Date: May 15, 2012 

Subject: Costs, Environmental, and Energy Impacts for the Promulgated Subpart S 

Risk and Technology Review 

EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; Work Assignment No. 0-03 

From: Thomas Holloway 

Katie Hanks 

Corey Gooden 

To: John Bradfield 

Bill Schrock 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

I. Introduction 

Section 112(f)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to conduct risk assessments on each source category subject to maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) standards and determine if additional standards are 

needed to reduce residual risks from the remaining hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 

from the category. Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires EPA to review and revise the MACT 

standards, as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control 

technologies. The section 112(f)(2) residual risk review and section 112(d)(6) technology review 

are to be done 8 years after promulgation. The national emission standards for hazardous air 

pollutants (NESHAP) for the pulp and paper industry (40 CFR part 63, subpart S) were 

promulgated in 1998 and are due for review under CAA sections 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6). To 

address a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club, the subpart S risk and technology review (RTR) package 

was proposed in December, 2011 (76 FR 81328) and is scheduled to be promulgated by July 31, 

2012. 

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the estimated costs and environmental 

and energy impacts associated with the regulatory options considered for promulgation in the 

subpart S RTR. This memorandum updates the cost analysis documented for the proposed RTR. 

(RTI 2011) Section II discusses the derivation of the costs and impacts associated with the kraft 

condensates regulatory options. Section III presents the costs associated with the proposed repeat 

HAP emissions testing requirement. Finally, section IV summarizes the nationwide costs and 

impacts. 
2

II. Cost and Impacts Estimates for Kraft Condensates Regulatory Options 

A. Kraft Condensates Regulatory Options 

The kraft condensates standards in subpart S limit the HAP concentration in various 

process liquids (e.g., condensates from pulping equipment). Limiting emissions from process 

liquids reduces emissions from the handling and reuse of these liquids and wastewater treatment. 

The kraft condensate standards apply to the following “named” pulping process condensate 

streams: condensates from the digester system, turpentine recovery system, evaporator system 

feed stages, high-volume low-concentration (HVLC) system, and low-volume high concentration 

(LVHC) system. Subpart S specifies the amount of condensates to be collected for treatment. 

Mills have three options for the condensate collection requirements: 

1. Collect all named condensate streams. 

2. Collect all LVHC and HVLC streams plus streams that contain 65% of the total HAP 

mass from the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and evaporator system feed 

stages. 

3. Collect any subset of the named streams that contain in total 7.2 pounds (lb) of HAP per 

oven-dried ton of pulp (ODTP) at mills that do not perform bleaching, or 11.1 lb HAP per 

ODTP at mills that perform bleaching. 

The EPA did not propose any changes to the kraft condensate collection requirements 

above as part of the technology review. Under the originally promulgated rule, collected 

condensates must be treated by one of the following methods: 

1. Route the condensates to equipment that meets the subpart S kraft pulping vent gas 

standards; or 

2. Route the condensates to biological treatment, steam stripper or other control device that 

meets one of the following equivalent requirements: 

 Reduce total HAP by at least 92 weight-percent; or 

 For mills without bleaching, either remove at least 6.6 lb total HAP/ODTP, or 

meet 210 parts per million by weight (ppmw) total HAP at the control device 

outlet; or 

 For mills with bleaching, either remove at least 10.2 lb total HAP/ODTP, or meet 

330 ppmw total HAP at the control device outlet. 

A series of different kraft condensate treatment limits were considered for the proposed 

technology review, including increasing the requirement to reduce HAP emissions from 92 

percent to a higher percent reduction (e.g., 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, or 98 percent). The impacts 

analysis at proposal considered the incremental costs and emissions reductions associated with 

each of these limits. The December 2011 proposal included revised condensate treatment 

standards based on a 94 percent removal. The analysis documented in this memo incorporates 

public comments received on the 94 percent removal standard and associated cost analysis. For 

the final rule, two kraft condensates treatment standards are under consideration: 93% and 94% 

removal. Table 1 lists the percent removal treatment limits and their equivalents in lb/ODTP and 

ppmw under consideration. 
3 

Table 1. Kraft Condensate Treatment Standards Considered for Promulgation 

lb/ODTP removal1 ppmw2

Percent removal 

option Unbleached Bleached Unbleached Bleached 

92% (baseline) 6.6 10.2 210 330 

93% 6.7 10.3 184 289 

94% 6.8 10.4 158 248 

1. The equivalent lb/ODTP removal standards were calculated as follows: 0.93 x 7.2 = 6.7; 0.93 x 11.1 = 10.3; 0.94 

x 7.2 = 6.8; 0.94 x 11.1 = 10.4. 

2. The equivalent ppmw standards were developed by first back-calculating an uncontrolled ppmw, U [210 ppmw = 

(1-0.92)U  U=2625 ppmw], and then applying the revised percent reduction to U [(1-0.93) 2625 = 184 ppmw]. 

For the promulgation cost analysis, data from industry responses to Part I of the 2011 

pulp and paper survey were reviewed to determine the performance level of mills subject to the 

kraft condensates standards. The Part I survey requested information on the control measures and 

compliance options used by mills to meet the kraft condensates standards. Mills typically use 

either steam stripping of contaminated condensates or hard piping of condensates to biological 

wastewater treatment. Some mills may use a combination of treatment methods. A total of 97 

mills are currently subject to the kraft condensates standards. Table 2 presents a summary of the 

predominant kraft condensate treatment methods used. We note that we have updated the number 

of mills using each treatment method for this promulgation cost analysis based on further review 

of the survey data. 

Table 2. Number of Mills Using Various Condensate Treatment Methods 

Treatment Method No. of mills 

No. of mills 

(proposal cost analysis) 

Biotreatment 40 39 

Recycle 7 5 

Stripping or stripping/recycle 45 43 

Stripping and biotreatment 4 9 

Thermal incinerator 1 1 

Total 97 97 

B. Baseline Performance Levels and Consideration of Variability 

Information in the Part I Information Collection Request (ICR) data base Kraft 

Condensates and Wastewater tables was reviewed to determine the baseline performance level 

for condensate treatment for each mill. In the Kraft Condensates table, survey respondents 

entered test dates and the condensate removal test result. The majority of mills appeared to base 

compliance on the lb/ODTP or percent removal compliance options. Only one mill (the mill with 

the thermal incinerator) appeared to use the ppmw compliance option. 

The predominant condensate treatment method shown in Table 2 above was noted for 

each mill (e.g., biotreatment, stripping, recycle, or a combination of these methods) based on mill 
4 

responses in the different columns of the Kraft Condensates table. The data in the ICR 

Wastewater table was assumed to reflect only the biotreatment portion of kraft condensate 

control for mills using multiple control methods (e.g., stripping and biotreatment). 

In a few cases, it was necessary to check performance tests submitted with the survey 

results to determine a mill’s condensate performance level. While some mills provided results of 

their initial performance tests (e.g., 2001-2002 data) in the Kraft Condensates table, many other 

mills provided more recent condensate performance data (e.g., 2009-2011 data). For mills using 

biotreatment, we coupled the data reported in the Kraft Condensates table with data reported in 

the Wastewater table in order to evaluate which mills might be affected by the different 

condensate regulatory options under consideration. The data reflected in the Wastewater table 

were assumed to reflect testing conducted in the 2009 (unless otherwise noted by a respondent) 

since this was the base year for which ICR data were requested. In the Wastewater table mills 

provided quarterly results for the fraction of methanol removed (FbioMeOH), total HAP percent 

removal, and total HAP mass removal in kilograms per megagram of oven-dried pulp 

(kg/MgODP). Compliance is based on the total HAP percent removal or total HAP mass 

removal, which we converted to lb/ODTP for comparison with the regulatory options. 

To account for variability in treatment system performance, mills with treatment 

performance levels less than 4 percent above the 93/94 percent removal options under 

consideration were considered to be affected (e.g., a mill with a performance level of less than 

98 percent removal was considered to be affected by the 94 percent regulatory option). Similarly, 

mills with lb/ODTP condensate treatment level less than 50 percent above the lb/ODTP 

regulatory option were considered to be affected. These “variability cushions” were based on 

analysis of the typical operational and performance variability used in the industry. Our analysis 

showed that the central tendency of the variability margins reported in the ICR for facilities that 

used a percentage treatment compliance demonstration approach was close to 4 percent removal 

in excess of the standard. For facilities that used a mass/volume approach, the typical 

demonstration contained a variability margin of approximately 50 percent in excess of the 

standard. See Appendix A1 for details on this analysis. Table 3 presents the performance level 

criteria, considering the variability cushion (VC) used to determine which mills would be 

affected by the regulatory options.

Table 3. Performance Level Criteria for Determining Which Mills Would Be Affected1

Percent reduction Unbleached, lb/ODTP Bleached, lb/ODTP 

Limit Limit + VC Limit Limit + VC Limit Limit + VC 

93% 97% 6.7 10.1 10.3 15.5 

94% 98% 6.8 10.2 10.4 15.6 

VC = variability cushion (4% reduction; or 1.5 x lb/ODTP limit for a 50% increase) 

1. The mill using the ppmw compliance option exceeded its performance target and was determined not to be 

affected. There was no need to develop ppmw VC criteria for this analysis. 

Since mills can comply with either the lb/ODTP or percent reduction removal options, we 

considered a mill showing compliance with either of the compliance options + VC for all of the 

performance results for that option as being unaffected by the 93 or 94 percent removal 

regulatory options (e.g., assigned a “no” in the Require Upgraded Control column shown in 

Appendix A2). Mills recycling condensates to equipment to meet the pulping vent gas limits are 
5 

subject to the 98 percent pulping vent gas limit (or equivalent) and were assumed not to incur 

any costs associated with adjustments to the kraft condensate emission limits. The mill operating 

a thermal incinerator also achieved greater than 98 percent control and would not be affected. 

Mills using a combination of steam stripping and biotreatment were assigned costs based on 

steam stripping. Using this approach, of 97 total kraft mills, we determined that 48 mills would 

be affected at a treatment limit of 93 percent, and 54 mills would be affected by a treatment limit 

of 94 percent. See Appendix A2 for details on this analysis. 

C. Cost of Biological Treatment System Upgrades 

For the proposal cost analysis, cost estimates were derived from CapdetWorks v2.5 

model runs for a complete-mix activated sludge system containing a bioreactor and secondary 

clarifier, assuming that the wastewater treatment system upgrade would require an increase in 

system capacity proportional to the increase in emission limit. This cost methodology is 

described in the proposal cost memo.(RTI 2011) We use a separate methodology in this 

memorandum, but note that the costs for biotreatment systems estimated here are not 

dramatically different. 

Public commenters noted that the types of biotreatment systems used in pulp and paper 

industry generally include aerated stabilization basins (ASBs), activated sludge treatment (AST), 

or UNOX systems. Although commenters suggested that AST and UNOX systems typically 

have higher treatment efficiencies than ASBs, we noted overlap in the FbioMeOH values reported in 

the ICR Wastewater table for all three system types, likely due to normal variability in 

biotreatment system performance. See Appendix A3 for details. We also note that the cost to 

upgrade and ASB to AST is in the $30 to 35 million range for a single system (EPA 2012c), and 

UNOX systems would be “replacement” biotreatment systems (i.e., upgrade from an ASB is not 

feasible). Therefore a change in biotreatment system type was not considered to be cost effective 

(or feasible) for the incremental change in the kraft condensate standards. Rather, it is expected 

that mills would install a steam stripper for condensate control if their existing biotreatment 

system could not consistently achieve the regulatory options due to variability. 

Of the 40 mills using biotreatment as their predominant treatment method, 20 and 23 

mills were determined to be potentially affected by the 93 and 94 percent regulatory options 

(considering the variability cushion described above), respectively. Mills with the following 

characteristics were assigned costs for a new stripper system as opposed to a biotreatment system 

upgrade: 

 For the 93% removal option: Performance levels below 95% removal, or equivalent mass 

removal below 10.5 lb/ODTP (bleach mills) or 6.8 lb/ODTP (no bleaching) 

 For the 94% removal option: Performance levels below 96% removal, or equivalent mass 

removal below 10.7 lb/ODTP (bleach mills) or 6.9 lb/ODTP (no bleaching) 

 CCA mills under either option. 
6 

Application of this criteria resulted in the following mill cost assignments in Table 4. 

 

Table 4. Number of Biotreatment Mills by Cost Assigned 

Regulatory option 

(percent removal) 

No. of mills affected 

(out of 40 mills using 

biotreatment) 

No. of mills assigned 

biotreatment 

upgrade costs 

No. of mills assigned 

new stripper costs 

93% 20 7 13 

94% 23 8 15 

Public commenters noted that an increase in biotreament system performance would be 

achieved through increased aeration and increased nutrient addition, where possible. Although 

increased retention time in a biotreament system could also increase treatment, this would 

involve dredging or raising dikes or other means of increasing the system volume (e.g., as 

assumed in the proposal cost analysis). After multiple discussions, we incorporated the cost 

estimates provided by commenters (which were based on mill experiences) into our 

promulgation costs analysis.(AF&PA 2012, EPA 2012b, EPA 2012c) The promulgation costs for 

biotreatment units are based on the parameters in Table 5. 

Table 5. Biotreatment Cost Parameters 

Cost parameter Value Notes 

Capital cost to upgrade aeration in 

biotreatment system 

$480,000 = 8 aerators (75 hp each) x $60K each 

Annualized capital cost $45,120 = 0.094 * capital cost 

Annual electric cost for new aerators 

(75 hp x 8 aerators = 600 hp) 

$391,940 = 600 hp *8760 hr/yr *0.7457KWhr/(hp-hr) 

* $/KWhr 

$/KWhr $0.10 Used in proposal analysis (CapdetWorks 

v2.5 default electricity cost)

KWhr/yr 3,919,399 = 600 hp *8760 hr/yr *0.7457KWhr/(hp-hr) 

Annual maintenance for upgrades 

(aerators), $/yr 

$220,000 AF&PA 2012, Att 5. Assume 1/4 of this cost 

is for incremental labor ($220,000/($25/hr) = 

2,200 hours. 

Nutrient costs (incremental), $/yr $60,000 Chemical costs. Assumes mills already have 

nutrient addition equipment in place. 

Maintenance total, $/yr $280,000 $220,000 + $60,000 (aerator maintenance + 

nutrients) 

As in the proposal analysis, the annualized capital costs were determined by applying a 

capital recovery factor of 0.094 to the estimated capital cost. The capital recovery factor was 

estimated assuming a 20-year equipment life and 7 percent interest rate. 

D. Cost of Steam Stripper Upgrades and New Steam Strippers 

Steam stripper upgrade costs were developed for mills currently using steam stripping to 

comply with the kraft condensates limit. New steam stripper costs were applied for mills 

currently using biotreatment, but with potentially insufficient margin of variability to continually 

meet the more stringent regulatory options, as described above. 
7 

For the proposal cost analysis stripper costs that originated from the 1993 Background 

Information Document (BID) for Subpart S (EPA 1993) were scaled to 2010, and an assumption 

of no incremental energy increase was made. For this analysis, we are basing stripper costs on 

more recent information supplied by commenters, based on actual industry experience. The 

revised analysis accounts for incremental energy use which is primarily increased steam usage 

for new and upgraded strippers plus electricity usage for new strippers. 

The cost specifications are shown below for new strippers (Table 6) and stripper 

upgrades (Table 7). Mills currently operating stripper systems are already incurring annual costs 

associated with stripper operation, so the upgrade costs provided represent incremental costs due 

to increased efficiency. Some existing strippers in the pulping industry are integrated systems 

that use steam from the evaporator set. Different upgrade costs were used for these types of 

strippers as a result of public comments. Strippers integrated with the multiple effect evaporators 

were identified in the ICR responses and are noted in Appendix A2. Of the 49 mills using 

strippers, a combination of stripping and recycling, or stripping and biotreatment as the 

predominant form of condensate control, 24 were determined to have integrated stripper systems. 

Stripper upgrade costs were assigned for 28 and 31 stripper systems under the 93 and 94 percent 

regulatory options, respectively. 

Table 6. New Stripper Cost and Energy Use Parameters 

Cost variable Value Notes 

Capital cost $7,400,000 AF&PA 2012, Att 5 

Annualized capital $695,600 CRF = 0.094, based on 20 yr equipment life; 7% 

interest 

Steam, MMBtu/hr 40 AF&PA, Att 5 (revised). 100 MMBtu/hr @ 60% 

energy recovery = 40 MMBtu/hr 

Energy recovery 60% AF&PA, Att 5 (revised) 

Steam, $/MMBtu 3 AF&PA 2012, Att 5 

Stripper hr/yr 8,640 operating for 360 days/yr (24 hr/day) 

Steam, $/yr $1,036,800 100 MMBtu/hr * 8640 hr/yr * $3/MMBtu* (100-

60)/100 

Electricity, KWhr/yr 128,857 2 pumps @ 10 hp each (p. 5-30 of EPA 1993). 

= 20 hp *8640 hr/yr *0.7475KWhr/(hp-hr)

$/KWhr $0.10 

Annual Maintenance (including 

labor), $/yr 

$200,000 Includes two outages per year for hydroblasting 

($50K each). Remainder of cost is materials and 

labor.(AF&PA, Att 5 revised) For maintenance 

labor we assume 5 days x 24 hours x 4 people x 

$25/hr x 2 outages = $24,000 and 960 hours. 

Operating Labor, hr/yr $13,500 Assume 0.5 hr operating labor per 8-hr shift, as 

noted on p 5-21 and 5-12 of EPA 1993. 0.5 hr * 

3 shifts/day * 360 days/yr = 540 hr/yr @ $25/hr. 

Property Taxes, Insurance, and 

Administration, $/yr 

$296,000 4% of capital cost per OAQPS Control Cost 

Manual 

Note: AF&PA, Att 5 (revised) can be found in EPA 2012c. 
8 

Table 7. Stripper Upgrade Incremental Cost and Energy Use Parameters 

Cost variable Value Notes 

Capital Cost: 

-Stripper Upgrade (stand-alone) 

-Stripper Upgrade (integrated 

with evaporator) 

$2,900,000 

$5,800,000 

AF&PA, Att 5 

Annualized capital: 

-Stripper Upgrade (stand-alone) 

-Stripper Upgrade (integrated 

with evaporator) 

$272,600 

$545,200 

CRF = 0.094, based on 20 yr equipment life; 7% 

interest 

Steam, MMBtu/hr for stripper 

upgrades: 

-1% removal improvement 

-2% removal improvement 

5 

10 

AF&PA, Att 5 suggests 10 MMBtu/hr 

incremental energy for 2% improvement in 

treatment. Used 1⁄2 of this for a 1% improvement. 

No incremental changes in energy recovery or 

electricity usage are assumed for upgrades. 

Steam, $/MMBtu 3 

Stripper hr/yr 8,640 operating for 360 days/yr (24 hr/day) 

Steam, $/yr 

-1% removal improvement 

-2% removal improvement 

$129,600 

$259,200 

MMBtu/hr * 8640 hr/yr * $3/MMBtu 

Annual Maintenance, $/yr $100,000 Incudes one additional outage per year for 

hydroblasting ($50K). Remainder of cost is 

materials and incremental labor. (AF&PA, Att 5 

revised) For labor we assume 5 days x 24 hours 

x 4 people x $25/hr x 1 outage = $12,000 and 480 

hours. 

E. Costs for Clean Condensate Alternative (CCA) Mills 

This section discusses the effects of the kraft condensates regulatory options for mills 

using the CCA and presents cost estimates for CCA mills. 

Costs for Mills with CCA Compliance Approach Negated. Commenters stated that 

EPA’s proposal to change the kraft condensate standards could potentially affect or even negate 

the site-specific CCA compliance approach in use by some mills. The commenters noted that in 

EPA’s two-step compliance process for CCA, “Phase 1” required mills to demonstrate 

compliance with the kraft condensate standards, pulping vent gas standards (except HVLC), the 

bleaching system standards, and the Effluent Guidelines. Then, after the Phase 1 baseline was 

established, in “Phase 2” of compliance mills could offset HVLC emission reductions by 

demonstrating greater emission reductions via CCA. The commenters noted that, of the 38 mills 

using CCA, all but 4 mills based their CCA compliance approaches on systems involving 

condensates. Commenters suggested that a $15 million (capital) HVLC system would need to be 

installed at mills where changes in the condensate standards would negate the mill’s CCA 

approach. 

The effects of the revised condensate standards were not considered for CCA mills at 

proposal. We have included costs associated with potential effects on CCA mills in the 
9 

promulgation cost analysis. However, we do not assign costs for all CCA mills. Rather we assign 

costs based on performance level. It was assumed that CCA mills with condensate treatment 

unaffected by the regulatory options based on their performance level (considering the variability 

cushion described above) also would not have any effects on their CCA compliance approach. 

We considered the $15 million (capital) cost for HVLC systems to be reasonable because of the 

high vent gas flow rates through HVLC systems, the fact that these systems are made of stainless 

steel and require a complex array of monitored pressure devices, and because this value was 

based on actual system design experience for pulp and paper mills. We added to the estimate 

capital recovery cost of $1,410,000/yr (assuming 20 yr life at 7% interest) and O&M cost of 

$480,000/yr (based on the O&M cost from Radian 1996). 

As noted above, mills using biotreatment as their baseline treatment methodology with 

performance levels of 95 or 96 percent removal (or equivalent lb/ODTP) or less were assumed to 

install a new steam stripper for compliance with the 93 or 94 percent regulatory options. If a new 

stripper were to be installed, then this new stripper could also be used for ensuring CCA 

compliance should the CCA compliance approach at the mill be affected by the more stringent 

condensate standards. Therefore, CCA mills assigned a new stripper system were not considered 

as potentially having their CCA negated, and were not assigned the HVLC cost. 

All other mills using a CCA approach involving condensates that were determined to be 

affected by the regulatory options (considering the variability cushion) were assigned an HVLC 

cost of $15 million capital and an annual operating cost of $1,890,000/yr (capital recovery + 

O&M). 

Costs to Repeat the CCA Compliance Demonstration. Commenters noted that revisions 

to the kraft condensate treatment options could cause mills to revisit their CCA compliance 

demonstrations which were originally completed before April 2006. Although the commenters 

provided no specific cost estimates for repeating the CCA compliance demonstration, we 

estimate the costs to be in the ballpark of $130,000 per mill. This estimate is based on the 

assumptions in Table 8. 
10 

Table 8. Repeat CCA Demonstration Cost Assumptions 

CCA Demonstration Activity Cost Notes 

Baseline emissions measurement for 

all equipment in CCA affected source 

affected by changes in condensate 

treatment (after compliance with the 

revised condensate standard). 

$74,000 Three Method 308 tests for pulping vent gases from 

various HVLC sources ($14,000 each), plus 2 Method 

305 tests ($16,000 each) to measure Phase 1 baseline 

emissions reduction across the inlet/outlet of a stripper. 

Calculation of emission reductions 

that would have been achieved 

through HVLC compliance. 

$13,911 Prior analysis may need to be updated with new baseline 

measurements. Assume mill technical labor of 40 hours 

(at $97.78/hr*) plus consulting fee for 100 hours of labor 

@ $100/hr. 

Measure emission reductions 

achieved by CCA 

$32,000 Assume 2 Method 305 tests ($16,000 each) to measure 

CCA emissions reduction across the inlet/outlet of a 

stripper. No biotreatment system costs were assumed 

because these systems are tested quarterly. 

Submit CCA demonstration and 

coordinate with permitting authority 

on approval 

$9,867 Assume mill technical labor of 60 hours (at $97.78/hr*) 

plus consulting fee for 40 hours of labor @ $100/hr. 

Total $130,000 Rounded. $120,000 of this is capital cost (for testing 

contractors and consultants) subject to capital recovery, 

assumed to occur over 5 years at 7% interest (CRF = 

0.244) for an annualized cost of $29,300 per year. 

*Consistent with labor rate used in Paperwork Reduction Act Supporting Statement 

F. Impacts of Kraft Condensates Regulatory Options 

This section discusses the environmental and energy impacts of the kraft condensates 

regulatory options. The environmental impacts include HAP and non-HAP emissions reductions, 

secondary emissions, and wastewater impacts. 

1. Emissions reductions. Appendix B1 contains the methodology used to develop millspecific HAP and non-HAP emissions reductions for the condensate regulatory options. The 

predominant HAPs from kraft condensates are methanol and acetaldehyde, representing 

approximately 99 percent and 1 percent of the HAP mass, respectively.(NCASI 2010) The 

hydrophilic properties of methanol relative to acetaldehyde (and any other trace the other HAP 

compounds) indicate that a given percent removal of methanol constitutes at least an equivalent 

percent removal of total HAP.(EPA 1997) The non-HAPs evaluated are volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds. 

Strippers were used as the basis for the kraft condensates emissions reduction 

calculations because emission factors are readily available for strippers (unlike for biological 

treatment systems, where modeling of emission rates is required). Biological treatment systems 

are expected to achieve an equivalent emissions reduction. 

Uncontrolled HAP emissions were estimated using an emission factor of 11 lb HAP/air 

dried ton of unbleached pulp (ADTUBP), an approximate total HAP value associated with 

stripper off-gas (SOG) from Technical Bulletin 973 (Table 4.14) prepared by the National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). (NCASI 2010) The amount of HAP in foul 

condensate stream was back-calculated as 11.96 lb HAP/ADTUBP using the current regulatory 
11 

limit of 92 percent stripper HAP removal (leaving 0.96 lb HAP/ADTUBP in the stripped 

condensate stream). The reduction in HAP per mill was calculated assuming a 1,000 ADTUBP 

model facility operating 360 days per year and 98 percent removal of HAP in the SOGs via 

incineration. This total was applied for each of the mills determined to be affected by the kraft 

condensates regulatory options. The HAP reduction was calculated as 20.6 tpy per mill for the 93 

percent removal option, and was 42.6 tpy for the 94 percent removal option. See Appendix B1 

for details. 

Based on information in NCASI Technical Bulletin 973, uncontrolled VOC emissions 

were estimated to be essentially equal to uncontrolled HAP (11 lb/ADTUBP), and are expected 

to strip at the same rate as HAP, since VOC is predominantly composed of HAP. Uncontrolled 

TRS emissions were estimated using an emission factor of 3.29 lb TRS/ADTUBP, based on the 

emission factor for SOG from NCASI Technical Bulletin 973 (Table 4.14). For purposes of this 

incremental analysis, we assumed the stripping rate for TRS to be similar to that for HAP or 

VOC. While the combustion of TRS in SOG combustion devices will likely generate some sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), the additional amount of SOGs burned under the incremental standards for kraft 

condensates would be small compared to the other fuels burned in the combustion device (e.g., 

boiler, lime kiln), so any incremental SO2 emissions generated would also be relatively small. 

See Appendix B1 for details. 

2. Energy impacts. Energy impacts of the regulatory options include electricity use by 

upgraded aerators in biotreatment systems or for new stripper systems, and increased steam use 

by upgraded or new steam strippers. The electrical demand and steam usage for each of these 

systems is presented above on a per-mill basis. We converted the electricity estimates (in kWh 

per year [yr]) to million British thermal units per year (MMBtu/yr) in order to estimate 

secondary emissions. Energy impacts are shown for each mill in Appendix C. 

Some auxiliary fuel is required for combustion of additional SOG or for combustion of 

HVLC gases (at mills where CCA could potentially be negated), but since these vent gases were 

assumed to be burned in existing combustion equipment, no energy impacts were estimated in 

this analysis. 

3. Secondary air emissions. Appendices B2 and B3 contain the methodology used to 

develop mill-specific estimates of secondary air emissions. Secondary air emissions include the 

criteria pollutant emissions—particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and SO2—that result from the generation of electricity to achieve the biological treatment 

system upgrades or for operation of new steam strippers, or from generation of steam needed for 

new or upgraded strippers. The electricity was assumed to be purchased from offsite utilities, 

rather than generated onsite. The steam was assumed to be generated onsite in a power boiler. 

We also developed secondary emissions estimates for greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) expected to be emitted from utilities or power boilers. 

Energy impacts and associated secondary air emissions for stripper steam generation 

were not estimated prior to proposal, based on an assumption that upgraded steam strippers 

would likely be more efficient. We included secondary air emissions estimates in the 

promulgation analysis for steam strippers as a result of comments on the energy impacts of the 
12 

proposed standards. The secondary air emissions estimates associated with steam generation are 

significantly higher than the secondary air emissions estimates for electricity usage. 

Secondary emissions from offsite electricity generation. We used a variety of information 

sources for the emission factors used to estimate the secondary emissions from electricity 

generation. For natural gas, we used emission factors (in pound per cubic foot [lb/ft3

] of natural 

gas) from the AP-42 chapter on natural gas combustion to estimate the secondary emissions for 

PM, CO, NOX, and SO2. (EPA 1998a) We used the AP-42 conversion factor of 1,020 Btu/ft3

 of 

natural gas to convert the emission factors to lb/MMBtu to facilitate estimating the secondary 

emissions for these pollutants from natural gas. We used natural gas emission factors (in 

kilograms [kg]/MMBtu) from the General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources subpart (40 CFR 

part 98, subpart C) of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to estimate the secondary emissions 

for CO2, CH4, and N2O. Global warming potentials of 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4, and 310 for N2O 

(from Table A-1 to subpart A of part 98) were used to estimate CO2 equivalent emissions 

(CO2eq). 

For solid fuel combustion, we used emission limits (in lb/MMBtu) from the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for utility plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da) to estimate the 

secondary emissions for PM and SO2. We used emission factors (in lb/ton coal) from the AP-42 

chapter on coal combustion to estimate the secondary emissions for NOX and CO. (We 

specifically used the AP-42 emission factors for bituminuous/subbituminous coal 

combustion/spreader stokers. The NOX emission factor was based on an average of the AP-42 

emission factors for spreader stoker type boilers burning bituminous (11 lb/ton) and 

subbituminous (8.8 lb/ton) coal. We used the AP-42 conversion factor of 13,000 Btu/lb of coal to 

facilitate estimating the secondary emissions for NOX and CO from coal. We used emission 

factors (in kg/MMBtu) from 40 CFR part 98, subpart C to estimate the secondary emissions for 

CO2 (for units burning bituminous coal) and for CH4 and N2O (for units burning coal/coke). As 

before, we used the aforementioned global warming potentials for CO2, CH4, and N2O to 

estimate CO2eq. 

To estimate the secondary emissions, we multiplied the emission factors for the 

aforementioned pollutants by the estimated energy impacts, assuming a specific mix of fuels 

would be used to generate the needed electricity. We used the projected fuel mix for 2015 

(compliance deadline for subpart S RTR) from Version 3.0 of EPA’s Integrated Planning Model 

(IPM), which is a forecast model of the U.S. electric power sector. The projected fuel mix is 53 

percent coal, 21 percent oil and natural gas, 17 percent nuclear, 6 percent hydroelectric, 2 percent 

renewable energy, and 1 percent other. We attributed no secondary air impacts to nuclear, 

hydroelectric, or renewable energy generation. The secondary air impacts for “other” were 

assumed to be equivalent to those for natural gas. See Appendix B2 for calculation details 

Secondary emissions from power boiler steam generation. For secondary air emissions 

associated with onsite steam generation, we assumed steam would be generated in a power boiler 

co-firing hog fuel (woody biomass) and coal. Emission factors were taken from AP-42, and 

emissions were calculated for strippers using steam at a rate of 5 MMBtu/hr, 10 MMBtu/hr, or 

40 MMBtu/hr (i.e., 100 MMBtu/hr with 60% energy recovery). Emissions were calculated 
13 

assuming half of the needed boiler steam output was associated with hog fuel and the remaining 

half associated with coal. See Appendix B3 for calculation details. 

The secondary emissions estimates are based on conservative assumptions, several of 

which are discussed above. In practice, there are potentially several implementation approaches 

mills could choose which would change the secondary emission impact. The following scenarios 

could have a mitigating impact on secondary emissions. 

 It was assumed all new steam would come from power boilers at the mill, not other 

sources like recovery boilers where spent liquor combustion occurs anyway. 

 It was assumed that a certain percentage of facilities would switch from biotreatment to 

steam stripping for the full condensate stream. However, mills could use a stand-alone 

biotreatment unit or continue use of the current biotreatment approach and add limited 

steam stripping to increase their marginal efficiency. 

 It was assumed that new steam would come from existing power boilers co-firing wood 

and coal. Marginal additions for steam requirements could come from package boilers 

burning natural gas, which has lower secondary emission impacts. 

 Secondary impact are estimated based on AP-42, which does not incorporate reductions 

to PM, NOx, and SO2 emissions anticipated from the Boiler MACT rule (Subpart 

DDDDD) expected to be promulgated in 2012 and implemented by 2015. 

Notably, though any of these changes would impact secondary emissions, they would not 

significantly impact the cost estimates presented in this memorandum. 

4. Wastewater impacts. Wastewater impacts were estimated for the proposal analysis 

assuming that mills using biotreatment units would expand the capacity (volume) of their 

biotreatment system. However, commenters indicated that it is more likely that mills would 

increase aeration and nutrient addition in their biotreatment systems. Commenters also indicated 

that mills constrained by limitations on aeration, nutrient addition, or biotreatment unit size 

would likely install new steam strippers to meet the condensate regulatory options. Since mills 

were not predicted to expand the capacity of their wastewater treatment systems, we estimate 

that there would be no significant incremental increase in wastewater associated with 

biotreatment units. Similarly, the incremental amount of treated condensate generated by steam 

strippers was determined to result in insignificant wastewater impact. EPA is not increasing the 

condensate collection requirements so the total flow of foul condensates to steam strippers (or 

biotreatment units) should not increase. Rather the flow of treated condensate from the steam 

stripper would decrease slightly as a result of increased treatment in the stripper which drives 

more HAP through the stripper overhead. 

III. Cost Estimates for Repeat Air Emissions Testing 

The EPA is considering repeat HAP emissions performance testing once every 5 years 

for facilities complying with the standards for kraft, soda, and semichemical pulping vent gases; 

sulfite processes; and bleaching systems. Under this testing option, repeat air emissions testing 

would be required for mills complying with the kraft condensate standards using a steam stripper 

since stripper off-gases are, by definition, part of the LVHC system. The EPA is not considering 
14 

additional repeat testing for biological treatment systems to comply with the kraft pulping 

condensate standards, because more frequent quarterly sampling is already required for 

biological treatment systems. The EPA is also not considering additional repeat testing for 

facilities complying with the CCA standards due to the complexity of this compliance approach 

(though we note that mills would likely repeat the CCA compliance demonstration if one of the 

kraft condensate regulatory options is adopted for the final rule, as discussed above). 

The repeat emissions tests for chemical pulp mills (e.g., kraft, soda, and semichemical 

pulping vent gases, and sulfite processes) would involve testing for methanol using EPA Method 

308, 320, or 18. Facilities that perform bleaching using chlorinated compounds would be 

required to conduct repeat chlorine tests using EPA Method 26A. The subpart S supporting 

statement (which is revised every 3 years by EPA) indicated emissions testing costs of $14,000 

for Method 308 testing, and $10,000 for Methods 26A testing. These same testing costs were 

used in this analysis. For the purposes of this analysis, we assumed the costs for Method 308 

testing to be equivalent to the costs for Methods 320 and 18 testing. 

Testing costs were treated as capital costs because mills will contract with a testing 

company to perform the testing. The capital costs were annualized at 7 percent interest over the 

5-year testing period, assuming that mills would obtain a 5-year loan to finance the testing. 

Table 9 presents estimated emissions testing costs. 

Table 9. Emissions Testing Costs by Mill Process 

Mill type 

Subpart S 

standard 

Test 

method 

(surrogate 

pollutant) 

Systems to be 

tested (typical 

number per mill) 

No. 

tests 

per 

mill1

Cost 

per test 

Capital 

cost per 

mill every 

5 years 

Annualized 

capital cost 

per mill, 

$/yr 

Kraft, soda, and 

semichemical 

mills 

§63.443(a) Method 308 

(methanol) 

LVHC (1), HVLC 

(1), and SOG (1) 

3 $14,000 $42,000 $10,243 

Kraft mills 

using 

biotreatment 

§63.443(a) Method 308 

(methanol) 

LVHC (1) and 

HVLC (1) 

2 $14,000 $28,000 $6,829 

Sulfite mills §63.444 Method 308 

(methanol) 

Sulfite emissions 

release point (1) 

1 $14,000 $14,000 $3,414 

Mills bleaching 

with chlorinated 

compounds 

(e.g., ClO2) 

§63.445 Method 26A 

(chlorine) 

Bleaching system 

vents for chlorinated stages (2) 

2 $10,000 $20,000 $4,878 

1

 Typical number of systems to be tested per mill is based on review of the Part I survey data. 

There are a number of variables that affect actual emissions testing cost per mill, 

including the numbers of equipment/systems to be tested and the subpart S compliance option 

used. In lieu of conducting a mill-by-mill and process-by-process analysis, we reviewed 

information submitted through Part I of the pulp and paper survey to determine typical numbers 

of equipment/systems that may require testing (notwithstanding use of subpart S compliance 

options that do not involve testing). The systems to be tested include LVHC and HVLC gas 

collection systems at kraft, soda, and semichemical mills subject to the emissions standards in 

§63.443(a) of subpart S. Stripper off-gases, though by definition part of the LVHC system, are 
15 

often handled separately from LVHC and represent a separate emission point requiring 

compliance demonstration. 

We estimated that the typical kraft, soda, or semichemical mill could be represented by 

one LVHC, one HVLC, and one stripper system that require testing. Kraft mills using 

biotreatment as their predominant kraft condensates control option would not have a SOG 

emission point. Sulfite mills typically route all process emissions through one emission point 

(e.g., a recovery system scrubber). Therefore, only one emissions point requiring testing was 

projected for sulfite mills. Major source mills performing bleaching using any chlorinated 

compounds are subject to the subpart S bleaching standards. The Part I survey data indicated that 

typically two bleaching emission points per mill would require testing. 

Except for the unusual circumstance where a mill operates more than one LVHC, HVLC, 

and stripper system and uses compliance options that involve emissions testing, the testing costs 

presented in this memorandum are likely to be overestimated due to the following: 

 The costing analysis does not account for mills that use compliance options that do not 

involve emissions testing (e.g., mills that introduce vent gas streams into the flame zone 

of a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace or mills meeting the design criteria for a 

thermal oxidizer). Analysis of the Part I survey data indicates that roughly 85 percent of 

mills use compliance options that do not involve emissions testing for pulping vents. 

 Overall testing costs may be reduced at mills where testing for multiple systems is 

conducted through the same testing program (e.g., because fees for testing contractor 

travel and mobilization would be reduced). 

IV. Summary of Nationwide Costs and Impacts 

The nationwide costs and impacts associated with the subpart S regulatory options under 

consideration are summarized in Tables 10 and 11 below. Mill-specific estimates of the costs and 

impacts are presented in Appendix C. Only major sources of HAP emissions are potentially 

affected (171 mills). 

The number of mills impacted by the incremental efficiency increase in the kraft 

condensates standards ranges from 48 mills (93 percent removal) to 54 mills (94 percent 

removal). Mills already meeting each incremental limit are not impacted by either option (43 of 

97 total kraft mills evaluated). Nationwide costs associated with the kraft condensate regulatory 

options include the costs for upgrading equipment to meet the revised percent removal options 

(e.g., adjustment from 92 to 93 or 94 percent), costs for a repeat CCA demonstration, and costs 

for mills where the CCA option may be negated (i.e., costs for switching from CCA to HVLC 

compliance).

The potential nationwide HAP emissions reduction (based on emission factor calculations 

for each affected mill subject to the revised standards) ranges from 989 to 2,300 tpy, with cost 

effectiveness values of $53,175/ton and $27,508/ton, respectively, for the 93 and 94 percent 

removal options. When the costs associated with the repeat CCA demonstration and switching 

from CCA to HVLC are added, the cost effectiveness of the kraft condensates regulatory options 

becomes $75,000/ton and $37,000/ton, respectively, for the 93 and 94 percent removal options. 
16 

Estimated costs are significantly higher than the proposal estimates because a greater number of 

mills were determined to be affected considering variability in performance and because we have 

accounted for potential effects on CCA mills. 

The nationwide energy impacts and secondary air emissions for these mills are 

substantial compared to the HAP emissions reduction (see Table 11), primarily due to the power 

boiler emissions associated with the increased steam demand needed for new and upgraded 

stripper systems. Energy and secondary air emissions impacts for strippers were not considered 

prior to proposal, but have been considered here as a result of public comments. When converted 

to CO2 equivalents, GHG associated with the 93 and 94 percent removal options would be 

1,018,048 and 1,402,084 tpy CO2eq, respectively. 

An estimated 114 mills are expected to be impacted by the repeat testing option, based on 

the number of chemical pulp mills and mills that bleach with chlorinated compounds. The 

nationwide capital and annual costs of repeat testing are estimated to be $5.4 million and $1.3 

million, respectively. We could not quantify the specific emissions reduction associated with 

repeat emissions testing. However, it stands to reason that repeat testing would provide incentive 

for facilities to maintain their control systems and make periodic adjustments to ensure peak 

performance, thereby reducing emissions and the potential for periodic episodes of acute risk. 

Table 12 presents a summary of the labor hours associated with initially implementing, 

and operating and maintaining the technologies and procedures that form the regulatory options. 

Additional reporting and recordkeeping labor hours and costs were developed as part of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act supporting statement for 114 affected mills. The incremental reporting 

and recordkeeping costs resulting from the proposed amendments to subpart S are estimated to 

be $4,344 per mill ($0.50 million nationwide) as a one-time cost to revamp existing 

recordkeeping systems to be consistent with the proposed revisions to the startup and shutdown 

provisions, and $6,516/yr per mill ($0.74 million/yr nationwide) for two instances of affirmative 

defense. Details on these cost estimates, as well as an accounting for the labor hours involved, 

can be found in the supporting statement. (EPA 2011b) 
17

Table 10. Summary of Nationwide Costs and Cost Effectiveness 

Subpart S regulatory option 

Costs Emissions reductions, tpy Cost 

effectiven

$/ton H

Capital, 

$million 

Annualized, 

$million/yr HAP/ VOC1 TRS 

Kraft condensates:  92% → 93% $227 $52.6 989 

(979 methanol, 

 10 acetaldehyde) 

336 $53,17

 92% → 94% $254 $63.3 2,300 

(2,277 methanol, 

 23 acetaldehyde) 

702 $27,50

 Repeat CCA Demonstration $4.42 $0.996 -- -- --  Switching from CCA to HVLC $165 $20.8 Not estimated3 Not estimated3 -- Total costs for condensate options:  93%  94% 

$396 $423 

$74.4 $85.1 

989 

2,300 

336 702 

$75,00$37,00

Repeat testing $5.4 $1.3 -- -- -- Incremental reporting/recordkeeping 

$0.50 $0.74 -- -- -- 

1 HAP emissions are approximately 99% methanol and 1% acetaldehyde. VOC emissions reductions would be essentially e

emissions reductions (989 tpy).

2The number of affected major source mills out of a total of 171 major sources subject to subpart S. 3Because the CCA compliance approach, by design, must achieve greater HAP emission reduction than the HVLC complia

have achieved, it can be expected that HAP emissions may increase as a result of switching to HVLC if the mill were to ab

technology generating emissions credits. 
18 

Table 11. Summary of Estimated Nationwide Environmental and Energy Impacts 

Subpart S 

regulatory option 

Energy impacts, MMBtu/yr Secondary emissions, tpy 

Electricity Steam PM 

1 CO NOX SO2 CO2 CH4 

 92% → 93% 99,419 660 430 2,082 1,443 659 1,004,258 65  92% → 94% 113,685 910 593 2,870 1,986 901 1,383,081 89 1. Filterable PM. 

Table 12. Labor Hour Summary 

Subpart S regulatory option 

Nationwide labor 

(initial hr) Nationwide labor, hr/yr 

Labor wage rate, 

$/hr 

Kraft condensates  92% → 93% unknown 48,340 $25/hr $25/hr wa

CapdetWoanalysis 92% → 94% 54,440 

 Repeat CCA Demonstration 240 not applicable Mill technical 

$97.78/hr* and 

Consulting 

$100 

Assumes tof 100 houof 140 hou

 Switching from CCA to HVLC unknown not applicable not applicable O&M cost

recovery aonly. (Radoperating the HVLC labor no locomplianc

Repeat testing unknown unknown unknown embedded Incremental reporting/recordkeeping 5,244 7,866 $97.78 technical, 

$118.92 

managerial, 

$48.76 clerical 

Labor ratemethodolosupporting total prese5% is man10% perce

*Consistent with labor rate used in Paperwork Reduction Act Supporting Statement 
19

V. References 

AF&PA 2012 American Forest and Paper Association. Public Comments on the National 

Emissions standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper 

Industry (76 Federal Register 81328, December 27, 2011). February 27, 2012. 

Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0544-0162. 

EPA 1993 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry – 

Background Information for Proposed Air Emission Standards; Manufacturing 

Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical Mills. Document No. EPA453/R-93-050a. Research Triangle Park, NC. October 1993. 

EPA 1997 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry – 

Background Information for Promulgated Air Emission Standards; 

Manufacturing Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, Semi-Chemical Mechanical, and 

secondary and Non-wood Fiber Mills. Final EIS. Document No. EPA-453/R-93-

050b. Research Triangle Park, NC. October 1997. 

EPA 1998a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission 

Factors. 5th Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC. Volume I: Stationary Point and 

Area Sources. Section 1.4: Natural Gas Combustion. July 1998. 

EPA 1998b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, AP-42. 5th Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC. Volume I: Stationary 

Point and Area Sources. Section 1.1: Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal 

Combustion. September 1998. 

EPA 2003 S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors, AP-42. 5th Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC. Volume I: Stationary 

Point and Area Sources. Section 1.6: Wood Residue Combustion In Boilers. 

September 2003. 

EPA 2011a J. Bradfield and K. Spence, EPA. Memorandum to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-

0544. Summary of Kraft Condensate Control Technology Review. October 23, 

2011. 

EPA 2011b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Statement: NESHAP for Pulp 

and Paper Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) (Proposed Amendments). 

November 2011. 

EPA 2012a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Meeting notes for the March 16, 2012 

meeting with AF&PA. 

EPA 2012b U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Meeting notes for the March 28, 2012 

meeting with AF&PA. 
20 

EPA 2012c U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Meeting notes for the May 2, 2012 

meeting with AF&PA. May 4, 2012. 

NCASI 2010 A. Someshwar, NCASI. Compilation of ‘Air Toxic’ and Total Hydrocarbon 

Emissions Data for Pulp and Paper Mill Sources – A Second Update. Technical 

Bulletin No. 973. February 2010. 

Radian 1996 Memorandum from Roy Oomen, Radian/RTP to Penny Lassiter, EPA. Changes 

Made to the Design and Unit Costing of Equipment Used to Transport, Treat, and 

Control Emissions From Pulp and Paper Vents. February 26, 1996. A-92-40, IVB-13. 

RTI 2011 Memorandum from T. Holloway, K. Hanks, and C. Gooden, RTI, to to J. 

Bradfield and B. Schrock, EPA. Cost and Environmental and Energy Impacts for 

Subpart S Risk and Technology Review. November 17, 2011. 
Appendix A 

Appendix A1. Analysis of Operational and Performance Variability 

(Basis for Variability Cushion VC) 

Appendix A2. Performance Levels and Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis 

Appendix A3. Variability in Quarterly FbioMeOH Measurements 
Appendix A1

Analysis of Operational/Performance Variability (Basis for Variability Cushion [VC])

RTI ID NEI ID

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

KC Tab, mass/ODTP (or

ppmw where specified),

decimal percent

WW Tab, mass/ODTP,

decmial percent

KC Tab, %

removal

WW Tab, %

removal CCA Mill?

100 NEI40686 bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

102 NEI42341A bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

103 NEI9201 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 3 Yes

104 NEI11251 no bleaching Stripping 0.11 Yes

105 NEI45182 no bleaching Stripping 0.61 Yes

107 NEI47074 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.64

108 NEI33025 no bleaching Stripping 0.48 Yes

109 NEI32869A bleaching w/ Cl compound Thermal Incinerator 0.95

111 NEI45206 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 5

112 NEI34064 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.26 Yes

114 NEI26506 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 1.13 3.3

115 NEI26476 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.27

116 NEI8619 no bleaching Stripping/Recycle 0.34 Yes

117 NEI42689 no bleaching Biotreatment 1.08 1.40 5.3

119 NEI46814 no bleaching Recycle

120 NEI26495 no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment 0.31

121 NEI12492 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.28 ‐0.05 Yes

124 NEI8278 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.75 Yes

126 NEI42317 no bleaching Biotreatment 6.1 Yes

127 NEI7933 no bleaching Stripping 0.82 Yes

130 NEI18338 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.99 2.2 Yes

131 NEI42254 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 2.7

132 NEI8261 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.67 6.3 6.0 Yes

133 NEI13363 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 6.2 4.5

Current Compliance Variability

1 of 5
Appendix A1

RTI ID NEI ID

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

KC Tab, mass/ODTP (or

ppmw where specified),

decimal percent

WW Tab, mass/ODTP,

decmial percent

KC Tab, %

removal

WW Tab, %

removal CCA Mill?

Current Compliance Variability

135 NEI33118 bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

136 NEI12368 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 0.47

137 NEI26581 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.30 4.7 Yes

138 NEI18652 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 1.3 3.1 Yes

139 NEI42357 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.00 1.02 Yes

140 NEI13340 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.26 1 Yes

142 NEI41552 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.76 0.79 Yes

143 NEI26504 no bleaching Stripping 6.1

145 NEI33135,

NEI706

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 4.3

146 NEI759 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.43

147 NEI6450 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.38 2.9 ‐4.5

148 NEI46931 no bleaching Stripping 0.24

149 NEI40488 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.09

150 NEI6273 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 0.22

151 NEI41252 no bleaching Stripping 0.00 Yes

152 NEI11338 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.18 0.86

154 NEI42963,

NEI46739,

NEIWI7720116

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 0.16

155 NEI33883 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.32

156 NEI42338 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.77 0.55 ‐8.3 Yes

157 NEI33104 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 6.3 4.8

159 NEI8177 no bleaching Stripping 2.15 Yes

2 of 5
Appendix A1

RTI ID NEI ID

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

KC Tab, mass/ODTP (or

ppmw where specified),

decimal percent

WW Tab, mass/ODTP,

decmial percent

KC Tab, %

removal

WW Tab, %

removal CCA Mill?

Current Compliance Variability

162 NEI46760 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.41

163 NEI8560 no bleaching Stripping 5

164 NEI42710 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.45 4.6 Yes

165 NEI41628 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.46 0.38

166 NEI41314 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping and biotreatment 0.52 1.17 6 6.6

167 NEI34070 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.18 0.52

169 NEI33013 bleaching w/o Cl compound Recycle

171 NEI18658 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.89 4.4 Yes

172 NEI18335 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.05 0.36 Yes

173 NEI35908 bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

174 NEI40247 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 3.5 Yes

175 NEI26514 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.62 0.63 7.0

176 NEI47104 no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment 1.26 1.66

177 NEI33887 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 0.80

178 NEI26309 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.8 Yes

179 NEI45474 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.64 0.69

180 NEI26471 no bleaching Stripping 1.95 Yes

181 NEI6057 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.72 0.81

182 NEI7181 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.47 0.39

183 NEI33103 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 4.7 3.4

184 NEI46817 bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

185 NEI46599 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.50

186 NEI18334 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.60 0.59 5 5.9 Yes

3 of 5
Appendix A1

RTI ID NEI ID

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

KC Tab, mass/ODTP (or

ppmw where specified),

decimal percent

WW Tab, mass/ODTP,

decmial percent

KC Tab, %

removal

WW Tab, %

removal CCA Mill?

Current Compliance Variability

188 NEI40600 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.83 6.4 6.7 Yes

189 NEI54342 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

190 NEI26491 no bleaching Stripping 0.67 Yes

195 NEI46835 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.15 7

196 NEI18660 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.37 0.66 Yes

197 NEI18657 no bleaching Biotreatment 0.35 1.81

198 NEI41565 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 6.2

199 NEI18390 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.34

200 NEI47077 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.71

201 NEI7559 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.32 Yes

202 NEI12411 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 5

203 NEI42410 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.30 1.79 Yes

205 NEI8601 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.77

206 NEI40282 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 1.00

207 NEI7104 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 7.0

226 NEI33023 no bleaching Stripping 2.3 Yes

240 NEI26526 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment ‐0.30 0.46 1.0 Yes

242 NEI34066 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.52 Yes

243 NEI8196 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.06

340 NEI46852 no bleaching Recycle

525 NEI8265 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 3

4 of 5
Appendix A1

RTI ID NEI ID

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

KC Tab, mass/ODTP (or

ppmw where specified),

decimal percent

WW Tab, mass/ODTP,

decmial percent

KC Tab, %

removal

WW Tab, %

removal CCA Mill?

Current Compliance Variability

531 NEI8186 no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment 0.35

600 NEI18357 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 4.5

606 NEI47091 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.68 0.81 Yes

610 NEI6261 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.47 0.54 Yes

613 NEI11172 no bleaching Stripping 1.5 Yes

615 NEI40554 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.36 7.2

617 NEI42695 bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 0.68

208228535 NEI18373 bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 0.21 ‐0.63 7.0

TOTAL 38

59 32 28 19 Count

51% 72% 4.36% 3.77%

Average

46% 66% 4.65% 4.75% median

215% 181% 7.20% 7.02% Maximum

5 of 5
Appendix A2

RTI ID NEI ID

100 NEI40686102 NEI42341A103 NEI9201104 NEI11251105 NEI45182107 NEI47074108 NEI33025109 NEI32869A111 NEI45206112 NEI34064114 NEI26506115 NEI26476116 NEI8619117 NEI42689119 NEI46814120 NEI26495121 NEI12492124 NEI8278126 NEI42317

Performance Levels from Kraft Condensates (KC) and Wastewater (WW) Tables of Survey

% removal

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009 unless

noted) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009

unless noted) Performance Level Notes CCA Mill? CCA m

bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control). Has

multiple treatment methods.

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 95 (2002) Yes

ASB dre

no bleaching Stripping 7.3 (2002) Yes Clean sno bleaching Stripping 10.6 (2001) Yes

Lock ou

from ca

from di

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 16.7 (2001) 

no bleaching Stripping 9.8 (2001) Yes Clean w

monitotesting 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Thermal Incinerator 15.3 ppm as methane

(2006)

98 Incineration (98% control). Limit

= 330 ppmw.

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 97 (2002) Initial Performance Test (IPT) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 12.9 (2002) Yes Clean c

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 21.8 95.3 (based on

FbioMeOH)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 13.0 (2001), 18.8

(2009)

no bleaching Stripping/Recycle 8.83 (for stripping)

(2002)

Yes Mill wa

Kraft MEffect), 

are use

methan

Machin

no bleaching Biotreatment 13.7 (2001) 15.8 97.3 no bleaching Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment 8.66 (stripping

followed by

biotreatment) (2009)

6.3 (biotreatment) From KC Tab: 3.16 (stripping) +

5.50 (biotreatment) = 8.66

no bleaching Biotreatment 8.46 (2010) 6.3 Yes

Reducti

air at th

operati

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 17.8 (2007) Yes Steam s

no bleaching Biotreatment 98.1 Yes Traded 

for was

washer

digeste

hard‐pi

and tre

efficien

lb/ODTP removal (or ppmw, if noted)

1 of 6 Biotreatment unit type is shaded for mills where biotreatment is not the predominant condensate treatment option.
Appendix A2

RTI ID NEI ID

127 NEI7933130 NEI18338131 NEI42254132 NEI8261133 NEI13363135 NEI33118136 NEI12368137 NEI26581138 NEI18652139 NEI42357140 NEI13340142 NEI41552143 NEI26504145 NEI33135,

NEI706

146 NEI759

% removal

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009 unless

noted) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009

unless noted) Performance Level Notes CCA Mill? CCA m

lb/ODTP removal (or ppmw, if noted)

no bleaching Stripping 12.03 (2011) 12.03 = 8.89 + 3.14 from KC Tab Yes

New ste

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 9.18 (pro‐rated

bleach/unbleach)

(2002)

20.3 94.2 Respondent did not provide

proration in data base; back‐

calculated to arrive at 0.72

bleached (0.28 unbleached).

0.72*10.2+0.28*6.6=9.19

Yes

Mainta

efficien

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 94.7 (2011) 

no bleaching Biotreatment 11.0 98.3 (2010) 98.0 Yes Replaci

(WWT) 

contact elimina

HVLC

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 98.2 (2011) 96.5 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 22.75 (2002), 15.04

(2004). (Avg is 18.9)

Stripping [S] + other [O]

treatment. 3.41[S]+19.34[O] =

22.75 (2002). 6.35[S]+8.69[O] =

15.04 (2004). (Overall avg is

18.9)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 13.3 96.7 Yes Stand‐a

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 93.3 (2011) 95.1 Yes Collecti

addition

conden

and pre

no bleaching Biotreatment 6.6 (2011) 13.3 (2010) Yes

Upgrad

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 12.8 93 (2009) Yes Capture

decker hoods o

decker collecte

methan

scrubbe

wastew

no bleaching Biotreatment 11.6 (2011) 11.8 Yes Use fres

each br

paper m

concent

day ave

conden

MeOH a

least 6

no bleaching Stripping 98.1 (IPT) IPT 91.5% collected against 65%

collection standard

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 96.3 (2009) 2009 Performance Test 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 14.61 (2009) Stripper performance = 14.61.

Biotreatment performance =

10.07. Both are based on the

respondent's avg of monthly

tests performed in 2009.

2 of 6 Biotreatment unit type is shaded for mills where biotreatment is not the predominant condensate treatment option.
Appendix A2

RTI ID NEI ID

147 NEI6450148 NEI46931149 NEI40488150 NEI6273151 NEI41252152 NEI11338154 NEI42963,

NEI46739,

NEIWI7720116

155 NEI33883156 NEI42338157 NEI33104159 NEI8177162 NEI46760163 NEI8560164 NEI42710165 NEI41628166 NEI41314167 NEI34070169 NEI33013

% removal

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009 unless

noted) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009

unless noted) Performance Level Notes CCA Mill? CCA m

lb/ODTP removal (or ppmw, if noted)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 14.1 94.9 (2010) 87.5 

no bleaching Stripping 8.16 (2001) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 11.1 (2002) Collected 11.4 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 12.4 (2001) 

no bleaching Stripping 13.1 (2001), 6.6

(2006), 7.0 (2006),

10.9 (2006). Avg. is

9.5.

Collection ranged from 7.7 to

14.7 (avg of 10.8).

Yes

Steam s

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 12 (2009) 19.0 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 11.85 (2002) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 13.5 (2001) Collected 13.8 dig/turp; also

collect/treat 2.4 from evap but

take no credit

no bleaching Biotreatment 11.7 (2011) 10.2 83.7 13.2 collected Yes Additio

addition

lb/ODT

HAPS omeasur

destroy 

lb/ODT

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 98.3 (2009) 96.8 

no bleaching Stripping 20.8 (2006) Yes

Steam s

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 14.4 (2002) 

no bleaching Stripping 97 (2002) Avg. of 3 test runs 

no bleaching Biotreatment 9.6 (2002) 96.6 collected 10.3 Yes

Increas

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 14.9 (2011) 14.1 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping and biotreatment 15.5 (2007) 22.1 (bio) 98 (bio) (2007) 98.64 (bio) 

no bleaching Biotreatment 7.78 (2002) 10.1 

bleaching w/o Cl compound Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) 

3 of 6 Biotreatment unit type is shaded for mills where biotreatment is not the predominant condensate treatment option.
Appendix A2

RTI ID NEI ID

171 NEI18658172 NEI18335173 NEI35908174 NEI40247175 NEI26514176 NEI47104177 NEI33887178 NEI26309179 NEI45474180 NEI26471181 NEI6057182 NEI7181183 NEI33103184 NEI46817185 NEI46599186 NEI18334188 NEI40600189 NEI54342

% removal

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009 unless

noted) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009

unless noted) Performance Level Notes CCA Mill? CCA m

lb/ODTP removal (or ppmw, if noted)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 19.3 96.4 (2007) Yes Closed 

piping t

below l

treatme

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 10.7 (2010) 13.9 Yes

Stand‐a

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 96.2 (2009), 95.5 Yes weak b

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 16.5 (2009) 16.7 99.0 In KC tab, 16.2+0.3 = 16.5 

no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment 14.93 (2002) 17.6 From KC Tab: 8.3 (stripping) +

6.63 (biotreatment) = 14.93

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 18.4 (2002) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 92.8 (2006) Yes

Install 2 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 16.73 (2011) 17.3 

no bleaching Stripping 19.47 (2001) Yes Mainta

water t

less tha

volatilizminimiz

no bleaching Biotreatment 11.33 (2011) 11.9 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 15 (2011) 14.2 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 96.7 (2011) 95.4 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 16.02 (2007), 15.27

(2010). (Avg. is

15.65)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 16.34 (2011) 16.2 97 (2011) 97.9 Yes Stand‐a

unit

no bleaching Biotreatment 12.1 98.4 (2011) 98.7 Noted as 0.984 in KC tab Yes

Offset H

collectio

foul con

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) 

4 of 6 Biotreatment unit type is shaded for mills where biotreatment is not the predominant condensate treatment option.
Appendix A2

RTI ID NEI ID

190 NEI26491195 NEI46835196 NEI18660197 NEI18657198 NEI41565199 NEI18390200 NEI47077201 NEI7559202 NEI12411203 NEI42410205 NEI8601206 NEI40282207 NEI7104226 NEI33023240 NEI26526242 NEI34066243 NEI8196

% removal

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009 unless

noted) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009

unless noted) Performance Level Notes CCA Mill? CCA m

lb/ODTP removal (or ppmw, if noted)

no bleaching Stripping 11 (2008) Yes

Installat

and bar

minimiz

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 11.7 (2001) >99 (2001) collect 11.8 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 19.2 (2002), 14.0

(2011)

16.9 Yes

Hard‐pi

ASB tre

no bleaching Biotreatment 8.9 (2010) 18.5 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 98.2 (2001) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 13.7 (2002) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 17.4 (2004) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 13.5 (pro‐rated

bl./unbl.) (2006)

Remove prorated mass of 10.3

pounds/ton ODP (includes 3.0

pounds/ton ODP for CCA option)

Yes

Steam s

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 97 (2004) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 13.3 (2008) 28.4 Yes

Stand‐a

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 18.1 (2002) 18.3 collected (anaerobic

treatment)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 20.4 (2007) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 99.0 

no bleaching Stripping 94.25 (2001), 98.56

(2003). (Avg is

96.41)

Yes Collecti

evaporaaddition underfl

stroppe

washing 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 7.11 (Q4 of 2009) 14.8 93.0 Yes Reroute

regulate

subsurf

1 Aeratinstalleaerator

segmenstages a

methan

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 15.5 (2001), 17.3

(2003)

Yes

Stand‐a

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 10.8 (2001) Collected 11.6 

5 of 6 Biotreatment unit type is shaded for mills where biotreatment is not the predominant condensate treatment option.
Appendix A2

RTI ID NEI ID

340 NEI46852525 NEI8265531 NEI8186600 NEI18357606 NEI47091610 NEI6261613 NEI11172615 NEI40554617 NEI42695

208228535 NEI18373

% removal

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009 unless

noted) KC Tab

WW Tab (2009

unless noted) Performance Level Notes CCA Mill? CCA m

lb/ODTP removal (or ppmw, if noted)

no bleaching Recycle 98 Recycle (98% control) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 95 (2010) 

no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment 8.89 (stripping)

(2010)

From KC Tab: 8.57 for

biotreatment backup. (Mill

performs stripping with

biotreatment backup.)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 96.5 Date unspecified in KC Tab 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 18.1 (4 yr. avg.) 18.4 10 tests conducted from 2007 to

2011 averaged 18.1 lb/ODTP

(ranged from 17.1 to 18.9

lb/ODTP)

Yes

Stand‐a

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 15 (2010) 15.7 Yes Over co

through bypasse(reduce

clarifier

no bleaching Stripping 93.5 (2001), 93.9

(2005). (Avg is

93.7)

Yes

Steam s

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 13.9 99.2 (2009) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping 17.1 (2001) 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment 12.3 (2010) 3.8 99.0 FbioMeOH of 0.993 noted in KC

& WW Tabs

6 of 6 Biotreatment unit type is shaded for mills where biotreatment is not the predominant condensate treatment option.
Appendix A2

Overcollection grouping codes and counts:

x (Stripper, Biotreatment, &

Add'l Collection) 21

y (Clean shower water, clean

condensates, & substitution) 7

z (WWT upgrades) 6

o (Other alternatives) 4

Total CCA mills: 38
Appendix A2 (part 2) ‐  Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis

RTI ID NEI ID

100 NEI40686102 NEI42341A103 NEI9201104 NEI11251105 NEI45182107 NEI47074108 NEI33025109 NEI32869A111 NEI45206

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

Require Upgraded Control with

93% or 6.7/10.3 demonstration,

4% or 50% cushion

Require Upgraded Control with

94% or 6.8/10.4 demonstration, 4%

or 50% cushion

Stripper Integrated

with MEE CCA Mill? CC

bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle no no Yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle no no

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

ASB 

no bleaching Stripping yes yes Yes Yes Cleano bleaching Stripping no no Yes Yes

Lock 

from 

from 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no no

no bleaching Stripping yes yes Yes Clea

mon

test

conc

bleaching w/ Cl compound Thermal Incinerator no no Yes*

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no yes

112 NEI34064114 NEI26506115 NEI26476116 NEI8619117 NEI42689119 NEI46814120 NEI26495121 NEI12492

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes Yes Cleableaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no Yes*bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

no bleaching Stripping/Recycle yes yes Yes Yes Mill 

Kraf

Effe

are 

redu

Pap

no bleaching Biotreatment no nono bleaching Recycle no nono bleaching Stripping and biotreatment yes yes

no bleaching Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes

Red

air a

ope

Mills marked "yes" received biotreatment or stripper upgrade costs.

Mills marked with "yes (s)" received costs for a new stripper system. 1 of 7 Integrated strippers marked "Ye
Appendix A2 (part 2) ‐  Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis

RTI ID NEI ID

124 NEI8278126 NEI42317127 NEI7933130 NEI18338131 NEI42254132 NEI8261133 NEI13363135 NEI33118

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

Require Upgraded Control with

93% or 6.7/10.3 demonstration,

4% or 50% cushion

Require Upgraded Control with

94% or 6.8/10.4 demonstration, 4%

or 50% cushion

Stripper Integrated

with MEE CCA Mill? CC

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no no Yes Yes Stea

no bleaching Biotreatment no no Yes Trad

for w

was

digeand 

basi

effic

no bleaching Stripping no no Yes Yes

New 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes

Mai

cont

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s)

no bleaching Biotreatment no no Yes Rep

trea

with 

therfrom 

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle no no

136 NEI12368137 NEI26581138 NEI18652139 NEI42357140 NEI13340

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle yes yes Yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes Stan

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes Coll

add

cond

and 

mill

no bleaching Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes

Upg

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes

p

deckflow 

was

requ

larg

sent 

then 

trea

Mills marked "yes" received biotreatment or stripper upgrade costs.

Mills marked with "yes (s)" received costs for a new stripper system. 2 of 7 Integrated strippers marked "Ye
Appendix A2 (part 2) ‐  Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis

RTI ID NEI ID

142 NEI41552143 NEI26504145 NEI33135,

NEI706

146 NEI759147 NEI6450148 NEI46931149 NEI40488150 NEI6273151 NEI41252

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

Require Upgraded Control with

93% or 6.7/10.3 demonstration,

4% or 50% cushion

Require Upgraded Control with

94% or 6.8/10.4 demonstration, 4%

or 50% cushion

Stripper Integrated

with MEE CCA Mill? CC

no bleaching Biotreatment no no Yes Use 

of e

mai

wat

mg/

colle

tota

trea

no bleaching Stripping no no

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s)

no bleaching Stripping yes yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle yes yes

no bleaching Stripping yes yes Yes 

152 NEI11338154 NEI42963,

NEI46739,

NEIWI7720116

155 NEI33883156 NEI42338157 NEI33104

Stea

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle yes yes Yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes

no bleaching Biotreatment no no Yes Add

add

lb/O

HAP

mea

dest

(>7.

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no yes

Mills marked "yes" received biotreatment or stripper upgrade costs.

Mills marked with "yes (s)" received costs for a new stripper system. 3 of 7 Integrated strippers marked "Ye
Appendix A2 (part 2) ‐  Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis

RTI ID NEI ID

159 NEI8177162 NEI46760163 NEI8560164 NEI42710165 NEI41628166 NEI41314167 NEI34070169 NEI33013

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

Require Upgraded Control with

93% or 6.7/10.3 demonstration,

4% or 50% cushion

Require Upgraded Control with

94% or 6.8/10.4 demonstration, 4%

or 50% cushion

Stripper Integrated

with MEE CCA Mill? CC

no bleaching Stripping no no Yes

Stea

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

no bleaching Stripping no yesno bleaching Biotreatment yes yes (s) Yes

Incr

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping and biotreatment no no

no bleaching Biotreatment yes yes

bleaching w/o Cl compound Recycle no no Yes*

171 NEI18658172 NEI18335173 NEI35908174 NEI40247175 NEI26514176 NEI47104177 NEI33887178 NEI26309179 NEI45474

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no Yes Clos

pipi

belo

trea

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes

Stan

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle no nobleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes Yes weableaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no

no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment no no

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle no nobleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

Inst

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no

Mills marked "yes" received biotreatment or stripper upgrade costs.

Mills marked with "yes (s)" received costs for a new stripper system. 4 of 7 Integrated strippers marked "Ye
Appendix A2 (part 2) ‐  Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis

RTI ID NEI ID

180 NEI26471181 NEI6057182 NEI7181183 NEI33103184 NEI46817185 NEI46599186 NEI18334188 NEI40600

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

Require Upgraded Control with

93% or 6.7/10.3 demonstration,

4% or 50% cushion

Require Upgraded Control with

94% or 6.8/10.4 demonstration, 4%

or 50% cushion

Stripper Integrated

with MEE CCA Mill? CC

no bleaching Stripping no no Yes Mai

wat

less 

vola

min

no bleaching Biotreatment no no

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes yes (s)

bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle no nobleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no Yes Stan

unit

no bleaching Biotreatment no no Yes 

189 NEI54342190 NEI26491195 NEI46835196 NEI18660197 NEI18657198 NEI41565199 NEI18390200 NEI47077

Offsover

of fo

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle no no Yes

no bleaching Stripping no no Yes

Inst

nozz

to m

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no no Yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes* Yes

Hard

to A

no bleaching Biotreatment yes yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no no Yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no no

Mills marked "yes" received biotreatment or stripper upgrade costs.

Mills marked with "yes (s)" received costs for a new stripper system. 5 of 7 Integrated strippers marked "Ye
Appendix A2 (part 2) ‐  Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis

RTI ID NEI ID

201 NEI7559202 NEI12411203 NEI42410205 NEI8601206 NEI40282207 NEI7104226 NEI33023240 NEI26526

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

Require Upgraded Control with

93% or 6.7/10.3 demonstration,

4% or 50% cushion

Require Upgraded Control with

94% or 6.8/10.4 demonstration, 4%

or 50% cushion

Stripper Integrated

with MEE CCA Mill? CC

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes Yes

Stea

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes

Stan

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no nobleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no no

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no

no bleaching Stripping yes yes Yes Coll

evap

add

und

stro

was

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes Rero

regu

subs

No. 

and 

242 NEI34066243 NEI8196340 NEI46852525 NEI8265

and 

aera

segmstagmet

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no yes Yes Yes

Stan

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

no bleaching Recycle no no

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yes

Mills marked "yes" received biotreatment or stripper upgrade costs.

Mills marked with "yes (s)" received costs for a new stripper system. 6 of 7 Integrated strippers marked "Ye
Appendix A2 (part 2) ‐  Identification of Affected Mills for Cost Analysis

RTI ID NEI ID

531 NEI8186600 NEI18357606 NEI47091610 NEI6261613 NEI11172615 NEI40554617 NEI42695

208228535 NEI18373

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

Require Upgraded Control with

93% or 6.7/10.3 demonstration,

4% or 50% cushion

Require Upgraded Control with

94% or 6.8/10.4 demonstration, 4%

or 50% cushion

Stripper Integrated

with MEE CCA Mill? CC

no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment yes yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping yes yes Yesbleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no Yes

Stan

unit

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment yes (s) yes (s) Yes Ove

throbyp

(red

prim

no bleaching Stripping yes yes Yes Yes

Stea

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no nobleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping no no Yes

bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment no no

Mills marked "yes" received biotreatment or stripper upgrade costs.

Mills marked with "yes (s)" received costs for a new stripper system. 7 of 7 Integrated strippers marked "Ye
Appendix A3. Quarterly FbioMeOH Values Reported in the ICR Data

RTI ID NEI ID

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised) CCA Mill?

Biotreatment

unit type Value of "r" Q1_Fbio_MeOH Q2_Fbio_MeOH Q3_Fbio_MeOH Q4_Fbio_MeOH F‐bio‐avg (MeOH) F‐bio‐min (M

114 NEI26506 Biotreatment ASB 0.0009 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.94 0.953 117 NEI42689 Biotreatment UNOX 0.009 0.978 0.993 0.969 0.994 0.984 

120 NEI26495 Stripping and biotreatment ASB/AST 0.011 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 0.996 

121 NEI12492 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.0332 0.932 0.939 0.924 0.932 

126 NEI42317 Biotreatment Yes UNOX (POTW) 0.012 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.990 

130 NEI18338 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.011 0.984634161 0.977550462 0.916882964 0.932985342 0.953 

131 NEI42254 Biotreatment UNOX/AST 0.0301 0.9956 0.997 0.997 0.997 0.997 132 NEI8261 Biotreatment Yes UNOX 0.01518674

133 NEI13363 Biotreatment UNOX 0.0289 0.991 0.995 0.995 0.996 0.994 

137 NEI26581 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.0323 0.994 0.992 0.995 0.99 0.993 

138 NEI18652 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.0132 0.975 0.976 0.963 0.944 0.965 

139 NEI42357 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.05 0.92 0.986 0.989 0.995 0.973 140 NEI13340 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.016351144 0.954 0.921333333 0.915 0.916 0.927 

142 NEI41552 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.06 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.92 0.938 147 NEI6450 Biotreatment ASB 0.0089 0.9911 0.9911 0.9911 0.9911 0.991 152 NEI11338 Biotreatment ASB 0.015 0.86 0.89 0.95 0.57 0.818 156 NEI42338 Biotreatment Yes UNOX 0 1 1 0.716 0.628 0.836 157 NEI33104 Biotreatment AST 0.0155 0.969 1 0.98 0.999 0.987 164 NEI42710 Biotreatment Yes ASB/UNOX165 NEI41628 Biotreatment ASB 0.018 0.704 0.69 0.74 0.75 0.721 

166 NEI41314 Stripping and biotreatment ASB 0.0126 0.97 0.99 1 1 0.990 

167 NEI34070 Biotreatment ASB 0 0.976666667 0.893333333 0.896666667 0.986666667 0.938 

171 NEI18658 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.0091 0.996 0.997 0.9906 0.9982 0.995 172 NEI18335 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.00157 0.964 0.91 0.936 0.951 0.940 

175 NEI26514 Biotreatment ASB 0.0082 0.9994 0.9991 0.9991 0.9976 0.999 

176 NEI47104 Stripping and biotreatment ASB 0.0086 0.727 0.975 0.981 0.96 0.911 

179 NEI45474 Biotreatment ASB 0.996 0.963 0.975 0.9898 0.981 181 NEI6057 Biotreatment ASB 0.045 0.8644 0.9827 0.9422 0.9733 0.941 

182 NEI7181 Biotreatment AST 0.009 0.896 0.9 0.91 0.9 0.902 

183 NEI33103 Biotreatment AST 0.993 0.989 0.985 0.989 186 NEI18334 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.013 0.974 0.975 0.987 0.979 0.979 

188 NEI40600 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.01 0.9958 0.9965 0.9933 0.996 0.995 196 NEI18660 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.006 0.86 0.97 0.91 0.89 0.908 197 NEI18657 Biotreatment ASB 0.02 0.846 0.975 0.786 0.817 0.856 202 NEI12411 Biotreatment UNOX203 NEI42410 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.0208 0.7855 0.7364 0.843 0.8984 0.816 

205 NEI8601 Biotreatment Anaerobic207 NEI7104 Biotreatment AST 0.01 0.99 0.998 0.99 0.99 0.992 240 NEI26526 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.04 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.970 531 NEI8186 Stripping and biotreatment ASB

606 NEI47091 Biotreatment Yes ASB 0.0214 0.986 0.961 0.974 0.98 0.975 

610 NEI6261 Biotreatment Yes AST 0.0098 0.925 0.926 0.914 0.926 0.923 

615 NEI40554 Biotreatment AST 0.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.990 

208228535 NEI18373 Biotreatment AST 0.008 0.993 0.993 

TOTAL 20

NR = Not representative of norm

(e.g., considered as systems w

Value of "r": F‐bio‐delta 

0.017 average average (wit

0.060 max min 

max median 

1 of 1
Appendix B 

Calculations of Mill-Specific Impacts for Kraft Condensate Regulatory Options 

Appendix B1. Kraft Condensate Standards Incremental Emissions Reductions per Mill 

Appendix B2. Secondary Emissions from Offsite Electricity Generation 

Appendix B3. Secondary Emissions Associated with Steam Production for New and Upgraded 

Strippers 
B1-1 

Appendix B1. Kraft Condensate Standards Incremental Emissions Reductions Per Mill 

Parameters 

HAP/ 

VOC TRS Notes and equations 

Baseline 

SOG 11 3.29 lb/ADTUBP (approx. from NCASI TB 973 Table 4.14) 

% condensate control 0.92 0.92 

Pollutant in foul 

condensate 

11.96 3.58 (lb/ADTUBP) - back-calculated based on 92% reduction 

Pollutant in treated 

(stripped) condensate 

0.96 0.29 lb/ADTUBP - calculated based on 92% reduction 

Reduction in 

condensate 

11.00 3.29 lb/ADTUBP = pollutant in foul – pollutant in treated 

Tons reduced from 

condensate stream 

1,980 592.2 Tons reduced from condensate stream for a 1000 ADTP/d mill 

operating 360 d/yr 

Tons incinerated 1,940.4 580 Tons reduced from the condensate stream become SOG which are 

incinerated at 98% control 

No. of mills 97 97 

Nationwide reduction 188,219 56,295 Nationwide reduction (92% control) = 97 mills x reduction in 

incinerator 

If change to 93% reduction 

SOG 11 3.29 lb/ADTUBP (approx. from NCASI TB 973 Table 4.14) 

% condensate control 0.93 0.93 

Pollutant in foul 

condensate 

11.96 3.58 (lb/ADTUBP) - back-calculated based on 92% reduction [see 

above] 

Pollutant in treated 

(stripped) condensate 

0.84 0.25 lb/ADTUBP 

Reduction in 

condensate 

11.12 3.33 lb/ADTUBP = pollutant in foul – pollutant in treated 

Tons reduced from 

condensate stream 

2,002 599 Tons reduced from condensate stream for a 1000 ADTP/d mill 

operating 360 d/yr 

Tons incinerated 1,961 587 Tons reduced from the condensate stream become SOG which are 

incinerated at 98% control 

Incremental 

reduction per mill 

20.6 7 Tons incinerated at 93% - Tons incinerated at 92% 

If change to 94% reduction 

SOG 11 3.29 lb/ADTUBP (approx. from NCASI TB 973 Table 4.14) 

% condensate control 0.94 0.94 

Pollutant in foul 

condensate 

11.96 3.58 (lb/ADTUBP) - back-calculated based on 92% reduction [see 

above] 

Pollutant in treated 

(stripped) condensate 

0.72 0.21 lb/ADTUBP 

Reduction in 

condensate 

11.24 3.36 lb/ADTUBP = pollutant in foul – pollutant in treated 

Tons reduced from 

condensate stream 

2,023 605 Tons reduced from condensate stream for a 1000 ADTP/d mill 

operating 360 d/yr 

Tons incinerated 1,983 593 Tons reduced from the condensate stream become SOG which are 

incinerated at 98% control 

Incremental 

reduction per mill 

42.6 13 Tons incinerated at 94% - Tons incinerated at 92% 
B2-1 

Appendix B2. Kraft Condensate Standards Energy and Environmental Impacts 

Parameters Value Notes, units, and equations 

Energy impacts 

Electricity requirements mill-specific kWh/yr = biological system upgrade annual energy O&M cost 

($/yr) / ($0.1/kWh) 

Energy impacts mill-specific MMBtu/yr = (kWh/yr) x (3415.179 Btu/kWh) x (MMBtu/1E6

Btu) 

Secondary emissions 

Percent of generation 

Coal 53% Used for solid fuel 

Oil/natural gas 21% Used for natural gas 

Nuclear 17% No secondary emissions estimated 

Hydroelectric 6% No secondary emissions estimated 

Renewable 2% No secondary emissions estimated 

Other 1% Used for natural gas (assumed equivalent) 

Particulate matter 

Emission factor (natural gas) 

 

1.9 lb/MM ft3 natural gas 

0.00186275 lb/MMBtu natural gas 

 Emission factor (solid fuel) 0.03 lb/MMBtu solid, liquid, gaseous fuel 

Secondary emissions mill-specific lb/yr = ∑ (MMBtu/yr) x (lb/MMBtu) x (% of generation), for 

solid fuel and natural gas 

Carbon monoxide 

Emission factor (natural gas) 

 

84 lb/MM ft3 natural gas 

0.0824 lb/MMBtu natural gas 

 Emission factor (solid fuel) 0.19 lb/MMBtu bituminous coal 

Secondary emissions mill-specific lb/yr = ∑ (MMBtu/yr) x (lb/MMBtu) x (% of generation), for 

solid fuel and natural gas 

Nitrogen oxides 

Emission factor (natural gas) 

 

100 lb/MM ft3 natural gas 

0.0980 lb/MMBtu natural gas 

 Emission factor (solid fuel) 0.38 lb/MMBtu solid fuel 

Secondary emissions mill-specific lb/yr = ∑ (MMBtu/yr) x (lb/MMBtu) x (% of generation), for 

solid fuel and natural gas 

Sulfur dioxide 

Emission factor (natural gas) 

 

0.6 lb/MM ft3 natural gas 

0.00059 lb/MMBtu natural gas 

 Emission factor (solid fuel) 1.2 lb/MMBtu solid fuel 

Secondary emissions mill-specific lb/yr = ∑ (MMBtu/yr) x (lb/MMBtu) x (% of generation), for 

solid fuel and natural gas 

Carbon dioxide 

Emission factor (natural gas) 53.02 kg/MMBtu natural gas 

 Emission factor (solid fuel) 93.4 kg/MMBtu solid fuel 

Secondary emissions mill-specific lb/yr = ∑ (MMBtu/yr) x (kg/MMBtu) x (2.204623 lb/kg) x (% of 

generation), for solid fuel and natural gas 

Methane 

Emission factor (natural gas) 0.001 kg/MMBtu natural gas 

 Emission factor (solid fuel) 0.011 kg/MMBtu solid fuel 

Secondary emissions mill-specific lb/yr = ∑ (MMBtu/yr) x (kg/MMBtu) x (2.204623 lb/kg) x (% of 

generation), for solid fuel and natural gas 

Nitrous oxide 

Emission factor (natural gas) 0.0001 kg/MMBtu natural gas 

 Emission factor (solid fuel) 0.0016 kg/MMBtu solid fuel 

Secondary emissions mill-specific lb/yr = ∑ (MMBtu/yr) x (kg/MMBtu) x (2.204623 lb/kg) x (% of 

generation), for solid fuel and natural gas 
B2-2 

Parameters Value Notes, units, and equations 

Carbon dioxide equivalents 

Global warming potential-CH4 21 Unitless 

Global warming potential-N2O 310 Unitless 

Secondary emissions mill-specific CO2eq, lb/yr = [CO2 (lb/yr)] + [21 x CH4 (lb/yr)] + [310 x N2O 

(lb/yr)] 

Notes: 

1. Assume electricity generated using the mix listed in the table (from IPM Version 3.0 for the year 2015). IPM is 

EPA’s Integrated Planning Model, which is a forecast model of the U.S. electric power sector. 

2. For natural gas combustion, used AP-42 emission factors for PM, CO, NOX, and SO2. (EPA 1998a) Assumed 

1,020 Btu/ft3 of natural gas in estimating PM, CO, NOX, and SO2 secondary emissions. Used 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart C emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O. 

3. For solid fuel combustion, used NSPS emission factors for PM and SO2 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Da, coal-fired 

utility plants), used AP-42 emission factors for NOx and CO (bituminuous/subbituminous coal combustion/spreader 

stoker). (EPA 1998b) The NOx emission factor was based on average of NOx emission factors for spreader stoker 

type boilers burning bituminous (11 lb/ton) and subbituminous (8.8 lb/ton) coal. Assumed 13,000 Btu/lb of coal in 

estimating NOX and CO secondary emissions. Used 40 CFR part 98, subpart C emission factors for CO2 (bituminous 

coal) and CH4 and N2O (coal/coke). 
Appendix B3.  Secondary Emissions Associated with Steam Production for New and Upgraded Strippers

Wood‐fired Boiler Emission Factors (AP‐42, Section 1.6) Bituminous And Subbituminous Coal Combustion (AP‐42, Section 1.1)

Pollutant lb/MMBtu (heat input) Notes lb/ton coal (as fired) Notes

PM 0.066 Scrubber‐controlled 3.3

Uncontrolled spreader‐stoker (66 lb/ton).  

Assumed 95% control for scrubber.

NOx 0.22 11 spreader‐stoker, bituminous

SO2 0.025 7.6

Spreader‐stoker, bituminous (38 lb/ton); applied

80% scrubber control

CO 0.6 5 spreader‐stoker, bituminous

CH4 0.021 0.06 spreader‐stoker

N2O 0.013 0.04 spreader‐stoker

CO2 195 6040 medium‐volatile bituminous

Btu/lb fuel 4,500                                      wet, as fired 13,000                                   wet, as fired

Boiler efficiency 50% 75%

Emissions Parameter Stripper Upgrade (93%) Stripper Upgrade (94%) New Stripper (93 or 94%) Notes

Stripper, MMBtu/hr 5 10 40

For the new stripper, steam demand is 100

MMBtu/hr @ 60% energy recovery = 40 MMBtu/hr

Stripper, hr/yr 8,640                                                                                      8,640                                    8,640 hr/yr if operating for 360 days/yr

Stripper MMBtu/yr (Boiler

Steam Output)                                  43,200                                               86,400                                  345,600 Stripper MMBtu/hr * hr/yr

Fuel‐specific boiler steam

output                                  21,600                                               43,200                                  172,800

Assuming 1/2 of steam output from wood and 1/2

from coal.

Wood MMBtu/yr boiler

heat input                                  43,200                                               86,400                                  345,600 Steam output / boiler efficiency for wood

Coal MMBtu/yr boiler heat

input                                  28,800                                               57,600                                  230,400 Steam output / boiler efficiency for coal

Wood firing emissions (tpy per mill):

(Wood MMBtu/yr boiler heat input) * (emission

factor lb/MMBtu input) / (2000 lb/ton)

PM 1.4                                                                                              2.9                                          11

NOx 4.8                                                                                              9.5                                          38

SO2 0.54                                                                                            1.1                                            4

CO 13                                                                                                26                                        104

CH4 0.45                                                                                          0.91                                         3.6

N2O 0.28                                                                                          0.56                                         2.2

CO2 4,212                                                                                      8,424                                  33,696

Coal firing emissions (tpy per mill):

(Coal MMBtu/yr boiler heat input) * (emission

factor lb/ton coal input) / (13,000 Btu/lb coal) *

(106 Btu/MMBtu) / (2000 lb/ton)2

PM 1.8                                                                                              3.7                                          15

NOx 6.1                                                                                               12                                          49

SO2 4.2                                                                                                  8                                          34

CO 2.8                                                                                              5.5                                          22

CH4 0.033                                                                                      0.066                                       0.27

N2O 0.022                                                                                      0.044                                       0.18

CO2 3,345                                                                                      6,690                                  26,762

Total Boiler Secondary Emissions Associated with Stripper Steam Use (tpy per mill) Wood + coal firing emissions

PM 3.25                                                                                          6.51                                          26

NOx 11                                                                                                22                                          87

SO2 4.7                                                                                              9.5                                          38

CO 16                                                                                                31                                        126

CH4 0.49                                                                                          0.97                                         3.9

N2O 0.30                                                                                          0.61                                         2.4

CO2 7,557                                                                                   15,114                                  60,458

Cost_Memo_Tables.xlsx, steam_sec
Appendix C 

Mill-Specific Cost and Impacts Estimates for Regulatory Options Under Consideration 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

100 NEI40686 Domtar Paper Company LLC Johnsonburg PA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

102 NEI42341A Weyerhaeuser NR Company Longview WA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

103 NEI9201 Domtar Paper Company Plymouth NC No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

104 NEI11251 International Paper Valliant OK No kraft, semi‐chemical Yes no bleaching Stripping

105 NEI45182 International Paper Company Springfield OR No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Stripping

107 NEI47074 Domtar Paper Company LLC Bennettsville SC No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

108 NEI33025 International Paper Campti LA No kraft Yes no bleaching Stripping109 NEI32869A Domtar Paper Company, LLC. Hawesville KY No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Thermal Incinerator111 NEI45206 Weyerhaeuser NR Company Vanceboro NC No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

112 NEI34064 NEI34064 Weyerhaeuser Weyerhaeuser NR Company Company Columbus Columbus MS No kraft No bleaching bleaching w/ Cl compound compound Stripping Stripping114 NEI26506 Weyerhaeuser NR Company Oglethorpe GA No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

115 NEI26476 Weyerhaeuser NR Company Port Wentworth GA No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

116 NEI8619 International Paper Company Pine Hill AL No kraft, semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching Stripping/Recycle

117 NEI42689 Wausau Paper Mills, LLC. Mosinee WI No kraft Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

119 NEI46814 TIN Inc. dba Temple Inland BOGALUSA LA No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Recycle

120 NEI26495 TIN Inc. dba Temple‐Inland Rome GA No kraft Yes no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment

121 NEI12492 TIN Inc. dba Temple‐Inland Orange TX No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Biotreatment124 NEI8278 Smurfit Stone Container Corp Panama City FL No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

1 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

126 NEI42317 Smurfit Stone Container Corporation Hopewell VA No kraft Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

127 NEI7933 Smurfit‐Stone Container Corporation Florence SC No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Stripping

130 NEI18338 Georgia‐Pacific Brewton LLC Brewton AL No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

131 NEI42254 Smurfit‐Stone Container Corporation West Point VA No kraft, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

132 NEI8261 Smurfit‐Stone Container Corporation Fernandina Beach FL No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

133 NEI13363 Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company, LLC Tacoma WA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

135 NEI33118 S.D. Warren Company ‐ Somerset

Operations

Skowhegan ME No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

136 NEI12368 Sappi Cloquet LLC Cloquet MN No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

137 NEI26581 Clearwater Paper Corp ‐ PPD & CPD,

Idaho1

Lewiston ID No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

138 NEI18652 Clearwater Paper Corporation Arkansas City AR No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

139 NEI42357 PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORP Port Townsend WA Yes kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

140 NEI13340 Cascade Pacific Pulp, LLC Halsey OR No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

142 NEI41552 Packaging Corporation of America Counce TN No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

2 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

143 NEI26504 Packaging Corporation of America Clyattville GA No kraft Yes no bleaching Stripping

145 NEI33135,

NEI706

Luke Paper Company Luke MD No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

146 NEI759 MeadWestvaco of Virginia, Inc Covington VA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

147 NEI6450 WESTVACO TEXAS LP EVADALE TX No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

148 NEI46931 MeadWestvaco Corporation Cottonton AL No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Stripping149 NEI40488 P.H. Glatfelter Company ‐ Chillicothe

Facility2

Chillicothe OH No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

150 NEI6273 Rumford Paper Company RUMFORD ME No kraft, stone

groundwood

Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

151 NEI41252 KapStone North Charleston SC No kraft Yes no bleaching Stripping152 NEI11338 Wickliffe Paper Company Wickliffe KY No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

154 NEI42963,

NEI46739,

NEIWI7720116

NewPage, Wisconsin Systems Inc. Wisconsin Rapids WI No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

155 NEI33883 Escanaba Paper Company Escanaba MI No kraft, RMP Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

156 NEI42338 Longview Fibre Paper & Packaging,

Inc.

Longview WA No kraft, semi‐chemical Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

157 NEI33104 Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC Lincoln ME Yes kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

159 NEI8177 Interstate Paper, LLC Riceboro GA No kraft Yes no bleaching Stripping162 NEI46760 International Paper Eastover SC No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

163 NEI8560 International Paper Company Prattville AL No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Stripping

164 NEI42710 Thilmany,LLC Kaukauna WI No kraft Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

3 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

165 NEI41628 International Paper Company Queen City TX No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

166 NEI41314 International Paper Georgetown SC No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping and biotreatment

167 NEI34070 International Paper Co. ‐ Vicksburg

Mill

Redwood MS No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

169 NEI33013 International Paper Mansfield LA No kraft, semi‐chemical Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound Recycle

171 NEI18658 Evergreen Packaging Inc Pine Bluff AR No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

172 NEI18335 International Paper Company Selma AL No kraft, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

173 NEI35908 International Paper Company Ticonderoga NY No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

174 NEI40247 International Paper, Inc Riegelwood NC No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

175 NEI26514 International Paper Company AUGUSTA GA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

176 NEI47104 KapStone Kraft Paper Corporation Roanoke Rapids NC No kraft Yes no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment

177 NEI33887 Verso Quinnesec LLC Quinnesec MI No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

178 NEI26309 International Paper Cantonment FL No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

179 NEI45474 Rock‐Tenn Mill Company, LLC Demopolis AL No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

180 NEI26471 Graphic Packaging International, Inc. Macon GA No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Stripping

181 NEI6057 Graphic Packaging International Inc. West Monroe LA No kraft, semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

182 NEI7181 PH Glatfelter Spring Grove PA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

183 NEI33103 Red Shield Acquisition, LLC Old Town ME Yes kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

184 NEI46817 Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Operations

LLC Port Hudson Operations

Zachary LA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Recycle

4 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

185 NEI46599 Georgia Pacific Consumer Products

(Camas), LLC

CAMAS WA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

186 NEI18334 Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Products LP

(Naheola Mill)

Pennington AL No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

188 NEI40600 Georgia‐Pacific Toledo LLC Toledo OR No kraft, semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching Biotreatment

189 NEI54342 Georgia‐Pacific LLC Crossett Paper

Operations

Crossett AR No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping/Recycle

190 NEI26491 Georgia‐Pacific Cedar Springs, LLC Cedar Springs GA No kraft, semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching Stripping

195 NEI46835 Woodland Pulp LLC5 Baileyville ME No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

196 NEI18660 Domtar A.W. LLC Ashdown AR No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

197 NEI18657 Delta Natural Kraft Pine Bluff AR No kraft Yes no bleaching Biotreatment198 NEI41565 AbiBow US Inc Calhoun TN No kraft, TMP, secondary

fiber

Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

199 NEI18390 AbiBow US Inc. ‐ Coosa Pines

Operations

Coosa Pines AL No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

200 NEI47077 AbiBow US Inc. Catawba SC No kraft, TMP Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

201 NEI7559 Boise Packaging and Newsprint, LLC DeRidder LA No kraft, TMP, secondary

fiber

Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

202 NEI12411 Boise White Paper, LLC International Falls MN No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

203 NEI42410 Boise White Paper LLC Wallula WA No kraft, sulfite‐Na Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

205 NEI8601 BOISE WHITE PAPER LLC Jackson AL No kraft, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

206 NEI40282 Blue Ridge Holding Company Canton NC No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

207 NEI7104 Appleton Papers, Inc. Roaring Spring PA No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

5 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

226 NEI33023 Smurfit‐Stone Container Corporation Hodge LA No kraft, semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching Stripping

240 NEI26526 Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC JESUP GA No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

242 NEI34066 Leaf River Cellulose, LLC New Augusta MS No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

243 NEI8196 GP Cellulose, LLC. Brunswick GA No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

340 NEI46852 Green Bay Packaging Inc. Morrilton AR No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Recycle525 NEI8265 Georgia Pacific Consumer Operations

1

Palatka FL No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

LLC1

531 NEI8186 International Paper Company Savannah GA No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Stripping and biotreatment

600 NEI18357 International Paper Company Courtland AL No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

606 NEI47091 Buckeye Florida, Limited Partnership Perry FL No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

610 NEI6261 Verso Androscoggin LLC Jay ME No kraft, stone

groundwood

Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

613 NEI11172 Georgia Pacific Monticello LLC Monticello MS No kraft, secondary fiber Yes no bleaching Stripping

6 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

615 NEI40554 Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Products,

LP

Clatskanie OR No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

617 NEI42695 Domtar A.W. LLC Nekoosa WI No kraft Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound Stripping

208228535 NEI18373 Alabama River Cellulose, LLC Perdue Hill AL No kraft No bleaching w/ Cl compound Biotreatment

106 NEI41599 Domtar Paper Company, LLC Kingsport TN No soda Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound

118 NEI34030 UPM Blandin Paper Company Grand Rapids MN No stone groundwood Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

122 NEI46866 TIN Inc. dba Temple‐Inland Waverly TN No semi‐chemical Yes no bleaching

128 NEI11461 Smurfit‐Stone Container Corporation Coshocton OH No semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching

141 NEI46750 PACKAGING CORPORATION OF

AMERICA‐Tomahawk

Tomahawk WI No semi‐chemical Yes no bleaching

158 NEI42385 Kimberly‐Clark Worldwide Everett WA No sulfite‐NH3 Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound

187 NEI42211 GP Big Island, LLC Big Island VA No semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching

192 NEI42730 Flambeau River Papers LLC Park Falls WI No sulfite‐Ca Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

193 NEI39968 Finch Paper LLC Glens Falls NY No sulfite‐NH3 Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound

204 NEI40553 Boise White Paper LLC St Helens OR No none Yes no bleaching210 NEI13216 Catalyst Paper (Snowflake) Inc. Snowflake AZ No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

213 NEI34020 Wausau Paper Corp. Brainerd MN No none Yes no bleaching215 NEI42690 Wausau Paper Mills, LLC. Brokaw WI No none Yes no bleaching

216 NEI43202 Wausau Paper Mills, LLC Rhinelander WI No none Yes no bleaching

223 NEI42961 NewPage Wisconsin System, Inc Wisconsin Rapids WI No TMP, stone

groundwood

Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

224 NEIWI7500086,

NEIWIT$8597

NewPage Wisconsin System, Inc. Stevens Point WI No none Yes no bleaching

229 NEI12407 Verso Sartell LLC Sartell MN No TMP Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

230 NEI6284 Verso Bucksport, LLC Bucksport ME No TMP, stone

groundwood

Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

231 NEI11108 AbiBow US Inc. Grenada MS No TMP Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

232 NEI8122 Augusta Newsprint Company LLC Augusta GA No TMP, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

241 NEI26382 Rayonier Fernandina Mill Fernandina Beach FL No sulfite‐NH3 No bleaching w/ Cl compound

244 NEI43472 Sonoco Products Company Hartsville SC No semi‐chemical Yes no bleaching245 NEI18347 Smurfit‐Stone Container Corporation Stevenson AL No semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

No no bleaching

247 NEI33945 Packaging Corporation of America Filer City MI No semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching

254 NEIWI0793640 Wisconsin Paperboard Corporation Milwaukee WI No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

275 NEICT3102 Cascades Boxboard Group

Connecticut LLC, Versailles Mills

Versailles CT No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

288 NEI11602 Graphic Packaging International Inc. Middletown OH No none Yes no bleaching

289 NEI26304 Smurfit‐Stone Container Corporation Jacksonville FL No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

290 NEI40720 PaperWorks Industires, Inc Philadelphia PA No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

301 NEI11610 Rock‐Tenn Converting Company Cincinnati OH No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

304 NEIVA00022 Greif Packaging LLC Riverville VA No semi‐chemical,

secondary fiber

Yes no bleaching

311 NEW73505 Republic Paperboard Company, LLC2 Lawton OK No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

315 NEI2INT16350 TIN Inc. dba Temple‐Inland Cayuga IN No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

322 NEIPA1013489 Newman & Company, Inc. Philadelphia PA Yes secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

7 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

339 NEI23 Ox Paperboard LLC Halltown WV No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

341 NEI42486 GREEN BAY PACKAGING INC. MILL &

SHIPPING CONTAINER DIV

GREEN BAY WI No secondary fiber Yes no bleaching

363 NEIME0250002 Madison Paper Industries Madison ME No stone groundwood Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

365 NEI54400 Domtar Paper Company, LLC Rothschild WI No sulfite‐Ca Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

369 NEIGAT$3911 SP Newsprint Dublin GA No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

370 NEI2WAT18798 Ponderay Newsprint Co. Usk WA No TMP Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

371 NEI42341B North Pacific Paper Corporation Longview WA No TMP, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

373 NEI11600 Smart Papers Holdings, LLC Hamilton OH No none Yes no bleaching

375 NEI42800 Shawano Specialty Papers ‐ A Division

of Little Rapids Corporation

Shawano WI Yes none Yes no bleaching

382 NEIWI4710355 SCA Tissue North America LLC ‐ 

Menasha Papermill

Menasha WI No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

387 NEI33072 S. D. Warren Co. Westbrook mill Westbrook ME No none Yes no bleaching

389 NEI40738 The Procter & Gamble Paper Products

Company

Mehoopany PA No none Yes no bleaching

391 NEI26487 The Procter & Gamble Paper Products

Company

Albany GA No none Yes no bleaching

403 NEI33866 Neenah Paper, Inc. Munising MI No none Yes no bleaching

409 NEI208 White Birch Paper Company Bear

Island LLC Division

Ashland VA No TMP, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

410 NEI40648 SP Newsprint Co. Newberg OR No TMP, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

414 NEI42329 Nippon Paper Industries USA Co., Ltd. Port Angeles WA No RMP, secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

423 NEI33950 Menominee Acquisition Corporation

dba Clearwater Paper

Menominee MI No none Yes no bleaching

425 NEIMA10626 Onyx Specialty Papers, Inc. South Lee MA Yes none Yes no bleaching428 NEI12980 Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Products LP Muskogee OK No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound429 NEI33986 Manistique Papers, Inc. Manistique MI No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound430 NEI8178 Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Products LP Rincon GA No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound

433 NEI36019 Knowlton Technologies, LLC Watertown NY Yes none Yes no bleaching435 NEI2TN0099 ,

NEITN1050093

Kimberly‐Clark Corporation Loudon TN No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound

436 NEI42482 Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Products LP Green Bay WI No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

451 NEI11645 Appleton Papers Inc. West Carrollton OH No secondary fiber Yes bleaching w/ Cl compound

468 NEI33981 EB Eddy Paper Inc. Port Huron MI No none Yes no bleaching496 NEINY5533400 Hollingsworth and Vose Company Greenwich NY No none Yes no bleaching

500 NEI42495 Thilmany LLC De Pere WI No none Yes no bleaching501 NEI7106 Team Ten, LLC Tyrone PA Yes secondary fiber Yes no bleaching511 NEIIL0215971 Ahlstrom Filtration, LLC Taylorville IL No none Yes no bleaching512 NEI11367 Ahlstrom Filtration LLC Madisonville KY No none Yes no bleaching514 NEI6175 Hollingsworth & Vose Company West Groton MA No none Yes no bleaching

515 NEIMA131179 Hollingsworth & Vose Company East Walpole MA No none Yes no bleaching

516 NEIGAT$3909 Hollingsworth & Vose Company Hawkinsville GA No none Yes no bleaching

518 NEIWA0270002 Grays Harbor Paper, LLC Hoquiam WA No none Yes no bleaching520 NEIWI4050324 Georgia‐Pacific Consumer Products LP Green Bay WI No none Yes no bleaching526 NEI43207 APPLETON COATED L.L.C. LOCKS MILL Combined Locks WI No none Yes no bleaching

8 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID NEI ID Mill name City State Small business Pulping process Paper production

Bleaching with chlorine or

chlorinated compounds

Predominant kraft condensate

treatment method (revised)

368611 NEIMN14904 NewPage Wisconsin System Inc. Duluth MN No pressurized

groundwood,secondary fiber

Yes bleaching w/o Cl compound

508513 NEINY5532600 Hollingsworth and Vose Co. Greenwich NY No none Yes no bleaching

TOTAL 8

9 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

100102103104105107108109111

112

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5 800 000 $ 545 200 5 $ 129 600 5 $ 100 000 480 $ 

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

112114115116117119120121124

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 $ 129,600 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

10 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

126127130131132133135136

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

137138139140142

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

11 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

143145146147148149150151152154

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 

155156157159162163164

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 

12 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

165166167169171172173174175

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

176177178179180181182183184

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 

13 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

185186188189190195196

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 7 400 000 $ 695 600 40 $ 1 036 800 128 857 440 480 $ 12 886 $ 496 000 1 500 $ 

197198199200201202203205206207

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 $ 1,036,800 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

14 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

226240242243340525

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

531600606610613

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 5 129,600 $ 5 $ 100,000 480 $ 

15 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

615617

208228535

106118122128141158187192193204210213215216223224229

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

230231232241244245247254275288289290301304311315322

16 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

339341363365369370371373375382387389391403409410414423

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

425428429430433435436451468496500501511512514515516518520526

17 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

368611508513

TOTAL

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy Impact,

MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total a

c

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 93%

$ 227,160,000 $ 21,353,040 660 $ 17,107,200 29,110,935 99,419 100,079 $ 2,911,093 $ 11,208,000 48,340 $ 5

48 count 41 41 20 20 48 20 48 48 13 bio‐>new stripper HAP re

28 stripper upgrade $ 53,174.89 cost eff. Me

7 bio upgrade Acet

18 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

100102103104105107108109111

112

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.3020.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.3020.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

112 20 6 7 3 3 16 11 4 7 7 557 0 49 0 30114115116117119120121124

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.3020.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.3020.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

19 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

126127130131132133135136

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

137138139140142

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

143145146147148149150151152154

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 0.1092 0.803 1.495 4.257 903 0.0893 0.01284

155156157159162163164

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 0.1092 0.803 1.495 4.257 903 0.0893 0.01284

21 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

165166167169171172173174175

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

20.6 7 0.1092 0.803 1.495 4.257 903 0.0893 0.01284

20.6 7 0.1092 0.803 1.495 4.257 903 0.0893 0.01284

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

176177178179180181182183184

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 0.1092 0.803 1.495 4.257 903 0.0893 0.01284

20.6 7 0.1092 0.803 1.495 4.257 903 0.0893 0.01284

22 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

185186188189190195196

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.3020 6 7 26 126 87 38 60 488 3 9 2 4

197198199200201202203205206207

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 0.1092 0.803 1.495 4.257 903 0.0893 0.01284

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.3020.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.3020.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

23 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

226240242243340525

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

531600606610613

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

20.6 7 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

20.6 7 3.3 16 11 4.7 7,557 0.49 0.30

24 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

615617

208228535

106118122128141158187192193204210213215216223224229

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

230231232241244245247254275288289290301304311315322

25 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

339341363365369370371373375382387389391403409410414423

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

425428429430433435436451468496500501511512514515516518520526

26 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

368611508513

TOTAL

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 93%

VOC reduction,

tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

988.8 336 430 2,082 1,443 659 1,004,258 65 40

48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

1,018,048 tpy CO2e

27 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

100102103104105107108109111

112

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 5 800 000 $ 545 200 10 $ 259 200 10 $ 100 000 480 $ 904 

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

112114115116117119120121124

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 $ 259,200 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,

28 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

126127130131132133135136

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

137138139140142

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,

29 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

143145146147148149150151152154

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

155156157159162163164

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,

30 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

165166167169171172173174175

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

176177178179180181182183184

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 200,000 960 $ 1,945,

31 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

185186188189190195196

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 7 400 000 $ 695 600 40 $ 1 036 800 128 857 440 480 $ 12 886 $ 496 000 1 500 $ 2 241 

197198199200201202203205206207

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 $ 1,036,800 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 480,000 $ 45,120 3,919,399 13,385 13,385 $ 391,940 $ 280,000 2,200 $ 717,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,

32 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

226240242243340525

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

531600606610613

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 2,900,000 $ 272,600 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 631,

$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

$ 7,400,000 $ 695,600 40 1,036,800 $ 128,857 440 480 $ 12,886 $ 496,000 1,500 $ 2,241,$ 5,800,000 $ 545,200 10 259,200 $ 10 $ 100,000 480 $ 904,

33 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

615617

208228535

106118122128141158187192193204210213215216223224229

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

230231232241244245247254275288289290301304311315322

34 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

339341363365369370371373375382387389391403409410414423

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

425428429430433435436451468496500501511512514515516518520526

35 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

368611508513

TOTAL

Capital cost, $

Capital recovery,

$/yr

Steam,

MMBtu/yr Steam, $/yr

Electricity,

kWh/yr

Electricity,

MMBtu/yr

Total Energy

Impact, MMBtu/yr Electricity, $/yr O&M, $/yr Labor, hr/yr

Total annualiz

cost, $

Kraft condensates improvement‐92% to 94%

$ 254,040,000 $ 23,879,760 910 $ 23,587,200 33,288,048 113,685 114,595 $ 3,328,805 $ 12,484,000 54,440 $ 63,279,

54 count 46 46 23 23 54 23 54 54 54 15 bio‐>new stripper HAP reduction 

31 stripper upgrade $ 27,508.16 cost eff. Methanol 

8 bio upgrade Acetaldehyd

36 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

100102103104105107108109111

112

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

112 42 6 13 6 5 31 22 9 5 15 114 0 97 0 61114115116117119120121124

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 4 2.4

37 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

126127130131132133135136

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

137138139140142

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

38 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

143145146147148149150151152154

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

155156157159162163164

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

39 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

165166167169171172173174175

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

42.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

42.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

176177178179180181182183184

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

40 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

185186188189190195196

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142 6 13 26 126 87 38 60 488 3 9 2 4

197198199200201202203205206207

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 0.11 0.8 1.5 4.3 903 0.089 0.013

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

41 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

226240242243340525

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

531600606610613

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.6142.6 13 26 126 87 38 60,488 3.9 2.4

42.6 13 6.5 31 22 9.5 15,114 0.97 0.61

42 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

615617

208228535

106118122128141158187192193204210213215216223224229

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

230231232241244245247254275288289290301304311315322

43 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

339341363365369370371373375382387389391403409410414423

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

425428429430433435436451468496500501511512514515516518520526

44 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

368611508513

TOTAL

Secondary air emissions (tpy increase) ‐ 92 to 94%

VOC

reduction, tpy

TRS reduction,

tpy PM CO NOx SO2 CO2 CH4 N2O

2,300 702 593 2,870 1,986 901 1,383,081 89 55

54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

1,402,084 tpy CO2e

45 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

100102103104105107108109111

112

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

$130,000 $29,300

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

$ 15 000 000 $ 1 410 000 $ 480 000 $ 1 890 000 $130 000 $29 300

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

112114115116117119120121124

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300

46 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

126127130131132133135136

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300

137138139140142

$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300

47 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

143145146147148149150151152154

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

155156157159162163164

$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300

48 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

165166167169171172173174175

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300

176177178179180181182183184

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

49 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

185186188189190195196

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300$130 000 $29 300

197198199200201202203205206207

$130,000 $29,300

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

$130,000 $29,300

50 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

226240242243340525

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

$130,000 $29,300

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

531600606610613

$130,000 $29,300$130,000 $29,300

$ 15,000,000 $ 1,410,000 $ 480,000 $ 1,890,000 $130,000 $29,300

51 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

615617

208228535

106118122128141158187192193204210213215216223224229

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

230231232241244245247254275288289290301304311315322

52 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

339341363365369370371373375382387389391403409410414423

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

425428429430433435436451468496500501511512514515516518520526

53 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

368611508513

TOTAL

Costs for repeat CCA compliance demonstration

HVLC Collection System

Capital, $

HVLC Collection System

Capital Recovery, $/yr

Annual O&M,

$/yr

Total Annualized Costs,

$/yr Capital, $

Annualized cost (capital

recovery), $/yr

Costs if CCA is no longer viable (e.g., if increased both collection and treatment; or for mills

$ 165,000,000 $ 15,510,000 $ 5,280,000 $ 20,790,000 $4,420,000 $996,200

11 11 11 11 34 34

54 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

100102103104105107108109111

112

Economic Impact Analysis Inputs

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,421,500 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,551,100 $ 18,096,344 $ 2,443,137 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,694,100 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,823,700 $ 20,976,344 $ 2,710,859 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 176,344 $ 46,059 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,421,500 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,551,100 $ 18,076,344 $ 2,438,259 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $ $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62 000 $15 121 $ 4 344 $ 6 516 $ 20 930 000 $ 2 694 100 $ 20 930 000 $ 2 823 700 $ 20 996 344 $ 2 715 737 $ 

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

112114115116117119120121124

$62,000 $15,121 $ 4,344 $ 6,516 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,694,100 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,823,700 $ 20,996,344 $ 2,715,737 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,694,100 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,823,700 $ 20,976,344 $ 2,710,859 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 32,344 $ 13,345 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 2,900,000 $ 502,200 $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 2,946,344 $ 518,959 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,562,344 $ 2,283,931 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 196,344 $ 50,937 $ 

55 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

126127130131132133135136

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 162,344 $ 42,645 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 176,344 $ 46,059 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,400,000 $ 2,241,286 $ 7,400,000 $ 2,241,286 $ 7,452,344 $ 2,259,508 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 32,344 $ 13,345 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $ $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

137138139140142

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,562,344 $ 2,283,931 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 162,344 $ 42,645 $ 

56 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

143145146147148149150151152154

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,400,000 $ 2,241,286 $ 7,400,000 $ 2,241,286 $ 7,452,344 $ 2,259,508 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 2,900,000 $ 502,200 $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 2,946,344 $ 518,959 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 2,900,000 $ 502,200 $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 2,966,344 $ 523,837 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 2,900,000 $ 502,200 $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 2,966,344 $ 523,837 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,421,500 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,551,100 $ 18,076,344 $ 2,438,259 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 532,344 $ 735,283 $ 

155156157159162163164

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 2,900,000 $ 502,200 $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 2,966,344 $ 523,837 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 162,344 $ 42,645 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $ $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 176,344 $ 46,059 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $ $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 610,000 $ 746,360 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 656,344 $ 763,119 $ 

57 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

165166167169171172173174175

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 532,344 $ 735,283 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 512,344 $ 730,405 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 182,344 $ 47,523 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

176177178179180181182183184

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,421,500 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,551,100 $ 18,096,344 $ 2,443,137 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 32,344 $ 13,345 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 532,344 $ 735,283 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 7,400,000 $ 1,945,286 $ 532,344 $ 735,283 $ $62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

58 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

185186188189190195196

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 2,900,000 $ 502,200 $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 2,966,344 $ 523,837 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 182,344 $ 47,523 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 162,344 $ 42,645 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$48 000 $11 707 $ 4 344 $ 6 516 $ 7 530 000 $ 2 270 586 $ 7 530 000 $ 2 270 586 $ 7 582 344 $ 2 288 808 $ 

197198199200201202203205206207

$48,000 $11,707 $ 4,344 $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$28,000 $6,829 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 512,344 $ 730,405 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,694,100 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,823,700 $ 20,996,344 $ 2,715,737 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $ $ 480,000 $ 717,060 $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

59 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

226240242243340525

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,421,500 $ 18,030,000 $ 2,551,100 $ 18,076,344 $ 2,438,259 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 15,130,000 $ 1,919,300 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,823,700 $ 15,196,344 $ 1,940,937 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

531600606610613

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 2,900,000 $ 502,200 $ 2,900,000 $ 631,800 $ 2,946,344 $ 518,959 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 5,800,000 $ 774,800 $ 5,800,000 $ 904,400 $ 5,866,344 $ 796,437 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 130,000 $ 29,300 $ 182,344 $ 47,523 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,530,000 $ 2,270,586 $ 7,582,344 $ 2,288,808 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,694,100 $ 20,930,000 $ 2,823,700 $ 20,976,344 $ 2,710,859 $ 

60 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

615617

208228535

106118122128141158187192193204210213215216223224229

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$48,000 $11,707 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$48,000 $11,707 $ 4,344 $                      ‐ 6,516 $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $                          ‐ $ $ 52,344 $ 18,223 $ 

$62,000 $15,121 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 66,344 $ 21,637 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$34,000 $8,292 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 38,344 $ 14,808 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$14,000 $3,414 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 18,344 $ 9,930 $ 

$34,000 $8,292 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 38,344 $ 14,808 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

230231232241244245247254275288289290301304311315322

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$34,000 $8,292 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 38,344 $ 14,808 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$42,000 $10,243 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 46,344 $ 16,759 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

61 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

339341363365369370371373375382387389391403409410414423

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$14,000 $3,414 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 18,344 $ 9,930 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

425428429430433435436451468496500501511512514515516518520526

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$20,000 $4,878 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 24,344 $ 11,394 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$20,000 $4,878 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 24,344 $ 11,394 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$20,000 $4,878 4,344 $ $ 6,516 $ 24,344 $ 11,394 $ 

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

62 of 63 
Appendix C

RTI ID

368611508513

TOTAL

Condensates Total ‐ 93% Condensates Total ‐ 94% MILL TOTAL COSTS ‐ 93% MILL TO

Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $ Annual cost, $/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capital cost, $

Annualized cost,

$/yr Capi

Repeat testing R/R incremental cost

$                          ‐ ‐ $                          

$         

$                         ‐ ‐ $                         

$         

$5,416,000 $1,320,911 $495,216 $742,824 $396,580,000 $74,365,533 $423,460,000 $85,065,965 $402,491,216 $76,429,269 $429

114 114 114 114 97 97 97 97 171 171 

63 of 63