————
STOPPII
WATER POLLv sw
AT ITS SOURCE
Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
“FOR THE
EFFLUENT LIMITS REGULATION
FOR THE |
MISA PULP. AND PAPER SECTOR
Ontario
LE Fo
Le
+ .
THE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
FOR THE
EFFLUEN T LIMITS REGULATION
FOR THE
MISA PULP AND PAPER SECTOR
WATER RESOURCES BRANCH
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT
June 3, 1992.
1 Jia
ES
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUMRVESSUMMARY SR OM wlel tery ue ten biclilie th cfm eth dey le Wel! 6.) 6) 0) de i
CHAPTERS ali ha SAR AEN TTA T TW Ey © fil oi feos epic) (el ey felis oe pie 1
1ESel The MISA Program
152 The Effluent Monitoring Regulations
153 The Effluent Limits Regulation Development
Process
CHAPTER 2 THE TNDUSTRIALASECTOR# MON RU 6 al
oad Industry Profile
252 Production Processes
255 Industry Categories
2.4 Water Use and Wastewater Treatment
CHAPTER 3 THE EFFLUENT MONITORING DATABASE ..... . 1
Effluent Monitoring
Data Validation
Candidate Parameter Selection
QA/QC Data Assessment
Effluent Monitoring Results
WWWW WwW
.
OP WNP
CHAPTER 4 THE BEST AVAILABLE MECHNOLOCGY EEE RC TEE 1
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
4.1 Best Available Technology (BAT)
4.2 Economic Achievability (EA)
4.3 Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BATEA)
CHAPDERAS SR Gish Er ELCUENTELIMIELTS ES CRM CS 8G) lowe 1
5.1 The Effluent Limits Setting Process
Siz The Candidate Parameter List
553
5.4
The Development of Effluent Limits
Overall Environment Benefit
June 3, 1992. É 2 Table of Contents
eae | Ta :
eo
i]
ÿ)
3 À ‘
Saal aatnns ANGES
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXACTES SUNMARSE SSSR A te widete so, - sah cll te i
CHAR LERG ahh MM vo Age NL era La Vien SCENE NE MMM ETS sfive yes al
ubSal The MISA Program
11554 The Effluent Monitoring Regulations
13 The Effluent Limits Regulation Development
Process
CHAPTERM2 SE THE NINDUSTRTALUSECTOR 7) 2 &) lo vel cues o 0 cus al
22 Industry Profile
DE? Production Processes
2-3 Industry Categories
24 Water Use and Wastewater Treatment
CHAPTER 3 THE EFFLUENT MONITORING DATABASE . . . . . . 1
Sak Effluent Monitoring
32 Data Validation
323 Candidate Parameter Selection
3.4 QA/QC Data Assessment
SES Effluent Monitoring Results
CHAPTER 4 |THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY 5 « «. « al
ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE
4.1 Best Available Technology (BAT)
4.2 Economic Achievability (EA)
4.3 Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BATEA)
CHAPTERS OM ETHE ErELEUENTÉLIMETS ENS SR Een al
The Effluent Limits Setting Process
The Candidate Parameter List
SA
Bo
DAS) The Development of Effluent Limits
5.4 Overall Environment Benefit
June 3, 1992. 1 Table of Contents
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
CHAPTER 6 THE LIMITS "REGULATION CC oi fetie a8 ee oe al
GET The Limits Regulation
6.2 Record Keeping and Reporting
S63} Timing
APPENDICES): tech EN EN SOURIS NS NS NE NON Mow D Ce 1
I The Effluent Limits Regulation
IEC The Twelve Month Report
June 3, 1992. Table of Contents
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA)
program is Environment Ontario's program to reduce the
discharge of toxic contaminants to Ontario's waterways. Under
the first phase of MISA, dischargers were required to monitor
and report on the contaminants present in their effluent
streams. This information has subsequently been used to set
legal discharge limits requiring reductions in toxic
discharges to the level attainable with the best available
pollution control technology which is economically achievable.
The ultimate goal of the MISA program is the virtual
elimination of persistent toxic contaminants from all
discharges. into Ontario's waterways.
This document contains all the legal effluent discharge
requirements for Ontario's MISA Pulp and Paper Sector. These
requirements are specified in. "Ontario Regulation (?)/93:
Effluent Limits - MISA Pulp and Paper Sector". The regulation
is issued under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act
(Section 136).
"Ontario Regulation (?)/93: . Effluent Limits - MISA Pulp
and Paper Sector" states the quality and quantity discharge
limits, toxicity testing, flow measurement, and reporting
requirements that each direct discharge pulp and paper mill
must meet. The regulation comes into force on (?), 1996,
allowing mills a period of three (3) years within which to
implement pollution control strategies. and install those
capital works necessary to meet the effluent limits.
Ontario Regulation (?)/93 states that sampling points
must be established within each pulp and paper mill on every
process effluent stream and cooling water effluent stream.
Routine monitoring requirements, designed to provide the
Ministry of the Environment with assurance that the mills are
meeting the regulation requirements, are tabulated in
accompanying schedules.
This document is comprised of six chapters.
The first chapter of this document is introductory and
presents the environmental background to MISA and the main
features of the program. A description of the Effluent
Monitoring Regulation for the Pulp and Paper Sector is given
and the generic effluent limits regulation development process
is explained,
June 3, 1992. -i- Executive Summary
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Chapter two presents information about the MISA Pulp and
Paper Sector. The sector consists of twenty-seven direct
discharge pulp and paper mills, nine of which are kraft mills,
eight are sulphite-mechanical mills, two are corrugating mills
and the remaining eight are deinking-board-fine papers-tissue
mills. Information about each mill is given, including age
and location, production capacities, processes used and the
composition and treatment of mill effluents.
Chapter three contains information about the effluent
monitoring data used in the development of the effluent
limits. The chapter includes a summary of the data collected
under the voluntary pre-regulation effluent monitoring program
and under the one year regulated MISA effluent monitoring
program (the complete MISA effluent monitoring database is
presented in Appendix II of this document). Data validation,
candidate parameter selection and QA/QC data assessment are
also discussed in this chapter.
The next chapter describes the assessment of available
pollution control technologies for the control of mill
effluent discharges and describes the identification of those
technologies considered to be the "best available". Chapter
four also examines the economic and financial implications of
each of the "best available" technology (BAT) train options,
and presents a summary of the likely impact of each BAT option
on the sector as a whole.
Chapter five presents the effluent limits and describes
the limit development process. Existing control requirements
are also reviewed along with those from other jurisdictions.
The sixth chapter. presents a summary of the key
components of the Effluent Limits Regulation for the MISA Pulp
and Paper Sector. Compliance requirements and monitoring
frequencies are defined, as are other regulation requirements
such as toxicity testing criteria and flow measurement
accuracy.
June 3, 1992. - ii - Executive Summary
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
This document represents the culmination of over six
years of effort on the part of the Ministry, industry, and the
public. The public review process was a key component in the
development of the Effluent Limits Regulation for the Pulp and
Paper Sector. The draft version of the regulation was
released for public review in (?), 1992, and the Ministry
received (?) comments from across the province. In addition
to the public review, the regulation was reviewed by the MISA
Advisory Committee, which is a committee made up of
environmental experts external to the Ministry who provide
advice directly to the Minister on the contents of the MISA
regulations.
June 3, 1992. - iii - Executive Summary
2 : i STONE i Ê
NA dé ; =
sid . 4 " ) | a af,
yee ANR a Renee ; .
ty, an Ne ; CRT US ES
THE MISA INITIATIVE
CHAPTER 1
OF CIE
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
Sie
IL ak *
pen se
MISA Pulp and
Pol coe M
2) THER
1-3 -LHESE
Paper Sector Development Document
Table of Contents
TSAR PROGRAMA jeu pey si) «fis! NT 6 te)
FFLUENT MONITORING REGULATIONS ..
The MISA Monitoring Strategy . . .
The Effluent Monitoring Priority
Pollutant List .:. : :
Pre-Regulation Effluent Monitoring
Principles of the Effluent
Monitoring Regulations: 20.5 <3.
Effluent Streams Monitored . . . .
Monitoring Frequencies . . . .
Sampling Requirements . . . .
Flow Measurement .......
Analytical Requirements . . .
TOXPCTEY TeSEDNG M se alae
REPOND seb et wets SL UT fs
Ministery, “Anas ERNEST
Enforcement . . .
The General Effluent Monitoring Regulation
The Effluent Monitoring Regulation for the
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector . . .… .
FFLUENT LIMITS REGULATION
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS . . : sens
REFERENCES
June 3, 1992.
The Effluent Limits Regulation ce
.
W
ONDWDWAWDNNAAAUYW > &
Le]
Chapter 1
FR, Ga La
CL
RES “a gah: Ft
ean ee
JA
x TARN Pr
QU
Hart LORS mais
£ l'E Eng vs PET
Development Document
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
1.1 THE MISA PROGRAM
The MISA program was officially announced by the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment in the White Paper of June 1986'.
MISA is a regulatory program for reducing water pollution from
both industrial and municipal dischargers. Initially,
technology-based effluent limits will be imposed on each
discharger as a minimum pollution control requirement. In
addition, more stringent effluent limits can be imposed on
dischargers on a site-specific basis to protect local
sensitive receiving waterbodies. The ultimate goal of MISA is
the virtual elimination of persistent toxic contaminants from
all discharges into Ontario's waterways.
The process to develop technology-based effluent limits
involves two phases. In the first phase, effluent monitoring
regulations are legislated which require dischargers to
monitor their point source effluents at regular intervals
according to specific sampling, analytical, flow measurement
and quality assurance and quality control protocols and
procedures. The second phase involves the development and
implementation of effluent limits regulations for each of the
industrial and municipal sectors, using the data collected
under the monitoring regulations.
The MISA effluent monitoring and limits regulations will
initially involve all major polluters, on a sector-by-sector
basis, that discharge directly into Ontario's waterways,
including:
e Industrial Dischargers in the following major
sectors:
e Petroleum Refining
€ organic Chemical Manufacturing
e Iron and Steel
e Mining
e Pulp and Paper
® Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
e Metal Casting
& Electric Power Generation
e Industrial Minerals
(This group accounts for approximately two-thirds of
Ontario's direct industrial dischargers; the remaining
dischargers will be covered as other sectors are brought
under regulation.)
June 3, 1992. -1- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
e Municipal Sewage Treatment Works
The Municipal Sector consists of all sewage treatment
plants in the province. Dischargers to municipal sewers
constitute the indirect discharger group, which will be
regulated under the MISA Sewer Use Control Program. -
The Effluent Monitoring Regulations required dischargers
to monitor their point source discharges at regular intervals.
This monitoring was intended to provide comprehensive data on
effluent quality, particularly for toxic contaminants. In
order to accurately reflect all discharger operating
conditions, the effluent monitoring regulations required
sampling at various frequencies over an entire year using
specified standard procedures. Industry's self-monitoring
under the regulations was subject to independent audits
carried out by the Ministry of the Environment.
Information generated by the effluent monitoring
regulations produced a database on the contaminants discharged
across Ontario. This database is being evaluated and used in
the development of effluent limits based on the best available
pollution control technology which is economically achievable
(BATEA) .
The Effluent Limits Regulations are being developed in
consultation with different levels of government, industry and
the general public. Consultation is facilitated through Joint
Technical Committees (JTCs), made up of representatives from
the Ministry, Environment Canada, and the affected
dischargers. These committees, one per sector, provide an
opportunity for the dischargers to have input into the
regulation development process.
Review of the regulations is initially provided by the
MISA Advisory Committee (MAC) which is an independent
committee of technical and environmental experts that provides
the Minister of the Environment with advice and comments on
the development and implementation of the MISA program. All
regulations appear in draft form for a period of (?) days to
allow for public review and comment, prior to promulgation.
June 3, 1992. -2- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Development of the Effluent Limits Regulations does not
end with the promulgation of the last sector regulation. The
Ministry is committed to keeping abreast of available
pollution reduction technology. To that end, the Effluent
Limits Regulations will be reviewed and, if technology emerges
which allows the imposition of more stringent effluent limits
on a particular sector, then the regulation will be amended to
reflect those limits.
Through this process of ongoing evaluation and step-by-
step reductions, MISA's ultimate goal to virtually eliminate
the discharge of toxic contaminants will be achieved. Such a
goal fulfils Ontario's commitment to the protection and
improvement of our natural water resources, and is consistent
with the provisions of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting
Great Lakes Water Quality’ and the Canada-United States Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
1.2 THE EFFLUENT MONITORING REGULATIONS
The MISA Monitoring Strategy
A large number and variety of chemicals are manufactured
and. used in today's industrial society. During the
development of the Effluent Monitoring Regulations, the
Ministry realized that a system was required to evaluate the
chemicals to be monitored by each industrial sector. The
Ministry also realized that it would be necessary to limit the
number of allowable monitoring techniques in order to provide
a common scientific basis for comparison of data from sector-
. to-sector and from site-to-site.
The Ministry developed a monitoring strategy based on:
e the Effluent Monitoring Priority Pollutants List
(EMPPL) which identifies toxic contaminants of
concern
e voluntary pre-regulation effluent monitoring which
facilitated the identification of the specific
chemicals to be monitored, their monitoring
frequency and the appropriate techniques for
chemical analysis.
June 3, 1992. -3- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The Effluent Monitoring Priority Pollutant List
The Effluent Monitoring Priority Pollutant List (EMPPL)
is a dynamic list containing the names of those contaminants
potentially present in industrial and municipal discharges
which could pose a hazard to the receiving environment. In
order to initiate and maintain such a list, the Ministry
developed a "hazard assessment" process, which evaluated, for
a particular contaminant:
e Potential presence in effluents discharged to
Ontario's waterways
e Environmental persistence
e Potential to bioaccumulate
e Acute and sub-lethal toxicity to biological
organisms, including humans, as measured by
specific indicators of toxicity such as the ability
to induce tumours and affect successive
generations.
Initial efforts, which are fully documented‘, resulted in
EMPPL containing 183 chemicals or groups of chemicals. The
hazard assessment process is ongoing. The current EMPPL
(1988) contains 266 chemicals or groups of chemicals.
Chemicals not on the current EMPPL but identified through
open scan characterization will be candidates for assessment
and, possibly, inclusion on EMPPL. Chemicals may also be
added to reflect new environmental fate or toxicity
information. Although initiated as part of the initial MISA
monitoring strategy, EMPPL will be used on an ongoing basis
for the development of MISA Effluent Limits Regulations.
Pre-Regulation Effluent Monitoring
Pre-regulation effluent monitoring was undertaken
voluntarily by the industrial dischargers in each sector to
provide an initial database on which to build the sector-
specific requirements for the Effluent Monitoring Regulations.
Pre-regulation effluent monitoring included:
e the collection of information covering several
areas of plant operations from process
descriptions, raw material use, to sewer diagrams
and effluent treatment information
June 3, 1992. -4- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
e site visits by multi-disciplinary teams to inspect
on-site operations, general environmental control
practices and sampling and flow monitoring
locations
e effluent monitoring studies using sampling and
analytical protocols provided by the Ministry
e technical reviews of other databases such as:
e MOE open characterizations
e Historical monitoring data
e MISA Pilot Site Program studies
e Environment Canada studies
e Company-supplied monitoring
and chemical use data
Published literature on process effluent
contaminants from similar sources
e Development of sector-specific monitoring lists
based on EMPPL and pre-regulation effluent
monitoring data.
Upon completion of the pre-regulation effluent
monitoring, the Ministry developed sector-specific effluent
monitoring regulation requirements.
Principles of the Effluent Monitoring Regulations
In designing the Effluent Monitoring Regulations, every
effort was made to ensure that the information gathered under
the regulations would provide an accurate characterization of
effluent quality. The monitoring program was, therefore,
designed to ensure the following conditions were met:
e The monitoring data would be of known and
acceptable quality. The requirements specified in
the MISA effluent monitoring regulations were
designed to ensure acceptable data quality. A
system of procedures and documentation was
prescribed for all monitoring activities including
sampling techniques, sample preservation,
analytical procedures, flow measurement and data
reporting. In addition, the regulations prescribed
the minimum amounts of QA/QC data that were to be
generated and the terms and conditions under which
such data were to be reported to the Ministry.
June 3, 1992. ILE Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
@ The monitoring data would reflect effluent
variability. Dischargers were required to monitor
during all operating conditions, including normal
and upset conditions, in all seasons of the year.
6 The monitoring data would be of sufficient volume
to provide a statistically valid database for the
development of effluent limits.
Effluent Streams Monitored
The MISA Effluent Monitoring Regulations required direct
dischargers to monitor all point source discharges of
pollution entering surface watercourses, including
process effluent, cooling water effluent, storm water
effluent, backwash effluent, emergency overflow effluent
and waste disposal site effluent.
Monitoring Frequencies
The Ministry's approach to monitoring reflected both the
need for a comprehensive data base, and the limitations
imposed by practical considerations, including cost.
Frequent monitoring (daily, thrice weekly and weekly) was
required for a short list of parameters while less
frequent monitoring (monthly, quarterly, semi-annually
and annually) was required for a longer list of
parameters.
Sampling Requirements
To ensure that data of proven quality would be obtained
from the samples collected during monitoring, sample
collection and preservation needed to be rigorously
controlled.
Whenever possible, sampling of process effluents was
required prior to dilution. Sample collection methods
included automatic sampling, flow-proportional sampling,
and grab sampling.
June 3, 1992. -6- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Sample preservation protocols were specified for all the
parameters that were susceptible to degradation through
chemical, biological or physical interaction. These
protocols ranged from the addition of a chemical
preservative to simple refrigeration and storage
criteria.
Flow Measurement
For process effluent streams, the effluent monitoring
regulations specified that flow measurement readings were
to be taken continuously and accurately. For cooling
water, backwash, storm water, emergency overflow and
waste disposal site effluent streams, flow measurement
readings were measured or estimated at the time of
sampling.
To ensure that these flow measurement readings were
precise and representative, the regulation specified the
frequency and defined the acceptable limits of accuracy
for flow measurement on each type of stream.
Analytical Requirements
Analytical principles were provided for the analysis of
all samples. Adherence to these principles was required
in order to ensure that the data generated would be
reliable, of consistent quality, and sufficiently
compatible to be integrated into a valid and meaningful
database.
Under the effluent monitoring regulations, laboratories
were required to provide the analytical method detection
limit (MDL) for each parameter before the samples could
be analyzed. The MDL is the minimum concentration of a
parameter necessary to imply its presence in a sample
with a level of confidence greater than 99 per cent. The
procedures for determining analytical method detection
limits are provided in the Ministry publication titled
"Estimation of Analytical Method Detection Limits
(MDL) ">.
June 3, 1992. : -7- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Toxicity Testing
Toxicity testing was used to assess the potential impact
of complex effluents on the aquatic environment. Two
types of toxicity tests were required under the Effluent
Monitoring Regulations for each sector:
e Rainbow Trout Acute Toxicity Test. This test
is the standard fish lethality test in
Ontario; an effluent is considered acutely
lethal if 50% or more of the rainbow trout die
when kept in undiluted effluent for a period
of 96 hours.
eo. Daphnia magna Acute Lethality Test. For this
test, an effluent is considered acutely lethal
if 50% or more of the Daphnia magna die when
kept in undiluted effluent for a period of 48
hours.
Reporting
The Effluent Monitoring Regulations required direct
dischargers to report to the Ministry all of the effluent
monitoring data collected under the regulations. The
reporting section of each sectoral regulation specified
report type, content, timing, and format.
Ministry Audit
Audits were conducted by the Ministry to confirm that
self-monitoring data reported by direct dischargers was
representative of the quality and quantity of effluent
discharged to the environment.
Enforcement
Failure to comply with the requirements of the Effluent
Monitoring Regulations was considered to be a violation
of the Environmental Protection Act.
June 3, 1992. -8- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The General Effluent Monitoring Regulation
Under MISA, the monitoring requirements for each
industrial sector were outlined in a general effluent
monitoring regulation and a sector-specific regulation. The
general effluent monitoring regulation, Ontario Regulation
695/88 as amended to Ontario Regulation 533/89°, expressed the
technical and scientific principles of monitoring that were
common to all sectors. The sector-specific regulation stated
how the monitoring principles should be applied to plants in
the specific sector.
The general effluent monitoring regulation described
sampling and analytical requirements, flow measurement
requirements, and toxicity testing and reporting procedures.
The sector-specific effluent monitoring regulations
listed the effluent streams and parameters to be monitored at
each plant, and their monitoring frequencies. Also listed
_were the plant specific and sector specific requirements for
characterization analysis, routine chemical monitoring,
toxicity testing, flow measurement and reporting.
The Effluent Monitoring Regulation for the
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
The Effluent Monitoring Regulation for the Pulp and Paper
Sector was designed to provide an accurate report on the
discharge of priority and traditional pollutants by the
twenty-seven direct discharge mills in Ontario.
The regulation was developed by the Ministry in
consultation with representatives from the Ontario Pulp and
Paper Industry, MISA Advisory Committee and Environment Canada
through the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Joint Technical
Committee.
The specific requirements of the Effluent Monitoring
Regulation for the Pulp and Paper Sector are presented in
Ontario Regulation 435/89 as amended to Ontario Regulation
202/90’. .A detailed explanation of the rationale behind the
specific requirements is presented in the Development Document
for the Effluent Limits Regulation for the MISA Pulp and Paper
Sector.
June 3, 1992. == Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
1.3 THE EFFLUENT LIMITS REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Effluent Limits Regulations are being imposed on each of
the nine industrial sectors and the municipal sector. The
Effluent Limits Regulation for the Pulp and Paper Sector will
regulate the twenty-seven direct discharge mills in Ontario.
The Effluent Limits Regulations are being developed by
the sectoral Joint Technical Committees with input from the
MISA Advisory Committee.
The process which was followed in developing the Effluent
Limits Regulation for the Pulp and Paper Sector was initially
outlined in the MISA White Paper. Each step is briefly
described as follows:
Step 1: Effluent Monitoring
Under the Effluent Monitoring Regulation, direct
dischargers were required to monitor for a comprehensive
list of contaminants. Up to 135 parameters -were
monitored on a daily, thrice weekly, weekly, monthly, bi-
monthly and semi-annual basis for process effluent,
cooling water effluent, storm water effluent, emergency
overflow effluent, backwash effluent and waste disposal
site effluent.
Step 2: Data Validation
The effluent monitoring data were subject to a rigorous
data validation exercise in order to confirm the
integrity of the information contained in the effluent
monitoring database.
Step 3: Candidate Parameter Selection
Statistical tests were applied to the effluent monitoring
data to determine candidate parameters for effluent
limits setting. Parameters were not considered if the
effluent monitoring data showed (at a 95% confidence
level) that a statistical portion of 0.9 of the data were
at a concentration of less than the regulation method
detection limit.
June 3, 1992. - 10- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Step 4: A/QC Data Assessment
The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) data
assessment evaluated the suitability of the effluent
monitoring data for use in the effluent limits setting
process. Data which were considered unreliable were
eliminated from further consideration in the effluent
limit setting process.
Step 5: Available Technology Identification
Available pollution control technologies were identified
and evaluated. The technologies were screened on the
basis of the number, kind, and toxicity of the
contaminants treated, and the contaminant reductions
achieved.
Step 6: BAT Identification
Best available technologies were identified and BAT
technology train options, representing different levels
of pollution control and abatement, were determined. BAT
technology train options were reviewed in order to
identify the contaminants that would be treated if the
options were retrofit at Ontario mills, the costs of
retrofitting each option and the contaminant discharge
levels that would result.
Step 7: Economic Assessment
Information about estimated pollutant removal
efficiencies and the costs of the various BAT technology
train options was used to derive abatement cost functions
which indicate the relationship between increasingly
stringent levels of control and the cost of achieving
them. The financial and economic consequences to the
pulp and paper sector in Ontario associated with the
various levels of control were also estimated.
Step 8: BAT(EA) Identification
The information on the identified BAT technology train
options and the economic and financial impacts of each
option on the sector were used to determine the "best
available technology economically achievable", BAT(EA),
upon which the effluent limits are based.
June 3, 1992. -11- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Step 9: Effluent Limits Setting
Effluent limits were developed based on the identified
BAT(EA) and the best professional judgement of the
Ministry and Industry as to the contaminants levels that
can be achieved by pulp and paper mills in Ontario.
The Effluent Limits Regulation
In addition to the effluent limits developed using the
above process, the effluent limits regulation contains
requirements for toxicity testing. Toxicity testing
requirements stipulate when and how dischargers must test
their effluents.
Flow measurement requirements are also included in the
limits regulation. Pollutant load reductions are determined
by multiplying the concentration of the contaminants in the
effluent by the rate at which the effluent is discharged. The
accuracy of this measurement depends, in part, on the accuracy
of the device which is used to measure the flow. Therefore,
a level of accuracy and precision for flow measuring devices
was set, and dischargers must ensure that their equipment is
designed and maintained to achieve it.
The effluent limits regulation stipulates that direct
dischargers must comply with the requirements of the
regulation. The regulation sets out the terms and conditions
of compliance. These terms specify what the dischargers must
do in order to demonstrate that the regulation requirements
are being met.
The frequency of contaminant monitoring for the purpose
of assessing compliance with the effluent limits is a main
component of the regulation compliance requirements.
Information gained through compliance monitoring will provide
the Ministry and the public with information on the
effectiveness of the MISA progran.
The Ministry is committed to reporting to the public,
information on which dischargers are in compliance, which
dischargers have to implement further pollution abatement, and
the status of individual abatement programs. Reports will
also indicate progress toward achieving the MISA goal of
virtual elimination of persistent toxic substances.
June 3, 1992. -12- Chapter 1
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The effluent limits regulations will be periodically
reviewed and, if new technology emerges which could reduce
contaminant levels below those imposed by the current limits,
then the regulations will be revised to reflect the more
stringent limits.
June 3, 1992. -13- Chapter 1
_MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
June 3, 1992. - 14 - Chapter 1
8.
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
REFERENCES
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1986). Municipal-
Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA). A Policy and
Program Statement of the Government of Ontario on
Controlling Municipal and Industrial Discharges into
Surface Waters. Toronto, Ontario.
Canada-Ontario Agreement respecting Great Lakes Water
Quality, signed March 6, 1986.
International Joint Commission (1978). Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, with annexes and terms of reference
between the United States and Canada. Ottawa, Ontario.
November 22, 1978.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1987). The Effluent
Monitoring Priority Pollutants List (1987). Toronto,
Ontario. ISBN 0-7729-2784-7
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1989). Estimation
of Analytical Method Detection Limits (MDL). Toronto,
Ontario. ISBN 0-7729-4117-3
Government of Ontario (1988). Ontario Requlation 695/88
‘as amended to Ontario Regulation 533/89 under the
Environmental Protection Act -- Effluent Monitoring -
General.
Government of Ontario (1989). Ontario Regulation 435/89
as amended to Ontario Regulation 202/90 under the
Environmental Protection Act -- Effluent Monitoring -
Pulp and Paper Sector.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1989). The
Development _ Document for the Effluent Monitoring
Regulation for the Pulp and Paper Sector. Toronto,
Ontario. ISBN 0-7729-5701-0
June 3, 1992. SA De Chapter 1
a sieaaary *
vig Leeks ; sab at:
a i ee le
5 Ce att ; a | seeps Fe à HUE is ‘y hee on
“>
ma
L Ne “ant
fy,
ka a .
Le a LR
N RUE oo nn dé Foe
i a0 L LT À (DE (a Le $i à >
N Te en = » à | ci
é L EM É AS 1 ae ”~
ns pet à
Ae À 2s
É ga es si
A tee ams pes",
LE tReet
eo
Di)
à es 2: a re pe eg SON Poe
CODES RENE Are at wee ioe a oN St
atl Fat & 4 - hn ENT
Lor La Qu
: ‘i er
1
M : vs «
0 ÿ i N
L %
SR QU x Lu
+ . * U
x . 7 La
à i t 4 x
TE La ré
ar PACE choy Dep Ni à VA nee way
= we
ü a : 1e
+ a 1 rok x
xe bs . >
yi ‘ ras ey a ay fe: "A ae
ms MO 6 , - < i: PCM ‘#
à Vag : Heu 55 A Ù 1 ;
LR x TE LA A Le.
Y 7 { LP ALES
THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR
CHAPTER 2
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector :
Table of Contents
Deo ENDUSTRYS PROB TEE PORN LS Ste CUS SN se
2.2 PRODUCTION PROCESSES ... . ail tert te
2.3 INDUS
‘2.4 WATER USE AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT . .
The
The
The
The
TRY
The
The
The
The
Sulphate (Kraft) Process . .
Sulphite Process 2.1.1 : .. Li
Stone Groundwood Process ..
Thermomechanical Process . .
CAFECORTES ETC sition ere
Sulphate (Kraft) Category . .
Sulphite-Mechanical Category
Corrugating Category . . . .
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/
PIS SUENCAEeDOÉVNENME NS VENT IL NET
The
Pulp and Paper Sector... .
ANAL USC aie RENE MS cece tens
Wastewater Treatment ......
REFERENCES .
June 3, 1992.
Development Document
spe ° 1
enh elwies inetiae re il
et cente) well ot ré 5
one oble Moet © 5
e LL L ° - LA 6
SOG NS MONTE 6
Et TS MO COS 7
anes peice 7
Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
List of Figures
2.1 Location of Direct Discharge Pulp and Paper
MiSs in Ontario vic: s\, a) scan etre tee cust no keer en ae
List of Tables
2.1 The MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Final Products and Employment (1990) . . .
2.2. The Sulphate: (Kraft) (Category) = <9. <3 2 <.
2.3 The Sulphite-Mechanical Category ......
2.4 The Corrugating Category... . : ae
2.5 The Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
2.6 Average Production-based Flowrates for the
Sulphate (Kraft) = Cacegoryar crite) io erin auc
2.7 Average Production-based Flowrates for the
Sulphite-Mechanical Category .........
2.8 Average Production-based Flowrates for the
Corrugating: Category ~~... 5. Lo bo. à 0
2.9 Average Production-based Flowrates for the
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
2.10 Mills with Secondary Effluent Treatment .
June 3, 1992. - ti -
e
Ÿ 10 OW WwW
Chapter 2
ee —————————————————————— ———————————————————————
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
2.1 INDUSTRY PROFILE
There are twenty-seven pulp and paper mills located in
the Province of Ontario that discharge effluent directly to
surface watercourses. Sixteen mills are located in Northern
Ontario, five in Eastern Ontario and the remaining six in
South-Central Ontario. Figure 2.1 identifies the location of
the twenty-seven mills and the receiving waters that the mills
discharge to.
In 1990, Ontario pulp and paper mills produced about five
million tonnes of saleable pulp and paper products while
employing nearly 16,000 people in the province. In terms of
employment, the pulp and paper industry is the fifth leading
manufacturing industry in Ontario behind motor vehicle parts,
motor vehicles, primary steel and electronic equipment. When
resource jobs (woodlands, harvesting and management) are
included the pulp and paper industry directly employs
approximately 75,000 people in Ontario’. Table 2.1 lists the
twenty-seven mills, the products produced and the approximate
number of employees at each mill.
2.2 PRODUCTION PROCESSES
Pulp is an intermediate product used in the manufacture
of paper and paper products and is manufactured in Ontario by
a number of different processes which generate wastewater
effluents with. varying characteristics. Traditionally,
pulping processes have been divided into chemical pulping
processes and mechanical pulping processes. .
In chemical pulping processes, wood fibres are separated
by breaking down the bonds between the fibres with chemical
reactants, generally at temperatures of about 150 to 200
degrees celsius. Up to 60% of the mass of the wood can be
converted into soluble organics by the process so that the
yield of pulp can be as low as 40%. The two main chemical
pulping processes used in Ontario are the sulphate (kraft)
process and the sulphite process.
June 3, 1992. -1- | Chapter 2
Development Document
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
FIGURE 2.1: LOCATION OF DIRECT DISCHARGE PULP AND PAPER MILLS IN ONTARIO
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 2.1
The MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Final Products and Employment (1990)
Abitibi-Price Newsprint
(Fort William) ;
=>
o ©
lea;
(= ey
5
ore
oo
a
<
o
n
WwW
ND
—
N
©
O
>
[°x
Ee
©.
TU
=
9
®
<
©
(2
_
oo)
Lis
o
oS
©
N
a
Oo
Fine Papers
(Provincial Papers)
Abitibi-Price Newsprint Yes 167,900 325
(Thunder Bay) :
Market Pulp/ Yes 73,000
Groundwood specialty . 282,875
Market Pulp/ . Yes 146,000 1,030|
Fine Papers 219,000
GEER Market Pulp/ Yes 482,895 2,033
Newsprint 447,490
Domtar (Cornwall) Yes 301,125 1,450
Linerboard Yes 237,250
Newsprint 91,250
Fine Papers 73,000 300
(St. Catharines)
Domtar (Trenton) |Corrugating Medium - Yes 123,370 tee
Market Pulp/ Yes 269,370
(Espanola) Fine Papers 62,780
E.B. Eddy Fine Papers 62,050
(Ottawa)
James River- Market Pulp
Marathon
Kimberly-Clark Tissue
(Huntsville) j
Kimberly-Clark Tissue/
(St. Catharines) Fine Papers
June 3, 1992. -3-- Chapter 2
Oe Os Dia ®
yAolZoldto
mS alQala ©
w2.o/7 0/2 5
sls olz olf 7
OI » © À ois
2 a|3 0
S 010 0 Oo
a o1o re}
a alu a à.
2 o|— ©
m 05 0 =
o ole 9 =
a aa 5
à S138) S18
< [e) =
. g
<
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 2.1 (cont'd)
The MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Final Products and Employment (1990)
Company Product Integrated Production Employees
tonnes/year
Kimberly-Clark Market Pulp 438,000 730
(Terrace Bay)
MacMillan-Bloedel |Corrugating Medium\ Yes 129,575 420
(Sturgeon Falls) Hardboard
Quebec & Ontario |Newsprint Yes 317,915
(Thorold)
7
Eee eee ed
Strathcona Boxboard
(Napanee)
Trent Valley, Paperboard
Paperboard
In mechanical pulping processes, wood fibres are
separated by the application of mechanical energy under wet
conditions. The fibres are literally torn apart, one from the
other. In true mechanical pulping only about 5% of the weight
of the original wood is lost as dissolved organics and a few
percent rejected in solid form so that product yields are
typically 90 to 96%. The most popular mechanical pulping
processes used in Ontario are stone groundwood (SGW) pulping
and thermomechanical pulping (TMP).
June 3, 1992. -4- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
In the last twenty-five years, a number of hybrid
chemical/mechanical processes have been developed making the
simple distinction between chemical pulping processes and
mechanical pulping processes somewhat obsolete. At most
mills, traditional low-yield sulphite pulping operations have
been replaced with hybrid processes like chemimechanical
pulping (CMP), chemi-thermomechanical pulping (CTMP), high-
yield sulphite pulping (HYS) and ultra high-yield sulphite
pulping (UHYS).
For the sake of simplicity only the main pulping
processes used in Ontario are discussed below.
The Sulphate (Kraft) Process
The sulphate (kraft) process, is the dominant chemical
pulping process used in Ontario and in the rest of the world
because of the high strength pulp that it produces. Kraft
pulp is produced by cooking wood chips at elevated pressure
and temperature in a digester with a strong alkali solution.
The alkali solution, generally referred to as white liquor,
is typically 10% sodium sulphide and sodium hydroxide.
Spent cooking liquors (known as_ black liquor) are
separated from the kraft pulp by washers following cooking in
the digester and are treated in a chemical recovery system.
The recovery system regenerates the cooking chemicals of
sodium sulphide and sodium hydroxide while utilizing the heat
value of the organic residue to generate steam for the
process’.
Kraft pulp is usually bleached by molecular chlorine,
chlorine compounds and related chemicals and then dried for
sale or used on site for papermaking.
There are nine mills in Ontario that make kraft pulp with
a combined annual kraft pulp production capacity of 6,938
tonnes.
The Sulphite Process
In the sulphite pulping process, wood fibres are
separated by the action of sulphur dioxide and a metallic base
under pressure and at elevated temperature. Initially calcium
was used as the sulphite liquor base because of an inexpensive
and ample supply of limestone (calcium carbonate).
June 3, 1992. -5- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
In recent years, the use of calcium as a base material
has declined because the spent cooking liquor is both
difficult and expensive to recover or burn. If spent cooking
liquor is not recovered or burned then it must be discharged
as an effluent thereby significantly increasing effluent
treatment costs. Calcium use is also declining because of the
diminishing availability of softwood feedstocks which are the
most suitable for calcium-based pulping. Most sulphite mills
now use a soluble chemical base like magnesium, ammonia or
sodium which permits spent liquor recovery or incineration’.
Sulphite pulps are used to produce many types of paper
including tissue and writing papers. In combination with
other pulps, sulphite pulps have even more applications.
There are five mills in Ontario that make sulphite pulp with
a combined annual sulphite pulp production capacity of 930
tonnes. x
The Stone Groundwood Process
The stone groundwood (SGW) process was the earliest form
of mechanical pulping used commercially and is the most
extensively used mechanical pulping process in Ontario. Logs
are forced into contact with a revolving grindstone in the
presence of water to reduce the wood to a macerated fibrous
condition. The applied water cools, cleans, and lubricates
the stone and conveys the pulp away from the stone.
Groundwood pulp is used mainly in the manufacture of
newsprint. There are ten mills in Ontario that make
groundwood pulp with a combined annual groundwood pulp
production capacity of 4,053 tonnes.
The Thermomechanical Process
Thermomechanical pulp (TMP) is produced by passing wood
chips through a disk refiner which consists of two serrated
plates, one or two of which are rotating. TMP refiners
generally operate under pressure at temperatures over 100
degrees celsius. The process requires twice as much power as
the stone groundwood process but produces a wood pulp with
better mechanical properties.
June 3, 1992. -6- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Thermomechanical pulp, like stoneground wood pulp, is
used mainly in the manufacture of newsprint. There are four
mills in Ontario that make thermomechanical pulp with a
combined annual thermomechanical pulp production capacity of
1,307 tonnes.
2.3 INDUSTRY CATEGORIES
In Ontario, there are six integrated kraft mills, three
market kraft mills, ten integrated mechanical pulp mills and
eight paper mills that discharge effluent directly to surface
watercourses. An integrated mill is a mill that has both a
pulp mill and paper mill on site and a market mill is a mill
that sells pulp to customers outside the producing company.
Under the Effluent Monitoring Regulation for the MISA
Pulp and Paper Sector, the twenty-seven mills were divided
into four categories: sulphate (kraft), sulphite-mechanical,
corrugating and deinking/board/fine papers/tissue. Mills were
placed into a particular category depending on the
manufacturing processes used at the mill. Tables 2.2 to 2.5
list the four categories and the mills that were assigned to
each category.
The Sulphate (Kraft) Category
The nine mills in the sulphate (kraft) category are
briefly described below in terms of mill size, products
produced, number of employees, effluent treatment systems in
place and wastewaters generated.
Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. (Fort Frances)
The mill was originally constructed in 1914 as a
groundwood pulp mill. A kraft pulp mill was added in 1971 and
the mill now makes 575 tonnes/day of groundwood pulp and 570
tonnes/day of kraft pulp. The mill uses the pulp to
manufacture 775 tonnes/day of groundwood specialty paper and
sells 200 tonnes/day of kraft pulp to various customers. The
mill has 1,000 employees.
June 3, 1992. -7- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Table 2.2
The Sulphate (Kraft) Category
Miandad un
[Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. [Dryden
[Canadian Pacific Forest Products Lid.___| Thunder Bay
Table 253
The Sulphite-Mechanical Category
Sault Ste. Marie
June 3, 1992. ; - 8 - Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
(cont'd)
Table 2.4
The Corrugating Category
Location
Domtar Inc., Containerboard Division Trenton
MacMillan-Bloedel Ltd. turgeon Falls
Table 2.5
The Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
Beaver Wood Fibre Company Ltd. Thorold
Domtar Inc., Fine Papers Division
Trent Valley, Paperboard Industries Corporation [Trenton
E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd. Ottawa
Effluent treatment consists of a wet woodroom clarifier,
two kraft mill settling basins, a paper mill clarifier and
secondary effluent treatment consisting of an aerated basin.
In-plant control measures include a closed screen room. Mill
effluent discharges via a submerged diffuser to the Rainy
River.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 9,430 kg/day of BOD, 10,987
kg/day of TSS and 1,964 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
80,710 m?/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in 10 of the
12 monthly samples that were collected and acutely lethal to
Daphnia magna in 2 of the 8 monthly samples that were
collected.
June 3, 1992. -9- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. (Dryden)
The mill was constructed in 1913 as a kraft pulp and
sheathing mill. Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd. purchased
the mill from the Dryden Timber and Power Company in 1979.
The mill has 1,030 employees and presently makes 830
tonnes/day of bleached kraft pulp which is used to manufacture
600 tonnes/day of fine paper. The mill sells 400 tonnes/day
of kraft pulp to various customers.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier and
secondary effluent treatment consisting of an aerated basin
with jet aeration. In-plant control measures include spill
recovery and a catch-all spill diversion system. Mill
effluent discharges underwater to the Wabigoon River which
eventually flows into the Winnipeg River.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 2,761 kg/day of BOD, 5,011
kg/day of TSS and 1,936 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
89,192 m’/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in 5 of the
‘14 monthly samples that were collected and non-lethal to
Daphnia magna in the 11 monthly samples that were collected.
Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. (Thunder Bay)
The mill was originally constructed in 1924 as a
groundwood mill. In 1927, a newsprint mill was constructed
and in 1936 a sulphite mill was added. A kraft mill was
constructed in 1966 and was followed by a second kraft mill in
1976. The mill has 2,033 employees and makes 1,450 tonnes/day
of bleached kraft pulp, 570 tonnes/day of groundwood pulp, and
520 tonnes/day of thermomechanical pulp which are used to
manufacture 1,226 tonnes/day of newsprint. The mill sells
1323 tonnes/day of kraft pulp to various customers.
Effluent treatment consists of four primary clarifiers
with a new secondary effluent treatment system consisting of
oxygen enhanced activated sludge treatment. In-plant control
measures include dry debarking, a steam stripper for kraft
condensate, a closed screen room, high chlorine dioxide
substitution and soap and turpentine recovery. Mill effluent
discharges underwater to the Kaministiquia River which
eventually flows into Lake Superior.
June 3, 1992. - 10 - Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 48,622 kg/day of BOD, 15,335
kg/day of TSS and 4,171 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
176,069 m/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 12
monthly samples that were collected and acutely lethal to
Daphnia magna in 9 of the 12 monthly samples that were
collected.
It should be noted that with the installation of the new
secondary effluent treatment system, the quality of the
effluent discharged from this mill will be much better than
the quality of effluent discharged during the 1990 MISA
monitoring period.
Domtar Inc., Fine Papers Division (Cornwall)
The mill was originally constructed in 1883 as a
groundwood mill and in 1888, a sulphite pulping operation was
added. A soda pulp mill was built in 1927 but was converted
to a kraft mill in the 1940s. The sulphite and groundwood
pulping operations were shut down in the 1970s and only the
kraft mill remains. The mill has 1,450 employees and makes
450 tonnes/day of bleached kraft pulp which is used to
manufacture 825 tonnes/day of fine paper.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier only.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. ‘In-plant control
measures include a steam stripper, fibre ‘spill recovery
system, lime spill clarifier and filter. Mill effluent
discharges via a submerged diffuser to the St. Lawrence River.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 20,867 kg/day of BOD, 9,750
kg/day of TSS and 431 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
129,073 m/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in 3 of the
7 monthly samples that were collected and to Daphnia magna in
2 of the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
June 3, 1992. -11- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Domtar Inc., Containerboard Division (Red Rock)
The mill was constructed in 1945 as a sulphite mill. In
1959, the sulphite pulping operation was converted to a kraft
mill and in 1970 the mill was expanded and renovated. The
mill has 650 employees and makes 700 tonnes/day of unbleached
kraft pulp, 50 tonnes/day of bleached kraft pulp, 200
tonnes/day of groundwood pulp, and 725 tonnes/day of other
pulp (including waste). The mill uses the pulp to
manufacture 250 tonnes/day of newsprint and 650 tonnes/day of
linerboard.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier only.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. In-plant control
measures include alum addition to the primary clarifier to
reduce toxicity, a steam stripper for kraft condensates and
black liquor spill recovery. Mill effluent discharges via a
surface outfall to Nipigon Bay which eventually flows into
Lake Superior.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 15,326 kg/day of BOD,
6,026 kg/day of TSS and 175 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
97,050 m/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 7
monthly samples that were collected and acutely lethal to
Daphnia magna in 3 of the 12 monthly samples that were
collected.
E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd. (Espanola)
The mill began operations in 1902 as a groundwood mill.
In 1936, the mill was closed and did not reopen until 1946
when a new kraft mill was constructed by the Kalamazoo
Vegetable Parchment Company. In.1969, E.B. Eddy purchased the
mill. Extensive modernization was undertaken from 1975 to
1983 including the installation of oxygen delignification and
secondary effluent treatment. The mill has 600 employees and
makes 910 tonnes/day of bleached kraft pulp. The mill uses
the pulp to manufacture 172 tonnes/day of specialty paper and
sells 738 tonnes/day of kraft pulp to various customers.
June 3, 1992. -12- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
; Effluent treatment consists of a two paper mill
clarifiers, a woodroom settling lagoon and secondary effluent
treatment consisting of an aerated lagoon. In-plant control
measures include oxygen delignification, modified continuous
cooking of softwood, and steam stripping for kraft
condensates. Mill effluent discharges via a submerged
diffuser to the Spanish River which eventually flows into the
north channel of Lake Huron.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 1,808 kg/day of BOD, 2,592
kg/day of TSS and 854 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
101,641 m’/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 7
monthly samples that were collected and non-acutely lethal to
Daphnia maqna in the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
James River-Marathon Ltd. (Marathon)
The mill was constructed in 1945 as a kraft mill. In the
late 1970s, the mill was modernized and in 1984 a foam
retention lagoon was installed. The mill has 380 employees
and makes 433 tonnes/day of bleached kraft pulp which is used
to manufacture 500 tonnes/day of market kraft pulp.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier and
foam retention lagoon. There is no secondary effluent
treatment. In-plant control measures include high chlorine
dioxide substitution, new brown stock washers and a spill
collection system. Mill effluent discharges via a multiport
diffuser to Lake Superior.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 11,991 kg/day of BOD, 2,654
kg/day of TSS and 2,787 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
60,430 m/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 12
monthly samples that were collected and acutely lethal to
Daphnia magna in the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
- June 3, 1992. -13- Chapter 2
i
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. (Terrace Bay)
The mill was constructed in 1948 as a 320 tonne/day kraft
mill. In 1978, a second kraft mill was constructed, however,
a fire in 1981 resulted in the reconstruction of the mill,
including several new process changes. The mill has 730
employees and makes 1,200 tonnes/day of bleached kraft pulp
which is sold to various customers.
Effluent treatment consists of 2 primary clarifiers with
secondary effluent treatment consisting of an aerated
stabilization basin. In-plant control measures include liquor
and fibre spill recovery systems and steam stripping for kraft
condensates. Mill effluent discharges to Blackbird Creek
which eventually flows into Lake Superior.
. The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 1,452 kg/day of BOD, 3,866
kg/day of TSS and 1,967 Kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
91,695 m/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 12
monthly samples that were collected and non-acutely lethal to
Daphnia magna in the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
Malette Kraft Pulp and Power Company
(Smooth Rock Falls)
The mill was constructed in 1916 as a sulphite mill and
was converted into a kraft mill in 1965. The mill has 300
employees and makes 340 tonnes/day of bleached kraft pulp.
The mill sells 321 tonnes/day of kraft pulp to various
customers.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier. There
is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill effluent discharges
to the Mattagami River which eventually flows into James Bay.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 8,011 kg/day of BOD, 1,750
kg/day of TSS and 1,208 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was
51,374 m/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that
the effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in 10 of the
12 monthly samples that were collected and acutely lethal to
Daphnia magna in the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
June 3, 1992. -14- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Ë Development Document
The Sulphite-Mechanical Category
The eight mills in the sulphite-mechanical category are
briefly described below in terms of mill size, products
produced, number of employees, effluent treatment systems in
place and wastewaters generated.
Abitibi-Price Inc., Fort William Division (Thunder Bay)
The mill was constructed in 1922 as a groundwood pulp
mill. A sulphite mill was later constructed and was replaced
in 1981 with chemimechanical pulping. The mill has 300
employees and makes 220 tonnes/day of groundwood pulp and 130
tonnes/day of ultra-high yield sulphite pulp. The mill uses
the pulp to manufacture 390 tonnes/day of newsprint.
Effluent treatment consists of primary clarifiers and
settling ponds. There is no secondary effluent treatment.
Mill effluents (2 outfalls) discharge via a semi-impounded bay
to Lake Superior.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 13,277 kg/day of BOD and 1,227 .
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 27,078 m’/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent for Control
Point 0100 was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 11
monthly samples that were collected and acutely lethal to
Daphnia magna in the 11 monthly samples that were collected.
The effluent for Control Point 0200 was acutely lethal to
rainbow trout in the 11 monthly samples that were collected
and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in the 11 monthly samples
that were collected.
Abitibi-Price Inc., Iroquois Falls Division
(Iroquois Falls)
The mill was constructed in 1914-15 and is the largest
Abitibi-Price newsprint mill in Ontario. The mill operates a
high yield sulphite pulping process (without recovery) and
produces groundwood pulp. The mill has 900 employees and
makes 540 tonnes/day of groundwood pulp and 272 tonnes/day of
high yield sulphite pulp. The mill uses the pulp to
manufacture 880 tonnes/day of newsprint.
June 3, 1992. -15- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Effluent treatment consists of 2 primary clarifiers.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill effluent
discharges through a diffuser into the Abitibi River at
Iroquois Falls.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 50,054 kg/day of BOD and 7,766
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 64,946 m’/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in the 11 monthly samples that were
collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in the 11
monthly samples that were collected.
Abitibi-Price Inc., Provincial Papers Division
(Thunder Bay)
The mill was originally constructed in 1919 as a sulphite
mil: In 1922, the mill began paper production and later
groundwood pulp production. The sulphite pulping process was
shut down in 1978. The mill currently has 250 employees and
makes 100 tonnes/day of groundwood pulp which is used along
with purchased market kraft pulp to manufacture 500 tonnes/day
of fine paper.
Effluent treatment consists of a woodroom clarifier and
a serpentine settling basin. There is no secondary effluent
treatment. Mill effluent discharges directly via a surface
outfall to Lake Superior.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 4,265 kg/day of BOD and 1,599
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 47,679 m°/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was
non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 6 monthly samples
that were collected and non-acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in
the 11 monthly samples that were collected. One Ministry
inspection sample was lethal to Daphnia magna.
Abitibi-Price Inc., Thunder Bay Division (Thunder Bay)
The mill was constructed in 1926 as a sulphite and
groundwood pulp mill. The mill has 325 employees and makes
340 tonnes/day of groundwood pulp and 140 tonnes/day of high
yield sulphite pulp which are used to manufacture 460
tonnes/day of newsprint. ,
June 3, 1992. - 16- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Effluent treatment consists of a woodroom clarifier and
2 settling basins. There is no secondary effluent treatment.
Mill effluent discharges to a surface creek which runs into
Lake Superior.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 28,280 kg/day of BOD and 1,869
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 46,739 m/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in the 12 monthly samples that were
collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in the 12
monthly samples that were collected.
Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. (Kenora)
The mill was constructed in 1924 as a sulphite and
groundwood pulp mill. The mill has 850 employees and makes
563 tonnes/day of groundwood pulp and 260 tonnes/day of high
yield sulphite pulp. The mill uses the pulp along with
purchased kraft pulp to produce 950 tonnes/day of newsprint.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill effluent
discharges through a diffuser to the Winnipeg River.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 33,132 kg/day of BOD and 3,376
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 51,255 m/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
to rainbow trout in the 12 monthly samples that were collected
and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in the 11 monthly samples
that were collected.
Quebec & Ontario Paper Company Ltd. (Thorold)
The mill began operation in 1913 and produced newsprint
from sulphite and groundwood pulps. In the 1980s the mill
constructed a deinking plant for recycling newsprint and in
1987 the sulphite operation was shut down. The mill has 1,150:
employees and makes 352 tonnes/day of thermomechanical pulp
and 432 tonnes/day of pulp from the deinking plant which are
used to produce 871 tonnes/day of newsprint.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier with
secondary effluent treatment consisting of oxygen activated
sludge treatment. Mill effluent discharges via a submerged
outfall to the Twelve Mile Creek.
June 3, 1992. } = 1h = Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 1,385 kg/day of BOD and 3,049
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 61,546 m’/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was
non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 5 monthly samples
that were collected and non-acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in
the 8 monthly samples that were collected.
St. Marys Paper Inc. (Sault Ste. Marie)
The mill was constructed in 1900 as a sulphite and
groundwood mill. The sulphite pulp operations were shut down
in the 1980s and replaced with purchased bleached kraft pulp.
The mill has 520 employees and makes 450 tonnes/day of
groundwood pulp which is used along with purchased kraft pulp
to manufacture 550 tonnes/day of groundwood specialty papers.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill effluent
discharges to the St. Mary's River.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 6,849 kg/day of BOD and 5,814
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 34,731 m’/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in the 12 monthly samples that were
collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in the 12
monthly samples that were collected.
Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company Ltd. (Kapuskasing)
- The mill was constructed in 1922 to produce groundwood
pulp and calcium-based pulp. In 1964, a magnesium-based
sulphite pulping operation (Magnafite) was built (including
chemical recovery) and in 1976, a 200 tonne/day
thermomechanical pulp mill was built. In 1982, the calcium
sulphite operations were shut down and in! 41983;
thermomechanical pulp production was expanded to 300
tonne/day. The mill has 1,200 employees and now makes 500
tonnes/day of groundwood pulp, 320 tonnes/day of
thermomechanical pulp and 128 tonnes/day of low yield sulphite
pulp. The mill uses the pulp to produce 1,000 tonnes/day of
newsprint.
Effluent treatment consists of primary clarifiers. There
is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill effluent discharges
to the Kapuskasing River.
June 3, 1992. 2482 Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 35,622 kg/day of BOD and
7,260 kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 83,944 m/day. 1990
MISA toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was
acutely lethal to rainbow trout in 12 monthly samples that
were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 12
monthly samples that were collected.
The Corrugating Category
The two mills in the corrugating category are briefly
described below in terms of mill size, products produced,
number of employees, effluent treatment systems in place and
wastewaters generated.
Domtar Inc., Containerboard Division (Trenton)
The mill was constructed in 1926 as a soda pulp mill. In
1951, the soda pulp operation was replaced with NSSC pulping
and in the 1970s, the NSSC process was converted to sodium
carbonate semi-chemical pulping. The mill also processes
recycled waste corrugating medium and board. The mill has 140
employees and makes 200 tonnes/day of semi-chemical pulp and
156 tonnes/day of other pulp (including waste) which is used
to manufacture 338 tonnes/day of corrugating medium.
Effluent treatment consists of the recovery and reuse of
spent pulping liquors as road dust suppressant. There is no
secondary effluent treatment. In-plant control measures
include an extensive white water recycle system. Mill
effluent discharges via a submerged outfall to the Trent River
which eventually flows into Lake Ontario.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 5,130 kg/day of BOD and 623
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 4,028 m/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in the 12 monthly samples that were
collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 9 of the 12
monthly samples that were collected.
June 3, 1992. | - 19)- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector : Development Document
MacMillan-Bloedel Ltd. (Sturgeon Falls)
The mill was constructed in 1898 and produced market
groundwood pulp until 1930 when it was shut down. In 1948,
the mill was reopened and produced hardboard (Masonite) and
corrugating medium using the neutral semi-chemical pulping
process. The mill has 420 employees and makes 240 tonnes/day
of semi-chemical pulp and 115 tonnes/day of mechanical pulp
which are used to manufacture 355 tonnes/day of hardboard and
corrugating medium.
Effluent treatment consists of a flotation clarifier and
secondary effluent treatment consisting of an anaerobic
treatment system. Mill effluents (2 outfalls) discharge
through a diffuser to the Sturgeon River which eventually
flows into Lake Nipissing.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 32,012 kg/day of BOD and
2,624 kg/day of TSS. The total effluent flow was 12,843
m/day. Ministry inspection toxicity test results indicate
that the effluents were lethal to both rainbow trout and
Daphnia magna in the first six months of MISA inspection
monitoring. |
The Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
The eight mills in the deinking/board/fine papers/ tissue
category are briefly described below in terms of mill size,
products produced, number of employees, effluent treatment
systems in place and wastewaters generated.
Beaver Wood Fibre Company Ltd. (Thorold)
The mill was constructed in 1913 and produced a variety
of board and paper products. Prior to 1976, the mill produced
groundwood pulp and purchased market pulp and waste paper
products to manufacture newsprint and board. The mill has 160
employees and now uses purchased recycled waste paper and
board to produce 294 tonnes/day of paperboard.
Effluent treatment consists of a clarifier and spill
pond. There is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill
effluent discharges via a surface outfall to Beaverdam Creek
which eventually flows into Lake Ontario.
June 3, 1992. - 20- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 1,920 kg/day of BOD and
688 kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 15,114 m’/day. 1990
MISA toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was non-
acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 12 monthly samples that
were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 5 of the
12 monthly samples that were collected.
Domtar Inc., Fine Papers Division (St. Catharines)
The mill was acquired in 1904 and was converted from a
cotton mill to a paper mill in 1911. The mill now has 300
employees and manufactures 200 tonnes/day of fine paper from
purchased pulps and recycled clean waste paper.
Effluent treatment. consists of a primary clarifier.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. In-plant control
measures include savealls which are used to recover pulp
fibres and filler material from process water. Mill effluent
discharges to Twelve Mill Creek which eventually flows into
Lake Ontario.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 1,025 kg/day of BOD and 379
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 10,186 m’/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in 1 of the 7 monthly samples that
were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 3 of the
12 monthly samples that were collected.
E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd. (Ottawa)
The mill was constructed in 1905 and produced a variety
of board and paper products. The paperboard mill was shut
down in 1979. The mill has 600 employees and currently
manufactures 170 tonnes/day of fine paper using pulp from the
E.B. Eddy mill in Hull, Quebec which lies across the Ottawa
River.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill effluent
discharges via a submerged outfall to the Ottawa River which
eventually flows into the St. Lawrence River.
June 3, 1992. -21- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 1,148 kg/day of BOD and ~
450 kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 7,401 m/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in 6 of the 12 monthly samples that
were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 10 of
the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. (Huntsville)
The mill was constructed in 1971 and uses purchased
bleached pulp to manufacture 92 tonnes/day of tissue products.
The mill has 250 employees and is the largest tissue mill in
Canada.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier,
polishing basin and three percolating bed filters. Mill
effluent discharges during winter months via an underwater
outfall to the Big East River.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 3 kg/day of BOD and 4 kg/day of
TSS. Effluent flow was 793 m°/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test
results indicate that the effluent was non-acutely lethal to
rainbow trout in the 5 monthly samples that were collected and
non-acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in the 6 monthly samples
that were collected.
Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. (St. Catharines)
The mill was constructed in 1912 as a groundwood mill.
The mill has 200 employees and now uses purchased pulps to
make 60 tonnes/day of tissue, 40 tonnes/day of crepe paper and
20 tonnes/day of fine paper products.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier and
two settling ponds. There is no secondary effluent treatment.
Mill effluent discharges via a surface outfall to Twelve Mile
Creek which eventually flows into Lake Ontario.
“The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 319 kg/day of BOD and 66
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 8,755 m’/day. 1990 MISA’
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was
non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 8 monthly samples
that were collected and non-acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in
the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
June 3, 1992. - 22 - Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Noranda Forest Inc., Recycled Papers (Thorold)
The mill was constructed in 1903. The mill has 625
employees and manufactures 320 tonnes/day of fine paper from
115 tonnes/day of deinked recycled waste paper and purchased
pulps.
Effluent treatment consists of a primary clarifier and
secondary effluent treatment consisting of activated sludge
treatment for the deink washing filtrate. Mill effluent
discharges via an underground outfall to Twelve Mile Creek
which eventually flows into Lake Ontario.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 3,463 kg/day of BOD, 1,569
kg/day of TSS and 115 kg/day of AOX. Effluent flow was 22,128
m’/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test results indicate that the
effluent was acutely lethal to rainbow trout in the 12 monthly
samples that were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia
magna in 11 of the 12 monthly samples that were collected.
Strathcona Paper Company (Napanee)
The mill was originally constructed in 1872. The mill
has 160 employees and uses clean recycled waste paper and
board to manufacture 170 tonnes/day of boxboard.
Effluent treatment consists of a flotation clarifier,
settling basins and secondary effluent treatment consisting of
aerated basins. Mill effluent discharges via a submerged
outfall to the Napanee River which eventually flows into Lake
Ontario.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate that
the mill discharged on average 386 kg/day of BOD and 214
kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 3,321 m*/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in 4 of the 11 monthly samples that
were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 2 of the
12 monthly samples that were collected.
June 3, 1992. - 23 - Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Trent Valley, Paperboard Industries Corporation (Trenton)
The mill is made up of two separate mills, the east and
west mills. The east mill was originally constructed in 1880
to manufacture paperboard from straw and rags. It now uses
recycled wastepaper and board. The west mill was built in
1976 and incorporates modern-day recycling and screening
technologies into its manufacturing operations. The mill has
279 employees and produces 325 tonnes/day of packaging
material.
Effluent treatment consists of two flotation clarifiers.
There is no secondary effluent treatment. Mill effluent
discharges via a submerged outfall to the Trent River which
eventually flows into Lake Ontario.
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the mill discharged on average 1,509 kg/day of BOD and
524 kg/day of TSS. Effluent flow was 3,744 m/day. 1990 MISA
toxicity test results indicate that the effluent was acutely
lethal to rainbow trout in 5 of the 12 monthly samples that
were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 4 of the
12 monthly samples that were collected.
The Pulp and Paper Sector
The 1990 MISA effluent monitoring data results indicate
that the twenty-seven direct discharge mills in the pulp and
paper sector discharged on average 340,047 kg/day of BOD,
97,072 kg/day of TSS and 15,608 kg/day of AOX. Total process
effluent flow was 1,383,465 m/day. 1990 MISA toxicity test
results indicate that mill effluent was acutely lethal to
rainbow trout in 180 of the 278 process effluent samples that
were collected and acutely lethal to Daphnia magna in 164 of
the 304 process effluent samples that were collected.
June 3, 1992. -24- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
2.4 WATER USE AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Water Use
The extent of in-plant measures for the reduction of
effluent discharge at source varies widely from mill to mill.
Effluent discharges for the sector range from under 1,000
m?/day to over 178,000 m’/day. Table 2.6 lists the average
production-based flowrates for each mill in the sulphate
(kraft) category. Average production-based flowrates range
from 77 m/tonne for Canadian Pacific Forest Products (Thunder
Bay) to 178 m‘/tonne for Domtar (Cornwall). The average
production-based flowrate the sulphate (kraft) category is 117
m?/tonne.
Table 2.6
Average Production-based Flowrates for the Sulphate (Kraft)
Category
Average Production-based Flowrate
Plant Name ; (m?/tonne)
Canadian Pacific Forest Products (Dryden)
Canadian Pacific Forest Products (Thunder Bay)
Table 2.7 lists the average production-based flowrates
for each mill in the sulphite-mechanical category. Average
production-based flowrates range from 55 m’/tonne for Boise
Cascade (Kenora) to 112 m’/tonne for Abitibi-Price (Provincial
Papers Division). The average production-based flowrate the
sulphite-mechanical category is 81 m’/tonne.
June 3, 1992. -25- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 2.7
Average Production-based Flowrates for the
Sulphite-Mechanical Category
Average Production-based Flowrate
Plant Name (m3/tonne)
Abitibi-Price Inc., Fort William Division
Abitibi-Price Inc., Iroquois Falls Division Pee RE
Abitibi-Price Inc., Provincial Papers Division
Abitibi-Price Inc., Thunder Bay Division gl TRE DEC SSSR
|
Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. (Kenora)
Quebec & Ontario Paper Company Ltd
St. Marys Paper Inc. :
Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company Ltd.
Table 2.8 lists the average production-based flowrates
foreach mill: in’: the corrugating category. Average
production-based flowrates range from 12 m’/tonne for Domtar
(Trenton) to 47 m/tonne for MacMillan-Bloedel Ltd. The
average production-based flowrate the corrugating category is
30 m’/tonne.
Table 2.8
Average Production-based Flowrates for the Corrugating
Category
Average Production-based Flowrate
Plant Name (m?/tonne)
Domtar Inc., Containerboard Division (Trenton)
12
MacMillan-Bloedel Ltd
June 3, 1992. - 26 - Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector js Development Document
Table 2.9 lists the average production-based flowrates
for each mill in the deinking/board/fine papers/tissue
category. Average production-based flowrates range from 8
m/tonne for Kimberly-Clark (Huntsville) to 82 m/tonne for
Noranda Forest Recycled Papers. The average production-based
flowrate the deinking/board/fine papers/tissue category is 47
m/tonne.
Table 2.9
Average Production-based Flowrates for the
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
Average Production-based Flowrate
Plant Name (m?/tonne)
Beaver Wood Fibre Company Ltd. -
Domtar Inc., Fine Papers Division (St. Catharines)
E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd. (Ottawa) eee een Cee
Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. (Huntsville) os
Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. (St. Catharines)
Noranda Forest Inc., Recycled Papers tS Vibes: NE
Strathcona Paper Company ©
Trent Valley, Paperboard Industries Corporation
Wastewater Treatment
The degree of effluent treatment varies widely from mill
to. mill. While all of the mills have primary effluent
treatment, only nine of the mills have biological effluent
treatment systems. Biological treatment systems are designed
to create suitable conditions for the development and
maintenance of microorganisms which convert organic pollutants
in the effluent stream to more desirable or harmless forms.
Table 2.10 lists the mills in Ontario that have biological
effluent treatment systems and the type of system.
Activated sludge treatment (AST) is based on creating a
settleable sludge of microorganisms which are grown on the
soluble materials in the effluent. The sludge is recycled
within the treatment system and excess:sludge is concentrated
and then incinerated or landfilled.
June 3, 1992. -27- Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 2.10
Mills with Secondary Effluent Treatment
CE oC |
Boise Cascade (Fort Frances) Aerated stabilization basin
Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. Aerated stabilization basin
(Dryden) _ [with jet aeration
Canadian Pacific Forest Products Ltd. Oxygen enhanced activated
(Thunder Bay) sludge treatment
E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd. (Espanola) Aerated stabilization basin
Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. (Terrace Bay) Aerated stabilization basin
MacMillan-Bloedel Ltd. (Sturgeon Falls) :
Noranda Forest Inc., Recycled Papers Activated sludge treatment
(Thorold)
Quebec & Ontario Paper Company Ltd. Oxygen enhanced activated
(Thorold) sludge treatment
Strathcona Paper Company (Napanee) Aerated stabilization basins
Activated sludge treatment (AST) can remove more BOD and
TSS than aerated stabilization basin treatment but generates
significant quantities of waste sludge and discharges higher
quantities of nutrients. AST effluent is generally
non-acutely lethal to rainbow trout and Daphnia magna.
Aerated stabilization basin (ASB) treatment is based on
the long-term growth of microorganisms on the soluble
materials in the effluent without the sludge recycle that is
characteristic of the activated sludge process. When the
microorganisms die, the sludge is used as a substrate for
other microorganisms and thus the organic material causing BOD
is digested.
The successful operation of an ASB system involves the
control of the non-digestible sludge so that low TSS and BOD
discharges are achieved in the final effluent without the
dredging of sludge being necessary. The lowest attainable
concentrations of BOD and TSS in ASB effluent are about double
those for AST effluent. ASB effluent is generally non-acutely
lethal to rainbow trout and Daphnia magna.
June 3, 1992. - 28 - . Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Anaerobic treatment is not as common as AST and ASB
treatment. Anaerobic treatment’ processes operate in closed
vessels without the addition of oxygen. Biomass forms as in
the aerobic systems but the reaction is characterized by much
slower growth and very little generation of waste sludge. A
significant portion of the organic wastes is converted to
methane, which is used as a fuel gas in some cases. Anaerobic
treatment effluent is generally acutely lethal to rainbow
trout and Daphnia magna and requires further aerobic polishing
to render the effluent non-acutely lethal.
June 3, 1992. -29- Chapter 2
a
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
June 3, 1992. A0 Chapter 2
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
REFERENCES
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1992). MISA
Economic Assessment: Potential Water Pollution Abatement
Programs for Ontario Pulp and Paper Mills. Toronto,
Ontario.
N. McCubbin, E. Barnes, E. Bergman, H. Edde, J. Folke, D.
Owen (1992). Best Available Technology for the Ontario
Pulp and Paper Industry. Report prepared for the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment. Toronto, Ontario. ISBN
0-7729-9261-4
N. Bonsor, N. McCubbin, J.B. Sprague (1991). Kraft Mill
Effluents in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1982).
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard.
Washington, D.C., EPA 440/1-82/025.
June 3, 1992. - 31 - Chapter 2
SS nn Ce ee
CE
CETTE
Lan
He
= Wea
At ee
THE EFFLUENT MONITORING
DATABASE
CHAPTER 3
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
Line
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table of Contents
3.1 EFFLUENT MONITORING ... Sars re ee os
Pre-Regulation Effluent Monitoring Boe Cd
MISANEEPIVent, MONTCOrIngios: 6 si aesbt.licw canes
NBR
Seon DATAY NW ALEDATT ONY Omen uets ic OL TENTE LE Metis le sg co Memee ¢
Untes-Veritication: swiss: eta tis cet ey Mee
Multiple Record Identification ee DOM
Sample Type; Code:Verification.:1, esis etic tess
Renark Code Verification 41: essence
Attached Report Investigation 1... ©. 2 .t.
Database Completeness Confirmation .....
OCT MENVeSETgAËElONn ie... es are! eo: Eee es
SJ OA A Un OUI U1 UY
fee)
Se SR ACANDIDATE SR PARAMERERSSEEECTION NC OC 1s; tee) 10
3.4 QA/QC DATA ASSESSMENT . . . 2 Met ce ae le 8
Purpose Of QA/QC Data Assesement NÉS Ut Pk oor 8
Method of QA/QC Data Assessment ....... 9
Results of QA/QC Data Assessment ...... 10
3.5 EFFLUENT MONITORING RESULTS . . … .: . ES ipl On fe 10
Adsorbabile Organic Halide: (AOX)..° à €. 1 21
Aluminum . . . 5100 “6 il o GO do or oc PAA
Ammonia plus Ammonium BGG oe om oie oh Ook oho 22
Biochemical. Oxygen (Demand (7's, 6%. -<°\e0 eho Pod cx 22
Chemical oxygen Demand <9 4r.La ue 20e 22
Dissolved Organic Carbon 2:70,
St oh aes 23
DéRydroabietic ACIER er Nes 23
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid 5 <<) 2h ea ee 24
NEEraACevAandeNTEr see.) cis lec eine Tate RES 24
Total Kjeldahilo Nitrogen: 40.20. 2100) ee 24
Totals PROSPHOGUS Maeno Se Ss. ae et Rov ei Joe Ble 25
Totad Suspended’ Solids? toi.) MM eee ek ce 25
Volatile cad TRE SOM AS ieee Mees katie on von wate 25
LANCE ON espa Vee de DRE OP ORO RIO pee EO y OL OG FO? Vers
RERERENGES WOR coh Si cers ST EP eras nez
June 3, 1992. aol | a Chapter 3
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
List of Tables
3.1 Pre-Regulation Effluent Monitoring Results ©
Reported) by -EnGustEry siete EE Re 3
3.2 “Data. and: Sampling “Ponts 07-008 totes ie tee eee 4
363. (Remark Codes M fe ME MEN SMIC CN “ot Mem REC D 7
3.4 Parameters Removed Following QA/QC Data Assessment Atal
3.5 Sulphate (Kraft) Category QA/QC Data Assessment . 12
3.6 Sulphite-Mechanical Category QA/QC Data Assessment 14
3.7 Corrugating Category QA/QC Data Assessment .... 16
3.8 Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
QA/ QC, Data -ASSeESSment) M MC. FT PC CICR 18
319
Average Daily Loadings (kg/day)-< « . 4..." 20
June 3, 1992. ; - ii - Chapter 3
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
3.1 EFFLUENT MONITORING
Traditionally, BOD, TSS and acute lethality have been the
principle parameters used to evaluate the quality of pulp and
paper mill effluent discharges. However, these parameters
only provide a basis for examining the short term local
effects of the discharges. In order to examine long-term
effects and to set adequate effluent control limits, it is
necessary to establish whether persistent, bioaccumulative
substances are present in the effluent.
Pre-Regulation Effluent Monitoring
In 1987, the Ontario pulp and paper industry conducted a
comprehensive study on the composition of pulp and paper mill
effluents being discharged directly to Ontario surface
waters!. The study, conducted under the auspices of the
Ontario Forest Industries Association (OFIA), was designed to
generate data for the development of the Effluent Monitoring
Regulation for the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector.
Intake water and final effluent samples were collected
from the twenty-seven direct discharge mills in Ontario and
the samples were analyzed for a broad range of priority and
conventional pollutants. Fish toxicity tests were conducted
on all effluent samples and in total, one hundred and forty-
four specific chemical and biological parameters were
examined. In addition, open GC/MS "forensic scans" were also
conducted in order to fully characterize mill effluent.
Industry collected and analyzed four rounds of effluent
samples from each mill and conducted two GC/MS open
characterization analyses. In order to verify the data
collected by industry, the Ministry collected and analyzed
one audit sample from each mill and conducted one GC/MS open
characterization analysis. As the ministry's Effluent
Monitoring Priority Pollutant List (EMPPL) was not yet fully
developed, the samples were analyzed for the parameters on the
US EPA Priority Pollutants list.
Sample collection and analysis were performed according
to widely accepted standard protocols employing strict quality
assurance/quality control procedures. The results of the pre-
regulation effluent monitoring exercise are documented in the
report on Ontario Pulp and Paper Mills Effluent Composition!
and in the Development Document for the Effluent Monitoring
Regulation for the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector’.
June 3, 1992. -1- Chapter 3
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector 5 Development Document
Table 3.1 lists the parameters that were identified as
being present in mill effluent following initial screening of
the pre-regulation effluent monitoring data by industry.
The screening criteria used by industry eliminated any
parameter for which the average of the reported concentrations
from the four rounds of effluent sampling was less than the
method detection limit and for which the values reported for
the effluent samples were less than twice those reported for
the intake water samples.
MISA Effluent Monitoring
The effluent monitoring data for the MISA Pulp and Paper
Sector were collected under Ontario Regulation 435/89 as
amended to Ontario Regulation 202/90. The twenty-seven direct
discharge mills in Ontario were required to monitor their
effluent for a one year period starting on January 1, 1990.
The Effluent Monitoring Regulation required each mill to
monitor for up to 135 parameters on a daily, thrice weekly,
weekly, monthly, bi-monthly and semi-annual basis. Process
effluent, cooling water effluent, storm water effluent,
emergency overflow effluent, backwash effluent and waste
disposal site effluent were monitored at each mill and intake
water was monitored on a voluntary basis by nine of the mills.
The Development Document for the Effluent Monitoring
Regulation for the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector? outlines the
rationale that was used in the development of the Effluent
Monitoring Regulation. The Development Document explains why
each parameter was monitored and explains the frequency of
monitoring.
The twelve months of effluent monitoring generated
191,932 data points, including 46,646 quality
assurance/quality control data points. Table 3.2 lists the
number of data points and total number of effluent sampling
points for each effluent stream type.
June 3, 1992. -2- Chapter 3
i
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 3.1
Pre-Regulation Effluent Monitoring Results Reported
by Industry
AT a James 1.
2e Total Cyanide Total Cyanide
Nitrogen [Total Kieldani Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus
Total Metals Aluminum
se
EL
E cata
Chromium
Volatiles, Halogenated 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
|1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
Acenaphthylene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
2,4,6 -Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
June 3, 1992. -3- Chapter 3
oo
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 3.1 (cont'd)
Pre-Regulation Effluent Monitoring Results Reported
by Industry
DE CT
Open Characterization - Elemental Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
| M1. Chloride Chloride
| M6 {Sulphate Sulphate
Lames rage fammonenoer
Nit | NRCS |
Table 3.2
Data and Sampling Points
Cooling Water
cos
2697
Waste Disposal Site
125,408
Emergency Overflow 1,474
ntake (not required by the regulation) 10,168
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Data 46,646
Legend
N/A = not applicable
Note
Data reflects finalized Ministry database (downloaded on May 31, 1991).
June 3, 1992. -4- Chapter 3
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
3.2 DATA VALIDATION
In order to confirm the integrity of the information
contained in the effluent monitoring database, it was
necessary to conduct a rigorous data validation exercise.
Data validation involved the following:
Units Verification
The data were analyzed to ensure that the correct units
were reported for each parameter for the entire monitoring
period. Where the use of incorrect units was identified,
direct dischargers were required to resubmit the data with the
correct units. The use of data with incorrect units could
produce a large error in the calculation of parameter
loadings.
Multiple Record Identification
The data were analyzed to determine whether two or more
records existed for the same parameter for the same control
point for the same day. When multiple records were
identified, the incorrect records were removed from the
database. The presence of incorrect records could adversely
affect the calculation of parameter loadings.
Sample Type Code Verification
Sample type codes were reviewed in order to ensure that
the appropriate sampling procedures were used to collect
samples for the analysis of sulphides, and halogenated and
non-halogenated volatiles. The proper method of sampling for
the analysis of parameters in these analytical test groups is
the collection of a three grab composite sample (equal volume
(bucket), or equal volume (slipstream to valve)).
In some cases incorrect sample type codes were reported
although the sample had been collected using the correct
sampling procedure. All erroneous sample type codes were
corrected.
June 3, 1992. -5- Chapter 3
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Remark Code Verification
Remark code usage was checked to ensure that the data
were correctly identified and labelled. Dischargers were
required to resubmit effluent monitoring data that were
labelled incorrectly.
An investigation of the remark codes used by the industry
showed that approximately 4.5% of the database could not be
used for data analysis or limit setting purposes because the
remark codes used by the dischargers indicated that the data
were unreliable. Effluent monitoring data with the following
remark codes were not used: "N/A", "!IN", "INM", "I", "IC",
"IM", "OLD", "UQC", "UCR", "<", " ‘1 V2 Ve Zt 1/64 XOY
96S 1e6'L ose 1be 691 LOb €89'z E6z'z "000 Aep/6x : XOv
O1c'8 80Y'L r9s'el 689'1 . 9L2'SI ES0'z2 €62'02 Zel'e 000'6 Aep/6y aog
zis't 62'b 84S'2 SbL'e 092'9 Sib'or 000'91 bes's €62'01 Aep/6x SSL
+99'0S z21'S6 888'19 11566 , Z81'S6 6b0'9z1 LE6'EZL 402416 922' 22 Aep/,w Mol} UNH
162 Oll't Seb £b6 Zs Zlb 622'1 Sez €4S Aup/1 jonpoid peyoeeig
162 Ob'L Set Eb6 618 924 062'z 696 046 Aep/\ 9)8) UONONpolg
(s10u a} eyes ‘1 861) BBP juan/y9 0889 oseg
viouvdez 490H po IleMu1o7) Aug sepunyy uepAiq seouwsy }104
407
be el bed A | oy 14 sower App Inuog inwuog d1d9 d1d9 108
eme Ne Re
MoBeje) (121») exeuydins eu} 10} S}SOD pue sonsie)9eieu luen/}}3 pelaipesg :9't alqey
va covey
uouuiuyy
iUBWND0q juewdojeneg
40}99S Jadey pue ding VSIW
y Jaydeyd RAILS ‘T66L ‘E eunr
“eAjeBeu ose soseujuased uj umoYs s}s01
F ‘seBesere Wo} BUo] ee eAOGE UMOUS 8J8p juen/}Je [fy
‘peje|dWos e18 1661 Il dy 610jeq peylWwwos Ajjeo|skyd eJem Yyolym s12e[o1d Joye sojislie]o8)8u9 peje|nojuo O} SJOJO) 1661. JO} BBP Jueni}}3
‘dind peyorsiq jo eyes Uoljonpo;d eu] 0} s1eje) BEEP XOVY
Srl sss £Lz 2L+ €9€ ose c8p sep Kep/6x NL
ra by PA se | 62 ge 6€ a Gfx Aep/6x snsoudsoud
LEO 8z'0 920 €z'0 810 AD) r'0 £20 1/64 XOV
£6 ele OIL giz ZL 89S 162 O€L Aep/6x XOV
gpl SSS ele elp €9€ Split ~ €8r S8b Aep/6y dog
962 OLL'L (42 £b6 (ejgeondde 922 062'z S96 026 Kep/6x SSL
000'621'+$ OOD'ELL'I$ 000'PEZ'I$ 000'968'9$ jou s|S U811) (000'6b+'+$) 000'169'E$ 000'S0z'2$ 000'P6+'E$ sK/$ SIS00 W 2 O
000'S20'69$ 000'EE9'8SI$ 000'98S'S8$ 000'669'9p1$ 000'E£+'621$ O00'092'ESI$ O00'E9L'6LIS 000 ZPD'ELLS 1509 jBy\deD
(6ujyooo pepuaxe pue uoneyuB|ep ueBAxo Bujpnjoui) eussojyo sejnoejow eyeujwi/zZ Sy UI81L
eel 00s 161 bep _ £9E ose bey Lev Aep/64 NL
Zh br Zt 8€ 62 82 6€ À 6€ Aep/64 snioydsoud
L£'0 t'O se'0 £70 +z'0 1S'0 evo 82'0 1/64 XOY
601 Obb 8b giz 00! : 1+9 sie 091 Kep/6 XOV
962 ObL'E Sep £b6 €9€ SbL'L 696 0/6 Kep/6 aoa
999 86b'2 9S6 zz1'2 (e\qeodde 922 06z'z L2L'e cgl'e Kep/6 SSL
000'91€'1$ (000'£t8'p#) (000'802'z$) (000'26‘1$) + yous!» ujes1) (ODO'SBr'9$) (000'209$) 000'655$ (000'2z8'1$) sk/$ 81809 W 9 O
000'612'25$ 000'16p'26$ O00'ssz's9$ 000'9/8'611$ 000'629'911$ O00'Z9E'SZI$ 000'bbZ'bz$ 000'860'EZ$ 1509 jB}1d8D
; (Bujyooo pepueyxe Bujpnjous) eujsojyo sejnoejow ejeu/W/|3 py ujeay
eel oos 161 (747 69€ £9e 00 ver Ler Kep/6y NL
Zh bb A 8€ ee 62 ze 6€ 6€ Aep/6 snioydsoud
L+'O €b'0 ss'0 Ze'0 ‘0 æœo . 90 8b'0 Me CiO 1/6% XOV
ez 94+ bez ose 0 Srl 192 gse eet Aep/By XOV
962 OLE (4? £b6 618 £9e Spit S96 046 Kep/6 dog
999 86b'z 9S6 AAA: a €bg'L 922 062'z L2L'e £gl'z Aep/6% SSL
000'Z2S'1$ 000'S00'1$ 000'228'1$ 000'200'7$ 000'62b$ (000'14+'E$) 000'6SE'z$ 000'828'1$ 000'828'1$ sA/$ 8509 W 7 O
: 000'S99'1E$ 000'21€'Sb$ 000'9/0'1+$ 000'229'SE$ 000'bI+'Sb$ 000'201'E6$ O00'SEG'E9$ 000'6BL'EES 000'6b+'LE$ 1509 |8]d89)
(uoneoyuByep ueBAxo Bujpnjou)) eusojyo re/n2ejou eJeU/W|7 €y UIUIL
yooy'wjwsg Aug ooeu01 uote vioueds3 yooy pey II8MU107) Avg sepunyy uepA1q So9U814 Poy
enojey 9-H 104 SowEL App3 inwog iuw0oQ d1d9 d1d9 es|og
A:oBaje (1213) e]eudins eu} 10} S1S09 pue S91js19)921E47) JU8Nn]}}3 P2191P214 :(P,1U09) Q*p ejqeL
Juaswns0g JUuawdojaAeg | : 10}99S 1ode4 pue ding YSIW
p seidey -ZL- ‘Z66L ‘€ eunr
“b UlBs} JO} UeU} JeMmo] jeymeUuos eq |IIM PeUI8;d0 sen/8A ey) ‘eoueWjoped UO wep 91q8]/BAB Jo YOR] 0} enp £ pue z suje)} 40} pe}]Luo ese seBseyosip Ny)
AIUO eAN89|pu] se pejepisuos eq IsnW Ayjenb juenjye peyoypesd SUL ‘MOJ} Peonpe JIM Wess XONN Buyysixe eu} jo SIS/SUO9 | UB) ‘AuedWwon) Jedey OHBJUO puke oegenty 104
; ‘seBeiene Use] Buo] oe 810Q8 UMOUS E}8p JUENI}Ho |py
9°61 L'OL 891 981 o'o1 se bl +'6 Aep/6x snJoydsouq
Zee LL +62 Sze 08z Bb OL SOL Avp/64 aog
68+ £Sz OZ+ Sov LO+ aie 981 9tz Aep/6x SSL
000'2+6'S$ 000'622'z$ 000'SE"I$ 000'Z11'9$ ~~ OOO'eSE'Z$ 000'6z'z$ 000'r61'e$ 000'rZS'b$ 1804/$ 81809 W 9 O
000'229'1+$ 000'229'61$ 000'008'6$ 000'910'6E$ 000'21#'8+$ 000'92/'02$ 000'068'E2$ 000'666'be$ 1509 |8}|dBD
uoje/nBeoo pajsisse Areajweyo snjd juewjean eBpnis peyeajoy £S ujesy
LOL 8'91 981 o'91 s'e pl +'6 à Aep/6y snioydsoug
2be LL +62 Sze 082 8bl Oct Sol Aep/6y dog
68+ Egz 02+ SOF LOb zz 981 9% Avp/6y SSL
000'968'b$ 000'SB1'z$ 000'29p$ 000'811'S$ 000'26+'9$ 000'8c8'1$ 000'S6Z'z$ 000'Z90'r$ 1864/$ 81809 WP O
000'65S'bp$ 000'80+'12$ O00'Z6E'Z1$ 000'1E8'1b$ 000216 05$ 000'622'zz$ 000'0re'sz$ 000'Z£9'9e$ 1509 [8}1de)
48}y 2e/nue1B snjd jueujeay eBpnis pejeayoy ZS uyeay
68b ESz 9181 SOP 10b ze 981 gez Aep/By VEBONIN [Yepjofy peo)
6€ oz Sz Ze 2€ A SI 61 Aep/6y snJoydsoug
68+ Esz 0Z+ S9+ Ov zz 98h 9€2 Aep/Bx aog
846 90S Ove 626 108 bob LZe aly Aep/6x SSL
000'E8b'+$ 000'2S6'1$ 000'96$ 000'+19'+$ O00'OLI'9$ 000‘192'1$ 000'6e9'z$ 000're6'e$ 1804/$ SIS09 |W? ©
000'8+6'+E$ 000'065'S1$ 000'0£8'E$ 000'685'2E$ 000'9+9'zp$ 000'bbL'21$ 000'16S'0z$ Ooo'szo'1es 1509 j8)|d89
juewjeay eBpnis pejeAnoy LS Ulery
9'181 z'60L ‘61 L'sg VSL ELL Aep/6x UeB0OJ}IN |ueplef} 101
Sz ge Sz bl ee + th 6 Aep/6x snJouydsoug
189'Le 102'S bEL'L 688'be Z19'ss (42 EZ0'pI bre'le . Aep/6y ; dog
006'Z z10'9 2e6'2 IEP S29'2 b6g'L 06L'L : +06'L Aep/Bx : - | SSL
908'SZ Lee'ee Obz'09 98L'Ly bly'z9 902'Lb 8S9'Sz 82L'bb Avp/,w MO|} uen}
846 90S Ore 626 108 bep LLe zly Aup/seuuo} 9}8J UO}ONposg
wue1601d Buyjdwes 0664 VSIW Woy sjuan
Bujsuwyendey ‘WSIS unes Pjosouy wiouey 81184 sjonboi] 1ode4'aoïq WHA 104 Aug sepunyy
$\|¥4 eonids shew 15 O70 esjog d-V dV d-V dv
18 pue uoyjonpouq
MoBeje] jeojueysay-eyyding ayy 40} SISO puke sonseioeveyD Juanys3 paxoiperg ‘Lp eyqey
1UBWNI0Q juewidojsnag
40199 1ede4 pue ding YSIN
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
Table 4.8: Predicted Effluent Characteristics and Costs for the Corrugating Category
Base Case Effluent Data (refer to note)
Production rate
Effluent flow
TSS
BOD
Phosphorus
Total Kjeldah! Nitrogen
Train C1
Capital cost
O & Mcosts
TSS
BOD
Phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Train C2
Capital cost
O & M costs
TSS
BOD
Phosphorus
Train C3
Capital cost
O & M costs
TSS
BOD
Phosphorus
Domtar
Trenton
t/day 327
cu. m/day 4,015
kg/day 574
kg/day §,258
kg/day 3
kg/day 24
Activated siudge system
$10,475,000
$/year $2,056,000
kg/day 88
kg/day 44
~ kg/day 4
kg/day 4“
MacMillan
Sturgeon Falls
$16,850,000
$2,614,000
Activated sludge system plus granular filter
$12,091,000
$/year $2,104,000
kg/day 44
kg/day 31
kg/day 1.8
$20,565,000
$2,765,000.
137
96
5.5
Activated sludge system plus chemically assisted coagulation
$11,665,000
$/year $2,198,000
kg/day +
kg/day 31
kg/day 1.8
$19,505,000
$3,059,000
137
96
5.5
Base case effluent data were estimated by the authors to reflect all projects to improve effluent which
were physically committed before April 1991.
June 3, 1992.
=A19 =
Chapter 4
ÿ seideyd [Gives ‘T66L ‘€ eunr
(eBed eu vo penujjuoo ejqe)
Auediuo ey) Aq peyelu| senseeuu Aq wesBosd Bupoyjuow VSIW 0661 eul Joye P8189/pU] 88 peonpa) sem GOg JueN|yo |W SeUPeyEd 4S 'O-M
‘UWUN]09 4986 Uj pelloeds jou 8] ssed0sd oY) os ‘pesnbes 5} [18 ye Uojeleisu OU ssejun ‘BIW je JO} UHJo}jUn 6] ss600,d eu} 'p pU8 € ‘Z sUje)) 104
‘Pesh S] JUeW}861} eBpnis poyBAliow eS/MJEYIO ‘eIfs |||LU OY) UO ejqujeAe S| Coeds eJeuM BUISeq Uo) es|||qe}s peyesew eu} Sesn | UBL
‘seBeJens Lie} Bo] 68 eAOGE UMOUS ByEP JUENI}Jo [y
£2 €b gs . S'6L SEL 88 18 ebb Aep/64 ueBorin yepio[y 12101
61 re £0 Ot 801 VL v9 te Aep/6y smoydsoug
€z Eh £ 691 sel 88 18 ELL Aup/Bx aoa
ly se S 6S 022 921 191 Sez Aep/6x ~ SSL
000'0/6$ 000'200'1$ 0$ 0$ 000'962'1$ 000'626$ 000'826$ 000'9€0'1$ 1804/$ 81509 W 7 O
000'€02'+$ 000'165'9$ ot 0$ 000'ZS9'01$ 000'622'9$ 000'68+'9$ 000'16€'2$ 1809 (e11de
juewjeey e6pns pelenjioy ef UI8IL
Ib 8€ 8 s'6L gel 88 ae Lot Avp/64 ueBorinN jueplefy 18101
91 re £0 or - g'ol VL t'a 6 Aep/6x snJouydsouq
06 se € 691 set 88 18 Gaz Aup/6x dog
£0z 261 S 6S 042 941 191 90S Aep/6y _ SSL
000'es$ 000'0£E$ ot 0$ ' 000'962'1$ 000'626$ 000'826$ ooo'sees 480h/$ 61509 W 9 O
000'005$ 000'660'e$ 0$ 0$ 000'2S9'01$ 000'S2/'9$ 000'68b'9$ 000'660'E$ 1509 jey\de9
(sis}xe) QSy asv (sisixe) gsy 8UON isv 1SY 1SY asv (ejou o} 1ejey) bd UJeIL
£'6E Ze 8's S61 LE 60€ S61 zee Aep/64 uveBos Nn 1yepia[y 18101
91 1 £'0 OL oz £0 | z'0 60 Aep/By smouydsoud
809 1154 € (742 9EZ'E 9211 E6l'L €SZ't Aep/6x aoa
74 bis Ss 6S 0001 09s €2b 662 Aep/Bx SSL
698'€ 699'€ 848 gel SzL'02 665'2 €Lb'OL’ ANT Aep/,w MOI} jen
81 Soe 00! 80} 022 991 ~ 19 Sz Aep/souuoy 8)8) UO}IONPolg
weiGoid Bujjdwes 0661 YSIN wos) g|uan]y}e pue uoNONpolg
souvdun uojuesL olAsun souple S ploioul Me soupiuuies 1S ploiouL
“uoauyens AoljeA ju611 9-H 9-H wpuvion App inuog 1onvog
MoBee) enssi1/s1ede4 oul4/pseog/Buyxu19q eu} 10} S1S09 pue soNseIDeVeYD JUaN})9 Palaipesg :6*p ejqel
Juewn20Q juauwdo/818 : 40}99S 18de4 pue ding YSIN
———————_—_—]"
+ 1e1deu7
60
91
£2
000'9r0'!$
000'ZLb's$
eb
000'9p1'1$
000'092'2$
‘T66L ‘€ eunr
‘2 UIBJ Jo} UBU} Jomo] JEUMELUOS eq |IIM P8U]8)qO BenjeA BY) ‘eoUeLJoped UO ejep e]qu||8A8 Jo You] 0] enp p pUE € SUB} JO} POW Oe SeBJEYOSIP NUL
seBeJeAë Le} BUo] ee eAoge UMOUS ejep juen/jje |fy
Ol LA
69} +6
6S a SEL
0$ 000'SEL'I$
0$ 000'62z'E1$
Ol vs
691 +6
6S SEL
GES 000'Sh+'L$
0$ 000'Zze'b1$
000'992'1$
000'111'8$
000'920'L$
000'29h'6$
000'Obz'1$
000'01€'8$
000'290'1$
000'200'6$
Sy Aep/6x
624 Aep/Bx
ell Aep/6x
000'20p'1$ 1804/$
000'r69'6$
uonejnBeoo pejsisse Ayjeqweyo snjd juewjees) eGpnis peyeanoy
Sy Aep/6
61 Aep/6y
ELL Aep/6x
000'091'1$ 1804/$
000'665'01$
Joy) sejnuesB snjd juew)ea) eBpnys peyeayjoy
snioydsoyug
Gog
SSL
S|SOOW 8 O
1509 jeyJden
vs uyery
snioydsoud
dog
SSL
isooW 2 O
1509 jeyJde9
€£-+UIB1L
ES a Le | (QU QU QG RS, QG QUES QE Ct fled art
60 Zt £0
gt oe €
£2 eb S
000'966$ 000'pS0'1$ 0$
000'SEZ'S$ 000'921's$ o$
couvden uojueil
vuoouens AejjeA quel
ellASJunH
soueyeD IS ploioul
o-M Bpuwion
wAENO
Appa
soupe) 7S |
ploioul
Jonveg
Re ee NO ee en NT
MoBeje) enssi1/S1ede4 aul4/pieog/Bulyulaq at} 104 s}sod pue sonsia}eseYD JUANIJJ9 Paldipasg :(P,1U05) 6b 1081
—————————— ee
juawns0g juewdojenaq
40}98S Jodey pue ding YSIN
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Operating costs, including chemical costs, maintenance
costs and the power required for each unit operation, were
calculated for each mill using standard base unit costs.
Labour costs were taken from Statistics Canada (1990) data on
the actual average earnings in the industry plus an allowance
of 25% for fringe benefits. It is the opinion of the BAT
consultant that the estimates of annual operating costs are
better that plus or minus twenty percent of the actual costs.
4.2 ECONOMIC ACHIEVABILITY (EA)
In order to develop effluent limits based on the best
available technology economically achievable (BATEA), the
Ministry conducted an economic impact assessment of the costs
of imposing the identified BAT technology train options on the
pulp and paper sector.
The Economic Assessment Subcommittee
An Economic Assessment (EA) Subcommittee was formed under
the auspices of the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Joint Technical
Committee to recommend to the JTC the best available
technology economically achievable for the MISA pulp and paper
sector. The EA subcommittee consisted of representatives from
the Ministry, Industry and Environment Canada.
The EA subcommittee was assigned the task of collecting
the data necessary to conduct the economic impact assessment
and of developing the necessary procedures, methodologies and
assumptions to conduct the assessment.
The Economic Impact Assessment
The primary objectives of the economic impact assessment
were:
e to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of potential
wastewater treatment and abatement program options
® to show the incremental costs of successively
higher levels of contaminant removal, and
June 3, 1992. -21- Chapter 4
MISA Pulp.and Paper Sector Development Document
e to assess the potential financial and economic
consequences of the costs associated with potential
abatement program options that are cost-effective
and other MISA related costs that may be incurred
by the regulated plants’.
- Abatement Cost Functions
The cost estimates of the identified BAT technology train
options and the contaminant removals associated with each
option, were used to devise abatement cost functions, the
primary analytical tool used in the economic analysis.
Abatement cost functions show the costs of different
technology train option combinations that can be applied to a
given mill associated with successively higher levels of
contaminant reduction.
Where more than one combination of technologies will
achieve the same level of contaminant removal at different
costs, the least cost combination of technologies is used in
the derivation of the cost functions. Determination of least-
cost combinations is a necessary prerequisite to any financial
assessment of abatement costs on the regulated mills, firms or
sector.
After technically "achievable" least-cost levels of
abatement are identified, the next step is to ascertain those
technically feasible technology trains that are most cost-
effective according to:
e the cost per unit of pollutant removed (the lower
the cost per unit of pollutant removed, the more
cost effective the option)
® the average incremental cost for each additional
unit of pollutant removed in achieving successively
higher levels of contaminant reduction in the
effluent (the lower the ratio of average
incremental cost per incremental unit of pollutant
removed, the more cost-effective the option)
June 3, 1992. - 22 - Chapter 4
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The cost effectiveness analysis indicated that the
combination of BAT technology train options K2+S1+C1+F1 would
be the most cost effective for the pulp and paper sector as a
whole. To install this combination, referred to as the Most
Cost Effective Control Option, the sector would incur a cost
of $580 million in capital costs or $94 million annualized
over 10 years and would achieve a 96% reduction in BOD, a 77%
reduction in TSS, and a 70% reduction in AOX loadings.
This cost-effective level of abatement was compared with
the maximum technically achievable level of control. The
combination of BAT technology train options K5+S2+F2+C2 would
achieve the highest degree of contaminant removal for the pulp
and paper sector as a whole. To install this option, referred
to as the Maximum Removal Control Option, the sector would
incur a cost of $1.3 billion in capital costs or $181 million
annualized over ten years and would achieve a 98% reduction in
BOD, an 86% reduction in TSS and an 85% reduction in AOX.
Implications for Competitiveness
The costs associated with the Most Cost Effective Control
Option and the MISA effluent monitoring requirements would not
displace Eastern Canadian pulp mills from their current
position as the third lowest cost producer. However, if the
Maximum Removal Control Option costs were incurred, Eastern
Canadian market producers would be pushed from their third
lowest cost position to the highest cost producer among the
regions examined.
For newsprint, neither the Most Cost Effective Control
Option or the Maximum Removal Control Option raises total
operating costs sufficiently to displace Canadian mills from
their position as the second highest cost producers. However,
the additional regulatory costs widens the gap that currently
exists between Canadian and American producers.
The competitive position of Ontario pulp and paper mills
rests largely on the U.S/Canadian dollar exchange rate. [In
1989, the value of Ontario shipments to the United States was
approximately $2.2 billion dollars. At an exchange rate of $1
Canadian = $0.87 U.S., and assuming shipments remain constant,
a 1% depreciation in the U.S/Canada exchange rate would net
the Ontario industry approximately $22 million in additional
revenue.
June 3, 1992. - 23 - Chapter 4
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The Canadian dollar would have to depreciate by 7% in
order for the Ontario pulp and paper industry to accumulate
the added funds equal to the proposed annualized costs
associated with the Maximum Removal Control Option plus the
MISA effluent monitoring requirements. An exchange rate
depreciation of only 4% (less than 4 cents) would be necessary
to generate the extra revenue equal to the annualized cost of
the Most Cost Effective Control Option.
The pulp and paper industry faces a number of other
issues which may require capital investment or which may
further increase the cost of doing business in Ontario and
Canada. These issues include timber management and
regeneration, secondary fibre content requirements for
newsprint and changing international trade conditions. Any
one of these issues, including environmental protection
requirements, might not have undue consequences for the
industry but, taken together, they present the Ontario and
Canadian pulp and paper industry with serious challenges for
maintaining competitiveness.
4.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA)
The results of the economic impact assessment indicate
that the combination of technology trains K2+S1+F1+C1 is the
Most Cost Effective Control Option for the MISA Pulp and Paper
Sector. All of the individual technology trains identified
within this option require biological treatment of mill
effluent. This requirement forms the basis for the
development of the effluent limits.
June 3, 1992. - 24 - Chapter 4
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
REFERENCES
5 ES N. McCubbin Consultants Inc. (1992). Best Available
Technology for the Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry.
Toronto, Ontario. ISBN 0-7729-9261-4
2: Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1992). MISA
Economic Assessment: Potential Water Pollution Abatement
Programs for Ontario Pulp and Paper Mills. Toronto,
Ontario.
June 3, 1992. - 25 - Chapter 4
+ 0
| ‘hae
$2 eos à i ie
SR EMRS eae
ak a ‘de
COR
+
FR } rp a, ore iy set is } à si is me AE ; CPE
| : h %
ce
or
mi ae
THE EFFLUENT LIMITS
_ CHAPTER 5
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
MISA Pulp and
Paper Sector Development Document
Table Of Contents
Sel LHEVERPLUENT (LIMITS SETTING; PROCESS -... . 0,
The Types of Effluent to be Limited...
Thesrorm of Effluent- Limits.) <2). 6 3) %
The Candidate Parameters to be Limited .
THe BAT (CEA) s EeVANES) civ ler cel ney) ou setivel uel 6 “ete
The Method of Effluent Limits Setting. .
The Effluent Limits Setting (ELS)
SUPEOMNIE EE TS es vestige Mee ck eed Tele: fe ies
Se2>) THE CANDIDATE /PARAMETER LIST is0 wf cre Sle ie mes &
Candidate Parameter Selection .....
Candidate Parameter Screening ......
The Final Candidate Parameters List...
5.3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFLUENT LIMITS . . . . .
Monitoring,.Data Analysis 4 Sheet rente
Average Production-Based Flowrate . . . .
Long-term Average (LTA) Concentrations .
Concentration Variability Factors ....
OUEIVe eC ANALYSISA Ws 64s) sr Ve eh o's die
BAT (EA) Performance Values . .:. «6 . «¢
Ministry-and;.Industry Review: !.::..1..,.,:
The Pulp and Paper Working Group . . . .
Category Specific Production-Based Limits
Reference Production Rates . . . . . . .
Daily and Monthly Loading Limits +. . .
"Not to Exceed" Concentration Limits .
Se ENE RONME NTA BENER DEN M MN De ce elite
Benerits: co- Aquatic Life...) :+ecds tout
Benefits\to Wildlifes 22 sa cus tae hel ANR
Benefits to Human) Health "um.
REFERENCES
June 3, 1992.
= 1
: 1
3 2
. 2
2 3
2 3
: 5
= 5
= 5
: 6
: 28
- 29
: 29
: 30
: sil
C 32
- 34
à 36
= 40
: 40
A 42
à 42
: 47
: 47
5 47
: 50
2 50
: byl
: 53
Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector : Development Document
List of Tables
5.1 The Candidate Parameter List Following ;
OA/OC DatavASSeSSment sen tem citron von on Minette ot nS 7
5.2 .The:Final Candidate’ Parameter List’ 5. 2%.) 6 os sere 28
5.3 Mills with BAT Biological Effluent Treatment . . . 29
5.4 Average Production-Based Flowrates ........ ST
5.5 Long-term Average Concentrations ......... 32
5.6. Daily Variability Factors 24206 “cen eee = eee 33
5.7° Monthly Variability Factors, CEE RER eens 33
5.8 Long-term Average Concentrations
(Outliers Included and Outliers Excluded) . . . . 35
5.9 Daily Variability Factors
(Outliers Included and Outliers Excluded) . . . . S58
5.10 Monthly Variability Factors
(Outliers Included. and Outliers Excluded) . . . . 36
5.11 Calculated and Adjusted
Long-term Average Concentrations ......... 38
5.12 ELS Subcommittee Recommended Production-based
Loading: DimVeSss AMOR ER arg RS ee ue oe ie RENE 39
5.13 Category Specific Production-Based Flowrates .. . 41
5.14 Sulphate (Kraft) Category Production-Based
Loading -Limits. (kg /tonne) Cm RE ARENA eee 43
5.15 Sulphite-Mechanical Category Production-Based
Loading Limits (kg/tonne)!*. “0 oes RER Re 44
5.16 Corrugating Category Production-Based
Loading Limits (kg/tonne) . . STE MUR ON tetas 45
5.17 Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
Production-Based Loading Limits (kg/tonne) . . . . 46
5.18 Reference and Average Production Rates . . . . . . 48
5.89 "Not to Exceed" Concentrations yar. ts CR te 49
5.20 Loading Removal Summary (kg/day)
For the MISA) Pulp: and Paper *Sectorn MO ae 49
June 3, 1992. - ii - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
5.1 THE EFFLUENT LIMITS SETTING PROCESS
The approach used for developing effluent limits under
the MISA program closely follows the approach used by the U.S.
EPA which has withstood numerous court challenges. The
statistical procedures recommended for the limits setting
process are outlined in the draft Issue Resolution Committee
Reports on Monitoring Data Analysis'. The extensive database
for BAT(EA) plants obtained under the MISA effluent monitoring
regulation is used to calculate long-term average performance
values and data variability factors which are used to set
effluent limits.
The limits setting approach involves the identification
of the following:
: The types of effluent to be limited
23 The form of the effluent limits
as The candidate parameters to be limited
4. The BAT(EA) plants
5% The method of effluent limits setting
The Types of Effluent to be Limited
Several different types of effluent were monitored under
the Effluent Monitoring Regulation for the MISA Pulp and Paper
Sector. Process effluent, cooling water effluent, emergency
overflow effluent, waste disposal site effluent, backwash
effluent and storm water effluent were all monitored under the
regulation at various frequencies and for various parameters.
The MISA Effluent Limits Regulation for the Pulp and
Paper Sector will limit process effluent since this effluent
has the potential to impact the environment and pollutant
loadings can be minimized with BAT(EA). Emergency overflow
effluent and waste disposal site effluent will also be limited
under the Regulation as constituents of process effluent.
Cooling water effluent will not be limited but will be
monitored for assessment in order to provide data that can be
used, if necessary, to develop suitable control programs that
ensure that cooling water is contaminant-free. Cooling water
by definition, does not come into contact with process
materials and should, therefore, be contaminant-free.
Backwash effluent will also not be limited but will be further
investigated to determine if control programs are necessary.
June 3, 1992. -1- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Finally, the Effluent Limits Regulation will require all
mills with storm water effluent to complete Storm Water
Control Studies that identify the location of the storm water
effluent streams and outline control measures for each stream.
The Form of Effluent Limits
The form of the effluent limits considers the type of
limit and the time frame over which compliance with the limit
will be measured. Effluent limits can be expressed as
production-based loading limits, loading limits or
concentration limits and limits can be set on a daily, weekly
or quarterly basis.
Production-based loading limits require that a
relationship between production and contaminant: loading or
flow is established. This ensures that the limits reflect
plant operations and do not give unwarranted allowances for
discharges solely based on plant size. Concentration limits
and loading limits, which are expressed as mass per unit
volume and mass per unit time respectively, are based on
Similar sub-sectors to eliminate sources of diversity. The
choice of the type of limit depends on the availability of
data and the correlation between variables such as flow,
loading and production.
For the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector, mill-specific
effluent loading limits have been calculated for each
regulated parameter using production-based loading limits to
derive the final plant limits. Maximum daily and monthly
average loading limits: have been calculated for each mill
along with daily "not to exceed" concentration limits. The
daily limits reflect unavoidable short term fluctuations in
mill effluent quality while monthly average loading limits
smooth out short term fluctuations and allow more stringent
effluent limits to be set.
The Candidate Parameters to be Limited
The candidate parameters that are considered for effluent
limits setting are those that can be controlled by the defined
BAT (EA) . Under special circumstances, parameters like
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF which pose a significant threat
to human health and the environment are also limited
regardless of BAT(EA).
June 3, 1992. 2e Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The MISA White Paper? states that limits should be set on
a short list of easy-to-measure toxic and conventional
parameters. This statement is based on. the assumption that
compliance with the requirements of the short list will
correlate with the control of a longer list of contaminants of
concern. For the pulp and paper sector, effluent limits have
been developed for ten parameters including the two "special
parameters": 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2/3 17 8=-2LCDE:
The BAT(EA) Plants
BAT(EA) plant identification and performance data are
fundamental to developing the effluent limits. The criteria
for identifying BAT(EA) plants is presented in the draft Issue
Resolution Committee report on Best Available Technology. In
principle, a single BAT(EA) plant is sufficient to provide the
information required to calculate numerical effluent limits.
The consultant report on Best Available Technology for the
Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry identified mills with
exemplary secondary effluent treatment which is considered
BAT(EA) for the pulp and paper sector as described in Chapter
4. Performance data from these mills have been considered in
the development of effluent limits.
The Method of Effluent Limits Setting
The limits setting process consists of the following
three methods which can be used to set effluent. limits:
€ The Linear Method (Production-Based)
e The Average Loading Method
e The Average Concentration Method
(Concentration-Based)
The Linear Method was used to calculate production-based
limits for the pulp and paper sector. In the Linear Method,
limits are expressed as a function of concentration and flow
per unit of production, where concentration and flow are
numerical factors determined from the BAT(EA) plants. The
result is a production-based limit which is expressed in terms
of kilograms of contaminant per tonne of product and,
therefore, takes plant size into consideration. The fact that
the flow per unit of production from the BAT(EA) plants is
used as a factor in the derivation of the limits imposes a
restriction on effluent flow.
June 3, 1992. -3- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The Linear Method facilitates the calculation of mill-
specific effluent loading limits expressed in terms -of
kilograms of contaminant per day. These limits are derived by
multiplying the Linear Method production-based limits by mill
reference production rates. |
The steps used to derive the effluent limits for each
parameter are outlined below:
Step 1 Calculate the average-production-based
flowrate
Calculate the flow per unit of production
where flow and production are average values
from the BAT(EA) plants.
Step 2 Calculate the average LTA concentration
Calculate the average LTA concentration for
the parameter to be limited based on the data
from the BAT(EA) plants. The value is
calculated as the arithmetic average of the
LTA concentration data from the BAT(EA)
plants.
Step 3 Calculate the average concentration
variability factor
Calculate the average concentration
variability .factor for the parameter to be
limited based on the data from the BAT(EA)
plants. The value is calculated as the
arithmetic average of the variability factors
from the BAT(EA) plants.
Step 4 Calculate the BAT(EA) performance value
The product of the average LTA concentration,
average variability factor and average
production-based flowrate is the basis for the
final parameter limit which is calculated by
multiplying the production-based limit
performance value times the mill reference
production rate.
June 3, 1992. -4- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The Average Loading Method was not used in the effluent
limits setting exercise because of several concerns with the
accuracy of the flow measurement data for one of the BAT(EA)
plants. The Average Concentration Method was not used to
calculate effluent limits because production and flow vary
significantly from mill to mill.
The Effluent Limits Setting (ELS) Subcommittee
In order to review the development of the effluent limits
for the pulp and paper sector, an Effluent Limits Setting
Subcommittee (ELSS) was formed under the MISA Pulp and Paper
Sector Joint Technical Committee. The subcommittee consisted
of representatives fromthe Ministry, Industry and Environment
Canada.
The main objective of the effluent limits setting
subcommittee was to recommend to the Joint Technical Committee
a set of numerical effluent limits for the MISA pulp and paper
sector. Appropriate input and technical support was provided
by the Best Available Technology (BAT) subcommittee, Effluent
Monitoring Data Evaluation (EMDE) subcommittee and Economic
Assessment (EA) subcommittee.
282 SoS S so
5.2 THE CANDIDATE PARAMETER LIST
Candidate Parameter Selection
The candidate parameter list was established according to
the general steps described in the draft Issue Resolution
Committee Reports on Limits Setting and Data Analysis. The
following steps were followed:
e The effluent monitoring data were analyzed in order
to determine the parameters which were
statistically present in the effluent.
$ Parameters identified as being statistically
present in the effluent were analyzed using
rigorous Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
data assessment procedures.
e The identified BAT technology train options were
assessed as to their ability. to treat the
parameters remaining after the QA/QC data
assessment.
June 3, 1992. — = 5 Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
e "Special parameters", that pose a significant
threat to human health and the environment, were
assessed in order to determine if they should be
added to the candidate parameter list.
Based on the candidate parameter selection criteria
outlined in Chapter 3 of the Development Document and
following QA/QC data assessment, 57 parameters were identified
as candidate parameters for effluent limits setting for the
sulphate (kraft) category, 33 for the sulphite-mechanical
category, 37 for the corrugating category and 45 for the
deinking/board/fine papers/tissue category.
Table 5.1 presents the combined list of candidate
parameters -for all four categories following candidate
parameter selection and QA/QC data assessment.
Candidate Parameter Screening
The candidate parameters on the candidate parameter list
was reviewed in order to assess their suitability for use in
the effluent limits setting process. Each parameter was
reviewed in order to determine:
e what the parameter actually measures, its
environmental significance and its presence in mill
effluent
e the quality of the effluent monitoring data based
on the QA/QC data assessment and its suitability
for use in the setting of effluent limits
e whether the parameter can be controlled using the
identified best available technology and the
predicted removal efficiencies for those parameters
that can be controlled.
© whether sufficient BAT performance data exists to
support the setting of effluent limits
While some parameters can be controlled to predictable,
quantifiable levels, others can only be controlled to
qualitative levels. For the purposes of effluent limits
setting, only parameters that can be controlled to
predictable, quantifiable levels can be considered.
June 3, 1992. -6- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.1
The Candidate Parameter List Following
QA/QC Data Assessment
[ATG [pooner SCC ur |
4a |Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl! Nitrogen
4b |Nitrate + Nitrite
| Sas] Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
Er Total Phosphorus
Specific Conductance
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
olatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
7
[@)
SEES
= D
> DT
a a
| o
3
€
3
_
NO
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
June 3, 1992. -7- Chapter 5
DUNC Sle ee eS
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.1 (cont'd)
The Candidate Parameter List Following
QA/OC Data Assessment
June 3, 1992. -8- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.1 (cont'd)
The Candidate Parameter List Following
QA/QC Data Assessment
Cm Lu, ——*d
SSS ERP... ee ae Re
D diac
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
Total PCDD
eee |
Fe A ME
2
Levopimaric Acid | Levopimaric Acid |
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric RNCS
gg a a ba BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
| M13 |Adsorbable Organic Halide (AOX)
Sulphate (Kraft) Category
Sulphite-Mechanical Category
Corrugating Category
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
June 3, 1992. -9- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Each candidate parameter was reviewed in light of the
above criteria and the following parameters were removed from
further consideration in the effluent limits setting process
for the reasons indicated: ;
ATG 1: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) measures the amount of
oxygen consumed in an effluent sample based on the rapid
chemical oxidation of the sample. While internal mill
measures are more efficient at reducing COD,
approximately 40% of the COD in mill effluent can be
removed with biological effluent treatment. COD was
selected as a candidate parameter for the eighteen mills
that monitored for it. Because of the mill-specific and
process-specific nature of COD and due to the lack of
BAT(EA) treatability data, COD was not considered further
for effluent limits setting.
ATG 5a: Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) measures the carbon
content of the organic materials which are present in
solution in the effluent. DOC was selected as a
candidate parameter for all nine mills that monitored for
it. Because of the lack of BAT(EA) treatability data,
DOC was not considered further for effluent limits
setting.
ATG 7: Specific Conductance
Specific conductance is a measure of the ability of water
to carry an electric current and is used as an indicator
of the salt content in the water, changes in effluent
composition and the frequency of plant spills and upsets.
It is thus used for best management practices within the
mill. Effluents with low conductivity tend to be less
corrosive than effluents with high conductivity and thus
more amenable to recycling. Specific conductance was
selected as a candidate parameter for all twenty-seven
mills because the RMDL is 5 uS/cm and normal potable
water has a specific conductance in the range of 100 to
300 uS/cm. Because of the mill-specific and process
specific nature of specific conductance and due to the
lack of BAT(EA) treatability data, specific conductance
was not considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 10 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 8: Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
Volatile suspended solids (VSS) is a further
characterization of total suspended solids (TSS) in which
combustible organic content is determined. VSS was
selected as a candidate parameter for the eight mills
with biological treatment systems that were required to
monitor for it. VSS was not considered for effluent
limits setting because it is more practical to limit TSS
which also controls VSS.
ATG 9: Aluminum
Aluminum, though present naturally in aquatic ecosystems,
is added during the papermaking process in the form of
alum as a sizing agent and as an aid for pitch and pH
control. Alum is also added to biological treatment
systems to precipitate suspended solids and phosphorus
during effluent treatment. The form of aluminum ions in
water is influenced by pH and DOC and the nature of these
ions in the effluent will affect effluent toxicity.
Aluminum was selected as a candidate parameter for all
twenty-seven mills. The average concentration of
aluminum in process effluent ranged from 49.13 ug/L to
6,104.31 ug/L which are respectively 1.64 and 203.48
times the RMDL of 30 wg/L. Since BAT(EA) technology is
not available to predict aluminum removal efficiencies
when designing effluent treatment systems for the
relatively low concentrations found in mill effluents,
aluminum was not considered further for effluent limits
setting.
ATG 9: Cadmium
Cadmium was selected as a candidate parameter for Domtar
(Trenton) and MacMillan-Bloedel; however, the data for
MacMillan-Bloedel are considered unreliable for effluent
limits setting. The average concentration of cadmium in
the process effluent from Domtar (Trenton) was 3.5 ug/L
which is 1.75 times the RMDL of 2 ug/L. Based on the
limited occurrence of this parameter and the low level of
the reported data, cadmium was not considered further for
effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. -11- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 9: Chromium
Chromium is a known constituent of wood and was selected
as a candidate parameter for three sulphate (kraft)
mills, the two corrugating mills including MacMillan-
Bloedel, and one deinking/board/fine papers/tissue mill
(Trent Valley). The data for MacMillan-Bloedel are
considered unreliable for effluent limits setting. The
average concentration of chromium in process effluent
ranged from 21.67 ug/L to 148.33 ug/L which is 0.72 and
7.42 times the RMDL of 30 ug/L. Since BAT(EA) is not
available to predict chromium removal efficiencies when
designing effluent treatment systems for the relatively
low concentrations found in mill effluent, chromium was.
not considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 9: Cobalt
Cobalt was selected as a candidate parameter for
MacMillan-Bloedel (both process effluent streams) but the
data are considered unreliable for effluent limits
setting. Based on the unique occurrence of this
parameter and the unreliable quality of the effluent
monitoring data, cobalt was not considered further for
effluent limits setting.
ATG 9: Copper
Copper is a known constituent of wood. Copper salts are
generally used in wood preservatives, fungicides and
antifouling agents and are common in raw water supplies.
Copper was selected as a candidate parameter for twenty-
one mills but the data for MacMillan-Bloedel and Beaver
Wood are considered unreliable for effluent limits
setting. The average concentration of copper in process
effluent ranged from 8.33 ug/L to 51.86 ug/L which are
respectively 0.83 and 5.19 times the RMDL of 10 ug/L.
Since BAT(EA) treatability data are not available to
predict copper removal efficiencies when designing
effluent ‘treatment systems for the relatively low
concentrations found in mill effluent, copper was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. “#12: Chapter 5
a
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 9: [Lead
Lead and lead compounds are not used in pulp and paper
operations. It can be postulated that lead originates
from its presence in trees and, to a lesser extent, from
corrosion or erosion of equipment in the mill (ie. lead-
based solder). Lead was selected as a candidate
parameter for MacMillan-Bloedel (both process effluent
streams) but the data are considered unreliable for
effluent limits setting. Based on the unique occurrence
of this parameter and the unreliable quality of the
effluent monitoring data, lead was not considered further
for effluent limits setting.
ATG 9: Molybdenum
Molybdenum was selected as a candidate parameter for
MacMillan-Bloedel (control point 0200) but the data are
considered unreliable for effluent limits setting. Based
on the unique occurrence of this parameter and the
unreliable. quality of the data, molybdenum was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 9: Nickel
Nickel was selected as a candidate parameter for E.B.
Eddy (Espanola), James River-Marathon, Kimberly-Clark
(Terrace Bay) and MacMillan-Bloedel (control point 0200) ;
however, the data for MacMillan-Bloedel are considered
unreliable for effluent limits setting. The average
concentration of nickel in process effluent ranged from
13.33 ug/L to 31.36 ug/L which are respectively 0.67 and
1.57 times the RMDL of 20 ug/L. Based on the limited
occurrence of this parameter and the low level of the
reported data, nickel was not considered further for
effluent limits setting.
ATG 9: Thallium
Thallium was selected as a candidate parameter for
MacMillan-Bloedel (both process effluent streams) but the
data are considered unreliable for effluent limits
setting. Based on the unique occurrence of this
parameter and the unreliable quality of the effluent
monitoring data, thallium was not considered further for
effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 13 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 9: Zinc
Zinc is not used as a raw material by any of the mills in
Ontario but is present in wood. Zinc was selected as a
candidate parameter for all mills; however, the data for
MacMillan-Bloedel, Beaver Wood, Domtar (St. Catharines)
and Strathcona are considered unreliable for effluent
limits setting and the data for Spruce Falls are
considered of limited quality. The average concentration
of zinc in process effluent ranged from 15.65 ug/L to
815.27 ug/L which are respectively 1.57 and 81.53 times
the RMDL of 10 ug/L. Since BAT(EA) treatability data are
not available to predict zinc removal efficiencies when
designing effluent treatment systems for the relatively
low concentrations found in mill effluent, zinc was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG_12: Mercury
Previously, phenyl-mercury acetate was used for control
of fungi in the pulp and paper industry. Presently,
however, mercury likely originates from the trees used to
produce pulp, since growing trees accumulate mercury when
exposed to it.. Mercury is still used in older chlor-
alkali plants and may be carried to the bleach plants
with the chlorine gas or caustic soda if these bleaching
chemicals were produced using this process. Mercury was
selected as a candidate parameter for James River-
Marathon. The average concentration of mercury in the
process effluent from James River-Marathon was 0.49 ug/L
which is 4.9 times the RMDL of 0.1 ug/L. Based on the
unique occurrence of this parameter and since it is on
the proposed Candidate Substances List for Bans or Phase-
outs, mercury was not considered further for effluent
limits setting.
ATG 15: Sulphide
Sulphide is present in kraft mill cooking liquors and
condensates and is very toxic to aerobic life such as
fish and crustaceans. Sulphide was selected as a
candidate parameter for the nine sulphate (kraft) mills
that were required to monitor for it. Since sulphide is
easily oxidized to sulphate under aerobic conditions and
since the effluent limits are based on the installation
of biological effluent treatment, sulphide was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. -14- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 16: 1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane was selected as a candidate parameter
for Trent Valley and Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines);
however, the data from Trent Valley are considered
unreliable for effluent limits setting. The average
concentration of 1,1-dichloroethane in the process
effluent from Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines) was 0.92
ug/L which is 1.15 times the RMDL of 0.8 ug/L. Based on
the limited occurrence of this parameter and the low
level of the reported data, 1,1-dichloroethane was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 16: 1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroethylene was selected as a candidate
parameter for Beaver Wood and Trent Valley; however, the
data from Beaver Wood are considered unreliable for
effluent limits setting. The average concentration of
1,1-dichloroethylene in the process effluent from Trent
Valley was 12.85 ug/L which is 4.59 times the RMDL of 2.8
ug/L. Based on the limited occurrence of this parameter
and the: Jack of -BAT(EA).. treatability.. data, 1,;1-
dichloroethylene was not considered further for effluent
limits setting.
ATG 16: Bromodichloromethane
Bromodichloromethane may be formed when trace amounts of
bromine are present in the chlorine gas used for pulp
bleaching. Bromodichloromethane was selected as a
candidate parameter for Domtar (Cornwall) and Noranda
Forest; however, since the mechanism of generation is
similar to that of chloroform and since the data for
chloroform are more reliable, chloroform was considered
for effluent limits setting instead.
June 3, 1992. -15- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 16: Chloromethane
Chloromethane was selected as a candidate parameter for
St. Marys Paper but the data are considered of limited
quality for effluent limits. setting. The average
concentration of chloromethane in the process effluent
from St. Marys Paper was 3.84 ug/L which is 1.04 times
the RMDL of 3.7 ug/L. Based on the unique occurrence of
this parameter and the limited quality and low level of
the reported data, chloromethane was not considered
further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 16: Dibromochloromethane
Dibromochloromethane was selected as a candidate
parameter for Noranda Forest. The average concentration
of dibromochloromethane in the process effluent from
Noranda Forest was 1.29 ug/L which is 1.17 times the RMDL
Of ee hoi ii. Based on the unique occurrence of this
parameter and the low level of the reported data,
dibromochloromethane was not. considered further for
effluent limits setting.
ATG 16: Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene was selected as a candidate parameter
for Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines). The average
concentration of tetrachloroethylene in the process
effluent from Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines) was 1.6
ug/L which is 1.46 times the RMDL of 1.1 ug/L. Based on
the unique occurrence of this parameter and the low level
of the reported data, tetrachloroethylene was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 16: Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethylene was selected as a candidate parameter
for Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines). The average
concentration of trichloroethylene in the process
effluent from Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines) was 5.4
ug/L which is 2.84 times the RMDL of 1.9 ug/L. Based on
the unique occurrence of this parameter and the lack of
BAT(EA) treatability data, trichloroethylene was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 16- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 17: Benzene
Benzene is not normally associated with pulp and paper
operations and may originate from gasoline and light
crude oil sources. Benzene is partly degradable in
and/or stripped in biological treatment systems, but is
better controlled by best management practices. Benzene
was selected as a candidate parameter for three sulphate
(kraft) mills, four sulphite-mechanical mills and four
deinking/board/fine papers/tissue mills; however, the
data for Abitibi-Price (Iroquois Falls Division),
Abitibi-Price (Thunder Bay Division), Beaver Wood,
Noranda Forest and St. Marys Paper are considered
unreliable for effluent limits setting and the data for
Abitibi-Price (Provincial Papers Division) are considered
of limited quality. The average concentration of benzene
in process effluent ranged from 0.93 ug/L to 10.47 ug/L
which are respectively 1.86 and 20.94 times the RMDL of
0.5 ug/L. As the data for toluene are more reliable and
the sources of generation are similar, toluene was
considered for effluent limits setting instead.
ATG 17: Styrene
Styrene is not normally associated with pulp and paper
operations and may originate from gasoline and light
crude oil sources. Styrene is partly degradable in
and/or stripped in biological treatment systems, but is
better controlled by best management practices. Styrene
was selected as a candidate parameter for Domtar
(Cornwall), Malette and Abitibi-Price (Provincial Papers
Division); however, the data for Malette are considered
unreliable for effluent limits setting. The average
concentrations of styrene in the process effluents from
Abitibi-Price (Provincial Papers Division) and Domtar
(Cornwall) were 1.26 ug/L and 4.12 wg/L which are
respectively 2.52 and 8.24 times the RMDL of 0.5 ug/L.
As the data for toluene are more reliable and the sources
of generation are similar, toluene was considered for
effluent limits setting instead.
June 3, 1992. -17- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 17: m-Xylene and p-Xylene
m-Xylene and p-xylene originate from gasoline and light
crude oil sources and are sometimes used as a cleaning
solvent. They are partly degradable in and/or stripped
in biological treatment systems but are better controlled
by minimizing petrochemical spills. m-Xylene and p-
xylene were selected as a candidate parameter for Beaver
Wood and Noranda Forest; however, the data for Beaver
Wood are of unreliable quality for effluent limits
setting. The average concentration of m-xylene and p-
xylene in the process effluent from Noranda Forest was
1.84 ug/L which is 1.67 times the RMDL of 1.1 ug/L.
Based on the limited occurrence of this parameter and the
low level of the reported data, m-xylene and p-xylene
were not considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 17: o-Xylene
o-Xylene originates from gasoline and light crude oil
sources and is sometimes used as a cleaning solvent. It
is partly degradable in and/or stripped in biological
treatment systems but is better controlled by minimizing
petrochemical spills. o-Xylene was selected as a
candidate. parameter for Beaver Wood, Noranda Forest,
Abitibi-Price (Provincial Papers Division) and Abitibi-
Price (Fort William Division - 0200). The average
concentrations of o-xylene in the process effluents from
Beaver Wood and Abitibi-Price (Fort William - 0200) were
0.43 ug/L and 0.45 ug/L which are less than the RMDL of
0.5 ug/L. The average concentrations of o-xylene in the
process effluents from Noranda Forest and Abitibi-Price
(Provincial Papers Division) were 1.33 ug/L and 2.2 ug/L
which are respectively 2.7 and 4.4 times the RMDL of 0.5
ug/L. Based on the limited occurrence of this parameter
and the low levels of the reported data, o-xylene was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 18- Chapter 5
MISA -Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 19: 2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene was selected as a candidate parameter
for Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines). The average
concentration of 2-methylnaphthalene in the process
effluent from Kimberly-Clark (St. Catharines) was 3.69
ug/L which is 1.68 times the RMDL of 2.2 ug/L. Based on
the unique occurrence of this parameter and the low level
of the reported data, 2-methylnaphthalene was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 19: Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthalene was selected as a candidate parameter for
Domtar (Cornwall). The average concentration of
acenaphthalene in the process effluent from Domtar
(Cornwall) was 4.52 ug/L which is 3.23 times the RMDL of
1.4 pg/L. Based on the unique occurrence of this
parameter and the lack of BAT(EA) treatability data,
acenaphthalene was not considered further for effluent
limits setting.
ATG 19: Camphene
Camphene is normally found in wood extractives and is
quite persistent even after biological treatment.
Camphene was selected as a candidate parameter for three
mills in the sulphate (kraft) category and two mills in
the sulphite-mechanical category. The average
concentration of camphene in process effluent ranged from
2.39 ug/L to 15.09 ug/L which are respectively 0.68 and
4.31 times the RMDL of 3.5 ug/L. Based on the limited
occurrence of this parameter, the relatively low levels
of the reported data and the lack of BAT(EA) treatability
data, camphene was not considered further for effluent
limits setting.
ATG 19: Chrysene
Chrysene was selected as a candidate parameter for Domtar
(Cornwall). The average concentration in the process
effluent from Domtar (Cornwall) was 1.45 ug/L which is
4.83 times the RMDL of 0.3 ug/L. Based on the unique
occurrence of this parameter and the lack of BAT(EA)
treatability data, chrysene was not considered further
for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 19 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector ; Development Document
ATG 19: Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene was selected as a candidate parameter for
Domtar (Cornwall). The average concentration in the
process effluent from Domtar (Cornwall) was 4.99 ug/L
which is 12.47 times the RMDL of 0.4 ug/L. Based on the
unique occurrence of this parameter and the lack of
BAT (EA) treatability data, fluoranthene was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 19: Naphthalene
‘Naphthalene was selected as a candidate parameter for one
mill in the sulphate (kraft) category and three mills in
the deinking/board/fine papers/tissue category. The
average. concentration in process effluent ranged from
1.05 ug/L to 7.78 ug/L which are respectively 0.66 and
4.86 times the RMDL of 1.6 ug/L. Naphthalene has a
tendency to adsorb onto suspended solids and biota and
will be controlled setting a limit on total suspended
solids. Based on the limited occurrence of this
parameter and the lack of BAT(EA) treatability data,
naphthalene was not considered further for effluent
limits setting.
ATG 19: Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene was selected as a candidate parameter for
° Domtar (Cornwall). The average concentration of
phenanthrene in the process effluent from Domtar
(Cornwall) was 11.83 wg/L which is 29.58 times the RMDL
of 024 > Lg/i-. Based on the unique occurrence of this
parameter and since this parameter is on the proposed
Candidate Substances List for Bans or Phase-outs,
phenanthrene was not considered further for effluent
limits setting.
ATG 19: Pyrene
Pyrene was selected as a candidate parameter for Domtar
(Cornwall). The average concentration of pyrene in the
process effluent from Domtar (Cornwall) was 3.01 ug/L
which is 7.53 times the RMDL of 0.4 ug/L. Based on the
unique occurrence of this parameter and the lack of
BAT(EA) treatability data, pyrene was not considered
further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 20- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 20: 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is generated during chlorine
bleaching and is washed out during caustic extraction.
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol is more persistent than 2,4-
dichlorophenol and is eliminated by using oxygen
delignification and by reducing the amount of chlorine
used -in bleaching. It is also reduced by biological
effluent treatment, possibly by sedimentation. 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol was selected as a candidate parameter for
six mills but was not considered further for effluent
limits setting due to the lack of BAT(EA) treatability
data and because it is more practical to limit the
discharge of AOX which will decrease the formation of the
most toxic chlorinated phenols.
ATG 20: 2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol originates during chlorine bleaching
and is washed out during caustic extraction. 2,4-
Dichlorophenol is reduced in biological effluent
treatment and is readily biodegraded in the environment.
Dichlorophenols have a tendency to accumulate on
particulate materials and, therefore, sedimentation may
be the primary method of removal in aquatic environments.
2,4-Dichlorophenol was selected as a candidate parameter
for five mills but was not considered further for
effluent limits setting because the formation of
dichlorophenols increases when the amount of chlorine
used for bleaching decreases. Like 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol, it is more practical to limit the
discharge of AOX which will decrease the formation of the
most toxic chlorinated phenols.
ATG 20: -Pentachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol was selected as a candidate parameter
for Trent Valley. The average concentration of
pentachlorophenol in the process effluent from Trent
Valley was 0.93 ug/L which is 0.71 times the RMDL of 1.3
ug/L. Based on the unique occurrence of this parameter
and the low level of the reported data, pentachlorophenol
was not considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. -21- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 23: 1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene was selected as a candidate
parameter for E.B. Eddy (Ottawa). The .average
concentration of 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene in the
process effluent from E.B. Eddy (Ottawa) was 0.01 ug/L
which is equal to the RMDL. Based on the unique
occurrence of this parameter and the low level of the
reported data, 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 23: 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene was selected as a candidate
parameter for E.B. Eddy (Ottawa). The average
concentration of 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene in the process
effluent from E.B. Eddy (Ottawa) was 0.01 ug/L which is
equal to the RMDL. Based on the unique occurrence of
this parameter and the low level of the reported data,
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene was not considered further for
effluent limits setting.
ATG 23: 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene was selected as a candidate
parameter for E.B. Eddy (Ottawa) and Malette; however,
the data from both mills were considered of limited
quality for effluent limits setting. The average
concentrations of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene in the process
effluents from E.B. Eddy (Ottawa) and Malette were 0.02
ug/L and 0.01 ug/L which are respectively 2 and 1 times
the RMDL of 0.01 ug/L. Based on the limited occurrence
of this parameter, the limited quality and low levels of
the reported data, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 23: 2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene was selected as a candidate
parameter for Malette but the data are considered
unreliable for effluent limits setting. Based on the
unique occurrence of this parameter and the unreliable
quality of the effluent. monitoring data, 2,4,5-
trichlorotoluene was not considered further for effluent
limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 22 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 24: Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)
Total TCDD was selected as a candidate parameter for
James River-Marathon and Kimberly-Clark (Terrace Bay).
The average concentrations of total TCDD in the process
effluents from James River-Marathon and Kimberly-Clark
(Terrace Bay) were 0.04 ng/L and 0.32 ng/L which are
respectively 2 and 16 times the RMDL of 0.02 ng/L. Based
on the limited occurrence of this parameter and the lack
of BAT(EA) treatability data, total TCDD was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 24: Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)
Total TCDF was selected as a candidate parameter for
eight sulphate (kraft) mills including Malette, one
corrugating mill and one deinking/board/fine
papers/tissue mill but the data for Malette are
considered unreliable for effluent limits setting. The
average concentration of total TCDF in process effluent
ranged from 0.02 ng/L to 0.32 ng/L which are respectively
1.3 and 21.3 times the RMDL of 0.015 ng/L. Based on the
lack of BAT(EA) treatability data, total TCDF was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 24: Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PCDD)
Total PCDD was selected as a candidate parameter for
James River-Marathon and Kimberly-Clark (Terrace Bay).
The average concentrations of total PCDD in the process
effluents from James River-Marathon and Kimberly-Clark
(Terrace Bay) were 0.03 ng/L and 0.04 ng/L which are
respectively 1.5 and 2 times the RMDL of 0.02 ng/L.
Based on the limited occurrence of this parameter and the
lack of BAT(EA) treatability data, total PCDD was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. - 23- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 24: Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PCDF)
Total PCDF was selected as a candidate parameter for
James River-Marathon and Kimberly-Clark (Terrace Bay).
The average concentrations of total PCDF in the process
effluents from James River-Marathon and Kimberly-Clark
(Terrace Bay) were 0.17 ng/L and 0.04 ng/L which are
respectively 11.3 and 2.7 times the RMDL of 0.015 ng/L.
Based on the limited occurrence of this parameter and the
lack of BAT(EA) treatability data, total PCDF was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 24: Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (H6CDD)
Total H6CDD was selected as a candidate parameter for
Kimberly-Clark (Terrace Bay) and Domtar (Trenton). The
average concentrations of total H6CDD in the process
effluents from Kimberly-Clark (Terrace Bay) and Domtar
(Trenton) were 0.05 ng/L to 0.30 ng/L which are
respectively 1.7 and 10 times the RMDL of 0.03 ng/L.
Based on the limited occurrence of this parameter and the
lack of BAT(EA) treatability data, total H6CDD was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 24: Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran (H6CDF)
Total H6CDF was selected as a candidate parameter for
James River-Marathon. The average concentration of total
H6CDF in the process effluent from James River-Marathon
was 0.05 ng/L which is 2.5 times the RMDL of 0.02 ng/L.
Based on the unique occurrence of this parameter and the
lack of BAT(EA) treatability data, total H6CDF was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. -24- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 24: Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (H7CDD)
Total H7CDD was selected as a candidate parameter for
James River-Marathon and Domtar (Trenton); however, the
data for James River-Marathon are considered of limited
quality for effluent limits setting. The average
concentrations of total H7CDD in the process effluents
from James River-Marathon and Domtar (Trenton) were 0.11
ng/L and 1.1 ng/L which are respectively 3.7 and 36.7
times the RMDL of 0.03 ng/L. Based on the limited
occurrence of this parameter and the lack of BAT(EA)
treatability data, total H7CDD was not considered further
for effluent limits setting.
ATG 24: Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran (H7CDF)
Total H7CDF was selected as a candidate parameter for
Domtar (Trenton). The average concentration of total
H7CDF in the process effluent from Domtar (Trenton) was
0.32 ng/L which is 10.7 times the RMDL of 0.03 ng/L.
Based on the unique occurrence of this parameter and the
lack of BAT(EA) treatability data, total H7CDF was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 24: Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin was selected as a candidate
parameter for six sulphate (kraft) mills, six sulphite-
mechanical mills including Abitibi-Price (Thunder Bay
Division), one corrugating mill and three
deinking/board/fine papers/tissue mills including
Kimberly-Clark (Huntsville); however, the data for
Abitibi-Price (Thunder Bay Division) and Kimberly-Clark
(Huntsville) are considered unreliable for effluent
limits setting. The average concentration of
octachlorodibenzo-p-dicxin in process effluent ranged
from 0.03 ng/L to 10.9 ng/L which are respectively 1 and
363 times the RMDL of 0.03 ng/L. Based on the lack of
BAT(EA) treatability data, octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin was
not considered further for effluent limits setting.
June 3, 1992. -25- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 24: Octachlorodibenzofuran
Octachlorodibenzofuran was selected as a candidate
parameter for James River-Marathon, Kimberly-Clark
(Terrace Bay), Abitibi-Price (Iroquois Falls Division)
and Domtar (Trenton). The average concentration of
octachlorodibenzofuran in process effluent ranged from
0.05 ng/L to 0.8 ng/L which are respectively 1.7 and 26.7
times the RMDL of 0.03 ng/L. Based on the limited
occurrence of this parameter and the lack of BAT(EA)
treatability data, octachlorodibenzofuran was not
considered further for effluent limits setting.
ATG 26: Abietic Acid
Abietic acid is a naturally-occurring compound in wood
resin that is released during the pulping of wood and is
toxic to fish. Biological treatment of pulp and paper
effluent has generally demonstrated 60 to 90% removal of.
abietic acid with average removal closer to 90%. Abietic
acid was selected as a candidate parameter for twenty-two
mills but was not considered further for effluent limits
setting because predictable treatment removal
efficiencies could not be determined.
ATG 26: Chlorodehydroabietic Acid |
Chlorodehydroabietic acid was selected as a candidate
parameter for thirteen mills but was not considered
further for effluent limits setting because predictable
treatment removal efficiencies could not be determined.
ATG 26: Dehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic acid was selected as a candidate parameter
for twenty-six mills but was not considered further for
effluent limits setting because predictable treatment
removal efficiencies could not be determined.
. June 3, 1992. - 26 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
ATG 26: Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic acid is a chlorinated resin and
fatty acid that is controlled by either reducing black
liquor carry-over to the bleach plant and/or reducing the
amount of chlorine used in pulp bleaching.
Dichlorodehydroabietic acid is slow to degrade in the
aquatic environment and was selected as a candidate
parameter for the eight mills that monitored for it but
was not considered further for effluent limits setting
because predictable treatment removal efficiencies could
not be determined.
ATG 26: Isopimaric Acid
Isopimaric acid was selected as a candidate parameter for
twenty mills but was not considered further for effluent
limits setting because predictable treatment removal
efficiencies could not be determined.
ATG 26: Levopimaric Acid
Levopimaric acid was selected as a candidate parameter
for fifteen mills but was not considered further for
effluent limits setting because predictable treatment
removal efficiencies could not be determined.
ATG 26: Neoabietic Acid
Neoabietic acid was selected as a candidate parameter for
sixteen mills but was not considered further for effluent
limits setting because predictable treatment removal
efficiencies could not be determined.
ATG 26: Oleic Acid
Oleic acid was selected as a candidate parameter for
nineteen mills but was not considered further for
effluent limits setting because predictable treatment
removal efficiencies could not be determined.
June 3, 1992. -27- Chapter 5
re —_—_—_—_————
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector ; Development Document
ATG 26: Pimaric Acid
Pimaric acid was selected as a candidate parameter for
twenty-two mills but was not considered further for
effluent limits setting because predictable treatment
removal efficiencies could not be determined.
The Final Candidate Parameters List
Based on the technical review of each parameter on the
candidate parameter list, a shorter list of candidate
parameters was developed for which effluent limits can be set.
This list, referred to as the Final Candidate Parameter List,
is presented in Table 5.2.
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF have been included on the
Final Candidate Parameter List because of the significant
threat they pose to human health and the environment.
Chlorinated dioxins and furans, especially 2,3,7,8-TCDD were
defined by the International Joint Commission (IJC) as being
critical, bioaccumulative persistent toxic substances.
Table 5.2
The Final Candidate Parameter List
ATG
[4a_[Ammonia plus Ammonium | K
LS [Total Phosphorus
EC i
fen
Category
OO
FTotal Suspended Solids (TSS) | _K
fchioroform TT |
| 17 [Toluene
[20 [Phenol 5 nr de
24 |2,3,7,8-TCDD Ke
ae 2,3,7,8-TCDF fee ae
[MS |BOD, 5 day, Total Demand | K | M.
Mia [Adsorbable Organic Halide (AO | K | |
oO
fo)
Q
A
Cc
Sulphate (Kraft) Category
Sulphite-Mechanical Category
Corrugating Category
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category
June 3, 1992. - 28 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
5.3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF EFFLUENT LIMITS
Monitoring Data Analysis
In chapter five of the report on Best Available
Technology for the Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry, six mills
are identified as having best available technology for the
biological treatment of pulp and paper mill effluent. These
mills are listed in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3
Mills with BAT Biological Effluent Treatment
Wastewater
Location Treatment
Canton, North Carolina
.B. Eddy Espanola, Ontario
Kimbery-Car
inton, Alberta
Legend
ASB = Aerated Stabilization Basin
AST = Activated Sludge Treatment system
Performance data from the three market kraft mills with
aerated stabilization basin (ASB) effluent treatment were used
in the development of effluent limits. Sulphate (kraft) mill
effluent is generally considered to be more contaminated than
other types of mill effluent and contains many different types
of contaminants. Based on the 1990 MISA effluent monitoring
results, 57 parameters were selected as candidate parameters
for the sulphate (kraft) mills following candidate parameter
selection and QA/QC data assessment versus 33 parameters for
the sulphite-mechanical mills, 37 for the corrugating mills
and 45 for the deinking/board/fine papers/tissue mills.
While it is recognized that mills with activated sludge
treatment systems discharge lower levels of BOD and TSS than
similar mills with ASB treatment systems (almost half as
much), only the performance data from the mills with ASB
treatment systems were considered in the development of
effluent limits in order to take into account the fact that
several Ontario mills have already invested heavily in ASB
effluent treatment systems.
June 3, 1992. - 29 - Chapter 5 -
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The development of effluent limits based on the
performance data from the three BAT sulphate (kraft) mills
with ASB effluent treatment systems also ensures that all of
the mills in Ontario, regardless of mill type, age and
location, will be able to comply with the effluent limits if
the necessary treatment systems are installed and the
necessary in-plant process modifications are made.
The use of sulphate (kraft) performance data to develop
effluent limits for the different types of mill in Ontario is
based on the BAT consultant claim that the quality of treated
mill effluent achievable by each mill in Ontario should be the
same regardless of the type of mill and should only depend on
whether activated sludge treatment (AST) or ASB treatment is
installed. - The industry members of the ELS subcommittee do
not agree with the BAT consultant on this issue and do not
accept that the quality of effluent from a secondary effluent
treatment system is independent of influent quality,
regardless of how well the system is designed and operated.
As an initial basis upon which to develop effluent
limits, the ministry accepted the BAT consultant claim that
while the characteristics of the influent have a major impact
on the design of the secondary effluent treatment system, the
attainable effluent quality is independent of the type of
influent. Accordingly, the data from E.B. Eddy (Espanola),
Kimberly-Clark (Terrace Bay) and Weldwood (Hinton), the three
market kraft mills with exemplary biological effluent
treatment systems, were used in the development of effluent
limits.
Average Production-Based Flowrate
The first step in the effluent limits setting process was
to calculate the average production-based flowrate which was
used to develop scalable production-based limits for the mills .
in the sector. The 1990 average production data and flowrate
data for Kimberly-Clark (Terrace Bay) and Weldwood (Hinton)
were used to calculate the average production-based flowrate.
The data from E.B. Eddy (Espanola) could not be used due to
the discovery of three systemic flow measurement device errors
halfway through the effluent monitoring period. Table 5.4
lists the average production-based flowrates for Kimberly-
Clark (Terrace Bay) and Weldwood (Hinton).
June 3, 1992. - 30 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.4
Average Production-Based Flowrates
Average Production-
Average Production Average Flow Based Flow
(tonne/day) (m°/day) (m?/tonne)
Kimberly-Clark 83
(Terrace Bay)
Average BAT Flowrate
Long-term Average (LTA) Concentrations
The second step in the effluent limits setting process
was to calculate the long-term average concentration of each
parameter to be limited. Long-term average (LTA)
concentrations were calculated as the arithmetic mean of all
the data collected and were calculated where possible, on a
mill by mill basis, for all of the parameters identified in
the Final Candidate Parameter List. Since the LTA
concentrations of toluene and phenol in the treated process
effluent from E.B Eddy (Espanola) and Kimberly-Clark (Terrace
Bay) were less than the respective regulation method detection
limits for each parameter, the LTA average concentrations for
toluene and phenol were set at the respective RMDLs for the
purpose of effluent limits setting.
LTA concentrations were not calculated for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
and 2,3,7,8-TCDF because the Effluent Limits Regulation will
require non-measurable concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
2,3,7,8-TCDF in mill effluent due to the significant threat
they pose to human health and the environment.
Table 5.5 lists the average LTA concentrations to three
significant figures for the candidate parameters to be
limited.
June 3, 1992. -31- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.5
Long-term Average Concentrations
parame | a | espana | ton | Average
Parameter Clark (Espanola) | (Hinton) | Average
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand (mel) | 157 | 175 | 257 | 196 |
[Adsorbable Organic Halide (OX (mg | 21.2 | 620 | 109 | 134 |
0.923
a
no data available
Data not used in the calculation of the long-term average concentration.
Concentration Variability Factors
The third step in the effluent limits setting process was
to calculate concentration variability factors that take into
account analytical and sampling uncertainty, process and plant
variations, treatment process fluctuations that result from
changes in raw waste load and flow, and operational changes in
the treatment system.
The daily variability factor, VF,, is used to set daily
maximum performance values and is calculated as the ratio of
the 99th percentile of the data to the expected mean based on
the distribution of the data.
The monthly variability factor, either VF, or VF»
depending on whether 4 or 30 samples are collected during the
month, is used to set monthly average performance values and
is calculated as the ratio of the 95th percentile of the data
to the expected mean based on the distribution of the data.
Tables 5.6 and 5.7 list the daily and monthly variability
factors to three significant figures for the candidate
parameters to be limited with the exception of the parameters
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF which are treated separately.
June 3, 1992. - 32 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.6
Daily Variability Factors
Kimberly- E.B. Eddy Weldwood
Parameter Clark (Espanola) (Hinton) Average
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand | 266 | 456 | 164 | 2.89 |
Total Suspended Solids
Adsorbable Organic Halde (AON | 1.38 | 1.74 | 14 | 15 |
Moral Phosphorus | 164 | 185 | 25 | 217 |
[Ammonia plus Ammonium | 368 | 257 | NA | 35 __
DES RE RUE REG SEE
RE LE EE ARE
Legend
N/A = no data available
Data not used in calculation of daily variability factor.
Table 5.7
Monthly Variability Factors
BOD, § day, Total Demand | ven | 140 | 147 | NA | 144
Total Suspended Sois [Ve | 1.15 | 143 | NA | 129 |
[Adsorbable Organic Halide (AOX] VF, | IS | 126 | 1.18 | 118 |
Total Phosphorus VE,
Lo [is [nr
/A
[WA TS
EE os
LP RTE
CRETE
PRESS) RER:
CORNE | ER
no data available
Data not used in the calculation of the monthly variability factor.
+
HW il
June 3, 1992. - 33 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
In order to set variability factors for toluene and
phenol, where the majority of the effluent monitoring data
were at lower levels than the respective RMDL for ‘each
parameter, it was necessary to review the toluene and phenol
QA/QC data. For the parameter toluene, small corrections were
made to the test results by the analytical laboratories
performing the chemical analyses in order to take into account
laboratory blank corrections. A variability factor of 3 was
considered appropriate by the Ministry in order to compensate
for the potential bias and/or additional variability that is
introduced to low level data when laboratory blank corrections
are made. ,
For the parameter phenol, laboratory blank corrections
were not normally made or required. A variability factor of
2 was considered appropriate by the Ministry in order to
ensure that repeat analytical results do not differ from the
average by more than 30%, more than 5% of the time.
Outlier Analysis
In order to assess whether the calculated BAT LTA
concentrations and variability factors are representative of
normal plant operating conditions, extreme or outlier data
values were reviewed. Outlier values may result from plant
and process upsets, QA/QC problems, sampling errors or unknown
causes. They may be non-representative of normal plant
operating conditions or may be indicative or other
environmental problems requiring investigation.
Extreme or outlier values were removed from the database
(outliers excluded) and a comparison was made to the original
database (outliers included). LTA concentration results and
daily and monthly variability factors are presented in Tables
5.8 to 5.10 to three significant figures for both sets of data
in order to show the effects of outlier removal.
The ELS subcommittee examined the data (outliers included
and outliers excluded) for each parameter and concluded that
all of the data (outliers included) should be used for
effluent limits setting because the data reflect the normal
plant operations of the BAT(EA) mills over the effluent
monitoring period.
June 3, 1992. - 34 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.8
Long-term Average Concentrations
(Outliers Included and Outliers Excluded)
included) excluded)
OD, 5 day, Total Demand 19.6
Total Suspended Solids + 34.4
Adsorbable Organic Halide (AOX)
Total Phosphorus
3
Corso __
> o
3
3
[e]
2,
oo
yk
Cc
a”
>
3
3
ra)
2
c
3
Legend
RMDL = Regulation Method Detection Limit
Table 5.9
Daily Variability Factors
(Outliers Included and Outliers Excluded)
Parameter Daily Variability Factor | Daily Variability Factor
(outliers included) (outliers excluded)
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Adsorbable Organic Halide (AOX
Total Phosphorus PER ARE PAR O
Ammonia plus Ammonu
Chioroform Mean ee ay ar
June 3, 1992. -35- Chapter 5
EEE
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.10
Monthly Variability Factors
(Outliers Included and Outliers Excluded)
Parameter Factor . Monthly Monthly
Type Variability Factor | Variability Factor
(outliers included) | (outliers excluded)
BOD, Sday, Total Demand [We | 14 | 1 _—t
fAdsorbable Organic Halide (ON VF, | 118 | 118 |
ER RP PE CR ER |
BAT(EA) Performance Values
The fourth step in the effluent limits setting process
was to calculate BAT(EA) performance values for each parameter
to be limited. During the technical review of BAT(EA)
performance data, the industry members of the Effluent Limits
Setting Subcommittee identified several concerns with the
applicability of some of the performance data to Ontario
mills. The industry members argued that the types of wood
furnish used by Ontario mills, the age and diversity of
Ontario mills and the northern location of some of the mills
should be considered in the setting of daily and monthly
performance values.
The industry members of the subcommittee presented data
that showed that bleached kraft mills generally discharge less
BOD and less AOX when bleaching hardwood than when bleaching
softwood. The industry subcommittee members argued that
effluent limits should be based on 100% softwood furnish in
order to reflect the fact that Ontario mills use a combination
‘of hardwood and softwood furnish.
The ministry members of the subcommittee requested the
assistance of the BAT consultant to review the industry.
concerns. The BAT consultant confirmed that prior to effluent
treatment, bleached kraft mills using 100% softwood furnish
produce more BOD. However, the consultant noted that
following secondary treatment, there should not be any
difference in the quality of treated mill effluent since the
quality of the effluent depends primarily on the design and
operation of the external effluent treatment system.
June 3, 1992. - 36 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The BAT consultant agreed with industry's claim that the
use of hardwood furnish requires less bleaching chemicals and
leads to lower AOX discharges than with the use of softwood
furnish. The consultant recommended that since mills
currently bleaching hardwood could find themselves bleaching
some softwood in the future due to market pressures, AOX
limits should be developed based on the use of 100% softwood
furnish.
The industry members of the subcommittee questioned
whether all of the Ontario mills, given the diversity of the
mills, could be successfully modified to discharge the same
quality of effluent as the identified BAT(EA) mills. They
noted that the majority of Ontario mills are quite old and it
may not be possible to retrofit all of the mills to achieve
the same quality of effluent discharge as the identified BAT
-mills. The BAT consultant responded that the external
effluent treatment systems that will be installed in order to
comply with the requirements of the effluent limits
regulation, will be 'new' installations and that all of the
identified BAT in-plant process modifications are technically
feasible at Ontario mills.
Concerning the cold weather performance of biological
effluent treatment systems in Northern Ontario, specifically
aerated stabilization basin (ASB) performance, the industry
members of the subcommittee argued that with the exception of
ASB's treating sulphate (kraft) effluent, ASB treatment
performance would be impaired during cold weather operation.
The BAT consultant responded that cold weather performance
should be taken into account when designing and selecting the
type of effluent treatment systen.
After much debate and discussion, the industry and
ministry. members of the ELS subcommittee agreed that some of
the mills in Ontario would have problems in meeting effluent
limits based purely on the BAT(EA) performance data.
Accordingly, the consensus of the ELS subcommittee was that
the performance values for BOD, TSS and AOX should be adjusted
in order to take into account the type of wood furnish used by
Ontario mills, the age and diversity of Ontario mills and the
Northern location of some of the mills.
The ELS subcommittee also recognized that the development
of one set of limits, that could be applied uniformly and
equitably across the pulp and paper sector, would be highly
desirable for both administrative purposes and enforcement
purposes.
June 3, 1992. -37- Chapter 5
EE ——_—…—…—…"…"—"—"—"…"…"…"—"—……"…"…"…"…"—"…"—"—"—"——
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The consensus of the ELS subcommittee was that all of the
mills in the Province will be able to meet BOD and TSS monthly
production-based limits of 5 kg/tonne following the
installation of BAT(EA). Similarly, the subcommittee agreed
that all of the mills that bleach pulp using chlorine and
chlorine-containing compounds will be able to meet an AOX
monthly production-based limit of 1.5 kg/tonne. Maximum daily
BOD, TSS and AOX limits were subsequently calculated by
dividing the monthly limit for each parameter by the
respective monthly variability factor and by the average
production-based flowrate.
Table 5.11 lists the BOD, TSS and AOX LTA concentration
values that were calculated using BAT mill performance data
and the 'adjustments' that were made by the ELS subcommittee
for the purpose of setting effluent limits.
Table 5.11
Calculated and Adjusted Long-term Average Concentrations
Calculated BAT Long-term Adjusted Long-term
Parameter Average Concentration Average Concentration
(mg/L) (mg/L)
oo eee a ee
otal Suspended Sold
eT Te
Table 5.12 presents the daily and monthly production-
based limits that were developed by the ELS subcommittee. The
limits were calculated for each parameter be multiplying the
LTA concentration for the parameter to be limited by the
appropriate parameter variability factor and by the average
production-based flowrate of 86 m’/tonne. In order to
calculate mill-specific effluent limits, it is necessary to
multiply the production-based limits by the mill's reference
production rate.
June 3, 1992. - 38 - Chapter 5
ee Occ — —
G seideyd -6E - ‘Z66L ‘€ eunr
e}e1 UONONPOJd 89U818J91 || X JWI] paseq-UONONPOIg = JUN III
SION
81}1| Jed SwesBousIwW =
€17000°0
6Z1000'0 6Z1000'0 0£t0000' 0
88100'0 eZ€00'0 éZ100'0
wuniuowwy
L920 veso'o ; ; snjd eluowwy
(XOV) 9PHEH
9iueB10 ejqequospy
puewsg jejo,
ot. 5 2 ARR (00g
~ (euuoy/6y) | (euuoy/5x) (9UU01/B>) (euuo}/6y) 40}9e4 40}9e4 (7/6w) JOJOWeIeY
Hu AjyuOW Jui Ayieg V171 peyewns3 AujIqeueA Aujiqeue A FR PAL
AIJuoW AIeq
SJ] Bulpeo7 paseq-uolonposg papuawwosay 28]]IWWO9qNS S73
CLS eiqel
juewns0q luewdo|8n8q 40}98S 1e8de4 pue ding YSIN
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Ministry and Industry Review
Following the ELS subcommittee deliberations, the draft
production-based limits were presented to the Ministry and
Industry for internal review. Following their review of the
proposed limits, industry argued that many of the proposed
limits were too stringent and would place an undue financial
burden on some of the Ontario mills. Industry felt that two
issues in particular warranted further consideration, namely
the need for biological treatment of mill effluent and ee
basis for the AOX limit.
The ministry review of the proposed production-based
limits indicated that the limits were not stringent enough
because some of the mills were currently operating at levels
well below the proposed limits.
In order to resolve the industry and ministry concerns
with the limits recommended by the ELS subcommittee, a Pulp
and Paper Working Group was formed within the ministry to
review the ELS subcommittee recommended limits and, if
necessary, develop a more appropriate set of limits that could
be applied to the mills in the sector.
The Pulp and Paper Working Group
The Pulp and Paper Working Group conducted a detailed
review of all of the available information including the
recommendations of the report on Best Available Technology for
the Ontario Pulp and Paper Industry, the 1990 MISA effluent
monitoring data, existing Control Orders and Certificates of
Approval and pulp and paper regulations in other provinces,
states and countries.
The Pulp and Paper Working Group specifically reviewed
the LTA concentration values which the ELS subcommittee used
to develop the preliminary effluent limits and reviewed the
arguments put forth by industry against using the levels
recommended by the BAT consultant. Based on this review, the
Pulp and Paper Working Group accepted the LTA concentration
values recommended by the ELS subcommittee.
Please Note: The issue of AOX is still under review
within the Ministry.
June 3, 1992. - 40 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The Pulp and Paper working group had a major concern with
the approach of applying one set of effluent limits to all
mills in the sector in that many of the mills are currently
operating at levels well below the effluent limits proposed by
the ELS subcommittee. The working group looked at various
ways and means of adjusting the proposed effluent limits to
accommodate the variety of mills in the sector and finally
concluded that the most appropriate approach to take would be
to adjust the limits in accordance with production-based
flowrates for each category of mill identified in the MISA
Effluent Monitoring Regulation.
Accordingly the Pulp and Paper Working Group developed
the category specific flowrates listed in Table 5.13 and
described in detail below:
- Table 5.13
Category Specific Production-Based Flowrates
Production-Based Flowrates .
Category (m“/tonne)
Sulphate (krafl ER PSU ECTS
Sophie Mechania
FE
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Zann Leta
€ For mills in the Sulphate (Kraft) Category, the
working group agreed that the flowrate of 86
m’/tonne of production, which was the flowrate on
which the ELS subcommittee had based its PEOPOEES
limits, was appropriate.
e For the mills in the Sulphite-Mechanical Category,
the working group acknowledged that the BAT
consultant recommended flowrate of 50 m’/tonne was
overly restrictive and that a flowrate of 86
m?/tonne was overly excessive. Therefore, the
working group recommended that a flowrate of 75
m/tonne of production, which recognizes that these
mills do not have to undertake the extensive pulp
washing of kraft mills, should be used for mills in
this category.
June 3, 1992. -41- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
o For the mills in the Corrugating and
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Categories, the
working group accepted that the flowrate of 50
m/tonne of production recommended by the BAT
consultant was appropriate.
Category Specific Production-Based Limits
The category specific production-based flowrates listed
in Table 5.13 were used to recalculate production-based limits
for each of the four pulp and paper sector categories. Table
5.14 lists the production-based limits for the sulphate
(kraft) category that were calculated using an average
production-based flowrate of 86 m’/tonne of product.
Tables 5.15 to 5.17 list the production-based limits for
the sulphite-mechanical, corrugating, and deinking/board/fine
papers/tissue categories respectively that were calculated
using the average production-based flowrates of 75, 50, and 50
m?/tonne of product respectively.
In order to calculate the mill-specific maximum daily and
average monthly loading limits (kg/day), the category specific
production-based limits are multiplied by the reference
production rate for each mill.
Reference Production Rates
The reference production rates used in the calculation of
the daily and monthly loading limits were calculated by the
BAT consultant and are based on production data that were
supplied to the consultant by each of the mills.
The reference production rate for each mill was
calculated as the production rate that was exceeded on only
10% of the days that the mill operated during the production
period. It reflects the mill production rate under normal
operating conditions and corresponds quite closely with
standard engineering design assumptions for selecting mill
equipment. ;
The total mill reference production rate is used to
calculate daily and monthly limits for all of the parameters
and refers to the number of tonnes of machine dry product
leaving the mill.
June 3, 1992. - 42 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.14
Sulphate (Kraft) Category Production-Based Loading Limits
(kg/tonne)
Estimated Long-
term Average
Parameter Daily Limit Monthly Limit Loading
|BOD, 5 day, 3.47
} Total Demand
Total Phosphorus 0.133 0.0806
Chloroform 0.00372 0.00188
0.0834
0.00122
0.0000430
0.000206
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Non-Acutely Lethal
Legend
NM = Non-Measurable
Note
Mill Limit = Production-based limit x mill reference production rate
June 3, 1992. - 43 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.15
Sulphite-Mechanical Category Production-Based Loading
Limits (kg/tonne)
Estimated Long-
term Average
Parameter Daily Limit Monthly Limit Loading
BOD, 5 day, 8.76 4.36 3.03
Total Demand
Total Phosphorus ek 0.0703 0.0533
0.00325 0.00164 0.00107
0.000113 0.000113 0.0000375
Bice EE 0.000360 0.000360 0.000180
Toxicity Non-Acutely Lethal
Legend
NM = Non-Measurable
Note
Mill Limit = Production-based limit x mill reference production rate
June 3, 1992. - 44 - Chapter 5
oo
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.16
Corrugating Category Production-Based Loading Limits
(kg/tonne)
Estimated Long-
| term Average
|Parameter Daily Limit Monthly Limit Loading
BOD, 5 day, 2.91 2.02
Total Demand +
Total Suspended Solids 2.26
iT Phosphorus 0.0770 0.0469 0.0355
oform
,8
,8
d
tal
hlor
0.0000750 0.0000250
HAS 0.000240 0.000240 0.000120
1377
2 -TCDF
Toxicity
Oo ,
0.00217 0.00109 0.000710
Non-Acutely Lethal
Legen ‘
NM = Non-Measurable
Note
Mill Limit = Production-based limit x mill reference production rate
June 3, 1992. - 45 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector ; ; Development Document
Table 5.17
Deinking/Board/Fine Papers/Tissue Category Production-
Based Loading Limits (kg/tonne)
Estimated Long-
term Average
Parameter Daily Limit Monthly Limit Loading
B 5 day, 2.91 2:02
li Demand
form
8
,8
ity
d
Total Suspended Solids Pepe 2.26
ee eee bs
eS eee
Toluene 0.0000750 0.0000750 0.0000250
0.000240 0.000240 0.000120
OD,
otal
0.00217 0.00109 ‘0.000710 .
oxic
C
2
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Legen
NM = Non-Measurable
Note
Mill Limit = Production-based limit x mill reference production rate
June 3, 1992. - 46 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.18 lists the total mill reference production rate
that was used in the calculation of the daily and monthly
average effluent loading limits for each mill.
Daily and Monthly Loading Limits
For each parameter, daily and monthly loading limits were
calculated for each mill by multiplying the production-based
limits by the mill reference production rate. The daily and
monthly loading limits for each parameter are listed on a
mill-by-mill basis in Schedule 2 of the Effluent Limits
Regulation (see Appendix I).
"Not to Exceed" Concentration Limits
Daily "not to exceed" concentration limits were developed
for all of the regulated parameters in order to control the
discharge of highly concentrated effluents that may cause
environmental degradation. The "not to exceed" limits were
calculated by multiplying the LTA concentration for each
parameter by the square of the parameter's daily variability
factor. It is assumed that the square of the variability
factor will take into account all of the variability that may
occur within the day. A maximum cap of four times the
adjusted LTA concentration was imposed on all of the
parameters in order to control the variability that occurs
within the day to an acceptable level. Table 5.19 lists the
"not to exceed" concentrations for each parameter to be
limited.
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
The proposed effluent limits for the MISA Pulp and Paper
Sector represent a significant step forward in the overall
protection of aquatic life and human health in Ontario and are
a step forward towards the ministry's goal of the virtual
elimination and zero discharge of persistent toxic substances.
Table 5.20 presents the total load removed, the remaining load
and the percent removal for each of the limited parameters
with the exception of the special parameters 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
2,3,7,8-TCDF which will be controlled to non-measurable
levels.
June 3, 1992. - 47 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.18
Reference and Average Production Rates
Average Production Rate | Reference Production Rate
oe (tonne/day)
Note: Reference production rates are based on the data supplied to the BAT consultants.
June 3, 1992. - 48 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Table 5.19
"Not to Exceed" Concentrations
Analytical Test Group |Parameter "Not to Exceed”
Concentration
[fa [Ammonia plus Ammonum | 4m
OSE TS
[TE Tori Suspended Sons (TSS) [180 moh
nan ne LS
pees, cs at le ce Pur
ea LEE LI
PMS (EOD. S day, Total Demand | 7m
Legend
NM = Non-Measurable
Table 5.20
Loading Removal Summary (kg/day)
For the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
: MISA 1990 Total Load |Estimated Load Percent
Parameter Loading Removed Remaining Removal
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand 340,000 290,000 50,000
8
Total Suspended Solids 97,100 41,200 ‘| 55,900 | 42- |
Total Phosphorus
[Ammonia plus Ammonium [986 | 244 | 1.200
ARE IE
753
oluene 0,620
Prenat [#5
Note: Total phosphorus and ammonia plus ammonium discharges may increase due to the
installation of biological effluent treatment. —
=
June 3, 1992. - 49 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector ‘ Development Document
The following benefits to aquatic life, wildlife and
human health are expected following industry compliance with
the proposed effluent limits:
Benefits to Aquatic Life
Mill effluents that are currently acutely lethal
will be rendered non-acutely lethal to rainbow
trout and Daphnia magna. This will protect fish
and other forms of aquatic life.
Loadings of persistent bioaccumulative substances
will be reduced in areas with sediments already
impacted by in-situ pollutants.
Discharges of oxygen-demanding wastes will be
reduced, permitting the survival of aquatic life in
new locations and increasing the margin of safety
from oxygen depletion in others.
Reduction of oxygen-demanding wastes and suspended
solids will limit degradation of river bottoms
which may be currently unsuitable for aquatic life
due to low oxygen and will reduce deposition on
spawning grounds.
Benefits to Wildlife
June 3, 1992.
Reduced persistent bioaccumulative substance
accumulation by top aquatic predators such as
salmonids and possible reduction in toxic effects
on top aquatic predator populations.
Reduced persistent bioaccumulative substance
accumulation in fish-eating wildlife and possible
reduction in detrimental effects on bird
populations.
- 50 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Benefits to Human Health
June 3, 1992.
Reduced persistent bioaccumulative substance
accumulation of chlorinated dioxins and furans in
sport fish will permit increased consumption.
Aesthetic improvements in water and shoreline
quality near mill outfalls.
Reduced tainting of fish flesh and water due to
phenols.
-51- Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
June 3, 1992. - 52 - Chapter 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
REFEREN
ie Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1990). MISA Issue
Resolution Process Issue Resolution Committee Reports.
Toronto, Ontario. ISBN 0-7729-7354-7
Pn Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1986). Municipal-
Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA). A Policy and
Program Statement of the Government of Ontario on
Controlling Municipal and Industrial Discharges into
Surface Waters. Toronto, Ontario.
June 3, 1992. - 53 - Chapter 5
THE LIMITS REGULATION
CHAPTER 6
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
MISA Pulp and
Paper Sector
Table of Contents
6.1 THE LIMITS REGULATION ....
BUGDOSC Hs) CCR NS RL
Application Unies 1
Compliance mes se
BYSRASSES RC TC te
Sampling Points .
Sampling and Analytical
Flow Measurement...
Limits Monitoring...
Chronic Toxicity Testing
Assessment Monitoring .
Quality Control Monitoring
Storm Water Control Study .
6.2 RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING
Sosie UUVOOMe: SFG Gabe SiG SET te ne
REFERENCES
List of Tables
6.1 Monitoring Frequency for
Limited Parameters .....
6.2 Once-Through Cooling Water Effluent
Assessment Monitoring Parameters
June 3, 1992.
Development Document
Bits Some L
Se SAS al
raide ilot al
AO 6.55% Où 0 ay
Ae is RS TRE 2
e e . . L] 2
: eerie: | 27
rer re : 4
St Ma Us CS 4
Rien telle alec ts 6
se ane 6
. 2 6
eo Ve: co 0 7
le ets ie 7
Cty OB lo Je 8
: Sen Payer ate 9
SR Nee PT ELITE 5
Pian eee ee aes 6
Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
6.1 THE LIMITS REGULATION
Purpose
The purpose of the Limits Regulation is to control the
quality of effluent that is discharged directly to surface
watercourses by pulp and paper mills in Ontario. This will be
done by limiting the concentrations and loadings of the
pollutants that are discharged in mill effluent and by
requiring all effluent to be non-acutely lethal. The Limits
Regulation will also monitor the discharge of all once-through
cooling water effluent streams in order to ensure that these
streams are non-lethal and contaminant-free.
Application
| The Regulation applies to the twenty-seven direct
discharge pulp and paper mills in Ontario listed in Schedule
1 of the Regulation.
Compliance
The compliance requirements of the Regulation come into
effect three (3) years after the Regulation is promulgated.
The regulated limits listed in Schedule 2 of the Regulation
apply to process effluent. If a mill fails to comply with the
requirements of Schedule 2 and a limit is exceeded, then it is
subject to prosecution by the Ministry. The Regulation
contains the following types of process effluent limits:
1) "Not to exceed" concentration limits. The
concentration limits listed in Column 3 of Schedule
2 must not be exceeded at any time while a mill is
discharging process effluent. In order to ensure
compliance with these limits, the Ministry will
periodically collect process effluent samples from
each mill and measure the concentration of each
parameter for which there is a concentration limit.
2) Daily plant loading limits. A mill must not exceed
the daily plant loading limits listed in Column 4
of Schedule 2 on any operating day.
June 3, 1992. -1- Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
3) Monthly average loading limits. A mill must not
exceed the monthly average plant loading limits
listed in Column 5 of Schedule 2 during any month
of the year. ;
4) PH. A mill must not discharge process effluent
that has a pH below 6.0 or above 9.5 at any time.
5) Acute lethality. A mill must not discharge an
effluent that is acutely lethal to either rainbow
trout or Daphnia magna. An acutely lethal effluent
is one that kills more than fifty percent of the
test species in 100 percent (undiluted) effluent.
By-Passes
The Regulation prohibits emergency overflow discharges.
All mill effluent must be discharged through designated
sampling points only.
Sampling Points —
A mill must designate sampling points on all process
effluent and once-through cooling water effluent streams. All
samples collected for the Regulation must be taken from
designated sampling points.
Sampling and Analytical Procedures
In order to ensure the accurate sampling and analysis of
effluent samples, standard sampling and analytical procedures
have developed by the Ministry. The Ministry protocol on
sampling and analysis! outlines how a mill must coliect a
sample, how the sample should be analyzed, and the minimum
analytical method detection level that the laboratory must
meet when analyzing the sample.
Each mill must guarantee that all sampling equipment is
maintained properly in order to ensure that a representative
sample is always collected.
June 3, 1992. -2- Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Loading and Flow Calculations
Daily Plant Loadings. In order to determine compliance
with the daily plant loading limits, a daily plant loading for
each limited parameter must be calculated. This is done by
multiplying the analytical result of the monitored parameter
by the flowrate of the monitored effluent stream for the day
of sampling. The following rules must be observed when
calculating parameter loadings:
° If the parameter was not detected in the effluent
and the method detection limit for the parameter is
greater than or equal to 1/10th of the analytical
method detection limit listed in the Ministry
protocol on sampling and analysis!, then the value
of the method detection limit must be used.
° If the parameter was not detected in the effluent
and the method detection limit for the parameter is
less than 1/10th of the analytical method detection
limit listed in the Ministry protocol on sampling
and analysis!, then the value of zero must be used.
If the calculated loading of the limited parameter exceeds the
daily plant loading limit for that parameter, then the mill is
considered to be out of compliance with the requirements of
the Regulation.
Monthly Average Plant Loadings. In order to determine
compliance with the monthly average plant loading limits, a.
monthly average plant loading for each limited parameter must
be calculated. This is done by taking the average (arithmetic
mean) of the daily plant loadings reported for the month. If
the calculated loading of the limited parameter exceeds the
monthly average plant loading limit for that parameter, then
the mill is considered to be out of compliance with the
requirements of the Regulation.
Effluent Volumes. A mill must calculate the daily plant
volume of process effluent that is discharged each day that
the mill is in operation. The mill must also calculate the
daily plant volume of once-through cooling water effluent that
is discharged on the days that once-through cooling water
effluent samples are collected.
June 3, 1992. -3- Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
At the end of each month the mill must calculate the
monthly average volume of effluent discharged during the month
by taking the average (arithmetic mean) of the daily plant
volumes reported for the month. ;
Flow Measurement
In order to determine daily and monthly plant loadings,
each mill must continuously measure the daily flow of all
process effluent streams. Each flow measurement device must:
e be installed properly and be easily accessible for
inspection by a provincial officer; and,
e be accurate to within +15%.
Each mill must also measure the flow of once-through
cooling water on the day that samples are collected. Each flow
measurement device must:
e be maintained in the same manner as the process
effluent flow measurement devices: and,
e be accurate to within +20%.
Limits Monitoring
Parameters. Pulp and paper mills must monitor process
effluent for the following chemical parameters:
pH
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Phosphorous
Total Suspended Solids
Chloroform
Toluene
Phenol
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorinated dibenzofuran
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
June 3, 1992. -4- Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Process Effluent. Using 24-hour composite sampling
techniques, each mill is required to collect process effluent
samples daily, weekly, and quarterly. The daily, weekly, and
quarterly samples must be analyzed for the parameters for
which the frequency of monitoring is indicated in Column 2 of
Schedule 2 as being daily, weekly, and quarterly respectively.
The frequency of monitoring for each limited parameter is
shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Monitoring Frequency for
Limited Parameters
|
In order to comply with the pH monitoring requirement of
the Regulation, a mill must collect three grab samples daily,
no sooner than six hours apart, and analyze each sample for
PH. |
Acute Lethality Testing. During the first year that the
Regulation is in effect, each mill is required to conduct.
monthly acute lethality tests in order to determine whether
the mill's process effluent or once-through cooling water
effluent is acutely lethal to rainbow trout or Daphnia magna.
The Environment Canada protocols on acute toxicity testing”
describe the sampling and analytical procedures that have to
be followed when conducting the acute lethality tests.
If a mill passes twelve consecutive acute lethality
tests, then the mill is allowed to monitor acute lethality on
a quarterly basis.
June 3, 1992. -5- Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Chronic Toxicity Testing
When a mill passes twelve consecutive acute lethality
tests and begins to perform the tests quarterly, it is
required to monitor chronic toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia and
fathead minnows once every six months. These 7-day tests
study Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction inhibition and
survivability and fathead minnow growth inhibition in 100%
process effluent and 100% once-through cooling water. The
Environment Canada protocols on chronic toxicity testing“
describe the sampling and analytical procedures that have to
be followed when conducting the chronic toxicity tests.
Assessment Monitoring
Once-Through Cooling Water. Once-through cooling water
effluent has to be monitored once per week for assessment
purposes. Table 6.2 lists the parameters that have to be
monitored.
Table 62%. |
Once-Through Cooling Water Effluent
Assessment Monitoring Parameters
RE A TI
LEE fPrssoives Organic Carbon (DOC) _
i
issolved Organic Carbon (DOC)
Specific Conductance
8 Total Suspended Solids
Quality Control Monitoring
Each mill must collect once per year from one process
effluent sampling point:
e a travelling blank sample for all the limited
parameters except pH;
e a duplicate or replicate sample for all of the
limited parameters; and
e a travelling spiked blank sample for chloroform,
toluene and phenol.
June 3, 1992. -6- Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
The samples for quality control monitoring must be collected
on the same day as the regular compliance monitoring samples
for the limited parameters. Procedures for collecting these
quality control samples are outlined in the Ministry of the
Environment "Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of
Industrial/Municipal Wastewater!".
Storm Water Control Study
Each mill must complete a storm water control study
within two years after the Regulation is enforced according to
the Ministry of the Environment protocol for conducting a
storm water control study’.
6.2 RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING
Each mill must keep all records (concentration, flow and
toxicity) in an electronic format for each process effluent
and once-through cooling water effluent stream. The mill must
also keep records of all malfunctions related to effluent
sampling, chemical analysis, toxicity testing, and flow
measurement or other problems that interfere with meeting the
requirements of the Regulation. All records must be kept on
file for five years.
Each mill must provide to the Ministry:
e An annual summary of all test results
(concentration, flow and toxicity) and all non-
compliance events that exceeded loading or pH
limits on or before June ist of each year;
e A . three-month summary of all test results
(concentration, flow and toxicity) and all non-
compliance events that exceeded loading or pH
limits within 45 days of the end of the three-month
period;
e A report on any by-passes as soon as possible; and
e A summary of all chronic toxicity test results
within 60 days after the semi-annual period in
which the samples were collected.
June 3, 1992. -7- Chapter 6
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
6.3 TIMING
Each mill must start monitoring and reporting the results
of all tests 90 days after the Regulation has been filed. The
limits do not come into effect until the fourth year after the
Regulation has been filed.
June 3, 1992. -8- Chapter 6
ls
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
REFERENCES
1e Ontario Ministry of the Environment (1991). "Protocol
for the Sampling and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal
Wastewater". Toronto, Ontario.
7e Environment Canada (1990). "Reference Method for
Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Rainbow
Trout". Toronto, Ontario.
3 Environment Canada (1990). "Reference Method for
Determining Acute Lethality of Effluents to Daphnia
magna". Toronto, Ontario.
4. Environment Canada (1992). Test of Reproduction and
Survival Using the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia".
Toronto, Ontario.
5e Environment Canada (1992). "Test of Larval Growth and
Survival Using Fathead Minnows". Toronto, Ontario.
6. Ministry of the Environment (1992). "MISA Protocol For
Conducting A Storm Water Control Study". Toronto,
Ontario.
June 3, 1992. -9- Chapter 6
THE EFFLUENT LIMITS
REGULATION
APPENDIX I
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
Ontario Regulation 760/93
Made Nov. 24, 1993
Filed November 25, 1993
Ontario Gazette December 11, 1993
REGULATION MADE UNDER THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
EFFLUENT MONITORING AND EFFLUENT LIMITS - PULP AND PAPER SECTOR
PART I
GENERAL
Interpretation
1.-(1) In this Regulation,
"AOX" means adsorbable organic halide;
"assessment parameter" means a parameter that is listed in
Schedule 3;
"bleached pulp" means pulp that has been bleached through the use
of chlorine or chlorine compounds;
ISLEY water" means recirculating water that is discharged
from a cooling water system for the purpose of controlling
the level of water in the cooling water system or for the
purpose of discharging from the cooling water system
materials contained in the cooling water system the further
build-up of which would impair the operation of the system;
"cooling water effluent" means water and associated material that
is used in an industrial process for the purpose of removing
heat and that has not, by design, come into contact with
process materials, but does not include blowdown water;
"cooling water effluent monitoring stream" means a cooling water
effluent stream on which a sampling point is established
under section 8;
"cooling water effluent sampling point" means a sampling point
established on a cooling water effluent stream under section
8;
"Director", in relation to obligations of a discharger, means a
Director appointed under section 5 of the Act and
responsible for the region in which the discharger's plant
is located and includes an alternate named by the Director;
"discharger" means an owner or person in occupation or having the
charge, management or control of a plant to which this
Regulation applies;
"dried" includes machine dried and, in relation to bleached pulp
or other types of pulp, means dried in a manner so that the
moisture content of the pulp does not exceed 10 per cent;
"finished product" means pulp, paper and paper products that have
completed the production process at a plant, and includes
bleached pulp;
"limited parameter", in relation to a plant, means a parameter
for which a limit is specified for the plant in column 3 or
4 of Schedule 2;
“pick up", in relation to a sample, means pick up for the purpose
of transportation to and analysis at a laboratory;
"plant" means an industrial facility and the developed property,
waste disposal sites and wastewater treatment facilities
associated with it;
"process change" means a change in equipment, production
processes, process materials or treatment processes;
"process effluent" means,
(a) effluent that, by design, has come into contact
with process materials,
(b) blowdown water,
(c) effluent that results from cleaning or maintenance
operations at a plant during a period when all or
part of the plant is shut down,
(d) effluent from a waste disposal site at a plant,
(e) effluent from a bark storage site at a plant,
(f) effluent that is discharged from an intake water
treatment operation at a plant, but does not
include effluent that is discharged from an intake
water screening operation at a plant, and
FF |
(g) any effluent described in clauses (a) to (f)
combined with cooling water effluent or storm water
effluent;
"process effluent monitoring stream" means a process effluent
stream on which a sampling point is established under
section 8;
"process effluent sampling point" means a sampling point
established on a process effluent stream under section 8;
"process materials", in relation to a discharger's plant, means
raw materials for use in an industrial process at the plant,
manufacturing intermediates produced at the plant, or
products: or by-products of an industrial process at the
plant, but does not include chemicals added to cooling water
for the purpose of controlling organisms, fouling and
corrosion;
"pulp" means processed cellulose fibre that is derived from wood,
, other plant material or recycled paper products;
"quarter" means all or part of a period of three consecutive
months beginning on the first day of January, April, July or
October;
"semi-annual period" means all or part of a period of six months
beginning on the first day of January or July;
"specific parameter", in relation to a plant, means 2,3,7,8 -
tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran, and 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and
furan congeners;
"storm water effluent" means run-off from a storm event or thaw
that is not used in any industrial process.
(2) For greater certainty, this Regulation applies both to
effluent streams that discharge continuously and to effluent
streams that discharge intermittently.
(3) An obligation on a discharger to do a thing under this
Regulation is discharged if another person has done it on the
discharger's behalf.
Purpose
2. The purpose of this Regulation is to monitor and control
the quality of effluent discharged from the plants listed in
Schedule 1 and to require dischargers to prepare reports. that
describe methods that could be used to work toward the Ministry's
4
goal of eliminating the generation of AOX at dischargers' plants
by the year 2002.
Application
3.-(1) This Regulation applies only with respect to the
plants listed in Schedule 1.
(2) This Regulation does not apply with respect to the
discharge of effluent to a municipal sewer.
Requirements Under Approvals, Orders, etc.
4. For greater certainty, the requirements of this
Regulation are in addition to and independent of requirements in
an approval, order, direction or other instrument issued under
any Act.
‘Non-application of General Effluent Monitoring Regulation
5. This Regulation is not a Sectoral Effluent Monitoring
Regulation within the meaning of Ontario Regulation 695/88.
By-passes
6. Beginning on January 1, 1996, a discharger shall not
permit process effluent to be discharged from the discharger's
plant unless the process effluent flows past a sampling point
established on a process effluent stream in accordance with this
Regulation before being discharged.
Sampling and Analytical Procedures
7.-(1) Each discharger shall carry out the establishment of
sampling point obligations of this Regulation and the sampling
and analysis obligations of this Regulation, including quality
control sampling and analysis obligations, in accordance with the
procedures described in the Ministry of Environment and Energy
publication entitled "Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of
Industrial/Municipal Wastewater", dated July, 1993.
(2) Each discharger shall maintain the sampling equipment
used at the discharger's plant for sampling required by this
Regulation in a way that ensures that the samples collected at
the plant under this Regulation accurately reflect the level of
discharge of each limited parameter, assessment parameter and
specific parameter from the plant. i
PART II
SAMPLING POINTS
Establishment and Elimination of Sampling Points
8.-(1) Each discharger shall, by February 23, 1994,
establish a sampling point on each process effluent and cooling
water effluent stream at the discharger's plant, as necessary so
that the plant loadings calculated under sections 12 and 13 for
each limited parameter and assessment parameter and the
concentrations determined for each specific parameter accurately
reflect the level of discharge of each such parameter from the
plant.
(2) If circumstances change so that a new sampling point is
necessary at a discharger's plant in order to permit the
calculation of plant loadings under sections 12 and 13 for each
limited parameter and assessment parameter and the determination
of concentrations for each specific parameter that accurately
reflect the level of discharge of each such parameter from the
plant, the discharger shall, within thirty days of the change,
establish the new sampling point.
(3) A discharger may eliminate a sampling point established
under subsection (1) or (2) if the sampling point is no longer
necessary to permit the calculation of plant loadings under
sections 12 and 13 for each limited parameter and assessment
parameter and the determination of concentrations for each
specific parameter that accurately reflect the level of discharge
of each such parameter from the plant.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a plant loading for a
parameter or a concentration for a parameter that is based on
analytical results that are significantly affected by dilution or
masking due to the merging of streams upstream of a sampling
point at a plant is not a loading or a concentration that
accurately reflects the level of discharge of the parameter from
the plant.
(5) In determining what is necessary to meet a discharger's
obligations to establish sampling points under this section, the
discharger shall consider both which streams should have sampling
points and where on a stream a sampling point should be located.
Reports on Sampling Points
9.-(1) By March 7, 1994, each discharger shall submit to
the Director a list and plot plan showing the sampling points
established under this Regulation at the discharger's plant as of
February 23, 1994.
(2) Within thirty days after establishing a sampling point
under this Regulation that is not shown on a list and plot plan
submitted under this section, the discharger shall give the ~
Director a written notice describing the location of the sampling
point, together with a revised list and plot plan showing the
sampling point.
(3) Within thirty days after eliminating a sampling point
under this Regulation that is shown on a list and plot plan
submitted under this section, the discharger shall give the
Director a written notice describing where the sampling point
used to be, together with a revised list and plot plan without
the sampling point.
Use of Sampling Points Established Under This Part
10. Subject to section 22, each discharger shall use the
sampling points established under this Part for all sampling
required by this Regulation.
PART III
CALCULATION OF LOADINGS
Calculation of Loadings - General
11.-(1) For the purposes of performing a calculation under
sections 12 and 13, a discharger shall use the actual analytical
result obtained by the laboratory.
(2) Despite subsection (1), where the actual analytical
result is less than one-tenth of the analytical method detection
limit set out in the Ministry of Environment and Energy
publication entitled "Protocol for the Sampling and Analysis of
Industrial/Municipal Wastewater" dated July, 1993, the discharger
shall use the value zero for the purpose of performing a
calculation under sections 12 and 13.
(3) Each discharger shall ensure that each calculation of a
process effluent loading required by section 12 is performed as
soon as reasonably possible after the analytical result on which
the calculation is based becomes available to the discharger.
(4) Each discharger shall ensure that each calculation of a
cooling water effluent loading required by section 13 is
performed in time to comply with subsection 34(4).
Calculation of Loadings - Process Effluent
12.-(1) Each discharger shall calculate, in kilograms, a
daily process effluent stream loading for each limited parameter
in each process effluent monitoring stream of the discharger for
each day on which a sample is collected under this Regulation
from the stream for analysis for the parameter.
(2) When calculating a daily stream loading under subsection
(1), the discharger shall multiply, with the necessary adjustment
of units to yield a result in kilograms, the analytical result
obtained from the sample for the parameter by the daily volume of
effluent, as determined under section 27, for the stream for the
day.
(3) Each discharger shall calculate, in kilograms, a daily
process effluent plant loading for each limited parameter for
each day for which the discharger is required to calculate a
daily process effluent stream loading for the parameter under
subsection (1).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a daily process
effluent plant loading for a parameter for a day is the sum, in
kilograms, of the daily process effluent stream loadings for che
parameter calculated under subsection (1) for the day.
(5) Where a discharger calculates only one daily process
effluent stream loading for a parameter for a day under
subsection (1), the daily process effluent plant loading for the
parameter for the day for the purposes of subsection (3) is the
single daily process effluent stream loading for the parameter
for the day.
(6) Each discharger shall calculate, in kilograms, a monthly
average process effluent plant loading for each limited parameter
for each month in which a sample is collected under this
Regulation more than once from a process effluent monitoring
stream at the discharger's plant for analysis for the parameter.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), a monthly average
process effluent plant loading for a parameter for a month is the
arithmetic mean of the daily process effluent plant loadings for
the parameter calculated under subsection (3) for the month.
Calculation of Loadings - Cooling Water
13.-(1) Each discharger shall calculate, in kilograms, a
daily cooling water effluent stream loading for each assessment
parameter in each cooling water effluent monitoring stream of the
discharger for each day on which a sample is collected under this
Regulation from the stream for analysis for the parameter.
(2) When calculating a daily stream loading under subsection
(1), the discharger shall multiply, with the necessary adjustment
of units to yield a result in kilograms, the analytical result
obtained from the sample for the parameter by the daily volume of
effluent, as determined under section 27, for the stream for the
day.
(3) Each discharger shall calculate, in kilograms, a daily
cooling water effluent plant loading for each assessment
parameter for each day for which the discharger is required to
calculate a daily cooling water effluent stream loading for the
parameter under subsection (1).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a daily cooling
water effluent plant loading for a parameter for a day is the
sum, in kilograms, of the daily cooling water effluent stream
loadings for the parameter calculated under subsection (1) for
the day.
(5) Where a discharger calculates only one daily cooling
water effluent stream loading for a parameter for a day under
subsection (1), the daily cooling water effluent plant loading
for the parameter for the day for the purposes of subsection (3)
is the single daily cooling water effluent stream loading for the
parameter for the day.
(6) Each discharger shall calculate, in kilograms, a monthly
average cooling water effluent plant loading for each assessment
parameter for each month in which a sample is collected under
this Regulation more than once from a cooling water effluent
monitoring stream at the discharger's plant for analysis for the
parameter.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), a monthly average
cooling water effluent plant loading for a parameter for a month
is the arithmetic mean of the daily cooling water effluent plant
loadings for the parameter calculated under subsection (3) for
the month.
10
PART IV
PARAMETER AND LETHALITY LIMITS
Parameter Limits
14.-(1) Subject to subsection (2) and section 15, each
discharger shall ensure that each daily process effluent plant
loading calculated for a parameter under section 12 in connection
with the discharger's plant does not exceed the daily plant
loading limit specified for the parameter and the plant in Column
3 of Schedule 2.
(2) Subject to section 15, each discharger for which a daily
plant loading limit for AOX is listed in Column 3 of Schedule 2
shall ensure that each daily process effluent plant loading
calculated for the parameter under section 12 in connection with
the discharger's plant,
(a) from February 23, 1994 to December 30, 1995, does
not exceed the phase-one daily plant loading limit
specified for the parameter and the plant in Column
3 of Schedule 2;
(b) from December 31, 1995 to December 30, 1999, does
not exceed the phase-two daily plant loading limit
. specified for the parameter and the plant in Column
3 of Schedule 2; and
(c) on and after December 31, 1999, does not exceed the
phase-three daily plant loading limit specified for
the parameter and the plant in Column 3 of Schedule
ite
(3) Subject to subsection (4) and section 15, each
discharger shall ensure that each monthly average process
effluent plant loading calculated for a parameter under section
12 in connection with the discharger's plant does not exceed the
monthly average plant loading limit specified for the parameter
and the plant in Column 4 of Schedule 2.
(4) Subject to section 15, each discharger for which a
monthly average plant loading limit for AOX is listed in Column 4
of Schedule 2 shall ensure that each monthly average process
effluent plant loading calculated for the parameter under section
12 in connection with the discharger's plant,
(a) from February 23, 1994 to December 30, 1995, does
not exceed the phase-one monthly average plant
loading limit specified for the parameter and the
plant in Column 4 of Schedule 2;
11
(b) from December 31, 1995 to December 30, 1999, does
not exceed the phase-two monthly average plant
loading limit specified for the parameter and the
plant in Column 4 of Schedule 2; and
(c) on and after December 31, 1999, does not exceed the
phase-three monthly average plant loading limit
specified for the parameter and the plant in Column
4 of Schedule 2.
(5) Each discharger shall control the quality of each
process effluent monitoring stream at the discharger's plant to
ensure that the concentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-
dioxin and the concentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
are both non-measurable in any sample collected at a process
effluent sampling point at the plant.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), the concentration of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin in a sample is non-
. measurable if analysis of the sample shows a concentration of
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin of less than 20 picograms
per litre and the concentration of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran in a sample is non-measurable if analysis
of the sample shows a concentration of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran of less than 50 picograms per litre.
(7) Each discharger shall control the quality of each
process effluent monitoring stream at the discharger's plant to
ensure that the total toxic equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8
substituted dioxin and furan congeners in any sample collected at
a process effluent sampling point at the plant, calculated in
accordance with the methods described in the Ministry of
Environment and Energy publication entitled "Protocol for the
Sampling and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal Wastewater", dated
July, 1993, does not exceed 60 picograms per litre.
(8) Subject to subsection (9), each discharger shall control
the quality of each process effluent monitoring stream at the
discharger's plant to ensure that the pH value of any sample
collected at a process effluent sampling point at the plant is
within the range of 6.0 to'9.5.
(9) Throughout any day on which a discharger has used an
alternate sampling point on a process effluent monitoring stream
for sampling required by section 22, as permitted by subsections
' 22(7) and (8), the discharger,
(a) shall control the quality of the stream to ensure
that the pH value of any sample collected at the
alternate sampling point on the stream is within
the range of 6.0 to 9.5; and
12
(b) need not comply with subsection (8) with respect to
the stream.
Revised Parameter Limits
15.-(1) Beginning on January 1, 1996, each discharger may
annually calculate a revised daily plant loading limit and a
revised monthly average plant loading limit for each limited
parameter.
(2) Despite subsection (1), beginning on January 1, 1995,
each discharger for which a limit for AOX is listed in Columns 3
and 4 of Schedule 2 may annually calculate a revised daily plant
loading limit and a revised monthly average plant loading limit
for AOX.
(3) Each discharger shall calculate, to three significant
figures, a revised daily plant loading limit for a limited
parameter by dividing the revised reference production rate of
finished product at the discharger's plant as determined under
subsection (4) by the reference production rate of finished
product specified in Schedule 4 for the discharger's plant, and
multiplying that ratio by the daily plant loading limit specified
for the parameter and the plant in Column 3 of Schedule 2.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the revised
reference production rate of finished product at a discharger's
plant is equal to the highest value of the ninetieth percentiles
of the daily production of finished product at the plant for the
three calendar years preceding the calendar year in which the
revised limit is to come into force.
(5) To determine the highest value of the ninetieth
percentiles of the daily production of finished product at the
plant for the three calendar years, the discharger shall do the
following:
1. Determine, in tonnes, the amount of dried finished
product that was produced by the plant on each day
that the plant operated in each of the three
calendar years. ©
2. For each of the three calendar years, determine the
statistically derived value that is equal to the
amount of dried finished product, produced daily by
the plant, that was exceeded on 10 per cent of the
days that the plant operated in that calender year.
3. Take the highest of the values determined under
step 2.
13
(6) The reference production rate and the revised reference
production rate to be used for the purpose of calculating a
revised daily plant loading limit for AOX are the rates of
production of bleached pulp and, for the purpose, a reference in
subsections (3) to (5) to finished product shall be deemed to be
a reference to bleached pulp.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (3), the daily plant
loading limit for AOX is the limit set out for the parameter and
the plant in Column 3 of Schedule 2 that is in effect on the
first day of January in the calendar year in which the revised
limit is to come into force.
(8) If the revised daily plant loading limit calculated for
a limited parameter under subsection (3) exceeds the daily plant
loading limit specified for the parameter and the plant in Column
3 of Schedule 2 by no more than 15 per cent, the discharger may
notify the Director in writing of the value of the revised limit
and of the value of the revised reference production rate used
for the purpose of calculating that limit.
(9) À notice under subsection (8) shall be given to the
Director in writing on or before January 31 in the calendar year
in which the revised limit is to come into force.
(10) Where a notice is given under subsection (8), the
revised daily plant loading limit calculated for the limited
parameter under subsection (3) shall be deemed to replace the
daily plant loading limit specified for the parameter and the
plant in Column 3 of Schedule 2.
(11) Despite subsection (10), the daily plant loading limit
specified for a parameter and a plant in Column 3 of Schedule 2
shall always be used for the purpose of making a calculation
under subsection (3) or for the parpese of making a determination
under subsection (8) or (14).
(12) Where a notice is given under subsection (8) with
respect to a limited parameter and a revised daily plant loading
limit is already in force with respect to the limited parameter,
the revised daily plant loading limit calculated for the limited
parameter under subsection (3) shall be deemed to replace the
revised daily plant loading limit that is currently in force.
(13) Subsections (3) to (12) apply with necessary
modifications for the purpose of calculating and using a revised
monthly average plant loading limit and, for the purpose, a
reference in those subsections to a revised daily plant loading
limit shall be deemed to be a reference to a revised monthly
average plant loading limit, a reference to a daily plant loading
limit shall be deemed to be a reference to a monthly average
14
plant loading limit, and a reference to Column 3 of Schedule 2
shall be deemed to be a reference to Column 4 of Schedule 2.
(14) If a revised limit calculated for a limited parameter
under subsection (3) exceeds the applicable limit specified for
the parameter and the plant in Column 3 or 4 of Schedule 2 by
more than 15 per cent, the discharger may apply to the Director
for approval to revise the limit.
(15) An application under subsection (14) shall be submitted
together with the results of a receiving water assessment study
that the discharger has prepared for the purpose of identifying
what effect the proposed revised limit would have on the
receiving water.
(16) The Director shall approve an application under
subsection (14) if the Director is satisfied, based on the
results of the receiving water assessment study, that the
proposed revised limit would not have an adverse effect on the
receiving water.
(17) Despite subsections (10), (12) and (16), a revised
limit that is in force with respect to AOX expires,
(a) on January 31, 1996, if a phase-one limit is used
for the purpose of the calculation of the revised
limit;
(b) on January 31, 2000, if a phase-two limit is used
for the purpose of the calculation of the revised
limit.
(18) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to relieve
a discharger of the obligation to apply for any certificate of
approval that may be required under the Ontario Water Resources
Act or the Environmental Protection Act.
Lethality Limits
16. Each discharger shall control the quality of each
process effluent monitoring stream and each cooling water
effluent monitoring stream at the discharger's plant to ensure
that each rainbow trout acute lethality test and each Daphnia
magna acute lethality test performed on any grab sample collected
at a process effluent sampling point or cooling water effluent
sampling point at the plant results in mortality for no more than
50 per cent of the test organisms in 100 per cent effluent.
15
PART V
MONITORING
Monitoring - General
17.-(1) Despite sections 18 to 26, a discharger need not
collect samples from any stream at the discharger' s plant on a
day on which there is no process effluent that is being
discharged from the plant.
(2) Where a discharger is required by this Regulation to
pick up a set of samples and analyze it for certain parameters
the discharger shall pick up a set of samples sufficient to allow
all the analyses to be performed.
(3) A discharger shall use all reasonable efforts to ensure
that all analyses required by this Regulation are completed as
soon as reasonably possible and that the results of those
analyses are made available to the discharger as soon as
reasonably possible.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), each discharger shall pick up
‘all sets of samples required to be picked up at the discharger's
plant under sections 18, 19 and 20 between the hours of 7 a.m.
and 10 a.m..
(5) If the Director is satisfied, on the basis of written
submissions from a discharger, that the circumstances at the
discharger's plant are such that it would be impractical to pick
up a set of samples from each sampling point established at the
plant under this Regulation within the time period specified in
subsection (4), the Director may give the discharger a written
notice in respect of the plant, varying the time period specified
in subsection (4).
__ (6) Subject to subsections (7) and (8), where a discharger
is required by section 18, 19 or 20 to pick up a set of samples
the discharger shall pick up a set collected over the twenty-four
hour period immediately preceding the pick-up.
(7) The twenty-four hour period referred to in subsection
(6) may be shortened or enlarged by up to three hours to permit a
discharger to take advantage of the three hour range specified in
subsection (4) or of a different three hour period specified in a
notice under subsection (5).
(8) Where a notice has been given under subsection (5) in
respect of a plant specifying a time period longer than three
hours, the twenty-four hour period referred to in subsection (6)
may be shortened or enlarged by up to that longer amount of time
16
to permit the discharger to take advantage of the time period
specified in the notice.
(9) If the circumstances at a plant change so that the
Director is satisfied that the circumstances described in
subsection (5) no longer apply at the plant, the Director may
revoke a notice given in respect of a plant under subsection (5)
by giving a notice of revocation in writing to a discharger for
the plant.
Monitoring - Process. Effluent - Daily
18.-(1) Each discharger shall, on each day, pick up a set of
samples collected at each process effluent sampling point at the
discharger's plant and shall analyze each set of samples for the
parameters for which the frequency of monitoring, as set out in
Column 2 of Schedule 2 for the discharger's plant, is daily.
(2) A discharger need not meet the requirements of
subsection (1) where it is impossible to do so because of
sampling by a provincial officer.
Monitoring - Process Effluent - Weekly
19.-(1) Each discharger shall, on one day in each week, pick
up a set of samples collected at each process effluent sampling
point at the discharger's plant and shall analyze each set of
samples for the parameters for which the frequency of monitoring,
as set out in Column 2 of Schedule 2 for the discharger's plant,
is weekly.
(2) There shall be an interval of at least four days between
successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection (1).
(3) All samples picked up under subsection (1) in a week
shall be picked up on the same day in the week.
Monitoring - Process Effluent - Quarterly
20.-(1) Each discharger shall, on one day in each quarter,
pick up a set of samples collected at each process effluent
sampling point at the discharger's plant and shall analyze each
set of samples for the parameters for which the frequency of
monitoring, as set out in Column 2 of Schedule 2 for the
discharger's plant, is quarterly.
(2) There shall be an interval of at least forty-five days
between successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection
(1).
LT
(3) All samples picked up under subsection (1) in a quarter
shall be picked up on the same day in the quarter.
Monitoring - Process Effluent - Quality Control
21.-(1) On one day in each year after 1993, on a day on
which samples are picked up at the plant under subsection 19(1),
each discharger shall collect and pick up a duplicate sample for
each sample picked up on that day under subsection 19(1) at one
_ process effluent sampling point at the discharger's plant and
shall analyze each duplicate sample for the parameters for which
the frequency of monitoring, as set out in Column 2 of Schedule 2
for the discharger's plant, is weekly.
(2) Each discharger shall prepare a travelling blank and
travelling spiked blank sample for each sample for which a
duplicate sample is picked up at the plant under subsection (1)
and shall analyze the travelling blank and travelling spiked
blank samples in accordance with the directions set out in the
Ministry of Environment and Energy publication entitled "Protocol
for the Sampling and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal
Wastewater", dated July, 1993.
(3) There shall be an interval of at least six months
between successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection
(1).
Monitoring - Process Effluent - pH Measurement
22.-(1) Each discharger shall, on each day during the time
period applicable to the plant under subsection 17(4) or (5),
collect a grab sample from each process effluent monitoring
stream at the discharger's plant and shall analyze each sample
for the parameter pH.
(2) Each discharger shall, within each twenty-four hour
period beginning with the collection of the first grab sample at
the plant under subsection (1) on each day, collect two more grab
samples from each process effluent monitoring stream at the
discharger's plant and shall analyze each sample for the
parameter pH.
(3) There shall be an interval of at least four hours
between each of the three collections at a stream under
subsections (1) and (2) in each twenty-four hour. period.
(4) Each grab sample collected under subsections (1) and (2)
shall be picked up within STS se) ES hours of when it was
collected.
18
(3) All samples picked up under subsection (1) in a quarter
shall be picked up on the same day in the quarter.
Monitoring - Process Effluent - Quality Control
21.-(1) On one day in each year after 1993, on a day on
which samples are picked up at the plant under subsection 19(1), —
each discharger shall collect and pick up a duplicate sample for
each sample picked up on that day under subsection 19(1) at one
process effluent sampling point at the discharger's plant and
shall analyze each duplicate sample for the parameters for which
the frequency of monitoring, as set out in Column 2 of Schedule 2
for the discharger's plant, is weekly.
(2) Each discharger shall prepare a travelling blank and
travelling spiked blank sample for each sample for which a
duplicate sample is picked up at the plant under subsection (1)
and shall analyze the travelling blank and travelling spiked
blank samples in accordance with the directions set out in the
Ministry of Environment and Energy publication entitled "Protocol
for the Sampling and Analysis of Industrial/Municipal
Wastewater", dated July, 1993.
(3) There shall be an interval of at least six months
between successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection
(1).
Monitoring - Process Effluent - pH Measurement
22.-(1) Each discharger shall, on each day during the time
period applicable to the plant under subsection 17(4) or (5),
collect a grab sample from each process effluent monitoring
stream at the discharger's plant and shall analyze each sample
for the parameter pH. 3
(2) Each discharger shall, within each twenty-four hour
period beginning with the collection of the first grab sample at
the plant under subsection (1) on each day, collect two more grab
samples from each process effluent monitoring stream at the
discharger's plant and shall analyze each sample for the
parameter pH.
(3) There shall be an interval of at least four hours
between each of the three collections at a stream under
subsections (1) and (2) in each twenty-four hour period.
(4) Each grab sample collected under subsections (1) and (2)
shall be picked up within twenty-four hours of when it was
collected.
19
(5) Instead of complying with subsections (1) to (4) with
respect to a stream, a discharger may use an on-line analyzer at
the sampling point on the stream and analyze the effluent at the
sampling point for the parameter pH once in each day during the
time period applicable to the plant under subsection 17(4) or
(5), and two more times in each twenty-four hour period beginning
with the first analysis at the plant under this subsection in
each day.
(6) There shall be an interval. of at least four hours
between each of the three analyses at a sampling point under
subsection (5) in each twenty-four hour period.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a discharger shall use
either the sampling point established under section 8 on the
stream or an alternate sampling point located downstream of the
sampling point but before the point of discharge of the stream to
surface water or to an industrial sewer used in common with
another plant.
(8) Before using an alternate sampling point under
subsection (7), a discharger shall give the Director a written
notice describing the location of the alternate sampling point,
together with a revised version of the list and plot plan
submitted under section 9 showing the alternate sampling point.
Monitoring - Acute Lethality Testing - Rainbow Trout
23.-(1) Where a discharger is required by this section to
perform a rainbow trout acute lethality test, the discharger
shall perform the test according to the procedures described in
the Environment Canada publication entitled "Biological Test
Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of
Effluents to Rainbow Trout", dated July, 1990.
(2) Each rainbow trout acute lethality test required by this
section shall be carried out as a single concentration test using
100 per cent effluent.
(3) On one day in each month, on a day on which samples are
picked up at the plant under subsection 19(1), each discharger
shall collect and immediately pick up a grab sample at each
process effluent sampling point at the discharger's plant and
shall perform a rainbow trout acute lethality test on each
sample.
(4) There shall be an interval of at least fifteen days
between successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection
(3):
20
(5) All samples picked up under subsection (3) in a month
shall be picked up on the same day in the month.
(6) Where a discharger has performed tests under subsection
(3) for twelve consecutive months on samples collected from the
same sampling point and the mortality of the rainbow trout in
each test did not exceed 50 per cent, the discharger is relieved
of the obligations under subsection (3) relating to the sampling
point and shall instead collect and immediately pick up a grab
sample at the sampling point on one day in each quarter and
perform a rainbow trout acute lethality test on each sample.
(7) Samples picked up at a plant under subsection (6) shall
be picked up on a day on which samples are picked up at the Sune
under subsection (3).
(8) If no samples are being picked up at a plant under
subsection (3) during a quarter, samples picked up at the plant
during the quarter under subsection (6) shall be picked up ona
day on which samples are picked up at the plant under subsection
191):
(9) There shall be an interval of at least forty-five days
between successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection
(6).
(10) All samples picked up under subsection (6) in a quarter
shall be picked up on the same day in the quarter.
(11) If a rainbow trout acute lethality test performed under
subsection (6) on any sample from a sampling point results in
mortality of more than 50 per cent of the test rainbow trout,
subsections (6) to (10) cease to apply in respect to samples from
that sampling point, and a discharger shall instead comply with
the requirements of subsection (3) relating to the sampling
point, until the tests performed under subsection (3) on all
samples collected from the sampling point for a further twelve
consecutive months result in mortality for no more than 50 per
cent of the rainbow trout for each test.
(12) A discharger shall notify the Director in writing of
any change in the frequency of acute lethality testing under *his
Regulation at the discharger's plant, within thirty days after
the day on which the change begins.
(13) A discharger may notify the Director in writing of any
period in which the testing of samples collected at a sampling
point under subsection (3) would always result in mortality of
more than 50 per cent of the test rainbow trout.
(14) Where a notice is given under subsection (13), a
discharger is relieved of the obligations under subsection (3)
— TFT M EE EUR EU TE OS 7
21
relating to the sampling point during the period in which the
testing of samples collected at the sampling point would always
result in mortality of more than 50 per cent of the test rainbow
trout.
(15) Subsections (13) and (14) are revoked on January 1,
1996.
(16) Subsections (2) to (15) apply with necessary
modifications to each cooling water effluent sampling point and,
for the purpose, the reference in subsection (3) to each process
effluent sampling point shall be deemed to be a reference to each
cooling water effluent sampling point and the reference in
subsections (3) and (8) to subsection 19(1) shall be deemed to be
a reference to subsection 26(1).
Monitoring - Acute Lethality Testing - Daphnia magna
24.-(1) Where a discharger is required by this section to
perform a Daphnia magna acute lethality test, the discharger
shall perform the test according to the procedures described in
the Environment Canada publication entitled "Biological Test
Method: Reference Method for Determining Acute Lethality of
Effluents to Daphnia magna", dated July, 1990.
(2) Subsections 23(2) to (16) apply with necessary
modifications to Daphnia magna acute lethality tests and, for the
purpose, a reference to rainbow trout shall be deemed to be a
reference to Daphnia magna.
(3) Each discharger shall pick up each set of samples
required to be collected from a sampling point at the
discharger's plant under this section on a day on which the
discharger collects a sample from the sampling point under
section 23, to the extent possible having regard to the frequency
of monitoring required at the sampling point under this section
and section 23. ,
Monitoring - Chronic Toxicity Testing - Fathead Minnow and
Ceriodaphnia Dubia
25.-(1) Where a discharger is required to perform a 7-day
fathead minnow growth inhibition test, the discharger shall
perform the test according to the procedure described in the
Environment Canada publication entitled "Biological Test Method:
Test of Larval Growth and Survival Using Fathead Minnows" dated
February, 1992.
(2) Where a discharger is required to perform a 7-day
Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction inhibition and survivability
22
test, the discharger shall perform the test according to the
procedure described in the Environment Canada publication
entitled "Biological Test Method: Test of Reproduction and
Survival Using the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia dubia", dated
February, 1992.
(3) On one day in each semi-annual period, on a day on which
samples are picked up at the plant under subsection 19(1), each
discharger shall collect and immediately pick up a grab sample
from each process effluent sampling point at the discharger's
plant, and shall perform a 7-day fathead minnow growth inhibition
test and a 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia reproduction inhibition and
survivability test on each sample.
(4) There shall be an interval of at least ninety days
between successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection
(3). À
(5) All samples pickéd up under subsection (3) in a semi-
annual period shall be picked up on the same day in the semi-
annual period.
(6) A discharger need not collect a sample from a sampling
point in accordance with subsection (3) until twelve consecutive
monthly rainbow trout acute lethality tests and twelve
consecutive monthly Daphnia magna acute lethality tests performed
on samples collected at the sampling point at a discharger's
plant result in mortality for no more than 50 per cent of the
test organisms in 100 per cent effluent.
Monitoring - Cooling Water Effluent - Weekly Assessment
26.-(1) Each discharger shall, on one day in each week, pick
up a set of samples collected at each cooling water effluent
sampling point at the discharger's plant and shall analyze each
set of samples for each assessment parameter.
(2) There shall be an interval of at least four days between
successive pick-up days at the plant under subsection (1).
(3) All samples picked up under subsection (1) in a week
shall be picked up on the same day in the week.
" CCE VE DEV ET CT TU TT
23
PART VI
EFFLUENT VOLUME
Flow Measurement
27.-(1) For the purposes of this section, a volume of
effluent for a stream for a day is the volume that flowed past
the sampling point established under Part II on the stream during
the twenty-four hour period preceding the pick-up of the first
sample picked up from the stream for the day.
(2) Each discharger shall determine in cubic metres a daily
volume of effluent for each process effluent stream at the
discharger's plant for each day on which a sample is collected
under this Regulation from the stream, by integration of
continuous flowrate measurements.
-(3) Despite subsection (2), where a process effluent stream
discharges on an intermittent basis, the daily volumes for the
stream may be determined either by integration of continuous
flowrate measurements or by the summation of individual batch
volume measurements.
(4) Each discharger shall use flow measurement methods that
allow the daily volumes for process effluent streams to be
determined to an accuracy of within plus or minus 15 per cent.
(5) Each discharger shall determine in cubic metres a daily
volume of effluent for each cooling water effluent stream at the
discharger's plant for each day on which a sample is collected
under this Regulation from the stream.
(6) Each discharger shall use flow measurement methods that
allow the daily volumes for cooling water effluent streams to be
determined to an accuracy of within plus or minus 20 per cent.
(7) Each discharger shall, no later than the day that this
section comes into force, determine by calibration or confirm by
means of a certified report of a registered professional engineer
of the Province of Ontario that each flow measurement method used
under subsections (2) and (3) meets the accuracy requirements of
subsection (4) and that each flow measurement method used under
subsection (5) meets the accuracy requirements of subsection (6).
(8) Where a discharger uses a new flow measurement method or
alters an existing flow measurement method, the discharger shall
determine by calibration or confirm by means of a certified
report of a registered professional engineer of the Province of
Ontario that each new or altered flow measurement method meets
the accuracy requirements of subsections (4) or (6), as the case
24
may be, within two weeks after the day on which the new or
altered method or system is used.
(9) Each discharger shall develop and implement a 6
maintenance schedule and a calibration schedule for each flow
measurement system installed at the discharger's plant and shall
maintain each flow measurement system according to good operating
practices.
(10) Each discharger shall use reasonable efforts to set up
each flow measurement system used for the purposes of this
section in a way that permits inspection by a provincial officer.
Calculation of Plant Volumes
28.-(1) Each discharger shall calculate, in cubic metres, a
daily process effluent plant volume for each day.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a process effluent
plant volume for a day is the sum of the daily process effluent
volumes determined under section 27 for the day.
(3) Each discharger shall calculate, in cubic metres, a
monthly average process effluent plant volume for each month, by
taking the arithmetic mean of the daily process effluent plant
volumes calculated under subsection (1) for the month.
(4) Each discharger shall calculate, in cubic metres, a
daily cooling water effluent plant volume for each day.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), a cooling water
effluent plant volume for a day is the sum of the daily cooling
water volumes determined under section 27 for the day.
(6) Each discharger shall calculate, in cubic metres, a
monthly average cooling water effluent plant volume for each
month, by taking the arithmetic mean of the daily cooling water
effluent plant volumes calculated under subsection (4) for the
month.
ae M MENU oe ee i
25
PART VII
STORM WATER CONTROL. STUDY
Storm Water Control Study
29.-(1) Each discharger shall complete a storm water control
study in respect of the discharger's plant, in accordance with
the requirements of the Ministry of Environment and Energy
publication entitled "Protocol for Conducting a Storm Water
Control Study", dated August, 1993.
(2) A discharger need not comply with subsection (1) in
respect of the discharger's plant if,
(a) the plant meets the exemption criteria set out in
the Ministry of Environment and Energy publication
entitled "Protocol for Conducting a Storm Water
Control Study," dated August, 1993; and
(b) the discharger notifies the Director in writing, by
November 25, 1994, that the plant meets the
exemption criteria referred to in clause (a).
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a discharger shall complete
the storm water control study in respect of the discharger's
plant by November 27, 1995.
(4) A discharger may postpone completion of the storm water
control study in respect of the discharger's plant until January
2121997 if;
(a) in order to meet the requirements of Part IV, the
discharger plans to make process changes, install
waste water treatment facilities, implement
management practices, or make any other changes at
the plant that would likely alter the quantity or
quality of storm water discharged from the plant;
and
(b) the discharger notifies the Director in writing, by
November 27, 1995, of the plans referred to in
clause (a).
(5) Each discharger shall ensure that a copy of each study
completed under this section is available to Ministry staff at
the discharger's plant, on request during the plant's normal
office hours.
26
PART VIII
RECORDS AND REPORTS
Record Keeping
30.-(1) Each discharger shall keep records, in an electronic
format acceptable to the Director, of all analytical results
obtained under sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 26, all calculations
performed under sections 12 and 13 and all determinations and
calculations made or performed under sections 27 and 28.
(2) Each discharger shall keep records of all sampling and
analytical procedures used in meeting the requirements of
section 7, including, for each sample, the date, the time of
pick-up, the sampling procedures used, and any incidents likely
to affect the analytical results.
(3) Each discharger shall keep records of all calculations
performed under section 15.
(4) Each discharger shall keep records of the results of all
monitoring performed under sections 21 and 23 to 25.
(5) Each discharger shall keep records of all maintenance
and calibration procedures performed under section 27.
(6) Each discharger shall keep records of all problems or
malfunctions, including those related to sampling, analysis,
acute lethality testing, chronic toxicity testing or flow
measurement, that result or are likely to result in a failure to
comply with a requirement of this Regulation, stating the date,
duration and cause of each malfunction, and including a
description of any remedial action taken.
(7) Each discharger shall keep records of any incident in
which process effluent is discharged from the discharger's plant
without flowing past a sampling point established on a process
effluent stream in accordance with this Regulation before being
discharged, stating the date, duration, cause and nature of each
incident.
(8) Each discharger shall keep records of all process
changes and redirections of or changes in the character of
effluent streams that affect the quality of effluent at any
sampling point established under this Regulation at the
discharger's plant.
(9) Each discharger shall keep records of the amount of
dried finished product, calculated in tonnes, that is produced
daily at the discharger's plant.
= =
27
(10) Each discharger for which a limit for AOX is listed in
Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 shall keep records of the amount of
dried bleached pulp, calculated in tonnes, that is produced daily
at the discharger's plant.
(11) Each discharger shall keep records of the location of
each sampling point established at the discharger's plant under
Part II.
(12) Each discharger shall make each record required by this
section as soon as reasonably possible and shall keep each such
record for a period of three years.
(13) Each discharger shall ensure that all records kept
under this section are available to Ministry staff at the
discharger's plant, on request during the plant's normal office
hours.
Reports Available to the Public
31.-(1) On or before June 1 in each year, each discharger
shall prepare a report relating to the previous calendar year and
including,
(a) a summary of plant loadings calculated under
sections 12 and 13;
(b) a summary of the results of monitoring performed
under sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 to 26;
(c) a summary of calculations performed under
subsections 28(1) and (4);
(ad) the value of any revised limits calculated under
section 15;
(e) a summary of the loadings, concentrations or other
results that exceeded a limit under section 14, 15
or 161 and
(£) a summary of the incidents in which process
effluent was discharged from the discharger's plant
without flowing past a sampling point established
on a process effluent stream in accordance with
this Regulation before being discharged.
(2) Each discharger shall ensure that each report prepared
under subsection (1) is available to any person at the
discharger's plant, on request during the plant's normal office
hours.
28
(3) Each discharger shall provide the Director, upon
request, with a copy of any report that the discharger has
prepared under subsection (1).
Reports to the Director - General
32.-(1) Each discharger shall notify the Director in writing
of any change of name or ownership of the discharger's plant
occurring after November 25, 1993, within thirty days after the
end of the month in which the change occurs.
(2) Each discharger shall notify the Director in writing of
any process change or redirection of or change in the character
of an effluent stream that affects the quality of effluent at any
sampling point established under this Regulation at the
discharger's plant, within thirty days of the oe or
redirection.
(3) A discharger need not comply with subsection (2) where
the effect of the change or redirection on effluent quality is of
less than one week's duration.
(4) Each discharger shall notify the Director in writing if
the discharger's plant has, for more than ninety consecutive
days, operated at less than 75 per cent of the reference
production rate specified in Schedule 4 for finished product at
the discharger's plant, within thirty days of the end of the
ninety day period.
(5) Each discharger for which a limit for AOX is listed in
Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 shall notify the Director in
writing if the discharger's plant has, for more than ninety
consecutive days, operated at less than 75 per cent of the
reference production rate specified in Schedule 4 for bleached
pulp at the discharger's plant, within thirty days of the end of
the ninety day period.
Reports to the Director on Compliance with
Section 6 and Part IV
33.-(1) Each discharger shall report to the Director any
incident in which process effluent is discharged from the
discharger's plant without flowing past a sampling point
established on a process effluent stream in accordance with this
Regulation before being discharged.
(2) Each discharger shall report to the Director any
loading, concentration or other result that exceeds a limit under
section 14, 15 or 16.
UM D EE EE TD
= FT wT WW
29
(3) A report required under subsection (1) or (2) shall be
given orally, as soon as reasonably possible, and in writing, as
soon as reasonably possible.
Quarterly Reports to the Director
34.-(1) No later than forty-five days after the end of each
quarter, each discharger shall submit a report to the Director
containing information relating to the discharger's plant
throughout the quarter as required by subsections (3) to (8).
(2) A report under this section shall be submitted both in
an electronic format acceptable to the Director and in hard copy
generated from the electronic format and signed by the
discharger.
(3) A report under this section shall include all
information included in a report given under section 33 during
the quarter.
(4) Each discharger shall report, for each month in the
quarter, the monthly average plant loadings and the highest and
lowest daily plant loadings calculated under section 12 and 13
for each limited parameter and each assessment parameter.
(5) Each discharger shall report, for each month in the
quarter, the monthly average process effluent plant volume and
the highest and lowest daily process effluent plant volumes
calculated under section 28.
(6) Each discharger shall report, for each month in the
quarter, the monthly average cooling water effluent plant volume
and the highest and lowest daily cooling water effluent plant
volumes calculated under section 28.
(7) Each discharger shall report the number of days in each
‘month in the quarter on which process effluent was discharged
from the discharger's plant. ;
(8) Each discharger shall report, for each month in the
quarter, the highest and lowest pH results obtained under section
22 for each process effluent monitoring stream at the
discharger's plant.
30
Reports to the Director on Chronic Toxicity Testing
_ 35.-(1) Each discharger shall report to the Director the
results of all monitoring performed under section 25, together
with the date on which each sample was picked up, no later than
sixty days after the end of each semi-annual period in which the
monitoring was performed.
(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include a plot of
percentage reduction in growth or reproduction against the
logarithm of test concentration and shall include a calculation
of the concentration at which a 25 per cent reduction in growth
or reproduction would occur.
AOX Progress Reports
36.-(1) On or before December 31, 1994, each discharger for
which a limit for AOX is listed in Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2
shall submit a report to the Director outlining the steps taken
at the discharger's plant to meet, on or before December 31,
1995, the phase-two limits that are specified for the parameter
and the plant in Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2.
(2) On or before December 31 in each of the years 1996, 1997
and 1998, each discharger for which a limit for AOX is listed in
Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 shall submit a report to the
Director outlining the steps taken at the discharger's plant to
meet, on or before December 31, 1999, the phase-three limits that
are specified for the parameter and the plant in Columns 3 and 4
of Schedule 2.
(3) A discharger is not required to submit a report under
this section if the discharger has met the AOX limit that is the
subject of the report for a period of twelve months preceding the
date on which the discharger is required to submit the report.
AOX Elimination Reports
37.-(1) On or before May 25, 1994, each discharger for which
a limit for AOX is listed in Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 shall
submit a report to the Director that sets out the following
information:
1. An outline of the methods by which AOX generated
from the bleaching of pulp at the discharger's
plant could be eliminated by the year 2002.
2. The timetable that would be required to implement
each method identified under paragraph 1 and each
MN “M M M M M MU M M EU EE SS UM eS af ae:
sal
of the stages involved in the implementation of
each method.
An estimate of the financial cost to the discharger
of implementing each method identified under
paragraph 1.
(2) On or before January 31, 1996, each discharger for which
a limit for AOX is listed in Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 shall
submit a report to the Director that sets out the forlowing
information:
1.
A detailed description of the methods by which AOX
generated from the bleaching of pulp at the
-discharger's plant could be eliminated by the year
2002.
The timetable that would be required to implement
each method described under paragraph 1 and each of
the stages involved in the implementation of each
method.
An estimate of the financial cost to the discharger
of implementing each method described under
paragraph 1.
A strategy that could be used at the discharger's
plant for informing the discharger's employees
about the methods by which AOX generated from the
bleaching of pulp at the discharger' s plant could
be eliminated.
A list of any short-term or long-term goals that
the discharger has developed in respect of reducing
or eliminating the generation of AOX at the
discharger's plant.
An up-to-date description and diagram of where,
within the discharger's bleaching processes and
operations, AOX is generated at the discharger's
plant.
The amounts of chlorine and chlorine compounds that
were used during 1995 at the discharger's plant for
the purpose of bleaching pulp.
(3) On or before January 31, 1999, each discharger for which
a limit for AOX is listed in Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 shall
submit a report to the Director that sets out the following
information:
32
1. A detailed description of any additional methods to
those described under paragraph 1 of subsection
(2), by which AOX generated from the bleaching of
pulp at the discharger's plant could be eliminated
by the year 2002.
2. An evaluation of the technical feasibility of
implementing at the discharger's plant each method
described under paragraph 1 of subsection (2) and
paragraph 1 of this subsection, and an
identification of which methods are technically
feasible.
3. The timetable that would be required to implement
-each method identified as technically feasible
under paragraph 2 and each of the stages involved
in the implementation of each method.
4. An estimate of the financial cost to the discharger
of implementing each method identified as
technically feasible under paragraph 2.
5. An estimate of the reduction in the generation of
AOX that could be anticipated in respect of the
discharger's plant as a result of the
implementation of each method identified as
technically feasible under paragraph 2.
6. A list of any additional short-term and long-term
goals to those listed under paragraph 5 of
subsection (2), that the discharger has developed
in respect of reducing or eliminating the
generation of AOX at the discharger's plant.
7. An up-to-date description and diagram of where,
within the discharger's bleaching processes and
operations, AOX is generated at the discharger's
plant.
8. The amounts of chlorine and chlorine compounds that
were used during each of the years 1996, 1997 and
1998 at the discharger's plant for the purpose of
bleaching pulp.
(4) On or before January 31 in each of the years 2000 and
2001, each discharger for which a limit for AOX is listed in
Columns 3 and 4 of Schedule 2 shall submit a report to the
Director that sets out the following information:
1. A detailed description of any additional methods to
those described in any previous report prepared
under this section, by which AOX generated from the
ee
33
bleaching of pulp at the discharger's plant could
be eliminated by the year 2002.
An evaluation of the technical feasibility of
implementing at the discharger's plant each
additional method described under paragraph 1, and
an identification of which methods are technically
feasible.
The timetable that would be required to implement
each method identified as technically feasible
under paragraph 2 and each of the stages involved
in the implementation of each method.
-An estimate of the financial cost to the discharger
of implementing each method identified as
technically feasible under paragraph 2.
A re-evaluation, where necessary, of the technical
feasibility of implementing at the discharger's
plant any method identified as technically feasible
in any previous report prepared under this section,
and a description of the factors that have -
contributed to the need for the re-evaluation.
The amount of AOX that was generated at the
discharger's plant during the previous calendar
year, and the manner in which that amount was
calculated.
(5) In describing, for the purposes of a report prepared
under this section, the methods by which AOX generated from the
bleaching of pulp at the discharger's plant could be eliminated
by the year 2002, the discharger shall consider,
(a)
(b)
any methods that substitute other chemical or
biochemical agents for chlorine and chlorine
compounds for the purpose of bleaching pulp; and
how products that are produced at the discharger's
plant could be redesigned so as to eliminate the
need for the use of chlorine or chlorine compounds
in the discharger's bleaching processes and
operations.
Review of AOX Reports
38. A report submitted under section 37 shall be reviewed by
the Ministry in relation to its goal of eliminating the
generation of AOX at dischargers' plants by the year 2002, taking
34
into account any relevant environmental, technological and
economic considerations.
PART IX
COMMENCEMENT AND REVOCATION PROVISIONS
Revocation of Ontario Regulation 435/89
39. Ontario Regulations 435/89 and 202/90 are revoked on
February 23, 1994.
Commencement of Parts IV, V and VI
40.-(1) Subject to subsection (2), Part IV comes into force
on January 1, 1996.
(2) Subsections 14(2) and (4) and section 15 come into force
on the date of filing.
(3) Parts V and VI come into force on February 23, 1994.
*p}] Uone:10d:107 uewoy aaueden Auedwo7 1ode4 euo9u}e1]s
‘Ou Sj24 299n1dS Buiseysndey ‘ou] Sjj24 99n1dS
paj}iwiy o2ou0S uOJUa1L pa}iui7 o90u0S
aleW ‘aS 1nes
‘ou] Jadeg SAIEWN ‘1S
‘ou 1ade4 SAIEW ‘1S
“OU 152104 epueION ploiouL
SIIE4 490Y uJoouwus
Sl24 uoabinis
Siadeq p2194994 ‘‘9u] SJ9NPOId }S2104 epueJON
‘OU] 2}}9/PN
‘PY1 18P2018 UE W9EN
“ou] epeue jo xJe3 Ayaquiy
Auedwuo7 Jamog pue ding }J21» 21e
‘PY1 18P80I8 UEIIIN9EN
Aeg 9921191. ‘Ou; epeued »12J)-AJaquiy
Aeg 92921191
‘ouf Bpeueyd JO }1212 AQU}
ou] Epeueyd JO x12]2 Apaquily
‘PI UOUJEJEW-I9AIH sower
‘PI S19npOiq 152104 App ‘g'3
‘PY1 syonpoig 159104 APP ‘g'3 ejouedsy
Pa} sJONposg 159104 911984 UeIPeueD Aeg JepunuL
pa} SJONPOJg 159104 91J1984 ueipeued uapAiq
sauley}e9 ‘is Seuneu}e9 "JS ‘‘ouj epeue? y1e)/9-Aaquily
aIIASJUNH
JASIUNH ‘‘Ouj epeue] x1e1)-Aequiy
uouJeJeW
‘PI uoyjesey-saniy sower
eMeNO ‘‘P}1 S}ONpolg }S9s04 Appz ‘g'3
ejouedsz ‘‘p}7 s}onpolg 159104 Appa ‘g'3
Sauueu}e9 ‘JS ‘UOISIAIG Siade4 aul4 ‘ou Je}WIOG
IIEMuUsOD ‘UOISIAIG SJadeg aui4 ‘ou Je}WOG
te
eme}}0
UO}U9]] ‘UOISIAIG PIe0qiauIe}U07 ‘‘ou] 1e}W0q
X90H Pay ‘UOISIAIG pie0qiauie}Uu0? ‘du; 12]10q
Aeg Jsapuny,
uapAig ‘s}OnNpoOs 159104 91JI984 UeIpeueD
‘sJONPOJg 152104 91JI984 UeIPeUueD
"p}] epeued apeoses asiog e10Uay ‘*p}] epeues apeoses asiog
pi] epeued apeose) asiog
‘Pr1 Auedwod 91q14 pooM 181e9g
Iqhiqy
“ou, 89d IGhigy
“ul 991d-1q}1qy
saouely 1104
pIoiouL
S99UP14 404 ‘‘P}] epeued 2pEISEI asiog
py] AuedW0 aiqi4 POOM 18ne9g
UOISIAIG Siadeq |PINUIADJg ‘OU Bdg-IGIIGY
“OU] 291d
Aeg japunyy
sjje@4 sionboi]
UOISIAIQ SIIE4 SIONbOi “OU; BdUg-1qQNIGQY
Aeg japunyy
uol}e907
UOISIAIQ WEI 1104 ‘Ou 2911d-1qniq y
SINV Id d31V1N934 10 LSI
L enpeyos
Schedule 2
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Abitibi-Price Inc., Fort William Division
ATG Parameter
kg/day kg/day é
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day) HET 4280 2140
Total Phosphorus 72.8
Se Total Suspended Solids (TSS) - rie eee 5740 3370
| 16 | chioroform | w | 15 | os
00920 | 0.0920
0177 | 0.177
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
36
UE ) Se) COR CES Co COS CSS OSC CR CD SST lll ee hOC KH
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Abitibi-Price Inc., Iroquois Falls Division
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
ATG Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
Re Le re |
Wr bu
sn Le Vol
| nur
Era one one
em pe
see
pee à end
pee ee « |
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3, 7 8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
37
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Abitibi-Price Inc., Provincial Papers Division
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Parameter Frequency imi Limit
kg/day kg/day
hous beat To
ik leo Tee awnule
eee ce ame eee
ere de nie
ane us ee
eas es rene el
ors errant a —
a ea es
Esreremamammnen Te
Re
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Beaver Wood Fibre Company Ltd.
ATG ; Parameter
> kg/day kg/day
[1a [Biochemical Oxygen Demand 15 dy | D | 2030 | 1010
[6 [rotelPhosohons | w | 566 | 344 |
[8 [roti Suspendes soias rss)" | D | 2690 | 1500 |
Ben à | w | 6m} os”
os 6 |. w [os fooss |
24 [2.3,7.8-Tetrachiorodivenzo-peredioxin | 0 |
[2,3,7,8-Tetrachiorogibenzoturen |
ES em Sale)
Explanatory Notes:
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
39
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., Fort Frances
ATG Parameter
; kg/day kg/day
[14 | Biochemical Oxygen Demand (Savi [D | 1500 | 5760 _
be 60 CE ee ee eee
| 8 [Total suspended Sois ss) | >| 15400 | 9060 |
Pise erioeoromm a Msn
Izu fimo ere SW ici we |
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one:
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
- Phase-two
- Phase-three
24 | 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
40
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., Kenora
ATG Y Parameter |
- kg/day kg/day
[1a [Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day | D | 10600 | 520 |
aa ee ee
|__| Total Suspended soles (rss) "| D | 14200 | 8320 |
is encom) wef as | 109
ae ee ee
24 |2,3,7,8-Tetrachiorodbenzo-pare-dioxin | 0 |
[2.3,7,8-Tetrachiorogibenzoturan ||
pan ER Dur to |
Explanatory Notes:
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day :
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
41
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Monthly
Average
Plant
Loading
Limit
Daily
Plant
PLANT: Canadian Pacific Forest Products, Dryden
Loading
Limit
| Parameter
= kg/day kg/day
[1A [Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day)" | D | 14900 | 74707
[6 |TotaPhosprous | w | «18 | 264
| 8 [Total suspended Solids ss) 11700
RENÉE NS ee MESSE
| 17 | Toluene 0.321
20s feat Ea ead en En | 0.617
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one 2350
- Phase-two
- Phase-three
24 | 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin EE
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran NEC
[ire A |e
Explanatory Notes:
Monitoring
Frequency
©
Oo
@
|
ol
N
O
o
ÿ
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
42
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Canadian Pacific Forest Products, Thunder Bay
Pom 1 | coumn2 | coums | couma |
[1a [Biochemical Oxygen Demand 15 day | D | 28400 | 14200 _
Total Phosphorus | Ww
[s |Totai suspended Sois ss) | D | se100 | 22400 |
on ie ‘| 1060 |
Mire i | ew | voor [oie |
Fo.) ARE PRET)
Phenol
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
kg/day kg/day
Adsorbable Organic Halide - - Phase-one
- Phase-two
- Phase-three
24 | 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin es
. | 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran aoe
ee ae ee oa ae
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
43
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Domtar Inc., Containerboard Division, Red Rock
: Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
; Monitoring | Loading Loading
ATG Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
3
| 1A |iochemical Oxygen Demand 15 aay) | D | 9760_ | 450 |
eh ners eeronarite Re PEN atl ore ee
| 8 | Tote! suspended songs rss) [D | 13100 | 7650 |
36:4) etaoretonm ed Eg awe Sioa Saeed
2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo- -para-dioxin ca
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran ER
RÉ ee a mae
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
WwW = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
44
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Domtar Inc., Containerboard Division, Trenton
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
: Monitoring | Loading | Loading
ATG Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
is
[14 [Biochemical Oxygen Demand 15 day | D | 2490 | 1240 |
| 6 [rotelPhospnonus © | w | 66 | 23 |
| 8 | Total suspended soissirss) "| D | ss10 | 190 |
PONS RU A ETTE)
ne ee w | oo [ton]
[2.3,7,8-Tetrachiorouibenzo-paradioxin |__|
[2.3.7,8-Tetrachiorodibenzoturan ||
[as ae Ca ee
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
WwW = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
45
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Domtar Inc., Fine Papers Division, Cornwall
aa à
Monthly
Average
Plant
Loading
Limit
Daily
Plant
Loading
Limit
kg/day kg/day
Monitoring
Frequency
[1A [Biochemical Oxygen Demand ‘Sday) | D | #s460 | 4230 |
[6 [rot Phospnons | W 27 | 140)
L_8 _[rotai Suspendes soias(tss) "| D | 11800 | 6660 |
ANS SR SRE PRE RO RE AE |
a
a
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one Nene BRERA YS Re |
704
re [a fei Ue
- Phase-two
HH
- Phase-three 8 375
2, 3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin are)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran f sar a
EG, © ae OS dae RE
Explanatory Notes:
;
B
w
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
-| — BE
46
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Domtar Inc., Fine Papers Division, St. Catharines
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
: Monitoring Loading Loading
ATG Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
|
[1A | siochemicel Oxygen Demand (5 say | D | 1140 | 570
HENfrsiPsemions | was | toe
[8 |Totei suspended soiesirssi__ | D | 1520 | 96 |
renier 1 05° | w° | os l'on |
Reese" "| w | 0.0870, | 00470 |
24 |2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodivenzo-paradioxn |__|
[2.3,7,8-Tetrachiorodibenzoturan ||
FRS RER SC
Explanatory Notes:
Da = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day .= Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
47
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd., Espanola
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring Loading Loading
Parameter _ | Frequency Limit Limit
[1A [Biochemical Oxygen Demand (Sdeyi | D | 12200 | 6080
[6 otal Phosphores, UN CNE a aot ama
| 8 _|rotal Suspended Soias ss)" | D | 16300 | 9870 |
RER er eel ee en PR eer ee |
ah
2 fms ________|_w ose | ose
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one | w | 3920 | 3040 |
-Prasetwo | w | 2350 | 1820 |
- Phase-three
24 |2,3,7,8-Tetrachiorodibenzo-para-dioun |__|
[2.3,7,8-Tetrachiorodienzoturan |__|
rea re eae ee
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
WwW = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
48
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd., Ottawa
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
ae 0 lou Le.
ME me Le lee.
D ino aan ne
La [ces à GRR EE 7
Ae a a
EE | 0
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
WwW = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
49
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
James River-Marathon Ltd.
‘ Parameter
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day)
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
kg/day kg/day
rae
afters nomade 2002 5 uw) aaa
[8 [rota suspendessoidsirss) |
Essaie ws | ses
vila rere SR Tw EE
eee ee ne lai [0.220 |
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one
- Phase-two
20
33
- Phase-three
24
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement ‘
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congenersa
50
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY .
Monthly
Average
Plant
Loading
Limit
Daily
Plant
PLANT: Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc., Huntsville
Loading
Limit
G | Parameter
de kg/day kg/day
= es
[1A [Biochemical Oxygen Demand 15 day) | D | saa | #43
uen gent in vs fine |
[| 8 _|rotel Suspendes sois rss) ||. s16 | 39 |
Rens 0 1. ©) w |'opse | 0,20 |
fom —
[2.3,7,8-Tetrecniorodibenzo-para-cioun | à |
[2.3,7,8-Tetracniorodibenzoturen |
RER RES EU
Explanatory Notes:
Monitoring
Frequency
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
51
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
PLANT: Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc., St. Catharines
Limit Limit
Parameter
kg/day kg/day
| 1a [Biochemical Oxygen Demand 15 dav) | D | 823 | 410
16: | roc nome, AoE NO | bio lato
| 8 |Totalsuspendessoissirss) | D | 1000 | 6
as fenetres
Re
[2.3,7.8-Tetracniorosibenzo-para-ioxin | a |
EE
Explanatory Notes:
Frequency
D = Daily monitoring requirement ~
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
52
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Monthly
Average
Plant
Loading
Limit
Daily
Plant
PLANT: Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc., Terrace Bay
Loading
Limit
G Parameter
; kg/day kg/day
| _— BE
D Lo en Le.
|
a fo [ue |
M OÙ à l'ovotie |
Car fem Po po
REC ER ET ER
ee ee | 0
Eee a | «
PR ee
Explanatory Notes:
Monitoring
Frequency
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one
- Phase-two
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
53
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: MacMillan-Bloedel Ltd.
ATG Parameter ;
; kg/day kg/day
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
at eerie I eee
me a me
ef Sree
Fra
peel
A
2 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
54
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Monthly
Average
Plant
PLANT: Malette Kraft Pulp and Power Company
Loading
Limit
G: Parameter
: kg/day kg/day
= es
[14 | Biochemical Oxygen Demand iScavi | D | iso | 2080 _
el] teratrnespnons | w | me | 76 |
| 2 [Total Suspendeg soias rss) | D | s560 | 3270 |
RE GW ee 07m |
See ee Go8e2 «| 00882
D ae
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one
Daily
Plant
Loading
Limit
Monitoring
Frequency
- Phase-two
- Phase-three
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin Éyaghe
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran svrarex
Frames 7 a |
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
55
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Noranda Forest Products Inc., Recycled Papers
ATG Parameter
kg/day kg/day
Fe ee ec ol
ef Pro ae come eut
[2 [total Suspended sois ss)" [D | 2200 | 130 |
EE
Zue\ alienate. A
Monthly
Average
Daily
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Frequency Limit Limit
=
Toluene
ESC PN 0.0682 | 0.0682
Adsorbable Organic Halide - Phase-one ere are re
548 426:
i
=|
- Phase-two
te
a
227
- Phase-three
29
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin oie
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran RCE
ÉCRIRE EE
Explenatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day =. Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
56
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
QUNO Inc.
Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
See ee Lens
à Lumbue
Doro les
D |.
RO OO TT ww 0438] 045:
Pa a
pepe 0 al
Pes de
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
57
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
St. Marys Paper Inc.
Monthly
Average
Daily
Plant Plant
Monitoring | Loading Loading
Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
ee a ie eee
el aca A PEN
Rete omer mare
Fée dE
Parone cme D Le
RER CN ee eee |
eee M
a don
ee | CA
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
Ww = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
58
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
PLANT: Sonoco Limited
| _— = es
ee
[6 [rotaiPnosphorus | w | 465 | ze |
fs [Total Suspendeg Soids rss) | D | 2200 | 1300 |
Die [etiorotom wets | os |
0.0611 | 0.0611 |
Eee 7 © | w | ov6ez | 0er |
[2,3,7,8-Tetrachiorodivenzo-pereioxin | ©
[2,3,7,8-Tetrachiorodibenzoturen |
[ih aay Re a eae
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement :
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per. day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
: Monthly
Daily Average
Plant Plant
Monitoring Loading Loading
G Parameter Frequency Limit Limit
|
59
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Monthly
Average
Plant
Loading
Limit
Daily
Plant
PLANT: Spruce Falls Inc.
Loading
Limit
G i Parameter
5 kg/day kg/day
- Monitoring
Frequency
| 1A | Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 dev)" | D | 11000 | 5480
| 6 |rotalPhosphonus | w | -s07 |° 186 à
| 8 _|rrotal suspended soïas rss "| D | 14700 | 8620
62 | chierotoom) aw | aon Ho
Done Re ew | toga alton dl
[2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-paredioxin | ©
Barres
Explanatory Notes:
D = Daily monitoring requirement
Ww = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2,3,7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
60
PROCESS EFFLUENT LIMITS AND MONITORING FREQUENCY
Monthly
Average
Plant
Loading
Limit
Daily
Plant
PLANT: | Strathcona Paper Company
Loading
Limit
G Parameter
= kg/day kg/day
= es
[1A [Biochemical Oxygen Demand 15 aay) | D | 1270 | 6 |
nm es | Vo
RE PE ES EH EE
Sen ow | Soars. | 02 |
elem ew loco oo |
ete |
[2.3:7,8-Tetrachiorodienzo-para-ciouin |_|
[2.3,7,8-Tetrachiorogiwenzoturan ||
RTE RER RTS
Explanatory Notes:
Monitoring
Frequency
D = Daily monitoring requirement
W = Weekly monitoring requirement
Q = Quarterly monitoring requirement
ATG = Analytical Test Group
kg/day = Kilograms per day
TEQ = Total toxic equivalent of 2, 3, 7,8 substituted dioxin and furan congeners
61
Schedule 3
COOLING WATER ASSESSMENT MONITORING
PLANT: All EL
ae
Column 1 column 2508 2
L_5a [Dissolved Organic Carbon DO) |W
i 7 spectre conaitranee i Af wo
a
Explanatory Notes:
Ww
ATG
Weekly monitoring requirement
Analytical Test Group
62
63
Schedule 4
REFERENCE PRODUCTION RATES
Reference Production Rate :
' Bleached Pulp Finished Product |
= |
428
pre
Domtar Inc., Containerboard Division, Trenton
Domtar Inc., Fine Papers Division, Cornwall
1372
1
©
eee D oe,
Berm ee
Ss en CE RE RE
a a
Re | +
THE TWELVE MONTH REPORT
APPENDIX II
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Table of Contents
LSOMMINTRODUCTION ES ke be te) 6 oe el
2.0 QUANTITY OF ANALYTICAL DATA . .
3.0 MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS . . .
DatanValidatwvony. so. 6) 6: us
Candidate Parameter Selection
QA/QC Data Assessment...
Monitoring Data Analysis .
4.0 MONITORING DATA RESULTS . . . .
5.0 DISCUSSION OFMRESUETS EC
MDI CONCEUSTONS 020 es ce 2,8 nu ek
List of Tables
Process Effluent Loadings .
Ne
Nu
~
Process Effluent Flow...
Cooling Water Effluent...
Emergency Overflow Effluent
Backwash Effluent)... sc. s
Waste Disposal Site Effluent
Storm Water Effluent...
Imtake Water mens en eine
.
>
an
.
© © -] ON UP WU N H
PEPE PEPE
a Une
Wor
l
Ÿ 0
. @
oO >
June 3, 1992. -i-
Process Effluent Concentrations
Development Document
Use selles al
ene chiite a
TE LOC 2
She le oies 2
etoiles ie 3
D NO D MO OC 3
SONO MES 3
selle te te 4
selle ie nie te 6
shite: oier ere 6
Sacha ee 7
Appendix Il
as a a ee eee
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Effluent Monitoring Regulation for the MISA Pulp and
Paper Sector was promulgated on July 21, 1989. Under the
Effluent Monitoring Regulation, each direct discharge pulp and
paper mill in Ontario was required to monitor its effluent for
a one year period starting on January 1, 1990. The Effluent
Monitoring Regulation was designed to produce a comprehensive
database on pulp and paper mill effluent quality for use in
the setting of effluent limits.
The Effluent Monitoring Regulation required direct
dischargers to monitor their process effluent, cooling water
effluent, storm water effluent, backwash effluent, emergency
overflow effluent and waste disposal site effluent for up to
135 parameters on a daily, thrice weekly, weekly, monthly, bi-
monthly and semi-annual basis.
The Development Document for the Effluent Monitoring
Regulation for the Pulp and Paper Sector explains why each
parameter was monitored and explains the rationale behind the
frequency of monitoring.
The pulp and paper sector effluent monitoring results
have been previously published in two 'preliminary' reports.
The first report, the "Preliminary Report on the First Six
Months of Process Effluent Monitoring in the MISA Pulp and
Paper Sector (January 1, 1990 to June 30, 1990)", was
published in February, 1991. The second report, the
"Preliminary Report on the Second Six Months of Process
Effluent Monitoring in the MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
(July 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990)", was published in
September, 1991. Both reports presented 'preliminary' data
that had not been subject to quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) data assessment.
This report presents the effluent monitoring data for the
MISA pulp and paper sector following candidate parameter
selection and QA/QC data assessment.
2.0 QUANTITY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
The MISA pulp and paper sector effluent monitoring
database contains 191,932 data points. As indicated in the
table below, over 65% of these data points are for process
effluent streams.
June 3, 1992. -1- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
It should be noted that the data provided in this report
reflect the Ministry database as of May 31, 1991.
Data and Sampling Points
Effluent or Sample Type Number of Sampling Number of Data
Points Points
10,168
46,646
Legend
N/A = not applicable
3.0 MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS
Data Validation
In order to confirm the integrity of the effluent
monitoring data, a rigourous data validation exercise was
conducted. Data validation involved the analysis of parameter
units, sample type codes and remark codes to ensure that the
correct units and codes had been used. The database was also
analyzed for completeness to ensure that all of the required
data had been submitted to the ministry.
Data validation also involved the analysis of multiple
records. Multiple records occur when two or more records
exist for the same parameter for the same control point for
the same day. Multiple records were removed to remove the
erroneous values. An analysis was also made of outlier values
in order to ensure that all data points were correctly
reported and that the outlier values were not the result of
data entry error.
Following the completion of the data validation exercise,
the database was analyzed in order to select candidate
parameters for effluent limit setting.
June 3, 1992. -2- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
Candidate Parameter Selection
The selection criteria identified in the draft Issue
Resolution Committee report were used to select candidate
parameters for effluent limit setting. Candidate parameters
were selected unless the effluent monitoring data showed (at
a 95% confidence level) that a statistical portion of 0.9 of
the data were at a concentration of less than the RMDL. The
selection approach used is a very conservative approach in
selecting parameters for effluent limit setting.
QA/QC Data Assessment
An assessment of the quality assurance/quality control
data was made in order to determine whether the effluent
monitoring data are of reliable quality and are satisfactory
for use in the development of effluent limits. The QA/QC data
assessment involved the retrieval and screening of all the
field: QA/QC data for a particular mill. and all the
corrresponding effluent monitoring data for each process
effluent stream at the mill. The data were then sorted and
.summarized and an evaluation of the data was made based on the
procedures outlined in the draft Issue Resolution Committee
reports.
The QA/QC data asssessment confirmed that the majority of
the data are of reliable quality and are satisfactory for use
in the development of effluent limits.
Monitoring Data Analysis
In order to analyze the effluent monitoring data and
prepare this report, the following rules were applied to the
data:
e All analytical results with remark codes " ab a> a > D nt td ed dt md
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.8
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., DRYDEN
PROCESS EFFLUENT
ps. 2 ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Aluminum
Molybdenum
Thallium
Zinc
Sulphide
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
2,3,5-Trichlorophenol
,4-Dichlorophenol
2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Octachlorostyrene
Pentachlorobenzene
Total TCDF
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
2
1
1
1
1
LA
LA
L
’
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%J
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
Data are of reliable quality
Data are of Limited quality .
Data are of unreliable quality
Parameter removed from candidate parameter List after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
ire
UNITS | QA/QC
Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
TABLE 2.9
Development Document
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ee BAY
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
1
Roses ion (pH)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Zinc .
Sulphide
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
2,3,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Octachlorostyrene
Total TCDF
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
— ot or mt so mt md mt mb mb = ON Se OO KS OK SSD St dt
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
X = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
Loire
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.10
DOMTAR INC., CONTAINERBOARD DIVISION (RED ROCK)
| aes
PROCESS EFFLUENT
ache ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Zinc
Sulphide
Chloroform
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Phenol
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Abietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
No. = Number of analyses
ve =
QA/QC =
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
xX =
Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
Dose
.
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
TABLE 2.11
Development Document
DOMTAR INC., CONTAINERBOARD DIVISION (TRENTON)
PROCESS EFFLUENT
re ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Chloroform
Phenol
o-Cresol
Total TCDF
Total H6CDD
Total H7CDD
Total H7CDF
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Octachlorodibenzofuran
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Number of analyses
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
2,978.18
UNITS
QA/QC
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
Data are of reliable quality
Data are of Limited quality
Data are of unreliable quality
Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
= Ave
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.12
DOMTAR INC., FINE PAPERS DIVISION (CORNWALL)
. PROCESS EFFLUENT
Se. ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
Sulphide
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Benzene
Styrene
Toluene
Acenaphthylene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Phenol
o-Cresol
Total TCDF
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
Number of analyses
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
mg
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
Data are of reliable quality
Data are of Limited quality
Data are of unreliable quality
Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC _
June 3, 1992.
- 25-
Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2.13
DOMTAR INC., FINE PAPERS DIVISION (ST. CATHARINES)
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE ,
ATG | PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
1 coo 1
3 Hydrogen ion (pH)
4a | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Total H6CDF
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
wee — FU DC Kw 2 (= = = ns
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 Data are of reliable quality
2 Data are of Limited quality
3 Data are of unreliable quality
x Parameter removed from candidate parameter List after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. - 26 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2.14
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ESPANOLA
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
DOC
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Sulphide
Chloroform
Methylene LE
Benzene
Toluene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Total TCDF
-Dehydroabietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Recitation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
x = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. ; | -27- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2°15
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., OTTAWA
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
ATG | PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
1
DR ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc.
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Naphthalene
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Abietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
. Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
=D UN = WA) = = = = DC 2 =D od =D on od =ù à
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
x = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after aA/ac
June 3, 1992. - 28 - Appendix II
EEE
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.16
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
PROCESS EFFLUENT
figs heres es eas || | aD?
1 coo 347
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc:
Mercury
Sulphide
Chloroform
Camphene
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
Total PCDD
Total PCDF
Total H6CDF
Total H7CDD
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Octachlorodibenzofuran
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
Number of analyses :
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
Data are of reliable quality
Data are of Limited quality
Data are of unreliable quality
Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
=29-
UNITS
QA/QC
1
D A 2 où où ee a A 5 2 ee ey ee ee =d à
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2.17
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., HUNTSVILLE
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
ATG | PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
1 COD
3 Hydrogen ion (pH)
4a Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance :
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
Chloroform
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Legend
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
xX = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. - 30 - Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.18
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., ST. CATHARINES
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
ATG | PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
1 cop 1
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
A Lumi num
Zinc
1,1-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Toluene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Total TCDF
Abietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Number of analyses
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
Data are of reliable quality
Data are of Limited quality
Data are of unreliable quality
Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
Sie
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector | Development Document
TABLE 2.19
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., TERRACE BAY
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
ATG | PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
cop 364 1
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Mercury
Sulphide
Chloroform
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,3,7,8 TCDD
Total TCDD
Total TCDF
Total PCDD
Total PCDF
Total H6CDD
Total H7CDF
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Octachlorodibenzofuran
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
AE AES ES ES EES SESE ON ESI COE ES SEI ES EN SEEN ES ES SSDS
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
x = Parameter removed from candidate parameter List after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. SRE Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2.20a
MACMILLAN-BLOEDEL LTD.
PROCESS EFFLUENT
(Control Point 1200)
LTA
pe PARAMETER PAS CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
Hydrogen ion (pH) 2
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
DOC
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality :
2 = Data are of limited quality
- 3 = Data are of unreliable quality
xX = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. - 33 - | Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.20b
MACMILLAN BLOEDEL LTD.
PROCESS EFFLUENT
(Control Point 1300)
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
. DOC
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Aluminum
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
or En
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
6.07
18.27
65.94
247.42
1,572.63
8.07
1,680.40
359.09
389.04
1,621.00
+" 16.98
30.75
36.67
61.58
50.83
21.67
66.08
53.33
54.17
572.29
.03
.03
.22
.61
1.43
.10
314
1,482.52
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
x = Parameter. removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
940
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2.21
MALETTE KRAFT PULP AND POWER
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
Sou ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
-Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
Sulphide
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Styrene
Toluene
Camphene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
Phenol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2,4,5-Trichlorotoluene
Total TCDF
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
RYSUSESR
.
œ
N
D — — — 2 BWW = = @ WWW = WW @ OK DC = oo oo oes
= Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control. data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of limited quality
= = Data are of unreliable quality
x = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. DE Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector - Development Document
ae FO a POP ES
TABLE 2.22
NORANDA FOREST INC., RECYCLED PAPERS
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
DOC
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
1,2-Dichloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
Benzene
m-Xylene and p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Dehydroabietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Adsorbable Organic Halide
Legend
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
x = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. - 36 - Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2.23
QUEBEC AND ONTARIO PAPER COMPANY LTD.
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE ;
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrate+Nitrite
DOC
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Dehydroabietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
xX = Parameter removed from candidate parameter List after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. | - 37 - Appendix I!
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.24
ST. MARYS PAPER INC.
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
ATG | PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
1 COD
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Toluene
Phenol
p-Cresol
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Abietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. =
QA/QC =
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
xX =
Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
-38 -
Appendix II
— 5
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 2.25
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD.
PROCESS EFFLUENT
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Conductivity, average
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Copper
Zinc
Chloroform
Toluene
Phenol
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Abietic Acid 3
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
_| ATG | PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
1 coo 1
— a ed od =ù où FN) = ed ob bd md (NU) md ed ed nd ed ù
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. =
QA/QC =
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of Limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
xX =
Parameter removed from candidate parameter List after QA/QC
June 3, 1992.
259
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
Aluminum
Zinc
Chloroform
Toluene
Phenol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
=
runnknnt wu
June 3, 1992. :
PARAMETER
1 | co
3 Hydrogen ion (pH)
4a Ammonia plus Ammonium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Volatile suspended solids
1,2-Dichloroethane
Methylene chloride
Dehydroabietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
TABLE 2.26
STRATHCONA PAPER COMPANY
PROCESS EFFLUENT
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
Data are of reliable quality
Data are of Limited quality
Data are of unreliable quality
Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
= AO!
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
avec |
1
— UN — UN = UN a DC LAN DE We em en mb dt or
Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 2.27
TRENT VALLEY DIVISION (PAPERBOARD INDUSTRIES CORP.)
PROCESS EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS | QA/QC
RARES ion (pH)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Zinc.
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Benzene
Toluene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
m-Cresol
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above ein Method Detection Limit (%)
QA/QC = Quality assurance/quality control data assessment
1 = Data are of reliable quality
2 = Data are of limited quality
3 = Data are of unreliable quality
x = Parameter removed from candidate parameter list after QA/QC
June 3, 1992. - 41- Appendix II
Development Document
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
(Notes)
- 42 - Appendix Il i
June 3, 1992.
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 3.1
1990 AVERAGE PROCESS EFFLUENT FLOW (m‘°/day)
COMPANY NAME
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., Fort William Division - 0100 22,978
- 0200 4,100
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., Iroquois Falls Division 64,946
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., Provincial Papers Division 47,679
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., Thunder Bay Division 46,739
BEAVER WOOD FIBRE COMPANY 15,114
BOISE CASCADE CANADA LTD., Fort Frances 80,710
BOISE CASCADE CANADA LTD., Kenora 51,255
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., Dryden 89,192
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., Thunder Bay 176,069
DOMTAR INC., Containerboard Division (Red Rock) ° 97,050
DOMTAR INC., Containerboard Division (Trenton) ” 4,028
DOMTAR INC., Fine Papers Division (Cornwall) 129,073
DOMTAR INC., Fine Papers Division (St. Catharines) : 10,186
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., Espanola 101,641
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., Ottawa ¢ 7,401
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD. 60,430
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., Huntsville 793
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., St. Catharines 8,755
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., Terrace Bay 91,695
MACMILLAN BLOEDEL LTD. - 1200 7,024
- 1300 5,819
MALETTE KRAFT PULP AND POWER 51,374
NORANDA FOREST INC., Recycled Papers 22,128
QUEBEC AND ONTARIO PAPER COMPANY LTD. 61,546
ST. MARYS PAPER INC. 34,731
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD. 83,944
STRATHCONA PAPER COMPANY 3,321
Trent Valley Division (PAPERBOARD INDUSTRIES CORP.) 3,744
Total Flow for the Sector ’ 1,383,465
June 3, 1992. - 43 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
Appendix Il
June 3, 1992. - 44 -
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector © Development Document
TABLE 4.1
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., IROQUOIS FALLS DIVISION
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0800)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
77.45
FR ion (pH) 8.10
Specific conductance 358.64
Total suspended solids 19.00
Average Flow 4,531.56
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 4.2
BEAVER WOOD FIBRE COMPANY
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
: LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
ee ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Flow
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. | - 45 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector ; Development Document
TABLE 4.3
BOISE CASCADE CANADA LTD., FORT FRANCES
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0600)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
56.02
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance :
Total suspended solids : 35.89
Average Flow 2,285.65 :
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 4.4
BOISE CASCADE CANADA LTD., FORT FRANCES
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0700)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
19.19
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance =
Total suspended solids 12.18
Average Flow
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 4.5
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., DRYDEN
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0800)
_ | LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
cop mg/L
24.17
Hydrogen ion (pH) 7.40
Specific conductance 65.17
Average Flow 2,093.81
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 46 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 4.6
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., DRYDEN
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0900)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
203.07
roan i ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Flow
42.20
2, leen “84
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 4.7
Slate alt PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., THUNDER BAY
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200) —
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
1,914.27
Fae ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids 372.06
Average Flow 39,914. ‘56
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. AP Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
a a ee RE PE
TABLE 4.8
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ESPANOLA
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
sen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Flow 3, 839. 58
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 4.9
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
cop 10.08
Hydrogen ion (pH) 7.56
Specific conductance 129.17
Total suspended solids 2.43
Average Flow 18,855.06
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 4.10
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION (kg/day)
10.36
rien ion (pH) 7.29
Specific conductance 117.64
Average Flow 890.19
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 48 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 4.11
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., TERRACE BAY
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0800)
se ion (pH) na
Specific conductance
Average Flow
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LOADING
(kg/day)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS
Number of ‘analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
=
2
wou
TABLE 4.12
MALETTE KRAFT PULP AND POWER
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER -D. CONCENTRATION (kg/day) -
coo 1,385.11
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids 352.71
Average Flow 36, 053. 07
No.
ESD=
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 4.13
STRATHCONA PAPER COMPANY
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
‘(Control Point 0500)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LM LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
. PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS (kg/day)
COD
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Flow
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
June 3, 1992. - 49 - Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 4.14
STRATHCONA PAPER COMPANY
COOLING WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0600)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
LONG-TERM AVERAGE LOADING
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION (kg/day)
repre ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Flow
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 50- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document :
TABLE 5.1
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., IROQUOIS FALLS DIVISION
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
mg/L
nee HS ion (pH)
Specific conductance C3 uS/cm
Total suspended solids = mg/L
Average Volume Discharged : m3/dicharge
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 5.2
DOMTAR INC., CONTAINERBOARD DIVISION (TRENTON)
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
5,245.50 mg/L
FRE ion (pH) 7.62
Specific conductance 1,717.25 uS/cm
Total suspended solids 1,125.00 mg/L
Average Volume Discharged 53.25 m3/discharge
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
z
o
.
“ou
TABLE 5.3
DOMTAR INC., FINE PAPERS DIVISION (ST. CATHARINES)
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
mg/L
ares ion (pH)
Specific conductance à uS/cm
Total suspended solids : mg/L
Average Volume Discharged x m3/discharge
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
June 3, 1992. . -51- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 5.4
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ESPANOLA
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
DOC
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Flow
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
n
.
o
Wu
TABLE 5.5
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., ST. CATHARINES
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
mg/L
ae ion (pH)
Specific conductance uS/cm
Total suspended solids mg/L
Average Volume Discharged - 5 m3/discharge
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses à
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 5.6
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., TERRACE BAY
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION
465.70 mg/L
ruse ion (pH) 10.53
Specific conductance 2,870.00 uS/cm
Total suspended solids 158.00 mg/L
Average Volume Discharged 401.97 m3/discharge
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 52 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 5.7
NORANDA FOREST INC., RECYCLED PAPERS
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
mg/L
pal ion (pH)
Specific conductance uS/cm
Total suspended solids mg/L
Average Volume Discharged : m3/discharge
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
z
Eats]
.
“ou
TABLE 5.8
NORANDA FOREST INC., RECYCLED PAPERS
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE :
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
87.00
see ion (pH) tat
Specific conductance 893.33
Total suspended solids 317.00
Number of analyses
No.
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
F.D.
TABLE 5.9
ST. MARYS PAPER INC.
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
3,006.24 mg/L
oan ion (pH) ; 7.03
Specific conductance 306.15 uS/cm
Total suspended solids 1,886.70 mg/L
Average Volume Discharged ; 277.11 m3/discharge
Number of analyses
No.
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
F.D.
June 3, 1992. - 53 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
June 3, 1992. - 54 - [ Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 6.1
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., IROQUOIS FALLS DIVISION
BACKWASH EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
sols 12,536.94
5.81
aerate ion (pH)
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
TABLE 6.2
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ESPANOLA
BACKWASH EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
eee ion (pH) .
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
No.
D Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 6.3
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD.
BACKWASH EFFLUENT
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
RES ion (pH)
Total suspended solids 6.33.
Average Volume Discharged 17,584.67
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. -55-
Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
June 3, 1992. - 56 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 7.1
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., THUNDER BAY DIVISION
WASTE DISPOSAL SITE EFFLUENT:
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
Ammonia plus Ammonium
BOO, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus =
Total suspended solids
m-Cresol
p-Cresol.
Average Flow
© © © © © 0 0 0 0 0000000000
_
œ
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
n
.
o
.
“ou
June 3, 1992. pectin rs Appendix II
er ee a Pencil
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
June 3, 1992. - 58 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.1
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., FORT WILLIAM DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION: UNITS
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharge
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.2
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., FORT WILLIAM DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
; ; LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 59 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.3
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., IROQUOIS FALLS DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
DOC
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids ~
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Average Volume Discharged
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.4
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., IROQUOIS FALLS DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
DOC
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 60 - Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.5
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., IROQUOIS FALLS DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 1000)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Aluminum
BOO, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
DOC
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Mercury
Nickel
Oleic Acid
Specific conductance
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total suspended solids
Zinc 5
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.6
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., PROVINCIAL PAPERS DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER No. CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid 50 -01
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand 5.00
DOC 36.50
Dehydroabietic Acid -26
Hydrogen ion (pH) 6.99
Isopimaric Acid -01
Levopimaric Acid -04
Specific conductance 653.00
Total suspended solids 953.00
Average Volume Discharged 2,894.52
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 61 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.7
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., PROVINCIAL PAPERS DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.8
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., THUNDER BAY DIVISION
~STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Oleic Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit co
June 3, 1992. - 62 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.9
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., THUNDER BAY DIVISION
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
DOC
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
-Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
‘TABLE 8.10
BOISE CASCADE CANADA LTD., FORT FRANCES
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
: LONG-TERM AVERAGE
"PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 63 - Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
| TABLE 8.11
BOISE CASCADE CANADA LTD., FORT FRANCES
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER ; CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
CoD
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids ©
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.12
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., DRYDEN
STORM WATER EFFLUENT | |
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE :
CONCENTRATION UNITS
Aluminum
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
CoD
Cadmium
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Molybdenum
Neoabietic Acid
Nickel
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Thallium
Total suspended solids
Zinc
o-Cresol
Average Volume Discharged 17,200.00
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 64 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.13
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., DRYDEN
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Aluminum 100 1,135.00
Ammonia plus Ammonium 50 -28 mg/L
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 100 1.70 ug/L
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 100 -80 ug/L
COD 50 19.50 mg/L
Copper 34.50 ug/L
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 1.40 ug/L
Hydrogen ion (pH) f#39
Specific conductance 50.00 uS/cm
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2.03 mg/L
Average Volume Discharged 3,050.00 m3
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
TABLE 8.14
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., DRYDEN
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid 100 -01 mg/L
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand 50 6.25 mg/L
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Dehydroabietic Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Hydrogen ion (pH) 100 7.38
Isopimaric Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Levopimaric Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Neoabietic Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Oleic Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Pimaric Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Total suspended solids 100 35.60 mg/L
Average Volume Discharged 100 2,550.00 m3
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 65 - Appendix II
ee
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.15
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., THUNDER BAY.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION . UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.16
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., THUNDER BAY
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
o-Cresol
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
ee |
June 3, 1992. - 66 - : Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.17
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., THUNDER BAY
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
PARAMETER
4-Nitrophenol
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS
1:55
Abietic Acid : -05 mg/L
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand 11.85 mg/L
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid -03 mg/L
Dehydroabietic Acid -11 mg/L
Hydrogen jon (pH) 6.62
Isopimaric Acid -04 mg/L
Levopimaric Acid -01 mg/L
Neoabietic Acid -02 mg/L
Oleic Acid -06 mg/L
Pimaric Acid -01 mg/L
Total suspended solids 208. 67 mg/L
Average Volume Discharged 1,005.67
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 67- Appendix II
ENIX
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.18
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., THUNDER BAY
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point O600)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
No.
F.D.
June 3, 1992.
1-Methy| naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Aluminum
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
con
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper i
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
‘Nickel
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Specific conductance
Thallium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total suspended solids
Vanadium
Zinc
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
- 68 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.19
CANADIAN PACIFIC FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., THUNDER BAY
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0700)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Chromium
Copper
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen jon (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Molybdenum
Neoabietic Acid
Nickel
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Thallium
Total suspended solids
Vanadium
Zinc
Average Volume Discharged
CN UN CN UN EN UN EN UN UN UN UN UNI LA LA LI EN U Lo La Le Li Li
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.20 ;
DOMTAR INC., CONTAINERBOARD DIVISION (RED ROCK)
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
PARAMETER
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
CoD
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS
No.. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
- 69 - A
June 3, 1992. ppendix II
ee ONIX
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
See ees Be DIRE OR RS Eee
TABLE 8.21
DOMTAR INC., CONTAINERBOARD DIVISION (TRENTON)
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200) ;
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
cop
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
. TABLE 8.22
DOMTAR INC., CONTAINERBOARD DIVISION (TRENTON)
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
c LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
Reds
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 70 - Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.23
DOMTAR INC., CONTAINERBOARD DIVISION (TRENTON)
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
hi Acid
Sh ne Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
o-Cresol
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.24
DOMTAR INC., FINE PAPERS DIVISION (CORNWALL)
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS
BOO, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
o-Cresol
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
=z
°
.
nou
June 3, 1992. hee dE Appendix II
I Appendix
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.25
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ESPANOLA
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
DOC
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
TABLE 8.26
E.B. EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ESPANOLA
STORM WATER EFFLUENT —
(Control Point 0400)
: LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
2,3,4,5-Tetrachlorophenol
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids 13,326.33
m-Cresol 72.67
o-Cresol 70.07
p-Cresol 16.03
Average Volume Discharged 15.93
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
wou
June 3, 1992. -72- Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.27
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
CoD .
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (2)
TABLE 8.28
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
Le. 0.00 |
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS
Hydrogen ion (pH) 100 7.48
Oleic Acid 100 -01 mg/L
Average Volume Discharged 100 1,410.00. m3
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.29
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point O600)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Hydrogen ion (pH) 100
Oleic Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses :
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. -73- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper-Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.30
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0700)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
_ | PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Oleic Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
ED
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
“wou
TABLE 8.31
JAMES RIVER-MARATHON LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0800)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
on ion (pH)
Oleic Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
z
°: 0
Û
nu
TABLE 8.32
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., HUNTSVILLE
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM. AVERAGE
: PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
FR ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. -74- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.33
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., TERRACE BAY
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOO, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
o-Cresol
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
n
.
oo
.
wou
TABLE 8.34
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., TERRACE BAY
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE ;
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
coo à
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
ED:
June 3, 1992. -75- Appendix II
a AP PON DCH
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector
Development Document
TABLE 8.35
KIMBERLY-CLARK CANADA INC., TERRACE BAY
STORM:WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
No.
F.D.
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.36
MACMILLAN-BLOEDEL LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 1400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
No.
F.D.
June 3, 1992.
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended. solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
765
Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.37
MACMILLAN-BLOEDEL LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 2300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOO, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No
- Number of analyses
F.D.
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.38
MALETTE KRAFT PULP AND POWER
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0800)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE À
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
cop
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
n
.
o
nou
June 3, 1992. -77- Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.39
MALETTE KRAFT PULP AND POWER ©
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0900)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.40
MALETTE KRAFT PULP AND POWER
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 1000)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand 100
CoD
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Average Volume Discharged
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. -78-.: Appendix II
EE ————
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.41
ST. MARYS PAPER INC.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
pe .
-01
BOO, 5 day, Total Demand
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Oleic Acid
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 8.42 |
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0200)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
ARE ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged
No. = Number of analyses 5
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. -79- . Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.43
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT :
(Control Point 0300)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Aluminum
COD
Chromium
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Mercury
Specific conductance
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total suspended solids
Zinc
Average Volume Discharged
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
TABLE 8.44
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0400)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D. CONCENTRATION UNITS
(%)
Abietic Acid 1
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid 100
Dehydroabietic Acid 100
Hydrogen ion (pH) 100
Isopimaric Acid 100
Levopimaric Acid 100
Neoabietic Acid 100
Oleic Acid 100
Pimaric Acid 100
Total suspended solids 100
Average Volume Discharged 100
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
June 3, 1992. ; - 80 - ; Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 8.45
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0500)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER : CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
CoD
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total suspended solids
Average Volume Discharged 1,243.50
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit +
TABLE 8.46
SPRUCE FALLS POWER AND PAPER COMPANY LTD.
STORM WATER EFFLUENT
(Control Point 0600)
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Abietic Acid
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Average Volume Discharged
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Boose pegdlation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. “gl Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
(Notes)
- 82 - Appendix Il
June 3, 1992.
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 9.1
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., FORT WILLIAM DIVISION
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
1,2-Dichloroethane
Abietic Acid
Aluminum
BOD, 5 day, Total Demand
Benzene
Bromomethane
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chromium
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Neoabietic Acid
Nitrate+Nitrite
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Styrene -29
Toluene -63
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen -49
Total suspended solids 9.67
Zinc 14.65
Average Flow 25,741.99
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992.
- 83 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 9.2
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., IROQUOIS FALLS DIVISION
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Abietic Acid
Aluminum
Benzene
Bromomethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chromium
Copper
DOC -
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Levopimaric Acid
Mercury
Methylene chloride
Neoabietic Acid
Nitrate+Nitrite
Oleic Acid
Phenol
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Total suspended solids
Vanadium
Zinc
p-Cresol
Average Flow
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 84 - Appendix Il
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 9.3
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., PROVINCIAL PAPERS DIVISION
INTAKE WATER
PARAMETER
1,2-Dichloroethane
Abietic Acid
Aluminum
Benzene
Bromomethane
Chloroform
Copper
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Methylene chloride
Nitrate+Nitrite
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Toluene
Zinc
m-Xylene and p-Xylene
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION UNITS
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 85- Appendix II
eee ENT
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 9.4
ABITIBI-PRICE INC., THUNDER BAY DIVISION
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Abietic Acid
Aluminum
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Copper
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Mercury
Methylene chloride —
Nitrate+Nitrite
Oleic Acid
Specific conductance
Styrene
Toluene
Zinc
m-Xylene and p-Xylene
Average Flow
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
: TABLE 9.5
BEAVER WOOD FIBRE COMPANY
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
8.00 mg/L
aad ion (pH) 18.00
Total suspended solids 9.85 mg/L.
Average Flow 14,225.65 m3/day
No.
F.D.
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 86 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 9.6
DOMTAR INC., FINE PAPERS DIVISION (CORNWALL)
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
F.D.(%) CONCENTRATION UNITS
Aluminum
Chlorodehydroabietic Acid
Copper
Dehydroabietic Acid
Dichlorodehydroabietic Ac.
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Isopimaric Acid
Lead
Levopimaric Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Oleic Acid
Pimaric Acid
Specific conductance
Zinc
Average Flow
ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee mt
117,000.00
: No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 9.7
E°B: EDDY FOREST PRODUCTS LTD., ESPANOLA
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Aluminum
Benzene
Dehydroabietic Acid
Mercury
Nickel
Sulphide
Zinc
Number of analyses
Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
No.
F.D.
June 3, 1992. - 87 - Appendix II
MISA Pulp and Paper Sector Development Document
TABLE 9.8
NORANDA FOREST INC., RECYCLED PAPERS
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Total suspended solids | 12} 100 | 16.33 mg/L.
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
TABLE 9.9
STRATHCONA PAPER COMPANY
INTAKE WATER
LONG-TERM AVERAGE
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION UNITS
Aluminum
cop
Dehydroabietic Acid
Hydrogen ion (pH)
Specific conductance
Vanadium
No. = Number of analyses
F.D. = Frequency of Detection Above Regulation Method Detection Limit (%)
June 3, 1992. - 88 - Appendix !!