USEEA/PAFER INDUSTRY COOPERATIVE ;DIQXIK STUDY
"THE.Jd04.MILL :STUDY'' •
STATISTICAL.-FINDINGSAND ANALYSES;
, ,1990
.
p ;,Watiepl^egul4t.i.,pris.;?indrSpandards
"40L M' S.tree,t,,':S.W.'
Washington,, D.c". - 20460
-------
USEPA/PAPER INDUSTRY COOPERATIVE DIOXIN STUDY
"THE 104 MILL STUDY-
STATISTICAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report describes statistical analyses of the data from the "104 Mill
Study." This study was the result of a cooperative agreement between EPA and
the U.S. paper industry. The purpose of the study was to characterize the 104
U.S. mills that practiced chlorine bleaching of chemically produced pulps in mid
to late 1988. The scope of the study was developed by EPA and industry, and the
study was managed by the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), with EPA overview. The data collected included
measurements of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) concentrations in three export vectors (pulp,
sludge, and effluent); and information on wastewater treatment, bleaching, and
Biinufacturing processes. More information was available for kraft mills (155
sach lines) than sulfite (18 bleach lines); therefore, some statistical
findings are reported for only kraft mills. The statistical findings are:
1. The detected concentration values of TCDD/TCDF were best approximated by
lognormal distributions, estimated separately for each of the export vectors:
pulp, sludge, and effluent.
2. Analysis of field and laboratory duplicates indicated excellent agreement
between duplicate measurements of TCDD/TCDF concentrations. As a consequence,
analytical measurement variability is a very small portion of the total
variability in the TCDD/TCDF data.
3. The reported detection levels for the non-detected measurements of
TCDD/TCDF demonstrate that the target detection level of 10 parts per quadrillion
(ppq) for effluent measurements is achievable.
Estimates of the daily total mass output rates of TCDD/TCDF at U.S.
cached pulp mills were 0.004 Ibs/day for TCDD and 0.032 Ibs/day for TCDF.
-------
Output rates for individual mills varied substantially; however, the per
averages were 0.00005 Ibs of TCDD and 0.00048 Ibs of TCDF exported dai,.
pulp, sludge, and treated effluent.
5. The relative amounts of TCDD/TCDF partitioned to each of the three export
vectors (pulp, sludge, and effluent) were highly variable among mills.
6. Significantly more TCDD/TCDF was exported at kraft mills than sulfite
mills.
7. Mills using Activated Sludge (ACT) wastewater treatment systems exported
somewhat less effluent-based TCDD/TCDF mass on average and significantly more
sludge-based TCDD/TCDF mass than mills using Aerated Stabilization Basins (ASB).
The difference in sludge exports can be partially attributed to the fact that
ACT sludge samples in the 104 Hill Study consisted of combined primary and
secondary sludges. Those from ASB systems consisted only of primary sludge.
8. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations in ACT systems was found
be significantly higher than the TSS concentrations of ASB systems at k
mills.
9. When ACT and ASB-type kraft mills were combined, a weakly correlated
positive trend was observed between effluent TCDD/TCDF and TSS levels, and a
weakly correlated negative trend was observed between TSS and sludge TCDD/TCDF.
For kraft mills using only ACT treatment, higher TSS levels were associated with
higher sludge-based TCDD/TCDF exports but lower effluent-based TCDD/TCDF exports.
10. Linear regressions of the TCDD/TCDF export rates fit co bleaching measures
at each mill (including application rates of bleaching and chemical extraction
agents) were found to be poor predictors of individual kraft mill outputs.
11. Greater chlorine usage in kraft mills was found to be statistically
associated with higher formation rates of TCDD/TCDF.
12. Increased substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the C-stag<
kraft mills was correlated with slight reductions in TCDD/TCDF formation.
-------
13. Higher chlorine multiples during C-stage bleaching were weakly associated
with higher TCDD/TCDF mass formation in kraft mills.
14. Kraft mills that used oxygen delignification in the bleaching process
exhibited somewhat lower rates of TCDD/TCDF formation than mills that did not
use such methods.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 STUDY FEATURES 2
1.1.1 Field Sampling Program 3
1.1.2 Analytical Program 4
1.1.3 Data Handling 5
1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE 5
1.2.1 Pulping and Bleaching 6
1.2.2 Bleach Line Chemical Usage 6
1.2.3 Uastewater Treatment 11
2. SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL FINDINGS 13
2.1 CHARACTERIZING TCDD/TCDF CONCENTRATION DATA 13
2.2 VARIABILITY IN DUPLICATE SAMPLE ANALYSES 14
2.3 DETECTION LEVELS FOR NON-DETECTED MEASUREMENTS 14-
2.4 TOTAL MASS FORMATION ESTIMATES OF TCDD/TCDF 14
2.5 VARIABILITY IN PARTITIONING OF TCDD/TCDF TO 14
DIFFERENT EXPORT MATRICES
2.6 DIFFERENCES DUE TO PULPING AND WASTEUATER TREATMENT 15
2.7 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND TOTAL 15
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
2.8 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TCDD/TCDF FORMATION AND MILL 15
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
2.9 EFFECTS OF CHLORINE APPLICATION IN PRE-BLEACHING 16
2.10 EFFECT OF THE CHLORINE MULTIPLE 16
2.11 USE OF OXYGEN IN THE BLEACHING PROCESS 16
2.12 DIFFERENCES IN WOOD TYPES 17
3. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TCDD/TCDF CONCENTRATION DATA 18
3.1 VARIABILITY IN DETECTION LEVELS 18
3.2 FITTING OF DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS 20
4. ANALYSIS OF FIELD AND LAB DUPLICATE SAMPLES 28
4.1 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DUPLICATE PAIRS 28
4.2 ANALYSIS OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE VARIABILITY 30
5. PARTITIONING OF TCDD/TCDF MASSES INTO EXPORT MATRICES 52
5.1 VARIABILITY ACROSS EXPORT VECTORS 52
5.2 KRAFT VERSUS SULFITE MILLS 53
5.3 ACT VERSUS ASB WASTEWATER TREATMENT 55
5.4 OVERALL.PARTITIONING OF TCDD/TCDF 56
6. ANALYSIS OF TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 84
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
7. MODELING TCDD/F FORMATION AS A FUNCTION OF MILL OPERATING
PARAMETERS
7.1 REGRESSION ANALYSES
7.1.1 Effects of Chlorine Bleaching
7.1.2 Effect of the Chlorine Multiple
7.1.3 Chlorine Dioxide Substitution
7.1.4 Use of Oxygen in Bleaching
7.1.5 Differences in Wood Types
7.2 SUMMARY
APPENDIX A: DATA LISTINGS
APPENDIX B: PROBABILITY PLOTS
REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
4-3
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
7-1
INDUSTRY PROFILE - PULPING
INDUSTRY PROFILE - BLEACHING
INDUSTRY PROFILE - BLEACH LINE CHEMICAL USAGE
STATUS OF U.S. BLEACHERY OPERATIONS: C-STAGE CHLORINATION
AND CHLORINE DIOXIDE SUBSTITUTION
C-STAGE CHLORINE MULTIPLE (KAPPA FACTOR)
INDUSTRY PROFILE - WASTEWATER TREATMENT
DETECTION LEVELS FOR NON-DETECT SAMPLES
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TCDD CONCENTRATION
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TCDF CONCENTRATION
PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DUPLICATE PAIRS
ANOVA TABLE FOR LAB DUPLICATES
ANOVA TABLE FOR FIELD DUPLICATES
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR DIOXIN
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR DIOXIN (BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT)
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FURAN
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR FURAN (BY WASTEWATER TREATMENT)
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PULPING PROCESSES
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TREATMENT TYPES
STATISTICS FOR TCDD/TCDF (BY MILL PROCESS)
STATISTICS FOR TCDD/TCDF (BY MILL PROCESS)
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TSS
TCDD EXPORTS (TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY)
TCDF EXPORTS (TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY)
TCDD EXPORTS FOR ACT TREATMENT/KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TCDF EXPORTS FOR ACT TREATMENT/KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TCDD EXPORTS FOR ASB TREATMENT/KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TCDF EXPORTS FOR ASB TREATMENT/KRAFT MILLS ONLY
SUMMARY STATISTICS: BREAKDOWN BY CIO, USAGE
104
105
106
107
107
107
108
108
126
144
164
PAGE
7
7
8
9
10
12
19
24
26
31
33
34
58
59
60
61
66
76
82
83
89
94
95
100
101
102
103
110
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE PAGE
7-2 SUMMARY STATISTICS: BREAKDOWN BY 02 USAGE 111
7-3 REGRESSIONS OF CHLORINE USAGE (KRAFT MILLS ONLY) 121
7-4 REGRESSIONS OF CHLORINE MULTIPLE (KRAFT MILLS ONLY) 122
7-5 REGRESSIONS OF C102 SUBSTITUTION (KRAFT MILLS ONLY) 123
A-l 104 MILL DATA LISTING 127
A-2 TCDD/TCDF CONCENTRATION DATA 129
A-3 TCDD/TCDF FIELD DUPLICATES 139
A-4 TCDD/TCDF LAB DUPLICATES 141
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
3-1 SAMPLE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH: EFFLUENT TCDD 21
DETECTION LEVELS
3-2 SAMPLE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH: EFFLUENT TCDF 22
DETECTION LEVELS
4-1 PULP FIELD DUPLICATES/TCDD 36-
4-2 PULP FIELD DUPLICATES/TCDF 37
4-3 PULP LAB DUPLICATES/TCDD 38
4-4 PULP LAB DUPLICATES/TCDF 39
4-5 SLUDGE FIELD DUPLICATES/TCDD 4.0
4-6 SLUDGE FIELD DUPLICATES/TCDF 41
4-7 SLUDGE LAB DUPLICATES/TCDD 42
4-8 SLUDGE LAB DUPLICATES/TCDF 43
4-9 EFFLUENT FIELD DUPLICATES/TCDD 44
4-10 EFFLUENT FIELD DUPLICATES/TCDF 45
4-11 EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES/TCDD 46
4-12 EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES/TCDF 47
4-13 EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES: KRAFT MILLS ONLY/TCDD 48
4-14 EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES: SULFITE MILLS ONLY/TCDD 49
4-15 EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES: KRAFT MILLS ONLY/TCDF 50
4-16 EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES: SULFITE MILLS ONLY/TCDF 51
5-1 PERCENT OUTPUT BY MATRIX/TCDD 62
5-2 PERCENT OUTPUT BY MATRIX/TCDF 63
5-3 ADJUSTED TCDD BY MATRIX 64
5-4 ADJUSTED TCDF BY MATRIX 65
5-5 PERCENT OUTPUT BY TREATMENT/EFFLUENT TCDD 68
5-6 PERCENT OUTPUT BY TREATMENT/SLUDGE TCDD 69
5-7 PERCENT OUTPUT BY TREATMENT/EFFLUENT TCDF 70
5-8 PERCENT OUTPUT BY TREATMENT/SLUDGE TCDF 71
5-9 ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDD 72
5-10 ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDD 73
5-11 ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDF 74
5-12 ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDF 75
5-13 TOTAL TCDD EXPORTS (Ibs/day * E+06) 78
5-14 TOTAL OUTPUT: TCDD (KRAFT AND SULFITE MILLS) 79
5-15 TOTAL TCDF EXPORTS (Ibs/day * E+06) 80
5-16 TOTAL OUTPUT: TCDF (KRAFT AND SULFITE MILLS) 81
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
FIGURE PACE
6-1 TSS BY TREATMENT 88
6-2 EFFLUENT TCDD OUTPUT 90
6-3 SLUDGE TCDD OUTPUT 91
6-4 EFFLUENT TCDF OUTPUT 92
6-5 SLUDGE TCDF OUTPUT 93
6-6 EFFLUENT TCDD OUTPUT BY TREATMENT 96
6-7 SLUDGE TCDD OUTPUT BY TREATMENT 97
6-8 EFFLUENT TCDF OUTPUT BY TREATMENT 98
6-9 SLUDGE TCDF OUTPUT BY TREATMENT 99
7-1 C12 vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDD 112
7-2 C12 vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDF 113
7-3 C12 vs. ADJUSTED TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT 114
7-4 Clz MULTIPLE vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDD 115
7-5 Cla MULTIPLE vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDF 116
7-6 C12 MULTIPLE vs. ADJUSTED TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT 117
7-7 PERCENT C102 SUBSTITUTION vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDD 118
7-8 PERCENT C102 SUBSTITUTION vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDF 119
7-9 PERCENT C10Z SUBSTITUTION vs. TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT 120
7-10 Clj vs. ADJUSTED PULP TCDD 124
7-11 KAPPA # vs. ADJUSTED PULP TCDD 125
B-l PULP TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 145
B-2 PULP TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 146
B-3 SLUDGE TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 147
B-4 SLUDGE TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 148
B-5 EFFLUENT TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 149
B-6 EFFLUENT TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 150
B-7 PULP TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 151
B-8 PULP TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 152
B-9 SLUDGE TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 153
B-10 SLUDGE TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 154
B-ll EFFLUENT TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 155
B-12 EFFLUENT TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 156
B-13 ADJUSTED PULP TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 157
B-14 ADJUSTED PULP TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 158
B-15 ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 159
B-16 ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 160
B-17 ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 161
B-18 ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 162
B-19 TSS PROBABILITY PLOT 163
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
In October 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry jointly released preliminary results from a
screening study that provided the first comprehensive results on the formation
and discharge of chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and dibenzofurans (CDFs)
from pulp and paper mills (1). This screening study of five bleached kraft mills
("Five Mill Study") confirmed that the pulp bleaching process was primarily
responsible for the formation of CDDs and CDFs. The partitioning of these
compounds between the bleached pulp, wastewater treatment sludge, and final
wastewater effluent was found to be highly variable among the mills. The study
results also indicated that 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) were the principal CDDs and CDFs formed.
The final Five Mill Study report was published in March 1988 (2).
To provide EPA with more complete data on the release of these compounds
by the U.S. paper industry, an agreement was reached in April 1988 between EPA
and the industry to conduct a second study to characterize the 104 U.S. mills
that practiced chlorine bleaching of chemically produced pulps (3). The scope
of the study was developed by EPA and industry, and the study was managed by the
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
(NCASI), with EPA overview. The data from this study provided an estimate of
the release of TCDD and TCDF in three environmental export vectors (i.e.,
bleached pulp, sludge, and effluent) from the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry as
of mid- to late 1988.
This section presents the major features of the study design, including
the field sampling program, the analytical program, and data handling; and a
profile of the industry at the time the study was conducted, comprising pulping
and bleaching characteristics, bleach line chemical usage during sampling, and
wastewater treatment.
-------
The remainder of the report provides details of the statistical analyses
and study results, and consists of the following sections:
• Section 2, summary of the findings
• Section 3, characterization of the TCDD/TCDF concentration data
• Section 4, analysis of duplicate samples
• Section 5, partitioning of TCDD/TCDF mass rates into mill exports
• Section 6, analysis of total suspended solids
• Section 7, modeling of TCDD/TCDF formation in terras of mill operating
parameters
A listing of the data used in the analyses is also provided in appendix
A. This report and a separate summary document were prepared independently by
EPA. The paper industry, through NCASI, has also prepared a report of the 104
Mill Study (4). Preliminary study results were presented by EPA and NCASI in
September 1989 (5) and will be published in Chemosphere. This report includes
data received by EPA from NCASI as of April 1990 and comprises more than 98
percent of the data required by the study objectives.
When reviewing the study results, it is important to keep in mind that the
principal objective of the 104 Mill Study was to characterize exports from the
104 mills in terms of TCDD and TCDF. The study was not designed to address
mechanisms of formation of these compounds or to determine the best technologies
for treating these compounds in wastewaters. Nonetheless, the study results
permit some useful observations in these areas as well.
1.1 STUDY FEATURES
All U.S. pulp and paper mills where chemically produced wood pulps are
bleached with chlorine and chlorine derivatives were included in the Agreement
for the 104 Mill Study (3). Although mills included in the Five Mill Study were
not resampled for the 104 Mill Study, TCDD/TCDF data and mill operating and
wastewater treatment information from the Five Mill Study have been included in
-------
this analysis. Consolidated Paper independently conducted a study at its
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin mill. Due to differences in sampling and analytical
protocols, the data for TCDD/TCDF from this mill were not included. However,
mill characteristics and wastewater treatment information for Consolidated Paper
are included in the industry profile presented in subsection 1.2.
1.1.1 Field Sampling Program
The Agreement for the 104 Mill Study required that each significant export
vector (fully bleached pulp, wastewater sludge, and final wastewater effluent)
be sampled and that the samples be composited over a S-day period (3). In most
cases, the composite samples consisted of up to eight aliquots obtained
throughout the sampling day. Nearly all sampling was performed by mill personnel
following guidance established by NCASI. In a few cases, NCASI personnel
conducted the sampling. The sampling protocols closely followed those
established for the Five Mill Study (2).
The pulp samples taken were of the highest brightness pulp produced at each
bleach line. At mills with two bleach lines where hardwood and softwood pulps
are bleached separately, separate hardwood and softwood composite pulp samples
were collected. At mills with a single bleach line where both hardwood and
softwood pulps are bleached (i.e., a swing line), sampling was conducted
intermittently to ensure that the 5-day composite samples were composed only of
hardwood or softwood pulp. A few bleach, lines processed mixtures of hardwood
and softwood pulps. The composite samples from these lines were classified by
the percent of softwood pulp in the mixture.
Sludge samples consisted only of those sludges removed from the wastewater
treatment system and disposed of in landfills, by incineration, or by other
methods. For mills with Activated Sludge Vastewater Treatment (ACT), the sludge
samples generally consisted of combined primary and secondary sludge; for mills
with Aerated Stabilization Basins (ASB), only primary sludges were sampled. In
most cases, the sludges were dewatered prior to offsite disposal; however,
several primary sludges were collected in a low consistency slurry form.
-------
More than 90 sampled effluents were collected from mills with biological
treatment. For eight mills, the samples consisted of partially treated effluents
prior to discharge to municipal wastevater treatment plants. Two mills with
direct ocean discharges provided samples of untreated effluents. Another
untreated effluent was sampled at a mill that used a percolation pond for
wastewater disposal.
This sampling scheme generated over 400 samples for isomer-specific TCDD
and TCDF analyses. About 80 additional samples were collected as part of the
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plan. These samples were analyzed as
field duplicates and/or included in native spike determinations. The data is
listed in Appendix A. In addition, mill operators were required to provide
process operating data for bleacheries and wastewater treatment plants. These
data were collected to document operation of the processes at the time of
sampling.
1.1.2 Analytical Program
The Brehm Laboratory at Wright State University (USU), Dayton, Ohio,
performed analytical methods development work for isomer-specific determinations
of TCDD and TCDF in pulp and paper mill matrices and completed analyses of all
samples for the Five Mill Study (2). Analytical work for the present study was
conducted by Enseco-California Analytical Laboratories (CAL) in West Sacramento,
California, and USU. Enseco-CAL conducted most of the sludge and effluent
analyses, while WSU analyzed most of the pulp samples.
The analytical methods used in the 104 Mill Study were consistent with the
screening study protocols established for the Five Mill Study (2). Analytical
objectives for target detection levels for TCDD and TCDF were 1 ng/kg (parts
per trillion [ppt]) for sludges and pulps, and 0.01 ng/kg (ppt) for wastewater
effluents. The Agreement specified identification and quantitation criteria for
TCDD/TCDF and required that NCASI manage QA/QC programs for the study. NCASI
staff performed and coordinated sample preparation, submitted samples to the
analytical laboratory, and reviewed laboratory data reports. Nearly all
analytical results met the QA/QC objectives established for the study. Several
-------
samples required re-analysis to obtain valid data; however, the proportion of
such samples was less than 6 percent of the total.
1.1.3 Data Handling
To ensure consistent reporting of bleach plant and wastewater treatment
information, NCASI developed specific forms for mill personnel to report bleach
line operating characteristics, bleach line chemical applications, and wastewater
treatment operations. Copies of these forms, as well as schematic diagrams of
the bleacheries and wastewater treatment facilities, were provided to EPA by
NCASI for most mills. For those few mills which requested confidential treatment
of certain data, the forms were submitted directly to EPA by mill operators.
NCASI submitted final analytical results to EPA as they were developed in
conformance with the QA/QC protocols specified in the Agreement (3).
EPA and NCASI independently developed data summaries in spreadsheet format
to characterize bleach line operating characteristics; mass flow rates of
bleached pulp, wastewater sludge, and wastewater effluent; and mass flows of
TCDD and TCDF estimated in mill exports. The respective spreadsheet entries were
compared several times and corrections made as appropriate. Prior to conducting
detailed statistical analyses, EPA had a contractor further compare the
spreadsheets against the original report forms. All discrepancies were resolved
and the spreadsheets updated. New databases were then created by uploading the
data from the spreadsheets to the EPA mainframe computer.
1.2 INDUSTRY PROFILE
At the time the 104 Mill Study field program was underway (mid- to late
1988 for most mills), the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry was characterized by
limited application of those pulping and bleaching practices demonstrated to have
the potential to reduce formation of TCDD/TCDF. Since that time, many mill
operators have initiated programs to institute improved pulping and bleaching
technologies and operating practices. This industry profile, however, does not
reflect any changes made by U.S. paper mills since the end of 1988.
-------
1.2.1 Pulping and Bleaching
Tables 1-1 and 1-2 present the industry profile for pulping and bleaching
of those mills included in the study. This segment of the U.S. industry
comprises 86 kraft pulping mills, 16 sulfite mills, 1 soda mill, and 1 mill with
both kraft and sulfite pulping. More than half of the bleach lines at kraft
mills are used for bleaching softwoods exclusively and 40 percent for bleaching
hardwoods. The balance of the bleach lines are either swing lines or used to
bleach hardwood/softwood pulp mixtures. For sulfite mills, half the bleach lines
are used for softwood pulps, nearly 40 percent for hardwood pulps, and the
balance for mixed pulps.
1.2.2 Bleach Line Chemical Usage
Table 1-3 summarizes the number and percentage of bleach lines with oxygen
delignification systems and other chemical usage in pre-bleaching and final
bleaching. The data were provided by mill operators during the sampling surveys.
During that period, the industry was characterized by low utilization of oxygen
delignification, relatively low utilization of oxygen reinforced extraction, low
utilization of peroxide reinforced extraction, and relatively high utilization
of hypochlorite in both pre-bleaching and final bleaching.
The status of bleachery operations in the U.S. industry in mid- to late
1988 with respect to chlorine usage and chlorine dioxide substitution is
summarized in Table 1-4. Note that about 35 percent of the kraft mill bleach
lines were operated with no chlorine dioxide in the C-Stage, and less than 2
percent of the kraft mill bleach lines had chlorine dioxide substitution rates
greater than 50 percent.
Table 1-5 presents a summary of chlorine multiples (Kappa factor)
determined for kraft and sulfite bleach lines at the time of sampling. The
chlorine multiple is the ratio of the amount of active chlorine used in pulp
bleaching in the C-Stage to the amount of lignin contained in brownscock or
oxygen delignified pulp as characterized by the Kappa number. Eleven percent
-------
TABLE 1-1. INDUSTRY PROFILE - PULPING
Type
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft and Sulftte
Soda
Total
Number of Mills
86
16
1
1
104
TABLE 1-2. INDUSTRY PROFILE - BLEACHING
Woodtvoe
Hardwood
Softwood
Mixed HW/SW
Total
Number of Bleach Lines
Kraft Sulfite Soda
67 7 1
89 9
9 2
165
18
Note: Kraft hardwood and softwood bleach
line data include 14 swing lines
counted as both hardwood and
softwood lines.
-------
TABLE 1-3. INDUSTRY PROFILE - BLEACH LINE CHEMICAL USAGE
Chemical Usage
Oxygen Delignification
Pre-bleaching
C-Stage C12
C-Stage C102
E-Stage 02
E-Stage NaOCl
E-Stage H202
Final Bleaching
C102
NaOCl
Number of Bleach Lines (2)
Kraft Sulfite Soda
7 (4.2) - ( 0) - ( 0)
165
105
78
47
2
147
90
25
(100)
( 64)
( 47)
( 28)
(1.2)
( 89)
( 55)
( 15)
16
1
4
1
1
4
14
1
( 89)
(5.6)
( 22)
(5.6)
(5.6)
( 22)
( 78)
(5.6)
1
1
1
1
(100)
(100)
(100)
( 0)
( 0)
(100)
( 0)
( 0)
-------
TABLE 1-4. STATUS OF U.S. BLEACHERY OPERATIONS: C-STAGE
CHLORINATION AND CHLORINE DIOXIDE SUBSTITUTION
Kraft Mill Bleach Lines
Chlorine Application
Lbs Cl,/Ton ADBSP Bleach Lines
< 40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
> 140
15
22
32
36
28
16
16
Substitution
Percent Bleach Lines
0
< 5
5-10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
> 70
59
16
41
33
9
1
3
1
1
1
TOTAL
165
TOTAL 165
Sulfite Mill Bleach Lines
< 40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100-120
120-140
> 140
2
1
2
6
3
4
0
0
< 5
> 5
17
1
0
TOTAL 18
TOTAL 18
Notes: Bleachery operations for swing lines were counted twice,
separately for hardwood and softwood pulps.
ADBSP - Air-dried brownscock pulp.
-------
TABLE 1-5. C-STAGE CHLORINE MULTIPLE (KAPPA FACTOR)
Number of Bleach Lines
Chlorine Multiple
Sulfite
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
< 0.10
- < 0.15
- < 0.20
- < 0.25
- < 0.30
> 0.30
4
15
51
54
17
14
TOTAL
155
18
Notes: Chlorine multiple was computed from active
chlorine (C12 and C102) applied in the C-Stage.
Chlorine multiples could not be computed for 10
kraft mill bleach lines because of incomplete
data.
10
-------
of che sampled bleach lines were operated with average chlorine multiples less
than 0.15.
1.2.3 Wastewater Treatment
The status of wastewater treatment provided at the 104 paper mills is
summarized in Table 1-6. The industry standard consists of primary treatment
followed by secondary biological treatment. Eight mills discharge to publicly
owned treatment works (POTUs) after primary treatment, and two have no treatment.
Uastewaters from one mill are disposed of in a percolation pond. About 35
percent of kraft mills have ACT and more than half have ASB. For sulfite mills,
nearly 70Z have ACT while almost 20Z use ASB.
11
-------
TABLE 1-6. INDUSTRY PROFILE - WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Treatment Type
ACT
ASB
Discharge to POTW
Discharge to Other Mill UWTP
Percolation Pond
No Treatment
Kraft
32
45
7
1
2
TOTAL 87
Number of Mills
Sulfite Soda
11
3 1
1
1
16 1
43
49
8
1
1
2
104
Note: The mill with kraft and sulfite pulping was listed as a kraft
mill for purposes of this table.
12
-------
2. SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL FINDINGS
The following discussion summarizes Che statistical findings from the
Mill Study of U.S. bleached pulp mills. The conclusions are necessarily limited
in scope, due to the design of the study. More information was available for
kraft mills than sulfite; therefore, some statistical findings are reported only
for kraft mills. The results do provide, though, the basis for several useful
observations.
2.1 CHARACTERIZING TCDD/TCDF CONCENTRATION DATA
Examination of the laboratory analyses of samples collected at each mill
indicated that the detected concentration values of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3, 7 ,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) were best approximated
by lognormal distributions, estimated separately for each of the export matrices
-- pulp, sludge, and effluent. A number of non-detected measurements were also
reported in the data. Analysis of the mass formation rates of TCDD/TCDF required
that values be associated with these non-detects. For the purposes of this
study, such measurements were assigned a value equal to half the detection level.
This step allowed non-detect samples to be used in a reasonable and
consistent manner without distorting the basic findings: (1) the vast majority
of all samples had detectable concentrations, with only 15 percent of all TCDD
samples and 4 percent of TCDF samples reported as non-detects, (2) the ratio of
detectable levels of TCDF to TCDD was fairly consistent from mill to mill, yet
less than 4 percent of all the samples were reported as non-detects for both TCDD
and TCDF, (3) every mill was found to have detectable levels of TCDD/TCDF in at
least one of the export vectors.
Setting non-detect values to half the detection level also represented a
compromise between underestimation (assigning non-detect values to zero) and
overestimation (assigning non-detect values to the detection level) of the
unknown actual concentrations.
13
-------
2.2 VARIABILITY IN DUPLICATE SAMPLE ANALYSES
Approximately 30 percent of all the samples were classified as field sample
duplicates or lab duplicate splits. Analysis of these duplicate samples for each
matrix (effluent, pulp, and sludge) indicated excellent agreement between
duplicate measurements of TCDD/TCDF concentrations. Most sample correlations
between pairs of duplicate measurements were found to above 0.95. Consequently,
the proportion of total variability in TCDD/TCDF levels that could be attributed
to field sampling protocol or analytical technique was in all cases small
relative to other sources of variation. In the worst case observed, analytical
measurement error was still less than 12 percent of the total variability in TCDF
concentrations.
2.3 DETECTION LEVELS FOR NON-DETECTED MEASUREMENTS
The reported detection levels for non-detected measurements of TCDD/TCDF
demonstrate that the laboratories were capable of achieving the target detection
levels of 10 parts per quadrillion (ppq) for effluent measurements.
2.4 TOTAL MASS FORMATION ESTIMATES OF TCDD/TCDF
By combining Che TCDD/TCDF concentration data with mill production rates
of pulp, sludge, and effluent, rates of TCDD/TCDF mass formation were computed
for the export matrices at each mill. Estimates of the daily total mass output
rates of TCDD/TCDF at U.S. bleached pulp mills were 0.004 Ibs/day for TCDD and
0.032 Ibs/day for TCDF. Output rates for individual mills varied substantially;
however, the per mill averages were 0.00005 Ibs of TCDD and 0.00048 Ibs of TCDF
exported daily in pulp, sludge, and treated effluent.
2.5 VARIABILITY IN PARTITIONING OF TCDD/TCDF TO DIFFERENT EXPORT MATRICES
The relative amounts of TCDD/TCDF partitioned to pulp, sludge, or effluent
vectors were not found to be consistent from mill to mill, but highly variable.
While some mills partitioned less than 10 percent of their total TCDD/TCDF mass
to effluent, effluent-based TCDD/TCDF accounted for more than 80 percent of the
14
-------
exports at other mills. The variability in partitioning of pulp and sludge
export vectors was similar. Among the least extreme cases (middle 50 percent
of all mills), the relative percentage of TCDD/TCDF exported to specific matrices
differed by more than 30 percent from mill to mill.
2.6 DIFFERENCES DUE TO PULPING AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Comparisons showed that significantly more TCDD/TCDF was exported at krafc
mills than sulfite mills for each matrix type. Differences also emerged between
wastewater treatment types Aerated Stabilization Basins (ASB) and Activated
Sludge Wastewater Treatment (ACT). There was evidence that mills using ACT
exported somewhat less effluent-based TCDD/TCDF mass on average and significantly
more sludge-based TCDD/TCDF mass than mills using ASB systems. The difference
in sludge exports can be partially attributed to the fact that ACT sludge samples
in the 104 Mill Study consisted of combined primary and secondary sludges. Those
from ASB systems consisted only of primary sludge.
2.7 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Further investigation was made of the relationships between TCDD/TCDF mass
exports in sludge and effluent vectors, wastewater treatment types, and levels
of total suspended solids (TSS) from kraft mills. When ACT and ASB-type kraft
mills were combined, a weakly correlated positive trend was observed between
effluent TCDD/TCDF and TSS levels, and a weakly correlated negative trend was
observed between TSS and sludge TCDD/TCDF. For kraft mills using only ACT
treatment, higher TSS levels were associated with higher sludge-based TCDD/TCDF
exports but lower effluent-based TCDD/TCDF exports.
2.8 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TCDD/TCDF FORMATION AND MILL OPERATING
CHARACTERISTICS
When the effects of mill bleaching procedures upon TCDD/TCDF formation in
kraft mills were analyzed, correlations between mass export rates of TCDD/TCDF
and a series of mill parameters, including application rates of bleaching and
extraction chemical agents, were generally low. Consequently, linear regressions
15
-------
of the TCDD/TCDF export rates fit to bleaching measures at each mill were found
to be poor predictors of individual mill outputs.
2.9 EFFECTS OF CHLORINE APPLICATION IN PRE- BLEACHING
Significant positive trends were observed between average TCDD/TCDF
formation in kraft mills and the rate of application of chlorine (C12) in the C-
Stage bleaching process. Greater chlorine usage was thus found to be
statistically associated with higher formation rates of TCDD/TCDF. It was also
found that increased substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the C-
Stage was correlated with slight reductions in TCDD/TCDF formation. Lack of
chlorine dioxide use at high rates of substitution during the study sampling
period precluded more detailed analysis of the impact of chlorine dioxide (C102)
substitution.
2.10 EFFECT OF THE CHLORINE MULTIPLE
Variables measuring the chlorine multiple (also known as the Kappa" factor)
during C-stage bleaching were positively associated with TCDD/TCDF mass formation
in kraft mills, though the resulting correlations were fairly weak. These
results imply that on average, when accounting for lignin content, greater use
of chlorine in the C-stage was linked weakly to higher formation of TCDD/TCDF.
2.11 USE OF OXYGEN IN THE BLEACHING PROCESS
Kraft mills that used oxygen delignification in the bleaching process
exhibited somewhat lower rates of TCDD/TCDF formation than mills that did not
use such methods. The sane mills, however, also tended to have high substitution
rates of C102 for C12, so it is not clear whether the lower export rates of
TCDD/TCDF observed at these mills were attributable to oxygen delignification,
chlorine dioxide substitution, or some combination of both.
16
-------
2.12 DIFFERENCES IN WOOD TYPES
Larger amounts of chlorine were generally applied to softwood pulps than to
hardwood pulps per ton of pulp processed in kraft mills, and the average Kappa
numbers of softwood pulps were significantly higher than those of hardwood pulps.
These findings are consistent with known differences in bleaching practices for
hardwood versus softwood pulps.
17
-------
3. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TCDD/TCDF CONCENTRATION DATA
This section characterizes the laboratory data reported to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the concentration levels of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF) found in samples of pulp, sludge, and effluent collected as part of the
104 Mill Study. The reported data were examined for distributional properties
and skewness and fit to appropriate probability distributions. The sensitivity
of subsequent analyses to non-detected measurements was assessed. Attempts were
made to handle non-detected samples in a reasonable and consistent manner that
would not distort the basic findings.
After examining the raw concentrations, the appropriateness of fitting TCDD
and TCDF values to separate lognormal distributions was investigated. Only
detected concentration values were examined for distributional fit.
Approximately 15 percent of all the TCDD analyses and 4 percent of the TCDF
analyses were recorded as non-detects. The detection levels for these non-
detected measurements are summarized in Table 3-1.
3.1 VARIABILITY IN DETECTION LEVELS
The variation in detection levels reported for non-detects (Table 3-1) can
be attributed to several sources. Reliable measurement of TCDD/TCDF levels is
matrix-dependent, a fact reflected in the analytical detection level targets for
effluent samples, which were different from the targets for pulp and sludge.
In addition, the presence of other compounds can make identification of TCDD/TCDF
difficult without dilution of the sample, leading to detection levels that can
be sample-specific.
The Enseco-California Analytical Laboratory (CAL) and the Wright State
University (WSU) lab each analyzed at least some samples from every matrix.
Almost 80 percent of the pulp samples were analyzed at WSU, while 89 percent of
the effluent samples and 81 percent of the sludge samples were handled by CAL.
Since these laboratories used somewhat different clean-up and routine handling
18
-------
TABLE 3-1. DETECTION LEVELS FOR NON-DETECT SAMPLES
Pulp Non-Detects (ppt^ TCDD TCDF
N of Cases
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Dev.
Median
39
0.100
4.900
0.667
0.805
0.500
11
0.100
6.800
1.218
1.880
0.800
SludEe Non-Detects (ppt) TCDD TCDF
N of Cases 4 0
Minimum 0.300
Maximum 3.000
Mean 1.650
Standard Dev. 1.121
Median 1.650
Effluent Non-Detects (PPQ) TCDD TCDF
N of Cases 30 11
Minimum 3.000 2.100
Maximum 17.000 10.000
Mean 7.733 5.764
Standard Dev. 2.789 2.458
Median 7.500 5.800
19
-------
procedures, it would be possible Co expect different detection levels for samples
of a given matrix, depending on which lab performed the analysis.
Overall, the analytical objectives of the 104 Mill Study were generally
met. Ninety-two percent of non-detect pulp samples had reported detection levels
at or below the 1 part per trillion (ppt) target level established in the
Agreement (3). All but four sludge samples had detectable concentrations of
TCDD/TCDF. Of these four, one was below the target detection level. For
effluent samples, the target level of 10 parts per quadrillion (ppq) was achieved
in the analyses of 83 percent of the TCDD non-detects and 100 percent of the TCDF
non-detects (Figures 3-1 and 3-2).
3.2 FITTING OF DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS
For the detected sample concentrations, graphical goodness of fit was done
via lognormal probability plots (base 10 scale), matching the ordered
concentration levels against the expected values of a lognormal distribution.
When data are well-approximated by a lognormal density, such plots closely
resemble a straight line. Examination of the plots showed that the data were
adequately fit by lognormal densities estimated separately for each export matrix
of pulp, effluent, and sludge samples (plots are located in appendix B).
As noted, only detected values were used to characterize the distributions
of TCDD/TCDF concentrations within each matrix. Estimates for non-detects
measurements, however, were needed for later stages of the analysis. To handle
non-detects in a simple, consistent manner, non-detect values were assigned as
half the reported detection level.
Decision on the treatment of non-detected samples depends upon the purposes
of the analysis and the specific nature of the data. In this case, over 96
percent of all the quantitated samples in the 104 Mill Study exhibited detectable
levels of either TCDD or TCDF, including at least one matrix export from every
mill. Since the ratio of detectable levels of TCDF to TCDD was fairly consistent
from mill to mill, there was evidence that non-detected samples contained small
positive concentrations of TCDD/TCDF. Setting non-detects to zero would tend
20
-------
FIGl
3-1
SAMPLE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH
EFFLUENT TCDD DETECTION LEVELS
0
5 10 15
Cone of 2378-TCDD (in PPQ)
-------
HICiURE 3-2
SAMPLE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION GRAPH
EFFLUENT TCDF DETECTION LEVELS
K)
G
.2
•»-»
o
V
1.0
08 -
06
o 0.4
o
o.
o
£ 02
E
P
° 0.0
8
10
12
Cone of 2378-TCDF (in PPQ)
-------
to underestimate the true concentrations of TCDD/TCDF. On the other hand, EPA
has frequently assigned non-detects to their detection levels, since the
detection levels provide an upper bound on the actual concentrations present in
non-detected samples.
Setting non-detects to half the detection level is an arbitrary choice,
but has been used with environmental data to steer a "middle ground" between
over- and underestimation of the unknown concentrations within non-detected
samples (6,7). Since the proportion of non-detects among the total sample set
was relatively small, the choice to set non-detects at half the detection level
was also considered unlikely to seriously affect the final TCDD/TCDF mass
loadings computed at each paper mill.
To illustrate this last point, Tables 3-2 and 3-3 present summary
statistics of the TCDD/TCDF concentrations under different assumptions concerning
the values of non-detects; the first section summarizes detected concentration
values only, while the others report all TCDD/TCDF concentrations after setting
non-detects equal to either half the detection level, zero, or the detection
level. Some differences are apparent in the tables, particularly for pulp and
effluent TCDD samples at sulfite mills, but overall, the discrepancies were
judged to be relatively minor when weighed against the precision of the data as
a whole.
In summary, the detected concentration values of TCDD/TCDF were found to
be best approximated by lognormal distributions, which were estimated separately
for each of the export matrices: pulp, sludge, and effluent. Non-detects were
consistently assigned to half the detection level in all subsequent analyses.
23
-------
TABLE 3-2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TCDO OCHCEHTRATIOHS
Mattl«
All Sample*
Pulp (ppt)
HH
SW
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kreft Saeaplea
Pulp (ppt)
HH
SW
Sludg* (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Sulflt* Saeaple*
Pulp (ppt)
HH
SH
Sludg* (ppt)
ECflu*nt (ppq)
Matrix
All Sa^lee
Pulp (ppt}
HH
SH
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kraft Saejplea
Pulp (ppt)
HH
SH
Sludg* (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Sulflt*
Pulp (ppt)
HH
SH
Jga (ppt)
Luent (ppq)
217
84
114
118
133
194
74
104
97
107
18
8
8
19
25
DETECTED SAMPLES OMLT
Lower
He an Std Minimum Maximum Quart! la Median
3.50
2.80
4. 12
10.63
15.00
3.55
2.80
4.17
14.00
16 00
2.38
2.00
3.50
3.42
9.72
ROM-DETECTS - 1/2 DETECTION LEVEL
179
65
100
114
103
173
62
98
94
90
4
3
1
18
12
10.44
7.48
12.02
86.32
68.22
10.46
7.50
12.11
100.86
7S.es
6.22
7.13
3.50
13.22
13.33
12.85
9.53
14.73
169.43
100.80
13.00
9.68
14.86
183.08
105.67
5.93
6.92
16.61
5.71
8.66
5.84
10.59
83.42
53.70
9.36
6.32
11.43
97.77
64.47
1.63
2.81
0.62
12.53
8.16
0.
0
0
0
3.
0.
0.
o
0.
3
2
2
3
0
4
400
400
500
.400
100
.400
400
500
900
100
000
.000
.500
.400
.500
116.00
55.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
116.00
55.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
15.00
15.00
3.50
58.00
23.00
Std
12.29
8.91
14.32
167.23
92.63
12.68
9.25
14.68
181.03
100.34
3.56
5. 15
1. 14
16.42
6.41
Minimum
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.150
1.500
0.050
0.050
0.250
0.700
1.500
0.100
0. 100
0. 150
0 150
2.100
Lower
Ba«limmi Quartl le
116.00
55.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
116.00
55.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
15.00
15.00
3.50
.00
.00
1.90
0.70
3.20
8.77
6.15
2.40
1.57
3.92
13.50
9.20
0. 15
0. It
0. 19
3.20
3.27
Median
6.00
4. 10
7.60
34.00
30.00
6.00
4.00
7.60
39.00
35.00
3 95
4.40
3.50
4. 75
12.00
Median
4.70
3.30
6.30
32.00
19.00
5.15
3. 50
6.50
37 40
24.00
0.30
0.32
0.32
4.70
4. 50
Upper
Quart! la
14.00
7.70
14.75
96.50
82.00
13.50
7.70
15.05
105.25
95.07
12.35
15.00
3. 50
15.25
16.00
Upper
Quartl le
11.00
6.00
13.25
95.25
63.00
12.00
6.25
14.00
104. 50
ei.oo
1.47
3.80
1. 10
14.00
12.00
90ii
Percentlle
23.00
17.00
26.90
188.00
172.00
24.20
17.00
27.00
203.00
189.00
15 00
15.00
3.50
48.10
22.70
9012
PercenLlle
21.00
16.00
25.50
165.60
138.00
22.00
16.50
26.50
197.00
164.00
5.46
15. OD
3.50
47.00
20.20
-------
TABLE 3-2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOB TCDD UUBUJUHATIOBS (OOmillUED)
Matrix
All SaBBj>L«B
Pulp (ppt)
BW
SH
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kraft 8aBf>lejs
Pulp (ppt)
UN
SH
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Suit It* 8aa*>L«a
Pulp (ppt)
BW
SH
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Matrt»
All S«f>U*
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SH
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kraft S«-pl«e
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SH
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Sulflte Saaiplaa
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SH
Sludge (ppt)
HOB-DETECTS - 0
Lower
He an Std Minimum Maximum Quarttle Median
217
at
114
118
133
194
74
104
97
107
IB
19
25
217
64
114
118
133
194
74
104
97
107
IB
8
a
19
8.61
i.79
10.55
83.39
52.83
9.33
6.28
11.41
97.74
63.80
1.38
2.67
0.41
12.53
6.40
12.33
8.94
14.35
167.25
93.12
12.70
9.28
14.70
181.05
100.76
3.65
5.23
1.24
16.42
7.82
Mean Std
8.71
5.89
10.64
83.45
54.58
9.39
6.35
11.45
97.81
65.15
1.88
2.95
1 20
12.5*
12.26
8.88
14.28
167.22
92. 18
12.66
9.23
14.67
181.01
99.95
3.49
5.07
1.19
16.4}
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
I-DETECTS
Minimum
0.100
0.100
0.200
0.300
3.000
0.100
0.100
0.500
0.900
3.000
0.200
0.200
0.300
0.300
116.00
55.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
116.00
35.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
15.00
15.00
3.50
38.00
23.00
- DBTECTIOH
Ha»lmun
116.00
55.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
L16.00
55.70
116.00
1390.00
640.00
15.00
15.00
3.50
SB. 00
1.90
0.70
3.20
8.77
5.75
2.40
1.57
3.92
13.50
9.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.20
0.00
LEVEL
Lonor
Quartlle
1.95
1.00
3.20
8.77
8.75
2.40
1.57
3.92
13.50
11.00
0.30
0.32
0.37
3.20
Median
4. 70
3.30
6.30
32.00
19.00
5. IS
3. SO
6. SO
37.40
24.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.70
0.00
Median
4.70
3.30
6.30
32.00
19.00
5.15
3.50
6. 50
37.40
24.00
0.60
0.65
0.65
4.70
Upper
Quattile
11.00
6.00
13.25
95.25
63.00
12.00
6.25
14.00
104.50
81.00
0.50
3.80
0.00
14.00
12.00
Upper
Quartlle
11.00
6.00
13.25
95.25
63.00
12.00
6.25
14.00
104.50
Bl .00
2. IS
3.80
2.20
14.00
90"
Percentile
21.00
16.00
25.50
185.60
138.00
22.00
16.50
26.50
197.00
164.00
5.46
IS. 00
3.50
47.00
20.20
90!i
Pvrcentlle
21.00
16.00
25.50
185.60
139.00
22.00
16.50
26.50
197.00
164.00
5.46
15.00
3.50
47 00
-------
Pulp (ppt)
HW
. SW
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kraft Sample!
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Sulfite See^lee
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
plaa
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kraft Sanplaa
Pulp (ppt)
KM
SW
Sludge (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Sulfite Saa^lea
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
~'udge (ppt)
luent (ppq)
TABLE 3-3. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOB TCDP OOaCBTTRATIGNS
DETECTED SAMPLES OHLT
Lower
N
206
79
108
115
127
167
72
99
97
104
14
5
7
16
21
Mean
89. S3
55. 83
117.69
697.73
412.30
89. SB
56 08
117.98
796.45
476.19
89.36
73.42
125.43
98.63
112.26
Std
251.14
123.24
326.52
2012.20
1108.94
259.27
124.43
337.06
2174.35
1214.02
166.95
139.82
207.71
143.34
194.37
Minimum
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
4
1
1
1
0
2
.600
800
.600
.700
.600
.600
800
700
.400
200
.100
100
.400
.700
.800
BOM-DETECTS -
N
216
84
113
115
138
192
74
102
97
111
19
8
9
16
25
Mean
85.40
52.52
112.50
697.73
379.66
87.26
54.58
114.52
796.45
446.39
65.90
45.99
97.58
98.63
94.55
Std
245.95
120.20
320.07
2012.20
1069.30
256.25
123.05
332.62
2174.35
1180.41
147.50
112.27
188. 16
143.34
182.20
Minimum
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
o
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
.050
150
.050
.700
050
350
350
400
.400
750
050
150
050
700
.050
Mailn;
2620
661
2620
17100
8400
2620
661
2620
17100
8400
449
323
449
584
840
urn
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Quartlle
5.67
4.10
6.32
34.50
36 00
6.80
5 32
7.30
35.10
42.25
2.70
4.10
2. 10
26.75
16.00
Median
19.50
15.00
22.50
107.00
82.00
21.00
17.50
26.00
161.00
98.00
6.35
9.90
6.30
63.00
35.00
Upper
Quartlle
60.
49.
64.
624.
320.
59.
49
63.
675.
359.
100.
174.
409.
85.
120.
22
00
27
00
00
00
75
90
50
75
25
50
00
75
00
90SS
Percentlle
164.20
108.00
230.60
1582.00
864.00
148.20
107.10
185.00
1726.00
1150.00
429.00
323.00
449.00
350.20
376.00
1/2 DETECTION LEVEL
Minimum
2620
661
2620
17100
8400
2620
661
2620
17100
8400
449
323
449
"V
)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Lower
Quarttle
4.22
3 13
5.55
34.50
26.00
5 70
3 97
6.52
35.10
37.00
•0.45
0.30
0 77
26.75
6.00
Median
18.00
14 50
19.00
107.00
69.50
20.00
15.50
22.50
161.00
82.00
3.10
4. 10
3.80
63.00
29.00
Upper
Quartlle
58.
46.
61.
624.
312.
59
49.
60.
675.
340.
9.
21.
207.
85.
91
50
50
45
00
50
00
25
22
50
00
90
97
70
75
00
90JS
Percentlle
154.20
106.50
207.20
1582.00
841.00
144.90
106.50
176.60
1728.00
1064.00
409.00
323.00
449.00
350.20
328.00
-------
TABLE 3-3. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FCB TCDP OJHUJMHATIOBS (CCMTimjED)
Mean
•OH-DETBCTS - 0
Lower Uppar
Std Mlnlnmro Maximum Quartlla Median Quartlla
Percent 1 la
All Sables
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
Sludg* (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kraft Sanies
Pulp (ppt)
HH
SW
Sludg. (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Sulflta Saaftla
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
Sludg* (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
HetrU
All Samples
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
Sludg* (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Kraft SanpLem
Pulp (ppt)
HW
SW
Sludg« (ppt)
Effluent (ppq)
Sulflte Samples
Pulp (ppU
HW
SM
Sludge (ppL)
Effluent (ppq)
216
84
113
113
138
192
74
102
97
111
19
8
9
16
25
85.38
52.30
112.48
697.73
379.43
87.25
34.37
114.51
796.43
446.16
65.83
43.89
97.36
98.63
94.30
245.96
120.21
320.08
2012.20
1069.38
236.25
123.03
332.62
2174.33
1180.30
147.33
112.32
188.19
143.34
182.34
216
84
113
113
138
192
74
102
97
111
19
8
9
16
25
Ha an
85.41
32.54
112.31
697.73
379.89
87.27
54.59
114.54
796.45
446.62
65.96
46. 10
97.60
98.63
94.Bl
Std
245.95
120.19
320.06
2012.20
1069.22
256.25
123.04
332.61
2174.35
1180.32
147.48
112.22
188.17
143.14
182.06
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.700
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.400
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.700
0.000
•-DETECTS
Minimum
0.100
0.300
0.100
0.700
2.100
0.600
0.700
0.700
2.400
4.200
0. 100
0.300
0. 100
0. 700
2. 100
2620.00
661.00
2620.00
17100.00
8400.00
2620.00
661.00
2620.00
17100.00
8400.00
449.00
323.00
449.00
564.00
840.00
- DETBCTIOB
Ha» 1 muro
2620.00
661.00
2620.00
17100.00
8400.00
2620.00
661 00
2620 In)
17100.00
8400.00
449.00
323.00
449 00
584.00
840.00
4.22
3.13
5.55
34. 50
26.00
5.70
3.97
6.52
35.10
37.00
0.00
0.00
0.70
26.75
6.00
LEVEL
Lower
Quartlla
4.22
3 13
5.55
34.50
26.00
5.70
3.97
6.52
35.10
37.00
0.90
0.60
0.8i
26. 7S
6.25
18.00
14.50
19.00
107.00
69.50
20.00
15.50
22.50
161.00
82.00
3.10
4.10
3.80
63.00
29.00
Median
18.00
14.50
19.00
107 .00
69.50
20 .00
15.50
22.50
161 .00
82.00
3. 10
4 . 10
3.60
63.00
29.00
58.50
46.50
61.45
624.00
312.50
59.00
49.25
60.22
673.50
340.00
9.90
21.97
207.70
85.75
91.00
Upper
Quartlla
58.50
46.50
61.45
624.00
312.50
59.00
49.25
60.22
675.50
340.00
1 90
2197
207 70
85 75
91 .00
154.20
106.30
207.20
1582.00
841.00
144.90
106 . 50
176.60
1728.00
1064.00
409.00
323.00
449.00
350.20
328.00
902
Parcentlla
154.20
106.50
207.20
1582.00
84 1 . 00
144.90
106. 50
176 60
1728.00
1064 .00
409.00
323.00
449 .00
350.20
328.00
-------
4. ANALYSIS OF FIELD AND LAB DUPLICATE SAMPLES
Section 4 examines the variability in measurements of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)
reported for sets of duplicate samples. Concentration values for duplicate
measurements were plotted against each other to assess the degree of agreement,
and the total variability in duplicate samples was analyzed to determine what
fraction could be attributed to measurement error or differences in sampling and
analytical protocols.
The fact that the distributions of TCDD/TCDF concentration values could
be analyzed as approximately lognormal was important in two ways: to concretely
characterize the data from the 104 Mill Study and to analyze the variability in
TCDD/TCDF concentrations attributable to duplicate field sampling or repeated
laboratory tests. Of the 500 samples of pulp, sludge, and effluent from this
study, close to ISO (30 percent) were classified as field sample duplicates or
lab duplicate splits.
The variation in TCDD/TCDF measurements among duplicate samples was
evaluated since a single value representing the TCDD/TCDF concentration of each
composite sample was needed to compute the TCDD/TCDF mass exports linked to the
bleach lines at each pulp mill. Since the variability among duplicates was found
to be relatively small, the TCDD/TCDF concentration values from duplicate
analyses were averaged, first setting any non-detected values to half of the
reported detection level.
4.1 CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DUPLICATE PAIRS
Figures 4-1 through 4-12 (located at the end of this section) plot the
concentration values of TCDD/TCDF for all pairs of field and lab duplicate
samples, subdivided by matrix into pulp, sludge, and effluent. The dashed line
on each plot represents the region of perfect agreement between duplicate
measurements. Non-detected samples were assigned a concentration value of half
the reported detection level.
28
-------
For purposes of estimating the approximate variability in each scatterplot,
particularly the variability orthogonal to the dashed 45-degree line, a 95
percent confidence ellipsoid is also shown. For data that are approximately
bivariate normal in distribution, only 5 percent of the data pairs would be
expected to fall outside the ellipsoid (since the data are plotted on a log
scale, the assumption of bivariate normality is not unreasonable given the
goodness of fit results described in section 3.2). The widths of the confidence
ellipsoids for lab versus field duplicates or between different export matrices
roughly indicate the relative agreement between duplicate pairs in each case.
In general, both types of duplicate pairs (lab and field) show very close
agreement. Few points indicate any significant discrepancy between the measured
TCDD/TCDF concentration levels, although three of the plots involving lab
duplicate pairs deserve special notice. In Figure 4-4, two pairs of TCDF pulp
samples are more discrepant than the rest, both pairs came from the Champion
International mill at Cantonment, Florida. In Figure 4-7, three pairs of ICDD
sludge samples stand out; all three were collected from sulfite mills. The
laboratories that conducted the analyses noted that producing reliable results
was much more difficult for samples from sulfite mills than those from krafc
mills.
In addition, the three sample pairs of TCDF effluent duplicates in Figure
4-12 show less agreement than the others. Two of the pairs came from the
Champion International kraft mill in Houston, Texas; the other pair was collected
at the Wausau sulfite mill in Brokaw, Wisconsin.
The relative agreement between lab duplicates is of particular interest,
since repeated laboratory measurements on the same samples provide an estimate
of the variability in concentration levels due to analytical measurement error.
Though the variability in field duplicates necessarily contains components due
to field sampling protocol and to analytical measurement difference, very few
samples were labeled as both field duplicates and lab splits, so the variability
of lab duplicates in this study cannot be assumed to be "contained" within the
variability of field duplicates.
29
-------
To support Che visual impressions provided by the plots of duplicate pairs,
Table 4-1 provides the Pearson correlation coefficients between the various types
of field and lab duplicates, subdivided by matrix (pulp, sludge, and effluent)
and pulping process (kraft and sulfite). The correlations were computed on the
logged data to correspond with the above plots. Except for TCDD measurements
computed for sulfite mill lab duplicates, this measure indicated very strong
agreement between either field duplicate or lab duplicate pairs.
Figures 4-13 to 4-16 (located at the end of this section) illustrate the
differences between TCOD/TCDF effluent pairs taken from kraft versus sulfite
mills. While almost 90 percent of the kraft sample pairs (22 of 25) show very
good agreement, at least 40 percent of the sulfite pairs (4 of 10) indicate
significant discrepancy between the duplicate analyses. These findings suggest
that samples collected from sulfite mills were more difficult to analyze than
counterparts collected from kraft mills.
4.2 ANALYSIS OF DUPLICATE SAMPLE VARIABILITY
A formal analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also performed to determine the
proportion of variability in TCDD/TCDF concentrations attributable directly to
field sampling technique or analytical protocol. The objective of an ANOVA is
to examine the total variation in a set of measurements and then partition the
overall variability into smaller components representing different sources of
error. Since the overall variation is known, the partitioning allows one to
weigh each particular source of error relative to the total and hence, to rank
the sources of error in degree of importance.
Although many sources of variation can be attributed to the TCDD/TCDF
concentration data, components resulting from field sampling and analytical error
were of primary concern. One source of variability that could not be measured
was the potential difference between the two laboratories performing the
analytical work. In only a couple cases were duplicate samples "split across
labs" before analysis; hence, all members of a duplicate set were generally
analyzed by the same lab. Consequently, variability attributed to repeated lab
measurement comprises "within lab" differences only.
30
-------
TABLE 4-1. PEARSON CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DUPLICATE PAIRS
TCDD TCDF
Field Duplicates N_ Correlation JJ Correlation
Pulp 20 .952 21 .982
Sludge 9 .988 10 .987
Effluent 12 .985 13 .982
Kraft 11 .989 12 .982
Sulfite 1 --- 1
Lab Duplicates
Pulp
Sludge
Effluent
Kraft
Sulfite
19
21
17
12
5
.994
.945
.967
.983
.735
16
19
18
13
5
.950
.989
.874
.886
.897
Note: Correlations were computed between pairs of logged
concentration values.
31
-------
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 provide a breakdown of the components of total variation
in TCDD/TCDF concentration values for field and lab duplicates within each
matrix. For each matrix, the total sum of squared deviations (SS) from the
overall mean was divided mathematically into two smaller sums of squares. The
first sum of squares (SSI) was formed by calculating the average concentration
value of each set of duplicate samples and then computing the squared deviations
of the duplicate set means from the overall matrix mean. Conceptually, SSI
represents the variation due to differences between average TCDD/TCDF values of
various duplicate sets.
The second sun of squares (SS2) was formed by computing the deviations of
individual samples from the average concentration level within each duplicate
set and then summing across all duplicate sets within the specific matrix. The
second sum of squares is of particular interest since it represents an estimate
of the variability due to differences between samples within duplicate sets and
hence, is a measure of the analytical measurement error (Table 4-2) or field
sampling error (Table 4-3) encountered during the 104 Hill Study.
It is important to realize that the two component sums of squares add up
to the total variation, so that SS - SSI + SS2. In this context, one can judge
whether the percentage of the total variation due to field sampling or analytical
measurement error (SS2 percent) is large compared with all other sources of
variation, which are lumped together in SSI percent.
For the cases in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, if one considers the variability
resulting from "within duplicate set differences", with the exception of one
case, less than six percent of the total variation can be attributed to
differences in either field sampling or laboratory analysis. Consistent with
the previous analyses, it can be fairly concluded that a minor portion of the
variance in TCDD/TCDF concentrations is attributable to field sampling protocol
or analytical measurement. Averaging the concentration values within duplicate
sets to form a single value for subsequent analysis appears to be justified.
The exceptional case involves effluent lab duplicates for TCDF where 12
percent of the total variation can be attributed -to differences between
32
-------
TABLE 4-2. ANOVA TABLE FOR LAB DUPLICATES
Macrix fi SSI SS1X SS2 SS2X
Pulp
Loglo(TCDD)
Log10(TCDF)
Sludge
Log10(TCDD)
Log10(TCDF)
Effluent
Log10(TCDD)
Loglo(TCDF)
32
29
31
27
25
27
11.528
20.572
21.083
19.089
10.001
13.886
99.5
96.8
94.2
99.1
97.5
88.3
0.055
0.678
1.300
0.167
0.256
1.845
0.5
3.2
5.8
0.9
2.5
11.7
SSI- Between Duplicate Set Sum of Squares - Within each matrix,
the deviations of duplicate set means from the overall
matrix mean
SS2- Within Duplicate Set Sum of Squares - Deviations of
individual samples from their respective duplicate set
means
SS- Total Sum of Squares - Equal to SSI + SS2
SS1Z - (SS1/SS)*100
SS2Z - (SS2/SS)*100
33
-------
TABLE 4-3. ANOVA TABLE FOR FIELD DUPLICATES
Matrix fi SSI SSU SS2
Pulp
Log10(TCDD)
Log,0(TCDF)
Sludge
Log10(TCDD)
Loglo(TCDF)
Effluent
Loglo(TCDD)
Log10(TCDF)
37
39
15
17
21
23
9.562
17.971
5.027
8.791
5.016
6.686
97.7
98.9
99.0
99.3
99.1
98.8
0.224
0.207
0.050
0.062
0.043
0.078
2.3
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.2
SSI- Between Duplicate Set Sun of Squares - Within each matrix,
the deviations of duplicate set means from the overall
matrix mean
SS2- Within Duplicate Set Sum of Squares • Deviations of
individual samples from their respective duplicate set
means
SS- Total Sum of Squares - Equal to SSI + SS2
SS1Z - (SS1/SS)*100
SS2I - (SS2/SS)*100
34
-------
analytical measurements within duplicate sets. While this fraction does not
appear to be unreasonably large, it is twice as high as any of the other cases,
including the corresponding SS2 percentage for effluent TCDD lab samples. As
was noted in Figure 4-12, this finding can be attributed to measurement
differences from only 3 of 18 pairs of effluent samples; the remaining duplicates
appear to be in very close agreement.
35
-------
FIGURE 4-1
PULP FIELD DUPLICATES
TCDD
1000 000
H
CL,
O,
100000
- 10000
a
.2
5 1000
8
a
o
U
a
a
0100
0010
0001
o\°°
TCDD Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 4-2
PULP FIELD DUPLICATES
TCDF
H
Cu
a
10000.000
1000000
100.000
a
S 10000
cd
G
*-•
a
1000
o
U
g 0100
0010
0001
,-J ...J
TCDF i uncentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 4-3
PULP LAB DUPLICATES
TCDD
OO
1000000
100000
H
h
cu
2 10.000
o
o
a
o
o
a
o
U
Q
Q
U
H
1 000
0100
0010
0001
TCDD Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 4-4
PULP LAB DUPLICATES
TCDF
10000 000
1000.000
H
PD
(X
TCDF Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 4-5
SLUDGE FIELD DUPLICATES
TCDD
H
OU
a
1000.000
100 000
~ 10000
a
o
a
t>
o
a
o
U
Q
0
1.000
0100
0010
0001
TCDD Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 4-6
SLUDGE FIELD DUPLICATES
TCDF
H
04
10000000
1000 000
100.000
a
•3 10000
ct
o
u
u
H
1000
0100
0.010
0001
11mil—i i iinul—i i iiniJ—I i 11mil
TCDF Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 4-7
SLUDGE LAB DUPLICATES
TCDD
1000 000
H
PH
a-
100000
•s 10000
a
2
*•»
2
£ 1 000
O
o
a
o
U 0100
Q
a
u
0010
0001
• ••••I '••! • • ••••••! 1 i i imJ 1 i inmJ 1 i i mil
TCDD Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 4-8
SLUDGE LAB DUPLICATES
TCDF
H
OH
10000.000
1000000
100.000
a
•3 10000
«H
«-•
a
8 i.ooo
a
o
U
g 0100
0.010
0001
limn i i 111in) 1 I IIIITIJ i i iinii|
lllllj . ..••••J • • lll.lJ • lllllJ
TCDF Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE 49
EFFLUENT FIELD DUPLICATES
TCDD
1000.000
100000
cm
2 10000
a
o
1.000
8
a
o
U
Q
Q
U
H
0100
0.010
0001
..i.l • • ......I . i ......I i i • mill 1 I MlllJ 1 I Mill
TCDD Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE 4-10
EFFLUENT FIELD DUPLICATES
TCDF
10000000
1000.000
100.000
£
a
mH
a
5 10000
18
H
a
§ 1000
a
o
U
g 0.100
0010
0.001
/
/
• /
uiiL imL uuL
TCDF Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE 411
EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES
TCDD
1000.000
a
eu
a
100.000
= 10.000
a
o
a
o
o
a
o
U
a
a
1 000
0.100
0.010
0001
1.1..I i • i mill • • i .....I 1 i i mill 1 i i iniJ 1 i nun
TCDD Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE 4-12
EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES
TCDF
10000 000
1000000
100.000
2
Ou
a
••-
a
•S 10000
s
a
o 1.000
u
g 0100
0.010
0001
. l.lJ
iinul—i i inn
TCDF Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE 4-13
OD
EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TCDD
1000 000
a
PI
PL,
100 000
•H 10000
a
o
1000
o
a
o
U 0100
Q
O
0010
0001
• • •••••!
' '""I - 1 i i ninl - 1 i i mi
TCDD Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE 4-14
EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES
SULFITE MILLS ONLY
TCDD
1000000
100000
•~ 10000
a
.2
a
o
o
5
a
a
E
1 000
0100
0.010
0001
rrrnrj 1 i i niii| 1 i 111111] 1 i i niii[ 1 i i iinij
.....I i i i. i.iJ 1 i 11 mil 1 i i nil
TCDD Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE 4-15
l-n
O
EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TCDF
10000.000
a
cu
a
-••*
a
a
8
Q
O
U
U
H
1000000
100000
10000
1.000
0100
0010
0001
,.J iii i.nJ i • i niiJ—• • i.inJ—i i i mid—i i i mi
TCDF Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE 4-16
EFFLUENT LAB DUPLICATES
SULFITE MILLS ONLY
TCDF
10000000
1000000
a
(L,
Ou
100 000
g
•3 10000
o
o
u
1.000
0100
0.010
0001
-J •
I HIM! — I I inu
TCDF Concentration in PPQ
c ^ O r—
• ^ —i rn
f: Go 3>
8 ^ C -;
*. ^ ca O
g «o 5- '
C-) Oo ^il
-------
5. PARTITIONING OF TCDD/TCDF MASSES INTO EXPORT MATRICES
After analyzing the duplicate lab and field samples, average 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)
concentration values were computed for each set of duplicates. These average
values were then grouped with non-duplicate samples to produce a modified data
set consisting of a single pulp concentration value for each bleach line and
single sludge and effluent concentrations at any given mill (non-detects being
set to half the reported detection level). The goal in this section was to use
the modified concentration data to compute estimates of the actual mass formation
rates of TCDD/TCDF for each paper mill and then to characterize how the TCDD/TCDF
masses were partitioned into the exported vectors of pulp, sludge, and effluent
Mass output rates were produced because an estimate of the total amount
of TCDD/TCDF generated at each mill could not be made using concentration data
alone, since the output flow rates of pulp, sludge, and effluent products varied
greatly from mill to mill. The calculations involved multiplication of the
concentration level of each pulp, sludge, or effluent sample by the corresponding
mass output rate reported for that export vector.
Since the pulp, sludge, and effluent outflow rates were reported in
different units, appropriate conversion factors were used as necessary to
standardize each mass rate. Total mass export rates of TCDD/TCDF are reported
in either Ibs/day or Ibs/ton Air-dried Brownstock Pulp (ADBSP). The latter rate
represents the total output per day divided by the pulp production rate and
hence, provides a mass output that is standardized for the size of the mill.
(All tables and figures for section 5 are located after the text.)
5.1 VARIABILITY ACROSS EXPORT VECTORS
Tables 5-1 through 5-4 provide relevant descriptive statistics of the mass
export rates for TCDD and TCDF, including the number of mills, the mean and
standard deviation, the minimum and maximum, the median and upper and lower
quartiles, and the 90th percentile of the mass rate distributions. For each
52
-------
matrix and analyte, probability plots (appendix B) indicated that the TCOO/TCDF
mass distributions could be approximated as lognormal. The tables provide
corresponding statistics for the percentage of the total output at each mill
attributable to each export matrix (pulp, sludge, and effluent). The same
statistics were also recomputed after the mills were subdivided by pulping
process (kraft and sulfite) and waste water treatment (Activated Sludge Wastewater
Treatment [ACT] and Aerated Stabilization Basins [ASB]).
One of the most apparent findings of these tables is the tremendous
variability exhibited from mill to mill within each matrix. Figures 5-1 through
5-4 provide boxplots illustrating the range of variability from different
perspectives. The first two figures represent the percentage of total TCDD/TCDF
output partitioned to each matrix. Each boxplot was constructed so that the top
and bottom edges of the box represent the lower and upper quartiles of the
distribution of percentages taken across all mills, while the line dividing the
box in two is the median. The two "whiskers" extending from the edges of the
box mark a range covering the middle 95 percent of all the data points.
Figures 5-3 and 5-4 represent the distributions of TCDD/TCDF mass formation
adjusted for the pulp production rate at each mill (Ibs/ton ADBSP). In either
case, it is clear that some mills partition much more of their TCDD/TCDF mass
to one matrix than the others and that the pattern is not consistent from mill
to mill.
5.2 KRAFT VERSUS SULFITE HILLS
To test the significance of the differences between kraft and sulfite mills
suggested in Tables 5-1 and 5-3, two-sample t-tests were run on the logged
observations of TCDD/TCDF exports: one set for the unadjusted mass rates
(Ibs/day) and one for the mass rates adjusted by the mill-specific pulp
production rate (Ibs/ton ADBSP). The results are summarized in Table 5-5.
Since the TCDD/TCDF mass export rates followed approximate lognormal
distributions, comparison of these variables was made on the log scale in order
to make inferences concerning the t-test as valid as possible. Such inferences
are generally valid when the tested data have been sampled from a normal
53
-------
distribution, but not necessarily in other cases. An important consequence of
using the logged data is that comparing arithmetic means on the log scale is,
equivalent to comparing the geometric means of the mass export rates on the
original scale. When data follow an exact lognormal distribution the geometric
mean is equivalent to the median. Therefore, the comparison presented here Ls
approximately one between the medians of the original data, which have been
listed beside the corresponding means of the logged data in Table 5-5. For
highly skewed data, such as that encountered in the 104 Mill Study, medians
actually provide a better impression of the bulk of the sample since the effect
of outlying points on the median is minimal.
Several points should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of
these significance tests. T-tests are designed to indicate how likely it is that
an observed mean difference between two groups of sample data reflects an actual
difference between the overall means of the populations from which the samples
were taken, the p-value is one measure of this likelihood and represents the
probability that if the study were repeated from scratch and a new set of
measurements procured, one would observe a difference between the samples at
least as great as the difference already observed, assuming that no real
difference was expected. Low p-valu.es suggest that real differences between the
two groups probably exist (i.e., that the observed differences are statistically
significant).
When comparing the mass rates that are unadjusted for mill-specific pulp
production rates (Ibs/day), the p-values of Table 5-5 indicate that significantly
more TCDD/TCDF was exported at kraft mills than sulfite mills when considered
on a total basis and for each export matrix separately.
When the adjusted mass rates (Ibs/ton ADBSP) were compared, the results
changed only slightly: significantly more TCDD/TCDF mass was exported at kraft
mills than sulfite mills for pulp and effluent vectors and for all exports
combined. However, the difference between kraft and sulfite mills with respect
to TCDD/TCDF in sludge was not found to be statistically significant.
Nevertheless, in the sample data, kraft mills tended to export more sludge-
54
-------
based TCDD/TCDF on average Chan cheir sulfice counterparts.
5.3 ACT VERSUS ASB WASTEWATER TREATMENTS
To interpret the main findings of Tables 5-2 and 5-4 with regard to
wastewater treatment differences, Figures 5-5 through 5-8 provide boxpLots of
the TCDD/TCDF output rates showing the percentage of total output attributable
to sludge or effluent vectors, classified by wastewater treatment type.
The boxplots illustrate that the percentages of total TCDD/TCDF output to
sludge and effluent vectors were highly variable from mill to mill; however,
there was a consistent tendency for the median percentage of TCDD/TCDF outflow
to sludge to be much higher for ACT than ASB, and the corresponding percentage
of outflow to effluent to be lower. The same differences between treatment types
were exhibited by kraft mills considered separately; among sulfite mills, only
one with usable data employed ASB-type waste treatment, so a similar comparison
was not feasible.
In part, the pattern exhibited in Figures 5-5 through 5-8 with kraft and
sulfite mills combined is probably attributable to the limitations of the data.
Sludge samples taken from ACT treatment systems consisted of both primary and
secondary sludges, while those collected from ASB facilities only comprised
primary sludge. Had representative secondary sludges from ASB-type treatment
systems been obtainable, the estimated sludge-based TCDD/TCDF mass exports for
ASB mills would have probably been higher than observed. Since the overall
TCDD/TCDF mass rates would also be higher, this would have simultaneously raised
the percent of total TCDD/TCDF output typically attributable to sludge and
lowered the percent of total TCDD/TCDF output attributable to effluent, making
the observed differences between ACT and ASB treatments less dramatic.
Figures 5-9 through 5-12 provide boxplots of the effluent and sludge
TCDD/TCDF mass export rates (in Ibs/ton ADBSP) on a logarithmic scale, subdivided
by type of waste treatment. When considered on a mass rate basis instead of a
percentage of total output, sludge-based TCDD/TCDF again appears to be
significantly higher on average at ACT mills than ASB mills. How much of this
55
-------
difference is due to the different nature of the sampled ACT sludges versus ASB
sludges can not be estimated.
Sampled effluents from the 104 Mill Study should be more directly
comparable, and in this case, the export rates of effluent-based TCDD/TCDF tended
to be somewhat higher at ASB mills than ACT mills, though not in every
comparison. Median effluent TCDD exports were slightly higher for ASB mills than
ACT mills, but the reverse was true for effluent TCDF exports. In both cases,
however, the lower and upper quartiles were larger for the set of ASB mills,
suggesting that the middle 50 percent of ASB mills tended to export more effluent
TCDD/TCDF than the middle 50 percent of ACT mills.
T-tests calculated on the logged TCDD/TCDF mass export rates partially
confirmed the visual impressions of Figures 5-9 to 5-12 (Table 5-6). Considered
on the basis of production-adjusted mass export rates (Ibs/ton ADBSP), no
significant differences at the 5 percent level were found between the median
effluent export rates of ACT versus ASB mills. However, mills with ACT-type
waste treatment exported significantly more TCDD/TCDF in sludge vectors than
mills with ASB-type treatment. The same results were echoed by kraft mills
considered separately. It should also be noted that the results were somewhat
different when considering unadjusted TCDD/TCDF mass output rates (Ibs/day).
In that case, significantly more effluent TCDD was exported by ASB-type waste
treatments than ACT-type treatments; the same was not true for effluent TCDF or
for kraft mills considered separately.
5.4 OVERALL PARTITIONING OF TCDD/TCDF
Pie charts representing the overall partitioning of TCDD/TCDF into pulp,
sludge, and effluent are presented in Figures 5-13 to 5-16. To construct each
pie chart, total TCDD/TCDF mass exports (Ibs/day) were summed across all mills
for each matrix, and the percentage of the total exported to pulp, sludge, or
effluent is shown on the chart. Similar pie charts were also constructed for
kraft and sulfite mills considered separately. These pie charts indicate
56
-------
the estimated total daily outputs of TCDD/TCDF poundage for all U.S. bleached
pulp mills that had usable data.
To accompany the pie charts, Tables 5-7 and 5-8 present the total mass
outputs of TCDD/TCDF summed across all kraft or sulfite mills, the corresponding
average output per mill, and the percentage of the total summed output exported
to pulp, sludge, or effluent vectors. The two tables differ in that the first
provides total outputs without adjustment for the pulp production rate at each
mill, while the second sums the output of each mill after dividing first by the
pulp production rate, to normalize for mill size.
TCDD/TCDF outputs for kraft mills were considerably larger on any basis
than the outputs for sulfite mills. However, kraft and sulfite mills exhibited
similar patterns of the percentages of total output partitioned to different
matrices. With one exception (TCDD output at sulfite mills), the largest
fraction of TCDD/TCDF mass output was partitioned to pulp, being more than 50
percent for TCDF exports from sulfite mills.
Considering the total estimated mass outputs of TCDD/TCDF for all matrices
combined, these data suggest combined production totals of close to 0.004 Ibs/day
of TCDD and 0.032 Ibs/day of TCDF at U.S. bleached pulp mills. Estimates of the
per mill averages were close to 0.00005 Ibs/day for TCDD and 0.00048 Ibs/day for
TCDF; however, substantial variation in the TCDD/TCDF mass exports was exhibited
from mill to mill.
57
-------
TABU 5-1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS KB TCDD
TCDD Exports
All
in
Oo
TCDD in Pulp (lba/day)MO*
TCDD in Sludge ( Ilia/day )MO»
TCDD In Effluent (lba/day)*10*
Total TCDD (lb»/day>*10*
TCDD in Pulp (U»/ton ADBSF)MO*
TCDD in Sludge (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10*
TCDD in Effluant (Ibs/ton ADBSP)MO*
Total TCDD (Iba/ton ADBSF)*10*
X TCDD OUTPUT to Pulp
X TCDD OUTPUT to Sludge
X TCDD OUTPUT to Effluent
Kraft Saatilei
TCDD In Pulp (lba/day)*10*
TCDD In Sludsa (lba/day)*10*
TCDD In Effluent (lba/dey)*10*
Total TCDD (Lba/day)MO*
TCDD in Pulp (Ibs/ton ADBSP)MO*
TCDD in Sludge (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
TCDD in Effluent < Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10*
Total TCDD (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
t TCDD OUTPUT to Pulp
X TCDD OUTPUT to Sludga
X TCDD OUTPUT to Effluant
Sulflta Saavlaa
TCDD In Pulp (lbs/day)*10*
TCDD in Sludsa (lbs/day)MO*
TCDD in Effluant (lbs/day)«10*
Total TCDD (lbs/day)*10*
TCDD in Pulp (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO'
TCDD in Sludge (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO'
TCDD in Effluant (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
Total TCDD (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10*
X TCDD OUTPUT to Pulp
X TCDD OUTPUT to Sludge
X TCDD OUTPUT to Effluant
N
101
99
97
93
101
99
91
93
93
93
93
84
83
81
80
84
83
81
80
80
80
80
IS
14
13
14
13
14
IS
14
14
14
14
Mean
13.73
13.38
12.07
42.18
1 71
1 28
1.22
4.31
39 92
23 79
34.30
18.33
IS 48
14 09
48.84
1 95
1 44
1.38
4.86
43.03
23.91
33 OS
0.93
1.34
1.31
3.80
0 35
0 37
0 33
1 03
21 99
35 70
42 32
Std
22 08
34 34
20 93
61 33
2 27
2 60
1 90
S.31
22 48
24 39
23 47
23 23
37 34
22 35
64 S3
2.39
2.80
2.03
5.57
20 53
24.34
22 71
1.43
2 31
1 33
3.61
0.77
0 44
0 37
1 19
26 13
23 72
27 57
Minimum
0 072
0 000
0 094
0.307
0 010
0 000
0.011
0 066
2 835
0 000
1 536
0 084
0.000
0.161
0.692
0.010
0 000
0.011
0.066
4 046
0.000
1.S36
0 072
0.026
0.094
0.507
0 020
0 008
0.031
0.206
2 835
1 935
6 981
Maximum
140.80
240.30
123.40
374.00
13.31
15.90
10 88
30.36
91 08
85.79
86.53
140.80
240.30
123.40
374 00
13.31
13 90
10 88
30.56
88 40
85.79
86.08
4 93
8.22
4 30
12.70
3 00
1.37
1 28
4.53
91 08
77 20
86 53
Lower
Quartila
1 36
0 45
0 99
5.92
0.30
0.05
0 17
0.96
21 98
4 31
14.63
3 20
0 46
1 43
11 43
0 SO
0.05
0 23
1.21
24 78
3 51
14.66
0 13
0 26
0 24
1 34
0 03
0 04
0 11
0 27
6 20
12 23
12 37
Median
-8 86
8 86
4 30
18.60
0 98
0 25
0 57
2 13
40 19
16 67
32 10
10 85
10 85
5 82
24 37
1 16
0 25
0 61
2 80
41 90
15 79
26 84
0 20
0 20
0 85
2 43
0 06
0 16
0 IS
0 46
10 48
38 77
39 54
Upper
Quart lie
19 20
7.01
14.13
49 47
2 26
1.30
1 30
5.95
39 03
45 IB
49 30
23 35
7.73
18.04
68 21
2 38
1 46
1 70
6.33
60 39
43 SO
46.43
1 22
1 34
1 78
5 59
0 40
0 69
0 42
1.55
26 87
55 80
65 30
90ii
Percent! le
45 02
34 OS
30 11
US 24
4 38
3 88
2 79
11 02
70 08
62 60
72 35
48.58
50.49
31 51
136 78
4 55
4 29
3.01
12 14
70 29
60 62
69 20
04
63
19
1 01
.73
24
11
3 32
78 65
70 98
86 21
-------
in
TCDD
TCDD In Pulp *10'
Total TCDD (lbe/day)*10*
TCDO In Pulp (ll»/ton ADBSF)*10*
TCDD in Slud*e (llu/ton ADBSP>*10*
TCDD in Effluent «/ ton ADBSP)*10'
Total TCDD < Iba/ton ADBSP>«10'
1 TCDD OUTPUT to Pulp
I TCDD OUTPUT to Sludge
I TCDD OUTPUT to Effluent
TCDD ECTQtta
TCDD In Pulp (Urn/day)* 10*
TCDD in Sludge (U>a/dey>*10'
TCDD in Effluent (lba/djy)*10>
Total TCDD *10'
TCDD in Effluent (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
Total TCDD (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
X TCDD OUTPUT to Pulp
X TCDD OUTPUT to Sludge
X TCDD OUTPUT to Effluent
TABU 5-2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TCDD (B> HASTEUATEK THEATKOTT)
1!
39
40
39
41
r 39
'10* 40
39
39
3)
39
HASTEMATER TREATMENT-ACT
Mean Std Minimum
16.16
13.17
7 46
37.19
1 97
1 46
0 91
4.38
39 55
34 43
26 00
25 61
21.06
10 55
48 53
2 47
1 71
1 12
4.32
23 57
21.76
21 13
0.072
0.026
0 094
0.507
0 030
0.008
0 031
0.206
2.833
0.809
1.969
Maximum
140 . 80
as. 59
39.50
201.40
13.31
6.88
3 17
19.04
91 08
77 31
86.53
Loner
Quartila
1 21
1 33
0 71
4.97
0 27
0 20
0 14
1.08
20 71
16 22
12 76
Median
7 28
7.26
2 88
18.51
1.46
0 63
0 52
2.77
36 42
34 26
20 02
Upper
Qujrtile
19 34
14.31
9 26
46.49
2 64
2 22
1.24
ft 47
£2 43
33 57
3S 40
90-
Percent! la
47 88
50.45
29.66
124.00
4 51
4 40
2 79
12 02
69 91
64.76
58.06
HASTEMATER TREATMENT-ASB
fi
47
48
44
44
47
1* 48
•10* 44
44
44
44
44
Bean
17 21
16 43
18 55
33 63
1 63
1 40
1 66
4.83
40 57
21 41
38 02
Std
20 41
45 59
28 06
75.31
2.22
3.36
2 S3
6.46
21 35
25 65
22 96
mnlffimo
0 128
0.000
0.161
0.902
0.020
0.000
0 Oil
0.066
4 046
O.OOD
1 536
-i-
102.40
240.30
123 40
374.00
11.20
13.90
10.88
30.36
88.40
85 79
86.08
Lower
Quartile
2 57
0 45
1 40
10.14
0 46
0 05
0 19
1.01
24 78
2 70
23 65
Hedlan
11 41
11 41
9 39
28.70
0 88
0 18
0 67
2 07
40.95
7 82
35 28
Upper
Quart, lie
23.85
6 61
25.07
65 66
2.01
0 77
I 81
5.84
55 97
34 62
56 01
90^
Percent lie
46 12
52.24
47.20
150.80
3 45
4 19
6 17
14 25
71 75
£9 23
72.65
-------
TABLE 5-3. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS TOR TCDF
TCDF Emaorta
All
TCDF in Pulp ( Iba/day )MO*
TCDF in Sludge ( Iba/day )MO*
TCDF In Effluent ( Iba/day )*10*
Total TCDF (lba/day)*10*
TCDF In Pulp (Iba/ton ADBSF)MO*
TCDF In Sludge (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO*
TCDF In Effluent (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
Total TCDF (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
X TCDF Output to Pulp
X TCDF Output to Sludge
X TCDF Output to Effluent
Kraft
TCDF in Pulp (Iba/day) MO*
TCDF in Sludge ( Iba/day )MO'
TCDF in Effluent ( Iba/day >MO*
Total TCDF (Iba/day) MO*
TCDF In Pulp (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO*
TCDF in Sludge (Iba/ton ADBSPjMO*
TCDF in Effluant (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO*
Total TCDF (Iba/ton ADBSPJMO*
X TCDF Output to Pulp
X TCDF Output to Sludge
X TCDF Output to Effluant
Sulfite
TCDF in Pulp (Iba/day)*!!)*
TCDF in Sludge (lba/day)MO*
TCDF in Effluant (lba/day)MO*
Total TCDF (lba/day)MO*
TCDF in Pulp (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO*
TCDF in Sludge (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO*
TCDF in Effluent (Iba/ton ADBSF)MO*
Total TCDF (Iba/ton ADBSPJMO'
X TCDF Output to Pulp
X TCDF Output to Sludge
X TCDF Output to Effluent
Lower
fi
102
102
99
96
102
102
99
96
96
96
96
85
as
62
80
65
85
82
80
80
80
80
15
15
IS
14
15
15
IS
14
14
14
14
Mean
147 80
82 92
94.14
334.30
20 96
8.75
12.67
43.29
43 96
25 83
30.22
162 67
94.41
106 85
374 93
22.67
9 67
14 37
48.33
46.67
23 32
30.02
52 08
14 26
26 17
89 12
10 79
2 71
3 96
13 81
26 47
40 83
32 70
Upper
Std Minimum Maximum Quertlle Median Quartlle
339.14
273.27
229.62
711.90
62 53
23.77
41.60
116.62
23.37
24.98
22.19
363 34
297.17
248.81
764.28
67 S3
25 72
45 38
126 . 16
21 34
23.46
21.41
159 47
39 09
70 82
275 66
26 49
5.41
9 67
38 04
28 18
29 73
28 08
0.053
0 000
0 OS4
0.743
0.010
0.000
0.01B
0.147
0.590
0 000
0.323
0.459
0.000
0.417
2.128
0.090
0.000
0 048
0.147
4.383
0.000
0.323
0.053
0.000
0.054
0.743
0 010
0.000
0.018
0.243
0 590
2 002
3 624
2523.00
2394.00
1542.00
4511.00
524.01
195 59
365.71
953.88
92.18
93.81
86.84
2523.00
2394.00
1542.00
4511.00
524 01
195.59
365 71
953.88
92 18
91 35
86 84
615 70
154 90
273 40
1044 00
85.80
21 59
38 10
145 48
90 70
93 81
86 56
5.26
1 73
4 33
22 SO
0 93
0 17
0 64
3 46
23.33
3.94
11 04
10 93
1.S9
S.07
29.30
1 65
0 12
0 78
4 66
26 04
3.76
11 22
0 18
1 77
0.59
4.31
0 05
0 18
0 19
0 94
6 47
13 81
8 08
31 63
31.63
15.35
74 64
3.94
1 36
2 08
8 62
45.23
18.98
26 23
35 75
35.75
21.96
98 79
4 30
1.32
2 51
10 45
45 49
IS 59
26 99
2 03
2 03
1 61
9 19
0 42
1 40
0 73
3 47
12 10
39 25
25 28
127 &2
41 93
71.96
328.92
13 89
5.26
7 22
30 42
61 64
44.90
44 47
132.20
57 59
77 66
370 95
14.09
6.26
8 11
33 19
64 27
43 01
44.47
8 54
7 46
8 18
22.29
1 98
2 87
4 00
8 45
53 80
62 01
54 09
9012
Percent tie
356 47
189 82
273.40
735.14
45 SB
23 30
29 99
120 54
76 84
62 02
64.62
399 20
203 36
282.64
795.62
44 17
26.32
30 39
122 87
77.09
60 36
64 26
325 42
69 09
153 42
564 41
73 08
11.56
19 57
78 03
74 87
88 62
81 92
-------
TABLE 5-4. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOB TCDP (BY HASTEHaTKK TREATMOrr)
TCDF Erporta
TCDF in Pulp (lba/day)*10*
TCDF in Sludge (Iba/day )*10*
TCDF in Effluent (Iba/day )MO*
Total TCDF (lbe/day)MO*
TCDF in Pulp (Iba/ton ADBSP>*10*
TCDF in Sludge (Iba/ton ADBSP)«10*
TCDF in Effluent (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO*
Total TCDF (Ibi/ton ADBSP)MO*
I TCDF Output to Pulp
I TCDF Output to Sludge
1 TCDF Output to Effluent
HASTEHATER TREATMENT-ACT
1!
41
41
41
39
41
41
0* 41
39
39
39
39
Mean
111 81
72.40
49 60
233 07
17.75
8.93
7 62
33.33
40.66
37 67
21.68
Std !
186 86
147.58
86.40
348.74
34.61
15.03
16 36
57 24
23 27
23 67
18.74
Loiter
Upper
llnlmum Haaimum Quart! la Median Quart lie
0.053
0.000
O.OS4
0.743
0.010
0.000
0.01B
0.243
0.590
0.613
2.264
964.40
846 00
422 00
1484.00
193.81
68 OS
90 95
299.61
90 70
93 81
77.28
5.01
4 72
1.83
20.64
1.06
1 27
0 43
3.76
22 34
19 79
7 76
28 45
28 45
12 00
79.23
4 34
2.87
2 08
11.13
38 90
36 92
IS 25
129 OS
91 09
67 90
361 80
20 23
9 09
6 45
27 85
59.15
54 39
26 64
90S
Percent lie
300 96
205 8*
142 08
678.70
56 59
28.43
27 03
119 37
73 96
71 93
52 38
TCDF E«port»
TCDF in Pulp (lba/day)*10*
TCDF In Sludge (Iba/day)«10*
TCDF in Effluent (Lbs/day )*10*
Total TCDF (Iba/day)*10*
TCDF in Pulp (Iba/ton ADBSP)MO*
TCDF in Sludge (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10*
TCDF in Effluent (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
Total TCDF (Iba/ton ADBSP)*10*
t TCDF Output to Pulp
X TCDF Output to Sludge
X TCDF Output to Effluent
HASTEHATER TREATMEHT-ASB
Lower Upper
Mean Std Minimum Maximum QuartUe Median Quart! le
Percentll«
48
48
45
43
48
48
45
45
45
45
45
20S.26
111.53
154 44
486 64
27 68
10 55
19 87
60.21
45 77
19 50
34 74
4S6.76
373 28
321 38
967.80
85 11
31.64
S9.20
160.73
22 76
23 96
20.53
0 319
0 000
0.417
2.128
0 OSO
0 000
0 048
0.147
4.383
0.000
0.323
2523 00
2394 00
1542.00
4511 00
524 01
195 59
365 71
953 88
92 IB
91 35
74.99
7 04
1 &7
5 02
26. 6B
0.72
0 12
0 70
3 06
24 66
2.87
IS 17
38 97
38 97
31 79
96.39
3 94
0 70
1 99
8 44
45 54
6 73
32 83
1S9 57
37 66
124 67
428 10
13 35
3 99
11 32
34 85
63 07
26 75
52 38
631 57
259 60
490 88
1940 00
75.45
36 60
41 48
158.67
77 97
62 27
66 01
-------
FIGURE 5-1
a-
K)
Q
Q
O
(ft
100
80
60
40
20
OUTPUT BY MATRIX
TCDD
Matrix
-------
FIGURE 5-2
UJ
100
80
60
40
20
OUTPUT BY MATRIX
TCDF
Matrix
-------
FIGURE 5-3
ADJUSTED TCDD BY MATRIX
100.00
oo
o
W 10.00
»
£
Q
a
o
*->
Q
Q
O
H
1.00
0.10
0.01
^
Matrix
-------
FIGURE 5-4
ADJUSTED TCDF BY MATRIX
1000.00
o 100.00
U4
•
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
a
o
Matrix
-------
TABLE
TCDD Exports
Qbs/dav) * 10s
Total TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
Pulp TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
Sludge TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
Effluent TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
TCDF Exports
flbs/dav> * 106
Total TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
Pulp TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
Sludge TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
Effluent TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
5-5.
H
79
14
84
15
76
14
80
15
fi
79
14
85
15
76
14
81
15
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PULPING
KRAFT
Median
24.4
2.4
10.8
0.2
10.8
0.2
5.8
0.8
Median
98.8
9.2
35.8
2.0
35.8
2.0
22.0
1.6
vs SULFITE
Logged
Mean t-stat
1.355 7.371
0.411
0.892 7.804
-0.426
0.474 3.324
-0.191
0.714 5.365
-0.122
Logged
Mean t-stat
2.021 4.363
1.050
1.588 4.259
0.302
1.120 2.405
0.466
1.340 3.434
0.416
PROCESSES
p- value
.000
.000
.003
.000
p- value
.000
.001
.027
.003
Note: Two-sample t-tests for difference between logged means
66
-------
TABLE 5-5. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PULPING PROCESSES (CONTINUED)
KRAFT vs SULFITE
TCDD Exports
fibs/ton ADBSP) * 10*
Total TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
Pulp TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
Sludge TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
Effluent TCDD
Kraft
Sulfite
TCDF Exports
(Ibs/ton ADBSP) * 10*
Total TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
Pulp TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
Sludge TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
Effluent TCDF
Kraft
Sulfite
N
79
14
84
15
76
14
80
15
N.
79
14
85
15
76
14
81
15
Median
2.8
0.5
1.2
0.1
0.25
0.16
0.6
0.2
Median
10.4
3.5
4.3
0.4
1.3
1.4
2.5
0.7
Logged
Mean t-stat
0.420 4.792
-0.192
-0.028 5.530
-1.010
-0.478 1.527
-0.794
-0.212 3.677
-0.705
Logged
Mean t-stat
1.087 3.026
0.447
0.664 3.044
-0.281
0.169 1.097
-0.137
0.414 2.389
-0.167
p- value
.000
.000
.140
.001
D- value
.007
.008
.286
.028
Note: Two-sample t-tests for difference between logged means
67
-------
FIGURE S-S
00
Q
Q
U
H
o
«-«
a
OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
EFFLUENT TCDD
100
80
60
40
20
ACT
ASB
Treatment
-------
FIGURE 56
Q
Q
a
»*
9
O
•>
M
100
80
60
40
20
OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
SLUDGE TCDD
ACT
ASB
Treatment
-------
FIGURE 5-7
H,
P
O
H
a
o
W
100
80
60
40
20
0
OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
EFFLUENT TCDF
ACT
ASB
Treatment
-------
FIGURE 5-8
3
o,
tt
•O
^
CO
100
80
60
40
20
0
OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
SLUDGE TCDF
ACT
ASB
Treatment
-------
FIGURE 5-9
ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDD
N>
100.00
oo
o
w
a,
%
Q
a
o
Q
Q
o
<*H
10.00
1.00
0.10
0.01
ACT
ASB
Treatment
-------
FIGURE 5-10
ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDD
100.0000
oo
o
W 10.0000
II
£
g 1.0000
a
< 0.1000
§ 0.0100
I* 0.0010
p
0.0001
I
ACT
ASB
Treatment
-------
FIGURE 5-11
ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDF
oo
O
i
8
Q
a
o
w
1000.00
100.00
10.00
100
0.10
0.01
ACT
ASB
Treatment
-------
FIGURE 5-12
ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDF
tjl
1 UUU.UUUU
00
o
+ 100.0000
W
{§ 10.0000
PQ
H 1.0000
o
ua
<*> /\ i f\f\f\
^ 0. 1 000
UH
Q
U 0.0100
H
60
*§ 0.0010
55
00001
i '
r
; 1
:
"
•
[ 1
i *
O
'
ACT
•
-.
~.
.
i
•
~
* :
i
ASB
Treatment
-------
TABLE
5-6.
DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN TREATMENT
TYPES
ACT vs ASB
All Mills
dbs/dav} * 106
Effluent TCDD
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDD
ACT
ASB
Effluent TCDF
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDF
ACT
ASB
Kraft Mills
(lbs/dav) * 106
Effluent TCDD
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDD
ACT
ASB
Effluent TCDF
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDF
ACT
ASB
H
40
43
39
45
42
41
39
45
fi
28
41
28
42
29
41
28
42
Median
2.9
9.4
7.3
11.4
12.0
31.8
28.4
39.0
Median
4.5
10.3
5.8
2.0
22.8
31.8
33.7
6.6
Logged
Mean t-stat
0.409 -2.583
0.820
0.566 1.245
0.324
1.111 -1.456
1.403
1.230 1.262
0.954
Logged
Mean t-stat
0.625 -1.438
0.862
0.829 2.459
0.341
1.337 -0.489
1.434
1.525 2.745
0.938
p- value
.012
.217
.149
.211
D- value
.156
.016
.627
.008
Note: Two-sample t-tests for difference between logged means
76
-------
TABLE
AIL Mills
Qbs/ton ADBSP)
Effluent TCDD
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDD
ACT
ASB
Effluent TCDF
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDF
ACT
ASB
Kraft Mills
Qbs/ton ADBSP)
Effluent TCDD
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDD
ACT
ASB
Effluent TCDF
ACT
ASB
Sludge TCDF
ACT
ASB
5-6. DIFFERENCES
* 108 N
40
43
39
45
41
44
39
45
* 108 N
28
41
28
42
29
41
28
42
BETWEEN TREATMENT TYPES
ACT VS
Median
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
2.1
2.0
2.9
0.7
Median
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.2
3.1
2.0
5.0
0.8
. ASB
Logged
Mean t-stat
-0.351 -1.201
-0.191
-0.205 2.672
-0.699
0.238 -1.074
0.436
0.458 2.462
-0.069
Logged
Mean t-stat
-0.219 -0.430
-0.158
-0.015 3.518
-0.687
0.489 0.388
0.415
0.681 3.612
-0.090
(CONTINUED)
p- value
.233
.009
.286
.016
p- value
.668
.001
.699
.001
Note: Two-sample t-tests for difference between logged means
77
-------
FIGURE 5-13
TOTAL TCDD EXPORTS (Ibs/day) * E+06
ALL MILLS INCLUDED
PULP
oo
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
MATRIX
SUM
PULP
SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
1.517
1.319
1.170
4.006
-------
FIGURE 5-14
TOTAL OUTPUT: TCDD
KRAFT MILLS
SULFITE MILLS
PULP
VO
EFFLUENT
PULP
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
-------
FIGURE S-1S
TOTAL TCDF EXPORTS (Ibs/day) * E+06
ALL MILLS INCLUDED
PULP
oo
o
EFFLUENT
MATRIX
SLUDGE
SUM
PULP
SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
TOTAL
14.642
8.429
9.024
32.095
-------
FIGURE 5-16
TOTAL OUTPUT: TCDF
KRAFT MILLS
SULFITE MILLS
PULP
PULP
EFFLUENT
SLUDGE
SLUDGt
EFFLUENT
Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding error.
-------
TABLE 5-7. STATISTICS FOR TCDD/TCDF (BY MILL PROCESS)
Mill Process-Kraft
TCDD Exports
TCDD in Pulp (lbs/day)*106
TCDD in Sludge (lbs/day)*10s
TCDD in Effluent (lbs/day)*106
Total TCDD (lbs/day)*10*
Mill
TCDD Exports
TCDD in Pulp (lbs/day)*106
TCDD in Sludge (lbs/day)*10«
TCDD in Effluent (lbs/day)*106
Total TCDD (lbs/day)*106
N
80
80
80
80
Sum
1,486
1,280
1,141
3,907
Mean
18.6
16.0
14.3
48.8
XfTotal)
38.0
32.8
29.2
100.0
Process-Sulfite
H
14
14
14
14
Sum
12
22
19
53
Mean
0.9
1.6
1.4
3.8
X(Total)
23.0
40.5
36.5
100.0
Mill Process-Kraft
TCDF Exports
TCDF in Pulp (lbs/day)*106
TCDF in Sludge (lbs/day)*106
TCDF in Effluent (lbs/day)*106
Total TCDF (lbs/day)*10e
Mill
TCDF Exports
TCDF in Pulp (lbs/day)*106
TCDF in Sludge (lbs/day)*10*
TCDF in Effluent (lbs/day)*106
Total TCDF (lbs/day)*10s
12
80
80
80
80
Sum
13,525
7,996
8,475
29,996
Mean
169.1
100.0
105.9
374.9
JUTotaD
45.1
26.7
28.2
100.0
Process-Sulfite
g
14
14
14
14
Sum
649
214
384
1,248
Mean
46.4
15.3
27.5
89.1
Xf Total)
52.0
17.1
30.8
100.0
Note: Discrepancies may result due to rounding errors.
82
-------
TABLE 5-8. STATISTICS FOR TCDD/TCDF (BY MILL
PROCESS)
Mill Process-Kraft
TCDD Exports
TCDD in Pulp (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10a
TCDD in Sludge (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
TCDD in Effluent (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10B
Total TCDD (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
H
80
80
80
80
Sum
158
119
111
388
Mean
2.0
1.5
1.4
4.9
Mill Process-Sulfite
TCDD Exports
TCDD in Pulp (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
TCDD in Sludge (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10"
TCDD in Effluent (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10a
Total TCDD (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10e
N
14
14
14
14
Sum
4
5
5
14
Mean
0.3
0.4
0.3
1.0
Mill Process-Kraft
TCDF Exports
TCDF in Pulp (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10a
TCDF in Sludge (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10e
TCDF in Effluent (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10e
Total TCDF (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10e
K
80 1
80
80 1
80 3
Sum
,902
819
,145
,866
Mean
23.8
10.2
14.3
48.3
Mill Process-Sulfite
TCDF Exports
TCDF in Pulp (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
TCDF in Sludge (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
TCDF in Effluent (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
Total TCDF (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
fi
14
14
14
14
Sum
97
41
55
193
Mean
6.9
2.9
4.0
13.8
40.7
30.7
28.6
100.0
30.6
36.0
33.4
100.0
49.2
21.2
29.6
100.0
Til Total)
50.3
21.1
28.7
100.0
Note: Discrepancies may result due to rounding errors.
83
-------
6. ANALYSIS OF TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Since the preceding analysis uncovered differences between treatment types
Activated Sludge Uastevater Treatment (ACT) and Aerated Stabilization Basins
(ASB) with regard to the rates at which 2,3.7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) were exported to sludge and
effluent vectors, a more extensive analysis was made on a measured variable
suspected to affect wastewater treatment performance: total suspended solids
(TSS). It has been suggested that ACT and ASB treatments differ significantly
with regard to average TSS levels, so the goal of the analysis in section 6 was
to assess any potential relationship between TCDD/TCDF formation in sludge and
effluent and total suspended solids levels at the waste treatment facilities.
Since important characteristics of kraft and sulfite mills were quite
different, any potential relationship between TCDD/TCDF formation and TSS might
be masked if both mill types were analyzed together. As it was, the number of
sulfite mills was small, and only one sulfite mill with usable data employed an
ASB-type waste treatment, so the analysis was confined to ACT-treated or ASB-
treated kraft mills. (Please note that all figures and tables are located at
the end of the text.)
Preliminary examination of the TSS data indicated that the distribution
of values could be approximated by a lognormal density (appendix B). A
subsequent two-sample t-test on the logged TSS values indicated that the average
total suspended solids content of ACT systems was significantly higher than that
for ASB systems at the 5 percent level. Variation in the TSS data by treatment
type is shown in the boxplot of Figure 6-1; descriptive statistics for the TSS
levels are provided in Table 6-1, classified by pulping process and wastewater
treatment.
Given the observed difference in treatment types with respect to average
TSS levels, the next step was to determine to what degree TSS levels could
explain differences due to wastewater treatment in TCDD/TCDF mass outputs to
sludge and effluent. Relationships between TSS and TCDD/TCDF mass exports to
84
-------
sludge and effluent were explored and tested for statistical significance. Using
TSS as the independent variable, the dependent variables included TCDD/TCDF mass
exports to sludge and effluent in both Ibs/day and Ibs/ton Air-Dried Brownstock
Pulp (ADBSP).
Examination of the dependent variables and their distributional
characteristics via probability plots indicated that the TCDD/TCDF mass output
variables might reasonably be characterized by lognormal distributions (appendix
B). Plots were then made of TSS versus each of the dependent variables on a log-
log scale, which enabled estimation of regression equations from data that
resembled bivariate normal scatterclouds, a prerequisite for using normal theory
estimates of the stability of the regression lines.
Each of the scatterplots was overlaid with a best fitting linear regression
and 90 percent confidence bands. The 90 percent confidence bands provide an
approximate confidence interval for the estimated regression mean within the
range of the data at each value along the independent axis. Computation of each
confidence band was based upon the t-statistic for the estimated linear slope
and the estimated standard error in the dependent variable at any given point
Xo along the independent axis.
Visual inspection of Figures 6-2 through 6-5 indicates that for any fixed
TSS level, the variability from mill to mill in effluent and sludge TCDD/TCDF
mass exports was substantial. The regression lines overlaying the plots
estimated the average behavior of the TCDD/TCDF exports as TSS levels varied;
however, none of the correlations between TSS and TCDD/TCDF exports was very
strong. Clearly, TSS is not the only factor that affects amounts of TCDD/TCDF
found in sludge and effluent, and it may not be a dominant factor.
The estimated regression equations are presented in Tables 6-2 and 6-3.
Note that since the regressions were performed on the logged data, the
relationships suggested are not linear in the original units. Rather, the model
implies that when the slope coefficient is significantly different from zero,
the TCDD/TCDF mass output is proportional to a power of the TSS level.
85
-------
Tables 6-2 and 6-3 confirm chat the correlations between TSS and the
corresponding TCOO/TCDF mass outputs were rather weak. The largest fraction of
explained variance (as indicated by the Rz statistic) for any of the variables
was less than 5 percent. The linear regressions suggest that TCOD/TCDF effluent
mass rates increased somewhat with larger TSS levels, while TCDD/TCDF sludge mass
rates decreased slightly as TSS increased. However, none of the estimated
regression slopes were significantly different from zero at the 5 percent level.
Very similar results were found for each matrix and analyte when considering
either the unadjusted or adjusted mass export rates.
Since ASB and ACT-type treatments were combined in the previous plots, the
last step in this section was to subdivide mills by waste treatment and recompute
possible linear relationships between TSS and the TCDD/TCDF mass exports. This
was considered important primarily because the sludge samples taken at ASB
facilities consisted of primary sludge only, while those at ACT facilities
consisted of composites samples of primary and secondary sludges. Figures
6-6 to 6-9 are redrawings of Figures 6-2 to 6-5 that indicate the type of waste
treatment used at each scatterpoint (ACT or ASB), and a regression overlay
corresponding to each wastewater subgroup. The separate regression equations
for each type of waste treatment are presented in Tables 6-4 through 6-7.
For both wastewater treatment types, large TSS levels were somewhat
associated with higher TCDD/TCDF exports to effluent and lower TCDD/TCDF exports
to sludge. In each case, however, the data from ACT-type treatment facilities
were more sharply sloped.than data from ASB systems. These visual results were
supported by the regression statistics listed in Tables 6-4 through 6-7. None
of the estimated slopes for the ASB mills were significant at the 5 percent
level; however, several of the relationships between TSS and TCDD/TCDF exports
to sludge and effluent were significant for ACT mills. Again, the estimated
correlations were weak, but in some cases total suspended solids accounted for
close to 20 percent of the total variability in TCDD/TCDF mass sludge and
effluent exports at mills using ACT treatment.
Based on this analysis, it is difficult to determine whether TSS influences
the proportions of TCDD/TCDF mass exported to sludge and effluent vectors. The
86
-------
proportion of total variation in the TCDD/TCDF data explained by the TSS level
(through the R* statistic) did not exceed 20 percent for any of the regressions
calculated. It is also possible that other variables were present in these data
that might have masked relationships between TSS and TCDD/TCDF exports. The
study design did not permit a more complete analysis. However, there did appear
at least a weak link between the TSS level and the TCDD/TCDF sludge and effluent
export rates for kraft mills using ACT-type wastewater facilities. If such a
link exists, the level of TSS may help to explain the observed differences
between ASB and ACT waste treatments with respect to TCDD/TCDF found in sludge
and effluent.
87
-------
FIGURE 6-1
1000 r
TSS BY TREATMENT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
oo
oo
100
to
a
10
I
T
I
ACT
ASB
Waste Treatment
-------
TABLE 6-1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR TSS
All
Hills
Kraft Mill*
APT
ASB
H
81
67
25
42
Mean
61. SO
52.61
60.02
48.20
Std
50.48
36.19
34.40
36.91
Minimum
5.800
5.800
14.400
5.800
(laxlmun
273.00
144.60
144.60
143.80
Lower
Quartile
25.63
22.40
41.90
18.95
Median
46.30
45.80
47.20
35.70
Upper
Quartile
81.15
70.00
78.25
69.88
90UI
Percent lie
126.72
115.40
119.80
112.26
Sulfite Mllla 12 111.85 85.69 26.800 273.00 32.44 87.05 182.20 264.18
oo
-------
FIGURE 6-2
EFFLUENT TCDD OUTPUT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
vD
O
1000.0
!
1000
«J
£
Q
Q
10.0
1.0
w
0.1
I i I I I I i
10
100
1000
TSS (mg/l)
-------
FIGURE 6-3
SLUDGE TCDD OUTPUT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
1000.000 E
100.000
10000
rt
•o
1000
Q
Q
H 0100
o
60
•O
0010
0001
• • • 1111
10
100
1000
TSS (mg/l)
-------
FIGURE 6-4
EFFLUENT TCDF OUTPUT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
o
+
U)
cd
"O
Q
U
H
«_•
a
U
100000 E
10000
1000
100
1.0
0.1
10
100
1000
TSS (mg/1)
-------
FIGURE 6-5
SLUDGE TCDF OUTPUT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
1000000
100000
o
+
u
10000
^%
ed
5
u»
§ 10.00
UH
Q
1.00
o
t>o
•o
p
0.10
001
1 ' '"I
10
100
• • • • I ll
1000
TSS (mg/1)
-------
TABLE 6-2: TCDD EXPORTS (TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY)
TSS rag/1) vs Sludge TCDD dbs/dav)*10*
Equation: Log10(Sludge TCDD) - 1.227 - 0.431 * Log10(TSS)
Rz - .022
Adjusted R2 - .006
S.E. of Regression - 0.933
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.596 2.059 0.044
Independent 0.363 -1.187 0.240
TSS (mg/n vs Effluent TCDD (Ibs/dav^lO*
Equation: Log10(Effluent TCDD) - 0.315 + 0.268 * Log10(TSS)
R2 - .014
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 0.687
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.461 0.684 0.497
Independent 0.281 0.953 0.344
TSS (me/1) vs Adlusted Sludge TCDD fibs/ton ADBSP)*10"
Equation: Log10(Adjusted Sludge TCDD) - 0.157 - 0.373 * Log10(TSS)
R2 - .016
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 0.961
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.614 0.256 0.798
Independent 0.374 -0.998 0.322
TSS (mf/1) vs Adlusted Effluent TCDD (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*10a
Equation: Loglo(Adjusted Effluent TCDD) - -0.713 + 0.311 * Log10(TSS)
Rz - .026
Adjusted R2 - .010
S.E. of Regression - 0.589
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.396 -1.802 0.076
Independent 0.241 1.290 0.202
94
-------
TABLE 6-3. TCDF EXPORTS (TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY)
TSS fmg/1) vs Sludge TCDF abs/dav)*106
Equation: Logw(Sludge TCDF) - L.599 - 0.277 * Logw(TSS)
R2 - .008
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 1.010
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.645 2.480 0.016
Independent 0.393 -0.704 0.484
TSS (mq/n vs Effluent TCDF flbs/dav)*106
Equation: Log10(Effluent TCDF) - 0.538 + 0.499 * Log10(TSS)
Rz - .037
Adjusted R2 - .022
S.E. of Regression - 0.787
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.528 1.018 0.313
Independent 0.322 1.553 0.126
TSS fmg/n vs Adjusted Sludge TCDF fibs/ton ADBSP)*10a
Equation: Log10(Adjusted Sludge TCDF) - 0.530 - 0.2L9 * Log10(TSS)
R2 - .004
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 1.066
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.681 0.778 0.440
Independent 0.415 -0.527 0.600
TSS (mtt/1) va Adjusted Effluent TCDF (Ibs/ton ADBSP1*108
Equation: Log10(Adjusted Effluent TCDF) - -0.491 + 0.542 * Loglo(TSS)
R2 - .048
Adjusted R2 - .032
S.E. of Regression - 0.751
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.505 -0.972 0.335
Independent 0.307 1.765 0.082
95
-------
FIGURE 6-6
EFFLUENT TCDD OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
V£>
+
w
l»
X)
Q
Q
U
H
W
1000.00
100.00
1000
1 00
o.io
001
9 ASB
o ACT
10
100
1000
TSS (mg/1)
-------
FIGURE 6-7
SLUDGE TCDD OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
o
i
03
•o
Q
Q
U
H
100000
10000
1000
1 00
0.10
001
ASB
ACT
10
100
1000
TSS (mg/1)
-------
FIGURE 6-8
EFFLUENT TCDF OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
1000000
PL)
1000.00
10000
01
X)
1000
u,
Q
U
1.00
a
0
0.10
001
0 ASB
o ACT
10
100
1000
TSS (mg/1)
-------
FIGURE 6-9
SLUDGE TCDF OUTPUT BY TREATMENT
TREATED KRAFT MILLS ONLY
1000000
1000.00
o
w
~ 100 00
n>
•a
£ 1000
UH
Q
U
o
oo
•a
1.00
010
001
10
100
0 ASB
o ACT
1000
TSS (mg/1)
-------
TABLE 6-4. TCDD EXPORTS FOR ACT TREATMENT
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TSS fmg/1) vs Sludae TCDD fIbs/dav^*10*
Equation: Log 10(Sludge TCDD) - 2.388 - 0.922 * Log,0(TSS)
R2 - .113
Adjusted R2 - .073
S.E. of Regression - 0.661
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.939 2.542 0.019
Independent 0.551 -1.675 0.108
TSS (me/1) vs Effluent TCDD (lbs/day)*106
Equation: Log10(Effluent TCDD) - -0.969 + 0.925 * Loglo(TSS)
Rz - .140
Adjusted R2 - .101
S.E. of Regression - 0.587
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.834 -1.162 0.258
Independent 0.489 1.892 0.072
TSS fmg/1) vs Adlusted Sludge TCDD fibs/ton ADBSP'>*10a
Equation: Log,0(Adjusted Sludge TCDD) - 1.605 - 0.966 * Log10(TSS)
R2 - .165
Adjusted R2 - .127
S.E. of Regression - 0.556
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.790 2.031 0.054
Independent 0.463 -2.085 0.049
TSS fmg/n vs Adlusted Effluent TCDD aba/ton ADBSP1*10e
Equation: Logu(Adjusted Effluent TCDD) • -1.752 + 0.882 * Log 10(TSS)
R2 - .201
Adjusted R2 - .164
S.E. of Regression - 0.451
Standard Error t Statistic o-Value
Constant 0.640 -2.736 0.012
Independent 0.375 2.350 0.028
100
-------
TABLE 6-5. TCDF EXPORTS FOR ACT TREATMENT
KRAFT KILLS ONLY
TSS fmg/11) vs Sludge TCPF
Equation: Logw*108
Equation: Log10(Adjusted Sludge TCDF) - 2.377 - 1.017 * Log10(TSS)
R2 - .147
Adjusted R2 - .108
S.E. of Regression - 0.628
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.893 2.663 0.014
Independent 0.523 -1.945 0.065
TSS fmg/L) va Adjusted Effluent TCDF fibs/ton ADBSP)*IOa
Equation: Log19(AdJusted Effluent TCDF) - -1.314 + 1.017 * Loglc(TSS)
Rz - .184
Adjusted Rz - .146
S.E. of Regression - 0.550
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.781 -1.683 0.107
Independent 0.458 2.224 0.037
101
-------
TABLE 6-6. TCDD EXPORTS FOR ASB TREATMENT
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TSS fmy/1) vs Sludge TCDD f lbs/dav)*106
Equation: Log10(Sludge TCDD) - 1.128 - 0.495 * Logw(TSS)
R2 - .029
Adjusted R2 - .004
S.E. of Regression - 1.023
Standard Error t Statistic p- Value
Constant 0.738 1.527 0.135
Independent 0.462 -1.073 0.290
TSS (me/I) vs Effluent TCDD abs/dav)*10s
Equation: Log ,0( Effluent TCDD) • 0.582 + 0.164 * Log10(TSS)
Rz - .006
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 0.723
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.557 1.045 0.303
Independent 0.348 0.472 0.639
TSS (ma/1) vs Adlusted Sludge TCDD (1 PS /ton ADBSP)*10e
Equation: Log10( Ad justed Sludge TCDD) - 0.056 - 0.481 * Logu(TSS)
R2 - .026
Adjusted R2 - .001
S.E. of Regression - 1.053
Standard Error t Statistic p- Value
Constant 0.760 0.074 0.941
Independent 0.475 -1.012 0.318
TSS (rny/n va Adlusted Effluent TCDD fibs/ton ADBSP)*10"
Equation: Log10(Adjusted Effluent TCDD) • -0.447 + 0.169 * Log 10 (TSS)
R2 - .008
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 0.654
Standard Error t Statistic D- Value
Constant 0.504 -0.886 0.381
Independent 0.315 0.538 0.594
102
-------
TABLE 6-7. TCDF EXPORTS FOR ASB TREATMENT
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
TSS (mg/n vs Sludge TCDF ( lbs/dav)*106
Equation: Log,0(Sludge TCDF) - 1.425 - 0.312 * Log10(TSS>
Rz - .010
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 1.106
Standard Error t Statistic D- Value
Constant 0.798 1.785 0.082
Independent 0.499 -0.625 0.536
TSS fmg/n vs Effluent TCDF flbs/dav^*10*
Equation: Log10(Ef fluent TCDF) - 0.778 + 0.393 * Log,0(TSS)
R2 - .022
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 0.879
Standard Error t Statistic p- Value
Constant 0.677 1.148 0.258
Independent 0.423 0.929 0.359
TSS fmq/n vs Adjusted Sludge TCDF dbs/ton ADBSP)*10»
Equation: Log10(Adjusted Sludge TCDF) • 0.353 - 0.298 * Log10(TSS)
R2 - .008
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 1.162
Standard Error t Statistic p -Value
Constant 0.839 0.421 0.676
Independent 0.525 -0.567 0.574
TSS (mq/n vs Adjusted Effluent TCDF dbs/ton ADBSP)*10e
Equation: Log10(AdJusted Effluent TCDF) - -0.251 + 0.398 * Loglo(TSS)
R2 - .024
Adjusted R2 - .000
S.E. of Regression - 0.857
Standard Error t Statistic p- Value
Constant 0.661 -0.380 0.706
Independent 0.412 0.965 0.341
103
-------
7. MODELING TCDD/TCDF FORMATION AS A FUNCTION OF MILL
OPERATING PARAMETERS
Several steps were taken to investigate the effect of mill bleaching
procedures upon 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) formation. The goal of this section was to
determine the strength of relationships between mass export rates of TCDD/TCDF
and key chemical bleaching and extraction agents used at U.S. bleached pulp
mills. Three dependent measures were used, including the total mass export rates
of TCDD and TCDF generated by the combined vectors of pulp, sludge, and effluent
(in Ibs/ton Air-Dried Brownstock Pulp [ADBSP]); and the TCDD toxic equivalent
export rate, which combines the TCDD total mass rate with one-tenth of the TCDF
total mass rate.
Though the mass formation rates of TCDD/TCDF varied from bleach line to
bleach line, as gauged by pulp sample analyses, effluents and sludges were not
sampled at each line but rather at the "downstream" treatment facilities.
Consequently, the chemical bleaching application rates for each bleach line were
combined to form a mill average, the rates being weighted over different lines
depending on the volume of pulp produced. As in the previous section, kraft and
sulfite mills were treated separately in the analyses. Since the number of
sulfite mills with usable data was quite small, only the analyses of kraft mills
were included in this section.
The independent variables for which there were enough data to be of utility
included the following: chemicals added during C-stage bleaching -- Chlorine
(C12), Chlorine Dioxide (C102), C12 Equivalent in C-Stage, and Percentage C10Z
Substitution for C12; chemicals added during other stages of bleaching or caustic
removal -- Other stage C102, Sodium Hypochlorite, Sodium Hydroxide, and Oxygen
(02); and characterizing features of bleach line operation -- Kappa number, Final
brightness, C12 Line Equivalent, C12 Multiple (Kappa Factor) in C-stage, C12
Equivalent Multiple in C-stage, and C12 Line Equivalent Multiple. Other
variables had for the most part zero values and were not included in these
104
-------
analyses. They included Calcium Hypochlorice, Hydrogen Peroxide, Other Scage
C12, and ocher chemical agents which did not contain chlorine derivatives.
As was done in the analysis of total suspended solids, exploratory plocs
and regression analyses were performed only after the variables of interest were
examined for distributional properties and skewness. If warranted, variables
were transformed so that their distributions approximated normality as much as
possible. (All figures and tables are located at the end of the text.)
Two of the independent variables -• 02 and C102 -- contained significant
fractions of zero values (almost half of all kraft mills in the case of 02). The
analyses assumed an inherent difference between mills vhich, for instance, did
not use any C102 in bleaching and those mills which did. Two different
distributions of the TCOD/TCDF mass export rates are presented for each of these
variables, one for all cases of zero values in 02 and C102 and the other for
cases when the two variables were positive (Tables 7-1 and 7-2).
7.1 REGRESSION ANALYSES
After analyzing and transforming variables where necessary, plots were made
of each dependent measure versus each independent variable and then analyzed for
trends. Figures 7-1 to 7-9 are representative of the most significant results.
Each plot contains two important interpretive features: a least squares linear
regression overlay, drawn over the actual range of data, and a 90 percent
confidence band about the estimated regression line. The confidence band
provides a visual indication of the degree to which, at any given point x, along
the independent axis, the estimated mean of the dependent variate might be in
error.
Hills in which the calculation of either TCDD or TCDF mass export rates
was problematic (such as in cases of seasonal or no waste treatment) were not
used in the scatterplots or regression analyses and were considered unreliable
data for purposes of the report. Two mills discharged untreated effluents to
the ocean, and another five mills had average wastewater retention spans of
105
-------
several months. Ac six mills, Che reported concentration or flow data was
incomplete, so TCDD/TCDF mass formation rates could not be calculated.
Corresponding co the above plots, equations of che regression lines and
relevant summary statistics (including standard errors and Rz values) are given
in Tables 7-3 to 7-5. Since the regressions were performed on che transformed
variables and not in the original units, the estimated relationships are not
linear in the original variables. On the log-log scale, for example, a non-
zero linear slope implies that che dependent variable tends to be proportional
to a power of the independent variace.
The most immediate finding from che analysis is that each of che dependent
variables exhibited significant variation at essentially every level of the
various chemical application races. Consequencly, Che proporcion of variance
explained by any of che regression equations was generally low (as given by R2),
indicating that che linear regressions were noc very useful as predictive
equations. In face, specific predictions regarding output of TCOD/TCDF at mill
Y when a certain level of chemical X was applied would probably have little
meaning. The scaccerplocs were useful, however, Co detect che presence or
absence of non-zero trends in che estimated regression lines.
7.1.1 Effects of Chlorine Bleaching
Variables measuring che applicacion of chlorine Co brownscock pulps (C12,
Clj Equivalent in C-SCage, C12 Line Equivalent) were positively associated with
che formation of TCDD/TCDF (Table 7*3). Hence, greater use of chlorine in
bleaching was associated with higher formation races of TCDD/TCDF. This result
was consistent with previous evidence concerning che effect of chlorine bleaching
on TCDD/TCDF formation in pulp mills (2); however, none of che estimated
regression models involving these variables accounted for more than about 30
percent of the total variance in TCDD/TCDF mass export rates.
106
-------
7.1.2 Effect of che Chlorine Multiple
Since more chlorine cends co be applied when che ILgnin concent of che pulp
is high, regressions were also estimated for variables involving ratios between
the amount of chlorine applied and the Kappa number (as measured by the ratios
Cl, Multiple, C12 Equivalent Multiple, and Cl, Line Equivalent Multiple), the
Kappa number being a useful index of lignin content in brownscock pulps. Table
7-4 provides che results for regressions on che C12 Multiple, and again documents
a generally significant positive relationship between formation of TCDD/TCDF in
mass exports and the Cl, Multiple. Such a result implies chat, on the average,
even when lignin content was accounted for or "held constant," greater
application of chlorine was mildly associated with higher formation of TCDD/TCDF
In this case, the association must be considered mild because che percencage of
total variation accounted for by the estimated regression models never exceeded
18 percent.
7.1.3 Chlorine Dioxide Substitution
The substitution of C10Z for Clz in Che C-Stage of bleaching produced
slight reductions in average TCDD/TCDF formation (Table 7-5), the regression
trends being statistically significant at below the 2 percent level. However.
the regression models accounted for at most 16 percent of the total variation
in TCDD/TCDF mass exports, and since very few mills substituted CIO, for more
than 30 percent of their chlorine usage, the regression trends sajapj; be reliably
extrapolated to predict reductions of TCDD/TCDF formation at higher C102
substitution races. It was also seen in Table 7-1 that mills that did not use
any CIO, exhibited tremendous variation in TCDD/TCDF mass exports. Hence,
substitution of CIO, for Cl, was not by itself an adequate predictor of TCDD/TCDF
reduction. Use of CIO, may help, however, to reduce TCDD/TCDF formation when
considered in conjunction with other reduction strategies.
7.1.4 Use of Oxygen in Bleaching
Mills that use oxygen in the bleaching process exhibited a slight but
statistically significant trend toward reduction of TCDD/TCDF with increased
107
-------
oxygen application. However, this trend was wholly attributable to those four
kraft uLlls that used oxygen dellgnificatlon tðods at the cine of the 104 Mill
Study (Table 7-2). Furthermore, the same four mills also tended to have higher
substitution rates of C10Z for Cl,, so it cannot be determined whether the lower
export rates of TCDD/TCDF observed at these mills were attributable to oxygen
delignification, chlorine dioxide substitution, or some combination of both.
Use of oxygen in other applications was not statistically correlated with
TCDD/TCDF mass formation.
7.1.5 Differences in Wood Types
Due to limitations of the study design, softwood and hardwood bleach lines
could not be systematically analyzed for differences in TCDD/TCDF mass formation.
However, it was observed that greater amounts of chlorine were generally applied
to softwood pulps than hardwood pulps per ton of pulp processed, and that the
average Kappa numbers of softwood pulps were typically much higher than the Kappa
numbers of hardwood pulps (Figures 7-10 and 7-11). Both of these observations
were consistent with known differences in the.bleaching practices of softwood
versus hardwood pulps.
7.2 SUMMARY
To summarize, the most consistently significant independent variables were
those involving chlorine application in the C-stage of bleaching: Cl, and Cl,
Equivalent. Variables measuring the chlorine multiple (also known as the Kappa
factor) were also positively associated with TCDD/TCDF formation, though the
correlations were weaker. Substitution of chlorine dioxide for Clz was
associated with slight reductions in TCDD/TCDF formation. However, since very
few mills reported CIO, substitution rates of more than 30 percent at the time
of the study, the effect of higher chlorine dioxide substitution rates could not
be gauged with any precision.
Barring more detailed information on chemical usage patterns and mill
process characteristics, the data at hand preclude the fitting of very precise
predictive models. While other variables might significantly impact the
108
-------
formation of 2378-TCDD/TCDF, in che 104 Hill Study only chose measuring chlorine
applicacion races were consistently linked to TCDD/TCDF formation at pulp mills
109
-------
TABLE 7-1. SUMMARY STATISTICS: BREAKDOWN BY CIO, USAGE
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
C10T - 0
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Dev.
Median
Adjusted Adjusted
Total TCDD Total TCDF
27
0.186
16.337
.110
.260
4.
4.
2.433
27
0.748
299.613
27.940
61.417
8.228
Adjusted TCDD
Toxic Equivaleac
27
0.260
43.026
6.904
9.433
3.256
C10
N
Adjusted
Total TCDD
52
Adjusted
Total TCDF
52
Adjusted TCDD
Toxic Equivalent
52
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Dev.
Median
0.066
30.556
5.331
6.152
3.437
0.147
953.875
59.818
149.441
16.088
0.081
118.722
11.313
19.996
4.963
Adjusted Total - Ibs/ton ADBSP * 10s
Adjusted TCDD Toxic Equivalent • Ibs/ton ADBSF * 108
110
-------
TABLE 7-2. SUMMARY STATISTICS: BREAKDOWN BY Oa USAGE
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Dev.
Median
Adjusted Adjusted
Total TCDD Total TCDF
34
0.117
13.065
.764
.603
3.
3.
2.068
34
0.363
299.613
27.054
55.415
7.946
Adjusted TCDD
Toxic Equivalent
34
0.153
43.026
6.469
8.492
2.807
02 > 0
Extraction
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Dev.
Median
02 > 0
Delienification
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard Dev.
Median
Adjusted
Total TCDD
43
0.124
30.556
6.028
6.659
3.589
Adjusted
Total TCDD
2
0.066
0.960
0.513
0.632
0.513
Adjusted
Total TCDF
43
0.450
953.875
68.447
163.044
15.778
Adjusted
Total TCDF
2
0.147
1.747
0.947
1.131
0.947
Adjusted TCDD
Toxic Equivalent
43
0.283
118.722
12.872
21.668
5.153
Adjusted TCDD
Toxic Equivalent
0.081
1.135
0.608
0.745
0.608
Adjusted Total - Ibs/ton ADBSP * 108
Adjusted TCDD Toxic Equivalent - Ibs/ton ADBSP * 108
111
-------
FIGURE 7-1
C12 vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDD
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
o
W
(X,
£
p
a
o
100 00
1000
= 100
P
P
•a
u
010
001
50
100
150
200
C12 (Ibs/ton ADBSP)
-------
FIGURE 7-2
C12 vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDF
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
u>
oo
O
+
UJ
PH
CO
PQ
Q
§
u-
Q
rt
u
•>-
UJ
1000.0
1000
100
10
01
0
50
100
150
200
C12 (Ibs/ton ADBSP)
-------
FIGURE 7-3
C12 vs ADJUSTED TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
w
1000.00
100.00
10.00
a
^w
p
0
100
0.10
001
0
50
100
150
200
C12 (Ibs/ton ADBSP)
-------
FIGURE 7-4
C12 MULTIPLE vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDD
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
00
O
+
w
PH
00
03
0
a
o
«-•
CO
O
Q
U
H
•o
o
«->
(A
10000
1000
1 00
010
001
00
0.1
02
03
04
C12 Multiple
-------
FIGURE 7-5
C12 MULTIPLE vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDF
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
oo
o
1000.0
Q
a
o
W)
S3
1000
3 100
Q
§ 1.0
0.1
00
0.1
02
03
04
C12 Multiple
-------
FIGURE 7-6
C12 MULTIPLE vs ADJUSTED TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
<§ 1000.00
-------
FIGURE 7-7
% C1O2 SUBSTITUTION vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDD
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
°° 100.00
cu
§
G
O
*j
*
Q
Q
(2
•O
O
«->
CA
.2,
•o
10.00
1.00
010
0.01
10
100
% C1O2 Substitution (Ibs/ton ADBSP)
-------
FIGURE 7-8
vo
C1O2 SUBSTITUTION vs. ADJUSTED TOTAL TCDF
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
oo
O
111
£
§
a
o
«-•
co
u.
8
•3
1000.0
100.0
10.0
1.0
0.1
10
100
% C1O2 Substitution (Ibs/ton ADBSP)
-------
FIGURE 7-9
C1O2 SUBSTITUTION vs. TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT
KRAFT MILLS ONLY
N)
O
?
pa
•
£
P
a
o
a
o
3
a*
U
o
'K
P
P
100000
10000
10.00
100
010
001
10
100
% C1O2 Substitution (Ibs/ton ADBSP)
-------
TABLE 7-3. REGRESSIONS OF CHLORINE USAGE (KRAFT HILLS ONLY)
C1T vs. Adlnsted Total TCDD fibs/ton ADBSP^*IQe
Equation: Log10(Total TCDD) - -0.462 + 0.010 * Cl,
R2 - .317
Adjusted R2 - .308
S.E. of Regression - 0.461
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.160 -2.890 0.005
Independent 0.002 5.902 0.000
Cl. vs. Adlusted Total TCDF (Ibs/ton ADBSP^*10*
Equation: Logu(Total TCDF) - 0.179 + 0.011 * C12
R2 - .206
Adjusted R2 - .195
S.E. of Regression - 0.641
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.223 0.804 0.424
Independent 0.002 4.405 0.000
Cl, vs. Adlusted TCDD Toxic Eauivalent fibs/ton ADBS?)*10B
Equation: Log10(TCDD Toxic Equivalent) - -0.262 + O.OLO * C12
R2 - .271
Adjusted Rz - .261
S.E. of Regression - 0.514
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.178 -1.466 0.147
Independent 0.002 5.275 0.000
121
-------
TABLE 7-4. REGRESSIONS OF CHLORINE MULTIPLE (KRAFT MILLS ONLY)
Cl. Multiple vs. Adjusted Total TCDD fibs/ton ADBSP)*108
Equation: Loglo(Total TCDD) - -0.343 + 4.280 * Cl, Multiple
R2 - .181
Adjusted R2 - .170
S.E. of Regression - 0.506
Standard Error c Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.203 -1.685 0.096
Independent 1.064 4.023 0.000
Cl. Multiple vs. Adjusted Total TCDF (Iba/ton ADBSP>*108
Equation: Log10(Total TCDF) - 0.221 + 4.968 * Clz Multiple
R2 - .153
Adjusted Rz - .141
S.E. of Regression - 0.651
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.262 0.843 0.402
Independent 1.369 3.629 0.001
Cl. Multiple vs. TCDD Toxic Equivalent (Iba/ton ADBSP1*1Q8
Equation: Loglo(TCDD Tox. Eq.) - -0.166 + 4.413 * Clz Multiple
R2 - .167
Adjusted R2 - .156
S.E. of Regression - 0.549
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.220 -0.752 0.455
Independent 1.154 3.825 0.000
122
-------
TABLE 7-5. REGRESSIONS OF C10Z SUBSTITUTION (KRAFT MILLS ONLY)
CIO, Substitution vs. Adjusted Total TCDD Qbs/ton ADBSP)*10e
Equation: Log,0(Total TCDD) - 1.157 - 0.708 * Loglo(X C102 Sub.)
R2 - .160
Adjusted R2 - .143
S.E. of Regression - 0.538
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.244 4.732 0.000
Independent 0.230 -3.081 0.003
CIO- Substitution vs. Adlusted Total TCDF fibs/ton ADBSP)*10a
Equation: Log,0(Total TCDF) - 1.961 - 0.792 * LogIO(X C102 Sub.)
R2 - .117
Adjusted R2 - .100
S.E. of Regression - 0.718
Standard Error t Statistic p-Value
Constant 0.326 6.009 0.000
Independent 0.307 -2.579 0.013
CIO, Substitution vs. TCDD Toxic Equivalent (Ibs/ton ADBSP)*108
Equation: Log,0(TCDD Toz. Eq.) - 1.362 - 0.700 * LogIO(X C102 Sub.)
R2 - .133
Adjusted R2 - .115
S.E. of Regression - 0.593
Standard Error t Statistic o-Value
Constant 0.269 5.057 0.000
Independent 0.253 -2.764 0.008
123
-------
FIGURE
K)
00
O
w
I
1/5
P
P
0.
•a
M
3
•o"
<
C12 vs. ADJUSTED PULP TCDD
100.00
10.00
100
0.10
001
(>•„•• .
->—e>-
1 1
Softwood
Hardwood
16 25 36 49 64 81 100 121 144 169 196
C12 (Ibs/ton ADBSP)
-------
FIGURE 7-11
KAPPA # vs. ADJUSTED PULP TCDD
oo l UU.UU
O
W
*
en
g 10.00
G
0
M
5 1.00
p
Q
U
H
3 0.10
OH
O
*••
M
••— »
•o
< 001
: 1
-
D
•o /
o
: o ' ..•:•
o • . ." •„•" -
rrn Q O •. »*• „"
" jwft& • " " """•"" ° ""
<§* ^^^^ . O "^ "
tijjn[)
,-C;
\3
~ o 0?o . m
'. n o M
: ° ^o%- o
. • °
1 Q 1 1
0 10 20 30
"
;
-
—
"
-
-
:
-
•
-
—
.
44
O
Softwood
Hardwood
Kappa i!
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA LISTINGS
PAGE
A-l. 104 Mill Data Listing 127
Variables:
Company
City
State
Pulping Process
Treatment - Vastewater Treatment Type
TSS - Total Suspended Solids Concentration
A-2. TCDD/TCDF Concentration Data 129
A-3. TCDD/TCDF Field Duplicates 139
A-4. TCDD/TCDF Lab Duplicates 141
Variables:
Company
City
State
Sample ID • Sample Identification Number
Sample Date - Date sample was procured
TCDD - Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
TCDD Date • Lab analysis date for TCDD
TCDF - Concentration of 2,3.7.8-TCDF
TCDF Date - Lab analysis date for TCDF
Lab - Laboratory that performed the analyses
126
-------
A-l. 10* MIX DATA USTOS
Company
Gaylord Container Corp.
Wilanette Industrial
Alaska Pulp Co.
Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Wausau Paper Hills Co.
Oilman Paper Co.
Gulf States Paper Corp.
Haomarmill Paper Co.
Bamernill Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
James River Corp.
Janes River Corp.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Jamea River Corp.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Leaf River Forest Products
Long view Fibre Co.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper Co.
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
Mead Corporation
Mead Corporation
Mead Corporation
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Hekoosa Papers, Inc.
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Pope & TaLbot, Inc.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Appleton Papers, Inc.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascede Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Bowater Corp.
Bowater Corp.
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Chesapeake Corp.
Container Corp. of America
Pentair, Inc.
Federal Peper Board Co.
Sin
Art loch
Baweaville
Sitka
Peshtigo
Coosa Pines
Lincoln
Brokaw
St. Marys
Deoopolia
Erie
Seise
Bastrop
Georgetown
Jay
Mobile
Moss Point
Natchez
Pine Bluff
Texarkana
Ticonderoga
Femandina Beach
Hoquiao
Jesup
Port Angeles
Berlin
Camas
Clatskanle
Green Bay
Old Town
St. Franeesville
Butler
New Augusta
Longview
Ketchikan
Samoa
ChiUicothe
Escanaba
King sport
Ashdown
Nekoosa
Port Edwards
Johnsonbuxg
Balsey
Cloquet
Lewi aton
McGhee
Claiborne
Roaring Springs
Jackson
Deridder
St. Helens
Rumford
Hellula
International Falls
Catawfaa
Calhoun
Brunswick
Perry
Oglethorpe
Lufkin
Courtland
Quinnesec
Cantonment
Houston
Canton
Heat Point
Brewton
Park Falls
Augusta
State
CA
KY
AK
WI
AL
ME
WI
GA
AL
PA
AL
LA
SC
ME
AL
MS
MS
AR
TX
NY
FL
HA
GA
WA
HB
HA
OR
HI
ME
LA
AL
MS
HA
AK
CA
OB
MI
TH
AR
HI
HI
PA
OR
MN
ID
AR
AL
PA
AL
LA
OK
ME
HA
KN
SC
TH
GA
FL
GA
TX
AL
MI
FL
TX
NC
VA
AL
HI
GA
Pulping
Process
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Sulflte
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Sulfite
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft
K/S
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Soda
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft
Treatment TSS (an/1)
ACT
ASB
ACT
ACT
ASB
ACT
ACT
ASB
ASB
POTW
ASB
ASB
ASB
ACT
ASB
ASB
ACT
ASB
ASB
ACT
ASB
ACT
ASB
ACT
ACT
ASB
ACT
POTH
ACT
ASB
ASB
ACT
ACT
ACT
RONE
ACT/ASB
ACT
ASB
ASB
ACT
ACT
ASB
ASB
POTW
ASB
ASB
ACT
ACT
ASB
ASB
POTW
ACT
ASB
ACT
ASB
ASB
ASB
ASB
ASB
ACT
ASB
ACT
ASB
ACT
ACT
ACT
ASB
ACT
ASB
63.00
U3.ec
75.00
125.15
18.80
48.40
39.20
69.50
80.80
203.10
60.00
81.30
117.00
101.00
57.20
113.00
71.00
3.80
55.50
200.40
75.80
26.07
273.00
47.00
78.60
177ll5
127.00
33.60
17.60
46.00
47.20
243.60
96.70
14.40
88.00
20.80
36.00
42^85
13.90
129.00
125.60
21.00
86.50
14.40
19.00
58.70
59.00
69.60
13.00
25.20
45.60
38.80
20.30
22^60
31.70
27.20
24.90
22.40
93.80
12.80
98.30
101.20
127
-------
A-l. 104 MILL DAXA USTUG (C
Federal Paper Board Co
Finch Pruyn & Co , Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
P H. Glatfelter Co.
Proctor & Caabl* Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Simpson Pap«r Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
St. Jo* Paper Co.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Temple-Eastex. Inc.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp
Hestvaco Corp.
Hestvaco Corp.
Westvaeo Corp
Heyerhauser Co.
Heyerhavuer Co
Heyerhauaer Co
Heyerhauaor Co.
Heyerhauser Co.
Weyerbauaer Co.
Citv
Rlegelvood
Glens Falls
Bellinghaa
Crostet
Palatka
Woodland
Zachary
Spring Grove
Mehoopany
Everett
Mobil.
Binckley
Muakegon
Hestbrook
Anderson
Fairhaven
Pasadena
Tacoma
Port St. Joe
Missoula
Panama City
Snowflake
Evadale
Eastover
Franklin
Covington
Luke
Hickliffo
Cosaopolis
Everett
Longview
Hew Ben
Plymouth
Rothehild
State
HC
NY
HA
AX
FL
ME
LA
PA
PA
HA
AL
ME
MI
ME
CA
CA
rx
HA
FL
MT
FL
AZ
IX
sc
VA
VA
MD
KY
HA
HA
HA
HC
HC
HI
Pulping
Process
Kraft
Sulfite
Sulfite
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Sulfite
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Kraft
Sulfite
Treatment
ASB
ACT
ASB
ACT
ASB
ASB
ASB
ACT
ACT
ACT
ACT
ACT
POTW
ACT
ASB
NONE
ACT
ACT
POTW
ASB
POTW
POND
ASB
ASB
ASB
ACT
POTW
ASB
ACT/ASB
ASB
ACT
ASB
ASB
ACT
TSS (nut/1)
44.40
26 80
41°80
8.20
56 80
130 00
42 00
127 60
30.19
47 70
70 00
104 '20
35 80
137 00
880 00
46 40
.
108.80
26 20
1 80
60.00
46.30
56 80
33 70
121 40
17 70
43 80
14.00
13.20
27.20
128
-------
A-2. TCDO/TCDP UBLUHkATIOB DATA
MATRIX-PULP (ppt)
N>
vO
Company
MllanetLe Industries
Hllaaatte Induatrlea
Badger Papar MILL*. Inc
Klnbarly-Clark Corp.
Hauaau Papar Mills Co.
GlLman Papar Co.
Hannannlll Papar Co.
Hanmenalll Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Fapar Co.
International Papar Co
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Paper Co
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
ITT-Rayonlar. Inc.
Jones Rlvar Corp
James Rtvar Corp
Janes Rlvar Corp.
James Rlvar Corp.
Janes Rlvar Corp.
Leaf Rlvar Forait Products
Head Corporation
Mead Corporation
Head Corporation
Head Corporation
Nekoosa Papers. Inc.
Mekooaaj Papar*. Inc.
Penntach Papers, Inc
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
Alabama Rlvar Pulp
Alabama Rlvar Pulp
Applaton Papara, Inc
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp
Bolae Cescada Corp
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Eitv.
State Sample ID Sample Date TCDP TCDD Data
TCDF TCDF Date Lab
BawasvllLe
Haweavllle
Peshtlgo
Coosa Pines
Brokaw
St. Marys
Erie
SeUna
Baatrop
Baatrop
Gear (a town
Jay
Jay
Mobile
Moss Point
Matches
Hatches
Pine Bluff
Pine Bluff
Texarkana
Ticondaroga
Tlcondaroga
Farnandlna Beach
Berlin
Canas
Green Bay
Butler
Butler
New Augusta
Chi 11 lea the
Esc an aba
Eecanaba
Kingaport
Port Edwards
Aahdown
Johnsonburg
Cloquet
McGhee
Clalborna
Claiborne
Roaring Springs
Rumford
International Falls
International Falls
Brunswick
Brunswick
Courtland
Qulnneaec
Qulnnesec
Cantonment
Cantonment
Canton
Canton
KY
KY
WI
AL
HI
GA
PA
AL
LA
LA
SC
HE
ME
AL
MS
MS
MS
AR
AR
TX
MY
m
FL
NH
HA
HI
AL
AL
MS
OH
MI
MI
IN
HI
AR
PA
MM
AR
AL
AL
PA
ME
HN
MN
GA
GA
AL
HI
MI
FL
FL
HC
NC
M63PAC
M63PBC
M46FC
H36PAC
HS4PC
M3SPAC
M103PC
M8BPAC
M8SPAC
M85PAC1
M70PBC
RG 186367
RGIB6367
M7IPBC
M34PBC
M97PBC
H97P11
MS1PAC
M31PAC
H99PAC
M9PAC
H9PAC
M90PC
H89PBC
H32PBC
M72PC
H96PAC
M96PCC
M3SHPC60
DE026003
MP10S
HP106
H73PC
MSOPC
M20PAC
M57PC
M36PC60
M1BPBC
M21PC
M21PC1
M13PC40
HB2PBC
DE020904
DE02090S
M87PBC
H87PBC1
H40PAC
Q7P
09 P
CPH300
CPH300
M47B1DO-300
M47D100-SOO
io/28/aa
10/28/88
07/22/88
08/26/88
07/22/88
09/02/88
06/19/BB
06/26/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
07/16/88
10/24/88
06/07/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
06/17/66
06/17/88
08/06/88
06/24/B8
06/24/88
07/07/88
08/19/88
.
.
06/16/88
06/16/88
02/27/88
10/18/86
12/13/87
12/15/87
06/06/88
06/17/88
10/08/88
08/01/88
09/24/88
07/13/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/26/88
06/02/88
06/25/86
06/25/86
08/26/88
08/26/88
06/24/88
• 12/15/87
12/15/87
01/15/88
01/15/88
04/21/Bt
04/21/88
0 30
0 SO
4 40
0.30
0 40
2 80
6 40
2.10
S 10
S 70
1 90
55 70
46.70
3.30
13.00
2 20
3.60
21 00
23.00
7.10
16.00
17 00
0 20
3 30
0 30
0 80
3 30
3.70
3 80
0.60
IB 00
13 00
1 SO
0.40
2.80
3 10
1 20
12 00
3 90
3 BO
1 00
17 00
4 90
3 00
1 90
1.60
3 SO
•7 70
7 80
0 70
1 00
6 00
S BO
12/30/88
12/30/88
12/16/88
12/02/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
11/11/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/09/88
04/21/87
08/19/87
12/30/88
11/11/88
06/30/89
11/03/88
11/18/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
12/30/88
11/04/88
11/04/98
11/25/88
11/04/88
12/23/88
04/19/89
.
03/09/88
03/21/88
11/11/88
11/16/86
12/23/88
12/09/88
01/12/89
12/02/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/03/88
11/11/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/18/88
03/09/88
03/09/88
09/30/68
03/21/88
07/01/68
07/01/88
1 10
1 90
323 00
1 00
9.90
6 BO
22 00
21.00
22.00
23.00
7 70
181 00
183 00
14.00
103 00
3 00
IS 00
647 00
661 00
31 00
103.00
108 00
0 30
41 00
0 90
7 10
19 00
30 00
7 70
13 00
68 00
39 00
26 00
4 10
27 00
38.00
S 00
83 00
97 00
98 00
21 00
111 00
47 00
30 00
3 SO
2 90
7 60
50 00
45 00
* 10
0 70
9 90
10 00
12/30/88
12/30/88
12/16/88
12/02/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
11/11/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/09/68
04/21/87
08/19/67
12/30/68
11/11/88
06/30/89
11/03/88
11/16/86
11/18/88
12/23/68
11/04/88
11/04/88
12/30/88
11/04/88
11/04/68
11/23/88
11/04/88
12/23/88
04/19/89
03/09/88
03/21/68
11/11/88
11/18/86
12/23/88
12/09/88
01/12/89
12/02/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/03/88
11/11/88
11/23/88
11/25/88
11/18/88
03/09/88
03/09/88
09/30/88
03/21/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
-------
A-2. KDD/TCDP COWCEKTHATIOH DMA (OOHTIIIUED)
MATRIX-PULP (ppt)
U>
o
Company
Cheaapeake Corp.
Pantair, Inc.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Fedaral Papar Board Co.
Fadaral Papar Board Co.
Federal Papar Board Co.
Finch, Pruyn & Co.. Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Gaorgia-PaelfLc Corp.
Caorgia-Paciflc Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
P H. Glatfaltar Co.
Proctor & Ganbla Co.
Scott Papar Co.
Scott Papar Co.
Scott Papar Co.
Scott Papar Co.
Scott Papar Co.
Simpson Papar Co.
Stone Containar Corp.
Tampla-Eastax, Inc.
Temple-Eaataz. Inc.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Waatvaco Corp.
Haatvaco Corp.
Maatvaco Corp.
Hayarhauaar Co.
Weyarhauaer Co.
City
Heat Point
Park Falls
Auguata
Auguata
Rlagalwood
Rlagelwood
Glana Falla
Croaaat
Palatka
Woodland
Zachary
Zachery
Spring Grova
Mehoopany
Mobile
Blncklay
Muakagon
Muakagon
Waatbrook
Paaadana
Panama City
Evadale
Evadala
Eaatovar
Franklin
Franklin
Covington
Covlngton
Wlckllffa
Longviaw
Rothchlld
Stata
Sample ID Sample Data
TCDD Data
TCDF Data
VA
MI
GA
GA
NC
NC
NY
AR
FL
ME
LA
LA
PA
PA
AL
ME
MI
MI
ME
TX
FL
TX
TX
SC
VA
VA
VA
VA
KY
HA
HI
M74PC90
M25PC
M83PAC
M83PBC
M16PDC
M16PDC
M41PC
M6BPAC
M24PAC
M17PC
M1PAC
M1PBC
M64FC60
M42PC
M26PC190
M61FCA
M92PC
H92PC
H30PAC
M2PBC
H102PC
M3PBC"
M3PDC
H93PBC
UCH600
UC0400
M28PBC
M28PCC
M78PBC
H4SFBC
M29FC
12/04/88
07/04/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
01/13/89
09/02/88
07/05/88
07/22/88
07/21/88
07/21/88
10/28/88
07/06/88
01/13/89
06/28/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/30/88
10/08/88
07/19/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/22/88
05/08/88
03/08/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/23/88
08/02/88
08/12/88
••^•••B
8.30
0 SO
2.40
4 90
3 20
3 30
0.30
6 00
0.50
0 40
16 00
5 20
0.40
2.00
0.60
1.90
0.30
0.40
4 20
4 SO
0 10
3.10
4 10
0.40
1 10
3.20
6 20
S 90
2.10
7.70
IS. 00
02/17/89
11/25/88
11/11/88
12/16/88
01/17/89
01/17/89
02/24/89
11/25/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
01/12/89
12/09/88
04/19/89
11/18/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
12/09/88
11/25/88
01/17/89
12/23/88
11/03/88
01/03/89
12/02/88
01/17/89
12/09/88
12/02/88
12/09/88
-—• '-
14 00
0 90
7 90
IS 00
1 30
1.30
0 30
59 00
0 90
0 90
539 00
78 00
2 20
1 10
0 80
10 00
1 00
1 40
16.00
11 00
6 60
6 30
13 00
1 30
2 10
3 60
49 00
19 00
25 00
20 00
26.00
02/17/89
11/25/88
11/11/88
12/16/88
01/17/89
01/17/89
02/24/89
11/25/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
01/12/89
12/09/88
04/19/89
11/18/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
12/09/88
11/25/88
01/17/89
12/23/88
11/03/88
01/03/89
12/02/88
01/17/89
12/09/88
12/02/88
12/09/88
HSii
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
Company
Gaylord Containar Corp.
Alaska Pulp Co
Kimberly-Clark Corp
Klmberly-Clark Corp.
Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Oilman Papar Co.
Hammernlll Papar Co
Intarnational Papar Co
International Paper Co.
Intarnational Papar Co.
Intarnational Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Intarnational Paper Co.
1 itlonal Paper Co
City
Antloch
Sltka
Cooaa Plnea
Cooss Pinas
Coosa Pines
St. Marys
Salma
Baatrop
Georgetown
Georgetown
Georgetown
Georgetown
Jay
Mobile
Mosa Point
Stata
Sample ID Sample Data
TCDD
TCDD Date
TCOF TCDF Date Lab
CA
AX
AL
AL
AL
GA
AL
LA
SC
SC
SC
SC
ME
AL
MS
M106PAC
MSFC
M36PBC
M36FCC
M36PDC
MSSPBC
M88PBC
MSSPBC
H70PAC
M70PAC1
M70PCC
M70PCC1
RG1-86366
M71PAC
M34PAC
10/13/88
08/27/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
09/02/88
06/26/88
06/20/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
01/15/87
10/24/88
)6/07/88
32 00
0.70
4 10
11 00
2 60
3 70
4 70
6 30
9 20
10 00
17 00
16 00
26 00
21 00
7 30
12/23/88
12/16/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
12/09/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/30/88
11/11/88
969 00
1 40
7 30
38 00
3 30
12 00
22 00
42 00
38 00
41 00
55 00
52 00
UO 00
106 00
36 00
12/23/88
12/16/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
12/09/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
12/30/88
11/11/88
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
-------
A-2. TCDO/TCDP (JUHLUHHATIOII DATA (OOftTIHUED)
MATRDC-PULP (ppt)
SOFTWDGO
Company
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
ITT-Rayonter. Inc.
ITT-Rayonier. Inc.
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
James River Corp.
Jamee River Corp.
Jamee River Corp.
Janea River Corp
Jamee River Corp.
Jama* River Corp.
Jamee River Corp.
Jamee River Corp
Leef River Foreat Products
Leaf River Foreet Producta
Longview Fibre Co
Longview Fibre Co.
Longview Fibre Co.
Longview Fibre Co.
Ketchikan Pulp & Paper Co.
Louislane Pacific Corp.
Head Corporation
Nekooaa Pepara. Inc.
Pope & Talbot. Inc.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp.
Potlatch Corp
Alabama River Pulp
Bolee Cescede Corp.
Boiee Cascade Corp.
Boiae Cascade Corp.
Boiae Cascade Corp.
Boiae Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Boiee Cescede Corp.
Boiae Cascade Corp.
Boweter Corp.
Bowatar Corp
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Buckeye Cellulose
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion Internetlonal
Champion International
Champion Internetionel
CUT
State Sample ID Sample Pete
TCPP
TCDD Pete
TCDF TCDF Date Lab
Pine Bluff
Tezerkane
Ticondaroga
Hoquiam
Jesup
Port Angeles
Berlin
Cemas
Camee
Clatekenie
Cletekenle
Cletskenle
St. Frencesville
Butler
Hew Augueta
Hew Augueta
Longview
Longview
Longview
Longview
Ketchikan
Samoa
Eacanaba
Ashdown
Daleey
Cloquet
Lewi a ton
Lewi a ton
HcGhee
Clelborne
Derldder
St. Helens
St. Heleni
St. Helens
Rumford
Hellula
International Fells
International Falls
Catswba
Calhoun
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Perry
Perry
Oglethorpe
Lufkln
Lufkln
Lufkln
Court land
Cantonment
Cantonment
AR
TX
NY
HA
GA
HA
NH
HA
HA
OR
OR
OR
LA
AL
MS
MS
HA
HA
HA
HA
AK
CA
HI
AR
OR
MM
ID
ID
AR
AL
LA
OR
OR
OR
HE
HA
MH
KH
SC
TH
GA
GA
GA
CA
FL
FL
GA
TX
TX
TX
AL
FL
FL
MS1PBC
H99PBC
M9PBC
M33PC
TTP5
H12PAC
M89PAC
H32PAC
H32PCC
86374612
86374612
86374661
HS2PAC
M96PBC
M3SDPC60
M35SPC60
HS3PBC
HS3PAC
M53PAC
HS3PAC D
M31PC
M7PC70
HP1S
H20PBC
H19PC
M38PC70
H56PC
HS6PC1
H18PAC
M21PBC
M58PC
M76PC70
H76PC60
H76PC600
HS2PAC
H66PAC
PE020902
PE020902
M23PC
M75PC
M87PCC
M87PDC
M87PAC
M87PAC1
H91PC80
H91PC90
M22PC40
DF24410
PF024411
PF024411
M40PBC
CPS300
CPS300
06/17/88
08/06/88
06/24/88
07/09/88
07/24/88
07/27/88
08/19/88
.
.
.
.
06/16/88
02/27/88
02/27/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
OB/ IS/88
11/20/88
12/15/87
10/08/88
06/27/88
09/24/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/1S/8B
06/07/88
06/10/88
02/24/89
06/27/88
02/24/89
06/02/88
07/15/88
.
.
06/17/88
06/24/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
07/23/88
' 12/03/86
.
06/24/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
S 00
12 00
31 00
0.60
0.60
0 60
32 00
0 20
12 00
10 20
11 00
12.60
40
20
1 .00
1 .00
70
80
40
.70
0 30
9 10
25 00
5.50
10 00
2.40
25 00
27.00
21 00
43.00
5.30
6 SO
4 20
4 40
116 00
36.00
IS. 20
16 30
2 10
70
.60
30
30
.10
0 SO
0 80
0 50
• 1 00
3 89
3 99
23 00
2.00
2 00
12/02/88
12/23/88
11/04/88
12/09/88
11/03/88
12/16/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
04/21/87
08/19/87
04/21/87
11/04/88
11/04/88
02/17/89
02/17/89
12/02/88
12/02/88
06/19/89
06/19/89
12/09/88
01/12/89
03/09/88
12/23/88
11/04/88
01/12/89
12/02/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
04/19/89
04/19/89
04/19/89
11/11/88
11/04/88
03/19/87
04/21/87
11/18/88
11/11/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
04/21/87
08/19/87
11/18/88
09/30/88
03/21/88
57.00
81 00
185 00
3 80
0.80
2 10
1110 00
0.60
152.00
54 30
64 40
63.90
19.00
1 40
23 00
35 00
IB 00
28 00
26 00
0 30
59 00
116.00
12 00
41 00
7.90
153.00
147 00
59 00
120 00
8 70
18 00
12 00
11.00
800 00
1380 00
333 00
3 30
S3 00
4 30
12 00
8 00
9 40
0 70
2 50
0 90
1 20
7 68
7 90
102 00
2 20
0 90
12/02/88
12/23/88
11/04/88
12/09/88
11/03/88
12/16/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
04/21/87
08/19/87
04/21/87
11/04/88
11/04/88
02/17/89
02/17/89
12/02/88
12/02/88
06/19/89
06/19/89
12/09/88
01/12/89
03/09/88
12/23/88
11/04/88
01/12/89
12/02/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
04/19/89
04/19/89
04/19/89
11/11/88
11/04/88
.
04/21/87
11/18/88
11/11/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
04/21/87
08/19/87
11/18/88
09/30/88
03/21/88
HSU
HSU
WSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
WSU
WSU
HSU
WSU
HSU
CAL
-------
A-2. TCDD/TCDF OOHCUIUATIOM DATA (OORTIRUED)
MATRIX-PULP Ippt)
SOFTWOOD
U)
10
Company
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Federal Paper Board Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Georgia-Pacific Corp
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
P H. Glatfelter Co.
F H. Gletfelter Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Slmpaon Peper Co.
Simpaon Paper Co.
Slmpaon Paper Co.
Simpaon Paper Co.
St. Joe Paper Co.
Stone Container Corp
Stone Container Corp.
Tample-Eaatex. Inc.
Temple-EaateB, Inc.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Heatvaco Corp
Meatvaco Corp.
Heatvaco Corp.
Naatvaco Corp.
Weyerhauier Co.
Heyerhausar Co.
Weyerhauier Co
Wayerhauiar Co.
Weyerhauier Co.
Weyerhauaer Co
Weyerhauser Co
State
Sample ID Sample Date
TCDD
TCDD Pate
TCDF TCDF Date Lab
Cantonment
Houston
Canton
Canton
Canton
Augusta
Riegelwood
Hi age brood
Belllnghan
BeLLinghan
Crossat
Crossat
Falatka
Zachary
Spring Grove
Spring Grove
Everett
Mobile
Mobile
Blnckley
Blnckley
Weatbrook
Anderson
Falrhaven
Paaadena
Feaadene
Tecoma
Fort St. Joe
Mlisoula
Snewflake
Evadale
Evadale
Eastover
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Covington
Luke
Hlckliffe
Wickliffe
Cosmopolla
COIIDO polls
Everett
Longview
Longview
New Bern
Plymouth
FL
TX
NC
MC
NC
GA
NC
NC
VIA
HA
AR
AR
FL
LA
PA
FA
HA
AL
AL
ME
ME
HE
CA
CA
TX
TX
HA
FL
Ml
AZ
TX
TX
SC
VA
VA
VA
VA
MD
KY
KY
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
NC
NC
CPS302
M15PC
M47A100-SOO
M47C100-SOO
M47C100-SOOQ
M83FCC
M16PAC
M16PBC
H60PC
M60PC1
M68PBC
M68PCC
H24PBC
M1PCC
M64PC50
M64FCSOD
HBOPAC
M26PC1SO
H26PC180
M61PCB
M61PCB1
H30PBC
M98FC
H43PC60
M2PAC
M2PAC1
M81PC
M94PC
H27PC
H100PC
M3PAC
M3PCC
M93PAC
UCA100
UCS600
UCS6000
M28PAC
M62PC
M78PAC
M78PACD
M4PAC
M4PAC1
M79PAC
M4SPAC
M45PAC1
M6PAC
M86PC80
01/15/88
10/07/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
06/10/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
09/02/88
09/02/88
07/05/88
07/21/88
10/28/88
10/28/88
07/17/88
10/24/88
01/13/89
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/30/88
06/24/88
08/06/88
10/08/88
10/08/88
10/29/88
08/02/88
07/12/88
07/17/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/22/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
OS/08/88
07/19/88
06/28/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
08/06/88
08?06/88
07/24/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/13/88
02/13/89
90
.90
1 00
SO
60
90
00
4 30
2 60
3 SO
7 70
19.00
0 SO
27 00
3 90
6 SO
0 30
2.20
1.70
8 SO
7 90
8 10
49 00
20 00
14.00
18.00
12.00
2.20
4 10
0 70
1.90
7 80
2 40
3 80
5 20
S 40
13 00
29 00
12 00
11 00
1.00
3 40
1 70
1.60
7.50
14.00
03/21/88
12/23/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
10/06/88
12/16/88
01/17/89
01/17/89
12/09/88
06/19/89
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/18/88
11/25/88
01/12/89
01/12/89
12/30/88
06/19/89
04/19/89
11/18/88
11/18/88
11/18/88
11/11/88
11/03/88
12/23/88
12/23/88
12/30/88
12/23/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
12/23/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
12/02/88
11/18/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
12/16/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
11/18/88
04/19/89
1 10
6 80
27 00
11 00
S SO
19 00
3 20
4 70
449 00
409 00
89 00
308 00
2 40
632 00
13 00
18 00
0 10
4 30
2 20
37 00
35 00
30 00
2620 00
106 00
48.00
66 00
38 00
S 70
13 00
1 30
9 60
22 00
S 60
4.20
S 70
6 90
IDS 00
1S7.00
S5.00
54 00
6 30
6 40
16 00
2 80
2 80
45 00
222 00
03/21/88
12/23/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
10/06/88
12/16/88
01/17/89
01/17/89
12/09/88
06/19/89
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/18/88
11/23/88
01/12/89
01/12/89
12/30/88
06/19/89
04/19/89
11/18/88
11/18/88
11/18/88
11/11/88
11/03/88
12/23/88
12/23/88
12/30/88
12/23/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
11/25/88
11/25/86
12/23/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
12/02/88
11/18/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
12/16/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
11/18/88
04/19/89
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
WSU
HSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL
WSU
WSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
CAL
CAL
WSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
WSU
WSU
HSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
-------
A-2. Tcoo/icDP oaKamaaum DATA (CORIHUED)
HATCH-SLUDGE (pptl
Company
Gaylord Container Corp.
Alaska Pulp Co.
Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Hauaau Papar Htlla Co.
Hauiau Papal Mills Co.
Gulf Stataa Papac Corp.
Gulf Stataa Papar Corp.
Hanmamlll Papar Co.
Uamnannlll Papar Co.
Inbarnational Papar Co.
Intarnatlonal Papar Co.
Intarnational Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
Intarnational Fapar Co.
International Papar Co.
Intarnational Papar Co.
Intarnational Papar Co.
Intarnatlonal Papar Co.
Intarnational Papar Co.
Intarnatlonal Papar Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Intarnatlonal Papar Co.
International Paper Co.
ITT-Rayonlar. Inc.
ITT-Rayonlar, Inc.
ITT-Rayonlar. Inc.
ITT-Rayonlar. Inc.
Jamaa Rlvax Corp.
Jamaa River Corp.
Jamaa River Corp.
Jamaa River Corp.
Jamaa River Corp.
Jamaa River Corp.
Jamas River Corp.
Jamaa River Corp.
Leaf River Forest Products
Longvlax Fibre Co.
Katchikan Pulp & Paper Co.
KetchIkan Pulp & Paper Co.
Head Corporation
Head Corporation
Head Corporation
Head Corporation
Nekoosa Papers, Ine
Nakoosa Papera, Inc
Pope & Talbot. Inc.
Potlatch Corp
Pot latch Corp
Potlatch Corp
Alabama Rlvar Pulp
Alabama Rlvar Pulp
Alabama Rlvar Pulp
Cltv
State Sample ID Sample Date TCDD TCDD Pate
TCPF TCDF Pate Lab
Ant loch
Sltka
Lincoln
Brokaw
Brokaw
Deonpolla
Damopolla
Erie
Erie
Beatrop
Georgetown
Jay
Jay
Jay
Jey
Jey
Mobile
Moas Point
Matches
Pine Bluff
Taxarkana
Texarkana
Tecarkana
Tlconderoga
Tlconderoga
Fernandlna Beach
Hoqulam
Jesup
Port Angeles
Berlin
Berlin
Csmaa
Clatakanla
Clatskanla
Green Bay
Old Tom
St Francaavllle
Ne« Augusta
Long view
Ketchikan
Katchikan
Chlllicothe
Chllllcothe
Escanaba
Klngsport
Nekooaa & Port Edwards
Aihdown
Kaliey
Cloquet
LawlsLon
HcGhee
Clalborne
Clalborne
Clalborna
CA
AK
HE
HI
HI
AL
AL
PA
PA
LA
SC
HE
HE
KB
HE
HE
AL
MS
MS
AR
TX
TX
TX
mr
tn
FL
HA
GA
HA
HH
tm
HA
OR
OR
HI
HE
LA
MS
HA
AK
AK
OH
OH
HI
TN
HI
AR
OR
UN
ID
AR
AL
AL
AL
M106SC
H5SC-1
Ml ISC
M54SC
HS4SC
H101SC
H10 ISC
M103SC
H103SC
M85SC
M70SC
RG1-86397
RG1863B7
RG1B«387
RG186387A
RG166387B
M71SC
H34SC
H»7SC
M51SC
M99SC
H99SC
M9»SC1
M9SAC
H9SBC
M90SC
H33SC
HB4SC
H12SAC
HB9SC
H89SC
H32SC
66374641
66374642
H72SBC
H8SAC
HS2SAC
H3SSSC10
H53SC
H31SC
M31SC
DE026011
DE026011
MS15
M73SC
N77SC
M20SC
H19SC
M38SCO
M36SC
M18SC
M21SC
H21SC1
H21SC2
10/15/88
OB/27/B6
11/19/88
07/22/66
07/22/68
06/14/88
06/14/86
06/19/88
06/19/88
06/20/86
07/16/66
01/15/67
.
.
.
m
10/24/88
06/07/86
OB/12/88
06/17/88
08/06/68
08/06/88
08/06/88
06/24/88
06/24/86
07/06/86
07/09/66
07/24/86
07/27/66
08/19/88
08/19/86
09/10/86
09/10/86
_
02/27/88
06/29/66
06/15/68
08/13/88
12/13/87
06/06/86
06/17/88
10/08/88
06/27/88
09/2t/88
07/26/88
07/15/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
101 00
4.70
48 00
3.20
4 10
51 00
37 00
1.40
0 90
140.00
62 00
500.00
193 00
166 00
191 00
161.00
10B 00
161 00
14 00
165 00
71.00
86 00
59! oo
306 00
4 70
4 80
3 00
47.00
104.00
98.00
12.00
19.00
69 00
35 00 -
12 00
96.00
661 00
69 00
3 SO
0 40
3 37
3 27
125 00
3 00
109 00
13 00
31 00
•5 00
78 00
91 00
81 00
73 00
68 00
01/03/69
06/29/89
01/26/89
12/22/88
06/29/89
12/06/86
10/06/69
12/22/88
03/01/69
01/03/69
12/06/86
04/21/67
08/19/87
08/26/87
08/26/67
01/26/89
12/06/88
11/03/88
12/06/86
01/03/89
06/19/89
01/03/89
12/06/66
12/06/88
06/29/89
06/29/69
02/17/89
06/29/89
12/19/66
06/19/89
12/06/66
12/22/68
12/06/88
12/06/66
02/17/69
12/22/88
06/29/89
.
04/21/87
08/19/87
09/30/88
01/26/89
12/22/86
01/26/89
12/06/88
01/26/89
01/26/89
12/19/68
12/06/68
12/06/88
01/26/89
1570 00
42.00
223 00
68 00
56 00
107.00
3.00
3 10
677.00
161.00
2100 00
879 00
670.00
762.00
713.00
617.00
1020.00
78 00
2940 00
1000 00
387.00
600 00
267.00
2470 00
32 00
25 00
2.40
65.00
2930 00
2170 00
105.00
100 00
810 00
250 00
34 00
243 00
437.00
2 00
42 60
34 30
574 00
25 00
1300 00
30 00
106 00
23 00
639 00
433 00
373 00
393 00
31.2 00
01/03/89
06/29/69
01/26/89
12/22/68
06/29/89
12/06/86
10/06/89
12/22/88
03/01/69
01/03/89
12/06/8B
.
04/21/87
08/19/87
08/26/67
08/26/67
01/26/89
12/06/88
11/03/88
12/06/88
01/03/89
06/19/89
01/03/89
12/06/66
12/06/88
06/29/69
06/29/89
02/17/89
06/29/89
12/19/66
06/19/69
12/06/66
12/22/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
02/17/89
12/22/88
06/29/89
.
04/21/87
08/19/87
09/30/88
01/26/89
12/22/68
01/Z6/89
12/06/68
01/26/69
01/26/89
12/19/88
12/06/88
12/06/68
01/26/89
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
-------
A-2. TCDO/TO1P UMLUUkATUM DATA
-------
A-2. TCDO/TCDP OOKZnBATIOH DATA (OOHTIHUED)
HATREC-SLUDGZ (ppt)
Ul
in
Company
Tampla-Eaatax. Inc
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp
Haatvaco Corp.
Hntvaco Corp.
Haatvaco Corp.
Hayarhauaar Co.
Wayarhauaar Co.
Uayarhauaar Co.
Hayarhauaar Co.
Hayarhauaar Co.
Hayarhauaar Co.
Hayarhauaar Co.
Hayarhauaar Co.
Company
Wllamatta Industrial
Wllaoatta Industrial
Badgar Papar Mill*. Inc.
Klobarly-Clatk Corp.
Oilman Papar Co.
HaonanDllL Papar Co.
Jaoaa Rlvar Corp.
Bolaa Caacada Corp.
Bowatar Corp.
Bowatar Corp.
Bowatar Corp.
Fadaral Papar Board Co
Gaorgla-Paclfic Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Gaorgla-Paclfle Corp.
Proctor & Gambia Co.
Stona Container Corp.
CltT
Evadala
Eaatovar
Franklin
Covington
Luka
Hicklift*
CouBopolia
Longvlaw
Longvlaw
Longvlaw
Haw Barn
How Barn
Plymouth
Rothehlld
City
Bawaavllla
Bawa*villa
Paahtlgo
Cooaa Plnaa
St. Marya
Salma
Butlar
Darlddar
Catawba
Calhoun
Calhoun
Augueta
Croaaat
Croaset
Palatka
Hahoopiny
Hliaoula
Stata Sampla ID
nla Data
TCDD
TCDD Data
TCDF TCDF Data Lab
IX
sc
VA
VA
H>
KY
HA
HA
HA
HA
HC
HC
HC
HI
Stata
KY
KY
HI
AL
GA
AL
AL
LA
SC
TN
IK
GA
AR
AR
FL
PA
MT
H3S3
H93SC
UCF10
H28SC
H62SC
H78SC
H4SC1
H43SC-L
H43SC1-L
M4SSC1-L
H6SC
H6SC1
H86SCO
H29SC
NATvnr-
Sampla ID
H63SAC
H63SBC
M46SC
M36SC
MS5SC
K88SC
M96SC
M58SC
M23SC
H75SC
H73SC
M93SC
H68SAC1
H68SAC1
M2*SC
H42SAC
H27SC
07/28/88
07/22/88
03/08/88
07/19/68
06/28/88
07/23/68
08/06/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
02/13/69
08/12/88
Sample Data
10/28/88
10/28/88
07/22/88
08/26/88
09/02/88
06/26/88
06/16/88
06/10/88
06/17/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/10/68
09/02/88
09/02/88
07/03/88
07/06/88
07/12/88
16 00
6.90
3.60
119.00
80.00
9.40
12 00
23.00
,
33.00
373.00
213.00
1390 00
38.00
TCDD
83 00
32.00
36 00
3800.00
220.00
680 00
330.00
280.00
620.00
.
4SOO.OO
680 00
,
190.00
92.00
6.00
33.00
12/06/88
01/03/69
11/03/68
12/19/68
12/22/68
12/22/68
06/29/89
12/22/68
12/22/88
03/01/69
12/19/88
12/19/88
04/19/69
12/19/88
TCDP Data
01/26/69
01/26/89
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/68
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/22/88
02/14/89
01/03/89
12/22/88
02/14/89
12/06/88
06/29/89
12/06/88
49 00
11 00
6.00
799 . 00
471.00
46 00
61 00
80 00
84 00
89.00
1920.00
1600 00
17100.00
130.00
TCDF
380.00
210 00
1800 00
9200 00
610 00
2900.00
1100 00
440 00
880 00
17000 00
14000.00
1400 00
740 00
710 00
410 00
6 00
ISO 00
12/06/86
01/03/89
11/03/86
12/19/88
12/22/88
12/22/88
06/29/89
12/22/86
12/22/88
03/01/89
12/19/86
12/19/86
04/19/89
12/19/88
TCDF Data
01/26/89
01/26/89
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/22/88
02/14/89
01/03/89
12/22/88
02/14/89
12/06/88
06/29/89
12/06/88
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
Lab
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
-------
A-2. TCDD/TCDF COHCEHTRATIOI DATA (COTTIIIIIED)
NATUX-EFFLUEBT (ppq)
Company
Gaylord Container Corp
Hllanatta Industries
Alaska Pulp Co
Badger Papar Hi 111. Inc.
Badgar Papar HIlit. Inc.
Badgar Papar Hill*. Inc.
Badgar Papar Hi 111. Inc.
Kimbarly-Clark Corp.
Lincoln Pulp and Papar
Hauaau Papar Hi Hi Co.
Hauaau Papar Hi 111 Co.
Gilaan Papar Co.
Gulf Stataa Papar Corp.
Baonarmlll Papar Co.
Hannennlll Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Paper Co.
International Papar Co.
Intarnational Papar Co
Intarnational Papar Co
Intarnational Paper Co.
International Papar Co.
Intarnational Papar Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Interactional Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
ITT-Reyonier. Inc.
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
ITT-Rayonler. Inc
ITT-Rayoniar. Inc
ITT-Rayonler. Inc.
Jamas River Corp
James River Corp.
James River Corp
James River Corp.
James River Corp
Jamas River Corp.
James River Corp.
Jamas River Corp.
Jamas River Corp.
James River Corp.
James River Corp.
Leaf River Forest Product!
LongvISM Fibre Co.
Ketchlkan Pulp & Papar Co
Ketchlkan Pulp & Papar Co
Louisiana Pacific Corp.
1 -'-lane Pacific Corp
Corporation •
Sample ID Sample Pete
TCDD
TCDD Pate
TCDF TCPF Pate Lab
Erie
Haweavllle
Sltka
Peshtlgo
Peshtlgo
Paihtigo
Peshtlgo
Cooaa Plnaa
Lincoln
Broken
Broken
St. Maryi
Danopolli
Erie
Salma
Baatrop
Georgetown
Georgetown
Jay
Joy
Jay
Mobile
Hoblie
MOIB Point
Natchei
Pine Bluff
Tezerkana
Texarkana
Ticondaroga
Tlcondaroga
Femandina Beech
Hoqulam
Jeaup
Jeaup
Jesup
Port Angeles
Berlin
Camas
Clatikanle
Clatikanle
Green Bey
Green Bay
Green Bay
Green Bay
Old Town
St. Franceavllle
Butler
Hew Auguata
Longview
Ketchlkan
Ketchlkan
Samoa
Samoa
ChillIcotha
CA
ICY
AK
MI
HI
MI
MI
AL
ME
MI
MI
GA
AL
PA
AL
LA
SC
SC
ME
ME
ME
AL
AL
MS
MS
AR
TX
TX
NY
NY
FL
MA
GA
GA
GA
HA
NH
MA
OR
OR
HI
HI
HI
HI
ME
LA
AL
MS
HA
AK
AK
CA
CA
OH
M106EC
M63EC
MSEC-1
M46EAC
M46EAC
M46EBC
M46EBC
M36EC
M11EC
MS4EC
MS*. EC
M55EC
M101EC
M103ECX
MB8EC
MB SEC
M70EC
M70EC1
R61B63B8
RG1B6388
RG1B638BA
H71EC
H71ECD
M34EC
H97EC
M51EC
H99EC
H99EC1
H9EC
M9EC1
H90EC
M33EC
M84EBC
H84EAC
HB4EAC1
M12EC
M89EC
M32EC
86374645
86374645
M72EBC
M72EAC
M72EAC
M72EAC1
MSEC
MS2EC
M96EC
M3SSEC30
H53EC
M31EAC
M31EBC
M70EC10
M70EC10P
DEO260 1
10/15/88
10/28/88
OB/27/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/21/88
08/26/88
11/19/88
07/22/88
07/22/68
09/02/88
06/14/88
06/19/88
06/26/88
06/20/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
.
.
.
10/24/88
10/24/88
06/07/88
08/12/88
06/17/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
07/06/88
07/09/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/27/88
08/19/88
.
r
06/16/88
02/27/88
06/29/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
11/20/88
11/20/88
10/18/86
49 00
11 00
7 70
9.80
6.40
4 SO
5.30
35 00
32 00
4 20
4 90
6. SO
38 00
24 00
81 00
330 00
640.00
490 00
88 10
95 30
80.40
.
100.00
160.00
38 00
110 00
13.00
18 00
18.00
24 00
7 00
23.00
23 00
24 00
11 00
22 00
S9.00
.
IS 70
14 SO
a so
11.00
19.00
IS 00
39 00
82 00
23 00
200 00
•4 60
6.70
IS 00
67 00
3 00
01/03/89
01/03/89
06/28/89
11/15/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
01/26/89
11/15/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
07/07/87
09/30/87
08/26/87
01/03/89
05/31/89
11/15/88
11/03/88
11/04/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
11/22/88
11/22/88
OS/31/89
06/28/89
12/06/88
05/31/89
07/09/87
11/16/87
12/06/88
12/06/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
11/15/88
02/16/89
11/04/88
02/16/89
12/06/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
01/26/89
05/31/89
800 00
8 00
32 00
280 00
170 00
110 00
130 00
74 00
130 00
14 00
2 10
17 00
110 00
68 00
310 00
1600 00
1600 00
1SOO 00
447 00
441 00
359.00
850 00
490 00
920 00
220 00
1100 00
43 00
44 00
150 00
160 00
35 00
8.60
16 00
4 20
36 00
1200 00
160 00
133 00
110 00
29 00
61 00
72 00
54 00
130 00
320 00
72 00
410 00
57 00
5 30
7 20
320 00
170 00
11 00
01/03/89
01/03/89
06/28/89
11/15/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
01/26/89
11/15/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
07/07/87
09/30/87
08/26/87
01/03/89
OS/31/89
11/15/88
11/03/88
11/04/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/04/86
11/04/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
11/22/88
11/22/88
OS/31/89
06/28/89
12/06/88
OS/31/89
07/09/87
09/30/87
12/06/88
12/06/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
11/15/88
02/16/89
11/04/88
02/16/89
12/06/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
01/26/89
05/31/89
CAL
CM.
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
MSU
-------
A-2. TCDO/TCDF CONCEHTRATIM DATA (COBTIBUED)
Company
Head Corporation
Mead Corporation
Nakooia Papers, Inc.
Nakoosa Paper*, Inc.
Fanntech Paper*, Inc.
Panntach Papera. Inc.
Fop* & Talbot, Inc.
Fotlatch Corp.
Fotlatch Corp.
Fotlatch Corp.
PotLatch Corp.
Alabama River Pulp
Alabama Rivar Pulp
Alabama River Pulp
Applaton Papara, Inc.
Bolaa Caacada Corp.
Bolaa Caacad* Corp.
Bolaa Cascade Corp.
Bola* Caacad* Corp.
Bolte Cascade Corp.
Bolaa Caacade Corp.
Bolae Cascade Corp.
Boiae Caacade Corp.
Bolae Caacade Corp.
Bonatar Corp.
Bowatar Corp.
Brunawlck Pulp and Paper
Brunaolck Pulp and Paper
Buckeye Cellulose
Buckeye Calluloae
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Chesapeake Corp.
Container Corp. of America
Fantalr, Inc.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Federal Paper Board Co.
Finch, Pruyn & Co.. Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
F.H. Glatfelter Co.
CltV
State
Sample ID Sample Date
TCDD
TCDD Data
TCDF TCDF Data Lab
Cscenaba
Klngaport
Hakoosa & Port Edwards
Ashdown
Johnsonburg
Johnsonburg
Baliey
Cloquet
Lewi a ton
Lewi a ton
Me Ghee
Claiboma
Clalbome
Clelbome
Roaring Springe
Jackson
Jackaon
Darlddar
St. Helena
Runford
Wallula
International Falls
International Falla
International Falla
Catawba
Calhoun
Brunswick
Brunswick
Perry
Oglethorpa
Lufkln
Lufkln
Lufkln
Court land
Qulnnesec
Cantonment
Houston
Houston
Bouaton
Canton
Waat Point
Brewton
Park Falla
Augusta
Riegelmod
Glens Falls
Balllngham
Crossat
Palatka
Woodland
Zachary
Zachary
Spring Grove
HI
TN
HI
AR
PA
PA
OR
MM
ID
ID
AR
AL
AL
AL
PA
AL
AL
LA
OR
HE
HA
HN
MM
MH
SC
TH
GA
GA
FL
GA
IX
TX
TX
AL
HI
FL
TX
TX
TX
HC
VA
AL
WI
GA
NC
NY
MA
AR
FL
ME
LA
LA
PA
HL802
M73EC
H77EC
H20EC
M57EAC
H57EBC
H19EC
H38ECO
H56EC
M56EC1
H16EC
H21EC
H21EC1
H21EC2
H13EDO
M65EC
H6SBC1
HS8EC
H76ECO
H82EC
H66EC
DE020922
DE020922
DE020922
H23EC
H7SEC
H87EC
H87EC1
H91ECO
H22EC10
DF024512
DF024S12
DF024512
H40EC
Q14E
CP1000
H1SEC
H15EC1
M15EC2
H4 70100-500
H74EC140
H67EC
M25EC
M83EC
H16EC
M41EC
H60EC1
M68EC
M24EC
M17EC
H1EC
M1EC
M64EC20
12/15/87
06/06/88
06/17/88
10/08/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
06/27/88
09/24/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/15/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/26/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/10/88
02/24/89
06/02/88
07/15/88
06/17/86
06/24/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
07/23/88
.
06/24/88
12/15/87
01/15/88
10/07/88
10/07/88
10/07/88
04/21/68
12/04/88
07/01/68
07/04/88
06/10/88
12/13/88
01/13/89
07/22/88
09/02/88
07/05/88
07/22/88
07/21/88
07/21/88
10/28/68
17.00
6.00
40.00
41.00
6.80
9.70
30.00
24.00
71.00
79.00
40.00
41.00
40.00
46.00
11.00
95.00
120.00
9.20
22.00
120.00
360.00
111.00
150.00
111.00
24.00
6.80
30.00
30.00
27.00
12.00
7.50
7.20
9.10
77.00
9.00
11.00
5.50
15.00
16.00
6.50
5.40
16.00
28.00
7.90
5.30
96.00
16.00
6.80
190.00
160.00
8.40
08/08/68
11/04/88
11/04/88
02/16/89
12/19/88
12/19/88
11/04/88
01/26/69
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/22/68
11/04/68
11/04/68
01/03/69
11/03/88
01/26/89
01/26/69
11/04/68
04/19/89
11/04/68
12/19/88
01/16/87
02/12/87
02/12/67
11/04/68
12/19/88
12/06/86
12/06/88
11/03/86
11/03/68
07/09/87
09/30/87
11/16/87
11/04/88
10/03/68
11/03/86
01/03/69
05/31/89
05/31/89
04/19/89
11/04/88
11/22/88
12/06/88
05/31/89
06/28/89
06/28/89
12/19/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/22/88
05/31/89
01/26/89
50 80
44.00
320.00
94.00
14.00
65.00
82.00
46.00
360.00
320 00
100.00
250 00
250.00
210.00
18.00
540.00
630.00
44.00
100 00
570.00
7500.00
2160.00
42.00
5.50
68.00
50.00
80.00
26.00
6.90
6.70
340 00
66.00
38.00
86.00
11.00
5.80
7.20
96.00
10.00
4.80
47.00
61.00
2.90
840.00
370.00
38.00
25.00
3000.00
26.00
08/08/88
11/04/88
11/04/68
02/16/89
12/19/68
12/19/68
11/04/68
01/26/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/22/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
01/03/69
11/03/88
01/26/89
01/26/89
11/04/88
04/19/89
11/04/88
12/19/88
02/12/87
11/04/88
12/19/68
12/06/68
12/06/88
11/03/88
11/03/68
07/09/87
09/30/87
11/04/68
10/03/68
11/03/88
01/03/89
01/13/89
05/31/89
05/31/89
04/19/89
11/04/88
11/22/88
12/06/88
01/26/89
06/28/89
06/28/89
12/19/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/22/88
05/31/89
01/26/89
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
-------
A-2. TCDO/TCDP OOMCEKTRATIOH DATA (OQBTIBUED)
tUmX-EPFUIHTT (ppq)
u>
00
Company
Proctor & Gamble Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Slmpaon Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
St. Joe Peper Co.
Stone Container Corp.
Stona Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Stone Container Corp.
Teople-Eaatex, Inc.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Heatveco Corp.
Hestvaco Corp.
Hastvaco Corp.
Uayarhatisar Co.
Heyerhauaer Co.
Heyerhauaer Co.
Meyerhauaer Co.
Weyerhauser Co.
Weyerhauser Co.
Heyerhauser Co.
Heyerheuaer Co.
CltY
Hehoopany
Everett
Everett
Mobile
Hlnckley
Blnckl.y
Huakegon
Wastbrook
Anderson
Falrhavan
Pasadena
Pasadena
Tacotna
Taccna
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Port St. Joe
Hleaoule
Panama City
Panama City
Snowf lake
Evadale
Eaitover
Franklin
Covington
Luke
Mlckllffa
Cosmopolls
Everett
Longv1ew
LongvleM
Mew Bern
Plymouth
Rothenlid
Rothchild
State
Sample ID Sample Date
TCDD
TCDD Date
TCDF TCDF Date Lab
PA
WA
WA
AL
HE
HE
HI
HE
CA
CA
TX
TX
WA
MA
HA
HA
HA
PL
HT
FL
FL
AZ
TX
SC
VA
VA
KD
KY
HA
HA
HA
HA
NC
NC
HI
HI
H42EC
M80EAC
H80EBC
M26EC210
H61EC
M61EC1
M92EC
H30EC
H98EC
H43ECO
H2EC
XH2EC
H810ECO
HS1EC
HB1EC
H81EC
M81EC1
H94EC1
H27EC
H102EAC
H102EBC
H100EC
M3EC
H93EC
UCF1000
H28EC
H62EC
H78EC
H4EC
H79EC
H4SEC-L
H45EC1-L
M6EC
H86ECO
M29EC
H29EC
07/06/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
01/13/89
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/13/88
06/30/88
06/24/88
08/06/88
10/08/88
08/14/89
08/01/89
10/29/88
10/29/88
10/29/88
10/29/88
08/02/88
07/12/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/17/88
07/28/88
07/22/88
05/08/88
07/19/88
06/28/88
07/23/88
08/05/88
07/24/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/13/88
02/13/89
08/12/88
08/12/88
9.70
7.50
8.30
14.00
16.00
19.00
8.40
6.30
250.00
100.00
250.00
17.00
21.00
3.10
8.40
6.90
5.50
88.00
20.00
68.00
1BO.OO
16.00
35.00
9.70
33.00
10.00
8.50
44.00
320.00
12.00
12.00
06/28/89
06/28/89
06/28/89
02/17/89
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/06/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/03/88
01/03/89
01/03/89
05/31/89
01/03/89
05/31/89
02/16/89
11/15/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
05/31/89
11/22/88
11/03/88
11/22/88
12/19/88
12/06/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/15/88
12/06/88
04/19/89
12/19/88
06/28/89
2.80
29.00
2.60
19.00
63.00
100.00
42.00
12.00
8400.00
660.00
1400.00
730.00
100.00
27.00
26.00
26.00
22.00
60.00
7.60
7.90
18.00
39.00
100.00
53.00
71.00
520.00
49.00
150.00
400.00
260.00
37.00
21.00
180.00
4000.00
24.00
18.00
06/28/89
06/28/89
06/28/89
02/17/89
12/19/88
12/19/88
12/06/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/03/88
01/03/89
01/03/89
05/31/89
01/13/89
05/31/89
02/16/89
11/15/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/22/88
05/31/89
11/22/88
11/03/88
11/22/88
12/19/88
12/06/88
06/28/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/15/88
12/06/88
04/19/89
12/19/88
06/28/89
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
-------
A-3. TCDD/TCDF FIELD DUPLICATES
MATUX-PULP (ppt)
Ceamamr CltT
International Paper Co. Baatrop
International Paper Co. Baatrop
International Paper Co. Georgetown
International Paper Co. Georgetown
International Paper Co. Georgetown
International Paper Co. Georgetown
Leaf River Foreat Product* New Augusta
Leaf River Foreat Product* Hew Augusta
Meed Corporation Eacanaba
Head Corporation Eacanaba
Potlatch Corp. Lewi aton
Potlatch Corp. Lewiaton
Alabama Rlvar Pulp Clalborne
Alabaou Rlvar Pulp Clalborna
Boise Cascade Corp. Jackson
Bole* Cascade Corp. Jackson
Brunswick Pulp and Paper Brunswick
Brunswick Pulp and Paper Brunswick
Brunswick Pulp and Paper Brunswick
Brunswick Pulp and Fapar Brunswick
Chaoplcn International Qulnnasec
Champion International Qulnneeec
Champion International Cantonment
Champion International Cantonment
Champion International Cantonment
Champion International Canton
Champion International Canton
Georgia-Pacific Corp. Ballinghan
Georgia-Pacific Corp. Belllngham
Scott Fapar Co. Hlnckley
Scott Fapar Co. BJnckley
Simpson Paper Co. Pasadena
Slopson Paper Co. Pssadans
Ueyerhiuaar Co. Cosanpolls
Hayerhauaar Co. Cosonpolls
Heyerhauaer Co. Cosmopolla
Heyerhausar Co. Coanopolla
Heyerhsusar Co. Longview
Weysrhsusar Co. Longview
State
Sample ID
Sample Date
TCPD TCDD Dat«
TCDF TCPF Cata Lab
LA
LA
SC
SC
SC
SC
MS
MS
MI
HI
ID
ID
AL
AL
AL
AL
GA
GA
Gil
GA
HI
HI
FL
FL
FL
RC
NC
HA
HA
HE
HE
TX
TX
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
H8JPAC
M8SPAC1
M70PAC
M70PAC1
M70FCC
M70PCC1
N3SDPC60
M3SSPC60
HP105
MP106
M56PC
M56PC1
M21PC
H21PC1
M65FC
M6SPC1
H87PAC
H87PAC1
M87PBC
M87PBC1
QTP
Q9P
CPS300
CPS300
CPS302
H47C100-300
H47C100-300Q
H60PC
H60PC1
H61PCB
H61PCB1
M2FAC
H2FAC1
H4PAC
H4PAC1
H4FBC
H«FBC1
H43PAC
H4SPAC1
06/20/68
06/20/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/8B
07/16/88
02/27/88
02/27/88
12/15/87
12/19/87
07/26/88
07/26/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
12/13/87
12/13/87
01/13/88
01/13/88
01/13/88
04/21/88
04/21/08
07/22/88
07/22/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
10/08/68
10/08/68
08/06/68
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
3.10
3 70
9 20
10 00
17 00
16 00
14 00
13 00
18 00
13.00
23.00
27 00
3.90
3.80
11.00
9.10
6.30
6 10
1 90
1 60
7 70
7.80
2 00
2.00
4 90
6 30
4 60
2 60
3 50
8.50
7 90
14 00
18.00
1.00
.
0 30
0 30
1.70
1.60
12/16/88
12/16/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
12/16/88
12/16 /flS
02/17/89
02/17/89
03/09/88
03/21/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
12/23/88
11/23/88
11/23/88
11/25/88
11/23/88
03/09/88
03/09/88
09/30/88
03/21/88
03/21/88
07/01/88
10/06/88
12/09/88
06/19/89
11/18/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
12/23/88
12/09/83
12/09/83
12/30/88
12/30/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
22. DO
23 00
38 00
41 00
35.00
S2.00
23.00
35.00
68.00
39.00
153 00
147 00
97 00
98.00
104.00
71.00
8.00
9.40
3.50
2 90
30 00
45.00
2 20
0 90
1 10
11 00
5 30
449 00
409 00
37 00
35 00
48 00
66 00
6.30
6 40
3 10
2 90
2 80
2.80
12/16/86
12/16/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
12/16/88
12/16/88
02/17/89
02/17/89
03/09/88
03/21/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/11/88
12/23/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
11/25/88
03/09/88
03/09/88
09/30/88
03/21/88
03/21/88
07/01/88
10/06/88
12/09/88
06/19/89
11/18/88
11/18/88
12/23/88
12/23/84
12/09/88
12/09/88
12/30/88
12/30/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
-------
Company CitT
International Paper Co. Teiarkana
International Papat Co. Teiarkana
Alabama Rlvax Pulp Clalborna
Alabama Rival Pulp Claiborna
Alabama Rivar Pulp Clalborna
Bolaa Caacada Corp. Jackaon
Bolaa Caacada Corp. Jackaon
ChaapLon International Canton
Champion International Canton
Federal Pepet Board Co. RlegaLwood
Federal Paper Board Co. Rlagelmod
Scott Paper Co. Blnckley
Scott Paper Co. Blneklay
Slnpaon Paper Co. Tacoma
Slmpaon Paper Co. Taeoma
Hoyerhaueer Co. Longvlew
Heyerhauaer Co. Longvlew
Heyerhauaer Co. New Barn
Hayerhauaar Co. New Bam
A-3. TCDD/TCDP FIELD DUPLICATES (COHTIHUED)
MATRIX-SLUDGE (ppt)
State
TX
TX
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
MC
NC
NC
HC
HE
HE
HA
HA
HA
HA
NC
NC
Sample ID Sa
M99SC
M99SC1
M21SC
M21SC1
M21SC2
M65SC
K63SC1
M47J100-SOO
K47J100-SOOQ
H16SC
K16SCO
HilSCA
H61SCA1
H81SC
M81SC D
H4ssc-L
M43SCJ-L
M6SC
msci
nnle Data
08/06/88
08/06/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
12/13/86
12/13/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
10/29/86
10/29/86
00/02/88
06/02/86
08/13/88
06/13/88
TCDD
71.00
81.00
73 00
68 00
16.00
18.00
175 00
172 00
3 80
2.90
33 00
39 00
39 00
29 00
2S.OO
37s!oO
213 00
TCDD Data
01/03/89
01/03/89
12/06/88
12/06/88
01/26/89
12/22/88
12/22/88
07/01/B8
10/06/88
04/19/89
04/19/89
12/06/86
12/06/88
06/19/89
06/19/89
12/22/88
12/22/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
TCDF
1000 00
600 00
373 00
393 00
342 00
147.00
169.00
260.00
5.20
3.30
106 OO
149 00
101 00
106 00
60 00
04 00
1920 00
1600 00
TCDF Data
01/03/89
01/03/89
12/06/86
12/06/86
01/26/89
12/22/88
12/22/86
07/01/86
10/06/86
04/19/89
04/19/89
12/06/88
12/06/86
06/19/89
06/19/89
12/22/88
12/22/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
Lab
S^M
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
MATUX-eFFUnn (ppq)
Company CitT
International Paper Co. Georgetown
International Paper Co Georgetown
International. Paper Co. Tazarkana
International Paper Co Taxarkana
International Paper Co. Tlcondoroga
Jamea River Corp. Graan Bay
Jamea River Corp. Green Bay
Potlatch Corp. Lawlaton
Potlatch Corp. Lavlaton
Alabama River Pulp Clalborna
Alabama River Pulp Clalborna
Alabama River Pulp Clalborna
Bolae Caacade Corp. Jackaon
Bolaa Caacade Corp. Jackaon
Brunswick Pulp and Paper Brunswick
Brunswick Pulp and Paper Brunswick
Scott Paper Co. HJnckley
Scott Paper Co Hlnckley
Slmpaon Paper Co Tacoma
Slmpaon Paper Co. Tacoma
Hayarhauaer Co Longvlew
Hayerhauaer Co. Longview
State
Sample ID
Sample Pate
TCDD TCDD Date
TCDF TCDF Pete Lab
sc
sc
TX
TX
try
HI
HI
ID
ID
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
GA
GA
ME
ME
HA
VIA
HA
HA
M70EC
M7QEC1
N19EC
H99EC1
H9EC
M72EAC
M72EAC1
M56EC
MS6EC1
M21EC
H21EC1
H21EC2
M&SEC
Hi SEC J
M87EC
H87EC1
H61EC
M&1EC1
M8IEC
MB1EC1
MtSEC-L
MISEC1-L
07/16/88
07/16/86
06/06/86
08/06/88
06/24/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
06/28/88
06/26/88
10/29/88
10/29/88
08/02/88
06/02/88
640.00
490 00
13.00
18 00
18.00
19.00
IS. 00
71 00
79 00
41 00
40 00
46 00
95.00
120 00
30 00
30 00
16 00
19 00
10 00
6 SO
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/22/68
11/22/88
11/04/88
06/26/89
06/28/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
01/03/89
01/26/89
01/26/89
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
05/31/89
05/31/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
1600 00
1SOO.OO
43 00
44.00
ISO 00
72 00
54.00
360 00
320 00
2SO 00
2SO 00
210 00
540 00
630 00
68 00
SO 00
63 00
100 00
26 00
22 00
37 00
21 00
11/22/88
11/22/68
11/22/88
11/22/88
11/04/88
06/28/89
06/28/89
11/15/88
11/15/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
01/03/89
01/26/89
01/26/89
12/06/88
12/06/88
12/19/88
12/19/88
05/31/89
OS/31/89
11/15/88
1 I/ IS/88
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
-------
A-*. ra»/TCDP LAB DUPLICATES
MATRIX-PULP
Company
International Papar Co.
International Paper Co.
Intamational Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
International Papar Co.
Jamaa River Corp.
Jamei River Corp.
Jane• Rlvar Corp.
Longview Fibre Co.
Longvlaw Fibre Co.
Longvlaw Fibre Co.
Bolae Caaeade Corp.
Boiae Caacade Corp.
Boiaa Cascade Corp.
Boiaa Caeeada Corp.
Champion International
Champion International
Chanpion International
Chanplon International
Chanplon International
Chanpion International
Federal Paper Board Co.
Federal Papar Board Co.
P.B. Glatfelter Co.
P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Scott Papar Co.
Scott Paper Co.
Union Camp Corp.
Union Camp Corp.
Heatvaeo Corp.
Meatvaco Corp.
City
State Sample ID
Saamle Date
TCDD TCPD Date
TCDF TCDF Data Lab
Jay
Jay
Pine Bluff
Pine Bluff
Tlconderoga
Ticonderoga
Clatikanle
Clatakanio
CLatikenia
Longvlew
Longvlew
Longvlew
St. Baleni
St. Helena
Interactional Fall*
International Falla
LuCkln
Lufkln
Cantonment
Cantonment
Cantonment
Can tenant
Rlagelwood
Rlagelwood
Spring Orova
Spring Grove
Hulkegon
Hutkegon
Franklin
Franklin
Hickliffe
Hlckllffa
ME
HE
AR
AR
NY
NY
OH
OR
OR
HA
HA
HA
OH
OH
Ml
Ml
TX
IX
FL
Ft
FL
FL
NC
HC
PA
PA
HI
HI
VA
VA
KV
KY
RC186367
RG186367
M51PAC
H51PAC
M9PAC
H9PAC
86374612
86374612
86374661
H53PAC
HS3PAC
H93PAC 0
H76PC60
H76PC600
DE020902
DE020902
DF024411
DF024411
CPB3DO
CPB300
CPS300
CPS300
H16PDC
H16PDC
H64PC30
H64PCSOD
M92PC
H92PC
UCS600
UCS6000
M7BPAC
H7BPACD
.
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/24/B8
06/24/88
.
.
.
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/27/88
02/24/89
.
.
.
.
01/13/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
01/15/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
10/28/88
10/28/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
55.70
46.70
21.00
23 00
16 00
17.00
10 20
11 00
11 60
4. BO
4 40
4.70
4.20
4.40
11 20
16.30
3.89
3.99
0.70
1 00
2 00
2.00
3 20
3.30
3.90
6 SO
0 30
0.40
5 20
5.40
12.00
11 00
04/2I/B7
OB/19/87
11/18/BB
11/18/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
04/21/B7
08/19/B7
04/21/B7
12/02/88
06/19/89
06/19/89
04/19/B9
04/19/89
03/19/87
04/21/87
04/21/B7
08/19/87
09/30/88
03/21/88
09/30/88
03/21/88
01/17/89
01/17/89
01/12/89
01/12/69
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
12/09/88
12/09/88
181 00
183.00
647 00
661 00
103.00
108.00
54.30
64 40
63 90
.
28 00
26 00
12 00
11 00
333.00
7 68
7 90
4 10
0.70
2 20
0.90
1 30
1.90
13 00
18 00
1.00
1 40
5.70
6.90
55 00
54.00
04/21/87
08/19/87
11/18/88
11/18/88
11/04/88
11/04/88
04/21/87
08/19/87
04/21/87
12/02/88
06/19/89
06/19/89
04/19/89
04/19/89
,
04/21/87
04/21/87
08/19/87
09/30/88
03/21/88
09/30/88
03/21/88
01/17/89
01/17/89
01/12/89
01/12/89
11/11/88
11/11/88
11/03/88
11/03/88
12/09/88
12/09/B8
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
HSU
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
-------
A-4. TCDD/TCDF LAB DUPLICATES (OOHTIHUED)
Company
Hauseu Paper Hills Co.
Hauaau Paper Hills Co.
Gulf States Papar Corp.
Gulf States Paper Carp.
Haaneralll Paper Co.
Beaneralll Paper Co.
International Peper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
International Paper Co.
Jamas River Corp.
Janes River Corp.
Ketchlkan Pulp ft Paper Co.
Ketchlkan Pulp & Paper Co.
Head Corporation
Head Corporation
Bole* Caecade Corp.
Bolae Caacada Corp.
Buckeye Cellulose
Buckeye Cellulose
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Pentelr. Inc.
Penteir. Inc.
Finch, Pruyn & Co., Inc.
Finch, Pruyn i Co., Inc.
Proctor & Gamble Co.
Proctor & Gamble Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Simpson Paper Co.
Heyerhausar Co.
Ueyarhauser Co.
Bowater Corp.
Bowatar Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
CltT
State Sample IP Sample Data
TCDP TCDD Date
rCDF TCDF Date Lab
Broken
Broken
Dana poll a
Deenpolia
Erie
Erie
Jay
Jay
Jay
Jay
Texarkana
Texarkana
Berlin
Berlin
Ketehlkan
Ketchlkan
Chlllleotha
Chllllcethe
International Fella
International Falls
Oglethorpe
Oglethorpe
Lufkin
Lufkin
LuCkin
Park Fall*
Park Falla
Glens Fella
Glens Fella
Mehoopany
Hehoopany
Tacoma
Taeoma
Long view
Long v lav
Calhoun
Calhoun
Crosset
Crosaat
HI
HI
AL
AL
PA
PA
HE
HE
HE
HE
TX
W
KB
m
US.
AK
OH
OH
HM
HN
CA
GA
TX
TX
TX
HI
HI
NY
m
PA
PA
HA
HA
HA
HA
TN
IN
AR
AR
HS4SC
HS4SC
H101SC
H101SC
H103SC
H103SC
RG186387
RG1863B7
KG186387A
RG186387B
H99SC
H99SC
H69SC
HB9SC
H31SC
H31SC
DE026011
DE026011
DE020920
DE020920
M22SC10
H22SC10
DF024313
DF024606
DF024606
H23SC
M25SC
H41SC
H41SC
H42SBC
H42SBC
M81SC
M81SC
H4SSC1-L
H4SSC1-L
H75SC
M75SC
M68SAC1
H68SAC1
07/22/88
07/22/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
m
.
,
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/19/88
08/19/88
08/15/88
oa/ivae
,
.
.
.
07/23/88
07/23/88
.
07/04/88
07/OS/88
01/13/89
01/13/89
07/06/88
07/06/88
10/29/88
10/29/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
09/02/88
09/02/88
3 20
* 10
51 00
37 00
1.40
0.90
193.00
168.00
191.00
161.00
71.00
86.00
104.00
98.00
3 SO
0 40
3 37
3 27
37 40
35 80
2 60
2.60
17.60
19 20
17.40
9 40
11.00
3 70
1 20
2 30
0 30
.
39.00
35 00
4300.00
190.00
12/22/88
06/29/89
12/06/88
10/06/89
12/22/88
03/01/89
04/21/87
08/19/87
08/26/87
08/26/87
01/03/89
06/19/89
12/19/88
06/19/89
06/29/89
04/21/87
08/19/87
03/19/87
04/21/87
11/03/88
11/03/88
03/19/87
04/21/87
08/19/87
12/19/88
06/29/89
06/29/89
,
06/29/89
01/03/89
06/19/89
12/22/88
03/01/69
12/22/88
02/14/89
12/22/88
02/14/89
68 00
56.00
107 00
3 00
3 10
879.00
670.00
762 00
713.00
1000.00
387 00
2930.00
2170.00
,
2 00
42 60
34 SO
624.00
732.00
6 10
3.00
33 70
35 70
31 90
90 00
73 00
7 40
0 70
87.00
101 00
84.00
89 00
17000 00
14000 00
740 00
710 00
12/22/88
06/29/89
12/06/88
10/06/89
12/22/88
03/01/89
04/21/87
08/19/87
08/26/87
08/26/87
01/03/89
06/19/89
12/19/88
06/19/89
06/29/89
.
04/21/87
08/19/87
03/19/87
04/21/87
11/03/88
01/31/89
03/19/87
04/21/87
08/19/87
12/19/88
06/29/89
06/29/89
.
06/29/89
t
01/03/89
06/19/89
12/22/88
03/01/89
12/22/88
02/14/89
12/22/88
02/14/89
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
-------
Company
Badger Papar Milla. Inc.
Bad8*r Papar Mill*. Inc.
Badgar Pap*r Hills. Inc.
Badger Papar Mill*. Inc.
Hauaau Papar Mill* Co.
Hautau Papar Mill* Co.
Intarnatlonal Papar Co
Intarnatlonal Papar Co.
Intarnatlonal Paper Co.
Intarnatlonal Papar Co.
Intarnatlonal Pap*r Co.
ITT-Rayonlar, Inc.
ITT-Rayonl*r, Inc,
Jama• Rlvar Corp.
Janai Rlvar Corp.
Jaowa River Corp.
Jama* River Corp.
Louisiana Pacific Corp
Loulalana Pacific Corp.
Bola* Cascade Corp.
Bolae Cascade Corp.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Champion International
Geor8la-PaclClc Corp
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Simpson Papar Co.
Slmpaon Paper Co.
Simpson Papar Co.
Heyerhausar Co.
Heyarhauser Co.
A-4. TCDO/TCDF LAB DUPLICATES (CarflHUED)
KATfUX-EFFLUEirr
City State
Peahtlgo
Pashtlso
Peehtlao
Peshtlso
Broken
Broke*
Jay
Jey
J.y
Mobile
Mobile
Jesup
Jasup
Clatskanle
Cletekanle
Green Bey
Green Bey
Samoa
Samoa
Intarnatlonal Fall*
International Fall*
International Fell*
Lufkln
Lufkin
Lufkln
Boueton
Houston
Houston
Zachery
Z*chary
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Rothchild
Rothchild
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
ME
ME
ME
AL
AL
GA
GA
OR
OR
HI
HI
CA
CA
HN
MM
KH
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
LA
LA
HA
HA
HA
HI
HI
Sample ID
M46EAC
M46EAC
M46EBC
H46EBC
H34EC
M34EC
RG1B6386
RG1663B6
RGIB6368A
M71EC
H71CCD
M84EAC
M84EAC1
86374643
66374643
M72EAC
M72EAC
M70EC10
M70EC10D
DE020922
DE020922
DE020922
DF0243I2
DF024312
DF024312
HI SEC
H1SEC1
M13EC2
H1EC
M1EC
M61EC
H81EC
M81EC
M29EC
M29EC
SamDle Dete
07/22/88
07/22/68
07/22/86
07/21/88
07/22/88
07/22/68
.
10/24/88
10/24/88
07/24/66
07/24/88
f
.
m
.
11/20/66
11/20/88
.
10/07/88
10/07/88
10/07/68
07/21/68
07/21/86
10/29/86
10/29/88
10/29/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
(ppq)
TCDD
9.80
6.40
4.30
3 30
4.20
4.90
66.10
93.30
80 40
100.00
24.00
11 00
13.70
14.30
11 00
19.00
67 00
111.00
ISO 00
111 00
7.30
7.20
9.10
.
.
3 30
190.00
160.00
.
12 00
12 00
TCDD Data
11/13/88
06/28/89
11/13/88
06/28/69
11/13/86
06/26/69
07/07/87
09/30/87
08/26/67
01/03/89
03/31/69
11/22/66
03/31/89
07/09/87
11/16/17
12/06/88
06/28/89
01/26/89
03/31/89
01/16/67
02/12/87
02/12/87
07/09/87
09/30/87
11/16/87
01/03/89
.
03/31/89
11/22/88
03/31/89
01/03/89
03/31/89
01/03/89
12/19/88
06/28/89
TCDF
280 00
170 00
110.00
130 00
14 00
2 10
447.00
441.00
339 00
850.00
490.00
.
4.20
133.00
110 00
61.00
72.00
320.00
170 00
2180.00
.
6.90
6.70
.
86.00
11.00
3.80
3000 00
27 00
26.00
26 00
24 00
18.00
TCDF Data
11/13/88
06/28/89
11/13/88
06/28/89
11/15/86
06/28/89
07/07/67
09/30/87
06/26/67
01/03/69
03/31/89
11/22/88
03/31/89
07/09/87
09/30/87
12/06/86
06/26/69
01/26/69
03/31/89
02/12/87
07/09/87
09/30/87
01/03/89
01/13/89
05/31/89
11/22/68
03/31/69
01/03/89
05/31/89
01/13/89
12/19/88
06/28/61
Lab
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
-------
APPENDIX B: PROBABILITY PLOTS
PAGE
B-l PULP TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 145
B-2 PULP TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 146
B-3 SLUDGE TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 147
B-4 SLUDGE'TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 148
B-5 EFFLUENT TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 149
B-6 EFFLUENT TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY 150
B-7 PULP TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 151
B-8 PULP TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 152
B-9 SLUDGE TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 153
B-10 SLUDGE TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 154
B-ll EFFLUENT TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 155
B-12 EFFLUENT TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 156
B-13 ADJUSTED PULP TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 157
B-14 ADJUSTED PULP TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 158
B-15 ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 159
B-16 ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 160
B-17 ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDD PROBABILITY PLOT 161
B-18 ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDF PROBABILITY PLOT 162
B-19 TSS PROBABILITY PLOT 163
144
-------
FIGURE B-l
PULP TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY
N
•3
I
0
-1
-2
-3
0.1
10
100
100.0 10000
TCDD Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE B-2
PULP TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY
f
N
•—•
CO
g
o
5
o
-i
-2
-3
0.1
1.0
100 100.0 10000 100000
TCDF Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE B-3
SLUDGE TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY
N
"3
E
11
o
s
o
0
-1
-2
-3
I Xl 1 1 I 111! l l lilll 11 l 1 1 I 11 111 l 1 i 1 1 llll i llllll
01
1.0 100 1000 10000 100000
TCDD Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE B-4
SLUDGE TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY
00
N
"3
S
t4
O
a
M)
O
0
-1
-2
-3
I j ft il ill I 1 I I Iti
TCDF Concentration in PPT
-------
FIGURE B-5
«
s
n
O
a
EFFLUENT TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY
-i
-2
-3
..I
1 1 t 1
10
100
1000
TCDD Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE B 6
EFFLUENT TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT: DETECTED VALUES ONLY
N
E
W.
O
a
t>o
o
0
-1
-2
-3
10
100
1000
10000
TCDF Concentration in PPQ
-------
FIGURE B 7
§
N
•3
6
n
o
a
60
O
-1
-2
-3
PULP TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 100000
Pulp TCDD (Ibs/day) * E+06
-------
FIGURE B-8
N
6
V-l
O
a
CO
O
-J
PULP TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT
Pulp TCDF (Ibs/day) • E+06
-------
FIGURE B-9
SLUDGE TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT
Ln
o
p
^^
f
N
a
t-i
o
a
00
o
0
-1
-2
-3
J1
I "I • ' • "'"I 1 I I lliul 1-
Sludge TCDD (Ibs/day) • E+06
-------
FIGURE B-10
SLUDGE TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT
f
N
a
IH
o
a
oo
o
0
-2
-3
0.0^
.....I
• .m.l • i .... ..I - 1 i iniiJ - 1 i i mill - 1 i
\«
Sludge TCDF (Ibs/day) • E+06
-------
FIGURE B-ll
EFFLUENT TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT
N
a
V-.
o
a
0
-2
-3
001
010 100 1000 10000 100000
Effluent TCDD (Ibs/day) * E+06
-------
FIGURE B-12
EFFLUENT TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT
Ul
CT-
N
"rt
a
i-i
o
a
M
o
-4
0
-1
-2
-3
Effluent TCDF (Ibi
E+06
-------
FIGURE B-13
ADJUSTED PULP TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT
f
N
a
IH
O
G
t>0
O
0
-1
-2
-3
001
0.10
1 00
10.00
10000
Pulp TCDD (Ibs/ton ADBSP) * E+08
-------
FIGURE B-14
N
13
6
*-.
o
a
GO
ADJUSTED PULP TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT
0
-1
-2
-3
0.01 010 100 1000 10000 100000
Pulp TCDF (Ibs/ton ADBSP) * E+08
-------
FIGURE B-15
ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT
u
8
v-
O
a
0
-1
-2
-3
Sludge TCDD (Ibs/ton ADBSP) * E+08
-------
FIGURE B-16
ADJUSTED SLUDGE TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT
I
a
•H
O
a
oo
o
0
-1
-2
-3
J • i ......I . , .....J—i i i mill—i i iniu
Sludge TCDF (Ibs/ton BSP) • E+08
-------
FIGURE B-17
ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDD
PROBABILITY PLOT
N
a
»-.
o
a
e*
O
•J
-1
-2
-3
0.01
010
1 00
1000 10000
Effluent TCDD (Ibs/ton ADBSP) * E+08
-------
FIGURE B-18
cr
K)
N
"3
a
«->
o
a
00
o
ADJUSTED EFFLUENT TCDF
PROBABILITY PLOT
0
-2
-3
001 0.10 100 1000 10000 100000
-to
-------
FIGURE B-19
TSS
PROBABILITY PLOT
cr
u>
N
I
o
5
3
2 -
0 -
-1
-2 -
-3
10
100
1000
TSS (mg/1)
-------
REFERENCES
1. Amendola, G., et.al., The Occurrence and Fate of PCnps and PCDFs in Five
Bleached Kraft Pujp and Paoe)r Hil}s. Chfimosphere , Vol. 18, Nos. 1-6 pp 1181-
1188, 1989.
2. U.S. EPA Cooperative Pioxip Screening Study.. U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C., March, 1988, EPA-440/1-88-025.
3. U.S. EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Study, Washington, D.C., April
26, 1988. (104 Kill Study Agreement)
fc- ySEPA/Paoer Industry Coofaer a tive Dioxin Study: The 104 pill Study. Technical
Bulletin No. 590. National Council of the- Paper Industry for Air and Scream
laprovenent , Inc., New York, New York, Hay 1990.
5. Vhittemore. R.C. , et.al., U.S. EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dloxin Studv:
The JQU Mill Study, presented at Dioxin '89, Toronto, Ontario. September
1989. (Accepted for publication in Chemosphere . )
6, Gleit, A., Estimation, for Small Nornal-^ea Sets with Detect i-on Limits.
EnvirowMmtal Science Technology, Vol. 19V pp 120V- 1206, 1985:
7. Helsel, D,R. and C'ohn,- T.A. , Estimation of rescript: Ive Staeistlcs for
Multiply-Censored Water Quality Data. U.'S. geological Survey , -Water Resources
Division, August 1988,
-------
U.S. EPA/Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study:
Analytical Results
-------
U.S. EPA / PAPER INDUSTRY
COOPERATIVE DIOXIN STUDY
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
This report presents all analytical data for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in pulp, effluent and sludge
received to date under the Cooperative Dioxin Study.
Data are listed by Bill. Abbreviations used in this
report are defined below. If there are any questions
concerning the data, contact Jennie Helms at (202)382-
7155.
UNITS: The unit of measurement for 2378-TCDD/TCDF
concentration
ppt • part per trillion
ppq « part per quadrillion
2378-TCDD/TCDF
CONCENTRATION: Reported value of chemical concentration
ND * Not Detected, in these instances the value
reported is the detection limit
NQ « Not Quantified, lab analyses are being re-run
for these samples
LAB: The analytical laboratory vhich completed the analysis
CAL = California Analytical Laboratories
Enseco, CA
HSU - Brehm Laboratory, Wright state Univ.
Dayton, OH
TRI » Triangle Laboratories
Research Triangle Park, NC
NOTES: Comments on analysis or sample origin
LDUP - laboratory duplicate sample
FDUP • field duplicate sample
SAMPLE DATE: Date on which the mill began collecting five-
day composite samples of pulp, effluent and sludge. The
sample date is a general indicator of the timeframe for
sample collection.
t—
CO
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: AK
* Alaska Pulp Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sitka
7.7 ND
0.7 ND
4.7
32.0
1.4
42.0
* Ketchikan Pulp & Paper Co. Ketchikan
Effluent ppq 6.7 ND
Effluent ppq 15.0
Pulp ppt 0.3 ND
Sludge ppt 3.5
Sludge ppt 0.4
CAL
WSU
CAL
5.3 ND CAL
7.2 CAL
0.3 ND WSU
0.0 NQ CAL LDUP
2.0 LDUP
08/27/88
08/27/88
08/27/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
** State: AL
* Alabama River Pulp
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
* Boise Cascade Corp.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
41.0
40.0
46.0
43.0
3.9
3.8
81.0
73.0
68.0
120.0
95.0
11.0
9.1
18.0
18.0
* Champion International
Effluent ppg 77.0
Pulp ppt 3.5
Pulp ppt 23.0
Sludge ppt 215.0
k Container Corp. of America
Effluent ppq 6.5
Pulp ppt 2.3
Sludge ppt 16.0
» Gulf States Paper Corp.
Effluent ppq 38.0
Pulp ppt 5.2
Sludge ppt 51.0
Sludge ppt 37.0
* International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 0.0 NQ
Effluent ppq 100.0
Pulp ppt 20.0
Pulp ppt 21.0
Pulp ppt 3.5
Pulp ppt 27.0
Sludge ppt 108.0
Claiborne
250.0
250.0
210.0
120.0
97.0
98.0
373.0
393.0
342.0
Jackson
630.0
540.0
104.0
71.0
147.0
169.0
Court land
340.0
7.6
102.0
923.0
Brewton
10.0
4.5
34.0
Demopolis
110.0
20.0
0.0
107.0
Mobile
850.0
490.0
104.0
106.0
14.0
138.0
617.0
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL
ND CAL
WSU
CAL
•
CAL
WSU
NQ CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL
CAL
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
07/01/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
10/24/88
10/24/88
10/24/88
10/24/88
10/24/88
10/24/88
10/24/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
* International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 81.0
Pulp ppt 2.1
Pulp ppt 4.7
Sludge ppq 680.0
Selma
310.0
21.0
22.0
2900.0
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL Non-dewa
tered
06/26/88
06/26/88
06/26/88
06/26/88
James River Corp.
Butler
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppq
* Kimberly-Clark Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppq
* Scott Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
23.0
3.3
1.2
3.7
330.0
35.0
0.3
4.1
11.0
2.6
3800.0
14.0
1.7
0.6
2.2
9.5
72.0
19.0
1.4
30.0
1100.0
Coosa Pines
74.0
ND 1.0
7.3
38.0
3.3
9200.0
Mobile
19.0
2.2
0.8
4.3
18.0
CAL 06/16/88
WSU 06/16/88
WSU 06/16/88
WSU 06/16/88
CAL Non-dewa 06/16/88
tered
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL Non-dewa
tered
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
01/13/89
01/13/89
01/13/89
10/24/88
01/13/89
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: AR
* Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Effluent ppg 96.0
Pulp ppt 6.0
Pulp ppt 7.7
Pulp ppt 19.0
Sludge ppt 168.0
Sludge ppq 0.0 NQ
Sludge ppq 190.0
* International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 110.0
Pulp ppt 21.0
Pulp ppt 23.0
Pulp ppt 5.0
Sludge ppt
* Kekoosa Papers,
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Potlatch Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Inc.
Crosset
185.0
41.0
2.8
5.5
13.0
40.0
21.0
12.0
91.0
370.0
59.0
89.0
308.0
1680.0
740.0
710.0
CAL 09/02/88
WSU 09/02/88
WSU 09/02/88
WSU 09/02/88
CAL PRIM 09/02/88
CAL LDUP 09/02/88
Non-dewa
tered
CAL LDUP 09/02/88
Non-deva
tered
Pine Bluff
1100.0
647.0
661.0
57.0
2940.0
Ashdown
McGhee
94.0
27.0
12.0
30.0
100.0
59.0
83.0
433.0
CAL
WSU LDUP
WSU LDUP
WSU
CAL
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
10/08/88
10/08/88
10/08/88
10/08/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDF Sample
Matrix Units Concentration Concentration Lab Comments Date
** State: AZ
* Stone Container Corp. Snowflake
Effluent ppq 5.5 39.0 CAL 07/17/88
Pulp ppt 0.7 ND 1.3 WSU 07/17/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: CA
* Gaylord Container Corp.
Effluent ppq 49.0
Pulp ppt 32.0
Sludge ppt 101.0
Louisiana Pacific Corp
> .^ * A.
Antioch
800.0
969.0
1570.0
Effluent ppq 0.0 NQ
Effluent ppq 67.0
Pulp ppt 9.1
* Simpson Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 250.0
Pulp ppt 49.0
Sludge ppt 278.0
* Simpson Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 100.0
Pulp ppt 20.0
Samoa
CAL
HSU
CAL
Anderson
8400.0 CAL
2620.0 WSU
6740.0 CAL
Fairhaven
660.0 CAL
106.0 CAL
10/15/88
10/15/88
10/15/88
320.0
170.0
59.0
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
11/20/88
11/20/88
11/20/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: FL
* Buckeye Cellulose
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Champion International
Effluent ppq
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
PPt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppq
* ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* St. Joe Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
* Stone Container Corp.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Perry
27.0
0.5
0.8
12.0
11.0
0.7
1.0
2.0
2.0
4.9
14.0
16.0
0.5
0.5
92.0
80.0
0.7
ND 2.5
40.0
Cantonment
ND 38.0
ND 4.1
ND 0.7
2.2
0.9
1.1
21.0
Palatka
38.0
ND 0.9
ND 2.4
410.0
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL PRIM
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
06/14/88
CAL 01/15/88
WSU LDUP 01/15/88
ND CAL LDUP 01/15/88
WSU FDUP 01/15/88
LDUP
CAL LDUP,FDU 01/15/88
P
CAL FDUP 01/15/88
CAL 01/15/88
CAL 07/05/88
WSU 07/05/88
WSU 07/05/88
CAL Non-dewa 07/05/88
tered
Fernandina Beach
7.0 35.0 CAL
0.2 ND 0.5 ND WSU
4.7 32.0 CAL
Port St. Joe
21.0 60.0
2.2 5.7
8.4 ND
6.9
0.1 ND
3.6
Panama City
7.9
18.0
6.6
16.0
CAL
WSU
CAL
CAL POTW
Effluent
WSU
CAL
07/06/88
07/07/88
07/06/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** state: GA
* Brunswick Pulp and Paper
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Brunswick
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
PPt
* Buckeye Cellulose
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Federal Paper Board Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppq
k Gilman Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppq
t ITT-Rayonier,
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Inc.
30.0
30.0
6.3
6.1
1.9
1.6
3.6
8.3
33.0
12.0
0.5
2.6
2.6
:o.
16.0
2.4
4.9
7.9
680.0
6.5
2.8
3.7
220.0
24.0
23.0
11.0
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.7
3.0
68.0
50.0
8.0
9.4
3.5
2.9
4.3
12.0
62.0
Oglethorpe
ND 26.0
ND 0.9
6.1
3.0
Augusta
47.0
7.9
15.0
19.0
1400.0
St . Marys
ND 17.0
6.8
12.0
610.0
Jesup
0.0
16.0
4.2
ND 0.8
ND 0.8
ND 0.6
ND 0.9
2.4
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU
WSU
CAL
CAL
ND CAL
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL Non-dewa
tered
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL Non-dewa
' tered
NQ CAL LDUP
CAL
CAL LDUP
ND CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
08/26/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
07/23/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
06/10/88
09/02/88
09/02/88
09/02/88
09/02/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: ID
* Potlatch Corp.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
71.0
79.0
25.0
27.0
78.0
Lewiston
360.0
320.0
153.0
147.0
639.0
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
CAL
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
07/26/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: KY
* Westvaco Corp.
Effluent ppg
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
ppt
ppt
ppt
ppt
" Wilamette Industries
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppg
Sludge ppg
Wickliffe
35.0 150.0 CAL 07/23/88
12.0 55.0 HSU LDUP 07/23/88
11.0 54.0 WSU LDUP 07/23/88
2.1 25.0 WSU 07/23/88
9.4 46.0 CAL 07/23/88
Hawesville
11.0 ND 8.0 ND CAL
0.3 ND 1.1
0.5 ND 1.9
83.0 380.0
52.0
210.0
10/28/88
WSU 10/28/88
WSU 10/28/88
CAL Non-dewa 10/28/88
tered
CAL Non-dewa 10/28/88
tered
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: LA
* Boise Cascade Corp.
Effluent ppq 9.2
Pulp ppt 5.3
Sludge ppq 280.0
* Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Effluent ppg 190.0
Effluent ppq 160.0
Pulp ppt 16.0
Pulp ppt 5.2
Pulp ppt 27.0
Sludge ppt
17.0
International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 330.0
Pulp ppt 5.1
Pulp ppt 5.7
Pulp ppt 6.3
Sludge ppt 140.0
James River Corp.
Effluent ppq 82.0
Pulp ppt 6.4
Pulp ppt 4.9
Sludge ppt 96.0
Deridder
44.0 CAL 06/10/88
8.7 WSU 06/10/88
440.0 CAL Non-dewa 06/10/88
tered
Zachary
0.0 NQ
3000.0
539.0
78.0
632.0
421.0
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL
07/21/88
07/21/88
07/21/88
07/21/88
07/21/88
07/21/88
Bastrop
1600.0
22.0
23.0
42.0
677.0
CAL
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU
CAL
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
St.
Francesville
320.0 CAL
19.0 WSU
15.0 WSU
243.0 CAL
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
06/20/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD 2378-TCDF Sample
Matrix Units Concentration Concentration Lab Comments Date
** State: MD
* Westvaco Corp. Luke
Effluent ppq 16.0 49.0 CAL 06/28/88
Pulp ppt 29.0 157.0 . WSU 06/28/88
Sludge ppt 80.0 471.0 CAL 06/28/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: ME
* Boise Cascade Corp.
Effluent ppq :
Pulp ppt :
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt :
* Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
k James River Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Lincoln Pulp and Paper
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Scott Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Rumford
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
ppt
ppt
PPt
PPt
ppt
PPt
PPt
* Scott Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
20.0
16.0
17.0
05.0
6.8
0.4
1.9
i.
88.0
26.0
51.0
00.0
80.0
39.0
13.0
12.0
32.0
16.0
48.0
19.0
16.0
1.9
8.5
7.9
33.0
6.9
39.0
67.0
6.3
4.2
8.1
13.0
570.0
800.0
111.0
674.0
Woodland
25.0
ND 0.9
ND 7.3
Jay
420.0
140.0
180.0
2100.0
760.0
Old Town
130.0
51.0
34.0
Lincoln
130.0
94.0
223.0
Hinckley
100.0
63.0
10.0
37.0
35.0
106.0
29.0
149.0
330.0
Westbrook
12.0
16.0
30.0
55.0
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL
CAL
WSU
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU SEC
WSU COMB
CAL
WSU
CAL
CAL
WSU
CAL
06/02/88
06/02/88
06/02/88
06/02/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
01/15/87
01/15/87
01/15/87
01/15/87
01/15/87
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
11/19/88
11/19/88
11/19/88
100.0
63.0
10.0
37.0
35.0
106.0
29.0
149.0
330.0
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL
CAL FDUP
CAL
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
06/28/88
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL
06/30/88
06/30/88
06/30/88
06/30/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: MI
* Champion International
Effluent ppq 9.0
Pulp ppt 7.7
Pulp ppt 7.8
Sludge ppt 95.0
» Mead Corporation
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Scott Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Quinnesec
66.0
50.0
45.0
735.0
Escanaba
17.0 ND 50.8
25.0 116.0
18.0 68.0
15.0 39.0
125.0 574.0
8.4 ND
0.3 ND
0.4 ND
Muskegon
42.0
1.0
1.4
WSU
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU
WSU
CAL
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU
CAL
WSU LDUP
WSU LDUP
12/15/87
12/15/87
12/15/87
12/15/87
12/15/87
12/15/87
12/15/87
12/15/87
12/15/87
06/13/88
06/13/88
06/13/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: MN
* Boise Cascade Corp.
Effluent ppg 120.0
Pulp ppt 4.9
Pulp ppt 3.0
Pulp ppt 16.0
Sludge ppt 710.0
Sludge ppt 37.0
Sludge ppt 24.0
* Potlatch Corp.
Effluent ppq 24.0
Pulp ppt 1.2
Pulp ppt 2.4
Sludge ppt 5.0
International Falls
2200.0
47.0
50.0
330.0
10900.0
680.0
380.0
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU
HSU SEC
HSU COMB
HSU PRIM
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
06/25/86
Cloquet
46.0
5.0
7.9
25.0
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
09/24/88
09/24/88
09/24/88
09/24/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** state: MS
* International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 160.0
Pulp ppt 7.3
Pulp ppt 15.0
Sludge ppt 161.0
* International Paper Co.
Effluent ppg 38.0
Pulp ppt 3.6
Pulp ppt 2.2
Sludge ppt 14.0
* Leaf River Forest Products
Effluent ppq 200.0
Pulp ppt 15.0
Pulp ppt 14.0
Pulp ppt 3.8
Sludge ppt 681.0
Moss Point
920.0
36.0
105.0
1020.0
Natchez
220.0
15.0
3.0
78.0
New Augusta
410.0
35.0
23.0
7.7
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL PRIM
CAL
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL
0.0 NQ CAL
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
06/07/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
08/12/88
02/27/88
12/02/88
12/02/88
02/27/88
02/27/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: NC
* Champion International
Effluent ppg 15.0
Canton
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Federal Paper Board
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
p Weyerhauser Co.
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Weyerhauser Co.
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
17.0
6.0
6.5
4.6
5.8
175.0
172.0
Co.
28.0
4.0
4.3
3.2
3.3
3.8
2.9
44.0
7.5
373.0
213.0
320.0
10.0
14.0
33.0
1390.0
7.2
27.0
9.9
11.0
5.5
10.0
0.0
260.0
Riegelwood
61.0
3.2
4.7
1.3
1.5
5.2
3.3
New Bern
180.0
45.0
1920.0
1600.0
Plymouth
4000.0
82.0
222.0
318.0
17100.0
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU
NQ WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU LDUP
WSU LDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL
WSU
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
04/21/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
04/21/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
12/13/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
08/13/88
02/13/89
02/13/89
02/13/89
02/13/89
02/13/89
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: MT
* Stone Container Corp.
Effluent ppq 3.1
Pulp ppt 4.1
Sludge ppg 55.0
Missoula
7.6 ND CAL
13.0
150.0
07/12/88
WSU 07/12/88
CAL Non-deva 07/12/88
tered
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
** State: NH
* James River Corp.
Effluent ppg
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
59.0
17.0
32.0
3.3
3.8
1.0
104.0
98.0
18.0
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Berlin
Sample
Lab Comments Date
1200.0
61.0
1110.0
41.0
39.0
15.0
2930.0
2170.0
195.0
CAL
CAL
WSU
HSU
CAL
CAL
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
08/19/88
05/08/89
08/19/88
08/19/88
05/08/89
05/08/89
08/19/88
08/19/88
05/08/89
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: NY
* Finch, Pruyn & Co., Inc. Glens Falls
Effluent ppq 7.9 ND 2.9 ND CAL
Pulp ppt 0.3 ND
Sludge ppt 3.7
Sludge
PPt
1.2
* International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 18.0
Effluent ppq 24.0
16.0
17.0
31.0
59.0
306.0
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
Sludge
ppt
ppt
PPt
PPt
PPt
7.4
Ticonderoga
150.0
160.0
103.0
108.0
185.0
267.0
2470.0
0.3 ND HSU
0.0 NQ CAL LDUP
LDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU LDUP
WSU LDUP
WSU
CAL PRIM
CAL SEC
01/13/89
01/13/89
01/13/89
01/13/89
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
06/24/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab comments Date
** state: OH
* Mead Corporation
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Chill icothe
3.0 ND
0.6 ND
3.3
11.0
15.0
39.0
WSU
WSU
WSU COMB
10/18/86
10/18/86
10/18/86
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: OR
* Boise Cascade Corp.
Effluent ppq 22.0
Pulp ppt 4.2
Pulp ppt 4.4
Pulp ppt 6.5
Sludge ppt 4.2
* James River Corp.
Effluent ppg 15.0
Pulp ppt 11.0
Sludge ppt 19.0
Sludge ppt 89.0
* Pope & Talbot, Inc.
Effluent ppq 30.0
Pulp ppt 10.0
Sludge ppt 31.0
St. Helens
100.0
12.0
11.0
18.0
25.0
Clatskanie
120.0
61.0
100.0
810.0
Halsey
82.0
41.0
106.0
CAL
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
CAL
WSU
HSU
WSU PRIM
HSU SEC
CAL
HSU
CAL
02/24/89
06/27/88
02/24/89
02/24/89
02/24/89
09/10/86
09/10/86
09/10/86
09/10/86
06/27/88
06/27/88
06/27/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
** state: PA
* Appleton Papers, Inc.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* International Paper Co
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* P.H. Glatfelter Co.
Effluent ppq
Influent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Penntech Papers, Inc.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
* Procter & Gamble Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppq
11.0 ND
1.0
5.0
•
24.0
6.4
1.4 ND
0.9
8.4 ND
65.0
3.9
6.5
0.4
93.0
6.8 ND
9.7
3.1
9.7 ND
2.0.
2.3
6.0
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Roaring Springs
18.0
21.0
113.0
Erie
68.0
22.0
3.0
3.1
Spring Grove
26.0
210.0
13.0
18.0
2.2
238.0
Johnsonburg
14.0
65.0
38.0
Mehoopany
2.8
1.1
0.0 NQ
6.0
Lab Comments
CAL
CAL
CAL COMB
CAL
WSU
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
CAL
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL
HSU
CAL
WSU
CAL LDUP
CAL Non-dewa
Sample
Date
06/26/88
06/26/88
06/26/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
06/19/88
10/28/88
10/28/88
10/28/88
10/28/88
10/28/88
10/28/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
08/01/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
07/06/88
Sludge ppt
0.3 ND
0.7
tered
LDUP 07/06/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: SC
* Bovater Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppq
24.0
2.1
620.0
» International Paper Co.
Effluent ppq 640.0
Effluent ppq 490.0
9.2
10.0
1.9
17.0
16.0
62.0
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
ppt
PPt
ppt
PPt
PPt
PPt
k Union Camp Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Catavba
42.0
3.3
880.0
Georgetown
1600.0
1500.0
38.0
41.0
7.7
55.0
52.0
161.0
Eastover
20.0
0.4 ND
2.4
6.9
53.0
1.3
5.6
13.0
CAL
WSU
CAL Non-dewa
tered
06/17/88
06/17/88
06/17/88
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
CAL
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
07/16/88
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentrat ion
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: TN
* Bowater Corp.
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Mead Corporation
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Calhoun
6.8 ND
7.7
0.0 NQ
4.5
6.0
1.5
3.0 ND
Kingsport
5.5 ND
53.0
17.0
14.0
44.0
26.0
25.0
CAL 06/24/88
WSU 06/24/88
CAL LDUP 06/24/88
Non-dewa
tered
CAL LDUP 06/24/88
Non-dewa
tered
CAL 06/06/88
WSU 06/06/88
CAL 06/06/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: TX
* Champion International
Effluent ppg
Effluent ppg
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Champion International
Effluent ppg
Houston
Pulp
Pulp
Sludge
Sludge
Sludge
ppt
PPt
ppt
ppt
ppt
* International Paper Co
Effluent ppg
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Simpson Paper Co.
Effluent ppg
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
* Temple-Eastex, Inc.
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
0.0 NQ
0.0
5.5 ND
4.9
106.0
1
7.0 ND
1.0 ND
3.9
17.0
36.0
18.0
:o.
13.0
18.0
7.1
12.0
71.0
0.0 NQ
86.0
0.0 NQ
250.0
14.0
18.0
4.5
88.0
1.9
3.1
7.8
4.1
16.0
86.0
11.0
5.8 ND
6.8
144.0
Lufkin
7.0 ND
1.2 ND
7.8
32.0
78.0
34.0
Texarkana
43.0
44.0
51.0
81.0
1000.0
600.0
387.0
Pasadena
1400.0
730.0
48.0
66.0
11.0
Evadale
100.0
9.6
6.3
22.0
13.0
49.0
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
WSU
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU PRIM
WSU SEC
WSU
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU
WSU
CAL FDUP
LDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
CAL
WSU FDUP
W6U FDUP
WSU
CAL
WSU
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL
10/07/88
10/07/88
10/07/88
10/07/88
10/07/88
12/03/86
12/03/86
12/03/86
12/03/86
12/03/86
12/03/86
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
10/08/88
08/14/89
10/08/88
10/08/88
10/08/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
07/28/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Oioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: VA
* Chesapeake Corp.
Effluent ppg
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Union Camp Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Westvaco Corp.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
West Point
96.0
14.0
47.0
Franklin
16.0
8.3
14.0
68.0
1.1
5.2
5.4
3.8
3.2
3.6
Covington
180.0 520.0
18.0 ND 173.0
12.0 132.0
13.0 105.0
6.2 49.0
5.9 19.0
119.0 799.0
CAL
CAL
CAL
CAL FDUP
TRI FDUP
TRI FDUP
WSU
HSU
HSU
CAL
12/04/88
12/04/88
12/04/88
71.0
2.1
5.7
6.9
4.2
3.6
6.0
CAL
CAL
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
CAL
CAL PRIM
05/08/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
05/08/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
07/19/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Sample
Lab Comments Date
** State: WA
* Boise Cascade Corp.
Wallula
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Georgia-Pacific Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* ITT-Rayonier, Inc.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* James River Corp.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Longview Fibre Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Scott Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
* Simpson Paper Co.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
360.0
56.0
70.0
t
5.3 ND
2.6 ND
3.5
19.0
23.0
0.6 ND
4.8
22.0
0.6 ND
47.0
0.0 NQ
0.2 ND
0.3 ND
12.0
12.0
4.6 ND
4.8
4.7
4.4
4.7
69.0
7.5 ND
8.3 ND
0.3 ND
14.0
0.0 NQ
0.0 NQ
7500.0
1380.0
1490.0
Bellingham
840.0
449.0
409.0
584.0
Hoquiam
8.6
3.8
25.0
Port Angeles
36.0
2.1
65.0
Camas
160.0
0.6
0.9
152.0
105.0
Longview
57.0
0.0
18.0
28.0
26.0
437.0
Everett
29.0
2.6
0.1
72.0
Tacoma
27.0
26.0
CAL
WSU
CAL
CAL
WSU FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL
CAL
WSU
CAL
CAL
WSU
CAL
CAL LDUP
WSU
WSU
WSU
CAL
'
CAL
NQ WSU LDUP
WSU
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
CAL
ND CAL
ND WSU
CAL
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
FDUP
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/15/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/09/88
07/09/88
07/09/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
07/27/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
08/15/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
06/29/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
07/17/88
10/29/88
10/29/88
-------
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Weyerhauser Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
' Weyerhauser Co.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
' Weyerhauser Co.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
0.0
0.0
17.0
12.0
0.0
39.0
29.0
30.0
9.7
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
12.0
33.0
3.4
5.2
10.0
8.5
1.7
1.6
7.7
1.7
25.0
0.0
2378-TCDF
Concentration
NQ 22.0
26.0
100.0
38.0
NQ 87 . 0
101.0
106.0
176.0
Cosmopolis
400.0
ND 6.3
NQ 6.4
ND 3.1
ND 2.9
61.0
Everett
260.0
16.0
20.0
Longviev
37.0
21.0
2.8
2.8
20.0
9.4
80.0
NQ 84.0
Sample
Lab Comments Date
Sludge ppt
35.0
89.0
CAL FDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL
WSU
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
FDUP
CAL FDUP
CAL
CAL
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
CAL
CAL
WSU
WSU
CAL FDUP
CAL FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU FDUP
WSU
WSU
CAL' FDUP
CAL FDUP
< LDUP
CAL LDUP
10/29/88
10/29/88
08/01/89
10/29/88
10/29/88
10/29/88
10/29/88
08/01/89
08/05/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
08/06/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
07/24/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
08/02/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
** State: HI
* Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
Effluent ppq 9.8
Effluent ppq 4.5
Effluent ppq 6.4
Effluent ppq 5.3
Pulp ppt 4 . 4
Sludge ppq 36.0
* Consolidated Papers, Inc.
Effluent ppq 49.0
Pulp ppt 20.0
Pulp ppt 18.0
Pulp ppt 2 . 2
Pulp ppt 12.0
Pulp ppt 15.0
Sludge ppt 69.0
Sludge ppt 134.0
Sludge ppt 54.0
* James River Corp.
Effluent ppq 11.0
Effluent ppq 8.5
Effluent ppq 19.0
Effluent ppq 15.0
Pulp ppt 0.8
Sludge ppt 35.0
* Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pulp ppt 22.0
* Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Effluent ppq 40.0
Sludge ppt 109.0
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Peshtigo
280.0
110.0
ND 170.0
ND 130.0
323.0
1800.0
Wisconsin Rapids
ND 34.0 ND
83.0
79.0
ND 12.0
86.0
105.0
556.0
679.0
330.0
Green Bay
61.0
ND 29.0
72.0
54.0
ND 7.1
250.0
Nekoosa
283.0
Nekoosa & Port E<
320.0
1300.0
Sample
Lab Comments Date
CAL LDUP 07/22/88
Pulp
mill
CAL LDUP 07/22/88
Pond
CAL Pulp 07/22/88
mill
LDUP
CAL Pond 07/21/88
LDUP
HSU 07/22/88
CAL Non-dewa 07/22/88
tered
03/21/87
CAL FDUP 03/21/87
CAL FDUP 03/21/87
03/21/87
LDUP 03/21/87
LDUP 03/21/87
PRIM 03/21/87
SEC 03/21/87
COMB 03/21/87
CAL TO RIVER 08/22/88
LDUP
CAL TO MSD 08/22/88
CAL LDUP 08/22/88
FDUP
CAL FDUP 08/22/88
HSU 08/22/88
CAL 08/22/88
HSU 06/17/88
awards
CAL 06/17/88
CAL 06/17/88
* Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
Pulp ppt
0.4
Port Edwards
ND 4.1
HSU
06/17/88
-------
03/09/90
U.S. EPA/ Paper Industry
Cooperative Dioxin Study
Analytical Results
Sample 2378-TCDD
Matrix Units Concentration
* Pentair, Inc.
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Wausau Paper Mills
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
Sludge ppt
* Weyerhauser Co.
Effluent ppq
Effluent ppq
Pulp ppt
Sludge ppt
5.4
0.5
9.4
11.0
Co.
4.2
4.9
0.4
3.2
4.1
12.0
12.0
15.0
58.0
2378-TCDF
Concentration
Park Falls
ND 4.8
ND 0.9
90.0
73.0
Brokaw
ND 14.0
ND 2.1
ND 9.9
68.0
56.0
Rothchild
24.0
18.0
26.0
150.0
Samole
Lab Comments Date
CAL
ND WSU
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
ND CAL LDUP
WSU
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
CAL LDUP
WSU
CAL
07/04/88
07/04/88
07/04/88
07/05/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
07/22/88
08/12/88
06/12/88
00/12/88
Qfi/12/88
------- |