Water
EPA-440/1-79-300
Fate of Priority
Pollutants in
Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
Pilot Study
by
Howard Feiler
Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corporation
283 Route 17 South
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Project Officer
R. Dean Jarman
Effluent Guidelines Division
Water Planning and Standards
Office of Water and Waste Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgement is made to Burns and Roe Industrial Services
Corporation, Paramus, New Jersey, the EPA contractor for the project.
The following members of the technical staff made significant
contributions to the overall project effort and execution of the sampling
program: Howard D. Feiler, Paul Storch, Henry Celestino, Gary Martin,
and Mark Sadowski.
The Environmental Protection Agency personnel contributing to this
effort were Project Officer, Dean Jarman, Office of Research and
Development, Center for Environmental Research Information;
Assistant Project Officer, Arthur Shattuck, Effluent Guidelines Division;.
Jeffrey Denit, Effluent Guidelines Division, and Thomas O'Farrell, Office
of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning and
Standards.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Summary and Conclusions .. 1
Summary i
Conclusions ^
II. Introduction 3
Establishment of Sampling Techniques 3
Establishment of Appropriate Sampling Points 3
Development of Analytical Protocol for Samples 4
Fate of Priority Pollutants in POTW's 4
III. Plant Selection 5
Plant A 5
Plant B 5
IV. Sample Point Description 7
Plant A 8
Plant B -j0
V. Sampling 13
Sampling Frequency 13
Sampling Techniques 13
Sampling Collection Procedures 13
Protocol and Protocol Modifications 13
VI. Data Summary •] g
Major Trends 1 Q
VII. Analysis of Results 19
Fate of Priority Pollutants 19
Results of Sampling Frequency and Sampling Point
Selection Experiments 30
Potential of Additional Sample Points 33
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title
IV-1 Sampling Frequency at Plant A 7
IV-2 Sampling Frequency at Plant B 8
VI-1 Summary. Percent Occurrences of Organic
Pollutants—Plant A 17
VI-2 Summary Percent Occurrences of Organic
Pollutants—Plant B 18
Vll-1 Percent Occurrences of Priority Pollutants—Plant A 20
VII-2 Percent Occurrences of Priority Pollutants—Plant B 22
VII-3 Plant A. Data Summary Week 1 Average 23
VII-4 Plant B. Data Summary 24
VII-5 Plant A. Mass Balance Weekly Summary 26
VII-6 Plant B. Mass Balance Weekly Summary 28
Vll-7 Plant A. Effect of Chlorine on Priority Pollutant
Concentrations 30
VII-8 Plant B. Effect of Chlorine on Priority Pollutant
Concentrations 31
VII-9 8-Hour Composites vs. Metals Concentrations 32
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
IV-1 Influent Sampling Point at Plant A 9
IV-2 Prechlorinated Effluent Sampling Point Plant B 11
IV-3 Final Effluent Sampling Point Plant B 12
V-1 Automatic Sampler 14
-------
-------
I. SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The purpose of this report is to
present the results of a two-plant
pilot study designed to determine
future operating parameters to be
used during a study of the fate of
priority pollutants in publicly
owned treatment works
(POTW's). The scope of the overall
project is anticipated to
encompass 7-day, 24-hour
sampling at 40 strategically
located POTW's, representing a
variety of municipal treatment
technologies, size ranges, and
percentages of industrial flow. A
major goal of the project is to
characterize the impact of toxic
pollutants, from all sources, on
POTW operations. In addition the
effect of secondary treatment on
priority pollutants will be studied.
The pilot study was conducted at
two POTW's with significantly
different characteristics. These
two plants provided contrasts in
many areas, including size,
percent industrial flow, age,
operation, sludge conditioning
methodology, and capacity
utilized.
During the two-plant program the
analytical and logistical factors of
field sampling were tested to
determine the optimum field
methodologies and also to ascer-
tain the feasibility of studying
other aspects of POTW
operations. Additionally, prelimin-
ary information regarding the
incidence, impact and fate of
priority pollutants in POTW's was
developed. The data obtained
from this study will impact the
pretreatment regulations for
indirect dischargers as to credits
allowed (if any) for acceptable
treatability or removal of toxics in
POTW's.
Conclusions
1. A significantly higher
incidence of organic priority
pollutants was observed at
the more industrial Plant A as
compared to the essentially
non-industrial Plant B.
2. Seven of nine metallic priority
pollutants were found to have
higher average concentra-
tions in the Plant A influent.
3. Of nine organic priority
pollutants measured in Plant
A's influent at an average
concentration greater than 10
fjg/\, eight were reduced by a
minimum of 50percent.
Organic priority pollutants at
Plant B occurred at such low
levels that percent removal
data could not be determined.
4. Metallic priority pollutants
were removed over a broad
range of efficiencies at both
plants.
5. The following priority
pollutants were concentrated
in the residues generated at
Plant A: cadmium, copper,
lead, nickel, zinc,
acenaphthene, dichlorobro-
momethane, 1,2-benzanthra-
cene, 3,4-benzofluoranthene,
fluorene and pyrene.
Similarly, at Plant B,
chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, acrylonitrile,
dichlorobromomethane and
3,4 benzofluoranthene were
concentrated in the sludge.
6. Refractory, but volatile
organic priority pollutants
such as benzene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, ethylben-
zene, toluene and
trichloroethylene were well
removed but not concentrated
in plant sludges, suggesting
air stripping as a possible
removal mechanism.
-------
7. Daily variation of influent
metallic priority pollutant
concentrations was observed
at both POTW's, but the vari-
ation was most pronounced
at Plant A. Metals concentra-
tions increased during the
latter parts of the work week
and dipped during weekends.
Similar effects were recorded
for conventional pollutants,
but, in general, for organic
priority pollutants, levels
were too low to perm it
observation of trends.
8. The 8-hour versus 24-hour
composite experiment that
was carried out on the Plant A
influent showed that there
was no appreciable difference
between daily concentration
values of organic priority pollu-
tants. However, at the more
industrial Plant A, metals
concentrations were found to
be significantly higher during
the 0800 to 1 600 (8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m.) period.
9. Sampling and analysis of
prechlorinated effluent
samples produced evidence
that formation of toxic
chlorinated hydrocarbons in
chlorine contact chambers
and receiving streams does
occur.
10. The mass loading of priority
pollutants in the floatables
and sludge filtrate was
found to be very small, as
compared to the mass
loading in total POTW
residues.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has
initiated a program to study the
occurrence and fate of 129
selected toxic organic and
inorganic pollutants (priority)
pollutants) by means of a
sampling program, at 40 publicly
owned treatment works
(POTW's). The first phase of this
work was a pilot study at two
POTW's to select the parameters
of interest and establish detailed
technical procedures that will be
used for the overall project. In this
report, data obtained from the two
POTW's selected for the pilot
study are presented. Since these
two plants have different
proportions of industrial flow,
the relationship between indus-
trial contributions and priority
pollutant levels in POTW influents
is examined Additionally, other
specific phenomena were
studied, including the overall
removal of toxic pollutants,
removal mechanisms, concentra-
tion of toxic pollutants in sludge
and the formation of chlorinated
hydrocarbons during chlorine
disinfection. EPA protocol1 for
collection, sampling and analysis
of priority pollutants was followed
for each procedure performed in
the study, except where noted.
Details of specific goals of the
pilot study are outlined below.
Establishment of Sampling
Techniques
An effort was made during
sampling at the pilot facilities to
determine the procedure best
suited for obtaining the most
representative samples from each
treatment plant over the course of
the entire 40-plant program. The
effort focused on determining an
appropriate sample frequency for
obtaining the most representative
picture of wastewater
fluctuations which occur at a
typical sewage treatment facility,
as well as determining which
days would yield the most
representative samples, should
the final sampling plan be limited
to less than seven days of
sampling per week.
Establishment of Appropriate
Sampling Points
Determination of the appropriate
sampling points to be used in the
remainder of the 4O-plant
program was another focus of the
pilot study. Samples were taken
at different intermediate points in
the wastewater treatment
processes to ascertain which
sampling points would provide
the best information on the fate of
priority pollutants as they pass
through the POTW.
'Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the
Analysis of Pollutants. To be published in the
Federal Register. Proposed Amendments to
40 CFR Part 136.
-------
Development of Analytical
Protocol for Samples
Another goal of the pilot study
was to provide samples to be used
in analytical protocol
development. The present EPA
protocol for the analysis of
industrial wastewater samples is
not specifically suitable for
evaluation of municipal
wastewater or sludge samples.
For example, analytical
techniques for municipal sludges,
which are characterized by high
solids content, require different
techniques from those required
for the cleaner effluent streams or
industrial wastewaters for which
the protocols were originally
developed. To assure that
repeatable and accurate results
are obtained throughout the
duration of the 40-plant study, the
samples collected during the pilot
work were provided to analytical
laboratories for the experimental
development of new protocol
procedures. Replicate analyses
were completed using different
methods in order to develop
appropriate procedures to be used
for the full study.
Fate of Priority Pollutants in
POTW's
A further goal of the pilot program
was to develop preliminary
conclusions on the fate of the
priority pollutants in POTW's.
These conclusions will be
substantiated as the sampling
progresses through the 40-plant
schedule and a detailed technical
report will be forthcoming after
completion of the project.
-------
PLANT SELECTION
For the pilot study, two
conventional activated sludge
facilities were chosen for
evaluation. Plant A is a 120
Mgal/d design capacity plant with
approximately 70 percent of its
organic loading and 30 percent of
its flow contributed by industry,
while Plant B is a 15 Mgal/d
design capacity plant with approx-
imately 2 percent industrial flow.
The following is a characteriza-
tion of the two POTW's sampled
during the pilot study.
Plant A
The design capacity of Plant A is
300 Mgal/d primary flow and 120
Mgal/d secondary flow. Under
normal dry weather conditions,
the flow through this system
varies between 85 percent to 90
percent of its secondary capacity.
During the first week of sampling
at the plant, the flow averaged
only 91.0 Mgal/d.
The original primary treatment
facility was constructed in 1924,
and most of the sewers are as old
or older than the primary system.
It is estimated that the collection
system is 60 percent separate
sewers and 40 percent combined
sewers.
The treatment unit operations at
this conventional activated sludge
POTW begin with gravity flow
from the drainage area to the bar
screens and grit chambers, from
which lift pumps elevate the
wastewater for gravity flow
through the rest of the plant. After
the lift pumps, the wastewater
passes through pre-aeration,
primary settling, clarification, and
into the aeration chambers. After
aeration, clarification, and
chlorination, the wastewater is
discharged to a local stream.
Sludge handling at this POTW
involves primary sludge
thickening by gravity thickeners,
secondary sludge thickening by
dissolved air flotation (DAF),
vacuum filtration and
incineration. During the sampling
period at Plant A, the primary
sludge flow averaged 325,000
gal/d and the secondary (waste
activated) sludge flow averaged
1.5 Mgal/d.
Industrial contributions to the
flow are primarily from several
major industries: pharmaceutical
manufacture, petrochemicals,
plating operations, and
automotive foundries. Also
contributing to Plant A's sewage
collection system are some coking
operations and some food
processing plants.
Plant B
The design capacity of Plant B is
15 Mgal/d, but under normal
operations between 8 and 10
Mgal/d receive secondary
treatment. During the sampling
period of this pilot study the
influent flow to the facility
averaged 8.09 Mgal/d
(56,635,000 gallons during the
period August 6 to 13, 1978). This
18-year-old treatment facility
(updated and expanded most
recently in 1973) is designed for a
discharge with an effluent quality
of not more tha n 10 mg/l
biochemical oxygen demand and
12 mg/l of suspended solids. The
average biochemical oxygen
demand and total suspended
solids discharges during the week
of sampling were 25 mg/l and 19
mg/l, respectively.
-------
The treatment unit operations
utilized at this conventional
activated sludge facility are as
follows: Wastewater flows from
the sewer system to a diversion
chamber from which it is pumped
to a height which allows gravity
flow to the rest of the plant. The
wastewaterthen passes through
parallel detritus tanks (grit
chambers), comminutors, pre-
aeration chambers and into the
primary settling tank. After
primary settling, wastewater
flows to the aeration tanks,
secondary settling, chlorination,
and is discharged.
The primary sludge flow at this
POTW is pumped to sludge
holding tanks where it is
combined with the thickened (via
DAF) waste activated sludge.
From this point, the combined
sludge passes to the sludge
conditioning facilities where it is
heated and pressurized prior to
vacuum filtration. The decant
from the sludge conditioning
system and the filtrate is either
returned to the sludge
conditioning building, or bled to
the head of the aeration tanks.
The filter cake is incinerated with
the resulting ash being slurried to
a diked lagoon on the plant
property.
During the sampling period, the
primary sludge flow averaged
29,400 gal/d (205,860 gallons
over the 7-day period). Sludge
was usually pumped once per 8-
hour work shift, and samples
were taken during each pumping.
The waste activated sludge was
usually wasted only one time per
week; the one time it was pumped
during the sampling period, a
sample was collected after 1:he
pumping. The estimated flow
during that one pumping was
8,000 gallons. (No accurate flow
reading for this pumping was
available.)
The sewer system for Plant B
consists primarily of combined
sewers, broken down into four
main trunk lines covering the far
sections of the 29.4-square mile
(or 22.5 according to POTW
handout) drainage area. The
sewer lines are mostly concrete
construction and average 20
years in age, with some lines
being over 50 years old. The age
of the sewer lines accounts for
the estimate that as much as 40
to 50 percent of the total flow to
the POTW can be attributed to
infiltration in the subsystems and
interceptors, according to the
facilities plan, completed under
the authority of Section 201 of the
Clean Water Act (PL 95-217).
The industrial contribution to the
wastewater flow to Plant B can be
considered minimal, because the
areawide waste treatment
management plan under Section
208 of the Clean Water Act lists
the zoning breakdown of the
drainage area as 96.6 percent
residential, 1.0 percent retail
business and offices, and 2.4
percent industrial. The industries
associated with this drainage
area are grain elevators, oil and
fuel terminals, machine tool and
metalworking companies, box and
insulation companies, and one
major chemical facility with its
own National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) dis-
charge permit. With such a small
industrial flow, Plant B is con-
sidered to give a general approxi-
mation of a typical residential
treatment facility.
-------
IV. SAMPLE POINT
DESCRIPTION
In an effort to determine the
priority pollutant loads on the
different waste streams within
the two POTW's studied, several
additional sample points were
selected that would not normally
be evaluated. The results of these
analyses will be discussed in a
following section of this report.
At Plant A, nine sampling points
were used, as listed in Table IV-1.
Samples were taken on seven
consecutive days at the major
points (influent, sludges,
effluent), and an additional seven
consecutive days at the influent
only. (Extra influent samples were
taken for analyses of 8-hour
versus 24-hour compositing of
influent. See Section VII.)
TABLE IV-1. SAMPLING FREQUENCY AT PLANT A
Grabs for VGA, O&G
Point
Influent
Effluent
before
Chlorination
Final
Effluent
Primary
Sludge
Secondary
Sludge
Floatables
(scum)
Combined
Sludge
Tap Water
Vacuum Filter
Filtrate
Collection Method
Automatic Sampler
Automatic Sampler
Automatic Sampler
Manual Composite
Automatic Sampler
Manual Composite
Manual Composite
One Time Grab
One Time Grab
Cn and Phenol
6 times daily
6 times daily1
6 times daily
6 times daily3
6 times daily3
6 times daily3
None (proportion
of primary
secondary)
One Time Grab
One Time Grab
• l f"" *" «
Composite Samples
3, 8-hr composites
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
N/A
N/A
Duration
7 days
days 5-72
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
1 day
1 day
'Volatile organic analysis (VOA) grabs only
2Chlorination system was not operative day 1, and had chlorine leaks days 234
3Composited by laboratory
-------
At Plant B, seven separate waste
streams were sampled, as listed
in Table IV-2. As at Plant A, seven
days of sampling were
undertaken at Plant B to observe
variations over the course of a
complete week.
Each sample point that was
chosen best characterized the
wastewater at a particular stage
of treatment. An effort was made
to choose the sample points in
such a way that any extraneous
factors which might affect the
validity of the sample would be
eliminated. This involved
selecting sampling points that
allowed collection of samples
before settling, volatilization, or
contamination from other waste
streams could occur. In instances
where more than one parallel
stream flowed through the same
treatment process, the sample
was taken at the junction of the
parallel streams if it was
accessible. In all sampling, the
EPA procedure for obtaining
screening samples was used as
the guide for gathering samples,
and any deviation from the
aforementioned procedure was
documented.
The individual sampling points
used at Plant A and nature of the
wastewater that was sampled
were as follows:
Plant A
Influent
Influent samples were obtained
from one of four parallel flow grit
chambers (usually only two in
operation at one time) after the
bar screens. The influent flow to
Plant A was pumped to a wet
well. From there it flowed by
gravity and was split into several
parallel streams prior to passing
through the bar screens and into
the grit chamber. An automatic
sampler was set up at the grit
chamber (Figure IV-1) to draw
equal aliquots over the 8-hour
composite period during the first
week and over the 24-hour
composite period during the
second week. Tubing for the
samples was positioned inside a
fixed conduit which was mounted
to the safety railing around the
grit chambers in such a way that
the conduit could be adjusted
vertically to keep the submerged
end approximately one foot below
the surface of the flow in the grit
chamber. The daily flow
fluctuations and the adjustments
and openings and closings of the
other grit chambers would affect
the level of the flow in the grit
chamber from which the sample
was being extracted. Thus, to
keep the exposed end of the
TABLE IV-2. SAMPLING FREQUENCY AT PLANT B.
Grabs for VOA, O&G
Type of
Point
Influent
Effluent
before
Chlorination
Final
Effluent
Combined
Sludge
Secondary
Sludge
Collection Method
Automatic Sampler
Automatic Sampler
Automatic Sampler
Manual Composite
One Time Grab
Cn and Phenol
6 times daily
6 times daily
6 times daily
3 times daily1
One Time Grab
Composite Samples
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
24 hr
N/A
Duration
7 days
7 days
7 days
7 days
1 day
Secondary
Sludge after
DAF thickening
Tap Water
One Time Grab One Time Grab
One Time Grab
One Time Grab
N/A
N/A
1 day
1 day
'Composited by laboratory
8
-------
Figure IV-1. Influent sampling point
at Plant A.
sample tubing below the top layer
of wastewater flow, the conduit
was checked and adjusted, if
necessary, at least once every
four hours. Samples for the
fractions that were not
automatically composited were
grabbed via a glass dipping
pitcher at the sample midstream
point where the tubing was
positioned. Influent flow readings
were supplied by the treatment
plant after the sampling period
was complete.
Primary Sludge
Samples for the primary sludge
were taken from the main line
between the primary settling
tanks and the sludge conditioning
system. Samples were taken
every four hours for both the
composites and the grabs, with
the composite portion of the
sample being held in a 3-gallon
container and kept on ice at the
sample point. A sludge flow
totalizer was located adjacent to
the sample valve and provided
sludge flow information for each
sample period.
Floatables (Scum)
The floatables samples, which
were taken from the primary
settling tanks, represented the
material which had been
skimmed off the tanks and had
accumulated at the discharge end
of the primaries. These samples
were obtained by manually
dipping into this floating layer
each sample period.
Secondary (Waste Activated)
Sludge
The secondary sludge samples
were taken from a lift pump
tower. This tower provided the
only access point to the secondary
sludge before it flowed (by gravity)
to the DAF thickener. An
automatic sampler was set up on
this tower to obtain the composite
samples. Totalizer readings were
read at the secondary control
building and were recorded for
each sample period.
Combined Sludge
The combined sludge sample was
a flow-proportioned composite
sample of the primary and waste
activated sludges. A total of 1600
ml of sludge was composited for
each 4-hour grab sample period.
The ratio of primary sludge to
waste activated sludge was
determined by the flow rate of
each sludge during the preceding
four hours. Each sludge allotment
was measured in a graduated
beaker and transferred to a 3-
gallon container for storage in an
ice bath for the 24-hour sample
period.
Pre-chlorinated Effluent
Samples of the pre-chlorinated
effluent were taken immediately
upstream of the chlorination
point. The chlorine is added to the
effluent stream underground, and
a piece of conduit was positioned
at the sample point with the
instream end upstream of the
chlorine contact point.
Chlorination facilities were not
operational during the first few
days of the sampling and,
consequently, no samples of the
pre-chlorinated effluent were
obtained until July 26. Once the
sampling was begun at this point,
-------
a small chlorine gas leak
developed, and it was judged
unsafe to enter the 10-foot access
hole to gather the grab samples.
To remedy this problem, an
additional sampler was set up to
collect the grab fraction samples
(volatile organic analyses—VGA's
only)from the stream and deliver
them to the surface.
Final Effluent
The final effluent sample point
was located at the discharge end
of the chlorine contact chamber,
just prior to the overflow weir to
the river. Composite samples,
where appropriate, were collected
with an automatic sampler,
utilizing a conduit to fix the intake
tube's position.
Vacuum Filter Filtrate
One grab sample was taken of the
vacuum fijter filtrate from the
vacuum discharge line in the filter
building. (All sample bottles were
filled as grabs at this one time.)
Each filling yielded approximately
250 ml of sample. No values for
the flow of this waste stream
were available.
Tap Water
A single grab sample for all
parameters was taken of the tap
water in the Plant's laboratory
sink. The sample point was
considered representative of the
city water supply.
The individual sampling points at
Plants and the nature of the
wastewater sampled are as
follows:
Plant B
Influent
The influent sample point was at
the head end of the grit chambers
(detritus tanks). At this point an
automatic sampler was set up
with the sample tubing secured
inside a stationary conduit so as
to maintain the wetted end in a
position in the center of the
turbulent zone. This area was
subject to surges of wastewater
flow, and a secure placement of
the tubing was the only way to
obtain a representative sample of
the infI uent. The grab fractions for
the influent were obtained via a
glass pitcher which was dipped
directly into the wastewater. Flow
readings of the inf I uent flow rates
were supplied by the treatment
plant after the sampling period
had been completed. Additional
parallel sampling at the sampling
point was done by another EPA
contractor who is also sampling
wastewater collection systems for
priority pollutants.
Combined Sludge
The combined sludge sample was
to be a flow composite of the
primary sludge and the secondary
sludge, but until the last day of
sampling, there was no secondary
sludge being wasted. Thus, the
sludge sample for the first six of
seven days was only primary
sludge, and the seventh sample
was a flow-proportioned
composite of both the primary and
secondary sludges.
The primary sludge sample point
was a tap off of the sludge pump
which was used to transport the
primary sludge from the raw
sludge well to the sludge holding
tanks. The pumping of the sludge
was not a continuous operation
and required that samples be
taken during the three daily
pumping periods. The samples
were grabbed from the tap on the
pump (after an appropriate purge
time) after an initial startup period
of between 10 and 1 5 minutes
and before the end of the
pumping period when the sludge
would become too watery to yield
a representative sample. The
primary sludge flow was read in
the sludge pumping building each
time a sample was grabbed.
The secondary sludge samples
were taken only on the last day of
sampling, as this was the only
time during the 7-day sampling
period when any secondary
si udge was wasted. Two samples
of the secondary sludge were
grabbed, one before and one after
the thickening process. With each
sample, an appropriate amount
(by flow) was composited with the
primary sludge sample for that .
time period. The secondary sludge
sample prior to thickening was
grabbed as it flowed into the
holding tank (after pumping from
secondary clarif iers). The
secondary sludge sample, after
thickening, was grabbed by
dipping into the surface layer of
thickened sludge on the discharge
end of the sludge thickening unit.
No accurate flow measurements
of the flow of this secondary
sludge were available. Therefore,
an operator estimate was used for
the flow information.
10
-------
Pre-chlorinated Effluent
The pre-chlorinated effluent
sample point was located in the
discharge trough of the secondary
clarifiers after all the flows of the
clarifiers had converged and were
flowing to the chlorination
chamber. An automatic sampler
was set up at this point (Figure
IV-2) to obtain the composite
sample. The automatic sampler
tubing was also secured with
conduit facing into the
wastewater flow. The grab
samples were taken at the same
sample point.
Final Effluent
The final effluent sampling point
was at the overflow weir of the
chlorine contact chamber just
prior to the flow into the
discharge flume (Figure IV-3). The
sample point was approximately
20 feet below ground level, and
samples were collected with an
automatic sampler and a glass
beaker dipping pole. As with the
other automatic sampler points,
the sampler tubing was rigidly
held by a fixed piece of conduit
facing upstream.
Tap Water
One tap water sample was taken
at Plant B to obtain background
information on the city water
supply. The sample point chosen
was the water tap in the sludge
concentration tank's control
building, which was being used
as a staging area by the sampling
crew. Each of the sample bottles
was filled directly from the tap.
Figure IV-2. Prechlorinated effluent sampling point Plant B.
77
-------
Figure IV-3. Final effluent sampling
point Plant B.
12
-------
V. SAMPLING
Sampling Frequency
The sampling activities at both of
the pilot study POTW's were
scheduled over a 1 -week period
so that information could be
gathered on operational and
pollutant loading variations on
individual days.
Sampling at Plant Aspanned 14
days, Saturday, July 22,1978 to
Saturday, August 5, 1978, with
the general all-points samplng
taking place only during the first
seven days and sampling of the
influent only during the second
seven days. Similarly, at Plant B,
the seven days of sampling were
Sunday, August 6,1978 to
Sunday, August 13, 1978.
To obtain a cross section of
pollutant levels through the
treatment plants, multiple grabs
were taken during each 24-hour
sampling period (0800-0800). As
a result, grab samples were taken
six times daily (1000, 1400, 1800,
2200, 0200, 0600). During the
second week at Plant A when only
the influent was being sampled,
grab times were moved ahead
two hours to coincide with the 24-
hour composite (0800,1200,
1600, 2000, 2400, 0400).
Sampling Techniques
Identical sampling techniques
were used at both POTW's
throughout the study, and unless
noted below, sampling protocols
developed by the EPA were
followed.
To obtain the most representative
sample from each sample point,
automatic samplers (Figure V-1)
were used wherever possible to
gather frequent, equal-sized
sample aliquots. This procedure
was only possible where flows
were continuous and accessible
to automatic sampling equipment.
At each POTW, the influent and
effluent streams were easily
accessible and could be sampled
at points where the flow was
representative of the total plant
influent and effluents, respective-
ly. On the other hand, a sample
point for primary sludge at Plant A
posed special problems where
waste flow was confined to a
pipe; thus, as a result, the only
feasible method for retrieving a
sample involved opening a gate
valve. Because the valve tended
to clog, repeated opening and
closing was required to avoid
backups or blockages. For such
sample points manual
compositing had to be employed.
Each sample point presented its
own peculiarities and had to be
handled individually. No single
standard technique coud be
developed to cover all sample
points under all situations.
Sample Collection Procedures
For those samples which could be
collected using automatic
samplers, tubing was changed
once per day, and sampler blanks
were run at the beginning of each
day's new composite. The
automatic samplers were
calibrated to pull sample aliquots
of at least 100 ml at time intervals
not to exceed 30 minutes.
Composites in the automatic
samplers were collected in 2.5-
gallon glass jars which were kept
in an ice bath at 4°C for the entire
24-hour period of sampling.
13
-------
Figure V-1. Automatic sampler.
For those composite samples
which could not be gathered by
automatic samplers, aliquots
were taken with the regular grab
samples and composited into jugs
which were kept in an ice bath at
4°C.
At sample points in the two pilot
study POTW's, except for the two
tap water sample points and the
vacuum filter filtrate sample point
at Plant A, the sample containers
were filled via an intermediate
gathering beaker of glass or
stainless steel. The intermediate
beakers were used to obtain the
most representative sample,
while maintaining accuracy and
safety. Safety was an important
factor, since many sampling
points were constructed in a
fashion that precluded direct
collection of grab samples. Stain-
less steel and glass beakers were
used exclusively as the interme-
diate beakers because these two
materials are defined in the EPA
sampling protocol as having
characteristics such that they will
not contaminate the samples, nor
will they contribute any extra
pollutants by deterioration or
breakdown that might be detected
in the wastewater analysis. Each
sample point at each plant had its
own beaker to eliminate cross
contamination, and each
sampling container was
thoroughly rinsed with new
sample prior to each sample
collection.
14
-------
At the two tap water sample
points the flow from the taps
could be regulated so as to
facilitate direct filling of the
sample containers. At the vacuum
filter filtrate sample point in Plant
A, the only way to obtain a sample
was off of the vacuum line. By
inserting a plastic bottle (which
had been used repeatedly for this
purpose) into an exposed air port,
a disruption of the vacuum
caused some of the filtrate to be
deposited in the bottle. This
plastic bottle was thoroughly
rinsed with sample prior to each
use.
Protocol and Protocol
Modifications
Samples from both plants were
collected in accordance with EPA
protocols, including the proper
preparation of bottles, the
addition of prescribed
preservatives and the collection of
appropriate sampler blanks. All
samples were shipped by air to
the appropriate laboratories
within prescribed time limits and
were analyzed according to
protocols for organic analysis.
Metals from influent and effluent
samples were analyzed according
to protocols developed by EPA for
priority pollutants. Metals from
influent and effluent samples
were analyzed by EPA's Region
VII laboratory, using Plasma
Atomic Emission Spectroscopy
supplemented with flameless
atomic absorption spectrophoto-
metry, where appropriate.
Organic priority pollutants from
influent and effluent samples
were analyzed by an EPA contract
laboratory utilizing liquid-liquid
extraction and gas chromatog-
raphy-mass spectroscopy (gc-ms)
for the acid and base neutral
fractions, electron capture gas
chromatography for pesticides,
and purge and trap followed by
gc-ms for volatile organics. All
sludge samples were analyzed bv
the EPA contractor laboratory
who developed some of the
specific protocols for priority
pollutant analysis of sludge
samples during the study.
Conventional pollutant analyses
for all samples were performed by
a branch office of this same
laboratory in a different city.
The aforementioned protocol was
followed as closely as possible
during the pilot study but, in
certain instances, modifications
were required to suit individual
sampling situations. Specific
modifications to the protocol are
discussed below.
The protocol states that Teflon
tubing should be used on ail
automatic sampler applications.
For this initial screening vinyl
tubing was used instead. This
tubing was thoroughly purged
with distilled water prior to its
use, and a sampler blank was run
on each piece of tubing daily at
each site before the sampler was
started.
The method of grabbing samples
via an intermediate vessel is a
modification to the protocol for
fractions such as oil and grease,
where the sample container is
supposed to be filled directly from
the wastewater stream. This
modification was made for safety
and practical reasons since
positioning of the sample
container into most of these
waste streams was either
impossible or very dangerous, and
the induced error through use of
an intermediate beaker was of
lesser consequence. In all cases
where an intermediate beaker
was used, it was used exclusively
at one point for the duration of
sampling at the plant, and it was
repeatedly purged with fresh
sample at each sample period.
15
-------
VI. DATA SUMMARY
Major Trends
The priority pollutants detected in
the influents, effluents, and
sludges of the two pilot POTW's
are depicted in Tables VI-1 and
VI-2. These tables point out the
predominance of the solvents and
the phthalates in the influents. In
Plant A's influent, eight of the ten
most prominant pollutants were
solvents, with only one phthalate
and phenol detected in more than
80 percent of the samples. In
Plant B, the smaller industrial
contribution is evident in that only
six of the ten most prominent
pollutants are solvents, with the
remaining four being phthalates.
Phenol was not among the ten
most common pollutants at Plant
B.
The sludge and effluent data in
these tables also showthat many
priority pollutants are
concentrated in residues, while
others are removed by different
mechanisms.
The occurrence of selected
conventional and priority
pollutants in Plant A's influent,
effluent and sludges is
presented in Section VII. The
organic pollutants with the
highest concentration in the
influent were benzene, 1,1,1 tri-
chloroethane, chloroform, ethyl-
benzene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, tetrachloroethylene,
toluene and trichloroethylene. All
of these parameters were
reduced by an average of 50
percent or more during treatment,
and all except chloroform were
detected in one or more of the
sludges. Metallic priority
pollutants which occurred at
relatively high levels in Plant A's
influent included chromium,
copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
These metals were all reduced at
least 50 percent during
treatment, and all were detected
at high levels in both the primary
and secondary sludge.
A data summary of the weekly
average concentration of selected
conventional and priority
pollutants from Plant B is
presented in Section VII. No
organic priority pollutant occurred
at an average of over 20jug/l in
the plant's influent. The organic
pollutants which were present in
the highest concentrations,
however, were benzene,
methylene chloride, and bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate. Methylene
chloride values must be viewed
with some suspicion since this
substance was used as a bottle
preparation additive. Metallic
priority pollutants which were
present at over 50/*g/l in the
influent included chromium,
copper, cyanide and zinc. (For this
discussion, cyanide has been
classified as a metallic priority
pollutant.)
16
-------
TABLE VI-1
SUMMARY
PERCENT DCCURENCES OF ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PLANT A
PP PARAMETER NAME
86 TOLUENE
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETI-IYLENE
23 CHLOROFORM
4 BENZENE
66 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
65 PHENOL
38 ETHYLBENZENE
11 lil» 1-TR.T.CHLOROETI-IANE
29 lyl-BICHLOROETHYLENE
68 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
55 NAPHTHALENE
30 1P2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
31 PHENANTHRENE
78 ANTHRACENE
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
25 1.2-DICHLOROBENZENE
71 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
27 1.4-DICHLOROBENZENE
84 PYRENE
80 FLUORENE
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
39 FLUORANTHENE
26 1>3-DICHLOROBENZENE
13 l^l-DICHLOROETHANE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
76 CHRYSENE
72 ii.2-BENZANTHRACENE
43 BIS(2-CHLOROETHYOXY> METHANE
6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
1 ACENAPHTHENE
14 l»ly2-TRICHLOROETHANE
83 INBENO(lr2,3-C»n) PYRENE
82 1»2:5,6-DIBENZANTHRACENE
79 1»12-BENZOPERYLENE
77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
69 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
52 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
45 CHLOROMETHANE
32 1.2-DICHLOROPROPANE
22 PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
21 2r4i.6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
9 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
8 l»2ir4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
10 1.2-BICHLOROETHANE
74 3r4-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
34 2,4-D-IMETHYLPHENOL
28 3r3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
24 2-CHLOROPHENOL
3 ACRYLONITRILE
INFLUENT
SAMPLES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
(PERCENT;
FINAL EFFLUENT
SAMPLES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
(PERCENT)
41
41
41
41
41
41
21
21
41
41
41
21
21
41
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
*•*!
41
41
21
2d
21
41
21
4:1
"2. 1
21
21
21
21
21
41
41
21
21
21
21
41
41
41
21
41
21
21
21
41
41(100)
41(100)
40 (
40(
40 (
40 (
20 (
20 (
37 (
35 (
32 (
16<
16(
31(
15 (
ISC
:l.3(
9(
8(
8(
8(
7(
6(
6(
6(
5(
8(
6,(
2(
2(
2(
4(
2(
3C
1(
1(
1(
1(
1(
1(
2(
2(
1(
1(
1C
1C
1(
1(
1C
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
98)
98)
98)
98)
95)
95)
90)
85)
78)
76)
76)
76)
71)
71)
62)
43)
38)
38)
38)
33)
29)
29)
29)
24)
20)
15)
10)
10)
10)
10)
10)
7>
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
5)
2)
2)
2)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
40
40
40
40
40
40
7
7
40
40
40
7
7
40
7
7
~t
7
7
7
7
7.
7
7
7
7
7
40
7
7
7
40
7
4O
7
7
7
7
7
7
40
7
7
7
7
7
40
40
40
7
40
7
7
7
40
38 (
39 (
36 (
39(
39 C
18(
95)
98)
90)
98)
98)
45)
7(100)
7(100)
25 (
30 (
33(
4(
3(
7(
3(
3C
2(
1(
1C
3(
2 (
4C
1(
1(
3(
1(
0(
1C
1(
1(
0(
0(
0(
QC
1C
1C
0(
0(
1(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
2(
9(
0(
0(
2(
1(
1(
1C
0(
63)
75)
83!
57)
43)
18)
43)
43)
29)
14)
14)
43)
29)
57)
14)
14)
43)
14)
0)
3)
14)
14)
0)
0)
0)
0)
14)
14)
0)
0)
14)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
. 0)
5)
23)
0)
0)
5)
14)
14)
14)
0)
PRIMARY SLUDGE
SAMPLES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
(PERCENT)
SECONDARY SLUDGE
SAMPLES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
(PERCENT)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)'
7(100)
0( 0)
7(100)
6( 86)
2( 29)
7(100)
4C 57)
2( 29)
0( 0)
5( 71)
3( 43)
6C 86)
6( 86)
CM 0)
CM 0)
0( 0)
1( 14)
0( 0)
<5( 86)
3( 43)
1( 14)
0( 0)
0( 0)
4( 57)
0( 0)
6( 86)
6( 86)
0( 0)
2< 29)
0( 0)
O( O)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
7(100)
0( 0)
5( 71)
3( 43)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
5'
7
7
7
5
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
?j
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
7
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
40
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
7
5
5
S
7
2( 29)
7C100)
1C 14)
5(
0(
4(
2<
1(
2(
0(
0(
0(
1(
0(
2(
2(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
OC
1(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
2(
0(
OC
1(
1(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
0(
OC
0(
0(
0(
0(
6(
OC
1C
4C
0(
OC
0(
1(
71)
0)
57)
40)
20)
29)
0)
0)
0)
20)
0)
40)
40)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
20)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
29)
0)
0)
20)
20)
-0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
86)
0)
20)
57)
0)
0)
0)
14)
NOTES:
ALL UNITS UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NOT DECTED IN ANY SAMPLES
17
-------
TABLE VI-2
SUMMARY
PERCENT OCCURENCES OF ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
PLANT B
PP
PARAMETER NAME
67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
66 BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
23 CHLOROFORM
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
60- DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
25 1»2-BICHLOROBENZENE
86 TOLUENE
4 BENZENE
69 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
65 PHENOL
55 NAPHTHALENE
84 PYRENE
81 PHENANTHRENE
78 ANTHRACENE
71 BIMETHYL PHTHALATE
39 FLUORANTHENE
38 ETHYLBENZENE
29 Irl-BltHLOROETHYLENE
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
11 Irlrl-TRICHLOROETHANE
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
54 ISOPHORONE
36 2»6-DINITROTOLUENE
27 1»4-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 lr3-BICHLOROBENZENE
10 lr2-DICHLOROETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLOROBIBROMOMETHANE
13 Ifl-BICHLQROETHANE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
32 lr2-DICHLOROPROPANE
77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
76 CHRYSENE
74 3r4-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
72 1,2-BENZANTHRACENE
58 4-NITROPHENOL
57 2-NITROPHENOL
28 3r3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
3 ACRYLONITRILE
INFLUENT
SAMPLES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
-------
VII. ANALYSIS OF
RESULTS
Fate of Priority Pollutants
Impact of Industrial
Contribution on Influent Quality
As previously outlined. Plant A
accepts a large proportion of its
total flow from industrial sources,
whereas Plant B treats practically
no heavy industrial wastewater.
Tables VII-1 and VII-2 summarize
the individual influent data points
for these two plants. An examina-
tion of the two tables shows a
significantly higher incidence of
priority pollutants in Plant A as
compared to Plant B. In total, 52
organic priority pollutants were
found in the Plant A influent,
while in the Plant B raw
wastewater only 33 were
detected. Similarly at Plant A, 18
organic priority pollutants were
measured at above the detection
limit, but at Plant B only five were
found at above detectable levels.
It was also found that Plant A
influent contained 21 organic
priority pollutants which were
absent in the Plant B influent;
only two organic priority pollu-
tants were found exclusively in
the Plant B raw wastewater.
Twenty organics found in both
raw wastewaters had higher
average concentrations in the
Plant A influent, but only six
organic priority pollutants
common to both raw wastewater
streams were more concentrated
in the Plant B influent. It is also
interesting to note that 13 of the
20 organics found at higher
average concentrations in the
predominantly industrial Plant A
influent are solvents.
Nine metallic priority pollutants
were detected in the influents to
both plants. Seven of these were
found to have higher average
concentrations in both influents;
only zinc was measured at a
higher level in Plant B, as
compared to Plant A influent. It
should be noted that the tradi-
tional (conventional and non-
conventional) pollutant
parameters (BOD, COD, TSS,
residue, etc.) were also
consistently higher in the Plant A
raw wastewater, as compared to
the PlantB influent.
Removal of Priority Pollutants
Tables VII-3 and VII-4 depict
percent removals for conven-
tional, non-conventional and
priority pollutants at Plants A and
B. During the week of sampling.
Plant A achieved good removals
of conventional pollutants. BOD
was reduced from an average
influent concentration of 201
mg/l to 13 mg/l (94 percent) and
TSS from 140 mg/l to 20 mg/l
(86 percent). Priority pollutant
metals that were present in
detectable amounts were also
removed reasonably well.
Antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
selenium and thallium were
never found above their detection
limits in influent or effluent
samples and percent removals
could not be calculated.
Chromium and copper both were
reduced to less than 50#g/l (90
and 86 percent removal, respec-
tively). Cadmium, nickel, and zinc
were removed somewhat less
effectively (59 to 65 percent each,
on an average). Lead and silver
were both reduced to below their
detection limits, accounting for
the wide range shown in VII-3 for
their percent removals. Nine
organic priority pollutants were
detected in Plant A's influent at
an average of over 10/xg/l. Eight
of the nine (benzene; 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethylene; chloroform; ethyl-
benzene; bis(2-ethylhexyl)
19
-------
PLANT A
TABLE VII-1
PERCENT OCCURENCES FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
SAMPLE POINT: INFLUENT
5/30/79
pp
PARAMETER
1 ACENAPHTHENE
4 BENZENE
6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
8 l,2r4-TRICHLO
9 IIEXACHLOROBENZENE
10 lr2-BICHLOROETHANE
11 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
13 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
14 l,lr2-TRICHLOROETHANE
21 2»4f6-TRICHLDROPHENOL
22 PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
23 CHLOROFORM
25 lr2-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 1»3-DICHLOROBENZENE
27 1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
29 Irl-DICHLOROETHYLENE
30 1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROE
32 lr2-DICHLOROPROPANE
38 ETHYLBENZENE
39 FLUORANTHENE
43 BIS<2~CHLOROETHYOXY>
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
45 CHUOROMETHANE
47 BRQMOFORM
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
52 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
55 NAPHTHALENE
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
63 PHENOL
66 BIS(2-ETHYLH
67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
69 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
71 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
72 1»2-BENZANTHRACENE
73 BENZO (A)PYRENE
76 CHRYSENE
77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
78 ANTHRACENE
79 lr!2-BENZOPERYLENE
80 FL.UORENE
81 PHENANTHRENE
82 1,2JS,6-DIBE
83 INDENO<1»2»3
84 PYRENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
86 TOLUENE
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
114 ANTIMONY
115 ARSENIC
117 BERYLLIUM
118 CADMIUM
119 CHROMIUM
120 COPPER
121 CYANIDE
122 LEAB
123 MERCURY
124 NICKEL
125 SELENIUM
126 SILVER
127 THALLIUM
NUfliStK Ul
SAMPLES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
CPERCENT)
28 2C 7)
82 81C 99)
(IDE 82 6C 7>
82 9C 11)
iNZENE 28 1C 4)
r 28 1C 4)
JE 82 1C 1)
fHANE 82 71 C 87)
v(E 82 19C 23)
PHANE 82 3C 4)
•4ENOL ^^ •' C 4 )
jtreni
\E^DU1_
ENE
~NE
~NE
LENE
ROETHYLENE
ftNE
DXY> METHANE
DE
LJAMp
MHiNC,
PTHAWP
c, 1 nHJXG
HANE
ENE
L
> PHTHALATE
HALATE
LATE
LATE
E
:TE
NE
'WP
,nG
ITHRACENE
l) PYRENE
.ENE
IE
28
82
28
28
28
82
82
82
82
28
28
82
82
82
82
82
82
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
?R
] CO CO M CM CM f
i c-j « ro co co r-
23
23
23
23
23
84
23
23
23
23
23
23
NOTES: i> ALL UNITS
2) METALS AND
3) POLLUTANTS
4) PP
N-D
LT
1C 4)
79 C 96)
15C 54)
6C 21)
14C 50)
60 C 73)
69C 84)
2C 2)
75C 91)
8C 29)
2C 7)
82 C 100)
2C 2)
1C 1)
1C 1)
2C 2)
1C 1)
1C 4)
23 C 82)
7C 25)
27 C 96)
26 C 93)
11C 39)
19C 68)
1C 4)
17C 61)
11C 39)
5C 18)
1C 4)
5C 18)
1C 4)
21C 75)
1C 4)
8C 29)
21C 75)
2C 7)
2C 7)
IOC 36)
SIC 99)
81C 99)
SIC 99)
TIMES
DETECTED
ABOVE MIN,
OC 0)
45 C 55)
1C 1)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
45 C 55)
OC 0)
1 C 1 )
OC 0)
OC 0)
67 C 82)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
5( 6)
18 C 22)
OC 0)
28 C 34)
OC 0)
OC 0)
20C 24)
OC 0>
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
1C 4)
OC 0)
9C 32)
14 C 50)
1C 4)
1C 4)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
1C 4)
58 C 71)
56 C 68)
49C 60)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
21C 91)
23C100)
23C100)
57 C 68)
16C 70)
15C 65)
22 C 96)
OC 0)
18C 78)
OC 0)
IN UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE
CLASSICAL POLLUTANTS ARE
NOT DETECTED
- PRIORITY POLLUTANT
AVERAGE
0- 1
288- 292
0- 1
0- 1
0- 1
0- 1
0- 1
15- 18
1 -" *•*
LT 3
0- 1
0-
43-
1-
1 —
1-
4-
0-
21-
1-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
1-
13-
25-
1"
0-
1-
1-
0-
0-
0-
0-
1-
0-
1-
b-
0-
47-
35-
28-
•1-
1--
LT
124-
55-
0.0-
LT
1-
LT
1
44
5
2
5
7
11
1
27
2
1
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
2
19
29
4
8
1
6
3
1
1
1
1
7
1
2
7
1
1
6
50
38
32
50
50
2
12
450
191
128
61
0.3
98
50
8
50
NOTED
NEVER REPORTED
MEDIAN
X-D
37
N-D
N--D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
AS NOT
N-D
21
10
N-D
5
10
10
N-D
10
N-D
MINIMUM
N-D
N-D
N-D
. N-JJ
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10 LT
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
10
5
N-D
10
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
16
13
11
SO
SO
2
9
372
154
24
41
0.3
66
50
9
50
DETECTED
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-b
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
50
SO
2
2
63
35
10
20
0.2
10
50
'?
SO
MAXIMUM
LT 10
5600
39
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
LT 10
220
LT 10
270
LT 10
LT
LT
LT
LT
•LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT,
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
1O
440
10
10
10
15
64
10
890
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
10
10
13
10
200
250
12
44
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
84
1500
440
440
50
50
2
39
1360
864
1280
216
0.8
347
50
18
50
ARE NOT LISTED
NUMBER
- NOT DETECTED
- LESS
THAN
20
-------
PLANT A
pp
PARAMETER
TABLE VII-1
PERCENT OCCURENCES FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
SAMPLE POINT: INFLUENT
SAMPLES TIMES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED DETECTED
(PERCENT! ABOVE HIM.
5/30/79
128 ZINC
BOD(MG-L)
COD(MG-L)
TOC(MG-L)
OIL X GREASE(MG-L)
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL SOLIDS(MG-L)
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS(MG-L)
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS(MG-L)
TOTAL VOL. SUS. SOLIDS(MG-L)
AMMONIA NITROGEN
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
IRON
MANGANESE
CALCIUM(MG-L)
MAGNESIUM(MG-L)
NOTES!
23
27
26
27
78
S3
27
27
27
27
27
23
23
23
23
23
23
23(100)
27(100)
26(100)
27(100)
78(100)
82( 99)
27(100)
27(100)
27(100)
27(100)
27(100)
23(100)
23(100)
23(100)
23(100)
23(100)
23(100)
AVERAGE
LT
264
215
•131
205
49
129
939
175
252
113
7230
1460
129
2990
104
83
27
MEDIAN
258
180
435
240
40
48
970
130
260
89
6500
1400
131
1770
107
87
29
MINIMUM
LT
23
82
180
39
is
6
670
77
130
56
3600
248
66
404
56
53
17
1) ALL UNITS IN UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
2) METALS AND CLASSICAL POLLUTANTS ARE NEVER REPORTED AS NOT DETECTED
3) POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED ARE NOT LISTED
4) PP - PRIORITY POLLUTANT NUMBER
N-D - NOT DETECTED
LT - LESS THAN
MAXIMUM
503
450
630
340
340
5200
1300
560
540
300
18000
2420
203
26000
154
102
33
phthalate; tetrachloroethylene;
toluene, and trichloroethylene)
were reduced by a minimum of 50
percent. Only phenol was not
effectively removed. Carbon tetra-
chlorideand 1,1,2-trichloro-
ethane were each measured at an
average concentration of several
micrograms per liter (fjg/l) in the
influent, and were not detected in
any effluent samples, resulting in
a computed 100 percent removal.
During the week of sampling,
Plant B achieved moderate
removals of BOD and TSS (74
percent and 80 percent, respec-
tively). The influent values for
these parameters (95 and 97
mg/l) were approximately half
those of Plant A. Metals at Plant B
occurred at relatively low levels.
Antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
selenium and thallium were not
measured above their detection
limit in either influent or effluent
samples. Cadmium and silver
were both reduced from several
fjg/l to below their detection
limits. Cadmium, copper and zinc
were reduced effectively,
between 69 and 81 percent. Lead
and nickel were removed less
effectively. Organic priority pollu-
tants at Plant B occurred at such
low average concentrations that
percent removal data were not
meaningful.
Concentrations of Priority
Pollutants in Sludge
The concentrations of
conventional and priority pollu-
tants in primary and secondary
sludge and f loatables for Plant A
are also indicated on Table VII-3.
Most of the metals occurred in
high concentrations in both the
primary and secondary sludge.
Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel
and zinc were each found in
primary sludge at concentrations
over 100 times greater than their
concentration in the influent.
Atimony, arsenic, and beryllium,
which were never measured
above their detection limit in the
influent, were all measured in the
primary sludge. Chromium and
cyanide were found in the primary
sludge at 30 to 50 times their
influent concentration. Chromium
had a higher than expected
concentration in the secondary
sludge.
21
-------
PLANT B
TABLE VXI-2
PERCENT OCCURENCEB OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
SAMPLE POINT! INFLUENT
5/30/79
PP PARAMETER
4 BENZENE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
10 lf2-BICHLOROETHANE
11 l»lfl-TRICHLOROETHANE
13 Irl-BICHLOROETHANE
23 CHLOROFORM
25 lr2-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 1.3-BICHLOROBENZENE
27 lr4-DICHLOROBENZENE
29 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
32 lr2-BICHLOROPROPANE
36 2r6-IUNITROTOLUENE
38 ETHYLBENZENE
39 FLUORANTHENE
14 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
31 CHLOROBIBROMOMETHANE
S4 ISOPHORONE
SS NAPHTHALENE
61 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
65 PHENOL
66 BISC2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68 BI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
69 BI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
70 BIETHYL PHTHALATE
71 BIHETHYL PHTHALATE
78 ANTHRACENE
81 PHENANTHRENE
81 PYRENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
86 TOLUENE
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
111 ANTIMONY
US ARSENIC
117 BERYLLIUM
118 CABMIUM
119 CHROMIUM
120 COPPER
121 CYANIDE
122 LEAB
123 MERCURY
121 NICKEL
125 SELENIUM
126 SILVER
127 THALLIUM
128 ZINC
BOB
OIL S GREASE(MG-L)
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL SOLIBS
MAGNESIUM(MG-L>
NOTES:
SAMPLES TIMES
ANALYZED DETECTED
1)
2)
3)
4)
42
42
42
42
42
42
6
6
6
42
42
6
42
6
42
42
42
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
42
42
42
7
7
7
7
7
7
41
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
40
42
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
(PERCENT)
31( 74)
2( 5)
5C 12)
IOC 24)
2( 5)
40( 95)
5( 83)
1C 17)
1C 17)
16C 38)
1C 2)
1( 17)
18( 43)
3( 50)
39 ( 93)
4( 10)
3( 7)
1( 17)
4( 67)
1( 17)
4( 67)
6(100)
6(100)
5( 83)
4( 67)
5( 83)
3( 50)
3( SO)
3( 50)
3( 50)
41( 98)
32 ( 76)
14 ( 33)
ALL UNITS IN UB/L
TIMES
DETECTED
ABOVE MIN.
4( 10)
0( 0)
1( 2)
0( . 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
5C 12)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
3C 50)
0( 0)
0( 0) ..
OC 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
0( 0)
OC 0)
OC 0)
0( 0)
1( 2)
0( 0)
OC 0)
0( 0)
0( 0)
6( 86)
7(100)
7(100)
34 ( 83)
2( 29)
5( 71)
7C100)
OC 0)
2 C 29 )
0( 0)
7C100)
7C100)
7C100)
7(100)
40(100)
40 ( 95)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)
7(100)
7C100)
7(100)
AVERAGE
7_
0-
0-
1-
0-
1-
•1 __
0-
0-
1-
0-
0-
1-
i-
6-
0-
0-
0-
i~
0-
1-
8-
1™
1-
1-
1-
I __
1-
1-
1 — *
1-
l~
1™
1 M..
1 —
1-
LT
77-
16-
0,0-
1-
1-
i_
LT
14
1
1
2
1
9
8
1
1
3
1
1
4
5
14
1
1
1
6
1
6
.1.4
10
8
6
8
5
5
5
5
9
8
3
50
50
2
4
71
54
78
30
0
30
50
2
50
278
95
183
70
24
20
619
97
143
54
11700
537
74
1640
280
69
15
MEDIAN
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LI-
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
.3
LT
LT
LT
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
5
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
10
1
10
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
10
10
N-D
50
SO
2
4
67
55
66
20
0.
31
50
2
SO
302
96
180
69
26
12
610
87
140
42
11000
452
75
1370
271
68
14
MINIMUM
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
2 LT
LI-
LT
j_f
LT
.N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-C
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D •
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
50
50
2
2
12
39
10
20
0,2
11
50
2
SO
111
73
150
61
5
1
510
55
88
27
9000
262
57
1100
255
67
14
MAXIMUM
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
. L-T
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
260
10
13
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
180
10
10
10
10
10
10
19
10
10
10
10
10
10
10 ,
10
10
37
10
50
50
2
9
131
72
240
79
0.4
48
50
6
SO
439
130
230
82
48
160
750
220
200
120
17000
1410
93
3610
334
75
16
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
METALS AND CLASSICAL POLLUTANTS
POLLUTANTS NOT DETECTED ARE NOT
pp _
N-D -
LT -
ARE NEVER
REPORTED
AS NOT
DETECTED
LISTED
PRIORITY POLLUTANT NUMBER
NOT DETECTED
LESS THAN
22
-------
TABLE VII-3
PLANT A
BATA SUMMARY-WEEK 1 AVERAGE
05/30/79
DATE
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 73
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 7S
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78 -
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
JULY 78
PARAMETER
1 ACENAPHTHENE
3 ACRYLDNITRILE
4 BENZENE
6 CARBON TETRACHLORIIIE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
3 1»2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
9 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
10 172-BICHLDROETHANE
11 l,lil~TRICHLOROETHANE
13 Irl-BICHLOROETHANE
14 lrl,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
21 2»4»6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
22 PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
23 CHLOROFORM
24 2-CHLOROPHENOL
25 1>2-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 lr3-BICHLOROBENZENE
27 lr4-BICHLOROBENZENE
28 3,3'-niCHLOROBENZIBINE
29 Irl-BICHLOROETHYLENE
30 lf2-TRANS-BICHLOROETHYLENE
32 1>2-BICHLORQPROPANE
34 2.4-BIMETHYLPHENOL
38 ETHYLBENZENE
39 FLUORANTHENE
43 BIS(2-CHLOROETHYOXY> METHANE
44 METHYLENE CHLORIBE
45 CHLOROMETHANE
48 niCHLOROBROMOMETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
51 CHLOROBIBROMDMETHANE
52 HEXACHLOROBUTABIENE
5S NAPHTHALENE
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
65 PHENOL
66 BISC2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68 BI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
69 BI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
70 BIETHYL PHTHALATE
71 BIMETHYL PHTHALATE
72 lr2-BENZANTHRACENE
74 3»4-BENZQFLUORANTHENE
76 CHRYSENE
77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
78 ANTHRACENE
79 li!2-BENZOPERYLENE
80 FLUORENE
81 PHENANTHRENE
82 l>2:5r6-DIBENZANTHRACENE
83 INDENO PYRENE
84 PYRENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
86 TOLUENE
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
114 ANTIMONY
115 ARSENIC
117 BERYLLIUM
118 CABMIUM
119 CHROMIUM
120 COPPER
121 CYANIBE
122 LEAB
123 MERCURY
124 NICKEL
125 SELENIUM
-126 SILVER
127 THALLIUM
128 ZINC
BOB(MG-L)
COB(MG-L)
TOC(MG-L)
OIL g GREASE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL SOLIBS(MG-L)
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIBS(MG-L)
TOTAL VOL. SUS. SOLIBS(MG-L)
AMMONIA NITROGEN
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
IRON
MANGANESE
CALCIUM(MG-L)
MAGNESIUM(MG-L)
INFLUENT
0-
N-D
5-
0-
N-D
N-B
N-B
17-
0-
7
N-B
N-B
49-
N-D
0-
0-
0-
N-B
1-
0-
N-B
N-B
30-
0-
0-
6-
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-B
N-B
1-
0-
13-
32-
1-
2-
N-B
0-
0-
0-
N-B
0-
N-B
0-
N-B
0-
0-
N-B
N-B-
0-
53-
18-
24-
0-
0-
0-
12
443
194
13-
48-
0.3
98
0-
8
0-
252
201
416
255
53
178
931
140
232
105
6170
136O
127
3210
100
82
26
1
13.
2
2
20
2
50
4
2
4
8
8
36
3
1
14
8
3
19
36
4
9
6
4
1
1
7
3
7
3
57
23
29
50
50
2
18
56
SO
50
EFFLUENT
PRE CL-
N-D '
N-B
L 1
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-D
L 10
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-B
L 28
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-B
L 5
N-B
N-B
L. 3
N-D
N-D
N-B
L 10
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-D
L 7
L 10
L 19
N-B
L 3
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-B
L 10
L 10
L 9
L 50
L 50
L 2
L 4
42
13
NOT RUN
L 20
L 0.4
50
L 50
L 2
L 50
42
22
69
55
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
835
10
130
8
5450
128
42
256
120
86
30
FINAL
EFFLUENT
N-D
N-D
0-
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
O-
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-D
15-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
' N-D
0-
0-
0-
N-B
1-
N-D
0-
0-
N-D
N-D
0-
0-
18-
11-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
N-B
0-
N-B
0-
N-B
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
1-
0-
0-
0-
0-
0-
4-
46
27
3-
0-
0.4
40
0-
0-
0-
90
13
68
65
4-
13-
834
20
262
14
4920
203
50
392
111
79
27
5
7
21
1
1
1
3
1
.7
2
1
7
4
10
2
1
4
1
23
16
4
6
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
1'
6
9
9
9
50
50
2
5
11
20
50
2
50
6
14
PERCENT
REMOVAL
100
59-100
10O
57- 70
77- 99
0- 91
0- 5
50- 69
83- 98
51-100
65-100
60- 65
90
86
15- 83
58-100
24 L
59
L
74-100
64
94
84
75
89- 92
92- 93
10
86
87
20
85
61
88
3
PRIMARY
SLUDGE
169
N-D
171
11
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-D
24
11
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-D
9
23
N-D
N-D
276 L
N-D
N-B
222
N-D
57
N-B
17
N-B
195
93
94
2230
1
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-D
479
675
479
N-B
1570
N-D
313
1570
N-D
N-B
757
293 L
284
284 L
146 L
1260
37
1220
14AOO
77400
626 L
46900
3.1 L
13300
1O L
25
2 L
153000
20200
57500
23500
9070 L
672 L
56700
46700
26800
23300
58500
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
SECONBARY
SLUBGE
N-B
3
10
6
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-D
4
" N-D
N-B
249
N-B
56
N-B
29
N-D
4 L
112
68
42
N-D
N-B
N-B
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-B
4
N-B
N-B
4
10
8
N-D
7
2
1
22
63
10
344
18100
8970
75
1590
2.6 L
3340
23 L
182
1 L
12800
6030
6720
2720
482
37
6030
6300
3290
4200
8650
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
COMBINED
SLUBSE
75
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-B
N-B
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-B
N-B
NOT RUN
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-B
N-B
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-B
NOT RUN
N-D
N-B
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-D
23
15
33
1240
N-B
N-D
N-D -
N-D
N-D
250
299
250
N-D
842
N-D
133
842
N-D
N-B
349
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
66 L
176 L
12 L
599
17900
24200
NOT RUN L
11000 L
2.7 L
3190
12 L
82 L
1 L
47900
6670
18400
8180
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
19300
17500
9670
7800
22800
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN •
FLOTA'
BLES
' 189
2
42
7
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-B
2
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-B
. 4
N-B
N-B
51
N-B
N-D
243
N-D
61
N-D
25
N-D
421
230
7
511
100
g
N-B
N-B
N-B
IS 6
137
186
N-D
1120
N-D
2
1120
N-B
N-B
192
72
79
23
11
29
N-B
32
4440
1690
36
113
2,1
411
10
20
2
2450
1900
7650
2250
19300
82
11100
3260.
9170
2960
6270
NOY RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
BCTNY
•NOT RUN INDICATES THAT NO SAMPLE WAS COLLECTEB OR ANALYTICAL RESULTS HAVE NOT BEEEN RECEIVES
23
-------
BATE PP PARAMETER
AUG. 78 3 ACRYLONITRILE
AUG. ?a 4 BENZENE
AUG. 78 10 1F2-DICHLOROETHANE
AUG. 78 11 1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE
AUG. 78 23 CHLOROFORM
ADD. 78 23 1r2-DICHLOROBENZENE
AUG. 78 36 lr3-DICHLOROBENZEN£
AUG. 78 27 lr4~DICHLOROBENZENE
AUG. 78 28 3r3'-DICHLGROBENZIDINE
AUG. 78 29 1,1-BICHLOROETHYLENE
AUG. 78 30 1,2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
AUG. 78 36 2.6-DINITROTOLUENE
AUG. 78 38 ETHYLBENZENE
AUG. 78 39 FLUORANTHENE
AUG. 78 44 HETHYLENE CHLORIDE
AUG. 78 47 BROMOFORM
AUG. 78 18 DICHLOROBRONOMETHANE
AUG. 78 51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
AUG. 78 34 ISOPHORONE
AUG. 78 35 NAPHTHALENE
AUG. 78 57 2-NITROPHENOL
AUG. 78 58 4-NITROPHENOL
AUG. 78 64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
AUG. 78 60 PHENOL
AUG. 78 66 BIS<2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
AUG. 78 67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
AUG. 78 68 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
AUG. 78 69 0I-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
AUG. 78 70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
AUG. 78 71 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
AUG. 78 72 lr2-BENZANTHRACENE
AUG. 78 74 3»4-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
AUG. 78 76 CHRYSENE
AUG. 78 77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
AUG. 78 78 ANTHRACENE
AUG. 78 81 PHENANTHRENE
AUG. 78 84 PYRENE
AUG. 78 85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
AUG. 78 86 TOLUENE
AUG. 78 87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
AUG. 78 114 ANTIMONY
AUG. 78 115 ARSENIC
AUG. 78 117 BERYLLIUM
AUG. 78 118 CADMIUM
AUG. 78 119 CHROMIUM
AUG. 78 120 COPPER
AUG. 78 121 CYANIDE
AUG. 78 122 LEAD
AUG. 78 123 MERCURY
AUG. 78 124 NICKEL
AUG. 78 125 SELENIUM
AUG. 78 126 SILVER
AUG. 78 127 THALLIUM
AUG. 78 128 ZINC
AUG. 78 BOD(MG-L)
AUG. 78 COD(MG-L)
AUG. 78 TOC(MG-L)
AUG. 78 OIL X GREASE
AUG. 78 TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS(MG-L)
AUG. 78 TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS(MG-L)
AUG. 78 TOTAL VOL. SUS. SOLIDS(MG-L)
AUG. 78 AMMONIA NITROGEN
AUG. 78 ALUMINUM
AUG. 78 BARIUM
AUG. 78 IRON
AUG. 78 MANGANESE
AUG. 78 CALCIUMCMG-L)
AUG. 78 MAGNESIUM(MG-L)
ALL UNITS UO/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED: PP-PRIORITY POLLUTANT NUMBER! N-D NOT DETECTED:
NOT RUN INDICATES SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED OR DATA HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED
PRIORITY POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NOT DETECTED IN ANY SAMPLES
INFLUENT
N-D
7- 14
0-
0-
0-
0-
o-
N-D
0-
N-D
0-
0—
0-
6-
N-D
0-
0—
0*-
0~
N~D
N-D
0-
0-
0-
0-
0™
0—
Q-
N—P
N-D
N-'lt
N-D
o~
0-
0-
0~
0-
0-
0-
L 2*0
4—
71
54
77-
16-
L 0.3
30
0-
o-
278
95
183
70
24
20
619
97
143
11700
74
1640
280
69
15
1
2
10
3
2
2
4
2
4
5
14
1
0
7
2
7
14
10
8
7
8
5
5
5
5
10
8
3
SO
50
78
30
50
3
50
TABLE VII-4
PLANT B
DATA SUMMARY
EFFLUENT FINAL
PRE CL- EFFLUENT
N-D N-D
L 1 L 4
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
•
L
It
L
' L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
1
10
1
3
N-D
N-D
2
0.5
N-D
0 + 5
N-D
9
N-D
^
N-n
1
8
34
4
9
11
3
6
3
1
N-D
N-n
N-n
N-D
N-n
N-D
5
5
0,5
50
50
2.0
26
11
NOT RUN
23
0.2
21
50
7
50
83
20
52
29
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
496
12
129
7
1830
74
26
198
194
64
14
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
u
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
2
0.5
10
4
5
'N-D
1
3
N-D
N-D
t
N-n
10
N-n
3
3
N-n
4
4
14
1
9
9
5
6
1
4
3
1
N-n
i
3
N-n
N-n
N-n
6
7
0,5
50
50
2.0
2
22
10
141
20
0.2
20
50
2
50
52
25
57
33
8
4
564
19
136
12
3300
54
25
188
186
65
14
PERCENT
REMOVAI-
N-Ii
44- 84
0- 91
N-D
N-D
55-100
69
81
5-100
33
0- 84
81
74
69
S3
66- 67
81- 84
9
80
5
78
72
90- 91
66
89
34
6
7
05/30/79
SECONDARY COMBINED TAP
SLUDGE SLUDGE WATER
N-D 41 N-D
L 5 33 N-D
N-n
N-n
N-D
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-D
N-D
NOT RUN
5
NOT RUN
180
N-L1
35
N-D
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-n
25
N-n
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
-888 . 0 L
NOT "RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
337
NOT RUN
NOT RUN L
NOT RUN
NOT RUN L
NOT RUN L
NOT RUN L.
NOT RUN L
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
L 250
8
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-D
N-n
N-n
N-D
N-n
N-n
N-n
N-D
N-n
N-n
2
N-n
247
N-n
74
9
N-D
91
N-n
N-n
N-n
4
1490
N-n
N-D
N-n
N-D
N-n
8
43
8
N-D
91
91
45
61
336
N-D
39
149
12.0
305
8110
10700
1690
7390
5.1
3100
28
79
2
26700
8460
32400
11900
3S10
464
25600
21700
14300
12100
76900
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
I...
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
N-D
N-Il
75
10
N-n
N-n
N-n
N-D
N-D
N-n
N-n
N-n
30
10
N-.n
20
N-n
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
10
10
10
N-n
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-n
N-D
N-D
N-n
N-D
N-D
10
N-I)
50
50
2,0
2
5
6
10
20
0.2
10
50
2
50
7
10
1
22
7
6
300
3
85
2
74000
108
40
108
5
40
9
OAF
BLANKET
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
N-n
N-B
NOT RUN
10
NOT RUN
250
N-D
35
N-n
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
15
230
N-D
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
-888,0
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
2870
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
11000
2800
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
. NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
NOT RUN
L- LESS THAN
24
-------
Several organic priority pollutants
that were detected at very low
concentrations in the influent
accumulated in the primary or
secondary sludge. Among them
were acenaphthene (0 to 1 jwg/l
average in the influent and 169
fjg/\ in the primary sludge); 1,2-
benzathracene (less than 1 and
479); 3,4-benzofluoranthene (not
detected and 675); fluorene (less
than 3 and 313); and pyrene (less
than 3 and 757).
Data from Plant B indicated the
same general trends (Table VII-4).
Chromium, copper, lead, nickel
and zinc were found in the
combined sludge at approximately
100 times their concentration in
the influent. Arsenic, cadmium,
cyanide, mercury and silver also
accumulated in the sludge, but
occurred at overall lower levels.
Antimony, beryllium, selenium
and thallium, which were never
measured above their detection
limits in the influent, were all
found at concentrations below 50
fjg/\ in the sludge. Consequently,
no conclusions regarding build-up
of these metals in the sludge can
be developed.
Several organic priority pollutants
present at very low levels in
influent also were concentrated
in the sludge. They included
acrylonitrile (not detected in the
influent and 41 )ug/l in the
combined sludge); dichlorobromo-
methane (0 to 1 and 74); and 3,4
benzofluoranthene (not detected
and 43).
Mass Balances
Additional information correlating
the influent and sludge concen-
trations of priority pollutants is
indicated in Tables VII-5 and VII-
6. These tables show the
approximate pounds of each
pollutant present in the influent,
effluent and sludge from Plants A
and B, respectively. For Plant A
there was moderately good agree-
ment on the pounds entering and
leaving the POTW for most
conventional parameters and
metallic priority pollutants.
However, copper, lead and zinc
balanced poorly., Most metals did
show a tendency to accumulate in
the sludge. The pounds of
cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, nickel, silver and zinc in the
primary and secondary sludge
were each 2 to 15 times the
amount calculated to be in the
final effluent. An average of less
than one pound per day of
antimony, beryllium, selenium
and thallium was measured in the
sludge of Plant A. Arsenic was
detected in Plant A's sludges at
over four pounds per day despite
the fact that it had never been
measured above the detection
limit in the influent.
For many organic priority pollu-
tants, the mass balance data
support the removal mechanisms
of either oxidation1, biodegrada-
tion or air stripping. The most
striking example is chloroform,
where none was detected in any
sludge samples, despite an
overall reduction from 37 to 38
pounds per day in the influent to
less than 16 pounds per day in the
effluent. Similar tendencies were
exhibited for other refractory but
volatile pollutants, such as
benzene; 1,1,1 -trichloroethylene;
ethyl benzene; tetrachloroethyl-
ene; toluene; and trichloroethyl-^
ene. Organic compounds which
seemed to build up in the sludge
include acenaphthene; dichloro-
bromomethane; chlorodibromo-
methane; 1,2-benzanthracene;
3,4-benzofluoranthene; anthra-
cene; and fluorene.
Overall, Plant B had lower
concentrations of priority pollu-
tants than Plant A and the
accumulation of materials in the
sludge was less pronounced. Of
the metals, only chromium,
copper, lead and zinc accumu-
lated to some degree in the
sludge, and all were present in
greater quantity in the combined
sludge than in the final effluent.
There were insufficient data
upon which to draw many
conclusions regarding organic
priority pollutant removal
mechanisms or accumulation in
sludges at Plant B. No organic
priority pollutants were present
at an average of over one pound
per day in Plant B's influent, or
combined sludge.
Mechanisms for Toxic Pollutant
Removal
Removal of toxic pollutants in a
POTW can occur as a result of
various physical, chemical or
biological processes that take
place within the treatment
system. The exact combination
of these phenomena affecting
any particular priority pollutant
depends largely on the nature of
the pollutant itself.
25
-------
pp
PARAMETER NAME
INFLUENT
TABLE VII-5
PLANT A
MASS BALANCE
WEEKLY SUMMARY
TOTAL OUT
5-30-79
FINAL EFFLUENT PRIMARY SLUDGE SECONDARY SLUDGE
1 ACENAPHTHENE
3 ACRYLONITRILE
4 BENZENE
6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
7 CHUOROBENZENE
8 lr2r4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
9 HEXACHLOROBENZENE
10 1»2-DICHLORO£THANE
11 Iflrl-TRICHLOROETHANE
13 Ifl-DICHLOROETHANE
11 1»1»2-TRICHLOROETHANE
21 a,4»A-TRICHLOROPH£NOL
22 PARACHLOROMETA CRESOL
23 CHLOROFORM
24 2-CHLOROPIIENOL
23 1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 1,3-BICHLOROBENZENE
27 lr4-DICHLQROBENZENE
28 3»3'-niCHLOROBENZIDINE
39 iFl-niCHLOROETHYLENE
150 lr2-TRANS-DICHLQROETHYLENE
32 tr2-DICHLOROPROPANE
14 2»4-BIMETHYl,PHENOL
38 ETHYLBENZENE
3" rtUORANTHENE
43 BIS<2»CHLOROETHYOXY> METHANE
44 HCTHYLENE CHLORIDE
4S CHLOROMETHANE
40 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
49 IK'ICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
!il CHLOROnlBROMOMETHANE
S2 HEXACHLOROBIITADIENE
SS NAPHTHALENE
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOI.
6S PHENOL
46 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL> PHTHALATE
67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68 BI-M-BUTYL PHTHALATE
69 DI-N-OCTYL PHfHALATE
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
71 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
72 1.2-BENZANTHRACENE
74 3.4-BENZOFLUORANTHENE
76 CHRYSENE
77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
78 ANTHRACENE
79 lfl2~BENZOPERYLENE
80 FLUORENE
81 PHENANTHRENE
82 l»2!5r6-DIBENZANTHRACENE
83 INDENO PYRENE
84 PYRENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
86 TOLUENE
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
114 ANTIMONY
115 ARSENIC
117 BERYLLIUM
118 CADMIUM
119 CHROMIUM
120 COPPER
121 CYANIDE
122 LEAD
123 MERCURY
124 NICKEL
12S SELENIUM
126 SILVER
127 THALLIUM
NOTES:
0
3.6
0.72
0
E 0
0
0
13
0
s
0
0
37
0
0
0
IE
0.44
IYLENE 0.37
0
23
0
METHANE 0
4.3
0
0
IE 0
0
0.47
0
9.7
FHALATE 24
"E 0.43
1.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:ENE o
*ENE 0
0
40
14
18
0
0
0
8.9
337
148
9.S
37
0.21
74
0
5.8
0
L - LESS THAN
AVERAGE DAILY
0,72
N-D
10
1,3
1.1
0.36
0.36
0,19
IS
1.5
5.4
0.36
0.36
38
N-D
3,3
1.8
2.9
N-D
6
5.7
0.37
N-D
28
2.2
0,72
10
0.37
0.19
0.19
N-D
0,36
5.9
2.2
15
27
3
7
0,36
4.7
2.9
0.72
N-D
0,72
0.36
5.4
0.36
2.2
5,4
0.36
0,36
2.5
43
17
— 22
38
38
1.5
9.1
- 337
- 148
14
43
0.26
75
38
6.3
38
FLOWS <»GD>:
0,46 -
0.035-
0.58 -
0,099-
0,0(^4-
0.029-
12
0
0
0 —
0
0
0.023-
0,062-
0
I ~
0
1
4,6 -
O.B4 -
0
0,4 -
0,50 -
1,6 -
15
IS
0,001-
0
0
0
0
1 , 3 -
1.8 -
1.3 -
4,3 -
0.84 -
4.3 -
0.12 -
0.098-
2 —
1.8 -
0.79 -
0.78 -
0,67 -
4.2 -
0.22 -
11
296
340
4.9 -
146
0.24 -
108
0.3 -
2.3 -
0,022-
INFLUENT
0.46
0.035
4.1
O.099
N-D
N-D
N-D
N~D
5.3
0.029
N-D
N-D
N-D
16
1.1
1.1
1,1
2.1
1,1
5.4
1,4
N-D
1.1
5,9
3,2
N-D
11
N-D
2.5
0.37
0,4
N-D
3.8
2.7
19
18
3,2
4.3
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.4
1.8
2.4
N-D
7.5
N-D
1.9
7.5
1.2
1.2
6.3
7.5
7.3
7.1
38
41
1.7
11
295
339
11
161
O.34
107
38
3.8
37
-
PRIMARY SLUDGE
SECONDARY
SLUDGE -
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1.
I...
L
L.
L
L.
L
L,
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
1.
1.
L
91.25
0.324
1,47
N-D
N-D
3.5
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
5.2
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
16
1.1
1,1
1.1
2,1
1.1
5.4
1,3
NrD
1.1
5.1
3,2
N-D
7.8
N-D
1.7
0.37
N-D
N-D
3.2
1,1
17
12
3.2
4.3
1,1
2.1
1.1
•1,1
N-D
1,1
N-D
3.2
N-D
1.1
3.2
1.1
1.1
4.3
6.7
6.5
• 6.3
37
37
1,5
3.6
34
20
8
15
0.300
30
37
1.5
37
0.46
N-D
0.46
0.029
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
0,064
0.029
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
0.023
0,062
N-D
N-D
0 . 740 L
N-D
N-D
0,6
N-D
0,15
N-D
0,046
N-D
0.53
0.23
0.25
6
o.ool
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
1.3
1.8
1,3"
N-D
4.2
N-D
0.84
4.2
N-D
N-D
2
0.790 L
0.77
0.770 L
0.390 L
3.4
0,1
3.3
39
209
1,700 L
126
0,008 L
36
0.028 L
0.068
0.006 L
N-D
0.035
0.12
0.07
N-D
N-D
N-D
,N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D.
0.044
N-D
N-D
3
N-D
0.68
N-D
0.36
N-D
0.049
1.4
0.83
0.51
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
0.005
N-D
N-D
0.054
N-D
N-D
0.054
0.12
0.098
N-D
0,087
0.026
0.009
0,27
0.77
0.12
4.2
221
110
0.91
20
0.031
41
0.28
2.2
0.016
26
-------
pp
PARAMETER NAME
INFLUENT
128 ZINC
BOD(MG-L)
COn(MB-L)
TOC(MO-L)
OIL 8 GREASE(MG-L)
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL SOLinS(MG-L)
TOTAL SUSP. SOLiriS
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLinS(MG-L)
TOTAL VOL, SUS. SOLIDS
AMMONIA NITROGEN
ALUMINUM
BARIUM
IRON
MANGANESE
CALCIUM(MG-L)
«AONESIUM
-------
PLANT B
TABLE VI1-6
MASS BALANCE
WEEKLY SUMMARY
5-30-79
PP PARAMETER NAME
3 ACRYLONITRILE
4 BENZENE
7 CHLOROBENZENE
10 lf2-DICHLOROETHANE
11 lrl»l-TRICHLORQETHANE
13 Irl-DICHLOROETHANE
23 CHLOROFORM
25 lr2-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 1F3-DICHLOROBENZENE
27 lr4-DICHLOROBENZENE
28 3r3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
29 Ifl-BICHLOROETHYLENE
32 lr2-DICHLOROPROPANE
36 2»6-BINITROTOLUENE
38 ETHYLBENZENE
39 FLUORANTHENE
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLOROBIBROMOMETHANE
54 ISOPHORONE
55 NAPHTHALENE
57 2-NITROPHENOL
58 4-NITROPHENQL
64 PENTACHLOROPHENOL
65 PHENOL
66 BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
67 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
68 DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
69 DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
70 DIETHYL PHTHALATE
71 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE
72 lr2-BENZANTHRACENE
76 CHRYSENE
77 ACENAPHTHYLENE
78 ANTHRACENE
81 PHENANTHRENE
84 PYRENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
86 TOLUENE
87- TRICHLOROETHYLENE
114 ANTIMONY
115 ARSENIC
117 BERYLLIUM
118 CADMIUM
119 CHROMIUM
120 COPPER
121 CYANIDE
122 LEAD
123 MERCURY
124 NICKEL
125 SELENIUM
126 SILVER
127 THALLIUM
128 ZINC
BODCMG-L)
COB
TOC(MG-L)
OIL & GREASE
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL SOLIDS(MG-L)
TOTAL SUSP. SOLIDS(MG-L)
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS(MG-L)
TOTAL VOL. SUS. SOLIDS(MG-L)
AMMONIA NITROGEN
INFLUENT
TOTAL OUT
FINAL. EFFLUENT COMBINED SLUDGE
N-D
0.480- 0.910
0 - 0.032
0.021- 0.085
0 - 0,160
0 - 0.032
0 - 0.640
0 - 0 . 560
0 - 0.1:1.0
0 - 0.110
N-D
0 - 0.260
0 - 0,016
0 - 0,110
0 - 0,290
0 - ' 0.340
0.420- 0.960
0 - 0.064
0 - 0.048
0 - 0.110
0 - 0.450
N-JP
N-D
0 - 0.110
0 - 0 . 450
0.570- 0.910
0 - 0.670
0 - 0.560
0 - 0.450
0 - 0 . 560
0 - 0.340
N-D
N-D
N-D
0 - 0.340
0 - 0.340
0 - 0,340
0 - 0.660
0.059- 0.560
0 - 0.220
0 - 3.400
0 - 3.400
0 - 0,130
0.290- 0,310
4.800- 4,800
3.600- 3.600
5.200- 5.300
1.100- 2.000
0.014- 0.018
2.000- 2.000
0 - 3.400
0.087- 0.180
0 - 3.400
19.000- 19.000
6370
12300
4710
1640
1.3
41700
6550
9610
3660
787
IK INFLUENT
COMBINED SLUDGE
0.011- 0.011
0,160- 0,280
N-D
0 0,098
0 - 0.033
N-D
0.056- 0.680
0 - .. 0.250
0 - 0.340
N-D
0 - 0.084
0 - 0.180
N-D
N-D
0.001- 0.050
N-B
0.064- 0.700
0.019- 0.230
0,002- 0,180
N-D
0.023- 0.280
0 - 0 , 250
0,840- 0,920
0 - 0,084
0,130- 0,720
0,380- 0,970
0 •- 0,340
0 - 0.420
0 - 0.084
0 - 0 . 250
0 - 0.170
0,002- 0.086
0,002- 0.086
0 - 0.170
0,023- 0.023
0.023- 0.023
0.012- 0.012
0.016- 0.440
0.087- 0,550
0 - 0.016
0.010- 3.400
0.039- 3.400
0.003- 0,140
0.079- 0.210
3.600- 3,600
3,500- 3.500
9.900- 9.. 900
1,900- 3.200
0.001- 0.015
2.100- 2.100
0.007- 3.400
0.049- 0.160
0 - 3.400
10.000- 10.000
3840
12200
5300
1460
0.4
44400
6910
12800
3900
242
- 8.09
- 0.031
L.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L.
L
L
L
L
L
L.
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
N-D
0,270
N-B
0 . 098
0.033
N-D
0.680
0.250
0,340
N-D
0,084
0,180
N-D
N-D
0,0.49
N-B
0,640
0,210
0.180
N-D
0 . 250
0 . 250
0 . 920
0.084
0.590
0 . 590
P. 340
0,420
0.084
0.250
0.170
0.084
0.084
0.170
N-B
N-D
N-D
0.430
0.460
0.016
3.400
3.400
0.130 L
0,130
1.500
0 . 700
9 . 500
1,300
0.013 L
1.300
3.400 L
0.140 L
3.400 L
3.500 L
1650
3840
2220
549
0.3
37800
1300
9110
780
222
0.011
0,008
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
0,001
N-D
0.064
0.019
0.002
N-D
0.023
N-D
N-D
N-D
0,130
0.380
N-D
N-B
N-D
N-D-
N-D
0 . 002
0,002
N-D
0.023
0 , 023
0.012
0.016
0.087
N-D
0.010
0.039
0.003
0 . 079
2.100
2.800
0.440
1 . 900
0.001
0.800
0.007
0.020
N-D
6.900
2180
8370
3080
907
0.1
6600
5610
3690
3120
20
28
-------
A sometimes overlooked
mechanism for the removal of
inorganic priority pollutants via
biological processes is the
uptake of trace quantities of
these pollutants as micronutri-
ents. These materials may find
their way into the biomass as a
result of being complexed and
incapsulated in'a material that is
consumed by cells.
In summary, in terms of organic
priority pollutant removal, the
preliminary findings presented
herein indicate that aside from
standard physical and biological
removal mechanisms, atmos-
pheric stripping of refractory
volatile organics appears to be a
significant phenomenon.
Aromatic volatiles, which are
resistant to biodegradation, were
removed from the treatment
system, but not concentrated in
the sludge. It appears, therefore,
that these materials'were air
stripped.
Polynuclear aromatics (PNA),
which are also biologically diffi-
cult to remove, exhibited a
different fate in the two POTW's
studied. PNA's are less volatile
than the other aromatics on the
priority pollutant list, yet these
materials were removed.
However, the PNA's were
concentrated in sludges at the
two plants. This seems to
indicate that for these less
volatile refractory materials, air
stripping is not an important
removal mechanism. Further
evaluations of removal mechan-
isms will be carried out over the
full 40-plant program.
Formation of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons
At both POTW's sampled during
the pilot study, treated waste-
water was collected immediately
before chlorination and at the
plant outfall after chlorine
disinfection. Samples of the
chlorinated final effluent were
split, creating duplicate aliquots
for analysis. One set was
analyzed as collected from the
outfall. The other set of samples
was preserved by adding
sufficient thiosulfate to consume
any residual chlorine.
The purpose of collecting dupli-
cate effluent samples, as de-
scribed above, was to study the
possible formation of chlorinated
hydrocarbons. If the preserved
sample was found to contain a
lower concentration of a chlori-
nated priority pollutant than the
unpreserved sample, it was
concluded that formation of
chlorinated hydrocarbons might
continue in the receiving stream
after discharge.
In Table VII-7 for Plant A and
Table VII-8 for Plant B, summaries
of data showing the formation of
chlorinated priority pollutants
across the disinfection process
are presented. In total, evidence
of the formation of chlorinated
hydrocarbons was detected in 49
individual grab sample sets over
a 3-day period at Plant A and in
59 grab sample sets over one
week of sampling at Plant B.
By far the most common situation
was one in which the chlorinated
priority pollutant was not detected
in the pre-chlorinated sample but
was found at below the detection
limit in either of the final effluent
samples, or both. Usually this type
of result would be considered
insignificant; however, since the
analyses presented herein were
compiled utilizing gc-ms, the
results obtained are meaningful.
With gc-ms, the identification of
an organic molecule is based on
an analysis of ion fragments
observed in mass spectra. If no
ion fragments for a particular
molecule at a specified gc
detention time are observed, the
result is reported as "not
detected." This is significantly
different from the results that are
reported at "less than 10." For
these analyses, some fragments
were found but not at proper
levels to assign a concentration
even though the material was
probably present. Therefore, for
parameters that go from not
detected to a value below the
detection limit, formation of the
chlorinated molecule may be
indicated.
The predicted higher chlorinated
hydrocarbon concentrations in
unpreserved samples as
compared to preserved samples
did not occur in a consistent
manner. However, over the
course of the full 40-POTW
program it is expected that more
definitive data on these
phenomena will be developed.
29
-------
TABLE YII-7
PLANT A 5-30-79
EFFECT OF CHLORINE ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS - - - -
PRE- UNPRESERVED PRESERVED
SAMPLE
DATE
7-26-78
7-27-78
.'-27-78
7-28-78
7-28-78
7-29-78
7^39-78
7-27-7B
7-29-78
7-27-78
V-ax-78
7-27-78
7-27-78
7-28-78
?-28-78
•/-28-7S
7-28-78
7-2U-78
7-29-78
7-27-78
?-27-78
7-27-78
7-27-78
7-28-78
7-28-78
X-28-78
7-28-78
7-29-78
TIME
18OO
1000
1800
1000
1100
0200
O600
0800
0800
0800
0800
1400
1800
0600
1000
1400
1800
1800
0200
0200
1400
1800
2200
0200
0600
1000
1400
0200
PP
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
25
26
27
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
PARAMETER NAME
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
lr2-DICHLORQBENZENE
1 » 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1»4-DICHLORDBENZENE
3>3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
1 f 1-tlICHLOROETHVLENE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 » 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 » 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
Ir 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 . -J-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 » 2-TRANS-BICHLOROETHYLENE
lr2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 2-TRANS-DICHLDROETHYLENE
1 r 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 r 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 f 2-TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1»2~TRANS-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 , 2-TRANS -DICHLOROETHYLENE
CHLORINATED
EFFLUENT
LT 10
LT 10
110
LT 10
LT 10
18
LT 10
N-D
N~D
N-n
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
FINAL
EFFLUENT
LI-
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
10
100
190
130
10
32
2B
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
N-D
10
10
N-D
10
10
10
10
FINAL
EFFLUENT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
'LI-
LT
LT
.LT
LI-
LT
10
10
170
110
10
10
10
APP .
APP.
APP .
APP .
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
10
N-D
7-27-78 0200 44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
LT
7-27-
7-27-
7-27-
7-27-
7-2B-
7-28-
7-28-
7-28-
7-28-
7-28-
7-29-
7-29-
78 0200
78 1000
78 1400
78 1800
•78 0200
78 0600
•78 1000
78 1400
78 1800
78 1800
•78 0200
•78 0600
7-28-78 1000
7-28-78 1400
7-28-78 1800
7-28-78 1800
7-28-78 1400
7-29-78 0200
40 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
49 TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
SI CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
7-27-78 1800 85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
7-27-78 0200 87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
10
N-D
LT
10
LT
ES: 1) ALL UNITS IN UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
2) POLLUTANTS WHICH DID NOT EXHIBIT INCREASED
CONCENTRATIONS AFTER CHLORINATION ARE NOT LISTED
3) PP - PRIORITY POLLUTANT NUMBER
LT - LESS THAN
N-D - NOT DETECTED
NOT APP. - NOT APPLICABLE ( EXTRACTABLE PARAMETERS)
17
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
•N-D
N-D
N.-D
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
N-D
10
N-D
10
N-D
10
10
100
10
10
10
10
N-D
10
10
10
10
10
LT
.LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
LT
10
N-D
10
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D.
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
Results of Sampling Frequency
and Sample Point Selection
Experiments
Through the first seven days of
sampling at Plant A influent
composites were taken every
eight hours, starting at 0800 on
Saturday, July 22, 1978 and
running through 0800 on
Saturday, July 29,1978. During
the second week of sampling at
Plant A the composites were
changed to cover the entire 24-
hour (0800 to 0800) period. On a
daily basis the averages of the
three 8-hour composites match
the corresponding 24-hour
composites. The composites
which end at 1600 and 1200 have
consistently higher loadings than
the composites ending at 0800.
This phenomena is particularly
evident in the metals
concentrations which exhibited
much higher concentrations
during the working hour
composites (0800 to 1600) than
during the other two 8-hour
periods. Table VII-9 shows this
phenomenon for the first week of
sampling at Plant B.
This phenomenon would follow
the diurnal variation in the
wastewater flow and the work
day of the industrial dischargers,
combined with the detention time
of the sewer system. This timed,
higher loading of the priority
pollutants, which were not
detected in the Plant B sampling,
is further evidence of the contri-
bution from the industrial
discharges which was present in
Plant A's system, but not in Plant
B's system.
-------
TABLE VII-8
PLANT B g_30_79
EFFECT OF CHLORINE ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
—•—-•• SAMF*Lb~'~~
DATE TIME PP PARAMETER NAME
8- 9-78 0600 11 :L»1>1-TRICHLQROETHANE
8-13-78 0600 13 1»1-D1CHLOROETHANE
8- 7-78 0200 23 CHLOROFORM
8- 9-78 1000 23 CHLOROFORM "
8-11-78 1000 23 CHLOROFORM '
8-11-78 0800 25 1»2-BICHLOROBENZENE
PRE- UNPRESERVED PRESERVED
CHLORINATED FINAL FINAL
EFFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT
8- 8-78 0800
8- 9-78 0800
8-13-78 0800
8-13-78 0800
B- 7-78 0200
8-10-78 1000
8-10-78 1400
B-10-78 1800
8-11-78 0600
8-11-78 1400
8-11-78 2200
8-12-78 1400
8- 6-78 1400
8- 7-78 0200
8- 9-78 1000
8- 9-78 1800
8- 6-78 2200
8- 7-78 0200
8- 7-78 1400
8- 8-78 0600
8- 8-78 1000
8- 8-78 1400
8- 8-78 1800
8-10-78 1800
8-11-78 1800
8-11-78 2200
8- 6-78 1000
8- 6-78 1400
8- 6-78 1800
8- 6-78 2200
8- 7-78 060O
8- 7-78 1400
8- 8-78 0600
8- 8-78 1400
8- 8-78 1800
8-11-78 1800
8- 7-78 0800
8- 6-78 1000
8- 6-78 1800
8- 6-78 2200
8- 7-78 0600
8- 7-78 1400
8- 8-78 '1000
8- 8-78 1400
8- 8-78 1800
8- 9-78 10OO
8- 9-78 180O
8-10-78 1400
8-11-78 2200
8-12-78 1000
8-13-78 0200
8- 7-78 0600
8- 8-78 1000
26 i»3-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
26 lr3-DICHLOROBENZEN£
28 3y3'-DICHLOROBENZIDINE
29 itl-DICHLOROETHYLENE
29 1»1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
29 Irl-DICHLOROETHYLENE
29 lyl-BICHLOROETHYLENE
29 lyl-DICHLOROETHYLENE
29 1.1-DICHLOROETHYLENE
29 Ifl-DICHLOROETHYLENE
29 Irl-IUCHLQROETHYLENE
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
44 METHYLENE CHLORIDE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE:
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLORUBROMOME THANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
48 DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
Si CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
51 CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE
64 PENTACHLORQPHENOL
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
85 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE '
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
87 TRICHLOROETHYLENE
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-n
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
' LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
N-D
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
N-D
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1.0
N-D
N-D
10
10
10
10
N-D
N-D
10
N-D
10
N-D
10
N-D
10
10
10
10
N-D
10
10
10
io
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
N-D
10
LT
LT
LT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LI-
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT'
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
NOT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
10
N-D
10
10
34
APP ,
APP .
APP .
A.PP .
APP.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
10
10
10
N-D
10
10
10
N-D
10
10
10
10
10
10
N-D
APP.
10
N-D
10
10
N-D
10
10 .
N-D
10
N-D
10
10
10
10
IO
N-D
Unless diurnal variation and the
effect of sewer detention time are
to be subjects of further study, the
additional sampling effort and
analysis expense to do three or
more complete sets of composites
per day do not seem to be
warranted. Satisfactory results
may be obtained with a daily
composite.
Variation Between Various Days
of the Week
The presence of and variation in
influent pollutant concentrations
over the weekly sampling period
showed a few general trends. At
Plant A the priority pollutant
metals, especially chromium,
copper and nickel, showed a
marked increase during the
middle and latter parts of the
Monday-Friday work week, and
their concentrations dipped
during the non-working day
composites. The same general
trend with the metals was noticed
at Plant B, but with the smaller
industrial contribution and the
smaller wastewater flow, the
concentrations were not as large,
and similarly, the variations not
as pronounced.
A general trend for the
conventional parameters (BOD
and TSS) was not established at
either of the pilot plants. Both of
the aforementioned conventional
pollutants fluctuated up and down
throughout the 2-week period at
Plant A and the 1 -week period in
Plant B to such an extent that no
meaningful conclusions could be
drawn on the daily conventional
pollutant variation.
ESt 1) ALL UNITS IN UG/L UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
2> POLLUTANTS WHICH DID NOT EXHIBIT INCREASED
CONCENTRATIONS AFTER CHLORINATION ARE NOT LISTED
3) PP - PRIORITY POLLUTANT NUMBER
LT - LESS THAN
N-D - NOT DETECTED
NOT APP. - NOT APPLICABLE < EXTRACTABLE PARAMETERS)
31
-------
TABLE VII-9 8-HOUR COMPOSITES VS. METALS CONCENTRATIONS1
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
1AII units jwg/l
2Bottle broken
3LT = less than
July
0800
LT23
76
35
LT20
LT10
23
July
0800
6
361
101
LT20
27
149
20 — July 23
1600 2400
7 5
151 133
228 94
LT20 LT20
39 32
1 24 116
26 —July 27
1600 24002
30
1025
333
110
273
473
July
0800
9
63
70
32
19
303
23 — July 24
16002 24002
-
-
-
-
-
-
July 27 — July 28
0800
9
321
152
LT20
20
303
1 600 2400
22 12
870 364
207 1 1 9
117 21
269 54
362 347
July
0800
LT2
100
105
LT20
31
135
24 — July 25
1600
6
884
267
139
260
162
July 28 — July
0800
9
372
157
33
75
197
2400
3
139
128
LT20
43
379
29
July 25 — July 26
0800 1 600 2400
8 13 11
428 1360 563
1 54 864 205
41 216 29
39 347 66
1 90 503 223
1 600 2400
39
455
154
44
63
345
18
311
120
86
98
204
Due to the very low
concentrations of the organics in
most of the samples, little correla-
tion on a daily basis could be
drawn from the organic results.
The variation of toluene during
the first week at Plant A showed
increased concentrations during
the work week, but during the
second week, this trend was not
shown. With the majority of the
analytical results reported as less
than 10/ug/l for these organics,
there would have to be a very
heavy organics discharger to the
system on a regular basis for
these organic results to show any
kind of a trend worthy of definitive
conclusions. The one organic
pollutant which did show up with
values consistently above the
detection limit was chloroform,
with a trend toward higher values
at the end of each sample week at
Plant A (except for the composite
ending on Thursday each week).
The values for chloroform in Plant
B were always below the detec-
tion limit, so a similar comparison
could not be made.
Therefore, as discussed above, it
is apparent that day-by-day
differences may be more readily
apparent in treatment facilities
with larger industrial contribu-
tors, and the amounts of the
priority pollutants which are
being contributed by the residen-
tial contributors are small enough
to be diluted below the detection
concentrations by the time they
reach the treatment plants.
Source sampling at industrial
dischargers and selected
sampling under controlled condi-
tions (i.e., new sewer, little
ground water inflow, etc.) of
32
-------
totally residential areas, may yield
trends for those priority pollutants
which are introduced into sewers.
Potential of Additional Sample
Points
During the first week of sampling
at Plant A and the week at.Plant
B, certain additional points were
sampled to scan for priority
pollutant levels which might
impact mass balances calculated
for these or future plants. In addi-
tion, certain other waste streams,
should they be accessible, may
yield sufficient information to
warrant future sampling.
Sludge Dewatering/Thickening
Recycle Streams
This waste stream is usually
readily accessible in the sludge
handling system of each POTW
andean be sampled to obtain an
indication of the level of pollu-
tants which are recycled for
further biological treatment.
Samples of the filtrate at Plant A
show that the priority pollutant
concentrations in these streams
are generally of such small
magnitude that they do not
warrant the effort in obtaining
them.
If this type of waste stream is
recycled in such a way so as to
affect another sample point,
background sampling should be
practiced, on a case-by-case basis
only, to provide a total picture of
the flow of priority pollutants
through the POTW
Floatable
The pollutant levels in the float-
,ables samples taken at Plant A
and the corresponding sludge
concentrations correlate reason-
ably well. However, since the
volume of floatables removed
from the wastewater is very small
when compared to the sludge
volumes, additional samples of
this type are not deemed neces-
sary.
Primary Effluent
One of the principal goals of the
40-plant sampling effort is to
determine the fate of priority
pollutants by calculating mass
balances. A more accurate calcu-
lation can be made if all factors
are expressed in the same terms
(i.e., liquid flow in mg/l rather
than solids in mg/kg). To
accurately calculate mass
balances through the primary
treatment process, a sample point
in the primary effluent will be
needed.
Tap Water
The tap water sample is a neces-
sary background sample which
should be obtained at each POTW
so that a total understanding of
what pollutants are already in the
water prior to its use may be
ascertained.
Effluent Before Chlorination
Since the use of chlorine as a
disinfecting agent has been
q uestioned beca use of the
possible formation of chlorinated
hydrocarbons, the collection of
effluent before chlorination could
offer a means of obtaining valua-
ble information. Should a
chlorinated hydrocarbon be
detected in all the samples
throughout the POTW (influent,
sludges, effluent), its fate would
still be in question as to whether
it was removed in any of the treat-
ment processes or if it was
generated in the disinfection
process. This doubt on the fate of
such compounds would be
resolved should the wastewater
be sampled both before and after
chlorination.
Digester Supernatant/Heat
Treatment Recycle Streams
Both of these waste streams are
concentrated flows which are
liable to contain very high con-
centrations of conventional, non-
conventional and selected priority
pollutants. Neither of these
streams was sampled at either of
the pilot plants, but each could
yield valuable data on the
processes involved and how they
impact the fate of priority pollu-
tants in POTW's.
ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1979 -657-060/5378
33
-------
------- |