Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0074-1361
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-09-30T04:00Z

1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Record
FROM:
Meghan
Kandle,
ERG
DATE:
18
August
2004
SUBJECT:
Analysis
of
Industry
Supplied
Data
for
OCPSF
Focus
Group
3
In
May
2004,
EPA
requested
process
information
and
wastewater
dioxin
and
flow
data
from
eight
companies
that
operate
20
facilities
in
Focus
Group
3.
This
memorandum
describes
the
data
provided
by
industry
and
the
methodology
used
to
calculate
toxicity
weighted
concentrations
and
loads.
The
following
attachments
are
included
at
the
end
of
this
memorandum:

°
Attachment
A:
Spreadsheet
presenting
the
wastewater
dioxin
and
flow
data
that
facilities
provided.

°
Attachment
B:
Spreadsheet
calculating
toxicity
weighted
concentrations.

°
Attachment
C:
Spreadsheet
calculating
loads
in
grams
TEQ.

°
Attachment
D:
Spreadsheet
calculating
loads
in
toxic
weighted
pound
equivalents
(
TWPE).

EPA
received
responses
from
eight
companies
(
19
facilities)
with
wastewater
analytical
data
for
congeners
from
the
following
types
of
wastewater:

°
Chlorine
gas
condensates;
°
Oxychlorination
quench
water;
°
Treated
effluent
from
chlor­
alkali
and
other
organic
processes;
°
Treated
effluent
from
vinyl
and
other
organic
processes;
°
Combined
effluent
from
vinyl,
chlor­
alkali,
and
other
organic
processes;
and
°
Treated
effluent
from
PVC
and
other
organic
processes.

Data
submittals
were
unique
for
each
facility.
Depending
on
the
size
and
layout
of
each
facility,
plants
may
produce
more
than
one
stream
for
each
of
the
above
wastewater
categories.
For
example,
one
facility
may
have
two
separate
wastestreams
from
chlor­
alkali
manufacturing.
Also,
some
facilities
provided
data
from
a
single
sampling
episode,
while
others
provided
multiple
2
years
of
data.
Facilities
also
provided
the
corresponding
wastewater
flow
for
some,
but
not
all,
sets
of
concentration
data.
Attachment
A
presents
the
facility
data
as
data
entered
by
ERG.

ERG
conducted
two
analyses
using
the
provided
data.
One
analysis
examines
the
toxicityweighted
concentrations
of
dioxin
in
wastewater
by
wastewater
type.
The
other
evaluates
toxicweighted
discharges
by
facility
type
(
i.
e.
stand­
alone
versus
integrated
facilities).
The
following
sections
describe
each
analysis
in
more
detail.

Toxicity­
Weighted
Dioxin
Concentrations
Using
the
toxic
equivalency
factors
(
TEF)
in
Table
1,
ERG
estimated
toxicity
weighted
concentrations
for
each
wastewater
stream.
The
toxic
equivalency
of
the
dioxin
mixture
is
calculated
by
multiplying
each
congener's
concentration
by
the
corresponding
TEF,
then
summing
the
products
for
all
17
congeners.
For
more
information
on
TEFs,
see
Section
4
of
the
TSD.

Table
1.
Toxic
Equivalency
Factors
for
17
Dioxin
Congeners
Congener
TEF
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
1
1,2,3,7,8­
Pentachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9­
Hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
Heptachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
0.01
Octachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
0.001
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
0.1
1,2,3,7,8­
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
0.05
2,3,4,7,8­
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9­
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
0.01
Octachlorodibenzofuran
0.001
3
When
facilities
provided
multiple
sets
of
concentration
data
for
a
single
outfall
or
stream,
ERG
calculated
an
average
concentration
for
the
stream.
ERG
then
grouped
wastewater
streams
by
wastewater
category
(
e.
g.
chlorine
condensates,
oxychlorination
quench,
etc...)
and
calculated
an
average
concentration
for
each
facility.
ERG
used
this
same
methodology
to
calculate
average
wastewater
flows.
Table
2
presents
the
average
concentration
and
wastewater
flow
for
each
facility.
To
protect
confidential
business
information,
ERG
excluded
data
for
five
facilities
from
Table
2.
Attachment
B
of
this
memorandum
shows
the
calculation
of
toxicity
weighted
concentrations.
4
Table
2.
Average
Dioxin
Concentrations
and
Wastewater
Flows
Facility
Chlorine
Condensates
EDC
Quench
Treated
Chlor­
alkali
effluent
Treated
Vinyl
Effluent
Treated
Vinyl
and
chlor­
alkali
effluent
Treated
PVC
Effluent
Conc.
pgTEQ/
L
Flow
MGD
Conc.
pgTEQ/
L
Flow
MGD
Conc.
pgTEQ/
L
Flow
MGD
Conc.
pgTEQ/
L
Flow
MGD
Conc.
pgTEQ/
L
Flow
MGD
Conc.
pgTEQ/
L
Flow
MGD
Dow,
Freeport,
TX
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Dow,
Plaquemine,
LA
CBI
CBI
CBI
CBI
Georgia
Gulf,
Plaquemine,

LA
CBI
Georgia
Gulf,
Lake
Charles,
LA
CBI
Formosa
Plastics,
Point
Comfort,
TX
0.033
0.000104
Formosa
Plastics,
LA
0.050
PPG
Lake
Charles,
LA
35,674
0.19
62.7
1.49
110
11.6
PPG,
Natrium,
WV
238
16.5
14.8
Oxyvinyls
LaPorte,
TX
1,735
0.217
0.194
0.508
1.62
3.12
0.77
Occidental,
Convent,
LA
2,193
0.09
Oxyvinyls,
Deer
Park,
TX
10,480
0.14
0
535
17.2
0.333
Occidental,
Ingleside,
TX
0
5.61
1.4
Occidental,
Mobile,
AL
17,857
0.008
Occidental,
Muscle
Shoals,
AL
3,269
0.015
Occidental,
Taft,
LA
281
2.8
Vulcan
Chemical,

Geismar,
LA
CBI
Toxic
Discharges
by
Facility
Type
5
Nine
facilities
provided
dioxin
concentration
data
with
corresponding
flow
rates
for
treated
wastewater
from
vinyl
and/
or
chlor­
alkali
processes.
ERG
used
these
data
to
calculate
loads
in
grams
TEQ
and
toxic­
weighted
pound
equivalents
(
TWPE).
For
the
TEQ
calculation,
ERG
multiplied
the
toxicity
weighted
concentrations
(
g
TEQ/
L)
from
the
preceding
section
by
the
corresponding
wastewater
flow.
ERG
estimated
TWPE
by
multiplying
each
congener's
load
by
the
corresponding
toxic
weighting
factor
(
TWF),
and
summing
the
TWPE
for
the
dioxin
mixture.
Table
3
presents
the
congener
TWF
values.

Table
3.
Toxic
Weighting
Factors
for
17
Dioxin
Congeners
Congener
TWF
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
421,600,000
1,2,3,7,8­
Pentachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
215,384,615
1,2,3,4,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
43,076,923
1,2,3,6,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
41,791,045
1,2,3,7,8,9­
Hexachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
43,076,923
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
Heptachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
4,179,104
Octachlorodibenzo­
p­
dioxin
423,510
2,3,7,8­
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
6,696,140
1,2,3,7,8­
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
3,294,118
2,3,4,7,8­
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
32,941,176
1,2,3,4,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
6,658,740
1,2,3,6,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
6,666,667
2,3,4,6,7,8­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
6,666,667
1,2,3,7,8,9­
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
6,658,740
1,2,3,4,6,7,8­
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
665,874
1,2,3,4,7,8,9­
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
666,667
Octachlorodibenzofuran
67,367
For
this
analysis,
discharges
were
grouped
by
the
following
facility
categories
to
allow
for
comparison
to
TRI
and
CCC
discharge
data:

°
Stand­
alone
chlorine
manufacturers
using
the
chlor­
alkali
process;
6
°
Stand­
alone
vinyl
manufacturers;
°
Integrated
chlor­
alkali
and
vinyl
facilities;
and
°
Stand­
alone
PVC
manufacturers.

When
facilities
provided
multiple
sets
of
concentration
data
for
a
single
outfall,
ERG
calculated
an
average
load
for
each
reporting
year,
then
averaged
across
the
years
for
each
stream.
ERG
calculated
a
total
facility
load
by
summing
the
average
annual
loads
for
each
outfall.
Table
4
presents
the
total
annual
loads
in
grams
TEQ
and
TWPE
for
the
nine
facilities
that
provided
flow
and
concentration
data.
To
protect
confidential
business
information,
ERG
excluded
data
for
three
facilities
from
Table
4.
Attachment
C
of
this
memorandum
shows
the
calculation
of
toxicity
weighted
loads
in
grams
TEQ,
and
Attachment
D
shows
the
calculation
of
TWPE.

Table
4.
Estimated
Total
Annual
Facility
Loads
Facility
Stand­
Alone
Chlor­
Alkali
Integrated
Chlor­
alkali
and
Vinyl
g
TEQ
TWPE
g
TEQ
TWPE
Dow,
Freeport,
TX
CBI
CBI
Dow,
Plaquemine,
LA
CBI
CBI
PPG,
Lake
Charles,
LA
1.83
270,682
PPG,
Natrium,
WV
0.677
126,089
Georgia
Gulf,
Plaquemine,
LA
CBI
CBI
Oxyvinyls,
Deer
Park,
TX
0.41
78,873
Oxyvinyls,
LaPorte,
TX
0.0039
935
Occidental,
Ingleside,
TX
0.011
2,534
Occidental,
Taft,
LA
1.085
158,853
Total
1.76
284,942
10.13
2,079,831