v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
WH-552
Washington DC 20460
EPA 440/1-82/303
September 1982
Water and Waste Management
Fate of Priority Pollutants
in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
Final Report
Volume
-------
DISCLAIMER STATEMENT
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agecny (EPA) and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of EPA, nor does mention of trade names or commecial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
Subsequent to the collection of data for this study, and the
review of these data by each sampled facility, EPA solicited con-
fidentiality statements from each plant regarding the data
collected and plant identity. Although all facilities considered
their data non-confidential, some plants requested that their
identy be kept confidential. Therefore, to minimize the possi-
bility of identifying these facilities, all plants contained in
this study are consistently referred to by an assisned code
number that is considered confidential by EPA.
-------
FATE OF PRIORITY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
IN
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME I
PREPARED FOR:
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
PREPARED BY:
BURNS AND ROE INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORPORATION
PARAMUS, NEW JERSEY 07652
-------
PREFACE
This document is being issued as the Final Report on a project
initiated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in
1978 to study the occurrence and fate of the 129 priority toxic
pollutants in 40 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and a
supplemental study conducted at 10 additional POTW. This report
consists of two volumes. Volume I contains the background and
purpose of study, the POTW selection criteria, the sampling
program details, the overall POTW data, evaluation of analytical
results, and the preliminary conclusions of the study. Volume II
contains the Daily Analytical Results which embody the basic data
generated during the course of this study and which are the
source for all other data compilations and analyses.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME I
SECTION ; ' PAGE
I. SUMMARY, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 1
Summary 1
Results and Conclusions 1
II. INTRODUCTION ; 3
Background 3
Purpose 4
III. POTW SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION 5
Selection Criteria 5
POTW Characteristics 7
IV. DESCRIPTION OF FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM 15
Sampling Frequency 15
Sampling Techniques 16
Sample Points 17
V. DATA ORGANIZATION AND INTERPRETATION 27
Data Organization 27
Laboratory Data Reporting Protocol 27
Data Interpretation and Presentation 30
Quality Assurance Program 31
VI. EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION OF ANALYTICAL DATA 35
Overview of Priority Pollutant Occurrence 35
Summary of Influent Pollutant Concentrations 51
Impact of Industrial Contribution on Influent 51
Quality
Treatment or Removal of Priority Pollutants in 56
POTWs
Reduction of Priority Pollutants by POTW 58
Treatment Processes
POTW Priority -Pollutant Mass Balances 62
Daily Variation of Influent" Pollutant Concen- 64
trations
Effect of Rainfall on Influent Concentrations 66
Formation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 66
Pollutants Detected in Sludges When Not 70
Measured in the Influent
Correlation of Influent and Effluent Concen- 70
trations
Discussion of 10-Plant Study Results 73
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
Flow Diagrams - Plants 1 to 40 and
51 to 60
Cumulative Distribution Curves of
Effluent Concentrations and Percent
Removals for the Twenty-four Most
Frequently Found Priority Pollutants
Summary of Analytical Data - Plants 1
to 40 and 51 to 60
Percent Occurrence of Pollutant
Parameters - Plants 1 to 40 and 51
to 60
Mass Balance in Pounds Per Day
Plants 1 to 40 and 51 to 60
PAGE.
A-1 to A-52
B-1 to B-14
C-1 to C-108
D-1 to D-74
E-1 to E-102
-------
LIST:OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
TITLE
POTW Characteristics
Summary of Number of Samples Taken
at Each Plant
Occurrence of Priority Pollutants in
POTW Influents, POTWs ,1 to 40
Occurrence of Priority Pollutants in
POTW Effluents, POTWs 1 to 40
Occurrence of Priority Pollutants in
POTW Raw Sludges, POTWs 1 to 40
Occurrence of Priority Pollutants in
PAGE
8
18
36
39
41
45
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
POTW Influents
POTWs 51 to 60 :..>•
Occurrence of Priority Pollutants in
POTW Effluents
POTWs 51 to 60
Occurrence of Priority Pollutants in
POTW Raw Sludges
POTWs 51 to 60
Summary of Selected Influent Pollutant
Concentrations for POTWs 1 through 40
Summary of Minimum Percent Removals
Achieved by Secondary Treatment
Median Removals of Selected Pollutants
through POTW Treatment Processes
Mass Balance Summary
Daily Average Concentrations of Pol-
lutants in POTW Influents
Effect of Rainfall on Influent Total
Metal Loading
Effect of Rainfall on Influent Lead
Loading
Formation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
During Chlorine Disinfection
Occurrence of Priority Pollutants De-
tected in Sludges When Not Detected
in the Influents
47
49
52
57
61
63
65
67
68
69
71
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE NO.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TITLE
Correlation of Influent.and Effluent
Concentration
Comparison of Influent and Secondary
Effluent Pollutant Masses -POTW 51
Comparison of Influent/ Secondary Ef-
fluent and Primary Industrial Efflu-
ent Pollutant Masses - POTW 52
Comparison of Influent and Secondary
Effluent Pollutant Masses - POTW 53
Comparison of Influent, Secondary
Effluent and Primary Industrial
Effluent Pollutant Masses - POTW 54
Comparison of Influent, Secondary Ef-
fluent, Tertiary Effluent and Primary
Industrial Effluent Pollutant Masses -
POTW 55
Comparison of Influent, Primary Efflu-
ent and Tertiary Effluent Pollutant
Masses - POTW 56
Comparison of Influent, Secondary Ef-
fluent and Primary Industrial Effluent
Pollutant Masses - POTW 57
Comparison of Influent and Secondary
Effluent Masses - POTW 58
Comparison of Influent and Secondary
Effluent Pollutant Masses - POTW 59
Comparison of Influent, Primary Efflu-
ent, Secondary Effluent and Primary
Industrial Effluent Pollutant Masses -
POTW 60
PAGE
72
75
76
78
80
81
82
84
85
86
87
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
1
2
TITLE :
Organization of the 50 POTW Compu-
terized Data Base
Correlation of Influent Total Metals
Concentration Versus Percent
Industrial Flow
Correlation of Influent Total Vola-
tiles Concentration Versus Percent
Industrial Flow
Correlation of Influent Total Base
Neutrals Concentration Versus Percent
Industrial Flow
Cumulative Distribution Curves, Total
Metals and Total Volatiles Effluent
Concentration and Percent Removal
Cumulative Distribution Curves, Total
Acids and Total Base Neutrals Effluent
Concentration and Percent Removal
53
54
55
59
60
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The EPA personnel contributing to this effort were: Project
Officer, Robert M. Southworth, Effluent Guidelines Division;
Program Manager, Thomas P. O'Farrell, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards; and former Project Officers, Arthur E.
Shattuck, formerly of the Effluent Guidelines Division, and R.
Dean Jarman, formerly of the Office of Research and Development,
Center for Environmental Research Information.
Additionally, the following EPA personnel are gratefully
acknowledged for their valuable assistance and guidance: Jeffery
D. Denit, Director, Effluent Guidelines Division; Harold B.
Coughlin, Branch Chief, Effluent Guidelines Division; and
John E. Riley, Former Branch Chief, Effluent Guidelines Division.
Acknowledgement is also 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 exe-
cution of the sampling program: Arnold S. Vernick, Jameel Ahmad,
Henry M. Celestino, Thomas Hayton, Gary C. Martin, James Millikin,
and Mark V. Sadowski. Additionally, significant contributions
were made by Howard D. Feiler and Paul J. Storch of JRB
Associates, both former members of the Burns and Roe technical
staff.
The technical staff of E.G. Jordan Co. are also acknowledged for
significant contributions in the preparation of the final report
and for management and execution of the 10-POTW Supplemental
Sampling Program.
-------
I.
SUMMARY, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
In 1978, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
initiated a program to study the occurrence and fate of the 129
priority pollutants in 40 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
The first phase of this work was a two-plant pilot study designed
to set operating parameters for the remainder of the 40 POTW
study. In October 1979, EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division (EGD)
published a report summarizing "the findings of the pilot study
work, "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment
Works-Pilot Study," EPA 440/1-79-300. Upon completion of half of
the POTW project EGD published a report summarizing the findings
for the first 20 POTWs, "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly
Owned Treatment Works-Interim Report," EPA 440/1-80-301.
In this final report, data from all 40 POTWs plus 10 supplemental
POTWs sampled under a parallel project are presented. At most of
these plants, a minimum of 6 days of 24-hour sampling of
influent, effluent and sludge streams was completed. Each sample
was analyzed for conventional, selected non-conventional, and
priority pollutants.
Beyond presenting the occurrence and concentration of. priority
pollutants in the 40 POTWs (and 10 supplemental POTWs) other spe-
cific phenomena and relationships are evaluated in this report.
These items include:
o Impact of industrial contribution on influent quality
o Treatment or removal of priority pollutants in POTWs
o Reduction of priority pollutants by individual POTW treatment
processes
O POTW priority pollutant mass balances
o Daily variation of influent pollutant concentrations
o Effect of rainfall on priority pollutant levels in POTW influents
o Formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons through chlorine disin-
fection
o Quantification of pollutants found in sludges but not detected
in POTW influents
o Correlation of influent and effluent priority pollutant levels.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. A total of 102 priority pollutants were detected, at least
once, in POTW influents.
2. In general, the higher the industrial contribution to a POTW,
the higher the concentration of priority pollutants in the
POTW influents.
-------
5.
6.
7.
9.
10
Based on the 40 POTW data base, 50 percent of secondary
treatment plants achieved a minimum of 70 percent reduction
of total priority pollutant metals, 82 percent reduction of
total volatile priority pollutants, and 65 percent reduction
of the total base neutral priority pollutants.
Tertiary treatment processes reduced priority pollutants
slightly better than secondary processes. Primary treatment
was less effective than either secondary or tertiary pro-
cesses. Activated sludge, trickling filter, rotating biolo-
gical contactor and pure oxygen activated sludge processes
were approximately equally effective in reducing priority
pollutant concentrations.
At plants where the metal priority pollutant mass balance was
good, some organic priority pollutants in the influent were
not always accounted for in the effluent or sludges. This
indicates that, in general, a portion of the organic priority
pollutants are biodegraded or, in the case of volatiles,
stripped out of the wastewater.
The mass loading of priority pollutants in POTW influents was
higher on.weekdays than on weekends. This was true for the
metals, volatiles and base neutral priority pollutants.
Heavy rainfall increased metallic priority pollutant mass
loading at POTWs.
8. Certain priority pollutant chlorinated hydrocarbons increased
slightly in concentration during chlorine disinfection.
Some pollutants not measured in POTW influents were regularly
measured at high levels in the corresponding sludge streams.
•For many conventional and priority pollutants, as influent
concentrations increased effluent concentrations also
increased. This implies that the removal rates for the
priority pollutants are relatively constant and a fixed per-
centage of incremental loadings of these pollutants will be
removed by secondary treatment.
-------
'.- : II. --'
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND •: ;
Priority toxic pollutants enter navigable waters from a variety
of point and non-point sources. Prior to the initiation of this
project, only scattered data existed on the impact, occurrence,
and removal of toxic pollutants in Publicly^Owned Treatment
Works (POTW). Very little was known about the quantity of toxic
pollutants entering receiving streams from POTWs or the ability
of POTWs to treat or remove toxic pollutants.
In 1978, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
initiated a project to systematically study the occurrence and
fate of the 129 priority toxic pollutants in 40 POTWs. The scope
of the overall project included an extensive sampling program for
all priority pollutants and selected conventional/non-conven-
tional pollutants to be conducted at 40 geographically distrib-
uted POTWs representing a variety of municipal treatment
technologies, size ranges, and industrial flow contributions.
The initial phase of the 40 POTW project was a two-plant pilot
study designed to establish operating parameters for the full
study. During this pilot study, logistical factors for field
sampling were tested to determine optimum sampling methodologies
and an overall framework was established for studying the various
aspects of POTW operations. The pilot study also served to
establish the analytical protocols and field and laboratory
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures that would
be used for the duration of the study and to determine the signi-
ficance that industrial contribution should have on the POTW
selection process.
During the course of the 40 POTW study, EPA decided to increase
the number of POTWs in the data base to 50 by including 10 addi-
tional plants that were sampled under a separate program. Each
of the latter 10 POTWs was characterized by one dominant indus-
trial discharger that contributed all or most of the industrial
flow. Sampling of these 10 POTWs mirrored the procedures, tech-
niques, and sample points of the 40 POTW study. Moreover, the
effluent from the dominant industry was also sampled at 5 of
these 10 plants as part of this supplementary study.
In October 1979, EPA's Effluent Guidelines Division published a
report summarizing the findings of the pilot study: Fate of
Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works -Pilot
Study," (EPA-440/1-79-300). Subsequently, at the midpoint of the
study when sampling at 20 of the 40 POTWs was completed, an
interim report was published by EPA (October 1980) that presented
-------
the data from the first 20 cities, including a number of prelimi-
nary conclusions regarding the occurrence and fate of priority
pollutants: "Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works - Interim Report" (EPA-440/1-80-301).
This document is the final project report and presents the find-
ings of the full 40 POTW study and also includes the findings of
the sampling program at the 10 additional POTWs.
PURPOSE ... ...''•
The basic objective of this study is to generate, compile, and
report data on the occurrence and fate of the 129 priority toxic
pollutants in 50 POTWs. Preliminary evaluations of the data are
also conducted. This report presents, therefore, all of the
collected data, results of the preliminary evaluations, and
results of calculations to determine:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The quantity of, priority pollutants in the influent to
the POTWs.
The quantity of priority pollutants discharged from the
POTWs.
The quantity of priority pollutants in the effluent from
intermediate process streams.
The quantity of priority pollutants in the POTW sludge
streams.
Information presented in this report can be useful to the scien-
tific community and the engineering profession at large, the
industrial community, governmental bodies including regulatory
agencies at the Federal, 'state, or local level, as well as the
POTWs themselves. Depending on the intended use, the data base
for 'this study has the potential to yield further interpretations
or conclusions beyond those presented in this report.
-------
Ill
POTW SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION
SELECTION CRITERIA
A major goal of this project was to obtain priority toxic pollu-
tant data from representative types of secondary treatment facil-
ities that will exist after completion of EPA's Construction
Grants Program. Primary factors considered in selecting the
POTWs included:
.1. Treatment processes
2. POTW size
3. Amount of industrial contribution
4. Type of industrial contribution
5. POTW operating efficiency
6. Actual flow as a percent of design capacity
7. Geographical distribution.
,The first 40 of the 50 POTWs included in this study are represen-
tative of the secondary treatment processes as reported in the
1978 EPA Needs Survey. POTW selection incorporated a geographi-
cal and type of treatment mix that approximately profiled all
POTWs over 5 MGD nationwide. Since activated sludge and
trickling filter plants are the most prevalent, the 40 POTWs are
most heavily weighted with these types. The 40 POTWs included 26
activated sludge plants, 7 trickling filter plants, 5 dual acti-
vated sludge and parallel trickling filter plants, one aerated
lagoon and one rotating biological contactor (RBC). The RBC
plant was the only one of the 40 POTWs under 5 MGD, primarily
because it was the most suitable RBC plant located with respect
to all considered variables. POTWs from each EPA region are
included in the 40 POTWs. The number of plants in each region is
approximately proportional to the total number of POTWs over 5
MGD in that region. The 40 POTWs were distributed geographically
as follows: ,
EPA Region
I
II
III
i.v
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
NO. Of POTWS
4
3
3
6
9
3
3
3
5
1
-------
POTWs from 25 different states were included among the 40 plants.
Within the 40 POTWs, modifications of the activated sludge pro-
cess such as contact stabilization, Kraus, and. pure oxygen are
represented as well as some advanced waste treatment processes,
notably tertiary mixed media filters and polishing ponds.
Although according to the Needs Survey, most POTWs are in the
smaller size range, plant selection favored plants over 5 MGD.
This is primarily due to three reasons. First, although there
are relatively fewer large POTWs' the large plants treat the bulk
of the nation s wastewater. Second, EPA's General Pretreatment
Regulations (40 CFR 423) primarily affect all POTWs larger than
5 MGD. Third, for an intensive sampling program such as this,
plants over 5 MGD also offer some logistical advantages. These
plants are more likely to receive continuous flow over 24 hours,
and often have more suitable sampling locations designed into the
plant, as well as access to a greater number of sludge and
sidestreams. POTWs of this size also tend to meter more of their
plant flows and have better operational, laboratory and
industrial flow records, which are necessary for subsequent ana-
lyses. Larger plants are more apt to have continuous staffing,
which minimizes safety problems and provides some assurances
against major plant equipment failures.
Actual POTW flow as a percent of design capacity was also an
important selection criterion. POTWs operating well below capa-
city do not give a fair representation of priority toxic pollu-
tant treatment or removal. Although a few of the selected POTWs
operated at a low percentage of their indicated design capacity,
these plants generally had a significant percentage of the treat-
ment processes off-line during the week of sampling. For
example, at POTW 2, only half of the primary treatment capacity
was in use when the plant was sampled. Likewise, at POTW 8, only
seven of ten primary and five of nine secondary clarif iers were •
in operation. At POTW 19, routinely, only 65 percent of the
design capacity was on-line.
With regard to industrial flow, POTWs ranging from close to zero
to more than 50 percent industrial contribution are included.
Similarly, industries in most of the 34 industrial categories
currently under review by the Effluent Guidelines Division are
covered by the study. Two of the early POTWs selected had vir-
tually no industrial flow, and both had relatively low concen-
trations of priority toxic pollutants. Consequently, for the
remainder of the 40 POTW study, EPA decided to select POTWs that
had a mixture of industries, and generally 10 percent to 50 per-
cent industrial flow. POTW sizes were also varied from 5 MGD to
200 MGD, (with the exception of the RBC plant), but no attempt
was made to profile the national distribution for POTW flows or
industrial flow percentages.
n,/ althou9h not a11 of the 40 plants always met the 30/30
BOD/TSS secondary treatment requirements, POTWs were only
-------
selected if they were operating at or near the efficiency
required to meet secondary treatment regulations. (Twenty-seven
of the 40 plants had average effluent quality meeting the 30/30.,
requirement. ) ''.'._,.''.
In summary, the 40 POTWs were selected to present a variety of
treatment plant operations, flows, and industrial contributions.
They were not meant to be a statistically valid' representation of*
all POTWs in the country, but rather to provide some information
on the scope of priority toxic pollutant occurrence in municipal
wastewater and on the fate of these pollutants in secondary
treatment facilities.
"".„,.- ' . ' '': i 4 ..-'-'> * *
r-' • -
The 10 supplemental POTWs were selected primarily to include a
targeted industrial contributor, with secondary attention to all
other selection criteria. All 10 POTWs were located on the east
coast (EPA Regions II, III, IV and V) to minimize shipping and
travel costs. One of the 40 POTWs (POTW 6) was resanipled as part
of the 10 POTWs because it had a large plastics product manufac-
turer contributing to the influent and the first sampling episode
indicated, exceptionally high volatile pollutant concentrations.
The 10 supplemental POTWs ranged in size (average design flow)
from 3 MGD to 42 MGD. Eight of these were activated sludge
plants (one followed by advanced treatment), one was a trickling
filter plant and one was a lagoon system followed by land appli-
cation.
POTW CHARACTERISTICS
Flow diagrams for the 50 POTWs are presented in Appendix A with
pertinent notes on any plant irregularities that affected sampl-
ing. Table 1 presents information on the basic characteristics
of each POTW. Each of the 50 POTWs provided some form of secon-
dary treatment, and nine plants further provided some advanced ,
wastewater treatment (AWT). Table 1 indicates the average design
flow and the historical influent flow for "th,e secondary treatment
system at each plant. This table also indicates the type of
sewerage system and percent industrial flow to the plant as esti-
mated by plant personnel. The percent industrial flow is not
always consistently defined by wastewater treatment plants for
the following reasons: ,
o Some plants had never surveyed their industries, while other
POTWs had knowledge only of major industries. These plants
could only estimate industrial flows from historical records
or studies.
o Some POTWs included all commercial accounts in their
-industrial flow definition, some plants included only
selected commercial users and some did not include any.
-------
c
o\
co
^
VO
a
V)
OS
*— UI
UJ fcj iA
•s? ^?
t— g
X
E
r.
CM
^—
O
Q.T-
£
f
C
Ov
T*. CM -^
t— T- eo m
a o CM
C3 (4 > C3
at— cu tno <£za. 12:
a
a
i
o
a
a
a
i
O
ON
=2
o
a
i
a
a
i
o
in
m
a
a
a
a
a
vo
CO
to
C 03 O 05
jLsSti
^2'sg'g
TO CO bii-H H
U.ZQ.UJ o.
1 >-
'rH CO
O1CTJ
O -H CO C
zin u HH
CO
1 -y
fc4 5 w T3
_Q -W 4J O
u. o Za.
TJ o)
(D ••» TJ •* 03 .* .-v Qj
jj co -4Ta(a co -H
t — 0)
COi-HT3CO<4 COjJ CO
t, a.gl-c 3 CBJJ 34i^ri 3
£Setcl.t£ciSo-i2l£
i-tf
•H co -a jj
1 «U £ -O CJ
m CO CL (^ 4) 3
C 4J -H 03 -frf "O
CO (-4 3 O.*^ O '
STi "c
13 jj O CO
•a co a Q. c E
h 3 a O Q.
5 c o co jj '3
a .H IH (H co cr
•0 rt
• » •« 03 •« (0
CO 0) JJ CO O CO
*O JJ 0} JJ CO JJ *
1 J-t JJ
&§l
O -H «H C
2cn (*- »-•
•»i— I ^ tO
•-» C JJ CO ••* (D ••» DO)
03 OCQC04J CO -H rH T3 0)
•« cu a i 4-> E ^ u o a^co-uo-HU
bt 3 CO CO Q.4J 3 —H i— ( 3 Cflr-H M -H <•"* 3
O -H t^ M Q C*^H (H .Co 01 ti (^ (U C -C U
0)
u
isj a
ra jJ
4J §
a.
c
•H
"co
1
$
f
0)
c
u
0
"U S
O QJ
*c '>
8. £
Ui M
g1
•H C
»H O
a. -H
CO CO
3
ai u
•H CO
§ 0
•a -a
0)
3 a)
4J
t4 C
0) 0
4->
• *Q
h 4J 0)
°| J
f4 JJ JJ
CO CO C JJ
•n co co u
C (4 30
0 JJ -10.
0 U- CO
co >s <<- a:
CO 64 CO
— '3 s
E >--H
JJ.H h U
c b a co
to a. -o jj
s c c
JJ 64 O >-4
CO CO O •
CO JJ CO CO JJ
u u- 8 je c
JJ CO JJ CO
CO -H
--j TO t. c a.
CD CO • CO >H
JJ CO (4 (4
O CO CO CO CO CO
JJ CO JJ CO CO JJ
CX^H 3 3 i-H
O1J3 C'co 'co ii
3 > >
• O CO O1 O1
•O (4 'H C JJ CO C
CO JC .H C JZ -H
Q. 0^£ "'"S
S CO fH CJ ^H S CJ
CO 3 <*- .rt <1- O — (
CO i-H U Cl- t4 (4
CO JJ JJ UJ <*- JJ
S> C
CO >. CO CO
I -O P-I J3 • OI.H
CO Q. >% C
JJ-0 , T3-0 CO'^
C C4 I*- CO 3 JZ
CO O O JJ JJ U^^
-HO O CO
a. co c co co c
64 O P4 CO >H
03 -i jj .-; ol
Sr* JJ JZ ffl u
p, § o tg "" 'Q ^
•-* jJ Q.S (4 c i
C U O CO 3
O
3£S
I 1 1
tn u, ^
-------
0
CM
O\
T""
cc
p-
^
CD
3
•H T-
jj tn
1 s
— in
ce
f UJ
Ul G IA
§ 1 "
* 5
*
o
o.
•;
*"
j^
O<-
o.
p^ o
in •* a ^™ "^
CM
= 0
m co a
3in CM o r^ ••>
a_< i- r- NO o
a
\jQ *K^
o • a
ai o CM CM a
< r" CO NO ^™
ON
t/1 CM ON O
< CM a -^- ^
i: ^5 ^ .a
tn
<^ ON a
4-s • a
3
»—v ^*
CM
5
CM
1A
"^
R
R
~-,
fcS
t-ON
^»^»
ON ON
r-
1?
vO
CM
!•>
t—
"*^
^
^v.
ca
CM
£•
CN
a.
U-N
*~
CM
^•^
C3>
CO
03
S O CM JJ "V, 03 r~*
_, a >»-" <~ >" " T3 t/1 CM
CO JJ >•••< -< 03 -1 > «^ O
O 03 O C3 03 O1Q 03 O>Q CJ
.-(fc.U 0303 >C3fci >
m*
^
CM
CM
O\
T~
B
a\
^•3
^
?—
^
^
S
*~
?
^~
^
CM
QlU
S U
CD *J
Ul
a
CM
.
Q. i— -u ui a. Z ** u o. cs a. o-
— CO
CO CJ
1 JJ .f«.
'S'S'Sg'S
0 ?1.
•s
co jj o en*?* 03 03 o
O OuCt-iCCCO
,-l-H 3JJ-HJJ Q-rtt-
4 co ^ o jj o
jj-ou
u. S a.
to I •- to ID
iss?ais
JJ-HJJ
335 73
03 h O 03 03
r- CM
oT n
"O JJ 03
•S 03 CJ I C
14 3 —I T3 ^1 ~l
*a *o "u u co co jr
o c a 43 JJ jj o
O -FH Ci CO CO 03 CO
h_ si Q. u. o z z:
-• C
CO O
to .
3 -
•a
c .
U 43
u to fc«
O 3 JJ
•TO C
S«t3
a
a.
&
T3
03
•a
•H
S
Q.
C
a
• a
•o S
.2 S
ti U_
03 C
at
c
a.
E
3
T3
•a
>- 03
h • CO
CO JJ -H
•q c >
|g303
03 03
^ U- 4-1
Ol 03 C
3 U i-l
O
U JJ 03
4C C 4=
JJ 03 JJ
SC8
r-H ^- U
(0 LU U-
CU
^O • CT
Q) >> C
*n TD to
u 3 jr
O JJ U
o to
03 CO
U tO
"H CO
.— JT 03
CO 4J 4J
3 O
JJ U C
u a 03
-------
f
-
O \Q «d"
.<*. — . O \ ,3.
tA CO \o ^- f^ \
« ^ « ^ s s s
O «tf
_. JG 04 CN
— 0*4 03 x^ •x^
- S E > S $ S
tO U. C/3 l^
S 12 "^ lA-a- t->o
^ ^ ma t-'* — K\
v t" — ca ^ C: <. -C
<^ -s^ "v, ™ ^(*N" ^^
Cf O \rt ^^ !^ 1^ ^~ ^2
X3 in ^ O £P 22 r^
<= 0 CM t^ S vfl
2 ° ^ ^ CO >
0 CO r- K o !-
N " CM >o ° ^ 03
O CO CM
m a v^ >^_
§ $ 3 § a s o
o 2 *\
o ^. ^, •
^ "> 1^ C3- CM E ^
* | § 5
^ S R § 5 <| j;
_ O\ CM
C3 0 § ^ ~
in T- pA ^ 5> S S
10 ,«•< CM In- a jg jo
to
O Mt-rf U_) «
U 2 CO C X^-N 05
S 000 0 r-H fa
*~* '-4 Z *H 03 03
•* L^. fa U. 3 * ^^ ..
1 x-22 xU ^Js 3 Ǥ
>™H 03 (— t «i; Q) Si_^ j_r) 'H !»j
0 •? . .'> C | co ?< ^.$ "I S
o m oig o OIQ u Q. oO m^ 5 "c
tno «sza; ^ T3
o -H u J; u
••» CO •••03
>v O 03 »-< TJ CO
>» U -f-i jj 03 03 ^J
Of2"Si 3 . S zj §
SO 3 UTJ S'^'O
fcio c^-t e-x: S
a.z •-• uiaTa ^5 a!
•o
••» (U
03 aj 03
•O 0) O O "o
• O 'H (4 w «^ uj o uj o_
CO 03
•"IIS 1
£S£li£
M ^^
™ «r *** ••» >» co
•pjjo) jj*3Q34J>. L7S .2
£ D'3 00«-40fci03aJC £
IlllillSlllllIa
..CO CO C3 03
"D O 1 1j 'fa "o
fa033.-i-0.H3.u3
03.HT3 fa 03 COT3 OT3
O-'-< O ^ JJ JJ O CO 5
0-<0_U_ OSO-ldO.
03
fa
rj 0
CO OJ
•H 3
4J .H
fa CO fa
a 3 jj ,
^
o ,.
'2
03
"S.
CO
Q ,
Hi
. cn-
03 CD
5x
CO fa
03 CO
SI'S
»s
£4 (Jj
?0
0 •*->
(M QJ
*l-
0
.s-s
^co
03 -1
3 >>-
— t 0-
CO Ul
0) >s
^1
O -u
O CO
to
fa CO
CO JJ
3
JJ fa
U O
< L.
10
-------
o
ON
E
t*.
NJ
1
t B
- i «
S
u B
s^ Si
* 5
*•-
£
- *
2
It
jt
X
^
+
a
LL.
8
58
<
LJ
g
S
S
t—4
CO 4-1
U C
•X U
• DIE
O 4V
— i CO
O 01
•H (M
m i—
O IA
. •
oo r*- CD
1A O
IA »~ •
«- «- CO
1A IA
R S ' 5
NC
ON
g S
NO 1A IA
5 lA •*
lA
° <2 2
CO
§s"3'c **-*
O 0 0 O p-«
t-H -H Z — 1 CO
. U. U U. 3
X O CM 4J
0 JK4J <- >> CJ
>s»-( —1 CO "1 CJ U > CJ
Q- in o
^
a
in a.
lACD
CM ON
a a
r»
03
•a-
CM
CM
CM
•^
CM
1
CM
^s.
1
CM
>
2
CM
Ol**-
Q Ik-
to" 5T oTu
p 4-1 CO 4J •« 4J CD
S "° ti 3 3 Su'SS-l
*s^ "D^"O4-)<^^ OJ^HTJuZ
o5 o E S xrt o ca.-< o o
R O 0-rtUl»-lfclCO^ti^
CO .* >*
-4 -O CO tj
CO S 4-1 ••>. ••» Q) fl)
(D 0) 03 -H-U CD
00 «ij « *O "— 1 U T3 CJ f-c CO 4J O U
r^T o c o x »H o o.»-^ o *H 4-> ^> ^ -u 5
S $ £3££z£c£3a.a:zi-.u.lEo.
.. >s 1 4J
CO b b C
•04J CO O CO
a ^Is^&ii.
^ ^•g'sfss-g.
? ¥5 £S£j!£"uf
co"
T- •« U O
> "8 "HI
° ? £ S ev
CO T3
CJ •* 6)
«H CO 4J CO
4-1 4J CO 4-1
b CO C U 0
^ OJ CO 3 ~4 rt 3
t- JD -H -a u co -n
*»^ 40 a. o 40 j-» o
R S c§«a!i4.£eu
.. — >! co
a •« co eo b 4j co
CO 4>J O 4^ CD CO 4V
^ J-iUb-HUCUU
•r- -H 3 CD 4J 3 -M -H ^H 3
O *A CD"^b3^HbScOOb
.. .» CO
CO •D CO CO O CO
o^ Si "cJ.rt'cj'e'S'o'b'o
2 .H D — 1 3 b34V3
> •x2^3"o"S"c"Sio"S
5 2 £zol^icvif SCUUJQ.
**. r-< C CO
CM CO O b
^x .H -H -HO
~* b 4-1 <0 JJ
^N. 4J 3 — * 3
OiU. CO 43 b 43
E "- 3 -H 4V .H
Ul ^O b b CO b
«^^ C 4J _O 3 4J
in c " o g c o
1- « s« CJ S i- CJ
•a
o
U
CD
Q.
?
|
CO
D>
C •
T3 3
jj U-
S th-
ai
CO b
CD CO
iiH
O
•a ra
§5
U
U CO
Q)
fs
0
b 4->
£ S
3
CD i— f
"3 U
CD >>
•o-o
b 3
O CO
b CD
I'1
^- CM
11
-------
uJ (n
J S
*** v*
*~*
s
Or-
Cl. IA
IA
IA
uT 3
., UJ T3
i, pH UJ
IOC
o oo
tjU. -H —< 03
Cd O I 3
•a e a^g
c o> •**
0-4 . »>
O 03 O1O 03
03 03 > d b
00 «S SO.
3S
a
03
2
i'
(0 o
S"k. 03 uj
Sit- 3 -H
U 73 b
a. an. end. M c ^-n
o> ac oic o oc
/> en>-H H-PH s?o SHH<
T—CM hA
-------
o Several POTWs had implemented pretreatment programs, which
may have affected the flows and organic loadings from their
industrial users.
Following completion of the sampling phase of this study, EPA
attempted to obtain a more detailed estimate of industrial flow
contributions by calling each POTW and requesting a list of all
contributing industries with their Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation (SIC) codes. However, many of the same problems listed
above were encountered. Consequently, Table 1 indicates the ori-
ginal POTW estimate of percent industrial flow, with the
following exceptions:
o If the original estimate and the detailed survey were signif-
icantly different, the plant was called to resolve the dis-
crepancy. The more accurate number was then used.
o At four POTWs (Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9) where EPA had conducted
separate in-depth studies of the POTWs, the industrial flow
percentages from these studies were used. These, however,
were all very close,to estimates provided by plant personnel,
Table 1 also lists the types of industries that the POTWs indi-
cated were significant contributors to their,system.
13
-------
-------
IV
DESCRIPTION OF FIELD SAMPLING PROGRAM
SAMPLING FREQUENCY
A sampling period of six consecutive days, excluding Sundays, was
selected for this study based on the findings of the two-plant
pilot study as well as logistic factors. Consequently, for 35 of
the 40 POTWs, six days of sampling were completed. At POTWs 3,
8, and 35, only four days of sampling were accomplished. For
POTW 3, the shorter sampling period was planned to permit analy-
tical capacity for three 8-hour influent composite samples per
day. At POTWs 8 and 35, POTW operational problems necessitated
shortening the sampling programs. For the pilot program at
POTWs 1 and 2, seven continuous days of sampling were conducted.
Further, at POTW 1, an additional seven days of influent samples
were collected.
Generally, the 24 hour composite samples in this program were
collected from 8 a.m. to 8 a.m., with grab samples for volatile
organics (VO.A), phenols, cyanide and oil and grease taken six
times daily: at noon, 4:00 p.m., 8:00 p.m., midnight, 4:00 a.m.
and 8:00 a.m. The six days of sampling normally excluded
Sundays, from 8:00 a.m. Sunday to 8:00 a.m. Monday.
At four plants in the 40-plant program, however, sampling was
performed on a Sunday for a variety of reasons. At POTWs 1
and 2, of course, seven consecutive days of sampling were per-
formed. At POTW 9, sampling was started on Sunday to coordinate
sampling periods with another EPA project occurring simulta-
neously in the same city. At POTW 27, sampling was initiated on
a Sunday to complete the six day program before a holiday, which
was judged no better for sampling than a Sunday.
A six-day sampling period was also used for the additional 10
POTWs included in this report. Those plants, designated POTWs 51
through 60, were each sampled on a six consecutive day schedule.
Sunday samples were collected at POTWs 51, 54, 56, and 58.
The two POTWs in the pilot study (POTWs 1 and 2) were sampled for
a longer period of time than those sampled afterward. This is
because sampling at the pilot facilities was intended to deter-
mine the procedure best suited for obtaining the most represen-
tative samples from each treatment plant over the course of the
entire 40-plant program. Thus, the sampling effort at the pilot
plants focused on an appropriate sample frequency that repre-
sented the operation of the POTW, on which days yield the most
representative samples, and on whether the final sampling plan
could be limited to less than seven days of sampling per week.
15
-------
Investigation of the appropriate sampling points to be used in
the remainder of the 40-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. At POTW 1, influent,
effluent, and sludge streams were sampled over 24 hours for seven
consecutive days. Three, eight-hour composite samples of the
influent and a second week of 24-hour influent samples were
collected. At POTW 2, seven consecutive days of 24-hour sampling
were completed.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
Generally, uniform sampling techniques were used at the first 40
POTWs sampled in this study (POTWs 1-40). Sampling for the other
10 plants (POTWs 51-60), although administered under a separate
program, encompassed only minor variations in the techniques
employed for the first 40 plants. The sampling techniques are
described in detail in the Pilot Study report: "Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works - Pilot Study"
(EPA-440/1-79-300).
To obtain the most representative, sample from each sample point,
automatic samplers were used wherever possible to collect equal-
sized sample aliquots. Plow proportional samples were not
collected during this study. Automatic sampling was only
possible where flows were continuous and accessible to the
sampling equipment. At the early plants, automatic sampler
tubing was changed daily and sampler blanks were run before
beginning each, day's new composite. Later in the program (after
POTW 5), under a revised QA/QC program, this procedure was
discontinued, with fresh Teflon tubing being used only when a
sampler was set up at a new collection point. 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 or 5.0 gallon glass jars
that were kept in an ice bath at 4°C for the entire 24-hour
period of sampling.
In cases where wastewater or sludge flows were intermittent or
not pumpable, such as primary sludge, grab samples were
collected. Grab samples were also taken where prescribed by
EPA's sampling protocol. Grabs were collected at least six times
a day and often more frequently.
On occasion, as dictated by sample point configuration, samples
were grabbed via an intermediate vessel. This method of sampling
is a modification to the protocol for fractions such as oil and
grease and volatile organics where the sample container is sup-
posed to be filled directly from the wastewater stream. This
modification was made at a few sample points for safety and prac-
T6
-------
tical reasons since positioning of the sample container in most
of these waste streams was either impossible or very dangerous,
and the error introduced 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; it was repeatedly purged with
fresh sample before each sample was collected.
SAMPLE POINTS
Sample points were selected so that the influent, effluent, and
sludge priority toxic pollutant concentrations could be deter-
mined, which, when combined with flow data, provided priority
toxic pollutant mass balances through the POTWs. Other sample
points were selected to best characterize wastewater and sludges
at particular stages of treatment. At each plant, an effort was
made to select sample points that allowed sample collection
before contamination from other waste streams, recycle flows, or
chemical additions.
Table 2 lists all samples taken during the study (POTWs 1 to 40
and 51 to 60). Additionally, the plant flow diagrams in Appendix
A provide the location of all sample points. In the following
paragraphs, each sample point is briefly described and exceptions
are noted.
Tap Water
Background samples of the domestic water as supplied to the
plants' service areas were taken at 28 of the 50 plants sampled
during this study. Samples were taken at a frequently used sink
within the plant premises. The tap water was allowed to run for
a period of time prior to sample collection. At POTW 21, a
manual composite of two points (off POTW premises) was taken to
obtain a representative sample of the municipal supply during the
sample period.
Influent (Total)
Generally, total influent samples were collected prior to pre-
aeration, grit removal, or recycle streams such as digester
supernatant. To avoid potential automatic sampler tube fouling,
influent samples were collected downstream of bar screens. When
access to the influent was such that representative samples could
not be taken via automatic sampling, grab composite aliquots were
collected every two hours. When a total influent sample was not
accessible, upstream samples of separate flows were taken and
manually composited to create a total influent sample.
17
-------
NO \o
18
-------
a a
H" 0-
§
a
a.
5
Ul
I
Ol
ui
U. 0)
0
s
r»
CM
C C
i i -i -I i -i
-'S
(4 03 3 C
g Q QQ S J ' C
^•SlSgffl^So.
•H I O £ -S "o S V = 3
£ JJ ^ •-' -U -ft t
>— to to o -
03 dJ 4-> O CO (
•o
CO
I
**"* -H ^**
•o ti t*
ffl q »
suit**
T3 -U
3 S -2
CO *H CO
C tj ^J
.rt ^-, O to
n H •-< 03
•o
(D
(0
Jg
U
f—
O
a
a.
^. —' -fct ^-- Q
-U 1
3 CO - - _.
3 3 Ol Ol
-H .H A TJ T3
!- (1- H- 3 3
<4- »- .x.>.>.>.g>s>s>N^|
&&2ra>-g-855-s-saa8-«t
ooooJeegegx-H^Si^
ll-S-a888.888-gg.88S
Q. Q. OU Q. O. V)
Ol (/) t/) >— H- h- V—
" s
19
-------
Ul
\0
UJ O
§ s:
o
O CO
vo <- vo vo
\a \o
vo
vo
vo
vo vo
vo
CM vo
\O
VO \o
VO .vo
vo vo
vfl
CM VO
VO vo
0\
i .^
~n 01 IB o
® I* JJ i-i
4J I—
CO >H
C t,
o
3 m Q
ca
CJt Q) fl) (0
3 3 "O £ "o
r^ !-H -HO H-
O tO C/J (/) ~H »-H
Cl t<- U-
t 1 U ^
£ *
-
C C 01
. C C l-H >, >,
•S
U Ul
M
CD >, >,
-u a>
to co c
20
-------
Influent (Other)
At nine of the plants in this study, additional influent points
were sampled. At POTW 14, an additional set of samples was taken
at the City's second treatment plant (domestic sewage only). At
POTW 15, an additional set of samples was taken of the industrial
influent. POTW 16 had two treatment trains that were both
sampled independently. POTW 30 had separate influent streams
that did not combine until after primary treatment so separate
influent samples were taken. At POTWs 52, 54, 55, 57, and 60,
samples of the effluent from the plants major industrial
discharger were also taken. The same criteria were used to
choose the "Influent (Other)" points as were used to choose
"Influent (Total)" points.
Floatables
At POTW 1, a complete set of samples of the skimmings from the
primary clarifiers was taken. Manual composite samples were
gathered by dipping into the floating layer at the location on
the primary settling tanks where floatables are collected.
Primary Effluent
At 14 of the 50 POTWs, primary clarifi.er overflows, prior to
secondary treatment, were sampled. In all instances, except
POTW 39, automatic samplers were set up in the channel between
primary and secondary treatment. The channels contained the
well-mixed combined effluent flow from all primary tanks. At
POTW 39, a portion of the primary effluent was discharged to
infiltration/percolation (I/P) beds for limited periods each day.
Grab samples of this influent to the I/P beds were taken.
Secondary Effluent (Unchlorinated)
At 21 of the 50 POTWs secondary effluent samples were collected
prior to chlorine disinfection. This sample was collected either
at the secondary clarifier overflow or in the channel leading to
the chlorine contact chamber tank. In the majority of plants the
next step in the treatment process was chlorine disinfection, but
in some plants additional treatment prior to disinfection was
practiced. At other plants, the unchlorinated effluent was the
last accessible sampling point before final discharge. At
POTW 15, the chlorination facilities were shut down in the middle
of the sample week; resulting in 3 chlorinated and 3 unch-
lorinated samples. ';
Secondary Effluent (Chlorinated)
This sample point- represents the effluent from the chlorine con-
tact chamber prior to discharge to the receiving water. This
type of sample was collected at 34 of the plants in this study.
21
-------
Secondary Effluent (Other)
At six of the 50 plants sampled in this study, more than one
secondary effluent point was sampled (excluding pre-and post-
chlorination samples). At POTWs 10, 17, 27, and 37, both acti-
vated sludge and trickling filter effluents were sampled with the
trickling filter effluent considered under this heading. The
"Secondary Effluent (Other)" at POTW 19 was a dechlorinated
effluent. POTW 39 had an infiltration/percolation (I/P) test
facility that treated primary effluent. Effluent from these I/P
beds was listed under this category.
Tertiary Effluent (Unchlorinated)
At POTWs 16 and 25, additional prechlorinated mixed media filter
effluent samples were taken and analyzed for the organic priority
toxic pollutants.
Tertiary Effluent (Chlorinated)
Pour of the plants in this study which utilized mixed media
filtration for tertiary treatment (POTWs 13, 21, 25, and 56) and
three plants which utilized polishing ponds for tertiary treat-
ment (POTWs 21, 22, and 23) were sampled after chlorine disinfec-
tion.
Tertiary Effluent (Other)
At POTW 16, mixed media filter effluent was combined with a por-
tion of the trickling filter plant effluent and sampled after
chlorination. One of the plants utilized a mixed media filter
for tertiary treatment (POTW 38) but chlorinated the flow prior
to the filter, and dechlorinated the effluent from the filter (12
hours/day). The final effluent from this plant is listed under
this heading. POTW 55 utilized spray irrigation as a tertiary
treatment. The effluent from the irrigated fields (underdrains)
was sampled at this facility.
Gravity Thickener Overflow
At POTWs 3, 29, 30, and 32, the overflow from the gravity thick-
ners was recycled to the -head of the plant. Single grab samples
were taken of this recycle stream at each plant.
At POTW 59, the thickener overflow returns to the head of the
primary tanks. A full set of 6 samples of this flow was taken at
this plant.
22
-------
Heat Treatment Decant
At the two plants sampled that conditioned the sludge by heat
treatment,: decant or supernatant samples from the heat treatment
sludge decant (thickening) tanks were manually composited. At
POTW 7 •, these samples were taken from a sample tap on the side of
the decant tank (gravity flow), while at POTW 8 the decant
samples were grabbed from the sludge decant tank overflow weir.
Vacuum Filter Filtrate
Single grab samples of the filtrate from the vacuum filter at
POTWs 1, 32, and 36 were obtained from the pressure lines on the
filters. All fractions were filled as one grab sample via an
intermediate vessel. At POTW 26, manual composites were taken
each day of the six day sampling period directly from the vacuum
filter pumps.
Digester Supernatant
At POTWs 33, 34 and 36, the supernatant from the digesters was
recycled to the head of the plant. Single grab samples were
taken of this recycle stream at each plant.
Other Intermediate Effluent
At POTW 53, a complete set (6 days) of samples was taken of the
effluent from the trickling filter prior to the polishing ponds.
Other Recycle Line
At two of the POTWs, unique recycle lines flowed back into the
head works of the plant. At POTW 26, an ash pit was decanted
back to the headworks and at POTW 40, an aerobic digester super-
natant flowed back into the influent wet well. Single grab
samples were taken at each of these sample points.
Other Source
At POTW 26, a single grab sample was taken of the filter backwash
that was recycled to the head of the.grit chambers. At POTW 30,
two separate influent samples had to be taken to represent the
total influent flow. One was considered "Influent (Other)," and
the other was characterized as "Other Source." At POTW 40, the
drying bed underflow was sampled as a single grab sample to
characterize this additional recycle line.
Primary Sludge (Raw)
At each plant an attempt was made to sample the primary sludge as
it was removed from the primary clarifiers, before any further
treatment. Composite samples of the sludge were always collected
23
-------
by grab sampling techniques for two reasons: sludge consistency
and lack of continuous availability. The majority of the'se
samples were taken from taps either on the sludge pumps them-
selves or on the lines conveying the sludge to storage or further
treatment. Occasionally, the sludge point would be in a rising
well controlled by telescoping valves. The consistency of this
sample varied depending upon the means utilized by the respective
plants for drawing the sludge from the primary tanks. Samples
were taken so as to attempt to represent the average sludge con-
sistency. This involved collecting sludge grabs spaced over the
sampling day, or individual aliquots for each grab sample
spanning definite pumping periods. Primary sludge samples were
collected at 29 of the 50 plants.
Primary Sludge (Digested)
At POTW 10, raw primary sludge was pumped directly to digesters,
with no accessible intermediate taps or valves for sampling.
Consequently, six samples of the digested primary sludge were
taken. This sample was collected from a pump tap as a manual
grab composite.
Primary Sludge (Thickened)
At two of the POTWs (Nos. 3 and 18), the raw primary sludge was
not accessible, necessitating collection of primary sludge after
gravity thickening. Sampling procedures and techniques for this
point were the same as the sampling procedures for the raw pri-
mary sludge.
Primary Sludge (Other)
POTW 30 had separate treatment trains through primary treatment
which yielded two primary sludges. Both were raw primary sludges
with one listed as "raw" and the second one listed as "other."
Waste Activated Sludge (Untreated)
Waste activated slu'dge (WAS) sample points varied from plant to
plant, depending on WAS stream accessibility. At some plants,
WAS was accessible in rising wells prior to sludge conditioning.
If the rising wells were sufficiently mixed, automatic samplers
were used to gather WAS samples. At plants without rising wells,
or when the well was not mixed, samples were taken from taps on
the sludge pumps. Often, however, there were no accessible
sampling points on the WAS line. In these cases, since WAS and
return activated sludge are usually identical, samples were taken
from the return sludge pumps or return sludge lines. The return
sludge or waste activated sludge point was sampled at 27 of the
50 plants.
24
-------
Waste Activated Sludge-DAF Thickened ,
At POTW 2, an additional sample of the waste activated sludge$was
taken after it had been conditioned in a dissolved air flotation
(DAP) system. This was a single grab sample.
Secondary Sludge (Humus)
These samples represent all the trickling filter (humus) sludges
taken for this 50 POTW study. When the sludge consistency would
allow, and if the sample point was accessible and well mixed, the
samples were gathered via an automatic sampler. For all other
cases, the samples were manually composited.
Waste Activated Sludge (Other Thickened)
At POTW 10, two manually collected composite samples were taken
of the waste activated sludge after centrifugation. The samples
were taken from a tap on the pump conveying the thickened sludge
to the digesters. At POTW 50, the unthickened waste activated
sludge was not accessible, so a complete set (6 days) of samples
was taken of the gravity thickened waste activated sludge.
Secondary Sludge (Other)
At POTW 23, the secondary sludge was taken from the secondary
clarifiers after the aerated lagoons. At POTW 33, secondary
sludge was taken from the secondary clarifiers after-the rotating
biological contactors.
Combined Sludge-Raw From Primary
Fourteen of the 50 POTWs recycle their secondary sludge directly
back into the primary clarifiers and have access to the sludge as
it leaves the primary tanks. At these plants, a combined sludge
sample was taken in the same manner described for primary sludge.
These samples were composited directly from,the primary tanks
prior to any sludge conditioning.
Combined Sludge-Secondary Thickened ;
At POTWs 2 and 8, the secondary sludge after DAF thickening was
combined with unprocessed primary sludge for further processing.
Samples of this combined sludge were taken by grab sampling tech-
niques.
Nitrification Sludge
Two of the plants followed their activated sludge process with
nitrification processes (POTWs 20 and 25). At these plants, two
grab samples of the waste nitrification sludge were taken. These
samples were taken directly from the waste sludge as single grab
samples.
25
-------
Combined Sludge (Untreated)
At POTW 1, a manual" flow" composi'£e'! sample" of''both primary and
waste activated sludges was taken and analyzed as a combined
sample of the total sludge. At POTW 1, the separate sludge from
the primary settling tanks was not accessible, so a sample of the
primary sludge was taken after it, was cpmbined withs the waste
activated sludgej prlpjr "to," heat treatmen't T;""" ^* ->»i'y. » ;.
________ - ... . , . .. ... • ,. ..... ..
At POTW 56, the waste; activated. sludge is returned to the aerated
grit chamber, preventing, sampling "of the primary sludge alone.
Since the sludge 'is not accessible when it is" "removed from the
primary tanks , a samplerpf ', tfte combine.^"' sludge prior to heat
'''""""1 '"" '" ""''"'' "'"''''"' ' ' : "':1''
treatment was taken....
-...-. j • , -, - ;;' tilt.. ,'»„-;
Combined Sludge (Both"Thickeried)
• !•* '.J : i:
At the four POTWs where sludge from the secondary clarifiers was
not immediately •^accessible (^ps,; 3, 17> ; 59, ' and 60 ), samples were
taken after 'the sludge: had", "been gravity! thickened and combined
with the thickened, primary . sludge, " . .
Combined Sludge, (Digested) '. ' ' 1 ;* . ' >T ! - -
At POTWs 4, 5, 6, and 57, the combined sludge sample was taken
after anaerobic digestion. .......
Combined Sludge (Heat Treated) ,, , ; ,
In an effort to explore" the, effects .of' the heat treatment process
on priority pollutants, sludge samples from the heat treatment
systems at POTWs;'?, 8, 30, and 60 were taken.''
Combined Sludge (Other)
At POTW, 16, which has two parallel treatment trains, two separate
primary c'lari.fierJ sludge's we're, sampled., At this particular
plant, the primary tank sludges included the waste secondary
sludges because these,sludges were recycled to the head of the
primary systems. One trickling filter combined sludge was cate-
gorized under this heading, whereas, the combined sludge from the
parallel plant was categorized^ as "Combined Sludge - Raw from
Primary." . •-- -• ' _ -:;: t^ '..'". J '''','.""''"'. "., " ,."' ':': "';'' '"' . ' .' " "
Combination of Sources
At POTW 10, two manual composite samples of the aerobic digester
feed were taken. The sample was a combination of the thickened
waste activated sludge and the floatables'. Manual samples were
taken at this point from a tap on the sludge feed pump.
26
-------
V
DATA ORGANIZATION AND INTERPRETATION
DATA ORGANIZATION
AH analytical data developed during the 50 POTW study were
stored on computer using the RAMIS II (Rapid Access Management
Information System, Release 2.1.0) Data Base Management System
(DBMS). A description of the data elements computerized and
their approximate organization is presented in Figure 1. The use
of a DBMS provided,, significant cost savings in data storage and
retrieval and increased flexibility in programming all output
tables and files. Where statistical evaluations were required
for data analyses, the University of California, Los Angeles BMDP
Biomedical Computer Programs (P-Series, 1979) were utilized.
The overall data base generated during the course of this study
is derived from a total of 1532 individual water, wastewater,
sludge and tap water samples that were collected at the 50 POTWs
and analyzed for conventional, non-conventional and the 129
priority toxic pollutants. A significant number of blank
samples, duplicate samples and spiked samples were also analyzed
for QA/QC purposes.
LABORATORY DATA REPORTING PROTOCOL
The 50 POTW sampling program spanned approximately 2-1/2 years
and analyses were conducted by several different laboratories.
Consequently, to assure maximum consistency, most of the- labora-
tories calibrated their equipment against a standard "cocktail"
Of known priority pollutant concentrations which were prepared by
EPA. However, there were some minor variations in reporting for-
mats used by the various laboratories. Most notably:
1. The EPA Region 7 laboratory reported each pollutant in each
wastewater sample as its measured concentration, as less than
a specific reported detection limit (LT value), or as below
the detection limit with a trace (unquantified) amount
detected.
2. Several EPA contract laboratories reported each pollutant in
each sample as either a measured concentration, or as
"Not-Detected."
3. Several EPA contract laboratories reported each pollutant in
each sample as either a measured concentration or as less
than an average detection limit for that pollutant. Commonly
reported detection limits for organic priority pollutants
were 5 ug/1 and 10 ug/1 .
27
-------
Ul
3
CO
I
o
Ul
N
QC
Ul
8
Ul
= s
o o
Ul
X
H
u.
O
z
o
O
cc
o
p- ,
1
Q.
Ul
E
* § w_.
Plant Code Number
Plant Type Code
Average Influent Flo
Percent Industrial Fl
Percent of Separate
EPA Region Numbe
I
ANALYSIS
Ul
E
Ul
Q.
<
W
3
E
!
5 "
• <5
•Q
-------
4. Two EPA contract laboratories that performed sludge analyses
reported each pollutant for each sample as present at a
measured concentration, as "Not-Detected," or as not run
because of analytical interferences.
5. One EPA contract laboratory, which analyzed the pilot study
samples, reported each pollutant for each sample as a
measured concentration, as "Not-Detected" or as detected, but
less than a reported detection limit (LT value). This last
condition was not usable by the computer programs for the
subsequent data base analyses, since it was indistinguishable
from the reporting format from Region 7, where the "LT value"
had a different meaning. Consequently, the "LT values" for
this laboratory were made consistent with the Region 7 defi-
nition by assuming a concentration of half the detection
limit. For example, a reported analysis of "Detected at less
than 10 ug/1" was entered on the data base as 5 ug/1. The
original values have also been maintained on the computer.
In order to conveniently handle all of the reporting formats on
the computerized data base, every analytical result was entered
with a "key" code, used in conjunction with the data value. The
codes and combinations used and their meanings are as follows:
CODE
0
1
2
DATA VALUE
any
any
any
any
> 0
6
7
any
0
0
; MEANING
Detected, at the concentration listed
Less than the concentration listed
Detected at greater than the concentra-
tion listed
Detected, but. not quantified at lower
than the concentration listed
An analytical interference prevented the
determination of the presence or quan-
tification of the pollutant
"An analytical interference was present,
but the concentration is estimated as
reported
An analytical interference was present,
but the pollutant was not detected above
the concentration listed
No analysis was run or reported
Reported as "Not-Detected"
29
-------
CODE
8
DATA VALUE
> 0
MEANING
The compound was detected, but, could not
be quantified \ , ; _.'.'>!.
A pesticide was detected by GC-EC at the
concentration listed,'but GC-MS did not
confirm the presence of this pollutant.
DATA INTERPRETATION AND PRESENTATION
In presenting the overall POTW data, four different formats are
utilized in this report; namely/ the Daily Tables, the Summary of
Analytical Data Tables, the Mass Balance Tables and the Summary
of Percent Occurrence Tables. A brief discussion of each of
these formats follows.
Daily Tables .
A Daily Table was selected as the basic format to report the ana-
lytical results corresponding to each day of sampling at a POTW.
;The Daily Table's were compiled by assembling the analytical data
on the pollutant parameters reported by the various laboratories
for each day of sampling for all sample points at each of the 50
POTWs. Accordingly, the Daily Tables embody the basic data on
the conventional, non-conventional and priority pollutants in the
wastewaters and the sludge streams of the POTWs. Due to the
extensive amount of data obtained, the Daily Tables for each of
the 50 POTWs are presented in Volume II of this report.
Summary of Analytical Data Tables
These tables present the averages of each pc-llutant parameter
found at each sample point of a POTW over the duration of its
sample period. These tables are derived from the Daily Tables by
averaging over the total number of days in the sampling period
for a particular plant. The Summary of Analytical Data Tables
for each of the 50 POTWs are presented in Appendix C of this
Volume.
Percent Occurrence Tables
These tables present the percent of times each pollutant was
found at each sampling point at each plant. In all cases where
pollutant concentrations were reported by the laboratories in
terms of "not detected" (ND) or "less than the detection limit"
(L), it was assumed in the calculation of occurrence percentage
that the pollutant did not occur in the analyzed sample. Percent
Occurrence Tables for each of the 50 POTWs are presented in
Appendix D of this Volume, and are summarized for the 40 and 10
POTW data bases in Section VI.
30
-------
Mass Balance Tables ••••-'•
The Mass Balance Table for a POTW shows the average pounds pet-
day of each pollutant entering the POTW, as well as the daily
pounds of that pollutant exiting the POTW. Mass Balance Tables
are derived from the Summary of Analytical Data Tables and the
appropriate flow quantities for the wastewater, and sludge
streams. In some cases samples could not be obtained from all
recycle lines that would be necessary to obtain an exact mass
balance. Mass Balance Tables based on the major wastewater and •
sludge streams for all 50 POTWs are presented in Appendix E of
this Volume.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
As part of an agreement among the Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Effluent Guidelines Division, EPA's Region VII
Laboratory and other contract laboratories, a Quality Assurance
Program was designed and executed to provide estimates of data
quality for priority toxic pollutant analyses performed by the
various laboratories. An interim and final report have each been
prepared. For the sludge and water samples, QA/QC results are
summarized in the following paragraphs. However, analytical
results reported by the laboratories and utilized in this study
have not been adjusted for any QA/QC findings.
QA/QC activities in the field consisted primarily of collecting
duplicate and blank samples. In general, during each sampling
episode the.field crew collected the following QA/QC samples:
o One duplicate sample at each sample point;
o One sampler blank for all wastewater sample points at each
POTW;
o One sampler (or fieid) blank for each sludge sampling point;
o Trip (or VOA) blanks for one wastewater sample point/ filled
in the field; and
o Trip (or VOA) blanks for each sludge sampling point, filled
in the field.
A sampler blank consists of ultrapure deionized water pumped
through automatic samplers and associated tubing and analyzed for
priority toxic pollutant acid, base/neutral and pesticide parame-
ters. Where an automatic sampler was not used, this blank (often
called a field blank) consists of filling a sample container with
ultrapure water at the field site and analyzing for the same
parameters. VOA (or trip) blanks consist of filling VOA vials
with the ultrapure water, exposing them to the environment at the
treatment plant and sealing them air tight with no entrapped air.
31
-------
These samples were analyzed for the volatile priority pollutant
fraction.
The purpose of the blanks was to identify field and analytical
contamination such as methylene chloride (a solvent used exten-
sively both during bottle preparation and laboratory analysis) or
phthalate ethers (which may be associated with the sample
tubing). The analysis of blanks is critical, especially when the
purge-trap technique (which is susceptible to contamination by
residues from concentrated samples or vapors in the laboratory)
is employed. Sporadic occurrences of methylene chloride were
identified in several of the VOA blank samples. Thus in
reviewing the methylene chloride results, it should be kept in
mind that methylene chloride results which deviate significantly
from the mean may in fact be the result of field and/or labora-
tory contamination. No other pollutants were identified
repeatedly or in high concentration in the blank water samples.
The precision of the analytical results can be expressed by the
standard deviation of the results of multiple duplicate or spike
analyses for a selected pollutant. The precision of the analyti-
cal results refers to the ability to reproduce the same results,
regardless of whether the results are true values or the results
of systematic analytical errors. In summary, the lower the stan-
dard deviation the higher the analytical precision.
Accuracy, on the other hand, is a measure of the correctness of
the analytical results in comparison to the actual amount of the
analyte present. Known quantities of priority pollutants and/or
surrogate spikes (compounds with identical chemical structures as
that of a given pollutant except that the surrogate has a unique
aspect which is more readily identifiable) were added to both
wastewater samples and blank samples. Wastewater spike data
constitute matrix spike results; blank spike results are referred
to as method spike results. The percent recovery is a measure of
the analytical accuracy for the respective parameters. As pre-
viously indicated, the standard deviation of the percent recovery
is a measure of the parameter analytical precision. The dis-
cussion below presents an analysis of the QA/QC data for the
wastewater and sludge samples.
Regarding the wastewater samples, the results of the QA/QC
program indicated some variation between the various laboratories
used. For the acid fractions, the mean recovery rates at the
different laboratories ranged from 63 percent to 100 percent, and
for base-neutrals the range was from 48 percent to 74 percent.
For the volatile organic fraction, the mean recoveries ranged
from 57 percent to 100 percent. The EPA Region VII laboratory,
which handled the majority of wastewater samples for this study,
had mean recoveries of 71 percent for acids with a standard
deviation of 28 percent, 73 percent for base neutrals (38 percent
standard deviation), 81 percent for pesticides (36 percent stan™
32
-------
dard deviation) and 100 percent for volatiles (17 percent stan-
dard deviation).
Metal priority pollutants had the most consistent recovery rates,
especially at concentrations above 25 ug/1. For the priority
pollutant metals (excluding asbestos and cyanide), recoveries
ranged between 83.9 percent (arsenic) to 99.9 (mercury) and
averaged 90 percent for the group. Standard deviations ranged
from 6.1 percent (beryllium) to 36.8 percent (thallium).
The sludge samples showed significantly higher variations in
recovery rates and larger standard deviations than the wastewater
samples. For the individual organic priority pollutants, reco-
veries ranged from 0 percent to over 100 percent, with the same
range for the standard deviations. As an example, the recoveries
and standard deviations for the two most frequently occuring
organic priority pollutants in sludges are indicated below:
Toluene Bis-2-ethylhexyl
phthalate
Mean
Recovery
(percent)
Standard
Deviation
Mean
Recovery
(percent)
Primary sludges
Secondary sludges
Combined sludges
148
146
106
175
237
93
65
75
64
Standard
Deviation
34
28
44
Percent recoveries for metals were more consistent, with the
individual recoveries in primary, secondary and combined sludges
ranging from 61 percent (for cadmium) with a 53 percent standard
deviation to 136 percent (for lead) with a 131 percent standard
deviation.
33
-------
34
-------
VI
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION OP ANALYTICAL DATA
OVERVIEW OF PRIORITY POLLUTANT OCCURRENCE
Tables 3, 4, and 5 present occurrence data and concentration
ranges for influent, secondary effluent and raw sludge samples
for POTWs 1 through 40. The same data for the 10 supplemental
POTWs are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8. For each of the 129
priority pollutants these tables indicate the total number of
samples analyzed, the number and percentage of times each pollu-
tant was detected and the minimum and maximum concentrations of
the detected pollutants. .
Tables 3 through 8 present a broad-based overview of priority
pollutant occurrence, and all appropriate samples collated
during this study are included. Consequently, the 40 and 10
POTWs are not weighted equally, but acc?rdinVV^L ™r?ous
influent, effluent or sludge samples collected a^ the various
plants. For example, this number ranges from a low of 4 influent
samples collected at POTWs 8 and 35 to 28 influent samples >
collected at POTW 1. Additionally, at POTWs where prechlorinated
and chlorinated secondary effluent samples were collected, both
were included in the effluent occurrence tables. For these
reasons, it is not meaningful to present "average" values for
each pollutant.
For the purposes of interpreting the analytical data, the fol-
lowing assumptions were made in developing Tables.3 through 8.
o All pollutants reported as "Not-Detected" or "Less Than
Detection Limit" were assumed not detected.
o Unconfirmed pesticides were assumed not detected.
o Samples where interferences prevented any analysis of that
sample were not counted as data points. Where the labora-
tory reported an interference but quantified the result, a
valid sample value was assumed.
o Values reported as below the detection limit but present in
trace quantities were assumed detected.
The number of samples from each plant corresponds to the number
of samples reported in Table 2.
For Tables 3, 4 and 5, the following samples were considered in
the definition of influent, effluent or raw sludge.
Influent: All samples labeled Influent (Total), Influent
(Other) and Other Source (at POTW 30 only). A total of 288
35
-------
I
£
HI
3
Q
0.
X
n SS
u 3-
ce
a.
000
in co o
s
s^
z M a
Ul Z Ul
.
« a ui
ui M a
; -i i-
0. U H.
o x ui a
Ul Ul
X z
u, £ i
Z Ul X
ui a A ui t-
-1 H. -1 ZUI
>• ce >• ui o
x a x -ice
H- -i ui >• a
Ul XX X -1 Ul
a u -j t- x z
ce >x ui o ui
O Ul X CC O Hi N
§-J zv-a ce ce z
X Ul UIU. a H. Ul
accZHiu.jiQ_iia
MuiuiX'CXMce x — -j
uzo.3acez~au ȣ
x«a._iceH.H.ci_i M**X
H>>-aaxuiuiHixce » i-
MuuH.uH.xau H. « uj
NICKEL
PHENOL
SILVER
MERCURY
DI7N-BUTYL PHTHALATE
rUI
X
Ul
-^
LEAD
1 . 2-TRANS-DICHLOROE1
Ul
^
BENZENE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALA
CADMIUH
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
NAPHTHALENE
It 1-DICHLOROETHANE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
GAHHA-BHC,
1 . L-DICHLOROETHYLENE
1 > 2-DICHLOROBENZENE
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
1 F 4-DICHLOROBENZENE
ARSENIC
Ul
z
X
Ul
g
o
-1
X >-
HI a
1 HI
tH ^
Ul Ul
Z Z :
CHLOROBENZENE
DIMETHYL FHTHALATE
METHYL CHLORIDE ;
1 t 2, 4-TRICHLOROBENZE
2.4-BIHETHYLPHENOL
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
TRICHLOROFLUOROHETHA
SELENIUH
DICHLOROBROHOHETHANE
ALPHA-BHC
Ul
It I, 2-TRICHLOROETHAN
1 , 2-DICHLOROPROPANE
DI-N-OCTYL PHTHALATE
FLUORANTHENE
ui z
-------
X
Is
X-l
« <:
r >
a
x ui
3 V-
ZUIU
1-1 3 Ul
Z -It-
« « Ul
z
ui
3
Ul O
3 Ok.
Ul '
ce •
ui
u. x
O 3
a
i- z F-a
F- _i o a
MO. •
M a 0.-1
os xs«
Ok 3
M 03 O —
22 m
.5 «.
i
OS
•» Ul
» .'-I*
Ul
X
x a. PI i
Ul
z
ui
Z
S
u
< <-i
x 5 a
X Ul Z
i— x ui
z ox
in •'• :
^0^ ffl CJ
Fk-ENBOSULFAN
x-OE THANE
1254
X O I
Ok -J a
— 1 X U
£-DIBENZANTHR
•*• pi *•
en ** PI
i^ k »
a -« -H
Ul
z
Ul Ul
z x
BENZOFLUORANTHE
2-BENZOFLUORANT
CHLOROETHANE
i »* <
T •• X
* -« Ul
'fl ^ X
LORONAPHTHALENE
-BDD
-BHC
x • «
U T F-
1 - Ul
PI T a
Ul
a
M
X
a ui
O.Z
UIUI
_J
0£ >•
a x
Z -J F-
»• X X
OS U Ok
a « «
-1 F- Z
Ul Ok Ul
w Ul U
a x •
a os
1 U
^- «
ui zui
^ 1-4 F-
• ia,
, -1 F- :
O. Ur-
a x uio
Ul •« F-Z
F- in ui
u aa
Ul F- Ul
F- Z UIZ
Ul Ul X3
a 3 F-(O
-j
-------
*•»
Q
1
M
1-
z
0
u
W
Ul
-1
a
>•»
ta
z
Ul
3
Z
ft
3
t-
O
O.
Z
to o
z ^"
- 09 Ul
Z Ul 1-
Ul -J U
U 0. Ul
cc z >•
Ul « Ul
CL. M Q
U.
a a
oc S
ui u u
z z >•
t>H Ul
i-S
u.
a a
0) Ul
ee ui N
Ul _l >
BJ a. j
§ii
a: to <
o -^-rs o
« »0 0
04
o -vrs o
-• -o o
*N
X X X X
§o a o
=13 Z
TH *4^ *4
H. Kh- >-
-J * a
ut
>- aa.
zza
KUICI:
uizH-
a O.W i-
ojaz o
a CCM a
38
-------
Ul
z
Ul
u.
u.
Ul
3
H-
Q
0.
1
Si
ce
o
Z
Ul
fg
ct
3
U
u
a
£3
x -i
Z -1 I-
w «UI
x > a
ui
ce
ui
oi
a
h- CO Ul
Z Ul I-
Ul -I U
u a. ui
ce xi-
ui -
3 « ui
e i-a
o a
cnui
ce ui N
ui _i >•
x x •
Ul X
z xt-
Ul 3U1
ce _i H. i
ui
z
Ul
ui
o
ce o
a -i
u. x
ui
uiz
_i i- ui
Ul
Ul
z
Ul
-i u ui
>•<-< ou
t-ce cex z
UI3H-OB>- X UIU1
zai _iice_i3cenz
Ul I >*X
z ui- a >• ce
ce cex i N o
o a a. co z -i
_j o z >• ui x x
xce-i-ceo>-i «x<
- ui i
z ui
zce3ui *>
:H-a-caxa.cjcouia_ici.aaT-i- o
i x x a
-< o. t- ce
» _i ui <:
rt « X U
O
z
Ul
X
i.
O
ui ce
z a
ui -i
-I X
-I CJ
X ii
t- a
x i
o. •»•
« «
Z 0-1
.ui
a u _i u. x N
-1 w >• O I- Z
x as>- ce ui ui
u i- u a x a
i-l f o -I »-« O
a T i x a ce
i - z u i a
CN Cl 1 H* ^ _l
. - w ce » x
TH IH Q h- (N O
o
z
Ul
X
a.
a
ce
o
Ul -1
Z X
Ul Ul U
IE Z X M
x ui ce ce
>- o o i—
z « u. r
•« ce o -o
Z X X -
Ul 1^- O T
x z ce -
a. -
-* ui Q ui
-3C«
U. O f- .
a u; ui o
ui ui f- z
i— - ui
O >!• a a-
ui ce ui
i- « ui x
ui a x 3
a z i- en
o era
ce u z -<
* Ul U
a a « ti
ui ui i—
>- en a co
eo
-------
ZUI
: ui u
~i ui
»* 'H M in o o •
on
o
ro in
rs
oo
o »o
01 in
PARAMETER
Ul
z
X
Ul H*
-(J
Ul X
en t- _i
>- Ul >-
u a :>
HRACENE
OBENZENE
1.2-BENZANT
1»3-DICHLOR
BETA-BHC
THALLIUM
Ul
A
M
X
a ui
tt. -I A
Ul Ul O M
z z z
Ul <£. {£. Ul O
xa a x z a:
xx x o M m "
^^^H-J>-Z— i
Z t-* ^ n >• X Ul 1
U Ul Ul 1 Ul Ul > U
3N3ZN3
3
3N3
ACENAPHTHYL
FLUORANTHEN
HEXACHLOROB
o
en
Ul
a:
u
I-
Ul
ISOPHORONE
PARACHLOROH
4,4'-DDD
Ul
ZUI
UIZ
a:
z w _i
w A u.
Ul
z
NOL
TOLUENE
ROBENZIDI
2-CHLOROPHEi
2f)-DINITRO
3»3'-DICHLOI
Ul
z
Ul
U Ul
«_l Z
a: o w
uj x en N
z t- in - N 1 >-
a: z o x
UJ UJ 1 III . 1
lil2-BENZOPI
lt2'.5,&-QlB.\
4>6-DINITRO
CHLOROETHANI
1»2-DIPHENYI
CHLORDANE
DIELDRIN
PCB-1254
z
Ul
a. i-
Z M S
<: x ui
- a a
ui a: ui
i- « ui z
ui a x =
a z i— en
o en
a: uz «
ui ui ^
=> en x ui
ui t- cc
z -i - en a en
en
-------
tn
Ul
IS
Q
tn
3
!£.
o
tn T
1-
z o
in •« i-
>-
Ul 31
-I -1
a -i tn
« o i-
a
•£ Ul
3 I-
£ Ul U
w 3 Ul
Z -1 I-
M ^ Ul
Z =• Q
Ul
cc
Ul
U. X
O 3
a
H U) Ul
Z Ul I-
Ul _1 U
U CU Ul
a. zt-
ul -
ui tn u
a ui u
x z t-
= MUI
z i- a
a a
en ui
a; Ul N
ui -I >-
n a. _i
x z - X >- Ul
X Ul M X Ul
uz a i- z
c; ui 1 Ul Ul
x ui N tn o a:
5 = >- zzz z as x
ui ui ui u 3 zz 3Uiui>-ui<:o j-
a a:izwMa:o3_jM-icaci:zcii-iuiz.
zuaS2S2gSMSg3|g|SVS|Ilii|^S
-MuiOMOiKXMZ
uN-iu«i--xzo-JUi
uiK>-iii_ix_i
ui
u
-a:
o<:xxn:z«o
a:a:i-)-oui_i3ui
aoxui3O4-- -ia—icuz-i
gS2£55«iSe25'Sgo-iBui
iS5BaSdiS3c5Siia?S3S£iiij3
X>-lO>-fc1 1 •>k-O-!3:iXI.u-'rt>--J
£ S N .j a: -^ •* « TI z: j CM «r i N u M ui * a: i
-« * w IH L>H x
ZCJ-rtOffl'H'-l'H'^ii.U'HMQ T-iQiH O. iM :> H-
z
Ul I-
ic M a
Hl-
_1 U
tn ui
ui ZH-
-i o ui
a. Ma
£ >-
a en i- tn
tn
(£. 3Z«
Ul - a: >- z
3 CtC 3 3
-13-1
_i u _i a
o u o z
SL a a.
-------
X3l!
x z» i
i Si
X Ul U I
*•* S3 UI I
•* *H OOO
IS -O O
N •< O
a
z
a
co
3
tc.
3
t-
£
X
10 T
z a
ui
Q £
a. z
fci
i
a:
a.
£
ui
u
z
Ul
ce
§
u
u
a
u.
a a
cn u
a: ui N
ui _i >.
o» Q. J
X X ^
n - x
Q LU Ul O
o:x ace
Q. a »-4 o
U1OX f£3
zcea a j
«oce _i u.
Ul
ui tc ,
zui ui ui >- a
«o z z a. S
s "i u « j ui ui
h-a:_iz .a-^zui S
^. UIO^H- zauiz u
ui_i a-izui LU - _i LU
Z-N — ui m
u o a Q
ui a ui
i- = ui z
ui u z 3
a co H- w
en
fl£ 3Z «
LU 0£
Z _l
-------
influent samples were collected for the 40 POTWs. For some
parameters, a lower number of samples are reported because
of either interferences in the analysis or bottles broken or
lost in transit or at the laboratories.
Secondary Effluent; All samples labeled Secondary Effluent
(Chlorinated), Secondary Effluent (Other) and Secondary Ef-
fluent (Unchlorinated) were included. At dual plants where
oarallel unit processes were sampled, both effluents are
included. A total of 303 samples were collected for the 40
POTWs, although for many parameters a lower number of analy-
ses were reported for the reasons outlined above. At plants
where the secondary effluent was sampled both before and
after the chlorination step, metals were generally sampled
only at the final effluent, which explains the lower number
of reported metals analyses.
Raw Sludges; All unthickened or thickened primary, secon-
dary , or combined sludge samples were included in this
table, while digested and heat treated sludges were
excluded. The sample points listed in Table 2 that are
included are;
o Combined Sludge (Both Thickened)
o Combined Sludge (Other)
o Combined Sludge (Untreated)
o Combined Sludge (Raw From Primary)
o Combined Sludge (Secondary Thickened)
o Primary Sludge (Other)
o Primary Sludge (Untreated)
o Primary Sludge (Thickened)
o Secondary Sludge (Humus)
o Secondary Sludge (Other)
o Waste Activated Sludge (Untreated)
o Waste Activated Sludge (Thickened)
o Waste Activated Sludge (Other Thickened)
A total of 443 sludge samples were collected, although a lower
number is usually reported because of the many analytical
interferences.
The occurrence data in Table 3 show that in influent samples from
the 40 POTW data-base, a total of 102 priority pollutants were
measured at least once above their detection limits. However,
only 40 pollutants were detected in 10 percent or more of these
samples, and 24 pollutants were measured in approximately 50 per-
cent or more of the samples. The majority of the data eva-
luations in this section focus on these 24 pollutants.
Table 4 indicates that 90 priority pollutants were detected in
any secondary effluent, although only 12 were detected in more
than 50 percent of the samples, and 30 were detected in 10 per-
. 43
-------
cent or more of the samples. In both the influent and effluent
samples, copper, cyanide, and zinc were the most commonly
measured pollutants.
Priority pollutant occurrence in raw sludge samples is presented
in Table 5. A total of 78 pollutants were detected at least
once, and 22 pollutants were detected in more than half the
samples, while 43 pollutants were detected in more than 10 per-
cent of the samples. Twelve of the 16 most commonly occurring
pollutants were metals. >
Tables 6, 7 and 8 show the occurrence of priority pollutants in
the 10 supplemental POTWs influent, effluent and sludge samples,
respectively. These tables are based on the same sample loca-
tions for the 40 POTWs with the following exceptions:
Influent; All influent samples are Influent (Total).
Effluent; All effluent samples are Secondary Effluent
(Chlorinated) except Plant 55 where samples were unchlor-
inated and Plant 56 where only Tertiary Chlorinated Effluent
was sampled.
Raw Sludge;
locations:
All raw sludge samples ,are from,the.following
o
o
o
o
o
Primary"Sludge (Raw)
Combined Sludge (Untreated)
Combined Sludge (Both Thickened)
Waste Activated Sludge (Untreated) and .
Waste Activated Sludge (Other Thickened)
In total, 60 influent samples, 60 effluent samples and 81 sludge
samples were taken. Similar to the reasons "stated abovs, the
number of samples analyzed may be less than these values. In
addition, analytical capacity was not available to perform orga-
nics analyses on approximately 50 percent of the sludge samples
in the supplemental study. Therefore, where some metals have' -
reported values for all 81 samples, the organic fractions have a
maximum of 42 reported values.
The most frequently found pollutants in the 10 supplemental
plants are nearly identical to those found in the 40 plant study.
A further discussion of the 10 plant data is presented later in
this section.
44
-------
o
^0
z >-
M
T 1-
>- Z
=• <•
di
o
a. -J
f
>• l-
1- Z
M Ul
sa x.
Q Ul
M -1
K 0.
o. a.
3
U. 01
a
Ul
u
•x
Ul
a:
u
u
z
3
X Ul
M 3
X -1
« «
X »
a
z u
a H
I Ul U
M 3 Ul
M
» CL -J
x r «t
3 « Z
Z 0) «
oooo»om ooooooi
.- >-i in M o o o o m o ;
iliisi-ssiisislsisissssissislsiiiiiiiiiiiiillisiis
228S82 888 8KK8RK 385353
BBS S3S 888555555522222 2222
Ul >H I-
-1 -1 U
0. Ul
,
in mm in in m •»,•*• •r»
SSS838'3S38S8SS8S888S38S38S3S38SS88SS3SSSSSSSSS
z
ui ui
-I Z
>• «
X Ul X
i- a i-
Ul Ul M Ul
ui a z ix o
z os ui o ix
Ul Ul O M —1 O
ZiX -I Z Z -1
Ul X X Ul U X
U I— • a
xz i a x i
t- ui M _j >— M
Z X - Z Ul »
«a. -« u r -
Ul
X
-i ui zx
o z ui a
z « N >•
Ul Z ZX
Z Ul t- Ul I-
cu a ui a ui
-I M o O O
>- OS OS •
Ul Z
U) H-
>• Ul
Z Z
Ul Ul
IX fi
O I
»
PI 13 » -i -< a o t
« a ui
(QMS
i-
1- U I-
o z ui a
ui ui H- z
t- 3 Ul
u _i a a
ui u. ui
I- Z Ul X
Ul M X 3
a i-cn
3 Ul
a: t- z
-------
iH oo Ofi
i T «eo « in o
oo no
x-i i
-TRICHLORQPH£l<
ACENAPIITHYLENE
ALDRIN
Ul
ALPHA-BHC
CARBON TETRACHLORII
2-CHLOROPHENOL :•<
2.4-DINITROTOLUENE
IU
Ul
2fi-DINITROTOLUENE
4-NITROPHENOL
BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
ISOPIIORONE
a
Ul
z
PARACHLOROHETA CRES
TRICHLOROFLUOROHETH
1 > 2-DICHLQROPROPANE
1 » 3-DICHLOROBENZENE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
-)r4'-DIIE
M a
« zui
Ul Mt-
-J -JU
a. ui
ZZh-
- z uj:c
Ul •-! X 3
a »- o. xui
Ul h- Ct
z -i
-------
Z
Ul
a
Ul
3
V- O
O -0
z tn
• ^-
i- z
M Ul
a: z
o ui
M _i
t£ a.
*•%
u. en
ui
u
Z
Ul
ce
ce
3
U
U
a
x
z ui
M a
' X -1
-
a M ui
z i- a
u.
a a
en ui
Oi Ul N
Ul -I >-
os a. -j
z z VXNX's>s's*NS.^>NN->sX'sVV.NV
cae3ta(3en(sc3eDtsc9oe3e9E3e9e9e3C3e9esoC9e9C3oC9oc3e9OoeDe9
333 333 333 3 33333333 333 33*3 Z33 3 33333
ininix inwCM COM*O ^^oMTno^^CMCoflOf^in woo^inrnCMooooo
rsrsMrtooiseoriJOO'O'O^'CMCMehfxiv-oin^eMCMOo.OBix-o-O'O-o-o
inminininT^w
S3*O«O »O«O*O •O'Oin W-'O-O'O'Oin'O^Q'O •s\XVX*X\\\\XX
OeDe3OC9CSCDOC3e9C9eSOC3O
3Z3 33Z333Z3Z3ZZ
in n n n WCM CM
mmin <"- ce z
X O 1-
Ul _l X
xx a.
-1 U
>• «J Z
Z Ul >• <£.
t- z z i-o
UI Ul 3 3 U. Ul
i -j JM ce a o a
CM >• ui z ui i a: I-H
— u = •asa CL. zaz
tn z i- u u: a. i _l - i z
Ul 2 Z -i Ul
^ Ul h* •• '3
j tn ui *-i _i
en - &:
I Z O
Ul
z
Ul
Ul
o
o
_1
Z
Ul
z
Ul
z
z
Ul I-
I- Ul
• en
i- z
Ul
ui
i-
•x
_j
- z o a:
ui ui N ui _i a
N X Z Z X -I
Z I- U )- U X
1 Ul X A Z U
1 -I Ul
u
U 1-1
zx ce
3 a t-
« i i
Ul
Z
Ul «1
Z N
Ul «
N <£.
z a
UNI>-Z>-OXUI>-
a:zxuii-3i-a:z
UIU1I-U3_1U1>-1-1
a z a:
_i ui o
i x -i
u a. x
M M U
a a _i -i
« u a v « 2'I-
Ul OUI
3 u> M.B
-i-• ui a a
Ui LC = Ul
H- « -i ui z
ui a u. x s
Q z u. K tn
o ui in
te u z <
> 01 IK X UI
ui i i- u:
Z -1 w — 0.
_i net
ui ui o a
t- C£ x a. ui
o « 3 ui i
z <£ a:
u> -o «
01 ui in
-------
a
Ul
•H
X
Q
U
*•*
IX
Ul
-J
a
i—
ca
x
Ul
a
.j
u.
u.
Ul
3
>- O
O -0
0.
xS
^
co in
t—
X en
t-x
a i
u -i
-1 0.
o
a"«l
f- X
!•< Ul
CC Z
0 Ul
ac a.
••a
1. rn
§
XUI
X _J
>-
Z Ul U
l-i 3 Ul
X -II-
H4 «C Ul
XS-S
ca
i—
M
Ul
ee
u.g
a 3
a
I- CO Ul
xtat-
Ul -I U
u a. ui
ec zv-
Ul «UI
a. 01 o
u.
a a
Ul
ui tn u
A Ul Ul
Z ZH-
x >- a
Q a
ca ui
OC UIN
Ul _1 >-
x m « !
1 ^OOC4MON^^»*^*IX»OO
O 03 O 7 5.
in-o d ?
•TOO NMO tN-»-^-^N
O 03 O ^ Ok
W-0 W ?
iiiiiiiliiiiii
N«tNMCMCJtNMNCNCM«CMP4
OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Ul
g
Ul
a
u
u
a
x x »-« a i—
uuz lea
>-i 1-1 t-i a a
a a a _i i
i i i =-
ci ^ ^ tj ^
i
u
x
Ul
CO
Ul
a. a i-
x ui M a
• ui a a
ui as 3 ui
»- •« _i ui s
ui a u, x 3
a z u. i- ui
au^zS
Ul Ul >. •«
» co as x ui
ui « t- ce
_i i- 01
ui « a; 01 en
3£ Ul Ul Ul
ui z i- j a
30 M
>- 01 u
a a _j
-------
zui
"3
X -I
X IU U
M 3 Ul
Ul
Ul
ts
a
3
_i
- z
fg Ul
O -I
»-l CU
<£. 0.
a. 3
tn
ui
u
z
u
o
11 « Ul
z ^ a
ui
a:
ui
U. X
O 3
a
i- tn u
z ui i-
ui -i u
o a. ui
ui tn u
a ui ui
z zi-
3 MUl
z i-a
o a
tnu
K UN
Ul -I >
a a. -i
z z O O IO
PI PI
O PI M CO O PI
(so
IH
IN
»* rx
PI
iiiiiisiilisiiiisssisiiissiiisisiiiisiissiiiiiii
z
Ul
M a
z ui
N»t-
-1 U
Ul
Ul
t-
•t
_J
- 01-
? I- UUI Ul -i X
U1X Ul Ul MZOUIXO.
zi- o z aui a: z u ui
U1UI 3 Ul INOUI-JZ
NO za x tnz -i ce ui
T; >• zn: Z 3_l t- ZU1XXZ>-_I
.3 U Z ZUIOUI 3UI >-< X Z «»UH-UI3«
:i-ii-i3oa_ia>-iz_iu_i«ui«o>iz_iax
~ ~*l*HZtlJ_J^OfiC3I^^CQ'^^ IF"
------10 i zxzx
ui
z
Ul
Ul
Ul ZUI
I- Ul Z
-uiuiuiuixri>--.x -
au-j eo(-NZSu«u«uif-u i
i t- oc PI
• 23-
X.
Ul U
O Z Ul
-1 i£ t—
XO I
U U. fl
M a -
a ii: PI
i o -
-n* -I ^
- x -
»< u -<
x a o
a. 3 u;
-i o
-i u.=>
>- a _i
N is u.
z z a
ui ui IK
a ai o
i u
_i ci x .
>. -. u
3 - a:
a —i-
Ul
z
Ul Ul
Z N
« Z
x ui
H> a
ui o
z ce
a o
z _i
a x
ce u
a ce :
ce >- :
o i <
CJ M
1-1 ^
a i*
ui
z
x
0 Z
20
Ul OS Ul
xo a
0.3 «
o _i ir
o: u. o
o » _i
-ia x
xo u
u ce
MO -I
a _i >
i x x
- ui
H- 3 Z Ul Z
Ul -1 « X 3
a to u i- - «
» as —
H. en 3 a
-------
a
1
>•"
I
u
s*
O
til
-1
a
• z
HI X
0> ui
a -J
HI a.
a: a.
••3
u.
0
Ul
u
z
Ul
X
3
M 3
X_l
ss
X Ul
x uia
HI 3 Ul
Z ^ j
HI «UI
a
HI
X
3
Ul
ce
Ul
a 3
t- tnS
Ul JU
U O.UI
a: XH-
ui • H. a a HI
a.= a atf
££ t ••* a.
ui
ui a x HI
— -iz -J u z
>• Ul X HI O
a zee u a _i
M HI Q -
z ui3 x m a:
ui M j ui *• u
a Q u. z t^ ^
a
z
ui
ui ui a.
zza
• ui
-J -i x a
> x ui H- ceuj
ce u a ui a z
ui « HI a jui
a z>-
-i uiz
x uui
u -
N u _j _i HI x
ZH- z xa:;-
ui u u i- i
a z i-. i a.
i a _i a M i » z
-ce z -.~ui
» ««<:
Ul Z>-
. -i ou
CL. I-* Q
• I H.
« Ot-
a tn uia
ui in »-z
t- ui in ui
U O Qiw
ui ce - JQ
3O M
ui nu
a o « «M
ui ui u ^«
I- 01 3 Clio
CO H fla tn H. Q.
-J ui o:
ui _j OQ
I- <£. i. Q.U1
O
-------
SUMMARY OF INFLUENT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Table 9 presents the average and median influent concentrations
for the priority pollutants detected in more than 50 percent, o£
all influent samples. Several different definitions of "average
were utilized, since each may be more meaningful for specific
applications. The first column is the average of the average
value from each of the 40 POTWs. This method assigns an equal
weight to each POTW. For several parameters, such as methylene
chloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane, very high values from a few
POTWs have significant impact on the overall average. The second
column indicates the median value from the same data base of the
40 POTW plant average. The few plants with very high concentra-
tions for a pollutant do not have major significance in the
median computation. The third method presents the flow weighted
average concentrations, based on the same 40 POTW individual
plant average concentrations and that plant's reported flow
during the sampling period. For most parameters the flow
weighted average is close to the average of the .40 ,POTW indivi-
dual averages.
For the calculations used in developing Table 9, all influeftt:
values reported below the detection limit, or "Not-Detected were
averaged as zero. Also, unconfirmed pesticides were ayeraged as
zero since they have previously been assumed to be not detected.
Table 9 is most meaningful when utilized in conjunction with;
Table 3, which indicates the percentage occurrence for each
priority pollutant in POTW influents. ;
IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL CONTRIBUTION ON INFLUENT QUALITY v
The amount of industrial wastewater discharged to the 40 POTWs
ranged from 2 percent to a maximum of 65 percent of their average
flow (see Table 1). Review of the influent priority pollutant
data reveals that, in general, the higher the industrial contri-
bution, the greater the concentration. This trend is exhibited
for all of the major priority pollutant fractions. Figures 2, 3
and 4 present plots of the percent industrial contributions ver-
sus the sum of influent priority pollutant concentrations for the
metals, volatiles, and base neutrals, respectively. All three
plots indicate a fair amount of data point scatter, but all three
have least square fits with a positive slope. This indicates a
tendency for the total priority toxic pollutant concentrations to
increase when percent industrial flow increases. There are a
number of other factors that might be expected to influence
priority toxic pollutant concentrations. Among the major ones
are:
o The inconsistencies between POTWs in the definition of
industrial flow (this was discussed in Section II).
o Differences between plants in their collection systems and
the'nature of the non-industrial "background" contribution.
51
-------
o o
T- o — •>» in CN T- r~ co
co oo co r-
b C
O O
«) 01
> o
< u
.- H •
s &•
6 § 5
Sfr4u
I O
W CO N O) O
O C C C rH
O I
.C IS — M
a< j: m -<
•U 01
3 2
IN a >i
*•" ^H I J= iH
z ca n a o
52
-------
FIGURE 2
CORRELATION OF PERCENT INDUSTRIAL FLOW
TO INFLUENT TOTAL METALS CONCENTRATION
10500 -
9750 -
^"S
H
B* 8250
I
g
•H 6750
0)
O
c
O
O
5250
H 3750
(0
.p
2250
750
Number of POTW's at
Coincident Plotting Positions
• = 1 A =2 B =3
Regression Line
•
-TMC(ug/l) =49.2 PIF(%) + 296.8
Correlation Coefficient (R)
0.366
Number of POTW's Included
40
10
20 30 40 50
Percent Industrial Flow - PIF
60
70
53
-------
FIGURE 3
CORRELATION OF PERCENT INDUSTRIAL FLOW
TO INFLUENT TOTAL VOLATILES CONCENTRATION
u
o
•H
•P
2
4J
<3
-------
FIGURE 4
CORRELATION OF PERCENT INDUSTRIAL FLOW
TO INFLUENT TOTAL BASE-NEUTRALS CONCENTRATION
1050 - -
o
•H
-P
(0
M
+J
<1)
O
§
3
0)
0)
Ul
nJ
ffl
900
750 - -
600
450 - -
300 - -
Number of POTW's at
Coincident Plotting Positions
•=1 A = 2 » = 3
Regression Line
TBNC(ug/l) =1.0 PIF(%) + 96
Correlation Coefficient (R)
0.091
Number of POTW's Included
37
150 - -
10
20 30 40 50
Percent Industrial Flow - PIF
55
-------
This has the greatest influence at POTWs with low influent
priority pollutant concentrations.
.o Different levels of pretreatment program development and
enforcement between the different cities.
Additionally, the contribution of priority toxic pollutants is
associated largely with specific industrial categories. The pre-
ceding analysis only dealt with the total reported industrial
flow, and not with only those industries that are expected to
contribute priority pollutants. However, during the time frame
of the 40 POTW sampling program, only about 25 percent of the
plants had completed their Industrial Waste Survey associated
with their pretreatment program. Consequently, most plants did
not have a complete and thorough list of all of their contri-
buting industries.
To determine whether the correlation could be strengthened by the
screening of certain data subject to the above interferences, two
additional analyses were attempted. The first was to examine the
correlation for only POTWs that had higher influent con-
centrations of priority pollutants than the average of the 40
POTWs averages. This minimized the interferences from the plants
where the detection limits or nature of non-industrial sewage had
the most significant effects on the reported concentrations.
This analysis resulted in a much improved correlation coefficient
for total metals (R increased from 0.366 to 0.677.) .However, the
correlation coefficients for total volatiles and total base
neutrals both decreased slightly (from R = 0.266 to 0.141 and
R - 0.091 to 0.083, respectively.)
The second analysis consisted of screening those POTWs (nine)
that had initiated their pretreatment programs. It was hypothe-
sized that these nine cities would have significantly lower
influent priority pollutant concentrations than cities with simi-
lar industrial contributors that had not yet developed or
enforced any pretreatment regulations. This screening resulted
in a more uniform data base of 31 POTWs with a large variety of
industrial flow. For these 31 POTWs, the correlation coef-
ficients for the total metals, total volatiles and total base
neutrals all increased slightly; from 0.366 to 0.418, from 0.266
to 0.342, 'and from 0.091 to 0.130, respectively.
TREATMENT OR'REMOVAL OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS IN POTWS
Appendix B presents cumulative distributions of the percent
removals and effluent concentrations for the 24 priority pollutants
detected 50 percent or more of the time in POTW influents. Table
10 summarizes the data presented in Appendix B. In Table 10,
percent removals are presented for two subgroups of analytical
data: removals where the priority pollutant average influent
concentration was greater than zero, and removals when the plant
56
-------
EH
Z
EH
m
jj
fH
e
0)
H
M
1
r- JJ
c
O JJ
J"e
fH
(J
CO
JJ JJ
e c
0) «
O
EH «
SB J-
W 0)
a >
a-
£
D
£
M
z
M
s
Cti
o
&
O
m
4J
a< os I
00 f** PO CA OO ON
*-> _ o o
OOOOOOOOC^OOOO
EH
hloride
Ihexyl) Phthalate
C-? ^1
x:
O JJ
C 0)
O 1
rH CM
^-W
<•
4J CO
r-
o
c
o
N
C
03
03
1 Phthalate
halate .
t^i -U
N x:
e CM
o
CQ rH
t*1
FH «C
>jj
JJ O
D -n
CQ Q
O
C
a)
rH
m
x;
jj
a,
10
z
<» D >i e
JJ
OfH
X
o
3 C U
rH
C
c >
moo
to <0
3 > rH
rH (0 JJ
<4-l C
c en «
•n c o
fH -rl
0) JJ «H
Ol 0) ^H
us o> c
i-i e 01
0) -rl
> CQ CO
(0 JJ
c c
C BJ d)
O rH CO
a OrH
•O X!\
a> x-i u en
CO O C
(0 JJ
J3 Vi -n c
CO J3 •
rH S
(0 D
> Z
o
S It
01
K Z
M 3
O U
O 0)
J S
57
-------
average influent concentration was significantly above the
pollutant's detection limit; 'For the purposes of Table 10,
"significantly above the detection limit" was defined as four
times the most frequent detection.; limit., This minimizes the-
effect of the detection limit on calculating percent removals.
The number of data points for each subgroup is indicated by N.
Minimum percent removals and effluent levels can be read directly
from Appendix B for any desired percent of POTWS in the data
base.
-•-"-"' - - 13 ... ". '. ; „ • . - , .
Table 10 shows that 50 percent of the POTWs sampled achieved
minimum priority'pollutant metal removals ranging from 35 percent
to 97 percent. For the selected organic priority pollutants 50
percent of the POTWs achieve minimum removals of 51 percent to
over 99 percent. Many of the organic removal rates that are
close to 100 percent occur primarily because the average pollu-
tant concentration in the influent was slightly above that
pollutant's detection limit and the pollutant was not detected in
the effluent sample. This is illustrated in Table 10 by com-
paring the number of sample points between the two different
subgroups. For many of the organic pollutants/ there were an
insufficient number of meaningful data sets to draw accurate
conclusions about pollutant removal rates.
Figures 5 and 6 present cumulative distributions for the four
major priority pollutant fractions. These curves summarize the
data presented in Appendix B and Table 10. In Figures 5 and 6
and Table 10, all values reported as "not detected" or assumed to
be "not detected" were averaged as 0 in both influent and
effluent samples. This procedure will slightly overstate removal
of pollutants near their detection limit in the influent, but
these cases have minimum impact on the median removals and per-
centile removals presented.
It is important to note that the data in the above analyses only
indicate the reduction of a pollutant from the influent to the
secondary effluent at POTWs. They do not indicate that the
pollutant has been treated by the POTW, but has only been removed
by one of the many removal mechanisms possible (biodegredation,
adsoprtion, clarification, air stripping, etc.). Estimates of
the ultimate fate of these pollutants are best obtained from the
mass balance tables presented in a subsequent section.
REDUCTION OF PRIORITY . POLLUTANTS BY POTW TREATMENT PROCESSES
Table 11 summarizes the median removals for selected conventional
and priority toxic pollutants by the various types of treatment
plants sampled in the 40 POTW study. The types of treatment
plants are activated sludge plants, trickling filter plants,
pure oxygen activated sludge plants, an RBC plant, an aerated
lagoon and four treatment plants that have both activated sludge
processes and trickling filters in parallel modes. POTW 8, which
58
-------
r
FIGURE 5
CUMULATIVE "DISTRIBUTION CURVES
TOTAL METALS AND TOTAL VOLATILES EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
AND PERCENT REMOVAL
Metals
Volatiles
100
100
80
60
40 • •
20 • •
1 1 1 1 I
n=40
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
10000
8000
6000
4000 ' '
2000 - -
n=40
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
59
-------
FIGURE•6
CUMOIATIVE DISTRIBUTION"CURVES
TOTAL ACIDS AND TOTAL BASE NEUTRALS EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
AND PERCENT REMOVAL
Acids
Base Neutrals
100
A! so
1 60 +
e 40 *r
0>
o
M
-------
OJ
M
o w
h§
O £
co d>
coco mcocof**-inin*™co *-CO<»IP*OOPI*CO^'^O
.•. . ^ -. i • t .->:.. v . - r, , ......
^^* c7??>?c?d><«c7'V ^-*p — •n-fno-ti'-^om
S!S 5iS8_8-;'5SSSS aSSBS'SS'S
?" 5" fS'*^-VOCN-V(N'«J' f-^T-iDr-Ofn^Om
OP* ^'Ch»~P'»OO^lO^ ICOfl 1 O |«VO 1 O
co P* ^ ^ c4 ,^»tn cicn in co cn in
MOO I I p> iui^*tn^1 oodtorom ento
£a S S. 2. £. C d Ci 2. S 2. C. C £. 2. S !£ ii S 2
Ot O\ Ct 91 CO
co oo r~ p- a
8, 1 S
j
<
»
i o o o
S U
a ej
S!
X
§
y g^us^g
_ B
O U
J S
>< Cu
Is
As
SS
I9a.
M ti] H
Z Z M
03 H <
2 X *
U
i
J
X
I
S
3
03 &l
s a '
Oi H
gsa
is?
is§
O » I
a-.i
e< — »-
S
e c
•^ (0
pH
Ql
>i
**
3 e o
ZOO
18
U Ql r-4
O 3
.a >i o
61
-------
has an activated sludge process that treats 96 percent of
influent flow and trickling filters that treat 4 percent of
influent flow was included with the activated sludge plants. At
plants where primary or tertiary effluent was sampled, removals
by those treatment processes are also indicated. Several plants
were excluded from this data base because they consisted of a
combination of fixed and suspended growth biological treatment in
series.
Table 11 shows that among the treatment plants examined,
trickling filters, activated sludge, the RBC, and the pure oxygen
systems achieved good removals of conventional pollutants and
most of the measurable priority pollutants. .At those plants that
had activated sludge and parallel trickling filtration plants,
the activated sludge plant appeared to remove slightly more
priority pollutant metals and organics than the trickling filter
plants. However, for some parameters the trickling filter plants
achieved higher removal rates.
Primary treatment was less effective than any secondary treatment
for conventional and priority pollutant removal. It should be
noted that the primary effluent samples from this study may not
be representative of primary treatment plants. The major reason
is that secondary treatment plants generate a much greater volume
of sludge than primary treatment plants, and many of the sludge
processing side streams are returned to the primary tanks. This
often causes the influent to the primary tanks to be much higher
in organic loading than the influent to a typical primary treat-
ment plant. Nevertheless, primary treatment removed from 10 per-
cent to- 57 percent of priority pollutant metals and from 0 per-
cent to 56 percent of the priority pollutant organics, based on
the plant influent and the primary effluent. Tertiary treatment
was slightly more effective than average secondary treatment for
removing conventional and priority pollutants based on eight
plants that had either .mixed media filtration or polishing ponds.
POTW PRIORITY POLLUTANT MASS BALANCES
As indicated in Section V, mass balances for conventional,
selected non-conventional and priority pollutants are included in
Appendix E. These mass balance tables should, in theory, show
the same pounds entering the plant as leaving it for conservative
pollutants such as metals which cannot be degraded but settle out
in sludges or remain in the water stream. On the other hand,
pollutants which are degraded, stripped into the atmosphere or
otherwise removed from the water and sludge streams should show a
lower mass exiting the plant than entering in the influent. Due
to possible inaccuracies in the sludge flow information obtained
from the plants and/or analytical inaccuracies in the sludge ana-
lyses, good mass balances for the conservative pollutants could
not be developed for several of the POTWs. However, Table 12
summarizes'the mass balances for 6 POTWs where the percent dif-
62
-------
tn
iH
10
oo
CO
in
in
i
a
<§
in
CM
vo
ts
in
ro
vo
in
in
vo
o
in
in
•
en
v
•
00
01
0)
o
o
vo
03
r-
I
en
1
35
£8
u
I
Ol
in
oo
CM
vo
4J
s •
o
eo
oo
O3
I
vo
en
03
a
I
§
CO
O
10 -H
i-< U
C O
10 H
13 i-l
s >i
•35
vo
pi
63
-------
ference between the pounds of total metals in the incoming and
outgoing streams were reasonably close. For these six plants, it
is assumed that the balances for all other pollutants should be
equally accurate.
Table 12 shows that deviation from total priority pollutant metal
mass balances range between a gain of 11 percent and a loss of 12
percent. Volatile pollutants were always lost and ranged from 13
percent lost to 96 percent lost. It should be noted that the
smallest loss, at POTW 32, was abnormally influenced by methlyene
chloride values which accounted for over 95 percent of both the
incoming and outgoing balance. By looking at the daily data
tables for POTW 32, it appears that some laboratory or other con-
tamination was experienced. The mass balance for base neutral
pollutants ranged from a TO percent gain to an 88 percent loss.
The acid extractables were found too infrequently and at such low
levels that meaningful conclusions were difficult to draw.
The results discussed above support the concept that metals are
conservative in a treatment process while organics are either
biodegraded or otherwise lost. The greater loss of volatile
priority toxic pollutants compared to the base neutrals or total
organic priority pollutants, also supports the idea that volati-
les may be stripped out of the wastewater during aeration in
addition to being biodegraded.
DAILY VARIATION OF INFLUENT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Table 13 presents the daily average concentration of selected
conventional, non-conventional and priority pollutants as well as
the total priority pollutant fractions in POTW influent samples.
With the exception of Sundays, at least one 24-hour composite
influent sample was taken for each day of the week at 38 of the
40 POTWs. Sunday samples were only taken at four of the 40 POTWs
(see Section IV).
Table 13 does not reveal any particular concentration trend among
the five working days. None of these five days of the week
showed a consistently high or lower concentration of the priority
pollutant fractions of most individual pollutants. However, for
every toxic pollutant fraction, as well as all priority pollu-
tants metals and the conventional parameters indicated, the
Monday through Friday average concentration was always higher
than the Saturday or Sunday average. The Sunday data should be
viewed cautiously because of the abbreviated data base it repre-
sents. One discrepancy in Table 13 is that the volatile pollu-
tant concentration on Saturday is much higher than the sum of the
individual volatile pollutants listed for Saturday. This was
caused primarily by a pollutant (1,2-dichloroethane) not listed
in Table 13, but which accounted for an average Concentration of
over 800 yg/1 over the 40 plant data even though it was infre-
quently detected.
64
-------
Odd
2dm
I ~- »- 03
PI *r ft \
t
c
^
(Q
"O
o
3
§
in en r-
»- 00 »-
d VO ^
&
13
en
41
C
13
4!
9
in to in
d m co
d in d
id)
•O — co «
CO ^ ^ ^ *O d CO 34
^- CT\ ro ^" r*» *" f** °»
^t *- GO tf)
d o
in ^*
*• o
M m
o\ m m \o co in o*
01 41
io ^: o >i 4) o •
U U U U J S
Id
s
j3 4)
A -U 4)
_5 a
•af •ss
x j: j: «
4) CU ^J i-4
^ S "
I
e jj
j= o
I JJ U
: D o
I---- £
§• 3
r-( r-4
(0 rtJ
-U JJ
g g
I
a
id
1
65
-------
EFFECT OF RAINFALL ON INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
During the week of sampling at 14 of the 40 POTWs, at least one
day of heavy rainfall occurred. Table 14 presents the influent
»nS S?rX°S Y P?llutant metals loadings at these plants before
and after the rainfall day and the average of all other days'
loadings. The type of sewer system in each of these plants is
?hl« P*esente<3- Although there are many factors than can aff Jet
these data (weather prior to the sampling episode, infiltration/
inflow problems, whether rainfall occurred on weekdays o/aT:ion/
f.2t£')h-t!!erS 1S \clear tendency shown for metals
^ S hljhest on the days of and following rainfall than
to the other periods. The peak flow occurred either
Sh 5 °Vatnf?1:L °r °n the day after- Peak flow niay
occur on the day following rainfall because of either the deten-
tion time in the sewer system, which was not documented, or the
rainfall may have occurred near the end of the sampling period
At several of the plants in Table 14, it was raining on the first
day of sampling so no preceding dry weather periods could be
included in the averages of other days.
o I5^r!S?ntS a similar analysis for lead only, it was anti-
cipated that lead would show this same tendency because of its
widespread use in gasoline and the deposition of lead particles
?n^?al^n^' tS *Tan be Seen frora Table 15' the same trends were
tants? aS Were indicated for the total metal pollu-
be "?ted that the data on Tables 14 and 15 are only an
of the effects of rainfall. There were many inter-
fering factors with this analysis, such as light rainfall during
mnTFii?9 geriod| Whfc5 was unrecorded at the treatment plant, o?
multiple days of rainfall during the six day sampling period! In
these latter cases, only the first heavy rainfall was used and
subsequent days were averaged as other days. In all cases for
the rainfall analysis, pollutants measured below their detection
limit in the influent were averaged as 0.
FORMATION OF CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
Table 16 presents a summary of occurrences where the secondary or
tertiary chlorinated effluent had a higher concentration of a
chlorinated hydrocarbon than the corresponding pre-chlorinated
secondary effluent. Inconsequential data points were excluded
from consideration by requiring that the post-chlorinated sample
have a larger measured concentration than the pre-chlorinated
sample s. Furthermore, some control tests run on some frequently
occurring non-chlorinated compounds indicated that random
variation would account for a pollutant being higher in the
etfiuent than in the influent in approximately 25 percent of the
cases where it was detected. Consequently, Table 16 only pre-
sents pollutants which exceeded the number of occurrences that
might have been predicted by random variation.
66
-------
TABLE 14
EFFECT OF RAINFALL
ON INFLUENT TOTAL METALS LOADING
(Pounds per Day)
FIRST DAY OF
PLANT NO
4
6
9
13
-u
18
22
23
26
27
32
34
35
36
SEWER
TYPE
50%
Combined f
Separate
Combined
85%
Combined
Combined
Combined
Separate
Separate
67%
Combined
Separate
Separate
Separate
25%
Combined
10%
*" Combined
HEAVY RAINFALL
DURING SAMPLING PERIOD
1286(1)
708 (1)
197
94(2)
167
324
300 CD
75<1>
1346.
-------
TABLE 15
EFFECT OF RAINFALL
ON INFLUENT LEAD LOADING
, (Pounds per Day)
SEWER
PLANT NO. TXPE
FIRST DAY OF
HEAVY RAINFALL
PORING SAMPLING PERIOD
DAY AFTER
AVERAGE OF ALL
4
6
9
13
14
18
22
23
26
27
32
34
35
36
50%
Combined 216(1)
Separate 18 (1)
Combined 48
85%
Combined 14(2)
Combined 4
Combined 234
Separate 27 ( 1 >
Separate o ( 1 )
67%
Combined 247(1)
Separate oO)
Separate 1 o
Separate 22 (2)
25%
Combined 0
10%
Combined 57
*•**"**»« •*• **•* J.M*; n±iu WXfLCiXV UriJuO
54 63(3)
5 12
30 39
8.0 6.0(3>
0 o(3)
68 43
40 32 (3)
0 3(3)
141 Q(3)
0 0 (3)
6.0 3
18 16
38 0
66 42(3)
(1) Rainfall occurred during first day of sampling
(2) Heavy rains preceded the sampling episode
(3) Additional rainfall occurred after first day of heavy rainfall
68
-------
TABLE 16
FORMATION OF CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
DURING CHLORINE DISINFECTION
Parameter
Chloroform
Dichlorobromomethane
Chlorodibromomethane
Gamma-BHC
, Number of
Occurrences
39
27
13
25
Average Concentration
Pre-Chlorinated Post-Chlor inated
10 ug/1
1 ug/i
1 ug/1
62 ng/1
7 ug/1
8 ug/1
147 ng/1
Note: Only instances where post-chlorinated sample had larger measured
value than pre-chlorinated sample are included.
69
-------
*
Chloroform increased in concentration through the chlorination
process in 39 instances. The average pre-chlorinated con-
centration was 2 ug/1 for these occurrences, and the average
chlorinated effluent was 10 ug/1. For dichlorodibromomethane,
there were 27 instances where it increased (from 1 ug/1 to
7 ug/1/ average). Chlorodibromomethane and gamma-BHC also
increased significantly more often than can be explained by ran-
dom variation.
POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN SLUDGES WHEN NOT MEASURED IN THE INFLUENT
Table 17 presents a summary of the priority pollutants that were
detected in one or more sludge streams but were not detected in
the corresponding influent sample. In many cases this occurs
because the influent concentrations were too low to be measured,
but the pollutant may have concentrated sufficiently in the
sludge stream to be quantified. For example, arsenic and anti-
mony were both detected in less than 15 percent of all POTW
influent samples. However, both were detected consistently in
sludge streams. Arsenic was detected 110 times in a primary
sludge at an average concentration.of 186 ug/1 when it was not
detected in the influent. It was also detected 84 times in com-
bined sludges (384 ug/1 average) and 99 times in secondary
sludges (77 ug/1) when not detected in the influent.
The significance of Table 17 is that several pollutants only
infrequently measured in POTW influents may, in fact; be fre-
quently present in the influent at levels below their detection
limit.
CORRELATION OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
For all of the priority pollutants that occurred in over 50 per-
cent of the influent samples, the correlation between plant
average influent concentration and effluent concentration was
tested. Table 18 presents the results for these pollutants as
well as for BOD and TSS. For all of the metals on Table 18, the
slope of the line computed by the least squares fit was between
0.02 and 0.325 indicating that the majority of an incremental
increase in influent concentration is removed by the POTW and
does not pass through to the effluent. Interestingly, the
highest slope was obtained for nickel, which also had the lowest
median removal of the heavy metals (see Table 10).
The organic priority pollutants exhibited the same trend as the
metals. The correlation coefficients ranged between 0.059 and
0.977. The slopes of the best fit line ranged between 0.003 and
0.860. These slopes also indicate that the majority of most
organic priority pollutants are removed by the secondary treat-
ment process at the. 40 POTWs.
Based on the data in Table 18 it is reasonable to conclude that
for many priority pollutants an increase in the influent con-
70
-------
O D
M ij
H 03
•*§£
813
g
c7o«« « 5.££'5 5 S-SScs ssSsss ssc. ti.ss.ss1
mo\»oi-«or.— 01 i Itsl I II I o o I I 1 I
3 r-vovo-wini-oin.- •- -jo;
CM «* **
-------
TABLE 18
CORRELATION OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION
Parameter
BOD
TSS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chloroform
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
1/1,1-Trichloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
Correlation
Coefficient
.374
.182
.966
.402
.536
.102
.354
,329
.795
.523
.855
.082
.669
.207
.837
.243
.476
.558
.977
.589
.287
.966
.059
.899
.996
.444
Slope of
Best Fit Lined)
.069
.024
.060
.059
.072
.020
.050
.130
.325
.150
.256
.004
.347
.011
.392
.081
.075
.037
.860
.059
.009
.151
.003
.110
.130
.091
Intercept
10.4
17.7
.4
.1
1.2
25.3
24.7
152.6
10.8
71
26
-0.1
-15.8
1.0
7.1
0.6
0.9
2.8
0.1
0.4
-73.5
-0.1
1.2
2.0
11
-1
0.2
0.2
.3
,1
(1) Least-Squares Regression (Effluent Concentration is the Dependent
Variable)
72
-------
centration will result in an increase in the effluent con
centration. In many cases, the effluent increase is close to
1 -removal rate for that pollutant. Using zinc as an example, the
data on Table 18 indicate that the effluent zinc concentration
can be predicted by:
Ceffluent = (0.256) Cinfiuent .- 15.8 (in ug/1)
For an influent concentration of 723 ug/1 (the average of the 40
POTW averages) an effluent of 169 ug/1 is predicted.
Alternately, using the median removal for zinc of 77 percent from
Table 10, an effluent of 166 ug/1 (723 x (1-.77)) is predicted
for the same influent concentration.
For several pollutants on Table 18, the hi9* co];*ela^onh<;o;f- ,_
ficients alsS imply that the influent concentration is the single
most important predictor of the effluent concentration. The
importance of this relationship is that the percentage removal of
pollutants at POTWs is not significantly dependent upon the
influent concentration, but is relatively constant over the range
of concentrations experienced in this study.
DISCUSSION OF 10-PLANT STUDY RESULTS
The initial 40 POTWs included in this study were specifically
selected to obtain a cross-section of secondary treatment pro-
ceisSs rejected in the 197,8 EPA Needs Survey. These .a
in treatment capacity, influent characteristics, and in
flows POTWs 51 to 60 were selected as examples of POTWs that
Table 1 presents a summary of the biological treatment processes,
dJsign flSSs, actual flows (the average six day flow volumes
observed during the respective sample episodes) , estimated per-
cent industrial flow and a listing of the ma3or industrial cate-
qories for the 10 POTWs. Percent industrial flows varied from
less than one percent at POTW 52 to greater than 60 percent at
POTW 55. At five of the POTWs included in the 10 POTW data base
(POTWs 52, 54, 55, 57, and 60), samples were also collected at
the dominant contributing industry during two of the six sampling
episodes. Selected pollutant mass contributions from the
industrial dischargers can thus be compared with the pollutant
mass of the influent, secondary effluent, and sludge streams
sampled. Tables 19 through 28 present the average influent mass,
secondary effluent mass (or tertiary ef f luent J^ /Jndustrial
aoolicable), appropriate percent removals, dominant industrial
dilcnarger masfu? sampled), and percentage of mass attributable
73
-------
ni- lndustrial discharger for each of the 10 POTWs.
Data results presented in these tables are for selected conven-
tional and nonconventional pollutants as well as priority pollu-
pe?cJnteoICthe ^ influent waste stream 3***ter than 50
The dominant industry that discharges to POTW 51 is the gum and
~™Ll: it •lndUS^17- Benzene' toluene, ethylbenzepe, phenol,
copper, chromium, nickel and zinc are the priority pollutants
most often detected in the wastewaters discharged by the gum and
wood chemicals industry. Toluene is the primary solvent used
throughout the industry while benzene and ethylbenzene may be
present as a result of contaminating toluene and xylene, respec-
A number of the metals are used as catalyst in various
n»t-Kf 2? P5iority Pollutants were detected at least once
during the six-day sampling effort in the influent waste stream
compared to 17 priority pollutants detected in the secondary
effluent waste stream. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate,
chloroethane, and toluene were the organic priority pollutant
parameters detected at the highest concentration in the influent;
zinc, copper, lead, chromium, nickel, mercury, and arsenic were
the priority pollutant metals detected 100 percent of the timSin
not only the influent, but also in the secondary effluent, pri-
rJcyclelfne secondary sludge. and heat treatment supernatant
Treatment efficiencies were good overall, with the exception of
chloroethane. The chloroethane concentrations at the chlorinated
secondary effluent location were greater than the influent con-
°!!;ira^0n dufin9.fiYe of the six sampling periods; average con-
centrations also indicated an increase in the chloroethane
concentration after treatment. In contrast, toluene (another
volatile organic priority pollutant) was not detected in the
secondary waste stream. The mass balance table for POTW 51 in
Appendix E shows that the seven metals listed above tend to con-
centrate in the primary sludge.
POTW 52 had the lowest average flow (1.1 MGD) of the 50 POTWs
vam? ^d* uThe effluent waste stream from a wood preserving plant
that discharges to POTW 52 was also sampled during this slmpling
ettort. The effluent waste stream from the wood preserving plant
was a low volume (5,000 gpd) waste stream but contained the
following priority toxic pollutants at the listed concentrations:
benzene
toluene
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2-nitrophenol
pentachlorophenol
185 ug/1
230 yg/1
250 ug/1
3,950 ug/1
215 ug/1
2,350 ug/1
74
-------
TABLE 19
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT AND SECONDARY EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
POTW 51
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconventinal
*Volatiles
*Base-Neutrals
*Metals
Parameter
BOD
TSS •'• '
COD
Oil & Grease
Benzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1,1-Tr ichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Tr ichloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Arsenic
Influent
Secondary Effluent
Ibs/day
98,309
167,213
285,491
12,947
2.2
137
6.0
8.4
12.2
93.3
1.9
7.3
3.6
1.7
143
7.8
3.1
52.4
109
64
0.5
15.1
14.6
265
0.4
Ibs/day
1,199
2,998
20,061
2,671
ND
207
3.5
1.0
4.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
63.1
2.0
0.6
5.1
6.3
4.5
ND
2.0
0.5
43.4
0.2
% Removal
99
98
93
79
100
NR
42
88
61
100
100
100
100
100
56
74
81
90
94
93
100
87
97
84
50
ND = Not Detected
NR = No Removal
* » Pollutants detected in influent greater than 50 percent of time.
75
-------
TABLE 20
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT, SECONDARY EFFLUENT
AND PRIMARY INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
POTW 52
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconventional
Parameter
•Volatile*
*8ase Neutrals
*Acid Extract
•Metals
BOD
TSS
COD
Oil & Grease
Toluene
Chlorobenzane
Tet rachloroethylene
Trichloroethylane
Acenaphthena
Fluroanthene
Di-N-Sutyl Phthalate
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Bis(2-£thylhexyl)Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Bia(2-Chloroethoxy)Methana
Chrysene
1,2-Benzanthracene
Phenol
2,4-Oimethylphenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Copper
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Nickel
Influent
Ibs/day
1,624
951
2,200
295
0.1
96
>75
>95
NA
NR
NA
100
100
100 .
-\ t '
>97
>50
100
67
NA
40 " '
100
NR ,
Primary
Ibs/day
57
15
415
' 0.8
s Greater bhan
* s Pollutants detected in influent greater than 50 percent of time.
1/Wood Preserving Plant
76
-------
phenol
acenaphthene .,
fluoranthene -- •-. •_ .-••;
naphthalene
1,2-benzanthracene
3-4-benzofluoranthene
11..,.12-benzofluoranthene ;
chyrserve ' : . ;
anthracene
1,12-benzoperylene
fluorene
phenanthrene
1,2:5,6-dibenzanthracene
indeno (1,2,3-C,D) pyrene
5,450
22,250
15,350
26,850
1,050
4,405
4,405
6,500
34,050
684
1 ,500
32,000
1 ,160
3,100
ug/1
ug/i
vg/i
ii'g/i
ug/i
ug/i
yg/i
ug/i
ug/i
ug/i
wg/i
yg/i
wg/i
Dilution of the wood preserving wastewater with domestic sewage
significantly reduced the concentration of the priority pollu-
tants. Pentachlorphenol, a process chemical used at the wood
preserving plant, was surprisingly not detected in the influent
waste stream at the POTW on four of six occasions. The mass
balance table in Appendix E and the results presented in Table 20
summarize the treatment efficiency for the trickling filter •
treatment system. Conventional pollutant removals were low;
priority pollutant removals were slightly better. In several
cases, the actual pollutant removal could not be interpreted due
to the low mass observed. Zinc, lead, copper, and several base/
neutral parameters exhibited a definite affinity to concentrate
in the primary sludge.
Over 47 percent of the influent wastewater flow to POTW 53 is
attributable to the combined waste stream from seven textile
mills. Toxic pollutants that may be expected to be present in
the wastewater emanating from textile mills include 17 organic
priority pollutants [acrylonitrile, benzene, 1,2,4-tnchloro-
benzene, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, parachlorometacresol, chloroform,
1,2-dichlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, trichlorofluoromethane,
naphthalene, N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine, pentachlorophenol, phe-
nol, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, tetrachloroethylene, toluene,
and trichloroethylene], 9 metals (cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc) and cyanide.
These pollutants are predominately associated with the fibers,
pigments, dyes, fiber preservatives, coating formulations,
dyestuffs or cleaning solvents used throughout the industry.
Tetrachloroethylene and trichlorethylene were the volatile orga-
nic parameters in the influent detected at the highest average
concentrations; acenaphthene and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene were the
prevalent base/neutral compounds; and zinc, copper, and nickel
had the highest average priority pollutant metal concentrations.
With the exception of chloroform, which showed a net increase as
a result of'activated sludge - chlorination treatment, organic
priority pollutant treatment was high. The-four dominant organic
77
-------
TABLE 21
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT AND SECONDARY EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
POTW 53
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconvent ional
*Volatiles
*Base-Neutrals
*Acid Extract
*Metals
Parameter
BOD
TSS
COD
Oil & Grease
Methylene Chloride
1,1/1-Trichloroethane
Chloroform
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
Tetr achloroethylene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Tr ichloroethylene
Acenaphthene
Naphthalene
1/2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Phenol
Antimony
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Lead
Mercury
Influent
2.3
Secondary Effluent
Ibs/day
7,859
6,244
20,203
868
1.1
2.3
0.5
0.8
20.8
0.3
0.8
4.0
26.7
2.5
42.0
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
Ibs/day
89.2
384
5,169
398
0.3
<0.1
1.8
NO
ND
<0.1
ND
ND
<0.1
.ND
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
ND
% Removal
99
94
74
54
73
>96
NR
100
100
>67
100
100
>99
100
100
71
67
NR
100
0.7
0.2
0.6
5.4
5.3
0.2
13.4
1.3
0.6
0.1
0.2
1.2
4.6
<0.1
6.5
ND
>96
14
50
67
78
13
>50
51
100
NA
NA
ND
NR
Not apparent due to the low observed concentrations
Not detected
No removal
Less than
Greater than
Pollutants detected in influent'greater than 50 percent of time.
78
-------
compounds listed above were each reduced by over 99 percent.
Primary treatment followed by roughing filters accounted for 65
percent of the volatile organic removal and 84 percent of the
base/neutral reduction. The remaining reduction was a result of
the activated sludge process. Metals removal was not as good as
organic removals, especially the reductions resulting from the
primary clarifiers and roughing filters.
POTW 54 is an activated sludge treatment system that receives
approximately one percent of its influent flow from a herbicide
manufacturer. The herbicide waste is pretreated (toluene extrac-
tion, dilution tank, resin absorption basins, and a lime basin
with a carbon dioxide stripping column) prior to being discharged
to the POTW. Residual pesticides from clean-up operations as
well as toluene from" the manufacturing processes were anticipated
to be present in the waste stream. The toluene loading from the
industrial source represents 81 percent of the influent load to
the POTW while pesticides were not detected in the influent
stream. Removals at the POTW vary as shown in Table 22. Low
removals were observed for chloroform, methylene chloride
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate, lead, and selenium.
A pulp and paper mill that discharges to POTW^55 accounts for 56
percent of the average influent flow to the POTW. Because of the
extensive detention period through the treatment process of POTW
55, the percent pollutant removals should be viewed cautiously.
The time period between the influent and secondary effluent
samples may be several months due to the storage lagoon detention
period. The time of travel through the soil in the spray irriga-
tion fields extends the time period even further for the influent
and tertiary effluent samples. Furthermore, flow rates may not
coincide due to precipitation, evaporation, evapotranspiration,
and percolatio'n influences.
Based on data from the six-day sampling period, the treatment
facility appears to be well acclimated to effectively treat the
influent wastewater. Though the influent volatile organic
loadings were extremely high, the volatile organic priority
pollutant removals were excellent (only the 28 percent for
chloroethane was lower than the average 77 percent volatile
removals). Priority pollutant removals were good overall with
the exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate which showed no
reduction.
POTW 56 serves several industries including a steel mill, several
electroplating operations, metal fabricators and electrical prod-
uct manufacturing processes. The industrial flow is over 25 per-
cent of the total plant influent. As might be expected from the
contributing industrial mix, significant quantities of metals and
cyanides were detected in the influent waste stream. Primary
treatment metal removals were fair (Table 24). Secondary treat-
ment followed by filtration further reduced the metal loading to
79
-------
TABLE 22
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconventtonal
"Yolatlles
•Base Neutrals
•Acid Extract
*Metals
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT, SECONDARY EFFLUENT
AM) PRIMARY INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
POTW 54
Parameter
800.
TSS
COO ,
011 & Grease
1,1,l-Trlchloroethene
ChIoroform
Methylene Chloride
TetrachloroethyIene
Toluene
BI s (2-Ethy I hexy I )Ph ttia I ate
DI-N-eutyl Phthalate
Dlethyl Phthalate
2,4-01chIorophenoI
Chromium
Copper
'Lead
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Selenium
Influent
Ibs/day
1,741
31,008
39,614
4,231
1.7
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.7
10.9
1.3
0.2
Secondary
Ibs/day %
737
6,138
2, 824
737
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.1
<0.1
9.8
0.4
NO . • -
Influent
Removal
96
80
93
83
79
17
NR
80
100
10
70
100
Primary
1 bs/day
76
3,973
2,463
0.9
NO
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.6
0.14
<0. 1
O.I
Industrial Contributor1
f of Influent Mass
0.5
13
6
<'
0
<13
<25
<16
81
1
<8
<50
51.2
23.4
54
1.8
2.6
15.1
1.0
14.0
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.2
11.3
O.I
2.0
NO
0.8
73
90
25
>90
86
100
NR *
0.09
O.I
0.7
O.I
O.1
O.I
O.I
5
<4
5
<50
NA » Not apparent due to the low observed concentrations
NO « Not detected
NR « No removal ;
< » Less than
> » Greater than
* "Pollutants detected In Influent greater than 50 percent of time.
'Herbicide manufacturer
80
-------
•zoz . CMZ-r
•jgog ^
5 — O^-O
— — V —
•* . • P
ZZZ'ifZ
•
o»co — >o
• z • •
00 —
— 4
es'-c>4
V —
•ERTIARY EFFLUENT
8
1
\
e
Tertiary Efflue
(V
a:
I
minj*f» mogooo
o
w , , _ w _^ Q
s
-
«•• K^ Q O
,in» o
A ^"
5 — — O»CM ov — —
o\ • • * *•
§
u
u
o
R
to CM CO
om
c +-
$1
II
II
sco o —
jtoo — «.e
Jt-OO 000
in
O
o
c
o
IU
•o
>. 0 0
— 1_— i. L.— — T!
£a> 3CC *—
8 Q.JZ > 0 0 0 IO-0 =
UQ.O— ci.— wionj
O ID
f f
o e
f 8
'O -O
4- U)
O — (0
"fe aEjn
•op S .. fe S
— u =+--t a-g
Q. +- o:
"'«1;2 !+-
^•S82o "S
Z Z-IOQ. ^.O
II II II II II 3 ID
t/» Q ^X
ZZ V A * —CM
81
-------
TABLE 24
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT, PRIMARY EFFLUENT AND
TERTIARY EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
POTW 56
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconvantlonal
•Yolatlles
"Base-Neutrals
*AcId Extract
Pesticides
*Me1als
"Other
Parameter
BOD
TSS
COO
Oil & Grease
Benzene
1,2-Trans-O! ch loroethylene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
TrIchIoroethyIene
1,1,1-TrIchIoroethane
TetraohIoroethyIene
Methyl one Chloride
BIs(2-ethyIh exyI)phthaI ate
DI-N-Butyl PhthaI ate
DI ethyl Phthafate
Naphthalene
Butyl Benzyl PhthaI ate
Phenol
Gamma-8HC
Arsenic
Chroml urn
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Silver
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Cyanide
Influent
1 bs/day
1 1 ,329
59,097
54,029
5,614
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.5
8.0
0.4
1.8
0.3
1.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.1
4.4
78.7
36.7
26.0
924
0.4
80.3
0.1
0.4
8.4
Primary
1 bs/day
3,165
22,981
31,375
2,339
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.4
7.6
2.6
1.1
0.7
3.2
0.1
0.3
<1.4
<1.4
0.1
0.1
0.6
19.0
14.0
16.5
440
0.3
29.9
O.I
0.1
2.9
Effluent
% Removal
72
61
42
59
50
NR
NR
20
5
NR
38
NR
NR
50
33
-
-
80
NR
88
76
62
37
52
33
63
75
67
66
Tertiary
1 bs/day
568
—
1,263
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
ND
O.I
ND
0.1
0.3
4.8
1.5
12.3
179
ND
14.7
ND
1.3
4.5
Effluent
t Removal
99
—
76
50
>83
NR
>80
52
NR
83
NR
88
>67
•>80
100
>50
100
17
91
93
96
48
81
100
80
100
NR
43
NO « Not detected
NR » No removal
< * Less than
> " Greater than
* "Pollutants detected In Influent greater than 50 percent of time.
82
-------
the receiving streanu Nickel, as has been the case at other
POTWs, had poor primary and secondary/tertiary treatment remo-
vals. Eight volatile priority pollutant compounds and five base/
neutral compounds were detected more than 50 percent of the time
in the influent waste stream. Except for trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene, all organic priority pollutant influent
average concentrations were below 10 ug/1. Primary treatment
afforded little, if any, organic priority pollutant removal;
secondary/tertiary treatment provided fair removals.
POTW 57 was previously sampled during the 40 POTW survey (iden-
tified as POTW 6). This treatment facility serves several
industries including chemical/plastics manufacturing, electro-
plating, and the food processing industries. Industrial flow =
amounts to about 15 percent of the POTW influent. The most _
significant industry (polyvinyl chloride manufacturing operation)
was simultaneously sampled for a 48-hour period as part of the
program. Extremely high vinyl chloride in the influent waste
stream to the POTW during the first six-day sampling episode
warranted verification sampling at the PVC plant.
Grab samples or VOAs were randomly taken twice per day at the PVC
plant while VOA grab samples at the POTW influent were taken six
times per day, once every four hours. This variation in the
sampling methodologies accounts for the difference in vinyl
chloride mass loading between the POTW influent and the industry
sample location. Vinyl chloride removals as a result of combined
primary and secondary treatment averaged 93 percent. Other vola-
tile organic priority pollutants present at average concentra-
tions greater than 50 ug/1 were trichloroethylene and methyl
chloride. Percent removals were 44 and 98 percent, respectively.
Influent metal concentrations were high in comparison to the
other 48 POTWs- sampled. Removals were good; nickel was poorest
at 45 percent removal. Pollutants in base/neutral, acid extrac-
table, and pesticide fractions were not significantly present
during the study.
POTW 58 serves several industries, predominantly the pulp and
paper industry and a steel mill. Industrial flow averages 30 to
40 percent of the POTW influent. Phenol was the prevalent
priority pollutant, present in the influent waste stream
(795 ug/1). Phenol mass removal through the POTW averaged 99
percent. Phenol showed no tendency to concentrate in either of
the sludge waste streams, indicating that biodegradation may be
the primary removal mechanism for phenol. Chloroethane and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate showed no reduction while methylene
chloride and nickel, yielded only 14 percent and 16 percent reduc-
tions after secondary treatment.
Several industrial operations contribute approximately 17 percent
of the influent flow to POTW 59, with, pharmaceutical products
manufacturing and metal plating operations comprising the most
83
-------
TABLE 25 " -
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT, SECONDARY EFFLUENT AND
PRIMARY INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
POTW 57
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconventlonal
•Yolatlles
Parameter
BOO
TSS
COO
Oil
& Grease
Ch loroform
1,2-Trans-O t ch I oroethyI one
Ethyl benzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene •
Tr1chIoroethyI ene
Vinyl Chloride
1,1,1 -TrIchloroethane
Methyl Chloride
Tetrach I oroethy I ene
Benzene
*8as« Neutra Is Bis <2-«thy I haxy I) phtha late
•Matals
•Other
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chrotnlurn
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
SI Ivor
Zinc
Cyanide
Influent
Ibs/day
11,785
26,716
52,347
9,427
0.3
1.5
0.3
0.9
2.0
12.5
2,527
1.3
11.4
1.4
0.2
Secondary
1 bs/day
539
2,232
4,578
1,260
0.3
0.1
1.0
1.1
O.1
7.0
178
NO
0.2
NO
NO
Effluent
% Removal
95
92
91
86
': NR --. .
91
NR
NR
>98
44
93*
100
98
100
100
Primary
Industrial Contributor'
Ibs/day
1,622
662
2,951
161
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
362
NS
NS
NS
NS
% of Influent Mass
14
2
6
2
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
14
NS
NS
NS
NS
1.6
1.2
26
NS
NS
0.2
0.2
44.2
65.1
36^.8
7.5
0.2
20.2
0.7
178
5.6
O.I
0.1
4.4
6.6
3.7
NO
O.I
11.1
0.1
29.2
NO
60
50
90
90
90
>51
90
45 :
81
84
>92
O.I
O.I
O.I
0.35
0.17
0.14
0.1
0.87
0.1
2.64
0.1
<50
<50
<1
<1
<1
2
<50
4
<14
1
<2
NO - Not detected
NR « No removal
NS - Not sampled
< » Less than
> » Greater than
* -Pollutants detected In Influent greater than 50 percent of time.
'^Polyvlnyl Chloride Manufacturer
84
-------
TABLE 26
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT AND SECONDARY EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
58
influent Secondary Effluent
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconventional
*Volatiles
*Base-Neutrals
*Acid Extract
*Metals
*Other
Parameter
'BOD ,-..-...; ,,..r,,.:,. ; ,:.--.
,TSS ; .
COD
Oil & Grease
Benzene ,
Toluene
Chloroethane ;
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
Diethyl Phthalate
Pyrene
1,2-Diphenylhydr azine
2,4-Dimethyl Phenol
Phenol
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper ,
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Antimony
Cyanide
Ibs/day
17,069
21,406
60,773
3,691
18.6
0.9
29.2
1.4
1.6
12.2
1.6
0.8
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
147
1.5
17.7
46.5
36.9
48.9
2.0
33.4
6.1
30.3
Ibs/day
2,882
2,023
15,299
3,691
1.7
ND
38.6
1.2
ND
20.8
0.6
ND
90
100
>83
100
99
60
63
84
57
16
NR
65
77
60
ND = Not detected
NR = No removal .
< = Less than
> » Greater than
* = Pollutants detected in- influent greater than 50 percent of time.
85
-------
TABLE 27
COMPARISON OF INFLUENT AND SECONDARY EFFLUENT POLLUTANT MASSES
POTW 59
Fraction
Conventional/
Nonconventional
*Volatiles
*Base-Neutrals
*Acid Extract
*Metals
Parameter
BOD
TSS
COD
Oil &
Grease
*Other
Benzene
1/1,1-Tr ichloroethane
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Tr ichloroethylene
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Naphthalene
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
Phenol
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Influent
Ibs/day
39,198
123,825
97,953
18,402
1.6
6.0
2.0
12.3
15.9
57.4
77.5
17.0
0.8
72.5
6.7
15.1
2.5
0.6
17.2
113
41 .8
<0.1
41.8
2.4
195
9.3
Secondary Effluent
Ibs/day
1,630
3,627
43,278
2,038
ND
1.1
1.6
<0.1
11.4
11.6
0.9
2.6
ND
9.8
ND
1.1
1.2
<0.1
0.7
59.1
4.5
<0.1
24.0
0.4
50.0
% Removal
96
97
56
89
120
79
13
100
28
79
99
84
100
86
100
92
50
100
96
47
89
83
42
80
74
3.4
63
ND » Not detected
< = Less than
* « Pollutants detected in influent greater than 50 percent of time.
86
-------
IOK1K1
o
BS
o
>-ooino< oo
* o zom inooo mo o> <—
^—— — — oo
Kicoroo* — o^ — f»icMiN»oincMm
«if 01 ^ *f ••••••••••.• •••••••••• --
- —S<5 gMogooooooo MO^MOoogg^ L.
. W N O O
> c e e —
O «
ue
Otncj— c — — — CM .e •(-H •
o V O .^ 0) * ^^ ^*^ . 0 g
l_l_— 3
3®C«—
O > 0> S
U — «-3
o — t- (O
Z« rO Q. ro
O a. e j=
I Q. (0 4-
5 10 u)
t. tn
4-4- in
II
a 4.
. =
:u-
c -o c
10 C
U» (0
u n n II
a: «n
I — (0
n u i
A * —
87
-------
significant sources of this flow. Toluene, tetrachloroethylene,
and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were the organic priority pollu-
tants detected at the highest influent concentrations. Percent
removals for these pollutants were 99, 79, and 86 percent,
respectively. The two volatile compounds were not concentrated
in the sludge stream which indicates that air-stripping and/or
biodegradation are the treatment reduction process. Bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate was detected at significant levels in the sludge
streams indicating bioflocculation may be the significant treat-
ment process for this compound. Of the priority pollutant metals
detected more than 50 percent of the time, chromium and nickel
showed the lowest removal rates at 47 and 42 percent, respec-
tively. Other than nickel and chromium, copper was the metal
with the highest influent concentration; copper removal was 89
percent through secondary treatment.
Approximately 13 percent of the influent flow to POTW 60 is from
a leather tanning and finishing plant. Table 28 compares the
pollutant mass for the industry source with the POTW influent,
primary effluent, and secondary effluent streams. Chromium, a
process chemical used in the tanning process, was the priority
pollutant detected at the highest influent concentration to the
POTW. Ferric chloride was added to the tannery waste stream to
aid sedimentation of- chromium. Eighty percent of the chromium
load was found to settle out as a result of primary sedimen-
tation. The activated sludge process further removed chromium
for a net removal of 98 percent. Thirty-two other priority
pollutants were detected in the influent waste stream over 50
percent of the time. Overall removals for those pollutants were
excellent,, except for nickel (19 percent removal) and cyanide (no
removal).
88
-------
APPENDIX A
FLOW DIAGRAMS
PLANTS 1 to 40 AND 51 to 60
A-l
-------
120 MGD (design)
I
Screening
Grit
Removal
3. ->ii 7t/i*ul4'' ^l/.''.:i!i;; '"«ON-
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 1
(^) Sample Points
t
1. Influent .....''
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Final Effluent , -
4. Primary Sludge
5. Flotables •<•• - -
6. Waste Activated Sludge
7. Filtrate
8. Combined from Points 4 and 6.
Preaeration
i
"Primary
Clarification
Diffused
Aeration
i
Secondary
Clarification
1
•f
Vacuum
Filtration^
Thickening
-Gravity •
Thickening
4
-------
15 MGD (design)
*
Screening
Grit Removal
I
Comminution
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 2
(&) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4, Primary Sludge
5. Waste Activated Sludge
6. Thickened Waste Activated Sludge
7. Combined Sludge
Preaeration
r
Primary
Clarification
i
Diffused
Aeration
'
v
Sludge
Storage
i
s
NJ '-.'-'
4&7
Decant
06
Land
Application
Heat
Treatment
\
Decanting
Secondary
Clarification
Chlorination
DAF
Thickening
Filtrate
t
Vacuum
Filtration
i
Incineration
Discharge
Lagoon
— Heat treatment and incineration not in operation during sampling
— During sampling, plant operating with only half of its primary clarifiers and aeration tanks.
— Activated sludge was wasted for five of seven days during the sampling program.
A-3
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 3
14 MGD (design) ;
Screening
Q$) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Thickener Overflow
5. Thickened Primary Sludge
6. Combined Sludge
Grit
Removal
I
Primary
Clarification
1
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
Chlorination
o
Gravity
Thickening
DAF
Thickening
6
<8>r£»»
Vacuum
Filtration
I
Landfill
Discharge
— Prechlorination utilized only when necessary.
A-4
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 4
120 MGD (design)
Screening
|
Grit
Removal
i.
'
Primary
Clarification
L
r
Diffused
Aeration
I
Secondary
Clarification
1
c
+
c
(
J
0
V
3
-®-
'
0 Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Combined Sludge
4. Digested Sludge
3
3
i . • ' •' a
3 «
0 £
C
'
.,-. .,,. , -, .• -.. , -. - 4
N ^^ Anaerobic &*. «
/ ^ Digestion "^ J
I ^
r v
^ DX
W.A.S. *"~ Thlck
I
V.
Supernatant j
\F X
en ing
}
^r Centrifugation
-
Incineration
Chlorination
I
Landfill
Discharge
All plant recycle lines are returned to the influent line, which accounts for only 6% of the
plant flow. This influent was not sampled.
Prechlorination utilized for odor control.
DAF Thickened Sludge is pumped directly to centrifuges, if necessary.
A-5
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 5
25 MGD (design)
i
Screening
Grit
Removal
Comminution
Primary
Clarification
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
(&) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Combined Sludge
4. Digested Sludge
Supernatant
Overflow
Gravity
Thickening
c
OB
U
-------
PLOW DIAGRAM £LANT NO. 6
7.4 MGD (design)
i
Screening
Grit
Removal
(&) Sample Points
1. Influent Ji...,,.,,...,
2. Final Effluent
3. Primary Sl.udge,
4. Digested Sludge
Pfeaeration
Primary
Clarification
Contact
Stabilization
(Mechanical
Aeration)
Secondary
Clarification
1
Chlorination
Supernatant
•..,--,,3.
Anaerobic
Digestion
Subnatant
DAF
Thickening
Drying Beds
Landfill
Discharge
A-7
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 7
66 MGD (design)
Screening
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Combined Sludge
4. Heat Treatment Decant
5. Heat Treated Sludge
Grit
Removal
Overflow
1
Primary
Clarification
1
Diffused
Aeration
1
Secondary
Clarification
o>
O)
•o
3
CO
T3
0
1
O
o
0)
1
\
Sludge
Storage
Decant
Filtrate
3
4
Heat
Treatment
I
Decanting
|5
Vacuum
Filtration
Chlorination
Landfill
Discharge
Incineration
t
Landfill
A-8
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 8
50 MGD (design)
Screening
V
Y
Aerated
Grit Removal
I
Primary
Clarification
J ^
X1
Subnatant DAF
\ i
Diffused
Aeration
14
Sludge
Storage
i t5
Clarification
Heat Treatment
Screening
J
d
V.
iV ^f, f
? c
Microscreening
Decanting
JL Decant
iw 6
Reaeration
I
Chlorination
Vacuum
Filtration
Filtrate _,
0 Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Influent
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
5. Combined Sludge
6. Heat Treated Sludge
7. Heat Treatment Decant
I
Trickling
Filtration
\
Secondary
Clarification
J \
] T
• Chlorinstion
- \
1 Discharge
f3 — During sampling, plant flow was less than half of design capacity.
— Influent sample was flow composted from Points 1 and 2.
Discharge
A-9
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 9
60 MGD (design)
f
Screening
Grit
Removal
Primary
Clarification
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
hHg>
Chlorination
(g) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Primary Sludge
4. Waste Activated Sludge
Subnatant
>-€
,„ ^
iZ
|^ Sludge
^ Holding
..........
J
• r -^
V ^ Belt Filter
Dewatering
^_ - -•,.'..,;,
X
i
•MMMHH
DAF ,„
Thickening
i.^.-.W,,,..-
.'
:-: c;-:.;.->
-,v-n- ,. . t ^-. „ ,,,,-._
Vacuum
Filtration
-J 1
=: f .:::';::
Incineration
i
Ash Lagoon
Landfill
Discharge
— Chlorinated effluent sampled immediately after chlorine injection.
A-10
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 10
42 MGD (design)
Screening
Comminution
0 Sample Points
•1. Influent
2. Final Effluent (AS)
3. Thickened Waste Activated Sludge
4. Digested Sludge (Aerobic)
5. Combined Sludge
6. Digested Sludge (Anaerobic)
7. Secondary Sludge (Humus)
8. Prechlorinated Effluent
9. Final Effluent (TF)
Occasional Backwash
From Tertiary Treatment
Grit Removal
i
Primary
Clarification
Primary Sludge
i
Aeration
(Diffused &
Mechanical)
I
Secondary
Classification
&
Chlorination
-------
45 MGD (design)
1
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 11
Screening
Grit
Removal
Screening
i
Primary
Clarification
i
Trickling
Filtration
Secondary
Clarification
c
s
CO
o
Q.
3
CO
0 Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Combined Sludge
5. Secondary Sludge (Humus)
Anaerobic
Digestion
Drying
Beds
Land
Application
Chlorination
Discharge
A-12
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 12
40 MGD (design)
Screening
Primary
Clarification
Mechanical
Aeration
I
Secondary
Clarification
1
Chlorination
Filtrate
Sample Points
1. Influent .
2. Primary Effluent
3. Final Effluent - L
4. Primary Sludge ;
5. Waste Activated Sludge
Gravity "
Thickening
Vacuum
Filtration
I
Landfill
.Discharge
•_ waste Activated Sludge sample taken from Return Activated Sludge line.
A-13,.
-------
24, MGD (design)
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 13
Supernatant
p — -
Screening
f1 f
Grit
Removal
j
Primary
Clarification
1
Diffused
Aeration
\
Secondary
Clarification
|2
Sand
Filtration
1
Chlorination
5
u
CO
CD
4
-® (
5
-X
N
V
^ Anae
"^ Dige
i
) J
y
(§) Sample Poir
1. Influent
' • 2. Secondary Ef
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludg
5. Waste Activat
robic
i
CD
f
to L
03 App
o
3
co
eg
Land
Discharge
°ne °f two
-stewater streams no, containing
A-14
-------
PLOW DIAGRAM -PLANT NO. 14
20.6 MGD (design)
T
Sample Points
Screening
•+*
&
« ,
c . .- - •
,|- ..;..- ; ,v.; -•• -•;, i
„-. , . . ,r •. -J . "*;s-f--b -;•.-•' •"*" " •. -. •• -, -.^ n - . ,•! **;-~ -"
. ,...^-- -. ,iC^. j=,_ _ -, . t. ..... ,~ -
'" ' - - t.-rf-^w . >. ft ...»^->-*«^--«-''-- ••'S~"
'.'vlZ ! ;,
- I ; : '" " :
~^y \^ Digestioh >•
TO r, -
"O ,: - -: .-. . • •••'. • ;•;'••-
55 ••?--• ' <-•'•<-•- r
"O ; '--. -.•- -" — *"•--—• '*.
oj ,-
> ; ' -
+*
Q ' ;-^-.. ••*,.•* ---..-:- -. .-.,--.?.:'!•---'- '"*"•,
<
S -,„-.«....: ••'...
W ' '.A '. ' :
05 , !
^2 - .i. t»,«v ,- ^--f-i. i-.-r-- - '- *•*•:.» -«°
.^ ""*"- *'•" * "
4 J
(gh-^ • "•- <•-•—--
Influent to another, plant
within same city , was also sampled
(Domestic Flow). > —
. , -
Discharge
;A-15
-------
75 MGD (design) FL°W DIAGRAW PLANT NO. 15
Industrial Domestic
Comminution
i
0 Sample Points
1. Influent (Industrial)
2. Influent (Combined)
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
5. Combined Sludge
Screening
i
Grit
Removal
i
Preaeration
|i-
Supernatant
Primary
Clarification
i
Sand
Drying Beds
Trickling
Filtration
CO
i
3
X
Secondary
Clarification
i
Disposal
Polishing
(Lagoon) &
Chlorination
Discharge
Sample points 4 and 5 consisted o. K „, y „, 1U WIllullltM1 51uages. une pump was utilized
to pump sludge from each set of clarifiers. Humus was returned to one set of clarifiers
resulting in a combined sludge.
The final effluent was not chlorinated throughout the sampling week.
A-16
-------
110 MGD (design)
Screening
Aerated
Grit
Removal
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 16
0 Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Combined Sludge
5. Combined Sludge (Other)
6. Influent (Other)
30 MGD (design)
Screening
Grit
Removal
ii
* r
Primary
Clarification
^
Trickling
Filtration
(Roughing)
|
Secondary
Clarification
— :
Mechanical
Aeration
^
Tertiary
Clarification
aste Secondary Sludge -
\
^ x
1
_J Anaerobic
Digestion
JL.
^
' 1
c
y
Mixed
Media
Filtration
2 <^^i
Chlorination
Jv
A.^ •
' .
V
I 5
k _*x_ Pr-m
ary
atjon
•o
I \
u.
-§ Trickling
§ Filtration
o
U) 1
£ 1
10 W
A w
s i 1
5»
V. Secor
(Jlanti
^
Aerobic
Digestion
-*^s
^
•N V
r
idary
sation
Discharge
Deep Well Injection
A-17
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 17
Primary
Clarification
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
Chlorination
1
tr
5
o
38 MGD (design)
1
Overflow
Decant
Decant
Aerobic
Digestion
1
Lagoon
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent (Activated Sludge)
3. Primary Sludge
4. Waste Activated Sludge
5. Combined Sludge
6. Final Effluent (Trickling Filter)
I
Gravity
Thickening
Anaerobic
Digestion
Grit Removal
Primary
Clarification
Trickling
Filtration
Secondary
Clarification
Chlorination
Discharge
Discharge
A-18
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 18
100 MGD (design)
I
Screening
1
Grit Removal
Primary
Clarification
i
Diffused
Aeration
i
Secondary
Clarification
Chlorination
Discharge
!&) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Waste Activated Sludge
4. Primary Sludge
Overflow
Sludge from
Other Plant
Gravity
Thickening
Anaerobic
Digestion
Lagoon
and
Land Application
— Sludge from two other POTWs accounts for approximately 10% of the total sludge.
A-19
-------
I
120 MGD (design)
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 19
Screening
Grit Removal
Primary
Clarification
Pure Oxygen
Aeration
i
Secondary
Clarification
Cooljng Water
from Oxygen Plant
Filtrate
Supernatant
Centrate
Centrate
Centrifugation
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Secondary Effluent
4. Final Effluent ,
< r
•\
5. Primary Sludge
6. Waste Activated Sludge
<^ Filtrate
Anaerobic
Digestion
N
I ,)
S ^ Vacuum
X ^ Filtration
Landfill
Chlorination
i
Dechlorination
Influent was composited from two points prior
to any recyclelines and prechlorination.
A-20
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 20
143 MGD (design)
Filter Backwash
,;;-> . X ;.,,;::/
Screening
"•.>:•;•-•-• t1-.,-. -
V—
Comminution
1
Grit
Removal
i- ,
Primary
{ Clarification
N
0 Sample
.'.....„ . 1., Influent
2. Seconds
3. Final Eff
. •••'-• 4. Primary
5. Waste A
6. Nitrificat
i Decant (Turned off during S
4
^ Digestion ' '
1 Subnatant ^ L X
1 T«,
Aeration
(Diffused)
1
Secondary
Clarification
A T
c
A ^ DAF I
~(<9 ^ Thickening
Nitrification
(Kraus)
{
Final
Clarification
e j
--' - - - - -"
|
Mixed
Media
Filtration
Points
iry Effluent
uent
Sludge :
ctivated Sludge
on Sludge
ampling)
Sludge
Beds
I
Disposal
— An undocumented amount of primary effluent
is passed directly to the nitrification unit.
I
Chlori nation
Dechlorination
Discharge
A-21
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 21
55 MGD (design)
_tr
Screening
Grit
Removal
Primary
Clarification
£$) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Secondary Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
5. Waste Activated Sludge
Filtrate
H3 C >
Trickling
Filtration
Supernatan
Anaerobic
Digestion
Sludge
Settling
(Lagoon)
J .
h
Vacuum
Filtration
Sludge
Drying Beds
Secondary
Clarification
3
o
O
5
_o
t:
CD
T)
13
Disposal
Gravity
Thickening
Oxidation
Pond
Chlorination
I
Dechlorination
(Pond)
Seasonal Flow to Tertiary Treatment
(Not in operation during sampling)
— (Recycles were stopped during sampling period)
A-22
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM
15 MGD (design)
Screening
Comminution
Screening
Grit
NO/
(£) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Secondary Effluent
3. Final Effluent .,'-_
4. Combined Sludge
•"'• Grit
Removal
I ^^
f
Primary
, Clarification
\
Trickling
Filtration
(Roughing)
l^
r
Diffused
Aeration
\
Secondary
Clarification
Supernatant - ; ,;
< )
-a — e
L
I
1o
1
^
^
1 I •'-•-' • • • -
^ ' : «, H.o
-^^ Anaerobic- ^^^ aiuaqe
9' Digestion ', A Storage :,
;" ••'«•-•• \ ' ' .
i— — • - - - — v ^j
8 -.. 1
\
5 .._ „ , . .... ... Drying
§• V X* Beds
Si 1
•o
oo
i - ' <- •• , • i -- ^ r.' =
"-•-'-' " ' ' " " ,-\ ""-.
r
osal
Post
Aeration
(Lagoon)
Chlorination
Discharge
A-23
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 23
27 MGD
I
Screening
(design)
1
Screening
<) Sample Points
1. Influent (Combined)
2. Secondary Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
5. Secondary Sludge
Grit Removal
Grit
Removal
r^ —
Primary
Clarification
j
Trickling
Filtration
(Roughing)
fift i a
x> "X «
1 S
=
X co
Anaerobic
Digestion
^ — ^^
CD
8
r
Underflow i
^ Drying
S -" Bed
Mechanical
Aeration
(Lagoon)
Chlorination
Secondary
Clarification
T
o>
Q.
CO
Aerobic
Digestion
Disposal
Post
Aeration
(Lagoon)
Discharge
Influent samples were flow proportioned.
A-24
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 24
64 MGD (design)
Screening
t
Grit
Removal
I
Primary
Clarification
I
Trickling
Filtration
1
Secondary
Clarification
1
Post
Aeration
(Lagoon)
1
Chlori nation
^V
3
<•> /"
-®— ^
J
(0
E
3
X
4
HgH^
(g) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Combined Sludge
4. Secondary Sludge (Humus)
^^ Sludae
~^" Storage V
I
k Filtrate Vacuum
I
T
Undfill
Discharge
A-25
-------
60 MGO (design)
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 25
g) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Secondary Effluent
3. Prechlorinated Tertiary Effluent;
4. Final Effluent
5. Primary Sludge
6. Waste Activated^ Sludge1
7." Tertiaty Sludge
Discharge
Landfill
— An undocumented amount of primary effluent is passed directly
to the nitrification unit.
A-26
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 26
Secondary
Clarification
1
Chlorination
g) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Combined Sludge
4. Waste Activated Sludge
5. Filtrate
6. Vacuum Filter Backwash
7. Ash Pit Decant
Landfill
Discharge
A-27
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 27
Occasional
Industrial
Sludge
0 Sample Points
1. Influent, ...... -_,,,,„.„
2. Prechlorinated Effluent (TF)
3. Secondary Sludge (Humus)
4. Combined Sludge
5. Waste Activated Sludge
6. Prechlorinated Effluent
(Activated Sludge)
*. £
--d
£•
1
Primary .
Clarification
Waste Activated Sludge
Dried for
Public Use
Discharge
Industrial
Reuse
Landfill
— A portion of the unchlorinated secondary effluent was used for production water at a local
Industry.
— No supernatant is withdrawn from anaerobic digester.
A-28
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 28
120 MGD (design)
Screening
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
5. Waste Activated Sludge
Grit Removal
i
Primary
Clarification
"Diffused
Pure Oxygen
Aeration
Secondary
.Clarification
1
Chlorination
Overflow
Gravity
Thickener
Discharge
A-29
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 29
8.5 MGD (design)
1
Screening
i
Grit Removal
Primary
Clarification
Trickling
Filter
(High Rate)
Secondary
Clarification
i
Chlorination
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Secondary Sludge (Humus)
5. Combined Sludge
Supernatant
Vacuum
Filtration
^
Sludge
Storage
Filtrate
Scrubber Washwater
Incineration
Landfill
Discharge
A-30
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 30
24 MGD (design)
Domestic Industrial
Sample Points
1. Influent (Domestic)
2. Primary Sludge (Domestic)
3. Primary Effluent (Combined)
4. Final Effluent
5. Influent (Industrial)
6. Primary Sludge (Industrial)
7. Waste Activated^ Sludge
8. Thickener Overflow
9. Heat Treatment Sludge
Discharge
Landfill
A-31
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 31
53 MGD (design)
i
-
^^
Degritting
Filtrate
Subnatant
^
DAF Thickening
i
^ Scrubber Washwater
A
Gravity
Thickening
1
Vacuum
Filtration
I
Incineration
J 1
t
Off-site
Disposal
If the waste activated sludge is not returned to the primary clarification unit, both sludges are
treated separately and combined in the vacuum filtration unit prior to incineration.
A-32
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 32
160 MGD (design)
Screening
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
5. Waste Activated Sludge
6. Thickener Overflow
7. Filtrate
Comminution
Grit
Removal
Primary
Clarification
Diffused &
Mechanical
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
I
Chlorination
Gravity
Thickening
t
Vacuum
Filtration
Landfill
Discharge
A-33
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 33
5 MGD (design)
1
(3) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
Comminution
I
Grit
Removal
1 ^r
I
Primary
Clarification
f 2
Rotating
Biological
Contactors
t
Secondary
Clarification
1
Chlorination
6. Digester Supernatant
*-
. ;. . . ... . ... Sv ...--• --.-.. -... ..- .- . = ;. to
Q. . . -to
= ; §
i O
! *'* "^t ' '*' ' '->- ' • ^^^ ' ' '
9' & •""" \
4 _:.... ,,.. • ,-,
_/o> *^ Anaerobic ^ ^ ...
^^ ^^^ Digestion , ., . . ^ uomiiiuyauon
1
1
• <• . c.-* i,«. .W- ._,. ^. ., ,, h , 1 anH
Application
_, ' • ,-: ;•.'•• -.-• ?•','•••--•,-• :
5 ' ,.,.J,. . = ..„..,„; -. , . ,..,
®
Discharge
A-34
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 34
30 MGD (design)
i
Screening
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
5. Waste Activated Sludge
6. Digester Supernatant
Grit
Removal
Primary
Clarification
Diffused
Aeration
I
Secondary
Clarification
Supernatant
Centrate
6
Anaerobic
Digestion
Centrifugation
Lagoon
Chlorination
Discharge
A-35
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 35
26 MGD (design)
1
Screening
Comminution
i
Grit
Removal
Overflow
Primary
Clarification
Hg) (V
^
Gravity
Thickening
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
(&) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Prechlorinated Effluent
3. Primary Sludge
4. Wa$te Activated Sludge
Decant
Filtrate
Chlorination
Heat
Treatment
I
Decanting
Vacuum
Filtration
I
Landfill
Discharge
A-36
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO, 36
45MGD (design)
Screening
Grit
Removal
Comminution
Primary
Clarification
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
Overflow
•® (V
Chlorination
(X>2
I ^ ^ '
CO
•o
«
"o
I
Supernatant
Anaerobic
Digestion
Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Primary Sludge
4. Waste Activated Sludge
5. Digester Supernatant
6. Filtrate
Gravity,
Thickening
Filtrate • 8
,; . <>
Vacuum
Filtration
p
Landfill
Discharge
Discharging of waste activated sludge is a temporary function.
Gravity thickener is utilized only during the winter.
A-37
-------
To Other Plant •
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 37
66 MGD
Discharge
<
c
DAF
Thickening
Centrate
1
T
Screening
Grit
Removal
i
Primary
Clarification
(g) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Final Effluent (Activated Sludg
4. Waste Activated Sludge
5. Primary Sludge
6. Secondary Sludge (Humus)
7. Final Effluent (Trickling Filters
Humus
I
«J
c
3
C0
1
1
r
Anaerobic
Digestion
I
Centrifugation
J
A-38
Composting
To Other Plant
Trickling
Filtration
Secondary
Clarification
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 38
37.5 MGD (design)
Screening
|i
Primary
Clarification
|2
Diffused
Aeration
l<*
r
Secondary
Clarification
f3
Chlorination
,..5 '.. . ... • .... -,
^ ^ A
• )
— Q9-' L - wt \
_
£ -.;... '
2 Sludge R(
J J Trunkl
g) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Primary Effluent
3. Secondary Effluenf
4. Final Effluent
5. Primary Sludge
6. Waste Activated Sludge
i
Multi-Media
Filtration
Processing by Downstream
Treatment Plant
Dechlori nation
Reuse or
Discharge
A-39
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 39
u>
i
3
X
3
^
15.5 MGD (design) <> Sg|T
?1 1. In
Screening
I
T
Grit
Removal
1
Primary
Clarification
1 ^
Trickling
Filtration
I
Secondary
Clarification
I
Chlorination
A 3. S
4. C
5. In
6. E
«
V Overt
I ^
6 C3 <* ,
. X_I
A *r ^^ ^SUP
Infiltration
Percolation S*~"
' l /
iple Points
fluent
nal Effluent
econdary Sludge (H
ombined Sludge
fluent Infiltration Pet
ffluent Infiltration Pe
low
^
Gravity
Thickening
ernatant
Anaerobic
Digestion
1 \x N Filtrate
(X)6
i '
Discharge
"\
Vacuum
Filtration
Discharge
Landfill
A-40
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 40
8 MGD (design)
Humus
\
Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Secondary Sludge (Humus)
Screening
f 1
Grit
Removal
|
^^<
Primary
Clarification
1
Trickling
Filtration
1
Secondary
~" Clarification
\
Chlori nation
5. Digester Subnatant
6. Underflow (Drying Beds)
Underflow —.
^ . (VV-^
A * ^ "I
^ /•* ^ Anaer^hir ^_ Drying
"V2p"~t ^ Digestion ^_ Beas
1
r i 1
c jS ^
III f
= 1 §_ 1 Lancfill
4 7
^^ Aerobic ^x
(AltPrnate
Humus)
Discharge
A-41
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 51
40 MGD ((design)
Screening
Aerated
Grit
Removal
Preaeration
i
Primary
Clarification
Diffused
Aeration
i
Secondary
Clarification
Chlorination
Discharge
(^Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Primary Sludge
4. Waste Activated Sludge
5. Heat Treatment Decant
Centrate
Supernatant
Anaerobic
Digestion
Decant
Filtrate
Scrubber Washwater
A-42
Centrifuge
Heat
Treatment
i
Decanting
Vacuum
Filtration
Incineration
Off-site
Disposal
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 52
3 MGD (design)
1
g) Sample Points
i. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Combined Sludge
Anaerobic
Digestion
Drying
Beds
I
Land
Application
Discharge
A-43
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 53
6.0 MGD (design)
Screening
Q9 Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Intermediate Effluent
3. Final Effluent
4. Secondary Sludge
5. Combined Sludge
D
m
T3
1
$
1
i
*
f
AA
Grit
Removal
i —
Primary
Clarification
\
Trickling
Filtration'
.(Roughing)
f2
Diffused
Aeration
Supernatant
1 * ^
5 T
_/cx /*^ Anaerobic ^^ Drvina
^ V.^ Digestion ^ Beds
1
V Subnatant J w
Disposal
. . ,...,„, • ... .. . .,.. ,
i
Secondary
Clarification
i
Chlorination
Discharge
A-44
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 54
15.5 MGD (design)
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 55
42 MGD (design
Aeration
(Lagoons)
Sample Points
1. Influent (industrial)
2. Influent (total),
3. Intermediate Effluent
4. Final Effluent
Secondary
Clarification
(Lagoons)
Storage
(Lagoons)
Infiltration
Percolation
Discharge
A-46
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 56
30 MGD (design)
£$) Sample Points
1. Influent
,
CO
CO
J
1
CO
k_
\L
s
CD
•o
CO
V "O
\*
^ >
°.!3
CO
a
v*-*«—
5
V
Screening
-*- i
Grit
Removal
1
Primary
Clarification
f2
Diffused
Aeration
1
Secondary
Clarification
I
Chlorination
j
• Filtration
4
/CX A
-0— ^
j
3. Final Effluent
4. Combined Sludge
5. Waste Activated Sludge
; •--, £ ••'••• ' '
^ Sludae- •-•-- "••" :-^ Heat
~ Storage ireatmeni
-- 1
. Decant
..:',,• i •-- r - . • - •*- *••-•-'*'.*• l|F
^ ^ Filtrate -f . Vacuum
^ :: ^ , •,,, „,.., .....-, ,,,,...„ hiitration
T 1
^ _ ^ ^'.. Undfill
.
Discharge
A-47
-------
7.4 MGD (design)
1
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 57
Screening
2|^_
Grit
Removal
I
Preaeration
l^tf
1^
Primary
oiariTicaiion
i
Mechanical
Aeration
I
Secondary
Clarification
I
Chlorination
& Sample Points
1. Influent (industrial)
2. dlnfluent (total)
3. Final Effluent
4. Primary Sludge
•x. 5. Digested Sludge
i
V_ Filtrate
Supernatant ^
>c> ^ Anaerobic ~/
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 58
23 MGD (design)
I
Screening
££) Sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Primary Sludge
4. Waste Activated Sludge
Grit
Removal
i
Preaeration
i
Primary
Clarification
i
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
i
Supernatant
Chlori nation
WAS.
Anaerobic
Digestion
Gravity
Thickening
}
Filtrate
^ ^ Overflow
^
4
Vacuum
Filtration
t
I
Land
Application
Discharge
A-49
-------
35 MGD (design)
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 59
Screening
|i
Grit
Removal
I -
t"*~
Primary
Clarification
I
Diffused
Aeration
Secondary
Clarification
1
Chlorination
-< Qy sample Points
1. Influent
2. Final Effluent
3. Gravity Thickener Overflow
4. Combined Sludge (thickened)
Overflow 3
4
Thickening ^ " Digestion
^ Supernatant J X
^ """""^ *~™™""^*^^ y
os Sludge
••§ & Storage
< •« :
•2 co I
co 1
W 1
J 1
1
Ocean
Disposal
Discharge
A-50
-------
FLOW DIAGRAM PLANT NO. 60
5.0 MGD (design)
i
Screening
i
Comminution
1A
Grit
Removal
Diffused
Aeration
i
Secondary
Clarification
Industrial
Wastes
0 Sample Points
1. Influent (total)
2. Influent (industrial)
3. Primary Effluent
4. Final Effluent
5. Combined Sludge (thickened)
6. Heat Treated Sludge
1B
Chemical
Addition &
Mixing
|
Primary
Clarification
Sludge
Gravity
Thickening
Heat
Treatment
^4
Overflow
CO
•a
oj
«
Chlorination
i
Incineration
Discharge —
Influent (total) sample is a flow-proportioned
composite of locations 1A and 1B.
Incineration was not in use.
Undfill
L Decant
\^ ^ Filtrate
Decanting
|6
Vacuum
Filtration
\
A-51
-------
Ar52
-------
APPENDIX B
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
OF
EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS AND PERCENT REMOVALS
FOR THE
TWENTY-FOUR MOS.T FREQUENTLY FOUND POLLUTANTS
••B-i
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Copper
100
20
100
80
60
40 ••
20 - •
Chromium
n=40
1 I I I I I I I I
40 60
80 100
20 40 60 80 IOC
1 1 1 I i 1 I 1
20 40 60 80
Percent of Plants
100
200
160
120- •
I I I I ! I I I
80- -
40..
20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than
zero
B-2
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Nickel
Cadmium
100
100
80
60 •
40 •
20 . •
II I 11 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
20 40 60 80 100
111111
20 40 60 80
Percent of Plants
100
100
80
60 "
40 • •
20
0 20 40 60 80 100
, Percent of Plants
NOTE
: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
B-3
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
100
60 .
40 ,.
I20 J-
Lead
n=34
I 1 I 1 1 f 1 I
20 40 60 80 100
Mercury
100
80
60 ••
40 ••
20 ..
n=35
I 1 I I I I I 1 I
20 40 60 80 100
20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
1.0
0.4 -•
0.2 --
I I I 1 I I
n=35
0 20 40 60 80 1001
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
,B-4
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Silver
Zinc
100
A|80
100
80
60
40 ••
20 • •
20 40 60
80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
500
400
300
200 ' '
100 - •
n=40
I 1 1 I 1 I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
B-5
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Cyanide
Toluene
100
0i i t i i f i i
100
20 40 60
80 100
II I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
1111 I. II
w
20 40 60 80
Percent of Plants
100
340
240
180 ••
120- •
60. .
n=40
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n - number of plants with average influent concentration greater than
zero
B-6
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Benzene
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
100
. 80
60
40 .
20 , ..
40
20
0.
20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
20
16 « •
12 -
8 . -
4 , .
n=32
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
400
200
n=38
20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
NOTE
: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
B-7
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Ethylbenzene
Chloroform
100
Al
80 •-
§ 60 4-
40 , .
20 ._
i i i i i r i i
0 20 40 60 80 100
j i i riii i \
40
20 40 60 80 100
75
20 40 60
Percent of Plants
60 ••
45 • •
30 . .
15 . .
n=40
20 40 60 80 lO'ol
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n - number of plants with average influent concentration greater thai
zero
B-8
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethyiene
Loo
Iso
|60 . .
140
120
40
20
20 40
60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
1500
1300
20 40 60 80 100
1200 « -
1100. .
Percent of Plants
100
80
60 .
40 . .
20 . .
20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
MOTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
B-9
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
1,2 Trans Dichloroethylene
100
Al 80
60 • -
4J 40 »fr
§
o
<2 20 +
I I I I 1 T 1 I
20 40 60
100
80 ..
60
40
20
Methylene Chloride
n=40
I I I 1 I—j—I—H
80 100
0 20 40 60 80
60 80 100
Percent of Plants
1000
800
600 ..
400 . .
200
+-H-
n=40
0 20 40 60 80 1|
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than
zero
• B-10
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Phenol
Bis(2-Ethylhexl) Phthalate
20
100
20 40 60 80 100
20 40 60 80 100
n=38
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
20
n=40
20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
Percent of Plants
DTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
B.-11
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
Butyl Benzyl Pnthalate
Naphthalene
100
100
80
60'
40"
20- •
1=24
80 100
0 20 40 60 80
pa
20 40 60 80
Percent of Plants
100
10
4 --
2 -•
n=29l
•4—4-
I I I
0 20 40 60 80
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n * number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
B-12
-------
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
100
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
n=38
100
80
60
40 -.
20 - •
Diethyl Phthalate
n=31
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I
0 20 40 60 80 100
2.5
1 1 1 1 1 ! 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Plants
80 100
Percent of Plants
NOTE: n = number of plants with average influent concentration greater than zero
B-13
-------
B-14
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL DATA
PLANTS 1 to 40 AND 51 to 60
C-l
-------
t- en
a ui
o in o in
o in in m
- i
ce. ui
•c a
c o
M 3
a: -i
a. en
M o rs o n o rs
WO«M (Ot>>O »M
orjr^N oocMCM1 rs o
>o-o-oi-
ca i-
o
in
IS
ca o
co •*•
•H TH in
o> co oo
o
in
o o
in in
o
o
o o
T in in -«»
« ooo
I CM 1* ** VH
O
•O
n o
i CM CM ^ CM
^ o» is w *o o *r ^ o
OMOCM tsCMPJO LO O
CM<-l»|n ~-
UI J-l _| z
x oo o
o. us» => «
§
a
i
z
o
z
LU
-J
M
a:
>H
Z Ul
o z
—I LU
>- M
Li Z
U Ui
• Ui
Ul Ul < X Z
LU ZZUIH- UI^LU
a <£ oa. M s-zi-j
-J XOXQ X_l O CeuiUIOLU>-
x i-a:i-a: i-xa: oazaizx
o ui uj o u o Uiua. _: I-H o o o h-
•x z o _j o _: o>iQuixa:z3Zui
ceuicexa:x a:a&:zejoo-iaa
i-NQuouzoioui _ia:u.a:a:
K-uixa:xa:axzxzzuaa:iH°
ACJH-CJH>U.U<:UUILU asosxui
ZOK i w rowa;>-iA_jjo_iouz
AOI »i »oii i>xxxuoa:3
ai— ICM'-i»**«_J»*CMCMXI— H- Ow — ! H.J
ETHYLENE
o
a:
o
—i
X
a
M
iK
H-
-1
«
CHLOROPHENI
»H
it
1—
1
•O
T
CM
ea
OHETA CRESI
HENOL
HYLPHENOL
a: a.i-
o oui
-i a:z
X On
U -10
i—
Ui CJ
Z LU
H-
iit ttt
a: a
LU
3 (-
a z
LU II
i- a
en i
en
ui
-------
^
H- cn
O UJ
u_ m
T* O
I-* O
-0
00 0 03
03
ro co o « in
CO
-t M
<-H O O CS
•O -0
n co f-i
M C-J T »O CO --H
o
-o -• in
CO « CN ^
ZZ Z
CC CC CC
1— h- *—
OO O
ZZ Z
z z
CC ££
I— >•
o a
z z
z
CC
H*
o
B UJ
Z (S
c a
cj 3
u -i
cn en
CM o o o o o
o o
rx i-i «•• ro
-oinooM»HO)
-«co'-i c*i>oo-M-«CDin-HCMWCMi-i
M
as
ililii
« oc o: fl: a: «
CM o o o o o o
-'«»< z z z z z z
Oi LU
t-^h-t^^"
.M OOOOOO
TH zzzzzz
z x:
U Ul
u. CC
•X Z
o ui
Z3
O -I
U U.
UI Lu
en u
o rx o
in •<> in
oo
in in
O III
»< CM N •< CM •
tx ex in o. co
•o 03 co 10 10
O
oooo
BJtN W
00 •« ^- O^
M CM
o o CK o* rx
c<4 ip ^> n CM
ui ui
_J u.
>- UJ O
LU UJ
z z
UJ Ul
U \£.
z a
-zx-
o -i
3
HC
s: r
Ul >- 3 3
a a _ii-i o: «
1<-N 3UJZU1.I
r u
c 3
-------
UI
Z Ul
HI a
m a
§3
u en
v o*
rx « rj
*< >o o rv CK
rsmoon
•o
CO
oooininom
-J u
££
o o
1- 1-
. SOLIDS
EN
tn co
30
in C£.
t-
• M
-12
O
:>«
HI
_l Z
x ••
VH VH CJ *4
OPANE
C£
0.
0 ui
K Z
O Ul
-1 N
X Z
U Ul
w a
e _i
i >-
MX
,H Ul
Ul
z
Ul .
X
H-
Ul
o
C£
O
_J
TRICH
_i
O
2;
UI
— J — 1 X
o o a.
z z o
ui ui a:
X X O
a. a. _i
o o x
A: -< ui
Ul Ul Ul N Z
N N N Z Ul
Z Z Z Ul 3
uj uj uj as _i
a a a o o
o o o ce t- uj
- X X X -
ooo_ia:uiuiz>Ni_i-ixD.z
_i_i_ixi-xzuixz>>-ci. - J
0- U.
~. o
- x uj ui
asaiaa:xH-M_ji i x i- 01 o en
1 1 1- IOO.X — >-ZZI-UJINI
MM^'M-OSOCuCOH'l 1 U Z n 2 T
-------
a
u
z u
>f CD
OJ a
1C =1
O'-J
u in
O 1H »H 111
in co ^ o* ex T
o
•>• o oo -o -o rx
in »-i rx o> co co o-
z z z z z z
n 3 n => 3 =i
ro &? C£ &: ^ c£ C£
r. i- i- t- i- i- i-
•o o o o o o o
IN Z Z Z Z Z Z
UJ U.
a: u.
a. uj
in ^H IH *^ VH ~H
O O
n in tN t
-O « I
en *H :
i ro r-j o o M
: -o M r-j in in in oo
oo
•T -O
a _i
u u.
ui u.
tn u
o ex -i
in -o co
»H n ro
03 ts M
o
o
<-< SI
ON -O
0-
03
CO
n
oo
in in CM
c-i oo in
v tsoo or-< rtinnooMiv
i»<«mcMinoinm inf-is>»<>H^
-o IN oo
in iVm ^ *H cvi
=J => =3 => 3
C3 C3 O O O (O
3 3 TC 3 SO
ui
z
Ul
z
t-
z
Ul
>-Ul
xz
Ul h- Ul
z x u
ui a. <:
tn - zx
OS Ul I-
X UZ
u -
a. u.
>•
z u
O w
S 2
MUi
.
z: = ui >-=> =
| 3 1-1 OL a Ct-lHlKM
l 1-1 Z UJ M 3UIZUI_1
-x:oa.za o k: ui i> _i o
u
1 U Z-
3 a _i o
_i ui
Ul I-
z u
Ul
Ul H-
i: ui
ui a
a a
ui z
t- n
en a
»H I
-iz
z —
z
en «
t- en
3 en
_i ui
_i _J
a H
a. -i
C-5
-------
a
Id
z u
ft a
a. a
3: =>
o _J
u co
cs rx o ce (x CM «r
«oinixo.incM-ocoo«cocN n
CMcomcs ~< o rx H. in 4 CMZZZZO-TlZZZZ>HinZZ
«H e a a a a rx a aaaaaaaa^-
on i i i i n i in i ix i i i i i i i i o
MT ZZZZCMZ-rtZMZZZZZZZZ-l
o
CO M M T
M O CO O
ta o fa
in v <• co
ix ce in
IX «r « CM
m
S>
—x
n»HCoao-rxo»cM»-«
M*n-«zCMincM-iCM
a ix n
T ix i ro o o
a a a a o i
MI i i i -c co o
a rx
i rx
z CM
a a o
i i in ix co o
ro a a a a a a
o i i i in i ii
u u.
ceii.
cuiu
CM CM CS
^H *H V -O
PI n
CM o- -o o.
« ro CM »* rx -o
OO O O O O O O
u~ in T-i*-i»M*-<»«'H
in
N o
rt CO
oo oooooo
ooo
u
2; Z
L.
o
X
=3
to
u.
z
I CM -O CM O CK
iinix M -o in »r o CMOO
CM in
CM -o -o n in CM ,
OCDOC3 COCDC3_1OCOC3COU C3COC3C9OOCDCSOC5C3C9C9COCO . (D CD
ce
Ul
K
Ul
z
t-
Ul
CO
-i CO UI
Ui _l CO _1
x on a*
a. co o - —•
a a
1— >
ca
5
CO
•
CO
=3
CO
5
_i
^
i-
0
u.
Z
UI
0
0
ce
i-
H1
Z
-cu M i-:ei__! z
o xo ceuiuioui>- ui
ce *— ce oaxzcezx -jui
o uicu -iMoooi- >-a
_i oouixcexozui XH<
x cecezuoo-iao >-ce
uzaaui _iceu.cece uio
»-«cej— iNiuixnoao o_i
ceaxxzzuocei-<_i cex
uih-u.uuuiui ceaaxuicu
z i o>-i>-ia_i_io-iouz-i
ui^ceae_i>->-_ixce-xxxuoce = u>-
Z'HJ'^CMXI-H-CJl-lJI— _JWZ
ui - x ••••u.uiuiiicexuioceM
oj«o««uizzai-ut->-u.»
_j
o
z
Ui
X
Cu
o
0
_J
X
u
- F-XI->-_IO
O-QOUlZ>-N_I^XCuZCuU.N Ul
-i-i-ixuixz>->-cu 2 ^zazu
IMMI^^XI £CiO>-XUI U1IUI-C
aaacei— CM-I i i XH-aocacMcoce
i i iax^>-zzi-uiiNi'H>-x
CM«T3CuCOI-| IUI£CMZ t-
Ul U
z ui
t—
Ul Ul
ce a
ui
a z
Ul II
u- a I
co i
z
o
CJ
z
o
CJ
z
o
u
I
z
a
z
CO
Ul
-I
X
Ul
u
•X
-------
a
It!
z LU
M a
a o
£ =3
O -J
o en
Z2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
= = = == = ===== = = =
z -H M irjT-i»H«r^'CMrs» M » O 00
« COOKCM^COODIOCM •H"°Pi
00 00 O* ^4 CM tfl O* CM OK CK OK in
n
M
CM
WIO-O OK
eg ••< •« T -O CN <
-1-1-1
-1 -I -I
O O
03 *O O 00 O ^
== = = => =Z== =
a
LU
Lu
I—
LU
a
LU
z
LU
oc
LU I V
Z I- Z
U Z LU O
cc • Z
u. a. a.
=tn z z
WLUUI =
tnzaz MI
Lu U
Z LU
h-
LU LU
fa a
111
3 >-
o
a z
LU »
i- a
en i
z
o
=
LU
Z
I
LU
a>
-
•x
t- CO
= en
_i LU
u
C-7
-------
a
ui
en - Q
ui m 3
M a en
o u
z
in p» o»i- in in o n
o o
O I O
PI z rs
is o
UT a ir> n o
u cn
o -o CO-PI
n -o rx »<
eno-cso
n tc n n
eo o en en n
in CM- -o
«z w es
a a a M a PI pj PI «•
i i i in o i co in -i «
z z z PI ~< z PI PI « «
^ ^ r., ,
co rj T z
U Ul
a. «
cei-
«z
a ui
§3
u u.
Ul U.
en ui
« o N rx
sj coiso «coeK
« « N es o -i in
o »H in w co « -< oj ^
co in
CN in
co
r-i
in o n
•o « o.
N
•O
in
co
>.
_j
en
ui
cn
«x
ui
o:
CD
a i- o .
o o o i
a t- cj i
z
o
z
Ul
=>
o
I U
cn
_i cn
o a
z n
Sd
a. cn
-i -i
J
Hi
-J H-
25
2§
cn
z
• UI
en CD
=i o
cn cc
-J Z
0
a x: a
I--CH.
ui
a
h-«
a:
o
_j
X
CJ Ul
ui
iti 2;
I 2
Ul Ul I- x
Z Z Ul Ul h-
^ ^ o z ui ui
Ul
Z Ul
* I— Ul M Ul O
i ui x: a i- i-
l£ M
H- D.
a
z
Ul
X
CL _1
-I O
>- Z
X Ul
ui a.
z: o
H. a;
a h-
i >->
T z
PI PI
t-
u
X
Ul
a
M
U
-I -1
11
ui ui
X X
u. Ci.
O O
« C£
t- O
"-I -1
Z X
M u -I
a « o
I h- Z
T Z Ul
•« Ul X
PI u. 0.
Ul Ul Ul '
z z z
Ul Ul Ul
Ul Ul Ul
a a a
i o o o ui
: a: a: te. z
o o o uj
ui
>-
•a
x ui
K I—
X -
UIZ>-N
-
t-XXXl-O-ll-Ull-
en
-l
Ul
Z
I
Ul
cn
•c
a
a
ui
i-
CJ
Ul
ui
a
C£ ••
Ul C
:> u
Ul H-
Z e.
L
Ul h
£e u
ui c
3
a c
ui z
p- i
en c
H* !
-l -
o
z •
Z h-
-------
a
Ul
Ul
01 ' a
Ul « 3
to s _i
w o en
a o
OOOO
a in in a oooo -o w
i osinmcKCor-soafx i o oooo *MM
z in c*i r-i in CM ro M M z o» « »< « »< .* «
M M M M
MM M M M
o 00 M ts M M to
*oininoo**oof
vj CM »H T ^- ^ M
-o
CO -O
r-.»«
z z z zz z z
=> 3 3 3 3 D 3
of G£ a; ct c£ a: d:
t- I— I- t- t- t- I-
IX O O O O O O O
r* ZZZZZZZ
-< oooo x> M
CM OOOO »HOi
O
oooo
oo oors
CD in ca M o o >o
z z z z z z z
= 3 3 =1 3 3 3
OS ££ Ct iK !£. if. Oi
>o*^> ooooooo
I -< « Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z £
U Ul
.
_J
z
- z
u: ui
10
u «
ui
z
ui ui
U Z
t
z
o
CO
_i
-z
a: uj a. u. i: i- in ii: o
>- MUI_I-* _i
-
o o o
=>
_i M ce
UIZUI
CO
Ul
a.
ui
x:
z: ui
•c a en
3 £ IH Ul
z c =i to z x:
>H 3 M Ul
x: >-< u z z ts 11
3 Ctt _1 O CD Z a
.j ^ ^ cc <; ^ o
ui
ui t-
z u
Ul
Ul t-
K Ul
ui B
3
a c
ui z
i- ii
en a
M I
-i z
i-
o
z
en
-------
in o
tu a
13 3
eo N
N M •< «O
co *r rs ^-
••« ts --oo~rs
ineDOs>y)in(o<-«eN
B
t
a
i
a
i
B a rs PI a a PI PI
i co MI op|«nicoioo
«r z in «r rtZ-o-tno-iHZTZ-rt-H
iiu
II O
m a
13
u en
-4M
rx n
•o
n
to «r CM
CO CD *O ~4 «C CD fs
*• CM CO 03 M PI CS PI rt M a
•o n M o>os«o»in CM
U. o.
o
-l-l-l _I -J-l.- ,
o ea o a o a o
xix x: x a
Ul
en
e
a tn a
M a tn
in
en ca
bi _i en
en pa-
ct,
X
bl t-
bl
Z
- ui o z _i bi i
I-QZ -i n: «>- a x
bl_iM >- o a. a. H i-
o x > x _i o o cebiui
o:u t- x a: a; OBX
ui o ia
z _i a: >- OMOouixcfX
uixi-x o:aa:Q:zuoo
NUbll-XOIOObl -IOC
bl
z u
4 Z
X Ul
l~ -1
bl >
X X
O I-
X bl
o o
0£ t£.
UK I OOXZXXZZCJOM-I
I CQ }•> ^ oj ^ U ^j rj y IU III fi£ Cl 31 i\j
Ul X
>XXXQH:DU>-
.HblblMXblOUi-c
Ul
z
bl
-1 Ul
X >-i
^~ ctf
Ul O
o _i
ce x
o u
X ^1
u >-
(£. i-c
0 0
Z Z
bl bl
X X
0. 0.
O _l
a: >•
0 X
J 1-
X Ul
U X
a B
i i
^ «r
•t *^
PI PI
_i
o
z
bl
X
d.
a
a:
o
_i
X
u
<:
t-
z
bl
a.
_i
a
z
x
a.
ENZENE
ENZENE
at B
Ul O O
z a: a:
ui o a
X -I -J
1- X X
x u u
Q. H4 >H
•
Ul X
_1 1-
•I bl
X 1
1- PI
X —
a. tn
z «
PHTHALATE
_i
N
Z
bl
m
_i
>•
t—
3
m
THALATE
THALATE
X X
a. a.
-1 _!
>- >
t- i-
2 U
0) 0
1 1
z z
1 1
t-4 M
a a
Ul
^
X
1-
X
a.
_i
>•
x
t-
LU
IH
B
Ul
Z
Ul Ul
z ce
U1X
U l-
H I
-i z
bl
o
u
i
ca
\a
-i
u
tn
-1 Ul
-J _J
O II
a. -i
C-10
-------
a
UJ
i- u
at is
ut a
o =>
Z 2 22 2 Z Z
3333333
is cc o -o «r o -i i- i- H- i- i— i- H-
o o r-j o> rtrsrsco^cii-iOT ooooooo
o> -op>rsCMpies»iTCOW z z z z z z z
a
ui
z u
11 O
Bj a
£ 3
O J
u (n
o o
o o
oo
rs o rs is,
in « o -< -o rs
z z zz z z z
3333333
ce ce a: o: cc o: u:
t- |_ j_ |_ |_ h- I-
OOOOOOO
z z z z z zz
U UJ
a. u:
, • a *• to is «• <-i M
nin oo inx oo -o
i-
-
at
o o
o o o o
-1 -J -1-1
O O W Fs CM O f*5 ^ ** O ^" *H CO W CS
) T^ Ps ••* ^O *H tf) C*J C4 CO w ^ *^ C'J W 03
_J -I _1 -I _J -I _1 _J _1 _J _J _I _1
s, xs, s.xxs.s.xs^s.xXX-s XXXXXXX
3 ZZ 3 3 3 3 3 3'3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 £ 3 £ 3 £
3
cn
u
uz
i m
a i
i • 3 £
Z U IH S3
3
IMO:
1ZU1
.__
ZCCUJ«XO>-UJl-lUJwi-<
s 3 cn
3 z « ui
Z z 3 cn zz
M 3 kri UI ui
Ul I-
z u
UI
UI I-
jg UI
ui a
a o
ui z
t- ii
cn a
M I
Z
a
u
3
UJ
z
I
UI
cn
«
«
in
ui
cn
ui
a.
CO
_j
-------
a
ui
i— ui
cn CD
ui a
a =>
>-t ^i
a cn
«o cn r.
in m too
n CM
o M o in -o
o
in
in
CN
aaee
i i i i.
o
o o M
oaa-on aaa n CD oaan
en i i «H o- to i i i PI pj n i i i co
eaaaecaQea
i i i i i o i i i M
zzzzzCDCO
.
Q«:>_i:>«
Ul T* »-l
•* _J_I_I_I_II-_I2
z
o
u
1
Ul
a
UJ
Z
ui
z
H
x -i an
I- X O
UI U -I
cs a z o
xte _i cn N ui
1-0 X Z Z Z
ui u. u Ul
Q i a: i -i ui
•H o o i— >• a
o o _i o t- a:
_i ce u. cc ui o
x a o o o _i
u o o: _i a: x
ce o xuio u
o-J-JZJ
cn
ui
o
cn
ui u
a: o _i
u z o
ui z
-------
a
Ul
I- Ul
CO CD
ui a
CD 3
'w _l
a co
a a - -o in <••! ro to
in *t' csfo-ors-ocotsmo-o
z z z z z z z
3 3 = =3 3 3
ce n: ce a: a: a: a:
o o o a o a o
z z z z z z z
a: ui
•I CS
a: -i
a. co
in in
in o a a o
•om i i in
O
o
rs
fs -O O
-o -o o
is
-O
-o
z z z zz z z
o o o o o o o
z z z z z z z
U Ul
a. a:
<: z
O Ul
Z 3
a -J
u u.
ui u.
ca ui
»• n
rv ca
oo
cao>
*• o oo •» « rs
». o- -< o- « T in
intMxnooooO
« n v v- M M M
CM CM oo o w "O ex CN~PJ o o in o* M o *o M in GO •
i in-o in in in in CM * ** rs o> •* w.rs in ~t * « M in rs »H N •
_
-3 £ , .£,•£' 3 CO
ZOUIZI- ZUM£3UI>-3 3 £ t-i LU
uiH_i3i-iccaocuMa: z£3 cnz£
co ce i ce i £Z.jfi£ui>-> 3uizui 1-131-1 ui.«3
>- x ri a z Hui>-£O£Lzau!i:ui =• o £ M u z z ca <-<
a:H-^-<3ui ^-cnccacca.c^cecj^-iz '3cs:_iooza
CJ^^HI^A. ^-^cfflcjcjcju' —j £ z to co f*4 ^ c& u >H '£ £ en
CJ
Ul
I-
Ul
B
se. '-
ui a
^ ui
ui i—
z u
Ul
Ul I-
!£. Ul
ui a
a a
ui z
to
_l
-------
oe
t- >-
z
i- «
ooo
OOO
ooo
U Ul
o. o:
a: i-
«z
c ui
z =i
o _i
u u.
ui u.
m ui
M rs, o eo
co ca (S.PS
co fx
in
co CM
PS >r ps
-O »•• CO
M
•O
SJ
CO
O
CO
O M -O
CO O- Ps
o-
in
O* i-l
«TM
o o
in o
CM n
o
o o
*•* O M O
«M m M co in
•oroCM»<
CMCQ
in -o „
CM NJ
in in PS N in
I X M M CM M
Ps O
rt PO O
T co in
u.
o
a:
tn
5
a.
=333333
= 333 333 = 33 33=3
PARAMETER
CO
a
M:
.J
o
CO
Ul
• en
a. - z
ui i- x ui - azui ui
uj• Ul
a;H»cj xasai oox ^
U1OUKC CJO.a. _I3H- >-
z_ioa: Moouix-iui x
uixa:i- aa:a:zuu,o i-
NIUOU1ZIOOUI MCC Ul
ZM_II— ceen-i_iNiuiaa o
uia:xiozxxzzo_i a:
uia»-ucMU.-_i-XXaC3U
Z_I«M^H_l(Nr-JMXI-UI-_!M
uix *«.*x •» - •»[— uiMuioac
aej'-iM«O'-i-<«uizQi— H-i-
o
z
u;
x
PENTACHLOROP
PHENOL
Ui Ul Ul
z z z
Ul Ul Ul
Isl N N
Z Z Z
Ul Ui Ul
lr2-DICHLORO
lf3-DICHLORO
1»4-DICHLORO
FLUORANTHENE
NAPHTHALENE
1.) PHTHALATE
THALATE
ALATE
TE'
ENE
>- X X • 1- K
>- N _l XZ
x 2 >- a. Ui
CM_I i xa
•~ >- Z M 1
cn i- i ui CM
M = M M •»
a at a a M
CHRYSENE
ANTHRACENE
PHENANTHRENE
PYRENE
UJ
x
0
a.
HEPTACHLOR
HEPTACHLOR El
GAMMA-BHC
TECTED
Ul
a
B HERE NEVER
NOT DETECTED
Ul II
Z
O
Z I M
o
M
I-
u
Ul
a
u
-------
z
I- -0 O OO CO O
i*i in PS o* rx o co p\ CM CN innooo*
<»HGNin«r^i-*CNCoeMinro IHC^I^M^
M -<
en in oo , ro o -a
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
3333333333333=1
V. OLtf. <£.{£. IX. <£.!*.!£.*£.!£.&. S£. <£.
h-l-l-H-l— Hrl-»-l-l— 1-l-i-l-
oooooooooooooo
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Ul
Z Ul
HI O
o
rs n N o
-OMM-OO
00*0000-^ in
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>-l-t-l-l-t-l-l— l-l-l-l-l-H-
aooocoooooocoo
z zzzzzzzzzzzzz
F
!<:
Z £
U Ui
-, 3 £
ca z u IH 2: 3 ui
I O « -I 3 I-H (£. Q
-£pa.zi
Ul Zd£UI^XO>*l
_
UIZUI-I
*
3
Z=
z ui 3
3 O) Z
M Ul Ul
WZQZ
3 3 £
1-1 1-4 3
Z O "-"
^ ^ flj
: i- z i-
a
ui
i-
CJ
Ul
I—
Ul
a
x. a
u ui
^ i-
Ul U
z ui
i-
Ul Ul
ce a
ui
3 I-
c
a z
ui n
i- a
en i
w z
en
ui
a
u >-
z
tn
-------
•a:
Q
CO
uui
cuce
0 rt *•
M is
is n so is
so rs so •«
•o N CD «r
CM o rs o
n n o
zco^o ^^^'c-ivn^-o^iHi-i-rt
o rs
PS n o -o is
C-OIS OOBCOafSQMO-ONJ
ICMT I I I I I I 00 I CO [S< »r o
ZCMCO zzzzzzinz-«^M»<
o«
co
n o- <••;
co rs os
m ton ncs *r
»H CMCMCM ino^-
n n
CM n o
I »-i «i CO "I M in CM
to
to en a
so M
Ul
cc i o
u. I u
ta
a
a.
en
ta _i_j
o co oo
M a toco
o -i ui •
to to c _ita
ui -j to cc 1-1 tn
CO O O » t-l-f
_i
Ul i«
o
ta
z
• Ul
ta CD
3 O
ta cc.
_i z
o
» -
Z Ul
i - fsl
U Ul
to
Ui
-o a. M o _i z
X-l O CCUI (£.>- U!
ut i- o: i_i i-xcf oauiox _i uj
ui a u; o a
z_jc_jo:u; a>-H^ui XM
uixcexi-z aa u: zu o r u. o H-a:
Muouuiiioioui _i o >-< ii: uio
uiocxcf i>-oxzxzzuac_] ex
0^1.1-1 i «oci-i(i:wi6_ij_jcuz_j
i i i >xxxxo:3u>
»•• -h-UILiJUJMUJOCCI-i
O -I
z o
U! Z
X Ul
It. X
O LU
cc a
O j"K
~l O
X _l
U X
1-c U -J
a -< M - XX
X il-
Ui X
X _! i.
>• N _J
X Z >-
I- Ul I-
ui a 3
i a
« -j i
s- >- Z
CO I- I
I- 3 II
a a a
ED
EC
a:c
UIL
^h
UIC
ZL.
UJL
Ul^
21-
C
a:
ui i
o
z •>
,cn<
H- =
i-ti
30
_JU
_l_
O I
C-16
-------
fTICAI. BATA
*<—
_i
o- o oca CM S3 o o CM CM CM in o eo o f3
I 1 *-4^H^4O*CNS3 CO
rx co o- co m in n
CO O
rx o. ss o o
•-< in in in ^ »< •«
,X X X X .X X X
CO CD O CO CD CO CD
Ui
1-
Ul
Ul
Ul t-
53
li
I- X
X 0.
a.
_i
-i >•
H. Ui
Ui -S.
ui .'••-.
z , .
ui
&C U! '
V • Z , . ' .' '
a. ui ui ' ,
-3z: 2:
— ZUH- Z01-1S3 Ul >• 3.
ui-azui ci-iwiOHHata C£UH«o£
oo;a:<:z zz_i>izui>-i_3uizui
UXZX>- ZCfUIIXO^UIUIi-iUil-i!
•i
i-
LU
z: ui
. .3 O3 ,
S ' tM Ul
S 3 . 03 Z S
3 H> U! « 3 •
woz-Ztow-.
cc _i o a z a -
i-
ui c.
z u
h
Ul L
u: c
Ui
3 H
C
a ;
ui i
c
Z •;
U3 <
(— 2
Z I-
«
I- t
2 C'
_l L
_1 -
O I
£. _
C-17
-------
<£.
<£
a ui
z ca
o o
us
en in
•O-H CN
7 Q) M3 U)
CD CM N SJ
^ -O SJ ~4
z
=3
EC
M C>
tM-< «r h- o-
MN n o -o
n -o ^- z T
in -i a ana M -o
*O-*«O I ICDIO O «4 PI
*r m M
CN IH in -o o> co
rr rs
rs
B a a .14 rs o
i i n i in CD si -H
zzra z to CM rs « i
z x:
U Ul
cuo:
OS I-
-i
a. i CD i- u o
en
tn en a
a B M
M M _i
_i -i o
en o o en
a en en x
n . ui
_i ui » en CD
o _i en 3 o
en M en en cc
i- w i-
U,5BJS
«
Ul M 1-1
_l _l t- _l Z
t- -
X
h-
Ul Ul
az ui
c£•
xce a B ui x
u a. _j M a i-
11 o ui x a: « ui
a n: 2 o o z o
i o ui j o ce
z
o
• a
X M
>- «
Ul O
_ _ O-J
i- ui ce x n: i h- OZXZZUA-J cex
ui mi-ot-r-)Uiu.-xouiui xuiou
N 05 o •• i •• •• o o i i>-xxxo:3u>-
ui
ui
z
Ul
z
• o z
a. N ui ui
-2 zee
« Ul Ul Ul X
~- OS Z O h-
I Ul « Z
o PI en &. . X z
Z •• t£ H- Ul
Ul — X ZX
a -< o
Ul
B
a: .^
Ul B
=> Ul
Ul t-
z u
Ul
Ul I-
ii: ui
ui a
a o
ui z
i- n
en a
u z
o
z
en en
-i ui
U _l
a u
a. _i
C-18
-------
cc
i -o o o in to
o
COO l-l-KI-l-t-t-t-l-l-^l-
w CD oooooooooooo
to «r zzzzzzzzzzzz
a: ui
10
to to CM o -o is co
ts to aj in o ^ -o CD o-
CM 0 rx in to -« o w -• is is IN in
IS ^•tOWP4IS<-«tO-O'W'r*>- to
o
• . o
-o is rx o in
ro o o
aa r>, •••
m o
is in
— -O S3
' " M
_l
- 3
Z U 1-1
O w _l
I Z _l
1-4 UI >-
t- en ce
Z Of UI
•x - 3
c, ce -i w ce
M 3 ui z ui
z a u ii uj =• o
^j ^ ^ gj j i 2; _ _
> ui ui 1-1 LU 1-1" _iaui-ix::cx:coi-
Sl-iOCJZZO>->i
z a
_i
•i
ui
£
Z
a
u
i
z
o
z
Ul
o
ee. '-
ui Q
=> u
ui i-
z u
u
UI h-
LC Ul
UJ Ci
Q O
Ul Z
h- II
tn Q
i^ t
o
z —
z
en ^
i- I
Z h-
-------
«0 MM O.
« W O. tt O- -o
»H >o in »H »* T
o
I —« *H O
inMMMMCOMtXM
-I -J -J -J _l _l _l
03 O
IS M IH
o. o
os) o »i
•O 111 « rl «T C-l *H
0 h- I
-I Z I Z X Z
X Ul I =]=)=>
u n
i -i i
Ul U. I
tt u. i
a. ui i
I- I- I-
o a o
z z z
z zz z zz
=> = => n =>=>
u o; ce cc cete
i-t-t- t-i-t-
o oo a oo
z zz z zz
oo o
M *O N IH
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
=) =1 =1 => =1 =) =>
a: as a: ce c£ c£ n:
o o o o o a o
z z z z z z z
t- • I
Z 3Z I
U Ul I M M IS
ft. a: i cs o. rx
in SJ M *• Mrt
rx M N in >a r>.
o.
m
in M o M oo
M as rg cs cs
o-
oa
MOM
M 0- M
O
in
in o <-< IM
ro co T o-
>- i
fl£ I- I
i
o -i i
u u. i
Ul U. t «0 «0 N
H) Ul I -«
«r o- co
•O T 00 N M
^H in ^ *H o* M
o o o o ci
M
M .H -o o o in
-M M -4 »* CM -O M
1- >-
O
_J
U t-
W O Z
I- -41-1
s- o
_i a.
a: )- ui
=>=3=>=)Z=>
ce
a:
m
I-
in
a
Ul
Ul
' en
a. «
ui ui
n a:
en o
ui
o
M
cn -i
Q O
M Ul Z
-1 Ul
a ui o
Ul Ul _l O
_i ui M ce.
Q O . |_ I—
Z >H 01 -> o
ft. ui a :> - C£I I- O X Z
ui i- u ui u. u ui
z z i IH a o M a
Ul
Z
ui ui
M _i z
o:ui>- ui
OBX _IUI
Ul
Q
X»H
U O O H-ftt
_l CS Ul O
LUX O O-l
z u u o:x
ui x ui a u
_i _j u z _j
ui
_i
-ui
Q T -
ce. -i
=> ui
u '*.
if. CJ
Ul M
X Z
UJ
z
I
Ul
u>
-------
-0
-< in
ro n in o- oo o -o
I _i
Ld u.
<£. U.
u. u
O 0
z z
z z z z z z z
=>==>=>=> 3 3
cc oi &. u. &: a: a:
h- I- t- I- I- t- I-
O O O O O O O
z z z z z z z
z z:
u u
« z
d LU
Z =1
O -1
U U.
u u.
o
in -o ro »< ro
oo rs « CD M
CD s
z i to a
3 1 = =
T P) 0.
IS CO O ^ TH CO O
O. fs 5T IS f-J Ch *H
s. X s. s, s. s. ^
fn O C3 CD CD C3 CO
ce
- II
cn a
11 i
_i z
CO
_l
-------
Ul
l-
V)
Ul O
a ui
M Ul
a u.
a:
o
i- o
o in
«o o «r
o M-O o i^
n «•< «r MO-
^" *-l *H O» Cvl 5T
a aaaoaa
i iiinii
Z ^•
"«a o MO
--
_j
2
3
oz o: -i
•<»-« CL CO
a
Cu
o
-O 10
rs N o
N CM CK
S3 CM CM
ca no o corx
it oo o o in
aee
iii
-o o~ o
-o-41
e
i
aan
i i in -H
= t-Ul
-12:
a. vr
co
to
I-
__ _
xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
O O O O O tDt9t3cat3C9t3C3t9C3C3C3t9C9CS
33333333333=3=13
a a
I ICNO3CK
33333333333=133
=1
CO
B
-1
CO
to
a
w
_!
O
to
Ul
• to
CL «
t- i-t- i- zu
a ooa zo
Ul U!
_1 Z
H( Ul
ce N
1- Z
w Ul
z ui a
o z o
_IUI !£.
>- N a
CCZ -I
U U! X
-OCuw 1- O _j Z
xx x_io ce u uico- ui
i- u HXCC oauizox -i ui
Ul -a
O Ci Ul QwOUIXCCwZ-iUl Xw
a: i- z o:ao:zuozou.o H-dC
OU14CZOI oui -louwo: uio
-n-xu-ito-iNuixofiaao o _i
xi i- ox z xz z oa o o _i a: x
(JC4UIU.L£^ »-_i -KILUX-I
i .001 i i>xxxxxu: = o>-
»»XX»» >h-UIUIUiwwUIOC£W
PHENOI
Ul
PHTHEN
ACENA
U!
Z
U!
N
Z
UIUI
BZ Ul
OUI Z
££X Ul
Ol- _1
_1Z <
X-
«
z
1
w
e
Ul
Ui Z
H Ul
- Ui
X A
1- 1
Ul Of
a n
Ul
z
Ul Ul Ul
z u z
Ul « Ul
to a: a:
>- x o
fl£ h- 3
x z _i
u 3
Z OW
0 M_i
r z-i
w Ul>-
i- cod:
Z fcUI
-------
te.
Ui
I-
tn
u.a
Q ui
1-1 Ul
o
o o in o o
- 3
a L£_J M a:
II-I 3uiziu
z
LU
Ul
uouu-izztn cniM
Ul
i—
cn
c
z
I-
u
3
-J
-1
a.
C-23
-------
a:
<:
a u
z a
o o
u =1
Ul -1
(I] (19
a a a
i o i i
o
o
aaaa i t i i i i i
zzzzcszzzzzzz
a a a a a
i i i i i
z z z zz
a
U!
S Ul
HI O
« o
X 3
a -i
u co
u~> o
o ccm
o n
CM -o H-CM
co
r«.
an naa
nnznnoa
CMCN aaaea
r^N 11111
r-IW ZZZZZ
_
u ui
3
t- _1
CO U,
o u.
CL Ui
iii
ceo: a:
ca a
zz z
z z zz z z
=> = =33 = =>
(£. <£. teen u: a:
o o oo a c
z z zz z z
IN O O
S3 IN O O n
O o «O -O O O M
00
zz
Z £
U Ul
a. ce
c: t-
<= z
a u
za
a -J
u u.
ui u.
ca ui
oo
- CO
t>. CM o
r«. »H CMM
•o cs
>o on
CO 1-1 no O
•o « -«CN -H
o o
no o o
cs TH ca •«
o
CK
fN SJ "0
as o. to-
o o
in in
in o o
CM n rt i
o
c-i
n o o o o
n o o o o
o o n o o o o
u
HI
>-
O CM
CN *•« *O CM »-l »H CM M fN
o
FN
in o n in o o CM
i in in IN CM^ »* "TTI n in »<
rs o o
•o o O-IN o
S3 O O -O C CS
^> CM in in co co ~i •-* in ~i *« THCM.
fe
x:
E
3
Ul
-i_l -I
N»N. N. N, N. N, N, N, -N
OOC3 OOOCSCSC9
za: = 32: xc z £
ce
ui
1
ce
.
X
H-
Ul
Ui
a
M
a:ui
oa
_JM
xa:
uq
UlX
zu
Ul
-J-J
XX
H-H-
UIUI
31 XL
ETHANE
x:
o
z
a
a:
a
o
0£
0
x
u
H(
a
OHETHANE
YI.ENE
se. x
O 1—
3 Ul
_l 0
u.a:
o Q
a:_j
ox
_l 0
x
X
H-
Ul
c
0;
o
-1
X
u
HI
C£
H-
PHENOL
M J
a o
i z
*r ui
- x
CM a.
ui
z
UIUI
ZIM
UIZ
N1UI
za
UiO
oo
a:_i
ox
-JO
XM
oa
-
z >-IM _i
Ul XZ >-
_! H- Ul I-
- Z
a. cat- i
ui
ui z
I- Ul
- Ul Ul - X Z
>-l3>-ll-< -XZX
o o u
-• x ox
x a x n
z o i a i
M
-------
eui
za
us
u_i
wtn
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
=3=33333333333
n rv iv in
•CitlVtM-O O CO H-l-l-l-l-f-Kh-l-l-l-^l-l-
osoino.co«H(ooivii oooooooooooooo
CN»H.H'
>-_J
cnu.
ou.
O.LU
zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
oooooooooo oocooooooooooc
zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
CJU
O.CC
auj
,
uu.
uu.
(nui
oo iv rv
in M o« -o ON
CD
IV
con
o *•
M -o
I
- 3
=»ia:a li _i « ce
MCUJM =1 UJ 2 UJ
coa.zau^:ui>u
a ii: a. UJlU>-'UJi-ii-c
UUOU-JZZWU5N
Z UJ3
3 01Z
l-l LUU1
i- cnzaz
_| UJ
Uj C
Z L
H
111 L
tzc.
bj
31-
en
-------
5-
te.
ui _i
to tn
o a:
to is v
a:
z
=>
a:
to ^- rs
o- «r t- *H o. i- -zin-ozintN*H
in
a o a Q a a a o BB-OBCJ so
i ii i i ii i i i «r i o- i o
-2«z2- « rs i-
in T rx o
ts T *• z
T to
to ro to
IH to o
-o to in
n Tin >o CM CM to to in
a
i
CM Z IH •
CM
o>
a to
a o
i i
z z
in as
CM «•« •« o i i is rs •
>- z
a: ui
ts oa
o ca
rs o o -o
•o in o» «r
*• O M
is rv is
o
00
o
in
.H m to i
IH 10 -. I
CM m m o •
10 IS
o mo
i« m rs M •-
SOLIDS
H
. Ul
tn o
a a
tn ce
h-
_] Z
o
^4
j Z
<: a
1- !C U
o s: o
i- -
i-cei-ccu x ce o Q ce o x
Ul Ul O Ul O •« U Cu _l « O O 1-
Z O ^ O — 1 CC Ul IHQU1XCC3— 1U1
ui ce x ce x H- z a ce z u o _i u. o
NOUOUUI-XZIOUI _i u.t-i ce
z-iiH_iiH»-xcetn_iNuixaao
ui x ce x ce i h-ozxzzuceo_i
auh-u)-cMuiu.4:uuiui o ce x
OiHlml -OOCei-iCS_l_l_lOO
01 >i •• - o o i i >• i x ux ce
Ul
Ul
-1 Ul
>- a
S *H
>- ce
ui a
O -1
ce x
Ul O U
Z -1
3 CJ >*
o ce M
i- t- »
-i
a
z
Ul
X
Cu
a
ce
a -i
-J O
X Z
CM Cu
- xx « o
>- X Cu 1- -1 «
x ui x « ce
_4 Ul X-10.XX Ul
>-Z Ul_l>- I-I- Z
2UIUI2>M_1X2 UI Ul
Ul X Z Ul XZ9- Cu « ZCe
X ^ O -I h- Ul t- M Ul Ul X
Cu2Ce«UI«O-J22CJI-
« « o x i ca >- ui ui xzui
cMSOCueni-i uicMcei-uice
JnU.i-i2««CiClrtU |