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

-------