### Facility Information

– Dioxin Distributions

1. Simpson Tacoma Kraft, Co., LLC

– Tacoma, WA (98421SMPSN801PO)

**•** 

### Simpson Tacoma Kraft did not report dioxin discharges in 2008.

**•** 

### Simpson Tacoma Kraft’s reported pounds of dioxin increased from 2007 to 2009.

**•** 

### Simpson Tacoma Kraft did not report any dioxin distribution in 2008, but reported a water release

dioxin distribution in 2009.

**•** 

### Please explain the increase in reported pounds of dioxin from 2007 to 2009.

**•** 

### How did the facility determine the 2009 water dioxin distribution (i.e., does the facility now have available monitoring data for dioxin compounds)?

**•** 

### If the facility used monitoring data to determine their water dioxin distribution, where was the monitoring conducted (e.g., final effluent) and how are non

- det ect results included in the

distribution?

Response: Simpson did report discharges in 2008, they are included in this response. The data was submitted via hard copy to the EPA. The 2008 reporting occurred during the transition to the new EPA electronic

sys tem and various difficulties occurred necessitating the hard copy reporting. EPA has not corrected

the electronic record to show these data.

Congener

Number Chemical Name TWF 2008

Distribution

(grams) 200 8

Distribution (%)

1 Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 2,3,7,8

- 703,584,000 0 0

2 Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8

- 692,928,000 0 0

3 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 23,498,240 0 0

4 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 9,556,480 0 0

5 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 10,595,840 0 0

6 Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 411,136 .2449 14.7

7 Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 6,586 1.4226 85.3

8 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8

- 43,819,554 0 0

9 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8

- 7,632,640 0 0

10 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8

- 557,312,000 0 0

11 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 5,760,000 0 0

12 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 14,109,440 0 0

13 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 47,308,800 0 0

14 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8

- 51,204,160 0 0

15 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 85,760 0 0

16 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- 3,033,984 0 0

17 Octachlorodibenzofuran 2,021 0 0



### Simpson tested for and reported only congeners 1 (TCDD 2378) and 8 (TCDF 2378) in years 2005

- 2007. Full spectrum congener testing and reporting occurred in years 2008 and 2009. This accounts for the increase in the reported quantity. Testing occurs on one annual 24 hour composite sample of

final treated effluent. Non

- detect results are reported as zero.

Dioxin Compounds 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Pounds Released 0.005 0.004 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003

TWPE 228,696 243 207 218 276

NR

– Not Reported.Congener

Number Chemical Name TWF 2009

Distribution

(grams) 2009

Distribution (%)

1 Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 2,3,7,8

- 703,584,000 0 0

2 Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8

- 692,928,000 0 0

3 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 23,498,240 0.0717 3.20

4 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 9,556,480 0.1191 5.31

5 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 10,595,840 0.0947 4.22

6 Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 411,136 0.4535 20.22

7 Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 6,586 0.9023 40.23

8 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8

- 43,819,554 0.028 1.25

9 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8

- 7,632,640 0.0827 3.69

10 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8

- 557,312,000 0.1647 7.34

11 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 5,760,000 0.0576 2.57

12 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 14,109,440 0.0698 3.11

13 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 47,308,800 0 0

14 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8

- 51,204,160 0.0928 4.14

15 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 85,760 0 0

16 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- 3,033,984 0 0

17 Octachlorodibenzofuran 2,021 0.106 4.73



### 2. Longview Fiber Paper & Packaging, Inc.

– Longview, WA (98632LNGVWSOUTH)

**•** 

### Longview’s reported pounds of dioxin did not change from 2008 to 2009.

**•** 

### Longview did not report any dioxin distribution in 2008, but reported a water release dioxin

distribution in 2009.

**•** 

### Please confirm the 2009 facility

- reported water dioxin distribution.

**•** 

### How did the facility determine the 2009 water dioxin distribution (i.e., does the facility now have available monitoring data for dioxin compounds)?

**•** 

### If the facility used monitoring data to determine their water dioxin distribution, where was the monitoring conducted (e.g., final effluent) and how are non

- detect results included in the

d istribution?

Initial RESPONSE:

The mill’s dioxin TRI data are based on extremely conservative assumptions. Recent (2008

- 2010) final effluent 2,3,7,8 TCDD data generated pursuant to the mill’s NPDES permit were all non

- detect. Nonetheless, based on an earlier detection of 2,3,7,8 TCDF in effluent sampled pursuant to the permit, the mill assumed (based on comparisons to analyses of boiler ash) the presence of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and the other congeners in the distributions included in the table below. These assumptions were not based on

water dioxin distribution data. (Also note that the company name is Longview Fib re ...)

Dioxin Compounds 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Pounds Re ported 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005 NR

NR

– Not Reported.Congener

Number Chemical Name TWF 2009

Distribution

(grams) 2009

Distribution (%)

1 Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 2,3,7,8

- 703,584,000 0.053 2.70

2 Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8

- 692,928,000 0.074 3.76

3 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 23,498,240 0.049 2.49

4 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 9,556,480 0.072 3.66

5 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 10,595,840 0.036 1.83

6 Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 411,136 0.303 15.41

7 Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 6,586 0.313 15.92

8 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8

- 43,819,554 0.358 18.21

9 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8

- 7,632,640 0.171 8.70

10 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8

- 557,312,000 0.172 8.75

11 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 5,760,000 0.057 2.90

12 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 14,109,440 0.084 4.27

13 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 47,308,800 0 0

14 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8

- 51,204,160 0.099 5.04

15 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 85,760 0.089 4.53

16 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- 3,033,984 0 0

17 Octachlorodibenzofuran 2,021 0.036 1.83



### 3. AbitibiBowater, Inc. Coosa Pines Operations

– Coosa Pines, AL (35044SPLPNALABA)

**•** 

### AbitibiBowater’s reported pounds of dioxin decreased from 2008 to 2009.

**•** 

### AbitibiBowater did not report any dioxin distribution in 2008, but reported a water release dioxin

distribution in 2009.

**•** 

### Please confirm the 2009 facility

- reported water dioxin distribution.

**•** 

### How did the facility determine the 2009 water dioxin distribution (i.e., does th e facility now have available monitoring data for dioxin compounds)? no

**•** 

### If the facility used monitoring data to determine their water dioxin distribution, where was the monitoring conducted (e.g., final effluent) and how are non

- detect results included in the

distribution?

RESPONSE:

There are two reasons the Coosa Pines mill dioxin number decreased in 2009. First, the mill experienced significant down time in 2009 as compared to 2008, which meant less coal was combusted in the boilers, so the overall emissions via air and land (ash ), and water decreased, as dioxin releases are associated with combustion. Second, in 2008 and before, dioxin data reported by the mill did not follow the distributions AF&PA previously provided EPA. In 2009, that distribution was used (monitoring data we re not used to calculate the 2009 distribution). The mill also monitors bleach plant effluent for 2,3,7,8

- TCDD and 2,3,7,8

- TCDF pursuant to its NPDES permit and has not reported those compounds in bleach plant effluent since at least 2002.

Dioxin Compoun ds 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Pounds Released 0.0006 0.0008 NR NR NR

NR

– Not Reported.Congener

Number Chemical Name TWF 2009

Distribution

(grams) 2009

Distribution (%)

1 Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 2,3,7,8

- 703,584,000 0.2013 65.46

2 Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8

- 692,928,000 0 0

3 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 23,498,240 0 0

4 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 9,556,480 0 0

5 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 10,595,840 0 0

6 Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 411,136 0 0

7 Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 6,586 0 0

8 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8

- 43,819,554 0 0

9 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8

- 7,632,640 0 0

10 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8

- 557,312,000 0 0

11 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 5,760,000 0 0

12 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 14,109,440 0 0

13 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 47,308,800 0 0

14 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8

- 51,204,160 0.1062 34.54

15 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 85,760 0 0

16 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- 3,033,984 0 0

17 Octachlorodibenzofuran 2,021 0 0



### 4. Domtar Paper, Co.

– Bennettsville, SC (29512WLLMTHWY91)

**•** 

### Domtar Paper’s reported pounds of dioxin did not change from 2008 to 2009.

**•** 

### Domtar Paper did not report any dioxin distribution in 2008, but reported a water release dioxin

distribution in 2009.

**•** 

### How did the facility determine the 2009 water dioxin distribution (i.e., does the facility now have available monitoring data for dioxin compounds)?

**•** 

### If the facility used monitoring data to determine their water dioxin distribution, where was the monitoring conducted (e.g., final effluent) and how are non

- detect results included in the

distribution?

**•** 

### Domtar Paper’s reported pounds of dioxin did not change from 2008 to 2009.

RESPONSE:

First, it appears EPA has reversed the data in the last two columns of the table (2009 Distribution grams and percentage).

Second, the mill sampled its final effluent on October 15, 2002 for the 17 congeners for dioxin and furan. All 17 congeners were reported in the test results at less than or equal to their respective detection limits (DL), with the exception of 2,3,7,8

- TCDF, which returned with a value of 6.2 ppq. All congeners, including 2,3,7,8

- TCDF, were calculated using the established convention of one

- half the DL to calculate the grams per year value. The resultant total grams per year, which is the total of all 17 congeners, therefore is actually a "less than or equal to" value, and is a conserva tive estimate. Since the 2002 reporting year, TRI calculations have been based on the results of that single sample, and the mill has not undertaken water dioxin congeners distribution monitoring since then (including in 2009).

Applying annual effluent discharge volumes of 5,376 million gallons (MG) and 5,442 MG for 2008 and 2009, respectively, the mill calculated 0.8657 grams/year (2008) and 0.8764 grams/year (2009) total dioxin based on effluent discharge.

### The mill has not exceeded a dioxin/furan Cluster Rule limit since inception of testing. Further, it

has had monthly non

- detects for both 2,3,7,8

- TCDD and 2,3,7,8

- TCDF since July 2003.

Dioxin Compounds 2009 2008 2007 2006 a 2005

Pounds Released 0.002 0.002 0.0018 0.002 0.002

TWPE 224,937 1,553 1,536 1,669 1,715

Congener

Number Chemical Name TWF 2009

Distribution

(grams) 2009

Distribution (%)

1 Tetrachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 2,3,7,8

- 703,584,000 3.06 0.0268

2 Pentachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8

- 692,928,000 8.81 0.0772

3 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 23,498,240 4.59 0.0402

4 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 9,556,480 4.59 0.0402

5 Hexachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 10,595,840 4.23 0.0371

6 Heptachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 411,136 3.99 0.035

7 Octachlorodibenzo

- p

- dioxin 6,586 29.38 0.2575

8 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8

- 43,819,554 7.28 0.0638

9 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8

- 7,632,640 3.88 0.034

10 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8

- 557,312,000 4.46 0.0391

11 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8

- 5,760,000 3.88 0.034

12 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8

- 14,109,440 3.64 0.0319

13 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9

- 47,308,800 2.70 0.0237

14 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8

- 51,204,160 2.70 0.0237

15 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8

- 85,760 3.29 0.0288

16 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9

- 3,033,984 4.23 0.0371

17 Octachlorodibenzofuran 2,021 5.28 0.0463

### Email Correspondence with AF&PA

From: Schwartz, Jerry

Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 2:26 PM

To: Elizabeth Sabol [mailto:Elizabeth.Sabol@erg.com] ; Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Eleanor Codding; jmontgo@simpson.com Subject: RE: Clarification of Dioxin Data

Elizabeth: We realize t hat the attached table is labeled “Secondary Effluent”, but Jim has confirmed that the data comes from testing of the final effluent composited over a 24 hour period. As you can see, the

results are all “zero” for TCDD and almost all “zero” for TCDF. I hope that answers your questions

below. Jerry

From: "DuVall, Steven D" sdduvall@longfibre.com Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:57 PM To: Sabol, Elizabeth; Schwartz, Jerry Subject: Last words on Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc. Dioxin Reporting

Elizabeth/Jerry:

This reply is based upon what little knowledge I can dredge up since most of the key players have retired. I will be doing the same at the end of this week.

First, we did do a test fo r 2,3,7,8

- TCDD in 2004. That test was non detect so the MRL of ~8 ppq was

used. I believe this highly over estimates the actual value for 2,3,7,8

- TCDD.

We do not have any speciation data for mill effluent. We did have a speciation for testing done on boiler fly ash. That testing showed that 2,3,7,8

- TCDD was about 20% of the total. That ratio was applied to the total D/F in the mill effluent making the total D/F at 40 ppq. Again, this is based upon an old MRL value.

That value was used for total re porting for the following years:

2006 @ 2.384 grams 2007 @ 2.35 grams

2008 @ 1.99 grams

2009 @ 1.84 grams

Actual 2,3,7,8

- TCDD testing showed the following:

2008 Non Detect , EDL= 0.412 ppq and MRL = 9.8 ppq

2009 Non Detect , EDL= 2.81 ppq and MRL = 9 .17 ppq

2010 Non Detect , EDL= 0.971 ppq and MRL = 12.2 ppq

If I were to have done the reporting, I would have used 50% of the EDL for 2,3,7,8

- TCDD and applied the 5X factor (from old fly ash data) for total D/F. I have attached a simple spreadsheet for comparison.

2008 = 0.206 ppq 2,3,7,8

- TCDD or 1.03 ppq total D/F. 2009 = 1.4 ppq 2,3,7,8

- TCDD or 7 ppq total D/F. 2010 = 0.486 ppq 2,3,7,8

- TCDD or 2.43 ppq total D/F.

Total flows are as follows:

### 2006 = 15,748,000,000 gallons per year (43.145 MGD)

2 007 = 15,518,000,000 gallons per year (42.515 MGD) 2008 = 13,723,000,000 gallons per year (37.597 MGD) 2009 = 13,140,000,000 gallons per year (36.000 MGD) 2010 = 12,157,000,000 gallons per year (33.307 MGD)

Data is sparse and expensive to obtain, so esti mates were used. They were very conservative estimates as you can see from my own calculations on the attached spreadsheet.

Steven D. DuVall Environmental Services Manager

email: sdduvall@longfibre.com phone: 360.575.5584

cell: 360.431.9198

fax: 360.575.6110 300 Fibre Way

P.O. Box 639 Longview, WA 98632 longviewfibre.com Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc.

From: Elizabeth Sabol [mailto:Elizabeth.Sabol@erg.com]

Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:09 AM

To: Schwartz, Jerry; Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Eleanor Codding Subject: RE: Clarification of Dioxin Data

Jerry,

Thank you for the information for the Simpson facility. I have a few follow

- up questions regarding the Simpson data provided, please find below.

1. To confirm, the dioxin data provided are labeled as the results for the "Secondary Effluent". Is the secondary effluent the final effluent (e.g., the same effluent point that the flow data repres ents), or is it an internal sampling point? 2. If it is an internal sampling point, are other wastewaters commingled with the process wastewater stream prior to discharge? 3. Do you know the dioxin concentrations at the final effluent? Are they non

- detect?

If you have any questions or find it easier to discuss via phone, please call me at 703

- 633

- 1659. I appreciate your help in interpreting this data correctly.

Thanks,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth A. Sabol Environmental Engineer Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 elizabeth.sabol@erg.com

### Phone:703

- 633

- 1659

From: "Montgomery, Jim" <jmontgo@simpson.com>

To: "Elizabeth Sabol" <Elizabeth.Sabol@erg.com>, "Jerry Schwartz"

<J erry_Schwartz@afandpa.org>, <Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov>

CC: "Eleanor Codding" <Eleanor.Codding@erg.com>

Date: 2/7/2011 7:23 PM Subject: RE: Clarification of Dioxin Data

Attachments: effluent congeners 2008 and 2009.xlsx

Response for Simpson:

Flo w data on attached is for final effluent flow.

Jim Montgomery Environmental Manager Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co. LLC

From: Elizabeth Sabol [mailto:Elizabeth.Sabol@erg.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 1:11 PM To: Jerry Schwartz; Swietlik.William@epamail. epa.gov Cc: Eleanor Codding; Montgomery, Jim Subject: RE: Clarification of Dioxin Data

Jerry,

Thanks again for all of the facility data provided.

Below, I have included a couple fo llow

- up questions regarding the responses provided for Longview

Fi bre Paper & Packaging, Inc. and Simpson Tacoma Kraft, Co.,LLC.

Longview:

1. For 2008 through 2010 final effluent data, is 2,3,7,8

- TCDD the only parameter being monitored? 2. When was the earlier detection of 2,3,7,8

- TCDF in the effluent sampled?

3. Please clarify the statement "these assumptions were not based on water dioxin distribution data". I am unclear what the facility is saying. 4. Please provide a copy of the 2008

- 2010 dioxin sampling data and corresponding flow data.

Simpson:

Please provide a copy of the 2008 and 2009 dioxin sampling data. Also, please provide corresponding flow data. Please note whether this flow data is for the final outfall or another internal outfall. If internal, please explain.

Again, we appreciate your help in clarify ing the TRI data. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,

Elizabeth

### From: "Schwartz, Jerry" 

### Jerry_Schwartz@afandpa.org

To: <Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov>



### Date: 2/3/2011 3:09 PM Subject: RE: Clarification of Dioxin Data

Bill: Here is a response from Simpson. Jerry

From: "Schwartz, Jerry" <Jerry_Schwartz@afandpa.org>

To: <Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov>

CC: "Elizabeth Sabol" <Elizabeth.Sabol@erg.com>, "Eleanor Codding" <Eleanor.Codding@erg.com>

Date: 1/28/2011 6:11 PM Subject: RE: Clarification of Dioxin Data

Attachments: Response to EPA 2009 Pulp and Paper Dioxin Distn Summary.doc

Bill et al: Thanks again for extending your deadline for us to respond to your request for clarification. Attached are responses for three of the four mills. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I did not receive responses from personnel representing the fourth company. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance on this. Jerry

From: Swietlik.William@epamail.epa.gov

Se nt: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:42 AM To: Schwartz, Jerry Cc: Elizabeth Sabol; Eleanor Codding Subject: Re: Clarification of Dioxin Data

Jerry:

As we have done in previous years, EPA is requesting clarification of 2009 TRI dioxin data for four Pulp

and Pa per facilities as part of our 2011 annual review of industrial discharges under Section 304 of the

Clean Water Act.

Specifically, we would like to clarify the amount of dioxin and dioxin

- like compound releases and the congener distribution reported to the 2009 TRI from the following Pulp and Paper plants (see detailed document attached):

1. Longview Fiber Paper & Packaging, Inc.; 2. AbitibiBowater, Inc.; 3.Simpson Tacoma Kraft, Co., LLC; and 4. Domtar Paper Co.

In 2008, these four Pulp and Paper facilities did not report a water congener distribution specific to their facility (i.e., they left the field blank). For our database purposes, EPA assigned the designated Pulp and Paper congener distribution 

### provided previously by AF&PA. In 2009 however , these facilities reported water congener distributions specific to their facility. The reported distributions differ from AF&PA designated distributions. The attachment to this email provides the detailed congener

distribution information. EPA would like to confirm these distributions and determine what they are based on (e.g., sampling data, etc.). Specific questions are asked about each facility in the attachment to which we would appreciate your reply.

### We appreciate your help in interpreting the 2009 TRI dioxin data correctly.

Please return the requested information to Elizabeth Sabol of ERG via e

- mail at elizabeth.sabol@erg.com, or to me directly if you prefer.

If you have questions regarding this request, you may contact Elizabeth Sabol of ERG by phone at (703)

633

- 1659 or at the e

- mail address listed above.

If you would like to speak with me regarding this request, I am available at (202) 566

- 1129 or by e

- mail: swietlik.william@epa.gov.

________________ Bill Swietlik

US EPA

Office of Water

E ngineering and Analysis Division (4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

202

- 566

- 1129: Phone

202

- 566

- 1053: FAX