———— 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 !!