TD899.P4
ygg United States Effluent Guidelines Division
Environmental Protection WH-552
Agency Washington, DC 20460
\>EPA Development OOOR82103
Document for
Proposed
Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and
Standards for
Control of
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls in the
Deink Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Point Source Category
-------
Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards
for Control of Polychlorinated Biphenyls in
the Deink Subcategory
of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Point Source Category
Anne M. Gorsuch
Administrator
Jeffery D. Denit
Director, Effluent Guidelines Division
Robert W. Dellinger
Senior Project Officer
and
Acting Chief, Wood Products & Fibers Branch
Wendy D. Smith
Project Officer
60504
October 1982
Effluent Guidelines Division
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
li,S. E:rv'iron;r.entr! Prelection A;/,nc}
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I CONCLUSIONS 1
GENERAL 1
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 1
NSPS 1
PSES and PSNS 3
II INTRODUCTION 5
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY 5
x
SCOPE OF THIS RULEMAKING 6
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY 7
III DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY 9
INTRODUCTION 9
SUBCATEGORIZATION 9
DEINK SUBCATEGORY DESCRIPTION 9
Raw Materials Used at Deink Mills 9
Process Description 11
PCB SOURCES AT DEINK MILLS 11
EXISTING END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT AT DEINK MILLS 12
IV WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND SELECTION OF SUBCATEGORIES
SUBJECT TO PCB LIMITATIONS 15
INTRODUCTION 15
SOURCES OF DATA ON PCB DISCHARGES FROM THE PULP,
PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY 15
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 15
SELECTION OF SUBCATEGORIES WHERE PCBS ARE POLLUTANTS
OF CONCERN 15
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.
V DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS 35
INTRODUCTION 35
DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL EFFLUENT PCB CHARACTERISTICS .... 35
CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS 35
BAT Options 35
General 35
Option A 38
Option B 38
Option C 41
NSPS Options 41
General 41
Option A 41
Option B 43
PSES and PSNS Options 43
General 43
Option A 43
Option B 45
EFFLUENT VARIABILITY ANALYSIS 45
Introduction 45
Effluent Limitations Guidelines 45
General 45
Daily Maximum Variability Factors 45
Analysis of Daily Pollutant Discharge
Values to Determine the Daily Maximum ,
Variability Factor 48
VI COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS 51
INTRODUCTION 51
METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS 51
Introduction 51
Model Mill Approach 51
Cost Estimating Criteria 51
Cost for Implementation of BAT Options 53
Option A 53
Option B 53
Option C 53
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE NO.
Cost for Implementation of NSPS Options 59
Option A 59
Option B 59
Cost for Implementation of PSES and PSNS Options . . 59
Option A 59
Option B 59
ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS 59
Energy Requirements 59
Solid Waste Generation 66
Air Pollution and Noise Potential 66
Implementation Requirements 66
VII EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION
OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 69
GENERAL 69
IDENTIFICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY BASIS OF PROPOSED BAT. . 69
PROPOSED BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 69
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY BASIS
OF PROPOSED BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 69
METHODOLOGY USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED BAT
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 71
COST OF APPLICATION AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS ... 71
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 71
VIII EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS .... 73
GENERAL 73
IDENTIFICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY BASIS OF
PROPOSED NSPS 73
PROPOSED NSPS 73
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY
BASIS OF PROPOSED NSPS 73
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE PAGE NO.
METHODOLOGY USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED NSPS .... 73
COST OF APPLICATION AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS . . 75
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 75
IX EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES 77
GENERAL 77
ASSESSMENT OF THE NEED FOR PRETREATMENT STANDARDS
CONTROLLING PCB-1242 DISCHARGES FROM THE DEINK
SUBCATEGORY OF THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD
INDUSTRY 77
X REFERENCES 79
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
1-1 DAILY MAXIMUM PCB-1242 BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
AND NSPS 2
III-l PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
SCHEME 10
III-2 SUMMARY OF METHOD OF DISCHARGE AND INPLACE TECH-
NOLOGY AT DEINK MILLS 13
IV-1 DAILY RAW WASTE AND FINAL EFFLUENT PCB DATA SUMMARY
FOR THE FINE AND TISSUE PAPERS PRODUCT SECTORS
OF THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY 16
IV-2 DAILY RAW WASTE AND FINAL EFFLUENT PCB DATA SUMMARY
FOR ALL INDUSTRY SEGMENTS EXCLUDING THE DEINK
SUBCATEGORY 17
IV-3 ANNUAL PCB DATA SUMMARY - DEINK SUBCATEGORY 21
IV-4 FINAL EFFLUENT PCB DATA FOR FIVE DIRECT DIS-
CHARGING MILLS IN THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY
FROM 1977 TO 1981 33
V-l MONTHLY AVERAGE RAW WASTE AND EFFLUENT PCB AND
TSS DATA FOR FIVE DIRECT DISCHARGING MILLS IN
THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY 37
V-2 DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT DATA - DEINK SUBCATEGORY. . . 39
V-3 LONG-TERM AVERAGE DISCHARGE LEVELS OF PCB-1242
CORRESPONDING TO THREE BAT OPTIONS FOR THE FINE
AND TISSUE PAPERS PRODUCT SECTORS OF THE DEINK
SUBCATEGORY 42
V-4 LONG-TERM AVERAGE DISCHARGE LEVELS OF PCB-1242
CORRESPONDING TO TWO NSPS OPTIONS FOR THE FINE
AND TISSUE PAPERS PRODUCT SECTORS OF THE DEINK
SUBCATEGORY 44
V-5 PCB DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS FROM MILLS IN THE
DEINK SUBCATEGORY WHERE CHEMICALLY ASSISTED
PRIMARY CLARIFICATION IS EMPLOYED 46
V-6 LONG-TERM AVERAGE DISCHARGE LEVELS OF PCB-1242
CORRESPONDING TO TWO PRETREATMENT OPTIONS FOR THE
FINE AND TISSUE PAPERS PRODUCT SECTORS OF THE
DEINK SUBCATEGORY 47
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
NUMBER
TITLE
PAGE NO.
V-7
VI-1
VI-2
VI-3
VI -4
VI-5
VI-6
VI-7
VI-8
VI-9
VI-10
VI-11
VI-12
VI-13
VI -14
VII-1
VIII-1
DAILY MAXIMUM PCB VARIABILITY FACTORS FOR MILLS IN
THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY USING BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT . . .
COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA
DESIGN BASIS FOR BPT ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
DESIGN BASIS FOR BPT AERATED STABILIZATION
BASIN SYSTEM
DESIGN BASIS FOR ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF ATTAINMENT
OF BAT OPTION B
DESIGN BASIS FOR CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATION . . .
SUMMARY OF COSTS OF ATTAINMENT OF BAT OPTIONS
DESIGN BASIS FOR NSPS ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
SUMMARY OF COSTS OF ATTAINMENT OF NSPS OPTIONS
DESIGN BASIS FOR CHEMICALLY ASSISTED PRIMARY
CLARIFICATION
SUMMARY OF COSTS OF ATTAINMENT OF PSES AND
PSNS OPTIONS
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR BAT AND NSPS OPTIONS
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR PSES AND PSNS OPTIONS
WASTEWATER SOLIDS GENERATION FOR BAT AND
NSPS OPTIONS
WASTEWATER SOLIDS GENERATION FOR PSES AND PSNS
OPTIONS
DAILY MAXIMUM PCB -1242 BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
DAILY MAXIMUM PCB -1242 NSPS
50
52
54
55
56
57
58
60
61
62
63
64
65
67
68
70
74
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
IV-1 FINAL EFFLUENT PCB MASS DISCHARGE VS YEARS -
DEINK SUBCATEGORY 34
V-l FINAL EFFLUENT PCB-1242 VS FINAL EFFLUENT
TSS - DEINK SUBCATEGORY 36
IX
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing regulations that would
limit the discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into waters of the
United States from mills in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry where fine
and tissue papers are made from deinked wastepaper. This document addresses
effluent limitations based on the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT), new source performance standards (NSPS), and pretreatment
standards for existing (PSES) and new (PSNS) sources, required under the Clean
Water Act and the Settlement Agreement in Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. v. Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERG 1833 (D.D.C. 1979).
The PCB of concern is PCB-1242 which was once used in the manufacture of
carbonless copy paper. PCB-contaminated papers were recycled and now contamin-
ate a portion of the wastepaper used in the manufacture of fine and tissue
papers from deinked wastepaper. Consequently, PCB-containing wastewaters are
discharged from mills in the deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are
manufactured. The deink subcategory of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry
is divided into three product sectors: fine papers, tissue papers, and news-
print. PCB-contaminated wastepapers are not processed at deink-newsprint
mills. Thus, this proposed rulemaking only addresses PCB-1242 discharges from
deink mills where fine and tissue papers are produced.
Proposed limitations are expressed as kilograms of pollutant per 1,000 kilo-
grams (kg/kkg or lb/1,000 Ibs) of production. Production is defined as the
annual off-the-machine production (including off-the-machine coating where
applicable) divided by the number of operating days during that year. Paper
production shall be measured at the off-the-machine moisture content. Produc-
tion shall be determined for each mill based on past production rates, present
trends, or committed growth.
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE (BAT) EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Proposed BAT effluent limitations for PCB-1242 are based on the average perfor-
mance at all mills in the fine and tissue papers product sectors of the deink
subcategory where BPT effluent limitations are now attained through the appli-
cation of biological treatment. PCBs are removed through the removal of total
suspended solids (TSS) present in biologically treated effluents. Proposed
BAT limitations are shown in Table 1-1.
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
The technology basis of proposed NSPS for control of PCB-1242 is commonly
employed production process control technology plus biological treatment. This
level of control is identical to that which forms the basis of NSPS for conven-
tional pollutants for the deink subcategory. Proposed NSPS are shown in Table
1-1.
-------
TABLE 1-1
DAILY MAXIMUM PCB-1242 BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND NSPS
BAT NSPS
Subcategory (kg/kkg or lb/1000 Ibs)
Deink
o Fine Papers 0.00014 0.00011
o Tissue Papers 0.00018 0.00014
o Newsprint No Limitations
-------
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING (PSES) AND NEW SOURCES (PSNS)
Based on data available from EPA sampling programs, significant removals of
PCB-1242 occur at publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). This removal is
comparable to that which occurs at direct discharging mills; therefore, pass-
through of PCB-1242 does not occur. Also, PCBs are not likely to interfere
with POTWs. Therefore, EPA has determined that pretreatment standards should
not be proposed under authority of Paragraph 8(b)(i) of the Settlement Agree-
ment .
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500; the
Act) established a comprehensive program to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (see section 101(a)).
By July 1, 1977, existing industrial dischargers were required to achieve
"effluent limitations requiring the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available" (BPT) (see section 301(b)(1)(A)). By July 1,
1983, these dischargers were required to achieve "effluent limitations requir-
ing the application of the best available technology economically achievable
(BAT), which will result in reasonable further progress toward the national
goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants" (see section 301(b)(2)(A)).
New industrial direct dischargers were required to comply with new source
performance standards (NSPS), established under authority of section 306, based
on the best available demonstrated technology. New and existing dischargers to
publicly owned treatment works (POTVs) were subject to pretreatment standards
under sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act. While the requirements for direct
dischargers were to be incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permits issued under section 402 of the Act, pretreatment
standards were made enforceable directly against dischargers to POTWs (indirect
dischargers).
Although section 402(a)(l) of the 1972 Act authorized the setting of require-
ments for direct dischargers on a case-by-case basis in the absence of regula-
tions, Congress intended that, for the most part, control requirements would be
based on regulations promulgated by the Administrator of EPA. Section 304(b)
of the Act required the Administrator to promulgate regulations providing
guidelines for effluent limitations setting forth the degree of effluent
reduction attainable through the application of BPT and BAT. Moreover, sec-
tions 304(c) and 306 of the Act required promulgation of regulations for NSPS,
and sections 304(f), 307(b), and 307(c) required promulgation of regulations
for pretreatment standards. In addition to these regulations for designated
industry categories, section 307(a) of the Act required the Administrator to
promulgate effluent standards applicable to all dischargers of toxic pollu-
tants. Finally, section 501(a) of the Act authorized the Administrator to
prescribe any additional regulations "necessary to carry out his functions"
under the Act.
The Agency was unable to promulgate many of these toxic pollutant regulations
and guidelines within the time periods stated in the Act. In 1976, EPA was
sued by several environmental groups and, in settlement of this lawsuit, EPA
and the plaintiffs executed a "Settlement Agreement," which was approved by the
Court. This Agreement required EPA to develop a program and adhere to a
schedule for promulgating, for 21 major industries, BAT effluent limitations
guidelines, pretreatment standards, and new source performance standards for 65
toxic oollutants and classes of toxic pollutants.
-------
On December 27, 1977, the President signed into law the Clean Water Act of 1977
(P.L. 95-217). Although this law makes several important changes in the
Federal water pollution control program, its most significant feature is its
incorporation into the Act of many of the basic elements of the Settlement
Agreement program for toxic pollution control. Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and
301(b)(2)(C) of the Act now require the achievement by July 1, 1984, of efflu-
ent limitations requiring application of BAT for "toxic" pollutants, including
the 65 "priority" pollutants and classes of pollutants which Congress declared
"toxic" under section (307)(a) of the Act. Likewise, EPA's programs for new
source performance standards and pretreatment standards are now aimed princi-
pally at toxic pollutant controls. Moreover, to strengthen the toxics control
program, Congress added a new section 304(e) to the Act, authorizing the
Administrator to prescribe what have been termed "best management practices"
(BMPs) to prevent the release of toxic pollutants from plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material
storage associated with, or ancillary to, the manufacturing or treatment
process.
SCOPE OF THIS RULEMAKING
In EPA's initial rulemaking (May 1974 and January 1977), emphasis was placed on
the achievement of BPT and BAT effluent limitations and NSPS based on the
control of familiar, primarily conventional pollutants such as BOD5, TSS, and
pH. The Clean Water Act of 1977 expanded the requirements for water pollution
control in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. EPA's efforts were
directed towards instituting BAT effluent limitations, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS
that will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating the discharge of toxic pollutants consisting of 65 classes of
pollutants listed in the Settlement Agreement (see Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. Train, 8 ERG 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERC 1833 (D.D.C.
1979)).(1)(2)
The list of 65 toxic pollutants and classes of toxic pollutants potentially
includes thousands of specific pollutants. Therefore, in order to make the
task more manageable, EPA selected 129 toxic pollutants for study in this and
other industry rulemakings.(3) The criteria for selection of these 129 pollu-
tants included frequency of occurrence in water, chemical stability and struc-
ture, amount of the chemical produced, availability of chemical standards for
measurement, and other factors. PCB-1242 is one of the 129 toxic pollutants.
In January of 1981, EPA proposed toxic pollutant limitations and standards for
pentachlorophenol (PCP), trichlorophenol (TCP), zinc, and chloroform (46 FR
1430).(4) EPA did not propose PCB limitations and standards at that time
because sufficient information on the levels and treatability of PCBs in pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry wastewaters were not available. EPA sought
comments and additional data on the discharge of PCBs and explained that EPA
would evaluate all available data between proposal and promulgation of toxic
pollutant limitations to determine whether limitations for control of PCBs were
appropriate.
In response to EPA's request for comments, several commenters stated that EPA
should establish BAT effluent limitations controlling PCBs at deink mills; they
explained that PCBs are highly toxic and that PCB discharges from deink mills
contribute to water quality problems in the Fox River and Green Bay. Other
-------
commenters expressed their opinion that uniform national standards for PCBs
were not warranted because (a) the discharge levels of PCBs are low and (b) the
PCB content of the nation's wastepaper supply is declining.
As discussed later in this document, EPA evaluated all available data and
determined that limitations for control of PCB-1242 at deink mills where fine
and tissue papers are produced are appropriate. The purpose of this rulemaking
is to propose effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the control of
PCB-1242.
SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY
EPA's implementation of the Act required a complex development program, de-
scribed in detail in Section II of Development Document for Effluent Limita-
tions Guidelines, New Source Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards
for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard and the Builders' Paper and Board Mills
Point Source Categories (USEPA, October 1982).(5) EPA gathered technical and
financial data about the industry and, with these data, proceeded to develop
the proposed regulations. In this study, the Agency directed its efforts
towards obtaining all available information on the discharge of PCBs from mills
in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry.
First, EPA studied the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry to determine the
impact of raw material usage, final products manufactured, process equipment,
size and age of manufacturing facilities, water use, and other factors on the
level of PCBs discharged from mills in this industry. This required the identi-
fication of raw waste and final effluent characteristics, including the sources
and volumes of water used, the manufacturing processes employed, and the
sources of pollutants and wastewaters within the mill.
EPA then identified all subcategories for which PCB effluent limitations
guidelines and standards should be proposed. The Agency characterized the raw
waste PCB discharges from mills in these subcategories. Next, EPA identified
several distinct control and treatment technologies, including both in-plant
and end-of-pipe process technologies, which are in use or capable of being used
to control or treat PCB-containing pulp, paper, and paperboard industry waste-
waters. The Agency compiled and analyzed historical and newly generated data
on effluent quality resulting from the application of these technologies. The
long-term performance, operational limitations, and reliability of each of the
treatment and control technologies were also identified. In addition, EPA
considered the non-water quality environmental impacts of these technologies,
including impacts on air quality, solid waste generation, and energy require-
ments .
The Agency then estimated the costs for each control and treatment technology
from unit cost curves developed by standard engineering analysis as applied to
the specific pulp, paper, and paperboard industry wastewater characteristics.
EPA derived unit process costs from model mill characteristics (production,
flow, pollutant raw waste loads) applied to each treatment process unit cost
curve (i.e., primary clarification, activated sludge, chemically assisted
clarification). These unit process costs were combined to yield the total cost
at each treatment level. After confirming the reasonableness of these cost
estimates, the Agency evaluated the economic impacts of these costs. The
-------
economic analysis is the subject of another document: Economic Impact Analysis
of Proposed Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Deink Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry (USEPA, October 1982).(6)
Upon consideration of these factors, EPA identified various control and treat-
ment technologies that reflect the best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) and the best available demonstrated technology (NSPS). The
proposed regulations, however, do not require installation of any particular
technology. Rather, they require achievement of effluent limitations repre-
sentative of the proper application of these technologies or equivalent tech-
nologies .
-------
SECTION III
DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION
EPA has identified 674 operating facilities (as of April 12, 1982) involved in
the manufacture of pulp, paper, and paperboard products. The mills vary in
size, age, location, raw material usage, products manufactured, production
processes employed, and effluent treatment systems employed. This highly
diversified industry includes the primary production of wood pulp, paper, and
paperboard and the production of pulp, paper, or paperboard from nonwood pulp
materials such as jute, hemp, rags, cotton linters, bagasse, and esparto.
A wide variety of products, including pulp, newsprint, printing and writing
papers, unbleached and bleached packaging papers, tissue papers, glassine,
greaseproof papers, vegetable parchment, special industrial papers, and bleached
and unbleached paperboard are manufactured through the application of various
process techniques. The industry is sensitive to changing demands for paper
and paperboard products; operations are frequently expanded or modified at
mills to accommodate new product demands.
SUBCATEGORIZATION
The pulp, paper, and paperboard industry includes three major segments:
integrated, secondary fibers, and nonintegrated. Mills where pulp alone or
pulp and paper or paperboard are manufactured on-site are referred to as
integrated mills. Those where paper or paperboard are manufactured but pulp is
not manufactured on-site are referred to as nonintegrated mills. Mills where
wastepaper is used as the primary raw material to produce paper or paperboard
are referred to as secondary fibers mills.
As shown in Table III-l, EPA has identified 25 subcategories of the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry. As discussed in Section IV, PCBs are pollu-
tants of concern in the deink subcategory.
The deink subcategory is one of five subcategories in the secondary fibers
segment of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. The principal products at
deink mills include printing, writing, business, and tissue papers and news-
print. In reviewing data for mills in the deink subcategory, EPA considered
the effect of the type of product manufactured on raw waste load. The Agency
determined that distinct differences exist between mills where tissue papers,
fine papers, or newsprint are produced.(5)(7)
DEINK SUBCATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Raw Materials Used at Deink Mills
In recent years, secondary fiber sources including wastepaper of various
classifications have gained increasing acceptance. In 1976, more than 22
percent of the fiber furnish in the United States was derived from wastepaper.
Wastepaper is the major raw material at deink mills. Quantities of purchased
-------
TABLE III-l
PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME
Integrated
Dissolving Kraft
Market Bleached Kraft
BCT Bleached Kraft
Fine Bleached Kraft
Soda
Unbleached Kraft
o Linerboard
o Bag and Other Products
Semi-Chemical
Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical
Dissolving Sulfite Pulp
o Nitration
o Viscose
o Cellophane
o Acetate
Papergrade Sulfite (Blow Pit Wash)
Papergrade Sulfite (Drum Wash)
Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical
Groundwood-Coarse, Molded, and
News (C,M,N) Papers
Groundwood - Fine Papers
Groundwood-Chemi-Mechanical
Secondary Fibers
Deink
o Fine Papers
o Tissue Papers
o Newsprint
Tissue from Wastepaper
Paperboard from Wastepaper
o Corrugating Medium Furnish
o Noncorrugating Medium
Furnish
Wastepaper-Molded Products
Builders' Paper and Roofing
Felt
Nonintegrated
Nonintegrated-Fine Papers
o Wood Fiber Furnish
o Cotton Fiber Furnish
Nonintegrated-Tissue Papers
Nonintegrated-Lightweight Papers
o Lightweight
o Electrical
Nonintegrated-Filter and
Nonwoven Papers
Nonintegrated-Paperboard
10
-------
softwood kraft pulp (normally baled) are also used to provide longer fibers and
to improve product strength. Both in-mill and purchased broke are used; the
purchased broke is typically high quality trimmings from converting operations.
To produce high-grade fine and tissue papers, a significant portion of the
furnish must include high quality wastepaper (such as office waste) due to
product requirements. Recycled office wastepapers frequently contain PCB-1242,
which was once used as an ink solvent in the manufacture of carbonless copy
paper. The major raw material at deink mills where newsprint is produced is
recycled newsprint.
Process Description
The deinking process is essentially a laundering operation in which the sizing,
coating binders, and pigment vehicles in ink are dissolved and/or dispersed.
The production of fine and tissue papers and newsprint from deinked wastepaper
involves several standard manufacturing processes including (a) pulping,
(b) bleaching, (c) papermaking.
Wastepaper is normally cooked in a pulper in a solution to which dispersants,
detergents, and/or solvents are added; pulp is then screened and delivered to a
stock chest. Wastewater sources in deink pulping include wastewater from the
centrifugal cleaners, washers, deckers, and thickeners and water from spills in
the deinking process area.
After pulping, the deinked pulp is normally lightly colored due to the presence
of dyes and unwashed inks remaining in the wastepaper. Therefore, deinked pulp
is frequently bleached to meet the requirements of the specific product grade.
Bleaching employed at deink mills may vary from a single hypochlorite stage to
a brightness touch-up with peroxide or hydrosulfites.
Prior to papermaking, the prepared pulps are mixed and blended; non-cellulosic
materials may be added, if appropriate, to prepare a suitable "furnish".
Modern stock preparation systems have preset instrumentation to control blend-
ing, addition of additives, refining, mixing, and distribution of the furnish.
After stock preparation a layer of furnish is deposited from a dilute water
suspension of pulp on a fine screen, called the "wire". The layer is then
removed from the wire, pressed, and dried. After drying on the paper machine,
the sheet may be further treated to impact the desired final product character-
istics .
PCB SOURCES AT DEINK MILLS
In 1957, PCB-1242 (a mixture of PCBs containing approximately 42 percent
chlorine) was used as the ink solvent in the manufacture of carbonless copy
paper, a common component of office waste.(S) Although the production of
PCB-laden carbonless copy paper was discontinued in 1971, quantities of this
type of copy paper still exist. Discarded office waste, including copy papers
contaminated with PCB-1242, are sold for use as furnish at paper mills.
Mixed office wastepapers are not generally processed in significant quantities
other than at mills in the deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are
produced. The principal raw material at deink mills where newsprint is pro-
duced is recycled newsprint. Recycled newsprint would not generally be contam-
imated with PCBs.
11
-------
In carbonless copy paper, PCB-1242 and the ink are encapsulated in gelatin-gum
arabic microspheres that release the PCB-carrying ink. During processing, PCBs
from burst microspheres become solubilized or attach to available pulp and
particulate matter.(8) Therefore, the contaminated wastepapers cause low-level
contamination of all of the raw material furnish during pulping. Most of these
PCBs remain in the final product; a minor portion are lost through vaporization
when the paper product is dryed. The remainder leave the mill in the raw
wastewater, in solution or attached to suspended solids.
EXISTING END-OF-PIPE TREATMENT AT DEINK MILLS
Table III-2 presents information on the method of wastewater discharge employed
at the operating mills in the deink subcategory. At over 60 percent of the
mills in this subcategory, wastewater is treated on-site in a treatment system
operated by mill personnel. At 36 percent of all of the mills, all or a
portion of the wastewater generated is discharged to POTWs. At four percent of
the deink mills, all or a portion of the wastewater generated is recycled or
not discharged to navigable waters; in this document, these mills are referred
to as "self-contained" mills.
Biological treatment systems are currently employed extensively at direct
discharging deink mills to reduce BOD.5 and TSS loads. The activated sludge
process is the most common biological treatment process employed. Other
methods employed at deink mills include primary clarification, aerated stabil-
ization basins, and tertiary treatment in the form of chemically assisted
clarification.
12
-------
TABLE III-2
SUMMARY OF METHOD OF DISCHARGE AND
IN-PLACE TECHNOLOGY AT DEINK MILLS
Direct Dischargers
Aerated
Primary Stabilization
Total Onlv Basin
Deink
o Fine Papers 5 0
o Tissue Papers 16 3
o Newsprint 4 0
Total 25 3
I
1
1*
3
Indirect
Activated Dis- Self-
Sludge chargers Contained
220
741
030
991
* Chemically assisted clarification is also employed at this mill.
13
-------
SECTION IV
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION AND
SELECTION OF SUBCATEGORIES
SUBJECT TO PCB LIMITATIONS
INTRODUCTION
On January 6, 1981, EPA proposed BPT, BAT, and BCT effluent limitations guide-
lines, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry,
including the deink subcategory (46 FR 1430).(4) PCB effluent limitations were
not proposed at that time because of a lack of information on the treatability
of PCBs in pulp, paper, and paperboard industry wastewaters. The Agency sought
comments and additional data on the discharge of PCBs, with the intent to
evaluate all available data between proposal and promulgation to determine
whether limitations for control of PCBs are appropriate.
SOURCES OF DATA ON PCB DISCHARGES FROM THE
PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
In response to EPA's request for comments, state agencies, environmental
groups, and industry representatives provided information and effluent data on
PCB discharges from the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. Additionally, as
a result of comments on the January 1981 proposed rules, EPA became aware that
PCB data were being gathered by several state agencies. EPA obtained all
available data on PCB discharges from the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry,
including recent discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) from State and regional
permitting authorities. EPA also conducted a long-term sampling and analysis
program over a period of 23 weeks at a deink mill. Limited PCB data were also
available as a result of verification sampling conducted by EPA prior to
proposing regulations in January of 1981.(5)(7)
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Table IV-1 presents available long-term raw waste and final effluent PCB data
for the fine and tissue papers product sectors of the deink subcategory. Table
IV-2 presents available long-terra raw waste and final effluent PCB data for all
remaining subcategories of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. Table
IV-3 presents annual summaries of raw waste and final effluent PCB data for
individual mills in the fine and tissue papers product sectors of the deink
subcategory.
SELECTION OF SUBCATEGORIES WHERE PCBS ARE POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
As a result of the Agency's data-gathering efforts and analysis of all avail-
able data on the discharge of PCBs in the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry,
EPA found that some wastepapers used in the production of fine and tissue
papers at mills in the deink subcategory are contaminated with a specific PCB,
PCB-1242. PCB-1242 was once used in the manufacture of carbonless copy paper.
PCB-contaminated papers were recycled and now contaminate a portion of the
wastepaper used in the manufacture of fine and tissue papers from deinked
wastepaper. This leads to the discharge of PCB-containing wastewaters from
many mills in the deink subcategory. In comparing the data presented in Tables
15
-------
TABLE IV-1
DAILY RAW WASTE AND FINAL EFFLUENT PCS DATA SUMMARY
FOR THE FINE AND TISSUE PAPERS PRODUCT SECTORS OF THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY
Mill
dumber
o Fine Papers
140023(e)
140007
Sample
Location
Raw Waste
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Daily Observations (M8/2)
Number
2
6
10
11
5
22
Minimum
<0
<10
4
5
1
0
.1
.5
.5
.1
.0
Maximum
<0
125
75
75
25
6
.1
.6
Mean(a)
0.0-0.1
73.8-75.5
32.2
33.7
9.5
1.0-1.1
Treatment
System(b)
1
4C
19D
19D
19D
Final Effluent
SBPT Limits (c)
NA
U
U
N
Y
Data
Source(d)
(4)
(4,5)
(5)
(4,5)
(2,4)
(1,2)
o Tissue Papers
900019(f)
900053 (a)
140022
900018(h)
90001S(i)
1400 15 (j)
140021
140014
140030
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
17
4
3
50
49
1
4
7
47
6
28
18
14
62
6
11
12
26
2
3
7
0
0
<1
0
0
1
<0
0
0
<0
0
<0
<0
4
1
0
0
25
0
<0
.0
.6
.0
.0
.0
.1
.1
.2
.0
.4
.1
.1
.1
.4
.2
.7
.4
.3
.2
14
<1
<1
58
9
-
4
3
1
<5
86
4
2
1
160
31
15
3
180
1
2
.0
.0
.8
-
.5
.4
.3
.9
.1
.8
.3
.4
.0
1.0-1.5
0.4-0.9
0.0-1.0
7.5
0.9-1.0
<0.5
3.0
0.8-1.3
0.7
0.0-2.5
23.9
1.4
1.2
0.7
41.9
8.7
3.5
1.2
103
0.8
0.4-0.7
1
3A
3A
40
40
4D
4D
16B
18
4D
19D
19D
19A
19B
19B
19B
19C
19C
NA
U
Y
N
Y
U
N
Y
Y
0
N
Y
U
U
}f
Y
U
Y
(13)
(3)
(3)
(2,9,10)
(2,9,10)
(2)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(1,2)
(2,5,7,8,
(5,7,8,9)
(2,11)
11)
(2.8,9,11)
(5)
(4,5)
(2,4,7)
(2,12.''
(4,6)
(4,6)
(2,4)
16
-------
TABLE IV-2
DAILY RAW WASTE AND FINAL EFFLUENT PCB DATA SUMMARY
FOR ALL INDUSTRY SEGMENTS EXCLUDING THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY(k)
Mill Sample
Number Location
INTEGRATED SEGMENT
Unbleached Kraft-Linerboard
010064(1) Final Effluent
Semi-Chemical
020004 Final Effluent
Daily Observations (fJg/i
Number Minimum Maximum
35 <0.1 <3.8
3 <0.2 0.5
I)
Mean(a)
0.0-0.6
0.3
Treatment
System (b)
10
2
Data
Source(d)
(2)
(4,5)
Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical
015002 Final Effluent
015004 Final Effluent
015007 Final Effluent
Groundwood-CMN Papers
054004 Final Effluent
Integrated Miscellaneous
054009 Final Effluent
054011 Final Effluent
060001 Final Effluent
060002 Saw Waste
Final Effluent
SECONDARY FIBERS SEGMENT
Tissue from Wastepaper
085004 Final Effluent
085006 Raw Waste
Final Effluent
090004 Final Effluent
090014(m) Raw Waste
Final Effluent
100003 Raw Waste
100005 Raw Waste
Final Effluent
3 0.0 <1.0
15 <0.1 <1.0
3 0.0 2.0
13 <0.1 <0.3
18 0.0 0.4
1
3 0.0 <1.0
2 <0.2 <0.2
2 <0.2 <0.2
3 <1.0 <1.0
1
3 <0.2 0.3
1
3 0.0 0.0
17 0.0 1.5
5 <1.0 2.7
3 0.0 <1.0
3 0.0 0.0
0.0-0.7
0.0-0.7
0.7
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
<10
0.0-0.7
0.0-0.2
0.0-0.2
0.0-1.0
<0.2
0. 1-0.2
<0.5
0.0
0.2-0.8
0.7-1.5
0.0-0.3
0.0
7A
9
14
17
13
7B
21
14
11B
15
11A
4D
1
3
(1)
(2)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(4)
(4)
(1)
(4)
(4)
(2)
(1)
(1,3)
(3)
(1)
(1)
100016(n) Final Effluent 14
Paperboard from Wastepaper
110019(n) Final Effluent 10
0.0
<0. 1
3.6
10.5
0.6-1.0
1.1-1.9
3B
(2)
(3)
17
-------
TABLE IV-2
(continued)
DAILY WASTE AND FINAL EFFLUENT PCB DATA SUMMARY
FOR ALL INDUSTRY SEGMENTS EXCLUDING THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY(k)
Mill
Number
Sample
Location
1 10020 (n) Raw Waste
Final Effluent
110031
110043
110052
110087
110108
110126
Builders '
120005
120011
120050
Secondary
110136
140026
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Final Effluent
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Raw Waste
Raw Waste
Paper and Roofing Felt
Raw Waste
Raw Waste
Raw Waste
Fibers Miscellaneous
Final Effluent
Raw Waste
Final Effluent
Daily
Observations (pg/,2)
Number Minimum
3
13
3
3
16
14
3
3
10
5
3
3
3
12
2
12
0.0
0.0
8.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
<1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
-------
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLES IV-1 AND IV-2
(a) Mean concentration includes observations for all PCB compounds collected during the period the
mill's treatment system operated as indicated by treatment code. Concentration means and mean
ranges were computed assuming "not detected" observations equal to zero. Mean range lower
values were computed assuming "less than" observations equal to zero; upper values were
computed assuming "less than" observations equal to the detection limit.
(b) Treatment System:
1 = Indirect discharger
2 - Direct discharger; no external treatment
3A = Primary treatment (flotation)
3B = Primary treatment (sedimentation lagoon)
3C = Primary clarification
4A = Intermittent chemically assisted primary clarification
4B = Chemically assisted primary treatment (flotation)
4C - Chemically assisted primary clarification practiced since at least 1976 (uncertain if
chemical addition practiced prior to 1976; data shown were collected prior to 1976)
4D = Chemically assisted primary clarification
5 = ASB, polishing pond
6 = ASB, flocculation tank, flotation
7A - Primary treatment (sedimentation basin), ASB
7B » Primary clarification, ASB
3 a Primary treatment (fiber traps), ASB, polishing pond
9 - Primary clarification, ASB, polishing pond
10 = Primary clarification, ASB, settling basin, polishing pond
11A= Chemically assisted primary clarification, ASB with quiescent settling zone
11B= Chemically assisted primary clarification, ASB, holding pond
12 = Air activated sludge, secondary clarification
13 = Primary treatment (flotation), air activated sludge, secondary clarification, chlorination
14 = Primary clarification, oxygen activated sludge, secondary clarification
IS = Deep tank extended aeration, secondary clarification, additional clarification
16A= Primary treatment (sedimentation lagoon), air activated sludge, secondary clarification,
polishing pond
16B= Primary clarification, air activated sludge, secondary clarification, polishing
pond
17 = Chemically assisted primary clarification, rotating biological contactor, secondary
clarification
18 = Intermittent chemically assisted primary clarification, air activated sludge,
secondary clarification, holding pond for emergency use (some mill waste bypasses
treatment, is sent to a separate clarifier and reused in mill)
19A= Chemically assisted primary treatment (sedimentation lagoon) practiced since at least
1976 (uncertain if chemical addition practiced prior to 1976; data shown were collected
prior to 1976), air activated sludge, secondary clarification
19B= Chemically assisted primary treatment (sedimentation lagoon), air activated sludge,
secondary clarification
19C= Chemically assisted primary clarification, air activated sludge, (expansion on line
in 1980 to accommodate new deinking facility), secondary clarification
19D= Chemically assisted primary clarification, air activated sludge, secondary clarification
20 = Primary clarification, trickling filter, secondary clarification, ASB, polishing ponds
21 = Primary treatment (sedimentation basins), ASB, chemically assisted clarification
(c) Final Effluent SBPT Limits (based on monthly average effluent data for month(s) PCB observa-
tion^) reported):
Y = Mill meeting BPT BOD and TSS limits.
N = Mill not meeting BPT BOD and TSS limits.
U = Effluent data unavailable.
NA= .Vot applicable.
19
-------
Cd) Data Source:
(1) Verification sampling program results.
(2) Discharge Monitoring Reports.
(3) Zamfarano, J.J., and K.J. Walter, "A Survey of PCS in Wastewater from Paper Recycling
Operations," New York Department of Environmental Conservation, November 1 and 2, 1978.
(4) "Investigation of Chlorinated and Nonchlorinated Compounds in the Lower Fox River Water-
shed," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1978.
(5) Kleinert, S.J., "The PCS Problem in Wisconsin," Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), September 21, 1976.
(6) State effluent monitoring survey results.
(7) Effluent monitoring to ascertain NPDES permit compliance.
(8) State PCB survey at mill.
(9) Effluent monitoring data reported to permitting authority by mill personnel.
(10) Permitting authority files.
(11) EPA long-term sampling progran.
(12) Effluent monitoring data submitted to EPA by mill personnel.
(13) POTW Monitoring Reports.
(e) dill is in secondary fibers miscellaneous group, but is shown as a deink-fine papers mill
as it has deinking facilities on-site and manufactures predominantly deink-fine products.
(f) One <50 observation was reported; this represents an abnormal detection limit and was not
included in the calculation of the mean.
(g) Mill is in secondary fibers miscellaneous group, but is shown as a deink-tissue papers mill;
it manufactures deink market pulp for processing into tissue, towels, and napkins. Effluent
BOD5 and TSS levels were compared with those in permit. Mill closed in 1982.
(h) Seven <20 observations were reported; this represents an abnormal detection limit and data
were not included in the calculation of the mean.
(i) Mill has added three paper machines as follows for a total capacity of (800 t/d): (200 t/d)
(3/78), (325 t/d) (2/79) and (275 t/d) (7/81).
(j) Mill does not process PCB-contaoinated wastepaper.
(k) Data are unavailable for the following subcategories/mill groups: dissolving kraft, market
bleached kraft, BCT bleached kraft, alkaline-fine, unbleached kraft-bag, dissolving
sulfite pulp, papergrade sulfite, groundwood-thermo-mechanical, groundwood-fine papers,
deink-newsprint, wastepaper-molded products, nonintegrated-fine papers, aonintegrated-
lightweight papers, and aonintegrated-paperboard.
(1) One <16 observation was reported; this represents an abnormal detection limit and was not
included in the calculation of the mean.
(ra) One <20 observation was reported; this represents an abnormal detection limit and was not
included in the calculation of the mean.
(n) Two <20 observations were reported; this represents an abnormal detection limit and data
were not included in the calculation of the mean.
20
-------
as
^
3 a
c/i 3
7 < S
> t- <
^
<
X
i
o
*
oj
w
U
=
5
V.
9
a,
§
-1
+J
3
J
O
J
0
-^
sO
1
"N*--
in ^4
33 33 33 *»«>>
00
(*^ in CHtfivoin it* tfi i-* &
co ^ ^ ui QO o\ o\ n u^ o o *"* '** o
n rN.csip'jpn r^^j »-»CN
i V ~-
vo ^o r^
. . .
cSO iir»»u^ O 9> t lift CM 'O «^
« wi i i ci r* OQ \o I i y « T xj- NJ >r
(N CN !N CM
III 1
03 33 2Q 33 33 CO CQ 20 C3 3 CO 23 SO 23
CJU CJUOCJ UCJO U^J U CJ CJ
i, a. i, i. i. a. 3.2,0. a. a. a- a,
33 3C 33 3CCC
Uiy UTj U3J iUCJU
33 33 33 3333
CC USjCS 3J^^ 4» 2 S C S
aw asaoadW as M W "MM W jj y
a « T ^
-- 33-.-^ i^~ S-t -» -* -4
"SO 3J13 9S "3 <8 "8 -3 "3
33 JJ3_3 J33 33 3 3 3
** asas£*»U4 as u« &E« as* '*< ^. ^
i/1 vQ r^> 00 C\ O
r~^ r*» r"»« r^«. r* 30 ao
it i i i i i
vj1 i/^ ^ r>. 30 3^ o
r** r*- -- r-. r»- i^- oo
Co
2
,
^^ "3
3 O
0 U
ri QJ
J JS
Tl
31
D
??
g -^
in
u
y
3 -8
u
^ U
J3 i8
U W
-2 *
"3
2
^
M
>>
u
as
> -t
X w
X -u
o o
4) O
3
O *>
"~ ?
u :
^ J 3 3
o a r- a
u aj a
o
E-i V 00
00 3
41 S <
1) eft
*J « 01
> r
3 U
u o
« (0 O
-------
> 5
"3 <;
51 2 >>
-1 U
3 4! *
0 r- <
u 5 a
-ag
m a co
i cj
> *^j V
-i Z
sli
a z
i- <
91
a O
-J b
a _o
^>
J U
3 a
3 -^
S S
n i.
3 a
b VII
,_,
-5
^^
a)
^^
31 c2
3 C
O a
H 91
-J Z
a
b
u a
u 1
3> S
3
CJ X
uir
oa
b
> 3
< 3
S
5 sw-
g -5 =
u 3s
Cd 3
CO 0
r
e-
u
a
O w
O 91
at no
o> n
W b
CO 0 91
OS >
Ed b <
< .£ >
a. a -5
a z 3
CO 3
CO Z
«l
b
.j
51
=
S
0
a, a
1 0
o
"c ^
.- -O
U 1
-1-
"* 1-
u
-9
T* "^
^^
j^
"-*
ininu-»^,*cM^M~
*«T *T 9 Q v£ f^ rM r*» Cvi
^ 00 ** >T vO *"* CS *^ '^
Or- CM >O
i - i
i O O f* r-. cs co i ^
-, ^o
~*
so c^ c*i ij r** p* cn
l \o <- ~ ul O O I O
C-4
-^^^M^CN-^
^|
1
UCJCJUUUCJUCJ
ssccacass
333333333
i,**^^!*,.*^^
in -o r*. ao w o »- ru
! 11)1111
.
*3 b
91 a
»-i «a
a o
u o
a u
a a
H
B ->
O r>i
0 P.
oo en
-t --/
3 90
2 3
a i i
4j ca
S 91
* i
3 -S
91 >
Jt --H
U
s
91 b
S -i
^
b ^^
-1 vO
b «
8
.= ^
b q
a u
a
a "
H 51
(Q Cl
a 3
a
-3
3 U
U -i
2 o f^
-3 b ->^
u a
io 2
y. s
~
z is
=:" ?-
? In
<
2 5
~
T3
-C
«
Ui
V
Q
u
u
H
OS
o
^4
i
3
o
s
4^
2
H
09
3
3
O
roO
s
CJ -,
0 b
91 91
*J O
a 3
S 3
3 9j
^
Cl
3 >>
3 U
Z 3
11
3 00
3 <
«
g
-o o
a 91 -^
b C3 U
3 S 91
at o b
i Q>
30.3
H a
b <+* 4J
303
u 91
0 § 1
O -H 3
8 1
§.?j
T3 «
"o > co
a 3
N <
C b
3 91 <
H a a.
CO Ci4
« CO
» Cd 0
a -"
3 Oi
1 Z "3
91
S S -J
U 1 -J
2 j =
o b .a
b U 3
a* u a
a a a
04 3 -3
*J -D
91
H B 3
b b
- O O
*^ >« -<4
3 3
CO 3 3
S =
91 51 91
3 = 3
(4* ^
ul r* CN
^ ^
91
CO
91
a
^
j^
I
O
OJ
00
V
!9
aj
.^
^
j;
ai
o
j
>
u
Jl
0
£
T5
s
o
"U
01
3
s
J
a
51
00
3
b
>
^
~
3
3
09
0
^j
a
>
b
U
^
0
a
CJ
0,
f-^
(5
O
C
V
to
«
(Q
2
V
5
03
U
3
T3
O
"*
U
a
3
C
«I
3
"?
>,
3
CJ
H
"H
V
*J
W
o
u
u
w
2
^1
J]
11
u
-
o
-
>
t
A
g
3
0
a a
3 >
a 91 b
91 b 91
a u B
3 J
e o
O 10 _
4J 3 "3
-1 > U
S
91 b a
una
3 3 91
o o «
91 00
00 3
91 3 *«
j b 3
a a
^ 3 a
« a u
a 9i
> a -a
9 11
4J
V 3
boa
a b g
91 3
a N ci
a o 91
O «> b
91
-3 -t 3
3 a
3 a a
O 3" 51
a, « si
3 n a
3
-t -i D
^ a a
< > a
o u
a ^5 3
0 b
3 91
a : N
3 91 3
M u
3 jj *
O J aj
-* !U 3
*j -3 cr
U U
> «-t
a a »-
3 3 U
O W VI
& 05 J
3
U T3 :
1* S w
23-*^--*
U 3 ^ S
2 <
^J 0 A
u a z
^ ii o
y «
w w r -i
a- S x u
A yi -2 "y
-j « = -r
*3 M 3
3 3 ^ ^J
j u i -*
"^ ^ 0
-J « ^
i = E. "^
O - 2 ~
T3 "0 -
/-s
^
V
L4
a
0)
u
O
o.
'Jl
£*
s
b
3
'M
a
rs
y
3
w
01
91
00
b
91
-£
~
O
s
3
91
J
"
S
W
H
sa
VII
~
u
"
7:
3
.
j
w
. s
«
* 73
W "^
?2 i
3 101 9)
OS "3
inl "
O a. a
a a >
30 3
a -4
30 51 -J
' S "^
9J J J
1 5 5
-4 «-
E Z M
'1 '1 II
> Z ^
00
«
91 -1
V a
a
a
0 ^
«i fl
i 'i
a
a 3
a 3
a F~
*w
f 91 a
S a, >
CQ U
r*4
M
3 3 pa
s
O 91 3
a u o
b 3
91 a 91
a,-i -a
a 91
H 3 1*
-1 3 91
3 CJ 3
>t 3 W
J Z -
91
o >
91 91
4j a
rt 91 CO
3 > co
J 11 5-
a 4J
int 3
b § -
3 _ *4
a a> 91
4J a
3
3 «j n
51 3
CO S -<
CO b
r- a Zl
2 a
3 a
a ^ *^
a -. -4.
cj a
04 u b
~< 3
a 3
JS 4J -
4 51
a .3 >
^ 51
4J _ 3
313
3 < J5
5 s
91 u a
> .3 91
>b b
11 -3
2 - ?
b "U
3 "3
^ 3 CO
CO
S 51
< a o
a D
a.3 u
3-13
b
2 '* ?
Jl ^
51
U 5J j]
91 > 2
3 *< -3
J i/l i ^
3 -
-3 C 5
u-;1 jj
O
"S
22
-------
s-
U Z! >
a 3 o
* CO U
u U
3 < c-
3 r- <
'- < U
>- O C3
p
1 (^j
_ 'Z
3 a
3 Z
< 2
r- <
3J
9 U
W ki
<9 3
a _o
-^ u
a -~
U X
3 U
to "g
to -m
s a
KM vn
oe*->
3..Q
a c
O q
l^
4-*
g
u 3
U 3
e a
0 -<
u x
sl*
"1
> a
< 3
a
O '< t C
U *i\S
a si
to .9
u
C3 M
O
u u <
a* u
3 -C
23 3
33 O
w r
^
.j
OJ
u
s
r^ «J
O. fl
3 O
M
-, 2
3 ^
- vo
i4 1
^
i* \
r«*
«
C Cl d
X >- >,
*n
i
O O
o o m
v
i i
V
1 1
i m i
V
=a aa so
u u u
a, a- a.
s c s
OJ 4J U
333
4 ^ ^
CO fl 'O
,., .
JM Jj In
C\ O
r- =0 ao
i i i
00 ^ O
r* r- co
C"
*
LT5
-
U
S
V
-C
sO
c\
u
1-^
44
»
C
t4
tw
H
Ui
u
c
o
"9
U
^
-H
9
-4
^
Ui
CO
S
M
u
a.
3
w
*j
a)
t-i
M
-
<5
U
S
U
y
-
u
^
w
=
u
^
=
S
^
jo
73
3
J
r-
CO
U
«*4 W
I* tu
r-( ^
u n
X w
u w
a
"2 w
O m
U CQ
U ?3
« a*
,^
r>> w
Si
v r->
3 -K
3 S
4 V
a
3 O
U 9]
> ^^ ->
«J r** *M
u >^ a
9 r**
U -H
^ )J
tj 'A &
3 U
^ >> 3
r. C ti
_c aoti
u s
M a
fl) U W
U OJ
O to
9 W
3 19
3J C i^
« 41
a) oo -J
U TJ 1
u ^ a,
i 3 «J
y
- ^-N
a,r- o
r^ ^t
3 ^^
O r^ ^
~i U
4 3 A
~3 O
31
«J
^
3
CO
U
ki
CQ n
00 kl
o o
u a,
~*
30
3 00
'" .5
"o, £
a o
D -J
C
3 3
0 Z
*J U
_» 00
-- -c
* *
-- . u
Ll tt
i; -<
5. G
(^
^.
fM
'-'
r-
*5
r
S H
*^ o
:- ^2
CO
V
90
a
h
^
>.
^
«j
a
S
to
9
U
00
9
kl
1)
>
a
»
-H
a
(Q
U
«
O
w
9
>
k
a;
Efl
^
^
>,
f-l
f^
9
3
a
O
U
3
JJ
4J
3
a.
3
O
U
.
CJ
30
T
L,
>
1
>
-^
""
^
y
u
A
ca a
U r
a. ->
(9
>
<9 (9
«J
9 01
El kl
a
a
M **
a a
J8 T
9
<-> T!
e
al 3
a a
i a
V 9
r* U
a.
a u
(9 -rt
ca to
0) U
A n
J 0.
10
3
3 a
M CU
ki j:
U 3
a
a
-i C
U
1) 'J
C »
3 J3
-! O
1
>> "3
3 3
!-> O
a
3 S
01 0
^ u
<9
U 03
I U
"3 a*
e
* u
a to
£ -i
J U
u
ki a.
9 91
**
3 "3
U 3
*J -^
3 U
a; c
w -^
u
u u
a, D
L, 3
5 "3
» »
3 3
- -
3 "3
> >
* u
ji j:
C 3
U
Ll
U
»
9
U -Jl
U U
ti 3
0 H
J >
^^ Li
(9 U
3 a.
CT a,
CU 3
01 .-
e 9
9 Li
._ 41
-1 N
E9
> 9
ki _l
tu
n -^
-2 !9
9 3
O"
: y
13
a vi -i
- c *
u 9 a
U -I -.
4J M -*
U 9
3 > 3
LI a
-j a <
9 w *J
3 J U
r O U
^4
oor cu
G O -3
- ^
S 4)
3 J .3
« w
CQ M
o en 9
u u
3 ^
u :
4J -9
3 ao r
a. a 3-
= .-i jj
o 3
U 3 41
91 C
OJ 01 O
u a -,
i -3 ^
u >
3! 4J Ll
U 3 01
00 C. M
S S -2
3 3 3
kl U
^
3 tl 3
3J it A
3 3 -
T3 A M
3 U 71
3 3 cu
M fl r
3 >
1 00
S U -
i 3
33 =
3 ' 71
^ Jl
-J V ~
T M
-* -3 HJ
= L, _l
'J 3
5 9 i"
_3 jj ;
x1^
u
4J
Ll
O
5T
Ll
S3
&«
x^
U}
w
-3
4J
I
Ll
3
to
a!
_)
nj
3
»J
U
3
'^4
^
11
3J
30
-T)
W
O
>
TJ
>N
_q*
O
C
0
T)
U
A
^S
J3
^
«^
a
- 1
^«
S3
J\
*j
U
H
T
c
It.
EO
«J
r
CO
^
^
CO
*n(
S
5
^i
a.
2?
U
*j
ii
i)
S
T
~
ti
>
w
u
a
.-a
a.
y
*t
>n
u
2
V
*J
CO
£
3
(0
»j
M
O
^
33
CL
31
V)
l;
u
o
a
_>
o
a
3
^
_
.»
~
23
-------
>.
*» as
^ 2 >"
lag
- to u
-1 Cd
3 < 5-
0 H <
0 < O
%«« Q S3
c*i aa S
1 U
s» a. *s
» z
-j
:d < Id
3 z ~
< z
tlj
a
^i
01
3
5
a
(3
t4
fa
's
""^
a(
at
3.
e
o
*
J
w
3
U
u
C
0
u
1
14
>
<
os ^
O "
c- Si
M e
. ,
§
O
X
a.
en o
a:
ft,
33
VII
^^
J
a
a
u
£
S
3
S
X
*
i
-M
a
M
u
=<
*
V
>
-^
J
o
- > >- >. >*
a
*-* f-« ** Q ui CH 0* CM O ^* f^ao
O ^OO^M O -*O O'-' O O f»O
f-* ^O « f* V C4
»- *n CM -« so CM
til 1 .
1 Ul\Of-«<*l 1 II ItN O ( CM ^^
i f-4 oo i v m
(N 00 ** iTl r-» \Q -^T
lit 1
I OQ^O-4 I II 1 O O 1 *TO
in 1 V !*
C^J CS ?»4 C^4
II If
53 =Q 33 23 33 33 £32) fflfiQ CQ CQ CQCQ
U UUUCJ CJ UU CJU U CJ CJU
=M 04040104 O. a«a4 O4O4 Ol O4 O4O4
a aaa a aaa a
^ 3J3JU W U^iU W
3 333 3 333 3
*4 OJIU'-^'-M (^ -U^ 4J *M ^ **4 iU^
U MWWW S ^OEs3 WW £d 3 "wS
IM 15 5 ^ ^ ^ ^ >~* 3 !^ p"* ~* 3 "^
^ aj^"5 c8 "Onj^ fl
= 33 = = = 3 = 73 3 = 3 =
« a a « -H -i as -I n -..-. a
fa 2£3£fafa fa SSfa OSfa fa fa 33fa
in NO r^oo 3N o ^J
^T >n N3 ("* CO ON O "
f-^r-* r^f^ f-~ r^QOCO
' -N
X
i -
^
r^
NO
*^
91
00
3
**
09
5
<0
>
-^
U
a
«
/^
*»
^
*o
a
*^
CJ
i!
u
2
^
«j
s
Q*
w^
w f**
rt -O
s ^
o
-4 *J
^^ !?
19 U
i S
34 W
U f*
U
00 >%
'- ^
u c
110 i"-
u -j r*.
^ u ^,
Ma ON
2
r2 f"
:/5 ^
> <
: «
^ s:
S i
NO
ON
^
cs
kl
i
OJ
0.
w
^
CO
V
u
M
0
ta
OS
w
3
g
4-1 0
O M
J u
a a-
1 =
a, S
U >*
a -a
M y **t
33 U
O -i-* J3
a i .j
2» ^
5
r -j so
-" .5
M = 4J
S a. 3
w u
3 :d
a o
s a, -J
e c u
r- '5 US
JZ J Q -0
M O &< ^, i-i
4J U 4J 9J 00
lu " 2 2 *
K o. a -i fl oo
00 V ^
t r -S .5 §
o t. >. u a
u - o u o a
^ » *j > *J
3 3 3 C >i
Z W O M O U
11 - 33 = 1
^ 5J U U O
.3 3 3 U - '
A TJ ** (9 XI <
a « a »3 M a
^7^^S oTP
>_,
g
1
^
<
^
e
0
«
^
jj
u
CQ
0
CO,
ft.
a
=2
S
J3 'Q
00
U cc
>
>> o.
«J 09
C
S .3
«rf
O *9
a
SJ
ca $j
u
" §
n 3
'rt 3
3
3J 3
7
>.
a 3
o n
H
> *>
a w
o a
>*
-* u
H ,£
3
_ U
S O
u
V
_* u
a, 11
C Cui
o
a; u
'« "J5
D 3
-3 --
^ 1
1 |
-* ^
O C-
CO
a
i
c
o
n
n
^
u
9
J
3
M4
.*
>
a
u
2
^J
*3
a
&
3
y
C
u
y
a
*j
3
a
o
u
u
.3
O
3
0
=
q
£Q
o,
CJ
;-»
^
U
*
~
i
w
3
o
u
1
g r-*.
U 3
3*
3J V
S W
3 a
o
M *4
y *j
-5 >
93 W
5* y
U J
-J O
O r
(0
00 ~
c
(0 a
u
c ^
r oo
O 3
M (0
t -QJ
^
A O*
3 3
OJ U
O
; U
w 3*
U
v ..
-/ a
u u
o o
FH
C 3^
3
CO M
<3 §
"T3 -J
*J >
2. OJ
i i
3 "3 j
u : S
jj t i
3 -=
yi J o
= y LJ
3 -- y
*J
= JO -3
T ^
^^
fl
0
3j
W
^
2
2
O
s
ij
o
(0
to
-*
U
3
£
U
00
u
>
2*
-
0
3
3
*^
W
J3
4-*
M
5
J
a.
C3
11
J
3
Z-
«
_2I
^^
c
»
5
s
en
en
^ .
3 "
g
2 "
w T
^
a. 3
X
^
30 W
- -3
^ 3
5 i
_ -^
= 5
> =
24
-------
f^ 3£
"3 <
11 Z >
§ ? 9
4j U
3 < r-
3 , <
U < U
.n =3 w
> a. ^
z
a < a
= Q
3 Z
<^ IS
?* *c
§
£_J
a
CO
H
3
Q
i
a.
w
at
a
a.
<
a.
-.1
^j
to
M
H
,j
a
u
3
C
s
s
i*
~
v ' i.
?.
3
c
g
tQ
Ll
W
V
U
Q
o
U
U
5
U
>
<
>
-*
X
^J
i
o
Li
U
2
z
_g
a.
c
/i
3
M
J
a.
<
-^
^
C
0
z
u
u
u
s
5
u
8
a,
o
j
^
o
«^
0
^
\Q
I
*-*
^^ ^ ^
" /-N^^-K /-*,^^ r^^-S
»» »O »O '-sOO^CO
tN^J CS«M-' (M«itN-^-'
Z Z Z Z 3E Z
r- 00
0 O
i t
O tf") "-T <*1 f*1* C4 O ^ ^O O ^ O
(* O *O ^ O t*1 O flO f^ O "^ O
'> ' "^^
^*^ cniiNi o«>Nroooo
CN -^t *n v
a 3-0
l-»^^ 3\ r-l OtO^Q^O
oa 0101 o o o o
V V
^ O 00 * 00 "^ ^1 (^ rt ^ fH C^
00 00 CN 00 (N OQ
-^ --T ^1 *^ ^ *?
rj tN =N CV| tN M
1 i II II
=3 23 a a =3 cq aaco.=Q3a»aa
OO CJOOO OOOOOO
0*04 0.0.04^4 i, a- x i. a- ^»
S 3 C S G 3
3 33 333
3J u^ (JJ 4J u^ w 4) 3j iy *+* -w W
'SS «MwS «"awM3M
2>-« 2I£i~*'-* S 3 3 '^ ^ "^
^ ^ fl as "9 fl
33 3333 333333
51 T -3 -. -0 ^ -fl --i ~< .
xu. xxu.-^, xa:x«[«U4
» o
^ » 33
1 1 1
X 3> O
r*. r*. ao
vO
2
a
u
-
«
g
OQ
3
OJ
U
H
*J
Q
Ck
3
O
4j
"O
CD
Q
U
S
T
2
t»
id
^
aj
g
^
u
-f
,H
u
(3
y
^^
C
0
-_,
r^
>>
^
^
a
a
u
u
u
TJ
CQ
y
11
a.
a
u
a.
f-*
«j
0
s
u
J<
M
*
u
ja
eg
TH
(a
>
fa
u
fa
a
u
(Q
"3
o
e
3
o
i*
O
d
91
N
O
f^i
01
3
3-
M
a
0
*j
>
Ll
0)
3
V
3
f8
U
V
3,
a,
3
o
V
N
0
**
a.
fa »
00
3
j
a.
o
>
3 oo -u
U ? Ll
O SJ O
O -=
3 - 3
a 3
= 00
9 3
O1
3 a
U O 3
00 * U
L, tu "3
w &t
U aj 4J
u 3 s
> s
Ll O
a
3
5
fa
V
3
o
*J
?y
>
'4
O
>> T5
3
"3
aj
fa
s
3
3
3
a.
=
o
a
u
a.
u
;
00
3
3
Jl
a
a
*j
3
O,
S
0
U
u
Ll
3
o
3
fB
4_j
J9
CO
^
s
00
s
'=
2
CO
"3
t>
jj
u
3
"J
0
H4
(a
3
3.
u
(A
O
fO
>
D I- U 3 tl
j i oo a., u
*j u 3 a x
(U as O 3
Ll Q, Ll U
3 JS ^ -^
U ? Ll 5
3323"
I 3 3 ii a
j] -H -a 3 3j
a. c 3 >
S i -
3 =
13
U
O
a.
to
u
a.
u
00
ml
O
\ I
a.
a.
o
o
o
*
u
4J
u
-3
~
00
s
o
3
O I
^ -I
-: -3
M
Z
25
-------
-d
s H
-> as
III
-i M 13
d U]
3 5- <
U < U
~a§
ri a w
I U
^ c* -^s
*> z
'-j 3 a
a z
< z
^s
a)
^,
01
i
s^
O
>«4
fl
LI
1
3
U
3
0
01
fl
u
41
^J
.a
>w
s
CO
4i
X
i
s
X
fl
S
5
5
8 5
u s
-d O
so s
£
tmf
1
0
V
t
1
1
1
3 a!
a jy
£ -M q
O 111
tn >
as i- <
i. J X
< S 'ti
a. 3 a
Z -il
a ei
Z 3
E
LI
*ji
=
£3
L,. a.
s)
04
[
;
^
41
J5
a
Lj
V
U
41
^
as
X
o
Li
3
O
41
JS
.2
a
a
i
. 3
S -3
a si
00 fl
3 3
S Ll
11 0
u jj
u u
i ca
0
Ll
1 11 ; 91 3
31 - 90 0
31 a
u -*-i
Li
1)
ca
o
3
3
0
a.
o
u
£J
Hi
u
1+4
1H
u
u
fl
1)
^
a fl
3 3
a, cr
I
c< a
e
Lt -H
41 -4J
a LI
41 ey
3 ca
fl O
>
Vi "S
41 to
3
a
41 n
y u
3 :
90
S 3
11
a
fl
a
L, |
N *J
3 1
O
>-« U
fl
a* u
j
^1
3 ca
0 li
i-i 3
fl fl
> >
U
U U
-a a
o a
3
3 »
U 0
U N
4J O
4J t
3 fl
£ 3
CU
00
3 8)
* 3
s a
ca -i
A fl
Li
-J CU
3 O
34
3 :
p 3 W
^ s
31 4J «
Ll ,
5
41
0
a.
a
3.
a
J2
I
U
o
fl
fl
o
^
u
p 14
U-l
CJ
so
fl
u
V
fl
>*
g
3
e
0
-o
S
jp
H
4J
a
-4
2^
Vfl
^
"s
13
fl
ta
fl
.c
tj
-4^
.,4
U
fl
<4
4)
^3
41
j;
a
i**
's
ca
Ll
41
a.
34
CJ
1
-4t
2
13
3
ca
3
3 4J
0 O
f. 3
en -3
o
~* _^4
3 3
^H
34 ^ti
O -I
Ll -J
00 -3
« >.
3 -i
O -J
J 3
3 3
if
U "3
-* U
5 3.
u u
5J U
j 3
-^ -j
< fl
fl u 3
* T TJ
ll s.
-a o
-* D 3 3 r
3 J5 fl A «
3 ^ O U JJ -=
s O -r = fl -
26
-------
~> X
J S >
r
3 < r->
0 S- <
u < CJ
' Q CO
!»> a 73
I U
> at us
>i z
a < a
-J 3 C
a z
< z
H <
fa
a
*j
i
1*4
5
-a
S
^
5
a*
3>
C
O
->
u
^
u
5
u
41
00
-o
4)
>
<
as >.
U -1
tt S
03 0
r-
Z3
a.
03 O
a» cj
< J3
^ 1
r-j 25
W
cn
H
U
"a.
2
T
W
0
-1
i;
0
W
_
JQ
JJ
'§
j
H
03
VH
*-s
fi
e
u
z:
i
s
X
r
3
3
.?
S
Z
a
u
oc
(9
W
41
>
<
>,
j
S
3
1^
y
^
s
S
i,
o
^
u
o
_4
O
^^_
O
^
«VO ?? -» M !N > >
in
i
-a o\ M m a n
03 mo o o a "
00 CS V V
j
>* CJ
u «
5 u
U 1J
-o ^-T
4J \O
^ 0t
00
W -J
15 fl
>. u
* *
0 -J
2 y
_2 3
U ^
j]
aCT
« u
u -J
u u
V ^
w a
5
TJ
S
O
00
X
=2
u
3
O
-4
3
O
!»
o r-
-» 41
0 ^
C 3
i 41
U .J
O 2.
£ 03
z -
TJ 3
3 00
0) <
TJ a
11 0
O S O SO
cu * u -
X O O V,
-4 k. O
00 J3 04 -I
C CJ -^
1 r-. e
TJ 1
.u u
-i 00
U 3
o -<
=. 2
X U
39 = 3
O --4 3 5J
E -I 9 3
10 W
00-I > <4»
U ^ 3 4)
10 « M
M 41 U
U > *»
w 3 O3 T
a - ^03
?* 5
z '
< ~
z <
73 JJ U
U
<
3 2. M 13
TJ
5J
0
O,
41
03
2
o ->
s s
TJ
41
rt
H
a,
i - 3 -
u <
2 S o
27
-------
-S
W Z >
44 :*}
3 < f-
0 5- at u
~* , z
3 3 a
03 Z
s z
j- <
I
ca
e-
r^j
o
us
5
O4
Cd
C/3
cn
^
c~l
j
a o
a 3
a ro
J5
-.17
SI?
3 44
I*4 s
-< H
a a.
a 03
fe VII
a
3J.3
e a
0 3)
2 Jj
ai
Ul
44
U 3
9 S
U X
a
S) Z
TJ
y
> S
^
O O O O
CM 9\ CN O>
^
/-^
00
2
3
^4
a
u
»44
lj
U
>
!^
>*y
a
a
u
w
00
^
tu
00
3
39
"3
U
a
00
m
o
o
tN
O
O
ca
u
a,
00
a
s -a
9 a
a a 11 -a
us 9
U 9 ca
J 44 3 "a
a 44 > 44
u a
CU CU 14 CQ
U U CD
a o 9 -«
44 cj rt :
9
EX V 00
oo e
eg a )
cu a en
Jt r* £ 01
a * a a
44 3 U
> S ^3
88 a cu
a ->
3 eg 3
an
jj
9
;
U
^
a.
a.
...
9
N
9
9
3.
ca
u
04
CO
JS
a
a
u
00
« e u 4
12! I
TJ 0| ...
C/1 Ml U.
u o
~ 00
-a -n
= "^
u O
U i
0,
T3 ^^
a r-
-3 :N
9
Q.
OS
00
u
00
f
u
U 44 U
J
9
O
co a
9 oo
s
"c "s
3 3
a, vi .
u s
o u
144
a
r o
j a*
a u a 3 "a
-I =o 3
vj 3 a fl ii
c
j
it a 44 ^
o
a
r-
24
a
s -* vii
28
-------
"^3 "5
31 xj >*
2 S *
S 35 u
s < s-
0 j- <
'J ^ CJ
> a a
M M CO
> ^
z
u *5 «d
=s z
< z
T- <
a
dJ
c
2
QJ
3
4-1
Id
^
«
2
3
^
3
2
O
*J
*«
C
a
u
o
(J
0<
flj
h4
>
<
2S
P *
U 3
M *J
W S
o
; r
§
C/3 <**
a: o
a. u
04 -9
Id §
1/3
_*,
U
i_i
O
W
^
%^^
a
3
_:
£_t
2*
vu
s
g
D
=
i
,
X
a
|
ra
Z
a
CO
a
L.
U
<
X
~
o
z
u
^
s
W
TJ
a*
^
/-\
en
^
CO
^^
o\
1
r-
r-
<*^,
Z
Cft
7
c^
~
Q
V
,-4
a
u
a*
J
S
3
-M
^J
S
o
n
flj
*"*
9
.^
S
u
V
fl)
-n
s
u
u
'
3
3
W
O
<*4
^
^^
U
X
eg
H
0*
3
4-*
J)
/^
*o
r*.
f^
A
2
+*
u
.«<
j
.^
^j
^
a,
s
o
.^
2
a
*
Li
3
T.
tj
U
2
2
o
u
u
a.
o
E
U
^* OO
O r»
at S
u .
U CM
a
a o
a. a
es
1-
Ul
*M Ut
a >
J a
11 Z
a 3
2 0
3 -J
< a
a 2
CJ J)
a, a
*w 3
s u
X ^
it si
3 U
3
< 0
H
U 3
^
a o
3
"> 3
s
^
s a.
a u
u
a
-i -J
o
^
u
u
"3
m4
a
a
hi
o
=
a
C
a
4J
a
3
C
3
O
I
U
a
u
'a
^4
U
a
u
O
Bt
e
aj o
y -H
00 4J
a a
LI >
-j LI
> u
a a
j
>> o
-* "s
3 a
1 5
tM a
a a
u
X :
w a
H 9J
^ ,j
a w
o
a a
-- 1 u
2
o a
3J 3
S 3
_M
00
A y\
0 ^
-- c
+J *
a
w ->
3 90
c
X -H
rt 3
Q *J
T3 **
c
.
- 1 y
1^ *J
CJ ^
a u
M i
.a u
0 3
33 M
u 3
a a
u
> a
o e
oo a
n *
u -a
a a
U k*
3 S
a v
u
-= o
!*4
O
11
O r*
o ja
- * a
a -H
^-« a
3 >
u a
*
a &
CJ W
a
*4 a
1 -5
U -3
T5
3 -3
-1 S
U 3
C O
" 1
~j O
CJ
11 -
Ll W
SJ «
3j
3 a
O
o
u
3
o,
Q
U
11
a;
s
a
3
>
U
a.
a
3
O
Ll
U
N
O
«J
a
3
0-
a
a
o
H
^
a
u
11
o
"a
.u
a
a
u
30
S
1
a
a
a
T3
41
3
£ -1
§ 1
^
w e
91 O
3 -<
U 1}
3 -
« 41
a T3
>
31
Ll
S"
3 O
11 ^H
oo a
3 3
a 3-
Ll U
c a
a s
U 0
^" .
f^.
o
u
Ll
0
a.
u
Ll
a
u
a<
^*,
ao
5
c
o
W
3
t+4
q
4-t
fl
o
2
1)
3
!44
^M
00
as
u
9J
-?
j:
c
3
3
3
u
J]
5
ft
^-\
c
y
-f
2
o
J
a
>
u
11
a
5
^
=
i
o
Ll
J
N
0
r
3
3
3-
a
o
^
a
>
u
A
3
^j
VI
VI
u
I
00
^
i
=
J
&:
a.
v«'
«j
aj
-5
'*,
a
£
a
00
'"
u
D
e
3
-
29
-------
Si
<* as
3 <
Jj S S
* W3 O
0 H <
U < U
"~* a S
n a S
1 y
* z
-; 1-1
a < si
-a 3 a
3! Z
< z
i- <
a
ft
a
3
3
'a
2
£
s
X
9)
oe
*3
a
o
'4
4J
W
u
u
s
Q
u
00
u
u
>
* <
0 >>
y* -*
U -3
Ed u
en C
g =
o
§2
91
X
.2
u
3J
.u
u
=
n
b
13
a.
3
^j
ft
u
q
~
u
V
a.
^^ .-*.
en ri
t-« »
^ v-'
< <
z z
en
fH O
e
N
o o
* o
t/1 O
O 0
V
00 O>
0, 0.
9J U
J J
n a
ft ft
3 3
2 3
"3 ft
X X
&\ '
r^ ao
i i
2i a
I 03
OB
00
n
w
>
a
X
JS
^
0
s
w
o
u
00
Uf
S!
3
n
51
U
Z
CO
3
±j
^3
tfl >
4J U
w -j
a. -a
v^
00 1
w O -
00 U T)
- a
ft -i S
M 3J * O
U S U
a -3 0 '*
- ,-3 a
-30 -3
» S a
u a, o 3
i i, a. a.
u .-3 s
i *^ o
n -i n ^
Z >-< n
*J
90
3
" iy
M U
=- < >
ea r- -3
> <
a a
1-4 U
jj 4J
SO at 3
U ^ O
O< IH U a
CQ 4J U
1 > N 3
^ (8 ^^
-J o a
o v *J >
H 1-
U d ti
<0 3 3.
a u cr a.
u u a 3
*j 13 a a
C 0 u
« 3 1-1 a
fl O *^ N
* a" > o
U 0 " -I
^ 0 a
0. U -1
S w .A a
(V -4 O 3
i = a
a u ^
J a, j a
a u o s
13 a - -H
o c *» J -<
H a a fu
w -3 > s
a 3 w o
a. u a -!
oo O w *i
« o = o a
3 -rt *>
c *J oo = a
a a a o -5
(9 > -H E3
±- 3 V
v a 3 -* -s
3 W cfl ^J
3 .3 M M
"> o ft a o
3 3 4J " -3
") O 3 00 3
a, a. s cr
13 g g a
a o 9 s
w u u 3 »
^ (03
^ CJ W (3 -»H
3 a* a w
3 3 -O ft
H u a >
a: _j u
a ^ a 3 u
j= -i a) a. ji
jj u 3 3 -a
a a o o
w a, u u
On
a ft ^ ft
"^ *^ u a ^i
a 3 3 J -^
4J t
a s s a M
M -^ TI 3 a
a -H
a. o = >
3 ft 00
a u * c
u o 3 a *
"3-3 25
3 O 3
ji ji o .a
0 O «- ^ "3
-J ^ '-^ Z ^
..
/^^
3
a
44
a
a.
(4
33
SL*
'Jt
JS
C
a
u
o
<44
a
«j
3
T
jj
V
_.
u-t
'S
00
fl
u
u
>
fl
>,
a
O
S
e
o
TD
.a
yj
J
'2
.^
^
=3
v;i
^
ii
w
-
-
n
rt
tJ
U
a
3
a
*i
a
s
u
9
<*3
5
^«
u
>
u
c
0
- *
«J
u
u
*J
"3
3)
S
u
Q
c
o
s
J]
.J
s
c;
-ji
u
u
a
at
u
a
X
*j
>*
o
_i
u
0
OJ
Li
^
ttJ 3
-* 0
3 -^
w T
' >
Jl
0
-J
UJ < C
-i; o
51 =
30
-------
X
a!
§ >*
a;
O
cn u
< i>
6- <
^! CJ
c a
33 cn
o
a, ^
z
-i
3 C
Z
z
<
3
a
£*
**
Id
^,
CO
S
I*
* \
CO
*s^
»
3.
3
O
-*t
tG
jj
3
j
=
0
CJ
(K
CO
tu
2!
O >«
5- -i
CJ .C
cn c
o
& =
9
s^
cn «
X 0
a, u
< 1U
Oi J
3
U 3
3 Z
cn
£«
u
a.
5
CO
-J
3
*J
f-
2.
ta
VII
j
s
CO
£
§
S
X
n
3
..4
C
C
VI
U
XI
flj
^
>
<
>>
-M
.J
3
Z
U
U
3J
^
L.
T
3-
O
-1
3
3
3
CO
o>
I
r^
^
f^
* '
o
M
1
fM
o
o
f-l
V
*o
0
«
^J
a.
-j
3
«
(^
-^
CO
r^.
^
«J3
= _
w
S
o
CO
u
<§
00
s
u
^
u
33
u
v
a.
a
o
^w
U
3
±j
J9
^J
S
.^
23
CJ
O
>^
>
U
<
r
u
u
-*
r*»
- ^
^ *
-
o ~n
fl >M
U 00
w 3
1-^ 5
o -3 c
O O J
^ * S
u 5
C5 c>4
J r^ r^
o r- -^
-c ~s. en
U. S r-
!T" T"
00
f««
H
n
S
to
tu
a
>
*
O
CQ
>
IM
U
91
O
(Q
u
c
3
o
k4
Q
U
0
c
a
(0
&
U
(8
W
jd
U
O
>
3
"J
x.
39
00
(0
U
u
t-^
5
3
o
a
0
tu
00
CO
U
>
J)
39
H
3
o
M
S
o
^
u
J3
0
^
CO
3
S
0
4*
3
It
3
a.
3
u
X
3
^
U
j tu
CO 00
S
a *
to a
CO
eu eu
vi S
to
to
-> 0
CO U
^ U
N
a o
3 JJ
9
Q.r-1
a ^
u 51
u
H CQ
- 0
CJ ^4
eu u
a, to
to >
C V
tu to
.= J2
3 0
to =
s -a
O JJ
H **
-1 U
to tu
hi eu
u n
39
^ 4J
O O
^ J
3
3 00
0 3
a-
a a
0 3
U a
VI
ta co
CJ
a, -o
tu
tj *j
rt 3
iM 2,
u o
u u
hi
tu tu
"3 *
** w
^ tj
3 op
0
^
^
a u
a a
39 tJ
3 5
~J V]
0 3
> -o
Li -J
tu a
fi
00
e
!tt
to
a
tu
3
a,
a
a
j
hi
tu
a.
a,
3
o
hi
N
0
J
CO
3-
tu
to
c
a
CO
>
u w
tU -H
31 S
a rH
: c
e o
co *
JS *->
a
CO 4J
09 tu
tu -3
= U
00 3
5 a
ta i
8 3
C"
U
W 31
a. 3
3 -^
'- to
>
-j hi
hi CU
2 -a
a
^5
U
^J
ht
0
tu
(a
u
a
^
c
u
a
4J
o
J
c
u
3
IM
1*4
U
U
00
L4
>
flj
>.
*J
o
s
o
M
sw
W
*«
5
^
30
vn
^J
~
CQ
r4
CQ
C
1
mi
S
S
^
i.
30
.
.1,
aa *>
W -^
U J
w
3 -a
u v-
=0 fl
II
CO U
a
to
rt tu
.. eu
**
x cn
to
U 13
tu 3
O, CO
to
a, ml
a
to
CA ^
U tu
1 3
"5 ~*
4 IM
*^
10
V)
CO C
CO <
c a
a a
to -o
a .-o
-1 31
3 *
2
- 9
a, -J
a -
00 3
M V]
a ->
= a
CO -^
r^ >m
tu
0 00
vi C
cfl
21 tl
a a
C *
l^
>« a
U ^4
o a.
33.
V3 C/3 ;
> » Z <
^3 a ~ji o Q ^j
Z -J
=- < r- ^- X
Z Z < 21 3
31
-------
IV-1 through IV-3, it is apparent that wastewater discharges from deink mills
where fine and tissue papers are produced are substantially higher in PCB
content than wastewater discharges from mills in other subcategories. This
confirms that PCB-contaminated wastepapers are not generally processed at mills
other than deink mills where fine and tissue papers are produced.
EPA determined that, after attainment of BPT effluent limitations, discharge
levels of PCB-1242 at deink-fine and tissue mills are on the order of 1.2
micrograms per liter (ug/1). Even at these low concentrations, EPA determined
that PCBs are pollutants of concern for both aquatic life and human health.
PCBs are toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations. They are very stable and
do not decompose in the aquatic environment. Most PCBs discharged into water
are found in bottom sediments and, due to their persistence, can continue to
contaminate the aquatic environment and be introduced into the food chain long
after the discharge of PCBs has ceased. PCBs bioaccumulate to high concentra-
tions in fish and invertebrate tissues from concentrations in water which are
often below the usual detection limits. As a consequence, fish and other
foods obtained from PCB-contaminated waters may become important sources of
human exposure, even if PCB levels in the waters are low. PCBs also bioaccum-
ulate in the fatty tissues and skin of man and other mammals.
In comments on the January 6, 1981 proposed regulations, industry representa-
tives explained that the PCB content of wastepaper has dropped steadily after
they were no longer used in the manufacture of carbonless copy paper. As a
result of the decreased presence of PCBs in wastepaper, industry representa-
tives implied that the levels of PCBs in wastewater had decreased accordingly.
To investigate this contention, EPA sought and evaluated data on the levels of
PCB discharges since implementation of BPT effluent limitations in 1977.
Long-term data were available for five deink mills where biological treatment
(the technology basis of BPT limitations) is employed and where BPT effluent
limitations are now attained. Table IV-4 presents the PCB data for the five
deink mills. These data represent the mass discharge of PCBs from these five
mills based on the mean monthly average concentrations presented in Table IV-3
and the corresponding mean monthly average effluent flow. As shown in Figure
IV-1, PCB discharges have remained substantially the same since 1977 when BPT
effluent limitations were implemented.
The Agency determined that, at deink mills where fine and tissue papers are
produced, PCBs are present in wastewaters at levels that could cause toxic
effects. As explained in subsequent sections, EPA also found that an econom-
ically-achievable technology is available to reduce the discharge levels of
PCBs. Therefore, based on EPA's further analysis of all available technical
and economic data, the Agency determined that regulation of PCBs is required
by the Clean Water Act and the Settlement Agreement.
32
-------
Q U
£ 2'.
.2 a
°-ri
o w
U 3
£
s
U 3
> V3
Ex X
Z
as >-i
2 = 3
SH2
=:§
aa
u p«
C* U) r^
J 01
Sd"
«s§
-J a;
* z *
si
-i
u -
u ~».
a x,
3 3
U
*£ r» co vo
ev| CN cv4 CNJ
O O O
V V
o
J>(
<~ %
o 5]
w u!
^ J N
o
u
0,
o
s
u
u
0,
a
0,
u
en
3
U
e
's
v
.1
*i
3
u
1
33
U
30
« »)
a >-
a) ~
a -3
3
a. >
8
a
S 2
>\ a
S "5
u ca
Si U
u u
ft -^
.3
aj 2
u
f*
3
S
tl
-i 0.
a a.
3 3
U .-
O
» U
3
W i 1
U fl *J
a 3
-a a- s
o u «
^
^ «
V B 8
J 3 3
U * !
U *J U
v > u
o i. *j
U U
o -a
-d
B B
H n o
15-
a -«
« n to
Q a 3
3 -4 Jj
U =
U Jl
3 00 C
o. a s
U 3 X
U 31 U
U -5 5)
U ai
J T5 J
3J 3
4J 3 Z
ao a 5
s 3 -g
.u 3 j;
W CJ W
S U aj
1 U Jl
u u u
S3-.
"H ?
3 3 a
M -8 5
a ». B
"* D ^
S
c o -3
_. u z
o ao a
u S 3
*j aj o
2 U u
3j
S ^ U
- E a
2
(Q
«"^t
{j
U
j
a
(0
^-N
83
S
0
I*
4J
CO
u
u
9
O
a
CJ
flu
*
^
'a
**
J
B
O
a
u
9
<*4
jj
2
3
^j
U
F 1
U
QO
u
>
~-*
^
0
a
o
u
n
u
V
00
(Q
U
W
(0
^
T-1
jj
±j
O
5
d
t
S
qj
0)
3
J
U C
00 U
s o
3
-j
3 30
7 c
z ^
o
o
o
o
-r
o
o
o
ON
33
-------
i8o»-
160 -
140 -
120 -1
CO
a.
I-
_1
<
40 -
20 -
FIGURE
FINAL EFFLUENT PCB
MASS DISCHARGE VS. YEARS
DEINK SUBCATEGORY
LEGEND
MILL
I40007
I400 I 4
I4002 I
I40030
- 90 00 I 5
ACTUAL MILL DATA
77-78
78-79 79-80
YEARS (7/I-6/30)
80-8I
34
-------
SECTION V
DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
In Section IV, data are presented on the capabilities of several control tech-
nologies for removal of PCBs from pulp, paper, and paperboard industry waste-
waters. EPA identified alternative control and treatment options for detailed
analysis that represent a range of pollutant removal capability and cost. This
section presents the options that were considered in determining BAT effluent
limitations, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for control of PCBs in discharges from
mills in the deink subcategory.
DEVELOPMENT OF FINAL EFFLUENT PCS CHARACTERISTICS
Recent studies demonstrated that improved removal of suspended solids will
result in additional reductions in the discharge of PCBs.(9)(10) It may be
inferred that tighter suspended solids control would lead to a reduction in the
discharge of PCBs. At the time of the January 1981 rulemaking, sufficient data
were not available to develop a definite correlation between the removal of TSS
and the reduction of PCBs. As a result of Agency data gathering efforts subse-
quent to proposal of regulations in January of 1981, EPA obtained sufficient
data to investigate the relationship between TSS and PCBs.
EPA plotted final effluent PCB data versus final effluent TSS data for five
mills where biological treatment is employed and long-term data on PCB dis-
charges were available (see Figure V-l and Table V-l). It is apparent that
final effluent PCB discharges are related to final effluent TSS discharges.
EPA defined this relationship by the following equation:
PCB (Ib/t) = (4.75 x 1(T5) (e°-1156 X TSS (lb/t)).
This relationship forms the basis for determination of the long-term average
effluent discharge of PCB-1242 from deink mills where fine and tissue papers
are produced after application of various control and treatment options known
to be capable of further reducing the discharge of TSS.
CONTROL AND TREATMENT OPTIONS
BAT Options
General. The factors considered in establishing the BAT level of control
include the age of equipment and facilities, the process used, the engineering
aspects of applying various types of control techniques, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and the costs of apply-
ing the control technology (Section 304 (b)(2)(B)). At a minimum, the BAT
technology level represents the best existing economically-achievable perfor-
mance of plants of shared characteristics. Where existing performance is
uniformly inadequate, BAT technology may be transferred from a different
subcategory or industrial category. BAT may include process changes or inter-
nal controls, even when these technologies are not common industry practice.
35
-------
CO
CO
h-
LJJ
LL
LL
LU
m
fO
UJ CM
cc S! m
O t-
LL I
2
LU
LL
LL
LLJ
LL
in
O
CVJ
c
o
en
z
Ul
u.
UJ
o
CO
(M
O
O
o
CD
o o
tD ^
O O
CM O
O
oo
o
CM
O
_OI)
36
-------
< as
S 0
< u
a u
en <
en u
H CO
Q at
z
< *
£8 ^*
U 03
3. Q
z*
13
j z
' id w
> -J
« 1~
- 3S
CS
^j fid CJ
fr f^ Z
C/5 **
5 §
3 M
^« £J
OS :O
jj 3
u
> as
-2
M
S >
f^ >**
= §
(-* "*4
'** 3 U
O -B >-*>
U > J
U W ^
3 U ^
Eli 'w
1*4
M
ac
xv
Q(
Jri
^-k,
s,^
« U
*J 'J
(9 Iw
a s
IO
en
u
^
c. **
£ en
(+* 0(
w j5
H 9C
j»
"*
/v
44
2"
^-f
U
a*
ao
^
: 00
-*
J
U U
Q 3
< 04 90
i a a
a >
^ 2
-^
~
ti
-^ _Q
"* a
3
,*"v
CM
a
a
a
**
o
a
o
r*
3
CM
J2
m
v<>
(-
,*^
a
90
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
00
en
jn
a
a
a
~y
*~\ ^^
a "«
a o
a o
a a
a o
O *O
a a
a o
a a
a o
*o
1/1
fTJ >^>
(N (>
0 Q
ao Q
""^ 2
O O
00 *O
p-t CM
a a
a a
a a
a a
m >o
§ i
a a
a a
a a
-* in
o eM
a a
a a
t0
a
a
a
a
en
fM
O
o
a
a
^
en
-<
99
^
*
^^
f^.
en
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
-3
_
a
a
f^
-»
a
a
a
a
a
CM
a
a
o
a
a
r-
00
*
en
m
a\
a
a
a
a
00
OS
a
a
a
a
a
3
_^
a
a
/^
o\
a
o
a
a
a
r^
Q
a
a
a
a
en
» i
a\
m
a
en
en
-o
a
a
a
a
a
CM
a
a
a
a
a
00
CO
^
a
3
^i
r*.
a
a
a
a
a
i«»
a
a
o
a
a
en
^,
en'
°!
^o
m
a
a
a
a'
CO
CM
a
a
a
a
0
3
r*
a
a
2 S
u -o oa
| 3 3
£ a i
j a
1-1 -a u
(Q i4 3
u a
Qfl i^ f^
o -i a.
^ « a
o a o
H U
J <-. S
o o
3
-1 U -3
O « 3
> fl
O "^ V
U -H U
& (5 g
> a
T3 9) ^4
3 rt
n u a.
W (Q O
a u
a w 90
a m 3
V & -14
3 . S
^ ^ ^
u u a.
CQ )4
3 7"
a 3 13
n "» o
4-1 -U --*
O -F4 U
u ^ &
1
S3 0 U
90' a
s a. a
» "> » 3
U " * 3 £8
l| o|
-» 0) O S
s 3 a. «
^ 3 S ,3
O TJ 0 O
U Q,
cj oa
tj SU O ffl u
^ S U
4J ^ ^ O U
(Q -^ *J 0
a *t a en
a O > ca
£« *M t^ o* o
/-^ »-^
B ^1
«
13
r.
"O
-B
M
tl
44
flj
2
91
>
as
X
o
'*>
31
2
3
^
*J
3
H
TJ
3
O
94
§
^
01 ao
C -
-r4
a u
a
G *J M
Z 1)
u
U 3j t3 jfl
*J M U W
4 Q
- CM in
a"
tl
u
3
O
3j
X
>«4
W
3
* .u
Q a
>> 33
U -* O M ^
a o w o et\
~Z o, a o
3» 3 -
§ " = *
O 00 *fH ~ CM
c S __- ai
H 4J 5s *H "
3 *J J3 « /-^
w .-i a ^
« a < o *j
a, w a* u ca ^.
V JU « ** U3
U3 0 3 *3 C
i. *J C OJ «
Z T3 Ui en
S U *> S >*
J«3 ^ ^O
0 2 irt
u a> oc 3 w a -*
CJ 14 0 U Qrf r 4
ca u ao
t- S >»
ssc's'w.a'S u
U 21 0 41 QJ 5
33 3SUU /--
CC.cSSa.'s -i.>
^Q[iJ^3^]^y^U3 ^5j
*»* U
3
-q-mvOf^oo o> u «
,.^
u
.*
C3
O4
90
II 3
>> a
u
U3 U
iO U
E-" 4J
u
ii a
0
x a
4) U
V
« -J
3 2
i
-T5
- 1 >*
U
4)
u X
U « «
O 11
3 A I U
*J U
>. -
a -i-i
u o x
4;
S A( U
0
>
= C?J
37
-------
The primary factor for determining BAT is effluent reduction capability using
economically achievable control technology. The Clean Water Act of 1977
establishes the achievement of BAT as the national means of controlling the
discharge of toxic pollutants from direct discharging plants. The best avail-
able technology economically achievable must be implemented no later than July
1, 1984, for the control of toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
EPA identified three options for control of the discharge of PCB-1242 from
direct discharging mills in the deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers
are produced.
Option A. Base proposed BAT effluent limitations on the performance of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT). The technolo-
gies on which existing BPT effluent limitations for the deink subcategory are
based includes: screening, primary clarification, and biological treatment.
Limitations based on this technology option would not result in any additional
removal of PCB-1242. The long-term average TSS effluent level that forms the
basis of BPT effluent limitations for both the fine and tissue papers product
sectors of the deink subcategory is 7.1 kg/kkg (14.2 Ib/t). Based on the
relationship between PCBs and TSS developed previously, this results in a
long-term average discharge level of PCB-1242 of 0.00013 kg/kkg (0.00025 Ib/t).
Option B. Base proposed effluent limitations on the performance of the best
biological treatment systems now in-place at deink mills. This level of
treatment represents the average performance at mills in the deink subcategory
where BPT effluent limitations are attained through the application of biologi-
cal treatment. (Treatment system design criteria were established that reflect
attainment of Option B effluent characteristics through implementation of end-
of-pipe treatment of the raw waste loads that form the basis of BPT effluent
limitations.)
Table V-2 presents conventional pollutant data for the fine papers and tissue
papers product sectors of the deink subcategory. BPT effluent limitations are
being attained at three deink-fine paper mills and seven deink-tissue paper
mills where biological treatment is employed. However, as noted on Table V-2,
insufficient data were available for mill 140018, while at mill 140030, only a
small portion of the raw material furnish is comprised of deinked pulp produced
on-site.
As illustrated in Table V-2, in the fine papers product sector, the application
of this technology option results in a long-term average TSS discharge level of
3.7 kg/kkg (7.3 Ib/t). Based on the relationship between PCBs and TSS devel-
oped previously, this equates to a long-term average discharge level of PCB-
1242 of 0.000055 kg/kkg (0.00011 Ib/t). Similarly, in the tissue papers product
sector, the application of this technology option results in a long-term aver-
age TSS discharge level of 4.5 kg/kkg (9.0 Ib/t). Based on the relationship
between PCBs and TSS developed previously, this equates to a long-term average
discharge level of PCB-1242 of 0.000070 kg/kkg (0.00014 Ib/t).
Currently, four of the fourteen direct discharging mills in this subcategory
are attaining this level of treatment.
38
-------
*ji en
men
a e-i
c
o i
z i
+*
1
-t a
en a
CM
1
>
a
H
X
0 >
a, as
*g
z <
3 S5
f» en
o z
M
!d Q
cj
X
CJ
31 U
"" -J -J
s
J 3J
3 ac
IM Vj
<
* S
e u
£** r*
I
5
en
«
*a o m o >
^ o -» m M
^ 00 *O ^« "^
vw ^^
°4
Ji O CM 00 14
*^j ^ rn M f^»
\s,
a
§
^! ,-^^,-N
^x r^. in co '^
r-l . "^ *
&t \^r
Jt !S IN O en
aa ;*J en CM m
1
o
1^4
Q1
r-
.Si » m r*» *»
v -j -^ -^ v-/ CM
w ^^ ^
JM ...
*^ oo »n -^ CM
-T in en o
C-J
00
o
:N
o
»l
^.i
31
-1
^.i
9 93 tj
0 0 2
O O O
o o o
J- »T -*
2 ti
£K4 «
M ^M
a 3
M
CJ
>
j
o
u
a>
3
y
<
ca
M«
5
E:
33
OC
^
a
.ul
*- >
*- ^
a -;
39
-------
CO
OT
* o o
O
r^
O
p-
a.
a
u a c
S a ^ "S
n o -c -a
-1 33
a « «
u >> u u
u o s a
a j o
an
« a
OOOOOOOOOOO
ooocoooooao
3J . -J 2
- w ij a .
a < a ~ >
40
-------
Option C. Base proposed effluent limitations on the application of chemically
assisted clarification (CAC).
Based on the demonstrated performance of full and pilot-scale systems, EPA pre-
dicted that chemically assisted clarification of biologically-treated effluents
is capable of attaining long-term average TSS concentrations of 15 mg/l.(7) At
the flow rate that formed the basis of BPT effluent limitations (102.0 kl/kkg
or 24.4 kgal/t), this results in a long-term average TSS discharge level of 1.6
kg/kkg (3.1 Ib/t) for both the fine and tissue papers product sectors of the
deink subcategory. Based on the relationship between PCBs and TSS developed
previously, this equates to a long-term average discharge level of PCB-1242
of 0.000034 kg/kkg (0.000068 Ib/t) for both product sectors.
Currently, no mills in the deink subcategory are attaining this level of
control.
Table V-3 presents the long-term average discharge levels of PCB-1242 resulting
from the application of the three BAT technology options at mills in the fine
and tissue papers product sectors of the deink subcategory.
NSPS Options
General. The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under Section
306 of the Act is the best available demonstrated technology. At new mills,
the opportunity exists to design the best and most efficient pulp, paper, and
paperboard processing and wastewater treatment technologies. Therefore,
Congress directed EPA to consider the best demonstrated process changes,
in-plant controls, and end-of-process treatment technologies that reduce
pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
To control PCB-1242, EPA identified two technology options for control of PCB-
1242 discharges from new direct discharging mills in the deink subcategory
where fine and tissue papers are produced.
Option A. Base control of PCBs at new source direct dischargers on the applic-
ation of commonly employed in-plant production process controls plus biological
treatment. (This is the same technology option that was selected as the basis
of final NSPS for control of conventional pollutants (BOD5 and TSS) in the
deink subcategory.)(5)
In the fine papers product sector, the application of this technology option
results in a long-term average TSS discharge level of 2.4 kg/kkg (4.8 lb/t).(5)
Based on the relationship between PCBs and TSS developed previously, this
equates to a long-term average discharge level of PCB-1242 of 0.000041 (0.000082
Ib/t). Similarly, in the tissue papers product sector, the application of this
technology option results in a long-term TSS discharge level of 3.6 kg/kkg (7.2
lb/t).(5) Based on the relationship between PCBs and TSS discussed previously,
this equates to a long-term average discharge level of PCB-1242 of 0.000055
kg/kkg (0.00011 Ib/t).
Two existing mills currently achieve this level of treatment.
41
-------
TABLE V-3
LONG-TERM AVERAGE DISCHARGE LEVELS OF PCS-1242 CORRESPONDING
TO THREE BAT OPTIONS FOR THE FINE AND TISSUE PAPERS
PRODUCT SECTORS OF THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY
PCB-1242 Discharge Level
Fine Papers Sector Tissue Papers Sector
BAT Option kg/kkg (Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
A 0.00013 (0.00025) 0.00013 (0.00025)
B 0.000055 (0.00011) 0.000070 (0.00014)
C 0.000034 (0.000068) 0.000034 (0.000068)
42
-------
Option B. Base control of PCBs at new sources on the application of CAC in
addition to NSPS Option A technology.
Based on the demonstrated performance of full and pilot-scale systems, EPA
predicted that chemically assisted clarification of biologically-treated efflu-
ents is capable of attaining long-term average TSS concentrations of 15 mg/l.(7)
At the flow rate that formed the basis of final conventional pollutant NSPS
for the fine papers product sector (66.4 kl/kkg or 15.9 kgal/t), this results
in a long-term average TSS discharge level of 1.0 kg/kkg (2.0 Ib/t). Based on
the relationship between PCBs and TSS developed previously, this equates to a
long-term average discharge level of PCB-1242 of 0.000030 kg/kkg (0.000060
Ib/t). Similarly, at the flow rate that formed the basis of final conventional
pollutant NSPS for the tissue papers product sector (81.4 kl/kkg or 19.5 kgal/t),
this results in a long-term TSS discharge level of 1.2 kg/kkg (2.4 Ib/t).
Based on the relationship between PCBs and TSS developed previously, this
equates to a long-term average discharge level of PCB-1242 of 0.000032 kg/kkg
(0.000063 Ib/t).
This level of control has not yet been achieved at existing mills in this
subcategory.
Table V-4 presents the long-terra average discharge levels of PCB-1242 resulting
from the application of the two NSPS technology options at mills in the fine
and tissue papers product sectors of the deink subcategory.
PSES and PSNS Options
General. The Clean Water Act requires pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES) and pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) to prevent the
discharge of pollutants which pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. The Act also requires pretreatment
for pollutants that limit sludge management alternatives at POTWs.
EPA identified two options for control of PCB-1242 discharges from existing and
new indirect discharging mills in the deink subcategory where fine and tissue
papers are produced.
Option A. Do not establish PSES and PSNS.
Selection of this option would mean that raw waste levels of PCB-1242 would be
discharged to POTWs from new and existing indirect discharging mills in the
deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are produced. Based on raw
waste load data presented in Table V-l, EPA determined that 49.1 yg/1 is a
representative raw waste concentration of PCB-1242 at existing deink-fine and
tissue mills when discharge flow is identical to the flow basis of BPT efflu-
ent limitations. This is equivalent to a mass discharge level of 0.0050 kg/
kkg (0.010 Ib/t). Because PCB discharge levels are directly related to the
raw material furnish, EPA anticipates that the mass discharge levels of PCB-
1242 would be equivalent at both existing and new mills.
43
-------
TABLE V-4
LONG-TERM AVERAGE DISCHARGE LEVELS OF PCB-1242 CORRESPONDING
TO TWO NSPS OPTIONS FOR THE FINE AND TISSUE PAPERS
PRODUCT SECTORS OF THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY
PCB-1242 Discharge Level
Fine Papers Sector Tissue Papers Sector
NSPS Option kg/kkg (Ib/t) kg/kkg (Ib/t)
A 0.000041 (0.000082) 0.000055 (0.00011)
B 0.000030 (0.000060) 0.000032 (0.000063)
44
-------
Option B. Control of PCBs at existing and new source indirect dischargers by
the application of chemically assisted primary clarification.
Table V-5 presents available data on the discharge levels of PCBs after appli-
cation of chemically assisted primary clarification. To ensure that the data
correlate to the actual mass discharge of PCB-1242, EPA adjusted available data
according to the following formula: adjusted concentration = (measured concen-
tration) x (unit flow basis of BPT effluent limitations)/(actual mill unit
flow). Based on available data, after the application of chemically assisted
primary clarification, EPA anticipates that the long-term average discharge
level of PCB-1242 would be equal to or less than 3.6 ug/1. This corresponds to
a mass discharge level of 0.00037 kg/kkg (0.00073 Ib/t).
Table V-6 presents the long-term average discharge levels of PCB-1242 resulting
from the application of the two pretreatment options at mills in the fine and
tissue papers product sectors of the deink subcategory.
EFFLUENT VARIABILITY ANALYSIS
Introduction
The quantity of PCBs discharged from wastewater treatment systems varies daily.
EPA accounts for this variability in deriving limitations regulating the amount
of a pollutant that may be discharged. The statistical procedures used by EPA
to analyze the variability of PCB discharges are described below.
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
General. An effluent limitation is an upper bound on the amount of pollutant
discharge allowed per day or average of 30 days. For direct dischargers, the
limitations are determined by calculating the product of two numbers which may
be derived from effluent data: one is referred to as a variability factor and
the other is referred to as a long-term average. EPA derived only a daily max-
imum variability factor in developing BAT effluent limitations and NSPS control-
ling PCB-1242 discharges from the deink subcategory. This factor is the ratio
of: (a) a value that would be exceeded rarely by the daily pollutant discharge
to (b) the long-term average daily discharge. The long-term average daily
discharge quantity is an expression of the long-run discharge or performance
of the treatment or discharge process in units of average daily kilograms
(pounds) of PCBs discharged. Given a daily maximum variability factor (VF)
for a pollutant (i.e., PCBs) and a mill-specific long-term average (LTA) for
the same pollutant, the mill-specific daily limitation is the product of the
variability factor and the long-term average (VF x LTA).
Daily Maximum Variability Factors. Historically, in this industry, the daily
maximum variability factor has been defined as the ratio of an estimated 99th
percentile of the distribution of daily pollutant discharge values to the
estimated long-term average daily pollutant discharge. The 99th percentile of
daily pollutant discharge represents a pollutant discharge value below which 99
percent of all pollutant discharge values fall. Estimates of the 99th per-
centile of daily pollutant discharge distribution may be calculated from
available effluent data. Percentiles may be estimated using either a para-
metric or nonparametric approach. To utilize a parametric approach, a dis-
45
-------
m M
«
H
/^
CO
CD 01
4-1 U
to U
o a
0
CO
/-^ TJ
ot D
~v. 4-1
00 M
2. 3
v ^ >T~7
TJ
01 <
r- (
H
4-1
8
0)
U
VH
Oi
Q*
.a
4J
o\
ON
TJ
tJ 4J
(U 4J
4-1 W
tO 3
S3 »f«^
H TJ
4J nj
w a
U 3
>^
i (
H 01
CO a
Q 0
H
4-1 4-1
O eg
>
Ul V|
(U 11)
,0 ca
S £>
3 o
S5
/-> TJ
rH
<
TJ
S u
V4 4->
(U W
H 3
1 >-!
00 TJ
a m
o a
M a
>>
r (
X!
4J
a
O W
a 01
00
«H CO
O U
01
H >
11 <
^Q
S
&
h
rH 0)
>-l ^2
H S
s 3
55
/-N
*
^v /-\
i i ~ lO
^/ CN ^ '
^^/
^-\ r-i >*
^s
v-^ 1-H C\l
I 1
/-N oo m
43
v_/ ON >3-
O O r-l
pg m -i
\O CM O\
t
CT) rl O
00 <-i CTi
ro r-i i i
m r^ rn
(0
J-l
OJ
&
O
00
H
rH
U
ts
U
OJ
rH PS
U;
§H 00
V f*
O CU O\
W (0 iH
'-i a.
OJ
O< S . 4J
A tfl Lj
2 9J
>* V £>
4J +J S
H U (U
w BJ >
o S o
A %
P a
3 -H -
« a
RQ O
SO U -H
a Oi +j
H CO
4J IH >
U O H
H < M
»-i o
a. M u
3
O CO iH
4-» BS
< +J
TJ s a
(U (U
4-1 M S
E l-i w 8
to O
H 0 rH S a
ft, ft nj -H W
01 4J 4-1
oo« to n ^
a TJ o
H 00 >>X
rH a 00 -M 4-1
& -H a -H TJ a
S !H -H SJ 8 01
to O M O 10 S
W 4-> O J3 4-1
rt 4-1 4-1 H
s a -H 3 »-3 to
w o a to p,
j m
Q \-^ v^^ s-^1 v^/ v*^1
<^\
«
s^1
H
3
O
-C
1
CN
r>«
u
0
"H
01
H
to
M
a
o
H
4J
to
>
M
01
M
A
0
o
CN
01
4-1
.
oi w
W 01
3 rH
to Q*
U g
01 to
rQ 09
rH 01
rH 4->
H -H
S IQ
O
n O<
H e
43 0
4-> U
H U
O 3
MH o
-G
TJ 1
01 ~*
4-1
-------
TABLE V-6
LONG-TEEM AVERAGE DISCHARGE LEVELS OF PCS-1242 CORRESPONDING TO
TWO PRETREATMENT OPTIONS FOR THE FINE AND TISSUE PAPERS
PRODUCT SECTORS OF THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY
PCB-1242 Discharge Level
PSES/PSNS Option kg/kkg(lb/t)
A 0.005 (0.010)
B 0.00037 (0.00073)
47
-------
tribution with a known functional form is fit to the data. Past guideline
development has utilized such distributions as the normal, lognormal, and
three-parameter lognormal distributions. If a distribution is found to des-
cribe the data adequately, a 99th percentile can be calculated through the use
of the known functional form of the assumed distribution.
Nonparametric methods may also be used to estimate distribution percentiles.
Such methods do not require that the particular form of the underlying distri-
bution be known, and make no restrictive assumptions about the distributional
form of the data. (Nonparametric methods are discussed in many texts. See,
for example, J.D. Gibbons, Nonparametric Statistical Inference, McGraw-Hill
(1971).)(11) EPA has applied nonparametric methods to pulp, paper, and paper-
board industry effluent data to obtain estimates of the 99th percentile of the
distribution of daily pollutant discharge.(5)(7)
Analysis of Daily Pollutant Discharge Values to Determine the Daily Maximum
Variability Factor. The data used to assess the variability of PCB discharges
were obtained from several sources; these sources are summarized in Table IV-1.
Because PCB analysis costs are high, PCB analysis has been typically performed
only one day per month or one day per several months.
Efforts to characterize the distributional form of the available final effluent
data included fitting the normal and loguormal distributions to these data.
Results of these analyses showed that it was inappropriate to apply parametric
methods to the data. Therefore, nonparametric methods were used to compute
estimated 99th percentiles. In this analysis, data reported as less than
minimum reportable concentrations (MRC) were set equal to the MRC.
The 99th percentile (Qqq) is defined as the observation numbered closest to
.99N. That is,
Q9g = X(.99N) if -99N is an integer
= X([.99N]+1) if .99N is not an integer
where X(.99N) is the (.99N)th value in a sample of N values ordered from low to
high on a random variable X, and [.99N] is the largest integer contained in
(.99N). For example, if N = 200, Q9_9 is the 198th ordered value, since .99N =
198. If N = 201, .99N = 198.99, so that [.99N] = 198 and Q99 is the 199th
ordered value, or X199. (Computation of percentiles is discussed in several
texts. See, for example, R.A. Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers,
14th Edition, New York, Hafner Publishing Co. (1973).)(12)
EPA determined minimum, maximum, and average variability factors for each of
two subsets of mills. These subsets were developed from a group of deink mills
where biological treatment systems are as follows:
Subset Number Subset Description
(1) Mills with biological treatment systems and effluent levels
at or better than BPT limitations.
48
-------
(2) Mills with biological treatment systems and effluent levels
at or better than BAT Option B long-term average effluent
loads.
Daily maximum variability factors for these two subsets are shown in Table V-7.
Based on these results, EPA has based the daily maximum PCB variability factor
on the average variability factors developed for subset (2) because subset (2)
most resembles treatment system performance that will be required to attain BAT
effluent limits and NSPS.
Hence, for PCB-1242, the daily maximum variability factor applied to the BAT
and NSPS technology options presented previously is:
Daily Maximum Variability Factor
PCB-1242 = 2.58
49
-------
m
>_/
CO H
M a
8 <
§§
CO 1-5
PS <
9 u
H M
U O
< O
r*4 K)
o
SM M
r» H pq
I M
> MO
rH S5
W pq M
£ 2%
Z %*
> as,
o
pq O
Cj w
CM EH
01
U
c
18 m
0) B
44 Ll G
£3 O O
U >4H -H
H L4 44
T3 41 a
G 0, O
1 1
S EH
18 41 <
44 44 C4
(8 W
Q >> G
CO 18
jv* r*
S 44 EH
Q G
01 IH
0 S 41
Q 44 44
18 44
41 41
LI pq
H
41
U
G
18
01 B
44 Ll
18 O e~
U MH EH
H U 0,
T) O) pq
G OH
M G
B 18
18 01 43
44 44 44
18 CO
Q >> Li
CO 01
p* ^j
S 44 44
Q G 41
41 pq
o S
Q 44
18
41
Ll
H
>* >.
18 44
Q -H
i-H SH
S -H 0
3 43 44
S 18 U
H -H 18
X Ll FJH
18 18
a >
/""N
42
>^
18 41
44 U
13 SH
Q 3
O
CO
to
HH 44
0 G
H
Ll O
41 O-i
43
E 18
3 44
as is
Q
U
rH 0)
rH 42
H S
a 3
S5
10 CO
O O 01 01
Sz; Z >H >4
CO CO CO W
41 01 41 01
> SH >H >H
o in r^ i-ft
o r»- m m
vO ->
i 1 rH rH rH
\~> \_/ v / v /
CM \Q CM Is*
CM CM \O * rH m
O 1-1 CM rH
o o o o
0 O O 0
< ^i- ^- o
r» o oo
m o «*
CM ^o n
§S 41
3 00
B S W
H -H Ll
G X 41
H 18 >
a a <
.
CO
G
O
rl
44
18
44
H
S
H
rH
H
EN
pq
G
18
43
44
Ll
OI
44
44
01
42
10
i-H
41
>
41
rH
44
G
41
3
rH
<4H
<4H
01
43
44
H
s
10
rH
i 1
H
a
i
rH i-H rH Cft rH
r-- o> oo
m m in
CM CM CM
S E 01
3 3 oo
E S 18
H -H SH
G X 41
H 18 >
a a <
*
CO
rH
4)
>
0)
rH
41
00
Ll
13
43
U
CO
H
-o
pq
G
o
H
44
ft
O
H
<
pq
G
18
43
4J
Ll
01
44
44
41
42
CO
rH
01
>
41
i4
44
G
01
3
rH
>4H
<4H
4)
r4
+J
H
3
to
rH
rH
H
a
44
G
01
E
44
18
4>
Ll
44
rH
18
U
H
00
O
rH
O
H
42
00
a to
r4 41
TJ CO
rl >,
> rH
O 18
SH G
ft 18
o :*
G 44
13 -H
rH
Ll -H
41 42
ft 13
18 -H
ft SH
01 18
44 >
CO
13 g
& 5
o
O <4H
41 Ll
44 41
13 ft
a
H O
S 44
18
44 01
G rH
O 42
U 18
1 rH
pq -H
CJ 18
PM >
18
oo
C 41
H SH
CO 01
to S
4>
U 13
O 44
Ll 18
ft T3
co pq
rH CJ
rH OH
H
B 44
G
>> 0)
rH -H
G U
O -H
HH
41 HH
43 3
44 CO
41 43
S-l U
18 -H
43
01 S
ta
41 Ll
43 0
H MH
/ N
13
CM ^
rH
41
G
G
O
CO
Ll
0>
ft
rH
i I
r4
S
>>
rH 43
01
G >
G 41 44
O O -H
CO G Ll
S-i 18 O
4i -H 43
ft rH 44
ft G
rH E «
rH O
H O 00
S G
44 -H
>» -H 44
10 S -H
< 4i a
OH ft SH
W 01
CO ft
O W
44 Q O
OH 44
T3 S3
41 TJ
44 G 41
44 -H 44
H nj SH E
S 44 O 18
to 42 SH ft Li
44 3 0) 01 00
Ll M U Ll O
O CO Ll
ft 18 13 C8 ft
01 44 44
K a) O as tst)
"O 44 T3 G
00 -H
G 00 00 00 rH
H G G G ft
Ll -H -H -H S
O Lt SH Ll 13
44 O O O CO
H 44 44 44
G -H -H -H S
O G G G SH
a O O O 4)
s e E 44
01 1
00 44 44 44 00
Li G G G G
01 18 01 01 0) O
0 43 3 3 3 rH
SH U rH i-H rH
3 CO "4H >4H <4H <
O -H <4H MH <4H OH
CO Q W W W W
13
44 * s s-*\ /-*\ /> /~*\
«3 T-H CM co ^j in
Q \_/ \-/ v_^ -^^ v_^
/->
42
v_/
50
-------
SECTION VI
COST, ENERGY, AND NON-WATER QUALITY ASPECTS
INTRODUCTION
Previous sections describe the respective BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS control
options that were considered as the basis for proposed rules. This section
summarizes the cost, energy, and other non-water quality impacts (including
implementation requirements, air pollution, noise pollution, and solid waste)
of the various treatment options as required by section 301(b) of the Clean
Water Act.
METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
Introduction
This section describes how estimates of the costs of implementation of the
treatment technology options were developed. The actual cost of implementing
these treatment options can vary at each individual facility, depending on the
design and operation of the production facilities and on local conditions. EPA
developed treatment costs that are representative of costs anticipated to be
incurred at mills in the deink subcategory of the pulp, paper, and paperboard
industry. The methodology for development of costs is summarized in the fol-
lowing discussion and discussed in detail in Section IX of Proposed Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard and Builders' Paper and Board Mills Point Source Categories (U.S.
EPA, November/December 1980).(7)
Model Mill Approach
EPA estimated the costs of implementation of the treatment options in order to
determine the economic impact of each technology option. In order to develop
costs, model mills were developed that are representative of mills in the deink
subcategory of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry. In order to properly
reflect the effect of mill size on costs for BAT and PSES, EPA selected model
mill sizes based on the actual variation in the size of existing mills in the
deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are produced. For NSPS and
PSNS, EPA selected model mill sizes that are representative of the anticipated
sizes of new mills in the deink subcategory where either fine or tissue papers
will be produced.
Cost Estimating Criteria
In order to develop cost estimates for the treatment options under consider-
ation, criteria were developed relating capital, operating, and energy costs.
These criteria are presented in Table VI-1. The pre-engineering cost estimates
developed for this study are expected to have a variability consistent with
this type of estimate and are on the order of plus or minus 30 percent.
51
-------
TABLE VI-1
COST ESTIMATING CRITERIA(a)
1. Capital costs are as of first quarter 1978: ENR = 2,683
2. Annual fixed (amortized) costs are 22% of capital expenditures
3. Energy: Electrical $0.0325/kwh
Fuel $12.00/barrel
4. Operation/Maintenance:
Labor: General $10.35/hr
Solids disposal $ 8.00/hr
Chemicals: alum $110/kg, dry basis
polymer $4.4l/kkg
85% phosphoric acid $0.44/kg
anhydrous ammonia $l54/kkg, dry basis
50% sodium hydroxide $l65/kkg
100% sulfuric acid $56/kkg
(a) Sources of Cost Data:
Energy User News, August 7, 1978. (13)
Employment and Earnings, U.S. Bureau of the Census, April 1978. (14)
Municipal Sludge Landfills, EPA-625/1-78-010, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Process Design Manual, 1978. (15)
Engineering News Record, March 23, 1978. (16)
Chemical Marketing Reporter, November 6, 1978. (17)
Monthly Energy Review, U.S. Department of Energy, March 1979. (18)
52
-------
All costs presented are in items of first quarter 1978 dollars. Since con-
struction costs escalate, these estimates may be adjusted through the use of
appropriate cost indices. The most accepted and widely-used cost index in the
engineering field is the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index.
The ENR index for cost data presented in this document is 2,683.
Costs For Implementation of BAT Options
EPA estimated the costs associated with three technology options capable of
controlling PCB-1242 discharges from existing direct discharging mills in the
deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are produced. These technology
options are:
Option A. Application and operation of the technologies that form the basis of
BPT effluent limitations. The technology on which BPT regulations are based
for the deink subcategory is biological treatment. Biological treatment in-
cludes the following unit processes: screening, primary clarification, biolog-
ical treatment (activated sludge or aerated stabilization basin), and associ-
ated solids dewatering and disposal. The design basis of the biological treat-
ment systems that form the basis of the BPT effluent limitations is presented
in Tables VI-2 and VI-3.
As this technology option is identical to BPT, there are no incremental costs
associated with implementation of BAT Option A.
Option B. Option B effluent limitations are based on the levels attained by
best performing mills in the deink subcategory. Best mill performance is the
average performance at mills where BPT is attained using BPT technology. The
design basis for the cost estimates are presented in Table VI-4. Design cri-
teria were established that reflect attainment of BAT Option B effluent charac-
teristics through implementation of end-of-pipe treatment of the raw waste
loads that form the basis of BPT effluent limitations for the deink subcate-
gory.
Option C. Option C is BPT technology (Option A) plus the addition of chemically
assisted clarification. The costs for the chemically assisted clarification
system are based on the following items:
1. wastewater pumping;
2. sulfuric acid system;
3. chemically assisted clarification (solids contact clarifier) with 150
mg/1 alum and 1 mg/1 polyelectrolyte;
4. neutralization with 10 mg/1 sodium hydroxide;
5. dissolved air flotation thickening;
6. solids dewatering;
7. chemical sludge transportation to landfill; and
8. chemical sludge landfill.
Details of the chemically assisted clarification system are presented in Table
VI-5.
Table VI-6 presents capital, operation and maintenance, energy, and total
annual costs of implementation of BAT Options A, B, and C at model mills in
the fine papers and the tissue papers product sectors of the deink subcategory.
53
-------
TABLE VI-2
DESIGN BASIS FOR BPT ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
Wastewater Pumping
Design flow: 1.3 x average annual flow
Basis for power cost: 12 m total dynamic head, 70% efficient
Flow Equalization
Detention time: 12 hrs in concrete basin
Secondary Clarification
Overflow rate: 20 cu m/d/sq m
Sidewater depth: 4 m
Activated Sludge Basin
Number of basins: 2
Loading rate: (use larger value)
0.8 kg BOD5_ applied/cu ra/d
8 hr hydraulic detention time
Nutrient feed: BOD5 removed:N:P: = 100:5:1
Aeration design requirements:
1.5 organic peaking factor
1 kg 0 /kg BOD5 removed
19 kg 0 /aerator hp/d
Length/width ratio: 4/1
Sidewater depth: 4 m
Sideslopes: 1/1
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening for Biological Solids
Sludge loading rate: 10 kg/hr/sq m
Hydraulic loading rate: 46.9 cu m/d/sq m
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Solids Dewatering
Type: horizontal belt-filter press
Loading rate: 318 kg of dry solids/hr/m of belt width
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Primary/Biological Sludge Transportation
Haul distance: 16 km
Sludge content: primary and biological sludge at 30 percent solids (w/w)
Primary/Biological Sludge Landfill
Sludge content: primary and biological sludge at 30 percent solids (w/w)
Landfill design: normal landfill compaction and covering techniques
54
-------
TABLE VI-3
DESIGN BASIS FOR BPT AERATED STABILIZATION BASIN SYSTEM
Wastewater Pumping
Design Flow: 1.3 x average annual flow
Basis for power costs: 12 m total dynamic head, 70% efficient
Primary Clarification
Overflow rate: 24 cu m/d/sq/m
Sidewater depth: 4 m
Aerated Stabilization Basin
Number of basins: 1
Loading rate: (use larger value)
18.4 kg BOD5/d/1000 cm
Detention - 14 days; 13 days aeration, 1 day settling
Aeration: 15.3 kg BOD5/d/HP
Solids Dewatering
Type: horizontal belt-filter press
Loading rate: 318 kg of dry solids/hr/m of belt width
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Primary Sludge Transportation
Haul distance: 16 km
Sludge content: primary sludge at 30 percent solids (w/w)
Primary Sludge Landfill
Sludge content: primary sludge at 30 percent solids (w/w)
Landfill design: normal landfill compaction and covering techniques
55
-------
TABLE VI-4
DESIGN BASIS FOR ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF ATTAINMENT OF BAT OPTION B
A. Primary Treatment
1. Primary clarification at an overflow rate of 24 cu m/d/sq m
B. Activated Sludge Treatment
1. Equalization with aeration
a. 12 hr detention at peak flow
2. Increase in aeration basin capacity with:
a. Aeration at 1.5 times BPT levels
b. Detention at 1.5 times BPT levels
c. Provisions for operation in a contact stabilization mode
3. Clarification at an overflow rate of 16 cu m/d/sq m
4. Expand solids handling system based on the increase in solids
production/removal over BPT levels.
C. Aerated Stabilization Basin
1. Increase aeration to 2.6 HP/1000 cu m
2. Increase settling detention by 9 days
56
-------
TABLE VI-5
DESIGN BASIS FOR CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATION
Clarification
Overflow rate: 16 cu m/d/sq m
Sidewater depth: 4 m
Chemical dosage: 150 mg/1 of alum
1 mg/1 of polymer
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening for Combined Biological and
Chemical Solids
Sludge loading rate: 10 kg/hr/sq m
Hydraulic loading rate: 46.9 cu m/d/sq m
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Solids Dewatering
Type: horizontal belt-filter press
Loading rate: 318 kg of dry solids/hr/m of belt width
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Combined Sludge Transportation
Haul distance: 16 km
Sludge content: biological and chemical sludge at 20 percent solids (w/w)
Combined Sludge Landfill
Sludge content: biological and chemical sludge at 20 percent solids (w/w)
Landfill design: normal landfill compaction and covering techniques
57
-------
TABLE VI-6
SUMMARY OF COSTS OF ATTAINMENT OF BAT OPTIONS
Option
A
Subcategory Cost (a)
Deink
o Fine Papers
Capital
Annual
0&M(c)
Annual
Energy
Total
Annual
o Tissue Papers
Capital
Annual
0&M(c)
Annual
Energy
Total
Annual
Mill Size
kkg/d (t/d)
163 (180)
363 (400)
726 (800)
163 (180)
363 (400)
726 (800)
163 (180)
363 (400)
726 (800)
163 (180)
363 (400)
726 (800)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
B
Activated
Sludge
2522
4265
6836
204
299
431
90
186
359
848
1424
2294
740
1112
2479
89
114
195
18
30
90
269
389
830
Option
C
ASB w/ Activated
Additional Sludge
Aeration + CAC(b)
1596
2810
4640
42
60
84
52
114
228
444
792
1333
429
668
1596
21
26
42
7
15
53
123
188
445
5358
8748
13548
694
1140
1849
120
240
452
1992
3305
5282
1689
2497
5315
259
350
685
27
44
120
657
944
1974
ASB
+ CAC(b
4432
7293
11352
532
901
1502
82
168
321
1588
2673 '
4321
1378
2053
4432
191
262
532
16
29
83
511
743
1589 '.
(a) Costs are in thousands of first quarter 1978 dollars.
(b) Chemically Assisted Clarification.
(c) Operation and Maintenance.
58
-------
Costs for Implementation of NSPS Options
EPA estimated the costs associated with two technology options capable of con-
trolling PCB-1242 discharges from new direct discharging mills in the deink
subcategory where fine or tissue papers are produced.
Option A. This option involves the application of: 1) commonly employed pro-
duction process controls to reduce raw wastewater discharge and raw waste loads
and 2) end-of-pipe treatment in the form of biological treatment. Option A is
identical to the technology basis of final NSPS for control of conventional
pollutants in the deink subcategory.(5) Design criteria for the end-of-pipe
biological treatment systems are the same as for BAT Option B. These criteria
are presented in Table VI-7. NSPS model mill costs associated with implementa-
tion of NSPS Option A are presented in Table VI-8.
Option B. NSPS Option B is Option A plus chemically assisted clarification.
The costs for the chemically assisted clarification system are based on the
unit processes discussed previously under BAT Option C. NSPS model mill costs
associated with implementation of NSPS Option B are also presented in Table
VI-8.
Costs for Implementation of PSES and PSNS Options
EPA estimated the costs associated with two technology options for control of
PCB-1242 discharges from existing and new indirect discharging mills in the
deink subcategory where fine or tissue papers are produced.
Option A. Option A is no control or treatment. Therefore, there are no incre-
mental costs associated with implementation of this technology option.
Option B. This option involves the application of chemically assisted primary
clarification. Design criteria for the chemically assisted primary clarifica-
tion system are presented in Table VI-9. PSES and PSNS model mill costs assoc-
iated with implementation of this technology option are presented in Table
VI-10.
ENERGY AND NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Energy Requirements
The implementation of some of the control and treatment options considered as
the basis of proposed rules are expected to affect existing energy demand.
Estimates of the energy requirements of each technology option are presented in
this section. Table VI-11 summarizes the estimates of total energy used at
direct discharging mills for the baseline case and after the application of
each specific BAT and NSPS option. Table VI-12 summarizes the total energy
used at indirect discharging mills before and after the application of each
specific pretreatment technology option. Total energy is presented in heat
energy units (BTU); purchased electrical energy (kwh) required is converted to
heat energy (BTU) at a conversion of 10,500 BTU/kwh, which reflects the average
efficiency of electrical power generation. Electrical energy generated within
a mill for manufacturing processes is converted to heat energy (BTU) at a con-
version of 3,412 BTU/kwh.
59
-------
TABLE VI-7
DESIGN BASIS FOR NSPS ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM
Wastewater Pumping
Design flow: 1.5 x average annual flow
Basis for power cost: 12 m total dynamic head, 70% efficient
Flow Equalization
Detention time: 12 hrs in concrete basin
Secondary Clarification
Overflow rate: 16 cu m/d/sq m
Sidewater depth: 4 m
Activated Sludge Basin
Number of basins: 2
Loading rate: (use larger value)
0.5 kg BOD5 applied/cu ra/d
12 hr hydraulic detention time
Nutrient feed: BOD5 removed:N:P: = 100:5:1
Aeration design requirements:
1.5 organic peaking factor
1.5 kg 0 /kg BOD5 removed
11.2 kg o /aerator hp/d
Length/width ratio: 4/1
Sidewater depth: 4 m
Sideslopes: 1/1
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening for Biological Solids
Sludge loading rate: 10 kg/hr/sq m
Hydraulic loading rate: 46.9 cu m/d/sq m
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Solids Dewatering
Type: horizontal belt-filter press
Loading rate: 318 kg of dry solids/hr/m of belt width
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polyraer/kkg of solids
Primary/Biological Sludge Transportation
Haul distance: 16 km
Sludge content: primary and biological sludge at 30 percent solids (w/w)
Primary/Biological Sludge Landfill
ry/cioxogicax axuage jjanarixx
Sludge content: primary and biological sludge at 30 percent solids (w/w)
Landfill design: normal landfill compaction and covering techniques
60
-------
iH CO
4-i d
o d
H <
oc
d o»
CO U
d
d co
o d
H 0)
m d
01 CO
Qj 22
O
CO
4->
P.
U
01
N
H
CO
00
u d
o o
00 -H
eo O
u
3 d
en «|
co r- o
o »* m
CO
o
m co oo
o m m
m CN r-
o oo oo
o o
co co
CM CM
co co
o o
m m
CO CO
CO CO
o o
o o
CN
CO CO
>* CM m
r-l O i-H
CM
CO 00 r-l
CM rH <
co
O
^i
PH
01
H
p-l
1
MH
0
1
T5
d
r- 1
CO
O
H
c
o
u
01
u
o
0-t
d
o
O MH
3 O
T5 I
O "O
H a
a, u
CO
4-1
O
H
4-1
d
o
u
ca
ia
at
u
o
h
a.
0)
d 04
o -H
-H Ol
4-1 I
CJ <4-l
3 O i
T3 I
ca
u
(0
00
r--
ON
S-l
(U
4J
H
CO
3
a1
CO
4-»
O
PH W H
O TJ
O
O
m
01
a
01
CH
CO
a,
01
d
H
CQ
O
o
m
m
ca
V4
CD
a
CO
04
OJ
3
CO
M
d
o
H
d
H
OJ
H
CO
ca
4-1
ca
o
61
-------
TABLE VI-9
DESIGN BASIS FOR CHEMICALLY ASSISTED PRIMARY CLARIFICATION
Primary Clarification
Overflow rate: 16 cu m/d/sq m
Sidewater depth: 4 m
Chemical dosage: 150 mg/1 of alum
1 mg/1 of alum
Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening for Solids
Sludge loading rate: 10 kg/hr/sq m
Hydraulic loading rate: 46.9 cu m/d/sq m
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Solids Dewatering
Type: horizontal belt-filter press
Loading rate: 318 kg of dry solids/hr/m of belt width
Chemical dosage: 4 kg of polymer/kkg of solids
Sludge Transportation
Haul distance: 16 km
Sludge content: primary and chemical sludge at 20 percent solids (w/w)
Sludge Landfill
Sludge content: combined sludge at 20 percent solids (w/w)
Landfill design: normal landfill compaction and covering techniques
62
-------
TABLE VI-10
SUMMARY OF COSTS OF ATTAINMENT OF PSES AND PSNS OPTIONS
Subcategory Cost(a)
Deink
o Fine Papers
Capital
Annual 0&M(b)
Annual Energy
Total Annual
o Tissue Papers
Capital
Annual 0&M(b)
Annual Energy
Total Annual
o Fine Papers
Capital
Annual 0&M(b)
Annual Energy
Total Annual
o Tissue Papers
Capital
Annual 0&M(b)
Annual Energy
Total Annual
Mill Size
kkg/d (t/d)
PSES
163 (180)
363 (400)
163 (180)
363 (400)
163 (180)
363 (400)
163 (180)
363 (400)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
23 (25)
45 (50)
163 (180)
PSNS
163 (180)
163 (180)
163 (180)
163 (180)
163 (180)
163 (180)
163 (180)
163 (180)
Option
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
B
6131
9898
1690
3000
91
208
3130
5385
2012
2942
6131
518
756
1690
14
26
91
975
1429
3130
5740
1611
86
2959
5912
1645
88
3033
(a) Costs are in thousands of first quarter 1978 dollars.
(b) Operation and Maintenance.
63
-------
TABLE VI-11
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR BAT AND NSPS OPTIONS
Energy Consumption(a)
Subcategory Mill Size Increase Over
and Option kkg/d (t/d) (109 BTU/yr) Baseline (%)
BAT(a)
Deink
o Fine Papers
A (Baseline)(b) 3484
B 3561 2.2
C 3513 0.8
o Tissue Papers
A (Baseline)(b) 14387
B 14713 2.3
C 14602 1.5
o Total
A (Baseline)(b) 17871
B 18274 2.3
C 18115 1.4
NSPS
o Fine Papers 454 (500)
Baseline(c) 3176
A 3087
B 3113
o Tissue Papers 454 (500)
Baseline(c) 3176
A 3119
B 3146
(a) Based on all existing direct dischargers.
(b) Baseline energy consumption under BAT includes that for manufacturing
processes and production process controls and end-of-pipe treatment
that form the basis of BPT effluent limitations.
(c) Baseline energy consumption under NSPS includes that for manufacturing
processes, production process controls that form the basis of BPT efflu-
ent limitations and NSPS, and end-of-pipe treatment that forms the basis
of NSPS.
64
-------
Subcategory
and Option
TABLE VI-12
ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR PSES AND PSNS OPTIONS
Energy Consumption(a)
Mill Size
kkg/d (t/d)
(109BTU/yr)
Increase Over
Baseline(%)
Deink
PSES(b)
o Fine Papers
Baseline
A
B
3131
3131
3220
0
2.8
o Tissue Papers
Baseline
A
B
5401
5401
5556
0
2.9
o Total
Baseline
A
B
8532
8532
8776
0
2.9
PSNS
o Fine Papers
Baseline
A
B
o Tissue Papers
Baseline
A
B
163 (180)
163 (180)
1061
1061
1089
1061
1061
1090
0
2.6
0
2.7
(a) Baseline energy consumption is that for manufacturing
processes only.
(b) Based on all existing indirect dischargers.
65
-------
Solid Waste Generation
The implementation of some of the control and treatment options is expected to
result in increased generation of wastewater treatment sludge. Wastewater
treatment facilities produce both primary and biological sludges that are
usually dewatered prior to disposal. The amount of wastewater treatment sludge
generated depends on a number of conditions including: 1) raw waste character-
istics; 2) the existence, efficiency, and/or type of primary treatment; 3) the
type of biological treatment system employed; and 4) the existence, efficiency,
and/or type of secondary clarification.
Table VI-13 summarizes the estimates of wastewater sludge generation for the
baseline case and after the application of each BAT and NSPS technology option.
Table VI-14 summarizes the estimates of wastewater sludge generation after
application of each pretreatment option.
Air Pollution and Noise Potential
The technologies under consideration are not a significant source of noise
potential or air pollution. EPA anticipates that implementation of the control
and treatment options under consideration will have no direct impact on air
pollution and noise pollution.
Implementation Requirements
EPA anticipates that the time required for design and construction of the end-
of-pipe treatment systems should be no more than 30 months, though this may
vary from mill to mill depending on the technology implemented and the method
of implementation (i.e., turnkey, normal construction techniques).
66
-------
TABLE VI-13
WASTEWATER SOLIDS GENERATION FOR BAT AND NSPS OPTIONS
Subcategory
and Option
Mill Size
kkg/d (t/d)
Wastewater Solids Generation(a)
Increase Over
1000 kkg/yr (1000 t/yr) Baseline(%)
Deink
BAT(b)
o Fine Papers
A (Baseline)
B
C
o Tissue Papers
A (Baseline)
B
C
o Total
A (Baseline)
B
C
o Fine Papers
Baseline
A
B
o Tissue Papers
Baseline
A
B
454 (500)
454 (500)
32.4 (35.7)
33.2 (36.6)
36.5 (40.2)
133.2 (146.9)
135.8 (149.7)
149.7 (165.0)
165.6 (182.6)
169.0 (186.3)
186.1 (205.2)
NSPS
29.9 (33.0)
29.9 (33.0)
32.1 (35.4)
29.9 (33.0)
29.9 (33.0)
32.7 (36.1)
2.5
12.7
1.9
12.3
2.0
12.4
0
7.3
0
9.5
(a) Baseline wastewater solids generation is based on the raw waste
loads that form the basis of BPT effluent limitations.
(b) Based on all existing direct dischargers.
67
-------
Subcategory
and Option
TABLE VI-14
WASTEWATER SOLIDS GENERATION FOR
PSES AND PSNS OPTIONS
Mill Size
kkg/d (t/d)
Wastewater Solids Generation
1000 kkg/yr (1000 t/yr)
PSES(a)
Deink
o Fine Papers
A
B
o Tissue Papers
A
B
o Total
A
B
o Fine Papers
A
B
o Tissue Papers
A
B
PSNS
163 (180)
163 (180)
0 (0)
33.3 (36.7)
0 (0)
24.2 (26.6)
0 (0)
57.5 (63.4)
0 (0)
11.2 (12.4)
0 (0)
11.3 (12.4)
(a) Based on all existing indirect dischargers.
68
-------
SECTION VII
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
GENERAL
As a result of the Clean Water Act of 1977, the achievement of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable (BAT) has become the principal national
means of controlling wastewater discharges of toxic pollutants. The factors
considered in establishing the BAT level of control include the costs of
applying the control technology, the age of process equipment and facilities,
the process employed, process changes, the engineering aspects of applying
various types of control techniques, and non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy consumption, solid waste generation, and air pollu-
tion) (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). In general, the BAT technology level represents,
at a minimum, the best economically achievable performance of plants of shared
characteristics. Where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, the best
available technology economically achievable may be transferred from a differ-
ent subcategory or industrial category. BAT may include process changes or
internal controls, even when not common industry practice.
The statutory assessment of BAT "considers" costs, but does not require a
balancing of costs against effluent reduction benefits (see Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).(19) In developing the proposed BAT,
however, EPA has given substantial weight to the reasonableness of costs. The
Agency has considered the volume and the nature of discharges, the volume and
the nature of discharges expected after application of proposed BAT, the
general environmental effects of the pollutants, and the costs and economic
impacts of the required pollution control levels. Despite this expanded
consideration of costs, the primary factor for determining BAT is effluent
reduction capability using economically achievable technology.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY BASIS OF PROPOSED BAT
PCB-1242 is proposed for regulation under BAT based on the average performance
at mills in the fine and tissue papers product sectors where BPT effluent
limitations are attained through the application of biological treatment.
PROPOSED BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Table VII-1 presents proposed BAT effluent limitations for control of PCB-1242
at mills in the deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are produced.
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY BASIS OF PROPOSED BAT EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
As discussed in Section V, EPA identified three options that could form the
basis of BAT effluent limitations controlling the discharge of PCB-1242 at
mills in the deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are produced. EPA
69
-------
TABLE VII-1
DAILY MAXIMUM PCB-1242 BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Maximum Day
Subcategory (kg/kkg or lb/1000 Ib)
Deink
o Fine Papers 0.00014
o Tissue Papers 0.00018
70
-------
based proposed BAT effluent limitations on the average performance at mills
where BPT effluent limitations are attained because this level of control will
result in significant removals of PCBs (about 49 kg (107 Ibs) per year, or a 47
percent reduction in current discharge levels of PCBs) and is not anticipated
to cause mill closures. EPA chose not to base BAT effluent limitations on the
basis of BPT effluent limitations for this subcategory because further control
of PCBs beyond BPT levels is technically and economically feasible. Addition-
ally, EPA did not base BAT effluent limitations on the application of chemi-
cally assisted clarification because of the projected severe economic impacts
associated with this option.
METHODOLOGY USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED BAT
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
In its assessment of all available PCB data, the Agency found that PCBs are
removed through the removal of total suspended solids (TSS) present in biologi-
cally-treated effluents. EPA used available effluent data from direct discharg-
ing mills to develop a relationship between final effluent PCBs and final
effluent TSS (see Section V). From this relationship, the Agency determined
the long-term average PCB levels attainable through the application of three
technology options. EPA developed maximum day effluent limitations by multi-
plying long-term average PCB levels by the appropriate variability factor
calculated through analysis of data on biological treatment performance. The
statistical analyses used to develop BAT limitations are described in detail in
Section V.
COST OF APPLICATION AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS
The proposed BAT limitations would cause 10 of the 14 direct discharging deink
mills to incur compliance costs. Capital and total annual costs are estimated
at $21.2 and $7.0 million, respectively (1978 dollars). Attainment of proposed
BAT effluent limitations would remove 49 kg (107 Ibs) per year of PCBs from
deink subcategory wastewater discharges. This is about 47 percent of the
current discharge level of PCBs from mills where fine and tissue papers are
produced from deinked wastepaper.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider the non-water
quality environmental impacts (including air pollution, solid waste generation,
and energy requirements) of certain regulations. In conformance with these
provisions, EPA considered the effect of this regulation on air pollution,
solid waste generation, and energy consumption. This regulation was reviewed
by EPA personnel responsible for non-water quality related programs. While it
is difficult to balance pollution problems against each other and against
energy use, EPA believes this regulation will best serve often competing
national goals. The Administrator has determined that the non-water quality
impacts identified below are justified by the benefits associated with compli-
ance with the regulation.
71
-------
Implementation of these proposed regulations will not substantially increase
air pollution, energy use, or solid waste generation. The proposed regulations
are not expected to cause any significant air pollution problems. EPA esti-
mates that as a result of attaining the proposed BAT effluent limitations for
PCBs at deink mills, total wastewater solids generation will increase by
approximately 2.0 percent over current levels generated at deink mills where
fine and tissue papers are produced; energy consumption will increase by
approximately 2.3 percent over current energy consumed at deink mills where
fine and tissue papers are produced.
72
-------
SECTION VIII
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE
APPLICATION OF NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
GENERAL
The basis for new source performance standards (NSPS) under section 306 of the
Act is the best available demonstrated technology. At new mills, the opportun-
ity exists to design the best and most efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, Congress directed EPA to consider
the best demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls, and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies that reduce pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
It is encouraged that at new sources, reductions in the use of and/or discharge
of both water and toxic pollutants be attained by application of in-plant
control measures.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY BASIS OF PROPOSED NSPS
The technology basis selected for control of PCB-1242 under proposed NSPS is
the application of commonly employed production process controls plus bio-
logical treatment. This is identical to the technology basis for final conven-
tional pollutant NSPS for the deink subcategory. (See Section XII of Develop-
ment Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard and the Builders' Paper and Board Mills Point Source
Categories (U.S. EPA, October 1982). (5)
PROPOSED NSPS
Table VIII-1 presents proposed NSPS for control of PCB-1242 at mills in the
deink subcategory where fine and tissue papers are produced.
RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE TECHNOLOGY BASIS OF PROPOSED NSPS
As discussed in Section V, EPA identified two options that could form the basis
of NSPS controlling the discharge of PCB-1242 at mills in the deink subcategory
where fine and tissue papers are produced. EPA based proposed NSPS on the
application of commonly employed production process controls plus biological
treatment because this level of treatment will result in significant PCB
removals at new sources. It is not anticipated to cause adverse economic
impacts because implementation will result in no additional costs beyond those
which will be incurred to achieve NSPS for conventional pollutants. EPA did
not base NSPS for control of PCB-1242 on the application of chemically assisted
clarification because EPA believes that the large capital expenditures that
would be required to install chemically assisted clarification when no other
mills in the entire industry would be required to do so are not justified.
METHODOLOGY USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED NSPS
In assessing all available PCB data, EPA found that PCBs are removed through
the removal of total suspended solids (TSS) present in biologically-treated
effluents. EPA used available effluent data from direct discharging mills to
develop a relationship between final effluent PCBs and final effluent TSS (see
73
-------
TABLE VIII-1
DAILY MAXIMUM PCB-1242 NSPS
Maximum Day
Subcategory (kg/kkg or lb/1000 Ib)
Deink
o Fine Papers 0.00011
o Tissue Papers 0.00014
74
-------
Section V). From this relationship, the Agency determined the long-term
average PCB levels attainable through the application of two technology options.
EPA developed maximum day effluent limitations by multiplying long-term average
PCB levels by the appropriate variability factor calculated through analyses of
data on biological treatment performance. The statistical analyses used to
develop NSPS are described in detail in Section V.
COST OF APPLICATION AND EFFLUENT REDUCTION BENEFITS
The proposed NSPS for PCB-1242 will result in no additional costs beyond that
which will be incurred to achieve NSPS for conventional pollutants. Attainment
of this level of treatment would result in significant removal of PCBs. Imple-
mentation of this technology option would result in PCB reductions of 98.65 and
98.81 percent at new deink tissue and deink fine mills, respectively, when
compared to anticipated raw waste loads.
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Act require EPA to consider the non-water
quality environmental impacts (including air pollution, solid waste generation,
and energy requirements) of certain regulations. In conformance with these
provisions, EPA considered the effect of this regulation on air pollution,
solid waste generation, and energy consumption. Because the technology basis
of proposed NSPS for PCB-1242 is the same as for final NSPS for conventional
pollutants, proposed NSPS, if implemented, would have no incremental impacts on
air pollution, solid waste generation, or energy consumption.
75
-------
SECTION IX
EFFLUENT REDUCTION ATTAINABLE THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF
PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING
AND NEW SOURCES
GENERAL
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES) and that PSES shall specify a time for compliance not
to exceed three years from the date of promulgation. Section 307(c) of the Act
requires EPA to promulgate PSNS at the same time that NSPS are issued. The
Clean Water Act of 1977 requires pretreatment for pollutants that would pass
through the POTWs in amounts that would violate direct discharger effluent
limitations. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that PSES are
to be technology-based, analogous to the best available technology. EPA has
generally determined that there is pass through of pollutants if the percent of
pollutants removed by a POTW achieving secondary treatment is less than the
percent removed by the BAT model system. The Agency considers the same factors
in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating PSES. The general pre-
treatment regulations which serve as the framework for categorical pretreat-
ment standards are at 40 CFR Part 403 (43 FR 27736, June 26, 1978 and 46 FR
9462, January 28, 1981).
Paragraph 8(b)(i) of the modified Settlement Agreement contains provisions
authorizing the exclusion from pretreatment standards of toxic pollutants that
are susceptible to treatment in POTWs and do not interfere with, do not pass
through, or are not other wise incompatible with such treatment works.
ASSESSMENT OF THE NEED FOR PRETREATMENT STANDARDS CONTROLLING PCS-1242 DIS-
CHARGES FROM THE DEINK SUBCATEGORY OF THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD INDUSTRY
Deink subcategory wastewaters are not likely to interfere with the operation of
POTWs. Further, the Agency assessed the removal of PCB-1242 at POTWs and found
that significant removals (on the order of 96 percent) occur.(20) This removal
is comparable to that which occurs at direct discharging mills and, therefore,
pass through of PCB-1242 does not occur in this subcategory. Thus, under
authority of Paragraph 8(b)(i) of the Settlement Agreement, EPA has decided not
to establish pretreatment standards for PCB-1242.
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES
>
9
1. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc^, et al. v. Train, United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, (8 ERG 2120), June 7, 1976.
2. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc^, (it al. v. Costle, United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, (12 ERC 1833), March 9, 1979.
3. Rationale for the Development of BAT Priority Pollutant Parameters, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, May 24, 1977.
4. Federal Register, 46 FR 1430, January 6, 1981.
5. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source
Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard and the Builders' Paper and Board Mills Ppint Source Categories,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1982.
6. Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations and Standards
for the Deink Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1982.
t
' 7 Proposed Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard and the Builders' Paper and
v Board Mills Point Source Categories, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, November/December 1980.
8. PCBs Involvement in the Pulp and Paper Industry, prepared by Versar, Inc.
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 25, 1977.
9. Kleinert, Stanton J., The PCB Problem In Wisconsin, report prepared for
the State of Wisconsin Joint Hearing of the Assembly Environmental Quality
Committee with the Senate and Assembly Natural Resources Committees,
September 21, 1976.
10. PCBs Removed in Pub1icly-Owned Treatment Works, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, July 19, 1977.
11. Gibbons, J.D., Nonparametric Statistical Inference, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
12. Fisher, R.A., Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 14th Edition,
Hafner Publishing Company, 1973.
* 13. Energy User News, Vol. 3, No. 32, August 7, 1978.
14. Employment and Earnings, U.S. Bureau of the Census, April 1978.
i
*
15. Municipal Sludge Landfills, EPA 625/1-78-010, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Process Design Manual, October 1978.
79
-------
REFERENCES
(Continued)
16. Engineering News Record, March 23, 1978.
17. Chemical Marketing Reporter, November 6, 1978.
18. Monthly Energy Review, U.S. Department of Energy, March 1979.
19. Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Dir. 1978).
20. Fate of Priority Pollutants _in Publicly Owned Treatment Works - Interim
Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1980.
us Env!- -,l ' Protection Agency
Rj-yvc-'t '.- - -
230 if. ; , :,Lreet
Chicago, (iii,i.,.s L-JG04 '::?*'"
80
------- |