## MEMORANDUM

TO: William Swietlik, U.S. EPA/EAD
FROM: Kimberly Landick , ERG
DATE: November 1, 2011
SUBJECT: AF&PA and NCASI Meeting Minutes for 1 November 2011
On 1 November 2011, EPA met with AF&PA and NCASI to discuss changes in the pulp and paper industry. Discussion topics included:

**•** Introduction s;

**•** New (since April 2005) guidance from NCASI or other sources on how to estimate dioxin releases;

**•** Trends in dioxin generation

**•** Other wastewater trends Attachment 1 lists the meeting participants.
Introductions Paul Wiegand (NCASI) and Jerry Schwartz (AF&PA) introduced themselves. Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Schwartz agreed that the 2006 Pulp and Paper Detailed Study looks at 2002/2003 data a nd that the conclusions reached in the study are still accurate (as of 2011).
New Guidance from NCASI or Other Sources Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Schwartz stated that there is no new guidance from AF&PA or NCASI (2005 is the most current) on how to estimate d ioxin releases

. Trends in Dioxin Generation Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Schwartz were asked if the changes in TWPE in 2009 in the pulp and paper industry were from process changes or from a change in congener

- specific profiles. They both confirmed that they did not know of any significant changes in the bleaching proc esses in the past few years besides possible reductions in c hlorine dioxide use. Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Schwartz were additionally asked whether there have been any change s in the number of dioxin congeners measured in the pulp and paper industry. They
co nfirmed that per the Cluster Rule, all facilities must measure for TCDF and TCDD. The lab costs are higher if a facility measures for all 17 dioxin congeners, so most only measure for

### TCDF and TCDD. However, some states require full congener testing from t ime to time but there is no standard.
Other Wastewater Trends Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Schwartz were asked if they knew of any decrease in water use at pulp and paper facilities. Both confirmed that mills are interested in decreasing water use, but there have been no significant water use changes. Mr. Schwartz stated that in 2010 AF &PA did a
sus tainability report (available online at: http://www.afandpa.org/pressreleases.aspx?id=1404 ) and found that the volume of water used has decreased by 20.5% since 1995. He added that in 2008 the volume increased a little because of a huge drop i n production due to the slow economy. Mr. Schwa rtz also stated that the data in the 2010 sustainability report are for the entire pulp industry. Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Schwartz stated that they would assist in collecting the remaining dioxin discharge data from pulp and paper facilities.

### At tachment 1
Table A

- 1. List of Meeting Participants Name Affiliation Phone Email Paul Wiegand NCASI 919

- 941

- 6417 pwiegand@NCASI.org Jerry Schwartz AF&PA 202

- 463

- 2581 jerry_schwartz@afandpa.org William Swietlik US EPA 202

- 566

- 1129 swietlik.william@epa.gov Betsy Bicknell ERG 703

- 633

- 1612 betsy.bicknell@erg.com Ellie Codding ERG 703

- 633

- 1673 eleanor.codding @erg.com Elizabeth Sabol ERG 703

- 633

- 1659 elizabeth.sabol@erg.com Kimberly Landick ERG 703

- 633

- 1119 kimberly.landick@erg.com

### AF&PA and NCASI Email Correspondence Nov 2011

– Feb 2012 From: Kimberly Landick To: Schwartz, Jerry; Wiegand, Paul CC: Codding, Eleanor; Lewis, Samantha; Sabol, Elizabeth; Swietlik, William Date: 2/22 /2012 10:37 A M Subject: Pulp and Paper Dioxin Data Jerry and Paul: Thank you for sending the follow up information for International Paper's Riegelwood, NC mill and the SAPPI mill. We will let you know if we have any further questions. Thank you, Kimberly

---------------------------------------- Kimberl y D. Landick Environmental Engineer Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 kimberly.landick@erg.com Phone: 703

- 633

- 1119
From: Swietlik, William To: Schwartz, Jerry CC: Landick, Kimberly; Codding, Eleanor; Lewis, Samantha; Sabol, Elizabeth; Wiegand, Paul Date: 2/21/2012 6:02 PM Subject: Re: FW: EPA ELG request for DDLC data from Sappi Skowhegan
Thanks again Jerry.

_______________________ Bill Swietlik Engineering and Analysis Division (4303

- T) Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology U. S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC, 20460 202

- 566

- 1129: Desk 202

- 566

- 1053: FAX From: Schwartz, Jerry To: Landick, Kimberly; Codding, Eleanor; Lewis, Samanth a; Sabol, Elizabeth; Swietlik, William CC: Wiegand, Paul Date: 2/20/2012 10:44 AM Subject: FW: EPA ELG request for DDLC data from Sappi Skowhegan 

### All: Here is some information on the SAPPI mill in response to your request. Sorry for the delay in getting t his to you. JerryFrom: Griffin, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Griffin@sappi.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 4:17 PM To: Schwartz, Jerry Cc: Hibbard, Kimberly Subject: EPA ELG request for DDLC data from Sappi Skowhegan.


### Jerry, Following up on your 1/30/12 e

- mail concerning the EPA ELG request for DDLC data from the Somerset mill, attached is the TRI Dioxin Congener Distributions data sheet with our 2007 data entered into it. Both the 2007 and 2009 distributions were based on the a 2002 analysis of the mill’s final effluent. 2002 was the last year a full conger scan was conducted on our effluent. I have also attached this data sheet so that EPA can see the conger distribution. As noted before, we do make corrections to the natural ly occurring congers ( i.e. OCDD, HpCDD and OCDF ) contained in the mill’s receiving water, pulp wood and kaolin clay. Please call if you have any questions.
From: Wiegand, Paul To: Landick, Kimberly CC: Codding, Eleanor; Lewis, Samantha; Sabol, Elizabet h; Swietlik, William; Schwartz, Jerry Date: 2/13/2012 12:10 PM Subject: RE: Pulp and Paper Dioxin Data


### Ms. Landick,
I have received a response to your question of International Paper’s Riegelwood, NC mill. The attached spreadsheet describes the data used f or 2007 and 2009 TRI reporting and the following explanation summarizes the reasoning behind TRI reports for those two years.
For most years of reporting, DDLC releases to water have been based on data from measurements made in bleach plant effluents in 2 000 for which three congeners were reported. 2007 was an exception because for that year an actual effluent measurement was used that showed non

- detect for one congener and thus only two congeners were reported. The mill used the earlier convention for pur poses of reporting for 2009.
You should have received a separate response for the Maine mill courtesy of Jerry Schwartz. If you have questions, please let me know.

Paul
Paul Wiegand Vice President

- Water Quality National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Inc. P.O. Box 13318 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

- 3318 phone (919) 941

- 6417 cell (919) 607

- 8120 fax (919) 941

- 6401 PWiegand@ncasi.orgIf you do not wish to be contacted by NCASI please notify publications@ncasi.org
From: Kimberly Landick To: Wiegand, Paul Date: 1/25/2012 12:44 PM Subject: Follow up on Pulp and Paper Dioxin Data
Hi Paul,

Than k you for giving me a call this morning. I wanted to confirm that for both facilities, we are looking for the grams reported for each congener for water in 2007 like we discussed on the phone, but we are also wanting to know why the water distributions are different between 2007 and 2009. For example, is the difference due to reporting air releases in 2007 and then water releases in 2009 or in how the data was processed or for some other reason? Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thank you! Kimberly

---------------------------------------- Kimberly D. Landick Environmental Engineer Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 kimberly.landick@erg.com Phone: 703

- 633

- 1119
From: Wiegand, Paul To: Landick, Kimberly; Schwartz, Jerry CC: Codding, Eleanor; Lewis, Samantha; Sabol, Elizabeth; Swietlik, William Date: 1/17/2012 5:14 PM Subject: RE: Pulp and Paper Dioxin Data


### Kimberly,
My apologies for not replying sooner. I understand the questions you have and will attempt to derive more information from the two facilities in question. I will let you know what we find out.

Paul
From: Kimberly Landick To: Schwartz, Jerry; Wiegand, Paul CC: Codding, Eleanor; Lewis, Samantha; Sabol, Elizabeth; Swietlik, William Date: 1/13/2012 12:33 PM Subject: Pulp and Paper Dioxin DataJerry and Paul, Thank you for the additional plant data (received 12/02/2011). We've incorporated those data into our analysis and only have questions on two plants' dioxin data (highlighted in green in the attached Excel sheet). These two plant's reported discharges, eve n with additional data, remain elevated compared to earlier years, in terms of estimated TWPE. Please see the attached spreadsheet for details on how all of the estimated TWPE is being derived. Please note that we are aware that the Proctor and Gamble Pa per Products, Co. is not an AF&PA or NCASI member; however, they are included in the attachment for our records. Just to recap from our November 2011 discussion, we continue to resolve why, in the 2009 TRI, some facilities reported either greater mass of dioxin released and/or more toxic mix of congeners, such as greater percentage of TCDD/TCDF. So far, we have found that no facility has measured greater concentrations of dioxin in their effluent wastewater, but that facilities have altered how they are
es timating or reporting their discharges. The attached spreadsheet lists reported dioxin data for the 19 plants we've investigated. We are focusing on resolving facilities with large increases between their 2007 and 2009 reported releases of dioxin (see the column labeled "% increase in TWF (2007 to 2009)"). We compare 2007 and 2009 data because of data storage problems with the 2008 data.
Please feel free to call (703

- 633

- 1119) or email if you need clarification or would like to discuss our questions. Thank you, Kimberly

---------------------------------------- Kimberly D. Landick Environmental Engineer Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 kimberly.landick@erg.com Phone: 703

- 633

- 1119
From: Wiegand, Paul To: Sabol, Elizabeth; Swietlik, William CC: Schwartz, Jerry Date: 12/2/2011 8:37 AM Subject: Clarifying data

– Pulp and Paper TRI for DDLC
Bill and Elizabeth, The attached file provides the responses from five of the six facilities for which you requested clarifying data supporting 2009 TRI reports for dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds. The Kimberly Clark mill in Everett, Washington has not yet responded. Please let me know if this information requires any additi onal clarification.Paul Paul Wiegand Vice President

- Water Quality National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), Inc. P.O. Box 13318 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

- 3318 phone (919) 941

- 6417 cell (919) 607

- 8120 fax (919) 941

- 6401 PWiegand@ncasi.org From: Schwartz, Jerry To: Wiegand, Paul; Swietlik, William CC: Bicknell, Betsy; Codding, Eleanor; Landick, Kimberly; Sabol, Elizabeth Date: 11/2/2011 5:21 PM Subject: RE: Clarifying data needed
Thanks, Bill, th e dates help as well. Jerry From: Wiegand, Paul To: Schwartz, Jerry; Swietlik, William CC: Bicknell, Betsy; Codding, Eleanor; Landick, Kimberly; Sabol, Elizabeth Date: 11/2/2011 4:58 PM Subject: RE: Clarifying data needed
Thank you Bill. We'll begin co ntacting the mills ASAP.
From: Swietlik, Bill To: Schwartz, Jerry; Wiegand, Paul CC: Bicknell, Betsy; Codding, Eleanor; Landick, Kimberly; Sabol, Elizabeth Date: 11/2/2011 4:19 PM Subject: RE: Clarifying data needed
Jerry/Paul: Thank you for your time on the phone on Tuesday. I think the discussion was very useful. The additional information we need for the remaining six facilities is described in the attached Excel table below. Additionally, here are some key dates and milestones to help clarify our timeline: October 26, 2011: 2010 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan published (reviewed 2008 discharge data in TRI and DMR). November 25, 2011: Close of thirty day public comment period for 2010 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.January 2012: L ikely publication of 2012 Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (reviewed 2009 discharge data in TRI and DMR), public comment period to follow publication. Typically 30 days. December 2012: Likely publication of 2012 Final Effluent Guidelines Progr am Plan, public comment period to follow publication. The information we are currently gathering is 2009 discharge data that will be used in the Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.
Thank you. Please call me if you have additional questions.

___ ____________________ Bill Swietlik Engineering and Analysis Division (4303

- T) Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology U. S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC, 20460 202

- 566

- 1129: Desk 202

- 566

- 1053: FAX From: Kimberly Landick To: Swietlik, William CC: Codding, Eleanor; Sabol, Elizabeth Date: 11/1/2011 3:02 PM Subject: Request for Additional Pulp and Paper Facility Data
Bill, As discussed on our earlier call, ERG is requesting the attached additional information from 6 pulp and p aper facilities. I've drafted an email below containing background information to help clarify the timeline. Could you please CC Ellie, Liz, and myself on the email? Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Thanks, Kim

--------------------- -- We would like to request information for the attached list of six facilities.
Additionally, we've included some language below to help clarify the timeline. October 26, 2011: 2010 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan published (reviewed 2008 discha rge data in TRI and DMR) November 25, 2011: Close of thirty day public comment period for 2010 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan January 2012: Likely publication of 2012 Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (reviewed 2009 discharge data in TRI and DMR), public comment period to follow publication.September 2012: Likely publication of 2012 Final Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, public comment period to follow publication. The information we are currently gathering is 2009 discharge data that will be used in the Final 2012 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.

---------------------------------------- Kimberly D. Landick Environmental Engineer Eastern Research Group, Inc. 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 kimberly.landick@erg.com Phone: 703

- 633

- 1119

# n ca si

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR AIR AND STREAM IMPROVEMENT, INC. P.O. Box 13318, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
- 3318 4815 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 110, Durham, NC 27703 Phone (919) 941
- 6417 Fax (919) 941
- 6401 Paul Wiegand Vice President, Water Quality pwiegand@ncasi.org



### December 2 , 2011

TO: Elizabeth Sabol, ERG

FROM: Paul Wiegand, NCASI
SUBJECT: Second Round Response s on EPA Inquiry Concerning 2009 TRI Reports for

Dioxin and Dioxin

- Like Compounds from Select Pulp and Paper Mill s This memo and attached material serve to following up our early November discussion in which EPA requested additional information about dioxin and furan test data used by six mills to support 2009 TRI Reports for Dioxin and Dioxin

- Like Compounds. Pursuant to that request, NCASI contacted all six mills . To date, the following five have responded and those responses are compiled here.

 Clearwat er, Arkansas Mill, at McGehee, Arkansas

 Clearwater, Lewiston, Idaho

 International Paper, Riegelwood, North Carolina

 Nippon Paper, Port Angeles, Washington

 Rayonier, Fernandina, Florida If you have questions about any of the responses, we’d be happy to pass those along to the facilities and/or coordinate other communication as appropriate.

ec: Jerry Schwartz, AF&PA Arun Someshwar, NCASIElizabeth Sabol, ERG

December 2, 2011 Page 2


# Clearwater , Arkansas Mill , at McGehee, Arkansas
SECOND ROUND QUESTION: Provide the effluent sampling and flow data for TCDD and TCDF used to calculate the 2009 TRI dioxin discharges. Response: The following final effluent sampling for 2009 were as follows:
Date TCDD TCDF
2

- 25

- 09 ND@0.557 ppq ND@0.735 ppq
7

- 22

- 09 ND@ 0 .829 ppq ND@ 0 .594 ppq Flow data was based on the annual average daily effluent flow of 15.02 million gallons / day. An error in the excel spreadsheet is the logical explanation for the amount of dioxin / furan shown in the 2009 TRI discharges. When this error is corrected the wastewater discharges for to tal dioxin compounds the amount changes from 0.45589 grams/ year to 0.4351 grams/year.



# Clearwater, Lewiston, Idaho
SECOND ROUND QUESTION: Provide the 2009 effluent sampling and flow data used to calculate the 2009 TRI dioxin discharges. Response: For the 2009 TRI reporting of DDLCs, the mill used data generated from an experimental sampling methodology known as “high volume sampling” or “high volume extraction.” The procedure involves the separate collection of solid and dissolved fractions of up to 1000 L of effluent. The procedure was used as part of a special NPDES permit condition for eight quarterly sampling episodes between 2005 and 2007. Calculation procedures used convert such data to effluent loading estimates for purposes of congener sp ecific TRI reporting are necessarily complicated and, unfortunately, we have been unable to resurrect the raw data needed to reproduce the 2009 TRI report for DDLCs. This is due, in part, to personnel changes resulting from a change in ownership between t he time these estimates were made and the present. AsElizabeth Sabol, ERG

December 2, 2011 Page 3


### would be expected, collection of sample volumes up to 1000 times larger than is typically required for dioxin analyses (typical sample volume is 1 L) acts to greatly lower analytical detection limits w hich may explain the difference between the 2009 TRI report and earlier reports made by the mill. If EPA is interested in reviewing the data that derived from the high volume sampling study, the information should be obtainable through the EPA Region 10 o ffice which is the NPDES permitting authority for the Lewiston mill.



# International Paper, Riegelwood, North Carolina
SECOND ROUND QUESTION: Provide the 2000 final effluent sampling and flow data used to calculate the 2009 TRI dioxin discharges. Have there been any changes (since 2006) in the method of estimating releases? If so, when was the change in estimation procedures and why? Response: The original 2000 dioxin test data is not available. The records were discarded as required by our records retention policy. The average daily 2009 effluent flow was 32.2 million gallons per day. To my knowledge there have been no changes since 2006 in the method of estimating releases.



# N ippon, Port Angeles, Washington
SECOND ROUND QUESTION:
Provide the 2006 final effluent sampling and flow data used to calculate the 2009 TRI dioxin discharges. Response: An image from an Excel spreadsheet showing the calculations is provided below. Attached to the end of this memo is the actual laboratory analytical report for the sample used in the 2009 TRI calculations.Elizabeth Sabol, ERG

December 2, 2011 Page 4

TRI Facility ID Number: 98362DSHWMMARIN

Nippon Paper Industries USA Co., Ltd 1902 Marine Drive Port Angeles, WA 98362 Paul Perlwitz, Env. Mgr. 360-565-7045

TRI EFFLUENT DIOXIN DATE FOR 2009 REPORTING YEAR - table taken out of original TRI dioxin calculations
Sample result 4-5-2006 by CAS, 0600241 √ same as 2008 congener data Dioxin/Furan Congener analysis to use for WWTP Effluent gallons DL ppq 1/2 the DL 3,173,139,000 Total gallons discharged as effluent in 2009.
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1 0.290 0.145 0.00174212 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 2 0.292 0.146 0.00175414 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 3 0.282 0.141 0.00169407 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 4 0.309 0.1545 0.00185626 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 5 0.291 0.1455 0.00174813 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 6 0.341 0.1705 0.00204850
OCDD 7 0.688 0.344 0.00413304 2,3,7,8-TCDF 8 0.548 0.274 0.00329201 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 9 0.273 0.1365 0.00164000 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 10 0.273 0.1365 0.00164000 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 11 0.236 0.118 0.00141773 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 12 0.259 0.1295 0.00155590 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 13 0.272 0.136 0.00163399 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 14 0.303 0.1515 0.00182022 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 15 0.266 0.133 0.00159795 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 16 0.314 0.157 0.00188630
OCDF 17 0.584 0.292 0.00350828 grams 0.0349686

Effluent Analytical Test Results for Dioxin Congeners - see attached PDF copy of report

SECONDARY EFFLUENT TESTING SAMPLED 4-5-06 Testing by Columbia Analytical Services LAB ID No. E0600241-001 Sample Data Filename: U14993#1 TEQ (Min-Max) 1 0.00

- 0.85

Conc. Compound ppq DL MDL 2,3,7,8-TCDD ND 0.290 1.01 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD ND 0.292 0.96 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD

ND 0.282 1.06 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD

ND 0.309 0.93 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD

ND 0.291 1.01 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD

ND 0.341 0.9 OCDD ND 0.688 0.98
2,3,7,8-TCDF ND 0.548 0.96 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.273 0.93 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF ND 0.273 0.99 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF

ND 0.236 1.17 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF

ND 0.259 1.15 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF

ND 0.303 1.19 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF

ND 0.272 1.08 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF

ND 0.266 1.35 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

ND 0.314 1.33 OCDF ND 0.584 1.03

Sum = 0.0

1 Min is calculated assuming ND as zero (0). Max value is calculated assuming ND is DL.
6/29/2007 PFP Verified the actual CAS report from 4-5-06. It was non-detect for all dioxin parameters. 5/21/2010 PFP verified the correctness of this outfall data used in the 2008 TRI report Congener #

2009 TRI report for Nippon Paper reported a value of 0.0349685 in 5.3.1. A for Strait of Jaun de Fuca effluent discharges. The dioxin data from the 2006 Columbia Analytical Services test report was all ND. For the 2008 and 2009 TRI reports a value of 1/2 the DL was used to report dioxin congeners.Elizabeth Sabol, ERG

December 2, 2011 Page 5 

# Rayonier, Fernandina Beach, Florida
SECOND ROUND QUESTION: Provide the 2009 quarterly measurements and flow data used to calculate the 2009 TRI dioxin discharges. Response:
S ee the table on the following page

. We averaged the quarterly measurements and multiplied this average by our annual discharge flow.Rayonier - Fernandina MillOutfall Eff 001Discharge to the Amelia River pg/L7-Jan-09 16-Apr-099-Jul-09 15-Oct-09Mean% of TotalTEF[WHO98]ProductNDL Value NDL ValueNDL Value NDL Value67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF0.21.3<0.4 0.01.1 3.0 1.4 10.23.6 1% 0.0100 0.036355673-89-7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF< 0.20.0<0.4 0.0< 1.2 0.0 < 1.3 0.00.0 0% 0.0100 0.000070648-26-9 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF< 0.10.0<0.6 0.0< 1.0 0.0 < 0.9 0.00.0 0% 0.1000 0.000057117-44-9 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF< 0.10.0<0.6 0.0< 1.0 0.0 < 0.8 0.00.0 0% 0.1000 0.000072918-21-9 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF< 0.20.0<0.7 0.0< 1.4 0.0 < 1.7 0.00.0 0% 0.1000 0.000060851-34-5 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF< 0.10.0<0.7 0.0< 1.1 0.0 < 0.9 0.00.0 0% 0.1000 0.000039227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD< 0.20.0<0.6 0.0< 1.9 0.0 < 0.6 0.00.0 0% 0.1000 0.000057653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD< 0.30.0<0.6 0.0< 2.3 0.0 < 0.8 0.00.0 0% 0.1000 0.000019408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD< 0.20.0<0.6 0.0< 1.9 0.0 0.7 3.40.8 0% 0.1000 0.084835822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD0.22.70.45.31.4 5.4 1.0 82.323.9 9% 0.0100 0.239339001-02-0 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 OCDF0.31.3 0.5 3.71.8 7.0 1.4 166.044.5 17% 0.0001 0.004403268-87-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 OCDD0.311.6 0.631.81.6 29.2 1.8 632.0176.2 67% 0.0001 0.017657117-41-6 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF< 0.20.0<1.4 0.0< 1.4 0.0 < 0.9 0.00.0 0% 0.0500 0.000057117-31-4 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF< 0.20.0<1.4 0.01.3 1.6 < 0.9 0.00.4 0% 0.5000 0.193840321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD< 0.30.0<1.2 0.0< 3.7 0.0 < 1.3 0.00.0 0% 1.0000 0.000051207-31-9 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8 TCDF0.315.92.17.91.3 24.5 1.2 9.814.5 6% 0.1000 1.452001746-01-6 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin 2,3,7,8 TCDD< 0.20.0<0.6 0.0< 1.5 0.0 < 1.1 0.00.0 0% 1.0000 0.00003.9 32.8 13.348.726.8 70.7 18.6903.6264.0100%SUM:2.028119,688Million Liter/yr1055.8 264.05.1966g/yr total CDD/Fs15.646757 /**~** 

### .... 

## c.

10655 Richmond Avenue Suite 130A Houston, Texas 77042 (713) 266·1599 ph (713) 266-0130 fax

# A~~~~:~aJ Services INC.



### April 24, 2006

Ann Schlegel Nippon Paper fudustries Co., Ltd. 

### 'P.O. Box 271 Port Angeles, WA 98362



### RE: 1613B_fuIIlNPDES Permit Application Dear Ann: An Employee· Owned Company



### Service Request No: E0600241

Enclosed are the results of the sample(s) submitted to our laboratory on April 6,2006. For your reference, these analyses have been assigned our service request number E0600241.

All analyses were performed according to our laboratory's quality assurance program. The test results meet requirements of the NELAP standards except as noted in the case narrative report. All results are intended to be considered in their entirety, and Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. (CAS) is not responsible for use ofless than the complete report. Results apply only to the items submitted to the laboratory for analysis and individual items (samples) analyzed, as listed in the report.
Please call if you have any questions. My extension is 23. You may also contact me via email at lFreemyer@houston.caslab.com. Respectfully submitted,


### Columbia Analytical Services, 

### Inc.

# ~~ J ane

# Free~yer 

# r:J Project Chemist Page 1 of 

## tJdJ

• C • NELAP Accredited ACIL Seal of Excellence Award./



# Columbia Analytical

Services INC.

An Employee

- Owned Company



# Dioxin/Furan Analytical Report

10655 Richmond Avenue, Suite 130-A, Houston, TX 77042 Phone (713)266-1599 Fax (713)266-0130 www.caslab.com

2Client: Project: Sample Matrix: COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC

Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd. NPDES Pennit Application Aqueous

CASE NARRATIVE Service Request No.: Date Received: E0600241 04/06/06

All analyses were performed in adherence to the quality assurance program of Columbia Analytical Services, Inc. (CAS). Tbis report contains analytical results for samples designated for Tier II. When appropriate to the method, method blank results have been reported with each analytical test. Sample Receipt

One aqueous sample was received for analysis at Columbia Analytical Services on 04/06/06.

The sample was received at 6°C in good condition and is consistent with the accompanying chain" of custody form. The sample was stored in a refrigerator at 4°C upon receipt at the laboratory.

Data Validation Notes and Discussion
MS/MSD
EB25032: Laboratory Control SamplelLaboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCS/LCSD) samples were analyzed and reported in lieu of an MSIMSD for tbis extraction batch.
Detection Limits

Detection limits are calculated for each congener in each sample by measuring the height of the noise level for each quantitation ion for the associated labeled standard. The concentration equivalent to 2.5 times the height of the noise is then calculated using the appropriate response factor and the weight of the sample. The calculated concentration equals the detection limit.

The Form 3 results for each sample have been calculated by CASlHouston to include:**~** WHO-98 TEFs**~** Non-detected compounds reported as ND = '0' (zero)



### 3Client: Project: 1613BjulllNPDES Pennit Application

SAMPLE 

### # E0600241-00 1

Printed 04/24/2006 14:28 SAMPLE CROSS-REFERENCE

CLIENT SAMPLE ID Outfall 001

Sample gbmmary Service Request: E0600241

DATE 04/05106 TIME 08:05

Page 1 oflU1 CONGENER

2,3,7,S- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,7 ,S- Pen tachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 1,2,3,4,7,S-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,6,7 ,S- Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,7 ,S,9- Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 1,2,3,4,6,7,S-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Octaclllorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,S-Pentaclllorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,7,S-Pentachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,6,7 ,S- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7 ,S,9- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,6,7,8- Hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- Heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptaclllorodibenzofuran Octachlorodibenzofuran Total Tetra-Dioxins Total Penta-Dioxins Total Hexa-Dioxins Total Hepta-Dioxins Total Tetra-Furans Total Penta-Furans Total Hexa-Furans Total Hepta-Furans

---- 

## Method 1613B /Dioxins & 

## Furans Reporting Limits

CONGENER ABBREVIATION CASRN

237S-TCDD 1746-01-6 1237S-PeCDD 40321-76-4 12347S-HxCDD 39227-2S-6 12367S-HxCDD 57653-S5-7 1237S9-HxCDD 1940S-74-3 123467S-HpCDD 35S22-46-9 OCDD 326S-S7-9 2378-TCDF 51207-31-9 12378-PeCDF 57117-41-6 2347S-PeCDF 57117-31-4 12347S-HxCDF 7064S-26-9 123678-HxCDF 57117-44-9 123789-HxCDF 72918-21-9 23467S-HxCDF 60851-34-5 1234678-HpCDF 67562-39-4 12347S9-HpCDF 55673-S9-7 OCDF 39001-02-0 

## * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REpORTING LIMITS REpORTING LIMITS Aqueous Solids

PG/L NG/KG

10 1.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 100 10 10 1.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 100 10 10 1.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 10 1.0 50 5.0 50 5.0 50 5.0

NOTE: Tissue samples are reported on a wet-weight basis and soil/sediment samples are reported on a dry-weight basis.

# . :. x Data Qualifier Flags

Used when an associated analyte is found in the method blank, as well as in the sample

Confirmation ofthe TCDF compound: When 2378-TCDF is detected on the DB-5 column, confirmation analyses are performed on a second column (DB225.) The results from both the DB-5 column and the DB-225 column are included in this data package. The results from the DB-225 analyses should be used to evaluate the 2378-TCDF in the samples. The confirmed result should be used in determining the TEQ value for TCDF. The samples requiring confirmation are indicated in the table above.

Indicates an estimated value

- used when the analyte concentration exceeds the upper end of the linear calibration range
Indicates an estimated value

- used when the analyte concentration is below the method reporting limit (MRL) and above the detection limit (DL)

EMPC

- When the ion abundance ratios associated with a particular compound are outside the QC limits, samples are flagged with a 'K' flag. A 'K' flag indicates an estimated maximum possible concentration for the associated compound.
Indicates the compound was analyzed and not detected

.
User defined; see case narrative for detailed explanation
Samples that had recoveries of labeled standards outside the acceptance limits
are flagged with 'Y' flags on the Form 2s. In all cases, the signal-to-noise ratios are greater than 10:1, making these data acceptable.
Indicates concentration is reported as 'Not Detected'

Peak is saturated; data not reportable

6

# CAS/HOD

- Form Production, Peer Review & 

# Project Review Signatures**'i~-:tt ';'0.'Z'';'~'%o.~:;;.:J.Q-,~·~**  ..**:~;~'i~'!;.1~w~;mw,';~J';~~~~,TI:~''iJ.~;';''~~~'''::-'!%:;~~'%£:.i<ft~~ 'f"{l~w:%'..zt,..'<t~~-:,~tf£i:l·i:<1:t:.'$i;"'~JiJ.~,,,,~~;:;''!t:.:~Ji"i1,':?&~W''i--=<~,.i;~mr'~:J~~~J'.:?;~:.m.:~~~~',t,smRem~1':-d'~·:.;:"w""";.,.'%Z.:mmYi::m~;~'ii** **.~;**

SR# Unique 

# IDI 

# L 060 () 2'i/-()41
i First Level
- Data Processing
- to be filled by person generating the forms Date Person 1 Date Person 2

.' Project Level- Review- to be filled by person doin pro"ect compliance review Date Reviewer

7

DATA REV_SIG1 (1/13/2006)Page 2 of 11 Form 1 CLIENT ID. PCDD/PCDF ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Use for Sample and Blank Results METHOD BLANK

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID: EB25032-MB

Client Name: Sample Wt/Vol: 1000 g or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column:DB-5

Ext. Vol (ul) :20.0 Inj. Vol (ul) : 1 . 0 Sample Data Filename: U14998#1 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 19:36:00 Blank Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14996#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L % Solids/Lipids:

CONCENTRATION DETECTION Qual. ION ABUND. ANALYTE FOUND LIMIT (1) RATIO (2)

2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF "2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 - PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF

Total Tetra-Dioxins Total Penta-Dioxins Total Hexa-Dioxins Total Hepta-Dioxins Total Tetra-Furans Total Penta-Furans 

### * 

### * * * 

### * * 

## * * 

### * * * 

## * * * * * 

## *
* 

### * 

## * * * * 0.292 0.438 0.453 0.496 0.466 0.261 0.738 0.316 0.321 0.315 0.259 0.282 0.351 0.292 0.324 0.408 0.991

0.292 0.438 0.453 0.261 0.316 0.315 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U Total Hexa-Furans 

## * 0.259 U Total Hepta-Furans 

## * 0.324 U 

### * * 

### * * * * 

### * * 

## * * * * * 

## * * * 

### * RRT (2)


### * * * * 

## * * * * * * * * 

## * * 

## * * * MEAN RRF

1. 01 0.96 1. 06 0.93 1. 01 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.93 0.99 1.17 1.15 1.19 1. 08 1. 35 1. 33 1. 03

(1) Qualifier U indicates not detected; The K indicates EMPC. The C needs value from second column analysis. The B indicates possible blank contamination. (2) RRTs and ion ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, Method 1613.



### 8USEPA, EAD

FORM 2: PCDD/PCDF LABELED COMPOUND AND CLEANUP STANDARD RECOVERIES

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: CLIENT ID.

METHOD BLANK

SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID:EB25032-MB

Client Name: Sample Wt/Vol: 1000 

### 9 or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column ID: DB-5 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 19:36:00 Sample Data Filename: U14998#1

Ext. Vol (ul) : 20. 0 Inj

. Vol (ul) : 1 . 0 Blank Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14996#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L

LABELED COMPOUNDS

13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13C-OCDD
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF**13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCD~** 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 13C-2,3;4,6,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

CLEANUP STANDARD
37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD SPIKE CONC. CONC. FOUND

2000 1315.60 2000 1275.77 2000 1435.64 2000 1267.12 2000 1176.54 4000 1904.86

2000 1264.67 2000 1288.56 2000 1294.63 2000 1411.10 2000 1279.18 2000 1511.23 2000 1374.69 2000 1141.05 2000 1372.10

800 666.63 R(%) (1)

65.78 63.79 71.78 63.36 58.83 47.62

63.23 64.43 64.73 70.55 63.96 75.56 68.73 57.05 68.61

83.33 % Solid/Lipids:

QC Limite (1)

25-164 25-181 32-141 28-130 23-140 17-157

24-169 24-185 21-178 26-152 26-123 29-147 28-136 28-143 26-138

35-197 ION ABUND. RATIO (2)

0.77 1. 55 1. 21 1.22 1. 02 0.89

0.78 1. 52 1. 58 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.53 0.44 0.43

(1) Contract-required limits for percent recovery (R) are specified in Table 7, Method 1613. (2) Contract-required limits for RRTs and ion abundance ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, respectively, Method 1613. NOTE: There is no ion abundance ratio for 37C14-2378-TCDD (cleanup standard). RRT (2)

1. 009 1.181 0.990 0.992 1.068 1.146

0.977 1.141 1.168 0.971 0.974 1. 006 0.987 1.045 1.078

1.010

RFP C500273T1

9Page 3 of 6 Form 1 CLIENTID. PCDD/PCDF ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Use for Sample and Blank Results OUTFALL 001

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID: E0600241-001

Client Name: NIPPON INDUSTRIES Sample Wt/Vol: 1065 9 or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: 04/06/06 Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column:DB-5

Ext. Vol (ul) :20.0 Inj. Vol (ul) : l. 0 Sample Data Filename: U14993#1 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 15:06:24 Blank Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14983#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L % Solids/Lipids:

CONCENTRATION DETECTION Qual. ION ABUND. ANALYTE

2,3,7,8-TCDD 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD OCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDF 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF OCDF

Total Tetra-Dioxins Total Penta-Dioxins Total Hexa-Dioxins Total Hepta-Dioxins Total Tetra-Furans Total Penta-Furans Total Hexa-Furans FOUND LIMIT (1) RATIO (2)


### * * * * 

### * * * 

### * * * * * * 

### * * 

### * *
* 

## * * * * 

## * * 0.290 0.292 0.282 0.309 0.291 0.341 0.688 0.548 0.273 0.273 0.236 0.259 0.303 0.272 0.266 0.314 0.584

0.290 0.292 0.282 0.341 0.548 0.273 0.236 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

U U U U U U U 

### * * * 

## * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Total Hepta-Furans 

### * 0.266 U RRT (2)


### * 

## * * * 

### * * * * * 

## * * * * 

### * * * * MEAN RRF

l. 01 0.96 1.06 0.93 l. 01 0.90 0.98 0.96 0.93 0.99 l.17 l.15 l.19 l. 08 l. 35 l. 33 l. 03

(1) Qualifier U indicates not detected; The K indicates EMPC. The C needs value from second column analysis. The B indicates possible blank contamination. (2) RRTs and ion ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, Method 1613.

10USEPA, EAD

FORM 2: PCDD/PCDF LABELED COMPOUND AND CLEANUP STANDARD RECOVERIES

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: CLIENT ID.

OUTFALL 001

SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID:E0600241-001

Client Name: NIPPON INDUSTRIES Sample Wt/Vol: 1065 g or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: 04/06/06 Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column ID: DB-5 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 15:06:24 Sample Data Filename: U14993#1

Ext.Vol (ul) :20.0 Inj.Vol(ul) :1.0 Blank Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14983#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L

LABELED COMPOUNDS

13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13C-OCDD
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 13C-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

CLEANUP STANDARD
37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD SPIKE CONC. CONC. FOUND

2000 1440.82 2000 1452.76 2000 1529.09 2000 1284.42 2000 1180.38 4000 2027.70

2000 1459.02 2000 1509.71 2000 1488.46 2000 1536.42 2000 1366.68 2000 1742.49 2000 1474.32 2000 1294.40 2000 1679.11

800 806.99 R(%) (1)

72.04 72.64 76.45 64.22 59.02 50.69

72.95 75.49 74.42 76.82 68.33 87.12 73.72 64.72 83.96

100.87 % solid/Lipids:

ION QC ABUND. Limite(l) RATIO (2)

25-164 0.77 25-181 1. 56 32-141 1.22 28-130 1.25 23-140 1. 04 17-157 0.89

24-169 0.78 24-185 1. 60 21-178 1. 57 26-152 0.51 26-123 0.51 29-147 0.53 28-136 0.52 28-143 0.47 26-138 0.45

35-197
(1) Contract-required limits for percent recovery (R) are specified in Table 7, Method 1613. (2) Contract-required limits for RRTs and ion abundance ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, respectively, Method 1613. NOTE: There is no ion abundance ratio for 37C14-2378-TCDD (cleanup standard)

. RRT (2)

1.009 1.181 0.990 0.992 1. 068 1.146

0.978 1.141 1.169 0.971 0.973 1. 006 0.987 1.044 1.078

1.010

RFP C500273T1

11Page 3 of 6 Form 3 CLIENT ID. PCDD/PCDF TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE SUMMARY Use for Sample and Blank Results OUTFALL 001

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID: E0600241-001

Client Name: NIPPON INDUSTRIES Sample Wt/Vol: 1065 g or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: 04/06/06 Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column ID: DB-5

Ext. Vol (ul) :20.0 Inj. Vol (ul) :1.0 Sample Data Filename: U14993#1 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 15:06:24 Blank Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14983#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L % Solids/Lipids:

CONCENTRATION TEF (1) TEF-ADJUSTED CONCENTRATION
2,3,7,8-TCDD 

### * X 1.0 

### * l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 

### * X 1.0 

### * l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 

### * X 0.1 

### * l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 

### * X 0.1 

### * l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 

### * X 0.1 

### * .l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 

### * X 0.01 

### * OCDD 

### * X 0.0001 

### * 2,3,7,8-TCDF 

### * X 0.1 

### * l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 

### * X 0.05 

### * 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 

### * X 0.5 

### * l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 

### * X 0.1 

### * l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 

### * X 0.1 

### * l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 

### * X 0.1 

### * 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 

### * X 0.1 

### * l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 

### * X 0.01 

### * l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 

### * X 0.01 

### *. OCDF 

### * X 0.0001 

### *
Total: O.OOe+OO

(1) World Health Organization (WHO) adopted TEF's, taken from: Van der Berg, et al: Toxic Equivalency Factor (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Hummans and wildlife (Environ Health perspect 106:775-792 (1998).

6/90



### 12

# + • 

# •• Columbia Analytical

Services INC.

An Employee

- Owned Company



# Accuracy & Precision Data

10655 Richmond Avenue, Suite 130-A, Houston, TX. 

### 77042 Phone (713)266-1599 Fax (713)266-0130 www.caslab.com

. 133DFA 1613 PCDD/PCDF SPIKED SAMPLE SUMMARY

Lab Name: COLUMBIA ANALYTICAL SERVICES Lab Code: CAS LAB. 10: EB25032-LCS/LCSD Matrix: Agueous (Solid, Aqueous, Ash, Waste)

CONCENTRATION UNITS: (pg/L or ng/Kg)

ANALYTE

2378-TCDD 12378-PeCDD 123478-HxCDD 123678-HxCDD 123789-HxCDD 1234678-HpCD OCDD 2378-TCDF 12378-PeCDF 23478-PeCDF 123478-HxCDF 123678-HxCDF 123789-HxCDF 234678-HxCDF 1234678-HpCD 1234789-HpCD OCDF SPIKE ADDED

(PG)

200 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2000

200 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 2000 LCS SAMPLE CONC.

236.953 1142.781 1140.988 1182.803 1190.949 1173.949 2367.582

234.678 1154.438 1118.720 1152.254 1236.218 1046.839 1098.887 1193.829 1128.559 2873.302 LCSD SAMPLE CONC.

228.954 1144.849 1154.629 1212.112 1221. 914 1177.554 2396.315

228.572 1144.380 1120.674 1137.928 1227.706 1020.131 1138.267 1175.436 1119.096 2877.585 LCS% RECOV. #

118.48 114.28 114.10 118.28 119.09 117.39 118.38 117.34 115.44 111. 87 115.23 123.62 104.68 109.89 119.38 112.86 143.67 CLIENT 10 

# I LCS/LCSD

LCSD% RPD RECOV. # %

114.48 3.43 114.48 0.18 115.46 1.19 121. 21 2.45 122.19 2.57 117.76 0.31 119.82 1.21 114.29 2.64 114.44 0.88 112.07 0.17 113.79 1.25 122.77 0.69 102.01 2.58 113.83 3.52 117.54 1. 55 111. 91 0.84 143.88 0.15 QC LIMITS

50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150 50

- 150

If an analyte is not detected in either analysis, enter 0 (zero)
as the concentration.

# Column to be used to flag values outside QC limits.



### * Compound outside the QC advisory limits of 50

- 150

EB25032-lcsLCS 0

14Page 4 of 6 Form 1 CLIENT ID. PCDD/PCDF ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Use for Sample and Blank Results LCS

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID: EB25032-LCS

Client Name: Sample Wt/Vol: 1000 g or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column:DB-5

Ext. Vol (ul) :20.0 Inj. Vol(ul): 1. 0 Sample Data Filename: U14994#1 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 16:00:59 Blank Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14983#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L % Solids/Lipids:

CONCENTRATION DETECTION Qual. ION ABUND. RRT MEAN ANALYTE FOUND LIMIT (1) RATIO (2) (2 ) RRF

2,3,7,8-TCDD 236.953 0.324 0.76 1.001 1. 01 l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1142.781 0.316 1. 53 1.000 0.96 l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1140.988 0.356 1.26 1.000 1.06 l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1182.803 0.392 1.26 1.000 0.93 l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1190.949 0.368 1.24 1.008 1. 01 l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1173.949 0.307 1. 04 1.000 0.9.0 OCDD 2367.582 0.508 0.88 1.000 0.98 2,3,7,8-TCDF 234.678 0.498 0.80 1.001 0.96 l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 1154.438 0.311 1. 57 1.001 0.93 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1118.720 0.302 1. 54 1.000 0.99 l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1152.254 0.275 1. 27 1.000 1.17 l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1236.218 0.302 1.27 1.000 1.15**l,2,3,7,8,9~HxCDF** 1046.839 0.323 1. 25 1.000 1.19 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 1098.887 0.300 1.26 1.000 1. 08 l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1193.829 0.511 1. 05 1.000 1.35 l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1128.559 0.596 1. 05 1.000 1.33 OCDF 2873.302 0.680 0.92 1.003 1. 03

Total Tetra-Dioxins 238.164 0.324 Total Penta-Dioxins 1144.812 0.316 Total Hexa-Dioxins 3514.741 0.356 Total Hepta-Dioxins 1177.943 0.307 Total Tetra-Furans 238.781 0.498 Total Penta-Furans 2293.898 0.302 Total Hexa-Furans 4534.199 0.275 Total Hepta-Furans 2322.387 0.511 (1) Qualifier U indicates not detectedi The K indicates EMPC. The C needs value from second column analysis. The B indicates possible blank contamination. (2) RRTs and ion ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, Method 1613.

15USEPA, EAD

CLIENT ID. FORM 2: PCDD/PCDF LABELED COMPOUND AND CLEANUP STANDARD RECOVERIESLCS

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID:EB25032-LCS

Client Name: Sample Wt/Vol: 1000 

### 9 or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext

.. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column ID: DB-5 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 16:00:59 Sample Data Filename: U14994#1

Ext. Vol (ul) :20.0 Inj

. Vol (ul) : 1. 0 Blank. Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14983#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L

LABELED COMPOUNDS

13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13C-OCDD**13C-2,3,7,~-TCDF** 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,7,B-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,6,7,B-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 13C-2,3,4,6,7,B-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,7,B,9-HpCDF

CLEANUP STANDARD
37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD SPIKE CONC. CONC. FOUND

2000 1297.00 2000 1332.03 2000 1335.95 2000 1173.48 2000 1112.75 4000 2020.65

2000 1256.33 2000 1380.71 2000 1389.59 2000 1335.60 2000 1194.36 2000 1645.77 2000 1336.78 2000 1206.99 2000 1572.22

800 694.32 R (%) (1)

64.85 66.60 66.80 58.67 55.64 50.52
62;82 69.04 69.48 66.78 59.72 82.29 66.84 60.35 78.61

86.79 % Solid/Lipids:

ION QC ABUND. Limite (1) RATIO (2)

25-164 0.80 25-181 1. 53 32-141 1.27 28-130 1. 26 23-140 1.04 17-157 0.90

24-169 0.77 24-185 1.53 21-178 1. 58 26-152 0.51 26-123 0.52 29-147 0.51 28-136 0.51 28-143 0.44 26-138 0.44

35-197
(1) Contract-required limits for percent recovery (R) are specified in Table 7, Method 1613. (2) Contract-required limits for RRTs and ion abundance ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, respectively, Method 1613. NOTE: There is no ion abundance ratio for 37C14-2378-TCDD (cleanup standard)

. RRT (2)

1.009 1.181 0.990 0.992 1.068 1.146

0.977 1.140 1.168 0.971 0.974 1.006 0.987 1.044 1. 078

1.010

RFP C500273T1

16Form 1

PCDD/PCDF ANALYSIS DATA SHEET Use for Sample and Blank Results Page 5 of 6

CLIENT ID.

LCSD

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID: EB25032-LCSD

Client Name: Sample Wt/Vol: 1000 g or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column:DB-5

Ext. Vol (ul) :20.0 Inj. Vol (ul) :1.0 Sample Data Filename: U14995#1 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 16:46:20 Blank.Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14983#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L % Solids/Lipids:

CONCENTRATION

. DETECTION Qual

. ION ABUND. RRT MEAN ANALYTE FOUND LIMIT (1) RATIO (2) (2) RRF

2,3,7,8-TCDD 228.954 0.350 0.75 1.001 1. 01 l,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 1144.849 0.456 1. 54 1.000 0.96 l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 1154.629 0.244 1.21 1.000 1. 06 l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 1212.112 0.273 1. 24 1.000 0.93 l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 1221.914 0.254 1.28 1.008 1. 01 1 i 2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 1177.554 0.288 1. 03 1.000 0.90 OCDD 2396.315 0.512 0.87 1.000 0.98 2,3,7,8-TCDF 228.572 0.316 0.77 1. 001 0.96 l,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 1144.380 0.326 1. 57 1.001 0.93 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 1120.674 0.337 l. 54 1.000 0.99 l,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 1137.928 0.189 1.24 1.000 1.17 l,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 1227.706 ·0.204 l. 27 1.000 l.15 l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 1020.131 0.222 l.25 1.000 1.19 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF

. 1138.267 0.213 l.25 1.000 1. 08 l,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 1175.436 0.724 l. 05 1.000 1. 35 l,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF 1119.096 0.856 1.06 1.000 1. 33 OCDF 2877.585 0.527 0.91 1.003 l. 03

Total Tetra-Dioxins 228.954 0.350 Total Penta-Dioxins 1144.849 0.456 Total Hexa-Dioxins 3588.655 0.244 Total Hepta-Dioxins 1177.554 0.288 Total Tetra-Furans 234.866 0.316 Total Penta-Furans 2271.909 0.337 Total Hexa-Furans 4524.032 0.189 Total Hepta-Furans 2294.532 0.724 (1) Qualifier U indicates not detected; The K indicates EMPC. The C needs value from second column analysis. The B indicates possible blank contamination. (2) RRTs and ion ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, Method 1613.



### 17USEPA, EAD

FORM 2: PCDD/PCDF LABELED COMPOUND AND CLEANUP STANDARD RECOVERIES

Lab Name: Columbia Analytical Services Contract: CLIENT ID.

LCSD

SDG No:

Lab Code: CAS Method:1613 Case No: Client No: Lab ID:EB25032-LCSD

Client Name: Sample Wt/Vol: 1000 

### 9 or mL: mL

Matrix (Solid/Aqueous/Waste/Ash): Aqueous Initial Calibration Date: 01/10/06 Sample Receipt Date: Instrument ID: AutoSpec-Ultima

Ext. Date: 04/11/06 GC Column ID: DB-5 Analysis Date: 14-APR-06 Time: 16:46:20 Sample Data Filename: U14995#1

Ext. Vol (ul) : 20.0 Inj .Vol{ul) :1.0 Blank Data Filename: U14998#1

Dilution Factor: 1 Cal. Ver. Data Filename: U14983#1

Concentration Units (pg/L or ng/Kg dry weight): pg/L

LABELED COMPOUNDS

13C-2,3,7,8-TCDD 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 13C-OCDD
13C-2,3,7,8-TCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF 13C-2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF 13C-2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF 13C-1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF

CLEANUP STANDARD
37Cl-2,3,7,8-TCDD SPIKE CONC. CONC. FOUND

2000 1358.14 2000 1297.06 2000 1459.39 2000 1240.63 2000 1219.17 4000 2352.22

2000 1291.40 2000 1366.76 2000 1311.77 2000 1458.34 2000 1290.29 2000 1766.46 2000 1405.61 2000 1365.01 2000 1712.78

800 724.69 R{%) (1)

67.91 64.85 72.97 62.03 60.96 58.81

64.57 68.34 65.59 72.92 64.51 88.32 70.28 68.25 85.64

90.59 % Solid/Lipids:

QC Limite (1)

25-164 25-181 32-141 28-130 23-140 17-157

24-169 24-185 21-178 26-152 26-123 29-147 28-136 28-143 26-138

35-197 ION ABUND. RATIO (2)

0.78 1. 54 1. 23 1.23 1. 04 0.90

0.77 1.55 1. 54 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.43 0.44

(1) Contract-required limits for percent recovery (R) are specified in Table 7, Method 1613. (2) Contract-required limits for RRTs and ion abundance ratios are specified in Tables 2 and 9, respectively, Method 1613. NOTE: There is no ion abundance ratio for 37C14-2378-TCDD (cleanup standard)

. RRT (2)

1.009 1.181 0.990 0.992 1.068 1.145

0.977 1.141 1.169 0.971 0.973 1.006 0.987 1.044 1. 078

1. 010

RFP C500273T1



### 18

# Columbia 

# Analytical

.



# Services INC.

An Employee

- Owned Company



# Chain-of-custody

10655 Richmond Avenue, Suite 130-A, Houston, TX 77042 Phone (713)266-1599 Fax (713)266-0130 www.caslab.com

19

# ~~**Olumbia** Analytical Services INC. An Employee

- Owned Company 

# CHAIN OF CUSTODY

1317 South 13th Ave .• Kelso, WA 98626 • (360) 577-7222 • (800) 695-7222x07 • FAX (360) 636-1068
PROJECT NAME



## . U{Jn% 

# =:£..ehv--i+ I\y}O\ 

### I**a:~** 

# 7

I I / 

# I PROJECT NUMBER

PROJECT MANAGER 

## J.tn1"l 

# SiPll.f't.1.e \ 

# 7

COMPANY/ADDRESS 

## ff! 

# !#**~** CITY/STATEIZIP 

### <- 

# 8 E-MAIL ADDRESS /.J... PHONE # 

# :g
LU 

# fM-t-% \ \ bO \**It/5"/O~ tY6~D5** **~ ~**  

## W'li.r.>yI3 SR#:

_______ _ PAGE 

# OF_1 COC#

____ _


# o <0 

### !is

REMARKS

### ,~**r---------+_--+_--;---~--+_;-~_+~~~~+_+_~~_+_+~--~+_+_~~~~----~I~**

INVOICE INFORMATION P.O. # --:-:--n:-----,----- Circle which metals are to be analyzed:
Total Metals: AI As Sb Ba Be B Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Pb Mg Mn Mo Ni K Ag Na Se Sr TI Sn V Zn Hg I]EPORT REQUIREMENTS 

## _V_ I. Routine Report: Method Blank, Surrogate, as required Bill To:

### N..£11~

## ~ 

# " PC;\:Vi£ili{¥ Dissolved Metals: AI As Sb Ba Be B Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Pb Mg Mn Mo Ni K Ag Na Se Sr TI Sn V Zn Hg *INDICATE STATE HYDROCARBON PROCEDURE: AK CA WI NORTHWEST OTHER: (CIRCLE ONE) II. Report Dup., MS, MSD as required TURNAROUND REQUIREMENTS I SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS/COMMENTS:

III. Data Validation Report (includes all raw data)

_ IV. CLP Deliverable Report
V. EDD 24 hr.

__ 48hr.

__ 5 Day

### ~ Standard (10-15 working days) Provide FAX Results

Requested Report Date**~QUISHED** BY: EIVED BY:

# ~S </;<;'db

# ~4> /&,'/1) \.**Sigm~re,** a**~ime;t** <1'"'lSignatu e 0 I 

# a ITIm::tt;QU (;, t> (; .!)Ql' 

### ,(JDi.,u.- 1 

### laid....... c;;

### ~ 1./

.. n"'"M1- (.:5 de...s 

# as**~** 

# '-/
Printed Name FirM' I Printed Name Firm" 

### 4h/{5)(_ "7 RELINQUISHED BY:
Signature Date/Time
Printed Name Firm RECEIVED BY:
Signature Date/Time
Printed Name Firm RCOC #1 06/03Folder #: Client Name: Project Name: Project Number: Report To:

## ~ .... -s;. Phone Number:**~** Cell Number:

# ~ Fax Number: E-mail:

CAS Samp No. E0600241-00 1 E0600241 Columbia Analytical Services,Inc. 1613B full NPDES Permit Application
Ann Schlegel Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 271 Port Angeles, WA 98362 360-452-0615

360-452-9004 ann.schlegel@npiusa.com ,

Client Samp No. Matrix 

# Service Request Summary

SVM

# ~~**~I\o** CZl

.....

## ~§I 1 0 CZl Collected 

## n 7. Project Chemist: Jane Freemyer Originating Lab: HOUSTON Logged By: JBECK Date Received: 04/0612006 Internal Due Date: 0412012006 QAPP: LAB QAP Qualifier Set: CAS Standard Formset: CAS Standard Merged?: Report to MDL?: P.O. Number: NPDES Permit Application EDD: No EDD Specified

Outfall 001 Water 4/5/06 08051 IT

Printed 4/1112006 10:57:29AM Service Request for E0600241 3 - 1000 ml-Glass Bottle NM AMBER Teflon Liner Unpreser 

### Location: SMO

,- C\J

Page 1 of 1Columbia Analytical Services Inc. Cooler Receipt And Preservation Form
Project/Client: Standard SDG/Columbia Analytical Services,Inc. , Work Order: E0600241 Cooierreceivedon04/0612006 and opened on 

# 1/'-/t9(D If)

## ~ /0 by 

# D

....**,.....r~** r;?J"e-5
t I

1. Were custody seals on outside of cooler? 2. Were seals intact and signature & date correct? 3. Is the shipper's airbiII available and filed?

# NAi~ 9. Did all bottle labels and tags agree with custody papers? 10. Were the COlTect types of bottles used for the tests indicated?

, N 11. Were all of the preserved bottles received at the lab with the appropriate pH? 4. COC# 5. Were custody papers properly fiIIed out (ink, signed, etc.)? 

# d?N 12. Were VOA vials checked for absence of air bubbles, and if present, noted below? NA 13. Did the bottles originate from CAStE or a branch laboratory? 6. Type of packing material present 7. Did all bottles alTive in good condition (unbroken)? 8. Were all bottle labels complete (i.e. analysis, preservation, etc.)?

# ~~ 14. Are CWA Microbiology samples received with >\1, the 24 hr. hold time remaining NA fl'om collection? NA 15. Was C12/Res negative?

Lab Code Sample Name E0600241-00 1 Outfall 001

1000ml-Glass Bottle NM AMBER Teflon Liner(Unpreserved) Received Conditions Expected Conditions Cooler Rec pH Rec Seal Bottle ID Barcode HS pH Temp 

### # Temp Check HS Intact? Corrective Action

E0600241-00 1.0 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 NA 23.0 NA
Test List: 1613B E0600241-00 1. 02 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 NA 23.0 NA
Test List: 1613B E0600241-00 1. 03 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 NA 23.0



## ------- ------- ------- Test List: 1613B 

### All tests have one or more assigned bottles

Pllnted 04/111200609:47 Cooler Receipt And Preservation Worksheet NA 

# d2 N

# i~N Y N**~** Y N &1N

# ~Y A 

### Y N N

C\J C\J

Page 1 of 1Project ID

SODIUM SULFATE C1-71-2 ACETONE C1-6B-3 TOLUENE C1-74-5 GLASS WOOL GW1-1-4 DICHLOROMETHANE C1-73-3 ETHYL ACETATE C1-69-4 NONANE C1-67-5 HEXANE C1-73-2

Columbia Analytical Services, INC.

EB25032

Sulfuric Acid Cleanup: 04/12/06 Silica Gel/Carbon Column: 04/12/06 Lab ID

1613 Client ID

SAND C1-33-1 TRIDECANE C1-74-2 SULFURIC ACID C1-74-3 BASIC SILICA GEL S1-24-3 CARBON: C1-73-5 ACIDIC SILICA GEL S1-24-4 SILICA GEL S1-22-6 Standard: Solution ID:

Volume: Spiker: Witness:

Date: Standard: Solution ID:

Volume: Spiker: Witness:

Date: Internal Matrix DS-6-1B DS-3-1B 1000 uL 100 uL

DB DB CID CID 04/11106 04111106 Cleanup Recovery DS-6-2AIB 

# PJ-/'-**J~**

100 uL 2-d..vi CID DHF I-- 04112/06 

## y/t'YUt Calculated Percent Solid 

## I Moisture Dry 

## I Sample Weight Description

EXTRACTION START: 04/11/06 EXTRACTION END: 04/11106 EXTRACTION TECHNIQUE: Sep. Funnel

TIME STARTED: 1100 TIME FINISHED: 1500

EXTRACTS RECEIVED BY tA-.**------~~--------------**

DATE RECEIVED 04/14/06,

____________ _ ('I) C\J

### International Paper Riegelwood, NC Feb-12 Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compound TRI Reports for 2007 and 2009 Releases to Water

TRI Dioxin Congener Distributions Please fill in the column below

Dioxin Distribution

CASNU Chemical Name 2009 Congener Number g/yr g/y 2007 Congener Number 1746016 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8- 1 0 0 17 40321764 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8- 2 0 0 15 39227286 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 3 0 0 7 57653857 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 4 0 0 8 19408743 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 5 0 0 9 35822469 Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 6 0 0 10 3268879 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 7 0.02809 0.0281 12 51207319 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8- 8 0.03589 0 16 57117416 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8- 9 0.00232 0.00232 13 57117314 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8- 10 0 0 14 70648269 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 11 0 0 3 57117449 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 12 0 0 4 72918219 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 13 0 0 5 60851345 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 14 0 0 6 67562394 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 15 0 0 1 55673897 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 16 0 0 2 39001020 Octachlorodibenzofuran 17 0 0 11 Total g/y --> 0.0663 0.03042 Data Reported for 2009 Data Used for 2007 Report

### SD Warren Skowhegan, ME Feb-12 Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compound TRI Reports for 2007 and 2009 Releases to Water

TRI Dioxin Congener Distributions Please fill in the column below Dioxin Distribution

CASNU Chemical Name 2009 Congener Number g/yr g/y 2007 Congener Number 1746016 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8- 1 0 0.0000 17 40321764 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8- 2 0.023 0.0229 15 39227286 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 3 0 0.0000 7 57653857 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 4 0 0.0000 8 19408743 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 5 0 0.0000 9 35822469 Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 6 0 0.0000 10 3268879 Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 7 0 0.0000 12 51207319 Tetrachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,7,8- 8 0 0.0000 16 57117416 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8- 9 0 0.0000 13 57117314 Pentachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,7,8- 10 0 0.0000 14 70648269 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8- 11 0.0364 0.0361 3 57117449 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,6,7,8- 12 0 0.0000 4 72918219 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,7,8,9- 13 0.0218 0.0217 5 60851345 Hexachlorodibenzofuran, 2,3,4,6,7,8- 14 0 0.0000 6 67562394 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8- 15 0.0253 0.0252 1 55673897 Heptachlorodibenzofuran, 1,2,3,4,7,8,9- 16 0 0.0000 2 39001020 Octachlorodibenzofuran 17 0.0777 0.0439 11 Total g/y --> 0.1842 0.1497 Data Reported for 2009 Data Used for 2007 Report

### 1 2 3 4 5 6

17 15 7 8 9 10 703584000 692928000 23498240 9556480 10595840 411136 2007 2157.7216 0 208108.8 0 1024235.52 0 2009 0 15937344 0 0 0 0

2009 0 0.023 0 0 0 0 2007 0.0000 0.0229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

12 16 13 14 3 4 5 6585.6 43819553.68 7632640 557312000 5760000 14109440 47308800 0 0 0 0 88.6999344 0 0 0 0 0 0 209664 0 1031332

0 0 0 0 0.0364 0 0.0218 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0361 0.0000 0.0217

14 15 16 17

6 1 2 11 51204160 85760 3033984 2020.96 0 15833404.8 0 0 1234502.042 406.516584 0 2169.728 0 157.028592 86521954.4 35062.1568

0 0.0253 0 0.0777 0.0000 0.0252 0.0000 0.0439 2009 Congener Number
2007 Congener Number

2009 Congener Number
2007 Congener Number 2009 Congener Number
2007 Congener Number

## 2010 AF&PA SUSTAINABILITY REPORT



# American **Forest & Paper Association**  

# SUSTAINABILITY : a foundation of the forest products industry

# Contents

Introduction 2 AF&PA Environmental, Health & Safety Principles 2 AF&PA Sustainable Procurement Principles 2 Welcome from AF&PA’s President 3 

## Executive Summary 4 Economic Contributions 4 Social Contributions 5 Environmental Performance 5 AF&PA Sustainability Elements 5 n 1. Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources 5 n 2. Leading the Way in Recycling 6 n 3. Reducing Our Environmental Footprint 7 n 4. Generating and Conserving Energy and Materials 8 n 5. Reducing Greenhouse Gases 8 n 6. Benefiting the Communities, Employees, and Families Everywhere Our Products are Made and Sold 10


### REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

1. Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources	 14 n Sustainable Forestry and Procurement 14


### 2. Leading the Way in Recycling 15 n Record High Recovery 15 n AF&PA Recycling Incentive Programs 15 n Additional Benefits of Recycling 16


### 3. Reducing Our Environmental Footprint	 17 n Pulp and Pap er Mill Air Emissions Releases 17 n Wood Product Facility Air Emissions Releases 18 n Pulp and Pap er Mill Water Discharges 18 n Pulp and Pap er Mill Chemical Compound Release Reductions 19 n Pulp and Pap er Mill TRI Chemical Releases 19 n Wood Products Facility Chemical Compound Release Reductions 20 n Pulp and Pap er Mill Residuals Management 21 n Wood Products Facility Residuals Management 21 n Adherence to Mandatory AF&PA EHS Principles 21


### 4. Generating and Conserving Energy and Materials 23 n Energy Use and Self-Sufficiency 23 n Fossil Fuel Use Reductions 23 n Renewable Fuels Use 24 n Cogeneration 24 n Conserving Materials and Pollution Prevention 24 

### 5. Reducing Greenhouse Gases 26 n Emissions Intensity Reductions 26 n Absolute Emissions Reductions 26 n The Carbon Cycle 27 n Advantages of Wood as a Building Product 27 

### 6. Benefiting the Communities, Employees, and Families Everywhere Our Products are Made and Sold 28 n Economic Performance 28 n U.S. Forest Products Exports 30 n Safety Program Recognition 30 n Safety Performance Reporting 30 n Public Engagement and Reporting 31 n Community Involvement and Outreach 32 n Participation in Public Policy Development 32 n Employee Involvement Programs 33 

## Sustainability and the Road to the Future 34 Innovation and Continuous Improvement 34 Research and Development Support 34 Industry Sponsored Research Organizations 34 Support for Academic Institutions 35 Cooperative Partnerships 36 Member Company Corporate Research Programs 36 Internet Addresses for Forest Products Organizations 362 

## AF&PA Sustainable Procurement Principles

1. Take part in the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® program as a pro

gram participant; or
2. Adhere to the following principles:

i. Support programs that supply regionally appropriate informa

tion or services to forest landowners, describing the importance of and providing implementation guidance on best management practices (BMPs); reforestation; afforestation; visual quality man

agement; management of harvest residue; control of invasive ex

otic plants and animals; characteristics of special sites; and con

servation of critical wildlife habitat elements and threatened and endangered species, and Forests with Exceptional Conservation Value. ii. Encourage landowners to utilize the services of qualified re

source professionals and qualified logging professionals in apply

ing principles of sustainable forest management. iii. Maintain a program for the purchase of raw material from wood producers that have completed training programs and are recognized as qualified logging professionals. iv. Maintain a program to address adverse weather conditions.
v. Monitor and evaluate the use of BMPs across the wood and fiber supply area. vi. Monitor the use of BMPs by wood producers supplying the company’s facilities and use the information to maintain rates of conformance to best management practices and to identify areas for improved performance. vii. If the company procures wood fiber outside North America, maintain programs to:

– Promote conservation of biodiversity hotspots and major tropi

cal wilderness areas.

– Ensure fiber sourcing programs support the principles of sus

tainable forestry, including efforts to thwart illegal logging.

– Assess the risk that fiber-sourcing programs could acquire ma

terial from illegal logging.

– Assess the risk that fiber-sourcing programs could take place in countries without effective laws addressing worker safety, fair la

bor practices, indigenous people’s rights, anti-discrimination, an

ti-harassment, prevailing wages, and workers’ right to organize. viii. Individually and/or through cooperative efforts provide sup

port or funding for forest research to improve forest health, pro

ductivity, and sustainable management of forest resources, and the environmental benefits and performance of forest products. ix. Provide funding and other support for training and education programs to foster improvement in the professionalism of wood producers, including awareness and implementation of sustain

able forest management practices.
x. Comply with applicable federal, provincial, state, and local for

estry and related environmental and social laws and regulations. 3. Participate in one of the qualifying sustainable forest manage

ment programs, including chain-of-custody certification. 

## AF&PA Environmental, Health & Safety (EHS) Principles The EHS Principles require members:
1. To make environmental, health, and safety considerations priori

ties in operating existing facilities, as well as in the planning of new operations.
2. To recognize, in developing and designing products to meet cus

tomer needs, the environmental, health, and safety effects of prod

uct manufacture, distribution, use, and disposal. 3. To monitor their environmental, health, and safety performance and to report regularly on these matters to their Boards of Directors, as well as to confirm their adherence to these principles annually to the American Forest & Paper Association. 4. To train employees in their environmental, health, and safety re

sponsibilities and to promote awareness and accountability on these matters. 5. To improve environmental, health, and safety performance through support of research and development that advances the frontiers of knowledge. 6. To communicate with employees, customers, suppliers, the com

munity, public officials, and shareholders to build greater under

standing on environmental, health, and safety matters. 7. To participate constructively in the development of public policies on environmental, health, and safety matters. 8. To continue to pursue energy conservation, increased energy ef

ficiency, greater utilization of alternatives to fossil fuels, and oppor

tunities for cogeneration of electricity. 

# Introduction

As a condition of membership, American Forest & Paper As

sociation (AF&PA) companies have formally agreed to adhere to the Association’s Sustainable Procurement and Environ

mental, Health & Safety (EHS) Principles. These self-imposed principles guide, demonstrate, and measure progress towards the industry’s strong sustainability commitment to protecting the environment, the health and safety of employees, and their communities.

## Welcome from AF&PA’s President We welcome you to the American Forest & Paper Associa

tion’s 2010 Sustainability Report. AF&PA members continue to demonstrate leadership in sustainability, and their longstand

ing commitment to sustainability has produced remarkable progress in key indicators as shown in this report. In the forest products industry, sustainability means that we strive to ensure our resources will be as plentiful and available to future generations as they are today; to preserve and grow the economic contributions of the industry and its businesses; and to foster the well-being of the communities where we live and work. Sustainable practices—forest management, efficient manufacturing, energy generation and conservation, and fiber recovery and recycling—define our dedication to protecting our environment and meeting our economic and societal com

mitments. These sustainable practices are the foundation of our industry and, therefore, they serve as the core of this report. The specific practices identified by AF&PA members as those that define sustainability for the forest products industry, and which serve as the organizing basis for this report, are: n Sustainable use of renewable resources n Leading the way in recycling n Reducing our environmental footprint n Generating and conserving energy and materials n Reducing greenhouse gases n Benefiting the communities, employees, and families every

where our products are made and sold As members of AF&PA, companies are required to adhere to and report biennially on a rigorous set of Environmental, Health & Safety (EHS) Principles and sustainable forest man

agement and procurement principles. The information in this report has been generated through our 2008 EHS performance verification survey of members, additional information pertain

ing to AF&PA sustainability activities, and data from govern

ment agency sources. Information regarding recent AF&PA initiatives in fiber procurement, recycling, and economic per

formance tracking is also included in this report. Without question, the challenging economic conditions that became painfully apparent in 2008 and 2009 have had impacts on performance, most notably in the area of economic per

formance. However, as the report also shows, members have reacted to these challenges in proactive ways and continue to build on the strong progress already made to further improve sustainability performance for the future. Thank you for your interest in our industry. For additional information, please refer to our website at http://www.afandpa.org. Best regards,



### Donna Harman, President and CEO June 2010 3

# Executive Summary

The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is proud to present its sustainability report for 2010. AF&PA is the na

tional trade association of the forest products industry, repre

senting pulp, paper, packaging and wood product manufac

turers, as well as forest landowners. These companies make essential products for people from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment. The information in this report has been generated through our 2008 EHS performance verification survey of members, additional information pertaining to AF&PA sustainability ac

tivities, and data from government agency sources. Informa

tion regarding recent AF&PA initiatives in fiber procurement, recycling, and economic performance tracking is also included in this report. Adherence to the AF&PA EHS Principles is mandatory for our members. Members owning forestland must conform to an independent sustainable forest management program, and members that source wood fiber from the forest must comply with AF&PA Sustainable Procurement Principles. Providing essential products and high-quality jobs, while pursuing a unique mission of wise and sustainable use of natu

ral resources, the forest products industry has been a long-term leader in sustainability. AF&PA members subscribe to the sus

tainability concepts recognized by a number of international forums, including the United Nations General Assembly 2005 World Summit. These forums have established that the three essential pillars of sustainability – the economic, social, and environmental elements – are interdependent factors which must collectively support long-term viability, growth, and en

vironmental improvement. Each pillar influences or is depen

dent upon the others, and business practices that support them often address more than one, often all three. 

## Economic Contributions While each of the three pillars of sustainability is important and interdependent, economic sustainability is absolutely essen

tial to the successful pursuit of overall sustainability. AF&PA member companies make important contributions to the econ

omy globally, nationally, regionally, and especially within the communities in which they operate. The jobs they provide at pulp, paper, and wood products manufacturing facilities are for highly skilled employees and produce commensurate wages and salaries. Local purchases of raw materials, supplies, and


### AF&PA members utilize the three interdependent pillars of sustainability – economic, social, and environmental – that must collectively support long-term viability, growth, and environmental improvement. SOCIAL

45 

### support services extend the economic reach of these operations well beyond the plant gate. Local taxes paid and financial con

tributions or donations made by companies provide important economic support for educational programs, civic organiza

tions, and local government services. 

## Social Contributions
AF&PA members are committed to the communities in which they operate. They provide direct and indirect employment, contribute community volunteers, support education, advance health and safety practices, provide recreational opportunities, and support arts activities for local citizens. AF&PA member pulp, paper, and wood products mills utilize timber harvested from forest lands through sustainable forest management prac

tices. These advanced timber procurement activities provide highly skilled manufacturing jobs, maintain the environment, and support local family-owned businesses in rural communi

ties. Sustainable forest practices utilized by land managers that supply the mills also produce important ecosystem, recreation, and aesthetic benefits. Members respond to social needs on a global scale, providing natural disaster relief including build

ing materials and assistance to world food programs. Member support for schools, educational curriculums, and other pro

grams improve the lives of children worldwide. 

## Environmental Performance Enhancing and maintaining the environmental performance of the industry is a primary objective. This industry continually strives for environmental sustainability through pursuit of for

est management standards, efficient manufacturing practices, specialized energy generation and conservation measures, fi

ber recovery and recycling activities, responsible use of water resources, and a continuous improvement focus. In turn, these environmental improvements, through reduction in waste and increased efficiencies, improve the economic health of AF&PA members. These improved economics provide financial re

sources for continued environmental improvements and social benefits to local communities.


## AF&PA Sustainability Elements AF&PA members have identified six practices to define sus

tainability for the forest products industry that span across all three pillars – economic, social, and environmental viability. These elements are: n Sustainable use of renewable resources n Leading the way in recycling n Reducing our environmental footprint n Generating and conserving energy and materials n Reducing greenhouse gases n Benefiting the communities, employees, and families every

where our products are made and sold This report highlights sustainability performance for each of the six elements.



### 1. Sustainable use of renewable resources The products of the forest products industry, and the processes used to make them, are inherently sustainable. AF&PA mem

bers have shown leadership in development and use of forest certification programs and sustainable procurement principles. n AF&PA members owning forestland must conform to an independent sustainable forest management program. These 

### Many forest products companies have established foundations to improve and add value to the quality of life in the communities where their employees live and work. 

# SUSTAINABILITY ECONOMIC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

### Participation in the development of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools is leading an AF&PA member paper company to apply the tools to decision making regarding the use of recycled fiber in product design.

### include: the Sustainable Forestry Initia

tive (SFI ® 

### ) program; systems endorsed by the international Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), which in North America are the Canadian Standards Association pro

gram, the American Tree Farm System ® 

### and SFI; and the seven regional forest management standards developed for the U.S. by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). n These programs promote good forest management practices that guide forest management toward sustainable out

comes; ensure that timber and non-tim

ber forest products are produced under the highest ecological, social and ethical standards; and integrate reforestation, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for useful products with the conservation of soil, air and water resources, protection of wildlife and fish habitat, and mainte

nance of forest aesthetics. n All AF&PA members sourcing fiber directly from the forest are required to adhere to the AF&PA Sustainable Pro

curement Principles. These require sup

port of programs that supply regionally appropriate information and services to forest landowners regarding best man

agement practices; reforestation; affor

estation (conversion of non-forested land to forestland); visual quality manage

ment; management of harvest residue; and conservation of critical wildlife hab

itat, threatened and endangered species, and Forests with Exceptional Value.



### 2. Leading the way in recycling Recovered fiber is an important raw material in the production of new paper products. n Leading the way, the paper industry has set and achieved incremental recov

ery goals since 1990. In the 20 years since, recovery has doubled. In 2009, 63.4 percent of U.S. paper consumed was recovered – surpassing AF&PA’s 60 percent recovery goal three years ahead of schedule. n AF&PA engages in a variety of pro

grams and partnerships. To help educate students and their families about the im

portance of paper recycling, programs carried out in conjunction with Scholas

tic Books and the Keep America Beauti

ful organization deliver curricula straight to the classroom. In addition, AF&PA is engaged with the Environmental Paper Network, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a variety of stakeholders that also encourage increased paper re

covery. n The annual AF&PA Recycling Awards recognize outstanding business, school, and community recycling programs and share their best practices on paperrecy



## 63.4% Paper and Paperboard Recovery Rate (% of annual consumption recovered for recycling) 6

### cles.org, so that they can be replicated by other organizations. n Recycling saves landfill space and eliminates associated greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by decomposition of the landfilled paper. n The use of recycled fiber also reduces the energy, and associated greenhouse gas emissions, required to manufacture a number of paper products. 

### 3. Reducing our environmental footprint Over the past several decades, forest products industry manufacturing fa

cilities have dramatically reduced their environmental footprint. Moderniza

tion of manufacturing processes and ex

panded pollution control and prevention measures have produced these results. Having already achieved significant re

ductions in releases, recent incremental reductions in water and air emission releases have approached the practical limits of what is possible using existing technology. Nonetheless, the industry continues to pursue increased efficien

cies and new innovations that will fur

ther enhance sustainability. n Pulp and paper mill air emissions, since 1995, have been substantially re

duced. These reductions continued in 2008. Compared to 2006, sulfur dioxide releases decreased 14.6 percent, nitro

gen oxides were unchanged, and total reduced sulfur (TRS) releases were re

duced 18.6 percent. n At wood products facilities, nitrogen oxide releases (per 1000 board feet of product produced) have been reduced by 29 percent since 2000. However, be

tween 2006 and 2008, these releases in

creased by 12.8 percent, reflecting a 39 percent reduction in collective AF&PA member production levels for this pe

riod due to the sustained drop in housing market starts. n Pulp and paper mill effluent discharge volumes (per ton of product produced) have decreased 20 percent since 1995 but were largely unchanged since 2006. Since 1995, total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) effluent release rates have been reduced 41.1 and 29.4 percent, respectively, and remained largely unchanged from 2006 levels. n Pulp and paper mill releases of chlo

rinated compounds have been virtually eliminated. Adsorbable organic halides (AOX), chlorine, and chlorine dioxide releases remain at very low levels. Chlo

roform releases, also extremely low, de

creased 34.7 percent between 2006 and 2008. n Aggressive reduction in pulp and pa

per mill U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inven

tory (TRI) releases for the core chemi

cals continued between 2006 and 2008, down another 14 percent. Methanol re

leases, the compound that made up 62 percent of core chemical releases, were reduced 22 percent since 2006. At wood products facilities, methanol releases have decreased 37 percent compared to 2006. Wood products formaldehyde re

7 

### Pulp and Paper Mill Emissions Reductionslbs. per ton SO2/NOxlbs. per ton TRS

### leases were reduced 26 percent between 2006 and 2008. n Pulp and paper mill process residual generation rates have been reduced 18.6 percent since 1995 and were essentially unchanged between 2006 and 2008. Forty-five percent of pulp and paper mill residuals and 96 percent of wood prod

ucts facilities residuals were beneficially utilized in 2008. n All AF&PA members have once again demonstrated adherence to the Asso

ciation’s EHS Principles. They have re

ported pursuit of the principles through such practices as maintaining written environmental protection, health, and safety policies; accountability through reporting of environmental, health, and safety matters to corporate boards of di

rectors; and utilization of environmental and safety measure compliance audits.



### 4. Generating and conserving energy and materials Energy savings and the use of renewable fuels have been fundamental objectives of the industry for decades. The forest products industry has been tracking re

ductions in total energy, purchased en

ergy, and fossil fuel use since the early 1970s and has taken a leadership role in pursuit of energy efficiency and reduc

tions in fossil fuel use. n AF&PA member pulp and paper mills are largely energy self-sufficient, and some mills supply excess energy to the electric utility grid. Since 1990, energy use per ton of production has been re

duced by 8.2 percent, and in 2008, to

tal energy use per ton of production was nearly the same as in 2006. n Since 1990, purchased energy and fossil fuel use per ton of production was reduced by 26 percent. The percent of total energy supplied by purchased and fossil fuel has been reduced during each reporting period since 1972 and was es

sentially unchanged in 2008 compared to 2006. n The forest products industry, with its reliance on renewable biomass energy, leads all other manufacturing industries in the use of renewable fuels. In 2008, 65 percent of the energy needed to op

erate member pulp and paper mills was produced from renewable fuels. At wood products facilities, renewable fuels pro

duced 73.5 percent of needed energy. U.S. Department of Energy data shows that pulp and paper mills and wood prod

ucts facilities, together, produced 94 per

cent of the renewable fuel energy gener

ated by all manufacturing facilities in all sectors. n Virtually all AF&PA member facili

ties that generate electricity on-site do so using cogeneration technology. In 2008, the forest products industry surpassed the chemical industry and became the leader among all manufacturing sectors in the use of cogeneration technology, generating 37 percent of the total energy produced by cogeneration capable sys

tems within all manufacturing sectors.


### 5. Reducing greenhouse gases The forest products industry provides valuable solutions to climate change issues by carefully managing private forests that absorb carbon dioxide, re

ducing emissions from manufacturing processes, manufacturing products that store carbon and are made from renew

able and recyclable raw materials, and generating and using renewable energy. **Emissions Intensity** AF&PA members are committed to re

ducing greenhouse gas emissions inten

sity 12 percent by 2012 (expressed in metric tons of CO 2 

### per ton of product), compared to a year 2000 baseline. This includes both direct emissions (those generated at AF&PA member manufac



### 2008 Wood Products Facility Energy Sources

Percent of Total BTUs 89



### turing facilities) and indirect emissions (those associated with purchased elec

tricity). AF&PA members made progress towards this goal; in fact, they had ex

ceeded it in 2006, but the data presented in this report indicate that it was a chal

lenge to maintain this progress in 2008. Pulp and paper mills maintained their improvement in 2008. The greenhouse gas emissions intensity for wood prod

ucts facilities increased in 2008, how

ever, due to lower operating rates result

ing from the sustained drop in housing market starts, product mix changes, and reduced wood products membership in AF&PA. Overall, the greenhouse gas in

tensity for the industry increased slightly from 2006. n At pulp and paper mills, the combined direct and indirect emissions intensity rate for 2008 was 14.1 percent lower than in 2000 and 1.3 percent lower than in 2006.
n The share of energy-intensive cat

egories of wood products produced by AF&PA membership increased substan

tially in 2008. Furthermore, government regulations required air pollution con

trols that operate on natural gas and re

lease additional greenhouse gases. As a result, the 2008 total direct and indirect emissions intensity for member wood products facilities increased 26.8 percent since 2000 and 32.7 percent compared to 2006. n Combined, AF&PA member green

house gas intensity decreased 4.3 percent since 2000 but increased 10.8 percent compared to 2006. Almost 90 percent of the increase from 2006 can be attrib

uted to the changes in the wood products share of total membership production.
**Absolute Emissions Reductions** On an absolute basis, both direct and in

direct greenhouse gas emissions at mem

ber pulp and paper and wood products industry facilities have decreased. n Combined, pulp and paper mill and wood product facility direct greenhouse gas emissions have been decreased 36.6 percent, 4.2 percent since 2006. n Combined, pulp and paper mill and wood product facility indirect green

house gas emissions have been decreased 4.1 percent since 2000, with a 0.4 per

cent decrease since 2006. n Total direct and indirect emissions from AF&PA member facilities amount

ed to 64.5 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents in 2008. This is a 26.7 per

cent reduction in emissions from mem

ber facilities compared to 2000. Nearly 40 percent of this reduction can be at

tributed to efficiency improvements and reduced fossil fuel use. **The Carbon Cycle** n Growing forests, the source of the ba

sic raw material for the industry, natu

rally absorb carbon dioxide from the at

mosphere and store it as carbon in trees, and forest products contain the carbon absorbed from the atmosphere. In 2008, because of the reduction in wood prod

ucts facility production, the quantity of CO 2 

### equivalents contained in forest products decreased by 29 percent com

pared to 2006. n Paper in landfills decomposes and produces methane gas, a powerful green



### Member Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Total Direct and Indirect)Million Metric Tons CO2Tons CO2per Ton Product



### An AF&PA member’s design and construction of an environmentally clean and energy efficient greenfield sawmill is expected to produce annual energy savings of $293,432 for that company. The project took 18 months and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions per board foot of production. Total CO 2 

### emission savings are expected to be 1,200 metric tons per year. The mill worked with local utilities on incentives to use state-of-the-art technologies. It will require less energy and raw material to produce finished products.

### house gas. In 2008, the landfill methane avoided emissions were 20.2 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents. Between 2000 and 2006, the greenh ouse gas emis

sions that have been avoided through paper recovery and removal from the landfill waste stream have amounted to between 21 and 24 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents annually. **Advantages of Wood as a Building Product**  As a building material, wood requires less energy to produce, transport, con

struct, and maintain than available alter

natives. Less energy use translates into fewer greenhouse gas emissions. When comparing environmental impacts of a typical wood-frame house to similar structures constructed of steel or con

crete over a 20 year period: n The house built of steel would emit 26 percent more greenhouse gases than the comparable wood-based home. n The house made from concrete would emit 31 percent more greenhouse gases than the comparable wood-based home.



### 6. Benefiting the communities, employees, and families everywhere our products are made and sold
**Economic Contributions** The forest products industry, though challenged by recent economic condi

tions, remains a significant and impor

tant contributor to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). n The industry accounts for approxi

mately five percent of U.S. manufactur

ing GDP; is among the top 10 manu

facturing employers in 48 states; and employs nearly 900,000 people earning $50 billion annually. In addition, indus

try companies produce $175 billion in products annually. n Forest product industry economic performance is a key concern as recov

ery from the recession continues. This market downturn has severely affected forest products industry supported com

munities where, since 2006, more than 390,000 employees have lost jobs, in

cluding 124,000 in 2009 alone. In 2009, paper and market pulp production levels were 12.5 percent below those of 1995. n Housing starts, which hovered around 2 million units a year in 2004 and 2005, had declined to 554,000 in 2009, their lowest level in more than a half century. Starts have been edging higher since late 2009, but the rebound has been gradual by historical standards. Reflecting this trend, U.S. production of wood products declined 39% between 2006 and 2009. n Although at reduced rates, companies have continued to make investments in new processes and equipment. Paper mill and allied product company capital expenditures were $7.6 billion in 2006 and $6.3 billion in 2008. n Exports continue to be an important element in U.S. forest products revenue streams. From 2002 to 2008, forest prod

1011



### ucts exports grew by almost 50 percent, from $18.2 billion to $27.1 billion. Ex

ports dropped by 14.4 percent in 2009but have risen by 19.5 percent year-overyear in the first two months of 2010.

**Social Contributions** AF&PA members make substantial con

tributions to the social well-being of the communities in which they operate. n They provide highly skilled jobs pay

ing commensurate wages that include important benefits such as worker health care. They support local community programs and those benefiting society at the state, national, and international levels. The forest areas from which the industry’s raw materials are obtained are sustainably managed to provide impor

tant ecosystem services and aesthetic benefits. n Safety programs at 84 pulp and pa

per mills were enrolled in the Depart

ment of Commerce’s prestigious OSHA worker safety Voluntary Protection Pro

gram (VPP). Sixty-seven wood products facility programs were also enrolled. Compared to 2006, pulp and paper mill worker accident and illness total case in

cidence rates were 16.6 percent lower in 2008. Lost work cases were 12.6 percent lower. At wood products facilities, total case incidence rates were 19.4 percent lower, but lost work cases were slightly higher by 3.4 percent. In 2008, there were six fatalities at member pulp and paper mills, and one fatality at wood products facilities. Member company and govern



### Manufacturer Contribution to GDP (2007 U.S. Commerce Department Data)

Billions U.S. Dollars – Value Added Contribution to GDP

### ment agency personnel conduct detailed investigations after any fatality. n AF&PA members are active in their communities. Eighty-seven percent re

ported they participated in community outreach activities, including philan

thropic support for environmental pro

grams or groups and serving on commu

nity advisory groups. Sixty-four percent aided school education programs, while 74 percent supported community social programs. n AF&PA members actively pursued public engagement and reporting in 2008. Ninety-five percent of members engaged in public policy development activities. Seventy-five percent met with public officials. Ninety-seven percent of members conducted employee involve

ment programs.


## Sustainability and the Road to the Future AF&PA members are pursuing their commitment to sustainability through innovation and environmental steward

ship. To stay on track for continuous improvement, they continue to support research and development efforts within their companies, industry research orga

nizations, academic institutions, and co

operative partnerships with governments and stakeholders. 12 

### Member Pulp and Paper Mill Occupational Injuries and IllnessesIncidence Rate

## REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

# 1. Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources

Sustainable Forestry and Procurement AF&PA members have shown leadership in development of and participation in forest certification programs. All AF&PA members owning forestland must con

form to one or more of the major cred

ible certification systems in the United States. These include: the seven regional forest management standards developed for the U.S. by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC); the Sustainable Forestry Initiative ® 

### (SFI ® 

### ) program; and systems endorsed by the international Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certifica

tion (PEFC). In North America, PEFC has endorsed the Canadian Standards Association program and the American Tree Farm System ® 

### , as well as SFI. Currently, all AF&PA members own

ing forestland participate in the SFI program. The SFI provides a set of for

estry principles designed to meet present needs without compromising the future of forests and forest products. The land stewardship ethic required by these prin

ciples integrates reforestation, nurturing, and harvesting of trees for useful prod

ucts with the conservation of soil, air and water resources, protection of wildlife and fish habitat, and maintenance of for

est aesthetics. Across North America, close to 200 million acres/80 million hectares are certified to the SFI forest management standard. This makes the SFI standard the largest single standard in the world. The SFI program is directed by an inde

pendent non-profit organization, the Sus

tainable Forestry Initiative Inc., which is governed by a multi-stakeholder Board of Directors comprised of 18 members. The Board has equal representation from environmental, economic, and social sectors. In addition, all AF&PA members sourcing fiber directly from the forest

are required to adhere to the organiza

tion’s Sustainable Procurement Prin

ciples. These principles require support of programs that supply regionally ap

propriate information and services to forest landowners regarding best man

agement practices; reforestation; af

forestation (conversion of non-forested land to forests); visual quality manage

ment; management of harvest residue; conservation of critical wildlife habitat; threatened and endangered species; and Forests with Exceptional Value. Among other things, these principles encourage the use of qualified resource profession

als and loggers when applying sustain

able forest management principles and encourage programs for the purchase of raw material from recognized qualified logging professionals. To comply with this procurement pol

icy, most members opt to participate in fiber source requirements, unique to the SFI program, that provide specific ob

jectives addressing the above elements. While both the PEFC and FSC protocols include chain-of-custody elements that track the flow of fiber from certified lands

to end markets, neither protocol provides objectives that address the vast majority of forested acres which are not certified.The SFI protocol also includes chain-ofcustody elements. AF&PA members par

ticipate in one or a combination of these programs. In doing so, they fulfill their commitment to the AF&PA Sustainable Procurement Principles. 

### AF&PA member companies in Florida, along with the Florida Division of Forestry, host a Florida Forests Teachers Tour to give them the opportunity to see demonstrations of harvest operations, the papermaking process and a variety of other forestry- related activities that underscore the value of sustainable forestry. 

## REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

1415 

# 2. Leading the Way in Recycling

Record High Recovery In 2009, an impressive 63.4 percent of the paper consumed in the U.S. was recovered for recycling. This achieve

ment is thanks to industry leadership and the ongoing commitment of millions of

Americans who recycle at home, school, and work on a daily basis. Leading the way, the paper industry has set and achieved incremental recov

ery goals since 1990. In the 20 years since, recovery has doubled, surpassing the industry’s most recent 60 percent goal three years ahead of schedule. Paper recovery removes a valuable re

source from the waste stream, and uses it to produce new paper products. Further, recycling saves landfill space, thereby eliminating associated greenhouse gas emissions. 

### AF&PA Recycling Incentive Programs In order to achieve its mission of ensuring a continuing and expanding domestic re

covered fiber supply to help meet global demand, AF&PA engages in a variety of programs and partnerships. To help edu

cate students and their families about the importance of paper recycling, programs carried out in conjunction with Scholas

tic Books and the Keep America Beauti

ful organization deliver curricula straight to the classroom. In addition, AF&PA is engaged with the Environmental Paper Network, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a variety of stakeholders that also encourage increased paper re

covery. Further, the annual AF&PA Recycling Awards recognize outstanding communi

ty, business, and school paper recycling programs. Together, the 2010 award winners – the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia, Continental Airlines, and the Parkway School District in Chesterfield, Missouri – recovered more than 27,000

tons of paper and paper-based packaging for recycling in 2009. n Developed in 1997, the Virginia Beach recycling program includes a customized, voluntary, single-stream, automated sys

tem that services 124,000 residents, 94 City schools, and 106 municipal build

ings, along with five public-use drop-off sites. Thanks to a variety of education and outreach efforts, the City of Virgin

ia Beach recovered nearly 23,800 tons of paper and paper-based packaging in 2009 – more than 68 percent of all recy

clables collected.
n Thanks to a renewed commitment to the environment in recent years, Con

tinental Airlines has significantly in

creased the effectiveness of its recycling program by maximizing cost-effective, manageable, and sustainable collection efforts. Continental has recovered 6,000 tons of paper from its aircraft, hubs, of

fices and supporting facilities in recent years. n The Parkway School District, serving 18,000 students in 29 buildings, started their recycling program after several ele

mentary students requested of the Board of Education that they be better environ

mental stewards. The results are impres

sive, including the recovery of more than



## 63.4% Paper and Paperboard Recovery Rate (% of annual consumption recovered for recycling) 

## REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

The paper industry has set and achieved incremental recovery goals since 1990. In the 20 years since, recovery has doubled, surpassing the industry’s most recent 60 percent goal three years ahead of schedule.

### 1,031 tons of newspaper, magazines, catalogs, direct mail, office paper, enve

lopes, and brochures, along with more than 138 tons of paper-based packaging in 2009. For details on the award-winning programs, case studies of previous win

ners, free downloadable classroom ma

terials, statistics, interactive features and more, visit www.paperrecycles.org. 

### Additional Benefits of Recycling In addition to providing an important fiber source for papermaking, there are other important benefits from the AF&PA paper recovery efforts. Paper recycling is an important element in the effort to manage greenhouse gas emis

sions. Keeping paper out of landfills, where it would otherwise decay, reduces the production of methane, a greenhouse gas. Paper recovery diverts these paper products from the landfill waste stream. The use of recycled fiber also reduces the energy, and associated greenhouse gas emissions, required to manufacture a number of paper products. 

### For the latest AF&PA information regarding recycling programs and resources visit paperrecycles.org

1617 

# 3. Reducing Our Environmental Footprint

The forest products industry has worked for decades to reduce impacts on the en

vironment. By striving for sustainable use of natural resources today, members seek the same opportunities for future generations. AF&PA’s EHS reporting and tracking system shows how the in

dustry has significantly reduced dis

charges to both air and water while also extensively decreasing the generation of waste. Modernization of manufactur

ing processes and expanded pollution control and prevention measures have produced these results. And, indeed, the job is not done. Having already achieved significant reductions in releases, recent incremental survey-to-survey reductions in some releases have slowed. In addi

tion, survey-to-survey changes of a few percentage points, up or down, may not differ from normal variability. However, AF&PA members are looking forward. Additional gains must, and will, come from new technological advances and more aggressive capital expenditures. 

### Pulp and Paper Mill Air Emissions Releases Improved process controls, installation of new air pollution control equipment and the use of biomass and low sulfur fuels have resulted in substantial reduc

tions in air emissions from member pulp and paper mills during the past several decades. This progress has been made in all phases of mill operations from pulp

ing, bleaching and chemical recovery to power generation operations. AF&PA’s tracking of air emissions reduction prog

ress shows that: n Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ) releases have been reduced by 36.7 percent since 1995. Between 2006 and 2008, these releases decreased by 14.6 percent. Sulfur di

oxide releases were 6.08 lbs. per ton of product produced in 2008 vs. 7.12 lbs. per ton in 2006. n Since 1995, nitrogen oxide (NO X 

### ) releases have been reduced by 26.5 per

cent. Releases in 2008 were unchanged from those in 2006, 4.6 pounds per ton of product produced. n Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) com

pound releases have been reduced by 63.5 percent since 1995. Significant re

ductions continued between 2006 and Pulp and Paper Mill Emissions Reductionslbs. per ton SO2/NOxlbs. per ton TRS 

## REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

Member Wood Products Facility NO x Reductions

0 5 10 15 20 25

2008 2006 2002 2000 1999lbs. per MCF

### 2008, 0.219 pounds per ton in 2008 com

pared to 0.269 lbs. per ton in 2006, an 18.6 percent reduction.


### Wood Product Facility Air Emissions Releases AF&PA has been tracking wood products facility air emissions releases since 1999. Improved boiler operations and modern

ized equipment have reduced emissions. n Since 2000, nitrogen oxide (NO X 

### ) releases at member wood products fa

cilities have decreased 29 percent. NO X 

### releases from these member operations increased by 14.3 percent, from 13.3 to 15.2 lbs. per thousand cubic feet (MCF) of product produced, between 2006 and 2008. Likely causes for the increase are a combination of reduced production lev

els due to the recent economic downturn and the start-up at some facilities of new government required air pollution con

trols that operate on natural gas where NO X 

### is a by-product. Wood products fa

cilities do not produce significant SO 2 

### or any TRS releases. 

### Pulp and Paper Mill Water Discharges Pulp and paper mills were among the first industries to develop and invest in effluent treatment technologies. Primary treatment systems were in common use in the 1950s. By the early 1970s, fully operational primary and secondary ef

fluent treatment systems were in use at

all U.S. mills – an accomplishment that mills in other countries would not match for decades. AF&PA water discharge tracking data shows: n The volume of water discharged from pulp and paper mills has decreased 20.5 percent since 1995. Advances in mill process technologies, enhanced water recycling and reuse practices, and ac

tive conservation efforts have reduced the amount of water needed to produce a ton of product. In 2008, largely due to decreases in production, the average wa

ter discharge volume from member mills was 2.1 percent higher (11.4 thousand gallons per ton of product) than in 2006 (11.1 thousand gallons per ton).

n Total suspended solids (TSS) are fi

brous and finely divided materials, such as clay particles, that are not retained in pulp and papermaking processes. The vast majority of this material (80 to more than 90 percent) is removed from the ef

fluent stream by mill treatment systems. Advances in mill processes and efflu

ent treatment practices have continued to reduce the amount of this material in mill water discharges. Since 1995, TSS releases have been reduced by 41.1 per

cent. Member mill TSS releases per ton of product produced were largely un

changed at 3.6 pounds per ton in 2008 versus 3.5 pounds per ton in 2006. n Effluent treatment systems developed and used by pulp and paper mills are very effective at removing biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), the organic con

taminants in effluents that can deplete oxygen needed to support aquatic organ

isms in receiving streams. Mills continue to optimize BOD removal performance from existing systems and evaluate alter

native, high efficiency, treatment tech

nologies. Since 1995, member average BOD releases have been reduced 29.4 percent. Member mill BOD releases per ton of product produced were unchanged 

### An AF&PA member pulp and paper mill has used a collaborative approach with stakeholders to implement a river restoration plan. Process modifications improved effluent color, reduced BOD releases, and allowed for enhanced river designated uses.

Pulp and Paper Mill Water Discharge ReductionsQuantity per ton of production 1819 

### from 2006 to 2008, 2.6 pounds per ton. 

### Pulp and Paper Mill Chemical Compound Release Reductions Chlorinated compound releases from bleached kraft pulp mills have been vir

tually eliminated through the use of El

emental Chlorine Free (ECF) bleaching processes and pulp mill air emission con

trol systems. n Since 1995, releases of adsorbable organic halides (AOX) in bleached pulp and paper mill effluents have been re

duced by 80.4 percent. In 2008, AOX releases were just 0.198 kilograms per metric ton of unbleached pulp produced, two percent lower than releases in 2006, 0.202 kilograms per metric ton. Industry reports chemical releases to the U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database annually. Tracking re

lease quantities for chlorine compounds provides important trend information re

garding these substances. n Chlorine releases, primarily from air emission sources, at all reporting pulp and paper mills have been decreased by 91.6 percent since 1995. Chlorine releas

es in 2008 were essentially the same as in 2006, just 0.3 percent lower. 1 

### n Chlorine dioxide releases have de

creased 71.1 percent since 1995. Com

pared to 2006, chlorine dioxide releases decreased 3.6 percent in 2008. n Chloroform releases were reduced 97.8 percent since 1995. Between 2006 and 2008, chloroform releases decreased by 34.7 percent. 

### Pulp and Paper Mill TRI Chemical Releases Periodically, U.S. EPA changes the list of chemicals for which release reports must be filed. When this occurs, new chemi

cals are added, some substances can be removed from the list, or reporting thresholds are modified. A list of Core Chemicals, first established in 1988, remains relatively constant. Therefore, data regarding the release of these com

pounds is used to compare annual report

ing trends. Since 1988, TRI substance releases have steadily declined at both pulp and paper mills and wood products manufacturing facilities. n Pulp and paper mill TRI core chemical releases have decreased 31 percent since 1995. Between 2006 and 2008, these re

leases decreased 14 percent. These reduc

Member Pulp Mill AOX Release ReductionsAOX per kg/tonne of unbleachedpulp produced Pulp and Paper Mill Chlorine Compound Release Reductions (U.S. EPA data)Million lbs.

1 A corrected value for chlorine releases submit

ted to U.S. EPA by one mill has been used in these calculations.

### tions are the result of improved pollution control equipment, process changes, raw material changes, and other pollution prevention measures. n In 2008, methanol releases amounted to 62 percent of the total core chemi

cal releases. Releases of methanol have been substantially reduced since the TRI reporting program began. Since 1995, methanol releases have decreased 39 percent. Between 2006 and 2008, metha

nol releases decreased 22 percent. Air emissions control modifications at pulp mill bleach plants are largely responsible for these reductions.


### Wood Products Facility Chemical Compound Release Reductions Pollution control equipment installa

tions and changes in materials used in the manufacture of wood products have produced reductions in TRI chemical re

leases at wood products manufacturing facilities. The data needed to track these reductions became available starting in 1999. New U.S. EPA Maximum Avail

able Control Technology (MACT) stan

dards became effective in 2007–2008 leading to significant reductions in ply

wood and composite wood panel facility hazardous air pollutant emissions, in

cluding methanol and formaldehyde. In 2008, methanol and formaldehyde made up 77 percent of wood product facility core chemical releases.
n Methanol releases have been reduced by 42 percent since 1999. Between 2006 and 2008, methanol releases decreased by 37 percent.
n Formaldehyde releases have been re

duced by 40 percent since 1999. Between 2006 and 2008, releases of formaldehyde decreased by 26 percent. Pulp and Paper Mill Core Chemical Release Reductions (U.S. EPA data)Million lbs.

Pulp and Paper Mill Methanol Release Reductions (U.S. EPA data)Million lbs.

Wood Products TRI Compound Release Reductions (U.S. EPA data)Million lbs. 2021 

### Pulp and Paper Mill Residuals Management AF&PA members work to reduce manu

facturing process residuals that must be disposed of in some fashion. n Since 1995, pulp and paper mills have reduced the total process residuals gen

eration rates in pounds per ton of product by 18.6 percent n Compared to 2006, AF&PA member paper mill total process residuals gen

eration rates in 2008 were essentially un

changed at 250 pounds per ton of prod

uct in 2006 versus 259 pounds per ton in 2008. n Since 1995, pulp and paper mill efflu

ent treatment plant residuals generation rates in pounds per ton of product have been reduced by 26.4 percent. Between 2006 and 2008, effluent treatment re

siduals generation rates were essentially unchanged, 95 and 92 pounds per ton of product produced, respectively. AF&PA member pulp and paper mills seek beneficial uses for process residu

als.

n In 2008, 45 percent of generated residu

als were beneficially reused. Ten percent was burned for energy recovery, 13 per

cent applied to land as soil amendments, and 22 percent beneficially used in other ways. The remaining 55 percent was landfilled or placed in dewatering la

goons. 

### Wood Products Facility Residuals Management AF&PA member wood products facilities utilized 96 percent of generated process residuals in 2008. n Thirty-six percent of wood products facility residuals were utilized in other products by off-site facilities. Fifty-sev

en percent were used for other beneficial uses such as energy recovery, landscap

ing materials, or animal bedding. Three percent was applied to land and less than one percent was disposed of by burning. 

### Adherence to Mandatory AF&PA EHS Principles All AF&PA members demonstrate adher

ence to the mandatory EHS Principles in maintaining their environmental perfor

mance. In 2008: n Ninety-three percent reported having written environmental policies while 95 percent also have written health and safety policies. n Seventy-seven percent of companies also reported having written policies on Member Pulp and Paper Mill Total Residuals Reductionslbs. per ton Pulp and Paper Mill Residuals Utilization Wood Products Facility Residuals Utilization

### responding to environmental, health and safety incidents. n A majority of companies reviewed capital improvement projects and prod

uct designs for environmental perfor

mance implications. n Ninety percent of the companies con

ducted accountability and management reporting activities. These include report

ing on EHS performance to their Board of Directors or Board EHS Committee. n Eighty-two percent of members re

ported maintaining an environmental au

dit program. Pulp and Paper Mill Wastewater Treatment Plant Residuals Reductionslbs. per ton



### While pulp and paper companies encourage recycling, they are also good recyclers themselves. For example, one mill recently outlined its program that now recycles metals, scrap wood, batteries, used oil, aerosol cans, fluorescent light bulbs and antifreeze, in addition to waste paper and fiber. 2223 

# 4. Generating and Conserving Energy and Materials

While all manufacturing sectors and public utilities are currently focused on conserving energy and exploring the po

tential for using renewable fuels, these are not new concepts to the forest prod

ucts industry. Energy savings and the use of renewable fuels have been fundamen

tal objectives of the industry for decades. The forest products industry has been tracking reductions in total energy, pur

chased energy, and fossil fuel use since the early 1970s and has taken a leader

ship role in pursuit of these efficiencies and reductions in fossil fuel use. 

### Energy Use and Self-Sufficiency AF&PA member pulp and paper mills are largely energy self-sufficient. Some mills supply excess energy to the electric utility grid. These mills have also signifi

cantly reduced their total amount of en

ergy needed per ton of production over the last four decades. n Since 1990, energy use per ton of production has been reduced by 8.2 per

cent. n In 2008, total energy use per ton of production was nearly the same as in 2006, 24.41 million BTU per ton of pro

duction (2008) versus 24.03 (2006). 

### Fossil Fuel Use Reductions Use of purchased energy and fossil fuels has continued to decline at pulp and paper mills. n Since 1990, purchased energy and fos

sil fuel use per ton of production was re

duced by 26 percent. The percent of total energy supplied by purchased and fossil fuel has been reduced during each report

ing period since 1972. n Compared to 2006, purchased and fos

sil fuel use was essentially unchanged in 2008, 8.51 million BTU per ton of pro

duction in 2006 vs. 8.52 in 2008. 

## REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

2008 Pulp and Paper Mill Energy Sources

Percent of Total Pulp and Paper Mill Purchased Energy and Fossil Fuel UsePercent of total

### n In 2008, wood products facilities re

lied on renewable biomass fuels to pro

vide 73.5 percent of the energy required to produce their products. 

### Renewable Fuels Use The forest products industry, with its reli

ance on renewable biomass energy, leads all other manufacturing industries in the use of renewable fuels. n Member pulp and paper mills generat

ed 65 percent of their energy needs from renewable fuels in 2008. At wood prod

ucts facilities, renewable fuels produced 73.5 percent of needed energy. n In 2008, U.S. Department of Energy data shows that, pulp and paper mills and wood products facilities, together, produced 94 percent of the renewable fuel energy generated by all manufactur

ing facilities in all sectors. All of these renewable fuels are derived from wood. Pulp and paper mills produced 88 percent of these, while wood products facilities produced six percent. All other manufac

turers in all other sectors produced just six percent. 

### Cogeneration Virtually all AF&PA member facilities that generate electricity on-site do so us

ing cogeneration technology. In 2008, the forest products industry became the leader among all manufacturing sectors in the use of cogeneration technology. Cogenerated electricity is produced by using steam extracted from the exhaust side of electrical generators for heat in either the manufacturing processes or for space heating. In non-cogenerating systems, all of this exhaust steam is condensed by cooling towers or heat ex

changers, with the heat energy not ben

eficially used. In 2008, forest products facilities generated 37 percent of the total energy produced by cogeneration capable sys

tems within all manufacturing sectors. No other sector matched this perfor

mance. Previously, only the chemical sector had surpassed the forest products industry in production of energy from these systems. 

### Conserving Materials and Pollution Prevention AF&PA members are constantly work

ing to improve efficiencies and product design to reduce energy consumption, water use and effluent releases, and the generation of process residuals. For ex

2008 Wood Products Facility Energy Sources

Percent of Total BTUs

Industry Use of Cogeneration Electricity Technology

(2008 U.S. DOE data) Manufacturing Sector Derived Renewable Fuel Use (2008 U.S. DOE data) 2425 

### ample, increases in product strength and, in some cases, product weight reductions have allowed members to produce more product with less fiber while reducing manufacturing wastes and energy re

quirements, including fuel needed to transport materials. In 2008: n Seventy-five percent of members re

ported pollution prevention progress, and 64 percent participated in voluntary government EHS programs. Significant

ly, 41 percent of members received EHS honors or awards in 2008.



### A site audit and resulting implementation plan have enabled one company to reduce site utilities and chemical costs by more than 10 percent, or $2.2 million annually. The plan used best practices throughout the facility and implemented an audit system for continuous improvement. By using only one power boiler instead of two 69 percent of the time, SO2 and NOx emissions have been reduced along with costs. Member Pollution Prevention Progress

Percent of Members

# 5. Reducing Greenhouse Gases

The forest products industry provides valuable solutions to climate change concerns by carefully managing private forests that absorb carbon dioxide, re

ducing emissions from manufacturing processes, manufacturing products that store carbon and are made from renew

able and recyclable raw materials, and generating and using renewable energy. AF&PA members have made a signif

icant commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Collectively, they have pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions intensity (metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents per metric ton of production) 12 percent by 2012, using year 2000 as a baseline. Tracking and accounting for these emissions requires tabulating both emissions that occur directly at AF&PA member manufacturing facilities, as well as indirect emissions associated with purchased electricity from off-site power plants. Quantities of pulp, paper, and the

several different types of wood products manufactured at member mills are com

bined, expressed in tons, and used to cal

culate the AF&PA member total releases on a per ton of product (intensity) basis. AF&PA members made good prog

ress towards the above goal; in fact, they had exceeded the total in 2006. However, the data presented in this report indicated that it was a challenge to maintain prog

ress in 2008. This is primarily due to the fact that wood products represented a much smaller share of the total AF&PA member production than in previous years. Since wood products are a lot less energy intensive to produce than paper and paperboard, this structural change in membership mix had the effect of in

creasing greenhouse gas intensity of the aggregated membership for 2008, com

pared to previous years. Additionally, as explained below, the intensity for wood products also increased significantly in 2008. These two factors combined to offset the continued progress at member pulp and paper mills. 

### Emissions Intensity Reductions n The combined member pulp and paper mill greenhouse gas emissions intensity for direct and indirect emissions has de

creased 14.1 percent since 2000 and 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2008. n In 2006, the combined direct and indi

rect greenhouse gas emissions intensity for wood products facilities had decreased 4.5 percent compared to 2000. The pro

portion of energy-intensity categories of wood products within AF&PA member

ship increased substantially in 2008. Sig

nificant changes in AF&PA membership as well as varying production decreases within these product categories resulted in an intensity increase. Furthermore, government regulations required instal

lation of air pollution control devices that burn natural gas, thereby emitting additional greenhouse gases. As a result of all of these factors, the 2008 total di

rect and indirect emissions intensity rate for member wood products facilities in

creased 26.8 percent compared to 2000, and 32.7 percent compared to 2006. n Overall, the 2008 greenhouse gas emissions intensity for AF&PA members was 4.3 percent less than it was in the baseline year 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, the reduction was 13.7 percent. Compared to 2006, the overall member greenhouse gas intensity increased by 10.8 percent in 2008. Almost 90 percent of the increase from 2000 can be attribut

ed to the changes in wood products share of total membership production. 

### Absolute Emissions Reductions Direct greenhouse gas emissions, those generated at AF&PA member manufac

turing facilities (both pulp and paper mills and wood products manufacturing plants) have decreased. Indirect emis

sions, those associated with purchased electricity, at wood products facilities have also decreased. Pulp and paper mill indirect emissions have remained rela

tively constant. **Direct Emissions:** n The 2008 pulp and paper mill data shows that direct greenhouse gas emis

sions have been reduced by 36.7 percent since 2000, four percent since 2006. n Wood products facility direct green

house gas emissions have been reduced by 30.7 percent since 2000, 17.7 percent since 2006. n Combined, pulp and paper mill and wood product facility direct greenhouse gas emissions have been decreased 36.6 percent, 4.2 percent since 2006. 

## REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

An AF&PA member company has reduced its natural gas use by 10 percent and eliminated 15,700 tons of CO 2 

### emissions by installing a condensing economizer on the cogeneration exhaust stack. This unit captures and reuses heat energy to preheat white water. An added benefit was increased production that resulted from piping changes that increased temperatures and increased paper machine drainage. 2627 

### Indirect Emissions: n Pulp and paper mill indirect green

house gas emissions have increased slightly in 2008. These off-site emissions were 1.4 percent higher than in 2000 and increased 3.2 percent between 2006 and 2008. n Wood products facility indirect green

house gas emissions have been reduced by 29.6 percent since 2000, 19.5 percent since 2006. n Combined, pulp and paper mill and wood product facility indirect green

house gas emissions have been decreased 4.1 percent since 2000, with a 0.4 percent decrease since 2006. n Total direct and indirect emissions from AF&PA member facilities amount

ed to 64.5 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents in 2008. This is a 26.7 per

cent reduction in emissions from mem

ber facilities compared to 2000. Nearly 40 percent of this reduction can be at

tributed to efficiency improvements and reduced fossil fuel use. 

### The Carbon Cycle The forest products industry is unique in that some significant aspects of nature’s carbon cycle are inherent in industry op

erations. n Growing forests, the source of the ba

sic raw material for the industry, natural

ly absorb carbon dioxide from the atmo

sphere and store it as carbon in trees. n The products produced by both pulp and paper mills and forest products facili

ties contain the carbon absorbed from the atmosphere. Forest products produced by member facilities contained between 23.8 (2006) and 28.2 (2008) million met

ric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents annually. In 2008, because of the reduction in wood products facility production, this quan

tity decreased to 16.8 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents, a decrease of 29 per

cent compared to 2006. n Paper recyling provides another im

portant greenhouse gas reduction. When paper is recycled, it does not end up in landfills. Paper in landfills decomposes and produces methane gas, a power

ful greenhouse gas. Between 2000 and 2006, the greenhouse gas emissions that have been avoided through paper recov

ery and removal from the landfill waste stream have amounted to between 21 and 24 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equiva

lents annually. In 2008, the landfill meth

ane avoided emissions were 20.2 million metric tons of CO 2 

### equivalents. 

### Advantages of Wood as a Building Product As a building material, wood requires less energy to produce, transport, con

struct, and maintain than available alter

natives. Less energy use translates into fewer greenhouse gas emissions. When comparing environmental impacts of a typical wood-frame house to similar structures constructed of steel or con

crete over a 20 year period: n The house built of steel would con

sume 17 percent more energy, emit 26 percent more greenhouse gases, release 14 percent more air pollutants, and gen

erate 12 percent more water pollutants than the comparable wood-based home. n The house made from concrete would consume 16 percent more energy, emit 31 percent more greenhouse gases, and release 23 percent more pollutants into the air than the comparable wood-based home. Member Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Total Direct and Indirect)Million Metric Tons CO2Tons CO2per Ton Product

# 6. Benefiting the Communities, Employees, and Families Everywhere Our Products are Made and Sold Economic Performance The three pillars of sustainability are all inter-related and dependent on each other. However, it cannot be overempha

sized that sustainable economic perfor

mance of individual companies, and the industry at large, is essential for achiev

ing sustainability. The forest products industry con

tributed approximately five percent to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007, according to the most recent government statistics available. Among manufacturers, the forest products sector ranked eighth in contribution, just behind motor vehicles and transportation equip

ment and just ahead of the petroleum and plastic products sectors. The industry is among the top 10 manufacturing employ

ers in 48 states where its nearly 900,000 employees earn $50 billion annually in wages and salaries. However, recent business and eco

nomic conditions have been challenging for AF&PA member companies. Since 2006, more than 390,000 employees have

Manufacturer Contribution to GDP (2007 U.S. Commerce Department Data)

Billions U.S. Dollars – Value Added Contribution to GDP 

## REPORTING SUSTAINABILITY PROGRESS

2829 

### lost their jobs including 124,000 in 2009 alone. Breaking down this number: n Logging: 7,200 n Paper and allied products: 33,500 n Wood products: 60,000 n Kitchen cabinets: 24,000 In 2008, 18 paper mills were per

manently closed, shutting down 27 pa

per machines. Fourteen paper machines were permanently shut down at other facilities. As market conditions contin

ued to deteriorate in 2009, 14 paper mills were permanently closed, shutting down 16 machines. Further, 11 more machines ceased operations permanently at other paper mills. Between 1995 and 2007, U.S. market pulp, paper and paperboard production fluctuated about a fairly stable long-term trend, rising just two percent over the en

tire period. However, in part due to the worldwide economic downturn, produc

tion declined five percent in 2008 and 10 percent in 2009. Housing starts, which hovered around 2 million units a year in 2004 and 2005, had declined to 554,000 in 2009, their lowest level in more than a half century. Starts have been edging higher since late 2009 but the rebound has been gradual by historical standards. Reflecting this trend, U.S. production of wood products declined 39% between 2006 and 2009, and some 220,000 wood products indus

try jobs were lost during this three-year period. Production leveled off during early 2010 but has not appreciably re

bounded. Paper and allied product capital ex

penditures during the past decade have varied between $8.5 billion in 1998 to $5.1 billion in 2004. Expenditures for new processes and equipment rebounded to $7.6 billion in 2006 but were $6.3 bil

lion in 2008. Companies are responding to the eco

nomic challenges through use of innova

U.S. Housing Starts (U.S. Bureau of the Census Data)Million Units Paper, Paperboard and Market Pulp Production (AF&PA Statistics)Millions of Tons

U.S. Paper Mill and Allied Product Capital Expenditures (U.S. Bureau of the Census: Annual Survey of Manufacturers)

4 6 8 10

2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998Billion U.S. Dollars

### tion and the pursuit of excellence to gain strength and improve economic perfor

mance in the years to come. Examples of these measures include: n Paying down debt n Reorganizing capital structures n Pursuing growth strategies, especially in product lines with increasing demand n Shifting capacities to more profitable, in-demand products n Focusing on customers and anticipat

ing or exceeding their needs n Producing the best products in the in

dustry’s global marketplace 

### U.S. Forest Products Exports An important part of the U. S. forest products industry’s contribution to the economy is its exports. U.S. producers have improved their global competitive

ness in the past decade, taking advantage of stronger growth in emerging econo

mies and the more competitive currency after the value of the U.S. dollar reached a high point in the first quarter of 2002. From 2002 to 2008, forest products ex

ports grew by almost 50 percent, from $18.2 billion to $27.1 billion. However, as the global recession took hold, U.S. forest products exports collapsed, drop

ping 14.4 percent in 2009. Forest prod

ucts exports are rebounding, rising by 21.4 percent year-over-year in the first two months of 2010. 

### Safety Program Recognition AF&PA member safety programs meet high standards. Many mills have been enrolled in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) pres

tigious Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). Within VPP enrolled programs, management, labor, and OSHA establish cooperative relationships at workplaces that have implemented a comprehensive safety and health management system. Approval into the VPP is OSHA’s of

ficial recognition of the outstanding ef

forts of employers and employees who have achieved exemplary occupational safety and health records. In 2008: n Safety programs at 84 AF&PA mem

ber pulp and paper facilities were en

rolled in the VPP program, an increase of two since 2006 when 82 programs were recognized. n Sixty-seven member wood products facility safety programs were enrolled in the VPP program. In 2006, 100 wood fa

cility programs were registered. This re

duction reflects the many wood product manufacturing facilities that either did not operate in part or all of 2008 or relin

quished their AF&PA membership. n Of the manufacturing industry safety programs recognized by the VPP pro

gram, only the chemical industry has more facilities registered than the forest products industry. 

### Safety Performance Reporting AF&PA members track and report safety performance in accordance with OSHA standards. Occupational injury and ill

ness incidents are recorded as any workrelated injury or illness involving medi

cal treatment beyond first aid. Injury and U.S. Forest Products Exports (U.S. Bureau of the Census Data)Billion U.S. Dollars

Member VPP Enrolled Facilities% Facilities Enrolled 3031 

### illness statistics are reported as incidence rates, defined as recordable incidents per 100 equivalent full-time workers. In 2008: n At member pulp and paper mills, the total case incidence rate was 2.21, 16.6 percent less than the 2006 rate of 2.65. The lost work case incidence rate was 1.11, 12.6 percent less than the 2006 rate of 1.27. n Since 1996, pulp and paper mill total case incidence rates have been reduced by 61.9 percent. Lost work case inci

- dence rates have been reduced by 53.8 percent. n At wood products facilities, the total case incidence rate was 2.00, 19.4 per

- cent lower than the 2006 rate of 2.48. The lost work case incidence rate was 1.17, slightly higher than the 2006 rate of 1.13. n Since 1996, wood products facility total case incidence rates have been re

- duced by 75.3 percent. Lost work case incidence rates have been reduced by 70.8 percent. n Six fatalities occurred at pulp and pa

- per mills in 2008. One occurred at a wood products facility. Member company and government agency personnel conduct detailed investigations after any fatality. The results of these investigations serve as the basis for any necessary changes in operations. 

### Public Engagement and Reporting AF&PA companies are engaged in com

- municating with the public in the com

- munities in which they operate. n Eighty-four percent of members re

- ported to the public on environmental, health and safety performance in 2008. Some companies provided formal reports while more than half placed information on the internet. Member Public Engagement and Reporting

Percent of Members Member Wood Products Facility Occupational Injuries and IllnessesIncidence Rate Member Pulp and Paper Mill Occupational Injuries and IllnessesIncidence Rate

### n More than 20 percent held public meetings, and 13 percent provided facil

ity tours. 

### Community Involvement and Outreach AF&PA members are active in their com

munities. n Eighty-seven percent reported they participated in community outreach ac

tivities. These activities included phil

anthropic support for environmental programs or groups and serving on com

munity advisory groups. n Sixty-four percent aided school edu

cation programs, while 74 percent sup

ported community social programs. 

### Participation in Public Policy Development Member companies are actively involved in the development of public policy at the federal, state, and local levels. n Ninety-five percent of the companies reported participation in the develop

ment of public policy related to environ

mental, health, & safety matters in 2008. n In addition, 75 percent met with public officials; 57 percent encouraged employ

ees to participate in public policy devel

Member Community Outreach and Social Support Activities

Member Participation in Public Policy Development Percent of Members

Percent of Members 3233 Member Employee Involvement Programs

0 20 40 60 80 100 Confidential Feedback Programs EHS Performance Recognition Programs Health/Safety Training Programs Environmental Training Programs Reported Employee Involvement Programs

Percent of Members 

### opment; 52 percent supplied company personnel to testify at federal, state, and local government hearings; and 59 per

cent met with interested stakeholders to discuss environmental, health, & safety matters. 

### Employee Involvement Programs Engaging employees in company EHS program planning and execution is a key part of the AF&PA EHS principles. In 2008: n Ninety-seven percent of members re

ported employee involvement in EHS programs. n Employees in 84 percent of companies gave confidential feedback regarding EHS matters. n Sixty-nine percent of the companies have employee recognition programs for improved performance in EHS areas.

# Sustainability and the Road to the Future

Innovation and Continuous Improvement The forest products industry meets its commitment to sustain

ability through innovation and environmental stewardship. In

novation is enabling the industry to develop new manufactur

ing processes that use fewer raw materials, reduce waste, and lessen energy consumption. It is creating the resources that al

low the industry to support local communities and make forest products economically and environmentally viable for the fu

ture. AF&PA environmental and forest procurement principles ensure that value is placed on sustainability.


## Research and Development Support Innovation to date has reduced the industry’s environmental footprint and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as allowed the industry to support local communities. However, a much larger research agenda is being pursued to provide further improve

ment. In 2008: n Eighty-two percent of members reported supporting research and development activities. n Fifty-four percent supported internal research and develop

ment, while nearly 60 percent support external research activ

ity. 

## Industry Sponsored Research Organizations AF&PA members directly support world-class research and technical support programs specifically tailored to meet forest products industry needs. Included are programs conducted by: n National Council for Air and Stream Improvement n Institute of Paper Science and Technology at the Georgia Institute of Technology n Center for Paper Business and Industry Studies, also at Geor

gia Tech Programs pursued by these organizations provide: n Tracking and reducing greenhouse gas emissions n Tracking and evaluating control options for reduced air emis

sions n Effluent treatment improvements, reductions in effluent dis

charges, and assessment of conditions in receiving streams n Information to reduce chemical substances used, produced, or released n Forest sustainability, robust wildlife, and species diversity n New materials and product platforms for a sustainable forest products industry n New process technologies to support the industry and pro

vide new products – including biofuels and biobased chemical feedstocks that serve as an alternative to petrochemicals n Identification and understanding of social science issues of interest to industry stakeholders n Connections between academic personnel and community stakeholders to improve understanding of the industry n Dissemination and communication of research findings to industry in order to facilitate better decisionmaking n Increasing management and analytical capacity within the industry 3435 

### n Skilled industry-oriented PhD and M.S. graduates in a vari

ety of disciplines. In addition, the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Products Labo

ratory in Madison, Wisconsin develops knowledge and tech

nologies for the industry. This lab provides a center of excel

lence for the science related to processing wood and woody materials into valuable products. 

## Support for Academic Institutions Members support paper science and engineering programs at several colleges and universities that train scientists and en

gineers for technical, operational, and management positions within the industry and conduct research focused on industry needs. These include top-rated schools such as: n Auburn University (Alabama) n Georgia Institute of Technology n Miami University (Ohio) n North Carolina State University n State University of New York College of Environmental Sci

ence and Forestry n University of Maine n University of Washington n University of Minnesota n Western Michigan University n University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point These institutions pursue research agendas of importance to the industry including: n Obtaining the highest possible sustainable value from forestbased biomass n Improving the efficiency of wood use and decreasing chemi

cal use in pulping and bleaching operations n Increasing the use of recycled fiber and improving the strength of recycled pulps to reduce the use of virgin wood fiber n Developing processes that produce biofuels and chemical building blocks from renewable forest resources n Improving environmental management systems n Optimizing pulping processes to reduce energy require

ments n Developing new effluent treatment and spent pulping liquor recovery processes that enhance performance, improve chemi

cal and odor removal, increase energy recovery, and enhance water recycling

## Cooperative Partnerships The Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, a special project of AF&PA, works to advance breakthrough technologies for the forest products industry with a strong focus on opportunities to improve sustainability. Agenda 2020 leads the development of a technology agenda for the industry, as evidenced by its 2010 Technology Roadmap. It works to establish collabora

tive programs for technology development that include com

panies, universities, and government agencies as partners. As an example, Agenda 2020 manages the Value Prior to Pulping (VPP) research program that aims to extract hemicelluloses from wood before pulping and convert them to value-added fuels and chemicals. The VPP collaboration involves multiple companies and research institutions and is funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy. The 2010 Roadmap outlines research needs in sustainability-focused areas such as reduc

ing energy consumption, reducing fresh water intake, creating biobased products that displace fossil fuel feedstocks, enabling the development of products made with less fiber, and increas

ing the recovery and recycling of waste products. 

## Member Company Corporate Research Programs AF&PA members conduct independent research programs that seek to improve efficiencies, eliminate or reduce air and water releases, and improve product designs. Examples of projects conducted within these programs in

clude: n Finding ways to reduce energy requirements of existing pa

permaking processes and equipment n Increasing recycled water use within mill systems and reduc

ing fresh water withdrawal n Improving the recyclability of used packaging cartons n Increasing product packaging efficiency to reduce shipping fuel requirements n Extending the use of wood residuals and other alternative fuels to further reduce reliance on fossil fuels n Utilizing boiler ash and other residuals as fertilizers and soil conditioners to enhance forest nutrition and tree growth n Implementing technologies that increase pulp yield, decrease wood use, and reduce generation of air emissions and water discharges per ton of product produced 36 

## Internet Addresses for Forest Products Organizations
American Forest & Paper Association www.af andpa.org National Council for Air and Stream Improvement www.nc asi.org Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry www. tappi.org Institute of Paper Science and Technology www.ipst.gatech.edu Center for Paper Business and Industry Studies www. cpbis.gatech.edu Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance www.a genda 2020.org Society of Wood Science & Technology www. swst.org

### 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 www.afandpa.org

PwC-SFICOC-285 10%