determine the long-term average mass
loading (in kg/day). The long-term average mass loadings were production normalized by
dividing by the mill's 1989 final off-machine production (in OMMT/year) and multiplying
by 350 production days per year, the typical number of operating days per year at a mill.
For mills for which only the monthly average flows, mass loadings, and concentrations were
entered into a database, the monthly average mass loadings (in Ibs/day) were averaged to
calculate the long-term average mass loadings. The long-term average mass loadings were
then production normalized as described above.
To determine the average of the best existing performances of mills in each subcategory, the
Agency first ranked the mills representing secondary treatment performance in each
subcategory by ascending long-term average production normalized BOD5 mass loading in
final effluent. This ranking is shown in Table 9-1.
The Agency made two divisions of the ranked mills. The first division excluded the mills
discharging the highest BOD5 loads in each subcategory, leaving 90 percent of the mills
representative of each subcategory to define "the best existing performance." The second
division, at the 50th percentile, was established to: (1) include enough mills in each
subcategory so that the range of products and processes encompassed by the subcategory
9-11
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
were included; (2) include both activated sludge and aerated/non-aerated basin treatment
systems; and (3) use a standard percentile cutoff for all subcategories.
After two division levels defining "best existing performance" were determined, the Agency
calculated performance levels representing the average of the long-term average production
normalized BOD5 mass loadings of each group of mills. The average performance of the
best 90 percent of the mills in each subcategory was Option 1. The average performance
of the best 50 percent of the mills in each subcategory was Option 2. TSS performance
levels for BPT Options 1 and 2 were calculated by averaging the long-term average
production normalized TSS mass loadings of the best 90 percent and best 50 percent of the
mills representative of each subcategory, respectively, as determined by the long-term
average production normalized BOD5 mass loadings. The Agency determined that a
separate performance level analysis for TSS was not appropriate because secondary
treatment systems are designed for optimal BOD5 removal and may not be optimized for
TSS removal. These performance levels are summarized in Table 9-6. The best performing
mills whose long-term average production normalized mass loadings were used to calculate
BPT Options 1 and 2 performance levels are indicated in Table 9-1.
9.2 A Development off BPT Option 2 for the Dissolving Sulfilte Subcategoiy
BPT Option 1 BODS and TSS performance levels were developed based upon the
performance of the single best performing dissolving sulfite mill, in terms of long-term
average production normalized BOD5 mass load. Table 9-6 includes these performance
levels.
A different approach was used to develop a second option for the Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategory for the following reasons: (1) existing production normalized effluent loadings
for BOD5 and TSS in this subcategory are significantly greater than the loadings for other
subcategories (e.g., the loadings associated with the Dissolving Sulfite Pulp Subcategory are
four times greater than the loadings for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, which utilizes
similar processes that produce high BOD5 raw waste loads); and (2) the performance level
of the single best dissolving sulfite mill, described above, would result in proposed BPT
effluent limitations less stringent than the current BPT limitations. Therefore, for Dissolving
Sulfite Option 2, the Agency developed an alternative methodology to determine the BOD5
and TSS performance levels. The Option 2 performance level was calculated in three steps:
(1) calculation of current average BOD5 and TSS production normalized raw waste loads
for the subcategory as reported by mills in their 1990 questionnaire; (2) calculation of
adjusted BOD5 and TSS raw waste loads based upon load reductions associated with
implementation of BAT, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP), Best Management Practices (BMP), and other applicable flow reduction
technologies; and (3) further load reduction based upon treatment performance from a well-.
9-12
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
designed and operated primary and secondary biological treatment system. These steps are
described in further detail below.
9.2.4.1 Calculation of Current Average Raw Waste Loads
None of the dissolving sulfite mills provided raw waste characterization data in their 1990
questionnaire. Four of the five mills provided characterization data for partially treated
wastewater streams. For these mills, raw waste BOD5 and TSS loads were back-calculated
based upon assumed primary treatment performance or by accounting for situations where
mills had multiple treatment system inputs. Primary treatment performance data were
available for only one mill; however, these data (10 percent TSS removal and 15 percent
BOD5 removal) are not representative of a well-designed or operated primary treatment
system. Therefore, average primary treatment performance (86 percent TSS removal and
18 percent BOD5 removal) of the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory was used to calculate
dissolving sulfite raw waste loads. For the fifth mill, data were insufficient to calculate or
otherwise estimate raw waste loads. For the subcategory, estimated current BOD5 raw waste
loads averaged 144 kg/OMMT and ranged from 114 kg/OMMT to 200 kg/OMMT.
Estimated current TSS raw waste loads averaged 92.5 kg/OMMT and ranged from 29
kg/OMMT to 228 kg/OMMT. .
9.2.4.2
Application of Load Reductions
The following load reductions were applied to the estimated current average subcategory
raw waste loads:
Source
BMP
NESHAP
BAT/COD
Control
Parameter
BOD5
BOD5, TSS
BOD5
TSS
Load Reduction
(kg/OMMT)
5
0
21.6
13.9
Comments
All mills were assumed to have
not implemented BMP. BMP do
not result in significant TSS load
reductions.
Condensate stripping of dissolving
sulfite mill condensates does not
result in significant BOD5 or TSS
load reductions.
BAT/COD control technologies
are estimated to reduce BOD5
and TSS raw waste loads by 15
percent.
9-13
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Source
Parameter
Load Reduction
(kg/OMMIT)
BAT/Process
Changes
BOD5, TSS
0
See discussion below.
Other Flow
Reduction
Technologies
BOD<, TSS
0
Flow reduction in the pulping
area is part of BAT/COD control
technologies. Flow reduction in
the pulp drying area is applicable
to only one mill; therefore, flow
reduction in this area was not
applied to the subcategory. See
discussion below concerning flow
reduction in the bleaching area.
Wastewater discharge from all
other areas is minimal.
BAT Option 1 for the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory consists of oxygen delignification with
complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the first bleaching stage. Although
reduction of the lignin content of the pulp bleached and elimination of chlorine in bleaching
will greatly reduce generation of chlorinated compounds, significant reductions in BOD5 and
TSS load will not occur because the revised bleaching process will continue to remove wood
components and their associated BOD5 and TSS load. Depending on the sulfite base used,
some mills may recover or evaporate/incinerate post-oxygen delignification wastewaters
which would significantly reduce conventional pollutant load to wastewater treatment;
however, the BAT option does not include these technologies as part of the technology
basis. Therefore, the load reduction associated with BAT process changes for the purpose
of calculating the BPT performance level was considered to be zero.
The Agency also considered potential flow reduction technologies applicable to the
bleaching area, such as countercurrent washing, to reduce the amount of wastewater
discharged from bleaching. Currently, approximately 50 percent of wastewater discharged
by dissolving sulfite mills is generated by the bleaching process. These technologies were
rejected because of the product quality requirements of dissolving pulp and because of
limited available data on the impact of conversion to totally chlorine-free bleaching on
wastewater discharge rates.
The remaining load reductions shown hi the above table are the same as those used in the
end-of-pipe wastewater treatment upgrade and flow reduction cost models as discussed in
Sections 11.6.5.2 and 11.5.4, respectively.
9-14
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
9.2.4.3
Application of Wastewater Treatment
The Agency assumed that a well-designed and operated primary and secondary treatment
system can achieve 90 percent BOD5 removal and 88 percent TSS removal. These removal
rates are demonstrated by mills in the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory. The Agency believes
that these treatment performance levels may be improved after implementation of BAT,
NESHAP, and BMP and their associated flow reductions; however, this has not been
demonstrated by the industry.
9.2.4.4
Calculation of Dissolving Sulfite Option 2 Performance Levels
The long-term average production normalized BOD5 and TSS mass loadings in raw waste,
after load reductions, were calculated as follows:
PNL = RWLC - (PR
BMp
PR
BAT/COD
PRBA
T/Tcp
POTHER) <2>
where:
PNL
RWLC
PR
•BAT/COD
PR
•BAT/TCF
PR
OTHER
Long-term average production normalized raw waste mass
loading, kg/OMMT
Current average production normalized raw waste load,
kg/OMMT
Pollutant reduction associated with BMP, kg/OMMT
Pollutant reduction associated with NESHAP, kg/OMMT
Pollutant reduction associated with BAT/COD, kg/OMMT
Pollutant reduction associated with BAT/TCF, kg/OMMT
Pollutant reduction associated with other technologies,
kg/OMMT.
Substituting values discussed above, the adjusted raw waste loads are:
BOD5 PNLRaw = 144 - (5 + 0 + 21.6 + 0 + 0) = 117.4 kg/OMMT
TSS PNLRaw = 92.5 - (0 + 0 + 13.9 + 0 + 0) = 78.6 kg/OMMT.
9-15
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The BOD5 and TSS performance levels as represented by final effluent loads after
wastewater treatment were calculated as follows:
= PNLRaw (100% - %R)
(3)
where:
%R
Long-term average production normalized final effluent mass
loading, kg/OMMT
Long-term average production normalized raw waste, mass
loading, kg/OMMT
Percent removal of conventional pollutants in wastewater
treatment.
Substituting values discussed above, the BOD5 and TSS performance levels are:
BOD5 PNLpE = 117.4 (1QO% - 90%) = 11.74 kg/OMMT
TSS PNLpE = 78.6 (100% - 88%) = 9.4 kg/OMMT.
These values are listed in Table 9-6, as Dissolving Sulfite Option 2.
9.2.5 Description of Technology Bases
The BPT Option 1 and Option 2 performance levels described in Sections 9.2.3 and 9.2.4,
above, are mass-based, production normalized loads (i.e., they are expressed as kg of BOD5
(or TSS) per off-machine metric ton of production). These mass-based performance levels
derive from effluent concentrations and production normalized effluent flow:
PNL = C x
PNF
(4)
9-16
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
where:
PNL = production normalized load, kg/OMMT
C = concentration, mg/L
PNF =
production normalized flow, m3/metric ton.
Figure 9-1 presents final effluent BOD5 concentrations plotted against production
normalized flows for the 33 nulls selected to represent the performance of secondary
wastewater treatment for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory. Each mill
is represented by a number, with 1 representing the mill with the lowest BOD5 load and 33
representing the mill with the highest BOD5 load. Also shown on the plot are lines for
Option 1 and Option 2 for this subcategory. The equations for these lines (from Equation 2,
solved for C) are, respectively:
. (1.000) 2.66.
PNF
(5)
(1,000) 1.57
PNF
where:
2.66 =
1.57 =
Option 1 performance level, kg/OMMT
Option 2 performance level, kg/OMMT.
As shown in the graph, mills numbered 1 through 8 currently achieve lower production
normalized mass loadings than the Option 2 performance level, while mills numbered 9 and
above do not.
As shown on Figure 9-1, there are an infinite number of mill modes of operation, in terms
of production normalized flow and final effluent concentration, that may be used to achieve
Option 2 performance. For example, a bleached kraft mill achieving a production
normalized flow of 50 m3/OMMT and treating its wastewater to a concentration of 31.4
mg/L or less will achieve Option 2 performance, as will a bleached kraft mill using 150
m /OMMT and treating its wastewater to 10.5 mg/L or less.
9-17
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The remainder of this section discusses the two components, production normalized flow
and effluent conventional pollutant concentration, of the BPT option performance levels.
9.2.5.1 Production Normalized Flow and Water Conservation Practices
Secondary wastewater treatment cannot achieve complete removal of BOD5 or TSS. There
is a lowest concentration that secondary treatment has been demonstrated to achieve to
date. For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, the Agency determined
lowest secondary treatment system effluent BOD5 concentration currently demonstrated was
6 5 mg/L> based on the three mills reporting the lowest effluent BOD5 concentration.
Substituting 6.5 mg/L in Equation 4, above, and solving for PNF gives 242 m /OMMT,
meaning that 242 m3/OMMT is the maximum production normalized wastewater flow a
bleached papergrade kraft mill can discharge and achieve the Option 2 performance level
for BOD5.
Table 9-7 presents the calculated maximum production normalized flow for each option, by
subcategory, based upon the BPT performance levels listed in Table 9-6 and the minimum
demonstrated concentration for each subcategory (listed in Table 11-10). For comparison,
Table 9-7 also lists the maximum production normalized flow discharged by any of the mills
selected to represent the performance of each subcategory that achieve Option 1 or
Option 2 performance levels. (Many data are not presented to prevent disclosure of
confidential business information). As shown on Table 9-7, mills that currently achieve BPT
option performance levels discharge less than the maximum discharge flow, as a result of
good water conservation practices. Practices that are considered part of the technology basis
for BPT are:
1. Increased reuse and recycle of pulp and paper machine white water through
the use of paper machine gravity strainers with high-pressure, low-volume,
self-cleaning showers, or disc savealls;
2. Paper machine vacuum pump seal water recycle;
3. Screen room closure; and
4. Reuse of deinldng washwater after flotation clarification.
These technologies and the flow reduction that they can accomplish are discussed in
Sections 8.4 and 11.5.
9-18
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
92.52 Final Effluent Concentrations and Secondary Wastewater Treatment
Low final effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations are necessary for mills to achieve the BPT
option performance levels. To achieve these low concentrations while maintaining low
discharge flows requires secondary wastewater treatment. Two types of secondary treatment
are commonly used in the pulp and paper industry: activated sludge and aerated/ non-
aerated basin systems. In its 1990 census of the industry, the Agency requested a schematic
diagram of each mill's treatment system and design and operating information including:
j>
• The hydraulic residence time (detention time) of each unit;
• The surface area of ponds and clarifiers;
• Horsepower of aeration in each tank or basin; and
• For activated sludge systems, the MLSS, F:M ratio, and biological solids
retention time.
The Agency also requested data describing the flow and BOD5 and TSS concentrations and
loadings into and out of the treatrnent system.
Table 9-8 tabulates data supplied in response to these requests, for the mills selected to
represent secondary wastewater treatment performance in each subcategory. Data for
certain mills is not reported on Table 9-8. If there were fewer than three mills in a
subcategory, or fewer than three mills in a subcategory with one treatment type, data for
these mills was not disclosed to prevent compromising confidential business information.
AU mills supplied data describing the flow and BOD5 and TSS concentrations and loadings
discharged from their treatment system. But, as indicated by Table 9-8, the data supplied
by many mills describing the influent to the treatment system were inadequate to calculate
the percent removal of influent BOD? and TSS. The inadequacy in the data resulted from
the fact that many nulls do not monitor influents, many treatment systems have multiple
entry points (and so a single removal efficiency cannot be calculated), and many respondents
did not supply influent information for unspecified reasons. Where data were sufficient to
calculate treatment system performance, Table 9-9 for activated sludge systems and Table
9-10 for aerated stabilization basins list critical treatment system design and operating
parameters.
9-19
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The best removals achieved by activated sludge treatment systems are summarized below:
BOB$ Removal Percent
TSS Removal Petcent
Chemical Pulp Mills
93 to 98
92 to 97
Mechanical Pulp Mills
92 to 97
97 to 99
Nonpulping Mills
71 to 93
95 to 98
Aerated/non-aerated basin treatment system performance is similar:
BODS Removal Percent
TSS Removal Percent
Chemical Pulp Mills
91 to 96
92 to 98
Nonpulping Mills
84 to 89
85 to 97
As discussed in Section 8.5, activated sludge treatment system performance improves as:
• Detention time increases;
• F:M ratio decreases (within a range sustaining an active biomass); and
• Secondary clarifier overflow rates decrease.
Aerated/non-aerated basin treatment system performance improves as:
• Detention time increases;
• BOD5 loading decreases; and
• Aeration intensity increases.
However, there is no simple relationship between any one design parameter and excellent
BOD5 and TSS removal. For example, the worst performing chemical pulp mill activated
sludge treatment system (80 percent BOD5 removal) had an F:M ratio of 0.74, more than
twice as high as any other system. The aeration intensity was also quite high (954 HP/
1,000 m3), but evidently the oxygen transfer was not high enough to sustain an adequate
microbial population to achieve a high BOD5 removal.
9-20
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The generalizations listed above cannot always explain treatment system performance. For
example, the detention times of the best performing mechanical pulp mill activated sludge
treatment systems ranged from 3.6 to 5.4 hours, while the worst performing system
(achieving 53 percent BOD5 removal) had a 19-hour detention time. This treatment
system's poor performance may be explained by a very low F:M ratio, 0.08, perhaps too low
to sustain an active biomass. Moreover, as noted in Section 8.5, the operation of treatment
systems is also important to achieving optimum effluent quality. This is particularly true of
activated sludge systems which require careful day-to-day attention to numerous important
operating parameters.
Due to the complex relationship between treatment system critical design and operating
parameters, there is no simple definition of treatment system upgrade. Feasible activated
sludge treatment system upgrades include:
• Increase in aeration basin capacity (resulting in longer hydraulic retention
times and lower F:M ratios);
• Increase in clarifier capacity (resulting in lower overflow rates); and
• Addition of flocculant to improve sludge settling.
Feasible aerated stabilization basin treatment system upgrades include:
• Increasing the aeration in existing ponds (resulting in improved oxygen
transfer);
• Increasing the volume of aerated ponds or adding new ponds (resulting in
increased hydraulic detention time);
• Supplementing the nutrients available in mill wastewater; and
• Adding settling capacity for the removal of suspended solids.
The combination of upgrades applicable to a mill depends upon the characteristics of its
wastewater and upon the treatment it currently uses.
9.3 BCT
Best conventional'pollutant control technology (BCT) effluent limitations guidelines
establish quantitative limits on the direct discharge of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. In contrast to BPT guidelines that are derived as the average of
the best existing performance by a group of like facilities, BCT guidelines are developed by
9-21
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
identifying candidate technologies and evaluating their cost-reasonableness. Effluent
limitations guidelines based upon BCT may not be less stringent than BPT effluent
limitations guidelines. As such, BPT effluent limitations guidelines are a "floor" belowwhich
BCT effluent limitations guidelines cannot be established. EPA has developed a BCT cost
test methodology to assist the Agency in determining whether it is "cost-reasonable" for
industry to control conventional pollutants at a level more stringent than would be required
by BPT effluent limitations (4).
BCT effluent limitations guidelines are developed in five steps:
(1) Identification of existing technologies which control conventional pollutants
beyond the level achieved by BPT effluent limitations;
(2) Analysis of the technologies to determine their performance, in terms of
pollutant reduction;
(3) Estimation of the cost of the technologies;
(4) Execution of the BCT cost test, using the estimated costs and pollutant
reductions; and
(5) For any options that pass the cost tests, review of non-water environmental
quality impacts.
In performing the BCT cost test, a BPT baseline must be developed to serve as the starting
point against which more stringent technologies are analyzed. The baseline includes both
baseline pollutant discharges and control costs. Because EPA was revising BPT limitations
at the same time the BCT limitations were revised, an additional level of analysis was
necessary to determine an appropriate BPT baseline. EPA considered three possible
baselines:
(1) Proposed revised BPT effluent limitations guidelines, equivalent to BPT
Option 2 (discussed in Section 9.2), and the cost of this level of control
(discussed in Section 11.0);
(2) The current long-term average discharge of conventional pollutants and the
cost of this level of control (based on data from the 1990 questionnaire); or
(3) The 'current BPT effluent limitations guidelines and the hypothetical cost of
this level of control.
9-22
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The Agency rejected the third approach, because there was no reasonable estimate of the
cost of this level of control. Further, many segments of the industry attain better control
of conventional pollutants than is required by the existing BPT effluent limitations
guidelines. Instead, the Agency conducted the BCT analysis using Baseline 1 (above). The
Agency also conducted an alternative analysis using Baseline 2.
The remainder of this section describes the BCT options developed for the two analytical
approaches. The assessment of the options, in terms of pollutant reductions achieved, is
presented in Section 10.0. Section 11.0 presents the estimated costs of implementing each
option while Section 12.0 presents the non-water quality environmental impacts of the
option selected to form the technology basis of each regulation. The two-part BCT cost-
reasonableness test is described in a separate report "BCT Cost Test for the Proposed
Effluent Limitations for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry," which may be found in
the Record for the Rulemaking.
9.3.1 BCT Options Assuming "Baseline" is BPT Option 2
The Agency identified two candidate technologies to evaluate against baseline conventional
pollutant control costs and removals equivalent to BPT Option 2. As discussed above, BCT
may not be less stringent than BPT.
9.3.1.1 Option A.1 - The Performance Level Represented by the Best-Performing Mill
in Each Subcategory
Using information supplied in response to the 1990 questionnaire, the Agency identified the
best performing mill in each subcategory. As discussed in Section 9.2, performance was
defined by the production normalized load of BOD5 discharged and the performance of a
subcategory was defined, in general, by the group of mills with 85 percent or more of then-
production in that subcategory. Using information reported in the 1990 questionnaire, the
Agency could identify the end-of-pipe wastewater treatment used by each best-performing
mill. As discussed in Section 9.2, the low discharge loads achieved by the best-performing
mills often result from excellent water conservation practices (i.e., low production
normalized water use). However, information supplied with the questionnaire was not
sufficiently detailed to enable the Agency to estimate the cost of retrofitting existing
facilities with the water conservation technologies used by the best-performing mills. As a
result, Option A.1 could not be evaluated using the cost-reasonableness tests.
9.3.1.2
Option A.2 - Multimedia Filtration
This option consists of the addition of multimedia filters, designed for the rempval of
suspended solids, to the flow reduction and end-of-pipe treatment train required for each
mill to meet BPT Option 2 performance levels. The Agency assumed the multimedia filter
9-23
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
(or filters, for large flows) would treat the entire volume of wastewater discharged by the
mill. Performance was defined as 60 percent reduction in the TSS load (that is, a 60
percent reduction from the BPT Option 2 level), to a minimum TSS concentration of 3
mg/L (5). The mass of BOD5 removed by the fflter(s) was assumed to be half the mass of
TSS removed, the same assumption about the relationship between BODS and TSS used
during the estimation of the cost of BPT Options 1 and 2 (see Section 11.6).
The Agency estimated the pollutant removals and costs of Option A.2 (see Sections 10.2.4
and 11.7.2) and the estimates were used to test its cost-reasonableness.
933, BCT Options Under Alternative Analysis: Assuming "Baseline" is Current Industry
Performance
The Agency developed two BCT options to evaluate against baseline conventional pollutant
control costs and removals represented by the current performance of the industry.
932.1 Option B.I - The Performance Level Representing the Average of the Best 90
Percent of Mills in Each Subcategory (BPT Option 1)
This option is equivalent to BPT Option 1, discussed in Section 9.2. The pollutant removals
and costs estimated for BPT Option 1 were used to test the cost-reasonableness of this
option against the current industry performance baseline.
9.3.2.2 Option B.2 - The Performance Level Representing the Average of the Best 50
Percent of Mills in Each Subcategory (BPT Option 2)
This option is equivalent to BPT Option 2, discussed in Section 9.2. The pollutant removals
and costs estimated for BPT Option 2 were used to test the cost-reasonableness of this
option against the current industry performance baseline.
9.3.2.3
Other Options Considered
The Agency considered evaluating the options developed for evaluation against the baseline
represented by BPT Option 2 against the baseline represented by the current performance
of the industry. These two options are: (1) the performance level represented by the best-
performing mill, and (2) BPT Option 2 plus multimedia filtration. As discussed in 9.3.1.1,
above, the "best-performing mill" option was not analyzed because the Agency was not able
to sufficiently define the technology basis of this option to estimate its cost.
The multimedia filtration option differs slightly from Option A.2 identified to evaluate
against the BPT Option 2 baseline hi 9.3.1.2, above, in that the starting point is the current
mill performance, rather than BPT Option 2 performance. The removal is the sum of the
9-24
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
removals for BIT Option 2 and BCT Option A.2, described in 9.3.1.2, but the cost is not
a simple sum. This is because, for some mills, the current TSS effluent concentrations are
low enough that filters could be feasibly applied without the treatment system upgrades
costed for BPT Option 2. The Agency had inadequate tune and resources to fully evaluate
the costs of the multimedia filtration option assuming baseline is current industry
performance and, as a result, this option was not evaluated using the cost-reasonableness
test.
The Agency also considered an alternative using a different baseline (revised BPT effluent
limitations guidelines equivalent to BPT Option 1) and one BCT option equivalent to BPT
Option 2. The analysis of this alternative can be found in the Record for the Rulemaking.
9.4 BAT
Best available technology economically achievable (BAT) effluent limitations guidelines
establish quantitative limits on the direct discharge of priority and nonconventional
pollutants to navigable waters of the United States. These limits are based upon the
performance of specific technologies, but they do not require the use of any specific
technology. BAT effluent limitations guidelines are applied to individual facilities through
NPDES permits issued by EPA or authorized states under Section 402 of the CWA. The
facility then chooses its own approach to complying with its permit limitations.
The technology selected by the Agency to define the BAT performance may include end-of-
pipe treatment, process changes, and internal controls, even when these technologies are not
common industry practice. BAT performance is established for groups of facilities with
shared characteristics. Where a group of facilities demonstrates uniformly inadequate
performance in the control of pollutants of concern, BAT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or industrial category.
A primary consideration in selecting BAT is the effluent pollutant reduction capability of
the available technologies. Implementation of the best available technology must be
economically achievable by the industry, so the cost of applying the technology is also
considered. Other factors considered in establishing BAT include:
• The processes used;
• Potential process changes;
• Age and size of equipment and facilities; and
• Non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements.
As discussed in Section 7.0, the Agency identified 18 priority and nonconventional pollutant
compounds generated by mills in the United States that chemically pulp wood and
subsequently bleach the wood pulp with chlorine and/or chlorine-containing compounds.
9-25
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The Agency determined that control of the discharge of these pollutants was required and
assessed the technologies available to control their discharge. This assessment focused on
available process technologies that reduce or eliminate the formation of the pollutants of
concern to the Agency, and so avoid the potential for cross-media impacts (such as
accumulation of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans
(CDFs) in sludges and the emission of chloroform to air) in end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment. Section 8.0 provides an overview of the technologies assessed by the Agency.
As the Agency assessed these process technologies, it also reviewed the status of their
implementation on an industrial scale. Because it is the performance of the selected
technology that becomes the basis for effluent limitations guidelines, it was important for
the Agency to identify technologies for which performance data (in terms of mass of
pollutants discharged from the process and from the mill) were available. Because the
pulping and bleaching technologies the Agency considered for BAT are inter-related, they
are implemented in a limited number of combinations. As the Agency assessed various
process technologies, it also reviewed the typical combinations in which they were
implemented on,an industrial scale.
As a result of this engineering assessment, the Agency developed a number of process
technology combinations capable of reducing the discharge of priority and nonconventional
pollutants of concern and configured these combinations into BAT options. Because the
BAT options focused on source reduction (pollution prevention) through changes to
production processes, they were developed separately for each process/product subcategory
in the category.
The BAT options considered for each subcategory were numbered to indicate the degree
of pollutant control achieved by each option, with Option 1 being the lowest degree of
control and each increasing number providing increased control. This ranking of options
was based upon the improvements to pollutant control that would be seen if the process
changes were implemented while all other pulp manufacturing variables were held constant,
(i.e., if the process changes were implemented at a single mill in a controlled series of tests).
The Agency did not have such data available to evaluate the performance of the BAT
options. Instead, as described in Section 3.0, hi cooperation with the industry, the Agency
collected data from separate mills that had implemented the BAT option technologies on
a full scale. Each mill produced somewhat different products, such as market pulp,
uncoated free sheet, fluff pulp, and paperboard for the mills representing the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory. Each mill used somewhat different pulp
manufacturing variables such as fiber furnish, pulp consistency, brown stock Kappa number,
and bleaching chemical application rates. Each mill controlled these variables to a different
extent, through instrumentation, automation, and operator diligence. As a result, the
performance data do not always reflect increased pollutant control, for every pollutant, with
each increasing option. For example, for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
9-26
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Subcategory, final effluent adsorbable organic halides (AOX) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) discharges follow the progression below:
Option
1
2
3 '
4
5
Final Effluent AOX
(fcg/ADMT)
1.39
1.62
0.46
0.14
0.26
Bleach Plant 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (ng/ADMT)
519(a)
161(a)
131(a)
ND
ND
(a)Average mass discharge calculated using half the detection limit for one or more concentrations reported at
less than the detection limit.
The Agency concluded that the deviations from the expected trends result from sources of
variability in its sampling program, including manufacturing variables, wastewater treatment,
sampling, and laboratory analysis. The Agency further concluded that the data it used to
characterize the BAT options reflect full-scale implementation of the options at
commercially viable mills, producing products typical of the industry, and reflecting the
variability of the industry as represented by the data sets available in a timely manner for
inclusion in the proposed regulations. The Agency has requested additional data to refine
the performance of these options.
9.4.1 Approach to Option Development
i
9.4.1.1 Process Changes and End-Of-Pipe Treatment
Two major approaches may be used to control the discharge of chlorinated pollutants, AOX,
and other nonconventional pollutants from mills that bleach chemical pulp:
(1) In-process technology changes to prevent or reduce pollutant formation; and
(2) End-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies to remove pollutants from
process wastewaters prior to discharge.
The Agency determined that the most environmentally beneficial approach is to combine
process technology changes which reduce or eliminate the formation of the pollutants of
concern with best available end-of-pipe treatment. It is not feasible to rely on end-of-pipe
9-27
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
controls alone, because they do not prevent pollution and do not ensure that non-water
quality environmental impacts (such as emission of chloroform, and contamination of
wastewater treatment sludge with CDDs) will be minimized. Process technology changes
cannot be relied upon alone, however, because end-of-pipe treatment provides additional
cost-effective control of the discharge of conventional pollutants and many nonconventional
pollutants, including certain chlorinated phenolics, AOX, and COD.
Even after the implementation of pulping and bleaching process changes to reduce the
formation of chlorinated pollutants, low levels of these pollutants may be discharged from
mills, and thus require end-of-pipe treatment. Sources of chlorinated pollutants not directly
related to the bleaching process may include:
• Paper machine white water generated when paper is made from chlorine-
bleached pulp;
* Floor washings from bleach plants where chlorine and chlorine-containing
compounds are used;
• Wastewaters from areas used to prepare chlorine-containing bleaching
compounds; and
• Wastewaters from wet scrubbers used to control emissions from bleaching
towers and bleach plant vents on bleach lines where chlorine-containing
compounds are used.
In addition, effective end-of-pipe treatment (particularly suspended solids removal) can help
control the discharge of sludges that have accumulated in aerated stabilization basins,
polishing ponds, and appurtenant sludge management devices. These sludges can contain
CDDs, CDFs, and other chlorinated organic pollutants.
Because revised BPT effluent limitations guidelines were developed at the same time as the
BAT options, the end-otpipe treatment that would be required to comply with the revised
BPT guidelines was presumed to be in place as the BAT options were developed.
Therefore, the BAT options include only process changes.
9.4.1.2 Strategies for Preventing the Formation of Chlorinated Pollutants
CDDs, CDFs, and other chlorinated pollutants result from the interaction of chlorine (and
to a lesser extent, other chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals) and lignin during the
bleaching of pulp. After eliminating the direct introduction of CDD and CDF precursors
(in defoamers and pitch dispersants) into the bleaching process, three major strategies have
evolved to reduce the formation of chlorinated pollutants during bleaching:
9-28
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
(1) Elimination of localized high concentrations of chlorine and/or lignin (by
improving pulp quality, improving mixing, eliminating overbleaching, and split
addition of the chlorine charge);
(2) Reduction in the lignin entering the bleaching process (by improved brown
stock washing, and extended delignification with oxygen or modified cooking
processes); and
(3) Reduction in the amount of chlorine used to bleach pulp (by substituting
other bleaching agents such as chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, oxygen,
or ozone, for chlorine).
These strategies have been incorporated into the BAT options for each subcategory for
which the Agency is proposing limitations for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and other
chlorinated compounds.
9.4.1.3 Production Rate and Product Qualify Considerations
As outlined at the beginning of this section, BAT (best available control technology
economically achievable) effluent limitations guidelines are developed in four steps:
(1) Identification of existing technologies for the control of wastewater
pollutants;
i
(2) Analysis of the technologies to determine the best performance, in terms of
pollution reduction;
(3) Estimation of the cost of the technologies to determine economic
achievabiliry; and
(4) Review of non-water quality environmental impacts.
The underlying assumption under which the Agency carried out the development and
analysis of BAT options was that BAT process changes would not result in:
• Changes in raw materials (i.e., fiber furnish);
• Changes in the amount of final product produced by each mill; or
• Significant changes in the properties (e.g., quality and grade) of the final
product produced by each mill.
9-29
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
For example, if a mill currently produces 1,200 ADMT/day of 90 ISO brightness pulp from
softwood, only technologies demonstrated to achieve 90 ISO brightness for softwood pulp
were considered "available technologies." Further, in estimating the pollutant reduction and
cost of implementing each option the mill was assumed to continue to produce 1,200
ADMT/day of 90 ISO pulp.
As reviewed in Sections 8.2 and 8.3, most of the technologies that reduce the generation of
chlorinated pollutants involve either changes in the pulp entering the bleach plant
(particularly changes that result in reduction of the lignin content of the pulp entering the
first stage of bleaching, as measured by the brown stock Kappa number), changes in the
bleaching chemicals used, or both. Pulp is bleached to increase its brightness. Bleaching
also affects pulp properties by removing or modifying lignin and its degradation products,
and by removing resins, metal ions, noncellulosic carbohydrate components, and flecks of
various kinds. Pulp is bleached not just to make it whiter, but also to reduce the effects of
aging on color, strength, and brightness (6). In order to implement changes in pulping and
changes in bleaching chemicals, but still maintain consistent pulp properties, all BAT process
change options include two assumptions:
(1) The total bleaching power (expressed as chlorine equivalent) of all bleach line
stages after the first chlorine stage is constant; and
(2) The active chlorine multiple (ACM) of the first (chlorine) stage is constant.
As explained in Section 11.1.2.6, each bleaching agent used by the industry has a bleaching
power related to the oxidation potential of chlorine. The practical relative bleaching power
of chlorine dioxide, for example is 2.63, meaning that 1 kg chlorine dioxide can replace 2.63
kg of chlorine. The practical relative bleaching power of ozone is 4.4, meaning 1 kg ozone
can replace 4.4 kg of chlorine.
The chlorine equivalence factors are used to implement the assumption that the total bleach
line bleaching power is constant after a process change. For example, the BAT options for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory include the elimination of
hypochlorite and the replacement of its bleaching power with additional chlorine dioxide in
subsequent bleaching stages.
A slightly different approach is used in assessing bleaching chemical changes for the first
chlorine bleaching stage, because the chemical application rate of this stage is dependent
on the lignin content of the incoming pulp (measured as Kappa number). Because certain
technology options include changes in both the chemicals currently applied in the first
bleaching stage and in the incoming brown stock Kappa number, it is the ratio of the
equivalent chlorine to Kappa number that is held constant. This ratio is called the active
chlorine multiple (ACM) and is defined as:
9-30
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
where:
TEC
Kappa
C12
CIO,
ACM =
TEC
Kappa
2.63C1O
Kappa
(7)
tptal equivalent chlorine in percent on pulp
pre-chlorination brown stock Kappa number
chlorine charge in percent on pulp (kg C12/100 kg brown stock
pulp)
chlorine dioxide charge, in percent on pulp (kg C1O2/100 kg
brown stock pulp).
For ozone, the total equivalent chlorine is given by:
TEC = 4.4 CX
(8)
where:
O3 = ozone charge in percent on pulp (kg O3/100 kg brown stock pulp).
An example of the application of this approach is summarized below:
-
Base Case
64% substitution
lower Kappa + 64% substitution
lower Kappa + 100% substitution
lower Kappa + ozone
Kappa
30
30
18
18
15
•&<
7.5
2.73
1.63
0
0
CIO*
0
1.81
1.09
1.71
0.85 kg
ozone/100 kg
pulp
IfJC
7.5
7.5
4.5
4.5
3.75
ACM
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
9-31
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
In the base case, chlorine is applied at a rate of 7.5 percent on pulp to an incoming pulp
with Kappa number 30, resulting in an ACM of 0.25. When 64 percent of the bleaching
power of chlorine is replaced with chlorine dioxide, the chlorine charge is reduced to 2.73
percent on pulp. Maintaining the ACM at 0.25 and the 64 percent substitution rate, but
reducing the incoming Kappa number to 18, further reduces the chlorine charge (to 1.63
percent on pulp). Finally, the bleaching power of chlorine may be completely replaced by
chlorine dioxide or ozone at a rate of 1.71 or 0.85 percent on pulp, respectively.
In actual practice, a mill has considerable flexibility in modifying bleach sequences. For
example, enhancing the first extraction stage with oxygen and peroxide would enable the use
of a lower ACM. For simplicity of presentation, however, this flexibility is not included in
the following explanation of the BAT options.
The remainder of this section describes the BAT options developed for each subcategory.
The assessment of the options, in terms of pollutant reductions achieved, is presented in
Section 10.0. Section 11.0 presents the estimated cost of implementing each option. Section
12.0 presents the non-water quality environmental impacts of the option selected to form
the technology basis of each regulation. These non-water quality environmental impacts are
energy use, air pollution, odor, and quantity and quality of wastewater treatment sludge
generated.
9A3, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
The proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other priority and
nonconventional pollutants apply to four subcategories with a total of 95 mills. The
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, with 77 mills and approximately 90
percent of the total U.S. bleached chemical pulp production, is the largest of the four
subcategories. More research and development of toxics-reducing processes have been done
on the bleached papergrade kraft process than on the other processes. For these reasons,
Section 8.0 describes many pollution prevention process changes and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies that can be used to control the discharge of priority and nonconventional
pollutants from bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. While many of these
technologies may be currently hi use or may be used by mills when complying with the
proposed BAT regulations, the Agency did not have sufficient performance data to fully
analyze all of them as BAT options. The Agency developed five BAT options for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory for which it had performance data and'
considered developing a totally chlorine-free (TCP) bleaching option. The elements
common to these five options are described below, followed by a description of each of the
9-32
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
five options the Agency completely analyzed. A discussion of TCP bleaching of papergrade
kraft pulp completes this section.
9.4.2.1 Common Elements of Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Options
The BAT options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory have six
common elements.
1. Adequate Wood Chip Size Control. Until recently, mills have controlled only two
of the three chips dimensions (length and width) using vibratory screens. As described in
Section 8.2.1, however, uniform chip thickness promotes more uniform liquor penetration,
resulting in a high-quality pulp. Lower quality pulps contain excessive shives that may be
removed by screening resulting in yield loss or overbleaching, which may result in formation
of chlorinated pollutants. Chip thickness can be controlled by:
• Close control of chipping equipment tolerances, or
• The use of chip thickness screens.
As discussed in Section 11.1, implementing chip size control is assumed to pay for itself
through improved yield (fewer rejects), higher quality pulp that requires less intense
bleaching (lower chemical costs), and more consistent pulp mill and bleach plant operation
(lower overall operating costs).
2. Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors. Two
groups of additives used in the production of bleached pulp, defoamers and pitch
dispersants, have been shown to contain the CDD and CDF precursors dibenzo-p-dioxin
(DBD) and dibenzofuran (DBF) (7,8).
Replacing contaminated additives with precursor-free additives requires no significant
process modifications or equipment changes. Thus, the conversion to clean additives
containing less than 1 ppb of both DBF and DBD thus does not have a significant impact
on the cost of the production of bleached pulp or on the quality of product. The Agency
believes that the U.S. pulp industry has generally converted to the use of precursor-free
additives.
3. Effective brown stock washing. Washing that achieves a soda loss of less than or
equal to 10 kg Na^SCv per ADMT of pulp (i.e., 99 percent recovery of pulping chemicals
from the pulp) maximizes the return of cooking liquor to chemical recovery for recovery of
the cooking chemicals and energy value of the dissolved wood components. Because the
organic material carried over into the bleach plant with the pulp exerts a chlorine demand,
minimizing the carry over of cooking liquor to bleaching reduces the amount of bleaching
9-33
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
chemicals required and, consequently, the likelihood of charging excess chlorine.
Muiirnizing the carry over of cooking liquor also reduces the load of organic material
(measured as COD) discharged in bleach plant filtrates. For this reason, improved brown
stock washing is part of the technology basis for COD control, described in Section 9.4.2.7
below, as well as the technology basis for the control of chlorinated pollutants.
As discussed in Section 11.1.3.6, effective brown stock washing results in greater loads of
pulping liquor solids and dissolved wood components to the recovery boiler. On average,
this increased load represents less than 1 percent increase in the total heating value input
to the recovery boiler which can be accommodated at virtually all mills.
4. Elimination of hvpochlorite. As discussed in Section 8.3.7, controlling chloroform
releases generally requires eliminating hypochlorite as a bleaching agent. Each of the five
BAT options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory includes replacing
hypochlorite with equivalent bleaching power for mills that currently use hypochlorite.
These replacements are in the form of additions of peroxide and oxygen to the first
extraction stage. Also, if additional bleaching power replacement is required, additional
chlorine dioxide is applied in subsequent brightening stages. The approach selected to
compensate for the elimination of hypochlorite depends on the mill's current bleaching
sequence. Typical "before" and "after" bleach sequences are listed below.
Before Hypochlorite
Substitution
C/DEHD,ED2
C/DEHD
sequences with 2H and ID
stage
CEH
' 'Ate* *™ '
£ i : -. i
•n't ••' ^
C/D EopD1ED2, with increased C1O2 in Dj '
C/D EopDjDj for Options 1 and 2 or
OC/D E^D for Options 3, 4, and 5
Eop with 2D stages
CE^D
As discussed in Section 9.4.1.3 above, options that eliminate hypochlorite also maintain the
total bleaching power (in chlorine equivalent) of all bleach line stages after the first chlorine
stage.
5. Oxygen and peroxide enhanced extraction. As discussed in 8.3.6, enhancing the first
extraction stage with oxygen and peroxide increases pulp brightness and allows use of a
lower ACM (less chlorine and/or chlorine dioxide) in the first bleaching stage. Each of the
9-34
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
five BAT options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory includes oxygen
and peroxide enhanced extraction. As described above, for mills that currently use
hypochlorite, these enhancements replace the bleaching power of hypochlorite when it is
eliminated. For mills that currently do not use hypochlorite, the enhancements replace
some of the bleaching power of chlorine and/or chlorine dioxide in the first bleaching stage.
6; High shear mixing for split addition of chlorine in Option 1, for addition of chlorine
dioxide in Options 2, 3, 4, and 5, and for addition of oxygen in reinforced extraction in all
options. High shear mixers impose large rotational speeds across narrow gaps through
which the pulp suspension flows, thus ensuring floe disruption and good contact between
added chemicals and the individual pulp fiber. This contact is essential in ensuring
adequate bleaching in the first chlorine stage and efficient use of oxygen in reinforced
extraction.
9.4.2.2 Option 1 - Split Addition of Chlorine
For this option, the total equivalent chlorine (chlorine and/or chlorine dioxide) added to
the first bleaching stage is split into two parts and added at discrete intervals, instead of
adding the entire chlorine charge at one point. In order to be1 effective, the pulp must be
very well mixed with the chlorine, and the pH of the stage must be controlled using sodium
hydroxide (9). The option includes additional high shear mixing, as well as additional
process controls. The increased mixing ensures optimum contact between pulp and chlorine
in the first bleaching stage and that the chlorine charge is well dispersed: The process
controls allow the mill to accurately maintain the pH in the first bleaching stage at a higher
than normal level.
Based upon data reported by ffise (9) and confirmed by contact with several mill operators
through EPA's capital cost request letter of mid-1992, the total chlorine charge to the first
stage should be increased slightly (by approximately 10 percent) when it is applied in two
parts, to ensure that the bleaching effect of the first stage remains the same.
9.4.2.3 Option 2 - Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine
This option includes the replacement of some of the molecular chlorine used in the first
bleaching stage with chlorine dioxide, known as chlorine dioxide substitution. As described
in Section 8.3.5, percent chlorine dioxide substitution is defined as the percent of the total
equivalent chlorine bleaching power in the first bleaching stage contributed by the chlorine
dioxide:
9-35
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
% S =
2.63 CIO,
C12 + 2.63 C1O2
x 100
(9)
where:
% S = ' chlorine dioxide substitution, percent
C1O2 = chlorine dioxide charge, kg C1O2/100 kg pulp
C12 = chlorine charge, kg C12/100 kg pulp.
As discussed in Section 8.3.5, Luthe, et. al (10) developed a relationship between the
amount of chlorine dioxide substitution needed to rninirnize the formation of chlorinated
pollutants and the ACM (active chlorine multiple) used in the first bleaching stage. They
developed an equation which defines a limiting ACM which, for a given percent substitution,
cannot be exceeded and still ensure that final effluent will maintain concentrations of
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF less than 10 ng/L and 30 ng/L, respectively. This equation
(derived in Section 8.3.5) is:
24
150 - %S
(10)
where:
ACML
%S
limiting active chlorine multiple
Percent chlorine dioxide substitution.
The Agency analyzed the relationship of the ACM and percent substitution at the U.S. mills
that used high chlorine dioxide substitution (without extended cooking or oxygen
deh'gnification) and achieved non-detectable final effluent concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
and 2,3,7,8-TCDF. For this analysis, the Agency looked at the ratio of the mill's actual
ACM, to the limiting ACM defined in Equation 4:
9-36
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
ACM.
ACMA
ACML [24/(150 -
(11)
For data presented in the Canadian study, the ACM ratio was 1; for the U.S. mills, however,
the ACM ratio averaged 0.9. This relationship can be represented as:
n n ACMA
0.9 = A
ACM.
[24/(150 -
(12)
Solving for %S:
%S = 150 -
ACM.
(13)
The ACM ratio less than 1 indicates that the ACM used by U.S. mills was lower than that
theoretically required for the percent substitution they used. In terms of a fixed ACM, the
U.S. mills used a somewhat higher percent substitution than would be theoretically required
to achieve concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF below analytical detection
limits. The Agency used Equation 11 to define the percent substitution technology basis of
Option 2, because it represented practice of the mills for which the Agency had data.
Using Equation 11, a low ACM will require a low percent substitution, and high ACM will
require high substitution. In fact, for ACMs greater than 0.432, the calculated percent
substitution will always be greater than 100 percent. For this case, Option 2 is complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the first bleaching stage. ACMs for U.S.
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills were typically between 0.24 and 0.27, resulting in
calculated chlorine dioxide substitutions of 60 to 70 percent and gaseous chlorine multiples
of less than 0.065.
9-37
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The calculation of percent substitution is illustrated in Example 1:
Example 1
base case: Kappaj
ACM
calculated TEC,
From Equation 13, calculate %S
30
0.25
(KappatXACM)
(30)(ACM) = 7.5 kg C12/100 kg pulp
(assuming 0% substitution)
(13)
. (0.9X24)
0.25
= 63.6%
From Equation 9 and the definition of TEC, calculate charges of C1O2 and C12:
2.63 CIO,
%S = -— x 100
C12 + 2.63 C102
%S = 2.63 C12
lOO TEC,
(9)
0.636 =
2.63 CIO,
- __
9-38
-------
9.0 .Development of Control and Treatment Options
C1O2 = 3.53 kg/100 kg pulp
C12 = 1.23 kg/100 kg pulp
(compared to 7.5 kg C12/100 kg without substitution)
9.4.2.4 Option 3 - Oxygen Delignification or Extended Cooking with Substitution of
Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine
This option includes the reduction of the lignin content (as measured by Kappa number) of
the pulp entering the first bleaching stage, along with the substitution of chlorine dioxide
for chlorine in the first bleaching stage. Lignin reduction may be accomplished with either
oxygen delignification or extended cooking (batch or continuous) to achieve the following
target Kappa numbers:
.
softwood pulp
hardwood pulp
Traditional Cooking
Brown Stock Kappa
Number
30
20
Enhanced Delignification
Brown Stock Kappa Number
18
12
Theoretically, the performance of pulping and bleaching processes, hi terms of pollutant
reduction, is essentially the same whether oxygen delignification or extended cooking is used
to reduce the brown stock Kappa number (11). In analyzing this option, the Agency
assumed that a mill would install whichever of the two technologies would be least
expensive: extended cooking for mills with a continuous digester that could be easily
retrofitted, and medium consistency oxygen delignification for all other mills (see "Pulp and
Paper Process Change Cost Model Documentation" in the Record for the Rulemaking for
more cost details).
Oxygen deh'gnification, described in Section 8.2.5, uses oxygen gas to remove lignin from
brown stock pulp after washing in an alkaline environment. The process includes the
addition of magnesium sulfate (to control delignification), addition of oxidized white liquor
or sodium hydroxide to control pH, and two stages of washing after the oxygen reactor to
completely remove dissolved lignin. Extended cooking, described in Section 8.2.2, may be
conducted in either continuous or batch mode. Pulp is mixed with the cooking liquor under
modified time, temperature, and alkalinity conditions that dissolve more lignin than
traditional continuous or batch cooking without significant fiber degradation because the
active chemical concentration is kept more uniform throughout the cook.
9-39
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
As discussed in Section 9.4.1.3, options that include pulping and bleaching process changes
also maintain the ACM in the first chlorine bleaching stage. Because ACM is defined as
the ratio of the total equivalent chlorine to the prechlorination brown stock Kappa number,
when oxygen delignification 'or extended cooking are applied prior to bleaching the total
equivalent chlorine required for a constant ACM is reduced. As discussed in Section 9.4.2.3,
the required percent chlorine dioxide substitution depends on the ACM and so is not
changed by the reduction in prechlorination Kappa number. However, a lower total mass
dose of pulping chemicals is required. The relationship of ACM, TEC and percent
substitution is illustrated in Example 2:
Examle 2
base case: Kappat
ACM
30
0.25
calculated
after enhanced delignification
Kappaj
ACM
calculated TEQ
From Equation 13, calculate %S:
7.5 kg equivalent C12/100 kg pulp
18
0.25
(Kappaa)(ACM)
(18)(0.25)
4.5 kg equivalent C12/100 kg pulp.
«8 . 150 -
ACM
(13)
- 150 -
0.25
= 63.6%
9-40
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
From Equation 9 and the definition of TEC, calculate charges of C1O2 and C12
„„
%S =
2.63 CIO,
+ 2.63 C10
x 100
(9)
2.63 CIO,
%S =1 * 10°
where:
. _ 2.63 CIO.
0.636 = I
4.5
C1O2 = 1.09 kg/100 kg pulp
C12 = 1.63 kg/100 kg pulp
(compared to 7.5 kg C12/100 kg without substitution or enhanced
delignification).
9.4.2.5 Option 4 - Oxygen Delignification or Extended Cooking With Complete
Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine
This option includes the same reduction in pulp lignin content as specified for Option 3.
However, the direct use of elemental chlorine is eliminated and the current active chlorine
multiple is maintained using chlorine dioxide only. Example 3 continues with the previous
example:
Example 3
base case: Kappat
ACM
from Example 2:
ACM
TEQ
30
0.25
18
0.25
4.5 kg equivalent C12/100 kg pulp.
9-41
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
For Option 4, %S = 100
from the definition of TEC, calculate the charge of C1O2
TEQ
4.5
C102
C12
2.63 C102
2.63 C102
1.71 kg/100 kg pulp
0 kg/100 kg pulp
(compared to 1.63 kg C12 in Option 3).
9.4.2.6
Option 5 - Oxygen Delignification and Extended Cooking With Complete
Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine
This option includes further reduction of the lignin content of the pulp entering the first
stage of bleaching along with the complete elimination of elemental chlorine. The lignin
reduction is accomplished by using extended cooking (batch or continuous) followed by
oxygen delignification to achieve the following target Kappa numbers:
softwood pulp
hardwood pulp
Traditional Cooking
Brown Stock Kappa
Number
30
20
Extended Cooking Followed
by Oxygen Delignification
Kappa Number
15
10
As with Option 4, the direct use of elemental chlorine is eliminated and the current active
chlorine multiple is applied using chlorine dioxide only. Example 4 continues with the
previous examples:
Example 4
base case: Kappat
ACM
30
0.25
after oxygen deh'gnification and extended cooking:
ACM
TEQ
15
0.25
(KappaaXACM)
(15)(0.25)
3.75 kg equivalent chlorine/100 kg pulp.
9-42
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
For Option 5, %S = 100
from the definition of TEC, calculate the charge of C1O2
TEQ = 2.63 C1O2
3.75 = 2.63 C1O2
C1O2 = 1.43 kg/100 kg pulp
(compared to 1.71 kg C1O2/100 kg pulp in Option 4).
9.4.2.7 Performance of BAT Options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory
Table 9-11 summarizes the performance of each of the five options discussed above, in
terms of production normalized mass of pollutant discharged from the bleach plant for all
pollutants of concern to the Agency other than AOX and color. For AOX and color, the
performance of each option is characterized by the final effluent discharge. The data used
to characterize each option were collected by the Agency during the long-term and short-
term studies described in Section 3.0.
In many cases, some or all of the pollutants of concern were not detected in the analyzed
samples. In these cases (as discussed in Section 6.4), one-half the reported detection limit
was used to estimate the pollutant mass loading of the sampled waste stream. In Table
9-11, long-term average loads are footnoted "a" if some of the averaged values were below
the method detection limits; they are marked "ND" if all of the averaged values were below
the method detection limit. For example, the performance of Option 3, in terms of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD discharged from the bleach plant, is 13 la ng/ADMT, indicating that one or more
sample measurements were reported less than the sample-specific detection limit, but
2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected at least once in a bleach plant effluent from an Option 3 mill.
In contrast, the performance of Option 4, in terms of 2,3,7,8-TCDD discharged from the
bleach plant, is 99.4 ND ng/ADMT. The "ND" indicates that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was never
detected in any bleach plant effluent from an Option 4 mill. The average loading, 99.4
ng/ADMT, was calculated using one-half the detection limit for each sample analyzed.
The data presented in Table 9-11 do not distinguish between softwood or hardwood
furnishes, because the Agency determined that subcategorization based upon furnish was not
appropriate. Pollutant loadings from softwood mills are somewhat higher than pollutant
loadings from hardwood mills. For this reason, where possible, the Agency used the
pollutant loadings from softwood mills to characterize the BAT options. Option 1 was
characterized by a mill that pulps and bleached both softwood and hardwood. All other
options were characterized using loadings from softwood mills.
Trichlorosyringol is an exception to the trend described above. Trichlorosyringol is typically
detected in bleach plant effluents from mills that pulp hardwood. It is detected less
frequently, if at all, at mills that pulp softwood using comparable technologies. Because of
9-43
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
this, the BAT option performance for trichlorosyringol in bleach plant effluent is based upon
the one hardwood bleach line for which the Agency had data. Note that because
trichlorosyringol was not detected in the final effluent of any of the mills used to
characterize the BAT options, regardless of furnish pulped, the final effluent performance
levels for trichlorosyringol were not specifically related to the furnish pulped.
The methodology used to calculate long-term average loads is further discussed in Section
10.0, and in the Statistical Support Document (12).
9.4.2.8
Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching of Papergrade Kraft Pulp
Worldwide, more than 15 mills produce totally chlorine-free (TCP) Icraft pulp. But, as
discussed in Section 8.3.11, only within the last year has the routine production of
commercial quantities of high brightness (88 to 90 ISO) TCP kraft pulp been implemented.
One mill, located in Sweden, began production of high brightness hardwood pulp bleached
with ozone (and no chlorinated compounds) in September 1992, and began mill trials of
high brightness softwood pulp bleached with ozone (and no chlorinated compounds) in
January 1993. At least two other Scandinavian mills also plan to produce high brightness
TCP softwood kraft pulp within a year (13,14).
The Swedish mill routinely monitors its final effluent for TOC1, chlorate, COD, TSS, BOD7,
color, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and pH. In 1990, as part of a special study, they
analyzed one sample of the influent and one sample of the effluent from their wastewater
treatment system for hundreds of pollutants, including those of interest to the Agency. At
the time of that study, the mill was using oxygen delignification followed by 30 perc'ent
chlorine dioxide substitution to bleach softwood pulp. These data are included in the
confidential record1 supporting this rulemaking.
The Agency requested but has not obtained data from the Swedish mill that characterize
the effluents from their ozone bleaching processes. At, this writing, the Agency does not
believe the feasibility of commercial-scale production of TCP softwood kraft pulp has been
fully demonstrated. Because softwood has a higher lignin content than hardwood, it is more
difficult to bleach to high brightness. The Agency did not assume that a technology feasible
for bleaching hardwood was feasible for softwood. Instead, the Agency developed
alternative limitations for mills that certify they .bleach without chlorine or chlorine
containing compounds. These alternative limitations apply to mills making products of any
brightness and are discussed further in Section 15.0 of this document.
9.4.2.9
Other Options Considered
i
The Agency also developed two other options for this subcategory but could not fully
analyze them due to lack of performance data. One of these options was similar to Option
9-44
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
2 but included 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution instead of approximately 70 percent
substitution. The other option was similar to Option 5 but included 70 percent chlorine
dioxide substitution instead of 100 percent substitution,
One mill produces bleached papergrade kraft pulp without discharging wastewater, directly
or indirectly, to waters of the United States. This mill is located in a semi-arid region of
the U.S. and discharges untreated wastewater to a large surface impoundment. Because of
the potential for cross-media impacts (i.e., contamination of soil and groundwater) from the
practice of impounding wastewater, the Agency did not consider zero discharge of process
wastewater as best available technology.
9.4.2.10 Control of COD
The Agency developed two BAT options for the control of COD discharges from the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory. Option A included:
• Effective brown stock washing;
I
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control; and
• End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at a level of performance equivalent to
BPT Option 2.
Option B included all of the elements of Option A, with the addition of:
• Closing the brown stock pulp screen room.
The performance of each of the two options, in terms of production normalized mass of
COD discharge in final effluent, is:
Option A: 30.0 kg COD/ADMT
Option B; 21.3 kg COD/ADMT.
The data used to characterize each option were collected by the Agency during the short-
term studies described in Section 3.0, or were submitted by mills with their 1990
questionnaire.
With the exception of closing the brown stock pulp screen room, each of the elements of
the two COD control options is also an element of the technology basis for another
regulation that the Agency is proposing. Effective brown stock washing, described in Section
8.2.3, is an element of all of the BAT options for the control of AOX and toxic pollutants
9-45
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
(see Section 9.4.2.1). Pulping liquor spill prevention and control, summarized in Section 19
of this document and described in detail in the BMP Technical Support Document,
comprises BMPs. End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at the level of performance achieved
by the average of the best 50 percent bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills is BPT
Option 2. Because all of the above mentioned elements were presumed to be in place as
the COD control options were developed, the Agency determined that Option A was not
a distinct option. Therefore only Option B, which adds screen room closure to the above
listed technologies was analyzed as a separate BAT option.
Screen room closure, described in detail in Section 8.2.4, refers to the elimination of
discharges of wastewater from knotting and screening operations. It is generally
accomplished through reusing screen decker filtrates as pulp dilution ahead of the screens,
or as wash liquor in a preceding stage of washing. Closing the screen room can require
significant modification to screening operations.
Oxygen delignification is not part of the technology basis for COD control, because the
Agency had data for a mill without oxygen delignification that demonstrated performance
(in terms of production normalized mass discharge of COD) as good or better than similar
mills with oxygen delignification. However, oxygen delignification will have a positive
impact on reducing COD discharges (15). Further, the Agency did not have information
about the cost of screen room closures implemented without simultaneous implementation
of oxygen delignification and so could not analyze the costs of closing screen rooms alone.
For this reason, the COD control option was only analyzed hi combination with BAT
Options 3, 4, and 5 described above. The Agency has solicited data reflecting the cost and
performance of all COD control technologies.
9.4.2.11
Control of Color
The brown color typical of kraft mill effluents is attributable to the presence of high
molecular weight lignin based compounds (16). Because these compounds are typically
resistant to biodegradation, color is not significantly reduced by biological treatment (15).
These high molecular weight compounds have also been shown to exhibit toxicity to aquatic
organisms (17). At nulls with good black liquor control, the bleach plant may contribute 80
percent of the total color discharged (16). Oxygen delignification, part of the technology
bases for Options 3, 4, and 5, can reduce the discharge of bleach plant color due to the
recycle of the organic matter extracted from the pulp to the recovery boiler. High chlorine
dioxide substitution, both on conventional pulp or oxygen delignified pulp, also reduces the
color discharged from the bleach plant. Laboratory studies have shown that oxygen
deh'gnification or 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution can each reduce bleach plant
effluent color by 70 to 75 percent. When used together, the bleach plant effluent color was
reduced almost 90 percent (15). Mill performance data confirm that 100 percent chlorine
9-46
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
dioxide substitution1 can reduce color discharges 50 to 80 percent (compared to 0 percent
substitution) (18).
Two end-of-pipe treatment technologies, chemically assisted coagulation and membrane
ultrafiltration, are currently in use on mill scale to reduce effluent color (16). The Agency
did not have sufficient performance data to fully analyze these technologies.
The Agency did not develop separate BAT options for the control of effluent color, but
analyzed the performance of the options developed for the control of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
other priority and nonconventional pollutants. The performance of BAT Option 3 could not
be fully characterized, however, due to lack of data characterizing the impact of process
changes alone on final effluent color. Table 9-11 summarizes the performance of the other
four options, in terms of estimated average final effluent color discharge. The Agency has
solicited data reflecting the performance of all BAT options in controlling color.
9.4.3 Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
The Agency found the proces.s technologies and end-of-pipe treatment currently used by the
three mills in the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory were uniformly inadequate for the control
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, and other priority and nonconventional
pollutants. For this reason, the three BAT options for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
were developed from technologies used to produce bleached papergrade kraft pulp. The
Agency determined that the performance of the technologies, in terms of production
normalized mass of pollutants generated, could also be transferred from the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft Subcategory to the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory.
These determinations, and the options considered for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, are
described below.
9.4.3.1 Transfer of Options from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory
The Agency studied the existing pollution control technologies used by each of the three
mills in the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory and conducted sampling programs at two of the
three mills. The three mills use similar bleaching and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment
processes. Table 9-12 presents a summary of the pollutants discharged by the two sampled
dissolving kraft mills. Both mills discharged chloroform in final effluents as compared to
non-detect levels achieved by papergrade kraft mills that do not use hypochlorite. 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF were frequently detected in the final effluent of one mill resulting
in estimated production normalized discharge loadings more than twenty times greater than
the discharge loadings for papergrade kraft Options 3 and 4. From these results, the Agency
9-47
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
determined that none of the dissolving kraft mills use technologies that adequately control
the discharge of chlorinated pollutants.
The Agency developed three options for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory from technologies
used to produce bleached papergrade kraft pulp. These technologies include oxygen
delignification, substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the first bleaching stage, and
elimination of hypochlorite.
Dissolving grade pulps differ from papergrade pulps in that they contain much higher
percent alpha cellulose, lower percent hemicellulose, and are of a much higher chemical
purity. Dissolving grade pulps are typically raw materials for chemical processes used to
manufacture viscose, acetate, and other cellulose derivatives. Thus, the characteristics of
the pulp as used in the chemical process (e.g., viscose viscosity, acetate solution color and
haze) are critical determinants of pulp quality. For these reasons, the Agency considered
all available information to determine if the components of the BAT options for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory were feasible for the production of
dissolving grade pulps. At present, there are no mills in the U.S. that use these process
technologies to produce dissolving kraft pulp. However, there is a mill in Brazil that
produces dissolving kraft pulp from pre-hydrolyzed eucalyptus (a hardwood) using oxygen
delignification, 80 percent substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine, and up to 3 kg/t
hypochlorite to control viscosity (19). Although this mill continues to use hypochlorite, it
uses a much lower charge than the U.S. dissolving kraft mills. The Agency also recently has
been provided with conflicting confidential laboratory studies from U.S. mills. One study
indicates that it maybe technically feasible to produce high-grade dissolving kraft pulps from
softwood using oxygen delignification and high chlorine dioxide substitution, while a second
study concludes that oxygen delignification and high chlorine dioxide substitution is not
technically feasible. Many of the assertions made by individual companies have been
supported with only limited mill trial and wastewater analytical data. Moreover, essentially
no wastewater, air emissions, sludge, and product quality data have been received for
process technology alternatives beyond existing technology. The Agency solicits that
supporting data; without it, the commenters' assertions cannot be fully evaluated. The
Agency is reviewing these data and will review data from additional studies now underway
as they are provided to the Agency during the comment period for the proposed rule. The
process changes the Agency considered in detail are discussed below.
9.43.2
Common Elements of Dissolving Kraft Options
The BAT options for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory share the same six common elements
as the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory options:
9-48
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
(1) Adequate wood chip size control;
(2) Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors;
(3) Brown stock washing to a saltcake loss of 10 kg NasSC^ per ADMT or less;
(4)
(5)
(6)
Replacing hypochlorite with additional chlorine dioxide bleaching power in
brightening stages;
Oxygen and peroxide enhanced extraction; and
High shear mixing for the addition of chlorine dioxide in the first bleaching
stage and for addition of oxygen in reinforced extraction.
Each of the options evaluated for the proposed BAT effluent guidelines includes complete
elimination of hypochlorite to minimize the formation of chloroform in the bleach plant.
However, the Agency has recently received data that mills may not be able to produce
certain high-grade dissolving kraft pulps without the use of hypochlorite to control intrinsic
viscosity. (Intrinsic viscosity is a measure of the degree of polymerization, proportional to
percent alpha cellulose in the pulp.) The Agency is currently evaluating this information.
9.4.3.3
Option 1 - Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine
This option is identical to BAT Option 2 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory, and includes replacing some of the molecular chlorine used in the first
bleaching stage with chlorine dioxide. As discussed in Section 9.4.2.3, the amount of
chlorine dioxide substitution needed to minimize the formation of chlorinated pollutants
depends on the active chlorine multiple^ (ACM) in the first bleaching stage. For Option 1,
ACMs used by dissolving kraft mills"fesuited in calculated chlorine dioxide substitutions
typically ranging from 50 to 70 percent. .
9.4.3.4 Option 2 - Oxygen Delignification With Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for
Chlorine
This option, like BAT Option 3 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory,
includes the reduction of the lignin content of the pulp entering the first bleaching stage
along with the substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the first stage of bleaching.
The target Kappa numbers were identical to the target Kappa numbers for Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Option 3. The option differs from the bleached papergrade
kraft option in that the lignin reduction is accomplished only by using oxygen delignification
(not extended cooking).
9-49
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
9.43.5 Option 3 - Oxygen Delignification With Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine
This option includes the same reduction in pulp lignin content as specified in Option 2. It
is similar to BAT Option 4 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory except,
as with Dissolving Kraft Option 2, the lignin reduction is accomplished only by using oxygen
delignification.
After this option was developed and analyzed, the Agency received data demonstrating that
100 percent substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine may result in unacceptable changes
in pulp viscosity.
9.4.3.6 Performance of BAT Options for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Table 9-13 summarizes the performance of each of the three options discussed above, in
terms of production normalized mass of pollutant discharged from the bleach plant for all
pollutants of concern to the Agency for all pollutants other than AOX. For AOX, the
performance of each option is characterized by the final effluent discharge. The data used
to characterize each option were obtained from bleached papergrade kraft mills, and are
identical to data used to characterize Options 2,3, and 4, for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda Subcategory. Because of the similarity in processes comprising bleached
papergrade kraft and dissolving kraft BAT options, the Agency determined that the
performance of the BAT options was transferable to the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory. Note
that for analyzed pollutants not detected in a sample, one-half the reported detection limit
was used to estimate the pollutant mass loading of the sampled waste stream.
9.4.3.7
Other Options Considered
As discussed in Section 8.3.12, totally chlorine-free bleaching of dissolving grade kraft pulp
has not been demonstrated on a commercial, pilot, or laboratory scale. For this reason, the
Agency determined that TCP technologies could not be practically applied in this
Subcategory at this time. Further, because the processes and chemicals used to produce
dissolving sulfite pulp are not the same as the processes and chemicals used to produce
dissolving kraft pulp, the Agency determined that the transfer of the technology bases and
performance of the dissolving sulfite BAT options to the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory was
not appropriate.
As discussed in Section 9.4.3.2 above, the Agency has received some data indicating that
dissolving kraft pulps cannot be produced without the use of hypochlorite to control intrinsic
viscosity. The Agency began to develop an alternative technology option for the control of
chloroform formation, based on high-temperature, high-pH hypochlorite bleaching discussed
in Section 8.3.8. However, because data characterizing the performance of this technology
9-50
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
(in terms of production normalized mass discharge of chloroform and other pollutants in
bleach plant effluents) were not available at the time the proposal was developed, this
option was not fully analyzed. As additional laboratory trial data are submitted to the
Agency during the comment period for the proposed rule, the feasibility and performance
of high-temperature, high-pH hypochlorite bleaching will be further evaluated.
9.4.3.8
Control of COD
The Agency developed one BAT option for the control of COD discharges from the
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory. This option included:
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Closing the brown stock pulp screen room; and
• End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at a level of performance equivalent to
BPT Option 2.
The performance of this option, in terms of production normalized mass of COD discharge
in final effluent, is 70.3 kg COD/ADMT. The data used to characterize this option were
collected by the Agency during a short-term study, as described in Section 3.0.
With.the exception of closing the brown stock pulp screen room, each of the elements of
the COD control option is also an element of the technology basis for another regulation
that the Agency is proposing. Effective brown stock washing, described in Section 8.2.3, is
an element of all of the BAT options for the control of AOX and other priority and
nonconventional pollutants. Pulping liquor spill prevention and control, described in detail
in the BMP Document, comprise BMP. End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at the level of
performance achieved by the average of the best 50 percent dissolving kraft mills is BPT
Option 2.
Screen room closure, described in detail in Section 8.2.4, refers to the elimination of
discharges of wastewater from the knotting and screening operations. It is generally
accomplished through reusing screen decker filtrates as pulp dilution ahead of the screens,
or as wash liquor on a preceding stage of washing. Closing the screen room can require
signification modification to screening operations.
Oxygen delignification is not part of the technology basis for COD control, because the
Agency had data for a mill without oxygen delignification that demonstrated performance
(in terms of production normalized mass discharge of COD) as good or better than similar
9-51
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
mills with oxygen delignification. However, oxygen delignification will have a positive
impact on reducing COD discharges (14). Further, the Agency did not have information
about the cost of screen room closures implemented without simultaneous implementation
of oxygen delignification and so could not analyze the costs of closing screen rooms alone.
For this reason, the COD control option was only analyzed in combination with BAT
Options 2 and 3, described above.
9.4.4 Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
9.4.4.1
Control of COD
The Agency developed one BAT option for the control of COD discharges from the
Unbleached Kraft Subcategory. This option includes:
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Closing the brown stock pulp screen room; and
• End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at a level of performance equivalent to
BPT Option 2.
The performance of this option, in terms of production normalized mass of COD discharge
in final effluent, is 20.8 kg COD/ADMT. The data used to characterize this option were
submitted by unbleached kraft mills in response to the 1990 questionnaire.
Two of the elements of the COD control option are also elements of the technology basis
for another regulation that the Agency is proposing. Pulping liquor spill prevention and
control, described in detail in the BMP Document, comprise BMP. End-of-pipe wastewater
treatment at the level of performance achieved by the average of the best 50 percent
unbleached kraft mills is BPT Option 2.
Effective brown stock washing, described in detail in Section 8.2.3, is washing that achieves
a 99 percent recovery of pulping chemicals from the pulp (washing loss of less than 10 kg
Na2SO4 per ADMT of pulp). Washing efficiency can be improved by replacing existing
washers with new equipment, or adding additional stages of washing.
Screen room closure, described in detail in Section 8.2.4, refers to the elimination of
discharges of wastewater from the screening operation. It is generally accomplished through
reusing screen decker filtrates as pulp dilution ahead of the screens, or as wash liquor on
9-52
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
a preceding stage of washing. Closing the screen room can require significant modification
to screening operations.
9.4.5 Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
The Agency developed two BAT options for the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory. These
options are described below.
9.4.5.1 Option 1 - Oxygen Delignification With Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine (Retaining Hypochlorite)
This option is similar to BAT Option 4 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory in that it includes the reduction of the lignin content of the pulp entering the
first bleaching stage along with 100 percent substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in
the first stage of bleaching. The option differs from the bleached papergrade kraft option
in terms of the method of lignin reduction, which is accomplished only by using oxygen
deh'gnification (not extended cooking). The target Kappa number after oxygen
delignification is 5 for all mills.
Of the six elements common to the bleached papergrade kraft options, as described in
Section 9.4.2.1, three are shared by Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory Option 1:
(1) Adequate wood chip size control;
(2) Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors;
and
(3) High shear mixing for the addition of chlorine dioxide in the first bleaching
stage.
Improvements in brown stock washing were not considered to be part of the in-plant process
changes assessed for BAT, because the relationship between the performance of oxygen
delignification and the performance of brown stock washing is not as well documented for
sulfite pulping as it is for kraft pulping.
Unlike BAT Option 4 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, Dissolving
Sulfite Option 1 retains the use of hypochlorite for bleaching because the option was
designed to reflect technologies in use at a dissolving sulfite miH for which the Agency has
performance data. The Agency has no performance data representing the use of oxygen
delignification and 100 percent chlorine dioxide to bleach dissolving sulfite pulp without the
use of hypochlorite.
9-53
-------
9.4.5.2
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options.
Option 2 - Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching: Oxygen Delignification, Ozone,
and Peroxide Bleaching
No U.S. mills use totally chlorine-free (TCP) bleaching to produce dissolving sulfite pulp.
This option is based on the TCP bleaching processes used by a European dissolving sulfite
mill, and does not include the use of hypochlorite. The technology bases for this option are:
(1) Adequate wood chip size control;
(2) EUmination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors;
(3) Oxygen delignification to reduce the lignin content of pulp entering the first
stage of bleaching to a target Kappa number of 5; and
(4) Ozone and peroxide bleaching.
9.4.53 Performance and Demonstration Status of BAT Options for the Dissolving
Sulfite Subcategory
Table 9-14 summarizes the performance of each of the options discussed above, in terms
of production normalized mass of pollutant discharged from the bleach plant for all
pollutants of concern to the Agency other than AOX and color. For AOX and color, the
performance of each option is characterized by the final effluent discharge. The data used
to characterize Option 1 were collected by the Agency during the long-term and short-term
studies described in Section 3.0. Npte that for analyzed pollutants not detected in a sample,
one-half the reported detection limit was used to estimate the pollutant mass loading of the
sampled waste stream.
The data used to characterize Option 2 are limited to production normalized loadings of
AOX in mill final effluent. The Agency has data from one European dissolving sulfite mill
indicating that AOX loading of 0.04 kg AOX/ADMT are achievable. However, the Agency
has characterized the performance of this option as 0.1 kg AOX/ADMT, because on a
subcategory-wide basis it does not believe the performance at dissolving sulfite mills will
exceed the performance at papergrade sulfite mills. The Agency requested but was unable
to obtain performance data, in terms of production normalized mass discharges of all
pollutants of concern, from the European mill. However, because chlorine and chlorine-
containing compounds are not used at this mill, and because the AOX loadings are very low,
the Agency believes that concentrations of individual chlorinated compounds are not
detectable. At this time, the Agency has no data to characterize the discharges of acetone
and methyl ethyl ketone from the European mill and thus has no way to predict the
performance of Option 2 with regard to these pollutants.
9-54
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
As discussed in Section 8.3.13, totally chlorine-free bleaching of dissolving grade sulfite pulp
has been demonstrated at only one mill. That mill produces viscose grade pulp used for the
production of staple fibers (i.e., textile grade viscose). A comparison of the properties of
this TCF-bleached viscose grade pulp and traditionally bleached acetate grade sulfite pulps
is presented below.
Dissolving Sulfite Pulps
Grade
Furnish
Bleach
Critical Pulp Properties
% Alpha Cellulose (R10)
% Hemicellulose (S,8)
% Extractives(a)
% Ash ,
ISO Brightness
Intrinsic Viscosity (dL/g)
Cleanliness (parts/m2)
Viscose Staple
European Beech
0D, E«pZF
90.5 - 91
MR
NR
<0.6
90-92
NR
<45
Acetate (20)
Western Hemlock
Traditional
95.3
2.9
0.04
0.09
94
9.0
NR
Acetate Plastic <2«)
Southern Pine
Traditional
97.0
1.6
0.03
0.01
94
8.8
NR
(a)Extractives soluble in ethyl ether.
NR - Not reported.
As listed above, the TCF-bleached viscose grade pulp had a lower alpha cellulose content
(i.e., lower purity) and lower brightness than required for acetate grade pulps. Contacts at
the mill producing TCP viscose grade pulp reported to EPA that their ozone-based TCP
bleaching technology can be used to produce other grades without the degradation of pulp
quality (21). At this time, the Agency has not received data confirming this report.
The Agency has recently received preliminary data from one company indicating that, to
date, they had been unsuccessful in producing high purity TCP pulps or pulps made by the
selected option in laboratory trials. These data are in the Record for the Rulemaking. The
Agency encourages further efforts (laboratory and mill trials) at adapting TCP bleaching
technologies to the production of acetate-grade pulps. Many of the assertions made by
individual companies have been supported with only limited mill trial and wastewater
analytical data. Moreover, essentially no wastewater, air emissions, sludge, and product
quality data have been received for process technology alternatives beyond existing
technology. The Agency solicits that supporting data; without it, the commenters' assertions
9-55
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
cannot be folly evaluated. EPA does, however, consider TCP bleaching to be an available
technology for many products made within this subcategory at this time. As additional data
are submitted to the Agency during the comment period for the proposed rule, the Agency
will evaluate the need for developing separate options and limitations within this
subcategory based upon pulp grade.
9.4.5.4
Other Options Considered
The Agency developed one additional option for this subcategory but could not folly analyze
it due to lack of performance data. This option consisted of nunimal (20 percent)
substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the first bleaching stage. Similar changes in
bleaching processes for kraft pulps have resulted in minimal reductions in pollutants beyond
existing practices. For this reason, the Agency did not pursue this option.
9.4.5.5
Control of COD
The Agency developed one BAT option for the control of COD discharges from the
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory. This option included:
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Closing the brown stock pulp screen room; and
• End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at a level of performance equivalent to
BPT Option 2.
Because the Agency did not have data at the time of proposal to characterize the
performance of this option, it was not folly analyzed. However, the Agency has solicited
data and will consider developing COD limitations when appropriate data are available.
9.4.6 Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
The Agency developed two BAT options for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. These
options are described below.
9.4.6.1 Option 1 - Oxygen Delignffication With Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine (Eliminating Hypochlorite)
This option is similar to BAT Option 4 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory in that it includes the reduction of the lignin content of the pulp entering the
9-56
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
first bleaching stage along with 100 percent substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in
the first stage of bleaching. The option differs from the bleached papergrade kraft option
in terms of the method of lignin reduction, which is accomplished only by using oxygen
delignification (not extended cooking). The target Kappa number after oxygen
delignification is 18 for softwood and 11 for hardwood.
Of the six elements common to the bleached papergrade kraft options, as described in
Section 9.4.2.1, four are shared by Papergrade Sulflte Subcategory Option 1:
(1) Adequate wood chip size control;
(2) Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors;
(3) High shear mixing for the addition of chlorine dioxide in the first bleaching
stage; and
(4) Elimination of hypochlorite (by replacement with chlorine dioxide, only).
Improvements in brown stock washing were not considered to be part of the in-plant process
changes assessed for BAT, because the relationship between the performance of oxygen
delignification and the performance of brown stock washing is not as well documented for
sulfite pulping as it is for kraft pulping. Also, oxygen and peroxide reinforced extraction
were not included in this option because the Agency did not have data to characterize the
performance of this process change.
9.4.6.2 Option 2 - Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching: Oxygen Delignification and
Peroxide Bleaching
The technology bases for this option are:
(1) Adequate wood chip size control;
(2) Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors;
(3) Oxygen delignification to reduce the lignin content of pulp entering the first
stage of bleaching to Kappa number 18 (for softwood) or 11 (for hardwood);
(4) Elimination of hypochlorite; and
(5) Peroxide bleaching.
9-57
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
9.4.63
Performance of BAT Options for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
Table 9-15 summarizes the performance of each of the options discussed above, in terms
of production normalized mass of pollutant discharged from the bleach plant for all
pollutants of concern to the Agency other than AOX and color. For AOX and color, the
performance of each option is characterized by the final effluent discharge. The data used
to characterize Option 1 were collected by the Agency during the long-term and short-term
studies described in Section 3.0. Note that for analyzed pollutants not detected in a sample,
one-half the reported detection limit was used to estimate the pollutant mass loading of the
sampled waste stream.
The data used to characterize Option 2 are presented in Section 8.3.14. These data are
limited to production normalized loadings of AOX, BOD, and COD in final effluent. Some
of the pollutants were analyzed using test methods that are not necessarily directly
comparable with U.S. standard analytical results. The Agency requested but was not able
to obtain performance data, in terms of production normalized mass discharges of all
pollutants of concern from these mills.
One mill, which bleached less than 100 percent of its pulp by TCP processes, reported a
final effluent AOX load of 0.5 kg/metric ton. All other mills reported final effluent AOX
loads of 0.1 kg/metric ton or less (four mills reported AOX loadings of approximately zero,
but did not provide actual test results). The Agency determined that a final effluent loading
of 0.1 kg/ADMT was characteristic of the performance of TCP bleaching of papergrade
sulfite pulp.
The Agency believes that concentrations of individual chlorinated compounds are not
detectable in effluents from TCP papergrade sulfite bleaching processes, because chlorine
and chlorine-containing compounds are not used. Also, the Agency has no data at this time
to characterize the discharges of acetone and methyl ethyl ketone and cannot predict the
performance of Option 2 with regard to these pollutants.
During the development of these proposed rules, the Agency received comments and some
trial data from individual mills concerning the feasibility of TCP processes and the
papergrade products that can and cannot be made by these processes. Commenters asserted
that certain processes (e.g., ammonium-based) yielding specific products and specifications,
and certain specialty papers and pulps (e.g., photographic papers and plastic molding pulps)
have not yet been made by the TCP processes without changes in pulp properties that are
not acceptable to mill customers. Many of the assertions made by individual companies
have been supported with only limited mill trial and wastewater analytical data. Moreover,
essentially no wastewater, air emissions, sludge, and product quality data have been received
for process technology alternatives beyond existing technology. The Agency solicits that
supporting data; without it, the commenters' assertions cannot be fully evaluated.
9-58
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
9.4.6.4
Other Options Considered
The Agency developed one other option for this subcategory but could not fully analyze it
due to lack of performance data. This option consisted of reducing the charge of chlorine
(C12) in the first bleaching stage and implementing oxygen and peroxide-enhanced extraction.
Similar changes in bleaching processes for kraft pulps have resulted in minimal reductions
in pollutants beyond existing practices. For this reason, the Agency did not pursue this
option.
9.4.6.5
Control of COD
The Agency developed one BAT option for the control of COD discharges from the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. This option included:
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Closing the brown stock pulp screen room; and
• End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at a level of performance equivalent to
BPT Option 2.
The performance of this option, in terms of production normalized mass of COD discharge
in final effluent, is 63.7 kg COD/ADMT. The data used to characterize this option were
provided by a U.S. papergrade sulfite mill as a follow-up to an engineering site visit
conducted by the Agency.
Two of the elements of the COD control option are also elements of the technology basis
for another regulation that the Agency is proposing. Pulping liquor spill prevention and
control, described in detail in the BMP Document, comprises BMP. End-of-pipe wastewater
treatment at the level of performance achieved by the average of the best 50 percent
papergrade sulfite mills is BPT Option 2.
Effective brown stock washing, described in detail in Section 8.2.3, is washing that achieves
a 99 percent recovery of pulping chemicals from the pulp. Washing efficiency can be
improved by replacing existing washers with new equipment, or adding additional stages of
washing.
Screen room closure, described in detail in Section 8.2.4, refers to the elimination of
discharges of wastewater from the screening operation. It is generally accomplished through
reusing screen decker filtrates as pulp dilution ahead of the screens, or as wash liquor on
9-59
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
a preceding stage of washing. Closing the screen room can require significant modification
to screening operations.
9.4.7 Semi-Chemical Subcategory
9.4.7.1
Control of COD
The Agency developed one BAT option for the control of COD discharges from the Semi-
Chemical Subcategory. This option included:
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control; and
• End-of-pipe wastewater treatment at a level of performance equivalent to
BPT Option 2.
Screening is usually not practiced at semi-chemical mills; therefore, closed screen room
operation was not included as part of the technology basis for COD control. Data that
characterize the performance of this option are not available. However, the Agency
transferred performance data from the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory as the basis for the!
proposed effluent limitations. The pulping processes in the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
are similar to those used in the Semi-Chemical Subcategory, and therefore the Agency
concluded that the data transfer is appropriate.
Two of the elements of the COD control option are also elements of the technology basis
for another regulation that the Agency is proposing. Pulping liquor spill prevention and
control, described in detail in the BMP Document, comprises BMP. End-of-pipe wastewater
treatment at the level of performance achieved by the average of the best 50 percent semi-
chemical mills is BPT Option 2.
Effective brown stock washing, described in detail in Section 8.2.3, is washing that achieves
a 99 percent recovery of pulping chemicals from the pulp. Washing efficiency can be
improved by replacing existing washers with new equipment, or adding additional stages of
washing.
9.5 NSPS
9.5.1 Introduction
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are effluent limitations guidelines that establish
quantitative limits on the direct discharge of conventional, priority, and nonconventional
9-60
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
pollutants from new industrial point sources. Definitions of new sources, specific for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category are presented in Section 16.0. NSPS
limits, like BPT, BCT, and BAT limits, are based upon the performance of specific
technologies, but do not require the use of any specific technology. NSPS effluent
limitations guidelines are applied to individual facilities through NPDES permits issued by
EPA or authorized states under Section 402 of the CWA The facility then chooses its own
approach to complying with its permit limitations.
This section describes the development of the NSPS options and presents the Agency's
determinations as to the demonstration status of each option. The general approach
followed by the Agency for developing NSPS options for subcategories with proposed BAT
effluent limitations guidelines (Subparts A, B, C, D, E, and F) was, where appropriate, to
evaluate the best demonstrated processes for control of priority and nonconventional
pollutants at the process level, and, best demonstrated end-of-pipe treatment for control of!
conventional pollutants and additional control of certain priority and nonconventional
pollutants. For subcategories where BAT effluent limitations guidelines are not' being
proposed, the Agency evaluation was directed at the best demonstrated conventional
pollutant control technology, which, with the exception of on0 segment of the Secondary
Fiber Non-Deink Sub'category, comprises flow minimization and primary treatment followed
by effective secondary biological treatment. For manufacture of paperboard and builders'
paper and roofing felt from non-deink secondary fiber, the Agency determined that the best
demonstrated conventional pollutant control technology was complete recycle of all
wastewater.
The Agency determined that the best demonstrated processes are those that result in the
minimum generation of pollutants of concern (i.e., the priority and nonconventional
pollutants proposed for regulation at BAT) that can be used to produce the full range of
products currently produced by existing facilities. The Agency does not intend to select
NSPS that would prevent manufacture of certain products. The Agency determined that the
best demonstrated conventional pollutant control technologies are those that result in the
rninimum discharges of conventional pollutants as generally represented by the best
performance by an existing mill in each subcategory.
9-61
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Pollutants proposed for regulation at NSPS are summarized, by subcategory, below:
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft '
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical Pulp
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
A. Paperboard, builders' paper and
roofing felt
B. Other products from non-deinked
secondary pulp
Fine and Lightweight Paper from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and Paperboard
from Purchased Pulp
Chlorinated
and Volatile
Compounds, at
the Bleach
Pbattft)
X
X(b)
X
(e)
X(f)
AOX
X
(c)
t
X
X
X(f)
"* J " i
COB
X
(d)
X
(d)
X
X
X(f)
BODsand
JSS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X(f)
X
X
X
(a)2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2^,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, MEK, acetone, methylene chloride, and 12 chlorinated phenolic
compounds.
(b)The Agency is not proposing NSPS limitations for chloroform, MEK, or 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol for this
subcategory at this time.
(c)The Agency is not proposing NSPS limitations for AOX for this subcategory at this time.
(d)The Agency is not proposing NSPS limitations for COD for this subcategory at this time.
(e)No specific limitations: certification that no chlorine-containing compounds are used to bleach.
(QBased upon no discharge of wastewater.
Note that the Agency is not proposing NSPS for color in any subcategory at this time.
9-62
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
9.5.2 Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
The process change components of the NSPS options considered by the Agency for the
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory are the same as those considered for BAT, and include the
process change components for COD control. These options are fully described in Section
9.4.3. In addition, the NSPS options add components for conventional pollutant control,
based upon the single best performing mill in the Subcategory. The NSPS options are
summarized below:
Elements Common to Each NSPS Option
• Wood chip size and thickness control;
• Use of dioxin precursor-free defoamers and pitch dispersants;
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Closed pulp screening operations;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Use of chlorine dioxide instead of hypochlorites in brightening stages;
• Oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction in the bleach plant;
• High shear mixing for addition of bleaching chemicals in the first bleaching
stage and for addition of oxygen in reinforced extraction;
• Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and
• Best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment.
Option 1 - Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine
Option 2 - Oxygen Delignification with Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for
Chlorine
Option 3 - Oxygen Delignification with Complete Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide
for Chlorine (no direct use of elemental chlorine)
The Agency determined that process technologies and end-of-pipe wastewater technologies
used by existing U.S. dissolving kraft mills are uniformly inadequate for purposes of
9-63
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
developing BAT options. Consequently, the Agency transferred certain BAT process
technology options from the 'Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory to the
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory. The Agency is using the process technology options
developed for the proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines for this subcategory as NSPS
process technology options as well. The performance of each NSPS option, in terms of
production normalized mass of pollutant discharged in bleach plant effluents, is based upon.
performance of the pulping and bleaching technologies. The performance of each NSPS
option, in terms of production normalized mass of pollutant discharged in final effluent, is
based upon performance of the pulping and bleaching process technologies and performance
of the best demonstrated end-of-pipe wastewater treatment technologies.
The combination of pulping and bleaching technologies that form the bases of the NSPS
options are not currently used by any U.S. producer of dissolving kraft pulps; however,
similar technologies, including oxygen delignification and 80 percent chlorine dioxide
substitution are used at a Brazilian dissolving kraft mill. The Agency determined that this
technology is applicable to U.S. mills.
Table 9-16 lists the performance of each NSPS option, in terms of production normalized
mass load of pollutant discharged from the bleach plant for chlorinated and volatile
compounds of concern to the Agency. For AOX, color, COD, and the conventional
pollutants, each option is characterized by the final effluent discharge.
9.53 Bleached.Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
The process change components of the NSPS options considered by the Agency for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory are the same as BAT Options 4 and 5.
These options are fully described in Sections 9.4.2.5 and 9.4.2.6. The NSPS options also
include the process change components for COD control, described in Section 9.4.2.10. In
addition, the NSPS options add components for conventional pollutant control, based upon
the single best performing mill in the subcategory. For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory, the Agency also considered options based on ozone bleaching with
chlorine dioxide brightening and a TCP option, but could not fully analyze these options due
to lack of performance data at this time.
There are 10 common elements for all considered NSPS options, listed below:
Elements Common to Each NSPS Option
• Wood chip size and thickness control;
• Use of dioxin precursor-free defoamers and pitch dispersants;
9-64
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Effective brown stock washing;
Closed pulp screening operations;
Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
Oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction in the bleach plant;
Use of chlorine dioxide instead of hypochlorite in brightening stages;
High shear mixing for addition of bleaching chemicals in the first bleaching
stage and for addition of oxygen in reinforced extraction;
Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and
Best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment.
Option 1 - Oxygen Delignification or Extended Cooking with Complete
Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine (no direct use of
elemental chlorine). Same as BAT Option 4.
Option 2 - Oxygen Delignification and Extended Cooking with Complete
Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine (no direct use of
elemental chlorine). Same as BAT Option 5.
Option 1 is equivalent to BAT Option 4; Option 2 is equivalent to BAT Option 5, and is
typical of new greenfield market kraft pulp mills constructed in the United States during the
past few years. The process technologies are suitable for manufacture of high brightness (88
to 90 GE, 86 to 88 ISO) market grades of hardwood and softwood pulps, and represent the
best demonstrated process technologies for production of market pulp. The end-of-pipe
performance levels for conventional pollutants are based upon the best demonstrated
performance of the mills in this subcategory.
Table 9-17 presents the performance data available to characterize the two NSPS options.
Performance is characterized in terms of production normalized mass load of pollutant
discharged from the bleach plant for chlorinated and volatile compounds of concern to the
Agency. For AOX, color, COD, and the conventional pollutants, each option is
characterized by the final effluent discharge.
9-65
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Based on current understanding of the formation of pollutants during pulping and bleaching,
the mass discharges for Option 2 should be lower than the mass discharges for Option 1.
This is not the case for the following pollutants:
• Chloroform;
• Methyl ethyl ketone;
• • 4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol; and
• AOX.
The Agency believes that these results are attributable to site-specific characteristics of the
mills whose performance data were used to characterize each option.
9.53.1
Other Options Considered
The Agency developed two other NSPS options for this subcategory but could not fully
analyze them at this time due to lack of performance data. These options include the
common elements for Options 1 and 2, described above, with these additional elements:
Option 3 - Oxygen Delignification and Extended Cooking with Complete
Substitution of Ozone for Chlorine (Chlorine Dioxide used in
brightening stages); and
Option 4 - Oxygen Deh'gnification and Totally Chlorine-Free Pulp Bleaching.
Option 3 is similar in many respects to the ozone bleaching system installed at a southern
U.S. mill in September 1992. The process technology for this option includes oxygen
delignification of conventionally delignified pulps followed by a ZEOPD bleach sequence.
The process technology is capable of producing 82 to 84 GE (80 to 82 ISO) brightness
softwood pulp. To date, manufacture of commercial quantities of high brightness (88 ISO)
market grades of softwood pulp using ozone bleaching has not been demonstrated in the
United States or abroad.
Option 4 comprises oxygen deh'gnification of conventionally delignified pulps followed by
a totally chlorine-free QEOPPPS bleach sequence. This technology is similar to that installed
at a west coast mill, also in September 1992. The technology is capable of producing 75 to
80 ISO brightness softwood pulp. To date, Option 4 has not been demonstrated to be
feasible for the production of full brightness pulps. The Agency has requested data for this
option.
9-66
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The Agency did not consider either Option 3 or 4 fully demonstrated at this time, because
it does not have data to fully characterize the options. However, the Agency and the mill
which uses Option 3 technology recently completed a cooperative sampling program, and
some data from this sampling program are available in the Record for the Rulemaking.
Additional, thorough engineering and statistical analysis of these data and any preliminary
limitations developed from them, will be made available at a later date for review and
comment. The Agency has requested additional data for this option.
The Agency developed alternative limitations for mills that certify they bleach without
chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds. These limitations would be applicable to a mill
using Option 4 technology and are further discussed in Section 16.0.
9.5.4 Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
For the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory, the Agency is proposing to regulate COD, BOD5,
and TSS at NSPS. One NSPS option was developed based upon the following process and
wastewater treatment technologies:
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Closed pulp screening operations;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and,
• Best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment.
These technologies have been widely demonstrated across chemical pulp mills in this
industry and are readily incorporated in new mills in this Subcategory. The Agency was not
able to identify other technologies for controlling COD, and therefore concluded that this
combination of technologies represents the best available demonstrated technology for the
control of COD.
The Agency determined that all of the pulping, flow minimization, and wastewater treatment
technologies used as the basis for the NSPS option are demonstrated for purposes of the
CWA. The performance of this NSPS option, in terms of production normalized mass of
pollutant discharged in final effluent, is listed below:
9-67
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
COD
BOD5
TSS
20.8 kg/ADMT
0.24 kg/OMMT
0.69 kg/OMMT
9.5.5 Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
The process change components of the NSPS options considered by the Agency for the
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory are the same as those considered for BAT. These options
are fully described in Section 9.4.5, in addition, the NSPS options add components for
conventional pollutant control.
Elements Common to Each NSPS Option
• Wood chip size and thickness control;
• Use of dioxin precursor-free defoamers and pitch dispersants;
• Closed pulp screening operations;
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Oxygen delignification;
• High shear mixing for addition of bleaching chemicals in the first stage of
bleaching;
• Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and
• Best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment.
Option 1 - Complete Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine (no direct use
of elemental chlorine but use of hypochlorite).
Option 2 - TCP Bleaching with Ozone and Peroxide.
9-68
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Option 1 is similar to the dissolving sulfite bleaching technology used by a U.S. dissolving
sulfite/papergrade sulfite mill. Option 2 is similar to the dissolving sulfite bleaching
technology used by an Austrian dissolving sulfite mill.
The Agency determined that all of the pulping, flow minimization, and wastewater treatment
technologies used as the basis for the NSPS options are demonstrated for purposes of the
CWA. The Agency determined that the bleaching technologies for NSPS Option 1 are
demonstrated for purposes of the CWA, The Austrian dissolving sulfite mill does not
produce the highest purity grades of dissolving sulfite pulp produced at some U.S. mills, and
thus this technology (and NSPS Option 2) has not been fully demonstrated as yet for all
grades of dissolving sulfite pulp produced in the U.S. EPA does, however, consider TCP
bleaching to be an available and demonstrated technology for many products within this
subcategory at this time. The Agency will consider prior to promulgation whether this
subcategory should be further divided, based on product specifications or otherwise, for
purposes of establishing NSPS. Table 9-18 lists the performance of the two NSPS options,
in terms of production normalized mass load of pollutant discharged from the bleach plant
for chlorinated and volatile compounds of concern to the Agency. For AOX, color, and the
conventional pollutants, the options are characterized by the final effluent discharge.
9.5.6 Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
The process change components of the NSPS options considered by the Agency for the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory are the same as those considered for BAT. These options
are fully described in Section 9.4.6. In addition, the NSPS options add components for
conventional pollutant control. There are eight common elements for the two NSPS options
listed below:
Elements Common to Each NSPS Option
• Wood chip size and thickness control;
• Use of dioxin precursor-free defoamers and pitch dispersants;
• Closed pulp screening operations;
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control;
• Oxygen delignification;
• Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and
9-69
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
• Best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment with extended
residence time secondary clarification.
Option 1 - Complete Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine (no direct use
of elemental chlorine or hypochlorite). Chlorine dioxide is added
using high shear mixing.
Option 2 - TCP Bleaching with Peroxide.
Option 1 is similar to the papergrade sulfite bleaching technology used by the same west
coast dissolving suffite/papergrade sulfite mill noted above. There are no U.S. papergrade
sulfite mills with bleaching operations similar to Option 2. This technology is, however,
being used at a number of European papergrade sulfite producers (see Section 8.3.14). The
extended residence time secondary clarification performance is demonstrated at a
papergrade sulfite mill located in the midwest.
The Agency determined that all of the pulping, bleaching, flow minimization, and
wastewater treatment technologies used as the basis for the NSPS options are demonstrated
for purposes of the CWA. Table 9-19 lists the performance of the two NSPS options, in
terms of production normalized mass load of pollutant discharged from the bleach plant for
chlorinated and volatile compounds of concern to the Agency. For AOX, color, COD, and
the conventional pollutants, the options are characterized by the final effluent discharge.
9.5.7 Semi-Chemical Subcategory
For the Semi-Chemical Subcategory, the Agency is proposing to regulate COD, BOD5, and
TSS at NSPS. One NSPS option was developed based upon the following process and
wastewater treatment technologies, which, are the same technologies used as the basis of
the proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines, with the addition of components for
conventional pollutant control:
• Effective brown stock washing;
• Pulping h'quor spill prevention and control;
• Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and,
• Best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment.
The Agency determined that all of the pulping, flow minimization, and wastewater treatment
technologies used as the basis for the NSPS option are demonstrated for purposes of the
CWA. As discussed in Section 9.4.7, however, the Agency did not have data to characterize
9-70
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
the BAT technology basis for COD control for the Semi-Chemical Subcategory and
determined that the performance of the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory COD control
technologies could be transferred to the Semi-Chemical Subcategory. The performance of
this NSPS option, in terms of production normalized mass of pollutants discharged in final
effluent, is listed below:
COD
BOD5
TSS
20.8 kg/ADMT
0.41 kg/OMMT
0.55 kg/OMMT
9.5.8 Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
Secondary Fiber - Deink Subcategory
Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp Subcategory
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp Subcategory
For each of the above-listed subcategories, the Agency is proposing to regulate the
conventional pollutants BOD5, and TSS at NSPS. The Agency is not proposing NSPS for
priority and nonconventional pollutants for these subcategories, pending further study (see
Section 7.4). One NSPS option was developed for each Subcategory based upon the
following process and wastewater treatment technologies:
• Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and
• Best demonstrated end-of-pipe biological wastewater treatment.
The single mill in each Subcategory with the best demonstrated performance was used to
characterize long-term average performance levels associated with these technologies. The
Agency determined that the flow minimization and wastewater treatment technologies used
as the basis for the NSPS option are demonstrated for purposes of the CWA. Table 9-20
presents the long-term average NSPS performance levels for each of these five
subcategories.
9.5.9 Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory
The Agency is proposing NSPS for conventional pollutants for the Secondary Fiber Non-
Deink Subcategory. The Agency is also proposing NSPS for priority and nonconventional
pollutants for a portion of this Subcategory.
9-71
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
For purposes of these proposed NSPS, EPA divided this subcategory into two segments.
Segment A comprises those mills that produce paperboard, builders' paper, or roofing felt.
Segment B comprises those mills that produce other products. The decision to segment this
subcategory was based upon EPA's finding that many mills making paperboard, builders'
paper, or roofing felt operate with complete recycle of wastev/ater. EPA lacked reliable
data to indicate that mills producing other products commonly operated with complete
recycle, or that complete recycle of wastewaters was a demonstrated technology for
producers of these other products.
Based upon responses to the 1990 questionnaire and other information, EPA concluded that
21 mills in this subcategory operate with complete recycle of process wastewater. Of these
21 mills, 15 mills manufacture paperboard from wastepaper, and six mills manufacture
builders' paper and roofing felt. Complete recycle is defined as; a system where the sum of
fresh water and water entering the system in raw materials is equal to the sum of water
exiting the system via evaporation/vaporization, water in the final product, and water
included in any rejects streams from screening, including sludges. There is no direct or
indirect discharge of wastewater .to surface waters, nor is there any land application, surface
impoundment or other land disposal of wastewater effluents.
9.5.9.1
Paperboard, Builders' Paper, and Roofing Felt Segment
This segment includes production of paperboard, builders' paper, and roofing felt from
wastepaper that has not undergone deinking processes. The Agency developed and analyzed
two regulatory options for NSPS for this segment of the Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Subcategory as follows:
Option 1 - Flow Minimization with Best Demonstrated End-of-Pipe Secondary
Wastewater Treatment.
Option 2 - Complete Recycle of Wastewater.
Option 1 is similar to the NSPS options the Agency considered for other subcategories. The
performance of this option is based on the single mill in the segment which achieves the
lowest production normalized mass discharge of BOD5.
Option 2, complete recycle of wastewater, is based upon practices used by 21 mills in this
segment. These practices include:
• Screening of wastewater from stock preparation, and reuse and recycle to
paper machine;
• Use of savealls and screens to remove fiber from white water;
9-72
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
• Clarification of combined mill wastewaters and recycle to pulping and paper
machine; and
• High-capacity storage for recycled wastewater.
Option 1 controls the discharge of conventional pollutants. Option 2 controls the discharge
of all pollutants (conventional* priority, and nonconventional). The performance of
Option 1, in terms of production normalized mass of pollutants discharged in final effluent,
is listed below:
BOD5
TSS •
0.05 kg/OMMT
0.17 kg/OMMT
9.5.9.2
Producers of Other Products from Non-Deink Secondary Fiber Segment
This segment includes production of secondary fiber products that have not undergone
deinking processes, except for production of paperboard, builders' paper, and roofing felt
from wastepaper that has not undergone deinking processes. These products include tissue
and molded products.
The Agency found no reliable evidence that zero discharge is achieved on a consistent basis
at mills in this segment of the Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory. One NSPS option
for the control of -conventional pollutants was developed. The technology basis for this
option is:
• Flow minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and
• Best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment.
The Agency determined that all of the pulping, flow minimization, and wastewater treatment
technologies used as the basis for the NSPS options are demonstrated for purposes of the
CWA. The performance of the identified option, in terms of production normalized mass
of pollutants discharged in final effluent, is listed below:
BOD5
TSS
0.19 kg/OMMT
0.46 kg/OMMT
9-73
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
9.6 PSES
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) establish quantitative limits on the
indirect discharge of priority and nonconventional pollutants to waters of the United States;
that is, PSES limits industrial discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass through, interfere with,
or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. The CWA requires
pretreatment for pollutants that pass through POTWs in amounts that would exceed direct
discharge effluent limitations or limit POTW sludge management alternatives, including the
beneficial use of sludges on agricultural lands. Pretreatment standards are to be technology-
based and analogous to BAT for removal of priority and nonconventional pollutants. Like
BAT, PSES do not require the use of any specific technology. Reference is made to the
general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403), which served as the framework for the
proposed pretreatment standards for the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry.
The Agency's general approach for developing PSES options for subcategories with
proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines that have indirect discharging mills (Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda, Unbleached Kraft, Papergrade Sulfite and Semi-Chemical) was
to use the BAT options as PSES options for control of priority and nonconventional
pollutants at the process level, and, equivalent BPT Option 2 technologies for additional
control of certain nonconventional pollutants at the point of discharge from the indirect
discharger to the receiving POTW. For subcategories where BAT effluent h'mitations
guidelines are not being proposed for priority and nonconventional pollutants, and for the
Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategories, which have no indirect dischargers,
the Agency is proposing to reserve PSES.
9.6.1 Pass-Through Analysis
To determine whether pollutants indirectly discharged by mills in this industry pass through
POTWs, EPA reviewed sampling data for direct dischargers, performance data for POTWs,
and technical literature. Based on preliminary review of circumstances at some of the
POTWs receiving pulp and paper mill effluent, and EPA's best professional judgment, EPA
concludes that biological treatment systems at these POTWs, while designed to
accommodate pulp and paper wastewaters, are not designed to the same standards as those
installed and operated at direct discharging mills. Activated sludge systems and aerated
stabilization basin systems, as, designed and operated at direct discharging mills, typically
include substantially longer detention times and other features that, in combination, achieve
greater removals of BOD5 and TSS than are achieved at POTWs receiving effluent from
these mills. This is evidenced by the fact that the BPT and BCT effluent limitations EPA
is proposing for certain subcategories are substantially more stringent than the secondary
treatment effluent limitations applied to most POTWs (30 mg/L each of BOD5 and TSS).
Therefore, the Agency concludes that BOD5 and TSS pass-through these POTWs. However,
EPA is not proposing pretreatment standards for BOD5 and TSS.
9-74
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
In addition, the Agency concluded that other pollutants, including AOX, COD, and color,
also pass through POTWs. In part, this is because nonconventional pollutants typically are
less biodegradable than the conventional pollutants (BOD5 and TSS). For example,
biological treatment systems at direct discharging pulp and paper mills (for which EPA has
data) remove approximately 40 percent of the influent AOX, which is representative of
chlorinated organic compounds (specific chlorinated organic compounds generally are less
biodegradable than nonchlorinated biodegradable organic matter measured as BOD5).
As noted in Section 9.4.2.11, the brown color typical of kraft mill effluents is attributable
to the presence of high molecular weight lignin based compounds that are typically resistant
to biodegradation (14,15). The Agency does not have detailed analytical data from POTWs
for these and other pollutants of concern in this industry to serve as the basis for a detailed,
quantitative pass-through analysis. However, in view of the lower removal of conventional
pollutants achieved at POTWs in comparison to the removals being proposed for direct
dischargers in this industry, the Agency concludes that certain chlorinated phenolics, AOX,
COD, and color also pass through these POTWs.
9.6.2 PSES Options
The Agency considered three options for PSES. Two of these options would set bleach
plant and final effluent limitations equivalent to the BAT limitations for direct dischargers.
The options differ in the point of application of the limitations. Option 1 would set final
effluent limitations at the mill discharge to the POTW. Option 2 would transfer the final
effluent limitations to the POTW discharge. Option 3 would set no national standards, but
would allow pretreatment authorities to determine local limitations for the mills and
POTWs. Table 9-21 summarizes these alternatives and notes the pollutants regulated at
each point. Each option is discussed in more detail below.
9.6.2.1
Option 1 - Final Effluent Limitations at Mill Discharge
Option 1 would set effluent limitations on the same pollutants controlled with BAT limits
for direct dischargers, at the point of discharge from the indirect discharging mill to the
industrial POTW (for AOX, COD, and for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory, color) as well as at certain internal bleach plant wastewater streams (for 18
chlorinated and volatile compounds). These limitations were developed based on the same
technologies as BPT Option 2 and COD control technologies for all subcategories for which
the Agency is proposing PSES. The PSES limitations were also based on BAT Option 4 for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, and BAT Option 2 for the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. PSES at these points would prevent pass through of
pollutants, help control sludge contamination, and reduce air emissions. This option is
based upon complete secondary treatment of mill wastewater prior to its discharge to the
POTW.
9-75
-------
9.63,3,
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
Option 2 - Final Effluent Limitations at the POTW Discharge
Option 2 may provide a more cost-effective way of obtaining the effluent reductions
obtained under Option 1.
Under Option 2, EPA would establish PSES limits identical to those established under
Option 1. However,'EPA would also provide that, in the event the POTW receiving a mill's
discharge voluntarily accepted certain limits in a legally enforceable NPDES permit, that
mill would no longer be subject to those PSES limits that apply at the mill's discharge to the
POTW's sewer. (The bleach plant limits would still apply.) The additional limits in the
POTW's permit would cover all pollutants for which the mill would otherwise have had
PSES limits at the point of discharge to the sewer, and would in each case need to be at
least as stringent as the BAT limits applicable to direct dischargers in the subcategory. In
calculating the POTW's limits, the percentage of the POTW's flow from domestic sources
and from industrial sources other than pulp, paper, and paperboard mills would also be
considered.
9.63,3
Option 3 - No National PSES
The Agency also considered a third option under which EPA would not promulgate PSES
limits for these mills. Under this option, pretreatment authorities would use best
professional judgment to develop local limits for the mills and end-of-pipe limits for the
industrial POTWs. The Agency is concerned that this would impose difficult or unrealistic
administrative burdens on POTWs. This option also may not achieve the same levels of
discharge by the industrial POTWs as for direct dischargers.
9.7 PSNS
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) establish quantitative limits on the indirect
discharge of priority and nonconventional pollutants to waters of the United States. Section
307(c) of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate PSNS at the same time it promulgates
NSPS. New indirect discharging mills, like new direct discharging mills, have the
opportunity to incorporate the best available demonstrated technologies, including process
changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
As discussed in Section 9.6, above, EPA determined that a broad range of pollutants
discharged by pulp and paper mills (including CDDs, CDFs, AOX, BOD5, and TSS) pass
through POTWs. The same technologies discussed previously for BAT, NSPS, and PSES
are available as the basis for PSNS.
9-76
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
The Agency considered options equivalent to the options considered for NSPS, discussed
in Section 9.5, for the following subcategories:
Dissolving Kraft;
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda; .
Unbleached Kraft;
Dissolving Sulfite;
Papergrade Sulfite; and
Semi-Chemical.'
Although the options considered for PSNS are identical to NSPS, the pollutants controlled
differ slightly: PSNS does not control conventionals. The pollutants for which the Agency
is proposing PSNS are listed below, by subcategory and control point:
Siibcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Bleach Plant Effluent
18(a)
15(b)
None
18(a)
None(c)
None
Mia Discharge to POTW
AOX, COD
None(b)
COD
AOX
AOX, COD
COD
(a)2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, 4 volatiles and 12 chlorinated phenolic compounds.
(b)Insufficient data to propose PSNS for chloroform, MEK, 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol, AOX, or COD.
(c)No specific limitations: certification that no chlorine-containing compounds are used to bleach.
9.8 References
1. U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry - Background Information for Proposed Air Emission Standards
(Manufacturing Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical Mills), EPA
453/R93-050a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1993.
2. Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Guidelines and NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, EPA 821-
R93-021.
9-77
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
3. Regulatory Impact Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines and NESHAP for
the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry, EPA 821-R93-020.
4. Federal Register, 51 FR 24974, July 9, 1986.
5. Harris, R.W., M.J. Cullinane, and P.T. Sun, eds. Process Design and Cost Estimating
Algorithms for the Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET). United States Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1982. (Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency).
6. Singh, R.P., ed. The Bleaching of Pulp. TAPPI Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1979. p. 15.
7. Allen, L.H, R.M. Berry, B.L. Fleming, C.E. Luthe, and R.H. Voss. Evidence That
Oil-Based Additives are Potential Indirect Source of the TCDD and TCDF Produced
in Kraft Bleach Plants. Eighth International Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and
Related Compounds, Umea, Sweden, August 21-26, 1988.
8. Voss, R.H., C.E. Luthe, B.L. Fleming, R.M. Berry, and L.H. Allen. Some New
Insights into the Origins of Dioxins Formed During Chemical Pulp Bleaching. In:
Proceedings for the 1988 CPPA Environment Conference, Vancouver, BC Canada,
October 25-26, 1988.
9. Hise, R.G., R. Streisel, and A.B. Bills. The Effect of Brownstock Washing, Split
Addition of Chlorine and pH Control on the C-Stage Formation of AOX and
Chlorophenols During Bleaching. In: Proceedings of the TAPPI 1992
Environmental Conference, Richmond, Virginia, April 12-15. pp. 1135-1142.
10. Luthe, C.E., P.E. Wrist, and R.M. Berry. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Dioxins Control Strategies on Organochlorine Effluent Discharges from the Canadian
Bleached Chemical Pulp Industry. Pulp & Paper Canada, 93:9, 1992.
11. Personal communication with Stromberg, Bertyl Kamyr.
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Statistical Support Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point
Source Category. November 1993.
13. Korhonne, H. and S. Hiljanen. Enocell's New Pulp Mill Started Up. PPI, May, 1993.
14. Kukkonen, K. and I. Reilama. Experiences and Conclusions with TCF Bleaching at
Metsa-Botnia. Presented at the 1993 Non-Chlorine Bleaching Conference, Hilton
Head, South Carolina, March 15-18, 1993.
9-78
-------
9.0 Development of Control and Treatment Options
15. Graves, J.W., T.W. Joyce and H. Jameel. Effects of Chlorine Dioxide Substitution,
Oxygen Delignification and Biological Treatment on Bleach Plant Effluent, TAPPI
Journal, 76:7, July 1993.
16. NLK Consultants, Inc. Colour Reduction Technology on Kraft Mill Effluents.
Prepared for Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta, September 1992.
17. Higashi, R.M., et al. A Polar High Molecular Mass Constituent of Bleached Kraft
Mill Effluent Is Toxic to Marine Organisms. Environmental Science & Technology,
26(12):2413-2420, 1992.
18. Effects of Chlorine Dioxide Substitution on Bleach Plant Effluent BOD and Color.
Technical Bulletin No. 630. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Steam Improvement, Inc., March 1992.
19. Personal communication with Celso Foelkel, New York, September 13, 1993.
20. Ingruber, O.V., M.J. Kocurek, and A. Wong. Pulp and Paper Manufacture (Third
Edition): Volume 4 - Sulfite Science and Technology. Hink, J.L., R.L. Casebier, J.K.
Hamilton, eds. Joint Textbook Committee of the Paper Industry, TAPPI, Technology
Park, Atlanta, Georgia and CPPA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1985.
21. Personal Communication with Walter Peter, Lenzing, Austria, October 28-29, 1993.
9-79
-------
I
"a
f
E
1/Sra '
9-80
-------
Table 9-1
BPT Candidate Mills By Subcategory
Observation
Number
BPT
Option
1
Mitt?
(Y/N)
BPT
Option
2
Mill?
<*/**>
Current
&OJ>3
Effluent
Ixoad
(kg/OMMT)
Current TSS
Load
Effluent
-------
Table 9-1
(Continued)
Observation
Number
BPT
Option
1
Mill?
07N)
BF3T
Option
• 2
MM?
(Y/N)
Current
BODs
Effluent
Load
(kg/OMMT)
Current tSS
Load
Effluent
(bg/0MMT)
Wastewater
treatment
**&*
"
Comments
Bleached Paper-grade Kraft and Soda Subcategory (Continued)
29
30
31
32
33
Y
• 5.53
5.55
5.69
5.70 .
6.68
6.88
4.56
9.64
8.62
9.79
B
B
S
B
B
Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
i
0.24
0.56
1.18
1.31
1.52
1.59
1.63
1.70
1.79
1.83
1.86
1.89
1.98
1.99
2.27
2.28
2.34
2.46
2.62
2.80
0.68
0.72
2.99
2.49
2.66
3.92
6.06
3.20
2.69
2.85
3.55
3.22
1.96
3.57
2.67
2.12
5.04 '
1.44
2.36
4.44 .
B
B
B
B
B
B
S
S
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
S
B
B
B
Combined WWTP (2
mills)
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
1
2
3
Y
(a)
(a)
(a)
nd
nd
S
S
B
9-82
-------
Table 9-1
(Continued)
Observation
Number
BPT
Option
1
Mitt?
-------
Table 9-1
(Continued)
Observation
Number
BPT
Option
1
M«l?
(Y/N)
BPT
Option
2
Mill?
(Y/N)
Current
BOJ>5
Effloent
Load
(kg/OMMT)
Current TSS
Load
Effluent
(kg/QMMT)
-
Wastexvater
Treatment
T^I»e
f ."i.
Comments
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
1
2
3
Y
Y
Y
nd
nd
nd
Combined WWTP (5
mills)
Secondary Fiber Deink Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
0.89
0.94
1.03
1.05
1.11
2.15
2.65
2.76
3.27
3.72
4.05
4.67
6.44
7.63
0.92
0.86
1.67
1.40
2.22
1.73
1.72
10.70
0.42
3.78
6.09
5.81
6.27
4.66
S
B
S
S
S
S
S
S
B
S
B
S
S
S
9-84
-------
Table 9-1
(Continued)
Observation
Number
BPT
Option
1
Mill?
(Y/N)
BPT
Option
2
Mill?
-------
Table 9-1
(Continued)
Observation
Number
BPT
Option
1
Mitt?
(V/N)
BPT
Option
2
Mill?
: (V/N)
Current
BOJ>S
Effluent
Load
(fcg/OMMT)
ii*vi *- "•
Current IBS
Load
Effluent
(kg/OMMT)
Wastewater
Treatment
lE^jrpe
,
^
Comments
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
0.25
0.27
0.46
0.69
1.60
1.74
1.77
1.79
3.09
6.74
0.18
0.41
0.17
2.43
3.32
0.22
2.87
1.45
4.42
2.44
ND
(a)Best performing mill methodology was not used for developing limitations for BPT Option 2 for the Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategory.
B - Mills that operate secondary wastewater treatment in basins.
S - Mills that operate secondary wastewater treatment in activated sludge systems or a combination of activated
sludge systems and basins.
nd - Not disclosed to prevent compromising confidential business information.
9-86
-------
Table 9-2
Summary of Mills in the Semi-chemical Subcategory
Observation
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Current BOD5
Effluent Load
(kg/OMMT) ;
0.37
0.41
0.85
1.18
1.24
1.31
1.43
1.74
1.76
1.98
2.28
2.30
2.40
2.62
9.41
nd
nd
Percentage of Final
Production in the.
Semi-Chemical
Subcategory
m
76
26
37
72
49
76
52
78
41
78
65
69
65
60
62
10
18
Representative of
Secondary
Treatment in the
Semi-Chemical
Subcategory?
(¥/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
nd - Not disclosed to prevent compromising confidential business information.
9-87
-------
Table 9-3
Summary of Mills in the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
Observation
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Current BOD5
Effluent Load
(kg/OMMD
2.69
3.37
3.92
4.42
4.80
7.09
8.48
13.70
nd
nd
Percentage of Final
Production in the
Papergrade Sulfife
Subcategory
(%>
48
43
42
37
49
85
86
96
33
37
Representative of
Secondary
Treatment in the
Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory?
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
nd » Not disclosed to prevent compromising confidential business information.
-------
Table 9-4
Summary of Mills in the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Observation
Nmmher
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Carres* BOD^
Effluent Load
(kg/OMMT)
0.16
0.30
0.53
0.54
0.65
1.11
1.93
2.71
3.60
Percentage of Final
Production in the
Mechanical
Subcategory
(%)
61
55
56
62
<50
54
83
86
87
Representative of
Secondary
treatment in the
Mechanical Palp
Subcategory?
(1f/N>
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
9-89
-------
Table 9-5
Summary of Mills in the Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
Observation
Number
1
2
3
4
Current BOB5
Effluent Load
(kg/OMMT)
nd
nd
nd
nd
Percentage of Final •
Production in the No'm-
Wood Chemical
Subcategory
(%>
100
30
30
3
Representative of
Secondary
Treatment in the
Non-Wood
Chemical Pulp
Subcategory?
-------
Table 9-6
BPT Performance Levels
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical Pulp
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-deink
Fine and Lightweight
Papers from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven,
and Paperboard from
Purchased Pulp
Number of Mills
Representing
Secondary
Wastewater
Treatment
Performance in
Subeategory
3
33
20
3
8
15
9
3
1 14
28
i 8
10
BWT Option 1
Performance Level
flig/OMMT) :
BOJDj
3.66
2.66
1.69
16.67
4.97
1.48
,0.99
1.67
2.36
0.65
2.30 .
1.30
TSS ;
4.62
4.47
2.74
39.72
5.46
2.28
2.18
2.40
3.11
0.70
1.45
1.72
BPT Option 2
Performance Level
(kg/OMMT)
BOJ>5
3.51
1.57
1.32
11.74
3.60
0.97
0.38
1.59
1.40
0.36
1.59
0.63
TSS
4.85
2.72
2.57
9.44
4.74
1.96
1.35.
2.03
1.50
0.53
1.23
1.29
9-91
-------
Table 9-7
Production Normalized Flows Required to Meet
BPT BOD5 Performance Levels
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda
Unbleached Kraft
i
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
i
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical Pulp
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
i
Fine and Light Weight from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Nonwoven and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
- Option 1
Maximum
FIow(a)
(raVOMMl}
166
409
158 .
233
1 126
81
2,106
145
311
407
152
325
Option 2
Maximum
F!ow
-------
QO
4)
1
M,
*
03
GO Q
a 2
"
•sfi
&,
I
pa
|i<6
II
: $#:?
'* 1
ft
II
•§
•§
•§
S
O
00
3
t-
00
$
•s
•s
P9
£
9-93
-------
OO
ok
|
w
*
ȣ*
S:
s-
m'
a
o
S3
s
erf
Z
o
a a .o
H IP
r-
a
1
S
8
8
a
..f
ft
erf
m
m
CQ
m
n
m
s
a
a
m
n
m
CQ
m
CO
P9
9-94
-------
£
QO
OX
I
I
o
00
s
g
g
•s
S
2
g
S
o
"§
s
s
s
!S
ss
ca
ffl
a
m
m
n
n
ra
ca
CQ
ca
m
CQ
CQ
CQ
9-95
-------
op
I
I
fi
1
3-
-------
1
op
o\
3
H
•s
d
.
1
vo
a
*i
1
•s
at
Z
00
^
3
•s
§
§
co"
1
8
s
S3
a
m
P
m
fa
a
P9
n
P9
erf
z
i
5?
8
a
fa
m
8
g
g
vo
pi
•§
as;
s
•§
m
s
ss
9-97
-------
1
C
d
o
1
3;
68
c3
It
€ 1
s,g
F"* jj
x>
81
» <;
•a .••
•Is?
§
•
of
1
erf
Z
s
CO
0
a
ri
r
Si
erf
Z
oi
Z
Z
fi
erf
Z
04
2
erf
Z
§
CO
erf
erf
2
m
m
m
a
a
s
CQ
8
S
CO
S
9-98
-------
QO
o>
1
O
U
1
IJI
«
m
s
03
ffl
5
n
a
m
a
09
09
04
09
09
CQ
09
9-99
-------
H
So
OO
I
I
^*3
§
1
Is,
i
II
of
1
81
.*3'.
2
•1
g
00
•s
Z
erf
Z
•§
erf
2
erf
Z
erf
S
erf
g
!8
8
1
5 ig.
erf
Z
n
pa
m
ea
cq
pa
pa
a
9-100
-------
o
o
U
:l
•n s _.
•^ rt ^
1;
I
w g a
O 5 £3
bO B -O
ra
9-101
-------
Table 9-9
Activated Sludge Treatment System Performance and
Design and Operating Parameters
Observation
Number
%BOD5
Removal
Detention
Time
(hrs)
FtM
Ratio
MLSS
(mg/JL>
Aeration
Intensify
(hp/1,00
Om3)
%TSS
Removal
Secondary
Clarifier
Overflow
Rate
(myday/m2)
Chemical Pulp MillsCb")
l(a)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
98
97
96
93
93
91
89
80
16
3.3
8.7
84
60
7.7
11
4.6
0.37(a)
0.4
0.3
0.19
0.08
0.45
0.20
0.74
NR
3,000
NR
800
1,800
NR
3,100
4,600
178(a)
108
109
5.6
NR
39
75
954
85
97
93
87
84
95
92
83
7.6(a)
22
8.7
15
NR
11
21
20
Non-Pulpers(c)
1
2
3
4
5
93
ib
71
61
MR
19
30
130
'34
9.3
• 0.3
0.06
NR
NR
NR
5,000
2,000
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
, 108
NR
98
95
97
87
97
22
8.0
15
NR
83
Mechanical Pulp
1
2
3
4
5
98
97
1"
93
92
53
5.4
3.6
NR'
5.0
19
0.22
0.3
NR
NR
0.08
NR
4,200
NR
3,000
2,900
37
20
NR
NR
46
99
99
98
97
89
14
21
20
20
12
(a)Reprcsents the average of two parallel treatment systems.
(b)Includes four bleached papergrade kraft and soda, two unbleached kraft, and two papergrade sulfite mills.
(concludes two secondary fiber deink and three purchased pulp mills.
NR - Not reported.
9-102
-------
Table 9-10
Aerated Stabilization Basins Performance and
Design and Operating Parameters
Observation
Number
* BOJ>5
Removal
%m
Removal
Detention
Time
Pays)
BOD, Loading
(ikg/day/acre)
: Aeration
Intensity
(hp/l,000m3)
Chemical Pulping Mills (a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
96
95
94
92
91
89
88
87
77
65
MR
MR
96
98
91
93
95
, 91
86
92
88
-13
95
88
14
NR
, ' 43
35
NR
62
14 .
22
8
NR
6.2
4.7
NR
370
360
NR
1,200
55
482
300
460
NR
370
NR
350
70
NR
184
6.51
28
8.7
83
NR
NR
3.5
4.2
Non-Pulpers(b)
1
2
3
4
5
6
.89
86
84
79
71
5.3
86
85
86
MR
97
63
NR
7.5
8.2
6.5
3.3
5.0
NR
NR
200
260
375
NR
NR
NR
27
NR
NR
NR
(a)Includes 3 bleached papergrade kraft and soda, 3 unbleached kraft, 1 papergrade sulfite, and 5 semi-chemical
mills.
(b)Includes 1 secondary fiber non-deink, 2 fine and lightweight paper from purchased pulp, and 3 tissue, filter,
non-woven and paperboard from purchased pulp mills.
NR - Not reported.
9-103
-------
fe *
O\
2
o S
a &
»
g
1
g
g:
1
§
I
a
s
&
05
a
s
C-f
7,8-TCDF
tM
O
\o
oo
s
C3
CO
CO
o
bO
1
s
CM'
bfi
oo
00
CO
oo
o
0\
bO
u
3
CM
00
CO
CM
00
-a
s!
H
s
°
•o
CO
CM"
°
I
co"
5?
a
o
W)
i t-
00
a
ho
'?
vo^
co"
v-i
CM
00
00
>o
VO
P.
CM
!
1°
a
8
CO
°°.
CO
a
opheno
5-tri
VD
CO
oropheno
°
ho
bO
oroguaiaco
25.4
CO
00
g
bO
u
f
I
VO
•*
co"
CM"
9-104
-------
«~«\
•a
J
1
'
^*
w
g
I
(St
1
$
§
'f
5"
1
i
z
§
Q
Z
'"i
\f)
®
rH
00
|
3
g
1?
C^j
^
fc
!
a
1
o
1
c^
C3
3
o
^
o
Q
T-i
OS
CO
H
1
t±4
1
i
1
1
C5
s
^
o
x ^
e
^
vo
cs
H
^r
bO
r^
g
8
|
13
"1
^ |
4-1 O
1 1
§0
o
o °
t3 S
ts '«
0 S
ta is
'a S
D cQ
?* 1
ja -i
a< u
w W) M
' o 53 J
•Si 1
ss .a ^
^^ 1
o « 2
61 S
u bfi
•a ^ 2
'32 S3
|l «
1* i
(D tO *H
^j Ji3 «— 3
•8| §
o 5 -^
trj r— 1 o
•g 3 ^
o — t5
eu 3 *5
i «j o
t3 Q
So S
TO t/2
^s s S
1^ ^
5 § 1
1) W 13
"t< S ^
° fl »3
& o . pj 43
illfl
S«*Jff
)One or more sample measuremem
these samples was used with cona
)Based on hardwood data for BPK
)Data not available to characterize
D: All sample measurements were
sample-specific detection limit.
•3- «SvSz
9-105
-------
mm.
*—-t
s
*J
"o
en
«ao
S
o
£2 S3
*? £
H ^Jj ^J . :
S^':".-;"."
I
' 'S
•£2
.'*
.A
<^__
^
§
,_
1
kg/ADMT
X
<
<*!
o
F-
co"
*
I
kg/ADMT
Q
8
i
o
co"
cs
C5
!
^
co~
ng/ADMT
O
c>
f*^
o
gf
T-l
1
<
oT
ng/ADMT
°k.
S
^
00
•^
CO
0
cs
cs
ON"
I
I
1
s
ON
CO
f^
in
CO
^
~bO
oroform
G
i
.
^o
0
*
zL
1
Ml
u
'§
*~^
u
i
3
1
CO
•o~
1
T-l
ON
OO
^
tH
^bS
1
tjj
HM
I
W
I
3
1
0
1
3
o"
1
| mg/ADMT
u
-a
cT
5-Trichlor
S
^^
T-3
CO
CO
2-
«l
?T
mg/ADMT
1
Q
6-Trichlor
S-
i
CS
o
g
<
ON
mg/ADMT
o
1
1
o
5-Trichlor
rj-
co"
^i
^-i.
z
^
I
rH
mg/ADMT
1
13
o
6-Trichlor
rf
CO"
I
CS
i
o
mg/ADMT
1
a
0
5-Trichlor
•
-------
J
a*
a
o"
I
a5
cs"
cs
00
g
(D
cs
a
o"
a
o
a
1
S
1
!
. 13
J£ °
O
O\
§
•8*8
Q|
CS
2 ,
9-107
-------
8?
o
3
•§
(U
3
Ml
o
en
CO
•!-<
Q
(U
1
i?
H
|
SP
1 2,3,7,8-TCDD
S
a
i
®
T-l
f
H
g
%
1 2,3,7,8-TCDF
S
r-i
£
w-i
S
00
EH
|
~5o
|| Chloroform
^
G5
S
C5
S
C3
EH
1
•a
ID
1
i
c?
r-i
t
d
®
T-H
H
1
«
1
00
o
o\
H
1
^
|| Acetone
?
CO
S
3
3
fc
§
r
|| Trichlorosyringol
§
5
o
,H~
co"
fc
§
I1
^^
|| 3,4,5-trichlorocatecho
g
??
v!S
o
id
rH
00
fc
§
%
^.
|| 3,4,6-trichlorocatecho
g
00
a'
OO
52
o
S
r-r
b
§
I1
.
|| 3,4,5-trichloroguaiaco
g
p
T-J
f
fc
§
1
.
1 3,4,6-trichloroguaiaco
g
vo
S
a
s
fc
§
I5
.
1 4,5,6-trichloroguaiaco
g
OO
S
i
r-i
CO
fc
^r
tJ3
|| 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
1?
Si
i
»
fcj
1
a
|| 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
I
p
£
^
if
fc
1
a
| Tetrachlorocatechol
g
*
g;
i-i
vc>
o\
fc
g
a
1 Tetrachloroguaiacol
1
OO
a'
o'
S8
c>
CO
fc
§
I5
o
cj
S
1 2,3,4,6-Tetrachloroph
9-108
-------
1
u
ro ^
s I
^ *PN
i' i
H U
; -3
si
1
W5
: 3
i i
*! ^
• 5^ S
s JS
. D fen
-J2 M «T
as s
§ <3
3 _S «
ts « '§
(U U ^
^_l Jj t"H
•8-1 §
o S -J3
Is 1
41 f
II ^
2 Jjs 43
•S j§ &
a o 1
W rr]
_a f-<
•±3 O (0
-------
s
CSN
1
IP
2,3,7,8-T
oo
1
S?
of
O
bO
in
to
f
1
a1
bO
s
cat
tri
3,
bO
s
tri
3,
1
ogu
tri
tri
1
opheno
2,4,5-tri
60
oph
2,4,6-tri
"
gu
orophe
2,3,4,6-Tetra
bO
S
opheno
9-110
-------
s
oV
1
fi
1
o
§
o
3
9-111
-------
c?\
0)
-«
2
ff
S
QJ -*->
**"' t_>
CA
O
S3
a»
u
d
C3
s
1
C
i
g
b
•+J
§
i
.a
c
1
pa
=
s
1
£
•€
o:
s
s
i
1
sS
a
c
t
1
a
1
•B
«
U!
s
,
^
(*
ct
: o
&
: a
• O
33
o
1
1
9
1
t
/«JX
0
g
CO
CO
s
ng/ADMT
2,3,7,8-TCDD
/t?*
0
s
r3
ng/ADMT
2,3,7,8-TCDF
'u'
o
s
O\
|
to
Chloroform
/ox
o
s
o
i
I
bO
Methylene Chloride
"^T1
o
s
s
1
bO
i
^^
*
S
^
1
|| Acetone
/t?>
o
g
<^
mg/ADMT
M
u
0
g
CO
CO
mg/ADMT
|| 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol-
'^
o
|
23
CO
CO
mg/ADMT
1 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
'^
o
g
t^
1-1
mg/ADMT
1 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
'o^
0
i
c^
rH
mg/ADMT
jj 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
/ov
o
g
f-*
1-1
mg/ADMT
|| 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
o
0
g
c^
1-1
mg/ADMT
1 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
^
o
g
c^
^
mg/ADMT
1 2,4,6-trichlorophenol
o
o
g
Tj-
CO
mg/ADMT
|| Tetrachlorocatechol
o
o
g
CO
CO
mg/ADMT
| Tetrachloroguaiacol
o
o
g
t^
r~*
mg/ADMT
1
1 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophe
o
0
g
CO
CO
mg/ADMT
Pentachlorophenol
9-112
-------
§
'*•'
'•>
«S
g
•£
55
O
kg
s
u
13
.a
kg
. i
a
- -
O
a 111 I £ jj
-------
VO
r-t
!
CO
p
1
m Normal!'
vcrage Proffuctic
Estimated A
en
1
^
Ci
1
1
i
1
I
1
| Bleach Plant Effluent
g
1
TH'
t
ng/ADMT
2,3,7,8-TCDD
^_^
S
rjj
1
ng/ADMT
t
2,3,7,8-TCDF
g
\o
10
§
oo
1
bo
|| Chloroform
^,
o
p
s'
C3
I
I Methylene Chloride
3
g
r-i
CM
\0
0
!
"bfi
S
06
o\
1
Acetone
?
a
t ^
§
I
en
mg/ADMT
Trichlorosyringol
g
^
S
en"
mg/ADMT
|| 3,4,5-trichlorocatecho
g
^
p
en
oo
mg/ADMT
|| 3,4,6-trichlorocatecho
g
00
oo
1
mg/ADMT
|| 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
g
p
s
f
mg/ADMT
|| 3,4,6-trichloroguaiaco
g
vq
S
§
mg/ADMT
4,5,6-trichloroguaiaco
g
1
p
T-j
T-5
en
mg/ADMT
1 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
3
o\
cs
I
»
mg/ADMT
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
g
p
E
I
mg/ADMT
Tetrachlorocatechol
g
r-J
V£S
rF/
mg/ADMT
Tetrachloroguaiacol
g
00
o
88
0
s
mg/ADMT
1
|| 2,3,4,6-Tetrachloroph
9-114
-------
I
«s -a
.« 2
g
ys *73
rt *T*
0 o
« a
f
0
|
.2
ft
CO
GO
:*3
^
^^
s
1
ll
s
•*s
; 1
s
I *
g>
1
1
«
ff)
§
0
*a
rt
J
^
sS
O
•f
§
1
1
1
— .
g
CO
/-N
oo
_
^^^
vd
1
1
Pentachlorophenol
Final Effluent
3
o
o
CN
2
1
5
,
1
N.
rH
*H
ON
CS
ADMT
^P
i
CO
^
s
CO
^
ADMT
^
Q
8
s
s
XJJX
V)
co'
N^
1— 1
CO
O
JP
d"
o
CQ
®
00
^Js
?
vX^
00
"*'
1
J3P
00
s
u
1 1
o S
1 "8
(D ^->
di rt
« 3
(U O
"& ^
en u bC
« a1 s •
r£3 (3 J
^ .^ o
^ J ^
•J? "* M
si a
P cd ^
o a e
" o
«• §> S1
.« « 2
II 1
d § ^
0 U ^j
«^ 1
S Q -M
(O «5 _i
11 1
• $-3 1
0> — U
&° •«
is ^
& ft U
11 ^
" «H ^
^1 tf
P Ot o ?S
es W) « ,
-s b o
Co -B u
on *- S -fi
•si -Sa
-0 S . M J
U 22 CO U *3
4.3 ff^ tH
i-> to cf *J "S
iS-l-a-3
5 §<§•«! 3
nple measurements wer
as used with concentrati
Dod data for BPK BAT
single best performing n
sasurements were repor
c detection limit.
a * 9 o as
"3 *Tj _rt O
sUltl
a I g §
-------
e?
o
ff
WJ T3
S3 CD
Q c/3
0
T!l'
mg/ADMT
1
II
E
|| 3,4,6-trichlo
e
^.
a
P
oo
s
mg/ADMT
1
o
1
co"
0
rl-
a
s
o
a
mg/ADMT
o
g
'fi
vq^
co"
S^
o
T-H
CO
Q
vo
«
mg/ADMT
1
2
o
s
\o
n
S
o
"*
mg/ADMT
1
1
Tetrachloro
?
f~.
10
S
,-J
10
mg/ADMT
1
•a
&
| Tetrachloro
9-116
-------
•M 53
a •**
o <&
1 §
•ft w>
•8 .a
o £
g *
l> ^
*r s
°* d
v •«
M^ -^M
3 d
cl o
H B
: «g
OQ
i ™ _
.1
1
O
«
0 ,53"
^
"C(
i
1
«
1
ft
0
1
I
1
i
I
1
§
vi
cs
oq
H
I5
1
*s<
1
1
§
^
10
5
H
S
5
f
Pentachlorophenol
Final Effluent
VO
o
o
1
^
X
o
s
a
|
S
s
a
^3^
^
G3
O_
M
S
m
'^v
^J
o
O_
^
?! 1>
o, IS
«= "3
Qi O
"On g
§ • U
OT OJ bC
•s jj 1
^ o «
j *3
If 1
tD
j« S) ^
•^j TO H
fl *-< ^
SO t*"
.2 j± *^
^_» ^3 W
•8-S §
o G -^
* "B ®
|2 ^
^ Jg «
&^ "0
i i »<
1/3 M n'l
lU li .S
£j§ &
J'o §
t- M
« o
-------
6?
o
3
CO
O)
S
«
i
il
§
s
1
jEi
1
-------
a
00
I J-J
fli »p*
,*{ -4-1
bO
a
o
§
I
I
I
W
•a
1
p
o
u
0\
on
« 13
^ a
9-119
-------
6?
o
S
ON
8?
O)
I1
I
I
ca
a
o
I
cc
cu
CO
8
c
1
1
1
j
S5
1
&
Estimated Avera
53
&
1
rH
C
1
I
ȣ*
i
I
Ed
•*•>
•3
$
5
/ox
o
8
vo
ng/ADMT
1 2,3,7,8-TCDD
'0*
o
%
00
1
ng/ADMT
1 2,3,7,8-TCDF
/ov
0
vq
o\
"bS
1 Chloroform
'o^
o
I
I
bO
| Methylene Chloride
"tJ*
o
f
Q
^
"SB
i
^^
jgj
CS
|
&0
|| Acetone
"^
0
*
mg/ADMT
Trichlorosyringol
/os
0
8
mg/ADMT
| 3,4,5-trichlorocatecho
'o*
o
CO
mg/ADMT
3,4,6-trichlorocatecho
'o*
o
i
mg/ADMT
i 3,4,5-trichioroguaiaco
/tjv
o
§
mg/ADMT
|| 3,4,6-trichloroguaiaco
u
0
§
mg/ADMT
|| 4,5,6-trichloroguaiaco
u
o
i
mg/ADMT
|| 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
o
o
§
mg/ADMT
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
u
0
CO
CO
mg/ADMT
Tetrachlorocatechol
o
0
CO
mg/ADMT
Tetrachloroguaiacol
o,
o
's
'
mg/ADMT
"5
a
»}
2,3,4,6-Tetrachloroph
9-120
-------
^^^^
^^ T3
? I
IS Is
03 O
H U
N^^-
W
i
M
B
;1
b
*|
1
u
"o
it
2
i
i
i
i
^1 3
-9 "^ M
i JO Jg
o I a
o
« M' &
'32 u
a 53 >
^ <
o u •
I6 1
4_) ^j ^—3
"0 *S rt
y o -^
dj — (D
ft 2 "S
' W3 O
If 'ft
0 "-1 &
•3 ^ 2 gj. ft
1 ° ^ ^ Si |
"^ O ,^ rf^l 4_) (Q
« ^ 2 O S rS
'"I fa ^> *§ «) c3
u § "^ S w 'S
J-4 fli 3 'w V3
Q ^ pj «j sn
S g 'f ftg ^
2 1 o ^ 1 €
filial
'S 8 -a 3 s w .
isllf*!
lljlfll.
jy 3 .fl 3 "3) 3 t3 2
a 1 * *s 'w § ,y ^
s ^ £ gjjg a -| g
jJlffi1!
9-121
-------
1
a
t-i
eg
§
«
a,
O
CO
c
CQ
€
(U
P
S
*£•
s
13
s
S
1
&
1
s
f
eq
t
1
1
5?
o
•
VO
C5
t
PL,
1 Mechanical
-----
8
01
ON
f
!
^
u
Non-Wood
S
C3
O\
O
t
1
Q
E
1
to
P
C3
\O
O
"2
1
1
*
1
PL,
1
"M
a
1
CD p^
IXl Qlrf
00
o
r3
o
1
o
•§
04
PL,
1
Non-Woven
edPulp
g g
s 1
o~£<
8 3
P£
9-122
-------
D-
O
CO
0,
C
•I
a
O
CO
0-
§
I
w
o
ca
a
S
o
S
I
-a
1
•3
8s
§
1
Q
8
§
8
a
§«
M
§
Q
8
g
1
Q
O
O
1
§
o
IX!
OH <-•
lit
9-123
-------
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
10.0 POLLUTANT REDUCTION ESTIMATES
10.1 Introduction
This section describes the Agency's estimates of the reduction in the mass of pollutants that
would be discharged from pulp and paper mills after the implementation of each technology
option considered for the proposed regulations. For each mill and pollutant, a baseline
mass loading was compared to the mass that would be discharged after implementation of
the various technology options; the difference between these two loadings is the pollutant
reduction. Pollutant reduction estimates are discussed separately below for conventional
pollutants, priority and nonconventional pollutants (except chemical oxygen demand
(COD)), and COD.
In all of the estimates, the loadings are production normalized. A production normalized
load is the product of a pollutant concentration and a wastewater flow rate divided by one
of three production normalizing parameters (PNPs):
1) The PNP for Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT)/Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for BOD5 and TSS is the off-the-
machine production rate (including additives and coatings, at off-the-machine
moisture for paper and paperboard and at 10 percent moisture for market
pulp).
2) The PNP for Best Available Control Technology Economically Achievable
(BAT)/Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for priority and
nonconventional pollutants (except COD and color) is the production rate (at
10 percent moisture) of unbleached pulp that is bleached.
3) The PNP for BAT/PSES for COD and color is the unbleached pulp
production rate (at 10 percent moisture).
10.2 Conventionai Pollutants
This section presents the Agency's estimates of conventional pollutant reductions achieved
by implementation of BAT, Best Management Practices (BMP), National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), BPT, BCT, and PSES. The
methodology used to calculate these reductions is described in the following subsections.
10.2.1 Estimation of Baseline Conventional Pollutant Loadings
Baseline biological oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) loadings for
direct discharging mills were calculated using final off-machine production and final effluent
10-1
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
characterization data for 1989, as reported by mills in the 1990 questionnaire. As discussed
in Section 6.3, mUls reported monthly average daily mass loadings (Ib/day) for BOD5 and
TSS in final effluent. The monthly average daily mass loadings were averaged over twelve
months to obtain the long-term average daily mass loadings (Ib/day). These long-term
average loadings were converted to kilograms and production normalized by dividing by the
reported annual final production expressed in off-machine metric tons per year (OMMT/yr)
and multiplying by 350 days per year, the typical number of mill production days per year.
The baseline load of each mill in a subcategory was summed to calculate the subcategory
load. If the mill production was in more than one subcategory, the load was attributed to
each subcategory on a production-weighted basis. Baseline BOD5 and TSS loadings are
summarized by subcategory in Table 10-1.
10.2.2 Estimation of BPT Target Production Normalized Conventional Pollutant Mass
Loadings
BPT target BOD5 and TSS production normalized mass loadings are the long-term average
final effluent mass loadings (in kg/OMMT) that a mill is estimated to achieve after
compliance with proposed BPT limitations. For each direct discharging mill for each BPT
option, the BPT target BOD5 and TSS production normalized final effluent pollutant mass
loadings were calculated using a production-weighted average "of the BPT performance levels
listed in Section 9.2 for each subcategory in which the mill had production. This calculation
is illustrated in the following example.
Example Mill 1 has final production in three subcategories as shown below:
Subcategory
J. Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
K. Fine and Lightweight Paper From Purchased Pulp
L. Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and Paperboard From Purchased Pulp
Percent of Final P«*di«!ti0tt
21
11
68
10-2
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
From Table 9-6, the BPT Options, 1 and 2 performance levels for these three subcategories
are:
Subcategory
J. Secondary Fiber
Non-Deink
K. Fine and Lightweight
Paper From Purchased
Pulp
L. Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven
and Paperboard From
Purchased Pulp
BFT Option 1
BOD Load
(kg/OMMR
0.65
2.30
1.30
TSSLoad
flkg/OMMT)
0.70
1.45
1.72
»FT Option 2
BOD Load
(fcg/OMMT*
0.35
1.59
0.65
TSSLoad
{kg/OMMT)
0.52
1.26
1.30
The BPT target BOD5 and TSS target production normalized final effluent pollutant mass
loadings for BPT Options 1 and 2 were calculated for this mill as shown below:
PNLT = V (%Fi)(PNL.)
T ti 100 ^ *'
(1)
where:
PNLj. = Mill target production normalized final effluent pollutant mass loading,
kg/OMMT
n = Number of subcategories
%P} = Percent of final production in subcategory i
PNL-, = BPT performance level for subcategory i, kg/OMMT.
10-3
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
Substituting data specific to this mill:
BPT Option 1
(0.21)(0.65) + (0.11)(2.30) + (0.68)(1.30) = 1.27 kg/OMMT
(0.21)(0.70) + (0.11)(1.45)+(0.68)(1.72) = 1.48 kg/OMMT
BOD PNLj. =
TSS PNLr =
BPT Option 2
BOD PNLr =
TSS PNLr =
(0.21)(0.35) + (0.11)(1.59) + (0.68)(0.65) = 0.69 kg/OMMT
(0.21)(0.52) + (0.11)(1.26) + (0.68)(1.30) = 1.13 kg/OMMT
10.2.3 Conventional Pollutant Reductions for Direct Discharging Mills
Pollutant reductions in final effluent were calculated for each mill using the mill's baseline
BOD5 and TSS production normalized mass loadings and BPT Option 1 or 2 target BOD5
and TSS production normalized mass loadings calculated as described above using the
following equation:
= (PNL,ASE -
(2)
where:
PRT = Mill total conventional pollutant reduction, kg/yr
= Mill baseline production normalized pollutant mass loading,
kg/OMMT
= Mill target production normalized pollutant mass loading to
achieve BPT Option 1 or 2, kg/OMMT
P = Mill annual final off-machine production, OMMT/yr.
The Agency compared the baseline loadings to the target loadings. K the baseline BOD5
and TSS loadings were less than the target BOD5 and TSS loadings, respectively, for BPT
Options 1 and/or 2, then the Agency assumed the mill currently meets Options 1 and/or
2 and pollutant reductions for Options 1 and/or 2 were assumed to be zero. If the baseline
BODj and/or TSS loadings were greater than the target BOD5 and/or TSS loadings for
10-4
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
either Options 1 and/or 2, respectively, then conventional pollutant reductions are the
difference between the baseline and target mass loadings. Conventional pollutant reductions
for BPT Options 1 and 2 are summarized, by subcategory, in Table 10-2.
Implementation of the technology bases for the proposed BAT (pulping and bleaching
process changes), NESHAP (steam stripping of pulping condensates), and BMP (pulping
liquor management, spill prevention, and control) will significantly reduce BOD5 loads in
raw wastewater, resulting in a proportionate reduction in final effluent BOD5 load. The
BOD5 reductions summarized in Table 10-2 represent the sum of reductions associated with
BAT, NESHAP, BMP, and BPT as shown in the following equation:
PRT = PRBAT + PRNESHAP + PR
, Tm
'BMP BPT
(3)
where:
PRT
PR
•BAT
PR
•NESHAP
PR
BMP
PR
•BPT
Mill total BOD5 reduction calculated using Equation (2), kg/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with BAT, kg/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with NESHAP, kg/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with BMP, kg/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with BPT, kg/yr.
BOD5 reductions associated with each regulation and the methodology used to estimate
these reductions are described in the following sections.
BAT, NESHAP, and BMP reductions in final effluent BOD5 loads were related to raw
wastewater loads based upon the mill's wastewater treatment performance (i.e., percent
removal of BOD5 in wastewater treatment) as illustrated in the following equation:
RawA 1QQ'
(4)
10-5
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
where:
PR
BAT.FE
PR
•BAT, R«w
Mill BOD5 reduction in final effluent associated with BAT,
kg/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction in raw wastewater associated with BAT,
%R
Mill percent removal of BOD5 in wastewater treatment.
By using this relationship, the Agency is implicitly assuming that wastewater treatment
efficiency, in terms df percent BOD5 removal, does not change after implementation of
BAT, NESHAP, and BMP. The Agency believes this is a conservative assumption because,
in most cases, reducing influent loadings, variability, and flow to a biological treatment
system will result in improved performance in terms of BOD5 removal. This is particularly
true for pollutant reductions associated with BMP, which are not easily degraded
biologically.
To estimate loading reductions associated with BPT Options 1 and 2, the Agency first
calculated BOD5 and TSS loading reductions associated with implementation of BAT,
NESHAP, and BMP, in that order. If the loading reductions from implementation of these
regulations were not sufficient to attain the BPT Option 1 and 2 performance levels,
additional loading reduction associated with BPT end-of-pipe treatment and/or BPT in-
process flow reduction technologies was calculated. For purposes of estimating category-
wide loading reductions, the Agency did not consider loading reductions beyond those
necessary to attain the BPT Option 1 or 2 performance levels, even if implementation of
BAT, NESHAP, and/or BMP would reduce discharges'below the BPT Option 1 or 2
performance levels. The Agency believes that this conservative approach results in
underestimation of loading reductions. The Agency also believes that this conservative
approach ensures that mills will consistently achieve effluent loadings more stringent than
the proposed limitations. The Agency will consider, prior to promulgation, whether the
methodology for developing the effluent limitations should reflect these pollution prevention
reductions in raw waste loads.
10.2.3.1
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated with BAT
Reductions in final effluent BOD5 associated with BAT are summarized, by subcategory, for
BPT Options 1 and 2 in Table 10-3. These pollutant reductions were estimated as discussed
below. Pollutant reductions associated with BAT for BPT Option 2 are greater than for
BPT Option 1 because, as discussed above, the Agency did not consider conventional
pollutant reduction estimates for BAT at an individual mill that exceeded the removal
necessary to attain the BPT option.
10-6
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
BAT Process Change Options
Reductions in BOD5 in raw wastewater associated with BAT process changes were
calculated as described in Section 11.6.5.2. TSS reductions associated with BAT process
changes were determined to be negligible. For mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft arid
Soda Subcategory, BOD5 load reductions in raw wastewater resulting from BAT process
changes were calculated based upon BAT Option 2 and range from zero to 13 kg/OMMT
of final bleached papergrade kraft and soda production depending upon process
technologies in place, as summarized in Table 11-19. BAT Option 2 was used as the basis
for conventional pollutant reduction estimates because it was not practical to try to calculate
pollutant reductions and corresponding wastewater treatment upgrades required to comply
with BPT based upon each BAT option. This underestimates conventional pollutant
reductions associated with BAT because BAT Option 4 was selected.
For mills in the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory, BOD5 load reductions in raw wastewater were
also dependent on process technologies hi place, but the resulting load reductions were
assumed equal to half'the value estimated for similar bleached papergrade kraft and soda
mills. The Agency assumed that dissolving kraft mills generally have more effective brown
stock washing and screening, in terms of resulting black h'quor loss to the bleach plant, than
papergrade kraft mills due to higher product purity requirements. Thus, the impact on.
BOD5 loads due to implementing BAT process change options would be less.
For mills in the Papergrade Sulfite and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategories, BOD5 load
reductions in raw wastewater associated with BAT process changes options were not applied
because (1) improved brown stock washing and extended cooking were not included in the
process change technology basis for BAT, and (2) wastewater generated from
implementation of the BAT technology basis was assumed to be routed to wastewater
treatment rather than to chemical or heat recovery because of chemical incompatibility (e.g.,
incompatibility of sodium-based bleaching chemicals with magnesium-based pulping
chemicals).
BAT Limitations for COD
Although implementation of screen room closure, a component of the technology basis for
BAT limitations for COD, results in significant conventional pollutant reductions in raw
wastewater, the Agency did not account for these reductions for any Subcategory except the
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory for BPT Option 2. For the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
for BPT Option 2, the Agency assumed that screen room closure results in 15 percent
reduction of BOD5 and TSS in raw wastewater. The Agency intends to account for
conventional pollutant reductions associated with BAT limitations for COD for all
applicable subcategories for both BPT Options 1 and 2 in the final rule.
10-7
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
10.2.3.2 Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated with NESHAP
Pollutant reductions associated with pulp mill condensate stripping, a technology basis for
the proposed NESHAP, are summarized, by subcategory, for BPT Options 1 and 2 hi Table
10-4. These pollutant reductions were estimated as discussed below. Pollutant reductions
associated with condensate stripping for BPT Option 2 are greater than for BPT Option 1
because, as discussed previously, the Agency did not consider conventional pollutant
reduction estimates for BAT at an individual mill that exceeded the removal necessary to
attain the BPT option.
Reductions in BOD5 hi raw wastewater associated with condensate stripping were calculated
as described hi Section 11.6.5.2. TSS reductions associated with condensate stripping were
assumed to be negligible. For mills with final production hi any subcategory to which the
proposed NESHAP applies, BOD5 load reductions hi raw wastewater range from zero to 8
kg/OMMT of final production hi those subcategories depending upon the fate of pulping
condensates (e.g., steam stripped, totally or partially reused, or discharged to wastewater
treatment) at each mill in 1989 as summarized in Table 11-20.
For sulfite mills, the Agency overestimated the BOD5 pollutant reductions associated with
condensate stripping because less of the BOD5 hi condensates at sulfite mills can be
removed by conventional steam stripping than BOD5 in condensates at kraft mills. Pollutant
reduction estimates associated with the proposed NESHAP for dissolving sulfite mills for
BPT Option 2 were revised to take this into account. For these mills, the BOD5 pollutant
reduction associated with NESHAP condensate stripping was assumed to be zero. The
result is that the Agency's cost and pollutant reduction estimates for both Papergrade Sulfite
BPT options and Dissolving Sulfite Option 1 are underestimated by approximately 15
percent and 4 percent, respectively, because BOD5 reduction resulting from condensate
stripping was overestimated. However, then: underestimation does not affect the selected
BPT option (Option 2).
10.2.3.3
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated with BMP
Pollutant reductions associated with BMP are summarized, by subcategory, for BPT Options
1 and 2 hi Table 10-5. These pollutant reductions were estimated as discussed below.
Pollutant reductions associated with BMP for BPT Option 2 are greater than for BPT
Option 1 because, as discussed previously, the Agency did not consider conventional
pollutant reduction estimates for BMP at an individual mill that exceeded the removal
necessary to attain the BPT option.
Reductions hi BOD5 in raw wastewater associated with BMP were calculated as described
hi Section 11.6.5.2. TSS reductions associated with BMP were assumed to be negligible.
For mills with final production ha any subcategory to which BMP applies, BOD5 load
10-8
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
reductions in raw wastewater range from zero to 5 kg/OMMT of final production in those
subcategories depending upon each mill's status in implementing BMP (i.e., major,
moderate, or no BMP upgrades required) in 1989. These reductions are summarized in
Section 11.6.5.2.
10.2.3.4 Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated with the BPT Technology Bases
The Agency estimated that implementation of the technology bases for the proposed BAT,
NESHAP, and BMP will result in significant reductions in BOD5 final effluent loads, but
reductions in TSS were not estimated. BPT BOD5 reductions shown in Table 10-6 are the
component of the total BOD5 reduction that a mill is estiinated to achieve after compliance
with proposed BPT limitations that is not already achieved by implementation of BAT,
NESHAP, or BMP, as illustrated in the following equation:
PR
BPT
- PNLT)(P) - (PRBAT
PRBMp)
(5)
where:
PNLj.
PR
•BAT
PR
•NESHAP
PR
BMP
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with BPT, kg/yr
Mill baseline production normalized pollutant mass loading,
kg/OMMT
Mill target production normalized pollutant mass loading to
achieve BPT Option 1 or 2, kg/OMMT
Mill annual final off-machine production, OMMT/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with BAT, kg/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with NESHAP, kg/yr
Mill BOD5 reduction associated with BMP, kg/yr.
10.2.4 Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated With BCT
As discussed in Section 9.3, the Agency developed four BCT options. Two of these options
(BCT Options B.I and B.2) were identical to BPT Options 1 and 2, resulting in identical
pollutant reductions (i.e., the pollutant reduction each mill is estimated to achieve after
compliance with BCT not already achieved by implementation of BAT, NESHAP or BMP).
10-9
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
The Agency did not fully analyze the third BCT option (BCT Option A.1; see Section
9.3.1.1) and no pollutant reductions resulting from this option were estimated. Pollutant
reductions resulting from the fourth BCT option compared to a baseline equivalent to BPT
Option 2 (BCT Option A.2), multi-media filtration, are discussed below.
Table 10-7 summarizes, by subcategory, the incremental BOD5 and TSS reductions resulting
from BCT Option A.2. This option represents tertiary wastewater treatment applied in
addition to other technologies costed to achieve BPT Option 2, such as in-plant flow
reduction technologies and end-of-pipe primary and secondary wastewater treatment
upgrades. Therefore, load reductions associated with BCT Option A.2 represent only the
portion of load reductions estimated from installation of multimedia filtration and does not
include load reductions estimated for BPT Option 2.
To calculate load reductions associated with BCT Option A.2, the Agency first determined,
for each direct discharging mill, loadings achieved after compliance with BPT Option 2. For
mills whose 1989 conventional pollutant loadings are less than the mill's BPT Option 2
target loadings, the 1989 pollutant loadings were used. For mills whose 1989 conventional
pollutant loadings are greater than the mill's BPT Option 2 target loadings, the mill's BPT
Option 2 target loadings were used.
Treatment performance for multi-media filters was determined to be 60 percent removal of
TSS (1). BOD5 removal was assumed equal to 50 percent of the TSS removal (2). These
calculations are illustrated below:
TSS PRBCT = (TSS PNLBASE)(0.6)
(6)
where:
TSS
TSS
Mill TSS reduction resulting from BCT, kg/yr
Mill TSS production normalized mass loading, kg/yr (either
1989 loading or BPT Option 2 loading, as discussed above).
BOD PRBCT = (TSS PRBCT)(0.5)
(7)
where:
BOD PR
•BCT
Mill BODS reduction resulting from BCT, kg/yr.
10-10
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
Use of multimedia filters was not considered to be a viable technology option for mills with
baseline TSS concentrations of 10 mg/L or less.
10.2.5 Conventional Pollutant Reductions for Indirect Discharging Mills
Table 10-8 summarizes, by subcategory, conventional pollutant reductions resulting from
PSES Options 1 and 2. PSES Option 1 includes in-plant flow minimization and end-of-pipe
wastewater treatment equivalent to BPT Option 2 on the mill discharge to POTWs. This
is equivalent to upgrading the on-site treatment system of indirect discharging mills to a
performance level equivalent to BPT Option 2. PSES Option 2 includes upgrade of POTWs
to the level of BPT Option 2. PSES Option 2 limitations only apply to the flow and
pollutant loadings discharged to the POTW from an applicable mill. The Agency believes
that these two options will result in reductions in the discharge of conventional pollutants
generated by indirectly discharging mills, even though conventional pollutants are not
limited at PSES. Further, assuming that, under PSES Option 1, the mills no longer
discharge to the POTW, the reductions resulting from the two options will be equal.
The baseline for this analysis was the mass of conventional pollutants currently discharged
by POTWs derived from mills to which the proposed PSES will apply. To calculate this
baseline, each POTW was assumed to currently discharge treated wastewater, including pulp
and paper mill-derived wastewater, at BOD5 and TSS concentrations of 30 mg/L each. The
baseline mass of pollutants discharged is thus:
CONCroTW
(8)
where:
PMBASE
k
CONG
POTW
Baseline mass of pollutants discharged, kg/yr
Conversion factors
30 mg/L
Mill 1989 final effluent flow (discharged to the POTW), m3/day.
10-11
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
The mass of pollutants discharged after implementation of PSES is given by:
» E
(9)
where:
PMPSES
PNL;
Mass of pollutants discharged after PSES, kg/yr
BPT Option 2 performance level for subcategory i, kg/OMMT
Production in subcategory i, OMMT/yr.
Pollutant reductions resulting from PSES are thus the difference between the baseline mass
discharge and the mass discharge at PSES:
IBS
(10)
where:
PRpsEs = Mill poUutant reductions associated with PSES, kg/yr
= Baseline mass of pollutants discharged, kg/yr
= Mass of pollutants discharged after PSES, kg/yr.
10.3 Priority and Nonconventional Pollutants
This section describes pollutant reduction estimates for priority and nonconventional
pollutants (except COD). The pollutants for which final effluent discharge estimates were
calculated are listed in Table 10-9 and include 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, four volatile
organic compounds, 20 chlorinated phenolic compounds, and AOX The Agency also
calculated pollutant reduction estimates for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and the four
volatile compounds at the bleach plant effluent.
Pollutant reductions were calculated for each pollutant, wastewater stream, and mill as the
difference between a production normalized baseline load and the estimated discharge load
10-12
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
resulting from each BAT option. Separate discussions of baseline and the discharges
associated with each BAT option follow this section.
The pollutants for which reductions were calculated were not always detected in bleach
plant effluents and final effluents at all mills. To account for these pollutants in the
reduction estimates on a mass basis, production normalized loadings were calculated using
one-half of reported detection limits for non-detect analytical results. The Agency considers
this to be a reasonable approach because 1) these pollutants are known to be formed during
the chemical pulping and bleaching of wood, and 2) these pollutants are often detectable
in bleach plant effluents and wastewater treatment sludges when they are not detected in
treated effluents. Therefore, these pollutants are likely present in most samples but are
below detectable concentrations in some.
Because reported detection limits vary, an additional step was used for data collected by the
Agency (short- and long-term study data) to reset high detection limits that might skew the
estimates. Detection limits greater than twice the mode of detection limits reported for'
each pollutant in all water samples in each database (see database discussion below) were
reset to twice the mode. This calculation methodology is described in detail in the
Statistical Support Document.
The pollutant reduction calculations used data from four databases: 104-Mill Study, short-
term study, long-term study, and industry self-monitoring data. In the three sampling
programs conducted by the Agency, bleach plant effluent and final effluent samples were
collected as composites over a 24-hour or multi-day period. The average flow rate of the
wastewater stream and the brown stock pulp flow rate from the sampled bleach line(s) for
the composite period were used to calculate production normalized loads for each mill. The
self-monitoring data submitted by industry resulted from a wide range of analyses varying
from one pollutant in one stream at some mills to many pollutants in many streams at other
mills. Some of the industry-collected samples were grab samples and others were composite
samples. Furthermore, sample-specific wastewater flow rates and brown stock pulp flow
rates were not provided for any of these samples. To calculate mass loadings from these
data, average annual flow rates for each mill (bleach plant effluent, final effluent, and brown
stock pulp) were obtained from responses to the 1990 questionnaire and questionnaire
follow-up letters. Production normalized mass loadings using self-monitoring analytical data
were calculated using the following types of flow data:
• The average annual (1989) bleach plant flow rate reported by each mill in its
questionnaire was used. For mills that responded to Question 46 (flows for
combined or separate acid and alkaline bleach plant sewers), these flow rates
were used. For mills that responded to Question 47 (total wastewater
discharged from the bleaching area), half of this flow was attributed to the
acid sewer and half to the alkaline sewer. This determination is based upon
10-13
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
flow data where acid filtrate and alkaline filtrate flows were separately
reported.
• The average annual final effluent flow rate reported by each mill for each of
the years 1989, 1990, and 1991 was used. Each mill reported 1989
information in the questionnaire and mills that indicated they had made
process changes in 1990 and 1991 provided flow rate data for those years.
Final effluent chemical concentration data obtained during 1989 were used
with the 1989 annual average flow rate, while final effluent chemical
concentration data from 1990 or 1991 were used with the average annual flow
rate for each of those years, if available. When chemical concentration data
were available for a year in which an average annual flow rate was not
available, the flow rate from the previous year was used.
• A single average annual brown stock pulp flow rate reported by each mill was
used. For most mills, the flow rate used was the 1989 rate obtained from the
1990 questionnaire. However, many mills submitted more recent brown stock
pulp flow rates. The most recent data available from each mill were used.
103.1 Estimation of Baseline Loadings
Baseline loadings were estimated for selected priority and noiiconventional pollutants in the
bleach plant effluent and final effluent for each mill. The information needed to estimate
baseline pollutant mass loadings was not available for all mills for a particular date;
however, much information was available about each mill from mid-1988 through 1992. The
Agency used the most recent information about each mill from the four databases (104-Mill
Study, short-term study, long-term study, and industry self-monitoring data) to estimate
baseline loadings for each pollutant at each mill as of January 1, 1993, the same date used
to establish the baseline technology in place at each mill for the purpose of estimating
compliance costs.
For mills that made recent process changes, only analytical data obtained after the most
recent process change were used to determine baseline pollutant mass loadings for those
mills. For this discussion, the relevant process changes are those that relate to the various
technology options described in Section 9.0. For example, increasing chlorine dioxide
substitution to 100 percent is relevant, but adding a new lime kiln is not.
_
The following example explains how chemical concentration data were used in calculating
baseline loadings. A hypothetical mill reported that it increased its chlorine dioxide
substitution on June 15, 1991 to 100 percent and that the process change stabilized on July
1, 1991. Because the Agency was not aware of any subsequent process changes related to
the technology options, it was assumed that the mill used the same chlorine dioxide
10-14
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
substitution from July 1, 1991 through January 1, 1993. Therefore, any chemical
concentration data submitted by this mill during this period were used to represent baseline
for this mill and any data submitted prior to July 1, 1991 were disregarded. If a null
reported making no process changes (related to the various technology options) since it
submitted its response to the 1990 questionnaire (1989 information), the time period was
assumed to extend from January 1, 1989 through January 1, 1993.
Very limited use was made of 104-Mill Study data. For most mills, these data are not
representative of the amount of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF discharged as of January 1,
1993. When a mill did not report making any process changes subsequent to the 104-Mill
Study and did not submit more recent data, the 104-Mill Study data were used. Except for
104-Mill Study data, no other chemical concentration data obtained prior to January 1,1989
were used to estimate baseline loadings.
Sufficient chemical analytical and flow data were not available to calculate baseline loadings
for all pollutants at all mills. The following approach was used to estimate baseline loadings
at mills where data were not available. Each mill in the four wood chemical pulping and
bleaching subcategories was classified into a group (referred to as a technology group) based
upon the pulping and bleaching processes used by the mill. The technology groups into
which the mills were divided are described below:
Technology
Group
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Technology Group Description
Mills that do not use chlorine dioxide for bleaching.
Mills that use low (less than 30 percent) chlorine dioxide
substitution and do not use split addition, oxygen delignification, or
extended cooking.
Mills that use split addition of chlorine and chlorine dioxide in the
first bleaching stage.
Mills that use chlorine dioxide substitution and a chlorine multiple
less than or equal to 0.15 (approximately 70 percent).
Mills that use chlorine dioxide substitution and oxygen
delignification.
Mills that use extended cooking.
Mills that use chlorine dioxide substitution, oxygen deh'gnification,
and extended cooking.
10-15
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, the groups described above were
further divided into subgroups. Table 10-10 shows the subgroups and the criteria used to
classify each of the bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. The criteria for the various
subgroups included the gaseous chlorine multiple or percent chlorine dioxide substitution
in the first stage of bleaching, whether hypochlorite was used in the bleach sequence, and
whether the mill met the technology basis of the associated BAT option for its subcategory
and technology group.
Besides the pulping and bleaching technologies, fiber furnish was also considered when
estimating baseline pollutant loadings for each mill. Each mill was classified as to whether
it pulps hardwood or softwood. Mills that pulp both hardwood and softwood were classified
as softwood, because mass loadings of most pollutants are greater for mills that pulp
softwood than for those that pulp hardwood. However, for mills that provided analytical
data during production Of both hardwood and softwood, these data were averaged to
determine baseline loadings for these mills. Therefore, the Agency does not believe that
baseline loadings have been overestimated for the mills that pulp both hardwood and
softwood.
Each bleach line at each mill was classified by its technology group (or subgroup) and fiber
furnish. In general, the technology groups of different bleach lines at a particular mill were
the same. Because of this, and because the self-monitoring data were usually not specified
by bleach line, it was necessary to assign each mill a single classification. For mills with
multiple bleach lines and/or mills that use different bleach sequences on a particular line,
the one group/subgroup classification judged to best model the mill's pollutant discharge
was assigned to the mill. This classification corresponded to the technology group assigned
to the bleach line with the lower level of bleaching technology. For example, if the bleach
lines at a mill with two lines were classified as technology groups A and B, the mill's
classification would be A. Therefore, for mills with multiple bleach lines or modes of
operation, one bleach plant production normalized loading was calculated for each pollutant,
not separate loadings for each bleach line.
Data were transferred to mills for which baseline loading data were not available in any of
the four databases for a particular pollutant. These data were estimated by calculating an
average loading from data that were available in each database from other mills in the same
subcategory, in the same technology group or subgroup, and with the same fiber furnish.
Data transfers were accomph'shed by using production normalized loadings (kg/ADMT).
An average loading was calculated for each mill from data in each database. Loadings for
all mills in a particular group were then averaged to arrive at a single production
normalized loading for the group. This value was then transferred to mills in the group for
which baseline data were not available.
10-16
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
For example, if no data were available for chloroform from a bleached papergrade kraft
(BPK) mill in technology subgroup Al that pulps softwood, the data that would
preferentially be transferred to that mill would be the average chloroform loading from all
other BPK mills (from all data sources) in subgroup Al that pulp softwood. If no other
chloroform data were available from any other BPK mill in subgroup Al that pulps
softwood, the data transferred to this mill would preferentially be the average chloroform
loading for all BPK mills in technology group A that pulp softwood.
For some pollutants (particularly chlorinated phenolic compounds), this methodology could
not be implemented because there were not enough data available for certain pollutants in
bleach plant and final effluents. When this situation arose, loadings data were transferred,
based upon best professional judgment, from mills with the most similar operations for
which data were available.
For example, data were not available for chloroform (at the bleach plant or final effluent)
for BPK mills in technology subgroup A2 that pulp hardwood. Furthermore, because all of
the BPK group A mills pulping hardwood are in subgroup A2 (meaning no data were
available from subgroup Al), a group A chloroform average could not be calculated.
Therefore, the production normalized mass loadings for chloroform that were transferred
to the BPK, subgroup A2, hardwood mills came from the average of the chloroform data
available for BPK, group B, hardwood mills, based upon best professional judgment.
The baseline pollutant loadings for priority and nonconventional pollutants in final effluents
by subcategory are summarized in Table 10-11.
10.3.2 Pollutant Mass Loadings After Implementation of the Options
Data characterizing each technology option were used to estimate average production
normalized mass loadings for the pollutants listed in Table 10-9 for bleach plant and final
effluents. The. calculation of these average pollutant mass loadings is briefly described
below, and is described in more detail in a separate document (3). The calculation of these
average pollutant mass loadings is similar to the calculation of long-term averages as
described in the Statistical Support Document.
The loadings representing the performance of the technology options were calculated from
data from the short-term study, the long-term study, and from non-U.S. mills. For most
options, data were available from one mill. Where data were available from more than one
mill, a combined loading was calculated by weighting the loadings from each mill by the
number of analytical measurements available from each mill.
The loadings representing the long-term performance of each technology option were
determined by fitting a modified delta-lognormal distribution to the daily production
10-17
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
normalized loads from the mills representing each option. The mean of the distribution was
used in the pollutant reduction calculations. The modified delta-lognormal distribution and
the reasons for its selection are described in the Statistical Support Document. Bleach plant
loadings (for some pollutants) and final effluent loadings were calculated for each
technology option.
For technology options where a pollutant was seldom or never detected, the calculated final
effluent loadings were often greater than the calculated bleach plant loadings. The Agency
assumed that the higher calculated final effluent loadings resulted from greater flow volumes
of the final effluent as compared to bleach plant flow volumes. This assumption was
supported by comparing the loadings; in most cases, calculated final effluent loadings were
larger than calculated bleach plant effluent loadings when the pollutants were not detected
at either location. At pulp mills, chlorinated compounds are generally introduced only in
the bleach plant, and it is reasonable to assume that only in the bleach plant are chlorinated
by-products (pollutants) generated. Therefore, theoretically, the loadings of chlorinated
compounds in the final effluent cannot exceed those in the bleach plant effluent.
Consequently, where the calculated final effluent loading was greater than the bleach plant
loading for a specific chlorinated compound, the bleach plant loading was used as the final
effluent loading.
The performance of the dissolving and papergrade sulfite totally chlorine-free (TCP)
bleaching options were not determined as described above because the Agency did not have
sufficient performance data. Instead, the Agency assumed the discharge loads of specific
chlorinated organic pollutants were zero. A final effluent AOX loading of 0.1 kg/ADMT,
based on reported data, was used. Also, because the Agency has no data to characterize
the performance of the TCP options hi controlling acetone and methyl ethyl ketone,
reductions of these pollutants were not estimated. However, data that may be received
prior to promulgation will be considered in developing bleach plant and final effluent
loadings and any appropriate limitations for these pollutants.
10.3.3 Pollutant Reductions
Pollutant reductions were calculated by comparing the baseline pollutant mass loadings for
each mill with the estimated average pollutant mass loadings of each technology option. If
the baseline loading for a mill was greater than the estimated average loading for an option,
the pollutant reduction achieved for that mill and option was the difference between the
baseline loading and the estimated average loading (kg/ADMT) for the option. If the
baseline loading for a mill is already lower than the estimated average loading for the
option, no pollutant reduction was achieved for that mill and option (the pollutant reduction
was zero).
10-18
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
The pollutant reductions (in kg/ADMT) were then multiplied by the annual production
(ADMT/yr) for each mill to convert the pollutant reduction to kg/yr. The pollutant
reductions in kg/yr calculated for each mill for a particular option, were summed to
estimate the total pollutant reduction resulting from the option.
Tables 10-12 through 10-15 summarize the pollutant reductions in final effluent for each
BAT option for each subcategory, respectively, for direct discharging mills. Table 10-16
summarizes the pollutant reductions in effluent discharged from POTWs to the environment
for indirect discharging mills (PSES).
As can be seen in Tables 10-12 through 10-16, the estimated reductions for most pollutants
increase with the more advanced technology options. For example, in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory (see Table 10-13), the estimated pollutant reduction
for AOX increases from 10,800 to 29,900 kkg/yr from Option 1 to Option 5. For some
pollutants, such as 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the pollutant reduction estimates for several options are
similar because implementing these options is expected to reduce current discharges of this
pollutant to non-detect levels. In Table 10-13, for example, all of the options show nearly
the same pollutant reduction for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in the
effluent at any of the mills but was detected in the bleach plant effluent at the mills
representing Options 1, 2, and 3.
The bleach plant effluent pollutant reductions estimated for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda Subcategory (for Option 4) are 517 g/yr for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF,
2,160 kkg/yr for volatile organics (acetone, chloroform, methylene chloride, and methyl ethyl
ketone), and 43,800 kkg/yr for AOX. These reductions are greater than the reductions
shown in Table 10-13 for these pollutants in final effluents. This indicates that the process
modifications reduce pollutant loadings to wastewaters, as well as in sludge and air
emissions. This same trend is observed for mills in other subcategories where sufficient data
are available. The Agency believes that these bleach plant effluent pollutant reductions
(that exceed final effluent reductions) are pollution prevention benefits attributable to
process changes, which are important multimedia source reduction components of the
proposed integrated rules. Prior to promulgation of these rules, the Agency will consider
how these pollution prevention benefits can be factored into the analysis of final options.
10.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand
Reductions in chemical oxygen demand (COD) discharge loads were estimated for each mill
in the chemical pulping subcategories for which COD limitations were proposed:
• Dissolving Kraft,
• Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda,
• Unbleached Kraft,
10-19
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
• Papergrade Sulfite, and
• Semi-Chemical.
The load reduction at each mill was calculated as the difference between the baseline
discharge load and the estimated discharge load associated with the COD control option.
Calculation of baseline and discharges associated with the COD control option are discussed
below. These mill-by-mill load reductions were summed across all mills to provide total
subcategory load reductions.
10.4.1 Estimation of Baseline Loadings
Production normalized COD data were available for 19 mills in the five subcategories where
COD limitations were proposed. Data were available from either the short-term study, or
were provided by the mill in their response to the 1990 questionnaire. COD discharge loads
at these facilities are presented in Table 10-17. For these facilities, baseline COD discharge
loads (kkg/yr) were calculated by multiplying the mill's production normalized discharge
load (kg/ADMT) by the mill's 1989 brown stock pulp production rate (ADMT/yr) obtained
from the 1990 questionnaire.
Because current COD discharge load data were not available for the remaining facilities,
the production normalized COD discharge loads for these facilities were estimated based
on BOD5 loads, using a relationship between COD and BOD3. For many types of wastes,
it is possible to correlate COD with BOD5 (4). While COD and BOD5 are correlated in
treated pulp and paper industry wastewaters, there is variation in the relationship of COD
to BOD5, based on mill-specific factors. These factors include type of pulping process
(subcategory designation) and level of pulping liquor loss control.
Within each subcategory, the level of pulping liquor loss control was classified depending
on whether the mill operated a closed brown stock pulp screen room, and whether best
management practices for pulping liquor spill control were implemented, using the following
matrix:
Screen Room
Status
Closed
Closed
Closed
BMP Implementation
Status '
Good
Fair
Poor
Pulping Liquor Loss
Control Status
Good
Good
Fair
10-20
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
Screen, Room
Status
Open
Open
Open
BMP Implementation
Status
Good
Fan-
Poor
Pulping Liquor Loss
Control Status
Fair
Poor
Poor
Based on available data, average COD/BOD5 ratios were established as shown below:
Subcategory
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Dissolving Kraft
Unbleached Kraft
Papergrade Sulfite
Level of Pulping
Liquor Loss Control
Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Poor
COB/BOD* Ratio
15.9
18.7
20.2
16.5
13.7
18.0
17
27
These data suggest that as pulping liquor loss control improves, the ratio of COD to BOD5
decreases. This relationship is not surprising, because pulping liquors exert a high chemical
oxygen demand and can also be difficult to biodegrade.
These COD/BOD5 ratios were used to estimate baseline COD discharge loads at mills
where COD data were not available, based on available BOD5 data, and the status of
pulping liquor loss control:
10-21
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
COD
BASE
(COD/BOD5)
(11)
where:
CODBASE
BODBASE
Mill baseline COD discharge load,, kg/yr
Mill baseline BOD5 discharge load, kg/yr (as described in
Section 10.2.1)
COD/BOD5 = COD/BOD5 ratio.
For example, a bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill has a closed screen room and is
judged to have good implementation of best management practices. Therefore, this mill has
good pulping liquor loss control and is estimated to have a COD/BOD5 ratio of 15.9. The
BODj discharge load at this mill, based on data reported in the 1990 questionnaire, is
2,020,000 kg BOD5/yr. The COD discharge load is calculated as:
(2,020,000 kg BOD5/yr) (15.9 COD/BOD5) = 32,100,000 kg COD/yr
The baseline COD discharge loads for indirect discharging mills were calculated as above,
using the BOD5 load currently discharged by the POTW to the receiving body of water,
calculated as described in Section 10.2.5.
The baseline COD discharge loads are summarized for each subcategory in Table 10-18.
10.4.2 COD Loadings After Implementation of COD Control Option
The performance levels for the COD control option hi each subcategory, as described in
Section 9.4, are listed below:
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
70.3 kg/ADMT
21.3 kg/ADMT
20.8 kg/ADMT
63.7 kg/ADMT
20.8 kg/ADMT
The estimated discharge load after implementation of the COD control option at each mill
was calculated by using a production-weighted average of the COD performance levels listed
above for each subcategory in which the mill had production. This calculation is identical
to that described in Section 10.2.2, and is illustrated by the following example.
10-22
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
Example Mill 2 has 500,000 ADMT/yr chemical pulp production in two subcategories as
shown below:
Subcategory
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Percent of Final
Production
23.3
76.7
COB Performance i
Level (fcg/ADMf)
21.3
20.8
Using Equation (1):
" % P.
PNL, = V" - (PNL);
^ tf 100 V ''
and substituting data specific to this mill:
COD PNLj. = (0.233) (21.3) + (0.767) (20.8) = 20.9 kg/ADMT
To calculate the annual discharge of COD after implementation of the COD control option,
the above calculated target production normalized load is multiplied by the total annual
brown stock pulp production:
(20.9 —kg ) (500,000 ADMT) = 10,450,000 kg COD/yr
v ADMT' v yr ' * /y
10.4.3 Pollutant Reductions
For each mill, the pollutant load reduction was calculated as the difference between the
baseline discharge and the COD control option discharge. If the baseline discharge was
lower than the control option discharge, the load reduction was estimated to be zero. If all
of the chemical pulp production at a mill was in one subcategory, the load reduction was
attributed to that subcategory. If the production was in more than one subcategory, the load
reduction was attributed to each subcategory to which the COD control option applies on
a production-weighted basis. The estimated COD load reduction for each subcategory is
shown on Table 10-19.
10-23
-------
10.0 Pollutant Reduction Estimates
10.5 References
1. Harris, R.W., M.J. Cullinane, and P.T. Sun, eds. Process Design and Cost Estimating
Algorithms for the Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET). United States Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1982. (Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency).
2. Personal communication with J. Floyd Byrd, October 27, 1992.
3. Radian Corporation. Methodology for Determining BAT Pollutant Loadings For the
Revision of Pulp and Paper Effluent Limitation Guidelines. Radian Corporation,
Herndon, Virginia, June 2, 1993.
4. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal, Reuse,
Second Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 1979. pp. 96.
10-24
-------
Table 10-1
Baseline Conventional Pollutant Loadings
for Direct Discharging Mills
Subcategory(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non- Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
BODS
(kkg/yr)
6,910
73,400
31,200
22,400
8,860
3,970
8,560
276
4,450
8,980
7,830
5,570
182,000
TSS
(kfcgM)
9,870
110,000
48,200
30,600
12,100
6,080
14,400
282
6,240
12,200
10,200
5,450
266,000
(a)Baseline pollutant loads for mills with operations in more than one subcategory have been apportioned based
upon annual production (OMMT) in the subcategories to which each regulation applies.
10-25
-------
Table 10-2
Total Conventional Pollutant Reductions Resulting From
BPT Options 1 and 2
Subcategory(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
BPT Option 1 Reductions
-------
Table 10-3
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated With BAT
SubcategoryCa)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non- Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
BAT/B0I>5 Reductions at
BPT Option 1
-------
Table 10-4
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated With NESHAP
Subcategoiy(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non- Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
Condensate Stripping/BOO,
Reductions at BPT Option 1
,
-------
Table 10-5
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated With BMP
SubcategoryCa)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non- Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
BMP/B00«r Reductions at
BPT Option 1
(kkg/yr)
407
1,510
519
368
433
0
NA
22
NA
NA
NA
NA
3,260 .
BMJP/BODij Reductions at
BPT Option -2
Oskg/j*)
407
1,900 •
1,480
840
436
0
NA
24
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,090
(a)Reductions for mills with final production in more than one subcategory to which BMP applies have been
apportioned based upon annual production (OMMT) in the subcategories to which BMP applies.
NA - Conventional pollutant reductions associated with BMP are not applicable to this subcategory and BPT
Option.
10-29
-------
Table 10-6
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated With the
BPT Technology Bases
Subcategory(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non- Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
BPT Option 1 Reductions
-------
Table 10-7
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated With BCT Option A.2
Subcategory(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
BCT Reductions, Option A3 j
-------
Table 10-8
Conventional Pollutant Reductions Associated With PSES(a)
Subcategory(b)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
PSES Reductions "" '
(kkg/yr)
BOD..
' ' ' .,' A
0
3,130
123
0
14
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3,320
, "iJrJSS
0
1,190
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,190
(a)Pollutant reductions resulting from PSES Options 1 and 2 are equal.
(b)Reductions for mills with final production in more than one subcategory to which PSES applies have been
apportioned based upon annual production (OMMT) in the subcategories to which PSES applies.
NA - Conventional pollutant reductions associated with PSES are not applicable to this subcategory.
10-32
-------
Table 10-9
Priority and Nonconventional Pollutants for Which
Pollutant Reductions Were Calculated
Priority and Nonconventional Pollutants
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
2-Propanone (Acetone)
2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone)
4-Chlorophenol
4-Chlorocatechol
6-Chlorovanillin
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
4,5-Dichloirocatechol
5,6-Dichlorovanillin
2,6-Dichlorosyringaldehyde
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol
Trichlorosyringol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Tetrachlorocatechol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
Pentachlorophenol
Adsorbable Organic Halides
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzoruran
10-33
-------
Table 10-10
Technology Subgroups for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Group
A
B
C
D
E
Subgroup
A(a)
Al
A2
B(b)
Bl
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
C(a)
Cl
C2/C3
C4
D(a)
Dl
D2
D3
E(a)
El
E2
E3
Option
1
2(b)
3(b)
3/4
™ ----"--' ; Description
Mills that do not use chlorine dioxide for bleaching (and do not use oxygen
delignification or extended cooking).
Mills with bleach sequences of CEH or CEHH.
Mills with other bleach sequences.
Mills that use some chlorine dioxide and do not use split addition, oxygen
delignification, or extended cooking.
Mills that use hypochlorite that have gaseous chlorine multiples >0.22.
Mills that do not use hypochlorite that have gaseous chlorine multiples >0.22.
Mills that use hypochlorite that have gaseous chlorine multiples from 0.17 to
0.22.
Mills that do not use hypochlorite that have gaseous chlorine multiples from
0.17 to 0.22.
Mills that use hypochlorite that have gaseous chlorine multiples <0.17.
Mills that do not use hypochlorite that have gaseous chlorine multiples <0.17.
Mills that use split addition of chlorine in the first stage of bleaching.
Mills that use hypochlorite.
Mills that use more than 30% chlorine dioxide substitution.
Mills that represent Option 1.
Mills with high chlorine dioxide substitution (>50%).
Mills with high chlorine dioxide substitution that use hypochlorite.
Mills with high chlorine dioxide substitution that do not use hypochlorite.
Mills that have 100% chlorine dioxide substitution that do not use
hypochlorite.
Mills that use chlorine dioxide substitution and oxygen delignification.
Mills with less than 50% chlorine dioxide substitution.
Mills with greater than 50% chlorine dioxide substitution.
Mills that represent Option 3 or 4.
10-34
-------
Table 10-10
(Continued)
Gicoup
F
G
Subgroup
F
Fl
F2
F3
F4
G
Optieia
3/4
5(b)
Description
Mills that use extended cooking that represent Option 3 or 4.
Mills that have chlorine dioxide substitution and use hypochlorite.
Mills that have no chlorine dioxide substitution and use hypochlorite.
Mills that have gaseous chlorine multiples <0.20.
Mills that have gaseous chlorine multiples >0.20.
Mills that use both extended cooking and oxygen delignification that have
chlorine dioxide substitution and do not use hypochlorite.
(a)The technologies described for this group also apply to each of the subgroups (i.e., mills in subgroups Al and A2 have
the technology described for mills in group A).
(b)Some mills in this subgroup meet the technology basis of the option indicated.
10-35
-------
Table 10-11
Baseline Loadings for Priority and Nonconventional
Pollutants in Final Effluents
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2A7.8-TCDF
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
MEK
Acetone
Total Chlorinated
Phenolics(b)
AOX
Units
g/yr
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Dissolving
Kraft
2.0
25
5.9
1.5
2.6
7.1
5.8
2,290
Bleached
Papergrade
Kraft and
Soda
57
266
919
26
141
126
1,490
36,700
Dissoiying
Sulfite
1.0
2.7
71
0.4
5.8
26
6.8
2,180
Papergrade
Sulfite
0.91
7.3
18
2.1
6.8
23
19
5,350
Indirect
Discharge
Mills(a)
9.6
40
125
1.5
7.8
14
27
4,550
(a)Basclinc loading discharged from POTWs to the environment.
(b)Sum of baseline loadings for the 20 chlorinated phenolic compounds listed in Table 10-9.
10-36
-------
Table 10-12
Pollutant Reduction of BAT Options For the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
MEK
Acetone
Total Chlorinated Phenolics(a)
AOX
Pollutant Redaction in Final Effluent
Units
g/F
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Option 1
1.8
24
0.0
1.2
0.94
0.0
2.6
230
Option 2 i
1.8
25
5.4
1.3
1.8
4.0
3.5
1,670
Option 3
1.9
25
5.6
1.2
1.3
0.0
4.8
2,100
(a)Sum of pollutant reductions for the 20 chlorinated phenolic compounds listed in Table 10-9.
Option 1 is based on high chlorine dioxide substitution.
Option 2 is based on oxygen delignification and high chlorine dioxide substitution (approximately 70%).
Option 3 is based on oxygen delignification and 100% chlorine dioxide substitution.
10-37
-------
Table 10-13
Pollutant Reduction of BAT Options For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform ,
Methylene Chloride
MEK
Acetone
Total Chlorinated Phenolics(a)
AOX
PoUutant Reduction in Final Effluent ' '" '
Units
g/F
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Option t
48
253
867
20
95
21
1,410
10,800
Options
53
262
790
22
110
11
1,390
8,550
Option 3
53
263
910
24
125
68
1,440
25,400
Option 4
54
263
913
21
115
15
1,470
32,900
Option 5
54
263
913
25
113 •
36
! 1,460
29,900
(a)Sum of pollutant reductions for the 20 chlorinated phenolic compounds listed in Table 10-9.
Option 1 is based on split addition of chlorine and chlorine dioxide.
Option 2 is based on high chlorine dioxide substitution (approximately 70%).
Option 3 is based on oxygen delignification and high chlorine dioxide substitution, (approximately 70%).
Option 4 is based on oxygen delignification and 100% chlorine dioxide substitution.
Option 5 is based on extended cooking, oxygen delignification, and 100% chlorine dioxide substitution.
10-38
-------
Table 10-14
Pollutant Reduction of BAT Options For Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
MEK
Acetone
Total Chlorinated Phenolics(a)
AOX
Pollutant Redaction in Final Effluent
Units ;
g/y
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Option 1
0.37
2.0
54
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
1,010
Option 2
0.99
2.7
71
0.45
N/A
N/A
6.8
2,080
N/A - Data not available.
(a)Sum of pollutant reductions for the 20 chlorinated phenolic compounds listed in Table 10-9.
Option 1 is based on oxygen delignification and chlorine dioxide substitution (hypochlorite is not eliminated).
Option 2 is based on totally chlorine-free bleaching.
10-39
-------
Table 10-15
Pollutant Reduction of BAT Options For Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2^,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
MEK
Acetone
Total Chlorinated Phenolics(a)
AOX
Pollutant Reductions in Final Effluent
Units
g/F
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
, Option 1
0.54
6.7
9.4
1.1
1.1
0.0
15
4,460
Option 2
0.91
7.3
18
2.1
N/A
N/A
19
5,250
N/A - Data not available.
(a)Sum of pollutant reductions for the 20 chlorinated phenolic compounds listed in Table 10-9.
Option 1 is based on oxygen delignification, chlorine dioxide substitution, and elimination of hypochlorite.
Option 2 is based on totally chlorine-free bleaching.
10-40
-------
Table 10-16
Pollutant Reductions for PSES
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
MEK
Acetone
Total Chlorinated Phenolics(c)
AOX
Pollutant Reduction in Final ESluent(a)
Units
g/yr
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Selected Option(b)
.9.4
40
124
1.0
5.3
1.8
26
4,250
(a)Effluent discharged from POTWs to the environment.
(b)The selected option has the same technology basis as BAT Option 4 for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and BAT Option 2 for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory.
(c)Sum of pollutant reductions for the 20 chlorinated phenolic compounds listed in Table 10-9.
10-41
-------
Table 10-17
Summary of Available COD Data
Chemical Pulping Subcategories
Observation
1
2
3 ,
4
5
6
7
8
9 .
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'Vi&ij
s\?
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Papergrade Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Unbleached Kraft
Unbleached Kraft
Unbleached Kraft
Final
Effluent
€OUHx>ad
(kg/ADMT)
703
14.4
23.5
23.8
25.1
26.8
32.4
35.6
41.6
59.6
60.9
69.5
72.8
253
63.7
200
17.4
19.9
21.6
Final
Effluent
BOJ>« Load
4.26
1.25
1.08
1.45
1.61
1.92
3.78
1.63
1.31
2.16
4.92
5.69
6.15
N/A
3.81
7.42
2.34
.1.58
1.72
N/A - BODj data that reliably correspond to COD data are not available.
10-42
-------
Table 10-18
Baseline COD Discharge Load
•" f f
•••• m'sS- '• %O ^ !
r% Ssii^ategoty^a) :
V. % ; •. ,
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Papergrade Sulfite
Dissolving Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Total
Bireg$ £&&ii&ng$i$
'" ;/$&%/wy -~
nd
1,590,000
705,000
270,000
nd
107,000
3,010,000
" ladireet l>iseliiargers{lj) i
i -' <"t^>^ - ;
0
121,000
43,900
4,080
0
2,000
171,000
(a)Baseline pollutant loads for mills with operations in more than one subcategory have been
apportioned based on annual production (OMMT) in the subcategories to which each
regulation applies.
(b)Estimated COD load discharged by POTWs to receiving waters.
nd - Not disclosed to prevent compromising confidential business information.
10-43
-------
Table 10-19
Reduction in Annual Discharge of COD After Implementation
of BAT and PSES Regulations
•"••''• :
s ^ •.••
•>' \
$ubeateg0*y(a) Tj
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Papergrade Sulfite
Dissolving Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Total
Direct PissKhaj^rsi
«/"v ' -, , :
0
82,300
20,800
1,860
0
1,180
106,000
(a)Reductions for mills with final production in more than one subcategory have been
apportioned based on annual production (OMMT) in the subcategories to which each
regulation applies.
(b)Estimated reduction hi treated effluent discharged by POTWs to receiving waters.
NC - Not calculated.
10-44
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.0 COSTS OF TECHNOLOGY BASES FOR REGULATIONS
Effluent limitations guidelines and standards establish quantitative limits on the discharge
of pollutants to waters of the United States. The limits are based upon the performance of
specific technologies, but do not require the use of any specific technology. Effluent
limitations guidelines are applied to individual facilities through National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by EPA or authorized states under
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Each facility then chooses its own approach to comply
with its permit limitations.
The technologies considered as the bases for Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT), Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES), Best Practicable
Control Technology (BPT), and Best Management Practices (BMP) were described in
Section 8.0. Section 9.0 described the combination of these technologies into options for
pulping and bleaching process changes, end-of-pipe wastewater treatment, and internal
controls. Section 11.0 describes the methodology used to calculate the costs to the industry
of implementing each of the technology options.
From an overall mill perspective, there is considerable overlap among the technology
options for each of the regulations. For example, the final effluent limitations for toxic and
conventional pollutants regulated under BAT depend not only upon the pulping and
bleaching process changes that comprise the BAT options, but also upon effective end'-of-
pipe biological treatment, which is the basis of the BPT options. Thus, the costing effort
for each regulation for a mill assumed that the technologies included in the other effluent
guidelines regulations applicable to that mill were in place.
Section 11.1 describes the calculation of costs of pulping and bleaching process changes for
BAT and PSES. Section 11.2 describes the calculation of costs for BAT chemical oxygen
demand (COD) control technologies. Section 11.3 discusses the costs of steam stripping of
pulping area condensates, a technology that was included in the technology options for the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). BOD5 load
reductions associated with steam stripping pulping area condensates were considered when
BPT costs were developed. Section 11.4 discusses the calculation of costs for BMP. Section
11.5 describes the calculation of costs for flow reduction, which was also part of the BPT
options. Section 11.6 describes BPT end-of-pipe treatment costing.
11.1 Costs of Pollution Preventing Process Changes
As described in Section 9.4, various in-plant pollution prevention measures have been
selected by the Agency as the basis for BAT for the different types of bleached chemical
pulp mills in the U.S. These technologies also represent the basis for bleach plant effluent
standards under PSES and part of the basis for the pulp and paper NESHAP. Section 11.1
describes the method used to estimate the capital and annual operating costs of
11-1
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
implementing pulping and bleaching area process changes for the mills in the following
subcategories: Dissolving Kraft, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda, Dissolving Sulfite,
and Papergrade Sulfite. The estimated costs for these mills to implement each technology
option are also summarized.
It is important to note that implementation of the technologies that comprise the process
change options is not required to comply with BAT or PSES. The technologies were used
as the basis for the development of numerical limitations and standards for bleach plant and
end-of-pipe discharges, and the cost of implementing the technologies at each mill was
calculated to provide an estimate of the compliance cost for the industry to meet the
numerical limitations or standards. However, the technologies are not required under BAT
or PSES.
11.1.1 Methodology for Estimating Costs of Pollution Preventing Process Changes
Estimating the costs of pollution preventing process changes involved selecting a costing
approach, developing a cost model, and compiling the operating, design, and cost data
necessary to execute the cost model. Each of these steps is described in the sections below.
11.1.1.1
Costing Approach and Sources of Information
The Agency selected a mill-by-mill costing approach rather than a model-mill approach to
estimate the cost of the BAT and PSES process change options. The mill-by-mill approach
was selected to account for the wide variation hi pulping area and bleach plant design and
operation across the industry. Detailed information on pulping area and bleach plant
operation was available to the Agency from the mill responses to the 1990 questionnaire and
follow-up correspondence. Additional information was obtained from telephone contact
with mills, mill site visits, and publications by the pulp and paper industry. Using this
information, the Agency was able to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the equipment
and technologies in place at each mill as of January 1, 1993.
The technology in place at each mill as of January 1,1993 was compared to the BAT/PSES
process change options to determine whether existing equipment should be upgraded or
additional equipment should be added to achieve option level performance. Because mill
performance data for all pollutants of concern to the Agency at appropriate discharge
locations were not available, the Agency could not directly compare actual mill performance
with the BAT or PSES option performance levels. The Agency believes this approach tends
to overestimate costs, because option level performance nray be achievable without using
all of the components of the technology option. Thus, costs were estimated to implement
process change technologies for some mills even though they may already achieve bleach
plant and end-of-pipe discharge loads equal to or less than the proposed BAT and PSES
limitations.
11-2
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.1.1.2
Source of Cost Model
The Ministry of the Environment in Ontario, Canada developed a spreadsheet cost model
to calculate costs for technology options identified as "Best Available Technology" as part
of the development of the Pulp and Paper Sector Effluent Limits regulation for the Province
(1). This model estimates costs for both in-plant pollution prevention measures and end-of-
pipe wastewater treatment. Based upon a detailed review of this model, EPA determined
that, with some modification and updating, the model was appropriate to use as a costing
tool for the proposed BAT and PSES regulations.
The cost model runs on Quattro-Pro® software. It consists of a main spreadsheet for each
subcategory containing the equations and assumptions that determine the equipment,
chemicals, energy, and labor required for each technology option. The main spreadsheet
is linked with three external spreadsheets containing appropriate constants, factors, and cost
equations to estimate capital and operating costs for each technology option. Site-specific
pulping and bleaching data for each mill are entered into the main spreadsheet, and
appropriate equations are applied to the mill for each technology option evaluated. A copy
of the main spreadsheet and each external spreadsheet can be found in the Record for the
Rulemaking. Mill-specific data, however, are not included in the spreadsheets found in the
Public Record.
The capital and annual operating costs calculated using the cost model are incremental, and
reflect the costs a mill would incur in implementing any new technologies beyond the mill's
current operating budget. For example, if a mill upgrades or enlarges a system, its repair
and maintenance budget would be expected to increase proportionally (a conservative
assumption). If a mill replaces an existing system with a new one, it is assumed that the
current repair and maintenance budget would suffice, and the incremental operating and
maintenance cost would be zero. In the second case, the estimate is also conservative,
because the new equipment would likely require less maintenance than did the older
equipment that was replaced.
11.1.1.3
Sources of Operating and Maintenance Costs
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs consist of the annual costs incurred by a mill for
raw materials, chemicals, energy, and operating and maintenance labor. O&M costs may
increase or decrease with new technology installation. A negative annual O&M cost
indicates that the cost of operating a new technology costs less than operating an older
technology, usually because of savings in chemical and energy use.
Costs for chemicals, energy, raw materials, and labor for the technologies included in the
BAT/PSES process change options were required to estimate the incremental operating
costs. Although costs were available from various engineering and trade journals, the
Agency solicited more representative data through a survey of 21 mills in six regions of the
11-3
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
U.S.: Alaska, Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and West Coast. Eighteen of the
21 mills responded to the survey. One mill not included 'in the survey voluntarily provided
cost data.
The operating costs reported by each mill were summarized by item, and the units were
standardized to metric. For each item, the Agency examined the ranges of operating costs
by region to assess whether use of a single nation-wide average cost or different regional
costs was more appropriate.
In general, the responses to the survey indicated that costs for each item were site-specific,
as opposed to region-specific. Based upon this finding, nation-wide averages were used to
estimate mill operating costs. Table 11-1 summarizes the operating costs derived from these
mill responses. The derivation of each cost is described in a memorandum entitled "Pulp
and Paper Operating Costs" dated September 1, 1993, found in the Record for the
Rulemaking.
11.1.1.4
Sources of Capital Costs
Capital costs consist of direct costs for equipment installation and labor and indirect costs
for engineering, project management, and overhead. Capital cost curves for the technologies
included in the BAT/PSES process change options were developed primarily using cost
information supplipd by selected pulp mills and major vendors of pulping and bleaching
technologies. Chemical pulping and bleaching mills that had installed the technologies of
interest were identified from responses to the 1990 questionnaire. Twenty-eight mills,
selected to represent a range 'of capacities and geographic locations, were surveyed for
capital cost information for one or more recently installed technologies. Responses were
received from 25 of the 28 mills. Major vendors were also requested to provide capital cost
information for equipment with various capacities. In addition, capital cost information was
obtained from other pulp and paper projects in the U.S. and Canada and from literature
sources. The mills and vendors were requested to provide as detailed a breakdown as
possible for the following capital costs:
Direct Installed Costs
Mechanical Equipment
Piping and Instrumentation
Foundations, Buildings, and Structural Components
Electrical Components
Site-specific Costs (site clearance, demolition, major utility runs, etc.)
11-4
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Actual Indirect Costs
Engineering
Other (contingencies, misc.)
Other Costs
License Fees
Land
The capital cost information received from mills and vendors was adjusted to fourth-quarter
1991 dollars by multiplying by a cost adjustment factor, based on the average of the
Chemical Engineering Equipment and Composite indices. The adjustment factors are shown
below.
1 Cost Adjustment Factors
Year
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Cost Factor
1.16
1.13
1.06
1.02
1.01
1.00
The capital costs were also adjusted to standardize the scope of the projects. In their
responses, most mills included capital costs that were incurred due to site-specific problems
(often space-availability problems). Because these costs are typical of retrofit projects in
mills, they were retained in the adjusted capital cost information to better reflect realistic
mill conditions. However, costs for equipment beyond what was necessary to install the
technology of interest were not included. In addition, the capacities associated with the
capital costs were converted to standard units. In certain cases, the reported capital costs
were adjusted to reflect the different labor rates, material prices, and different climates
across the U.S.
The adjusted costs and capacities for each technology of interest were then plotted, and a
curve was fitted to the data. From the fitted curve, an equation calculating the capital cost
of each technology was developed. This cost equation was used to scale the capital costs
for each mill's capacity and is of the form:
11-5
-------
11.0' Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
C = C0(Cap/Cap0)" (D
where:
= Calculated capital cost of the system in dollars
Qj = Base cost for a similar system of capacity Cap0
Cap = Capacity of the system for which the capital cost is being calculated
Cap0 = Capacity corresponding to the base cost C0
n = Index which reflects the economy of scale for adjusting equipment
costs for various capacities. The value most often used was 0.6, but
this value was adjusted to better fit the pattern of cost data for some
unit operations.
This type of equation is widely used to calculate preliminary capital cost estimates and to
scale known capital costs, as discussed in many engineering texts (2,3).
Table 11-2 presents the constants for the above equation developed from the cost curve for
each technology. A detailed description of the derivation of capital cost curves is provided
in a report entitled Development of Capital Cost Curves for Best Available Technology
Options for Chemical Pulp Mills That Bleach Wood, found in the Record for the
Rulemaking.
11.1.1.5
Effluent Monitoring Costs
Mills subject to BAT and PSES will be required to perform monitoring of bleach plant
effluent and final effluent streams as described in Section 15.4. The cost to develop a
bleach plant effluent flow monitoring station was included in the process change capital
costs and is discussed in a memorandum entitled "Bleach Plant Flow Monitoring Station
Costs," found in the Record for the Rulemakmg. The annual cost to a mill for chemical
analysis of the monitored effluents is discussed in this section.
11-6
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Monitoring costs were based oh the following effluent streams, analytes, and frequencies:
i
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD and TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Chlorinated Phenolics
AOX
COD
Color
Monitoring Frequency
Bleach Plant
Effluent
1 per month
1 per week(a)
1 per week(a)
1 per week(a)
1 per week(a)
1 per month
0
0
0
Final Effluent
1 per month
0
0
0
0
1 per month
1 per day
1 per day
1 per day
(a)Bleach plant acid and alkaline filtrates are to be sampled and analyzed separately for
volatile organics.
Note that while costs were included for monitoring 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and
chlorinated phenolics in the final effluent, effluent limitations guidelines are not proposed
for these constituents in final effluent. The Agency has determined that more direct and
adequate control of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and chlorinated phenolics is provided by
effluent h'mitations guidelines applicable to bleach plant effluents. The final .effluent
monitoring costs presented in this section therefore overestimate by 30 percent the actual
final effluent monitoring costs expected to be incurred.
Estimated costs for these analyses as of February 1993 were obtained from EPA's Sample
Control Center (SCC). These costs were discounted by an assumed factor of 25 percent to
account for the following: (1) the price difference between SCC laboratories and the
commercial laboratories that would be contracted by some of the industry to perform these
analyses; (2) the increase in volume of these analyses that will be performed as a result of
this regulation which would result in a decrease in costs; and (3) the use by some mills of
in-house laboratories rather than commercial laboratories. The discounted analytical prices
are shown below, along with the calculation of the total analytical costs for bleach plant
effluent and final effluent monitoring.
11-7
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Bleach plant Effluent
Analysis
2,3,7,8-TCDD/TCDF (including
secondary column confirmation)
Volatile organics
Chlorinated phenolics
Analytical
Method
1613A
1624C
1653
Cost per
Sample
$1563
$335
$613
Fluency
per Year
12
52x2
12
Cost per
Year
$18,756
$34,840
$7,356
TOTAL $60,952
The total shown above ($60,952) is the estimated annual analytical cost per bleach line for
BAT/PSES bleach plant monitoring.
Final Effluent
Analysis
2,3,7,8-TCDD/TCDF (including
secondary column confirmation)
Chlorinated phenolics
AOX
COD
Color(a)
Analytical
Method
1613A
1653
1650
410.1 and 410.2
NCASI Tech.
Bulletin #253
Cost per
Sample
$1563
$613
$ 124
$ 36
$ 11
Frequency
per Year
12
12
365
365
365
Cost pejf
Year
$18,756
$ 7,356
$45,260
$13,140
$ 4,015
' TOTAL $88,527
(a)Limitations for color proposed for only the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory.
The total shown above ($88,527) is the estimated annual analytical cost per mill for final
effluent BAT/PSES monitoring.
11.1.2 Conventions Used in the Cost Model
The cost model was developed based upon several assumptions regarding mill 'operating
conditions. The most basic assumption is that a mill will continue to produce the same
grades and quantities of pulp after implementing BAT and PSES process changes; therefore,
there was no speculation as to future market trends. The number of production days per
year at each mill is assumed to be 350 days; this number was used in calculating annual
costs. Also, each mill is assumed to have effective biological wastewater treatment
11-8
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
equivalent to BPT Option 2. Other assumptions and conventions used in the cost model are
described below.
11.1.2.1
Units of Measure
All calculations in the cost model are performed in metric units. Pulp flows are measured
in metric tons (1,000 kg = 2,204.6 Ibs). Chemical charges are expressed as kg/metric ton
(1 kg/metric ton = 2 Ib/U.S. ton). Calculations are based upon air dry (10% moisture)
metric tons of either unbleached or bleached pulp; the production basis used is stated in
each section of the model.
Pulp production was reported in the 1990 questionnaire as unbleached tons entering the
bleach plant, and most of the data in the questionnaire database are related to unbleached
tons of pulp production. The unbleached pulp production was converted to bleached pulp
production for use in the cost model by applying pulp shrinkage through the bleach plant
(see Section 11.1.2.5). The production was also converted to air dry metric tons, and
chemical application rate data used in the cost model were normalized to kg/bleached
ADMT.
11.1.2.2
Reference Date
Data reflecting the current (as of January 1, 1993) operation of a mill's pulping and
bleaching processes were entered into the cost model spreadsheet, to represent the mill's
"base case." If the Agency was aware that a mill had actually begun to install process
equipment by January 1, 1993, that equipment was assumed to be in place and to represent
the "base case" for the purposes of estimating compliance costs. Projects that were
announced as being under study or in the engineering, purchasing, or other initial phases
were not considered to be "committed," and the related process equipment was not
considered to be in place.
11.1.2.3
Costing of Bleach Plant Swing Lines
Many mills bleach more than one grade of pulp on the same bleach line. A line producing
more than one grade is referred to as a swing line. Where a bleach line swings between two
very different grades (i.e., using a different furnish or different chemical application rates),
the capital costs for both grades were calculated. The more expensive of the two estimated
capital costs was selected to represent the cost of the process change option for the line.
The operating costs were calculated as the production-weighted sum of the operating costs
for each grade. Most bleach plant swing lines in the U.S. alternate between hardwood and
softwood furnish. Where a bleach line swings between two similar grades, best professional
judgment was used to select the grade that would result in a higher, and therefore more
conservative, cost estimate.
11-9
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
In some cases, a swing line produces more than two different pulp grades. In these cases,
best professional judgment was used to select a combination of grades that would result in
the best estimate of the maximum cost incurred for the line.
11.1.2.4
Effluent Flow Reduction
Implementing many of the BAT and PSES process change technologies results in lower
effluent flows. However, no credit for flow reduction was included in the cost model.
11.1.2.5
Shrinkage
As pulp is bleached, organic material in the pulp combines with bleaching chemicals and
is washed out of the pulp, leaving more pure cellulose. Thus, there is a decrease in the
amount of pulp leaving the bleach plant compared to entering the bleach plant. This
difference is known as bleaching yield loss or shrinkage. Shrinkage is calculated as:
(Unbleached metric tons/day - Bleached metric tons/day)
(Unbleached metric tons/day)
(2)
The cost model uses shrinkage for each bleach line to calculate the amount of chemical
required for each bleaching stage, and the shrinkage is therefore important in estimating the
costs for changing a mill's bleach plant operation.
The 1990 questionnaire asked mills to estimate the shrinkage for each bleach line. Most
mills reported data. For mills that did not report shrinkage, a value was estimated. The
percent shrinkage was applied to the unbleached pulp flow entering the first bleaching stage,
or entering oxygen delignification for mills that have oxygen delignification, to calculate the
bleached pulp flow leaving the bleach plant. Estimates of shrinkage, based upon the bleach
sequence and the delignificalion processes preceding the bleach plant are shown as follows:
11-10
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
' " "%' ' „ '
"• •£•"• ffff ''"'
- ifSP" V.^> •**>•• wvw
•* s v. sw, •,-,•,•, _, :
Traditional chlorine-based bleaching
sequence
Oxygen delignification + chlorine-based
bleaching (overall shrinkage)
Extended cooking + chlorine-based
bleaching (bleach plant shrinkage)
Extended cooking + oxygen delignification
+ chlorine-based bleaching (shrinkage
across OD and bleach plant)
i
L Ftt! MgM»ess pulp
ssss
Hardwood
4%
4%
2%
2%
;.«•>•.•, „
8%
8%
4%
4%
: B$ttll~
bleaeh(a)
6%
6%
—
(a)A six-percent shrinkage factor was used for either hardwood or softwood pulp that is not
bleached to full market brightness (semi-bleached).
These estimates are consistent with values used by paper industry engineers for design and
analysis.
11.1.2.6
Bleaching Chemical Consumption
The cost model calculates changes in bleaching chemical consumption associated .with
implementation of the following technologies:
• Oxygen delignification;
• Extended cooking;
• Elimination of hypochlorite;
• Split addition of the first chlorine charge;
• Increased chlorine dioxide substitution; and
• Enhanced extraction.
Changes in bleaching chemical consumption associated with improved brown stock washing
were considered negligible.
11-11
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Changes in bleaching chemical consumption were calculated relative to a mill's base case
chemical consumption. It was assumed that the chemical charges (i.e., the amount of
chemical added to each bleaching stage) reported by a mill were appropriate to the mill's
equipment, furnish, and product. The cost model calculated changes in chemical
consumption while maintaining the equivalent bleaching power of each stage, as described
below.
Each bleaching agent used by the industry has a bleaching power related to the oxidation
potential of chlorine, the traditional bleaching agent. The table below summarizes the
relative bleaching power of each bleaching compound, expressed as a chlorine equivalence
factor (4).
Bleaching Ag«»t -/'- s _i
Chlorine
Chlorine dioxide
Hypochlorite
Oxygen hi E^
Hydrogen peroxide
Ozone
Chlorine E^nivaleiws^Faefar^
1
2.63
1
2
2
4.4
The concept of "equivalent chlorine" is widely used in the pulp and paper industry, and is
used in cost model calculations to determine appropriate changes in chemical consumption
that still maintain a mill's base case bleaching power. Because an increasing number of
mills are eliminating the use of chlorine, the term "oxidizing equivalent" (OE) is a more
appropriate term to express the bleaching power of a particular bleaching agent.
The factors shown in the table above are valid only within the limitations of the process
equipment and practical bleaching chemistry. For example, if 70 kg of chlorine/metric ton
is used to lower the Kappa number of pulp to 5, it cannot simply be replaced by 35 kg of
oxygen/metric ton, because such intense treatment with oxygen would destroy the pulp
strength and make the pulp unusable for its normal purposes. The cost model
mathematically accounts for these limitations and bleach plant chemical charges are adjusted
accordingly.
11-12
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.1.3 Description of Cost Model
11.1.3.1 Model Overview and Base Case
The BAT/PSES .process change cost model consists of a main spreadsheet for each
subcategory and three supporting files containing costs and costing factors for all
subcategories. The main cost model spreadsheet for each subcategory is comprised of
several subsections. The first is a section of base case information drawn from the 1990
questionnaire and subsequent follow-up correspondence.' Sections follow for estimating the
costs for each process change option for the subcategory. The final section summarizes the
costs for each option and the major equipment included in the costs.
As described in Section 11.1.2.2, the process change cost model is based on incremental
costs relative to a mill's operation as of January 1, 1993, referred to as the base case.
Information on the base case operations at each mill was obtained from the questionnaire,
follow-up letters and telephone contacts, and site visits. The following table presents a list
of the base case information that was entered into the cost model for each'mill.
Process Change Cost Model Base Case Mill Information
Mill location
Fiber furnish
Unbleached pulp flow to bleach plant
Fraction of production on line (for multiple lines or swing lines)
Bleaching sequence
Brown stock washer loss
Digester exit Kappa number
Pre-chlorination Kappa number
Bleach plant'shrinkage
Chemical dosages for oxygen delignification and each bleaching stage
Products
Type and number of digesters
Brown stock washer types
Number and capacity of recovery boilers
Type and capacity of C1O2 generators
Production bottleneck (from 1990 questionnaire)
In order to maximize the efficiency of the cost model spreadsheet, all capital and operating
costs, as well as factors and constants used in the model, were stored in supporting files.
When information in the supporting files is modified, the mill-specific spreadsheets
automatically recalculate costs using the updated information. The three supporting files
are:
11-13
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
• CAP.WQ1 - A list of the constants that apply to capital costs.
• CONST.WQ1 - A list of the constants that apply to operating costs and
conditions. These include unit costs for chemicals, process parameters such
as the target Kappa number for various process modifications, and
assumptions such as the number of mill operating days assumed when
converting costs expressed in dollars per ton to annual costs.
• FACTORS.WQ1 - A list of the regional labor costs and climate factors that
apply to all capital cost estimates.
The costs for each process change option are estimated in separate sections of the cost
model. The technologies that comprise the process change options and the methodology
used in the cost model to estimate costs are described in detail in a document entitled Pulp
and Paper Process Change Cost Model Documentation, found in the Record for the
RulemaWng. A brief discussion of each of the technologies and the subcategories to which
they are applicable is provided below.
11.1.3.2
Extended Cooking
Extended cooking was costed for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory. Costs were calculated for extended modified continuous cooking (EMCC®).
The costs were estimated for either a new digester or a retrofit, depending on the type of
digester already in use at a mill.
11.1.3.3
Oxygen Delignification
Oxygen delignification was costed for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda,
Dissolving Kraft, Papergrade Sulfite, and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategories. Costs were
calculated for a medium-consistency system, including the necessary white liquor oxidizing
equipment and two-stage post-oxygen washing. It was assumed that the oxygen generating
plant would be leased from a vendor.
11.1.3.4
Ozone Bleaching
An ozone bleaching stage was costed for mills in the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory. Costs
were calculated for a two-stage medium-consistency system. It was assumed that the ozone
generating plant would be leased from a vendor.
11.1.3.5
Effective Brown Stock Washing
Effective brown stock washing was costed for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda and Dissolving Kraft Subcategories. Costs were calculated for a washing line upgrade
11-14
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
(an additional stage of washing) if a mill's washing loss was between 10 and 25 kg of
Na2SO4/metric ton of pulp. Costs were calculated for a new washing line if a mill's washing
loss was greater than 25 kg NajSO^metric ton of pulp.
11.1.3.6
Recovery System Upgrades
When a mill improves brown stock washing or installs oxygen delignification and/or
extended cooking, there is an increase in the amount of organics recycled to the recovery
boiler, as discussed in Section 8.2. These organics result in an increased heating load on the
recovery boiler. Costs for increased recovery boiler heating loads were calculated for mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Dissolving Kraft Subcategories.
Increases in recovery boiler heating load of less than 1 percent are negligible with respect
to the accuracy of boiler flow measurements. Therefore, no costs were calculated for
increases of 1 percent or less. The increase in organics from improved brown stock washing
fell within this range, so no recovery boiler capacity increases due to improved brown stock
washing were calculated.
The heating value of the organics recovered after oxygen delignification or extended cooking
was used to determine the additional load on the recovery boiler from oxygen delignification
or extended cooking. If the additional load was greater than 1 percent, a cost for increased
recovery boiler capacity was calculated. The increase in recovery boiler heating load from
both oxygen delignification and extended cooking (BAT Option 5) was estimated to be the
same as for either technology alone, because the estimated target Kappa number for the
combined technologies is only three points lower than for either technology alone (a
conservative estimate).
Methods for increasing recovery boiler capacity were discussed in Section 8.2.6. These
methods include:
1. Expanding the boiler bed;
2. Air system modifications;
3. High solids firing;
4. Adding anthraquinone to the digester; and
5. Building a new boiler either as a replacement with larger capacity or as
additional capacity.
The Agency did not include new recovery boilers in the cost model because the modest
increases in organics calculated did not suggest that mills required new boilers and because
11-15
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
recovery boiler upgrades are more economical than new boilers. Anthraquinone was not
included in the cost estimates because the Agency was not aware of any U.S. mills using
anthraquinone in full-scale operations. Costs for the remaining three recovery boiler
upgrades listed above are within a similar range. Costs for air system modifications and
high solids firing were available from mills hi -North America and were used hi estimating
the costs for increasing recovery boiler capacities (5). Upgrades of these types are common
hi the industry and can result in savings hi operating and maintenance costs by increasing
steam generation and decreasing maintenance shutdowns.
The costs for the three upgrades were within the same range for a given capacity, as
described hi Development of Cost Curves for Best Available Technology Options for
Chemical Pulp Mills That Bleach Wood, found hi the Record for the Rulemaking.
Therefore, a- single cost curve was developed from the reported costs as an allowance for
a recovery boiler upgrade; it was assumed that each mill would make a site-specific selection
as to the type of upgrade implemented.
Costs for recovery boiler upgrades were required for 55 mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Subcategory for Options 3 and 4. An additional 13 mills in the subcategory
that did not require upgrades for Option 3 and 4 because they already had either oxygen
delignification or extended cooking required upgrades for Option 5. The highest estimated
percent increase hi recovery boiler heating load for any individual mill was 2.1 percent.
11.1.3.7
Split Addition of Chlorine
Split addition of chlorine was costed for mills hi the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory. Costs were calculated for splitting the chlorine charge to the first bleaching
stage into two separate charges, including high shear mixing and process control and a
10-percent increase hi chlorine charge.
11.1.3.8
High Chlorine Dioxide Substitution
High chlorine dioxide substitution was costed for mills hi the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda, Dissolving Kraft, Papergrade Sulfite, and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategories. The
amount of substitution required was calculated based on a target Active Chlorine Multiple
(ACM) Ratio of 0.9 and a target gaseous chlorine multiple (GCM) of 0.065, as described
hi Section 9.4.1.
11.1.3.9
Peroxide Bleaching
Peroxide bleaching was costed for mills in the Papergrade Sulfite and Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategories. Costs were calculated for converting an existing bleaching tower to a
peroxide tower and for peroxide supply and storage.
11-16
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.1.3.10 Enhanced Caustic Extraction Stage
Peroxide- and oxygen-enhanced extraction were costed for mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda and Dissolving Kraft Subcategories. Oxygen-enhanced extraction was costed
for mills in the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. Costs were calculated for chemical supply,
peroxide unloading and storage facilities (if the mill did not already have such facilities),
peroxide piping and controls, and a high shear mixer and retention tube for the oxygen.
11.1.3.11 Elimination of Hypochlorite
Hypochlorite elimination was costed for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
and Dissolving Kraft Subcategories. Costs were calculated to replace hypochlorite with
chlorine dioxide. The method of compensating for the hypochlorite bleaching power
depended on the miU's bleaching sequence.
11.1.3.12
Chlorine Dioxide Generation
Increasing chlorine dioxide use through increased substitution or elimination of hypochlorite
required increased chlorine dioxide generating capacity for some mills in all Subcategories.
Costs were calculated for a generator upgrade for mills that had an R3 or Single Vessel
Process (SVP)-type generator. Costs for new generators were calculated for the remaining
mills.
11.1.4 Cost Model Validation
In order to validate the cost model used by the Agency to develop mill by mill costs for this
regulation, EPA compared costs developed with its cost model to recent, cost estimates
reported by Simons/AF-IPK, major design consultants retained by the pulp and paper
industry (6). This comparison showed that the capital and operating and maintenance costs
used by the EPA cost model are within the range of costs used to calculate estimates
reported by Simons/AF-IPK in their four case studies. On the basis of this comparison, and
the fact that the Agency's model costs for process changes are based in large measure upon
actual industry installed cost for process changes, the Agency concludes that its costs
estimates are reasonable for the purposes intended.
i
11.1.5 Benefits of Replacing Equipment
The costs calculated for BAT and PSES process changes are used by the Agency as an
estimate of the costs that will be incurred by the industry to achieve the BAT and PSES
pollutant reduction benefits discussed in Section 10.0. Additional benefits of implementing
the process change technologies are reductions in energy demand, chemical costs, and labor;
credit for these, reductions is included in the cost model.
11-17
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Another benefit of the process change technologies is the replacement of old and outdated
equipment with new, modern equipment. In estimating process change costs, the Agency
assumed older chlorine dioxide generators that do not use the R3 or SVP processes are
replaced in order to increase C1O2 generating capacity and increase C1O2 substitution.
Recent developments in chlorine dioxide generating technology mean that many mills will
upgrade their generators in order to produce C1O2 with less residual chlorine and fewer
problem by-products. These mills will also likely add C1O2 generating capacity when
installing a new generator. The BAT/PSES capital costs attributable to replacing generators
that do not use the R3 or SVP process are shown below.
,'::.';' Cost Option ''.. ' ,- \
Oipifcal C«* (tfilil&Mi $)
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
1
2
3
4
5
37.4
199
164
241
210
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
1
2
3
19.4
31.1
22.3
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
1
2
59.6
NA
11-18
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
€0&jpptfoai - - i
L ,,iQ*$Me&sM»$H&l*$l .. :
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
1
2
15.8
NA
NA - Not applicable.
All of these estimated costs were attributed to the cost of implementing the process change
option even though many mills would upgrade their chlorine dioxide generators regardless
of effluent limitations guidelines.
There are also intangible benefits of replacing and upgrading equipment. New equipment
is usually more reliable than old equipment, requiring less maintenance and repair. New
equipment may improve product marketability, particularly as it relates to elemental or
totally chlorine-free bleaching processes.
When estimating the costs for the new and upgraded equipment that forms the basis of the
BAT/PSES process change options, the Agency assumed each mill would maintain its
production capacity as of January 1, 1993. However, it is likely that many mills would
increase capacity when making major modifications to pulping and bleaching processes
without a significantly higher cost because of the economies of scale associated with such
projects.
11.1.6 Estimated Process Change Costs
Table 11-3 presents summaries of total capital and annual operating and maintenance costs
calculated for each of the BAT/PSES process change options for mills with production in
the Dissolving Kraft, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda, Dissolving Sulfite, and
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories. Tables 11-4 through 11-7 summarize by subcategory the
equipment costed for each BAT/PSES process change option and the numbers and cos,t of
each type of equipment. The equipment costs shown on Tables 11-4 through 11-7 do not
add up to the total capital costs because the cost for installing a bleach plant effluent
monitoring station is not shown on the tables. The costs shown in Tables 11-3 through 11-7
represent both the direct and indirect discharging mills in the four subcategories listed
above. Costs for COD control are not included; they are presented in Section 11.2.
11-19
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.2 Costs for COD Control
i
This section presents the background data and methodology used to estimate the costs of
the technology bases for COD control. COD controls are part of the proposed BAT
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the following subcategories:
Subpart Subcategory
A. Dissolving Kraft;
B. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda;
C. Unbleached Kraft;
E. Papergrade Sulfite; and
F. Semi-Chemical.
Effective COD control should focus on capturing spent pulping liquors and returning them
to a chemical or heat recovery process. EPA evaluated a set of these recovery techniques,
including effective brown stock washing, closed screen room operation, and pulping liquor
spill prevention and control. These techniques are applicable to subcategories where spent
pulping liquor is collected, evaporated, and burned to recover reusable chemicals and/or
heat: dissolving kraft, bleached papergrade kraft and soda., unbleached kraft, dissolving
sulfite, papergrade sulfite, and semi-chemical. In addition to the above techniques, that
portion of COD which is biodegradable can be treated by end-of-pipe secondary biological
treatment.
The technology elements listed above were combined to form BAT for COD control in each
applicable subcategory:
So^^oiey - - '-\
Dissolving Kraft,
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda,
Unbleached Kraft,
Dissolving Sulfite; and
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-chemical
Technology Ba$i$0fC0»C^jtttwi<>jiitiwi _ss
• Effective brown stock washing,
• Closed screen room operation,
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control, and
• End-of-pipe secondary biological treatment.
• Effective brown stock washing,
• Pulping liquor spill prevention and control, and
• End-of-pipe secondary biological treatment.
11-20
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Note that closed screen room operation is not included in the BAT basis for semi-chemical
mills, because screening is usually not practiced at these mills. Section 9.4 further discusses
the development of COD control options.
The Agency developed a technology option for the control of COD in the Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategory that contains the same elements listed above (effective brown stock washing,
closed screen operation, pulping liquor spill prevention and control, and end-of-pipe
biological treatment). However, the Agency did not have sufficient data to analyze the
performance of this option and so has not proposed effluent limitations for COD for the
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory, nor has the Agency estimated the cost of COD control
technology for this Subcategory.
Cost estimates for most of the technology elements for COD control are included within
estimates developed for other aspects of the regulation. Pulping liquor spill prevention and
control is a component of BMP. Section 11.4 discusses BMP costs. Section 11.6 discusses
cost estimates for end-of-pipe secondary biological treatment. Costs for the remaining
components of the COD control options, effective brown stock washing and closed screen
room operation, are discussed by Subcategory below.
11.2.1 Dissolving Kraft and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategories
The cost of upgrading brown stock washing where necessary at dissolving kraft and bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills is included in the estimated cost of pulping area process
changes, as discussed in Section 11.1. Therefore, for these subcategories, the only remaining
component of COD control costs not otherwise accounted for is the cost of screen room
closure.
The closure status of screen rooms at mills for which COD data are available was
determined from site visits and telephone contact with the mills. Using information from
these mills, a production normalized pulping area discharge flow rate of 6.3 m3/ADMT
(1,500 gallons/ADT) brown stock pulp was established as indicative of screen room closure.
Those mills reporting pulping area discharge flows of 6.3 m3/ADMT or less were assumed
to have closed screen rooms, whereas those with flows over 6.3 m3/ADMT were assumed
to have open screen rooms and incur costs for screen room closure.
Costs for closed screen room operation are partially incorporated in the costs of pulping
area process changes for options that include oxygen delignification (BAT Options 3,4, and
5), because some of the mill costs attributed to oxygen delignification were for closing the
screen room. An assessment of whether screen room closure was included in the project
cost could be made for nine of 12 projects that formed the basis for the oxygen
delignification cost curve. Of the nine projects, seven did not include closing the screen
room and two included closing the screen room. The capital cost for one of the two projects
fell on the oxygen delignification cost curve, and the cost for the other was $2,100,000 above
11-21
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
the curve (494,000 ADMT/yr production basis). Based upon these data, a capital cost
estimate for screen room closure (in conjunction with oxygen delignification), of $2,100,000
for a 494,000 ADMT/yr mill was used. Individual costs for bleached kraft mills that do not
currently have closed screen rooms were assigned using this cost, scaled to production. The
Agency did not base the estimated cost of closing screen rooms on mills without oxygen
delignification because it did not have data available to do so. The technology basis for
BAT Options 3 and 4 includes enhanced delignification through oxygen delignification or
extended cooking. Upgrading to extended cooking includes some of the same improvements
to pulp washing as oxygen delignification. Therefore, the cost estimates for screen room
closure assume the installation of technology equivalent to BAT Options 3, 4, or 5, but are
not additive to BAT Options 1 and 2.
Operating and maintenance costs for closed screen room operation are assumed to be zpro,
because the new equipment replaces existing equipment and is assumed to require the same
or less operating and maintenance expenses. Savings from reduced water consumption,
steam requirements, fiber recovery, and wastewater treatment are also realized; these have
not been quantified.
11.2.2 Unbleached Kraft and Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories
Cost estimates for improved brown stock washing and closed screen room operation at mills
in the unbleached kraft and papergrade sulfite subcategories were based upon the cost of
fiber line improvements made at an unbleached kraft mill in the southeastern United States.
These improvements (installation of fibrilizers, hot stock screens and reject refiners, new
deckers, and a decker filtrate return line to the digester) cost $4,300,000, normalized to
fourth quarter 1991 dollars (349,000 ADMT/yr production basis). The Agency recognizes
that certain components of this system, such as the fibrilizers, are specific to the high-yield
pulping operations used at unbleached kraft mills, and the metallurgy requirements at sulfite
mills are different than at kraft mills. However, on a subcategory-wide basis, the scale and
cost of the modifications required are assumed to represent the type of pulping area
improvements necessary for improved brown stock washing and closed screen room
operation at papergrade sulfite mills.
As was the case for bleached kraft mills, a production normalized pulping area discharge
flow rate of 6.3 m3/ADMT brown stock pulp was established as indicative of screen room
closure. Mills with pulping area flows above this level were assigned a screen room closure
cost based on the $4,300,000 estimate above, scaled to the mill-specific production. Similar
to the bleached kraft subcategories, operating and maintenance costs for closed screen room
operation are assumed to be zero.
11-22
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.2.3 Semi-Chemical Subcategory
Screening is usually not practiced at semi-chemical pulp mills (7). This is reflected in the
1990 questionnaire responses, as semi-chemical mills reported significantly lower production
normalized discharge flows from the pulping area than kraft mills. Therefore, closed screen
room operation is not included as part of the technology basis for COD control at semi-
chemical mills.
i
The BMP and end-of-pipe cost components of COD control at semi-chemical mills are
presented in Section 11.4 and 11.6, respectively. There are no proposed BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for toxic pollutants discharged from the Semi-Chemical Subcategory;
therefore, the cost of improved brown stock washing is the cost of the COD control
technology basis at semi-chemical mills.
Specific data on brown stock washing efficiency at semi-chemical mills were not available
in the questionnaire database. However, based upon low raw wastewater BOD5 loadings
(<3.6 kg/metric ton), four of 19 semi-chemical mills were assumed to currently have
adequate brown stock washing in place. The range of raw wastewater BOD5 loadings for
these mills was 0.8 to 3.6 kg/metric ton compared to a Subcategory median of 12 kg/metric
ton. Each of the other semi-chemical mills was assumed to need to install an additional
brown stock washer to improve brown stock washing efficiency. The capital cost curve for
an additional brown stock washer from the process change cost model was used to estimate
capital costs (see Section 11.1.3). The base cost for this upgrade is $4,450,000 at a base
capacity of 296,000 ADMT/year. Costs were scaled to production. Operating and
maintenance materials and labor were estimated at 4 percent of the capital cost, consistent
with the process change cost model. These costs were offset by a savings of $0.15 per
ADMT brown stock pulp to account for the heat value of the additional recovered organics
that result from improved washing.
11.2.4 Summary of Costs for COD Control
Table 11-8 presents the capital and operating and maintenance costs for COD control in
each subcategory. The table presents the total number of mills in the Subcategory, the
technology included in the cost estimate, the estimated number of mills in the subcategory
without the technology in place that will incur costs, and the total subcategory cost.
11.3 Steam Stripping Costs
Steam stripping of digester blow tank condensates, turpentine underflow condensates, and
evaporator condensates is included as part of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) Standards of the NESHAP. The NESHAP is applicable to mills in the Dissolving
Kraft, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda, Unbleached Kraft, Semi-Chemical, Dissolving
Sulfite, and Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories. The NESHAP and the Pulp, Paper, and
11-23
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Paperboard Industry Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards comprise the integrated
proposed rulemaMng, which includes an integrated analysis of the cost and impacts of both
rules.
Steam stripping of condensates reduces the BOD5 load discharged to wastewater treatment,
as well as emissions of total reduced sulfur and hazardous air pollutants. Therefore, a
BOD5 load reduction associated with steam stripping was accounted for when the costs of
BPT treatment system upgrades were estimated. These load reductions are discussed in
Section 11.6.5.2. The cost of steam stripping condensates was included as part of the
analysis of the proposed NESHAP, and the cost estimating methodology is detailed in the
Background Information Document (BID) and the Record for the proposed NESHAP. A
summary of the costing methodology is provided below.
The steam stripper system design basis was derived from data that indicate that a steam-to-
feed ratio of 0.180 kg steam/L wastewater (1.5 Ib/gal) is representative of pulp mill stripper
operation and achieves a 90-percent removal efficiency for methanol. The column was
assumed to be a sieve tray column with eight theoretical trays. These data were obtained
from a questionnaire sent to the industry in 1991 as part of the proposed NESHAP
development.
Condensate steam strippers can be integrated directly into evaporator sets, or designed as
Stand-alone units. Based on responses to the NESHAP questionnaire, approximately 67
percent of existing systems are integrated into evaporator sets, and 33 percent stand alone.
An integrated system uses steam from the evaporator set for operation; therefore, the
amount of fresh steam needed is much less than for a stand-alone system. Average costs
are prorated to reflect these percentages. Specific equipment and example costs are
presented in the NESHAP BID.
11.4 BMP Costs
This section describes the estimation of costs to implement Best Management Practices
(BMP). The Agency estimated costs for all mills in the following subcategories to
implement BMP:
Subpart Subcategorv
A. Dissolving Kraft;
B. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda;
C. Unbleached Kraft;
D. Dissolving Sulfite;
11-24
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Subpart Subcategory
E. Papergrade Sulfite;
F. Semi-Chemical; and
G. Non-Wood Chemical Pulp.
11.4.1 General Approach
The general approach in BMP costing was to group the mills based upon the amount of
upgrade they would require to implement BMP. To simplify the cost estimation process,
the Agency used three groups: mills that require no upgrades, mills that require moderate
upgrades, and mills that require major upgrades. Initially, 23 mills that the Agency had
recently visited were assigned to one of the three groups based on operations in place at
each site. The 23 mills are in the following subcategories:
•"? " ,„ ,
"•• ^«bcai«g
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
industry-wide and subcategory basis. Actual costs for individual mills may be above or
below the costs the Agency estimated by this approach.
11.4.2 Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Many of the 14 bleached papergrade kraft mills listed in the table above had recently
constructed or rebuilt production facilities. Consequently, as a group, these 14 mills are
likely to have better-than-average spill prevention and control systems. From this
assessment, the Agency estimated that, in the subcategory as a whole, approximately one-
third of the mills have BMP technologies equivalent to the proposed BMP and require no
upgrades; one-third require moderate upgrades; and one-third require major upgrades.
Mills were assigned to one of the three groups according to the pulping and bleaching
technologies irl place. In making these assignments, the Agency assumed that mills that had
upgraded their pulping and bleaching processes were most likely to have implemented
pulping liquor BMP, based on observations during site visits. Mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory were assigned to BMP upgrade groups, as follows:
No BMP upgrade required: Mills that have oxygen delignification and/or extended
cooking and mills that have alow gaseous chlorine multiple (<_0.2) and high chlorine
dioxide substitution (>40 percent).
Moderate BMP upgradk required: Mills that have split addition of chlorine and mills
that have a high gaseous chlorine multiple (>0.2) and low chlorine dioxide
substitution.
Major BMP upgrade required: Mills that have not modernized their pulping and
bleaching processes (do not use oxygen delignification or extended cooking or
chlorine dioxide substitution; use hypochlorite).
The average capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs assigned to each level of
upgrade are shown in Table 11-9. A net savings in O&M costs for kraft mills requiring
moderate or minor upgrades results from increased recovery of pulping chemicals and
energy.
11.4.3 Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
For the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory, the Agency assumed the same distribution of mills
in the three BMP upgrade groups as in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory. One-third of the unbleached kraft mills require no upgrades, one-third require
moderate upgrades, and one-third require major upgrades. Mills were assigned to one of
the three groups based on the reduction in five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
effluent load (kg BOD5/ADMT) required to meet BPT performance levels (BPT
performance levels are defined in Section 9.2). Mills requiring the greatest reduction in
BOD5 discharge were assumed to have done little to implement BMP and to require major
11-26
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
BMP upgrades. Mills requiring little reduction in BOD5 discharge were assumed to have
a strong BMP program in place and to require no farther upgrades.
Table 11-9 lists the average capital and O&M costs assigned to each level of upgrade. As
with bleached papergrade kraft mills, a net savings in O&M costs results from an increased
recovery of pulping chemicals and energy.
11.4.4 Dissolving Kraft, Dissolving Sulfite, Papergrade Sulfite, Semi-Chemical, and Non-
Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategories
The Agency conducted site' visits to at least one mill in each subcategory to which BMP
apply, with the exception of a stand-alone semi-chemical mill. Based on the information
gained on these site visits and general knowledge of the industry, the Agency classified mills
in the remaining subcategories into BMP upgrade groups as follows:
Dissolving Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
- Major BMP upgrade required;
- Major BMP upgrade required;
Papergrade Sulfite - Major BMP upgrade required;
Semi-Chemical - Moderate BMP upgrade required; and
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp - Moderate BMP upgrade required.
Table 11-9 presents the average capital and O&M costs assigned to each subcategory.
Dissolving kraft mills were assumed to have costs similar to bleached papergrade kraft and
unbleached kraft mills, and are also assumed to realize a net savings in O&M from
increased recovery of pulping chemicals.
Sulfite, semi-chemical, and non-wood chemical pulp mills were assumed to have .lower
average capital investment costs than kraft mills, because kraft mills are typically larger and
more complex. The average savings in pulping chemical and energy costs realized at sulfite
and non-wood chemical pulp mills is typically less than at kraft mills. For this reason, O&M
cost savings were assumed to balance any additional O&M costs resulting from spill
prevention and control, and net O&M costs for these subcategories are zero.
Semi-chemical pulp mills were assumed to incur a net O&M cost due to BMP, because
some mills do not recover base pulping chemicals from spent pulping liquor. Savings
resulting from lower waste loads in wastewater treatment were accounted for during
estimation of end-of-pipe treatment costs (see Section 11.6.5).
The total capital cost to the industry to implement BMP is 86 million dollars with an
associated O&M savings of 22 million dollars per year.
11-27
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.5 Flow Reduction Costs
This section presents the technical data and methodology used to develop cost estimates for
the flow reduction technologies that are part cif the BPT and PSES options described in
Section 9.
BPT Option 1 and Option 2 performance levels are normalized to production (i.e., kg of
TSS or BOD5/off-machine metric ton (OMMT) of final production). These mass-based
levels are derived from effluent concentrations (resulting from end-of-pipe treatment) and
effluent flow (resulting from in-process water conservation practices). The relationship
between effluent concentrations and flow is illustrated below:
5
a
BPT/BCT Performance Level
(kg/metric ton)
Production Normalized Flow (L/metric ton)
The equation of the line plotted above is:
C =
PNL
PNF
(3)
where:
C = Concentration, kg/L
PNL = BPT/BCT Performance Level, kg/OMMT (a constant)
PNF = Production normalized flow, L/OMMT.
11-28
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
As shown in the graph, there are an infinite number of mill modes of operation, in terms
of final effluent flow and concentration, that achieve a fixed BPT/Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) performance level. For example, at a very low flow,
a high concentration can achieve a fixed performance level (in the equation above, as PNF
decreases, C increases). Conversely, at a high flow, a very low concentration is required.
Secondary biological treatment cannot achieve complete removal of BOD5 and TSS. There
is a lowest concentration that secondary treatment can achieve due to its physical and
biological limitations. Mills that treat wastewater to low concentrations, but have poor
water conservation practices evidenced by high production normalized flows, cannot achieve
the production normalized mass loads achieved by the best performing mills. These mills
will require 'in-process flow reduction to meet BPT.
The amount of flow reduction a mill requires to achieve the BPT performance levels
depends on the lowest concentration that secondary treatment can achieve. In lieu of
performing treatability studies to determine the lowest concentration that secondary
treatment can currently achieve for pulp and paper wastewaters, the Agency instead
analyzed secondary treatment system effluent concentrations currently demonstrated by the
industry. Specifically, the Agency analyzed data from the mills whose data were used to
develop the BPT performance levels. For each subcategory, the Agency determined the
lowest currently demonstrated concentrations using the average of the lowest two or three
BOD5 concentrations achieved by mills representing that subcategory and the average of the
corresponding total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations achieved by those mills. Table
11-10 lists the lowest currently demonstrated concentrations for each subcategory. These
concentrations may not be the absolute minimum that can be achieved by biological
treatment; they are based upon data from the best performing mills at this time. The
exception to this is the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory in which the Agency has determined
that existing performance is uniformly inadequate, and has developed an alternative basis
for BPT Option 2. See Section 9.2.4. Based upon these lowest currently demonstrated
concentrations, EPA estimated that 20 of the total 290 mills evaluated require flow
reduction, in addition to upgraded secondary treatment, to meet BPT Option 1. To meet
BPT Option 2,59 mills were estimated to require flow reduction. This section describes the
methodology and data used to estimate the costs of implementing flow reduction at these
mills.
11.5.1 General Approach Used to Develop Flow Reduction Costs
In developing flow reduction costs, the Agency focused on technologies that reduce flow
from the paper machines and pulp dryers, because these technologies are applicable to all
mills regardless of subcategory. Because most mills that require flow reduction discharge
much more wastewater than an average mill within the same subcategory, the Agency
assumed that mills requiring flow reduction operate open paper machines and pulp dryers
and pulping areas. Applicable flow reduction technologies include those that provide
treatment of Whitewater to allow its reuse in stock preparation and in the pulp machine or
11-29
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
paper machine as well as technologies that enable the mill to use less fresh water. The
Agency developed cost estimates for the following technologies:
• Gravity strainers with high-pressure, self-cleaning showers;
• Disc savealls;
• Vacuum pump seal water cascade systems; and
• Vacuum pump seal water cooling tower systems.
Costs were also estimated for flotation clarifiers for secondary fiber processing at deink mills
and screen room closure at chemical pulping mills. Section 8.5 describes these technologies.
While estimating the amount of flow reduction required, credit was taken for flow reduction
achieved as a beneficial result of technologies used as the basis for other aspects of the
proposed regulation, such as condensate stripping for NESHAP and spill control for BMP.
The Agency's generalized flow reduction methodology, described in greater detail in Section
11.5.2, was to determine, for each mill, the final effluent flow reduction required to meet
mass-based BPT performance levels after secondary treatment. Then, for each mill, the
final effluent flow reduction that would be achieved by applying each flow reduction
technology was determined. For a specific mill, the final effluent flow reduction achieved
by each applicable technology depends upon the flow reduction achieved in the process area
where the technology is applied, the amount of wastewater discharged from the process
area, and the mill's subcategory. The only mill-specific information used in selecting
appropriate flow reduction technologies was the percentage flow reduction required and the
percentage of final production by subcategory. Mill location was also considered for one
technology, vacuum pump seal water cooling tower systems, because it is not considered
applicable for southern mills. In some cases, more than one technology alternative was
appropriate and the least expensive alternative was selected.,
Capital costs, including equipment, installation, freight, and piping, were calculated for each
flow reduction technology selected. Section 11.5.3 details the methodology used to calculate
capital costs. Operating and maintenance costs for flow reduction technologies were
assumed to be zero, as discussed in Section 11.5.3.
While estimating flow reduction costs, the Agency estimated BOD5 and TSS load reductions
achieved by applying the flow reduction technologies, as weE as load reductions associated
with BAT process changes, BMP, and MACT. Section 11.5.4 discusses load reductions
achieved by flow reduction technologies. Load reductions for BAT process changes, BMP,
and MACT were calculated using the same equations as the secondary treatment upgrade
cost estimation spreadsheets discussed hi Section 11.6.
11-30
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.5.2 Flow Reduction
Section 11.5.2.1 describes the Agency's approach for calculating flow reduction required for
each mill to achieve mass-based BPT performance levels after secondary treatment and for
selecting appropriate flow reduction technologies to achieve the required flow reduction.
Section 11.5.2.2 provides an example of how the methodology described in Section 11.5.2.1
was applied to a specific mill.
11.5.2.1
Flow Reduction Methodology
For each mill, the percent reduction in final effluent flow required for the mill to meet
mass-based BPT performance levels after secondary treatment was determined as follows:
(1) The lowest BOD5 and TSS concentrations achievable by secondary treatment
were determined for each subcategory based on the BOD5 and TSS
concentrations currently demonstrated by mills whose data were used to
develop the proposed BPT limitations. Table 11-10 lists these concentrations.
(2) The lowest BOD5 and TSS concentrations achievable by each mill were
calculated using a production-weighted average of the lowest BOD5 and TSS
concentrations achievable by each subcategory in which the mill had
production.
(3) The final effluent flow required for each mill to meet BPT was calculated
once for BOD5 and once for TSS, as follows:
PNFR =
PNL
(4)
where:
PNFR = Required production normalized flow, L/OMMT
PNL = Mill-specific BPT/BCT Performance Level, kg/OMMT
CL = Mill-specific lowest achievable concentration, mg/L.
The lower of the two calculated flows was considered the required final
effluent flow. Calculation of the BPT long-term average load is described in
Section 10.2.2.
11-31
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
(4) The percent reduction in final effluent flow required for the mill to meet BPT
performance levels after secondary treatment was calculated as follows:
PNFr - PNF_
PNF
(5)
where:
% FR = % Flow Reduction
PNFC =
PNFR =
Current production normalized flow, L/OMMT
Required production normalized flow, L/OMMT
The percent reduction in final effluent flow required for specific mills ranged
from 1 to 86 percent.
Table 11-11 lists the percentage of final effluent flow dischaxged from the screen room,
deinking, and $tock preparation/papermaking areas for mills in each subcategory. Most of
these values were determined from information provided in Table F, Water Use and
Wastestream Characteristics, of the 1990 questionnaire by mills whose data were used to
develop the BPT limitations; however, where data from the questionnaire were inadequate,
values were determined from the literature (9).
Table 11-12 lists the percent reduction in process area wastewater discharge achieved by
applying each flow reduction technology and combinations of technologies. These values
were determined from vendors and literature sources (10,11,12) and by using best
professional judgment. By multiplying the values listed in Table 11-11 by those listed in
Table 11-12, the1 percent reduction in final effluent flow that could be achieved by applying
each flow reduction technology and combination of technologies was determined by
subcategory. Table 11-13 lists these values. The data in Table 11-13, combined with the
percentage of each mill's final production in each subcategory, is the basis for selecting the
appropriate flow reduction technology(ies) to achieve the percent reduction in wastewater
flow required for each mill. EPA did not consider water recycle/reuse opportunities
between processes located at the same mill, but that are in different subcategories. This
may be possible at many mills.
Flow reduction is also a beneficial result of technologies used as the basis for other aspects
of the proposed regulation: condensate stripping for NESHAP and spill control for BMP.
The following are flow reductions estimated by the Agency for these technologies:
11-32
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
,,t, •••*?}'
%W$&&fa$t*i$&t$
Strip and Reuse All Condensates
Strip and Reuse Some Condensates
Strip and Reuse No Condensates
Pulping fclqutw Spill Frey«ntioB and Control {BMP)
Major Upgrade
Moderate Upgrade
No Upgrade (
flowJRfidirction^aiVOMMTCa)
'v f" $, "
7
2.5
0
" % " moor JtedBeti0n> mVOMMTta>
8
4
0
(a)Flow reduction in m3/OMMT of final production in the subcategories to which these regulations apply.
These flow reduction values were obtained from literature sources (13,14).
As discussed in Section 10.2.3.1, for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Dissolving Kraft Subcategories, BAT Options 2 and 1, respectively, were selected as the
basis for BPT costing and pollutant reduction estimates. The technology basis associated
with these BAT options, 70% chlorine dioxide 'substitution for chlorine, was estimated to
result in negligible flow reduction benefits. Therefore, no flow reduction benefits were
applied for BAT process changes. The technology basis for the selected BAT options for
these subcategories, BAT Option 4 and 2, respectively, includes oxygen delignification
and/or extended cooking and is estimated to result in significant flow reduction benefits.
The Agency will consider prior to promulgation whether these flow reduction benefits will
be included in the flow reduction methodology.
For the Papergrade Sulfite and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategories, BAT process change flow
reduction benefits were assumed to be zero because wastewater generated from
implementation of the BAT technology basis as assumed to be routed to wastewater
treatment rather than to chemical or heat recovery because of chemical incompatibility (e.g.,
incompatibility of sodium base bleaching chemicals with magnesium base pulping chemicals).
11-33
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.5.2.2
Example Application of Flow Reduction Methodology
The Agency's flow reduction methodology is illustrated by the following example. Example
Mill 1 from Section 10.2.2. has final production in three sub categories, as shown below:
t $a$K9tteg&$ - , ;''
Secondary Fiber Non-deink
Fine and Lightweight Paper From
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven and
Paperboard From Purchased Pulp
: s ' f ttytff
1' ftwmnitf )tttt*l %wte»&m ,
21
11
68
The lowest currently demonstrated BOD5 and TSS concentrations achievable by this mill
using secondary treatment were calculated using a production-weighted average of the
lowest currently demonstrated BOD5 and TSS concentrations achievable by each subcategory
using secondary treatment listed in Table 11-10. These calculations are shown belo'w:
(PiXCn)
(6)
where:
CL
n
= Mill-specific lowest currently demonstrated concentration, mg/L
= Number of subcategories in which the mill has production
= % of total mill production in subcategory i
= Lowest currently demonstrated concentration, subcategory i (from
Table 11-10), mg/L
Substituting data specific to this mill results in the following:
TSS CL = (0.21)(6.5) + (0.11)(12.9) + (0.68)(4.9) = 6.1 mg/L
BOD5 CL = (0.21)(5.8) + (0.11)(15.1) + (0.68)(4.0) = 5.6 mg/L
11-34
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
This mill's effluent flow required to meet mass-based BPT performance levels after
secondary treatment (BPT Long-Term Average Load) was calculated once for BOD5 and
once for TSS for each BPT option. These calculations are shown below:
PNF
(7)
where:
PNFR = Required production normalized flow, L/OMMT
PNL = Mill-specific BPT/BCT performance level (calculated in Section
10.2.2), kg/OMMT
CL = Mill-specific lowest achievable concentration, mg/L.
Substituting data specific to this mill gives:
BPT Option 1
' = 1.47 kg/OMMT 1,000,000 mg = L/OMMT
6.1 mg/L kg '
__ 1.26 kg/OMMT 1,000,000 mg = MT
5 R 5.6 mg/L kg '
BPT Potion 2
TSS pNp = 1.13 kg/OMMT
R 6.1 mg/L
1,000,000 mg = Q L/OMMT
kg
BOD5 PNFR = 0.69 kg/OMMT x 1,000,000 mg = Q L/OMMT
5 R 5.6 mg/L kg
11-35
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
The lower of the TSS or BOD5 flows is considered the required final effluent flow for each
BPT option. Therefore, the required final effluent flows for this mill are:
Option 1 - 225,000 L/OMMT
Option 2 - 123,000 L/OMMT
This mill currently discharges 212,000 L/OMMT, less than the Option 1 flow; therefore,
flow reduction is not required to meet mass-based performance'levels after secondary
treatment for Option 1.
This mill's percent reduction in final effluent flow required to meet BPT Option 2 after
secondary treatment was calculated as shown below:
PNFC - PNF,
PNR.
(8)
where:
% FR = % flow reduction
PNFC = Current production normalized flow, L/OMMT
PNFR = Required production normalized flow, L/OMMT
Substituting data specific to this mill gives:
BPT Option 2
= 212,000 L/OMMT - 123,000 L/OMMT
212,000 L/OMMT
The required percent flow reduction calculated above was adjusted by applying flow
reduction achieved from NESHAP and BMP technologies, if applicable. Because NESHAP
and BMP do not apply to this mill, the estimated flow reduction required remains at 42
percent.
This mill makes paper, so papermaking flow reduction technologies are applicable to this
mill. The percent flow reduction achieved by any flow reduction technology(ies) is
calculated using a production-weighted average of the percent flow reduction values listed
11-36
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
in Table 11-13. For the example mill, the percent reduction in final effluent flow achieved
by application of a vacuum pump seal water cascade system is calculated as follows:
= E
(9)
where:
n
Pi
FRcsi
Data for this mill are:
% total mill flow reduction achieved by using a vacuum
pump seal water cascade system
Number of subcategories in which the mill has
production
Proportion of total mill production in subcategory i
% reduction in final effluent flow achieved by cascade
system, subcategory i (from Table 11-13)
• * ~ . ******
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Paper from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven and Paperboard from
Purchased Pulp
F, „
0.21
0.11
0.68
- » **«
12
14
14
Substituting these data into the above equation gives:
% FRCS = (0.21)(12)+(0.11)(14)+(0.68)(14) = 14%
This calculation process can then be repeated for each flow reduction technology
appropriate for this mill. The flow reduction achieved by all appropriate flow reduction
technologies for the example mill is shown below:
11-37
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Mlsole^
Gravity Strainers with High-Pressure
Showers (Strainers)
Disc Saveall (Saveall)
Strainers plus Saveall
Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cascade System
(Cascade System)
Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cooling Tower
System (Cooling Tower)
Strainers plus Saveall plus Cascade System
Strainers plus Saveall plus Cooling Tower
Strainers plus Cascade System
Strainers plus Cooling Tower
Pifew jppLfbefw*ifta
•• ** ff. S
42
41
62
14
24
75
86
55
67
As shown in the table above, six flow reduction technology alternatives provide flow
reduction equal to or greater than the 42 percent estimated as necessary to achieve BPT
Option 2. The technology selected for the example mill, gravity strainers with high-pressure
showers, was the lowest cost alternative.
11.53 Cost Estimation
Capital costs, including equipment, installation, freight, and piping, were calculated for each
type of flow reduction technology selected for installation. All capital cost's were adjusted
by a factor of 1.3 (identical to factors used to calculate the end-of-pipe treatment upgrade
cost estimates discussed in Section 11.6) to account for contingencies, overhead, and
engineering.
Operating and maintenance costs were not estimated but assumed to be zero. For most of'
the flow technologies considered, the Agency believes that costs associated with operation
and maintenance of new equipment will be offset by savings in recovered fiber, purchase of
process water or treatment of raw water, and energy savings associated with reusing heated
process water.
11-38
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Equipment costs were not estimated for mills requiring less than 5 percent flow reduction.
Instead, a $100,000 capital cost for these mills was estimated, which includes engineering
and minor water conservation projects that typically would be completed in-house.
Capital costs for each flow reduction technology were estimated as described below.
11.5.3.1
Gravity Strainers With High-Pressure, Self-Cleaning Showers
One gravity strainer, with a set capital cost of $125,000 (not including the 1.3 adjustment
factor described above), was installed for each pulp/paper machine. The gravity strainer
capital cost was provided by a vendor (15).
The number and type of high-pressure, self-cleaning showers costed to replace current
machine showers depends upon the type and number of pulp/paper machines operated (fine
papers, market pulp, paperboard, newsprint, or tissue). Forming section showers and press
section showers are estimated to cost $12,900 and $10,600 each, respectively. The number
of forming section showers and press section showers required varies by the type of product,
as follows:
, " Product *fy|»e j
Fine Paper
Paperboard
Market Pulp
Newsprint
Tissue
derating Section "
1
1
1
2
2 .
.Press Section ;
3
3
3
4
1 '
The number, type, and capital cost of showers required for each type of machine were also
provided by a vendor (15).
11.5.3.2
Disc Savealls
Capital costs for disc savealls were based upon cost curves developed for a range of machine
sizes for each type of pulp machine and pulp dryer (fine papers, newsprint, tissue, market
pulp, and paperboard). These cost curves are included in a document entitled "Detailed
Description of the Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models,"
in the Record for the Rulemaking. The cost of one saveall of appropriate size was
estimated for dach type of machine operated. These costs were provided by a vendor (16).
11-39
-------
11.0 Costs
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
reduction achieved by the technology. For example, if the final effluent flow reduction for
a technology alternative is 40 percent, the calculated TSS reduction is 30 percent (75 percent
of 40 percent). This assumption is based on information from the literature (14); specific
documentation for this assumption is included in a document entitled, "Detailed Description
of the Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models," in the Record
for the Rulemaking. The Agency assumed corresponding BOD5 reductions equal to 25
percent of the TSS reduction, based on best professional judgment.
TSS reductions resulting from installing flotation clarifiers at deink mills were based on
values provided by a vendor (10). Reductions vary with flow rate in the deinking process
area with an approximate range of TSS reduction from 225 to 1,800 kg/day. The Agency
developed a TSS reduction curve to estimate the reduction. This reduction curve is included
in the Record for the Rulemaking. Again, BOD5 reductions were assumed equal to 25
percent of the TSS load reduction.
TSS reductions resulting from screen room closure are 15 percent and 19 percent of total
TSS load to wastewater treatment for bleaching and non-bleaching mills, respectively. BOD5
reductions resulting from screen room closure were estimated to be 15 percent and 25
percent of total BOD5 load to wastewater treatment for bleaching and non-bleaching mills,
respectively. These values were determined using best professional judgment, based on an
assumed 95 percent reduction of estimated TSS and BOD5 loads from the screen room and
the percent reduction in final effluent flow achieved by screen room closure.
11.5.5 Cost Results
Table 11-14 summarizes total costs for flow reduction, and the number of mills for which
each flow reduction technology was costed, for BPT Options 1 and 2. Twenty-six mills,
require flow reduction at Option 1 and 59 mills require flow reduction at Option 2.
11.6 End-of-Pipe Treatment Costs
1
This section presents the technical data and methodology used to develop cost estimates for
the end-of-pipe treatment technologies that are part of the BPT options described in
Section 9.2. These options are based on the performance of the best mills, in terms of
production normalized load of BOD5 discharged. These best mills achieve their
performance using many different combinations of water conservation and wastewater
treatment. For each mill to which BPT applies, the Agency estimated the cost of a
combination of technologies that will achieve BPT performance, in order to estimate the
economic impact of the proposed regulations. The costed technologies are not a
prescription for compliance. Each mill will choose its own approach to complying with its
permit limitations.
11-41
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
This section also describes the estimation of the increased amounts of solid waste that would
be generated as a result of the end-of-pipe treatment system upgrades and the associated
handling and disposal costs.
11.6.1 Approach to Estimating End-of-Pipe Treatment Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for each mill to achieve target BOD5 and TSS production
normalized loads for BPT Options 1 and 2 using in-process flow reduction (described in
Section 11.5) and/or end-of-pipe treatment. Section 10.2 details the calculation of target
BOD5 and TSS loads for each mill based on the long-term average loads for each
subcategory.
In general, the following steps were used to estimate the cost of end-of-pipe treatment:
• Mills that required wastewater treatment upgrades to meet target BOD5 and
TSS loads for BPT Options 1 and 2 were identified;
• Wastewater treatment upgrades that would enable each mill to meet the
target loads were selected;
• The capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) costs to implement the
selected upgrade for each mill 'were estimated; and
• The energy consumption and solid waste generation due to the treatment
system upgrades for each mill were estimated.
Wastewater treatment system upgrades that would .enable each mill to meet target BOD5
and TSS loads for BPT Options 1 and 2 were selected. Because the most common end-of-
pipe treatment currently in place at pulp and paper mills is biological treatment, including
basins (aerated and non-aerated) and activated sludge treatment systems, these technologies
became the basis for the wastewater treatment upgrades designed and costed. The specific
upgrades are outlined in Sections 11.6.2.
Primary treatment is an integral part of biological treatment. More than 75 percent of all
mills with biological treatment have primary treatment; mechanical clarifiers are the most
common type of primary treatment in place at these mills. Mechanical clarifiers reduce
solids loads to subsequent biological treatment systems, improving their operating efficiency.
In activated sludge systems, primary clarification is particularly necessary because'it also
reduces the volume of aeration tank and secondary; clarification required. The Agency did
not have sufficient data to determine, on a mill-specific basis, whether the primary treatment
in place is adequate. To simplify the cost estimation process, primary treatment upgrades
were not included for mills that currently have primary treatment. A complete treatment
system, including primary clarifiers, was included in the estimated costs for mills that
11-42
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
currently have no wastewater treatment. Clarifiers were included as part of all greenfield
treatment systems, both basin systems and activated sludge systems.
11.6.1.1 General Assumptions for Estimating End-of-Pipe Treatment Costs
To estimate end-of-pipe treatment costs, the Agency made the following assumptions about
each mill:
• The wastewater treatment operations at each mill are the same as those
existing in 1989, based on the information reported by each mill in the 1990
questionnaire;
• Each mill will continue to make the same mix of products at the same rate
that it did in 1989, independent of wastewater treatment system upgrades
implemented to achieve target loads;
• The wastewater treatment system at each mill will operate 365 days per year;
• The number of production days per year at each mill is 350 days; this number
was used to convert production normalized loads to concentrations;
• The primary wastewater treatment operations at each mill are adequate to
precede end-of-pipe biological treatment; and
• Each mill will continue to generate the same final effluent flow regardless of
upgrades made to the wastewater treatment system except when flow
reduction was required to achieve target concentrations.
Some mills could not achieve target BOD5 or TSS loads for BPT Options 1 and 2 with end-
of-pipe treatment alone because their target BOD5 and TSS concentrations were lower than
the lowest currently demonstrated concentrations. Therefore, these mills required flow
reduction to increase their target concentrations. Section 11.5 describes the calculation of
target and lowest currently demonstrated concentrations and the flow reduction technologies
costed for these mills. The technologies that reduce flow also reduce BOD5 and TSS loads.
Flow reduction, if required, was applied to a mill first; the revised final effluent flow rates,
BOD5 load, and TSS load achieved with flow reduction were entered into models to design
and cost end-of-pipe wastewater treatment upgrades that would enable the mill to achieve
target loads. The above assumptions were then applicable to the revised flows and loads.
For some mills, target BOD5 and TSS loads were met with flow reduction, and end-of-pipe
treatment costs were not estimated.
11-43
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.6.1.2 Design and Cost Model Selection
The Agency selected a combination of models to design and cost basin and activated sludge
wastewater treatment upgrades. Because the critical operating parameters for basin and
activated sludge systems are different, separate models were necessary to design and cost
upgrades for each type of treatment Each mill was placed into one of two groups according
to the type of biological wastewater treatment it has in place. If a null has activated sludge
treatment, it was grouped as .such; all other mills, including mills with no wastewater
treatment or only primary treatment, were initially grouped as basin mills. Section 11.6.6
discusses the number of mills for which basin and activated sludge treatment system
upgrades were costed.
Basin Design and Cost Model
i
The model used to design and cost basin upgrades was the Computer Assisted Procedure
for Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET). The general
purpose of CAPDET is to estimate planning level costs for the preliminary design of
wastewater. treatment systems. CAPDET uses a "screening" methodology to estimate costs,
which involves designing several alternative treatment systems that meet specified effluent
criteria and then ranking each alternative that'meets the criteria in order of least annual
cost (17).
CAPDET is primarily a costing tool. The planning level costs estimated by CAPDET have
an accuracy of _±15 percent for capital costs and ±20 percent for operation and
maintenance costs; these costs are based on a knowledge of basic treatment operations and
the use of cost curves (17).
CAPDET combines parametric and unit costing methods to estimate the direct construction
costs for the treatment system.
Parametric costing is used to estimate the more site-specific types of construction costs, such
as labor and electrical and mechanical components. Costs of these components are
estimated as a function of-one distinguishing operating or design parameter of the treatment
system such as flow or surface area. The quantity cost curves for several construction
components were developed by EPA from a statistical analysis of national average data for
facilities similar in size and scope and are contained in the EPA publication entitled
"Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants" (FRD11) (17).
Unit costing is used to estimate costs for unit processes. CAPDETs unit costing method
allows the user to input unit prices for major cost items of a unit process, including
equipment, installation, and structural materials. Associated minor costs are usually
calculated as a percentage of the costs of major items (17).
11-44
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
CAPDET does not perform mathematical optimization of treatment design and is not
considered a process simulation design model; instead, CAPDET uses generally accepted
design equations and simplifying assumptions to develop preliminary designs of wastewater
treatment unit(processes (17). This simplified approach is particularly appropriate for basin
designs because it focuses on independent basin units whose primary design considerations
are aeration and volume.
CAPDET was selected to design and cost basin upgrades for several reasons, including:
• CAPDET requires relatively few input parameters to estimate planning level
costs. The inputs for each mill required by CAPDET were available from
responses to the 1990 questionnaire or could be estimated from industry
averages.
i
• CAPDET has unit process modules to design and estimate costs for large
flows, 378,540 m3 (100 million gallons/day), and therefore is applicable to
most pulp and paper mills.
• CAPDET allows input of current unit prices for equipment and other related
construction costs.
• CAPDET is a costing tool and does not attempt to rigorously design
wastewater treatment processes. This approach is appropriate for the
estimation of costs for end-of-pipe treatment upgrades.
The specific CAPDET design and cost modules used to cost basin upgrades were modules
for aerobic aerated lagoon, aerated facultative lagoon, and facultative lagoon (17).
Section 11.6.2 discusses in further detail the application of these modules to the costing of
basin upgrades for pulp and paper mills.
An additional computer program was used as a supplement to the design model for basin
upgrades. The program optimizes the detention time requirements for a two-lagoon system
comprising an aerated lagoon followed by an aerated facultative lagoon. The program
calculates, by an iterative algorithm, the minimum detention time required in both lagoons
to achieve the desired BOD5 removal. Minimal detention times require lower lagoon
volumes and thus lower land and construction costs. Section 11.6.3 explains the use of this
program with the CAPDET modules mentioned previously.
Another model used for basin upgrade costing was a mathematical model developed by
NCASI for polishing ponds described in "Development and Application of a Mathematical
Model for Predicting BOD and TSS Removal in Polishing Ponds Following Aerated
Stabilization Basins" (NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 550). This model is a diagnostic model
(rather than a costing model) that simulates the particular system in which a polishing pond
follows an aerated stabilization basin (ASB) to identify parameters that most impact system
11-45
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
performance. This model was used primarily to compare and verify the design assumptions
and algorithms used in the model to estimate costs for water treatment upgrades described
in Section 11.6.2.
Activated Sludge Design and Cost Models
CAPDET was used to estimate the costs of activated sludge treatment system upgrades.
The design portion of CAPDET was not used, however, because activated sludge systems
are more intensively engineered than basin systems and therefore require a more
sophisticated design model than CAPDET. Activated sludge systems are complex systems
comprising two interdependent unit processes: aeration tanks and mechanical clarifiers.
Therefore, an analysis of the interdependent operating conditions was necessary to evaluate
the impact of various upgrades on system performance.
To design activated sludge treatment system upgrades, the Agency used a spreadsheet model
that simulates the existing treatment system at a facility based on available operating and
design information. Where actual operating and design information were not available, the
Agency used values for these parameters based on best professional judgment. Once the
existing system was simulated, a treatment upgrade was designed that improved the
performance of the existing system to enable the facility to meet target BOD5 and TSS
concentrations. Section 11.6.2 describes the particular upgrades that were designed and
costed for activated sludge systems.
11.6.2 Development of Design and Cost Models
This section describes the specific wastewater treatment upgrades that were costed and how
the models described in Section 11.6.1.2 were modified to estimate costs of upgrades
necessary for pulp and paper mills to achieve BPT Option. 1 and Option 2 performance
levels.
Basin Design and Cost Model
Eight basin treatment upgrades were considered for each mill:
• Additional aeration in existing basins;
• Additional aeration in existing basins and new aerated facultative lagoon (in
addition to existing basins);
• Single aerated facultative lagoon (in addition to existing basins);
• Two lagoons (in addition to existing basins): aerobic aerated lagoon followed
by aerated facultative lagoon;
11-46
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
• Polishing pond (in addition to existing basins);
• Polishing pond (in addition to existing basins) and additional aeration in
existing basins;
• Polymer addition in existing basins; and
• Primary clarification (installed as part of a greenfield treatment system at
mills that have no wastewater treatment in place).
Figure 11-1 shows the logical sequence in which basin upgrades were designed, costed, and
selected. The applicability of each upgrade to a mill depended upon the required BOD5
and TSS removals and the treatment in place. Not all upgrades were applicable to each
mill, but sometimes several different upgrades could enable a mill to achieve target loads.
For mills that currently have no wastewater treatment, primary clarification was designed
and costed in combination with a lagoon or polishing pond upgrade to comprise a greenfield
treatment system. In some cases, however, target loads were achieved with primary
clarification as a stand-alone upgrade. When more than one possible upgrade was designed
and costed for a mill, the model selected the upgrade with the lowest total annualized cost.
The total annualized cost calculation is described in Section 11.6.5.3.
Selected CAPDET modules were used to design and cost all the upgrades except polymer
addition and primary clarification. Not all of CAPDETs specific equations and assumptions
reflect actual conditions at pulp and paper mills, although the basic design equations still
apply. Accordingly, the equations and algorithms suitable for costing upgrades were
extracted from the documentation for each CAPDET module and built into a spreadsheet
model. In most cases, significant portions of each module remained intact in the
spreadsheet model. Extracting module equations into a spreadsheet had several advantages
because it allowed for the following:
• Modification of equations to better suit the designs of basin upgrades for pulp
and paper mills;
• Selection of only those equations required for estimating costs;
• Input of additional data not normally entered in the original version of
CAPDET; and
• Assigning fixed values to design and operating variables appropriate for pulp
and paper mill wastewater.
The CAPDET modules on which the design and cost equations for the basin upgrades are
based are listed in Table 11-15. The document entitled "Detailed Description of the Flow
Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models" found in the Record for
11-47
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
the Rulemaking provides a detailed description of the modifications made to the CAPDET
modules, design and operating parameters, and other assumptions used for each basin
upgrade.
The polymer addition upgrade was developed based on best professional judgment. Polymer
addition was designed and costed for mills that require no BOD5 removal, but do require
TSS removal less than 5 mg/L or 20 percent of the current TSS load to meet target loads.
Polymer is added to the existing basin treatment system at a rate of 5 mg/L based on the
final effluent flow rate. This upgrade is also discussed in the "Detailed Description of the
Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models."
Primary clarifiers were designed using an algorithm to calculate the clarifier diameter
required to obtain a weir overflow rate (in m3/day/m2) typical of primary clarifiers used in
the pulp and paper industry. The design algorithm is also described more completely in the
"Detailed Description of the End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models." The number
and size of primary clarifiers were then entered into the activated sludge cost model
(described in Section 11.6.2) to estimate costs for this upgrade.
11.6.2.2
Activated Sludge Design Model
Activated sludge systems typically consist of one or more aeration basins or tanks followed
by sedimentation clarifiers. Activated sludge systems reduce BOD5 by microorganism
digestion at a much greater rate than aerated basin systems. The faster digestion rate
produces more biological solids in the aeration tank that require settling in a mechanical
clarifier. A portion of the settled solids in the clarifier are removed as waste sludge, with
the remaining sludge returned to the aeration tank to maintain a stable, active population
of microorganisms.
Upgrades for activated sludge systems are difficult to define because performance often
relies on the complex interdependence of the aeration tank and clarifier, the manner in
which the system is operated, and not necessarily on the equipment type or capacity. Simple
expansions or additions are not easily implemented, as minor changes can impact
performance. Therefore, a more detailed analysis than was required for basins was required
to design an appropriate and realistic upgrade of the activated sludge system at each mill.
The activated sludge design model allowed the user to identify aspects of the activated
sludge system that were inadequate to meet target BOD5 and TSS loads. The user analyzed
the activated sludge treatment system in place at each mill and designed alternative
upgrades by the following steps:
• Summarizing design and operating data;
• Mathematically simulating the current treatment at each mill using summary
data; and
11-48
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
• Modeling alternative designs to achieve target BOD5 and TSS loads for BPT
Options 1 and 2.
Upgrades were selected based on an alternative design that achieved target loads. The
major design and operating parameters, calculations, and assumptions used in the design
model to perform each step of this analysis are described in "Detailed Description of the
Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models."
Increased BOD5 and TSS removals in activated sludge systems cause related changes in
waste activated sludge generation. The model calculated new clarifier loadings and recycle
ratios to determine the additional quantity of waste activated sludge requiring handling and
disposal. Section 11.6.2.3 describes the separate program developed to estimate costs for
additional sludge handling and disposal.
Potential upgrades to existing activated sludge treatment to achieve target BOD5 and TSS
loads are summarized below:
• Additional aeration tank volume;
• Additional aeration;
• Additional secondary clarification (after activated sludge aeration tanks);
• Polymer addition;
• Operational modifications; and
• Primary clarification (installed with a greenfield system at mills that have no
wastewater treatment in place).
Additional aeration tank volume, aeration, and secondary clarification were selected based
on the design analysis of the existing activated sludge treatment described above. Polymer
addition was selected, based upon best professional judgment, to achieve incremental TSS
removals required to meet target loads. Depending on the requirements for each mill to
meet target loads, each of these upgrades except operational modifications may have been
selected individually or in combination. Operational modifications were selected when the
existing activated sludge system had sufficient capacity to achieve the required BOD5 and
TSS removals but was not effectively operated. As with basin costing, primary clarification
was costed as part of a greenfield activated sludge system for mills that have no wastewater
treatment in place. In some cases, target loads were achieved with primary clarification
only, and primary clarification was therefore designed and costed as a stand-alone upgrade.
11-49
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.6.2.4 Sludge Handling, Dewatering, and Disposal
The wastewater treatment system upgrades that are the technology basis of the proposed
BPT effluent limitations guidelines generate increased amounts of wastewater treatment
sludges. The Agency estimated the cost for the industry to handle and dispose of this
increased amount of sludge. Unlike the approaches used to estimate the cost of upgrades
to the wastewater treatment systems (described in 11.6.2.1 and 11.6.2.2), specific sludge
management technology upgrades were not designed. Thus, costs for specific sludge
handling equipment and operating practices were not estimated. Instead, the Agency
estimated the increased mass of sludge resulting from the treatment system upgrades, as well
as site-specific sludge management and disposal costs ($/metric ton of sludge), and
calculated the incremental sludge management cost.
Wastewater treatment sludges are generated by primary settling basins and clarifiers, by
aerated and unaerated basins, and by activated sludge treatment systems.
The Agency assumed that mills will incur no additional costs to manage and dispose of the
increased amounts of sludge that result from upgrades to aerated and unaerated basins.
Current practices typically involve dredging basins every three to five years and disposing
of the dredged solids. Some mills reported that they have never dredged their basins.
Accordingly, the Agency believes that current mill practices are sufficient to handle the
increased sludge load at essentially no additional cost, or, if there are incremental costs,
these costs would be minimal and not possible to estimate with any reasonable degree of
accuracy.
Incremental sludge management and disposal costs were estimated for increased amounts
of sludge resulting from upgraded activated sludge treatment systems. The increased
amount of activated sludge generated was estimated by first using the design model
described in Section 11.6.2.2 to simulate the performance of the existing treatment system
and to estimate the sludge generation rate of this modeled system. Then, an appropriate
treatment system upgrade was designed to enable the treatment system to achieve the target
loads and the sludge generation rate of the upgraded system was estimated. The increase
in sludge generation resulting from achieving the BPT Option 1 and 2 performance levels
were defined as the difference between the two modeled sludge generation rates. The
activated sludge design model was also used to estimate the sludge generation rate in
primary clarifiers for greenfield treatment systems (basin or activated sludge).
Once the increased amount of activated and/or primary sludge was estimated for each mill,
a. separate program that calculates mill-specific unit costs was used to estimate capital and
annual O&M costs for sludge handling and disposal; these costs were then entered into the
activated sludge cost model to be included in 'the total capital and O&M compliance costs
for each mill. This program is described in more detail in "Detailed Description of the Flow
Reduction and *End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models."
11-50
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.6.2.3
Activated Sludge Cost Model
This section describes the algorithms used to estimate costs for implementing the upgrades
to activated sludge treatment discussed in the previous section. The costing algorithms for
additional aeration volume and additional clarification (both primary and secondary) were
based on the CAPDET module for high-rate activated sludge and secondary clarification,
respectively.
The costs for additional aeration and polymer addition were estimated by the algorithms
used in the basin design and cost model described in Section 11.6.2.1. Operational
modifications were estimated to have zero capital and O&M costs as they require minimal
or no additional equipment, labor-hours, chemicals, or energy.
"Detailed Description of the Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost
Models" further describes the modifications made to the CAPDET modules, design and
operating parameters, and other assumptions used for each activated sludge upgrade.
11.6.3 Sources of Operating and Maintenance Costs
Components of operating and maintenance costs for basin and activated sludge upgrades
include the following:
• Chemicals
• Energy
• Labor
Table 11-16 summarizes unit costs used to estimate operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs for upgrades to basin and activated sludge treatment. The source of each cost is
presented in a memorandum entitled "Pulp and Paper Operating Costs" dated September
1, 1993, found in the Record for the Rulemaking. All of the unit costs discussed in this
section were scaled to fourth quarter 1991 dollars using the Chemical Engineering composite
index. The fourth quarter index for 1991 is 361.1.
Sludge handling and disposal costs were mill-specific based on data submitted in response
to the 1990 questionnaire. These costs were also scaled to fourth quarter 1991 dollars using
the Chemical Engineering Composite Index.
11.6.4 Sources of Capital Costs
This section describes the components of direct capital costs for basin and activated sludge
wastewater treatment system upgrades, the sources from which these costs were obtained,
and the actual costs used in the cost models described in Section 11.6.2.
11-51
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
11.6.4.1
Direct Capital Costs
Components of direct capital costs for basin and activated sludge upgrades include the
following:
• Equipment (purchase and installation);
• Construction materials and excavation;
• Land; and
• Other minor cost items.
The cost basis for each of these components was obtained from one of four sources:
1) equipment vendor quotes; 2) environmental engineering consultants, 3) cost data
collected by EPA for the development of costs for the pesticides manufacturing regulation
promulgated in August 1993 (these costs were reported in 1986 dollars), and 4) mill
responses to the 1990 questionnaire. All costs obtained were scaled to fourth quarter 1991
dollars using the Chemical Engineering composite index. The fourth quarter index for 1991
is 361.1.
Table 11-17 summarizes some of the unit costs for each component listed above and the
upgrades to which they apply. Each cost component is briefly discussed below. A more
detailed discussion of each component is contained in "Detailed Description of the Flow
Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models."
Equipment Costs
Equipment costs included the purchase and installation cost of each piece of equipment.
Equipment costs were obtained for two major types of equipment: high-speed, mechanical
surface aerators and circular mechanical clarifier mechanisms and accessories. The
equipment costs of 20-, 40-, 60-, and 75-horsepower surface aerators were obtained from a
vendor of pulp and paper wastewater treatment equipment. The delivered installed cost of
each aerator was estimated as approximately 10 percent of the purchase cost (18). The
aerator unit costs listed in Table 11-17 include purchase and installation costs.
The purchase cost of mechanical clarifiers was estimated using a cost curve developed from
vendor price quotes obtained for a range of clarifier diameters; therefore, a unit cost is not
provided in Table 11-17. Equipment installation costs for clarifiers were estimated using
CAPDET calculations that included installation labor and crane rental. Unit costs for labor
and crane rental are given in Table 11-17. The installation labor rate is the same as that
for the maintenance technician described in Section 11.6.3. The unit cost of crane rental
was scaled from the unit cost used for the pesticides manufacturing regulation.
11-52
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
The equipment cost for a feeder box for polymer addition was estimated based upon best
professional judgment.
Construction Materials and Excavation
Table 11-17 lists unit costs for construction materials and excavation. Construction materials
include reinforced concrete wall, reinforced concrete slab, clay liner, grout, and handrail.
Unit costs for concrete wall and slab, handrail, and excavation were scaled from cost data
collected for the pesticides manufacturing regulation. Unit costs were obtained from an
engineering consulting firm for compacted clay (19) and from a wastewater treatment
equipment vendor for grout (20).
Land
Costs for aerated lagoons and polishing ponds included purchasing additional land and
piping and pumping the wastewater, if necessary, to the new lagoon or pond. The amount
of land required for each lagoon or pond accounts for the calculated surface area of the
lagoon or pond, embankments, pump stations, fences, and maintenance roads and buildings.
The Agency did not include land costs in the total costs for activated sludge upgrades
because these upgrades are compact, requiring minimal space and can be accommodated
by any available company-owned land.
Land costs consisted of four components:
• The purchase cost of the nearest available land;
• The purchase cost of right-of-way to the nearest available land;
• The cost of pump stations; and
• The cost of pipeline.
The purchase cost of land for each mill was obtained from that mill's response to the 1990
questionnaire. The purchase cost of right-of-way was estimated as 10 percent of the
purchase cost of land. The costs of pipelines and pump stations were based on cost curves
developed by the Agency.
Three scenarios existed for the application of each 'component of land costs based on the
information obtained from the questionnaire for each mill. Table 11-18 summarizes these
scenarios and components of land costs that were calculated for each.
The purchase costs of land and right-of-way were added to the total direct capital cost after
the factors for minor cost items, regional labor (Section 11.6.4.2) and indirect costs
(Section 11.6.4.3) have been applied to the other direct capital costs. "Detailed Description
11-53
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
of the Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models" describes the
calculation of land cost components.
Other Minor Cost Items
According to CAPDET documentation, approximately 90 percent of the total direct'capital
costs for lagoons, ponds and activated sludge aeration tanks and 85 percent of the total
direct capital costs for mechanical clarifiers are accounted for by the algorithms in each
module. To account for other minor cost items, CAPDET applied a correction factor of
1.11 to the total direct capital costs, for lagoons, ponds, and activated sludge aeration tanks
and a factor of 1.18 to the total direct capital costs for mechanical clarifiers. In the basin
cost model, the correction factor was applied to the total direct capital costs including the
pipeline and pump station components of land costs.
11.6.4.2
Site-specific Cost Factors
A site-specific cost factor was applied to the direct capital costs, excluding the purchase cost
of land and right-of-way, for each mill. The cost factor was applied to reflect the differences
in construction and installation labor rates for various regions of the country. Cost factors
were assigned according to the state in which the1 mill is located. The cost factor was
applied to direct capital costs for all basin and activated sludge treatment upgrades except
additional aeration and polymer addition for basins and activated sludge because they do
not require any construction. The source of these site-specific cost factors is Development
of Cost Curves for Best Available Technology Options for Chemical Pulp Mills that Bleach
Wood found in the Record for the Rulemaking:
11.6.4.3
Indirect Capital Costs
Indirect capital costs included overhead and profit, engineering, and contingency. Each
component of indirect costs was calculated as a percentage of the total direct capital costs
excluding the purchase cost of land or right-of-way and including the adjustments for
regional labor and minor cost items described above. Based on values reported in literature
including the development documents for other rulemakings, total indirect costs range
typically from 15 to 50 percent of the total direct costs.
The following table summarizes the allowances made for indirect cost components and the
percentage of the total direct costs used to calculate each component. Each component is
briefly described below. '
11-54
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
fff
_"„"•_ Infitreet Cast Cemponent " •
ff ^ '•
Overhead and Profit
Engineering
Contingency
I
Allowance M % of Bireet Capital ; ;
" - * Carts - *" ' :
•"••>, ;
10%
10%
10%
Overhead and profit covers the contractors' fixed expenses and profit margin; this was
estimated as 10 percent of the total direct costs.
Engineering costs account for the design, specifications, and inspections required to take a
project from concept to operation. Engineering services may include site surveys, soil and
groundwater investigations, and laboratory or pilot plant work. Engineering costs were
estimated as 10 percent of the total direct capital costs.
Contingency is an allowance for errors and omissions inherent in the costs and also for
unforeseen difficulties that prolong project completion. Contingency was also estimated as
10 percent of the total direct capital costs.
Indirect costs were not included in the estimates for the additional aeration or polymer
addition upgrades for basins and activated sludge because they are simple, low-cost upgrades
that do not require large time investments or intensive engineering or construction by
contractors.
11.6.5 Application of Design and Cost Models
This section discusses how the design and cost models were used to estimate the costs for
each direct discharging pulp and paper mill to meet target BPT BOD5 and TSS loads using
secondary treatment. The data inputs to each model and how each piece of data was used
in the model are described. In addition, the methodology used to account for BOD5 and
TSS load reductions achieved by implementing other regulations (BAT, NESHAP, and
BMP) is presented.
11.6.5.1
Inputs to Design and Cost Models
The input data for each mill required by the basin design and cost model, the activated
sludge design model, and the activated sludge cost model are discussed1 in "Detailed
Description of the Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment Design and Cost Models."
11-55
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
All input data were obtained from mill responses to the 1990 questionnaire. Where data
were missing for a mill, reasonable estimates were made based on industry averages, best
professional judgment, or data transferred from a similar mill.
11.6.5.2
Load Reductions Prior to Wastewater Treatment
The implementation of BAT, NESHAP, and BMP will reduce wastewater flow and BOD5
loads to wastewater treatment. The flow reductions have not been accounted for in the
application of the end-of-pipe treatment design and cost models. (As discussed in 11.6.1,
only flow reduction necessary to achieve BPT performance levels without exceeding lowest
achievable BOD5 and TSS concentrations was accounted for in estimating the cost of end-of-
pipe treatment)) Therefore, the resulting costs have been somewhat overestimated. BOD5
load reductions, however, are accounted for prior to the application of wastewater treatment
upgrades for basins and activated sludge treatment systems.
BAT, NESHAP, and BMP result in BOD5 load reduction in untreated wastewater. The new
BOD5 load in the mill effluent after the load reductions were applied (and before any
treatment system upgrade was designed) was obtained by calculating the product of percent
removal across the entire treatment system and the reduced untreated wastewater BOD5
load.
If a portion of a mill's production was in a subcategory to which a particular load reduction
did not apply, then the load reduction was prorated based on the percentage of production
to which the load reduction did apply.
An example calculation of how load reductions were applied is given below:
BOD5i - BODSe
BOD5i
BOD5i(LR) = BOD5i - RPr
(10)
(11)
BOD
5e(LR)
- RT)BODSi(LR)
(12)
11-56
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
where:
BOD5i
BOD5e
BOD5i(LR)
BOD5e(LR)
BAT
Percent removal of BOD5 across wastewater treatment
system, %
Current BOD5 load influent to wastewater treatment,
kg/OMMT
Current BOD5 load in final effluent from wastewater treatment,
kg/OMMT
BOD5 load influent to wastewater treatment after application
of load reduction, kg/OMMT
BOD5 load reduction in influent to wastewater treatment,
kg/OMMT
Percent of mill's production to which load reduction applies, %
BOD5 load in final effluent from wastewater treatment after
application of load reduction, kg/OMMT.
BOD5 load reductions resulting from process changes that form the technology basis for
BAT were applied to mills that have production in either the bleached papergrade kraft and
soda or the dissolving kraft subcategories. The amount of BOD5 load reduction achieved
was based on the implementation of BAT Option 2. However, many mills upgraded their
pulping and bleaching processes between 1989, the basis year for available BOD5 data, and
January 1, 1993, the baseline date for BAT costing for technology in-place at each mill.
BOD5 load reductions associated with these pulping and bleaching upgrades were also taken
into account. The BOD5 load reduction estimated to be achieved by implementing BAT
technologies are summarized in the table below.
.,., .--»**.**-•.;
Improved Brown Stock Washing Only
Extended Cooking .or Oxygen Delignification
Improved Brown Stock Washing (21)
Total
BOl>s Ix»a
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Extended Cooking and Oxygen Delignification
Improved Brown Stock Washing (21)
Total
9
4
13
To assign BOD5 load reductions to mills, each mill was placed in one of the following four
groups according to its pulping and bleaching technologies in place:
• Mills that do not have either extended cooking or oxygen delignification;
• Mills that have oxygen delignification;
• ' Mills that have extended cooking; and
• Mills that have both extended cooking and oxygen delignification.
Table 11-19 summarizes the BOD5 load reduction assigned to each group for mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory.
For mills that have extended cooking and/or oxygen delignification based on information
from the 1990 questionnaire, it was assumed that the effluent BOD5 load already reflects
any reductions resulting from the technologies; therefore, a zero load reduction was assigned
to these mills. The exceptions to this rule were mills that have extended cooking, for which
a BOD5 load reduction will result from improved brown stock washing (the Agency
determined that mills that have installed extended cooking do not necessarily have improved
brown stock washing whereas mills that have oxygen delignification typically do). Mills
believed to have installed extended cooking and/or oxygen delignification based on
information obtained since the questionnaire was completed received BOD5 load reductions
resulting from those technologies (see table above).
Mills that do not have either extended cooking or oxygen delignification require only
improved brown stock washing to match the technology basis for BAT Option 2. These
mills received the same BOD5 load reduction regardless of whether their group assignment
was based on 1990 questionnaire responses or information obtained since the questionnaire
was completed.
Dissolving kraft mills were assigned load reductions equal to one-half of those shown in
Table 11-19 because the Agency determined that dissolving kraft mills generally have morb
effective brown stock washing and screening, in terms of resulting black liquor loss to the
11-58
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
bleach plant, than papergrade kraft mills due to higher product purity requirements. Thus,
the impact on BOD5 loads due to implementing BAT process change options would be less.
BOD5 load reductions due to implementation of BAT process changes were not applied to
papergrade and dissolving sulfite mills. Improved brown stock washing and extended
cooking were not included in the technology basis for BAT for sulfite mills and therefore
a BOD5 load reduction was not applicable due to these technologies. Although oxygen
delignification was included as part of the technology basis for BAT for sulfite mills, the
Agency determined that the wastewater generated by oxygen delignification is sent to
wastewater treatment and not to a recovery system as it is in a kraft mill. Therefore, oxygen
delignification would not reduce the load of BOD5 entering the treatment systems at sulfite
mills. A BOD5 load reduction was applied to dissolving sulfite mills due to technologies that
form the basis of BAT limitations for COD; the application of pollution reductions due to
BAT is discussed in Section 10.2.3.1.
NESHAP
The BODS load to wastewater treatment is reduced when condensate wastestreams are
steam stripped to remove methanol and other volatile organic compounds. Section 8.4.2 and
the BID for the proposed NESHAP discuss in detail the application of steam stripping to
pulp and paper mill wastestreams.
Load reductions due to steam stripping were applied to mills in the following subcategories:
dissolving kraft; bleached papergrade kraft and soda; unbleached kraft; dissolving sulfite;
papergrade sulfite; and semi-chemical. For the purpose of assigning BOD5 load reductions
to mills, the Agency used the following methodology. If a mill currently steam strips
condensates, the raw waste load was assumed to reflect this, and no load reduction was
assigned. If the mill does not have steam stripping in-place, a load reduction was assigned
based on the criteria presented in Table 11-20.
Table 11-20 separates mills used for BPT costing into four groups, based on the extent that
they reuse condensates. If a mill discharges all its condensates to wastewater treatment, a
maximum raw waste load reduction of 8 kg BOD5/OMMT was applied. This reduction is
based on a typical pulp mill condensate raw waste load at kraft mills of 9 kg BOD5/OMMT
(22) and a 90-percent methanol (and BOD5) removal by steam stripping. For mills that
discharge only a portion of their pulp mill condensates to wastewater treatment, one half
of the above load reduction was applied, or 4 kg/OMMT. No load reduction was applied
for mills that do not discharge condensates to wastewater treatment.
The percent of condensates discharged and/or reused was assessed based on responses to
a voluntary mill survey conducted through the National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) as part of the NESHAP development. In some
cases, insufficient information was provided to determine whether condensates were
11-59
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
discharged or reused and best professional judgement was used to assign BOD load
reductions.
The implementation of BMP for pulping liquor spiU prevention and control will also reduce
the BOD5 load to wastewater treatment. Mills were placed into groups based on their status
in implementing BMP as described in Section 11.4. The table below lists the BOD5 load
reductions for mills in each group resulting from implementation of BMP.
\ ™?S^\ *L-*s ^'X- -^-^ -" \ ,
Mills that require no upgrades
Mills that require moderate upgrades
Mills that require major upgrades
0
2.5
5
11.6.53
Basin Costing
Designs and costs for basin upgrades were developed using the basin design and cost model
described in Section 11.6.2.1. However, because more than one possible upgrade was
designed and costed for many mills, a criterion for selecting among the upgrades was
required. The criterion used to select a basin upgrade was the lowest total annualized cost
(TAG). For the purpose of identifying a least cost upgrade, TAG was calculated at a seven
percent interest rate over 15 years, as given by the equations below:
GAG = 0.6 OM
(13)
TAG = CAP x fl (1+I)") + OM + GAG
(14)
where:
GAG = General and administrative costs, $/yr
CAP = Total capital costs of upgrade (direct, indirect and land costs)
11-60
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
OM = Total O&M costs of upgrade
1=7 percent interest rate
n = 15 years.
The equation simplifies to the following expression that is used in the basin design and cost
model:
TAG = (0.1498)CAP + (1.6)OM
(15)
11.6.5.4
Activated Sludge Costing
Activated sludge costing was completed in three parts:
• The activated sludge design spreadsheet model described in Section 11.6.2.2
was used to design and select the appropriate upgrade(s) to the existing
treatment system to enable the mill to meet target BODS and TSS loads. A
summary sheet was generated describing the upgraded system.
• The incremental activated sludge generated at each mill, given on the design
summary sheet, was entered into the sludge handling and disposal cost
program described in Section 11.6.2.3. Once data were generated for all mills.,
the cost program was run to estimate mill-specific capital and O&M costs for
each mill.
• Output from the design summary sheet and the sludge handling and disposal
cost program were entered into the activated sludge cost model described in
Section 11.6.2.4, and total capital and O&M costs of the recommeijHed
upgrade(s) to treatment at each mill were estimated.
11.6.6 Cost Results
BPT applies to all direct discharging pulp and paper mills, a total of 325 mills. Mills whose
long-term average BOD5 and/or TSS effluent loads exceed the target loads for either BPT
Options 1 oil 2 required costs for end-of-pipe treatment (and possibly flow reduction)
upgrades. However, for several mills that do not meet target loads for either option, no
treatment system upgrade costs were estimated because insufficient data for costing were
available. Costs for these mills were transferred from a similar mill. Several mills share
wastewater treatment systems. For these cases, the total costs for the treatment system
upgrade were apportioned to each mill sharing treatment based on its contribution to the
11-61
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
total wastewater flow to the treatment system. The total number of mills that required costs
and the types of costs they received for each option are summarized in Table 11-21.
The total number, capital cost, and O&M cost of each type of upgrade costed for mills to
achieve target loads is shown hi Table 11-22 for BPT Options 1 and 2. The total cost to
industry, by subcategory, to achieve BPT Options 1 and 2 performance levels are discussed
in Section 11.7; total industry costs include those shown in Table 11-22 for mills costed for
wastewater treatment upgrades and for mills whose costs were transferred from a similar
mill.
The incremental amount of sludge generated by mills to achieve target loads was 59,700
metric tons per year for Option 1 and 63,100 metric tons per year for Option 2. The capital
and O&M costs associated with handling and disposing the additional sludge are shown in
Table 11-22 for Options 1 and 2.
11.6.7 Validation of End-of-Pipe Treatment System Cost Model
As described above, the major end-of-pipe treatment system upgrades considered by EPA
for estimating industry-wide compliance costs with proposed BPT and BCT effluent
limitations guidelines include:
• Additional aeration in existing basins;
• Additional aeration in existing basins and new aerated facultative lagoon (in
addition to existing basins);
• Single aerated facultative lagoon (in addition to existing basins);
• Two lagoons (in addition to existing basins): aerobic aerated lagoon followed
by aerated facultative lagoon;
i
• Polishing pond (hi addition to existing basins);
• Polishing pond (in addition to existing basins) and additional aeration in
existing basins;
• Polymer addition in existing basins; and
• Primary clarification (installed as part of a greenfield treatment system at
mills that have no wastewater treatment in place).
EPA compared the capital costs estimated using its model for major end-of-pipe treatment
system upgrades with industry installed costs for similar treatment systems or treatment
system components. The purpose of the comparison was to determine if the end-of-pipe
11-62
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
treatment upgrade costs estimated using the model were similar to industry costs on an
aggregate basis. Based upon these comparisons, EPA found that the costs estimated using
the model were higher than industry reported costs by about 11 percent on an aggregate
basis for more than 200 treatment system upgrades. The costs estimated using the Agency's
model were consistently higher than industry-reported costs for aerated basin and polishing
pond upgrades, and consistently lower than industry-reported costs for activated sludge
system clarifier upgrades.
EPA reviewed industry investment cost data supplied in response to the 1990 questionnaire
for a number of mills that reported investment costs for treatment system upgrades that
were similar to those listed above. Where industry costs could be reasonably broken out
for similar treatment systems or treatment system components, EPA converted those costs
to fourth quarter 1991 dollars using the Chemical Engineering composite cost index, and
prepared cost estimates for similarly sized treatment systems or treatment system upgrades
using its end-of-pipe treatment system cost model. The results of those comparisons are
presented in Tables 11-23 through 11-27.
Each table presents mill observation numbers (corresponding to data from a specific mill),
the flow, size, or number associated with the treatment system upgrade, the investment cost
reported by the mill, and, the corresponding cost estimated using the Agency's model. For
each type of treatment system upgrade, the Agency compared the sum of the industry
reported costs and the sum of the costs estimated by its model. Ratios of the sums of
industry-reported costs to the sums of the costs estimated using the Agency's model were
computed to illustrate the potential magnitude of the differences. Following is a summary
of the model-derived costs and the industry-reported installed costs by treatment system
upgrade:
5
,s Treatment , -
__U#g*atte,
Aerators
Aerated Basins
Polishing Ponds
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tanks
Clarifiers
•.*•*•_. *?", /
Isf amber
•Co&j&rM''
3
16
9
8
14
lad«sfetft;ttgfs*
<»aii*m$> s
1.87
34.6
8.37
14.5
12.7
» Motel
' " Cests(a)
., jisBIi0a$)
1.54
71.9
16.8
18.3
6.5
Ratio ,
,, Sto4»stty/®^4
•• , <
1.22
0.48
0.50
0.79
1.97
(a)Fourth quarter 1991 dollars.
11-63
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
This summary shows that costs estimated using the Agency's model are likely to be higher
than industry-reported costs for aerated stabilization basins, polishing ponds and activated
sludge aeration basins; and, lower than industry-reported costs for the addition of aerators
to aeration basins and installation of secondary clarifiers for activated sludge systems.
Accordingly, the mill-by-mill costs for mills with aerated basin and polishing pond upgrades
may be overstated. For those mills with activated sludge system upgrades, the costs
estimated using the Agency model may be understated depending upon the extent that
additional secondary clarification capacity was part of the upgrade.
EPA believes its model-derived cost estimates are higher than reported industry installed
costs for aerated basins and polishing ponds for the following reasons: 1) EPA developed
cost estimates for each basin or pond on the basis that complete excavation of the basin or
pond would be required. In actual practice, many lagoons and ponds are constructed to
take advantage of natural terrain, thus minimizing excavation costs; and, 2) EPA included
for each basin or pond a compacted clay liner two feet thick. It is not likely that all of the
basins and ponds used for these comparisons were so constructed. The costs for activated
sludge system secondary clarifiers estimated using the Agency's model included costs for the
clarifier tank, sweep mechanism, grout, weirs, baffles, and piping.
EPA verified the accuracy of these costing algorithms with two wastewater treatment
experts: an engineering consultant and an equipment supplier. Based upon these
verifications, EPA believe the model-based cost estimates to be accurate. EPA believes that
industry installed costs for activated sludge system secondary clarifiers may include costs for
other components such as waste sludge pumps or other equipment not included in the
model-based cost estimate, although these items were not specified in the information
provided in the 1990 questionnaire response. EPA plans additional investigation as to the
differences between its model-based cost estimates for activated sludge system secondary
clarifiers and reported industry installed costs. The differences ma'y also be attributable to
the time period over which costs were escalated. ,
As shown in Table 11-28, the Agency made an additional comparison in order to determine
whether costs estimated using its cost model approximate reported industry installed costs
for the aggregate mix of treatment system upgrades necessary to comply with the proposed
BPT effluent limitations guidelines. This comparison assessed whether the model-derived
costs were reasonable on an industry-wide basis. For this comparison, aggregate costs
estimated using the Agency's model for each of the major end-of-pipe treatment system
upgrades were adjusted using the Industry Cost/EPA Model-Derived Cost ratios shown in
Tables 11-23 through 11-27 to approximate industry costs for the mix of treatment system
upgrades considered by EPA.
Table 11-28 shows that for over 200 treatment system upgrades, the model-derived cost
estimates, including costs for land, total nearly $231 million. The adjusted industry
investment costs total nearly $205 million, or about 11 percent less. These results show the
costs estimated using the Agency's model are reasonable on an aggregate basis for purposes
11-64
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
of estimating economic impacts for the proposed regulation. EPA plans to conduct
additional cost validation studies for the final regulation and make adjustments as necessary
to refine the model-derived cost estimates.
11.7 Summary of Costs by Regulation
This section summarizes .the estimated costs by subcategory for BPT, BCT, BAT, PSES, and
BMP. Costs are presented for all options that were'considered as the technology bases for
the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards. The options are described in
Section 9.0. The costs presented were used to estimate the economic impact of each option
on the industry; however, installation of the specific technologies costed is not required for
compliance with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Owners and operators
of the mills subject to the regulation may select any process modifications, wastewater
treatment technologies, or operating practices to comply with the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards applicable to their facility.
In many cases, components of the technology basis for one effluent limitation guideline or
standard also form part of the technology basis for another effluent limitation guideline or
standard. Costs were allocated to avoid double counting in such cases. For example, the
BAT end-of-pipe limits are based upon process changes and effective end-of-pipe biological
treatment. Only the process change costs were allocated to BAT. Biological treatment costs
were accounted for under BPT.
The sections below briefly summarize capital and annual operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs for each proposed effluent limitation guideline and standard and the technology basis
of the costs.
11.7.1 BPT
Table 11-29 presents the Agency's estimate of costs for end-of-pipe treatment and flow
reduction that would be incurred by direct discharging mills to comply with BPT Option 1
and 2. The development of target BOD5 and TSS loadings based upon the amount of a
mill's production in each subcategory is described in Section 10.2. The estimation of flow
reduction required for certain mills to meet these loadings is described in Section 11.5. The
end-of-pipe treatment system costing methodology, including BOD5 load reductions applied
due to BAT, NESHAP, and BMP is described in Section 11.6.
11.7.2 BCT
As discussed in Section 9.3, the Agency developed four BCT options. Two of these options
(BCT Options B.I and B.2) were identical to BPT Options 1 and 2, resulting in identical
pollutant reductions (that is, the pollutant reduction each mill is estimated to achieve after
compliance with BCT not already achieved by implementation of BAT, NESHAP or BMP)
and identical costs. The Agency did not fully analyze the third BCT option (BCT
11-65
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Option A.1, see Section 9.3.1.1) and no pollutant reductions or costs resulting from this
option were estimated.
The fourth BCT option (BCT Option A.2) was compared to a baseline equivalent to BPT
Option 2. BCT Option A.2 represents tertiary wastewater treatment in the form of multi-
media filtration applied in addition to other technologies costed to achieve BPT Option 2,
such as in-plant flow reduction technologies and end-of-pipe primary and secondary
wastewater treatment upgrades. Therefore, pollutant load reductions and costs associated
with BCT Option A.2 represent only the portion of load reductions and costs associated with
installation of multi-media filtration and not include load reductions or costs estimated for
BPT Option 2. Table 11-30 presents the costs for BCT Option A.2. The methodology used
to estimate the costs is described below.
Costs for multimedia filters and associated pumps were estimated using database versions
of the CAPDET modules for filtration and intermediate pumping. Pumps were included
because there is typically a minor head loss through the filter. CAPDET is described in
Section 11.6.1.
Capital costs for filters and pumps included the same cost components, estimated for end-of-
pipe treatment described in Section 11.6.4, except land costs. The equipment costs for filters
and pumps were estimated using the base unit costs for standard sizes and the scaling
algorithm used in CAPDET. Land costs were not included for filters and pumps because
they are relatively small items that can be accommodated by any available company-owned
land. Operating and maintenance costs included costs for an additional operator, energy,
and maintenance. The unit costs for an operator and energy are given in Table 11-16. The
major design and operating parameters, calculations, and assumptions used to design and
cost multi-media filters with pumps are further described in "Detailed Description of the
Flow Reduction and End-of-Pipe Treatment. Design and Cost Models," found in the
Record for the Rulemaking.
11.7.3 BAT
Table 11-31 presents BAT costs, the Agency's estimate of costs for process changes and
COD control that would be incurred by direct discharging mills in the industry to comply
with the various BAT options. The development of process change costs is described in
Section 11.1, and the development of COD control costs is described in Section 11.2
11.7.4 PSES
Table 11-32 presents PSES costs, the Agency's estimate of costs for process changes, COD
control, and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment that would be incurred by indirect discharging
mills in the industry to comply with the two PSES options. Option 1 includes the process
change costs described in Section 11.1 and the COD control costs described in Section 11.2,
plus the estimated wastewater treatment costs for each mill to meet the BPT Option 2 target
11-66
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
BOD5 and TSS values for the subcategory. The process, change costs shown are for the
proposed BAT option for each subcategory. The wastewater treatment costs include end-of-
pipe biological treatment and flow reduction as appropriate for each mill and were
developed using the approaches described in Sections 11.5 and 11.6 for direct discharging
mills. Only one of these mills currently has any biological treatment on-site.
PSES Option 2 includes the same process change and COD control costs as Option 1, plus
the estimated cost for the POTWs to which these mills discharge to upgrade their treatment
to be able to achieve the proposed BPT Option 2 limits for the mill's subcategory. The
Agency did not have information on the BOD5 and TSS loads currently discharged by the
POTWs, and had limited information on the treatment used at each POTW. Therefore, the
following assumptions were made in order to cost POTW upgrades:
• Each POTW currently has biological treatment in place.
i
• Each POTW is currently achieving discharge concentrations of 30 mg/1 BOD5
and 30 mg/1 TSS, the minimum federal standards for secondary biological
treatment.
The baseline BOD5 and TSS discharge loads for each POTW were calculated using the flow
and production values for the associated mill in the equation:
PMBASE = k CONC?OTW Fm
(16)
where:
PM,
•BASE
v_,(JJN(_,pOTW —
Baseline mass of pollutant discharged, kg/year;
Conversion factor;
30 mg/L; and
Mill 1989 final effluent flow (discharged to the POTW), MOD.
The target BOD5 and TSS discharge loads for each POTW were calculated using the flow
and production values and the BPT Option 2 target BOD5 and TSS concentrations for the
associated mill in the equation:
11-67
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
(17)
where:
PNL,
Mass of pollutant discharged after PSES, kg/yr;
BPT Option 2 performance level for subcategory i, kg/OMMT;
and
Production in subcategory i, OMMT/yr.
Pollutant reductions resulting from PSES are the difference between the baseline mass
discharge and the mass discharge at PSES:
= PMBase - PMPS]
IBS
(18)
where:
PR
= Mill pollutant reduction associated with PSES, kg/year;
= Baseline mass of pollutant discharged, kg/yr; and
= Mass of pollutants discharged after PSES, kg/yr.
The total pollutant reduction required for the POTW was calculated as the sum of the
BOD5 and TSS removals required.
The capital and annual operating and maintenance costs for the POTW to upgrade its
treatment to achieve the pollutant removal required were estimated using average
conventional pollutant removal costs for direct discharging mills. Average costs per
kilogram of BOD5 and TSS removed were calculated for each subcategory using the BPT
Option 2 costs. Average unit costs were calculated separately for aerated stabilization
basins and activated sludge systems.
The appropriate unit costs were then applied to each POTW, depending on whether it had
an aerated stabilization basin treatment system or an activated sludge system. If the type
of treatment used at the POTW was unknown, the basin costs and activated sludge costs for
the appropriate subcategory were averaged. The unit costs for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Subcategory were used for POTWs receiving wastewater from mills with
11-68
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
production in that subcategory. Unit costs applied to the other POTWs were the unit costs
for the subcategory representing the largest percentage of production from the mill
associated with each POTW.
Capital and O&M costs for each POTW were calculated using the equation:
CostpOTW = (UC)(TPR)
(19)
where:
uq
TPR
Capital or O&M cost for the POTW upgrade, $ or $/yr;
Average unit cost of pollutant removal for the appropriate
subcategory and type of treatment system (basin or activated
sludge), $/kg; and
Total POTW pollutant reduction associated with PSES (BOD5
plus TSS), kg/yr.
These costs are an estimate of the costs that would be incurred by each POTW that receives
chemical pulp mill wastewater to comply with PSES, should the POTW accept conventional
pollutant limitations under the PSES Option 2 scenario.
11.7.5 BMP
Table 11-33 presents BMP costs, the Agency's estimate of costs for pulping liquor
management, spill prevention, and control for mills that perform chemical pulping of wood
or non-wood fibers. BMP applies to all mills, both direct and indirect dischargers. The
development of BMP costs is described in Section 11.4.
11.8 References
1. McCubbin, N., E. Barnes, E. Bergman, H. Edde, J. Folke, and D. Owen. Best
Available Technology for the Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry. Ontario Ministry of
the Environment, Toronto, Canada, 1991.
2. Perry, R.H., D.W. Green and J.O. Maloney. Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 1984.
3. Peters, M.S., and K.D. Timmerhaus, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, New York, 1980.
11-69
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
4. Kocurek, MJ. "Alkaline Pulping." TAPPI press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1989. (One of
a series of textbooks on the pulp and paper industry published jointly by TAPPI and
CPPA).
5. McCubbin, N. Review of Technology for Overcoming Capacity Limitations in Kraft
Pulp Industry Recovery Boilers. Industry, Science, and Technology Canada, Ottawa,
Canada, July 1990.
6. Simons, H.A. and AF-Industries Processkonsult AB. Towards Kraft Mill 2000.
(Multi-client report published by Simons Eastern, Atlanta, Georgia), 1991.
7. Worster, H.E. Pulp and Paper Manufacture, Vol. 4, Chapter VI, Semichemical
Pulping for Corrugating Grades, The Joint Textbook Committee of the Paper
Industry, 1985.
8. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Technical Support Document for Proposed Best
Management Practices Programs: Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention, and
Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C., November 1993.
9. Panchapakesan, B. Closure of Mill Whitewater Systems Reduces Water Use,
Conserves Energy. Pulp and Paper. March 1992.
10. Krofta Engineering Corp.
11. Nash-Clark & Vicario.
12. Wyvill, C, J. Adams, and G. Valentine. Mills Often Overlook Significant Water
Recycling Opportunities. Pulp and Paper, April 1986.
13. Blackwell, B.R., W.B. McKay, F.E. Murray, and W.K. Oldham. Review of Kraft Foul
Condensates: Sources, Quantities, Chemical Composition, and Environmental Effects.
Tappi Journal, Vol. 62, No. 10, October 1979.
14. Springer, A.M. Industrial Environmental Control - Pulp and Paper Industry. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1986.
15. Albany Engineering Systems.
16. Celleco Hedemora, Inc. .
17. Harris, R.'W., MJ. Cullinane, and P.T. Sun, eds. Process Design and Cost Estimating
Algorithms for the Computer Assisted Procedure for Design and Evaluation of
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET). United States Army Engineer
11-70
-------
11.0 Costs of Technology Bases for Regulations
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1982. (Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency).
18. Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc., 1992.
19. Personal communication, B. Elmore, SEC Donahue Consultants and S. Brezniak,
Radian Corporation, Record for the Rulemaking, August 18, 1993.
20. Personal communication, J. Riddle, Envirex, Inc. and S. Brezniak, Radian
Corporation, Record for the Rulemaking, May 17, 1993.
21. Personal communication, N. McCubbin, N. McCubbin Consultants, Inc. and S.
Brezniak, Radian Corporation, Record for the Rulemaking, 1992.
22. Amendola, G. Possible BODS Load Reductions from Condensate Stripping and
Black Liquor Spill Prevention and Control. Memorandum to R. Sieber, Radian
Corporation, Record for the Rulemaking, September 19, 1992.
11-71
-------
ES
MILL HAVE
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
DO NOT
COST
AERATION
UPGRADE
4 'N
^i
KEY:
BODLR = BOD load after pro BPT load
reductions (If applicable)
BODTGT » BOD target load
TSS « current TSS load
TSSTGT s TSS target load
BODAER = BOD Wad after application
of aeration upgrade
BODPOND = BOD load after application of
polishing pond upgrade
BODPPAR 3 BOD load after polishing pond
and aeration upgrade
APPLY POLISHING POND
AND AERATION UPGRADE
YES
DO NOT COST POLISHING
POND AND AERATION UPGRADE
COST ALL APPLICABLE
UPGRADES '
COMPARE TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
OF APPLICABLE UPGRADES.
SELECT LEAST
EXPENSIVE UPGRADE.
PLPPPRDRW-MOQJXJ-11£8/93
Figure 11-1
Decision Tree for Basin Design and Cost Model
11-72
-------
Table 11-1
Operating Costs
Parameter
Cost
Units
Chemicals
Molecular Chlorine
Chlorine Dioxide
NaOH (ECU)
NaOH (non-ECU)
Oxygen — by truck
Oxygen — on site
Hydrogen Peroxide
Hypochlorite
Sulfuric Acid
0.12
1.10
0.42
0.47
0.08
0.06
1.05
Calculated
individually for
each mill
0.07
$/kg
$/kg
$/kg ,
$/kg
$/kg
$/kg
$/kg
' $Ag
Energy and Wood
Electricity
Steam
Softwood Logs
Hardwood Logs
0.04
4.02
84.20
49.38
$/kWh
$/t steam
$/ODt wood
$/ODt wood
Labor
Operator
Supervisor
Technician
Process Engineer
Additional Supervision & Technical Support
24.66
68,784
22.44
80,000
0.5% of capital
cost
$/hr
$/yr
$/hr
$/yr
11-73
-------
Table 11-2
Summary of Constants for Capital Cost Scaling Equation
Technology
Brown Stock Washing Upgrade
New Brown Stock Washing Line
Monitor Bleach Plant Filtrates
Split Addition of Chlorine
New D-stage Tower and Washer
Peroxide Unloading and Storage
Piping to Add Peroxide to Extraction Stage
Install Oxidativc Extraction (Eo)
Oxygen Delignification
Simple Retrofit Extended Cooking
Add Second Vessel to Digester for Extended
Cooking
New Continuous Extended Cooking Digester
Improved C102 Mixing and Control
Greenfield Chlorine Dioxide Plant
New Chlorine Dioxide Generator only
Conversion of R3/SVP C102 Generator to
mcthanol reduction process
Recovery Boiler Upgrade
Ozone Tower (medium consistency)
Base Cost
(C,)
$4,450,000
$14,300,000
$117,000
$4,000,000
$13,500,000
$100,000
$25,000
$900,000
. $16,000,000
$2,000,000
$20,300,000
$47,000,000
$1,000,000
$19,000,000
$15,000,000
$2,200,000
$4,800,000
$4,000,000
Base Capacity
(Cap0i)(a)
845
540
700
700
750
1
1
825
1050
1000
965
900
500
30 tpd C102
30 tpd C102
11 tpd C102
190 tpd black
Liquor organics
500
Cost Index
(n)
'0.6
'0.6
0.05
0.3
0.6
0
0
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.25
(a)Units are air dry unbleached metric tons of pulp per day, unless otherwise stated.
11-74
-------
Table 11-3
Summary of BAT/PSES Process Change Costs
"•
Subcategory
A. Dissolving Kraft
i
B. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
D. Dissolving Sulfite
E. Papergrade Sulfite
Option
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
'5
1
2
1
2
Capital
Cost
(million $)
61.3
130
135
710
1,150
1,930
2,070
4,680
106
83.1
252
88.3
Annual
O&M Cost
(million
$/K)
-8.78
-8.65
-4.86
47.7
-9.63
-58.9
23.3'
25.9
-12.6
56.0
13.4
17.8
All costs in fourth quarter 1991 dollars.
11-75
-------
&
: S J
PS
g
8
o
co
O
CO
etj
IS
•a
o SP
d o
S:S
I
&
§
CO
s»
11
^
I
.a
."a
O •«:
i
1
11-76
-------
U
g tg c
O .rf1 w
u -d -d
S
al
&
ON 00
t-t O\ ON
cs vo o
" 1
-
"3 a >
II!
o « £
ii 11 ii
O M
a •§
DO
12
sl
loJS
3 -8 S2 -o
!§
13 '
11-77
-------
»O TJ
«, 5
3 3
a
11-78
o S
S a 2
o
=3 -3
-------
•s
I]
1
I
o
a
il
a § =
•« Si -2
§=>!
fcO O
»1 g
8 I §
tt-t ^-4
a g-go
,0 c _^ *o
S -2 § 13
a S3 -3 a
CL, U ra G
li-79
o < o
-------
I
s
«?
£
P
< o
m
od
oo
11-80
-------
o
U
1=1
O
2 &
o
8?
03
cc
l1?S
||||
l*|!
uH J
Ilill
liilJ
si 01
It
•Sg
• p
* fl t
® *** ^^
t
CO
o
•a
ts
1
8
I
Closed scr
operation
to
Dissolving Kraft
o
08
1?
v.S'
so
1
8
8
u
Closed scr
operation
OO
00
T3
Bleached Papergra
and Soda
o
3
TH
8
f-t
S ,
U
Closed scr
operation
SR
Unbleached Kraft
o
3
ON
a
§
§
u
Closed scr
operation
i
T— 1
Papergrade Sulfite
T-i
«
1— 1
g
O bp
|l
ft 4->
i— i wa
a
Semi-chemical
T-<
"
"3
H
|
^a
-o
ID
|
3
a
3
a
p
•5 '
I,
.S
§
I
03
U
3
^ '-C
•£3 ^
o
B,
o
•t
o
•t :i
.2, S
cd Q
a «
i
g
T3
O
.9
I
1 I
§ H, eg
*2 4-1 5°
1 1 I
111
V3 O 4>
183
H
s
1-7 W3
? a
11-81
-------
Table 11-9
Costs for Upgrades to Implement BMP at Kraft, Sulfite,
Semi-Chemical, and Non-Wood Mills
Group
Capital Cost ($)
Annual 0&M Cost
($/year)
Kraft Mills (Dissolving, Unbleached, and Bleached Papergrade)
Mills that require no upgrades
Mills that require moderate upgrades
Mills that require major upgrades
0
750,000
1,500,000
0
(250,000)(a)
(500,000)(a)
Sulfite Mills (Dissolving and Papergrade)
Mills that require major upgrades
750,000
0
Semi-chemical Mills
Mills that require moderate upgrades
250,000
50,000
Non-wood Mills
Mills that require moderate upgrades
250,000
'0
(a) A savings in annual O&M costs for kraft mills is realized.
11-82
-------
Table 11-10
Lowest TSS and BOD5 Concentrations
Achievable by Secondary Treatment, By Subcategory
1
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Semi-chemical
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Mechanical
Non-wood Chemical
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-
deink
Fine and Lightweight
Papers from Purchased
Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven,
and Paperboard from
Purchased Pulp
t
-------
Table 11-11
Percentage of Final Effluent Flow Discharged From
Three Process Areas, By Subcaltegory
Subcategory
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Semi-chemical
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Mechanical
Non-wood Chemical
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-
deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Process £rea
Screen Room
21(a)
21(a)
21(a)
MR
18(a)
27(a)
21(a)
21(b)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Delinking
NA
NA
NA
1 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
48(a)
NA
NA
NA
Stock
Preparation/
Papermaking
25(b)
25(b)
45(b) '
69(a)
25(b)
25(b)
71(a)
25(b)
53(a)
80(a)
91(a)
94(a)
NA - Not Applicable.
NR - Not Required.
Sources: (a)1990 Questionnaire.
(b)Reference (9).
11-84
-------
Table 11-12
Percentages iof Process Area Wastewater Discharge Reductions
Achieved by Each Flow Reduction Technology and
Combination of Technologies
Flow Reduction Technology
Gravity Strainers with High Pressure Showers
(Strainers)
Disc Saveall (Saveall)
Strainers plus Saveall
Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cascade System
(Cascade System)
Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cooling Tower
System (Cooling Tower)
Strainers plus Saveall plus Cascade System
Strainers plus Saveall plus Cooling Tower
Strainers plus Cascade System
Strainers plus Cooling Tower
Screen Room Closure
Flotation Clarifier
Process Area
Papermaking
Papermaking
Papermaking
Papermaking
Papermaking
Papermaking
Papermaking
Papermaking
Papermaking
Pulping
Deinking
Percentage
46
45
68
15
27
83
95
61
73
95
95
Reference
BPJ
BPJ
BPJ
(12)
(11)
BPJ and (12)
BPJ and (12)
BPJ and (12)
BPJ and (12)
BPJ
(10)
BPJ - Best Professional Judgment.
11-85
-------
53 ~
a
o
Gravity Strainers with High-Pr
Showers (Strainers)
a
co,
1
CO
•1
Saveall
plu
Str
00
s
Pump Seal Water Cascade
Cascade System)
Va
Syst
a
a
9
n
u O
Q H
•5 M
14
a
3
ON
VD
S?
S
a
VO
o\
g
S
S
a
CS
$5
a
1
8
CO
CO
S
Cooling Towe
Sav
ers
Str
a
I
CO
I
a
S
CO
U
(A
"cL
is
CO
Towe
ers plus Coo
S
co
'-2
G*
S2
u
11-86
-------
I
^
o
g
1
o
O
I?
i
:
-
»-»
-
o
-
w
Q
0
pa
«
tn
M
§
"i
1
i
<
*
55
Si
^
55
1-1
CO
£
P?j
i
CO
a
*
a
TH
CO
55
V3
co
^
2
3S
2
E5
CO
3
"E,
§
ii ^
^ H
co U
I
T3
U
P-PH
2g
Tl ^
^ *
« "0
TO Lj
1 i
£-e
PH S
a S1
0 PL!
«» T3
- Mechanical Pulp
- Non-wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
- Fine and Lightweight Papers
- Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, ai
O ffi « 4 W J
-§
o
co
•o
1
cS
•2
-S
W M
. j| d-. &^ s a
•33 ^ a .ail-
•Ms iS&^S^u
a irt M
-------
Table 11-14
Summary of Flow Reduction Costs and Technologies Costed
Parameter
Number of Mills Requiring Flow Reduction
Total Flow Reduction Capital Costs (million $)
Total Flow Reduction Operating and Maintenance Costs
(million $/yr)
Number of Mills Costed for Each Flow Reduction Technology:
Gravity Strainers with High-Pressure Showers
Disc Saveall
Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cascade System
Vacuum Pump Seal Water Cooling Tower System
Screen Room Closure
Flotation Clarifier
Engineering and Minor Projects In-house
BPT Option 1
26
33.2
0
17
6
5
9
5
0
2
BPT Option 2
59
81.9
0
41
15
7
13
9
7
6
11-88
-------
Table 11-15
CAPDET Modules Used as Basis for Basin Upgrades
in the Basin Design and Cost Model
---s B&g&k IJpgr&i&
s "•"• *" *• ^5, WA %
Additional Aeration
Additional Aeration + New Aerated
Facultative Lagoon
Single Aerated Facultative Lagoon
Two Lagoons
Polishing Pond
Polishing Pond + Additional Aeration
Primary Clarification
cfciwf maatewn ,
% SSS-. %
Aerated Facultative Lagoon
Aerated Facultative Lagoon (both)
Aerated Facultative Lagoon
Aerobic Aerated Lagoon + Aerated
Facultative Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon
Facultative Lagoon + Aerated
Facultative Lagoon
Secondary Clarification (cost model
only)
11-89
-------
Table 11-16
Unit O&M Costs for End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies
'XssVVjf ^' •*--•
**&*& s ^r^^-1%.^^-. i
Ammonia
Phosphoric Acid
Electricity
Operator
Technician
,< Bait Cos*
" ,•«•>•>»' ,„, ; *
0.24 $/kg
0.29 $/kg
in Alaska 0.64 $/kg
0.04 $/kwhr
24.66 $/hr
22.44 $/hr
11-90
-------
Table 11-17
Unit Capital Costs for End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies
Item
High-Speed,
Mechanical Surface
Aerators:
20 hp
40 hp
60 hp
75 hp
Polymer Feeder Box
Reinforced Concrete:
Wall
Slab
Excavation
Compacted Clay Liner
Handrail
Grout
Crane Rental
Unit Cost
$11,900
$17,400
$24,900
$26,000
$2,000
$707.53/m3
$155.74/m3
$6.21/m3
$2.43m2
$152.34/m
$261.58/m3
$127.12/hr
Basin Upgrades to Which item
Applies
• Additional aeration
• Additional aeration
and facultative lagoon
• Facultative lagoon
• Two lagoons
(75 hp only)
• Primary clarification
• Polymer addition
• Additional aeration
and facultative lagoon
• Facultative lagoon
• Two lagoons
• Polishing pond
• Polishing pond and
additional aeration
• Primary clarification
• Additional aeration
and facultative lagoon
• Facultative lagoon
• Two lagoons
• Polishing pond
• Polishing pond and
additional aeration
• Primary clarification
• Additional aeration
and facultative lagoon
• Facultative lagoon
• Two lagoons
• Polishing pond
• Polishing pond and
additional aeration
None
• Primary clarification
• Primary clarification
Activated Sludge Upgrades to
Whiefe ten Applies
• Additional aeration
• Additional aeration
tank volume
• Polymer addition
• Additional aeration
tank volume
• Additional
clarification
• Primary clarification
• Additional aeration
tank volume
• Additional
clarification
• Primary clarification
None
• Additional aeration
tank volume
• Primary clarification
• Additional
clarification
• Additional
clarification
• Primary clarification
11-91
-------
Table 11-17
(Continued)
Item
Maintenance
(Technician Labor
Rate)
Unit Cost
$22.44/hr
Basin Upgrades to Which Item
Applies
• Primary clarification
Activated Sludge Upgrades to
Which Item Applies
• Additional
clarification
• Primary clarification
11-92
-------
Table 11-18
Scenarios for the Application of Land Cost
Components to Individual Mills
Scenario
Mill has sufficient company-owned land
to meet land requirements.
Mill has insufficient company-owned land
to meet land requirements but the
nearest available land is contiguous.
Mill has insufficient company-owned land
to meet land requirements and the
nearest available land is not contiguous.
Land Cost Components Calculated
No costs
Purchase cost of land(a)
Purchase cost of land(b)
Purchase cost of right-of-way(b)
Cost of pipeline(c)
Cost of pump stations(c)
(a)This cost is only for the additional amount of land needed to meet the requirements.
(b)Purchase cost of land and right-of-way were based on mill-specific responses to the
1990 questionnaire.
(c)Costs of pipeline and pump stations were estimated from cost curves developed from
cost estimates for several wastewater flow rates over several distances.
11-93
-------
Table 11-19
BOD5 Load Reduction to Wastewater Treatment
Due to Implementation of BAT at Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Mills (a)
BAT Group
Mills that do not have either extended cooking or
oxygen dclignification
Mills that have oxygen delignification
Milk that have extended delignification
Mills that have both oxygen and extended
delignification
Bt>05 Load
Reduction to
Wastewater
Treatment for Mill
Placed in Group
Based on 1989 or
Earlier Pats
(kg/QMMT)
5
10
10
13
(a)BOD5 load reductions for dissolving kraft are half of those shown in this table.
11-94
-------
Table 11-20
BOD5 Load Reductions to Wastewater Treatment
Due to Steam Stripping of Condensates
i
Steam Stripping Status Group
Mills with steam stripping in place.
Mills assumed to achieve no BOD5 load reduction
by adding a steam stripper. Condensates currently
are reused and not discharged to wastewater
treatment.
Mills assumed to achieve a moderate BOD5 load
reduction by adding a steam stripper. Condensates
currently are partially reused and partially
discharged to wastewater treatment.
Mills that can achieve the maximum BOD5 load
reduction by adding a steam stripper. Condensates
currently are discharged to wastewater treatment.
Number of Mills
in Status Group
16
14
46
26
BOD5 Load Reduction to
Wastewater Treatment
{kg/OMMT)
0
0
4
8
11-95
-------
Table 11-21
Summary of BPT Costs
Type of Costs
Basin Only
Activated Sludge Only
Flow Reduction Only
Basin and Flow Reduction
Activated Sludge and Flow
Reduction
Transferred
Number of MHHs^a) ' ' '" f"
Option 1
111
55
4
12
11
3
Option 2
120
59
9
25
24
4
(a) Mills that share wastewater treatment systems are counted as one mill in this table.
11-96
-------
I
^
f
1
^ S
III
^ I
4-?
ail
Is ^ H
^ *•"
|^|
S O MM
*y 5»>
i?
^i *•*»
n
*^J? x*^<
a ^
"3 ^ S
r^\ S
F* -S'
M
1 BASIN UPGRADES
T- 1
O
en
C5
^H
S5
T-H
O
C>
S
|| Additional Aeration
o
Si
>0
VO
«
en
S
9,
SP
T
i— 1
1
fe
|| Additional Aeration and
06
•*
\o
*o
T— 1
*/"!
en
r~
C-l
5?
|| Facultative Lagoon
\o
o
•*'
VD
en
c^
o
s
en
1
1
!3
C5
1-1
en
>o
en
en
n
•*
'
1
1
Sn
^
"*
en
g
VD
O
%
8
£j
O
•^
Si
<;
1
•a
1
1
I
f
S
o
0
Eo
^^
o
vo
s
C5
en
1 Polymer Addition
i
0
"^F
T-(
T— 1
O
%
I Polymer Addition
o
0
o
o
rH
Incremental Sludge Ham
•i
^
EA
3
.a
§
T3
ID
11-97
-------
Table 11-23
Aerators
Comparison of Industry-Reported Costs and EPA Model Costs
Observation
Number
1
2
3
TOTAL
Flow
(mVday)
42,400
23,100 '
37,900
Number of
Aerators
(75 HP)
10
12
19
Ratio: Industry Cost/Model Cost
Industry-
Reported
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.711
0.556
0.598
1.87
EPA Mode!
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.412
0.525
0.598
1.53
1.22
(a)Fourth quarter 1991 dollars.
11-98
-------
Table 11-24
Aerated Stabilization Basins
Comparison of Industry-Reported Costs and EPA Model Costs
Observation
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TOTAL
Flow
(nryaay)
3,440
1,320
4,540
18,900
32,900
29,900
73,400
23,100
36,700
42,400
29,900
184,000
104,000
120,000
138,000
73,100
Lagoon
Volume
(m3)
36,000
37,900
53,000
56,800
90,800
208,000
280,000
307,000
344,000
492,000
636,000
825,000
863,000
984,000
1,220,000
1,220,000
Ratio: Industry Cost/Model Cost
Industry-Reported
Gost(a) :
(million $)
1.68
2.10
1.39
0.940
5.40
0.980
0.183
1.05
3.27
1.59
3.01
2.52
2.41
1.00
5.33
1.75
34.6
EPA Model
Cest(a)
(million $)
2.76
0.236
0.598
0.940
0.972
1.42
3.50
1.18
1.73
1.78
3.32
16.4
8.99
8.17
9.47
10.4
71.9
0.48
(a)Fourth quarter 1991 dollars.
11-99
-------
Table 11-25
Polishing Ponds
Comparison of Industry-Reported Costs and EPA Model Costs
Observation
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TOTAL
Flow
(nrYday)
757
1,320
7,500
184,000
18,900
20,800
184,000
42,400
73,400
Pond
Volume
(m3)
2,270
3,790
18,200
92,000
189,000
621,000
1,010,000
1,840,000
2,290,000
Ratio: Industry Cost/Model Cost
Industry-
Reported
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.0140
0.579
0.282
0.137
0.970
1.10
0.813
0.206
4.27
8.37
EPA Model
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.0160
0.0280
0.133
0.816
0.644
0.887
3.69
2.54
8.06
16.8
0.50
(a)Fourth quarter 1991 dollars.
11-100
-------
Table 11-26
Activated Sludge Aeration Basins
Comparison of Industry-Reported Costs and EPA Model Costs
Observation
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TOTAL
flow
(m'/day)
2,270
5,680
35,600
22,000
15,100
15,500
65,500
61,300
Basin
Volume
«
2,650
3,030
7,950
8,330
15,100
53,000
72,300
215,000
Ratio: Industry Cost/Model Cost
Industry-
Reported
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.492
0.225
2.24
2.52
1.81
0.679
2.18
4.37
14.5
EPA Model
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.403
0.423
0.518
2.13
1.13
1.06
2.41
10.2
18.3
0.79
(a)Fourth quarter 1991 dollars.
11-101
-------
Table 11-27
Activated Sludge Secondary Clarifiers
Comparison of Industry-Reported Costs and EPA Model Costs
Observation
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 :
10
11
12
13
14
TOTAL
Oarifier
Diameter
(m>
15.2
21.3
22.6
23.2
24.1
24.7
26.5
27.4
29.3
36.6
39.6
39.6
45.7
51.8
Industry-Reported
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.295
0.441
1.08
0.786
0.844
0.350
0.172
0.449
0.895
0.265
2.05 :
0.450
3.02
1.64
12.7
Ratio: Industry Cost/Model Cost
EPA Model
Cost(a)
(million $)
0.215
0.302
0.341
0.0285
0.330
0.368
0.374
0.388
0.432 ,
0.563
0.608
0.641
0.713
0.904
6.46
1.97
(a)Fourth quarter 1991 dollars.
11-102
-------
O ,
00
g
i
o
+
S
o
cn
o
o
s
ed Ba
"1
s
G
Polishing Ponds
00
Activated Sludge
Aeration Tanks
Activated Sludge
Clarifiers
CM
i
"3
SJ
Addition
Polyme
TOT
I
11-103
-------
Table 11-29
Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT) Costs
Subcategory(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical Pulp
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Non-deink
Secondary Fiber Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers
from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
Option 1
(Performance level representing
the average at the best $0
percent of mills in each
subcategory)
Capital Costs
(million $)
3.1
63
26
14
14
5.1
8.5
2.9
9.3
17
18
18
202
Annual O&M
(million $/yr)
0.08
7.4
4.2
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.04
0.9
2.1
2.0
2.0
23
Option 2
(Performance level representing
the average of the best 50
percent of mills in each
subcategory)
Capital Costs
(million $)
3.2
120
35
19
19
5.9
20
3.5
26
27
24
32
337
Annual O&M
(million $/yr)
0.08
10
3.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.8
0.04
1.4
2.5
2.1
2.8
29
(a) Costs for mills with operations in more than one subcategory have been apportioned based upon annual
production.
11-104
-------
Table 11-30
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) Costs
Sulbcategory(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-chemical
Mechanical Pulp
Non-wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased
Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and Paperboard
from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
Multimedia Filtration With Pump
Capital
(million $)
22
271
117
33
21
14
45
1.9
22
57
54
44
703
Annual O&M
(million $/yr)
1.3
15
6.8
1.5
1.1
0.9
2.7
0.1
1.4
3.8
3.1
2.8
41
(a) Costs for mills with operations in more than one subcategory have been apportioned
based upon annual production.
11-105
-------
I
illy Achievable (BAT) Costs
ra
i
§
w
>»
g
o
>-*»
O
s
(U
x>
=3
1
•4->
s
%*»
pq
Option Description
!"£
SI
a a
g .a
Jp B
if
<§|
§
o
O
3
i>
•3
to
High Substitution
OD & High Substitution + COD Control
OD & 100% Substitution + COD Control
OO'VO'ON'
opoo^f
CO, CO, •*
r-l 0
c9
^
M4
1
g)
&i
|!
S §
"3
1
Q
8
o
0
0
r-5
s
^
s
13
>2
nbleached
P
OD & 100% Substitution
Totally Chlorine-Free
vE'o
2 '~!
r-l CS
Q
s
oo
.1
Q
OD & 100% Substitution + COD Control
Totally Chlorine-Free + COD Control
>o >o
"t "O
vO oo
^r ON
TH CS
a
oo
1
'
PH
1
§
cs
r-l
s
r-l
©
!§
1
00
%
&
H
£
•a
1
2
-1*
-§ |
2
' CM *§
"S JS
i— 1 W
1 §,
O bit
"S §
j!
1L
s- - «
a^ S3
J3 O
.as.
> *j a
S o S
^5 a g
fc. 0*
M ^5 KA
= tJ op
l&l
^^sl
•9 KB
53 *^5
Si |
51 1
S o ^
TO O •*"*
•3 S g
o
•a: o
III
| 31
a wa h
a S §<
•S-^l
a a 1
«i «i 60
O O (D
u o z
cC *JQ O
11-106
-------
1
I
g<£
o 5?
^**
| i
11
Si
1
1.
o1
1?
f
j|
»
5O
i-- -
•ti S ij
888
Q 8 Q
8^8
+ 1 +
OD or Extended Cooking & 100% substitution
on-site wastewater treatment system for BOD5 i
OD or Extended Cooking & 100% substitution
POTW upgrade for BOD5 and TSS control.
CS V)
* £
COD control + on-site wastewater treatment sy
and TSS control.
COD control + POTW upgrade for BOD5 and
v> cs
^3 VO
1™H **"^
O O
OO O\
vo u->
i-l CS
g
"3
• *4
a
8
-3
*g
GO
11-107
-------
Table 11-33
Best Management Practices (BMP) Costs
Subcategory(a)
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Industry Total
1 jp Vs 1 f
Pulping Liquor Spill Prevention and Control
Capital
(million D,
4.5
37
2,7
3.8
6.3
4.8
3.0
86
Annual O&M
(million $/yr)
-1.5(b)
-10.0(b)
-9.0(b)
0
0
0.9
0
-22.0(b)
(a) Costs for mills with operations in more than one subcategory have been apportioned based upon annual
production in each subcategory to which BMP apply.
(b) Negative operating costs represent net cost savings resulting from recovery of pulping liquor chemicals
and energy.
11-108
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
12.0 INTEGRATED RULEMAKING AND NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
In 1990, EPA established the Pulp and Paper Regulatory Cluster comprising representatives
from every EPA office. One role of the Pulp and Paper Regulatory Cluster is to identify
optimal approaches to solving environmental problems associated with the pulp and paper
industry through regulatory coordination. As a result of the cluster's efforts, the effluent
limitations guidelines are being jointly proposed with the NESHAP for the pulp and paper
industry. Regulation of land application of pulp and paper mill sludge was also considered
in the Agency's coordinated regulatory strategy.
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act require EPA to consider the non-water
quality environmental impacts (including air pollution, solid waste generation, and energy
requirements) of effluent limitations guidelines. The consideration of these impacts was
integral to the coordinated regulatory strategy. EPA conducted coordinated information
collection, performed analyses of multiple air and water regulatory alternatives, and
evaluated the impacts of those alternatives. A summary of the development of the
integrated rulemaking and database, and the non-water quality environmental impacts
derived from integrated analyses, is provided below.
12.1 Integrated Rulemaking and Database
The first step in developing the integrated rulemaking was to collect mill-specific
information from all facilities subject to both the air and water standards. As described in
Section 3.0, EPA used information from a number of sources, including its wastewater
sampling program, air emissions testing program, 1990 census questionnaire, and the
voluntary API/NCASI 1992 questionnaire, to develop the integrated regulations. The
information collected includes the process and control technologies in use, current control
levels, and pollutant release information. This information was compiled in a mill-specific
database for use in developing both the air and water regulations. Then estimated costs,
pollutant reductions, and other environmental impacts for each air and water regulatory
alternative were developed and various combinations of these alternatives were analyzed.
The resultant database is known as the integrated database and the approach for developing
and analyzing the results is known as the integrated database system. This system calculates
national baseline air emissions and wastewater discharges, national pollutant reductions and
costs of various combinations of effluent limitations guidelines and air emission control
options, and other1 national environmental impacts.
The pollutants included in the final integrated database are listed in Table 12-1. This table
also identifies which pollutants were evaluated by the Office of Water. Except for COD and
color, all pollutants for which effluent limitations guidelines are being proposed were
included in the final integrated database. Some additional pollutants which were not
12-1
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
regulated were also included. COD and color were not included because data from which
baseline discharges could be • estimated were not available for all mills included in the
database.
The process changes that are part of the technology bases for the proposed air and water
regulations will reduce discharges of a large number of compounds, particularly chlorinated
compounds. In preliminary analyses of the integrated database, EPA included a larger
number of compounds but chose to limit the number of compounds included in the final
integrated database for several reasons including the relatively small amounts of these
pollutants released by the industry and controlled by the options, and the tune involved in
processing and analyzing the additional data.
The control technologies considered as the bases for BAT, PSES, BPT, BCT, NSPS, and
PSNS are described in Section 9.0. The control technologies considered as the bases for
BMP and NESHAP are described in separate documents. The control options for BAT and
PSES involve pulping and bleaching process changes and secondary wastewater treatment.
The control options for BPT and BCT include improvements to water conservation practices
and secondary wastewater treatment systems. The proposed BMP require prevention and
control of pulping liquor spills. The three major air pollution controls that are the basis for
NESHAP are steam strippers, combustion, and wet scrubbing. Steam strippers are used to
remove HAPs from pulping area condensates. Combustion devices are used to destroy the
HAPs removed by steam strippers. Combustion devices include stand-alone devices such
as thermal incinerators or existing devices such as lime kilns, power boilers, and recovery
furnaces. Wet scrubbers, and process changes, are used to reduce HAP emissions in the
bleaching area.
EPA developed regulatory alternatives based on pulping and bleaching process changes
alone, air emission control options alone, and combinations of process changes and air
emission controls. Each regulatory alternative also included secondary wastewater treatment
and spill prevention and control components. The alternatives were designed to evaluate
the most efficient application of control technologies to minimize the cross-media transfer
of pollutants between air and water. Table 12-2 summarizes 12 integrated regulatory
alternatives developed and evaluated by EPA. These integrated regulatory alternatives were
selected by EPA for its final analysis of the integrated rulernaking from integrated options
that had undergone preliminary analyses. As an example, in preliminary analyses integrated
options consisting of pulping and bleaching process change options without air control
options were evaluated. However, as described below, process change options alone were
not sufficient to satisfy CAA requirements and for the final analysis these options were not
considered.
EPA evaluated whether the pulping and bleaching process changes that form the basis of
BAT and PSES reduce HAP emissions sufficiently to satisfy CAA requirements. Based on
12-2
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
available data, the analyses showed that the use of these process technologies decrease
emissions of some HAPs, but increase others. Specifically, process change technologies
decrease emissions of chlorinated HAPs, including chloroform, chlorine, and hydrochloric
acid. This decrease in air emissions of chlorinated HAPs is believed to be attributable to
the elimination of hypochlorite as a bleaching agent and to increasing levels of chlorine
dioxide substitution in the process changes considered. However, air emissions of some non-
chlorinated HAPs, including methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and formaldehyde, show modest
increases as a result of those process changes. These patterns in air emissions were
observed for the range of process change control options evaluated as possible technology
bases for BAT and PSES. EPA concluded that process technology changes alone do not
adequately control HAP emissions to the air, and that air control technologies in addition
to the process changes are needed to achieve HAP emission limitations required by the
CAA.
EPA also considered the effect of steam stripping certain pulping condensate wastewaters
on water and air pollutant releases, because steam stripping reduces both conventional
effluent pollutant loadings and HAP emissions. As described in Section 10.2, a BOD5
pollutant load reduction was calculated for facilities that do not already steam strip pulping
condensates. This load reduction was applied prior to calculating other load reductions (for
flow reduction or wastewater treatment system improvements) for estimating compliance
costs and load reductions associated with BPT and BCT.
EPA also considered the effect of the air pollution controls on effluent loadings of priority
and nonconventional pollutants. The analyses showed that the major air pollution controls
that form the basis for NESHAP (steam stripping, combustion, and wet scrubbing) did not
significantly affect effluent loadings of these pollutants. Steam stripping systems remove
compounds from pulping area condensates, and the removed compounds are destroyed in
a combustion device. Combustion also destroys most compounds emitted from process
vents, thus reducing the amount of pollutants that could enter surface waters due to
deposition. Steam stripping also reduces the volume of wastewater discharged to the
wastewater treatment system. Chlorinated HAPs, that remain in bleaching area wastewaters
after process changes are implemented, react with caustic in the wet scrubber, neutralizing
the caustic effluent. Non-chlorinated HAPs that absorb into the caustic are bio-degradable,
and are not estimated to significantly increase the pollutant load to the wastewater
treatment system. Wet scrubbing operations are also not expected to significantly increase
the volume of wastewater discharges to the wastewater treatment system.
The analyses of multiple integrated regulatory alternatives showed that there is no single
control or process change technology currently available that reduces pollutant discharges
to the air and water to levels required by the respective statutes. The demonstrated control
technologies that can serve as bases for BAT, PSES, NSPS, PSNS, BPT, and BCT, pose no
significant adverse impacts to and have some benefits for air quality. Similarly, the air
12-3
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
control technologies that can serve as the basis for NESHAP pose no significant adverse
impacts on and have some benefits for water quality. Therefore, combining the best control
technology options for effluent limitations with the best control technology options for air
emission standards represents a reasonable method for constructing the integrated regulatory
alternative. EPA selected control options for the proposed integrated rulemaking based on
evaluation of pollutant reductions, costs, cost effectiveness, and economic, environmental,
and energy impacts. The non-water quality environmental impacts associated with the
selected options are. summarized in the following sections.
12.2 Energy Impacts
According to the Department of Energy, the pulp and paper industry was the fourth largest
industrial user of energy in 1990, accounting for 9.9 percent (2.4 quadrillion BTUs) of total
U.S. industrial energy consumption (1). Much of the energy used by the industry is
produced on site in power and recovery boilers. In 1990, the sources of energy used by the
industry included pulping liquor fuel (40.2 percent), fossil fuels (37.1 percent), bark and
wood fuel (15.5 percent), and purchased electricity (7.2 percent). The fossil fuels used
include natural gas, fuel oil, and coal.
Compliance with the proposed regulations is anticipated to increase the industry's energy
usage by less than one percent (17.6 trillion BTUs/yr). Among the reasons for this increase
are the energy requirements for process equipment upgrades for compliance with
BAT/PSES, wastewater treatment system upgrades for compliance with BPT/BCT, and new
control devices or equipment upgrades for compliance with NESHAP. However, the energy
value of recovered cooking liquor solids resulting from compliance with BMP and
BAT/PSES is anticipated to offset some of the increase in industry-wide energy usage. The
following table summarizes the estimated change in the use of energy associated with the
proposed integrated rule.
Regulation
BAT/PSES
BPT/BCT
BMP
NESHAP
Source of Energy Use
Pulping and bleaching process
modification^.
Recovery of cooking liquor solids.
Wastewater treatment system upgrades.
Recovery of cooking liquor solids.
Equipment upgrades, increased steam
generation and auxiliary fuels.
Total
Energy Use Change '.
(TrilHoa BTUs/yr)
4.1
-7.8
1.0
-0.3
20.6
17.6
12-4
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Additional energy requirements for process equipment upgrades for BAT/PSES result from
expansion of chlorine dioxide generator capacity and additional pumps for application of
oxygen, ozone, and/or hydrogen peroxide in the bleach plant. Additional energy
requirements for process equipment for compliance with BPT/BCT result from increased
aeration in the treatment system. Additional energy requirements for new control devices
or equipment upgrades for NESHAP result from: 1) the electricity needed to power fans
and blowers to transport vent streams, 2) natural gas needed to generate additional steam
for steam stripping of pulping area condensates, and 3) natural gas as an auxiliary fuel for
combustion devices.
BMP and BAT/PSES will result in increased recovery of cooking liquor solids which have
an energy value. The Agency estimated the energy value of cooking liquor no longer spilled
and/or sewered as a result of BMP. The technology basis of the proposed BAT/PSES
includes the addition of oxygen delignification and/or extended cooking, screen room
closure, and effective brown stock washing. The Agency also estimated the energy value of
this recovered cooking liquor. As summarized above, the energy obtained from increased
recovery of cooking liquors offsets the increased energy demand of the additional process
equipment.
The Agency concludes that the effluent reduction benefits from the proposed regulation
exceed any potential adverse impacts from the minor increase in energy consumption that
is projected.
12.3 Air Pollution
As described in Section 12.1, the development of the integrated rulemaking analyzed air and
water regulatory alternatives simultaneously. Some air pollution benefits are summarized
below for the proposed integrated alternative.
Compliance with the proposed integrated rule will reduce hazardous air pollutants by
120,000 kkg/yr, volatile organic compounds by 715,000 kkg/yr, and total reduced sulfur
compounds by 295,000 kkg/yr. These reductions result from steam stripping of pulping
condensates, combustion of pulping vent streams (except deckers and screens), scrubbing
of all bleaching vent streams, and implementation of the BAT/PSES process changes.
Compliance with the proposed integrated rule is anticipated to increase the quantity of
criteria pollutants (CO, NOxj SO2, and particulate matter) emitted. Carbon monoxide
emissions are expected to increase by 300 kkg/yr, nitrogen oxide emissions by 1,300 kkg/yr,
sulfur dioxide emissions by 168,000 kkg/yr, and particulate matter emissions by 100 kkg/yr.
These increases are due to combustion of emissions from controlled vents and the
combustion of fuels used to generate steam for stripping pulping wastewaters. The increase
12-5
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
in sulfur dioxide emissions is higher than the other criteria pollutants because of the
formation of sulfur dioxide from combustion of TRS in pulping vent streams.
The air impacts from improved end-of-pipe biological treatment under BPT are considered
negligible in view of the significant reduction in HAPs and VOCs in pulping and bleaching
wastewater that result from steam stripping of pulping condensates and implementation of
the BAT/PSES process changes.
The Agency concludes that the air emission and effluent reduction benefits of hazardous air
pollutants and priority, nonconventional, and conventional pollutants far outweigh the
potential negative impacts of increased emissions of criteria air pollutants.
12.4 Solid Waste Generation and Management
Compliance with BPT/BCT is anticipated to increase the mass of wastewater treatment
sludge generated by 52 million kg/yr, mostly because of increased solids removal at facilities
with activated sludge wastewater treatment systems. This represents less than a 1 percent
increase over current sludge generation rates.
Compliance with BAT/PSES is anticipated to improve the quality of wastewater treatment
sludge by reducing mass loadings of pollutants exported in sludge. Although mass loadings
of all chlorinated pollutants are anticipated to decrease, the Agency specifically estimated
reductions for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
To estimate the effect of the integrated regulatory alternative on sludge quality in terms of
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations and mass loadings, the Agency first
estimated baseline concentrations and loadings for all mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda, Dissolving Kraft, Papergrade Sulfite, and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategories.
Baseline concentrations and mass loadings were compared to estimates of concentrations
and mass loadings of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in sludge following implementation
of BAT/PSES, with the difference representing the pollution reduction. The methodology
used was similar to that described in Section 10.3 for estimation of pollutant reductions in
effluent and is described further elsewhere (2).
The proposed regulatory alternative is estimated to reduce the overall mass loading of
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in sludge by 115 grams per year (98.9 percent) and 626
grams per year (98.8 percent), respectively. For comparison, the proposed regulatory
alternative is estimated to reduce the overall mass loading of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-
TCDF in treated effluents by 65 grams per year (92.9 percent) and 337 grams per year (98.9
percent), respectively. These reductions of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF mass loadings
in sludge should allow greater use of land application of sludge and will enable mills to
achieve cost savings in sludge management.
12-6
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Because the proposed regulation is based upon process changes that reduce formation of
2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and other chlorinated phenolics (including AOX), there will
be less transfer of these compounds to sludge during wastewater treatment. Accordingly,
the Agency concludes that there will be no adverse non-water quality environmental impacts
regarding sludge management.
12.5 Odor Control
Noxious odors can be emitted from pulp and paper mills. At kraft mills, odors are primarily
caused by four reduced-sulfur compounds: hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl
sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide. These compounds are referred to collectively as total
reduced sulfur or TRS. TRS gases are mainly emitted from digester blow and relief gases,
evaporator vents, and recovery furnace flue gases (3). These compounds have low odor
thresholds, meaning their odor can be detected at low concentrations. Sulfur oxides emitted
from recovery and power boilers can also contribute to odors from both kraft and sulfite
mills but are much less noticeable than TRS emissions, because the odor threshold for sulfur
dioxide is about 1,000 times higher than for the TRS gases.
Odors will be reduced by various technologies that will be applied at mills for compliance
with the integrated rule. For example, steam stripping of pulping condensates to control
emissions of hazardous air pollutants will also reduce odors. Collecting and redirecting vent
gases from various areas of the mill to combustion devices will reduce odors. In addition,
implementation of the BMP regulation will result in less exposure of pulping liquors to the
atmosphere, which in turn will result in incidental reductions in odors. The Agency
estimates that TRS emissions will decrease by 295,000 kkg/yr, as a result of the integrated
rulemaking (4).
Because the integrated rule will result in capture of TRS and other compounds contributing
to odors, the Agency concludes there will be no adverse non-water quality environmental
impacts associated with odors.
12.6 Other Impacts
Other non-water quality environmental impacts include a reduction in the volumes of
process water used and wastewater discharged, a reduction of pollutants found in bleached
pulps, and changes in quantities of chemicals used at bleaching mills.
Compliance with the proposed rulemaking is expected to result in an industry-wide reduction
in the volumes of process water used and wastewater discharged. Compliance with
BAT/PSES is expected to result in the closure of screen rooms and installation or
modification of pulping and bleaching processes that use less water. Compliance with BPT,
BCT, BMP, and NESHAP is also expected to reduce the volume of water used as mills
12-7
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
implement additional water conservation practices. In this discussion, changes in the volume
of process water used are assumed to similarly affect the volume of wastewater discharged
although at many mills these volumes may not be the same due to factors such as
evaporation.
The industry-wide reduction in water use as a result of process changes that are part of the
technology bases of BAT and PSES is estimated to be 1.2 million m3/yr. This was
determined by estimating the reduction of water use as a result of process changes at a
model mill and multiplying this by the total number of mills. A mill-by-mill estimate was
not developed because water conservation practices vary from mill-to-mill and such mill-
specific information is not available. To date, the industry has already made a significant
effort to reduce consumption and increase water reuse and recycle. Since 1975, water use
by the industry has decreased approximately 30 percent (5).
Some treatment and control technologies consume water (consumptive water loss) which
contributes to water scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions. The technology bases of this
rulemaking may lead to increased loss of water to evaporation as a result of routing
additional wastewater streams to the recovery system. The Agency has not quantified the
consumptive water loss associated with this rulemaking but does not believe that it is of
concern because, as discussed above, most mills are reducing water use and because most
mills are located in the pacific northwest or east of the Mississippi River where water
scarcity is generally not a problem.
Compliance with BAT/PSES is anticipated to improve the quality of bleached pulp by
reducing mass loadings of all chlorinated pollutants exported in this medium.
Compliance with BAT/PSES will also affect the quantity of bleaching chemicals used in the
industry. Quantities of hypochlorite, chlorine, and sodium hydroxide (ECU, which is
purchased with chlorine) are expected to decrease while quantities of chlorine dioxide,
oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, sodium hydroxide (non-ECU), and ozone are expected to
increase. Estimated industry-wide changes in the use of these chemicals are summarized
below. The estimates were prepared from individual cost model data for each bleach line
at each mill (see Section 11.1).
12-8
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
Chemical
Chlorine
Chlorine Dioxide
Hydrogen Peroxide
Hypochlorite
Oxygen
Ozone
Sodium Hydroxide (ECU)
Sodium Hydroxide (non-ECU)
Increase or
Decrease
Decrease
Increase
Increase
Decrease
Increase
Increase
Decrease
Increase
Estimated Change
in Use
(Wsg/yr)
1,990,000
497,000
219,000
420,000
320,000
4,200
2,390,000
573,000
The Agency concludes that the air emission and effluent reduction benefits from the
proposed regulations outweigh any negative impacts associated with changes hi production
and usage of pulping and bleaching chemicals.
12.7 References
1.
2.
3.
Swink, D. U.S. Department of Energy. Overview of DOE's Pulp and Paper Industry
Program. Presentation to the American Paper Institute, August 14, 1992.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. Economic Analysis of Impacts of Integrated
Air/Water Regulations for the Pulp and Paper Industry on Disposal of Wastewater
Sludge, Draft Final Report, August 17, 1993.
Smook, G.A. Handbook for Pulp and Paper Technologists. Joint Textbook
Committee of the Paper Industry, TAPPI, Technology Park, Atlanta, Georgia and
CPPA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1982. pg. 366.
12-9
-------
12.0 Integrated Rulemaking and Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
U.S. EPA, Office of .Air Quality Planning and Standards. Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry - Background Information for Proposed Air Emission Standards
(Manufacturing Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical Mills), EPA
453/R93-050a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, October 1993.
Miner, R. and J. Unwin. Progress in Reducing Water Use and Wastewater Loads
in the U.S. Paper Industry. TAPPI Journal, 74(8): 127-131, August 1991.
12-10
-------
Table 12-1
Pollutants Included in the Final Integrated Database
Pollutant
Pollutant Data Contributed by Office of
Water
Acetaldehyde
Acetophenone
Acrolein
Adsorbable organic halides (AOX)
BOD5
2-Butanone (MEK)
Carbon disuMde
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorine
4-Chlorocatechol
Chloroform
4-Chlorophenol
6-ChlorovanilMn
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4,5-Dichlorocatechol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorosyringaldehyde
5,6-Dichlorovanillin
Formaldehyde
HAP
Hexane
Hydrochloric acid
Methanol
Methyl chloroform (1,1,1-trichloroethane)
Methylene chloride
Pentachlorophenol
Propionaldehyde
2-Propanone (acetone)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Tetrachlorocatechol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12-11
-------
Table 12-1
(Continued)
Pollutant
Pollutant l>a*a Cartb^tejTfey Ace of
Toluene
Total reduced sulfur
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Trichlorosyringol
TSS
VOC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
12-12
-------
ce
I
t-
•4_>
A
>•<
TS
O)
1
•g
^o
*J
a
•IM
CA
0)
Q
n
B
B
CQ
m
B
I
S
.2
us OD
a
C4
•«
bfi
8
n
Baseline
t_r
Ssr
Q T-T
w W
",
a
•3
09
H 3
i
a
<« P 0
" "I •?
decke
points
I
I
S
•g
SlS.
*S
2§
s-*
O 1H
m
o g ^
I-T B
a &2
o cs c
.£? S S
Q I .2
S
O +
<3 -O 2 „
.S S g S
H 3 a j>
fll
O 4> to
1
points plus OD
o
D
"*" §•
o +
a
i§~
ii
S
1
•O
S
"S.
£S
B
"S
&.
vo
t—I
73
bfi
o
D
B
y
W O"
12-13
-------
O)
i
'S
3
.S
-4->
S
o
•ft
-O £ «
H g
s
| §
(X
2
f
o •*•
Si
a
S *j
cJ
•s
W
Ill
o
0
Q«
O +
g
¥
-
O 4)
S.S
-
u
W
8
3
"E,
B
i
B
o
Q
o
2
12-14
I
Sa
rH 2
I
o +
pf
I8"
v£j
Q ^
o S
I
O W
W 3
If
Q 8
'a
I
o
O
R
+ o.
g
I
uf
•8
•a
o
I
II
Q
I Si
o w a
l« a
II*
III
Q u §•
O W W
-------
13.0 Analytical Methods
13.0 ANALYTICAL METHODS
Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing
test procedures (analytical methods) for the analysis of pollutants. These methods are used j
to determine the presence and concentrations of pollutants in wastewater, and are used for
filing applications 'and for compliance monitoring under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) at 40 CFR Parts 122.41(j)(4) and 122.21(g)(7), and for the
pretreatment program at 40 CFR Part 403.7(d).
EPA has promulgated analytical methods for monitoring discharges to surface waters at 40
CFR Part 136, and has promulgated methods for analytes specific to a given industrial
category and for other purposes at Parts 400 - 480 of the CFR. In this proposed rule,
methods not promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136 will be proposed at 40 CFR'Part 430 to
support regulation of discharges from the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source
Category. The list of regulated analytes in Table 13-1 includes the methods that pulp,
paper, and paperboard manufacturers will be allowed to use for compliance monitoring.
Table 13-1 lists methods already promulgated by EPA at 40 CFR Part 136 as well as
analytical methods not contained in 40 CFR Part 136. At a later date, EPA may choose to
promulgate all of the methods contained in Table 13-1 as allowable methods under 40 CFR
Part 136. The methods are summarized in this section and are included in the record for
the rule. Also included in the record are modifications resulting from testing of the methods
on pulp and paper industry wastewaters and summaries of comments received from
interested parties concerning the methods, and responses to those comments.
13.1 Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans
EPA Method 1613, Revision A (1613A), is to be used to analyze pulp and paper
wastewaters for the 17 tetra- through octa- substituted dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran
isomers and congeners that are chlorinated at the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions. Included in this
list of 17 are the 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF isomers to be regulated under the
proposed rule. Prior to. 1989, EPA SW-846 Method 8290 (40 CFR Parts 260 - 270, by
reference) was used in several studies and NCASI Technical Bulletin 551 was used for
analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
Method 1613A uses isotope dilution and high resolution gas chromatography combined with
high resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) for separation and detection of the
individual 2,3,7,8-substituted tetra- through octa- isomers and congeners. Separate
procedures are available for measurement of these analytes in water and solid matrices;
however, the method is being proposed in this rule for use in treated and untreated
wastewater samples only.
13-1
-------
13.0 Analytical Methods
In the procedure for water, a one-liter sample is passed through a 0.45 micron glass fiber
filter. The filter is extracted with toluene in a Soxhlet/Dean-Stark (SDS) apparatus. The
aqueous filtrate is extracted with methylene chloride in a separatory funnel. Extracts from
the SDS and separatory funnel extractions are combined and concentrated. To remove
interferences, the combined, concentrated extract is subjected to cleanup using various
combinations of acid and base washes, acidic and basic silica gel, gel permeation
chromatography (GPC), high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and activated
carbon. The extract is then concentrated to 20 /xL and a 1 - 2 /xL aliquot is injected into the
HRGC/HRMS. Labeled compounds serve to correct the variability of the analytical
technique.
For each method and analyte, EPA determines a method detection limit (MDL) which is
the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99
percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined
from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte (see 40 CFR Part 163,
Appendix B). From an MDL, EPA determines a minimum level (ML) which is the level
at which the analytical system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point.
For Method 1613, these limits usually depend upon sample matrix interferences rather than
instrument limitations. With no interferences present, method detection limits (MDL) of
4.4 and 3.6 ppq can be achieved for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, respectively.
Minimum levels determined for Method 1613 are 10 ppq for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-
TCDF, 50 ppq for the penta-through hepta-substituted CDD and CDF congeners, and 100
ppq for the oeta-substituted congeners.
Method 1613A is based on the method that was used in EPA's National Dioxin Study, on
EPA SW-846 Method 8290, and on methods from industry, academia, and commercial
analytical laboratories. Some effluent limitations guidelines contained in this rule for
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF were developed using Methods 1613A and 8290. For
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, the results obtained using both methods are equivalent.
Method 1613A was proposed at 40 CFR Part 136 (56 FR 5090, February 7, 1991) but has
not been promulgated for use in wastewater programs as of this date. Method 1613A is
currently required for use in drinking water programs (40 CFR Parts 141 - 142; 57 FR
31776, July 17, 1992). The only CDD/CDF method that has been promulgated for use in
wastewater programs is Method 613, promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136 (49 FR 43234,
October 26,1984). This method is specific for 2,3,7,8-TCDD only and has an MDL of 2,000
ppq, which is more than 400 times larger than the MDL of 4.4 ppq in Method 1613.
Therefore, Method 613 is incapable of detecting any of the CDDs or CDFs at the
concentrations present in pulp and paper wastewaters and is not allowed for monitoring
under the proposed rule.
13-2
-------
13.0 Analytical Methods
13.2 Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds
Chlorinated phenolic compounds (chlorophenolics) are a group of toxic pollutants
characterized by a benzene ring with one hydroxyl group (phenols) and at least one chlorine
atom (chloropheriols). Ring substituents may be a second hydroxyl group at the ortho
position (catechols), a methoxy group at the ortho position (guaiacols), a methoxy group at
the ortho position and an aldehyde group at the para position (vanillins), and methoxy
groups at both ortho positions and a hydroxyl or aldehyde group at the para position
(syrmgols and syringaldehydes). Each of these compound classes are identified in the
proposed rule as part of the general class known as chlorinated phenolic compounds.
The chlorophenolics to be regulated under the proposed rule are to be measured using EPA
Method 1653. Method 1653 measures compounds in water and wastewater amenable to in-
smi acetylation, extraction, and determination by high resolution gas chromatography
(HRGC) combined with low resolution mass spectrometry (LRMS). In this method
chlorophenolics are derivatized in situ to form acetic acid phenolates that are extracted with
hexane, concentrated, and injected into the HRGC/LRMS where separation and detection
occur. Detected chlorophenolics are quantified by isotope dilution if a labeled analog is
available. Where labeled analogs are not available, detected compounds are quantified by
an internal standard technique.
The detection limit of the method is usually dependent upon interferences rather than
instrument limitations, With no interferences present, MDLs of 0.09 -1.39 /tg/L (ppb) have
been determined for chlorophenolics in water. Based on these MDLs and on calibration
of the GC/MS instrument, minimum levels have been determined to be 1.25, 2.50 or 5 00
jwg/L, depending upon the specific compound. '
Method 1653 is based on NCASI Method CP-86.01 and draft APHA Method 6240 In early
data-gathering studies for the proposed rule, NCASI Methods CP-85.01 and CP-86 01 were
used. Some effluent limitations guidelines contained in this rule were developed using the
NCASI methods. The extensive quality assurance and quality control program that these
data were subjected to ensured that an equivalent degree of confidence was obtained for
analytical results from each method.
*3.3 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
VOCs are to be determined in wastewater using EPA Method 1624. Method 1624 is the
only method promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136 that can determine all four of the pollutants
to be regulated under the proposed pulp and paper rule. The method uses isotope dilution
and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to separate and quantify the
regulated analytes. VOCs are purged from a water sample onto a trap by a stream of inert
gas. Subsequent heating of the trap introduces the concentrated VOCs into the GC/MS.
13-3
-------
13.0 Analytical Methods
The detection limit of the method is usually dependent upon interferences rather than
instrumental limitations. With no interferences present, minimum levels of 10 or 50 j*g/L
can be achieved, depending upon the specific compound.
13.4 Adsorbable Organic Halides TAOX)
AOX is a measure of halogenated organic compounds that adsorb onto granular activated
carbon AOX in water and wastewater is to be measured by EPA Method 1650, Revision
A This method is a microcoulometric technique that determines organically bound halides
(chlorine, bromine, and iodine) dissolved or suspended in a water sample. The results are
reported as organic chlorine even though other halides may be present.
The concentration of organic halides is determined by adsorption onto granular activated
carbon removal of inorganic halides by washing, and combustion of the organic halides
(along with the carbon) to form hydrogen halides. The amount of hydrogen halides
produced is determined by titration with silver ions in the microcoulometer.
The detection limit of Method 1650 is usually dependent upon interferences rather than
instrumental limitations. With no interferences present, an MDL of 6.6 pg/L (ppb) can be
achieved. Based on this MDL and on calibration of the microcoulometer, the minimum
level in Method 1650 has been determined to be 20 /*g/L.
Method 1650 is based on the following methods for determination of organic halides in
water- EPA SW-846 Method 9020; Deutsche Industrie Norm (DIN) Method 38409, Part
14- International Organization for Standardization (ISO/DIS) Method 9562; Scandinavian
Pulp Paper, and Board Testing Committee Method SCAN-W 9:89; APHA Method 5520;
and the Canadian Standard Method for the Determination of Adsorbable Organic Halides
(AOX) in Waters and Wastewaters. In early data gathering studies, the ISO 9562 and
SCAN-W 9:89 methods were used.
For solid samples (soils, sludges, and pulps), organic halides (OX) were measured by
neutron activation analysis using draft EPA Method 1648. In this method, samples are
sonicated in acid to solubilize organic halides which are then adsorbed onto activated
carbon. The adsorbed sample is sealed and exposed to neutrons to produce radioisotppes
of chlorine that are measured with a gamma-ray detector. Because this method is still in
draft form, MDL and ML information is not yet available.
In addition to Method 1650 for AOX and Method 1648 for OX, other analytical methods
(and terms) have been used to quantify halogenated organic matter. For example EPA
SW-846 Methods 9020 and 9022 quantify total organic halides (TOX) and Method 9021
quantifies purgeable organic halides (POX) in water and wastewater. TOX is a measure
of the dissolved or suspended halogenated organic matter that adsorbs onto granular
13-4
-------
13.0 Analytical Methods
activated carbon. Therefore, AOX results should be equal to or greater than TOX results.
Because of this distinction, dissolved organic halides (DOX) is now the preferred term for
the original TOX procedure. The difference between Methods 9020 and 9022 is that 9022,
which utilizes neutron activation techniques, can be used to determine each halogen
separately. POX is a measure of the volatile fraction of organic halogens. Extractable
organic halides (BOX) is another measure of organic halogen concentrations. BOX is
measured by extraction of the hydrophobic fraction of chlorinated organic matter using an
organic, lipophilic solvent. Methods for measuring BOX have been reported in the
literature but have not been standardized. The Agency has not developed a method for
BOX.
13.5 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
COD is a measure of the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter in a sample that is
susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant. For samples from a specific source,
COD can be related empirically to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). Several methods
for COD are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR Part 136, notably EPA Methods 410.1
through 410.4. Methods 410.1 and 410.2 are the only EPA COD methods that will be
allowed for monitoring under the pulp and paper rule. In these methods, the organic and
oxidizable inorganic substances in an aqueous sample are oxidized by a solution of
potassium dichromate in sulfuric acid. The excess dichromate is titrated with standard
ferrous ammonium sulfate using orthophenanthroline ferrous complex (ferroin) as an
indicator. Method 410.2 covers COD concentrations in the range of 5 - 50 mg/L whereas
Method 410.1 covers COD concentrations from 50 - 2,000 mg/L. Other methods
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR Part 136 that use oxidation with potassium
dichromate in sulfuric acid and subsequent titration of the excess dichromate (e.g., APHA ,
Method 5520B) are also allowed. At this time, EPA has not developed a minimum level'
for the COD methods.
A few studies of wastewaters in the pulp and paper industry where COD was analyzed were
conducted with Method 410.4. In this method, COD is determined colorimetrically after
digestion of the organic matter in a sample using hot chromic acid solution. However, the
highly colored nature of some pulp and paper samples interferes with the colorimetric
determination of COD. Therefore, Method 410.4 and other colorimetric methods
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR Part 136 will not be allowed for monitoring under
the proposed pulp and paper rule. Similarly, Method 410.3 is intended for high levels of
COD in saline waters and will not be allowed.
13.6 Color
Color in water and wastewater may result from the presence of metallic ions (e.g., iron and
manganese) and humic matter. Color in pulp and paper mill effluents is attributable to
13-5
-------
13.0 Analytical Methods
losses of pulping liquor (black liquor) and bleach plant extraction stage filtrates. Color is
measured by the procedure described in NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 253 that was
specifically designed to measure color in pulping and bleaching effluents. Samples are
adjusted to pH 7.6, and the turbidity of the solution is reduced by filtration. Color is then
determined at 465 nm by spectrophotometric comparison of a wastewater sample with a
standard solution of chloroplatinate ions. Color results are reported in either color units
or mg/L relative to the platinum standard. The MDL for this method is approximately 1
mg/L (ppm). At this time, EPA has not developed a minimum level for color using this
method.
EPA has added QC tests and specifications as an addendum to NCASI Technical Bulletin
No. 253 to provide the level of QC required in other EPA wastewater methods.
Specifications for calibration linearity, calibration verification, and initial and ongoing
precision and recovery are some of the QC elements now included in the method.
13.7 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODg)
BODS is a measure of the relative oxygen requirements of wastewaters, effluents, and
polluted waters. Method 405.1 for determination of BOD5 is incorporated by reference into '
40 CFR Part 136. The BOD5 test specified in this method is an empirical bioassay-type
procedure which measures dissolved oxygen consumed by mierobial life while assimilating
and oxidizing the organic matter present. The standard test conditions include dark
incubation at 20°C for a five-day period.
13.8 Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
TSS are to be measured using EPA Method 160.2 or other methods for TSS which are
incorporated by reference into 40 CFR Part 136. In this method, a well-mixed sample is
filtered through a pre-weighed glass fiber filter. The filter is dried to constant weight at 103-
105 °C. The weight of material on the filter divided by the sample volume is the amount
of TSS.
13.9 Other Analvtes
During several screening episodes, EPA analyzed wastewater samples for pollutants in four
other chemical categories: resin and fatty acids, metals, semi-volatile compounds, and
pesticides/herbicides.
13.9.1 Resin and Fatty Acids
Resin and fatty acids were analyzed by the method described in NCASI Technical Bulletin
No. 501. This method uses GC/MS or GC combined with a flame ionization detector
13-6
-------
13.0 Analytical Methods
(GC/FID). Wastewater samples are extracted with an organic solvent. The extract is
concentrated and the resin and fatty acids are converted to the ethyl ester derivatives.
GC/MS analysis does not require any further cleanup. GC/FID analysis requires cleanup
with a silica gel column. The resin and fatty acid esters are quantified by an external
standard calibration technique. MDLs are influenced by the sample matrix and
interferences. With no interferences present, compound-specific MDLs ranging from 0.8 to
5.4 /*g/L (ppb) can be achieved for treated effluents.
13.9.2 Metals
Metals were analyzed using EPA Method 1620. This method is a consolidation of the EPA
200 series methods for the quantitative determination of 27 trace elements by inductively
coupled plasma (ICP) and graphite furnace atomic absorption (GFAA), and determination
of mercury by cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA). The method also provides a semi-
quantitative ICP screen for 42 additional elements. The ICP technique measures atomic
emissions by optical spectroscopy. GFAA measures the atomic absorption of a vaporized
sample, and CVAA measures the atomic absorption of mercury vapor. MDLs are
influenced by the sample matrix and interferences. With no interferences present,
compound-specific MDLs ranging from 0.3 to 75 jwg/L (ppb) can be achieved.
13.9.3 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds
Semi-volatile organic compounds were analyzed by EPA Method 1625, Revision C. In this
method, samples are prepared by liquid-liquid extraction with methylene chloride in a
separatory funnel or continuous liquid-liquid extractor. Separate acid and base/neutral
extracts are concentrated to 1.0 mL, and a 1 /iL aliquot is injected into an HRGC/LRMS.
The detection limit of the method is usually dependent upon interferences rather than
instrument limitations. With no interferences present, minimum levels of 10,20, or 50 ng/L
(ppb) can be achieved, depending upon the specific compound.
13.9.4 Pesticides and Herbicides
Pesticides and herbicides were analyzed by EPA Method 1618. Method 1618 is a wide-bore
capillary column GC method for determination of organo-halide and organo-phosphorus
pesticides, phenoxy-acid herbicides, and other compounds amenable to extraction and
analysis by GC with organo-halide and organo-phosphorus detectors. The detection limit
of the method is usually dependent upon interferences rather than instrument limitations.
With no interferences present, compound-specific MDLs ranging from 2 -1,000 ng/L (ppt)
can be achieved. '
13-7
-------
Table 13-1
Regulatory Status of Analytical Methods To Be Used To
Determine Compliance With the Proposed Rule
Regulated Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Volatile Qreanics
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
AOX
Chlorinated Phenolics
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol
Tetrachlorocatechol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
Trichlorosyringol
Pentachlorophenol
COD
Effluent Water Color
BOD,
TSS
Chemical
Abstract
Service No,
1746-01-6
51207-31-9
67-66-3
67-64-1
78-93-3
75-09-2
—
58-90-2
95-95-4
88-06-2
56961-20-7
57057-83-7
32139-72-3
60712-44-9
2668-24-8
1198-55-6
2539-17-5
2539-26-6
87-86-5
~
—
~
~
Method
1613
1624
1650
1653
410.1
410.2
NCASI
253
405.1
160.2
Technique
HRGC/HRMS
LRGC/LRMS
Titrimetric
HRGC/LRMS
Titrimetric
Spectrometric
Potentiometric
Gravimetric
Regulatory
Status
Proposed, 1991
56 FR 5090
Promulgated 40
CFR Part 136
This Proposal
This Proposal
Promulgated 40
CFR Part 136
This Proposal
Promulgated 40
CFR Part 136
Promulgated 40
CFR Part 136
13-8
-------
14.0
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AND
BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
14.1 Introduction
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) effluent limitations
guidelines are generally based upon the average of the best existing performance, in terms
of treated effluent discharged by facilities in a category or subcategory. BPT focuses on
end-of-pipe treatment technology and such process changes and internal controls that are
common industry practice. In establishing BPT, the Agency considers the cost of achieving
effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits, the size and age of
equipment and facilities, the processes used, process changes required, engineering aspects
of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements), and other factors the Administrator deems appropriate (Section 304(b)(l)(B)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)). Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT
may be transferred from a different subcategory or category.
The 1977 amendments to the CWA established BCT for discharges of conventional
pollutants, including biological oxygen demand (BODS), total suspended solids (TSS), and
pH, from existing industrial point sources. BCT is not an additional limitation but replaces
BAT for the control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors specified in
Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that BCT limitations be established in light of a
two-part "cost-reasonableness" test. EPA issued a methodology for the development of BCT
limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
14.2 Regulated Pollutants
The current BPT regulations, promulgated between 1974 and 1982, established limitations
for BOD5, TSS, and pH for 26 separate subcategories. The current BCT regulations are
identical to the current BPT regulations. The Agency is proposing to consolidate the
current 26 subcategories to 12 subcategories, and to revise the limitations for BOD5 and
TSS.
14.3 Identification of BPT
14.3.1 BPT Performance Level and Limitations
As described in Section 9.2, the Agency developed and analyzed two options for BPT. For
all subcategories other than Dissolving Sulfite, the two options are:
(1) The performance level representing the average of the best 90 percent of
mills in each subcategory; and
14-1
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
(2) The performance level representing the average of the best 50 percent of
mills in each subcategory.
For the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory, the Agency also analyzed two options:
(1) The performance level representing the best mill in the subcategory; and
(2) Reduction in raw waste load through in-plant process changes that are the
technology bases for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP), Best Available Control Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT), and Best Management Practices (BMP); and end-of-pipe
primary and secondary (biological) treatment.
Analyses of the impacts of these options in terms of reduction in pollutant discharges to the
environment, costs to industry, and non-water quality environmental impacts are described
in Sections 10, 11, and 12, respectively. After comparing the estimated costs to effluent
reduction benefits of each option, the Agency concluded that Option 2, for all subcategories,
was reasonable and justified.
BPT effluent limitations were developed as described in the Statistical Support Document.
Table 14-1 presents the BPT effluent limitations that the Agency is proposing for continuous
dischargers. Table 14-2 presents the BPT effluent limitations that the Agency is proposing
for non-continuous dischargers.
14.3.2 Description of Technology Basis
The BPT performance levels are calculated from measured effluent pollutant concentrations,
effluent flow rate, and mill production, as follows:
PNL = C x
PNF
1,000
(1)
where:
PNL
C
PNF
production normalized load, kg/metric ton
concentration, mg/L
production normalized flow, m3/metric ton
14-2
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
Thus, the performance level, expressed as production normalized mass load, is equally
dependent on the effluent concentrations achieved by end-of-pipe treatment and production
normalized flow resulting from in-process water conservation practices.
As discussed in Section 9.2.5, there are many ways in-process flow reduction technologies
and end-of-pipe wastewater treatment can be combined to achieve BPT performance levels.
Mills that treat wastewater to low concentrations but have poor water conservation practices
evidenced by high production normalized flows cannot achieve the low production
normalized mass loads achieved by the best performing mills. These mills will require in-
process flow reduction to meet BPT.
Appropriate flow reduction technologies vary by the process operations used in a
subcategory. Flow reduction considered as part of the technology basis for BPT includes
one or more of the following:
1. Increased reuse and recycle of pulp and paper machine white water through
the use of paper machine gravity strainers with high-pressure, self-cleaning
showers or disk savealls;
2. Paper machine vacuum pump seal water recycle;
3. Screen room closure; and/or
4. Reuse of deinking washwater after flotation clarification.
The two secondary treatment technologies commonly used in the pulp and paper industry
are aerated stabilization basin (ASB) systems and activated sludge systems. The Agency
identified feasible upgrades for each treatment type. ASB treatment systems can be
upgraded by increasing the amount of aeration in existing ponds, by increasing the volume
of aerated ponds or by adding new ponds (resulting in increased hydraulic detection time),
by supplementing the nutrients available in the mill wastewater, and/or by providing
additional settling capacity for the removal of suspended solids.
Activated sludge systems can be upgraded by increasing the capacity of aeration basins
(resulting in longer hydraulic detention times and lower BOD5-to-microorganism ratios), by
increasing the size of clarification equipment, and/or by adding flocculant to improve sludge
settling.
The combination of upgrades applicable to a mill will be dependent upon the characteristics
of its wastewater and upon the treatment it currently uses.
Table 14-3 presents production normalized flow, effluent concentrations, and critical
wastewater treatment system design parameters for mills that achieve BPT performance
14-3
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
levels. The data are presented for those subcategories where such a disclosure does not
compromise confidential business information.
14.4 BCT
As described in Section 9.3, the Agency developed two options for BCT:
(1) The performance level of the best-performing mill in each subcategory
(Option A.1); and
(2) Multimedia filtration following flow reduction, primary treatment, and
secondary treatment (Option A.2).
The Agency was not able to fully analyze Option A.1. The analyses of the impact of Option
A.2 in terms of reduction in pollutant discharges to the environment and costs to industry
are described in Sections 10.0 and 11.0, respectively. Option A.2 failed to pass the BCT cost
test in 11 subcategories. Consequently, the Agency is proposing to set BCT equal to the
proposed BPT in these 11 subcategories. The Agency found that multimedia filtration (BCT
Option A.2) passed the BCT cost test in the Mechanical Pulp Subcategory. As a result, the
Agency is proposing multimedia filtration as the BCT technology in this subcategory.
However, EPA does not have sufficient data at this time to propose limits for BOD5 and
TSS discharges based on this technology. BCT effluent limitations, for all subcategories
other than Mechanical Pulp, are identical to the BPT effluent limitations presented in
Tables 14-1 and 14-2.
14.5 Implementation
BPT effluent guidelines are applied to individual mills through National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by EPA or authorized states under Section 402
of the CWA. Using annual average production information supplied by the mill and the
BPT effluent guidelines, the permitting authority will establish numerical discharge
limitations for the mill and specify monitoring and reporting requirements.
14.5.1 NPDES Production Rate (Production Normalizing Parameter)
For the proposed BPT effluent limitations guidelines, production is defined as the annual
off-machine production (including off-machine coating where applicable) divided by the
number of operating days during that year. Paper and paperboard production shall be
measured at the off-machine moisture content whereas market pulp shall be measured in
air dry tons (10 percent moisture). Production shall be determined for each mill based upon
the highest annual production in the past five years divided by the number of operating days
that year. The mill's production in each subcategory is used with the subcategory production
normalized mass effluent limitations guidelines to calculate null-specific NPDES permit limitations.
14-4
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
14.5.2 Point of Application
BPT effluent limitation guidelines are applicable to the final effluent discharged to waters
of the United States.
14.5.3 Application of BPT to Mills in More Than One Subcategory
The Agency has structured the proposed BPT effluent guidelines in a building-block
approach. This means that the applicable NPDES permit limitations for mills with
production in more than one subcategory will be the sum of the mass loadings based upon
production in each subcategory and the respective subcategory effluent limitations
guidelines. Examples of this approach are provided below.
14.5.3.1
Example 1: Integrated Bleached Kraft Mill
An integrated bleached kraft mill produced 315,000 OMMT (kkg) of uncoated free sheet
in 1993. 1993 was the highest production year for the past five years. In 1993, the paper
machine operated 350 days. Virgin softwood, pulped and bleached on site, constitutes 85
percent, by weight, of this production. The remaining 15 percent is derived from purchased
pulp.
The production at this mill falls into two subcategories: Subpart B - Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda and Subpart K - Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp. The
production in each subcategory may be calculated as follows:
The NPDES production rate for the purpose of calculating BOD5 and TSS limitations is:
NPDES = PROD/OPDAYS
(2)
where:
NPDES
PROD
OPDAYS
NPDES production rate for the purpose of calculating BOD5
and TSS permit limitations, kkg/day
highest annual off-machine production in the past five calendar
years, kkg/yr
number of paper machine operating days in the calendar year
used for PROD, days.
14-5
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
Using Equation 2:
315,000 kkg/year / 350 days/year = 900 kkg/day
900 kkg/day x 0.85 = 765 kkg/day Subcategory B production
900 kkg/day x 0.15 = 135 kkg/day Subcategory K production
The BPT effluent limitations guidelines for these two subcategories (Table 14-1) are:
Subpart
B
K
Maximum for 1 Day
(kg/kkg)
BOB5
4.26
5.87
TSS „?•
8.75
4.87
Monthly Average (kg/kkg)
Bb»s
2.19
2.29
TSS
3.89
1.62
Permit limitations are calculated as follows.
Maximum BOD5 for 1 Day:
4.26 kg/kkg x 765 kkg/day = 3,259
5.87 kg/kkg x 135 kkg/day = 792
4,051 kg BOD5/day
Maximum TSS for 1 Day:
8.75 kg/kkg x 765 kkg/day = 6,694
4.87 kg/kkg x 135 kkg/day = 657
7,351 kg TSS/day
Monthly Average BOD5:
2.19 kg/kkg x 765 kkg/day = 1,675
2.29 kg/kkg x 135 kkg/day = 309
1,984 kg BOD5/day
14-6
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
Monthly Average TSS:
3.89 kg/kkg x 765 kkg/day = 2,976
1.62 kg/kkg x 135 kkg/day = 219
3,195 kg TSS/day
14.5.3.2 Example!: Newsprint Mill
A mill produced 426,000 OMMT (kkg) of newsprint in 1992. 1992 was the highest
production year for the past five years. In 1992, the paper machine operated 355 days.
Virgin wood, mechanically pulped on site, constitutes 55 percent, by weight, of this
production. Secondary fiber, deinked on site, constitutes 25 percent of the production. The
remaining 20 percent is derived from purchased virgin pulp.
The production at this mill falls into three subcategories:
• Subpart G, Mechanical Pulp;
• Subpart I, Secondary Fiber Deink; and
• Subpart L, Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp.
The production in each subcategory may be calculated as follows:
Using Equation 2 from Example 1:
426,000 kkg/year / 355 days/year = 1,200 kkg/day
1,200 kkg/day x 0.55 = 660 kkg/day Subpart G
1,200 kkg/day x 0.25 = 300 kkg/day Subpart I
1,200 kkg/day x 0.20 = 240 kkg/day Subpart L.
14-7
-------
14.Q Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
The BPT effluent limitations guidelines for these subcategories (Table 14-1) are:
Subpart
G
I ,
L
Maximum for 1 Day
(kg/kkg)
BODS
1.39
5.29
2.96
TSS
5.59
6.12
5.32
^ ^ ^ *"
f f' '"•'f tj
Mont% Averag^ (kg/kkg)
BO»5
0.568
2.16
0.974
TSS
2.02
2.29
1.73
Permit limitations are calculated as follows:
Maximum BOD5 for 1 Day:
1.39 kg/kkg x 660 kkg/day
5.29 kg/kkg x 300 kkg/day
2.96 kg/kkg x 240 kkg/day
Maximum TSS for 1 Day:
5.59 kg/kkg x 660 kkg/day
6.12 kg/kkg x 300 kkg/day
5.32 kg/kkg x 240 kkg/day
Monthly Average BOD5:
0.568 kg/kkg x 660 kkg/day
2.16 kg/kkg x 300 kkg/day
0.974 kg/kkg x 240 kkg/day
Monthly Average TSS:
2.02 kg/kkg x 660 kkg/day
2.29 kg/kkg x 300 kkg/day
1.73 kg/kkg x 240 kkg/day
917
1,587
710
3,214 kg BOD5/day
3,689
1,836
1.277
6,802 kg TSS/day
375
648
234
1,257 kg BOD5/day
1,333
687
415
2,435 kg TSS/day
14-8
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
14.5.3.3 Example 3: Linerboard Mill
An integrated kraft mill produced 379,500 OMMT (kkg) in 1993 of two-ply linerboard (high
yield unbleached kraft with a thin, bleached kraft top layer). 1993 was the highest
production year in the past five years. Virgin softwood, pulped on site, is used to produce
the linerboard. The linerboard mill operated 345 days in 1993. By weight, 67 percent of
the finished product is derived from unbleached pulp, while 33 percent, by weight, is derived
from bleached pulp.
The production at this mill falls into two subcategories:
• Subpart B - Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda; and
• Subpart C - Unbleached Kraft.
The production in each subcategory may be calculated as follows:
Using Equation 2 from Example 1:
379,500 kkg/year / 345 days/year = 1,100 kkg/day
1,100 kkg/day x 0.67 = 737 kkg/day Subpart B
1,100 kkg/day x 0.33 = 363 kkg/day Subpart C
The BPT effluent imitations guidelines for these two subcategories (Table 14-1) are:
Subpart
B
C
Maximum for 1 Day
Ckg/fckg)
BO»S
4.26
4.19
TSS
8.75
8.14
Monthly Average (kg/kfcg)
BOI>5
2.19
1.90
TJSS
3.89
3.45
Permit limitations are calculated as follows.
Maximum BOD5 for 1 Day:
4.26 kg/kkg x 737 kkg/day = 3,140
4.19 kg/kkg x 363 kkg/day = 1.521
4,661 kg BOD5/day
14-9
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
Maximum TSS for 1 Day:
8.75 kg/kkg x 737 kkg/day = 6,449
8.14 kg/kkg x 363 kkg/day = 2,955
9,404 kg TSS/day
Monthly Average, BOD5:
2.19 kg/kkg x 737 kkg/day = 1,614
1.90 kg/kkg x 363 kkg/day = 690
2,304 kg BOD5/day
Monthly Average TSS:
3.89 kg/kkg x 737 kkg/day = 2,867
3.45 kg/kkg x 363 kkg/day = 1.252
4,119 kg TSS/day
14.5.4 Application of BPT to Mills With Noncontinuous Discharges
Example: Integrated Bleached Kraft Mill
An integrated bleached kraft mill produced 315,000 OMMT (kkg) of uncoated free sheet
in 1993. 1993 was the highest production year for the past five years. In 1993, the paper
machine operated 350 days. Virgin softwood, pulped and bleached on site, constitutes 85
percent, by weight, of this production. The remaining 15 percent is derived from purchased
pulp. The mill stores wastewater in a holding pond and does not discharge wastewater
during August, September, and October, because of receiving stream conditions.
Wastewater is discharged over the remaining nine months of the year.
The production at this mill falls into two subcategories:
• Subpart B - Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda; and
• Subpart K - Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp. The
production in each subcategory may be calculated as follows:
315,000 kkg/yr x 0.85 = 267,750 kkg/yr Subpart B
315,000 kkg/yr x 0.15 = 47,250 kkg/yr Subpart K
14-10
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
The BPT effluent limitations guidelines for non-continuous dischargers for these two
subcategories (Table 14-2) are:
Subpart
B
K
Annual Average (kg/kkg)
BODS
1.57
1.59
TSS
2.72
1.23
Permit limitations are calculated as follows.
Annual Average BOD5:
267,750 kkg/yr x 1.57 kg/kkg
47,250 kkg/yr x 1.59 kg/kkg =
Annual Average TSS:
267,750 kkg/yr x 2.72 =
47,250 kkg/yr x 1.23 =
420,368
75.128
495,496 kg BOD5/yr
728,280
58.118
786,398 kg TSS/yr
It is recommended that non-continuous discharging mills with annual average mass
limitations track their mass discharged throughout the year by a cumulative total ("running
balance") of the mass of each pollutant discharged. By closely monitoring the mass
discharged during each day of the discharge period and updating the total annual discharge
to date, mills with potential compliance problems will be aware of the situation with
adequate time to take .remedial action. Remedial action might include wastewater flow
reduction and improvement to treatment system performance.
Annual average effluent limitations must be applied to non-continuous dischargers. Daily
maximum and monthly average limitations may be applied also, and can be calculated by
using the effluent limitations guidelines for continuous dischargers, and adjusting the
production appropriately. Production is adjusted using the equation:
14-11
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
PRDDADJ = NPDES
(3)
where:
PROD
'ADJ
NPDES
T,
Adjusted production rate for the purpose of calculating daily
and monthly permit limitations for noncontinuous dischargers,
kkg/day
NPDES production calculated using Equation 2 in Section
14.5.3.1, kkg/day
Length of time over which wastewater discharged is produced
Xj = Length of tune over which wastewater is discharged.
In this example, wastewater from twelve months of production is discharged over a nine-
month period. The NPDES production is the same as calculated in Example 1 in Section
14.5.3.1:
765 kkg/day Subpart B
135 kkg/day Subpart K
Therefore, the adjusted productions, using Equation 3, are:
Subpart B: 765 kkg/day x (12 months/9 months) = 1,020 kkg/day
Subpart K: 135 kkg/day x (12 months/9 months) = 180 kkg/day
The daily maximum and monthly average BPT effluent limitations guidelines for these two
subcategories (Table 14-1) are:
Subpart .
B
K
Maximum for 1 Day
(kg/fckg)
BO»S
4.26
5.87
TSS
8.75
4.87
Monthly Average (feg/kkg)
BOB*
2.19
2.29
TSS
3.89
1.62
14-12
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
Daily maximum and monthly average permit limitations are calculated as follows.
Maximum BOD5 for 1 Day:
4.26 kg/kkg x 1,020 kkg/day = 4,345
5.87 kg/kkg x 180 kkg/day = 1.057
Maximum TSS for 1 Day:
5,402 kg BOD5/day
8.75 kg/kkg x 1,020 kkg/day = 8,925
4.87 kg/kkg x 180 kkg/day = 877
9,802 kg TSS/day
Monthly Average BOD5:
2.19 kg/kkg x 1,020 kkg/day = 2,234
2.29 kg/kkg x 180 kkg/day = 412
Monthly Average TSS:
3.89 kg/kkg x 1,020 kkg/day =
1.62 kg/kkg x 180 kkg/day =
2,646 kg BOD5/day
3,968
292
4,260 kg TSS/day
These mass limitations can be converted to a concentration basis, by dividing by the actual
average discharge flow during discharge periods:
LM
_
(4)
where:
concentration-based effluent limitation, mg/L
unit conversion factor
14-13
-------
14.0 Best Practicable Control Technology Current Available and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
LM = mass-based effluent limitation, kg/day
F = actual average process wastewater discharge flow during discharge
period, m3/day.
The example mill discharged an average of 100,000 m3/clay (26.4 MOD) of process
wastewater during the nine months in 1993 in which discharge occurred. The monthly
average BOD5 concentration limit is calculated using Equation 4:
1,000,000 mg/kg 2,646 kg BODs/day =
1,000 L/m
100,000 m3/day
Note that since the flow term is in the denominator, the higher the mill's discharge flow, the
lower the equivalent concentration limit becomes. Therefore, it is in the mill's best interest
to practice water conservation and flow reduction and thereby lower process water discharge
flow rates.
14-14
-------
•
rr
OJ
1
0>
Cfl
c o
s ®
€
!
§
&
fr
M
a
1
• =
i
s
1
1
1
«rt
S
1
1
1
a
00
S
^o
o
o\
•*•
o
f~
C4
00
Dissolving Kraft
^
s
CO
o-
CM
l>
00
s
•3
^
s
^
tU
«
Bleached Papergr
CQ
^
CO
SI
s
00
3
Unbleached Kraft
(J
00
•*'
CO
CO
VO
cQ
Dissolving Sulfite
Q
vo
VO
88
oo
^
^
O\
I
w
o
CO
T-l
vo
VO
CM
Semi-Chemical
OH
S
OC
O
®
VI
ON
CO
rH
SP
Mechanical Pulpil
O
S
o
o\
5
>o
rH
CO
I
i
a
•s
1
z
K
o\
c-
VC
s
VO
s
10
i
Secondary Fiber D
~
5o
o
8
o
s
cs
CO.
T— 1
,
1
Q
Secondary Fiber N
1-9
cs
^
CM
£5
Tt
SB
OH
S
15
CO
1
p|
J3
I
«,
jD
1
(D
.s
fed
£
rH
S
0
CM
CO
>o
VO
CS
1
<±!
"§
1
(2
1
||
ll
•S3 tt
j
14-15
-------
JU
!S
ID
I
a
J
•8
•a
s
5
en
t
AH
14-16
-------
1
ci
11
11
si
3«
CO
.24-
"5
8?
S
PI
ndary Fiber
3.0-8
a
.3
•0
econdary Fibe
Non-Deink
i
a.
_e
S
o
a.
O
-9
1
14-17
-------
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
15.0 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
15.1 Introduction
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) effluent limitations guidelines
represent the best existing economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial
subcategory or category. The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes BAT as the principal
national means of controlling the direct discharge of priority pollutants and nonconventional
pollutants to navigable waters of the United States. The factors considered in assessing
BAT include the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process used, process changes,
and non-water quality environmental impacts, including energy requirements. The Agency
retains considerable discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. As with
BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may be transferred from a
different subcategory or category. BAT may include process changes or internal controls,
even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
15.2 Regulated Pollutants
The Agency is proposing to consolidate the current 26 subcategories into 12 subcategories.
BAT effluent limitations guidelines regulating the discharge of priority and nonconventional
pollutants are proposed for six of these subcategories:
Dissolving Kraft;
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda;
Unbleached Kraft:
Dissolving Sulfite;
Papergrade Sulfite; and
Semi-Chemical.
The pollutants regulated at BAT are listed in Table 15-1, by subcategory. Pollutants are
shown for two monitoring points on Table 15-1: bleach plant effluent and final effluent.
These monitoring points are discussed further in Section 15.4.2.
Volatile organics, chlorinated phenolics, adsorbable organic halides (AOX), and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,7,8-
TCDF) will be regulated in the Dissolving Kraft, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda,
Dissolving Sulfite, and Papergrade Sulfite Subcategories. Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
will be limited in each of the six subcategories listed above; however, data to support
limitations in the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory are currently not available and COD
effluent limitations guidelines have not been proposed for that subcategory. Color
limitations are being proposed in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory.
The Agency has solicited additional performance data for certain pollutants and
15-1
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
technologies, as detailed in the preamble. The Agency will consider developing limitations
for these pollutants at a later date.
The current BAT regulations, promulgated in 1982, established effluent limitations
guidelines for zinc in Subparts L, M, N, and O which have been combined into the proposed
Subpart G - Mechanical Pulping Subcategory. Effluent limitations guidelines were also
promulgated for trichlorophenol and pentachlorophenol in 24 of 26 subcategories. The
Agency intends to withdraw the current regulations at 40 CFR Parts 430 and 431 when this
proposed regulation is promulgated'. Consequently, none of the current effluent limitations
guidelines and standards will be effective after that time.
15.3 Identification of BAT
The selected BAT option and resulting BAT limitations for each subcategory is presented
in this section. Derivation of the numerical BAT effluent limitations guidelines is described
in the Statistical Support Document.
The owners or operators of facilities subject to BAT are not required to use the specific
process technologies and wastewater treatment technologies selected by EPA to establish
the BAT, but may choose to use any combination of process technologies and wastewater
treatment to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
effluent limitations derived from BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
15.3.1 Subpart B - Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
The Agency developed five BAT options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory. The Agency considered developing a sixth, totally chlorine-free (TCP)
bleaching option but does not consider TCP bleaching to be an available technology option
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory at this time.
The five technology options all include these elements:
• Adequate wood chip size control, achieved by close control of chipping
equipment tolerances or use of chip-thickness screens;
• Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors;
• Effective brown stock washing that achieves a washing loss of 10
per metric ton or less;
15-2
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
• Elimination of hypochlorite, replacing it with oxygen and peroxide enhanced
extraction and additional chlorine dioxide bleaching power in brightening
stages;
• Oxygen and peroxide enhanced extraction; and
• High shear mixing for the split addition of chlorine in Option 1, for addition
of chlorine dioxide, and for addition of oxygen in reinforced extraction.
In addition to these elements, the five technology options considered for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda BAT are:
• Option 1 - Split Addition of Chlorine. For this option, the total equivalent chlorine
added to the first stage of bleaching is applied in two steps.
• Option 2 - Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine. Chlorine is replaced with
chlorine dioxide to reduce the active chlorine multiple ratio to 0.90 or less (see Section
9.4.2.3).
• Option 3 - Oxygen Delignification OR Extended Delignification With Substitution
of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine.
• Option 4 - Oxygen Delignification OR Extended Delignification With Complete
Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine.
• Option 5 - Oxygen Delignification AND Extended Delignification With Complete
Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine.
The Agency selected Option 4 as the technology basis for the proposed BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory. In making
this decision, EPA considered factors including the effluent reduction attainable,' the
economic achievability of each option, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the
process used, the engineering aspects of various types of control techniques, process changes,
the cost of achieving effluent reductions, and non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements). EPA selected Option 4 as the technology basis for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, principally because no other option that
was both technically feasible and economically achievable resulted in greater effluent
reductions.
The technology basis for the proposed COD effluent limitations guidelines consists of
effective brown stock washing, closed brown stock pulp screen room, application of pulping
liquor spill prevention and control (Best Management Practices (BMP)), and Best
15-3
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Practicable Control Technology (BPT) level secondary treatment performance. The Agency
concluded that this combination of technologies represents the best available technology for
the control of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water
quality environmental impacts pertinent to mills in this subcategory. No basis could be
found for identifying different COD effluent limitations guidelines within this subcategory
based upon age, size, processes, or other engineering factors. EPA believes that the
combination of technologies upon which COD effluent limitations are based would not
result in any significant non-water quality environmental impacts. In addition, the Agency
concluded that the COD effluent limitations are technically and economically achievable
based upon the control technologies identified above.
Alternative BAT effluent limitations guidelines are applicable to mills in this subcategory
that use TCP bleaching processes. These alternative guidelines provide mills with an
incentive to eliminate or nearly eliminate the generation and discharge of chlorinated
organic pollutants by using totally chlorine-free processes. These mills would initially be
required to certify to the permitting authority that their processes are totally chlorine-free.
Except for AOX, there are no alternative effluent limitations guidelines for chlorinated
organic pollutants (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds) at the bleach plant or end-of-pipe. Mills using TCP
processes would have effluent limitations for AOX, and would have initial monitoring
requirements for specific chlorinated organic pollutants (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride, chlorinated phenolic compounds) which could be
terminated if all analytical results hi a specified series of sampling events are non-detect.
Table 15-2 presents the BAT effluent limitations guidelines that the Agency is proposing for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory. Table 15-3 presents alternative BAT
effluent limitations guidelines that are applicable to mills that certify that their bleaching
process is totally chlorine-free.
15.3.2 Subpart A - Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
The Agency studied the existing manufacturing processes and pollution control technologies
used by the three mills in the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory and conducted sampling
programs at two of the three mills. Each of these mills has relatively high application rates
of hypochlorite in the respective bleaching sequences.
The Agency found existing process technologies to be uniformly inadequate to control the
generation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform,; and other priority and
nonconventional pollutants generated during the bleaching of dissolving grade pulp. Data
available indicate that each mill discharges chloroform indicating high loadings from the
15-4
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
bleach plants. 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF were detected in mill effluents at high
frequency compared to most bleached papergrade kraft mills.
For these reasons, the Agency considered three regulatory options transferred from the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory. Each of these options include reduction
in the amount of chlorine and chlorine-containing compounds applied to the pulp. The
Agency also considered a TCP option for this subcategory. However, the Agency
determined that TCP technologies could not be practically applied at this time for
production of dissolving kraft pulps.
The three options considered for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory include all of the
common elements of the bleached papergrade kraft options (adequate chip size control,
elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors, effective brown
stock washing, elimination of hypochlorite, oxygen and peroxide enhanced extraction, and
high shear mixing for the addition of chlorine dioxide, and oxygen), as well as the
technologies described below:
• Option 1 - Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for Chlorine, at the addition rates
described for bleached papergrade kraft (approximately 70 percent substitution).
• Option 2 - Oxygen Delignification With Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for
Chlorine. This option differs from the bleached papergrade kraft option. It does not
include extended delignification because the Agency has received information indicating that
extended delignification cannot be applied in the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory. The
chlorine dioxide substitution rate is defined as for bleached papergrade kraft Option 2,
approximately 70 percent.
• Option 3 - Oxygen Delignification With Complete Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide
for Chlorine. As in Option 2, this option does not include extended delignification. While
the Agency developed and fully evaluated this option, it recently received data
demonstrating that complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine is not technically
feasible in the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory at this time.
The Agency determined that the performance of dissolving kraft Options 1 and 2 would be
equivalent to bleached papergrade kraft Options 2 and 3, respectively. This conclusion is
based upon the similarities of components of the process technologies.
The Agency selected Option 2 as the proposed technology basis for BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory. In making this decision, EPA considered
the following factors: the effluent reduction attainable, the economic achievabih'ty of each
option, the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process used, the engineering aspect
of various types of control techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving effluent
15-5
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
reductions, and non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements).
EPA selected Option 2 as the proposed technology basis for the Dissolving Kraft
Subcategory, principally because no other option that was technically and economically
feasible achieved greater effluent reductions.
The technology basis for the proposed COD effluent limitations guidelines for the Dissolving
Kraft Subcategory consists of effective brown stock washing, closed brown stock pulp screen
room, application of pulping liquor spill prevention and control (BMP), and BPT level
secondary treatment performance. The Agency concluded that this combination of
technologies represents the best available technology for the control of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water
quality environmental impacts pertinent to mills in developing the COD effluent limitations
guidelines for this Subcategory. No basis could be found for identifying different COD
effluent Limitations within this Subcategory based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. EPA believes that the combination of technologies upon which the
proposed COD effluent limitations guidelines are based will not result in any significant
non-water quality environmental impacts. In addition, the Agency concluded that the
proposed COD effluent limitations guidelines would be economically achievable based upon
the control technologies identified above.
Alternative BAT effluent limitations guidelines are applicable to mills in this Subcategory
that use TCP bleaching processes. These mills would initially be required to certify to the
permitting authority that their processes are totally chlorine-free. Except for AOX, there
are no alternative effluent limitations guidelines for chlorinated organic pollutants (i.e.,
23,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, methylene chloride, chlorinated phenolic
compounds) at the bleach plant or end-of-pipe. Mills using TCP processes would have
effluent limitations for AOX, and would have initial monitoring requirements for specific
chlorinated organic pollutants (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, methylene
chloride, chlorinated phenolic compounds) which could be terminated if all analytical results
in a specified series of sampling events are non-detect.
Table 15-4 presents the BAT effluent limitations guidelines that the Agency is proposing for
the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory. Table 15-5 presents alternative BAT effluent limitations
guidelines that are applicable to mills that certify that their bleaching process is totally
chlorine-free.
The Agency recently received information from the industry that suggests that use of
hypochlorite for producing certain grades of dissolving kraft pulp is necessary. The Agency
will evaluate that information and make appropriate changes to the technology basis and
the final effluent limitations guidelines, to the extent it finds such changes are warranted.
15-6
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
15.3.3 Subpart C - Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
COD effluent limitations guidelines are proposed for the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory.
These COD effluent limitations guidelines were developed based upon engineering
evaluation of the best available methods to control COD discharges.
The technology basis for the proposed COD effluent limitations guidelines comprises
effective brown stock washing, closed brown stock pulp screen room operation, application
of pulping liquor spill prevention and control (BMP), and BPT level secondary treatment
performance. The Agency was not able to identify other technologies for controlling COD,
and therefore concluded that this combination of technologies represents the best available
technology for the control of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water
quality environmental impacts pertinent to mills in this Subcategory. No basis could be
found for identifying different COD effluent limitations guidelines within this Subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other engineering factors. EPA has no data to suggest that
the combination of technologies upon which COD effluent limitations guidelines are based
significantly increase non-water quality environmental impacts. In addition, the Agency
concluded that the COD effluent guidelines limitations would be economically achievable
based on the control technologies identified above.
Table 15-6 presents the BAT effluent limitations guidelines that the Agency is proposing for
the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory.
15.3.4 Subpart D - Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
The Agency developed three regulatory options to reduce priority and nonconventional
pollutants generated during bleaching of dissolving sulfite wood pulps. One of these options
(20 percent chlorine dioxide substitution for elemental chlorine) was rejected from further
consideration for reasons including lack of adequate performance data and minimal
improvement in control of pollutants beyond existing practices.
The two regulatory options considered for the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory include the
following common elements and are described more fully below:
• Adequate wood chip size control, achieved by close control of chipping
equipment tolerances' or use of chip-thickness screens.
• Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors.
15-7
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
• Option 1 - Oxveen Delignification With Complete Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide
for Chlorine. This option comprises oxygen delignification followed by bleaching with
complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine. High shear mixing is used for the
addition of chlorine dioxide. This option does not preclude use of hypochlorite in the
bleach sequence.
• Option 2 - Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching. This'option is based upon TCP
bleaching processes in use at one foreign mill. The bleach sequence is based upon oxygen
delignification and use of ozone and/or peroxide in subsequent bleaching stages.
The Agency selected Option 1 as the technology basis for the proposed BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for the Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory. Option 1 is both technically
and economically feasible. Although Option 2 would achieve the maximum reduction in the
discharge of pollutants to the environment, the Agency found that, based on available data,
this technology has not been demonstrated for the highest purity dissolving sulfite grades
and thus would not be suitable as the basis for BAT effluent limitations guidelines for all
grades produced in the U.S. However, the Agency is still considering alternative limitations
based upon TCP process technology for certain grades of dissolving sulfite pulps.
In making the decision to select Option 1, EPA considered factors including: the effluent
reduction attainable, the economic achievability of each option, the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process used, the engineering aspects of various types of control
techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving effluent reduction, and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements).
Alternative BAT effluent limitations guidelines are applicable to mills in this subcategory
that use TCP bleaching processes. These mills would initially be required to certify to the
permitting authority that their processes are totally chlorine-free. Except for AOX, there
are no alternative effluent limitations guidelines for chlorinated organic pollutants (i.e.,
2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, methylene chloride, chlorinated phenolic
compounds) at the bleach plant or end-of-pipe. Mills using TCP processes would have
effluent limitations for AOX, and would have initial monitoring requirements for specific
chlorinated organic pollutants (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, methylene
chloride, chlorinated phenolic compounds) which could be terminated if all analytical results
in a specific series of sampling events are non-detect.
Table 15-7 presents the BAT effluent limitations that the Agency is proposing for the
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory. The Agency considered proposing BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for COD based on effective brown stock washing, closed brown stock pulp screen
room operation, pulping liquor spill prevention and control, and BPT level treatment. The
Agency was not able to fully analyze this option because it does not have performance data
for this option at this time. Table 15-8 presents alternative BAT effluent limitation^
15-8
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
guidelines that are applicable to mills that certify that their bleaching process is totally
chlorine-free.
15.3.5 Subpart E - Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
The Agency considered three options to reduce generation and discharge of priority and
nonconventional pollutants during bleaching of papergrade sulfite wood pulps. One of these
options (based upon oxygen and peroxide enhanced extraction) was rejected for reasons
including insufficient performance data to fully characterize the option and minimal
improvement in control of pollutants beyond existing practices. Two options were analyzed
in detail.
The two regulatory options include the following common elements and are described more
fully below:
• Adequate wood chip size control, achieved by close control of chipping
equipment tolerances or use of chip-thickness screens;
• Elimination of defoamers and pitch dispersants containing dioxin precursors;
and
• Elimination of hypochlorite in the bleaching sequence.
* Option 1 - Oxygen Delignification With Complete Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide
for Chlorine. High shear mixing is used for chlorine dioxide addition.
* Option 2 - Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching. This option is based upon TCP
bleaching processes used by mills in other countries. Although bleach sequences at these
mills vary, all are based upon oxygen delignification or an extraction stage using oxygen
and/or peroxide, followed by one or more peroxide bleaching stages.
The Agency selected Option 2 as the technology basis for the proposed BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. Option 2 is both technically
and economically feasible and will achieve the maximum reduction in the discharge of
pollutants because no chlorine or chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals are used, and
therefore, chlorinated pollutants are not formed.
In making the decision to select Option 2, EPA considered factors including: the effluent
reduction attainable, the economic achievability of each option, the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process used, the engineering aspects of various types of control
techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving effluent reduction, and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements).
15-9
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
The technology basis for the proposed COD effluent limitations guidelines comprises
effective brown stock washing, closed brown stock pulp screen room operation, application
of pulping liquor spill prevention and control (BMP), and BPT level secondary treatment
performance. The Agency concluded that this combination of technologies represents the
best available technology for the control of COD.
The Agency considered the age,.size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water
quality environmental impacts pertinent to mills in this subcategory. No basis could be
found for identifying different COD effluent limitations within this subcategory based upon
age size processes, or other engineering factors. EPA believes that the combination of
technologies upon which COD effluent limitations are based would not result in any
significant non-water quality environmental impacts. In addition, the Agency concluded that
the COD effluent limitations are technically and economically achievable based upon the
control technologies identified above.
Table 15-9 presents the BAT effluent limitations that the Agency is proposing for the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. In addition to the effluent limitations guidelines presented
on Table 15-9, the owner or operator of the facility must certify, in the NPDES permit
application, that chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds are not used for pulp bleaching.
In addition, the owner or operator of the facility must provide, as part of the NPDES permit
application, monitoring results for three composite bleach plant wastewater samples tor
CDDs/CDFs and chlorinated phenolics, and three grab samples for chloroform and
methylene chloride. Such samples shall be obtained at approximately weekly intervals.
15.3.6 Subpart F - Semi-Chemical Subcategory
COD effluent limitations are proposed for the Semi-Chemical Subcategory. These COD
limitations were developed based upon engineering evaluation of the best available methods
to control COD discharges. COD data are not available for technologies that control losses
of pulping liquors and wood extractives (e.g., BMP, etc.) in this subcategory. However, the
Agency is transferring data from the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory as the basis for the
proposed effluent limitations guidelines. The pulping processes in the Unbleached Kraft
Subcategory are similar to those used in the Semi-Chemical Subcategory, and therefore the
Agency has concluded that data transfer is appropriate.
The technology basis for the proposed COD effluent limitations guidelines consists of
effective brown stock washing, application of pulping liquor spill prevention and control
(BMP) and BPT level secondary treatment performance. Screening is usually not practiced
at semi-chemical pulp mills. Therefore, closed screen room operation is not included as
part of the technology basis for the COD control at serni-chemical mills. The Agency
concluded that this combination of technologies represents the best available technology for
the control of COD.
15-10
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water
quality environmental impacts pertinent to mills in this subcategory. No basis could be
found for identifying different COD effluent limitations within this subcategory based on
age, size, processes, or other engineering factors. EPA has no data to suggest that the
combination of technologies upon which COD effluent limitations are based significantly
increase non-water quality environmental impacts. In addition, the Agency concluded that
the COD effluent limitations would be economically achievable based on the control
technologies identified above.
Table 15-10 presents the BAT effluent limitations that the Agency is proposing for the Semi-
Chemical Subcategory.
The Agency does not have adequate information and data at this time to determine that
BAT to control priority and other nonconventional pollutants from existing semi-chemical
mills is warranted. However, the Agency may consider the need for effluent limitations and
standards for other pollutants after further review as part of its CWA Section 304(m)
planning process.
15.4 Implementation
BAT effluent limitations guidelines are applied to individual mills through NPDES permits
issued by EPA or authorized states under Section 402 of the CWA. Using annual
production information supplied by the mill as required in the regulation and the BAT
effluent limitations guidelines, the permitting authority will establish numerical discharge
limitations for the mill and specify monitoring and reporting requirements.
15.4.1 NPDES Production Rate (Production Normalizing Parameter)
For all the proposed effluent limitations guidelines except COD and color, the daily NPDES
production rate is the annual unbleached pulp production that enters the bleach plant (at
10 percent moisture) divided by the number of operating days of the bleach plant. The
proposed regulation specifies that the annual production rate shall be the maximum annual
(calendar year) production rate for the previous five years.
The bleach plant begins with the stage where bleaching agents (e.g., chlorine, chlorine
dioxide, ozone, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, peroxide) are first applied. A limited
number of mills produce specialty grades of pulp using hydrolysis or extraction stages prior
to the first application of bleaching agents. For those mills, EPA considers the bleach plant
to include those pulp pretreatment stages. Oxygen delignification systems, operated prior •
to the application ,of bleaching agents, are not considered part of the bleach plant.
15-11
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Wastewater COD and color loadings result primarily from pulp mill wastewaters and bleach
plant extraction stages. Therefore, for COD and color effluent limitations guidelines applied
at the end-of-pipe, the NPDES production rate is the annual unbleached pulp production
(at 10 percent moisture) divided by the number of operating days of the pulp mill during
the year.
Daily production shall be determined for each mill based upon the maximum annual
production rate during he previous five years divided by the number of operating days that
year. The mill's production in each subcategory is used with the subcategory production
normalized mass effluent limitations guidelines to calculate mill-specific monthly average
and daily maximum NPDES permit bleach plant and effluent limitations.
15.4.2 Point of Application
15.4.2.1 BAT Limitations for Bleach Plant Effluent
BAT limitations for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, volatile organics, and chlorinated
phenolics will be applied at the effluent from the bleach plant. Control at this point is
necessary because, with the chemical analytical methods currently available, discharges of
2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and most chlorinated phenolic compounds of concern from the
bleach plant will be near or below analytical method detection limits for mills using the
technologies that form the basis for the proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines. If the
effluent limitations were not applied at the effluent from the bleach plant, compliance could
be achieved in some instances through dilution of bleach plant wastewaters with the large
wastewater flows frqm the rest of the mill. 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF, present but in
concentrations below detection limits, would then either be discharged to receiving streams
(where these pollutants bioaccumulate), or to the sludge generated by the mill's secondary
wastewater treatment system. EPA believes that these in-plant limitations are critical in
order to measure the performance of the process changes proposed as the basis for BAT
limits in the regulation. These process changes, in turn, are critical to multimedia pollution
prevention in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry.
i
Chloroform and other volatile compounds are also controlled by BAT effluent limitations
guidelines at the bleach plant effluent. These pollutants cannot be controlled at the end-of-
pipe because of the considerable potential for these compounds to volatilize to the
atmosphere during the transport, storage, and treatment of bleach plant effluents and
dilution with other process wastewaters not containing these pollutants.
The BAT effluent limitations guidelines are applied to the total discharge of bleach plant
filtrate from each physical bleach line operated at the mill. They are not applied to bleach
plant and chlorine dioxide plant air emission control scrubber blowdowns, floor washings,
and other miscellaneous flows (e.g., pump seal water) not included in the filtrate streams.
15-12
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
At most mills that chemically pulp and bleach wood, acid and alkaline bleach stage filtrates
are discharged to separate sewers; however, at some mills, bleach plant filtrates are
discharged to a combined sewer containing both acid and alkaline wastewaters. For
nonvolatile compounds (2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, and the chlorinated phenolic
compounds), compliance with the BAT limitations may be demonstrated by collecting
separate samples of the acid and alkaline discharges and preparing a flow-proportioned
composite of these samples in the field, resulting in one sample of bleach plant effluent for
analysis. For volatile compounds, however, separate samples and analyses of all bleach
plant filtrates discharged separately are required. This is to prevent the loss of compounds
through volatilization as the samples are collected, measured, and composited or through
chemical reaction when the acid and alkaline samples are combined. If separate acid and
alkaline sampling locations do not exist, compliance samples must be collected from the
point closest to the bleach plant that is physically accessible.
Demonstrating compliance with BAT effluent limitations at bleach plant effluent requires
knowledge of the flow rates of filtrates discharged from the bleach plant. These filtrates are
generally discharged as seal tank overflows from the first acid stage and the first caustic
stage, but discharges from subsequent stages are possible. Filtrate discharge flow rates
should be metered; the cost of installing metering systems has been accounted for in the
Economic Impact Analysis and is discussed in a memorandum entitled "Bleach Plant Flow
Monitoring Station Costs," in the Record for the Rulemaking.
15.4.2.2
BAT Limitations for Final Effluent
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for AOX, COD, and color are applicable to the final
effluent discharged to navigable waters of the United States. This compliance point is
identical to the point used to demonstrate compliance with BPT effluent limitations
guidelines.
15.4.3 NPDES Monitoring Requirements
Proposed minimum required monitoring frequencies, and specified analytical methods, are
provided in Table 15-11. The proposed minimum monitoring requirements are set out in
the proposed regulation.
15.4.4 Application of BAT
The Agency has structured the proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines in a building-
block approach. .This means that the applicable NPDES permit limitations for mills with
production in more than one subcategory will be the sum of the mass loadings based upon
production in each subcategory and the respective subcategory effluent limitations
guidelines. Examples of this approach are provided below.
15-13
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
15.4.4.1 Example 1: Integrated Bleached Kraft Mill
An integrated bleached kraft mill produced 315,000 OMMT (kkg) of uncoated free sheet
in 1993. Brown stock pulp production was 283,500 ADMT (kkg) in 1993. 1993 was the
highest production year for the past five years. All brown stock pulp produced on site is
bleached. In 1993, the pulp mill operated 350 days and the bleach plant operated 345 days.
Bleached pulp is combined with pulp produced off site to form the final product.
The production at this mill falls into two subcategories: Subcategory B - Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Subcategory K - Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp. BAT limitations are applicable to Subcategory B. Example calculations
of BAT limitations for 2,3,7,8-TCDF and COD are shown below.
The NPDES production rate for the purpose of calculating COD and color limitations is:
NPDES., = PRODyOPDAYSj
(1)
where:
NPDESt
PROD,
OPDAYSj
NPDES production rate for the purpose of calculating BAT
COD and color permit limitations
Highest annual brown stock pulp production in the past five
calendar years
Number of pulp mill operating days in the calendar year used
for PRODj.
Using Equation 1:
283,500 kkg/yr / 350 days/yr = 810 kkg/day
The NPDES production for all other BAT permit limitations is:
NPDES2 = PROD2/OPDAYS2
(2)
15-14
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
where:
NPDES2
PROD2
OPDAYS2
NPDES production rate for the purpose of calculating all BAT
permit limitations, except COD and color
Highest annual brown stock pulp production entering the bleach
plant in the past five calendar years
Number of bleach plant operating days in the calendar year
used for PROD2.
Using Equation 2:
283,500 kkg/yr / 345 days/yr = 822 kkg/day
The BAT effluent limitations guidelines for these constituents (from Table 15-2) are:
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDF
COD
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for
One Day
359 ng/kkg
NA
Monthly ;
Average i
NA
NA
Final Effluent
Maximum fox-
One Day
NA
35.7 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average
NA
25.4 kg/kkg
NA - Not applicable.
ND - Non-detect value - a measurement reported below the minimum level that can be
reliably measured by the analytical method for the pollutant. Analytical methods and
minimum levels that apply are shown in Table 15-11.
NPDES permit limitations are calculated as follows:
Bleach Plant Effluent, Maximum for One Day:
2,3,7,8-TCDF: 359 ng/kkg x 822 kkg/day = 295,098 ng/day = 0.295 mg/day
15-15
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Final Effluent
COD: Maximum for One Day:
35.7 kg/kkg x 810 kkg/day = 28,917 kg/day
= 28.9 kkg/day
Monthly Average:
25.4 kg/kkg x 810 kkg/day = 20,574 kg/day
= 20.6 kkg/day
15.4.4.2 Example 2: Integrated Bleached Kraft Mill, Non-Continuous Discharger
Example 2 is for the same mill described in Example 1, except in this case the mill does not
discharge process'wastewater during August, September, and October, because of receiving
stream conditions. Wastewater is stored in a holding pond and discharged over the
remaining nine months of the year.
Bleach plant limitations for this mill are the same as for the continuous discharging mill in
Example 1. Example calculations of BAT permit limitations for AOX and COD in final
effluent are shown below. The BAT effluent limitations guidelines for these constituents
(from Table 15-2) are:
•
AOX
COD
Annual Average (kg/kkg)
0.143
21.3
Brown stock pulp production was 283,500 kkg in 1993, the highest production year for the
past five years. NPDES permit limitations are calculated as follows:
AOX: 283,500 kkg/yr x 0.143 kg/kkg = 40,540 kg AOX/yr
COD: 283,500 kkg/yr x 21.3 kg/kkg = 6,038,550 kg COD/yr
It is recommended that noncontinuous discharging mills with annual average mass
limitations track their mass discharged throughout the year by a cumulative total ("running
balance") of the mass of each pollutant discharged. By closely monitoring the mass
15-16
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
discharged during each day of the discharge period and updating the total annual discharge
to date, mills with potential compliance problems will be aware of the situation with
adequate time to take remedial action. Remedial action might include wastewater flow
reduction, process modification, and improvement to treatment system performance.
Annual average effluent limitations must be applied to noncontiguous dischargers. Daily
maximum and monthly average limitations may be applied also, and can be calculated by
using the effluent limitations guidelines for continuous dischargers, and adjusting the
production appropriately. Production is adjusted using the equation:
PRODADJ = NPDES '
(3)
where:
PROD
ADJ
NPDES
= Adjusted production rate for the purpose of calculating daily
and monthly permit limitations for noncontinuous dischargers,
kkg/day
= NPDES production calculated using Equation 1 or 2 in Section
15.4.4.1, kkg/day
T! = Length of time over which wastewater discharged is produced
T2 = Length of time over which wastewater is discharged.
In this example, wastewater from twelve months of production is discharged over a nine-
month period. The NPDES productions are the same as calculated in Example 1 in Section
15.4.4.1:
NPDES production for AOX limitations: 822 kkg/day
NPDES production for COD limitations: 810 kkg/day
These productions are adjusted using Equation 3:
822 kkg/day x (12 months / 9 months) = 1,096 kkg/day
810 kkg/day x (12 months / 9 months) = 1,080 kkg/day
15-17
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
The daily maximum and monthly average BAT effluent limitations guidelines for AOX and
COD are:
AOX
COD
Maximum for Any One
Day (fcg/kkg)
0.267
35.7
Monthly Average (kg/fckg)
0.156
25.4
Daily maximum and monthly average permit limitations are calculated as follows.
Maximum AOX for any one day:
0.267 kg/kkg x 1,096 kkg/day = 293 kg AOX/day
Monthly average AOX:
0.156 kg/kkg x 1,096 kkg/day = 171 kg AOX/day
Maximum COD for any one day:
35.7 kg/kkg x 1,080 kkg/day = 38,556 kg COD/day
Monthly Average COD:
25.4 kg/kkg x 1,080 kkg/day = 27,432 kg COD/day
These mass limitations can be converted to a concentration basis, by dividing by the actual
average discharge flow during discharge periods:
L = k
L *
(4)
15-18
-------
where:
LM
F
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
concentration-based effluent limitation, mg/L
unit conversion factor
mass-based effluent limitation, kg/day
actual average process wastewater discharge flow during discharge
period, m3/day.
The example mill discharged an average of 100,000 m3/day (26.4 MGD) of process
wastewater during the nine months in 1993 in which discharge occurred. The monthly
average AOX concentration limit is calculated using equation 4:
1,000,000 mg/kg 171 kg AOX/day =
1,000 L/m
100,000 m3/day
= m /L
Concentration-based limitations for other parameters can be calculated similarly. Note that
since the flow term is in the denominator, the higher the mill's discharge flow, the lower the
equivalent concentration limitation becomes. Therefore, it is in the mill's best interest to
practice water conservation and flow reduction, or dilution water segregation, and thereby
lower process water discharge flow rates.
15.4.4.3 ,Example3: Linerboard Mill
An integrated kraft mill produced 379,500 OMMT (kkg) in 1993 of two-ply linerboard (high
yield unbleached kraft with a thin, bleached kraft top layer). 1993 was the highest
production year in the past five years. Virgin softwood, pulped on site, is used to produce
the linerboard. By weight, 67 percent of the finished product is derived from unbleached
pulp, while 33 percent, by weight, is derived from bleached pulp. Brown stock pulp
production was 395,025 ADMT in 1993. Of this total, 125,235 tons were bleached and
269,790 were left unbleached. The pulp mill operated 345 days in 1993 and the bleach plant
operated 355 days.
Example calculations of BAT limitations for 2,3,7,8-TCDF and COD are shown below. The
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for these constituents (from Tables 15-2 and 15-6) are:
15-19
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Subcategory
B - Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda
C - Unbleached Kraft
Pollutant
2,3,7,8-TCDF
COD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
COD
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for
One Day
359 ng/kkg
NA
NA
NA
Monthly
Average
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final Effluent ,
Maximum for
One Day
NA
35.7 kg/kkg
NA
40.2 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average
NA
25.4
kg/kkg
NA
24.6
kg/kkg
NA - Not applicable.
ND - Non-detect value.
The Subcategory B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) NPDES production for COD is
calculated using Equation 1 from Example 1:
125,235 kkg/yr / 345 days/yr = 363 kkg/day
The Subcategory B NPDES production for 2,3,7,8-TCDF is calculated using Equation 2 from
Example 1:
125,235 kkg/yr / 355 days/yr = 353 kkg/day
The Subcategory C (Unbleached Kraft) NPDES production for COD is calculated using
Equation 1:
269,790 kkg/yr / 345 days/yr = 782 kkg/day
NPDES permit limitations are calculated as follows:
Bleach Plant Effluent, Maximum for One Day:
2,3,7,8-TCDF: 359 ng/kkg x 353 kkg/day = 126,727 ng 2,3,7,8-TCDF/day
0.127 mg 2,3,7,8-TCDF/day
15-20
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Final Effluent:
COD:
Maximum for One Day:
35.7 kg/kkg x 363 kkg/day
40.2 kg/kkg x 782 kkg/day
15.4.4.4
12,959
31.436
44,395 kg COD/day
44.4 kkg COD/day
9,220
19.237
28,457 kg COD/day
28.5 kkg COD/day
Example 4: Alternative Effluent Limitations Guidelines Applicable to TCF
Bleaching Processes
Monthly Average:
25.4 kg/kkg x 363 kkg/day
24.6 kg/kkg x 782 kkg/day
Example 4 is for the same mill described in Example 3, except that in this case the mill
bleaches with a totally chlorine-free process. This mill could choose to comply with
alternative limitations applicable to wastewaters from TCF bleaching processes. Once the
mill certifies to the permitting authority that the bleaching process is totally chlorine-free,
and demonstrates through the specified number of sampling events that specific organic
pollutants (i.e., 2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF, chloroform, methylene chloride, chlorinated
phenolic compounds) are not present, the alternative effluent limitations guidelines can
apply. These alternative effluent limitations guidelines include limitations for AOX, COD,
and color only. An example calculation of BAT limitations for AOX is shown below.
Unlike the previous example, there are no effluent limitations for 2,3,7,8-TCDF (or any
other specific chlorinated compound) under the alternative effluent limitations guidelines.
COD effluent limitations are the same as in Example 3.
Alternative BAT Limitations:
Bleach Plant Effluent: Not applicable
15-21
-------
15.0 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Final Effluent:
1
1 AOX
Maximum for One Day
0.1 kg/kkg
Monthly Average ;
Not applicable
NPDES permit limitations are calculated as follows:
Maximum, for One Day:
0.1 kg/kkg x 353 kkg/day = 35.3 kg AOX/day
15-22
-------
4)
1
IM
O
2
0-
JS
I
!
i
S3
4>
H
09
3
&
ea
pa
X
fc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15-23
-------
•s
53
B
1
o
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15-24
-------
Table 15-2
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart B
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
trichlorosyringol
3,4,5-trichJorocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
AOX
COD
Color
*
Continuous Dischargers
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for
Any One Day
-------
Table 15-3
Proposed Alternative BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart B
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Applicable to Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching Processes
Pollutant or Pollutant Property
AOX
COD
Color
jSnal Effluent
, VAkviS-h ,
•* ^ V
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day (a)
0.1 kg/kkg
35.7kg/kkg
120 kg/kkg
Mtimiviy ' "" ;
Average(a)
NA
25.4 kg:/kkg
76.3 kg/kkg
Ken-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
NA
21.3 kg/kkg
71.2 kg/kkg
(«)Ef fluent limitations guidelines are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD and color limitations, kkg refers to mass
of unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture; for all other limitations, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant
at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
15-26
-------
Table 15-4
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart A
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
trichlorosyringol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacoI
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
AOX
COD
Continuous Dischargers
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for Any
O«e Dayfajj
300 ng/kkg
415 ng/kkg
10.1 g/kkg
35.1 g/kkg
1.89 g/kkg
ND
218 mg/kkg
5,690 mg/kkg
180 mg/kkg
2,230 mg/kkg
97.7 mg/kkg
400 mg/kkg
ND
2,180 mg/kkg
554 mg/kkg
134 mg/kkg
223 mg/kkg
ND
NA
NA
Monthly
Av«rag«(a)
NA
NA
7.06 g/kkg
17.2 g/kkg
1.04 g/kkg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final Effluent
Maximum for
Any One Day(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.67 kg/kkg
118 kg/kkg
Monthly
A.verage{a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.650 kg/kkg
84.1 kg/kkg
Non»
Continuous
Dischargers
Final
Effluent
Annual
ArerageCa)
'NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0 .553 kg/kkg
70.3 kg/kkg
(a)Effluent limitations guidelines are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD limitations, kkg refers to mass of
unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture; for all other limitations, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant
at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
ND - Non-detect value. A measurement reported below the minimum level that can be reliably measured by the analytical method for
the pollutant. Analytical methods and minimum levels that apply are shown in Table 15-11.
15-27
-------
Table 15-5
Proposed Alternative BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart A
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Applicable to Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching Processes
Pollutant or Pollutant Property
AOX
COD
- Final Efflutnt
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
OnsJtey(a)
0.1 kg/kkg
118 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
NA
84.1 kg/kkg
Noa-ContiBttous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
NA
70.3 kg/kkg
(a)Efflucnt limitations guidelines are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD limitations, kkg refers to mass of
unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture; for AOX limitations, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant
at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
15-28
-------
Table 15-6
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart C
Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
Pollutant Property
COD
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day(a)
40.2 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average^)
24.6 kg/kkg
Nott"
Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
20.8 kg/kkg
(a)Effluent limitations guidelines are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD limitations,
kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture.
15-29
-------
Table 15-7
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart D
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
trichlorosyringol
3,4,5-trienIorocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichIorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
tctrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophcnoI
pentachlorophenol
AOX
"' •?,*>'
* i l-K. S< JJ ' j
Continuous Dischargers
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for Any
One I>ay(a)
ND
1,870 ng/kkg
232g/kkg
1,620 g/kkg
505 g/kkg
15.8 g/kkg
218 mg/kkg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,500 mg/kkg
ND
881 mg/kkg
ND
ND
NA
Monthly
Averagefa)
NA
NA
74.4 g/kkg
688 g/kkg
167 g/kkg
4.77 g/kkg
NA
NA
NA
NA
. NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final Effluent
Maximum for Any
One»ay(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.13 kg/kkg
Monthly
Av«jrage(«l
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.39 kg/kkg
Won*
Continuous
Dischargers i
Final
Effluent
Aujdiudl
AywsgeOa)
NA
NA ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.22 kg/kkg
(«)Efftuent limitations guidelines are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters
the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA-Not Applicable.
ND - Non-detect value - a measurement reported below the minimum level that can be reliably measured by the analytical method for
the pollutant. Analytical methods and minimum levels that apply are shown in Table 15-11.
15-30
-------
Table 15-8
Proposed Alternative BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart D
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
Applicable to Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching Processes
Pollutant or Pollutant Property
AOX
fluid Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day (a)
0.1 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(aj
NA
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Apmial
Average(a)
NA
(a)Effluent limitations guidelines are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For AOX limitations, kkg refers to mass of
unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
15-31
-------
Table 15-9
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart E
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
AOX
COD
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day{a)
0.1 kg/kkg
144 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average{a)
NA
71.2 kg/kkg
Non-
Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
NA
63.7 kg/kkg
Table 15-10
Proposed BAT Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Subpart F
Semi-Chemical Subcategory
Pollutant Property
COD
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day(a)
40.2 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
24.6 kg/kkg
Non-
Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
20.8 kg/kkg
(a)E£fluent limitations guidelines are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD limitations,
kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture; for AOX limitations, kkg refers to mass of
unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
15-32
-------
s
o
I
£
I
§
§
a
o
>o
SR
Tri
co
1
0
oroca
*r
«.
co"
a
0
1
CO
in
CO
is
CO
SR
1
f
s
S
TJ-"
»
1
&
si
I
,8-TCD
^
>o
1
15-33
-------
1
£
O)
1
o
o
£
t
Q
t
u
I
.§<
cs
CO
g
VO
§
1
I
5?
9
VO
cs
i
s
3
§
U
*0
U
15-34
-------
16.0 New Source Performance Standards
16.0 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
16.1 Introduction
The basis for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under Section 306 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) is the best available demonstrated technology. Industry has the
opportunity to design and install the best and most efficient pulping, bleaching, and
papermaking processes and wastewater treatment facilities at new mills. Accordingly,
Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated alternative processes, process
changes, in-plant control measures, and end-of pipe wastewater treatment technologies that
reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible. In response to that directive, and as with
the development of options for the proposed Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) effluent limitations guidelines, EPA considered effluent reductions
attainable by the most advanced and demonstrated process and treatment technologies at
pulp, paper, and paperboard mills. The Agency is proposing revised NSPS for all of the
revised subcategories set out in Section 5.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations define
the term "new source" at 40 CFR §§122.2 and 122.29. According to these regulations, to be
a "new source," a source must:
(1) Be constructed at a site at which no other source is located;
(2) Totally replace the process or production equipment that causes the discharge
of pollutants at an existing source; or,
(3) Be a process substantially independent of an existing source at the same site,
considering the extent of integration with the existing source and the extent
to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the
existing source.
The application of these definitions has, at times, led to disagreements between NPDES
permitting authorities and those seeking permits and subsequent delays in the.permitting
process. In order to provide permit writers and the industry with more specific rules to
follow in determining new source status in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry, the
Agency is proposing supplemental definitions of the term "new source". Examples of new
sources located at existing pulp, paper, and paperboard mills are as follows:
16-1
-------
16.0 New Source Performance Standards
A. At existing chemical pulp mills with bleaching operations (Subparts A, B, D,
and E): The construction, within any five-year period, of
1. a new pulping digester or pulping digester that completely replaces an
existing digester, in combination with
2. a new bleaching facility or bleaching facility that completely replaces
an existing bleaching facility.
B. At existing chemical pulp mills without bleaching operations (Subparts C, F,
and H):
1. ne,w pulping digester(s), or
2. new pulping digester(s) that totally replaces an existing pulping
digester(s).
C. At existing mechanical, secondary fiber and non-integrated mills (Subparts G,
I, J, K, L):
1. a new paper or paperboard machine; or,
2. a new paper or paperboard machine that totally replaces an existing
paper or paperboard machine.
The following are not examples of "new sources" within the pulp, paper, and paperboard
industry:
• Upgrades of existing pulping operations;
• Upgrading or replacement of pulp screening and washing operations;
• Installation of oxygen delignification systems or other post-digester, pre-
bleaching delignification systems; and
• Bleach plant modifications including changes in method or amounts of
chemical applications, new chemical applications, installation of new bleaching
towers to facilitate replacement of sodium or calcium hypochlorite, and
installation of new pulp washing systems.
As described in Section 9.5, the general approach followed by the Agency for developing
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) options for subcategories with proposed BAT
effluent limitations guidelines (Subparts A, B, C, D, E, and F) was, where appropriate, to
evaluate the best demonstrated processes for control of priority and nonconventional
pollutants at the process level; and best demonstrated end-of-pipe treatment for control of
conventional pollutants and additional control of certain priority and nonconventional
16-2
-------
16.0 New Source Performance Standards
pollutants. For subcategories where BAT effluent limitations guidelines are not being
proposed, the Agency evaluation was directed at the best demonstrated conventional
pollutant control technology.
The Agency determined that the best demonstrated processes are those that result in the
minimuni generation of pollutants of concern in this industry (i.e., the priority and
nonconventional pollutants proposed for regulation at BAT) that can be used to produce
the full range of products currently produced by existing facilities in the subcategory. The
Agency does not intend to select NSPS that would prevent manufacture of certain products.
The Agency determined that the best demonstrated conventional pollutant control
technologies are those that result in the minimum discharges of conventional pollutants as
generally represented by the performance of the best existing mill in each subcategory.
Pollutants proposed for regulation at NSPS are the same as the priority and nonconventional
pollutants proposed for regulation at BAT, and the conventional pollutants biological oxygen
demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS). For Subparts A, B, and D, the Agency
is also proposing alternative NSPS applicable at the end-of-pipe effluent for adsorbable
organic halides (AOX) based upon totally chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching technologies.
These alternative standards would apply to new sources constructed and operated in a TCF
bleaching mode. There would be no NSPS applicable to bleach plant effluents for these
mills.
The proposed NSPS set out in tables at the end of this section are based upon the long-term
average performance values for the selected NSPS options and monthly average and daily
maximum variability factors set out in the Statistical Support Document. Reference is made
to the Statistical Support Document for derivation of the variability factors. The long-term
average performance values for each option are presented in Section 9.5.
In developing and selecting NSPS options and the proposed NSPS, the Agency considered
factors: the demonstration status of the process and wastewater treatment technologies, the
cost of achieving the effluent reductions, non-water quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
The owners or operators of facilities subject to NSPS are not required to use the specific
process technologies and wastewater treatment technologies selected by EPA to establish
the NSPS, but may choose to use any combination of process technologies and wastewater
treatment to comply with NPDES permit effluent limitations derived from the NSPS.
This section presents the Agency's selection of NSPS options and the proposed new source
performance standards for each subcategory.
16-3
-------
16.0 New Source Performance Standards
16.2 Selection of NSPS Options
Reference is made to Section 9.5 for a summary of the NSPS options considered, long-term
average performance, and their demonstration status. Because many of the NSPS options
for subcategories where BAT effluent limitations guidelines are being proposed are based
upon the BAT options, reference is also made to Sections 9.4 and 15.
Pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 306 of the CWA, the Agency has selected
the following options as the basis for the proposed new source performance standards for
each subcategory.
16.2.1 Subpart A - Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
The Agency selected NSPS Option 2 as the basis of the proposed NSPS for the Dissolving
Kraft Subcategory on the basis of transfer of technology from the Papergrade Kraft
Subcategory. The major pulping, bleaching, and wastewater treatment components included
in this option are: wood chip size and thickness control; use of dioxin precursor-free
defoamers and pitch dispersants; effective brown stock washing; closed pulp screening
operations; pulping liquor spill prevention and control; oxygen delignification; partial
(approximately 70 percent) substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine; oxygen- and
peroxide-enhanced extraction in the bleach plant; use of chlorine dioxide instead of
hypochlorite in bleach plant brightening stages; high shear mixing for addition of bleaching
chemicals in the first bleaching stage and for addition of oxygen in enhanced extraction; flow
minimization (process water reuse and recycle); and best demonstrated end-of-pipe
secondary biological wastewater treatment.
The Agency believes that the transfer of pulp bleaching technology from the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory is an appropriate basis for NSPS for dissolving kraft
mills. Those technologies are well demonstrated at several mills. The proposed NSPS for
the Dissolving Kraft Subcategory are presented in Table 16-1. Table 16-2 presents
alternative NSPS that would apply to dissolving kraft mills that may use totally chlorine-free
(TCP) bleaching operations in the future.
Just prior to proposal of this regulation, the industry provided EPA with information to
support their contention that some usage of hypochlorite is necessary to produce certain
high purity dissolving kraft grades of pulp. The Agency will evaluate that information and
make a determination whether, or to what extent, to modify NSPS options for the Dissolving
Kraft Subcategory.
16.2.2 Subpart B - Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
The Agency selected NSPS Option 2 as the basis for the proposed NSPS for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory. This option is the isame as BAT Option 5. The
16-4
-------
16.0 New Source Performance Standards
major pulping, bleaching, and wastewater treatment components of this option are: wood
chip size and thickness control; use of dioxin precursor-free defoamers and pitch dispersants;
extended delignification; effective brown stock washing; closed pulp screening operations;
pulping liquor spill prevention and control; oxygen delignification; use of chlorine dioxide
instead of elemental chlorine for bleaching (100 percent substitution); oxygen- and peroxide-
enhanced extraction in the bleach plant; use of chlorine dioxide instead of hypochlorites in
brightening stages; high shear mixing for addition of bleaching chemicals in the first
bleaching stage and for addition of oxygen in enhanced extraction; flow minimization; and
best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary biological wastewater treatment.
These technologies have been installed at many existing kraft mills and at two recently
constructed greenfield bleached kraft mills and thus are fully demonstrated for purposes of
the CWA. The Agency also determined that these technologies can be used at new source
soda mills to achieve the proposed NSPS.
The Agency considered whether to select Option 1 (extended cooking or oxygen
delignification with complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine) as the
basis for NSPS. EPA rejected this option because it does not provide, based upon available
data and best professional judgment, the most stringent pollutant reductions.
The Agency considered whether to select Option 3 (ozone bleaching) and Option 4 (TCP
bleaching) as the basis for the proposed NSPS, but decided that because these technologies
are currently not suitable for manufacture of softwood market grades of pulp, they could not
be selected as NSPS at this time for the entire Bleached Papergrade Kraft and-Soda
Subcategory. At this writing, the Agency does not have sufficient data to fully characterize
process wastewaters and wastewater effluents for the Option 3 and 4 technologies.
The Agency also considered whether to propose NSPS using the Option 2 technologies for
market pulp grades, and alternate NSPS using the Option 3 and 4 technologies for pulps
produced within selected brightness ranges. That approach would require further division
of the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory into segments based upon product
specifications. The Agency did not select that alternative at this time because it does not
have sufficient data to fully characterize the Option 3 and 4 technologies. The Agency is
seeking additional data to more fully characterize process wastewaters for Option 3 and 4
technologies. These NSPS alternatives will be reconsidered prior to promulgation.
The proposed NSPS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory are presented
in Table 16-3. Alternative NSPS that would apply to papergrade kraft and soda mills using
TCP bleaching operations are presented in Table 16-4.
16-5
-------
16.0 Mew Source Performance Standards
16.2.3 Subpart C - Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
The proposed NSPS are based upon the single option developed by the Agency for the
Unbleached Kraft Subcategory. The principal technologies that form the basis of the
proposed NSPS include: effective brown stock washing; closed screen room operations;
pulping liquor spill prevention and control; flow minimization; and best demonstrated
secondary biological treatment. These technologies are fully demonstrated at existing kraft
pulp mills. The proposed NSPS for the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory are presented in
Table 16-5.
16.2.4 Subpart D - Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
The Agency selected NSPS Option 1 as the basis for the proposed NSPS. The major
pulping, bleaching and wastewater treatment components of the selected option are: wood
chip size and thickness control; use of dioxin precursor-free defoamers and pitch dispersants; i
effective brown s.tock washing; closed pulp screening operations; pulping liquor spill
prevention and control; oxygen delignification; use of chlorine dioxide instead of chlorine
in the first bleaching stage (100 percent substitution); use of hypochlorite in subsequent
bleaching stages; high shear mixing for the addition of chlorine dioxide in the first bleaching
stage; flow minimization; and best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary biological
wastewater treatment.
These technologies are fully demonstrated and used for production of the full range of
dissolving sulfite pulps manufactured in the United States. The Agency considered
proposing NSPS on the basis of Option 2 (TCP bleaching), but currently available
information and data indicate this technology is not suitable for manufacture of the full
range of dissolving pulps produced in the United States at this time. EPA is still considering
TCP bleaching for certain products in this subcategory. The proposed NSPS for the
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory are presented in Table 16-6. Table 16-7 presents alternative
NSPS that would apply to dissolving sulfite mills that may use TCP bleaching operations in
the future.
16.2.5 Subpart E - Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
The Agency selected NSPS Optipn 2 as the basis of the proposed NSPS for the Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory. The major pulping, bleaching and wastewater treatment components
of this option are: wood chip size and thickness control; use of dioxin precursor-free
defoamers and pitch dispersants; closed pulp screening operations; effective brown stock
washing; pulping liquor spill prevention and control; oxygen delignification; totally chlorine-
free bleaching; flo,w minimization; and effective end-of-pipe secondary biological wastewater
treatment with extended residence tune secondary clarification.
16-6
-------
16.0 New Source Performance Standards
The pulping technologies are fully demonstrated at chemical pulp mills located in the
United States. Totally chlorine-free bleaching of sulfite pulps is fully demonstrated at a
number of papergrade sulfite mills located in Europe. The Agency has concluded that the
full range of papergrade sulfite grades manufactured in the United States can be produced
using TCP bleaching processes. The wastewater treatment technologies, including extended
residence time secondary clarification, are fully demonstrated at a U.S. mill.
i
The proposed NSPS are presented in Table 16-8. In addition to the effluent limitations
guidelines presented on Table 16-8, the owner or operator of the facility must certify, in the
NPDES permit application, that chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds are not used for
pulp bleaching. In addition, the owner or operator of the facility must provide, as part of
the NPDES permit application, monitoring results for three composite bleach plant
wastewater samples for CDDs/CDFs and chlorinated phenolics, and three grab samples for
chloroform and methylene chloride. Such samples shall be obtained at approximately
weekly intervals. Because the proposed NSPS are based upon TCP bleaching technology,
there are no proposed alternative NSPS.
16.2.6 Subpart F - Semi-Chemical Subcategory
The proposed NSPS for the Semi-Chemical Subcategory are based upon the single NSPS
option developed by the Agency. The major process and wastewater treatment technologies
that comprise this option are: effective brown stock washing; pulping liquor spill prevention
and control; flow minimization; and best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary biological
wastewater treatment. These technologies are fully demonstrated in the industry in the
United States and can be used to achieve the proposed NSPS presented in Table 16-9.
16.2.7 Subpart G - Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart H - Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart I - Secondary Fiber - Deink Subcategory
Subpart K - Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp Subcategory
Subpart L - Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Subcategory
The Agency selected the single NSPS option developed for each of the above-listed
subcategories as the basis for the respective proposed NSPS. The proposed NSPS are for
BOD5 and TSS. The technologies considered as the basis of the NSPS include flow
minimization and best demonstrated secondary biological treatment. These technologies are
fully demonstrated in each subcategory because the bases for the respective proposed NSPS
are demonstrated performance of the best performing mill in each subcategory. The
proposed NSPS for continuous dischargers are presented in Table 16-10, the standards for
non-continuous dischargers are presented in Table 16-11.
16-7
-------
16.0 New Source Performance Standards
162.8 Subpart J - Secondaiy Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory
As noted in Section 9.5, the Agency divided the Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory
into the following segments:
Segment 1
Paperboard, Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt Segment
Segment 2
Producers of Other Products from Non-Deink Secondary Fiber Segment
The Agency is proposing "zero discharge of process waste-waters" as the NSPS for Segment 1.
The major components of this option include in-mill water reuse and recycle; primary
treatment; and complete reuse of the primary treatment effluent. As noted in Section 9.5.9,
this technology is-fully demonstrated at 21 mills located in the United States that produce
paperboard from secondary fiber and builders' paper and roofing felt. For Segment 2, the
Agency is proposing NSPS on the basis of the single option developed. The major
technologies include flow minimization and best demonstrated secondary biological
treatment. The proposed NSPS.are presented in Table 16-10,
16-8
-------
Table 16-1
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Subpart A
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
t
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
trichlorosyringol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetraehlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
BODj
TSS
AOX
COD
Continuous Dischargers
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for
Any One
Bay£a) '
300 ng/kkg
415 ng/kkg
10.1 g/kkg
35.1 g/kkg
1.89 g/kkg
ND
218 mg/kkg
5,690 mg/kkg
180 mg/kkg
2,230 mg/kkg
97.7 mg/kkg
400 mg/kkg
ND
2,180 mg/kkg
554 mg/kkg
134 mg/kkg
223 mg/kkg
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
Monthly
Averag$(a)
NA
NA
7.06 g/kkg
17.2 g/kkg
1.04 g/kkg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final Effluent
Maximum for
Any One
Day(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.21 kg/kkg
17.0 kg/kkg
1.67 kg/kkg
118 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.90 kg/kkg
6.84 kg/kkg
0.650 kg/kkg
84.1 kg/kkg
Non-
Contmuous
Dischargers
Final Effluent
Annual
Average(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.51 kg/kkg
4.85 kg/kkg
0.553 kg/kkg
70.3 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD3 and TSS standards, kkg refers to off-the-machine mass of
final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent moisture for market pulp; for COD standards,
kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture; for all other standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters
the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
ND - Non-detect value. A measurement reported below the minimum level that can be reliably measured by the analytical method for
the pollutant. Analytical methods and minimum levels that apply are shown in Table 15-11.
16-9
-------
Table 16-2
Proposed Alternative New Source Performance Standards for Subpart A
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Applicable to Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching Processes
Pollutant or Pollutant Property
BOD,
TSS
AOX
COD
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day(a)
8.21 kg/kkg
17.0 kg/kkg
0.1 kg/kkg
118 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
4.90 kg/kkg
6.84 kg/kkg
NA-
84.1 kg/kkg
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
3.51 kg/kkg
4.85 kg/kkg
NA
70.3 kg/kkg
(a)S!4mdards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD3 and TSS standards, kkg refers to off-the-machine mass of
final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent moisture for market pulp; for COD standards,
kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture; for AOX standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters
the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
16-10
-------
Table 16-3
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Subpart B
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Acetone
Methylene chloride
trichlorosyringol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacoI
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
BODj
TSS
Continuous Dischargers
Bleach Plaat Effluent
Maximum for Any
One Day (a)
ND
329 ng/kkg
12.0 g/kkg
ND
218 mg/kkg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
Monthly
Average(a)
NA
NA
6.09 g/kkg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final Effluent
Maximum for
Any One Day{a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.726 kg/kkg
0.988 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.365 kg/kkg
0.383 kg/kkg
Non-
Conthiuoiis
Dischargers
Final Effluent
Annual
Average(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.262 kg/kkg
0.241 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD3 and TSS standards, kkg refers to off-the-machine mass of
final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent moisture for market pulp; for all other standards,
kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
ND - Non-detect value. A measurement reported below the minimum level that can be reliably measured by the analytical method for
the pollutant. Analytical methods and minimum levels that apply are shown in Table 15-11.
16-11
-------
Table 16-4
Proposed Alternative New Source Performance Standards for Subpart B
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Applicable to Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching Processes
Pollutant or Pollutant Property
BOD,
TSS
AOX
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
Qae Day(a)
0.726 kg/kkg
0.988 kg/kkg
0.1 kg/kkg
Monthly
Averagefal
0.365 kg/kkg
0.383 kg/kkg
NA
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
0.262 kg/kkg
0.241 kg/kkg
NA
(a)Standards arc expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD3 and TSS standards, kkg refers to off-the-machine mass of
final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent moisture for market pulp; for AOX standards,
kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
16-12
-------
Table 16-5
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Subpart C
Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
Pollutant Property
BOD5
TSS
COD
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day
0.236 kg/kkg
0.685 kg/kkg
20.8 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD5 and TSS standards, kkg refers to
off-the-machine mass of final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent
moisture for market pulp; for COD standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture.
16-13
-------
Table 16-6
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Subpart D
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketonc
Methylene chloride
triehlorosyringol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-triehlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophcnoI
tctrachlorocatcchol
tctrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachIorophenol
pcntachlorophcnol
BODj
TSS
AOX
Continuous Dischargers
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for Any
OneDayCa)
ND
1,870 ng/kkg
232 g/kkg
1,620 g/kkg
505 g/kkg
15.8 g/kkg
218mg/kkg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,500 mg/kkg
ND
881 mg/kkg
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
Monthly
AveMge(a)
NA
NA
74.4 g/kkg
688 g/kkg
167 g/kkg
4.77 g/kkg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Final Effluent
Maximum for Any
One Bay(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.'
NA.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.6 kg/kkg
23.3 kg/kkg
3.13 kg/kkg
Monthly
Awage(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14.1 kg/kkg
11.8 kg/kkg
1.39 kg/kkg
N0n*
Continuous
Dischargers
Final
Effluent
Monthly
Average(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' NA
11.7 kg/kkg
9.44 kg/kkg
1.22 kg/kkg
(a).Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD3 and TSS standards, kkg refers to off-the-machine mass of
final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent moisture for market pulp; for all other standards,
kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
ND - Non-detcct value. A measurement reported below the minimum level that can be reliably measured by the analytical method for
the pollutant. Analytical methods and minimum levels that apply are shown in Table 15-11.
16-14
-------
Table 16-7
Proposed Alternative New Source Performance Standards for Subpart D
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
Applicable to Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching Processes
J
Pollutant or Pollutant Property
BOD3
TSS
AOX
final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day (a)
25.6 kg/kkg
23.3 kg/kkg
0.1 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
14.1 kg/kkg
11.8 kg/kkg
NA
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Monthly
Average(a)
11.7 kg/kkg
9.44 kg/kkg
NA
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD3 and TSS standards, kkg refers to off-the-machine mass of
final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent moisture for market pulp; for AOX standards, kkg
refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
16-15
-------
Table 16-8
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Subpart E
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
t
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
BOD5
TSS
AOX
COD
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day(a)
4.90 kg/kkg
7.81 kg/kkg
0.1 kg/kkg
144 kg/kkg
Monthly
AverageCa)
2.57 kg/kkg
3.22 kg/kkg
NA
71.2 kg/kkg
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
1.98 kg/kkg
2.42 kg/kkg
NA
63.7 kg/kkg
Table 16-9
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Subpart F
Semi-Chemical Subcategory
Pollutant Properly
BODj
TSS
COD
Final Effluent
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day(a)
' 1.06 kg/kkg
2.14 kg/kkg
40.2 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
0.509 kg/kkg
0.826 kg/kkg
24.6 kg/kkg
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
0.409 kg/kkg
0.548 kg/kkg
20.8 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD5 and TSS standards, kkg refers to
off-the-machine mass of final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent
moisture for market pulp; for COD standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture;
for AOX standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
16-16
-------
Table 16-10
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for
Subpart G - Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart H - Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart I - Secondary Fiber - Deink Subcategory
Subpart J - Secondary Fiber - Non-Deink Subcategory
Subpart K - Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp
Subpart L - Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard
from Purchased Pulp
Continuous Dischargers
Subcategory
Mechanical Pulp
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber - Deink
Secondary Fiber - Non-Deink
Paperboard, Builders'
Paper and Roofing Felt
Segment
Producers of Other
Products from Non-
Deink Secondary Fiber
Segment
Fine and Lightweight Papers
from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non- Woven,
and Paperboard from
Purchased Pulp
Final Effluent
BODS
Maximum for
Any One
Day(a)
0.480 kg/kkg
3.71 kg/kkg
3.35 kg/kkg
0(b)
1.42 kg/kkg
2.37 kg/kkg
0.982 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
0.208 kg/kkg
1.97 kg/kkg
1.21 kg/kkg
0(b)
0.568 kg/kkg
0.922 kg/kkg
0.363 kg/kkg
TSS
Maximum for
Any One
Day(a)
1.62 kg/kkg
5.44 kg/kkg
4.58 kg/kkg
0(b)
2.02 kg/kkg
2.16 kg/kkg
0.563 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
0.598 kg/kkg
2.52 kg/kkg
1.38 kg/kkg
0(b)
0.719 kg/kkg
0.921 kg/kkg
0.221 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD5 and TSS standards, kkg refers to
off-the-machine mass of final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent
moisture for market pulp.
(b)No new source within this segment of this subpart shall discharge wastewater to any waters of the United
States.
16-17
-------
Table 16-11
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for
Subpart G - Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart H - Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart I - Secondary Fiber - Deink Subcategory
Subpart J - Secondary Fiber - Non-Deink Subcategory
Subpart K - Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp
Subpart L - Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, arid Paperboard
from Purchased Pulp
Non-Continuous Dischargers
Subcategory
Mechanical Pulp
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber - Deink
Secondary Fiber - Non-Deink
Paperboard, Builders'
Paper and Roofing Felt
Segment
Producers of Other
Products from Non-
Deink Secondary Fiber
Segment
Fine and Lightweight Papers
from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven,
and Paperboard from
Purchased Pulp
Final Effluent
BODj
Annual
Average(a)
0.155 kg/kkg
1.59 kg/kkg
0.888 kg/kkg
0(b)
0.386 kg/kkg
0.641 kg/kkg
0.248 kg/kkg
TSS
Annual
Average(a)
0.455 kg/kkg
2.03 kg/kkg
0.920 kg/kkg
0(b)
0.485 kg/kkg
0.724 kg/kkg
0.175 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For BOD5 and TSS standards,, kkg refers to
off-the-machine mass of final product at off-the-machine moisture for paper and paperboard and 10 percent
moisture for market pulp.
(b)No new source within this segment of this subpart shall discharge wastewater to any waters of the United
States.
16-18
-------
17.0 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
17.0 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
17.1 Introduction
Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES), which must be achieved within three years of
promulgation. PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass through,
interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs). The CWA requires pretreatment for pollutants that pass through POTWs
in amounts that would exceed direct discharge effluent limitations or limit POTW sludge
management alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on agricultural lands.
Pretreatment standards are to be technology-based and analogous to the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT) for removal of priority and nonconventional
pollutants. Reference is made to the general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403),
which served as the framework for the proposed pretreatment standards for the pulp, paper,
and paperboard industry.
Pretreatment standards for existing sources apply to all existing mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda, Unbleached Kraft, Papergrade Sulfite, and Semi-Chemical
Subcategories that discharge process wastewater to POTWs. There are a total of 13 indirect
discharging mills and associated POTWs in these four subcategories, as follows: nine mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory; one mill in the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory; two mills in the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory; and one mill in the Semi-
Chemical Subcategory. The Agency is individually identifying the 13 associated POTWs to
facilitate comment on these proposed PSES. The 13 POTWs are Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority, Pasadena, Texas; Muskegon County Wastewater Management System,
Muskegon, Michigan; Upper Potomac River Commission, Westernport, Maryland; City of
St. Helens, St. Helens, Oregon; Jackson County Port Authority, Pascagoula, Mississippi;
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth, Minnesota; Bay County Waste Treatment
Plant No. 1, Panama City, Florida; Erie City Wastewater Treatment Facility, Erie,
Pennsylvania; City of Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant, Port St. Joe, Florida;
Peshtigo Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility, Peshtigo, Wisconsin; Hopewell Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility, Hopewell, Virginia; Macon-Bibb County Water and
Sewerage Authority, Macon Georgia; and Water Pollution Control Plant, Plattsburgh, New
York.
To determine whether pollutants indirectly discharged by mills in this industry pass through
POTWs, EPA reviewed sampling data for direct dischargers, performance data for POTWs,
and technical literature. Based on preliminary review of circumstances at some of the
POTWs receiving pulp and paper mill effluent, and EPA's best professional judgment, EPA
concludes that biological treatment systems at these POTWs, while designed to
accommodate pulp and paper wastewaters, are not designed to the same standards as those
17-1
-------
17.0 Pretreatnient Standards for Existing Sources
installed and operated at direct discharging mills. Activated sludge systems and aerated
stabilization basin systems, as designed and operated at direct discharging mills, typically
include substantially longer detention times and other features that in combination achieve
greater removals of biological oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) than
are achieved at POTWs receiving effluent from these mills. This is evidenced by the fact
that the Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) and Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) effluent limitations EPA is proposing for
certain subcategories are substantially more stringent than the secondary treatment effluent
limitations applied to most POTWs (30 mg/L each of BOD5 and TSS). Therefore, the
Agency concludes that BOD5 and TSS pass through these POTWs. The Agency is not
proposing PSES standards for conventional pollutants, but has solicited comment on whether
these pollutants should be controlled.
In addition, the Agency concluded that other pollutants, including adsorbable organic halides
(AOX), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and (for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory only) color, also pass through POTWs. In part, this is because these pollutants
typically are less biodegradable than the conventional pollutant parameters (BOD5 and
TSS). For example, biological treatment systems at direct discharging pulp and paper mills
(for which EPA has data) remove approximately 40 percent of the influent AOX, which is
representative of chlorinated organic compounds. The literature indicates that the
biodegradability of certain chlorinated organic compounds varies in comparison to AOX,
but generally these compounds are less biodegradable than nonchlorinated biodegradable
organic matter measured as BOD5. The Agency does not have detailed analytical data from
POTWs for these and other poUutants of concern in this industry to serve as the basis for
a detailed, quantitative pass-through analysis. However, in view of the lower removal of
conventional poUutants achieved at POTWs in comparison to the removals being proposed
for direct dischargers in this industry, the Agency concludes that AOX, COD, and color (for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory) also pass through these POTWs.
Because EPA believes that dioxins and furans, and certain other pollutants, cannot
practicably or feasibly be controlled with limits at the point of discharge to the POTW, EPA
is proposing PSES limits for those poUutants at the end of the bleach plant. The Agency's
sampling data show that dioxins and furans can only be effectively removed by process
changes. Dioxins and furans are known to become associated with suspended solids in
process wastewaters. Internal stream pretreatment technologies (e.g., ultrafiltration) and
end-of-pipe treatment technologies (e.g., chemical precipitation and clarification, filtration)
are not capable of removing sufficient quantities of total suspended solids (TSS) to achieve
the same bleach plant or end-of-pipe dioxin and furan concentrations (i.e., below detection
limits) as achieved through process changes. Therefore, without process changes and bleach
plant limits, dioxins and furans would pass through POTWs. Moreover, removal of dioxins
and furans from wastewaters using only end-of-pipe treatment would substantially increase,,
rather than decrease, the dioxin and furan concentrations in wastewater treatment system
17-2
-------
17.0 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
sludges, thereby further limiting POTWs sludge disposal alternatives. Similarly, volatile
organic compounds, such as chloroform (which is a hazardous air pollutant), will be
liberated from process wastewaters to the atmosphere in collection, conveyance, and
aeration systems, and thus are best removed in bleach plants through process changes.
These circumstances lead to pass-through and unacceptable non-water quality environmental
impacts on sludges and air emissions. Moreover, certain of the volatile organics are
hazardous air pollutants subject to control under the Clean Air Act in this integrated
rulemaking. Because it is neither practical nor feasible to set limits for some pollutants at
the point of discharge to the POTW sewer, EPA is proposing to set PSES limits for those
pollutants inside the mill, at the bleach plant, in a similar fashion as proposed in revising
BAT limits for the direct discharging mills.
For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, the Agency is also proposing
alternative PSES applicable at the mill discharge to the POTW for AOX based upon totally
chlorine free (TCP) bleaching technologies. These alternative PSES would apply to existing
sources that may operate in a TCP bleaching mode. There would be no PSES applicable
to bleach plant effluents for these mills.
The proposed PSES presented in tables at the end of this section are based upon the long-
term average performance values for the selected PSES options and monthly average and
daily maximum variability factors set out in the Statistical Support Document. Reference
is made to the Statistical Support Document for derivation of the variability factors. The
long-term average performance values for each option are presented in Section 9.4.
In developing and selecting PSES options and the proposed PSES, the Agency considered
the following factors:
• The manufacturing processes used in the pulp, paper, and paperboard
industry;
• The age and size of the equipment and facilities involved;
• The location of the manufacturing facilities;
• Process changes;
• The engineering aspects of the application of pretreatment technology and its
relationship to the POTW;
17-3
-------
17.0 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
• The cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction and
other benefits achieved from such application; and
i
• Non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements).
The owners or operators of facilities subject to PSES are not required to use the specific
process technologies and wastewater treatment technologies selected by EPA to establish
the PSES, but may choose to use any combination of process technologies and wastewater
treatment to comply with pretreatment standards derived from the PSES.
This section presents the Agency's selection of PSES options and the proposed pretreatment
standards for existing sources for each subcategory.
113, Selection of PSES Options
Reference is made to Section 9.6 for a summary of the PSES options considered. Because
the PSES options being proposed are based upon the BAT options, reference is also made
to Sections 9.4 and 15.
Pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 307(b) of the CWA, the Agency has
selected the following options as the basis for the proposed pretreatment standards for
existing sources:
17.2.1 Subpart A - Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
PSES are reserved.
17.2.2 Subpart B - Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
The selected PSES option for the Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory is the same as
BAT Option 4. The major pulping, bleaching and wastewater treatment components of this
option are wood chip size and thickness control; elimination of defoamers and pitch
dispersants that contain dioxin precursors; extended delignification or oxygen delignification;
effective brown stock washing; closed pulp screening operations; pulping liquor spill
prevention and control; use of chlorine dioxide instead of elemental chlorine for bleaching
(100 percent substitution); oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction in the bleach plant;
use of chlorine dioxide instead of hypochlorite in brightening stages; high shear mixing; flow
reduction; and effective end-of-pipe secondary biological wastewater treatment.
The Agency selected this option as the basis for the proposed PSES for many of the same
reasons BAT Option 4 was selected (see Section 9.4.2 and Section 15), and because this
option results in the maximum economically achievable effluent reduction benefits, and thus
17-4
-------
17.0 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
will result in maximum protection of POTWs from interference and pass-through of
pollutants. These technologies are suitable for manufacture of all grades of papergrade
kraft and soda pulp.
The proposed PSES for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory are presented
in Table 17-1. Alternative PSES that would apply to papergrade kraft and soda mills that
use TCP bleaching operations are presented in Table 17-2,
17.2.3 Subpart C - Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
The proposed PSES are based upon the single technology option developed by the Agency
for the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory. The principal technologies that form the basis of
the proposed PSES include effective brown stock washing; closed pulp screening operations;
pulping liquor spill prevention and control; flow reduction; and effective secondary
biological treatment. These technologies are fully demonstrated at existing kraft pulp mills.
The proposed PSES for the Unbleached Kraft Subcategory are presented in Table 17-3.
17.2.4 Subpart D - Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
PSES are reserved.
17.2.5 Subpart E - Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
The selected PSES option for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory is the same as BAT
Option 2. The major pulping, bleaching and wastewater treatment components of this
option are adequate wood chip size and thickness control; elimination of defoamers and
pitch dispersants that contain dioxin precursors; closed pulp screening operations; effective
brown stock washing; pulping liquor spill prevention and control; oxygen delignification;
totally chlorine-free bleaching; flow reduction; and effective end-of-pipe secondary biological.
wastewater treatment.
The pulping technologies are fully demonstrated at chemical pulp mills located in the
United States. Totally chlorine-free bleaching of papergrade sulfite pulps is fully
demonstrated at a number of papergrade sulfite mills located in Europe. The Agency has
concluded that the full range of papergrade sulfite grades manufactured in the United States
can be produced using TCP bleaching processes. The wastewater treatment technologies
are fully demonstrated at a U.S. mill.
The proposed PSES are presented in Table 17-4. In addition to the pretreatment standards
presented on Table 17-4, the owner or operator of the facility must certify, in the
pretreatment baseline monitoring report, that chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds
are not used for pulp bleaching. In addition, the owner or operator of the facility must
17-5
-------
17.0 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
provide, as part of the pretreatment baseline monitoring report, monitoring results for three
composite bleach plant wastewater samples for CDDs/CDFs and chlorinated phenolics, and
three grab samples for chloroform and methylene chloride. Such samples shall be obtained
at approximately weekly intervals. Because the proposed PSES are based upon TCP
bleaching technology, there are no proposed alternative PSES.
17.2.6 Subpart F - Semi-Chemical Subcategoiy
The proposed PSES for the Semi-Chemical Subcategory are based upon the single,
technology option developed by the Agency. The major process and wastewater treatment
technologies that comprise this option are effective brown stock washing; pulping liquor spill
prevention and control; flow reduction; and effective end-of-pipe secondary biological
wastewater treatment. These technologies are fully demonstrated in the industry in the
United States and can be used to achieve the proposed PSES presented in Table 17-5.
17.2.7 Subpart G - Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart H - Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
Subpart I - Secondary Fiber - Deink Subcategoiy
Subpart J - Secondary Fiber - Non-Deink Subcategoiy
Subpart K - Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp Subcategory
Subpart L - Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Subcategory
The Agency does not have adequate information and data at this time to determine that
PSES to control priority and nonconventional pollutants from existing mills in the above
subcategories is warranted. However, the Agency may consider the need for effluent
limitations and standards after further review as part of its CWA Section 304(m) planning
process. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to reserve PSES for these subcategories. The
need for PSES will be considered at a future date.
EPA solicits comments on whether the Agency should develop PSES limits for conventional
pollutants in subcategories other than the four in which the Agency is proposing PSES
limits. The conventional pollutant limitations for direct dischargers proposed in all
subcategories of the pulp and paper industry are more stringent than EPA's secondary
treatment requirements for POTWs. Therefore, the conventional pollutants discharged from
pulp and paper mills would pass through POTWs. The Agency has identified 19 mills and
associated POTWs in the following subcategories: Mechanical Pulp; Deink Secondary
Fibers; Non-Deink Secondary Fibers; Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp;
and Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp.
17-6
-------
Table 17-1
Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources for Subpart B
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
trichlorosyringol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol .
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
AOX
COD
Color
Continuous Dischargers
Bleach Plant Effluent
Maximum for
Any One Day(a)
ND
359 ng/kkg
5.06 g/kkg
43.0 g/kkg
3.81 g/kkg
1.33 g/kkg
218 mg/kkg
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
78.6 mg/kkg
ND
ND
ND ,
ND
NA
NA
NA
Monthly
Average(a)
NA
NA
2.01 g/kkg
21.9 g/kkg
1.75 g/kkg
0.518 g/kkg
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Discharge to the POTW
Maximum for
Any One Day(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.267 kg/kkg
35.7 kg/kkg
120 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.156 kg/kkg
25.4 kg/kkg
76.3 kg/kkg
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Discharge to the
POTW
Annual
Average(a)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' NA
NA
NA
NA
0.143 kg/kkg
21.3 kg/kkg
71.2 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD and color standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp
at 10 percent moisture; for all other standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
ND - Non-detect value. A measurement reported below the minimum level that can be reliably measured by the analytical method for
the pollutant. Analytical methods and minimum levels that apply are shown in Table 15-11.
17-7
-------
Table 17-2
Proposed Alternative Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
for Subpart B
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Applicable to Totally Chlorine-Free Bleaching Processes
Pollutant or Pollutant Property
AOX
COD
Color
Discharge to the POTW
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Diy(a)
0.1 kg/kkg
35.7 kg/kkg
120 kg/kkg
Monthly
A"verage(a)
NA.
25.4 kg/kkg
76.3 kg/kkg
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
NA
21.3 kg/kkg
71.2 kg/kkg
(a)Stand»rds are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD and color standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp
at 10 percent moisture;, for AOX standards, kkg refers to mass of unbleached pulp that enters the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA • Not applicable.
17-8
-------
Table 17-3
Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources for Subpart C
Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
Pollutant Property
COD
Discharge to the POTW
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day{a)
40.2 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
24.6 kg/kkg
Nan-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
20.8 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD standards, kkg refers to mass of
unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture.
17-9
-------
Table 17-4
Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources for Subpart E
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
Pollutant or Pollutant
Property
AOX
COD
Discharge to the PQTW
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day(a)
0.1 kg/kkg
144 kg/kkg
Monthly
Averag,e(a)
NA
71.2 kg/kkg
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average{a)
NA
63.7 kg/kkg
Table 17-5
Proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources for Subpart F
Semi-Chemical Subcategory
Pollutant Property
COD
Discharge to the POTW
Continuous Dischargers
Maximum for Any
One Day(a)
40.2 kg/kkg
Monthly
Average(a)
24.6 kg/kkg
Non-Continuous
Dischargers
Annual
Average(a)
20.8 kg/kkg
(a)Standards are expreSvSed in terms of mass of pollutant per kkg. For COD standards, kkg refers to mass of
unbleached pulp at 10 percent moisture; for AOX standards, kkg refers ito mass of unbleached pulp that enters
the bleach plant at 10 percent moisture.
NA - Not applicable.
17-10
-------
18.0 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
18.0 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW SOURCES
The basis for Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) under Sections 306 and
307(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is the best available demonstrated technology.
Industry has the opportunity to design and install the best and most efficient pulping,
bleaching, and papermaking processes and wastewater treatment facilities at new mills.
Accordingly, Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated alternative processes,
process changes, in-plant control measures, and end-of pipe wastewater treatment
technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible. In response to that
directive, and as with the development of options for the proposed Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) effluent limitations guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), EPA considered effluent reductions attainable by the most
advanced and demonstrated process technologies at pulp, paper, and paperboard mills
located in the United States and foreign countries, and the best demonstrated wastewater
treatment for the pulp, paper and paperboard mills located in the United States.
Section 307(c) of the CWA requires EPA to promulgate PSNS simultaneously with the
promulgation of NSPS. PSNS are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants which pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). The CWA requires pretreatment for pollutants that pass
through POTWs in amounts that would exceed direct discharge effluent limitations or limit
POTW sludge management alternatives, including the beneficial use of sludges on
agricultural lands. Pretreatment standards for new sources (see Section 16.0 for a discussion
of the definition of new source) are to be technology-based and analogous to the NSPS for
removal of priority and nonconventional pollutants. Reference is made to the general
pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403), which served as the framework for the
proposed pretreatment standards for the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry.
The Agency determined that certain priority and nonconventional pollutants and process
materials that can be present in untreated wastewaters from chemical and semi-chemical
pulp and paper mills can pass through POTWs, may limit POTW sludge disposal alternatives
and can interfere with biological treatment in POTWs (see Section 17.0). Therefore, the
Agency is proposing PSNS for the six revised chemical and semi-chemical subcategories set
out in Section 5:
Dissolving Kraft;
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda;
Unbleached Kraft;
Dissolving Sulfite;
Papergrade Sulfite; and
Semi-Chemical.
18-1
-------
18.0 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
Pollutants proposed for regulation at PSNS are the same as those proposed for NSPS,
except PSNS does not control conventional pollutants. PSNS apply to both the bleach plant
effluent and mill discharge to the POTW. Reference is made to the preamble to the
proposed regulation (Section IX.E.5.) and Section 17 for a review of the Agency's proposed
approach to regulating pulp, paper, and paperboard indirect discharges both at the bleach
plant effluent and at the discharge from the mill to the POTW.
The selected PSNS options are the same as the selected NSPS options for the Dissolving
Kraft, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda, Unbleached Kraft, Dissolving Sulfite,
Papergrade Sulfite, and Semi-Chemical Subcategories.
In developing and selecting PSNS options and the proposed PSNS, the Agency considered
factors: the demonstration status of the process and wastewater treatment technologies, the
cost of achieving the effluent reductions, non-water quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
The owners or operators of facilities subject to PSNS are not required to use the specific
process technologies and wastewater treatment technologies selected by EPA to establish
the PSNS, but may choose to use any combination of process technologies and wastewater
treatment to comply with permit limitations derived from the PSNS.
The Agency is proposing to reserve PSNS for the following subcategories: Mechanical Pulp;
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp; Secondary Fiber - Deink; Secondary Fiber - Non-Deink; Fine
and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp; and Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp.
18-2
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
19.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
19.1 Introduction
In addition to pollutant-specific effluent limitations guidelines and standards, EPA is
proposing Best Management Practices (BMP) pursuant to Section 304(e) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) for pulping liquor management, spill prevention and control. BMP would be
applicable to chemical pulp mills, namely the following subcategories:
Dissolving Kraft;
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda;
Unbleached Kraft;
Dissolving Sulfite;
Papergrade Sulfite;
SemiTChemical; and
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp.
The principal focus of BMP is prevention and control of losses of pulping liquors from spills,
equipment leaks, and intentional liquor diversions from the pulping and chemical recovery
processes.
EPA has emphasized control of pulping liquor losses from chemical pulp mills for the
following reasons:
(1) Losses of pulping liquor contribute significant portions of the untreated
wastewater loadings and discharge loadings of color, oxygen demanding
substances, and non-chlorinated toxic compounds from chemical pulp mills.
EPA is not proposing to regulate these non-chlorinated toxic compounds with
compound-specific effluent limitations and standards as part of Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) or
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS);
(2) Pulping liquor spills and intentional liquor diversions are a principal cause of
upsets and loss of efficiency of biological wastewater treatment systems that
are nearly universally used for treatment of chemical pulp mill wastewaters;
(3) Prevention and control of pulping liquor losses is a form of pollution
prevention that will result in less demand for pulping liquor make-up
chemicals; improved process and energy efficiency through recovery of fiber
and liquor solids; more effective and less costly wastewater treatment system
operations; and reduced formation of wastewater treatment sludges; and,
19-1
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
(4) Control of pulping liquor losses will result in reduced atmospheric emissions
of Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) from kraft mills and volatile hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) from all chemical pulp mills.
EPA has prepared a separate technical support document for the proposed BMP that may
be found in the Record for the Rulemaking (1). That document sets out EPA's findings
with respect to pulping liquor loss control from pulping and chemical recovery operations
and presents proposed BMP for chemical pulp mills. This section presents a summary of
parts of the BMP Technical Support Document and an overview of the proposed regulation.
19.2 Legal Authority
EPA's legal authority for establishing BMP as part of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for industrial categories is found at Section 304(e) of the CWA.
The proposed BMP are directed at preventing and controlling spills, leaks, and intentional
diversions of pulping liquors associated with the various chemical pulping processes, for the
express purpose of minimizing the discharge of conventional pollutants total suspended
solids (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD5), a priority pollutant (phenol), a
nonconventional pollutant chemical oxygen demand (COD), and other non-chlorinated,
nonconventional toxic pollutants (e.g., resins and fatty acids) associated with the pulping
liquors. Through improved wastewater treatment effectiveness, BMP should also result in
improved removals of priority and nonconventional pollutants from chemical pulp mills.
19.3 Toxicity of Pulping Liquors
The toxicity of wood pulping liquors has been well documented through studies conducted
over many years (2,3,4,5). The BMP Technical Support Document presents summaries of
several studies. The results show that in addition to hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan,
crude sulfate soap and sodium salts of fatty and resins acids, all components of kraft black
liquor are among the more toxic compounds to Daphnia and freshwater minnows. Minimum
lethal concentrations in the low ppm levels were found for these compounds. Toxic impacts
in the aquatic environment of compounds associated with kraft pulping liquors have also
been reported (6,7).
In recent studies of in-mill toxicity at a northern Ontario (Canada) bleached kraft mill, the
pulp mill sewer was found to contribute 55 percent of the effluent toxic loading, while the
combined condensate and (bleach plant) acid sewer contributed 25 percent and 20 percent,
respectively (8). Of the eight recommendations to reduce effluent toxicity, the first two, and
five in all, were Directed at reducing the amount of black liquor lost from the processes.
Improved black liquor spill control was cited as the highest priority project.
19-2
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
Other recent studies conducted by the National Water Research Institute, Canada Centre
for Inland Waters suggest wastewater discharges from kraft mills that do not bleach and
modernized bleached kraft mills produce sub-lethal toxic effects in fish populations in
receiving streams (9). In one study of a kraft mill with modern bleaching processes (e.g.,
chlorine dioxide substitution, oxygen delignification), secondary treatment, and low AOX
discharges (less than 1.5 kg AOX/ADMT pulp), physiological changes were evident in white
sucker (Catostomus commersonf) collected downstream of the mill discharge (10). This
study, and others, suggest that fish responses are attributable to the discharge of biologically
active compounds derived from black liquor.
Sulfite pulping liquors also exhibit toxicity to aquatic organisms, with ammonium-based
liquors the most toxic and sodium-based liquors the least toxic (11).
19.4 Sources of Pulping Liquor Losses
19.4.1 Kraft and Soda Mills
Losses of black liquor from kraft and soda pulping and chemical recovery processes arise
from routine process operations including maintenance practices, planned start-ups and
shutdowns, grade changes, other intentional liquor diversions, and losses from screen rooms,
brown stock washers, and deckers. Unintentional losses result from nonroutine occurrences
such as fiber and liquor spills, equipment leaks, tank overfillings, and process upsets. These
types of losses contribute a significant portion of the total untreated BOD5 wastewater
loading at both unbleached and bleached kraft mills, as summarized below.
Intermittent Uncontrolled
Losses
Decker Filtrate
— — — — — ^^^^— — i
Sewered Contaminated
Condensates
Bleach Plant Effluent
Total
Unbleached Kraft
33 - 50%
33%
17 - 34%
0
100%
Bleached Kraft
25 - 38%
25%
12 - 25%
25%
100%
Source: (12).
For purposes of the proposed BMP regulation, liquor losses from brown stock washing (i.e.,
residual liquor remaining in the brown stock pulp after washing) are not considered.
19-3
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
Minimization of brown stock washing losses is an important aspect of process optimization
and a pollution prevention technique, particularly at bleached kraft mills where increased
formation of chlorinated organics and higher sewer loadings of COD, adsorbable organic
halides (AOX), and BOD5 have been attributed to poor brown stock washing. Such losses
are not considered part of black liquor management, spill prevention and control. Improved
brown stock washing is included as an integral part of each model BAT, NSPS, PSES, and
PSNS process technology train considered by EPA.
Based upon on-site evaluations conducted at several kraft mills and one soda mill, the
following were identified as significant sources of black liquor losses from routine process
operations:
1. Decker losses at older mills with open screen rooms;
2. Losses from knotters and screens at mills with open screen rooms and without
fiber and liquor recovery systems for those sources;
3. Sewered evaporator boil-out solutions;
4. Leaks from seals on brown stock washers;
5. Leaks from seals onrpumps and valves in black liquor service; and,
i
6. Intentional liquor diversions during shutdowns, start-ups, grade changes, and
during equipment maintenance.
Process upsets, equipment breakdowns, tank overfillings, and construction activities were
identified as the most common sources of nonroutine, unintentional black liquor and
causticizing area sewer losses. EPA expects that sources of pulping liquor losses at non-
wood chemical pulp mills are similar to those at kraft and soda mills because the pulping
processes are similar.
Mills with more effective pulping liquor spill prevention and control programs have
instituted specific engineered controls, preventative maintenance programs, management
practices, and monitoring systems to substantially eliminate black liquor losses from these
sources.
19.4.2 Sulfite and Semi-Chemical Mills
Although sulfite and semi-chemical mills have pulping systems based upon different process
chemistry and different or limited chemical recovery facilities, pulping liquor losses from
normal process operations and unintentional losses arise from many of the same types of
19-4
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
sources as at kraft and soda mills. Based upon site evaluations conducted at three sulfite
mills and a detailed review of spill prevention and control practices at a fourth sulfite mill,
EPA determined that sulfite mills are less likely than kraft or soda mills to have engineered
controls for collecting spills and leaks of pulping liquors at the immediate process areas.
19.5 Current Industry Practice - Pulping Liquor Spill Prevention and Control
19.5.1 Kraft and Soda Mills
Pulping liquor spill prevention and control practices were evaluated at several kraft mills,
four sulfite mills and one soda mill to assess current industry practice. Mills were selected
for evaluation based upon age, size, discharge status (direct and indirect), and pulping
practice (kraft; soda; ammonium base, magnesium base, and calcium base sulfite). The age
of kraft and soda mills ranges from mills where wood pulping operations commenced at the
turn of the century to relatively new greenfield mills constructed in the mid- to late-1980s.
The age of sulfite mills ranged from about 70 to 90 years as characterized by first year of
pulp production.
Based upon findings from the mill visits and information provided by several mill operators,
EPA classified industry efforts at kraft pulping liquor spill prevention and control as either
proactive or reactive. The proactive programs are characterized by the following:
• Management of process operations to minimize variability to the maximum
extent possible;
• Extensive preventative maintenance programs for equipment in pulping liqu or
service;
• Automated spill detection and recovery systems in the pulping and recovery
areas for collection and recovery of pulping liquor and fiber. These systems
are maintained and operated by pulping and recovery personnel;
• Secondary containment and high-level alarms on weak and strong pulping
liquor tanks;
>
• Frequent operator surveillance of equipment and tanks in pulping liquor
service. Minor repairs are made immediately;
• Sufficient capacity (95,000 cubic meters to > 400,000 cubic meters; 250,000
gallons to > 1,000,000 gallons) for storage of collected spills and planned
liquor diversions. Most storage capacity is provided in covered tanks;
19-5
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
• Systems to recover fiber and liquor from knotting and screening operations;
and,
• Secondary monitoring and diversion systems for major mill sewers serving
pulping, recovery, and recausticizing areas.
In the reactive programs, spill response is emphasized more heavily than spill prevention.
At these mills, _ wastewater treatment plant operators most often have conductivity
monitoring systems to detect problems in major sewers and at the influent to the treatment
plant. Typically, it is then: responsibility to notify pulping and chemical recovery
superintendents of detected problems. In these instances, the pulping and chemical recovery
areas generally do not have primary responsibility for spill detection and response.
Many of the proactive pulping liquor management programs, engineered controls and
monitoring systems observed at kraft and soda mills are consistent with those recommended
by the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
(NCASI) in 1974 (13). NCASI recommended approaches for spill containment for all
aspects of pulp and paper mill operations, sewer monitoring, and management programs.
Several mill operators reported that the key to successfully managing and preventing bladk
liquor losses is sufficient liquor storage capacity and the flexibility to manage liquor
inventories and spills through transfers among liquor storage tanks. No operator reported
having excess liquor storage capacity.
19.5.2 Sulfite Mills
At the sulfite mills surveyed, pulping liquor spill prevention and control include many of the
same items as noted above for kraft and soda mills; however, none of the sulfite mills visited
had automated spill detection and recovery systems at the pulping and recovery areas. One
surveyed mill had a fiber and liquor recovery system at the brown stock washers. Most did
not have full secondary containment for weak and strong pulping liquor tanks. High-level
alarms on liquor tanks appeared to be standard practice. All mills were equipped with pH
and/or conductivity meters and alarms at strategic locations for identification of spills or
upsets. Some mills had diversion tanks or ponds for large pulping liquor diversions or spills.
Protection of the wastewater treatment facilities was a principal objective at these mills.
One mill not visited reported an extensive proactive pulping liquor spill prevention and
control program comprising all of the elements described above for kraft mills (12). The
following techniques can be used to substantially minimize pulping liquor losses from most
sulfite mills (12,14):
• Management of process operations to minimize variability to the maximum
extent possible;
19-6
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
• Extensive preventative maintenance programs for equipment in pulping liquor
service;
• Automated spill detection and recovery systems in the pulping and recovery
areas for collection and recovery of pulping liquor and fiber. These systems
are maintained and operated by pulping and recovery personnel;
• Secondary containment and high-level alarms on pulping liquor and stock
tanks;
• Flow recorders and continuous monitors and samplers on major process area
sewers;
• Overflow from heavy to weak liquor tanks;
• Sufficient capacity (95,000 cubic meters to > 400,000 cubic meters; 250,000
gallons to > 1,000,000 gallons) for storage of collected spills and planned
liquor diversions. Storage capacity should be provided in covered tanks; and
• Ability to return heavy liquor and compatible boil-out solutions to the weak
liquor tanks instead of to the sewer.
19.6 Regulatory Approach and Proposed Regulatory Provisions
EPA's approach for controlling losses of pulping liquor is to require, by regulation, that the
owner or operator of each chemical and semi-chemical pulp mill develop and implement
Best Management Practices Plans (BMP Plans) for prevention and control of pulping liquor
losses, other than those losses associated with normal brown stock pulp washing. In many
respects, the proposed BMP Plans are similar to Spill Prevention Countermeasure and
Control (SPCC) Plans for oil spill prevention and control (40 CFR 112). The principal
objective is to prevent losses and spills of pulping liquors from equipment items in pulping
liquor service; the secondary objectives are to contain, collect, and recover or otherwise
control those spills that do occur and to minimize emissions of TRS and hazardous air
pollutants. A goal for pulp mill operators should be to ensure there are no visible leaks or
spills of pulping liquors.
The major elements of the BMP Plan are as follows:
• Engineering Analyses,
• Engineered Controls and Containment,
• • Work Practices,
• Preventative Maintenance,
19-7
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
• Dedicated Monitoring and Alarm Systems,
• Surveillance and Repair Programs, and
• Employee Awareness and Training.
EPA is proposing that the BMP Plans contain the following key elements:
1. A detailed engineering review of the pulping and chemical recovery
operations, including, but not limited to, process equipment, storage tanks,
pipelines and pumping systems, loading and unloading facilities, and other
appurtenant pulping and recovery equipment in pulping liquor service. The
purpose of the engineering review is to determine the magnitude and routing
of potential leaks, spills, and intentional pulping liquor diversions during the
following periods of operation:
Process start-ups and shutdowns,
Maintenance,
Grade changes,
Storm events,
Power failures, and
Normal operations.
A detailed engineering review of existing pulping liquor containment facilities
for the purpose of determining whether there is adequate capacity for
collection and storage of anticipated intentional liquor diversions with
sufficient contingency for collection and containment of spills, based upon
good engineering practice. Secondary containment equivalent to the volume
of the largest tank plus sufficient freeboard for precipitation should be
provided for bulk storage tanks.
The engineering review must also consider: (1) the need for process
wastewater diversion facilities to protect end-of-pipe wastewater treatment
facilities from adverse effects of pulping liquor spills and diversions; (2) the
potential for contamination of storm water from the immediate process areas
(digesters, evaporators, recovery boilers, recausticizing); (3) the extent to
which segregation and collection of contaminated storm water from the
process areas is appropriate; and, (4) the potential to reduce atmospheric.
emissions of total reduced sulfur compounds and hazardous air pollutants.
Development and implementation of preventative maintenance practices,
standard operating procedures, work practices, engineered controls, and
monitoring systems to prevent liquor losses and to divert pulping liquors to
19-8
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
containment facilities such that the diverted or spilled liquors may be returned
to the process or metered to the wastewater treatment system;
4. A program of regular visual inspections (at least once per operating shift) of
equipment in pulping liquor service and a program for repair of leaking
equipment items. The repair program must encompass immediate repairs
when possible, and tagging for repair during the next maintenance outage
those leaking equipment items that cannot be repaired during normal
operations. The owner or operator of the mill must also establish conditions
under which production will be curtailed or halted to repair leaking
equipment items or prevent liquor losses. The repair program should include
tracking repairs over time to identify that equipment where upgrade or
replacement may be warranted based upon frequency and severity of leaks or
failures. The owner or operator shall maintain logs showing the date pulping
liquor leaks were detected, the type of pulping liquor (e.g., weak black liquor,
intermediate black liquor, strong black liquor), an estimate of the magnitude
of the leak, the date of first attempt at repair, and the date of final repair.
The logs shall be maintained at the mill for review by the Regional
Administrator or his designee during normal working hours.
5. A program of initial and refresher training of operators, maintenance
personnel, and other technical and supervisory personnel who have
responsibility for operating, maintaining, or supervising the operation and
maintenance of equipment and systems in pulping liquor service. The
refresher training must be conducted annually. The training must be
documented and records of training shall be maintained for review by the
Regional Administrator or his designee during normal working hours.
6. A program of "boards of review" to evaluate each spill and intentional liquor
diversions not contained at the immediate process area. The boards of review
should be conducted as soon as practicable after the event, and should be
attended by the involved operators, maintenance personnel, process
engineering personnel, and representatives of mill management and
environmental control staff. A brief report shall be prepared for each board
of review. The report shall describe the circumstances leading the incident,
corrective actions taken, and recommended changes to equipment or
operating and maintenance practices to prevent recurrence. A summary of
the boards of review reports should be made part of the annual refresher
training.
7. A program to review any planned modifications to the pulping and chemical
recovery facilities and any construction activities in the pulping and chemical
19-9
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
recovery areas before these activities commence. The purpose of the reviews
js to ensure that pulping liquor spill prevention and control is considered as
part of the planned modifications, and that construction and supervisory
personnel are aware of and take into account possible liquor diversions and
the potential for causing liquor spills during construction.
8. An implementation schedule not to exceed thirty months from the effective
date of the final regulations for construction of any pulping liquor
containment or diversion facilities necessary to fully implement the BMP plan.
A schedule not to exceed eighteen months from the effective date of the final
regulations for installation or upgrade of continuous, automatic monitoring
systems, including, but not limited to, high-level monitors and alarms on
existing storage tanks, process area conductivity (or pH) monitoring and
alarms, and process area sewer, process wastewater, and wastewater treatment
plant conductivity (or pH) monitoring and alarms. Notwithstanding any
construction activities, the owner or operator shall begin implementing all
other aspects of the BMP Plan not later than four months from the effective
date of the final regulations.
9. The BMP Plan shall be reviewed and certified by a Registered Professional
Engineer familiar with the facility and the requirements of the BMP.
regulation. The Registered Professional Engineer shall attest that the BMP
Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the regulation
and good engineering practices.
10. The BMP Plan shall be reviewed and updated as necessary at least every
three years, or whenever there are significant changes to the pulping and
chemical recovery facilities.
19.7 Estimated Costs and Effluent Reduction Benefits
19.7.1 Estimated Costs
The approach used by the Agency to estimate the cost for the affected subcategories of the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry to implement BMP is described in Section 11.4. The
estimated capital costs and operating and maintenance costs or savings, by subcategory, are
summarized in Section 11.7. These cost estimates were based upon cost data the Agency
obtained from two older bleached kraft pulp and paper mills where effective pulping liquor
spill prevention and control systems were recently installed. Both mills had little or no black
liquor spill prevention and control prior to completing the recent upgrades (see BMP
Technical Support Document for the reported costs).
19-10
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
19.7.2 Estimated Effluent Reduction Benefits
The following effluent reduction benefits were realized at a southern U.S. kraft mill that has
recently installed pulping liquor spill prevention and control systems:
• Elimination of intermittent acute toxicity in the POTW effluent to C.daphnia
and Pimephales promelas. Eh'mination of intermittent chronic toxicity to
Pimephalespromelas and reduction of consistent chronic toxicity to C.daphnia;
and,
• Reduced effluent flow and reduced discharges of TSS, COD, and BOD5.
Operators of a Canadian kraft mill that has also recently installed pulping liquor spill
prevention and control systems reported the effluent reduction benefits in Table 19-1, prior
to installation of an aerated stabilization basin in 1989 (15).
Based upon these results, EPA believes that improved management of pulping liquors and
effective spill prevention and control can result in the following effluent reduction benefits:
• Reduced raw waste loadings and reduced toxicity of raw waste loadings prior
to biological treatment;
• Reduced toxicity in biologically treated pulp mill effluents;
• Reduced effluent .discharges of flow and conventional and nonconventional
pollutants, namely TSS, BOD5, and COD;
i
• Reduced potential for catastrophic spills of pulping liquors directly to
waterways;
• Reduced potential for upsets to wastewater treatment facilities from in-mill
spills, and attendant increased discharges of unchlorinated and chlorinated
toxic compounds, effluent toxicity, and conventional and nonconventional
pollutants (TSS, BOD5, and COD).
Non-water quality environmental impacts include:
• Reduced atmospheric emissions of volatile HAPs including methanol and
methyl ethyl ketone, among others;
19-11
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
• For kraft mills, reduced atmospheric emissions of odor-causing TRS
compounds comprising hydrogen sulfide, metlryl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide,
and dimethyl disulfide, among others;
• Energy recovery from combustion of black liquor solids that would otherwise
be lost to the sewer. Increased energy will be required if very dilute weak
liquors are processed;'and,
• Improved process efficiency and operating cost savings including recovery of
lost fiber, reduced need for make-up chemicals, and more efficient utilization
of operating and supervisory personnel.
The estimated reductions in BOD5 loading that would result from the proposed BMP are
presented in Section 10.2 (see Section 11.6.5.2 for a discussion of how these estimated BOD5
reductions were accounted for in estimating the cost of the two BPT options).
19.8 References
1. U.S.EPA. Technical Support Document for Proposed Best Management Practices
Program: Pulping Liquor. Management, Spill Prevention, and Control, November
1993.
2, The Toxicity of Kraft Pulping Wastes to Typical Fish Food Organisms. Technical
Bulletin No. 10. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc., May 1947.
3. A Study of the Toxic Components of the Waters of Five Typical Kraft Mills.
Technical Bulletin No. 16 - Aquatic Biology. National Council of the Paper Industry
for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., April 1948.
4. The Effects of Kraft Mill Waste liquors and Some of Their Components on Certain
Salmonid Fishes of the Pacific Northwest. Technical Bulletin No. 51 - Aquatic
Biology. National Council of the Paper Industry for .Air and Stream Improvement,
Inc., May 1952.
5. McKee, I.E., and H.W. Wolf. Water Quality Criteria, Second Edition, Publicatiqn
3-A. The Resources Agency of California, State Water Resources Control Board.
Sacramento, California, February 1963 (Reprint December 1971).
19-12
-------
19.0 Best Management Practices
6. Kleyhans, C.J., G.W. Schulz. J.S. Engelbrecht, and F.J. Rousseau. The Impact of a
Paper Mill Effluent Spill on the Fish Populations of the Elands and Crocodile Rivers
(Incomati System, Transvaal). ISSN 0378-4738=Water SA, 18(2), April 1992.
7. Fox, M.E. Dehydroabietic Acid Accumulation by Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri)
Exposed to Kraft Mill Effluent. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 3 155-161, 1977.
8. Scroggins, R.P.. In-Plant Toxicity Balances for a Bleached Kraft Pulp Mill. Pulp &
Paper Canada, 87(9): T344-348, September 1986.
9. Personal Communication with John Carey, Rivers Research Branch, National Water
Research Institute, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, Canada,
May 19, 1992.
10. Servos, M., et. al. Impact of a Modern Bleached Kraft Mill on White Sucker
Populations in the Spanish River, Ontario. April 22, 1991. Unpublished.
11. Ingruber, ,O.V., M.J. Kocurek, and A. Wong, eds. Pulp and Paper Manufacture
(Third Edition): Volume 4 - Sulfite Science and Technology. Joint Textbook
Committee of the Paper Industry, TAPPI, Technology Park, Atlanta, Georgia, and
CPPA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 1985.
12. Springer, A.M. Industrial Environmental Control - Pulp and Paper Industry. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1986.
13. Spill Prevention and Control Aspects of Paper Industry Wastewater Management
Programs. Technical Bulletin No. 276. National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., August 1974.
14. Personal Communication with J. Floyd Byrd, Lawrenceburg, Indiana, August 31,
1992.
15. Sikes, J.E.G. and S. Almost. Black Liquor Spill Control at Terrace Bay. Pulp and
Paper Canada, 87(12):T496-500, December 1986.
19-13
-------
Table 19-1
Quantified Effluent Reduction Benefits from Kraft Mill
Black Liquor Spill Prevention and Control
Effluent
Characteristic
Flow, m3/ADMT(
BODi, kg/ADMT
TSS, kg/ADMT
Dissolved Solids, kg/ADMT
Sodium, kg Na-jSO^ADMT
Toxic Contribution, TU m3/ADMT
March
1992,
135
40
8.6
200
146
1,060
July
1985
106
29
5.3
145
108
335
Percent
Reduction
21%
27%
38%
27%
26%
68%
Source: (15).
Note: TU - Toxic Units calculated as the reciprocal of the LC^ using static bioassays multiplied by 100. Toxic
Units were converted to Toxic Contribution in m3/ADMT by multiplying the Toxic Units by the flow
of the effluent and dividing by mill production. Bioassays were conducted using juvenile rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdneri).
19-14
-------
20.0 Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
20.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER
This report has 'been reviewed and approved for publication by the Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology. This report was prepared with the
support of Radian Corporation (Contract No. 68-CO-0032) under the direction and review
of the Office of Science and Technology. Neither the United States Government nor any
of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warrant,
expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use
of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in
this report, or represents that its use by such party would not infringe on privately owned
rights.
20-1
-------
-------
21.0 Glossary
21.0
GLOSSARY
104-Mill Study - Study of 104 chemical pulp mills with chlorine bleaching operations
conducted during 1988 and 1989 for the purpose of determining levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
2,3,7,8-TCDF in bleached pulps, treated wastewater effluents and wastewater treatment
sludges. The study was conducted by the paper industry under direction by NCASI in
accordance with EPA-approved protocols. Also known as the U.S. EPA/Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study.
1990 Census - The 1990 National Census of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing
Facilities. A questionnaire submitted by EPA to all facilities in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry in October 1990 to gather technical and financial information. (Also
referred to in this document as the 1990 questionnaire).
Abaca - Plant (Musa textiles), related to the banana, used as a non-wood fiber furnish. Also
known as Manila hemp.
Acid filtrate - Process wastewater from the acid bleach plant stages, (e.g., chlorine, chlorine
dioxide, or hypochlorite stages).
Active chlorine multiple (ACM) - The ratio of total chlorine (from molecular chlorine and
chlorine dioxide) in the first bleaching stage (expressed as percent of pulp) to Kappa
number of the pulp entering the first bleaching stage.
i
Administrator - The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Agency - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Air dry pulp - Pulp with a moisture content of 10 percent by weight.
Alkaline extraction - The second stage in a pulp bleaching sequence where the first stage
is chlorination (in which chlorine and/or chlorine dioxide are added and allowed tcx react
with the pulp slurry). The resulting chlorinated fiber residuals and other alkali-soluble
constituents are then dissolved in the second or "alkaline" extraction stage; also, caustic
extraction stage, or "E"-stage.
Alkaline filtrate - Process wastewater from the pulp washing operations following alkaline
bleach plant stages. See also caustic filtrate.
Annual average - The mean concentration, mass loading or production normalized mass
loading of a pollutant over a period of 365 consecutive days (or such other period of time
determined by the permitting authority to be sufficiently' long to encompass expected
21-1
-------
21.0 Glossary
variability of the concentration, mass loading or production-normalized mass loading at the
relevant point of measurement).
Average monthly discharge limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily discharges"
over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during the
calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the month.
Backwashing - The operation of cleaning a rapid sand or mechanical filter by reversing the
flow of water or liquid that is being filtered.
Bagasse - Sugarcane residual from the manufacturing of sugar consisting of crushed stalk
from which paper pulp can be made.
Batch digester - A pressurized cooking vessel in which predetermined, specific amounts of
wood and cooking liquor are heated so that the dissolving of the wood into pulp is
completed and the pulp is removed before the cycle repeats, as opposed to a continuous
digester.
Batch system - A pulp and paper manufacturing unit process consisting of a series of
operating units which process pre-determined specific amounts of materials and carry the
process to completion before starting another cycle.
Black liquor - Spent pulping liquor from the digester prior to its incineration in the recovery
furnace of a sulfat'e (kraft) recovery process. It contains dissolved organic wood substances
and residual active alkali compounds from the pulping process.
Bleach plant - All process equipment beginning with the first application of bleaching agents
(e.g., chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, peroxide), each
subsequent extraction stage, and each subsequent stage where bleaching agents are applied
to the pulp. A limited number of mills produce specialty grades of pulp using hydrolysis or
extraction stages prior to the first application of bleaching agents. The bleach plant includes
those pulp pretreatment stages. Oxygen delignification prior to the application of bleaching
agents is not part of the bleach plant.
Bleach plant effluent - The total discharge of process wastewaters from the bleach plant
from each physical bleach line operated at the mill, comprising separate acid and alkaline
filtrates or the combination thereof.
Bleach sequence - Sequence in which chemicals are used to bleach pulp.
Bleach tower - Usually tall, cylindrical retention vessel where pulp, mixed with the bleaching
agent, is retained the required time for the bleaching action to be completed in a continuous
21-2
-------
21.0 Glossary
system of pulp bleaching. An upflow-type is used when bleaching low consistency pulp, and
a downflow-type is used when bleaching medium and higher consistency pulp. Also referred
to as a bleaching tower.
Bleach washer - A filter (washer) located after a bleach tower in the bleaching sequence of
pulp where the pulp is washed free of the residual bleaching agent and the products of the
bleaching action.
Bleached pulp - Pulp that has been purified or whitened by chemical treatment to alter or
remove coloring matter and has taken on a higher brightness characteristic.
Bleaching - The process of further delignifying and whitening pulp by chemically treating
it to alter the coloring matter and to impart a higher brightness.
Bleaching agent - A variety of chemicals used in the bleaching of pulp such as chlorine (C12),
sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2), chlorine dioxide (C1O2),'
peroxide (H2O2), • oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and others. Also referred to as bleaching
chemical.
Bleaching stage - One of the unit process operations in which a bleaching chemical or
combination of chemicals is added in the sequence of a continuous system of bleaching pulp.
Boiler - Any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful energy in the form of steam
and is not an incinerator.
Brightening - Chemical modification'of colored elements in high-yield pulps to render them
colorless without removing them. Also, the final chlorine dioxide (D) stages of a traditional
high-brightness kraft bleaching sequence (CEHDED).
Brightness - As commonly used in the paper industry, the reflectivity of a sheet of pulp,
paper, or paperboard for specified light measured under standardized conditions, relative
to a magnesium oxide standard.
Broke - Partly or completely manufactured paper that does not leave the machine room as
salable paper or paperboard; also, paper damaged in finishing operations such as rewinding
rolls, cutting and trimming.
Brown stock - Pulp, usually kraft sulfite or groundwood, not yet bleached or treated other
than in the pulping process.
21-3
-------
21.0 Glossary
Caustic extraction - A stage in the pulp bleaching sequence (E) that normally follows the
chlorination stages to remove alkali-soluble, chlorinated lignins. (See alkaline extraction and
extraction stage)
Caustic filtrate - Process wastewater from the caustic bleach plant stages. See also alkaline
filtrate.
Causticizing - Converting green liquor to white liquor by the use of slaked lime [Ca(OH)2]
which reacts with the sodium carbonate (NajCC^) in the green liquor to form active sodiunv
hydroxide (NaOH). Also called recausticizing.
Cellulose - The chief substance in the cell walls of plants used in pulp manufacturing. It is
the fibrous substance that remains after the nonfibrous portions, such as lignin and some
carbohydrates, are removed during the cooking and bleaching operations of a pulp mill.
Chemical pulp - The mass of fibers resulting from the reduction of wood or other fibrous
raw material into its component parts during the cooking phases with various chemical
liquors, in such processes as sulfate, sulfite, soda, NSSC, etc.
' i
Chemical recovery - The recovery of chemicals from spent pulping liquor after it is used to
cook wood in the digester.
Chipper - A piece of equipment in the woodyard/pulp mill area used to slice whole logs
into chips. It consists of an enclosed, rapidly revolving disk fitted with surface-mounted
knives against which the logs are dropped in an endwise direction in such a manner that
they are reduced to chips, diagonally to the grain.
Chlorination - (1) The mixing and reacting of chlorine water or gas with pulp in the
bleaching operation. (2) The application of chlorine to mill water supply and sewage for
disinfection or oxidation of undesirable compounds.
Chlorination stage - The step in a multi-stage bleaching process ("C" stage) where chlorine
water or gas is mixed, allowed to react, and then washed as an initial operation in a
complete pulp bleaching system.
i
Chlorinator - A device for adding a chlorine-containing gas or liquor to mill wastewater.
Sometimes the term is also used to refer to the chlorine mixer in the bleach plant.
Chlorine - A greenish-yellow, poisonous, gaseous chemical element
pulp and water purification in a pulp and paper mill.
used in bleaching
21-4
-------
21.0 Glossary
Chlorine consumption - Actual amount of chlorine consumed to bleach pulp, expressed as
kilograms of chlorine used per air dry metric ton of pulp bleached, or a percentage on the1
same basis. It may also be expressed on a bone dry basis.
Chlorine dioxide generation - Chemical reduction of sodium chlorate under controlled
conditions to generate chlorine dioxide. Chlorine (C12) is a. by-product of this reaction.
Several different processes are used to generate chlorine dioxide. The chlorine content of
the chlorine dioxide varies with the process used.
Chlorine dioxide stage - The step or steps in a multi-stage bleaching process ("D" stages)
where chlorine dioxide solution is mixed with pulp, allowed to react, and then washed as one
of the operations making up a complete pulp bleaching system. See brightening.
Chlorine evaporator - A specially constructed, thermostatically controlled vessel using hot
water or steam to vaporize liquid chlorine transferred from tank cars to a pulp mill bleach
plant. This vaporized product is a gas used in the chlorination stage of a bleaching process,
as well as to make up hypochlorite bleaching liquor. Also called chlorine vaporizer.
Chlorine mixer - A mixing device used in the bleach plant to mix chlorine water or gas with
unbleached pulp.
Chlorine requirement - The amount of elemental chlorine (C12) required to achieve a
specified final brightness level of pulp in the bleaching process. It is supplied in the form
of elemental chlorine and/or bleaching agents such as hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, etc.
Clarifier - A treatment unit designed to remove suspended materials from wastewater,
typically by sedimentation.
Closed vent system - A system that is not open to the atmosphere and is composed of
piping, ductwork, connections, and, if necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport gas or
vapor from an emission point to a control device.
Combustion device - An individual unit of equipment, including but not limited to, an
incinerator, lime kiln, recovery furnace, or boiler, used for the thermal oxidation of organic
hazardous air pollutant vapors.
Complete recycle - A system where the sum of fresh water and water entering the system
in raw material is equal to the sum of water exiting the system via evaporation or
vaporization, water in the final product, and water included in any reject streams from
screening, including sludges. There is no direct or indirect discharge of wastewater to
surface waters, nor is there any land application, surface impoundment, or other land
disposal of wastewater effluents.
21-5
-------
21.0 Glossary
Condensate - Any material that has condensed from a gaseous phase into a liquid phase.
Consistency - Mass or weight percent of bone dry fiber in a stock. Smook (1) provides the
following guide to qualitative consistency descriptions:
low consistency 1'- oyo
medium consistency 8-16%
high consistency 16 - 40%
Continuous digester - A wood-cooking vessel in which chips are reduced to 'their fiber
components using suitable chemicals under controlled temperature and pressure in a
continuous operation.
Continuous discharge - Discharge that occurs without interruption throughout the operating
hours of the facility.
Controlled-release discharge - A discharge that occurs at a rate that is intentionally varied
to accommodate fluctuations in receiving stream assimilative capacity or for other reasons.
Conventional pollutants - The pollutants identified in sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA and the
regulations thereunder (biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS),
oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH).
Converting mill - A facility that purchases paper for converting into marketplace products
(e.g., boxes, paper plates, etc.).
Cooking liquor - Chemical solution added to digesters to reduce chips into their fiber
components by dissolving the cementing material, usually lignin, thereby forming pulp.
Cotton linters - The shorter length cotton fibers used to make a high quality dissolving pulp
used in the manufacture of cellulose derivatives.
Countercurrent washing - (1) Method of washing pulp by running the wash water
countercurrent to the flow of pulp through the process. Examples include countercurrent
intra-stage washing in a multi-stage bleaching process (to minimize effluent) and the
countercurrent flow of wash water to pulp flow on vacuum-type brown stock washers (to
mininiize water use and maximize black liquor recovery). (2) The washing of pulp within
a Kamyr continuous digester (before blowing) in which the wash water flows countercurrent
to the pulp flow in the process.
Daily discharge - The discharge of a pollutant measured during any calendar day or any 24-
hour period that reasonably represents a calendar day. For pollutants with limitations
21-6
-------
21.0 Glossary
expressed as mass, the daily discharge is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant
discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of
measurement, the daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant
over the day.
Decker - A piece of equipment used to thicken or reduce the water content of the pulp
slurry after the pulp washer system.
Deinking - The processing of printed and other used, reclaimed waste paper by mechanical
disintegration, chemical treatment, washing, and bleaching in order to remove ink and other
undesirable materials so that it can be reused as a source of papermaking fiber.
Delignification - The process of degrading and dissolving away lignin and/or hemicellulose.
Dewater - (1) The tendency of solids in a slurry to aggregate and cause the draining of water
from standing or flowing sludge or pulp slurry in a pipeline, sometimes to the point where
the remaining solids become thick enough to make removal difficult, or to obstruct free flow
through the line or a restriction such as a valve. (2) The process by which some of the
water is removed from the pulp stock, increasing the consistency.
Digester - A pressure vessel used to chemically treat chips and other cellulosic fibrous
materials such as straw, bagasse, rags, etc., under elevated temperature and pressure in
order to separate fibers from each other.
Digester system - Each continuous digester or each set of batch digesters used for the
chemical treatment of wood, including associated flash tank(s), blow tank(s), chip
steamer(s), condenser(s), and pre-hydrolysis unit(s).
Direct discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge treated or untreated process
wastewaters, non-contact cooling waters, or non-process wastewaters (including stormwater
runoff) into waters of the United States.
Dry end operation - The process on the paper machine in which paper sheet moisture is
removed by evaporation.
Effluent - Wastewater discharges.
Effluent limitation - Any restriction, including schedules of compliance, established by a
State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable
waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean.
21-7
-------
21.0 Glossary
Emission - Passage of air pollutants into the atmosphere via a gas stream or other means.
Emission point - Any location within a source from which air pollutants are emitted,
including an individual process vent, opening within a wastewater collection and treatment
system, or an open piece of process equipment.
Enhanced delignification - See extended delignification.
EOF (End-of-pipe) effluent - Final mill effluent discharged to waters of the United States
or to a. POTW. .
EOF (End-of-pipe) treatment - Treatment facilities or systems used to treat process
wastewaters, non-process wastewaters and/or stormwaters after the wastewaters have left
the process area of the facility and prior to discharge. End-of-pipe treatment generally does
not include facilities or systems where products or by-products are separated from process
wastewaters and returned to the process or directed to air emission control devices (e.g.,
pulping liquor spill prevention and control systems, foul condensate stripping systems, paper
machine save-alls).
Extended cooking - Modifications to traditional pulping processes to produce pulp of lower
Kappa number while increasing pulp strength and maintaining or increasing pulp yield.
Extended cooking modifications are available for both batch and continuous kraft pulping
processes. By maintaining a more uniform active chemical concentration during the cook,
more lignin is dissolved with less damage to the wood fiber cellulose than in traditional kraft
pulping.
Extended delignification - A process that enables a mill to lower the Kappa number of the
pulp entering the bleach plant further than is possible with traditional pulping technology.
Extended delignification can be in the form of extended cooking or oxygen delignification.
Extraction stage - That stage hi a multi-stage pulp bleaching operation ("E" stage), usually
following the chlorination stage, hi which sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is used to remove
water insoluble chlorinated lignin and other colored components not removed in an
intermediate washing operation. Also referred to as the caustic stage or alkaline extraction
stage.
Extractives - Woody plant components which are not part of the cell wall structural
elements and can be removed with neutral solvents such as ether, alcohol, and water. Also
referred to as extraneous components of wood.
Fiber furnish - Raw materials used to manufacture market pulp, paper, or paperboard.
21-8
-------
21.0 Glossary
Fine papers - High-quality writing, printing, and cover-type papers having excellent pen and
ink writing surface characteristics.
Fines - Very small fibers and fiber fragments that readily pass through a filter wire cloth.
Finishing - Processing of paper after the papermaking operations are completed, including
super calendaring, slitting, rewinding, trimming, sorting, counting, and packaging prior to
shipment from the paper mill.
First stage - A reference to the first stage of a multi-stage pulp bleaching operation, which
traditionally has been a chlorination stage (C stage). Recent technological developments
have introduced other chemicals for use in the first stage, including chlorine dioxide and
ozone.
Five-Mill Study - U.S. EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study conducted
during 1985 and 1986 at five bleached kraft pulp and paper mills for the purpose of
determining the process sources of CDDs and CDFs. The study results were published in
1988 (U.S. EPA Paper Industry Dioxin/Cooperative Screening Study, EPA-440/1-88-025,
March 1988).
Flow indicator - A device that indicates whether gas flow is present in a closed vent system.
Fluff pulp - Bleached pulp further processed into fluff by dry fiberization and made into
disposable diapers, feminine care products, hospital wads, and various types of tissue and
towels.
Free chlorine - Elemental chlorine in the pulp bleaching process which is in solution and
not compounded with lignin elements in chlorinated pulp slurries.
Green Liquor - A solution made by dissolving the sodium and sulfur-containing smelt from
the kraft recovery process prior to causticizing.
Groundwood - Pulp and paper made up of mechanically separated fibers produced by the
grinding of pulpwood.
Hardwood - Pulpwood from broad-leaved dicotyledonous deciduous trees, such as birch,
aspen, oak, etc.
Hemicellulose - The alkali-soluble, noncellulosic polysaccharide portion of the wood cell
wall.
21-9
-------
21.0 Glossary
Hemp - Annual plant (Cannabis sativa) used as a non-wood fiber furnish. The blast fibers
are separated from the stalks in the same manner as for flsix.
High-temperature bleaching - Operating the bleaching stages (hypochlorite or chlorine
dioxide) of a multi-stage pulp bleaching system at temperatures higher than considered
conventional.
High-temperature chlorination - Operating the first bleaching stage (chlorination) of a
multi-stage pulp bleaching process at higher temperatures (usually 110°F to 120 °F) than
considered conventional (less than 80°F).
Hypochlorite - Reducing-type of bleaching chemical, usually in the form of calcium
hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) or sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), used extensively in the bleaching
of chemical pulps.
Hypochlorite stage - The step or steps ("H" stages) in a multi-stage bleaching process in
which hypochlorite bleaching chemicals (usually calcium or sodium hypochlorite) are mixed
with pulp and allowed to react.
Incinerator - An enclosed combustion device that is used for destroying organic compounds.
Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat waste gas to combustion temperatures. Any energy
recovery section present is not physically formed into one manufactured or assembled unit
with the combustion section; rather, the energy recovery section is a separate section
following the combustion section and the two are joined by ducts or connections carrying
flue gas.
Indirect discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge wastewaters into a publicly
owned treatment works or a treatment works not owned by the discharging facility.
Industrial POTW - Any POTW receiving more than 50 percent of its influent flow or more
than 50 percent of its BOD5 or TSS wastewater load from a facility subject to these
regulations.
Integrated mill - A mill that produces pulp and may use none, some, or all of that pulp
(often in combination with purchased pulp) to produce paper or paperboard products.
Integrated regulatory alternative - A set of control options comprising the technology bases,
for effluent limitations guidelines and national emission standards.
K number - One of two laboratory test values used for indirectly indicating the lignin
content, relative hardness, and bleachability of pulps. This value is more frequently used
for pulps having lignin contents below 6 percent, and tends to be pulp-specific. It is
21-10
-------
21.0 Glossary
determined by the number of milliliters of tenth normal permanganate solution (0.1
KMnO4) which is absorbed by 1 gram of oven dry pulp under specified conditions. Also
known as permanganate number.
Kappa number - One of two laboratory test values used for indirectly indicating the lignin
content, relative hardness, or bleachabih'ty of higher lignin content pulps. This value is more
frequently used for pulps with yields of 70 percent or more, and tends to be pulp-specific.
It is determined by the number of milliliters of tenth normal permanganate solution (0.1
KMnO4) which is absorbed by 1 gram of oven dry pulp under specified conditions, and is
then corrected to 50 percent consumption of permanganate.
Knotter - A device that removes knots or pieces of uncooked wood from pulp after the
digester system and prior to the pulp washer system. Equipment used to remove oversized
particles from pulp following the pulp washer is considered screens.
Kraft process - See Sulfate process.
Kraft cooking liquor (Kraft pulping liquor) - A chemical mixture consisting of sodium
hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium sulfide (NajS). It is used to cook wood chips and convert
them into wood pulp. Sometimes called sulfate cooking liquor.
Kraft digester - A pulpwood cooking vessel in which sulfate cooking liquor, consisting of
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium sulfide (Na2S) active chemicals, is used as the
cooking medium. ;
Kraft pulp - Wood pulp produced by the sulfate chemical process. Also known as sulfate
pulp.
Kraft recovery cycle - The series of unit processes in a sulfate pulp mill in which the spent
cooking liquor is separated from the pulp by washing, concentrated by evaporation,'
supplemented to make up for spent sodium, and burned to recovery other chemicals. These
recovered chemicals are converted to fresh cooking liquor by reacting them with lime in a
causticizing operation.
Lignin - A brown-colored organic substance which acts as an interfiber bond in woody
materials. It is chemically separated from cellulose during the chemical cooking process to
form pulp, and is removed along with other organic materials in the spent cooking liquor
during subsequent washing and bleaching stages.
Lime (CaO) - A pulp mill chemical obtained by burning limestone (CaCO3) and used to
prepare and regenerate cooking and bleaching liquors. It is used in recausticizing sulfate
21-11
-------
21.0 Glossary
and soda cooking liquors, and to make up milk of lime [Ca(OH)2] for the sulfite cooking
process.
Lime kiln - An enclosed combustion device used to calcine lime mud, which consists
primarily of calcium carbonate, into calcium oxide, which is known as quicklime and is used
again with green liquor to form white liquor.
Market pulp - Bleached or unbleached pulp in the form of bales or sheets for transfer or
sale off site.
Maximum daily discharge limitation - The highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant
measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a calendar
day.
Mechanical pulp - Pulp produced by reducing pulpwood logs and chips into their fiber
components by the use of mechanical energy (at CMP or CTMP mills, also with the use of
chemicals or heat), via grinding stones or refiners.
Method detection limit - The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured
and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyite concentration is greater than zero
and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte (see
40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B).
Metric ton - One thousand (103) kilograms (abbreviated as kkg), or one megagram. A
metric ton is equal to 2,204.5 pounds.
Minimum level - The level at which an analytical system gives recognizable signals and an
acceptable calibration point.
Multiple effect evaporator system - A series of evaporators, operated at different pressures
such that the vapor from one evaporator body becomes the steam supply for the next
evaporator, as well as the associated condenser(s) and hotwell(s) used to concentrate the
spent cooking liquid that is separated from the pulp.
New Source - Any building, structure, f acility, or installation from which there is or may be
a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which commences after the promulgation of
the standards being proposed today for the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry under sec.
306 of the CWA: See CWA §306.
Non-continuous or intermittent discharge - Discharge of wastewaters stored for periods of
at least 24 hours and released on a batch basis.
21-12
-------
21.0 Glossary
Nonconventional pollutants - Pollutants that are neither conventional pollutants nor priority
pollutants (see 40 CFR Section 401.15 and Part 423, Appendix A).
Non-detect value - A concentration-based measurement reported below the minimum level
that can reliably be measured by the analytical method for the pollutant.
Non-integrated mill - A mill that produces paper or paperboard from purchased pulp and
not from pulp produced on site.
Non-water quality environmental impact - An environmental impact of a control or
treatment technology, other than to surface waters.
Off-machine metric tons (OMMT) - Mass of final product, including coatings where
applicable, at the off-machine moisture content. For market pulp, the off-machine moisture
content is defined to be 10 percent moisture. OMMT is the production normalizing
parameter for end-of-pipe limitations for BOD5 and TSS.
Oven dry (OD) - Moisture-free conditions of pulp and paper and other materials used in the
pulp and paper industry. It is usually determined by drying a known sample to a constant
weight in a completely dry atmosphere at a temperature of 100°C to 105°C (212°F to
221 °F). Also called bone dry (BD).
Outfall - The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a mill effluent
discharges into receiving waters.
Oxygen delignification - An extended delignification process used after pulping and brown
stock washing and prior to bleaching. In this process, which can be used on both kraft and
sulfite pulps, oxygen gas is used in an alkaline environment to delignify pulp. Because
oxygen delignification typically precedes the application of chlorine, oxygen delignification
wastewaters can be rerouted to the pulping liquor recovery cycle.
Paper machine - The primary machine in a paper mill on which slurries containing fibers
and other constituents are formed into a sheet by the drainage of water, pressing, drying,
winding into rolls, and sometimes coating.
Permanganate number - See K number.
Peroxide - A short name for hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or sodium peroxide (NajOj).
Peroxide bleaching stage - A hydrogen peroxide bleaching step or steps ("P" stages)
sometimes used in the later part of the multi-stage chemical-bleaching sequence as one of
21-13
-------
21.0 Glossary
the operations making up the complete pulp-bleaching system. Sodium peroxide is also
occasionally used.
Point source category - An industrial source of water pollutants.
Pollutant (to water) - Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash,
sewage, garbage,'sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, certain
radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.
Pretreatment standard - A regulation addressing industrial wastewater effluent quality
required for discharge to a POTW.
Priority pollutants - The toxic pollutants listed in 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A.
Process changes - Alterations in process operating conditions, equipment, or chemical use
that reduce the formation of chemical compounds that are pollutants and/or pollutant
precursors.
Process unit - A piece of equipment, such as a pulp washer, decker, or filtrate tank,
associated with either the pulping process or the bleaching process.
Process wastewater - When used in connection with CWA obligations, any water which,
during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the
production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, byproduct,
or waste product. Process wastewater includes boiler blowdown; wastewaters from water
treatment and other utility operations; blowdowns from high rate (e.g., greater than 98
percent) recycled non-contact cooling water systems to the extent they are mixed and co-
treated with other process wastewaters; and, stormwaters from the immediate process areas
to the extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process wastewaters. Contaminated
groundwaters from on-site or off-site groundwater remediation projects are not process
wastewaters. The discharge of such groundwaters are regulated separately, or in addition
to, process wastewaters.
Process wastewater collection system - A piece of equipment, structure, or transport
mechanism used in conveying or storing a process wastewater stream. Examples of process
wastewater collection system equipment include individual drain systems, wastewater tanks,
surface impoundments, or containers.
Process water - Water used to dilute, wash, or carry raw materials, pulp, and any other
materials used in the manufacturing process.
21-14
-------
21.0 Glossary
Product - Completed material ready for sale or intra-company off-site transfer.
Production rate - For application to NPDES permits and pretreatment standards, defined
as the daily process-specific production rate used to apply to the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards in the proposed 40 CFR Part 430. Production shall be determined
based upon the highest annual production in the five years divided by the number of
operating days that year. See the General Provisions at 40 CFR §430.01 for production
normalizing parameters applied to the limitations and standards (included in the definition
of "product").
Pulp - A fibrous material produced by mechanically or chemically reducing woody plants
into their component parts from which pulp, paper, and paperboard sheets are formed after
proper slushing and treatment, or used for dissolving purposes (dissolving pulp or chemical
cellulose) to make rayon, plastics, and other synthetic products.
Pulp bleaching - The process of further delignifying and whitening pulp by chemically
treating it to alter the coloring matter and to impart a higher brightness.
Pulp cooking - The process of reacting fiber-containing materials with suitable chemicals,
usually under high temperature and pressure, in order to reduce them into their component
parts with the fiber portion separated in the form of pulp. More commonly known as
chemical pulping.
Pulp machine - Equipment used to remove moisture from pulp slurry to prepare the pulp
for shipment. The pulp machine is similar to a paper machine and consists of a formulating
section, pressing section, drying section, winders, and cutters. Sometimes referred to as a
pulp dryer.
Pulp mill - A plant in which pulp is mechanically or chemically produced from fibrous
materials such as woody plants, together with other associated processes such as pulp
washing and bleaching. Chemical preparation and cooking chemical recovery operations are
also conducted there.
Pulping - Conversion of raw materials into fibers that can be formed into a sheet.
Pulp washer - A piece of pulp mill equipment designed to separate soluble, undesirable
components in a pulp slurry from the acceptable fibers, usually by some type of screening
method combined with diffusion and displacement with wash liquors, utilizing vacuum or
the natural force of gravity.
Pulping component - For the NESHAP, all process equipment, beginning with the digester
system, up to and including the last piece of pulp conditioning equipment prior to the
21-15
-------
21.0 Glossary
bleaching component, including treatment with ozone, oxygen, or peroxide before the first
application of chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds.
Purchased pulp - Pulp purchased from an off-site facility or obtained from an intra-company
transfer from another site.
Recovery boiler - An enclosed combustion device where concentrated spent pulping liquor
is burned to recover sodium and sulfur, produce steam, and recover the heating value of
dissolved wood components in the liquor. Sometimes referred to as a recovery furnace.
Recovery plant - The area, building, or buildings where all of the process units considered
to be included hi the chemical recovery cycle of a pulp mill are located.
Red liquor - Sulfite pulping liquor.
Screen - A device that removes oversized particles from the pulp slurry after the pulp
washer system and prior to the papermaking equipment. Equipment used to remove
oversized particles prior to the pulp washer system is considered knotters.
Screen room - The area hi a pulp mill where unwanted particles called rejects or tailing are
separated from the accepted fibers with the use of equipment such as knotters, rifflers,
refiners, separators, thickeners, and flat or rotary screens. Closed screen room operation,
or screen room closure, refers to the elimination of wastewater discharge from knotting and
screening operations. It is generally accomplished through reusing the wastewater (screen
decker filtrates) as pulp dilution water ahead of the screens, or as wash liquor on a
preceding stage of washing.
Seal tank - A receiving tank located beneath vacuum-type washers and filters. Wash water
drops into it through a pipe and forms a seal to create a vacuum in the sheet-forming
cylinder portion of the unit. Sometimes referred to as a seal pit.
Secondary flber - Furnish consisting of recovered material. For the purposes of this
preamble, secondary fiber does not include broke but does include recycled paper or
paperboard known commonly as "post-consumer" recycled material. The term secondary
fiber is used both for the raw material (wastepaper, old corrugated containers, etc.) and the
pulp produced from the wastepaper and board.
Semi-bleached kraft (SBK) - Pulp made by the sulfate process which has not been bleached
to the extent that normally fully bleached pulp has.
Semi-bleached pulp - Pulp which has been only lightly bleached to what is ordinarily
considered a very low brightness range.
21-16
-------
21.0 Glossary
Semi-chemical pulp - Pulp made by cooking fibrous materials under pressure in a variety
of cooking liquors, including neutral sulfite/sodium carbonate (NSSC), sulfur free (sodium
carbonate), green liquor, and Permachem®. The cooked chips are usually mechanically
refined.
Skives - Small bundles of fibers that have not been separated completely in the pulping
operations.
Showers - Water jets or sprays used throughout pulp and paper mills to wash wire mesh
screens, wires, wet felts, and pulp pads on paper machines, cylindrical-type washers, pulp
screens, pulp drainers, etc.
Slaking/causticizing - A two-stage chemical process in the causticizing plant of an alkaline
pulp mill in which the sodium carbonate (NajCOg) in the green liquor is converted to
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to produce white liquor. The first stage is slaking, which consists
of the addition of lime (CaO) to green liquor where it reacts with water to form calcium
hydroxide [Ca(OH)2]. The second stage is causticizing, in which the calcium hydroxide
reacts with the sodium carbonate to form sodium hydroxide. '
Soda process - A chemical pulping process that consists of the reduction of chips to their
individual fiber components by use of cooking liquor made up of caustic soda (NaOH)
solution, the recovery and preparation of this liquor, or the treatment of pulp and paper
produced from it.
Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) - A strong alkali-type chemical used in making up cooking liquor
in alkaline pulp mills. It is commonly referred to in the mill as caustic or caustic soda.
Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) - A chemical used as one of the bleaching agents in multi-
stage pulp mill bleach plants. It is also used as the only bleaching agent at deink secondary
fiber mills and during the production of non-wood pulp by non-chemical means.
Softwood - Pulpwood obtained from evergreen, cone-bearing species of trees, such as pine,
spruce, hemlock, etc., which are characterized by having needles.
Source Category - A category of major or area sources of hazardous air pollutants.
Source Reduction - The reduction or elimination of waste generation at the source, usually
within a process. Any practice that 1) reduces the amount of any hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the
environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and 2)
reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such
substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
21-17
-------
21.0 Glossary
Spent liquor - Used cooking liquor in a chemical pulp mill which is separated from the pulp
after the cooking process. Spent liquor from kraft pulping is called black liquor. Spent
liquor from suMte pulping is called red liquor.
Stock preparation - The area of a paper mill where pulp is received from an on- or off-site
pulp mill, prepared for storage in slurry form, mechanically treated in beaters and refiners,
mixed with other pulps, additives, dyes, and chemicals, and then cleaned and generally
processed prior to sheet formation on the paper machine.
Stripper system - A column, and associated feed tanks, decanters, reboilers, preheaters,
condensers or heat exchangers, used to strip compounds from process wastewater, using an-
or steam. Steam strippers are generally used to control the release of volatile compounds
to the air from process wastewaters that contain high concentrations of such compounds.
For example, black liquor evaporator condensates containing high concentrations of
methanol are steam-stripped to control the emission of methanol to the air.
Subpart S - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Pulp and
Paper Production Source Category under Title 40, Chapter I, Part 63 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Sulfate process - An alkaline pulp manufacturing process in which the active chemicals of
the liquor used in cooking (digesting) wood chips to their component parts in a pressurized
vessel (digester) are sodium sulfide (Na2S) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) with sodium
sulfate (NaaSC^) and lime (CaO) being used to replenish these chemicals in recovery
operations. Also referred to as the kraft process.
Sulfate pulp - Fibrous material used in pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacture, produced
by chemically reducing wood chips into their component parts by cooking in a vessel under
pressure using an alkaline cooking liquor. This liquor consists of sodium sulfide (NajS) and
sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Also referred to as kraft pulp.
Sulfite process - An acid pulp manufacturing process in which chips are reduced to their
component parts by cooking (digesting) in a pressurized vessel using a liquor of calcium,
sodium, magnesium or ammonia salts of sulfurous acid.
Toxic pollutants - The pollutants designated by EPA as toxic in 40 CFR § 401.15. Also
known as priority pollutants.
Unbleached pulp - Pulp that has not been treated in a bleaching process.
Variability factor - The daily variability factor is the ratio of the estimated 99th percentile
of the distribution of daily values divided by the expected value, or mean, of the distribution
21-18
-------
21.0 Glossary
of the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated 95th percentile of the
monthly averages of the data divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
Washer - Pulp mill equipment designed to separate soluble, undesirable components in a
pulp slurry from the acceptable fibers. It usually consists of some type of screening method
combined with diffusion and displacement with wash liquid, utilizing vacuum, or the natural
force of gravity.
Waters of the United States - As defined in 40 CFR §122.2. This definition includes all
waters that are currently used, may be used in the future, or were used in the past, in
interstate or foreign commerce (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide)
and adjacent wetlands.
Wet end operation - The process on the paper machine in which the sheet is formed from
the stock furnish and most of the water is removed before the sheet enters the dryer section.
White liquor - A solution of kraft pulping liquor chemicals. White liquor can be made by
re-causticizing green liquor, produced in the kraft recovery cycle, with slaked lime.
White water - Waters formed when stock or other fiber-bearing suspensions are dewatered.
Wood preparation - Those operations to prepare wood for pulping, including removal of
bark from logs, converting them into chips, and chip screening.
Zero discharge (ZD) - No discharge of wastewater to waters of the United States or to a
POTW.
Reference
Smook, G.A. Handbook of Pulp and Paper Terminology: A Guide to Industrial and
Technological Usage. Angus Wilde Publications, Vancouver, B.C. 1990.
21-19
-------
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
22.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVERSIONS
22.1 Abbreviations
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
A
ACM
ACT
AFPA
APHA
AQ
AOX
API
ASB
BAT
BCT
BCTMP
BID
BMP
BOD5
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
bleach sequence symbol for treatment with acid
active chlorine multiple
activated sludge wastewater treatment
American Forest and Paper Association (formerly the American
Paper Institute and the National Forest Products Association)
American Public Health Association
anthraquinone
Adsorbable organic halides. A bulk parameter which measures the
total chlorinated organic matter in wastewater.
American Paper Institute (Now AFPA)
aerated stabilization basin
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
. bleached chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp
Background Information Document: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Industry-Background Information for Proposed Air Emission
Standards (October, 1993) .
Best Management Practices
Five day biochemical oxygen demand
22-1
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
BPJ
BPK
BPT
C
CAA
CAPDET
CBI
CDDs
CFR
CMN
CMP
COD
CP
CTMP
CVAA
CWA
D
DAP
DBD
DBF
best professional judgment
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills
Best Practicable Control Technology
bleach sequence symbol for chlorine stage
Clean Air Act
computer assisted procedure for design and evaluation of
wastewater treatment systems
confidential business information
chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
chlorinated dibenzofurans
Code of Federal Regulations
corrugated, molded and newsprint
chemi-mechanical pulp
chemical oxygen demand
chlorinated phenolic compound
chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp
cold vapor atomic absorption
Clean Water Act
bleach sequence symbol for chlorine dioxide stage
dissolved air flotation
dibenzo-p-dioxin
dibenzofuran
22-2
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
DK
DOX
E
BAD
ECF
ECU
EMCC*
BOX
EPA
ESAB
FID
F/M
FR
GC
GCM
GFAA
GPC
H
HAP
HPLC
dissolving kraft mills
dissolved organic halides
bleach sequence symbol for extraction stage
Engineering and Analysis Division
elemental chlorine-free
electrochemical unit
extended modified continuous cooking, a registered trademark of
Kamyr, Inc.
extractable organic halides
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Economic and Statistical Analysis Branch
flame ionization detector
food to microorganism ration (concentration BOD5 4- concentration
of mixed liquor volatile suspended solids)
Federal Register
gas chromatography
gaseous chlorine multiple
graphite furnace atomic absorption
gel permeation chromatography
bleach sequence symbol for hypochlorite stage
Hazardous Air Pollutant
high pressure liquid chromatography
22-3
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
HRGC
HRMS
HW
ICP
IU
LRGC
LRMS
ISO
LTA
LTS
MACT
MCC*
MDL
MEK
ML
MLSS
MLVSS
MS
N
NA
N/A
high resolution gas chromatography
high resolution mass spectrometry
hardwood
inductively coupled plasma
industrial user (synonym for "indirect discharger")
low resolution gas chromatography
low resolution mass spectrometry
Internatiorial Organization for Standardization
long-term average
long-term study
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
modified continuous cooking, a registered trademark of Kamyr, Inc.
method detection limit
methyl ethyl ketone (2-butanone)
minimum level
mixed liquor suspended solids
mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
mass spectrometry
bleach sequence symbol indicating the absence of a washing stage
not applicable
not available
22-4
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
NCASI
ND
ND
NESHAP
NPDES
NR
N/R
NRDC
NSPS
NSSC
o
O&M
OAR
OMB
OPPT
OW
OX
P
PCB
PCP
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc.
not detected
not disclosed to prevent compromising confidential business
information
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
npt reported
not required
Natural Resources Defense Council
New Source Performance Standards
Neutral Sulfite Semi-Chemical
bleach sequence symbol for oxygen stage
operating and maintenance
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Office of Water
organic halides
bleach sequence symbol for peroxide stage
polychlorinated biphenyl
pentachlorophenol
22-5
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
pH
PNF
PNP
POTW'
POX
PSES
PSNS
Q
QA
QC
RBC
RDH*
S
SCC
SDS
SIC
SID
STFI
STS
SVP
SW
negative logarithm of the effective hydrogen-ion concentration hi
moles per liter, a measure of acidity
production normalized flow
production normalizing parameter
publicly owned treatment works
purgeable organic halides
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
bleach sequence symbol for acid chelarit stage
quality assurance
quality control
rotating biological contactor
rapid-displacement heating, a registered trademark of Beloit Corp.
bleach sequence symbol for sodium bisulfite
Sample Control Center
Soxhlet/Dean-Stark apparatus
Standard Industrial Classification
survey identification number
Swedish Forest Products Research Institute
short-term study
single vessel process used in chlorine dioxide generation
softwood
22-6
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
TAG
TCP
TCP
TEF
TOC1
TOX
TRS
TSS
UBK
UP
VOC
W
X
Z
22.2 Units of Measure
ADMT air dry metric ton
total annualized cost
totally chlorine-free
trichlorophenol
toxicity equivalency factor
total organic chlorine
total organic halides
total reduced sulfur
total suspended solids
unbleached kraft mills
ultrafiltration
volatile organic compound
bleach sequence symbol for washing stage
bleach sequence symbol for enzyme stage
bleach sequence symbol for ozone stage
ADT
BTU
fg
g
kg
air dry (short) ton
British Thermal Unit
femtogram
gram
kilogram
22-7
-------
22.0 Abbreviations and Conversions
kkg
kPa
L
m3
mg
MOD
ng
OMMT
OMT
1000 kilograms = 1 metric ton = 1 megagram
kilopascal
liter
cubic meter
milligram
million gallons per day
nanogram
off-machine metric ton
off-machine (short) ton
pg picogram
ppb part per billion
ppm part per million
ppq part per quadrillion
ppt part per trillion
fig microgram
223 Unit Conversions
Table 22-1 presents mass and concentration unit conversions used throughout this
document.
22-8
-------
Table 22-1
Units of Measurement
Mass Units
Unit
Metric ton
Kilogram
Gram
Milligram
Microgram
Nanogram
Picogram
Femtogram
Unit Abbreviation
kkg
kg
g
mg
Mg
Qg
Pg
fg
Equivalent Mass in Grams
1,000,000
1,000
1
0.001
0.000001
0.000000001
0.000000000001
0.000000000000001
Concentration Units
Unit Abbreviation
ppm (10-*)
ppb (10-9)
ppt (10-12)
ppq (io-ls)
Liquids
mg/L
Mg/L
ng/L
Pg/L
Solids
mg/kg = /ig/g
Mg/kg = ng/g
ng/kg = pg/g
pg/kg = fg/g
Notes: (1) For liquids, conversions from metric concentration unit to ppm, ppb, ppt, and ppq are
approximate.
(2) 1.0 kg = 2.2046 Ibs.
Source: American Petroleum Institute
Publication No. 4506, March 1990
22-9
-------
-------
Appendix A
Listing of Revised Subcategories
in Which Each Mill Reported
Production in 1989
A-l
-------
-------
Appendix A
Listing of Revised Subcategories in Which
Each Mill Reported Production in 1989
Facility Name
AHLSTROM FILTRATION INC
AHLSTROM FILTRATION INC
AHLS1 KUM PlLTKATlON INC
ALABAMA. PINE PULP
ALABAMA RIVER PULP CO
ALASKA PULP CORP
ALPHA CELLULOSE CORP
AMERICAN FIERir CO.
AMERICAN PAPER PRODUCTS CO
APPLBlON PAPERS INC
Ai^LKlUJN rAWKS INC
APPLKIUN PAPERS INC
ASHUELOT PAPER CO
ATLAS PAPER MILLS
ATLAS ROOFING CORP
AUGUSTA NEWSPRINT co
AUSTELL BOX BOARD CORP.
BJ FIBRES
BADGER PAPER MILLS INC
3 ADGER/GLOBE MILL
BALDWINVILLE PRODUCTS INC
BANNER flHKfiBOARD CO
JEAR ISLAND PAPER CO
BECKKH PAPER CO
BELOIT BOX BOARD CO
JEVERIDGE PAPER CO INC
BIG M PAPERBOARD
BLANDIN PAPER CO
5OISE CASCADE CORP
BOISE CASCADE CORP
BOISE CASCADE CORP
BOISE CASCADE CORP
BOISE CASCADE CORP
BOISE CASCADE CORP
BOISE CASCADE CORP
BOISE CASCADE CORF
BOWATER SOUTHERN PAPER CO
BOWAltK £>OtJ ThLERN PAPER CO
BRANDYWINE PAPERBOARD MILLS INC
BRUNSWICK PULP & PAPER CO/GEORGIA PACIFIC
BURROWS PAPER CORP - LYONSDALE DIV
BURROWS PAPER CORP.
BURROWS PAPER CORP.
BURROWS PAPER CORP.
C & A WALLCOVERINGS INC
CALIFORNIA PAPERBOARD CORP.
IAMDEN PAPERBOARD
CAROLINA PAPER BOARD CORP
CAROTELL PAPER BOARD CORP
CASCADE DIAMOND INC
:ASCADES INDUSTRIES INC
CASCADES NIAGARA FALLS INC
CELLU TISSUE CORP
:ELLULO co INC
UtluJl tA. UUKf.
CELOlttX CORP.
;ELOTEXCORP.
JELOTEXCORP.
CELOTEXCORP.
SRTAINTEED CORP
3JRTAINTEEDCORP
CHAMPION BVliiKNAliONAL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
:HAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CSly
CHATTANOOGA
MADISONVILLE
MOUNT HOLLY SPRINGS
PERDUE HILL
PURDUE HILL
SIIXA
LUMBERTON
BATTLE CREEK
EDEN
COMBINED LOCKS
ROARING SPRING
WEST CARROLLTON
HINSDALE
fflALEAH
MERIDIAN
AUGUSTA
AUSTELL
SANTA ANA
PESHllGO
NEENAH
ERVING
WELLSBURG
ASHLAND
HAMILTON
BELOIT
INDIANAPOLIS
PALMYRA
GRAND RAPIDS
DERIDDER
INTERNATIONAL FALLS
JACKSON
RUMFORD
ST HELENS
STEILACOOM
VANCOUVER
WALLULA
CALHOUN
CATAWBA
DOWNINGTOWN
BRUNSWICK
LYONS FALLS
LITTLE FALLS
UTTLE FALLS
PICKENS
PLATTSBURGH
STOCKTON
:AMDEN
CHARLOTTE
TAYLORS
[•HORNDKE
IOCKINGHAM
4IAGARA FALLS
EAST HARTFORD
TOESNO
CAMDEN
GOLDSBORO
rfARRERO
QUINCY
SAN ANTONIO
tOLAN
SHAKOPEE
JUCKSPORT
:ANTON
:ANTONMENT
XJURTLAND
>EFERIET
Slate
TN
KY
PA
AL
AL
AK
NC
MI
PA
WI
PA
OH
NH
FL
MS
GA
GA
CA
WI
WI
MA
WV
VA
OH
WI
IN
MI
MN
LA
MN
AL
ME
OR
WA
WA
WA
TN
SC
PA
3A
NY
NY
NY
VIS
NY
ZA
JC
«nr
:r
lA
AR
1C
.A
L
[X
3H
^N
ifE
JC
!L
AL
>4Y
ilu
A
bpa
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
rt
C
X
X
X
D
X
E
X
F
G
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
f
C
X
f
fi
X
I
X
X
X
X
3
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
X
X
<
<
<
X
X
{
f
f
X
f
X
X
C
C
C
r
C
r
C
x
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
C
x
I
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
f
X
f
A-2
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
Facility Nimc
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
CHASE PACKAGING CORP '
CHATTANOOGA PAPERBOARD CORP.
CHENEY PULP * PAPER CO
CHESAPEAKE CORP.
CHESAPEAKE PAPERBOARD CO
CHICAGO PAPERBOARD CORP.
ONONNATI PAPERBOARD CORP.
3JBANBRS HANGER CO
CLIMAX MFG. CO.
COLUMBIA CORP
COLUMBIA CORP
CONNELLY CONTAINERS
CONSOLIDATED PACKAGING CORP.
CONSOLIDATED PAPERS INC - BIRON DIVISION
CONSOLIDATED PAPERS INC -KRAFT DIVISION
CONSOLIDATED PAPERS INC - STEVENS POINT DIV
CONSGUDATED PAPERS INC- WISCONSIN RAPIDS DIV
CONSOLIDATED PAPERS INC- WISCONSIN RIVER DIV.
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTA&ffiR CORP. OF AMERICA
CONTAINER CORP. OF AMERICA
CONVERTERS PAPERBOARD CO.
CORNWALL PAPER MILLS
CORRUGATED SERVICES
COTTRELL PAPER CO INC
COY PAPER CO
CFMINC
CPMINC
CRANE & CO INC - BAYSTATE/MILL D
CRANB&CO KC-BYRON WESTONCO
CRANE & CO INC - PIONEERMILL C
CRANE*COINC.WAHCONAHI/MILLA
CRANB*CO mC-WAHCONAHD/MILLB
CROCKERTECHNICAL PAPERS INC
CRYSTALTISSUECO
OAISHOWA AMERICA co. LTD.
OAVBYCO
DAVEYCO
DAVEYCO
DEERFIELD SPECIALTY PAPERS INC fSIMPKEMS END)
DETROIT RIVER PAPER CO
DOMTARGYPSUM
DOMTAR GYPSUM
DOMTARGYPSUM
DUPONTSPECIALTY IMAGING MEDIA INC
BB EDDY PAPER INC
EASTERN FINE PAPER INC
EASTMAN KODAK CO/MILL A
EASTMAN KODAK CO/MILL B
EHV-WEIDMANN INDUSTIRES INC
aOUITABLEBAG CO INC
ERVINO PAPER MILLS
ESLEECK MANUFACTURING CO INC
FAIRFIELDPAPERCO.
4»EDERALFAPER BOARD CO.
FEDERAL PAPER BOARD CO.
City
HOUSTON
LUFKIN
NORWAY
ROANOKE RAPIDS
SARTELL
CHAGRIN FALLS
CHATTANOOGA
FRANKLIN
WEST POINT
BALTIMORE
CHICAGO
CINCINNATI
MASSILLON
CARTHAGE
CHATHAM
NORTH WALLOOMSAC
PHILADELPHIA
FORT MADISON
WISCONSIN RAPIDS
WISCONSIN RAPIDS
STEVENS POINT
WISCONSIN RAPIDS
STEVENS POINT
BREWTON
CARTHAGE
CIRCLEVILLE
FERNANDINA BEACH
PHILADELPHIA
SANTA CLARA
TACOMA
VERNON
WABASH
ROCKFORD
CORNWALL
FORNEY
ROCK CITY FALLS
CLAREMONT
CLAREMONT
ERYEGATE
DALTON
DALTON
DALTON
DALTON
DALTON
FITCHBURG
MIDDLETOWN
PORT ANGELES
AURORA
DOWNINGTOWN
JERSEY CITY
AUGUSTA
DETROIT
LOCKPORT
SANLEANDRO
VERNON
COLUMBUS
PORT HURON
BREWER
ROCHESTER
ROCHESTER
STJOHNSBURY
ORANGE
ERVING
TURNERS FALLS
BALTIMORE
AUGUSTA
RIEGELWOOD
State
TX
TX
MI
NC
MN
OH
TN
OH
VA
MD
EL
OH
OH
NY
NY
NY
PA
IA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
AL
IN
OH
FL
PA
CA
WA
CA
IN
MI
NY
TX
NY
NH
NH
VT
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
OH
WA
IL
PA
NJ
GA
MI
NY
CA
CA
OH
MI
ME
NY
NY
VT
TX
MA
MA
OH
GA
NC
A
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
u
E
V
X
X
o
X
X
X
[x~
X
X
H
X
X
X
X
1
X
J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5T
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
lx~
IX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A-3
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
Facility Name
FTOERWEB NORTH AMERICAN INC
MBKB fUKM UUKlf
FILTER MATERIALS - DIVISION OF A. GUSMER
FINCHPRUYN&COINC
FLAMBEAU PAPER
FLETCHER PAPER CO
FLOWER CITY TISSUE MILLS. CO
FONTANA PAPER MILLS INC
FORT HOWARD CORP
FORT HOWARD CORP
FORT HOWARD CORP
FORT ORANGE PAPER CO. INC
FOX RIVER PAPER CO. INC
FRANKLIN BOXBOARD CO.
FRASER PAPER LIMITED
FRENCH PAPER CO
FSC PAPER CO
G E ROBERTSuN & CO
G. S. ROOFING PRODUCTS
GAP BUILDING MATERIALS CORP
GARDEN STATE PAPER CO.
GAYLORD CONTAINER CORP.
GAYLORD CONTAINER CORP.
GEO A WHITING PAPER CO
GEORGIA BONDED FIBERS INC.
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORP - NEKOOS A PAPERS INC
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORP - NEKOOSA PAPERS INC
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
UUUKUlA-rAClFlC COKT
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
.HiUiMJIA-l'ACil'lC CUKT
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP
OILMAN PAPER COJSt. MARY'S KRAFT DIV.
GLOBE BUILDING MATERIALS INC
GREATNORTHERNPAPERCO
3REAT NORTHERN PAPER CO
3REAT SOUTHERN PAPER CO
GREEN BAY PACKAGING INC
UKUttN BAY PACKACiINCj 1IXU/AKKANSAS KKAJPT JLM V.
GREIF BOARD CORP
GULF STATES PAPER CORP
HALIFAX PAPERBOARD CO INC
HALLTOWN PAPERBOARD CO
HAMMERMILL PAPERS BUSINESS
HAMMERMILL PAPERS BUSINESS
HAMMERMILL PAPERS BUSINESS
HAMMERMILL PAPERS GROUP/RIVERDALE PLANT
HAVERHILL PAPERBOARD CORP.
HENNEPIN PAPER CO
HENRY MOLDED PRODUCTS INC
HOJLUNGSWORTH & VOSE CO.
HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE CO.
TOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE CO.
HOLLINGSWORTH & VOSE CO.
HULJJWUS WUKTtt & VOSJti CU.
HOMASOTECO
City
VERSAILLES
MILFORD
COLUMBIA Ull Y
WAUPACA
GLENS FALLS
PARK FALLS
ALPENA
ROCHESTER
FONTANA
GREEN BAY
MUSKOGEE
RINCON
CASTLETON-ON-HUDSON
APPLETON
FRANKLIN
MADAWASKA
NILES
ALSO?
HINSDALE
SHREVEPORT
MOBILE
GARFIELD
BOGALUSA
PINE BLUFF
MENASHA
BUENA VISTA
NEKOOSA
PORT EDWARDS
ARDMORE
BELUNGHAM
(JKUSSttlT
DELAIR
FRANKLIN
GARY
KALAMAZOO
MONTICELLO
PALATKA
PLATTSBURGH
PRYOR
TAYLORVILLE
TOLEDO
WOODLAND
ZACHARY
ST. MARY'S
CORNELL
EAST MILLINOCKET
MEilNOCKET
CEDAR SPRINGS
GREEN BAY
MORRILTON
MASSILLON
DEMOPOLIS
ROANOKE RAPIDS
HALLTOWN
ERIE
LOCK HAVEN
OSWEGO
SELMA
HAVERHILL
LITTLE FALLS
LEBANON
EASTWALPOLE
EASTON
GREENWICH
HAWKINSVILLE
WESTGROTON
WTRENTON
State
CT
NJ
IN
WI
NY
WI
MI
NY
CA
WI
OK
GA
NY
WI
OH
ME
MI
IL
NH
LA
AL
NJ
LA
AR
WI
VA
WI
WI
OK
WA
AR
NJ
OH
IN
MI
MS
FL
NY
OK
IL
OR
ME
LA
GA
WI
ME
ME
GA
WI
AR
OH
AL
NC
WV
PA
PA
NY
AL
MA
MN
PA
MA
NY
MY
GA
MA
NJ
Subpart
A
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
E
X
X
X
X
X
F
X
X
G
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A-4
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
Facility Name
HOWARD PAPER MILLS INC
HOWARD PAPER MILLS INC
INLAND CONTABffiR CORP.
INLAND CONTAINER CORP.
INLAND CONTAINER CORP.
INLAND CONTAINER CORP.
INLAND EMPIREPAPER CO
INLAND ROME INC
INLAND-ORANGE INC
NTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATIONALPAPERCO
INTERNATJONALPAPERCO
iNTBRNATKJNALPAPERCO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATiGNALPAPERCO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
&JTERNAT1ONALPAPERCO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO/WHITE PAPERS ORP
iNTEHSTATE CONTAINER CORP-INTERCORR DIVISION
INTERSTATE PAPER CORP
nr RAYONIER INC
m- RAYONIER INC
rrr RAYONIER INC
HT RAYONIER INC.- DIVISION GRAYS HARBOR
[VEX CORP.
rVEXCORP.
JACKSON PAPER MFC CO
JAMES RIVER CORP
TAMES RTVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
TAMES RIVER CORP
IAMBS RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP
JAMES RIVER CORP - CURTIS PAPER DIV
JAMES RIVER CORP - DUNN PAPER DIV
FAMES RIVER CORP -PEPPERELL DIV
FAMES RIVER CORP-FTTCHBURG
[AMES RIVER CORP/BERLIN MILL
JAMES RIVER CORPORATION-PORT HURON MILL
FAMES RIVER EL INC
(AMES RIVER-OTIS
FAMES RIVER-ROCHESTER INC
JAMES RIVER/MDLFORD MILL '
FAMES RIVER/WARREN GLEN MILL
FEFFERSON SMURFTT- INDUSTRIAL PKG DIV
FEFFERSONSMURFrrCORP.
FEFFERSON SMURtir U3RP.
rEFFERSONSMURFlTCORP.
FEFFERSON SMURFTT CORP.
FEFFERSONSMURFrrCORP.
IEFFBRSON SMURFTT PAPERBOARD MILL DIV
KERWIN PAPER CO
City
DAYTON
URBANA
NEWJOHNSONVILLE
NEWARK
NEWPORT
ONTARIO
SPOKANE
ROME
ORANGE
CAMDEN
CORINTH
GARDINER
GKORGKIUWN
JAY
MANSFIELD
MOBILE
MOSS POINT
NATCHEZ
PINE BLUFF
PINEVILLE
REDWOOD
TEXARKANA
TICONDEROGA
BASTROP
READING
RICEBORO
FERNANDINA BEACH
JESUP
PORT ANGELES
HOQUIAM
JOLIET
PEORJA
SYLVA
ADAMS
ASHLAND
CAMAS
CARTHAGE
CLATSKANIE
GOUVERNEUR
GROVETON
HALSEY
KALAMAZOO
OLD TOWN
PARCHMENT
PENNINGTON
RICHMOND
SOUTH GLENS FALLS
WEST LINN
NEWARK
WIGGINS
PEPPERELL
FTTCHBURG
BERLIN
PORT HURON
STFRANCISVILLE
LTVERMORE
ROCHESTER
MILFORD
WARREN GLEN
MONROE
ALTON
CEDARTOWN
JACKSONVILLE
LAFAYETTE
LOCKLAND
MUJLIlJiUjWN
APPLETON
State
OH
OH
TN
CA
IN
CA
WA
GA
TX
AR
NY
OR
sc
ME
LA
AL
MS
MS
AR
LA
MS
TX
NY
LA
PA
GA
FL
GA
WA
WA
IL
IL
NC
MA
WI
WA
NY
OR
NY
NH
OR
MI
ME
MI
AL
VA
NY
OR
DE
MS
MA
MA
NH
MI
LA
ME
MI
NJ
NJ
MI
IL
GA
FL
IN
OH
OH
WI
Subpjiit*
A
X
X
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
E
X
F
X
X
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
X
1
X
,
X
X
J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A-5
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
Facility Name
KH1XJHIKAN PULP CO
KJi YhiJ> VIBKU CO
KEYES PURE CO
KUYESJOBKiiCU
KEYES FIBRE CO
KEYES PUtKE CO
tunetfian VAVUK. MILLS iwu
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
•CIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP
KNOWLTON SPECIALTY PAPERS INC
LAKE SUPERIOR PAPER INDUS IKIES
-AKEV1EW MILL
LATEX MILL
LAUREL HILL, VAUUX. cO
LEAF RIVER FOREST PRODUCTS INC
LEATHERS ACK INDUSTRIES
LEATHERBACK INDUSTRIES
JiWISMILL
LINCOLN PULP & PAPER CO INC
LONGVIEW FIBRE CO
LOS ANGELES PAPER BOX AND BOARD MILLS
LGUISlANA-rAClPlC CUKT
LOWE PAPER CO/SIMKINS
AJNIJAY-THAUAKU KUOf IJNtr CO
LYDALLINC
LYDALLINC
LYDALLINC
LYDALLINC
LYDALL MANNING
LYONS FALLS PULP & PAPER INC
M H DIELECTRICS INC
M. JJ. VALENTINE PAeKK CO INC.
MACMUXAN BLOEDEL CORP./PULP * PAPER DIV.
MACON KRAFT INC
MADISON PAPER INDUSTRIES
MANCHESTER BOARD AND PAPER CO., INC
MANISTIQUE PAPERS INC
MANVIIXE FOREST PRODUCTS CORP
MARCAL PAPER MILLS INC
MARTISCO PAPER CO INC
MCINTYRE PAPER CO INC
MEAD COATED BOARD INC
ffiAD CORP - CHILLICOTHE MILL
MEAD CORP - LAUREL MILL
MEAD CORP - WILLOW MILL
MEAD CORP GILBERT PAPER DIVISION
MEAD CORP.
MEAD CORP.
MEAD CORP.
MENASHACORP
MENOMINEE PAPER CO INC
MERRIMAC PAPER CO INC '
MIAMI PAPER
MICHIGAN PAPERBOARD
NDDDLETON PACKAGING INC
MIDDLETOWN PAPERBOARD CO.
MIDTEC PAPER CORP
MOBILE PAPERBOARD CORP.
City
KETCHKAN
ALBERTVILLE
HAMMOND
SACRAMENTO
WATERVILLE
WENATCHEE
BROWNSTOWN
ANCRAM
BEECH ISLAND
COOS A PINES
FULLERTON
T.RR
MEMPHIS
MUNISING
NEENAH
NBWMILFOKD
SPOTSWOOD
WATERTOWN
JJULUTii
NEENAH
BEAVER FALLS
CORDOVA
NEW AUGUSTA
ALBUQERQUE
HOLL1STER
BEAVER FALLS
LINCOLN
LONGVIEW
LOS ANGELES
SAMOA
mLJGEPlKLjJ
SOUTH GATE
COVINGTON
HOOSICK FALLS
MANCHESTER
ROCHESTER
TROY
LYONS FALLS
MOUNT HOLLY SPRINGS
[jOCKPORT
MONTGOMERY
MACON
MADISON
RICHMOND
MANISTIQUE
VEST MONROE
3LMWOODPARK
MARCELLUS
?AYETTEVILLE
PHENKCITY
anmcoTHE
SOUTH LEE
SOUTHLEE
iffiNASHA
2SCANABA
UNGSPORT
STEVENSON
JISEGO
dENOMINEE
.AWRENCE
WESTCARROLLTON
JA1TLE CREEK
:rnr OF INDUSTRY
(ODDLETOWN
HMBERLY
GARWOOD
MOBILE
State
AK
AL
IN
CA
ME
WA
IN
NY
SC
AL
CA
MA
TN
MI
WI
CT
NJ
NY
MN
WI
NY
NC
MS
MM
CA
NY
ME
WA
£A
CA
SJ
^V
TN
MY
^T
>IH
«JY
«Y
?A
^A
AL
3A
HE
VA
rfi
JV
tr
«Y
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
F«c2itvNime
VK>HAWK PAPER MILLS INC
MOHAWK PAPER MILLS INC
^tUDNOCK PAPER MILLS INC
'dONROB PAPER CO.
'yfOSINEE PAPER CORP
lAtlCKPAPERBOARDCORP.
NATIONAL GYPSUM CO.
NATIONAL OYPSUM CO.
NATK3NALOYPSUMCO.
NBENAHPAPER
NEKOOSA PACKAOINO INC
NEKOOSA PACKAGING INC
NEKOOSA PACKAGING INC
NEKOOSA PAPERS INC
NBWARKATLANTICPAPERBOARD
fteWARKBOXBOARDCO
NEWARK PAPERBOARD CORP
NEWARK SIERRA PAPERBOARD CORP.
NEWMAN AND COMPANY INC
NEWSPR1NTSOUTH INC
NEWTON FALLS PAPER MILL INC
NIAGARA OP WISCONSIN PAPER CORP
NKXDLET PAPER CO.
NORFOLK PAPER CO
StORTH ENDPAPER CO
NVPCO
NVF CORPORATION
OHIO PULP MILLS INC
DRCIIIDS PAPER PRODUC1S CO.
f. H, GLATFELTER CO
P. H. GLATFELTER CO
P. H. GLATFELTER CO/ECUSTA CORP. DIV.
?ABCO PAPER
PACKAGING CO OF CALIFORNIA
PACKAGING CORP. OF AMERICA
PACKAGING CORP. OF AMERICA
PACKAGING CORP. OF AMERICA
PACKAG&
A
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C
X
X
X
D
2,
?
X
X
X
G
X
X
X
X
a.
X
X
[
X
X
X
X
X
J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
i
X
X
X
X
X
K"
X
X
X
X
X
*i
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A-7
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
Facility Name
PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER PRODUCTS CO
PROCTOR & GAMBLE
PROCTOR & GAMBLE CELLULOSE
PROCTOR & GAMBLE CELLULOSE/FLINT RIVER PLANT
PUTNEY PAPER CO INC
QUAKER OATS CO
3UIN-TCORP-NH
3UIN-TCORP-PA
RAND WHITNEY PAPERBOARD CORP.
READING PAPERBOARD CORP
RED HOOK PAPER CO
REPROCELL
REPUBLIC PAPERBOARD CO.
REPUBLIC PAPERBOARD CO.
RHINELANDER PAPER CORP INC
RISING PAPERDIV. OF FOX RIVER PAPER
ROBEL TISSUE MILLS INC
ROCK-TENNCO.
ROCK-TENNCO.
ROCK-TENNCO.
ROCK-TENNCO.
ROCK-TENNCO.
lOCK-TENNCO.
ROCK-TENN CORP.
ROGERS CORP. •
ID WARREN CO
!D WARREN CO
CHOELLER TECHNICAL PAPERS INC
COTT PAPER CO
COTTPAPERCO
iCUTi' PAPER CO
COTTPAPERCO
COTT PAPER CO
COTTPAPERCO
COTTPAPERCO
COTTPAPERCO
EALEDAIR
iEALEDAIR
IEALED AIR CORPORATION
EAMAN PAPER CO OF MASSACHUSETTS INC
IHRYOCK BROTHERS
IIERRATISSUEINC
IIMKINS INDUSTRIES INC.
IIMKINS INDUSTRIES INC.
ilMPLEX PRODUCTS GROUP
UMPUCrrYPATTERNCOINC
IIMPSON PAPER CO
IIMPSON PAPER CO
IIMPSON PAPER CO
IMPSON PAPER CO
IIMPSON PAPER CO
IIMPSON PAPER CO
IMPSON PAPER CO
ilMPSON PASADENA PAPER CO
IMPSON TACOMA KRAFT CO
1MURFTT NEWSPRINT . '
MURFIT NEWSPRINT CORP
VIURFrr NEWSPRINT CORP
ONOCO PRODUCTS OO
ONOCO PRODUCTS CO
ONOCO PRODUCTS CO
Chy
OXNARD
GREEN BAY
PERRY
OGLETHORPE
PUTNEY
PEKIN
TILTON
ERIE
MONTVILLE
READING
RED HOOK
SUN VALLEY
DENVER
HUTCHINSON
RHINELANDER
HOUSATONIC
PRYOR
CHATTANOOGA
CINCINNATI
DALLAS
DELAWARE WATER GAP
LYNCHBURG
DTSEGO
EATON
MANCHESTER
MUSKEGON
WESTBROOK
PULASKI
CHESTER
SVERETT
T EDWARD
MARINETTE
MOBILE
3CONTO FALLS
SKOWHEGAN
OTNSLOW
riODENA
'A1TERSON
JXTON
5ALDWINVILLE
X3WNINGTOWN
•OMONA
SATONSVILLE
•JEW HAVEN
XJNSTATINE
4ILES
ANDERSON
SUREKA
HLMAN
HQUON
•OMONA
UPON
1CKSBURG
ASADENA
•ACOMA
OMONA
IEWBURG
)REGONCnT
JTY OF INDUSTRY
OWNINGTOWN
[ARTSVDLLE
State
CA
WI
FL
GA
VT
DL
NH
PA
CT
PA
NY
CA
CO
KS
WI
MA
DK
TN
DH
TX
?A
VA
va
N
T
M
ME
«Y
?A
ffA
«Y
VI
\L
VI
AS,
AE
>A
NO
•A
dA
'A
'A
XD
T
ffl
a
"A
CA
rr
•A
CA
'A
a.
X
ITA
'A
>R
IY
•A
A
c
Subpaifc
A
X
K
X
<
(
(
C
'
(
<
a
c
•
(T
f
L
1i
>
X
X
<
<
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
f
f
<
<
f
c
c
c
f
f
f
f
f
•
K
X
c
f
f
c
f
r
•
k
>
>
X
if
X
X
X
X
If
?
f
f
<
f
f
r
A-8
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
MilyN«me
8ONOCO PRODUCTS CO
9ONOOO PRODUCTS CO
CONOCO PRODUCTS CO
SONOCO PRODUCTS CO
SONOCO PRODUCIS CO
9513CCb PRODUCIS CO
SONOCO PRODUCIS CO
SONOCO PRODUCTS CO - BOLTON PLANT
5ORO PAPER CO
SOUTHEASTPAPERMPGCO . .
SOUTHWORTHCO
SgAULDINO COMPOSITES CO
MOALTYPAPER BOARD
SPECIALTY PAPER MILLS INC ,
SPECIALTY PAFERBOARD INC.
stJOS FOREST PRODUCIS CO
rTATLER TISSUE CO
STEVENS AND THOMPSONPAPER CO INC
yrtMteCOOTAlNERCORP
TONE CONTAINER CORP .
STONE CONTAINER CORP
grONBCONTASreRCORP ,
STONE CONTAINER CORP
STONE CONTAINER CORP
TONE CONTAINER CORP
TONE CONTAINER CORP
TONE CONTAINER CORP
rfONBCOKrAlNBR CORP/SAVANNAH R1VBRDIV
TONE CONTAINER CORPgEMINOLE KRAFT CORP
TONE CONTAINER CORP/SNOWPLAKEMILLDIV
STRATHMORBPAPERCO.
STRATHMORBPAPERCO.
STRATHMORBPAPERCO. _
SWBBTWATER PAPER BOARD CO.
rAOSONS PAPERS INC
TALLMAN CONDUirCO
rAMKO ASPHALT PRODUCTS INC
FAMKO ASPHALT PRODUCTS OF KANSAS INC
rAMKOASPHALTPRODUCTSOFTENNESSEBINC
ffiMPLE-INLAND FOREST PROD. INC
TENNESSEE RIVER PULP APAPER
TEXQNUSA
THE DEXTER CORP ;
rHEWESTONPAPER AND MANUFACTURING CO
nflLMANYPULPAPAPERCO. .
US PACKAGING INC
OS, PAPER Mms CORP
UNION CAMP CORP.
ONION CAMP CORP.
UNION CAMP CORP. _
UNION CAMP CORP. .
LS GYPSUM CORPORATION
US OYPSUM CORPORATION
US OYPSUM CORPORATION
\JS GYPSUM CORPORATION
US OYPSUM CORPORATION
US OYPSUM CORPORATION
US PAPER MILLS INC
USO INDUSTRIES PAPERBOARD CO.
VIRGIMA FIBRE CORP
WRORACBACO
WALDORF CORPORATION t
WALDORF CORPORATION
WARD PAPER CO/INTERNATIONAL PAPER
WAUSAU PAPER MILLS co
SiS _
HOLYOKE
LANCASTER
MUNROEFALLS
NEWPORT
RICHMOND
ROCKTON
SUMMER
ATLANTA
MIDDLETOWN
DUBLIN
WEST SPRINGFIELD
TONAWANDA
BRATTLEBORO
SANTAFE SPRINGS
SHELDON SPRINGS
PORT ST JOE
AUGUSTA
MIDDLE FALLS
CHOSCHOCTON
FLORENCE
HODGE
HOPEWELL
MKSOULA
ONTONAGON
UNCASVILLE
YORK
PORTWENTWORTH
JACKSONVIT.T.E
SNOWFLAKE
RUSSELL
rURNERS FALLS
WESTFIELD
AUSTELL "
MECHANICVILLE
LOUISIANA
JOPLIN
PHEJJPSBURG
KNOXVILLE
SILSBEE
COUNCE
RUSSELL
WINDSOR LOCKS
TERRE HAUTE
KAUKAUNA
MAXTON
MENASHA
EASTOVER
FRANKLIN
PRATTVILLE
SAVANNAH
CLARK
GALENA PARK
GYPSUM
JACKSONVILLE
NO KANSAS CITY
OAKFIELD
DEPERE
SOUTH GATE
AMHERST
OWENSBORO
BATTLE CREEK
STPAUL
MERRILL
BROKAW
tate
MA
OH
OH
TN
VA
WAT
GA
OH
GA
MA
NY
VT
VT
FL
ME
NY
OH
SC
fA
MT
MI
[CT~
PA
GA
FL
VIA
MA
MA
GA
NY
MO
MO
KS
TN
TX
TN
MA
IN
WI
NC
WI
SC
VA
AL
GA
NJ
TX
OH
FL
MO
NY
wT—
CA
VA
KY
MN
WI
WI
MA
x"
"x
5T
x
x
x
X
X
"x
X
X
3T
X
x"
X
X
)
X
X
5T
u
x~
1
X
X
x"
X
x"
X
5T
x~
x
x
X
X
X
x"
x"
x"
X
X
x
x
x
A-9
-------
Appendix A
(Continued)
FacUity Name
WESTFffiLD RIVER PAPER CO INC
wtssrvMuu UJKF
WESTVACOCORP
WESlVAUU
-------
-------
Appendix B
Analytes Included in the Long- and Short-Term Studies
-------
-------
Appendix B consists of two tables that list the analytes that were included in the long- and
short-term studies. Table B-l h'sts the analytes that are included in methods proposed to
be used to determine compliance with proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. Most analytes on Table B-l were included in the long-term study, although
effluent limitations guidelines have not been proposed for all of them. Table B-2 lists the
analytes included in methods not proposed for determination of compliance. None of the
analytes listed are proposed for regulation, although most analytes on Table B-2 were
included in short-term study screening episodes.
B-l
-------
Table B-l
Analyses Included in Analytical Methods to be Used to
Determine Compliance With the Proposed Rule
CAS K«ber
3268879
39001020
37871004
38998753
34465468
55684941
36088229
30402154
41903575
55722275
35822469
67562394
39227286
70648269
55673897
57653857
57117449
40321764
57117416
19408743
72918219
60851345
57117314
1746016
51207319
OOKBQn MIM9 ffft ff '
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURANS
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXINS
1,2,3,4,6,7, 8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7, 8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7, 8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7, 8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7, 8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7, 8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7, 8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8, 9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8, 9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7, 8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7, 8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,7, 8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7, 8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
tectacigue
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
'HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
HRGC/HRMS
Method
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
1613
Miniww
2S&
100
100
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
10
10
• Mb
£&'
10 .
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
25 DIOXIN/FURAN ANALYTES
BRGC - High resolution gas chromatography.
HEMS - High resolution mass speotrometry.
B-2
-------
Table B-l
(Continued)
'
&I& HixnbiKC!
,
Connmn Mama
Chlorinated Phenolics:
106489
87650
120832
88062
95954
58902
87865
16766306
16766317
77102944
2460493
60712449
57057837
2668248
2539175
2138229
3938167
3978674
3428248
32139723
56961207
1198556
19463480
18268763
18268694
76341690
76330068
2539266
4-CHLOROPHENOL
2, 6-DICHLOROPHENOL
2 , 4-DICHLOROFHENOL
2,4, 6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4, 5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,3,4, 6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
FENTACHLOROFHEHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6, -DICHLOROGUAIACOL
3 , 4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4 , 5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4, 6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4, 5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5, 6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
3 , 6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3 , 4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4 , 5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4, 6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4, 5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
5-CHLOROVANILLIN
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
5 , 6-DICHLOROVAHILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2 , 6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
^
technique
Method
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
HRGC/LRMS
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
28 CHLORINATED PHENOLIC ANALYTES
TuWOl
<«;/*.>
1.25
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
1.25
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5 .
2.5
2.5
5.0
1.25
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
2.5
5.0
2.5
HRGC — High resolution gas chromatography.
LRMS = Low resolution mass spectrometry.
B-3
-------
Table B-l
(Continued)
CAS Bumbor
Common, Hame
TeqjBiiqpie
*tet*od
MininaMtt Level
<«5/U
Volatile Organics:
107131
71432
7527*
74839
75150
107142
108907
75003
67663
74873
10061015
4170303
124481
74953
60297
107120
97632
100414
74884
78831
108383
80626
75092
1-952
127184
56235
108883
156605
10061026
110576
75252
79016
75694
108054
75014
75343
75354
71556
630206
79005
79345
106934
107062
78875
96184
126998
142289
123911
78933
110758
591786
67641
107186
107028
ACRYLOHITRILE
BENZENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
CARBON BISULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1, 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIEIHYL ETHER
ETHYL' CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE (CARBON TETRACHLORIDE)
TOLUENE
TRANS- 1 , 2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS- 1, 3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1, 4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE (BROMOFORM)
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1, 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 , 2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1, 2, 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE '
1 , 2-DIBROMOETHANE
1 , 2-DICHLOROETHANE
1 , 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2.3-TRICHLOROFROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO (CHLOROFRENE)
1, 3-DICHLOROFROFANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (METHYL ETHYL KETONE)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-FROPEN-l-OL (ALLYL ALCOHOL)
2-FROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
1624
1624
1624
1624
VSRCH
VSRCH
1624
1624
1624
1624
VSRCH
VSRCH
1624
VSRCH
1624
VSRCH
VSRCH
1624
VSRCH
' VSRCH
VSRCH
VSRCH
1624
VSRCH
1624
1624
1624
1624
1624
VSRCH
1624
1624
VSRCH
VSRCH
1624
1624
1624
1624
VSRCH
1624
1624
VSRCH
1624
1624
VSRCH
VSRCH
VSRCH
1624
1624
1624
VSRCH
1624
VSRCH
1624
50
10
10
50
ft
ft
10
50
10
50
ft
•ft
10
ft
50
ft
ft
10
ft
ft
ft
ft
10
ft
10
10
10
, 10
10
ft
10
10
ft
ft
10
10-
10
10
ft
10
10
ft
10
10
ft
ft
ft
50
50
10
ft
50
ft
50
*Mlnimuro levels for compounds analyzed by reverse search have not been calculated.
VRSCH ~ Volatiles reverse search.
GCMS " Gas chromatography mass spectrometry.
B-4
-------
Table B-l
(Continued)
CAS. Sumber
Common: Same
Volatile Organics (Continued):
126987
107051
108101
2-PROPEBEHITRILE, 2-METHYL- (METHACRYLONITRILE )
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
fecfanigue
Method
GCMS
GCMS
GCMS
VSRCH
VSRCH
VSRCH
H2xtll&Uttt
liA««I,
tosft.)
*
*
*
57 VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYTES
*Minimum levels for compoimds analyzed by reverse search have not been calculated.
VRSCH = Volatiles reverse search.
GCMS - Gas chromatography mass spectrometry.
B-5
-------
Table B-l
(Continued)
:: • W«*M*
,« '' <&»»»* ****
f
-------
Table B-2
Analytes Included in Analytical Methods Used in the
Short-Term Studies But Not Proposed for Regulation
CAS Somber
Ccranom Same
Semi-volatile Organics:
83329
208968
98862
98555
62533
137177 .
120127
140578
82053
108985
92875
56553
50328
205992
191242
207089
65850
1689845
100516
91598
92524
92933
111911
111444
108601
117817
85687
86748
218019
77,00176
7700176
84742
117840
621647
53703
132649
132650
84662
131113
67710
101848
122394
882337
76017
62500
96457
206440
86737
118741
87683
77474
67721
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ANILINE
.ANILINE, 2,4,5-TRIMETHYL-
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENEIHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANIHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZONITRILE, 3,5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXY-
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BETA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL, 4-NITRO
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BISC2-CHLQROETHYL) ETHER
BISC2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHIHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
CIODRIN
CROTOXYPHOS
DY-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
.DY-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DY-N-PROPYLNITROSAMINE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHANE, PENTACHLORO-
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
HEXAPHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
B-7
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
CAS Btttbfet
' .• n*m*'tii Batta '
-, -V %VI •.v^ V. vTW^ •, •.
S«ai-fft>latilo Organics (Continued):
1888717
142621
193395
78591
120581
475207
569642
72333
91805
66273
124185
629970
112043
112958
630013
544763
924163
55185
62759
86306
10595956
614006
59892
100754
630024
593453
646311
629594
638686
68122
91203
98953
90040
95487
95534
95794
106478
106445
99876
60117
100016
608935
87865
700129
198550
62442
85018
108952
534521
92842
23950585
129000
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
INDENOC1, 2, 3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREW
MESTRAHOL
METHAFXRILENE
METHYL METHANESULFONATE
N-DECANE
N-DOCOSANE
H-DODECAHE
N-EICOSABE
N-HEXACOSAHE
N-HEXADECAHE
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITSOSODIETHYLAMIBE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMmE
H-HITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMEIHYLPHENYLAMINE
H-NITROSOMQREHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDIHE
N-OCTACOSANE
•H-OCTADECANE
N-TETRACOSANE
H-TETRADECAHE
H-TRIACONTANE
H.H-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-AHISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDIHE
0-TOLUIDINE, 5-CHLORO-
P-CHLOROAHILIHE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMEHE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
P-NITROANILISE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROPHEHOL
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
PERYLEHE
PHEKACETIN
PHEHANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOL, 2-METHYL-4,6-DINITRO-
PHENOTHIAZINE
PRONAMIDE
PYRENE
B-8
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
CAS
H&tao
Semi-volatile Organics (Continued):
110861
108462
94597
7683649
100425
95158
62555
492228
95807
217594
20324338
6914804
108372
121733
1730376
832699
134327
605027
96128
95501
122667
87616
634366
120821
95943
1464535
96231
541731
291214
106467
100254
130154
2243621
615225
91587
95578
2027170
120752
91576
88744
88755
612942
109068
243174
608275
3209221
58902
933755
120832
105679
PYRIDINE
RESORCINOL
SAFROLE
SQUALENE
STYRENE
THIANAPHTHENE
THIOACETAMIDE
THIOXANTHE-9-ONE
TOLUENE, 2,4-DIAMINO-
TRIPHEljrYLENE
TRIFROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
l-BROMO-2-CHLOROBENZENE
l-BROMO-3-CHLOROBENZENE
l-CHLORO-3-NITROBENZENE
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-NAPHTHYLAMINE
1-PHENYLHAPHTHALENE
1,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROFROPAHE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZIHE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTAHE
1,3-DICHLDRO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHlANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-DINITROBENZENE
1,4-NAPHTHOQUIHONE
1,5-HAPHTHALENEDIAMINE
2-(METHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOLE
2-CBLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTALENE
2-METHYLBEHZOTHIOAZOLE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-HITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PHENYLHAPHTALEHE
2-PICOLINE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
B-9
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
^tttf^
'• ! + fn-atr-iti kmttt
S«U.-volmtil« Organic! (Continued):
51285
121142
95954
88062
719222
99309
87650
606202
56495
99092
91941
119904
1576676
92671
101553
89634
59507
7005723
100027
101144
203546
99558
57976
2 , 4-DINITROPHENOL
2 , 4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,4, 5-TRICHL0ROPHEHOL
2,4, 6-TRICHLQROEHEHOL
2, 6-DI-TER-BUTYL-P-BENZOQUINONE
2, 6-DICHLORO-4-NIXRDANILINE
2, 6-DICHLOROEHENOL
2 , 6-DINITROTOLUENE
3-MEIHYLCHOLANTHRENE
3-NITROANILINE
3,3' -DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3' -DIMETHOJnBEHZIDIHE
3 , 6-DIMETHYLFHEHANTHRENE
4-AMIHOBIPHENYL
4-BROMOPHESYL BHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-SITROANILIHE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROPHENYLEHENYL ETHER
4-NITROEHENOL
4 , 4 ' -METHYLEHEBIS ( 2-CHLOROANILINE )
4,5-METHYLENE PHENANTHRENE
5-HITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7 , 12-DnffiTHYLBENZ(A)AlITHRACENE
177 SEMI-VOLATILE AHALYTES
B-10
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
Pesticides/Herbicides/PCBs:
94757
309002
319846
2642719
86500
319857
2425061
133062
786196
57749
510156
470906
2921882
56724
7700176
319868
8065483
2303164
333415
62737
141662
60571
60515
78342
298044
1031078
959988
33213659
72208
7421934
53494705
563122
52857
115902
55389
76448
1024573
463736
21609905
58899
121733
72435,
298000
7786347
2385855
6923224
300765
1836755
56382
Acetic Acid (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy)
Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
Azinphos Ethyl
Azinphos Methyl
Beta-EEC
Captafol
Captan
Carbophenothion (Trithion)
Chlordane
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorofenvinphos
Chlorpyrifos
Coumaphos
Crotoxyphos
Delta-BHC
Demeton
Diallate
Diazinon
Dichlorvos
Dicrotophos (Bidrin)
Dieldrin
Dimethoate
Dioxathion
Disulfoton
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endosulfan-I
Endosulfan-II
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Ethion
Famphur
Fensulfothion
Fenthion
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Isodrin
Leptophos
Lindane (Gamma-BBC)
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Methyl Farathion
Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
Mirex
Honoorotophos
Haled (Dibrom)
Nitrofen (Tok)
Parathion
B-ll
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
CfiSmtabt*
CttMhofc Hap* fr ,r ""'"'"'"
Festic.tdes/Harbicides/ECBs (Continued) :
12674112
11104282
11141165
53469219
12672296
11097691
11096825
82688
298022
732116
13171216
78308
512561
680319
2104645
13071799
961115
3689245
107493
8001352
52686
1582098
117806
88857
93765
93721
72548
72559
50293 ,
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Fhorato
Fhosmot
Fhosphamidon
Phosphoric Acid, Tri-o-tolyl Ester
Phosphoric Acid, Trimathyl Ester
Phosphoric Triamide, Hexaraethyl-
Santox (Epn)
Torbufos
Tetrachlorvinphos
letraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Tetraethylpyrophosphate
Toxaphene
Trichlorofon
Trifluralin (Treflan)
1,4-Haphthoquinone, 2,3-Dichloro-
2-Sec-Butyl-4 , 6-Dinitrophenol
2,4,5-Iricblorophenoxyacetic Acid
2,4, 5-Tr ichlorophenoxypropionio Acid
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
78 Pesticide/Herbicide/PCB Analytes
B-12
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
CAS Vtrtba?
Metals:
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440699
7440428
7440439
7440702
7440451
7440473
7440484
7440508
7429916
7440520
7440531
7440542
7440553
7440564
7440575
7440586
7440600
7440746
7553562
7439885
7439896
7439910
•7439921
7439932
7439943
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440008
7440020
7440031
7440042
7440053
7723140
7440064
7440097
7440100
7440155
7440166
7440188
7440199
7440202
7782492
7440213
7440224
7440235
7440246
7704349
C™,B*»
ALUMINUM*
ANTIMONY*
ARSENIC*
BARIUM*
BERYLLIUM*
BISMUTH
BORON*
CADMIUM*
CALCIUM*
CERIUM
CHROMIUM*
COBALT*
COPPER*
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM
HOLMIUM
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON*
LANTHANUM
LEAD*
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM*
MANGANESE*
MERCURY*
MOLYBDENUM*
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL*
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
IHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM*
SILICON
SILVER*
SODIUM*
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
* Metal to be quantitatively analyzed for all samples.
B-13
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
*w**te
1 ,\-:;; ^ :*wi£i&* .^^\lLi..t
Metals (Continued):
7440257
13494809
7440279
744&280
7440291
7440304
7440315
7440326
7440337
7440611
7440622
7440644
7440655
7440666
7440677
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM*
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN*
TITANIUM*'
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM*
ZINC*
ZIRCONIUM
69 METAL ANALYTES
* H»t«l tex b« quantitively analyzed for all samples.
B-14
-------
Table B-2
(Continued)
CAS Tfoa&e*
Comma Hame
Resin Acids:
127275
5835267
1945535
514103
PIMARIC ACID
SANDRACOPIMARIC ACID
ISOPIMARIC ACID
PALUSTRIC ACID
ABIETIC ACID
DEHYDROABIETIC ACID
NEOABIETIC ACID
14-CHLORODEHYDROABIETIC ACID
12-CHLORODEHYDROABIETIC ACID
DICHLORODEHYDROABIETIC ACID
Fatty Acids:
112801
463401
OLEIC ACID
LINOLEIC ACID
Chlorinated Phenolics:
95772
51355
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL
3 , 4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3 , 5-DICHLOROPHENOL
3 , 5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
2,3, 6-TRICHLQROPHENOL
B-15
-------
-------
Appendix C
Ranges of Concentrations and Mass Loadings for
Priority and Nonconventional Pollutants
-------
-------
Appendix C consists of 18 tables that list either chemical concentrations or mass loadings
of each analyte for which data are available from the long- and short-term studies. Each
table is referenced and briefly summarized in Section 6.4 of this document. Each table has
a main heading of either "Concentrations" or "Loadings" and a subheading that identifies the
sample point category (e.g., Table C-l where Sample Point Category = Process Water).
Some of the subheadings also include abbreviations for subcategory and furnish. The
abbreviations used are as follows:
BPK Bleached Papergrade Kraft Mills
DK Dissolving Kraft MiUs
DS Dissolving Sulfite Mills
HW Hardwood Mills (or lines)
SW Softwood Mills (or lines)
Each table summarizes the following for each analyte:
• Number of mills for which a result was obtained;
• Number of mills for which the analyte was not detected;
• Number of data points available;
• Number of data points for which the analyte was not detected;
• Units associated with each set of results;
• A symbol associated with the minimum value;
• The minimum value;
• A symbol associated with the maximum value; and
• The maximum value.
The symbols indicate in the minimum or maximum value was not detected (symbol = ND),
or whether the review of the analytical result indicated that the result may have actually
been higher (symbol = >). To determine the minimum and maximum values, the absolute
value of the detected results and the results with > symbols were used (e.g., the maximum
result in the database for an analyte may be shown as ,100 but another value in the database
for this analyte may be > 99). Data that were excluded from the database because they did
not meet acceptable QA/QC criteria or based upon the engineering review are not included
in the counts on these tables.
-------
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3.7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7.8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3.4,6,7.8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3.7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7;8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
S-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROVANILLIN
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
--- SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PROCESS WATER
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS
20
11
11
11
11
11
8
20
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
16
9
16
7
9
18
16
17
20
11
11
16
5
10
19
9
20
19
20
16
11
20
19
19
9
20
16
20
20
20
19
17
19
20
20
20
20
18
11
11
11
11
9
4
15
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
10
16
9
16
7
9
18
16
17
20
11
11
16
5
10
19
9
20
19
20
16
11
20
T9
18
9
20
16
20
20
20
19
17
18
20
20
18
20
46
20
20
20
20
20
11
46
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
44
21
44
18
26
47
44
46
51
25
25
39
13
24
44
26
51
49
51
44
25
51
48
43
21
50
44
51
52
51
43
46
49
51
51
51
51
> WHICH •
10. OF
•DETECTS
44
20
20
20
20
17
7
41
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
18
44
21
44
18
26
47
44
46
51
25
25
39
13
24
44
26
51
49
51
44
25
51
48
42
21
50
44
51
52
51
43
46
48
51
51
47
51 .
UNITS
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
P6/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
20.00
49.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
5.00
11.00
0.25
0.84
0.25
0.50
1.70
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.70
0.50
1.70
1.00
1.70
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.25
0.10
0.25
0.50
0.25
3.40
0.10
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.10
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
"ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
13.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
35.00
310.00
22.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
310.00
13.00
310.00
620.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
0.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
0.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
1.57
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
6.00
5.80
100.00!
20.00'
15.00
100.00
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
.- - SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PROCESS WATtK
(continued)
NO. OF
CHEMICAL HARE
CARBON D1SULFIDE
CHLOROACETOHITRRE
CHLOROBEHZEHE
CHtOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROKETHANE
CIS-1.3-OICHLOROPROPENE
CROTOKALDEHYDE
DIBROHOCHLOROMETHANE
D1BROHOHETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL HETHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZEHE
ICOOKETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYLENE
METHYL HETHACRYLATE
HETHYLEHE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHEHE
TETRACHLOROHETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS- 1 , 2-D I CHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1 ,3-DICM.OROPROPEHE
TRANS-1,4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TR1BROHOMETHANE
TR1CM.OROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VIHYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DlCHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TR I CHLOROETHANE
1,1,1, 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 , 2-TRI CHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1, 2-DI CHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-tUTADIEHE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXAHE
2-BUTAKOKE (HEK)
2-CHtOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXAHOME
2-PROPAXONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPEMAL (ACROLEIN)
"Z-PROPEHEHITRILE, 2-HETHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-HETHYL-2-PENTANONE
NO. OF
MILLS
19
19
20
20
20
20
19
19
20
19
20
19
19
20
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
10
19
20
20
20
20
19
19
20
19
20
20
19
19
19
19
19
20
19
19
19
20
19
19
19
MILLS
NON-DETECT
19
19
20
20
12
19
19
19
20
19
20
19
19
20
19
19
19
19
18
19
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
8
19
20
20
20
20
19
19
20 '
19
20
20
19
19
19,
19
17
20
18
15
19
20
19
19
19
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
50
50
51
51
51
51
50
50
51
50
51
50
50
51
50
50
50
50
47
50
50
51
51
51
51
50
51
51
18
50
51
50
51
51
50
49
51
50
51
51
50
50
50 '
48
49
51
50
48
50
51
50
50
50
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
50
50
51
51
37
50
50
50
51
50
51
50
50
51
50
50
50
50
46
50
50
51
51
51
51
50
51
51
16
50
51
50
51
51
50
49
51
50
51
51
50
50
50
48
47
51
49
43
50
51
50
50
50
UNITS
UG/L
UG/I.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/I.
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
'UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
'UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
50.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00'
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10. od
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
20.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
105.00
91.03
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.57
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
80.00
31.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
50.00
123.14
20.00
70.11
1029.88
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
•IM
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
snnrLC ruim LHICLUKI NAnc=KKULCss WAICK — ---- — - — — --
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
COLOR
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
B-NAPHTHYLAMINE
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENETHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHERCNR)
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-BUTYL AMINE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZOCA, H) ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROHETHANE (NR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHANOL
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-METHYL ETHER
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1 ,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
.NO. OF
MILLS
15
12
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
1
6
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3 '
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
36
26
23
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
2
19
23
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
0.01
0.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50,00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00'
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
32.20
77.00
25.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
15.81
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00'
10.21
10.00
20.00
21.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
... . SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PROCESS WATER --
(continued)'
CHEMICAL NAME
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAD I ENE
HEXACHIOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXAHOIC ACID
1NOENO(1,2,3-CD>PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPAHOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
HETHAPYRILENE
H€THYL HETHANESULFONATE
H-BOTANOL
H-DECANE (N-C10)
H-DOCOSANE (H-C22)
N-DOOECANE (H-C12)
H-EICOSAHE (H-C20)
H-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
H-HEXADECAHE (N-C16)
N-H1TR0SC01-N-BUTYLAHINE
H-HITROSODI-H-PROPYLAHINE
N-HITROSODIETHYLAHINE
H-NITROSCOIHETHYIAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAHINE
N-HITROSOHETHYLETHYLAHINE
N-HITROSOHETHYLPHENYLAHINE
H-HITROSOMORPHOUNE
H-HITROSOPIPERIDIHE
N-OCTACOSANE (H-C28)
H-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
N-PROPANOL
H-TETRACOSANE (M-C24)
H-TETRADECANE (H-C14)
H-TRIACOMTANE (N-C30)
«,H-t>lHeTHYLFORMAHIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
O-AHISIDIHE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYHEHE
P-D1HETHYLAHIHOAZ03EMZENE
PEHTACHLOROBEHZENE
PENTACHtOROeTHAHE
PEHTAHETHYLBENZENE
PERYLENE
PHEHACETIN
PHEMANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOTH1AZINE
PRON AMIDE
NO. OF
MILLS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
MILLS
N OH -DETECT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5-
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
21.00
10.00
21.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
' 10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
PYRENE
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SQUALENE
STYRENE
T-BUTANOL
THIANAPHTHENE
THIOACET AMIDE
THIOXANTHONE
TRIPHENYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
1 ,2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1 ,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2. 4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCINOL)
1 .3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBEHZENE
1,3-DINITROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-HAPHTHALENEDIAMINE
2-BENZOTHIAZOL
2-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2- ISOPROPYLHAPHTHALENE
2-METHYL-4 , 6-D I N I TROPHENOL
2-METHYLBEHZOTHIOAZOLE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZEHE
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE
2,4-D I CHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,4,5-TRIMETHYLANILINE
2,6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE
2.6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE
NO. OF
MILLS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
--- SAMPLE PO.
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 '
3
3'
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
INT CATEGORY NAME=PROCESS WATER!
(continued)
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
•5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00.
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00 '
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=PROCESS WATER
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
2,6-DIMITROTOtUENE
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLOROMITROBENZENE
3-HETMYLCHOLANTHRENE
3-WITROAHILIHE
3,3'-DICHLOR08ENZIDINE
3,3'-DIHETHCXYBEMZIDIHE
S.S-DIBROHO^-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DIHETHYLPHENANTHREHE
4-AHIKOBIPHENYl
4-IROHOPHEHYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-HnROAMlLINE
4-CHIORO-3-HETHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROAMIUNE
4-CHU3ROPHEHYL PHEMYL ETHER
4-H1TROAHILINE
4-HITROBIPHEHYL
4-H1TROPHENOL
«,4«-«6THYtEMEBIS(2-CHLOROANI )
4,5-HgTHYtEHEPHEHANTHRENE
5-CHIORO-0-TOLUIDINE
5-HITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-DIHeTHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
ALDRIM
AtPHA-BHC
AlPHA-CHLORDANE
AZ1NPHOS-ETHYL
AZINPHOS-HETHYL
BETA-BKC
CAPTAFOt
CAPTAM
CARBOPHEHOTHION
CHIORBEHZILATE
CHtORFEHVINPHOS
CHLORPYRIPHOS
COUHAPHOS
CROTOXYPHQS
DEUA-tHC
DEHETOU
DIALLATE
DIAZINOH
DICHLOFEHTHION
DICHLOWE
DICHLORVOS
DICROTOPHOS
DIELDRIH
DIHETHOATE
D10XATHIOH
OlSUtFOTOH
EHOOSUtFAM I
EHOOSULFAH II
EHDOSULFAH SULFATE
EKORIH
HO. OF
MILLS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3-
3.
3
3
3
NO. OF
HILLS
NON-DETECT
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
UNITS
UG/L
LIG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
2.00
0.60
2.00
0.20
0.32
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.00
0.10
0.50
2.00
0.10
1.44 •
0.10
0.50
0.80
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.40
0.10
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.20
0.20
2.50
1.00
3.00
0.40
5.00
1.00
5.00
4.00
2.50
0.50
1.00
3.00
0.25
1.00
2.00
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.50
2.00
0.30
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.30
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PROCESS WATER -
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
EPN (SANTOX)
ETHION
ETHOPROP
FAMPHUR
FENSULFOTHION
FENTHION
GAHMA-BHC (LINDANE)
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEXAMETHYLPHOSPHORAM IDE
ISODRIN
KEPONE
LEPTOPHOS
MALATHION
MERPHOS
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL PARATHION
METHYL TRITHION
HEVINPHOS (PHOSDRIN)
MIREX
MONOCROTOPHOS
NALED (DIBROM)
NITROFEN (TDK)
P,P'-DDD
P,P'-DDE
P,P'-DDT
PARATHION
PCB 1016
PCB 1221
PCB 1232
PCB 1242
PCB 1248
PCB 1254
PCB 1260
PCNB
PHORATE
PHOSMET
PHOSPHAMIDON
RONNEL
SULFOTEP
SULPROFOS
TEPP
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
TOKUTHION
TOXAPHENE
TRICHLORONATE
TRICHLORPHATE
TRICKORPHON
TRICRESYLPHOSPHATE
NO. OF
MILLS
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
3
3
3
3
2
3
• 3
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
2 .
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
2
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
2
5
2
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5 •
5
3
5
3
2
5
5
3
2
2
1
5
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
2
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
2
5
2
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
3
5
3
2
5
5
3
2
2
1
5
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
0.25
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.50
0.32
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
2.50
0.30
2.00
0.10
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.50
1.00
0.32
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.20
0.10
0.20
1.44
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.10
0.56
0.50
10.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.40
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.50
3.00
0.50
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.20
2.50
0.50
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.20
0.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.10
0.50
2.50
0.50
10.00
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.40
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERH STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
(continued)
CHEMICAL HAKE
TRIFIURALIH
TR1H6THYLPHOSPHATE
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TP (S1LVEX)
ALUHIKUH
ANTIMONY
ARSCHIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISHUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
CERHAHIUM
COLD
HAFNIUM
HOLHIHUN
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUK
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
lUTETIUH
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
KEOOYMIUH
NICKEL
NI08IUH
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCAKOIUH
NO. OF
HILLS
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
MILLS
NOM-DETECT
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
2
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
5
5
15
5
5
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
15
5
15
15
5
5
5
5
15
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
5
2
4
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
15
4
5
3
15
5
5
4
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1
15
5
15
15
5
2
2
5
15
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
0.50
0.40
0.05
0.04
0.03
90.00
6.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
805.00
10.00
25.00
8.00
15.00
50.00
264.00
5.00
0.40
10.00
22.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
0.50
0.40
67.00
13.00
13.00
300.00
6.00
20.00
60.00
2.00
1050.00
5.00
12300.00
10.00
25.00
173.00
1340.00
50.00
2110.00
105.00
2.40
10.00
22.00
-------
TABLE C-1
LONG-TERH STUDY AND SHORT-TERH STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
.ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
3
0
3
0
2
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
- SAMPLE POINT
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
13
5
15
15
15
5
15
15
5
5
15
15
5
15
5
5
15
CATEGORY NAME'
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
5
0
5
2
12
0
15
15
15
5
15
15
5
5
15
15
5
15
5
3
15
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
3.00
2400.00
6.00
1940.00
2700.00
2.00
30.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
13.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.HO
NO
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
30.00
17100.00
.6.00
99400.00
200.00
8500.00
26.00
30.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
192.00
-------
TABLE C-2
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
10
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACW.ORODIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PEHTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,S-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-H£XACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORCOIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PEHTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAM
2,3,4,7,8-PEHTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HeXACHlOROOlBEMZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-BEXACHLORCOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,'7,8,9-HeXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHlOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORCOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLOROOIBEHZOFURAH
4-CHLOROPHEHOt
4-CHLOROGUAIACOl
5-CHLOSOOUAIACOL
6-CHLOfiCVAHILLIH
2-CHLOR03YRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DlCHCOROPHENOt.
3,5-Dlcm.OROPHENOt
3,4"DICHLj3ROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3.6-D1CHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHtOROCATECHOt
4.5-DlCHtOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHtOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHtOROPHEHOL
2,4,5-TRICW.OROPHEHOL
2,4,6-TRICHtOROPHEHOL
3,4,5-TRlCHLOROCATECHOt
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOC
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOt
TRICHLOROSYRIHGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TEIRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PEMTACHlOROPHeNOL
ACSYLOMITRILE
BEHZEHE
BROHCOICHLOROHETHANE
8ROHOHETHANE
CARSOH DISULFIDE
CHIOROACETOHITRILE
CW.OR08EHZEHE
CHIOROETHANE
:ATEGORY
NO. OF
MILLS
8
8
8
8
8
8
4
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
5
5
5
6
5
6
8
8
8
5
4
1
8
8
7
8
5
8
8
7
7
8
5
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
NAME=BROWN
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
7
8
8
8
8
6
1
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
5
3
4
5
5
5
4
8
7
7
5
3
1
7
8
6
7
5
7
7
6
6
5
4
6
8
8
8
5
8
8
7
7
8
7
8
8
8
STOCK WASHING
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
13
13
13
13
13
11
7
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
12
18
18
17
17
17
21
22
22
22
18
15
^
22
23
20
23
17
22
23
20
20
23
18
23
23
23
22
21
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
UASTEUATEK S
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
12
13
13
13
13
7
1
9
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
10
12
15
17
16
17
16
22
21
21
18
13
3
21
23
19
21
17
21
20
17
18
17
17
18
23
23
22
18
23
23
21
20
23
22
23
23
23
UBCATEG
UNITS
P6/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ORY=BPK •
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
3.00
2.00
7.00
8.00
5.00
18.00
110.00
5.00
2.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
9.00
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.25
2.50
0.50
5.00
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.25
0.10
0.25
0.50
0.30
0.10
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.10
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
76.00
385.00
294.00
263.00
69.00
210.00
2100.00
210.00
455.00
455.00
294.00
294.00
294.00
278.00
53.00
333.00
260.00
17.00
91.00
5.00
31.00
5.00
30.00
5.00
1.70
2.00
25.00
12.20
5.00
14.00
5.00
1.70
57.00
13.00
2.00
4.00
16.00
19.00
250.00
14.00
49.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
45.00
5.00
500.00
13.00
11.00
500.00
52.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
-------
TABLE C-2
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
rr
CHEMICAL NAME
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
IOOOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHyLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1,4-DICHLORO-Z-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
. n i i*r\ 1 1.
NO. OF
MILLS
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
5
8
2
2
.uwrv i nMi'it— on
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
8
8
0
8
8
8
8
8
.0
2
2
2
.uwn o i UI.N. WMO
(continued)
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
19
23
23
23
23
23
23
21
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
23
23
22
23
23
23
23
23
18
23
2
2
ninu wnaiewH
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
9
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
22
23
14
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
18
23
23
23
23
23
23
21
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
8
23
23
8
23
23
23
23
23
0
2
2
2
ICK SUOL
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L '
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
HICljUKT-H
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
:PK
MINIMUM
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
0.20
15.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND t
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1383.00
500.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
12.00
100.00
9152.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
iod.oo
107.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
864.00
100.00
500.00
6514.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
80.00
12000.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-2
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
12
CHEMICAL HAKE
ACETOPHEHONE
ALPKA-HAPHTHYLAHINE
AlPKA-PlCOtlNE
ALPRA-TERPINEOL
AHILIHE
AHTHRACENE
ARAH1TE
8-KAPHTHYLAH1NE
8ENZAHTHRONE
BEHZENETHIOL
BEN2IDIKE
BEMZO(A>AHTKRAGENE
BEHZO
8IS(Z-CHLOROETHOXY)HETHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
B1S(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CKSYSEME
DI-H-BUTYL AHINE
Dl-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-H-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBEHZOCA,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAH
D1BENZOTHIOPHENE
DICHLORCOJFLUOROHETHANE (NR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIHETHYL SULFOME
DIPHEHYL ETHER
DIPHEHYLAWME
DIPHENYLDISUtFIDE
ETHAHOL
ETHYL HETHANESULFOHATE
ETHYLEHETHIOUREA
ETHYHYLESTRADIOL 3-HETHYL ETHER
FLU08AHTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACH10ROBEHZEHE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHtOROETHAHE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXAHOIC ACID
IKOEHO<1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
• POINT CATEGORY NAME=
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
HILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
=BROWN STOCK WASHING WASTEWATER SUBCATEGORY=BPK. -
(continued)
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
50.00
112.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NP
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
50.00
454.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
1
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
53.00
10.00
10.00
30.00
10.00
28.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
-------
TABLE C-2
13
LONG-TERM STUDY AMD SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPANOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLEME
MALACHITE GREEN
METHAPYRILENE
METHYL METHANESULFONATE
N-BUTANOL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSCOI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-HITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
N-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
N-PROPANOL
N-TETRACOSANE (N-C24)
N-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
N-TRIACONTANE (N-C30)
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-ANISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMENE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
PERYLENE
PHENACETIN
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOTHIAZINE
PRONAMIDE
PYRENE
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SQUALENE
STYRENE
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
27.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
31.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
33.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
150.00
•10.00
-------
TABLE C-2
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
14
CHEMICAL HAHE
T-BUTAHOt
THIANAPHTHENE
THIQACETAH1DE
THIQXANTHONE
TR1PHEHYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-KeTHYLFLUORENE
1-HETHYLPHEHAMTHRENE
1-PHEHYLHAPHTHALENE
1.2-D1BROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBEH2ENE
1,2-DlPHEHYLHYDRAZIHE
1,2,3-TRICHIOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRlHETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROeENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BE«ZENEDICt (RESORCINOL)
1.3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DIHITROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DlCHLOROeENZENE
1,4-HAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-MAPHTHALENEOIAHINE
2-(HETHYUTHlO)BENZOTHIAZOL
2-SROHOCHtOROBENZENE
2-BUTAHOL
2-CHLORONAPHTKALENE
2-CW.OROPHENOt
2- ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2-HETHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL
2-KETHYLBEHZOTHIOAZOLE
2-HETHYLHAPHTHALENE
2-HITROANILINE
2-HITROPHENOC
2-PKEHYLHAPHTHALENE
2,3-BEHZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROAMILlNE
2,3-DICHLOROWITROBENZENE
2,4-DIAHIHOTOLUENE
2,4-DlCHlOROPHENOl.
2,4-DlHETHYLPHENOt
2,4-DlHITROPHENOl.
2,4-DlHlTROTCtUENE
2,4,5-TRlHETHYLANlLINE
2,6-DI-TERT-Blim-P-BENZOQINONE
2,6-DlCHLORO-4-NITROANILINE
2,6-DIHITROTOUOE
3-BROMOCHLOR06ENZENE
3-CHLOROMITROeENZENE
3-HCTMYLCHOtAMTHRENE
3-H1TROAMILINE
[ POINT CATEGORY NAME=BROWN STOCK WASHING WASTEWATER SUBCATEGOKY=Bl'K.
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
,2
~2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
-------
/ TABLE C-2
/ LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
15
SAMPL!
CHEMICAL NAME
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3'-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE
3.5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE,'
4-AMINOBIPHENYL
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL 'ETHER
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROBIPHENYL
4-NITROPHENOL
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI)
4,5-METHYLENEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM '
GALLIUM /
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM
HOLMINUM
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUH
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF'
MILLS
NON -DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
'o
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
2
/
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
2
6
6
2
2
2
2
6
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
6
0
2
1
6
1
2
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
2
6
6
1
0
1
1
6
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
IIG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND /
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
,' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
- ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
356.00
6.00
2.00
19.00
2.00
151.00
5.00
2670.00
10.00
25.00
16.00
383.00
50.00
1040.00
29.00
2.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
MAXIMUM
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
6250.00
6.00
20.00
232.00
2.00
199.00
5.00
289000.00
22.00
25.00
50.00
5040.00
50.00
10100.00
1540.00
4.20
54.00
-------
TABLE C-2
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BROWN STOCK WASHING WASTEUATER SUBCATEGORY=BPK
16
CHEMICAL NAME
NICKEL
HIOSIUH
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIM
T1TAHIUH
TUMGSTEH
UBAHIUH
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
oAnruc ruiNi
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
Uftl CUWIM nrwtL.— L»
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
6
6
6
4
6
•2
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
4
2
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
2
6
6
2
6
2
2
6
(continued:
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
6
6
6
3
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
0
2
0
3
0
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
1
6
6
0
6
2
0
6
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
KID
ND
ND
MD
HD
MD
HD
(ID
ND
»D
»D
IID
HD
ND
ND
SORY=BPK
MINIMUM
22.00
9700.00
3.00
5900.00
6.00
1130000.00
111000.00
20.00
30.00
5.00
64.00
5.00
93.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
22.00
1300.00
11100.00
30.00
7800.00
6.00
1440000.00
200.00
1010000.00
20.00
30.00
94.00
131.00
5.00
159.00
ND
-------
TABLE C-3
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
17
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-D10XIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7.8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2.3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOROD1BENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROVANILL1N
6-CHLOROVAMILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYOE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
.« I CUUK 1
NO. OF
MILLS
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
7
3
7
4
3
9
7
8
10
7
7
7
4
4
10
3
10
9
10
7
7
10
10
10
3
10
7
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
NHP1C— MU1U a
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
7
9
10
9
10
5
2
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
1
1
6
3
1
1
2
2
5
7
6
3
2
0
3
3
3
7
6
3
5
9
2
4
1
6
7
7
2
7
1
8
9
10
9
8
10
IHUC I-1LIKHIC
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
81
19
19
19
19
19
8
81
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
17
84
60
79
12
72
86
80
90
93
21
21
74
12
69
86
68
91
79
89
81
21
91
91
81
61
88
80
89
89
87
81
90
93
93
92
92
93
5UBl.HltbUKT:
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
78
18
19
18
19
13
5
69
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
16
46
32
73
11
69
12
47
65
85
21
19
38
6
41
40
68
22
76
84
67
17
88
28
36
43
83
80
85
49
83
58
90
91
93
91
71
93
-Off. I-UK
UNITS
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
'PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
N15H=HW -
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
10.00
94.00
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
0.30
1.20
0.30
0.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
1.60
0.30
0.30
2.50
5.00
2.50
1.00
2.50
0.50
0.30
0.50
1.30
1.00
0.30
0.50
0.30
2.60
0.10
0.50
0.30
2.50
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.10
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
>
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
40.00
10.00
54.30
3.00
54.30
61.00
400.00
220.00
54.30
54.30
54.30
54.30
54.30
54.30
54.30
54.30
140.00
33.00
350.00
4.80
9.00
15.00
50.00
50.00
26.00
21.00
5.00
21.00
410.00
98.00
130.40
266.70
5.00
82.00
23.20
34.00
20.84
5.20
41.00
50.00
170.00
21.00
12.19
10.00
6.73
16.00
2.22
57.00
10.00
5.96
500.00
3156.60
332.90
500.00
-------
TABLE C-3
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
18
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORT=BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
NO. OF
CHEMICAL NAME
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITR1LE
CHLOR06EHZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROHETHANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CKOTONALDEHYDE
DliROHOCHLOROHETHANE
D1BROHOM6THANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYAHIDE
ETHYL K6THACRYLATE
ETHYLBEHZENE
ICOOHETHAKE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYLENE
METHYL HETHACRYLATE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROHETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1 ,2-01 CHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1, 4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHAME
TRICHlOROETHEHE
TR I CHLOROFLUOROHETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1 ,1 , 1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1 ,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMQETHANE
1,2-DlCHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANQNE (MEK)
2-CHLOROeTHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANOHE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-FROPEHAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPEHEHITRILE, 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPEHE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
NO. OF
MILLS
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10 '
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
MILLS
NON-DETECT
' 5
10
10
10
0
6
10
9
10
.1°
9
10
10
9
9
9
9
10
6
9
9
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
6
9
9
10
10
9
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
5
9
10
2
10
10
9
10
10
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
93
93
93
93
93
92
93
93
93
93
88
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
77
93
91
93
93
93
93
93
93
90
19
93
93
92
93
90
93
92
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
88
89
93
93
85
93
92
93
93
93
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
64
93
93
93
0
87
93
92
93
93
86
93
93
92
92
92
92
93
65
92
89
90
92
93
93
93
93
90
16
91
92
92
93
88
93
92
93
93
92
92
93
93
93
88
78
92
93
19
93
92
92
93
93
UNITS
UI3/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
LIG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
§••
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
mim
MAXIMUM
266.09
100.00
100.00
500.00
56756.00
29857.00
100.00
129.46
100.00
100.00
1646.98
100.00
100.00
76.00
11.69
462.87
202.00
100.00
2062.91
84.00
16.00
3693.55
16.80
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
144.00
4230.00
22.49
100.00
100.00
283.00
100.00
100,. 00
100.00
100.00
41.70
11.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
6639.00
91.49
500.00
29316.70
100.00
500.00
723.03
100.00
500.00
•^H
-------
TABLE C-3
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
19
CHEMICAL NAME
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COO
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLEHE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
B-NAPHTHYLAMINE
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENETHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)'PYRENE
BENZO(B > FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS <2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHERCNR)
BISC2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BISC2-CHLOROETHYL5ETHER
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-BUTYL AMINE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZOCA,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE CNR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHANOL
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-METHYL ETHER
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
rwini wi
NO. OF
MILLS
6
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 1 CUUK i nnnc— •
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
AUil/ 0IMUC TiU
(continued:
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
34
21
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3,
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
IKMIC 3UDIMICU
>
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
1
3
3
3 '
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
UKI— orN I
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ruKNian=nh
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND /
ND/
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND/
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
7.10
15.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
/10.00
' 20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00 '
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND -
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
/ND /
ND /
ND/
/ND
/ ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
128.00
2300.00
10.00
10.00
.10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
68.00
/ 10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
100.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-3
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
20
CHEMICAL NAME
HEXACHLOROETHAHE
BEXACHtOROPROPENE
HEXAHOIC ACID
IHDEHOa,2,3-CD)PYRENE
1SOPHOROHE
ISOPRO>AHOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
1SOSAFROLE
IOMGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEH
H6THAPYRILEHE
H6THYL HETHANESULFONATE
H-BUTAWX.
N-DECANE (M-C10)
H-DOCOSANE (H-C22)
H-D00ECANE (H-C12)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
H-HEXACOSANE (H-C26)
N-HEXADECAHE (M-C16)
N-HITROSODI-H-BUTYLAMINE
N-MITROSOOI-N-PROPYLAHINE
H-HITROSODIETHYLAMIHE
H-MITROSOOIHETHYLAHIKE
H-HraOSOOIPHENYLAMINE
N-H1TROSOHETHYLETHYLAHINE
H-NITROSOHETHYLPHENYLAHINE
H-HITROSOMORPHOLINE
H-N1TROSOPIPERIDINE
M-OCTACOSAKE (H-C28)
H-OCTADECANE (H-C18)
H-PROPAKOt
M-TETRACOSAME CH-C24)
H-TETRADECAHE (N-C14)
H-TR1ACOHTAHE CH-C30)
K,H-DIHETHYLFORHAMIDE
HAPHTHALEHE
NITROBENZENE
0-AHISIDIfiE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLU1DINE
P-CRESOt
P-CYHENE
P-D1METHYLAHIHOAZOBENZENE
PEHTACHLOR08EMZENE
PENTACHIOROETHANE
PEMTAMETHYLBEHZEHE
PERYLEME
PHEHAC6TIH
PHEHANTHREHE
PHENOL
PHEKOTHIAZINE
PROHAHIDE
PYREHE
'LE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORr=BPK FUKNI5H=HW -
(continued)
NO. OF
HILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
,2
~2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10'. 00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-3
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
21
CHEMICAL NAME
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SQUALENE
STYRENE
T-BUTANOL
THIANAPHTHENE
THIOACETAMIDE
THIOXANTHONE
TRIPHENYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1-METHYLPHENAMTHRENE
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
1, 2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-01PHENYLHYDRAZ1NE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCINOL)
1.3-DJCHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DINITROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-NAPHTHALEHEDIAMINE
2-(METHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOL
2-BROHOCHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL
2-METHYLBENZOTHIOAZOLE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-OINITROTOLUENE
2,4,5-TRIHETHYLANlLINE
2.6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQ1NONE
2,6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2'
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
UNITS
'UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
fcD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM \
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-3
22
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
3-BROHOCHLOR06ENZENE 2 2
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE 2 2
3-HETHYLCHOtANTHRENE 2 2
3-HITROANILINE 2 2
3,3'-DICHLOROeENZIDINE 2 2
3,3'-DIHETHOXYBEHZIDINE 2 2
3.5-D1BROHO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR 2 2
3,6-DIBETHYLPHEHANTHRENE 2 2
4-AMINOeiPHENYL 2 2
4-BROHOPHEHYL PHENYL ETHER 2 2
4-CHI.ORO-2-NITROANIL1NE 2 2
4-CHIORO-3-HETHYLPHENOL 2 2
4-CHLOROAH1LINE 2 2
4-CHIOROPKENYL PKENYL ETHER 2 2
4-MITROANILINE 2 2
4-NlTROeiPHENYL 2 2
4-NnROPHENOt 2 2
4,4'-HETHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI) 2 2
4f5-M6THYLENEPHEHANTHRENE 2 2
5-CHtORO-O-TOtUIDINE 2 2
S-MITRO-0-TOLUIDINE 2 2
7,12-OIHETHYLBENZ(A>ANTHRACENE 2 2
ALUMINUM 2 0
ANTINOMY 2 2
ARSENIC 2 2
BARIUM 2 0
BERYLLIUM 2 2
BISMUTH 2 2
BORON 2 1
CADMIUM 2 2
CALCIUM 2 0
CERIUM 2 2
CHROMIUM 2 • 2
COBALT 2 2
COPPER 2 1
DYSPROSIUM 2 2
ERBIUM 2 2
EUROPIUM 2 2
GADOLINIUM 2 2
GALLIUM 2 2
GERMANIUM *2 2
GOLD 2 2
HAFNIUM 2 2
HOLHINUH 2 2
INOIUH 2 2
IODINE 2 0
IRIDIUH 2 2
IROM 2 0
LAHTHANW 2 2
LEAD 2 2
LITHIUM 2 2
LUTETIUH 2 2
MAGNESIUM 2 0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
9
1
3
0
9
3
3
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
9
0
9
3
9
9
0
UG/IL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/IL
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/i
UG/L
UG/L
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
iti=nw - — •-
MINIMUM
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00'
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
851.00
6.00
2.00
1120.00
2.00
30.00
5.00
110000.00
10.00
25.00
15.00
3100.00
261.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
, J
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
2510.00
6.00
2.00
2190.00
2.00
1390.00
5.00
205000.00
10.00
25.00
36.00
6500.00
487.00
50.00
11900.00
21200.00
-------
TABLE C-3
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SWIKLC KU1NI C
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2'
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
CT
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
2
AltbUKT NAMt=AL
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
3
3
9
3
9
9
9
3-
9
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
9
3
9
9
3
3
9
9
3
9
3
3
9
ilU STAGE FILTR/
(continued)
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
0
1
3
9
3
9
9
9
0
9
0
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
0
3
0
0
0
9
9
9
3
9
9
3
1
9
9
2
9
2
0
9
lit SUBC,
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
2210.00
2.00
10.00
22.00
4500.00
2300.00
3.00
10100.00
6.00
260000.00
900.00
50800.00
20.00
30.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
150.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
4690.00
5.80
10.00
22.00
7700.00
3400.00
3.00
15500.00
6.00
392000.00
1700.00
305000.00
26.00
30.00
15.00
102.00
6.00
275.00
ND
-------
TABLE C-4
24
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL HAKE
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOX'IN
1,2.3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DlOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORCOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7, 8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,3,3,4,7,8-HEXACHIORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN .
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLOSODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHtORCOIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CW.OROCATECHOt
4-CHLOROCUAIACOt
5-CHIOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROVANILLIN
6-CHLOROVAHILLIN
2- CWtOROSYRINGALDEHYOE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-OICHLOROPHENOC
3,4-DtCHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DlCHLOROCATECHOL
3,6"DICHIOROCATECKOL
4,5-OICHLOROCATECHOi
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DICHLOROG'JAIACCL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAlACCL
5,6-DICHLOROVAMILLIH
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-tRICHLOROPHENOt
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENQL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRlCHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TR1CHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRIHGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHL080CATECHOL
TETRACHtOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHtOROPHENOL
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BROHODICHLOROHETHANE
BftOMOHETHANE
)RY NAME=ALKALINE STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FUKNISH=MH
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS.
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
'10
10
10
10
9
7
3
7
4
3
9
7
8
10
7
7
7
4
4
10
3
10
9
9
7
7
10
10
10
3
10
7
10
10
10
10
8
10
9
10
10
10
NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
8
10
10
10
10
9
2
5
' 10
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
7
3
1
3
3
0
3
3
0
9
7
5
5
3
0
6
0
4
4
4
0
6
7
3
7
2
3
3
1
0
6
6
3
9
9
10
7
10
62
16
16
16
16
15
9
62
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
66
45
62
12
53
68
66
68
72
18
18
59
12
52
66
51
72
67
70
66
18
70
72
63
46
70
63
68
71
68
64
68
72
71
71
72
72
60
16
16
16
16
13
3
47
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
13
33
43
32
10
6
11
9
31
70
18
14
56
11
46
60
23
13
21
15
6
15
64
11
60
41
33
38
22
9
58
60
60
71
71
71
54
72
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM SYMBOL
3.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
4.00
5.00
100.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
7.00
5.00
3.00
4.00
7.00
0.30
1.20
0.30
0.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.30
0.30
0.30
2.40
0.50
2.40
1.00
2.50
0.50
0.30
0.50
1.30
0.10
0.30
0.50
0.30
4.80
0.10
0.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.10
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
15.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
70.00
8800.00
230000.00
63.00
100.00
100.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
23.00
200.00
53.00
1900.00
19.00
42.47
14.00
13.50
350.00
2261.00
1428.00
23.00
8.60
5.00
23.00
36.28
1.70
17.47
171.08
48.70
637.00
64.00
550.00
560.00
0.20
29.00
94.78
149.91
23.81
64.84
13.00
300.00
120.00
11.00
67.39
42.00
1.70
50.00
10.00
132.00
50.00
-------
TABLE C-4
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
25
CHEMICAL NAME
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROHETHANE
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1.2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
\*n i buu
NO. OF
MILLS
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
TV i rannc—Munt/i
NO. Ot
MILLS
NON-DETECT
10
10
10
10
0
9
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
9
10
10
7
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
6
9
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
9
3
10
10
2
10
10
9
10
10
.line OIMUC ri
(continued)
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
72
72
72
72
71
71
72
72
72
72
68
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
63
72
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
70
17
72
72
71
72
70
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
66
71
72
72
66
72
72
72
72
72
L.1KM1C OUDUMI
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
72
72
72
72
1
70
72
72
72
72
68
70
72
72
72
71
72
72
54
72
70
71
72
72
72
72
71
70
14
71
72
71
72
68
72
72
72
72
71
72
72
72
72
65
56
72
72
13
72
72
71
72
72
! CUUK I -D
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
U6/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
rK ruKNia
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
29811.00
234.33
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
13369.00
'10.00
10.00
10.00
440.00
10.00
10.00
8234.50
10.00
13.49
1086.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
962.00
10.00
1897.00
3515.00
10.00 -
10.00
10.00
172.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
16.30
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
5649.00
4548.00
10.00
50.00
6187.00
10.00
100.00
798.00
1Q.OO
50.00
-------
TABLE C-4
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
26
CHEMICAL MAKE
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
ACEKAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLEBE
ACETOPHEHONE
ALPHA-MAPHTHYLAHIHE
ALPHA-P1COUHE
ALPHA-TERPINEOC
AHILIHE
ANTHRACENE
ARAH1TE
B-KAPHTHYLAH1HE
8EMZAHTHRONE
BENZEHETHIOt
BEHZIDIHE
SEHZO(A)AHTHRACENE
8EHZO(A)PYRENE
BEMZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BE«ZO(GHI)P£RYLENE
8£NZO{>C>FLUORANTHENE
BEMZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHEHYL
BIS C2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BmCHLOROMETHYDETHERCNR)
BISCZ-CHLOROETHOXYWETHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHAUTE
CARBAZOtE
CHRYSEHE
DI-H-BUTYL AMINE
OI-H-BUTYL PHTHALATE
Dt-H-OCTYL PHTHALATE
01BEHZOCA,H)ANTHRACENE
D1BENZOFORAH
DIBENZOTHIOPKENE
DICHLOROOIFLUOROHETHANE (NR)
OIETHYL PHTHALATE
OIHETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHEHYL ETHER
D1PHEHYLAHIKE
01PHEHYLDISULFIDE
ETHAHOL
ETHYL HETKANESULFOWATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-HETHYL ETHER
FLUORANTHENS
FLUOREME
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACKLOR06EHZENE
BEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAOIENE
IIHT CATEGORY NAME=ALKALINE STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY-BPK FURNISM=HW
(continued)
NO. OF
HILLS
6
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
31
18
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3'
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
0
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
UNITS
KG/I
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
2.59
15.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
• ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
73.00
2200.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
51.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-4
27
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
INDENO(1,2.3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPANOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
METHAPYRILENE
METHYL METHANESULFOMATE
N-BUTANOL
N-DEC'ANE CN-dO)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
N-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
N-PROPANOL
N-TETRACOSANE (N-C24)
N-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
N-TRIACONTANE (N-C30)
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
O-ANISIOINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMENE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
PERYLENE
PHENACETIN
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOTHIAZINE
PRONAHIDE
PYRENE
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
,2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 '
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 .
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00 .
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-4
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
28
CHEMICAL HAKE
PYR1DIHE
SAFROtE ,
SOMIEHE
STYREKE
T-BUTANOt
TKIAHAPHTKENE
THIOACETAHIDE
THIOXANTHOHE
TRIPHENYLEHE
TRIPROPYtENEGtYCOL HETHYL ETHER
1-H£THYLFLUORENE
1-HETHYLPHENAHTHRENE
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
1,2-DIBROHO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBEHZENE
1,2-DIPHEHYLHYDRAZIHE
1,2,3-TRlCHLOROBENZEHE
1,2,3-TR1H£THOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRlCHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BENZENEDlOt (RESORCINOL)
1.3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DlCHLOROeENZENE
1.3-DIHITR08ENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIAHE
1,4-DICHLOROeENZENE
1,4-MAPHTHOQUJNOHE
1,5-HAPHTHALENEDIAMINE
2-
-------
TABLE C-4
29
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ALKALINE STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE 2
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE 2
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE 2
3-NITROANILINE 2
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 2
3,3'-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE 2
3.5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR 2
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE 2
4-AMINOBIPHENYL 2
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 2
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE 2
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 2
4-CHLOROANILINE .2
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 2
4-NITROANILINE 2
4-NITROBIPHENYL 2
4-NITROPHENOL 2
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI) 2
4,5-METHYLENEPHENANTKRENE 2
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE 2
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE 2
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE 2
ALUMINUM 2
ANTIMONY 2
ARSENIC 2
BARIUM 2'
BERYLLIUM 2
BISMUTH 2
BORON 2
CADMIUM 2
CALCIUM 2
CERIUM 2
CHROMIUM 2
COBALT 2
COPPER 2
DYSPROSIUM 2
ERBIUM 2
EUROPIUM 2
GADOLINIUM 2
GALLIUM 2
GERMANIUM 2
GOLD 2
HAFNIUM 2
HOLMIHUM 2
INDIUM 2
IODINE 2
IRIDIUM 2
IRON 2
LANTHANUM 2
LEAD 2
LITHIUM 2
LUTETIUM 2
MAGNESIUM 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•2
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
3
9
3
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
9
1
3
0
9
3
3
3
.9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
9
0
9
3
9
9
2
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
=nw ---- —
MINIMUM
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
406.00
6.00
2.00
205.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
17300.00
10.00
25.00
13.00
168.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1950.00
60.00
2.00
407.00
2.0,0
1220.00
5.00
35200.00
10.00
25.00
24.00
2300.00
373.00
50.00
2090.00
6880.00
-------
TABLE C-4
30
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL HAMS
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NCOOYHIUH
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSHIUH
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PL ATI HUH
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHEHIUH
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAKARIUH
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SOOIUH
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URAHIUH
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
21 HC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
nrLC fuiHi UHI
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0'
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
CUUKI HHT1C-MI.ISJ%
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
3
3
9
3
9
9
9
3
9
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
9
9
3
9
9
3
3
9
9
3
9
3
3
9
l. i nc o I nuc r i 1
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
0
1
9
3
9
9
9
0
9
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
0
3
0
0
0
9
9
9
3
9
9
3
1
9
9
2
9
3
0
9
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
UKN15H=MW -
MINIMUM
477.00
4.40
10.00
22.00
1200.00
3.00
7600.00
6.00
836000.00
200.00
32800.00
20.00
30.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
36.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
746.00
21.00
15.00
22.00
2900.00
1200.00
30.00
26500.00
6.00
928000.00
300.00
38500.00
20.00
30.00
20.00
60.00
5.00
79.00
ND
-------
TABLE C-5
31
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SU
NO., OF
NO. OF KILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN • 11 4
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 8
1,2,3,4,7.8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 9
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 9
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 10
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI 10 6
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 8 5
2,3.7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 2
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 9
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 9
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODlBENZOFURAN 10 10
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN 10 10
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 9 9
4-CHLOROPHENOL 8 2
4-CHLOROCATECHOL 5 1
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL 8 4
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL 3 2
5-CHLOROVANILLIN 5 1
6-CHLOROVANILLIN 10 1
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE 8' 5
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 9 2
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 11 9
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 6 6
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL 6 5
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL 8 4
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL 2 0
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL 6 3
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL 11 2
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 5 3
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 11 4
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 10 7
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN 10 7
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE 8 6
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 6 5
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 11 9
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 11 3
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL 11 5
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL 5 2
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 11 4
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 8 7
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 11 6
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL 11 8
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 11 8
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL 11 2
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL 9 6
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 11 8
ACRYLONITRILE 11 11
BENZENE 11 11
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 11 10
BROMOMETHANE 11 11
87
21
21
21
21
21
11
85
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
19
81
63
80
8
73
85
77
87
94
19
19
75
6
73
93
68
91
83
85
78
18
92
90
85
63
86
77
90
90
91
85
90
94
94
95
95
95
74
19
20
20
21
15
8
69
19
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
19
22
13
62
6
44
10
67
26
91
19
18
27
1
59
26
45
30
80
60
75
17
90
29
31
57
47
73
58
78
85
35
85
89
94
95
89
95
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
11.00
37.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
6.00
1.25
1.25
1.20
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
1.60
1.60
1.60
2.50
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
0.44
2.50
0.47
5.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
5.00
1.00
2.43
1.22
0.25
0.61
1.60
1.00
1.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
160.00
180.00
60.00
70.00
110.00
106.50
1500.00
2700.00
180.00
61.50
714.00
714.00
714.00
714.00
833.00
833.00
140.00
35.40
34.70
72.00
7.10
29.21
797.40
50.30
55.43
22.70
5.00
3.00
320.00
101.00
95.00
820.00
11.00
297.60
15.30
30.00
8.80
1.00
5.39
750.00
818.00
12.00
33.62
4.60
30.64
13.00
27.29
.131.30
10.00
374.90
500.00
100.00
51.00
500.00
-------
TABLE C-5
32
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGOKY=BPK
(continued)
NO. OF
CHEMICAL HAH£
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHIOROACETONITRILE
CHLOR06EHZEHE
CrtLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHIORCMITHAHE
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTOKALDEHYDE
D1BROHOCHLOROHETHANE
01BROHOHETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL HETHACRYLATE
EtHYLBSNZENE
1000HGTHANE
1S06UTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYLENE
HETHYL HETHACRYLATE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROHETHANE
TOLUEUE
TRAHS-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRA«S-1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1 .4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIB«ONOM€THANE
TR1CHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHiOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHAHE
1 , t . 1 . 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROKOETHAHE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHlOROPROPANE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-tUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-OIOXAHE
2-BUTAKONE (HEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXAHONE
2-PROPANOHE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPEUAL (ACROLEIH)
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-HETHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-HETHYL-2-PENTANONE
HO. OF
HILLS
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
8
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
MILLS
NON-DETECT
5
11
11
11
0
8
11
11
11
11
11
11
•11
11
11
11
11
11
8
11
11
10
11
10
11
11
11
11
6
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
4
11
11
1
10
11
11
11
11
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
94
95
95
95
94
94
95
95
95
95
93
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
76
95
94
94
95
95
95
95
95
94
22
95
95
95
'95
94
95
93
94
95
95
95
95
95
95
88
90
95
95
83
95
93
95
95
95
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
77
95
95
95
2
88
95
95
95
95
93
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
71
95
94
93
95
94
95
95
95
94
18
95
95
95
95
94
95
93
94
95
95
95
95
95
95
88
58
95
95
13
94
93
95
95
95
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
;UKN1SH=SW
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
5.00
5.00
20.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
50.00
5.00
50.00
20.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
i^H
MAXIMUM
123.51
100.00
100.00
500.00
6927.00
185.70
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1098.00
100.00
100.00
228.45
100.00
18.46
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
32.80
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
200.00
1062.00
100.00
500.00
6694.00
1254.42
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
^^
-------
TABLE C-5
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE
CHEMICAL NAME
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-PICOLIHE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
B-NAPHTHYLAM1NE
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENETHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZOMETHANE
BISC2-CHLOROETHYDETHER
BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-BUTYL AMINE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZO(A.H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (NR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFOME
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHANOL
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-METHYL ETHER
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
ruiNi u
NO. OF
MILLS
4
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 '
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
* 1 CbUKT N«l"ie=/
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
\UJU SlAlit 1-tL
( continued:
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
24
23
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
IKAIt SUBUAIbGI
>
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0KT=BHK 1
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
U6/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
US/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-UKN1SH=SW
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
15.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
200.00
1400.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
16.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
39.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
972.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-5
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=
(continued)
CHEMICAL MAKE
BEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
IHO£NQ(1,Z,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPKORONE
ISOPROPAHQt
ISOPROPYL ETHER
1SOSAFROIE
LONGIFCH.ENE
MALACHITE GREEN
HETHAPYRILENE
METHYL HETHAMESULFOHATE
H-BOTAHW.
H-DECAHE (N-C10)
H-DOCOSAME (H-C22)
H-DOCECAKE (N-C12)
H-EICOSANE (H-C20)
H-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
H-REXAOECANE (N-C16)
H-NITROSOOI -N-BUTYLAHINE
H-HITROSODI -N-PROPYLAMINE
H-HITROSOD1ETHYLAMINE
H-HITROSODIKETHYLAHINE
H-NITROSOOIPHENYLAHINE
H-MI7ROSOHETHYLETHYLAMINE
H-NITROSOHETHYLPHENYLAHINE
H-NITROSOHORPKOLINE
H-NITROSOP1PERIDINE
H-OCTACOSAHE (N-C28)
H-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
H-PROPAHOi
H-TETRACOSANE CN-C24)
H-TETRAOECAKE (N-C14)
H-TRIACOHTANE (N-C30)
H.H-DIHETHYLFORHAHIDE
HAPHTHALEKE
HITROB.ENZENE
0-AHISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYHEHE
P-DIH£THYLAMINOAZOBEHZENE
PENTACHLOR08ENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
PERYLEHE
PKEHACETIH
PHEHAHTHREHE
PHEHOL
PREHOTHIAZINE
FROM AH IDE
PYRENE
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 '
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NGN-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO. OF
. NON-DETECTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L'
UG/L
•H
, ruKNiar
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
i=aw -------
MINIMUM
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND •
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
55.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
306.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10,00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
21.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-5
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK
-------
TABLE C-5
36
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ACID STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SU
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
2,6-DIHlTROTOLUENE
3-BROHOCHLOR08ENZENE
3-CHLOROHITROBEHZEHE
3-HETHYLCHOUNTHRENE
3-HITRCAHILIHE
3,3«-DlCHLOROB£HZIDIHE
3,3(-DIH£THOXY8EHZIDIHE
3,5-DlBROKO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DIHETHYLPHENANTHRENE
4-AHIHOBIPBEHYL
4-BROHOPHEHYL PHEHYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-HITROANILINE
4-CHLO&0-3-HETHYLPHEHOL
4-CHLOROAMIL1K6
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHEHYL ETHER
4-H1TROAHIL1NE
4-HITROSIPHEHYL
4-MmoPHeHOt
4,4«-HeTHYLEN£BIS<2-CHLOROANI)
4,5-HeTHYLEHEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOtUIDIHE
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-DIH£WLBENZCA)ANTHRAC£NE
ALUMINUM
ANTINOMY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BOSOM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOUHIUM
GALLIUM
GERHAHIUH
COLD
KAFHIUH
HOLHIKUH
1M01UH
IODINE
1R1DIUH
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUH
NO. OF
HILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
'2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2. '
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
• o
2
2
1
1
0
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2 •
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
15
5
5
5
15
5
5
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
9
15
5
15
5
15
15
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
1
5
15
4
4
0
15
4
5
4
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
6
15
0
15
5
15
15
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM SYMBOL
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
293.00
6.00
2.00
53.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
6390.00
10.00
25.00
8.00
175.00
50.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
2300.00
6.00
< 20.00
1040.00
2.00
111.00
5.00
125000.00
10.00
25.00
50.00
2950.00
1000.00
50.00
-------
TABLE C-5
37
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEOOYMIUH
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
, 2
SAMKLt KU1NI t
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
'2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
AlbliOKT NAMt=AU
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
15
5
15
15
15
7
15
7
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
5
5
5
7
5
15
15
15
5
15
15
5
5
15
15
5
15
5
5
15
ID STAGE F1LTI
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-OETECTS
1
0
0
5
15
5
15
15
15
3
15
3
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
0
5
0
3
0
15
15
15
5
15
15
5
3
15
15
3
15
5
0
15
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
4760.00
436.00
2.40
10.00
22.00
3.00
5000.00
6.00
365000.00
43600.00
2.00
30.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
56.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
52900.00
6570.00
28.00
10.00
22.00
5100.00
3000.00
3.00
18800.00
6.00
627000.00
600.00
57200.00
47.00
30.00
17.00
94.00
5.00
603.00
ND
-------
TABLE C-6
38
LONG-TERM STUDY AMD SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL HAKE
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACm.ORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3.4,6,7,8-H£PTACHLORODlBENZQ-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOlBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PEHTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PEHTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBEHZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAH
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-BEPTACKLOROOlBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLOROOIBEHZOFURAN
4-CHlOROPHENOL
4-CHiOROCATECHOC
4-CHLoaOGUAIACOt
5-CHIOROGUA1ACOL
5-CHLOROVAHILLIM
6-CHLOROVAHILL1N
2- CHtOROSYRIHGALDEHYDE
2,4-DlCHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DlCHLOfiOPHENOL
3,4-DlCHlOROPHENOL
3.5-DlCHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DlCHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DlCHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DlCHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3.A-D1CHLOROGUAIACCL
4,5-DlCHLOROGUAIACOt
4,6-DICHLOROGUAlACOL
5,6-DlCHLOROVAHILLIN
2,6-DlCHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRlCHLOROPHEHOL
2,4,6-TR1CHLOfiOPHEHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHlOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRlCHlOROGUAlACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCUAlACOt
4,5,6-TRICHtOROGUAIACOL
TRICHtOROSYRIHGOt
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOt
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHIOROGUAIACOL
PEHTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLOHITRILE
BEHZENE
8ROHOD1CHLOROKETHANE
BftOHOHETHAHE
EGORY NAME=ALKALINE
NO. OF
MILLS
11
10
10
10
10
10
8
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
8
5
8
3
5
10
8
9
11
6
6
8
2
6
11
5
11
10
9
8
6
11
11
11
5
11
8
11
11
11
11
9
11
11
11
11
11
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
5
10
10
10
9
7
3
2
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
7,
o'
4
2
2
0
2
7
2
11
6
6
5
2
3
7
2
2
5
3
7
4
10
4
5
3
3
3
1
9
8
5
3
8
11
11
11
11
STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FUKNISH=SW
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
82
18
18
17
18
16
9
83
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
81
66
77
7
72
86
76
83
88
13
13
74
5
73
86
72
87
79
80
76
13
86
85
78
67
87
76
81
83
85
79
83
89
88
89
89
89
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
66
18
18
17
17
13
4
57
17
17
18
18
18
18
17
17
15
14
64
12
4
19
6
62
25
88
13
13
64
5
66
41
21
17
52
23
61
10
83
25
58
63
27
45
26
67
66
68
45
75
88
89
89
89
UNITS
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
8.00
2.00
6.00
8.00
4.00
10.00
100.00
10.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
2.00
11.00
1.25
1.20
1.25
5.00
2.50,
2.50
2.40
1.00
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.20
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00
4.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.90
1.00
2.40
2.50
1.60
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
>
>
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
320.00
227.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
170.00
2000.00
1900.00
64.00
30.50
100.00
227.00
227.00
238.00
357.00
278.00
6500.00
57.43
1.80
150.00
29.00
594.80
7505.00
43.00
250.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
19.00
5.00
50.00
80.40
92.99
5000.00
50.00
509.00
160.00
3.00
7.00
210.00
49.00
7.70
500.00
40.00
300.00
38.00
35.60
29.00
470.00
12.10
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
-------
TABLE C-6
39
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-D ICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENENITRILE. 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
NO. OF
MILLS
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11.
11
6
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
9
11
11
11
0
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
6'
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
8
5
9
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
2
11
11
2
10
11
10
11
11
(continued;
,
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
87
89
89
89
89
88
89
89
89
89
86
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
69
89
88
89
89
89
89
89
89
88
15
89
89
89
89
88
89
88
88
89
89
89
89
89
89
81
86
89
89
81
89
89
89
89
89
L k. i t\n i b a\jo\*n 1
)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
85
89
89
89
2
87
89
89
89
89
86
89
89
89
89
88
89
89
59
89
88
89
88
89
89
89
89
83
12
87
89
89
88
88
89
88
88
89
88
89
89
89
89
81
54
89
89
r
88
89
88
89
89
cuwiv i — Dri
UNITS •
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
v runnion-;
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
'
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
50.00
5.00
50.00
20.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
47.55
20.00
20.00
100.00
3276.03
166.22
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
45.37
20.00
20.00
1095.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
117.67
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
19.02
33.40
3938.16
20.00
20.00
1122.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
1788.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
200.00
433.00
20.00
100.00
2334.90
243.95
100.00
175.78
20.00
100.00
-------
TABLE C-6
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=ALKALINE STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGCIRY=BPIC FURNISH=SW
(continued)
40
CHEMICAL NAME
CAOX)
AOSORBA8LE ORGANIC KALIDES
COD
ACEHAPHTHENE
ACEKAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPKA-HAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-PICOLIHE
ALPKA-TERPIHEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAHITE
B-KAPHTHYLAHINE
IEHZAHTHRONS
BEHZEHETHIOL
BENZIDIHE
BEHZOCA>ANTKRAC£NE
B£NZO(A>PYREN£
BENZOWFLUORAHTHENE
BENZOCGHDPERYLEHE
BENZOOOFLUORAHTHENE
BEHZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
EISETH£R
-------
TABLE C-6
41
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXAN01C ACID
INDENO<1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPANOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
METHAPYRILENE
METHYL METHAMESULFONATE
N-BUTANOL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE CN-C12)
N-EICOSANE CN-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE
-------
TABLE C-6
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=AUCALINE STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SU
(continued)
42
CHEMICAL HAKE
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SOUALEHE
STYREHE
T-BUTA«0L
TH1AKAPHTHENE
THIOACETAHIDE
THIOXAMTHONE
7RIPHEHYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-KETHYLFtUORENE
1-HETHYLPHEHAMTHREHE
1-PHEMYLMAPHTHALENE
1.2-DIBROHO-3-CHLOROPROPAKE
1,2-DICHLOROSEHZEHE
1,2-D1PHEHYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIHETHOXYBEHZENE
1,2,3,4-DlEPCXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHIOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBEMZENE
1,3-BEMZEHEOIOt (RESORCIHOL)
1.3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DlHITROeEUZENE
1,3,5-TRlTHIANE
1,4-D1CHLOROBEHZENE
1,4-HAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-HAPHTHALENED1AMIHE
2-
-------
TABLE C-6
43
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
3-NITROANILINE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3'-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE
3,5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
4-AMINOBIPHENYL
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANIL1NE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROBIPHENYL
4-NITROPHENOL
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI)
4,5-METHYLENEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM .
HOLMINUM
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
9
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
9
3
9
9
3
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
2
3
9
3
3
0
9
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
9
3
9
9
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
171.00
6.00
2.00
67.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
9360.00
10.00
25.00
8.00
145.00
50.00
2650.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
51.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1010.00
60.00
20.00
268.50
2.00
56.00
5.00
30600.00
10.00
25.00
14.00
661 .50
50.00
9985.00
-------
TABLE C-6
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=ALKALINE STAGE FILTRATE SUBCATEGORY=BPK RJRNISH=SU
44
CHEMICAL NAME
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEOOYHIUH
NICKEL
HIOBIUH
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASS1UH
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIM
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mine ruiwi wt
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
'2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
1 CUUTV i nm'ib.~nuiv
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
3
3
9
3
9
9
9
5
9
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
5
3
9
9
9.
3
9
9
3
3
9
9
3
9
3
3
9
ni_*r«h. »* • *-»»*ta. • .
(continued:
NO. OF
NOM-DETECTS
0
0
3
9
3
9
9
9
3
9
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
0
3
0
3
0
9
9
9
3
9
9
3
2
9
9
2
9
3
0
9
UNITS
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
MAXIMUM
0
0
3
9
3
9
9
9
3
9
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
0
3
0
3
0
9
9
9
3
9
9
3
2
9
9
2
9
3
0
9
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
MD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
312.00
24.00
10.00
22.00
3.00
9000.00
6.00
1400000.00
48100.00
20.00
30.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
34.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2495.00
30.50
10.00
22.00
2200.00
2800.00
3.00
15150.00
6.00
1815000.00
200.00
roipo.oo
72.00
30.00
5.50
53.50
5.00
304.00
-------
TABLE C-7
45
CHEMICAL NAME
. LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 2 68
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 9 22
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 9 22
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 9 22
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 10 10 22
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI 10 5 21
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 70 10
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 1 68
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10 22
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10 22
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10 22
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10 22
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10 22
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 9 22
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 9 22
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 10 10 22
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 96 20
4-CHLOROPHENOL 70 75
4-CHLOROCATECHOL 3 1 43
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL 72 70
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL 42 21
5-CHLOROVANILLIN 30 53
6-CHLOROVANILLIN 9 1 78
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE 7 1 72
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 80 80
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 10 .5 86
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 77 32
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL '75 32
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL 73 66
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL 4 1 21
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL 40 53
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL 10 2 80
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 30 51
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 10 2 85
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 93 75
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN 94 80
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE 70 72
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 7 5 32
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 10 6 83
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 10 ' 1 84
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL 10 4 75
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL 3 1 46
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 10 2 81
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 72 72
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 10 0 80
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL 10 0 82
2,3.4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 10 5 82
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL 10 1 77
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL 82 80
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 10 8 86
ACRYLONITRILE 10 10 85
BENZENE 10 9 85
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 10 6 85
BROMOMETHANE 10 10 86
JD\*n i cu
10. OF
MINIMUM
•DETECTS UNITS
60
20
21
20
22
12
1
40
22
22
22
22
22
21
21
22
17
17
16
39
15
6
17
15
33
75
32
24
30
11
25
26
23
20
30
24
8
25
70
9
27
29
37
44
26
17
68
41
66
82
85
84
49
86
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
' KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
5.63E-11
7.82E-11
7.45E-11
7.82E-11
1.06E-10
9.08E-10
1.86E-09
5.90E-11
5.63E-11
6.31E-11
7.45E-11
6.31E-11
9.17E-11
7.45E-11
5.90E-11
7.00E-11
1.42E-10
7.12E-06
2.61E-05
7.12E-06
1.19E-05
5.56E-05
1.19E-05
1.81E-05
3.63E-06
1.09E-05
7.12E-06
7.12E-06
5.19E-05
1.81E-05
5.22E-05
2.37E-05
2.90E-05
1.19E-05
7.12E-06
1.19E-05
3.08E-05
3.81E-06
7.12E-06
1.19E-05
7.12E-06
6.48E-05
2.38E-06
1.19E-05
7.12E-06
1.14E-05
7.64E-06
7.12E-06
2.37E-06
2.37E-06
5.80E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
5.80E-04
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL MAXIMUM
3.56E-09
1.52E-09
5.91E-10
6.53E-10
ND 2.89E-09
1.31E-07
3.40E-06
8.93E-09
ND 2.89E-09
ND 2.89E-09
ND 2.89E-09
ND 2.89E-09
ND 2.89E-09
3.66E-10
3.78E-09
ND 2.89E-09
2.98E-08
1 .48E-03
2.67E-03
1.36E-04
1.01E-03
1.92E-03
1.27E-02
8.06E-03
3.01E-03
5.53E-04
ND 1.93E-04
1.20E-03
3.54E-03
3.42E-03
1.51E-03
3.14E-03
3.26E-04
3.75E-03
6.10E-04
3.67E-03
3.29E-03
1.19E-04
8.07E-04
7.05E-03
6.87E-03
2.49E-04
9.35E-03
1.32E-03
3.64E-03
1 .37E-03
6.24E-04
5.76E-03
1.46E-03
3.52E-03
ND 7.67E-03
1 -85E-02
2.38E-03
ND 7.67E-03
-------
TABLE C-7
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
46
CHEMICAL HAKE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROACETOHITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHtOROETKAHE
CHLOROFORM
CHtOROHETHAHE
C1S-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALOEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
D1BRCMOHETHAHE
DIETHYt ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL HETHACRYUTE
ETHYLBENZENE
1000HETHAHE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYLENE
METHYL HETHACRYLATE
H6THYLEHE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLEHE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROHETHANE
TOLUENE
TRAMS-1.E-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1,4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROKOHETHANE
TRICWLOROETHENE
tR1CHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
V1HYL ACETATE
V1HYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHAHE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHAME
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHAME
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRlCHLOROPROPAHE
1,3-BOTAOIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (HEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVIHYL ETHER
2-KEXAHONE
2-PROPANOWE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEM-1-OL
2-P80PEHAL CACROLEIN)
2-PROPENEHITRILE, 2-HETHYL-
3-CHIOROPROPENE
4-K£THYL-2-PEHTANO«E
INT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NOM-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UIUITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
0
6
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
10
6
9
8
7
9
10
10
10
9
10
5-
9
9
9
10
8
10
9
10
10
9
9
10
• 10
10
9
2
9
10
1
10
10
9
10
10
86
86
86
86
85
85
86
86
86
86
82
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
70
86
84
86
86
86
86
86
86
84
28
86
86
85
86
84
86
84
86
86
86
86
86
86
86
78
82
86
86
74
86
85
86
86
86
62
86
86
86
0
81
86
85
86
86
80
85
86
85
85
85
85
86
57
85
82
80
85
86
86
86
85
84
20
85
85
84
86
77
86
84
86
86
85
85
86
86
86
77
57
85
86
7
86
85
85
86
86
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I1D
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
5.80E-04
1.95E-03
5.80E-04
1.16E-04
6.11E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
5.80E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1 .16E-04
5.80E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1 .39E-04
5.80E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
1.22E-04
6.11E-04
1.16E-04
5.80E-04
6.94E-04
1.16E-04
5.80E-04
1.16E-04
1.16E-04
5.80E-04
ND
ND
ND
•
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.93E-03
1.53E-03
1.53E-03
7.67E-03
4.05E-01
5.76E-01
.53E-03
.17E-03
.53E-03
.53E-03
.76E-02
.12E-03
.53E-03
1.53E-03
2.37E-04
3.25E-03
3.96E-03
1.53E-03
3.44E-02
1.68E-03
3.16E-04
6.25E-02
3.20E-04
1 .53E-03
1.53E-03
7.67E-03
6.24E-03
1.53E-03
6.37E-02
3.56E-02
3.39E-04
6.22E-03
1.53E-03
6.99E-02
1 .53E-03
1.53E-03
1.53E-03
1.53E-03
7.38E-04
2.75E-04
1.53E-03
1 .53E-03
1.53E-03
3.57E-02
1.65E-01
8.37E-04
7.67E-03
3.05E-01
1.53E-03
7.67E-03
4.93E-03
1.53E-03
7.67E-03
-------
TABLE C-7
47
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
CHEMICAL NAME
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-P1COLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
B-NAPHTHYLAMINE
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENETHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZOCA)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZOCB)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOCGHDPERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER'
BISCCHLOROMETHYDETHERCNR)
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BISC2-CHLOROETHYUETHER
BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
DI-N-BUTYL AMINE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZOCA,HJANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (NR>
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHANOL
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-METHYL ETHER
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
6
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
.2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
43
32
5
5
5
5
5
5
. 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
3
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
6.33E-02
3.60E-01
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
6.94E-04
6.94E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
2.40E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
2.78E-04
2.78E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
5.69E+00
1.12E+02
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
2.98E-04
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
2.83E-03
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
1.15E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
6.89E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
1.97E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
2.91E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
1.13E-03
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
-------
TABLE C-7
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADIHGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURHISH=HW
(continued)
48
CHEMICAL HAKE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HCXACHLOROPROPEKE
RgXAHOlC ACID
1«0£KO<1,2,3-CO)PYRENE
ISOPHQftONE
ISOPROPANOt
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAfROLE
LOHS1FOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
HETHAPYRILENE
METHYL HETHANESULFONATE
H-BUIAHOL
H-DECANE (M-C10)
H-DOCOSAHE (H-C22)
H-DOOECAHE (H-C12)
H-EICOSAHE (H-C20)
H-HSCACOSANE (M-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
H-H1TROSODI-H-BUTYLAMINE
M-HITROSODI-H-PROPYLAHINE
N-NITROSCOIETHYUHINE
H-NITROSODIHeTHYLAHINE
H-MITROSOOIPHENYLAHINE
H-HITROSOHETHYLETHYLAMINE
H-HITROSOHETHYLPHEHYLAHINE
N-HITROSOMORPHOUNE
H-HITROSOPIPERIDINE
H-OCTACOSANE (H-C28)
M-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
H-PROPAHOL
H-TETRACOSANE (N-C24)
H-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
H-TR1ACONTANE (N-C30)
M,H-DIHETHYLFORHAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-AHISIDINE
0-CRESOt
0-TOiUIDINE
P-CRESOt
P-CYHEHE
P-DIRETHYLAHINOAZOSENZENE
PENTACHLOR06ENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTAHETHYLBENZENE
PERYLEKE
PHEHACETIH
PKENAHTHREHE
PHENOL
PKEKOTHtAZINE
PROKAHIDE
PYREME
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
'2
2
a
2
' 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 '
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
. 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
:ATEGUKY=B
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/AIDMT
KG/A0MT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/AflMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
PK FURNIS
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
H=MW
MINIMUM
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
6.94E-04
2.78E-04
1.39E-04
1.37E-03
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
2.78E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-041
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.60E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
1.13E-03
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
TABLE C-7
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
49
PYRIDINE 2 2
SAFROLE 2 2
SQUALENE 2 2
STYRENE 2 2
T-BUTANOL 2 2
THIANAPHTHENE 2 2
THIOACETAMIDE 2 2
THIOXANTHONE 2 1
TRIPHENYLENE 2 2
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER 2 2
1-METHYLFLUORENE 2 2
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE 2 2
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE 2 2
1.2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE 2 2
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE 2 2
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE 2 2
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 2 2
1,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE 2 2
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE 2 2
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 2 2
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE 2 2
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCINOL) 2 2
1.3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL 2 2
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 2 2
1,3-DINITROBENZENE 2 2
1,3,5-TRITHIANE 2 2
1.4-DICHLOROBENZENE 2 2
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE 2 2
1,5-NAPHTHALENEDIAMINE 2 2
2-(METHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOL 2 2
2-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE 2 2
2-BUTANOL 2 2
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE 2 2
2-CHLOROPHENOL 2 2
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE 2 2
2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL 2 2
2-METHYLBENZOTHIOAZOLE 2 2
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 2 2
2-NITROANILINE 2 2
2-NITROPHENOL 2 2
2-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE 2 2
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE 2 2
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE 2 2
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE 2 2
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE 2 2
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 2 0
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL 2 2
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 2 2
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE 2 2
2,4,5-TRIMETHYLANILINE 2 2
2,6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE 2 2
2.6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE 2 2
2,6-6lNITROTOLUENE 2 2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
UCUUKI— or
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
N ruKNia
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
n=nw
MINIMUM
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1.37E-03
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
1.37E-03
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
6.94E-04
1.39E-04
1 .37E-03
1.37E-03
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1.39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .39E-04
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
6.94E-04
1.37E-03
1 .39E-04
1.39E-04
6.94E-04
1 .39E-04
2.78E-04
1 .37E-03
1 .37E-03
1.39E-04
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
MAXIMUM
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.60E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.73E-03
5.66E-04
5.60E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
5.60E-03
5.60E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
5.60E-03
1 .36E-03
5.66E-04
2.83E-03
5.66E-04
1.13E-03
5.60E-03
5.60E-03
5.66E-04
-------
CHEMICAL HAHE
TABLE C-7
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HU
' (continued)
NO. OF
HO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
50
3-BRCHOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLOROHITR06ENZENE
3-HETHYLCHOUNTHRENE
3-HITROAHILINE
3,3«-DICHLOR08EHZIDINE
3,3'-DIM6THOXYBENZIDINE
3,5-DIBROHO-4-HYDROXYBEHZONITR
3,6-DIHETHYLPHENANTHRENE
4-AMINOBIPHENYL
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-HITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-HETHYLPHEHOL
4-CHLOROAHILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-HITRQAHILINE
4-NITROBIPHENYL
4-M1TROPBENOL
4,4•-KETHYLENEBISCa-CHLOROANI)
4,5-H£THYLEMEPHEHAHTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOtUIDINE
5-M1TRO-0-TOLUIDINE
7.12-D1H£THYLBENZ
-------
TABLE C-7
51
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
CHEMICAL NAME
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hnruc rut HI UH
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
0
2
ICUUKI H«me=Di_e
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
5
5
5
15
5
15
15
15
5
15
6
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
5
5
5
4
5
15
15
15
5
15
15
5
5
15
15
5
15
5
5
15
m»n ruANi crri
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
0
3
15
5
15
15
15
0
15
3
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
0
5
0
0
0
15
15
15
5
15
15
5
2
15
15
2
15
4
0
15
EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
uan=nH
MINIMUM
3.63E-02
4.53E-05
2.40E-04
3.05E-04
7.18E-02
7.19E-05
2.14E-01
8.33E-05
8.69E+00
1.34E-02
6.15E-01
1.13E-04
4.16E-04
1.20E-04
2.69E-04
1 .20E-04
2.34E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
9.70E-02
8.49E-04
4.39E-04
1 .24E-03
1 .78E-01
1.13E-01
3.73E-04
7.89E-01
3.39E-04
3.67E+01
2.86E-02
6.25E+00
7.83E-04
1.70E-03
1.16E-03
3.65E-03
7.60E-05
1 .06E-02
ND
-------
TABLE C-8
52
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLOR001BENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-H£XACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-H£XACHLOROD1BENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLOR001BENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACKLOROOIBENZOFURAM
1,2,3,7,8-PEHTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAM
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAH
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHIORCOIBEHZOFURAM
4-CHLOROPBEHOt
4-CHLOfiOCATECHOL
4"CHia?OGUAIACOt
5-CHLOROCUAIACOL
5-CHLORCVAHILLIH
6-CHLOROVAHILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DlCHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOfiOPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOt
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOt
3,5-DICBLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOl
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DlCHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DlCHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHEMOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHiOROCATECHOt
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHCH.
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOC
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRlCHLOROGUAIACOt
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENQL
TeiRACHlOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PEHTACHtOROPHENOL
ACRYLOHITRILE
BENZENE
BROHOOICHIOROMETHAME
BROHOHETHAHE
[GORY NAHE=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUEN
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF
T SUBCATtl
NO. OF
3U*I=BPK FUKN1SH=SW
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
10
9
9
9
9
9
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
5
8
3
5
9
8
9
10
5
5
8
2
6
10
5
10
9
9
8
5
10
10
10
5
10
8
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
4
7
8
8
7
6
1
1
8
8
9
9
9
9
8
9
6
0
1
• 2
2
0
1
5
2
8
5
4
4
0
3
3
2
1
4
3
5
3
9
3
4
2
3
4
2
9
7
2
3
6
10
10
9
10
80
16
16
15
16
14
8
79
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
80
60
76
7
70
80
75
83
86
11
11
72
5
70
84
67
83
74
76
76
11
84
82
72
63
77
75
79
81
82
77
83
86
87
87
87
87
62
14
15
14
14
11
2
54
14
15
16
16
16
16
14
15
13
11
12
12
5
17
4
54
23
83
11
10
26
1
53
24
21
15
49
23
58
8
82
24
22
56
25
46
28
66
65
29
46
69
87
87
81
87
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
• KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM SYMBOL
1.08E-10
7.87E-10
1.94E-10
1.94E-10
2.37E-10
2.05E-10
2.01E-09
1.08E-10
1.34E-10
1.34E-10
1.24E-10 ND
1.24E-10 ND
1.94E-10 ND
1.66E-10 ND
1.87E-10
2.47E-10 ND
3.96E-10
1 .92E-05
1 .53E-05
1.89E-05
9.12E-05
3.78E-05
9.12E-05 >
3.04E-05
3.04E-05
2.26E-05
2.26E-05 ND
2.26E-05
3.04E-05
9.51E-05
3.04E-05
3.04E-05
3.04E-05
3.04E-05 >
3.04E-05
6.10E-05
6.10E-05
1.41E-05
1.41E-05
1.41E-05
1.41E-05
6.10E-05
1 .90E-05 >
3.04E-05
3.04E-05
2.08E-05
3.04E-05
6.10E-05
3.62E-05
1 .82E-05
1 .86E-04 ND
9.30E-05 ND
9.30E-05
1 .29E-04 ND
MAXIMUM
3.19E-09
8.39E-10
8.39E-10
2.94E-10
2.42E-09
6.29E-09
3.81E-08
5.34E-08
3.77E-09
1.51E-09
1.09E-08
1.22E-08
1.22E-08
1.23E-08
8.39E-10
1 .44E-08
6.79E-08
8.71E-04
5.80E-04
1.83E-03
1.55E-04
4.47E-03
5.69E-02
7.61E-04
2.92E-03
2.11E-04
2.14E-04
1.81E-04
5.96,E-03
9.96E-04
1.79E-03
1.23E-02
9.22E-04
5.70E-02
4.80E-04
4.08E-03
1.50E-03
3.15E-05
3.26E-04
1.24E-02
7.75E-03
2.88E-04
4.75E-03
3.90E-04
2.78E-03
6.01E-04
4.32E-04
1.20E-03
4.28E-03
3.98E-03
8.95E-03
1.79E-03
8.63E-04
8.95E-03
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
TABLE C-8
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SW
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
53
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
C1S-1.3-D1CHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-D ICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1,4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1.2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.73E-03
1 .79E-03
1.79E-03
8.95E-03
1.06E-01.
5.44E-03
1.79E-03
8.95E-03
1.79E-03
1 .79E-03
8.95E-03
1 .79E-03
1.79E-03
1.79E-03
1.79E-03
6.32E-04
1.79E-03
1.79E-03
8.27E-02
1 -79E-03
1.79E-03
2.40E-03
7.60E-04
3.77E-04
1.79E-03
8.95E-03
1 .79E-03
2.51E-04
6.20E-04
3.68E-02
1.79E-03
1.79E-03
7.56E-03
.79E-03
.79E-03
.79E-03
.79E-03
.79E-03
.21E-02
-79E-03
.79E-03
-79E-03 •
1.79E-03
2.16E-04
3.89E-02
1.79E-03
8.95E-03
8.62E-02
2.20E-02
1.08E-03
1.78E-03
1.79E-03
8.95E-03
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
TABLE C-8
LONG-TERH STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SU
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NOH-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
54
ADSORBA8LE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
ACEHAPHTHENE
ACEHAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
AtPHA-NAPHTHYLAHINE
ALPHA-PICOUNE
ALPRA-TERPIHEOL
AH1L1KE
ANTHRACENE
ARAHITE
B-MAPHTHYLAHINE
8ENZAHTHRONE
BEHZEMETHIOL
BEHZIDINE
BEHZOCA)ANTHRACENE
BEHZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
8ENZO{GHI)P£RYLENE
BEHZOdOFLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHEMYL
BIS (Z-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BISCCHLOROKETHYDETHERCNR)
S!S(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
flS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOtE
CHRYSENE
Dl-H-BUTYL AHINE
DI-H-BUTYL PHTHALATE
OI-H-OCm PHTHALATE
01BENZOCA,H>ANTHRACENE
D1BENZOFORAH
DIBEHZOTHIOPHEHE
DICHLORODIFLUOROHETHANE (NR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
D1HETHYL PHTHALATE
DIHETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
OIPKEUYLAHINE
D1PHEHYL0ISULFIDE
ETHANOL
ETHYL HETHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYHYLESTRADlOt 3-METHYL ETHER
FLUORAMTHEKE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBEMZENE
HEXACHLOROCYCtOPENTADIENE
4
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1-
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
16
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT •
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.40E-01
2.12E-01
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
7.07E-04
7.07E-04
2.05E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1 .41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.66E-03
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
4.36E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.17E-02
1 .41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1 .41E-04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NDi
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.64E+00
8.33E+01
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
7.07E-04
7.07E-04
2.05E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.66E-03
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
4.36E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.17E-02
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
-------
TABLE C-8
55
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SW
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
INDENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPANOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
METHAPYRILENE
METHYL METHANESULFONATE
N-BUTANOL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIHETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
N-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
N-PROPANOL
N-TETRACOSANE CN-C24)
N-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
N-TRIACONTANE (N-C30)
N.N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-ANISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMENE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
PERYLENE
PHENACETIN
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOTHIAZINE
PRONAMIDE
PYRENE
NO. OF
KILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1,
o'
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
i
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1 '
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT .
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
, KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.40E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
6.68E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.59E-04
3.88E-03
1.41E-04
1.45E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1 .47E-04
7.07E-04
2.58E-04
1.41E-04
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
I
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1 .41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.40E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
6.68E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.59E-04
3.88E-03
1.41E-04
1.45E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.47E-04
7.07E-04
2.58E-04
1.41E-04
-------
TABLE C-8
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADIHGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SW
(continued)
56
CHEMICAL HAKE
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SQUALEHE
STYRENE
T-BUTAKOL
TttlAHAPHTHENE
THIOACETAHIDE
THIOXAHTHONE
TRIPHEHYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGL.YCOL METHYL ETHER
1-HETHYLFLUORENE
1-HETHYLPHEHANTHRENE
1-PHEHYLHAPHTHALENE
1.2-D1BROHO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-D1CHLOROB£NZENE
1,2-01PHEHYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIHETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRlCHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BEHZENEDIOL (RESORCINOO
1,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOt
1,3-DlCHtOROBENZENE
1,3-D1HITROBEHZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DlCHLOROBENZENE
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-HAPHTHALENEDIAMINE
2-(HETHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOL
2-BROHOCHLOROBENZEHE
2-807ANOL
2-CHLOROHAPHTHALENE
2-CHtOROPHENOL
2-1SOPROPYLMAPHTHALEHE
2-HeTHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
2-WETHYLBENZOTHIOAZOLE
2-HETHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-HITROAHILINE
2-HJTROPHENOL
2-PHEHYLHAPHTHALENE
2,3-BEHZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3-DICHLOROHITR08ENZENE
2,4-OIAHIHOTOiUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIHETHYLPHEKOL
2,4-DlHITROPHENOt
2,4-DIMITROTOLUENE
2,4,5-TRIHETHYlANILINE
2.6-D1-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE
2,6-DICHtORO-4-NITROANILINE
2,6-DINITROTOtUENE
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF
HILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
MINIMUM MAXIMUM
UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KCi/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KCi/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.40E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.40E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1 .40E-03
1.40E-03
1.41E-04
1.26E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.40E-03
1.63E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.40E-03
1 .40E-03
1 .41E-04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.40E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.40E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.40E-03
1.40E-03
T.41E-04
1.26E-03
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
•U41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.40E-03
1.63E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.40E-03
1 .40E-03
1.41E-04
-------
TABLE C-8
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
57
CHEMICAL NAME
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
3-NITROANILINE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3'-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE
3.5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
4-AMINOBIPHENYL
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROBIPHENYL
4-NITROPHENOL
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS<2-CHLOROANb
4,5-METHYLENEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM
HOLMINUM
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
0
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' 0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
' 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
1
0 '
0
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
1
3
3
0
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
7.07E-04
7.10E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1 .41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
2.83E-04
1 .41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.80E-02
8.48E-05
2.83E-04
7.53E-03
2.83E-05
3.04E-04
7.07E-05
1.11E+00
1.41E-04
3.53E-04
3.04E-04
1.29E-02
7.07E-04
2.97E-01
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
7.07E-04
7.10E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
1 .41E-04
1.41E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
1.41E-04
7.07E-04
2.83E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
1.41E-04
2.80E-02
8.48E-05
2.83E-04
7.53E-03
2.83E-05
3.04E-04
7.07E-05
1.11E+00
1.41E-04
3.53E-04
3.04E-04
1.29E-02
7.07E-04
2.97E-01
-------
TABLE C-8
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SW
58
CHEMICAL HAHE
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEOOYHIUH
NICKEL
HIOB1UH
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PUT I HUH
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RBEHIUH
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIM
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
HO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
nnruc rwini wi
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
0
1
1
1
1
P
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1 .
0
1
1
0
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
, 1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
i
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
0
1
3
1
. 3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
0
3
3
0
3
1
0
3
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMt
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
7.85E-02
4.05E-04
1.41E-04
3.11E-04
5.76E-02
2.67E-02
4.24E-05
2.53E-01
8.48E-05
1.26E+01
6.01E-03
8.06E-01
7.53E-04
4.24E-04
7.24E-05
1.19E-03
7.07E-05
7.47E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
7.85E-02
4.05E-04
1.41E-04
'3.11E-04
5.76E-02
2.67E-02
4.24E-05
2.53E-01
8.48E-05
1.26E+01
6.01E-03
8.06E-01
7!53E-04
4.24E-04
7.24E-05
1.19E-03
7.07E-05
7.47E-03
-------
TABLE C-9
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
59
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1.2,3,4.6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLOROD1BENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROD IBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHEHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROGUA!ACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3.4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCA7ECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
CARBON DISULF1DE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
V 1 \ff\ 1 l_ U
NO. OF
MILLS
8
8
8
8
8
7
4
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
5
5
5
7
5
6
8
8
8
5
4
1
8
8
7
7
5'
8
8
7
7
8
5
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
vr\ i nrufif—rr\r
NO. OF
'MILLS
NON-DETECT
7
8
8
7
7
2
0
6
7
7
6
8
8
7
8
8
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
7
8
8
4
3
1
8
6
6
5
5
8
7
6
6
4
5
7
8
8
8
4
4
8
8
7
8
7
8
8
8
&i\ rmvtninc wn
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
10
10
10
10
10
9
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
9
15
15
13
17
13
18
18
18
18
15
12
3
18
20
17
19
13
18
20
17
17
20
15
20
20
20
18
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1 I C Hn 1 Cl\ OUI
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
8
10
10
9
9
4
0
6
8
9
8
10
10
9
9
10
7
14
14
12
12
12
16
17
18
18
14
11
3
18
18
15
16
13
18
17
15
16
13
15
19
20
20
18
16
15
20
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
9l»M 1 CUUK
UNITS
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
48.00
120.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
8.00
3.00
3.00
15.00
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.25
2.50
0.50
5iOO
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.25
0.10
0.25
0.36
0.30
0.10
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.10
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
31.00
69.00
69.00
51.00
25.00
2800.00
920.00
410.00
92.00
27.00
31.00
69.00
69.00
4.00
238.00
227.00
560.00
0.32
0.45
1.40
11.37
1.00
1.80
0.35
5.00
5.00
0.90
0.80
5.00
5.00
13.14
8.35
1.70
1.30
5.00
1.40
10.00
0.60
3.17
0.50
1.05
5.00
5.00
5.00
0.90
12.44
500.00
100.00
21.50
500.00
10.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
-------
TABLE C-9
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
60
CHEMICAL NAME
CHLOROFORM
CHLORONETHANE
C1S-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTOWALDEHYDE
DIBRONOCHLOROHETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
OIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYAMIDE
ETHYL HETHACRYLATE
ETHYLBEHZENE
ICOCHETHAUE
IS06UTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYLEHE
METHYL HETHACRYLATE
M6THYLENE CHLORIDE
(HP XYLEHE
TETRACHLOROETHEME
TETRACHLOROH6THANE
TOtUEHE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1,4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TR1BROHOHETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHAHE
VIHYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DlCHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROeTHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETKANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIEHE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTAKOHE (HEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
' 2-HGXANOME
2-PROPANOHE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEH-1-OL
2-PROPEMAL (ACROtEIN)
2-PROPEHEHITR1LE, 2-HETHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-HETHYL-2-PEHTANOHE
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
ACENAPHTHENE
ACEHAPHTHYLENE
>LE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PAPER MACHINE WHITE WATER SUBCATEGORY=BPK
(continued)
NO. OF
HO. OF
MILLS
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
8
1
1
MILLS
NON-DETECT
5
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
6
8
8
7
8
7
7
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
5
8
8
8
8
8
0
2
1
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
18
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
17
20
20
20
20
20
15
20
1
1
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
12
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
17
20
20
18
20
17
19
20
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
, 20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
17
20
20
9
20
20
20
20
20
0
2
1
1
UNITS
IJG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
IJG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
0.83
15.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
159.00
500.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
39.00
100.00
100.00
20.00
100.00
544.00
14.00
100.00
10.00
12.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1358.00
100.00
500.00
2301 .00
100.00
500.00
100.00
• 100.00
500.00
71.60
4500.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-9
61
CHEMICAL NAME
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-PICOLIHE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
B-NAPHTHYLAMINE
BENZANTHRONE
BEHZENETHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZOCB)FLUORANTHENE
BEMZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS C2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BISCCHLOROMETHYL)ETHER(NR)
8IS(2-CHLOROETHOXYJMETHANE
BISC2-CHLOROETHYDETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
OI-N-BUTYL AMINE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZOCA,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (NR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHANOL
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-METHYL ETHER
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
INDENOO ,2,3-CD)PYRENE
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PAPER MACHINE WHITE WATER SUBCATEGORY=BPK
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL MAXIMUM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1;
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
27.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10:00
10.00
10.00
27.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
-------
CHEHICAl HAHE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPAHOt
ISOPROPYL ETHER
tSOSAFROLE
LOHGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
HETKAPYIULENE
HETHYL H€THA«ESULFONATE
H-BUTAHOL
H-DECAHE (N-C10)
H-DOCOSANE (H-C22)
H-DODECANE (H-C12)
N-EICOSANE CN-C20)
H-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
H-HEXADECANE CM-C16)
H-HlTROSOOt-H-BUTYLAHINE
M-HITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
H-HITROSODIETHYLAHINE
N-HITROSODIHETHYLAHINE
H-M1TROSOD1PHENYLAMINE
N-HITROSOHETHYLETHYLAHINE
H-HITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
B-HITROSOHORPHOUNE
H-HITROSOPIPERID1NE
M-OCTACOSANE CN-C28)
H-OCTAOECANE
H-PROPANOL
H-TETRACOSANE
U-TETRADECANE CN-CU)
H-TRIACOHTANE (H-C30)
H,H-DIHeTHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-ANISIDINE
0-CP.ESOL
0-TOiUlDlNE
P-CRESOt
P-CYHENE
P-D1HETHYLAHIKOAZ06EHZEHE
PfHTACHlOROBENZENE
PEMTACHtOROETHANE
PENTAMETHYLBEJiZENE
PERYLEHE
PHEHACETIN
PHEHAHTHRENE
PHENOL
PHEHOTHIAZIME
PRONAHIDE
PYRENE
PYR1DIHE
SAFROtE
SOUALENE
STYRENE
TABLE C-9
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PAPER MACHINE WHITE WATER SUBCATEGORY=BPK
(continued)
62
NO. OF
HILLS
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
KILLS
NON-DETECT
1
2
2
1
1
1
V
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UGi/L
UGi/L
UGi/L
UGi/L
UGi/L
UGi/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UCi/L
U6/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UCi/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
' UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
17.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
17.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-9
63
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=PAPER MACHINE WHITE WATER SUBCATEGORY=BPK
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
T-BUTANOL
THIANAPHTHENE
THIOACETAMIDE
THIOXANTHONE
TRIPHENYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
1.2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCIMOL)
1,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DINITROBENZENE
1,3.5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-NAPHTHALENEDIAMINE
2- CMETHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOL
2-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL
2-METHYLBENZOTHIOAZOLE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,4.5-TRIMETHYLANILINE
2,6-OI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE
2,6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
3-NITROANILINE
NO. OF
MILLS
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
|1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L '
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00 '
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL MAXIMUM
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
,10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00'
20.00
-------
TABLE C-9
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERH STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
64
CHEMICAL MAKE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3'-DIHETHOXYBENZIDINE
3,5-DIBROHO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DlKETHYLPHEKANTHRENE
4-AHIHOBIPHEHYL
4-BfiOHOPHEHYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHIORO-2-HITROAN1LINE
4-CHLORO-3-HETHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROAHlLIHE
4-CHLOROPHEHYL PHENYL ETHER
4-UITROANILIHE
4-HITROBJPHEHYL
4-HlTROPHENOL
4,4'-K£THYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI)
4,5-HETHYLEHEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOtUIDINE
5-HITRO-0-TOLUID1HE
7,12-DIHETHYLBENZCA)ANTHRACENE
ALUHIHUH
AHTIHOHY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOUKIUH
GALLIUM
GERHAHIUH
GOLD
HAFNIUM
HOLNIKUH
INDIUM
IODINE
1RIDIUH
IRON
LAHTHAHUH
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUH
MAGNESIUM
HAXGANESE
KCRCURY
MOLYBDENUM
HECOYHIUM
iHPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=PAPER MACHINE UHITE WATER SUBCATEGORY=BPK -
(continued)
HO. OF
KILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
HILLS
NON-DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
2
6
6
2
2
2
2
6
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
1 2
6
1
2
0
6
2
2
1
6
6
6
6
6.
6'
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
2
6
6
1
0
0
2
6
UMITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L .
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
IID
HD
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
512.00
6.00
2.00
89.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
8080.00
10.00
25.00
16.00
724.00
50.00
1520.00
82.00
2.30
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
8050.00
. 6.00
2.00
128.00
2.00
1010.00
5.00
17300.00
10.00
25.00
69.00
913.00
50.00'
5390.00
1330.00
5.50
10.00
-------
TABLE C-9
65
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATI'NUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-- SAmrLt KUIN
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
1
2
'1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
2
0
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2)
2
2
2
2
0
2
II LAItUUKT NAME
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
6
6
6
4
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
2
2
2
4
2
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
2
6
6
2
6
2
2
6
=PAPSK MACHINE
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
6
6
6
3
6
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
0
2
0
3
0
6
6
6
2
6
6
1
1
6
6
2
6
2
0
6
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
22.00
3.00
6700.00
6.00
150000.00
34700.00
20.00
30.00
5.00
13.00
5.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
22.00
1200.00
8500.00
30.00
9100.00
6.00
698000.00
100.00
37300.00
20.00
34.00
137.00
13.00
5.00
1 187.00
ND
-------
TABLE C-10
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
66
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW —
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM
CHEMICAL HAHE HILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
2,3,7,8- TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PEHTACHLORODIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,S-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1, 2,3,7,8, 9-HEXACHLOfiODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHIORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIH
2,3,7,8- TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PEHTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1, 2,3,4, 7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOlBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBEMZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBEHZOFURAN
1, 2,3,4, 6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLQRODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLOROO 1 BENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHtOROCUAIACOL
5-CHtOROGUAlACQL
5-CHLOfiOVAHILLIH
6-CHLOROVAHILLIN
2-CHtOROSYRIHGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHEHOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DtCHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHLOROCUAIACOL
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DlCHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DlCHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2.3,6-TRlCKLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-tfUCHLOROCATECHQt
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRlCHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHEHOL
T6TRACHLOROCATECHOL
TE1RACHLOROGUAIACQL
PEHTACHLOROPHENOL
ACmOHITRILE
BENZENE
BROHOOICHLOROHETHANE
BROHOKETKANE
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
1
2
4
3
3
4
2
2
3
1
2
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4-
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
2
1
2
0
1
?
4
2
2
2
0
2
1
2
4
2
4
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
40
9
9
9
9
9
6
40
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
39
32
38
3
36
39
37
39
40
4
4
34
3
31
35
36
40
36
39
38
4
40
40
35
31
40
38
38
39
40
34
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
9
9
9
9
8
3
39
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
39
30
36
3
36
22
30
«
4
4
33
0
31
30
36
40
31
39
34
4
37
37
32
31
39
36
32
32
37
31
39
38
40
40
40
40
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
8.00
5.00
13.00
13.00
15.00
50.00
100.00
9.30
5.00
5.00
8.00
8.00
15.00
10.00
8.00
13.00
25.00
0.30
1.20
0.30
0.50
2.50
2.50
0.50
2.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
2.50
1.65
2.50
1.00
2.50
0.50
2.50
0.50
5.00
0.10
1.00
0.50
0.30
5.00
0.10
0.50
0.30
0.39
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.10
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
IND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
i
13.00
62.00
62.00
62.00
62.00
60.00
270.00
14.00
62.00
62.00
'62.00
62.00
62.00
62.00
62.00
62.00
120.00
2.50
1.90
0.90
0.50
5.00
9.00
5.80
0.90
5.00
1.60
1.60
1.10
7.10
5.00
10.50
5.00
5.00
6.80
10.00
9.65 '
1.00
4.30
15.98
26.81
10.00
1.73
1.50
7.55
3.00
2.60
16.99
10.00
18.70
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
I
-------
TABLE C-10
67
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
CARBON D1SULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE '
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL HETHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-0ICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-HETHYL-2-PENTANONE
•LC ruin
NO. OF
MILLS
4
4
4
4
,4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 •
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 WUCUUKT NAI
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
3
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
It-l-lNAL tl-l-LUt
(continued;
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
40
40
40
40
39
40
40
40
40
40
38
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
34
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
4
40
40
40
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
38
40
40
40
38
40
39
40
40
40
:NI SUUUAIbliUK
>
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
39
40
40
40
1
40
40
40
40
40
38
40
40
40 '
40
40
40
40
32
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
4
40
40
40
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
38
38
40
40
27
40
39
39
40
40
T=BPK , FUI
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
.UG/L
'UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
-------
TABLE C-10
68
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAI
CHEMICAL NAME
AOSOR8ASLE ORGANIC MAUDES (AOX)
COO
COLOR
ACEHAPHTHEHE
ACEHAPHTHYLEHE
ACETOPHENOME
ALPHA-HAPHTHYLAHINE
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOt
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
AKAHITE
I-HAPHTHYLAHIHE
BEHZAHTHRONE
SEMZEHETHIOC
BEHZ1DINE
8EHZO(A>AHTHRACENE
BEHZO(A)PYRE»E
8£NZO(B)FLUORAHTHENE
BEHZO(GHI)PERYLENE
S£HZO{K>FLUORANTHENE
BEHZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
8IPHEHYL
BIS (2-CHLOROISOP80PYL) ETHER
SISCCHLOROHETHYDETHERCNR)
BIS(2-CHLORO£THOXY)HETHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BISC2-ETHYLHEXYDPHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOIE
CHRYSEHE
DI-H-BUTYL AHINE
DI-M-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-H-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI BEHZOC A, H) ANTHRACENE
D1BEHZOFURAH
D1BEHZOTHIOPHEHE
DICHLOROOIFLUOROHETHANE
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•^•H
MINIMUM
3.33
160.00
300.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
31.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
^^m
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•^•1
MAXIM
18.
740.
1210.
10.
10.
10.
10.
50.
10.
10.
10.
50.
50.
50.
10.
50.
10.
10.
10.
20.
10.
50.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
20.
10.
10.
10.
10.
20.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
31.
10.
10.
20.
10.
20.
20.
20.
10.
10
10
10
M
UM
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Oo
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
•
-------
TABLE C-10
69
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NANE=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAD I ENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
INDENOC 1 , 2, 3-CD)PYRENE
1SOPHORONE
ISOPROPANOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
METHAPYRILENE
METHYL METHANESULFONATE
N-BUTANOL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-N I TROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMI NE
N-NITROSOHORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
N-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
N-PROPANOL
N-TETRACOSANE (N-C24)
N-TETRADECANE CN-CH)
N-TRIACONTANE (N-C30)
N.N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-ANISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMENE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTAHETHYLBENZENE
PERYLENE
PHENACETIN
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOTHIAZINE
PRONAM1DE
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
, 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
. UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
FURNISH=HU
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NP
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00 .
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-10
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY HAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HU
(continued)
70
CHEMICAL HAKE
PYREHE
PYRIDINE
SAFROtE
SOMLEHE
STYREME
T-BOTAMOt
TH1AHAPHTHENE
TH10ACETAHIBE
TH10XAHTHONE
TRlPHENYLEHi
TRIPROPYLEMEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-KETHYLFLUOREHE
1-HETHYLPHEKAHTHRENE
1-PHE«Yt«APHTHALENE
1 ,2-DlBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHtOROBEHZENE
1,2-DlPBEHYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRlCHtOROBEMZEHE
1,2,3-TRIHETKOXYBEHZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBOTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBEHZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROeENZENE
1,3-BEHZEHEDIOt CRESORCINOL)
1,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DlCHLOROBEHZENE
1,3-DINITROBEMZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIAHE
1,4-DICHLORCflEMZENE
1,4-HAPHTHOQUIHONE
1,5-HAPHTHALEHEDIAHINE
2-(KETHYLTHIO)BEMZOTHIAZOL
2-BROHOCHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTAKOC
2-CW.OROHAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHEHOL
2-1SOPROPYLNAP8THALENE
2-HeTHYL-4,6-DINITROPHENOL
2-K6THYLBEMZOTHIOAZOLE
2-HETHYLKAPHTHALEHE
2-HITROAWLIHE
2-HmOPBEHOL
2-PHEHYLHAPHTHALENE
2,3-BENZORUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROAHRINE
2,3-DICHLORO«ITROBENZEKE
2,4-DIAHlNOTOLUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHEKOL
2,4-DIHETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOt.
2,4-OIHITROTOtUENE
2,4,5-TRIBETHYLANILIHE
2,6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE
2,6-OICHiORO-4-HITROANILIHE
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HO. OF
MILLS
NOH-DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
V
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UHITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
HD
HD
HD
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
HD
HD
HD
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00'
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
' 99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
-------
TABLE C-10
71
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
3-NITROANILINE
3,3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3'-DIHETHOXYBENZIDINE
3,5 -DIBROMO-4- HYDROX YBENZONI T'R
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
4-AMINOBIPHENYL
4-BROHOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROBIPHENYL
4-NITROPHENOL
4,4'-HETHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANO
4,5-METHYLENEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ
-------
TABLE C-10
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
72
CHEMICAL HAKE
EHCR1H ALDEHYDE
EHCR1H KETOKE
EPH (SAHTOX)
ETHIOH
ETHOPROP
FAHPHUR
FEHSULFOTHIOH
FEHTHIOH
CAMKA-BHC (LIKOANE)
GAHHA-CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
1SOORIH
KSPOWE
LEPTOPHOS
HALATHIOW
H£RPHOS
HETH0XYCM.OR
HfiTHYL PARATH10N
H6THYt TRJTHIOH
HEVINPHOS (PHOSORIN)
HI REX
HALED (DIBROH)
P.P'-DOO
P,P'-DOE
P.P'-DOT
PARATHIOH
PCHS
PHORATE
PHOSHET
PHOSPHAHIDOH
ROHHEL
SULFOTEP
SULPROFOS
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
tOKUTHIOM
TRICHLOROHATE
T81CHORPHON
TRIFLURALIH
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
ALUHIHUH
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
SORON
CA0HIUH
CALCIUM
CEfUUH
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
HILLS
NON -DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
1
0
3
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.50
3.00
0.50
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.30
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.50
0.20
0.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
67.00
13.00
13.00
2480.00
6.00
2.00
380.00
2.00
1310.00
5.00
49500.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
.ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.5,0
2.50
3.00
0.50
0.20
0.30
0.20
0.20
0.30
2.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.50
0.20
0.50
1.00
3.00
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
67.00
13.00
13.00
2480.00
6.00
2.00
380.00
2.00
1310.00
5.00
49500.00
ND
-------
TABLE C-10
73
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM
HOLM I HUM
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-- SAMPLE POIN
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
'l
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
IT CATEGORY NAME
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
,1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 ,
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
=FINAL EFFLUEI
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
0
3
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
•UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L,
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
12.00
25.00
15.00
497.00
50.00
200.00
5250.00
949.00
20.00
10.00
22.00
2400.00
3700.00
30.00
11900.00
6.00
562000.00
300.00
95400.00
65.40
30.00
15.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
un
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
12.00
25.00
15.00
497.00
50.00
200.00
5250.00
949.00
20.00
10.00
22.00
2400.00
3700.00
30.00
11900.00
6.00
562000.00
' 300.00
95400.00
65.40
30.00
15.00
ND
-------
TABLE C-10
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY==BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
74
CHEMICAL NAME
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUH
ZINC
ZIRCOHIUH
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
1
0
1
1
0
• 1
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
1
3
1
1
3
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
3
0
3
1
0
3
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
155.00
5.00
93.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
155.00
5.00
93.00
-------
TABLE C-11
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
75
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8.9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3.4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZprP-DIOXI
OCTACHLOROOIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN '
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROVANILLIN
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DlCHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL,
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BROMOOICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
II LAICb
NO. OF
MILLS
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
7
5
7
2
5
9
7
8
10
5
5'
7
1
6
10
5
10
9
9
7
5
10
10
9
5
10
7
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
UK I NAPlt-l-lN
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
7
9
9
9
9
6
1
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
6
3
5
2
5
3
7
4
9
5
5
7
1
6
5
3
6
9
8
5
5
10
5
6
5
5
7
6
8
10
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
AL tft-LUtNl 5
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
86
20
20
20 '
20
20
14
85
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
17
81
68
81
4
75
82
77
84
86
9
9
74
3
71
82
75
86
79
83
80
9
86
86
77
68
85
81
85
86
86
75
84
86
85
85
85
85
UttUUt:liUKT=tih
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
81
20
20
20
20
17
4
74
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
80
66
77
4
75
63
77
64
83
9
9
74
3
71
41
59
72
79
80
71
, 9
86
55
59
68
46
81
66
74
86
71
84
85
85
85
85
85
•f. I-UKNJ
UNITS
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
SH=bW
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
2.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
100.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
1.00
20.00
0.25
1.20
0.25
0.50
1.30
1.00
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.25
0.25
2.50
1.00
2.50
1.00
2.50
0.50
0.25
1.00
2.50
0.10
0.25
0.94
0.50
5.00
0.10
0.50
1.03
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.10
0.10
25.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
> .
ND ,
I
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>•
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
74.00
278.00
357.00
385.00
60.00
58.00
5995.00
91.00
278.00
278.00
385.00
455.00
385.00
385.00
417.00
455.00
190.00
0.20
2.21
28.00
5.00
5.00
26.00
5.00
9.00
0.85
5.00
5.00
25.00
5.00
5.00
39.00
4.80
9.49
5.00
15.00
11.00
5.00
5.00
17.97
18.00
10.00
33.00
5.00
5.40
8.20
5.00
17.00
10.00
0.20
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
-------
TABLE C-11
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
76
CHEHICAL NAME
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHIOROACETOHITRILE
CHIOR08EHZENE
CHIOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLORCHETHAHE
C1S-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTOHALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROHETHANE
DIBROHCKETHAHE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL H6THACRYLATE
ETHYLBEHZENE
IOOOHETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYIENE
HCTHYL HETHACRYLATE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLEHE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROHETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHEHE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPEHE
TRANS-1,4-D1CHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRISROMQHETHANE
TRICHLOROETHEHE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
V1MYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHtOROETHANE
1,1-DlCHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROHOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DlCHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRlCHLOROPROPANE
1,3-80TADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,«-D10XAN£
2-SUTAKOHE (H£K)
2-CHtOROETHYLVIHYL ETHER
2-HEXAMOHE
2-PROPAHOHE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEM-1-OL
2-PROPEHAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENEHITRILE, 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPEHE
4-H6THYL-2-PENTANONE
'LE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SW
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF
MILLS
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
MILLS
NON-DETECT
5
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
3
10
9
10
10
10
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
85
85
85
85
84
84
85
85
85
85
82
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
68
85
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
84
14
85
85
85
85
84
85
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
78
82
85
85
77
85
83
85
85
85
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
68 ,
85
85
85
49
84
85
. 85
85
85
82
85
85
85
85
85
85 '
85
63
85
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
84
11
85
85
85
84
84
85
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
78
80
85
85
44
85
82
85
85
85
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
50.00
25.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
56.83
20.00
20.00
100.00
345.92
100.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
480.40
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
80.00
32.80
100.00
20.00
20.00
15.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
200.00
232.00
20.00
100.00
2326.66
20.00
51.86
20.00
20.00
100.00
-------
TABLE C-11
77
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
COLOR
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERP1NEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAHITE
B-NAPHTHYLAMINE
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENETHIOL
BENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZO
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 1 — orK rui
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
XNjan=aw -
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
0.12
272.00
115.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
56.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
49.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
180.00
810.00
1945.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
572.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
29.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
148.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-11
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
78
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY
NO. OF
CHEMICAL HAKE
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HEXACHtOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXAHOIC ACID
INO£NOC1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPAHOL
1SOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LOHG1FOLENE
MALACHITE GREEK
HETHAPYRILEHE
HGTHYL HETHANESULFONATE
H-BUTAKOt
H-DECANE (M-C10)
H-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
M-DODECANE (H-C12)
H-E1COSANE (H-C20)
H-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
H-HEXADECAHE (N-C16)
H-H1TROSODI-H-BUTYLAHINE
H-NITRQSODI-N-PROPYLAHINE
H-NITROSOOIETHYLAMINE
H-HITROSODIHETHYLAMINE
H-NITROSOD1PHENYLAMINE
H-HITROSOHETHYLETHYLAMINE
H-HITROSOHETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOHORPHOUNE
H-HITROSOPIPERIDINE
H-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
H-OCTAOECANE (N-C18)
M-PROPAMOL
H-TETRACOSAHE (N-C24)
M-TETRADECANE (H-C14)
H-TRIACONTAHE (H-C30)
M.H-D1METHYLFORMAHIDE
HAPHTKALEHE
NITROBENZENE
0-AHISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TGtUIDIHE
P-CRESOL
P-CYKENE
p-DIBETHYLAHINOAZOBENZENE
PEHTACHLOROBENZENE
PEHTACHLOR06THANE
PEHTAMETHYLBEN2ENE
PERYLENE
PHEHACETIM
PHEHANTHRENE
nucuni
rncfivu
PHENOTHIAZINE
PROHAH1DE
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK
(continued)
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
' UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
FURNISH=SU
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
12.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
50.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1791.00
10.00
10.00
18.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-11
79
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
PYRENE
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SQUALENE
STYRENE
T-BUTANOL
THIANAPHTHENE
THIOACETAHIDE
THIOXANTHONE
TRIPHENYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-HETHYLFLUORENE
1-HETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
1.2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCINOL)
1,3-D!CHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DINITROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-NAPHTHALENEDIAMINE
2-(METHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOL
2-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL
2-HETHYLBENZOTHIOAZOLE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE
2.4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,4,5-TRIMETHYLANILINE
2.6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE
2.6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND •
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
10.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
50.00
10.00
99.00
99.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00 '
20.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00 -
99.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
20.00
99.00
99.00
-------
TABLE C-11
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
80
CHEMICAL NAME
2,6-DIHmOTOLUENE
3-BROHOCHLOftOBENZENE
3-CHLOROMITROSENZENE
3-H6THYLCHOIANTHRENE
3-HITROAMILIHE
3,3'-DICHLOR0BENZlDINE
3,3'-OIKETHOXYBEHZIDINE
3.5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZON1TR
3,6-DlKETHYLPHENANTKRENE
4-AHIKOBIPHEHYL
4-BfiOHOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-HITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-HETHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROAHILINE
4-CHLOROPHEHYL PHENYL ETHER
4-MITRQANU.lttE
4-MITROBIPHEHYL
4-HITROPHENOL
4,4'-«eTHYLEMEBIS(2-CHLOROANI>
4,5-HGTHYLENEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHtORO-O-TOLUIDINE
5-HITRO-0-TOLUID1NE
7,12"DIHETHYLBENZ
-------
TABLE C-11
81
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
EPN (SAHTOX)
ETHION
ETHOPROP
FAHPHUR
FENSULFOTHIOH
FENTHION
GAMMA- BHC (LINDANE)
GAMMA- CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEXAMETH YLPHOSPHORAM I DE
ISODRIN
KEPONE
LEPTOPHOS
MALATHION
HERPHOS
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL PARATHION
METHYL TRITHION
MEVINPHOS (PHOSDRIN)
MI REX
MONOCROTOPHOS
HALED CDIBROM)
NITROFEN
-------
TABLE C-11
LONG-TERH STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SW
82
CHEMICAL HAKE
TR1HETHYLPHOSPHATE
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
1AR1UH
BERYLLIUM
IISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GAOOUN1UH
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
COLO
KAFHIUM
HOLHINUH
INDIUM
IODINE
1RIDIUM
1ROH
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUH
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
KEODYHIUM
NICKEL
HIOSIUH
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PUT I HUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCAKDIUH
SELENIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
OAnrLC ruini
NO. OF
HILLS
NON-DETECT
1
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
>2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
2
6
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
6
6
6
4
6
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
2
6
1
2
0
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
2
6
6
0
0
0
1
6
2
6
6
6
3
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
.UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
:SW
MINIMUM
0.40
2.22
0.04
13.00
1830.00
6.00
13.90
158.00
2.00
49.00
5.00
34600.00
10.00
25.00
10.00
1210.00
50.00
7050.00
605.00
60.00
10.00
22.00
3100.00
3.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
0.40
2.22
13.00
2.22
2400.00
6.00
20.00
311.00
2.00
138.00
5.00
87600.00
10.00
25.00
14.00
'1550.00
50.00
12600.00
2660.00
74.00
12.00
22.00
2300.00
3200.00
4.00
-------
TABLE C-11
83
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-- annruc ruiw
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
1 V.HICUUKT NHMC
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
2
6
6
2
6
2
2
6
= 1-1 HAL CI-I-LUCI
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
2
0
0
0
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
0
6
6
1
6
2
0
6
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
6000.00
6.00
468000.00
100.00
91400.00
20.00
30.00
26.00
24.00
5.00
67.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
8500.00
6.00
765000.00
300.00
164000.00
33.00
30.00
45.00
60.00
5.00
116.00
-------
TABLE C-12
LONG-TERM. STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
84
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-P-OIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-P£HTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,H,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORCOIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOaCOlBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6, 7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXl
OCTACHU»COIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLOROOlBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORCOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PEHTACHLORCOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORCOIBEHZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODlBEHZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOROOIBEHZOFURAM
2,3,4.6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBEMZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLOROOIlENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROfHEKOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOt
4-CHLOROCUMACOt
5-CHiOROGUAIACOL
5-CHUOfiOVAHILLIH
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
2-CKlOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHlOROPHENOL
2,6-0ICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOt.
3,5-DlCHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DlCHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHlOROCUAIACOL
4,5-DlCHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICKLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DlCHLOfiOVAHILLIN
2,6-DlCKLOROSYRIHGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRlCHLO«OPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOfiOPHENOl
3,4,5-TRlCHlOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRlCHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TftlCHLOROGUAlACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHtOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOt
TETRACHtOROGUAIACOl
PEHTACHLOROPHEKOl
ACRYLOH1TRILE
BENZENE
BROHOOICHtOROHETHAME
IROHOHETHAHE
CARBON D1SULFICE
E POINT
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2.
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
CATEGORY NA
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
1
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
.1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
2
2
2
2
1
ME=FINAL EFFL
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
20
5
5
5
5
5
3
19
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
5
20
15
20
3
18
21
20
19
21
3
3
17
16
17
18
20
20
20
21
2
20
21
18
16
20
20
19
21
20
18
20
18
21
21
21
21
21
UENT SUBCAItU
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
17
5
5
5
5
5
1
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
5
18
15
20
3
18
21
20
9
21
'3 .
3
17
16
11
18
19
20
20
19
2
20
0
9
15
,18
19
17
18
19
15
18
18
21
21
21
21
20
OKT=PK
UNITS
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
26.00
26.00
25.00
26.00
100.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
50.00
0.25
1.20
0.25
0.50
2.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.25
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.25
0.10
0.25
0.70
0.25
5.00
2.50
0.50
2.50
2.50
0.25
5.00
5.00
5.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ,
ND
ND
ND
ND
, ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
21.00
333.00
385.00
455.00
52.00
500.00
210.00
320.00
357.00
294.00
417.00
455.00
455.00
417.00
52.00
2000.00
100.00
4.10
2.50
2.50
0.50
4.17
5.00
5.00
7.50
4.17
0.25
0.25
5.00
5.00
6.90
5.00
0.10
5.00
10.00
2.80
0.10
5.00
14.00
11.90
12.10
1.60
0.10
0.50
3.70
0.20
9.60
1.50
5.80
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
176.90
-------
TABLE C-12
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
85
CHEMICAL NAME
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
D 1 BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS- 1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1 ,4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TR I CHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-D I CHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TR I CHLOROETHANE
1,1,1. 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1, 1 ,2, 2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-D I CHLOROETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1 ,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
SAMKLI
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
= ruiNi uAibm
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
' 2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
JKT NAME-FINAL
(continued;
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
19
21
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
3
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
18
21
21
21
19
21
21
21
21
21
15
EFFLUENT SUBC
>
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
21
21
21
7
21
21
21
21
21
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21 .
15
21
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
3
21
21
21
21,
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
18
20
21 '
21
8
21
21
21
21
21
0
ATEGORY=I
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
3K
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND,
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
4.26
•
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
100.00
100.00
500.00
57.00
500.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
4493.27
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
116.69
100.00
500.00
892.56
100.00
500.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
13.60
-------
TABLE C-12
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=OK
(continued)
CHEMICAL KANE
COO
COLOR
3
18
HG/L
MG/L
380.00
965.00
86
NO. OF
110. OF HILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
690.00
1865.00
-------
TABLE C-13
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
87
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3.7.8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2.3.4,7,8-H£XACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROVANILLIN
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROMOMETHANE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
•i* r w* n •
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
wn i i^uwn. i n/i
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
ii*ic— r A rim. c r r i_
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
18
2
2
2
2
2
2
18
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
18
18
17
18
18
17
18
18
16
16
16
18
18
16
18
18
18
18
16
16
18
18
17
18
18
15
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
uun t ouDwtlci
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
18
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
2'
2
2
2
15
16
17
17
18
17
18
18
16
16
16
18
18
16
18
18
18
14
16
16
18
18
17
18
18
15
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
18
18
0
aUKI^Ud
UNITS
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
PG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
1.20
1.20
1.20
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
30.03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
11.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
100.00
800.00
55.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
53.00
110.00
2.90
13.20
1.40
3.04
2.84
2.84
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.84
2.84
2.80
5.68
5.68
2.84
8.70
5.60
5.60
2.84
2.84
2.80
2.84
2.84
5.60
5.60
5.60
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
12.89
20.00
20.00
100.00
532.96
-------
TABLE C-13
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
88
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=DS
(continued)
NO. OF
CHEMICAL NAME
CHLOROHETHANE
C1S-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTOHALDEHYDE
DIBROBOCHtOROHETHANE
DI8ROMOHETHANE
01 ETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL KETHACRYLATE
ETHYIBENZENE
1000HETHAKE
JSOeUTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYLEHE
KETHYL HETKACRYLATE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHIOROETHEHE
TETRACHtOROHETHANE
TOLUENE
TRAHS-1 ,2-DI CHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRAHS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
VIHYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-D1CHLOKO£THENE
1 , 1 , 1 -TR ICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1 , 1 ,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-D1BROHOETHANE
,2-DICHLOROETHANE
,2-01CHLOROPROPANE
,2,3-TRlCHLOfiOPROPANE
,3-SUTADlENE, 2-CHLORO
,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
,4-DIOXANE
2-8UTANONE (HEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXAJiONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEH-1-OC
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPEHEHITRILE, 2-HETHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-HCTHYL-2-PEMTAHONE
AOSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COLOR
NO. OF
I MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
HILLS
NON-DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
18
18
17
18
'NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
18
18
18
18
18
18.
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
18
18
18
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
18
18
18
9
18
17
18
18
18
0
0
UNITS
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
MINIMUM
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
50.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
2.16
250.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
MAXIMUM
100.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
12.15
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
100.00
1000.00
20.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
100.00
9.27
850.00
-------
TABLE C-14
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
89
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLOROOI BENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOL
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROVANILL1N
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-OICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLONITRILE
BENZENE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
BROHOMETHANE
NO. OF
i ivrtrik— r A ni
NO. OF
MILLS
MILLS NON-DETECT
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
1
2
4
3
3
4
2
2
3
1
2
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
2
1
2
0
1
2
4
2
2
2
0
2
1
2
4
2
4
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
rn, b-rruucn i .
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
40
9
9
9
9
9
6
40
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
39
32
38
3
36
39
37
39
40
4
4
34
3
31
35
36
40
36
39
38
4
40
40
35
31
40
38
38
39
40
34
39
40
40
40
40
40
ouDun i CUUK i — or K ruitN j
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS UNITS
40
9
9
9
9
8
3
39
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
39
30
36
3
36
22
30
36
40
4
4
33
0
31
30
36
40
31
39
34
4
37
37
32
31
39
36
32
32
37
31
39
38
40
40
40
40
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
,an=nw -----------
MINIMUM
SYMBOL MINIMUM
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
6.07E-10
5.22E-10
1 .36E-09
1.36E-09
1.57E-09
3.04E-09
6.83E-09
6.07E-10
5.22E-10
5.22E-10
8.35E-10
8.35E-10
1.57E-09
1.04E-09
8.35E-10
1 .36E-09
2.61E-09
2.09E-05
8.05E-05
2.09E-05
3.48E-05
1.55E-04
1.55E-04
3.48E-05
1.55E-04
2.09E-05
2.09E-05
2.09E-05
1.55E-04
1.15E-04
1.55E-04
6.98E-05
1.55E-04
3.48E-05
1.55E-04
3.48E-05
3.11E-04
6.95E-06
1.04E-04
3.48E-05
2.09E-05
3.11E-04
6.95E-06
3.67E-05
2.09E-05
4.07E-05
2.09E-05
2.20E-05
6.95E-06
6.95E-06
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL MAXIMUM
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND •
1.45E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
4.19E-09
1 .89E-08
9.74E-10
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
5.88E-09
1.16E-08
2.75E-04
1 .36E-04
6.61E-05
3.67E-05
5.51E-04
1.03E-03
4.26E-04
6.61E-05
5.51E-04
1.67E-04
1.67E-04
7.65E-05
5.22E-04
5.51E-04
8.27E-04
6.11E-04
6.11E-04
5.00E-04
1.22E-03
1.11E-03
1 .04E-04
3.16E-04
1.67E-03
2.80E-03
1.10E-03
1.81E-04
1.04E-04
4.86E-04
2.90E-04
1.91E-04
1.77E-03
1.10E-03
1.95E-03
1.17E-02
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
1.17E-02
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
CARBON D1SULFIDE
CHiOROACETONITRILE
CBLOROBEHZENE
CHLOROETHAHE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHAHE
C1S-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROICtfALCEHYOE
DIBRCHOCHLOROHETHANE
D1BRCHOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL KETHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
1COOHETHANE
ISOSUTYL ALCOHOL
H-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROHETHANE
TOLUENE
TRAHS-1,2-DICHLOROeTHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROHOHETHANE
TRlCHtOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
VIMYt ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DlCHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DlBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRlCHLOROPROPAHE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-D10XAHE
2-BOTAHOME (HEK)
2-CHiOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANOHE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEH-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPEHEHITRILE, 2-HETHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-HETHYL-2-PEHTANQNE
TABLE C-14
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
LE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUEN
(continued)
HO. OF
NO. OF HILLS NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
90
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
40
40
40
40
39
40
40
40
40
40
38
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
34
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
4
40
40
40
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
38
40
40
40
38
40
39
40
40
40
UBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
1. OF
lETECTS
39
40
40
40
1
40
40
40
40
40
38
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
32
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
4
40
40
40
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
38
38
40
40
27
40
39
39
40
40
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KS/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
HD
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
2.35E-03
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.21E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.95E-04
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
3.11E-03
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
6.07E-04
6.07E-04
3.04E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
4.85E-03
2.3SE-03
2.35E-03
1.17E-02
2.23E-02
1.17E-02
2.35E-03
1.17E-02
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
1.17E-02
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
1 .36E-02
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
1.17E-02
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
1.04E-03
1.17E-02
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
2.35E-03
1.95E-03
8.39E-03
2.35E-03
1.17E-02
3.06E-02
! 2.35E-03
1.17E-02
6.74E-03
2.35E-03
1.17E-02
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
TABLE C-14
LOHG-TERH STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW --
(continued)
NO. OF1
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF. NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
91
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX)
COD
COLOR
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACETOPHENONE
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE
ALPHA-PICOLINE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
ANILINE
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
B-NAPHTHYLAMINE
BENZANTHRONE
BENZENETHIOL
8ENZIDINE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(A)PYRENE
BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO(GHI)PERYLENE
BENZO(K>FLUORANTHENE
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIPHENYL
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER
BIS(CHLOROMETHYL)ETHER(NR)
BIS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
Dl-N-BUTYL AMINE
DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DIBENZOCA,H)ANTHRACENE
DIBENZOFURAN
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
DICHLORODIFLUOROMETHANE (NR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL SULFONE
DIPHENYL ETHER
DIPHENYLAMINE
DIPHENYLDISULFIDE
ETHANOL
ETHYL METHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETHYNYLESTRADIOL 3-METHYL ETHER
FLUORANTHENE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
37
4
27
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.11E-01
1.11E+01
1 .91E+01
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 -04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
3.24E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.48E+00
7.73E+01
1 .29E+02
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
' 1.04E-03
1.04E-03
3.24E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
-------
TABLE C-14
92
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
I
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=FINAL EFFLUEMT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HW
(continued)
CHEHICAL HAHE
WEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
HCXACHLOROETHANE
HSXACHLOROPROPEHE
HCXAN01C ACID
1KOEHO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
1SOPHOROHE
ISOPROPANOL
1SOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROU
LOHGIFOIEHE
MALACHITE GREEK
K6TKAPYRILENE
K£THYL HETHANESULFOMATE
M-BUTAHOL
H-DECAME (M-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (H-C22)
N-DODECANE (H-C12)
H-EICOSAHE CN-C20)
H-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-BEXADECANE CM-C16)
H-HITROSOOI-H-BUTYLAHIHE
N-HmOSODI-H-PROPYLAHINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAHINE
H-HITROSOD1HETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAHINE
H-HITROSOHETHYLETHYLAMINE
H-MITROSOHETHYLPHENYLAHIHE
H-MITROSOHORPHOLINE
H-HITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
H-OCTADECANE
H-PROPAHOL
H-TETRACOSANE (H-C34)
N-TETRADECAHE (N-C14)
H-TRIACOMTAHE (N-C30)
H,N-D1HETHYLFORMAHIDE ,
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-AM1SID1ME
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDIKE
P-CRESOL
P-CYHENE
P-DIHETHYLAHINOAZOBEHZENE
PEHTACHLOROBEHZEHE
PEHTACHLOROETHANE
PEHTAKETHYLBENZENE
PERYLEHE
PKEKACETIH
PHEHAHTHREHE
PHCKd
PHEKOTHIAZIME
PROHAMIDE
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
1
1
1
1
i
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF NO. OF
DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
UNITS
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADiMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/A0MT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1 .04E-03
5.22E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1 .03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1 .04E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND •
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
TABLE C-14
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAHE=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HU
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
93
PYRENE
PYR1DINE
SAFROLE
SQUALENE
STYRENE
T-BUTANOL
THIANAPHTHENE
THIOACETAHIDE
THIOXANTHONE
TRIPHENYLENE
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1-HETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
1.2-DIBROMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2-DIPHENYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIMETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCINOL)
1,3-DlCHLORO-2-PROPANOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DINITROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-NAPHTHOQUINONE
1,5-NAPHTHALENEDIAMINE
2-(METHYLTHIO)BENZOTHIAZOL
2-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
2-BUTANOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-CHLOROPHENOL
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYL-4.6-DINITROPHENOL
2-METHYLBENZOTHIOAZOLE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
2-NITROPHENOL
2-PHENYLNAPHTHALENE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
2,3-DICHLORONITROBENZENE
2,4-DIAMINOTOLUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
2.4-DINITROTOLUENE
2,4,5-TRIMETHYLANILINE
2,6-DI-TERT-BUTYL-P-BENZOQINONE
2.6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
5.22E-03
1 .04E-03
1.03E-02
1 .03E-02
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
5.22E-03
1 .03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.03E-02
1.03E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.03E-02
1.03E-02
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.03E-02
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.03E-02
1.03E-02
-------
TABLE C-14
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=HU
(continued)
94
CHEMICAL HAKE
2,6-DIHITROTOLUGNE
3-BROHOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLOROWTROBENZENE
S-HETHYLCHOUNTHRENE
3-NITROANILINE
3,3'-DlCHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3'-DIK£THOXYBENZIDINE
3,5-DI8ROHO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DIHETHYLPHEHANTHRENE
4-AMlHOeiPHENYL
4-BROHOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-MITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-HETHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROAHILIHE
4-CHLOROPHENYU PHEHYL ETHER
4-HITROANILINE
4-HITROSIPHENYL
4-HnROPHEMOL
4,4«-H£TBYLEHEBIS(2-CHLOROANI>
4,5-H£THYLEN£PHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE
5-HITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-D!HETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
AIDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
AZINPHOS-ETHYL
AZINPHQS-HETHYL
IETA-BHC
CAPTAFOC
CAPTAN
CARBOPHENOTHIOH
CHLOfiBEHZILATE
CHIORFEHVIHPHOS
CHLORPYR1PHOS
COUKAPHOS
CROTOXYPHOS
BELTA-BHC
DEKETOH
DIALLATE
DIAZIKOM
DICKLCFEHTHION
DICHLOWE
DICHLORVOS
DICROTOPHOS
DJELDRIH
DIHETKOATE
DIOXATHIOM
OISULFOTOH
ENOOSUIFAH I
EHOOSL'LFAH II
EHCOSULFAH SULFATE
EHCRIH
NO. OF
HO. OF HILLS NO. OF NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG//IDMT
KG//IDMT
KG/;iDMT
KG//IDMT
KG//IDMT
KG//IDHT
KG//IDMT
KG//IDHT
KG/ADMT
KG/WMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
2.09E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1 .04E-03
2.09E-03
' 1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
5.22E-03
1.04E-03
S.22E-03
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
1.04E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
Q.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
-------
TABLE C-14
95
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
a/WirLC KU1NI LAICbUKT NflnE=MNftL tffLUtNl SUBLA 1 tUUKT=bKK. |-UKN1SH=HW
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRIN KETONE
EPN
ETHION
ETHOPROP
FAMPHUR
FENSULFOTHION
FENTHION
GAMMA-BHC (LINDANE)
GAMMA- CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
ISODRIN
KEPONE
LEPTOPHOS
MALATHION
MERPHOS
METHOXYCHLOR
METHYL PARATH10N
METHYL TRITHION
MEVINPHOS (PHOSDRIN)
MI REX
NALED (DIBROM)
P,P'-DDD
P.P'-DDE
P,P'-DDT
PARATHION
PCNB
PHORATE
PHOSMET
PHOSPHAMIDON
RONNEL
SULFOTEP
SULPROFOS
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
TOKUTHION
TRICHLORONATE
TRICHORPHON
TR I PLURAL IN
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
2,4,5-TP
-------
TABLE C-14
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
96
CHEMICAL NAME
CHROHIUH
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM
KOLMINUH
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
HOLYIOEHUH
NECOYHIUH
NICKEL
HIOBIUH
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NO. OF
MILLS
NQN-DETECT
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1'
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
I
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
I unicuuivi nnne
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1 .
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
3
(continued)
'NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
3
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
3
3
1
3
3
1
0
3
UNITS
KG/AOHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND •
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I=MW
MINIMUM
1.25E-03
2.61E-03
1.57E-03
5.19E-02
5.22E-03
2.09E-02
5.48E-01
9.91E-02
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.30E-03
2.51E-01
3.86E-01
3.13E-03
1.24E+00
6.27E-04
5.87E+01
3.13E-02
9.96E+00
6.83E-03
3.13E-03
1.57E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.25E-03
2.61E-03
1.57E-03
5.19E-02
1
5.22E-03
2.09E-02
5.48E-01
9.91E-02
2.09E-03
1.04E-03
2.30E-03
2.51E-01
3.86E-01
3.13E-03
1.24E+00
6.27E-04
5.87E+01
3.13E-02
9.96E+00
6.83E-03
3.13E-03
1.57E-03
ND
-------
TABLE C-14
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
97
CHEMICAL NAME
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
SAMKLI: ruin
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS
MILLS NON-DETECT
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 LAItlaUKT NAMt
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
3
1
3
1
1
3
=I-INAL EFFLUEI
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
3
0
3
1
0
3
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1.62E-02
5.22E-04
9.71E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.62E-02
5.22E-04
9.71E-03
-------
TABLE C-15
98
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
CHEMICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-P£NTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBEMZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLOROOIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
1.2,3,4.6,7,8-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3 ,4 ,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLOSOOIBENZOFURAN
1,2.3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODlBENZOFURAN
OCTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHEHOL
4-CKtOROCATECHOt
4-CHlOROGUAIACOL
5-CKLOfiOa'AIACOL
5-CHtOROVAHILLIN
6-CHLOfiOVAHILLIH
2-CM.OROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOt
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHLOROCUAIACOL
4,5-DlCHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROCUAIACOL
5,6-DlCHLOROVAHlLLlN
2,6-DlCHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPKENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHEHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACCL
PfiHTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLOHITRILE
8EHZEKE
BRCNOD1CHLOROMETHANE
BROHOHETHANE
CATEGORY
NO. OF
NAME-FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SW
NO. OF
MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
HILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
10
9
9
9
9
9
8
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
7
5
7
2
5
9
7
8
10
5
5
7
1
6
10
5
10
9
9
7
5
10
10
9
5
10
7
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
10
10
10
7
9
9
9
9
6
1
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
6
3
5
2
5
3
7
4
9
5
5
7
1
6
5
3
6
9
8
5
5
10
5
6
5
5
7
6
8
10
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
86
20
20
20
20
20
14
85
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
17
81
68
81
4
75
82
77
84
86
9
9
74
3
71
82
75
86
79
83
80
9
86
86
77
68
85
81
85
86
86
75
84
86
85
85
85
85
81
20
20
20
20
17
4
74
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
16
80
66
77
4
75
63
77
64
83
9
9
74
3
71
41
59
72
79
80
71
9
86
55
59
68
46
81
66
74
86
71
84
85
85
85
85
85
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT '
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM SYMBOL
1.70E-10
3.30E-10
3.51E-10
3.51E-10
3.51E-10
4.96E-10
7.39E-09
2.78E-10
8.49E-11
3.30E-10
2.64E-10
2.64E-10
4.96E-10
3.51E-10
8.49E-11
8.49E-11
6.61E-10
1.56E-05
3.16E-05
1.56E-05
3.11E-05
6.32E-05
6.32E-05
3.11E-05
6.23E-06
4.38E-05
1.56E-05
1.56E-05
6.32E-05
8.76E-05
6.32E-05
6.23E-05
6.32E-05
3.63E-05
1.56E-05
8.76E-05
1.26E-04
6.23E-06
1.56E-05
3.11E-05
4.38E-05
1 .26E-04
6.23E-06
3.11E-05
5.29E-05
1.81E-05
1.56E-05
1.56E-05
6.23E-06
6.23E-06
1.26E-03
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
3.85E-04
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
>
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.23E-08
2.39E-08
3.06E-08
3.30E-08
1.28E-08
1.34E-08
1.98E-07
6.60E-09
2.39E-08
2.39E-08
3.30E-08
3.90E-08
3.30E-08
3.30E-08
3.58E-08
3.90E-08
1 .38E-08
1.72E-05
9.32E-04
2.51E-03
4.49E-04
1.58E-03
2.23E-03
1 .59E-03
8.08E-04
7.29E-05
5.85E-04
5.85E-04
2.24E-03
4.49E-04
1.59E-03
1.20E-02
2.18E-03
5.71E-04
1.59E-03
1.29E-03
8.06E-04
5.85E-04
1.55E-03
1.38E-03
1.40E-03
3.17E-03
4.05E-03
1.55E-03
2.27E-03
5.62E-04
1.55E-03
1 .53E-03
4.22E-03
1.81E-05
3.13E-02
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.13E-02
-------
TABLE C-15
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
99
CHEMICAL NAME
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROHOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE
TRIBROMOMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1.1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE (MEK)
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANONE
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-METHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
5
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
10
10
9
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
10
10
3
10
9
10
10
10
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
85
85
85
85
84
84
85
85
85
85
82
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
68
85
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
84
14
85
85
85
85
84
85
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
78
82
85
85
77
85
83
85
85
85
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
68
85
85
85
49
84
85
85
85
85
82
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
63
85
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
84
11
85
85
85
84
84
85
84
84
85
85
85
85
85
85
78
80
85
85
44
85
82
85
85
85
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
3.85E-04
2.53E-04
3.85E-04
2.53E-04
3.72E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
3.30E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
Z.53E-04
2.53E-04
2.53E-04
7.25E-04
2.53E-04
1.65E-03
1.26E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
9.35E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.13E-02
8.06E-02
3.13E-02
6.26E-03
3.13E-02
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.13E-02
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.35E-02
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.13E-02
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.94E-03
3.13E-02
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.40E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
2.42E-02
2.72E-02
6.26E-03
3.13E-02
7.37E-01
6.26E-03
1.65E-02
6.26E-03
6.26E-03
3.13E-02
-------
TABLE C-15
100
CHEMICAL NAME
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=8PK FURNISH=SW
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES CAOX) 7 0
COO 60
COLOR 5 0
ACEHAPHTREHE 2 2
ACENAPHTKYLENE 2 2
ACETOPHEHOHE 2 2
ALPHA-HAPHTHYLAHINE 2 2
ALPHA-PICOUHE 2 2
ALPHA-7ERP1NEOC 2 2
ANILINE 2 2
ANTHRACENE 2 2
ARAMITE 2 2
B-HAPHTHYLAHINE 2 2
SEHZANTHROME 2 2
EENZENETHIOL 2 2
BENZ1D1NE 2 2
B6NZOFLUORANTHENE 2 2
BENZOIC ACID 2 2
BENZYL ALCOHOL 2 2
8IPHENYL 2 0
BIS (2-CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER 2 2
B1S
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<
MINIMUM
6.16E-03
2.05E+01
6.82E+00
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
1.65E-03
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
1 .85E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
8.49E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
4.16E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
6.61E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1 .63E+01
6.22E+01
4.16E+02
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
4.24E-03
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
4.86E-02
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
9.58E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E.-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.89E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
1.70E-03
1 .70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8;49E-04
8.49E-04
-------
TABLE C-15
101
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTAD I ENE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPENE
HEXANOIC ACID
INDENO<1.2.3-CD)PYRENE
ISOPHORONE
ISOPROPANOL
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
METHAPYRILENE
METHYL METHANESULFONATE
N-BUTANQL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
N-EICOSANE CN-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOOIMETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLETHYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
N-OCTADECANE
N-TR1ACONTANE (N-C30)
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-ANISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMENE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
PERYLENE
PHENACETIN
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOTHIAZINE
PRONAMIDE
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.27E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-Q4
3.30E-04
5.95E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
6.61E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.40E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.52E-01
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.02E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
' 8.49E-04
1.70E-03
1.70E-03
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
TABLE C-15
LONG-TERM STUDY AHO SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH=SU
(continued)
NO. OF
KO. OF MILLS HO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
102
PYRENE
PYR1DINE
SAFROLE
SQOALENE
STYREHE
T-BUTANOL
THIAHAPHTHENE
THIOACETAWDE
THIOXANTHONE
TRIPH6NYLENE
TfUPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL ETHER
1-H6THYLFLUORENE
1"K6THYLPHEHANTHRENE
1-PHENYLHAPHTHALENE
1,2-DIBROHO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROSEHZENE
1,2-DIPHEHYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBEHZENE
1,2,3-TRlKETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DlEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOR06ENZENE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BEHZEMEDIOL CRESORCINOL)
1,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPAHOL
1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,3-DIHITROBENZENE
1,3,5-TRITHIANE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,4-HAPHTHOQUIHOWE
1,5-HAPHTHALENEDIAHINE
2-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2-
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ABMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/AOMT
KG/AOMT
KG/AOMT
KG/ABMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ABMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/AOMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.27E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.27E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1 .65E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
1.6SE-03
3.30E-04
3.27E-03
3.27E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1 .65E-03
3.27E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.27E-03
3.27E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.40E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.40E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
8.40E-g03
8.40E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.40E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.40E-03
8.40E-03
-------
CHEMICAL NAME
TABLE C-15
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK
. (continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
103
2.6|-DIN1TROTOLUENE 2 2
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE 2 2
3-CHLORONITROBENZENE 2 2
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE 2 2
3-NITROANILINE 2 2
3,3>-DICHLOROBENZIDINE 2 2
3,3'-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE 2 2
3.5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR 2 2
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE 2 2
4-AMINOBIPHENYL 2 2
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 2 2
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE 2 2
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 2 2
4-CHLOROANILINE 2 2
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER 2 2
4-NITROANILINE 2 2
4-NITROBIPHENYL 2 2
4-NITROPHENOL 2 2
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI) 2 2
4,5-METHYLENEPHENANTHRENE 2 2
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE 2 2
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE 2 2
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE 2 2
ALDRIN 2 1
ALPHA-BHC 2 1
ALPHA-CHLORDANE 2 2
AZINPHOS-ETHYL 2 2
AZINPHOS-METHYL 2 2
BETA-BHC 2 2
CAPTAFOL 2 1
CAPTAN 2 1
CARBOPHENOTHION 2 2
CHLORBENZILATE 2 2
CHLORFENVINPHOS 2 2
CHLORPYRIPHOS 2 2
COUMAPHOS 2 2
CROTOXYPHOS 2 2
DELTA-BHC 2 2
DEMETON fe 2
DIALLATE 2 2
DIAZINON 2 2
DICHLOFENTHION 1 1
DICHLONE 2 2
DICHLORVOS 2 2
DICROTOPHOS , 2 2
DIELDRIN 2 1
DIMETHOATE 2 2
DIOXATHION 2 2.
DISULFOTON 2 2
ENDOSULFAN I 2 2
ENDOSULFAN II 22
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE 2 2
ENDRIN 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
.uun i — DrK
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/AOMT
KG/ADHT
KG/AOMT
KG/ADMT
KG/AOMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
'KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ruKNjon-
MINIMUH
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
MINIMUM
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
1.65E-03
1 .65E-03
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
3.30E-04
1.65E-03
6.61E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-04
3.30E-06
3.30E-06
1.70E-05
6.61E-06
6.61E-06
3.30E-06
1 .65E-04
3.30E-05
1 .65E-04
6.61E-06
1 .06E-05
3.30E-06
6.61E-06
6.61E-06
8.33E-06
6.61E-06
3.30E-05
3.30E-06
4.24E-05
8.26E-05
3.30E-06
4.76E-05
3.30E-06
1.65E-05
2.64E-05
3.30E-06
1.65E-05
3.30E-06
1.65E-05
3.30E-06
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
MAXIMUM
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
4.24E-03
4.24E-03
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
8.49E-04
4.24E-03
1.70E-03
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
8.49E-04
1.70E-05
8.49EJ'06
8.26E-05
8.49E-05
2.55E-04
3.40E-05
1.78E-04
2.55E-05
1 .70E-04
3.40E-04
2.12E-04
4.24E-05
8.49E-05
2.55E-04
1.70E-05
8.49E-05
1.70E-04
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
1.70E-04
4.24E-05
1 .70E-04
1.70E-05
4.24E-05
8.49E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
2.55E-05
3.40E-05
2.S5E-05
-------
TABLE C-15
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
104
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=BPK FURNISH
(continued)
NO. OF
CHEMICAL HAKE
ENORIH ALDEHYDE
EMOR1H KETONE
EPH (SANTOX)
ETHIOH
ETHOPROP
FAHPHUR
FEHSULFOTH10H
FEHTHION
GAHHA-BHC (LINDANE)
GAHHA-CHLORDANE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
H6XAMETHYLPHOSPHORAHIDE
1SCCRIM
LEPTOPHOS
HALATH10N
HfRPHOS
HETHOXYCHtOR
METHYL PARATHION
METHYL TRITHIOH
H6VWPHOS (PHOSDRIN)
HIRFX
nine A
HOHOCROTOPHOS
HAtED (DIBROH)
HITROFEN (TOO
P,P'-DDO
P,P'-D0E
P,P'-DOT
PARATHIOH
PCS 1016
PCS 1221
PCS 1232
PCS 1242
PCS 1248
PCS 1254
PCS 1260
PHORATE
PHOSKET
PHOSPHAHIDOH
SUtFOTEP
SUtPROFOS
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVINPHOS
TOKUTHIOH
TOXAPHENE
TRICHLOfiPHATE
TRICHORPHOM
TRICRESYLPHOSPHATE
TRIFLURALIH
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
' KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
(ID
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
=sw
MINIMUM
8.33E-06
1.65E-05
3.30E-06
3.30E-06
4.24E-05
1.06E-05
3.30E-05
3.30E-06
8.33E-06
1 .70E-05
6.61E-06
6.61E-06
8.26E-05
1.65E-05
1.70E-04
3.30E-06
3.30E-06
4.24E-05
1.65E-05
3.30E-06
4.24E-05
3.30E-06
1.65E-05
3.30E-05
1.06E-05
6.61E-06
1.65E-05
1.65E-05
6.61E-06
6.61E-06
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-06
3.30E-06
6.61E-06
4.76E-05
4.24E-05
3.30E-06
4.24E-05
3.30E-06
3.30E-06
1.84E-05
4.24E-05
3.30E-04
4.24E-05
3.30E-05
1.32E-05
1.65E-05
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
2.12E-04
2.55E-04
4.24E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
1.70E-05
8.26E-05
2.55E-05
1.70E-04
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
8.49E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
3.30E-05
8.49E-05
6.61E-06
4.24E-05
4.24E-05
3.40E-05
4.24E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
6.61E-05
8.49E-06
4.24E-05
8.49E-05
2.55E-04
4.24E-05
2.55E-05
4.24E-05
3.30E-06
4.24E-05
2.12E-04
4.24E-05
3.30E-04
4.24E-05
8.49E-05
1.32E-05
4.24E-05
-------
TABLE C-15
105
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
CHEMICAL NAME
TRIMETHYLPHOSPHATE
2,4-D
2.4,5-T
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM
HOLMINUM
INDIUM
IODINE
1RIDIUH
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
. 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SAHKLe KUINI
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
1
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
|2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CAIbliUKT NAHE=F
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
2
6
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
6
6
6
4
6
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
INAL EFFLUENT
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
0
2
1
0
2
2
1
2
6
1
2
0
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
2
6
6
0
0
0
1
6
2
6
6
6
3
6
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
Dl*MICUUKV =
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
or*. ruKHia
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1 .32E-05
7.34E-05
1.16E-06
1.10E-03
6.05E-02
1.98E-04
6.61E-04
1.34E-02
6.61E-05
1.62E-03
1.65E-04
2.89E+00
3.30E-04
8.26E-04
4.63E-04
5.12E-02
1.65E-03
4.16E-01
5.14E-02
1.98E-03
3.30E-04
7.27E-04
1 .06E-01
9.91E-05
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1.32E-05
7.34E-05
1.10E-03
7.34E-05
2.04E-01
5.09E-04
1.18E-03
1.03E-02
1.70E-04
1.17E-02
4.24E-04
2.94E+00
8,49E-04
2.12E-03
8.49E-04
1.03E-01
4.24E-03
5.99E-01
8.79E-02
6.28E-03
1.02E-03
1.87E-03
7.60E-02
2.63E-01
3.40E-04
-------
TABLE C-15
106
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
CHEH1CAL NAME
SILICON
SILVER
SOOIUH
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIM
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
NO. OF
HILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO1. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
*
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
I w* I cuwn i nrwifc
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
2
6
6
2
6
2
2
6
(continued)
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
0
2
0
0
0
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
0
6
6
1
6
2
0
6
UNITS
KG/ADHT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
2.81E-01
1.98E-04
2.53E+01
8.49E-03
5.42E+00
1.09E-03
9.91E-04
8.59E-04
2.04E-03
1.65E-04
3.83E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
5.09E-01
5.09E-04
3.97E+01
9.91E-03
7.76E+00
1.70E-03
2.b5E-03
3.82E-03
1.98E-03
4.24E-04
5.69E-03
-------
TABLE C-16
107
CHEMICAL NAME
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=DK
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
2.3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 2 1 20
1,2.3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 22 5
1,2.3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 22 5
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 22 5
1,2.3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 22 5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI 22 5
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN 20 3
2.3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 20 19
1,2,3.7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 22 5
2.3,4.7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 22 5
1,2,3,4.7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 22 5
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 22 5
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 22 5
2,3,4.6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 22 5
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 22 3
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN .2 1 5
OCTACHLORODI8ENZOFURAN 22 5
4-CHLOROPHENOL 2 1 20
4-CHLOROCATECHOL 1 1 15
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL 22 20
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL 11 3
5-CHLOROVANILLIN 1 1 18
6-CHLOROVANILLIN 22 21
2-CHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE 22 20
2,4-DlCHLOROPHENOL 2 1 19
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL 22 21
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL 1 1 3
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL 1 1 3
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL 2 2 17
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL 1 1 16
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL 1 0 17
3,4-DICHLOROGUAlACOL 1 1 18
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 2 1 20
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL 22 20
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN 22 20
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE 2 1 21
2,3,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 1 1 2
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL 22 20
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL 2 0 21
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL 2 1 18
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL 1 0 16
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 2 1 20
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 21 20
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL 2 1 19
TRICHLOROSYRINGOL 21 21
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL 2 1 20
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL 20 18
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL 2 1 20
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 1 1 18
ACRYLONITRILE 22 21
BENZENE 22 21
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 2 2 21
BROMOMETHANE 22 21
CARBON DISULFIDE 2 1 21
SUBU
D. OF
)ETEC1
17
5
5
5
5
5
1
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
5
18
15
20
3
18
21
20
9
21
3
3
17
16
11
18
19
20
20
19
2
20
0
9
15
18
19
17
18
19
15
18
18
21
21
21
21
20
\ICUUK I =Ulk
rs UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADNT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
MINIMI*
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
MINIMUM
1.30E-09
1.30E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
1.54E-08
1.48E-09
1 .30E-09
1.30E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
3.37E-09
6.62E-09
3.24E-05
1.85E-04
3.24E-05
6.49E-05
3.40E-04
6.49E-05
6.49E-05
1.30E-05
3.24E-05
3.24E-05
3.24E-05
3.64E-04
3.64E-04
3.71E-04
3.40E-04
7.28E-05
3.24E-05
6.49E-05
1 .69E-04
1.30E-05
3.24E-05
9.48E-05
3.38E-05
7.28E-04
3.40E-04
7.28E-05
3.64E-04
3.40E-04
3.64E-05
7.28E-04
6.80E-04
6.55E-04
6.49E-03
1.30E-03
1.30E-03
6.49E-03
1 .30E-03
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1
MAXIMUM
3.20E-09
4.85E-08
5.61E-08
6.62E-08
8.03E-09
7.28E-08
2.73E-08
4.15E-08
5.20E-08
4.28E-08
6.07E-08
6.62E-08
6.62E-08
6.07E-08
8.03E-09
2.71E-07
1 .54E-08
5.37E-04
3.69E-04
3.28E-04
7.28E-05
5.46E-04
7.37E-04
7.37E-04
1.13E-03
5.46E-04
3.64E-05
3.64E-05
7.37E-04
7.37E-04
9.04E-04
7.37E-04
1.30E-05
7.37E-'04
1.47E-03
3.79E-04
1.46E-05
7.37E-04
2.39E-03
1.56E-03
1.97E-03
2.17E-04
1 .30E-05
6.49E-05
5.01E-04
2.60E-05
1.26E-03
1.95E-04
9.43E-04
6.77E-02
1.35E-02
1 .35E-02
6.77E-02
2.37E-02
-------
TABLE C-16
108
CHEMICAL NAME
CHLOROACETONITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROETHANE
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROHETHANE
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTOHALDEHYDE
DIBROHOC HLOROHETHAKE
DI8ROMOHETHAHE
DIETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBENZENE
10DOHETHANE
ISOSUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
H6THYL HETHACRYLATE
H6THYLEHE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLEME
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
TOLUENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPEN£
TRANS-1,*-DICHLQRO-2-BUTENE
TRIBSOHOHETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHANE
VINYL ACETATE
VINYL CHLORIDE
1,1-D1CHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
1,3-BUTAOIENE, 2-CHLORO
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
1,4-D10XANE
2-BOTANOME
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER
2-HEXANOWE
2-PROPAMONE (ACETONE)
2-PROPEN-1-OL
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN)
2-PROPENEMITRILE, 2-HETHYL-
3-CHLOROPROPENE
4-KETHYL-2-PENTANONE
AOSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES
-------
TABLE C-16
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
109
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY HAME=FINAL EFFLUENT SUBCATEGORY=DK
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF, MINIMUM MAXIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL MINIMUM SYMBOL MAXIMUM
COD
COLOR
3
18
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
5.53E+01
1.62E+02
9.34E+01
2.68E+02
-------
TABLE C-17
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
110
CHEHICAL NAME
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3.7,8-PEHTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2.3,4,6,7.8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODtBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACKLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACKLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8.9-HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAH
OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHENOt.
4-CHLOROCATECHOL
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHIOROVANILL1N
6-CHlOROVAHILLlN
2-CHLOROSYRIHGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DICHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DlCHLOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-D1CHIOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYR1NGQL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PEHTACHLOROPHENOL
ACRYLOHITRILE
BENZENE
BROHOOICHLOROMETHANE
BROHOHETHANE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLORCACETONITRILE
CHIOR08ENZEME
CHLOROETHABE
CHLOROFORM
POll
NO.
JI UAItUUKY NAM
NO. OF
OF MILLS
b=MNAL tl-t-L
NO. OF
JtNl SUBUf
NO.. OF
UI:liUKY"U5
MINIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
•
•
t
t
.
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I 1
1
1
1
1
I
I 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
18
2
2
2
2
2
2
18
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
18
18
17
18
18
17
18
18
16
16
16
18
18
16
18
18
18
18
16
16
18
18
17
18
18
15
18
18
18
18
1,8
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
15
16
17
17
18
17
18
18
16
16
16
18
18
16
18
18
18
14
16
16
18
18
17
18
18
15
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
18
18
0
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADNT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
i
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM SYMBOL
8.
1.
99E-10
17E-08
1.17E-08
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
.
.
.
17E-08
17E-08
17E-08
35E-08
01E-09
17E-08
17E-08
.17E-08
.17E-08
,
' .
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
4.
4.
4.
2.
2.
4.
4.
4.
2.
4.
9.
9.
2.
2.
2.
17E-08
17E-08
17E-08
17E-08
35E-08
02E-04
38E-04
02E-04
04E-04
32E-04
32E-04
04E-04
04E-04
77E-04
77E-04
77E-04
32E-04
32E-04
77E-04
64E-04
64E-04
32E-04
77E-04
54E-04
54E-04
32E-04
32E-04
04E-04
2.32E-04
2.32E-04
9.54E-04
4.09E-04
4.09E-04
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
ND
ND
ND
2.45E-03
MAXIMUM
2.76E-09
1 .33E-08
1.33E-08
1.33E-08
1 .33E-08
2.51E-08
2.01E-07
1.22E-08
1.33E-08
1.33E-08
1.33E-08
1 .33E-08
1 .33E-08
1.33E-08
1.33E-08
1 .33E-08
2.76E-08
5.42E-04
1.08E-03
3.22E-04
7.37E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
.29E-03
.29E-03
6.45E-04
.68E-03
.29E-03
.29E-03
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
6.4SE-04
6.45E-04
6.45E-04
1.29E-03
1.29E-03
1.29E-03
2.18E-02
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
2.87E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
1.09E-01
-------
TABLE C-17
111
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY LOADINGS
. SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAMt=HNAL t
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF
1-l-LUtNI SU
NO. OF
CHEMICAL NAME MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS
CHLOROMETHANE
CIS-1 ,3-DICHLOROPROPENE
CROTONALDEHYDE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOMETHANE
DI ETHYL ETHER
ETHYL CYANIDE
ETHYL METHACRYLATE
ETHYLBEN2ENE
IODOMETHANE
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL
M-XYLENE
METHYL METHACRYLATE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
0+P XYLENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
1 18
TOLUENE 1
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1
TRANS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE 1
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE 1
TRIBROMOMETHANE 1
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
18
18
18
) 18
18
18
18
18
TRICHLOROETHENE 1 1 18
VINYL ACETATE 1 1 18
VINYL CHLORIDE 1 1 18
,1-DICHLOROETHANE 1 1 18
,1-DICHLOROETHENE 1 1 18
,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 1 1 18
,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 11 18
,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 1 1 17
,1,2.2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 1 1 18
,2-DIBROMOETHANE 1 1 18
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1 1 18
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE 1 1 18
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 1 1 18
1,3- BUTADIENE. 2-CHLORO 1 1 18
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 11 18
1,4-DIOXANE 1 1 15
2-BUTANONE (NEK) 1 1 18
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER 11 18
2-HEXANONE 1 1 18
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE) 1 0 18
2-PROPEN-1-OL 1 18
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN) 1 17
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-METHYL- 1 18
3-CHLOROPROPENE 1 18
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE 1 18
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX) 1 0 17
COLOR 1 0 18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
18
18
18
16
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
18
18
18
9
18
17
18
18
18
0
0
BUAIttiUKT
UNITS
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADMT
KG/ADHT
=us
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
MINIMUM
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
1.87E-03
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
9.36E-03
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
8.17E-04
8.17E-04
4.09E-03
2.50E-01
4.13E+01
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
ND
ND
>
MAXIMUM
2.18E-02
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
2.32E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
5.09E-03
2.51E-02
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
1.10E-01
4.36E-03
2.58E-02
4.36E-03
4.36E-03
2.18E-02
1 .79E+00
1.92E+02
-------
TABLE C-18
112
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT
CHEMICAL MAKE
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORCOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODlBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORCOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXI
OCTACHLORODIBEHZO-P-DIOXIN
2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORCOIBENZOFURAH
1,2,3,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,7,8-PENTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,7,8-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,7,8,9-HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN
2,3,4,6,7,8-HEXACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAH
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HEPTACHLOROOIBENZOFURAN
OCTACHiOROD1BEHZOFURAN
4-CHLOROPHEHOL
4-CHlOROCATECHOt
4-CHLOROGUAIACOL
5-CHLOROVAHILLIH
6-CHLOROVANILLIM
2-CHtOROSYRIHGALDEHYDE
2,4-DICHLOROPHEHOL
2,6-OlCHLOROPHENOL
3,4-DlCHLOROCATECHOL
3,6-01CHLOROCATECKOL
4,5-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4-OICHLOROGUAIACOL
4,5-DICHlOROGUAIACOL
4,6-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
5,6-DICHLOROVANILLIN
2,6-DICHLOROSYRINGALDEHYDE
2,4,5-TRlCHLOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,6-TRlCHLOROCATECHOL
3,4,5-TRlCHLOROGUAIACOl
3,4,6-TRlCHLOROGUAIACOl
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
TRICHLOROSYRIMGOL
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHEHOL
TETRACHLOROCATECHOL
TETRACHLOROGUAIACOL
PENTACHLOROPHEHOt
ACRYLOHITR1LE
BEH2EHE
SROHOOICHLOROHETHANE
BROHOHETHANE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOfiCACETOMITRILE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOR0ETHANE
CHLOROFORM
uueiiu
NO. OF
MILLS
14
13
13
13
13
13
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
«T NKnC=WM:>l
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
5
13
12
12
12
2
0
2
11
10
12
13
13
12
10
13
11
3
6
6
6
2
5
6
7
5
5
5
5
2 •
6
7
5
7
5
5
7
4
6
5
5
7
7
6
7
12
11
12
12
1
11
12
12
3
CWA 1 CK 1 KCH 1 n
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
79
22
22
22
22
22
17
78
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
7?
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
45
45
45
45
44
44
45
45
43
CNI &L.UUUC !>U
NO. OF
NON-OETECTS
59
22
21
20
20
8
0
15
19
19
21
22
22
21
18
22
20
59
71
60
72
31
70
63
73
69
69
57
60
33
72
73
71
73
59
59
73
53
72
60
63
73
73
70
73
45
44
45
45
23
44
45
45
11
IBWtlCbU
UNITS
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
NG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
0.76
1.00
2.00
1.30
1.80
5.00
21.00
0.57
1.08
1.09
1.85
1.10
2.70
1.70
2.09
2.88
5.78
84.00
84.00
84.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
338.00
338.00
169.00
169.00
338.00
338.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
169.00
338.00
90.00
338.00
25.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
21.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
N'D
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
67.00
22.00
7.00
18.00
14.00
160.00
1900.00
n i' <
160.00
27.00
11.00
1.80
25.00
25.00
6.00
35.00
25.00
150.00
443.00
450.00
466.00
290.55
4394.10
. 939.70
1610.00
460.00
4202.50
730.00
18000.00
1020.00
10400.00
653.10
2400.00
811.40
460.00
2980.00
3101.50
2400.00
7900.00
380.00
1580.00
1855.10
460.00
2400.00
1200.00
2400.00
312.50
600.11
62.50
312.50
925.00
62.50
62.50
312.50
24552.00
-------
TABLE C-18
173
CHEMICAL NAME
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAME=UASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE SUBCATEGORY=BPK
(continued)
NO. OF
NO. OF MILLS NO. OF NO. OF MINIMUM
MILLS NON-DETECT DATA POINTS NON-DETECTS UNITS SYMBOL
CHLOROMETHANE . 12 12
CIS-1.3-DICHLOROPROPENE 11 11
CROTONALDEHYDE 11 11
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 12 12
DIBROMOMETHANE 11 11
DIETHYL ETHER 12 12
ETHYL CYANIDE 11 9
ETHYL METHACRYLATE 11 11
ETHYLBENZENE 12 8
IODOMETHANE 11 11
ISOBUTYL ALCOHOL 11 10
M-XYLENE 11 9
METHYL METHACRYLATE 11 11
METHYLENE CHLORIDE 12 4
0+P XYLENE 11 7
TETRACHLOROETHENE 12 12
TETRACHLOROMETHANE 12 10
TOLUENE 12 5
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 12 12
TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE 12 12
TRANS-1.4-DICHLORO-2-BUTENE* 11 11
TRIBROMOMETHANE 12 12
TRICHLOROETHENE 12 11
TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE 5 4
VINYL ACETATE 11 10
VINYL CHLORIDE 12 12
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 12 10
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 12 12
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 12 12
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 11 11
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE 11 10
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE 12 11
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE 11 11
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 12 12
1.2-DICHLOROPROPANE 12 12
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE 11 11
1,3-BUTADIENE, 2-CHLORO 11 11
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE 11 11
1,4-DIOXANE 12 10
2-BUTANONE (MEK) 12 3
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYL ETHER 12 12
2-HEXANONE 12 10
2-PROPANONE (ACETONE) 12 2
2-PROPEN-1-OL 11 11
2-PROPENAL (ACROLEIN) 12 9
2-PROPENENITRILE, 2-METHYL- 11 11
3-CHLOROPROPENE 11 11
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE 12 10
ADSORBABLE ORGANIC HALIDES (AOX) 1 0
ACENAPHTHENE 2 2
ACENAPHTHYLENE 2 2
ACETOPHENONE 2 2
ALPHA-NAPHTHYLAMINE 2 2
45
44
44
45
44
44
44
44
45
44
44
44
44
34
44
45
45
45
45
45
44
45
45
9
44
45
45
45
45
44
43
45
44
45
45
44
44
44
43
43
45
45
44
44
44
44
44
45
1
2
2
2
2
45
44
44
45
44
44
42
44
38
44
43
40
44
16
39
45
42
34
45
45
44
45
44
8
43
45
43
45
45
44
42
44
44
45
45
44
44
44
41
18
45
41
9
44
41
44
44
43
0
2
2
2
2
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
IINIKUM
5.00
10.00
51.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
14.71
10.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
51.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
51.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
51.00
5.00
51.00
51.00
10.00
25.00
10.00
10.00
51.00
263.50
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
•
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
312.50
62.50
312.50
62.50
62.50
312.50
275.00
62.50
521.04
62.50
2114.00
12430.81
62.50
2991.00
5274.38
62.50
3563.44
597.16
62.50
62.50
312.50
62.50
640.00
46.87
586.00
62.50
328.11
62.50
62.50
62.50
810.48
2931.24
62.50
62.50
62.50
62.50
62.50
62.50
13063.00
484215.62
62.50
4342.35
775412.50
62.50
13992.00
62.50
62.50
408.41
263.50
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
-------
TABLE C-18
114
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL KANE
ALPHA-PI COUNE
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
AH I LI HE
ANTHRACENE
ARAMITE
B-HAPHTHYLAH1HE
BEHZAHTHRONE
BEHZENETHIOL
8EHZ1DIHE
BEHZOFLUORAHTHENE
8EHZOFLUORAHTHENE
iEMZOIC ACID
8EHZYL ALCOHOL
8IPHEHYL
BIS (2-Cm.OROlSOPROPYL) ETHER
gIS(CHLOROHETHYL)ETHER(NR)
ttS(2-CHLOROETHOXY)METHANE
1IS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER
8IS<2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
CARBAZOLE
CHRYSENE
DI-H-BUTYL AMINE
Dl-M-BUTYL PHTHALATE
DI-H-OCTYL PHTHALATE
DI8ENZO(A,H)AHTHRACENE
D18EHZOFURAH
DIBEMZOTHIOPHEHE
D1CM.ORODIFLUOROHETHANE (NR)
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
DIKETHYL SULFOHE
DIPKEHYL ETHER
OIPHENYLAMINE
D1PHENYLOISULFIDE
ETKANOL
ETHYL HETHANESULFONATE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
ETBYHYLESTRADIOL 3-HETHYL ETHER
FLUORAHTBEHE
FLUORENE
HEXACHLORO-1,3-BUTADIENE
BEXACHtOROBEHZEME
HEXACHtOROCYCLOPENTADIEHE
HEXACHLOROETHANE
HEXACHLOROPROPEHE
HEXAXOIC ACID
IN0ENO(1,2,3-CD)PYRENE
1SOPHORONE
1SOPROPANOL
'LE POINT CATEGORY NA(
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
HILLS
NON-DETECT
2
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1E=WASTEHATER TREATMENT SLUDGE SUHCAIkUOKT=bPK.
(continued)
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
2
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
LIG/KG
UG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
UG/KG
LIG/KG
UG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
LIG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
1667.00
51.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
1667.00
1667.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
1824.43
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
10.00
667.00
667.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND,
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
1667.00
3878.00
3596.00
333.00
1667.00
1667.00
1667.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
60560.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
34743.00
333.00
667.00
7521.00
333.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
10.00
667.00
667.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333100
667.00
333.00
667100
333.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-18
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
115
SAMPLE POINT CATEGORY NAI>lb=WAS I bWA 1 tK IKtAIMtNl SLUUUt SUbUAl tljUKT=BKR.
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
ISOPROPYL ETHER
ISOSAFROLE
LONGIFOLENE
MALACHITE GREEN
METHAPYRILENE
METHYL METHANESULFONATE
N-BUTANOL
N-DECANE (N-C10)
N-DOCOSANE (N-C22)
N-DODECANE (N-C12)
N-EICOSANE (N-C20)
N-HEXACOSANE (N-C26)
N-HEXADECANE (N-C16)
N-NITROSODI-N-BUTYLAMINE
N-NITROSODI-N-PROPYLAMINE
N-NITROSODIETHYLAMINE
N -N I TROSODIMETH YLAM I HE
N-NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE
N-NI TROSOMETHYLETHYLAMI NE
N-NITROSOMETHYLPHENYLAMINE
N-NITROSOMORPHOLINE
N-NITROSOPIPERIDINE
N-OCTACOSANE (N-C28)
N-OCTADECANE (N-C18)
N-PROPANOL
N-TETRACOSANE (N-C24)
N-TETRADECANE (N-C14)
N-TRIACONTANE (N-C30)
N.N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
NAPHTHALENE
NITROBENZENE
0-ANISIDINE
0-CRESOL
0-TOLUIDINE
P-CRESOL
P-CYMENE
P-DIMETHYLAMINOAZOBENZENE
PENTACHLOROBENZENE
PENTACHLOROETHANE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
PERYLENE
PHENACETIN
PHENANTHRENE
PHENOL
PHENOTHIAZINE
PRONAMIDE
PYRENE
PYRIDINE
SAFROLE
SQUALENE
STYRENE
T-BUTANOL
NQ. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
'2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2'
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
UNITS
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
10.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
1667.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
667.00
667.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1667,00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1378.00
333.00
10.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
10.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
1667.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
381.00
333.00
10.00
631.00
333.00
814.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
88940.00
667.00
667.00
667.00
1667.00
6537.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
6984.00
333.00
10.00
-------
TABLE C-18
116
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
THIANAPHTHENE
THIOACETAHIDE
THIOXAHTHONE
TRIPHEHYLENE
TRIPROPYtENEGLYCtX. METHYL ETHER
1-HETHYLFLUORENE
1-HETHYLPHEHAHTHRENE
1-PHENYLHAPHTHAIENE
1,2-01BRCMO-3-CHLOROPROPANE
1,2-DICHLOROBEHZEHE
1,H-DIPHEHYLHYDRAZINE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRIHETHOXYBENZENE
1,2,3,4-DIEPOXYBUTANE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZEHE
1,2,4,5-TETRACHLOROBENZENE
1,3-BENZENEDIOL (RESORCINOL)
1,3-DICHLORO-2-PROPAHOL
1,3-DICHLOROSEHZENE
1,3-DINITROBEHZENE
1,3,5-TRlTHIANE
1,4-D1CHLOR08£HZENE
1,4-HAPHTHOQUlNONE
1,5-HAPHTHALENEDIAHINE
2*(HETHYLTHIO)BENZOTHtAZOL
2-BROMOCHIOROBENZEHE
2-SUTANOt
2-CHlOROHAPHTHALENE
2-CHlOROPHEHOL
2-1SOPROPYLHAPHTHALENE
2-H£THYL-4,6-DIHITROPHENOL
2-KETHYLBEMZOTHIOAZOLE
2-HETHYLHAPHTHALENE
2-HITROANILINE
2-H1TROPHENOL
2-PHENYLMAPHTHALENE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2,3-DlCHLOROANlLINE
2,3-DICHLOROHlTROBEHZENE
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHEMOL
2,3,6-TRlCHLOROPHEHOL
2,4-DIAHIHOTOLUENE
2,4-DICHLOROPHEHOL
2,4-DIHETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DIHWOPHiNOt
2,4-DlHITROTOLUENE
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHEKOL
2,4,5-TRlH6THYUNILINE
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
2,6-Dl-TERT-BUm-P-BENZOQINONE
2,6-DICHLORO-4-NITROANILINE
2,6-DlCHLOROPHENOL
2,6-DIHITROTOtUENE
•ue ruim imeuuKT Nnne=WAaiewmcK iKCHincni OLUUUC ;iuoi,HicuuKi=DrK .
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
UG/KG
UGi/KG
UG/KG
UGi/KG
UG/KG
UGi/KG
UGi/KG
UGi/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
333.00
667.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
1667.00
333.00
3300.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND .
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
333.00
667.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
445.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
1667.00
333! 00
3300.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
10.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
3300.00
3300.00
333.00
333.00
-------
TABLE C-18
117
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
CHEMICAL NAME
3-BROMOCHLOROBENZENE
3-CHLORONITR08ENZENE
3-METHYLCHOLANTHRENE
3-NITROANILINE
3,3'-D!CHLOROBENZIDINE
3,3'-DIMETHOXYBENZIDINE
3.5-DIBROMO-4-HYDROXYBENZONITR
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
4-AMINOBIPHENYL
4-BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-CHLORO-2-NITROANILINE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLOROANILINE
4-CHLOROPHENYL PHENYL ETHER
4-NITROANILINE
4-NITROBIPHENYL
4-NITROPHENOL
4,4'-METHYLENEBIS(2-CHLOROANI)
4,5-METHYLENEPHENANTHRENE
5-CHLORO-O-TOLUIDINE
5-NITRO-O-TOLUIDINE
7,12-DIMETHYLBENZ(A)ANTHRACENE
ORGANIC HALIDES (OX)
ALDRIN
ALPHA-BHC
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
AZINPHOS-ETHYL
AZINPHOS-METHYL
BETA-BHC
CAPTAFOL
CAPTAN
CARBOPHENOTHION
CHLORBENZILATE
CHLORFENVINPHOS
CHLORPYRIPHOS
COUMAPHOS
CROTOXYPHOS
DELTA-BHC
DEMETON
DIALLATE
DIAZINON
DICHLOFENTHION
DICHLONE
DICHLORVOS
DICROTOPHOS
DIELDRIN
DIMETHOATE
DIOXATHION
DISULFOTON
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN II
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
ENDRIN
'Lt KU1NI LAItUUKI NRnt=Wft5ltWAICK IKEAIHCNI SLUUbC SUBLRI CUUKI^BCR
(continued)
NO. OF
MILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
39
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
. 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
UNITS
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
. ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
333.00
1667.00
333.00
667.00
1667.00
1667.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
1667.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
19.40
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
2.00
0.60
2.00
0.20
0.32
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
1.00
0.10
15.00
2.00
0.10
1.44
0.10
0.50
0.80
0.10
0.50
0.10
0.40
0.10
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
333.00
1667.00
333.00
667.00
1667.00
1667.00
1667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1667.00
333.00
1667.00
667.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
333.00
1103.00
0.20
0.36
2.50
30.00
90.00
0.30
5.00
1.00
5.00
4.00
75.00
15.00
30.00
90.00
0.25
30.00
2.00
15.00
15.00
2.50
15.00
60.00
0.30
15.00
30.00
15.00
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.30
-------
TABLE C-18
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
118
---------------------------- SAMPLE POINI CAICUUKT N«nt=WA5 1 tW« 1 CK IKCHIMCNI &LUUUC 9UBIH 1 BUUK I -DCK --
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
EHDRIH ALDEHYDE
EN0RIH KETONE
EPH CSANTOX)
ETHIOH
ETHOPROP
FAHPHUR
FEMSULFOTHION
FEHTHION
CAHHA-BHC (LIHDANE)
GAHHA-CHtOftDAHE
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOfi EPOXIDE
HEXAHETHYLPHOSPHORAMIDE
ISOORIN
KEPONE
LEPTOPHOS
HALATHION
HERPHOS
HETHOXYCHLOR
HEIHYL PARATHIOH
HETHYL TRITHIOH
HEV1NPHOS (PHOSORIN)
HIREX
HO«OCROTOPHOS
HALED (DIBROH)
M1TROFEH (TOK)
P,P'-DDD
P,P'-D0E
P,P<-DOT
PARATHION
PCS 1016
PCS 1221
PCS 1232
PCS 1242
PCS 1248
PCS 12S4
PCS 1260
PCH8
PHORATE
PHOSMCT
PHOSPHAHIDON
ROWEL
SUIFOTEP
SUtPROFOS
TEPP
TERBUFOS
TETRACHLORVIHPHOS
TOKUTHION
TOXAPHENE
TRICHLOROHATE
TRICHOftPHON
TRICRESYLPHOSPHATE
TR1FLURAL1N
NO. OF
HILLS
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2 '
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
UNITS
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/ICG
UG/KG
UG/ICG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/ICG
UG/ICG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MINIMUM
0.25
0.50
0.10
0.10
15.00
0.32
1.00
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
2.50
0.30
2.00
0.10
0.10
15.00
0.50
0.10
15.00
0.10
0.50
1.00
0.32
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.20
0.10
0.20
1.44
15.00
0.10
15.00
0.10
0.10
0.56
15.00
10.00
15.00
1.00
0.40
0.50
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'
MAXIMUM
0.50
0.50
15.00
15.00
15.00
75.00
90.00
15.00
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.20
2.50
0.50
2.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
i.oo
15.00
15.00
15.00
0.50
1.00
30.00
0.20
0.50
0.50
0.40
15.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.20
15.00
30.00
90.00
15.00
9.00
15.00
0.10
15.00
75.00
15.00
10.00
15.00
30.00
0.40
0.50
li:'
-------
TABLE C-18
119
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
SHnKLt CU1NI LAItUUKT NAPlt=WAbltWAItK IKbAIMI
(continued)
CHEMICAL NAME
TRIMETHYLPHOSPHATE
2.4-D
2,4.5-T
2,4,5-TP (SILVEX)
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
BISMUTH
BORON
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CERIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
DYSPROSIUM
ERBIUM
EUROPIUM
GADOLINIUM
GALLIUM
GERMANIUM
GOLD
HAFNIUM
HOLMINUM
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NEODYMIUM
NICKEL
NIOBIUM
OSMIUM
PALLADIUM
PHOSPHORUS
PLATINUM
POTASSIUM
PRASEODYMIUM
RHENIUM
RHODIUM
RUTHENIUM
SAMARIUM
SCANDIUM
SELENIUM
NO. OF
MILLS
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
MILLS
NON -DETECT
1
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
6
2
6
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
NO. OF
NON-DETECTS
1
2
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
6
1
1
0
6
0
1
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
0
6
2
6
6
0
0
2
2
6
1
6
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
UNITS
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
HG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
»rs. ------
MINIMUM
0.40
0.05
0.04
0.03
3.64
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.00
5.00
3.00
263.00
0.12
12.00
0.07
2.63
0.01
7.25
1.14
0.00
0.00
11.00
0.00
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
0.40
1800.00
400.00
400.00
5850.00
3.00
1.70
262.00
1.00
0.01
0.00
95200.00
14.00
0.01
36.00
7640.00
25.00
2680.00
1020.00
0.50
5.00
0.08
1.10
1.50
-------
TABLE C-18
LONG-TERM STUDY AND SHORT-TERM STUDY CONCENTRATIONS
120
CHEMICAL NAME
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
TERBIUM
THALLIUM
THORIUM
THULIUM
TIM
TITANIUM
TUNGSTEN
URANIUM
VAKADIUM
YTTERBIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
(10. OF
HILLS
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
dAnri.c rujm u
MO. OF
MILLS
NON-DETECT
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
1
2
0
0
2
n I cuwn i nnris— w/»
NO. OF
DATA POINTS
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
2
6
6
2
6
2
2
6
d 1 bltn i ur\ i r\wn
(continued)
NO. OF
NON -DETECTS
0
1
0
0
0
6
6
6
2
6
6
2
0
6
6
1
6
0
0
6
UNITS
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MG/KG
MINIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
r=BFK
MINIMUM
3.80
3.00
4.30
0.80
14.80
0.00
0.00
0.11
18.00
0.01
0.16
MAXIMUM
SYMBOL
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
MAXIMUM
611.00
0.00
4250.00
224.00
2500.00
9.90
15.00
301.00
0.02
3.00
184.00
ND
-------