RISK ASSESSMENT FOR
2378-TCDD AND 2378-TCDF
CONTAMINATED RECEIVING WATERS
FROM U.S. CHLORINE-BLEACHING
PULP AND PAPER MILLS
August 1990
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Washington, D.C.
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR 2378-TCDD AND 2378-TCDF
CONTAMINATED RECEIVING WATERS FROM
U.S. CHLORINE-BLEACHING PULP AND PAPER MILLS
August 1990
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Washington, DC
Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Contract No. 68-C9-0013
Work Assignment No. 1-13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2
2. EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH 5
2.1. REQUIREMENTS OF TECHNICAL APPROACH 5
2.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 7
2.2.1 In-Stream Contaminant Concentrations 7
2.2.2 Whole-Body And Fish Filet Contaminant Concentrations 10
2.2.3 Drinking Water Concentration . 11
2.2.4 Human Exposures From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue
And Drinking Water 11
2.2.5 Aquatic Life Impacts 12
2.3 RISK ASSESSMENT 12
2.3.1 Bioavailable Dose From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue
and Drinking Water 12
2.3.2 Estimated Cancer Risk From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish
Tissue And Drinking Water 12
2.3.3 Non-Cancer Health Risks From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish
Tissue 13
3. RESULTS 15
3.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 16
3.1.1 I n-Stream Contaminant Concentrations 16
3.1.2 Fish Tissue Contaminant Concentrations 16
3.1.3 Drinking Water Concentrations 20
3.1.4 Aquatic Life Impacts 20
3.2 RISK ASSESSMENT 20
3.2.1 Bioavailable Dose From Ingestion Of Fish Tissue And Drinking Water 20
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
3.2.2 Estimated Cancer Risk From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue
And Drinking Water 20
3.2.3 Non-Cancer Health Effects From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish
Tissue 25
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 31
4.1 ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND UNCERTAINTIES 31
4.2 CONCLUSIONS 34
REFERENCES 35
APPENDICES
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table Page
2.1 Dilution Factors and Surrogate Flows for the Zones of Initial Dilution for Discharges
to Open Waters and for Some Discharges to Free-Flowing Streams for Which Flow
Data Were Not Available 9
Figure
A Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated
Fish Tissue as Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method (6.5 g/day consumption
rate and BCF of 5.000 fore 2378-TCDD) ix
B Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated Fish
Tissue as Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method (30 and 140 g/day consumption
rates and BCF of 100,000 for 2378-TCDD) x
C Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated
Fish Tissue as Estimated by the EXAMS II Method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and
BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD) xi
D Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated Fish Tissue
as Estimated by the EXAMS II Method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates and
BCF of 100,000 for 2378-TCDD) xii
E Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Ingest ion of Contaminated
Drinking Water as Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method xiv
F Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Ingestion of Contaminated
Drinking Water as Estimated by the EXAMS II Method xv
G Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Human Doses from a One-time Exposure to Contaminated Fish Tissue
as Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method xvi
H Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Human Doses from a One-time Exposure to Contaminated Fish Tissue
as Estimated by the EXAMS II Method xvii
I Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Water Column Contaminant Concentrations as Estimated by the
Simple Dilution Method Using 7Q10 Low Flow Conditions xix
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES (Cont.)
Figure Page
2.1 Exposure and Risk Assessment Approach 6
3.1 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Water Column Contaminant Concentrations as Estimated by the
Simple Dilution Method 17
3.2 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Water Column Contaminant Concentrations as Estimated by the
EXAMS II Method 18
3.3 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Water Column Contaminant Concentrations as Estimated by the Simple
Dilution Method Using 7Q10 Low Row Conditions 19
3.4 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated Fish Tissue
as Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and BCF
of 5,000) 21
3.5 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated Fish Tissue
as Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates
and BCF of 100,000) 22
3.6 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated Fish Tissue
as Estimated by the EXAMS II Method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and BCF of
5,000) 23
3.7 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Consumption of Contaminated Fish Tissue
as Estimated by the EXAMS II Method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates and
BCF of 100,000) 24
3.8 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Ingestion of Contaminated Drinking Water
as Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method 26
3.9 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Lifetime Cancer Risk Due to the Ingestion of Contaminated Drinking Water
as Estimated by the EXAMS II Method 27
3.10 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Human Doses from a One-time Exposure to Contaminated Fish Tissue as
Estimated by the Simple Dilution Method 29
3.11 Distribution of the Number of Mills for Which Discharges Would Result in a Given
Range of Human Doses from a One-time Exposure to Contaminated Fish Tissue as
Estimated by the EXAMS II Method 30
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting under a consent decree with the Environmental
Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation, assessed both human health and environmental risks from
the contaminants 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin (2378-TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzofuran
(2378-TCDF) that are discharged from 104 pulp and paper mills located in the United States using chlorine
or its derivatives to bleach pulp. As a part of this program, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(OWRS) was responsible for estimating the potential human health and aquatic life risks associated with
exposures via surface water pathways based on mill-specific effluent sample results.
This report presents a generalized uniform approach for assessing impacts from the discharges of the
104 mills to support the decision by EPA to either regulate or not regulate discharges of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF from pulp and paper mills that use chlorine to bleach pulp. It should be noted that in some
respects, the approach for assessing risks presented in this report may differ from approaches used by the
States. For example, States may use different cancer potency factors (either FDA's or their own), fish
consumption rates, or bioconcentration factors. In some cases States do not use models to predict risks,
but rather use actual fish tissues data. In other cases, States do not use the "toxicity equivalence" procedure
as a means of predicting the combined risk from 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF as was used in this report. As
a result of the differences in approaches taken by various States for assessing risks and the approach
presented in this report, estimated risks may be over- or underestimated in comparison to the States' adopted
or proposed water quality standards. A summary of State assumptions used to develop 2378-TCDD water
quality standards is presented in Appendix R.
Effluent sampling results for each of the 104 pulp and paper mills were provided by the joint EPA/paper
industry 104-mill study. The 104-mill data, however, are now over two years old, and since the time the 104-miil
study was conducted, conditions at some mills may have changed due to mills taking actions to install or
incorporate activities identified as necessary to reduce the formation of dioxins or furans, or more recent
information may be available that would alter some of the exposure and risk estimates developed in the present
study. However, because this study was designed to provide a snapshot of exposure and risk estimates at
one point in time, for the most part, no attempt was made to include effluent data from sources other than
the 104-mill study. The only exception to the use of 104-mill study effluent data was the use of plant flow data
for several mills that were provided by the EPA Regions and which differed from the flow values identified in
the 104-mill study.
The purpose of this analysis was to develop estimates of exposures and risks to human health and aquatic
life associated with 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF discharges from chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills.
This study was not designed to rank the exposure or human health and aquatic life risks associated with
specific mills, but rather to estimate the risk potential posed by the entire chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper
industry. This analysis focused on the highest estimated in-stream contaminant concentrations immediately
downstream of each mill discharge point (assuming steady-state, fully mixed conditions) and the potential
human health impacts resulting from the consumption of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF contaminated fish and
drinking water associated with these exposures. Because no comprehensive studies on 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF build-up in sediments and bioaccumulation up the food chain exist, only the water column was
investigated as a potential route of exposure and uptake of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF by fish. However, a
sensitivity analysis is presented to look at bioconcentration in fish both before and after paniculate 2378-TCDD
and 2378-TCDF settle to the sediment. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects in humans were con-
sidered, as were potential adverse effects to aquatic life.
-------
One result of this analysis is an understanding of the potential upper bound human cancer risk to a
hypothetically exposed individual eating contaminated fish and drinking contaminated water near the mills.
These results are presented as the estimated risk of cancer incidence during the exposed individual's lifetime.
No attempt was made to characterize or estimate the human population potentially at risk. For these risk
estimations, reasonable worst-case ambient and effluent characterizations were used, as well as best
estimates of the physical and chemical properties of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF. Because not all of the
parameter values used in this assessment are "worst case," the hypothetically exposed individual is not
considered the "most exposed individual."
Long-term animal studies of 2378-TCDD have provided clear evidence that the contaminant is an animal
carcinogen (Kociba et at., 1978; NTP, 1982a; NTP, I982b). Based on these animal studies as well as other
considerations, EPA has concluded that 2378-TCDD should be regarded as a probable human carcinogen
(U.S. EPA, 1985). EPA has assigned 2378-TCDD a qualitative weight-of-evidence designation of "B2" for its
carcinogenic potential. This designation indicates that 2378-TCDD is an agent for which there is sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity based on animal studies but inadequate data regarding its carcinogenicity from
human epidemiologic studies (U.S. EPA, 1986).
APPROACH
In this investigation, two approaches were used to estimate and compare exposures to 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF resulting from surface water effluent discharges from pulp and paper mills. The first approach
consisted of a simple dilution calculation conducted to estimate the in-stream concentration of the con-
taminants after the effluent is mixed with the receiving water. This calculation assumes 100% of the in-stream
contaminants (both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids) are bioavailable. In the second approach,
the Exposure Assessment Modeling System (EXAMS II) was used to partition in-stream steady-state con-
centrations of the contaminants between dissolved and paniculate forms. EXAMS II is able to account for
the high affinity of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF for solids and, therefore, the likelihood that a percentage of
the contaminants will be associated with suspended and benthic solids. It is assumed that the paniculate
form of the contaminants will not be available for uptake across fish gills nor available to humans through
ingestion of contaminated drinking water.
Both the simple dilution and EXAMS II approaches were used to estimate and compare the potential
human health risks associated with ingestion of contaminated fish tissue and drinking water. Since the simple
dilution approach assumes 100% of the in-stream contaminants to be bioavailable to fish, this approach
effectively includes exposure through uptake across fish gills (dissolved form) as well as through ingestion of
suspended solids (paniculate form). The simple dilution approach is also considered to represent the upper
bound for bioaccumulation since a bioconcentration factor based on dissolved contaminants was applied to
the paniculate contaminants as well. In the EXAMS II model analysis, however, only the dissolved contaminant
concentration is assumed to be bioavailable to fish.
Although EXAMS II predicts contaminant concentrations associated with both suspended and benthic
solids, no attempt was made to separately estimate fish exposure to contaminants associated with suspended
participates, bed sediments, or the food chain. These exposure routes were not directly addressed due to a
lack of adequate information concerning the bioaccumulation of these contaminants through the food chain
and the sediment-to-fish partition coefficient needed to predict uptake through contact with contaminated
sediments. In addition, it is generally believed that 2378-TCDD and 2389-TCDF tend to adsorb to very fine
suspended sediments which would be transported out of the immediate area of the discharge and therefore
beyond the area under consideration. (These sediment-associated contaminants would, however, pose a
potential risk to fish inhabiting those areas further downstream where the fine sediments are eventually
deposited.) For these reasons, and because uptake of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF through the water column
has been more thoroughly investigated, exposure to dissolved contaminants in the water column was the
basis for estimating fish tissue contamination using the EXAMS II approach.
Using exposure estimates from both approaches (simple dilution and EXAMS II water column), fish tissue
contaminant residue levels were estimated by employing fish bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for 2378-TCDD
-------
and 2378-TCDF. From fish tissue contaminant concentrations, average daily lifetime exposures (or chronic
daily intake, GDI) for humans consuming 6.5,30 and 140 g/day were calculated. These calculations took into
consideration factors that adjust for lower contaminant concentrations in fish muscle (filet) and fatty/oily food
bioavailability in humans of 95% of oral exposure. Receiving water concentrations were also used to estimate
the average daily lifetime 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF exposure associated with drinking water ingestion,
assuming a 2 L/day consumption rate.
Multiplying average daily lifetime doses by the EPA carcinogenic potency factor for 2378-TCDD yielded
a conservative (upper bound) estimate of the expected rate of cancer incidence above background incidence
rates due to 2378-TCDD exposure. Combined 2378-TCDD/-TCDF cancer risk was estimated using the
"toxicity equivalence" (TEQ) procedure, in which the cancer potency of 2378-TCDF is assumed to be one
tenth that of 2378-TCDD. It should be noted that, although in this report TEQ represents only the contributions
of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF to risk, there are likely to be additional risk contributions from other chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans associated with discharges from chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills.
However, 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF account for greater than 90% of the TEQ from chlorinated dioxins and
furans found in the effluents of these mills.
Mill-specific contaminant concentration estimates were also used to calculate the exposure level as-
sociated with a single ingestion of a 0.25 Ib. (115 g) contaminated fish portion. This dose was evaluated
against a 2378-TCDD Health Advisory threshold value for protection against liver effects, estimated by EPA
for this investigation following appropriate guidelines.
The mill-specific, simple dilution contaminant concentrations for 7Q10 low flow receiving water conditions
(based on the lowest consecutive seven-day average flow during any ten-year period) were compared to
EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for the protection of aquatic life to predict whether chronic toxicity
to aquatic organisms from 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF would result under the assessment scenarios.
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ANALYSIS
The following is a list of assumptions used in this investigation:
1) Mill-specific, five-day effluent composite contaminant concentrations collected during the 104-mill
study were multiplied by mean plant flow rates to determine contaminant load. This resulting load
to the receiving stream was assumed to be continuous. The representativeness of the sample ef-
fluent as reflecting long-term mill operations is unknown; since then, the mills may have made
plant process or operation changes to reduce dioxin and furan formation. This assumption may
overestimate human health and aquatic life risks.
2) The highest estimated steady-state in-stream concentrations in the immediate downstream vicinity
of the discharges (assuming fully mixed conditions) were considered for fish exposure. Fish are
likely to move in and out of the area of maximum concentration, but these estimates assumed that
fish remain exposed to the highest concentration. Consequently, this assumption is likely to over-
estimate fish exposure and overestimate human health and aquatic life risks.
3) Receiving water stream flow rates for estimating human health risks were calculated using the har-
monic mean of historic flow measurements from nearby stream gaging stations. 7Q10 receiving
water flow rates were used for estimating aquatic life impacts. These flows may not be the same
as those used by specific States to assess risks. Therefore, these assumptions may over- or un-
derestimate risks compared to State assumptions.
4) Three bioconcentration factor (BCF) values were used for estimating 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
concentrations in edible fish tissue (the filet): two for 2378-TCDD and one for 2378-TCDF. The
resulting fish tissue concentrations were used to estimate human exposure to the contaminants
through consumption of fish tissue. For 2378-TCDD, a BCF of 5,000 was used in combination with
a human consumption rate of fish tissue of 6.5 g/day, and a BCF of 50,000 was used in combina-
tion with consumption rates of 30 g/day and 140 g/day. The 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption
-------
rate in combination with the BCF of 5,000 reflects the assumptions in EPA's ambient water quality
criterion for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF and is considered a reasonable estimate for an average
consumer of locally-caught fish. The 30 and 140 g/day consumption rates in combination with the
BCF of 50,000 are used as sensitivity comparisons and represent more extreme exposure
scenarios for recreational and subsistence fishermen or other high rate consumers of fish. A
single BCF for 2378-TCDF of 1,950 was used in combination with each of the three consumption
rates. BCFs are species-specific and highly variable. This study did not take species variability or
degree of bioconcentration into account. Also, actual fish consumption rates vary by locale.
State assumptions for BCF, consumption rates, and also cancer potency may vary from those
used in this assessment. Therefore, this assessment may overestimate or underestimate risks
compared to State assessments.
5) A drinking water ingestion rate of 2L/day was used to estimate human exposures through inges-
tion of contaminated drinking water. It was assumed that the water consumed was taken from the
point of highest in-stream pollutant concentration after the effluent was fully mixed in the receiving
stream, and no treatment of the water was undertaken to remove contaminants prior to ingestion.
This assumption likely overestimates human health risks from drinking water.
6) Fish tissue bioavailability for humans was assumed to be 95% of oral dose. Contaminants in water
were assumed to be 100% bioavailable to both fish and humans. This reflects the most current in-
formation EPA has on bioavailability, but the assumptions may overestimate the risk to humans.
7) Fish were assumed to be exposed to contaminants only in the water column. No food chain or
sediment associated exposures were considered, other than for the simple dilution method in
which the total in-stream contaminant level (both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids)
were bioavailable.
8) The estimates of risk apply only to a hypothetically exposed individual in the immediate vicinity of
the mills, and not to the entire population of fish consumers.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of the human health risk and aquatic life impact analyses for the 104 mills included in this
investigation are summarized below. It should be noted that sufficient information was not available for all of
the mills to allow complete evaluation and comparison of results for each of the 104 facilities. For example,
for several of the mills discharging to open waters (i.e., lakes, open ocean), no information was available on
receiving stream zone of initial dilution, which was necessary for calculating effluent dilution. For a few other
mills, data were questioned as to their accuracy and new samples were being taken, but the results of the
new sample evaluations were not available for inclusion in this study. In addition, for some facilities, there
was sufficient information to predict risks based on the simple dilution method, but insufficient information to
predict risk based on the EXAMS II method. Also, either harmonic mean flow or 7Q10 flow data were not
available for several facilities.
Cancer Risk Associated with Consumption of Contaminated Fish Tissue
Figures A through D present the predicted distribution of the number of mills for which discharges would
result in a given range of estimated upper bound lifetime cancer risks to the hypothetically exposed individual
due to the consumption of contaminated fish tissue based on the simple dilution exposure assessment method
and the EXAMS II water column exposure assessment method.
The results of calculations using the 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rate in combination with the BCF
of 5,000 reflect the assumptions in EPA's ambient water quality criterion for dioxin and are considered
reasonable exposures for average consumers of locally-caught fish. The results of these calculations are
presented separately from the results of calculations using the 30 and 140 g/day consumption rates and BCF
of 50,000, which are considered more extreme exposure scenarios (for example, for recreational and
subsistence fishermen) to be used for sensitivity comparisons.
-------
6.5 g/day consumption
ra
rr
40
35
30 -
DC
z
£ 25 -
» 20 -
o>
.0
E
15
10
5 ~~
1E-02 1E-03
1E-04 1E-05
Risk Range
1E-06 1E-07
Figure A. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
simple dilution method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and BCF
of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD*).
Not**:
Total number of mill* evaluated » 97.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF rltk predicted uilng TEQ.
Number of mill* within rltk ring** for which 2378-TCDD and/or 2378-TCDF were
not detected In the effluent and therefore rl*k ettlmitet ire bated on effluent
concentration* of 1/2 the detection limit:
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD A TCDF
1E-4 1E-5 1E-« 1E-7
2743
1 1
2 2 1
* Recent laboratory evidence Indicate* that • BCF higher than 6,000
for 2378-TCDD (e.g., 50,000) more accurately refleeta uptake of 2378-TCDD by
fl*h. U*e of a BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD woirfd hicrea** rttk by an order of
magnitude.
-------
140 g/day consumption
30 g/day consumption
o
O)
1E-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-04 1E-05 1E-06
Figure B. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
simple dilution method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates
and BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD).
Notes:
Total number of mills evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF risk predicted using TEQ.
Number of mills within risk ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected in the effluent and therefore risk
estimates are based on'effluent concentrations of 1/2 the
detection limit:
1E-2 1E-3 1E-4 1E-6 1E-6
30g/day
TCDD 7432
TCDF 1 1
TCDDftTCDF 1 3 1
140g/day
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD ft TCDF
4 5
1 1
3 1
-------
6.5 g/day consumption
40
35
30
9
TO
a
rr
JO
rr
•§ 25
= 20
2
"o
c5 1S
u
z 10
38
1E-03 1E-04 1E-05 1E-06 1E-07 1E-08
Risk Range
Figure C. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
EXAMS II method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and BCF of 5,000 for
2378-TCDD*).
Not**:
ToUl number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF risk predicted using TEQ.
Number of mill* within risk ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore risk
estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the detection
limit:
TCDD
TCDF
TCDO & TCDF
1E-4 1E-8 1E-6 1E-7 1E-8
16821
* Recent laboratory evidence Indicates that a BCF higher than 8,000 for
2378-TCDD (e.g., 80,000) more accurately reflects uptake of 2378-TCDD by fish.
Use of a BCF of 80,000 for 2378-TCDD would Inereaae risk by an order of
magnitude.
-------
140 g/day consumption
30 g/day consumption
o
k.
0)
I
Z
40 -
35 -
30 -
«J
oc
^
(0
£
c
5 25
JO
I 20
15 -
10 -
5 -
i1E-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-04 1E-05 1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
Figure D. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
EXAMS II method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates and
BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD).
Notea:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCOF rlak pradletad uaing TEQ.
Number of milla within rlak rangoa for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore rlak
aatlmataa ar* bated on effluent concentratlona of 1/2 th* dotaetlon
limit:
1E-2 1E-3 1E-4 1E-8 1E-8 1E-7
30g/day
TCDD 4822
TCDF 1 1
TCDD A TCDF
140g/day
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD & TCDF
1 7
1
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
-------
1. Simple Dilution Exposure Assessment Method
Using the simple dilution exposure assessment estimates, the 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rate, and
fish filet contaminant concentrations based on a BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD, the upper bound mill-specific
cancer rates for the hypothetically exposed individual ranged from the 10'2 to 1O"8 risk levels (Figure A). Risk
levels associated with discharges from 80 of the 97 mills evaluated (82%) fell within the 10"4 to 1O"6 risk levels,
with 36 mills within the 10~5 risk level.
Mill-specific cancer rate estimates using the 30 g/day fish tissue consumption rate and fish filet con-
taminant concentrations based on a BCF of 50,000 ranged from the _>_ 10~1 to 10"* risk levels (Figure B).
Seventy of the 97 mills (72%) were associated with risk levels between 10"3 to 10^, and 39 of these 70 fell
within the 10"3 range. Using the 140 g/day fish tissue consumption rate and fish filet contaminant concentra-
tions based on the 50,000 BCF, risk levels ranged from _>_ 10 to 10*6 (Figure B). Sixty-six out of the 97 mills
(68%) were associated with risk levels between 10~2 to 10"3, with 40 within the 10"3 range.
2. EXAMS II Exposure Assessment Method
Mill-specific upper bound cancer rate estimates for the hypothetically exposed individual using the EXAMS
II water column exposure assessment method, 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rates, and fish filet
contaminant concentrations based on a BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD ranged from the 10"3 to 10"8 risk levels
(Figure C). Seventy of the 87 mills evaluated (80%) were associated with risk levels between 10"5 (32 mills)
to 10"6 (38 mills).
Using the 30 g/day consumption rate and fish filet contaminant concentrations based on the 50,000 BCF,
mill-specific cancer rates ranged from the 10~1 to 10~7 risk levels (Figure D). Sixty-four of the 87 mills (74%)
were associated with risk levels within the 10"3 to 1O"4 range, and 41 of these fell within the 10"4 range. Cancer
rate estimates using the 140 g/day fish tissues consumption rate and 50,000 BCF ranged from the _>_ 10~1 to
10"6 risk levels (Figure D). Sixty-three of the 87 mills (72%) were associated with risk levels between the 10~3
and 10*4 range, and 37 of these fell within the 10"3 range.
Cancer Risks Associated with Ingestion of Contaminated Drinking Water
Figures E and F present the distribution of the number of mills for which discharges were estimated to
result in a given range of upper bound lifetime cancer risks to the hypothetically exposed individual due to
the ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Only those facilities discharging to fresh water lakes, rivers,
and streams were included in this analysis. No discharges to marine or estuarine waters were included, since
these water bodies would not be used as drinking water sources.
Use of the simple dilution method estimated that the cancer risks associated with the 69 mills evaluated
ranged from the 10"4 to 10~9 risk levels (Figure E). The greatest percentage of these mills (44, or 64%) were
associated with risk levels within the 10 (23 mills) to 10 (21 mills) range. Use of the EXAMS II water column
method estimated that the risk levels associated with the 64 mills evaluated would range from the 10~5 to 10~9
levels (Figure F). Fifty of these mills (78%) were associated with risk levels between the 10 (18 mills) to 10"
(32 mills) range.
Non-Cancer (Short-Term Exposure) Risks
Figures G through H present the distribution of the number of mills for which discharges would result in
a given range of human dose due to the single portion consumption of 115 grams of contaminated fish tissue.
The concentrations of fish tissue contaminants used for this assessment were based on a BCF of 50,000 for
2378-TCDD and 1,950 for 2378-TCDF in the edible portion of the fish (the filet). Results are reported in
pg/kg/day for comparison to a one-day Health Advisory for protection against liver effects (100 pg/kg/day),
estimated by EPA for this investigation.
Based on the simple dilution method results (Figure G), the dose associated with discharges from 25 out
of 97 mills evaluated (27%) would equal or exceed the one-day HA dose for protection from liver effects (100
-------
o
o>
c
ra
CC
x
w
rr
C
w
i
"5
i_
o
A
3
1E-04 1E-05
1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
1E-08 1E-09
Figure E. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
Ingestlon of contaminated drinking water as estimated by the simple
dilution method.
Notes:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 69.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF risk predicted using TEQ.
Bated on • 2 L/day Ingeetion rate.
Number of mill* within risk rangea for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore
risk estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the
detection limit:
1E-9
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD & TCDF
1E-S
1
iE-e
3
1
1
1E-T
3
2
1E-I
3
1
-------
1E-05 1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
1E-08 1E-09
Figure F. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
Ingestion of contaminated drinking water as estimated by the
EXAMS II method.
Notes:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 64.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF risk predicted using TEQ.
Based on a 2 L/day Ingestion rate.
Number of mills within risk ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore risk
estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the
detection limit:
1E-5 1E-6 1E-7 1E-8 1E-9
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD & TCDF
2 1
1
1 1
-------
o
o>
«
cc
o
(0
o
Q
c
W
i
.O
3
Z
34 —
32 —
28 —
24 —
20 —
16 -
12 —
8 —
4 —
1E»04 1E+03 1E*02 1E*01 1E*00
Dose Range (pg/kg/day)
1E-01
1E-02
Figure G. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of human doses from a one-time
exposure to contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the simple
dilution method.
Not**:
Total number of mills evaluated - 07.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF dose predicted using TEQ.
Bated on the consumption of • single 116 g portion of contaminated fish tissue
and using a fish filet BCF of 60,000 for 2378-TCDD.
Number of mill* within dose ranges for whleh 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore dose
estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the detection
limit:
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD A TCDF
1E»2
1
7
1
2
1E*0
4
1E-1
3
1
1
-------
o
W
ra
CC
o
(0
o
Q
c
0)
o
.a
3
38
36
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9
6
3
0
1E+03 1E+02 1E+01 1E+00 1E-01 1E-02
Dose Range(pg/kg/day)
Figure H. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of human doses from a one-time
exposure to contaminated fish tissue as estimated by EXAMS II
method.
Not**:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF dot* predicted using TEO.
Baaed on the eonaumptlon of a tingle 115 g portion of eontamlnated flth tlsaue
and ualng a flah filet BCF of 60,000 for 2378-TCDD
Number of milla within doae rangea for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore doa*
eatlmatea are baaed on effluent eonoentratlona of 1/2 the deteotlon
limit:
1E*2 1E«1 1E»0 1E-1 1E-2
TCDD 15521
TCDF 1 1
TCDD&TCDF 1311
-------
pg/kg/day). Use of the EXAMS II method (Figure H) estimates that the dose associated with discharges from
9 mills out of 87 (10%) would equal or exceed the 100 pg/kg/day dose level.
Aquatic Life Impacts
Aquatic life impacts were estimated based on a comparison of predicted in-stream concentrations of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF (in pg/l) to EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for the protection of aquatic
life (0.038 pg/l for 2378-TCDD and 0.41 pg/l for 2378-TCDF). The simple dilution method, using 7Q10 low flow
conditions, predicted that water column concentrations of 2378-TCDD immediately downstream of 80 out of
90 mills (89%) would exceed the chronic exposure level of 0.038 pg/l (Figure I). Seventy-four mills (82%)
would exceed the 0.41 pg/l level for 2378-TCDF.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results of this study indicate that, taking into consideration the effects of the assumptions and
simplifications used in this analysis, there is a potential for high level contamination of the water column by
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from the effluent discharges of many of the chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper
mills investigated. For each of the mills analyzed, use of the simple dilution exposure assessment method
resulted in higher estimated water column contaminant concentrations and greater estimated aquatic life
impacts and human health risks than the EXAMS II water column method. This is because the simple dilution
method assumes that all contaminants in the water column, both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids,
are bioavailable. The EXAMS II water column method, on the other hand, only considers those contaminants
in the dissolved phase. In those cases where the receiving water TSS (total suspended solids) was relatively
low, the simple dilution and EXAMS II water column results are comparable. When suspended solids
concentrations were high, however, the EXAMS II water column method estimated risks significantly lower
than those predicted by the simple dilution method. Therefore, for those water bodies included in this study
with relatively high suspended solids content, the EXAMS II water column method likely underestimated
human health risk from consumption of contaminated fish tissues, since fish exposure to sediment-adsorbed
contaminants was not considered.
The primary reason for ignoring the exposure routes through contaminated sediments using EXAMS II
was the lack of acceptable and appropriate fish bioaccumulation factors for this exposure scenario as well
as the tendency for the contaminants to associate with the very fine sediment fraction which is typically
transported and deposited well downstream of the immediate discharge vicinity. As a check and a sensitivity
comparison on this approach, however, the results of the simple dilution calculation are considered to provide
an upper bound on fish tissue contaminant levels.
In addition to the absence of consideration of sediment and food chain exposure routes in the EXAMS II
method, a number of other simplifications and assumptions have influenced the results of this study, including
the selection and use of BCFs and fish tissue ingestion rates for the evaluation. BCFs are highly variable
depending on the species, and this study did not take into account inter-species variability in the rate and
degree of contaminant bioconcentration. Actual fish tissue consumption rates also vary over time, with
individuals, and in different parts of the country. For example, risk estimates based on the 6.5 g/day
consumption rate and fish filet BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD were established on the basis of EPA's water
quality criteria assumptions. The 6.5 g/day rate applies to a national average consumption rate of fish and
shellfish; however, this rate may not be representative of fish consumption rates for recreational or subsistence
fishermen. Also, the 50,000 BCF for 2378-TCDD used in conjunction with fish consumption rates of 30 and
140 g/day for recreational and subsistence fishermen was based on the assumption that only the filet portion
of the fish is consumed. However, some subpopulations of subsistence fishermen and certain ethnic groups
eat whole fish and crabs in which the concentration of contaminants is likely to be higher than in the filet alone.
Therefore, the use of a 50,000 BCF for 2378-TCDD may underestimate risks to these subpopulations.
It should also be noted that, if multiple discharges to the same waterbody are present, the actual risk
associated with a waterbody may be substantially greater than estimated in this study. For example, there
are several chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills that discharge to the Columbia River basin. Calculations
-------
2378-TCDD
ra
DC
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
.0
3
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10
5 -
1E+03 1E+02 1E+01 1E+00 1E-01 1E-02 1E-03
Concentration Range (pg/l)
Figure I. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of water column contaminant
concentrations as estimated by the simple dilution method using
7Q10 low flow conditions.
Not**:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 90.
Estimate* ba**d on 7010 flow v*luo* for receiving water*.
Numbor of mill* within concentration ring** for which 2378-TCDD
•nd/or 2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent *nd therefore
water column concentration e*tlm*te* ire b**ed on eflfuent
concentration* of 1/2 the detection limit:
TCDD
TCDF
1E*2 1E»0
6
1 2
1E-1
9
2
1E-2
5
2
1E-3
1
1
XIX
-------
in this report assume that each mill discharges to a receiving stream with no background level of contamina-
tion. Therefore, in the case of multiple discharges to a receiving stream, estimating risks from one mill alone
can result in a significant underestimate of risk.
Finally, no assessment of local fish patterns or actual commercial or recreational fishing practices were
conducted as part of this evaluation. Therefore, it is not known whether or not commercially or recreationally
valuable species occur or are taken in the vicinity of the discharges that were included in this evaluation.
A comparison of predicted cancer versus non-cancer human health risk was also conducted to determine
which of the two end points is the most sensitive. Cancer health risks were estimated to occur for more mills
than non-cancer risks. The results also indicate a potentially greater risk of cancer due to the consumption
of contaminated fish tissue than through the ingestion of contaminated drinking water. It should be pointed
out that this conclusion may only be true for the hypothetically exposed individual and may not be true for
the entire exposed population. Determining which exposure route poses the greatest risk to the entire
population would require knowledge of the number of persons eating contaminated fish tissue versus the
number of persons who use contaminated surface water as a drinking water source. More of the population
would likely be exposed to a single dose of contaminated fish tissue than to a lifetime of exposure to
contaminated fish tissue or drinking water taken from the vicinity of certain mills. Such a population
assessment was not conducted for this investigation.
Each of the exposure assessment approaches used in this analysis predict upper bound risks that should
be carefully considered by risk managers while assessing potential impacts associated with the discharge of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mill effluents.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting under a consent decree with the Environmental
Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation, assessed both human health and environmental risks from
the contaminants 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin (2378-TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzofuran
(2389-TCDF) that are discharged from 104 pulp and paper mills located in the United States using chlorine
or its derivatives to bleach pulp. The Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) coordinated this multi-media risk
assessment. As a part of this program, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS), Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) was responsible for estimating the potential human health and
aquatic life risks associated with exposures via surface water pathways based on mill-specific effluent sample
results.
This report presents a generalized uniform approach for assessing impacts from the discharges of the
104 mills to support the decision by EPA to either regulate or not regulate discharges of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF from pulp and paper mills that use chlorine to bleach pulp. It should be noted that in some cases,
the approach for assessing risks presented in this report differs from approaches used by States. For example,
States may use different cancer potency factors (either FDA's or their own), fish consumption rates, or
bioconcentration factors. In some cases, States do not use models to predict risks, but rather use actual fish
tissue data. In other cases, States do not use the "toxicity equivalence" procedure as a means of predicting
the combined risk from 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF as was used in this report. As a result of the differences
in approaches taken by various States for assessing risks and the approach presented in this report, estimated
risks may be over- or underestimated in comparison to the States' adopted or proposed water quality
standards. A summary of State assumptions used to develop 2378-TCDD water quality standards is presented
in Appendix R.
Effluent sampling results for each of the 104 pulp and paper mills were provided by the joint EPA/paper
industry 104-mill study. The 104-milldata, however, are now over two years old, and since the time the 104-mill
study was conducted, conditions at some mills may have changed due to mills taking actions to install or
incorporate activities identified as necessary to reduce the formation of dioxins or furans, or more recent
information may be available that would alter some of the exposure and risk estimates developed in the present
study. However, because this study was designed to provide a snapshot of exposure and risk estimates at
one point in time, for the most part, no attempt was made to include effluent data from sources other than
the 104-mill study. The only exception to the use of 104-mill study effluent data was the use of plant flow data
for several mills that were provided by the EPA Regions and which differed from the flow values identified in
the 104-mill study.
The focus of this report was to estimate the potential human health and aquatic life impacts resulting from
chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mill effluent discharges to surface waters. This study was not designed
to rank the exposure or human health and aquatic life risks associated with specific mills, but rather to estimate
the risk potential posed by the entire chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper industry. Because no comprehensive
studies on 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF build-up in sediments and bioaccumulation up the food chain exist,
only the water column was investigated as a potential route of exposure and uptake of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF by exposed fish. However, a sensitivity analysis is presented to look at bioconcentration in fish
both before and after paniculate 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF settle to the sediment. Carcinogenic and
non-carcinogenic effects in humans are considered, as are adverse effects to aquatic life. The chapters that
follow present the methods selected to conduct the investigation, the results of the investigation, and an
analysis of the results.
-------
1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this analysis was to develop estimates of exposures and risks to human health and aquatic
life from 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF discharges from chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills. This analysis
focused on the highest estimated in-stream contaminant concentrations immediately down-stream of each
mill discharge point, assuming steady-state, fully mixed conditions.
In this investigation, two approaches were used to estimate and compare exposures to 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF resulting from surface water effluent discharges from pulp and paper mills. In the first approach,
a simple dilution calculation was conducted to estimate the in-stream contaminant concentrations after the
effluent is mixed in the receiving water. This calculation assumes 100% of the in-stream contaminants (both
dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids) are bioavailable to fish. In the second approach, the Exposure
Assessment Modeling System (EXAMS II) (Bums et al., 1982; Bums and Cline, 1985; Harrigan and Battin,
1989) was used to partition in-stream steady-state water column contaminant concentrations between
dissolved and paniculate forms. However, only the dissolved contaminant concentration predicted by EXAMS
II was considered in determining exposure and risk. Both the simple dilution and EXAMS II in-stream exposure
methods were used to estimate the potential human health risks associated with ingestion of contaminated
fish and drinking water.
No attempt was made in the EXAMS II approach to estimate fish exposure to contaminants associated
with suspended particulates, bed sediments, or the food chain. This was due to lack of sufficient and
appropriate data and understanding of the bioaccumulation of these contaminants through the food chain
and appropriate sediment-to-fish partition coefficients to predict uptake through exposure to contaminated
sediments. In addition, it is generally believed that 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF tend to adsorb to very fine
sediments that settle out of the water column slowly. Therefore, it was assumed that much of the sediment
associated contaminants would be transported out of the immediate area of the discharge and would be
deposited further downstream. Although there is no doubt that food and sediment provide exposure routes
to fish downstream where the amount of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF available (i.e., dissolved) for uptake
across gills becomes much less, the assumption that fish remain in the area immediately downstream from
the point of discharge is probably sufficiently conservative to compensate for any lack of food chain or
sediment associated exposure components. In addition, underthe simple dilution method, all of the in-stream
contaminants are assumed to be available for uptake by fish and therefore both the dissolved and adsorbed
fractions are considered in this method, providing an upper-bound estimate of fish tissue contamination. The
EXAMS II method, on the other hand, provides a more reasonable estimate of the direct exposure of fish to
the contaminants from water only.
One result of this analysis is an upper bound estimate of the potential risk of cancer over the lifetime of a
hypothetically exposed individual. No attempt has been made to characterize the human population
potentially at risk. For these risk estimations, reasonable worst-case ambient and effluent characterizations
were used, along with best estimates of physical and chemical properties of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF.
Because not all of the parameter values used in this assessment are "worst-case," the hypothetical^ exposed
individual is not considered the "most exposed individual."
The probability of an individual developing cancer in a lifetime due to the ingestion of contaminated fish
or drinking water was calculated based on exposure estimates and the EPA carcinogenic potency factor.
Also, the data for exposure to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from bleached paper mills were screened for
exposure scenarios exceeding an average of 100 pg/kg/day, the one-day Health Advisory for TCDD for
protection against human liver effects. Exposure scenarios exceeding this level were examined in more detail
to determine whether the cancer or non-cancer endpoint is the most sensitive indicator of risk. Exposure
data were also screened for comparison against EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for protection
against adverse impacts on aquatic life.
This report presents the approach used to conduct the exposure and risk assessments (Chapter 2), the
results of the investigation (Chapter 3), and a discussion of the results (Chapter 4). Investigation results are
presented in two parts. The first part addresses potential exposure concentrations of 2378-TCDD and
-------
2378-TCDF found in the water and in the fish tissue ingested by humans. The second pan presents the
potential human dose of these contaminants resulting from ingestion of contaminated fish tissue and drinking
water, and the potential human health risks associated with each of the routes of exposure.
-------
-------
2. EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH
This chapter presents a description of the approach used to assess contaminant exposure levels and the
resulting potential human health risks and aquatic life impacts associated with discharges of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF from the 104 chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills under investigation. A flow chart depicting
this approach is presented in Figure 2.1. This chapter also describes the critical factors that were considered
during the development of the study approach. A more detailed description of these factors is presented in
Appendix A.
2.1 REQUIREMENTS OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
The approach taken was designed to incorporate an appropriate balance between the difficulty (detail)
of the analysis and the accuracy of the results. The critical factors considered in the development of the
analytical approach were: 1) in-stream chemical transformation processes, 2) applicability of calculation
methods, 3) availability of environmental data, and 4) model sensitivity. Each of these factors is briefly
discussed below.
The chemical/physical processes thought to most significantly influence the fate of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF in the aquatic environment are dilution and adsorption of the contaminants to participates. Other
processes, such as volatization, hydrolysis, photolysis, and biotransformation do not appear to significantly
affect the fate of the contaminants. Because of the tendency of the contaminants to adsorb to participates,
it was necessary to calculate the partitioning of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF between the dissolved and solid
phases in the receiving waters. This required consideration of suspended solids concentrations in receiving
streams.
A simple dilution calculation method for estimating water column concentrations of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF provides total in-stream contaminant concentrations without consideration of the effects of
adsorption to particulates and eventual sedimentation or other fate processes. This method of predicting
exposure results in worst-case water column exposure estimates. Because 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
appear to have a high affinity for adsorption to particulates, other methods of estimating contaminant fate and
transport are necessary to consider partitioning between the dissolved and solid forms of the contaminants.
The Exposure Assessment Modeling System (EXAMS II), a state-of-the-art surface water contaminant
modeling system, is capable of estimating the partitioning of a contaminant between its dissolved form in the
water column and that portion that associates with suspended and benthic solids.
Many parameters describing the physical/chemical properties of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF and
mill-specific effluent and receiving water characteristics are required to operate EXAMS II. Therefore, an effort
was undertaken to assess the availability and quality of data accessible through existing data sources. Both
EPA's Canonical Environmental Data Base (CEDB) and STORET were considered as potential data sources.
CEDB data are only available for a small fraction of the receiving waters for the mills under investigation, and
a majority of the parameters necessary to operate EXAMS II were not available for any of the mills' receiving
waters. However, STORET (a water quality data base maintained by EPA's Office of Water that can access
water quality sampling data from monitoring stations around the country) provides access to data on flow,
total suspended solids (TSS), pH, and other parameters required to operate EXAMS II for most of the mills'
receiving waters. It was concluded that STORET could provide data of sufficient quality and for enough of
the mill receiving waters to conduct the EXAMS II assessment.
A model sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine which environmental data parameter variations
had the greatest influence on EXAMS II contaminant concentration estimation results under steady-state
conditions and given known 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF physical/chemical properties. During the sensitivity
analysis, environmental data parameters (e.g., temperature, stream compartment geometry, TSS) were varied
-------
EPA Preliminary
Criteria for Aquatic
Life Protection
Fate & Transport
(Simple Dilution/
Modeling)
Water Column
Concentration
Aquatic Life
Impacts
Bioconcentration
Factor
EXPOSURE
Fish Tissue
Concentration
Drinking Water
Consumption Rates
Fish Tissue
Consumption Rates
Human
Exposure
Contaminant
Bioavailability
Health Advisory Level
EPA Cancer Potency
Human
Non-Cancer Risk
Human
Cancer Risk
Figure 2.1. Exposure and Risk Assessment Approach
-------
individually over wide ranges. Resulting in-stream dissolved concentration variations were noted, if any.
Variations in receiving water total suspended solids levels produced the greatest variations in resulting
in-stream dissolved contaminant concentrations. Therefore, mill-specific values for receiving water
suspended solids were obtained and used in the EXAMS II analyses. For discharges to open waters (i.e.,
oceans, lakes, reservoirs), suspended solids values were not available and, therefore, a default value of 10
mg/1 was used for the EXAMS II analyses. All other environmental parameters, except for mill-specific
contaminant loadings and receiving water flow rates, were assigned default values. For those effluent samples
from the 104-mill study for which 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF concentrations were below the detection limit
of the analytical method, the value used in this assessment was 1/2 the detection limit. The evaluations of
some of the mills conducted in this study were based on 1/2 the detection limit for both 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF, 112 the detection limit for 2378-TCDD in combination with detected concentrations of 2378-TCDF,
or 1/2 the detection limit for 2378-TCDF in combination with detected concentrations of 2378-TCDD.
Methods used for obtaining all data points used in this analysis are described in detail in Appendix B. The
three tables presented in Appendix C display: 1) receiving water flow rates, effluent contaminant concentra-
tions and loadings, and TSS values for each mill, 2) default values used in EXAMS II, and 3) the physical/chemi-
cal properties data for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF which were used in EXAMS II modeling runs.
2.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
2.2.1 In-Stream Contaminant Concentrations
In this investigation, two approaches were used to estimate and compare exposures to 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF resulting from surface water effluent discharges from pulp and paper mills. The first approach
consisted of a simple dilution calculation conducted to estimate the total, steady-state in-stream concentration
of the contaminants after the effluent is mixed in the receiving water. This calculation assumes 100% of the
in-stream contaminants (both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids) are bioavailable to fish. In the
second approach, the Exposure Assessment Modeling System (EXAMS II) was used to partition in-stream
steady-state concentrations of the contaminants between dissolved and paniculate forms.
EXAMS II is able to account for the high affinity of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF for solids and, therefore,
the likelihood that a percentage of the contaminants will be associated with suspended and benthic solids.
Both the simple dilution and EXAMS II approaches were used to estimate and compare the potential human
health risks associated with ingestion of contaminated fish tissue and drinking water. As mentioned
previously, for the EXAMS II predictions of in-stream contaminant concentrations, only the dissolved
concentration was assumed to be bioavailable to fish.
The following simple dilution equation was used to provide an estimate of the concentration of a
contaminant downstream from a point source release into a flowing water body after dilution of the substance
by the receiving water (U.S. EPA, 1988b):
where,
C = concentration of substance in stream (mass/volume),
Ce = concentration of.substance in effluent (mass/volume),
Qe = effluent flow rate (volume/time), and
Qt = combined effluent and stream flow rate (volume/time).*
assumes wastewater was not originally drawn from the receiving stream
Although this calculation is easily executed and provides a quantitative estimate of in-stream contaminant
concentration which is limited in precision only by the precision of the input parameters, this calculation
provides only the total in-stream contaminant concentration attributable to the point source. It does not
-------
provide a distribution of the contaminant between the dissolved and adsorbed states or the downstream
pollutant concentration gradient.
EXAMS II, on the other hand, is a sophisticated computer modeling system capable of computing the
following parameters:
l) "Exposure: the expected... environmental concentrations due to a user-specified pattern of chemi-
cal loads,
2) Fate: the distribution of the chemical in the system and the relative dominance of each transport
and transformation process, and
3) Persistence: the time required for effective purification of the system... once the chemical loadings
terminate." (Bums and Cline, 1985)
Once input parameters describing the environment (temperature, stream compartment geometry, receiving
water flow, solids, organic carbon fraction, etc.), the chemical contaminant characteristics (molecular weight,
vapor pressure, Henry's Law constant, Kow, Koc, solubility, etc), and the loadings are entered, the model
produces a report detailing the three sets of computations described above.
For each mill, the calculated water column concentrations were used as the basis for further calculations.
The estimated concentrations were considered 100% available to the aquatic organisms living in the receiving
waters, 100% available to humans using the water as a drinking water source, and 95% available to humans
through fish tissue consumption.
The mills being investigated in this study can be grouped into one of three categories: direct dischargers
to free flowing streams, direct dischargers to open waters (e.g, oceans, lakes, reservoirs), and indirect
dischargers (dischargers to POTWs) to either free flowing streams or open waters. Contaminant concentra-
tions resulting from direct discharges to free flowing streams were calculated directly using the simple dilution
and EXAMS II water column methods when adequate environmental data were available for the site.
Contaminant concentrations resulting from direct discharges to open water bodies were calculated using
the simple dilution method, based on zone of initial dilution factors for the mills that were provided by EPA
Regions (Table 2.1) (Albright, 1990; Davis, 1989; Derose, 1989; Fisher, 1989; Greenburg, 1989; Greenfield,
1990; Hall, 1989; Hangarden, 1989; Henry, 1989; Hyatt, 1989; Keefler, 1989; Loster, 1989; Menzardo, 1989;
Tingperg, 1989; and Weeks, 1989). The zone of initial dilution is the region of initial mixing surrounding or
adjacent to the end of the outfall pipe in which aquatic inhabitants may be chronically exposed to concentra-
tions of pollutants in excess of water quality standards. Initial dilution is defined by EPA (1982) as the
flux-averaged dilution (averaged over the cross section area of the plume) achieved during the period when
dilution is primarily a result of plume entrainment, and is not dominated by ambient conditions. Because
EXAMS II requires stream flow data as input to calculate in-stream contaminant concentrations, and because
flows for open water bodies are not available, it was necessary to back-calculate "surrogate" water body flows
for direct dischargers to open water bodies based on known mill plant flows, and the dilution factors for the
mills. The following calculation was used to determine surrogate water body flows for direct open water
discharges:
Fo = (D * Fp) - Fp
where,
Fo = surrogate open water body flow
Fp = mill plant flow
D = dilution factor
The resulting estimated flow values were then used as input for the EXAMS II assessments. This procedure
allowed for the use of EXAMS II to estimate partitioning of the contaminant between dissolved and solid forms
in open water discharge cases. In addition, for several mills located on free-flowing streams for which flow
-------
Table 2.1.
Dilution Factors and Surrogate Flows in the Zones of Initial Dilution
for Discharges to Open Waters and for Discharges to Some Free-Flowing Streams for Which Flow Data Were Not Available
NPDES
NUMBER
COMPANY
Region II
NY0004413 International Paper Co.
Region III
PAOOZ6301 International Paper
Region IV
AL0000396 Champion Internationa]
FL0000701 ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
FL0002631 Stone Container Corp.
FL0002763 Georgia-Pacific Corp.
GA0001953 Gilman Paper Co.
GA0003654 Brunswick Pulp and Paper
MS0002674 International Paper Co.
NC0000680 Weyerhaeuser Co.
SC000086S International Paper Co.
Region VI
TX0053023 Champion International
Region IX
AZ Stone Container Corp.
CA0005282 Simpson Paper Co.
CA0005894 Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
UA0000621
UA0000795
WA0000809
UA0000850
UA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Scott Paper Co. 1
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
CITY
Ticonderoga
Erie
Court land
Fernandina Beach
Panama City
Palatka
St. Marys
Brunswick
Moss Point
Plymouth
Georgetown
Houston
Snowflake
Fairhaven
Samoa
Sitka
Ketchikan
Ketchikan
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopolis
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoquiam
RECEIVING WATER NAME
Lake Champ la in
Lake Erie
Wheeler Reservoir
Amelia River
St. Andrew Bay
Rice Creek
North River
Turtle River
Escatawpa River
Welch Creek
Samp it River
Houston Shipping Channel
A playa lake
Pacific Ocean
Pacific Ocean
Silver Bay
Ward Cove
Ward Cove
Port Gardner Bay
Port Angeles Harbor/Strait of Juan de Fuca
Chehalis River
Commencement Bay
Whatcom Waterway
Snohomish River
Chehalis River
ZID
DILUTION
FACTOR
18.00
NO*
3.33
NO*
46.00
69.00
7.00
31.00
11.00
NO*
100.00
5.00
90.00
100.00
20.00
20.00
SURROGATE
FLOW IN
m3/Hr.
39755
465.00
50.00
50.00
1.70
17.00
22.00
10.00
10.00
2.00
4325625
136266
166461
4092
101125
172545
24460
55461
4424
5729
149317
172342
22753
149317
49772
563140
13905
405006
578783
66047
60043
* ND = data not available
-------
data were not available, dilution ratios provided by the EPA Regions were used to estimate stream flow using
the same procedure as was used for open water discharges (see Table 2.1).
Contaminant concentrations resulting from indirect discharges to either free flowing streams or open
water bodies were calculated using the same methods described above, except that loadings were decreased
to 2 and 25% of the total to account for the effects of treatment on the discharge effluent stream.
In-stream contaminant concentrations were calculated using the harmonic mean flow for the receiving
water for use in the human health risk analysis. These concentrations were used to calculate human
exposures to the contaminants through fish tissue and drinking water ingestion. The harmonic mean flow is
defined as the reciprocal of the mean value of the reciprocal of individual values.
2.2.2 Whole-Body And Fish Filet Contaminant Concentrations
Tissue residue levels for fish exposed to the in-stream contaminant concentrations estimated above were
calculated by multiplying the contaminant concentration by estimated bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF. Estimated fish tissue residue levels resulting from exposure to these con-
taminants in the water column were based on BCFs of 5,000 (2378-TCDD, filet only), 100,000 (2378-TCDD,
whole body), and 3,900 (2378-TCDF, whole body).
For example, assuming a 2378-TCDD water column concentration of 2.2 x lO^ng/l, and a BCF of 5,000,
the contaminant concentration in the fish filet would be calculated as follows:
(water column concentration) (BCF) = filet concentration
(2.2 x lO^ng/l) (5,000) = 1.1 x lO^ng/kg
The BCF for 2378-TCDD of 5,000 was used to estimate uptake by fish through exposure to the dissolved
contaminant in the water column. This value is the average bioconcentration potential that was exhibited by
the aquatic organisms used to develop human health criteria for 2378-TCDD for exposure through the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue (USEPA, 1984). This value is based on fish filet residue levels, not
whole body levels. This BCF, in combination with a comparatively moderate fish tissue consumption rate (6.5
g/day), was the basis for estimating human health impacts from the consumption of contaminated fish tissue
based on EPA's ambient water quality criteria assumptions for 2378-TCDD.
A second BCF of 100,000 used to estimate 2378-TCDD taken up by fish through the water column was
developed primarily from the results of the EPA Duluth Laboratory's most recent studies on the bioconcentra-
tion of 2378-TCDD by fish (Cook, 1990). During these investigations, BCFs for carp and fathead minnows
were determined through laboratory studies with exposures of up to 71 days in duration. The whole body
BCF values presented in the Cook et al. study ranged from 65,900 ±_ 9,300 (for carp with 9% lipid content)
to 159,000 ±_ 40,000 (for fathead minnows with 19% lipid content). The Cook study is preliminary and has
not been peer reviewed. Based on this information, the present assessment selected a reasonably conser-
vative BCF value of 100,000 to represent a more extreme bioaccumulation potential that, in combination with
higher fish tissue consumption rates, result in higher estimated human health risks. These higher estimated
risks are used for sensitivity comparisons to results using the lower BCF and consumption rates.
Results of a recent literature review by Nabholz et al. (Unpublished) were used as the basis for selecting
BCF values to determine whole body contaminant concentrations in fish exposed to 2378-TCDF in the water
column. Only three measured fish BCF values for 2378-TCDF were identified, two from water exposures and
one from a dietary source. The geometric mean of the measured BCF values for water exposure (3,900) was
used in the present study.
Once taken up by fish, contaminants are generally distributed unequally among the tissues in the fish.
For example, for many contaminants, high concentrations accumulate in the fish liver, generally an inedible
portion of the fish. Also, whole body residue levels include the viscera, which contain significant quantities
of sediments ingested during feeding. Because of the affinity of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF for sediment,
high concentrations of contaminants would be found in this inedible portion. Therefore, using the estimated
10
-------
whole-body concentration of a contaminant would not accurately reflect the human exposure to the
contaminant resulting from the consumption of the edible portion of the fish (the filet). In general, the
concentration of 2378-TCDD in fish muscle is about 50% of whole fish concentration (Branson et al, 1985).
To compensate for the unequal partitioning of contaminants between the edible and inedible fish tissues, the
estimated whole-body BCFs of 100,000 (for 2378-TCDD) and 3,900 (for 2378-TCDF) were multiplied by 0.5
to arrive at estimated BCFs for the edible portion of the fish of 50,000 (for 2378-TCDD) and 1,950 (for
2378-TCDF). The 5,000 BCF for 2378-TCDD is based on fish filet residue levels, and, therefore, no adjustments
in the fish tissue 2378-TCDD concentration estimates was necessary. It should be pointed out that for some
species of shellfish (e.g., mollusks) the whole body (minus the shell) is consumed by humans, and, therefore,
the whole-body contaminant concentration would more accurately reflect human exposure.
Recent laboratory studies support the use of 50,000 as a reasonable BCF to estimate 2378-TCDD
concentration in edible fish tissue (Cook, 1990: Merhle et. al., 1988). These studies indicate that this value
represents a mid-range prediction of freshwater exposure situations for fish averaging 7% lipid content, a
reasonable average lipid content for the edible portion of freshwater fish potentially consumed by humans
(Cook, 1990). This value is applicable to the total 2378-TCDD amount present in the water (not only that
fraction dissolved in the water).
2.2.3 Drinking Water Concentration
Drinking water contaminant concentrations were assumed to be the same as the in-stream receiving
water concentrations which were calculated using the simple dilution and EXAMS II water column (i.e.,
dissolved) approaches. It was assumed that the water that is ingested is taken from the point of highest
in-stream contaminant concentration after the effluent is fully mixed in the receiving stream. It was also
assumed that the water is untreated, that is, it is ingested as raw stream water with no removal of contaminants.
2.2.4 Human Exposures From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue And Drinking Water
Human exposure to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from the consumption of contaminated fish tissue was
estimated based on fish tissue consumption rates of 6.5,30, and 140 g/day. The 6.5 g/day consumption rate
is equivalent to less than two 1/4 Ib meals per month and is cited by EPA (1980) as an average level of fish
and shellfish consumption in the United States, based on both fish eating and non-fish eating populations
(per capita rate). The 6.5 g/day consumption rate was used in combination with the fish filet 2378-TCDD
concentration estimates based on a BCF of 5,000 for fish exposed to the contaminant in the water column to
arrive at an average daily lifetime human exposure to 2378-TCDD based on EPA's ambient water quality criteria
assumptions.
The 30 g/day consumption rate is equivalent to approximately eight 1/4 Ib meals per month and is
considered applicable for typical recreational fisherman. The 140 g/day consumption rate is equivalent to
approximately thirty-eight 1/4 Ib meals per month and is considered a high consumption rate applicable for
subsistence fishermen and other subpopulations known to have high fish ingestion rates, such as many
Orientals and Native American Indians. The 30 and 140 g/day consumption rates are values that can be used
to represent consumption rates for recreational fishermen in any area where there is a large water body present
and widespread contamination is evident (EPA, 1989a). These consumption rates were used in combination
with the fish filet 2378-TCDD concentration estimates based on a BCF of 50,000 for fish exposed to the
contaminant in the water column. Exposure estimates based on the higher BCF and consumption rates
represent more extreme exposure scenarios.
Estimates of human exposure to 2378-TCDF through the consumption of contaminated fish tissue were
based on the three consumption rates (6.5, 30, and 140 g/day) in combination with fish filet 2378-TCDF
concentration estimates based on a single BCF (1,950) for fish exposed to the contaminant in the water
column.
The average daily lifetime exposure (mg of contaminant/kg of body weight/day over a 70-year lifetime)
was calculated by multiplying the chemical concentration in the edible fish tissue by the ingestion rate and
dividing by an average adult body weight of 70 kg. For example, if the estimated level of 2378-TCDD in fish
11
-------
filets is 1.4 x 10~7 mg/kg and the daily fish consumption rate is 6.5 g, the contaminant exposure to a 70 kg
adult is:
.
70 kg body weight
The average daily lifetime human exposure to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from the ingestion of
contaminated drinking water was based on a 2 liter/day average lifetime ingestion rate (MAS, 1977). The
average daily lifetime exposure for a 70 kg adult was determined by multiplying in-stream chemical concentra-
tions by a 2 liter/day average lifetime ingestion rate and then dividing by 70 kg.
2.2.5 Aquatic Life Impacts
Sufficient data are not currently available concerning the chronic effects of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
on aquatic life to allow EPA to derive national water quality or sediment criteria for these contaminants (EPA,
1984). However, several exposures that have been conducted for other purposes do provide some informa-
tion concerning the chronic effects of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF on aquatic life. EPA has developed
preliminary chronic exposure levels for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF based on these existing exposure studies
(EPA, 1989b).
Potential aquatic life impacts were determined by comparing estimated in-stream concentrations of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF to EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for protection of aquatic organisms:
0.038 pg/l for 2378-TCDD and 0.41 pg/l for 2378-TCDF. Water column contaminant concentrations were
calculated using the simple dilution exposure assessment approach and hydrologically-based 7Q10 flow.
2.3 RISK ASSESSMENT
2.3.1 Bioavailable Dose From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue And Drinking Water
Not all of the contaminants that are ingested with fish tissue are available for uptake by humans. Results
of a recent study conducted by Boyer (1989) suggest that 85%-95% absorption is a reasonable estimate of
2378-TCDD bioavailability in humans from the ingestion of fatty or oily foods, especially milk, fish, and meats.
For the present study, the conservative upper limit of this range of bioavailability (95%) was used. Therefore,
the estimated exposure of humans to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from the consumption of contaminated
fish was multiplied by .95 to arrive at an estimated human dose. Further characterizations of doses to specific
target organs, via a pharmacokinetic analysis, were not conducted.
Boyer (1989) also investigated bioavailability of 2378-TCDD from water. Although the author could find
no data that specifically addressed the bioavailability of 2378-TCDD from drinking water, he assumed that the
contaminant would be present at its maximum solubility in water and, therefore, would be 100% bioavailable
for absorption to the gastrointestinal tract. The present study also assumes that contaminants in drinking
water are 100% bioavailable.
2.3.2 Estimated Cancer Risk From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue And Drinking Water
Long-term animal studies of 2378-TCDD have provided clear evidence that the contaminant is an animal
carcinogen (Kociba et al., 1978; NTP, 1982a; NTP, 1982b). Based on these animal studies as well as other
considerations, EPA has concluded that 2378-TCDD should be regarded as a probable human carcinogen
(U.S. EPA, 1985). EPA has assigned 2378-TCDD a qualitative weight-of-evidence designation of "B2" for its
carcinogenic potential. This designation indicates that 2378-TCDD is an agent for which there is sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity based on animal studies but inadequate data regarding its carcinogenicity from
human epidemiologic studies (U.S. EPA, 1986).
The average daily lifetime bioavailable dose (for both fish tissue and drinking water contamination) was
multiplied by the EPA carcinogenic potency factor for 2378-TCDD to calculate a conservative (upper bound)
estimate of the hypothetically exposed individual's cancer incidence rate above background incidence rates
due to 2378-TCDD. The probability of developing cancer in a lifetime due to a given dose of contaminant is
12
-------
represented by the following formula, which estimates a plausible upper limit to excess lifetime risk of cancer
at low doses:
R =/3(oT
where,
R = cancer risk,
ft = the EPA carcinogenic potency factor, and
d = dose.
* this formula may not be appropriate for use in high dose/high risk situations where
there may not be a direct relationship between the observed effect and dose.
For example, the EPA upper bound carcinogenic potency factor for 2378-TCDD is 1.6 x 105 (mg/kg/day)"1
!) (EPA, 1985) and
cancer in a lifetime is:
[B2] (EPA, 1985) and if the dose is 6.0 x 10"11 (mg/kg/day) then the probability of an individual developing
R = (1.6x105)(6.0x10"11)
= 1.0x10'5[llB2Il
The actual risk is likely to be lower than the predicted upper limit and could even be zero in some cases.
Combined 2378-TCDD/-TCDF cancer risk was estimated by converting 2378-TCDF doses to 2378-TCDD
toxicity equivalences (TEQs). The TEQ value was then multiplied by the carcinogenic potency factor for
2378-TCDD to obtain the combined 2378-TCDD/2378-TCDF risk. The TEQ was generated by using the toxicity
equivalency factor (TEF) recommended in "Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Ex-
posures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) arid 1989
Updated, Part II" (Barnes et al., 1989). For example, assuming a 2378-TCDD dose of 6.0 x 10"8 mg/kg/day, a
2378-TCDF dose of 2.2 x 10"8 mg/kg/day, and the 2378-TCDF TEF of 0.1, the total TEQ for the 2378-TCDD/-
TCDF mixture is calculated as follows:
((1)(6.0 X 10"8)) + ((0.1) (2.2 X 10"8)) = 6.2 X 10"8
Combined risk is calculated by multiplying the resulting TEQ by the carcinogenic potency factor:
6.2 x 10"8 x 1.6 x 105 = 9.9 x 10"3 ["B2"J
In this study TEQ represents only the contribution of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF to risk. There are likely
to be additional risk contributions from other chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans associated with
discharges from chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills that are not addressed here. However, 2378-TCDD
and 2378-TCDF account for greater than 90% of the TEQ from chlorinated dioxins and furans found in the
effluents of chorine bleaching pulp and paper mills.
2.3.3 Non-Cancer Health Risks From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue
In assessing the risk associated with 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF exposures, cancer is generally
considered the most sensitive endpoint. It is assumed that if individuals are protected from significant concern
for cancer, they will also be protected from other endpoint risks such as developmental toxicity, reproductive
effects, liver toxicity, immunotoxicity, etc. However, cancer risks are computed assuming an average daily
dose over a lifetime of exposure. If individuals were exposed infrequently to relatively high doses over a short
period of time, the risks associated with that level of exposure, when averaged over a lifetime, might not be
significant in terms of carcinogenic risk. However, the individual could be at risk for other health effects from
the short-term exposure.
EPA has developed a number of methods for evaluating the non-cancer effects of exposure to potentially
toxic pollutants. These include the concept of the Reference Dose (RfD) and Health Advisories (HAs). The
RfD is an estimate of the lifetime daily dose to the human population likely to be without any appreciable risk
13
-------
of deleterious effect. RfOs are generally based on studies involving lifetime exposures of animals and are
formally defined for comparison with lifetime average dose rates in humans. The endpoints of concern in
RfDs developed for 2378-TCDD are reproductive and teratogenic effects. HAs are developed for exposure
associated with less-than-lrfetime exposures of relatively large doses. HA dose levels are appropriate for
comparison with single doses or short-term exposures. HAs for 2378-TCDD have been developed for
reproductiveAeratogenic effects as well as for other toxic endpoints, such as hepatic effects.
Both RfDs and HAs are derived from the "No Observed Adverse Effect Level" (NOAEL) determined in the
critical lexicological study, divided by an uncertainty factor selected based on specific attributes of the study.
The uncertainty factor takes into account differences in sensitivity between animals and humans, variability
in susceptibility within human populations, and other factors. The level of uncertainty associated with RfDs
and HAs can have a range of an order of magnitude or greater.
Although the EPA has determined that reproductive and developmental toxicity in animals are the most
critical or sensitive noncarcinogenic effects to consider for the risk assessment of 2378-TCDD, some
uncertainty arises as to whether these values are applicable to people of nonproductive age (e.g., children
or post-menopausal women), or people who are not reproducing for other reasons. Therefore, because this
assessment is concerned with risks to the general public and because it is designed to assess risks to
individuals exposed infrequently to relatively high doses over a short period of time, neither RfDs nor HAs
developed for reproductive or teratogenic effects were used. Ratherthe HAs developed for protection against
liver effects from exposures to 2378-TCDD were used for comparison to estimated exposures.
EPA has developed one-day and ten-day HAs for protection against liver effects: 1 day -10Opg/kg/day,
and 10 day -10pg/kg/day (Lee, 1989). For this analysis, the data for exposures to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
from the paper mills were screened for exposure scenarios exceeding an average of 100 pg/kg/day (one-day
HA for protection against liver effects). Exposure scenarios exceeding this level were examined in more detail
to determine whether the cancer or non-cancer endpoint was the more sensitive indicator of risk.
14
-------
3. RESULTS
The results of this investigation are presented in two parts. The first part addresses exposure estimates
and compares the results of the in-stream contaminant concentration calculations that were performed using
the two exposure assessment approaches (simple dilution and EXAMS II water column). From these
concentrations, filet residue levels in fish were estimated by applying fish bioconcentration factors (BCFs)
and human exposure levels from fish tissue ingestion (at three consumption rates) and drinking water ingestion
(at a single consumption rate) were estimated. The exposure assessment also compares the estimated
concentrations to which fish are exposed to EPA's preliminary chronic life standards for 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF. The fish exposure levels were calculated using the simple dilution method with hydrologically-
based 7Q10 low flow conditions and were used as the basis for estimating potential chronic impacts to aquatic
life.
For indirect dischargers (dischargers to POTWs), the in-stream contaminant concentrations were based
on the results of using an estimated 75% removal efficiency during treatment of the discharge stream. The
results for both 75% and 98% removal efficiencies are provided in the appendices.
The second part of the results presents estimated human health risks associated with the ingestion of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF contaminated fish tissue and drinking water. Bioavailable human doses were
estimated and used to estimate the risk to a hypothetically exposed individual. Cancer risk results are reported
as expected incidence rate of cancer above background rate of cancer incidence associated with site-specific
exposure scenarios. Non-cancer risks are also assessed by comparing estimated human doses to EPA's
one-day Health Advisory dose for protection against 2378-TCDD induced liver damage.
It should be noted that sufficient information was not available for all of the mills investigated to allow a
complete evaluation and comparison of results for each of the 104 facilities. For example, for several of the
mills discharging to open waters (i.e., lakes, open ocean), no information was available on receiving stream
zone of initial dilution, which was necessary for calculating effluent dilution. For a few other mills, data were
questioned as to their accuracy and new samples were being taken, but the results of the new sample
evaluations were not available for inclusion in this study. In addition, for some facilities there was sufficient
information to predict risks based on the simple dilution method, but insufficient information to predict risk
based on the EXAMS II method. Also, either harmonic mean flow or 7Q10 flow data were not available for
several facilities. Although not evaluated as part, of this study, actual fish tissue concentration data from the
National Bioaccumulation Study (NBS) (U.S.EPA, 1989c) are presented in Appendix Q. The data presented
are from fish tissue samples taken close to some of the mills evaluated as part of the present study. The
number of facilities included in the Appendix was dependent on the number and location of samples taken
as part of the NBS.
As was noted previously, an effluent 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF concentration of 1/2 the detection limit
was used in this evaluation for those mill samples from the 104-mill study in which contaminant concentrations
were below the analytical level of detection. The number of mills for which exposure and risk estimates were
based on 1/2 the detection limits are identified in each of the figures presented in this results section as well
as in Appendix C of this report.
In some instances, more than one sample result from the 104-mill study was available for a given mill.
However, all exposure and risk calculations are based on effluent concentration levels for individual samples
(i.e., sample concentrations for mills with multiple samples were not combined when calculating results). The
discussions of exposure and risk presented in this chapter are based on the samples from each mill with the
highest effluent contaminant concentrations.
15
-------
3.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
3.1.1 In-Stream Contaminant Concentrations
Appendix D presents the estimated in-stream 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF concentrations (in pg/l) for
each of the samples from the 104 mill sites based on harmonic mean flow. Appendix E presents estimated
in-stream contaminant concentrations using the simple dilution method with hydrologically-based 7Q10 flow.
Concentrations are presented in pg/l for comparison to EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for
protection of aquatic life. For aquatic life impacts, contaminant concentrations for discharges to open water
were calculated by simple dilution using zone of initial dilution or ZIO factors. Since these are not free flowing
streams, low flow conditions do not apply.
For each of the samples, estimated in-stream 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF concentrations based on
harmonic mean flow were highest when calculated using the simple dilution exposure assessment method.
In-stream 2378-TCDD concentrations estimated using the simple dilution method ranged from a high of 3.2
x 10+2pg/l to a low of 4.1 x 10^pg/l. I n-stream 2378-TCDF concentrations ranged from a high of 8.0 x 10+2pg/l
to a low of 1.0 x lO^pg/l. Usinq the EXAMS II water column method, estimated 2378-TCDD concentrations
ranged from a high of 8.3 x 10 pg/l to a low of 3.4 x 10"5pg/l. Estimated 2378-TCDF concentrations ranged
from 7.1 x I0+2pg/l to 1.1 x lO
In-stream 2378-TCDD concentration estimates based on simple dilution and 7Q10 flow ranged from
high of 3.2 x 10+2 pg/l to a low of 1.37 x 10"4 pg/l. Estimated 2378-TCDF concentrations ranged from 1.5
10+3 pg/l to 3.42 x 10"4 pg/l.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the estimated distribution of mills for which discharges result in 2378-TCDD
and 2378-TCDF concentrations falling within specific concentration ranges (based on harmonic mean flow)
using the simple dilution method (Figure 3.1) and EXAMS II water column method (Figure 3.2). Figure 3.3
illustrates the estimated distribution of mills for which discharges result in contaminant concentrations falling
within specific concentration ranges using the simple dilution method based on 7Q10 flow. All figures are
based on the samples with the highest effluent contaminant concentration for each mill.
3.1.2 Fish Tissue Contaminant Concentrations
Appendix F presents the mill-specific estimated fish tissue concentrations of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
using the two exposure assessment methods. The actual fish tissue concentrations of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF measured during the National Bioaccumulation Study (NBS) are presented in Appendix Q. It
should be noted that the National Bioaccumulation Study was conducted during 1985 through 1987, and the
condition of some receiving streams and thus the concentration of contaminants in fish tissues may have
changed since the time the NBS was conducted.
The highest fish tissue concentrations due to in-stream exposure to the contaminants were estimated by
the simple dilution method. The 2378-TCDD fish tissue concentrations estimated using the 5,000 BCF ranged
from a high of 1.6 x 10"1"3 ng/kg to a low of 2.05 x 10"4 ng/kg. Using the 50,000 BCF, 2378-TCDD fish tissue
concentrations ranged from a high of 1.6 x 10+4 ng/kg to a low of 2.05 x 10"3 ng/kg. Use of the simple dilution
method estimated 2378-TCDF concentrations in fish tissue (using the single BCF of 1,950) ranging from 1.56
x 10+3 ng/kg to 2.0 x 10"4 ng/kg.
The EXAMS II water column method resulted in fish tissue concentrations of 2378-TCDD ranging from a
high of 4.15 x 10+2 ng/kg to a low of 1.71 x 10"4 ng/kg using the 5,000 BCF and from 4.15 x 10 3 ng/kg to
1.17 x 10"3 ng/kg using the 50,000 BCF. The 2378-TCDF fish tissue concentrations estimated by the EXAMS
II water column method ranged from 1.39 x 10+3 ng/kg to 1.49 x 10"3 ng/kg.
Actual 2378-TCDD concentrations measured during the National Bioaccumulation Study ranged from a
high of 7.17 x 10+1 ngykg to a low of 2.05 x 10"1 ng/kg. 2378-TCDF measured values ranged from 2.07 x
10+2 ng/kg to 1.3 x 10~1 ng/kg. It should be noted that both whole body and filet samples were analyzed in
the NBS. One half the whole body contaminant concentrations were used to estimate filet concentrations as
16
-------
2378-TCDF
2378-TCDD
1E+02 1E+01 1E+00 1E-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-04
Concentration Range (pg/l)
Figure 3.1. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of water column contaminant concen-
trations as estimated by the simple dilution method.
Notea:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 97.
Eatlmatea baaed on Harmonic Mean Flow of receiving watera.
Number of mill* within concentration rangoa for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF woro not dotaotod In the affluent and therefore water column
concentration estimate! are baaed on effluent concentratlona of 1/2 the
detection limit:
1E»0 1E-1 1E-2 1E-3
TCDD
TCDF
4
1
17
-------
2378-TCDD
2378-TCDF
1E*02 1E»01 1E*00 1E-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-04
Concentration Range (pg/l)
Figure 3.2. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of water column contaminant concen-
trations as estimated by the EXAMS II water column method.
Notes:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Estimates bated on Harmonic Mean Flow ol receiving waters.
Number of mills within concentration ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore water column
concentration estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the
detection limit.
TCDD
TCDF
1E»0
1
1
1E-1
7
2
1E-2
a
4
1E-3
4
1
1E-4
2
18
-------
2378-TCDD
o
o>
ra
CC
o
c
o
o
c
o
o
c
o
JO
3
40
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10
5 -
1E+03 1E+02 1E+01 1E+00 1E-01 1E-02 1E-03
Concentration Range (pg/l)
Figure 3.3. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of water column contaminant
concentrations as estimated by the simple dilution method using
7Q10 low flow conditions.
Notes:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 90.
Estimates based on 7Q10 flow values for receiving waters.
Number of mills within concentration ranges for which 2378-TCDD
and/or 2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore
water column concentration estimates are based on eflfuent
concentrations of 1/2 the detection limit:
TCDD
TCDF
1E*2 1E*0
S
1 2
1E-1
9
2
1E-2
6
2
1E-3
1
1
19
-------
presented in Appendix Q. Also, both pelagic and benthic species were evaluated in the NBS. Contaminant
concentrations in benthic species tend to be higher than in pelagic species, although pelagic species are
more often sought and consumed by recreational and subsistence fishermen.
3.1.3 Drinking Water Contamination
This study assumes that the concentrations of the contaminants expected to be found in drinking water
are the same as those predicted in-stream. These predicted concentrations are presented in Appendix D.
The distribution of the number of mills for which discharges resulted in in-stream concentrations of the
contaminants within specific concentration ranges are illustrated in Figure 3.1 (for the simple dilution method)
and Figure 3.2 (for the EXAMS II water column method).
3.1.4 Aquatic Life Impacts
Aquatic life impacts are estimated based on a comparison of predicted in-stream concentrations of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF, using the simple dilution method with 7Q10 flow conditions (see Figure 3.3 and
Appendix E), to EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for the protection of aquatic life (0.038 pg/l for
2378-TCDD and 0.41 pg/l for 2378-TCDF)(U.S. EPA, 1989b). The estimates presented in Figure 3.3 are based
on the samples with the highest effluent contaminant concentration for each mill evaluated. Water column
concentrations of 2378-TCDD immediately downstream of 80 out of 90 mills (89%) are estimated to exceed
chronic exposure levels of 0.038 pg/l. Seventy-four mills (82%) exceed the 0.41 pg/l level for 2378-TCDF.
3.2 RISK ASSESSMENT
3.2.1 Bioavailable Dose From Ingestion Of Fish Tissue And Drinking Water
The bioavailable dose to humans from consumption of contaminated fish tissue was calculated based
on 95% bioavailability and three fish tissue consumption rates: 6.5 g/day in combination with fish tissue
concentrations based on fish filet bioconcentration factors of 5.000 for 2378-TCDD and 1,950 for 2378-TCDF;
and 30 and 140 g/day in combination with fish tissue concentrations based on fish filet bioconcentration
factors of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD and 1,950 for 2378-TCDF. The bioavailable dose from drinking water was
calculated based on a drinking water ingestion rate of 2 L/day and a 100% oral dose bioavailability. The
mill-specific estimated bioavailable doses of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from consumption of contaminated
fish tissue based on the simple dilution and EXAMS II methods are presented in Appendix G. Mill-specific
estimated bioavailable doses from ingestion of contaminated drinking water are presented in Appendix H.
These values were used to predict the hypothetically exposed individual's upper bound cancer risk associated
with discharges from each mill.
3.2.2 Estimated Cancer Risk From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue And Drinking Water
Appendix I presents predicted mill-specific upper bound lifetime risks of cancer to the hypothetically
exposed individual from consumption of contaminated fish tissue based on the simple dilution and EXAMS
II methods. Appendix J presents the mill-specific upper bound risks of cancer from ingestion of contaminated
drinking water. The cancer risks associated with contaminated fish consumption are presented for 6.5 g/day,
30g/day, and 140g/day consumption rates. The percent 2378-TCDD contributing to TEQ is also estimated
for contaminated fish tissue consumption in Appendix I and for contaminated drinking water ingestion in
Appendix J.
Contaminated Fish Tissue
Figures 3.4 through 3.7 present the estimated distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of estimated lifetime cancer risks for the hypothetically exposed individual due
to the consumption of contaminated fish tissue based on the simple dilution exposure assessment method
and the EXAMS II water column exposure assessment method. Estimates are based on the samples with the
highest effluent contaminant concentration for each mill evaluated.
20
-------
6.5 g/day consumption
1E-02 1E-03
1E-04 1E-05
Risk Range
1E-06 1E-07 1E-08
Figure 3.4. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
simple dilution method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and BCF
of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD*).
Not**:
ToUl number of mills evaluated • 97.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF risk predicted u*lng TEO.
Number of mill* within risk range* for which 2378-TCDD and/or 2378-TCDF were
not detected In the effluent and therefore rl*k estimate* ire baaed on effluent
concentration* of 1/2 the detection limit:
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD ft TCDF
1E-4 1E-6 1E-6 1E-7
2743
1 1
2 2 1
* Recent laboratory evidence Indicate* that • BCF higher thin 5,000
for 2378-TCDD (e.g., 50,000) more accurately reflect* uptake of 2378-TCDD by
flih. U*e of a BCF of 60,000 for 2378-TCDD would bierea** rlik by an order of
magnitude.
21
-------
140 g/day consumption
30 g/day consumption
o>
n
oc
j*
(0
£
i
(0
"o
o
.0
i
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
t 15 -
10 -
5 -
>1E-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-04
Risk Range
1E-05
1E-06
Figure 3.5. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
simple dilution method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates
and BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD).
Not**:
Total numb*r of mill* *v*lu*t*d • 97.
Combined 2378 -TCPD/-TCDF risk predicted uilng TEC).
Number of mill* within rl*k rang** for which 237B-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF w*r* not detected In th* *fflu*nt *nd th*r*for* rl*k
eitlmite* *r* b***d on *fflu*nt oone*ntr*tlon* of 1/2 th*
detection limit:
1E-2 1E-3 1E-4 1E-8 1E-8
30g/d»y
TCDD
TCOF
TCOD A TCDF
HOg/day
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD A TCDF
7
1
1
4
1
3
8
1
1
22
-------
6.5 g/day consumption
1E-03 1E-04 1E-05 1E-06 1E-07 1E-08
Risk Range
Figure 3.6. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
EXAMS II method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and BCF of 5,000 for
2378-TCDD*).
Notts:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF rltk predicted ualng TEQ.
Number of milla within rick rang** for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF wora not dataetad In tha effluent and therefore rlak
eatlmatea are baaed on effluent ooneentratlona of 1/2 the detection
limit:
1E-4 1E-6 1E-6 1E-7 1E-8
TCDD 16621
TCDF 1 1
TCDD&TCDF 1 3 1
• Recent laboratory evidence indlcatea that a BCF higher than 6,000 for
237B-TCDD (e.g., 60,000) more accurately reflecta uptake of 2378-TCDD by flah.
Uaa of a BCF of 60,000 for 2378-TCDD would Increaae rlak by an order of
magnitude.
23
-------
140 g/day consumption
30 g/day consumption
>1E-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-04 1E-05 1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
Figure 3.7. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
EXAMS II method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates and
BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD).
Notes:
Total number of mills evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF risk predicted using TEQ.
Number of mills within risk ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected in the effluent and therefore risk
estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the detection
limit:
1E-2 1E-3 1E-4 1E-5 1E-8 1E-7
30q/dsy
TCDD 4622
TCDF 1 1
TCDDATCDF 22 1
140q/day
TCDD 17411
TCDF 1 1
TCDD&TCDF 1 3 1
24
-------
The results of calculations using the 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rate in combination with the
2378-TCDD BCF of 5,000 are based on EPA water quality criteria assumptions. The results of these
calculations are presented separately from the results of calculations using the 30 and 140 g/day consumption
rates in combination with the 2378-TCDD BCF of 50,000, which are considered more extreme scenarios.
Simple Dilution Exposure Assessment Method
Using the simple dilution exposure assessment estimates, the 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rate, and
fish filet contaminant concentrations based on a BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD, the upper bound mill-specific
cancer rates for the hypothetically exposed individual ranged from the 10~2 to 10 risk levels (Figure 3.4).
Risk levels associated with discharges from 80 of the 97 mills evaluated (82%) fell within the 10 to 10"6 risk
levels, with 36 mills within the 10'5 risk level.
Mill-specific cancer rate estimates using the 30 g/day fish tissue consumption rate and fish tissue
contaminant concentrations based on a BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD range from the >_ 10~1 to 10"6 risk
levels (Figure 3.5). Seventy of the 97 mills (72%) were associated with risk levels between 10~3 to 10*4, and
39 of these 70 fell within the 10"3 range. Using the 140 g/day fish tissue consumption rate and fish tissue
contaminant concentrations based on the 50,000 BCF, risk levels ranged from .>.10~1 to 10"6 (Figure 3.5).
Sixty-six out of the 97 mills (68%) were associated with risk levels between 10"2 to 10"3 with 40 within the 10"3
range.
EXAMS II Exposure Assessment Method
Mill-specific upper bound cancer rate estimates for the hypothetically exposed individual using the EXAMS
II water column exposure assessment method, 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rates, and fish tissue
contaminant concentrations based on a BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD ranged from the 10~3 to 10"8 risk levels
(Figure 3.6). Seventy of the 87 mills evaluated (80%) were associated with risk levels between 10"5 (32 mills)
to 10"6 (38 mills).
Using the 30 g/day consumption rate and fish tissue contaminant concentrations based on the 50,000
BCF for 2378-TCDD, mill-specific cancer rates ranged from the >. 10"1 to 10"7 risk levels (Figure 3.7). Sixty-four
of the 87 mills (74%) were associated with risk levels within the 10"3 to 10"4 range, and 41 of these fell within
the 10"4 range. Cancer rate estimates using the 140 g/day fish tissue consumption rate and 50,000 BCF,
ranged from the >_ 10"1 to 10"6 risk levels (Figure 3.7). Sixty-three of the 87 mills (72%) were associated with
risk levels between the 10"3 and 10"4 range, and 37 of these fell within the 10"3 range.
Contaminated Drinking Water
Figures 3.8 and 3.9 present the distribution of the number of mills for which discharges were estimated
to result in a given range of upper bound lifetime cancer risks to the hypothetically exposed individual due to
the ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Only those facilities discharging to fresh water lakes, rivers,
and streams were included in this analysis. No discharges to marine or estuarine waters were included, since
these water bodies would not be used as drinking water sources.
Use of the simple dilution method estimated that the cancer risks associated with the 69 mills evaluated
ranged from the 10"4 to 10"9 risk levels (Figure 3.8). The greatest percentage of these mills (44, or 64%) were
associated with risk levels within the 10"6 (23 mills) to 10 (21 mills) range. Use of the EXAMS II water column
method estimated that the risk levels associated with the 64 mills evaluated ranged from the 10'5 to 10'9 levels
(Figure 3.9). Fifty of these mills (78%) were associated with risk levels between the 10"6 (18 mills) to 10"7 (32
mills) range.
3.2.3 Non-Cancer Health Effects From Ingestion Of Contaminated Fish Tissue
Appendix K presents the estimated mill-specific human doses from the consumption of a single 115 gram
(1/4 pound) portion of contaminated fish tissue (using at fish filet BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD and 1,950 for
278-TCDF) based on the simple dilution and EXAMS II water column exposure assessment methods. Results
25
-------
o
O>
«S
OC
i
j»
i
"5
«
|
z
1E-04 1E-05
1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
1E-08 1E-09
Figure 3.8 Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
Ingestion of contaminated drinking water as estimated by the simple
dilution method.
Notts:
Total number ol mills evaluated • 69.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCOF risk predicted using TEQ.
Based on a 2 L/day Ingostlon rato.
Number of mills within risk ranges for which 2378-TCDD snd/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore
risk estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the
detection limit:
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD & TCDF
1E-5
1
1E-6
3
1
1
1E-7
3
1E-8 1E-9
3
1
26
-------
o
o>
c
(0
DC
X
m
E
c
o
.0
3
33
30
27
24
21
18
15
12
9 -
6
3
1E-05 1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
1E-08 1E-09
Figure 3.9. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
Ingestion of contaminated drinking water as estimated by the
EXAMS II method.
Not**:
Total number of mills evaluated • 64.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF risk predicted uilng TEO.
Based on • 2 L/day Ingestion rate.
Number of mill* within risk ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore risk
estimates are based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the
detection limit:
1E-S 1E-8 1E-7 1E-8 1E-9
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD& TCDF
4 2 1
1 1
3 1 1
27
-------
are reported in pg/kg/day for comparison to EPA's one-day Health Advisory for protection against liver effects
(100 pg/kg/day).
Based on the simple dilution method results (Figure 3.10), the dose associated with discharges from 25
out of the 97 mills evaluated (27%) would equal or exceed the one-day HA dose for protection from liver effects
(100 pg/kg/day). Use of the EXAMS II method (Figure 3.11) estimates thatthedose associated with discharges
from 9 mills out of 87 (10%) would equal or exceed the 100 pg/kg/day dose level.
28
-------
ra
OC
O
(0
O
Q
to
1
O
.a
3
34
32 —
28 —
24 -
20 —
16 —
12 -
8 —
4 —
1E*04 1E*03 1E«02 1E«01 1E»00
Dose Range (pg/kg/day)
1E-01
1E-02
Figure 3.10. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of human doses from a one-time
exposure to contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the simple
dilution method.
NoUs:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 97.
Combined 2378 -TCDO/-TCDF doc* predicted using TEQ.
Based on the consumption of • tingle 116 g portion ef contaminated fish tissue
•nd using • fish filet BCF of 80,000 for 2378-TCDD.
Number of mills within dose ranges for which 2378-TCDD ind/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore dose
estimates sr* based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the detection
limit:
1E»2 1E«1 1E*0 1E-1
1743
TCDD
TCDF
TCDO * TCOF
1
2
29
-------
o
en
a
CC
o
o>
o
0
c
m
"5
.a
3
1E+03 1E+02 1E+01 1E+00 1E-01 1E-02
Dose Range(pg/kg/day)
Figure 3.11. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of human doses from a one-time
exposure to contaminated fish tissue as estimated by EXAMS II
method.
NoU»:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF dot* predicted using TEQ.
Based on the consumption of a single 11S g portion of contaminated fish tissue
•nd using • fish filet BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD
Number of mills within dose rsnges for which 2378-TCDD snd/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore dose
estimates sre based on effluent concentrations of 1/2 the detection
limit:
1E*2 1E«1 1E»0 1E-1 1E-2
TCDD 15521
TCDF 1 1
TCDD & TCDF 1311
30
-------
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4.1 ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND UNCERTAINTIES
This chapter presents the assumptions that were made during the planning and conduct of this study and
discusses significant results and the limitations and uncertainties associated with those results. The following
is a list of assumptions used in this investigation:
1) Mill-specific, five-day composite effluent contaminant concentrations collected during the 104-mill
study were multiplied by mean plant flow rates to determine contaminant load. This resulting load
to the receiving water was assumed to be continuous. The representativeness of the effluent
sample as reflecting long-term mill operations is unknown; since then, the mills may have made
plant process or operation changes to reduce dioxin and furan formation. This assumption may
overestimate human health and aquatic life risks.
2) The highest estimated in-stream concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the discharges (assum-
ing steady-state, fully mixed conditions) were considered for fish exposure. Fish are likely to move
in and out of the area of maximum concentration, but these estimates assumed that fish remain ex-
posed to the highest concentration. Consequently, this assumption is likely to overestimate fish
exposure and overestimate human health and aquatic life risks.
3) Receiving water stream flow rates for estimating human health risks were calculated using the har-
monic mean of historic flow measurements from nearby stream gaging stations. 7Q10 receiving
water flow rates were used for estimating aquatic life impacts. These flows may not be the same
as those used by specific States to assess risks. Therefore, these assumptions may over- or un-
derestimate risks compared to State assumptions.
4) Three bioconcentration factor (BCF) values were used for estimating 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
concentrations in edible fish tissue (filet): two for 2378-TCDD and one for 2378-TCDF. The result-
ing fish tissue concentrations were used to estimate human exposure to the contaminants through
consumption of fish tissue. For 2378-TCDD, a BCF of 5,000 was used in combination with a
human consumption rate of fish tissue of 6.5 g/day, and a BCF of 50,000 was used in combination
with consumption rates of 30 g/day and 140 g/day. The 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rate in
combination with the BCF of 5,000 reflects the assumptions in EPA's ambient water quality
criterion for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF and is considered a reasonable estimate for an average
consumer of locally caught fish. The 30 and 140 g/day consumption rates in combination with the
BCF of 50,000 are used as sensitivity comparisons and represent more extreme exposure
scenarios for recreational and subsistence fishermen. A single BCF for 2378-TCDF of 1,950 was
used in combination with each of the three consumption rates. BCFs are species-specific and
highly variable. This study did not take species variability or degree of bioconcentration into ac-
count. Also, actual fish consumption rates vary by locale. State assumptions for BCF, consump-
tion rates, and also cancer potency may vary from those used in this assessment. Therefore, this
assesmsent may overestimate or underestiamte risks compared to State assessments.
5) A drinking water ingestion rate of 2L/day was used to estimate human exposures through inges-
tion of contaminated drinking water. It was assumed that the water consumed was taken from the
point of highest in-stream pollutant concentration after the effluent was fully mixed in the receiving
stream, and no treatment of the water was undertaken to remove contaminants prior to ingestion.
This assumption likely overestimates human health risk from drinking water.
31
-------
6) Fish tissue contaminant bioavailability for humans was assumed to be 95% of oral dose. Con-
taminants in water were assumed to be 100% bioavailable to both fish and humans. This reflects
the most current information EPA has on bioavailability, but the assumptions may overestimate
the risk to humans.
7) Fish were assumed to be exposed to contaminants only in the water column. No food chain or
sediment associated exposures were considered, other than for the simple dilution method in
which the total in-stream contaminant level (both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids)
were bioavailable.
8) The estimates of risk apply only to a hypothetically exposed individual in the immediate vicinity of
the mills, and not to the entire population of fish consumers.
In evaluating the results of this study, it should be pointed out that BCFs are highly species specific. The
BCF for a contaminant in a given fish species Is dependent on fish tissue lipid content, mode of contaminant
uptake, and other factors. Thus using a single BCF does not take into account interspecies differences in the
rate and degree of contaminant bioconcentration. For example, the study conducted by Cook et. al.
(Unpublished) indicates that a higher BCF than that used in this study (i.e., 200,000) may be applicable for
2378-TCDD for some species of fish. Also, the 50,000 BCF for 2378-TCDD used in conjunction with fish
consumption rates of 30 and 140 g/day for recreational and subsistence fishermen is based on the assumption
that only the filet portion of the fish is consumed. However, some subpopulations of subsistence fishermen
and certain ethnic groups eat whole fish in which the concentration of contaminants is likely to be higher than
in the filet alone. Therefore, the use of a BCF of 50,000 may underestimate risks to these subpopulations.
The predictions from the present study also do not take into consideration the mobility of fish in the
receiving waters. Both resident and migrating species will move in and out of the discharge area. This study
assumes that the fish remain exposed to the predicted contaminant concentration up to the time they are
caught, thus resulting in a conservative estimate of aquatic life impacts and human health risk. In addition,
no assessment of local fish patterns or actual commercial or recreational fishing practices were conducted
as part of this evaluation. Therefore, it is not known whether or not commercially or recreationally valuable
species occur or are taken in the vicinity of the discharges that were included in this evaluation.
No attempt was made to estimate fish exposure to contaminants associated with suspended participates,
bed sediments, or the food chain (except when considering the results of the simple dilution method in which
total contaminant concentrations, both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended particulates, are evaluated).
This was due to the lack of sufficient and appropriate scientific data and understanding of the bioaccumulation
of these contaminants by fish through these routes of exposure. Although there is no doubt that food and
sediment provide exposure routes to fish downstream where the amount of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
available (i.e., dissolved) for uptake across gills becomes much less, the assumption that fish remain in the
area immediately downstream from the point of discharge is probably sufficiently conservative to compensate
for any lack of food chain or sediment associated exposure components. In addition, as a check and a
sensitivity comparison, the results of the simple dilution calculation are considered to provide an upper bound
on fish tissue contaminant levels since 100% of the in-stream contaminants were assumed to be bioavailable.
The assumed fish tissue consumption rates also have an impact on study results. Actual fish tissue
consumption rates vary over time, between individuals, and in different parts of the country. Therefore, in
some cases this evaluation scenario may have underestimated risks, in other cases it may have overestimated
risks. For example, the fish tissue consumption rate of 6.5 g/day is considered by EPA to be an average level
of fish and shellfish consumption in the United states. The 6.5 g/day rate applies to a national average
consumption rate offish and shellfish; however, this rate may not be representative offish consumption rates
for recreational or subsistence fishermen. Therefore, risks estimated based on this consumption rate may,
in some cases, significantly underestimate risk.
Although EPA recommends the use of 7Q10 as a design flow for stressed aquatic systems, use of 7Q10
receiving water flow rates does not necessarily result in the extreme worst-case scenario for aquatic life
32
-------
impacts. 7Q10 is defined as the lowest consecutive seven-day average flow over a ten-year period. However,
it is possible that even brief exposures (I.e., less than seven days) to high concentrations of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF can result in toxic effects to aquatic organisms, and such effects may occur after an appreciable
delay following only brief exposures.
It should also be noted that, if multiple discharges to the same waterbody are present, the actual risk
associated with a waterbody may be substantially greater than estimated in this study. For example, there
are several chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills that discharge to the Columbia River basin. Calculations
in this report assume that each mill discharges to a receiving stream with no background level of contamina-
tion. Therefore, in the case of multiple discharges to a receiving stream, estimating risks from one mill alone
can result in a significant underestimate of risk.
For each of the mills analyzed, the simple dilution exposure assessment method resulted in higher
contaminant concentrations and greater aquatic life impacts and human health risks than did the EXAMS II
water column method. This is because the simple dilution method assumes that all contaminants in the water
column, both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids, are bioavailable. The EXAMS II water column
method, on the other hand, considers only those contaminants in the dissolved phase. In those cases where
the receiving water TSS was relatively low, the simple dilution and EXAMS II water column results are
comparable. However, when suspended solids concentrations were high, the EXAMS II method estimated
risks significantly lower than those predicted by the simple dilution method. Therefore, in those water bodies
with relatively high suspended solids content, the EXAMS II method likely underestimated human health risks
from consumption of contaminated fish tissue, since fish exposure to sediment-absorbed contaminants was
not considered.
Study results indicate that the fish tissue exposure route poses a greater human cancer risk to the
hypothetically exposed individual than does the drinking water exposure route. However, the upper bound
cancer risk estimated from consumption of contaminated fish tissue based on the 6.5 g/day consumption
rate and 5,000 BCF are relatively close to the cancer risk estimates based on ingestion of contaminated
drinking water. It should be pointed out that fish tissue consumption may not pose a greater risk to the entire
population than ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Determining which exposure route poses the
greatest risk to the entire population would require knowledge of the number of persons eating contaminated
fish tissue versus the number of persons who use contaminated surface water as a drinking water source.
Such a population assessment was not conducted for this study.
A comparison of the cancer versus non-cancer risks associated with 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
discharges from pulp and paper mill effluents indicates that more mills would result in potential cancer risks
than would result in non-cancer risks. However, the non-cancer risk may actually be the more sensitive end
point. The cancer risk was estimated for the lifetime of a continuously exposed individual. The non-cancer
risk, on the other hand, was predicted based on the consumption of a single portion of contaminated fish
tissue. More of the population would likely be exposed to a single dose of contaminated fish tissue than to
a lifetime of consuming contaminated fish tissue or drinking water taken from the vicinity of certain mills. In
addition the single dose used to predict the noncancer effects was a relatively modest serving of 115 g (about
1/4 Ib.) which is less than an enthusiastic person might eat at one sitting.
Included in Appendix Q are actual measured fish tissue contamination data from the National Bioac-
cumulation Study (NBS). It should be pointed out that the fish tissue contaminant concentrations measured
in the NBS may not be representative of actual ambient conditions at a given mill. The NBS samples that
were used for this evaluation were taken from sites close to pulp and paper mills using chlorine for bleaching.
However, the sites may have been several miles from the mill, and not immediately downstream. In some
cases the samples were taken several miles upstream of the mills. In addition, the NBS sample analyses were
performed on composites composed of several fish of different sizes (within a given range) from which aliquots
were prepared and analyzed. This sample analysis procedure would tend to "average" contaminant con-
centration values. In addition, finfish will migrate in and out of an area and therefore the fish sampled from
the NBS were not likely to be exposed to a constant level of contamination throughout their lifetime, as was
assumed for the simple dilution and EXAMS II assessments. Some of the fish evaluated in the NBS were
33
-------
bottom-feeding fish which are rarely consumed by humans. Therefore, careful precautions should be taken
before attempting to compare fish tissue contaminant levels found in NBS and those estimated in this study
and used to predict risks.
The prediction of human health risk presented in this study apply to hypothetically exposed individuals
in the immediate vicinity of discharges only, using previously described assumptions. To more completely
assess the potential risks posed by discharges from pulp and paper mills that use chlorine to bleach pulp, it
would be necessary to predict the population exposed to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from these discharges.
Predictions of the population exposed to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in the environment using site specific
effluent and receiving stream characteristics (as were used in this study) were beyond the scope and resources
of this study. One consequence of not conducting a population assessment is uncertainty concerning the
extent of human exposure and total population risks associated with discharges of 2378-TCDD and 2378-
TCDF.
4.2 CONCLUSIONS
Taking into account the above assumptions, simplifications, and limitations, the results of this study
indicate that there is a potential for high levels of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF contamination in the water
column resulting from surface water effluent discharges from many of the chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper
mills investigated. These predicted contaminant concentrations could represent significant implications for
human health and aquatic life. Each of the exposure assessment approaches used in this analysis predict
upper bound risks that should be carefully considered by risk managers while assessing potential impacts
associated with the discharge of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mill
effluents.
34
-------
REFERENCES
Albright, R. 1990. Personal Communciaton. Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region X.
Barnes, D.G., F.W. Kutz, and O.P. Bottimore. 1989. Interim Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated
with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and -Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and
1989 Update, Part II. EPA 625/3-89. Washington, D.C.
Boyer, I.J. 1989. Bioavailability of Ingested 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Related Substances (Draft). Prepared for
EPAs Working Group on the Bioavailability of Dioxins in Paper Products.
Branson, D.R., IT. Takahashi, W.M. Parker, and G.E. Blau. 1985. Bioconcentration kinetics of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in rainbow trout. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.4 (6): 779-788.
Burns, LA., Cline, D.M., and R.R. Lassiter. 1982. Exposure analysis modeling system (EXAMS): User
manual and system documentation. Office of Research and Development. EPA 600/3-82-023. Athens,
GA.
Burns, LA. and D.M. Cline. 1985. Exposure analysis modeling system (EXAMS): Reference Manual for
EXAMS II. Office of Research and Development, Athens, GA.
Cook, P.M. 1990. Memorandum to Alison P. Greene of EPA Water Quality Analysis Branch from Philip M.
Cook of EPA Duluth Laboratory, Duluth, MN, August 9,1990
Davis, Sterling. 1989. Personal Communication. California Regional Water Board No. 5.
Derose, Jane. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region V.
Fisher, Carla. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Engineer, US EPA Region X.
Greenburg, Ken. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region IX.
Greenfield, J. 1990. Environmental Scientist, Reigon IV.
Hall, Douglas. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, Minnesota Pollution Control
Board.
Hangarden, John. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region IX.
Harrigan, P. and A. Battin. 1989. Training Materials for GEMS and PCGEMS: Estimating Chemical Con-
centrations in Surface Waters. Washington, D.C.
Henry, Timothy. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region V.
Hyatt, Marshall. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region IV.
Keefler, Janet. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Scientist, US EPA Region IX.
Kociba, R.J., Keyes, D.G., Beyer, J.E., Carreon, R.M., Wade, C.E., Dittenber, D.A., Kalinas, R.P., Frauson,
LE., Park, C.N., Barnard, S.D., Hummel, R.A., and Humiston, C.G. 1978. Results of a two-year chronic
toxicity and oncogenicity study of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
46:279-303.
Lee, C.C. 1989. Human Health Hazard Assessment of Dioxins/Furans. Memorandum. U.S. EPA, OTS.
October 13,1989.
35
-------
Loster, Jon. 1989. Personal Communication. Chief of Planning, US EPA Region III.
Menzardo, Al. 1989. Personal Communication. Chief of Permits, US EPA Region V.
Merhle, P.M., D.R. Buckler, E.E. Little, LM. Smith, J.D. Petty, P.H. Peterson, D.L Stalling. G.M. DeGaeve,
J. J. Goyle, and W.L Adams. 1988. Toxicity and bioconcentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran in rainbow trout. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 7(1):47-62.
Nabholz, J.V. Unpublished (1989). Bioconcentration Factors for 2,3,7,8 - Chlorinated Dibenzodioxin and
2,3,7,8 - Chlorinated Dibenzofurans. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
MAS (National Academy of Sciences) 1977. Drinking Water and Health. NRC Press, Washington, D.C.
NIP (National Toxicology Program). 1982a. Carcinogenesis bioassay of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-
dioxin in Osbome-Mendel Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Gavage Study). NTP Technical Report Series No. 209.
Research Triangle Park, NC.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 1982b. Carcinogenesis bioassay of 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-
dioxin in Swiss-Webster Mice (Dermal Study). NTP Technical Report Series No. 201. Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Tingperg, Keith. 1989. Personal Communication. Staff Engineer, US EPA Region II.
U.S. EPA. 1980. Water Quality Criteria Documents. Fed. Reg. 45:79318-79379. November 28.
U.S. EPA. 1982. Revised Section 301 (h) Technical Support Document. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Program Operations. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Health Assessment Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins. Office of Health
and Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/8-84/014F. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. Fed. Reg. 51:33992-34003.
U.S. EPA. 1988a. Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. EPA 440-1-88-025. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1988b. Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Office of Remedial Response. EPA 540/1 -88-
001. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Exposure Factors Handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
EPA/600/8-89/043. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1989b. Aquatic Life Hazard Assessment (Including BCF Values) for Dioxins in Paper (Draft). Of-
fice of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1989c. National Bioaccumulation Study (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1990. Tracking Report on State Water Quality Criteria for Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD), May 22,1990.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, D.C.
Weeks, Craig. 1989. Personal Communication. Environmental Engineer, US EPA Region VI.
36
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A.
EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF ESTIMATION METHOD
A.1 REQUIREMENTS OF TECHNICAL APPROACH
Although it is desireable to obtain maximum accuracy in exposure/risk assessments, a practical balance
must be found between the difficulty of the analysis and the accuracy of its predictive estimates. In order to
develop estimates of contaminant exposures and risks associated with 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF dischar-
ges at the 104 pulp and paper mills under consideration, a technically sound, yet feasible, method of estimation
was required. This section discusses factors which were critical to the methods development/selection
process. Critical factors considered were: 1) analysis of in-stream chemical transformation processes, 2)
applicability of calculation methods, 3) assessment of the availability of environmental data, and 4) appraisal
of model sensitivity.
A.1.1 Analysis Of In-Stream Chemical Transformations
The physical and chemical properties of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF that influence their fate in natural
waters were investigated. These properties are summarized in Table A.1, and discussed below.
A. 1.1.1 Physical/Chemical Properties of 2378-TCDD
At 20°C, pure 2378-TCDD is a white crystalline solid with a density of 1.827 g/ml. In water, 2378-TCDD
solubility (S) is between 0.0193 figfl (at 22°C) and 0.317^g// (at 25°C). The octanol-water partition coefficient
is large (log Kow = 6.15-7.28) as expected, due to low water solubility.
Because of the high Kow, 2378-TCDD discharged to surface waters is expected to adsorb to suspended
and bedded sediments and also to bioconcentrate in fish. For example, a typical river might contain 50 mg/l
suspended solids (TSS) with 1 percent organic carbon (foe). In such a river, the partition coefficient, Kp, for
2378-TCDD is:
Kp = 0.63 foe Kow
= (0.63)(0.01)(107) = 63,000
where an octanol-water partition coefficient of 107 has been used for the calculations. The fraction of
2378-TCDD in the dissolved state can be calculated as follows:
C 1
°t 1+KpX TSS x10"6
_ 1
1 + (63,000) (50) 10~6
= 0.24
Consequently, most of the 2378-TCDD discharged to the river will be adsorbed to suspended and benthic
sediments.
A second process that could influence the fate of 2378-TCDD is volatilization. A reliable indicator of the
importance of volatilization is Henry's Law Constant, which for 2378-TCDD is 2.1 x 10"6 atm • m3 /mol at 25°C.
This is a relatively small value, and indicates that 2378-TCDD volatilizes very slowly.
A-l
-------
Table A. 1
Chemical/Physical Property Values
For2378-TCDD:
Parameter
Molecular Weight (MWT)
Vapor Pressure - Torr (VAPR)
Henry's Law Constant (HENRY)
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (KOW)
Partition Coefficient - Org. Carbon (KOC)
Solubility - mg/L (SOL)
Partition Coefficient - Biomass (KPB)
Value
3.22E + 02
7.40E-10
2.10E-06
5.01E + 06
1.80E + 07
1.93E-05
5.20E + 05
For2378-TCDF:
Parameter
Value
Molecular Weight (MWT)
Vapor Pressure - Torr (VAPR)
Henry's Law Constant (HENRY)
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (KOW)
Partition Coefficient - Org. Carbon (KOC)
Solubility - mg/L (SOL)
Partition Coefficient - Biomass (KPB)
3.06E + 02
9.21 E-07
1.80E-02
6.60E + 05
4.10E + 05
2.00E-05
8.28E + 04
A-2
-------
Although little information is available for other fate processes (hydrolysis, photolysis, and biotransfor-
mation), available data indicate that otherfate processes are not significant. Therefore, dilution and adsorption
to sediments are likely to be the primary processes which control the fate of 2378-TCDD in surface waters.
Processes such as resuspention of sediments due to bottom turbulence or desorption of contaminants from
particles may result in contaminants reentering the water column. However, the rates at which these
processes occur and their significance to the overall fate of these contaminants is not certain. These
processes are probably highly site-specific and intermittent, depending upon the physical and chemical
characteristics of the receiving water. In this investigation, we have assumed steady-state conditions at which
there is no net loss or gain of sediment or dioxin between the water column and benthic sediments.
A. 1.1. 2 Physical/Chemical Properties of 2378-TCDF
At 25°C, 2378-TCDF is a also a white crystalline solid. The octanol-water partition, like 2378-TCDD, is
large (log Kow = 5.82). Because of the high Kow, 2378-TCDF discharged to surface waters is expected to
adsorb to suspended and bedded sediments and also to bioconcentrate in fish.
Due to the tendency of both 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF to adsorb to sediment, it is necessary to calculate
the partitioning of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF between the dissolved and solid phases in the receiving waters.
This requires determination of suspended solids concentrations in the receiving streams.
A. 1.2 Applicability of Calculation Methods
Assessing both human health and aquatic life risks requires the initial determination of an estimated
in-stream contaminant concentration. Once these concentrations have been calculated for the appropriate
receiving water flow conditions, in the case of aquatic life risk determinations, subsequent comparisons
against the OTS Hazard Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1989b) chronic guidelines for water quality are made. For
human risks associated with exposure from fish and drinking water ingestions, dose and risk are calculated
from in-stream contamination concentrations by employing a series of standard bioconcentration factors,
bioavailability factors, and ingestion rates. This multiple exposure/risk approach allows for an analysis of the
sensitivity of risk levels.
Two calculation methods for estimating highest worst-case in-stream contaminant concentrations were
considered, a simple dilution calculation and a method using EXAMS II. A brief discussion of each follows.
A. 1.2.1 Calculating Simple Dilution
The following simple dilution equation provides an estimate of the concentration of a contaminant
downstream from a point source release into a flowing water body, after dilution of the substance by the
receiving water (EPA, 1988b):
-o
where,
C = concentration of substance in stream (mass/volume),
Ce = concentration of substance in effluent (mass/volume),
Qe = effluent flow rate (volumeAime), and
Qt = combined effluent and stream flow rate (volume/time).*
* assumes wastewater was not originally drawn from the receiving stream
Although this calculation is easily executed and provides a quantitative estimate of in-stream contaminant
concentration which is limited in precision only by the precision of the input parameters, this calculation
provides only the total in-stream contaminant concentration attributable to the point source. It does not
provide a distribution of the contaminant between the dissolved and adsorbed states or the downstream
pollutant concentration gradient. This exposure estimation assumes all the 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
dissolved in the water column and adsorbed to suspended solids are bioavailable.
A-3
-------
A. 1.2.2 EXAMS II Modeling
The Exposure Assessment Modeling System (EXAMS II) is a state-of-the-art surface water contaminant
modeling system which can compute:
1) "Exposure: the expected... environmental concentrations due to a user-specified pattern of
chemical loadings,
2) Fate: the distribution of the chemical in the system and the relative dominance of each transport
and transformation process, and
3) Persistence: the time required for effective purification of the system... once the chemical load-
ings terminate." (Burns and Cline, 1985)
This system is accessible through OTS's Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS) and can take
advantage of a resident set of environmental data called the Canonical Environment Data Base (CEDB).
Once input parameters describing the environment (temperature, compartment geometry, receiving
water flow, solids, organic carbon fraction, etc.), the chemical contaminant characteristics (molecular weight,
vapor pressure, Henry's Law constant, Kow, Koc, solubility, etc.), and the loadings are entered, the model
produces a report detailing the three sets of computations described immediately above.
Although this model is powerful and fulfills the requirements imposed by the need for estimates of
dissolved contaminant concentration, it requires significant effort to develop and enter environmental data
into the system. This can be addressed in part by making the CEDB available through GEMS. In GEMS, the
user can identify the stream segment for which environment data are desired by entering the unique reach
number for a particular stream segment. GEMS will access the CEDB, attempt to locate the appropriate
environment, and, if successful, will prepare an environment data file which can be automatically loaded into
EXAMS II. When CEDB data are not available for a stream environment, environmental data can be obtained
through other data sources, such as STORET. This data must be entered directly to EXAMS II, it can not be
automatically loaded.
Because EXAMS II best meets the requirements of this assessment and because it "is recommended for
use over most other models" for surface water fate analysis (EPA, 1988b), EXAMS II was selected for estimating
in-stream contaminant concentrations.
A. 1.3 Assessing the Availability of Environmental Data
As discussed briefly above, in order to properly operate EXAMS II for this assessment, basic physi-
cal/chemical properties of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF, as well as mill-specific contaminant loadings and
descriptive environmental data must be entered. To determine the simplifying assumptions appropriate for
this exposure assessment, a multi-phase approach to assessing data availability was undertaken.
A. 1.3.1 Determining CEDB Data Quality and Availability
Initially, an inventory of the CEDB was conducted to determine if environmental data for each of the 79
mills known to discharge into free-flowing streams were available and reliable. Of the 28 sites for which data
sets were available, significant gaps in each data set were observed. The available environmental data (in
addition to arithmetic mean flow values) consist primarily of physical compartment geometry data, seepage
flow, suspended sediment concentrations, and bulk density of benthic sediments. In most cases, the majority
of the other parameters used by the EXAMS II model were not available for these 28 sites.
Because CEDB data were incomplete for the purpose of this study and because of specific requirements
for exposure analyses for harmonic mean flow conditions for human health exposure estimates, the CEDB
was not considered further as a source of environmental data for the purposes of this assessment.
-------
A. 1.3.2 Determining Data Availability Through REACH, STORET, and GAGE
A thorough interrogation of STORET data bases (indexed by reach numbers from the Reach File)
indicated the availability of flow (from GAGE stations), total suspended solids, pH, and water temperature
data for most of the mill sites.
STORET is a water quality data base maintained by EPA's Office of Water. It provides access to water
quality sampling data from monitoring stations around the country. The GAGE System is maintained by the
U. S. Geological Survey and provides stream flow gage station numbers and their locations (by reach, river,
state, and region). It can provide continuous flow data from each gage station and can calculate average
and 7010 flow conditions. The GAGE System can also be accessed through STORET. The REACH File
presents an index for all river and stream reach segments. Each reach segment is given a unique identification
number which can be used to access other reach-specific water quality data through STORET.
Of the 104 mills under consideration, 98 had available reach identification numbers by which data of
interest could be extracted. Of these, 79 discharge to free flowing streams, 19 discharge to other waters or
reach types (e.g., lakes, coastline, wide river shoreline). Reach characteristics are displayed in Table A.2.
This information is provided in more detail in Appendix L
Table A.2. Reach Types for 104 Pulp and Paper Mill sites
Total number of mills: 104
Mills not identified by Reach No. 6*
Mills identified by Reach No. 98
Mills discharging to free- flowing streams: 79
Regular reaches (R) 63
Source reaches (S) 8
Terminal reaches (T) 6
Source & terminal reaches (X) 2
Mills discharging to non free- flowing streams: 19
Lakes (L) 4
Open water reach (M) 1
Coastline (C) 8
Great Lakes (G) 1
Wide river shoreline (W) 5
*NOTE: Two of these mills are in Alaska, which has not been indexed in the Reach File. Informa-
tion about four of the mills was vague; Reach Nos., if any, were not available for this as-
sessment.
For each of the 79 mills discharging to free-flowing streams, nearby stream gages and monitoring stations
were identified via STORET. For each of these mills, the nearest streamgage with a relatively long recent
record (generally greater than 15 years) for which there is information available in the STORET flow file, was
selected and manually plotted on a reach map. In a few cases, two gages were selected if the gages bracketed
the mill or if they represented two upstream branches. Out of the 79 mills, 57 are gaged based on this analysis
and 22 are not gaged. Several of the ungaged streams are major rivers such as the Ohio River, Mississippi
River, Susquehanna River for which there is adequate gaging information at other locations. For those pulp
and paper mills not discharging to free flowing streams and some mills discharging to free flowing streams
A-5
-------
for which gaging information is not avaiaible, contaminant concentrations were based on dilution factors for
these water bodies (provided by EPA Regional Offices).
For the 79 mills discharging to free-flowing streams, both an INDEX run and an INVENTory run were
conducted on STORET. This identified monitoring stations (and gages and dischargers) on a flow path from
the mills. Based on this information, a schematic (stick diagram) of the streams 5 miles downstream to 10
miles upstream of each mill was prepared. Dischargers and monitoring stations were identified on the
schematic. (See Appendix M for an example of this information for one mill). For monitoring stations, the
schematic indicates whether sample information was available for temperature (T), pH (P), and solids (S).
Each mill was classified as follows:
0 = no quality data available (8 mills)
1 = only downstream data available (within 5 miles) (9 mills)
2 = upstream data available for 1 or 2 of the parameters (11 mills)
3 = upstream data available (within 10 miles) for S (51 mills)
Mill-specific information availability for mills discharging to free flowing streams is provided in more detail
in Appendix N.
Based on the findings of the data survey described above, it was concluded that sufficient data were
available to create EXAMS II environmental files for the 79 mills located on free-flowing streams or rivers.
Because EXAMS II requires stream flow data as input to calculate in-stream contaminant concentrations,
and because flows for open water bodies are not available, it was necessary to back-calculate "surrogate"
water body flows for direct dischargers to open water bodies based on known plant flows, and the dilution
factors for the mills. The following calculation was used to determine surrogate water body flows for direct
open water discharges:
Fo = (D * Fp) - Fp
where,
Fo = surrogate open water body flow
Fp = mill plant flow
D = dilution factor
The resulting estimated flow values were then used as input forthe EXAMS II assessments. This procedure
allowed the use of EXAMS II to estimate partitioning of the contaminant between dissolved and solid forms
in open water discharge cases. This procedure was also used to estimate flow values for some free flowing
streams for which no gaging information was available.
A. 1.4 Appraising Model Sensitivity
In order to determine the environmental data parameter variations to which the EXAMS II model was
sensitive - under steady state conditions and given known 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF physical/chemical
properties - standard boilerplate environment and loading files were created. Environmental data parameters
were varied individually over wide ranges. Resulting in-stream concentration variations were noted, if any.
As expected, due to 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF affinity for adsorption to solids, dramatic variations in
effluent and receiving water suspended solids levels produced dramatic variations in resulting calculated
in-stream and benthic solids contaminant concentrations. Because variations of these parameters affected
calculated contaminant concentrations and because these data were readily available through STORET, it
was determined that mill-specific values of suspended solids for each of the 79 mills discharging to free-flowing
streams would be obtained and supplied to the EXAMS II model. For discharges to open water bodies, a
default suspended sediment value of 10 mg/l was used and supplied to the EXAMS II model.
In-stream contaminant concentrations (at steady-state) were not, however, significantly affected by
variations in stream temperature and compartment size. Default values for stream temperature and compart-
A-6
-------
ment geometry were used for all sites. Remaining environmental parameters (e.g., meteorological conditions,
and others) were not considered to be important to the estimation of in-stream contaminant concentrations.
Concentrations for each mill were calculated using default values for these parameters.
Appendix C presents a list of environmental and effluent parameter values used for each site, including
default values.
A-7
-------
A-8
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA SOURCES
B.1 EFFLUENT DATA
Effluent sampling results for each of the 104 pulp and paper mills were provided by the joint EPA/paper
industry 104-mill study. Continuous loading values (mass/time) for each effluent sample were determined by
multiplying the concentration of the contaminant (mass/vol) by the effluent flow rate (vol/time). Plant flow
data were also supplied by the 104-mill study. For some mills, effluent flow data provided by the EPA Regions
and the States were used which did not agree with the flow data provided by the 104-mill study.
Effluent sampling data and plant flow data are included in Appendix C. For those samples in which effluent
contaminant concentrations were below the detection limit of the analytical instrument (indicated as "ND" in
Appendix C), the value used in the exposure assessment is 1/2 the detection limit. For those samples for
which contaminant concentrations in the effluent were not quantified by the analytical lab, the value reported
is annotated with an "NQ." No loadings, concentrations, or risks were estimated based on "NQ" samples.
B.2 RECEIVING WATER STREAM FLOW DATA AND ADJUSTMENTS
B.2.1 Low Flows for Aquatic Life Effects
For the calculation of the chronic exposure levels for aquatic life, in-stream dissolved contaminant
concentration were calculated using the hydrologically-based 7010 low flow for all mills on streams or rivers.
B.2.2. Harmonic Mean Flows For Human Health Effects
For each of the 79 mills discharging to free-flowing streams, in-stream contaminant concentrations were
calculated using the harmonic mean flow for the receiving water. These concentrations were used to calculate
human exposures to the contaminants. The harmonic mean flow is defined as the reciprocal of the mean
value of the reciprocal of individual values.
Harmonic mean flow values were obtained/calculated in the following manner.
Identify a stream gage representative of the flow in the receiving stream.
Access the daily flow values for the period of record from the STORET/GAGE daily flow file.
Adjust the daily flow values to reflect likely differences in flow, if any, between the gage site and
the mill.
Compute the harmonic mean using SAS.
Examine the results and adjust the HMF value, if necessary.
A description of the specific methodology which was used follows. For each mill, a stream gage was
selected from the STORET/GAGE daily flow file. The criteria used in selecting a gage were: locational
relationship of the gage and the mill, and length of the record. Generally, the gage with a sufficiently long
record (usually 15 years) that was located closest (coincidental drainage area) to the mill was selected. In
most cases, the reach location (reach and milepoint) for gages were known from inspection of the IFD file.
This is referred to as Method 1 in the output results (Appendix P). For other gages, the latitude/longitude
values available in the STORET/GAGE daily flow file were used to determine the gage location on maps. This
is referred to as Method 2. For a few mills, there were no gages located on a direct flow path to the mill. In
these cases, a nearby gage (usually in the same hydrologic catalog unit) with similar size drainage area was
identified and used. This is referred to as Method 3. Finally, for three mills, the available reach plot did not
provide a clear description of the receiving stream. For these cases (Method 4), no estimates of the stream
flows were made, since site-specific stream configurations were needed to understand the flow regime.
B-l
-------
Since, in almost all cases, the gage is not located at the mill site, adjustments in the gage information
were required. These adjustments were made based on drainage area ratios and discharges at the mill. Either
of two separate gaging scenarios were identified (see Figure B.1): a) the gage was located upstream of the
mill; or b) the gage was located downstream of the mill. In either case, a "drainage area factor" was calculated
as follows:
DRAINAGE AREA FACTOR = drainage area at mill/drainage area at gage
Drainage area values were available from the STORET daily flow file for gages. Drainage areas for mills
were estimated by scaling off areas from the reach maps. If the drainage area factor was greater than 1.05
or less than 0.95, then the individual daily flow values were multiplied by this factor prior to calculating the
harmonic mean. If the factor was between 0.95 and 1.05, then it was assumed that the gage was sufficiently
representative of the flow at the mill such that no adjustment was needed.
The second potential adjustment applied to those cases where the gage was located upstream of the mill
and the discharge from the mill was of sufficient magnitude that it would affect the flow in the stream. If the
mill discharge exceeded 5% of the average streamflow at the mill (based on the mean flow value available
from the REACH File), then the mill discharge flow was added to the area-adjusted stream flow values prior
to calculating the harmonic mean. For the few cases where a non-connected nearby gage was used (Method
3), the mill discharge was added to the area-adjusted flow values.
Following the calculation of the harmonic mean, the results were examined for unreasonably large
differences between the harmonic mean and arithmetic mean. This would generally be caused by a significant
number of very low stream flow values in the historical record. For those cases where there was a significant
difference, the actual stream flow records were examined to determine whether the flows appeared to be
reasonable or contain data errors. If there were obvious data errors (either zero flows inter-mixed in larger
flows or very high flows), then these data points were eliminated prior to recalculating the harmonic mean.
True high flows from episodic events, such as heavy rains and floods, were retained. Additionally, if the
harmonic mean was significantly less than the arithmetic mean and the gage was upstream of the mill, then
the "5% rule" was reapplied to determine whether the mill discharge should be added to the streamflow values
prior to recalculating the harmonic mean.
The results of the harmonic mean calculations are presented in Appendix P for the 79 mills on free flowing
streams plus four mills located on the Columbia River (which is identified in the Reach File as a wide river, but
for which good stream flow information is available). For the three gages for which estimates were not made,
detailed diagrams of the discharge location and stream configuration are needed. In each of these cases,
the Reach File maps showed "loops" in the stream (i.e., the stream bifurcated near the mill) or other anomalous
situations. It should be noted that some changes in the flow rates used in the assessment were made based
on comments received from the EPA Regions.
B.3 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA AND ADJUSTMENTS
Due to the significant tendency of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF to adsorb to sediment, it is necessary to
calculate the partitioning of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF between the dissolved and solid phases in the
receiving waters. This requires site-specific data for suspended solids concentrations in the receiving streams.
For each of the mills, an estimate of the total solids in the receiving stream (immediately upstream of the
discharge point) was required. Ideally, this estimate should correspond to a flow value approximating the
harmonic mean flow. Suspended solids concentrations are estimated based on historical values from a single
monitoring station upstream of and in the vicinity of the mill. A two-step search was conducted: 1) stations
within 10 miles upstream, on the same hydrologic stream level, and designated as "ON" the reach in STORET,
and 2) if that did not detect a usable station, then a larger search (usually 25 miles but sometimes 50-100
miles for large rivers) with no restriction concerning the ON-OFF code. A station was selected based on
closeness to mill, length of record and vintage of data. The station description was checked manually to
ensure that the station was actually on the same mainstem as the mill. The results of this analysis are presented
in Appendix 0.
B-2
-------
An adjustment ratio was used in developing the final estimated suspended solids content to ensure that
the predicted total solids in the receiving stream corresponded to a flow value approximating harmonic mean
flow. The ratio is the harmonic mean flow (at the selected stream gage) divided by the arithmetic mean flow,
and the adjusted suspended solids is this ratio multiplied by the mean suspended solids. This calculation
assumes that suspended solids are linearly related to flow and that as flow goes to zero so does suspended
solids. Results are presented in Appendix O for 62 mills (out of the 79 discharging to free flowing streams
and 4 discharging to the Columbia River). For the remaining mills, no monitoring stations were found. For
some of the stations used in the analysis, very few observations were available. Some TSS values were also
provided by the EPA Regions.
B-3
-------
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
NPOES
NUMBER
SAMPLE ID COMPANY
CITT
Region 1
NE0001B72
ME0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
ME00020S4
ME0002321
ME0021521
ME0021521
NH0000655
NH0000655
Region II
NY0004413
NY0004413
NY0005525
Region III
MD0021687
HD0021687
PA0002143
PA0002143
PA0008265
PA0008869
PA0008885
PA0026301
PA0026301
VA0003115
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0004162
Region IV
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL000275S
AL0002755
AL0002780
AL0002801
AL0002828
AL0003018
AL0003158
M17EC
RG1 -86388
M11EC
MSEC
M82EC
M30EC
M61EC
M61EC1
BM89EC
M89EC
M9EC
M9EC1
M41EC
M62EC
M62EC
H57EAC
M57EBC
M13EDO
M64EC20
H42EC
M103ECX
M103ECX
M74EC140
BM28EC
H28EC
M28EC1
M28EC2
UCF1000
M40EC
M67EC
M65EC
M65EC1
M71EC
M26EC210
M101EC
M88EC
M36EC
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch ( Pruyn ( Co., Inc.
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Perm tech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Procter I Gamble Co.
International Paper" fn
International Paper" fn
Chesapeake Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Uestbrook
Hinckley
Hinckley
Berlin
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Tlconderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johns onburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
Uest Point
Covington
Covington
Covington
Covington
Franklin
Court I and
Brewton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
Demo polls
Selma
Coosa Pines
Table C.I
Ran Input Data
GR9 HARMONIC 7010 TSS ADJ TSS PLANT TCOD TCOO
ID1 MEAN LOU IN MILL IN RECG FLOU CONC. NON-
FLOU FLOW EFFLUENT WATERS (mgd) (ppq) DEI;
(nr/hr.) <«r/hr.) (mg/l) (HARM ECI°
MEAN 01
TCOD TCDF TCDF
LOAD CONC. NON-
(kg/hr) (ppq) DET;
ECT5
TCDF
LOAD
(kg/hr)
(mg/ir
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
2A
30
4H
4L
3B
1
3B
3B
3B
2CH
2CL
1
3B
1
3B
1
1
2A
3C
1
1
184716
321317
578819
8S6709
2916S2
52092
474839
474839
213871
213871
39755
39755
264434
29665
29665
39363
39363
9888
6422
358525
EZ
EZ
41082
31091
31091
31091
31091
35159
4325625
100921
825107
825107
1704447
1704447
517043
1496080
640595
46505
159313
272426
336516
145469
19420
165969
165969
90931
90931
39755
39755
49248
4057
4057
8154
8154
1239
2039
55293
Z
Z
6432
9072
9072
9072
9072
4373
4325625
17330
160149
160149
714706
714706
91747
532364
182606
248.9
396.9
102.5
127.1
399.0
144.5
224.7
224.7
302.0
302.0
128.6
128.6
166.7
232.4
232.4
68.3
20.2
26.4
54.7
94.4
353.9
353.9
470.6
164.4
164.4
164.4
164.4
439.2
120.4
73.8
66.3
66.3
405.2
402.2
281.7
316.6
257.4
1.7
4.7
1.7
1.7
5.4
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.0
4.0
10.0
10.0
4.0
12.7
12.7
16.8
16.8
16.9
27.0
6.4
10.0
10.0
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.2
0.3
10.0
5.9
10.2
10.2
12.5
12.5
9.7
18.2
18.2
23
40
10.47
16
28.8
19
24.9
24.9
17.4
17.4
14.8
14.8
14.9
19.78
19.78
4.8
6.23
4.5
12.6
2.4
14.2
14.2
14.9
26.48
26.48
26.48
26.48
125.2
59
35.7
19.5
19.5
29.7
69
27
27
43.8
6.8
88
32
39
120
6.3
16
19
17
59
18
24
7.9 ND
16
16
6.8 NO
9.7
11 ND
8.4 NO
9.7 ND
24
24
16
7.2 ND
180
18 NO
12
68
77
6.5
95
120
100
14
38
81
35
2.5E-08
5.6E-07
5.3E-08
9.BE-08
5.5E-07
1.9E-08
6.3E-08
7.5E-08
4.7E-08
1.6E-07
4.2E-08
5.6E-08
1.9E-08
5.0E-08
5.0E-08
5.1E-09
9.5E-09
7.8E-09
1.7E-08
3.7E-09
5.4E-08
5.4E-08
3.8E-08
3.0E-08
7.5E-07
7.5E-08
5.0E-08
1.3E-06
7.2E-07
3.7E-08
2.9E-07
3.7E-07
4.7E-07
1.5E-07
1.6E-07
3.4E-07
2.4E-07
25
420
130
130
570
12
63
100
61
1200
150
160
2.9 ND
49
49
14
65
18
26
2.8
68
68
96
16
520
173
132
71
340
10 ND
540
630
850
19
110
310
74
9. IE-OS
2.6E-06
2.1E-07
3.3E-07
2.6E-06
3.6E-08
2.5E-07
3.9E-07
1.7E-07
3.3E-06
3.5E-07
3.7E-07
6.8E-09
1.5E-07
1.5E-07
1. IE-OS
6.4E-08
1.3E-08
5.2E-08
1.1E-09
1.5E-07
1.5E-07
2.3E-07
6.7E-08
2.2E-06
7.2E-07
5.5E-07
1.4E-06
3.2E-06
S.6E-08
1.7E-06
1.9E-06
4.0E-06
2.1E-07
4.7E-07
1.3E-06
5.1E-07
-------
Table C.I (continued)
NPOES SAMPLE ID COMPANY
NUMBER
CITY
GRP HARMONIC 7010 TSS ADJ TSS PLANT TOO TCDD
ID1 MEAN LOU IN MILL IN RECG FLOU CONC. NON-
FLQU FLOW EFFLUENT WATERS (mgd) (ppq) DETi
(«r/hr.) (iiT/hr.) (mg/l) (HARM ECT3
MEAN 01
TCDD TCDF TCOF
LOAD CONC. NON-
(kg/hr) (ppq) DET;
ECT3
TCDF
LOAD
(kg/hr)
(rng/l)'
AL0003301 M96EC
AL0025968 M21EC
AL0025968 M21EC1
AL0025968 H21EC2
FL0000701 M90EC
FL0000876 M91ECO
FL0002526 CP1000
FL0002631 H102EAC
FL0002631 M102EAC
FL0002631 M102EBC
FL0002631 H102EBC
FL0002763 M24EC
FL0020206 M94EC1
FL0020206 M94EC1
GA00019S3 M55EC
GA0002801 M83EC
GA0003620 M84EAC
GA0003620 M84EBC
GA00036S4 H87EC
GA00036S4 M87EC1
GA0049336 M22EC10
KY0000086 M78EC
KY0001716 M63EC
MS0000213 M97EC
HS0002674 H34EC
HS0002674 N34EC
HS0031704 BH35SEC30
MS0031704 M35SEC30
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Oilman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Uestvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Leaf River Forest Products
NC0000272 M47G100-500Champion International
NC0000680 M86ECO
NC0003191 M6EC
NC0003298 M16EC
SC0000868 H70EC
SC0000868 M70EC1
SC0001015 M23EC
SC0038121 H93EC
TN0001643 M73EC
TN00023S6 H75EC
Region V
MI 0000027 ML802
MI0027391 H92EC
MI0027391 H92EC
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bouater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Mead Corporation
Bouater Corp.
Mead Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Butler
Claiborne
Claiborne
Claiborne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wickliffe
Hawesville
Natchez
Moss Point
Moss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Rlegelwood
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catewba
Eastover
Kingsport
Calhoun
Escenaba
Muskegon
Muskegon
1
1
1
1
2A
1
3B
2CH
ZCL
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
2B
1
1
1
2A
2A
3B
1
3D
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
2A
2A
1
1
1
30
3B
4H
4L
517043
1524522
1524522
1524522
136266
336
3058
166461 .
166461
166461
166461
4092
15291
15291
101125
655682
711545
711545
172545
172545
213056
32129740
5729164
40717114
24460
24460
162086
162086
29767
55461
122329
232119
4424
4424
289409
394510
152911
224269
58004
153624
153624
91747
514494
514494
514494
136266
102
255
166461
166461
166461
166461
4092
7646
7646
101125
448539
218051
218051
172545
172545
68606
10194060
1190666
13558100
24460
24460
62999
62999
6065
55461
24466
64630
4424
4424
90727
99494
51378
62286
17493
71797
71797
118.4
395.8
395.8
395.8
361.2
337.9
86.6
479.6
479.6
479.6
479.6
61.4
0.0
0.0
328.3
311.8
409.6
409.6
559.1
559.1
39.2
66.8
189.9
486.8
173.0
173.0
71.1
71.1
197.7
140.4
74.1
240.8
423.2
423.2
398.8
7.9
191.8
193.2
132.8
3468.6
3468.6
11.2
12.2
12.2
12.2
10.0
1.9
4.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
1.7
10.0
10.0
8.4
8.4
8.4
8.4
10.0
10.0
8.4
128.6
50.4
221.9
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.7
3.3
7.7
4.4
6.5
15.4
15.4
5.1
15.4
5.6
5.2
4.4
5.1
5.1
39
22.4
22.4
22.4
17.6
55.23
21
21.5
21.5
21. 5
21.5
37
35
35
40
30
59.7
59.7
52
52
10
22.4
12
38
17.2
17.2
17.5
17.5
44
39
23.9
28
25
25
33.6
8.9
9.7
35
35
15.2
15.2
23
41
40
46
7
27
11 ND
8.4 ND
8.4 ND
6.9
6.9
16
21
21
6.5 ND
16
24
23
30
30
12 ND
35
11 ND
38
160
160
79
200
15
320
44
28
640
490
24
20
6
6.8 ND
17 ND
8.4 ND
8.4 ND
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
1.4E-07
1.6E-07
1.9E-08
2.4E-07
3.6E-08
2.8E-08
2.8E-08
2.3E-08
2.3E-08
9.3E-08
1.2E-07
1.2E-07
4. IE-OS
7.6E-08
2.3E-07
2.2E-07
2.5E-07
2.5E-07
1.9E-08
1.2E-07
2. IE-OS
2.3E-07
4.3E-07
4.3E-07
2.2E-07
5.5E-07
1.0E-07
2.0E-06
1.7E-07
1.2E-07
2.8E-06
2.2E-06
1.3E-07
2.8E-08
9.2E-09
3.8E-08
9.4E-08
2.0E-08
2.0E-08
72
250
250
210
35
80
38
7.9
7.9
18
18
38
60
60
17
47
4.2
16
68
50
26
150
8 ND
220
920
920
100
410
7.2
4000
180
61
1600
1500
42
53
44
5.5 ND
50.8
42
42
4.4E-07
8.8E-07
8.8E-07
7.4E-07
9.7E-08
7.0E-07
1.3E-07
2.7E-08
2.7E-08
6.1E-08
6.1E-08
2.2E-07
3.3E-07
3.3E-07
1.1E-07
2.2E-07
4.0E-08
1.5E-07
5.6E-07
4.1E-07
4.1E-08
5.3E-07
1.5E-08
1.3E-06
2.5E-06
2.5E-06
2.8E-07
1.1E-06
S.OE-08
2.5E-05
6.8E-07
2.7E-07
7.1E-06
6.6E-06
2.2E-07
7.4E-08
6.7E-08
3.0E-08
2. BE -07
1.0E-07
1.0E-07
-------
Table C.I (continued)
NPDES
NUMBER
SAMPLE ID
COMPANY
CITY
GRP HARMONIC 7Q10 TSS ADJ TSS PLANT TCOD TCOD
ID1 MEAN LOW IN MILL IN RECG FLOW CONC. NON-
FLOU FLOW EFFLUENT WATERS (mgd) (ppq) DET-
(m/hr.) (mVhr.) (mg/l) (HARM ECT*
MEAN 01
TCOD TCOF TCOF
LOAD CONC. NON-
(kg/hr) (ppq) 011-
Ecr
TCOF
LOAD
(kg/hr)
(mg/l)'
HI 0042 170
yu> .__«-_
MN0001643
OH0004481
UI 0000663
Wl 0000663
UI0001Z61
Wl 000321 2
U 10003379
U 10003379
U10003620
WI0020991
UI0020991
WI0026042
Wl 0030651
WI0030651
WI00306S1
WI00306S1
UI 0037991
legion VI
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR003S823
AR0035823
LA0003468
U0005258
U0005258
LA0007S61
IA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0006041
TXOOS3023
Q14E
yxocpo
noociAi
M38ECO
DE020922
DE026013
M46EBC
N46EBCX
H72EAC
H2SEC
MS4EC
MS4ECX
M77EC
H72EBC
M72EBC
H29EC
M46EAC
M46EAC
H46EACX
H46EACX
21
H68EC
M51EC
M20EC
H18EC
N18EC
MS2EC
H1EC
H1ECX
H8SEC
HS8EC
H99EC
M99EC1
OF024S12
H3EC
H2EC
H2EC
H2EC
H1SEC
Champion International
Potlatch Corp*
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Mead Corp.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills. Inc.
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Uausau Paper Mills Co. 1
Uausau Paper Mill* Co. 2
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Ouimesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International Falls
Chilli co the
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokau
Broken
Nekoosa t Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
McGhee
McGhee
St. Francesville
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Deridder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
1
t U
*M
4L
1
3B
1
38
1
3B
36
30
1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
30
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
30
1
3E
3E
3E
2B
192464
1T1997
Ulcer
131227
1180268
15138
63713
63713
301642
32519
223760
223760
317545
301642
301642
254240
63713
63713
63713
63713
317545
241497
996979
402156
37523825
37523825
35530784
Q
35530784
F
12233
24874
24874
19980
150464
N
N
N
5729
49186
L
L
5790
2936
6871
6871
32774
27942
94458
94458
123175
32774
32774
109005
6871
6871
6871
6871
118006
10999
141422
54497
11237198
11237198
10289660
Q
10294421
163
2416
22804
22804
153
29339
N
N
N
5729
108.8
Wt
.6
194.6
110.9
334.6
5.0
5.0
302.6
48.7
50.7
50.7
212.7
302.6
302.6
37.4
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
337.9
364.4
308.1
152.0
69.1
69.1
211.2
334.7
334.7
300.7
215.7
494.9
494.9
78.4
175.9
2736.9
2736.9
164.4
115.9
3.3
3x
.6
3.6
3.6
2.7
4.2
4.2
13.7
3.5
3.6
3.6
6.3
13.7
13.7
4.9
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
6.7
13.0
6.5
42.0
130.4
130.4
107.3
130.7
130.7
10.0
10.0
0.7
0.7
1.5
7.4
10.0
10.0
10.0
3.8
12.8
f v OO
1 i.cV
13.29
21.8
28.8
1.51
1.51
9.96
4.7
8.43
8.43
30.32
2.71
2.71
6.26
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
19.6
45
27.55
38.5
12.2
12.2
28.3
26
26
25.4
23.21
38.36
38.36
19
55
21.11
21.11
21.11
15.54
9
"3L
CH
24
120
3 NO
4.5
5.3 NO
11
5.4 NO
4.2 NO
4.9 NO
40
8.5 NO
8.5 NO
12
9.8
9.8
6.4 NO
6.4 NO
49 NO
96
110
41
40
40
82
190
160
330
9.2
13
18
7 NO
88
0 NO
0 NQ
0 NO
5.5 NO
1.8E-08
Snc.nft
• UC UO
S.OE-08
4.1E-07
1.4E-08
1.1E-09
1.3E-09
1.7E-08
4.0E-09
5.6E-09
6.5E-09
1.9E-07
3.6E-09
3.6E-09
1.2E-08
5.7E-09
5.7E-09
3.7E-09
3.7E-09
1.5E-07
6.8E-07
4.BE-07
2.5E-07
7.7E-08
7.7E-08
3.7E-07
7.8E-07
6.6E-07
1.3E-06
3.4E-08
7.9E-08
1.1E-07
2. IE-OS
7.6E-07
0
0
0
1.3E-08
66
LA
*»O
46
2200
11
110
130
61
4.8
14
2.1 NO
320
29
29
24
280
280
170
170
34 NO
370
1100
94
100
100
320
0 NO
3000
1600
44
43
44
7 NO
100
1400
1400
1400
86
1.3E-07
9AE-flA
• DC UO
9.6E-08
7.6E-06
5.0E-08
2.6E-08
3. IE-OS
9.6E-08
3.6E-09
1.9E-08
2.BE-09
.5E-06
.2E-08
.2E-08
.4E-08
.6E-07
.6E-07
9.9E-08
9.9E-08
1.1E-07
2.6E-06
4.8E-06
5.7E-07
1.9E-07
1.9E-07
1.4E-06
O.OE+00
1.2E-05
6.4E-06
1.6E-07
2.6E-07
2.7E-07
2. IE-OS
8.7E-07
4.7E-06
4.7E-06
4.7E-06
2.1E-07
Region VI II
NT000003S
M27EC
Stone Container Corp.
Hissoula
3C
282885
54222
61.4
18.0
6.41
3.1
3.1E-09
7.6 NO
7.7E-09
-------
Table C.I (continued)
NPDES
NUMBER
Region IX
CA0004065
CA0004847
CAOOOS282
CA0005894
Region X
AKOOOOS31
AK0000922
AK0000922
ID0001163
1D0001163
OR000079S
OR0001074
OR0020834
OR0020834
UA0000078
WA0000124
UA0000124
UA00002S6
UA0000621
UA0000621
UA0000795
UA0000809
UA0000850
UA0000850
WA0000850
WA0000850
UA0001091
UA0003000
UA0003077
UA0003697
SAMPLE ID COMPANY
ymncr
niuutu
H98EC
H106EC
M43ECO
M70EC10
M5EC-1
H31EAC
M31EBC
M56EC
H56EC1
8637-464S
H19EC
H76ECO
H76ECO
H53EC
M45EC1-L
H4SEC-L
H32EC
H80EAC
H80EBC
H12EC
H4EC
H81EC
H81EC1
H81ECX
M81ECXX
H60EC1
H79EC
M33EC
M66EC
scone container torp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaytord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchikan Pulp ( Paper 1
Ketchlkan Pulp I Paper 2
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Longvieu Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
CITY
Cn/tuf 1 nfc o
3 DOW I lultc
Anderson
Antioch
Feirheven
Samoa
Sitka
Ketchikan
Ketchlkan
Lewis ton
Lewis ton
Clatskanie (Uauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
Longview
Longvieu
Longvieu
Catnas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopolis
Tecoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoquiaa
Wallula
CRP HARMONIC 7010 TSS ADJ TSS PLANT TCDD TCDD
ID1 MEAN LOW IN HILL IN RECG FLOW CONC. NON-
FLOW FLOW EFFLUENT WATERS (mgd) (ppq) DET-
(nr/hr.) (nr/hr.) (mg/l) (HARM ECTa
MEAN 01
-------
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
2
Analysis Group
1 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations Here above detection limits.
26 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. 2.3.7,8-TCDD concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection Units unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 9BX pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
2D Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2.3,7,8-TCDD and/or 2,3,7,8-TCOF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2.3.7,8-TCDD and/or 2.3.7.B-TCDF.
3B Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7,8-TCDD concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3.7,8-TCDF concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3.7.8-TCDD and 2.3.7,8-TCDF concentrations in effluent
samples were below detection limits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations In effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2.3,7.8-TCDO and/or 2.3.7.8-1CDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 75X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In effluent samples was not
available.
D Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7Q10) was not available.
N Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-
TCDD and/or 2,3.7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
Q Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2,3.7,8-
TCDD and/or 2,3.7,8-TCDF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in receiving water was not
avallable.
I A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
5 Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
-------
Table C.2
Default Parameters Entered
Ecosystem Location Parameters
par. name parameter description
ECONAM Environment name (1-50 char)
LAT Geographic latitude (deg. & tenths)
LONG Geographic longitude (deg. & tenths)
ELEV Ground station elev. (m above s.l.)
Global Parameters
par. name parameter description
OXRAO Oxidant radical concent. (moles/L)
RAIN Rainfall (mm/month)
CLOUD Cloudiness (tenths)
OZONE Ozone content of atmosphere (cm NTP)
RHUM Relative humidity (%)
ATURB Atmospheric turbidity (km)
AIRTY Air mass type (R,U,M or T)
Physical Geometry for Compartment #1, TYPE="L"
par.name parameter description
LENG Length (m)
WIDTH Width (m)
DEPTH Average vertical depth (m)
Physical Geometry for Compartment #2, TYPE=°B"
par. name parameter description
LENG Length (m)
WIDTH width (m)
DEPTH Average vertical depth (m)
Dispersive Transport between Compartments T and "2*
par. name parameter description
DSP Dispersion coefficient (m2/hr)
Dispersive Transport between Compartments "1" and "0*
par. name parameter description
DSP Dispersion coefficient (m2/hr)
Hydrologic Parameters for Compartment #1 , TYPE= "L"
par. name parameter description
NPSFL Non-point source flow (m3/hr)
NPSED Non-point source sediment (kg/hr)
EVAP Evaporation (mm/month)
Hydrologic Parameters for Compartment #2, TYPE= "B"
par. name parameter description
SEEPS Seepage flow (m3/hr)
Miscellaneous Environ. Parameters for Compartment #1, TYPE = "L'
par. name parameter description
FROC Fraction organic carbon on seds. (-) 0.01
CEC Cation exchange cap. (meq/100g dry)
AEC Anion exchange cap. (meq/100g dry)
Sediment Properties for Compartment #2, TYPE= °B"
par. name parameter description
BULKD Bulk density of benthic sed. (g/cm3)
PCTWA Percent water in benthic sed. (%)
FROC Fraction organic carbon on seds. (-)
CEC Cation exchange cap. (meq/100g dry)
AEC Anion exchange cap. (meq/IOOg dry)
in EXAMS II
parameter value
BOILERPLATE
40
100
200
parameter value
0
100
3
0.2
50
2
R
parameter value
5000
9.6
0.66
parameter value
5000
9.6
0.05
parameter value
0.00001
parameter value
200000
parameter value
0
0
100
parameter value
0
parameter value
0
0
parameter value
1.8
137
0.01
0
0
C-6
-------
Table C.2 (Cont.)
Default Parameters Entered in EXAMS II
Sediment Properties for Compartment #1, TYPE = "L"
par. name parameter description parameter value
TCEL
PH
POH
REDAG
DOC
DFAC
DIS02
KO2
WIND
CHL
BACPL
PLMAS
Temperature of compt. (deg. C)
pH of compartment (-)
pOH of compartment (-)
Reducing agents cone. (moles/L)
Dissolved organic carbon (mg/L)
Distribution factor (-)
Dissolved oxygen cone. (mg/L)
Oxygen exchange const, (cm/hr)
Wind speed (m/sec)
Chlorophylls + pheophytins (mg/L)
Bacterioplankton pop. den. (cfu/ml)
Planktonic biomass (mg(dry wt)/L)
15
7
7
0
1
1.19
8
3
0.5
0.0001
10000
0.0016667
Miscellaneous Environ. Parameters for Compartment #2, TYPE = "B"
par, name parameter description parameter value
TCEL Temperature of compt. (deg. C) 15
PH pH of compartment (-) 7
POH pOH of compartment (-) 7
REDAG Reducing agents cone. (moles/L) 0
DOC Dissolved organic carbon (mg/L) 1
BNBAC Benthic bacteria pop. (cfu/100g dry) 0
BNMAS Biomass of small benthos (g (dry)/m2) 20
C-7
-------
Table C.3
Chemical/Physical Property Values
For2378-TCDD:
Parameter
Molecular Weight (MWT)
Vapor Pressure - Torr (VAPR)
Henry's Law Constant (HENRY)
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (KOW)
Partition Coefficient - Org. Carbon (KOC)
Solubility - mg/L (SOL)
Partition Coefficient - Biomass (KPB)
Value
3.22E+02
7.40E-10
2.10E-06
5.01E + 06
1.80E + 07
1.93E-05
5.20E-I-05
For2378-TCDF:
Parameter
Value
Molecular Weight (MWT)
Vapor Pressure - Torr (VAPR)
Henry's Law Constant (HENRY)
Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient (KOW)
Partition Coefficient - Org. Carbon (KOC)
Solubility - mg/L (SOL)
Partition Coefficient - Biomass (KPB)
3.06E + 02
9.21 £-07
1.80E-02
6.60E + 05
4.10E + 05
2.00E-05
8.28E+04
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
Appendix D.
In-stream Contaminant Concentrations in pg/1
COMPANY
CITY
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Internationa] Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Region II
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch & Pruyn & Co., Inc.
Region III
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.M. Glatfelter Co.
Procter & Gamble Co-
International Paper!:
International Paper
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Westbrook
Hi nek ley
Hinckley
Berlin
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
West Point
Covington
Covington
Covington
Covington
Franklin
Court land
Brewton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
Oemopolis
Selma
Coosa Pines
SAMPLE ID
M17EC
RG1-86388
M11EC
MSEC
M82EC
M30EC
M61EC
M61EC1
BM89EC
M89EC
M9EC
M9EC1
M41EC
M62EC
M62EC
M57EAC
M57EBC
H13EDO
M64EC20
M42EC
M103ECX
M103ECX
M74EC140
BM28EC
M28EC
M28EC1
M28EC2
UCF1000
M40EC
M67EC
M65EC
M65EC1
M71EC
M26EC210
M101EC
M88EC
M36EC
NPDES
NUMBER
ME0001872
ME0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
ME0002054
ME0002321
ME0021521
ME0021521
NH0000655
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0004413
NY0005525
MD0021687
MD0021687
PA0002143
PA0002143
PA0008265
PA0008869
PA000888S
PA0026301
PA0026301
VA0003115
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0004162
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL0002755
AL0002755
AL0002780
AL0002801
AL0002828
AL0003018
AL0003158
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
DET5 DETr
ECr ECT*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
2A
3D ND ND
4H
4L
3B ND
1
3B ND
3B ND
3B ND
2CH
2CL
1
3B ND
1
3B ND
1
1
2A
3C ND
1
SIMPLE DILTUTION
TCDD
CONC.
1.31E-01
1.69E+00
9.10E-02
1.15E-01
1.84E+00
3.43E-01
1.31E-01
1.56E-01
2.15E-01
7.47E-01
l.OOE+00
1.33E+00
3.48E-02
3.81E-01
3.04E-02
6.42E-02
2.36E-01
3.68E-01
9.92E-01
5.11E-03
EZ
EZ
8.66E-01
4.26E-01
2.13E+01
1.07E+00
1.42E+00
2.44E+01
1.66E-01
3.43E-01
3.53E-01
4.46E-01
2.74E-01
8.88E-02
3.10E-01
2.30E-01
3.73E-01
TCDF
CONC.
4.81E-01
B.09E+00
3.70E-01
3.82E-01
8.74E+00
6.53E-01
5.17E-01
8.20E-01
7.73E-01
1.52E+01
8.33E+00
8.89E+00
1.28E-02
1.17E+00
9.32E-02
2.64E-01
1 . 58E+00
1.21E+00
6.14E+00
2.95E-03
EZ
EZ
5.19E+00
1.89E+00
6.16E+01
2.05E+01
1.56E+01
2.55E+01
7.31E-01
2.64E-01
2.01E+00
2.34E+00
2.33E+00
1.21E-01
8.98E-01
8.80E-01
7.89E-01
1
9
6
8
9
1
7
8
1
4
3
4
2
1
8
EXAMS
WATER
TCDD
CONC.
OOE-01
21E-01
95E-02
77E-02
33E-01
80E-01
08E-02
41E-02
25E-01
33E-01
39E-01
51E-01
OOE-02
11E-01
84E-03
2.90E-02
5
6
1
2
2
1
6
3
4
9
5
1
1
1
8
2
8
5
8
38E-02
68E-02
30E-01
.35E-03
EZ
EZ
.44E-01
.25E-01
.24E+00
12E-01
.16E-01
.11E+00
.92E-02
.69E-01
24E-01
.57E-01
.41E-02
.74E-02
93E-02
37E-02
76E-02
COLUMN
TCDF
CONC.
4.75E-01
7.91E-HX)
3.65E-01
3.78E-01
8.54E+00
6.19E-01
5.06E-01
8.03E-01
7.53E-01
1.48E+01
7.54E+00
8.04E+00
1.24E-02
1.05E+00
8.41E-02
2.24E-01
1.35E+00
8.08E-01
4.12E+00
2.84E-03
EZ
EZ
4.65E+00
1.76E+00
5.72E+01
1.90E+01
1.45E+01
2.55E+01
7.03E-01
9.00E+00
1.92E+00
2.24E+00
2.22E+00
1.15E-01
6.82E-01
8.18E-01
7.27E-01
-------
Appendix D. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Oilman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Westvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Mead Corporation
Bowater Corp.
Region V
Mead Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Butler
Claiborne
Claiborne
Claiborne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wickliffe
Hawesvllle
Natchez
Moss Point
Moss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Riegelwood
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Kingsport
Calhoun
Escanaba
Muskegon
Muskegon
SAMPLE ID
M96EC
H21EC
M21EC1
M21EC2
M90EC
M91ECO
CP1000
M102EAC
M102EAC
M102EBC
M102EBC
M24EC
M94EC1
M94EC1
M55EC
M83EC
M84EAC
M84EBC
M87EC
M87EC1
M22EC10
M78EC
M63EC
M97EC
M34EC
M34EC
BM35SEC30
M35SEC30
NPDES
NUMBER
AL0003301
AL0025968
AL0025968
AL0025968
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003620
GA0003654
GA0003654
GA0049336
KY0000086
KY0001716
MS0000213
MS0002674
MS0002674
MS0031704
MS0031704
M47G100-500NC0000272
M86ECO
M6EC
M16EC
M70EC
M70EC1
M23EC
M93EC
M73EC
M75EC
ML802
M92EC
M92EC
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
SC0000868
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
MI0000027
MI0027391
MI0027391
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
DET5 DETx
ECT ECT
1
1
1
1
2A
1
3B NO
2CH ND
2CL ND
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
2B NO
1
1
1
2A
2A
3B NO
1
3D ND ND
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
2A
2A
1
1
1
3D ND ND
3B ND
4H ND
4L ND
SIMPLE DILTUTION
TCOD
CONC.
2.70E-01
9.48E-02
9.25E-02
1.06E-01
1.40E-01
2.59E+01
2.86E+00
2.10E-02
1.68E-03
3.45E-02
1.38E-03
9.41E+00
1.39E+00
1.11E-01
1.91E-01
1.15E-01
3.13E-01
3. OOE-01
1.36E+00
1.36E+00
4.41E-02
3.85E-03
1.82E-03
5.59E-03
4. OOE+00
1.60E-01
1.32E+00
3.35E+00
2.83E+00
3.20E+01
1.32E+00
5.23E-01
3.20E+02
2.45E+02
4.32E-01
7.09E-02
5.94E-02
8.17E-02
7.38E-01
1.61E-02
1.29E-03
TCDF
CONC.
8.46E-01
5.78E-01
5.78E-01
4.85E-01
7. OOE-01
7.69E+01
1.97E+01
3.95E-02
3.16E-03
9.00E-02
7.20E-03
2.24E+01
l.OOE+01
3.18E-01
1. OOE+00
3.37E-01
5.48E-02
2.09E-01
3.09E+00
2.27E+00
1.91E-01
1.65E-02
1.32E-03
3.24E-02
2.30E+01
1.84E+00
1.67E+00
6.86E+00
1.36E+00
4. OOE+02
5.38E+00
1.14E+00
8. OOE+02
7.50E+02
7.55E-01
1.88E-01
4.36E-01
6.61E-02
4.41E+00
1.61E-01
1.29E-02
8
2
2
3
4
1
1
7
5
1
9
8
7
4
1
1
4
2
1
1
I
9
4
1
1
1
7
3
8
6
2
1
2
4
4
8
6
EXAMS
WATER
TCDD
CONC.
92E-02
96E-02
89E-02
32E-02
93E-02
04E+01
26E+00
37E-03
90E-04
21E-02
69E-04
30E+00
CD
CO
68E-02
58E-02
26E-01
21E-01
97E-01
22E+00
74E-02
E
.80E-04
E
.20E+00
.56E-02
.21E-01
.07E+00
.07E+00
.37E+01
.32E-01
.50E-01
.30E+01
.35E+01
.52E-01
.86E-02
.89E-02
.23E-02
.20E-01
.31E-03
.65E-04
COLUMN
TCDF
CONC.
8.02E-01
5.50E-01
5.50E-01
4.62E-01
6.62E-01
7.69E+01
1.55E+01
3.72E-02
2.98E-03
8.48E-02
6.79E-03
2.45E+01
CD
CD
9.70E-01
3.25E-01
5.34E-02
2.03E-01
3.02E+00
4.97E-01
1.82E-01
E
1.09E-03
E
2.02E+01
1.61E+00
1.58E+00
6.47E+00
1.36E+00
3.96E+02
5.24E+00
1.62E+00
7.14E+02
6.69E+02
7.41E-01
1.75E-01
4.17E-01
6.48E-02
4.38E+00
1.56E-01
1.24E-02
-------
Appendix 0. (continued)
COMPANY
Champion International
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp
Head Corp.
Badger Paper Hills
Badger Paper Hills
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Wausau Paper Mills Co.
Wausau Paper Hills Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Hills,
Badger Paper Hills,
Consolidated Papers,
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
al
Inc.
Inc.
o. 1
o. 2
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
.
Co.
.
i.
Co.
Co.
Co.
al
tal
CITY
Quinnesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International Falls
Chlllicothe
Peshtlgo
Peshtlgo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
Brokaw
Nekoosa & Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtlgo
Peshtlgo
Peshtigo
Peshtlgo
Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
McGhee
HcGhee
St. Francesville
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Oerldder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
SAMPLE 10
Q14E
H38ECO
H38ECO
DE020922
DE026013
H46EBC
M46EBCX
M72EAC
H25EC
H54EC
H54ECX
M77EC
H72EBC
H72EBC
H29EC
M46EAC
M46EAC
H46EACX
H46EACX
21
M68EC
H51EC
H20EC
H18EC
H18EC
H52EC
H1EC
H1ECX
M85EC
M58EC
M99EC
H99EC1
DF024512
H3EC
M2EC
M2EC
H2EC
H15EC
NPDES
NUMBER
MI0042170
uu__
UM _
HN0001643
OH0004481
WI 0000663
WI0000663
U10001261
WI0003212
UI0003379
WI0003379
WI0003620
WI0020991
W 1 0020991
WI 0026042
WI00306S1
WI0030651
WI0030651
WI0030651
WI0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
AR003S823
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA0005258
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0053023
GRP
ID1
1
4H
4L
1
3B
1
3B
1
3B
3B
30
1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
3D
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
3D
1
3E
3E
3E
2B
TCOD TCOF
NON- NON-
DET5 DET5
ECTZ ECr
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
ND ND
NQ
ND ND
NQ
NQ
NQ
NO
SIMPLE DILTUTION
TCOO
CONC.
9.34E-02
9.43E-02
7.55E-03
3.49E-01
3.46E-01
1.68E-02
9.87E-03
5.70E-02
6.02E-02
1.24E-02
1.45E-02
5.93E-01
1.50E-03
1.20E-04
4.64E-02
2.22E-02
1.78E-03
7.26E-03
5.81E-04
2.36E-01
2.74E+00
4.77E-01
6.10E-01
5.13E-04
4.10E-05
1.03E-02
Q
1.85E-02
F
2.12E+00
2.54E+00
3.52E+00
4.56E-01
4.80E+00
N
N
N
8.25E-01
TCDF
CONC.
6.85E-01
1.81E-01
1.45E-02
6.39E+00
2.54E+00
4.10E-01
4.84E-01
3.16E-01
1.07E-01
8.27E-02
6.20E-03
4.75E+00
1.03E-02
8.21E-04
9.28E-02
6.35E-01
5.08E-02
3.86E-01
3.09E-02
1.64E-01
1.06E+01
4.77E+00
1.40E+00
1.28E-03
1.03E-04
4.02E-02
Q
3.46E-01
F
1.01E+01
8.41E+00
8.60E+00
4.56E-01
5.45E+00
N
N
N
2.58E+01
5
5
4
2
2
8
1
3
7
8
2
4
3
2
1
9
1
8
2
7
7
5
1
1
2
3
EXAHS
WATER
TCOD
CONC.
79E-02
62E-02
50E-03
11E-01
33E-01
90E-03
E
63E-02
33E-02
46E-03
70E-03
78E-01
27E-04
.42E-05
43E-02
.19E-02
.51E-04
E
E
.07E-01
.29E-01
.21E-01
.14E-02
E
E
E
Q
E
F
.14E-01
.38E-01
.31E+00
.54E-01
. 10E+00
N
N
N
.88E-01
COLUMN
6.
1.
1.
6.
2.
3.
2.
9.
8.
6.
4.
9.
7.
8.
5.
4.
1.
1.
4.
1.
TCOF
CONC.
66E-01
75E-01
40E-02
29E+00
47E+00
75E-01
E
96E-01
37E-02
02E-02
02E-03
63E+00
57E-03
66E-04
96E-02
84E-01
67E-02
E
E
59E-01
01E+01
65E+00
20E+00
E
E
E
Q
E
F
9.03E+00
8
02E+00
8.55E+00
4.05E-01
5.42E+00
N
N
N
1.95E+01
Hissoula
H27EC
HT0000035 3C
ND |1.10E-02 1.35E-02 2.57E-03 1.24E-02
-------
Appendix 0. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE ID
NPOES
NUMBER
GRP TCDO TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
DETz DETz
ECr ECr
SIMPLE DILTUTION
TCDD TCDF
CONC. CONC.
EXAMS
WATER COLUMN
TCDD TCDF
CONC. CONC.
O
Region IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper 1
Ketchlkan Pulp & Paper 2
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Long view Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Snowf lake
Anderson
Ant loch
Fairhaven
Samoa
Sitka
Ketchlkan
Ketchlkan
Lewiston
Lewiston
Clatskanie (Wauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
Long view
Long view
Longview
Camas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopolls
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoqulam
Wallula
k!1 flflCf*
niuuti*
H98EC
M106EC
M43ECO
M70EC10
M5EC-1
M31EAC
M31EBC
M56EC
H56EC1
8637-4645
M19EC
M76ECO
M76ECO
M53EC
M45EC1-L
M45EC-L
M32EC
M80EAC
M80EBC
M12EC
H4EC
M81EC
M81EC1
M81ECX
M81ECXX
M60EC1
M79EC
M33EC
M66EC
AT ___
CA0004065
CA0004847
CAOOOS282
CA0005894
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
ID0001163
ID0001163
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020834
OR0020834
WA0000078
WA0000124
WA0000124
WA0000256
WA0000621
WA0000621
WA0000795
WA0000809
WAOOOOB50
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA00008SO
WA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
WA0003697
on
tU
1
5
2A
2A
2B
2B
2A
1
1
1
1
4H
4L
3B
1
1
3E
20
2D
2A
2A
2E
2E
2E
2E
2B
2A
2A
1
NO
ND
NO
NQ
ND
ND
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
ND
ND
ND
EZ EZ EZ EZ
1.79E+00 6.01E+01 8.08E-01 5.85E+01
F F F F
2.17E+00 1.43E+01 7.69E-01 1.36E+01
9.71E-01 4.64E+00 3.42E-01 4.39E+00
5.50E-01 4.
1.08E-01 8.
1.36E+00 6.
1.06E-01 5.
1.18E-01 4.
03E-03 4.
7.06E-02 1.
1.66E-03 7.
.33E-04 6.
.18E-03 2.
.71E-03 9.
4.36E-03 1.
ND
EZD
EZD
2.20E-01 3.
1.94E+00 8.
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.65E-02 8.
1.65E+00 1.
1.15E+00 4.
7.79E-02 1.
57E+00
55E-02
55E-01
36E-01
76E-01
03E-02
93E-01
54E-03
03E-04
93E-02
15E-03
61E-02
ND
EZD
EZD
60E-01
OOE+01
ND
ND
ND
ND
40E+00
30E+01
30E-01
62E+00
1.89E-01
3.83E-02
4.90E-01
2.14E-02
2.38E-02
ED
3.11E-02
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
7.87E-02
6.50E-01
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.38E-03
6.15E-02
4.01E-01
2.25E-02
4.18E+00
8.13E-02
6.29E-01
4.37E-01
3.89E-01
ED
1.87E-01
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
3.46E-01
7.10E+01
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.00E+00
1.30E+00
4.02E-01
1.26E+00
1
Legends of analysis group ID codes and error codes are on the next page.
ND = Not detected In the effluent samples. In-stream concentration estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit in the effluent sample.
NQ - NonquantIf(cable
a.k.a. Hammermill Papers.
-------
a
o.
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
Analysts Group
1 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection limits.
28 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. 2,3.7.8-TCDD concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POIW assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
20 Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and/or 2.3.7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-TCOD and/or 2,3,7.8-ICDF.
3B Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7,8-TCDF-concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations In effluent
samples were below detection limits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations In effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and/or 2,3,7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 75X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In effluent samples was not
available.
0 Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
I A value for low stream flow (7Q10) was not available.
N Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and/or 2,3,7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
0 Concentrations in effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2,3.7.8-
TCOD and/or 2,3,7,8-TCDF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in receiving water was not
available.
Z A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
5 Calculations could be based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
COMPANY
Appendix E.
In-strean Contaminant Concentrations for Lou (7Q10) Flow Conditions Calculated
by Simple Dilution Only
CITY
NPOES SAMPLE ID GRP TCDD TCDF
NUMBER ID NON- NON-
DET- OET-
7Q10 TCDD
FLOW CONC.
-------
Appendix E. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
NPDES
NUMBER
SAMPLE ID
GRP TCDD TCOF
ID NON- NON-
DET- DET-
7010 TCDD TCDF TEQ
FLOW CONC. CONC. CONC.
-------
Appendix E. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
NPDES
NUMBER
SAMPLE ID
GRP TCOD TCDF
10 NON- NON-
DET- DET-
7010
FLOW
J /I
TCDD
CONC.
TCOF
CONC.
TEQ
CONC.
OnJ/hrJ (pg^l) (pg/t) (pg/l)
ECT* ECT*
Champion International
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Mead Corp.
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Wausau Paper Mills Co.
Wausau Paper Mills Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Consolidated Papers
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
Region IX
lal
Inc.
Inc.
:o. 1
:o. 2
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
>.
Co.
>.
).
Co.
Co.
Co.
tal
lal
Quinnesec
PI /W IA*
Liotjuei
Cloquet
International Falls
Chillicothe
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
Brokaw
Nekoosa & Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Wisconsin Rapids
Cresset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
McGhee
McGhee
St. Francesville
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Deridder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
MI0042170
MN0001643
OH0004481
UI 0000663
UI 0000663
UI0001261
U I 00032 12
UI 0003379
UI 0003379
U 1 0003620
UI 0020991
UI 0020991
UI 0026042
UI0030651
UI00306S1
U I 0030651
UI 0030651
UI 0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
AR0035823
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA0005258
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0053023
Q14E
yiQcm
noocuu
M38ECO
DE020922
DE026013
M46EBC
M46EBCX
M72EAC
M25EC
M54EC
M54ECX
M77EC
M72EBC
M72EBC
M29EC
M46EAC
M46EAC
M46EACX
M46EACX
21
H68EC
M51EC
M20EC
M18EC
M18EC
M52EC
M1EC
M1ECX
M85EC
M58EC
M99EC
M99EC1
DF024512
M3EC
M2EC
H2EC
M2EC
M15EC
1
/u
*»n
4L
1
3B
1
38
1
3B
3B
3D
1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
30
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
30
1
3E
3E
3E
2B
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
NQ
ND
49186
L
L
5790
2936
6871
6871
32774
27942
94458
94458
123175
32774
32774
109005
6871
6871
6871
6871
118006
10999
141422
54497
11237198
11237198
10289660
Q
10294421
163
2416
22804
22804
153
29339
N
N
N
5729
3.55E-01
L
L
4.47E+01
9.10E-01
1.51E-01
8.88E-02
5.03E-01
6.98E-02 1.
2.91E-02 1.
3.40E-02 1.
1.49E+00 1.
1.37E-02 9.
1.09E-03 7.
1.08E-01 2.
1.92E-01 5.
1.53E-02 4.
6.26E-02 3.
5.01E-03 2.
6.25E-01 4,
3.76E+01 1,
3.28E+00 3,
4.11E+00 9,
1.71E-03 4,
1.37E-04 3,
3.56E-02 1,
Q
6.37E-02 1,
3.17E+02 V
54E+00 2
72E+00 9
77E+00 9
32E+00 3
01E+01 2
N
N
N
8.33E-01 2
60E+00
L
L
19E+02
67E+00
68E+00
35E+00
79E+00
24E-01
94E-01
46E-02
20E+01
33E-02
47E-03
15E-01
48E+00
38E-01
33E+00
66E-01
34E-01
6.15E-01
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
.27E+02
58E+00
19E-01
24E-01
7.82E-01
8.22E-02
4.86E-02
3.55E-02
2.69E+00
2.30E-02
1.84E-03
1.29E-01
7.40E-01
5.92E-02
3.95E-01
3.16E-02
6.69E-01
45E+02 5
28E+01 6
42E+00 5
28E-03 2
42E-04 1
39E-01 4
Q 0
19E+00 1
53E+03 4
65E+01 8
01E+00
22E+00
32E+00
28E+01
N
N
N
61E+01
21E+01
56E+00
05E+00
14E-03
71E-04
94E-02
OOE+00
83E-01
70E+02
18E+00
63E+00
69E+00
66E+00
24E+01
OOE+00
OOE+00
OOE+00
44E+00
Missoula
MT0000035 M27EC
3C
ND
54222 5.67E-02 6.95E-02 6.37E-02
-------
Appendix E. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
NPDES
NUMBER
SAMPLEID
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID NON- NON-
DET- DET-
7010
FLOW
J m\
TCDD
CONC.
TCOF
CONC.
TEQ
CONC.
(nfVhrJ (pg/l) (pg/l) (pg/l)
ECT* ECT*
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot. Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Longview Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
anowTiaice
Anderson
Antioch
Fairhaven
Samoa
Sitka
1 Ketch ikan
2 Ketch ikan
Leuiston
Lewiston
Clatskanie (Wauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
L ong view
Longview
Longview
Camas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmo poll's
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoquiam
Wallula
CA0004065
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
ID0001163
ID0001163
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020834
OR0020834
WA0000078
WA0000124
WA0000124
WA0000256
WA0000621
WA0000621
WA0000795
WA0000809
WA00008SO
WA0000850
WA00008SO
WA00008SO
WA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
WA0003697
niuuci
M98EC
N106EC
M43ECO
M70EC10
M5EC-1
M31EAC
M31EBC
MS6EC
M56EC1
8637-4645
N19EC
M76ECO
N76ECO
MS3EC
M45EC1-L
M4SEC-L
N32EC
M80EAC
M80EBC
M12EC
N4EC
M81EC
M81EC1
M81ECX
M81ECXX
N60EC1
M79EC
M33EC
M66EC
fU
1
s
2A
2A
2B
2B
2A
1
1
1
1
4H
4L
38
1
1
3E
20
2D
2A
2A
2E
2E
2E
2E
2B
2A
2A
1
ND
NO ND
ND
NQ
ND
ND ND
NQ
NQ 0
NQ 0
NQ 0
ND
£L
261080
L
149317
172342
22753
149317
49772
1233491
1233491
L
259184
L
L
L
L
L
N
Z
Z
L
L
N
N
N
N
578783
66047
60043
L
4.
2.
9.
5.
1.
1.
3.
3.
2.
6.
1.
1.
&L
60E+00
L
17E+00
71E-01
50E-01
08E-01
36E+00
11E-01
46E-01
L
10E-01
L
L
L
L
L
N
Z
Z
L
L
N
N
N
N
.46E-01
.65E+00
.15E+00
L
1.
1.
4.
4.
8.
6.
1.
1.
5.
2.
1.
4.
tu
54E+02
L
43E+01
64E+00
57E+00
55E-02
55E-01
58E+00
40E+00
L
74E-01
L
L
L
L
L
N
Z
Z
L
L
N
N
N
N
.05E+02
.30E+01
.30E-01
L
U,
2
0
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
.UUC-rUU
.OOE+01
.OOE+00
.61E+00
.43E+00
.01E+00
.176-01
.43E+00
.69E-01
.86E-01
.OOE+00
.67E-01
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.OOE+00
.11E+01
.95E+00
.19E+00
.OOE+00
Legends of analysis group ID codes and error codes are on the next page.
ND = Not detected in the effluent samples. In-stream concentration estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit in the effluent sample.
NQ = Nonquantifiable
a.k.a. Hammermill Papers.
-------
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
rn
On
Analysts Group
1 Calculations based on stream flox In cubic feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations baled on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection Units.
2B Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. 2.3,7,8-TCDD concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTV assuming of 7SX pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted
Other*!«•.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
• POTU assuming of 98X pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
2D Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2.3.7,8-TCDD and/or 2,3.7.8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2,3.7.8-TCDD and/or 2.3,7.8-TCDF.
3B Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3.7,8-TCDD concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3.7,8-TCDF concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3.7.8-TCDD and 2.3,7.8-TCDF concentrations In effluent
samples were below detection limits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations In effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2.3.7,8-TCOD and/or 2.3.7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data night become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 7SX pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In effluent samples was not
available.
D Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7Q10) was not available.
N Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3,7.8-
TCDD and/or 2.3,7,8-TCOF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
Q Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-
TCDD and/or 2,3.7.8-TCDF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In receiving water was not
available..
Z A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
5 Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE ID
Appendix F.
Fish Filet Tissue Residue Levels (ng/kg)
SIMPLE DILUTION
NPDES
NUMBER
GRf TCDD TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
OET5 OET5
ECP ECr
TCOD BCF TO FILET'S. 000
TCDF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDO TCOF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
TCDD BCF TO FILET-50.000
TCOF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
EXAHS WATER COLUMN
TCDD BCF TO FILET'S.000
TCDF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TCOF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
TCOD BCF TO FILET-50.000
TCOF BCF TO F1LET-1.950
TCDD TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Region II
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch & Pruyn & Co.. Inc.
Region III
Westvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers. Inc.
Penntech Papers. Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Procter 1 Gamble Co.
International P>Pe%
International Paper
Chesapeake Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
IlT-Rayonler, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Uoodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Uestbrook
Hlnckley
Hlnckley
Berlin
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Tlconderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
Uest Point
Covtngton
Covlngton
Covlngton
Covtngton
Franklin
Court land
Brewton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
Demopolis
Selma
Coosa Pines
Butler
Claiborne
C la I borne
Claiborne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
H17EC
RG1 -86388
M11EC
MSEC
H82EC
H30EC
M61EC
H61EC1
BM89EC
H89EC
H9EC
H9EC1
M41EC
M62EC
H62EC
H57EAC
M57EBC
M13EDO
H64EC20
H42EC
M103ECX
HI03ECX
H74EC140
BH26EC
H28EC
H28EC1
H28EC2
UCF1000
H40EC
H67EC
H65EC
H65EC1
M71EC
H26EC210
M101EC
M88EC
M36EC
M96EC
H21EC
H21EC1
H21EC2
M90EC
M91ECO
ME0001872
HE0001937
HE0002003
HE0002020
HE00020S4
HE0002321
ME002152I
ME0021S21
NH00006SS
NH00006SS
NY0004413 2A
NY0004413 2A
NVOOOSS2S 30 NO NO
M00021687 4H
M00021687 4L
PA0002143 3B NO
PA0002143 1
PA000826S 3B ND
PA0008869 3B ND
PA000888S 3B ND
PA0026301 2CH
PA0026301 2CL
VA0003115 1
VA0003646 38 ND
VA0003E46 1
VA0003E46 38 ND
VA0003646 1
VA0004162 1
AL0000396 2A
AL0002682 3C NO
AL00027SS 1
AL00027SS
AL0002780
AL 0002801
AL0002828
AL0003018
AL0003158
AL0003301
AL0025968
AL 002 59 68
AL002S968
FL0000701 2A
FL0000876 1
6.55E-01 9.39E-01 7.49E-01 6.5SE+00 9.39E-01 6.64E+00 S.OOE-01 9.26E-01 S.93E-01 5.00E»00 9.26E-01 5.09E+00
8.47E+00 1.58E+01 l.OOE+01 8.47E»01 1.5BE+01 8.63E*01 4.60E*00 1.54E+01 6.14E+00 4.60E»01 1.54E+01 4.76E«01
4.55E-01 7.21E-01 5.27E-OI 4.55E*00 7.21E-01 4.62E*00 3.48E-01 7.12E-01 4.19E-01 3.48E»00 7.12E-OI 3.S5E»00
5.73E-01 7.44E-OI 6.47E-OI 5.73E+00 7.44E-01 5.80E+00 4.38E-01 7.37E-01 5.12E-01 4.38E*00 7.37E-OI 4.46E*00
9.20E+00 1.70E+01 1.09E+01 9.20E+01 I.70E+01 9.37E+01 4.66E+DO 1.67E*01 6.33£»00 4.66E+01 1.67E+01 4 83E»01
1.71E+00 1.27E+00 1.84E+00 1.71E+01 I.27E+00 1.73E+01 9.00E-01 1.21E+00 1.02E*00 9.00E*00 1.21E+00 9.12E+00
6.S6E-01 l.OlEtOO 7.S7E-01 6.56E+00 l.OlEtOO 6.66E+00 3.S4E-OI 9.86E-01 4.S3E-01 3.54E»00 9.B6E-01 3.64E+00
7.79E-01 I.60E»00 9.39E-OI 7.79E+00 1.60E+00 7.95E«00 4.21E-01 1.57E+00 S.77E-01 4.21E+00 1.S7E+00 4.36E*00
1.08E+00 1.51E+00 1.23E+00 1.08E*01 1.51E+00 1.09£»01 6.23E-01 1.47E+00 7.70E-01 6.23E»00 1.47E*00 6.38E+00
3.74E+00 2.96E+01 6.70E»00 3.74E+01 2.96E«01 4.03E»01 2.16E+00 2.89E*01 5.05E*00 2 16E*01 2.89E»OI 2.45E*01
5.00E+00 1.62E+01 6.63E»00 S.OOE-tOl 1.62E+01 5.16E*01 1.69E*00 1.47E*01 3.16E»00 1.69E»01 1.47E+01 1.84E+01
6.67E+00 1.73E»01 6.40EtOO 6.67E+01 1.73E«01 6.84E*01 2.26E+00 1.57E»01 3.83E+00 2.26E+01 1.57E»01 2.41E«01
1.74E-01 2.49E-02 1.76E-01 1.74E+00 2.49E-02 1.74E+00 l.OOE-01 2.43E-02 1.03E-01 l.OOE+00 2.43E-02 l.OOE+00
1.90E«00 2.27E+00 2.13E*00 1.90E+01 2.27E*00 1.93E»01 S.53E-01 2.05E+00 7.58E-01 5.53E+00 2.05E»00 5.73E«00
1.52E-01 1.82E-01 1.70E-01 1.52E+00 1.82E-01 1.54E+00 4.42E-02 1.64E-01 6.06E-02 4.42E-01 1.64E-01 4.S9E-01
3.21E-01 5.15E-01 3.72E-01 3.21E+00 5.15E-01 3.26E»00 1.4SE-01 4.37E-01 1.89E-01 1.45E*00 4.37E-01 1.50E+00
1.18E*00 3.09E»00 1.49E*00 I.18E*01 3.09E*00 1.21E+01 2.69E-01 2.63E»00 S.32E-01 2.69EtOO 2.63E+00 2.95E+00
1.84E+00 2.35E+00 2.08E+00 1.84E+01 2 35E*00 1.86E+01 3.34E-OI 1.58E+00 4.92E-01 3.34E+00 1.58E»00 3.50E»00
4.96E+00 1.20E*01 6.16E+00 4.96E+01 1.20E*01 5.08E«01 6.48E-01 8.03E*00 1.45E+00 6.48E+00 8.03EtOO 7.28E*00
2.56E-02 S.76E-03 2.61E-02 2.S6E-01 S.76E-03 2.56E-01 1.18E-02 S.S4E-03 1.23E-02 1.18E-01 S.S4E-03 1.18E-01
11 11 EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ
EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ
4.33E*00 l.OlEtOl 5.34E»00 4.33E+01 i.OlE+01 4.43E«01 1.22E*00 9.08E+00 2.13E*00 1.22E+01 9.08E*00 1.31E+01
2.13E*00 3.69E*00 2.50E+00 2.13E+01 3.69E+00 2.17E+01 6.23E-01 3.43E+00 9.67E-01 6.23E»00 3.43E»00 6.58E*00
1.07E+02 1.20E+02 1.19E*02 1.07E+03 1.20E+02 1.08E«03 3.12E+01 1.12E«02 4.23E*01 3.12E+02 1.12E*02 3.23E»02
5.33E+00 3.99E»01 9.32E+00 5.33E*01 3.99E»01 5.73E«01 1.56E*00 3.71E+01 5.27E+00 1.56E«01 3.71E*01 1.93E*01
7.10E»00 3.05E*01 1.02E»01 7.10E+01 3.05E*OI .41E»01 2.08E«00 2.83E+01 4.91EtOO 2.08E«OI 2.83E*OI 2.36E*01
1.22E+02 4.98E+01 1.27E+02 1.22E+03 4.98E*01 .23E»03 4.56E+01 4.96E*01 S.OSE«01 4.56E»02 4.96Et01 4.61E»02
8.2BE-01 1.43E+00 9.71E-01 8.28E*00 1.43EtOO .42E+00 2.96E-01 1.37E+00 4.33E-01 2.96E*00 .37EtOO 3.09E+00
1.72E*00 S.15E-01 1.77E+00 1.72E«01 5.15E-01 .72E+01 8.43E-OI S.06E-01 8.94E-01 8.43E«00 .06E-01 8.48E*00
1.76E+00 .9IE+00 2.15E+00 I.76E«01 3.91E»00 .80E+01 6.22E-01 3.74£*00 9.96E-01 6.22E+00 .74E+00 6.59E*00
2.23E»00 .56E+00 2.68E*00 2.23E+01 4.56E*00 .27E«01 7.85E-01 4.37E*00 J.22E»00 7.85E*00 .37E*00 8.29E«00
1.37E*00 .54E+00 1.82E+00 1.37E+01 4.54E+00 .42E*01 .21E-01 4.32E»00 8.53E-01 ,21E»00 .32EtOO 4.64E»00
4.44E-01 .35E-01 4.68E-01 4.44E*00 2.35E-01 .46E<00 .37E-01 2.24E-01 1.59E-01 .37EtOO .24E-01 I.39E«00
1.55E«00 .75E*00 1 . 73E+00 1.55E*01 1.75E»00 .57E<01 .46E-01 I.33E+00 S.79E-OI .46E«00 .33E»00 4.60E*00
1.15E«00 .72E«00 1.32£«00 l.lSEtOl 1.72E*00 .17E«OI .69E-OI 1.60E«00 4.28E-01 .69E«00 .60E«00 2.85E»00
1.87E«00 .54E+00 2.02E*00 1.87E*OI I.54E*00 .68E+01 .38E-01 1.42E<00 S.80E-01 .38E«00 .42E*00 4.52E<00
1.35E+00 .65E«00 1.52E*00 1.35E*01 1.65E«00 .37E«01 .46E-01 1 .56E+00 6.02E-01 .46E«00 .56E»00 4.61E»00
4.74E-01 .13E«00 5.87E-01 4.74E«00 1.13E«00 .8SE*00 .48E-01 1 .07E.OO 2.55E-01 .48E»00 .07E*00 1.59E«00
4.62E-OI . 13E+00 5.75E-01 4.62E»00 1.13E«00 .74E«00 .44E-01 I.07E«00 2.52E-01 .44E*00 .07E«00 1.5SE«00
S.32E-01 .47E-01 6.26E-01 S.32E«00 9.47E-01 .41E<00 .66E-OI 9.01E-01 2.56E-01 .66E*00 .01E-01 1.75E<00
7.00E-01 .37E«00 8.37E-01 7.00E»00 1.37E«00 .14E»00 2.47E-01 1.24E*00 3.76E-01 2.47E<00 .29E+00 2.60E«00
1.30E»02 .50E*02.1.45E*02 1.30E«03 l.50Ei02 .31E«03 5. IBEtOl 1 .50E*02 6.68E+01 5. 18E*02 .50E«02 5.33E«02
-------
Appendix F.
SIMPLE DILUTION
COMPANY
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Oilman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
IIT-Rayonler. Inc.
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Uestvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Head Corporation
Bowater Corp.
Region V
Mead Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Champion International
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Mead Corp.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Wausau Paper Hills Co. 1
Wausau Paper Hills Co. 2
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
James River Corp.
CITY
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Harys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wickliffe
Hawesvllle
Natchez
Moss Point
Hoss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Rlegelwood
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Klngsport
Ca Ihoun
Escanaba
Huskegon
Huskegon
Qulnnesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International
Chill Icothe
Peshttgo
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
Brokaw
Nekoosa & Pt.
Green Bay
SAMPLE ID
CP1000
HI02EAC
M102EAC
H102EBC
HI02EBC
H24EC
H94EC1
H94EC1
H5SEC
H83EC
H84EAC
H84EBC
H87EC
H87EC1
H22EC10
H78EC
M63EC
M97EC
M34EC
M34EC
BM3SSEC30
M3SSEC30
NPDES
NUMBER
FL0002S26
FL000263I
FL 0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003620
GA00036S4
GA00036S4
GA0049336
KY0000086
KY0001716
HS0000213
MS0002674
HS0002674
MS003I704
HS0031704
M47G100-500NC0000272
M86ECO
M6EC
H16EC
H70EC
H70EC1
H23EC
H93EC
H73EC
H75EC
HL802
H92EC
M92EC
Q14E
H38ECO
H38ECO
Falls DE020922
DE026013
H46EBC
H46EBCX
H72EAC
H25EC
H54EC
H54ECX
Edwards H77EC
M72EBC
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
SC0000868
SC0000868
SC000101S
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN00023S6
HI0000027
HI0027391
HI0027391
HI0042170
L|U
IfM
MN0001643
OH0004481
WIOOOOE63
W 1 0000663
WI0001261
W 100032 12
Wl 0003379
WI0003379
Wl 0003620
Wl 0020991
GRP
ID1
3B
2CH
2CL
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
2B
1
I
1
2A
2A
36
1
3D
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
2A
2A
I
1
1
3D
38
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
1
38
1
3B
1
38
38
30
1
4H
ICDD TCDF
NON- NON-
OET= DETs
ECT' ECr
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND ND
TCDD BCF
TCDF BCF
TCDD
FILET
CONC.
1.43E+01
LOSE -01
8.40E-03
1.73E-01
6.90E-03
4.71E+01
6.96E+00
5.57E-01
9.S6E-01
5.73E-01
1.57E+00
1.50E+00
6.82E+00
6.82E+00
2.20E-01
1.92E-02
9.08E-03
2.80E-02
2.00E+01
8.00E-01
6.61E+00
1.67E+01
1.42E+01
1.60E+02
6.58E+00
2.61E+00
1.60E+03
I.23E+03
2.16E+00
3.S5E-01
2.97E-01
4.08E-01
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
3.69E*00
8.07E-02
6.45E-03
4.67E-01
4.72E-01
3.77E-02
1.74E+00
l.?3E*00
8.38E-02
4.93E-02
2.85E-01
3.01E-01
6.20E-02
7.24E-02
2.97E+00
7.52E-03
TO FILET'S, 000
TO FILET. 1.950
TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET
CONC. CONC.
3.85E+01 1.81E+01
7.70E-02 1.13E-01
6.16E-03 9.02E-03
1.76E-01 1.90E-01
1.40E-02 8.30E-03
4.36E+01 5.14E+01
1.95E+01 8.91E*00
6.20E-01 6.I9E-01
1.95E+00 1.15E+00
6.57E-01 6.39E-01
1.07E-01 1.58E+00
4.07E-01 1.54E+00
6.03E+00 7.42E+00
4.43E+00 7.26E+00
3.73E-01 2.58E-01
3.22E-02 2.25E-02
2.58E-03 9.34E-03
6.31E-02 3.43E-02
4.49E+01 2.45E*01
3.59E+00 I.16E+00
3.26E+00 6.94E+00
1.34E+01 1.81E+01
2.65E+00 1.44E*01
7.80E+02 2.38E+02
1.05E+01 7.62E+00
2.22E+00 2.84E+00
1.56E+03 I.76E*03
1.46E+03 1.37E»03
l.47E»00 2.30E+00
3.66E-01 3.9IE-01
8.50E-01 3.82E-01
1.29E-01 4.2IE-01
TCDD BCF TO FILET
TCDF BCF TO FILET
TCDD
FILET
CONC.
1.43E+02
LOSE «00
8.40E-02
1.73E+00
6.90E-02
4.71E+02
6.96E+01
5.57E+00
9.56E+00
5.73E+00
I.57E+01
1.50E+01
6.82E+01
6.82E+01
2.20E+00
I.92E-01
9.08E-02
2.80E-01
2.00E+02
8. DOE ^00
6.61E+01
1.67E+02
1.42E*02
1.60E+03
6.58E+01
2.61E+01
1.60E+04
1.23E+04
2.16E+01
3.55E+00
2.97E+00
4.0BE+00
8.61E+00 4.55E+00 3.69E+01
3.15E-01 1.12E-01
2.52E-02 8.97E-03
1.34E+00 6.01E-01
3.53E-01 5.07E-01
2.82E-02 4.0SE-02
1.25E+01 2.99E»00
4.95E+00 2.22E+00
7.99E-01 1.64E-01
9.44E-01 1.44E-01
6.16E-OI 3.47E-OI
2.09E-01 3.22E-OI
1.6IE-01 7.81E-02
1.2IE-02 7.36E-02
9.26E+00 3.89E*00
2.00E-02 9.52E-03
8.07E-OI
6.45E-02
4.67E+00
4.72E+00
3.77E-01
1.74E«OI
1.73E*01
8.38E-OI
4.93E-01
2.85E+00
3.01E*00
6.20E-OI
7.24E-01
2.97E+01
7.52E-02
TCDF
FILET
CONC.
3.85E+01 1
7.70E-02 1
6.16E-03 8
1.76E-01 1
-50,000
•1.950
TEQ
FILET
CONC.
47E+02
06E»00
46E-02
74E+00
1.40E-02 7.04E-02
4.36Et01 4
75E+02
1.95E+01 7.15E+01
6.20E-01 S
1.95E+00 9
63E*00
75E*00
6.57E-01 S.80E«00
1.07E-01 I.57E»01
4.07E-01 t
51E+01
6.03E*00 6.88E401
4.43E+00 6
3.73E-01 2
3.22E-02 1
2.S8E-03 9
86E*01
24E+00
96E-01
11E-02
6.31E-02 2.B6E-01
4.49E*01 2
3.59E+00 8
3.26E+00 E
1.34E*01 I
2.65E+00 1
7.80E*02 1
l.OSEtOl S
2.22E+00 2
04E»02
36E*00
65E+01
69E«02
42E*02
68E+03
.68E+01
64E+01
1.56E*03 1.62Et04
1.46E+03 1
1.47E»00 2
3.66E-01 3
8.SOE-OI 3
1.29E-01 4
8.61E«00 3
3.1SE-01 8
2.S2E-02 6
1.34E*00 4
3.53E-01 4
2.82E-02 3
I.25E«01 1
4.95E»00 1
24E+04
.17E*Ol
.58E+00
.06E+00
. lOEtOO
.78E«01
.38E-01
.70E-02
.BOEtOO
.75E+00
.80E-OI
.87E»01
.78E«01
7.99E-01 9.18E-01
9.44E-01 5
6.16E-OI 2
2.09E-01 3
1.6IE-01 6
1.21E-02 7
9.26E+00 3
2.00E-02 7
88E-OI
.91E»00
03E+00
36E-01
25E-01
.06E«01
72E-02
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
TCDD BCF TO FILET'S. 000 TCDD BCF TO FILET-50,000
TCOF BCF TO FILETM.950 TCOF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TCDF TEQ TCDD TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC. CONC. CONC. CONC.
6.30E+00 3.02E»01 9.32E+00 6.30E+01 3.02E+01 6.60E+01
3.69E-02 7.26E-02 4.41E-02 3.69E-01 7.26E-02 3.76E-01
2.95E-03 5.81E-03 3.53E-03 2.95E-02 5.81E-03 3.01E-02
6.06E-02 1.65E-01 7.71E-02 6.06E-01 1.65E-01 6.22E-01
4.84E-03 1.32E-02 6.17E-03 4.84E-02 1.32E-02 4.98E-02
4.15E+01 4.77E»01 4.63E»01 4.15E*02 4.77E+01 4.20E+02
CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CO CD CO CD
3.84E-01 1.89£»00 S.73E-01 3.84E+00 1.89E*00 4.03E+00
2.29E-01 6.35E-01 2.92E-01 2.29E+00 6.3SE-01 2.35E+00
6.30E-01 1.04E-01 6.40E-01 6.29E+00 1.04E-01 6.31E*00
6.04E-01 3.96E-01 6.43E-01 6.04E+00 3.96E-01 6.07E+00
2.48E»00 5.89E*00 3.07E»00 2.48E+01 5.89E+00 2.S4E«OI
2.48E»00 4.33E*00 2.92E«00 2.48E*01 4.33E*00 2.53E«01
8.68E-02 3.55E-01 1.22E-01 8.68E-01 3.S5E-01 9.03E-01
E E E E E E
9.01E-04 2.13E-03 1.11E-03 9.01E-03 2.13E-03 9.22E-03
E E E E E E
5.98E«00 3.93E+01 9.90E+00 5.98E*01 3.93E+01 6.37E+01
4.78E-01 .14E+00 7.92E-01 4.78E*00 3.14E+00 5.09E+00
2.11E+00 .08E»00 2.41E*00 2.11E*01 3.08E«00 2.14E»01
5.33E*00 .26E«01 6.59E»00 5.33E+01 1.26E*01 5.46E*01
5.37EtOO .65E+00 5.64E*00 5.37E+01 2.65E+00 5.40E*01
6.8EE+01 .71E+02 1.46E*02 6.86E+02 7.71E»02 7.63E+02
3.66E*00 .02E*01 4.68E»00 3.66E+01 1.02E*01 3.76E+01
1.75E+00 .16E*00 2.07E*00 1.75E+01 3.16E*00 1.78E+01
4.15E+02 .39Et03 5.54E+02 4.15E*03 1.39E*03 4.29E+03
3.18E+02 .30E»03 4.48E»02 3.18E+03 1.30E+03 3.31E+03
1.26E+00 .44E*00 1.41E»00 1.26E*01 1.44E+00 1.28E+01
9.31E-02 3.41E-01 1.27E-01 9.31E-01 3.41E-01 9.65E-01
1.4SE-01 8.13E-01 2.26E-01 1.45E+00 8 13E-01 1.53E*00
2.11E-01 1.26E-01 2.24E-01 2.11E+00 1.26E-01 2.13E+00
2.10E400 8.54E«00 2.95E*00 2.10E+01 8.54E»00 2.18E+01
4.15E-02 3.03E-01 7.19E-02 4.15E-01 3.03E-01 4.46E-01
3.32E-03 2.43E-02 5.75E-03 3.32E-02 2.43E-02 3.57E-02
2.89E-01 1.30E»00 4.19E-01 2.89E+00 1.30E*00 3.02E+00
2.81E-01 3.40E-01 3.15E-01 2.81E+00 3.40E-01 2.85E+00
2.25E-02 2.72E-02 2.52E-02 2.25E-01 2.72E-02 2.28E-01
1.06E*00 1.23E«01 2.28E+00 I.06E*01 1.23E'01 1.18E+01
1.16E*00 4.81E+00 1.64E+00 1.16E*01 4.81E«00 1.21E+01
4.45E-02 7.32E-01 I.18E-01 4.45E-01 7.32E-01 5.18E-01
E E E £ E E
8.14E-02 5.77E-OI 1.39E-OI 8.14E-01 5.77E-OI 8.72E-01
1.66E-OI 1.83E-01 1.85E-01 1.66E+00 1.63E-01 1.68E«00
3.73E-02 1.56E-01 5.29E-02 3.73E-01 1.56E-01 3.88E-01
4.35E-02 I.17E-02 4.47E-02 4.35E-01 1.17E-02 4.36E-01
1.39E«00 9.02E+00 2.29E«00 1.39E«OI 9.02E+00 1.48E<01
2.14E-03 1.87E-02 4.00E-03 2.14E-02 1.87E-02 2.32E-02
-------
COMPANY
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mill*. Inc.
Badger Paper Mills. Inc.
Badger Paper Mills. Inc.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
71 International Paper Co.
w International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
Region IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchlkan Pulp I Paper
Ketchlkan Pulp & Paper
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
longvlew Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Appendix F.
SIMPLE DILUTION
CITY
Green Bay
Rothchlld
Peshtlgo
Pesht Igo
Peshtlgo
Peshtlgo
. Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdowi
McGhee
McGhee
St. Francesvllle
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Derldder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufktn
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
Missoula
Snowf lake
Anderson
Ant loch
Falrhaven
Samoa
Sltka
1 Ketchlkan
2 Ketchlkan
lewlston
Levlston
Clatskanle (Uauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
longvlex
longvlew
longvlew
Canas
Everett
SAMPLE ID
M72EBC
M29EC
H46EAC
H46EAC
M46EACX
M46EACX
Zl
H68EC
M51EC
M20EC
M1BEC
M18EC
M52EC
H1EC
H1ECX
M85EC
HS8EC
H99EC
H99EC1
DF024S12
M3EC
H2EC
H2EC
H2EC
H1SEC
H27EC
MI fififr
niuuLi,
M98EC
M106EC
M43ECO
M70EC10
M5EC-1
H31EAC
M31EBC
HS6EC
H56EC1
8637-464S
M19EC
H76ECO
H76ECO
M53EC
H4SEC1-L
H45EC-L
H32EC
H80EAC
NPDES
NUMBER
WI 0020991
WI0026042
WI0030651
WI 0030651
WI0030651
WI00306S1
WI0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR000296B
AR0035823
AR003S823
LA0003468
LA00052SB
LA0005258
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003B91
1X0006041
TX0006041
TX0006041
TXOOS3023
MT000003S
^7
CA000406S
CA0004847
CA00052B2
CAOOOS894
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
100001163
100001163
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020B34
OR0020834
UA000007B
WA0000124
WA0000124
UA00002S6
UA0000621
GRP
ID1
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
3D
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
30
1.
3E
3E
3E
2B
3C
yn
cU
i
s
2A
2A
2B
2B
2A
1
1
1
1
4H
4L
3B
1
1
3E
2D
TCDD TCOF
NON- NON-
OET5 DET5
ECr ECT*
NO
ND
NO
ND ND
NO
ND ND
NO
Nq
NQ
ND
TCDD BCF
TCDF BCF
TCDD
FILET
CONC.
6.01E-04
2.32E-01
1.11E-01
B.89E-03
3.63E-02
2.90E-03
1.18E+00
1.37E+01
2.39E+00
3.05E+00
2.S6E-03
2.05E-04
5.15E-02
Q
9.23E-02
F
1.06E+01
1.27E*01
1.76E»01
2.28E»00
2.40E»01
N
N
N
4.13E*00
ND |5.52E-02
ND
ND ND
ND
NQ
ND
FT
8.94E*00
F
1.09E+OI
4.86E+00
2.75E+00
5.40E-01
6.82E+00
5.28E-01
5.88E-01
2.52E-02
3.53E-01
8.29E-03
6.63E-04
S.91E-03
1.85E-02
2.18E-02
NO
EZD
TO FILET=5.000
TO Fll£T=1.950
TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET
CONC. CONC.
1.60E-03 7.61E-04
1.81E-01 2.50E-01
1.24E*00 2.3SE-01
9.91E-02 1.88E-02
7.52E-01 1.12E-01
6.02E-02 8.92E-03
3.20E-01 1.21E+00
2.06E+01 1.58E+01
9.31E+00 3.32E+00
2.73E*00 3.32E+00
2.50E-03 2.81E-03
2.00E-04 2.2SE-04
7.84E-02 5.93E-02
Q Q
6.7SE-01 1.60E-01
F F
1.98E+01 1.26E«01
I.64E+01 1.44E+01
1.68E+01 1.93E«01
8.90E-01 2.37E+00
I.06E+01 2.50E*01
N N
N N
N N
5.03E+01 9.16E*00
2.64E-02 5.78E-02
EZ E2
1.17E+02 2.07E*01
F F
2.80E+01 1.37E+01
9.04E»00 5.76E+00
8.91E+00 3.64E*00
1.67E-01 S.S7E-01
1.28E+00 6.95E+00
1.04E+00 6.33E-01
9.29E-01 6.81E-01
7.85E-02 3.30E-02
3.76E-01 3.90E-01
I.47E-02 9.76E-03
1.18E-03 7.B1E-04
S.71E-02 1.16E-02
1.79E-02 2.03E-02
3.1SE-02 2.49E-02
ND ND
EZD EZD
TCDD BCF
TCDF BCF
TCDD
FILET
CONC.
6.01E-03
2.32E»00
1.11E+00
8.89E-02
3.63E-01
2.90E-02
1.18E+01
1.37E+02
2.39E*01
3.05E»01
2.56E-02
2.05E-03
5.15E-01
0
9.23E-01
F
1.06E«02
1.27E+02
1.76E*02
2.28E»01
2.40E«02
N
N
N
4.13E*01
5.52E-01
C 7
8.94E+01
F
1.09E-»02
4.86E+01
2.75E»01
5.40E*00
6.82E«01
5.28E.OO
5.8BE<00
2.52E-01
3.53E*00
8.29E-02
6.63E-03
5.91E-02
1.8SE-01
2.18E-01
ND
EZD
1.
1.
1.
9.
7.
E.
3.
2.
9
2
2
2
7
6
1
1
1
8
1
5
2
1
2
9
TO FILET-50.000
TO FREI-1,950
TCDF
FILET
CONC.
60E-03
81E-OI
24E+00
91E-02
S2E-01
02E-02
20E-01
06E+01
31E+00
73E+00
50E-03
OOE-04
84E-02
Q
75E-01
F
98E»01
64E»01
68E»01
90E-01
06E+01
N
N
N
03E*01
64E-02
c j
17E»02
F
80E+01
04E«00
8.91E+00
.67E-01
.28E*00
S
1
3
04E<00
29E-01
85E-02
76E-01
47E-02
18E-03
71E-02
79E-02
15E-02
ND
EZO
TEQ
FILET
CONC.
6.17E-03
2.34E.OO
1.24E«00
9.88E-02
4.38E-01
3.S1E-02
1.18E.01
I.39E*02
2.48E»01
3.08E*01
2.59E-02
2.07E-03
S.23E-01
Q
9.91E-01
F
1.08E«02
1.29E*02
1.78E«02
2.29£*01
2.41E«02
N
N
N
4.63E+01
5.55E-01
CT
1.01E«02
F
1.11E»02
4.9SE«01
2.84E«01
5.42E.OO
6.83E«01
5.39E»00
S.97E«00
2.EOE-01
3.57E«00
8.44E-02
6.7SE-03
6.48E-02
1.87E-01
2.21E-01
ND
EZD
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
TCDD BCF TO FILET-5,000 TCDD BCF TO F1LET=50.000
TCDF BCF TO FILET-1.950 TCOF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TCDF TEQ TCDD TCDF TED
FILET FILET FILET FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC. CONC. CONC. CONC.
1.71E-04 1.49E-03 3.20E-04 1.71E-03 1.49E-03 1.86E-03
1 21E-01 1.75E-01 1.39E-01 1.21E»00 1.75E-01 1.23E+00
S.9SE-02 l.UEtOO 1.73E-01 S.9SE-01 1.14E«00 7.08E-01
4.7EE-03 9.10E-02 1.39E-02 4.7EE-02 9.10E-02 S.67E-02
E E E E E E
E E E E E E
5.32E-01 3.09E-01 5.63E-01 5.33E+00 3.09E-01 5.36E*00
4.14E«00 1.97E»01 6.12E+00 4.14E+01 1.97E*01 4 34E*01
1.10E»00 9.06E+00 2.01E«00 l.lOEtOl 9.06E^OO 1 19E»01
3.57E-01 2.33E*00 5.90E-01 3.57E»00 2.33E*00 3.80E+00
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Q Q Q Q Q
E E E E E
F F F F F
3.57E»00 .76E»01 5.33£*00 3.57E+01 .76E+01 3.75E+01
2.69E+00 .56E+01 4.25E»00 2.69E+01 .56E*01 2.8SE«01
6.57E*00 .67E«01 B.23E*00 6.57E<01 .67E»01 6.73E«01
7.68E-01 91E-01 B.47E-01 7.68E«00 .91E-01 7.7SE*00
l.OSEtOl .06E*01 1.16E*01 1.0SE«02 . 06E*01 1.06E«02
N N N N N N
N N N N N N
N N N N N N
1.94E+00 3.79E+01 5.73E+00 1.94E*01 3.79E+01 2.32Et01
1.28E-02 2.42E-02 1.53E-02 1.28E-01 2.42E-02 1.31E-01
EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ
4.04E«00 1.14E+02 l.S4E«01 4.04E+01 1 . 14E+02 S.18E*01
F F F F F F
3.8SE«00 2.6EE+01 6.50E+00 3.85E«01 2.66E*01 4.11E+01
1.71E+00 8.56E*00 2.57E+00 1.71E+01 8.56E+00 1.80E«01
9.45E-01 S.lSEtOO 1.76E*00 9.45E»00 8.15E»00 1.03E»01
1.91E-01 1.S9E-01 2.07E-01 1.91E»00 1.S9E-01 1.93E«00
2.45E«00 1.23E»00 2.57E»00 2.45E«01 1.23EtOO 2.46E+01
1.07E-01 8.S3E-01 1.92E-01 1.07E.OO 8.S3E-01 1.16E«00
1.19E-01 7.S8E-01 1.95E-01 1.19E»00 7.S8E-01 1.27E<00
ED ED ED ED ED ED
1.S5E-01 3.64E-01 1.92E-01 1.55E+00 3.64E-01 1.59E*00
ED ED EO ED ED ED
ED EO EO EO ED ED
EO EO ED EO ED ED
EO EO ED ED ED EO
ED EO ED ED EO EO
NO ND ND ND ND NO
EZO EZD EZO EZD EZO EZD
-------
COMPANY
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonter. Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Stmpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
CITT
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmo po 1(3
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
BelTlngham
Everett
Hoqulam
Uallula
Appendix F.
SIMPLE DILUTION
SAMPLE ID
K80EBC
N12EC
H4EC
M81EC
M81EC1
M81ECX
M81ECXX
M60EC1
M79EC
H33EC
M66EC
NPDES
NUMBER
WA0000621
WA0000795
WA0000809
WA00008SO
WA0000850
UA0000850
WA00008SO
WA0001091
WA0003000
UA0003077
UA0003697
GRP
ID1
20
2A
2A
2E
2E
2E
2E
28
2A
2A
1
TCOO TCOF
NON- NON-
DET; DEI;
ECT2 ECT2
NO NO
NO
NO
NQ
NQ
NO
TCOD 8CF
TCDF 8CF
TCDD
FILET
CONC.
no
1 . 10E+00
9.70E+00
NO
NO
NO
NO
1.33E-01
8.25E+00
5.75E»00
3.89E-01
TO FILET=5. 000
TO FILET-1.9SO
TCOF TEQ
FILET FILET
CONC. CONC.*
EZD EZD
7.02E-01 1.17E+00
1.56E+02 2.53E»01
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
1.64E+OI 1.77E+00
2.53E+01 1.08E+01
8.39E-01 5.83E«00
3.16E+00 7.06E-01
TCDO BCF TO FILET=50.000
TCDF BCF TO FIIETM.950
TCOD TCOF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
EZO EZD EZO
l.lOE+01 7.02E-01 1.11E+01
9.70E+01 1.56E+02 1.I3E+02
NO NO NO
NO NO NO
NO NO NO
NO NO NO
1.33E+00 1.64E*01 2.96E»00
8.25E»01 2.53E+01 8.50E+01
5.75E+01 8.39E-01 5.76E*01
3.89E+00 3.16E«00 4.21E+00
TCOD BCF
TCOF BCF
TCOO
FILET
CONC.
EZO
3.93E-OI
3.2SE400
NO
NO
NO
NO
4.69E-02
3.08E-01
2.01E*00
1.13E-01
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
TO F1LET-S.OOO
TO FILET-1.9SO
TCOF TEQ
FILET FILET
CONC. CONC.
EZO EZD
6.7SE-01 4.61E-01
1.38E+02 1.71E«01
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
1.56E+01 1.61E+00
2.54E+00 S.62E-01
7.83E-01 2.08E*00
2.46E*00 3.S9E-01
TCDD BCF
TCDF BCF
TCDD
FILET
CONC.
EZO
3.93E»00
3.25E»01
NO
ND
NO
ND
4.69E-OI
3.08E+00
Z.OlEtOl
1.13E»00
TO FIL£T=
TO FILET-
TCDF
FILET
CONC.
EZO
6.7SE-01
1.38E+02
NO
NO
ND
ND
1.S6E+01
2.S4E+00
7.83E-01
2.46E+00
SO. 000
1.9SO
IEQ
FILET
CONC.
EZO
4.00E+00
4.63E«01
ND
NO
ND
NO
2.03E+00
3.33E+00
2.01E«01
1.37E*00
1
Legends of analysis group ID codes and error codes are on the next page.
NO - Not detected In the effluent samples. Ftlet concentration estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit in the effluent sample.
NQ - Nonquantlfiable
a.k.a. Hamnermlll Papers.
-------
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
Analysis Group
1 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection limits.
28 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. 2,3.7,8-TCDO concentrations
In effluent samples Here below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
20 Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2,3.7,8-lCDD and/or 2.3.7.B-1CDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-TCDD and/or 2.3.7.B-ICOF.
38 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7.8-TCDD concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3,7,8-lCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations in effluent
samples were below detection limits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations in effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and/or 2,3,7.8-lCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 75% pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In effluent samples was not
available.
0 Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7Q10) was not available.
N Concentrations in effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-
TCDD and/or 2,3,7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
Q Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-
TCDD and/or 2.3.7,8-TCDF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in receiving water was not
available.
Z A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
S Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
-------
APPENDIX G
-------
COMPANY
Appendix G.
Average dally lifetime 95X Bioavaliable Dose in mg/kg/day of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF as TEQ from Fish Ingestion
CITY
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
O James River Corp.
~ Region II
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch & Pruyn & Co., Inc.
Region III
Uestvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.M. Glatfelter Co.
Procter & Gamble Co,
International Paper!:
International Paper
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Westbrook
Hinckley
Hinckley
Berlin
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
West Point
Covington
Covington -
Covington
Covington
Franklin
Court land
Brewton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
SAMPLE ID
M17EC
R61-86388
M11EC
MSEC
M82EC
M30EC
M61EC
M61EC1
BH89EC
M89EC
M9EC
M9EC1
M41EC
M62EC
M62EC
M57EAC
M57EBC
M13EOO
M64EC20
M42EC
M103ECX
M103ECX
M74EC140
BM28EC
M28EC
M28EC1
M28EC2
UCF1000
M40EC
M67EC
M65EC
M65EC1
M71EC
NPOES
NUMBER
ME0001872
ME0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
ME0002054
ME0002321
ME0021521
ME0021521
NH000065S
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0004413
NY0005525
M00021687
HD0021687
PA0002143
PA0002143
PA0008265
PA0008869
PA0008885
PA0026301
PA0026301
VA000311S
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0004162
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL0002755
AL0002755
AL0002780
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
DETz DET5
ECT' ECr
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
2A
30 ND ND
4H
4L
3B ND
1
3B ND
3B ND
3B ND
2CH
2CL
1
3B ND
1
3B ND
1
1
2A
3C ND
1
1
1
DOSE
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000.
TCDF,
1,950
0 6.5
9/day
6
8
4
5
9
1
6
8
1
5
5
7
1
1
1
3
1
1
5
2
4
2
1
8
9
1
8
1
1
2
1
.6E-11
.9E-10
.7E-11
.7E-11
.6E-10
.6E-10
.7E-11
.3E-11
.1E-10
.9E-10
.8E-10
.4E-10
.6E-11
.9E-10
.5E-11
.3E-11
.3E-10
.8E-10
.4E-10
.3E-12
EZ
EZ
.7E-10
.2E-10
.OE-08
.2E-10
.OE-10
.IE-OS
.6E-11
.6E-10
.9E-10
.4E-10
.6E-10
SIMPLE DILUTION DOSE FROM EXAMS WATER CO
TCDD BCF=50,000, TCDD TCDD BCF=50,000,
TCDD, BCF=1, 950 BCF TCDD, BCF=1, 950
FILET=
5,000,
TCDF,
1,950
8 30 0 140 0 6.5 0 30 @ 140
g/day
2
3
1
2
3
7
2
3
4
1
2
2
7
7
6
1
4
7
2
1
1
8
4
2
3
5
3
7
7
9
5
7E-09
5E-08
9E-09
4E-09
8E-08
OE-09
7E-09
2E-09
4E-09
6E-08
1E-08
8E-08
IE-ID
8E-09
3E-10
3E-09
9E-09
6E-09
1E-08
OE-10
EZ
EZ
8E-08
8E-09
4E-07
3E-08
OE-08
OE-07
4E-09
OE-09
3E-09
3E-09
8E-09
g/day g/day
1
1
8
1
1
3
1
1
2
7
9
1
3
3
2
6
2
3
9
4
8
4
2
1
1
2
1
3
3
4
2
.2E-08 5
.6E-07 5
.6E-09 3
.IE-OS 4
.7E-07 5
.3E-08 9
.2E-08 4
.5E-08 5
.OE-08 6
. IE-OS 4
.5E-08 2
.3E-07 3
.3E-09 9
.6E-08 6
.9E-09 5
.1E-09 1
.2E-08 4
.5E-08 4
.4E-08 1
.9E-10 1
EZ
EZ
.2E-08 1
.OE-08 8
.OE-06 3
.OE-07 4
.3E-07 4
.3E-06 4
.6E-08 3
.3E-08 7
.4E-08 8
.2E-08 1
.6E-08 7
.2E-11
.4E-10
.7E-11
.5E-11
.6E-10
.OE-11
.OE-11
.1E-11
.8E-11
.5E-10
.8E-10
.4E-10
.1E-12
.7E-11
.3E-12
.7E-11
.7E-11
.3E-11
.3E-10
-1E-12
EZ
EZ
.9E-10
.5E-11
.7E-09
.7E-10
.3E-10
.5E-09
.8E-11
.9E-11
.8E-11
.1E-10
.5E-11
g/day
2.1E-09
1.9E-08
1.4E-09
1.8E-09
2. OE-08
3.7E-09
1.5E-09
1.8E-09
2.6E-09
1. OE-08
7.5E-09
9.8E-09
4.1E-10
2.3E-09
1.9E-10
6.1E-10
1.2E-09
1.4E-09
3. OE-09
4.8E-11
EZ
EZ
5.3E-09
2.7E-09
1.3E-07
7.9E-09
9.6E-09
1.9E-07
1.3E-09
3.5E-09
2.7E-09
3.4E-09
1.9E-09
g/day
9.7E-09
9. OE-08
6.7E-09
8.5E-09
9.2E-08
1.7E-08
6.9E-09
8.3E-09
1.2E-08
4.7E-08
3.5E-08
4.6E-08
1.9E-09
1.1E-08
8.7E-10
2.8E-09
5.6E-09
6.6E-09
1.4E-08
2.2E-10
EZ
EZ
2.5E-08
1.2E-08
6.1E-07
3.7E-08
4.5E-08
8.8E-07
5.9E-09
1.6E-08
1.3E-08
1.6E-08
8.8E-09
-------
Appendix 6. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Oilman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Uestvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Mobile
Demopolls
Selma
Coosa Pines
Butler
Claiborne
Claiborne
Claiborne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wickliffe
Hawesville
Natchez
Moss Point
Moss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Riegelwood
SAMPLE ID
M26EC210
M101EC
M88EC
M36EC
M96EC
M21EC
M21EC1
M21EC2
M90EC
M91ECO
CP1000
M102EAC
M102EAC
M102EBC
M102EBC
M24EC
M94EC1
M94EC1
M55EC
M83EC
M84EAC
M84EBC
M87EC
M87EC1
M22EC10
M78EC
M63EC
M97EC
M34EC
M34EC
BM35SEC30
M35SEC30
NPOES
NUMBER
AL0002801
AL0002828
AL0003018
AL0003158
AL0003301
AL0025968
AL0025968
AL0025968
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003620
GA0003654
GA0003654
GA0049336
KY0000086
KY0001716
MS0000213
MS0002674
MS0002674
MS0031704
MS0031704
M47G100-500NC0000272
M86ECO
M6EC
M16EC
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
GRP TCOD TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
OET5 OET5
tcr Ecr
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
1
3B ND
2CH ND
2CL ND
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
2B ND
1
1
1
2A
2A
3B ND
1
3D ND ND
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
DOSE
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000,
TCDF,
1,950
8 6.5
g/day
4.1E-11
1.5E-10
1.2E-10
1.8E-10
1.3E-10
5.2E-11
5.1E-11
5.5E-11
7.4E-11
1.3E-08
1.6E-09
9.9E-12
8.0E-13
1.7E-11
7.3E-13
4.5E-09
7.9E-10
5.5E-11
l.OE-10
5.6E-11
1.4E-10
1.4E-10
6.5E-10
6.4E-10
2.3E-11
2.0E-12
8.2E-13
3.0E-12
2.2E-09
l.OE-10
6.1E-10
1.6E-09
1.3E-09
2.1E-08
6.7E-10
2.5E-10
SIMPLE DILUTION
TCOD BCF
TCDD, BCF
0 30
g/day
1.8E-09
6.4E-09
4.7E-09
7.7E-09
5.6E-09
2.0E-09
1.9E-09
2.2E-09
2.8E-09
5.3E-07
6.0E-08
4.3E-10
3.4E-11
7.1E-10
2.9E-11
1.9E-07
2.9E-08
2.3E-09
4.0E-09
2.4E-09
6.4E-09
6.1E-09
2.8E-08
2.8E-08
9.1E-10
8.0E-11
3.7E-11
1.2E-10
8.3E-08
3.4E-09
2.7E-08
6.9E-08
5.8E-08
6.8E-07
2.7E-08
1.1E-08
=50.000.
=1
0
,950
140
g/day
8.
2.
2.
3.
2.
9.
8.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
1.
3.
1.
8.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
2.
1.
1.
4.
3.
1.
5.
3.
1.
1.
3.
2.
3.
1.
5.
4E-09
9E-08
2E-08
5E-08
6E-08
OE-09
8E-09
OE-08
4E-08
5E-06
7E-07
OE-09
6E-10
3E-09
3E-10
9E-07
3E-07
1E-08
8E-08
IE-OS
OE-08
9E-08
3E-07
3E-07
2E-09
7E-10
7E-10
3E-10
8E-07
5E-08
3E-07
2E-07
7E-07
OE-06
2E-07
OE-08
DOSE FROM
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000,
TCOF,
1.950
9 6.5
g/day
1.4E-11
5.1E-11
3.8E-11
5.1E-11
5.3E-11
2.3E-11
2.2E-11
2.3E-11
3.3E-11
5.9E-09
8.2E-10
3.9E-12
3.1E-13
6.8E-12
5.4E-13
4.1E-09
CD
CD
5.1E-11
2.6E-11
5.6E-11
5.7E-11
2.7E-10
2.6E-10
1.1E-11
E
9.8E-14
E
8.7E-10
7.0E-11
2.1E-10
5.8E-10
5.0E-10
1.3E-08
4.1E-10
1.8E-10
EXAMS
WATER CO
TCDD BCF=
TCDD,BCF=
e
30
g/day
5.
1.
1.
1.
1.
6.
6.
7.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
9.
2.
2.
1.
1.
3.
3.
2.
2.
8.
2.
2.
3.
1.
7.
7E-10
9E-09
2E-09
8E-09
9E-09
5E-10
3E-10
1E-10
1E-09
2E-07
7E-08
5E-10
2E-11
5E-10
OE-11
7E-07
CD
CD
6E-09
6E-10
6E-09
5E-09
OE-08
OE-08
7E-10
E
8E-12
E
6E-08
IE -09
7E-09
2E-08
2E-08
1E-07
5E-08
3E-09
8
50,000,
1,950
140
g/day
2.
8.
5.
8.
8.
3.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1.
7.
5.
1.
9.
8.
7.
4.
1.
1.
4.
4.
1.
1.
1.
9.
4.
1.
1.
1.
7.
3.
6E-09
7E-09
4E-09
6E-09
8E-09
OE-09
9E-09
3E-09
9E-09
OE-06
3E-07
1E-10
7E-11
2E-09
5E-11
OE-07
CD
CD
7E-09
5E-09
2E-08
2E-08
8E-08
8E-08
7E-09
E
8E-11
E
2E-07
7E-09
IE -08
OE-07
OE-07
4E-06
1E-08
4E-08
-------
Appendix G. (continued)
O
COMPANY
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Head Corporation
Bowater Corp.
Region V
Head Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Champion International
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Head Corp.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Uausau Paper Mills Co. 1
Wausau Paper Mills Co. 2
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
CITY
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Kingsport
Calhoun
Escanaba
Huskegon
Huskegon
Quinnesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International Falls
Chillicothe
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
Brokaw
Nekoosa & Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
HcGhee
HcGhee
St. Francesville
SAMPLE ID
H70EC
M70EC1
M23EC
H93EC
M73EC
M75EC
ML802
M92EC
M92EC
Q14E
M38ECO
H38ECO
DE020922
DE026013
H46EBC
M46EBCX
M72EAC
M25EC
M54EC
H54ECX
M77EC
M72EBC
M72EBC
M29EC
M46EAC
M46EAC
M46EACX
M46EACX
21
M68EC
M51EC
M20EC
M18EC
M18EC
M52EC
NPDES
NUMBER
SC0000868
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
HI0000027
HI0027391
HI0027391
MI0042170
UM — -
HN0001643
OH0004481
WI 0000663
WI 0000663
WI0001261
WI0003212
WI0003379
WI0003379
WI0003620
WI0020991
WI0020991
WI0026042
WI 0030651
WI0030651
WI0030651
WI0030651
WI0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
AR0035823
LA0003468
GRP
ID1
2A
2A
1
1
1
30
3B
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
1
3B
1
3B
1
3B
3B
3D
1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
3D
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
TCOD TCOF
NON- NON-
DET5 DET5
ECT* Ecr
NO NO
DOSE
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000,
TCDF.
1,950
9 6.5
g/day
1.5E-07
1.2E-07
2.0E-10
3.5E-11
3.4E-11
3.7E-11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
4.0E-10
9.9E-12
7.9E-13
5.3E-11
4.5E-11
3.6E-12
2.6E-10
2.0E-10
1.4E-11
1.3E-11
3.1E-11
2.8E-11
6.9E-12
6.5E-12
3.4E-10
8.4E-13
6.7E-14
2.2E-11
2.1E-11
1.7E-12
9.8E-12
7.9E-13
1.1E-10
1.4E-09
2.9E-10
2.9E-10
2.5E-13
2.0E-14
5.2E-12
SIMPLE DILUTION
TCDD BCF
TCDD, BCF
8 30
g/day
6.6E-06
5.0E-06
8.8E-09
1.5E-09
1.2E-09
1.7E-09
1.5E-08
3.4E-10
2.7E-11
2.0E-09
1.9E-09
1.5E-10
7.6E-09
7.2E-09
3.7E-10
2.4E-10
1.2E-09
1.2E-09
2.6E-10
3.0E-10
1.2E-08
3.1E-11
2.5E-12
9.5E-10
5.0E-10
4.0E-11
1.8E-10
1.4E-11
4.8E-09
5.7E-08
l.OE-08
1.3E-08
1.1E-11
8.4E-13
2.1E-10
=50.000,
=1.950
0 140
g/day
3.0E-05
2.3E-05
4.1E-08
6.7E-09
5.6E-09
7.8E-09
7.0E-08
1.5E-09
1.2E-10
8.9E-09
9.0E-09
7.2E-10
3.3E-08
3.3E-08
1.6E-09
9.4E-10
5.4E-09
5.7E-09
1.2E-09
1.4E-09
5.6E-08
1.4E-10
1.1E-11
4.4E-09
2.1E-09
1.7E-10
6.9E-10
5.5E-11
2.2E-08
2.6E-07
4.5E-08
5.8E-08
4.9E-11
3.9E-12
9.8E-10
DOSE FROM EXAMS
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000.
TCDF.
1.950
0 6.5
g/day
4.9E-08
4.0E-08
1.2E-10
1.1E-11
2.0E-11
2.0E-11
2.6E-10
6.3E-12
5.1E-13
3.7E-11
2.8E-11
2.2E-12
2.0E-10
1.5E-10
l.OE-11
E
1.2E-11
1.6E-11
4.7E-12
3.9E-12
2.0E-10
3.5E-13
2.8E-14
1.2E-11
1.5E-11
1.2E-12
E
E
5.0E-11
5.4E-10
1.8E-10
5.2E-11
E
E
E
WATER CO
TCDD BCF=50,000,
TCDD. BCF=1. 950
0 30
g/day
1.7E-06
1.3E-06
5.2E-09
3.9E-10
6.2E-10
8.7E-10
8.9E-09
1.8E-10
1.5E-11
1.2E-09
1.2E-09
9.3E-11
4.8E-09
4.9E-09
2.1E-10
E
3.5E-10
6.8E-10
1.6E-10
1.8E-10
6.0E-09
9.5E-12
7.6E-13
5.0E-10
2.9E-10
2.3E-11
E
E
2.2E-09
1.8E-08
4.9E-09
1.5E-09
E
E
E
6 140
g/day
8.1E-06
6.3E-06
2.4E-08
1.8E-09
2.9E-09
4.0E-09
4.2E-08
8.5E-10
6.8E-11
5.7E-09
5.4E-09
4.3E-10
2.2E-08
2.3E-08
9.8E-10
E
1.7E-09
3.2E-09
7.4E-10
8.3E-10
2.8E-08
4.4E-11
3.5E-12
2.3E-09
1.3E-09
1.1E-10
E
E
l.OE-08
8.2E-08
2.3E-08
7.2E-09
E
E
E
-------
Appendix G. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
O
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Internationa] Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion Internationa]
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
Reigon IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
KetchIkan Pulp & Paper
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Longview Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Deridder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
Hissoula
Snowflake
Anderson
Antioch
Fairhaven
Samoa
Sitka
1 Ketchikan
2 Ketchikan
Lewiston
Lewiston
Clatskanie (Wauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
Longview
Longview
Longview
Camas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
SAMPLE ID
M1EC
H1ECX
M85EC
M58EC
M99EC
M99EC1
DF024512
MSEC
M2EC
M2EC
M2EC'
M15EC
NPDES
NUMBER
LA00052S8
LA0005258
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0053023
GRf
ID1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
3D
1
3E
3E
3E
28
TCDD TCDF
NON- NON-
DET5 DET5
ECTZ ECTZ
NQ
NO ND
NQ
NQ
NQ
ND
DOSE
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5.000.
TCDF.
1,950
9 6.5
g/day
Q
1.4E-11
F
1.1E-09
1.3E-09
1.7E-09
2.1E-10
2.2E-09
N
N
N
8.1E-10
SIMPLE DILUTION
TCDD BCF=50.000.
TCDD. BCF
0 30
9/day
Q
4.0E-10
F
4.4E-08
5.2E-08
7.2E-08
9.3E-09
9.8E-08
N
N
N
1.9E-08
=1
e
.950
140
g/day
1.
2.
2.
3.
4.
4.
7.
Q
8E-09
F
OE-07
4E-07
3E-07
3E-08
6E-07
N
N
N
8E-08
DOSE FROM EXAMS
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000,
TCDF.
1.950
9 6.5
g/day
Q
E
F
4.7E-10
3.8E-10
7.3E-10
7.5E-11
l.OE-09
N
N
N
5.1E-10
WATER COLUMN
TCDD BCF=50,000,
TCDD,BCF=
e 30
g/day
Q
E
F
1.5E-08
1.2E-08
2.7E-08
3.2E-09
4.3E-08
N
N
N
9.4E-09
e
1.950
140
g/day
7.
5.
1.
1.
2.
4.
Q
E
F
1E-08
4E-08
3E-07
5E-08
OE-07
N
N
N
4E-08
M27EC
M100EC
M98EC
M106EC
M43ECO
M70EC10
M5EC-1
M31EAC
M31EBC
M56EC
M56EC1
8637-4645
M19EC
H76ECO
H76ECO
M53EC
M45EC1-L
M45EC-L
M32EC
M80EAC
M80EBC
M12EC
MT0000035 3C
AZ
CA0004065
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
ID0001163
ID0001163
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020834
OR0020834
WA0000078
WA0000124
WA0000124
WA0000256
WA0000621
WA0000621
WA0000795
2D
1
5
2A
2A
28 ND
2B ND
2A
1
1
1
1
4H
4L
38 NO
1
1
3E NQ
20 ND
2D ND
2A
ND |5.1E-12 2.3E-10 l.OE-09 1.3E-12 5.3E-11 2.5E-10
EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ
1.8E-09 4.1E-08 1.7E-07 1.4E-09 2.1E-08 9.8E-08
F F F F F F
1.2E-09 4.5E-08 2.1E-07 5.7E-10 1.7E-08 7.8E-08
5.1E-10 2.0E-08 9.2E-08 2.3E-10 7.3E-09 3.4E-08
ND
ND
3.2E-10
4.9E-11
6.1E-10
5.6E-11
6.0E-11
2.9E-12
3.4E-11
8.6E-13
6.9E-14
l.OE-12
1.8E-12
2.2E-12
ND
EZD
EZD
l.OE-10
1.2E-08
2.2E-09
.8E-08
.2E-09
.4E-09
.1E-10
.5E-09
3.4E-11
2.7E-12
2.6E-11
7.6E-11
9.0E-11
ND
EZD
EZD
4.5E-09
5.2E-08
l.OE-08
1.3E-07
l.OE-08
1.1E-08
4.8E-10
6.7E-09
1.6E-10
1.3E-11
1.1E-10
3.5E-10
4.1E-10
NO
EZO
EZD
2.1E-08
1.6E-10
1.8E-11
2.3E-10
1.7E-11
1.7E-11
ED
1.7E-11
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
4.1E-11
4.2E-09 2
7.9E-10 3
l.OE-08 4
4.7E-10 2
5.2E-10 2
ED
6.5E-10 3
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
1.6E-09 7
.OE-08
.7E-09
.7E-08
.2E-09
.4E-09
ED
.OE-09
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
.6E-09
-------
Appendix 6. (continued)
COMPANY
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonler, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
CITY
Cosmopolis
Tacocna
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Belllngham
Everett
Hoqulam
Wallula
SAMPLE ID
M4EC
H81EC
M81EC1
M81ECX
M81ECXX
M60EC1
M79EC
M33EC
M66EC
NPDES
NUMBER
UA0000809
WA0000850
WA00008SO
WA0000850
UA0000850
WA0001091
UA0003000
WA0003077
WA0003697
GRP
ID1
2A
2E
2E
2E
2E
2B
2A
2A
1
TCDD TCDF
NON- NON-
DET5 DET5
ECr ECr
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
ND
DOSE
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000.
TCDF.
1,950
8 6.5
g/day
2.2E-09
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.6E-10
9.5E-10
5.1E-10
6.2E-11
SIMPLE DILUTION
TCDD BCF
TCDD, BCF
e 30
g/day
4.6E-08
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.2E-09
3.5E-08
2.3E-08
1.7E-09
s
&
1
2
1
1
7
50,000.
1,950
6 140
g/day
.8E-07
ND
ND
ND
ND
.5E-09
.6E-07
.1E-07
.4E-09
1
1
DOSE FROM EXAMS
TCDD
BCF
FILET=
5,000.
TCDF.
1,950
0 6.5
g/day
.5E-09
ND
ND
ND
ND
.4E-10
5.0E-11
1
3
.8E-10
.2E-11
WATER CO
TCDD BCF=50.000,
TCDD, BCF=1. 950
8 30
g/day
1.9E-08
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.3E-10
1.4E-09
8.2E-09
5.6E-10
9 140
g/day
8.8E-08
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.9E-09
6.3E-09
3.8E-08
2.6E-09
O
1
Legends of analysis group ID codes and error codes are on the next page.
ND = Not detected In the effluent samples. Dose estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit in the effluent sample.
NQ = Nonquantifiable
a.k.a. Hammermill Papers
-------
o
As
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
Analysts Group
1 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection limits.
28 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. 2.3,7.8-TCDD concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
t POTW assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 98% pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
2D Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2,3.7,8-TCDD and/or 2,3,7.8-lCOF.'These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2,3.7,8-TCDD and/or 2.3,7,8-ICOF.
38 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3.7,8-TCOD concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec. 2,3.7,8-TCDF concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF concentrations in effluent
samples were below detection limits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations in effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2,3,7.8-TCDO and/or 2,3.7.8-ICOF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 75% pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in effluent samples was not
available.
D Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7Q10) was not available.
N Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-
TCDD and/or 2,3.7.8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
Q Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3,7.8-
TCOD and/or 2.3.7.8-TCDF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in receiving water was not
available.
Z A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
5 Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
-------
APPENDIX H
-------
COMPANY
Appendix H.
Hill Specific Dose (pg/kg/day) from Drinking Water at Ingestion of 2 Liters per Day
CITY
SAMPLE ID
NPDES
NUMBER
GRP TCOD TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
DET5 DET5
ECT2 ECT2
SIMPLE DILUTION
DRINKING WATER DOSES
TCDD TCDF TEQ
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
DRINKING WATER DOSES
TCDD TCDF TEQ
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Region II
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch & Pruyn & Co., Inc.
Region III
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.M. Glatfelter Co.
Procter & Gamble Co.
International Paper's
International Paper's
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Westbrook
Hi nek ley
Hinckley
Berlin
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Ttconderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
West Point
Coving ton
Covington
Covington
Covington
Franklin
Court land
Brew ton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
Demopo 1 i s
M17EC
RG1-86388
H11EC
MSEC
M82EC
M30EC
M61EC
M61EC1
BM89EC
M89EC
M9EC
H9EC1
M41EC
M62EC
M62EC
M57EAC
M57EBC
M13EDO
M64EC20
M42EC
M103ECX
M103ECX
M74EC140
BM28EC
M28EC
M28EC1
M28EC2
UCF1000
M40EC
M67EC
M65EC
M65EC1
M71EC
M26EC210
M101EC
ME0001872
ME0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
HE00020S4
ME0002321
ME0021521
ME0021521
NH00006S5
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0004413
NYOOOSS25
MD0021687
MD0021687
PA0002143
PA0002143
PA0008265
PA0008869
PA0008885
PA0026301
PA0026301
VA0003115
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0004162
AL0000396
AL 0002682
AL0002755
AL0002755
AL0002780
AL0002801
AL0002828
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
2A
3D
4H
4L
3B
1
3B
3B
3B
2CH
2CL
1
3B
1
3B
1
1
2A
3C
1
1
1
1
1
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
SO
3.7E-12
4.8E-11
2.6E-12
3.3E-12
5.3E-11
9.8E-12
3.7E-12
4.5E-12
6.2E-12
2.1E-11
SO
1.4E-11
2.3E-10
1.1E-11 3
1.1E-11 4
2.5E-10 7
1.9E-11
1.5E-11
2.3E-11
SO
5.1E-
7.2E-
7E-
4E-
7.8E-
1.2E-
5.2E-
EXWC EXWC EXWC
6.8E-
2.2E-11 8.4E
4.3E-10 6.5E
-12
-11
-12
9E
6E
OE
5E-12 1
7E
IE
OE
4E
6E
-11 2
-12 1
-12 1
-12 2
-12 2
1.4E-11
10
11
11
10
11 6.9E-12
11 3.5E-12
4.7E-12
5.7E-12
3E-
OE-
1E-
4E-
8E-
4E-
3E-
2E-
4.2E-12
4.9E-11
3.0E-12
.6E-12
.1E-11
11
11
1.2E-11 4.2E-10 5.5E-11
2.9E-11 2.4E-10 5.2E-11 9.7E-12 2.2E-10 3.1E-11
3.8E-11 2.5E-10 6.3E-11 1.3E-11 2.3E-10 3.6E-11
9.9E-13 3.6E-13 l.OE-12 5.7E-13 3.6E-13 6.1E-13
1.1E-11
8.7E-13
1.8E-12
6.7E-12
1.1E-11
2.8E-11
1.5E-13
EZ
EZ
D
1.2E-11
6.1E-10
3.0E-11
4.1E-11
7.0E-10
3.3E-11 1.
2.7E-12 1.
7.5E-12 2.
4.5E-11 1.
3.4E-11 1.
1.8E-10 4.
8.4E-14 1.
EZ
EZ
D
5.4E-11 1.
1.8E-09 7.
5.9E-10 8
4.5E-10 8
7.3E-10 7
4E-11 3.
1E-12 2.
6E-12 8.
1E-11 1.
4E-11 1.
6E-11 3.
5E-13 6.
EZ
EZ
D
8E-11 3,
8E-10 1
9E-11 8
5E-11 1
7E-10 2
2E-12
5E-13
3E-13
5E-12
9E-12
7E-12
7E-14
EZ
EZ
D
6E-12
8E-10
9E-12
2E-11
6E-10
3.0E-11
2.4E-12
6.4E-12
3.9E-11
2.3E-11
1.2E-10
8.1E-14
EZ
EZ
D
5.0E-11
1.6E-09
5.4E-10
4.2E-10
7.3E-10
6.2E-12
4.9E-13
1.5E-12
5.4E-12
4.2E-12
1.5E-11
7.5E-14
EZ
EZ
D
8.6E-12
3.4E-10
6.3E-11
5.3E-11
3.3E-10
4.7E-12 2.1E-11 6.8E-12 1.7E-12 2.0E-11 3.7E-12
9.8E-12 7.5E-12 1.1E-11 4.8E-12 7.4E-12 5.6E-12
l.OE-11 5.7E-11 1.6E-11 3.6E-12 5.5E-11 9.0E-12
1.3E-11 6.7E-11 1.9E-11 4.5E-12 6.4E-11 1.1E-11
D D D 0 D D
D D D D D D
8.9E-12 2.6E-11 1.1E-11 2.6E-12 1.9E-11 4.5E-12
-------
Appendix H. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Oilman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Uestvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Head Corporation
Bowater Corp.
Region V
Head Corporation
Selma
Coosa Pines
Butler
Cla 1 borne
Cla 1 borne
Cla 1borne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wickliffe
Hawesvllle
Natchez
Hoss Point
Hoss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Riegelwood
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Klngsport
Calhoun
Escanaba
SAMPLE 10
H88EC
H36EC
H96EC
H21EC
M21EC1
M21EC2
H90EC
M91ECO
CP1000
M102EAC
H102EAC
M102EBC
M102E8C
M24EC
M94EC1
M94EC1
H55EC
M83EC
M84EAC
M84EBC
M87EC
M87EC1
M22EC10
H78EC
M63EC
M97EC
H34EC
M34EC
BM35SEC30
M35SEC30
NPOES
NUMBER
AL0003018
AL0003158
AL0003301
AL002S968
AL0025968
AL002S968
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003620
GA0003654
GA0003654
GA0049336
KY0000086
KY0001716
HS0000213
HS0002674
HS0002674
HS0031704
MS0031704
M47G100-500NC0000272
M86ECO
M6EC
H16EC
M70EC
M70EC1
M23EC
M93EC
M73EC
H75EC
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
SC0000868
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID1 NON- NON-
DET5 OET5
Ecr Ecr
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
1
3B ND
2CH ND
2CL ND
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
28 NO
1
1
1
2A
2A
3B ND
1
3D ND ND
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
2A
2A
1
1
1
3D ND ND
SIMPLE DILUTION
DRINKING WATER
5
1
7
2
2
3
7
8
2
3
9
8
1
1
5
1
3
9
8
1
1
2
1
2
TCOD
6E-12
1E-11
7E-12
.7E-12
.6E-12
OE-12
0
.4E-10
.2E-11
D
D
D
D
.7E-10
CD
CD
D
.3E-12
.OE-12
.6E-12
D
D
.3E-12
.1E-13
.2E-14
.6E-13
D
D
.8E-11
.6E-11
.1E-11
D
D
.5E-11
D
D
.2E-11
.OE-12
.7E-12
.3E-12
TCDF
2.5E-11
2.3E-11
2.4E-11
1.7E-11
1.7E-11
1.4E-11
D
2.2E-09
5.6E-10
D
D
D
D
6.4E-10
CD
CD
0
9.6E-12
1.6E-12
6. OE-12
D
D
5.5E-12
4.7E-13
3.8E-14
9.3E-13
D
D
4.8E-11
2.0E-10
3.9E-11
D
D
3.3E-11
D
D
2.2E-11
5.4E-12
1.2E-11
1.9E-12
9
1
1
4
4
4
9
1
3
4
9
9
1
1
5
2
4
1
8
1
1
2
2
2
DOSES
TEQ
1E-12
3E-11
OE-11
4E-12
3E-12
4E-12
D
.6E-10
4E-10
D
D
D
D
.3E-10
CD
CD
D
.2E-12
.1E-12
.2E-12
D
D
.8E-12
.6E-13
.6E-14
.5E-13
0
D
.3E-11
.2E-10
.5E-11
D
D
.8E-11
D
D
.4E-11
.6E-12
.9E-12
.5E-12
1
2
2
8
8
9
3
3
2
1
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
1
7
5
8
1
EXAMS
WATER
COLUMN
DRINKING WATER DOSES
TCDD
5E-12 2
5E-12 2
5E-12 2
5E-13 1
3E-13 1
5E-13 1
D
OE-10 2
6E-11 4
D
D
D
D
.4E-10 7
CD
CD
D
.3E-12 9
.6E-12 1
.4E-12 5
D
D
.OE-13 5
E
.1E-15 3
E
D
D
.2E-11 4
.OE-11 1
.1E-11 3
D
D
.OE-11 4
D
D
.2E-12 2
.3E-13 5
.3E-13 1
.2E-12 1
TCDF
3E-11
1E-11
3E-11
6E-11
.6E-11
.3E-11
D
.2E-09
.4E-10
D
D
D
D
.OE-10
CD
CD
D
.3E-12
.5E-12
.8E-12
D
D
.2E-12
E
.1E-14
E
D
D
.5E-11
.8E-10
.9E-11
D
D
.6E-11
D
D
.1E-11
.OE-12
.2E-11
.9E-12
TEQ
3.9E-12
4.6E-12
4.8E-12
2.4E-12
2.4E-12
2.3E-12
D
5.2E-10
8. OE-11
0
D
D
D
3.1E-10
CD
CD
D
2.2E-12
3.7E-12
4. OE-12
D
D
1. OE-12
E
8.3E-15
E
D
D
1.7E-11
4.9E-11
3.5E-11
D
D
1.5E-11
D
D
9.3E-12
1. OE-12
2. OE-12
1.4E-12
ML802
MI0000027 38 ND
|2.1E-11 1.3E-10 3.4E-11 1.2E-11 1.3E-10 2.5E-11
-------
Appendix H. (continued)
COMPANY
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Champion International
Potlatch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp
Mead Corp.
Badger Paper Mills
Badger Paper Mills
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Wausau Paper Mills Co
Wausau Paper Mills Co
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills.
Badger Paper Hills.
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Consolidated Papers,
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex. Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
al
Inc.
Inc.
o. 1
o. 2
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
.
Co.
.
.
Co.
Co.
Co.
al
al
CITY
Muskegon
Muskegon
Quinnesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International Falls
Chillicothe
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
Brokaw
Nekoosa & Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
McGhee
McGhee
St. Francesville
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Deridder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
SAMPLE ID
M92EC
M92EC
Q14E
M38ECO
H38ECO
DE020922
DE026013
M46EBC
M46EBCX
M72EAC
M25EC
M54EC
M54ECX
M77EC
M72EBC
M72EBC
M29EC
M46EAC
M46EAC
M46EACX
M46EACX
21
M68EC
M51EC
M20EC
M18EC
M18EC
M52EC
M1EC
M1ECX
M85EC
M58EC
M99EC
M99EC1
DF024512
M3EC
M2EC
M2EC
M2EC
M15EC
NPDES
NUMBER
MI0027391
MI0027391
MI0042170
MM....
MN0001643
OH0004481
WI 0000663
WI 0000663
WI0001261
WI0003212
WI 0003379
WI0003379
WI 0003620
WI0020991
WI 0020991
WI0026042
WI0030651
WI0030651
WI0030651
WI0030651
WI0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR 0002968
AR0035823
AR0035823
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA00052S8
LA0007S61
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0053023
GRP
ID1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
1
3B
1
3B
1
38
3B
3D
1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
3D
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
3D
1
3E
3E
3E
2B
TCDD TCDF
NON- NON-
DETr DET:
ECTZ ECTZ
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND ND
NQ
ND ND
NQ
NQ .
NQ
ND
SIMPLE DILUTION EXAMS WATER COLUMN
DRINKING WATER DOSES DRINKING WATER DOSES
TCDD TCDF TEQ TCOD TCDF TEQ
4.6E-13 4.6E-12 9.2E-13 2.4E-13 4.4E-12 6.8E-13
3.7E-14 3.7E-13 7.4E-14 1.9E-14 3.6E-13 5.5E-14
2.7E-12 2.0E-11 4.6E-12 1.7E-12 1.9E-11 3.6E-12
2.7E-12 5.2E-12 3.2E-12 1.6E-12 5.0E-12 2.1E-12
2.2E-13 4.1E-13 2.6E-13 1.3E-13 4.0E-13 1.7E-13
l.OE-11 1.8E-10 2.8E-11 6.0E-12 1.8E-10 2.4E-11
D D D D D D
4.8E-13 1.2E-11 1.6E-12 2.5E-13 1.1E-11 1.3E-12
2.8E-13 1.4E-11 1.7E-12 E E E
1.6E-12 9.0E-12 2.5E-12 4.7E-13 8.5E-12 1.3E-12
1.7E-12 3.1E-12 2.0E-12 9.5E-13 2.7E-12 1.2E-12
3.5E-13 2.4E-12 5.9E-13 2.1E-13 2.3E-12 4.4E-13
4.1E-13 1.8E-13 4.3E-13 2.5E-13 1.7E-13 2.7E-13
1.7E-11 1.4E-10 3.1E-11 7.9E-12 1.3E-10 2.1E-11
4.3E-14 2.9E-13 7.2E-14 1.2E-14 2.7E-13 4.0E-14
3.4E-15 2.3E-14 5.8E-15 9.8E-16 2.2E-14 3.2E-15
1.3E-12 2.7E-12 1.6E-12 6.9E-13 2.6E-12 9.5E-13
6.4E-13 1.8E-11 2.5E-12 3.4E-13 1.7E-11 2.0E-12
5.1E-14 1.5E-12 2.0E-13 2.7E-14 1.3E-12 1.6E-13
2.1E-13 1.1E-11 1.3E-12 E E E
1.7E-14 8.8E-13 l.OE-13 E E E
6.7E-12 4.7E-12 7.2E-12 3.0E-12 4.5E-12 3.5E-12
7.8E-11 3.0E-10 1.1E-10 2.4E-11 2.9E-10 5.3E-11
1.4E-11 1.4E-10 2.7E-11 6.3E-12 1.3E-10 2.0E-11
1.7E-11 4.0E-11 2.1E-11 2.0E-12 3.4E-11 5.5E-12
1.5E-14 3.7E-14 1.8E-14 E E E
1.2E-15 2.9E-15 1.5E-15 E E E
2.9E-13 1.1E-12 4.1E-13 E E E
Q Q Q Q Q Q
5.3E-13 9.9E-12 1.5E-12 E E E
F F F F F F
6.1E-11 2.9E-10 8.9E-11 2.0E-11 2.6E-10 4.6E-11
7.3E-11 2.4E-10 9.7E-11 1.5E-11 2.3E-10 3.8E-11
l.OE-10 2.5E-10 1.3E-10 3.8E-11 2.4E-10 6.2E-11
1.3E-11 1.3E-11 1.4E-11 4.4E-12 1.2E-11 5.5E-12
1.4E-10 1.6E-10 1.5E-10 6.0E-11 1.5E-10 7.6E-11
N N N N N N
N N N N N N
N N N N N N
D D D D D D
Missoula
M27EC
MT0000035 3C
ND |3.2E-13 3.9E-13 3.5E-13 7.3E-14 3.6E-13 1.1E-13
-------
Appendix H. (continued)
COMPANY
Region IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchlkan Pulp & Paper 1
Ketchlkan Pulp & Paper 2
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Longview Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonler, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
CITY
Snowflake
Anderson
Ant loch
Falrhaven
Samoa
Sitka
Ketchlkan
Ketchlkan
Lewlston
Lewiston
Clatskanie (Wauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
Longview
Longview
Longview
Camas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopoils
Tacoroa
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoqulam
Wallula
SAMPLE 10
M100EC
M98EC
M106EC
K43ECO
H70EC10
M5EC-1
M31EAC
M31EBC
M56EC
M56EC1
8637-4645
H19EC
M76ECO
M76ECO
M53EC
M45EC1-L
M45EC-L
M32EC
H80EAC
M80EBC
M12EC
M4EC
M81EC
M81EC1
M81ECX
M81ECXX
M60EC1
H79EC
M33EC
M66EC
NPDES
NUMBER
CA0004065
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
ID0001163
ID0001163
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020834
OR0020834
WA0000078
WA0000124
WA0000124
WA0000256
WA0000621
WA0000621
WA000079S
WA0000809
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
WA0003697
GRP
ID1
2D
1
5
2A
2A
2B
2B
2A
1
1
1
1
4H
4L
38
1
1
3E
2D
20
2A
2A
2E
2E
2E
2E
2B
2A
2A
1
TCDD TCOF
NON- NON-
DET5 DET5
ECT* ECT*
SIMPLE DILUTION
DRINKING WATER
TCDO
EZ
5.1E-11
F
D
D
NO
NO NO
NO
NQ
NO
NO NO
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
NO
D
D
D
3.0E-12
3.4E-12
ED
2.0E-12
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
0
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
0
0
D
TCDF
EZ
1.7E-09 2
F
D
D
D
D
D
1.5E-11 4
1.4E-11 4
ED
5.5E-12 2
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
D
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
0
0
D
DOSES
TEQ
EZ
.2E-10 2
F
D
0
D
D
0
.6E-12 6
.7E-12 6
ED
.6E-12 8
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
0
D
NO
ND
NO
ND
D
0
D
D
EXAMS
WATER COLUMN
DRINKING WATER
TCDD
EZ
3E-11 1
F
D
D
D
0
D
1E-13 1
.8E-13 1
ED
.9E-13 5
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
0
TCOF
EZ
.7E-09 1
F
D
0
D
D
0
.2E-11 1
.1E-11 1
ED
.3E-12 1
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
DOSES
TEQ
EZ
9E-10
F
D
D
D
D
D
.9E-12
.8E-12
ED
.4E-12
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
Legends of analysis group ID codes and error codes are on the next page.
ND = Not detected in the effluent samples. Dose estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit In the effluent sample.
NQ = Nonquantifiable
a.k.a. Hammer-mill Papers
-------
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
Analysts Group
1 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection limits.
26 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. 2,3,7.8-TCOD concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
I POTW assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
2D Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2,3.7,8-TCDO and/or 2.3,7.8-ICDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2.3,7.8-TCDO and/or 2.3.7,8-lCDF.
3B Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7.8-lCDD concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3.7,8-TCDF concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7.8-TCDD and 2.3,7.8-TCDF concentrations In effluent
samples were below detection limits. ,
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations In effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2.3,7.8-TCDO and/or 2.3.7.8-ICDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 75X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
5 Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In effluent samples was not
available.
D Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuartne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7QIO) was not available.
N Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3,7.8-
TCDD and/or 2.3.7.8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
0 Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3,7.8-
TCOD and/or 2,3,7,8-TCOF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in receiving water was not
available.
1 A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
-------
APPENDIX I
-------
Appendix I.
Nil! Specific Unit Risk1 from Fish Ingest Ion
COMPANY
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Internationa) Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Janes River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Region II
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch 4 Pruyn & Co.. Inc.
Region III
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers. Inc.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers. Inc.
P.H. GlatfeUer Co.
Procter & Gamble Co,
International Paper!
International Paper
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion Internationa)
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
CITY
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Westbrook
Hlnckley
HI nek ley
Berlin
Berlin
Tlconderoga
Tlconderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
West Point
Covlngton
Covtngton
Covlngton
Covlngton
Franklin
Court land
Brewton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
Demopolls
Selma
Coosa Pines
Butler
Clalborne
SIMPLE DILUTION EXAMS WATER COLUMN
SAHPLEIO NPDES GRE TCDD TCDF TCDD FILET BCF-5.0004 TCDD BCF TO FILET»50,000 TCOD FILET BCF'5,0004 TCOD BCF TO FILET=50,000
NUMBER ID' NON- MON- TCDF FILET BCF-1. 950 TCDF BCF TO FILET-1.950 TCOF FILET BCF-1. 950 TCOF BCF TO FILEM.950
D£T= DET=
ECr ECTJ TCOD TEQ X TCDD TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ X TCDD TCDD TEQ X TCDD TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ X TCDO
RISK RISK IN TEQ RISK RISK RISK RISK IN TEQ RISK RISK IN TEQ RISK RISK RISK RISK IN TEQ
• 6.5 1 6.5 • 30 • 30 8 140 1 140 • 6.5 « 6.5 • 30 » 30 1 140 0 140
g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day | g/day g/day g/day g/day
M17EC ME0001872 9E-06 IE-OS 87 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 99 7E-06 8E-06 84 3E-04 3E-04 1E-03 2E-03 98
RG1-86388 ME0001937 1E-04 1E-04 84 5E-03 5E-03 3E-02 3E-02 98 6E-05 8E-05 75 3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02 97
M11EC HE0002003 6E-06 7E-06 86 3E-04 3E-04 1E-03 1E-03 98 5E-06 6E-06 83 2E-04 2E-04 1E-03 1E-03 98
MSEC HE0002020 8E-06 9E-06 88 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 99 6E-06 7E-06 86 3E-04 3E-04 1E-03 1E-03 98
M82EC HE0002054 1E-04 2E-04 84 6E-03 6E-03 3E-02 3E-02 98 6E-05 9E-05 74 3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02 97
M30EC ME0002321 2E-05 3E-05 93 1E-03 1E-03 5E-03 5E-03 99 IE-OS IE-OS 88 6E-04 6E-04 3E-03 3E-03 99
M61EC ME0021521 9E-06 IE-OS 87 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 98 5E-06 6E-06 78 2E-04 2E-04 1E-03 1E-03 97
M61EC1 ME0021521 IE-OS IE-OS 83 5E-04 5E-04 2E-03 2E-03 98 6E-06 8E-06 73 3E-04 3E-04 1E-03 1E-03 96
BM89EC NH000065S IE-OS 2E-05 88 7E-04 7E-04 3E-03 3E-03 99 9E-06 IE-OS 81 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 98
HB9EC NH000065S 5E-05 9E-05 56 2E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02 93 3E-OS 7E-OS 43 1E-03 2E-03 6E-03 7E-03 88
M9EC NY00044I3 2A 7E-05 9E-05 75 3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 2E-02 97 2E-05 4E-OS 54 1E-03 1E-03 5E-03 5E-03 92
H9EC1 NY0004413 2A 9E-05 1E-04 79 4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02 97 3E-05 SE-OS 59 1E-03 2E-03 7E-03 7E-03 94
H41EC NYOOOSS2S 3D ND ND 2E-06 2E-06 99 1E-04 1E-04 5E-04 SE-04 100 1E-06 1E-06 98 6E-05 6E-OS 3E-04 3E-04 100
M62EC MD0021687 4H 3E-05 3E-05 89 1E-03 IE-03 6E-03 6E-03 99 8E-06 IE-OS 73 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 96
M62EC MD0021687 4L 2E-06 2E-06 89 1E-04 1E-04 5E-04 5E-04 99 6E-07 8E-07 73 3E-05 3E-OS 1E-04 1E-04 96
H57EAC PA0002143 3B ND 4E-06 5E-06 86 2E-04 2E-04 IE-03 IE-03 98 2E-06 3E-06 77 9E-05 9E-05 4E-04 4E-04 97
H57EBC PA0002143 1 2E-OS 2E-05 79 8E-04 8E-04 4E-03 4E-03 97 4E-06 7E-06 51 2E-04 2E-04 8E-04 9E-04 91
M13EDO PA0008265 3B ND 3E-OS 3E-05 89 IE-03 IE-03 5E-03 6E-03 99 SE-06 7E-06 68 2E-04 2E-04 IE-03 IE-03 95
M64EC20 PA0008869 3B ND 7E-OS 8E-05 81 3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 2E-02 98 9E-06 2E-05 45 4E-04 SE-04 2E-03 2E-03 89
M42EC PA0008885 3B ND 4E-07 4E-07 98 2E-05 2E-05 8E-05 8E-05 100 2E-07 2E-07 95 7E-06 7E-06 3E-05 3E-05 100
H103ECX PA0026301 2CH EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ
M103ECX PA0026301 2CL EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ
H74EC140 VA0003115 1 6E-OS 7E-OS 61 3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02 98 2E-05 3E-05 57 8E-04 8E-04 4E-03 4E-03 93
BM28EC VA0003646 3B ND 3E-05 3E-05 85 IE-03 IE-03 6E-03 6E-03 98 9E-06 IE-OS 64 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 95
H28EC VA0003646 1 IE-03 2E-03 90 7E-02 7E-02 3E-01 3E-01 99 4E-04 6E-04 74 2E-02 2E-02 9E-02 1E-01 97
M28EC1 VA0003646 3B ND 7E-05 1E-04 57 3E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02 93 2E-OS 7E-OS 30 IE-03 IE-03 5E-03 6E-03 81
M28EC2 VA0003646 1E-04 1E-04 70 5E-03 5E-03 2E-02 2E-02 96 3E-05 7E-05 42 IE-03 2E-03 6E-03 7E-03 88
UCF1000 VA0004162 2E-03 2E-03 96 8E-02 8E-02 4E-01 4E-01 100 6E-04 7E-04 90 3E-02 3E-02 1E-01 1E-01 99
M40EC AL0000396 A IE-OS IE-OS 85 5E-04 5E-04 2E-03 2E-03 98 4E-06 6E-06 68 2E-04 2E-04 9E-04 9E-04 96
M67EC AL0002682 C ND 2E-05 2E-OS 97 IE-03 IE-03 5E-03 5E-03 100 IE-OS IE-OS 94 5E-04 5E-04 2E-03 3E-03 99
M65EC AL000275S 2E-05 3E-05 82 IE-03 IE-03 5E-03 5E-03 98 9E-06 IE-OS 62 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 94
M65EC1 AL0002755 3E-05 4E-OS 83 IE-03 IE-03 7E-03 7E-03 98 IE-OS 2E-OS 64 5E-04 SE-04 2E-03 2E-03 95
H71EC AL0002780 2E-05 3E-OS 75 9E-04 9E-04 4E-03 4E-03 97 6E-06 IE-OS 49 3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03 91
H26EC210 AL0002801 6E-06 6E-06 95 3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03 99 2E-06 2E-06 86 9E-OS 9E-05 4E-04 4E-04 98
M101EC AL0002828 2E-05 2E-05 90 IE-03 IE-03 5E-03 SE-03 99 6E-06 8E-06 77 3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03 97
H8BEC AL0003018 2E-OS 2E-OS 87 7E-04 7E-04 3E-03 3E-03 99 4E-06 6E-06 63 2E-04 2E-04 8E-04 8E-04 94
M36EC AL00031S8 3E-05 3E-OS 92 IE-03 IE-03 6E-03 6E-03 99 6E-06 8E-06 76 3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03 97
H96EC AL0003301 2E-OS 2E-OS 89 9E-04 9E-04 4E-03 4E-03 99 6E-06 8E-06 74 3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03 97
M21EC AL0025968 7E-06 8E-06 81 3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03 98 2E-06 4E-06 58 9E-05 1E-04 4E-04 5E-04 93
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
SIMPLE DILUTION
COMPANY
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonler, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
61 Iran Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonter, Inc.
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Uestvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Head Corporation
Ikmatcr Corp.
Region V
Head Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Champion International
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
CITY
Clalborne
Clalborne
Fernandlna Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Vlckllffe
Hawesvllle
Natchez
Moss Point
Moss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Rtegelwood
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Klngsport
Calhoun
Escanaba
Muskegon
Muskegon
Qutnnesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International Falls
SAMPLE ID
M21EC1
H21EC2
H90EC
M91ECO
CP1000
H102EAC
M102EAC
H102EBC
M102EBC
M24EC
M94EC1
H94EC1
HS5EC
M83EC
MB4EAC
HB4EBC
M87EC
M87EC1
M22EC10
M7BEC
H63EC
H97EC
H34EC
M34EC
BM35SEC30
M35SEC30
NPDES
NUMBER
AL 0025968
AL00259E8
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003620
GA00036S4
GA00036S4
GA0049336
KY0000086
KV0001716
HSOQ00213
MS0002674
MS0002674
MS0031704
MS003I704
H47G100-500NC0000272
H86ECO
M6EC
H16EC
H70EC
H70EC1
M23EC
H93EC
H73EC
M75EC
HL802
H92EC
H92EC
Q14E
H38ECO
M38ECO
DE020922
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
SC0000868
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
HI 0000027
HI0027391
HI0027391
MI0042170
MM-- __ .
y u
HN0001643
GRB TCDO TCDF
10' NON- NON-
DET; OETr
ECTJ Ecr
1
1
2A
1
3B ND
2CH ND
2CL NO
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
2B ND
1
1
1
2A
2A
3B ND
1
3D ND ND
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
2A
2A
1
1
1
30 ND NO
TCDO FILET BCF*5,000*
TCDF FILET BCF-
TCDD TEQ X
RISK RISK IN
8 6.5 • 6.5
g/day g/day
6E-06 BE-06
7E-06 9E-06
IE-OS IE-OS
2E-03 2E-03
2E-04 2E-04
IE-06 2E-06
1E-07 1E-07
2E-06 3E-06
9E-08 1E-07
6E-04 7E-04
1E-04 1E-04
8E-06 9E-06
IE-OS 2E-OS
8E-06 9E-06
2E-OS 2E-OS
2E-05 2E-05
9E-OS 1E-04
9E-OS IE-04
3E-06 4E-06
3E-07 3E-07
1E-07 1E-07
4E-07 SE-07
3E-04 3E-04
IE-OS 2E-05
9E-OS IE-04
2E-04 2E-04
2E-04 2E-04
2E-03 3E-03
9E-OS IE-04
4E-05 4E-OS
2E-02 2E-02
2E-02 2E-02
3E-OS 3E-05
SE-06 5E-06
4E-06 SE-06
6E-06 6E-06
3B ND
4H NO
4L ND
1
4H
4L
1
5E-OS 6E-OS
IE-06 2E-06
9E-OB 1E-07
6E-06 8E-06
6E-06 7E-06
SE-07 6E-07
2E-OS 4E-OS
1,950
TCDD
TEQ
80
85
84
90
79
93
93
91
83
92
78
90
83
90
99
97
92
94
86
86
97
82
82
69
95
93
98
67
86
92
91
89
94
91
78
97
81
72
72
78
93
93
58
TCDD BCF TO FILET-50,000
TCOF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
RISK RISK RISK RISK
1 30 1 30 • 140 • 140
g/day g/day g/day g/day
3E-04 3E-04 1E-03 1E-03
3E-04 3E-04 2E-03 2E-03
4E-04 5E-04 2E-03 2E-03
8E-02 8E-02 4E-01 4E-01
9E-03 9E-03 4E-02 4E-02
7E-OS 7E-05 3E-04 3E-04
5E-06 5E-06 2E-05 3E-05
IE-04 IE-04 5E-04 SE-04
4E-06 4E-06 2E-05 2E-05
3E-02 3E-02 1E-01 1E-01
4E-03 5E-03 2E-02 2E-02
4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03
6E-04 6E-04 3E-03 3E-03
4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03
1E-03 1E-03 5E-03 5E-03
IE-03 1E-03 4E-03 4E-03
4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02
4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02
IE-04 IE-04 7E-04 7E-04
IE-OS IE -05 6E-05 6E-OS
6E-06 6E-06 3E-05 3E-05
2E-05 2E-05 8E-05 8E-05
1E-02 1E-02 6E-02 6E-02
5E-04 5E-04 2E-03 2E-03
4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02
1E-02 1E-02 SE-02 5E-02
9E-03 9E-03 4E-02 4E-02
1E-01 1E-01 5E-01 SE-01
4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02
2E-03 2E-03 8E-03 8E-03
1E+00 1E+00 5E+00 5E+00
8E-01 8E-01 4E+00 4E+00
IE-03 IE-03 6E-03 6E-03
2E-04 2E-04 IE-03 IE-03
2E-04 2E-04 9E-04 9E-04
3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03
2E-03 2E-03 1E-02 1E-02
5E-05 5E-05 2E-04 2E-04
4E-06 4E-06 2E-OS 2E-05
3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03
3E-04 3E-04 IE-03 IE-03
2E-05 2E-05 IE-04 IE-04
IE-03 IE-03 5E-03 6E-03
X TCDD
IN TEQ
98
98
98
99
97
99
99
99
98
99
97
99
98
99
100
100
99
99
98
98
100
98
98
96
100
99
100
95
98
99
99
99
99
99
97
100
98
96
96
97
99
99
93
EXAMS
WATER COLUMN
TCOD FILET BCF-5.0004
TCOF FILET BCF=>1
,950
TCDD TEQ X TCDD
RISK RISK IN
1 6.5 8 6.5
g/day g/day
2E-06 3E-06
2E-06 4E-06
3E-06 5E-06
7E-04 9E-04
9E-OS IE-04
5E-07 6E-07
4E-08 5E-08
8E-07 IE-06
7E-08 8E-08
6E-04 6E-04
CD CD
CD CD
5E-06 8E-06
3E-06 4E-06
9E-06 9E-06
8E-06 9E-06
3E-05 4E-05
3E-05 4E-05
IE-06 2E-06
E E
1E-08 2E-08
E E
8E-05 IE-04
7E-06 1E-05
3E-05 3E-OS
7E-05 9E-05
7E-OS 8E-OS
9E-04 2E-03
SE-05 6E-OS
2E-05 3E-05
6E-03 8E-03
4E-03 6E-03
2E-05 2E-05
IE-06 2E-06
2E-06 3E-06
3E-06 3E-06
3E-OS 4E-05
6E-07 IE-06
SE-08 BE-08
4E-06 6E-06
4E-06 4E-06
3E-07 3E-07
IE-OS 3E-05
TEQ
1
57
65
66
78
68
84
84
79
79
90
CD
CD
67
78
98
94
81
85
71
E
81
E
60
60
87
81
95
47
78
65
75
71
90
73
64
94
71
58
58
69
89
89
46
TCDD BCF TO
TCDF BCF TO
TCDD TEQ
RISK RISK
8 30 8 30
g/day g/day
9E-05 IE-04
IE-04 IE-04
2E-04 2E-04
3E-02 3E-02
4E-03 4E-03
2E-05 2E-05
2E-06 2E-06
4E-05 4E-05
3E-06 3E-06
3E-02 3E-02
CD CO
CD CD
2E-04 3E-04
IE-04 IE-04
4E-04 4E-04
4E-04 4E-04
2E-03 2E-03
2E-03 2E-03
6E-05 6E-05
E E
6E-07 6E-07
E E
4E-03 4E-03
3E-04 3E-04
IE-03 IE-03
3E-03 3E-03
3E-03 3E-03
4E-02 5E-02
2E-03 2E-03
IE-03 IE-03
3E-01 3E-01
2E-01 2E-OI
8E-04 8E-04
6E-05 6E-05
9E-05 IE-04
IE-04 IE-04
IE-03 IE-03
3E-05 3E-05
2E-06 2E-06
2E-04 2E-04
2E-04 2E-04
IE-OS IE-OS
7E-04 7E-04
F1LET=50.000
FILET-1.950
TCDD TEQ
RISK RISK
8 140 8 140
g/day g/day
4E-04 5E-04
5E-04 5E-04
7E-04 8E-04
2E-01 2E-01
2E-02 2E-02
IE-04 IE-04
9E-06 9E-06
2E-04 2E-04
IE-OS IE-OS
1E-01 1E-01
CO CD
CD CD
IE-03 IE-03
7E-04 7E-04
2E-03 2E-03
2E-03 2E-03
7E-03 8E-03
7E-03 7E-03
3E-04 3E-04
E E
3E-06 3E-06
E E
2E-02 2E-02
IE-03 2E-03
6E-03 6E-03
2E-02 2E-02
2E-02 2E-02
2E-01 2E-01
1E-02 1E-02
5E-03 5E-03
1E+00 1E+00
9E-01 1E«00
4E-03 4E-03
3E-04 3E-04
4E-04 5E-04
6E-04 6E-04
6E-03 6E-03
IE-04 IE-04
IE-OS IE-OS
9E-04 9E-04
8E-04 8E-04
7E-05 7E-05
3E-03 3E-03
X TCDD
IN TEQ
93
95
95
97
95
98
98
97
97
99
CD
CD
95
97
100
99
98
98
96
E
98
E
94
94
99
98
100
90
97
98
97
96
99
96
95
99
96
93
93
96
99
99
90
-------
COMPANY
Head Corp.
ladger Paper Hills. Inc
Badger Paper Hills. Inc
James River Corp.
Pentalr. Inc.
Uausau Paper Mills Co.
Uausau Paper Hills Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper HI 11s, Inc
Badger Paper Hills, Inc
Badger Paper Hills. Inc
Badger Paper Hills. Inc
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
Region IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
CITY
ChlHlcothe
Peshtlgo
Peshtlgo
Green Bay
Park Falls
1 Broka*
I Brokaw
Nekoosa i Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
flothchlld
Peshtlgo
Peshtlgo
. Peshtlgo
. Peshtlgo
c. Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
HcGhee
McGhee
St. Francesvllle
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Derldder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkln
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
Hlssoula
Snnwf Ijiba
nuwi lane
Anderson
Ant Irwh
Am iocn
Fair haven
Samoa
SAMPLE ID
DE026013
N46EBC
H46EBCX
H72EAC
MSEC
M54EC
H54ECX
M77EC
H72EBC
M72EBC
M29EC
H46EAC
M4EEAC
H46EACX
H46EACX
21
M68EC
M51EC
H20EC
H16EC
M18EC
M52EC
M1EC
H1ECX
H85EC
H58EC
H99EC
H99EC1
DF024512
M3EC
H2EC
119 FT
niti
M2EC
HI SEC
M27EC
HI nnrr*
niuuti*
M98EC
ui nccr
niuotu
H43ECO
H70EC10
NPDES
NUMBER
OH0004481
W10000663
Wl 0000663
UI0001261
WI0003212
Wl 0003379
Wl 0003379
Wl 0003620
WI0020991
W 1 0020991
Wl 0026042
Wl 0030651
W10030651
Wl 0030651
WI0030651
WI0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
AR0035823
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA00052S8
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
Tvnnnf\n4i
1 AUUUDU41
TX0006041
TX0053023
MT0000035
^»
CA0004065
r tnnfiAtiAi
IAUUU4B4/
CA0005282
CA0005894
ORB TCOD TCDF
10^ NON- NON-
DET = DEI:
ECIJ ECT3
38 ND
1
3B ND
1
3B ND
3B ND
3D ND ND
1
4H NO
4L ND
1
4H
4L
4H ND
4L ND
3D ND NO
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A NQ
1
5
1
1
1
3D ND ND
1
3E NQ
\f un
Jt n\j
3E NQ
2B ND
3C ND
?n
cU
i
2A
2A
TCOD FILET BCF=
TCOF FILET BCF-
TCDD TEQ X
RISK RISK IN
8 6.S 8 6.5
g/day g/day
2E-05 3E-05
1E-06 2E-06
7E-07 2E-06
4E-06 5E-06
4E-06 4E-06
9E-07 IE-06
1E-06 IE-06
4E-05 5E-05
1E-07 1E-07
8E-09 1E-08
3E-06 3E-06
2E-06 3E-06
!Er07 3E-07
5E-07 2E-06
4E-08 1E-07
2E-05 2E-05
2E-04 2E-04
3E-05 5E-05
4E-05 5E-05
4E-08 4E-08
3E-09 3E-09
7E-07 8E-07
Q Q
IE-06 2E-06
1E-04 2E-04
2E-04 2E-04
2E-04 3E-04
3E-05 3E-05
3E-04 3E-04
N N
Nu
n
N N
6E-05 IE -04
8E-07 8E-07
F7 F7
ti Li
1E-04 3E-04
f f
11-04 2E-04
7E-05 8E-05
SIMPLE
5.0004
1.950
TCDD
TEQ
78
SI
34
82
94
79
98
76
79
79
93
47
47
33
33
97
87
72
92
91
91
87
Q
58
F
84
89
91
96
96
N
N
45
95
F7
ti
43
80
84
DILUTION
TCDD BCF TO FRET-50.000
TCOF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
RISK RISK RISK RISK
0 30 6 30 8 140 1 140
g/day g/day g/day g/day
1E-03 1E-03 5E-03 5E-03
SE-05 6E-05 2E-04 3E-04
3E-05 4E-05 1E-04 2E-04
2E-04 2E-04 8E-04 9E-04
2E-04 2E-04 9E-04 9E-04
4E-05 4E-05 2E-04 2E-04
5E-OS SE-OS 2E-04 2E-04
2E-03 2E-03 9E-03 9E-03
5E-06 5E-06 2E-05 2E-05
4E-07 4E-07 2E-06 2E-06
1E-04 1E-04 7E-04 7E-04
7E-05 8E-05 3E-04 4E-04
6E-06 6E-06 3E-05 3E-05
2E-05 3E-05 1E-04 1E-04
2E-06 2E-06 9E-06 1E-05
8E-04 8E-04 4E-03 4E-03
9E-03 9E-03 4E-02 4E-02
2E-03 2E-03 7E-03 7E-03
2E-03 2E-03 9E-03 9E-03
2E-06 2E-06 BE -06 8E-06
1E-07 1E-07 6E-07 6E-07
3E-05 3E-05 2E-04 2E-04
Q Q Q Q
6E-05 6E-05 3E-04 3E-04
7E-03 7E-03 3E-02 3E-02
8E-03 8E-03 4E-02 4E-02
1E-02 1E-02 5E-02 5E-02
1E-03 1E-03 7E-03 7E-03
2E-02 2E-02 7E-02 7E-02
N N N N
NU II II
n n n
N N N N
3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02
4E-05 4E-05 2E-04 2E-04
F7 F7 F7 F7
t£ t£ tt Et
6E-03 6E-03 3E-02 3E-02
7E-03 7E-03 3E-02 3E-02
3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02
X TCDD
IN TEQ
97
91
84
98
99
97
100
97
97
97
99
90
90
83
83
100
99
96
99
99
99
99
Q
93
98
99
99
100
100
N
N
89
100
P7
CL
88
97
98
EXAM
TCOD FILET BCF-
TCOF FILET BCF-
TCDD TEQ X
RISK RISK IN
8 6.S 8 6.5
g/day g/day
2E-05 2E-05
6E-07 2E-06
E E
IE-06 2E-06
2E-06 3E-06
5E-07 7E-07
6E-07 EE-07
2E-05 3E-05
3E-08 6E-08
2E-09 4E-09
2E-06 2E-06
8E-07 2E-06
7E-08 2E-07
E E
E E
7E-06 BE-06
6E-05 8E-05
2E-OS 3E-05
5E-06 8E-06
E E
E E
E E
Q Q
E E
f f
SE-OS 7E-05
4E-05 6E-05
9E-05 1E-04
IE-OS IE-OS
IE-04 2E-04
N N
N N
3E-OS 8E-05
2E-07 2E-07
F7 F7
ti ti
6E-05 2E-04
p r
5E-05 9E-OS
2E-05 4E-OS
S WATEf
5.0004
1.9SO
TCDD
TEQ
1
71
38
E
59
90
70
97
61
53
53
87
34
34
E
E
95
68
55
60
E
E
E
Q
E
67
63
80
91
91
N
N
34
84
F7
ti
26
59
67
COLUMN
TCDD BCF TO FILET-50.000
TCOF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
RISK RISK RISK RISK
•30 « 30 • 140 8 140
g/day g/day g/day g/day
7E-04 8E-04 3E-03 4E-03
3E-05 3E-05 IE-04 2E-04
E E E E
5E-05 6E-05 2E-04 3E-04
IE-04 IE-04 SE-04 SE-04
2E-05 2E-05 IE-04 IE-04
3E-05 3E-05 IE-04 IE-04
9E-04 9E-04 4E-03 4E-03
IE-06 IE-06 6E-06 7E-06
1E-07 1E-07 5E-07 6E-07
8E-05 8E-05 4E-04 4E-04
4E-05 4E-OS 2E-04 2E-04
3E-06 4E-06 IE-OS 2E-OS
E E E E
E E E E
3E-04 3E-04 2E-03 2E-03
3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02
7E-04 8E-04 3E-03 4E-03
2E-04 2E-04 1E-03 IE -03
E E E E
E E E E
E E E E
Q Q Q Q
E E E E
F F F F
2E-03 2E-03 1E-02 1E-02
2E-03 2E-03 8E-03 8E-03
4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02
5E-04 SE-04 2E-03 2E-03
7E-03 7E-03 3E-02 3E-02
N N N N
N N N N
1E-03 IE -03 6E-03 7E-03
8E-06 8E-06 4E-05 4E-OS
afj ff fj
ti ti ti
3E-03 3E-03 1E-02 2E-02
2E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02
1E-03 1E-03 SE-03 5E-03
X TCOO
IN TEQ
96
86
E
93
99
96
100
94
92
92
99
84
84
E
E
99
95
92
94
95
95
98
99
99
N
84
98
ej
ti
78
94
95
Sltka
H5EC-1
AK0000531 2B ND
| 4E-05 5E-05
76
2E-03 2E-03 8E-03 8E-03
97 IE-OS 2E-05
54 6E-04 7E-04 3E-03 3E-03
92
-------
Appendix I. (continued)
COMPANY
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Janes River Corp.
Pope & Talbot. Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Longvlew Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonler, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
cm
1 Ketchikan
2 Ketchikan
Lewlston
Lewlston
Clatskanle (Wauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens'
Longvtew
Longvlew
Longvlew
Camas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopolis
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Belllngham
Everett
Hoqulan
Wallula
1 U.S. EPA weight-of-the-evldence classification
1 a*rt0nH« nf An* 1 vat* nmnn Tfl r'nAaa »nH AI>PAF
SIMPLE DILUTION EXAMS WATER COLUMN
SAMPLEIO NPDES GRE TCOD TCDF TCDO FILET BCF=5.0004 TCOD BCF TO FILET=50.000 TCOD FILET BCF-5.0004 TCOD BCF TO FILET*50.000
NUMBER ID* NON- NON- TCDF FILET BCF-1.950 TCDF BCF TO FILET = 1,950 TCDF FILET BCF=I,950 TCOF BCF TO FILET-1.950
DETr DETz
ECTJ ECTJ TCDD TEQ X TCDO TCDD TEQ TCOD TEQ X TCDO TCDD TEQ X TCDO TCOO TEQ TCDD TEQ X TCDO
RISK RISK IN TEQ RISK RISK RISK RISK IN TEQ RISK RISK IN TEQ RISK RISK RISK RISK IN TEQ
i e.s e e.s e 30 e 30 e MO e MO e e.s » e.s « 30 e 30 » MO « MO
g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day g/day | g/day g/day g/day g/day
M31EAC AK0000922 2B ND ND 7E-06 8E-06 97 3E-04 3E-04 2E-03 2E-03 100 3E-06 3E-06 92 1E-04 1E-04 6E-04 6E-04 99
H31EBC AK0000922 2A ' 9E-05 1E-04 98 4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02 100 3E-05 4E-05 95 2E-03 2E-03 7E-03 7E-03 100
H56EC ID0001163 1 7E-06 9E-06 83 3E-04 3E-04 2E-03 2E-03 98 IE-OS 3E-06 56 7E-05 7E-05 3E-04 3E-04 93
M56EC1 ID0001163 I 8E-06 9E-06 86 4E-04 4E-04 2E-03 2E-03 98 2E-06 3E-06 61 BE-05 8E-05 4E-04 4E-04 94
8637-4645 OR0000795 1 3E-07 5E-07 76 2E-05 2E-05 7E-05 8E-05 97 ED ED ED EO • ED EO ED EO
M19EC OR0001074 1 5E-06 5E-06 90 2E-04 2E-04 1E-03 1E-03 99 2E-06 3E-06 81 1E-04 1E-04 5E-04 5E-04 98
M76ECO OR0020834 4H 1E-07 1E-07 85 5E-06 5E-06 2E-05 3E-05 98 ED ED ED EO EO EO EO EO
H76ECO OR0020834 4L 9E-09 IE-OS 85 4E-07 4E-07 2E-06 2E-06 98 EO ED ED ED EO ED EO EO
H53EC WA0000078 38 ND 8E-08 2E-07 51 4E-06 4E-06 2E-05 2E-05 91 EO EO EO EO ED ED EO EO
H45EC1-L WA0000124 1 3E-07 3E-07 91 IE-OS IE-OS 5E-OS 6E-05 99 EO ED EO EO ED ED EO ED
M45EC-L WA0000124 1 3E-07 3E-07 87 IE-OS IE-OS 6E-OS 7E-05 99 ED EO ED EO ED ED ED ED
M32EC WA0000256 3E NQ ND NO ND ND ND NO ND NO ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND
H80EAC WA0000621 20 NO EZD EZD EZD D EZO EZD EZO EZO EZD EZO EZD EZO EZD EZD EZD EZO EZD
H80EBC WA0000621 2D ND NO EZD EZO EZD 0 EZO EZD EZO EZD EZD EZO EZO EZO EZD EZD EZD EZO EZD
H12EC WA0000795 2A 2E-OS 2E-05 94 7E-04 7E-04 3E-03 3E-03 99 5E-06 6E-06 85 2E-04 3E-04 1E-03 1E-03 98
H4EC WA0000809 2A 1E-04 3E-04 38 6E-03 7E-03 3E-02 3E-02 86 4E-05 2E-04 19 2E-03 3E-03 1E-02 1E-02 70
H81EC WA0000850 2E NQ ND ND ND ND ND NO ND NO ND ND ND NO ND ND NO NO
H81EC1 WA00008SO 2E NQ NO ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND NO NO
M81ECX WA0000850 2E NQ NO ND ND ND ND ND NO NO ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND
M81ECXX WA0000850 2E NQ ND NO ND ND NO NO NO ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND NO
M60EC1 WA0001091 2B ND 2E-06 2E-05 7 8E-05 2E-04 4E-04 9E-04 45 6E-07 2E-05 3 3E-05 1E-04 1E-04 6E-04 23
M79EC WA0003000 2A 1E-04 1E-04 76 5E-03 5E-03 2E-02 3E-02 97 4E-06 8E-06 55 2E-04 2E-04 9E-04 1E-03 92
M33EC WA0003077 2A BE-05 8E-OS 99 4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02 100 3E-OS 3E-OS 96 1E-03 1E-03 6E-03 6E-03 100
H66EC WA0003697 1 5E-06 IE-OS 55 2E-04 3E-04 1E-03 IE -03 92 2E-06 5E-06 31 7E-05 9E-05 3E-04 4E-04 82
"82" (US EPA, 19B6a)
HO • Not detected In the effluent sample. Risk estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit In the effluent sample.
NQ > NonquantIf table
Recent laboratory evidence Indicates that use of a BCF of 50,000 would more accurately reflect the uptake of 2378-TCOD by fish. Therefore, risk estimates based on a fish filet BCF of 5.000 may underestimate
risks by an order of magnitude.
a.k.a. Hammermlll Papers.
-------
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
Analysts Group
1 Calculations based on stream flow tn cubtc feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection limits.
28 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the tone of Initial dilution. 2,3,7,8-TCOO concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the tone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 98% pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
20 Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2,3.7,8-TCDD and/or 2,3.7.8-1CDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2.3,7,8-TCOD and/or 2,3.7.8-TCDF.
3B Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3,7,8-TCDO concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec. 2,3.7,8-TCDF concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2.3.7,8-TCDF concentrations in effluent
samples were below detection limits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations In effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2,3,7,8-TCOO and/or 2.3.7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 75X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
41 Calculations based on stream flow in cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
5 Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in effluent samples was not
available.
0 Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7Q10) was not available.
N Concentrations in effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and/or 2,3,7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
Q Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7,8-
TCOD and/or 2.3,7,8-TCOF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in receiving water was not
available.
I A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of initial
dilution
-------
APPENDIX J
-------
Appendix J.
Mill Specific Unit Risk1 from Drinking Water Ingestion 0 2 Liters per Day
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE ID
NPOES
NUMBER
SIMPLE
DILUTION
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID2 NON- NON-
DET- DET-
ECT3 ECT3
TEQ % TCDD
DRINK. RISK
WATER IN TEQ
RISK RISK
EXAMS
WATER COLUMN
TEQ % TCDD
DRINK. RISK
WATER IN TEQ
RISK RISK
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Region II
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch & Pruyn & Co., Inc.
Region III
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.M. Glatfelter Co.
Procter & Gamble Co.
International Paper*
International Paper
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Gi Iman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Westbrook
Hinckley
Hi nek ley
Berlin
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
West Point
Covington
Covington
Covington
Covington
Franklin
Court land
Brewton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
Demopolis
Selma
Coosa Pines
Butler
Claiborne
C la 1 borne
Claiborne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
M17EC
RG1-86388
M11EC
MSEC
M82EC
M30EC
M61EC
M61EC1
BM89EC
M89EC
M9EC
M9EC1
M41EC
M62EC
M62EC
M57EAC
M57EBC
M13EDO
M64EC20
M42EC
M103ECX
M103ECX
M74EC140
BM28EC
M28EC
M28EC1
M28EC2
UCF1000
M40EC
M67EC
M65EC
M65EC1
M71EC
M26EC210
M101EC
M88EC
M36EC
M96EC
M21EC
M21EC1
H21EC2
M90EC
M91ECO
CP1000
M102EAC
M102EAC
M102EBC
M102EBC
M24EC
M94EC1
M94EC1
M55EC
M83EC
M84EAC
M84EBC
ME0001872
ME0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
ME0002054
ME0002321
ME0021521
ME0021521
NH0000655
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0004413
NY0005525
MD0021687
M00021687
PAOQ02143
PA0002143
PA0008265
PA0008869
PA0008885
PA0026301
PA0026301
VA0003115
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0004162
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL0002755
AL0002755
AL0002780
AL0002801
AL0002828
AL00030I8
AL0003158
AL0003301
AL0025968
AL0025968
AL0025968
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003620
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8E-07
IE-OS
6E-07
7E-07
IE-OS
2E-06
8E-07
1E-06
1E-06
IE-OS
2A
2A
3D ND ND
8E-06
IE-OS
2E-07
4H
4L
3B ND
1
38 NO
3B ND
3B ND
2CH
2CL
1
3B ND
1
3B ND
1
1
2E-06
2E-07
4E-07
2E-06
2E-06
7E-06
2E-08
EZ
EZ
D
3E-06
1E-04
IE-OS
IE-OS
1E-04
2A
3C ND
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
1
3B ND
2CH ND
2CL ND
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
2B ND
1
1
1
1E-06
2E-06
2E-06
3E-06
0
D
2E-06
IE-OS
2E-06
2E-06
7E-07
7E-07
7E-07
0
1E-04
2E-05
0
D
D
D
5E-05
CD
CD
D
7E-07
1E-06
1E-06
73
68
71
75
68
84
72
66
74
33
55
60
96
77
77
71
60
75
62
95
EZ
EZ
D
69
78
34
48
91
69
93
64
66
D
D
78
72
83
76
62
62
69
D
77
59
D
D
0
0
81
CD
CD
D
77
98
93
7E-07
8E-06
5E-07
6E-07
8E-06
1E-06
5E-07
7E-07
9E-07
9E-06
5E-06
6E-06
9E-08
1E-06
8E-08
2E-07
8E-07
7E-07
2E-06
IE-OS
EZ
EZ
D
1E-06
5E-05
IE-OS
8E-06
5E-05
6E-07
9E-07
1E-06
2E-06
D
D
7E-07
6E-07
7E-07
8E-07
4E-07
4E-07
4E-07
D
8E-05
IE-OS
D
D
D
D
5E-05
CO
CD
D
3E-07
6E-07
6E-07
68
54
66
70
52
74
58
51
62
23
31
36
94
51
51
56
28
45
24
89
EZ
EZ
D
41
52
14
22
78
46
87
39
41
0
D
57
40
55
53
35
34
42
D
57
45
D
D
D
0
77
CD
CD
0
58
96
86
J-l
-------
COMPANY
CITY
Appendix J. (continued)
SAMPLEID NPDES
NUMBER
SIMPLE
DILUTION
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID2 NON- NON-
DET- DET-
ECT3 ECT3
TEO % TCDD
DRINK. RISK
WATER IN TEO
RISK RISK
EXAMS _
WATER COLUMN'
TEQ % TCDD
DRINK. RISK
WATER IN TEO
RISK RISK
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Westvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Mead Corporation
Bowater Corp.
Region V
Mead Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Champion International
Potlatch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Mead Corp.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Wausau Paper Mills Co. 1
Wausau Paper Mills Co. 2
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wickliffe
Hawesville
Natchez
Moss Point
Moss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Riegelwood
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Kingsport
Calhoun
Escanaba
Muskegon
Muskegon
Quinnesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International Falls
Chillicothe
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
Brokaw
Nekoosa & Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
McGhee
McGhee
St. Francesville
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Deridder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
Pasadena
Pasadena
M87EC
M87EC1
M22EC10
M78EC
M63EC
M97EC
M34EC
M34EC
BM35SEC30
M3SSEC30
GA0003654
GA0003654
GA0049336
KY0000086
KY0001716
MS0000213
MS0002674
MS0002674
MS0031704
MS0031704
M47G100-500NC0000272
M86ECO
M6EC
M16EC
M70EC
M70EC1
M23EC
M93EC
M73EC
M75EC
ML802
M92EC
M92EC
Q14E
M38ECO
M38ECO
DE020922
DE026013
M46EBC
M46EBCX
M72EAC
M25EC
M54EC
M54ECX
M77EC •
M72EBC
M72EBC
M29EC
M46EAC
M46EAC
H46EACX
M46EACX
21
M68EC
M51EC
M20EC
M18EC
M18EC
M52EC
M1EC
M1ECX
M85EC
M58EC
M99EC
M99EC1
DF024512
M3EC
M2EC
M2EC
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
SC0000868
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
MI0000027
MI0027391
MI0027391
MI0042170
MN0001643
OH0004481
WI0000663
WI 0000663
WI0001261
WI0003212
WI 0003379
WI0003379
WI0003620
WI0020991
WI0020991
WI0026042
WI0030651
WI0030651
UI0030651
WI0030651
WI0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
AR0035823
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA00052S8
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0006041
2A
2A
3B
1
3D
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
2A
2A
1
1
1
3D
3B
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
1
3B
1
3B
1
3B
3B
3D
1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
3D
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
3D
1
3E
3E
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
NO
NQ
ND
ND
NO
ND
NQ
ND
0
0
3E-07
2E-08
9E-09
4E-08
D
D
7E-06
2E-05
IE-OS
0
D
3E-06
0
D
2E-06
4E-07
5E-07
4E-07
5E-06
1E-07
1E-08
7E-07
5E-07
4E-08
4E-06
D
3E-07
3E-07
4E-07
3E-07
9E-08
7E-08
5E-06
1E-08
9E-10
2E-07
4E-07
3E-08
ZE-07
2E-08
1E-06
2E-05
4E-06
3E-06
3E-09
2E-10
6E-08
Q
2E-07
F
IE-OS
2E-05
2E-05
2E-06
2E-05
N
N
0
D
70
70
93
63
D
0
89
83
95
D
D
82
D
D
85
79
58
93
63
50
50
58
84
84
35
0
29
17
64
85
60
96
56
59
59
83
26
26
16
16
94
72
50
81
80
80
72
Q
35
F
68
75
80
91
90
N
N
D
D
2E-07
E
1E-09
E
D
D
3E-06
8E-06
5E-06
D
D
2E-06
D
D
1E-06
2E-07
3E-07
2E-07
4E-06
1E-07
9E-09
6E-07
3E-07
3E-08
4E-06
D
2E-07
E
2E-07
2E-07
7E-08
4E-08
3E-06
6E-09
5E-10
1E-07
3E-07
3E-08
E
E
5E-07
8E-06
3E-06
9E-07
E
E
E
Q
E
F
7E-06
6E-06
IE-OS
9E-07
IE-OS
N
N
D
D
49
E
62
E
D
D
73
62
89
D
D
68
0
D
77
52
41
87
49
35
35
46
76
76
25
D
19
E
35
78
48
94
38
31
31
73
17
17
E
E
87
45
32
37
E
E
E
Q
E
F
44
40
61
79
80
N
N
J-2
-------
Appendix J. (continued)
COMPANY
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
Region IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co!
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper 1
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper 2
Potlatch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot. Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Long view Fibre Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
CITY
Pasadena
Houston
Missoula
Snowflake
Anderson
Ant loch
Fair haven
Samoa
Sitka
Ketchikan
Ketchikan
Lew Is ton
Lewiston
Clatskanie (Wauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
Longview
Long view
Longview
Camas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopolis
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoquiam
Wallula
SAMPLEID
M2EC
M15EC
M27EC
M100EC
M98EC
H106EC
M43ECO
M70EC10
M5EC-1
M31EAC
M31EBC
M56EC
M56EC1
8637-4645
M19EC
M76ECO
M76ECO
M53EC
M45EC1-L
M45EC-L
H32EC
H80EAC
H80EBC
M12EC
H4EC
M81EC
H81EC1
M81ECX
H81ECXX
M60EC1
M79EC
M33EC
H66EC
NPOES
NUMBER
TX0006041
TX0053023
MT0000035
AT _______
CA0004065
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
ID0001163
ID0001163
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020834
OR0020834
WA0000078
WA0000124
WA0000124
WA0000256
WA0000621
WA0000621
WA0000795
UA0000809
WA00008SO
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
WA0003697
GRP
ID2
3E
2B
3C
20
1
5
2A
2A
2B
2B
2A
1
1
1
1
4H
4L
3B
1
1
3E
2D
20
2A
2A
2E
2E
2E
2E
2B
2A
2A
1
SIMPLE
DILUTION
TCDD TCDF
NON- NON-
DET- DET-
ECT3 ECT3
NQ
ND
TEQ
DRINK.
WATER
RISK
1 N
D
ND
6E-08
EZ
3E-05
F
0
0
ND
ND NO
ND
NQ
ND
ND NO
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
ND
D
D
0
7E-07
7E-07
ED
4E-07
ED
EO
ED
ED
ED
NO
EZD
EZD
0
D
ND
NO
NO
ND
0
0
D
0
% TCOD
RISK
IN TEQ
RISK
N
0
89
EZ
23
F
0
0
0
D
D
66
71
ED
79
ED
EO
ED
ED
ED
NO
EZD
EZD
D
D
ND
ND
NO
NO
D
D
D
0
EXAMS
WATER
TEQ
DRINK.
WATER
RISK
N
0
2E-08
EZ
3E-05
F
D
D
D
0
D
3E-07
3E-07
ED
2E-07
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
NO
EZD
EZD
D
0
NO
NO
ND
ND
D
0
D
D
COLUMN
% TCOO
RISK
IN TEQ
RISK
N
0
67
EZ
12
F
D
D
D
0
D
33
38
ED
62
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
NO
EZD
EZD
D
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
D
D
D
1 U.S. EPA weight-of-the-evidence classification "82" (US EPA. 1986a)
2 Legends of analysis group ID codes and error codes are on the next page.
3 ND = Not detected in the effluent samples. Risk estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit in the effluent sample.
NQ - Nonquantifiable
* a.k.a. Harrier-mill Papers
J-3
-------
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
Analysis Group
1 Calculation] based on stream flow tn cubic feet/sec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection limits.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection limits.
28 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the lone of Initial dilution. 2,3,7,8-TCOD concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection limits.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the tone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
* POTU assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTV assuming of 98X pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
20 Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations Mere above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2,3.7,8-TCDO and/or 2.3.7.8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2,3.7.8-TCDO and/or 2.3.7.8-TCDF.
38 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2,3,7,8-TCOO concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3,7.8-TCDF concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
30 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3.7.8-TCDO and 2.3.7,8-TCDF concentrations In effluent
samples were below detection limits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations In effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2,3,7.8-TCDD and/or 2.3.7,8-ICDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 75X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In effluent samples was not
available.
0 Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
F A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7Q10) was not available.
N Concentrations in effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2,3,7.8-
TCDD and/or 2.3.7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
might become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
Q Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2,3.7.8-
TCDD and/or 2.3.7.8-TCOF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids in receiving water was not
available.
Z A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
5 Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
-------
APPENDIX K
-------
COMPANY
. Appendix K.
Mill Specific Human Dose1 from a Single 115 Gram U/4 Pound) Fish Ingestion (in pg/kg/day) for Comparison with the
TCOD Health Advisory2 for Protection from Liver Effects
CITY
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Region II
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Finch & Pruyn & Co., Inc.
Region III
Westvaco Corp.
Uestvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Procter & Gamble Co.
International Paper;!
International Paper
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Westbrook
Hinckley
Hinek ley
Berlin
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Ticonderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Luke
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
Erie
West Point
Covington
Covington
Covington
Covington
Franklin
Court land
Brewton
Jackson
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
SAMPLEID
M17EC
RG1 -86388
M11EC
MSEC
M82EC
M30EC
H61EC
M61EC1
BM89EC
H89EC
M9EC
M9EC1
M41EC
M62EC
M62EC
H57EAC
M57EBC
M13EDO
H64EC20
M42EC
H103ECX
M103ECX
M74EC140
BM28EC
H28EC
M28EC1
M28EC2
UCF1000
M40EC
M67EC
H65EC
H65EC1
M71EC
M26EC210
NPOES
NUMBER
ME0001872
HE0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
ME0002054
ME0002321
ME0021521
ME0021521
NH0000655
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0004413
NY0005S25
MD0021687
M00021687
PA0002143
PA0002143
PA000826S
PA0008869
PA0008885
PA0026301
PA0026301
VA0003115
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0003646
VA0004162
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL0002755
AL 0002755
AL 0002780
AL0002801
GRB TCOD TCDF
IDJ NON- NON-
OETT DET,
ECT4 ECT4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
2A
3D ND NO
4H
4L
3B ND
1
3B NO
3B ND
3B ND
2CH
2CL
1
3B ND
1
3B ND
1
1
2A
3C ND
1
1
1
1
SIMPLE DILUTION
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5.000 TCDD=50.000
TCOF=1.950 TCDF=1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
DOSE DOSE DOSE
1.
1.
7.
8.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
5.
7.
1.
2.
3.
2.
5.
1.
2.
7.
4.
6.
3.
1.
8.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
2.
6.
OE+00 1
3E+01 1
1E-01 8
9E-01 1
4E+01 1
7E+00 2
OE+00 1
2E+00 1
7E+00 1
8E+00 1
8E+00 1
OE+01 1
7E-01 2
OE+00 3
4E-01 2
OE-01 5
8E+00 2
9E+00 3
7E-fOO 9
OE-02 4
EZ
EZ
8E+00 8
3E+00 3
7E+02 1
3E+00 1
1E+01 1
9E+02 2
3E+00 1
7E+00 2
8E+00 3
5E+00 4
1E+00 2
9E-01 7
.2E+00 1
.6E+01 1
.2E-01 7
.OE+00 8
.7E+01 1
.9E+00 2
.2E+00 1
.5E+00 1
.9E+00 1
.OE+01 5
.OE+01 7
.3E+01 1
.8E-01 2
.3E+00 3
.7E-01 2
.8E-01 5
.3E+00 1
.2E+00 2
.6E+00 7
.1E-02 4
EZ
EZ
.3E+00 6
.9E+00 3
.9E+02 1
.5E+01 8
.6E+01 1
.OE+02 1
.5E+00 1
.8E+00 2
.4E+00 2
.2E+00 3
.8E+00 2
.3E-01 6
.OE+01
.3E+02
. 1E+00
.9E+00
.4E+02
.7E+01
.OE+01
.2E+01
.7E+01
.8E+01
.8E+01
.OE+02
.7E+00
.OE+01
.4E+00
.OE+00
.8E+01
.9E+01
.7E+01
.OE-01
EZ
EZ
.8E+01
.3E+01
.7E+03
.3E+01
.1E+02
.9E+03
.3E+01
.7E+01
.8E+01
.5E+01
.1E+01
.9E+00
DOSE
1. OE+01
1.3E+02
7.2E+00
9.1E+00
1.5E+02
2.7E+01
1. OE+01
1.2E+01
1.7E+01
6.3E+01
8.1E+01
1.1E+02
2.7E+00
3. OE+01
2.4E+00
5.1E+00
1.9E+01
2.9E+01
7.9E+01
4. OE-01
EZ
EZ
6.9E+01
3.4E+01
1.7E+03
8.9E+01
1.2E+02
1.9E+03
1.3E+01
2.7E+01
2.8E+01
3.5E+01
2.2E+01
7. OE+00
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5.000 TCDD=50,000
TCDF=1.950 TCDF=1.950
TCDD TEQ TCOD TEQ
DOSE
7.8E-01
7.2E+00
5.4E-01
6.8E-01
7.3E+00
1.4E+00
5.5E-01
6.6E-01
9.7E-01
3.4E+00
2.6E+00
3.5E+00
1.6E-01
8.6E-01
6.9E-02
2.3E-01
4.2E-01
5.2E-01
1. OE+00
1.8E-02
EZ
EZ
1.9E+00
9.7E-01
4.9E+01
2.4E+00
3.2E+00
7.1E+01
4.6E-01
1.3E+00
9.7E-01
1.2E+00
6.6E-01
2.1E-01
DOSE
9.2E-01
9.6E+00
6.5E-01
8. OE-01
9.9E+00
1.6E+00
7.1E-01
9. OE-01
1.2E+00
7.9E+00
4.9E+00
6. OE+00
1.6E-01
1.2E+00
9.5E-02
2.9E-01
8.3E-01
7.7E-01
2.3E+00
1.9E-02
EZ
EZ
3.3E+00
1.5E+00
6.6E+01
8.2E+00
7.7E+00
7.9E+01
6.8E-01
1.4E+00
1.6E+00
1.9E+00
1.3E+00
2.5E-01
DOSE
7.8E+00
7.2E+01
5.4E+00
6.8E+00
7.3E+01
1.4E+01
5.5E+00
6.6E+00
9.7E+00
3.4E+01
2.6E+01
3.5E+01
1.6E+00
8.6E+00
6.9E-01
2.3E+00
4.2E+00
5.2E+00
1. OE+01
1.8E-01
EZ
EZ
1.9E+01
9.7E+00
4.9E+02
2.4E+01
3.2E+01
7.1E+02
4.6E+00
1.3E+01
9.7E+00
1.2E+01
6.6E+00
2.1E+00
DOSE
7.9E+00
7.4E+01
5.5E+00
7. OE+00
7.5E+01
1.4E+01
5.7E+00
6.8E+00
1. OE+01
3.8E+01
2.9E+01
3.8E+01
1.6E+00
9. OE+00
7.2E-01
2.3E+00
4.6E+00
5.5E+00
1.1E+01
1.8E-01
EZ
EZ
2. OE+01
1. OE+01
5. OE+02
3. OE+01
3.7E+01
7.2E+02
4.8E+00
1.3E+01
1. OE+01
1.3E+01
7.2E+00
2.2E+00
-------
Appendix K. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLEID
NPDES
NUMBER
GRE TCOD TCDF
IDd NON- NON-
OETj DET,
ECF ECT4
SIMPLE DILUTION
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5.000 TCDD=50.000
TCDF=1.950 TCDF=1.950
TCOD TEQ TCDD TEQ
DOSE DOSE DOSE
DOSE
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5.000 TCDD=50.000
TCDF=1.950 TCDF=1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Gilman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Westvaco Corp.*
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.*
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhauser Co.
Weyerhauser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Mead Corporation
Bowater Corp.
Demopo 1 i s
Selma
Coosa Pines
Butler
Claiborne
Claiborne
Claiborne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Jesup
Brunswick
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wickliffe
Hawesvllle
Natchez
Moss Point
Moss Point
New Augusta
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Riegelwood
Georgetown
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Kingsport
Calhoun
M101EC
M88EC
M36EC
M96EC
M21EC
M21EC1
M21EC2
M90EC
M91ECO
CP1000
M102EAC
H102EAC
M102EBC
M102EBC
M24EC
M94EC1
M94EC1
M55EC
M83EC
M84EAC
M84EBC
M87EC
M87EC1
M22EC10
M78EC
M63EC
M97EC
M34EC
M34EC
BM35SEC30
M35SEC30
AL0002828
AL 0003018
AL0003158
AL0003301
AL0025968
AL0025968
AL0025968
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002S26
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003620
GA00036S4
GA0003654
GA0049336
KY0000086
KY0001716
MS0000213
MS0002674
MS0002674
MS0031704
MS0031704
M47G100-500NC0000272
M86ECO
M6EC
M16EC
M70EC
M70EC1
M23EC
M93EC
M73EC
M75EC
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
SC0000868
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2A
1
3B ND
2CH ND
2CL ND
2CH
2CL
2A
4H
4L
2B ND
1
1
1
2A
2A
3B ND
1
3D ND
1
2CH
2CL
1
1
1
2A
1
1
2A
2A
1
1
1
3D ND
ND
ND
2.4E+00 2.
1.8E+00 2.
9E+00 3.
1E+00 2.
4E-01 9.
2E-01 9.
8.3E-01 9.
1E+00 1.
OE+02 2.
2.2E+01 2.
1.6E-01 1.
1.3E-02 1.
2.7E-01 3.
1.1E-02 1.
7.3E+01 8.
1.1E+01 1.
8.7E-01 9.
1.5E+00
8.9E-01
4E+00
3E+00
1E+01
1E+01
3.4E-01
3.0E-02 3
1.4E-02 1
4.4E-02
3.1E+01
1.2E+00
1.OE+01
2.6E+01
2.2E+01
5E+02
OE+01
1E+00
5E+03
1.9E+03 2
3.4E+00 3
5.5E-01 6
4.6E-01 6
6.4E-01 6
7E+00
1E+00
2E+00
4E+00
2E-01
OE-01
8E-01
3E+00
3E+02
8E+01
8E-01
4E-02
OE-01
3E-02
OE+01
4E+01
7E-01
8E+00
OE+00
5E+00
4E+00
2E+01
1E+01
OE-01
5E-02
5E-02
3E-02
8E+01
8E+00
1E+01
,8E+01
.3E+01
,7E+02
.2E+01
.4E+00
.7E+03
.1E+03
.6E+00
1E-01
OE-01
6E-01
2.4E+01
1.8E+01
2.9E+01
2.1E+01
7.4E+00
7.2E+00
8.3E+00
1E+01
2.0E+03
2.2E+02
1.6E+00
1.3E-01
2.7E+00
1.1E-01
7.3E+02
1.1E+02
8.7E+00
1.5E+01
8.9E+00
2.4E+01
2.3E+01
1.1E+02
2.4E+01
1.8E+01
2.9E+01
2.1E+01
7.6E+00
7.4E+00
8.4E+00
1.1E+01
2.0E+03
2.3E+02
1.7E+00
1.3E-01
7E+00
OE-01 9.
2E-01 6.
6.8E-01 9
7.OE-01 9
2.3E-01 4
2.3E-01 3
2.6E-01 4
3.8E-01 5
8.1E+01 1
9.8E+00 1
5.8E-02 6
4.6E-03 5
9.5E-02 1
1.1E-01 7.6E-03 9
.1E+02
.4E+00
.OE-01
.4E-01
.4E-01
.1E+02
1.2E+01
.OE+02
.6E+02
.2E+02
7.4E+02
1.1E+02
8.8E+00
1.5E+01
9.OE+00
2.4E+01
2.4E+01
1.1E+02
1.1E+02
3.5E+00
3.1E-01
1.4E-01
4.5E-01
3.2E+02
1.3E+01
1.OE+02
2.6E+02
2.2E+02
6.5E+01 7
CD
CD
6.OE-01 8
3.6E-01 4
9.8E-01 1
9.4E-01 1
2.5E+03 2.6E+03
3.9E+00 4
3.9E+00 4
1.4E-01 1
E
1.4E-03 1
E
9.3E+00 1
7.5E-01 1
3.3E+00 3
8.3E+00 1
8.4E+00 8
.OE+02
.1E+01
.5E+04
1.OE+02
1.9E+04
4E+01
.5E+00
.6E+00
6.4E+00
1E+01
2.5E+04
1.9E+04
3.4E+01
5.6E+00
4.8E+00
6.4E+00
1E+02 2
7E+00 7
7E+00 3
6.5E+02 8
5.OE+02 7
2.OE+00 2
1.5E-01 2
2.3E-01 3
3.3E-01 3
OE-01
7E-01
OE-01
4E-01
OE-01
9E-01
OE-01
9E-01
OE+02
5E+01
9E-02
5E-03
2E-01
6E-03
2E+01
CD
CD
9E-01
6E-01
OE+00
OE+00
8E+00
6E+00
9E-01
E
7E-03
E
5E+01
2E+00
8E+00
OE+01
8E+00
3E+02
3E+00
2E+00
6E+02
OE+02
2E+00
OE-01
5E-01
5E-01
7.OE+00 7.
4.2E+00 4.
.8E+00 7.
.OE+00 7.
.3E+00 2.
.3E+00 2.
2.6E+00 2
3.8E+00 4
8.1E+02 8
9.8E+01 1
5.8E-01 5
4.6E-02 4
9.5E-01 9
7.6E-02 7
6.5E+02 6
CD
CD
6.OE+00 6
3.6E+00 3
9.8E+00 9
9.4E+00 9
3.9E+01 4
3.9E+01 3
1.4E+00 1
E
1.4E-02 1
E
9.3E+01 9
7.5E+00 8
3.3E+01 3
8.3E+01 8
8.4E+01 8
1.1E+03 1
5.7E+01 5
2.7E+01 2
6.5E+03 6
5.0E+03 5
2. OE+01 2
1.5E+00 1
2.3E+00 2
3.3E+00 3
2E+00
4E+00
1E+00
2E+00
.5E+00
.4E+00
. 7E+00
.1E+00
.3E+02
.OE+02
.9E-01
.7E-02
.7E-01
.8E-02
.5E+02
CD
CD
.3E+00
.7E+00
.8E+00
.5E+00
.OE+01
.9E+01
.4E+00
E
.4E-02
E
.9E+01
.OE+00
.3E+01
.5E+01
.4E+01
.2E+03
.9E+01
.8E+01
.7E+03
.2E+03
.OE+01
.5E+00
.4E+00
.3E+00
-------
Appendix K. (continued)
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE ID
NPDES
NUMBER
GRP. TCDO TCDF
IDJ NON- NON-
DETT DET2
ECT4 ECT4
SIMPLE DILUTION
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5,000 TCDD'50.000
TCDF=1,950 TCDF=1,950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5,000 TCDD=50.000
TCDF=1.950 TCDF=1,950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
(DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE
DOSE
DOSE DOSE
Bowater Corp.
Region V
Head Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Champion International
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp
Mead Corp.
Badger Paper Mills
Badger Paper Mills
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Wausau Paper Mills Co
Wausau Paper Mills Co
Nekoosa Papers, Inc
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Weyerhauser Co.
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
Consolidated Papers,
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.*
James River Corp.*
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.*
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Calhoun
M75EC TN0002356 3D ND ND J6.4E-OI 6.6E-01 6.4E+00 6.4E+00 3.3E-01 3.5E-01 3.3E+00 3.3E+00
ial
Inc.
Inc.
o. 1
:o. 2
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
i.
Co.
i.
).*
Co.
Co.
Co.
ial
Escanaba
Muskegon
Muskegon
Quinnesec
Cloquet
Cloquet
International Falls
Chlllicothe
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
Brokaw
Nekoosa & Pt. Edwards
Green Bay
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Peshtigo
Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
McGhee
McGhee
St. Francesville
Zachary
Zachary
Bastrop
Derldder
Texarkana
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
ML802
M92EC
M92EC
Q14E
M38ECO
M38ECO
DE020922
DE026013
M46EBC
H46EBCX
M72EAC
M25EC
M54EC
M54ECX
M77EC
M72EBC
M72EBC
M29EC
M46EAC
M46EAC
M46EACX
M46EACX
21
M68EC
M51EC
M20EC
M18EC
M18EC
M52EC
M1EC
M1ECX
M85EC
M58EC
M99EC
M99EC1
DF024512
M3EC
MI0000027
MI0027391
MI0027391
HI0042170
IIM-_ ____
UU-. -___
MN0001643
OH0004481
UI0000663
WI0000663
UI0001261
WI0003212
WI0003379
WI 0003379
WI 0003620
WI0020991
UI0020991
UI0026042
WI0030651
WI00306S1
WI00306S1
WI0030651
WI0037991
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
AR0035823
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA0005258
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
3B
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
1
3B
1
3B
1
3B
3B
3D
1
4H
4L
1
4H
4L
4H
4L
3D
1
1
1
4H
4L
1
3A
1
5
1
1
1
3D
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NQ
ND
5.8E+00 7,
1.3E-01 1,
l.OE-02 1
7.3E-01 9
7.4E-01 7
S.9E-02 6
7E+00
7E+00
1.3E-01 2
3.
7E-02 2
4.4E-01 5
4.7E-01 5
9.7E-02 1
1.1E-01 1
4.6E+00 6
1.2E-02 1
9.4E-04 1
3.6E-01
1.7E-01 3
1.4E-02 2
5.7E-02 1
4.5E-03 1
1.8E+00 1
2.1E+01 2.
3.7E+00 5.
4.8E+00 5.
4.0E-03 4.
3.2E-04 3.
8.0E-02 9.
Q
1.4E-01 2.
F
1.7E+01
2.0E+01
2.7E+01
3.6E+00
3.7E+01
1E+00
7E-01
4E-02
4E-01
9E-01
3E-02
7E+00
5E+00
6E-01
2E-01
4E-01
OE-01
2E-01
1E-01
1E+00
5E-02
2E-03
9E-01
7E-01
9E-02
7E-01
4E-02
9E+00
5E+01
2E+00
2E+00
4E-03
5E-04
3E-02
Q
5E-01
F
OE+01
2E+01
OE+01
7E+00
9E+01
5.8E+01 5.9E+01
1.3E+00
1.OE-01
7.5E+00
7.4E+00
.3E+00
.OE-01
.3E+00
.4E+00
.9E-01
3.3E+00
6.5E-02
5.9E-01
2.7E+01
.7E+01
.3E+00
.7E-01
.4E+00
.7E+00
9.7E-01
1E+00
.6E+01
.2E-01
.4E-03
.6E+00
.7E+00
.4E-01
.7E-01
5E-02
1.8E+01
2.1E+02
3.7E+01
4.8E+01
4.0E-02
3.2E-03
8.OE-01
Q
4E+00
F
7E+02
OE+02
7E+02
6E+01
2.9E+01
2.8E+01
1.4E+00
9.2E-01
4.5E+00
4.7E+00
9.9E-01
1.1E+00
4.8E+01
1.2E-01
9.6E-03
3.7E+00
1.9E+00
1.5E-01
6.8E-01
5.5E-02
1.8E+01
5.2E-03
4.5E-01
4.4E-01
3.5E-02
1.6E+00
1.8E+00
6.9E-02
E
1.3E-01
2.6E-01
5.8E-02
6.8E-02
2.2E+00
3.3E-03
2.7E-04
1.9E-01
9.3E-02
7.4E-03
E
E
8.3E-01
2.2E+02 6.
3.9E+01
4.8E+01
4.0E-02
3.2E-03
8.2E-01
Q
5E+00
F
7E+02
OE+02
8E+02
6E+01
3.7E+02 3.8E+02
5E+00
7E+00
6E-01
E
E
E
Q
E
F
6E+00
2E+00
OE+01
2E+00
6E+01
4.6E+00
1.1E-01
9.0E-03
6.5E-01
9E-01
9E-02
6E+00
6E+00
1.8E-01
E
2.2E-01
2.9E-01
8.3E-02
3.3E+01
6.5E-01
5.2E-02 5
OE-02
6E+00
6.2E-03
5.0E-04
2.2E-01
2.7E-01
2.2E-02
E
E
8.8E-01
5E+00
4.4E+00 4
3.5E-01 3
1.6E+01 1
1.8E+01 1
6.9E-01 8
E
1.3E+00 1
2.6E+00 2
5.8E-01 6
6.8E-01 6
2.2E+01 2
3.3E-02 3
2.7E-03 2
1.9E+00 1
9.3E-01 1
7.4E-02 8
E
E
8.3E+00 8
4E+01
OE-01
6E-02
7E+00
4E+00
6E-01
8E+01
9E+01
1E-01
E
4E+00
6E+00
1E-01
8E-01
3E+01
6E-02
9E-03
9E+00
1E+00
8E-02
E
E
.4E+00
9.5E+00 6
3.1E+00 1
9.2E-01 5
E
E
E
Q
E
F
8.3E+00 5
6.6E+00 4
1.3E+01 1
1.3E+00 1
1.8E+01 1
5E+01
7E+01
6E+00
E
E
E
Q
E
F
6E+01
2E+01
OE+02
2E+01
6E+02
6.8E+01
1.9E+01
5.9E+00
E
E
E
Q
E
F
5.8E+01
4.4E+01
1.1E+02
1.2E+01
1.7E+02
-------
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE ID
Appendix K. (continued)
NPDES
NUMBER
GRP TCDD TCDF
IDd NON- NON-
OETj DET;
ECT4 ECT4
SIMPLE DILUTION
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5,000 TCOO=50,000
TCOF=1.950 TCDF=1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5,000 TCDD=50.000
TCDF=1,950 TCDF=1,950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
| DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
Region IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gaylord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchlkan Pulp & Paper
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper
Pot latch Corp.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.*
Longview Fibre Co.*
Weyerhauser Co.*
Weyerhauser Co.*
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. 1
Scott Paper Co. 2
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
Weyerhauser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhauser Co.
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Pasadena
Pasadena
Pasadena
Houston
Missoula
t-t
Snow* lake
Anderson
Ant loch
Fairhaven
Samoa
Sitka
1 Ketchlkan
2 Ketchlkan
Lewlston
Lewlston
Clatskanie (Wauna)
Halsey
St. Helens
St. Helens
Long view
Longview
Long view
Camas
Everett
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopolis
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoquiam
Wallula
M2EC
M2EC
M2EC
H15EC
M27EC
MI nnrr
niUUCU
M9BEC
H106EC
M43ECO
M70EC10
M5EC-1
M31EAC
M31EBC
M56EC
M56EC1
8637-4645
M19EC
M76ECO
M76ECO
M53EC
M45EC1-L
M45EC-L
M32EC
M80EAC
M80EBC
M12EC
M4EC
M81EC
M81EC1
M81ECX
M81ECXX
M60EC1
M79EC
M33EC
M66EC
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0006041
TX0053023
MT0000035
CA000406S
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
AK0000531
AK0000922
AK0000922
ID0001163
ID0001163
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020834
OR0020834
WA0000078
WA0000124
WA0000124
WA00002S6
WA0000621
WA0000621
WA0000795
WA0000809
WA00008SO
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA0000850
WA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
WA0003697
3E
3E
3E
2B
3C
yn
cU
1
5
2A
2A
2B
2B
2A
1
1
1
1
4H
4L
38
1
1
3E
2D
20
2A
2A
2E
2E
2E
2E
2B
2A
2A
1
NQ
NQ
NQ
NO
NO
ND
ND
NQ
ND
ND
NQ
NQ
NQ
NQ
ND
NNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNN
6.4E+00 1.4E+01 6.4E+01 7.2E+01 3.0E+00 9.0E+00 3.0E+01 3.6E+01
ND |8.6E-02 9.0E-02 8.6E-01 8.7E-01 2.0E-02 2.4E-02 2.0E-01 2.0E-01
EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ EZ
1.4E+01 3.2E+01 1.4E+02 1.6E+02 6.3E+00 2.4E+01 6.3E+01 8.1E+01
FFFFFFFF
1.7E+01 2.1E+01 1.7E+02 1.7E+02 6.0E+00 l.OE+01 6.0E+01 6.4E+01
7.6E+00 9.0E+00 7.6E+01 7.7E+01 2.7E+00 4.0E+00 2.7E-f01 2.8E+01
ND
ND
4.3E+00 5.
8.4E-01 8.
1.1E+01 1
8.2E-01 9
9.2E-01 1
3.9E-02 5
5.5E-01 6
1.3E-02 1
l.OE-03 1
9.2E-03 1
2.9E-02 3
3.4E-02 3
ND
EZD
EZD
1.7E+00 1
1.5E+01 3
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.1E-01 2
1.3E+01 1
9.0E+00 9
6.1E-01 1
7E+00 4.
7E-01 8.
1E+01 1.
9E-01 8.
1E+00 9.
2E-02 3.
1E-01 5.
5E-02 1.
2E-03 1
8E-02 9
2E-02 2
9E-02 3
ND
EZD
EZD
8E+00 1
.9E+01 1
ND
ND
ND
ND
.8E+00 2
.7E+01 1
.1E+00 9
.1E+00 6
3E+01
4E+00
1E+02
2E+00
2E+00
9E-01
5E+00
3E-01
OE-02
2E-02
9E-01
4E-01
ND
EZD
EZD
7E+01
.5E+02
ND
ND
ND
ND
•1E+00
3E+02
OE+01
,1E+00
4.4E+01
8.5E+00
1.1E+02
8.4E+00
9.3E+00
4.1E-01
5.6E+00
l.SE-i-00 2.7E+00 1
3.0E-01 3.2E-01 3
1.3E-01
1.1E-02
l.OE-01
2.9E-01
3.5E-01
ND
EZD
EZD
1.7E+01
1.8E+02
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.6E+00
1.3E+02
9.0E+01
6.6E+00
3.8E+00
1.7E-01
1.9E-01
ED
2.4E-01
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
6.1E-01
5.1E+00
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.3E-02
4.8E-01
3.1E+00
1.8E-01
4.0E+00 3
3.0E-01 1
3.0E-01 1
ED
3.0E-01 2
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
7.2E-01 6
2.7E+01 5
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5E+00 7
8.8E-01 4
3.3E+00 3
5.6E-01 1
5E+01 1.
OE+00 3.
8E+01 3.
7E+00 1.
9E+00 2.
ED
4E+00 2.
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
.1E+00 6.
.1E+01 7
ND
ND
ND
ND
.3E-01 3
.8E+00 5
.1E+01 3
.8E+00 2
6E+01
OE+00
8E+01
8E+00
.OE+00
ED
.5E+00
ED
ED
ED
ED
ED
ND
EZD
EZD
.2E+00
.2E+01
ND
ND
ND
ND
.2E+00
.2E+00
.1E+01
.1E+00
-------
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLEID
Appendix K. (continued)
NPOES
NUMBER
GRB TCDD TCDF
ID* NON- NON-
DETj DETj
ECT4 ECT4
SIMPLE DILUTION
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5.000 TCDD=50,000
TCDF=1.950 TCDF=1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD=5.000 TCDD=50,000
TCDF=1,950 TCDF=1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
(DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE
DOSE
Dose is the bioavallable (95%) portion of exposure.
2 Health Advisory Level = 100 pg/kg/day.
Legends of analysis group ID codes and error codes are on the next page.
ND - Not detected in the effluent samples. Dose estimates are based on 1/2 the detection limit in the effluent sample.
NQ = Nonquantifiable
a.k.a. Haimermi 11 Papers.
-------
Legends for Analysis Group and Special
Analysis Group
1 Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/tec. All effluent sample concentrations above detection Units.
2A Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. All effluent sample
concentrations were above detection limits.
26 Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. 2.3,7,8-TCDD concentrations
In effluent samples were below detection Units.
2CH Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTV assuming of 75X pollutant removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection Units unless noted
otherwise.
2CL Calculations based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution. Indirect discharge through
a POTW assuming of 98X pollutant removal. Effluent sample chemical concentrations above detection limits unless
noted otherwise.
2D Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the tone of Initial dilution, but such a ratio
Is not available. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection Units unless noted otherwise.
2E Calculations could be based on the dilution ratio at the edge of the zone of Initial dilution, but chemical
concentrations were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-TCDD and/or 2,3.7,8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and
data might become available.
3A Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but effluent sample concentrations were not
quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-TCDD and/or 2.3.7.8-TCDF.
3B Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3.7,8-TCDD concentrations In effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3C Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3.7.8-TCDF concentrations in effluent samples were below
detection limits.
3D Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. 2.3.7,8-TCDO and 2.3.7.8-TCDF concentrations In effluent
samples were below detection Knits.
3E Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but concentrations In effluent samples were not
quantifiable for 2.3.7,8-TCOD and/or 2.3.7.8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data might become
available.
4H Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 75X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
4L Calculations based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec. Indirect discharge through a POTU assuming of 98X pollutant
removal. Effluent sample concentrations were above detection limits unless noted otherwise.
Status Codes
Special Status Codes
C Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In effluent samples was not
available.
0 Drinking water calculations were not done because the receiving water Is
either marine or estuarlne or Is not designated for drinking water use.
E The EXAMS II model failed to run for this data record.
f A stream flow rate was not available.
L A value for low stream flow (7QIO) was not available.
N Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-
TCDD and/or 2.3,7.8-TCDF. These samples might be re-analyzed and data
night become available.
P A plant effluent flow rate was not available.
0 Concentrations In effluent samples were not quantifiable for 2.3.7.8-
TCOO and/or 2.3.7.8-TCDF.
S Concentration of Total Suspended Solids In receiving water was not
available.
I A dilution ratio was not available for the edge of the zone of Initial
dilution
S Calculations could be based on stream flow In cubic feet/sec, but flow data was not available.
-------
APPENDIX L
-------
Appendix L.
Receiving Waters at 104 Pulp & Paper Mills by Reach Type
as Determined by STORET/REACH
NAME
Reach Type: Regular Reach
Alabama River Pulp
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Bowater Carolina Co.
Bowater Southern Paper Co
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion Intn'l Corp.
Champion Intn'l Corp.
Champion Intn'l Corp.
Champion Intn'l Corp.
Champion Intn'l Corp.
Chesapeake Corp.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Container Corp of America
Federal Paper Board Co.
Finch Pruyn & Co., Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
Hammermill Papers
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Leaf River Forest Product
Lincoln Pulp/Paper
Mead Corp.
Mead Corp.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pentair, Inc.
Pope & talbot, Inc.
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
AL0025968
AL0002755
LA0007927
ME0002054
MN0001643
SC0001015
TN0002356
GA0049336
FL0002526
MI0042170
NC0000272
TX0001643
TX0053023
VA0003115
WI0037991
AL0002682
NC0003298
NY0005525
AR0001210
LA0005258
ME0001872
AL0002828
AL0003018
GA0003620
AL0002780
AR0001970
LA0007561
ME0001937
MS0000213
MS0002674
TX0000167
LA0003468
ME0002020
NH0000655
AL0003158
MS0031704
ME0002003
OH0004481
TN0001643
AR0002968
WI0003620
WI0003212
OR0001074
REACH NAME
Alabama River
Tombigbee River
Bayou Anacoco1
Androscoggin River
Rainy River
Catawba River
Hiwassee River
Flint River
Perdido River2
Menominee River3
Pigeon River
Angelina River
Houston Shipping Channel
Pamunkey River
Wisconsin River
Conecuh River
Cape Fear River
Hudson River
Ouachita River
Mississippi River
St. Croix River
Tombigbee River
Alabama River
Altamaha River
Chickasaw Creek
Arkansas River
Bayou La Fourche
Androscoggin River
Mississippi River
Escatawpa River
Sulphur River*
Mississippi River
Penobscot River
Androscoggin River
Coosa River
Leaf River
Penobscot River5
Paint Creek
Holston River
Red River
Wisconsin River
NF Flambeau River
Willamette River
L-l
-------
NAME
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
Procter & Gamble Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Stone Container Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Wausau Paper Mills Co.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Willamette Industries
Appendix L. (Continued)
REACH NAME
NPDES
PERMIT
NUMBER
AR0035823
ID0001163
PA0008885
AL0002801
ME0002321
ME0021521
MI0027391
CA0004065
MT0000035
SC0038I2I
VA0004I62
WI0003379
KY0000086
M00021687
VA0003646
NC0000680
NC0003I91
WI0026042
KY0001716
Mississippi River
Snake River
Susquehanna River
Chickasaw Creek
Presumscot River
Kennebec River
Muskegon River6
Sacramento River
Clark Fork River
Wateree River
Blackwater River
Wisconsin River
Mississippi River
N. Branch Potomac River
Jackson River
Roanoke River7
Neuse River
Wisconsin River
Ohio River
Total = 63
Reach Type: Source Reaches
Appleton Papers, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Federal Paper Board Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Gil man Paper Co.
James River Corp.
P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
PA0008265 Juniata River8
FL0000876 Fenholloway River
GA0002801 Spirit Creek
FL0002763 Rice Creek
GA0001953 North River
AL0003301 Tombigbee River
PA0008869 Codorus Creek
PA0002143 Clarion River
Total = 8
L-2
-------
NAME
Appendix L. (Continued)
NPDES REACH NAME
PERMIT
NUMBER
Reach Type: Terminal Reaches
Badger Paper Mills,
Badger Paper Mills,
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Mead Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Tempie-Eastex, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Inc. WI0000663 Peshtigo River
Inc. WI0030651 Peshtigo River
WI0020991 Fox River
WI0001261 Fox River
MI0000027 Escanaba River
WA0000850 Puyallup River9
TX0003891 Neches River
WA0003000 Snohomish River
Total = 6
Reach Type: Source and Terminal Reaches
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Reach Type: Coastline
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Scott Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Stone Container Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Reach Type: Great Lakes
Hammermill Papers
WA0001091 Whatcom Waterway
SC0000868 Sampit River
Total = 2
Free Flowing Streams Grand Total = 79
FL0000701 Atlantic Ocean
WA0000795 Port Angeles Harbor
WA0003077 N Ch Grays Harbor
WA0000621 Port Gardner Bay
CA0005282 Pacific Ocean
FL0020206 St Joseph Sound
FL0002631 St. Andrew Bay
WA0000809 Grays Harbor
Total = 8
PA0026301 Lake Erie
Total = 1
L-3
-------
Appendix L. (Continued)
NAME NPOES REACH NAME
PERMIT
NUMBER
Reach Type: Lakes
Boise Cascade Corp. WA0003697 Columbia River
Champion Intn'l Corp. AL0000396 Wheeler Re
International Paper Co. NY0004413 Lake Champ!ain
Nekoosa Papers, Inc. WI0002810 Wisconsin River
Total = 4
Reach Type: Wide River Shoreline
Brunswick Pulp/Paper 6A0003654 Turtle River
Boise Cascade Corp. OR0000752 Multnomah Channel10
James River Corp. OR0000795 Columbia River
James River Corp. WA0000256 Columbia River
Longview Fibre Co. WA0000078 Columbia River
Weyerhaeuser Co. WA0000124 Columbia River
Total = 5
Non-Free Flowing Stream Grand Total = 19
Reach Type: Not Identified by Reach
Alaska Pulp Corp. AK0000531 Silver Bay
Gaylord Container CA0004847 San Joaquin River
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper AK0000922 Ward Cove
Louisiana Pacific Corp. CA0005894 Humboldt Bay11
Potlatch Corp. ?St Louis River
Simpson Paper Co. TX0006041
Stone Container Corp.
Total = 7
1 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Cypress Creek.
2 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Elevenmile Creek.
3 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is a tributary of this
waterbody.
* The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
L-4
-------
Appendix L. (Continued)
NAME NPDES REACH NAME
PERMIT
NUMBER
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Baker Slough.
5 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Mattanawcock River.
6 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Mosquito Creek.
8 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Halter Creek.
5 The NPDES permit no. for the POTW is OR0020834. The EPA regional contact
and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database indicate that a more correct
receiving water name is Columbia River.
9 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Commencement Bay.
10 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Welch Creek.
11 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that the receiving water is the Pacific Ocean.
L-5
-------
APPENDIX M
-------
Walter M. Grayman, Ph.D., RE.
Consulting Engineer
730 Avon Fields Lane Cincinnati, Ohio 45229 (513) 281-6139
MEMO
TO: Jim Pagenkopf.
FROM: Walter Grayman
RE: Progress on Mill Inventory
DATE: June 2,1989
I have finished the first phase on the inventory process; namely, investigating what
type of information is available and putting together a package of info for a pilot mill.
I'm using mill VA0003115 as my example. I've attached 6 exhibits showing different
information and methods of displaying the information as follows:
EXHIBIT 1: A tree structure printoff for the hydrologic catalog unit in which the mill is
contained. If the mill is at the extreme downstream end of the catalog unit (as is the
case for this mill), it may be useful to also generate the tree for the next downstream
catalog unt.
EXHIBIT 2: A STORET inventory of monitoring stations in the vicinity of the mill. I
selected a search of all stations within 10 miles upstream of the mill or within 5
miles downstream of the mill. I also limited this search to stations reporting values
for temperature, pH and/or solids. In this case there were 6 stations and a overall
summation of all this data.
EXHIBIT 3: An example of the same type of inventory retrieval but considering all
parameters. This results in many more stations and considerably more output.
EXHIBIT 4: A hand drawn tree of the reaches within 10 miles U/S and 5 miles 0/S
showing discharger, monitoring and gaging stations.
EXHIBIT 5: A summary of information available from the STORET daily flow file
containing most information that is available from USGS. I selected the closest
station to the discharger and in this case the only one on the mainstem of the
Pamunkey River.
EXHIBIT 6: A reach plot on which I have put the location of the mill and the stream flow
gage.
I should note that the process of acquiring and organizing this information is not a
automated seamless process. For example, the STORET flow file is not keyed to the
Reach File so I need to use another series of programs to identify appropriate gages
and then access that information.
Through June 2,1 have spent 22 hours and approximately $25 in expenses. I
suspect that when I get into production I can probably average about 1 hour per mill. It
would help to have a prioritization (e.g. mills not in GEMS first?). Any comments or
questions are welcome. I'll proceed along refining this process for other mills. I
received your letter of May 31 and I will not go beyond the 40 hour limit unless I hear
from you.
M-l
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 69/09/90 - REACH FILE LISTING - CATALOGING UNIT(S) 09030004-02080106,18040003
REACNRET VERSION OF JUL 06, 1987 REACH FILE VERSION OF SEPTEMBER 1982
f
12 11 10 9
TREE LEVEL
8765
REACH NAME
CHECK LENCTH UPSTREAM
REACH NUMBER DIGIT TYPE CHILES) LAT/LON6
oc
1
*
002
1
0
004
1
*
0
038
S *
0
/
007
0
037
1
0
030
*
/ 1
031 !
! 1
* 1
a> DOWNSTREAM TERMINUS
1 PAHUNKEV R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
COHOKE CR
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
3 PAHUNKEV R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
JACKS CR
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
5 PAMUNKEV R
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
MATATEQUIN CR
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
6 PAHUNKEV R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
WEBB CR
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
18 PAHUNKEV R
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
TOTOPONONOV CR
» ENTERING FROH THE LEFT
19 PAHUNKEV R
« ENTERING FROH THE RIGHT
S ANNA R
» ENTERING FROH THE LEFT
NEWFOUND R
37 34 29.9
02080106001 3 R 30.60 76 57 34.9
37 40 31.7
02080106002 7 S 10.00 77 00 19.7
37 36 16.3
02080106003 1 R 12.80 77 03 59.0
37 43 17.0
02080106004 S S 12.30 77 06 22.6
37 37 51.9
02080106005 9 R 6.10 77 07 48.7
37 38 20.3
02080106038 2 S 12.40 77 17 47.0
37 40 07.6
02080106006 3 R 5.40 77 08 49.1
37 47 42.7
02080106007 7 S 13.60 77 15 25.9
37 41 04.1
02080106008 1 R 8.60 77 12 48.9
37 42 53.6
02080106037 8 S 17.00 77 25 59.8
37 48 21.9
02080106009 5 R 34.40 77 24 20.5
37 48 35.9
02080106030 0 R 6.20 77 29 40.9
37 51 51.1
02080106031 4 S 18.10 77 4S_09.7
-------
'IP'
uTnTtr
CATALOfilN^LWl
DATE 89/05/30 - REACH FILE LISTING - CATALOGIN^VRITCS) 09030004,02080106,18040003
REACirT VERSION OF JUL 06, 1987 REACH FILE VERSION OF SEPTEMBER 1982
TREE LEVEL
1
032
•
/ 1
033 1
1 1
A I
" 1
1
034
I
/ 1
035 1
! 1
* 1
1
036
1
•
*
0
2 /
w 029
I
0
. *
012
0
0
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
S ANNA R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
TAYLORS CR
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
S ANNA R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
• A
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
S ANNA R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
0 N ANNA R
« ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT
LITTLE R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
1 N ANNA R
» ENTERING FROM THE LEFT
NORTH EAST CR
« ENTERING FROM THE RIfiHT
3 N ANNA R
REACH NUMBER DIGIT TYPE
02080106032 8 R
02080106033 2 S
02080106034 6 R
02080106035 0 S
02080106036 4 S
02080106010 6 R
02080106029 9 S
02080106011 0 R
02080106012 4 S
02080106013 8 R
« CONTINUING UPSTREAM
4 N ANNA R 02080106014 2 A
(OPEN WATER REACH THRU L ANNA)
+ ASSOCIATED SHORELINE (LAKE/RESERVOIR)
L ANNA ' 02080106015 6 L
(NOT DISPLAYED IN DIAGRAM)
* ASSOCIATED SHORELINE (LAKE/RESERVOIR)
L ANNA 02080106039 6 L
(NOT DISPLAYED IN DIAGRAM)
(MILES)
14.80
15.80
25.60
9.80
48.90
3.80
37.10
29.20
16.20
1.70
10.30
34.00
70.40
LAT/LONG
37 45 28.0
77 37 50.8
37 51 47.5
77 49 S3. 3
37 49 55.1
77 SO 42.7
37 56 30.4
77 S3 44.8
38 09 37.4
78 13 20.6
37 49 35.0
77 25 37.9
37 59 37.3
77 52 43.3
38 00 43.9
77 40 SS.1
38 11 09.2
77 47 20.7
38 00 52.5
77 42 22.6
38 06 20.5
77 50 18.5
38 10 28.1
77 55 01.1
38 00 52. 5
77 42 22.6
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 89/05/30 - REACH FILE LISTINC - CATALOCINC UNIT 09030004*020soi06/iB040003
REACHRET VERSION OF JUL 06, 1987 REACH PILE VERSION Or SEPTEMBER 1962
12 11 10
THEE LEVEL
8765
REACH NAME
CHECK LENCTH UPSTREAM
REACH NUMBER DI6IT TYPE CHILES) LAT/LON6
019
020
021
1
*
022
1
023
1
*
» ENTERINC FROM THE LEFT
PAMUNKEV CR
(OPEN UATER REACH THRU L
02080106019 2 A
ANNA)
* ASSOCIATED SHORELINE (LAKE/RESERVOIR)
L ANNA 02080106017 4 L
(NOT DISPLAYED IN DIACRAM)
» ENTERIN6 FROM THE LEFT
TERRVS RUN
(OPEN UATER REACH THRU L
« CONTINUINC UPSTREAM
TERRVS RUN
« ENTERINC FROM THE RICHT
PANUNKEY CR
(OPEN UATER REACH THRU L
« CONTINUINC UPSTREAM
PAHUNKEY CR
02080106020 3 A
ANNA)
02080106021 7 S
02080106022 1 A
ANNA)
02080106023 5 S
38 08 34.4
3.90 77 52 51.2
38 07 33.9
17.60 77 59 06.3
38 10 28.1
1.90 77 55 01.1
38 14 03.1
9.20 77 50 38.3
38 09 07.1
3.20 77 56 17.5
38 15 S6.5
15.80 78 04 49.7
0 4
027
« ENTERINC FROM THE RICHT
N ANNA R 02080106024
(OPEN UATER REACH THRU L ANNA)
• ASSOCIATED SHORELINE (LAKE/RESERVOIR)
L ANNA 02080104016
(NOT DISPLAYED IN DIAGRAM)
« ENTERINC FROM THE RICHT
COLD MINE 02080106027
(OPEN HATER REACH THRU L ANNA)
* ASSOCIATED SHORELINE (LAKE/RESERVOIR)
L ANNA 02080106018
(NOT DISPLAYED IN DIACRAN)
I
028
" CONTINUINC UPSTREAM
COLD NINE
02080106028
38 07 11.6
6.10 77 56 12.1
38 09 07.1
5.90 77 56 17.5
38 06 33.8
1.30 77 57 24.1
38 06 33.8
3.80 77 57 24.1
38 01 33.5
7.40 77 57 59.0
025
I
I
026
I
» ENTERINC FROM THE LEFT
N ANNA R 02080106025
(OPEN HATER REACH THRU L ANNA)
»« CONTINUINC UPSTREAM
N ANNA R
02080106026
1.90
14.60
38 07 33.9
77 59 06.3
38 09 37.7
78 10 27.8
-------
STORE! REtTfTeVAL DATE 89/06/02
/TVPA/ANBNT/STREAH
P6H*INVENT
PACE:
8-YRK031.39 RET4.3
37 30 24.0 076 47 18.0 4
C 57 (COUNTY OF KING AND «UEEN>
51095 VIRGINIA JAMES CITY
NORTH-ATLANTIC 020800
8-YORK
21VASUCB 841207 H« 02080107010 0004.730 OFF
0000 FEET DEPTH
PARAMETER
00010 WATER TEMP
00400
PH
MEDIUM
CENT BOTTOM
WATER
SU BOTTOM
WATER
RMK NUMBER MEAN VARIANCE STAN DEV MAXIMUM MINIMUM
29 20.S2900 49.90000 7.064000 28.6 5.1
68 21.27200 48.47800 6.977000 29.2 4.9
24 7.239600 .2022900 .4497600 8.40 6.48
28 7.195700 .1913300 .4374100 8.21 4.37
BEG DATE END DATE
85/07/03 87/11/17
85/07/03 87/11/17
85/07/03 87/11/17
85/07/03 87/11/17
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 89/06/02
/TVPA/AHBNT/STREAN
POH'INVENT
PACE: 2
8-VRK031.4A WA8-01-K0075 VA8-4X0075
37 30 44.0 076 47 35.0 1
YORK RIVER
51127 VIRGINIA NEW KENT
02-NORTM ATLANTIC
a-VORK
21VASUCB HQ 02080107010 0007.160 OFF
0000 FEET DEPTH
PARAMETER
00010 HATER
00400 PH
00403 PH
00300 RESIDUE
00305 RESIDUE
00510 RESIDUE
00330 RESIDUE
00335 RESIDUE
00540 RESIDUE
TEMP
LAB
TOTAL
TOT VOL
TOT FIX
TOT NFLT
VOL NFLT
FIX NFLT
CENT
SU
SU
M6/L
M6/L
Mfi/L
H6/L
M6/L
N6/L
MEDIUM
WATER
HATER
HATER
HATER
HATER
HATER
HATER
HATER
HATER
RNK
NUMBER MEAN
67 23.60000
67 7.574200
6.966000
9133.800
1559.400
6538.900
113.8000
12.20000
26.00000
VARIANCE
38.68400
.2827300
.0943310
5022200
1256900
15153000
29939.00
64.70000
354.5000
STAN DEV MAXIMUM MINIMUM
6.219600
.5317300
.3074600
2241.000
1121.100
3892.600
173.0300
8.043600
18.82800
31.1
8.80
7.3
11080
3277
9744
420
26
48
7.2
6.30
6.5
5560
322
52
10
5
5
BES DATE
68/07/03
68/07/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
END DATE
79/03/13
79/03/13
73/10/14
70/05/07
70/05/07
70/05/07
70/05/07
70/05/07
70/05/07
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 89/06/02
/TVPA/AMBNT/STREAM
PGHMNVENT
PACE:
8-PMK000.98 VA8-01-X0045 VA8-5X0045
37 32 02.0 076 48 30.0 1
PAHUNKEV RIVER
51127 VIRGINIA NEW KENT
02-NORTH ATLANTIC 021992
e-VORK
21VASHCB HQ 02080106001 0001.0*0 OFF
0000 FEET DEPTH
PARAMETER
00010 WATER
00400 PH
00403 PH
OOSOO RESIDUE
00505 RESIDUE
00510 RESIDUE
00530 RESIDUE
00535 RESIDUE
00540 RESIDUE
TEMP
LAB
TOTAL
TOT VOL
TOT FIX
TOT NFLT
VOL NFLT
FIX NFLT
CENT
SU
SU
M6/L
M6/L
N6/L
HG/L
HG/L
N6/L
MEDIUM
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
RNK
NUMBER
126
118
27
12
12
12
65
65
65
MEAN
21.93400
7.426300
7.185000
6860.800
1303.200
5559.200
281.9100
73.60000
39.40000
VARIANCE
533.2200
.2817500
.0697870
8022600
640670.0
5427500
1188500
244690.0
647.5600
STAN DEV MAXIMUM MINIMUM
23.09200
.5308000
.2641700
2832.400
800.4200
2329.700
1090.200
494.6600
25.44700
260.0
9.00
7.7
11370
2833
8984
7000
4000
137
.0
6.20
6.6
2571
412
2159
14
3
0
BEG DATE
68/07/02
68/07/02
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
END DATE
84/08/06
84/08/06
84/08/06
79/11/13
79/11/13
79/11/13
84/08/06
84/08/06
84/08/06
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 89/06/02
/TVPA/AMBNT/STREAM
PGM=INVENT
016736SO
37 32 16.0 076 46 28.0 2
PAHUNKEI RIVER AT WEST POINT, VA
51101 VIRCINIA KINfi WILLIAM
021592
PAGE:
112WRD
0000 FEET DEPTH
02080106001 0001.180 OFF
PARAMETER MEDIUM
00010 WATER TtMP CENT WATER
00400 PH SU HATER
00)15 RESIDUE DISS-105 C Nfi/L WATER
00330 RESIDUE TOT NH.T H6/L WATER
RHK NUMBER MEAN VARIANCE STAN DEV MAXIMUM MINIMUM
46 16.61900 70.19100 S.378000 28.5 3.5
45 7.126600 .1070100 .3271300 7.80 6.20
3 3923.300 5482700 2341.500 7700 3270
8 50.37500 707.9900 26.60800
92
BEG DATE END DATE
70/01/30 74/02/19
70/01/30 74/02/19
70/07/28 72/05/13
70/07/28 73/12/21
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 89/06/02
/TYPA/APIBNT/STREAH
P6H*INVENT
PACE:
a-PNK002.3a VA8-01-X0046 VA8-5X0046
37 33 08.2 076 49 23.4 1
PAHUNKET RIVER
51101 VIR6INIA KINC WILLIAM
02-NORTH ATLANTIC 021592
8-VORK
21VASWCB H« 02080106001 0002.730 OFF
0000 FEET DEPTH
PARAMETER MEDIUM
00010 WATER TEMP CENT WATER
00400 PH SU WATER
OOS30 RESIDUE TOT NFLT N6/L WATER
00535 RESIDUE VOL NFLT N6/L WATER
00540 RESIDUE FIX NFLT N6/L WATER
RNK NUMBER MEAN VARIANCE STAN OEV MAXIMUM MINIMUM
39 24.53000 27.02700 3.198700 30.0 3.0
39 7.265000 .1824600 .4271600 8.50 6.40
11 44.00000 428.0000 20.68800 92 8
9.272700 68.21800 8.259400 22 .0000009
11
11 34.90900 493.0900 22.20600
92
BEC DATE END DATE
72/05/30 76/11/23
72/05/30 76/11/23
75/05/22 76/11/23
75/05/22 76/11/23
75/05/22 76/11/23
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 89/06/02
/TVPA/AMttNT/STREAM
P6N*INVENT
PAGE:
8-PHK006.36 RET4.1
37 31 30.0 076 52 12.0 4
SOUTHEUN END LEE HARSH iCOUNTT OF NEW KENT}
51127 VIRGINIA NEW KENT
NORTH-ATLANTIC 020600
8-VORK
21VASWCB 841207 HO 02080104001 0010.160 OFF
0000 FEET DEPTH
PARAMETER
00010 HATER TEMP
00400 PH
00403 PH LAB
OOSOS RESIDUE TOT VOL
MEDIUM
CENT BOTTOM
HATER
SU BOTTOM
HATER
SU BOTTOM
WATER
N6/L WATER
00530 RESIDUE TOT NFLT H6/L WATER
00540 RESIDUE FIX NFLT M6/L WATER
RMK NUMBER MEAN VARIANCE STAN DEV MAXIMUM MINIMUM
66 19.45100 62.64200 7.927300 29.6 .8
1S2 19.34600 60.73500 7.793300 29.6 .9
54 7.026300 .2274400 .4769100 8.60 6.06
66 6.979500 .2063900 .4543000 8.60 5.94
1 6.500000 6.5 6.5
K
TOT
K
TOT
K
TOT
1 6.600000
33 13.30300 117.4100 10.03500
1 5.000000
34 13.05900 115.8800 10.76500
33 59.71200 2075.900 45.56200
2 4.000000 2.000000 1.414200
35 56.52900 2126.000 46.10900
33 47.63600 1215.700 34.86800
1 5.000000
34 46.38200 1232.400 35.10500
6.6
54
5
54
190
5
190
136
5
136
6.6
2
5
2
5
3
3
8
5
5
BE6 DATE END DATE
84/07/16 87/11/17
84/07/16 87/11/17
84/08/14 87/11/17
84/08/14 67/11/17
84/07/16 84/07/16
84/07/16 84/07/16
84/09/14 87/11/17
85/11/19 85/11/19
84/09/14 87/11/17
84/09/14 17/11/17
85/07/03 85/11/19
84/09/14 87/11/17
84/09/14 87/11/17
85/11/19 85/11/19
84/09/14 87/11/17
S
»-*
O
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 89/06/02
6 TOTAL STATIONS PROCESSED
PGH«=INVENT
6ROSS
PAGE:
<1970
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1976
1979
1980
1961
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
TOTAL
STA BEG
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
6
STA
END
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
6
0 OF OBS
47
103
40
79
79
56
52
62
12
24
57
55
59
59
63
99
172
166
173
0
0
1477
0 OF SAMPLE
10
27
21
41
41
26
20
21
7
12
9
11
12
11
12
41
88
93
102
0
0
607
STA
»0
15
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
15
END-PI
<,
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
0
<3
IN VRS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 89/06/02
P6HMNVENT
GROSS
PA6E:
6 TOTAL STATIONS PROCESSED
PARAMETER
00010 WATER
00400 PH
00403 PH
00500 RESIDUE
00305 RESIDUE
OOS10 RESIDUE
00513 RESIDUE
OOS30 RESIDUE
OOS3S RESIDUE
00540 RESIDUE
TEMP
LAB
TOTAL
TOT VOL
TOT FIX
DISS-105
TOT NFLT
VOL NFLT
flK NFLT
CENT
SU
SU
Mfi/L
Mfi/L
H6/L
C MC/L
HC/L
H6/L
MC/L
MEDIUM
BOTTOM
WATER
60TTOM
WATER
BOTTOM
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
MATER
WATER
RMK
K
TOT
K
TOT
K
TOT
NUMBER
95
498
70
363
1
34
17
SO
1
51
.17
I
12?
2
124
81
114
1
115
MEAN
19.76300
20.99000
7.091900
7.300100
6.500000
7.129200
7529.400
477.4800
5.000000
468.2200
5847.300
5923.300
176.2800
4.000000
175.4700
61.07400
40.76300
5.000000
40.45200
VARIANCE
58. 56500
177.4200
.2268100
.2686300
.0651760
7910700
678020.0
668830.0
7731300
5482700
642760.0
2.000000
632790.0
196410.0
795.0700
799.2200
STAN OEW
7.652700
13.32000
.4762500
.5162900
.2918500
2812.600
823.4200
817.8200
2780.500
2341.500
801.7200
1.414200
795.4800
443.1800
28.19700
28.27100
HA XI HUN
29.6
260.0
8.60
9.00
6.5
7.7
11370
3277
3
3277
9744
7700
7000
5
7000
4000
137
5
137
MINIMUM
.6
.0
6.06
5.94
6.5
6.5
2571
2
5
2
52
3270
3
3
3
.0000009
0
3
0
BEG DATE
84/07/16
68/07/02
84/08/14
66/07/02
64/07/16
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
85/11/19
69/06/03
69/06/03
70/07/28
69/06/03
85/07/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
69/06/03
85/11/19
69/06/03
END DATE
87/11/17
87/11/17
87/11/17
87/11/17
84/07/16
84/08/06
79/11/13
67/11/17
85/11/19
67/11/17
79/11/13
72/05/13
87/11/17
65/11/19
67/11/17
84/08/06
67/11/17
85/11/19
87/11/17
-------
STOMET RETRIEVAL PATE 89/06/01
/TVPA/ANBNT/STREAM
P6MMNVENT
PAGE:
8-PHK002.5e VA8-01-X0046 VA8-SX0046
137 33 08.2 076 49 23.4 1
PAHUNKET RIVER
51101 VIRGINIA KING WILLIAM
02-NORTH ATLANTIC 021592
8-VORK
21VASWCB H« 02080106001 0002.730 OFF
0000 FEET DEPTH
PARAMETER
00002
00005
00010
00011
00041
00067
00300
00301
00310
00400
00530
00535
00540
00610
00612
00615
00619
00620
00625
00630
00680
00940
01002
01027
01034
HSAHPLOC
VSAHPLOC
WATER
MATER
WEATHER
TIDE
DO
DO
BOO
PM
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
RESIDUE
NH3»NH4-
UN-IONZD
N02-N
UN-IONZD
N03-N
TOT KJEL
N02IN03
T OR6 C
CHLORIDE
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
X FROM
DEPTH
TEMP
TEMP
WHO CODE
STAGE
SATUR
5 DAT
TOT NFLT
VOL NFLT
FIX NFLT
N TOTAL
NH3-N
TOTAL
NH3-NH3
TOTAL
N
N-TOTAL
C
TOTAL
AS, TOT
CO, TOT
CR,TOT
RT BANK
X OF TOT
CENT
FAHN
4501
COPE
N6/L
PERCENT
HG/L
su
HG/L
HG/L
MG/L
HG/L
M6/L
N6/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
HG/L
MG/L
HG/L
U6/L
U6/L
U6/L
MEDIUM
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
01042 COPPER CU,TOT
U6/L
WATER
RHK
%
%
K
TOT
K
TOT
$
K
TOT
%
K
TOT
K
TOT
K
K
K
TOT
K
NUMBER
39
39
39
39
39
31
39
39
17
3
20
39
11
11
11
1
24
21
2J
4
22
26
25
17
. 4
21
24
4
1
5
10
33
4
7
1
10
11
6
5
MEAN
50.00000
30.00000
24.33000
76.1 S400
2.307700
3.000000
3.919900
66.18400
1.646800
1.000000
1.719800
7.265000
44.00000
9.272700
34.90900
.0999900
.0999900
.0999900
.0022985
.0124970
.0099990
.0103830
.0027947
.1570200
.0499900
.1366300
.3165800
.1074700
.0499900
.0959720
9.100000
2717.000
2.249700
7.427800
9.999000
9.999000
9.999000
16.66100
9.999000
VARIANCE
.0000000
.0000000
27.02700
87.34300
.9028400
1.266700
1.532400
130.6600
.8124000
.0000000
.7801700
.1824600
428.0000
68.21800
493.0900
.0000000
.0000000
.0000138
.0000249
.0000000
.0000038
.0000205
.0431980
.0000000
.0364130
.0136250
.0026207
.0026262
4.766700
2656700
3.581700
19.28200
.0000000
.0000000
66.59500
.0000000
STAN OEV
.0000000
.0000000
5.198700
9.356400
.9501800
1.125500
1.237900
11.43100
.9013300
.0000000
.8833900
.4271600
20.68800
8.259400
22.20600
.0000000
.0000000
.0037245
.0049955
.0000000
.0019595
.0045286
.2078400
.0000000
.1908200
.1167300
.0511920
.0512470
2.183300
1630.000
1.892500
4.391100
.0000000
.0000000
8.160600
.0000000
HA XI HUN
50.0
50
30.0
86.0
3
4
9.5
90.4
4.0
1.0
4.0
8.50
92
22
92
.100
.100
.100
.019
.020
.010
.020
.023
.890
.050
.890
.600
.18
.05
.18
11.0
6500
5
10
10
10
10
30
10
NINIMUH
SO.O
50
5.0
41.0
1
1
2.6
32.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.40
a
.0000009
6
.100
.100
.100
.00009
.010
.010
.010
.0001
.010
.050
.010
.100
.06
.05
.05
5.0
7
1.0
1.0
10
10
10
10
10
BEG PATE
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/06/16
75/08/04
72/06/16
72/05/30
75/05/22
75/05/22
75/05/22
76/03/01
73/05/10
73/05/10
73/05/10
73/05/10
73/06/24
73/05/10
73/05/10
73/05/10
75/06/06
73/05/10
73/05/10
76/06/29
76/08/24
76/06/29
75/07/09
72/06/16
72/05/30
72/05/30
73/08/06
72/05/30
72/05/30
72/08/28
72/05/30
END DATE
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/08/24
76/09/16
76/09/16
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/03/01
76/09/16
76/09/16
76/09/16
76/09/16
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/09/16
76/05/12
75/08/04
76/05/12
76/09/16
76/11/23
76/08/24
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/11/23
76/09/16
76/09/16
73/08/06
76/09/16
76/09/16
76/09/16
75/05/22
STOBFT
-------
JOB-
SHEET NO..
OF.
CALCULATED BY.
CHECKED BY
MILL:
at fnoir.4on^
g^sa-jJ-j*.
tmJM »P /*ji|| _
a: O2O&0\0&00\
OF PULP & PAPER MILL
MILES UPSTR
-0
d 1
2
CO
g 3-
4 -
-5
42-
-H—
+
i g-PMIC<»3.l7;
o
^T.6
;,6
-4^
-sh
~J
i4, WEES
-v«»eo-5H5 (-M-P-«'f-.-9ft>
8-7ew>3l.3«»
6-73)
"'"
, p«
REACH'.
0i OT O I O
r4 9 i>Q^^^^^
—W
-------
CROSS SEC
STATION NUHBER LOCATION DEPTH
PAHUNKEY RIVER NEAR HANOVER, VA
01673000
01673000
01673000
01673000
01673000
END OF DATA
PARN STAT BEGIN END NO. HISSING
CODE CODE YEAR HO YEAR HO DAYS DAYS TEARS
HAXIHUH HINIHUN
HEAN
AGENCY USSS STATE
00010
00010
00060
00060
00995
00011
00011
00003
00003
00011
194S
1968
1941
1970
1968
10
4
10
10
4
1946 9
1976 1
1969 9
1988 10
1976 1
51 DISTRICT 51 COUNTY 085 SUE
363
2787
10227
6579
2795
2
75
0
27
67-
1
9
28
19
9
25
28
39300
25000
142
SU DR
.99
.00
.00
.00
.00
AREA :
0.49
0.00
13.00
22.00
36.00
1081 SO N
13.19
15.11
912.41
1155.65
72.00
\aratrf\or
95 ..
M-15
-------
2
>»t
0\
Ti'OO-
7800
II'£>
REACH FILE
HYDROLOGIC SEGMENT PLOT
6
RICHMOND
37/76
1961
-------
APPENDIX N
-------
Appendix N.
STORET/REACH Data Availability for 79 Free Flowing Streams
NAME NPDES REACH NAME
PERMIT
NUMBER
Data Type 0: No Quality Data Available
Buckeye Cellulose GA0049336 Flint River
Federal Paper Board Co. GA0002801 Spirit Creek
International Paper Co. LA0007561 Bayou La Fourche
International Paper Co. TX0000167 Sulphur River1
Lincoln Pulp/Paper ME0002003 Penobscot River2
Potlatch Corp. AR0035823 Mississippi River
Scott Paper Co. ME0021521 Kennebec River
Westvaco Corp. KY0000086 Mississippi River
Total = 8
Data Type 1: Downstream Data Only (within 5 miles)
Boise Cascade Corp. ME0002054 Androscoggin River
Bowater Carolina Co. SC0001015 Catawba River
Finch Pruyn & Co., Inc. NY0005525 Hudson River
Georgia-Pacific Corp. AR0001210 Ouachita River
Georgia-Pacific Corp. ME0001872 St. Croix River
Gilman Paper Co. GA0001953 North River
Union Camp Corp. SC0038121 Wateree River
Westvaco Corp. VA0003646 Jackson River
Willamette Industries KY0001716 Ohio River
Total = 9
Data Type 2: Upstream Data for 1 or 2 Parameters
Appleton Papers, Inc. PA0008265 Juniata River3
Boise Cascade Corp. LA0007927 Bayou Anacoco4
Georgia-Pacific Corp. LA0005258 Mississippi River
Georgia-Pacific Corp. WA0001091 Whatcom Waterway
International Paper Co. MS0000213 Mississippi River
James River Corp. AL0003301 Tombigbee River
James River Corp. ME0002020 Penobscot River
Kimberly-Clark Corp. AL0003158 Coosa River
Mead Corp. OH0004481 Paint Creek
Scott Paper Co. ME0002321 Presumscot River
Temple-Eastex, Inc. TX0003891 Neches River
Total = 11
N-l
-------
Appendix N. (Continued)
NAME NPOES REACH NAME
PERMIT
NUMBER
Data Type 3: Upstream Data for T, pH, and SS
Alabama River Pulp AL0025968 Alabama River
Badger Paper Mills, Inc. WI0000663 Peshtlgo River
Badger Paper Mills, Inc. WI0030651 Peshtlgo River
Boise Cascade Corp. AL0002755 Tombigbee River
Boise Cascade Corp. MN0001643 Rainy River
Boise Cascade Corp. OR0000752 Multnomah Channel5
Bowater Southern Paper Co TN0002356 Hiwassee River
Buckeye Cellulose FL0000876 Fenholloway River
Champion Intn'l Corp. FL0002526 Perdido River6
Champion Intn'l Corp. MI0042170 Menominee River6
Champion Intn'l Corp. NC0000272 Pigeon River
Champion Intn'l Corp. TX0001643 Angelina River
Champion Intn'l Corp. TX0053023 Houston Shipping Channel
Chesapeake Corp. VA0003115 Pamunkey River
Consolidated Papers, Inc. WI0037991 Wisconsin River
Container Corp of America AL0002682 Conecuh River
Federal Paper Board Co. NC0003298 Cape Fear River
Georgia-Pacific Corp. FL0002763 Rice Creek
Gulf States Paper Corp. AL0002828 Tombigbee River
Hammermill Papers AL0003018 Alabama River
ITT-Rayonier, Inc. GA0003620 Altamaha River
International Paper Co. AL0002780 Chickasaw Creek
International Paper Co. AR0001970 Arkansas River
International Paper Co. ME0001937 Androscoggin River
International Paper Co. MS0002674 Escatawpa River
International Paper Co. SC0000868 Sampit River
James River Corp. LA0003468 Mississippi River
James River Corp. NH0000655 Androscoggin River
James River Corp. WI0020991 Fox River
James River Corp. WI0001261 Fox River
Leaf River Forest Product MS0031704 Leaf River
Mead Corp. MI0000027 Escanaba River
Mead Corp. TN0001643 Holston River
Nekoosa Papers, Inc. AR0002968 Red River
Nekoosa Papers, Inc. WI0003620 Wisconsin River
P.H. Glatfelter Co. PA0008869 Codorus Creek
Penntech Papers, Inc. PA0002143 Clarion River
Pentair, Inc. WI0003212 NF Flambeau River
Pope & Talbot, Inc. OR0001074 Willamette River
Potlatch Corp. ID0001163 Snake River
Procter & Gamble Co. PA0008885 Susquehanna River
Scott Paper Co. AL0002801 Chickasaw Creek
Scott Paper Co. MI0027391 Muskegon River8
Simpson Paper Co. CA0004065 Sacramento River
N-2
-------
Appendix N. (Continued)
NAME NPDES REACH NAME
PERMIT
NUMBER
Simpson Paper Co. WA0000850 Puyallup River9
Stone Container Corp. MT0000035 Clark Fork River
Union Camp Corp. VA0004162 Blackwater River
Wausau Paper Mills Co. WI0003379 Wisconsin River
Westvaco Corp. MD0021687 N. Branch Potomac River
Weyerhaeuser Co. NC0000680 Roanoke River10
Weyerhaeuser Co. NC0003191 Neuse River
Weyerhaeuser Co. WA0003000 Snohomish River
Weyerhaeuser Co. WI0026042 Wisconsin River
Total = 51
Grand Total = 79
1 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Baker Slough.
2 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Mattanawcock River.
3 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Halter Creek.
* The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Cypress Creek.
5 The NPDES permit no. for the POTW is OR0020834. The EPA regional contact
and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database indicate that a more correct
receiving water name is Columbia River.
6 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Elevenmile Creek.
7 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is a tributary of this
waterbody.
8 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Mosquito Creek.
9 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Commencement Bay.
10 The EPA regional contact and/or the Industrial Discharge Facility Database
indicate that a more correct receiving water name is Welch Creek.
N-3
-------
APPENDIX O
-------
Appendix 0.
In-stream adjusted total suspended solids worksheet
NPDES
AGENCY
STATION
AK0000531
AK0000922
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL0002755
AL0002780
AL0002801
AL0002828
AL0003018
AL0003158
AL0003301
AL0025968
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
AZ
CA0004065
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003654
GA0049336
ID0001163
KY0000086
KY0001716
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA0007561
LA0007927
M00021687
ME0001872
ME0001937
HE0002003
ME0002020
ME0002054
ME0002321
ME0021521
MI 0000027
HI0027391
MI0042170
HN
MN0001643
MS0000213
MS0002674
MS0031704
MT0000035
NC0000272
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0005525
OH0004481
11135050
112WRO
21AWIC
21AWIC
11MOB4
11MOB4
21AWIC
11MOB4
112WRD
1116APCC
1116APCC
1116APCC
21CAL-1
21FLA
21FLA
21FLA
21GAEPD
10EPAINT
112URO
310RWUNT
21LA10RS
112VRO
21HO
1111REG1
1111REG1
1111REG1
21MICH
21MICH
21WIS
21MINN
1110NET
21MSWQ
21HTHDWQ
21NC01UQ
21NC01WQ
21NC01WQ
21NC01WQ
11113300
21NYOEC1
210HIO
17750
2470040
CS2
CS2
3103
2422765
Tl
2428399
7362400
50080
50139
50059
A0282500
22050027
33010003
20030424
6014001
153646
7024070
OR3551M
7705
7373420
NBP0534
SCOK
AR13
AR08
210030
620001
383210
LRRA-83
210054
2473260
4115CL01
E5500000
N9250000
J7930000
B8350000
10-ANO
11 0602
V10P06
NO.
DBS.
0
0
0
31
4
184
184
10
115
0
74
11
93
58
178
32
0
10
0
0
0
0
25
67
0
4
0
0
0
196
0
0
19
10
182
130
93
0
0
64
12
6
0
0
6
0
0
117
19
6
0
237
100
0
24
55
110
62
172
80
20
0
157
7
HIN
0
0
0
2
22
2
2
2
5
0
3
5
6
6
4
36
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
26
5
0
2
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
4
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
19
0
7
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
9
MEAN
0
0
0
16
44
23
23
42
32
0
48
22
25
28
131
198
0
10
0
0
0
0
5
8
0
7
0
0
0
16
0
0
29
192
112
147
179
0
0
40
2
7
0
0
8
0
0
8
7
4
0
5
304
0
32
35
6
13
11
16
5
0
8
21
MAX
0
0
0
40
75
136
136
166
180
0
300
60
149
150
764
699
0
17
0
0
0
0
27
34
0
12
0
0
0
93
0
0
342
512
1630
406
611
0
0
1244
5
10
0
0
10
0
0
110
15
8
0
44
928
0
101
832
58
36
38
138
18
0
65
40
SO
0
0
0
10
26
18
18
58
51
0
57
19
28
26
140
148
0
6
0
0
0
0
6
7
0
5
0
0
0
12
0
0
76
173
193
93
113
0
0
157
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
10
4
2
0
5
215
0
27
115
8
6
6
20
4
0
9
11
YEARS
68-71
71-74
74-89
74-89
78-79
77-78
74-80
77-78
72-82
83-89
74-89
68-74
60-83
71-83
70-83
78-80
70-89
75-77
69-70
76-89
66-78
79-88
68-81
70-72
72-72
72-72
73-87
73-75
84-88
53-89
59-64
75-77
84-87
71-85
82-89
70-89
80-89
74-76
66-86
85-86
RATIO
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
TSS in note
(mG/L)
0
0
0
6
10
13
13
10
18
0
11
12
13
6
42
130
0
7
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
2
0
0 2
0 2
8
0
0 2
21
129
50
107
131
0
0
13
2
5
0 3
0 3
5
0 4
0 4
4
5
3
0 5
4
222
0 6
12
18
3
8
4
7
4
0
4
3
O-l
-------
Appendix 0. (continued)
NPOES AGENCY STATION NO. MIN MEAN MAX SO YEARS RATIO Adj
OBS.
OR0000795 00 000
OR0001074 21400000 402023 142 1 7 75 11 65-89
OR0020834 00 000
PA0002143 21PA WQN0823 43 5 35 204 43 62-72
PA0008265 00 000
PA0008869 112WRD 1574520 42 10 59 180 45 62-76
PA0008885 21PA WQN0305 108 0 21 154 22 62-89
PA0026301 00 000
SC0000868 00 000
SC0001015 112WRO 2146000 142 0 10 86 13 27-79
SC0038121 215C60WQ CW-206 122 1 23 120 20 77-89
TN0001643 21TNWQ 2610 251 0 10 61 8 60-85
TN0002356 21TNWQ 1585 110 0 12 61 11 74-85
TX0000167 21TXWQB 3010100 39 4 22 113 19 76-88
TX0001643 21TXUQB 6110100 43 6 24 65 17 76-89
TX0003891 21TXWQB 6020100 121 8 37 805 72 76-88
TX0006041 00 000
TX0053023 21TXWQB 10072350 104 2 47 366 56 76=89
VA0003115 21VASWCB 8-PMK002.58 11 8 44 92 21 75-76
VA0003646 00 000
VA0004162 21NC01WQ 00001200 98 1 6 36 6 81-89
WA0000078 00 000
WA0000124 00 000
WA0000256 00 000
UA0000621 00 0-0 0
WA0000795 00 000
WA0000809 00 000
WA0000850 21540000 10A070 126 2 134 2400 319 78-88
WA0001091 00 000
WA0003000 00 000
WA0003077 00 000
WA0003697 00 000
UI0000663 21WIS 383001 299 0 6 226 16 61-89
WI0001261 00000
WI0003212 21WIS 23025 12 0 6 14 4 75-81
WI0003379 21WIS 353068 136 0 5 28 4 58-89
WI0020991 21WIS 53001 174 0 20 106 16 61-76
WI0030651 00 000
WI0037991 21WIS 723002 144 0 11 34 8 76-89
1 The stream solids concentration for AL0003018 was used.
2 The stream solids concentration for GA0003620 was used.
3 The stream solids concentration for ME0001872 was used.
* The stream solids concentration for ME0001937 was used.
5 The stream solids concentration for MN0001643 was used.
6 The stream solids concentration for MS0031704 was used.
The stream solids data used was supplied by the EPA regional
8 The stream solids concentration for PA0002163 was used.
9 The stream solids concentration for SC0003812 was used.
10 The stream solids concentration for VA0003115 was used.
T:
(i
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
contact.
TSS in note
(mG/L)
0 7
4
0 7
17
0 8
27
6
0
0 9
5
15
6
5
1
1
7
0
4
13
0
0
0 7
0 7
0
0
0
0
98
0
0
0
0 7
4
0
3
4
14
0
7
10
O-2
-------
APPENDIX P
-------
Appendix P.
Harmonic mean and 7Q10 stream flow worksheet
NPDES HMF Q710 Method
in flow in
Ft3/sec Ft3/sec
B SC
AK0000531
AK0000922
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL0002755
AL0002780
AL0002801
AL0002828
AL0003018
AL0003158
AL0003301
AL0025968
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
A7
Hi -----
CA0004065
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003654
GA0049336
ID0001163
KY0000086
KY0001716
LA0003468
LA0005258
LA0007561
LA0007927
MD0021687
ME0001872
ME0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
ME0002054
ME0002321
ME0021521
0
0
0
1385
6138
249
324
5080
14676
6284
5639
18032
2369
9780
3945
368095
Q
V
6654
0
0
0
0
174
531
0
80
0
69
196
6945
0
2291
40672
326071
57912
348544
348544
0
120
291
1812
3152
5678
8404
2861
511
4658
0
0
0
290 1
1032 1
52 1
52 1
858 1
5222 1
1791 1
946 1
6018 1
108 1
1387 1
535 1
110233 1
n
u
2561 1
0
0
0
0
8 1
232 1
0
10 1
0
0 3
14 3
2290 1
0
710 1
12100 1
65103 2
8454 2
100938 2
100984 2
2 4
24 1
40 1
456 1
1563 1
2672 1
3301 1
1427 1
190 1
1628 2
GAGE Foot-
note
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
46 1
107 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 0
0 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
86 12
0 12
0 0
57 12
0 0
62 12
46 45
0 13
0 0
0 13
0 53
0 47
0 21
0 28
0 28
0- 0
30 22
0 24
0 23
0 23
0 23
0 23
0 23
29 23
0 23
0 1
0 1
0 1
2374000 1
2470000 1
2471001 1
2471001 1
2467000 1
2423000
2405000
2467000 1
2429500 1
7364100
7263450
7337000
7265450
0
11370500
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
2324500 1
2376500 1
0 1
2244473 1
0 1
2230000 1
2197300 1
2226000 1
0 1
2349500 1
13343600 1
326071 1
3303280 1
7295100
7295100
0
8028000
1595800
1021000
1054500
1034500
1034500
1054500
1064000
1049265
p-l
-------
Appendix P.
NPDES HMF Q710 Method
in flow in
Ft3/sec Ft3/sec
MI0000027
MI0027391
MI0042170
MM
nil -------
MN0001643
MS0000213
MS0002674
MS0031704
MT0000035
NC0000272
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0005525
OH0004481
OR0000795
OR0001074
OR0020834
PA0002143
PA0008265
PA0008869
PA0008885
PA0026301
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0053023
VA0003115
VA0003646
VA0004162
WA0000078
WA0000124
WA0000256
WA0000621
WA0000795
WA0000809
WA0000850
WA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
569
1507
1888
11578
348544
857
1527
2775
292
5303
1648
2294
2098
0
2594
253
132932
8252
0
237
97
63
3517
0
281
2531
3691
1499
2179
244
196
1476
0
105
403
95
211
132932
132932
132932
0
0
0
2428
88
0
0
172 1
704 1
482 1
57 2
73 2
383 1
464 2
532 1
60 1
443 1
244 1
536 1
892 1
0
483 1
90 1
0 2
2542 1
20 4
28 1
64 1
15 1
542 2
0
10 3
934 1
580 1
499 1
968 1
224 2
2 1
288 1
0
2 2
63 1
69 1
43 1
0 2
0 2
0 2
0
0
0
815 1
4 2
8 4
0
(continued)
A
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
B SC
54 26
0 26
0 55
0 0
0 27
0 28
0 28
0 28
0 30
68 37
0 37
0 37
0 37
0 33
0 0
0 36
43 39
0 41
0 41
0 0
0 42
0 42
20 42
0 42
0 0
39 37
0 45
0 45
0 47
0 47
43 48
29 48
0 48
0 0
25 48
0 51
34 51
54 51
0 41
0 41
0 41
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 53
62 53
0 0
0 0
GAGE Foot
note
4059000
4122000
4066000
0 1
5133500
7295100 1
2479560 1
2475000 1
12353000
3457000
2081000 1
2089500 1
2105769 1
1054000
0
1318500
3234000 1
14105700 1
14166000 1
0 1
3028500 1
1556000 1
1574500 1
1531500
0 1
2133500 1
2146000 1
2148315 1
3487500 1
3566000 1
7344210
8037000
8041000
0
8074000
1673000
2013000 1
2049500
14105700 1
14105700 1
14105700 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
1210500 1
12203500 1
0 1
0 1
P-2
-------
Appendix P. (continued)
NPDES HMF Q710 Method
in flow in
Ft3/sec Ft3/sec
WA0003697
WI0000663
WI0001261
WI0003212
WI0003379
WI0020991
WI0030651
WI0037991
0
625
0
319
2195
2959
0
3115
0
67 1
0
274
927
322 1
0
1158 2
2
2
B SC GAGE Foot-
note
000 01
1 0 55 4069500
000 0
1 0 55 5357500
1 0 55 5395000
1 0 55 4084500
000 0
1 0 55 5400760
Stream flow or dilution data actually used was supplied by the U.S.
EPA regional contact.
P-3
-------
APPENDIX Q
-------
COMPANY
Appendix Q.
Mill Specific Fish Filet Concentrations from the National Bioaccumulatlon Study
CITY
Region I
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
Region II
International Paper Co.
Finch & Pruyn & Co.. Inc.
Region III
Westvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
P.M. Glatfelter Co.
Procter & Gamble Co.
International Paper
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Region IV
Champion International
Container Corp. of America
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
James River Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Stone Container Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Gilman Paper Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Uestvaco Corp.
Willamette Industries
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Leaf River Forest Products
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
International Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Mead Corporation
Bowater Corp.
Region V
Mead Corporation
Scott Paper Co.
Woodland
Jay
Lincoln
Old Town
Rumford
Westbrook
Hinckley
Berlin
Ticonderoga
Glen Falls
Luke
Johnsonburg
Roaring Springs
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Erie
West Point
Covington
Franklin
Court land
Brewton
Jackson
Mobile
Mobile
Demopolis
Selma
Coosa Pines
Butler
Cla 1borne
Fernandina Beach
Perry
Cantonment
Panama City
Palatka
Port St. Joe
St. Marys
Augusta
Jesup
Brunswick
Oglethorpe
Wlckliffe
Hawesville
Natchez
Moss Point
New Augusta
Canton
Plymouth
New Bern
Riegelwood
Georgetown
Catawba
Eastover
Kingsport
Calhoun
Escanaba
Muskegon
NPOES
NUMBER
ME0001872
ME0001937
ME0002003
ME0002020
ME0002054
HE0002321
ME0021521
NH0000655
NY0004413
NY0005525
H00021687
PA0002143
PA0008265
PA0008869
PA0008885
PA0026301
VA0003115
VA0003646
VA0004162
AL0000396
AL0002682
AL000275S
AL0002780
AL0002801
AL0002828
AL0003018
AL00031S8
AL0003301
AL0025968
FL0000701
FL0000876
FL0002526
FL0002631
FL0002763
FL0020206
GA0001953
GA0002801
GA0003620
GA0003654
GA0049336
KY0000086
KY0001716
MS0000213
MS0002674
MS0031704
NC0000272
NC0000680
NC0003191
NC0003298
SC0000868
SC0001015
SC0038121
TN0001643
TN0002356
HI0000027
MI0027391
ANAL,
TYPE2
V
W
F
W
W
W
U
W
W
W
U
F
U
W
F
F
W
W
U
F
W
F
W
U
F
F
W
F
F
U
W
W
W
F
W
W
W
W
W
F
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
U
W
W
W
F
W
W
W
TCDD
FILET
CONC.
(ng/Kg)
O.OOE+00
2.05E+01
5.00E+00
3.99E+00
8.04E+00
2.60E+00
3.20E+00
3.91E+00
4.80E-01
9.45E-01
2.91E+01
3.55E+00
8.55E-01
2.95E-01
6.50E-01
4.95E-01
1.23E+00
2.70E+01
9.20E-01
O.OOE+00
2.75E-01
4.30E+00
8.30E+00
4.42E+00
2.20E+00
2.20E+00
1.50E+01
3.00E+00
1.61E+01
3.15E-01
6.60E+00
1.20E+01
1.57E+00
O.OOE+00
1.75E+00
1.77E+00
2.25E+00
2.31E+00
2-OlE-i-Ol
2.60E+00
2.38E+00
2.21E+00
1.54E+00
1.72E+01
4.94E-t-01
3.79E+01
7.17E+01
2.46E+01
1.12E+01
5.21E+01
7.66E+00
4.55E-t-00
O.OOE+00
1.99E+00
5.81E-t-00
1 . 73E+00
TCDD TCDF TEQ %
NON- FILET FILET TCDD
DET. CONC. CONC. IN
(ng/Kg) (ng/Kg) TEQ
ND NO DATA O.OOE+00 ERR
1.04E+02 3.09E+01 66
NO DATA 5.00E+00 100
2.03E+01 6.01E+00 66
5.34E+01 1.34E+01 60
NO DATA 2.60E+00 100
NO DATA 3.20E+00 100
4.06E+01 7.97E+00 49
3.33E-I-00 8.13E-01 59
1.24E+01 2.18E+00 43
8.56E+01 3.77E+01 77
3.89E+00 3.94E+00 90
1.54E+01 2.39E+00 36
3.89E+00 6.84E-01 43
5.60E-01 7.06E-01 92
2.40E-01 5.19E-01 95
1.66E+00 1.40E+00 88
3.01E+01 3.01E+01 90
3.40E-01 9.54E-01 96
ND NO DATA O.OOE+00 ERR
2.25E-01 2.98E-01 92
NO DATA 4.30E+00 100
NO DATA 8.30E+00 100
7.31E+00 5.15E+00 86
NO DATA 2.20E-K10 100
NO DATA 2.20E+00 100
6.62E+00 1.57E+01 96
NO DATA 3.00E+00 100
3.45E+01 1.95E+01 82
1.48E+00 4.63E-01 68
2.04E+01 8.63E+00 76
3.92E+00 1.24E+01 97
8.10E-01 1.65E+00 95
ND 1.30E-01 1.30E-02 0
3.55E-01 1.79E+00 98
2.44E+00 2.01E>00 88
1.10E+01 3.35E+00 67
4.45Et-00 2.75E+00 84
4.61E+00 2.06E+01 98
2.10E+00 2.81E+00 93
3.40E+00 2.71E+00 87
3.28E+00 2.54E+00 87
4.15E-t-00 1.96E+00 79
9.03E-I-00 1.81E+01 95
5.09E+00 4.99E+01 99
7.20E+01 4.50E+01 84
1.04E+02 8.21E+01 87
1.37E+02 3.83E+01 64
1.67E+00 1.13E+01 99
l.SlE-t-Ol 5.34E-I-01 98
2.06E+00 7.86E+00 97
5.22E+00 5.07E+00 90
ND 1.51E-t-00 1.51E-01 0
2.16E+00 2.20E+00 90
7.32E+00 6.54E+00 89
4.27E-t-00 2.16E+00 80
Q-l
-------
Appendix Q. (continued)
COMPANY
Champion International
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Mead Corp.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Wausau Paper Mills Co. 11
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
James River Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Region VI
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pot latch Corp.
James River Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Temple-East ex. Inc.
Simpson Paper Co.
Champion International
Region VIII
Stone Container Corp.
Region IX
Stone Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Gay lord Container Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Region X
Alaska Pulp Corp.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper *1
Pot latch Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
James River Corp.
Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Longview Fibre Co.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co. #1
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
CITY
Quinnesec
Cloquet
International Falls
Chillicothe
Peshtigo
Green Bay
Park Falls
Brokaw
NPOES
NUMBER
MI0042170
MN0001643
OH0004481
WI 0000663
WI0001261
WI0003212
WI0003379
Nekoosa & Pt. Edwards WI 0003620
Green Bay
Rothchild
Peshtigo
Wisconsin Rapids
Crosset
Pine Bluff
Ashdown
McGhee
St. Francesville
Zachary
Bastrop
Deridder
Texarkana
Lufkin
Evadale
Pasadena
Houston
Missoula
Snowflake
Anderson
Ant loch
Fairhaven
Samoa
Sitka
Ketchikan
Lew Is ton
St. Helens
Clatskanie
Halsey
Long view
Longview
Camas
Everett
Port Angeles
Cosmopo 1 i s
Tacoma
Bellingham
Everett
Hoquiam
Wallula
WI0020991
WI0026042
WI 0030651
WI0037991
ANAL. TCOD
TYPE2 FILET
CONC.
(ng/Kg)
W 1.05E+01
W O.OOE+00
W 1.63E+01
W 7.38E+00
W 4.27E+00
W 1.96E-t-00
F 5.00E-01
W O.OOE+00
W 3.36E+01
W 1.96E+00
W 2.28E+00
W 4.27E+00
W 3.36E+01
AR0001210
AR0001970
AR0002968
AR0035823
LA0003468
LA00052S8
LA0007561
LA0007927
TX0000167
TX0001643
TX0003891
TX0006041
TX0053023
W 1.81E+00
W 1.69Et-01
W 2.09E+00
W 2.37E+00
F 1.83E-I-00
F 1.83E+00
W 5.89E-t-01
W 6.85E+00
W 3.30E-01
F 9.40E-01
W 2.05E-01
F 6.70E-t-00
NO SAMPLE
MT0000035
W O.OOE+00
A7— -— _
CA0004065
CA0004847
CA0005282
CA0005894
NO SAMPLE
F 1.17E+01
W 1.74E+00
NO SAMPLE
NO SAMPLE
AK0000531
AK0000922
I 00001163
OR00007S2
OR0000795
OR0001074
WA0000124
WA0000078
WA0000256
WA0000621
WA0000795
WA0000809
WA00008SO
WA0001091
WA0003000
WA0003077
WA0003697
F O.OOE+00
W O.OOE+00
F 7.40E-01
W 1.29E+00
F 1.73E+00
F 4.58E+00
W 2.62E+00
W 2.62E+00
F 1.14E+00
W 7.85E-01
W O.OOE+00
W 2.25E-01
F 5.67E+00
W O.OOE+00
W 7.85E-01
F O.OOE+00
W 2.80E+01
TCOO TCDF
NON-, FILET
DET.3 CONC.
(ng/Kg)
8.46E+00
NO DATA
3 . 76E+01
3.07E+00
1.75E+01
4.40E+00
2.75E-01
NO 1.33E+00
1 . 76E+01
4.40E+00
5.55E+00
1.75E+01
1.76E+01
3.48E+00
1.60E+01
8.31E+00
2.09E+00
1.80E-01
1.80E-01
1.31E+02
3.83E+00
7.35E-01
8.00E-01
2.75E-01
1.41E+01
NO 1.49E+00
1.07E+02
1.79E+01
NO 2.60E-01
NO 3.13E-01
2.75E+00
5.69E+00
2.16E+01
1.61E+01
1.42E+01
1.42E+01
1.20E+01
5.79E+00
ND 7.20E-01
4.54E+00
2.07E+02
NO 4.90E-01
5.79E+00
ND 1.90E+00
1 . 60E+02
* Based on 2378-TCDO concentration or the 2378-TCDF concentration alone when one was not
W=Sample was analyzed on a whole fish basis. F=Sample was analyzed on a filet only basis
on a filet was not available, 1/2 the whole
whole body value also
body value was presented as
TEQ
FILET
CONC.
(ng/Kg)
1.14E+01
O.OOE+00
2.01E+01
7.68E+00
6.02E+00
2.40E+00
5.28E-01
1.33E-01
3.54E+01
2.40E+00
2.84E+00
6.02E+00
3.54E+01
2.16E+00
1.85E+01
2.92E+00
2.58E+00
1.85E+00
1.85E+00
7.20E+01
7.23E+00
4.04E-01
1.02E+00
2.33E-01
8.11E+00
1.49E-01
2.24E+01
3.52E+00
2.60E-02
3.13E-02
1.02E+00
1.85E+00
3.89E+00
6.19E+00
4.04E+00
4.03E+00
2.34E+00
1.36E+00
7.20E-02
6.79E-01
2.63E+01
4.90E-02
1.36E+00
1.90E-01
4.40E+01
X
TCDD
IN
TEQ
93
ERR
81
96
71
82
95
0
95
82
80
71
95
84
91
72
92
99
99
82
95
82
92
88
83
0
52
49
0
0
73
69
44
74
65
65
49
58
0
33
22
0
58
0
64
available.
. When data based
the filet concentration;
was presented as a filet if the given filet value was less than 1/2
NO represents nondetectlon of TCDO. All TCDF concentrations were above
1/2 the
whole body value.
detection limits.
* a.k.a. Hammer-mill papers.
Q-2
-------
APPENDIX R
-------
Table R.1
COMPARISON OF ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR
ADOPTED STATE DIOXIN HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
(T = DERIVED BY TRANSLATOR PROCERURE)
State
AK
AL
CA
CO
DE
Ga
GU
HI
IL(T)
IN
MD
ME
MI(T)
MO
MT
NO
NE
NY
OH
OR
PA(T)
SD
VA
Wl
Biocon-
cent ration
Factor
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
51,000
5.000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Fish
Cons Rate
g/day
6.5
6.5
23
37
6.5
6.5
19.9
20
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
20
Cancer
Slope
mg/kg/day
156,000
17,500
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
17,500
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
17,500
156.000
Risk
Level
10-6
10-5
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-5
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-5
10-5
10-6
10-5
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-5
10-5
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-5
10-5
Wat +
Fish
0.013 ppq
0.01 3 ppq
0.1 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.014 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.01 3 ppq
0.13 ppq
0.13 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.01 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.03 ppq
CRITERIA
Fish Only Water Only
0.01 4 pp
1.2 ppq
0.0039 ppq
0.22 ppq
0.0024 ppq
7.2 ppq
0.0 14 ppq
0.005 ppq
0.1 ppq
1.2 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.014 ppq
0.014 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.1 4 ppq
1 ppq
0.1 4 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.014 ppq
1.2 ppq
In addition to the parameters listed above, many States also use different approaches for calculating stream
flow for use in the development of dioxin human health criteria. These approaches include use of the harmonic
mean, average or mean annual flows.
Source: EPA, 1990
R-l
-------
Table R.2
COMPARISON OF ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR
PROPOSED STATE DIOXIN HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
(T = DERIVED BY TRANSLATOR PROCEDURE)
State
AS
CA
FL
KY
MN(T)
TN
WY
Biocon-
centration
Factor
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
230,000
5,000
Fish
Cons Rate
g/day
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
30
6.5
Cancer
Slope
mg/kg/day
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
Risk
Level
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-5
10-6
10-6
Wat +
Fish
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.00061 ppq
0.013 ppq
CRITERIA
Fish Only Water Only
0.014 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
1ppq
In addition to the parameters listed above, many States also use different approaches for calculating stream
flow for use in the development of dioxin human health criteria. These approaches include use of the harmonic
mean, average or mean annual flows.
Source: EPA, 1990
R-2
-------
TABLE R.3
COMPARISON OF ASSUMPTIONS USED FOR
EXPECTED STATE DIOXIN HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
(T = DERIVED BY TRANSLATOR PROCEDURE)
State
AR
AZ
CM
CT
ID
KS
MA
NO
NH
Rl
TT
TX
UT
VT
WA
Biocon-
centration
Factor
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Fish
Cons Rate
g/day
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
Cancer
Slope
mg/kg/day
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156.000
156,000
156,000
156,000
156,000
Risk
Level
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
10-6
Wat +
Fish
0.01 ppq
0.013 pp1
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 pp1
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
0.013 ppq
CRITERIA
Fish Only Water Only
0.014 ppq
0.014 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.014 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.014 ppq
0.0 14 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
0.01 4 ppq
In addition to the parameters listed above, many States also use different approaches for calculating stream
flow for use in the development of dioxin human health criteria. These approaches include use of the harmonic
mean, average or mean annual flows.
Source: EPA, 1990
R-3
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), acting under a consent decree with the Environmental
Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation, assessed both human health and environmental risks from
the contaminants 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin (2378-TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloro dibenzofuran
(2378-TCDF) that are discharged from 104 pulp and paper mills located in the United States using chlorine
or its derivatives to bleach pulp. As a part of this program, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards
(OWRS) was responsible for estimating the potential human health and aquatic life risks associated with
exposures via surface water pathways based on mill-specific effluent sample results.
This report presents a generalized uniform approach for assessing impacts from the discharges of the
104 mills to support the decision by EPA to either regulate or not regulate discharges of 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF from pulp and paper mills that use chlorine to bleach pulp. It should be noted that in some
respects, the approach for assessing risks presented in this report may differ from approaches used by the
States. For example, States may use different cancer potency factors (either FDA's or their own), fish
consumption rates, or bioconcentration factors. In some cases States do not use models to predict risks,
but rather use actual fish tissues data. In other cases, States do not use the "toxicity equivalence" procedure
as a means of predicting the combined risk from 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF as was used in this report. As
a result of the differences in approaches taken by various States for assessing risks and the approach
presented in this report, estimated risks may be over- or underestimated in comparison to the States' adopted
or proposed water quality standards. A summary of State assumptions used to develop 2378-TCDD water
quality standards is presented in Appendix R.
Effluent sampling results for each of the 104 pulp and paper mills were provided by the joint EPA/paper
industry 104-mill study. The 104-mill data, however, are now over two years old, and since the time the 104-mill
study was conducted, conditions at some mills may have changed due to mills taking actions to install or
incorporate activities identified as necessary to reduce the formation of dioxins or furans, or more recent
information may be available that would alter some of the exposure and risk estimates developed in the present
study. However, because this study was designed to provide a snapshot of exposure and risk estimates at
one point in time, for the most part, no attempt was made to include effluent data from sources other than
the 104-mill study. The only exception to the use of 104-mill study effluent data was the use of plant flow data
for several mills that were provided by the EPA Regions and which differed from the flow values identified in
the 104-mill study.
The purpose of this analysis was to develop estimates of exposures and risks to human health and aquatic
life associated with 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF discharges from chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills.
This study was not designed to rank the exposure or human health and aquatic life risks associated with
specific mills, but rather to estimate the risk potential posed by the entire chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper
industry. This analysis focused on the highest estimated in-stream contaminant concentrations immediately
downstream of each mill discharge point (assuming steady-state, fully mixed conditions) and the potential
human health impacts resulting from the consumption of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF contaminated fish and
drinking water associated with these exposures. Because no comprehensive studies on 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF build-up in sediments and bioaccumulation up the food chain exist, only the water column was
investigated as a potential route of exposure and uptake of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF by fish. However, a
sensitivity analysis is presented to look at bioconcentration in fish both before and after paniculate 2378-TCDD
and 2378-TCDF settle to the sediment. Carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects in humans were con-
sidered, as were potential adverse effects to aquatic life.
-------
One result of this analysis is an understanding of the potential upper bound human cancer risk to a
hypothetically exposed individual eating contaminated fish and drinking contaminated water near the mills.
These results are presented as the estimated risk of cancer incidence during the exposed individual's lifetime.
No attempt was made to characterize or estimate the human population potentially at risk. For these risk
estimations, reasonable worst-case ambient and effluent characterizations were used, as well as best
estimates of the physical and chemical properties of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF. Because not all of the
parameter values used in this assessment are "worst case," the hypothetically exposed individual is not
considered the "most exposed individual."
Long-term animal studies of 2378-TCDD have provided clear evidence that the contaminant is an animal
carcinogen (Kociba et at., 1978; NTP, 1982a; NIP, I982b). Based on these animal studies as well as other
considerations, EPA has concluded that 2378-TCDD should be regarded as a probable human carcinogen
(U.S. EPA, 1985). EPA has assigned 2378-TCDD a qualitative weight-of-evidence designation of "B2" for its
carcinogenic potential. This designation indicates that 2378-TCDD is an agent for which there is sufficient
evidence of carcinogenicity based on animal studies but inadequate data regarding its carcinogenicity from
human epidemiologic studies (U.S. EPA, 1986).
APPROACH
In this investigation, two approaches were used to estimate and compare exposures to 2378-TCDD and
2378-TCDF resulting from surface water effluent discharges from pulp and paper mills. The first approach
consisted of a simple dilution calculation conducted to estimate the in-stream concentration of the con-
taminants after the effluent is mixed with the receiving water. This calculation assumes 100% of the in-stream
contaminants (both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids) are bioavailable. In the second approach,
the Exposure Assessment Modeling System (EXAMS II) was used to partition in-stream steady-state con-
centrations of the contaminants between dissolved and paniculate forms. EXAMS II is able to account for
the high affinity of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF for solids and, therefore, the likelihood that a percentage of
the contaminants will be associated with suspended and benthic solids. It is assumed that the paniculate
form of the contaminants will not be available for uptake across fish gills nor available to humans through
ingestion of contaminated drinking water.
Both the simple dilution and EXAMS II approaches were used to estimate and compare the potential
human health risks associated with ingestion of contaminated fish tissue and drinking water. Since the simple
dilution approach assumes 100% of the in-stream contaminants to be bioavailable to fish, this approach
effectively includes exposure through uptake across fish gills (dissolved form) as well as through ingestion of
suspended solids (paniculate form). The simple dilution approach is also considered to represent the upper
bound for bioaccumulation since a bioconcentration factor based on dissolved contaminants was applied to
the paniculate contaminants as well. In the EXAMS II model analysis, however, only the dissolved contaminant
concentration is assumed to be bioavailable to fish.
Although EXAMS II predicts contaminant concentrations associated with both suspended and benthic
solids, no attempt was made to separately estimate fish exposure to contaminants associated with suspended
paniculates, bed sediments, or the food chain. These exposure routes were not directly addressed due to a
lack of adequate information concerning the bioaccumulation of these contaminants through the food chain
and the sediment-to-fish partition coefficient needed to predict uptake through contact with contaminated
sediments. In addition, it is generally believed that 2378-TCDD and 2389-TCDF tend to adsorb to very fine
suspended sediments which would be transported out of the immediate area of the discharge and therefore
beyond the area under consideration. (These sediment-associated contaminants would, however, pose a
potential risk to fish inb;oiting those areas further downstream where the fine sediments are eventually
deposited.) For these reasons, and because uptake of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF through the water column
has been more thoroughly investigated, exposure to dissolved contaminants in the water column was the
basis for estimating fish tissue contamination using the EXAMS II approach.
Using exposure estimates from both approaches (simple dilution and EXAMS II water column), fish tissue
contaminant residue levels were estimated by employing fish bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for 2378-TCDD
VI
-------
and 2378-TCDF. From fish tissue contaminant concentrations, average daily lifetime exposures (or chronic
daily intake, COI) for humans consuming 6.5,30 and 140 g/day were calculated. These calculations took into
consideration factors that adjust for lower contaminant concentrations in fish muscle (filet) and fatty/oily food
bioavailability in humans of 95% of oral exposure. Receiving water concentrations were also used to estimate
the average daily lifetime 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF exposure associated with drinking water ingestion,
assuming a 2 Uday consumption rate.
Multiplying average daily lifetime doses by the EPA carcinogenic potency factor for 2378-TCDD yielded
a conservative (upper bound) estimate of the expected rate of cancer incidence above background incidence
rates due to 2378-TCDD exposure. Combined 2378-TCDD/-TCDF cancer risk was estimated using the
"toxicity equivalence" (TEQ) procedure, in which the cancer potency of 2378-TCDF is assumed to be one
tenth that of 2378-TCDD. It should be noted that, although in this report TEQ represents only the contributions
of 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF to risk, there are likely to be additional risk contributions from other chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans associated with discharges from chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills.
However, 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF account for greater than 90% of the TEQ from chlorinated dioxins and
furans found in the effluents of these mills.
Mill-specific contaminant concentration estimates were also used to calculate the exposure level as-
sociated with a single ingestion of a 0.25 Ib. (115 g) contaminated fish portion. This dose was evaluated
against a 2378-TCDD Health Advisory threshold value for protection against liver effects, estimated by EPA
for this investigation following appropriate guidelines.
The mill-specific, simple dilution contaminant concentrations for 7Q10 low flow receiving water conditions
(based on the lowest consecutive seven-day average flow during any ten-year period) were compared to
EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for the protection of aquatic life to predict whether chronic toxicity
to aquatic organisms from 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF would result under the assessment scenarios.
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN ANALYSIS
The following is a list of assumptions used in this investigation:
1) Mill-specific, five-day effluent composite contaminant concentrations collected during the 104-mill
study were multiplied by mean plant flow rates to determine contaminant load. This resulting load
to the receiving stream was assumed to be continuous. The representativeness of the sample ef-
fluent as reflecting long-term mill operations is unknown; since then, the mills may have made
plant process or operation changes to reduce dioxin and furan formation. This assumption may
overestimate human health and aquatic life risks.
2) The highest estimated steady-state in-stream concentrations in the immediate downstream vicinity
of the discharges (assuming fully mixed conditions) were considered for fish exposure. Fish are
likely to move in and out of the area of maximum concentration, but these estimates assumed that
fish remain exposed to the highest concentration. Consequently, this assumption is likely to over-
estimate fish exposure and overestimate human health and aquatic life risks.
3) Receiving water stream flow rates for estimating human health risks were calculated using the har-
monic mean of historic flow measurements from nearby stream gaging stations. 7Q10 receiving
water flow rates were used for estimating aquatic life impacts. These flows may not be the same
as those used by specific States to assess risks. Therefore, these assumptions may over- or un-
derestimate risks compared to State assumptions.
4) Three bioconcentration factor (BCF) values were used for estimating 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF
concentrations in edible fish tissue (the filet): two for 2378-TCDD and one for 2378-TCDF. The
resulting fish tissue concentrations were used to estimate human exposure to the contaminants
through consumption of fish tissue. For 2378-TCDD, a BCF of 5,000 was used in combination with
a human consumption rate of fish tissue of 6.5 g/day, and a BCF of 50,000 was used in combina-
tion with consumption rates of 30 g/day and 140 g/day. The 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption
-------
rate in combination with the BCF of 5,000 reflects the assumptions in EPA's ambient water quality
criterion for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF and is considered a reasonable estimate for an average
consumer of locally-caught fish. The 30 and 140 g/day consumption rates in combination with the
BCF of 50,000 are used as sensitivity comparisons and represent more extreme exposure
scenarios for recreational and subsistence fishermen or other high rate consumers of fish. A
single BCF for 2378-TCDF of 1,950 was used in combination with each of the three consumption
rates. BCFs are species-specific and highly variable. This study did not take species variability or
degree of bioconcentration into account. Also, actual fish consumption rates vary by locale.
State assumptions for BCF, consumption rates, and also cancer potency may vary from those
used in this assessment. Therefore, this assessment may overestimate or underestimate risks
compared to State assessments.
5) A drinking water ingestion rate of 2L/day was used to estimate human exposures through inges-
tion of contaminated drinking water. It was assumed that the water consumed was taken from the
point of highest in-stream pollutant concentration after the effluent was fully mixed in the receiving
stream, and no treatment of the water was undertaken to remove contaminants prior to ingestion.
This assumption likely overestimates human health risks from drinking water.
6) Fish tissue bioavailability for humans was assumed to be 95% of oral dose. Contaminants in water
were assumed to be 100% bioavailable to both fish and humans. This reflects the most current in-
formation EPA has on bioavailability, but the assumptions may overestimate the risk to humans.
7) Fish were assumed to be exposed to contaminants only in the water column. No food chain or
sediment associated exposures were considered, other than for the simple dilution method in
which the total in-stream contaminant level (both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids)
were bioavailable.
8) The estimates of risk apply only to a hypothetically exposed individual in the immediate vicinity of
the mills, and not to the entire population of fish consumers.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of the human health risk and aquatic life impact analyses for the 104 mills included in this
investigation are summarized below. It should be noted that sufficient information was not available for all of
the mills to allow complete evaluation and comparison of results for each of the 104 facilities. For example,
for several of the mills discharging to open waters (i.e., lakes, open ocean), no information was available on
receiving stream zone of initial dilution, which was necessary for calculating effluent dilution. For a few other
mills, data were questioned as to their accuracy and new samples were being taken, but the results of the
new sample evaluations were not available for inclusion in this study. In addition, for some facilities, there
was sufficient information to predict risks based on the simple dilution method, but insufficient information to
predict risk based on the EXAMS II method. Also, either harmonic mean flow or 7Q10 flow data were not
available for several facilities.
Cancer Risk Associated with Consumption of Contaminated Fish Tissue
Figures A through D present the predicted distribution of the number of mills for which discharges would
result in a given range of estimated upper bound lifetime cancer risks to the hypothetically exposed individual
due to the consumption of contaminated fish tissue based on the simple dilution exposure assessment method
and the EXAMS II water column exposure assessment method.
The results of calculations using the 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rate in combination with the BCF
of 5,000 reflect the assumptions in EPA's ambient water quality criterion for dioxin and are considered
reasonable exposures for average consumers of locally-caught fish. The results of these calculations are
presented separately from the results of calculations using the 30 and 140 g/day consumption rates and BCF
of 50,000, which are considered more extreme exposure scenarios (for example, for recreational and
subsistence fishermen) to be used for sensitivity comparisons.
-------
6.5 g/day consumption
40
35 -
©
o>
c
ra
CC 30
-------
140 g/day consumption
30 g/day consumption
o
c
c
J2
oc
c
£
j«
i
»-
o
w
o
£
3
ME-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-O4 1E-O5
Risk Range
1E-06
Figure B. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
simple dilution method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates
and BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD).
Net**:
Tot*! number of mill* ov*lu*t*d • 97.
Combined 2378 -TCOD/-TCOF rltk predicted utlng TEO.
Number of mill* within rltk r*ng** for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In th* effluent end therefore ri*k
e*tlm*t** *r* bued on effluent concentration* of 1/2 th*
detection limit:
1E-2 1E-3 1E-4 1E-5 1E-6
30g/diy
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD * TCDF
140g/d«y
TCDD
TCDF
TCDD A TCDF
7
1
1
4 4
1
3
4
3
5
1
1
3
,
3
1
2
1
-------
6.5 g/day consumption
1E-03 1E-04 1E-05 1E-06 1E-07 1E-08
Risk Range
Figure C. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
EXAMS II method (6.5 g/day consumption rate and BCF of 5,000 for
2378-TCDD*).
NoU«:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Comblnod 2378 -TCOO/-TCOF rlik predicted using TEG.
Number of milla within rltk ring** for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF woro not detected In the effluent end therefore rlek
estimate* are bated on effluent eonoentrationa of 1/2 the detection
limit:
1E-4 1E-6 1E-6 1E-7 1E-8
TCDO 16621
TCDF 1 1
TCDDATCDF 1 3 1
* Recent laboratory evidence Indicate* that a BCF higher than 6,000 for
2378-TCOD (e.g., 60,000) more accurately reflecta uptake of 2378-TCDD by flih.
Uaa of a BCF of 60,000 for 2378-TCDD would bioreaae riak by an order of
magnitude.
-------
140 g/day consumption
30 g/day consumption
40 -
4) oe
O) 35
C
.
3
z
30 -
oc
i 25
w
1 20
15 -
10 -
5 -
11E-01 1E-02 1E-03 1E-04 1E-05 1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
Figure D. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result in a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
consumption of contaminated fish tissue as estimated by the
EXAMS II method (30 and 140 g/day consumption rates and
BCF of 50,000 for 2378-TCDD).
Not**:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDO/-TCDF rick predicted u*ing TEQ.
Number of milli within rltk range* for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the offluont and therefor* rl*k
eatlmate* are b**ed on effluent concentration* of 1/2 the detection
limit:
1E-2 1E-3 1E-4 1E-5 1E-8 1E-7
30a/day
TCDD 4622
TCDF 1 1
TCDD A TCDF
140fl/day
TCDO
TCDF
TCDD A TCDF
1 7
1
1
2
4
3
2
1
1
XII
-------
1. Simple Dilution Exposure Assessment Method
Using the simple dilution exposure assessment estimates, the 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rate, and
fish filet contaminant concentrations based on a BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD, the upper bound mill-specific
cancer rates for the hypothetically exposed individual ranged from the 10"2 to 10"8 risk levels (Figure A). Risk
levels associated with discharges from 80 of the 97 mills evaluated (82%) fell within the 10^ to 10"6 risk levels,
with 36 mills within the 10"5 risk level.
Mill-specific cancer rate estimates using the 30 g/day fish tissue consumption rate and fish filet con-
taminant concentrations based on a BCF of 50,000 ranged from the >. 10~1 to ID"6 risk levels (Figure B).
Seventy of the 97 mills (72%) were associated with risk levels between 10"3 to 10"4, and 39 of these 70 fell
within the 10"3 range. Using the 140 g/day fish tissue consumption rate and fish filet contaminant concentra-
tions based on the 50,000 BCF, risk levels ranged from %_ 10 to 10"6 (Figure B). Sixty-six out of the 97 mills
(68%) were associated with risk levels between 10~2 to 10"3, with 40 within the 10"3 range.
2. EXAMS II Exposure Assessment Method
Mill-specific upper bound cancer rate estimates for the hypothetically exposed individual using the EXAMS
II water column exposure assessment method, 6.5 g/day fish tissue consumption rates, and fish filet
contaminant concentrations based on a BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD ranged from the 10"3 to 10"8 risk levels
(Figure C). Seventy of the 87 mills evaluated (80%) were associated with risk levels between 10~5 (32 mills)
to 10"6 (38 mills).
Using the 30 g/day consumption rate and fish filet contaminant concentrations based on the 50,000 BCF,
mill-specific cancer rates ranged from the 10~1 to 10"7 risk levels (Figure D). Sixty-four of the 87 mills (74%)
were associated with risk levels within the 10"3 to 10^ range, and 41 of these fell within the 10"4 range. Cancer
rate estimates using the 140 g/day fish tissues consumption rate and 50,000 BCF ranged from the >_ 10'1 to
10"6 risk levels (Figure D). Sixty-three of the 87 mills (72%) were associated with risk levels between the 10"3
and 10"4 range, and 37 of these fell within the 10"3 range.
Cancer Risks Associated with Ingestion of Contaminated Drinking Water
Figures E and F present the distribution of the number of mills for which discharges were estimated to
result in a given range of upper bound lifetime cancer risks to the hypotheticaily exposed individual due to
the ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Only those facilities discharging to fresh water lakes, rivers,
and streams were included in this analysis. No discharges to marine or estuarine waters were included, since
these water bodies would not be used as drinking water sources.
Use of the simple dilution method estimated that the cancer risks associated with the 69 mills evaluated
ranged from the 10^ to 10'9 risk levels (Figure E). The greatest percentage of these mills (44, or 64%) were
associated with risk levels within the 10"° (23 mills) to 10 (21 mills) range. Use of the EXAMS II water column
method estimated that the risk levels associated with the 64 mills evaluated would range from the 10'5 to 10~9
levels (Figure F). Fifty of these mills (78%) were associated with risk levels between the 10"6 (18 mills) to 10"7
(32 mills) range.
Non-Cancer (Short-Term Exposure) Risks
Figures G through H present the distribution of the number of mills for which discharges would result in
a given range of human dose due to the single portion consumption of 115 grams of contaminated fish tissue.
The concentrations of fish tissue contaminants used for this assessment were based on a BCF of 50,000 for
2378-TCDD and 1,950 for 2378-TCDF in the edible portion of the fish (the filet). Results are reported in
pg/kg/day for comparison to a one-day Health Advisory for protection against liver effects (100 pg/kg/day),
estimated by EPA for this investigation.
Based on the simple dilution method results (Figure G), the dose associated with discharges from 25 out
of 97 mills evaluated (27%) would equal or exceed the one-day HA dose for protection from liver effects (100
xm
-------
c
flj
DC
oc
£
-------
o
U)
(9
DC
if,
at
£
c
w
o
V
A
3
Z
1E-05 1E-06 1E-07
Risk Range
1E-08 1E-09
Figure F. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of lifetime cancer risk due to the
Ingestion of contaminated drinking water as estimated by the
EXAMS II method.
Notes:
Total number of mills evaluated • 64.
Combined 2378 -TCDD/-TCDF rltk predicted using TEQ.
Baaed on a 2 L/day Ingeatlon rate.
Number of mllla within risk ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF were not detected In the effluent and therefore risk
estlmatea are baaed on effluent concentrationa of 1/2 the
deteotion limit:
1E-5 1E-8 1E-7 1E-8 1E-9
TCDD
TCDF
TCOO & TCDF
1
4 2 1
1 1
3 1 1
-------
34 —
32 —
28 —
o
O>
c
re
tt 24
O
-------
1E+03 1E+02 1E+01 1E+00 1E-01 1E-02
Dose Range(pg/kg/day)
Figure H. Distribution of the number of mills for which discharges
would result In a given range of human doses from a one-time
exposure to contaminated fish tissue as estimated by EXAMS II
method.
Notes:
Total number of mill* evaluated • 87.
Combined 2378 -TCDO/-TCOF doao predicted using TEQ.
Baaod on the eonaumptlon of a single 118 g portion of contaminated fish tlasue
and using a fish filet BCF of 80,000 for 2378-TCOO
Number of mills within doao ranges for which 2378-TCDD and/or
2378-TCDF wore not detected In the effluent and therefore doso
estlmatea are based on effluent eoneentratlona of 1/2 the doteotlon
limit:
1E«2 1E«1 1E*0 1E-1 1E-2
TCDD 18521
TCOF 1 1
TCDDATCDF 1311
-------
pg/kg/day). Use of the EXAMS II method (Figure H) estimates that the dose associated with discharges from
9 mills out of 87 (10%) would equal or exceed the 100 pg/kg/day dose level.
Aquatic Life Impacts
Aquatic life impacts were estimated based on a comparison of predicted in-stream concentrations of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF (in pg/l) to EPA's preliminary chronic exposure levels for the protection of aquatic
life (0.038 pg/l for 2378-TCDD and 0.41 pg/l for 2378-TCDF). The simple dilution method, using 7Q10 low flow
conditions, predicted that water column concentrations of 2378-TCDD immediately downstream of 80 out of
90 mills (89%) would exceed the chronic exposure level of 0.038 pg/l (Figure I). Seventy-four mills (82%)
would exceed the 0.41 pg/l level for 2378-TCDF.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results of this study indicate that, taking into consideration the effects of the assumptions and
simplifications used in this analysis, there is a potential for high level contamination of the water column by
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF from the effluent discharges of many of the chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper
mills investigated. For each of the mills analyzed, use of the simple dilution exposure assessment method
resulted in higher estimated water column contaminant concentrations and greater estimated aquatic life
impacts and human health risks than the EXAMS II water column method. This is because the simple dilution
method assumes that all contaminants in the water column, both dissolved and adsorbed to suspended solids,
are bioavailable. The EXAMS II water column method, on the other hand, only considers those contaminants
in the dissolved phase. In those cases where the receiving water TSS (total suspended solids) was relatively
low, the simple dilution and EXAMS II water column results are comparable. When suspended solids
concentrations were high, however, the EXAMS II water column method estimated risks significantly lower
than those predicted by the simple dilution method. Therefore, for those water bodies included in this study
with relatively high suspended solids content, the EXAMS II water column method likely underestimated
human health risk from consumption of contaminated fish tissues, since fish exposure to sediment-adsorbed
contaminants was not considered.
The primary reason for ignoring the exposure routes through contaminated sediments using EXAMS II
was the lack of acceptable and appropriate fish bioaccumulation factors for this exposure scenario as veil
as the tendency for the contaminants to associate with the very fine sediment fraction which is typically
transported and deposited well downstream of the immediate discharge vicinity. As a check and a sensitivity
comparison on this approach, however, the results of the simple dilution calculation are considered to provide
an upper bound on fish tissue contaminant levels.
In addition to the absence of consideration of sediment and food chain exposure routes in the EXAMS II
method, a number of other simplifications and assumptions have influenced the results of this study, including
the selection and use of BCFs and fish tissue ingestion rates for the evaluation. BCFs are highly variable
depending on the species, and this study did not take into account inter-species variability in the rate and
degree of contaminant bioconcentration. Actual fish tissue consumption rates also vary over time, with
individuals, and in different parts of the country. For example, risk estimates based on the 6.5 g/day
consumption rate and fish filet BCF of 5,000 for 2378-TCDD were established on the basis of EPA's water
quality criteria assumptions. The 6.5 g/day rate applies to a national average consumption rate of fish and
shellfish; however, this rate may not be representative of fish consumption rates for recreational or subsistence
fishermen. Also, the 50,000 BCF for 2378-TCDD used in conjunction with fish consumption rates of 30 and
140 g/day for recreational and subsistence fishermen was based on the assumption that only the filet portion
of the fish is consumed. However, some subpopulations of subsistence fishermen and certain ethnic groups
eat whole fish and crabs in which the concentration of contaminants is likely to be higher than in the filet alone.
Therefore, the use of a 50,000 BCF for 2378-TCDD may underestimate risks to these subpopulations.
It should also be noted that, if multiple discharges to the same waterbody are present, the actual risk
associated with a waterbody may be substantially greater than estimated in this study. For example, there
are several chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills that discharge to the Columbia River basin. Calculations
XVlll
-------
2378-TCDD
o
o>
c
ra
QC
ra
o
o
c
o
o
c
-------
in this report assume that each mill discharges to a receiving stream with no background level of contamina-
tion. Therefore, in the case of multiple discharges to a receiving stream, estimating risks from one mill alone
can result in a significant underestimate of risk.
Finally, no assessment of local fish patterns or actual commercial or recreational fishing practices were
conducted as part of this evaluation. Therefore, it is not known whether or not commercially or recreationally
valuable species occur or are taken in the vicinity of the discharges that were included in this evaluation.
A comparison of predicted cancer versus non-cancer human health risk was also conducted to determine
which of the two end points is the most sensitive. Cancer health risks were estimated to occur for more mills
than non-cancer risks. The results also indicate a potentially greater risk of cancer due to the consumption
of contaminated fish tissue than through the ingestion of contaminated drinking water. It should be pointed
out that this conclusion may only be true for the hypothetically exposed individual and may not be true for
the entire exposed population. Determining which exposure route poses the greatest risk to the entire
population would require knowledge of the number of persons eating contaminated fish tissue versus the
number of persons who use contaminated surface water as a drinking water source. More of the population
would likely be exposed to a single dose of contaminated fish tissue than to a lifetime of exposure to
contaminated fish tissue or drinking water taken from the vicinity of certain mills. Such a population
assessment was not conducted for this investigation.
Each of the exposure assessment approaches used in this analysis predict upper bound risks that should
be carefully considered by risk managers while assessing potential impacts associated with the discharge of
2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF in chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mill effluents.
-------
ERRATA SHEET
Changes In results for the International Paper Co. mill In Texarkana, TX (TX000167) have been made based on comments received from EPA Region VI.
These comments were received after the final document had been reproduced.
EPA region VI indicated that this mill does not discharge throughout the entire year, but rather discharges Intermittently from October to Hay.
Therefore, the receiving stream harmonic mean and 7Q10 flows used to calculate Instream concentration (which were based on a year-round discharge)
were Incorrect. The revised Tables C-K which follow present the corrected results for the two samples taken from this nlll using the revised
harmonic mean and 7Q10 flows (for the tionths October - Hay) for the receiving stream. These changes, which are relatively minor, have not resulted
In any changes to the main text of the document.
NPOES
NUMBER
SAMPLE ID COMPANY
cur
1X0000167
1X0000167
M99EC
M99EC1
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
lexarkana
6RP HARMONIC
10 MEAN
FLOW
(m3/hr.)
30603
30603
Errata Sheet for Table C.I
Raw Input Oat*
7Q10
LOW
FLOW
(»3/hr.)
4693
4893
ISS
IN HILL
EFFLUENT
(ng/1)
494 9
494.9
AOJ TSS
IN RECG
WATERS
(HARM
MEAN Q)
(mg/1)
0.7
0.7
PLANT
FLOW
tad)
38.36
38.36
TCDO
CONC.
(PPO)
13
18
TCOO TCDO
MM- LOAD
OET- (kg/hr)
EC!
7.9E-08
1.1E-07
1COF TCDF ICDF
CONC. NON- LOAD
(ppq) 0£1- (kg/hr)
ECT
43
44
2.6E-07
2.7E-07
The present EXAMS II runs were made using an In-stream ISS value of 9.6 ng/1. which li the combined tn-strean and effluent ISS concentration. This value was used due to the calculation of harmonic
tean flow for this mill using the SUM of strew and plant flow. As described In Appendix B. Section B.2.2. of this report. If the nil) discharge exceeded SX of the average stream flow at the
•III. then the Bill discharge flow Mas added to the area-adjusted stream flow values prior to calculating the harmonic scan. During earlier assessments of this islll. EXAMS II failed to run using
the low Instream ISS concentration that resulted from adjustment for annual harmonic mean flow. For these runs, an In-stream ISS concentration based on average annual water flow was used (It
ng/1).
COMPANY
cm
In-strt
SAMPLE ID NPOES GRP ICDD ICDF
NUMBER ID NON- NON-
DEI- DET-
ECT ECI
Errata Sheet for AppendI> 0.
•jm Contaminant Concentrations In pg/l
SIMPLE OIL TUT ION
TCDO
CONC.
TCDF
CONC.
EXAMS
WATER COLUMN
TCOD
CONC.
TCOF
CONC.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
lexarkana
H99EC
M99EC1
1X0000167
1X0000167
Z.lSEtOO 7 10E+00 8.18E-01 7 05E.OO
2.97E*00 7.26E«00 I.I3E«00 7.21E«00
Errata Sheet for Appendix E.
In-stream Contaminant Concent rat tons for Low (7QIO) Flow Conditions Calculated
by Simple Dilution Only
COMPANY
CUT
NPDES SAMPLEID GRP ICOO ICOF
NUMBER ID NON- NON-
DEI- DEI-
ECT ECI
7010
FLOW
TCOD TCDF TEQ
CONC. CONC. CONC.
(pg/l) (pg/l) (pg/l)
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
lexarkana
1X0000167 M99EC I
1X0000167 M99EC1 I
4893
4893
7.18E«00 ?.37E«01 9.55E»00
9.94£«00 2.43E«01 1.24E.01
-------
COMPANY CHI
International Paper Co. le»arkana
International Paper Co. lenarkana
SAMPLE ID
NPOES
NUMBER
Errata Sheet for AppendI« F.
Fish Filet Tlisue Residue Levels (ng/kg)
SIMPLE DILUTION
GRP ICDO ICOF
ID NOD- NON-
OEt- DET-
ECT ECT
TCOD BCF TO FllET-5.000
ICOF BCF TO FILEI-1.950
TCOD TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET FILEI
COHC. CONC. CONC.
TCDD BCF 10 FUET-50.000
TCDF BCF 10 Flltt-1.950
1COO 1CDF TEQ
FILEI FILEI FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
H99EC
M99EC1
1X0000167 1
1X0000167 I
1 07E»OI 1 38£«0l I.2IE*OI I.07E«02 1 38E»01 I.09E«02
I 49E«01 1.4H«OI I.63E«01 1.49E«02 1.42E.OI 1 50£«02
EXAMS WA1ER COLUMN
ICDD BCF TO FILET'S.000
ICDF BCF TO FREI-1.950
TCDD TCDF IEQ
FILEI FILEI FILEI
CONC. CONC. CONC.
ICOD BCF 10 FILEI-SO.OOO
ICDF BCF 10 FIUI-1.950
ICDD ICOF TEQ
FILET FILEI FILEI
CONC. CONC. CONC.
4 09E.OO 1 37E«OI 5.46E»00 4 09E.OI I 37E-OI 4.23E«OI
5.67E«00 1 4IE«OI 7 08E-00 5.67E«01 1.4IE.01 S.81E«OI
Errata Sheet for Appendix 6.
Average dally lifeline 9SX Bloavallable DOM In agAg/day of 237B-1COO and 2378-ICOF as TEQ fro» Fish Ingest Ion
COMPANY
cur
SAMPLE ID
NPDES
NUMBER
GRP TCDD TCDF
ID NON- NON-
DEI- DET-
ECT ECT
DOSE
TCDD
BCF
FILET-
s.ooo.
TCOF.
1.9SO
• 6.S
g/day
SIMPLE DILUTION DOSE FROM EXAMS WATER COLUMN
TCDD
BCF
FILET-
S.OOO.
TCOF.
1.9SO
• 6.S
g/day
TCOO BCF. 50. 000.
ICDD. BCF-1, 950
• 30 » 140
g/day g/day
TCDD
BCF
FILET-
5.000.
ICOF.
I.9SO
• 6.S
g/day
ICDO BCF -50. 000,
ICDD. BCF-1, 950
•30 • 140
g/day g/day
Internationa) Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Teiarkana
Texarkana
H99EC
N99ECI
TX0000167 I
TX0000167 1
1.1E-09 4.4E-08 2.IE-07 4.8E-10 1.7E-08 8 OE-08
I.4E-09 6.1E-08 2.8E-07 6.2E-10 2.4E-08 1.1E-07
Errata Sheet for Appendix H.
Mill Specific Dose (pg/kg/day) fro Drinking Water at Ingest Ion of 2 liters per Day
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE ID
NPDES
NUMBER
GRP TCDO TCDF
ID DON- NON-
DEI- DET-
ECT F.CT
SIMPLE DILUTION
DRINKING WATER DOSES
TCOO TCOF TEQ
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
DRINKING WATER DOSES
ICDO ICOF IEQ
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
lexarkana
Texarkana
H99EC
M99EC1
TX0000167
TXOOOOI67
I6.1E-II 2.0E-10 B.2E-I1
B.SE-11 Z.IE-ID 1.1E-10
2 3E-1I 2.0E-10 4.4E-I1
3.2E-1I 2.1E-10 S.3E-1I
-------
COMPANY
CITT
SAMPLE ID
NPOES
NUMBER
GOP
10
Errata Sheet for Appendix 1.
Mill Specific Unit Risk1 from Fish Ingest Ion
SIMPLE DILUTION
1COO ICOF
NO*- KON-
OEI- DET-
ECT ECT
ICDO FILET BCF-5.000*
ICDF FILET BCF-1.950
TCDO TEQ X TCDO
RISK RISK IN TEQ
• 6.5 1 6.5
g/day g/day
TCDO BCF 10 FILET-50
ICOF BCF TO FIIEI-I.
TCDD TEQ TCDO
RISK RISK RISK
• 30 (30 • 140
g/day g/day g/day
.000
950
IEQ X TCDO
RISK IN TEQ
• HO
9/day
EXAMS UA1ER COLUMN
ICDD
TCDF
TCDD
RISK
• 6.
FILET BCF"
FILET BCF-
TEQ X
RISK IN
5 f 6.5
5.0002
1.950
1COO
TEQ
g/day g/day
TCOO BCF 10
ICDF BCF 10
TCDD TEQ
RISK RISK
• 30 t 30
FILEI=50
FILEI-1,
TCDO
RISK
• HO
9/day g/day g/day
.000
950
TEQ
RISK
• HO
g/day
X TCDO
IN IEQ
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
lexarkana
lexarkana
H99EC
H99ECI
TX0000167 1
TX0000167 I
1E-04 2E-04
2E-04 2E-04
89
91
7E-03 7E-03 3E-02 3E-02
IE-02 9E-03 4E-02 4E-02
99
99
6E-05 BE OS
6E-OS 1E-04
75
60
3E-01 3E-03 1E-02 IE 02 97
4E-03 4E-03 2E-02 2E-02 98
1
U.S. EPA nelght-of-the-evldence classification "B2" (US EPA. 19B6a)
Recent laboratory evidence Indicates that use of * BCF of 50.000 would more accurately reflect the uptake of 2378-TCDO by fish Therefore, risk estimates based on a flih filet BCF of 5.000 nay underestimate
risks by an order of magnitude.
E-rrata Sheet for Appendix J.
Hill Specific unit Risk* froa Drinking Water Ingest Ion • 2 Liters per Day
COMPANY CITY
International Paper Co. Texarkana
International Paper Co. lexarkana
SAMPLE 10
N99EC
M99ECI
NPOES
NUMBER
TX0000167
1X0000167
GRP
10
1
1
SIMPLE
DILUTION
ICDD TCDF
NON- NON-
OET- DET-
ECT ECT
TEQ X TCOO
DRINK. RISK
HATER IN TEQ
RISK RISK
EXAMS
UAIER COLUMN
TEQ X ICOO
DRINK. RISK
WATER IN TEQ
RISK RISK
IE-OS 75 7E-06 54
2E-OS 60 6E-06 61
1
U.S. EPA Might-of-the-evldence classification "82" (US EPA. 1986a)
Hill Specific Human Dose'
fro* •
ICOO
ErraU Sheet for Appendix K.
Single IIS Graa O/4 Pound) Fish Ingest Ion (In pg/kg/day) for Caparison with the
D Health Advisory* for Protection fro» Liver Effect!
COHPANT CITT
International Paper Co. Texarkana
International Paper Co. lexarkana
SAMPLE ID
H99EC
M99EC1
NPOES
NUMBER
GRP TCDO TCOF
10 NON- NON-
DEI- DET-
ECT ECT
IXOOOOI67 I
1X0000167 I
SIMPLE DILUTION
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
KDD'5,000 TCDO-50.000
TCDF-1.950 TCOF-I.950
TCDD TEQ TCOO TEQ
DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
BCF TO FILEI BCf TO FILET
ICDO-5.000 TCOD-SO.OOO
TCOF-1.950 TCDF-1,950
TCOD TEQ TCDD TEQ
DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE
II 7E«OI 1.9E+OI 1.7E«02 I.7E«02 6.4E«00 8.5E.OO 6.4E«OI 6 6E«OI
2.3E«OI 2.5£»OI 2.3E«02 2.3E«02 8.8E«00 I.1E«01 8.8E«OI 9.IE*OI
' Doit Is the bloavatlable (9SX) portion of exposure.
' Health Advisory level • 100 pg/kg/day.
-------
INFORMATION PACKET FOR
RISK ASSESSMENT FOR 2378-TCDD AND 2378-TCDF
CONTAMINATED RECEIVING WATERS FROM
U.S. CHLORINE-BLEACHING PULP AND PAPER MILLS
Contents:
1. Summary of Potential Risks Posed by Pulp
and Paper Mill Discharges
2. Dioxin Risk Assessment Issues Paper 3-9
3. Matrix of 104 Pulp and Paper Mills, 10 - 13
Risk Estimates, Section 340(1) Status,
Fish Advisory Status, and Water Quality
Standards (including an information sheet)
4. Executive Summary of "Risk Assessment
for 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF Contaminated
Receiving Waters from U.S. Chlorine-
Bleaching Pulp and Paper Mills"
5. Errata sheet for the Risk Assessment document
-------
SUMMARY OF
POTENTIAL RISKS POSED BY
PULP AND PAPER MILL DISCHARGES
TO SURFACE WATERS
EPA recently completed a multi-media risk assessment designed to
estimate the potential human health and aquatic life impacts caused by
dioxin contamination in surface water resulting from the manufacture of
chlorine-bleached pulp and paper. This summary of the surface water
portion of the risk assessment is designed to explain how the study was
conducted, what it showed, and what EPA is doing in response to the
findings.
What is Dioxin?
Dioxin is a general term for a group of 75 related chemical
compounds. It is an unwanted by-product created by the manufacture of
some chemical products, by certain combustion processes, and by treating
wood pulp with chlorine bleaching to make white paper. Dioxin can
accumulate in tissue of fish, other wildlife, and humans. Dioxin has been
shown to cause cancer, liver damage, and other toxic effects, based on
animal testing. EPA classifies dioxin as a "probable human carcinogen
(B2)."
How Was the Study Done?
First EPA and the paper industry jointly collected and analyzed
samples of effluent from each of 104 mills that use the chlorine bleaching
process to determine the actual concentration of dioxin in the effluent
from the mills. With this information, EPA then estimated the
concentration of dioxin that might be found in fish caught downstream of
the paper mills. To make these estimates, EPA used a number of
assumptions by selecting among a range of scientifically plausible values
for key factors of the risk assessment.
For example, EPA had to select a bioconcentration factor (BCF),
which represents the number of times the concentration of a chemical in
fish exceeds the concentration of that chemical in water. Since data
exist to support a range of BCFs, EPA presents risk estimates using two
different BCFs. EPA also had to estimate such factors as the fate and
transport characteristics of dioxin in the water environment, the
percentage of time that fish are exposed to dioxin, and the amount of
fish that the average consumer, or recreational or subsistence level
fisherman, typically consume.
Once EPA estimated the concentration of dioxin in the fish caught
downstream of the mills, it then calculated the increase in lifetime
-------
cancer and non-cancer risks to consumers of fish caught downstream from
the 104 mills. Risks were estimated for individuals with average fish
consumption rates, as well as for recreational and subsistence fishers.
EPA also estimated the potential for human liver toxicity and aquatic
life effects, as well as effects from consumption of drinking water.
What Did the Study Show?
Results of the study indicate that there are potentially high risks
to humans associated with eating fish caught downstream of a number of
the paper mills. It estimates that dioxin levels downstream from some
mills in the study may lead to contamination of fish to a level where
there is an increased risk of average consumers developing cancer which
is greater than one in ten thousand. The estimated cancer risk is
greater for recreational and subsistence level fisherman because their
estimated consumption of fish is higher than that of average consumers.
Estimates also indicate that dioxin levels downstream of five mills may
lead to contamination of fish to a level at which damage to liver tissue
may occur after eating a single one-quarter pound meal. Aquatic life
impacts, such as aberrations in growth, weight, and hatching, are
predicted to occur downstream of many of the mills. Finally, study
results indicate that the fish tissue exposure route poses a greater
human cancer risk than does drinking water to the exposed individual.
What Does It Mean?
Results of the study indicate that, over a lifetime of consumption,
there are potentially high risks associated with eating fish caught
downstream of some chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills. Currently,
States have issued fish consumption advisories near 22 of these
particular mills. In addition, some of the data used in the study are now
two years old, and States may have more recent or comprehensive data
that indicate that discharges from some of these mills are not currently
causing the same level of contamination.
What are EPA and the States Doing in Response?
While there is much uncertainty associated with the science of
dioxin and with risk estimates, EPA is suggesting that States consider
establishing fish consumption advisories for waterbodies near identified
mills as soon as possible, or implementing site-specific monitoring
programs to better evaluate the actual risks at these sites. In addition
to these actions, EPA and the States are issuing permits with limits to
control dioxin, many of which also include requirements for these mills to
make changes that will reduce the use of chlorine.
EPA is also developing new technology-based standards to reduce
dioxin contamination from manufacture of bleached paper products. In
addition, EPA is undertaking a pollution prevention initiative that
involves other Federal Agencies, States, industry, environmentalists and
the international regulatory community.
-------
DIOXIN RISK ASSESSMENT ISSUES PAPER
The scientific basis for EPA's assessment of risks to human health from
emissions of dioxin has been the source of much confusion and debate for some
time now. Recently, however, a number of new developments have placed the
science in a state of flux. The following is a brief discussion of EPA's current
position on some of these issues, as well as an indication where EPA may be
headed.
HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
The multi-media risk assessment used the same carcinogenic potency factor
used in EPA's 1984 ambient water quality criteria document: 1.6 X I05
(mg/'kg/day)"1. Recently this potency has been questioned as a result of a
reevaluation of the toxicity study results (rereading of the Kociba slides)
according to new pathological guidelines, which are more discriminatory than past
practices with regard to identifying carcinogenic lesions. By reducing the overall
numbers of tumors counted in the study, the rereading of the slides reduced the
risk numbers generated from this data set by a factor of 3 to 4.
This result is consistent with EPA's earlier judgment that 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(dioxin) human health risk estimates, based on the animal data, represent
plausible upper bounds on risk; true risk is likely to be less. The change
suggested by the re-reading of the Kociba slides is less than an order of
magnitude and is within EPA's level of uncertainty; therefore it does not warrant
a change in EPA's potency factor at this time. EPA will, however, keep a close
eye on the ongoing research, and may reevaluate this position in the next 18 to
24 months. In the meantime, EPA does not plan to change the potency
estimate in its water quality criteria document.
CANCER RISK
In trying to estimate concentrations of dioxin in fish caught downstream of
the mills, EPA relied on 1988 effluent data in its computer models. These
estimates were updated with more recent fish tissue monitoring data provided by
the EPA Regions. It is important to note that these monitoring data ,are not
included in the surface water risk assessment report, but were used to create
Table 1.
-------
Table 1 lists sites where fish sampled in 1986-88 for EPA's National
Bioaccumulation Study, or fish sampled more recently by the EPA Regional
Offices, have concentrations of dioxin that arc estimated to pose an increased
cancer risk as high as one in 10,000 to one in 100 for persons consuming these
fish over a lifetime. The one in 10,000 risk was selected as a possible level of
concern because it corresponds to a dioxin concentration that is just below the
level of concern for non-cancer effects of liver and reproductive toxicity. Table I
risk estimates are based on EPA's 1984 water quality criterion assumptions
regarding the dioxin potency factor and a fish consumption rate of 6.5 grams per
day (e.g., two quarter-pound meals per month).
Because of the limited monitoring data on fish below the 104 mills, the
surface water risk assessment for the multi-media study depends on modeling
predictions of dioxin concentrations that could be expected in the fish. Table 2
lists sites where a simple dilution model predicts that dioxin concentrations
measured in effluent in 1988 are estimated to contaminate fish to levels that.
with a lifetime of exposure, would increase cancer risk to a range of one in
10,000 to one in 100. These risk estimates are based on EPA's water quality
criterion assumptions regarding the dioxin potency factor, a 6.5 grams per day
fish consumption rate, and a bioconcentration factor of 5000 for edible fish
tissue. The bioconcentration factor (BCF) represents the number of times the
concentration of a chemical in fish exceeds the concentration of that chemical in
water.
Recent studies have indicated that BCFs may be higher than the 5,000
BCF used in the EPA water quality criterion for dioxin. The most recent work
on a dioxin BCF comes from EPA's Duluth laboratory, which estimates
equilibrium BCFs for whole body levels that may range up to 150,000.
depending on the species of fish. For edible fish tissue, these studies would
suggest that a 50,000 BCF may be appropriate. The Duluth studies will be
completed and submitted for peer-reviewed publication this fall. EPA may give
further guidance to States on the BCF issue following this publication. Table 3,
which is based on the new evidence regarding a potentially higher BCF, is
included for your consideration. It lists sites with a predicted increased cancer
risk as high as one in 10,000 to one in 100 based on EPA's water quality
criterion assumptions regarding a dioxin potency factor nnd its fish consumption
rate of 6.5 grams per day, but uses a 50,000 BCF for edible fish tissue.
NON-CANCER HEALTH EFFECTS
Significant non-cancer human health effects (in particular liver and
reproductive effects) from fish consumption in areas just below the mills could
-------
also be a cause for concern in certain circumstances. Based on animal
laboratory studies, EPA has estimated that dioxin exposure should not exceed
picogram per kilogram of body weight per day to fully protect against adverse
non-cancer effects. Using EPA's criteria document assumptions at the dioxin
levels associated with a one in 10,000 cancer risk, dioxin exposure is calculated
to be below, but very close to, the lower end of this range, and represents
approximately a doubling of accepted estimates of general population exposure
from all sources. Children and pregnant women may be particularly at risk.
FISH CONSUMPTION RATES
In many cases, the States and EPA have no data on local fish
consumption rates or dioxin contamination in sediments. The Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) and the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) are currently developing a methodology that States could use to identify
exposed populations and estimate local consumption patterns. In the meantime.
States should work on their own procedures for estimating consumption, since
this is a critical factor in determining whether standards adopted to comply with
Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act are protective for any chemicals
presenting human health risks to fish consumers. Next fiscal year, EPA may be
able to provide some contract dollars to help States estimate local consumption
rates or monitor sediment contamination below high risk mills. The Office of
Water will be providing further guidance to you on this issue in the near future.
RELEVANCE OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY
NUMBERS
Some States base the decision to issue a fish consumption advisory or ban
on FDA's chemical action levels. FDA exposure assumptions, in accordance
with its legislative mandate, reflect expected consumption by buyers of fish in
interstate commerce. FDA generally assumes, for example, that contaminated
fish would not constitute a high proportion of such a consumer's diet. Fish sold
in interstate commerce comes from many waterbodies, reducing the likelihood that
a consumer will be steadily exposed to fish taken from a watcrbody with high
dioxin levels. In contrast, EPA is concerned about (and the States may be
obligated under local authorities to consider) the individual who frequently fishes
at the site or who regularly eats fish from the area. Thus, the FDA advisory
number of 25 parts per trillion for dioxin in fish would not be sufficiently
protective where individuals are consuming more than a few meals per year.
The EPA-FDA Standing Committee on Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish has
encouraged the use of toxicology and risk assessment in establishing local sport
fish advisories.
5
-------
Table 1. Mills Below Which Consumption
of Fish is Predicted to Result in Individual
Cancer Risk Exceeding 10~4 Based on Fish
Tissue Monitoring Data
The fish tissue monitoring data confirmed EPA's modeling
calculations which predicted high risks for these mills. (See
Table 2.)
Advisory
Mill Mill Location In-Place
Boise Cascade
International Paper
Westvaco Corp.
International Paper
Weyerhaeuser
Champion International
International Paper
Boise Cascade
Temple-Eastex
Simpson Paper
Rumford, ME
Jay, ME
Covington, VA
Moss Point, MS
Plymouth, NC
Canton, NC
Georgetown, SC
Deridder, LA
Evadale, TX
Anderson, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes(NC)/Yes(TN)
Yes
No
No
Yes
EPA's modeling calculations did pot predict high risks for these
14 mills, however the fish tissue sampling showed high
concentrations of dioxin in fish downstream of these mills.
Westvaco Corp.
P.H. Glatfelter
Kimberly-Clark
Champion International
Mead Corp.
Boise Cascade
Nekoosa Papers
Consolidated Paper
International Paper
Nekoosa Paper
International Paper
Champion International
Simpson Paper
Boise Cascade
Luke, MD
Yes(MD)/Yes(WV)
Spring Grove, PA Yes
Coosa Pines, AL No
Cantonment, FL No
Escanaba, MI Yes
International Falls, MN Yes
Port Ed/Nekoosa, WI Yes
Wisconsin Rapids, WI Yes
Pine Bluff, AR Yes
Ashdown, AR Yes
Bastrop, LA Yes
Houston, TX No
Pasadena, TX No
Wallula, WA No
'Estimates based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD only, 6.5 grams/day fish
consumption and EPA cancer slope factor of
1.6 x lO'^pg/kg-day)"1.
2Fish tissue collected as part of EPA national bioaccumulation
study or EPA regional follow-on sampling.
3This information is not part of EPA's surface water risk
assessment.
-------
Table 2. Mills Below Which Consumption of Fish is
Predicted to Result in Individual Cancer Risk
Exceeding 10"* Based on Effluent Modeling
Assuming a 5,000 BCF
Mill
Boise Cascade
International Paper
Westvaco Corp.*
Union Camp*
Georgia-Pacific
St. Joe Paper
International Paper
Leaf River Forest
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser*
International Paper*
Buckeye Cellulose*
Georgia-Pacific
Boise Cascade
International Paper
Temple-Eastex
Simpson Paper
Simpson Paper
Weyerhaeuser
Weyerhaeuser
Mill Location
Rumford, ME
Jay, ME
Covington, VA
Franklin, VA
Palatka, FL
Port St. Joe, FL
Moss Point, MS
New Augusta, MS
Canton, NC
Plymouth, NC
Georgetown, SC
Perry, FL
Crosset, AR
Deridder, LA
Texarkana, TX
Evadale, TX
Anderson, CA
Fairhaven, CA
Everett, WA
Cosmopolis, WA
Advisory
In-Place
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Estimates based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD only, 6.5 grams/day fish
consumption, 5,000 fish filet bioconcentration factor, and EPA
cancer slope factor of 1.6 x 10"4(pg/kg-day) "1.
2Based on dioxin detected in effluent collected during 1988
EPA/Paper Industry dioxin effort.
"Mills below which consumption of fish predicted to cause liver
damage.
-------
Table 3. Mills Below Which Consumption of Fish is
Predicted to Result in Individual Cancer Risk
Exceeding 10"4 Based on Effluent Modeling
assuming a 50,000 BCF.1'2
Mill
Boise Cascade*
International Paper*
Scott Paper
Scott Paper
James River Corp.
International Paper*
Westvaco Corp.
Penntech Papers
Chesapeake Corp.
Westvaco Corp.*
Union Camp*
Champion International
Container Corp.
Boise Cascade
International Paper
Gulf States Paper
International Paper
Kimberly-Clark
James River Corp.
Buckeye Cellulose*
ITT-Rayonier
Georgia-Pacific*
St. Joe Paper*
ITT-Rayonier
Brunswick Pulp and Paper*
International Paper*
Leaf River Forest*
Champion International*
Weyerhaeuser*
Weyerhaeuser*
Federal Paperboard
Bowater Corp.
International Paper*
Boise Cascade
Nekoosa Papers
Georgia-Pacific*
International Paper
Nekoosa Papers
Boise Cascade*
International Paper*
Temple-Eastex*
Mill Location
Advisory
In-Place
Rumford, ME Yes
Jay, ME Yes
Westbrook, ME Yes
Hinckley, ME Yes
Berlin, NH Yes
Ticonderoga, NY Yes3
Luke, MD Yes
Johnsonburg, PA No
West Point, VA No
Covington, VA Yes
Franklin, VA No
Courtland, AL No
Brewton, AL No
Jackson, AL No
Mobile, AL No
Demopolis, AL No
Selma, AL No
Coosa Pines, AL No
Butler, AL No
Perry, FL No
Fernandina Beach, FL No
Palatka, FL No
Port St. Joe, FL No
Jesup, GA No
Brunswick, GA No
Moss Point, MS Yes
New Augusta, MS Yes
Canton, NC Yes
Plymouth, NC Yes
New Bern, NC No
Rieglewood, NC No
Catawba, SC No
Georgetown, SC Yes
International Falls, MN Yes
Port Ed/Nekoosa. WI Yes
Crosset, AR No
Pine Bluff, AR Yes
Ashdown, AR Yes
Deridder, LA No
Texarkana, TX No
Evadale, TX No
8
-------
Table 3 (confd)
Louisiana Pacific Samoa, CA No
Simpson Paper* Anderson, CA Yes
Simpson Paper* Fairhaven, CA No
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper* Ketchikan, AK No
ITT-Rayonier Port Angeles, WA No
ITT-Rayonier Hoquiam, WA No
Weyerhaeuser* Everett, WA No
Weyerhaeuser* Cosmopolis, WA No
Estimates based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD only,6.5 grams/day fish
consumption, 50,000 fish filet bioconcentration factor, and EPA
cancer slope factor of 1.6 x lO'^pg/kg-day)"1.
2Based on dioxin detected in effluent collected during 1988
EPA/Paper Industry dioxin effort.
3Fish consumption advisory is in effect for these waters due to
contaminants other than dioxin, and/or the potential for
unidentified contamination.
"Mills below which consumption of fish predicted to cause liver
damage.
-------
INFORMATION ABOUT MATRIX OF 104 PULP AND PAPER MILLS, RISK ESTIMATES
SECTION 304(1) STATUS, FISH ADVISORY STATUS,
AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
For each of the 104 chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills (one
mill is represented twice because it has two discharge pipes)
included in EPA's surface water risk assessment the attached matrix
provides the following information:
o A cancer risk estimate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin). This
cancer risk estimate is based on modeling of effluent data
from the EPA/Industry Cooperative 104 Mill Study using a
bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 5,000 and average fish
consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day. These assumptions are
from EPA's 1984 Water Quality Criteria Document for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD. This information can be found in Appendix I of the
surface water risk assessment. It is the only information in
this matrix that can be found in the surface water risk
assessment. The risk assessment also includes several other
risk estimates based on alternative sets of assumptions.
o Whether or not the mill is on the list of facilities required
by Section 304(1) (1) (C) of the Clean Water Act due to
discharges of dioxin, and the status of the Individual Control
Strategy for each of those facilities. Section 304(1)
requires that States identify those waters that do not meet
State water quality standards for toxic pollutants entirely
or substantially due to point source discharges and to
identify the responsible point sources. The State must then
write an individual control strategy (ICS) for each of those
facilities, and EPA must approve or disapprove the ICS. An
ICS is defined as either a draft or final National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
o Whether or not a fish consumption advisory is in-place
downstream of the mill due to dioxin contamination of fish.
o The status of the adoption of the State water quality standard
for dioxin. The matrix includes values for water and fish
criteria or fish only criteria or both. Section 303(c)(2)(B)
of the Clean Water Act requires States to adopt water quality
criteria for all toxic pollutants of concern in the State.
The mills appear in order according to cancer risk, starting with
the highest cancer risk.
10
-------
MATRIX »1
TCDD RISK ESTIMATES, §30/4(1) STATUS
QUALITY STANDARDS INFORMATION
FISH ADVISORY STATUS, AND WATER
9/19/90
SECTION 504(1) OF THE CNA
HATER QUALITY STANDARDS Id)
COMPANY
•International Paper Co.
•Union Cajnp Corp.
•Buckeye Cellulose
•Heyerhaeuser Co. "
*Hestvaco Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Champion International
Champion International
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Weyerhaeuser Co..
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Leaf River Forest Prod.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Ketchikan Pulp * Paper
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
International Paper Co.
P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Chesapeake Corp.
Champion International
Head Corporation
Federal Paper Board Co.
Nekoosa Papers > Inc.
Nekoosa Papers , Inc.
Alaska Pulp Corp.
CITY, ST
CANCER
RISK
(TCDD Ha I
Georgetown, SC
Franklin, VA
Perry , FL
Plymouth, NC
Covington, VA
Palatka, FL
Moss Point, MS
Evadale, TX
Cantonment, FL
Canton , NC
Crosset , AR
Texarkana, TX
Jay, ME
Rumford, ME
Port St. Joe, FL
Deridder, LA
Anderson , CA
Fairhaven, CA
Cosmopolis, HA
Everett, HA
Brunswick, GA
New Augusta, MS
New Bern, NC
Ketchikan, AK
Hoquiam , HA
Ticonderoga , NY
Spring Grove, PA
Samoa, CA
West Point, VA
Houston, TX
Escanaba, MI
Riegelwood, NC
Nekoosa/Pt. Ed., HI
Ashdown , AR
Sitka, AK
Z
2
2
2
1
6
3
3
Z
Z
Z
Z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
8
7
7
7
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10'2
10"!
10"5
io-5
10'
10-
10-*
10-*
10-
10-
10"
10"
10-
10"*
10-*
10-*
10^
10-*
10"*
10"*
io-5
io-5
10"5
io-5
io-5
io-5
io-5
10"5
io-5
io-5
io-5
io-5
io-5
JO"5
io-5
(e )
(f I
(e)
(f )
(f )
(f )
(f )
ON
LIST
ICS
STATUS (b)
X APPROVED
X PENDING
X APPROVED
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
FISH
ADVISORY HATER * FISH FISH ONLY EPA
IN-PLACE Ic) CRITERIA Ippq ) CRITERIA Ippq ) STATUS APPROVED
X (h)
X
X
X
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.5
0.013
0.013
1.36
0.5
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.01 (T)
0.5
0.014 (T)
0.013
0.03
1.36
0.013
1.2
1.2
0.014
0.014
1.2
0.014
0.3
0.014
0.014
0.3
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.0039
0.0039
7.2
0.014
0.014
1.0
0.0039
1.2
0.3
0.014
0.014
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
EXPECTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
• = Mills below which consumption of fish is predicted to cause liver damage
(a = 2378-TCDD only) based on effluent data from 104 Mill Study and EPA's 1984 Hater Quality Criteria Document for Dioxin which assumes a
bioconcentration factor of 5000 and a consumption rate of slightly less than Z quarter-pound meals per month)
(b = Section 304(1) of the Clean Hater Act (Toxic Hot Spots Program) requires states to list those facilities contributing to violations of
water quality standards for toxic pollutants and write an Individual Control Strategy IICS) for each.)
(c = as of August 14, 1990. Please note that all mills do not require advisories. )
(d = as of August 21, 1990)
le = mill discharges to a POTH)
(f = dioxin not detected in effluent) risk calculated using one-half of the detection limit)
(g = model input data on receiving water flow or effluent dioxin concentrations not quantifiable)
(h = fish consumption advisory is in effect for these waters due to contaminants other than dioxin, and/or the potential for unidentifed
contaminantion. )
(T = derived by Translator Procedure)
-------
MATRIX tl
9/19/90
SECTION 304(1) OF THE CHA
COMPANY
Hestvaco Corp.
Appleton Papers, Inc.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Bowater Corp.
International Paper Co.
Champion International
Scott Paper Co.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Container Corp. of Amer.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
James River Corp.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Mead Corp.
Consolidated Papers? Inc.
ITT-Rayon ier, Inc.
James River Corp.
Champion International
ITT-Rayonier> Inc.
Gilman Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
James River Corp.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Alabama River Pulp
Potlatch Corp.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Scott Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Champion International
Potlatch Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Pope t Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Mead Corporation
CITY, ST
Luke, MD
Roaring Springs, PA
Coosa Pines, AL
Catawba, SC
Pine Bluff, AR
Lufkin, TX
Hestbrook, ME
Johnsonburg, PA
Brewton, AL
Jackson, AL
Mobile, AL
Demopolis, AL
Selma, AL
Butler, AL
Jesup, GA
Infl Falls, MN
Chillicothe, OH
Misc. Rapids, HI
Port Angeles, HA
Berlin, KH
Courtland, AL
Fernandina Beach, FL
St. Marys, GA
Woodland, ME
Hinckley, ME
Old Town, ME
Augusta, GA
Claiborne, AL
Lewiston, ID
Lincoln, ME
Mobile, AL
Calhoun, TN
Quinnesec, MI
Cloquet, MN
Eastover, SC
Halsey, OR
Hallula, HA
Kingsport> TN
CANCER
RISK
(TCDD)lal
ON
LIST
ICS
STATUS
HATER QUALITY STANDARDS (d)
FISH
ADVISORY
(b)
3 x
3 x
3 x
3 x
3 x
3 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
2 x
1 x
1 x
1 x
1 x
9 x
9 x
8 x
8 x
7 x
7 x
6 x
6 x
6 x
6 x
6 x
5 x
5 x
5 x
4 x
10-* le)
ID"5 (f )
IO"5
io-5
io-5
io-5 (f i
IO"5
io-5
10"5
io-5
10"5
io-5
io-5
10"-
10"5
io-5
lO"5 If)
lO"5 (f )
io-5
10 5
10'5
JO"5
10'5 (f)
10"6
10"'
ID"*
10"6
JO"6
10-*
10"6
10"*
IO-6 (f)
10"*
IO-6 (e)
1Q~*
10"6
10"*
10"6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
HATER 8 FISH
CRITERIA 1 ppq )
0.01 IT)
1.36
0.5
0.013
0.01 IT)
0.00051 (T)
0.13
0.03
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.014 IT)
0.00051 IT)
0.013
FISH ONL1
CRITERIA
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.3
0.014
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
7.2
0.14
1.0
1.2
0.014
7.2
0.014
0.014
0.014
7.2
1.2
0.014
0.014
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.014
1.0
t
1 ppq ) STATUS
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
PROPOSED
EPA
APPROVED
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(N)
* = Mills below which consumption of fish is predicted to cause liver damage
la = 2378-TCDD only) based on effluent data from 104 Mill Study and EPA's 1984 Hater Quality Criteria Document for Dioxin which assumes a
bioconcentration factor of 5000 and a consumption rate of slightly less than 2 quarter-pound meals per month)
Ib = Section 30411) of the Clean Hater Act (Toxic Hot Spots Program) requires states to list those facilities contributing to violations of
water quality standards for toxic pollutants and write an Individual Control Strategy IICS) for each.)
Ic = as of August 14, 1990. Please note that all mills do not require advisories.)
Id = as of August 21, 1990)
le = mill discharges to a POTH)
If = dioxin not detected in effluent) risk calculated using one-half of the detection limit)
ig = model input data on receiving water flow or effluent dioxin concentrations not quantifiable)
(h = fish consumption advisory is in effect for these waters due to contaminants other than dioxin, and/or the potential for unidentifed
contamination. )
IT = derived by Translator Procedure)
-------
MATRIX f1
9/19/90
SECTION 304(1) OF THE CHA
COMPANY
Janes River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Finch 8 Pruyn 8 Co., Inc.
Stone Container Corp.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Hausau Paper Mills Co.
Stone Container Corp.
James River Corp.
Procter 8 Gamble Co.
International Paper Co.
Hestvaco Corp.
James River Corp.
Heyerhaeuser Co.
Hillamette Industries
James River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Longview Fibre Co.
Potlatch Corp.
International Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Stone Container Corp.
Gaylord Container Corp.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
CITY, ST
Green Bay, HI
Park Falls, HI
Oglethorpe, GA
Rothchild, HI
Glen Falls, NY
Panama City, FL
Peshtigo, HI
Bellingham, HA
Muskegon, MI
Peshtigo, HI
Brokaw, HI
Missoula, NT
St. Francesv'l,
Mehoopany, PA
Natchez, MS
Hickliffe, KY
Clatskanie, OR
Longview, HA
Hawesville, KY
Green Bay, HI
St. Helens, OR
Longview, HA
McGhee, AR
Erie, PA
Zachary, LA
Bastrop, LA
Pasadena, TX
Snowflake, AZ
Antioch, CA
Camas, HA
Everett, HA
Tacoma, HA
LA
UU1UCK
RISK
(TCDDHa)
4 x 10"6
4 x 10-* (f )
3 x 10"* (f )
3 x ID"6
2 x 10"* (f )
2 x 10"* le)
2 x 10-* (e)
2 x 10-* (f )
1 x ID"* (e)(f )
1 x 10~*
1 x 10-* (f 1
8 x ID'7
7 x ID'7
4 x 10~7 (f )
4 x 10"7
3 x 10"7
3 x 10"7
3 x 10"7
1 x ID'7 (f )
1 x 10"7 (e)(f )
1 x 10"7 (e)
8 x 10-* (f )
4 x 10-" (e)
not avail. (et(g)
not avail, (g )
not avail, (g)
not avail, (g)
not avail, (g)
not avail, (g )
not avail, (g )
not avail, (g)
not avail, (g )
ON
LIST
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ICS
STATUS (b)
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
HATER QUALITY STANDARDS (d)
FISH
ADVISORY
X (h)
HATER 8 FISH
CRITERIA I ppq )
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.013
0.03
0.014 (T)
0.03
0.03
0.013
0.01 (T)
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.03
0.013
1.36
0.01 (T)
0.5
0.01
FISH ONLY
CRITERIA I ppq I STATUS
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
7.2 ADOPTED
ADOPTED
1.0 ADOPTED
0.014 PROPOSED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
0.014 ADOPTED
ADOPTED
0.014 ADOPTED
0.014 ADOPTED
EXPECTED
0.014 ADOPTED
ADOPTED
0.014 ADOPTED
EXPECTED
PROPOSED
ADOPTED
0 . 3 EXPECTED
EXPECTED
0.0039 ADOPTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EPA
APPROVED
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* - Mills below which consumption of fish is predicted to cause liver damage
(a = 2378-TCDD only) based on effluent data from 104 Mill Study and EPA's 1984 Hater Quality Criteria Document for Dioxin which assumes a
bioconcentration factor of 5000 and a consumption rate of slightly less than 2 quarter-pound meals per month)
(b = Section 304(1) of the Clean Hater Act (Toxic Hot Spots Program) requires states to list those facilities contributing to violations of
water quality standards for toxic pollutants and write an Individual Control Strategy IICS) for each. )
Ic = as of August 14, 1990. Please note that all mills do not require advisories. )
(d = as of August 21, 1990)
(e = mill discharges to a POTH)
(f = dioxin not detected in effluent} risk calculated using one-half of the detection limit)
(g = model input data on receiving water flow or effluent dioxin concentrations not quantifiable)
(h = fish consumption advisory is in effect for these waters due to contaminants other than dioxin, and/or the potential for unidentifed
contamination. )
(T = derived by Translator Procedure)
-------
iO/l
&EPA Environmental News
EPA RELEASES RISK ESTIMATES FOR EATING DIOXIN-CONTAMINATED FISH
Sean McElheny (202) 382-4387
Monday, September 24, 1990
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released
estimates of lifetime cancer risks, at levels of concern, for
consumers of dioxin-contaminated fish taken from waters down- •
stream of 20 chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills that dis-
charge dioxin.
These mill-by-mill risk estimates are part of a comprehen-
sive Dioxin-in-Paper Integrated Risk Assessment. The Agency
released a summary of this risk assessment on April 30, 1990,
when it announced its plans to reduce the dioxin risks associated
with the chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper industry. All of the
key findings in the assessment were included in the summary,
except for the mill-specific risk numbers announced today.
The study results are presented as the estimated risk of
cancer incidence during the lifetime of the exposed individual.
For these risk estimates, reasonable worst-case characterizations
were used. Study results indicate that dioxin levels downstream
from the 20 mills may be high enough to pose an increased cancer
risk greater than one in 10,000 to average consumers of fish
caught below the mills. The estimated cancer risk is potentially
greater for avid sports fishermen and subsistence level fishermen
because their consumption of fish is generally higher than that
of average consumers. There are a total of 104 pulp and paper
mills that discharge dioxin. (For more information on risks from
all 104 mills, see attachments.)
"EPA suggests that states consider imposing fish consumption
advisories or start site-specific monitoring programs at all
streams that have a projected risk as high as one in ten thousand
or greater," said Deputy EPA Administrator Henry Habicht. "These
risks levels will come down as EPA and states impose more strin-
gent permit limits and mills reduce dioxin discharges." (See
attached list for mills for which fishing advisories already are
in place.)
R-158 (more)
-------
-2-
States should consider all data available to them in decid-
ing whether fishing advisories or monitoring programs may be
appropriate.
All risk estimates in the assessment are based on consump-
tion of fish—such as catfish, suckers, squawfish and bass—that
spend their entire lifetime in the vicinity of a mill and conse-
quently accumulate greater concentrations of dioxin in their
tissue. The risk estimates do not apply to migratory fish, such
as salmon, that spend a short portion of their lives in these
waters.
EPA and states are issuing, on an expedited basis, was-
tewater discharge permits that limit dioxin discharges from
chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills. These National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System permits will ensure that mill
discharges achieve the more stringent of either water-quality-
based effluent limits, or technology-based limits (that is, based
on the capability of existing technology). Many of these permits
also include requirements for mills to make process changes
and/or product substitutions to reduce the use of chlorine by
certain dates.
Permits to limit dioxin discharges are being issued for
about 66 mills on an expedited basis where water quality problems
due to dioxin have been identified through EPA and state efforts
to locate toxic hot spots. Most of these permits will be issued
by February 1991. Permits for 18 of the 20 mills with projected
risk of one-in-ten thousand or greater are included in this
group. Under these permits, mills will be required to meet
water-quality-based limits for dioxin no later than June 1993.
Permits for the other two high-risk mills will be revised to
include dioxin limits within the next year. Permits with dioxin
controls for the remaining chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper
mills will be issued over the next few years as existing permits
for these mills expire.
EPA also is developing national industrial effluent limit
guidelines and standards to reduce dioxin contamination and total
chlorinated organics from the manufacture of bleached paper
products. These standards, based on the best available, economi-
cally achievable technologies, are expected to focus on changes
in the bleaching process so as to prevent the formation of
dioxin. EPA plans to issue proposed standards in 1993 and final
standards in 1995. These standards will be used in subsequent
rounds of permit revisions for pulp and paper mills and are
expected to reduce dioxin contamination in sludge and pulp as
well as wastewater.
"The overall risk of dioxin to human health and aquatic
R-158 (more)
-------
-3-
systems requires the precautionary actions we are taking, even
though the scientific basis for estimating dioxin cancer risk and
the mill-based specific risk numbers themselves may be changing,"
said Habicht.
EPA is proposing a dioxin pollution prevention initiative
that will involve other federal agencies, states, industry,
environmental groups and the international regulatory community.
The purpose of the initiative is to accelerate pollution reduc-
tion through industrial process modifications and chlorine
substitutes. Many of the 104 mills already have reduced dioxin
discharges through such changes; some have achieved significant
reductions. The initiative will include an exchange with Canada,
West Germany, Sweden and other nations of technology transfer
projects and public information efforts.
The full Dioxin-in-Paper Integrated Risk Assessment is
available. That document is the result of a cooperative effort
among EPA, the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer
Product Safety Commission to estimate the risks posed by dioxin
associated with the chlorine-bleaching of pulp and paper. The
risk assessment was the technical foundation for EPA's April 30
announcement.
The risk assessment is a scientific support document. It
estimates dioxin risks from pulp and paper mill effluent, pulp
and paper mill sludge, food contact papers and body contact
papers. It also includes risks to wildlife and occupational
risks.
The risk assessment is supported by 12 studies. The surface
water risk assessment that contains the mill-specific risk
calculations is one of these studies.
# # #
R-158
-------
Mills Below Which Consumption of Fish is
Predicted to Result in Individual cancer Risk
Exceeding 10"* Based oa Effluent Modeling
Assuming a 5,ooo BCF
Mill
Boise Cascade
International Paper
Westvaco Corp."
Union Camp*
Georgia-Pacific
St. Joe Paper
International Paper
Leaf River Forest
Champion International
Weyerhaeuser*
International Paper*
Buckeye Cellulose*
Georgia-Pacific
Boise Cascade
International Paper
Temple-Eastex
Simpson Paper
Simpson Paper
Weyerhaeuser
Weyerhaeuser
Mill Location
Rumford, ME
Jay, ME
Covington, VA
Franklin, VA
Palatka, FL
Port St. Joe, FL
Moss Point, MS
New Augusta, MS
Canton, NC
Plymouth, NC
Georgetown, SC
Perry, FL
Crosset, AR
Deridder, LA
Texarkana, TX
Evadale, TX
Anderson, CA
Fairhaven, CA
Everett, WA
Cosmopolis, WA
Advisory
In-Place
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
'Estimates based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD only, 6.5 grams/day fish
consumption, 5,000 fish filet bioconcentration factor, and EPA
cancer slope factor of 1.6 x 10"4(pg/kg-day)" .
2Based on dioxin detected in effluent collected during 1988
EPA/Paper Industry dioxin effort.
"Mills below which consumption of fish predicted to cause liver
damage.
-------
INFORMATION ABOUT MATRIX OF 104 PULP AND PAPER MILLS, RISK ESTIMATES,
SECTION 304(1) STATUS, FISH ADVISORY STATUS,
AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
For each of the 104 chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper mills (one
mill is represented twice because it has two discharge pipes)
included in EPA's surface water risk assessment the attached matrix
provides the following information:
o A cancer risk estimate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin). This
cancer risk estimate is based on modeling of effluent data
from the EPA/Industry Cooperative 104 Mill Study using a
bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 5,000 and average fish
consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day. These assumptions are
from EPA's 1984 Water Quality Criteria Document for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD. This information can be found in Appendix I of the
surface water risk assessment. It is the only information in
this matrix that can be found in the surface water risk
assessment. The risk assessment also includes several other
risk estimates based on alternative sets of assumptions.
o Whether or not the mill is on the list of facilities required
by Section 304(1) (1) (C) of the Clean Water Act due to
discharges of dioxin, and the status of the Individual Control
Strategy for each of those facilities. Section 304(1)*
requires that States identify those waters that do not meet
State water quality standards for toxic pollutants entirely
or substantially due to point source discharges and to
identify the responsible point sources. The State must then
write an individual control strategy (ICS) for each of those
facilities, and EPA must approve or disapprove the ICS. An
ICS is defined as either a draft or final National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
o Whether or not a fish consumption advisory is in-place
downstream of the mill due to dioxin contamination of fish.
o The status of the adoption of the State water quality standard
for dioxin. The matrix includes values for water and fish
criteria or fish only criteria or both. Section 303(c)(2) (B)
of the Clean Water Act requires States to adopt water quality
criteria for all toxic pollutants of concern in the state.
The mills appear in order according to cancer risk, starting with
the highest cancer risk.
10
-------
mix ti
9/19/90
SECTION SMI II OF THE CMA
COMPANY
James River Corp.
Pentair, Inc.
Buckeye Cellulose
Heyerhaeuser Co.
Finch S Pruyn 1 Co., Inc.
Stone Container Corp.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Badger Paper Hills* Inc.
Hausau Paper Hills Co.
Stone Container Corp.
Jutes River Corp.
Procter « Gamble Co.
International Paper Co.
Hestvaco Corp.
Janes River Corp.
Heyerhaeuser. Co.
Hilla»ette Industries
Jaees River Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Longview Fibre Co.
Potlatch Corp.
International Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Stone Container Corp.
Gaylord Container Corp.
James River Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
CITY, ST
Creen toy, MI
Park Falls, MI
Ogletaorpe, 6A
Rothchild, HI
Clen Falls, NY
Panama City, FL
Peshtigo, HI
Bellingham, HA
Huskegon, HI
Peshtigo, HI
Brokaw, HI
Hissoula, NT
St. Francesv'l,
Hehoopany, PA
Matches, MS
Mickllffe. KY
Clatskanie, OR
Longview, MA
Maweaville, KY
Creen toy, MI
St. Helens, OR
Longview, HA
Erie, PA
Zachary, LA
Bastrop, LA
Pasadena, TX
Snowflake, AZ
Antioch, CA
Camas, MA
Everett, HA
Tacoaa, HA
CANCER
RISK
ITCDOMal
ON
LIST
ICS
STATUS
Ibl
HATER QUALITY STANDARDS Id I
FISH
ADVISORY HATER < FISH FISH ONLY
IM-PLACE (el CRITERIA lppq> CRITERIA Ippql STATUS
* x ID"*
* x 10-* If
S x 10-* If
5 x ID"*
2 x 1IT* If
2 x ID"* le
2 x 10-* le
2 x 10-* If
1 x 10"* lellf 1
1 x 10*
I x 10** If I
8 x 10''
7 x 10 '
* x 10'' If 1
* x 10''
3 x 10''
3 x 10 '
3 x 10 '
i x 10' in
1 x 10 ' lellf 1
1 x 10' lei
8 x 1Q-* If 1
* x 10~* lei
not avail, leltgl
not avail. Ig 1
not avail. Ig 1
not avail. Igl
not avail. Igl
not avail. Igl
not avail. Ig 1
not avail. Igl
not avail. Igl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
APPROVED
PEMDIMC
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
PEMDIN6
PENDXNB
PENDXNB
PEMDIMC
PENDINB
X Ihl
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.013
0.03
0.01* ITI
0.03
0.03
0.013
0.01 ITI
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.03
0.013
1.3*
0.01 ITI
0.5
0.01
ADOPTED
7.2
1.0
0.014
EPA
APPROVE)
X
X
x
X
0.014
0.01*
0.01*
0.01*
0.01*
ADOPTED X
EXPECTED
ADOPTED X
ADOPTED X
ADOPTED X
ADOPTED X
ADOPTED X
ADOPTED
ADOPTED X
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED X
ADOPTED X
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
O.S
EXPECT!
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
LAPELItD
* - Hills below which consumption of fish is predicted to cause liver
la = 2J7B-TCDD onlyi based on effluent data from 10* Hill Study and EPA's 1*84 Hater Quality Criteria PliUVJMat f«* OVttin wHiCa ••••»• •
bioconcentration factor of 50OO and a consumption rate of slightly less than 2 quarter-pound meals per ftcmth)
Ib = Section 30*111 of the Clean Hater Act IToxic Hot Spots Program I requires states to list those facilities co*t*itMting to violation* of
water quality standards for toxic pollutants and write an Individual Control Strategy IICS I for each. I
Ic = as of August 1*, 199O. Please note that all mills do not require advisories. I
Id = as of August 21, 199OI
le - mill discharges to a POTMI
If = dioxin not detected in effluent) risk calculated using one-half of the detection limit I
ig * model input data on receiving water flow or effluent dioxin concentrations not quantifiable) ^ _
In = fish consumption advisory is in effect for these waters due to contaminants other than dioxin, and/or the pVtWilial tot
contamination.I •
IT = dAived by Translator Procedure I
-------
QUALITY STANDARDS INUJKfiAiiUN
SECTION^54I 11 OF IKE CMA
COMPANY
•International Paper Co.
•Union Camp Corp.
•Buckeye Cellulose
•Heyerhaeuser Co. "
•Hestvaco Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
Temple-Eastex» Inc.
Champion International
ChMpion International
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Heyerhaeuser Co.
Meyerhaeuser Co. .
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Leaf River Forest Prod.
Heyerhaeuser Co.
Ketchikan Pulp * Paper
nT-Rayonier, Inc.
International Paper Co.
P.M. Glatfelter Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Chesapeake Corp.
Champion International
Mead Corporation
Federal Paper Board Co.
Nekoosa Papers* Inc.
Nekoosa Papers* Inc.
Alaska Pulp Corp.
CITY, ST
Georgetown, SC
Franklin. VA
Perry. FL
Plymouth. NC
Covington. VA
Palatka, FL
Moss Point. MS
Evadale. TO
Cantonment. FL
Canton, NC
Crossetr AR
Texarkanai TX
Jay. HE
Ru»ford> HE
Port St. Joe, FL
Deridder, LA
Anderson, CA
Fairhaven, CA
Cosmopolis, HA
Everett. HA
Brunswick, 6A
Hew Augusta, MS
Hew Bern, HC
Ketchikan, AK
Hoquiam, HA
Ticonderoga, HY
Spring Grove, PA
Samoa, CA
Mest Point, VA
Houston, TO
Escanaba, HI
Riegelwood. HC
Hekoo*A/Pt. Ed., HI
Asbdown, AR
Sitka, AK
CANCER
RISK
ITCDDUal
Z x
2 x
2 x
2 x
1 x
4 x
3 x
5 x
Z x
2 x
Z x
Z x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9 x
9 x
9 x
9 x
B x
7 x
7 x
7 x
6 x
« x
5 x
4 x
4 x
4 x
4 x
10'
10J
10!
10s
10"
10*
10"
10^
10~
10"
10"
10*
10"
10*
10"
10"
10"
10^
10"
10^
10*
10*
10*
10*
10-*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
lei
If 1
lei
If I
If 1
If I
If)
ON
LIST
X
X
ICS
STATUS lb>
APPROVED
PENDING
APPROVED
HATER QUALITY STJ^kRDS Id!
FISH
ADVISORY HATER « FISH FISH ONLY
IH-PLACE Icl CRITERIA I ppq I CRITERIA I ppq I STATUS
EPA
APPRO VI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
PENDING
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
APPROVED
X
X
X
X
X Ihl
X
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.5
0.013
0.013
1.36
0.5
0.013
0.013
0.013
X
X
0.013
0.013
0.01 IT)
0.5
0.01* IT)
0.013
0.03
1.36
0.013
1.2
1.2
0.014
0.01
Id = as of August 21, 1990)
le = mill discharges to a POTH)
If = dioxin not detected in effluentt risk calculated using one-half of the detection limit I
Ig = model input data on receiving water flow or effluent dioxin concentrations not quantifiable I
(h = fish consumption advisory is in effect for these waters due to qontamlnants other than dioxin, and/or the potential for unidentifed
contaminantion. )
IT s derived by Translator Procedure)
-------
SECTION 3041 11 Or THE CNA
MATER QUALITY STANDAI
Id)
COMPANY
Mestvaco Corp.
Aprleton Papers. Inc.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Bowater Corp.
International taper Co'.
Champion International
Scott Paper Co.
Penntech Papers> Inc.
Container Corp. of Amer.
Boise Cascade Corp.
International Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
International Paper Co.
Janes River Corp.
TTT-Rayouier» Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Head Corp.
Consolidated Papers• Inc.
rTT-Rayonier> Inc.
James River Corp.
Champion International
rTT-Rayonier. Inc.
6ile>an Paper Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Scott Paper Co.
Janes River Corp.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Alabama River Pulp
Pot latch Corp.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Scott Paper Co.
Bowater Corp.
Champion International
Pot latch Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Pope ft Talbot, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Head Corporation
CITY. ST
Luke, MD
Roaring Springs.
Coosa Pines, AL
Catawba. SC
Pise Bluff. AH
Lufkis, TX
Hestbrook. HE
Johnsonburg, PA
Brewton, AL
Jackson. AL
Mobile* AL
Demopolis. AL
S«lM, AL
Butler, AL
Jesup, GA
Infl Falls. MM
Chillicotbe. ON
Misc. Rapids. MI
Port Angeles. MA
Berlin. MM
Courtland, AL
Fernandina Beach
St. Marys. 6A
Moodland. HE
Ninckley. HE
Old Town. HE
Augusta, 6A
Claiborne, AL
Lewiston, ID
Lincoln. HE
Mobile. AL
Calnoun. TM
Quinnesec. HI
Cloeuet, MM
Eastover. SC
Malsey. OR
Mallula, MA
Kingsport, TM
a
Rl
11
PA
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
1
1
FL 1
1
*
•
a
8
7
7
4
«
«
«
•
5
5
5
4
INI
IS*
ra
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XR
DM a
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10'
10'
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10"
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
10*
1
lei
If 1
If 1
If 1
If 1
If 1
If 1
lei
ON
LIST
X
X
X
X
X
X
ICS
STATUS Ibl
FISH - -
ADVISORY MATER < FISH FISN ONLY
IN-PLACE Icl CRITERIA lppe.1 CRITERIA
-------
ERRATA SHEET
Changes In results for the International Paper Co. mill In Texarkana, TX (TX000167) have been made based on comments received from EPA Region VI.
These comments were received after the final document had been reproduced.
EPA region VI indicated that this mill does not discharge throughout the entire year, but rather discharges Intermittently from October to Hay.
Therefore, the receiving stream harmonic mean and 7Q10 flows used to calculate Instream concentration (which were based on a year-round discharge)
were Incorrect. The revised Tables C-K which follow present the corrected results for the two samples taken from this mill using the revised
harmonic mean.and 7Q10 flows (for the months October - Hay) for the receiving stream. These changes, which are relatively minor, have not resulted
in any changes to the main text of the document.
Errata Sheet for Table C.I
Raw Input Data
NPDES
NUMBER
SAMPLE ID COMPANY
CUT
6RP
ID
HARMONIC
MEAN
FLOW
(m3/hr.)
7Q10
LOW
FLOW
(n.3/hr.)
ISS
IN KILL
EFFLUENT
(mg/l)
ADJ TSS
IN RECG
WATERS
(HARM
MEAN Q)
(mg/1)
PLANT
FLOW
(mgd)
TCDD
CONC.
(ppq)
TCDD
NON-
OET-
ECT
TCDD
LOAD
(kg/hr)
TCOF
CONC.
(ppq)
TCDF
NON-
DET-
ECT
TCOF
LOAD
(kg/hr)
1X0000167 H99EC
1X0000167 H99EC1
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
Texarkana
30603
30603
4893
4893
494.9
494.9
0.7
0.7
38.36
38.36
13
18
7.9E-08
1.1E-07
43
44
2.6E-07
2.7E-07
The present EXAMS II runs were made using an tn-stream ISS value of 9.6 mg/1. which Is the combined In-streara and effluent TSS concentration. This value was used due to the calculation of harmonic
mean flow for this mill using the sum of stream and plant flow. As described In Appendix B, Section B.2.2. of this report. If the mill discharge exceeded SX of the average stream flow at the
mill, then the mill discharge flow was added to the area-adjusted stream flow values prior to calculating the harmonic mean. During earlier assessments of this mill, EXAMS II failed to run using
the low Instream TSS concentration that resulted from adjustment for annual harmonic mean flow. For these runs, an In-stream TSS concentration based on average annual water flow was used (22
COHPANr
cur
Errata Sheet for Appendix 0.
In-strean Contaminant Concentrations In pg/1
SAMPLEID NPDES GRP TCOO TCDF
NUMBER ID NON- NON-
DET- DET-
ECT ECT
SIMPLE DILTUTION
TCDD
CONC.
TCDF
CONC.
EXAMS
WATER COLUMN
TCDD
CONC.
TCDF
CONC.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
Texarkana
H99EC
M99EC1
TXOOOOI67
TX0000167
2.1SE+00 7.IOE+00 8.18E-01 7.05E+00
2.97E+00 7.26E+00 1.13E+00 7.21E+00
Errata Sheet for Append!* E.
In-strean Contaminant Concentrations for Lov (7Q10) Flow Conditions Calculated
by Simple Dilution Only
COMPANY
CITY
NPDES SAMPLEID GRP TCDD TCDF
NUMBER ID NON- NON-
DEI- DET-
ECT ECT
7010
FLOW
(m3/!
TCDD
CONC.
TCDF
CONC.
TEQ
CONC.
/hr) (pg/1) (pg/1) (pg/1)
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
Texarkana
TX0000167 M99EC I
TX0000167 M99EC1 I
4893
4893
7.18E+00 Z.37E+01 9.5SE*00
9.94E+00 2.43E+01 1.24E+01
-------
COMPANY CIT»
International Paper Co. Texarkana
International Paper Co. Texarkana
SAMPLE ID
N99EC
H99EC1
NPOES
NUMBER
Errata Sheet for Appendix F.
Fish Filet Tissue Residue Levels (ng/kg)
SIMPLE DILUTION
GRP TCOO TCDF
ID NON- NON-
DEI- DET-
ECT ECT
ICDD BCF TO FILET'S.000
tCDF BCF TO FILET-1.9SO
TCDD TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
TCDD BCF TO FILET-SO.OOO
ICDF BCF TO FlLET-1,950
TCDD TCOF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
TXOOOOI67 1
TX0000167 i
1.07E+01 1.38E+01 I.21E+01 1.07E*02 1.38E+OI 1.09E+02
I.49E+OI 1.42E*OI 1.63E*OI 1.49E»02 1.42E«01 1 50E»02
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
TCDD BCF TO FILET-5.000
TCOF BCF TO FlLET-1,950
TCDO TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
TCOD BCF TO FILET-SO.OOO
TCDF BCF TO FILET-1.950
TCDD TCDF TEQ
FILET FILET FILET
CONC. CONC. CONC.
4.09E«00 1.37E»OI 5.46E+00 4.09E»OI 1.37E«01 4.23E.01
5.67E«00 1.41E»01 7.08E«00 5.67E»OI 1.41E+01 5.81E+01
Errata Sheet for Appendix 6.
Average dally lifetime 95X Bloavallable Dose In •gAg/day of 2378-TCOO and 2378-TCDF *s TEQ fro» Fish Ingestlo
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE ID
NPDES GRP TCDD TCOF
NUMBER ID NON- NON-
OET- DET-
ECT ECT
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
Texarkana
M99EC
M99ECI
TX0000167 1
TX0000167 1
DOSE SIMPLE DILUTION DOSE FROM EXAMS WATER COLUMN
TCDD
6CF
FILET-
S.OOO.
ICOF.
1.950
« 6.5
9/day
I.1E-09
1.4E-09
TCDD BCF- 50, 000
TCOD. BCF-1. 950
8 30
g/day
4.4E-08
6. IE-OB
» 140
g/day
2.1E-07
2.8E-07
TCDO
BCF
FILET-
5.000.
TCDF.
1.950
» 6.5
g/day
4.8E-10
6.2E-10
TCDD BCF-SO.OOO.
TCDO. BCF-1. 950
8 30
g/day
1.7E-08
2.4E-08
-
8 140
g/day
8.0E-08
1.1E-07
Errata Sheet for Appendix H.
Mill Specific Dose (pg/kg/day) froa Drinking Water at Ingest Ion of 2 Liters per Day
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLE 10
NPDES
NUMBER
GRP TCDO TCDF
ID NON- NON-
DET- DET-
ECT ECT
SIMPLE DILUTION
DRINKING WATER DOSES
TCOD TCDF TEQ
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
DRINKING WATER DOSES
TCDD TCDF TEQ
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
lexarkana
Texarkana
H99EC
M99EC1
TXOOOOI67
TX0000167
I6.1E-11 2.0E-10 B.2E-I1
8.SE-11 2.IE-ID 1.1E-10
2.3E-11 2.0E-10 4.4E-11
3.2E-11 2.1E-10 5.3E-11
-------
COMPANY
CITT
SAMPLE ID
Errata Sheet for Appendix I.
Mill Specific Unit Risk1 from Fish Ingest Ion
NPOES
NUMBER
GRP TCDD
ID NON-
DET-
ECI
SIMPLE DILUTION
TCOF
NON-
DEI-
ECT
ICDD FRET 6CF-S.0002
ICDF FILET BCF-1.9SO
TCOD TEQ X TCOD
RISK RISK IN TEQ
0 6.5 0 6.5
g/day g/day
TCDD BCF TO
TCDF BCF TO
ICDD UQ
RISK RISK
• 30 0 30
FILEI-SO
FHET-1.
TCDD
RISK
• 140
g/day g/day g/day
.000
950
TEQ X TCDD
RISK IN TEQ
• 140
g/day
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
ICDO FILET BCF-5.0002
TCDF FILET BCF= 1.950
TCDD TEQ X TCDD
RISK RISK IN TEQ
0 6.5 • 6.5
g/day g/day
TCOD BCF TO
ICDF BCF TO
TCDO TEQ
RISK RISK
• 30 • 30
FILET=50
FILET-1.
TCDD
RISK
• 140
g/day g/day g/day
.000
950
TEO
RISK
t 140
g/day
X TCDD
IN IEQ
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
lexarkana
Texarkana
H99EC
M99EC1
TXOOOOI67 1
1X0000167 1
1E-04
2E-04
2E-04
2E-04
89
91
7E-03
1E-02
7E-03
9E-03
3E-02
4E-02
3E-02
4E-02
99
99
6E-05
BE-05
8E-05
IE-04
75
80
3E-03
4E-03
3E-03
4E-03
1E-02
2E-02
1E-02
2E-02
97
98
1
U.S. EPA weight-of-the-evldence classification "82" (US EPA. 1986a)
Recent laboratory evidence Indicates that use of a BCF of 50.000 would more accurately reflect the uptake of 2378-TCDO by fish. Therefore, risk estimates based on a fish filet BCF of 5,000 may underestimate
risks by an order of magnitude.
Errata Sheet for Appendix J.
Hill Specific Unit Risk1 fron Drinking Water Ingest Ion 0 2 Liters per Day
COMPANY
CITY
SAMPLEIO NPDES GRP TCOO TCOF
NUMBER ID KOH- NON-
DET- DET-
ECT ECT
SIMPLE
DILUTION
TEQ X TCOO
DRINK. RISK
WATER III TEQ
RISK RISK
EXAMS
UATER COLUMN
TEQ X TCDO
DRINK. RISK
WATER IN TEQ
RISK RISK
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Texarkana
Texarkana
M99EC
H99EC1
1X0000167 1
TX0000167 1
IE-OS
2E-05
75
80
7E-06
BE-06
54
61
U.S. EPA weight -of-trie-evidence classification "B2" (US EPA. 1986a)
Errata Sheet for Appendix K.
Mill Specific Human Dose1 from • Single 115 Graai U/« Found) Fish Ingest Ion (In pg/kg/day) for Conparlson «lth the
TCOD Health Advisory for Protection frow Liver Effects
COMPANY CITY
International Paper Co. Texarkana
International Paper Co. Texarkana
SAMPLEIO
NPDES
NUMBER
GRP TCOD TCOF
ID NON- NON-
OET- DET-
ECT ECT
N99EC
H99EC1
1X0000167 I
TX0000167 I
SIMPLE DILUTION
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD-50,000
TCDF-1.950
TCDO TEQ
TCDD-5.000
TCDF-1.950
TCDD TEQ
DOSE DOSE
DOSE DOSE
EXAMS WATER COLUMN
BCF TO FILET BCF TO FILET
TCDD-5.000 1CDD-50.000
TCDFM.950 TCDF-1.950
TCDD TEQ TCDD TEQ
DOSE DOSE DOSE DOSE
1 7E*OI 1 9E401 1 7E«02 1.7E»02 6.4E«00 8.5E<00 6.4E«OI 6 6E*OI
2.3E*OI 2.5E»01 2.3E«02 2.3E«02 8.8E+00 I.1E«OI 8.8E«01 9.IE»01
' Dose Is the btoavallable (95X) portion of exposure.
' Health Advisory Level • 100 pg/kg/day.
------- |